Thursday, October 31, 2013

Why DNA Test Results 6 November May Leave No Further Argument Over Knox And Sollecito Guilt

Posted by Peter Quennell

[Above: an image of similar testing in the same Carabinieri laboratory in north Rome]

The official results of the tests by the Carabinieri laboratory will be made public by Judge Nencini in court on 6 November.

The report and attachments are reported to be more than 100 pages long. Andrea Vogt has already warned that no assumptions should be made yet that we know the full story. But already for the defenses, matters do not look pretty.

    1) It sounds like the result of the DNA near the top of the blade (see images below) shows conclusively that it is another sample of Knox’s DNA. Given where the sample came from it could be blood DNA and add further proof to the notion that Knox was injured while struggling with Meredith.

    2) The low-copy-number amplification technique used was almost identical to that used by Dr Stefanoni to prove that it was Meredith’s DNA on the blade of the knife - actually that was a larger sample. Judge Massei’s court accepted this, Judge Hellmann’s consultants tried very hard to undermine it, and the Supreme Court ruled that they did not even come close.

Earlier this year, our main poster Fly By Night in a post worth re-reading explained just how conclusively the results of that first testing pointed to both Meredith and Knox.

As is typical of all DNA analyses, Stefanoni proceeded to amplify the results to a point where an electropherogram would reveal meaningful “peaks” and found that a resultant 13 pairs of peaks corresponded precisely to peaks derived from a known sample of Meredith Kercher’s DNA!

In this case it is pointless to attempt to argue that Stefanoni somehow exceeded the amplification limits of her equipment. As outlined in the DNA discussion above, the typical problems associated with an amplification of low levels of DNA are related to peak imbalances, enhanced stutter, allele drop-outs, or allele drop-ins.

In this case there was nothing but a perfect match for Meredith that even Carla Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti could not deny in court.

Stefanoni had clearly identified an identical match for Meredith’s DNA on the blade of Sollecito’s kitchen knife, leaving Vecchiotti and Conti no other option than to argue for “contamination” in court.

However, it was convincingly demonstrated by Stefanoni and all evidence handlers that from knife collection through laboratory analysis no reasonable opportunity for contamination with Meredith’s DNA existed.

Dr Stefanoni’s testing of all the DNA from the crime scene was done in front of some defense observers. Those who were there saw her do nothing wrong. Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo, Professor Giuesppe Novelli, Professor Francesca Torricelli, Luciano Garofano, Elizabeth Johnson and Greg Hampikian have all confirmed that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade of the knife.

It looks as if the prosecution has now achieved a clean sweep of all of the of DNA testing. Meredith’s DNA on the lower blade of the knife seems even more conclusively a firm given, and so does Knox’s on the upper blade and the handle.

We are where we were back in 2008 before trial, where other defense lawyers might have suggested to their clients to select a trial of the short form type - the same choice that will see a somewhat penitent Guede out on work release in two years, no more.

But instead, their clients could now be facing life sentences for that bad choice.

Image: looking along the blade toward the handle, both sides of the knife

Here is an image showing the I trace in the location described in the post with credit to Iodine of PMF and the Case Wiki


Giulia Bongiorno was on Rai uno news tonight saying these results prove that this was not the murder weapon. Is this the new line from the defense.

Posted by Mason2. on 10/31/13 at 10:31 PM | #

More than 100 pages long? How so?

Posted by James Raper on 10/31/13 at 10:45 PM | #

Hi James. Think all of those manuals as attachments… European ones, probably, this time.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/31/13 at 10:50 PM | #

“Giulia Bongiorno was on Rai uno news tonight saying these results prove that this was not the murder weapon. Is this the new line from the defense.”

Meaning that RS wasn’t involved? Surely they can’t believe that a strand/or not of DNA on the knife replaces all the other evidence? What about the bra clasp for instance?

Cloud hopeless me thinks!

Posted by TruthWillOut on 10/31/13 at 10:58 PM | #

We are being told that the entire defense crowd seem to be experiencing a episode of mass forgetting.

Hello?!! Meredith’s DNA is now more than ever firmly proven to be on the blade, because the identical technique (not questioned by Massei or Cassation or the defense observers) was just used by the Carabinieri.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/31/13 at 11:22 PM | #

For a jobless security guard, Steve Moore’s level of triumphalism is off the charts. In my life I never saw anything like it, and I guess I’ve encountered tens of thousands with more talent and success in life.

Now the crowd over at PMF have been having hours of simple fun at the expense of Steve Moore. The immediate cause of it was this tweet which he sent:

Steve Moore ‏@Gman_Moore 2h Great day for Amanda & Raff. DNA results finally remove knife as murder weapon. Bleach myth dead. Absent corruption, case effectively over.

Yeah, in his dreams. On Planet X.

A lot pf our past posts on Steve Moore and his equally odd wife may make you laugh. These two by Peter Hyatt on Moore’s research and his resume descend into deep farce.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/01/13 at 03:31 AM | #

This is a new experiment carried out on a new sample by a new team. This satisfies all the essential conditions of independence. This result has no correlation with the earlier result and both the results are valid and are to be taken independently.

The results (the previous one and the current one taken together) simply say that the knife blade came in physical contact with DNA from Meredith and Amanda.

If both the experiments were carried out under identical conditions on the same sample and the results are not same, then both the results are unreliable and must be discarded. Note that I say same sample and identical conditions which is the key for replicating an experimental observation.

In my opinion, this result, as such, has not much useful information. I would have been surprised if maize DNA or fish DNA were found! I do not know about AK’s kitchen skills, but I am not surprised at the general finding.

The question both sides have to argue is how it (the AK DNA) came to land there. It suggests, but does not prove, that she is the primary cleaner of the said knife- should I suggest that the she is likely to be the last person who cleaned it?

Can you also blame this on the pot?

Posted by chami on 11/01/13 at 05:59 AM | #

It shouldn’t be this hard to figure out what happened.  All the time, money, and tears to tear through the lies-sloppy lies. The sentence needs to be harsh.

Posted by mylady007 on 11/01/13 at 06:10 AM | #

So how come Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA isn’t on the knife? As the apartment lessee, surely he’s the one most likely? But what we are left with is Amanda Knox’s DNA on two places at the knife hilt, and Meredith’s, at one spot on the blade, and a conspicuously clean knife.

The court is not composed of idiots, unlike some media and ex-FBI agents and profilers we could name 😊

Posted by Ergon on 11/01/13 at 07:05 AM | #

Moore’s tweets just make you shake your head. He gets incredible test information before the November 6 release of the results? I guess you don’t need to wait for the actual real test results when facts have never been a part your shtick.

Posted by Jeff Friend on 11/01/13 at 07:11 AM | #

@Ergon I think that there are 3 dna results on the knife attributed to Amanda and one to Meredith. I believe that AK has 1 on the handle of the knife 1 where the knife meets the metal and this one on the blade near Meredith’s dna.

