Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[bagels]

Shu-shu-shu, shu-shu-shu, shu-shu-shu-shu-shu-shu-shu sugartown. Another day in sugar town court. Sadly in the real world, the courts found Amanda and Rudy were collaborators. She named Patrik to protect Rudy.

I've got some troubles, but they won't last... ~Nancy Sinatrxxx bagels

lol this case is history, it's not even interesting to most of the old die hard posting crew many of whom have apparently found much better things to do with their time than those of us still bothering to log in here. Your 5000 posts should have been retrospection on the prosecution's failure.

 

[LondonJohn]

I still wonder about those medals the police were given for their incredible success at solving the murder of Meredith.

It's symptomatic and emblematic of the deep malaise within the system. And it's all part-and-parcel of the madness, malpractice and tunnel vision/confirmation bias that was going on in Perugia up until the Hellmann verdict threw the first spanner in the wheel.

Basically, the police and law enforcement community - not just in Perugia but in Italy as a whole - had been thrust into the global spotlight from 2nd November 2007. And, owing to the dreadful confirmation bias and tunnel vision embedded in the system, combined with the shocking lack of accountability and checks & balances, the law enforcement community were bloated with hubris and self-congratulation at having "solved the crime" in incredibly quick time (which of course should have raised a huge red flag in itself for this sort of crime....).

In closed systems with embedded malpractice and self-protection, this sort of thing is, unfortunately, far from uncommon. As a comparison, I'm immediately reminded of the My Lai massacre in the Vietnam war in 1968, where the operation's commanders and troops were initially issued with official commendations and congratulations for their acts - before further investigation revealed the disgusting truth of what had really happened. At least in such a case, the US Army had sufficient accountability and oversight to bring out the truth in the end and bring the perpetrators to (some sort of) account. By contrast in Italy, the system is so broken and unfit-for-purpose that the mistakes, malpractice and systemic deficiencies which led to the shockingly incorrect prosecution of Knox and Sollecito will probably never be properly examined - far less corrected or those involved sanctioned appropriately. But that's 21st-Century Italy for you: a chaotic system of "government" riddled with corruption, patronage, self-protection rackets and local fiefdoms, and a near-total absence of effective accountability mechanisms or effective regulation. Disgraceful.

 

[Stacyhs]

It's symptomatic and emblematic of the deep malaise within the system. And it's all part-and-parcel of the madness, malpractice and tunnel vision/confirmation bias that was going on in Perugia up until the Hellmann verdict threw the first spanner in the wheel.

Basically, the police and law enforcement community - not just in Perugia but in Italy as a whole - had been thrust into the global spotlight from 2nd November 2007. And, owing to the dreadful confirmation bias and tunnel vision embedded in the system, combined with the shocking lack of accountability and checks & balances, the law enforcement community were bloated with hubris and self-congratulation at having "solved the crime" in incredibly quick time (which of course should have raised a huge red flag in itself for this sort of crime....).

In closed systems with embedded malpractice and self-protection, this sort of thing is, unfortunately, far from uncommon. As a comparison, I'm immediately reminded of the My Lai massacre in the Vietnam war in 1968, where the operation's commanders and troops were initially issued with official commendations and congratulations for their acts - before further investigation revealed the disgusting truth of what had really happened. At least in such a case, the US Army had sufficient accountability and oversight to bring out the truth in the end and bring the perpetrators to (some sort of) account. By contrast in Italy, the system is so broken and unfit-for-purpose that the mistakes, malpractice and systemic deficiencies which led to the shockingly incorrect prosecution of Knox and Sollecito will probably never be properly examined - far less corrected or those involved sanctioned appropriately. But that's 21st-Century Italy for you: a chaotic system of "government" riddled with corruption, patronage, self-protection rackets and local fiefdoms, and a near-total absence of effective accountability mechanisms or effective regulation. Disgraceful.

Exactly. No accountability for their inept and scandalously flawed investigation and Mignini gets a promotion. Unbelievable.

 

[Vixen]

For the umpteenth time: Para 1 is NOT a read-across equivalent of a "not guilty" verdict.

