Continuation Part Nine: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.

Planigale

Philosopher
Planigale
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
7,853
Location
49 North
Once again, the thread has become quite lengthy, so here is another new continuation thread. This continues from Part Eight. For further reference, see also Part SevenPart Six, Part Five, Part Four, Part Three, Part Two, and Part One.
Posted By: Loss Leader





The quantification of the DNA and the typing are separate processes. The advantage of the real time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RTqPCR) is that it is specific for human DNA (it uses human specific primers), and is more sensitive (it can measure smaller amounts) than the Qubit. It does however destroy the sample tested, unlike the Qubit. The 50 cycles for quantification are nothing to do with the cycles for typing.

Having taken a sample of your extract of DNA e.g. blood you take a subsample and run it through the RTqPCR. This tells you how much human DNA was in your subsample therefore how much was in your original sample. You then know how much of the original sample you need for typing. The sample for typing is then put through PCR again usually 28 cycles, with specific primers for the areas of interest (short tandem repeat - STR), the product of this replication cycle is then analysed in this case using capillary electrophoresis to size separate the products, and laser tagging to separate out STR of a similar size. The electrophoretogram (EPR) gives the graph, on the Y axis the height of the peaks (technically AUC) give the magnitude of the number of STR copies at a particular size, the x axis is the size of the copy.

The Qubit is old technology it measures DNA in a sample directly, you reversibly label DNA with a fluorescent marker, and the amount of fluorescence then tells you how much DNA is present in the sample. You can then go on and directly do STR typing on that sample. Stefanoni may have had an argument that with a small and unique sample she did not want to waste any by putting some through a destructive test. Of course one does not know before any sample is quantitated how much DNA is present. Arguably for a kitchen knife which might be expected to have non human tissue a human specific measure would have been better. To be fair a negative test for blood would indicate any DNA detected would be low at LCN level.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The reason why you need a certain amount of DNA for typing is so you start with several copies of the areas of interest (STRs). From memory ideally about 15 copies, so about 15 cells worth of DNA. Too few and you run into the problem with uneven replication of areas of interest - the LCN issues. You do not want too much as you want to selectively amplify the areas of interest to stand out from the background DNA.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
I agree. The PG commenters typically focus on gap of about 46 days, while ignoring the lack of a sealed crime scene and the other problems you list. In addition, and perhaps most importantly, they have no good explanation for the other DNA found on the clasp. Unless one believes that 2-4 additional men took part in the assault, the presence of these donors greatly weakens the probative value of the clasp even on its own.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt for a second the validity and usefulness of this exchange but I do mean to be irritating and to interject every now and again to say there is no evidence of anything at all on the clasp, since Stefanoni inexplicably destroyed it as evidence. The same is true of the knife but without the destruction.

Can I raise again something that none of the experts here or elsewhere really seem to go for but which leaves me baffled. Blood consists of plasma, white cells and red cells (probably other stuff too but never mind). The red cells have no DNA and they exist in a ratio upwards of 1,000 to 1 with white cells. If the knife was stuck in the victim's throat and withdrawn it will have had blood on the blade. Then it get's washed, leaving a tiny residue of blood lodged in a scratch, supposedly. Stefanoni swabs it and finds, she says, enough DNA to infer the presence of what, 3-5 white cells or so in her sample? She must have swabbed 3,000-5,000 red cells too, right? That seems like quite a lot to me. Surely that is more than enough to react with TMB?

That's the first thing. The second thing is - how did she manage to scoop up every single one of those cells in one operation? Dan O and I had a conversation about the size of these things and IIRC Dan was happy with this: if the cells were the size of tennis balls, the scratch would need to be about the size of the Titanic. So imagine a gigantic swab slurping through the hull of the Titanic and unfailingly picking up every single ball/cell leaving nothing behind at all.

It must be remembered and stressed - she performed no cytology. She did not look at her sample to see what she had. Conti-Vechiotti were able to photograph the handful of 'hexagonal structures' they sampled from the knife. How come there are no photographs of this huge number of red and white cells?
 
anglolawyer said:
I don't doubt for a second the validity and usefulness of this exchange but I do mean to be irritating and to interject every now and again to say there is no evidence of anything at all on the clasp, since Stefanoni inexplicably destroyed it as evidence. The same is true of the knife but without the destruction.

