ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Reply
Old 16th November 2019, 05:14 AM   #281
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,130
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
There is film footage of Conti doing exactly that. In the frame includes sister Vanessa, dad Francesco and lawyer Maori.


Erm.... I'm seeing Conti shaking hands. Which is very far from "warmly greeting". Which is extremely far from "wining and dining".

Do you care to present any proper evidence to support your BS claim?
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2019, 05:16 AM   #282
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,130
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Imagine if Inspector Knacker of the Yard warmly greeted Ian Huntley or Levi Bellfield in court...?

Yet in the world of the FOAker all of this is perfectly normal.


How on Earth is what you've written here even remotely comparable to the subject under discussion? Please enlighten me further.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2019, 09:32 AM   #283
AnimalFriendly
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 215
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post

They even appeared in the Neflix film
So did Mignini. At much greater length. Oh and I do believe someone here recently asked you for proof of your claim that Vecchiotti and Conti were paid to appear in the Netflix documentary. When are you going to provide this proof? Any particular decade? While you're at it, why don't you reveal what Mignini was paid as well.
AnimalFriendly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2019, 09:35 AM   #284
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 19,272
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
How on Earth is what you've written here even remotely comparable to the subject under discussion? Please enlighten me further.
Let me inform you. In court it is traditionall for opposing sides to stay separate. Expert witnesses, judges and the jury are careful not to interact at all outside the court room with the defendant/s.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2019, 09:37 AM   #285
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 19,272
Originally Posted by AnimalFriendly View Post
So did Mignini. At much greater length. Oh and I do believe someone here recently asked you for proof of your claim that Vecchiotti and Conti were paid to appear in the Netflix documentary. When are you going to provide this proof? Any particular decade? While you're at it, why don't you reveal what Mignini was paid as well.
Of course they were paid. You don't think a crook ike Vecchiotti and an old fraud like Conti are going to do it for free?

Mignini was only brought in for 'balance' yet he was outnumbered five to one.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2019, 09:38 AM   #286
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 7,825
How much did Mignini get paid?
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2019, 09:47 AM   #287
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,856
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Of course they were paid. You don't think a crook ike Vecchiotti and an old fraud like Conti are going to do it for free?

Mignini was only brought in for 'balance' yet he was outnumbered five to one.
You have proof of this? I thought not.

To add to other's question, how much was Mignini paid? How much was Nick Pisa paid?
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2019, 10:15 AM   #288
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,357
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Relating the facts as found by C&V (and many other forensic experts) is not 'besmirching' Stefanoni.



Just stop with this kind of childish nonsense.



So? That does not make her screw ups on this case any less screw ups.



Who said she was 'framing' anyone? Not me. I just think she screwed up big time on this case . Or do you thinking failing to change her gloves between handling evidence is proper procedure? Or allowing the bra hook to be stored improperly leading to it rusting? Or failing to reveal several TMB negative tests on extremely important pieces of evidence?
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Exactly. The pro-guilt mentality on this issue (and others) seems to be that the only way anyone involved with the prosecution of Knox and Sollecito might be wrong is if they were actively trying to frame the two. And I think the pro-guilt community know exactly what they're doing by creating this stupid strawman: they are deliberately creating a false dichotomy. Maybe it helps them to rationalise the situation as well.....

But as you correctly point out, there's absolutely no need for any "framing" to be at work here*. All there needs to be (and what there actually is in this instance) is incompetence, improper suspect-centric analysis, confirmation bias and tunnel vision. Stefanoni patently had no idea about how to perform low-template DNA analysis correctly, and she then went on to lie, divert and obfuscate about how she'd arrived at her "results" and the accuracy/reliability of her findings. And - as you also point out above - she and her team of goons manifestly had no idea about how to collect forensic evidence at a crime scene. Fortunately for justice, they took a video which exposed the egregious failings at the crime scene - failings which virtually ensured that much of Stefanoni's consequent lab work was entirely lacking in reliability and credibility before she even started.


* Although I would say that a very low-level and insidious form of "framing" almost certainly did take place in this case: Stefanoni was told exactly whom the police and PM wanted to find incriminating evidence against, and she was a colleague of the police. She also seemed to be a particular favourite of Mignini's for some reason (I suspect I may know at least in part the reason....). It's not really that hard to see how Stefanoni, in that context, might have had an incentive to give the PM and police the evidence they wanted.
The negative or defensive reaction of some posters in the PIP (or [supposedly] "rational, objective group") to mentions of possible (or probable) "framing" or "conspiracy" by the police and prosecutors is interesting.

I recall one poster, no longer with us, who turned to an alleged dictionary definition of "framing" as, in essence "providing false evidence or false testimony in an attempt to prove an innocent person guilty". That poster then went on, quite logically in a distorted sense, from that definition to assert that the police did not regard Knox and Sollecito as innocent, and therefore the police by definition could not frame them. In fact, by that logic, the police could never frame anyone unless the police could be shown, somehow, to sincerely believe that person was fully innocent.

Now some would object to the above logic, because it ignores the principle of the assumption of innocence: the police assuming that someone is guilty - not fully innocent - is not the same as that person being in reality, and under the law, innocent until proven guilty in court, by means of a fair trial.

When I saw that discussion I had been lurking for some time on the Knox - Sollecito thread here. I felt I could resolve the issue by pointing out that "framing" involves intent, which must be inferred, and that it would be better to discuss behavior - that is, whether the conduct of the authorities follows the law, regulations, or appropriate scientific protocols, or instead is official (or forensic) misconduct: behavior of the authorities that does not follow the law, regulations, or appropriate scientific protocols.

With respect to "conspiracy" (an agreement - explicit or implicit - between two or more persons to commit an illegal act), there is apparently a defensive reaction to use of this word by some PIP, since it brings to mind the phrase "conspiracy theory" (roughly, an unshakeable and irrational belief, contrary to evidence, that a covert organization or powerful persons are responsible for certain events).

It should be pointed out, however, that conspiracies are not uncommon, and may sometimes be observed among people that work together as a team. For example, recently, the Huston Astros Major League Baseball team allegedly has been involved in a baseball pitching sign-stealing conspiracy; they allegedly violated baseball rules by using electronic means to steal signs.*

So it should not be seen as too unusual for a team of police, including the scientific police, all working under the direction of a prosecutor (as provided under Italian law for an active investigation) should engage in a conspiracy to "solve" a tough case when they were under high levels of pressure from the media and probably their own government; see the Marasca CSC panel motivation report for its mention that "errors" in an investigation likely result from such pressure.

Recall also that Stefanoni testified falsely on one or more critical points, including on the mass (size) of the alleged Kercher DNA sample on the knife, misstating that it was far above the LT-DNA range, and how it was measured (she stated it had been obtained by real time PCR; it was actually found "too low" by Qubit Fluorometer). And recall: as a consultant (technical consultant to the prosecution), she was allowed to use her notes and report for assistance in her responses to questions.

Also recall that Donnino, the police agent "interpreter", testified to the Boninsegna court that she recognized that Knox's phone text message could very well mean "see you later" as a greeting, as a direct translation from English, but she did not make this point known to her police colleagues. (As reported in the Boninsegna court motivation report.)

*https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/...signs-n1081041
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2019, 10:51 AM   #289
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,474
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Let me inform you. In court it is traditionall for opposing sides to stay separate. Expert witnesses, judges and the jury are careful not to interact at all outside the court room with the defendant/s.
Conti and Vecchiotti were experts appointed by the court. They did not represent either side, so exactly how did you come to the characterization "opposing sides"?

Obviously, if you could, you'd cite the errors in the C&V report. But since you can't (nor did any other DNA expert that reviewed their analysis) you attack their character and professionalism. That smacks of desperation.

Rather hypocritical of you to object to any criticism of Stefanoni while you dole out the criticism of C&V. For the record, there are plenty of independent experts who were very critical of Stefanoni but I am not aware of one who had an issue with C&V. But you go on and keep defending Stefanoni while attacking C&V - it exposes your pro-guilt agenda in ways none of us ever could.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2019, 10:51 AM   #290
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,773
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Of course they were paid. You don't think a crook ike Vecchiotti and an old fraud like Conti are going to do it for free?

Mignini was only brought in for 'balance' yet he was outnumbered five to one.
Once again, how much would it take to pay you off? You like to disparage others and claim they were bought, so how much for you to do so?
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2019, 01:28 PM   #291
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,063
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
There is film footage of Conti doing exactly that. In the frame includes sister Vanessa, dad Francesco and lawyer Maori.
LOL! As earlier pointed out, C & V were not on either 'side' but were independent experts so you begin with a false premise. Shaking Dr Sollecito's hand means nothing. It's a common, traditional form of polite greeting especially among men. I'd like to see that video; do C and/or V shake anyone's hand on the prosecution side? Perhaps KrissyG, from whose article on TJMK the stills you posted were taken, would care to provide the source so we could watch it? I would not put it past her to be, let's say, rather "selective" in what she presents.

A picture of Patrizia Stefanoni shaking Mignini's hand in court? OH, NO!! How dare they? According to someone's line of thinking, this must prove that Stefanoni was in his pocket! After all, Stefanoni isn't supposed to be on anyone's 'side'. Is she?

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/tjmk/C348/P50

(I'd provide the picture here but it seems I've reached my upload limit on ISF and I can't figure out how to clear my files. If anyone can advise me on how to do it, I'd be grateful.)
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2019, 01:30 PM   #292
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,213
Vixen saw Trump and Hillary shake hands at the debate and that's where she got the idea that they collaborated to bust Amanda out of jail.
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2019, 01:33 PM   #293
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,063
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Imagine if Inspector Knacker of the Yard warmly greeted Ian Huntley or Levi Bellfield in court...?

Yet in the world of the FOAker all of this is perfectly normal.
Erm.....I thought it was Dr. Sollecito whom Conti greeted. Was he also on trial?

