acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 41,066
I stand corrected. It sounds like a group effort.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito
- Thread starter acbytesla
- Start date
- Status
I stand corrected. It sounds like a group effort.
Off-topic but Germany's had their blunders too. The story of Horst Arnold is heartbreaking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lj5_hiL3D0
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
There may be bigger fish to fry than Machiavelli.
davefoc
Philosopher
Awhile ago, I made a concerted effort to understand this issue without success. People were very polite and helpful (thank you) but I left never feeling like I understood it to the degree I wished.
My understanding right now:
1. The probable explanation for the "match" was that Sollecito's DNA was actually on the clasp. The bra clasp match for Sollecito is very unlikely to have been the result of over fitting. i.e. it is unlikely that the DNA conclusions were based on test results which were insufficiently above a noise floor to justify the conclusion that the DNA sample was a match for Sollecito.
2. None the less the sample contained only a very tiny amount of Sollecito's DNA which is consistent with the idea that some kind of contamination may have been the explanation.
3. Possible contamination theories include:
a. intentional contamination by an investigator
b. unintentional contamination by an investigator during transport, storage in the lab or during the testing
c. unintentional contamination prior to collection possibly with floor detritus, with clothes in the washing machine or in some other place where Sollecito DNA existed which led to a tiny amount of Sollecito DNA being deposited on the clasp.
4. The DNA of four different males were found on the bra clasp. Sollecito's match, was by far the strongest of those individuals.
A few questions:
1. Was the above summary accurate?
2. How do we know item 1 is correct? Is there a particular DNA expert that has stated this to be true? If one is sufficiently knowledgeable can a conclusion be drawn with regard to item 1 based on publicly released test data?
3. Could somebody link to a summary of the finding by Diocletus, Chris_Halkides and/or Numbers that there were discrepancies in sequential sample numbering, machine "malfunctioning" and the clear evidence of contamination in the quantification DNA data [as reported by Stefanoni]? Do these finding relate to just the knife results or do they also relate to the clasp results?
4. Is it possible to make an approximation of how many cells from Sollecito would need to be present on the clasp to explain the results?
Last edited:
anglolawyer
Banned
It's only about half way through, actually. Now the tide has turned we get to see who has been swimming without their trunks, as they say.
The best response to your questions is to start with the information available on www.amandaknoxcase.com. There is a section with pages on the DNA evidence, including how number anomalies were detected, how suppression of many samples were noted, records of contamination were found, the machine "malfunction" was identified, the DNA evidence (if it ever existed) on the bra clasp apparently intentionally destroyed, and perjury by Stefanoni uncovered.
Evidence Ignored, Suppressed Or Destroyed
Lab Data Suppression: Methodology, Sources and Summary
Discovery Violations, Corruption and Perjury
Contamination In The Lab & Coverup
Bra Clasp Lab Work, Contamination, Suppressed Data, & Tampering
The Failed Sexual Assault Investigation
The Secret Downstairs Crime Scene
Evidence Destroyed
Some of your questions, such as the number of cells that might have given rise to the alleged DNA profile of Raffaele Sollecito on the clasp, may be best answered by Diocletus or Chris.
davefoc
Philosopher
Freedom of speech?
I have been a little uncomfortable with the zeal that some have expressed for curtailing the rights of PGP to express their views.
OJ Simpson is a murderer.
Should Simpson be able to win a libel suit against me because I said that? I don't think he should be able to and I don't think he would be able to.
So what is different if somebody says that Amanda Knox is a murderer? How is the line drawn legally or ethically? I am talking US law here.
The situation in Italy seems to be quite different and it seems to be routine for at least prosecutors to sue people who say things they don't like. It seems obvious to me that Italian law has got problems with that. But where should the line be drawn?
I think I have a good faith basis for saying that Simpson is a murderer and perhaps is loss in civil court would give me some cover. If he hadn't lost in civil court should he be able to sue me for libel because I accused him of being a murderer? AK and RS have been found guilty in various ways a few times. Should that constitute a good faith basis for calling them murderers?
I have been a little uncomfortable with the zeal that some have expressed for curtailing the rights of PGP to express their views.
OJ Simpson is a murderer.
Should Simpson be able to win a libel suit against me because I said that? I don't think he should be able to and I don't think he would be able to.
So what is different if somebody says that Amanda Knox is a murderer? How is the line drawn legally or ethically? I am talking US law here.
The situation in Italy seems to be quite different and it seems to be routine for at least prosecutors to sue people who say things they don't like. It seems obvious to me that Italian law has got problems with that. But where should the line be drawn?
I think I have a good faith basis for saying that Simpson is a murderer and perhaps is loss in civil court would give me some cover. If he hadn't lost in civil court should he be able to sue me for libel because I accused him of being a murderer? AK and RS have been found guilty in various ways a few times. Should that constitute a good faith basis for calling them murderers?
