Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

LM:Senza sapere né la lunghezza delle ferite, né la profondità delle stesse.
AF:Certo.
LM:E quindi non poteva conoscere neanche il tramite se era un tramite lungo o un tramite corto che avesse provocato...
AF:Se mi dicono, Avvocato, che sono delle ferite molto profonde io presumo..., e larghe presumo che la lama Sicuramente, ma potrebbe essere grande.

So he was not briefed on the expected dimensions of a knife. Others took a small pocket style knife, so obviously did not believe they were looking for a large knife. Also note at this stage there was no suggestion that two knives were being looked for, it was only later they realised the large knife seized was incompatible with most wounds and had to introduce the two knife hypothesis.
He just took the first knife he saw.

LM:Quindi per concludere, ultima domanda, primo coltello che vede...
AF: Sì, perché era il primo riposto su tutte le stoviglie.

Sorry, no.
You are quoting an attempt of spinning by a defence lawyer as it was proof of something, but here it's only Maori trying to "put words in the mouth" of the witness. Finzi here only says he saw it first because it was on top of other coutelry, while Maori tries to make a link suggesting "this is the reason" why he "picked" that knife and no others.
But this is false.
Finzi says very clearly that the reason why he picked that knife was not because he saw that first, but because it appeared interesting under an investigation viewpoint, insofar it appeared compatible with the wounds, and he also said that one reason why the object seemed compatible was because the wound was very deep and wide and this made him think it would be probably caused by a large knife.
Finzi also said he picked also another knife from Sollecito's apartment, while dismissed the other knives since at first sight they didn't look "compatible" with that type of wound. Finzi also said anyway they seized the whole apartment, with all its content.

Now have a look to what Finzi actually says:

Finzi says quite clearly that he had been briefed about Meredith’s wounds, that were described to him with terms “molto profonde”, and “larghe” and says thus he expected that a knife compatible with those wound would be probably “grande”.


p. 174

GM:
Le sono state descritte queste lesioni che aveva riportato?
AF:
Sì, abbastanza profonde e quindi probabilmente era stato adoperato un coltello con una lama abbastanza grande, questo si era saputo nei briefing che c'erano stati qualche ora prima.

p. 177

GM:
C'erano altri coltelli?
AF:
C'erano altri coltelli sì però ho preso questo coltello in quanto dai briefing che c'erano stati, da intuito investigativo, l'ho preso e l'ho mostrato immediatamente al dottor Chiacchiera, ho detto: "Dottore io questo lo prenderei" ed il dottor Chiacchiera mi ha...
GM:
Cioè era un coltello che poteva essere rilevante...
AF:
Poteva essere rilevante in quanto la lama poteva essere secondo il mio avviso compatibile con le ferite che io non ho mai visto che però sapevo che erano gravi.
GM:
Era un coltello interessante insomma.
AF:
Un coltello interessante, esatto.

p.183

LM:
Che lunghezze avevano queste ferite?
AF:
Non lo so, erano profonde, io sto riferendo a lei quello che mi è stato riferito.
LM:
Che profondità avevano?
AF:
Non lo so, non le ho misurate.
LM:
Quindi lei praticamente a seguito del briefing quando è andato a fare la perquisizione sapeva soltanto che la Meredith era stata attinta da diverse coltellate dove?
AF:
Al collo, alla gola.
LM:
Senza sapere né la lunghezza delle ferite, né la profondità delle stesse.
AF:
Certo.
LM:
E quindi non poteva conoscere neanche il tramite se era un tramite lungo o un tramite corto che avesse provocato...
AF:
Se mi dicono, Avvocato, che sono delle ferite molto profonde io presumo..., e larghe presumo che la lama (..non dico...) sicuramente, ma potrebbe essere grande.
LM:
Benissimo lei ha parlato prima, a domanda del Pubblico Ministero, anche del fatto che vi erano all'interno dell'abitazione altri coltelli più piccoli e più grandi?
AF:
Sì.
LM:
Perché non ha, diciamo così, attenzionato la sua attenzione su altri coltelli più grandi?
AF:
Perché secondo me quelli non erano di interesse investigativo.
LM:
Ma secondo me, cioè era una sua semplice valutazione...
AF:
È stata una valutazione...
LM:
Semplice valutazione ovvero perché lei scientemente, scientificamente perché conosceva come dovevano essere le ferite, come erano le ferite quindi...
AF:
No no, io le ripeto, io non ho mai visto le ferite della Meredith, mi è stato riferito, quindi secondo me il coltello che io come primo atto ho preso poteva essere... La lama del coltello che io ho preso poteva essere compatibile con le ferite, poteva.

