Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #16

[sherlockh]

If you look at the trial transcripts they said it was "possible". Nice try though.

I am not going to pretend to be a DNA expert but I know that when they have a full DNA profile that 'possible' is not part of the equation. It is either Meredith's or it isn't.

 

[For The Kids]

I as well wish a cite for this. He gets paid only if they remain guilty

He would get paid work for all work he has done whether they remain guilty or not.

The Kerchers...who UNLIKE us sat through the whole trial have absolutely no doubt that the true monsters responsible for this horrific crime are the ones currently behind bars. For them to go through all this again must be like the event happening all over again...just more and more stabs in there heart

I just hope that if she is released...that no one else gets killed in the future and that it is linked to her..

Justice for Meredith.

 

[SkewedView]

I just hope that if AK gets released, some nutjob encouraged by hatesites doesn't shoot her when she steps off the plane.



On the subject of the Kercher's lawyer - Meridith deserves to have her rights looked after by someone with dignity and respect for the process - Maresca is neither of those. I (and many media observers in court) have found him to be uncouth, disrespectful of the court and legal process, and self-servingly flamboyant in his actions. JMO.

And just for reference, I have noted multiple times that I myself like the fact that Italy allows victims/survivors such an active role in things - as long as measures are in place to be sure that the defendant is still accorded a fair trial, of course.

 

[SkewedView]

I am not going to pretend to be a DNA expert but I know that when they have a full DNA profile that 'possible' is not part of the equation. It is either Meredith's or it isn't.

That's not what they said at all. They conceded that the mess that Steffanoni got as one of her two results (even her idea of a confirming test had only junk results) could be interpreted as a full Meredith profile, if you disregarded that most of it was at noise (meaning contamination) level. I'm sure that the prosecution gloated over winning that little gotcha word game, but it doesn't change the fact that the manner in which Steffanoni played and fudged until she got what she wanted was unethical and dishonest, at best, and that no peer review would ever endorse such methodology.

 

[SkewedView]

Thank you SV!!!

I shouldn't have let myself get baited into talking about that, please pretend I didn't mention it - I'd rather not have someone accuse me of playing the victim card.

 

[Sonata]

I shouldn't have let myself get baited into talking about that, please pretend I didn't mention it - I'd rather not have someone accuse me of playing the victim card.

Just for the record - I would hope nobody on here would stoop so low as to accuse you of that in the first place.

More importantly - thank you for sharing, my deepest sympathy and now will take it as forgotten and will never mention again.

 

[SMK]

Otto, stop insinuating that I don't care about the rights of the victim and her survivors - it's insulting, hurtful, childish behavior...FYI, I've been in their shoes - it was my fiance, whom I had been with since the first grade, not my child, and the murder weapon was a vehicle, but the situation is very similar otherwise...so believe me when I say that my heart breaks for them...and stop with this passive aggressive BS...

Alright, I'm going to go to work and cool off...

Really sorry to hear about this, SV, and you do have my very deepest sympathy. And I do not think most of us ever thought you were ever anything but sympathetic with the Kercher family.

 

[SMK]

I shouldn't have let myself get baited into talking about that, please pretend I didn't mention it - I'd rather not have someone accuse me of playing the victim card.

I do not think anyone could ever accuse you of playing any victim card, SV. :blowkiss:

 

[sherlockh]

That's not what they said at all. They conceded that the mess that Steffanoni got as one of her two results (even her idea of a confirming test had only junk results) could be interpreted as a full Meredith profile, if you disregarded that most of it was at noise (meaning contamination) level. I'm sure that the prosecution gloated over winning that little gotcha word game, but it doesn't change the fact that the manner in which Steffanoni played and fudged until she got what she wanted was unethical and dishonest, at best, and that no peer review would ever endorse such methodology.

They admitted there was a full profile. Are you suggesting that Stefanoni created Meredith's full profile out of pretty much nothing? Sounds like magic to me. What are the chances? The explanation that her full DNA profile came out of ....her DNA makes a bit more sense to me.