Can I raise again something that none of the experts here or elsewhere really seem to go for but which leaves me baffled. Blood consists of plasma, white cells and red cells (probably other stuff too but never mind). The red cells have no DNA and they exist in a ratio upwards of 1,000 to 1 with white cells. If the knife was stuck in the victim's throat and withdrawn it will have had blood on the blade. Then it get's washed, leaving a tiny residue of blood lodged in a scratch, supposedly. Stefanoni swabs it and finds, she says, enough DNA to infer the presence of what, 3-5 white cells or so in her sample? She must have swabbed 3,000-5,000 red cells too, right? That seems like quite a lot to me. Surely that is more than enough to react with TMB?

That's the first thing. The second thing is - how did she manage to scoop up every single one of those cells in one operation? Dan O and I had a conversation about the size of these things and IIRC Dan was happy with this: if the cells were the size of tennis balls, the scratch would need to be about the size of the Titanic. So imagine a gigantic swab slurping through the hull of the Titanic and unfailingly picking up every single ball/cell leaving nothing behind at all.

It must be remembered and stressed - she performed no cytology. She did not look at her sample to see what she had. Conti-Vechiotti were able to photograph the handful of 'hexagonal structures' they sampled from the knife. How come there are no photographs of this huge number of red and white cells?
Click to expand...

Very clever, but the dodge is that it's just skin or flesh or something that didn't get washed off when all of the blood did. Either that or it's something that got on there during repackaging/transport or Stef's lab put it there. You decide.
 
Checked out Mitochondria DNA for Red Blood Cells and looks like that is lacking as well.
 
Diocletus said:
Very clever, but the dodge is that it's just skin or flesh or something that didn't get washed off when all of the blood did. Either that or it's something that got on there during repackaging/transport or Stef's lab put it there. You decide.
Click to expand...

So what was the human species test? Is that (as has been said) just another blood test? Not blood, not human, no cytology, negative to quantification = nothing. Except in Italy where it's slam dunk proof of murder, of course.

ETA is there in there annals of forensic science a case in which a bladed murder weapon yielded DNA from the victim which was not and/or did not include any blood?
 
Last edited:
Strozzi said:
I would like to ask those who have looked at the lab data of evidence such as blood samples collected outside the downstairs apartment and inside it the following:
  1. Do you believe a human being dripping blood entered the downstairs apartment after the murder?
  2. Do you believe the person is male or female?
  3. Do you believe that some of the blood drop patterns indicate the person may have been wearing clothes wet with water!
  4. Do you believe the person lay down on a bed?
  5. Do you believe the person used the downstairs shower?
  6. Do you believe Stefanoni understood it was a human being and not solely a cat?
  7. Do you believe Stefanoni suppressed evidence of this?
Click to expand...

I believe that the dripping blood going down the outside stairs is watered-down blood of Meredith Kercher, dripping off of a wet item of clothing.

I am not certain whether the person who was dripping the blood (let's call him "Rudy") went inside. It does look like a cat could have gone through the window. On the other hand, there are some things about the inside blood that look wrong: it's on a lightswitch; the bloody bedding looks like it was pressed down by someone sitting on it; the splatters on the floor look too large/sporadic to be coming from a cat.

On the issue of Stefanoni suppressing evidence, I believe that the answer is "yes." First of all, given her frequent inaccuracies/lies, I disbelieve anything said by her or written in her reports unless it is backed by contemporaneous documentation, or is a statement against the prosecution's interests. There is nothing whatsoever to back up her reference to the blood as "cat" blood, so I disregard it. She has clearly suppressed egrams that she ran on some of these samples, so there is evidence of suppression right there.
 
Planigale said:
The Qubit is old technology it measures DNA in a sample directly, you reversibly label DNA with a fluorescent marker, and the amount of fluorescence then tells you how much DNA is present in the sample. You can then go on and directly do STR typing on that sample. Stefanoni may have had an argument that with a small and unique sample she did not want to waste any by putting some through a destructive test.
Click to expand...

