Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Diocletus]

I have the original Italian in my mind;

Reminds me of an old saying: You can put Italian in your mind, but you can't put a mind in your Italian.

 

[MDDVS]

It doesn't matter how much you parrot the mantra "no plausible innocent explanation", the fact remains that the innocent explanations far outweigh any possible connection of this knife to the murder - which implies a quite implausible 2-way transportation of the knife from Raff's flat to the cottage and back. It's entirely possible that Amanda (or Raff) had some of Meredith's DNA on her hands or clothes from social contact, which were later transferred to the knife without it ever leaving Raff's flat.

But given the history of the knife and Stefanoni's obvious agenda, the most likely explanation for the DNA reading is far from "innocent". Since no other test revealed any trace of the victim's DNA, the reading almost certainly resulted from contamination of the sample itself within the laboratory, either through recklessness or deliberate planting. Otherwise, why did Stefanoni go on repeatedly testing the sample after multiple results of "too low"?

She's not on trial. In other words, it is obvious the result is legitimate as long as you exclude a priori all other possibilities.

 

[acbytesla]

I've grown so tired of this. While I don't know how Stefanoni came to the result that shows that Raffaele's DNA was on the bra clasp, (note* I didn't say that Raffaele's DNA ever was on the bra clasp.) I know the machinations to have Amanda and Raffaele be involved are much more convoluted and bizarre.

I see the verbal dancing and dishonest arguing and I want to slap these people and yell "MacFly".

There are some people incapable of learning or logical thought.

 

[carbonjam72]

Can't you see that this would contradict not only Vecchiotti's statement saying that she had all what she requested (even more than that), but above all, can't you see how thus would be catastrophically inconsistent with Conti&Vecchiotti's report? The position that the "limited data is sufficient for conclusions" is not sustainable, because Vecchiotti's conclusions hinge around negative controls for a main part.
How can you miss the implications?

Mach, you're interpretation makes no sense. The underlying DNA is necessary to review Stef's work to insure its validity. If you think C&V said anything different, then you have misunderstood them.

But moreover, there was so much else that was wrong with Stef's work that the full data set could not retrieve her results from the garbage bin.

Mach, do you believe false confessions are possible? That witnesses will sometimes cave into excessive police pressure in interrogations, become confused, and say things the police want them to say? Do you believe such incidents happen?

 

[Desert Fox]

I've grown so tired of this. While I don't know how Stefanoni came to the result that shows that Raffaele's DNA was on the bra clasp, (note* I didn't say that Raffaele's DNA ever was on the bra clasp.) I know the machinations to have Amanda and Raffaele be involved are much more convoluted and bizarre.

I see the verbal dancing and dishonest arguing and I want to slap these people and yell "MacFly".

There are some people incapable of learning or logical thought.

Go onto other cases. . . . .I am only occasionally visiting this thread to see what craziness I read next.

 

[Bill Williams]

Go onto other cases. . . . .I am only occasionally visiting this thread to see what craziness I read next.

Amongst other things we now have Machiavelli saying that it doesn't matter if it was Stefanoni's glove which contaminated the bra-hasp.





The point, he claims, is that the glove was clean when Stefanoni entered Meredith's room, so any dirt collected on it must have come from that room.

Machiavelli immediately dropped the subject when that still did not explain how from 3 to 5 male DNA samples became mixed to form the sample known as 165B, because for him, in spectacular suspect-centric fashion, said the important thing was that Raffaele was one of them.

He also said nothing about Napoleoni's admission that the medical staff who came in to examine the victim on Nov 2 came in with no forensic countermeasures.

Yet Machiavelli can say - apparently with a straight face - it doesn't matter if it was the glove which contaminated the hasp.

Sheesh.

 

[acbytesla]

Go onto other cases. . . . .I am only occasionally visiting this thread to see what craziness I read next.

I don't get it DF. I simply don't get it. None of them can give you a time line that even comes close to the evidence. It's like watching people pound a square peg into a round hole and have them look at you and say "see, it fits"

I don't get how they can pull Patrick out of the equation whom Amanda knew to some degree and communicated with that night and plug in Rudy, whom Amanda or Raffaele NEVER exchanged a single text, email, or phone call with. A man that Amanda basically met in passing.

MEREDITH who was dead an hour after Ms Popovich had a conversation with Amanda and Raffaele at his apartment. Rudy admits he was there and says precisely when Meredith was killed. A time that would have made it IMPOSSIBLE for Amanda and Raffaele to be involved. A time that is backed by the state of Meredith's digestion.

