Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

Here's an excellent summary of the Amanda Knox - Raffaele Sollecito case:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/case-summary/

 

[Chris_Halkides]

two inherent problems with low template DNA

From the article of 2014 - Stef seems to be suggesting that Pascali's being careful about proceeding to test LCN DNA is no longer warranted, given advances in LCN DNA testing. Again, Stef doesn't seem to grasp the importance of protocols, and the dangers of contamination, but maybe I'm misreading here -

Carbonjam72,

It is not easy to understand this in machine translation. However, there are two basic problems with low template DNA in forensic work, and my comments here may also be pertinent to Novelli's testimony. One is that it is much easier to transfer (unknowingly) small amounts of DNA that large amounts. This is not going to change when someone comes up with a new generation of DNA testing kits.

Two is that the lower limits of detection of a given body fluid may be larger than the lower limit of detection of DNA under these conditions. This is a problem that Peter Gill discussed in his book IIRC. In framework of propositions he discussed, DNA without an associated body fluid is "sub-source." No improvements DNA forensic testing can fix this problem. Instead, one would need to find new tests with lower minimum limits of detection of the various body fluids.

I doubt that the police who are Stefanoni's consumers care about these issues; they probably just want DNA profiles. Stefanoni's anything-goes methodology suits them just fine. If the Italian courts wish to accept her views in preference to those of more well-respected people in the field (Tagliabracci, Pascali), that is their choice, but it is a shortsighted one.

 

[Numbers]

From Horvatic v Croatia, 36044/09 - some of the general principles and the specific aim of the ECHR relating to issues of the reliability of forensic evidence, when such issues relate to the allegation of an overall lack of fairness in a trial (see paragraphs 78 and 79 in particular):

2. The Court’s assessment

(a) General principles

76. The Court reiterates that, even if the primary purpose of Article 6, as far as criminal proceedings are concerned, is to ensure a fair trial by a “tribunal” competent to determine “any criminal charge”, it does not follow that the Article has no application to pre-trial proceedings. Article 6 may be relevant before a case is sent for trial if and in so far as the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with its provisions (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 36, Series A no. 275, and Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 50, 27 November 2008).

77. The Court has held on many occasions that its duty, pursuant to Article 19 of the Convention, is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting States to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or of law allegedly committed by a national court, unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. While Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, §§ 45-46, Series A no. 140; Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, 9 June 1998, § 34, Reports 1998‑IV; and Heglas v. the Czech Republic, no. 5935/02, § 84, 1 March 2007). It is therefore for the national courts to assess the evidence before them, as well as the relevance of any evidence the accused seeks to adduce. The Court must, however, determine whether the proceedings considered as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see G.B. v. France, no. 44069/98, § 59, ECHR 2001‑X; Kangasluoma v. Finland (dec.), no. 48339/99, 21 May 2002; and Laska and Lika v. Albania, nos. 12315/04 and 17605/04, § 57, 20 April 2010).

78. In determining whether the proceedings as a whole were fair, regard must be had to whether the rights of the defence were respected. It must be examined in particular whether the applicant was given the opportunity to challenge the authenticity of the evidence and to oppose its use. In addition, the quality of the evidence must be taken into consideration, including whether the circumstances in which it was obtained cast doubt on its reliability or accuracy (see, amongst many others, Sevinç and others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 8074/02, 8 January 2008; Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 90, 10 March 2009; and Lisica v. Croatia, no. 20100/06, § 49, 25 February 2010). In this context the Court reiterates that, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, its task is to establish whether the evidence produced for or against the accused was presented in such a way as to ensure a fair trial (see Barım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 34536/97, 12 January 1999).

(b) Application of these principles to the present case

79. In the present case the Court must examine whether the requirements of a fair trial have been satisfied as regards the way in which the forensic evidence was obtained and used in the criminal proceedings against the applicant. Specifically, the Court must examine whether the applicant was given the opportunity to challenge the authenticity of the forensic evidence and oppose its use, taking into consideration whether the circumstances in which the strands of the applicant’s hair and fibres from his clothes were found and packed during the criminal investigation cast doubt on the reliability and accuracy of that evidence.

 

[RWVBWL]

Stefano's bed

There is testimony on this. They said that the bed was made, that the place wasn't a mess, and that there wasn't blood all over the place.
<snip>

Howdy,
As I'm still intrigued by the downstairs crime scene,
I came across this screen grab photo from the crime scene video in 1 of my folders.

It's Stefano's bedspread, from the downstairs flat.
I kept the photo as large as I could per ISF rules,
because it tells of something.
But what is the something?

