The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[Vixen]

No. In fact it's more likely to have been a diminution of "for pity's sake", which is more of a handful to say out loud. But some people never give up the chance of a good personal attack, eh?

And yes, Vixen. Please could you provide the evidence - that you said was readily available - to support your lie that the Knox family engaged in a "$2 million PR campaign". Or is it perhaps a further lie that this evidence even exists? (I mean, yes of course it is, but I still would like to see you admit that in writing....)

All of these epithets are toned down versions of what used to be called blasphemy.

Sorry, are you denying Curt Knox hired David Marriott's then PR company Marriott and Gogerty? Do you know what the commercial rates are for intensive advertising in the media?

 

[Bill Williams]

Please read the report for yourself.

What am I, your nanny?

Spoken like someone who cannot back up a claim.

 

[Vixen]

Spoken like someone who cannot back up a claim.

You haven't read it either.

Not on the party reading list, I take it?

 

[Bill Williams]

You haven't read it either.

Not on the party reading list, I take it?

It's no wonder you won't defend your claim. It used to be that the one who made the claim was required to prove it. If not, the claim could be dismissed.

There it sits.

 

[LondonJohn]

All of these epithets are toned down versions of what used to be called blasphemy.

Sorry, are you denying Curt Knox hired David Marriott's then PR company Marriott and Gogerty? Do you know what the commercial rates are for intensive advertising in the media?

1) What kind of "intensive advertising in the media" was undertaken by the Knox family? Evidence please, Vixen.

2) Stop trying to move the goalposts once again, Vixen. YOU claimed that the Knox family embarked on a "$2 million PR campaign", and you said you had the evidence to support it. Face it: both of those things are lies, aren't they Vixen?

 

[LondonJohn]

You haven't read it either.

Not on the party reading list, I take it?

So what you're saying is: no, you cannot supply the evidence to support your claim. Right?

 

[Vixen]

1) What kind of "intensive advertising in the media" was undertaken by the Knox family? Evidence please, Vixen.

2) Stop trying to move the goalposts once again, Vixen. YOU claimed that the Knox family embarked on a "$2 million PR campaign", and you said you had the evidence to support it. Face it: both of those things are lies, aren't they Vixen?

I read it somewhere but can't seem to find it ATM.

 

[Vixen]

So what you're saying is: no, you cannot supply the evidence to support your claim. Right?

The Machine is preparing an article about this very topic so I am not going to queer his pitch.

However, the report is in the public domain for all to read and here is the PCR graph again.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA on the bra clasp

With respect to the analysis of mixed DNA profiles, a good illustration of the problem of a suspect-centered approach was given at a pro-guilt website by someone going by the name Maundy Gregory. He showed that you could find some unexplained peaks from the bra clasp DNA that aligned with Amanda Knox's profile, but you could also find more peaks that aligned with Casey Anthony's profile. IMO this is a good illustration of why suspect-centered DNA analysis is not the correct method.

Here is another way of looking at the problem of any possible extra peaks on the bra clasp profile from autosomal (standard) DNA testing. The Y-chromosomal (from males only) DNA profile was not easily accessible until the Conti-Vecchioti report, which was well after 2008. But from that profile, we know that other men contributed to the Y-chromosomal DNA profile. Therefore, if we have unexplained peaks in the autosomal profile, it is parsimonious to assume that the same individuals who contributed to the Y-chromosomal profile also contributed to the autosomal profile. By the way, YSTR DNA testing is what produces Y-chromosomal profiles.

 

[Bill Williams]

I read it somewhere but can't seem to find it ATM.

To quote LJ.... So what you're saying is: no, you cannot supply the evidence to support your claim. Right?

But no worries. Some expert titled "The Machine" is on it. At least real DNA experts put their names to things.

Speaking of which, please name one, just one real Forensic-DNA expert who supports either Stefanoni's work or "the Machine".

 

[LondonJohn]

The Machine is preparing an article about this very topic so I am not going to queer his pitch.

However, the report is in the public domain for all to read and here is the PCR graph again.

That piece of evidence does not support your claim, Vixen. Try again.

