Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[moije2]

s a professional hired

In some degree illogical, I agree, but not Stefanoni's fault. Beaurocracy is illogical, Italian procedures are particularly illogical. But this is a system, a context. Not something that you can pin on Stefanoni or anyone else.

The beaurocracy is not Stefanoni's responsibility but the lab is. Her job is to secure evidence. That can most certainly be pinned on her. Remember, she is a professional charged with doing a professional job.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

In some degree illogical, I agree, but not Stefanoni's fault. Beaurocracy is illogical, Italian procedures are particularly illogical. But this is a system, a context. Not something that you can pin on Stefanoni or anyone else.

-

Can you prove it wasn't her fault? Are you saying what happens in her lab is not her responsibility, because that's what I base my conjecture that she's incompetent as a forensic scientist on,

d

-
ETA: you beat me to that one m, you sleazy little... grrrrr. Ha ha, just kidding...

-

 

[Desert Fox]

-
There is nothing else (of real evidentiary value) that places them both at the house killing Meredith, it's why they had to go back to the cottage 46 days later to find more evidence. The rest of the case doesn't have a leg to stand on, in my opinion,

If I am understanding anyway, they could have followed proper procedures and not had a laboratory contamination incident and because Raff had been in the household, it would be of limited evidential value anyway.

 

[Diocletus]

. Then all "mixed traces" contain by definition an extra contributor who is an extra "contaminating" profile, that might be an extra suspect or a victim or an uninvolved person.

Try to use logic. In the case you describe, both the first profile and the "extra" profile could be suspects or uninvolved persons because you have no way of knowing how the multiple profiles were deposited there.

 

[acbytesla]

All derogatory comments against Stefanoni by pro-Knox supporters are unjustified and they appear based on circular logic. It seems also prejudice ignorance about the legal procedures play a part, since some people seem to think that not taking care of storage shows ‘incompetence’ (item storage is actually unusual and never requested when art. 360 is applied, actually, as most frequent procedure for ‘non-repeatable test’, items tested under art. 360 of procedure code are destroyed immediately after the test right away).

Wrong. Stefanoni proved herself to be incompetent, a liar and sloppy. It is because of her shoddy work that this farce has continued for so long. If she had been better at her job, Amanda and Raffaele probably would never have gone to trial or at a minimum been found not guilty after the first trial.

I don't know if Stefanoni participated in what she thought was "noble cause" corruption or if she was not up to the job and she was just covering for ineptness. We'll never know. But you are dead wrong saying that Stefanoni doesn't deserve criticism. She should be fired. She is a disgrace to her profession.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

So you need an order to destroy something, but a highly trained scientist, trained by the emminent scientists you described, decides to just clean up and destroy the evidence by her manner of storage? You use the word "logical" frequently. There is a gap here.

We've gone from she doesn't have to store it -- to it is not usually done - to she does store it - but just to clean up the lab in a manner guaranteed to destroy it for evidentiary purposes - even though she needs an order to destroy something. Again, the logic here is sequence I do not follow.

-

I don't see the logic either. I do understand why Mach said it had to be "immediately destroyed", it's because his interpretations of the law (like maybe all his interpretations) are merely interpretations and not what the law actually says itself, in my opinion.

Which begs the question, what if she didn't get her requested order approved and wasn't allowed to destroy it? What then?

d

-

 

[moije2]

DNA finding is by definition a contamination of some kind. In the Elisa Claps case the DNA findings were defined a "massive contamination" by expert Lago. there is a definition od "contamination" as DNA left after the murder, but this does not make other evidence necessarily disappear. Then all "mixed traces" contain by definition an extra contributor who is an extra "contaminating" profile, that might be an extra suspect or a victim or an uninvolved person.

This a mistaken definition of contamination. If you are looking for purity of substances, that does not exist in nature. In the lab perhaps to some degree. But not in nature. Contamination is something where either you don't want it such as in a lab experiment, or where it is not expected. In the matter of biological tracings, as evidence in particular, it is as you desribed before the "logicaL" relationship between those tracings and what significance you attribute to them. DNA is fully expected in our environment. It is not conamintion. Your description of "extra" contributor is only explainable by your belief that one of them is guilty. And the others are not. There needs to be a logical explanation as to why you have made the choice that RS is the contributor, and the others are "extra" contributors - and not also contributors themselves. That logical connection is so far not present.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

If I am understanding anyway, they could have followed proper procedures and not had a laboratory contamination incident and because Raff had been in the household, it would be of limited evidential value anyway.

