Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

As you say, though, it's amazing to observe how so many pro-guilt commentators' internal (and group-reinforced and validated) prejudices and confirmation biases leave them "unable to compute" when evidence contrary to their point of view turns up

As as if by magic, there's a new and hilarious round of confirmation-bias taking place in a crazy attempt to match the imprints on the bed sheet with Sollecito's kitchen knife.

If one small thing points so instructively towards the flaws in the thinking of so many pro-guilt commentators, it's this one. There is no way whatsoever that the imprints on the sheet were made by Sollecito's kitchen knife. What astonishes me is the continual risible attempts to make black appear white by somehow "wishing" the Sollecito kitchen knife outline to match the sheet imprints.

And what makes it all the more strange is that it's a central (and wholly necessary) tenet of a pro-guilt argument to state (with a straight face...) that two or more knives were used in the attack on Kercher, with at least two of those knives being inserted separately into her neck (by different participants*). And that, of course, is all because one of the neck wounds simply could not physically have been inflicted by Sollecito's kitchen knife. So if one believes that Sollecito's kitchen knife was used in the murder, one necessarily also has to believe that at least one other knife was used. Wouldn't it therefore be a lot more obvious (if one were a pr0-guilt commentator, that is....) to concede that the imprints on the bedsheet were made by this second knife.

(Of course, the evidence actually shows us that the near-certain truth is that only one knife was used in the murder - a slimmer, shorter, narrower-bladed knife that's wholly compatible with all of the knife wounds, and which also matches the imprints on the bedsheet. That knife was carried and wielded by Rudy Guede, acting alone.)


* And even the simple physics/biomechanics of trying to place two assailants in that room, both with knives held at Kercher's throat, is near-impossible to do. I'd also venture that it's pretty much unheard of for group attacks to feature two different people each holding a knife at the victim's throat - it's simply not practical or safe for the participants to do that.

 

[Samson]

I'm trying to update my comprehensive timeline and having a little difficulty reconciling this info. Would you be able to provide the exact details from the sources? Are Filomena's phone records also available?

My post included the full text of Thoughtful's post from a few hours ago, which appears to be directly employing Raffaeles new appeal documents.
Presumably the new appeal documents are in Italian, though I read that Raffaele has posted them on Facebook, so maybe in English too. Apparently his idea is to disseminate all information as widely as possible. I don't use Facebook, but his pages must be easy to find.

 

[Planigale]

The one thing I'm afraid I can agree on is a disbelief as to why the defence teams didn't bring this up in the Massei trial and every time thereafter. I know I keep banging on about my belief that the defence teams fell down very badly in the Massei trial, but this looks like just another prime illustration of that I'm afraid.

(I still shake my head in utter disbelief, for example, in the knowledge that they allowed Curatolo's testimony to take root in the Massei trial, when something as simple and obvious as a quick inquiry to the out-of-town discos as to their opening schedule around the time of the murder (they were open on Halloween, 31 Oct, but all were closed on the following night, the night of the murder, even though Thursday nights were normally operating nights for them) could conclusively verify that there were zero disco buses operating on the night of the murder - thereby at a stroke driving a coach and horses through Curatolo's reliability and credibility.)

I agree with you; my limited experience of barristers is that they are seriously bright cookies. An English defence barrister would have destroyed the prosecution witnesses, I suspect a crown prosecution barrister would have advised there was no realistic chance of conviction.

 

[Planigale]

There was also her claim that all one needed to do was repeat the tests that Stefanoni had done, and one would come to a more precise interpretation of the results, such precision would increase each time the test was repeated.

I could not make head-nor-tail of what she was talking about - but will admit that others seemed to think she was on to something. To me it looked like she wanted to repeat tests on stuff that had long since been destroyed - the bra-clasp and the Meredith-material claimed to have been on the knife.

To me it looked like what she was wanting was to simply repeat the analysis that Stefanoni had done - which, of course, would perhaps entail Stefanoni to release the electronic data files.

If I have this wrong, I will retract. Thoughtful did have the decency once to go on to IIP and argue her case. IIRC no one, really, could make head-nor-tail of what she was actually arguing for.

However, she is one who is not afraid to go against the grain, as witnessed by her belief that Raffaele had called 112 before the arrival of the postal police. At some level she's willing to accept evidence, even if it points against the grain she'd like.

