Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

Here is information from www.amandaknoxcase.com put into a table presentation (yellow bands point out problems):

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/6858954c5ab1a15095.jpg[/qimg]

2nd page of table:

 

[Machiavelli]

{Highllighting added to quote.}

Your statement (highlighted) is contrary to known forensic science information.

Where are your citations for your statement? Have you done experiments to support your allegation? Where are the results published? Are you aware that your statement contradicts all information from experts in DNA forensics, including, for example, John Butler, of the National Institutes of Science and Technology? What is your background in forensic science or DNA profiling?

Here is John Butler's CV:
http://www.cstl.nist.gov/strbase/butler.htm

Here is a list of the textbooks he has written on DNA forensics. He stresses the need to counteract contamination, which is an everyday concern in forensic DNA profiling.
(...)

We are not talking about odds of contamination in general. We are talking about a specific allege occurrence, that is an alleged contamination event with one specific contaminating agent (one specific profile, not just any DNA) on one specific small location.
What matters is not a probability of generic contamination, but the chances of that specificity.
And not only that: also there is no need to have probability as small as a one-to millions ratio in order to have a piece of evidence. Even 1:10 would be sufficiently small to rule it out from the set or reasonable scenario when combined with other circumstantial evidence. In order to dismiss the piece of evidence you would need to show that that contamination was probable, not that it was just possible. And the burden to show that is on those claims that event occurred.

 

[carbonjam72]

2nd page of table:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/6858954c5b85eeb238.jpg[/qimg]

What was the evidence samples being tested in march 5 & 7 of 2008?

 

[NancyS]

We are not talking about odds of contamination in general. We are talking about a specific allege occurrence, that is an alleged contamination event with one specific contaminating agent (one specific profile, not just any DNA) on one specific small location.
What matters is not a probability of generic contamination, but the chances of that specificity.
And not only that: also there is no need to have probability as small as a one-to millions ratio in order to have a piece of evidence. Even 1:10 would be sufficiently small to rule it out from the set or reasonable scenario when combined with other circumstantial evidence. In order to dismiss the piece of evidence you would need to show that that contamination was probable, not that it was just possible. And the burden to show that is on those claims that event occurred.

The contamination was probable as:
1) RS had legitimate contact with Meredith Kercher earlier that day
2) RS had visited the cottage on a number of occasions
3) Those handling the DNA analysis laughed in the face of basic standards of care
4) If you test enough objects without washing hands and laughing in the face of basic standards, you will DEFINITELY find contamination.

 

[carbonjam72]

Reversal in burden of proof will be corrected eventually

We are not talking about odds of contamination in general. We are talking about a specific allege occurrence, that is an alleged contamination event with one specific contaminating agent (one specific profile, not just any DNA) on one specific small location.
What matters is not a probability of generic contamination, but the chances of that specificity.
And not only that: also there is no need to have probability as small as a one-to millions ratio in order to have a piece of evidence. Even 1:10 would be sufficiently small to rule it out from the set or reasonable scenario when combined with other circumstantial evidence. In order to dismiss the piece of evidence you would need to show that that contamination was probable, not that it was just possible. And the burden to show that is on those claims that event occurred.

As Dr Peter Gill explained on Porta-Porta recently, this is a reversal of the burden of proof, something he has also said is an impossible burden for any defendant in any case to meet.

Cassation made a mistake when imposing this standard, and obviously the legal precedent will have to be fixed in Italy, as no modern country can tolerate an ant-scientific legal standard.

Whether Italy recognizes this error in this case now, or later with help from ECHR, its something that obviously will be addressed.

 

[Numbers]

We are not talking about odds of contamination in general. We are talking about a specific allege occurrence, that is an alleged contamination event with one specific contaminating agent (one specific profile, not just any DNA) on one specific small location.
What matters is not a probability of generic contamination, but the chances of that specificity.
And not only that: also there is no need to have probability as small as a one-to millions ratio in order to have a piece of evidence. Even 1:10 would be sufficiently small to rule it out from the set or reasonable scenario when combined with other circumstantial evidence. In order to dismiss the piece of evidence you would need to show that that contamination was probable, not that it was just possible. And the burden to show that is on those claims that event occurred.

Stefanoni proved there was contamination, probably without knowing it. She gave her quantification data to the defense, it shows several instances of contamination. Therefore, the probability of contamination in Stefanoni's lab occurring in this case was 100% - that is, it happened. There is no doubt.