-

yes, I see what you mean d, but if proper procedures had been followed (like you wrote) it would have been of greater evidentiary value than it is now, so maybe I spoke rashly there about it being the linchpin of the whole case (heat of battle and all that), but that's just my opinion,

d

-
ETA: I do still stand by my opinion though that there is nothing else of real evidentiary value that places them at the scene of the murder (in Meredith's room that night) other than that little bit of controversial evidence. Thanx for bringing that to my attention d.

-

 

[Numbers]

Destroyed DNA chains tell no tales

-


-

I don't see the logic either. I do understand why Mach said it had to be "immediately destroyed", it's because his interpretations of the law (like maybe all his interpretations) are merely interpretations and not what the law actually says itself, in my opinion.

Which begs the question, what if she didn't get her requested order approved and wasn't allowed to destroy it? What then?

d

-

The storage of the bra clasps and associated fabric in the presence of extraction fluid for the time required to rust the clasps would have destroyed the evidence by breaking up the chemical links between the DNA bases. Therefore, retesting the clasps after such storage could not reveal the profiles of any DNA. This method of storage is the safe route to take if the lab tech (Stefanoni) believes that the suspect's (Sollecito's) DNA was not really on the clasps in the first place; no one can ever repeat the test. Of course, it might really be simple incompetence - although from before the storing in the extraction fluid, there is a photo showing the clasp in a storage bag with no fluid.

ETA: If not destroyed, the DNA could be retested in a competent lab and the presence of DNA from the contributors, including Sollecito - if truly present, re-examined.

 

[moije2]

The storage of the bra clasps and associated fabric in the presence of extraction fluid for the time required to rust the clasps would have destroyed the evidence by breaking up the chemical links between the DNA bases. Therefore, retesting the clasps after such storage could not reveal the profiles of any DNA. This method of storage is the safe route to take if the lab tech (Stefanoni) believes that the suspect's (Sollecito's) DNA was not really on the clasps in the first place; no one can ever repeat the test. Of course, it might really be simple incompetence - although from before the storing in the extraction fluid, there is a photo showing the clasp in a storage bag with no fluid.

ETA: If not destroyed, the DNA could be retested in a competent lab and the presence of DNA from the contributors, including Sollecito, re-examined.

I would ask, what say thou, Signor Machiavelli? Is this not true?

 

[Planigale]

Yours is the BS. Criminal defamation laws exists throguhout Europe, they are even stiffer in Germany and the UK. You make wild claims (and the CPJ maybe too, it won't be the first time). Your claim is defamation law is to protect "public officials" . Now prove defamation laws are used mostly by public officials.
You may discover they are not.
And btw there are no people jailed for criminal defamation in Italy.
On the other hand, criminal organization employ the opposite system: their power works producing defamatory campaigns ("macchina del fango", as well described by Roverto Saviano). Berlusconi and his "Boffo method" is an example of criminal power based on defamation.

Indeed defamation laws do lead press organs to a degree of self-censorship, but self-censorship is just something morally right, like self-restraint. It's a price to pay in a civilized society. I believe no concept like an absolute freedom to say whatever thing false or true you like about any individual. As much as I don't believe to freedom to carry handguns freely wherever one likes.

Machiavelli is wrong. Criminal libel has been repealed in the UK.
http://humanrightshouse.org/Articles/11311.html
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/pdfs/ukpga_20130026_en.pdf

As the article says even though it was on the statute book, it was not used for many years because of concerns it might stifle freedom of expression.

 

[Matthew Best]

The beaurocracy is not Stefanoni's responsibility

In fact, according to Machiavelli, it's not anyone's responsibility. It just appeared without any human agency at all, like magic, and nobody can be blamed for it.

Probably it was a gift from God.

