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

[Desert Fox]

it appears that Gill agrees that Sollecito is on the clasp (though the concession seems deliberately muted). But he also accepts the C-V argument that the profiles on the clasp probably got there through contamination, one example being an investigator touching the outer door handle and then the clasp. SERIOUSLY? ONE OF THE WORLD'S LEADING FORENSIC DNA EXPERTS THINKS TOUCH DNA COULD HAVE WAS TRANSFERRED FROM SOLLECITO'S HAND, TO THE DOOR HANDLE, TO AN INVESTIGATOR'S GLOVE, TO THE BRA CLASP - ALTHOUGH IT IS PRESENT ON THE CLASP IN QUANTITY GREATER THAN WHAT IS USUALLY FOUND FROM DIRECT TRANSFER??? I'm shocked.

One, every expert whose opinion I have been able to find says to change gloves. Two, DNA has been found on examination gloves (IIRC it is in a paper by Van Oorshot and collaborators). Three, tertiary transfer is in the peer-reviewed literature. Four, I agree with the general principle that studies which are peer-reviewed carry more weight than studies which are not. However, two unpublished studies have also shown tertiary transfer, and one of them involved gloves. Five, the amount of DNA should not be used to discern the mode of its deposition, but if the PG-commenters chose to ignore that, then the should acknowledge that Raffaele's profile is present in about 1/8 the quantity of Meredith's, and it is on the borderline of being low-template. How one should interpret the fact that Meredith's profile is in such greater quantity is something that should be addressed in any intellectually honest argument.

Thanks for that information. DNA evidence needs to be carefully examined. It is a great tool but it can so easily be abused.

 

[Grinder]

Tesla it is appropriate for experts to testify on such things as prints, DNA, etc.

The point is that an expert confronted with dozen footprints labeled 1 through 12 would not venture to assign the print to one that could be from a known innocent person. Imagine Rinaldi was confronted with a dozen prints and had to pick or better yet an expert from somewhere else that had never seen any of the evidence was asked to pick. They couldn't do it and wouldn't.

The judges (jury) still can make up their own minds but with much better input.

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla it is appropriate for experts to testify on such things as prints, DNA, etc.

The point is that an expert confronted with dozen footprints labeled 1 through 12 would not venture to assign the print to one that could be from a known innocent person. Imagine Rinaldi was confronted with a dozen prints and had to pick or better yet an expert from somewhere else that had never seen any of the evidence was asked to pick. They couldn't do it and wouldn't.

The judges (jury) still can make up their own minds but with much better input.

I don't disagree. But aren't we ending up with exactly what we have in this case Grinder? The expert for the state arguing for guilt and the expert for the defense arguing innocence? I'll let my own eyes and mind make a decision.

I'm convinced of one thing and one thing only about the print. That it is unreasonable to use that print to convict anyone. It simply isn't distinct enough and we have no idea how many other people might appear to be similar matches if we had their prints.

 

[acbytesla]

Funny things you read on other web sites (PMF).

it appears that Gill agrees that Sollecito is on the clasp (though the concession seems deliberately muted). But he also accepts the C-V argument that the profiles on the clasp probably got there through contamination, one example being an investigator touching the outer door handle and then the clasp. SERIOUSLY? ONE OF THE WORLD'S LEADING FORENSIC DNA EXPERTS THINKS TOUCH DNA COULD HAVE WAS TRANSFERRED FROM SOLLECITO'S HAND, TO THE DOOR HANDLE, TO AN INVESTIGATOR'S GLOVE, TO THE BRA CLASP - ALTHOUGH IT IS PRESENT ON THE CLASP IN QUANTITY GREATER THAN WHAT IS USUALLY FOUND FROM DIRECT TRANSFER??? I'm shocked.

Just maybe if one of the world's top forensic DNA experts thinks this is possible….?


Apart from the fact he was a forensic scientist for 27 years.

Why don't these people find out some facts before opining? It's not like it isn't easy to fact check with the internet.

Because it wouldn't mesh with their already made up minds. They sit on the Internet never having performed a single DNA test in their lives and all of a sudden they are experts. I also love the fact that they are convinced that 50 trillionth a gram of DNA can possibly transferred and 500 trillionths of a gram can not be transferred. That somehow this latter amount is just too large an amount to be transferred from one location to another. Never mind that it is still too small to see with any optical microscope on the planet. I have heard lots of talk that the amount of DNA found on the bra clasp was a lot, yet I've never read just how much it actually was.