I realise there's a very strong rationalisation-oriented pro-guilt need to believe that "Para 1 = not-guilty and Para 2 = not-proven", but this is simply not factually true.

The truth, in simple language, is as follows:

Para 1 is used where there is proven innocence - typically where it can be shown to the court's satisfaction that the accused factually did not commit the crime (a cast-iron alibi, for example, or where the court determines that another person committed the crime to the exclusion of the accused), or where the court rules that no crime was even committed (this can happen, for example, in rape cases, if a court rules that what took place was consensual sex and not rape). Para 1 in Italy has no equivalent in E&W/US courts - it is a subset of E&W/US "not guilty" acquittal.

Para 2 is used where the court is satisfied that the case against the accused has not been proven BARD. This can range all the way from zero evidence of guilt, right up to plenty of evidence of guilt but just falling short of proof BARD. It is equivalent to "not guilty" in E&W/US courts, with the caveat that there is a small subsection of E&W/US "not guilty" which is covered by Para 1 in Italy.

Knox and Sollecito could (and should) never, ever have been acquitted under Para 1. They were never going to be able to prove their factual innocence to the court (their alibis were mutually supportive). And clearly Kercher ended up dead through a crime committed by another person(s) (rather than by accident or suicide etc). So Para 1 could NEVER apply in this case to Knox or Sollecito.

And neither could Para 1 acquittal, for that matter, apply to any person living in or near Perugia who could not prove their whereabouts on the night of the murder and whom the police/PM might have chosen to prosecute (viz my allegorical Mr and Mrs Bianchi). Had the mad Mignini somehow chosen to prosecute and try Mr and Mrs Bianchi, there would have been no credible, reliable evidence of their guilt either (since they factually had nothing to do with the murder either), and they should/would have been acquitted under Para 2 as well.

<fx this really isn't difficult to understand for anyone with threshold intellect and an open mind>

No, you are talking bollocks. Para 1 'not guilty' is the 'not to BARD' standard. Para 2 is uncommon to rare and is mostly closely equivalent to 'Not Proven' or 'vacated'.

Your attempt to deceive the reader into believing Para 1 means an unequivocal declaration of 'innocent' is regrettable and shameful,

No doubt Numbers will be along in a minute to repeat your falsehood.


ETA: Paragraph 1 acquittal will 99.9% of the time refer to the Supreme Court upholding a lower trial/appeal court's verdict of 'Not Guilty' (= not proven beyond reasonable doubt'.

If the trial/appeal courts found 'guilty' and the Supreme Court disputes the legal reasoning, then 99.9% of the time it is sent back to the trial/appeal court to carry out the correct legal reasoning (as with the Pistorius case wherein Massepi [_sp?] was made to revisit her reasoning over the legal facts - like Italy, it appears to have tribunals, made up of a panel of judges), and as required under the Italian Penal Code in the case of serious crime.

Marasca breached the law in reversing the verdict without sending it back, as it did not have the jurisdiction to make a finding of 'not guilty due to insufficient evidence' when the two lower courts found a verdict of 'guilty'. This is because it is not in its remit to assess the evidence or make findings of fact.

 

[Vixen]

Correct, Biz. The Maz SC panel made the right ruling for the right reasons. Amaz and Raz were unequivocally acquitted and exonerated, and should be considered innocent in law and in ethics. And Migz should be facing severe professional censure for his malpractice.

I once worked in an office with a Gaz, Baz and Daz. These very English nicknames have no connotations of familiarity or insult. It's just a continuation of nurseries and nannies.

 

[Vixen]

Aahhhh....yes but what if I didn't know that the murdered person had borrowed the same library book as me? My DNA is on the murdered persons fingers after having read the book....and the murderer has stolen the book.

Come now, Vixen, this is one hypothetical scenario and there are countless others.

The point is that in law the burden of any proof lies with the state and not the accused. The state must prove its case and if DNA evidence is introduced it has to be proved that it was impeccably collected or the court must dismiss the evidence. Which is exactly what B/M Court correctly did.

Stefanoni and the other team at Raff's apartment, Finci (...?) did collect the samples efficiently and effectively. There were control samples to measure background contamination and Stefanoni did deposit all the raw data with the court, contrary to your claims and that of the defence. Nencini confirms this.

