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

[Strozzi]

Vibio, is it true that Boemia never looked at the bathmat? That what he did was look at photos of it, but he never saw the thick bathmat?

 

[LondonJohn]

The page at the link above is so totally Knoxian it's hilarious.

The utter pretentiousness of it:

"Lorenzo Rinaldi is the director of the print identity department of the Italian Police The myth about the size of Rudy's foot is largely the result of the report that Lorenzo Rinaldi presented in court. Proper inspection of the bathmat clearly shows..."

Uh...proper inspection according to whom? A few internet posters with no training in the subject looking over internet photographs?

The defense was clobbered on this subject by two experts in their field: Rinaldi and Pietro Boemia. And the judge and jury came to their conclusions.

A more complete picture of the testimony:

About Boemia: "Dactyloscopist with 30 years' experience. Has identified between 5,000 and 10,000 individuals using footprints."

But we're supposed to put our faith in anonymous internet posters who don't know their footprint from Shinola.

"Boemia also identified the bathmat print as belonging to Raffaele Sollecito. Bongiorno asked about the missing heel, and Boemia explained that you could use other characteristics." (explained in a chart presentation)

"At one point while being cross-examined by Bongiorno, Boemia responded with the comment that metatarsal profile was a perfect match to Sollecito."

"Bongiorno asked about the distortion from the footprint being made by depositing a substance on a soft surface. Boemia explained that because the quantity of blood was small that was not an issue. Bongiorno also asked about possible distortion standing on one foot would cause. Boemia explained that again, because of the quantity of blood, it would have no impact."

"Asked by Judge Massei how many people were present Boemia said that there were definitely three sets of different feet so there were at least three people in the cottage when the murder happened".

And that's just for starters. Then there's Rinaldi's testimony. I don't believe it is available in English.... I've read it in Italian. Of course none of you have. These men of course examined the actual mat and it should also be noted that their technical report features 56 photographs. Let me repeat that: 56.

Why does the link that "DesertFox" posted make no reference to any of this?

Ahahahahahaha. Where to start??

Well firstly, the use of the pejorative "Knoxian" is noted and judged.

Next, let's get onto the matter of the deeply unimpressive prosecution "expert" Boemia. I'll address things in the order in which they cropped up in the above post:


1) " ...looking over internet photographs?"

Vibio might be unaware that Boemia - a key prosecution print expert - was forced to admit in court that he'd never even actually seen (let alone examined) the bathmat in question, but had conducted his entire "analysis" on the basis of photographs


2) "The defense was clobbered on this subject by two experts in their field..."

Haha. An objective reading of the transcripts shows instead that the defence lawyers (particularly Bongiorno) clobbered Boemi and Rinaldi - making them contradict themselves several times; making them admit that one of their key measurements was inaccurate and wrong; making Boemia claim that it would make practically zero difference to the deposited print if the foot was bearing the whole body weight, or if the weight was supported entirely on the front part of the foot; making them, in short, look like unscientific amateurs in the area of footprint and shoeprint analysis (which of course they in fact are).


3) "About Boemia: "Dactyloscopist with 30 years' experience. Has identified between 5,000 and 10,000 individuals using footprints.""

Oh dear oh dear. This, regrettably, is lifted straight from the partisan fake-wiki page. Whether through ignorance or deliberate attempt to mislead, it's badly factually wrong. Boemia is indeed a dactyloscopist: this is a term that's typically applied to fingerprint analysts, and indeed this is exactly what Boemia is. In his dreadful and unscientific footprint and shoeprint "analysis", Boemia was veering dreadfully off-piste, and was conducting unsupportable pseudoscience. But back to the matter in hand: the "between 5,000 and 10,000 individuals" that Boemia claimed in court to have identified was not "using footprints" - it was from "using prints". And in Boemia's case, practically every one of these identifications would have been fingerprint identifications. Chalk up another fail/misdirection from the fake-wiki.......


4) "Bongiorno also asked about possible distortion standing on one foot would cause. Boemia explained that again, because of the quantity of blood, it would have no impact."

