Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case - Page 3

Draca · 27th November 2011, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by Katody Matrass

It's also interesting to note how all those "best friends" who testified so feverishly against Amanda in reality gave not a flying frack about Meredith.
The alcohol abusing English group, none of them expressed any real concern about Meredith staying alone at night in a desolate building. Sophie Purton who was in such a rush to view her stupid TV show that she bothered only to walk Meredith half a way. And she neither called nor texted her to check if she safely got home.

Giacomo was no better. Left her completely alone as it was convenient to have her look over his in-house "drug operation" while he was on vacation. Interesting detail was how he ignored her completely in public situations. He didn't bother to call her either, texted her once only to order her to take his stupid pants off the line.

I think the attack that those people started on Amanda stemmed from their own qualms and guilt.

If Sophie walked Meredith home then she herself would have had to turn around and walk home alone. It wouldn't make sense for her to do that. It would have been good if the girls had an agreement to call each other, but it was just a short walk. Also, say Meredith called Sophie real quick when she got home to let her know she arrived home, how would that have changed anything? The call would have been over quickly. If Rudy was in the bathroom as many believe and Meredith called Sophie on her way to her room how would anything have been different? Rudy still would have tried to leave quietly out the front door at some point only to find the door locked. Leading to things going out of control.

I would say much harder things of Giacomo Silenzi. Also, one of the other boys downstairs had made friends with Rudy Guede. Anyone have a cite on who that was again? If they didn't have the poor judgement to befriend a local lowlife drug dealer and invite him back to the cottage after some b-ball than he wouldn't have become familiar with the cottage. Rudy Guede was given free access to case the joint through his friends. He took an opportune moment to try for rent money when most of them were gone for the holiday weekend. It is likely he tried for the cottage because he was familiar with the layout and residents. He went to the cottage possibly to visit, saw it was deserted, went and ate some kabobs during which time he decided to try for it. He went back to the cottage to rob it.

Giacomo Silenzi was also growing for his own use and friends. He apparently didn't talk to Meredith in public. What an awful relationship to not have your new boyfriend bring you home for the holiday weekend or speak to you in public. "Don't forget to bring in the laundry and water my pot, dear Meredith." He does seem like a bit of a dirt bag. A lot was made in the press of the strange men and friends that Amanda had brought to the cottage. It was one of the strange friends of the boys downstairs that took Meredith's life. If they hadn't allowed him to familiarize himself with the cottage he probably wouldn't have chosen to rob it.

In Perugia shock there was a blog on 'someone in the garden'. Meredith had seen someone watching the cottage from the garden in the week before the murder. I do wonder if that watcher was possibly Rudy Guede?

UnrepentantSinner · 27th November 2011, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by Grinder

An interesting article WILL AMANDA KNOX EVER HAVE THE LIFE SHE DREAMED OF?

That was a surprisingly sympathetic article.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I haven't looked up the detail of this, but the word "hell" in German means "bright". The word for hell is "hölle".

Rolfe.

As my German vocabulary atrophies with disuse, "hell" only has one context - "light" as a reference to beer contra dunkel for "dark".

Fine · 28th November 2011, 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by Grinder

An interesting article WILL AMANDA KNOX EVER HAVE THE LIFE SHE DREAMED OF?

_______________________________

From the article: "But however strong and determined she was, those 1,427 days have left Amanda with thinning locks and her frail frame is said to be proof that she struggled to eat during the countdown to her appeal. “The stress of Amanda’s ordeal may well have caused her weight loss and hair loss. You would anticipate that there would be a recovery but the only way to fix her body is to fix her emotions first,” says Dr Murphy."

Amanda isn't losing her hair. She's not losing her eyesight. She's not losing her hearing. She's not losing weight. She ain't losin' nothin'.

Here's a photograph of Dr. Naomi Murphy.........

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...omi_murphy.jpg

Should she too fix her emotions first????

///

Kaosium · 28th November 2011, 05:14 AM

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Thank you. I had been seeing the references here, but when I read some reviews/comments on Amazon, it was such pervasive boilerplate from the pro-guilt folks, I wanted to know more about the source.

He's had 'help' since refining his 'theory' as the 'PR campaign' is a pet theory of some of the online supporters of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt. It 'explained' how the press which once thirsted for the blood of Amanda and Raffaele after the murder and through much of the first trial had become more skeptical near the end of that trial and some elements eventually being downright dubious about the conviction.

I imagine they would say those reporters were 'gotten to' by the massive 'PR campaign,' which outside a few television appearances by the family and friends of Amanda and some e-mails sent to reporters didn't amount to all that much, and most all of that coverage would have existed anyway, all the Gogerty-Marriott group could do was advise.

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

And I see it's not going away any time soon...

I guess with some people just saying the words 'PR firm' means nothing associated with them can be true, or they have an effect on just about all elements of a case, even 'explaining' an acquittal by a foreign court!

pilot padron · 28th November 2011, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by Kaosium

He's had 'help' since refining his 'theory' as the 'PR campaign' is a pet theory of some of the online supporters of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt. It 'explained' how the press which once thirsted for the blood of Amanda and Raffaele after the murder and through much of the first trial had become more skeptical near the end of that trial and some elements eventually being downright dubious about the conviction.

I imagine they would say those reporters were 'gotten to' by the massive 'PR campaign,' which outside a few television appearances by the family and friends of Amanda and some e-mails sent to reporters didn't amount to all that much, and most all of that coverage would have existed anyway, all the Gogerty-Marriott group could do was advise.

I guess with some people just saying the words 'PR firm' means nothing associated with them can be true, or they have an effect on just about all elements of a case, even 'explaining' an acquittal by a foreign court!

.....what the PR firm did or did not do to help Sollecito and Knox.

Curt did say something about hiring Marriott being the best thing he ever did.
Didn't he ??

And the effect of the PR Firm's blitz were actually mentioned more than once in that "foreign court".
Wasn't it ??

Kinda like repeating the long in tooth talking point (again) that Greg Hampikian did not do much to help Knox and Sollecito either.
Eh ????

Grinder · 28th November 2011, 07:21 AM

The PR meme was not started by Mignini. The PGP were on to the PR supertanker concept as early as 2008 or early 2009. The PGP complained about Amanda's parents and step dad making TV appearances and any favorable newspaper stories.

Perhaps RW can find some early references on Shock or Rose could search P**. Mignini didn't talk about the PR or complain about the press until the appeal was underway.

Vogt wrote about the PR efforts well back.

Grinder · 28th November 2011, 07:44 AM

Back to a parody, sort of.

Curatolo's testimony, besides being completely unbelievable, never made sense in terms of the timing of the crime by anybody's theory.

I'd like to know how PGP think the events in the plaza took place in conjunction with the murder.

Curatolo says he saw them at 9:27pm when he arrived. He says that they were there until 11:30 or later. He doesn't claim to have watched them the whole time but IIRC he never said he looked up and they were gone.

Are the PGP saying that the kids ran up there after Jovana Popovic left the apartment, grabbed Rudy by the ear and killed Meredith. Then they apparently, according to PGP, showered or changed clothing and ran up to the plaza. They would be wet on what the PGP call a chilly night and just stood there. They then waited 2 hours and returned to the cottage to clean and retrieve clothing and the most recent PG idea: they had sex over the dead body.

Somehow they didn't leave any hairs, footprints, or anything in the room after both the murder and the sexual activity. This theory makes the TOD 9:30pm and makes Nara's testimony completely wrong.

Now if we want Nara and the 11:30 TOD to work that would mean the kids had to hang out in the plaza for 2 hours on that cold, cold night watching for Meredith (long wait as she was home), the car break down, the tow truck arrive and possibly Rudy showing up. This scenario is particularly difficult to understand. If Rudy were inside then hard to believe the deed wasn't done long before they left. Hard to believe they ran down there before the car broke down, murdered Meredith and ran back to the plaza with blood all over them. Or did they tell Rudy " tough luck black man and then wash off before returning to the plaza."

Gotta go - maybe someone else could make a case for the Curatolo story.

smkovalinksy · 28th November 2011, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by Kaosium

I guess with some people just saying the words 'PR firm' means nothing associated with them can be true, or they have an effect on just about all elements of a case, even 'explaining' an acquittal by a foreign court!

Considering how this theory has taken hold, it will be something to see the refutations of the Massei logic boldly set forth in Hellmann's Motivation report, as I expect them to be. If - as I also expect - the Supreme Court upholds the Hellmann, and not the prosecution logic, it may be a bit harder to lay all at the door of a "massive PR campaign'. Although, logic may not rule with certain persons: There are even today posters debating whether Knox and Sollecito found stepping in the blood such a turn-on that they decided to have sex prior to fleeing the cottage. This, post-acquittals!

Katody Matrass · 28th November 2011, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Draca

If Sophie walked Meredith home then she herself would have had to turn around and walk home alone. It wouldn't make sense for her to do that. It would have been good if the girls had an agreement to call each other, but it was just a short walk. Also, say Meredith called Sophie real quick when she got home to let her know she arrived home, how would that have changed anything? The call would have been over quickly. If Rudy was in the bathroom as many believe and Meredith called Sophie on her way to her room how would anything have been different? Rudy still would have tried to leave quietly out the front door at some point only to find the door locked. Leading to things going out of control.

The friends could have walked her home as a group. If Purton called Meredith and got no answer, they could have walked the short distance to check if she got safely home. Meredith was under attack at the time, that could have changed everything.
Anyway, the point is, the friends had a lot to blame themselves for. They had a subconscious incentive to look for someone else to pass the guilt. Knox, seen by them as an outsider, the strange one, was a perfect choice. Considering that the police had her in their crosshairs already, it was much easier to elicit the desirable testimony from them.

Osterwelle · 28th November 2011, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

As my German vocabulary atrophies with disuse, "hell" only has one context - "light" as a reference to beer contra dunkel for "dark".

"hell" is indeed the German adjective for "light", but the "hell" in name of the judge more likely comes from "helle" which is an old term for hillsides/slopes.

-
Osterwelle

geebee2 · 28th November 2011, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by Katody Matrass

Anyway, the point is, the friends had a lot to blame themselves for.

Oh come on. It's unfortunate that Meredith came home to an empty cottage, but that had to happen almost every day. Each evening, someone would be first home.

Rudy Guede bears almost all of the responsibility.
The police, a tiny bit, for not dealing with him earlier.
The landlord a tiny bit for not fixing the faulty shutter, as Filomena had requested.

Kaosium · 28th November 2011, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by pilot padron

.....what the PR firm did or did not do to help Sollecito and Knox.

Curt did say something about hiring Marriott being the best thing he ever did.
Didn't he ??

Yep, and why wouldn't he? Who'd want to deal with a feral press without one? On the business end it makes dealing with the media a whole lot easier, for one thing you don't have to answer the damn telephone every few minutes!

Originally Posted by pilot padron

And the effect of the PR Firm's blitz were actually mentioned more than once in that "foreign court".
Wasn't it ??

What do you consider a 'press blitz' attributable to Gogerty-Marriott? What dates and outlets do you think were affected?

Yes, Mignini did mention them, but he also ascribed to them magic powers as well. Do you believe in magic?

Originally Posted by pilot padron

Kinda like repeating the long in tooth talking point (again) that Greg Hampikian did not do much to help Knox and Sollecito either.
Eh ????

What do you think Dr. Greg Hampikian did to help Amanda Knox?

I think his bringing exposure to the shoddy dishonest work done by Stefanoni was very important to the case, but not as important as the work being scientifically unreliable and invalid. He didn't make that so, <Dr. Stefanoni did the honors there, and without that work being substandard there's nothing Dr. Hampikian could have done for Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito.

Katody Matrass · 28th November 2011, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by geebee2

Oh come on. It's unfortunate that Meredith came home to an empty cottage, but that had to happen almost every day. Each evening, someone would be first home.

Rudy Guede bears almost all of the responsibility.
The police, a tiny bit, for not dealing with him earlier.
The landlord a tiny bit for not fixing the faulty shutter, as Filomena had requested.

I agree, but I'm not talking about objective responsibility. I'm thinking about the uncomfortable subjective feelings of guilt and thoughts about "what could I have done different" that they had.

Rolfe · 28th November 2011, 03:29 PM

Is anyone else following the current Leveson inquiry into the behaviour of the British media? And I don't think the American or Italian media are any better. Here's the latest.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15914969

Quote:

Robert Jay QC read a statement by Mr Jefferies to the inquiry, which is being held at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

"The national media shamelessly vilified me. The UK press set about what can only be described as a witch hunt," it said.

"It was clear that the tabloid press had decided that I was guilty of Miss Yeates's murder and seemed determined to persuade the public of my guilt.

"They embarked on a frenzied campaign to blacken my character by publishing a series of very serious allegations about me which were completely untrue.

"Allegations which were a mixture of smear, innuendo and complete fiction."

Former teacher Mr Jefferies described how his reputation was left in tatters after police wrongly arrested him over the murder of landscape architect Miss Yeates.

Christopher Jefferies was an innocent man when he was arrested after Joanna Yeates's murder. But that didn't stop headlines such as "Jo suspect is Peeping Tom" being published at the time.

What is striking about his evidence is how the damage is ongoing. The former teacher successfully sued eight newspapers. The attorney general took action for contempt of court. And yet, Mr Jefferies believes what was said will have a lasting impact as some will judge him to be a "weird character" who is "best avoided".

I watched some of this on TV. Chris Jefferies has recently had a conservative haircut (and applied a spot of Grecian 2000 I think) and was dressed in a normal lounge suit. However, pictures of him published at the time of his arrest showed a wild-haired, wild-eyed eccentric. Watching him give evidence, I have to say his body language was indeed strange, despite the conservative, normal appearance.

But he was innocent. Completely innocent. He's just a guy who is a little quirky, to coin a phrase. But he was absolutely pilloried and vilified by the media, and has been caused lasting damage.

Now if he had had a Marriott to try to mitigate the media storm, might that not have been the best decision of his life? (I wonder if has has got someone now, to advise the very obvious makeover.)

Rolfe.

Kaosium · 28th November 2011, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Grinder

The PR meme was not started by Mignini. The PGP were on to the PR supertanker concept as early as 2008 or early 2009. The PGP complained about Amanda's parents and step dad making TV appearances and any favorable newspaper stories.

Perhaps RW can find some early references on Shock or Rose could search P**. Mignini didn't talk about the PR or complain about the press until the appeal was underway.

Vogt wrote about the PR efforts well back.

They were just parroting the words of their Master!

I thought that once too, that the 'PR campaign' meme was in fact invented by his admirers elsewhere, but if you go back looking through it you find that it was immediately important to Mignini, and he attacked it through the press and the courts when it began. Remember that the Sollecito family engaged in a 'PR campaign' in Italy, and were 'rewarded' with a lawsuit to stifle them.

In the British and US, negative coverage of Mignini started in early '08, with Douglas Preston (scroll down to the Feb '08 entry) as a result of publishing his new book, and the "48 Hours" with Paul Ciolino. In a cursory search I found public complaints by Mignini in October of 2008.

However his furry little friends certainly put more time and effort into spreading the 'message' and fitting each person into their proper place in the conspiracy!

Parallax · 28th November 2011, 10:57 PM

Mr Quennell seems to be expanding his talent for critical analysis of the facts to encompass Italian politics. Knowing of his disdain for 'sloppy' research, someone should point out to him that Mario Monti was twice appointed as an EU commissioner, not 'elected.'

RoseMontague · 29th November 2011, 01:53 AM

Posted at PMF:

Quote:

There is no innocent explanation for Sollecito's DNA on Meredith's bra clasp. Ignore for the moment the old "contamination" meme. There is no reasonable explanation for Knox's lamp to be inside Meredith's room with absolutely no evidence of Guede on it--no prints, no blood. There is no reason for Guede to have locked her door and to have done so in a way that it made it appear he had exited straight down the hallway. Guede might have been argued to have known that Meredith had two phones but it's equally reasonable to argue that he didn't know. Knox, however, did know she had two phones and only she had a reason to take both of them.

That's four elements of the investigation without considering anything else pointing directly at K&S. We could, if we wished, include Knox's accurate description of the attack that she "imagined". There were elements of her signed statements that indicate she was not really in the kitchen plugging her ears but inside the room where the assault occurred.

Let's look at this further. How can we ignore contamination? Does that mean we also ignore the other numerous profiles on the bra clasp? If they did not get there by contamination, just how many people were playing with Meredith's bra and why? You can't ignore it.

The lamp question. What evidence is there that this lamp was used in a cleanup or even brought into Meredith's room by Amanda and/or Raffaele? Amanda's testimony shows she is clearly as puzzled as the rest of us over the presence of the lamp. The facts are we don't know who brought the lamp into Meredith's room, we don't know if it was before or after the crime, and we don't know why it was brought in there.

The locked door. Guede may have wanted to delay the discovery of the body. You find two phones are you going to leave one and take the other?

