Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

-


-

Isn't there a video of them passing it around and then dropping it back down on the floor?

I think of it this way, would you do that with a knife if it had been found in the room, pass it around and then drop it back down on the floor.

I was thinking of the following while reading your post, One of the unknown profiles could be Steffi's. That's one of the reason's I would like to know what those other profiles are. If one of them is her's, that would prove contamination,
d

-

I think the fact that there are multiple profiles establishes a likelihood of contamination and that any one the profiles would be as likely a suspect as Raf.

Identifying who contributors are would possibly help explain a route of contamination, but even unidentified the extra profiles are still there.

For example, comparing it to all the people who had contact with the outside door handle to Meredith's room - like Raf, Filo's b'friend?, Batt? Any others?

Checking those people against the sample could add credibility that the transfer came from the outside door handle.

However, I think the DNA finding is just too convenient, in combination with once again the missing DNA data from Stef's lab. The only DNA results that convict, are all low template single runs with missing data and notes.

I think Stef knows what she's doing, is inducing happy accidents to achieve her desired result, then covering her tracks. And the only way to stop her, is by examining her work.

If the judges don't allow independent examination, or refuse to accept the examination of the independent experts when it is performed, well, what defense is possible against that type of fatally prejudiced & flawed trial process?

It's not just this case. Italy has a problem.

 

[carbonjam72]

I would quite like to know why the bra clasp was not collected with sterile gloves or tweezers on the first day, along with the rest of clothes she was wearing. What sort of training had Stefanoni received that told her it was OK not only to leave that stuff behind but also to have it all jumbled up with other stuff?

I think its called, making "a wedding soup". Could that be it?

 

[carbonjam72]

Lets be honest here though. . . . . Something as important as the bra clasp should have been collected the first day. I think of it like the cops not pickign up all teh shell casings in a shooting.

The bra clasp only became "important", when all the other evidence they had to date became discredited.

All the evidence should have been collected properly and tested properly at the outset.

Amanda and Raf should never have been arrested, imo.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

You can put forward all your theories about the best procedures. It's not for me to judge which is more correct; and I also bet agreement is not universal and scientific opinions may change through time.
What has to be said, is that an effective defensive argument cannot be an argument about best procedures. The defence task is to explain the presence of Sollecito's DNA; show how the presence of the specific profile is n the item is probable.
There was no way the defence could build a defensive argument. Because there is obviously no circumstance that makes an innocent presence become probable.

-

I don't see why not Mach. The better the procedure for collecting evidence, the less probable the chance of contamination is.

Plus, if Raffaele's presence of his DNA on the bra-clasp helps prove he was there during Meredith's murder, doesn't it also help prove all those other profiles on the bra-clasp were there during the murder also?

d

-

 

[carbonjam72]

The point is it should not have touched it with gloves. The gloves are to stop you shedding DNA, yours and others. Disposable forceps (tweezers) should have been used to pick the bra fastener up. It should have been immediately 'bagged', not handed around, not put back down so a 'staged' photo could be taken. Indeed one could say it should have been collected immediately, not 6 weeks later. This behaviour is not that you would expect of trained crime scene investigators / SOCOs. I previously asked if Stephanoni had any training to investigate a crime scene, her background was as a laboratory scientist.

It's not an investigation, its an amateur theater production captured on home video.

 

[carbonjam72]

Life is a random assortment of improbable incidents. My think is that when somebody screws up as much as the Italian forensics community does, I think all sorts of improbable things may happen. Also, you really don't know how many things they tested and then select the few that they think they can use to argue guilt.

Edit: If you ever watch Mayday / Air Crash Investigators, you will see multiple incidents of crashes due to a combination of improbable incidents which cause crashes.

But this is multiple crashes, one after another. It's more like a demolition derby, being falsely presented as a smooth test ride for a new car.

 

[lonepinealex]

The bra clasp only became "important", when all the other evidence they had to date became discredited.

All the evidence should have been collected properly and tested properly at the outset.

Amanda and Raf should never have been arrested, imo.

The bra clasp should have been important from day one, because it gives clues to the way Meredith came to be undressed and how the killer did it. Ditto the blood-soaked jacket with the sleeves inside out.