This photo intrigues me,
for the lines of blood on the bedspread near the timestamp 2007 are too straight to be from a cat, in my opinion.
2 lines, heck they almost look like they could have been caused by blood on the edges of a knife blade.

I also notice that there is more straight blood lines on 2 individual creases in a few areas above the bloody double line.

Am I the only 1 who thinks it odd that the straight blood lines are on the crease only?
What rubbed against the creases to leave these bloody lines?
Surely the straight lines of blood were tested, is it from the cat?
Or a person?

 

[Desert Fox]

If I might ask, assuming you are right, how does this effect the guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raffaele?

Maybe something strange went on downstairs but the Italian forensics team made such a hack of the entire crime scene that we will never know for sure.

 

[carbonjam72]

Carbonjam72,

It is not easy to understand this in machine translation. However, there are two basic problems with low template DNA in forensic work, and my comments here may also be pertinent to Novelli's testimony. One is that it is much easier to transfer (unknowingly) small amounts of DNA that large amounts. This is not going to change when someone comes up with a new generation of DNA testing kits.

Two is that the lower limits of detection of a given body fluid may be larger than the lower limit of detection of DNA under these conditions. This is a problem that Peter Gill discussed in his book IIRC. In framework of propositions he discussed, DNA without an associated body fluid is "sub-source." No improvements DNA forensic testing can fix this problem. Instead, one would need to find new tests with lower minimum limits of detection of the various body fluids.

I doubt that the police who are Stefanoni's consumers care about these issues; they probably just want DNA profiles. Stefanoni's anything-goes methodology suits them just fine. If the Italian courts wish to accept her views in preference to those of more well-respected people in the field (Tagliabracci, Pascali), that is their choice, but it is a shortsighted one.

Thanks Chris, for the clarification.

I was trying to answer Kauffer if there was any indication that Stefanoni had learned from the Kercher case, and it seems like the answer is no.

It shows that Stefanoni thinks she is pushing the boundaries of science, and that the uncertainty or outright fraudulent nature of her results are not cause for concern.

Italy should immediately review every case Stefanoni has given evidence in, and review all the work, electronic data, lab notes, everything necessary to see if her results are valid. Including in the Knox/Solelcito case.

It's clear at this point that Italy has an out of control lab technician running amok in the courts, undoubtedly convicting the innocent everywhere she goes. Stefanoni is a walking forensic emergency in the Italian courts. It's crazy they can't see it.

On some level its understandable. By rigging the rules of the lab, she can manufacture any result she wants, supporting any prosecution against any defendant, why would she willingly give up that privilege if no one will stop her?

I'm not saying its honest. But it is a crooked prosecutor's dream situation. As long as justice and truth are less important than successful prosecutions.

 

[Numbers]

Howdy,
As I'm still intrigued by the downstairs crime scene,
I came across this screen grab photo from the crime scene video in 1 of my folders.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9514[/qimg]

It's Stefano's bedspread, from the downstairs flat.
I kept the photo as large as I could per ISF rules,
because it tells of something.
But what is the something?

This photo intrigues me,
for the lines of blood on the bedspread near the timestamp 2007 are too straight to be from a cat, in my opinion.
2 lines, heck they almost look like they could have been caused by blood on the edges of a knife blade.

I also notice that there is more straight blood lines on 2 individual creases in a few areas above the bloody double line.

Am I the only 1 who thinks it odd that the straight blood lines are on the crease only?
What rubbed against the creases to leave these bloody lines?
Surely the straight lines of blood were tested, is it from the cat?
Or a person?

Of course, it's not blood from a cat. Certainly too much blood for a drip from a cat's ear, IMO.

DNA profiling results could tell who the blood was from, if indeed it is human blood. The Italian (non)-scientific police would have the answer. The answer they have suppressed.

 

[carbonjam72]

Howdy,
As I'm still intrigued by the downstairs crime scene,
I came across this screen grab photo from the crime scene video in 1 of my folders.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9514[/qimg]

It's Stefano's bedspread, from the downstairs flat.
I kept the photo as large as I could per ISF rules,
because it tells of something.
But what is the something?

This photo intrigues me,
for the lines of blood on the bedspread near the timestamp 2007 are too straight to be from a cat, in my opinion.
2 lines, heck they almost look like they could have been caused by blood on the edges of a knife blade.

I also notice that there is more straight blood lines on 2 individual creases in a few areas above the bloody double line.

Am I the only 1 who thinks it odd that the straight blood lines are on the crease only?
What rubbed against the creases to leave these bloody lines?
Surely the straight lines of blood were tested, is it from the cat?
Or a person?