In the world of the FOAKer, two men shaking hands in greeting is normal. Only in the world of TJMKers is that somehow seen as insidious.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 16th November 2019 at 03:32 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2019, 01:37 PM   #294
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,063
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Let me inform you. In court it is traditionall for opposing sides to stay separate. Expert witnesses, judges and the jury are careful not to interact at all outside the court room with the defendant/s.
Let me inform you. Conti was an impartial, independent expert appointed by the court. He could greet people on both sides. And I have a very strong suspicion he most likely did exactly that. Too bad KrissyG over on TJMK failed to provide the rest of the video (or its source) so we could see for ourselves, heh?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2019, 01:46 PM   #295
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,063
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
Vixen saw Trump and Hillary shake hands at the debate and that's where she got the idea that they collaborated to bust Amanda out of jail.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2019, 08:29 PM   #296
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,357
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The negative or defensive reaction of some posters in the PIP (or [supposedly] "rational, objective group") to mentions of possible (or probable) "framing" or "conspiracy" by the police and prosecutors is interesting.

I recall one poster, no longer with us, who turned to an alleged dictionary definition of "framing" as, in essence "providing false evidence or false testimony in an attempt to prove an innocent person guilty". That poster then went on, quite logically in a distorted sense, from that definition to assert that the police did not regard Knox and Sollecito as innocent, and therefore the police by definition could not frame them. In fact, by that logic, the police could never frame anyone unless the police could be shown, somehow, to sincerely believe that person was fully innocent.

Now some would object to the above logic, because it ignores the principle of the assumption of innocence: the police assuming that someone is guilty - not fully innocent - is not the same as that person being in reality, and under the law, innocent until proven guilty in court, by means of a fair trial.

When I saw that discussion I had been lurking for some time on the Knox - Sollecito thread here. I felt I could resolve the issue by pointing out that "framing" involves intent, which must be inferred, and that it would be better to discuss behavior - that is, whether the conduct of the authorities follows the law, regulations, or appropriate scientific protocols, or instead is official (or forensic) misconduct: behavior of the authorities that does not follow the law, regulations, or appropriate scientific protocols.

With respect to "conspiracy" (an agreement - explicit or implicit - between two or more persons to commit an illegal act), there is apparently a defensive reaction to use of this word by some PIP, since it brings to mind the phrase "conspiracy theory" (roughly, an unshakeable and irrational belief, contrary to evidence, that a covert organization or powerful persons are responsible for certain events).

It should be pointed out, however, that conspiracies are not uncommon, and may sometimes be observed among people that work together as a team. For example, recently, the Houston Astros Major League Baseball team allegedly has been involved in a baseball pitching sign-stealing conspiracy; they allegedly violated baseball rules by using electronic means to steal signs.*

So it should not be seen as too unusual for a team of police, including the scientific police, all working under the direction of a prosecutor (as provided under Italian law for an active investigation) should engage in a conspiracy to "solve" a tough case when they were under high levels of pressure from the media and probably their own government; see the Marasca CSC panel motivation report for its mention that "errors" in an investigation likely result from such pressure.

Recall also that Stefanoni testified falsely on one or more critical points, including on the mass (size) of the alleged Kercher DNA sample on the knife, misstating that it was far above the LT-DNA range, and how it was measured (she stated it had been obtained by real time PCR; it was actually found "too low" by Qubit Fluorometer). And recall: as a consultant (technical consultant to the prosecution), she was allowed to use her notes and report for assistance in her responses to questions.

Also recall that Donnino, the police agent "interpreter", testified to the Boninsegna court that she recognized that Knox's phone text message could very well mean "see you later" as a greeting, as a direct translation from English, but she did not make this point known to her police colleagues. (As reported in the Boninsegna court motivation report.)

*https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/...signs-n1081041
Fixed a typo - it's the Houston Astros.

Of more substance on this topic of "framing", "conspiracy", and "misconduct", also recall that the ECHR in its final judgment of Knox v. Italy had found three violations of Knox's Convention rights by Italy: 1) convicting her of calunnia against Lumumba by using her statements made during an interrogation when she should have rightfully been given a lawyer; 2) convicting her of calunnia against Lumumba by using her statements made during an interrogation when she was not provided with a fair interpreter; and 3) repeatedly not investigating her credible claims of being mistreated and coerced by the police during that interrogation. The judgment, in its text, also noted that there was no documentation that Knox had ever been informed during the interrogation of her defense rights as a suspect to remain silent and to have a lawyer; she was entitled to such information under Italian and international law (the Convention and ECHR case-law).

It may be a matter of what definitions one adopts as to whether one calls the violations and illegal actions by Italy listed above part of the operation of a conspiracy* and an attempt to frame** her (and, by extension, Sollecito), but these violations and illegal actions all constitute official misconduct.

In addition, the actions of Stefanoni and the scientific police, while in my opinion masquerading as incompetence, can be more credibly seen as intentional acts of official and forensic laboratory misconduct with the aim of fabricating a case against Knox and Sollecito while minimizing the case against Guede. An example of the first: apparently, based on an irregularity in the sample numbering system, a first DNA profile was run on bra clasp, but the results of that first test were not disclosed.*** An example of the second: no scientific police testing was reported on the presumed semen stain on the pillow; that stain was wet when someone's shoe - Guede's, according to the sole pattern - smeared it; thus it was contemporaneous with the murder/rape of Kercher, contrary to the false claim that it could not be dated that was supported by Judge Massei.

* The illegal actions were done apparently with implicit or explicit agreement among the team of police and the prosecutor.

** By setting up conditions leaving her (and Sollecito) vulnerable to coercion and fabrication of statements.

*** "Batch 5, which includes the bra clasp (Rep. 165), shows very serious problems. Demonstrable machine malfunction and obvious contamination render unreliable all of the quantification results for Batch 5; in other words, there is no reliable quantification result to show “abundant” DNA in Rep. 165b, as has been claimed. In addition, Rep. 165b (bra clasp hooks) apparently was profiled twice, with the results of the first analysis being suppressed by the prosecution. Record-keeping anomalies, together with the belated re-run of 165b, even suggest tampering with the results of the analyses for this exhibit. Generally, the contamination, machine malfunction, processing irregularities and record-keeping issues render unreliable the results reported for Batch 5, and raise serious questions about the integrity of the lab’s work."

Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/lab-data-suppression/

Last edited by Numbers; 16th November 2019 at 09:06 PM. Reason: Added information
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2019, 09:35 PM   #297
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,357
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Fixed a typo - it's the Houston Astros.

Of more substance on this topic of "framing", "conspiracy", and "misconduct", also recall that the ECHR in its final judgment of Knox v. Italy had found three violations of Knox's Convention rights by Italy: 1) convicting her of calunnia against Lumumba by using her statements made during an interrogation when she should have rightfully been given a lawyer; 2) convicting her of calunnia against Lumumba by using her statements made during an interrogation when she was not provided with a fair interpreter; and 3) repeatedly not investigating her credible claims of being mistreated and coerced by the police during that interrogation. The judgment, in its text, also noted that there was no documentation that Knox had ever been informed during the interrogation of her defense rights as a suspect to remain silent and to have a lawyer; she was entitled to such information under Italian and international law (the Convention and ECHR case-law).

It may be a matter of what definitions one adopts as to whether one calls the violations and illegal actions by Italy listed above part of the operation of a conspiracy* and an attempt to frame** her (and, by extension, Sollecito), but these violations and illegal actions all constitute official misconduct.

In addition, the actions of Stefanoni and the scientific police, while in my opinion masquerading as incompetence, can be more credibly seen as intentional acts of official and forensic laboratory misconduct with the aim of fabricating a case against Knox and Sollecito while minimizing the case against Guede. An example of the first: apparently, based on an irregularity in the sample numbering system, a first DNA profile was run on bra clasp, but the results of that first test were not disclosed.*** An example of the second: no scientific police testing was reported on the presumed semen stain on the pillow; that stain was wet when someone's shoe - Guede's, according to the sole pattern - smeared it; thus it was contemporaneous with the murder/rape of Kercher, contrary to the false claim that it could not be dated that was supported by Judge Massei.

* The illegal actions were done apparently with implicit or explicit agreement among the team of police and the prosecutor.

** By setting up conditions leaving her (and Sollecito) vulnerable to coercion and fabrication of statements.

*** "Batch 5, which includes the bra clasp (Rep. 165), shows very serious problems. Demonstrable machine malfunction and obvious contamination render unreliable all of the quantification results for Batch 5; in other words, there is no reliable quantification result to show “abundant” DNA in Rep. 165b, as has been claimed. In addition, Rep. 165b (bra clasp hooks) apparently was profiled twice, with the results of the first analysis being suppressed by the prosecution. Record-keeping anomalies, together with the belated re-run of 165b, even suggest tampering with the results of the analyses for this exhibit. Generally, the contamination, machine malfunction, processing irregularities and record-keeping issues render unreliable the results reported for Batch 5, and raise serious questions about the integrity of the lab’s work."

Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/lab-data-suppression/
Here's one other item that should be recalled: the letter from Stefanoni to Judge Micheli denying the defense request for the raw DNA data. A relevant excerpt*:

"Regarding the request made by the Consultant for the defense ProfessorV. Pascali I report to you as follows: Any technical report in the field of Genetic Forensics is, in the case of a positive result, the extrapolation of one or more DNA profiles. Such a result is presented, in both the national and international arena,in a technical report, usually in a tabular format, to render it easily understandable and useful to all readers and, eventually, is accompanied by the electropherograms produced by the machine. No other information, especially of a computerized nature, such as the log files requested by Professor V. Pascali, is necessary, to a genetic scientist, for the interpretation of analytical data, unless one hypothesizes falsification of the data presented. If your Honor deems it necessary to provide this information (the only ever time in forensic history known to this office), the undersigned is willing as long as the technical consultant for the defense utilizes the same standard parameters of analysis utilized by our laboratories and recognized internationally, otherwise the data would be manipulated in a subjective manner."

Of interest:

1. Stefanoni admits that examination of raw DNA profile data can reveal falsification of the final results.

2. Stefanoni admits that the raw DNA profile data can be processed in a way that produces misleading results.

3. The Berti - Barni report** does include all the internationally required details, including raw DNA profile data on DVD, that Stefanoni excludes. Note that their report references 4 articles co-authored by Professor Gill in explanation of their LCN and analysis methods.

