Continuation Part Nine: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

Italian courts are not the only courts that don't recognize contamination. North Korean courts don't recognize contamination either.

That is almost a Godwin. Italy, for all our disagreements, is not North Korea.

 

[Kaosium]

This would indeed be axiomatic, if not for the fact that it is nonsensical gibberish, the second half of which apparently deconstructs the first. Go ahead and quote Van Oorschot, Peter Gill, any DNA expert *whomsoever*, that makes the claim that DNA contamination can be categorically dated, and that, otherwise, it is not contamination. (If this is, in fact, what on earth you are claiming.)

I'm not certain what he meant, but it appeared to me his argument relied upon a definition of contamination, one of which was in the link I just posted but not his specific cite:

3.6 Contamination: in its recommendations for the interpretation of mixtures, the DNA Commission of the ISFG gives the following definition of contamination: “DNA introduced after the crime and originating from a source not related to the crime scene: investigators, laboratory technicians, laboratory instrumentation” (Howitt T., 2003; Gill P., Kirkham A., 2004).

This is a very restricted definition of the source of contamination; in fact, low-level contaminant DNA may derive from reagents and other laboratory consumables, from laboratory staff, and from cross-contamination from sample to sample.

He wasn't wrong about that if I understood his post correctly. Let's let him develop this argument....

'He hath loosed the fateful lightning....'

 

[js202]

I'm not certain what he meant, but it appeared to me his argument relied upon a definition of contamination, one of which was in the link I just posted but not his cite:

3.6 Contamination: in its recommendations for the interpretation of mixtures, the DNA Commission of the ISFG gives the following definition of contamination: “DNA introduced after the crime and originating from a source not related to the crime scene: investigators, laboratory technicians, laboratory instrumentation” (Howitt T., 2003; Gill P., Kirkham A., 2004).

This is a very restricted definition of the source of contamination; in fact, low-level contaminant DNA may derive from reagents and other laboratory consumables, from laboratory staff, and from cross-contamination from sample to sample.

He wasn't wrong about that if I understood his post correctly. I suspect I know where he might be going with this...but...I don't think he's thought it all the way through just yet...

My sense is that this indeed is where he is going. But no pseudo-Wittgensteinian dribble can put this horse back in the barn. There is no apt syllogism that moves from the necessity that, as a temporal phenomenon, contamination is bound by its temporality, or therefore not what it is. This is like saying a human born in bygone days when birthdates were sometimes uncertain was not a human.

 

[js202]

That is almost a Godwin. Italy, for all our disagreements, is not North Korea.

Yes, but the *insult* was nonetheless keenly apt.

 

[Desert Fox]

Yes, but the *insult* was nonetheless keenly apt.

I argue that we need to be more honest than the pro guilt side

 

[Kaosium]

The above statement flies in the face the "axiom #1" of DNA forensic analysis as expressed by Chris Halkides: it is impossible to deduce a date of the DNA deposit (alleles, fragments, etc.) from the presence of the DNA material itself.

Contamination (Van Oorschot et alt definition) is an event, not just a 'fact'; but a kind of fact defined by a date.

So contamination is defined by a date, it can never be deduced from a finding of DNA material; a finding, by its definition (axiom #1), itself never contains information about the date when the material was deposited.

So...how do you suppose they go about determining contamination?

Moreover, the courts did not rule just about path of contamination or "contamination" in general. What they actually said is that "contamination" is not relevant as long as defined as something totally generic, including any possible contaminating agent. In other words, "contamination" as a general concept doesn't matter at all as for probative purposes and it is irrelevant; what matters is only if contamination is specific: if it is from that contaminating agent (Sollecito's DNA, not others'). Contamination from generic agents (from others) is irrelevant. This is what the "path" matters, because it connects a possible contamination event with one specific contaminating agent.

So how can any source-unidentified DNA have any probative value whatsoever? With blood, saliva etc one can make a determination of the likelihood of innocent transfer/contamination, with source-unidentified DNA wouldn't the most probable place for that transfer to occur be the lab itself where so much DNA without (other) biological material is present?

 

[js202]

I argue that we need to be more honest than the pro guilt side

In general, I agree. But after three years of having suffered this particular case of unremitting nonsense, I can make an exception.

 

[Machiavelli]

Let me understand . . . your contention is that the clasp is not evidence against Raffaele, because the fact of his DNA on the clasp comes with no date?

Or, are you saying that you have some other evidence that places him at the murder, and so you are inclined to dismiss the need for a date connected to his DNA?