I think it may be a good idea for everyone to be DNA ID-ed. Only perpetrators of crime need worry. My DNA haplotype is in the U5 group, to start the ball rolling. I have a biometric passport. I challenge anyone to ever find my DNA within a criminal context. (As it includes a neanderthal element, a clue will be the signs of knuckles dragging across the floor. Haha.)

 

[Bill Williams]

Stefanoni and the other team at Raff's apartment, Finci (...?) did collect the samples efficiently and effectively. There were control samples to measure background contamination and Stefanoni did deposit all the raw data with the court, contrary to your claims and that of the defence. Nencini confirms this.

I think it may be a good idea for everyone to be DNA ID-ed. Only perpetrators of crime need worry. My DNA haplotype is in the U5 group, to start the ball rolling. I have a biometric passport. I challenge anyone to ever find my DNA within a criminal context. (As it includes a neanderthal element, a clue will be the signs of knuckles dragging across the floor. Haha.)

Sigh.

Nencini does not confirm that control samples were deposited with the court. Why do you lie like this?

This has been dealt with a dozen times. You can't just repeat the lie as if it has not.

 

[Welshman]

lol this case is history, it's not even interesting to most of the old die hard posting crew many of whom have apparently found much better things to do with their time than those of us still bothering to log in here. Your 5000 posts should have been retrospection on the prosecution's failure.

Vixen likes to use the argument something must be true if a court says so. This argument has no validity if what a court says is based on speculation and there is no evidence to back up the speculation or what a court says lacks credibility. Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy were supposed to have committed a brutal murder together. The problem is this scenario is full of holes. Amanda barely knew Rudy and no evidence has emerged of any contact between Amanda and Rudy and the prosecution who have had years to argue their case could never find any evidence of contact between Amanda and Rudy. Raffaele did not know Rudy at all. Amanda and Raffaele had only been dating six days. Is it credible three virtual strangers would come together to commit a brutal sexual assault and murder. Is it credible a woman would help a stranger rape and murder another woman? There is no evidence despite what they say on TJMK that Amanda had any animosity towards Meredith. In view of this, why would Amanda help a stranger rape and murder Meredith? How did Amanda and Raffaele organise the murder with Rudy if there was no contact beforehand? Vixen’s notion the scenario of Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy committing a murder together becomes credible and the numerous problems with the scenario vanish simply because a court says they did is utterly ludicrous.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, you are talking bollocks. Para 1 'not guilty' is the 'not to BARD' standard. Para 2 is uncommon to rare and is mostly closely equivalent to 'Not Proven' or 'vacated'.

Your attempt to deceive the reader into believing Para 1 means an unequivocal declaration of 'innocent' is regrettable and shameful,

No doubt Numbers will be along in a minute to repeat your falsehood.


ETA: Paragraph 1 acquittal will 99.9% of the time refer to the Supreme Court upholding a lower trial/appeal court's verdict of 'Not Guilty' (= not proven beyond reasonable doubt'.

If the trial/appeal courts found 'guilty' and the Supreme Court disputes the legal reasoning, then 99.9% of the time it is sent back to the trial/appeal court to carry out the correct legal reasoning (as with the Pistorius case wherein Massepi [_sp?] was made to revisit her reasoning over the legal facts - like Italy, it appears to have tribunals, made up of a panel of judges), and as required under the Italian Penal Code in the case of serious crime.

Marasca breached the law in reversing the verdict without sending it back, as it did not have the jurisdiction to make a finding of 'not guilty due to insufficient evidence' when the two lower courts found a verdict of 'guilty'. This is because it is not in its remit to assess the evidence or make findings of fact.

Para 1 and Para 2 are exactly as I define them. Exactly. I'm afraid it is thine position which is bollocks, Viz.

(Maybe it's borne of sheer ignorance. Maybe borne of intellectual dishonesty. Maybe a combination of the two. Who knows?)

