Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bruce Fischer]

The question is: can they live with it? Being out of jail is better than being in jail but being free from the cloud of suspicion is also better than the opposite. You don't have to live the rest of your life with people pointing fingers, as they will. The ISC had no need to invent spurious new points just to prove how smart they are. Fortunately, the headlnes will likely be what most remember and their theme seems to have been that the case was just a total crock. It's a pity that those who look deeper will have something to chew on. That didn't have to happen.

As you noted, the recent headlines regarding the ISC motivation were favorable to Amanda and Raffaele. Italy seems to accept these things and move on. Americans have short attention spans, and because this happened in a foreign country, whether that reasoning is right or wrong, Amanda will go on to be viewed as rightfully exonerated by those who followed the case in the news. And that would be a majority of people. It may not be the correct path to the right conclusion but it's the right conclusion either way. Amanda has been seen repeatedly with the Innocence Project as I believe she should be. I believe her name will go on to be widely known as a person who was wrongfully convicted, and rightfully so. Hopefully the attention brought to her case will work to help bring attention to other cases of wrongful conviction. It is a shame that the ISC provided fuel for the continued internet debate, but I'm not sure that the few people left in the debate would have stopped debating either way.

 

[bagels]

Generation Why podcast did an update on the Amanda Knox case. The covered it twice before. The 1st, they basically called her guilty. The 2nd episode was more balanced and now they do an update on the case. Here it is. Starts at about the 4 min mark.

http://thegenerationwhypodcast.com/updates-2015-147-generation-why

I still think they get some stuff wrong. Maybe some of the bigger experts in the case can give it a listen.

The one who sounds like Peter Sarsgaard sounds more reasonable of the two in this one. The only evidence against the students they specifically bring up is the bra clasp, which probably is the single best piece of evidence there is against the students that's never really been explained.

I think most of us on the obviously innocent side have a clear view that the prosecution's story doesn't make any sense. Not just in the Charles Manson crazy cult kind of way, but in a literally nonsensical Dr Seuss kind of way, so it's easy for us to dismiss obviously non credible evidence. If you view this case from the starting assumption that the prosecutions theory isn't totally outrageous and there must have been credible reasons to suspect the students, then I could see how you will never view the entire ordeal as a witch hunt, but rather as a shaky investigation of an ambiguous crime scene with shaky suspects in the two students, where the acquittal on reasonable doubt grounds is probably a fair outcome.

One of them mentions that's it's unfair to characterize them as digging in their heels to support a particular position. But I think this is a natural defense of a "neutral" position which in this case isn't the correct one. If you do any deeper poking into the Patrick incident for example you will quickly unravel the "neutral" position. The police behavior before, during, and after the interrogation. The case closed press conference. The mysterious 3rd witness everyone's forgot about the police had within 24 hours to say Patrick wasn't in his bar working even though he was, while numerous alibis were ignored, holding Patrick even after the Swiss professor was interviewed and long after the DNA would have cleared him. Continuing to keep his bar closed long after even the police cleared him. The Patrick interview where he says the police beat him and used racial slurs etc. But the podcast hosts don't want to delve into this because it would erode their "neutral" view and if you tried to bring it up they would just view you as a fanatic supporter and dismiss you (digging in their heels).

 

[Numbers]

As you noted, the recent headlines regarding the ISC motivation were favorable to Amanda and Raffaele. Italy seems to accept these things and move on. Americans have short attention spans, and because this happened in a foreign country, whether that reasoning is right or wrong, Amanda will go on to be viewed as rightfully exonerated by those who only followed the case in the news. And that would be a majority of people. It may not be the correct path to the right conclusion but it's the right conclusion either way. Amanda has been seen repeatedly with the Innocence Project as I believe she should be. I believe her name will go on to be widely known as a person who was wrongfully convicted, and rightfully so. Hopefully the attention brought to her case will work to help bring attention to other cases of wrongful conviction. It is a shame that the ISC provided fuel for the continued internet debate, but I'm not sure that the few people left in the debate would have stopped debating either way.