The baffling thing is the numbers of people who respond within closed-moderated boards with all sorts of ad hominem..... and simply do not engage the evidence at all.

She is right, if a repeat analysis had confirmed MK DNA on the knife then this would strongly support guilt. Contamination events are random. If you repeated the swabbing, amplification and typing, and found DNA of MK then it would be extremely unlikely this was an in laboratory contamination event in the laboratory. There is a small likelihood that the DNA could be secondary transfer from AK to the knife, a somewhat greater likelihood that it could be transfer attributable to contamination at the time of repackaging in the police station.

 

[Bill Williams]

As as if by magic, there's a new and hilarious round of confirmation-bias taking place in a crazy attempt to match the imprints on the bed sheet with Sollecito's kitchen knife.

If one small thing points so instructively towards the flaws in the thinking of so many pro-guilt commentators, it's this one. There is no way whatsoever that the imprints on the sheet were made by Sollecito's kitchen knife. What astonishes me is the continual risible attempts to make black appear white by somehow "wishing" the Sollecito kitchen knife outline to match the sheet imprints.

And what makes it all the more strange is that it's a central (and wholly necessary) tenet of a pro-guilt argument to state (with a straight face...) that two or more knives were used in the attack on Kercher, with at least two of those knives being inserted separately into her neck (by different participants*). And that, of course, is all because one of the neck wounds simply could not physically have been inflicted by Sollecito's kitchen knife. So if one believes that Sollecito's kitchen knife was used in the murder, one necessarily also has to believe that at least one other knife was used. Wouldn't it therefore be a lot more obvious (if one were a pr0-guilt commentator, that is....) to concede that the imprints on the bedsheet were made by this second knife.

(Of course, the evidence actually shows us that the near-certain truth is that only one knife was used in the murder - a slimmer, shorter, narrower-bladed knife that's wholly compatible with all of the knife wounds, and which also matches the imprints on the bedsheet. That knife was carried and wielded by Rudy Guede, acting alone.)


* And even the simple physics/biomechanics of trying to place two assailants in that room, both with knives held at Kercher's throat, is near-impossible to do. I'd also venture that it's pretty much unheard of for group attacks to feature two different people each holding a knife at the victim's throat - it's simply not practical or safe for the participants to do that.

This all fits the topic I just read at length in Massei's motivations document, which Massei IMO wrongly rejects - a suspect centred approach to this.

Of course it was in relation to Massei not bothering with the extra contributors to 165B as long as he could find Raffaele there.

C&V blew that out of the water and no court since has shown why C&V was in error, Chieffi and Nencini just reverted to Massei for no scientific reason.

Going on about the kitchen knife being equivalent to the bedsheet stain is a late invention, mainly because there is reason to doubt that knife ever was in the cottage. But to keep this suspect centred, it has to be invented, or else....

 

[LondonJohn]

She is right, if a repeat analysis had confirmed MK DNA on the knife then this would strongly support guilt. Contamination events are random. If you repeated the swabbing, amplification and typing, and found DNA of MK then it would be extremely unlikely this was an in laboratory contamination event in the laboratory. There is a small likelihood that the DNA could be secondary transfer from AK to the knife, a somewhat greater likelihood that it could be transfer attributable to contamination at the time of repackaging in the police station.

Ah nooooo. This was all about retesting the swab, and the area on the knife from which it was taken, not the whole knife itself. The contention by the prosecution (and then by Schneps) was based on the 36B swab. The suggestion was that while there was too little genetic material remaining on the swab (and the knife) after not-a-doctor Stefanoni had done her 2007 analysis on it (allegedly revealing the presence of Kercher's DNA) for her to do any retests in 2007, new methods might have been able to work with the super-minuscule amount (literally a few strands) of DNA still present on the swab (or on the knife in the spot where the 36B swab had been taken from).

So the "contamination in: contamination out" argument is still wholly valid. If the tiny amount of DNA material that got onto that swab 36B got on there through contamination - as it very, very well might have done - then retesting the few remaining strands of that DNA on that swab or left on the knife in that spot would teach us precisely nothing new.

ETA: I agree with you that it would have minimised (to the point of near-eradicating) the possibility of in-machine contamination if Kercher DNA had been identified on a retest of 36B or that spot on the knife, but there are so many other very real possibilities of contamination (including via the swab itself, and a number of other routes of in-lab contamination, as well as numerous ex-lab contamination routes) at those super-low-template levels that a positive retest result for Kercher DNA would have very little real effect on the probative value of that piece of evidence.

