Wednesday, December 02, 2020

Italy, Lament: Though US Violent Crime Rate Has Dropped 75% In 30 Years, Now This

Posted by Peter Quennell

Breaking news: Guede leaving prison, doing community service during rest of term, for “social re-integration”. Decided by Rome supervisory court at request of Guede lawyer Ballarini. His “tell-all” book said to be step closer, Knox acting frantic.

1. Re the YouTube: There’s More…

After 17 years of zero executions by the Federal Government, suddenly we get this.

Click for Post:  Eighth federal execution of the year set for Thursday

Click for Post:  U.S. carries out 8th federal execution of 2020

Click for Post:  DOJ set to execute five [more] federal prisoners before Inauguration Day

Click for Post:  U.S. To Continue Executions Through Transition In Break With Precedent

2. So, A Question…

For the Knox sycophants: Where would YOU want to be tried?

Monday, October 12, 2020

Another Sollecito Fail: Court Says NO Malpractice By 20 Prosecutors & Judges

Posted by Peter Quennell

Genoa Courthouse

1. Genoa Court Smacks RS Down

Amanda Knox’s delusions of grandeur sail on, for now, but RS’s have taken a third big knock.

(1) Back in June 2017 we posted this report: “Sollecito Loses [Rome] Supreme Court Appeal Against Florence Court Ruling Refusing $0.55M Damages Claim”.

(2) And last year he and his fatuous co-writer Andrew Gumbel lost big to Dr Mignini in a Florence court for defamations in Sollecito’s book. They had to pay substantial damages and sign a document admitting they had lied in the book. 

(3) And now with Bongiorno’s and Maori’s seemingly incompetent legal help (they have yet to win in a single court that was not bent) Sollecito sued for malpractice some 20 of the prosecutors and judges in the case.

Unsurprisingly, the names of the judges in the failed 2011 first appeal and the successful 2015 Supreme Court appeal (all of whom were bent) did not appear on the list.

For these two main reasons Sollecito has lost once again:

(a) Because he (and Knox) had obstructed justice and told numerous lies to prosecutors and police in the days after Meredith’s death.

(b) Because all twenty judges and prosecutors named had diligently followed the rules and there had been no malpractice at all.

The lead judge was Pietro Spera. This was only the second case to occur under the recently enacted civil liability law.

Sollecito is reported in the Italian media as owing his lawyers nearly $1 million in fees (E660,000) though he may be able to argue that they advised him badly and took the several cases on spec.

Sollecito is said to owe his father a substantial sum, and his inherited properties are reported as being mortgaged to the hilt.

Tellingly, Knox of course has initiated only one suit of her own: the “appeal” to the European Court of Human Rights, for half a million Euros or so. 

Knox was awarded E15,000 or so, but wrongly, because her appeal was laden with lies and the hard-pressed ECHR judges in Strasbourg bought some of them.

Knox has never sued Italy for damages for wrong imprisonment. Also unsurprisingly, as that would draw attention to a fact she incessantly hides: that she is a rightly convicted felon for life.

2. First Details Of RS’s Claims

This reporting by Il Giornale is among the first. There will be a written judges’ report detailing the Sollecito team charges against the 20 and why they failed.

While the Giornale reporter Rosa Scognamiglio has done quite a good job, she is wrong to imply that Guede acted alone; that was not the final ruling of the Supreme Court.

Having been jailed while innocent, Sollecito still owes over €600,000 to his lawyers

Raffaele Sollecito, convicted and then acquitted for the murder of Meredith Kercher, still owes 660,000 euros to his defense team Bongiorno and Maori.

Four years of detention, trials and appeals were not enough to mark the end of the sentences for Raffaele Sollecito, finally acquitted by the Court of Cassation in 2015 for the murder of the English student Meredith Kercher, murdered in an apartment in Perugia on November 1st 2007 by the Ivorian Rudy Guede.

Today, 13 years after the start of the judicial ordeal that first convicted him and then cleared him of the charge of complicity in murder, the computer engineer originally from Giovinazzo (Bari) still carries the waste of the troubled procedural process. “Slag” translates into debts and outstanding payments towards his lawyers Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori for an amount of 636,212.23 euros.

The cause of the debt is the costs of a long legal battle in which Sollecito not only had to prove his extraneousness to the events in Perugia but also to fight for compensation for “unjust detention”.

In 2017, the Court of Appeal of Florence rejected the 37-year-old’s request for a monetary refund for the sensational judicial error that had overwhelmed him ten years earlier.

“There is an unjust detention given the acquittal of the plaintive - the judges of the third criminal section explained - but he himself contributed to causing it with his own willful or grossly negligent conduct”.

His poor conduct, wrote the magistrates, “consisted in making to the judicial police, investigators, and judges, particularly in the initial stages of the investigations, contradictory or even frankly false statements, which were also found to be such in the assessment inncluded in the confirming verdict of Cassation”.

After which failure, Sollecito tried another path, in suing the judges who convicted him. He could do this in the context of the “Vassalli law” on the civil liability of magistrates for “gross negligence and/or willful misconduct”.

His lawyers, Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori, had asked the Genoa court for 3.6 million euros for material and non-material damages.

The process played out in a Genoa court since, as Marco Preve explains well in an article in La Repubblica, the Ligurian capital has jurisdiction over judicial matters involving Florentine magistrates, and the Florence Court of Appeal was the one that convicted Sollecito and his ex-girlfriend Amanda Knox before the final acquittal.

Sollecito’s defense team had highlighted how the client had been found guilty and locked up in prison for “multiple misrepresentations of facts and evidence”.

Nonetheless, the court of Genoa sent the request back to the sender, arguing that ‘’ such reconstructions - although they may not be agreed with and be criticized - nevertheless demonstrate that the Florence Appeal sentenced them following a fair analysis and argued process..

The claims to the Genoa court had included this: that the psychological strains of the stormy judicial affair involving the 37-year-old are still being felt. Sollecito’s claims are attached to the documents of the Genoa court judgment.

“He will have to take drugs for the rest of his life for an anxious-depressive syndrome, difficulty concentrating, sleep disturbances, hypervigidity [this may mean hypervigilance], ease of crying, despair, low self-esteem, and extensive and extreme, behavioral isolation.”

Not to mention the costs of legal fees, E400 thousand already paid by mortgaging family properties, and the balance due to the legal team: E330,189.21 to the lawyer Bongiorno and E336,022.92 to the lawyer Maori.

In short, in addition to the damage also an insult. A very barbed joke.

As with Sollecito’s failed damages claim (see point (1) above) his team could appeal the Genoa court outcome to the Supreme Court

Good luck with that.

Wednesday, September 30, 2020

Hit Early And Hard, Italy’s Systems Now Seen As The Best In Europe

Posted by Peter Quennell

 

More Praise In The Media

Click for Post:  1st in Europe to be devastated by COVID-19, Italy redoubled its efforts, and they’re now paying off

Click for Post:  Italy’s government showed the world how to take responsibility in a pandemic

Click for Post:  Why Is Italy Seeing Fewer COVID Cases Than Its Neighbors?

Click for Post:  How Italy Snatched Health From the Jaws of Death

Click for Post:  [BBC] Coronavirus: How Italy has fought back from virus disaster

Friday, September 11, 2020

RIP Meredith’s Beloved Mum Who We Believe Knew Even US Mood Is Turning Pro AK & RS Guilt

Posted by Our Main Posters

Mrs Arline Kercher passed away unpublicised back in June, as just established by main poster James Raper.

Her grave is right beside Meredith’s. Father John was killed in a still-unsolved hit-and-run at night in Croydon four months before.

Arline began the Kercher-family connection with Italy when she did excavation work at Pompeii in her youth. That factoid is from John Kercher’s beautifully written book.