Bruce,

Your points are from my viewpoint entirely correct. Much of the nit-picking discussion on the Marasca CSC panel motivation report serves no clear purpose and is redundant.

However, there is an additional point that is not receiving much attention. That is, it is against Italian law and ECHR case-law - because the European Convention of Human Rights and ECHR case-law is the law of Italy and each of the other Council of Europe States - to violate the presumption of innocence of persons, even in an acquittal or dismissal for cases running past the statute of limitations.

Thus, if the wording of the Marasca CSC does explicitly or by inference disparage the presumption of innocence of Amanda Knox and/or Raffaele Sollecito, either or both would have recourse to lodge a complaint against Italy on a violation of Convention Article 6.2 with the ECHR, with the expectation that Italy, if found in violation, would be required to redress this violation. The redress could include just satisfaction (compensation) and other measures, including potentially revision or correction of the MR.

 

[Numbers]

The one who sounds like Peter Sarsgaard sounds more reasonable of the two in this one. The only evidence against the students they specifically bring up is the bra clasp, which probably is the single best piece of evidence there is against the students that's never really been explained.

....

bagels,

The highlighted statement is not correct.

The bra clasp showed the DNA of several males, including possibly Sollecito, all at low concentration. The major contributor to the DNA profile was Meredith Kercher. The bra showed evidence of having been ripped off from Meredith's body by pulling on a strap, IIRC. This would tend to preclude any probative significance to the bra clasp. Furthermore, whatever DNA was on the clasp was intentionally destroyed through improper storage by the police, suggesting that the Italian authorities wished to prevent any retesting, and that they were aware of their fraudulent allegations.

Thus, the explanation for the bra clasp DNA evidence alleged against Raffaele Sollecito is straight-forward: It was contamination, if it even existed, and the presentation and interpretation of the DNA evidence was an act of fraud by the Italian authorities. Case closed.

 

[davefoc]

bagels,

The highlighted statement is not correct.

The bra clasp showed the DNA of several males, including possibly Sollecito, all at low concentration. The major contributor to the DNA profile was Meredith Kercher. The bra showed evidence of having been ripped off from Meredith's body by pulling on a strap, IIRC. This would tend to preclude any probative significance to the bra clasp. Furthermore, whatever DNA was on the clasp was intentionally destroyed through improper storage by the police, suggesting that the Italian authorities wished to prevent any retesting, and that they were aware of their fraudulent allegations.

Thus, the explanation for the bra clasp DNA evidence alleged against Raffaele Sollecito is straight-forward: It was contamination, if it even existed, and the presentation and interpretation of the DNA evidence was an act of fraud by the Italian authorities. Case closed.

This is more of an explanation as to why the bra clasp should not have served as evidence in a case based on a BARD criteria. And I certainly agree with that.

I think bagels point is that no one knows what the explanation for the positive result for Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp was. I assumed initially that it was a bogus result based on over fitting. People that were more knowledgeable about the issues than myself convinced me that was an unlikely explanation. That leaves contamination and that Sollecito was involved in the murder as the two possible explanations for the DNA test results.

The contamination could have occurred in many ways, but none of them are very likely IMHO except that I'm convinced one of the unlikely explanations is the correct one. I think from this viewpoint it is reasonable to consider the bra clasp DNA test result unexplained.

 

[Numbers]

This case concerns the treatment of two men, Mr Saïd Bouyid and Mr Mohamed Bouyid (“the applicants”), while in police custody in Belgium. The applicants are represented by: Mr Z. Chihaoui and Mr C. Marchand, lawyers practising in Brussels.

....

