Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

I think my previous post ansered your quetion well enough. Defense experts make nice livings, thus their science is predominantly directed at finding the loopholoes in DNA prosecutions.

I have no doubt some of the things they say will help improve standards, but I've read nothing that convinces me luminol footrprints, within ten feet of copious blood, should be disregarded because TMB came back negative, or a confirmatory test wasn't done.

Would you prefer that a confirmatory test was done? Do you believe it was not done in this case, and indeed came back negative?

Can you cit any "prosecution oriented experts" who claim a negative TMB does not exclude blood?

- because Stefanoni freely acknowledged anegative TMB means its "not blood for sure". And Stefanoni hid those TMB results at the first trial.

 

[carbonjam72]

If lab errors are commonplace, and contamination is a huge problem, why is DNA evidence used at all?

Conversely, why should innocents be released when DNA excludes them? The new DNA evidence that implicates another person is probably just contaminated.

Or maybe there are only occassional errors of contamination, but mostly the science gets it right.
In which case, I would be very interested to hear why AK showed up in mixed DNA traces, why Raf showed up on the clasp, and why MK showed up on a knife in Raf's apartment.

That's a lot of coincidences to explain away before you get to all the other evidence. Unless you believe in a mass scale conspiracy that inclued the police, the prosecutor, the forensics investigators, and the Italian Supreme Court. And then you have to also add in the fact the conspiracy refused to plant significant enough evidence at the scene to cement the conviction, and then let a rogue judge overturn it.

But you'll believe what you want to believe, and so will I until one of the murderers confesses.

Science is a methodology, not a person. You are confusing Stefanoni's lab work with science. She didn't follow protocols, and to this day has concealed her data that would explain exactly what she did in the lab, and what she found. And, she destroyed evidence to prevent retesting.

Your having a key board and typing comments, doesn't make your posts as correct, legitimate, well thought out, well supported, well vetted and verified, or even simply as honest as other posters here.

The fact that Stef was the Italy's expert, doesn't make her substandard work the equivalent of competent honest professionals.

 

[Vibio]

You yourself have accepted that if there were other people in the room where Meredith was killed, they would have to have left "hundreds of footprints".

It Ain't Necessarily So.

See the Patrick Latko trial for murder (which has been posted here before):

"The defense began its closings, claiming that the evidence in the fatal stabbing of Ryan, 29, and Diana, 64, in Hammonton on Nov. 3, 2011 did not directly implicate Latko, 33, in the deaths."

"But while no DNA found matched Latko’s, Shill argued the circumstantial evidence links him to the deaths of the mother and son in their South Madison Avenue home. But not a drop of blood was found on Latko or his belongings, argued public defender Kevin Moses."

“So there were 20 stab wounds, two slit throats....so whoever did this would've been a bloody mess,” Moses said to the jury."

Evidence did definitely eventually link Latko to the murders but in the house there was none of his fingerprints, no DNA, and no footprints of him. He struggled with 2 people, slit two throats but there was NO physical evidence found of him being in that house.

 

[Vibio]

Every argument is blown out of the water by Machiavelli...it is fascinating to read his posts.

 

[Vibio]

Cue Halkides to respond to Mach's post with countless scientific articles produced largely by professional defense experts that propose to be generally accepted "protocols."

The airtight scientific defense, mostly manufactured here by 20 people, was somehow missed by Ak and RS attorneys

After all, a negative TMB with a positive luminol has never ocurred in history. Should have been case closed right there, but those damn defense attorneys somehow didn't make an argument about that. They also never got raw data, and then forgot to mention it in front of Nencini.

I guess with a corrupt Italian system you can only expect incompetent Italian lawyers.

The mock trial happening here among those 20 posters (probably more like 10...) is increasingly amusing to read.

 

[Kauffer]

Ricciarelli

By the way, please try to remember more correctly what I said. I stated very clearly that I didn't read the Ricciarelli report.
And that I also never read a news source reporting the alleged "spider-man" comment.
So I was very precise reporting about the evidence that I have.
While you, on the other hand, have not read Ricciarelli's report neither.