* http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-con...ta-request.pdf

** http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-con...co-forense.pdf

Last edited by Numbers; 16th November 2019 at 09:37 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 05:32 AM   #298
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,856
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Rather hypocritical of you to object to any criticism of Stefanoni while you dole out the criticism of C&V. For the record, there are plenty of independent experts who were very critical of Stefanoni but I am not aware of one who had an issue with C&V. But you go on and keep defending Stefanoni while attacking C&V - it exposes your pro-guilt agenda in ways none of us ever could.
This.

Vixen cannot name one, just one, forensic-DNA expert who offers unqualified support for Stefanoni's work. The two who do seem to support her work qualify their remarks, one by admitting that Stefanoni had not followed international standards, and the other who admitted to himself never seeing the negative controls.

There are currently three people in the world who support Stefanoni's work. Vixen, KrissyG, and someone named The Machine/Harry Rag. I have scoured the forensic-DNA literature for a reference to Mr. Machine's/Mr. Rag's work/credentials and cannot find anything.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 06:55 AM   #299
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,357
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Here's one other item that should be recalled: the letter from Stefanoni to Judge Micheli denying the defense request for the raw DNA data. A relevant excerpt*:

"Regarding the request made by the Consultant for the defense ProfessorV. Pascali I report to you as follows: Any technical report in the field of Genetic Forensics is, in the case of a positive result, the extrapolation of one or more DNA profiles. Such a result is presented, in both the national and international arena,in a technical report, usually in a tabular format, to render it easily understandable and useful to all readers and, eventually, is accompanied by the electropherograms produced by the machine. No other information, especially of a computerized nature, such as the log files requested by Professor V. Pascali, is necessary, to a genetic scientist, for the interpretation of analytical data, unless one hypothesizes falsification of the data presented. If your Honor deems it necessary to provide this information (the only ever time in forensic history known to this office), the undersigned is willing as long as the technical consultant for the defense utilizes the same standard parameters of analysis utilized by our laboratories and recognized internationally, otherwise the data would be manipulated in a subjective manner."

Of interest:

1. Stefanoni admits that examination of raw DNA profile data can reveal falsification of the final results.

2. Stefanoni admits that the raw DNA profile data can be processed in a way that produces misleading results.

3. The Berti - Barni report** does include all the internationally required details, including raw DNA profile data on DVD, that Stefanoni excludes. Note that their report references 4 articles co-authored by Professor Gill in explanation of their LCN and analysis methods.

* http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-con...ta-request.pdf

** http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-con...co-forense.pdf
An example of how Stefanoni used her production of electropherograms (the graphs of the DNA profiles) obtained from the raw DNA data to produce misleading and false results is illustrated in the Conti - Vecchiotti report on pages 128 - 136 of the English translation.* To fully appreciate the issues involved, it is advisable to look at the translation (or the original Italian) containing all the tables and graphs.

Here's some excerpts. The initial manipulation - trickery - used by Stefanoni will be familiar to many of those with technical training - she simply compressed the data displayed on the graph by using a large value of maximum RFU on the vertical axis - in order to suppress the appearance of certain DNA allele peaks. When C - V requested the relevant data on the profile, Stefanoni supplied a new graph of apparently the same raw DNA data with a smaller value of maximum RFU on the vertical axis. This had the effect of allowing visualization and measurement of peaks of 50 RFU and higher that she had hidden with her previous display method.

Excerpts from the C-V report:

"We {C - V} now report the graph relating to the electrophoretic run of the DNA amplified from sample 165B dated "Jun 10, 2008 01:06 PM” appended to the RTIGF:" {p. 128} {maximum RFU values on vertical axes = 720 and 900}

" The Technical Consultant {Stefanoni} concludes that “The analysis of the Y chromosome has permitted the determination of the Y haplotype shown in Table 165-II relative to the DNA extracted from trace B. This result also confirms the presence of DNA belonging to Raffaele SOLLECITO in the analyzed trace, since the Y haplotype obtained is equal to that belonging to Raffaele SOLLECITO (comparison made with the Y haplotype already reported in Table 30-II of p.63, extrapolated from the genetic analysis of the salivary swab taken from the same [person]" {p. 129}

"Subsequently, Dr. Stefanoni provided us with the electrophoretic graph ({dated} May 11, 2011 04:08 PM) of the same run but with the indications relative to the height and the areas of all the peaks present in the aforementioned graph. In light of the numerical values relative to the height of the peaks present in the electropherogram, we can make the following observations regarding the interpretation of the alleles performed by the Technical Consultant. Observation of the electropherogram shows that, besides the peaks indicated in the RTIGF as alleles, additional peaks exceeding the threshold of 50 RFU are present,which despite not being in stutter position were not taken into consideration by the Technical Consultant." {p. 131} {maximum RFU values on vertical axes = 450 and 630}

"What has been illustrated above shows that more alleles are present in the electropherogram relative to the Y chromosome than are reported in the RTIGF. ... {Table showing peaks from RTIGF compared to the peaks actually observed using international standards.} It follows from this that several minor contributors of male sex are present in the DNA extracted from Exhibit 165B, confirming what was already observed in the electropherogram of the autosomic STRs and which was not revealed by the Technical Consultant." {p. 134}

"Thus we agree with Dr. Stefanoni’s assertion regarding “the extrapolation of a genetic profile deriving from a mixture of biological substances belonging to at least two individuals, at least one of male sex” but we cannot accept the conclusion stating that “the genetic profile is compatible with the hypothesis of a mixture of biological substances (presumably flaking cells) belonging” only “to Raffaele Sollecito and Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher”.

We find that the Technical Consultant arrived at this conclusion restricted to two individuals (Meredith Kercher and Raffaele Sollecito) following an incorrect interpretation of the electropherograms of the autosomic STRs, as a result of disregarding the recommendations of the ISFG concerning the correct interpretation of mixtures. .... Had these recommendations been followed, they would have allowed one to reach the conclusion that several minor contributors were present in the trace besides the victim (major contributor).

The latter assertion is supported by the electropherogram relative to the Y chromosome, where several alleles are present that, despite being particularly evident,were not taken into consideration by the Technical Consultant.

The genetic profile thus derives from a mixture of unidentified biological substances (it will be recalled that no test was performed with a view toward revealing the presence of flaking cells, and so the claim is without scientific basis), whose larger component is represented by the DNA of the victim and whose smaller component is represented by DNA from several individuals (cf. autosomic STRs) of male sex (cf. Y chromosome), of which one of the Y haplotypes corresponds to the Y haplotype of Raffaele Sollecito." {pp. 134-135}

Thus, there was "framing" by Stefanoni if one defines "framing" as the fabrication of falsely incriminating alleged evidence by the manipulation of the display and reporting of test results, whether or not the person doing that manipulation believes the subject of the framing to be guilty.

Of course, it may be simpler to acknowledge the fabrication by the technical consultant, Patricia Stefanoni of the Italian Scientific Police, and recognize that this fabrication constitutes "laboratory misconduct" which in the forensic context is "official misconduct".

By refusing to supply the raw DNA data, Stefanoni could suppress information on contamination as might be revealed by the controls, as well as her manipulations of the displays (electropherograms) to suppress the appearance of lower height peaks showing contamination (such as from Kercher's DNA, among the first tested and which may have contaminated the lab) or possible contributions from other individuals.

*https://knoxdnareport.files.wordpres...ti-report2.pdf

Last edited by Numbers; 17th November 2019 at 08:27 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 09:33 AM   #300
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,357
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
An example of how Stefanoni used her production of electropherograms (the graphs of the DNA profiles) obtained from the raw DNA data to produce misleading and false results is illustrated in the Conti - Vecchiotti report on pages 128 - 136 of the English translation.* To fully appreciate the issues involved, it is advisable to look at the translation (or the original Italian) containing all the tables and graphs.

Here's some excerpts. The initial manipulation - trickery - used by Stefanoni will be familiar to many of those with technical training - she simply compressed the data displayed on the graph by using a large value of maximum RFU on the vertical axis - in order to suppress the appearance of certain DNA allele peaks. When C - V requested the relevant data on the profile, Stefanoni supplied a new graph of apparently the same raw DNA data with a smaller value of maximum RFU on the vertical axis. This had the effect of allowing visualization and measurement of peaks of 50 RFU and higher that she had hidden with her previous display method.

Excerpts from the C-V report:

"We {C - V} now report the graph relating to the electrophoretic run of the DNA amplified from sample 165B dated "Jun 10, 2008 01:06 PM” appended to the RTIGF:" {p. 128} {maximum RFU values on vertical axes = 720 and 900}

" The Technical Consultant {Stefanoni} concludes that “The analysis of the Y chromosome has permitted the determination of the Y haplotype shown in Table 165-II relative to the DNA extracted from trace B. This result also confirms the presence of DNA belonging to Raffaele SOLLECITO in the analyzed trace, since the Y haplotype obtained is equal to that belonging to Raffaele SOLLECITO (comparison made with the Y haplotype already reported in Table 30-II of p.63, extrapolated from the genetic analysis of the salivary swab taken from the same [person]" {p. 129}

"Subsequently, Dr. Stefanoni provided us with the electrophoretic graph ({dated} May 11, 2011 04:08 PM) of the same run but with the indications relative to the height and the areas of all the peaks present in the aforementioned graph. In light of the numerical values relative to the height of the peaks present in the electropherogram, we can make the following observations regarding the interpretation of the alleles performed by the Technical Consultant. Observation of the electropherogram shows that, besides the peaks indicated in the RTIGF as alleles, additional peaks exceeding the threshold of 50 RFU are present,which despite not being in stutter position were not taken into consideration by the Technical Consultant." {p. 131} {maximum RFU values on vertical axes = 450 and 630}

"What has been illustrated above shows that more alleles are present in the electropherogram relative to the Y chromosome than are reported in the RTIGF. ... {Table showing peaks from RTIGF compared to the peaks actually observed using international standards.} It follows from this that several minor contributors of male sex are present in the DNA extracted from Exhibit 165B, confirming what was already observed in the electropherogram of the autosomic STRs and which was not revealed by the Technical Consultant." {p. 134}

"Thus we agree with Dr. Stefanoni’s assertion regarding “the extrapolation of a genetic profile deriving from a mixture of biological substances belonging to at least two individuals, at least one of male sex” but we cannot accept the conclusion stating that “the genetic profile is compatible with the hypothesis of a mixture of biological substances (presumably flaking cells) belonging” only “to Raffaele Sollecito and Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher”.