I see no evidence in Amanda's statements that indicate an accurate description of the attack. Is it the scream or the thud being referred to here? What elements of her statements place her inside the room where the attack occurred?

Let's use some common sense here. Vague references not backed by facts. Non-specific and unsupported assertions. Ignoring part of the evidence to focus on just a part that points towards guilt. This is why the appeal court found AK and RS innocent. The evidence is not there.

Grinder · 29th November 2011, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by Kaosium

They were just parroting the words of their Master!

I thought that once too, that the 'PR campaign' meme was in fact invented by his admirers elsewhere, but if you go back looking through it you find that it was immediately important to Mignini, and he attacked it through the press and the courts when it began. Remember that the Sollecito family engaged in a 'PR campaign' in Italy, and were 'rewarded' with a lawsuit to stifle them.

In the British and US, negative coverage of Mignini started in early '08, with Douglas Preston (scroll down to the Feb '08 entry) as a result of publishing his new book, and the "48 Hours" with Paul Ciolino. In a cursory search I found public complaints by Mignini in October of 2008.

However his furry little friends certainly put more time and effort into spreading the 'message' and fitting each person into their proper place in the conspiracy!

Not of great import but I think those statements of Mignini referred to the press coverage but not specifically to a PR effort although I may missed something in my quick read.

I remember arguing with the PGP on Shock because they kept referring to the PR firm as Gogerty, Stark, Marriott whereas the company had been Gogerty Marriott for over a year when the murder occurred.

I'm pretty sure that was very early in the case and before the linked Mignini stories. The PGP were squealing about each and every story that didn't assume guilt. I can't remember when they started the "Marriott controlled the US national media specifically CBS because he had once worked as a reporter at a CBS Seattle affiliate" I think that was later as it took a while to reach certain PG members.

If Rose or someone with search capabilities could check P** it would be interesting, perhaps only to me, to know when Marriott first appeared there.

Grinder · 29th November 2011, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

Let's look at this further. How can we ignore contamination? Does that mean we also ignore the other numerous profiles on the bra clasp? If they did not get there by contamination, just how many people were playing with Meredith's bra and why? You can't ignore it.

They always ignore the part of the review that says from all the alleles found practically anybody's profile could be constructed. Had Raf's DNA, fingerprints or something else been found around the murder room, then the evidence on the bra might be of significance.

Quote:

The lamp question. What evidence is there that this lamp was used in a cleanup or even brought into Meredith's room by Amanda and/or Raffaele? Amanda's testimony shows she is clearly as puzzled as the rest of us over the presence of the lamp. The facts are we don't know who brought the lamp into Meredith's room, we don't know if it was before or after the crime, and we don't know why it was brought in there.

If Filomena's room had been next to Meredith's, would the PGP be saying that her lamp in Meredith's room be evidence that Filomena had murdered MK?

Quote:

I see no evidence in Amanda's statements that indicate an accurate description of the attack. Is it the scream or the thud being referred to here? What elements of her statements place her inside the room where the attack occurred?

Well, interesting they can see accurate description in the vague early statements but can't see the retraction in the last two notes.

bookworm · 29th November 2011, 09:17 AM

I often hear it said that Meredith's locked door proves in some way that Rudy didn't lock it.....I don't know if I'm just dense but I don't get that. Why wouldn't Rudy lock Meredith's door? Makes sense to me that he would lock it to buy himself some time.

Osterwelle · 29th November 2011, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

How can we ignore contamination?

It's fatal to the case for those who want them guilty, nothing else.

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

The lamp question.

I don't know what's more disturbing here. The focus of the guilters on that completely meaningless detail or their appearent inability of logical thinking. No other explanation, wtf?

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

The locked door.

Same as above. The only thing you can deduce from the locked door is that the killer was able to use a key and of course wanted to delay the discovery.

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

You find two phones are you going to leave one and take the other?

I haven't even heard a reasonable explanation why AK or RS would've taken the phones at all and not simply turn them off, lest one that would convince me that it would point to any certain person, except maybe towards a burglar.

The guilters have dead squad so they fantasize a lot. That's all...

-
Osterwelle

halides1 · 29th November 2011, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

Posted at PMF: "There is no innocent explanation for Sollecito's DNA on Meredith's bra clasp. Ignore for the moment the old "contamination" meme."

Let's look at this further. How can we ignore contamination? Does that mean we also ignore the other numerous profiles on the bra clasp? If they did not get there by contamination, just how many people were playing with Meredith's bra and why? You can't ignore it.

RoseMontague,

The presence of other alleles is extremely problematic for the prosecution. That may be why Mrs. Stefanoni tried to wish some of them away as reverse stutter peaks.

Here is a link to an italian conference on forensic DNA. Meredith Kercher is mentioned in the article.

halides1 · 29th November 2011, 10:34 AM

Barbie Nadeau reportedly said, "There are mixed genetic traces in spots of blood in which Amanda's traces are higher than Meredith's. That implies mixed blood according to the dozens of forensics experts I've interviewed about this."

I only know one supposed expert who claimed this, Colonel Garofano. This statement makes no sense. There are a number of variables that could affect peak height, and here are a few: the amount of biological material from each person, the degree of degradation of the sample, and the possible presence of inhibitors of the PCR reaction. The presence or absence of inhibitors might affect all peak heights within a sample; therefore, inhibitors would probably change absolute peak heights but perhaps not change relative peak heights.

I have discussed the blood and DNA evidence with Dan Krane and Igor Lednev, both of whom have strong credentials as forensic scientists. In addition Charlie Wilkes posted comments from Greg Hampikian on this subject. I challenge Ms. Nadeau to name her experts. Then let's have a discussion with them about this question.

Kaosium · 29th November 2011, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by smkovalinksy

Considering how this theory has taken hold, it will be something to see the refutations of the Massei logic boldly set forth in Hellmann's Motivation report, as I expect them to be. If - as I also expect - the Supreme Court upholds the Hellmann, and not the prosecution logic, it may be a bit harder to lay all at the door of a "massive PR campaign'. Although, logic may not rule with certain persons: There are even today posters debating whether Knox and Sollecito found stepping in the blood such a turn-on that they decided to have sex prior to fleeing the cottage. This, post-acquittals!

It's kind of amusing just what plenary powers are attributed to this 'PR campaign,' I don't know what would wean believers off the idea now, as it what it takes to dispel that effect is actual knowledge of the case. Take as an example the idea that Dr. Hampikian could have had an 'effect' on the case, as has been promoted recently. I personally think Greg Hampikian deserves a round of applause for exposing the work done by Stefanoni and approved by Biondi, but he didn't do anything that wasn't 'done' already for him by Stefanoni.

I have to admit coming in to this that I at least entertained the idea that perhaps the signers of the DNA letter might have been otherwise motivated, meaning they might have been making big hay over little things in hopes of helping the cause of Amanda's innocence and perhaps some esoteric future DNA defense, so I decided to look it up and found this which would seem to refute the idea that scientists are dubious of the forensic value of LCN/LT DNA analysis--until I read it.

Instead it made it quite clear that even the promoters of forensic LCN/LT DNA analysis would have been horrified by Stefanoni's work, as she didn't even give lip service to the standards and practices promoted by the professionals in the field. You can see it written all through that presentation, from the very beginning with Butler's slides when he asks if labs are 'waterboarding' their DNA with these techniques:

Originally Posted by Butler Promega Presentation Page 3

At what point do you draw a line and not
attempt to analyze data below this line?
– A certain amount of input DNA (based on what data?)
– A pre-determined stochastic threshold (based on what data?)

She lied about the DNA she quantified on the knife, claiming originally it was 'a couple hundred picograms' when instead it was ten or less, which is easy to determine from her results which can be seen (on page 16) here where it shows the results of ten picograms of material amplified with the 28 cycle Identifiler process (as noted in Massei--pages 189¹ & 258²) which shows the unlikelihood of getting a pair of alleles over the 50 RFU bare minimum stochastic threshold with 10 pg or less, which meant I didn't have to 'trust' the defense appeals docs when they said:

Originally Posted by Amanda's Appeal Doc 'Genetic Testing of the Knife' section

The defense argues that the court should have excluded the DNA testing on Raffaele's kitchen knife. Dr. Stefanoni testified her job was to show objective proof by precise analysis, including use of scientific evidence as reflected by the IFIC. Her own notes reflect that the DNA on the knife blade was showing a finding of “too low, too low, too low ...” The testing done on the knife also showed it was not blood. Dr. Stefanoni initially stated that there was a finding of “a few hundred” picograms and she used real-time PCR for findings. When data was later provided to the defense it showed that it was actually under 10 picograms, and could even be ZERO. Dr. Stefanoni created her own form of LCN DNA to achieve the desired results. To make her finding she ran the test once, it destroyed the sample so no other testing can ever be done.

Reproducibility, and thus reliability, is of paramount importance in this field, which can be seen as a common theme throughout this presentation, seen here in Becky Hill's summary:

Originally Posted by Hill Promega Presentation Page 25

Low-template DNA (LT-DNA), often referred to as low-copy number
(LCN), is often defined as <100-200 pg input DNA.
• In order to improve sensitivity, the number of PCR cycles is often
increased (e.g., 31 or 34 cycles instead of 28 cycles) when amplifying
DNA with conventional STR kits.
• While increasing the assay sensitivity enables lower amounts of DNA
to be detected, these “enhanced interrogation techniques” are prone
to stochastic amplification effects that are exhibited in the form of
allele drop-out and drop-in.
• To improve result reliability, replicate amplifications are typically
compared from low-level DNA samples and consensus profiles
developed. Cautious data interpretation rules are also applied based
on validation studies.
• Identifiler with 31 cycles and PowerPlex 16 HS with 34 cycles were
comparable in performance with low-level DNA analysis.

She did none of this of course, her 'sample' was--at best--10 picograms, she used 28 cycles with the Identifiler kit, not even attempting to go to 31 or 34 for more robust results. She did the test knowing it couldn't be reproduced and the results (peaks around 20-50 RFUs) wouldn't meet scientific standards anywhere in the world and she had to know this going in.

Theresa Caragine, of the New York City Office of the Medical Examiner, and a big proponent of Low Template/Low Copy Number DNA analysis, puts it like this in her summary:

Originally Posted by Caragine Promega presentation summary page 65

LT DNA Results are Reliable when....

A laboratory bases their protocols on previously established and validated procedures and

Demonstrates through their own validation procedures that their methods are robust and reproducible.

Again, there was nothing 'established' about Stafanoni's procedures, unless lying about data, hiding results and ensuring the destruction of the samples so they couldn't be replicated is valid scientific analysis in Italy, and Drs. Conti and Vecchiotti obviously disagree. They were not amused by her refusal to release the relevant electronic data files, her 'standards' resulting in the amount of material tested or the RFU level employed, nor her curious method for storing the bra clasp, which she claimed contained enough of a sample that retesting was possible, yet when it was examined again it had 'decayed in storage' due to being stored in a plastic container, which is especially interesting as she testified in court that plastic containers could destroy the integrity of the sample, and thus couldn't be used:

Originally Posted by Massei Page 214 PMF

Still with regard to Exhibit 36, replying to the specific question with which she was asked to specify which elements needed to be present in order to preclude the possibility of identification of a collected biological specimen, Dr Stefanoni indicated an incorrect storage of the specimen in an environment which was not ideal, such as in warmth, or enclosed in a plastic bag where water might be present and, not being able to evaporate, it facilitates the proliferation of micro-organisms. She stressed that the consequence of a conservation carried out in an incorrect way was the deterioration of the specimen so that, when analysing it, very probably‚ no genetic result would be able to be obtained.

Why wouldn't Stefanoni have wanted the bra clasp re-tested, why did she refuse to release the entirety of her data to the defense and later the court's independent experts? Perhaps because it would confirm something she tried to hide during the original trial: there were at least four contributors to the bra-clasp DNA, at minimum three of which were male, which you can see in the analysis of the y-halotype here where are listed the right alleles that Stefanoni pretended were 'stutter' or 'noise.' They weren't, they were proof that on that tiny bra clasp, perhaps the size of a girl's pinky fingernail, that somehow outside Meredith's DNA, three other males (none of them Rudy Guede) managed to leave traces of themselves, which is either making rather untoward assumptions about Meredith's 'frequentations' or is pretty damned indicative of contamination.

This was hardly the only time something 'disappeared' when someone outside Stefanoni had to look at it, the saga of the special 'protective' striation or scratches that Stefanoni 'hypothesized' 'must' have saved Meredith's DNA on the knife from the intensive cleaning necessary to remove all blood traces as well makes for an entertaining read as Massei has to explain how no one but Stefanoni could ever see them, and why she couldn't find it when it came time to turn it over for others to see. I must say Giancarlo Massei is in rare form with his conclusion:

Originally Posted by Massei Page 391 PMF

With respect to the existence of these scratches the defence and their consultants had voiced doubts and perplexity; moreover, Professor Cingolani, the expert witness appointed by the GIP [judge of the preliminary hearing] for the incidente probatorio [pre-trial taking of evidence], who was shown the knife, Exhibit 36, during this hearing, it having been made [313] available at the express request of the defence, declared that he had not seen such scratches

In this regard, however, Dr. Stefanoni’s statements should be recalled on the manner of observing the knife (under good lighting and moving the blade so that it was thoroughly illuminated) and it should be noted that it does not appear that the others have examined the blade of the knife in the same way and with the same or similar lighting. It must therefore be stated that Dr. Stefanoni, in reporting that she had seen these scratches and had taken sample B from these very scratches, has not stated a falsehood.

Thus my guess is Stefanoni knew all along that the DNA she found was likely to be contamination, at best. That's why she invented that shy striation for the knife, why she refused to the last instant to allow the defense or independent experts to see her data proving at last that there were at minimum three male contributors to that tiny clasp, and why they all of a sudden tried to pretend they'd submitted the negative controls in '08, and then pretended then pretended the found them in the garage despite the identifiers not matching.

One doesn't need to use the analysis of Dr. Greg Hampikian to conclude the DNA was unreliable and invalid, one can go to the work of his rivals and find even they would pan <Dr. Stefanoni's work, there's no PR campaign on earth that could invent those conditions. Nor could they have manipulated this which is such a thorough beat-down of the procedures of the Polizia Scientifica the judges and jury laughed their way through it.

¹

Originally Posted by Massei Page 189 PMF

In the event under discussion, Dr. Stefanoni further specified that [the kit] was used to "analyse the total DNA, the DNA from all 15 points plus the sex gene,...always using the same kit produced by the firm Applera, from Applied Biosystem; a kit that is called Identifiler.

²

Originally Posted by Massei Page 258 PMF

Dr. Stefanoni (again, before GUP) specified that she had performed the PCR at 28 cycles; in fact, she recalled that she had been asked why "if it was a case of a low copy number sample, she had not amplified it with more than 28 cycles, as usually suggested in the guidelines" (page 88).

LondonJohn · 29th November 2011, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

Posted at PMF:

Let's look at this further. How can we ignore contamination? Does that mean we also ignore the other numerous profiles on the bra clasp? If they did not get there by contamination, just how many people were playing with Meredith's bra and why? You can't ignore it.

The lamp question. What evidence is there that this lamp was used in a cleanup or even brought into Meredith's room by Amanda and/or Raffaele? Amanda's testimony shows she is clearly as puzzled as the rest of us over the presence of the lamp. The facts are we don't know who brought the lamp into Meredith's room, we don't know if it was before or after the crime, and we don't know why it was brought in there.

The locked door. Guede may have wanted to delay the discovery of the body. You find two phones are you going to leave one and take the other?

I see no evidence in Amanda's statements that indicate an accurate description of the attack. Is it the scream or the thud being referred to here? What elements of her statements place her inside the room where the attack occurred?

Let's use some common sense here. Vague references not backed by facts. Non-specific and unsupported assertions. Ignoring part of the evidence to focus on just a part that points towards guilt. This is why the appeal court found AK and RS innocent. The evidence is not there.

While some ignorant/misguided/biased individuals elsewhere are attempting to rewrite history, it's worth repeating the following:

1) Hellmann's court acquitted Knox and Sollecito on the murder charge (and the sexual aggravation, theft and transportation of knife charges) on the grounds that there was no evidence that they committed the crime. This means that the court found no incriminating evidence pointing to Knox or Sollecito. Every single piece of prosecution evidence was determined by the court to be either false, erroneously interpreted, discredited, wrongly-attributed or explicable in a non-guilt way. Most pro-guilt commentators seem to have miraculously forgotten that Curatolo was exposed as a sad, shambling joke, the entire forensic investigation was exposed as a fiasco at best (and a shocking corruption at worst), and the original Massei ToD was exposed as ridiculous, wiping out in the process the erroneous (or corrupt) "earwitness" testimony. Fear not though, pro-guilt idiots, Hellmann's report will lay all this out in a way that even you may be able to understand - even if you really don't want to understand it.