You are confusing two points.

You asserted that Ricciarelli had before him the 'evidence' of the luminol hits and the bra clasp. As I pointed out to you and indeed as Professor Halkides also pointed out to you, this hearing took place some eighteen days before the revisit of the Perugians to Via Pergola and thus before this 'evidence' was available. So we proved that you made a false assertion. Do you accept this now?

Secondly, I referred you to both Mr Sollecito's book and Follain's book with regard to Ricciarelli's Spider man claim. Both have the same citation. It is not a mere assertion; they quote from the report. In a separate post, you told me that we should in fact accept mere assertion without evidence from news sources. Yet these sources provide citation.

My point was that these pre-trial judges all caved in to Prosecutorial assertion and very little evidence. They preferred, lazily, to accept what they were told. Most of what they were told had no basis in fact. Evidence of an exonerating character was withheld by Mignini.

 

[carbonjam72]

It Ain't Necessarily So.

See the Patrick Latko trial for murder (which has been posted here before):

"The defense began its closings, claiming that the evidence in the fatal stabbing of Ryan, 29, and Diana, 64, in Hammonton on Nov. 3, 2011 did not directly implicate Latko, 33, in the deaths."

"But while no DNA found matched Latko’s, Shill argued the circumstantial evidence links him to the deaths of the mother and son in their South Madison Avenue home. But not a drop of blood was found on Latko or his belongings, argued public defender Kevin Moses."

“So there were 20 stab wounds, two slit throats....so whoever did this would've been a bloody mess,” Moses said to the jury."

Evidence did definitely eventually link Latko to the murders but in the house there was none of his fingerprints, no DNA, and no footprints of him. He struggled with 2 people, slit two throats but there was NO physical evidence found of him being in that house.

In the Kercher case, the crime was committed in a tiny room, the floor was well soaked with blood, and there were footprints made in blood, just one set of footprints made in blood - which Rudy Guede freely admits were his. This along with all the other physical evidence linking only Rudy Guede to this crime - fingerprints, DNA on and in Meredith's body, palm prints - a presumed semen stain that the prosecution and civil parties has successfully thwarted testing.

There isn't any case against Amanda and Raf, and there never has been. The only real question left, is why folks like yourself continue to hold beliefs that have been so thoroughly disproven.

A judicial system trying to save face is not admirable, but it is at least understandable. Unethical civil parties trying to steal Raf's inheritance by opportunistically profiting from this miscarriage of justice is certainly despicable, but unjust enrichment is at least recognizable as a common criminal motive.

But what explains posters like yourself? Some form of mental infirmity? Confirmation bias? Some people are simply evil, mean and cruel by nature. This case seems to have brought them out of the woodwork.

 

[Kauffer]

Every argument is blown out of the water by Machiavelli...it is fascinating to read his posts.

Which arguments has Machiavelli blown out of the water? He has made substantial false claims about science and the law, misrepresented evidence and attempted to shift the burden of proof from prosecution to defence - and has been made a fool. But he does seem to have established a new cult. griffinmill in particular seems prepared to ingest a fatal dose of something on his orders. That's quite an achievement.

 

[Vibio]

There isn't any case against Amanda and Raf, and there never has been.

According to internet poster carbonjam72.

 

[Vibio]

griffinmill in particular seems prepared to ingest a fatal dose of something on his orders. That's quite an achievement.

The Kool-Aide has been ingested by you dear.

 

[Samson]

Every argument is blown out of the water by Machiavelli...it is fascinating to read his posts.

Yes, everyone is squealing with delight on your other little board.

 

[Vibio]

Yes, everyone is squealing with delight on your other little board.

My other little board? Do explain.

 

[anglolawyer]

It Ain't Necessarily So.