Finzi says however that he also picked another knife from Sollecito’s flat that he thought could be compatible, and was much smaller.

I agree. His briefing seemed minimal. It seems given the lack of specifity most knives should have been tested. Only three knives seem to have been tested all from Sollecito's, one large two small.

If you look at video of Sollecito's apartment you realize the "othe knives" were some small steak knives and one serrated bread knife.
Unless you believe that murder could have been committed with a steak knife or a bread knife, those are not exactly items that you would consider interesting.

There was not a good reason for removing the knife from the envelope. For safety reasons put the knife in the envelope in a box. It is clearly an error to take the knife out of the envelope to repackage it. It then becomes the responsibility of the police to demonstrate no one and no thing with Knox or Kercher DNA could have contaminated the knife. Where there is a breach in the chain of evidence it becomes the responsibility of the prosecution to demonstrate this is of no significance. It should be remembered that the envelope used was not one for evidence collection, but one used routinely by Finzi to keep his gloves in.

Well Finzi only kept new gloves there. But Finzi had never been at the cottage.
It's not a kind of "ping pong" game where there if a certain move is done then "it becomes responsability of the prosecution", actually the trial is always focused on the suspect. The prosecution has always a responsability of checking whether evidence is substantial, but there isn't a something like move that causes some particular change in the rules. There isn't actually even a legal concept like "chain of evidence(custody)", there isn't any procedure rule on that.

Gubbiotti re-packaged the knife, taking it out from the envelope, for a good reason, at least for a reason that seemd good and justified in their moment under their praxis.

According to Gubbiotti’s testimony, he took the knife out from the envelope before re-packaging, in order to do the procedure called “repertazione”, which consists in the bureaucratic part of taking record of what is collected: noting a short description like features and size of the knife, possibly taking pictures of it, assign a number and write a note about it to put on the outside of the cardboard box.

What is extraordinary is the lack of proper evidence collection bags. Envelopes from the police station are used, a box is found that had been lying around in the police station. We do not know where this box had been, what it had been in contact with, who had handled it

.

Yet we know Meredith Kercher for sure didn't handle it, and Finzi has never been at the cottage.
But it's not something extraordinary anyway. Stefanoni packaged the mop in present paper. The Scientific Police also used the cottage freezer to store temporarily collected item packages.

It is an error to think only liquid DNA is transferable. Solid DNA material is transferable.

I tend to believe those experts who say it's not that easy to transfer DNA, and that if you test random items inside a house "your will likely find very little DNA".
Frankly, I don't believe it's so easy to find whole cells with nucleus around the environment, it's not easy to transfer those cells from a place to another and it would be even less easy if there is no liquid mean (to detach such a small object from a surface without liquid means, and to transfer it without without a fluid); and above all, I don't think it's somehting probable: to transfer microscopic amounts of DNA (in the magnitude of less than nanograms or picograms) means be able to manage to "touch" an object the size of square micrometers by using an object with a surfact millions times bigger like a finger. And if you studied a bit of physics, you also know how unlikely it is for two surfaces to actually "touch" each other ("contact" of microscopic particles is something itself very improbable). Then you would have to transfer such microscopic particle by touching again with the same portion of finger (or shoe, cloth, or else) a specific item, a small portion actually that will be tested, such as the few millimeters of a metal hook, or the 1 square centimeter of a scratch on a knive blade.

All this is improbable.
It's not imbossible. But it's improbable.
You just cannot assume that this happens all the time, also because this is not what the result show. DNA analysis does on this case does not not show DNA from everyone likely to pass around on every items.
Sollecito's DNA was found n the cottage only on one, small, "wet" item such as a cigarette butt, which someone has certainly touched abundanlty transferring massive amounts of DNA on a small surface through wet saliva.
But there is no Filomena's DNA in filomena's room, for example. There is no other's DNA on most objects found in the flat.

Yet no one else saw any scratches.

Actually scratches are visible in photographies.

But she also wrote this in her formal report.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Polizia-Scientifica-RTIGF-Report.pdf
So this was not just a misremember on verbal questioning. Her formal report also falsely claimed quantification by RTPCR. Which implies these were not contemporaneous records shown as they should be.

In fact when she testified she was reading her report, she was looking at her pages on her pc. I think this is why she mistook: the error propagated from the report to the testimony.