We find that the Technical Consultant arrived at this conclusion restricted to two individuals (Meredith Kercher and Raffaele Sollecito) following an incorrect interpretation of the electropherograms of the autosomic STRs, as a result of disregarding the recommendations of the ISFG concerning the correct interpretation of mixtures. .... Had these recommendations been followed, they would have allowed one to reach the conclusion that several minor contributors were present in the trace besides the victim (major contributor).

The latter assertion is supported by the electropherogram relative to the Y chromosome, where several alleles are present that, despite being particularly evident,were not taken into consideration by the Technical Consultant.

The genetic profile thus derives from a mixture of unidentified biological substances (it will be recalled that no test was performed with a view toward revealing the presence of flaking cells, and so the claim is without scientific basis), whose larger component is represented by the DNA of the victim and whose smaller component is represented by DNA from several individuals (cf. autosomic STRs) of male sex (cf. Y chromosome), of which one of the Y haplotypes corresponds to the Y haplotype of Raffaele Sollecito." {pp. 134-135}

Thus, there was "framing" by Stefanoni if one defines "framing" as the fabrication of falsely incriminating alleged evidence by the manipulation of the display and reporting of test results, whether or not the person doing that manipulation believes the subject of the framing to be guilty.

Of course, it may be simpler to acknowledge the fabrication by the technical consultant, Patricia Stefanoni of the Italian Scientific Police, and recognize that this fabrication constitutes "laboratory misconduct" which in the forensic context is "official misconduct".

By refusing to supply the raw DNA data, Stefanoni could suppress information on contamination as might be revealed by the controls, as well as her manipulations of the displays (electropherograms) to suppress the appearance of lower height peaks showing contamination (such as from Kercher's DNA, among the first tested and which may have contaminated the lab) or possible contributions from other individuals.

*https://knoxdnareport.files.wordpres...ti-report2.pdf
Some might argue that Stefanoni was merely incompetent and didn't realize that there were significant (50 RFU or higher) peaks hiding in her compressed display (electropherogram) of the bra clasp DNA profile.

But that electropherogram was generated in May, 2008, and she wrote to the Micheli court in September, 2008, stating, regarding her refusal of the request from the defense for the raw DNA data, "If your Honor deems it necessary to provide this information (the only ever time in forensic history known to this office), the undersigned is willing as long as the technical consultant for the defense utilizes the same standard parameters of analysis utilized by our laboratories and recognized internationally, otherwise the data would be manipulated in a subjective manner."

But the truth was that Stefanoni had manipulated the data to display the result in a subjective manner contrary to international standards. The manipulation was to compress the data display so that significant peaks of 50 RFU and larger could not be seen; they were buried in the noise along the horizontal axis of the electropherogram. When pressed by Conti and Vecciotti to show the data accurately for measurement, Stefanoni provided a new electropherogram (from May, 2011) of the same data with less compression of that data, allowing detection of the 50 RFU peaks previously suppressed.

Based on her letter to the Micheli court, she knew what she was doing, even if her methods of misconduct might allow her to claim incompetence as a defense against prosecution.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 11:06 AM   #301
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,357
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Some might argue that Stefanoni was merely incompetent and didn't realize that there were significant (50 RFU or higher) peaks hiding in her compressed display (electropherogram) of the bra clasp DNA profile.

But that electropherogram was generated in May, 2008, and she wrote to the Micheli court in September, 2008, stating, regarding her refusal of the request from the defense for the raw DNA data, "If your Honor deems it necessary to provide this information (the only ever time in forensic history known to this office), the undersigned is willing as long as the technical consultant for the defense utilizes the same standard parameters of analysis utilized by our laboratories and recognized internationally, otherwise the data would be manipulated in a subjective manner."

But the truth was that Stefanoni had manipulated the data to display the result in a subjective manner contrary to international standards. The manipulation was to compress the data display so that significant peaks of 50 RFU and larger could not be seen; they were buried in the noise along the horizontal axis of the electropherogram. When pressed by Conti and Vecciotti to show the data accurately for measurement, Stefanoni provided a new electropherogram (from May, 2011) of the same data with less compression of that data, allowing detection of the 50 RFU peaks previously suppressed.

Based on her letter to the Micheli court, she knew what she was doing, even if her methods of misconduct might allow her to claim incompetence as a defense against prosecution.
But what about the knife blade sample, allegedly showing Kercher's DNA profile? Was there "framing" related to that sample, or - considering we need to agree to a definition of "framing" - should we ask, was there official (and/or forensic laboratory) misconduct associated with that sample?

Well, firstly, the amount of DNA in the sample and how that amount was measured was significantly misreported by Stefanoni in court proceedings. Let's recall that among the knife samples were Items 36A (knife handle), 36B (knife blade), and 36C (knife blade).

From the C - V Report:

"... regarding the DNA quantification tests, both in the Technical Report on the Forensic Genetic Tests (RTIGF) and in the GUP {the initial court proceedings}, the Technical Consultant {Stefanoni} repeatedly claimed to have performed quantification with Real Time PCR on all the samples taken from the knife, but this claim is contradicted by the documentation produced: in fact, the Qubit Fluorimeter™ was used for samples A-B-C.

Regarding sample A (knife handle) the results obtained (Qubit Fluorimeter™)reveal that the DNA concentration in this sample was 0.08 ng/μl.

Taking into account that the "extract quantity" was 50 μl (c.f. SAL), multiplying 0.08 ng/μl x 50 μl, the total DNA [obtained] was 4ng: certainly a significant quantity, which allowed sample A to be considered positive to quantification.

The amount of DNA used for the subsequent amplification (0.8 ng) falls within the range suggested by the kit (0.5-1.25 ng/μl of template DNA) {that is, this is the range the equipment manufacturer states is required to produce acceptable results} and provided an electrophoretic graph of good quality, in accordance with the amount of DNA used for the reaction.

On the other hand, it is not possible to comprehend the criteria adopted in the assessment of the positive quantification result of sample B and the negative result of sample C, given that the same result, "too low", was obtained for both samples: that is, a value which must be considered not only below the sensitivity threshold of the Fluorimeter indicated by the manual (DNA concentrations of 0.2ng/μl) but below 0.08 ng/μl, a value which the Fluorimeter detected for sample A.

Neither is it comprehensible, considering the negative results on sample B, what Dr. Stefanoni reported in the GUP questioning (page 178) where she stated that the DNA in sample B, quantified with Real Time PCR (it is recalled that such quantification as confirmed during the hearing was never carried out or, at least, no documentation was provided to support this claim), was "in the order of some hundreds of picograms", a value which does not appear in any of the documents provided to us (SAL, Fluorimeter report, Real Time report, RTIGF)." {pp. 100 - 101}

So, again, are such false statements by the prosecution technical consultant evidence of "framing" (and what is the definition of "framing" used). I suggest that it is clear that such false statements (if intentional) are the equivalent of perjury - a criminal offense - in a US court.

I suggest that there can be no doubt that such false statements, even if unintentional, constitute official misconduct. It is the responsibility of the police and technical consultants to provide true testimony. Recall that a technical consultant is allowed under Italian law to consult any notes or report during court testimony.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 12:53 PM   #302
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 809
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
[...]

A picture of Patrizia Stefanoni shaking Mignini's hand in court? OH, NO!! How dare they? According to someone's line of thinking, this must prove that Stefanoni was in his pocket! After all, Stefanoni isn't supposed to be on anyone's 'side'. Is she?

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/tjmk/C348/P50

(I'd provide the picture here but it seems I've reached my upload limit on ISF and I can't figure out how to clear my files. If anyone can advise me on how to do it, I'd be grateful.)
This one?

ETA: There's also this one:
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..."

Last edited by Methos; 17th November 2019 at 01:40 PM.
Methos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 12:56 PM   #303
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,063
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
Yes, that one. Thanks, Methos!

Solid proof that Stefanoni was in cahoots with Mignini (if we follow Vixen's logic).
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 01:38 PM   #304
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,063
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Let me inform you. In court it is traditionall for opposing sides to stay separate. Expert witnesses, judges and the jury are careful not to interact at all outside the court room with the defendant/s.

This is the irrelephant in the room. Or are you claiming that any of the "expert witnesses, judges and the jury" interacted with Knox or R. Sollecito "outside the courtroom"?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 03:05 PM   #305
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 809
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Let me inform you. In court it is traditionall for opposing sides to stay separate. Expert witnesses, judges and the jury are careful not to interact at all outside the court room with the defendant/s.
Is that so?
The following is a screenshot of the results "Getty Images" has for "Giuliano Mignini":

Looks like Dottore Mignini is on quite friendly terms with the defendants lawyers...

... and he apparently also talks to one of their experts...(from Maundy Gregory):


Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Let me inform you. In court it is traditionall for opposing sides to stay separate. Expert witnesses, judges and the jury are careful not to interact at all outside the court room with the defendant/s.
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
This is the irrelephant in the room. Or are you claiming that any of the "expert witnesses, judges and the jury" interacted with Knox or R. Sollecito "outside the courtroom"?
Couldn't have said it better myself.

