Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Planigale]

Now, the probabilities.



No, it's not a matter of proving it. It's a matter of proving that it's probable.

What is the probability of tertiary transfer of skin cells through drying hands on a towel and then touching an item, and transfer the DNA there, and specifically there.

You know because, if we argue about what's in rerum natura, we should know it is possible to buy a lottery ticket and win. But it is not reasonable to expect this will happen. What's just possible is not exactly what you need to dismiss a piece of evidence. You need much more than that.

Based on the same logic - probable as winning a lottery ticket - a defence lawyer could argue that each finding of Rudy Guede's DNA in the murder room was due to innocent reasons, a tertiary transfer of the same kind or another innocent reason. And there are only four instances of Guede's DNA in the room, some of them even only yielding a compatible Y-chromosome and no X profile.

Based on a reasoning in rerum natura, a defence lawyer may also argue that bruises on the victim's vagina had innocent reasons not related to sexual violence.

Obviously, no judge would consider such arguments.

The arguments above mean just failure to understanding anything about how evidence works.



It doesn't matter at all what you think of Stefanoni. There is simply no evidence of the contamination claimed by the defence.



Not me, but the defence should tell her, and they should tell her during the incidente probatorio. Or they should explain the judge clearly what they need to do with the data, what their theory of contamination is. Something the defence did not do. We all know the defence did not submit such requests of seeing raw data of DNA tests, there is no trace of such instance in the preliminary hearing, in the defence appeals reasons nor in requests to the supreme court.

In fact the fallacy of this argument is so well known that it is called the prosecutor's fallacy.

 

[carbonjam72]

And of course this, all by itself, is an incredibly persuasive argument that the clasp was indeed contaminated by specs of transferred DNA that were washing around in that dust and debris pile. As I said earlier, it would have been awfully interesting if other items in that pile had also been DNA tested as controls - I strongly suspect that the DNA of Sollecito and/or the other unidentified individuals would also have shown up on some of those items. But of course that sort of test wasn't done by not-a-real-doctor* Stefanoni


* Oh and I know that Stefanoni is a "doctor" (Dottoressa) by the standards of her own country. However she's not a doctor by the generally accepted international standards used in academia. She hasn't completed the postgraduate study required, nor apparently has she had a doctoral thesis submitted and evaluated. Think of it a bit like Idi Amin styling himself a Field Marshall in the Ugandan army. Yes, he's entitled (by the "laws" of his country) to call himself a Field Marshall (and woe betide anyone at the time who questioned his rank!), but by the standards of international military recognition, he obviously wasn't a real Field Marshall

Without denying the possibility of contamination at the crimes scene, or in collection of the bra clasp, its also notable that Stefanoni has proven herself quite capable for ginning up false results in the lab, and then concealing, suppressing and destroying the notes, records, samples and evidence that would expose her lab work as unreliable.

She got a fake result in Meredtih's blood on the knife in a single run of LCN quantity, with suppressed controls. The bra clasp also seems to have been single run, LCN (not sure about the controls on it, I assume suppressed as well).

So the theory of tertiary transfer is viable, but Raf's sample could also have come from transport or lab contamination as well.

What's most telling for me though, is that it is a minuscule finding, wholly unsupported by any other finding of his physical presence in the room where Meredith was attacked, or at the cottage when the attack occurred.

As compared to Rudy, for whom there is quite a lot of corroborating evidence of his presence, he admits to being there, and originally claimed Amanda and Raf were not there.

Given all the above, its amazing that Nencini places the knife in Knox's hands for the fatal blow. Just amazing anyone could accept a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, in the complete absence of any evidence, and the positive evidence of only one person in the room when Meredith was bleeding to death, and an admission by that person that he, GUede, was there.

 

[Antony]

Yes, if you have a stockpile of 500 disposable tweezers with you.

Why 500, Machiavelli? They made a special trip to collect a single item, which means they needed just one. And why would a scientific team not have a supply of tweezers for exactly this purpose?

If they really weren't equipped for the job, then it further underlines that this is a group of blundering amateurs whose work is not to be taken seriously by anyone. The fact that tweezers were not used when handling the clasp (on camera) by itself invalidates this item as evidence.

Yet you go on reversing the burden of proof by demanding the defence prove the exact route of contamination, when contamination is happening right in front of the camera lens.