An axiom is an axiom, not a contention.
I am saying your deduction was patently false and illogical. On the other hand, what I say does not fall into the dicothomies of your "logic".
And I am saying precisely what I am saying - and have always said btw -that is DNA itself, taken alone, is not evidence (and in fact a discussion about alleles and DNA quality should be of Limited interest). Evidence is a logical concept not a physical finding. A date can be attributed to DNA finding, indeed; but it cannot be deduced by the finding of DNA material itself.
You need information of other kind. Might include crossing with other findings but I guess that in order to deduce a date you need information from other parameters of reality.

Obviously the bra clasp finding is not just DNA material, like any DNA evidence it's something that entails much more information than just the identity of the profile. The piece of information is tightly bound to a context. We know a lot about this subject, who he is, how many times she entered the room on what dates how many traces he left the tapistry of other evidence etc. The information connected to this piece is huge. And the most important is the absence of a plausible contamination path within it, the lack of an alternative probable explanation.

 

[Kaosium]

I argue that we need to be more honest than the pro guilt side

That's a pretty low bar, DF!

 

[Kaosium]

The information connected to this piece is huge. And the most important is the absence of a plausible contamination path within it, the lack of an alternative probable explanation.

How can a plausible contamination path be generated without the totality of the DNA results? It is an absolute fact in this case that the prosecution withheld information inconvenient to its case; it's a incontestable fact that the entirety of the DNA evidence was not released.

Without those edfs it would be virtually impossible to prove a path of contamination either from the scene itself or the lab if the prosecution knew it could withhold that information....and then destroy it.

 

[js202]

And the most important is the absence of a plausible contamination path within it, the lack of an alternative probable explanation.

Sheer, unadulterated nonsense; and your vaunted, but exceptionally tortured, notions of logic need not even come into the equation. Discerning, intelligent human observation of Stefanoni and her team's collection practices render what you have constructed here completely irrelevant piffle. But, of course, every disinterested professional - let's place Peter Gill, whom the clownish Ergon lately has declared insufficient to the task of addressing this case, at the top of the list - agrees.

 

[js202]

How can a plausible contamination path be generated without the totality of the DNA results? It is an absolute fact in this case that the prosecution withheld information inconvenient to its case; it's a incontestable fact that the entirety of the DNA evidence was not released.

Without those edfs it would be virtually impossible to prove a path of contamination either from the scene itself or the lab if the prosecution knew it could withhold that information....and then destroy it.

But, but, of course, these EDFs about which you speak were never requested by the defense. And, er, when they were, they were readily presented.

 

[Bill Williams]

The information connected to this piece is huge. And the most important is the absence of a plausible contamination path within it, the lack of an alternative probable explanation.

Every time you repeat this absurdity, I will repeat what Stefanoni testified to at the Massei trial.

At trial Stefanoni identified 4 possible routes of contamination, and this is before considering those routes in her dirty lab.

1) The 118 medical staff entered the murder room on Nov 2 with no protective cover.

2) Stefanoni herself said she could neither confirm not deny that she herself had touched the bra hasps with obviously dirty gloves, after the bra clasp had been in the murder room for 46 days, and was not in the position in Dec it was photographed at in Nov.

3) Stefanoni said another of the Scientific Police also touched the bra-clasp before it was bagged.

4) Stefanoni conceded that the mere act of replacing the clasp on to the floor (at another location from which is was picked up from) was itself a possible route - although she said that the floor would have to be wet to guarantee contamination.​

Machiavelli - do you contend that Wladimiro De Nunzio a criminal?

 

[Kaosium]

4) Stefanoni conceded that the mere act of replacing the clasp on to the floor (at another location from which is was picked up from) was itself a possible route - although she said that the floor would have to be wet to guarantee contamination.[/INDENT]

Actually before Massei she lied about that:

She did not conduct a test to see what could have been on the floor before placing the piece of bra there since the risk of contamination, she reasserted, was believed to be equal to zero, given the absence of liquids. She remembered that one of the two hooks ‚was partially detached and a bit open‛.

I suppose it's possible she wasn't lying, she truly believed that to be the case in which instance she'd just be incompetent.

Or...wait. Did she say something different before the appeals court? I know she took back some of what she said before Massei, was transfer requiring a liquid part of her mea culpa?

Machiavelli - do you contend that Wladimiro De Nunzio a criminal?

I've been curious about this for some time, I even googled the name trying to figure it out. Why would Machiavelli possibly consider this man a criminal?

 

[Desert Fox]

Every time you repeat this absurdity, I will repeat what Stefanoni testified to at the Massei trial.

At trial Stefanoni identified 4 possible routes of contamination, and this is before considering those routes in her dirty lab.

1) The 118 medical staff entered the murder room on Nov 2 with no protective cover.

2) Stefanoni herself said she could neither confirm not deny that she herself had touched the bra hasps with obviously dirty gloves, after the bra clasp had been in the murder room for 46 days, and was not in the position in Dec it was photographed at in Nov.