Hey RWVB,

Great pics, and yes, I see what you see.

Not sure which stains are tested, but sure doesn't look like "cat work" to me.

Any way to fit these images up with the other bloody knife outline from upstairs, in a reliable way? (That's a real geometry question).

 

[Diocletus]

If I might ask, assuming you are right, how does this effect the guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raffaele?

Maybe something strange went on downstairs but the Italian forensics team made such a hack of the entire crime scene that we will never know for sure.

It means the cops, prosecutors and lab techs lied their faces off.

 

[Desert Fox]

If I might ask, assuming you are right, how does this effect the guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raffaele?

Maybe something strange went on downstairs but the Italian forensics team made such a hack of the entire crime scene that we will never know for sure.

It means the cops, prosecutors and lab techs lied their faces off.

Assuming your argument is right, how can we actually use it however?
Also, why do you think the Italian law enforcement white washes it?

 

[carbonjam72]

Assuming your argument is right, how can we actually use it however?
Also, why do you think the Italian law enforcement white washes it?

It shows a secondary crimes scene, likely to show traces of Meredith's blood and Rudy's blood and other traces - and there are results that are suppressed, so those factors are known to the prosecution, but not the defense.

Since Amanda and Raf didn't live down there, its also far less likely there would be environmental contamination from Amanda and to a lesser degree Raf, as was found upstairs. If all three committed the crime together, then it begs the question why weren't they all downstairs too?

It becomes harder to keep the trio together in theory, if the downstairs crime scene is added to the mix. It means Rudy broke in there too, and more likely the upstairs break-in is not staged, but genuine.

The scenario presented by police as is, should have been ludicrous enough to be rejected out of hand, but apparently not sufficiently ludicrous in Italy.

I have learned a lot about Italy watching the reasoning and logic unfold in this case. I'm amazed really.

 

[platonov]

Fr. Jemima Racktool is unwell

I find the unabashed, obnoxious and consistent anti-semitism on pmf to be much more interesting. They even have a whole subforum devoted to it

My question is why are wrongful conviction advocates so uniformly anti-Semitic?

This is your second recent attempt at getting a post of mine moved to AAH by making an unrelated response about supposed anti-Semitism on some other site?

Perhaps it will work this time?

 

[Diocletus]

This is your second recent attempt at getting a post of mine moved to AAH by making an unrelated response about supposed anti-Semitism on some other site?

Perhaps it will work this time?

Has nothing to do with you and I don't know what you're talking about. It's a legitimate observation about the online lynchmob curiously attracted to this case.

Stop trying to gin up trouble.

 

[Numbers]

Assuming your argument is right, how can we actually use it however?
Also, why do you think the Italian law enforcement white washes it?

The video evidence is enough for Amanda and Raffaele to show to the ECHR - if the main case against them is finalized as a conviction - that the Italian police and prosecutor did not present exculpatory evidence, that the police and prosector possessed, in their trials.

It would be one more factor in demonstrating a violation of the right to a fair trial by Italy.

 

[platonov]

You shouldn’t have.... really

Machiavelli,
MDDVS, in post #915 in this thread, posted a figure showing gastric emptying t lag data for food from a peer reviewed scientific study published in the Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology. The figure shows that the 95% confidence interval for t lag for someone of Meredith's age is around 140 minutes at the upper bound.

In addition, platonov pointed out in a separate argument (after LondonJohn corrected his facts) that Dr. Lalli stated Meredith's death occurred 2 to 3 hours after eating. This range is within the 95% confidence interval upper bound for t lag according to the paper.

Both of these facts together are incredibly strong evidence (honestly, this is as close to proof as you can possibly get for forensic evidence) that Meredith died 2 to 3 hours after her last meal.

We know she began eating between 6 and 6:30pm. This puts her absolute latest time of death between 9 and 9:30pm. Remember this number is actually beyond the upper confidence interval for t lag. By 40 minutes!

platonov's [corrected] argument (Dr. Lalli's estimate) combined with the known scientific data on gastric emptying means we have a known latest time of death for Meredith. Within this window, we know Amanda and Raffaele were at Raffaele's apartment because a file was accessed on Raffaele's computer and we have a time stamp of this.

This means we know beyond any reasonable doubt that Amanda and Raffaele could not have been at the cottage when Meredith was killed. In other words, they are provably innocent based on any reasonable forensic definition of "proof".

Is forensic proof that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent convincing for you? Can you comment on this?

* A brief thank you to platonov for pointing out Dr. Lalli's testimony which bolsters the time of death and gastric emptying argument.