 

[Samson]

And of course this, all by itself, is an incredibly persuasive argument that the clasp was indeed contaminated by specs of transferred DNA that were washing around in that dust and debris pile. As I said earlier, it would have been awfully interesting if other items in that pile had also been DNA tested as controls - I strongly suspect that the DNA of Sollecito and/or the other unidentified individuals would also have shown up on some of those items. But of course that sort of test wasn't done by not-a-real-doctor* Stefanoni


* Oh and I know that Stefanoni is a "doctor" (Dottoressa) by the standards of her own country. However she's not a doctor by the generally accepted international standards used in academia. She hasn't completed the postgraduate study required, nor apparently has she had a doctoral thesis submitted and evaluated. Think of it a bit like Idi Amin styling himself a Field Marshall in the Ugandan army. Yes, he's entitled (by the "laws" of his country) to call himself a Field Marshall (and woe betide anyone at the time who questioned his rank!), but by the standards of international military recognition, he obviously wasn't a real Field Marshall

Once more to the breach LondonJohn, that one really had me chuckling. Ah Idi Amin, when black humour in world affairs really worked as entertainment. I think comparing the Italian process with the Idi Amin process is damn perfect.

 

[platonov]

Real world vs Cartwheel world

And as has long been understood, it's clear that Sollecito is indeed confusing the night of 1st November with the previous night, 31st October. For one thing, his description of events and movements correlates perfectly with the known movements of Knox and Sollecito on 31st October. And for another thing, his account is directly contradicted by known events on 1st November, most notably the computer interactions and the fact that Popovic spoke with Knox when she (Popovic) called round at around 8.45pm.

Only a fool or a knave would take away from this transcript the "fact" that Sollecito was giving an accurate account of the events of 1st November (and that he subsequently changed his story when he realised that it implicated Knox and, to a degree, himself). Instead, a rational, sceptical analysis of the transcript leads to the strong conclusion that Sollecito had become (with the "help" of the police) confused between evenings, and had grafted actual events from earlier on the 1st (going over to the cottage and having lunch etc) with events from the evening/night of 31st October (when Knox went to a Halloween party without Sollecito).

Thats funny.

More confusion. Nobody (or hardly anyone) posting here or in the real world believes it’s an accurate account of the later hours of Nov 1.
That not the point – the point is that when (on the 5th) confronted with a discrepancy about the phone call to the cops at 12.51 on the 2nd he withdrew AK’s alibi said he was in his flat from 21.00 till 01.00 but she wasn’t.
It doesn’t match up with the events of Oct 31st either but that is irrelevant.

He withdrew her alibi and blamed her for his earlier lies. And no amount of wittering about cops or calendars can alter that.

There is a further issue. Not alone did he withdraw her alibi that night but his lawyers applications to Massei had the effect of making his statements before Matteini on Nov 8[where he kinda gave her an alibi / but kinda didn’t - Judges love that] inadmissible.
Nor did he give her an alibi before Massei at any stage. He did finally before Hellmann in Oct or Nov 2011 but not from the stand.
And now after trying to split the defence before Nencini he goes on TV to withdraw the alibi he kinda gave her 4 years after the murder.

No doubt the cops and the lack of calendars or his choice of footwear is the reason for all that.
You should probably stick with ‘It’s irrelevant’ or ‘He wasn’t sure if she went out after he fell asleep’.
They don’t work in the real world however.

 

[Samson]

Thats funny.

More confusion. Nobody (or hardly anyone) posting here or in the real world believes it’s an accurate account of the later hours of Nov 1.
That not the point – the point is that when (on the 5th) confronted with a discrepancy about the phone call to the cops at 12.51 on the 2nd he withdrew AK’s alibi said he was in his flat from 21.00 till 01.00 but she wasn’t.
It doesn’t match up with the events of Oct 31st either but that is irrelevant.

He withdrew her alibi and blamed her for his earlier lies. And no amount of wittering about cops or calendars can alter that.

There is a further issue. Not alone did he withdraw her alibi that night but his lawyers applications to Massei had the effect of making his statements before Matteini on Nov 8[where he kinda gave her an alibi / but kinda didn’t - Judges love that] inadmissible.
Nor did he give her an alibi before Massei at any stage. He did finally before Hellmann in Oct or Nov 2011 but not from the stand.
And now after trying to split the defence before Nencini he goes on TV to withdraw the alibi he kinda gave her 4 years after the murder.

No doubt the cops and the lack of calendars or his choice of footwear is the reason for all that.
You should probably stick with ‘It’s irrelevant’ or ‘He wasn’t sure if she went out after he fell asleep’.
They don’t work in the real world however.