ETA: It is always the burden of the prosecution to show that the test results it presents are reliable. Except perhaps in judicial systems that do not wish to be democratic in character. Or when judges are corrupt or unimaginably incompetent.

 

[ericparoissien]

The contamination was probable as:
1) RS had legitimate contact with Meredith Kercher earlier that day
2) RS had visited the cottage on a number of occasions
3) Those handling the DNA analysis laughed in the face of basic standards of care
4) If you test enough objects without washing hands and laughing in the face of basic standards, you will DEFINITELY find contamination.

Peter Gill lives in a strange world where one leaves a trail of his DNA as one proceed on one's routine, minute by minute.
DNA is left on exceptional moments, they are the exception.
DNA is not deposited on contact, it is torn away from oneself on shock-contacts at few moments of our lives.

 

[kwill]

Contamination is a rare process, one star among billions.

I think I'll just leave that out there for all to see.

ETA: Just scrolled thru all the posts since EP quoted me & it's obvious that this laughable proclamation is getting plenty of attention.

Deservedly.

 

[NancyS]

Peter Gill lives in a strange world where one leaves a trail of his DNA as one proceed on one's routine, minute by minute.
DNA is left on exceptional moments, they are the exception.
DNA is not deposited on contact, it is torn away from oneself on shock-contacts at few moments of our lives.

DNA and especially LCN DNA is very easily transferred, which is why it is extra important not to laugh in the face of hand washing

It is most strange how easily people dismiss the expert knowledge of Peter Gill - I do wonder if it is because they have some rival qualifications, or if they just read it at PMFoogle

 

[Bill Williams]

You've brought up a sexual motive again in recent posts - there is no evidence of it whatsoever. Cassation wanted this looked at again and the best anyone could come up with was that Ms Kercher was angry about Guede's stools and Ms Knox killed her for her anger. The other idea was that Ms Kercher was angry because her rent money was missing - and Nencini took this so called evidence from an account Guede had previously made of his time alone with Ms Kercher at the flat on the evening if the 1st, something he also decided could not have happened - and Ms Knox' slaughter of her was something to do with that.

You seem to be coming back to Mignini's Halloween fantasy, played out 24 hours too late. In proper courts of law we require rigorous accounts and actual evidence. We do not permit prosecutors to speculate.

Thank you Kauffer.

Nothing reveals Machiavelli's agenda as being protective of Mignini, than when discussing sexualized motives tied to psychopathology of the defendants.

It is exactly as you say. Judge Massei heard Mignini thunder away in court about sex and Amanda's psychological make up, and proceeded to invent something else, equally bizarre - a choice for evil brought on by pot smoking.

It's my view that the last time the "party of the PMs" had influence on this case was in March 2013, when it annuled hellmann - the second court in a row to reject Mignini's sexualized fantasies. It then ordered a review of sex-game-gone-wrong.....

..... which was never reviewed by Crini OR Nencini at the Florence trial.

Yet Machiavelli even now leads the charge to resexualize/psychopathologize this. All courts have rejected it. Machiavelli wants to rehabilitate Mignini long forgotten as the madman who started this mess.....

 

[lonepinealex]

Peter Gill lives in a strange world where one leaves a trail of his DNA as one proceed on one's routine, minute by minute.
DNA is left on exceptional moments, they are the exception.
DNA is not deposited on contact, it is torn away from oneself on shock-contacts at few moments of our lives.

Really? Your argument is just to assert that a DNA expert is wrong? Please provide some citations, otherwise this is just wishful thinking.

 

[Kauffer]

We are not talking about odds of contamination in general. We are talking about a specific allege occurrence, that is an alleged contamination event with one specific contaminating agent (one specific profile, not just any DNA) on one specific small location.
What matters is not a probability of generic contamination, but the chances of that specificity.
And not only that: also there is no need to have probability as small as a one-to millions ratio in order to have a piece of evidence. Even 1:10 would be sufficiently small to rule it out from the set or reasonable scenario when combined with other circumstantial evidence. In order to dismiss the piece of evidence you would need to show that that contamination was probable, not that it was just possible. And the burden to show that is on those claims that event occurred.

In the case of the bra clasp, there were multiple profiles not one specific profile. Did they all belong to people who were in the room when the murder was committed?

The were plenty of opportunities for contamination to have taken place, including via CSI's gloves. Yet the burden lies with the prosecution to demonstrate that the collection, transportation, storage and testing of samples were made according to international guidelines.