I don't think she did that, though. Her recipe for the qubit analysis was 199 uL of "mother solution" to 1 uL of sample (this extreme dilution is why the measurement is so imprecise). I would think that she just chucked the mixture when she was done "quantifying" it.
 
anglolawyer said:
So what was the human species test? Is that (as has been said) just another blood test? Not blood, not human, no cytology, negative to quantification = nothing. Except in Italy where it's slam dunk proof of murder, of course.

ETA is there in there annals of forensic science a case in which a bladed murder weapon yielded DNA from the victim which was not and/or did not include any blood?
Click to expand...

The human species test would be the successful STR amplification (human specific). All that tells us, though, is that there was some Kercher DNA in the amplification tube. Just like there was unidentified human DNA in some of the Real Time control wells.
 
acbytesla said:
To me, the problem with learning all of this is understanding the language and terminology. All the descriptions sort of assumes that the reader understands the process. That we know what PCR, quantitation, quantification,amplification and what the dyes are and what it means to bind to double DNA and what eletropherisis is and what gene sequencing is and what STR is and what is a haplotype is and what the Speed vac is or the Qubit or the Real Time etc etc. I really wish someone with all this test equipment made a You Tube video and went through the process step by step describing each machine and each step in plain English and then used the nomenclature.
Click to expand...


But there are youtube videos of much of this equipment already out there. I've used them myself to learn what some of the kit is and how it works and especially how it can fail. Other resources to look for are the manufacturers documentation and written lab procedures. what WE should be doing is documenting everything we know about each piece of equipment and linking to the best reference material as a guide for the next person that wants to learn.


I finally feel like I'm over the hump with it although there still is some blanks to fill in. For example, why does Stefanoni use the speedvac to concentrate the sample? (The speedvac seems to use centrifuge and heat to dry up the liquid in the well while not destroying the DNA...right?) Is this really necessary?
Click to expand...


The speed-vac is primarily a vacuum that freeze dries the sample by lowering the atmospheric pressure and therefore lowering the temperature at which the water boils. Heat is applied to keep it from freezing because freezing can damage the DNA and the water boils off faster at higher temperatures. The centrifuge pulls the heavier DNA to the bottom of the tubes so when the lighter liquids boil off the top it doesn't take the DNA with it. The speed-vac is a prime candidate for contamination transfer because it must be operated with the lids removed from the sample tubes.


And why is the quantification so important? In other words, I have a good profile, why is it so important to know precisely how much DNA is in the sample? That seems superfluous.
Click to expand...


I thought this was already answered. If you have too much DNA you get uneven amplification in the PCR and it can gum up the capillary tubes in the electrophoresis. If you have too little DNA you get stochastic effects that interfere with interpretation of the results.
 
Barbie Nadeau's latest..... you have to give her something - that she's been by far the most successful in monetarizing this horrible tragedy.

She's done it through complete, one-sided reporting, all based on her sluttly book, and the notion that Perugian college life runs on threesomes....

Now she is chiming in on the "separation" issue of the two defence appeals.

Lo and behold! She now claims something that does not put PLE in good light!

"...Sollecito was called in alone to clear up a few fine points, including whether or not he really believed his girlfriend was telling the truth. According to the transcripts of that unrecorded interrogation, he hedged when he was asked to specify just what time Knox joined him in his Perugia apartment the night Kercher’s throat was fatally slit. Sollecito’s leap of faith in Knox sent alarm bells ringing."​
Click to expand...

There are transcripts! And her use of "According to...." might suggest that she has read them?

Or is she just lying?
 
Bill Williams said:
Barbie Nadeau's latest..... you have to give her something - that she's been by far the most successful in monetarizing this horrible tragedy.

She's done it through complete, one-sided reporting, all based on her sluttly book, and the notion that Perugian college life runs on threesomes....

Now she is chiming in on the "separation" issue of the two defence appeals.

Lo and behold! She now claims something that does not put PLE in good light!

​

There are transcripts! And her use of "According to...." might suggest that she has read them?

Or is she just lying?
Click to expand...

Is she talking court testifying transcripts and not interrogation transcripts?
 
Could it be a feint to Follain?