Actually you will find to your displeasure, and the Lindy Chamberlain case took 40 years for total exoneration, (I do hope you are a young man) that it will fall to your descendants to live with your incorrect assertions about this pivotal case in international criminal law, and their naked embarrassment. Oh well, dad was this and dad was that.

ETA I predict that the Kercher descendants will suffer hugely, the stone cold certainty that this clear miscarriage follows the decades long route of others says that they will suffer the greatest embarrassment for their forebears. Fragrant Stephanie, please wish you had read "those books" before pinning your destiny to a flagrant idiocy.

 

[Diocletus]

Why 500, Machiavelli? They made a special trip to collect a single item, which means they needed just one. And why would a scientific team not have a supply of tweezers for exactly this purpose?

If they really weren't equipped for the job, then it further underlines that this is a group of blundering amateurs whose work is not to be taken seriously by anyone. The fact that tweezers were not used when handling the clasp (on camera) by itself invalidates this item as evidence.

Yet you go on reversing the burden of proof by demanding the defence prove the exact route of contamination, when contamination is happening right in front of the camera lens.

They didn't even collect 500 exhibits during the course of the investigation.

 

[anglolawyer]

Very true. However one has to overcome the "judicial truth" problem: the various courts in Italy have shown worrying (and wholly improper) tendencies to accept uncritically the word of prosecutors at face value. That's the real problem to be overcome here.....

For discussion purposes, I pretend that there really was Raff's DNA on the bra clasp even if it is questionable.

Have noticed that the pro guilt side will lie because I read this from one of them:

A number of independent forensic experts - Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo, Professor Giuesppe Novelli, Professor Francesca Torricelli, Luciano Garofano, Elizabeth Johnson and Greg Hampikian - have all confirmed that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade.Sollecito knew that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade which is why he lied about accidentally pricking her hand whilst cooking.

I know at least the two highlighted said / wrote no such thing
http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics/dna-evidence-knox-trial-111004.htm

That's fine but just keep in mind what a huge concession is being made in agreeing to discuss the DNA 'evidence' as though Stefanoni actually scraped something of the hooks and tested it.

And frankly LJ, I am defeated by the mental challenge of pretending to myself that a reasonable discussion can somehow lie atop a raft of such ludicrous axioms as those we are required to swallow such as that 'contamination must be proved!' Screw that. A chain of custody (or its equivalent) must be proved first.

 

[Antony]

OK, Machiavelli, i'll play your game that the defense must show the specific route and act of innocent transfer. Here goes -

Rafael was in the cottage the afternoon of Nov 1 as Amanda's guest. Meredith woke up fairly late in the afternoon that day, having been out partying until late the previous night. She chats a bit with Amanda and Raffaele about the activities of the previous night. She gets something from the kitchen, if only a juice. Meredith casually gets ready in the late afternoon to meet her English friends for dinner. In getting dressed or adjusting her clothing, she fastens or re-fastens (adjusts) her bra. She has Raffaele's DNA on the fingers of one hand from drying them on a coarse kitchen or bathroom towel or turning a light switch or drawer handle or doorknob or faucet handle or magazine touched that afternoon by Raffaele. There is the answer - the route of contamination.

Now, the probabilities.

Now, how would you ask one to prove that?

No, it's not a matter of proving it. It's a matter of proving that it's probable.

Again, reversing the burden of proof. Let's turn it around: what is the probability of the killer leaving DNA on the metal clasp of the bra during the course of the murder? How, exactly, does Machiavelli and the prosecution claim that the crime played out, such that the culprit's fingers (allegedly Raffale) came into contact with the metal hook of the bra clasp during the attack?

There's no plausible answer (although I've read the suggestion that Raff allegedly removed the bra by forcibly bending the hook open with his fingers (!), which just shows that the guilter mind-set will believe any absurdity in order to bolster their irrational beliefs). The likelihood of DNA being transferred in a way that makes it evidence of involvement in the murder, is so ridiculously small as to be meaningless in any rationally-conducted murder trial.

Yet Machiavelli goes on demanding that the defence show "probable cause", in the face of:

• explicit admission on his part, that the clasp was "dirty" (= contaminated) from the floor;
• multiple male DNA profiles not from the accused;
• video footage of investigators mishandling the clasp with dirty gloves, with at least one of them filmed holding it by the metal hooks;
• any number of explanations for the presence of Raff's DNA, from innocent social contact with Meredith the same day she was killed.

Machievelli, can't you understand just how bankrupt your argument is?