Instead they prefer to believe a junkie who's mind is gone. And an old woman who would have had to have super human hearing?

Can't they see the total logical lunacy of their position? Apparently not.

 

[MDDVS]

I don't get it DF. I simply don't get it. None of them can give you a time line that even comes close to the evidence. It's like watching people pound a square peg into a round hole and have them look at you and say "see, it fits"

I don't get how they can pull Patrick out of the equation whom Amanda knew to some degree and communicated with that night and plug in Rudy, whom Amanda or Raffaele NEVER exchanged a single text, email, or phone call with. A man that Amanda basically met in passing.

MEREDITH who was dead an hour after Ms Popovich had a conversation with Amanda and Raffaele at his apartment. Rudy admits he was there and says precisely when Meredith was killed. A time that would have made it IMPOSSIBLE for Amanda and Raffaele to be involved. A time that is backed by the state of Meredith's digestion.

Instead they prefer to believe a junkie who's mind is gone. And an old woman who would have had to have super human hearing?

Can't they see the total logical lunacy of their position? Apparently not.

You forgot that the junkie witness actually provides an alibi. Dnd the aural witness didn't identify anybody, she just heard a scream and people running (it was not proven to be related with the crime).

 

[Kauffer]

Amongst other things we now have Machiavelli saying that it doesn't matter if it was Stefanoni's glove which contaminated the bra-hasp.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397154cd64bdf2e8d.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397154cd51816a9a7.jpg[/qimg]

The point, he claims, is that the glove was clean when Stefanoni entered Meredith's room, so any dirt collected on it must have come from that room.

Machiavelli immediately dropped the subject when that still did not explain how from 3 to 5 male DNA samples became mixed to form the sample known as 165B, because for him, in spectacular suspect-centric fashion, said the important thing was that Raffaele was one of them.

He also said nothing about Napoleoni's admission that the medical staff who came in to examine the victim on Nov 2 came in with no forensic countermeasures.

Yet Machiavelli can say - apparently with a straight face - it doesn't matter if it was the glove which contaminated the hasp.

Sheesh.

It's actually being gripped by the hooks! Thinking about it, they cannot have thought they would get profiles from the metal.

 

[acbytesla]

You forgot that the junkie witness actually provides an alibi. Dnd the aural witness didn't identify anybody, she just heard a scream and people running (it was not proven to be related with the crime).

I remember. But those are their star witnesses.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's actually being gripped by the hooks! Thinking about it, they cannot have thought they would get profiles from the metal.

Those are Patrizia Stefanoni's fingers slipped into those gloves. Dr. Stefanoni.

No wonder Machiavelli won't find out where she got her non-existent Ph.D. The granting institution would want to revoke it.

The worst part? These pictures got past three courts. The 2013 Section 1 of ISC said that the route of contamination must be proven, not just asserted. Ah, er, take a peek at the pictures.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

 

[TomB]

Amongst other things we now have Machiavelli saying that it doesn't matter if it was Stefanoni's glove which contaminated the bra-hasp.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397154cd64bdf2e8d.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397154cd51816a9a7.jpg[/qimg]

The point, he claims, is that the glove was clean when Stefanoni entered Meredith's room, so any dirt collected on it must have come from that room.

Machiavelli immediately dropped the subject when that still did not explain how from 3 to 5 male DNA samples became mixed to form the sample known as 165B, because for him, in spectacular suspect-centric fashion, said the important thing was that Raffaele was one of them.

He also said nothing about Napoleoni's admission that the medical staff who came in to examine the victim on Nov 2 came in with no forensic countermeasures.

Yet Machiavelli can say - apparently with a straight face - it doesn't matter if it was the glove which contaminated the hasp.

Sheesh.

This is fascinating.

Machiavelli's point is that any contamination transferred from the glove must have come from the environment of the room. Likewise any contamination from dropping it on the floor doesn't matter because the clasp was already on the floor and, therefore, contaminated by the floor.

I can actually agree with this in a way.

Throwing aside the problems at the lab for the moment and operating on the assumption that the DNA was actually on the clasp and was there when it was finally placed in the evidence bag...what would that evidence amount to?

It has been established that the clasp was on the floor, and pushed around across the floor and dropped in a different location. Therefore, it is not a pristine sample of contact between a person and Ms. Kercher's clothing. Instead, it is a composite sample of contact DNA and a swab of the floor.

It no longer constitutes evidence of involvement in the crime unless that person had never been in the vicinity of the crime scene.