It's interesting that the whole "staying seperate" and "wining and dining" nonsense apparently originated in a lawsuit Dottore Mignini and officers Napoleoni and Zugarini filed against Sollecito's lawyer Maori and a magazine.
Quote from pages 14/15 of the TJMK translation (I should have the original Italian saved somewhere ):
Quote:
Unfortunately, this procedural matter has been marked by pressures (often accompanied by menaces) and defamations which the investigators, themselves as well, have suffered in the media, by a very serious activity of disinformation and from serious attacks on the personal and professional reputation of the investigators by numerous organs of information especially in the United States (like in fact CNN),by the extremely challengeable behaviour of experts who, beyond having “forgottten” the existence of negative controls, had been seen by Dr MIGNINI (and, according to what has been said to him, also by the biologist at Scientific Policeheadquarters Dr Patrizia Stefanoni), to be having a long conversation and in a “private” manner, with the defence lawyers of the accused, in particular with Advocate Maori, before the hearing in which the experts were to be examined and cross-examined had started. This had happened in particular on two occasions, both in Piazza Matteotti, in front of the law courts building, one time in front of the main entrance and a second time, further back, in the direction of Via Oberdan, while Dr Stefanoni and Dr Comodi had seen them together, amongst the various defence lawyers for the accused, in a bar..
that apparently went nowhere in 2016.
Quote:
Chiesta l’archiviazione La querela per diffamazione, firmata dal sostituto procuratore generale Mignini e da due poliziotte che quando prestavano servizio alla squadra mobile hanno svolto indagini sull’omicidio di Meredith, ha ricevuto una richiesta d’archiviazione da parte del pm di Firenze contro la quale è stata avanzata opposizione.
google:
Quote:
Asked for filing The libel lawsuit, signed by deputy public prosecutor Mignini and two police officers who carried out investigations into Meredith's murder when they served the mobile squad, received a filing request from the Florence prosecutor against the which has been advanced opposition.
...just for the record
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..."
Methos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 04:33 PM   #306
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,063
Mignini sounds like a petulant child complaining about being picked on in that lawsuit! 'Whining' is a more appropriate word than 'wining'.

In his long whine of complaints, he sounds like he's trying to relitigate the case. He includes this as his 'evidence':
Quote:

...the mise-en-scene of the burglary (which could have been realised only by someone who would have been afraid of becoming involved in the investigations), the genetic material of Ms Knox found a little bit below the handle of the knife and that of the victim in proximity to the point of the blade, the genetic profile of Mr Sollecito found on the clasp of Meredith’s bra, the systematic lies of the two, the traces of mixed blood of Knox – Meredith and the print of Sollecito’s foot stained with blood on the small mat in the bathroom next to the room where the murder happened, the traces revealed with Luminol, of the bare feet of Amanda and Sollecito, the witness who sees the two between 21.30 and 23.30 in Piazza Grimana, a couple of dozen metres from the murder scene, and Rudy’s accusations, just to mention a few examples.
My favorites were the 'mixed blood' lie followed by the lie that it was Sollecito's foot on the bathmat followed by the luminol revealed traces of AK's and RS's footprints in blood (no mention of the negative TMB and DNA results) and then Curatolo. But the most outstanding piece of crap was Mignini actually giving credence to what Guede said! No wonder TJMK and its fans adore Mignini so much.

That lawsuit failed just as did all the others. I'm sure those judges were all 'bent' or given "an offer they couldn't refuse" by the mafia and Masons, too!

Last edited by Stacyhs; 17th November 2019 at 05:52 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 07:56 PM   #307
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,357
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
Is that so?
The following is a screenshot of the results "Getty Images" has for "Giuliano Mignini":
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ictureid=12301
Looks like Dottore Mignini is on quite friendly terms with the defendants lawyers...

... and he apparently also talks to one of their experts...(from Maundy Gregory):
https://maundygregory.files.wordpres...gninitorre.jpg



Couldn't have said it better myself.

It's interesting that the whole "staying seperate" and "wining and dining" nonsense apparently originated in a lawsuit Dottore Mignini and officers Napoleoni and Zugarini filed against Sollecito's lawyer Maori and a magazine.
Quote from pages 14/15 of the TJMK translation (I should have the original Italian saved somewhere ):
that apparently went nowhere in 2016.

google:

...just for the record
To clarify, for the translation of the last quote, the term "archiviazione" means, in the legal context, "dismissal" or "drop the case", although the ordinary meaning is "archive", "file", or "store".

Thus, the last quote may be translated:

Request for dismissal: The libel lawsuit, originated [signed] by deputy attorney general Mignini and by two police officers who carried out investigations into Meredith's murder when they served in the mobile squad, has received a request for dismissal from the prosecutor based in Florence against which an opposition has been advanced.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 10:59 PM   #308
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,357
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
But what about the knife blade sample, allegedly showing Kercher's DNA profile? Was there "framing" related to that sample, or - considering we need to agree to a definition of "framing" - should we ask, was there official (and/or forensic laboratory) misconduct associated with that sample?

Well, firstly, the amount of DNA in the sample and how that amount was measured was significantly misreported by Stefanoni in court proceedings. Let's recall that among the knife samples were Items 36A (knife handle), 36B (knife blade), and 36C (knife blade).

From the C - V Report:

"... regarding the DNA quantification tests, both in the Technical Report on the Forensic Genetic Tests (RTIGF) and in the GUP {the initial court proceedings}, the Technical Consultant {Stefanoni} repeatedly claimed to have performed quantification with Real Time PCR on all the samples taken from the knife, but this claim is contradicted by the documentation produced: in fact, the Qubit Fluorimeter™ was used for samples A-B-C.

Regarding sample A (knife handle) the results obtained (Qubit Fluorimeter™)reveal that the DNA concentration in this sample was 0.08 ng/μl.

Taking into account that the "extract quantity" was 50 μl (c.f. SAL), multiplying 0.08 ng/μl x 50 μl, the total DNA [obtained] was 4ng: certainly a significant quantity, which allowed sample A to be considered positive to quantification.

The amount of DNA used for the subsequent amplification (0.8 ng) falls within the range suggested by the kit (0.5-1.25 ng/μl of template DNA) {that is, this is the range the equipment manufacturer states is required to produce acceptable results} and provided an electrophoretic graph of good quality, in accordance with the amount of DNA used for the reaction.

On the other hand, it is not possible to comprehend the criteria adopted in the assessment of the positive quantification result of sample B and the negative result of sample C, given that the same result, "too low", was obtained for both samples: that is, a value which must be considered not only below the sensitivity threshold of the Fluorimeter indicated by the manual (DNA concentrations of 0.2ng/μl) but below 0.08 ng/μl, a value which the Fluorimeter detected for sample A.

Neither is it comprehensible, considering the negative results on sample B, what Dr. Stefanoni reported in the GUP questioning (page 178) where she stated that the DNA in sample B, quantified with Real Time PCR (it is recalled that such quantification as confirmed during the hearing was never carried out or, at least, no documentation was provided to support this claim), was "in the order of some hundreds of picograms", a value which does not appear in any of the documents provided to us (SAL, Fluorimeter report, Real Time report, RTIGF)." {pp. 100 - 101}

So, again, are such false statements by the prosecution technical consultant evidence of "framing" (and what is the definition of "framing" used). I suggest that it is clear that such false statements (if intentional) are the equivalent of perjury - a criminal offense - in a US court.

I suggest that there can be no doubt that such false statements, even if unintentional, constitute official misconduct. It is the responsibility of the police and technical consultants to provide true testimony. Recall that a technical consultant is allowed under Italian law to consult any notes or report during court testimony.
There is more relevant information in the Conti - Vecciotti report* about the alleged DNA evidence on the knife handle and knife blade. This information consisted of Stefanoni's records as supplied to C - V or the testimony of Stefanoni or other police officers as recorded in court documents, and C - V's interpretations of Stefanoni's records and the testimony as viewed under the light of the internationally accepted scientific literature on forensic DNA sample collection, sample DNA testing, and analysis of test results.

Here I post some additional relevant excerpts and summaries of that information from the C -V report.

First, some information on the DNA profiling of Sample A, from the knife handle:

"With respect to the electrophoretic run of the amplified DNA from sample A, we note from all the electropherograms that: a) peaks which exceed the 50 RFU threshold are present (it is emphasized that 50 RFU is the threshold recommended by the kit manual, and it is not advised to go below this point); b) the alleles are balanced in that the ratio between the peaks is >0.60 (Gill, P. et al., 2006), in accordance with the presumed quantity of DNA used for the reaction (0.8 ng).

In the following table, the alleles with the associated peak heights and the calculations of heterozygous balance {the ratio between the two allele peaks at a locus; the ratio is a calculation intended to detect possible stutter artifacts} are shown:" {p. 69}

A summary of the table:

The minimum peak height is 38 RFU, and the next largest peak height is 49 RFU. All other peak heights exceed 50 RFU; the highest peak height is 503 RFU. The minimum ratio of the two peak heights, occurring at locus D3S1358, is 0.47; all other ratios are larger than 0.6, ranging from 0.66 to 0.90.

"...[i]n relation to sample A (knife handle: identification code 47329), taking into account the considerations previously stated about the electrophoretic graph which shows peaks which exceed the 50 RFU threshold and allele balance (Hb=φa/φb >0.60) in accordance with the presumed quantity of DNA used for the reaction (0.8 ng), {and the DNA profile matching the reference profile on all 15 autosomal loci} we agree with the conclusion reached by the Technical Consultant about the attribution of the genetic profile obtained from this sample to Amanda Marie Knox." {p. 105} This is unsurprising, as Knox had acknowledged using the knife to prepare food in Sollecito's kitchen.

However, for Sample B, taken from the knife blade, the C - V report concludes:

"...[i]n relation to sample B (knife blade: identification code 47330), based on the considerations previously stated about the electrophoretic graph which shows peaks below the 50 RFU threshold and allele imbalance (Hb=φa/φb >0.60) indicative of a Low Copy Number sample (LCN), taking into account that in this specific case none of the recommendations from the International Scientific Community relating to the treatment of Low Copy Number samples were followed, we do not accept the conclusions about the certain attribution of the profile detected in Sample B to the victim Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher since the genetic profile, as obtained, is unreliable in that it is not supported by scientifically valid analytical procedures.