The video above reports the end of the failed Knox-Sollecito repeat first appeal in 2014, often wrongly referred to as a second trial.

That was the last concrete good news that Arline would have received.

She spoke out low-key but compellingly in protest after the corrupted 2011 and 2015 appeal verdicts were announced. 

She knew to the end that Italian opinion was hard-line pro-guilt and that anger even in the UK and US is still gathering steam.

The next of a series of televised panels examining how the judicial process was corrupted and the outcome illegal will take place at Perugia University on October 8th.

RIP Meredith, John, and now Arline.

Saturday, August 08, 2020

Seems Relevant Here: A Viral YouTube About One Family’s Loss

Posted by Peter Quennell

You can read the viewer comments here.

Many non-Japanese-speaking viewers (there’s a Japanese upload with many more views) said it dawned on them what was going on.

Quite a few said they began to cry. If you need them, here from the comments is one translation of the words.

00:00 (Announcement) “Everyone, may I have your attention please. Here we have our bride’s father Mr. Yasuhiro with a message to share. Mr. Yasuhiro, please, the moment is yours.”
00:30 Groom “Your father can play the piano?”
00:33 Bride: Shakes her head.
00:57 Bride “Stop it.”
01:09 Bride “Stop it plz…”
01:13 Bride “The song is… Why do you play this…” (Past scene, Bride’s mother played CANON when Bride was a child.)
01:35 Bride “Unskilled…”
01:45 Bride “Play gently at the part…”
01:55 (Funeral scene, holding the remains of Bride’s mother in car.)
02:05 (After Bride’s mother was dead, Bride fell out with her father.)
02:13 Bride “Though you are awkward…”
02:41 Bride (shocked by the sudden pause) “Eh?”
02:48 Bride “You can do it…”
02:54 Bride “You can do it!”
02:59 Bride “You can do it, Dad…!!”
03:12 (Message) Music is able to surpass Words.

Friday, July 10, 2020

This Reporter Exposed Epstein & Enablers, Getting The FBI Back Into Action

Posted by Peter Quennell

1. Constraints Of The US System

Back in 2007 the FBI found their hands tied on this case - and it was Julie Brown, a Miami reporter, who got them back in the game again.

In general we’ve been warmish toward the FBI because of its major co-operation with the Italian counterparts.

Italian agents work at FBI HQ and Quantico and American agents are embedded in Italian law enforcement. We get occasional tips from both parties.

But the FBI has it less easy than the Carabinieri and Italian law enforcement generally.

The “wonderful” American political/legal system that is so much revered is really tailor-made for inefficiency, corruption, and disruption.

The FBI has to contend with the peculiarly American problem of the thousands upon thousands of ideological political appointees completely dominating the top layers of government (and costing US taxpayers many billions).

They are by far the biggest cause of legal disruptions, not least in Meredith’s case.

As we are seeing in the American news right now, urban areas, districts, counties, states, and the federal government have very ill defined legal boundaries. Tailor made for gaming.

Those thousands of political appointees make sure that hundreds and even thousands of legal cases fall through the cracks every year.

Contrast all this with Italy’s implacable fight against top-level corruption.

2. The FBI Found Its Hands Tied

The FBI was first invited in to the Epstein case by Florida prosecutors in 2006. They initiated “Operation Leap Year” leading to a 53-page indictment. What happened next, from Wikipedia: 

[Political appointee] Alexander Acosta, then the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, agreed to a plea deal, which Alan Dershowitz helped to negotiate, to grant immunity from all federal criminal charges to Epstein, along with four named co-conspirators and any unnamed “potential co-conspirators”.

According to the Miami Herald, the non-prosecution agreement “essentially shut down an ongoing FBI probe into whether there were more victims and other powerful people who took part in Epstein’s sex crimes”. At the time, this halted the investigation and sealed the indictment. The Miami Herald said: “Acosta agreed, despite a federal law to the contrary, that the deal would be kept from the victims.”

Acosta later said he offered a lenient plea deal because he was told that Epstein “belonged to intelligence”, was “above his pay grade” and to “leave it alone”. Epstein agreed to plead guilty in Florida state court to two felony prostitution charges, register as a sex offender, and pay restitution to three dozen victims identified by the FBI. The plea deal was later described as a “sweetheart deal”.

For the next decade that was pretty well “it” for the FBI and there seemed no way forward for them.

But now, thanks to the implacable Julie Harris, they are roaring back with a vengeance.

Wednesday, June 24, 2020

Knox’s Damning Luminol-Revealed Footprints, In Her Own Room

Posted by The Machine

Dr Stefanoni with Dr Comodi, main DNA prosecutor

Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments.

1. Post Overview

If you visit those few sites and twitter feeds still craven to Knox and her unsavory pals, you’ll see true desperation now.

Ignoring the other vast swathes of evidence, they still beat their brains out “proving” that Italy bungled and misread the DNA. 

They desperately want you to ignore these telling facts: that on the DNA the defense teams were all over the map, that after prosecution presentations they usually tiptoed on, and that they had had observers at every single collection and processing of DNA -  and not even one complained or found fault.

At the Massei trial in 2009, Dr Stefanoni gave a 137-slide PowerPoint presentation to the judges and lay judges to give them a basic understanding of DNA evidence and to help them understand the significance of the DNA evidence in this case.

It included the main forensic findings, images, photographs, the DNA profiles of Meredith and the three defendants and the electropherograms.

One of the last pieces of forensic evidence Dr Stefanoni presented to the court during this PowerPoint presentation was a Luminol footprint - Rep.180 - that was found in Amanda Knox’s room.

Rep 180 was attributed to Knox because it matched her foot size. There were two other Luminol footprints in her room, but Dr Stefanoni regarded this Luminol footprint as particularly significant evidence against her.

Rep 180 - see version with Knox measurements below

2. Why Rep 180 Is So Telling

In this post, I’ll carefully examine the reasons why Dr Stefanoni considers Rep 180 to be significant evidence against Amanda Knox as well as consider the significance of the other Luminol prints in Amanda Knox’s room.

I’ll also explain why Judge Masse and Judge Marasca were both wrong to think they know about forensic science that some of Italy top DNA experts and debunk the myth that a negative TMB test result means the Luminol wasn’t reacting to blood.

Prosecution case on bedroom prints

On 18 December 2007, the Scientific Police completed their forensic investigation at the cottage. They collected more DNA evidence and they sprayed Luminol on the floor of different rooms in the cottage to see whether there were any traces of blood that had been cleaned up.

It was a safe bet that there would be bare bloody footprints at the cottage because there wasn’t a trail of bare bloody footprints leading up to the bare bloody footprint in the small bathroom. The Scientific Police sprayed the hallway outside the small bathroom and a number of bare bloody footprints magically appeared.

Unsurprisingly, they matched the foot sizes of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. They had been arrested on 6 November 2007 after they had both lied repeatedly to the police and changed their stories dramatically. The DNA and forensic evidence was starting to provide the explanation for Knox and Sollecito’s multiple false alibis and numerous lies

There were two Luminol traces in Filomena’s room - where the break-in was staged - and three Luminol footprints in Amanda Knox’s room. Two of the luminol prints contained the DNA of Amanda Knox and Meredith; one was in the hallway and the other was in Filomena’s room.

Judge Massei and Judge Nencini accepted the Luminol prints as damning evidence against Knox and Sollecito because they matched their feet and they reasoned the Luminol must have reacting to Meredith’s blood as there was an abundance of her blood at the cottage.

The defence experts had pointed out that Luminol also reacts to other substances such as rust and fruit juice. The idea that Knox and Sollecito had dipped their feet in rust or turnip juice and then walked around the cottage in bare feet is too ridiculous to take seriously.

Judge Massei interprets Knox’s prints

Judge Massei thinks Amanda Knox tracked Meredith’s blood into Filomena’s room and her own room when she was checking to see what the situation was outside of the cottage.

