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

[icerat]

in my humble opinion, state that only Rudy Guede was there that night with 100% certainty...

He didn't say that. As per the part you highlighted, he said there was no evidence anyone else was there that night.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

so many problems with the DNA evidence, so little time

I doubt Budowle would assert that every single cleaned knife is cleaned thoroughly of its past use. Depends on how it was cleaned. Haven't read his analysis, but it makes sense that AK and RS probably didn't do a laboratory job cleaning the knife. And of course you neglect to mention other scientists you don't agree with Budowle.

The presence of additional profiles on the clasp was addressed by Balding. They may have significance, but they don't diminish from Raf's undeniable presence on the clasp. You interviewed him so you know this.

But it seems like you're arguing for large scale conspiracy from 2007 on which includes the prosecutor, police, scientists, and judges. Good luck with that.

griffinmill,

The existence of Meredith's profile in 36B is not sufficient to conclude that her DNA was ever on the knife. IMO a likely explanation is aerosol DNA from Stefanoni's laboratory. A true, dedicated LCN facility has precautions against this problem, and DNA really does fly, as you know. Moreover, even if Meredith's DNA were present on the knife itself, it might have gotten there via secondary or tertiary transfer.

Not just Professor Budowle, but also Dr. Johnson and Professor Hampikian have made the argument about the lack of blood. If you know of someone who has tried to argue otherwise, let's hear their argument.

Professor Vecchiotti's research includes how DNA is transferred; Professor Balding is a statistician. I am not knocking statistical genetics (it is an important field in its own right), but I am saying that he is not actually an expert in this subdiscipline. Most of us do not dispute the presence of Raf's DNA on the clasp. In the interviews he has given, one learns that what Professor Balding did is not an actual case review. In fact he was entirely unaware of the fact that the clasp had rotted and rusted. I would like to know what Professor Balding and ILE have to say about that. I suggest reading van Oorshot's definition of contamination, then reconsidering the number of male profiles on the clasp. Even Nencini thought that he had to address the issue, although he made a complete hash of it.

The "you are all a bunch of conspiracy-theorists" argument is a tired old horse that should have been put out to pasture long ago. I suggest looking into cases of wrongful convictions such as Lindy Chamberlain and Patricia Stallings before trotting it out again.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

apparent versus actual disingenuousness

A) MK on the knife is there. Again, the PIP refuse to just say, "yes, it's there", and then counter it. They prefer to say it wasn't there at all. This is disingenuous.

griffinmill,

No, the argument is more subtle than you seem to realize. Meredith's DNA somehow made 36B, but I would never accept it as legitimate in the context of a criminal trial. There were too many shortcomings in Stefanoni's work, relative to true LCN work, to make it acceptable. In addition, even true LCN work is not without its critics, such as Allan Jamieson. What actually is disingenuous is berating Conti and Vecchiotti for not running 36I, claiming that it is a decisive test, and then minimizing and or misinterpreting the results.

 

[anglolawyer]

griffinmill,

The existence of Meredith's profile in 36B is not sufficient to conclude that her DNA was ever on the knife. IMO a likely explanation is aerosol DNA from Stefanoni's laboratory. A true, dedicated LCN facility has precautions against this problem, and DNA really does fly, as you know. Moreover, even if Meredith's DNA were present on the knife itself, it might have gotten there via secondary or tertiary transfer.

Not just Professor Budowle, but also Dr. Johnson and Professor Hampikian have made the argument about the lack of blood. If you know of someone who has tried to argue otherwise, let's hear their argument.

Professor Vecchiotti's research includes how DNA is transferred; Professor Balding is a statistician. I am not knocking statistical genetics (it is an important field in its own right), but I am saying that he is not actually an expert in this subdiscipline. Most of us do not dispute the presence of Raf's DNA on the clasp. In the interviews he has given, one learns that what Professor Balding did is not an actual case review. In fact he was entirely unaware of the fact that the clasp had rotted and rusted. I would like to know what Professor Balding and ILE have to say about that. I suggest reading van Oorshot's definition of contamination, then reconsidering the number of male profiles on the clasp. Even Nencini thought that he had to address the issue, although he made a complete hash of it.

The "you are all a bunch of conspiracy-theorists" argument is a tired old horse that should have been put out to pasture long ago. I suggest looking into cases of wrongful convictions such as Lindy Chamberlain and Patricia Stallings before trotting it out again.

