Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Vixen,

There was a spot of blood on the faucet, and Amanda's DNA alone showed up (meaning not mixed with anyone else's). it is a reasonable inference that Amanda's ear was the source. IIRC I saw a pillowcase of hers with a blood spot, which is consistent with her having an infected ear.

With respect to Rudi's DNA, let's recap our arguments, given many times previously (even within the last three weeks and for your benefit). One, you could toss all of Rudi's DNA and still convict him at least twice over, maybe three times. Two (apart from any other consideration), Rudi's DNA is slightly more incriminating than Raffaele's and way more incriminating than Amanda's, because she lived there and Raf visited there. Three, if Rudi's DNA were in the low template range and collected/processed exactly as the knife profile, I would toss it in a New York minute. Four, if Rudi's DNA were mixed with other men's the way the bra clasp sample was mixed, I would say it doesn't have much value. Five, if all of the evidence were collected as late and as badly as the bra clasp, then it would not have much, if any, value.

Yes, science should be objective. When Brad Bannon was preparing to defend David Evans (one of the Duke lacrosse three), he read John Butler's textbook on DNA profiling. His cross examination of Dr. Brian Meehan was one of the pivotal moments of the case. For the newest edition of his textbook Dr. Butler asked Mr. Bannon some questions, including his common tactics in challenging DNA evidence. Mr. Bannon replied in part, "Did the lab follow acceptable standards of DNA analysis? Did it follow its own protocols? Is the lab applying those standards and protocols consistently or selectively? For example, why do you call a peak below 150 RFU as a true allele for one purpose, or in one case, but not for another? If there are such internal inconsistencies, do they usually inure to the benefit of one side's theory of the case? If so, is that evidence of bias?"

Mr. Bannon's ideas on threshold are consistent with what Rudin and Inman said. The textbook An Introduction to Forensic DNA analysis, 2nd ed. (Rudin, N. and Inman, K., CRC Press 2002, p. 121) states, “It is important to have some predetermined limit to distinguish what is signal and what is noise.”

I hear what you are saying. However, in a crime scenario, perps will wear gloves and will try to avoid leaving any trace. It is unfair criticism to knock a forensic doctor who does find a trace, inadvertently left behind on the grounds there are not bucketloads of it. Forensic means minute, after all. In fact, Raf's DNA was not Low Copy Number. It was hidden under the body well-protected. It is specious for the defense to claim it came off a rubber glove.

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen do you agree with the following:

I don't know whether Guede will get his retrial but I certainly hope so. I think too little attention has been paid to his statements. Many are just a pack of lies, but we should not ignore them when he has no reason to lie.Right back as far as the Micheli hearing Guede was adamant that he never broke in to the cottage, and that when he left, Meredith had her bra on and the body was in a different position. He also wrote in his German diaries of "all that blood in the bathroom and hall" suggesting to me that there was a clean up of some kind. If Guede were to be granted this retrial, then it must be in the open and it MUST be on the condition that he does not exercise his right to silence.

Whoever wrote this does not believe accused people have rights. This person also believes Rudy is a truth teller.

They must, then, believe that the reason Rudy was at the cottage was because (as Rudy claimed) he had a date with Meredith, one that included consensual sex.

Why would anyone believe anything Rudy said?

 

[acbytesla]

Read it somewhere. I cannot remember where.

TJMK? PMF? Some comment board either clueless people? Maybe Peter Wuennell ?

Where you didn't read it was in any of the court documents. But that isn't surprising since you seem to prefer newspaper articles with unnamed sources.

 

[Bill Williams]

I hear what you are saying. However, in a crime scenario, perps will wear gloves and will try to avoid leaving any trace. It is unfair criticism to knock a forensic doctor who does find a trace, inadvertently left behind on the grounds there are not bucketloads of it. Forensic means minute, after all. In fact, Raf's DNA was not Low Copy Number. It was hidden under the body well-protected. It is specious for the defense to claim it came off a rubber glove.