Anode said:
Is she talking court testifying transcripts and not interrogation transcripts?
Click to expand...

Quote:
"...Sollecito was called in alone to clear up a few fine points, including whether or not he really believed his girlfriend was telling the truth. According to the transcripts of that unrecorded interrogation , he hedged when he was asked to specify just what time Knox joined him in his Perugia apartment the night Kercher’s throat was fatally slit. Sollecito’s leap of faith in Knox sent alarm bells ringing."

Is she possibly referring to something in Follain's book? (I haven't read it but I heard he includes a transcript of some sort regarding the interrogation).
 
Last edited:
Dan O. said:
But there are youtube videos of much of this equipment already out there. I've used them myself to learn what some of the kit is and how it works and especially how it can fail. Other resources to look for are the manufacturers documentation and written lab procedures. what WE should be doing is documenting everything we know about each piece of equipment and linking to the best reference material as a guide for the next person that wants to learn.

The speed-vac is primarily a vacuum that freeze dries the sample by lowering the atmospheric pressure and therefore lowering the temperature at which the water boils. Heat is applied to keep it from freezing because freezing can damage the DNA and the water boils off faster at higher temperatures. The centrifuge pulls the heavier DNA to the bottom of the tubes so when the lighter liquids boil off the top it doesn't take the DNA with it. The speed-vac is a prime candidate for contamination transfer because it must be operated with the lids removed from the sample tubes.

I thought this was already answered. If you have too much DNA you get uneven amplification in the PCR and it can gum up the capillary tubes in the electrophoresis. If you have too little DNA you get stochastic effects that interfere with interpretation of the results.
Click to expand...

Thanks Dan, I never knew that too much DNA was a problem. I knew the too little was though. But in a way that doesn't answer the question I had which is sort of a backward question. Imagine I'm a guilter, a judge and the question is, We have a good profile that matches the defendant so why should we care about how much DNA was in the sample?

Your explanation is pretty good and I have looked at a few of the youtube videos. But I haven't watched any that I thought made it a lot easier. For example, Planigale just tried to explain much of the process and I understood it, but I think that is because I'm over that hump. Most new to the process would say "huh"?

What I really think what is needed is a good glossary that explains each term in plain English not the nomenclature or better yet, plain English and the nomenclature.

The manuals and documentation for the machines have been the best sources for me, but even they are intimidating and a bit overwhelming to start with.

I know asking for the youtube videos is kind of lazy. But what I've been thinking is someone to produce the youtube video to show what Stefaanoni DID explaining the machines and the process and why what she did seems very strange.

I doubt anyone will ever do it. (Way too much work..and few people would actually watch it) If you want to learn it you just have to dive in with both feet and not let this foreign language defeat you....(It beat me more than a few times and I quit after learning a little) Finally though, I feel much less intimidated by the nomenclature and the language. So thanks to you Dan, Chris, Planigale, Diocletus and anyone else who had the patience to answer my questions.

I agree, that what is needed is links to the best sources. So far the best sources have been the mfr's manuals.
 
DR Gill's Book?

acbytesla said:
Thanks Dan, I never knew that too much DNA was a problem. I knew the too little was though. But in a way that doesn't answer the question I had which is sort of a backward question. Imagine I'm a guilter, a judge and the question is, We have a good profile that matches the defendant so why should we care about how much DNA was in the sample?

Your explanation is pretty good and I have looked at a few of the youtube videos. But I haven't watched any that I thought made it a lot easier. For example, Planigale just tried to explain much of the process and I understood it, but I think that is because I'm over that hump. Most new to the process would say "huh"?

What I really think what is needed is a good glossary that explains each term in plain English not the nomenclature or better yet, plain English and the nomenclature.

The manuals and documentation for the machines have been the best sources for me, but even they are intimidating and a bit overwhelming to start with.

I know asking for the youtube videos is kind of lazy. But what I've been thinking is someone to produce the youtube video to show what Stefaanoni DID explaining the machines and the process and why what she did seems very strange.

I doubt anyone will ever do it. (Way too much work..and few people would actually watch it) If you want to learn it you just have to dive in with both feet and not let this foreign language defeat you....(It beat me more than a few times and I quit after learning a little) Finally though, I feel much less intimidated by the nomenclature and the language. So thanks to you Dan, Chris, Planigale, Diocletus and anyone else who had the patience to answer my questions.