I do. The evidence was destroyed and we have only the word of a liar as to what was on the clasp. Unless the entire process of sampling, testing extraction etc was independently witnessed I see no reason to believe her.

Other than that, I understand that Balding says no more than that, as a matter of interpretation using his statistical technique for analysing mixed profiles, it's almost certain that Raf's profile is one of those allegedly derived from the bra sample. Of course, it's only because her work was subsequently reviewed independently that we know there were mixed profiles at all.

 

[anglolawyer]

A) MK on the knife is there. Again, the PIP refuse to just say, "yes, it's there", and then counter it. They prefer to say it wasn't there at all. This is disingenuous.

griffinmill,

No, the argument is more subtle than you seem to realize. Meredith's DNA somehow made 36B, but I would never accept it as legitimate in the context of a criminal trial. There were too many shortcomings in Stefanoni's work, relative to true LCN work, to make it acceptable. In addition, even true LCN work is not without its critics, such as Allan Jamieson. What actually is disingenuous is berating Conti and Vecchiotti for not running 36I, claiming that it is a decisive test, and then minimizing and or misinterpreting the results.

This lies at the nub of the ISC's faulty approach to the whole question of the DNA evidence. They fail to see the need for the process of testing itself to be valid. They think, as griffin mill seems to as well, that the result validates the process.

You explained it to me once Chris in this way: that a lot of the lab work is designed to not get a result. That way, if you do get one you can be sure it is meaningful. I'm afraid Stefanoni did not do that and the PGPs will never understand until they get to grips with Conti-Vechiotti properly and especially the facts set out in their report. If you just listen to Mach you would think it's all about whether Carla thought Stef was a bitch, the malicious misquoting of testimony, filing dodgy bits of paper in October '08 etc. It's not. Its about a process that makes no sense either to qualified observers or (at a lower lever of comprehension) lesser mortals like me.

 

[andreajo]

The PGP vs PIP psychology debate is ridiculous. Both claim the other distorts facts. Both malign whichever central players suit them. Both assert cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, prejudice, conspiracy, and sinister intention. Ironically, until the actual truth is known, both will be equally as right as the other.

Moving beyond the towering certitude on both sides, the case comes down to reasonable doubt. The PIP think it means one thing, the PGP think it means another. Based on what the law defines as reasonable doubt, my feeling is the courts made the right decision. They may be innocent, trapped in tragic circumstance, but there isn't enough reasonable doubt to conclude they are not guilty.

What legal definition of reasonable doubt are you using?

I have a life to live and will not answer millions of questions on the "evidence." That said, I believe Raf's DNA on the clasp and Meredith's DNA on the knife are not likely to be the result of contamination, and even less likely when both unlikely events are combined. Even without all the other (admittedly disputed) forensics, the circumstantial evidence is fairly overwhelming.

When estimating the likelihood of the combination of these two pieces of evidence being reliable, in addition to the scientific difficulties already raised by people more knowledgeable than me, you should factor into your calculations that both were uniquely produced by Patrizia Stefanoni, who:

1) Lied on the stand in order to imply that the luminol footprints were made in blood, when in fact she had done TMB testing and the results were negative.

2) Hid and is still hiding electronic testing data.

3) Destroyed evidence (the bra clasp) through improper storage.

So I will be PGP until such time as reasonable doubt supports the contrary. At this point, believing in AK and RS requires too vast a conspiracy -- innocently bungled alibis, a wholly corrupt police force, a 2 hour interrogation that resulted in the accusation of an innocent person, forensic evidence that connects all 3 to the crime scene.

AK and RS have quite a task unwrangling themselves from all this, and not surprisingly they haven't.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Unanswered questions with respect to Balding's interview

The presence of additional profiles on the clasp was addressed by Balding. They may have significance, but they don't diminish from Raf's undeniable presence on the clasp. You interviewed him so you know this.

Griffinmill,

No, you are misrepresenting what he said. "There is virtually no crime sample that doesn't have some environmental DNA on it, from individuals not directly involved in the crime. This does create additional uncertainty in the analysis because of the extra ambiguity about the true profile of the contributor of interest, but as long as it is correctly allowed for in the analysis there is no problem - it is completely routine." He never explains how one differentiates between environmental DNA and DNA that was deposited during a crime. Lot's of luck, if you want to try. Nor did he answer my question about the YSTR profile.