These traces, besides constituting further evidence of the presence of Amanda in Meredith’s room when she was killed, lead us to believe that Amanda and Raffaele, before deciding to break the glass in the window of Romanelli’s room and leave the house, wished to make sure that there was no-one in the street; a worry that may have had its basis both in the scream let out by Meredith and which could have been heard by someone who, being in the street, had stopped in curiosity, and in the presence, only slightly earlier, of a broken-down car, in the very near [409] vicinity of the house on Via della Pergola, a car which both Amanda and Raffaele must have noticed when they entered the house; in fact, it should be considered that Raffaele must have already noticed the presence of such a vehicle when he was in the square in front of the University when, as Curatolo testified, he went close to the grating located there in order to look below, where that same broken-down car, causing an obstruction to the traffic, may have caused horns to be blown.

“The biological traces attributable to Amanda (one to Amanda alone and one to Amanda and Meredith) highlighted by Luminol and present in the rooms of Amanda and Romanelli can therefore be adequately explained by the need to check what the situation outside the house was, and to do this Amanda had to look from the window of her own room and from the window of Romanelli’s room, leaving in these areas the prints which were then highlighted by Luminol.” (Judge Massei’s report, pages 380-381).

This is a very plausible scenario. However, it should be pointed out that Dr Stefanoni and Judge Massei don’t completely agree on the DNA evidence and the Luminol prints.

Dr Stefanoni claims Amanda Knox was bleeding on the night of the murder and her blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood in three different locations at the cottage: in three sports in the small bathroom, in a Luminol footprint the hallway and in a Luminol trace in Filomena’s room.

Dr Stefanoni’s forensic finding that Amanda Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood in three different locations at the cottage has been confirmed by Professor Biondo - the head of the DNA Unit of the Scientific Police - and Professor Garofano - the former head of the RIS Carabinieri.

Judge Massei thinks Amanda Knox’s DNA - not her blood - was mixed with Meredith’s blood in the small bathroom, the hallway and Filomena’s room. However, he doesn’t provide any scientific evidence to support his assertion. As I’ve pointed out before, Judge Massei has no forensic qualifications, experience or training. He clearly doesn’t know more about forensic science than Dr Stefanoni, Professor Garofano and Professor Biondo.

Dr Stefanoni is regarded as one of Italy’s leading forensic experts and that’s the reason why she was part of the disaster investigations team that was sent to the scene of the 2004 Asian tsunami to identify victims and she was appointed the Chief Technical Director in the Forensic Genetics Investigations section of the Scientific Police.

Why Dr Stefanoni sees Rep. 180 as hard evidence against Knox

On slide 136 of Dr Stefanoni’s PowerPoint presentation, she states that Rep. 180 is one of the “more significant biological results.”

“Approfondimento
alcuni risultati biologici più significativi
Rep.180: campionatura di presunta sostanza ematica evidenziata
mediante test del Luminol (st. KNOX)”

In-depth analysis
some more significant biological results
Rep. 180: sampling of presumed blood substance highlighted
by Luminol test (st. KNOX)

If you look at the electropherogram for Rep.180, you’ll understand why Dr Stefanoni regards it as significant evidence against Amanda Knox. Her DNA peaks are extremely high. Even higher than her peaks on the electropherogram for the cotton bud box. 14 peaks are over 1,000 RFUs, four peaks are over 2,000 RFUs and one peak is over 3,000 RFUs.

In other words, Amanda Knox’s DNA in this Luminol footprint clearly wasn’t touch DNA. It must have come from a source that provides an immense amount of DNA e.g. blood.

Professor Garofano pointed out that extremely high DNA peaks indicates the sample is undoubtedly blood:

“However, here is the electropherogram and you can see that the RFU value is very high, so the sample is undoubtedly blood, which is the body fluid that provides the greatest amount of DNA.” (Luciano Garafano, Darkness Descending, page 371).

There were three Luminol footprints in Amanda Knox’s room: Rep. 178, 179, 180 (L3, L4, L5). Dr Stefanoni thinks they all contained blood.

The pertinent question is: Whose blood was it?

The DNA test results can help us answer the question: all three of the Luminol prints in Amanda Knox’s room contained her DNA. None of them contained Meredith’s DNA.

The fact that that 14 of Amanda Knox DNA peaks in Rep.180 were over 1,000 RFUs indicates it was her blood.

These three forensic findings corroborate Professor Garofano’s claims there was “copious blood loss by Amanda” and that she “walked around in her own blood, blood that she also had on her body.”

Amanda Knox’s supporters like to point out that Judge Marasca claimed that TMB (Tetramethylbenzidine) test results proved there was no blood in the Luminol prints:

“With reference to the asserted hematic traces in the other environments, especially in the corridor, there’s also an obvious misrepresentation of the proof. In fact, the progress-of-works reports of the Scientific Police had excluded, consequent to the use of a particular chemical reagent, that, in the examined environments, the traces highlighted by the luminol were of hematic nature. The work status reports despite being regularly compiled and registered in evidence, were not considered.” (Judge Marasca’s Supreme Court report).

Apart from the fact Judge Marasca isn’t a DNA expert, this is also clearly not true. Luminol and TMB tests are both presumptive tests - not confirmatory ones. In other words, a negative TMB test result doesn’t mean there was no blood.

Dr Sarah Gino - Amanda Knox’s forensic expert - acknowledged in court that a negative TMB test result doesn’t mean there was no blood in the Luminol prints:

“[Dr Sarah Gino] She underlined that the SAL [stato di avanzamento lavoro – work status report] reports which had been made available had shown that a generic diagnosis for blood had been performed and had given a negative result, and therefore it could not be said with certainty that blood was present in the material revealed by Luminol.” (The Massei report, page 282).

Judge Massei noted the reasons why there were negative TMB test results i.e. there wasn’t sufficient material to indicate the presence of blood and Dr Stefanoni had used most of the DNA to determine who it belonged to:

“But it must be noted that the negative result for blood does not necessarily indicate that no blood was present. The result may have been negative because there was not sufficient material to indicate the presence of blood. Dr. Gino stated that in her experience there is a probabilistic relation to the number of cases in which the blood test comes out positive or negative. The negative result was also partly a consequence of Dr. Stefanoni’s choice to use most of the DNA to determine the individual profiles and only the remainder to attempt to determine the nature of the trace. “ (The Massei report, 282).

Judge Massei also noted out that Dr Stefanoni had explained it was preferable to know to whom the biological specimen belonged to rather than ascertaining the nature of it:

“The negative result of the test performed to determine the haematological nature of the material of specimen B does not per se exclude the haematological nature of the specimen.

Dr. Stefanoni, [when] questioned on this specific aspect, noted that since any DNA that might be present on the trace in question was certainly of a very small quantity, a minimal quantity was used to determine whether the trace was of a haematological nature or not: consequently the outcome of test, [which was] negative for blood, did not necessarily signify the non-haematological nature of the trace, as it might have been derived from too small a quantity of material to have allowed a positive result, even if that substance had been [310] blood.

She [Dr. Stefanoni] explained that such a choice, whereby the greatest quantity of DNA had been used to determine the biological profile rather than the nature of the specimen, provided a basis for the subsequent assessments: it is preferable to know to whom a given biological specimen is attributable, rather than ascertaining the nature of that same specimen, without any possibility of attributing it to anyone.” (The Massei report, page 288).

Judge Massei pointed out that the defence experts didn’t put forward a significant counter-argument to Dr Stefanoni’s claim that a negative TMB test doesn’t necessarily mean there was no blood:

“With respect to the affirmation according to which the negative test for blood does not necessarily signify absence of blood in the sample being analysed, no significant counter-arguments were put forward. Moreover, Dr. Stefanoni’s explanation of this point seems convincing: if the quantity is minimal, the negative outcome of the test may also be a result of the insufficient quantity used for the test itself.” (The Massei report, page 288).