AmandaKnoxCase.com sites relating to malpractice and alleged fraud and perjury in the DNA lab work
1. http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/lab-data-suppression/
2. http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/
3. http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/
4. http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/
5. http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/failed-sexual-assault-investigation/
6. http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-evidence-downstairs-apartment/
7. http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/
In fact, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were never finally convicted of murder according to the Italian system of justice. They were provisionally convicted of murder twice, acquitted once, and then finally acquitted.
At each stage of the Italian proceedings, which the Italians consider one continuing trial conducted in stages, Knox and Sollecito, as all persons in such trials in Italy or elsewhere where the civil law system is used in Europe, were to be presumed innocent.
The presumption of innocence until final sentence is a right acknowledged in the Italian Constitution, Article 27. According to the Italian Constitution, persons not finally convicted are to be considered not guilty {emphasis added}:
Art. 27
Criminal responsibility is personal.
A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been passed.
Punishments may not be inhuman and shall aim at re-educating the convicted.
Death penalty is prohibited (1).
This presumption of innocence during what the civil law countries consider the multiple stages of a single trial is also the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which is the ultimate court of human rights for the Council of Europe States, including Italy.
To respond even more directly to your question, in the US, if one states that someone is a murderer, and that statement is false, and is in context defamatory, it is likely to be considered a libel and would leave the one making the statement a possible defendant in a law suit.
Last edited:
davefoc
Philosopher
Thanks Numbers. I took a look at this link:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/lab-data-suppression/
I think this may be a case of me just not being up to the effort to develop a sufficient understanding to be able to understand this stuff.
A few bits from the link above that caught my attention:
rep 36 A, 36 B & 36 C
The pg/ul result for 36 B is listed as too low but the profile is listed as Kercher. The Kercher result was a pretty big deal but the findings were based on a pg/ul that was admitted to be too low? Is this where Stefanoni said something like that she knew it was too low but in her judgment it wasn't too low and the Kercher result was real? ETA: Or perhaps this is one of the areas that Stefanoni is accused of lying about because she claimed that the concentration was not too low?
Statement on top of batch 5
Batch 5 is where the results for the bra clasp hook are (rep 165 B), so it sounds like the defense argument here is that procedures were so bad that nothing can be trusted. None the less I believe either Chris Halkides or somebody else that sounds like he knows what is going on with regard to the DNA (at least he fooled me) has said that the DNA on the bra clasp was probably Sollecito's.
110 pg/ul was the concentration reported for 165B. Of course most of that is Kercher's DNA and I know that the alleged Sollecito DNA is only a fraction of that. So the question here is could any of the procedure problems that the defense alleges have caused a bogus match for Sollecito and is that a plausible explanation for Sollecito DNA on the bra clasp hook? Is the most likely explanation for a Sollecito DNA match on the bra clasp hook that Sollecito DNA was actually on the bra clasp hook despite all the procedure problems alleged by the defense?
ETA: I am aware of all the implausible elements of the knife and the bra clasp evidence. I am mostly just discussing the technical aspects of the DNA results and the PIP views about them.
Last edited:
davefoc
Philosopher
I have no reason to doubt what you say here. Without formal education on this it is what I believe to be correct.
But to get down to specifics here what allows someone to call OJ Simpson a murderer without being guilty of libel. And what would make him guilty of libel if he called call Dave Kirkeby (real name of davefoc) a murderer?
Two ideas:
1. public figure issue
2. there is an insufficient basis to form a reasonable view that Dave Kirkeby is a murderer.
ETA: Your comments about the Italian law were interesting, but it sounds like if they were actually enforced nobody could have legally called AK a murderer even before the SC ruling. It sounds like somebody that called AK a murderer before the SC decision would be just as guilty as somebody that called AK a murderer after the decision. And then there is the complexity of figuring out when a final sentence has been rendered in Italy.
Last edited:
The defenses against libel in the US that I know about (and I am not a lawyer) are:
1. The statement claimed to be libel is shown to be true.
2. The person the statement is directed toward is voluntarily a public person, such as the holder of a public office, a politician, or a celebrity, the statement is of some public interest, and if the statement is false, the person making the statement did not make it with recklessness or malice. That is, the writer of the alleged libel checked some apparently legitimate source for the statement in an attempt to determine the statement's validity.
davefoc
Philosopher
That sounds right. Assume that AK is not a public person for the purposes of libel law. It might not be possible to show that she is not a murderer for the purposes of libel law? It is certainly possible that a reasonable person could come to the conclusion that she is guilty based on what can be read on the internet. So it looks to me like the specific act of accusing AK of being a murderer may not be a violation of US libel law.
There very well might be other kinds of libel against AK for which no good faith basis can be found whatsoever and US libel laws might provide her some protection against that kind of thing. But does a court finding of not guilty ever serve as a basis to justify a libel suit?
I think he was just trying to be clever about the broken window, find an explanation that accounted for the facts the prosecution introduced, and for the stomach contents he was scientifically illiterate and couldn't answer the question.
In my opinion science in the courtroom is a big problem these days, worldwide. The average juror is supposed to be able comprehend the science behind the forensics in court, as of course the judge must, but just what percentage of a jury pool is really going to be able to do that? The prosecution drones on, the defense guy drones on and the jury might just believe the prosecution inherently or the one who uses words they understand.