Prof. Potenzi objected to the process.
"Sul coltello da cucina sequestrato nell'appartamento di Raffaele Sollecito non sono presenti tracce biologiche riconducibili al predetto, dovendos i quindi escludere che lo stesso ne abbia fatto uso nel periodo antecedente il suo repertamento. Inoltre, nessuna delle due campionature è stata sott oposta all'indagine preliminare per la ricerca di sangue umano mentre l'analisi del DNA di queste ha fornito, come detto, prodotti di amplificazione estremamente deboli di intensità e note volmente al di sotto del limite minimo consigliato dalle raccomandazioni del GEFI (Gruppo Italiano Patologi Porensi) ma soprattutto si sono ottenute nelle varie amplificazioni eseguite sulle due campionature profili incompleti e con difformità dell'assetto allelico per alcuni loci, tale da non consentire un corretto utilizzo dei suddetti ri sultati a fine forense, allo stato non univocamente interp retabili e teoricamente riconducibili anche ad artefatti analitici. " So according to what you said if the defence objected to the process at the Incidente it should not have proceeded.

No no, the taking place of incidente probatorio can be objected before it takes place.
Potenza wrote observations in his own report. But did not raise any objection at the incidente probatorio. He also made no comments, he put no comments in the record, and also didn't document the testing.

I'm not saying that this behaviour by Potenza should cause the defence to be denied access to data, but it also doesn't mean one can "blame the prosecution" for what defence didn't do. Here, the defence did not try to "mend" an alleged mistake by their expert, instead they partly followed a strategy to exploit it, as a pretext for attempting to dismiss evidence, and they followed a line of conduct that shows, to those who have a grasp of the procedure, that their intent was clearly to try a treacherous game. Which is their right, it is actually what they are expected to do, since in the Italian system the accused and their defence have a right to lie. But this doesn't equate to say that one has to buy it.

 

[Machiavelli]

No, no, no.

You haven't answered my question. You have deflected it. My question was:

"How do you stab Kercher to death and not immediately get blood over you? On your hands, arms, legs, torso, clothes? Why do we see no evidence of blood transfer on Ananda's clothes and at Raffaele's apartment. Why didn't Raffaele get blood on him?"

Sorry, what clothes?
Why do you think there should be a "need" to find their clothes, or blood on their alleged clothes, when no bloody clothes of Guede were found?

 

[Numbers]

A good example of te pro-Knox propaganda lies.

It's false.

Besides the logical point that Vecchiotti was asked to see if there was contamination of that sample, which is the only thing that matters in the setting of that appeal, and not elsewhere (nobody, parties or judges, made requests to search contamination in Stefanoni's other findings elsewhere from knife or bla fastener samples).

Besides that, as I said, the site linked above makes a false claim.

Contrarily to the site claims, no contamination is found in the negative controls of other samples on which profiles were extracted.

The site lies, presenting isolated drop-in alleles in negative controls as if they were evidence of laboratory contamination.

The Conti-Vecchiotti report (quoting another source) itself makes clear that this is not what contamination means:

"one should always expect to observe a few drop-in alleles in negative controls"

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4347455b95bd480ad8.jpg[/qimg]

Your statements are absurd.

No DNA is placed in negative (no template) controls (NTC). For the NTC to show replication of DNA, there must have been DNA in those negative (no template) controls. But by definition, the lab personnel did not put any DNA into the no template controls ("template" means "DNA" in this context). These contaminated no template controls were not subjected to Stefanoni's self-developed LCN method, but only to quantification. No profiles of NTC were provided to the defense. Thus, that there was DNA found in the NTC indicates without a doubt that there was contamination in the lab.

"Drop-in" of alleles is a different issue relating to testing of LCN DNA. The "drop-in" may be viewed as a low-level contamination within the actual DNA-positive specimens. A way to evaluate the presence of drop-in is to run and report replicate samples of the same specimen, which Stefanoni did not do whatsoever for the knife blade.

Here is an abstract from a scientific paper, which illustrates what is meant by drop-in and drop-out in LCN DNA testing, and shows that the statements you have made in your post, including your interpretation of what C & V meant in their report, is totally incorrect.

From: http://www.promega.com/resources/pr...c-issues-with-analysis-of-low-amounts-of-dna/

Scientific Issues with Analysis of Low Amounts of DNA

Faced with limited evidence that yield low amounts of DNA, forensic analysts will continually have to confront the question of how far to push DNA-testing techniques. Low copy number (LCN) analysis, also known as low template DNA (LT-DNA) testing, involves enhancing detection sensitivity usually through increasing the number of PCR cycles. Stochastic effects inherent with analysis of low amounts of DNA yield allele or locus drop-out. Additionally, increasing detection sensitivity can result in a greater potential for contamination or allele drop-in. Validation studies with replicate testing of low amounts of DNA were performed to assess the level of allele and locus drop-out and allele drop-in using 10, 30 and 100 picograms with several commercially available STR-typing kits under both standard and increased number of PCR cycles. The results with pristine, fully heterozygous samples demonstrate that a replicate testing approach can produce reliable information with single-source samples when consensus profiles are created.