So yeah, it doesn't matter that she gripped it incorrectly with visibly dirty gloves, because the thing was already contaminated to the point that DNA on it could not be linked exclusively to the crime, anyway. Stefanoni just added to the contamination already present.

Still, it doesn't speak well of her adherence to good lab practices.

 

[Bill Williams]

Still, it doesn't speak well of her adherence to good lab practices.

This could well win the "understatement on Continuation 17" award!

 

[MDDVS]

This is fascinating.

Machiavelli's point is that any contamination transferred from the glove must have come from the environment of the room. Likewise any contamination from dropping it on the floor doesn't matter because the clasp was already on the floor and, therefore, contaminated by the floor.

I can actually agree with this in a way.

Throwing aside the problems at the lab for the moment and operating on the assumption that the DNA was actually on the clasp and was there when it was finally placed in the evidence bag...what would that evidence amount to?

It has been established that the clasp was on the floor, and pushed around across the floor and dropped in a different location. Therefore, it is not a pristine sample of contact between a person and Ms. Kercher's clothing. Instead, it is a composite sample of contact DNA and a swab of the floor.

It no longer constitutes evidence of involvement in the crime unless that person had never been in the vicinity of the crime scene.

So yeah, it doesn't matter that she gripped it incorrectly with visibly dirty gloves, because the thing was already contaminated to the point that DNA on it could not be linked exclusively to the crime, anyway. Stefanoni just added to the contamination already present.

Still, it doesn't speak well of her adherence to good lab practices.

It doesn't matter because:

1) DNA doesn't fly so it is impossible for Rafaelle's DNA to be in the room

2) All the house is the crime scene, so finding a person's DNA means she must have been involved in the crime.

Hmm, it's difficult to explain this without self-contraditions

 

[moije2]

I have the original Italian in my mind; if I had to work on a translation I would highlight it along with changes above. The phrase used by SC can only be understood in Italian as: the experts "were supposed to" perform it with intellectual honesty, they "should have done that" (but they didn't). The phrase is an "unreal hypothesis", says what should have been, and was not done.

The high lighted is exactly as I understood it as well.

Saying they should have done something with intellectual honesty is a lot different than "they were intellectually dishonest" in not doing it. But I expect no less of an interpretation. It seems that you declare things as obvious and clear where it almost always requires paragraphs of explanation to arrive at "simple".

We have of course ignored the premise set by this court. A wrongful delegation to experts, then the expert deciding that tests would be invalid/unreliable/unscientific and thus not doing them. Argument rejected regarding new testing methods because such would be in the realm of experimental.

.... and the Chieffi court declares that they should have proceeded with testing anyway, even though invalid/unreliable/unscientific, and then let argument be made about the unreliability. Notice the repeated theme: unscientific product may still have evidentiary value to us (the court). We will decide. Not scientists. The scientist should just do whatever experiment and the product of that experiment will be argued in court. No matter how unscientific.

In this way the experts have been "intellectually dishonest". Per you. And you have used this turn of phrase - from they should do something with intellectual honesty to affirmatively they were dishonest - as a coup de grâce in your argumentation.

I am not sure how "intellectually honest" that argumentation is.

 

[Kauffer]

Courts and DNA

Excellent little interview here:

http://www.nature.com/news/forensics-specialist-discusses-a-discipline-in-crisis-1.16870

...with Niamh Nic Daéid of the University of Dundee, UK.

Following on from Diocletus introduction of the Mark Dwyer decision in New York, it seems that the good judge has sent out some international shockwaves.

"So the courts just don't trust some of these forensic techniques?

I think that’s increasingly occurring. For example, in the United States a judge [Mark Dwyer] refused the admission of DNA evidence in his courtroom because of the current debate in the forensic-science literature. That’s really worrying."

 

[Bill Williams]

This is fascinating.

Machiavelli's point is that any contamination transferred from the glove must have come from the environment of the room. Likewise any contamination from dropping it on the floor doesn't matter because the clasp was already on the floor and, therefore, contaminated by the floor.

I can actually agree with this in a way.

This, then, is proof that Machiavelli has abandoned both the Nencini report as well as the Massei report, the two convictions.

Machiavelli smply makes it up as he goes, as long as it sounds like he's making a case for guilt.

The Court holds that a reconstruction of the attack compatible with the evidence shown at the trial leads us to think Raffaele Sollecito carried the weapon that caused the wounds on the right side of the neck. In fact, the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito was found on the clasp of the bra worn by Meredith Kercher. It is DNA from likely epithelial exfoliation, left by the defendant the moment he pulled the clasp to remove it from the back of the young woman in order to insert the blade that cut the cloth of the bra hook.​

For Nencini's fantasy, Nencini's suspect-centric approach ignores the other male DNA contained in 165B and turns it into the keystone of "proof" that Sollecito cut off the clasp with a (non-existent) knife.