 

[Desert Fox]

Machiavelli is wrong. Criminal libel has been repealed in the UK.
http://humanrightshouse.org/Articles/11311.html
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/pdfs/ukpga_20130026_en.pdf

As the article says even though it was on the statute book, it was not used for many years because of concerns it might stifle freedom of expression.

With Germany, I believe they are only used with the Neo-Nazi

 

[Wattson]

-


-

yes, I see what you mean d, but if proper procedures had been followed (like you wrote) it would have been of greater evidentiary value than it is now, so maybe I spoke rashly there about it being the linchpin of the whole case (heat of battle and all that), but that's just my opinion,

d

-
ETA: I do still stand by my opinion though that there is nothing else of real evidentiary value that places them at the scene of the murder (in Meredith's room that night) other than that little bit of controversial evidence. Thanx for bringing that to my attention d.

-

According to the prosecution all 3 were standing around taking turns stabbing and assaulting her. Can someone please explain why there's only one set of footprints in the blood in Meredith's room. Perhaps Mach would like to take "stab" at this?

 

[NancyS]

This makes no sense. There is no law nor evidentiary principle saying generically "contaminated" items are useless as evidence. All kind of cold cases are investigated based on contaminated evidence. So many crime scenes have some kind of "contamination", if you mean generic contamination. What you say about a kind of requirement of "purity" is completely illogical.

It's why Peter Gill claims the evidence is not valid. Raffaele had legitimate contact with Meredith Kercher and the crime scene. His DNA being found at the scene is therefore easily possible

 

[Numbers]

I am not sure Italy is or was civilised in these terms. I have little doubt if the romans had access to helicopter gun ships they would have used them. Whilst they did not have napalm they did have greek fire, and Italy used poison gas in Abyssinia.

To get a good understanding of Italian civilization in the 20th Century, I recommend Fascist Voices: An Intimate History of Mussolini's Italy (c) 2013, by Christopher Duggan, Professor of Modern Italian History at the University of Reading (UK).

"Only in 1996 did the [Italian] Ministry of Defence finally admit publicly that mustard gas and arsine [a toxic arsenic-compound gas] had been used in Ethiopia."

According to Wikipedia's article on the imperialistic invasion of Abyssinia [aka Ethiopia] by Fascist Italy, about 275,000 Ethiopian combatants were killed and 500,000 wounded; and perhaps 400,000 Ethiopian civilians or guerillas killed in concentration camps, massacres, bombings, and "privations" due to the destruction of villages. However, according the Wikipedia, the Italians dispute these high numbers, claiming the Ethiopians killed were only about 1/2 these figures. Many of the deaths and injuries were due to the spraying of toxic gas from fleets of Italian planes equipped with tanks of gas and nozzles. Others gas-delivery methods included artillery shells and aircraft bombs.

Another part of Italian civilization were the Racial Laws (Leggi razziali) directed against Italian Jews and African blacks (in the Italian colonies). It is well-known that these laws helped convince the Italian physicist Enrico Fermi to flee with his family to the US, since his Jewish wife and their children would be subject to the Racial Laws in Italy. He and his family fled to the US via the UK from Sweden after he received his Nobel prize.

 

[Desert Fox]

According to the prosecution all 3 were standing around taking turns stabbing and assaulting her. Can someone please explain why there's only one set of footprints in the blood in Meredith's room. Perhaps Mach would like to take "stab" at this?

They were reading Harry Potter. . . .Isn't there a magic spell in there for cleaning blood stains

 

[Wattson]

They were reading Harry Potter. . . .Isn't there a magic spell in there for cleaning blood stains

You're right. It's only in the German version.

 

[Planigale]

Stefanoni had her degree in molecular biology at the University Federico II of Naples and worked as a researcher having her PhD at the Ceinge labs, that is the Genetics laboratories

Not sure what the PhD reference means Stefanoni does not have a PhD.

These labs do predominantly medical molecular biology, but not forensics. Has Stefanoni any qualification in forensic science? What training has she undergone to work a crime scene?

The most important point, is that this is a 'defensive argument'. By this label I mean it is not the dismantling of some existing evidence, it's not undermining or attacking points of evidence, it's not about putting in discussion the evidence in other words: not a 'negative' argument meant to deny some evidence of guilt, but instead a 'positive' argument, that is meant to create some new 'evidence of innocence'.