 

[Bill Williams]

Sorry, what clothes?
Why do you think there should be a "need" to find their clothes, or blood on their alleged clothes, when no bloody clothes of Guede were found?

Yes, folks. Machiavelli said this.

 

[js202]

Sorry, what clothes?
Why do you think there should be a "need" to find their clothes, or blood on their alleged clothes, when no bloody clothes of Guede were found?

Sorry, it is necessary to have the aptitude to employ reason in order to figure this out. No explanation will help for those bereft of this capacity.

In other words, if you need to ask this question, an answer would be pointless.

 

[Diocletus]

Sorry, what clothes?
Why do you think there should be a "need" to find their clothes, or blood on their alleged clothes, when no bloody clothes of Guede were found?

What about the TMB positive jeans found at guedes apartment?

 

[Machiavelli]

Your statements are absurd.

No DNA is placed in negative (no template) controls (NTC). For the NTC to show replication of DNA, there must have been DNA in those negative (no template) controls. But by definition, the lab personnel did not put any DNA into the no template controls ("template" means "DNA" in this context). These contaminated no template controls were not subjected to Stefanoni's self-developed LCN method, but only to quantification. No profiles of NTC were provided to the defense. Thus, that there was DNA found in the NTC indicates without a doubt that there was contamination in the lab.

"Drop-in" of alleles is a different issue relating to testing of LCN DNA. The "drop-in" may be viewed as a low-level contamination within the actual DNA-positive specimens. A way to evaluate the presence of drop-in is to run and report replicate samples of the same specimen, which Stefanoni did not do whatsoever for the knife blade.

(...)

It is not my statement.
Those reported within quotation marks are statements quoted in the Conti-Vecchiotti report.

"one should always expect to find a few drop-in alleles in negative controls".

Actually the quote says "spuri" which I translated as "drop-in".

The presence of few spurious alleles is something that one should always expect to find in negative controls (as for Vecchiotti & Conti, actually quoting from literature).

 

[Vixen]

The Historical Jesus III

This is what I have said many times - the discredited DNA results would not indicate guilt even if genuine. Mach, Vixen and the other faith-based posters are fond of claiming "there is no innocent explanation!" but this is another of their deluded claims.

Not only are there plenty of ways that the DNA could have been present on the knife and the bra clasp before the crime occurred, but there are no plausible ways in which the 2 traces could have got there in the course of the crime. So we have Massei having to make up a fictional, evidence-free account in which Amanda allegedly carried the knife for "protection", while we have others claiming that Raff allegedly forced the tiny bra hook open with his fingers - rather than unhooking it in the normal way without ever touching the hooks.

Of course, this kind of reasoning isn't unique to Italy. In the Birmingham (UK) pub bombing case, alleged traces of explosive on the hands of the accused were taken as "evidence" they had planted the bomb (rather than manufacturing it); in the Lockerbie case, highly suspect identification evidence of Megrahi allegedly buying the clothes, was taken as proof that he had planted the bomb; and in a case I know of in the US, an alleged rapist-arsonist was convicted partly on the claimed discovery of fire-damaged items from the house in his car (showing that the items were taken from the house after the fire, at a time when only the police had access to it).

Over 200 people were blown out of the sky at Lockerbie, many of them US students. OK so there is doubt about Megrahi being at Frankfurt. The Scots gave him a free pardon because of his "terminal" cancer, and - the guy was still alive three years later - here's "Bleedin' Heart" Antony once again sticking up for the murderous perps.

This post got bounced around a bit due to mod error. Sorry for the confusion.

Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[Machiavelli]

What about the TMB positive jeans found at guedes apartment?

And what about the TMB positive mop found at knoxes apartment?

 

[js202]

And what about the TMB positive mop found at knoxes apartment?

Ah, of course, after the clean-up, they cleaned the mop! Brilliant, metaphysical techniques - presumably gleaned by Knox from one of her two German volumes of Harry Potter - were employed to remove all mere visual traces of blood from said mop.

 

[Vixen]

Lol!

Vechiotti is Associate Professor of Forensic Medicine and Director of the laboratory of Forensic Genetics at Sapienza.

It really is about time you stopped making absurd fabricated statements about subjects you know nothing about.

Logical fallacy: appeal to authority.