Neither, as previously explained, can it be excluded that the result obtained from this sample may derive from contamination phenomena occurring at any stage of the collection and/or handling and/or analytical procedures performed." {pp. 105 - 106}

While the full exposition of the reasoning of C - V, including their thorough explanations of the procedures required for LCN DNA as reported in the international scientific forensic literature, is beyond the scope of a single online post, the interested reader will find that discussion on pages 70 - 106 of the C - V report.

One point I will bring out, however, is that the international scientific forensic literature requires that LCN DNA samples be subjected to DNA testing of 2 or 3 aliquots (portions) of the LCN sample, because of the high probability of stochastic effects (statistical effects varying over time) found with these samples, a chemical-reaction consequence of the very low amount of DNA present in the sample and the complexity of PCR chemistry. Only alleles that are clearly present in all of the replicates (the "consensus" profile) are valid.

Stefanoni chose to concentrate Sample B, as she explained in her court testimony, although she did not have any measurement of the DNA concentration in it - it was "too low" according to the Qubit Fluorometer reading. Thus, she apparently did not have enough sample to run duplicate aliquots, although she understood, according to her testimony, that she should run duplicates to obtain validity. However, instead, she choose to run duplicate electrophoresis runs on the same sample. (Electrophoresis is the step in DNA profile testing that separates the STRs loci and their alleles into the electropherogram profile.) All of us who have followed the case may not be aware of, or may have forgotten about, this duplication of the electrophoresis for Sample B.

What is noteworthy about the duplicate electrophoresis of Sample B is that the two DNA profiles obtained were significantly different in some aspects. Here is the statement from the C - V report:

"From an examination of electrophoretic run 2, dated Sept. 25 2008, 01:17PM, the following are noted: the loss of alleles for some markers (TH01, D16S539, vWA, D18S51, FGA); a peak is present for one marker which is not present in run 1 (D21S11: presence of allele 33.2); and there is an inversion of peak heights for other markers (D3S1358, D2S1338, D19S433, D5S818)." {p. 79}

The report includes the following excerpts from Stefanoni's testimony and analysis of her results on Sample B:

"The following question is reported on pages 21-22 of the GUP questioning: “...the testing of a sample of this sort should be repeated several times to be considered reliable?” The Technical Consultant {Stefanoni} replies: “In theory yes”. To the question, “How many times did you do it?” she responds: “In this case only once”. Q: “Just once,and therefore in theory why ought it to be considered more reliable if it is done several times?” A: “Because reproducibility of the result is, let’s say, a good standard in any scientific experiment quite apart from forensic genetics, obviously to be considered valid a result must be repeatable”. In fact, the Technical Consultant did not repeat the amplification of the extract but performed two electrophoretic runs of the same amplification, and what is immediately obvious from a comparison of the two separate runs is the existence of peak imbalance and inversion, to the point where in some cases there is allele loss or the presence of an additional peak (c.f. electrophoretic graph, runs 1-2, Sept. 2008).

Moreover, it must be noted that in the electropherograms produced, neither the negative control – which, as previously mentioned, could have indicated the presence of possible contamination – nor the positive control, which would have allowed the effectiveness of the pre-selected experimental conditions to be monitored, are present." {pp. 80 - 81}


* https://knoxdnareport.files.wordpres...ti-report2.pdf

Last edited by Numbers; 17th November 2019 at 11:55 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 01:30 AM   #309
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 19,272
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
There is more relevant information in the Conti - Vecciotti report* about the alleged DNA evidence on the knife handle and knife blade. This information consisted of Stefanoni's records as supplied to C - V or the testimony of Stefanoni or other police officers as recorded in court documents, and C - V's interpretations of Stefanoni's records and the testimony as viewed under the light of the internationally accepted scientific literature on forensic DNA sample collection, sample DNA testing, and analysis of test results.

Here I post some additional relevant excerpts and summaries of that information from the C -V report.

First, some information on the DNA profiling of Sample A, from the knife handle:

"With respect to the electrophoretic run of the amplified DNA from sample A, we note from all the electropherograms that: a) peaks which exceed the 50 RFU threshold are present (it is emphasized that 50 RFU is the threshold recommended by the kit manual, and it is not advised to go below this point); b) the alleles are balanced in that the ratio between the peaks is >0.60 (Gill, P. et al., 2006), in accordance with the presumed quantity of DNA used for the reaction (0.8 ng).

In the following table, the alleles with the associated peak heights and the calculations of heterozygous balance {the ratio between the two allele peaks at a locus; the ratio is a calculation intended to detect possible stutter artifacts} are shown:" {p. 69}

A summary of the table:

The minimum peak height is 38 RFU, and the next largest peak height is 49 RFU. All other peak heights exceed 50 RFU; the highest peak height is 503 RFU. The minimum ratio of the two peak heights, occurring at locus D3S1358, is 0.47; all other ratios are larger than 0.6, ranging from 0.66 to 0.90.

"...[i]n relation to sample A (knife handle: identification code 47329), taking into account the considerations previously stated about the electrophoretic graph which shows peaks which exceed the 50 RFU threshold and allele balance (Hb=φa/φb >0.60) in accordance with the presumed quantity of DNA used for the reaction (0.8 ng), {and the DNA profile matching the reference profile on all 15 autosomal loci} we agree with the conclusion reached by the Technical Consultant about the attribution of the genetic profile obtained from this sample to Amanda Marie Knox." {p. 105} This is unsurprising, as Knox had acknowledged using the knife to prepare food in Sollecito's kitchen.

However, for Sample B, taken from the knife blade, the C - V report concludes:

"...[i]n relation to sample B (knife blade: identification code 47330), based on the considerations previously stated about the electrophoretic graph which shows peaks below the 50 RFU threshold and allele imbalance (Hb=φa/φb >0.60) indicative of a Low Copy Number sample (LCN), taking into account that in this specific case none of the recommendations from the International Scientific Community relating to the treatment of Low Copy Number samples were followed, we do not accept the conclusions about the certain attribution of the profile detected in Sample B to the victim Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher since the genetic profile, as obtained, is unreliable in that it is not supported by scientifically valid analytical procedures.

Neither, as previously explained, can it be excluded that the result obtained from this sample may derive from contamination phenomena occurring at any stage of the collection and/or handling and/or analytical procedures performed." {pp. 105 - 106}

While the full exposition of the reasoning of C - V, including their thorough explanations of the procedures required for LCN DNA as reported in the international scientific forensic literature, is beyond the scope of a single online post, the interested reader will find that discussion on pages 70 - 106 of the C - V report.

One point I will bring out, however, is that the international scientific forensic literature requires that LCN DNA samples be subjected to DNA testing of 2 or 3 aliquots (portions) of the LCN sample, because of the high probability of stochastic effects (statistical effects varying over time) found with these samples, a chemical-reaction consequence of the very low amount of DNA present in the sample and the complexity of PCR chemistry. Only alleles that are clearly present in all of the replicates (the "consensus" profile) are valid.

Stefanoni chose to concentrate Sample B, as she explained in her court testimony, although she did not have any measurement of the DNA concentration in it - it was "too low" according to the Qubit Fluorometer reading. Thus, she apparently did not have enough sample to run duplicate aliquots, although she understood, according to her testimony, that she should run duplicates to obtain validity. However, instead, she choose to run duplicate electrophoresis runs on the same sample. (Electrophoresis is the step in DNA profile testing that separates the STRs loci and their alleles into the electropherogram profile.) All of us who have followed the case may not be aware of, or may have forgotten about, this duplication of the electrophoresis for Sample B.

What is noteworthy about the duplicate electrophoresis of Sample B is that the two DNA profiles obtained were significantly different in some aspects. Here is the statement from the C - V report:

"From an examination of electrophoretic run 2, dated Sept. 25 2008, 01:17PM, the following are noted: the loss of alleles for some markers (TH01, D16S539, vWA, D18S51, FGA); a peak is present for one marker which is not present in run 1 (D21S11: presence of allele 33.2); and there is an inversion of peak heights for other markers (D3S1358, D2S1338, D19S433, D5S818)." {p. 79}

The report includes the following excerpts from Stefanoni's testimony and analysis of her results on Sample B:

"The following question is reported on pages 21-22 of the GUP questioning: “...the testing of a sample of this sort should be repeated several times to be considered reliable?” The Technical Consultant {Stefanoni} replies: “In theory yes”. To the question, “How many times did you do it?” she responds: “In this case only once”. Q: “Just once,and therefore in theory why ought it to be considered more reliable if it is done several times?” A: “Because reproducibility of the result is, let’s say, a good standard in any scientific experiment quite apart from forensic genetics, obviously to be considered valid a result must be repeatable”. In fact, the Technical Consultant did not repeat the amplification of the extract but performed two electrophoretic runs of the same amplification, and what is immediately obvious from a comparison of the two separate runs is the existence of peak imbalance and inversion, to the point where in some cases there is allele loss or the presence of an additional peak (c.f. electrophoretic graph, runs 1-2, Sept. 2008).

Moreover, it must be noted that in the electropherograms produced, neither the negative control – which, as previously mentioned, could have indicated the presence of possible contamination – nor the positive control, which would have allowed the effectiveness of the pre-selected experimental conditions to be monitored, are present." {pp. 80 - 81}


* https://knoxdnareport.files.wordpres...ti-report2.pdf
Is there a term for people who reply to their own posts?
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 05:38 AM   #310
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,856
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Is there a term for people who reply to their own posts?
Clarifiers.

But once again you demonstrate a talent for ad hominem, instead of replying to the substance of posts.

Example - name one forensic-DNA expert who offered unqualified agreement with Stefanoni's original DNA forensics. You've never done that - and I know why.

There isn't one.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 06:43 AM   #311
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 19,272
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Clarifiers.

But once again you demonstrate a talent for ad hominem, instead of replying to the substance of posts.

Example - name one forensic-DNA expert who offered unqualified agreement with Stefanoni's original DNA forensics. You've never done that - and I know why.

There isn't one.
As you have been told before, Dr Stefanoni is staff and as such is not subject to peer review, the number one reason being she has not brought out a paper.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 06:56 AM   #312
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,130
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
As you have been told before, Dr Stefanoni is staff and as such is not subject to peer review, the number one reason being she has not brought out a paper.