ETA: And let's see if the Italian Constitutional Court rules that the Marasca panel "breached the law", eh? Hehehehehehehehehehehehe I know the answer to that one already hehehehehehehehehe (and I know the answer of course because I know that the Marasca panel acted entirely within the law and its remit, and what's more it got the decision correct). Maybe the lawsuit bought by that overinvested Italian loon is "Just About To Make Huge Shockwaves Across Italy And The World" (copyright nutter-in-chief Quennell). Or......... maybe not, eh......... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Really fascinating to watch though, I'll give ya that!

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Stefanoni and the other team at Raff's apartment, Finci (...?) did collect the samples efficiently and effectively. There were control samples to measure background contamination and Stefanoni did deposit all the raw data with the court, contrary to your claims and that of the defence. Nencini confirms this.

All of this is a lie, but whatever. You've never told the truth about anything in any of your posts so it's kinda cute at this point.

I think it may be a good idea for everyone to be DNA ID-ed. Only perpetrators of crime need worry. My DNA haplotype is in the U5 group, to start the ball rolling. I have a biometric passport. I challenge anyone to ever find my DNA within a criminal context. (As it includes a neanderthal element, a clue will be the signs of knuckles dragging across the floor. Haha.)

You would think this is a good idea. Assemble a group of jurors with low enough IQ's and critical thinking skills, tell them all defense expert arguments are automagically invalid because they get paid for their time, and tell them all of the cutting edge research on innocent DNA transfer is wrong because science is evil sorcery, and you can get anyone convicted. Would make witch hunts super easy and efficient.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

I think it may be a good idea for everyone to be DNA ID-ed. Only perpetrators of crime need worry. My DNA haplotype is in the U5 group, to start the ball rolling. I have a biometric passport. I challenge anyone to ever find my DNA within a criminal context. (As it includes a neanderthal element, a clue will be the signs of knuckles dragging across the floor. Haha.)

Oh, and not that there is any chance you will understand this, but just because you have said you have a U5 haplogroup and have a biometric passport does not mean we can match your genetic profile to any and all genetic profiles found at a crime scene (lol you seriously don't understand anything about anything).

A search suggests DNA isn't even a biometric used in biometric passports right now. And a biometric passport doesn't connect you to a searchable crime database. And 11% of Europeans have haplogroup U5. Meaning if one of the approximately 74 million people who share this haplogroup has DNA deposited at a crime scene, our brilliant Vixen will match.

Either way, despite you being wrong again about everything, even if we did have this magical database with everyone's genetic profile, your DNA would be found at a crime scene if it was deposited there in some way because you a) committed the crime, b) came in contact with someone or something who transferred it there, or c) deposited it at the crime scene at a time when the murder didn't occur.

To help you connect this with the case, Raffaele's DNA was found at the crime scene because of a combination of b) and c) -- he had been at the house during times when Rudy wasn't killing Meredith and the investigators transferred this DNA to the bra clasp by not following intelligent, established forensic protocol.

 

[LondonJohn]

Sigh.

Nencini does not confirm that control samples were deposited with the court. Why do you lie like this?

This has been dealt with a dozen times. You can't just repeat the lie as if it has not.

I know. And I still find it hard to read with a straight face the pro-guilt mantra that the forensic samples from the cottage were collected "efficiently and effectively". When the whole world can see the shocking - and grossly, actionably, inept - misdeeds of the "CSI" team disgracefully led by not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni:

- as they took long sweeping swabs from the critical bathroom sink and bidet, rather than the very careful point-dabbing they should have done (with disastrous ramifications.....);

- as they wrapped a potentially-critical mop in wrapping paper found in a closet inside the cottage itself;

- as they walked from room to room inside the cottage without observing even the most basic anti-contamination protocols that any semi-competent CSI team would have done (including total failure to change or even clean the soles of their boots);

- as they inexplicably and disgustingly left several critical items of physical evidence lying in Kercher's room - including the infamous bra clasp, and the tracksuit top worn by Kercher when she was attacked;

- as, when they finally did collect the bra clasp, they passed it from person to person by hand, wearing visibly dirty gloves, before dropping it onto another area of Kercher's floor to photograph it "in situ".....

- as they took cigarette breaks and personal phone calls on the scrub ground outside underneath Romanelli's window, thus trampling all over an area which would turn out to be important to the investigation.