Hahahaha. Already dealt with, but it bears revisiting for the comedy value. Here, Boemia is spouting nonsense about it all being about the quantity of the print medium (here, blood (or more accurately, very dilute blood/water)), whereas the true answer is that the actual shape of the footprint changes according to how much body weight is placed upon the foot at impact. Any simpleton can (if they have the will to check) try this at home: a right footprint made when standing evenly on both feet (as per the reference prints) gives a markedly different print shape from the same right footprint made when supporting the whole body weight on the front of the right foot. This is, erm, somewhat relevant to any analysis of the bathmat partial print versus the reference prints.......



5) "These men of course examined the actual mat and it should also be noted that their technical report features 56 photographs. Let me repeat that: 56."

56??? Wow!!!!! I didn't realise it was that many. They MUST be reliable experts then!!!!! In seriousness, what on earth does the number of photographs indicate about the competence of the analysts? I could take 400 photographs of a certain butterfly that I saw in the garden - it wouldn't make me automatically any more qualified or reliable in identifying the species. Oh and of course one of these men DIDN'T examine the "actual mat" at all. Oops

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Uh...proper inspection according to whom? A few internet posters with no training in the subject looking over internet photographs?

The defense was clobbered on this subject by two experts in their field: Rinaldi and Pietro Boemia. And the judge and jury came to their conclusions.

Vibio,

Your argument does not stand up to scrutiny. Rinaldi's background is in physics. Rinaldi and Boemia erroneously attributed some of Guede's shoe prints to a woman's shoe (size 37, IIRC). Professor Vinci demolished this nonsense, and his report is available in Italian. It is Professor Vinci's report upon which the analysis at IIP is based. Rinaldi and Boemia's credibility is necessarily diminshed by their error.

 

[goalkeeper1]

Changing the subject a little, why hasn't Raf's defensive team asked for DNA samples from all the males known to have entered Meredith's room from the time of body discovery to the time of bra clasp discovery so that these samples can be compared to the 2-4 unknown Y-haplotypes found on the bra clasp? If a match were to be found, it would conclusively PROVE contamination and would (or at least should) argue strongly for the elimination of the bra clasp as evidence.

 

[acbytesla]

While I believe it seems closer to Rudy, I am perfectly willing to call it a "wash"

For me eyes as well Desert Fox. I really DON'T see how a so called expert can see something I can't. Now that doesn't mean that these points of reference might not be the key to eliminating a suspect. But I have found out in my life that I can understand some very complex subjects. Far more complex than any image put before me.

 

[Desert Fox]

Changing the subject a little, why hasn't Raf's defensive team asked for DNA samples from all the males known to have entered Meredith's room from the time of body discovery to the time of bra clasp discovery so that these samples can be compared to the 2-4 unknown Y-haplotypes found on the bra clasp? If a match were to be found, it would conclusively PROVE contamination and would (or at least should) argue strongly for the elimination of the bra clasp as evidence.

I think they tried but the prosecution seems to slip and slide out of providing anything

 

[Bill Williams]

Vibio, is it true that Boemia never looked at the bathmat? That what he did was look at photos of it, but he never saw the thick bathmat?

I believe it was implied in the Massei report (2010) that Professor Vinci said that it was useless to say anything about the bathmat footprint from photos.

 

[acbytesla]

Changing the subject a little, why hasn't Raf's defensive team asked for DNA samples from all the males known to have entered Meredith's room from the time of body discovery to the time of bra clasp discovery so that these samples can be compared to the 2-4 unknown Y-haplotypes found on the bra clasp? If a match were to be found, it would conclusively PROVE contamination and would (or at least should) argue strongly for the elimination of the bra clasp as evidence.

lmao... I'm not mocking you goalkeeper but the process in Italy. The judges have routinely denied every defense request. Nencini granted exactly one out of about 40 in this case.

 

[Bill Williams]

Changing the subject a little, why hasn't Raf's defensive team asked for DNA samples from all the males known to have entered Meredith's room from the time of body discovery to the time of bra clasp discovery so that these samples can be compared to the 2-4 unknown Y-haplotypes found on the bra clasp? If a match were to be found, it would conclusively PROVE contamination and would (or at least should) argue strongly for the elimination of the bra clasp as evidence.

lmao... I'm not mocking you goalkeeper but the process in Italy. The judges have routinely denied every defense request. Nencini granted exactly one out of about 40 in this case.

Even in the Massei report, Massei at least gives the reasons for not testing things.