You are missing this important language from the ECHR judgment in this case which I posted earlier:

87. Ill-treatment that attains such a minimum level of severity usually involves actual bodily injury or intense physical or mental suffering. However, even in the absence of these aspects, where treatment humiliates or debases an individual, showing a lack of respect for or diminishing his or her human dignity, or arouses feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority capable of breaking an individual’s moral and physical resistance, it may be characterised as degrading and also fall within the prohibition set forth in Article 3....
____

The terminology "breaking an individual's moral and physical resistance" refers to a practice of coercing an individual to make a confession or other statement in accordance with the desires of the authorities, such as the police, but which the individual would not make without such coercion.

Perhaps reiterating this point of ECHR case-law will help clarify the relevance of the Bouyid judgment to the application Amanda Knox has lodged with the ECHR alleging coercion by the Italian authorities and an unfair conviction for calunnia against Lumumba.

 

[bagels]

I agree that the bra clasp has been explained as a non credible piece of evidence that's not criminally probative. But that's not the same as explaining specifically how the result was generated.

For example, I am satisfied with the explanation for the knife DNA being a minute trace of LCN Kercher DNA contaminating the lab equipment.

I am not satisfied with the bra clasp explanations, ranging from glove to door to clasp, to Raffaele touching Meredith who later touches the clasp, etc. None of it seems very likely to me. Outright fraud seems slightly more likely but we'll never know for sure.

 

[Desert Fox]

I agree that the bra clasp has been explained as a non credible piece of evidence that's not criminally probative. But that's not the same as explaining specifically how the result was generated.

For example, I am satisfied with the explanation for the knife DNA being a minute trace of LCN Kercher DNA contaminating the lab equipment.

I am not satisfied with the bra clasp explanations, ranging from glove to door to clasp, to Raffaele touching Meredith who later touches the clasp, etc. None of it seems very likely to me. Outright fraud seems slightly more likely but we'll never know for sure.

Completely innocent contamination has happened before
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_26055401/san-jose-case-casts-doubts-dna-evidence

 

[Numbers]

This is more of an explanation as to why the bra clasp should not have served as evidence in a case based on a BARD criteria. And I certainly agree with that.

I think bagels point is that no one knows what the explanation for the positive result for Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp was. I assumed initially that it was a bogus result based on over fitting. People that were more knowledgeable about the issues than myself convinced me that was an unlikely explanation. That leaves contamination and that Sollecito was involved in the murder as the two possible explanations for the DNA test results.

The contamination could have occurred in many ways, but none of them are very likely IMHO except that I'm convinced one of the unlikely explanations is the correct one. I think from this viewpoint it is reasonable to consider the bra clasp DNA test result unexplained.

No, your view is illogical. You must also explain the presence of the other male DNA on Meredith's bra clasp.

Were they all involved in the murder? Did Meredith loan out her bra to various other women, whose bras were then unfastened by their respective male lovers? We are also all aware that the bra clasp was handled upon discovery by Italian police wearing visibly dirty gloves, a likely source of contamination. There could be many other explanations. From the point of view of a criminal case, there is no need to "explain" once contamination is recognized; that is a problem for the quality control systems of crime scene investigators and DNA labs.

Let the crime scene investigators and police DNA lab responsible for this fraud provide an explanation that is objective and honest. Adopting a suspect-centric explanation for obvious contamination is bad logic and dishonest.

 

[Numbers]

I agree that the bra clasp has been explained as a non credible piece of evidence that's not criminally probative. But that's not the same as explaining specifically how the result was generated.

For example, I am satisfied with the explanation for the knife DNA being a minute trace of LCN Kercher DNA contaminating the lab equipment.

I am not satisfied with the bra clasp explanations, ranging from glove to door to clasp, to Raffaele touching Meredith who later touches the clasp, etc. None of it seems very likely to me. Outright fraud seems slightly more likely but we'll never know for sure.

On IIP Forum, in the main thread, there are some recent posts by Chris_Halkides the TomZ53 reporting literature on the transfer of DNA by latex gloves. This method of transfer is not at all unlikely, if I understand those posts.