 

[Samson]

She is right, if a repeat analysis had confirmed MK DNA on the knife then this would strongly support guilt. Contamination events are random. If you repeated the swabbing, amplification and typing, and found DNA of MK then it would be extremely unlikely this was an in laboratory contamination event in the laboratory. There is a small likelihood that the DNA could be secondary transfer from AK to the knife, a somewhat greater likelihood that it could be transfer attributable to contamination at the time of repackaging in the police station.

This would still be guilt suggested by one data point, and all logistical impossibilities would remain. The time of death, the fact the rock was thrown from outside at midnight, and a plethora of other motivational and conversational issues that preclude guilt.
I belong to the school of thought that would conclude planting of evidence was the only possibility to explain a conclusive identification of Meredith's blood in the specimen, if accidental contamination was ruled out.

 

[Planigale]

"Thoughtful" might be one of the most unintentionally ironic screen names de nos jours

The amusing (if it wasn't so serious) thing is that not-very-Thoughtful refers to a piece of bogus statistical "reasoning" with regard to the Kercher DNA trace on the knife. Her "argument" goes along these lines: if Kercher's DNA was on the knife, then what are the odds of it being there by accident/contamination vs the odds of it being there by virtue of the knife having been involved in the murder? She then "argues" that if the odds of the latter are significantly greater than the odds of the former, then one can reasonably conclude that the knife was involved in the murder.

To see such arrant nonsense come out of the mind of a supposed decent mathematician is shocking indeed, and it really speaks to the inability some pure mathematicians have to relate to the real work and to applied problems. After all, there are three fundamental problems with her flawed thesis here: 1) how does one assign an informed probability to contamination/accident? 2) how does one assign an informed probability to the knife being involved in the murder? 3) Even if one could assign informed probabilities to both of the above, what does that actually tell us in the real world about whether the DNA was the result of contamination.accident or murder?

Put the last flaw in another way: the odds of winning the jackpot prize in the UK National Lottery are something around 15 million to one. Yet at least one person (or syndicate) wins the jackpot most weeks. Rare events happen.

The ultimate irony is that not-very-Thoughtful wrote about a similar statistical fallacy in her book: the case of Sally Clark. She was erroneously convicted of murdering two of her children, largely based on the bogus statistical calculations of a prosecution expert witness who had simply (and extremely crassly) multiplied the raw odds of sudden natural child death (cot death syndrome) by itself in order to give the odds of it happening twice to the same mother. The incidence of cot death was reckoned to be around 1 per 8,500 children in the UK, and the prosecution "expert" squared that number to give a probability of 1 in 73 million that two of Clark's children had died of cot death. He then used this bogus statistic to persuade the court that it was somehow far more likely that Clark had murdered her two children - even though he didn't have the appropriate comparator statistic of what proportion of mother kill two of their children.

And regardless of the ins-and-outs of that particular case, the odds are somewhat meaningless when trying to determine what happened. After all, consider if only one child had died. Assuming the 1-in-8,500 statistic for UK cot deaths is broadly correct, this still would make it extremely unlikely - simply on the raw stats - that the child had died of cot death syndrome. And even when we get to attempting a conditional analysis (given that a child has died, what are the odds that it died from cot death vs murder by the mother), we would need somehow to attain a reasonable comparator probability that the mother had murdered her child. And that is near-impossible, given the individual circumstances of such an event.

In summary, not-very-Thoughtful has employed flawed mathematical thinking in her confirmation-biased attempt to show how the knife must have been involved in the murder. It's a very unedifying spectacle to behold.

What she says is

"The question you ask is of the right type, but it's not the right question: the right question should not concern a likely circumstance but an unlikely one, since a likely circumstance will simply not give much information. The proper question is:

Given that Meredith's DNA was actually found on the knife,

Question #1: What is the probability of that circumstance occurring if the knife was used in the murder?

Question #2: What is the probability of that circumstance occurring if the knife was not used in the murder?

The quotient of answer #1 divided by answer #2 gives the likelihood ratio. If it is larger than 1, it tends towards guilt, and the larger it is, the more strongly it tends. If it is smaller than 1, obviously it tends towards innocence.

Put this way it is completely obvious that the answer to #1 is very large and the answer to #2 is very small, so there you go.

