Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

What statistics? Is this supposed to be one of those things we have to believe from you, simply on your say-so?

Sounds like the way this whole thing has been adjudicated! Regardless of whether or not Stefanaoni, for instance, demonstrates that her lab is not the dirtiest, most contaminated lab in Europe.... we're supposed to believe her, like Massei did, simply on her say so?

And it's now up to us to prove her lab is a hive of contamination?

Who exactly compiles these statistics and why? Where are they?

 

[Bill Williams]

What statistics? Is this supposed to be one of those things we have to believe from you, simply on your say-so?

Sounds like the way this whole thing has been adjudicated! Regardless of whether or not Stefanaoni, for instance, demonstrates that her lab is not the dirtiest, most contaminated lab in Europe.... we're supposed to believe her, like Massei did, simply on her say so?

And it's now up to us to prove her lab is a hive of contamination?

Who exactly compiles these statistics and why? Where are they?

The point is....

Machiavelli has managed to construct a sentence which supports his point of view. If we doubt his assertion, we are committing defamation, or worse, calunnia.

On his ability to assemble nouns, verbs and adjectives, subjects and objects, into a compatible sentence.... it is now up to you, smarty-pants anglo-lawyer, to provide stats to refute it.

 

[Desert Fox]

You are wrong. The witnesses are exactly presumed to be in goof faith, unless there is precise and serious evidence of the contrary.
Presumption of evidence does not mean what innocentisti suggest. It does not mean to interpret pieces of circumstantial evidence along with a theory of innocence.
It is supposed to work exactly the way it worked and exactly how I am describing it.

Quoted for truth. . . .Yes, I believe that the police, witnesses, prosecution, and judges are goofs in this case.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Judging DNA forensics

The testimony of Andrea Berti & Filippo Barni is quite revealing. Nencini admitted what we all knew: he doesn't know anything about DNA.

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Berti-Barni-Testimony.pdf

starting bottom of page 22.

PRESIDENTE: Allora ne ho io due velocissime a conclusione. Mi è parso di capire, ma con tutti i limiti della mia totale ignoranza in materia, da questo campione che voi avete rilevato, quindi da questa quantità, avete estratto due quantità per procedere a due distinte analisi. Lei ha detto giustamente prima che, essendo una quantità, un materiale, se ne potevano... due, tre, cinque, fino a che... si poteva parcellizzare fino a che era parcellizzabile. Allora la domanda è questa: perché avete scelto due, e non tre, quattro, cinque? Esiste un quantitativo minimo che garantisce maggiormente il risultato, oppure la scelta è arbitraria? Non so se sono stato chiaro nella domanda.

"I think I've understood, but with all the limits of my total ignorance of the subject"

If Nencini admits that he is ignorant, then how can he judge how likely a given contamination event is? How can he judge whether a specific lapse in protocol is likely to lead to contamination? This question is also relevant to the judges on the SCC. This is one problem with the standard that not every lapse in protocol should lead to an item's being tossed as evidence.

 

[Desert Fox]

Maybe because statistics show that burglars choose the easiest way in?

Let us say that statistic are right. . . . Statistics indicates it is most likely that they chose the easier way but it does not say "all" will chose the easiest. You are abusing statistics.

 

[TomB]

But the defence does have to prove, if not that contamination occurred, at least that contamination - but meaning a specific contamination, not just any contamination - was a likely event, not just possible in rerun natura.

This is a scientific issue. Any lab must provide supportive data to support that the sample was not contaminated. It is the lab's job to provide evidence that the sample was not contaminated. This includes documentation that proper collection techniques were used, proper chain of custody was maintained, proper handling procedures were maintained throughout the analysis, proper methodology were used with proper control samples showing that the instrument was running properly and no contamination occurred during processing (blanks and check standards) and that the sample was stored properly throughout the entire process. If any one of these is not met, the sample's validity is questionable at best. Much contamination is of unknown origin. It is still contamination and makes the sample scientifically invalid.

In most court cases I've read about, the defense does not have to prove contamination, they just need to show that there were errors in the processing/handling of the samples that make that data of questionable value.

the burden of proof is on the lab.

 

[TomB]

But the defence does have to prove, if not that contamination occurred, at least that contamination - but meaning a specific contamination, not just any contamination - was a likely event, not just possible in rerun natura.