 

[Desert Fox]

That's fine but just keep in mind what a huge concession is being made in agreeing to discuss the DNA 'evidence' as though Stefanoni actually scraped something of the hooks and tested it.

And frankly LJ, I am defeated by the mental challenge of pretending to myself that a reasonable discussion can somehow lie atop a raft of such ludicrous axioms as those we are required to swallow such as that 'contamination must be proved!' Screw that. A chain of custody (or its equivalent) must be proved first.

Part of the thing is that I want to convince people who think Italy is playing by the rules. I want to convince then that the DNA evidence can still be explained by contamination.

I also usually prefer stupidity over deliberate malice, I consider it to be far more common. You can see in the crime scene videos that there is a lot of stupidity as well.

Granted, there does have to be some malice. Amanda's conviction for libel is pure malice (and a way to get the confession into a criminal trial)

 

[Antony]

Shouldn't you mention that Charles shirt was torn and bloody and the chief forensics investigator even pointed out that one of the buttons was missing, torn from the shirt with part of the cloth. And that this button was located several hours later and photographed. And that when it was finally collected a couple of months later it was in a different location and had been chipped.

Maybe he doesn't want to make the parallels with the Kercher case too obvious.

 

[Bill Williams]

This surely has to count as one of the most fatuous arguments ever made in this thread (and it's up against some stiff competition!).

Is Machiavelli seriously suggesting that crime scene forensics investigators should not be expected to be carrying sterile tweezers (as well as sterile bags etc) in their kit when they go to examine crime scenes and collect forensic evidence? And what's all this nonsense about a "stockpile of 500". Total paucity of intellectual honesty is what it is: by setting up a straw man of suggesting that the forensics team would have had to have been carrying such a ludicrously large amount.

The facts are clear: a dedicated forensics examination team absolutely ought to have had a number of sterile single-use tweezers in their kit. If they did not, then they were incompetent and unfit for purpose to start with. If they did have sterile tweezers, but either forgot or neglected to use them where required, then they were also incompetent (or worse).

Why carry tweezers when there were 10x the number of fingers than iinvestigaors, not counting toes?

 

[Desert Fox]

Maybe he doesn't want to make the parallels with the Kercher case too obvious.

Is it too obvious?

 

[anglolawyer]

Part of the thing is that I want to convince people who think Italy is playing by the rules. I want to convince then that the DNA evidence can still be explained by contamination.

I also usually prefer stupidity over deliberate malice, I consider it to be far more common. You can see in the crime scene videos that there is a lot of stupidity as well.

Granted, there does have to be some malice. Amanda's conviction for libel is pure malice (and a way to get the confession into a criminal trial)

I get you, DF. I am used to layering arguments, though, starting with the most profound, thus:

1 there is no satisfactory evidence that any incriminating DNA was found on the clasp
2 alternatively, if there is such evidence, improper procedures render the evidence worthless anyway
3 in the further alternative, if it is accepted that there was DNA on the clasp the high probability of contamination has not been excluded
4 in the yet further alternative, if it is accepted that there was DNA present, other than by way of contamination, there are innocent explanations for its presence (such as transfer on the afternoon of 1st November).

This way, until 1 is overcome, there is no need to get to 2, 3 or 4.

 

[Planigale]

Without denying the possibility of contamination at the crimes scene, or in collection of the bra clasp, its also notable that Stefanoni has proven herself quite capable for ginning up false results in the lab, and then concealing, suppressing and destroying the notes, records, samples and evidence that would expose her lab work as unreliable.

She got a fake result in Meredtih's blood on the knife in a single run of LCN quantity, with suppressed controls. The bra clasp also seems to have been single run, LCN (not sure about the controls on it, I assume suppressed as well).

So the theory of tertiary transfer is viable, but Raf's sample could also have come from transport or lab contamination as well.

What's most telling for me though, is that it is a minuscule finding, wholly unsupported by any other finding of his physical presence in the room where Meredith was attacked, or at the cottage when the attack occurred.

As compared to Rudy, for whom there is quite a lot of corroborating evidence of his presence, he admits to being there, and originally claimed Amanda and Raf were not there.

Given all the above, its amazing that Nencini places the knife in Knox's hands for the fatal blow. Just amazing anyone could accept a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, in the complete absence of any evidence, and the positive evidence of only one person in the room when Meredith was bleeding to death, and an admission by that person that he, GUede, was there.