2) Hellmann's court also acquitted Knox and Sollecito on the charge of staging the burglary/crime scene, on the grounds that this "crime" did not even occur. In other words, the court found that the evidence suggested that the break-in was real - not staged - and that there was no post-murder clean-up. Perhaps if the "crack" police hadn't trampled all over the cottage, hadn't allowed Filomena's room to be materially tampered with and altered, and had bothered to conduct a professional fine-sieve search of the ground below Filomena's window, they might have been able to show that the scene was entirely consistent with a person breaking and entering through that window. That person was Rudy Guede.

3) Hellmann is obliged in Italian law to publish his motivations report within 90 days of the verdict. Since the verdict was read on 3rd October (or 03 OCT 2011

), this would make the deadline for the motivations report 1st January 2012 (01 JAN 2012 in management-accountant annotation

). I suspect therefore that Hellmann would either have to publish the report some time before that date (given that it's a public holiday), or perhaps might be allowed to publish the day after. Either way, the report will be out on or before 2nd January 2012. I can only guess that those elsewhere placing bets on the release date (Meredith would be so very proud) are sadly ignorant of the 90-day rule.

Importantly, with regard to point (1), Hellmann's court is essentially saying that there's no evidence linking Knox or Sollecito with the murder (or associated charges). Therefore, in both a legal and an ethical sense, it's as unfair to associate Knox/Sollecito with the murder as it is to associate anyone in or around Perugia who does not have a cast-iron alibi for the time of the murder. For example, if Mignini or Massei don't have a cast-iron alibi for the night of the murder, then they are technically just as feasible as potential suspects - of course, there's no evidence linking either of them to the murder either.

And it's also worth expanding upon the area of "innocence", in order to clarify misconceptions and willful distortions that are taking place elsewhere. In neither a legal nor a factual sense can innocence ever be proven, unless the suspect has an unimpeachable alibi. Without an alibi, it can never be proven that any given suspect didn't commit any given crime. Fortunately, wise guardians of jurisprudence and lawmakers understand this fact, and it's why accused persons are not required to prove (or even demonstrate) their innocence if they are charged with a criminal offence. Instead, it's totally incumbent upon the accuser (usually the state in the case of a criminal offence) to prove the guilt of the accused.

Now, if the accuser (usually the state) cannot prove the guilt of the accused, then the accused must be acquitted. In law, the accused remains innocent unless proven guilty, so the post-acquittal status of the accused must be one of legal innocence. But of course there are degrees of legal innocence versus factual innocence. For example, if evidence was presented at a trial which tended to suggest the culpability of the accused, but the burden of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was not met, then it might not be ethically unsound (however legally unsound) to regard the acquitted accused as possibly culpable, but that (s)he "got away with it". However, if there is no evidence pointing to the culpability of the accused, then it is then both ethically and legally unreasonable to continue pointing the finger at the acquitted accused.

On top of all that, a criminal court is never tasked with determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. It is purely tasked with determining if the accused can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have committed the crime with which (s)he is charged. Therefore, whenever a court acquits, it's not implicitly saying that the accused is innocent. That's why Hellmann gave a philosophically honest answer to a question in a post-trial interview, when he stated that Knox and Sollecito might know something about what happened in the cottage that night. But by the same token, if he had been specifically asked, he would have replied that anyone in Perugia that night without a cast-iron alibi might also know something about what happened. It's a shame that some "commentators" are either too ignorant or too biased to understand the nuances involved here, and to jump all-too-quickly to the erroneous conclusion that Hellmann somehow believes that Knox and Sollecito actually were involved in the murder.

halides1 · 29th November 2011, 12:38 PM

I read somewhere that, "The prosecution's forensic experts testified that Knox's blood had mixed with Meredith's blood." Massei did not draw this conclusion, but I bet that he would have if the proscution's experts had said this. To whom does the quoted passage refer? I would like to refute the claim of mixed blood once and for all time.

HumanityBlues · 29th November 2011, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by halides1

I have discussed the blood and DNA evidence with Dan Krane and Igor Lednev, both of whom have strong credentials as forensic scientists. In addition Charlie Wilkes posted comments from Greg Hampikian on this subject. I challenge Ms. Nadeau to name her experts. Then let's have a discussion with them about this question.

I think the key here is that you've actually talked to real people.

JREF2010 · 29th November 2011, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Grinder

Back to a parody, sort of.

Curatolo's testimony, besides being completely unbelievable, never made sense in terms of the timing of the crime by anybody's theory.

I'd like to know how PGP think the events in the plaza took place in conjunction with the murder.

Curatolo says he saw them at 9:27pm when he arrived. He says that they were there until 11:30 or later. He doesn't claim to have watched them the whole time but IIRC he never said he looked up and they were gone.

Are the PGP saying that the kids ran up there after Jovana Popovic left the apartment, grabbed Rudy by the ear and killed Meredith. Then they apparently, according to PGP, showered or changed clothing and ran up to the plaza. They would be wet on what the PGP call a chilly night and just stood there. They then waited 2 hours and returned to the cottage to clean and retrieve clothing and the most recent PG idea: they had sex over the dead body.

Somehow they didn't leave any hairs, footprints, or anything in the room after both the murder and the sexual activity. This theory makes the TOD 9:30pm and makes Nara's testimony completely wrong.

Now if we want Nara and the 11:30 TOD to work that would mean the kids had to hang out in the plaza for 2 hours on that cold, cold night watching for Meredith (long wait as she was home), the car break down, the tow truck arrive and possibly Rudy showing up. This scenario is particularly difficult to understand. If Rudy were inside then hard to believe the deed wasn't done long before they left. Hard to believe they ran down there before the car broke down, murdered Meredith and ran back to the plaza with blood all over them. Or did they tell Rudy " tough luck black man and then wash off before returning to the plaza."

Gotta go - maybe someone else could make a case for the Curatolo story.

This time log of each event always makes me wonder, what it is the Defense had to show Hellman about the hardrives and other proof?

What were they requesting to present, to Hellman, in relate to the computer activity exactly?

In other words if Hellman had allowed it, I wonder what they wanted to show to the court about the pc activity?

JREF2010 · 29th November 2011, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by Katody Matrass

Let me repeat, in the face of the desperate but failed attempts to rewrite history

:
Nothing from the uncountable number of recordings indicated any guilt in the Knox and Sollecito trial. OTOH many of the most important recordings disappeared. It is possible and in fact probable that the cops disappeared them because they were exculpatory.

How I wish just one Judge would ask the police about this. I had hopes the Calunnia trial would backfire and open up this opportunity to ask the police about leaks and missing interrogation recordings, when obviously the police are lying there was no recording due to budget cuts.

Rolfe · 29th November 2011, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Still with regard to Exhibit 36, replying to the specific question with which she was asked to specify which elements needed to be present in order to preclude the possibility of identification of a collected biological specimen, Dr Stefanoni indicated an incorrect storage of the specimen in an environment which was not ideal, such as in warmth, or enclosed in a plastic bag where water might be present and, not being able to evaporate, it facilitates the proliferation of micro-organisms. She stressed that the consequence of a conservation carried out in an incorrect way was the deterioration of the specimen so that, when analysing it, very probably‚ no genetic result would be able to be obtained.

This one intrigues me a lot. Miss Stefanoni BSc (not a Doctor) knew perfectly well that DNA material would degrade if stored in a plastic container. But she deliberately put that bra clasp in a plastic container. One might speculate as to why.

Then when she was challenged, she announced, apparently, that this was a certified container, from the USA, no less. She didn't say what it was certified for. It could have been certified watertight, or airtight, or to be 5ml in volume, or to be made of a certain grade of polypropylene. One thing it certainly was not, was certified to be suitable for storage of forensic DNA samples. But the mention of "the USA" was clearly intended to imply it was in some way superior to mere European requirements. (Quite funny in the light of the guilter criticism of Conti and Vecchiotti for citing some US references in their report.)

But there is no such thing as a plastic container suitable for storage of DNA for this purpose. Not in Italy, not in the USA, not anywhere. Earlier in the thread I linked to and quoted from current US federal guidelines for correct collection and storage of such material, and they were absolutely clear about using paper, not plastic, and why.

Just one more implicit lie, under oath, from this dishonest woman. If we collected these lies, obfuscations and obstructions, how many could we list?

And yet this doesn't give posters such as Machiavelli any pause at all. Last I saw of it, he was still insisting that since Stefanoni had used special plastic containers from the USA she had actually gone above and beyond the call of duty and should probably be given a medal. What do you do when people wilfully refuse to look at facts like this even when their noses are rubbed in them?

Rolfe.

Kaosium · 29th November 2011, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by Grinder

Not of great import but I think those statements of Mignini referred to the press coverage but not specifically to a PR effort although I may missed something in my quick read.

I only did a quick search myself, as I came across this months back, though I don't recall if I posted on it or not. There's no doubt more out there, and perhaps earlier, though his quick quelling of the Sollecito 'PR campaign' ought to suggest he was highly sensitive to criticism, thought it criminal in nature and coordinated by the families of his victims. One complaint against the Sollecitos were their Masonic 'associations.'

In Mignini's world it's more complicated than a simple 'PR campaign,' it's a vast network of 'shadowy forces arrayed against him,' centered in Italy, and 'responsible' for the 'attacks' in the American (mainly--then) press. At this point I would link 'The Master of Suspicion' from PerugiaShock, but unfortunately that was early '09 and thus never restored.

Originally Posted by Grinder

I remember arguing with the PGP on Shock because they kept referring to the PR firm as Gogerty, Stark, Marriott whereas the company had been Gogerty Marriott for over a year when the murder occurred.

That's probably because the press releases were 'signed' by David Marriott as "David Marriott of Gogerty Stark Marriott." I especially like the way he misspelled his last name in the first one, though that's probably an error by someone else!

Originally Posted by Grinder

I'm pretty sure that was very early in the case and before the linked Mignini stories. The PGP were squealing about each and every story that didn't assume guilt. I can't remember when they started the "Marriott controlled the US national media specifically CBS because he had once worked as a reporter at a CBS Seattle affiliate" I think that was later as it took a while to reach certain PG members.

The first mention of a 'PR campaign' on PMF was October of '08, kind of out of the blue by Michael, and the first mention of 'Marriott' was a few days later, by (of all people!) Candace Dempsey in a response to a query from The Machine on PMF as to whether she was 'working' for the defense or had a relationship with Amanda's family. Michael's post a couple down includes this interesting observation of the status of David Marriott at this point in the debate:

Originally Posted by Michael PMF

And what's she talking about 'once again being accused of taking money from the Dave Marriott public relations firm'? Well, we haven't accused her of doing that have we? What we (or some of us) HAVE accused her of doing, is having a rather cosy relationship with the Knox/Mellas family and not being totally upfront about the nature and extent of that relationship...nobody said anything about their PR man. Unless...there is some other 'oddly hosted message board' to which she's referring.

Originally Posted by Grinder

If Rose or someone with search capabilities could check P** it would be interesting, perhaps only to me, to know when Marriott first appeared there.

Anyone can search PMF.net, they just have to wait 30 seconds between searches, and I do believe it was Rose who managed to change my assumption on who initiated the whole idea of the press conspiring against Mignini. As I allowed before, the bunnies and the kittens placed the 'conspirators' in their 'proper' roles, but it was Mignini's paranoia which generated the idea, and his actions against the Sollecitos which predated any of this, which to me seem related to their getting on Telenorbo and other outlets to protest Raffaele's innocence. I wouldn't think he'd be less gentle with the supporters and family of the American 'witch' he was trying to burn.

Incidentally, note how the focus changed between FOA, which wasn't affiliated with the family or their efforts, (as per Curt Knox's quote in Barbie's piece in my last post) and David Marriott which didn't emerge as a 'talking point' until far later. That's why I (eventually) always referred to it as the 'Gogerty-Marriott/FOA PR Supertanker of Doom' as they were separate entities and not exactly on the same page all of the time, though they eventually got placed inside the same conspiracy due to the feverish imaginings of our furry little friends.

Incidentally, I found this interesting article by Andrea Vogt, originally published in the Italian press and translated here by the Cheshire Cat. I wonder if it was here that David Marriott became more prominent in the lexicon of PMF? If you note there's a couple mentions in October of '08, then a couple more in January, then that Panorama piece is translated, and the other 1170 or so mentions of David Marriott take place. I wonder if Andrea Vogt talking with Mignini and being e-mailed by Marriott was the first one to 'put this together,' and somehow attributed to Marriott all actions taken by anyone anywhere regarding the case if it was negative to Mignini?

Fine · 29th November 2011, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by halides1

I read somewhere that, "The prosecution's forensic experts testified that Knox's blood had mixed with Meredith's blood." Massei did not draw this conclusion, but I bet that he would have if the proscution's experts had said this. To whom does the quoted passage refer? I would like to refute the claim of mixed blood once and for all time.

_____________________________

Halides,

Well, Stefanoni testified---as quoted by Massei---that her lab analysis alone didn't confirm the mixture of Amanda's blood with Meredith's blood. However, in her testimony she did say that it would be reasonable to conclude that the mixed DNA was a mixture of bloods. Here's how Barbie narrates the court testimony..............

"Isn't it logical that two people who share a house would have mixed DNA in the house?" asked Amanda's lead lawyer, Carlo Dalla Vedova, on cross examination.

"Not in the context of a homicide," replied Stefanoni.... (Angel Face, page 131)

So the mixed blood was never a lab result. Instead, an inference drawn from a consideration of the "context." Does Dr. Stefanoni want to be a police detective too?

///

Kaosium · 29th November 2011, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by halides1

I read somewhere that, "The prosecution's forensic experts testified that Knox's blood had mixed with Meredith's blood." Massei did not draw this conclusion, but I bet that he would have if the proscution's experts had said this. To whom does the quoted passage refer? I would like to refute the claim of mixed blood once and for all time.

I looked into this last summer and came to the conclusion that only the transcripts could solve this question for certain. It all comes down to what Stefanoni said in court outside when the defense forced her to admit there was no way to prove the substance was blood, which Ann Wise correctly reported as 'mixed DNA' here, but included this bit as well:

Originally Posted by Ann Wise ABC 5/22/09

The significance of the mixed DNA was not explained in court, but in past reports the prosecution has theorized that Knox used that bathroom to wash-up after the murder, and due to a nose-bleed or some other injury, her blood mixed with that of the victim.

Now, as we all know, there was no mixed blood, here's what happened: in this video people can see how the blood swipes were collected, not with precision and grace, but basically by rubbing down the areas of the sink like he was giving it a massage, 1:30 is a good place to see that action. As a result, that swab has the blood of Meredith he was collecting, and whatever happened to already be in Amanda's sink--where Amanda brushed her teeth and whatever other mysterious things females do in the bathroom that takes so damned long.

So there's Meredith's blood as Rudy washed up there, which of course contains her DNA, and Amanda's DNA which got onto the swabs because they were swiping around in her bathroom, perhaps the best place to find DNA. As without further tests, which the prosecution didn't perform, one cannot tell whether the DNA from either or both came from the blood, the prosecution might well have felt they had room to 'hypothesize' as Ann Wise writes in that article. Andrea Vogt,¹ Barbara Nadeau,² Cliff Van Zant,³ and as previously mentioned, Luciano Garofano, all claim that the prosecution alleged that it was mixed blood they found.

Previously it has been assumed that these reports were all in error, as Massei⁴ makes it quite clear that he realizes the samples were not mixed blood, and as detailed below attempts to make the case that somehow Amanda's skin cells rubbed off in that one moment as opposed to all those other moments the two months she'd been living there, no doubt using her bathroom just about every day.

However, I suspect those reports were not in error, and in fact despite Stefanoni having to admit in court when the defense experts questioned her, as noted in the Wise article above, that she couldn't prove the sample was blood from the both of them mixed, that the prosecution 'hypothesized' it anyway, and being as the first verdict was guilty, all those cites from during or shortly after the trial but before the release of the Massei Report simply assumed the Court had accepted the prosecution argument, which might have seemed reasonable at the time, especially if they didn't look into the details of the collection or the forensics. Making things even more complicated, Amanda Knox (as Massei explains below) did have a 'distinct, separate and morphologically different' smear of her own blood on the tap, (which didn't mix with anything) probably from days previous when her ears were bleeding because she kept poking holes in the poor little things.

Suggesting even moreso that the prosecution disingenuously argued those 'mixed DNA traces' were actually mixed blood, is Mignini's own words from the Drew Griffin CNN interview where he says at 44:30 (which I found at TJMK as they must not have pulled it like I thought I read somewhere):

Originally Posted by PM Mignini CNN May 2011

Mignini: Look I should then add, it must be also said, at the time. In the bathroom of the two foreign girls, that is Meredith and Amanda, which is attached, next to the room of the murder, blood material was discovered of Amanda and Meredith, mixed. Why is this material important? It is important because in her own account told, in her own deposition Amanda makes in, I think, in early June of 2009, during the first instance trial, she says that when she left the house on the afternoon of November 1st, those spots were not there. She says so herself. So she returns in the morning, says she went back in the morning and sees those spots of blood. Those spots of blood are mixed Amanda and victim.