 

[bagels]

Completely innocent contamination has happened before
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_26055401/san-jose-case-casts-doubts-dna-evidence

That reminds me of the Brandon Mayfield case. This is why I always try to view forensic results in context. For example let's say the police followed flawless procedures and Raffaele's DNA was on the clasp with Meredith, and there weren't any other male DNA traces. The standard FOA arguments don't account for this, but for me it still wouldn't be enough to raise the evidence beyond reasonable doubt given all the reasonable doubt raised by the significant evidence against Rudy, the crime being entirely consistent with a burglary gone bad, Rudy's inability to connect himself with Amanda and Raffaele despite his repeated attempts to do so, lack of time stamped forensic traces of the students, lack of motive, etc.

 

[davefoc]

No, your view is illogical. You must also explain the presence of the other male DNA on Meredith's bra clasp.

Were they all involved in the murder? Did Meredith loan out her bra to various other women, whose bras were then unfastened by their respective male lovers? We are also all aware that the bra clasp was handled upon discovery by Italian police wearing visibly dirty gloves, a likely source of contamination. There could be many other explanations. From the point of view of a criminal case, there is no need to "explain" once contamination is recognized; that is a problem for the quality control systems of crime scene investigators and DNA labs.

Let the crime scene investigators and police DNA lab responsible for this fraud provide an explanation that is objective and honest. Adopting a suspect-centric explanation for obvious contamination is bad logic and dishonest.

My view is that I don't know why the DNA test results on the bra clasp were what they were. My understanding is that the quantity of Sollecito's DNA on the clasp was significantly larger than the other males. The apartment was awash in the DNA of other people very little of it was likely to be that of Sollecito since he had only been there a few times. It is wildly more likely that if contamination from the apartment is the explanation that somebody else's DNA would have been the source. There is a very large number of possible innocent explanations. Maybe Sollecito's DNA was transferred to the washing machine because Knox washed her clothes in the washing machine and then Kercher used the same machine. Many things are possible. Could the contamination have happened in the lab? Sure but again if accident is the explanation there is a lot more DNA in the lab coming from other people than Sollecito. Maybe Stefanoni used the same gloves that she collected the bra clasp sample with as she used in the lab and she touched something with Sollecito DNA on it then. Maybe she intentionally caused a contamination with something that she guessed had Sollecito DNA on it. One theory is that Stefanoni touched a door handle that had Sollecito's DNA on it. That seems possible, but is this theory particularly likely?

I don't know. There are lots of unlikely explanations here and one of them is the right one. What we don't have is candid speculation from Stefanoni about the most likely possibilities. And of course we don't have a second test result that might have shed light on the cause of the result.

 

[carbonjam72]

Context is key to interpreting DNA results AS evidence

No, your view is illogical. You must also explain the presence of the other male DNA on Meredith's bra clasp.

Were they all involved in the murder? Did Meredith loan out her bra to various other women, whose bras were then unfastened by their respective male lovers? We are also all aware that the bra clasp was handled upon discovery by Italian police wearing visibly dirty gloves, a likely source of contamination. There could be many other explanations. From the point of view of a criminal case, there is no need to "explain" once contamination is recognized; that is a problem for the quality control systems of crime scene investigators and DNA labs.

Let the crime scene investigators and police DNA lab responsible for this fraud provide an explanation that is objective and honest. Adopting a suspect-centric explanation for obvious contamination is bad logic and dishonest.

I agree that the bra clasp result was never actually evidence, because it was not obtained through a validated method, 1 non-repeatable run of LCN quantity. And the evidence destroyed (data withheld here too?).

And the multiple profiles, or even partial profiles, are no more incriminating to Raf, then to any of the other unknowns. And a point Marasca made, is that the partial profile of Raf is not acceptable as proof, because it lacks the certainty of a complete profile.

But most important I feel, is the context in which the sample was found. Not just 46 days later, in a different spot, obviously soiled, and passed around with dirty gloves. What I mean is that all the other biological evidence, which is voluminous, point only to Rudy Guede.