That is a huge logical jumble of nonsense.

Not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni (who knows, maybe one day she'll do an actual PhD) is 100% susceptible to experts reviewing her methods and her results in this case (you appear to be abusing the term "peer review", which in this context generally only ever applies to academic reviews of research papers).

And guess what: EVERY SINGLE expert in the field of forensic science and forensic DNA analysis who a) has given a view on Stefanoni's work in this case, and b) is not beholden to Stefanoni or the Italian police/prosecutors, has completely torn apart Stefanoni's methods and results.

Unless, that is, you can come up with someone who endorses Stefanoni's work and findings (and remember, that someone must also satisfy criterion (b) above....).
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 08:30 AM   #313
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,474
Speaking of a huge logical jumble of nonsense, has anyone read KrissyG's latest nonsensical article over at the swamp? To be honest, I've kinda been waiting for The Machine/Harry Rag to post his analysis that proves Amanda's DNA was on the clasp and found her post instead. It's stunning in it's stupidity. For some perspective, here's her summary;
Quote:
Some Conclusions From The Above

It is a certain and inescapable fact that Knox and Meredith’s DNA were mixed together at the same time. Secondly, not only deposited at the same time but shows a mixture of a highly visible substance.

This is rather chilling, when you realise the substance is blood and the blood is of the newly murdered victim, rinsed with water. It also shows, it could not possibly have been mixed ‘because Knox lived there’. Knox’ sole coagulated blood on the tap, Stefanoni did say she could not date.

It does raise the question of why Knox and Sollecito told the police about the drops of blood in the sink without cleaning it up. Most likely, they knew it was Meredith’s and reasoned that it didn’t matter if Knox’ possible DNA was also there, as ‘she lived there’.

Gladwell’s assertion that ‘there was no forensic evidence’ is shown to be both utterly false and ignorant. For me, as for Stefanoni and Mignini Smoking Gun #1 is the dripping blood in the bathroom.

And indeed, the final Supreme Court ruling decrees that ‘Knox did wash her hands of the victim’s blood.’
I especially enjoyed the part where she reasons Amanda and Raffaele would have known there was an innocent explanation for her DNA to be on the sink so they didn't bother to clean up the drops of diluted blood. That's just some outstanding logic...

I then decided to check out the comments section and I found something rather interesting - staunch pro-guilter James Raper actually questioning some of Krissy's conclusions and using logic and facts to do so. And as expected, Krissy responds using tortured logic and distorted reasoning. Obviously she hasn't been watching Vixen getting schooled on similarly misguided arguments here.

I'm including their exchange here for your amusement.

Quote:
Raper: The other thing you say is that Mignini is quoted as saying that he regarded the blood on the light switch as the strongest evidence of Knox’s involvement. Not sure why. Where is that quote? There was no mixed DNA here but on the other hand it was faint and clearly diluted, and strong evidence of a washing of hands with blood on them.

Krissy: James, my understanding is that Mignini made that comment because for him it showed that it must have been dark for whoever used the bathroom to have switched on the light.
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 4. Also, do not import arguments from other forums.
.

Last edited by zooterkin; 20th November 2019 at 08:28 AM.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 10:08 AM   #314
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,856
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Speaking of a huge logical jumble of nonsense, has anyone read KrissyG's latest nonsensical article over at the swamp? To be honest, I've kinda been waiting for The Machine/Harry Rag to post his analysis that proves Amanda's DNA was on the clasp and found her post instead. It's stunning in it's stupidity. For some perspective, here's her summary;

Quote:
Some Conclusions From The Above

And indeed, the final Supreme Court ruling decrees that ‘Knox did wash her hands of the victim’s blood.’
Whatever happened to Vixen and/or Krissy G continually claiming that the ISC does not "decree" anything about evidence? All the ISC does is evaluate using the relevant law if the evidence as presented is enough to convict someone. That's what she's now claiming, and moves back and forth depending on which piece of tortured logic she's presenting.

So for the thousandth time - the Supreme Court DID NOT DECREE THIS, nor could it. The Supreme Court concluded that EVEN IF THIS HAD BEEN TRUE, THAT IT STILL DID NOT PLACE KNOX IN THE MURDER ROOM, therefore the Nencini court should have followed the applicable Italian law and acquitted, which the Supreme Court did on the lower court's behalf.

For Vixen and/or Krissy G, sheer repetition becomes evidence.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 10:45 AM   #315
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,357
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Relating the facts as found by C&V (and many other forensic experts) is not 'besmirching' Stefanoni.



Just stop with this kind of childish nonsense.



So? That does not make her screw ups on this case any less screw ups.



Who said she was 'framing' anyone? Not me. I just think she screwed up big time on this case . Or do you thinking failing to change her gloves between handling evidence is proper procedure? Or allowing the bra hook to be stored improperly leading to it rusting? Or failing to reveal several TMB negative tests on extremely important pieces of evidence?
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Exactly. The pro-guilt mentality on this issue (and others) seems to be that the only way anyone involved with the prosecution of Knox and Sollecito might be wrong is if they were actively trying to frame the two. And I think the pro-guilt community know exactly what they're doing by creating this stupid strawman: they are deliberately creating a false dichotomy. Maybe it helps them to rationalise the situation as well.....

But as you correctly point out, there's absolutely no need for any "framing" to be at work here*. All there needs to be (and what there actually is in this instance) is incompetence, improper suspect-centric analysis, confirmation bias and tunnel vision. Stefanoni patently had no idea about how to perform low-template DNA analysis correctly, and she then went on to lie, divert and obfuscate about how she'd arrived at her "results" and the accuracy/reliability of her findings. And - as you also point out above - she and her team of goons manifestly had no idea about how to collect forensic evidence at a crime scene. Fortunately for justice, they took a video which exposed the egregious failings at the crime scene - failings which virtually ensured that much of Stefanoni's consequent lab work was entirely lacking in reliability and credibility before she even started.


* Although I would say that a very low-level and insidious form of "framing" almost certainly did take place in this case: Stefanoni was told exactly whom the police and PM wanted to find incriminating evidence against, and she was a colleague of the police. She also seemed to be a particular favourite of Mignini's for some reason (I suspect I may know at least in part the reason....). It's not really that hard to see how Stefanoni, in that context, might have had an incentive to give the PM and police the evidence they wanted.
So getting back to the issue of "framing": What is the definition of framing that each of us is using?

I suggest that each of us may be using a different definition. It would be useful to each state a concrete definition so that we may understand more fully where we agree and disagree.

Here's my definition:

A person attempts to "frame" another - the alleged suspect - for a crime when that person intentionally attempts to mislead an investigation by:

1) providing a false or misleading element of evidence, interpretation, or logic which could be interpreted, if true, to demonstrate the guilt of the alleged suspect, or

2) suppressing or distorting a true element of evidence, interpretation, or logic that could be interpreted to contradict a demonstration of guilt of the alleged suspect.

"Framing" as defined above would, of course, also be a kind of official misconduct when the person committing it is an official such as a police officer or prosecutor.

Thus, by my definition, Stefanoni and the prosecution were "framing" Knox and Sollecito by, for example, suppressing the results from almost all the controls, including negative controls used to evaluate possible contamination, in the DNA profile testing.

Recall that one negative control among the real-time PCR quantification controls indeed showed contamination, as did several of the positive controls used for calibration.

It seems that an addition to Italian law (the Criminal Code) was made in 2016 to make "framing" (roughly as I define it above) a crime punishable by imprisonment. Here are some details.

On 6 August, 2016, roteoctober posted on IIP (Italian Criminal and Procedural Laws thread) as follows:

"An interesting modification of the Italian Penal Code was approved into law right before the summer recess, a practice sometimes applied in Italy when you want something to "pass without much fuss".

Essentially article 375 cp has been substituted (not just modified) by a totally new text (here a Google translated version) which basically introduces serious sentences (up to 20 years in very particular cases) for the alteration, destruction or falsification of evidence by "public officials [officers]", which essentially means, under Italian law, the law enforcement people.

This novelty is both interesting and somewhat surprising, because it specifically targets rogue elements of the law enforcement who may have destroyed, fabricted {fabricated} or tampered with evidence, something never so specifically targeted by the Italian Penal Code and one also wonders why such a need wasn't felt before and has been instead suddenly felt now."

On 8 August 2016, I posted in that IIP thread an English translation, as well as the original Italian text, of the new Italian law, CP Article 375 (reformatted for clarity):

"Here is an excerpt of the relevant text in the definition of the crime in CP 375 (Google translated, with my attempts at clarification):

CP Article 375
Fraud and Misdirection in the Criminal Trial and/or Investigative Process

{Fraud and Misdirection in Criminal Proceedings}

{1.} Unless the fact (of the crime) constitutes a more serious offense, the following acts are punished with imprisonment of from three to eight years: the public official or the person providing a public service, in order to prevent, obstruct or divert the criminal investigation or process:

a) artificially changes the material evidence, or the state of the places, things or persons connected with the crime;

b) being required by judicial authorities or the judicial police to provide information in a criminal case, falsely states or denies the truth, or remains silent, in whole or in part, about what he knows about the facts of the case.

{2.} If the fact (of the crime) is committed by destruction, suppression, concealment, damage, in whole or in part, or fabrication or artificial alteration, in whole or in part, of a document or an object to be used as evidence or in any case is useful to the discovery of the crime or its investigation, punishment shall be increased by a third to half. ..."

Here's the Italian text of the first two paragraphs of this law, from the web site of the Procura Generale (Attorney General) of Trento, Italy*

Articolo n.375
Frode in processo penale e depistaggio

1.Salvo che il fatto costituisca piu' grave reato, e' punito con la reclusione da tre a otto anni il pubblico ufficiale o l'incaricato di pubblico servizio che, al fine di impedire, ostacolare o sviare un'indagine o un processo penale:

a) immuta artificiosamente il corpo del reato ovvero lo stato dei luoghi, delle cose o delle persone connessi al reato;

b) richiesto dall'autorita' giudiziaria o dalla polizia giudiziaria di fornire informazioni in un procedimento penale, afferma il falso o nega il vero, ovvero tace, in tutto o in parte, cio' che sa intorno ai fatti sui quali viene sentito.