See the Patrick Latko trial for murder (which has been posted here before):

"The defense began its closings, claiming that the evidence in the fatal stabbing of Ryan, 29, and Diana, 64, in Hammonton on Nov. 3, 2011 did not directly implicate Latko, 33, in the deaths."

"But while no DNA found matched Latko’s, Shill argued the circumstantial evidence links him to the deaths of the mother and son in their South Madison Avenue home. But not a drop of blood was found on Latko or his belongings, argued public defender Kevin Moses."

“So there were 20 stab wounds, two slit throats....so whoever did this would've been a bloody mess,” Moses said to the jury."

Evidence did definitely eventually link Latko to the murders but in the house there was none of his fingerprints, no DNA, and no footprints of him. He struggled with 2 people, slit two throats but there was NO physical evidence found of him being in that house.

Funny, I couldn't find that much out there on this case, except that there wasn't much blood, unlike our case here, and he changed his clothes. Did they recover the clothes he was wearing? Not leaving DNA seems to be a matter of wearing gloves, judging from the fact that all Guede's DNA came frm hand contact. Did Latko wear gloves maybe?

Let's say Amanda and Raffaele wore gloves and got rid of all their clothes. What about the 'ocean' of blood you guys go on about when explaining the luminol? And that injury Amanda bled from in the bathroom. What injury was that and why is her blood not among the spots in the bedroom?

 

[Kaosium]

Every argument is blown out of the water by Machiavelli...it is fascinating to read his posts.

They're indeed fascinating, but not for the reason you think. At any rate I was thinking of you recently wondering where you'd gone and whether you figured it out.

Guess not.

 

[Diocletus]

Every argument is blown out of the water by Machiavelli...it is fascinating to read his posts.

I think that machiavelli's arguments are neat. But I need him to show me the case where a court used luminol blobs negative to TMB and dna as proof of blood. Otherwise I'm not impressed. After all, bourbon is nice neat, too.

 

[Machiavelli]

All the evidence used to detain was replaced with completely different evidence to convict. That is why a few people choose to go through all the evidence with a fine tooth comb, and conclude item by item that there is an alternative explanation to the prosecution's or an innocent explanation.Some people are uneasy that the bra clasp evidence was discovered fortuitously when Raffaele was about to be released because his shoe prints were disqualified from the scene of the crime.
You will be dead before a second person confesses to the murder of Meredith Kercher.
R.I.P. Griffinmill.

First, the highlighted part is not true, since nobody presented alternative explanations that were plausible for findings such as the luminol print, consistent explanation for the lone perpetrator scenario or the autopsy report, or supported or consistent explanations for Knox's false testimony and calunnia, etc.

Second, what you don't seem to understand is that this does not exculpate the defendants. Finding alternative explanations "item by item" is insufficient argumentation an it is precisely what the Supreme Court censured as manifestly illogical: this will never work and will never be accepted in jurisprudence as a legitimate reasoning. Evidence needs to be dealt with altogether, not it's by item, and mere possibility is not an argument. You can't just present a list of possible explanations.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

how to effect change in forensic laboratories

Nothing. So long as you understand that the science they produce is not instantly accepted as dogma in the scientific community. Nor is it widely accepted as "protocol" the moment it is produced, or even at all. The studies are all part of an ongoing debate about forensic principles, practices, and standards.

At the same time, it should be noted that the scientists who produce these studies often have lucrative careers backing up their own findings on the witness stand. They mostly come from careers running labs, where they made meager wages, and go on to careers where they make more in a month than they used to make in a year. A lot like DA's who change sides for the defense racket.

I'm not faulting them. Only saying they have an agenda that needs to be acknowledged, and more significantly that what they say is only a voice, not a broadly accepted scientific truth.

highlighting mine
griffinmill,

To fail to acknowledge forensic fraud and forensic misadventures is naive at best. The failure to follow good scientific practice could have put Patricia Stallings away for life; fortunately, scientists got involved and exposed lab work that doesn't even deserve to be called slipshod. Joy Kuhl's flawed attempt to invent a test for hemoglobin F was a contributing factor to the conviction of Lindy Chamberlain. Besides being insulting, the idea that prosecution forensic witnesses are pure whereas defense witnesses are mercenaries is simply wrong.