So yeah..... apart from all of this and many other equally shocking failures....... yeah it's unarguable that "Stefanoni and the other team at Raff's apartment did collect the samples efficiently and effectively". HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh, and not that there is any chance you will understand this, but just because you have said you have a U5 haplogroup and have a biometric passport does not mean we can match your genetic profile to any and all genetic profiles found at a crime scene (lol you seriously don't understand anything about anything).

A search suggests DNA isn't even a biometric used in biometric passports right now. And a biometric passport doesn't connect you to a searchable crime database. And 11% of Europeans have haplogroup U5. Meaning if one of the approximately 74 million people who share this haplogroup has DNA deposited at a crime scene, our brilliant Vixen will match.

Either way, despite you being wrong again about everything, even if we did have this magical database with everyone's genetic profile, your DNA would be found at a crime scene if it was deposited there in some way because you a) committed the crime, b) came in contact with someone or something who transferred it there, or c) deposited it at the crime scene at a time when the murder didn't occur.

To help you connect this with the case, Raffaele's DNA was found at the crime scene because of a combination of b) and c) -- he had been at the house during times when Rudy wasn't killing Meredith and the investigators transferred this DNA to the bra clasp by not following intelligent, established forensic protocol.

It's nigh-on impossible trying to engage in serious, honest debate on scientific matters with "arguments" that are characterised by gross scientific illiteracy (and an attendant inability/unwillingness to recognise that illiteracy).

 

[abaddon]

Stefanoni and the other team at Raff's apartment, Finci (...?) did collect the samples efficiently and effectively. There were control samples to measure background contamination and Stefanoni did deposit all the raw data with the court, contrary to your claims and that of the defence. Nencini confirms this.

I think it may be a good idea for everyone to be DNA ID-ed. Only perpetrators of crime need worry. My DNA haplotype is in the U5 group, to start the ball rolling. I have a biometric passport. I challenge anyone to ever find my DNA within a criminal context. (As it includes a neanderthal element, a clue will be the signs of knuckles dragging across the floor. Haha.)

You clearly have no idea what a biometric passport actually is.

 

[Vixen]

You clearly have no idea what a biometric passport actually is.

What do you mean...?

 

[Vixen]

Oh, and not that there is any chance you will understand this, but just because you have said you have a U5 haplogroup and have a biometric passport does not mean we can match your genetic profile to any and all genetic profiles found at a crime scene (lol you seriously don't understand anything about anything).

A search suggests DNA isn't even a biometric used in biometric passports right now. And a biometric passport doesn't connect you to a searchable crime database. And 11% of Europeans have haplogroup U5. Meaning if one of the approximately 74 million people who share this haplogroup has DNA deposited at a crime scene, our brilliant Vixen will match.

Either way, despite you being wrong again about everything, even if we did have this magical database with everyone's genetic profile, your DNA would be found at a crime scene if it was deposited there in some way because you a) committed the crime, b) came in contact with someone or something who transferred it there, or c) deposited it at the crime scene at a time when the murder didn't occur.

To help you connect this with the case, Raffaele's DNA was found at the crime scene because of a combination of b) and c) -- he had been at the house during times when Rudy wasn't killing Meredith and the investigators transferred this DNA to the bra clasp by not following intelligent, established forensic protocol.

Obviously, I haven't given you the full subclade, but less than 1.5% of the European population has it. I didn't say the biometric on my passport is DNA. It has my index finger fingerprint in the biometric chip, as well as face recognition. Fingerprint ID is similar to DNA in that a significant number of points of matches are needed to verify ID. No, there are no links to crime data bases. I was mooting it as an idea for serious crime. Especially in this era of uncertainty and border security threats.

However, Rudy's ID was ascertained by his biometrics on the Italian immigrants database, which was how he was ID'd.

Fingerprints taken of the applicant and stored in the register may also be used to prepare a document that the applicant has applied for. Moreover, the police may use fingerprint data if this is necessary to identify victims of natural disasters, major accidents or other disasters, victims of crime or unidentified victims. The police do not, however, have the right to use fingerprint data stored in the register to solve crimes.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Obviously, I haven't given you the full subclade, but less than 1.5% of the European population has it.