Judge Marasa’s ignorance with regard to forensic science led him to assuming that a negative TMB test result means there was no blood in the Luminol prints and traces at the cottage. He essentially accused Dr Stefanoni of misleading the Massei court about the TMB test results when she did no such thing.

She specifically pointed out that the Luminol identified presumed blood traces in the Luminol prints in her official court report for the Massei trial.:

‘‘un profilo genetico derivante da mistura di sostanze biologiche (conententi presumibilemente ematica) appartenenti ad almeno dui individui entrambi di sesso femminile”

‘‘a genetic profile deriving from a mixture of biological substances (presumably containing blood) belonging to at least two individuals both of female gender.”

She also pointed out that TMB tests on blood traces revealed by Luminol have negative results about half the time,

“She added that, in her own experience, analyses performed with TMB on traces revealed by Luminol give about even results: 50% negative, 50% positive,” (The Massei report, page 258).

This is to be expected because Luminol is significantly more sensitive than TMB and that’s the reason why It is the blood detection technique most commonly used by forensic investigators.

Judge Marasca has not only accused Dr Stefanoni of being dishonest, he has also by extension accused Professor Garofano and Professor Biondo of being dishonest because they confirmed Dr Stefanoni’s forensic finding that the Luminol was reacting to blood. The only person who is guilty of misrepresenting the evidence is Judge Marasca.

It defies belief that Judge Marasca who has no forensic qualifications, experience or training thinks he knows more about the forensic science than two DNA experts who have PhDs in forensic science.

Dr Stefanoni and Professor Garofano have both pointed out that you can determine whether the Luminol was reacting to blood by the luminosity of the presumed blood trace and the DNA test results.

“But let’s see what the prints actually mean. First of all, from their sheer luminosity they are blood. The DNA test showed Meredith’s blood in all cases except for two places in which we have a mixed Amanda and Meredith sample.” (Professor Garofano).

“So I, with genetic analysis, can say with certainty that there was blood”. (Dr Stefanoni).

“in other words everything that is not blood, is nonetheless different even if it is still a bluish fluorescence: that is, the colour does not change, [but] the intensity and the duration change. So in effect, the intensity, thus, of that blue or that azure, so intense, is not given off, in general, by other reagents that are not blood: they give a weaker fluorescence”. (Dr Stefanoni).

3. Some conclusions from the above

Sometimes judges make embarrassing schoolboy errors. This usually happens when they arrogantly opine about subjects they know nothing about.

Judge Masipa didn’t understand the legal concept of dolus evantualis and applied it incorrectly when acquitting Pistorius of the murder of Reeva Steenkamp.

In South African law, under the principle of dolus eventualis, a person can be convicted of murder if they foresaw the possibility of their actions resulting in the death of someone but continued regardless.

Judge Hellmann claimed obtaining the same result twice does not increase the reliability of the result. He was referring to carrying on a test on the remaining DNA on the blade of Sollecito’s kitchen knife.

Mathematicians Leila Schneps and Coralie Colmez point out in their excellent book Math on Trial that Hellmann’s comments show a ‘’complete misunderstanding of the probabilistic result of considering two separate results from two performances of the same test.’’

Judge Marasca’s claim the TMB test results means there was was no blood in the Luminol prints is demonstrably false. The defence experts didn’t even claim this. He can be inducted into the hall of shame alongside Judge Masipa and Judge Hellman for judges who have made embarrassing and painfully stupid mistakes.

But let’s not let the stupidity of the judges mentioned above distract us from the significance of the three Luminol prints found in Amanda Knox’s room, especially Rep.180.

Judge Massei thinks Amanda Knox tracked Meredith’s blood into her own room when she was checking to see what the situation was outside of the cottage. It seems she also tracked her own blood into her room and a lot of it.

Monday, June 01, 2020

Yet More Evidence That Knox And Meredith Fought On Fatal Night

Posted by The Machine

The excellent BBC report referred to below

Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments.

1. Our New Translations Continue To Talk

Hoax 4 “No firm DNA” in our right column actually consists of various sub-hoaxes, most of which I and many others here have demolished in the past. 

This post is about the “no mixed blood” sub-hoax. This is one of many evidence points quite pivotal to Amanda Knox’s major and continuing “I’m the real victim” fraud.

In this post, I’m going to debunk the myth that Dr Stefanoni never claimed there was mixed-blood evidence once and for all by providing verbatim quotations from her official report for the Massei court in 2009 and her testimony at the Micheli trial in 2008.

I’ll also put the mixed-blood evidence under the microscope and analyse the reasons why some of Italy’s top DNA experts from the Scientific Police and the RIS Carabinieri believe Amanda Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood in different locations in the cottage.

2. Quotes From Experts And Reporters

Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau

Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau repeatedly reported that the prosecution’s experts from the Scientific Police had claimed that Amanda Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood in different locations in the cottage.

Dr Stefanoni and the prosecution regarded this as damning evidence against Amanda Knox because it indicates that Knox and Meredith were both bleeding at the same time on the night of the murder and there must have been confrontation between the two.

Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau are both fluent in Italian, they have access to the prosecution’s 10,000-page file and they observed the prosecution’s experts testifying in court at both Rudy Guede’s fast-track trial in 2008 and Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito’s trial in 2009. Despite this, a number of people have attempted to dismiss their reports as fake news or claim they didn’t understand what was being said in court.

However, it should be pointed out it wasn’t only Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau who spoke about the mixed-blood evidence. Judge Gemelli specifically referred to the mixed-blood evidence in his Supreme Court report in 2008:

“to both the women the blood traces found in the bidet.” (Judge Gemelli’s Supreme Court report).

“quelle rinvenute nel lavandino, ad entrambe le ragazze le tracce di sangue rilevate nel bidet”

The Kerchers’ lawyer Francesco Maresca told the media outside the courtroom that the mixed-blood evidence was the most damning piece of evidence against Amanda Knox.

In Andrea Vogt’s excellent BBC documentary, the mixed-blood evidence is the first DNA evidence that is mentioned:

“First, there’s the DNA found in the bathroom. The prosecution says it shows the mixed blood of Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher in the bidet drain, the sink drain and on a cotton bud box.  There’s also a large drop of Amanda’s blood on the bathroom tap.

“According to the prosecutor, this shows Amanda and Meredith were bleeding at the same time.

Strong evidence there was a fight.”

Trial Prosecutor Dr Comodi

Manuela Comodi also regards the mixed blood evidence as the main evidence against Knox:

“The principal evidence was mixed-blood traces from which were extracted mixed DNA of Amanda and Meredith. The only explanation for that mix is that Amanda was bleeding and touched objects covered in Meredith’s blood. There’s no other explanation.” (Manuela Comodi).

In case anyone doubts the quotations attributed to Manuela Comodi, she specifically refers to “sangue misto” - which is mixed blood - in the documentary.

Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau, Judge Gemelli, Manuela Comodi and Francesco Maresca wouldn’t have specifically referred to the mixed-blood evidence if Dr Stefanoni hadn’t referred to in her official reports for the courts or whilst she was on the stand in court.

Victim’s Lawyer Dr Maresca

In Dr Maresca’s closing arguments at trial in 2009 he repeatedly refers to the mixed-blood evidence and cites the page numbers from Dr Stefanoni’s report to support his assertions:

“I refer to the report, in the records of Dr. Stefanoni acquired at the beginning of the hearing, sampling of presumed blood substance highlighted by luminol technique performed on the floor located in the room used by Romanelli Filomena, is described in page 219 finding 177 I repeat of fundamental importance, a measure of biological substance, two individuals, both women, provided a compatibility result, is compatible with the hypothesis of measurement of biological substance containing blood substance belonging to Knox Amanda and Kercher Meredith.”