Specifically with respect to DNA, the best place to begin is William Thompson's "Tarnish on the Gold Standard." Poorly performed DNA profiling is like counterfeit money. One trusts DNA forensics more than many forensic disciplines because it has been developed by more scientific methods than many other forensic disciplines. To take one example from arson science, it used to be believed that crazed glass was a sign that an accelerant had been used. David Grann reported, "In his report, Hurst wrote that Vasquez and Fogg’s notion of crazed glass was no more than an 'old wives’ tale.'" Yet the DNA profiling has to be performed and interpreted correctly, or it is worse than useless. In fact this case illustrates exactly the point I highlighted, except that it applies to the prosecution's laboratory. Patrizia Stefanoni's procedures for low template analysis violate several important precautions ordinarily taken when doing this work. Her agenda is not so different from that of many forensic laboratories, to bring forth evidence that produces convictions. Professor Thompson's article gives one or two examples of forensic laboratories being given information that they should not have.

Do you think that if, for example, Peter Gill wrote a polite letter to Stefanoni pointing out her many errors that she would actually do anything about it? A powerful way to bring about improved performance from forensic laboratories is for defense experts to testify about the fraud and misadventures that they observe and for defendants to go free. Nothing else is likely to make the laboratories or law enforcement sit up and pay attention.

 

[anglolawyer]

First, the highlighted part is not true, since nobody presented alternative explanations that were plausible for findings such as the luminol print, consistent explanation for the lone perpetrator scenario or the autopsy report, or supported or consistent explanations for Knox's false testimony and calunnia, etc.

Second, what you don't seem to understand is that this does not exculpate the defendants. Finding alternative explanations "item by item" is insufficient argumentation an it is precisely what the Supreme Court censured as manifestly illogical: this will never work and will never be accepted in jurisprudence as a legitimate reasoning. Evidence needs to be dealt with altogether, not it's by item, and mere possibility is not an argument. You can't just present a list of possible explanations.

No, no, no. There you go again with this crap. Yes, circumstantial evidence must be combined (but with all associated evidence - see below - not selectively as you are doing it), yes, it should not be viewed item by item but nonetheless crap is still crap. The luminol did not reveal blood. The

• negative TMB,
• lies about TMB,
• positive evidence from the prosecution that negative TMB means you can be sure it's not blood
• failure to conduct, alternatively report the results of, confirmatory testing
• inability to explain how the luminol prints were laid down (Charlie's question which you continue to ignore, and
• alternative explanations even if it were blood (blood tracked around by the cops themselves)

are also circumstances to be taken into account in reducing the probative value of this evidence to zilch. If you are going to be our Nemesis at least try to do a better job.

 

[Diocletus]

positive evidence from the prosecution that negative TMB means you can be sure it's not blood.

Isn't that called an admission? Perhaps a judicial admission?

 

[Kauffer]

Bad law?

First, the highlighted part is not true, since nobody presented alternative explanations that were plausible for findings such as the luminol print, consistent explanation for the lone perpetrator scenario or the autopsy report, or supported or consistent explanations for Knox's false testimony and calunnia, etc.

Second, what you don't seem to understand is that this does not exculpate the defendants. Finding alternative explanations "item by item" is insufficient argumentation an it is precisely what the Supreme Court censured as manifestly illogical: this will never work and will never be accepted in jurisprudence as a legitimate reasoning. Evidence needs to be dealt with altogether, not it's by item, and mere possibility is not an argument. You can't just present a list of possible explanations.

What silliness - the court must assess the value of each piece of evidence before it is permitted to form part of the corpus. This is what your own law says! This is one of the main reasons why Italian justice has become a laughing stock. You can't actually apply your own articles nor accord defendants their constitutional protections.