Machiavelli has abandoned even that - now it doesn't matter if the clasp was contaminated by Stefanoni's glove.

It has not been a good week in guilter-land with Machiavelli making it up as he goes, and contradicting even the guilter courts.

 

[Diocletus]

Excellent little interview here:

http://www.nature.com/news/forensics-specialist-discusses-a-discipline-in-crisis-1.16870

...with Niamh Nic Daéid of the University of Dundee, UK.

Following on from Diocletus introduction of the Mark Dwyer decision in New York, it seems that the good judge has sent out some international shockwaves.

"So the courts just don't trust some of these forensic techniques?

I think that’s increasingly occurring. For example, in the United States a judge [Mark Dwyer] refused the admission of DNA evidence in his courtroom because of the current debate in the forensic-science literature. That’s really worrying."

Very interesting. Made me do a little search, myself, and I came up with this one, which I find fascinating:

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/06/24/the-surprisingly-imperfect-science-of-dna-testing

 

[Machiavelli]

The high lighted is exactly as I understood it as well.

Saying they should have done something with intellectual honesty is a lot different than "they were intellectually dishonest" in not doing it.

I think it is exactly the same thing. Insofar as it contains that very implication within itself: that they were not intellectually honest.
However I note that in fact there is a slight difference: if we want to analyze fine implications of the SC wording, in fact the Court says even a bit more than that, since it does not link strictly their not being "fully honest" to the fact of not testing alone. There is a kind of juxtaposition rather than an exclusive causal link expressed. The pointing out that they should have been honest on that decision bu they weren't, by my reading of this passage, does not depend only on the fact that they made an undue decision about not going forward with the testing, but also in more general terms to the way how they took the decision, the non transparent way how they justified and presented their decision through the trial.

I expect no less of an interpretation. It seems that you declare things as obvious and clear where it almost always requires paragraphs of explanation to arrive at "simple".

We have of course ignored the premise set by this court. A wrongful delegation to experts, then the expert deciding that tests would be invalid/unreliable/unscientific and thus not doing them. Argument rejected regarding new testing methods because such would be in the realm of experimental.

.... and the Chieffi court declares that they should have proceeded with testing anyway, even though invalid/unreliable/unscientific, and then let argument be made about the unreliability. Notice the repeated theme: unscientific product may still have evidentiary value to us (the court). We will decide. Not scientists. The scientist should just do whatever experiment and the product of that experiment will be argued in court. No matter how unscientific.

In this way the experts have been "intellectually dishonest". Per you. And you have used this turn of phrase - from they should do something with intellectual honesty to affirmatively they were dishonest - as a coup de grâce in your argumentation.

I am not sure how "intellectually honest" that argumentation is.

I think I did not ignore the premise. But the conclusion cannot be different than pointing out that the experts are not to be regarded as intellectually honest. There isn't really a possible second meaning in this comment by Chieffi court, it wouldn't make any sense otherwise and I can't see an alternative purpose on the part of SC to make this note, but as a pointing out that the experts were dishonest. In fact this is also the way the Florence Prosecutor General understood it as he mentioned the SC comment to the Nencini court.

 

[Diocletus]

I think it is exactly the same thing. Insofar as it contains that very implication within itself: that they were not intellectually honest.
However I note that in fact there is a slight difference: if we want to analyze fine implications of the SC wording, in fact the Court says even a bit more than that, since it does not link strictly their not being "fully honest" to the fact of not testing alone. There is a kind of juxtaposition rather than an exclusive causal link expressed. The pointing out that they should have been honest on that decision bu they weren't, by my reading of this passage, does not depend only on the fact that they made an undue decision about not going forward with the testing, but also in more general terms to the way how they took the decision, the non transparent way how they justified and presented their decision through the trial.



I think I did not ignore the premise. But the conclusion cannot be different than pointing out that the experts are not to be regarded as intellectually honest. There isn't really a possible second meaning in this comment by Chieffi court, it wouldn't make any sense otherwise and I can't see an alternative purpose on the part of SC to make this note, but as a pointing out that the experts were dishonest.

You really need to stop parsing little tidbits that no one else in the world cares about, and start focusing on the bigger issues, like: what the Italian justice system can learn from this case and how it can make itself better.