Both these items were left at the scene and piled into a corner. When they came back for them, Stefanoni's team folded the sleeves of the jacket the right way round, before shoving it in an evidence bag. They look like they're sorting their laundry.

No comments from the guilters on this?

 

[Kauffer]

But the pre-trial discovery is the incidente probatorio. My question would be, why didn't the defence expert didn't even come at the laboratory to access the data, or set a framework about their requests?



The incidente probatorio is defined by the law as an adversarial procedure in which the defence have whole equality of arms. They can have whatever they request.

But they must define what they intend to request.

If they fail to request something, and they realize later that this is essential to their defence, they need to present a convincing explanation to the judge about why they were unable to request it before, and why it is important.

The defence failed on all these steps; or better, they didn't even attempt to pursue this strategy, they weren't even interested.

There is no equality of arms unless the defence get the data. What do you think was going on in the Massei trial with regard to the partial data dump? At that point we are beyond mid-trial and the judge has made the order for discovery, which was not fully complied with. But have you not been paying any attention to ECHR case law on equality of arms and what it means? It means you don't have to ask even though they did.

 

[Bill Williams]

You can put forward all your theories about the best procedures. It's not for me to judge which is more correct; and I also bet agreement is not universal and scientific opinions may change through time.
What has to be said, is that an effective defensive argument cannot be an argument about best procedures.The defence task is to explain the presence of Sollecito's DNA; show how the presence of the specific profile is n the item is probable.
There was no way the defence could build a defensive argument. Because there is obviously no circumstance that makes an innocent presence become probable.

-


-

I don't see why not Mach. The better the procedure for collecting evidence, the less probable the chance of contamination is.

Plus, if Raffaele's presence of his DNA on the bra-clasp helps prove he was there during Meredith's murder, doesn't it also help prove all those other profiles on the bra-clasp were there during the murder also?

d

-

What has to be said, is that an effective defensive argument cannot be an argument about best procedures.​

Sez you. Once again, take a look at this photo. Address the issue again, about "best procedures".

 

[Machiavelli]

Of course Rudy Guede was never cross examined on his accusations against Amanda and Raf, and his "date with Meredith". (Except on a letter he likely was unable to write, and certainly was unable to read in open court).

Yet Guede's statements were used to convict; providing the only eyewitness testimony of Amanda and Raf being present at the cottage that night yet -contradicts his previous statements that Amanda wasn't there and had nothing to do with it, and that he didn't know Raf, and also is the only basis in testimony of any conflict over money between Amanda and Meredith - which Nencini has identified as the motive of the crime.

Using Guede's testimony used to convict without cross examination, is against both the Italian constitution and ECHR, IIUC.

Not Guede's statement, but Guede's conviction.
Guede's letter was also brought in as piece of evidence, but only because Sollecito's defence called witnesses that reported hearsay statements attributed to Rudy Guede.
Guede was questioned by the prosecution only about the authenticity of his letter and about his contacts with Alessi.

 

[Strozzi]

You can put forward all your theories about the best procedures. It's not for me to judge which is more correct; and I also bet agreement is not universal and scientific opinions may change through time.
What has to be said, is that an effective defensive argument cannot be an argument about best procedures.
The defence task is to explain the presence of Sollecito's DNA; show how the presence of the specific profile is n the item is probable.
There was no way the defence could build a defensive argument. Because there is obviously no circumstance that makes an innocent presence become probable.

Who is holding te bra clasp now? Is it in Stefanoni's care and custody?

Wouldn't it be interesting if a court were to order the Carabinieri to forensically examine the bra clasp which many (but not all) of us believe must have been rendered forensically worthless in test-tube storage, and the Carabinieri test the clasp and find 1) that there still is identifiable DNA on the clasp, and 2) that it is different from the DNA of the 3 or so (amica w male DNA) that Stefanoni claims she found in her testing.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not Guede's statement, but Guede's conviction.
Guede's letter was also brought in as piece of evidence, but only because Sollecito's defence called witnesses that reported hearsay statements attributed to Rudy Guede.
Guede was questioned by the prosecution only about the authenticity of his letter and about his contacts with Alessi.