Indeed, the possibility of transferring a perfect, complete, single-person DNA sample, precisely of the victim in spite of all the people and places the policemen would have been in contact with all day, is minuscule. What the FOA fail to realize is that while yes, it is true that the possibility of DNA contamination is always present, and lab contamination exists and is frequent, it comes from random people and leaves partial traces."

Depressing for a mathematician. She presumably has never heard of Bayes. The question is given the prior probability (a knife that does not fit most wounds, does not fit the bloody imprint, that was randomly picked from many equally applicable knives, a knife with no blood, no detectable DNA on it) what is the probability that the DNA was attributable to 'error'. I am afraid that my maths makes the likelihood ratio low; certainly well below 1.

 

[Planigale]

I do not know if anyone has seen the movie 'The Imitation Game'. I have a family interest, which I did not know until recently (which says something about how secret this was). My grandfather was peripherally involved in Ultra.

One of the issues raised was about how much the information from decrypts could be used without revealing the ability to decrypt. (A good novelistic version and one of my favourite novels is Cryptonomicon).

Information theory is interesting. Much of the discussions here relate to this, what can we know, how can we combine information, this is of huge interest to agencies like GCHQ.

My family connection is that my grandfather received a decrypt that revealed that his brother was about to go on a virtual suicide mission (for those interested it was the the disposition of german units in the Netherlands just before Arnhem, my great uncle was a paratrooper). My father was allowed to brief Montgomery on intelligence concerning German dispositions but not allowed to reveal that this was from Enigma decrypts, Montgomery did not believe the intelligence and proceeded with operation Market Garden.

 

[carbonjam72]

I agree with you; my limited experience of barristers is that they are seriously bright cookies. An English defence barrister would have destroyed the prosecution witnesses, I suspect a crown prosecution barrister would have advised there was no realistic chance of conviction.

I think the lawyers are restrained by the process and the rules against defamation and so forth. At one point, I remember Nencini cautioning the defense lawyers when they got a little too indignant at the unfairness that was unfolding, and they all bowed their heads and got in line.

I think defense attorneys in Italy have to fight with one hand tied behind their back, or they run genuine risks of legal actions against them.

I also think the submission of Raf's new brief, just 3 weeks before the cassation hearing, is an effort to leave no stone unturned, and to have this brief the last and freshest thing on the judge's minds.

It's hard for them to read however many tens of thousands of pages there are in the case file. BUt reading Raf's 306 page brief is the least they can do before sending him to prison for two and a half decades, in a case that every legitimate observer knows is a wrongful conviction, inside Italy and outside Italy.

I do not believe these convictions will be confirmed.

If there are alternatives, like reinstating Hellman's acquittal on the murder charges, and dropping the 'staged break-in' charge (so as not to conflict with the 'judicial truths' of Rudy's trials), then i can see that. It's hard to imagine the conviction getting set aside and being sent down again for another trial.

What is left to do at another trial, except cross examine Rudy Guede? (Or maybe test the semen stains and release all the suppressed DNA data, and allow the computers to be reconstructed again).

But one of the points of Raf's new brief early on (I' haven't got far into it), is that Rudy's skype call has to be considered as legitimate statements from Rudy because he refused to be cross-examined. And in those statements, Rudy provides, BOTH a time of death (@9:20pm), and an acknowledgment that Amanda and Raf weren't there.

 

[Bill Williams]

Ah nooooo. This was all about retesting the swab, and the area on the knife from which it was taken, not the whole knife itself. The contention by the prosecution (and then by Schneps) was based on the 36B swab. The suggestion was that while there was too little genetic material remaining on the swab (and the knife) after not-a-doctor Stefanoni had done her 2007 analysis on it (allegedly revealing the presence of Kercher's DNA) for her to do any retests in 2007, new methods might have been able to work with the super-minuscule amount (literally a few strands) of DNA still present on the swab (or on the knife in the spot where the 36B swab had been taken from).

So the "contamination in: contamination out" argument is still wholly valid. If the tiny amount of DNA material that got onto that swab 36B got on there through contamination - as it very, very well might have done - then retesting the few remaining strands of that DNA on that swab or left on the knife in that spot would teach us precisely nothing new.