It seems to me that Mignini himself is suggesting that the blood came from both girls and was mixed, as opposed to finding DNA of both Meredith from her blood and Amanda from her sink, something they could hardly avoid the way they did their 'collection.' Anyone care to place a bet they could swab their sink the exact same way the photographer (he was slumming as a forensic technician that day) swiped Amanda's sink without getting their DNA on the swath? Would they like to bet twenty-six years of their life?

If they couldn't get Amanda's DNA from Amanda's sink and bidet from normal everyday use over the course of two months, how could they get it from a one time event?

¹

Originally Posted by Andrea Vogt Seattle PI 12/14/09

Mixed blood: Forensic police biologists testified about five spots where they had detected samples of "mixed blood" genetic material -- spots of blood of both Knox and Kercher's -- in the bidet, on the sink, on the drain tap, on the Q-tip box in the bathroom and in a spot where prosecutors argued Knox and Sollecito staged a break-in.

Defense attorneys argued that this genetic material couldn't be certified as blood and that even if it were, it wasn't abnormal since Knox lived in the house and could have left blood around at any time.

The attorney for the Kercher family, Francesco Maresca, said after the sentence that he believed this mixed blood evidence was "the most damning" piece of evidence against Knox.

²

Originally Posted by Barbara Nadeau Daily Beast 5/29/10

Your lawyers agree with the prosecution’s findings that at least one of the spots of Meredith’s blood found in the house where she was killed had your blood mixed with it.

³

Originally Posted by Cliff Van Zandt NBC 11/23/09

The mixed blood evidence. Knox’s blood and the blood of the victim were allegedly found comingled in multiple places around the crime scene, to include the bathroom, in one of the bedrooms and in the hallway. While chance would have it that perhaps both women had somehow left blood at one location, the statistical probability that this mixed blood or DNA could be found in multiple locations seems to be a stretch, even for the defense.

While it is difficult, if not impossible to accurately date blood evidence, Knox testified that there was no blood in the bathroom the day before Kercher’s murder, therefore apparently dating the damning blood evidence to the night of the crime, and by her own statement seeming to place her at the crime scene at or near the time of the victim’s death. The same mixture of DNA was found in a bloody footprint in the hallway and in a roommate’s bedroom, more evidence that is hard to refute. The defense, though, acknowledges that Knox had entered the residence the morning after Kercher’s murder, perhaps accounting for the overlay of physical evidence. Point, counterpoint.

⁴

Originally Posted by Massei PMF 278=281

TRACES IN THE SMALL BATHROOM

The traces of blood detected in the small bathroom, which was usually used by Meredith and by Amanda, located next to the door of Meredith’s room, facing Amanda’s room, have already been discussed.
Dr. Stefanoni gave precise details about these traces and about the outcome of the analyses which concerned the following items:

On the right side of the inside doorframe there was a tiny droplet of the victim’s blood.

Also on top of the toilet-seat cover of the toilet there was blood from the victim.

In the bidet there was a substance which appeared to be diluted blood, and which was shown to be a mixed trace specimen having the biological profiles of Amanda and Meredith.

Also in the sink, there was a substance which appeared to be diluted blood, and which was shown to be a mixed trace specimen with the same result.

On the front part of the tap of the sink, there was coagulated blood which was shown to belong to Amanda.

On the box of cotton buds/Q-tips sitting on the sink/washbasin there were stains and these showed the presence of blood and a mixed trace from Amanda and Meredith.

On the light switch in the same bathroom there was a mark which proved to be the victim’s blood.

The sky-blue mat found in that bathroom was stained with blood which was shown to be from the victim.

On the outcome of such tests, not only these but also others of a biological nature, carried out in observance of the provisions contained in Article 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code, no significant and specific criticisms were made. Instead, the defendants’ teams maintained that these traces and the outcome of the analyses with reference to the mixed sample traces were irrelevant. In this regard, starting from the scientific data which emerged, according to which DNA analysis does not permit the age of the sample/trace to be determined, nor, in the case of a sample/trace indicating the presence of several biological profiles, can it be established whether their apposition-formation was contemporaneous or not, it was affirmed that, since it concerned a bathroom which was used both by Meredith and by Amanda, the presence of mixed traces seemed to be a completely normal circumstance, and had no significance. All the more so since the samples had been taken using the same blotting paper which had been used for various parts of the bidet and the sink.

The Court, however, believes that the presence of the biological trace specimens that were found is of great importance.

First, it should be recalled that Amanda Knox, in the course of her own examination (questioning), declared that when she left the house on Via della Pergola on the afternoon of November 1st, the bathroom was clean. It should then be highlighted that in that same bathroom various trace specimens were found, of a mixed nature and testing positively for blood. It is true that, according to what was asserted and explained, it is not possible with a mixed trace specimen that tested positive for human blood to determine which of the trace’s contributors the blood belongs to.

In this case, however, non-mixed traces were also found, which were shown to be of a haematological nature [i.e. blood] and turn out to have the biological profile of the victim. Such traces, in particular the dribble of blood left on the right inside edge of the door and the stains left on the light switch (see photographic illustrations 141, 142; 158, 159) lead to the deduction that whoever entered that bathroom had his or her hands covered in Meredith’s blood. Furthermore, the sky-blue bathmat with the print of a bare foot in blood, blood which also was shown to be from the victim, indicates that whoever went into this bathroom was barefoot, and must therefore also have been barefoot in Meredith’s room where she had been repeatedly struck, a room which had great blotches of blood, and in one of these whoever transferred the blood to the bathroom and the sky-blue bathmat must have placed his or her foot, and thus must have been moving about that room with bare feet.

The above observation leads to the deduction that whoever went into the bathroom at that point (after the stabbing of Meredith) must have had to do so to clean him/herself of Meredith’s blood with which he/she was staining the various things he/she touched or leaned against: the door, the light switch, the mat. And it is probable - not necessary, but probable - that during the following act of scrubbing the hands to remove the blood, he/she left the mixed trace consisting of Meredith’s blood and of cells which had been removed by rubbing during the act of washing. An entirely probable outcome given the likelihood of the act of scrubbing, yet not a necessary one, since the running water which was used in the shower stall or in the bidet or in the sink, or in several of these sanitary fittings, might well have rinsed away the washed-up blood and the cells which had been lost during this washing.

At this point, one may turn for the resulting evaluations to the trace specimens found in the sink, in the bidet, on the cotton-bud box, traces which tested positive for human blood and which were attributed to Meredith and to Amanda.

While it is not possible to use the genetic scientific data (Dr. Stefanoni explained the impossibility of determining the date, the succession or the simultaneity in the depositing of the components of the mixed trace specimen and the impossibility of attributing the haematological component to one or the other of the contributors), the information previously put forward provides answers which are entirely consistent with the circumstantial evidence that has emerged and which the Court considers convincing.

Amanda was not wounded; in the days following no one spoke of wounds that she might have had; the examination which was carried out on her when measures restricting her personal freedom were taken ruled out the presence of wounds. Meredith’s situation was the complete opposite. In relation to this and to the circumstance by which haematological stains attributable to Meredith were found on the inside of the door, on the toilet-seat cover, on the light switch, it should be deduced that the haematological components found in the sink, in the bidet, on the box of cotton buds were also from Meredith. Nor can it otherwise be argued for the presence of a drop of Amanda’s blood on the tap of the sink. This consisted of a spot of coagulated blood, with respect to which Amanda explained that it came from her own ear having been pierced; this spot, furthermore, was located towards the inside of the sink: distinct, separate and morphologically different, therefore, from the trace found in the sink itself.

This Court also considers that the components of the mixed trace specimens were deposited simultaneously, and were deposited by Amanda.

Against this conclusion, the observations with respect to the shared use of the bathroom by the two young women, the resulting likelihood of their biological traces being present, and the way in which these specimens were gathered [by the police], are not valid, in the sense that they are not considered either convincing or plausible, neither in relation to the overall situation present in the bathroom, which has been described, nor with [regard to] the statements made by Gioia Brocci and by Dr. Stefanoni, who both stated that the trace specimens present in the bathroom and in the bidet were of the same colour, as of diluted blood, and appeared to constitute one single trace, one [part] in the bidet and one in the sink. The drop at the top and the drop at the bottom had continuity and formed a continuous pattern. The specimens were collected accordingly, just like any other specimen which necessarily occupies a certain space, and which the technician does not collect one little spot after another.

It should also be noted that the statements according to which the traces in the sink and in the bidet each constituted a single specimen correspond to the act of cleaning the victim’s blood, an action previously mentioned and during which it would have been easy to leave a mixed sample, constituted precisely of biological material from the victim (blood) and biological material from whoever was cleaning (cells lost during scrubbing/rubbing). It should further be noted that such mixed trace specimens, with the morphology shown, were found both in the sink and in the bidet.

It should be considered that those in the sink occurred when Amanda, as has it should be considered that they [the traces] originated from a similar activity, but in relation to the feet, which must also have been covered with blood as can be inferred from the print of a bare foot left on the sky-blue mat, stained with Meredith’s blood. This print will be dealt with subsequently. Reference to it is made now in order to make the point that the presence of such a print of a bare foot brings one to consider that Amanda (also) could have had bare feet, stained with Meredith’s blood.

The mixed trace specimens found in the sink and in the bidet and on the box of cotton buds therefore signify that Amanda, soiled with Meredith’s blood, entered the bathroom which was right next door to the room in which Meredith had been stabbed; putting her hand against the door she left a mark on it and the dribble of blood which remained is a sign [proof] of this, and left a mark also - still with Meredith’s blood - on the light switch; she touched the cotton-bud box which was on the sink and left a mixed trace specimen of herself and of Meredith; to clean her hands she used the sink in which, through the act of scrubbing, she left her own biological trace mixed with that of Meredith, and used the bidet, most likely to wash her feet, which must have become *blood+ stained in Meredith’s room, where there were widespread and abundant traces of blood even on the floor, and where the blood was spattered over various parts of the room, and also in the bidet she left a trace specimen of what appeared to be diluted blood, which contained both her own DNA and that of Meredith.

Chris C · 29th November 2011, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by pilot padron

Then I am sure you can quickly and easily understand why so many people, including the Italian crowd who loudly booed outside after the verdict, justly feel exactly as you feel about Prosecutor Mignini, but now about Knox and Sollecito.

The decision of Judge Hellmann changes nothing with regard to Knox and Sollecito's actions either.
In fact, Judge Hellmann's verbal statements after his TV cameras were turned off directly alluded to the possibility that Knox and Sollecito knew a lot more about Meredith's death than Judge Hellmann's views of the evidence proved to him and his jurors

BTW:
Many newer readers may not be aware of just how vicious the vitriol toward Prosecutor Mignini was here.
May I suggest a quick search using tags that will quickly show some of the horrid names he was sadly vilified with here.
All this simply because he believed Knox and Sollicito were very guilty.
He simply did his best.
He simply did no more than perform his legally defined duty to show the Courts why he so believed.

Yeah I agree 100 percent! Knox and Sollecito got off on a technicality. Since there was no evidence, they had to let them off with a not guilty verdict.

Kaosium · 29th November 2011, 11:25 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

This one intrigues me a lot. Miss Stefanoni BSc (not a Doctor) knew perfectly well that DNA material would degrade if stored in a plastic container. But she deliberately put that bra clasp in a plastic container. One might speculate as to why.

Then when she was challenged, she announced, apparently, that this was a certified container, from the USA, no less. She didn't say what it was certified for. It could have been certified watertight, or airtight, or to be 5ml in volume, or to be made of a certain grade of polypropylene. One thing it certainly was not, was certified to be suitable for storage of forensic DNA samples. But the mention of "the USA" was clearly intended to imply it was in some way superior to mere European requirements. (Quite funny in the light of the guilter criticism of Conti and Vecchiotti for citing some US references in their report.)

But there is no such thing as a plastic container suitable for storage of DNA for this purpose. Not in Italy, not in the USA, not anywhere. Earlier in the thread I linked to and quoted from current US federal guidelines for correct collection and storage of such material, and they were absolutely clear about using paper, not plastic, and why.

Just one more implicit lie, under oath, from this dishonest woman. If we collected these lies, obfuscations and obstructions, how many could we list?

I don't know, I tend to get lost trying to remember all the lies. I think it might be easier to remember the truths!

Let us see, so far I started with:

1. The amount of material on the knife 'a few hundred pgs.'
2. The 'Shy Striation' from the knife.
3. The negative controls. (I forget which one she told and which Comodi delivered)
4. That there was only one male contributor to the clasp.

You added:

5. That the 'certified' plastic bag from the US was an appropriate storage device.

Others off the top of my head and I'm certain cannot be all-inclusive:

6. That the luminol prints were never tested for blood.
7. That her team performed the collection of the samples adequately and in compliance with standards.

Hrm. Now I'm stuck, I'm sure she must have told some lies in the course of denying the defense, and later the independent experts, the requisite data, I just can't think of a specific one that amounts to more than bureaucratic resistance. There's others that are just part of a bigger lie, such as whether one can have 14 or so 'stutters' on a Y-halotype with a 28 cycle Identifiler kit with only one contributor, but I'm drawing a blank on any others.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

And yet this doesn't give posters such as Machiavelli any pause at all. Last I saw of it, he was still insisting that since Stefanoni had used special plastic containers from the USA she had actually gone above and beyond the call of duty and should probably be given a medal. What do you do when people wilfully refuse to look at facts like this even when their noses are rubbed in them?

Rolfe.

Rolfe · 30th November 2011, 02:15 AM

Originally Posted by Fine

"Isn't it logical that two people who share a house would have mixed DNA in the house?" asked Amanda's lead lawyer, Carlo Dalla Vedova, on cross examination.

"Not in the context of a homicide," replied Stefanoni.... (Angel Face, page 131)

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Massei⁴ makes it quite clear that he realizes the samples were not mixed blood, and as detailed below attempts to make the case that somehow Amanda's skin cells rubbed off in that one moment as opposed to all those other moments the two months she'd been living there, no doubt using her bathroom just about every day.

This is just completely bonkers. Are they suggesting that people's DNA will happily co-mingle in shared accommodation, particularly in a shared bathroom, but the moment there is a homicide in the house it will all magically disentangle itself so that any mixed traces found may be assumed to be damning evidence?

The fact that Amanda had no visible wounds to explain the presence of her blood, thus necessitating the invention of an entirely hypothetical nose-bleed, should have been another big warning sign that this was tenuous stuff.

Massei's explanation is just fantasy football.

Rolfe.

halides1 · 30th November 2011, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

This one intrigues me a lot. Miss Stefanoni BSc (not a Doctor) knew perfectly well that DNA material would degrade if stored in a plastic container. But she deliberately put that bra clasp in a plastic container. One might speculate as to why.

Rolfe,

Mrs. Stefanoni did not get criticized as much as she should have for storing the bra clasp improperly. It was the best piece of evidence in the trial, which is not to say that it was a good piece of evidence in absolute terms, yet it was allowed to rot and to rust. That having been said, retesting it would probably have yielded a result similar to one that was observed. In other words I don't see a large upside to storing the clasp in an improper way deliberately. Yet, there is a good chance that it was done deliberately.

halides1 · 30th November 2011, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by Fine

_____________________________

Halides,

Well, Stefanoni testified---as quoted by Massei---that her lab analysis alone didn't confirm the mixture of Amanda's blood with Meredith's blood. However, in her testimony she did say that it would be reasonable to conclude that the mixed DNA was a mixture of bloods. Here's how Barbie narrates the court testimony..............

"Isn't it logical that two people who share a house would have mixed DNA in the house?" asked Amanda's lead lawyer, Carlo Dalla Vedova, on cross examination.

"Not in the context of a homicide," replied Stefanoni.... (Angel Face, page 131)

So the mixed blood was never a lab result. Instead, an inference drawn from a consideration of the "context." Does Dr. Stefanoni want to be a police detective too?

Fine,

Outright forensic fraud is one thing, but forensic bias is a more subtle, but perhaps more serious problem. Forensic scientists are too frequently given information that they should not have, if one expects them to behave objectively. Stefanoni's conclusion is obviously unwarranted, but I don't think that the problem is with her alone. Koppl and Balko wrote, "But studies have consistently shown that even conscientious scientists can be affected by cognitive bias."

Fine · 30th November 2011, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

This is just completely bonkers. Are they suggesting that people's DNA will happily co-mingle in shared accommodation, particularly in a shared bathroom, but the moment there is a homicide in the house it will all magically disentangle itself so that any mixed traces found may be assumed to be damning evidence?

The fact that Amanda had no visible wounds to explain the presence of her blood, thus necessitating the invention of an entirely hypothetical nose-bleed, should have been another big warning sign that this was tenuous stuff.