3) Stefanoni said another of the Scientific Police also touched the bra-clasp before it was bagged.

4) Stefanoni conceded that the mere act of replacing the clasp on to the floor (at another location from which is was picked up from) was itself a possible route - although she said that the floor would have to be wet to guarantee contamination.​

Machiavelli - do you contend that Wladimiro De Nunzio a criminal?

Show me a transitional fossil
Of course when a creationist argues that and you show them one, they will not accept it. I think the pro guilt side operates much the same way.
Already seen them use the Gish Gallop.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli - do you contend that Wladimiro De Nunzio a criminal?

I've been curious about this for some time, I even googled the name trying to figure it out. Why would Machiavelli possibly consider this man a criminal?

Some time ago, Machiavelli wrote the 10 reasons why Hellmann was a criminal. One of them was:

Hellmann he was put in that role in sudden replacement of the true judge, Sergio Matteini
Chiari, who was pushed away and forced to give up the role through a Machiavellian move by
Wladimiro De Nunzio ​

When commenting on his own claim, Machiavelli said on TJMK:

Wladimiro De Nunzio is a riddle.

He did not have the power to remove Sergio Matteini Chiari, but he was able to force him to step back through a machiavellian chess move, which we can say included a practice of ostracism and blackmail; and it was totally unjustified and unexplainable (to me).

The simple problem is, I don’t have evidence on Wladimiro De Nunzio. He is not an outsider and a discredited small fish like Hellmann and Zanetti.

Moreover, Manuela Comodi had arrested - while in Spoleto - a right-wing politician, a very close friend of Hellmann. They all knew about his resentment, de Nunzio too. The fact that De Nunzio’s role remains in the dark is probably partly a consequence of a Galati’s mistake.

Comodi (and Mignini) understood the trap and wanted to impeach Hellmann and Zanetti on their first wild words at the beginning, but Galati - who as a newcomer had just arrived from Rome - was probably afraid, as he understood the gravity of the situation, about waging a total war against the head of the appeal courts as a first step.

So he did not impeach Hellmann and his court; thus De Nunzio remained in the shadow. This reluctance or caution by Galati was the mistake.​

Maybe I should have asked it differently. Is De Nunzio a criminal or just a riddle?

 

[griffinmill]

What you and those you consider 'insightful' are missing is that an innocent Raffaele would also have need of explaining to himself and others how Meredith Kercher's DNA could have been on the knife. He could think of only one incident that might have caused it, a time when cooking when he brushed Meredith with a knife and with Tizano having told him in the previous diary entry that the knife may have been taken to the cottage by Amanda for use cooking there it became the only possibility he could think of: he 'must' have had that knife in hand instead. Being as the knife was a common cooking knife that could be found in just about any kitchen in Italy and wasn't even his he'd have no reason to recognize it. He also wrote this in a letter to his family that he started using as a daybook of sorts and never tried to deceive police or courts with it. It wouldn't even have become known had not police illicitly seized his diary and then leaked the contents without authorization.

This is the high art of rationalization. And I love how the story concludes with the police "illicity" seizing his diary as if that has any relevance to the admission.

There is no way that any PIP can rationally explain why RS claimed MK pricked herself on his knife.

It's a mind boggling gaffe for an "innocent" person, and he has never explained it to any level of satisfaction.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is the high art of rationalization. And I love how the story concludes with the police "illicity" seizing his diary as if that has any relevance to the admission.

There is no way that any PIP can rationally explain why RS claimed MK pricked herself on his knife. It's a mind boggling gaffe for an "innocent" person, and he has never explained it to any level of satisfaction.

You are definitely entitled to your opinion.

But this is plain wrong. It definitely IS rational that an innocent person would try to explain away evidence being amassed against him... especially when it turns out to be bogus evidence, presented to him while he's in jail and he has no idea what any of this has to do with him.

 

[griffinmill]

You are definitely entitled to your opinion.

But this is plain wrong. It definitely IS rational that an innocent person would try to explain away evidence being amassed against him... especially when it turns out to be bogus evidence, presented to him while he's in jail and he has no idea what any of this has to do with him.

So it IS rational that an innocent person would knowingly tell a complete lie?

 

[Samson]

This is the high art of rationalization. And I love how the story concludes with the police "illicity" seizing his diary as if that has any relevance to the admission.

There is no way that any PIP can rationally explain why RS claimed MK pricked herself on his knife.

It's a mind boggling gaffe for an "innocent" person, and he has never explained it to any level of satisfaction.

Does any one know if Raffaele was in solitary confinement when they told him Meredith's blood was on his knife? What is the regime for solitary confinement in Italy? What does a day consist of?