ETA: I agree with you that it would have minimised (to the point of near-eradicating) the possibility of in-machine contamination if Kercher DNA had been identified on a retest of 36B or that spot on the knife, but there are so many other very real possibilities of contamination (including via the swab itself, and a number of other routes of in-lab contamination, as well as numerous ex-lab contamination routes) at those super-low-template levels that a positive retest result for Kercher DNA would have very little real effect on the probative value of that piece of evidence.

PArdon me for butting in here, but the issue isn't that there was too little of 36B on the swab or in the (nonexistent) striation on the knife.....

...... but that 36B in total was necessarily consumed in a destructive test. There needed to have been enough of 36B to do two tests, one to find out the organic composition of what it was, and another to find out who it belonged to.

Stefanoni reasoned, and Massei accepted, that it was no good to find out hat 36B was without knowing who it belonged to. So Stefanoni did the "ownership" test, and claimed it was Meredith's....... but with no way of answering, "Meredith's what?"

Is it not true that 36B no longer exists, swab or no swab?

 

[carbonjam72]

She is right, if a repeat analysis had confirmed MK DNA on the knife then this would strongly support guilt. Contamination events are random. If you repeated the swabbing, amplification and typing, and found DNA of MK then it would be extremely unlikely this was an in laboratory contamination event in the laboratory. There is a small likelihood that the DNA could be secondary transfer from AK to the knife, a somewhat greater likelihood that it could be transfer attributable to contamination at the time of repackaging in the police station.

I disagree it would be a finding supportive of guilt. There's only one set of footprints in blood in the room. There is no evidence they ever left Raf's apartment that night. Rudy said they weren't there.

The DNA is not a magic bullet, imo. It has to be taken in the context in which it is found. Raf's trace DNA on the bra clasp (metal hook), doesn't "place him in the room".

But Rudy's DNA is in reliable quantity in the room, and on and in the victim. AND, corroborated by footprints in blood, hand prints, fingerprints, etc. And he admits to being there.

Just saying, Dr Peter Gill refers to this thinking as the "CSI effect", or "the confirmation effect" (from a BBC Radio 4 interview. And says even some scientists are susceptible to it. But its not a correct line of thought.

 

[carbonjam72]

Ah nooooo. This was all about retesting the swab, and the area on the knife from which it was taken, not the whole knife itself. The contention by the prosecution (and then by Schneps) was based on the 36B swab. The suggestion was that while there was too little genetic material remaining on the swab (and the knife) after not-a-doctor Stefanoni had done her 2007 analysis on it (allegedly revealing the presence of Kercher's DNA) for her to do any retests in 2007, new methods might have been able to work with the super-minuscule amount (literally a few strands) of DNA still present on the swab (or on the knife in the spot where the 36B swab had been taken from).

So the "contamination in: contamination out" argument is still wholly valid. If the tiny amount of DNA material that got onto that swab 36B got on there through contamination - as it very, very well might have done - then retesting the few remaining strands of that DNA on that swab or left on the knife in that spot would teach us precisely nothing new.

ETA: I agree with you that it would have minimised (to the point of near-eradicating) the possibility of in-machine contamination if Kercher DNA had been identified on a retest of 36B or that spot on the knife, but there are so many other very real possibilities of contamination (including via the swab itself, and a number of other routes of in-lab contamination, as well as numerous ex-lab contamination routes) at those super-low-template levels that a positive retest result for Kercher DNA would have very little real effect on the probative value of that piece of evidence.

Plus the knife tested negative for blood. And had starch on it, so IIUC, was not likely to have been 'cleaned'.

 

[Numbers]

She is right, if a repeat analysis had confirmed MK DNA on the knife then this would strongly support guilt. Contamination events are random. If you repeated the swabbing, amplification and typing, and found DNA of MK then it would be extremely unlikely this was an in laboratory contamination event in the laboratory. There is a small likelihood that the DNA could be secondary transfer from AK to the knife, a somewhat greater likelihood that it could be transfer attributable to contamination at the time of repackaging in the police station.

Ah nooooo. This was all about retesting the swab, and the area on the knife from which it was taken, not the whole knife itself. The contention by the prosecution (and then by Schneps) was based on the 36B swab. The suggestion was that while there was too little genetic material remaining on the swab (and the knife) after not-a-doctor Stefanoni had done her 2007 analysis on it (allegedly revealing the presence of Kercher's DNA) for her to do any retests in 2007, new methods might have been able to work with the super-minuscule amount (literally a few strands) of DNA still present on the swab (or on the knife in the spot where the 36B swab had been taken from).