 

[andreajo]

A) MK on the knife is there. Again, the PIP refuse to just say, "yes, it's there", and then counter it. They prefer to say it wasn't there at all. This is disingenuous.

B) I appreciate you admit the RS bra clasp DNA. I disagree with all your reasons why it would support "reasonable doubt" that it got there by different means than RS himself. PGP hate Stefanoni, PIP love C/V, but I find it curious that C/V don't generally dispute the DNA results, only dispute the validity. Ultimately, I have no way of knowing who is right in this, as I imagine you don't either. Scientists disagree.

What do you think validity means in this context?

C) No interest in dissecting how Raf's DNA got on the clasp vis a vis the murder. It's there, statistically it's overwhelming that he is the most likely person who deposited it, and I'm content to wait for the truth as to how it actually occurred.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

how not to store a clasp

I do. The evidence was destroyed and we have only the word of a liar as to what was on the clasp. Unless the entire process of sampling, testing extraction etc was independently witnessed I see no reason to believe her.

Other than that, I understand that Balding says no more than that, as a matter of interpretation using his statistical technique for analysing mixed profiles, it's almost certain that Raf's profile is one of those allegedly derived from the bra sample. Of course, it's only because her work was subsequently reviewed independently that we know there were mixed profiles at all.

Anglolawyer,

Excellent point. Raf is a contributor to 165B, but again whether the DNA was on the clasp or not is another matter. It is hard to understand why anyone would mistakenly put extraction buffer into the same tube as the clasp. One has to take the destruction of the clasp into one's consideration of 165B as evidence.

 

[analemma]

That these two people should cross paths with what can only be described as a living walking nightmare, a literal madman in the guise of a public prosecutor, spinning insane sex crazed crime theories against anyone in sight; is like the best of people, crossing paths with the worst.
This story is Shakespearean, in a way. And I think that's why it has attracted the interest and commitment of so many people of accomplishment, talent, and integrity to it's cause.
So let's leave the talk of angels and devils to the mad prosecutor of Perugia. And do what we can to reverse this injustice.

Carbonjam72
I so agree with your words that describe this surreal injustice and the need "to reverse this injustice".
I think of this case as the "Dreyfus Affair of the 21st Century".
Analemma

 

[RWVBWL]

You err, A person can not,
in my humble opinion, state that only Rudy Guede was there that night with 100% certainty...
RW

He didn't say that. As per the part you highlighted, he said there was no evidence anyone else was there that night.

Thanks for the correction notice, Icerat, it was late when I wrote my little post. But I fixed that, ok?
Have a good 1, RW

 

[Anode]

Hi Griffinmill,
Are you married?
Say that you found out there were 3 or 4 other fingerprints or DNA samples found on your own wife's bra clasp.

But it should only be hers or yours, right?
1 of those belongs to your neighbor, a good drinkin' buddy,
who has recently been over as you entertained some friends for The Game, or was that The Fight?.

What would her explanation be and your thoughts then be?
Contamination, or she is cheating on you?

If I were a forensic scientist I would check the bed/bedroom. If I found neighbor prints, hair, fibers, and body fluids in there then I would conclude infidelity. If there were none I could conclude that the tiny trace of DNA must have transferred via a greeting hug and kiss on both cheeks, as many Europeans do, or transfer from using the same guest bathroom towels and such.

Corroborating evidence!! It's important!!!! Now, relate what I just typed to this case and everyone knows where I stand.

 

[anglolawyer]

If I were a forensic scientist I would check the bed/bedroom. If I found neighbor prints, hair, fibers, and body fluids in there then I would conclude infidelity. If there were none I could conclude that the tiny trace of DNA must have transferred via a greeting hug and kiss on both cheeks, as many Europeans do, or transfer from using the same guest bathroom towels and such.

Corroborating evidence!! It's important!!!! Now, relate what I just typed to this case and everyone knows where I stand.

Also if you see his eyes peeping out from under the bed, that's a clue too!

 

[Dan O.]

Hi Dan O.,
I have to respectfully disagree, even though you know much more about this brutal murder case that we discuss than I ever will. I was reading earlier on The Wiki about the cat's blood downstairs, there are soooo many more questions than answers...

This is what sets us apart from the guilters. They would never bring up arguments amongst themselves.

Rudy Guede was definitely there in Meredith's apartment that night.
It's an easy story to sell, so to say...

But was someone else too?