I agree, that what is needed is links to the best sources. So far the best sources have been the mfr's manuals.
Click to expand...

Has anyone read Dr Gill's Book that just came out? Is this type of review more or less what he was trying to provide, a guide for lawyers and judges on DNA. (And, with an analysis of the DNA evidence in the Kercher case.)

As others have alluded to, the timing of publication seems strangely fortuitous.
 
carbonjam72 said:
Has anyone read Dr Gill's Book that just came out? Is this type of review more or less what he was trying to provide, a guide for lawyers and judges on DNA. (And, with an analysis of the DNA evidence in the Kercher case.)

As others have alluded to, the timing of publication seems strangely fortuitous.
Click to expand...

You just have to pony up the $25 for the 100 page E-Book. I'm too cheap and it might be wasted on me. I'm waiting to see what the experts on the forum have to say about it.
 
Bill Williams said:
Barbie Nadeau's latest..... you have to give her something - that she's been by far the most successful in monetarizing this horrible tragedy.

She's done it through complete, one-sided reporting, all based on her sluttly book, and the notion that Perugian college life runs on threesomes....
Click to expand...
It doesn't?

Bill Williams said:
Now she is chiming in on the "separation" issue of the two defence appeals.

Lo and behold! She now claims something that does not put PLE in good light!

​

There are transcripts! And her use of "According to...." might suggest that she has read them?

Or is she just lying?
Click to expand...
hmmmmmm let me think about that...She's lying.
 
Anode said:
Well it seems either she or the PLE is.
Click to expand...

No, she's lying. It has never mattered to Barbie to tell the truth. She has fed more slutty nonsense into this story than anyone else. What matters most to her is to write an interesting story that people will read. And she's been very good at that.

Barbie has never been that great of source for the facts. If there are "transcripts" to the interrogations, she's never seen them.
 
acbytesla said:
No, she's lying. It has never mattered to Barbie to tell the truth. She has fed more slutty nonsense into this story than anyone else. What matters most to her is to write an interesting story that people will read. And she's been very good at that.

Barbie has never been that great of source for the facts. If there are "transcripts" to the interrogations, she's never seen them.
Click to expand...

If interrogation transcripts exist, they would have great monetary value. Barbie doesn't have a copy because if she did she would have written and sold articles based on them. After all that has transpired in this case, transcripts would cause an earthquake at police headquarters in Perugia. Which is why they don't exist.

Remember the Perugia police cars that raced to Rome to try to seize documentation from C & V? There would be a repeat of that from Perugia to Barbie's house if she even just had notes made from interrogation transcripts.
 
Last edited:
Anode said:
Is she talking court testifying transcripts and not interrogation transcripts?
Click to expand...

It has to be court testimony. There is no way someone could have something this big, as the coerced confession/interrogation, and keep it hidden.

And for the testimony of the Lying Squad, its useless.

and to add more...Migninni's excuse for not recording it was Budget cuts, and I guess that included ink pens and paper too, as there wasnt anything written down or video taped, or audio recordings done...nothing. but dont get me started on this one again.
 
Last edited:
What bugs me about Barbie as a pseudo-journalist

What bugs me about Barbie as a pseudo-journalist.....

.... is that she has a story in print referring to "transcripts of Raffaele's interrogation"........

And she shows complete indifference to the controversy surrounding that claim!

Which is it?

1) she dismisses any controversy with a handwave?

2) She's unaware of what she's just claimed?

3) She's aware of the controversy, but still wants to write a slutty piece regardless?​

Which of these choices puts her in the A-list of journalists?
 
Bill Williams said:
What bugs me about Barbie as a pseudo-journalist.....

.... is that she has a story in print referring to "transcripts of Raffaele's interrogation"........

And she shows complete indifference to the controversy surrounding that claim!

Which is it?

1) she dismisses any controversy with a handwave?

2) She's unaware of what she's just claimed?

3) She's aware of the controversy, but still wants to write a slutty piece regardless?​

Which of these choices puts her in the A-list of journalists?
Click to expand...