So the "contamination in: contamination out" argument is still wholly valid. If the tiny amount of DNA material that got onto that swab 36B got on there through contamination - as it very, very well might have done - then retesting the few remaining strands of that DNA on that swab or left on the knife in that spot would teach us precisely nothing new.

ETA: I agree with you that it would have minimised (to the point of near-eradicating) the possibility of in-machine contamination if Kercher DNA had been identified on a retest of 36B or that spot on the knife, but there are so many other very real possibilities of contamination (including via the swab itself, and a number of other routes of in-lab contamination, as well as numerous ex-lab contamination routes) at those super-low-template levels that a positive retest result for Kercher DNA would have very little real effect on the probative value of that piece of evidence.

Even retesting the knife blade may not have given a valid result likely free from contamination. There is no accurate knowledge of the contamination levels that were present in Stefanoni's lab, and what DNA profile LCN signals may be hiding in the "noise" on profiles with larger RFU signals, without the electronic data files. Nor can anyone be sure whether or not Stefanoni manipulates her findings through fraud; questions have been raised about the propriety of her procedures based in part on sample and plate numbering anomalies.

 

[Numbers]

This would still be guilt suggested by one data point, and all logistical impossibilities would remain. The time of death, the fact the rock was thrown from outside at midnight, and a plethora of other motivational and conversational issues that preclude guilt.
I belong to the school of thought that would conclude planting of evidence was the only possibility to explain a conclusive identification of Meredith's blood in the specimen, if accidental contamination was ruled out.

If you are writing about the knife blade, no blood from a human or any animal with hemoglobin was detected on it, based a series of tests by Stefanoni and on a TMB test by Conti and Vecchiotti.

 

[Dougm]

If you are writing about the knife blade, no blood from a human or any animal with hemoglobin was detected on it, based a series of tests by Stefanoni and on a TMB test by Conti and Vecchiotti.

One of the amazing factoids about this case. No one, not even the prosecution or police, has ever found blood on that knife. Nor human tissue, either. Not even a speck.

 

[Samson]

If you are writing about the knife blade, no blood from a human or any animal with hemoglobin was detected on it, based a series of tests by Stefanoni and on a TMB test by Conti and Vecchiotti.

Yes, I realise that, my point is hypothetical. It is more important with the bra clasp,for the following reasons.
It is incontestable that Mignini was in very serious trouble when he lost the shoe print evidence. At this point, he was about to have to justify keeping in jail a man with absolutely no evidence, and this was the 23rd or so occurrence in rough succession where he would have to release suspects he had jailed. It is very likely that a reasonable person would conclude he was a disgrace to his position for such incompetence.
At this point, he absolutely needed evidence he could only hope for in vain, like holing from the 18th to get to a play off.
He sunk the shot.
How?
While there are plausible routes for contamination via the door handle, he could not possibly rely on this hope. After the identical route to conviction occurred with Arthur Allan Thomas, a case I grew up watching, where noble cause corruption was employed three months into the investigation with the planting of an incriminating cartridge case, I have always expected to see it proved again, and I think this is such a case.
The knife was probably accidental contamination, the bra clasp probably deliberate.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

some thoughts on full versus partial profiles

What she says is
"Indeed, the possibility of transferring a perfect, complete, single-person DNA sample, precisely of the victim in spite of all the people and places the policemen would have been in contact with all day, is minuscule. What the FOA fail to realize is that while yes, it is true that the possibility of DNA contamination is always present, and lab contamination exists and is frequent, it comes from random people and leaves partial traces."

Planigale,

Thanks for providing that quote. The notion that contamination comes only from random people is simply wrong. In the case of the Jane Mixer murder it came from two people whose DNA was in the lab at approximately the same time as hers, Gary Leiterman and John Ruelas. I have never heard that contamination leaves only partial traces before, although Dr. Donald Riley implies that it often does. It was sort of true in some cases, such as Ms. P in the Jaidyn Leskie case, but the profile was extended by careful analysis of some small peaks. However, there is no reason to believe that contamination always produces a partial profile, and in most of the cases with which I am familiar, there was enough of a profile to identify someone (Farah Jama, Adam Scott, and Gregory Turner also come to mind). One might look through all of the cases of contamination for which a profile is publicly available for more information, but I have seldom found that this information is easily available.

