Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

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:


ETA:

Was acbytesla right?

No, that is not the bit.

 

[RoseMontague]

You'd be wrong about the girls' rents.

Yes, Vixen is not correct.

 

[Vixen]

The relationships 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.

OK. Noted. So, not very independent at all.

 

[RoseMontague]

No, that is not the bit.

What is then?

 

[Vixen]

That's not what you said.

You said:

​

You also said:

​

The last was phrased to avoid incurring the wrath of the mods :/

 

[davefoc]

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.

I am now repeating myself, but I think that the Sollecito's DNA on the clasp is the strongest evidence against him, albeit I think it is very weak evidence for which there are many innocent explanations possible.

I wrote this earlier:

The most likely explanation for the detection of Sollecito DNA on the hook was that in some way biological material from Sollecito was actually on the bra hook. Sollecito's DNA was detected at a significantly lower concentration than Kercher's but it was significantly higher than the DNA detected from the 2 or 3 other male donors.

It may be the strongest piece of evidence against Sollecito and it can not be determined how it got there. Of course, because the testing was done by the same person that produced the bogus DNA results from the knife the test result is suspect. And the fact that the test couldn't be redone because of actions taken by Stefanoni reduces its credibility as a piece of evidence even further.

And the fact that there isn't a plausble scenario whereby Sollecito could have been in the room when Kercher was murdered where he left absolutely no other trace of himself strongly suggests however the Sollecito DNA ended up on the bra hook it wasn't during Kercher's murder.

My only point here is that it appears to be unknowable how Sollecito DNA came to be on the bra hook. There are many possible ways that the DNA could have come to be on the hook that don't include Sollecito participating in the murder of Kercher. But that particular piece of evidence can not be discounted completely when it is examined by itself. This is different than the rest of the evidence against AK and RS which seems to be falsifiable in isolation because of implausible details associated with that evidence.

Almost every time that the Sollecito DNA evidence on the bra is mentioned somebody rightly posts the picture of the clasp with the dirty glove. And if beyond a reasonable doubt is the issue then a piece of evidence collected for DNA evidence where only trace DNA is found without the biological source of the material being identifiable should, it would seem, be disregarded just because of the dirty glove.

Still, most of us participating in this thread don't just think that there was insufficient evidence to convict AK/RS, we think they are factually innocent. And with regard to that criteria just disregarding the Sollecito bra evidence based on the dirty glove is not appropriate I think.

However given all the reasons mentioned both in my post and by others I think it is reasonable to disregard the Sollecito DNA on the bra clasp entirely.

 

[Samzilla]

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!

Peter Gill was asked the question on Delitti & Misteri:

"Q. The knife and bra clasp have been much discussed, but there is this other element which has been completely ignored by prosecutors and by the Court, and that is that there are presumptive traces of semen shown up by the crimescope on the cushion on which Meredith’s body lay. Do you think that examination of this would be crucial under normal circumstances to reveal the identity of the real murderer or murderers?"

"A. If semen stains have been discovered in the vicinity of the victim’s body, then I am extremely surprised that no efforts have been taken to analyse the material. It doesn’t mean to say that it is associated with the crime event, – it might have been deposited some time previous to the crime, for example – but nevertheless if there is potentially important evidence like that which has been discovered, then it is difficult to understand why it has not been analysed, as it may take us further forward in understanding how this crime was committed."

 

[RoseMontague]

Peter Gill was asked the question on Delitti & Misteri:

"Q. The knife and bra clasp have been much discussed, but there is this other element which has been completely ignored by prosecutors and by the Court, and that is that there are presumptive traces of semen shown up by the crimescope on the cushion on which Meredith’s body lay. Do you think that examination of this would be crucial under normal circumstances to reveal the identity of the real murderer or murderers?"

"A. If semen stains have been discovered in the vicinity of the victim’s body, then I am extremely surprised that no efforts have been taken to analyse the material. It doesn’t mean to say that it is associated with the crime event, – it might have been deposited some time previous to the crime, for example – but nevertheless if there is potentially important evidence like that which has been discovered, then it is difficult to understand why it has not been analysed, as it may take us further forward in understanding how this crime was committed."

That's twice now Vixen's assertion has been contradicted.

 

[Vixen]

Amanda's agency was actually hired to provide advice on reputation management given that she was being trashed in the press by ill informed speculation and mendacious leaks. The agency was not hired to tell interviewers what to write nor to censor material, which you have also claimed before and which is ludicrous. If any journalist had been treated like that, then that would have been the story.

Guardian journalist Simon Hattenstone actually commented on these claims and made clear that he had no contact with any agency, was not prevented from asking any question he wanted or writing what he liked. Nor did Amanda have any handier present.

Protecting reputation is a business term. Is it appropriate to treat a muder defendant as a commercial business? When a firm suffers business risk to reputation, they will set up a crisis management committee. If reputation has really plunged, they might rebrand the product completely.

Seriously, it is inappropriate to apply business models and rebranding to murder defendants. What if they are guilty? How ethical is it? It would be on a par with Enron or the Madoff fraud.

You can't know the kids are innocent until they have had a fair hearing.

Hattenstone is an author and journalist not unnaturally looking for a story.