That's because she really has never been a journalist. She's more just a writer of trashy stories, short, long whatever. Barbie learned a long time ago that sex and controversy sells and if that is what people are buying, why not deliver it to them?
 
It seems to me that it is most likely that one of those guys from Perugia will get together with someone from the U.S. dept. of State and have an off the record discussion.
Maybe Raffael could be allowed to escape from Italy and move to America.
They would agree that Italy will request extradition of both of them and The U.S. will do nothing about it
Then Amanda + Rafael could be classified as fugitives from justice and let that be the end of it.
America should just make it a policy that unless they leave Amanda and her boyfriend alone, we will continue to find out what the next one of their people should be charged with perjury.
 
JREF2010 said:
It has to be court testimony. There is no way someone could have something this big, as the coerced confession/interrogation, and keep it hidden.

And for the testimony of the Lying Squad, its useless.

and to add more...Migninni's excuse for not recording it was Budget cuts, and I guess that included ink pens and paper too, as there wasnt anything written down or video taped, or audio recordings done...nothing. but dont get me started on this one again.
Click to expand...

Could she be talking about work notes of the police? I would imagine the police would be keeping record of what was asked and answered, thus in part, there is the 1:45 statement of Amanda's (same for Raffaele's statement, though we haven't seen that). Isn't it possible those statements would have been prepared from notes during questioning that night?

I seem to recall reading in the transcripts of the police (can't remember which person) that they had notes concerning the various days of questioning. I assume that would apply for the night of the 5th too.
 
Diocletus said:
Or you could just go here:

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/batch-two-kitchen-knife-36b-suppression-90-profiles/

Also, see the end of this: http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/...en-samples-early-exclusion-sollecito-lumumba/
Click to expand...

Was this the missing page that Randy has posted from Frank Sfarzo? Do you have it now?

There were 54 samples run through the Qubit. The pages included in the Quantificazione document are short the missing page of Randy (which would complete the 54).
 
xinonix said:
It seems to me that it is most likely that one of those guys from Perugia will get together with someone from the U.S. dept. of State and have an off the record discussion.
Maybe Raffael could be allowed to escape from Italy and move to America.
They would agree that Italy will request extradition of both of them and The U.S. will do nothing about it
Then Amanda + Rafael could be classified as fugitives from justice and let that be the end of it.
America should just make it a policy that unless they leave Amanda and her boyfriend alone, we will continue to find out what the next one of their people should be charged with perjury.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine this. While I can imagine an off the record discussion from someone from Italy's government discussing how to resolve the case with the administration on some kind of back channel, I seriously doubt it will be with any one from Perugia. I also can't imagine that anyone in either government condoning allowing "Raffaele" to escape to the US. It cannot be "outside" the government.
 
christianahannah said:
Was this the missing page that Randy has posted from Frank Sfarzo? Do you have it now?

There were 54 samples run through the Qubit. The pages included in the Quantificazione document are short the missing page of Randy (which would complete the 54).
Click to expand...

Yup, got it. All qubit samples are accounted for in the attached links.
 
christianahannah said:
I seem to recall reading in the transcripts of the police (can't remember which person) that they had notes concerning the various days of questioning. I assume that would apply for the night of the 5th too.
Click to expand...


Yes, at least one of the officers mentioned in court testimony that they were taking notes durring the interrogations that night. If we had our own notes detailing what we know about the interrogations I would be able to reference those notes and tell you who that was and where it is documented.
 
Machiavelli is tweeting the reason he is not coming back to JREF to discuss the finding of corruption in the DNA handling by Stefanoni in 2007.

He's saying that he does not discuss with racists.

For what it's worth, here is what two Ph.D.s in the relevant field say about Stefanoni's corruption.


Dr. Tom Zupancic, Chief Scientific Officer of Applied Biomolecular Technologies and Chris Halkides, Professor of Biochemistry at UNC Wilmington are the ones making the claims of fraud, and this has yet to be peer reviewed as far as I know.
 
Bill Williams said:
Machiavelli is tweeting the reason he is not coming back to JREF to discuss the finding of corruption in the DNA handling by Stefanoni in 2007.