Take a look at this pic, taken by the Scientific Police themselves, and consider amending you last statement.....

 

[Vixen]

This is a compleat non sequitor as a response.

You said initially that police don't enter into evidence everything they find out about a case. You THEN made a point about the washing machine which completely destroyed your own argument about why the washing machine was important as evidence.

Then you make a glib comment that police are simply trained to unbiasedly report what they see at a crime-scene, contradicting an earlier contention that police filter out what they report and do not report.

So, right now it is difficult to assess what bias you actually have - other than your factoids tend to come from Peter Quennell's website and/or tabloid news reports. That seems to be your agenda - to keep in play factoids long-since debunked....

..... esp. now that the Italian judicial system has completely exonerated the two accused.

As I said before, it is the courts who decide what will be the issues, usually at the preliminary hearings.

 

[acbytesla]

I hear what you are saying. However, in a crime scenario, perps will wear gloves and will try to avoid leaving any trace. It is unfair criticism to knock a forensic doctor who does find a trace, inadvertently left behind on the grounds there are not bucketloads of it. Forensic means minute, after all. In fact, Raf's DNA was not Low Copy Number. It was hidden under the body well-protected. It is specious for the defense to claim it came off a rubber glove.

Wrong again. I think my broken watch is right more than you.
Id be happy to change my opinion if you provide a citation. You won't find one for this misinformed claim.

Let me explain this to you slowly so you might understand. It matters little if it was low copy or not for contamination to be a possibility since it was still microscopic amounts of DNA.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen,

Obviously you misunderstood what you heard. Please cite the relevant passage and we will go through it again.

BBC radio 4, 2014, but repeated recently. Producer is Ruth Alexander(_sp?).

You can find it if you download BBC I-player.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

multiple contributors to the clasp

I hear what you are saying. However, in a crime scenario, perps will wear gloves and will try to avoid leaving any trace. It is unfair criticism to knock a forensic doctor who does find a trace, inadvertently left behind on the grounds there are not bucketloads of it. Forensic means minute, after all. In fact, Raf's DNA was not Low Copy Number. It was hidden under the body well-protected. It is specious for the defense to claim it came off a rubber glove.

Vixen,

The definition of what is or is not in the low template range is not universally agreed upon. However, Raf's putative profile on the clasp is in the vicinity of 100 pg of DNA, which falls into the low template region by one definition. I am OK with calling it borderline. The more severe problem with this sample (from the point of view of the prosecution) is that there are other male contributors at multiple loci. I have supplied images of the YSTR profile in the pass. The sample associated with the knife is in the low template range by any definition with which I am familiar.

 

[davefoc]

BBC radio 4, 2014, but repeated recently. Producer is Ruth Alexander(_sp?).

You can find it if you download BBC I-player.

Repeated previous post for your convenience Vixen.

I heard Dr Gill on the radio recently, and he mistakenly thought he was speaking on behalf of the defense when he explained why the so-called "semen stain" could and should not be tested. Oops!

Was this part of the interview you heard on the radio?
https://audioboom.com/boos/2235453-prof-peter-gill-dna-expert-on-the-amanda-knox-case#t=0m0s

Transcript:

Ruth Alexandra (BBC Radio 4):
There was one piece of forensic evidence that wasn't scrutinized. A stain on the pillow found beneath Meredith's body, a stain that looked like semen. Sollecito's defense team wanted it tested but their request was refused.

I asked the prosecutor, Giancarol Costagliola, why.

Giancarol Costagliola:
[speaking in Italian (not transcribed)]

Translation of Giancarol Costagliola's response:
For a very simple reason that sperm is one of those substances that lasts over time. We must remember that Meredith had a boy friend. So it would have taken us on to another path that made no sense, because it's not possible to determine when this kind of substance might have been deposited on something. It would have mislead us entirely.