 

[SMK]

Candace Dempsey on MSNBC:


Will Amanda Knox be acquitted? - YouTube

 

[SkewedView]

They admitted there was a full profile. Are you suggesting that Stefanoni created Meredith's full profile out of pretty much nothing? Sounds like magic to me. What are the chances? The explanation that her full DNA profile came out of ....her DNA makes a bit more sense to me.

No, they admitted that the garbage results could be (unethically) interpreted as a full MK profile. Remember, interpreting the results of DNA tests is not a straightforward task when you are dealing with extreme low level or degraded material - in this case, Steffanoni was using very, very low levels of source material, she used unorthodox, nonsense methods to concentrate said material, she didn't do any control tests to ensure a lack of contamination on the machine (and no, a machine being idle for days does nothing to ensure a lack of contamination), she didn't use the normal test to confirm her 'findings', instead opting to re-concentrate and do a second run with the original, non-species-specific test, and then she, oops, forgot to mention in court that that confirming test, well, confirmed nothing, instead yielding useless junk. And that's all before you get to her very questionable interpretation, which relies on noise level readings (some of them, actually - apparently the ones that didn't 'fit' were arbitrarily ignored) to get a profile.

Read here:
http://forensicdnaconsulting.wordpr...perts’-report-in-the-amanda-knox-case-part-i/

But hey, why don't we just accept this in a court of law - after all, the ends justify the means, don't they? <----(warning, this is snark)

 

[sherlockh]

No, they admitted that the garbage results could be (unethically) interpreted as a full MK profile. Remember, interpreting the results of DNA tests is not a straightforward task when you are dealing with extreme low level or degraded material - in this case, Steffanoni was using very, very low levels of source material, she used unorthodox, nonsense methods to concentrate said material, she didn't do any control tests to ensure a lack of contamination on the machine (and no, a machine being idle for days does nothing to ensure a lack of contamination), she didn't use the normal test to confirm her 'findings', instead opting to re-concentrate and do a second run with the original, non-species-specific test, and then she, oops, forgot to mention in court that that confirming test, well, confirmed nothing, instead yielding useless junk. And that's all before you get to her very questionable interpretation, which relies on noise level readings (some of them, actually - apparently the ones that didn't 'fit' were arbitrarily ignored) to get a profile.

Read here:
http://forensicdnaconsulting.wordpr...perts’-report-in-the-amanda-knox-case-part-i/

But hey, why don't we just accept this in a court of law - after all, the ends justify the means, don't they? <----(warning, this is snark)

I am not so sure if the machines were just sitting idle during those 6 days. C&V seem to agree that that would rule out contamination. Maybe the machines were still being cleaned during these days? C&V argued the sample was too small but admitted that there is no standard on 'too small'. The material was used up in a single test, and out came of all people in the world... Meredith's full DNA profile created by Stefanoni out of garbage. This kind of defense is just not going to work IMO. Disagree to agree, or something

 

[SkewedView]

I am not so sure if the machines were just sitting idle during those 6 days. C&V seem to agree that that would rule out contamination. Maybe the machines were still being cleaned during these days? C&V argued the sample was too small but admitted that there is no standard on 'too small'. The material was used up in a single test, and out came of all people in the world... Meredith's full DNA profile created by Stefanoni out of garbage. This kind of defense is just not going to work IMO. Disagree to agree, or something

When the machine you are testing on isn't even designed to read that low, and you over-ride it, yeah, that's too low. Sorry, but any community college student trying that BS in a lab would get flunked out immediately, and we're supposed to use that kind of junk science to send people to prison?

Okay, I'll take the snark out - the ends should never justify the means in an ethical society.

 

[SkewedView]

Hmmm, this is...interesting, now that I take another look at it...