The prize belongs to Massei's reason for not testing the presumed semen stain, found on a pillow under the victim's hips. The police could have tested that stain the very first day without the objection of anyone, even before there were "suspects" or a court to say yea/nay.

Indeed, testing things like that establishes a list of suspects.

The denial of defence requests is legion in this trial(s). But more important is the complete unwillingness of police, prosecution and courts to test - and do independent testing if necessary.

In the case of Stefanoni's work at the Massei trial, it was clear there needed to be independent review of it. That's what the Conti &Vechhiotti review was about, and it established that there was NO forensic-DNA link of Knox and/or Sollecito to this horrid crime.

On top of all this, no less than the Italian Supreme court has said that it is up to the defence to prove contamination. Then, the lower courts deny all the requests.

The Kerchers themselves addressed the Nencini court at the beginning of the Florence trial, saying that all tests should be done. Nencini even ignored them.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Judge No-cini

lmao... I'm not mocking you goalkeeper but the process in Italy. The judges have routinely denied every defense request. Nencini granted exactly one out of about 40 in this case.

Just out of curiosity, which one did he grant?

 

[Skind]

Changing the subject a little, why hasn't Raf's defensive team asked for DNA samples from all the males known to have entered Meredith's room from the time of body discovery to the time of bra clasp discovery so that these samples can be compared to the 2-4 unknown Y-haplotypes found on the bra clasp? If a match were to be found, it would conclusively PROVE contamination and would (or at least should) argue strongly for the elimination of the bra clasp as evidence.

Well, aside from the fact that the police were blatantly confused regarding the idea of making an accurate record of who had actually been in the house and when, there's the issue that the defence would be sued into absolute poverty for even suggesting that any of those people could have contaminated the clasp. Hell, the prosecution openly and outright threatened the court appointed experts for suggesting the possibility of contamination, and they did so in front of the acquiting judge.

That's the defence lawyers that could be sued, not just Sollecito himself.

We know that people had been into the flat and trashed the place in the interim, and even after 7 years, the best we can do to ascertain their identity is 'probably someone from the postal police'. In any decent system, we'd know exactly who had (legally) been in the house at any time. Not so in the Italian system. That's a helluva risk to take on the off-chance that the profiles *might* belong to someone who *might* be on a record *somewhere* as having gone into the house.

 

[acbytesla]

Just out of curiosity, which one did he grant?

I actually forget Chris. I'm doing this from memory. I bet Dan knows.

 

[Poppy1016]

Changing the subject a little, why hasn't Raf's defensive team asked for DNA samples from all the males known to have entered Meredith's room from the time of body discovery to the time of bra clasp discovery so that these samples can be compared to the 2-4 unknown Y-haplotypes found on the bra clasp? If a match were to be found, it would conclusively PROVE contamination and would (or at least should) argue strongly for the elimination of the bra clasp as evidence.

Why should the defense even have to request this? It seems to me, that the forensic investigators should have done this if they were indeed interested in finding the truth.

 

[Strozzi]

Even in the Massei report, Massei at least gives the reasons for not testing things.

The prize belongs to Massei's reason for not testing the presumed semen stain, found on a pillow under the victim's hips. The police could have tested that stain the very first day without the objection of anyone, even before there were "suspects" or a court to say yea/nay.

Indeed, testing things like that establishes a list of suspects.

The denial of defence requests is legion in this trial(s). But more important is the complete unwillingness of police, prosecution and courts to test - and do independent testing if necessary.

In the case of Stefanoni's work at the Massei trial, it was clear there needed to be independent review of it. That's what the Conti &Vechhiotti review was about, and it established that there was NO forensic-DNA link of Knox and/or Sollecito to this horrid crime.

On top of all this, no less than the Italian Supreme court has said that it is up to the defence to prove contamination. Then, the lower courts deny all the requests.

The Kerchers themselves addressed the Nencini court at the beginning of the Florence trial, saying that all tests should be done. Nencini even ignored them.

Does anyone know if the Kercher's lawyer, Maresca, supported the Kercher's position/request that all evidence be examined or did he in fact oppose tests?

 

[Strozzi]

Whose DNA was in her room?