“Dr. Stefanoni papers 124 and 125 and the results that she inserts in her report tell us that beyond the drawing or not carried out with the same swabs also the other three report the same profile confirming that evidently the genetic profile obtained clearly corresponds to the fact there was a mixture of blood substance between the victim and Amanda Knox”.

Electropherogram of mixed-blood trace, cotton bud box #1 of 3

Dr Stefanoni’s testimony at the Massei trial

Dr Stefanoni categorically states there were three biological substances containing blood belonging to Amanda Knox and Meredith in the small bathroom and two mixed samples presumably containing blood belonging to Amanda Knox and Meredith in her official report for the Massei report.

Mixed blood in Filomena’s room (Rep.177, page 219)

‘‘un profilo genetico derivante da mistura di sostanze biologiche (conententi presumibilemente ematica)appartenenti ad almeno dui individui entrambi di sesso femmminile. Il confronto effettuati tra il genotipo derivante dalla traccia del Rep.177 con quelli appartenenti a KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara e KNOX Amanda Marie’‘.

‘‘a genetic profile deriving from a mixture of biological substances (presumably containing blood) belonging to at least two individuals both of female gender. The comparison made between the genotype deriving from the trace of the Rep. 177 with those belonging to KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara and KNOX Amanda Marie’‘.

Mixed blood in the bidet (Rep.66, page 119 )

‘‘The bidet: un profilo genetico derivante da mistura di sostanze biologiche conententi sangue umano appartenenti KNOX Amanda Marie (in misura minora) e KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara (in misura maggiore)’‘.

‘‘a genetic profile deriving from a mixture of biological substances containing human blood belonging to KNOX Amanda Marie (to a lesser extent) and KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara’‘.

Mixed blood on the cotton bud box and the basin (Rep 136-7, page 175)

‘‘contenenti certamente sostanze ematica appartenenti ad almeno dui individui entrambi di sesso femminile. Il confronto effettuati tra il genotipo derivante dalla due tracce analizzate con quelli appartenenti a KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara e KNOX Amanda Marie’‘.

‘‘a genetic profile deriving from a mixture of biological substances certainly containing blood substances belonging to at least two individuals both of female gender. The comparison made between the genotype deriving from the two traces analyzed with those belonging to KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara and KNOX Amanda Marie’‘

Mixed blood in the hallway (Rep.183, page 224)

‘‘un profilo genetico derivante da mistura di sostanze biologiche (conententi presumibilemente ematica)appartenenti ad almeno dui individui entrambi di sesso femmminile. Il confronto effettuati tra il genotipo derivante dalla traccia del Rep.183 con quelli appartenenti a KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara e KNOX Amanda Marie’‘.

‘‘a genetic profile deriving from a mixture of biological substances (presumably containing blood) belonging to at least two individuals both of female gender. The comparison made between the genotype deriving from the trace of the Rep. 183 with those belonging to KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara and KNOX Amanda Marie’‘.

Dr Stefanoni’s testimony at the Micheli trial

Dr Stefanoni categorically stated Amanda Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood in three different spots in the small bathroom when testifying at Rudy Guede’s fast-track trial in 2008:

“mi spiego, almeno cerco di spiegarmi, allora bagno io non ho trovato soltanto una traccia ematica mista, ne ho trovato soltanto tre, piu o meno in zone molte vicinie quindi sulla scatola del cotton fioc, nel lavindo e vicino, nei pressi della scarico del bidet, tutte tre queste tracce apparivano ad occhio non essere sangue intero, mi spiego, non essere sangue cosi come viene fuori du una ferita, questa e sangue contente acqua, per il fatto del colore era practicamente rosato, per cui il fatto che per coincidenza questa tre tracce siano state poste in temp diversi mi sembra improbabile ma non lo escludo perche il DNA non datible cioe si. puo ritrovare DNA anche dopo anni.

“I’ll explain myself, at least I try to explain myself, then in the bathroom I didn’t just find one mixed-blood trace, I found three, more or less in areas very close to the cotton swab box, in the washbasin and nearby, near the drain of the bidet, all three of these traces appeared to the eye not to be whole blood, I mean, not to be blood as it comes out of a wound, this is blood containing water, due to the fact of the color it was practically pink, so it seems unlikely to me that these three traces have been placed at different times by some coincidence, but I do not exclude it because the DNA is not datable, that is yes. You can find DNA even after many years.” (Dr Stefanoni’s trial testimony, 4/10/2008 page 168)

“Una traccia ematica mista” is a mixed-blood trace.

Professor Torre asked her to confirm there was mixed blood and here’s her answer.

“Yes, the blood of both”

“Si, il sangue dell’uno e dell’altro” (Yes, the blood of one and the other).

Electropherogram of mixed-blood trace, cotton bud box #2 of 3

Confirmation from other experts

Which other experts believe Amanda Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood?

Some of Italy’s top DNA experts from the Scientific Police and the RIS Caribinieri are sure Amanda Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood in different locations in the cottage.

They quote a number of specific reasons i.e. there was more of Knox’s DNA in some of these mixed samples, the peaks were were of similar heights, indicating similar concentrations of DNA from both women in the samples, and some of Knox’s peaks were extremely high.

Touch DNA results in minute amounts of DNA being deposited, compared with that in blood. You can expect to find roughly ten times the number of cells in blood compared to the number of cells left from touching an object. White corpuscles provide an immense quantity of DNA compared with other substances.

According to the authors of Darkness Descending Dr Stefanoni explained to Dr Mignini how she knew Amanda Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith - and not another substance like saliva.

“She said that she had identified a large blob of Amanda’s blood on the tap, and their blood was mixed in the basin, bidet and the cotton bud box. This meant Meredith and Amanda must have been bleeding at the same time. The implication was that Amanda had cut herself in the violence of the murder struggle. Stefanoni wanted to confirm this.

“‘Excuse my ignorance, sorry to interrupt,’ Mignini said. ‘Can you explain to me how you know the sample contains blood both from the victim and Knox? Couldn’t be just be the victim’s blood and say, another biological substance, saliva for example, from Knox?’ Stefanoni explained she knew both samples were blood because white corpuscles provide an immense quantity of DNA compared with other substances, and this sample contained a lot of Amanda’s DNA. ‘This in itself proves it is blood,’ said Stefanoni, and added ‘Actually, in some cases we see more of Amanda’s DNA than Meredith’s, such as here in the basin. This means that there is a lot of Amanda’s blood, not a smudge.’”

The explanation attributed to Dr Stefanoni is basically the same as General/Professor Garofano’s in the book.

“However, here is the electropherogram and you can see that the RFU value is very high, so the sample is undoubtedly blood, which is the body fluid that provides the greatest amount of DNA.

In some cases you see higher peaks of Amanda’s DNA than Meredith’s. Amanda has been bleeding. (Luciano Garafano, Darkness Descending, page 371).

“Let’s say the assassin used the basin and bidet to wash the knife: if you look at the electropherograms you’ll see that there seems to be more of Amanda Knox’s blood than Meredith’s. There is a copious blood loss by Amanda.”  (Luciano Garofano, Darkness Descending, page 374).

Back to Dr Stefanoni again

Dr Stefanoni testified in court that it’s possible to tell from the electropherogram who left the greater amount of blood in a mixed-blood sample:

‘‘the trace is composed of two DNAs in a quantitively different manner: maybe one has lost a tiny drop of blood and a big drop blood of the other ended up on top of it - thus a larger quantity of DNA - even this can be seen in this graph.”

Click below for a larger image. You can see in the overlay graph that some of Amanda Knox’s peaks are higher than Meredith’s.

Electropherogram of mixed-blood trace, cotton bud box #3 of 3

3. Closer look at mixed-blood evidence

This further analysis now proceeds location-by-location within the entire crime scene.