He's saying that he does not discuss with racists.For what it's worth, here is what two Ph.D.s in the relevant field say about Stefanoni's corruption.

​

Dr. Tom Zupancic, Chief Scientific Officer of Applied Biomolecular Technologies and Chris Halkides, Professor of Biochemistry at UNC Wilmington are the ones making the claims of fraud, and this has yet to be peer reviewed as far as I know.
Click to expand...

Machiavelli's close ally Popper just posted this a couple of days ago.

Most of the fantasies of these morons still writing in their favour on internet, as disciples of an evil religion supported by propaganda and tribal values, come from the 2 books

This is as close to a rant I've seen from him.
In the same post he said

On another point of yours, the judicial system in Italy can be slow but the paper trail remains attached and does not go away.

He might address the missing paper trail attaching RS to the crime then.
 
Last edited:
"Could she be talking about work notes of the police? I would imagine the police would be keeping record of what was asked and answered,"

You can assume that the cops had a tape recorder record everything that was said. They just told Amanda that there was no tape recording. They had some excuse like somebody stole their tape recorder.
You can't expect them to tell the truth about that recording because they can't be sure that they will not be forced to hand over the tape. It is evidence so a subpoena or a court order or something like that will require them to let someone else have it. It might even wind up on the internet. At that time Amanda was just beginning to learn Italian, so she could not understand much of what was said to her. They may have said things to her in English but the cop would sound like Chico Marx. The whole world would be able to hear how badly they did their job.
 
xinonix said:
"Could she be talking about work notes of the police? I would imagine the police would be keeping record of what was asked and answered,"

You can assume that the cops had a tape recorder record everything that was said. They just told Amanda that there was no tape recording. They had some excuse like somebody stole their tape recorder.
You can't expect them to tell the truth about that recording because they can't be sure that they will not be forced to hand over the tape. It is evidence so a subpoena or a court order or something like that will require them to let someone else have it. It might even wind up on the internet. At that time Amanda was just beginning to learn Italian, so she could not understand much of what was said to her. They may have said things to her in English but the cop would sound like Chico Marx. The whole world would be able to hear how badly they did their job.
Click to expand...

You would think so. But the Peruguian Authorities have been denying that the interrogations were recorded since Amanda and Raffaele were arrested. If somehow recordings surfaced today there would be hell to pay.
 
Last edited:
Diocletus

Are you sure about the species specific test. C-V just say this about it:

The “species-specific” test was performed on the aforementioned samples, and also tested negative for the human species.
Click to expand...

here. This comes before extraction of DNA. Here is a description of such a test. I hardly understand a word of it and don't know whether this type of test was used.

In their assessment of the work on the knife, C-V say this:

- regarding the nature of the material collected, there is no scientifically conclusive evidence to support the possible blood nature of sample B (knife blade) in that both the generic blood test and the human species test were negative.
Click to expand...

That's all I can see about it. I would like to know more about this test. If she tested her sample and found it was not human why are we wasting time on this case? As far as I understand, Meredith Kercher was human.
 
xinonix said:
"Could she be talking about work notes of the police? I would imagine the police would be keeping record of what was asked and answered,"

You can assume that the cops had a tape recorder record everything that was said. They just told Amanda that there was no tape recording. They had some excuse like somebody stole their tape recorder.
You can't expect them to tell the truth about that recording because they can't be sure that they will not be forced to hand over the tape. It is evidence so a subpoena or a court order or something like that will require them to let someone else have it. It might even wind up on the internet. At that time Amanda was just beginning to learn Italian, so she could not understand much of what was said to her. They may have said things to her in English but the cop would sound like Chico Marx. The whole world would be able to hear how badly they did their job.
Click to expand...

acbytesla said:
You would think so. But the Peruguian Authorities have been denying that the interrogations were recorded since Amanda and Raffaele were arrested. If somehow recordings surfaced today there would be hell to pay.
Click to expand...

The cops in this case lying. . . .Say it is not so :p
While I do not believe there is a systematic conspiracy, I do believe there was widespread lying. If there was an interrogation where they assaulted Amanda, certainly would not be good revealing their enhanced interrogation techniques.
 
anglolawyer said:
Diocletus

Are you sure about the species specific test. C-V just say this about it:



here. This comes before extraction of DNA. Here is a description of such a test. I hardly understand a word of it and don't know whether this type of test was used.