Obviously. Lol. Unlikely that you just had no idea what you were talking about and just spent the last hour googling stuff. Anyway, that's still ~11 million people that could commit a crime and "match" your haplotype. Yeah, totally impossible for there to be a crime and not have a match to our resident supergenius Vixen.

I didn't say the biometric on my passport is DNA.

I think it may be a good idea for everyone to be DNA ID-ed. Only perpetrators of crime need worry. My DNA haplotype is in the U5 group, to start the ball rolling. I have a biometric passport. I challenge anyone to ever find my DNA within a criminal context.

Yeah, you definitely weren't talking about your biometric passport in context of DNA identification. Except here. Where you did it in the post I was replying to.

This is where your reality distortion brainwaves take over and twist this into something where you actually made sense at some point.

It has my index finger fingerprint in the biometric chip, as well as face recognition. Fingerprint ID is similar to DNA in that a significant number of points of matches are needed to verify ID. No, there are no links to crime data bases. I was mooting it as an idea for serious crime. Especially in this era of uncertainty and border security threats.

However, Rudy's ID was ascertained by his biometrics on the Italian immigrants database, which was how he was ID'd.

This is great and all but has absolutely nothing to do with what you originally wrote or what I was replying to. It's just words intended to distract and not make you look like a buffoon (again). You could have a healthy career in the Italian judiciary. Maybe Massei needs an intern. Tell him you beat a chess GM as a toddler in the interview lol. They like absurd pomposity and bluster over there.

 

[Vixen]

Obviously. Lol. Unlikely that you just had no idea what you were talking about and just spent the last hour googling stuff. Anyway, that's still ~11 million people that could commit a crime and "match" your haplotype. Yeah, totally impossible for there to be a crime and not have a match to our resident supergenius Vixen.





Yeah, you definitely weren't talking about your biometric passport in context of DNA identification. Except here. Where you did it in the post I was replying to.

This is where your reality distortion brainwaves take over and twist this into something where you actually made sense at some point.



This is great and all but has absolutely nothing to do with what you originally wrote or what I was replying to. It's just words intended to distract and not make you look like a buffoon (again). You could have a healthy career in the Italian judiciary. Maybe Massei needs an intern. Tell him you beat a chess GM as a toddler in the interview lol. They like absurd pomposity and bluster over there.

I wrote: I have a biometric passport.

 

[LondonJohn]

What do you mean...?

I think what abaddon probably means is: you have no idea what a biometric passport actually is.

All "biometric" means in the context of passports is that they contain an NFC chip which contains encrypted information about the biological characteristics of the passport holder. But that of course is entirely and wholly prevalent upon a) people giving permission for certain biological data to be obtained, b) those data themselves being obtained, c) those data being placed onto the chip.

At the moment, the standard EU passport (IIRC) contains nothing more on its biometric chip than a version of the holder's image - taken directly from the very photo that is on the passport. Of course this serves a certain purpose, in that it helps prevent fraudulent use of passports by replacing one photo with another: if the photo on the page doesn't match the biometric chip's photo, then obviously there's a problem. I believe you're wrong to believe that EU passports currently contain embedded fingerprint information* (though that was, and remains, a lofty ideal). And any embedding of DNA information on a passport's biometric chip would not only require an ethically-debatable consent matter to arise, but also (if it did ever become law) it would require an extraordinary exercise in taking samples from every single passport holder or passport applicant.

On top of all this, as others have correctly pointed out, this is entirely moot to the debate here anyhow. In order to have a workable DNA database for "fighting crime", one would need a full profile from a significant majority of the population (bearing in mind also that the minority who avoided/missed/otherwise declined giving a sample might have a fairly strong correlation with the proportion of the population who committed most of the serious crime - thus rendering the whole exercise of extremely limited value from the get-go). And on top of this, experience shows clearly that DNA databases have an extremely limited effect in actually preventing or deterring crime - it just makes the perpetrators easier to identify and catch in some circumstances. Most serious crimes in England & Wales, for example, are committed by repeat offenders - almost all of whom will by now have had to place their DNA profiles on the national database. Yet serious crime levels have had their long-term trends virtually unaffected by the introduction of the criminal DNA database. It's not stopping crimes from happening. And even in terms of identification, DNA databases are only useful where the perp has no connection to the crime scene or victim. If, for example, a wife is killed inside her house, it's laughably obvious that the police will request and obtain a DNA profile from her husband and everybody else close to the victim very quickly anyhow. And the killer is extremely likely to come from within that group.