Peter Gill:
I think it would be crucial to carry out this kind of test because it might reveal an unknown DNA profile that has come from an individual who has no innocent reason to be in the flat. I find it remarkable that this wasn't done actually, because if the defense make a request for some work to be done which may exonerate a suspect, naturally you would expect this work to be carried out.

Ruth Alexandra (BBC Radio 4):
If you were judge or jury on this case would you be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the DNA evidence you've seen points to guilt?

Peter Gill
No absolutely not.

ETA:

Provide a citation please. Because I'm confident that he said the opposite. That what he said was there was no credible reason that the semen stain wasn't tested given the nature of the crime.

Was acbytesla right?

 

[Bill Williams]

As I said before, it is the courts who decide what will be the issues, usually at the preliminary hearings.

That's not what you said.

You said:

Police rarely use all of the evidence. They focus on the key essentials. Limits the degrees of freedom.​

You also said:

Only a crazed mind would think the police and forensic team were doing their job to the best of their ability.​

 

[RoseMontague]

As I said before, it is the courts who decide what will be the issues, usually at the preliminary hearings.

It is the prosecution that presents the case against the accused, not the courts.

 

[Vixen]

Then you should read his book to see what he said. He's said that Amanda is innocent. Why do you think he knows this? Please confine yourself to what Raffaele has written, not what Peter Quennell says is "really" going on.

I think you'll find its an Avvocato Bongiornio attribution.

 

[Vixen]

In Italy they are not completely independent.

I meant, independent from the police and prosecutors. I know in Italy, the judiciary flirt with the politicians.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think you'll find its an Avvocato Bongiornio attribution.

Huh!? So?

 

[Vixen]

Still making stuff out of thin air? Why should you stop? It's your MO.

Really? So how would you explain his befuddled court testimony?

 

[Vixen]

At the beginning of the month, the rents are due. That's why Guede was there. For the cash he so desperately needed (and got) Not for paintings.

Opportunistic thefts from cars do not compare to planned house breaks.

Is it a tradition that in Italy all rent is paid first of the month. I bet it is not.

In the UK we have a tradition of assigning rent due on leases on Quarter Days.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen do you agree with the following:

I don't know whether Guede will get his retrial but I certainly hope so. I think too little attention has been paid to his statements. Many are just a pack of lies, but we should not ignore them when he has no reason to lie.Right back as far as the Micheli hearing Guede was adamant that he never broke in to the cottage, and that when he left, Meredith had her bra on and the body was in a different position. He also wrote in his German diaries of "all that blood in the bathroom and hall" suggesting to me that there was a clean up of some kind. If Guede were to be granted this retrial, then it must be in the open and it MUST be on the condition that he does not exercise his right to silence.

No, it wouldn't conform to legal protocol.

 

[RoseMontague]

Really? So how would you explain his befuddled court testimony?

Koko is cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. Nobody gives any weight to his testimony other than the pro guilt fantasy faction.

 

[Numbers]

I meant, independent from the police and prosecutors. I know in Italy, the judiciary flirt with the politicians.

Once more, you are posting nonsense. See my post 2518, copied here:

The relationships {between police, prosecutors, and judges} in Italy are as follows:

The criminal (aka judicial) police are ordinarily paid and administered through the interior ministry. The carabinieri are a branch of the military, ordinarily paid and administered by that ministry. When there is a criminal investigation in progress, all police personnel working on that investigation are under the supervision and direction of the prosecutor (public minister) with respect to the investigation. The public minister is a member of the judiciary, as are the judges, and all are only under the supervision of the High Council of the Judiciary, which is independent of the Parliament and Government and autonomous (see Italian Constitution, Article 104). Thus, there is no independence of police, prosecution, and judges during an investigation or later court proceedings in Italy.

The functioning of the judiciary and the role of the prosecutors and police are in part detailed in It. Const. Articles 101-110.

 

[Grinder]

Is it a tradition that in Italy all rent is paid first of the month. I bet it is not.

In the UK we have a tradition of assigning rent due on leases on Quarter Days.

You'd be wrong about the girls' rents.