The logical nature of these kind of arguments is fundamentally different, when it gets to a trial approach. The 'defensive argument' is by definition an alibi. In practice the burden of proof on a defensive argument itself rests entirely on the defence.

When a defensive strategic is focused not on challenging the evidence directly but on something else, that is upon an alibi, upon an external defensive argument, this means that in order to be effective, such external argument needs to fulfill a very high probative standard (if the evidence against is strong).

Again an interesting point. Mach says that the prosecution having presented their case, the burden of proof is on the defence to dismantle the prosecution case. If the defence make a positive argument for innocence separate from opposing the prosecution case they have a very high standard to reach.

This is clearly what has happened, and so Mach as ever is right about the Italian system. This is where the conflict arises, in common law systems if two reasonable scenarios are presented the defence case has to be chosen, and the prosecution have to prove their case. In Italy the defence needs to disprove the prosecution case. Nencini accepts the prosecution case and says that the defence have failed to disprove it. Whilst many non-Italian observers feel the prosecution case is weak and improbable. An example is Nencini accepting the argument the phone from Sollecito to Carabinieri occurred post arrival of police because the police estimate of their time of arrival must be assumed to be correct, whilst the evidence contradicts this, and suggests the postal police were in error with their estimate of time of arrival.

A multitude of evidence favours an early ToD before 22.00, but because there is a small possibility that MK phone was still at home at 22.13 (though most likely not), this small possibility is accepted to allow RS and AK to be involved. Although an eye witness places what the prosecution says were AK and RS elsewhere than the flat from 21.30 to 23.00, the prosecution get to say that there is a possibility they may have slipped away without being noted, carried out a murder and slipped back. The lack of evidence of contact between AK and RS and MK is ignored which in contrast with the extensive evidence of contact between RG and MY stands in stark contrast.

 

[Samson]

Not sure what the PhD reference means Stefanoni does not have a PhD.

These labs do predominantly medical molecular biology, but not forensics. Has Stefanoni any qualification in forensic science? What training has she undergone to work a crime scene?



Again an interesting point. Mach says that the prosecution having presented their case, the burden of proof is on the defence to dismantle the prosecution case. If the defence make a positive argument for innocence separate from opposing the prosecution case they have a very high standard to reach.

This is clearly what has happened, and so Mach as ever is right about the Italian system. This is where the conflict arises, in common law systems if two reasonable scenarios are presented the defence case has to be chosen, and the prosecution have to prove their case. In Italy the defence needs to disprove the prosecution case. Nencini accepts the prosecution case and says that the defence have failed to disprove it. Whilst many non-Italian observers feel the prosecution case is weak and improbable. An example is Nencini accepting the argument the phone from Sollecito to Carabinieri occurred post arrival of police because the police estimate of their time of arrival must be assumed to be correct, whilst the evidence contradicts this, and suggests the postal police were in error with their estimate of time of arrival.

A multitude of evidence favours an early ToD before 22.00, but because there is a small possibility that MK phone was still at home at 22.13 (though most likely not), this small possibility is accepted to allow RS and AK to be involved. Although an eye witness places what the prosecution says were AK and RS elsewhere than the flat from 21.30 to 23.00, the prosecution get to say that there is a possibility they may have slipped away without being noted, carried out a murder and slipped back. The lack of evidence of contact between AK and RS and MK is ignored which in contrast with the extensive evidence of contact between RG and MY stands in stark contrast.

Planigale, since you have been party to the debate in which you suggested size of meal should be considered with TOD, how do you see this link I posted today in that context?

Here is another paper, that discusses gastric emptying for pre op, but addresses another issue that has been raised, size of meal.

In contrast, the gastric emptying curve for solids is linear20,21 (Fig. 2). Gastric emptying of solid food starts approximately 1 h after a meal. Within 2 h, approximately 50% of the solid food ingested is passed to the duodenum. The gastric emptying of solids is independent of the amount of food ingested but dependent on the caloric density of the meal.

http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?...72007000400004

I am quite unable to find any research that allows for Meredith's autopsy to be consistent with a meal anywhere near two hours before her death, yet one hour to 90 minutes seems correct.

Obviously I am interested in your take as a scientist.
This is important material.