(Interesting piece of "message manipulation" from you there, though....)

 

[LondonJohn]

I read it somewhere but can't seem to find it ATM.

Absolutely classic. And not at all remarkable by this point. Do let us know when you've "found it", won't you*?



* I mean, you won't ever find reliable, credible evidence of the Knox family engaging in a "$2 million PR campaign" - because the very claim of this "$2 million PR campaign" is a lie, invented by pro-guilt agitators. So likewise, the claim that there exists (credible, reliable) evidence of the "$2 million PR campaign" is also a lie.

 

[Vixen]

With respect to the analysis of mixed DNA profiles, a good illustration of the problem of a suspect-centered approach was given at a pro-guilt website by someone going by the name Maundy Gregory. He showed that you could find some unexplained peaks from the bra clasp DNA that aligned with Amanda Knox's profile, but you could also find more peaks that aligned with Casey Anthony's profile. IMO this is a good illustration of why suspect-centered DNA analysis is not the correct method.

Here is another way of looking at the problem of any possible extra peaks on the bra clasp profile from autosomal (standard) DNA testing. The Y-chromosomal (from males only) DNA profile was not easily accessible until the Conti-Vecchioti report, which was well after 2008. But from that profile, we know that other men contributed to the Y-chromosomal DNA profile. Therefore, if we have unexplained peaks in the autosomal profile, it is parsimonious to assume that the same individuals who contributed to the Y-chromosomal profile also contributed to the autosomal profile. By the way, YSTR DNA testing is what produces Y-chromosomal profiles.

Poor logic by 'Maundy Gregory'. Casey Anthony's DNA might only fit slightly because she shares the same haplotype as Knox or is an unknowing third or fourth cousin. Likewise, were you to impose dad, Franscesco Sollecito in place of his son, there would be some suspicious allele matches. Why? Because Raff will have inherited half his genes from his father and the Y-haplotype is handed down father to son. Thus results show on a broad level, the DNA left on the bra clasp could be any male closely related to Raff. These odds would have been quite low maybe 3,000/1. However, the second YSTR test matches Raff exactly (17-alleles) and can be no-one other, except on a 3bn to one against probability he has an identical twin somewhere.

Simply playing around with the rules of logic and semantics is a waste of everybody's time, even it it is fun for pro-knoxers to try to introduce chaos and entropy.

 

[LondonJohn]

Poor logic by 'Maundy Gregory'. Casey Anthony's DNA might only fit slightly because she shares the same haplotype as Knox or is an unknowing third or fourth cousin. Likewise, were you to impose dad, Franscesco Sollecito in place of his son, there would be some suspicious allele matches. Why? Because Raff will have inherited half his genes from his father and the Y-haplotype is handed down father to son. Thus results show on a broad level, the DNA left on the bra clasp could be any male closely related to Raff. These odds would have been quite low maybe 3,000/1. However, the second YSTR test matches Raff exactly (17-alleles) and can be no-one other, except on a 3bn to one against probability he has an identical twin somewhere.

Simply playing around with the rules of logic and semantics is a waste of everybody's time, even it it is fun for pro-knoxers to try to introduce chaos and entropy.

LMAO
This post, and many, many others before it, demonstrate your dreadful lack of understanding of DNA science and DNA forensic profiling. Suffice it to say that your "take" on this is entirely wrong.....


(First off, for example, you've totally misunderstood what Maundy Gregory's point was. It was nothing to do with Casey Anthony sharing the same locus peaks with Knox. It was everything to do with Anthony's DNA loci being potentially represented (at a >75% level) among the many small peaks on the chart of the sample. Maundy Gregory was pointing out that you can make virtually anyone's DNA "match" that kind of sample chart - with its multiple peaks that are probably no more than noise in many instances. You can make a (incorrect and scientifically-invalid) "match" to Knox; and you can make a (similarly incorrect and scientifically-invalid) "match" to Casey Anthony. I don't doubt that a "match" for you or me could probably also be made to that sample chart......)