This is a scientific issue. Any lab must provide supportive data to support that the sample was not contaminated. It is the lab's job to provide evidence that the sample was not contaminated. This includes documentation that proper collection techniques were used, proper chain of custody was maintained, proper handling procedures were maintained throughout the analysis, proper methodology were used with proper control samples showing that the instrument was running properly and no contamination occurred during processing (blanks and check standards) and that the sample was stored properly throughout the entire process. If any one of these is not met, the sample's validity is questionable at best. Much contamination is of unknown origin. It is still contamination and makes the sample scientifically invalid.

In most court cases I've read about, the defense does not have to prove contamination, they just need to show that there were errors in the processing/handling of the samples that make that data of questionable value.

the burden of proof is on the lab.

 

[Desert Fox]

This is a scientific issue. Any lab must provide supportive data to support that the sample was not contaminated. It is the lab's job to provide evidence that the sample was not contaminated. This includes documentation that proper collection techniques were used, proper chain of custody was maintained, proper handling procedures were maintained throughout the analysis, proper methodology were used with proper control samples showing that the instrument was running properly and no contamination occurred during processing (blanks and check standards) and that the sample was stored properly throughout the entire process. If any one of these is not met, the sample's validity is questionable at best. Much contamination is of unknown origin. It is still contamination and makes the sample scientifically invalid.

In most court cases I've read about, the defense does not have to prove contamination, they just need to show that there were errors in the processing/handling of the samples that make that data of questionable value.
the burden of proof is on the lab.

That has been clearly done but in teh magical Italian legal world, bra clasps handled by people following improper protocols do not get contaminated.

 

[Antony]

You are wrong. The witnesses are exactly presumed to be in goof faith, unless there is precise and serious evidence of the contrary.

Let's go back to what kicked off this exchange (and others when guilters assert "the police are not on trial"): it was Desert Fox's reference to video of the police investigation, showing that it was not conducted correctly. This is indeed precise and serious evidence to the contrary of good faith of the accusations, in that they are not based on any good evidence. Yet you respond that these indications of no relevance, because "it is the accused who are on trial".

Not only that, but by their consistent refusal of defence requests, both Massei and Nencini denied the accused the opportunity to bring such precise and serious evidence. Everything was rigged to a guilty verdict.

Presumption of evidence (sic) does not mean what innocentisti suggest. It does not mean to interpret pieces of circumstantial evidence along with a theory of innocence.

As a matter of fact, Mach, that is exactly what "presumption of innocence" does mean. All evidence is to be interpreted alongside a theory of innocence. It is only when it cannot be reconciled with innocence that it becomes evidence of guilt. What has happened in this case, at least in the Massei and Nencini courts, is the reverse.

It is supposed to work exactly the way it worked and exactly how I am describing it.

The fact that you see it as the way things are supposed to work betrays your disregard of any principles of justice.

 

[Numbers]

Different system. The court doesn't control the evidence the parties choose to bring and has no investigative role of its own. In England and Wales, the defence would apply for funds to carry out its own test and to the judge only for any necessary order giving access to the various facilities required, like Nara's home.

The issue of funding didn't occur to me. In the US the defense would pay the costs of testing it wanted to do. The court could choose to require that a place be tested for acoustics; I doubt that a court could require someone who was only a witness to be audiometrically tested if he/she did not want to be.

 

[Desert Fox]

The issue of funding didn't occur to me. In the US the defense would pay the costs of testing it wanted to do. The court could choose to require that a place be tested for acoustics; I doubt that a court could require someone who was only a witness to be audiometrically tested if he/she did not want to be.

Often you can still get the state to pay especially if you win in the US. . . . .Example of this is the Casey Anthony case where the state payed 120 k out of 150 k of the costs of the case.

 

[Kaosium]

Besides the fact that by your procedure you di not tell if you are able to identify any profile, and besides the fact that the defence IIRC did not rise such objection, what's needed to say is that Dr. Stefanoni did not refuse to hand over anything neither she hide anything, it's a lie that you decide to tell only because of propaganda convenience.