In this case, just from what we know, which is far from everything, these standards were not met. Additionally, the defence, in law, has the right to comprehensive discovery of all laboratory records including electronic data files, but the lack of discovery in this case - indeed the active lobbying of the court by Stefanoni to prevent that discovery - is not only illegal, but indicative that the laboratory had something or things to hide.

Furthermore, you should examine art 192 (2) of the CCP. The supposed finding of Ms Kercher's profile on the knife should never have been admitted. I would argue that the same applies to claims about the bra clasp. Neither piece represents, serious, precise or consistent evidence.

 

[Dougm]

Peter Gill lives in a strange world where one leaves a trail of his DNA as one proceed on one's routine, minute by minute.
DNA is left on exceptional moments, they are the exception.
DNA is not deposited on contact, it is torn away from oneself on shock-contacts at few moments of our lives.

Gill invented the science of Forensic DNA testing. And your credentials are?

 

[Numbers]

Peter Gill lives in a strange world where one leaves a trail of his DNA as one proceed on one's routine, minute by minute.
DNA is left on exceptional moments, they are the exception.
DNA is not deposited on contact, it is torn away from oneself on shock-contacts at few moments of our lives.

Please provide citations from the scientific and forensic literature for your very bizarre statements.

 

[Diocletus]

Peter Gill lives in a strange world where one leaves a trail of his DNA as one proceed on one's routine, minute by minute.
DNA is left on exceptional moments, they are the exception.
DNA is not deposited on contact, it is torn away from oneself on shock-contacts at few moments of our lives.

Oh good. Maybe you're the person who can finally explain to us how that dna got in stefanoni's negative controls. Any ideas?

 

[Wannaknow]

Peter Gill lives in a strange world where one leaves a trail of his DNA as one proceed on one's routine, minute by minute.
DNA is left on exceptional moments, they are the exception.
DNA is not deposited on contact, it is torn away from oneself on shock-contacts at few moments of our lives.

You may well be right. Sollecitos DNA wasn't found in his car and only in a few samples from his appartment.

Greetings

 

[Sonia]

Peter Gill lives in a strange world where one leaves a trail of his DNA as one proceed on one's routine, minute by minute.
DNA is left on exceptional moments, they are the exception.
DNA is not deposited on contact, it is torn away from oneself on shock-contacts at few moments of our lives.

You could not be more wrong. We live in the real world where DNA is deposited as we go about our daily lives, minute by minute. The alarm rings, your DNA is deposited on the button to silence the alarm. You put your feet on the floor, DNA is deposited there. You turn on the tap to brush your teeth, DNA is deposited on the tap, the handle of the toothbrush, the tube of toothpaste that you squeeze. When you spit, you spray DNA particles all over the sink, and so on throughout your day.

There is nothing exceptional about contact DNA. Not to mention you're sloughing off skin cells as you walk through your environment that end up as household dust, coating everything.

 

[Desert Fox]

Peter Gill lives in a strange world where one leaves a trail of his DNA as one proceed on one's routine, minute by minute.
DNA is left on exceptional moments, they are the exception.
DNA is not deposited on contact, it is torn away from oneself on shock-contacts at few moments of our lives.

I can go with many ways to argue but I will go with this. . . . Article from 2005, so predates the Amanda Knox trial.

From the article, it is clear that contamination was already common with PCR testing.

 

[Diocletus]

Yes I am aware (or at least that's Knox's claim). But obviously I don't draw you conclusion about it.

So Giacomo Silenzio's couldn't be bothered to procure his own condoms? A first class Italian gentleman, huh?

 

[Desert Fox]

Machiavelli, are you aware that Meredith was "borrowing" condoms with Amanda's consent from Amanda's toilet bag so that Meredith and Giacomo could have safe sex? Meredith apparently liked Amanda enough to borrow condoms from her.

If she didn't like Amanda, Meredith likely would not have been so open with Amanda about Meredith's need for condoms. Meredith could easily have asked Filomena or Laura to lend her one or Meredith could have gone to the drugstore. Or asked Giacomo to treat her like a lady and bring them himself. If Giacomo didn't have any on hand, he probably could have borrowed one from one of his flatmates. It's not like Giacomo would have had to spend any money on Meredith!

Yes I am aware (or at least that's Knox's claim). But obviously I don't draw you conclusion about it.

Sure but you take post facto statements, when the psychology is clear that we mold our thoughts around what has occurred afterwards, without even considering that.