 

[acbytesla]

Way, way back when, when I was posting on IIP, someone made reference to the split between Michael and Peggy, who until March 2011 shared website duties at the lone PMF.ORG. Others were involved in the background in a more techincal capacity, but Micahel (in England) and Peggy (in Seattle) were Les Grand Fromages.

Initially I thought this was some sort of lie promulgated by otherwise well-meaning innocence supporters. But what was what on that, is that the denizens at both the subsequent PMF's kept fairly quiet about the split for the longest time....

.... until Michael of .NET took offense to something and the "behind the scenes" dirty laundry was aired. It's not documented at IIP in a long since dormant thread there.

Ergon of, "I am God" fame became a co-administrator at .NET, and Peter Quennell initially took sides, choosing Peggy over Michael. Apparently, all this internal drama was to treasure Meredith's memory in the most respectful way possible.

So I still am stumped at which PMF to choose? Can anyone help? After all, they are all for Meredith....

I can't help you Bill. I'm sure I'd be persona not grata at any of the three major guilter sites..

 

[Desert Fox]

Because it wouldn't mesh with their already made up minds. They sit on the Internet never having performed a single DNA test in their lives and all of a sudden they are experts. I also love the fact that they are convinced that 50 trillionth a gram of DNA can possibly transferred and 500 trillionths of a gram can not be transferred. That somehow this latter amount is just too large an amount to be transferred from one location to another. Never mind that it is still too small to see with any optical microscope on the planet. I have heard lots of talk that the amount of DNA found on the bra clasp was a lot, yet I've never read just how much it actually was.

People have been raised on a generation of "If the DNA shows the person was there, they are guilty." Now, learning that one has to treat it with a much more nuanced is tough to be honest. It is a lesson we have to learn however or many people may up in jail due to bad DNA evidence.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

William Thompson on false positives in DNA forensics

People have been raised on a generation of "If the DNA shows the person was there, they are guilty." Now, learning that one has to treat it with a much more nuanced is tough to be honest. It is a lesson we have to learn however or many people may up in jail due to bad DNA evidence.

I just found this essay tonight by Professor William Thompson, an expert in law and probability, especially in relation to DNA testing.
EDT
"Why did experts offer this questionable testimony? One commentator has suggested that avid proponents of DNA evidence sought to allay judicial concerns about the potential for error by engaging in “a sinister semantic game”49 . They were able to deny that a DNA test could produce an error by excluding consideration of human error in administering or interpreting the test. Sinister or not, it is misleading to exclude considerations of human error in DNA testing when humans are necessarily involved in the administration and interpretation of DNA tests. For those who must evaluate DNA evidence, it makes little difference what causes a false match, what matters is how often false matches might be expected."

 

[acbytesla]

People have been raised on a generation of "If the DNA shows the person was there, they are guilty." Now, learning that one has to treat it with a much more nuanced is tough to be honest. It is a lesson we have to learn however or many people may up in jail due to bad DNA evidence.

Very true. I also think that the numbers are bs as well. constantly being revised to a lower figure. They use to use numbers like 1 in 5 Billion for example when in fact really have no idea.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the problems with a more lenient approach to DNA matching

Thompson, Mueller, and Krane wrote, "Analysts try to take these effects into account by being more lenient about their standards for declaring a match. They do not require that a suspect’s DNA profile correspond exactly to an evidentiary sample because stochastic effects, or other phenomena associated with low copy number testing, might cause discrepancies. This leniency in matching is necessary to avoid false exclusions, but it makes it difficult if not impossible to estimate the sta- tistical meaning of a “match.” The authors go on the discuss four of the problems with this more lenient approach.

"It is well understood that as the quantity of DNA in a sample decreases, the probability of drop out and drop in increases. But, as the quantity of DNA decreases, the ability to reliably estimate its quantity also decreases. So estimates of the probability of drop out or drop in are often little more than guesses, which we find unacceptable given that the results of the DNA test — whether it is reported as a powerful incrimination or a definitive exclusion — may depend on what guess the expert happens to make."

IMO the knife profile is a good example of a few of these problems. The stochastic imbalance in some of the peak heights is usually ignored, but the existence of a couple of drop-in peaks is even more problematic for me.

 

[xinonix]

According to Raffaele's diary, the conflict between Amanda and Meridith caused Meridith to seek revenge by sleeping with Knox' boyfriend.
They had a rendezvous' at Raffael's place. He helped her take off her bra, while barefoot she stepped on a knife that had fallen on the floor.
This is how the DNA got there.
Can I prove this? No Raffael's diary was eliminated when the cops destroyed the hard drive it was on.