No, Machiavelli, it's not a lie. As for the profile, do you know how to read an electropherogram? Here's a brief primer:

Look at the electropherogram for sample 177. In the first locus (D8S1179) in the top left-hand corner you see 4 'bars' (peaks) with boxes beneath them. The top numbers (11, 12, 13, 16) are the number of repeats, that's what is used to identify an allele, which is what you're trying to 'match' to someone's reference profile. The bottom numbers in the boxes (173, 215, 531, 402) are the RFU level, the relative 'strength' of the result, which also corresponds with the scale at the left where 400 (RFUs) is denoted. As you can see, there's other little blue 'bumps' at the bottom that don't have boxes, these are the ones that Stefanoni didn't want to 'call'--not unlike with the other 2-4 contributors to the bra clasp. These suggest that people other than Meredith and Amanda contributed to this sample. Now look at Meredith and Amanda's reference profiles, as you can see Meredith has 13 and 16 repeats at D8S1179, Amanda has 11 and 12. However there's also those little 'bumps' at 10, 14 and 15 (on the electropherogram for 177). The one at 14 might be stutter as it's in position (one after 13 where there's an allele) but the 10 and 15 aren't in stutter position as there's no alleles in the position one previous.

That suggests that there's at least one other contributor to that sample. However as people can share alleles (even with themselves--meaning they got the same one from both parents like Meredith at CSF1PO where she has two 'twelves' and Amanda at D7S820 where she has two 'nines') there won't necessarily be two unique alleles for each contributor, often they will be 'shared' by one or more people. From the example previous where Meredith has two 'twelves' (CSF1PO) you can see Amanda also has a 'twelve' to go along with her 'eleven.' Thus despite knowing that Meredith and Amanda contributed, there's only two alleles called though again there's little bumps which might also be low RFU alleles but you'd need the peak heights and areas from the edfs to determine that and 'zoom in' like Stefanoni did on the knife blade. As you can see here (scroll down to the one entitled 'Blade Chart, Color') that electropherogram shows the RFU scale on the left where the numbers are (for the top loci) 18, 36 and 54 (RFUs) as opposed to the previous chart (Rep 177) which had 400 in the middle and hashmarks for 200 and 600. Point being that those 'little bumps' look a lot bigger when you zoom in on them and if you're going to do that for one piece of evidence you have to do it for them all otherwise you're just cherry picking.

She also provided herself full disclosure about TMB tests when requested.

That doesn't remedy the fact she tried to hide them and was caught when her paperwork belied her RTIGF and statements in court.

On the other hand, the defence did not make those requests you complain about and they did not look into the evidence nor took documentation when they were invited to do so.

They asked for 'all data' pertaining to the DNA evidence, that obviously means the data used to generate the charts!

 

[Dan O.]

It's foolish to assume that a police officer would make the nonsensical action of bringing the lamp there, and do that without proving it.

Then you are being foolish to assume anything about the lamp without proving it.

 

[carbonjam72]

Well you would need to find an unknown DNA profile, first.

Aren't there between 2-4 unknown DNA profiles on the bra clasp? Are are those all unknown males?

 

[Dougm]

Let us say that statistic are right. . . . Statistics indicates it is most likely that they chose the easier way but it does not say "all" will chose the easiest. You are abusing statistics.

Additionally, if the window is not a likely place for a burglar to come in through, then why would Knox and Sollecito choose it for a staging??

It would make much more sense for anyone staging the scene to either break a window that looks more "likely" to be the one most people think a burglar would use, or simply leave the front door unlocked/ajar.

 

[Antony]

You then agree with Anthony, just not the conclusion. Your statement, "The witnesses are exactly presumed to be in goof (sic) faith, unless there is precise and serious evidence of the contrary," is exactly what is wrong.

These witnesses do not need to bring evidence, they only need to bring statements which the court will assume is true, without evidence.

Strangely, even pointing that out brings the demand, "well, then it is up to you to prove their statements are false."

This is exactly what is meant by the reversal of the burden of proof.

Your response to Anthony, Machiavelli, is that we are starting to agree on things, and the disagreement comes only when deciding if this is the way it should be.

Thanks for this, Anthony and Machiavelli.

It's "Antony", Bill, not "Anthony". Don't associate me with the fragrant Casey!

 

[carbonjam72]

Machiavelli,

There are at least three contributors to Rep. 177.

Does anyone know off hand what sample this came from?