Mixed-blood evidence in hallway and Filomena’s room

Professor Garofano says the Luminol-revealed prints at the cottage are in blood because of their high luminosity and the DNA test indicated the presence of Meredith’s blood:

“But let’s see what the prints actually mean. First of all, from their sheer luminosity they are blood. The DNA test showed Meredith’s blood in all cases except for two places in which we have a mixed Amanda and Meredith sample.”

Dr Stefanoni made the same points when speaking about the Luminol prints when she was being questioned on the stand during the Massei trial:

“So I, with genetic analysis, can say with certainty that there was blood”.

She also pointed out the Luminol reacts to differently to blood compared to other substances:

“in other words everything that is not blood, is nonetheless different even if it is still a bluish fluorescence: that is, the colour does not change, [but] the intensity and the duration change. So in effect, the intensity, thus, of that blue or that azure, so intense, is not given off, in general, by other reagents that are not blood: they give a weaker fluorescence”.

Prosecutor Manuela Comodi pointed out that Dr Stefanoni had ruled out the Luminol could have been reacting to a substance other than blood:

“Remember, Stefanoni also took samples of those traces on the floor, sometimes finding the victim’s DNA, sometimes the victim’s / Knox’s mixed DNA, specifying: she would never have been able to find any DNA if the trace had been produced from rust, fruit juice or bleach.”

Here’s the relevant courtroom testimony:

QUESTION - Excuse me, doctor, you said before that since luminol enhances different substances not only blood cannot assert precisely the biological nature of those traces enhanced with luminol, but I ask you: you sampled in the biological inspection those traces there enhanced with luminol and found genetic profiles, if that trace had been produced by bleach would the genetic profiles have found them?

ANSWER - No, because bleach destroys DNA.

QUESTION - Exactly I say it was material other than biological material, let’s not call it blood, let’s call it generically biological material, it was rust, it was fruit juice, etc., would it have found genetic profiles?

ANSWER - No, DNA is specific ... that analysis is specific to human DNA. We said this.

Mixed-blood evidence in small bathroom #1

Barbie Nadeau told Denis Murphy from NBC that the mixed-blood evidence in the bidet convinced Dr Stefanoni that Knox was involved in Meredith’s murder:

“The most damaging forensic evidence against Amanda was what the prosecution’s expert said was mixed blood DNA of Amanda and Meredith found on the drain of the bidet.”

“Barbie Nadeau: She was convinced that it showed that Amanda Knox was involved in this crime.”

There was a live chat with Barbie Nadeau on The Daily Beast website and Bruce Fischer - a muddled fur coat salesman from Chicago’s outer suburbs - disagreed with Barbie’s claim there was mixed-blood evidence. This was her response:

“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.” (Barbie Nadeau, The Daily Beast).

It speaks volumes about Barbie’s diligence and her ethical commitment to the truth that she checked to see whether dozens of forensic scientists agreed with Dr Stefanoni’s claim. Barbie wasn’t prepared to accept her claim at face value. It should also be noted that they did agree.

Mixed-blood evidence in small bathroom #2

We look here at the significance of the three mixed-blood traces in the small bathroom in relation to Amanda Knox’s blood on the tap

Both Dr Stefanoni and Professor Garofano think it’s significant that Amanda Knox’s blood was found alone on the tap close to the three mixed-blood samples in the small bathroom because it provides further corroboration that Amanda Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood.

Professor Garofano said it ”is logical to the put bloodstain in relation with the blood in the bidet and washbasin”.

Dr Stefanoni also thought it is significant there were three mixed-blood samples in the small bathroom were close to Knox’s blood on the tap. She made this point at Rudy Guede’s fast-track trial:

“So, let’s say, this reasoning that has been addressed by both you and Professor Torre is not taken into account, however, also of another circumstance which, however, must be recognized if you do not express a judgment, let’s say, of any kind that always in the narrow sampling area, just a short distance from the traces of the cotton swab, from the traces in the sink and from the traces in the bidet which were, let’s say, objects close enough, let’s say, in the space there is also a trace of blood not apparently washed out whole blood, as I say, on the tap of this sink that belongs only to a person [Amanda Knox].”

Amanda Knox’s forensic expert Sarah Gino acknowledges that Knox’s blood might have been mixed with Meredith’s blood, though she also claims it’s possible the blood was left at different times:

“Maybe there was blood from both of them [Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher], but what does that mean? Maybe someone had a bloody nose one time and then at another moment someone cut their finger and put it down and their blood got mixed.” (Dr Sarah Gino, Amanda Knox’s forensic expert).

But Professor Garofano for one ruled out the possibility that Knox’s blood on the tap was old blood and it was touched it:

“Amanda’s blood is recent. It is dry, but it hasn’t been touched or cleaned. There is no fingerprint in it.”

Professor Garofano also ruled out the possibility that the blood in the basin was old blood:

“Nor is it old blood as the defence might say, because blood decays fast.”

Francesco Maresca pointed out in his closing arguments that Amanda Knox herself had admitted there was no blood in the small bathroom on the afternoon of 1 November 2007:

“Just a few seconds to draw your attention to some passages of the examination made in front of you by Amanda Knox, in cards 49 she reiterates that on November 1st, the afternoon before the murder, obviously there were no traces of blood in the bathroom and in the house”.

4. Various Conclusions From All Of This

The extract of Dr Stefanoni’s courtroom testimony above from the Micheli trial shatters the myth that she didn’t claim there was mixed-blood evidence.

It also proves that Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau weren’t lying and they didn’t misunderstand what had been said in court.

Also Judge Massei didn’t confirm the prosecution’s assertion that Amanda Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith because, he said, Dr Stefanoni didn’t definitively rule out the possibility that Knox’s DNA was from a substance other than blood and the fact she didn’t have any visible wounds.

It should be pointed out that Judge Massei isn’t a forensic scientist. He doesn’t have any forensic qualifications, experience or training. He doesn’t know how to read and interpret electropherograms.

However, he still thought the mixed traces in the small bathroom were evidence that she had washed Meredith’s blood off in the small bathroom so he tilted toward Dr Stefanoni.

The Italian Supreme Court agreed with how Massei handled this said the mixed traces were “eloquent proof” she had washed Meredith’s blood off in the small bathroom - which is still damning evidence against her.

Dr Stefanoni’s forensic finding that Amanda Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood in different locations in the cottage has been confirmed by Dr Biondo - the head of the DNA Unit of the Scientific Police - and Professor Garofano - the former head of the RIS Carabinieri. They both have PhDs in forensic science. It’s safe to assume they know what they’re talking about.

Amanda Knox’s hardcore supporters have claimed for years that they have read all the official court transcripts (really? most are still not translated) and they were absolutely adamant that Dr Stefanoni didn’t testify there was mixed-blood evidence.

They were lying - clearly - and they were completely wrong. There’s no justification for their absolute certainty.  No-one should believe anything they say unless it can be corroborated because they have proved themselves to be dishonest and untrustworthy time and time again.

I’d rather trust the professional opinions of DNA experts such as Dr Stefanoni, Dr Biondo and Professor Garofano than someone who has no forensic qualifications or experience. They are well-qualified and extremely experienced forensic scientists who have analysed DNA evidence from countless crime scenes.

Very fine work.

Monday, May 18, 2020

CV Update: Spreading Perceptions Of Glutathione As An Immunity-Boosting V Big Deal

Posted by Peter Quennell

A quick and probably final update. As glutathione is not a drug there is no multi-million advertising campaign to get the word out.

Still, serious virus/glutathione studies with positive conclusions are coming online several times a week, and anti-virus nutrition advice almost invariably includes NAC (N-Acetyl-Cysteine) which with some selenium converts to glutathione in the body.

And in the US a few widely read or viewed tales of individual recoveries are appearing in the popular media, like the top link below.