Someone correct me if am wrong.

But what beats me is that it’s Sollecito’s knife in Sollicito’s flat on his house inventory and seem no trace of him. Isn’t that strange just like no trace of Amanda not even in her own bedroom. 

We hear Amanda all the time saying there is no trace of me at the crime scene meaning Meredith’s bedroom but even though her bedside lamp was found inside the locked bedroom no trace of her on that either not a single fingerprint. Nothing.

All this points to a clean up even the extent that the pipe was disconnected under the sink as has been discussed on TJMK

Posted by Mason2. on 11/01/13 at 08:55 AM | #


What are we to make of this story with the following headline?

“New DNA findings in Knox trial find no Kircher DNA on knife

Forensic experts in appeal say only Knox DNA is identifiable”

I assume ANSA is a reasonably reliable news outlet.

Posted by Gonzaga on 11/01/13 at 09:01 AM | #

Judge Nencini said on 4th Oct., he was ordering the test of trace 36I and stated that while it was being tested there is much other evidence to consider and that the case did not depend on the results of the test.

Posted by Mason2. on 11/01/13 at 09:26 AM | #

Hi Gonzaga

This ANSA English report is simply wrong. Anybody who wishes to help might send the editor an email or a tweet:  .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

As Mason2 says, the test Judge Nencini ordered was of only one sample, and only for the DNA of Meredith and the three.  The sample Stefanoni tested wont show because she used it already to perform the test!

It is already firmly in evidence, showing Meredith’s DNA strongly, as Fly By Night explained. Her technique was the same as just used.

I’ve been looking out for manipulated headlines and stories, and this may be the first.

While ABC News had a misleading headline, it did in the opening para mention the previous test proving positive for Meredith.

Here is another report with a misleading title which is somewhat correct in the body of the text - it should not be quoting the the Hellmann appeal.

In the original trial, forensic tests found Knox’s DNA on the knife handle and Meredith’s DNA on the blade. [At the Hellmann appeal] The defence criticised the forensic evidence, claiming that the the quantities of DNA were too small to be reliable and that cross-contamination could have occurred.

It should add that Cassation shot that down - Hellmann and the consultants both.


Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/01/13 at 10:33 AM | #

Hi Gonzaga,

Major Berti and Captain Berni were asked to carry out a new DNA test on sample 36I. Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo, Professor Giuesppe Novelli, Professor Francesca Torricelli, Luciano Garofano, Elizabeth Johnson and Greg Hampikian have all confirmed that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade of the knife. A false claim doesn’t become true just because it is made by a “reasonably reliable news outlet”.

Posted by The Machine on 11/01/13 at 11:10 AM | #

Great work Machine. This is now added into the top post:

“Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo, Professor Giuesppe Novelli, Professor Francesca Torricelli, Luciano Garofano, Elizabeth Johnson and Greg Hampikian have all confirmed that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade of the knife.”

Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/01/13 at 11:22 AM | #

I would like to know your opinion of the explanation made by idiot Steve Moore of the mixed blood traces.

He says there is no blood, and no mixed blood, on his site. Did you read it? He says the mixed blood is a myth.

Tell me what do you think please?  Thank you.

Posted by Matteo_65 on 11/01/13 at 04:41 PM | #

Hi Matteo,

Steve Moore embarrasses himself with his ignorance every time he speaks about the case. He clearly hasn’t read the Massei report in its entirety. If he had, he would have known that Amanda Knox’s blood was found on the tap of the basin in the bathroom:

…a sample was taken from the front part of the faucet of the sink, which yielded the genetic profile of Amanda Knox…” (The Massei report, page192).

DNA expert Luciano Garofano explained why he could tell Knox was bleeding in Darkness Descending:

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).

Posted by The Machine on 11/01/13 at 04:58 PM | #

Hi Matteo

Steve Moore simply doesnt know the real case. There are huge howlers all over his site. We have drawn attention to them repeatedly but he is a classic case of a man in his own bubble. Twenty years hence his mantras will probably be just the same.

And on the mixed blood evidence, as the Machine says it is right there in the Massei Report. He described it but did not conclude precisely how it came about, so the Machine gathered in this post what the expert witnesses had said.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/01/13 at 05:31 PM | #

Peter, thanks for the gloss on what the new knife finding means. You say, “Meredith’s DNA is now more than ever firmly proven to be on the blade, because the identical technique was just used by the Carabinieri.” So these new tests confirm and strengthen the earlier findings by Stefanoni of Meredith on the blade. This removes all doubt of that, which is the main thing: that the knife came in contact with Meredith in a way that sealed her DNA deep into the grooves of the metal. The new tests also reveal more and more of Knox DNA on the knife despite its being scrubbed.

How Steve Moore can deduce anything good for Knox out of this is preposterous.

I went back to your links about him on Statement Analysis. Peter Hyatt concludes Moore was deceptively presenting himself as an investigator, that he was prone to exaggeration and overusing hyberbole. Moore frequently insults the public as naive hobbyists. He ridicules and insults the Italian prosecutors as well and calls their work junk, equating it to a bad car or junker that has been patched up for sale. He said of the Perugians, “If any FBI agents I had supervised had conducted that interrogation in the U.S. I would have had them indicted.”

He called Maresca “carnivorous” and said he would like to have Maresca’s head on the wall. One can only deduce that Moore considers himself a big game hunter and Maresca an elephant or lion. This was on his gmancasefile I think.

Moore brags on his 25 years in the FBI. I wish he would go back to investigating Al Qaeda and terrorists (I really do, in that he gave true service) instead of interfering in a perfectly legitimate court case where he seeks to torch the judicial system somewhat like the one he upheld for 25 years! He talks about his involvement in federal cases and his investigations of murder. How would he like it if some non-American guy retired from a foreign police force had leaped onto one of Moore’s murder cases with know-it-all claws and fury, telling Steve Moore he was doing it all wrong and that American judges were corrupt?

After leaving the FBI Moore then immersed himself on a college campus surrounded by smart young people and while there gets drawn into a silly dare by his wife who can’t decide what she thinks about Amanda Knox from TV snippets. Moore looks into the case which ends in both of them embracing two young killers of a college woman, while all the time he was working on a college campus being paid to defend young university students. He seems to have flipped completely.

His wife often says, “What is your problem?’s beyond sad…you’re 100% crazy…” and ends her comments with “ew” to anybody who sees through their weak arguments for innocence. Patterns of extreme dislogic here not unlike Foxy’s, and now he’s using metaphors of wishing to shoot Maresca with what, an elephant rifle and put his head on Moore’s wall as a trophy.  That’s an apt comment coming from a man who seems to have lost his head completely without a Bushmaster.

My opinion summary: Moore is a man without a plan, lost to find a new role, desperately seeking to restore himself to a position of power. He’s doing it wrong because deep down he knows he isn’t connected to a respected organization with the truth to validate him. He is reenacting the self-defeating forces he saw in the perps he arrested. Their influence has seeped into him by constant contact. Now he is acting out his inner pain at being a part of their misery, and lashes out at a safe target (a foreign justice system) to disperse his anger at the unfairness of life, much like Heavey is doing. Midlife crisis in slow motion, as Moore eases off adrenaline rush of FBI career and facing empty nest syndrome soon with children aging. He said that investigation of violent crime was his life, not his hobby. He should become a private detective and write his screenplay on the side.

Posted by Hopeful on 11/01/13 at 06:46 PM | #

See Nick Squires has done a shill piece at the Telegraph - what AK counsel said, what RS counsel said, nothing more.  No comments facility.

Posted by James Higham on 11/01/13 at 08:05 PM | #

There has been lots of discussion on “the amount of DNA is so small…”

I want to make a few comments on this because some of these points are plain wrong outright but I am not going to quote any one.

The total DNA in a single human cell is about 6 pg. one pg is one trillionth part of a gram. The DNA is present within the chromosomes along with proteins. These are normally nicely and tightly packed and will be about 2 meters in length if fully extended.

If we find a sample with 3 pg of DNA, it simply means that the DNA has been severely damaged and only 50% of the DNA is available. If we find 1 pg of DNA, we should think that it is some contamination from some spoilt sample. We shall always expect DNA will be 6, 12, 18 pg because the smallest amount will be 6 pg only. Of course this is for clean samples.

One thing we also must remember that these amounts reported in papers are often very approximate because the samples are very difficult to assay. +/-30% error is common and routine.

These samples are multiplied by biochemical methods and millions of copies are made. These samples are now analysed in the same machine after treating with enzymes. During these copying process, some mistakes happen and these are often propagated (these mistakes are automatically corrected in living cells by several enzymes). These appear as noise.

If the original sample is in good condition, the amount of sample really does not matter. Even one single DNA can be amplified and analysed. If the sample collected is not good quality, then we have some problem.

During the sample collection, attempt is made to collect from an area which is apparently homogeneous at least visually. We also try to collect as much sample as possible from a small area. It is more important to collect good sample rather than lots of it.

If you have 6 pg of DNA it cannot be divided in two parts. If you do that, one part will have 6 pg and the other part will have none of it.

Posted by chami on 11/01/13 at 08:35 PM | #

What a depressing way to celebrate Meredith’s life - across the UK papers the “no Meredith DNA on knife” story is being reported. Pretty much copy and paste each time.

How is this possible?

Thanks to the Wiki site by McCall, information is beyond easy to access now!

The poor Kerchers. Today of all days.

Posted by TruthWillOut on 11/01/13 at 09:04 PM | #

Steve Moore is a joke, and while one shouldn’t indulge crazy, one should also make a note of it, to protect oneself. First he tweets that he would like to have lawyer Maresca’s “head on a wall” then when I ask if that’s a threat, replies, “guilters head exploding” etc. Then he complains of ‘threats’ when a spoof account jokes about his head exploding.

Oh well, he has a long career as a non entity who latched on to this case for personal gain ahead of him.

Posted by Ergon on 11/01/13 at 09:17 PM | #

The lack of intelligence with the Knox supporters is paramount. The point being that they will believe anything that supports their theory of innocence and take it as gospel because they are too lazy to read the facts preferring to just except what they are told.  Such is Steve Moore who uses insults and hyperbole rather than facts to support his nonsense claims because that’s the only way he can get noticed.

Steve Moore preaches to the choir of his own imaginings and I find it hilarious that his email is ‘Gman_Moore’ This alone is indicative of someone living in a comic book fantasy. He cannot use facts for example because if he tried then his entire modus operandi would fall as flat as a souffle in an earthquake. His view of himself as a famous crime fighter has the Walter Mitty syndrome written all over it. But I thank him somewhat for bringing such hilarity to a very serious subject.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 11/01/13 at 10:08 PM | #

@James Higham

re: Nick Squires piece

I also saw that and I really don’t understand the UK coverage of this case

The US media might lap up the latest disinformation from Seattle if only because favouring Knox might be seen as vaguely patriotic, and the target audience is likely up for all that, but how come the once proud Telegraph - with a predominantly UK readership - can’t be bothered to delve a bit deeper?

What’s in it for them (other than the easy copy and paste life)? “Shill” you say - do you think there’s maybe some underhand payment involved?

It’s a total mystery to me how the UK media seem to deliberately avoid the facts in this case. Maybe journalists are just less bright these days or maybe, as in many trades, journalism is less of a calling and more a run-of-the-mill job and bulwark against financial insecurity. Fear has big eyes, including neurotic fear. In which case perhaps the sole aim for our non-heroes in the press is to avoid being fired, and to produce copy that’s headline-grabbing. “Knox still as guilty as originally thought” possibly doesn’t fit that bill.

Anyway it’s pretty dire in my opinion.

Posted by Odysseus on 11/01/13 at 10:09 PM | #

@ chami, thanks for your comments on the knife-samples and how many pgs are needed for tests.

As I recall, Stefanoni was criticised for opting to test for DNA rather than for Blood. Given that she could test for only one of the two, Massei agreed with her choice, and so do we.

In the case of the current 2 new traces, 36H &36I; was there enough to test for both Blood And DNA?

Posted by Cardiol MD on 11/01/13 at 10:17 PM | #

@ Odysseus

Nick Squires has form but that still doesn’t explain how the Mail can be pro-Knox, then run a neutral piece, whilst the Telegraph goes from one to the other.

Only thing I can think of is no one in our MSM is actually concerned one way or another but wants to take a rise and get some conflict going.  And yet the Squires piece [at that point] had no comments thread.

Posted by James Higham on 11/01/13 at 10:22 PM | #

The Carabinieri DNA Report (in Italian) is downloadable here:

Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/01/13 at 10:43 PM | #

Hi Odysseus and James

Based on the emails the BBC and others send us for tips there doesnt seem to be any one editorial position except at The Independent - which may be that way to be perverse on a crowded newspaper scene.

It seems individual reporters and producers are hunting for stories - the Mail especially seems fixated on Knox but not always her best friend. We could do more to circulate tips if we can rustle up some free help (hint!).

Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/01/13 at 10:51 PM | #

Hi Pete

“We could do more to circulate tips if we can rustle up some free help (hint!)”.

I’m possibly a wee bit dense but who is your hint aimed at, and what kind of help?!

Posted by Odysseus on 11/01/13 at 11:21 PM | #


Thank you very much for your explanation reDNA. I really appreciate it. How much do we know about the quality of the samples that were retrieved?

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 11/02/13 at 12:11 AM | #

Hi Odysseus

The request for help was aimed at anyone who would like to join in. You if you have time. Normally posts appear in ways that sometimes surprise me and its quite easy for us to do our reading and emailing and keep the posts on the ball. We have several important new pages which keep sliding because thats an extra load. More by email if you like.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/02/13 at 12:40 AM | #

November 1, 2013

Remembering Meredith on this day ...

Sending thoughts and prayers to the Kercher Family.

Posted by MissMarple on 11/02/13 at 12:42 AM | #

Hi Odysseus , Graham Rhodes.

Could not agree more about uk newspaper coverage.  My kids could fact check and factually put together a better report than most of the tripe I have read in many uk papers.

Thinking of the Kercher family and hoping the courts in Italy find real truth and justice for them and Meredith.

Posted by Olliebear on 11/02/13 at 12:53 AM | #

Rudy Guede on Quarto Grado was a disappointment. I thought Rudy would be doing the interview via skype. Nothing of the kind the show is just like other media cashing in while they can.

Rudy wrote a letter 23 Oct., 2013 and really said nothing new. He said he didn’t do the murder he did not steal anything and the assassin is still free.

The way they promoted tonight’s show gave a completely different impression and even advertised Rudy would talk about who was at the cottage when Meredith was murdered.

Old clips of Rudy’s arrest and his lawyer answering questions about his possible day release commencing 2014 and his study workload.

The whole thing was a bummer. Another example how everyone is looking for ratings and cashing in on this terrible tragedy.

The Kerchers must be so disappointed as i am.

Posted by Mason2. on 11/02/13 at 12:56 AM | #


I’ve watched it too, and I’m also disappointed!

Posted by Terry on 11/02/13 at 01:39 AM | #

Thank you, MissMarple. You sent thoughts and prayers to Meredith’s family today on the anniversary of her death.

I awoke thinking of Meredith today but couldn’t think of any new accolades and got sidetracked on the Steve Moore folly in comments, my fault.

Her love of sitting out on the Perugian porch in the afternoons reading thrillers reminds us of how much she enjoyed life, excitement and adventure while being fully grounded in true priorities.

Meredith, what a wonderful sweet person she was and she will always remain so in memory. R.I.P. Meredith.

Posted by Hopeful on 11/02/13 at 02:05 AM | #

I always thought that Steve Moore is an icon to the Knox-Fans, but then I found out that he only has 47 Twitter-Followers. 47! Amzazing

Posted by Terry on 11/02/13 at 03:12 AM | #

Hi Terry

I believe Steve Moore only began tweeting a couple of weeks ago, but still, given that he seems to be tweeting his chest-beating pap roughly hourly, that does suggest that he isnt dragging in the crowds.

His website is very low-traffic as well. I think for most people it is seriously boring reading “Its all about me! Its all about me! Its all about me!”

Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/02/13 at 04:27 AM | #

Hi Hopeful

To your revealing essay on 11/01/13 at 11:46 AM I might add to the final para both the “security guard syndrome” and the “white knight syndrome” which are both real syndromes one can google. We have posted on aspects of this before.


Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/02/13 at 04:40 AM | #


I was not terribly accurate with DNA but I have tried to convey the basic idea. I shall try the same with your question.

Blood is a biological fluid (like tears, urine, sweat etc) and is composed of many types of cells and other molecules. Most of the tests are for individual molecules like antibodies. TMB and luminol test for hemoglobin. Both of these two tests are generic but very useful. We have the FoA complaining about foot prints made with fruit juice but they never spoke about how that can happen in a real life scene. Neither RS or AK ever claimed that they wash their feet with fruit juice!

Testing for DNA is conclusive and final. Even if you argue like Prof Halkides, one has to suggest a possible mechanism by which contamination has occurred so that some justification and analysis can be made. They have failed to do so and their argument will not stand scrutiny.

The quality of the sample is judged by the result only and in this particular case the sample was in excellent condition because we can see all the peaks with very low noise. If the starting sample were degraded (damaged somehow) then we will see several unexplained peaks but not too strong. These are produced at the time of amplification.

With blood, they could have raised objections like fish blood, cat blood, and so on and it is far more tricky to conclusively relate to the source. With small samples like this, it may not be possible at all.

There were no questions raised about the quality of the samples and I can tell that the signals (peaks in the graphs) are very clean and convincing. If we accept the Hellman’s arguments that anything is possible, we have to talk about how the contamination took place. Contaminations are possible only with damaged DNA (unless someone took a sample of blood and painted it on the knife - and on the bra clasp).

We have lots of control in this case: how many samples of the other two girls (DNA) were found in the 100’s of samples collected? How many samples contained the DNA from the boys downstairs (they have visited the upstairs flats)? It is possible to estimate some probability even with these negative results.

It is difficult to give an accurate time of the murder and we cannot blame the coroner or the pathologist for that! It is simply not possible to tell when the DNA or the spot of blood was deposited on the knife or in the bathroom.

Psycologically, AK felt inhibited to use the kitchen knife regularly afterwards and if she had done so the traces could have perhaps vanished!

In the same way, I think they came back later to clean the place and they covered the body at that time. Once the hormones come down, you feel ashamed of your own actions.

Posted by chami on 11/02/13 at 05:45 AM | #

Hey Terry,

I also have 47 twitter followers!

But that’s without really trying.

Posted by Jeff Friend on 11/02/13 at 06:31 AM | #

If I never post here again, I probably killed myself in frustration over having to explain to people that there are more than one sample and that this sample does nothing to discredit the other samples…..

Look at this gem ” The earlier “evidence” has been thoroughly refuted by retests”

Do they breed stupid? Every single time there’s an article in a newspaper or on a website, you can see how they actually convince even more people.

I can’t imagine how the Kercher family must feel right now with another batch of “AMANDA IS INNOCENT” headlines based on BS.

Posted by Admire on 11/02/13 at 07:02 AM | #

The RIS Carabinieri expert report is available to download at plus via the link above.

Posted by Tiziano on 11/02/13 at 07:04 AM | #

“Do they breed stupid?”

I do not really have an answer to that but they are, I am afraid, very afraid, the majority!

And they are indeed there in every profession! In a democracy, they are omnipotent too.

I do not know who discovered money, but that is one thing that can trump all.

I am lovin’ it!

Posted by chami on 11/02/13 at 07:23 AM | #


This is what I was referring-to, Massei p.288:

“...numerous findings, about 50, which had given the biological profile of the victim and which were subjected to tests in the same organisation/body of the Scientific Police [Forensics] in Rome.

It was also noted, critically, that the same “too low” result had concerned other traces, such as C, which was found to be negative and, recalling that the expression “too low” was used for quantities of less than ten picograms and also for zero picograms, a complaint was made that it was not clear from the [state of advancement of work] reports where the specimen B had tested positive for quantization (see the presentation by Professor Tagliabracci, page 76, previously mentioned). The analysis, moreover, had not been repeated and therefore there was no confirmation of its result.

Regarding the remarks against the reliability of the results provided by the analyses of Exhibit 36 trace B, this Court holds that the following should be observed:

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.

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….”

Stefanoni is saying Who versus What i.e. Whose DNA versus What substance (Hb).

So my question is was the trace not only Knox’s DNA, but was it Blood?

Let the Defense argue that it could be feline Hb.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 11/02/13 at 07:52 AM | #

Chami - Oh, I have no doubt that they are the majority. I am a committed cynic and I need this site not to give up hope….

I have never before or since had a case that influenced me like this on has and I am still not over the appeals decision. I actually puked my guts out when I heard the decision.

Hope with all my heart that we will get justice one day.

Posted by Admire on 11/02/13 at 08:01 AM | #

Rest in peace sweet Meredith. We here at tjmk will NEVER forget you, NEVER forsake you. You are a shining star in the night sky. We will always always fight to get you the justice you and your wonderful family deserve. Sleep well Mez, x

Posted by mollythecat on 11/02/13 at 08:46 AM | #


You have raised three points. They are, in order,

1. repeatability and reproducibility;
2. evidence of absence vs absence of evidence;
3. proof by elimination.

1. this is part of the report:  “The analysis, moreover, had not been repeated and therefore there was no confirmation of its result…”

I am talking about repeatability and reproducibility.

In real life, there are so many experiments that cannot be repeated. Nevertheless, repeatability and reproducibility has been the hallmark of any scientific experiment. Verifiability is automatically claimed as truth. But the converse is not obvious. Today it is believed that “provability is a weaker notion than truth” and I urge you to look up this phrase in google and check with some of the prominent results.

What we can do best is to analyze the results and attempt to assign a probability that the experiment returned a false value. It is customary to assign some values to the four quantities in statistics: true positives, false positives, true negatives and false negatives. These are based on similar experiments performed under similar conditions and becomes part of the expert system. We can ask the expert, Dr. Stefanoni, that based on her experience, what is the probability that some of the experiments she performed returned false values. This job can also be tasked to an independent statistician. Of course we need to have faith, that Dr. Stefanoni is not lying or the external expert has not been purchased. If this faith is gone, the whole exercise is worthless.

2. “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”, again taken from the quote you provided.

Negative results are very useful in many experiments. They tell us about the limits of the results that we can confidently use for a given purpose. If a sample tests negative with TMB, then we can safely conclude that the concentration of the blood is lower than some threshold (that will be mentioned in the testing kit) and we can safely say that if blood is present, the concentration is less than so and so. It will further say that so and so components (for example fruit juice or bleach) are also present below this limit…

You need to realize that all experiments are like that; they just make a bland statement and you have to use the results with these limitations.

In this particular case, let us consider all sources of AK-DNA. We need to be reasonable and we shall confine all sources to blood, saliva and skin cell just to stay in focus. If we assume that the DNA flies all around, then her DNA will be distributed all over the place in a more or less random manner. We can estimate using the statistics principles how many samples should have her DNA present. Let us assume that the DNA does not fly, and we need to look at places on the floor where she stepped on and we see how many places we find her DNA. We can safely conclude that the DNA is not present everywhere she danced around and that alone eliminates the skin cells theory.

It is very likely the DNA seen on the footprints on her floor are made in blood and very likely that AK-DNA came from AK-blood. I cannot assign probabilities (they are actually not difficult and any student can do it) just because I am simply not qualified.

3. Proof by elimination: “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” - it is really powerful statement. I also love the quote “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”

Let us focus on the method: the defense need to explain, within reason, how the AK-DNA came to be there at the place where it was found. Because it was not found everywhere, the “skin cell” theory falls flat. Perhaps she was trying to lick something off the floor? Everything is possible with AK!

The Defense need to come up with a good story. And the story must match the RS story also- and that has become a liability. I am very happy to see that there is some focus on the knife-kid and he needs to tell his story consistently.

If two experiments, carried out under identical conditions on the same sample do not agree, then the experiments must be junked and not the sample. When you have four famous lawyers working on two kids gone wild, I have little hope that the lawyers can agree on a consistent story.

In real life, there are so many experiments that cannot be repeated. Nevertheless, repeatability and reproducibility has been the hallmark of any scientific experiment.

Posted by chami on 11/02/13 at 11:52 AM | #

Hi James,

The defence lawyers have constantly used the media in order to influence public opinion. Their comments don’t just appear in the media by accident. There is clearly an establshed relationship between them and the likes of Nick Pisa and Nick Squires.

These journalists are not providing balanced and objective reports. They are acting like spokesmen for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Comments from the prosecutors or the lawyers representing the Kerchers and Diya Lumumba are conspicuous by their absence.

Posted by The Machine on 11/02/13 at 12:30 PM | #


I found this gem from the internet about Hampikian’s claim (newspaper report):(

He conducted an experiment in his lab at Boise State, in which researchers collected soda cans that had been used by employees of the dean’s office, and brand-new knives, still in the package from a dollar store. In collecting and tagging the cans and knives - without changing gloves between every piece of evidence, but only between every other piece - lab workers unknowingly transferred a tiny amount of one of the employee’s DNA to one of the knives, though she’d never seen or touched it. That’s what happened with the evidence in the Knox case, he said. “You can transfer DNA in this way.

I do not know why he has not published his findings: it does not show up in scopus. Although the cans and knives do not cost much, the chemicals used for the DNA fingerprinting are not really cheap. A properly designed experiment and interestng results should be published in a peer reviewed scientific research journal of repute- and not in a newspaper.

I would like to see his peer reviewed paper before I comment but the tall claims he is making, till that time, are just that- tall claims.

Posted by chami on 11/02/13 at 01:38 PM | #

Hi Chami

On Hampikian’s “experiment” which may or may not have taken place Catnip just posted this on PMF:


The Hampikian DNA Transfer Hypothesis (HDTH) sounds confused to me.

For a person to be a person, the cells have to stick together more than not. Which means they shouldn’t come off easily. Especially skin.

Saliva, intestinal tract material, and what they call “bodily fluids” on TV shows would understandably have cells in them, and hence DNA, but that’s not how Hampikian is proposing that his transfer hypothesis is going to work, is he? (If yes, then ‘Euwwgh!’)

So if it’s from skin, then, and I touch something (a doorknob, say) or shake hands with someone and they touch something, then his hypothesis is saying that my DNA should be there as well?

But Hampikian must be being fooled by the meaning of the word ‘touch’: skin is all over, not just the fingers; skin is touching a lot of things all day (mostly clothes, one would presume, but at least the ground).

A simple observation reveals that skin does not ‘wear off’ to a noticeable extent, so that in turn implies that there is a minimum threshold ‘base rate’ at which it does wear off, which would impact the Hampikian Hypothesis.

The other side of the coin is that, if a cell of mine comes off so easily, then what makes it stick to the doorknob? Why wouldn’t it fall off, or drift away? This ‘stickiness’ factor impacts the Hampikian Hypothesis.

The ‘stickiness’ factor must explain why I still have skin left at the end of the day after touching everything with not only my hands but with all the rest of my skin. (And in the morning after sleeping all night with my skin in contact with the bedclothes, PJs, pillow etc.)

In terms of practical engineering design, I would expect less skin to ‘come off’ the palms and fingers of the hand, and off the soles of the feet. This also affects the Hampikian Hypothesis, especially when ‘touching’ is defined as being confined to the fingers.

A third thing is: how do cells with DNA end up on the outside of the skin? That would be wasteful production from an energy point of view, I would have thought.

Alternatively, a forced or pressured contact with the skin, with the force or pressure greater than the strength of whatever it is that holds cells together, could ‘gouge out’ DNA-containing cells, and then their natural inbuilt stickiness would ensure they remained stuck to whatever it was that applied the force (such as the sharp end of the metal bit of a bra clasp when being tugged and pulled out of shape).

Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/02/13 at 02:06 PM | #

Here is an image showing the I trace in the location described in the top post with credit to Iodine and the Case Wik  Click for a larger image.


Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/02/13 at 02:15 PM | #

There must be many more experiments than the one done by Hampikien to prove or disprove his theory. 

I know in my biology class we had to swab the inside of our cheeks to get a good DNA sample, not just touch the swab to the back of our hands for example. 

The location of the 3 DNA samples certainly look pretty suspicious and the fact that nothing of Guede or Sollicito shows up but they could have been washed off.

I find it strange that no other DNA samples were found on her clothing if there was this struggle and holding on to her.  All I can think is that the DNA did not stick to the cloth except in that one place where they found Guedes.  Still very strange.

Posted by believing on 11/02/13 at 04:36 PM | #

Perhaps with multiple knives held tauntingly with their tips against the skin ( as the nicks of injuries suggest), grips were used economically?

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 11/02/13 at 05:16 PM | #


Absolutely right!

The skin inside the cheek (or lips, anus and other parts) are ectoderms and they are not yet tough skins and they shed cells profusely. The swab inside the cheek is one of the best sources of DNA (DNA in saliva comes from there; urine is not expected to have any cells and hence no DNA and very little protein).

I doubt Hampikian can publish this result. I took a look at his papers and I do not wish to comment on it. His work is also poorly cited. Halkides has a better track record. Of course I am certainly not competent to comment on his line of work, but the titles of his research papers suggest that he has no stable research area.

In simple language that anybody can understand his comments are s**t and need to taken as such.

Posted by chami on 11/02/13 at 06:23 PM | #


Ergon on PMF has some of the best pictures of the knife. FoA must be really really hating him! See for the real thing; they are big files and they take time to load!

I noticed that the edge of the blade from the tip to about 10 cm has been badly damaged (you can see that only in the high-res photo) and that suggests a stabbing action (not cutting a fish). Please take a close look. The 1 cm long grooves were made during grinding before the blade was fitted into the handle. It is in one of these grooves that the blood clot got lodged tightly.

The vigourous scrubbing marks are also seen in the same photo. Around the same region. They knew that their cleaning was not upto the mark. And they were worried. You decide.

Posted by chami on 11/02/13 at 06:44 PM | #

If Sample36I contains not only Knox’s DNA but also Haemoglobin (Hb), this is New Evidence, and possibly Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt (PBRD) that Knox had her own blood on her hand at the time she wielded the Killing-Knife.

This would reinforce the Knox Guilty Verdict beyond its present distance PBRD.

Looking forward to November 6th.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 11/02/13 at 07:38 PM | #

Amanda’s going to regret not getting rid of that knife.

Posted by Firstwife on 11/02/13 at 07:59 PM | #

I seriously think that Hampikian conducted a Gedanken. But then he is no Einstein (but he is a stone headed man indeed).

If what Cardiol has suggested, Hb was also found along with DNA, is true and is accepted by the court, then AK is cooked.

It was RS who did not want to get rid of the knife. And AK is going to blame him for that. And now I can say that “I know now what happened that night”.

They themselves are to blame: so much of loose talk and they want to justify every observation because they know what happened and how it happened.

How much money RS made from the book? The greed is their own undoing. It is now time to stop blaming TJMK or PMF, it is time to pray and beg forgiveness. It is never too late.

Posted by chami on 11/02/13 at 08:49 PM | #


Thank you. I’m sure your expertise and measured comments are appreciated by all readers on this site.

Posted by Odysseus on 11/02/13 at 10:01 PM | #


Thank you. I’m sure your expertise and measured comments are appreciated by all readers on this site.
Posted by Odysseus on 11/02/13 at 03:01 PM

I certaintly do. I like the more “careful” posts….

We have celebrated victory prematurely before

Posted by Admire on 11/02/13 at 11:45 PM | #


I love your reference to shining stars in remembering Meredith. It brought to mind my favorite quote from Saint-Exupery’s The Little Prince.

“In one of the stars I shall be living. In one of them I shall be laughing. And so it will be as if all the stars were laughing when you look at the sky at night ... It will be as if in place of the stars, I had given you a great number of little bells that knew how to laugh.”

I hope the Kerchers can find a measure of comfort in knowing that so many of us who never knew Meredith in life have come to love her.

Posted by CaliDeeva on 11/03/13 at 12:16 AM | #


Thank you so very much for your patient and thorough explanations regarding the often confusing…to me…science in this case. You have enabled a much better understanding of the testing process.

RIP Meredith.

Posted by CaliDeeva on 11/03/13 at 12:22 AM | #


I’ll be your follower numer 48 if you tell me your twitter-name.
Then you have more than Steve Moore 😉

Posted by Terry on 11/03/13 at 01:08 AM | #

Thanks for the kind mention, Chami. They dislike me for any number of reasons, including my reporting about their very own Sfarzo~Gate scandal, but the knife photo above with the label is not mine.

It is a low resolution reproduction of the knife photos that came from IIP I believe, and that is why they got away with lying about the case for so long, by presenting low res and doctored photos, arguing that there could not possibly be any traces of Meredith on the knife.

[Ed note by Peter: Sorry, my fault, I dropped the resolution down for posting, it was created by Iodine for the Case Wiki from Ergon’s high-res shots.]

It only is by looking at the original high res photos, which I obtained from a source close to the case, that one can clearly see the grooves in which her DNA could have been trapped.

BTW, the high res photos were taken at Conti and Vecchiotti’s lab on March 21 and 22, 2011.

Posted by Ergon on 11/03/13 at 01:18 AM | #


It’s JGFriend

Posted by Jeff Friend on 11/03/13 at 01:53 AM | #


I remember you, read a lot of your tweets.
Well, now I’m your 48th Follower.

Posted by Terry on 11/03/13 at 03:01 AM | #

The test run by the RIS is not quite identical to that carried out by Stefanoni because of course the RIS were able to use the latest PCR machine.

The defense tried to make much of the fact that sample (B) was quantatively below that recommended by the manufacturer for Stefanoni’s kit.

Stefanoni took the entire B sample for analysis, amplifying and dividing the sample. She also repeated the analysis with her PCR machine with the same result. I don’t see any merit to the argument that her kit was not up to the job, because obviously it was.

However I wonder whether there is still some of that amplification left over. If so why not run that through the PCR machine the RIS used? Should there be the same result then that would despatch the argument that Stefanoni’s kit was not up to the job.

To my way of thinking though that would be a redundant exercise.  (There’s no proof that there’s blood on the knife. But then again there’s no proof that there isn’t either.)

Posted by James Raper on 11/03/13 at 12:04 PM | #

@ CaliDeeva

That is a very beautiful poem. I think all of us here at tjmk will one day be amongst those stars in the night sky, living and laughing with Meredith. The light we shed will light up the world, and reveal the absolute truth.

We will show the world that Amanda Knox and her evil friends are hateful, evil people, who should be ashamed of themselves for taking away the life of the brightest star amongst us. Our meredith. She is a star amongst stars.

I’m lucky i guess, my parents were loving kind and giving people. They taught me to be the same way. I don’t have hatred in my heart for anyone, although for the first time in my 47 years on this earth, i feel something resembling hatred for those three and their awful families.

RIP Meredith Kercher, and lots of love and hugs to you family from mine.

Posted by mollythecat on 11/03/13 at 01:27 PM | #

@James Raper

The basic principles involved in the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has not been changed and no new technology is involved.

American manufacturers’ want to push a new insctrument every 2-5 years (depends on the economy). Perhaps the software was upgraded, a new laser was installed, the look and feel has been redesigned but in terms of the results…

I have a simple question (answer may not be so simple, I know): how the same experiment done with the old machine and with the new machine benefits the experiment in terms of the results obtained? I have another optional question to be answered: using the same old sample, what is the confidence you could have got new information using the new machine?

Dividing the sample after amplification serves no useful purpose as the alleged contamination, damages and artifacts have also been amplified. If the sample were divided prior to amplification, the two experiments would have been considered independent.

You are also confusing between evidence and proof. If Hb was found on the knife (in any of the samples extracted from the knife) then there was blood sometime on the knife. This is a good evidence and constitutes proof for all practical purposes.

The converse may not be used as a proof.

Posted by chami on 11/03/13 at 02:12 PM | #

Completely correct Chami because the forces of evil, plus the defense of course, will try to muddy the waters by maintaining that the contamination was a hold-over from the original test results. Therefore since the Knox supporters and others of low intelligence, will believe anything they are told, the confusion and denial will continue. However, and far more important, the entire weight of all of the evidence is undeniable and is conclusive proof in the obvious guilt of these two members of the great unwashed.

The DNA is therefore just another nail in the coffin and since I am a vindictive person, because I value all intelligence over looks, just as these ‘Third Rate Breeding Stock’ individuals obviously do. My fervent hope is that Sollecito and Knox will spend many years in a jail cell with similar persons such as Aviello and Alessi or some others of the same perversion.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 11/03/13 at 04:03 PM | #

An automatic translation of The Carabinieri DNA Report For Sample 36i, indicates that no new tests for Blood were performed, only the Court-Ordered Sample 36i DNA tests were done, finding as follows:

“ Statistical analysis conducted on alleles observed in the genetic profile of AMK … conclude, with extremely strong probabilistic support, that Amanda Marie Knox has contributed, with its biological material, to the track, thus confirming the assessment expressed by applying the biological model.

The inclusion of Amanda Marie Knox genetic profiles of the track is …
highly significant ….

Final outcome

Overall assessment of results of interpretation carried out makes it highly significant support the hypothesis that genetic material of Amanda Marie Knox is present in the trace, and then, Amanda Marie Knox has contributed, with its biological material, to the track.”

Had Blood been found it may have been The Final Proof of Guilt; as things now stand the New Finding is a Further Nail-in-the-Proof-of-Guilt.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 11/03/13 at 07:57 PM | #


“Statistical analysis conducted on alleles observed in the genetic profile of AMK…”

Just out of curiosity I wonder if they used David Balding’s probabilistic model and software for this, which also confirmed Sollecito’s DNA as “highly significant” on the bra clasp.

Anyway it’s good news. The defence of course will be contemptuous - Knox used the knife for cutting vegetables etc., etc. (I suppose they will also say this explains the heavy scrub marks on the blade around 36i since it’s well known, cough,  that food remnants are notoriously difficult to clean off knives. And of course La Knox was neurotically obsessed with hygiene and cleanliness, always scrubbing away in the kitchen like a thing possessed.)

Posted by Odysseus on 11/03/13 at 09:54 PM | #


Every experimental outcome is associated with a probabilistic model and we often do not do not question the models. The models are well tested and well proven by mathematicians and statisticians and are often part of the standard packages. Usually “highly significant” means that we can say with more than 99% confidence…

I am not sure but most likely the model is something like hypothesis testing, with two possible outcomes: (i) the sample belongs to AK and (ii) the sample does not belong to AK.

Obviously the same model was used for RS and MK and the results were negative.

The next step is to explain, by both sides, how the stuff went there…

Posted by chami on 11/04/13 at 04:12 AM | #

Interview on CNN with Steve Moore if you want to watch.  Might make you ill.

Posted by believing on 11/04/13 at 07:07 AM | #


Just to explain my comment above a bit more clearly, I am happy to quote from Wikipedia:

The best measurement of the age of the universe is 13.798±0.037 billion years (13.798±0.037×10^9 years or 4.354±0.012×10^17 seconds) within the Lambda-CDM concordance model

This is an experiment no one has actually performed.

This is an experiment that has never been actually repeated.

This is an experiment in which there are no witnesses.

And the age is based on a model (don’t ask me what is that!) and the result is widely accepted.

The ± part refers to the confidence interval. Here they do not use terms like significant or highly significant (the ± range is related to standard error)

The value is widely accepted to be correct as of now.

Posted by chami on 11/04/13 at 08:56 AM | #


Do we know if sample 36i is low-template DNA? If it is the Carabinieri laboratory might well have used Balding’s “weight of evidence” programme (it seems to be freely available to download).

Posted by Odysseus on 11/04/13 at 11:54 AM | #


I do not know the details of Balding’s work and I am therefore unable to comment. The book was published in 2005 but it was written for mathematicians (I mean statisticians).

The instrument comes with a software program and most of us use the software supplied by the manufacturer. I shall take a look at the report sometime later (I have to depend on google translate) and I may be able to comment (and perhaps not).

I have tried to present a simple picture at the cost of accuracy. Many of the problems are often far more complicated.

Posted by chami on 11/04/13 at 02:13 PM | #

Is this some kind of sick joke? I am so angry with this loser, the sheer gall of the guy.

Posted by Urbanist on 11/04/13 at 02:19 PM | #

Hello Urbanist i believe that is true. In fact i was just going to mention it. I thought i heard something like that right at the end of the Rudy show the other night on Quarto Grado and i forgot to inquire further.

Raff after being asked that question on Hardtalk said he thought it was not the right moment for visiting Meredith’s grave. That was 2 weeks ago.