Massei's explanation is just fantasy football.

Rolfe.

____________________

Rolfe,

Well, unlike Dr. Stefanoni, you clearly don't understand basic biology. When there's that much hatred between two people---like between Amanda and Meredith after the homicide--- the non-blood cells, like saliva, formerly co-mingled, automatically disengage, shying away from one another. (Wouldn't you?) The blood cells have a different nature, because they contain them killer cells. So after the homicide those respective blood cells express their mutual hostility by attacking each other, resulting in mixed blood. Do you understand now....or have I used too many big words?

///

Rolfe · 30th November 2011, 08:55 AM

Rolfe.

27th November 2011, 05:23 PM	#81
Draca Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,097	Originally Posted by Katody Matrass It's also interesting to note how all those "best friends" who testified so feverishly against Amanda in reality gave not a flying frack about Meredith. The alcohol abusing English group, none of them expressed any real concern about Meredith staying alone at night in a desolate building. Sophie Purton who was in such a rush to view her stupid TV show that she bothered only to walk Meredith half a way. And she neither called nor texted her to check if she safely got home. Giacomo was no better. Left her completely alone as it was convenient to have her look over his in-house "drug operation" while he was on vacation. Interesting detail was how he ignored her completely in public situations. He didn't bother to call her either, texted her once only to order her to take his stupid pants off the line. I think the attack that those people started on Amanda stemmed from their own qualms and guilt. If Sophie walked Meredith home then she herself would have had to turn around and walk home alone. It wouldn't make sense for her to do that. It would have been good if the girls had an agreement to call each other, but it was just a short walk. Also, say Meredith called Sophie real quick when she got home to let her know she arrived home, how would that have changed anything? The call would have been over quickly. If Rudy was in the bathroom as many believe and Meredith called Sophie on her way to her room how would anything have been different? Rudy still would have tried to leave quietly out the front door at some point only to find the door locked. Leading to things going out of control. I would say much harder things of Giacomo Silenzi. Also, one of the other boys downstairs had made friends with Rudy Guede. Anyone have a cite on who that was again? If they didn't have the poor judgement to befriend a local lowlife drug dealer and invite him back to the cottage after some b-ball than he wouldn't have become familiar with the cottage. Rudy Guede was given free access to case the joint through his friends. He took an opportune moment to try for rent money when most of them were gone for the holiday weekend. It is likely he tried for the cottage because he was familiar with the layout and residents. He went to the cottage possibly to visit, saw it was deserted, went and ate some kabobs during which time he decided to try for it. He went back to the cottage to rob it. Giacomo Silenzi was also growing for his own use and friends. He apparently didn't talk to Meredith in public. What an awful relationship to not have your new boyfriend bring you home for the holiday weekend or speak to you in public. "Don't forget to bring in the laundry and water my pot, dear Meredith." He does seem like a bit of a dirt bag. A lot was made in the press of the strange men and friends that Amanda had brought to the cottage. It was one of the strange friends of the boys downstairs that took Meredith's life. If they hadn't allowed him to familiarize himself with the cottage he probably wouldn't have chosen to rob it. In Perugia shock there was a blog on 'someone in the garden'. Meredith had seen someone watching the cottage from the garden in the week before the murder. I do wonder if that watcher was possibly Rudy Guede?
Draca Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,097	Last edited by Draca; 27th November 2011 at 06:38 PM.

27th November 2011, 09:58 PM	#82
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,357	Originally Posted by Grinder An interesting article WILL AMANDA KNOX EVER HAVE THE LIFE SHE DREAMED OF? That was a surprisingly sympathetic article. Originally Posted by Rolfe I haven't looked up the detail of this, but the word "hell" in German means "bright". The word for hell is "hölle". Rolfe. As my German vocabulary atrophies with disuse, "hell" only has one context - "light" as a reference to beer contra dunkel for "dark".
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

28th November 2011, 02:48 AM	#83
Fine Muse Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 580	Originally Posted by Grinder An interesting article WILL AMANDA KNOX EVER HAVE THE LIFE SHE DREAMED OF? _______________________________ From the article: "But however strong and determined she was, those 1,427 days have left Amanda with thinning locks and her frail frame is said to be proof that she struggled to eat during the countdown to her appeal. “The stress of Amanda’s ordeal may well have caused her weight loss and hair loss. You would anticipate that there would be a recovery but the only way to fix her body is to fix her emotions first,” says Dr Murphy." Amanda isn't losing her hair. She's not losing her eyesight. She's not losing her hearing. She's not losing weight. She ain't losin' nothin'. Here's a photograph of Dr. Naomi Murphy......... http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...omi_murphy.jpg Should she too fix her emotions first???? ///
Fine Muse Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 580	Last edited by Gaspode; 28th November 2011 at 05:19 AM. Reason: Changed hotlink to link as per rule 5

28th November 2011, 05:14 AM	#84
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,327	Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner Thank you. I had been seeing the references here, but when I read some reviews/comments on Amazon, it was such pervasive boilerplate from the pro-guilt folks, I wanted to know more about the source. He's had 'help' since refining his 'theory' as the 'PR campaign' is a pet theory of some of the online supporters of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt. It 'explained' how the press which once thirsted for the blood of Amanda and Raffaele after the murder and through much of the first trial had become more skeptical near the end of that trial and some elements eventually being downright dubious about the conviction. I imagine they would say those reporters were 'gotten to' by the massive 'PR campaign,' which outside a few television appearances by the family and friends of Amanda and some e-mails sent to reporters didn't amount to all that much, and most all of that coverage would have existed anyway, all the Gogerty-Marriott group could do was advise. Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner And I see it's not going away any time soon... I guess with some people just saying the words 'PR firm' means nothing associated with them can be true, or they have an effect on just about all elements of a case, even 'explaining' an acquittal by a foreign court!
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,327	__________________ "Honi soit qui mal y pense."

28th November 2011, 06:37 AM	#85
pilot padron Muse Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 680	Curt Knox apparently does not share your opinion about .... Originally Posted by Kaosium He's had 'help' since refining his 'theory' as the 'PR campaign' is a pet theory of some of the online supporters of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt. It 'explained' how the press which once thirsted for the blood of Amanda and Raffaele after the murder and through much of the first trial had become more skeptical near the end of that trial and some elements eventually being downright dubious about the conviction. I imagine they would say those reporters were 'gotten to' by the massive 'PR campaign,' which outside a few television appearances by the family and friends of Amanda and some e-mails sent to reporters didn't amount to all that much, and most all of that coverage would have existed anyway, all the Gogerty-Marriott group could do was advise. I guess with some people just saying the words 'PR firm' means nothing associated with them can be true, or they have an effect on just about all elements of a case, even 'explaining' an acquittal by a foreign court! .....what the PR firm did or did not do to help Sollecito and Knox. Curt did say something about hiring Marriott being the best thing he ever did. Didn't he ?? And the effect of the PR Firm's blitz were actually mentioned more than once in that "foreign court". Wasn't it ?? Kinda like repeating the long in tooth talking point (again) that Greg Hampikian did not do much to help Knox and Sollecito either. Eh ????
pilot padron Muse Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 680

28th November 2011, 07:21 AM	#86
Grinder Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,386	The PR meme was not started by Mignini. The PGP were on to the PR supertanker concept as early as 2008 or early 2009. The PGP complained about Amanda's parents and step dad making TV appearances and any favorable newspaper stories. Perhaps RW can find some early references on Shock or Rose could search P**. Mignini didn't talk about the PR or complain about the press until the appeal was underway. Vogt wrote about the PR efforts well back.
Grinder Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,386

28th November 2011, 07:44 AM	#87
Grinder Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,386	Back to a parody, sort of. Curatolo's testimony, besides being completely unbelievable, never made sense in terms of the timing of the crime by anybody's theory. I'd like to know how PGP think the events in the plaza took place in conjunction with the murder. Curatolo says he saw them at 9:27pm when he arrived. He says that they were there until 11:30 or later. He doesn't claim to have watched them the whole time but IIRC he never said he looked up and they were gone. Are the PGP saying that the kids ran up there after Jovana Popovic left the apartment, grabbed Rudy by the ear and killed Meredith. Then they apparently, according to PGP, showered or changed clothing and ran up to the plaza. They would be wet on what the PGP call a chilly night and just stood there. They then waited 2 hours and returned to the cottage to clean and retrieve clothing and the most recent PG idea: they had sex over the dead body. Somehow they didn't leave any hairs, footprints, or anything in the room after both the murder and the sexual activity. This theory makes the TOD 9:30pm and makes Nara's testimony completely wrong. Now if we want Nara and the 11:30 TOD to work that would mean the kids had to hang out in the plaza for 2 hours on that cold, cold night watching for Meredith (long wait as she was home), the car break down, the tow truck arrive and possibly Rudy showing up. This scenario is particularly difficult to understand. If Rudy were inside then hard to believe the deed wasn't done long before they left. Hard to believe they ran down there before the car broke down, murdered Meredith and ran back to the plaza with blood all over them. Or did they tell Rudy " tough luck black man and then wash off before returning to the plaza." Gotta go - maybe someone else could make a case for the Curatolo story.
Grinder Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,386

28th November 2011, 07:45 AM	#88
smkovalinksy Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,056	Originally Posted by Kaosium I guess with some people just saying the words 'PR firm' means nothing associated with them can be true, or they have an effect on just about all elements of a case, even 'explaining' an acquittal by a foreign court! Considering how this theory has taken hold, it will be something to see the refutations of the Massei logic boldly set forth in Hellmann's Motivation report, as I expect them to be. If - as I also expect - the Supreme Court upholds the Hellmann, and not the prosecution logic, it may be a bit harder to lay all at the door of a "massive PR campaign'. Although, logic may not rule with certain persons: There are even today posters debating whether Knox and Sollecito found stepping in the blood such a turn-on that they decided to have sex prior to fleeing the cottage. This, post-acquittals!

28th November 2011, 09:59 AM	#89
Katody Matrass Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,964	Originally Posted by Draca If Sophie walked Meredith home then she herself would have had to turn around and walk home alone. It wouldn't make sense for her to do that. It would have been good if the girls had an agreement to call each other, but it was just a short walk. Also, say Meredith called Sophie real quick when she got home to let her know she arrived home, how would that have changed anything? The call would have been over quickly. If Rudy was in the bathroom as many believe and Meredith called Sophie on her way to her room how would anything have been different? Rudy still would have tried to leave quietly out the front door at some point only to find the door locked. Leading to things going out of control. The friends could have walked her home as a group. If Purton called Meredith and got no answer, they could have walked the short distance to check if she got safely home. Meredith was under attack at the time, that could have changed everything. Anyway, the point is, the friends had a lot to blame themselves for. They had a subconscious incentive to look for someone else to pass the guilt. Knox, seen by them as an outsider, the strange one, was a perfect choice. Considering that the police had her in their crosshairs already, it was much easier to elicit the desirable testimony from them.
	__________________ _{Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.}

28th November 2011, 11:31 AM	#90
Osterwelle Scholar Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 90	Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner As my German vocabulary atrophies with disuse, "hell" only has one context - "light" as a reference to beer contra dunkel for "dark". "hell" is indeed the German adjective for "light", but the "hell" in name of the judge more likely comes from "helle" which is an old term for hillsides/slopes. - Osterwelle
Osterwelle Scholar Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 90

28th November 2011, 01:20 PM	#91
geebee2 Student Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 35	Originally Posted by Katody Matrass Anyway, the point is, the friends had a lot to blame themselves for. Oh come on. It's unfortunate that Meredith came home to an empty cottage, but that had to happen almost every day. Each evening, someone would be first home. Rudy Guede bears almost all of the responsibility. The police, a tiny bit, for not dealing with him earlier. The landlord a tiny bit for not fixing the faulty shutter, as Filomena had requested.
geebee2 Student Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 35

28th November 2011, 02:09 PM	#92
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,327	Originally Posted by pilot padron .....what the PR firm did or did not do to help Sollecito and Knox. Curt did say something about hiring Marriott being the best thing he ever did. Didn't he ?? Yep, and why wouldn't he? Who'd want to deal with a feral press without one? On the business end it makes dealing with the media a whole lot easier, for one thing you don't have to answer the damn telephone every few minutes! Originally Posted by pilot padron And the effect of the PR Firm's blitz were actually mentioned more than once in that "foreign court". Wasn't it ?? What do you consider a 'press blitz' attributable to Gogerty-Marriott? What dates and outlets do you think were affected? Yes, Mignini did mention them, but he also ascribed to them magic powers as well. Do you believe in magic? Originally Posted by pilot padron Kinda like repeating the long in tooth talking point (again) that Greg Hampikian did not do much to help Knox and Sollecito either. Eh ???? What do you think Dr. Greg Hampikian did to help Amanda Knox? I think his bringing exposure to the shoddy dishonest work done by Stefanoni was very important to the case, but not as important as the work being scientifically unreliable and invalid. He didn't make that so, <Dr. Stefanoni did the honors there, and without that work being substandard there's nothing Dr. Hampikian could have done for Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito.
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,327	__________________ "Honi soit qui mal y pense."

28th November 2011, 02:22 PM	#93
Katody Matrass Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,964	Originally Posted by geebee2 Oh come on. It's unfortunate that Meredith came home to an empty cottage, but that had to happen almost every day. Each evening, someone would be first home. Rudy Guede bears almost all of the responsibility. The police, a tiny bit, for not dealing with him earlier. The landlord a tiny bit for not fixing the faulty shutter, as Filomena had requested. I agree, but I'm not talking about objective responsibility. I'm thinking about the uncomfortable subjective feelings of guilt and thoughts about "what could I have done different" that they had.
	__________________ _{Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.}

28th November 2011, 03:29 PM	#94
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,339	Is anyone else following the current Leveson inquiry into the behaviour of the British media? And I don't think the American or Italian media are any better. Here's the latest. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15914969 Quote: Robert Jay QC read a statement by Mr Jefferies to the inquiry, which is being held at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. "The national media shamelessly vilified me. The UK press set about what can only be described as a witch hunt," it said. "It was clear that the tabloid press had decided that I was guilty of Miss Yeates's murder and seemed determined to persuade the public of my guilt. "They embarked on a frenzied campaign to blacken my character by publishing a series of very serious allegations about me which were completely untrue. "Allegations which were a mixture of smear, innuendo and complete fiction." Former teacher Mr Jefferies described how his reputation was left in tatters after police wrongly arrested him over the murder of landscape architect Miss Yeates. Christopher Jefferies was an innocent man when he was arrested after Joanna Yeates's murder. But that didn't stop headlines such as "Jo suspect is Peeping Tom" being published at the time. What is striking about his evidence is how the damage is ongoing. The former teacher successfully sued eight newspapers. The attorney general took action for contempt of court. And yet, Mr Jefferies believes what was said will have a lasting impact as some will judge him to be a "weird character" who is "best avoided". I watched some of this on TV. Chris Jefferies has recently had a conservative haircut (and applied a spot of Grecian 2000 I think) and was dressed in a normal lounge suit. However, pictures of him published at the time of his arrest showed a wild-haired, wild-eyed eccentric. Watching him give evidence, I have to say his body language was indeed strange, despite the conservative, normal appearance. But he was innocent. Completely innocent. He's just a guy who is a little quirky, to coin a phrase. But he was absolutely pilloried and vilified by the media, and has been caused lasting damage. Now if he had had a Marriott to try to mitigate the media storm, might that not have been the best decision of his life? (I wonder if has has got someone now, to advise the very obvious makeover.) Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

28th November 2011, 04:43 PM	#95
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,327	Originally Posted by Grinder The PR meme was not started by Mignini. The PGP were on to the PR supertanker concept as early as 2008 or early 2009. The PGP complained about Amanda's parents and step dad making TV appearances and any favorable newspaper stories. Perhaps RW can find some early references on Shock or Rose could search P*. Mignini didn't talk about the PR or complain about the press until the appeal was underway. Vogt wrote about the PR efforts well back. They were just parroting the words of their Master! I thought that once too, that the 'PR campaign' meme was in fact invented by his admirers elsewhere, but if you go back looking through it you find that it was immediately important to Mignini, and he attacked it through the press and the courts when it began. Remember that the Sollecito* family engaged in a 'PR campaign' in Italy, and were 'rewarded' with a lawsuit to stifle them. In the British and US, negative coverage of Mignini started in early '08, with Douglas Preston (scroll down to the Feb '08 entry) as a result of publishing his new book, and the "48 Hours" with Paul Ciolino. In a cursory search I found public complaints by Mignini in October of 2008. However his furry little friends certainly put more time and effort into spreading the 'message' and fitting each person into their proper place in the conspiracy!
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,327	__________________ "Honi soit qui mal y pense." Last edited by Kaosium; 28th November 2011 at 05:33 PM.