 

[Grinder]

According to Raffaele's diary, the conflict between Amanda and Meridith caused Meridith to seek revenge by sleeping with Knox' boyfriend.
They had a rendezvous' at Raffael's place. He helped her take off her bra, while barefoot she stepped on a knife that had fallen on the floor.
This is how the DNA got there.
Can I prove this? No Raffael's diary was eliminated when the cops destroyed the hard drive it was on.

Please don't write a book or Tesla will start using it for a cite.

 

[Bill Williams]

According to Nencini's Motivation Report, he says that the postal inspectors arrived at the cottage between 12:30 and 12:35 pm.

​

You see, this is the trouble I have with Nencini and his court. This was NOT an item referred to it by Cassazione, and the lower courts have already found as factual that Battistelli and Marzi arrived just before 1 pm.

Massei in 2010 had put it this way:

Twice, Battistelli had had to get out of the car and walk along before finding the house, where he arrived with Assistant Marzi at a little after 12:30 pm, or so it seemed to the two policemen.​

So it seemed, because on page 12, Massei had already said.... saying that the postal police had arrived, really, only moments before Filomena and the men with her.

Also present were an inspector and an officer from the Postal Police of Perugia: Michele Battistelli and Fabio Marzi, who arrived a little before 1:00 pm.​

Why does Nencini get to change around things already found as factual, when his court did not even examine this fact?

 

[RandyN]

A question...

What is the status of using LTN/LCN DNA samples as evidence in a criminal case? Is it accepted standard procedure now? Was it ever? If yes then when did it become acceptable as evidence?

Because I don't think it ever has become acceptable anywhere...except for Italy where anything goes apparently.

Also a non-repeatable test or sample. Is a one-off test now acceptable in any scientific area? Does the FDA now accept non double blind data? Non peer-reviewed data?

What did the DNA experts who wrote a letter to the court in Italy have to say about this work of Stefanoni? I seem to recall a rather large group of scientists reviewing and discounting completely any of Stefanonis work especially in the LTN/LCN area.

Her work was almost completely discounted by court appointed experts who were eminently more qualified and with far more education and study in their agency. What is Biondos educational background? Garafanos for that matter? We know Novelli, who should be qualified, is also perfectly willing to go into court and lie. I suppose the chances that he was just confused are about as likely as a meteor hitting Comodi as she takes yet another smoke break.

The reference footprints taken are unknown...the reference footprints reveled are well known. I could be wrong but I think they even forgot to take MK reference footprints. Hummm...

 

[RandyN]

del dup

But since I'm here...Bill I think there was more court testimony about the postal police than what is found in Massei...I recall RS lawyers hitting them hard...they stopped for lunch and etc...so they were closer to 1 than to 12:30. Massei seems to make it both times if you look closely. he has them at 12:30 and near 1. So Nencini can make up whatever he wants...did you check Hellmann?

 

[Bill Williams]

It's no wonder guilters do not cite the Nencini report on anything.

Translations of the Motivations Report are coming in dribs and drabs. So far translations are verifying Luca Cheli's analysis.

Nencini's conclusions are incredibly stupid..... he seems to be making things up as he goes, ignoring facts as found even at the Massei 2009 trial, about issues the 2013 Cassazione court did not refer for further fact finding.

Consider this: This is when Massei from his 2010 report concludes Raffaele called 112 to alert Carabinieri to the condition of the cottage.

The phone calls made to the Carabinieri just mentioned were at 12:51 pm and 12:54
pm on November 2, 2007 by Raffaele Sollecito.​

Yet Nencini implies that since no one saw the whereabouts of Raffaele while Meredith's door was being knocked down and the body discovered (just after 1 pm) that would have been a good time for Raffaele to have snuck away to make these calls.

Nencini seems unaware that Massei had already time-stamped these calls through phone records.

 

[Bill Williams]

del dup

But since I'm here...Bill I think there was more court testimony about the postal police than what is found in Massei...I recall RS lawyers hitting them hard...they stopped for lunch and etc...so they were closer to 1 than to 12:30. Massei seems to make it both times if you look closely. he has them at 12:30 and near 1. So Nencini can make up whatever he wants...did you check Hellmann?

I didn't check Hellmann. The only reference I could find in the Massei report placing Battistelli's and Marzi's arrival at "12:30" has Massei adding, "or so it seemed to the two policemen."

Massei is clear, Battistelli and Marzi arrived "just before 1 pm," probably only moments, really, before Filomena.

Nencini seems to just make things up, unaware there's been prior trials.....

 

[acbytesla]

According to Raffaele's diary, the conflict between Amanda and Meridith caused Meridith to seek revenge by sleeping with Knox' boyfriend.
They had a rendezvous' at Raffael's place. He helped her take off her bra, while barefoot she stepped on a knife that had fallen on the floor.
This is how the DNA got there.
Can I prove this? No Raffael's diary was eliminated when the cops destroyed the hard drive it was on.