Your heroes Vecchiotto & Conti were seen being pally with the defense and then their labs got forcibly closed down because of decaying cadavers in the corridors.

Reputable. _NOT!

 

[Kauffer]

Sorry, what clothes?
Why do you think there should be a "need" to find their clothes, or blood on their alleged clothes, when no bloody clothes of Guede were found?

Guede didn't emerge as a suspect until much later and skipped the country. Raffaele and Amanda were living together at Raffaele's flat from the day of the murder until their arrest. We have all their clothes at both locations and no evidence of any transfer there or at Raffaele's flat.

And we have no evidence in the room that they were ever in the room - the mixed bra clasp evidence is undateable, let alone compromised.

So you have a brutally violent close quarters stabbing murder with clear, incorruptible evidence of Guede in the room but not the others in that room or transfer evidence on their property or at any location.

It is inconceivable. If either Amanda or Raffaele did what was alleged of them, they would have left evidence in blood in the room, considerable DNA evidence and there would have been transfer.

They went to court with none of this. But they had traces of Amanda from her own bathroom - evidence, which even you admit has no time stamp.

Any blood from Kercher in this case came from the room and therefore there must be evidence of its collection from the room by whoever was there. We have evidence of such collection from Guede alone.

Yet according to the prosecution he was not even the major participant.

 

[Vixen]

Funny that Vecciotti is that incompetent, and yet, she is able to destroy Stefanoni for: (i) clown-show crime scene processing, (ii) not quantifying or characterizing a sample, and (iii) not obtaining a consensus profile for an LCN sample. Duh.

Stefanoni must be lower than a snake's belly to get so pwned by such an incompetent.

Stefanoni was not "destroyed". She was promoted. She secured a conviction for Amanda and Raff.

 

[Vixen]

Has anyone ever taken a math/chemistry/physics test without being instructed to 'show your work'?

It's true you get marks for workings, even if the final answer is wrong.

However, if you get to the correct answer without workings, you get full marks, unless it's a proof being asked for.

 

[kwill]

Just wanted to say

Just wanted to say that it's a lovely warm day here in Seattle, where wrongfully convicted Amanda Knox lives. The breeze is soft, the water is clean, and I hope Amanda is gradually forgetting the nightmare of having her freedom taken away by zealous prosecutors relying on bogus theories.

I guarantee you she's not giving a moment's thought to anonymous internet people who have decided to hold on to their hatred and waste their precious lives wishing she were locked up.

 

[Vixen]

When you use the term "frame", are you using the classical meaning of a plan/conspiracy to convict an innocent person or the esoteric ISF meaning for some of police producing evidence or withholding exculpatory evidence to convict someone they are "sure" is guilty?

Both. Either thinking them guilty, or the other meaning, knowing them to be innocent, but determined to convict them.

 

[Desert Fox]

Just wanted to say that it's a lovely warm day here in Seattle, where wrongfully convicted Amanda Knox lives. The breeze is soft, the water is clean, and I hope Amanda is gradually forgetting the nightmare of having her freedom taken away by zealous prosecutors relying on bogus theories.

I guarantee you she's not giving a moment's thought to anonymous internet people who have decided to hold on to their hatred and waste their precious lives wishing she were locked up.

That is why I don't understand why we are still discussing it. . . . She likely wants all this to just go away

 

[Vixen]

Actually , IIRC the ISC does have the jurisdiction. Maybe Numbers can help, since he has done a lot of work researching the ISC. Whatis happens in Italy after the ECHR rules that a member state has violated a convicted defendant's rights?

But still, the overwhelming issue here is that Vixen and Machiavelli are wrong and Amanda and Raffaele are both innocent. Not Guilty. PERIOD.

Such a shame you never made it through law school, or you, too, could be on the Supreme Court panel.

 

[Diocletus]

And what about the TMB positive mop found at knoxes apartment?

You mean the TMB + sample corresponding with a suppressed profile? Go tell stefanoni to give up the profile, and then we can talk.

 

[Vixen]

Who was present when the knife was tested? IIRC the defense didn't or were unable to attend. Should the defense anticipate a ISCI tester going beyond the standard limits of the device being used?

Why didn't Stef stop after the first or second "too low" and inform the defense she was going to keep testing anyway so they could attend the extraordinary testing?

Vixen, still no examples of negative for blood and positive for DNA of a victim. Also how could Stef see a striation yet the piece of "DNA" was to small to test. How big is a piece of DNA that weighs 100 or 200 pica grams?

How long is a piece of string? No matter how many pica grams, a near full profile of Mez was discovered.