In their assessment of the work on the knife, C-V say this:



That's all I can see about it. I would like to know more about this test. If she tested her sample and found it was not human why are we wasting time on this case? As far as I understand, Meredith Kercher was human.
Click to expand...

As C&V note, TMB was negative (see the very last page of the SAL: http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Stato-Avanzamento-Lavori-SAL.pdf).

So, why would she perform a species-specific test? To confirm what kind of animal the not-blood didn't come from?

Anyway, you will also see on the SAL that the place for "species" is blank, meaning that she did not perform a species-specific test.

But, we can see that Stefanoni in her Technical Report says that the species-specific test was "negative." In my opinion, this is an obvious error--there was no species-specific test. In fact, the Technical Report is riddled with mistakes like this, particularly with respect to blood testing. In my opinion, all of the "cat" blood findings are made up, too. The fact of the matter is that there is no backup for any of the claimed blood-testing results (i.e., there are no contemporaneous records available), and none of them should be credited unless they are statements against the prosecution's interests.

This is one of my main problems with C&V: they trusted Stefanoni to be honest and didn't verify. Had they gone the extra step, and demanded the records, this would be a totally different case right now.
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
Machiavelli is tweeting the reason he is not coming back to JREF to discuss the finding of corruption in the DNA handling by Stefanoni in 2007.

He's saying that he does not discuss with racists.

For what it's worth, here is what two Ph.D.s in the relevant field say about Stefanoni's corruption.

​

Dr. Tom Zupancic, Chief Scientific Officer of Applied Biomolecular Technologies and Chris Halkides, Professor of Biochemistry at UNC Wilmington are the ones making the claims of fraud, and this has yet to be peer reviewed as far as I know.
Click to expand...

Bill--didn't you know that chapter 7 of the real Machiavelli's The Prince says that whenever you are confronted with overwhelming proof backed by incontestable data, your correct course of action is to call the other guy a racist and run away?
 
Dan O. said:
Yes, at least one of the officers mentioned in court testimony that they were taking notes durring the interrogations that night. If we had our own notes detailing what we know about the interrogations I would be able to reference those notes and tell you who that was and where it is documented.
Click to expand...

How did they record that head-smacking?

Was it a "Kapow!" or was it just "Pow!" or even "Wham!"?
 
Diocletus said:
Bill--didn't you know that chapter 7 of the real Machiavelli's The Prince says that whenever you are confronted with overwhelming proof backed by incontestable data, your correct course of action is to call the other guy a racist and run away?
Click to expand...

Yes, my thoughts exactly. Racists? Not even close. I think it's a corollary of Goodwin's law.
 
Bill Williams said:
Machiavelli is tweeting the reason he is not coming back to JREF to discuss the finding of corruption in the DNA handling by Stefanoni in 2007.

He's saying that he does not discuss with racists.

For what it's worth, here is what two Ph.D.s in the relevant field say about Stefanoni's corruption.
Dr. Tom Zupancic, Chief Scientific Officer of Applied Biomolecular Technologies and Chris Halkides, Professor of Biochemistry at UNC Wilmington are the ones making the claims of fraud, and this has yet to be peer reviewed as far as I know.
Click to expand...

Diocletus said:
Bill--didn't you know that chapter 7 of the real Machiavelli's The Prince says that whenever you are confronted with overwhelming proof backed by incontestable data, your correct course of action is to call the other guy a racist and run away?
Click to expand...

But their actions are compatible with being racists. Being experts in DNA mapping, their abilities become compatible with those who do.....


Remember - the standard of proof here is neither:

1) beyond a reasonable doubt, nor
2) beyond the balance of probabilities.​

It is whether or not their abilities are compatible with the allegation being made. Then the allegation becomes judicial and procedural fact.

Therefore, they are racists.

This method binds Cassazione to things like this as a fact, and any verdict from a lower court which conflicts with these procedural facts must be set aside.

You see, if Machiavelli is not here to explain it to you ingrates, someone has to!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom