Continuation Part Eight: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[carbonjam72]

Bigger fish?

Brookmyre is frying the same bigger fish as I am at the moment.

Rolfe.

Can you tell us anything more? Would love to know. Never heard of this fellow...

 

[Rolfe]

Ok this is my tipping point, I will endeavour to embrace twitter

I just checked, and he doesn't send many tweets. But here's a clue why a lot of people in Scotland have something else on their minds at the moment.

http://www.yesscotland.net/

Rolfe.

 

[Strozzi]

Is this plausible?
A coworker's wife gets murdered.
They find my DNA at the crime scene even though I was never there and do not even know where he lives
It got there by my coworker using the same desk as I do and taking my DNA home.

Desert Fox, if I understand the Italian Supreme Court ruling/requirement, YOU would have to prove contamination and if you cannot prove it then it must be accepted as fact that it was you who deposited your DNA at the crime scene (even if you have never been to the house where the crime occurred). If you don't remember being there, the Perugoa police can help you imagine you were there.

 

[Rolfe]

Can you tell us anything more? Would love to know. Never heard of this fellow...

He's a well-known and highy-regarded author. He's Scottish. Many people in Scotland, including him, are thinking a bit closer to home than Italy this year.

(He's also involved in the "bigger fish" miscariage of justice I'm involved in, but only as a supporter, he's not active.)

Rolfe.

 

[carbonjam72]

Lost fish on twitter

You'll probably spot it if you follow him on Twitter.

Rolfe.

Rolfe,
The suspense, I can't take it. I can't find it, or can't recognize it on his twitter feed. I swear I have no idea who this guy is, and I can barely make out what he's saying. Please, throw us a bone...

 

[Samson]

Rolfe,
The suspense, I can't take it. I can't find it, or can't recognize it on his twitter feed. I swear I have no idea who this guy is, and I can barely make out what he's saying. Please, throw us a bone...

CJ72, Brookmyre is a sharp writer. Try his novel Boilng a Frog. He is way ahead of the curve. This thread must stay relevant. So let me extemporise. The principle is simply that if you put a frog in boiling water, he jumps out. If you put him in cold water and heat it, he just dies happy, because he never understands what is going on.
Mignini did this over and over.

 

[Rolfe]

I really must actually read some of his stuff some time, since everyone I know raves about it.

Sorry, Samson. He's involved in the current campaign for Scottish independence, and he's also a supporter of the campaign to have the Lockerbie case re-opened. Just, meaning, there are other things that take up people's time, it's not all about this case.

Sorry, I thought I was avoiding derail by being cryptic but that was obviously a mistake. Back to your normally scheduled programming. I'd still be interested to know how Amanda and Raffaele have reacted to this. I don't know what I'd be doing if it were me.

Rolfe.

 

[Samson]

I really must actually read some of his stuff some time, since everyone I know raves about it.

Sorry, Samson. He's involved in the current campaign for Scottish independence, and he's also a supporter of the campaign to have the Lockerbie case re-opened. Just, meaning, there are other things that take up people's time, it's not all about this case.

Sorry, I thought I was avoiding derail by being cryptic but that was obviously a mistake. Back to your normally scheduled programming. I'd still be interested to know how Amanda and Raffaele have reacted to this. I don't know what I'd be doing if it were me.

Rolfe.

Rolfe, the closest encounter to Amanda for me will continue to be this extended interview with radio new Zealand.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/2553687

Listen up you rationalists

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Andrea Vogt discusses the Nencini motivation document:

http://thefreelancedesk.com/amanda-knox-trials-meredith-kercher-case/



As I recall, Vecchiotti and Continue were asked by the court to review the evidence showing Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp and Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife. They did not review all of the DNA evidence used in this case, just these two that are critical to the prosecution case.

How does evidence that negative controls were done when processing other samples preclude contamination on these specific samples?

Why does the court care that a sample showing Amanda's DNA is on the handle of a kitchen knife found where she helped her boyfriend cook was not tested by V&C?

Is a kit to collect low template DNA relavent when you don't have a lab certified to process low template DNA?

Thank you, interesting article in as much as the reported comments relating to the Vecchiotti and Conti, if accurate it appears that the Florence motivations are critical of Vecchiotti and Conti findings and then some.

Also the defence teams have 45 days to lodge their appeal, not much time.

 

[carbonjam72]

What a relief -

I really must actually read some of his stuff some time, since everyone I know raves about it.

Sorry, Samson. He's involved in the current campaign for Scottish independence, and he's also a supporter of the campaign to have the Lockerbie case re-opened. Just, meaning, there are other things that take up people's time, it's not all about this case.

Sorry, I thought I was avoiding derail by being cryptic but that was obviously a mistake. Back to your normally scheduled programming. I'd still be interested to know how Amanda and Raffaele have reacted to this. I don't know what I'd be doing if it were me.

Rolfe.

Well, Grazie. Good point though Rolfe, one that I think about too. Wars, famine, war criminals, global warming, and on and on - and yet this case just gets me. Can't even explain why.

There was a movie called 'Ace in the hole' with Kirk Douglas. He's a ruthless newspaper man. He's stumbled onto an accident where one is man trapped in a mine collapse, and he actually could save him, but instead lets him stay in there so he can milk the story for all its worth and blows it up into a giant media circus. (Sound familiar, Italian and Brit tabloids, and the unnamed two US "journalists", you vile scoundrels?).

At one point in the movie, he talks about the elements of a good story. He says something like 200 people being killed, isn't as good as a story of one person that might be saved. Something like that, it might even be more slanted, like one person getting hurt is a better story than 200 people getting hurt. The idea is built around empathy, and our ability to empathize as people. If you can relate to just one person, it becomes personal and emotional. Whereas larger tragedies just defy our ability to grasp on an emotional level. That's why news stories tend to be built around and dramatize the experiences of individuals.

Crass as the majority of studio output may always have been, like the greeks before us, we in our times in this newer medium; there are more than a few films of note that reach into the human experience with a depth, power and vision uniquely specific to film as a medium. Just saying...

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Raffaele's fingerprints as a source of DNA

Think I menioned Dr Peter Gill, UK DNA expert, had suggested in a documentary on BBC radio recently, since the January conviction, that Rafaele could have touched the outside door handle of Meredith's room when they tried to see if she was in there. And that the investigators, wearing latex gloves (which are good at picking up DNA), may have transferred it from the door handle to the bra clasp at any time.

The interviewer then asked a police inspector (I forget who) if they had tested the outside doornob for DNA, and his response was, "No, the crime was inside the room, why would we test the outside door handle".

Dr Gill said that guilt had absolutely not been proven beyond reasonable doubt for Amanda and Raf.

carbonjam,

Raffaele's fingerprints are on the door, and the lack of frequent glove changing is a serious problem with the technique of the FP. Some time ago here and elsewhere, I suggested that the fingerprints are the source of Raf's DNA. katy_did came up with a plausible theory about the towels bringing in his DNA.

Fulcanelli used to push the idea that women were the other contributors to the clasp several years ago. It is strange to see the idea getting recycled.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, Grazie. Good point though Rolfe, one that I think about too. Wars, famine, war criminals, global warming, and on and on - and yet this case just gets me. Can't even explain why.

I find this case quite compelling too, it's just that I have at least two other things on the go that are significantly more compelling. Someone mentioned Chris Brookmyre's name and wondered where he - or authors of his calibre - were in relation to this case. It just so happens that Chris Brookmyre is currently enmeshed in both the other things I find more compelling at the moment.

I don't think there's any need to apologise for being wrapped up in this case. It's scarcely trivial. It has elements that are extremely compelling, and each twist seems more bizarre than the next. It's turning into a psychological study of the abuses of power, now that we more or less know what actually happened that night.

However, other people will be compelled by different things. The Lockerbie case is equally compelling if not more so to some people, and it doesn't come more important than self-determination for your actual country. So wondering why particular people aren't showing up in the Perugia murder debate isn't really sensible. There are a lot of fish that need frying, and forunately enough people in the world to fry most of them.

Rolfe.

 

[anglolawyer]

Frank has an interesting article out. His theme is that the Supremes will have to reverse Nencini and he gives some reasons why they annulled Hellman in arguing they will have to do the same thing again. Then we can have a third trial! Or will it be the fourth?

Hellmann and Zanetti, in their motivation report, used irony to explain that even if they had convicted Knox for calumny, they knew that she didn’t commit any calumny, since her declarations weren’t spontaneous. But irony doesn’t make jurisprudence; it is not read in Supreme Court.
The explanation of why he convicted Knox for calumny, Hellmann gave only in an interview to Oggi: “Because otherwise we should have said that the cops were criminals.” So, in order to avoid saying that the cops had committed a crime in soliciting Knox’s statements against Lumumba, he made an inconsistent ruling, and, since interviews don’t belong in the trial, that inconsistency remained unexplained, becoming one of the elements used to ask for the annulment of his ruling. The S.C. is just there to find inconsistencies in rulings, they found that one, and they used it, with other elements, to legitimately annul that ruling.

Those with the memory of an elephant will recall that I am a critic of Hellman. If he really did what Frank says he says he did then here's a big part of the reason why.

Knox and Sollecito’s lawyers spent a lot of time talking about incomprehensible technicalities about DNA, but not enough to explain why the ruling about Guede was wrong (because it resulted from a flash-trial based on data that were then disproved). It looked like they were afraid to say in S.C. that another S.C. ruling was wrong. And if you are afraid of speaking, you can’t complain if things then turn against you.
So, due the “psychologism” of defense lawyers and their lack of opposition, the S.C. took that “truth” delivered by that other S.C. ruling, applied it to the case of Knox and Sollecito, and ordered a retrial, requiring legitimately that the court consider if Knox and Sollecito could be the others who, according to Guede’s S.C. ruling, committed the crime with Guede.

No comment needed.

The S.C. ordered a new trial so that the trace “I” could instead be tested. A decision useless in our view (we know, indeed, that Meredith’s DNA simply couldn’t be there), but not in the opinion of the Supremes, who didn’t have an actual knowledge of the case and didn’t know, for instance, that the knife was used for cooking in the days after the murder.
We understand, then, that the decision to order a retrial was not necessarily an act of cruelty, or corruption, or decided within a huge conspiracy, but rather a legitimate will to leave nothing unanswered. It was elicited mainly by the non-testing of the trace “I”, and facilitated by the fact that testing techniques had in the meantime improved, and even the trace “I” could now be read.
Reasoning in the same way, the S.C., as we shall see, will have to annul Florence verdict.

Well, we'll see.

 

[Rolfe]

I hope they do, but this is beyond farcical.

Rolfe.

 

[Samson]

I really must actually read some of his stuff some time, since everyone I know raves about it.

Sorry, Samson. He's involved in the current campaign for Scottish independence, and he's also a supporter of the campaign to have the Lockerbie case re-opened. Just, meaning, there are other things that take up people's time, it's not all about this case.

Sorry, I thought I was avoiding derail by being cryptic but that was obviously a mistake. Back to your normally scheduled programming. I'd still be interested to know how Amanda and Raffaele have reacted to this. I don't know what I'd be doing if it were me.

Rolfe.

I regard the possibility of Raffaele incarceration as zero.This is due to my analysis of the forensico politico Italiano combo.

I hope this makes no sense.

 

[andreajo]

I regard the possibility of Raffaele incarceration as zero.This is due to my analysis of the forensico politico Italiano combo.

I hope this makes no sense.

They could just keep him on trial until he dies of old age.

 

[Samson]

I hope they do, but this is beyond farcical.

Rolfe.

I am new here, because the protagonists are remote. Rolfe, please examine this case, to understand why Sollecito's dna appeared on the bra clasp day plus one after his family counted the rings on his shoes, and proved they belonged to Guede.

Planting of evidence where it is just correctly designed to confirm known culpability is commonplace.

Amazingly Mignini authorised this to sustain his career.

Comments and refutation welcome.

 

[carbonjam72]

Bra and Knife DNA -

carbonjam,

Raffaele's fingerprints are on the door, and the lack of frequent glove changing is a serious problem with the technique of the FP. Some time ago here and elsewhere, I suggested that the fingerprints are the source of Raf's DNA. katy_did came up with a plausible theory about the towels bringing in his DNA.

Fulcanelli used to push the idea that women were the other contributors to the clasp several years ago. It is strange to see the idea getting recycled.

Sorry about the recycling, seems inevitable though with new people (like me) unfamiliar with 7 years worth of posts.

Also, Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I think the issue Dr Gill had raised was whether the door handle had specifically been tested for DNA, not just tested for finger prints on the outside of the door or outside door handle.

I am trying to become familiar with the steps of DNA analysis (I actually took a DIY class at GENSPACE in nyc, loads of fun. Haven't figured out yet how closely I'm related to Neanderthals, but have some data and always been curious).

I'd like to try to lay out both the standard AND Stefanoni's exact steps for us laymen and would be great if you and the DNA team on this site could tweak for corrections, and weigh in on where these crucial DNA profiles entered Stefanoni's results. You guys know the stuff obviously, but seems like we simpletons aren't always following (apologies to the less simple simpletons).

Simple question is this; in your opinion, is Stefanoni just the luckiest police lab tech in the world, or did she put her thumb on the scale in some way to reliably infer a result?
If she's just goosing up the machine beyond reliability, unless that guarantees the desired result, it's not what I would consider "gaming". (She has to know before she even starts testing that the knife randomly pulled from Raf's kitchen draw, "will do". How does she know that, or did she know?)

 

[Rolfe]

Good point. But at the same time, if someone planted something, surely they would have managed to get more material on the knife?

Rolfe.

 

[anglolawyer]

Good point. But at the same time, if someone planted something, surely they would have managed to get more material on the knife?

Rolfe.

Not if:

A they wanted a reason for the test to be non-repeatable, and
B the tampering were being conducted in a country with such a primitive system as Italy

Folks keep forgetting that, so far, Stef's gambit has worked.

ETA and I am going to have pen an idiot's guide to the knife because everyone keeps talking as though there was anything on it in the first place. Maybe it's a question of language. People (surely not you, Rolfe) think a 'sample' means something has been sampled but, here, it just means, I dunno, a cotton bud dipped in alcohol or something has been wiped on the blade and popped into a test tube. Something may have been picked up or not. You test it to find out. Stef tested it with these results:

1 not blood
2 not human
3 no observable cells (in fact she didn't look which itself ought to raise suspicions)
4 no DNA (negative for quantification)

Thus, 'the sample' by all tests conducted on it was indistinguishable from nothing. This is why I like to think it should not be measured in picograms but in tons. The sample weighed zero tons.