Aw, that’s sweet.
I thought we were done after the last little mishap. Apparently not.
BTW Such misrepresentation is probably a breach of the MA. Of course you could always claim you were honestly mistaken

 

[platonov]

Has nothing to do with you and I don't know what you're talking about. It's a legitimate observation about the online lynchmob curiously attracted to this case.

Stop trying to gin up trouble.

Don't you know what those little arrows are for?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I find the unabashed, obnoxious and consistent anti-semitism on pmf to be much more interesting. They even have a whole subforum devoted to it

My question is why are wrongful conviction advocates so uniformly anti-Semitic?

Oddly enough back in the day they tried to paint Amanda Knox as an anti-Semite as part of their campaign of character assassination. Apparently she horsed around in a museum display of WW1 stuff at some point in her youth which, with some creative interpretation, they decided made her a Nazi.

Fulcanelli/Michael also appears to have gotten banned from the Italian wikipedia at some point for partisan editing on the Israel/Palestine article. At the time I assumed from his Knox-related Nazi-baiting that he was vandalising wikipedia for a pro-Israel position, but it could have been the other way around, although that would make his statements on the Knox issue even weirder.

 

[Machiavelli]

Can someone (e.g. Mach) explain to me the right to silence of Guede when he was called as a witness in the appeal. Guide had already been convicted of murder. As far as we know there are no outstanding charges against him. Is the issue that if Guede gave witness evidence against Knox and she was found innocent he would be subject to charges of callunia? This would be a significant inhibition to witnesses, I would have thought there should be some immunity to callunia for evidence in court.

The principle nemo tenetur se detegere is absolute within the Italian Penal Procedure Code. Nobody can be forced to present a testimony against himself, no matter whether there are criminal consequences or not. The code doesn't just protect the witness from self-incrimination, but also from self-accusation.

The procedure would grant the right to remain silent to a convicted person like Guede on the basis of art. 197-bis, paragraph 4. cpp, because Guede had already denied responsabilities in his trial.

Charges of calunnia are not that simple to carry on and to prove, because calunnia requires evidence of innocence of the accused person and malice.
If every acquitted person was automatically thought to be factually innocent and calunnia charges were filed against witnesses every time a defendant is acquitted, then on Sollecito's acquittal, ms. Knox would have been charged for having placed a memory of "blood on Raffaele's hands" on hte night of the murder in her written memoir she gave to the police.

She was never charged with calunnia against Raffaele, because obviously there was no proof that Raffaele is innocent.

 

[Dan O.]

Am I the only 1 who thinks it odd that the straight blood lines are on the crease only?
What rubbed against the creases to leave these bloody lines?
Surely the straight lines of blood were tested, is it from the cat?
Or a person?

It'a a failure in thinking to supose the way things are is the way they were. When I see blood stains repeated on inside creases it tells me that the sheet had been altered since the blood was deposited.

Presuming that the boys aren't lying about leaving a bloody mess in their apartment before they all ran off for a holiday. What are the other possibilities?

The one I come up with is the tidy homemaker Meredith who is the last person known to have been in that apartment decided to make the bed before her boys returned. But when she grabbed the clean sheet and fluffed it out she discovered the blood that had stained one corner of the folded sheet and soaked through to the other layers. She left the sheet on the bed promising herself that she would come back to it after she delt with her own laundry that was upstairs in the washer. She locks the bedroom door to keep the cat from making more of a mess and heads upstairs shortly after 9pm.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Aw, that’s sweet.
I thought we were done after the last little mishap. Apparently not.
BTW Such misrepresentation is probably a breach of the MA. Of course you could always claim you were honestly mistaken

I don't see what the problem is. You emphasized, with bold font, four different times that you were talking about "2 separate issues" in your last reply (after I pointed out to you that Dr. Lalli's estimation of ToD due to state of digestion is an entirely different consideration than t lag, but I digress). Since I was actually talking about the empirical published results on t lag, and you dutifully pointed out you were actually addressing something else entirely (and linked to it), I thanked you for pointing it out since it was a separate independent confirmation that the ToD was actually 2-3 hours after Meredith ate. Not 4 hours, as you initially claimed because you completely misunderstood Lalli's testimony. I was thanking you platonov for giving me new information, and increasing my certainty that Amanda and Raf could not have teamed up with a stranger to perform a pagan sex rite murder on her roommate for no reason.

Just curious -- have you ever admitted you were wrong in the history of ever? Or are you one of those people that aren't even capable of recognizing a complete refutation of your central point?