28th November 2011, 10:57 PM	#96
Parallax New Blood Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 8	Mr Quennell seems to be expanding his talent for critical analysis of the facts to encompass Italian politics. Knowing of his disdain for 'sloppy' research, someone should point out to him that Mario Monti was twice appointed as an EU commissioner, not 'elected.'
Parallax New Blood Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 8

29th November 2011, 01:53 AM	#97
RoseMontague Drama Queen Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 5,187	Posted at PMF: Quote: There is no innocent explanation for Sollecito's DNA on Meredith's bra clasp. Ignore for the moment the old "contamination" meme. There is no reasonable explanation for Knox's lamp to be inside Meredith's room with absolutely no evidence of Guede on it--no prints, no blood. There is no reason for Guede to have locked her door and to have done so in a way that it made it appear he had exited straight down the hallway. Guede might have been argued to have known that Meredith had two phones but it's equally reasonable to argue that he didn't know. Knox, however, did know she had two phones and only she had a reason to take both of them. That's four elements of the investigation without considering anything else pointing directly at K&S. We could, if we wished, include Knox's accurate description of the attack that she "imagined". There were elements of her signed statements that indicate she was not really in the kitchen plugging her ears but inside the room where the assault occurred. Let's look at this further. How can we ignore contamination? Does that mean we also ignore the other numerous profiles on the bra clasp? If they did not get there by contamination, just how many people were playing with Meredith's bra and why? You can't ignore it. The lamp question. What evidence is there that this lamp was used in a cleanup or even brought into Meredith's room by Amanda and/or Raffaele? Amanda's testimony shows she is clearly as puzzled as the rest of us over the presence of the lamp. The facts are we don't know who brought the lamp into Meredith's room, we don't know if it was before or after the crime, and we don't know why it was brought in there. The locked door. Guede may have wanted to delay the discovery of the body. You find two phones are you going to leave one and take the other? I see no evidence in Amanda's statements that indicate an accurate description of the attack. Is it the scream or the thud being referred to here? What elements of her statements place her inside the room where the attack occurred? Let's use some common sense here. Vague references not backed by facts. Non-specific and unsupported assertions. Ignoring part of the evidence to focus on just a part that points towards guilt. This is why the appeal court found AK and RS innocent. The evidence is not there.
	__________________ "I have hated the words and I have loved them, and I hope I have made them right".

29th November 2011, 07:15 AM	#98
Grinder Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,386	Originally Posted by Kaosium They were just parroting the words of their Master! I thought that once too, that the 'PR campaign' meme was in fact invented by his admirers elsewhere, but if you go back looking through it you find that it was immediately important to Mignini, and he attacked it through the press and the courts when it began. Remember that the Sollecito family engaged in a 'PR campaign' in Italy, and were 'rewarded' with a lawsuit to stifle them. In the British and US, negative coverage of Mignini started in early '08, with Douglas Preston (scroll down to the Feb '08 entry) as a result of publishing his new book, and the "48 Hours" with Paul Ciolino. In a cursory search I found public complaints by Mignini in October of 2008. However his furry little friends certainly put more time and effort into spreading the 'message' and fitting each person into their proper place in the conspiracy! Not of great import but I think those statements of Mignini referred to the press coverage but not specifically to a PR effort although I may missed something in my quick read. I remember arguing with the PGP on Shock because they kept referring to the PR firm as Gogerty, Stark, Marriott whereas the company had been Gogerty Marriott for over a year when the murder occurred. I'm pretty sure that was very early in the case and before the linked Mignini stories. The PGP were squealing about each and every story that didn't assume guilt. I can't remember when they started the "Marriott controlled the US national media specifically CBS because he had once worked as a reporter at a CBS Seattle affiliate" I think that was later as it took a while to reach certain PG members. If Rose or someone with search capabilities could check P** it would be interesting, perhaps only to me, to know when Marriott first appeared there.
Grinder Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,386

29th November 2011, 07:27 AM	#99
Grinder Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,386	Originally Posted by RoseMontague Let's look at this further. How can we ignore contamination? Does that mean we also ignore the other numerous profiles on the bra clasp? If they did not get there by contamination, just how many people were playing with Meredith's bra and why? You can't ignore it. They always ignore the part of the review that says from all the alleles found practically anybody's profile could be constructed. Had Raf's DNA, fingerprints or something else been found around the murder room, then the evidence on the bra might be of significance. Quote: The lamp question. What evidence is there that this lamp was used in a cleanup or even brought into Meredith's room by Amanda and/or Raffaele? Amanda's testimony shows she is clearly as puzzled as the rest of us over the presence of the lamp. The facts are we don't know who brought the lamp into Meredith's room, we don't know if it was before or after the crime, and we don't know why it was brought in there. If Filomena's room had been next to Meredith's, would the PGP be saying that her lamp in Meredith's room be evidence that Filomena had murdered MK? Quote: I see no evidence in Amanda's statements that indicate an accurate description of the attack. Is it the scream or the thud being referred to here? What elements of her statements place her inside the room where the attack occurred? Well, interesting they can see accurate description in the vague early statements but can't see the retraction in the last two notes.
Grinder Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,386

29th November 2011, 09:17 AM	#100
bookworm Muse Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 541	I often hear it said that Meredith's locked door proves in some way that Rudy didn't lock it.....I don't know if I'm just dense but I don't get that. Why wouldn't Rudy lock Meredith's door? Makes sense to me that he would lock it to buy himself some time.
bookworm Muse Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 541

29th November 2011, 09:33 AM	#101
Osterwelle Scholar Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 90	Originally Posted by RoseMontague How can we ignore contamination? It's fatal to the case for those who want them guilty, nothing else. Originally Posted by RoseMontague The lamp question. I don't know what's more disturbing here. The focus of the guilters on that completely meaningless detail or their appearent inability of logical thinking. No other explanation, wtf? Originally Posted by RoseMontague The locked door. Same as above. The only thing you can deduce from the locked door is that the killer was able to use a key and of course wanted to delay the discovery. Originally Posted by RoseMontague You find two phones are you going to leave one and take the other? I haven't even heard a reasonable explanation why AK or RS would've taken the phones at all and not simply turn them off, lest one that would convince me that it would point to any certain person, except maybe towards a burglar. The guilters have dead squad so they fantasize a lot. That's all... - Osterwelle
Osterwelle Scholar Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 90

29th November 2011, 10:12 AM	#102
halides1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 5,530	reverse stutter peaks Originally Posted by RoseMontague Posted at PMF: "There is no innocent explanation for Sollecito's DNA on Meredith's bra clasp. Ignore for the moment the old "contamination" meme." Let's look at this further. How can we ignore contamination? Does that mean we also ignore the other numerous profiles on the bra clasp? If they did not get there by contamination, just how many people were playing with Meredith's bra and why? You can't ignore it. RoseMontague, The presence of other alleles is extremely problematic for the prosecution. That may be why Mrs. Stefanoni tried to wish some of them away as reverse stutter peaks. Here is a link to an italian conference on forensic DNA. Meredith Kercher is mentioned in the article.
halides1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 5,530	__________________ “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.” – Winston Churchill

29th November 2011, 10:34 AM	#103
halides1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 5,530	Barbie should identify her forensic experts Barbie Nadeau reportedly said, "There are mixed genetic traces in spots of blood in which Amanda's traces are higher than Meredith's. That implies mixed blood according to the dozens of forensics experts I've interviewed about this." I only know one supposed expert who claimed this, Colonel Garofano. This statement makes no sense. There are a number of variables that could affect peak height, and here are a few: the amount of biological material from each person, the degree of degradation of the sample, and the possible presence of inhibitors of the PCR reaction. The presence or absence of inhibitors might affect all peak heights within a sample; therefore, inhibitors would probably change absolute peak heights but perhaps not change relative peak heights. I have discussed the blood and DNA evidence with Dan Krane and Igor Lednev, both of whom have strong credentials as forensic scientists. In addition Charlie Wilkes posted comments from Greg Hampikian on this subject. I challenge Ms. Nadeau to name her experts. Then let's have a discussion with them about this question.
halides1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 5,530	__________________ “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.” – Winston Churchill

29th November 2011, 11:35 AM	#104
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,327	Originally Posted by smkovalinksy Considering how this theory has taken hold, it will be something to see the refutations of the Massei logic boldly set forth in Hellmann's Motivation report, as I expect them to be. If - as I also expect - the Supreme Court upholds the Hellmann, and not the prosecution logic, it may be a bit harder to lay all at the door of a "massive PR campaign'. Although, logic may not rule with certain persons: There are even today posters debating whether Knox and Sollecito found stepping in the blood such a turn-on that they decided to have sex prior to fleeing the cottage. This, post-acquittals! It's kind of amusing just what plenary powers are attributed to this 'PR campaign,' I don't know what would wean believers off the idea now, as it what it takes to dispel that effect is actual knowledge of the case. Take as an example the idea that Dr. Hampikian could have had an 'effect' on the case, as has been promoted recently. I personally think Greg Hampikian deserves a round of applause for exposing the work done by Stefanoni and approved by Biondi, but he didn't do anything that wasn't 'done' already for him by Stefanoni. I have to admit coming in to this that I at least entertained the idea that perhaps the signers of the DNA letter might have been otherwise motivated, meaning they might have been making big hay over little things in hopes of helping the cause of Amanda's innocence and perhaps some esoteric future DNA defense, so I decided to look it up and found this which would seem to refute the idea that scientists are dubious of the forensic value of LCN/LT DNA analysis--until I read it. Instead it made it quite clear that even the promoters of forensic LCN/LT DNA analysis would have been horrified by Stefanoni's work, as she didn't even give lip service to the standards and practices promoted by the professionals in the field. You can see it written all through that presentation, from the very beginning with Butler's slides when he asks if labs are 'waterboarding' their DNA with these techniques: Originally Posted by Butler Promega Presentation Page 3 At what point do you draw a line and not attempt to analyze data below this line? – A certain amount of input DNA (based on what data?) – A pre-determined stochastic threshold (based on what data?) She lied about the DNA she quantified on the knife, claiming originally it was 'a couple hundred picograms' when instead it was ten or less, which is easy to determine from her results which can be seen (on page 16) here where it shows the results of ten picograms of material amplified with the 28 cycle Identifiler process (as noted in Massei--pages 189¹ & 258²) which shows the unlikelihood of getting a pair of alleles over the 50 RFU bare minimum stochastic threshold with 10 pg or less, which meant I didn't have to 'trust' the defense appeals docs when they said: Originally Posted by Amanda's Appeal Doc 'Genetic Testing of the Knife' section The defense argues that the court should have excluded the DNA testing on Raffaele's kitchen knife. Dr. Stefanoni testified her job was to show objective proof by precise analysis, including use of scientific evidence as reflected by the IFIC. Her own notes reflect that the DNA on the knife blade was showing a finding of “too low, too low, too low ...” The testing done on the knife also showed it was not blood. Dr. Stefanoni initially stated that there was a finding of “a few hundred” picograms and she used real-time PCR for findings. When data was later provided to the defense it showed that it was actually under 10 picograms, and could even be ZERO. Dr. Stefanoni created her own form of LCN DNA to achieve the desired results. To make her finding she ran the test once, it destroyed the sample so no other testing can ever be done. Reproducibility, and thus reliability, is of paramount importance in this field, which can be seen as a common theme throughout this presentation, seen here in Becky Hill's summary: Originally Posted by Hill Promega Presentation Page 25 Low-template DNA (LT-DNA), often referred to as low-copy number (LCN), is often defined as <100-200 pg input DNA. • In order to improve sensitivity, the number of PCR cycles is often increased (e.g., 31 or 34 cycles instead of 28 cycles) when amplifying DNA with conventional STR kits. • While increasing the assay sensitivity enables lower amounts of DNA to be detected, these “enhanced interrogation techniques” are prone to stochastic amplification effects that are exhibited in the form of allele drop-out and drop-in. • To improve result reliability, replicate amplifications are typically compared from low-level DNA samples and consensus profiles developed. Cautious data interpretation rules are also applied based on validation studies. • Identifiler with 31 cycles and PowerPlex 16 HS with 34 cycles were comparable in performance with low-level DNA analysis. She did none of this of course, her 'sample' was--at best--10 picograms, she used 28 cycles with the Identifiler kit, not even attempting to go to 31 or 34 for more robust results. She did the test knowing it couldn't be reproduced and the results (peaks around 20-50 RFUs) wouldn't meet scientific standards anywhere in the world and she had to know this going in. Theresa Caragine, of the New York City Office of the Medical Examiner, and a big proponent of Low Template/Low Copy Number DNA analysis, puts it like this in her summary: Originally Posted by Caragine Promega presentation summary page 65 LT DNA Results are Reliable when.... A laboratory bases their protocols on previously established and validated procedures and Demonstrates through their own validation procedures that their methods are robust and reproducible. Again, there was nothing 'established' about Stafanoni's procedures, unless lying about data, hiding results and ensuring the destruction of the samples so they couldn't be replicated is valid scientific analysis in Italy, and Drs. Conti and Vecchiotti obviously disagree. They were not amused by her refusal to release the relevant electronic data files, her 'standards' resulting in the amount of material tested or the RFU level employed, nor her curious method for storing the bra clasp, which she claimed contained enough of a sample that retesting was possible, yet when it was examined again it had 'decayed in storage' due to being stored in a plastic container, which is especially interesting as she testified in court that plastic containers could destroy the integrity of the sample, and thus couldn't be used: Originally Posted by Massei Page 214 PMF Still with regard to Exhibit 36, replying to the specific question with which she was asked to specify which elements needed to be present in order to preclude the possibility of identification of a collected biological specimen, Dr Stefanoni indicated an incorrect storage of the specimen in an environment which was not ideal, such as in warmth, or enclosed in a plastic bag where water might be present and, not being able to evaporate, it facilitates the proliferation of micro-organisms. She stressed that the consequence of a conservation carried out in an incorrect way was the deterioration of the specimen so that, when analysing it, very probably‚ no genetic result would be able to be obtained. Why wouldn't Stefanoni have wanted the bra clasp re-tested, why did she refuse to release the entirety of her data to the defense and later the court's independent experts? Perhaps because it would confirm something she tried to hide during the original trial: there were at least four contributors to the bra-clasp DNA, at minimum three of which were male, which you can see in the analysis of the y-halotype here where are listed the right alleles that Stefanoni pretended were 'stutter' or 'noise.' They weren't, they were proof that on that tiny bra clasp, perhaps the size of a girl's pinky fingernail, that somehow outside Meredith's DNA, three other males (none of them Rudy Guede) managed to leave traces of themselves, which is either making rather untoward assumptions about Meredith's 'frequentations' or is pretty damned indicative of contamination. This was hardly the only time something 'disappeared' when someone outside Stefanoni had to look at it, the saga of the special 'protective' striation or scratches that Stefanoni 'hypothesized' 'must' have saved Meredith's DNA on the knife from the intensive cleaning necessary to remove all blood traces as well makes for an entertaining read as Massei has to explain how no one but Stefanoni could ever see them, and why she couldn't find it when it came time to turn it over for others to see. I must say Giancarlo Massei is in rare form with his conclusion: Originally Posted by Massei Page 391 PMF With respect to the existence of these scratches the defence and their consultants had voiced doubts and perplexity; moreover, Professor Cingolani, the expert witness appointed by the GIP [judge of the preliminary hearing] for the incidente probatorio [pre-trial taking of evidence], who was shown the knife, Exhibit 36, during this hearing, it having been made [313] available at the express request of the defence, declared that he had not seen such scratches In this regard, however, Dr. Stefanoni’s statements should be recalled on the manner of observing the knife (under good lighting and moving the blade so that it was thoroughly illuminated) and it should be noted that it does not appear that the others have examined the blade of the knife in the same way and with the same or similar lighting. It must therefore be stated that Dr. Stefanoni, in reporting that she had seen these scratches and had taken sample B from these very scratches, has not stated a falsehood. Thus my guess is Stefanoni knew all along that the DNA she found was likely to be contamination, at best. That's why she invented that shy striation for the knife, why she refused to the last instant to allow the defense or independent experts to see her data proving at last that there were at minimum three male contributors to that tiny clasp, and why they all of a sudden tried to pretend they'd submitted the negative controls in '08, and then pretended then pretended the found them in the garage despite the identifiers not matching. One doesn't need to use the analysis of Dr. Greg Hampikian to conclude the DNA was unreliable and invalid, one can go to the work of his rivals and find even they would pan <Dr. Stefanoni's work, there's no PR campaign on earth that could invent those conditions. Nor could they have manipulated this which is such a thorough beat-down of the procedures of the Polizia Scientifica the judges and jury laughed their way through it. ¹ Originally Posted by Massei Page 189 PMF In the event under discussion, Dr. Stefanoni further specified that [the kit] was used to "analyse the total DNA, the DNA from all 15 points plus the sex gene,...always using the same kit produced by the firm Applera, from Applied Biosystem; a kit that is called Identifiler. ² Originally Posted by Massei Page 258 PMF Dr. Stefanoni (again, before GUP) specified that she had performed the PCR at 28 cycles; in fact, she recalled that she had been asked why "if it was a case of a low copy number sample, she had not amplified it with more than 28 cycles, as usually suggested in the guidelines" (page 88).
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,327	__________________ "Honi soit qui mal y pense."