2.Se il fatto e' commesso mediante distruzione, soppressione, occultamento, danneggiamento, in tutto o in parte, ovvero formazione o artificiosa alterazione, in tutto o in parte, di un documento o diun oggetto da impiegare come elemento di prova o comunque utile alla scoperta del reato o al suo accertamento, la pena e' aumentata da un terzo alla meta'. ...."

* http://www.procuragenerale.trento.it...icle/31/cp.pdf.

Last edited by Numbers; 18th November 2019 at 11:02 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 10:47 AM   #316
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,130
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Speaking of a huge logical jumble of nonsense, has anyone read KrissyG's latest nonsensical article over at the swamp? To be honest, I've kinda been waiting for The Machine/Harry Rag to post his analysis that proves Amanda's DNA was on the clasp and found her post instead. It's stunning in it's stupidity. For some perspective, here's her summary;


I especially enjoyed the part where she reasons Amanda and Raffaele would have known there was an innocent explanation for her DNA to be on the sink so they didn't bother to clean up the drops of diluted blood. That's just some outstanding logic...

I then decided to check out the comments section and I found something rather interesting - staunch pro-guilter James Raper actually questioning some of Krissy's conclusions and using logic and facts to do so. And as expected, Krissy responds using tortured logic and distorted reasoning. Obviously she hasn't been watching Vixen getting schooled on similarly misguided arguments here.

I'm including their exchange here for your amusement.

Quote:
Raper: The other thing you say is that Mignini is quoted as saying that he regarded the blood on the light switch as the strongest evidence of Knox’s involvement. Not sure why. Where is that quote? There was no mixed DNA here but on the other hand it was faint and clearly diluted, and strong evidence of a washing of hands with blood on them.

Krissy: James, my understanding is that Mignini made that comment because for him it showed that it must have been dark for whoever used the bathroom to have switched on the light.
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 4. Also, do not import arguments from other forums.


Hehehehehe, that "KrissyG" certainly is a clueless moron! Strikingly devoid of scientific knowledge and reason as well, interestingly

I also particularly enjoyed "KrissyG"'s "It is a certain and inescapable fact that...." construction - especially as he/she then goes on to talk about something that is diametrically the opposite of a certain and inescapable fact

Oh and I also enjoyed his/her grammatical mistake of writing Knox' rather than the correct Knox's. Probably a typo though, huh?

Last edited by zooterkin; 20th November 2019 at 08:29 AM.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 11:26 AM   #317
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,474
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Hehehehehe, that "KrissyG" certainly is a clueless moron! Strikingly devoid of scientific knowledge and reason as well, interestingly

I also particularly enjoyed "KrissyG"'s "It is a certain and inescapable fact that...." construction - especially as he/she then goes on to talk about something that is diametrically the opposite of a certain and inescapable fact

Oh and I also enjoyed his/her grammatical mistake of writing Knox' rather than the correct Knox's. Probably a typo though, huh?
Agree with both you and Bill, but I'd like to highlight my favorite.

Raper says "The other thing you say is that Mignini is quoted as saying that he regarded the blood on the light switch as the strongest evidence of Knox’s involvement. Not sure why. Where is that quote? There was no mixed DNA here but on the other hand it was faint and clearly diluted, and strong evidence of a washing of hands with blood on them."

I'm fully in agreement with him here. I'm not sure where this quote comes from, and it is note worthy that Krissy wasn't able to provide Raper with the source of the quote, but it makes zero sense to reach such a conclusion given the evidence available.

To this, Krissy resplies; "James, my understanding is that Mignini made that comment because for him it showed that it must have been dark for whoever used the bathroom to have switched on the light.

Yet, Knox claimed when she dressed (these are my thoughts now) she didn’t notice her light missing (the lamp left on the floor of Meredith’s room) because there was plenty of natural light. Claiming she was there showering (which the police disbelieved) at circa 10:00 am that might be true but then there would have been no need to switch on the bathroom light."


So let's net this out. The diluted blood drops on the light switch suggests they were deposited when it was dark, with someone using the switch to turn on the light. So far so good. Skipping the "Yet" for now, Krissy then goes on to point out that Amanda said she didn't need any light because it was daytime and there was plenty of natural light. This too is perfectly fine.

Yet, this becomes an "ah ha" moment for Krissy because she believes she has caught Amanda in a major contradiction. But it's only a contradiction if your tunnel vision doesn't allow you to consider someone other than Amanda turning the light on. On the other hand, if one assumes Guede, at 21:30 (it's dark out), is the one who is cleaning up and turned on the light and depositing the drops in the process, then everything makes perfect sense. It's a perfect example of how confirmation bias and tunnel vision can cause someone to see things only one way, no matter how obvious an alternative interpretation is.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 12:17 PM   #318
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 741
[quote=TruthCalls;12895840]Speaking of a huge logical jumble of nonsense, has anyone read KrissyG's latest nonsensical article over at the swamp? To be honest, I've kinda been waiting for The Machine/Harry Rag to post his analysis that proves Amanda's DNA was on the clasp and found her post instead. It's stunning in it's stupidity. For some perspective, here's her summary;


I especially enjoyed the part where she reasons Amanda and Raffaele would have known there was an innocent explanation for her DNA to be on the sink so they didn't bother to clean up the drops of diluted blood. That's just some outstanding logic...

I then decided to check out the comments section and I found something rather interesting - staunch pro-guilter James Raper actually questioning some of Krissy's conclusions and using logic and facts to do so. And as expected, Krissy responds using tortured logic and distorted reasoning. Obviously she hasn't been watching Vixen getting schooled on similarly misguided arguments here.

I'm including their exchange here for your amusement.

[spoiler]Raper: The other thing you say is that Mignini is quoted as saying that he regarded the blood on the light switch as the strongest evidence of Knox’s involvement. Not sure why. Where is that quote? There was no mixed DNA here but on the other hand it was faint and clearly diluted, and strong evidence of a washing of hands with blood on them.

Krissy: James, my understanding is that Mignini made that comment because for him it showed that it must have been dark for whoever used the bathroom to have switched on the light.

Edited by Agatha:  Snipped for rule 4. Do not import arguments from other forums.

Last edited by Agatha; 20th November 2019 at 11:17 AM.
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 12:48 PM   #319
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,063
From Krissy G's TJMK article above:

Quote:
Some Conclusions From The Above

Quote:
It is a certain and inescapable fact that Knox and Meredith’s DNA were mixed together at the same time. Secondly, not only deposited at the same time but shows a mixture of a highly visible substance.

I agree with that first sentence...but not in the way KG means. They were mixed together at the same time when Brocci wiped them up with the swab. Watching the collection video, it's clear that there was a great deal of pressure and often vigorous rubbing of the samples over a large area. This is the same conclusion that Hellmann and other forensic experts, rightfully, came to.


Quote:
This is rather chilling, when you realise the substance is blood and the blood is of the newly murdered victim, rinsed with water. It also shows, it could not possibly have been mixed ‘because Knox lived there’. Knox’ sole coagulated blood on the tap, Stefanoni did say she could not date.
If the bolded sentence were correct, then why have forensic experts explicitly stated otherwise? As Prof. Peter Gill wrote:

Quote:
In addition it would be expected to find mixtures of their DNA − noting that DNA can be deposited at different times and by different body fluids, or by touch. There is nothing inherent in a mixed DNA sample that indicates that the DNA fragments were deposited at the same time; the transfer of the DNA from the individual contributors can arise from independent events.
https://www.fsigenetics.com/article/...033-3/fulltext

Hmmmm....whom to believe? Some pontificating, self-appointed DNA 'expert' whose opinion is contrary to the vast majority of forensic experts or one of, if not the, most respected DNA experts in the world?

Quote:
It does raise the question of why Knox and Sollecito told the police about the drops of blood in the sink without cleaning it up. Most likely, they knew it was Meredith’s and reasoned that it didn’t matter if Knox’ possible DNA was also there, as ‘she lived there’.

What a stupendously stupid statement! According to KG, Knox was 'bleeding profusely', yet the pair knew what was Meredith's blood and what was hers? KG has claimed there was a clean up in the apartment yet she now wants us to swallow the idea that the bathroom was not cleaned up of visible blood because the pair knew about pre-existing DNA and that it could not be dated? KG's logic is as tortured as Vixen's claim that they pointed out the bathmat to police in order to 'put one over on them'.


Quote:
Gladwell’s assertion that ‘there was no forensic evidence’ is shown to be both utterly false and ignorant. For me, as for Stefanoni and Mignini Smoking Gun #1 is the dripping blood in the bathroom.
It's not Gladwell's assertion, but KrissyG's assertions, that are 'both utterly false and ignorant". Why is it that she failed to supply any forensic experts who agree with her? Could it possibly be because there are none?

Quote:
And indeed, the final Supreme Court ruling decrees that ‘Knox did wash her hands of the victim’s blood.’
Marasca was just plain wrong as there isn't a shred of scientific evidence to support that conclusion. It is contrary to the facts of forensic science as well as logic. Marasca ruled that Knox was not in the murder room, so how could she have come into contact with that much fresh blood in order to leave visible traces in the sink? Why would she not have cleaned the sink? Krissy G's illogical reasoning that Knox didn't bother because she knew that her DNA would be pre-existing is beyond ludicrous.

Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 12:57 PM   #320
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,063
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
It is very interesting to me that while this KrissyG at the "swamp" believes that there was a "highly visible substance" - mixed blood - at the crime scene (bathroom sink?) while our very own Vixen has strenuously argues that there was obvious evidence of a cleanup at the scene with copious amounts of newly bought bleach. I don't know how to reconcile the two opinions.
True.

Vixen has also claimed that the clean up included removing the heel part of the bathmat bloody footprint from the tile floor . But why then leave the bathmat itself with the rest of the footprint? Why leave the sink uncleaned of visible blood, especially in the light that Vixen claims Knox had been "bleeding profusely"?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:10 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.