 

[Numbers]

No, Machiavelli, it's not a lie. As for the profile, do you know how to read an electropherogram? Here's a brief primer:

Look at the electropherogram for sample 177. In the first locus (D8S1179) in the top left-hand corner you see 4 'bars' (peaks) with boxes beneath them. The top numbers (11, 12, 13, 16) are the number of repeats, that's what is used to identify an allele, which is what you're trying to 'match' to someone's reference profile. The bottom numbers in the boxes (173, 215, 531, 402) are the RFU level, the relative 'strength' of the result, which also corresponds with the scale at the left where 400 (RFUs) is denoted. As you can see, there's other little blue 'bumps' at the bottom that don't have boxes, these are the ones that Stefanoni didn't want to 'call'--not unlike with the other 2-4 contributors to the bra clasp. These suggest that people other than Meredith and Amanda contributed to this sample. Now look at Meredith and Amanda's reference profiles, as you can see Meredith has 13 and 16 repeats at D8S1179, Amanda has 11 and 12. However there's also those little 'bumps' at 10, 14 and 15. The one at 14 might be stutter as it's in position (one after 13 where there's an allele) but the 10 and 15 aren't in stutter position as there's no alleles in the position one previous.

That suggests that there's at least one other contributor to that sample. However as people can share alleles (even with themselves--meaning they got the same one from both parents like Meredith at CSF1PO where she has two 'twelves' and Amanda at D7S820 where she has two 'nines') there won't necessarily be two unique alleles for each contributor, often they will be 'shared' by one or more people. From the example previous where Meredith has two 'twelves' (CSF1PO) you can see Amanda also has a 'twelve' to go along with her 'eleven.' Thus despite knowing that Meredith and Amanda contributed, there's only two alleles called though again there's little bumps which might also be low RFU alleles but you'd need the peak heights and areas from the edfs to determine that and 'zoom in' like Stefanoni did on the knife blade. As you can see here (scroll down to the one entitled 'Blade Chart, Color') that electropherogram shows the RFU scale on the left where the numbers are (for the top loci) 18, 36 and 54 (RFUs) as opposed to the previous chart (Rep 177) which had 400 in the middle and hashmarks for 200 and 600. Point being that those 'little bumps' look a lot bigger when you zoom in on them and if you're going to do that for one piece of evidence you have to do it for them all otherwise you're just cherry picking.



That doesn't remedy the fact she tried to hide them and was caught when her paperwork belied her RTIGF and statements in court.



They asked for 'all data' pertaining to the DNA evidence, that obviously means the data used to generate the charts!

Thanks for bringing attention to the uncalled alleles! This e-gram makes very clear why "Doctor" Stefanoni would not release the EDFs - there is a lot of DNA evidence and/or contamination hiding in the electronic data files that she dares not reveal.

To my eye, roughly estimating, the heights of the uncalled allele peaks in the 177 e-gram are about 100 RFU - well above the often used 50 RFU limit for noise.

Lab Tech "Doctor" Stefanoni used her own never-validated LCN DNA method for the knife blade to call alleles (from DNA contamination - since there was no blood on the blade) when it suited the prosecution's purpose, and it would not be surprising if there were low levels of contamination DNA detectable in many of the EDFs.

 

[Kaosium]

Does anyone know off hand what sample this came from?

Yes, that's from the 'amorphous' luminol hit in Filomena's room.

 

[carbonjam72]

Thoughts on audio tests and evidence

There are of course a few complications but if the test showed that even an healthy adult wouldn't be able to hear the sound duting the night that would be relevant to the credibility of Nara's testimony. Note that, as we speak, I can't hear the slightest sound from the aooartments on the other side of the street and I'm not an old lady.

It would also be interesting to test what other sounds Nara hears that she thinks are screams.

The first question is whether Meredith scream could be heard in Nara's room. But it would also be interesting to set-up mics in the parking garage, where there are people on CCTV video all turning towards the cottage at for the same block of time, at the approximate time Meredith was killed, as determined by digestion.

Also, assuming it is technically possible Nara heard this scream, testing her hearing for other similar sounds at the low end of what she's capable of hearing would also be interesting.

What can be heard by a normal person in NAra's apartment is one question, what Narta can hear is a second question, and what a normal person in the CCTV parking garage video could hear is a third question.

I believe the people on that CCTV video heard Meredtih Kercher screaming as Rudy Guede killed her. Guede said she screamed at about 9:20. And people on that CCTV from the Oggi article were all turned to the cottage at about the same time, and it was a series of people. They all turned in the same direction of the cottage, over a period of (IIRC) 10-15 mins.

By the way, Ergon, aka God, I believe claims that he does not think Nara could have physically heard the scream in question, but that it was therefore a "psychic scream" that Nara heard. So many people seem to have supernatural powers in this case.