29th November 2011, 12:20 PM	#105
LondonJohn Philosopher Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 5,599	Originally Posted by RoseMontague Posted at PMF: Let's look at this further. How can we ignore contamination? Does that mean we also ignore the other numerous profiles on the bra clasp? If they did not get there by contamination, just how many people were playing with Meredith's bra and why? You can't ignore it. The lamp question. What evidence is there that this lamp was used in a cleanup or even brought into Meredith's room by Amanda and/or Raffaele? Amanda's testimony shows she is clearly as puzzled as the rest of us over the presence of the lamp. The facts are we don't know who brought the lamp into Meredith's room, we don't know if it was before or after the crime, and we don't know why it was brought in there. The locked door. Guede may have wanted to delay the discovery of the body. You find two phones are you going to leave one and take the other? I see no evidence in Amanda's statements that indicate an accurate description of the attack. Is it the scream or the thud being referred to here? What elements of her statements place her inside the room where the attack occurred? Let's use some common sense here. Vague references not backed by facts. Non-specific and unsupported assertions. Ignoring part of the evidence to focus on just a part that points towards guilt. This is why the appeal court found AK and RS innocent. The evidence is not there. While some ignorant/misguided/biased individuals elsewhere are attempting to rewrite history, it's worth repeating the following: 1) Hellmann's court acquitted Knox and Sollecito on the murder charge (and the sexual aggravation, theft and transportation of knife charges) on the grounds that there was no evidence that they committed the crime. This means that the court found no incriminating evidence pointing to Knox or Sollecito. Every single piece of prosecution evidence was determined by the court to be either false, erroneously interpreted, discredited, wrongly-attributed or explicable in a non-guilt way. Most pro-guilt commentators seem to have miraculously forgotten that Curatolo was exposed as a sad, shambling joke, the entire forensic investigation was exposed as a fiasco at best (and a shocking corruption at worst), and the original Massei ToD was exposed as ridiculous, wiping out in the process the erroneous (or corrupt) "earwitness" testimony. Fear not though, pro-guilt idiots, Hellmann's report will lay all this out in a way that even you may be able to understand - even if you really don't want to understand it. 2) Hellmann's court also acquitted Knox and Sollecito on the charge of staging the burglary/crime scene, on the grounds that this "crime" did not even occur. In other words, the court found that the evidence suggested that the break-in was real - not staged - and that there was no post-murder clean-up. Perhaps if the "crack" police hadn't trampled all over the cottage, hadn't allowed Filomena's room to be materially tampered with and altered, and had bothered to conduct a professional fine-sieve search of the ground below Filomena's window, they might have been able to show that the scene was entirely consistent with a person breaking and entering through that window. That person was Rudy Guede. 3) Hellmann is obliged in Italian law to publish his motivations report within 90 days of the verdict. Since the verdict was read on 3rd October (or 03 OCT 2011 ), this would make the deadline for the motivations report 1st January 2012 (01 JAN 2012 in management-accountant annotation ). I suspect therefore that Hellmann would either have to publish the report some time before that date (given that it's a public holiday), or perhaps might be allowed to publish the day after. Either way, the report will be out on or before 2nd January 2012. I can only guess that those elsewhere placing bets on the release date (Meredith would be so very proud) are sadly ignorant of the 90-day rule. Importantly, with regard to point (1), Hellmann's court is essentially saying that there's no evidence linking Knox or Sollecito with the murder (or associated charges). Therefore, in both a legal and an ethical sense, it's as unfair to associate Knox/Sollecito with the murder as it is to associate anyone in or around Perugia who does not have a cast-iron alibi for the time of the murder. For example, if Mignini or Massei don't have a cast-iron alibi for the night of the murder, then they are technically just as feasible as potential suspects - of course, there's no evidence linking either of them to the murder either. And it's also worth expanding upon the area of "innocence", in order to clarify misconceptions and willful distortions that are taking place elsewhere. In neither a legal nor a factual sense can innocence ever be proven, unless the suspect has an unimpeachable alibi. Without an alibi, it can never be *proven* that any given suspect didn't commit any given crime. Fortunately, wise guardians of jurisprudence and lawmakers understand this fact, and it's why accused persons are not required to prove (or even demonstrate) their innocence if they are charged with a criminal offence. Instead, it's totally incumbent upon the accuser (usually the state in the case of a criminal offence) to prove the guilt of the accused. Now, if the accuser (usually the state) cannot prove the guilt of the accused, then the accused must be acquitted. In law, the accused remains innocent unless proven guilty, so the post-acquittal status of the accused must be one of legal innocence. But of course there are degrees of legal innocence versus factual innocence. For example, if evidence was presented at a trial which tended to suggest the culpability of the accused, but the burden of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was not met, then it might not be ethically unsound (however legally unsound) to regard the acquitted accused as possibly culpable, but that (s)he "got away with it". However, if there is no evidence pointing to the culpability of the accused, then it is then both ethically and legally unreasonable to continue pointing the finger at the acquitted accused. On top of all that, a criminal court is never tasked with determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. It is purely tasked with determining if the accused can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have committed the crime with which (s)he is charged. Therefore, whenever a court acquits, it's not implicitly saying that the accused is innocent. That's why Hellmann gave a philosophically honest answer to a question in a post-trial interview, when he stated that Knox and Sollecito might know something about what happened in the cottage that night. But by the same token, if he had been specifically asked, he would have replied that anyone in Perugia that night without a cast-iron alibi might also know something about what happened. It's a shame that some "commentators" are either too ignorant or too biased to understand the nuances involved here, and to jump all-too-quickly to the erroneous conclusion that Hellmann somehow believes that Knox and Sollecito actually were involved in the murder.
LondonJohn Philosopher Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 5,599

29th November 2011, 12:38 PM	#106
halides1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 5,530	Which prosecution experts? I read somewhere that, "The prosecution's forensic experts testified that Knox's blood had mixed with Meredith's blood." Massei did not draw this conclusion, but I bet that he would have if the proscution's experts had said this. To whom does the quoted passage refer? I would like to refute the claim of mixed blood once and for all time.
halides1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 5,530	__________________ “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.” – Winston Churchill

29th November 2011, 01:17 PM	#107
HumanityBlues Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: New York City Posts: 1,522	Originally Posted by halides1 I have discussed the blood and DNA evidence with Dan Krane and Igor Lednev, both of whom have strong credentials as forensic scientists. In addition Charlie Wilkes posted comments from Greg Hampikian on this subject. I challenge Ms. Nadeau to name her experts. Then let's have a discussion with them about this question. I think the key here is that you've actually talked to real people.
	__________________ Even if you hate the Knox case, you'll appreciate this example of confirmation bias. Taken down by the "impartial mods" because certain aviators kept clickiting clicking violation.

29th November 2011, 02:12 PM	#108
JREF2010 Muse Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 673	Originally Posted by Grinder Back to a parody, sort of. Curatolo's testimony, besides being completely unbelievable, never made sense in terms of the timing of the crime by anybody's theory. I'd like to know how PGP think the events in the plaza took place in conjunction with the murder. Curatolo says he saw them at 9:27pm when he arrived. He says that they were there until 11:30 or later. He doesn't claim to have watched them the whole time but IIRC he never said he looked up and they were gone. Are the PGP saying that the kids ran up there after Jovana Popovic left the apartment, grabbed Rudy by the ear and killed Meredith. Then they apparently, according to PGP, showered or changed clothing and ran up to the plaza. They would be wet on what the PGP call a chilly night and just stood there. They then waited 2 hours and returned to the cottage to clean and retrieve clothing and the most recent PG idea: they had sex over the dead body. Somehow they didn't leave any hairs, footprints, or anything in the room after both the murder and the sexual activity. This theory makes the TOD 9:30pm and makes Nara's testimony completely wrong. Now if we want Nara and the 11:30 TOD to work that would mean the kids had to hang out in the plaza for 2 hours on that cold, cold night watching for Meredith (long wait as she was home), the car break down, the tow truck arrive and possibly Rudy showing up. This scenario is particularly difficult to understand. If Rudy were inside then hard to believe the deed wasn't done long before they left. Hard to believe they ran down there before the car broke down, murdered Meredith and ran back to the plaza with blood all over them. Or did they tell Rudy " tough luck black man and then wash off before returning to the plaza." Gotta go - maybe someone else could make a case for the Curatolo story. This time log of each event always makes me wonder, what it is the Defense had to show Hellman about the hardrives and other proof? What were they requesting to present, to Hellman, in relate to the computer activity exactly? In other words if Hellman had allowed it, I wonder what they wanted to show to the court about the pc activity?
JREF2010 Muse Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 673

29th November 2011, 02:23 PM	#109
JREF2010 Muse Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 673	Originally Posted by Katody Matrass Let me repeat, in the face of the desperate but failed attempts to rewrite history : Nothing from the uncountable number of recordings indicated any guilt in the Knox and Sollecito trial. OTOH many of the most important recordings disappeared. It is possible and in fact probable that the cops disappeared them because they were exculpatory. How I wish just one Judge would ask the police about this. I had hopes the Calunnia trial would backfire and open up this opportunity to ask the police about leaks and missing interrogation recordings, when obviously the police are lying there was no recording due to budget cuts.
JREF2010 Muse Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 673

29th November 2011, 02:55 PM	#110
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,339	Quote: Still with regard to Exhibit 36, replying to the specific question with which she was asked to specify which elements needed to be present in order to preclude the possibility of identification of a collected biological specimen, Dr Stefanoni indicated an incorrect storage of the specimen in an environment which was not ideal, such as in warmth, or enclosed in a plastic bag where water might be present and, not being able to evaporate, it facilitates the proliferation of micro-organisms. She stressed that the consequence of a conservation carried out in an incorrect way was the deterioration of the specimen so that, when analysing it, very probably‚ no genetic result would be able to be obtained. This one intrigues me a lot. Miss Stefanoni BSc (not a Doctor) knew perfectly well that DNA material would degrade if stored in a plastic container. But she deliberately put that bra clasp in a plastic container. One might speculate as to why. Then when she was challenged, she announced, apparently, that this was a certified container, from the USA, no less. She didn't say what it was certified for. It could have been certified watertight, or airtight, or to be 5ml in volume, or to be made of a certain grade of polypropylene. One thing it certainly was not, was certified to be suitable for storage of forensic DNA samples. But the mention of "the USA" was clearly intended to imply it was in some way superior to mere European requirements. (Quite funny in the light of the guilter criticism of Conti and Vecchiotti for citing some US references in their report.) But there is no such thing as a plastic container suitable for storage of DNA for this purpose. Not in Italy, not in the USA, not anywhere. Earlier in the thread I linked to and quoted from current US federal guidelines for correct collection and storage of such material, and they were absolutely clear about using paper, not plastic, and why. Just one more implicit lie, under oath, from this dishonest woman. If we collected these lies, obfuscations and obstructions, how many could we list? And yet this doesn't give posters such as Machiavelli any pause at all. Last I saw of it, he was still insisting that since Stefanoni had used special plastic containers from the USA she had actually gone above and beyond the call of duty and should probably be given a medal. What do you do when people wilfully refuse to look at facts like this even when their noses are rubbed in them? Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

29th November 2011, 06:17 PM	#111
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,327	Originally Posted by Grinder Not of great import but I think those statements of Mignini referred to the press coverage but not specifically to a PR effort although I may missed something in my quick read. I only did a quick search myself, as I came across this months back, though I don't recall if I posted on it or not. There's no doubt more out there, and perhaps earlier, though his quick quelling of the Sollecito 'PR campaign' ought to suggest he was highly sensitive to criticism, thought it criminal in nature and coordinated by the families of his victims. One complaint against the Sollecitos were their Masonic 'associations.' In Mignini's world it's more complicated than a simple 'PR campaign,' it's a vast network of 'shadowy forces arrayed against him,' centered in Italy, and 'responsible' for the 'attacks' in the American (mainly--then) press. At this point I would link 'The Master of Suspicion' from PerugiaShock, but unfortunately that was early '09 and thus never restored. Originally Posted by Grinder I remember arguing with the PGP on Shock because they kept referring to the PR firm as Gogerty, Stark, Marriott whereas the company had been Gogerty Marriott for over a year when the murder occurred. That's probably because the press releases were 'signed' by David Marriott as "David Marriott of Gogerty Stark Marriott." I especially like the way he misspelled his last name in the first one, though that's probably an error by someone else! Originally Posted by Grinder I'm pretty sure that was very early in the case and before the linked Mignini stories. The PGP were squealing about each and every story that didn't assume guilt. I can't remember when they started the "Marriott controlled the US national media specifically CBS because he had once worked as a reporter at a CBS Seattle affiliate" I think that was later as it took a while to reach certain PG members. The first mention of a 'PR campaign' on PMF was October of '08, kind of out of the blue by Michael, and the first mention of 'Marriott' was a few days later, by (of all people!) Candace Dempsey in a response to a query from The Machine on PMF as to whether she was 'working' for the defense or had a relationship with Amanda's family. Michael's post a couple down includes this interesting observation of the status of David Marriott at this point in the debate: Originally Posted by Michael PMF And what's she talking about 'once again being accused of taking money from the Dave Marriott public relations firm'? Well, we haven't accused her of doing that have we? What we (or some of us) HAVE accused her of doing, is having a rather cosy relationship with the Knox/Mellas family and not being totally upfront about the nature and extent of that relationship...nobody said anything about their PR man. Unless...there is some other 'oddly hosted message board' to which she's referring. Originally Posted by Grinder If Rose or someone with search capabilities could check P** it would be interesting, perhaps only to me, to know when Marriott first appeared there. Anyone can search PMF.net, they just have to wait 30 seconds between searches, and I do believe it was Rose who managed to change my assumption on who initiated the whole idea of the press conspiring against Mignini. As I allowed before, the bunnies and the kittens placed the 'conspirators' in their 'proper' roles, but it was Mignini's paranoia which generated the idea, and his actions against the Sollecitos which predated any of this, which to me seem related to their getting on Telenorbo and other outlets to protest Raffaele's innocence. I wouldn't think he'd be less gentle with the supporters and family of the American 'witch' he was trying to burn. Incidentally, note how the focus changed between FOA, which wasn't affiliated with the family or their efforts, (as per Curt Knox's quote in Barbie's piece in my last post) and David Marriott which didn't emerge as a 'talking point' until far later. That's why I (eventually) always referred to it as the 'Gogerty-Marriott/FOA PR Supertanker of Doom' as they were separate entities and not exactly on the same page all of the time, though they eventually got placed inside the same conspiracy due to the feverish imaginings of our furry little friends. Incidentally, I found this interesting article by Andrea Vogt, originally published in the Italian press and translated here by the Cheshire Cat. I wonder if it was here that David Marriott became more prominent in the lexicon of PMF? If you note there's a couple mentions in October of '08, then a couple more in January, then that Panorama piece is translated, and the other 1170 or so mentions of David Marriott take place. I wonder if Andrea Vogt talking with Mignini and being e-mailed by Marriott was the first one to 'put this together,' and somehow attributed to Marriott all actions taken by anyone anywhere regarding the case if it was negative to Mignini?
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,327	__________________ "Honi soit qui mal y pense."