It is certainly untrue that secondary transfer only produces partial profiles, as we have discussed previously. In addition one needs to be wary of making assumptions that seem reasonable but that don't always hold true. In a review article Meakin and Jamison wrote, "Kamphausen et al. found that there was no strong correlation between a full or partial profile and the amount of DNA template [13]." Another point to bear in mind is that when one is scoring peaks that are very small (less than 50 RFU, for example), what would be a partial profile under other circumstances might blossom into a full profile when both large and small peaks are considered.
EDT
Given that Stefanoni's lab was not set up for proper low template work, her finding DNA at that level has very little if any value. The lack of blood means that the DNA is at the "sub-source" level, as Peter Gill calls it. It also points to contamination as the most likely source of of the DNA.

 

[LondonJohn]

Planigale,

Thanks for providing that quote. The notion that contamination comes only from random people is simply wrong. In the case of the Jane Mixer murder it came from two people whose DNA was in the lab at approximately the same time as hers, Gary Leiterman and John Ruelas. I have never heard that contamination leaves only partial traces before, although Dr. Donald Riley implies that it often does. It was sort of true in some cases, such as Ms. P in the Jaidyn Leskie case, but the profile was extended by careful analysis of some small peaks. However, there is no reason to believe that contamination always produces a partial profile, and in most of the cases with which I am familiar, there was enough of a profile to identify someone (Farah Jama, Adam Scott, and Gregory Turner also come to mind). One might look through all of the cases of contamination for which a profile is publicly available for more information, but I have seldom found that this information is easily available.

It is certainly untrue that secondary transfer only produces partial profiles, as we have discussed previously. In addition one needs to be wary of making assumptions that seem reasonable but that don't always hold true. In a review article Meakin and Jamison wrote, "Kamphausen et al. found that there was no strong correlation between a full or partial profile and the amount of DNA template [13]." Another point to bear in mind is that when one is scoring peaks that are very small (less than 50 RFU, for example), what would be a partial profile under other circumstances might blossom into a full profile when both large and small peaks are considered.
EDT
Given that Stefanoni's lab was not set up for proper low template work, her finding DNA at that level has very little if any value.

I tend to believe that the most likely location for contamination was always Stefanoni's lab. We know for sure that they were working with fairly large quantities of Kercher's reference DNA, plus they were testing dozens of other samples from the crime scene which likely contained Kercher non-blood DNA.

I think that the most likely route was either airborne or touch contamination of Kercher's DNA onto the knife (with another possibility being contamination at the machine/equipment level). Regardless of how shoddily the knife was collected, treated at the police station, and transported to the lab (and it was shockingly shoddy), I think the lab has to be by far the prime suspect.

 

[platonov]

I think the lawyers are restrained by the process and the rules against defamation and so forth. At one point, I remember Nencini cautioning the defense lawyers when they got a little too indignant at the unfairness that was unfolding, and they all bowed their heads and got in line.

I think defense attorneys in Italy have to fight with one hand tied behind their back, or they run genuine risks of legal actions against them.

I also think the submission of Raf's new brief, just 3 weeks before the cassation hearing, is an effort to leave no stone unturned, and to have this brief the last and freshest thing on the judge's minds.

It's hard for them to read however many tens of thousands of pages there are in the case file. BUt reading Raf's 306 page brief is the least they can do before sending him to prison for two and a half decades, in a case that every legitimate observer knows is a wrongful conviction, inside Italy and outside Italy.

I do not believe these convictions will be confirmed.

If there are alternatives, like reinstating Hellman's acquittal on the murder charges, and dropping the 'staged break-in' charge (so as not to conflict with the 'judicial truths' of Rudy's trials), then i can see that. It's hard to imagine the conviction getting set aside and being sent down again for another trial.

What is left to do at another trial, except cross examine Rudy Guede? (Or maybe test the semen stains and release all the suppressed DNA data, and allow the computers to be reconstructed again).

But one of the points of Raf's new brief early on (I' haven't got far into it), is that Rudy's skype call has to be considered as legitimate statements from Rudy because he refused to be cross-examined. And in those statements, Rudy provides, BOTH a time of death (@9:20pm), and an acknowledgment that Amanda and Raf weren't there.

Perhaps if they read it very closely they will find the section where RS gives AK an alibi between 21.00 & 00.10.
It seems unlikely however as the keener legal minds here have so far failed to do so.

Have his lawyers also been smoking dope or misplaced their shoes