Over the years we have constructed a narative of how this bloody murder took place with Rudy Guded alone in the cottage asaulting and murdering Meredith Kercher. No such narative has been constructed that includes any accomplis and remains consistent with the observed facts. You are welcome to try and construct such a narative as are the guilters. But be prepared to see your narative shot full of holes.

Whom do the other DNA on Meredith's bra clasp come from?

If we knew who it would help determine how and when. What we can state with mathematical precision is that the likelihood that the DNA was the result of secondary or tertiary transfer rather than 4 individuals independently touching that clasp is 87.5%.

Hair formations underneath Meredith's fingernails?
Is that a hair?

It has the appearance of a hair. Standard procedure is to bag the hands of a murder victim at the scene so that such evidence is not lost and to prevent subsequent contamination. To accurately determine the color of a single strand of hair it needs to be examined with a microscope against a neutral background and compared to references. Diffraction and reflections distort the color of a single strand and make it appear much lighter. Find a photo of someone with fine hair that is backlit by the sun. In the right conditions the hair will light up like a halo due to the diffraction of light around the individual strands.

Whose fingerprints were found around the cottage that were unattributed for?

If we knew who's they were they wouldn't be unattributed. Two of those prints in Meredith's room were on her calendar. There is no particular reason a murderer would be leaving prints on the calendar. Those prints could have been there since before Meredith brought it to the cottage. Crime scenes are not pristine slates before the crime. There is going to be unrelated trace evidence. Every piece is not going to fit the one puzzle. You usually need to find more than a single fingerprint from an unknown suspect to place that suspect in the room at the time of the murder.

Whose semen stains are those?
Do you have the tests results?
Etc.

If the semen stain was not tested we would not know who it belonged to. But didn't both Mignini and Patrick's lawyer both jump up to insist that the stain NOT be tested?! This tells me that they do know who's DNA is in that stain and it is imperative that it never be found out. They wouldn't object to finding Rudy's DNA on the pillow. That fits with Mignini's narative of Amanda forcing Meredith to have sex with the black man. Is it perhaps from the same mix that was found on the clasp? Think about the implications of that.

You can not,
in my humble opinion, state that only Rudy Guede was there that night with 100% certainty...
RW

Nothing is ever 100% certain. But what I have said is that there is no narative that holds up except those of the lone assailant.

 

[Bill Williams]

Over the years we have constructed a narative of how this bloody murder took place with Rudy Guded alone in the cottage asaulting and murdering Meredith Kercher. No such narative has been constructed that includes any accomplis and remains consistent with the observed facts. You are welcome to try and construct such a narative as are the guilters. But be prepared to see your narative shot full of holes.

It is important to say that griffinmills is an exception, in the sense that in good faith g.m. DOES present a narrative - of sorts - presented without the usual ad hominem which is directed towards innocentisi's.

My opinion about why guilters do not in the main try to present a narrative, is that it IS so easy to shoot through of holes.

Take griffinmills core argument. "There is a presence of Meredith Kercher on the knife."

There is one and only one person in the known universe who can say this with certainty, and that is Patrizia Stefanoni. Everyone else who comments from that point on is commenting on their own trust in the process.

For instance, when the RIS Carabinierireported to the Nencini court abut 36i, the Amanda-trace on the knife blade, they presented their whole report incl. such standard things as the electronic data files. This is so that other experts could judge the RIS Carabinieiri's work, and work out for themselves the quality or veracity of the claims.

In other words, the RIS Carabinieiri stand behind their work, and their "transparency" is mainly so that their peers can judge them accordingly.

How are her peers to judge Stefanoni in relation to the Kercher murder case? Peers would at best have to be agnostic, because other then Judge Massei's "say-so" that Stefanoni wouldn't lie, her peers have a different standard as scientists - show me.

So griffinmills is not inventing anything here.... he/she is just accepting, like Massei, that Setfanoni would not lie.

You see, this case stands or fall not on "evidence" per se, but on a personality assessment of Patrizia Stefanoni. Rather than other experts being able to look at her work and conclude as she does that Meredith's DNA was on that knife,......

...... the question is exactly as griffinmills said in the first post griffinmills made. Why would Stefanoni lie? If you could see no reason why she would, you tend to condemn Knox and Sollecito. If you say that she did not confirm to even the most minimal scientific standard.....

..... right there is reasonable doubt.