Why was the defence denied the opportunity to cross-examine Guede?

 

[Dan O.]

Hey DANO,

I think you've pointed this out before, but where was the footprint that the police forensic officer was scrubbing clean? And is there any chance he was taking a legitimate sample of the footprint, and just erased the rest in process?

Do you know the spot on the crimes scene video where this is shown?

Do we have any ideas why that act of erasing a footprint was performed?

From my wiki - Crime scene Video Index

2007-11-03
00:26:57 .. 00:27:02 - Collecting sample at #2 DateLine Police 1:20​

This segment was aired in the US on February 6, 2009.

We also know that other prints were similarly erased such as the ones at marker 5 which the investigators has so much difficulty trying to locate on the return trip in December.

The erased print at marker 2 is actually helpfull because this location happens to also be one of the luminol hits. The erased print gives us a calibration between the sensitivities of Luminol and TMB.

 

[Dan O.]

Dan O suggested deliberate contamination from Raffaele's jail cell.
Predominant: Meredith
Present: Raffaele
Traces: Previous tenants of jail cell, male.

Has anyone a better theory to explain the community of citizens who loved that clasp? (Dan O asked that and no one answered)

I do.

I offered another suggestion that the bra clasp profiles could be completly innocent transfers from the friends that Meredith met partying the night before and Raffaele whom she interacted with that morning where Meredith herself is the transfer agent between the DNA doners and the bra clasp hooks.

Either of these scenarios could be validated by tracking down the potential doners and profiling their DNA. Getting Meredith's friends to cooperate may be difficult since if a match were found Migning would immediately arrest them as a co-conspirator in the rape and murder. The prior jail cell residents would however have an alibi that may even stand up in Italian courts unless the warden is forced to admit that he can't be sure the inmate didn't sneak out while he was asleep.

 

[Strozzi]

I think the fact that there are multiple profiles establishes a likelihood of contamination and that any one the profiles would be as likely a suspect as Raf.

Identifying who contributors are would possibly help explain a route of contamination, but even unidentified the extra profiles are still there.

For example, comparing it to all the people who had contact with the outside door handle to Meredith's room - like Raf, Filo's b'friend?, Batt? Any others?
Checking those people against the sample could add credibility that the transfer came from the outside door handle.

However, I think the DNA finding is just too convenient, in combination with once again the missing DNA data from Stef's lab. The only DNA results that convict, are all low template single runs with missing data and notes.

I think Stef knows what she's doing, is inducing happy accidents to achieve her desired result, then covering her tracks. And the only way to stop her, is by examining her work.

If the judges don't allow independent examination, or refuse to accept the examination of the independent experts when it is performed, well, what defense is possible against that type of fatally prejudiced & flawed trial process?

It's not just this case. Italy has a problem.

If Nencini's motivation report is to be believed, you should also be looking at amica with male DNA who touched the door handle.

 

[carbonjam72]

If Nencini's motivation report is to be believed, you should also be looking at amica with male DNA who touched the door handle.

I know this is one of Bill's favorites, but I think we found (courtesy of vibio no less), that a translation of Nencini has him finding 2-4 other profiles, or maybe even male profiles - so he takes the lower number of 2 - then assigns one to Raf and one to Meredith's boyfriend and ignores the other two, so that his motivation report is "compatible" with the evidence.

I may be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure we concluded Nencini was not actually suggesting women have "Y" DNA. He was just taking the lowest possible number of males, and assigning one extra to Meredith's boyfriend - purely speculatively and without a reference profile.

 

[Antony]

Just saw the end of the Italy v Ireland rugby international, with Ireland (by far the stronger rugby nation) winning 26-3 (2 converted tries and 4 penalty goals to just 1 penalty goal).

In the last few minutes, Italy pressed hard and scrambled a bouncing ball down for a would-be try (touchdown), but the decision had to go to the TV replay. It became clear, unfortunately, that an Italian player reaching for the ball had just fractionally knocked it forward with his fingertips, nullifying the try before it went loose for another Italian player to scoop it up and get it down.