 

[RoseMontague]

I am now repeating myself, but I think that the Sollecito's DNA on the clasp is the strongest evidence against him, albeit I think it is very weak evidence for which there are many innocent explanations possible.

I wrote this earlier:


Almost every time that the Sollecito DNA evidence on the bra is mentioned somebody rightly posts the picture of the clasp with the dirty glove. And if beyond a reasonable doubt is the issue then a piece of evidence collected for DNA evidence where only trace DNA is found without the biological source of the material being identifiable should, it would seem, be disregarded just because of the dirty glove.

Still, most of us participating in this thread don't just think that there was insufficient evidence to convict AK/RS, we think they are factually innocent. And with regard to that criteria just disregarding the Sollecito bra evidence based on the dirty glove is not appropriate I think.

However given all the reasons mentioned both in my post and by others I think it is reasonable to disregard the Sollecito DNA on the bra clasp entirely.

The multiple male profiles on the clasp make it even more likely that some type of contamination occurred.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am now repeating myself, ...........

Almost every time that the Sollecito DNA evidence on the bra is mentioned somebody rightly posts the picture of the clasp with the dirty glove. And if beyond a reasonable doubt is the issue then a piece of evidence collected for DNA evidence where only trace DNA is found without the biological source of the material being identifiable should, it would seem, be disregarded just because of the dirty glove.

You mean like this?

 

[RoseMontague]

Protecting reputation is a business term. Is it appropriate to treat a muder defendant as a commercial business? When a firm suffers business risk to reputation, they will set up a crisis management committee. If reputation has really plunged, they might rebrand the product completely.

Seriously, it is inappropriate to apply business models and rebranding to murder defendants. What if they are guilty? How ethical is it? It would be on a par with Enron or the Madoff fraud.

You can't know the kids are innocent until they have had a fair hearing.

Hattenstone is an author and journalist not unnaturally looking for a story.

The Duke Lacrosse team also hired a PR firm. It is the smart thing to do, especially if you are fighting lies and misinformation in the media, many examples of which you have already posted. I'm sure we'll see more.

 

[Vixen]

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

The issues are agreed between the prosecution, the defense and the Judge. They usually revolve around points of conflict and jurisdiction.

 

[Bill Williams]

Protecting reputation is a business term. Is it appropriate to treat a muder defendant as a commercial business? When a firm suffers business risk to reputation, they will set up a crisis management committee. If reputation has really plunged, they might rebrand the product completely.

Seriously, it is inappropriate to apply business models and rebranding to murder defendants. What if they are guilty? How ethical is it? It would be on a par with Enron or the Madoff fraud.

You can't know the kids are innocent until they have had a fair hearing.
Hattenstone is an author and journalist not unnaturally looking for a story.

What on earth are you talking about? Any defendants STARTS the hearing as innocent. They remain innocent (in Italy) until the final signoff by the Supreme Court.

They were never NOT innocent as far as Italian law is concerned. What are you talking about?

 

[Kauffer]

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.

No we don't. Not for month to month tenancies. Assured shorthold agreements are most common. Typically of 6 month duration initially but continuing under the same terms thereafter, with monies usually specified to be paid at the beginning of a month in advance. You seem not to realise I'm British, so we you won't get this sort of nonsense past me.

In any case, monthly rents were collected by Romanelli from the others for monthly payment to the agency.

 

[Bill Williams]

The issues are agreed between the prosecution, the defense and the Judge. They usually revolve around points of conflict and jurisdiction.

Now you are just typing random, and factually wrong, stuff. This post of yours makes no sense, and does not apply to anything in this thread or in the Perugian/Florence/Rome adjudication of the case.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, Vixen is not correct.

So, are all rents in Italy due 1st of the month? AIUI you won't answer because the answer is, no. You would then have to explain how Rudy knew when Mez' rent was due.

Amanda knew.

 

[acbytesla]

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

I wouldn't. I just threw it out. I don't guess about things that I don't have a clue.

 

[Grinder]

Protecting reputation is a business term. Is it appropriate to treat a muder defendant as a commercial business? When a firm suffers business risk to reputation, they will set up a crisis management committee. If reputation has really plunged, they might rebrand the product completely.

Seriously, it is inappropriate to apply business models and rebranding to murder defendants. What if they are guilty? How ethical is it? It would be on a par with Enron or the Madoff fraud.

You can't know the kids are innocent until they have had a fair hearing.

Hattenstone is an author and journalist not unnaturally looking for a story.

Since most of the british media was anti Knox with stories completely fabricated such as the noise ticket story and pejorative remarks like "Foxy Knoxy" repeated ad naseum. there must hundreds of reporter there alone that could blow the whistle. The only reporter I'm aware made the claim was Barbie and she's not enough.

The "rebranding" or branding was not done in court where as you know trials take place. But if you think the PR of the defense was unfair how about the leaking of tall tales and fake pictures by the PLE?

 

[RoseMontague]

The issues are agreed between the prosecution, the defense and the Judge. They usually revolve around points of conflict and jurisdiction.

The washing machine was no such issue and in fact came up in four different testimonies during the trial, all of which I have quoted here.