The single set of footprints in wet blood, palm prints fingerprints in wet blood. There were other samples too IIRC.

Dr Mark Waterbury said, IIRC, in a panel presentation to Univ of WA in early 2011 before the Hellman acquittal, that it was a "scientific impossibility" for anyone else to have committed that crime along with Rudy Guede, and not left behind similar traces and types of physical and biological evidence as did Rudy. A "scientific impossibility". The context is such that a trace amount of Raf's DNA, not confirmed by scientifically validated means, in partial LCN profile along with 2-4 other males, does not need to be explained. It's not evidence of anything.
And the fact that Stef intentionally destroyed the sample by storing it in extraction buffer, IIUC, preventing any re-test, shows it is as fraudulently manufactured as the "double knife".

 

[davefoc]

I agree that the bra clasp has been explained as a non credible piece of evidence that's not criminally probative. But that's not the same as explaining specifically how the result was generated.

For example, I am satisfied with the explanation for the knife DNA being a minute trace of LCN Kercher DNA contaminating the lab equipment.

I am not satisfied with the bra clasp explanations, ranging from glove to door to clasp, to Raffaele touching Meredith who later touches the clasp, etc. None of it seems very likely to me. Outright fraud seems slightly more likely but we'll never know for sure.

I wish I'd read this before I responded. This is a more succinct explanation of what I meant.

 

[carbonjam72]

I agree that the bra clasp has been explained as a non credible piece of evidence that's not criminally probative. But that's not the same as explaining specifically how the result was generated.

For example, I am satisfied with the explanation for the knife DNA being a minute trace of LCN Kercher DNA contaminating the lab equipment.

I am not satisfied with the bra clasp explanations, ranging from glove to door to clasp, to Raffaele touching Meredith who later touches the clasp, etc. None of it seems very likely to me. Outright fraud seems slightly more likely but we'll never know for sure.

So is it your view that, "contamination must be proven"?

IIUC, such information is never actually known in any circumstance.

 

[Numbers]

....
This hypothetical proves nothing. The question is: why do Italian judges always seem compelled to include these sorts of hypotheticals with no further explanatory text?

It's as if Marasca had made book with Bruno about the ISF/JREF continuations, "Hey Gennero, I bet if you put some vague something-or-other in your report, those English speaking loons on ISF will make it to the 25th Continuation."

Nencini did it. All of a sudden with nothing said about it before - not police, not prosecution - Nencini sees Raffaele's DNA on the kitchen knife. Nencini must have looked in another striation, different from the one that Stefanoni say and no one else did.

....

Here, you've uncovered the true purpose of the Italian judicial system.

When the Italian judges go to a restaurant, in ordering, they always discuss hypotheticals, even those dishes not on the menu.

 

[bagels]

So is it your view that, "contamination must be proven"?

IIUC, such information is never actually known in any circumstance.

No, I think the least likely explanation for the result is Raffaele touching the clasp during the course of the murder.

 

[Numbers]

So is it your view that, "contamination must be proven"?

IIUC, such information is never actually known in any circumstance.

To be fair, the highlighted should be replaced with "very rarely actually".

 

[carbonjam72]

No, I think the least likely explanation for the result is Raffaele touching the clasp during the course of the murder.

Fair enough. I'm not sure I disagree. Stefanoni has so many ways to cheat, and she seems quite adept at using them all.

 

[Numbers]

No, I think the least likely explanation for the result is Raffaele touching the clasp during the course of the murder.

To restate what was posted by carbonjam and no doubt others, the DNA testing of the bra clasp was not conducted using a validated method or validated interpretation. In fact, fraudulent retesting was done based on available police lab records as shown in the Amanda Knox Case wiki.

See:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/bra-clasp-contamination/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-bra-clasp/

One must explain the contamination and police fraud when attempting to explain the bra clasp result, and no fully satisfactory "final" explanation can be reached without full access to the police DNA lab records, including all EDFs.