Of course the disappointed crowd booed and whistled, but the boos and whistles started not when the decision was announced but as the TV images - also visible in the ground - revealed the dreaded fact of the fingertip contact. Sadly, the team didn't have the Italian Supreme Court on their side to make up their own facts. In sport, objectivity and video recordings take precedence over national pride.

 

[Strozzi]

I know this is one of Bill's favorites, but I think we found (courtesy of vibio no less), that a translation of Nencini has him finding 2-4 other profiles, or maybe even male profiles - so he takes the lower number of 2 - then assigns one to Raf and one to Meredith's boyfriend and ignores the other two, so that his motivation report is "compatible" with the evidence.

I may be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure we concluded Nencini was not actually suggesting women have "Y" DNA. He was just taking the lowest possible number of males, and assigning one extra to Meredith's boyfriend - purely speculatively and without a reference profile.

Nencini in his motivation report accepts that Raffaele's DNA is on the clasp, and then, in order to account for other (male) DNA profiles on the clasp, states that one of the other profiles is most probably (speculatively) Meredith's boyfriend's, and that the other two are (speculatively) amica's (with male profiles). He is contorting his motivation report this way so as to support the fiction that the only male profiles on the clasp must be from Raffaele and the boyfriend, and no other males, and that all profiles got on the clasp through direct contact rather than contamination. If he cannot maintain it was by direct contact (Raffaele, boyfriend, amica) then Judge Nencini is recognizing that some or all of the DNA got on the clasp through indirect contact (contamination). Acknowledging indirect contact (contamination) would conflict with the judges' goal of convicting Raffaele.

Rafael must be convicted, per the instructions from the Supreme Court sending the case Nencini's court, and also to preserve the honor and publicly uphold the procedures of the police forensic unit, prosecution service, and various judges who have put their reputations on the line. jaw-dropp

 

[carbonjam72]

Nencini in his motivation report accepts that Raffaele's DNA is on the clasp, and then, in order to account for other (male) DNA profiles on the clasp, states that one of the other profiles is most probably (speculatively) Meredith's boyfriend's, and that the other two are (speculatively) amica's (with male profiles). He is contorting his motivation report this way so as to support the fiction that all these profiles got on the clasp through direct contact rather than contamination. If he cannot maintain it was by direct contact (Raffaele, boyfriend, amica) then Judge Nencini is recognizing that some or all of the DNA got on the clasp through indirect contact (contamination). Acknowledging indirect contact (contamination) would conflict with the judges' goal of convicting Raffaele.

Rafael's must be convicted to preserve the honor of the police forensic unit, prosecution service, and various judges who have put their reputations on the line. jaw-dropp

I agree with what you've written and you're take on how careful and cagey Nencini is being in producing his rigged guilty verdict. My only question is whether Nencini specifically acknowledges he is assigning male profiles to Meredith's female friends. I don't think he did that.

I think he got the facts wrong, and bent over backwards to reach the finding he wanted to, in contradiction to the evidence you're pointing to, but I don't think he is accepting the evidence that you are presenting as part of the case.

So you have a conflict between the evidence as it was actually presented, but not as Nencini claims he perceives it. (Did that come out right?).

I'm no fan of Nencini. I think he reached for a guilty decision no matter what, as he believes cassation had instructed him to do, and he explicitly states so much at the beginning of his motivation report.

But he is not so completely ◊◊◊◊◊◊* crazy as to knowingly assign male DNA to Meredith's female friends. I just don't think he did that. If you want to dredge up the Nencini paragraph again - or search for the discussion with Vibio (can't believe I wrote that).

 

[carlofab]

Not Guede's statement, but Guede's conviction.

It eludes me how Guede’s conviction for participating “with others” in the murder can be used as evidence against Amanda and Raffale.

My understanding is that at Guede’s trial the participation of Amanda and Raffaele was mutually stipulated by prosecution and defense without evidence.

Thus Guede’s conviction for acting “with others” includes information merely stipulated as fact. Such stipulation should be useless for all other purposes than the conviction of Guede.

Not mention Amanda and Raffaele were not represented there to protest the stipulation.