Good to see you posting here Kevin.
Again, thanks.
I think this is very true. Reading some of the forensic journals this is something the more academic forensic scientists at least are aware of. This is the point Gill is making. Trace DNA provides a very hight statistical certainty of identity. But what is the significance of trace DNA. It is not synonymous with direct contact whatever some people may think. It certainly is not synonymous with criminal action which is what some lay people think. The discussion in the literature is about the responsibility of the expert forensic scientist to explain to the court the uncertainties about the significance of trace DNA.
This is clearly a greater issue with a single trace DNA finding such as Sollecito DNA on the bra hook where there is not a clear explanation for how the DNA would have been directly transferred by touch with no DNA transfer to e.g. the bra strap which should have been a better surface to collect DNA. Clearly if you have multiple trace DNA samples as with Guede it is less likely they are all due to innocent transfer rather than direct contact, but one needs to be aware of the possibility of a common pathway of contamination, e.g. all samples picked up by the same pair of gloves, or all processed together.
The difficulty where you have a commercial system with labs competing for police forensic work is the danger that giving opinions favourable to the customer wins custom. There is an intrinsic danger that police labs give opinions favouring the police view.
I suspect there is not an ideal solution. I think states should have at least one arm's length from the police forensic institution, probably part of an academic institution that can maintain standards, give independent opinions. The UK has a forensic regulator, and if forensic scientists are perceived to give biased evidence the regulator can investigate and potentially exclude them from giving evidence as an expert in future if the case were proven.
Antony
Graduate Poster
What I find infuriating, though, is that the DNA results on the knife and the bra clasp would not indicate guilt even if they were genuine. Both defendants had social contact with Meredith before the murder, with adequate opportunity for innocent transfer of DNA which is far more likely than any suggestion that it happened during the course of the crime. They are isolated anomalies within a pattern of lack of evidence.
Not only that, but the whole improbable way in which the items were discovered should raise alarm bells which should be obvious to the lay person. The obvious staging of the bra clasp discovery, in which the investigators transparently displayed advance knowledge of its significance, ought to be enough to discredit the investigation to anyone capable of the mildest scepticism. That is something that doesn't require a DNA diploma to point out. Why would anyone give these items of so-called "evidence" the slightest credibility?
Last edited:
davefoc
Philosopher
That sounds like a very good idea. But even without the formal existence of something like that in the US, the system does seem to correct, but not before some probably innocent people are convicted and even executed.
There may be a misunderstanding. If AK is the plaintiff in a libel suit, the defendant would need to show that the statement he made that was in question was true and not defamatory. Statements which accuse someone of a crime are automatically defamatory in the US unless true. Since AK has been finally acquitted of a charge of murder, the defendant would not have any legal grounds to deny or overcome the falsity of any statement to the contrary. (Note that in these suits, the defendant is usually warned first by a letter from the plaintiff's lawyer and asked to publicly retract the allegedly libelous statement.) The defendant would lose the suit and be liable to pay a possibly large award to the plaintiff.
And libel is a tort (private civil law suit case) almost all the time in the US, with the possible exception of some states where it is also a criminal offense.
Last edited:
davefoc
Philosopher
I agree, but if human blood on the knife that could be tied to Kercher through DNA it would have been some very strong evidence. As it is nothing like that happened and right now as I understand it even the finding of Kercher DNA on the knife was probably bogus.
Yeah, the DNA finding on the bra clasp really does seem like a set up. I wonder if the truth about that will ever come out. How many people need to be in the loop to produce the bra clasp result. If it was Stefononi then it might have only been her?
davefoc
Philosopher
To put this in my own words:
An individual in the US that called AK a murderer [eta: in print] would be guilty of libel because:
1. The statement on its face is defamatory
2. He couldn't prove AK was a murderer
3. The SC decision serves as proof that AK is not a murderer
2 and 3 are not quite the same thing. Suppose he could prove that AK was a murderer, would item 3 trump item 2?
There is also the issue of what level of proof is required. If, based on a preponderance of evidence standard, it could be shown that AK was a murderer would that be a sufficient defense to a libel suit?
My guess is that the situation is that item 3 is not explicitly part of the libel law. Item 3 would only serve as a piece of contrary evidence in determining whether the defendant can prove that AK is a murderer.
Last edited:
I think if a group of people repeatedly tweeted and posted and wrote to newspapers that David Kirkeby was a murderer and an ongoing risk to others and said your family knew you were a murderer and were complicit in a cover up and complained to employers about employing you, and campaigned for you to be on a sex offenders register, there might be a point at which free speech impacted on your life and you might think that it has transitioned from fair comment to malicious stalking and harassment.
The saying is difficult cases make bad law. I think Knox would be right to leave things for a bit to die down naturally. If after a fair period to comment on the court case these comments persist and impact her life it would be reasonable to see what could be done to prevent this. Some posters have previously threatened violence, which I think goes beyond fair comment.
- Status