Why do you do this xinonix? No one including Raffaele has ever said that he was sleeping with Meredith. You should keep in mind that Amanda and Meredith and Amanda met Raffale on the same day. 8 days before the murder. That Amanda had been spending all his free time with Raffaele and vice versa.

Now, since at no time has a story ever been told that Raffaele had been sleeping with Meredith and this story was now brought up as a possible explanation for how Raffaele's DNA found itself on the bra clasp 7 years after the murder how do you think that would go over? LIKE A LEAD BALLOON. Also, this story being told today would hand something to the prosecution that is had never had. Which is motive.

 

[anglolawyer]

A question...

What is the status of using LTN/LCN DNA samples as evidence in a criminal case? Is it accepted standard procedure now? Was it ever? If yes then when did it become acceptable as evidence?

Because I don't think it ever has become acceptable anywhere...except for Italy where anything goes apparently.

Also a non-repeatable test or sample. Is a one-off test now acceptable in any scientific area? Does the FDA now accept non double blind data? Non peer-reviewed data?

What did the DNA experts who wrote a letter to the court in Italy have to say about this work of Stefanoni? I seem to recall a rather large group of scientists reviewing and discounting completely any of Stefanonis work especially in the LTN/LCN area.

Her work was almost completely discounted by court appointed experts who were eminently more qualified and with far more education and study in their agency. What is Biondos educational background? Garafanos for that matter? We know Novelli, who should be qualified, is also perfectly willing to go into court and lie. I suppose the chances that he was just confused are about as likely as a meteor hitting Comodi as she takes yet another smoke break.

The reference footprints taken are unknown...the reference footprints reveled are well known. I could be wrong but I think they even forgot to take MK reference footprints. Hummm...

From Conti-Vechiotti

The tragic terrorist attack in Omagh, Northern Ireland, in 1998 (the bombing of a market, with a death toll of 29 victims and 200 injured) raised the question of the validity of LCN typing and its use in legal cases for the first time. The alleged perpetrator of the attack was initially arrested on the basis of LCN typing results, but later released due to the alleged lack of adequate security measures in the collection, transportation and handling of the seized items, as well as [the absence of] adequate laboratory precautions for LCN typing (The Queen v Sean Hoey. Neutral Citation Number [2007] NICC 49).

The criticisms raised by this judicial case led to the creation of a Commission to review LCN typing technologies: this Commission went on to state that LCN typing, as practiced specifically in the United Kingdom, is a “robust” method and “fit for purpose” (Caddy B., Taylor D.R., Lincare A.M., 2009 - known also as the “Caddy Report”). However, at the same time it offered a series of useful recommendations to improve the reliability of the methodology and emphasizing, amongst other things, the following problems associated with LCN typing:

You can read on here.

 

[Desert Fox]

Why do you do this xinonix? No one including Raffaele has ever said that he was sleeping with Meredith. You should keep in mind that Amanda and Meredith and Amanda met Raffale on the same day. 8 days before the murder. That Amanda had been spending all his free time with Raffaele and vice versa.

Now, since at no time has a story ever been told that Raffaele had been sleeping with Meredith and this story was now brought up as a possible explanation for how Raffaele's DNA found itself on the bra clasp 7 years after the murder how do you think that would go over? LIKE A LEAD BALLOON. Also, this story being told today would hand something to the prosecution that is had never had. Which is motive.

When I first heard about the case, I thought it might be something like this.
Thought it might have been something like the Diane Zamora case.

 

[whoanellie]

From Hellman:
"There has been much discussion on whether the call to 112 happened before or after the arrival of the Police, with it having been hypothesized by the Public Minister that the call to the Carabinieri at 112 had been made on seeing the arrival of the Police, just to validate the notion [tesi] of their innocence. Except that even the Corte di Assise of first level, on the basis of the testimony given by the on-duty Police personnel and of the times reproduced from the logs, arrived at the conclusion that these calls had been made before the arrival of the Police and unaware of their imminent arrival. And, for that matter, what makes irrelevant the problem of whether the call to the Carabinieri was before or after the arrival of the Police is the fact that Amanda Knox had already called Filomena Romanelli at 12:08 pm, certainly before the arrival of the Police, such that at that point, she had already informed [partecipato] another person [soggetto estraneo] (whether it was the Carabinieri or Filomena Romanelli in this context does not matter)that they (Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito) had entered into the house on Via Della Pergola, finding a situation that caused alarm."