As memory serves, she also claimed to have found epithelial cells on the bra hook, but failed to document this discovery e.g. by photography, and the epithelials were subsequently found to be absent on independent verification. She also claimed to have found blood cells on the knife, failed to document these and subsequently independent verification found no blood cells just starch granules. I am sure Mach will insist these were not lies. Perhaps simple errors that happened to support the prosecution case? Not of course reflecting on her competency. It rather reminds me of the glass on top of things argument for the faked break in; glass that appears mysteriously absent from the photographic record.

 

[Planigale]

As an aside (and I maybe in danger from the mods) there are parallels with Andrew Wakefield and the Measles vaccine controversy. Wakefield started doing PCR looking for measles virus in the bowel of children with colitis (not an unreasonable hypothesis), but he did so in a laboratory not set up to do PCR and in which there was live measles vaccine virus. It is very likely that his initial findings wee due to laboratory contamination, this then drove him down a route of looking for vaccine virus as a cause for colitis and subsequently into autistic enteropathy. There are a number of learning points, but the Royal Free failed to carry out what would have been a useful inquiry as people covered their backs. Wakefield was a young researcher, inadequately supervised, using novel (then) methodology he was not trained in. Laboratory records were poorly kept, so not subsequently verifiable, and almost certainly his output was greater than could be expected given his resources.

 

[carbonjam72]

As memory serves, she also claimed to have found epithelial cells on the bra hook, but failed to document this discovery e.g. by photography, and the epithelials were subsequently found to be absent on independent verification. She also claimed to have found blood cells on the knife, failed to document these and subsequently independent verification found no blood cells just starch granules. I am sure Mach will insist these were not lies. Perhaps simple errors that happened to support the prosecution case? Not of course reflecting on her competency. It rather reminds me of the glass on top of things argument for the faked break in; glass that appears mysteriously absent from the photographic record.

Thanks P, for the further info. At the risk of sounding to appear poorly informed, does "epithelial cells" mean skin cells?

My impression was that the quantity of Raf's DNA attributed to be on the bra clasp was something like 4-5 skin cells. Is that visible to the naked eye? By what means did Stefanoni reportedly observe it? And why not take a photo in any event?

And how could anyone think that some schmutz found on a filthy bra clasp lying under a rug, after being moved around a room, 47 days after it should have been collected, is somehow reliably traceable to that same schmutz being in place or deposited at the time of the murder?

and btw, is there any record of the lab processing Raf's DNA at some point before processing the bra clasp? Seems like there was a pretty good case to be made that the finding of Meredtih's DNA on the knife was a residual trace from an earlier run of Meredith's DNA on the same equipment.

In other words, it sure looks like Stefanoni is 'salting' the samples, not directly, but through a deliberately induced contamination event, through prior runs of target profiles, poor controls, and incomplete or misguided protocols.

 

[Machiavelli]

As memory serves, she also claimed to have found epithelial cells on the bra hook, but failed to document this discovery e.g. by photography, and the epithelials were subsequently found to be absent on independent verification. She also claimed to have found blood cells on the knife, failed to document these and subsequently independent verification found no blood cells just starch granules. I am sure Mach will insist these were not lies. Perhaps simple errors that happened to support the prosecution case? Not of course reflecting on her competency. It rather reminds me of the glass on top of things argument for the faked break in; glass that appears mysteriously absent from the photographic record.

This is just false.
This is not the first time you seem to believe a misquote from Stefanoni's testimony.

Her report says clearly that epithelial cells and blood were "presumed", not found.

 

[christianahannah]

As memory serves, she also claimed to have found epithelial cells on the bra hook, but failed to document this discovery e.g. by photography, and the epithelials were subsequently found to be absent on independent verification. She also claimed to have found blood cells on the knife, failed to document these and subsequently independent verification found no blood cells just starch granules. I am sure Mach will insist these were not lies. Perhaps simple errors that happened to support the prosecution case? Not of course reflecting on her competency. It rather reminds me of the glass on top of things argument for the faked break in; glass that appears mysteriously absent from the photographic record.

I don't remember this claim from Stefanoni. We're you perhaps referring to the scratch she saw on the knife and subsequently swabbed that area? There were some independent sources who said they did not see the scratch but one who did, if I remember correctly.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is your double standard right here. Nencini (on page 243) outlines probably extra-male contributors to the bra-clasp with NO evidence to back-up his conclusion, even as probabilities.

It is amazing you still claim this.

The contamination claimed by the defence is a contamination from the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito . Not a generic contamination from extra alleles, of male or female contributors whatever.
Nencini points out - and this is the logics point - that only Sollecito's DNA is what needs to be explained.