Changing the subject a little, why hasn't Raf's defensive team asked for DNA samples from all the males known to have entered Meredith's room from the time of body discovery to the time of bra clasp discovery so that these samples can be compared to the 2-4 unknown Y-haplotypes found on the bra clasp? If a match were to be found, it would conclusively PROVE contamination and would (or at least should) argue strongly for the elimination of the bra clasp as evidence.

Why limit a request for DNA profiles of all males who were in the upstairs flat commencing with the date upon which the body was found?

Meredith and Amanda each moved into the cottage when classes began (Sept). The murder occurred about 6 weeks later. I would like to know who lived in the cottage before them, who among earlier occupants had a key, what males visited or overnighted at the cottage including specifically in the room occupied by Meredith in the months before the murder and the months before she moved in.

Suppose she had her brothers' DNA on her sweaters, carried in in her suitcase, and brothers' DNA was released in the room? Was her blanket brought from England and did it have her male relatives' DNA on it, which would mean she sat on it and lay down on and under it? Would that be proof of contamination if it was identified on her bra clasp?

Did Meredith, who visited the guys downstairs, transport on her clothes or body DNA from the guys downstairs (not just her boyfriend)? Did she sit on an armchair or sofa or lie on a bed downstairs, each of which would be microdust/DNA laden, and transport DNA back to her room?

 

[acbytesla]

Why limit a request for DNA profiles of all males who were in the upstairs flat commencing with the date upon which the body was found?

Meredith and Amanda each moved into the cottage when classes began (Sept). The murder occurred about 6 weeks later. I would like to know who lived in the cottage before them, who among earlier occupants had a key, what males visited or overnighted at the cottage including specifically in the room occupied by Meredith in the months before the murder and the months before she moved in.

Suppose she had her brothers' DNA on her sweaters, carried in in her suitcase, and brothers' DNA was released in the room? Was her blanket brought from England and did it have her male relatives' DNA on it, which would mean she sat on it and lay down on and under it? Would that be proof of contamination if it was identified on her bra clasp?

Did Neredith, who visited the guys downstairs, transport on her clothes or body and DNA from the guys downstairs (not just her boyfriend). Did she sit on an armchair or sofa or lie on a bed, each of which would be microdust/DNA laden, and transport DNA back to her room?

With all due respect Strozzi, I'm not sure the purpose of all these questions. We will never know how the bra clasp became contaminated. It is simply not possible. We can speculate until the cows come home. But we will never ever know.

 

[Strozzi]

With all due respect Strozzi, I'm not sure the purpose of all these questions. We will never know how the bra clasp became contaminated. It is simply not possible. We can speculate until the cows come home. But we will never ever know.

Right, we will never know. But Stefanoni has the power to know. If she wanted to know, Stefanoni can check/match the bra clasp DNA tomorrow with any profiles she has in her lab. Did she collect DNA samples from her lab staff, police, Mignini, et al?

 

[Strozzi]

Right, we will never know. But Stefanoni has the power to know. If she wanted to know, Stefanoni can match the bra clasp DNA tomorrow with any profiles she has in her lab. Did she collect DNA samples from her lab staff, police, Mignini, et al?

The defense should have constructed a list of all males who were in the flat and gone down the list with Stefanoni, demanding to know if Stefanoni knows whether officer X's, technician Y's, and mailman Z's DNA is on the clasp. Answer to be "yes", "no", or "don't know (because I didn't bother to look)".

 

[Samson]

Right, we will never know. But Stefanoni has the power to know. If she wanted to know, Stefanoni can match the bra clasp DNA tomorrow with any profiles she has in her lab. Did she collect DNA samples from her lab staff, police, Mignini, et al?

It is logically possible to know. I think accidental contamination is only a small possibility because of the timing and the unique locality on the hook, therefore someone probably knows. In the real Italian world only a deathbed confession would reveal the truth, and that is a hypothetical concept also.

 

[acbytesla]

Right, we will never know. But Stefanoni has the power to know. If she wanted to know, Stefanoni can check/match the bra clasp DNA tomorrow with any profiles she has in her lab. Did she collect DNA samples from her lab staff, police, Mignini, et al?

I'm not sure she does Strozzi. Stefanoni hasn't exactly demonstrated that her or her team has been meticulous or professional. It seems has if it they have been sloppy and haphazard.

I wouldn't bet on it.