29th November 2011, 06:24 PM	#112
Fine Muse Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 580	Originally Posted by halides1 I read somewhere that, "The prosecution's forensic experts testified that Knox's blood had mixed with Meredith's blood." Massei did not draw this conclusion, but I bet that he would have if the proscution's experts had said this. To whom does the quoted passage refer? I would like to refute the claim of mixed blood once and for all time. _____________________________ Halides, Well, Stefanoni testified---as quoted by Massei---that her lab analysis alone didn't confirm the mixture of Amanda's blood with Meredith's blood. However, in her testimony she did say that it would be reasonable to conclude that the mixed DNA was a mixture of bloods. Here's how Barbie narrates the court testimony.............. "Isn't it logical that two people who share a house would have mixed DNA in the house?" asked Amanda's lead lawyer, Carlo Dalla Vedova, on cross examination. "Not in the context of a homicide," replied Stefanoni.... (Angel Face, page 131) So the mixed blood was never a lab result. Instead, an inference drawn from a consideration of the "context." Does Dr. Stefanoni want to be a police detective too? ///
Fine Muse Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 580

29th November 2011, 08:54 PM	#113
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,327	Originally Posted by halides1 I read somewhere that, "The prosecution's forensic experts testified that Knox's blood had mixed with Meredith's blood." Massei did not draw this conclusion, but I bet that he would have if the proscution's experts had said this. To whom does the quoted passage refer? I would like to refute the claim of mixed blood once and for all time. I looked into this last summer and came to the conclusion that only the transcripts could solve this question for certain. It all comes down to what Stefanoni said in court outside when the defense forced her to admit there was no way to prove the substance was blood, which Ann Wise correctly reported as 'mixed DNA' here, but included this bit as well: Originally Posted by Ann Wise ABC 5/22/09 The significance of the mixed DNA was not explained in court, but in past reports the prosecution has theorized that Knox used that bathroom to wash-up after the murder, and due to a nose-bleed or some other injury, her blood mixed with that of the victim. Now, as we all know, there was no mixed blood, here's what happened: in this video people can see how the blood swipes were collected, not with precision and grace, but basically by rubbing down the areas of the sink like he was giving it a massage, 1:30 is a good place to see that action. As a result, that swab has the blood of Meredith he was collecting, and whatever happened to already be in Amanda's sink--where Amanda brushed her teeth and whatever other mysterious things females do in the bathroom that takes so damned long. So there's Meredith's blood as Rudy washed up there, which of course contains her DNA, and Amanda's DNA which got onto the swabs because they were swiping around in her bathroom, perhaps the best place to find DNA. As without further tests, which the prosecution didn't perform, one cannot tell whether the DNA from either or both came from the blood, the prosecution might well have felt they had room to 'hypothesize' as Ann Wise writes in that article. Andrea Vogt,¹ Barbara Nadeau,² Cliff Van Zant,³ and as previously mentioned, Luciano Garofano, all claim that the prosecution alleged that it was mixed blood they found. Previously it has been assumed that these reports were all in error, as Massei⁴ makes it quite clear that he realizes the samples were not mixed blood, and as detailed below attempts to make the case that somehow Amanda's skin cells rubbed off in that one moment as opposed to all those other moments the two months she'd been living there, no doubt using her bathroom just about every day. However, I suspect those reports were not in error, and in fact despite Stefanoni having to admit in court when the defense experts questioned her, as noted in the Wise article above, that she couldn't prove the sample was blood from the both of them mixed, that the prosecution 'hypothesized' it anyway, and being as the first verdict was guilty, all those cites from during or shortly after the trial but before the release of the Massei Report simply assumed the Court had accepted the prosecution argument, which might have seemed reasonable at the time, especially if they didn't look into the details of the collection or the forensics. Making things even more complicated, Amanda Knox (as Massei explains below) did have a 'distinct, separate and morphologically different' smear of her own blood on the tap, (which didn't mix with anything) probably from days previous when her ears were bleeding because she kept poking holes in the poor little things. Suggesting even moreso that the prosecution disingenuously argued those 'mixed DNA traces' were actually mixed blood, is Mignini's own words from the Drew Griffin CNN interview where he says at 44:30 (which I found at TJMK as they must not have pulled it like I thought I read somewhere): Originally Posted by PM Mignini CNN May 2011 Mignini: Look I should then add, it must be also said, at the time. In the bathroom of the two foreign girls, that is Meredith and Amanda, which is attached, next to the room of the murder, blood material was discovered of Amanda and Meredith, mixed. Why is this material important? It is important because in her own account told, in her own deposition Amanda makes in, I think, in early June of 2009, during the first instance trial, she says that when she left the house on the afternoon of November 1st, those spots were not there. She says so herself. So she returns in the morning, says she went back in the morning and sees those spots of blood. Those spots of blood are mixed Amanda and victim. It seems to me that Mignini himself is suggesting that the blood came from both girls and was mixed, as opposed to finding DNA of both Meredith from her blood and Amanda from her sink, something they could hardly avoid the way they did their 'collection.' Anyone care to place a bet they could swab their sink the exact same way the photographer (he was slumming as a forensic technician that day) swiped Amanda's sink without getting their DNA on the swath? Would they like to bet twenty-six years of their life? If they couldn't get Amanda's DNA from Amanda's sink and bidet from normal everyday use over the course of two months, how could they get it from a one time event? ¹ Originally Posted by Andrea Vogt Seattle PI 12/14/09 Mixed blood: Forensic police biologists testified about five spots where they had detected samples of "mixed blood" genetic material -- spots of blood of both Knox and Kercher's -- in the bidet, on the sink, on the drain tap, on the Q-tip box in the bathroom and in a spot where prosecutors argued Knox and Sollecito staged a break-in. Defense attorneys argued that this genetic material couldn't be certified as blood and that even if it were, it wasn't abnormal since Knox lived in the house and could have left blood around at any time. The attorney for the Kercher family, Francesco Maresca, said after the sentence that he believed this mixed blood evidence was "the most damning" piece of evidence against Knox. ² Originally Posted by Barbara Nadeau Daily Beast 5/29/10 Your lawyers agree with the prosecution’s findings that at least one of the spots of Meredith’s blood found in the house where she was killed had your blood mixed with it. ³ Originally Posted by Cliff Van Zandt NBC 11/23/09 The mixed blood evidence. Knox’s blood and the blood of the victim were allegedly found comingled in multiple places around the crime scene, to include the bathroom, in one of the bedrooms and in the hallway. While chance would have it that perhaps both women had somehow left blood at one location, the statistical probability that this mixed blood or DNA could be found in multiple locations seems to be a stretch, even for the defense. While it is difficult, if not impossible to accurately date blood evidence, Knox testified that there was no blood in the bathroom the day before Kercher’s murder, therefore apparently dating the damning blood evidence to the night of the crime, and by her own statement seeming to place her at the crime scene at or near the time of the victim’s death. The same mixture of DNA was found in a bloody footprint in the hallway and in a roommate’s bedroom, more evidence that is hard to refute. The defense, though, acknowledges that Knox had entered the residence the morning after Kercher’s murder, perhaps accounting for the overlay of physical evidence. Point, counterpoint. ⁴ Originally Posted by Massei PMF 278=281 TRACES IN THE SMALL BATHROOM The traces of blood detected in the small bathroom, which was usually used by Meredith and by Amanda, located next to the door of Meredith’s room, facing Amanda’s room, have already been discussed. Dr. Stefanoni gave precise details about these traces and about the outcome of the analyses which concerned the following items: On the right side of the inside doorframe there was a tiny droplet of the victim’s blood. Also on top of the toilet-seat cover of the toilet there was blood from the victim. In the bidet there was a substance which appeared to be diluted blood, and which was shown to be a mixed trace specimen having the biological profiles of Amanda and Meredith. Also in the sink, there was a substance which appeared to be diluted blood, and which was shown to be a mixed trace specimen with the same result. On the front part of the tap of the sink, there was coagulated blood which was shown to belong to Amanda. On the box of cotton buds/Q-tips sitting on the sink/washbasin there were stains and these showed the presence of blood and a mixed trace from Amanda and Meredith. On the light switch in the same bathroom there was a mark which proved to be the victim’s blood. The sky-blue mat found in that bathroom was stained with blood which was shown to be from the victim. On the outcome of such tests, not only these but also others of a biological nature, carried out in observance of the provisions contained in Article 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code, no significant and specific criticisms were made. Instead, the defendants’ teams maintained that these traces and the outcome of the analyses with reference to the mixed sample traces were irrelevant. In this regard, starting from the scientific data which emerged, according to which DNA analysis does not permit the age of the sample/trace to be determined, nor, in the case of a sample/trace indicating the presence of several biological profiles, can it be established whether their apposition-formation was contemporaneous or not, it was affirmed that, since it concerned a bathroom which was used both by Meredith and by Amanda, the presence of mixed traces seemed to be a completely normal circumstance, and had no significance. All the more so since the samples had been taken using the same blotting paper which had been used for various parts of the bidet and the sink. The Court, however, believes that the presence of the biological trace specimens that were found is of great importance. First, it should be recalled that Amanda Knox, in the course of her own examination (questioning), declared that when she left the house on Via della Pergola on the afternoon of November 1st, the bathroom was clean. It should then be highlighted that in that same bathroom various trace specimens were found, of a mixed nature and testing positively for blood. It is true that, according to what was asserted and explained, it is not possible with a mixed trace specimen that tested positive for human blood to determine which of the trace’s contributors the blood belongs to. In this case, however, non-mixed traces were also found, which were shown to be of a haematological nature [i.e. blood] and turn out to have the biological profile of the victim. Such traces, in particular the dribble of blood left on the right inside edge of the door and the stains left on the light switch (see photographic illustrations 141, 142; 158, 159) lead to the deduction that whoever entered that bathroom had his or her hands covered in Meredith’s blood. Furthermore, the sky-blue bathmat with the print of a bare foot in blood, blood which also was shown to be from the victim, indicates that whoever went into this bathroom was barefoot, and must therefore also have been barefoot in Meredith’s room where she had been repeatedly struck, a room which had great blotches of blood, and in one of these whoever transferred the blood to the bathroom and the sky-blue bathmat must have placed his or her foot, and thus must have been moving about that room with bare feet. The above observation leads to the deduction that whoever went into the bathroom at that point (after the stabbing of Meredith) must have had to do so to clean him/herself of Meredith’s blood with which he/she was staining the various things he/she touched or leaned against: the door, the light switch, the mat. And it is probable - not necessary, but probable - that during the following act of scrubbing the hands to remove the blood, he/she left the mixed trace consisting of Meredith’s blood and of cells which had been removed by rubbing during the act of washing. An entirely probable outcome given the likelihood of the act of scrubbing, yet not a necessary one, since the running water which was used in the shower stall or in the bidet or in the sink, or in several of these sanitary fittings, might well have rinsed away the washed-up blood and the cells which had been lost during this washing. At this point, one may turn for the resulting evaluations to the trace specimens found in the sink, in the bidet, on the cotton-bud box, traces which tested positive for human blood and which were attributed to Meredith and to Amanda. While it is not possible to use the genetic scientific data (Dr. Stefanoni explained the impossibility of determining the date, the succession or the simultaneity in the depositing of the components of the mixed trace specimen and the impossibility of attributing the haematological component to one or the other of the contributors), the information previously put forward provides answers which are entirely consistent with the circumstantial evidence that has emerged and which the Court considers convincing. Amanda was not wounded; in the days following no one spoke of wounds that she might have had; the examination which was carried out on her when measures restricting her personal freedom were taken ruled out the presence of wounds. Meredith’s situation was the complete opposite. In relation to this and to the circumstance by which haematological stains attributable to Meredith were found on the inside of the door, on the toilet-seat cover, on the light switch, it should be deduced that the haematological components found in the sink, in the bidet, on the box of cotton buds were also from Meredith. Nor can it otherwise be argued for the presence of a drop of Amanda’s blood on the tap of the sink. This consisted of a spot of coagulated blood, with respect to which Amanda explained that it came from her own ear having been pierced; this spot, furthermore, was located towards the inside of the sink: distinct, separate and morphologically different, therefore, from the trace found in the sink itself. This Court also considers that the components of the mixed trace specimens were deposited simultaneously, and were deposited by Amanda. Against this conclusion, the observations with respect to the shared use of the bathroom by the two young women, the resulting likelihood of their biological traces being present, and the way in which these specimens were gathered [by the police], are not valid, in the sense that they are not considered either convincing or plausible, neither in relation to the overall situation present in the bathroom, which has been described, nor with [regard to] the statements made by Gioia Brocci and by Dr. Stefanoni, who both stated that the trace specimens present in the bathroom and in the bidet were of the same colour, as of diluted blood, and appeared to constitute one single trace, one [part] in the bidet and one in the sink. The drop at the top and the drop at the bottom had continuity and formed a continuous pattern. The specimens were collected accordingly, just like any other specimen which necessarily occupies a certain space, and which the technician does not collect one little spot after another. It should also be noted that the statements according to which the traces in the sink and in the bidet each constituted a single specimen correspond to the act of cleaning the victim’s blood, an action previously mentioned and during which it would have been easy to leave a mixed sample, constituted precisely of biological material from the victim (blood) and biological material from whoever was cleaning (cells lost during scrubbing/rubbing). It should further be noted that such mixed trace specimens, with the morphology shown, were found both in the sink and in the bidet. It should be considered that those in the sink occurred when Amanda, as has it should be considered that they [the traces] originated from a similar activity, but in relation to the feet, which must also have been covered with blood as can be inferred from the print of a bare foot left on the sky-blue mat, stained with Meredith’s blood. This print will be dealt with subsequently. Reference to it is made now in order to make the point that the presence of such a print of a bare foot brings one to consider that Amanda (also) could have had bare feet, stained with Meredith’s blood. The mixed trace specimens found in the sink and in the bidet and on the box of cotton buds therefore signify that Amanda, soiled with Meredith’s blood, entered the bathroom which was right next door to the room in which Meredith had been stabbed; putting her hand against the door she left a mark on it and the dribble of blood which remained is a sign [proof] of this, and left a mark also - still with Meredith’s blood - on the light switch; she touched the cotton-bud box which was on the sink and left a mixed trace specimen of herself and of Meredith; to clean her hands she used the sink in which, through the act of scrubbing, she left her own biological trace mixed with that of Meredith, and used the bidet, most likely to wash her feet, which must have become *blood+ stained in Meredith’s room, where there were widespread and abundant traces of blood even on the floor, and where the blood was spattered over various parts of the room, and also in the bidet she left a trace specimen of what appeared to be diluted blood, which contained both her own DNA and that of Meredith.
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,327	__________________ "Honi soit qui mal y pense." Last edited by Kaosium; 29th November 2011 at 09:44 PM.

29th November 2011, 09:39 PM	#114
Chris C Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: New Orleans, LA Posts: 1,572	Originally Posted by pilot padron Then I am sure you can quickly and easily understand why so many people, including the Italian crowd who loudly booed outside after the verdict, justly feel exactly as you feel about Prosecutor Mignini, but now about Knox and Sollecito. The decision of Judge Hellmann changes nothing with regard to Knox and Sollecito's actions either. In fact, Judge Hellmann's verbal statements after his TV cameras were turned off directly alluded to the possibility that Knox and Sollecito knew a lot more about Meredith's death than Judge Hellmann's views of the evidence proved to him and his jurors BTW: Many newer readers may not be aware of just how vicious the vitriol toward Prosecutor Mignini was here. May I suggest a quick search using tags that will quickly show some of the horrid names he was sadly vilified with here. All this simply because he believed Knox and Sollicito were very guilty. He simply did his best. He simply did no more than perform his legally defined duty to show the Courts why he so believed. Yeah I agree 100 percent! Knox and Sollecito got off on a technicality. Since there was no evidence, they had to let them off with a not guilty verdict.

29th November 2011, 11:25 PM	#115
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,327	Originally Posted by Rolfe This one intrigues me a lot. Miss Stefanoni BSc (not a Doctor) knew perfectly well that DNA material would degrade if stored in a plastic container. But she deliberately put that bra clasp in a plastic container. One might speculate as to why. Then when she was challenged, she announced, apparently, that this was a certified container, from the USA, no less. She didn't say what it was certified for. It could have been certified watertight, or airtight, or to be 5ml in volume, or to be made of a certain grade of polypropylene. One thing it certainly was not, was certified to be suitable for storage of forensic DNA samples. But the mention of "the USA" was clearly intended to imply it was in some way superior to mere European requirements. (Quite funny in the light of the guilter criticism of Conti and Vecchiotti for citing some US references in their report.) But there is no such thing as a plastic container suitable for storage of DNA for this purpose. Not in Italy, not in the USA, not anywhere. Earlier in the thread I linked to and quoted from current US federal guidelines for correct collection and storage of such material, and they were absolutely clear about using paper, not plastic, and why. Just one more implicit lie, under oath, from this dishonest woman. If we collected these lies, obfuscations and obstructions, how many could we list? I don't know, I tend to get lost trying to remember all the lies. I think it might be easier to remember the truths! Let us see, so far I started with: 1. The amount of material on the knife 'a few hundred pgs.' 2. The 'Shy Striation' from the knife. 3. The negative controls. (I forget which one she told and which Comodi delivered) 4. That there was only one male contributor to the clasp. You added: 5. That the 'certified' plastic bag from the US was an appropriate storage device. Others off the top of my head and I'm certain cannot be all-inclusive: 6. That the luminol prints were never tested for blood. 7. That her team performed the collection of the samples adequately and in compliance with standards. Hrm. Now I'm stuck, I'm sure she must have told some lies in the course of denying the defense, and later the independent experts, the requisite data, I just can't think of a specific one that amounts to more than bureaucratic resistance. There's others that are just part of a bigger lie, such as whether one can have 14 or so 'stutters' on a Y-halotype with a 28 cycle Identifiler kit with only one contributor, but I'm drawing a blank on any others. Originally Posted by Rolfe And yet this doesn't give posters such as Machiavelli any pause at all. Last I saw of it, he was still insisting that since Stefanoni had used special plastic containers from the USA she had actually gone above and beyond the call of duty and should probably be given a medal. What do you do when people wilfully refuse to look at facts like this even when their noses are rubbed in them? Rolfe.
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,327	__________________ "Honi soit qui mal y pense."