 

[Vixen]

LMAO
This post, and many, many others before it, demonstrate your dreadful lack of understanding of DNA science and DNA forensic profiling. Suffice it to say that your "take" on this is entirely wrong.....


(First off, for example, you've totally misunderstood what Maundy Gregory's point was. It was nothing to do with Casey Anthony sharing the same locus peaks with Knox. It was everything to do with Anthony's DNA loci being potentially represented (at a >75% level) among the many small peaks on the chart of the sample. Maundy Gregory was pointing out that you can make virtually anyone's DNA "match" that kind of sample chart - with its multiple peaks that are probably no more than noise in many instances. You can make a (incorrect and scientifically-invalid) "match" to Knox; and you can make a (similarly incorrect and scientifically-invalid) "match" to Casey Anthony. I don't doubt that a "match" for you or me could probably also be made to that sample chart......)

No you can't. Think of a five number lottery ticket from 1 to 50. The odds of any sequence being picked by the jackpot machine will be 50^5. Conventionally, it is said your chance of winning the jackpot (finding all five number correctly, is >14m to 1 against.

Now consider a string of alleles. The chances of 17alleles matching seventeen in the correct sequence, is, as Professor Novelli calculated - and no-one disputes it - >3BILLION to one against.

The guy Maundy Gregory is just having fun and talking untested bollocks. He did not study Casey Anthony's genes.

More fool you for being so gullible.

ETA Over 40% of females in the west have haplotype H so no doubt this is where Knox and Casey Anthony match. But wait! There is more to DNA sequencing that 'finding the haplotype'. It means matching a whole series of loci to a highly significant level of at least 10.

 

[RoseMontague]

The Machine is preparing an article about this very topic ....

That's certainly ominous for the Knox girl.

I'm quite certain it will be well received in the scientific community.

 

[LondonJohn]

No you can't. Think of a five number lottery ticket from 1 to 50. The odds of any sequence being picked by the jackpot machine will be 50^5. Conventionally, it is said your chance of winning the jackpot (finding all five number correctly, is >14m to 1 against.

Now consider a string of alleles. The chances of 17alleles matching seventeen in the correct sequence, is, as Professor Novelli calculated - and no-one disputes it - >3BILLION to one against.

The guy Maundy Gregory is just having fun and talking untested bollocks. He did not study Casey Anthony's genes.

More fool you for being so gullible.

ETA Over 40% of females in the west have haplotype H so no doubt this is where Knox and Casey Anthony match. But wait! There is more to DNA sequencing that 'finding the haplotype'. It means matching a whole series of loci to a highly significant level of at least 10.

<fx: head in hands>

Maundy Gregory knows the position of Anthony's loci. They're in the public domain. He doesn't need to have "(studied) Casey Anthony's genes".

Your lottery "analogy" is anything but an appropriate analogy. You don't understand DNA science properly.

And once again (how is this failing to get through to you??), it's not that Anthony's and Knox's DNA profiles are "matching" in any way. It's that among the mountain range of small peaks on the output chart of the bra clasp hook, it's possible to find "peaks" which match Anthony's DNA profile, just as it's possible to find "peaks" which match Knox's profile. They're not the same peaks for both people though, Vixen.

<fx: head buried even deeper in hands>

 

[LondonJohn]

That's certainly ominous for the Knox girl.

I'm quite certain it will be well received in the scientific community.

Indeed. And I'm equally certain that it will be a scientifically literate "article", displaying exacting, dispassionate, objective analysis. With the total absence of confirmation bias, begging the question, and other logical fallacies. Furthermore, I have the same high level of certitude that "The Machine" will come to his conclusions entirely objectively and with a total absence of a priori "reasoning" or any other preconceptions. I for one cannot wait!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

finding what one wants to find

A small portion of Professor Vecchiotti's testimony as reported by Nina Burleigh here.

 

[Stacyhs]

A small portion of Professor Vecchiotti's testimony as reported by Nina Burleigh here.

But you don't understand, Chris! Vecchiotti was 'bent'. She was paid off by the mafia or Masons or was prostituting herself in order to get her name out there. As were all defense experts and acquitting judges.