But note - the core assessment is not guilt or innocence of two students with no motive and no background for this sort of thing; the core assessment is somewhat removed.

In the absence of normal forensic reporting, can you believe Stefanoni?

Guilters don't even discuss this angle of the case. Like g.m. they just say, "Meredith's DNA was on the knife." At least g.m. is willing to put it out there.

 

[acbytesla]

Griffin is under the mistaken impression that there has to be a huge conspiracy for Amanda and Raffaele to be innocent. This of course is the typical argument when anyone is being tried for a crime. That the mere suggestion that their might be a conspiracy or merely one or two corrupt officials is totally absurd.

Never mind the fact that there need not be a single corrupt official and the results could easily be the result of sloppiness and poor procedures, both of which have been proved.

Or that it only takes one official to be corrupt or to go over the line. One who lied on the stand and deliberately misled others and did everything within her power to make sure that her work could not be reviewed by anyone else. This is Stefanoni Here is a lab technician who stored a metal clasp in a liquid. Even I know better than that. A lab technician who refused from day one to provide the easiest of information to document her work. A standard procedure in virtually every case in America as well as most of Italy. The Electronic Data File. Instead of those, all Stefanoni has ever provided is written documentation. I find that to be more than a little strange. I have to ask why? Me I'd rather do less work instead of more.

Justice should be as transparent as possible to ensure that it is fair. This is why full disclosure is usually required. Every note, every computer file, show it all to the world so everyone knows that the process is above board and beyond reproach. But like it or not Griffin, the prosecution in this case has taken exactly the opposite approach.

First they couldn't find the recordings of the interrogation files. Then they said they weren't made, yet everything else was recorded. Then they said they didn't have the funds to record. A blatant lie.

When Stefanoni said she performed "negative controls", she couldn't find the documentation to prove this and then the prosecution tried to pass off false documentation for the controls.

We have had lab technicians that falsified work in the US causing hundreds of cases to be thrown out. If it has happened in the US, do you really think it is impossible in other countries?

 

[Poppy1016]

My opinion, for what it's worth , on the DNA evidence is Asa follows. It cannot truely be argued as to whether or not there was evidence of MK DNA on the knife or RS on the clasp. The collection, chain of custody, test facility, test equipment, test procedures, and test results, were all faulty, from my lowly point of view. The knife and clasp should never have made it into the trial.
One question I have is, has Stephony been personally " called on the carpet " by anyone from the scientific community, to explain the multitude of shortcomings and faulty procedures?

 

[kwill]

This lies at the nub of the ISC's faulty approach to the whole question of the DNA evidence. They fail to see the need for the process of testing itself to be valid. They think, as griffin mill seems to as well, that the result validates the process.

You explained it to me once Chris in this way: that a lot of the lab work is designed to not get a result. That way, if you do get one you can be sure it is meaningful. I'm afraid Stefanoni did not do that and the PGPs will never understand until they get to grips with Conti-Vechiotti properly and especially the facts set out in their report. If you just listen to Mach you would think it's all about whether Carla thought Stef was a bitch, the malicious misquoting of testimony, filing dodgy bits of paper in October '08 etc. It's not. Its about a process that makes no sense either to qualified observers or (at a lower lever of comprehension) lesser mortals like me.

Hmmm. I'd like to try to come up with a graphic that captures -- for us lesser mortals -- exactly how the processes compare.

It helps to be able to show side by side comparisons so that differences pop out for people who aren't going to read through long explanations or figure out how detailed spreadsheets convey meaning.

Maybe 3 columns with respect to the testing of the kitchen knife:

Stef, CV, Carabinieri

Down the left side could be a checklist of standard procedures that lead to valid results. Under each column could be yes/no/unknown. The idea would be to demonstrate visually the highlighted bit above.

I can make this image if someone can name the elements on that checklist.

 

[Vibio]

Second, criminals have been convicted or exonerated on DNA evidence in recent years that is decades old. How is it possible their DNA is absolutely reliable, collected in who knows what way, but the DNA for Knox/Sollecito isn't?

(Shhhhhhsh griffinmill.... we're supposed to ignore that.)

 

[Poppy1016]

(Shhhhhhsh griffinmill.... we're supposed to ignore that.)

Great argument for guilt. Hit and run random comments make for a great discussion of your point of view. Try HONEST evaluation of the evidence. I once believed they were guilty, but after reading and evaluating as best I could, my opinion totally changed.