Hazarding a guess? Chloroquine DOESN’T stop the virus. This seemingly does. Maybe half of all of those who have died might have been saved.

Click for Post:  New York Mom with Coronavirus Saved by Medical-student Son’s Quick Thinking

Click for Post:  Glutathione-boosting Treatments that Improve Immune Responses and Reduce the Severity of Viral Infections

Click for Post:  Endogenous Deficiency of Glutathione as the Most Likely Cause of Serious Manifestations and Death…

Click for Post:  Glutathione-Capped Ag2S Nanoclusters Inhibit Coronavirus Proliferation

Click for Post:  Glutathione Helps Fortify Immune System Against the Coronavirus

Click for Post:  COVID-19: Super 7 Supplements to Bolster your Immune System

Stay safe.

Sunday, May 10, 2020

Does This Knox DNA Evidence Add To The Proofs She Was Part Of The Pack Attack?

Posted by The Machine

Professor Vinci

1. Context Within The Wider Case

One aspect of the case that incessantly amuses Italians? Sollecito and Knox stabbing each other in the back again and again and again.

More often the aggressor has been Sollecito, who angrily sold Knox down the river on the night they were both arrested, and, despite the absurd claims in Honour Bound, he never confirmed her final alibi from 2007 through 2015.

In mid 2008 their lawyers forced a truce of sorts upon them. But then in October this happened.

The Sollecito defense witness Professor Francesco Vinci implied that the evidence was strong if not quite definitive that Knox had indeed attacked Meredith inside her room and, like Sollecito, had left her DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp.

”Lawyers for Mr Sollecito have told the judge that, according to a forensic expert called by the defence, Ms Knox’s DNA is on Ms Kercher’s bloodied bra-strap as well as that of Mr Sollecito and Rudy Guede.” (Richard Owen, The Times)

“Francesco Vinci, a forensic science expert hired by Sollecito’s legal team, said the DNA of all three suspects and two other unidentified people might be on the bra. Sollecito’s lawyers say this proves their theory that the clasp was contaminated after police mistakenly left it on the floor of Kercher’s bedroom for weeks before testing it.” (Tom Kington, The Guardian).

Now, many who simply don’t know the case - ignoring Knox’s lamp inside Meredith’s locked door, and ignoring Meredith’s DNA mingled with Knox’s in several locations - claim that there’s zero evidence of Knox being in the room.

One instance. In the final Cassation report Judge Marasca claimed the lack of biological traces attributable to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in Meredith’s room was “proof” they weren’t physically involved in her murder.

It was a point he made repeatedly. He clearly doesn’t understand one of the most basic tenets of forensic science i.e. absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.

Ted Simon

Another instance. The hapless lawyer Ted Simon, who represented Amanda Knox to American media for a while, also claimed there were no biological traces attributable to Knox in Meredith’s room.

He was like a stuck record in media interviews - he hammered this particular point over and over again as if this was exculpatory evidence that by itself proves Knox wasn’t involved in Meredith’s death - which of course isn’t true.

“There was no hair, fiber, footprint, shoe print, handprint, palm print, fingerprint, sweat, saliva, DNA of Amanda Knox in the room where Meredith Kercher was killed,” attorney Theodore Simon told TODAY’s Savannah Guthrie. “That in and of itself tells you unassailably that she is innocent.” (CNN)

To which we showed up his sheer absurdity in responding:

“There was no hair, fiber, footprint, shoe print, handprint, palm print, fingerprint, sweat, saliva, DNA of Rudy Guede in the bathroom where there was a bloody footprint of RS and DNA of Knox,” attorney Theodore Simon told TODAY’s Savannah Guthrie. “That in and of itself tells you unassailably that Guede did not do the crime alone.”

“There was no hair, fiber, footprint, shoe print, handprint, palm print, fingerprint, sweat, saliva, DNA of Rudy Guede in Filomena’s room where the breakin was staged, though there was Knox’s DNA” attorney Theodore Simon told TODAY’s Savannah Guthrie. “That in and of itself tells you unassailably that Amanda Knox is framing him.”

“There was no hair, fiber, footprint, shoe print, handprint, palm print, fingerprint, sweat, saliva, DNA of Amanda Knox in the bedroom where Knox said she slept,” attorney Theodore Simon told TODAY’s Savannah Guthrie. “That in and of itself tells you unassailably that Knox did not even live in the flat.”

2. A Close Look At The Bra Clasp Evidence

A number of DNA experts disagree with claims like these that there was no trace of Amanda Knox in Meredith’s room, and that that by itself proved innocence.

The fact that one of Sollecito’s defence experts, Professor Vinci, had claimed Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede’s DNA was on Meredith’s bra clasp was quite widely reported in the English media at the time.

I don’t recall ever seeing any mention of Professor Vinci’s findings in any articles in the US media. It seems that David Marriott made sure via his usual threats to brush this under the carpet.

The default position of the defence experts is that ALL the DNA evidence against the two white people was contaminated and predictably Professor Vinci does take this line too. Money talks - just ask Ted Simon. He dramatically changed his tune with regard to the strength of evidence against Amanda Knox as soon as he was hired by her family.

But Professor Vinci does devote four pages of his official court report - pages 9-12 - to explaining why he believes Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede’s DNA was on Meredith’s bra clasp. He thinks the peaks defined by Dr. Stefanoni as “stutter bands” were actually the genetic profiles of both Knox and Guede.

Professor Vinci’s Report (translated)

From our observations, as stated above and in particular to our different interpretation of the peaks defined by Dr. Stefanoni as “stutter bands” lead us to believe

for the marker D8S1179, the definition of alleles 11 (although being slightly below the threshold), 12 and 14, would show compatibility with the Knox (11/12) and Guede (14/14) genotypes;

for the marker D21S11, the definition of the allele 29 in addition to those defined in the profile indicated by Dr. Stefanoni, identifies the compatibility with the genotypes of Knox (29/30), and of Guede (29/29);

for the CFS1P0 marker, the new profile definition highlights the compatibility with the Knox profile (29/30);

for the D3S1358 marker, the new profile definition shows compatibility with the Guede genotypes (15/15, although 15 is just below the 50 RFU threshold) and Knox (15/18, although 15 is slightly below 50 RFU threshold);

for the TH01 marker, the new profile definition highlights the compatibility with the Knox (6/8) and Guede (7/9, genotypes, where however the allele 7 can only be hypothesized because the characteristics related to the area, at the allelic definition and at the height of the peak);

for the D13S317 marker, the compatibility with the Knox genotypes is highlighted (11/13,

where however the allele 11 can only be hypothesized for the D16S539 marker, compatibility with the Knox genotype (10/11) and the Guede genotype (9/11, where the allele 9 can only be hypothesized because the characteristics relating to the area, to the definition are missing allelic and at the height of the peak);

for the D2S1338 marker, the analysis of the new profile shows compatibility with the Guede genotype (16/23) and with the Knox genotype (18/20, where 18 can only be hypothesized below the 50 RFU threshold);

for the D19S433 marker, the analysis of the new profile shows compatibility with that of Knox (13/16, 2, although the latter can only be hypothesized because it lacks the information necessary for its definition); and with that of Guede (13 / 14.2, although the latter can only be hypothesized because it lacks the information necessary for its definition);

for the TP0X marker, the analysis of the new profile highlights compatible with that of Knox (8/8) and with that of Guede (8/9);

for the D18S51 marker, the analysis of the new profile highlights compatible with that of Knox (13/17) and with that of Guede (14/15);

for the D5S818 marker, the analysis of the new profile highlights compatible with that of Knox (13/13) and with that of Guede (12/13);

CONCLUSIVE SUMMARY

On the basis of what has been observed, the superficiality in the attribution of the alleles and the intrinsic complexity of the interpretation of a mistra made up, in our opinion, of at least 3 different DNAs, in addition to Kercher’s.