From this:
http://forensicdnaconsulting.wordpr...perts’-report-in-the-amanda-knox-case-part-i/

(This section is regarding the original knife testing - sample A was from the handle, sample B is the infamous supposed MK sample)

Conti and Vecchiotti note that samples A-C were actually not tested with the same real-time PCR technique described in the table above. Instead, a ‘Qubit Fluorometer’ with the ‘dsDNA HS Kit’ was used. According to Conti and Vecchiotti, this method is not specific for human DNA. I am not familiar with this technique and do not know why it would be used in favor of the standard real-time PCR methodologies.

The results from the Qubit Fluorometer indicate that no DNA was detected in Samples B and C, and that .08 nanograms per microliter of DNA (not necessarily human) was detected in Sample A.

There is therefore a major discrepancy here beyond possibly not reporting the right technique. Why is Sample B reported as being positive for DNA if none was detected in the assay? No DNA was detected for C in the same assay, yet C was reported as being negative for DNA in Stefanoni’s report.

Conti and Vecchotti further state:

“Nor is it comprehensible, considering the negative results on sample B, what Dr. Stefanoni reported during the GUP questioning (page 178) where she stated that the DNA in sample B, quantified with Real Time PCR (it is recalled that such quantification confirmed during the hearing was never carried out or, at least, no documentation was provided to support this claim), was in the order of some hundreds of picograms”, a value which does not appear in any of the documents provided to us (SAL, Fluorimeter report, Real Time report, RTIGF).”

To tie all of this in to the final result, sample B is from the knife blade and reportedly has a trace level of DNA consistent with Meredith Kercher on it. Sample A is from the knife handle and reportedly has DNA consistent with Amanda Knox on it.

Sample A certainly had an amount of DNA amenable for typing and the final result is as expected with regard to level of DNA detected in the final typing.

There is apparent confusion regarding Sample B, which is best explained in the Conti-Vecchiotti report:

“We learn from the transcript of the GUP questioning that Dr. Stefanoni concentrated the volume of the extract from sample B several times.

In particular, she stated first having concentrated the extract from an initial volume of 50 microlitres “to around 20, 22, 23 microlitres” (GUP page 178), and of having subsequently carried out Real Time quantification of the total [amount of] DNA, and not of the DNA of masculine origin.

Since from the Real Time quantification (never carried out!) she obtained a concentration of “some hundreds of picograms of DNA” (GUP, page 178) she took steps to further concentrate the extract in order to obtain a final volume of 10 &#956;l which she would have used for the PCR reaction.

We hold that quantification was also not performed on the final volume, since there is no confirmation either in the documentation in the case file (SAL, Real Time report, RTIGF) nor was such a circumstance ever reported by Dr. Stefanoni in the course of her questioning.

In practical terms, an amplification was carried out without knowledge of one of the basic parameters: that is, the concentration of the DNA possibly extracted from sample B.”

It sounds like Conti-Vecchiotti were not provided with data on this concentration and only learned about it by reviewing transcripts. Certainly this issue will be vetted in court to determine if Conti-Vecchiotti simply misunderstood the documentation, were not provided with documentation, or if something else is going on. If sample B underwent concentration procedures, it is important that appropriate negative controls were also concentrated to demonstrate that the procedure did not introduce contamination.

At any rate, it appears that Sample B had to be concentrated multiple times, and it is unclear how much, if any DNA was actually introduced into the final typing procedures.

So what does this mean? Basically, Steffanoni came up with negative results for the presence of DNA on sample B, with a non-standard test, and then somehow that no-DNA sample miraculously produces a profile after all sorts of nonsensical concentration procedures - and on top of that, she lies under questioning about the initial test, saying that it was of a type and result that there is zero record for, seemingly to cover up for the real test results that she of course doesn't mention in questioning. :liar:

Wow. Just...wow...wonder if this will be another source of forged documents produced by surprise (against all normal rules of evidence) by the prosecution. Or maybe the dog ate the records. anic:


ETA: Looks like sleight of hand trickery to me - hey wow, it really is a magic show! And here all this time I thought we were talking about science. :doh:

 

[SMK]

Hmmm, this is...interesting, now that I take another look at it...