This would be to gain sympathy for himself as he has no respect for Meredith’s memory or her deeply saddened family. That is definitely something that would enrage me. I can only imagine how they must feel about it.

Perhaps they need a restraining order for both perps.

Am preparing to leave home for Florence tomorrow morning. I was wondering if the London bookmakers are taking bets on whether Raff will return to face the Trial on wednesday. I personally do not believe he will show up.

Raff and Amanda will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to jail i believe. I might be wrong about Raff but i will eat my hat if he shows.

Posted by Mason2. on 11/04/13 at 02:34 PM | #

@ chami, thanks for your 2 Comments re Probabilistic Models.

My definition of a Model is: Any representation of a thing other than the thing itself.
I’ve had a lot of fun Modeling, over the years. It was the result of a mistake I once made in Initial Conditions that inspired my love of Computers!

Looking forward to your explanation of the Carabinieri DNA Report.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 11/04/13 at 06:52 PM | #

Dear friends,why don’t we write hundreds of e-letters to CNN,ABC etc etc complaining that Moore don’t say and has never said the all truth?

Posted by Matteo_65 on 11/05/13 at 12:38 AM | #

we’ve been doing that on Twitter for the last few months. Further measures to come.

Posted by Smacker on 11/05/13 at 12:56 AM | #

This is a posting in a thread below a new Guardian story, claiming to be from Steve Moore’s wife where she says her husband is now a journalist, and that Meredith Kercher’s parents are “snotty” for having requested that the defendants stay away from their daughter’s gravesite:

Hey Nick, this is Michelle Moore, Steve Moore’s wife. Hope all is well with you. If I may make just comment on a few things I would be grateful if you could read and respond here or via email. I’ve lost your email. I think it was very cool, very gracious that Amanda even asked for permission and with the parents’ blessings that she get to go see Meredith’s grave. I think they have been very snotty towards a grieving young woman who, as even YOU came to realize, is 100% innocent of this crime. 😊 I think that Raffaele paying his respects was very cool of him, because again, as you know, he too, is 100% innocent of this crime and he cared for Meredith too. Amanda and Raffaele have both suffered horribly (and still do) just like the family of Meredith still do. To write “will come as a shock” felt a little funny to me and almost made me think that now this HAS to be their reaction. I’m sure they won’t be happy because they obviously believe the two are guilty, unfortunately. But is it not a public gravesite? Maybe not, and I’m wrong. In actuality, even Amanda could go if she really wanted to. She just chose to ask permission first. I wouldn’t have since they think she’s guilty. They are so sadly wrong and I believe Meredith would be so sad to know how her parents and family and friends are treating them. Also, I know that as a journalist, your job is to try to catch the attention of the public, but you and I both know that Rafffaele Sollecito didn’t create some “secret” plan. He didn’t tell his supporters. He didn’t call in camera’s or reporters, no press. I would have loved to see you bring any of these points out, at least along with the more sensationalist ones because this is what is true. Again, he DIDN’T go there to be seen or any ulterior motive. By now I think that you know he IS an honorable guy. And if you don’t, and you trust me at all, please know he is. He did it because he wanted to honor Meredith and likely say goodbye. I’m sure it was difficult and painful. This isn’t what a killer would do, and if they did, they would make sure the camera’s were rollin’. Instead he said a prayer. I think it would be cool to feel secure enough in your journalistic skills that you don’t have to even come close to lowering journalistic ethics. This article wasn’t “quite” that, but rides the line. I know you have it in you to be a real journalist, not a hack. I don’t believe you are crooked. But, as my own husband is succeeding more and more in journalism, a field he isn’t even pursuing, character is everything. It has him having to turn down calls. You went from being very hated for all the horrid things that were leaked to you that you reported on (that literally helped make Amanda the horribly wounded broken scared and scarred person she is now. And she will always have to live with this horrible stuff that was said wrongly about her. If you have a chance to do anything to reverse anything that was wrong, I’d be jumping all over that. Best to you, Michelle

Posted by Media Watcher on 11/05/13 at 01:04 AM | #

This of course only proves once more what a self serving malicious bitch this woman is. Even if she had a brain she seems to have forgotten that privacy is the very last bastion of grief and to try to maneuver some kind of sympathy for two convicted murderers is way beyond the pail. I don’t care if she believes in their innocence or not but to try to implicate the Kercher family and make them out to “Snotty” Well that explains just what a gutter snipe this excise for a human being really is.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 11/05/13 at 02:07 AM | #

Sorry that should read “Excuse for a human being.” since she does not qualify as a member of the human race anyway. Steve Moore a journalist that’s so laughable it’s really sums up what a delusional woman she really is.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 11/05/13 at 02:13 AM | #

@media watcher thank you for the info on the Moores. Thanks to Chami who put it so well 4 well known lawyers defending kids gone wild. Also for the in depth understanding of dna analysis.

I was shocked when i heard it said right at the end of Quarto Grado i said to myself ‘did i hear right, did they just say Raff made a secret visit to Meredith’s grave some time ago’.

Dr Sollecito has said he has no knowledge of it but he would know that would upset the Kerchers terribly after having asked for privacy and no visits.

So if Raff went for a visit to Meredith’s tomb with a friend why is he talking about it now. If it was secret you dont talk about it.

Even their own lawyers understand protocol and would know that is not the right thing to do. And to talk about it is even worse.

Am going to Florence to be there and see for myself the proceedings as they unfold.

Posted by Mason2. on 11/05/13 at 07:17 AM | #

That disgusts me beyond believe. What a vile disgusting piece of pond life that woman is.. Words fail me!

Posted by distemper on 11/05/13 at 05:14 PM | #

Michelle Moore and her deluded husband are both sick. They make me feel ill.

I visited Meredith a couple of years ago, on a very cold December morning. I stood and chatted for a short while. I explained how she had made a positive difference to me in my life, and indeed, many others in this world. I thanked her for helping me and wished her a happy xmas. I felt honoured to be able to share those brief moments with her.

RS being allowed in England, makes me feel sick to my stomach.

Posted by mollythecat on 11/05/13 at 09:12 PM | #

@ Mason2, thanks for your feedback.
I honestly thought the RS/AK mob couldn’t stoop any lower until I read the disgusting Michelle Moore rant, it’s sickening that we have to breath the same air as her, same goes for that vile joke of a man, hapless Steve.

Posted by Urbanist on 11/06/13 at 01:01 AM | #

@ Media Watcher, I couldn’t find the Guardian story, please post a link, thanks.

Posted by Urbanist on 11/06/13 at 01:05 AM | #


My bad, it was a Standard story, not a Guardian story.  Here it is on the Standard - see comments below.

Posted by Media Watcher on 11/06/13 at 02:04 AM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Knox Apologists Attempt To Bend Congress; But Nobody Important Turns Up

Or to previous entry Some Hard Truths Sollecito PR Puppet Sharlene Martin Omits In Her Misleading Invite To The Congress