In considering the alleles and the underlying areas for each peak, it is evident that they are the expression of various genotypic combinations in addition to those considered compatible.

In relation to the latter aspect, it should be emphasized that in light of the new profile obtained by us, considering the alleles previously omitted, compatibility with further genetic profiles other than that of Raffaele Sollecito is highlighted; especially these genetic profiles

In relation to this last aspect, it should be emphasized that the new profile by us, considering the previously omitted alleles, highlights the compatibility with further genetic profiles other than that of Raffaele Sollecito, in particular these genetic profiles are compatible with some attributes to Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede.

And here is his conclusion on pages 11-12.

‘in particulari questi profili genetici risultano compatibili con alcuni marcatori attributi a Amanda Knox e Rudy Guede’

‘in particular these genetic profiles are compatible with some markers attributed to Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede’.

You can see his detailed analysis in Italian on our Wiki.

There are a couple of points that should make everyone pause for thought: (1) Professor Vinci was still a defence expert, so he wouldn’t really want to express an opinion that wrongly implicated Sollecito’s co-defendant; and (2) General Garofano agrees that Amanda Knox’s DNA was on Meredith’s bra clasp.

General Garofano

General (and Professor) Garofano gives a detailed explanation why in Paul Russell’s Darkness Descending.

”Look at the electropherogram and compare the three. Of course, Meredith’s DNA is overwhelmingly present, but look at this. If we go along the graph line, yes we have a lot of Raffaele too, but in the first locus we have eleven and twelve STRs, which is the same as in Amanda’s DNA profile, twenty-nine and thirty X remember - one from the father and one from the mother - in the second, eight, and eleven in the third, also the same as Amanda’s DNA profile, maybe a fifteen in the fifth…look, ten out of 15 loci have peaks that correspond to Amanda DNA’s profile. The hypothesis is that Amanda also touched the bra clasp.

My conclusion is that the bra clasp certainly works as a piece of evidence - it is a strong clue against the suspects Amanda and Raffaele. The RFU number is high enough. So the result is perfect.”

Amanda Knox’s supporters try hard to dismiss Professor Garofano because he clearly considers Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are guilty.

However, it should be pointed out that he has impeccable credentials as an DNA expert. He was the founder of the RIS Caribinieri labs. That’s the equivalent of him being the head of the Forensic Science Service in England or the head of the FBI’s forensic science labs at Quantico.

When the Darknesss Descending authors approached him, they didn’t know whether he would accept or reject the Scientific Police’s forensic findings. He gave his expert opinion as an impartial scientist after carefully studying the evidence and analysing the DNA test results.

According to the authors of Darkness Descending, Dr Stefanoni also thought Amanda Knox’s partial DNA profile was on Meredith’s bra clasp.

“Two different graphs had been drawn from the material extracted from the bra clasp, one for the cloth and one for the bent hook. The cloth clearly indicated Meredith, and only Meredith. But the hook showed at least three peaks for every locus. Each peak had a little number by it, which indicated the number of repeats in the sample of that particular molecule. The numbers indicated the distinguishing features of the individual who had touched the bra clasp. The numbers rang out.

“Stefanoni spelled it out ‘Locus D8S1179,13,10,5 - yes, this works for Sollecito, Meredith and Amanda. Locus D18S51, D19S433, TH01, FGA - Sollecito and Meredith plus an unknown person.”

The police scientist called out all sixteen loci and after each the numbers set next to the peaks. They fit perfectly with Raffaele Sollecito and partially with Amanda Knox - DNA from both of them was on the bra clasp. End of story, they felt.

“Stefanoni was pleased. This was the first strong evidence they had against Raffaele Sollecito. The presence of Amanda Knox was a very reassuring bonus.”

After reading Professor Vinci’s reasons for believing Amanda Knox’s DNA was on Meredith’s bra clasp in his official court report, you’ll see they are essentially the same as Dr Stefanoni’s. They mention the same Locus numbers.

Dr Stefanoni may have had a somewhat different interpretation with regard to the significance of this incomplete profile because she didn’t present this as evidence against Knox at the trial. Of course she had plenty of strong evidence of her own.

Professor Balding

Professor David Balding also acknowledged some of the additional peaks matched Knox’s DNA profile. However, like Dr Stefanoni, he attached no importance to it:

“Of the 24 additional peaks identified by Vecchiotti and Conti (2), of which 6 had heights below the threshold of 50 relative fluorescence units, 9 are included in the profile of the other codefendant, Knox, providing apparent support for the presence of DNA from her. However, four of her alleles were not observed, including two homozygotes, which are less prone to dropout.

These interpretations pose problems for standard methods of evidence evaluation because of the alleles not attributable to any of the profiled individuals, uncertainty over whether or not Knox is a contributor, and the need to allow for the possibility that subthreshold peaks may be allelic.” (Professor Balding).

Professor Anna Barbaro

The 2008 report of Professor Barbaro - the DNA expert hired by Rudy Guede’s lawyers - helps you better understand Professor Vinci’s findings.

She created a table of the DNA results for 165B on pages 5-6 of that report.

Dr Barbaro disagrees with Professor Vinci’s claim that Guede’s DNA was also on Meredith’s bra clasp because if it had been, it would have been identified by the Y haplotype test, which is a more sensitive test

She also has impressive credentials. She is the Chief of the Forensic Genetics Department at SIMEF in Reggio Calabria, Italy, and teaches Forensic Genetics at the 2nd Level Master in Forensic Sciences of the University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Italy.

She serves as the founder and president of the Worldwide Association of Women Forensic Experts (WAWFE).

Accordiing to Barbie Nadeau in the Daily Beast Professor Vincenzo Pascali, Sollecito’s chief forensic consultant, also found Knox’s DNA on Meredith’s bra.

“Vincenzo Pascali, the chief forensic consultant who was set to give expert testimony about the possible contamination of the bra clasp, walked off the case last month, reportedly leaving a €50,000 bill. Back in September, Pascali, who declined to comment for this story, hinted that the clasp also contained Knox’s DNA.”

I think we can safely infer from Professor Pascali’s refusal to deny that Amanda Knox’s DNA was on Meredith’s bra clasp that he thinks it was.

It’s also telling that he stopped representing Sollecito without giving any explanation. Why would he walk off a case where he was being paid a fortune? Does he think the DNA evidence implicates Knox and Sollecito in Meredith’s murder?

3. Certain Conclusions

It’s clear that forensic science isn’t like mathematics where there are no alternative interpretations. Forensic scientists have to interpret the test results and sometimes there isn’t a consensus.

Dr Stefanoni and Professor Balding attach no importance to the partial LCN DNA profiles on Meredith’s bra clasp.

Professor Vinci thinks Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede’s DNA was on Meredith’s bra clasp, but he claims it was contaminated.

Professor Garofano also thinks Amanda Knox’s DNA was on Meredith bra clasp and regards it as a strong clue against her. He thinks she touched it. In other words, he thinks she was involved in the stripping of Meredith.

The fact that Professor Garofano thinks Knox’s DNA was on Meredith’s bra clasp and that it’s a strong clue against her gives me real pause for thought because he is the “father” of Italy’s forensic science capability. Also he has no financial incentive to promote a particular theory - unlike Professor Vinci who had no choice, but to claim the bra clasp was contaminated.

We repeatedly see the same Amanda Knox - Raffaele Sollecito - Rudy Guede combination in the tragic case.

All three lied repeatedly to the police.

All three are implicated by the DNA evidence.

All three are implicated by the bloody footprints at the cottage because they matched their foot sizes.

Let’s assume for a moment that Professor Vinci is right and Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede’s DNA was on Meredith’s bra clasp.

Is it really an amazing coincidence that their DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp?

Was every single piece of DNA evidence against the two white people really contaminated?