From this:
http://forensicdnaconsulting.wordpr...perts’-report-in-the-amanda-knox-case-part-i/

(This section is regarding the original knife testing - sample A was from the handle, sample B is the infamous supposed MK sample)



So what does this mean? Basically, Steffanoni came up with negative results for the presence of DNA on sample B, with a non-standard test, and then somehow that no-DNA sample miraculously produces a profile after all sorts of nonsensical concentration procedures - and on top of that, she lies under questioning about the initial test, saying that it was of a type and result that there is zero record for, seemingly to cover up for the real test results that she of course doesn't mention in questioning. :liar:

Wow. Just...wow...wonder if this will be another source of forged documents produced by surprise (against all normal rules of evidence) by the prosecution. Or maybe the dog ate the records. anic:


ETA: Looks like sleight of hand trickery to me - hey wow, it really is a magic show! And here all this time I thought we were talking about science. :doh:

Thanks for posting this link and material. Illuminating, to say the least.

 

[dgfred]

It is quite detailed and well-done, and also contains all the misinformation we've come to expect from the pro-guilt side.

Care to elaborate and show some examples of misinformation?

 

[dgfred]

He would get paid work for all work he has done whether they remain guilty or not.

The Kerchers...who UNLIKE us sat through the whole trial have absolutely no doubt that the true monsters responsible for this horrific crime are the ones currently behind bars. For them to go through all this again must be like the event happening all over again...just more and more stabs in there heart

I just hope that if she is released...that no one else gets killed in the future and that it is linked to her..

Justice for Meredith.

Thanks for your post clearing up that misinformation. Sometimes things are stated here and then when the person is called out on it... they drop the subject and move to the next talking point. You get used to it really.

 

[SMK]

Care to elaborate and show some examples of misinformation?

I had misgivings but doubted my own mind and senses. And I really studied it.

Bruce Fisher puts it all succinctly:

( he only leaves out that the pics of the impossible to scale wall/ impossible to enter window actually convince one of the opposite.)

I decided to give Kermit's new powerpoint a look and it took less than a minute to see that Kermit is still stuck in 2008. I read 2 of Kermit's lies and put it in the recycle bin where it belongs.

Here's the 2 points that let me know I was wasting my time reading any further.

1. Kermit continues to push the postal police arrival lies which have been thoroughly refuted. You can read more about the postal police arrival on IIP.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Pr...tml#anchor_107

2. Kermit has no idea what he is talking about with regard to the blood evidence on Meredith's body because he has not seen the evidence. The blood evidence on Meredith's body does not suggest that her bra was removed at a later time to stage a sexual attack. There are clearly blood droplets on Meredith's bare breasts proving the bra was removed while Meredith was still breathing. Pushing this lie to support staging is one of the most egregious lies told in this case that began with Mignini. The truth is Rudy Guede moved Meredith out of the large puddle of blood so he could sexually assault her. Ron Hendry showed this in great detail here: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry8.html

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=215085&page=28

 

[Allusonz]

Thank you SV!!!

Although I give my sympathies I was actually thanking you for this

"stop insinuating that I don't care about the rights of the victim and her survivors - it's insulting, hurtful, childish behavior.."

I should of once again made my clearer. That is what happens when one can't sleep :giggle:

 

[Allusonz]

He would get paid work for all work he has done whether they remain guilty or not.

The Kerchers...who UNLIKE us sat through the whole trial have absolutely no doubt that the true monsters responsible for this horrific crime are the ones currently behind bars. For them to go through all this again must be like the event happening all over again...just more and more stabs in there heart

I just hope that if she is released...that no one else gets killed in the future and that it is linked to her..

Justice for Meredith.

The Kerchers were NOT there for all the hearings. They were there for the start and the verdict

I as well hope that saner minds prevail but I am concerned due to the fact that people (internet posters) are sleuthing out the real people behind the names, are going after them at their homes, the families, place of work etc. That concerns me greatly as I have stated on a number of occasions. This is truly not about AK and RS anymore