And when you drill down to the Kercher case in particular, it would have been of very limited value in identifying and apprehending the real culprit (Rudy Guede). Even if Knox, Sollecito and Guede had had their full DNA profiles on an Italian national database, the police could and should have taken DNA from Knox and Sollecito early on in the investigation as a matter of course, and they should have identified Guede within a week or so as a person to whom they needed to speak (and take DNA). Ironically perhaps, at least a national Italy DNA database would have readily provided the DNA profiles of the likes of Laura Mezzetti, Filomena Romanelli, Kercher's boyfriend Silenzi and others of that ilk - whom it appears the incompetent police didn't even obtain reference DNA profiles from.


* ETA: Finnish EU passports may of course obtain fingerprint data by now. UK EU ones do not.

 

[Vixen]

I think what abaddon probably means is: you have no idea what a biometric passport actually is.

All "biometric" means in the context of passports is that they contain an NFC chip which contains encrypted information about the biological characteristics of the passport holder. But that of course is entirely and wholly prevalent upon a) people giving permission for certain biological data to be obtained, b) those data themselves being obtained, c) those data being placed onto the chip.

At the moment, the standard EU passport (IIRC) contains nothing more on its biometric chip than a version of the holder's image - taken directly from the very photo that is on the passport. Of course this serves a certain purpose, in that it helps prevent fraudulent use of passports by replacing one photo with another: if the photo on the page doesn't match the biometric chip's photo, then obviously there's a problem. I believe you're wrong to believe that EU passports currently contain embedded fingerprint information* (though that was, and remains, a lofty ideal). And any embedding of DNA information on a passport's biometric chip would not only require an ethically-debatable consent matter to arise, but also (if it did ever become law) it would require an extraordinary exercise in taking samples from every single passport holder or passport applicant.

On top of all this, as others have correctly pointed out, this is entirely moot to the debate here anyhow. In order to have a workable DNA database for "fighting crime", one would need a full profile from a significant majority of the population (bearing in mind also that the minority who avoided/missed/otherwise declined giving a sample might have a fairly strong correlation with the proportion of the population who committed most of the serious crime - thus rendering the whole exercise of extremely limited value from the get-go). And on top of this, experience shows clearly that DNA databases have an extremely limited effect in actually preventing or deterring crime - it just makes the perpetrators easier to identify and catch in some circumstances. Most serious crimes in England & Wales, for example, are committed by repeat offenders - almost all of whom will by now have had to place their DNA profiles on the national database. Yet serious crime levels have had their long-term trends virtually unaffected by the introduction of the criminal DNA database. It's not stopping crimes from happening. And even in terms of identification, DNA databases are only useful where the perp has no connection to the crime scene or victim. If, for example, a wife is killed inside her house, it's laughably obvious that the police will request and obtain a DNA profile from her husband and everybody else close to the victim very quickly anyhow. And the killer is extremely likely to come from within that group.

And when you drill down to the Kercher case in particular, it would have been of very limited value in identifying and apprehending the real culprit (Rudy Guede). Even if Knox, Sollecito and Guede had had their full DNA profiles on an Italian national database, the police could and should have taken DNA from Knox and Sollecito early on in the investigation as a matter of course, and they should have identified Guede within a week or so as a person to whom they needed to speak (and take DNA). Ironically perhaps, at least a national Italy DNA database would have readily provided the DNA profiles of the likes of Laura Mezzetti, Filomena Romanelli, Kercher's boyfriend Silenzi and others of that ilk - whom it appears the incompetent police didn't even obtain reference DNA profiles from.


* ETA: Finnish EU passports may of course obtain fingerprint data by now. UK EU ones do not.

You are so embarrassingly wrong. Once again you have used up considerable bandwidth to once again wrongly cast aspersions on my factual statements.

News, 29/06/2009
Fingerprints to be included in new passports as from 29 June

As from 29 June, all new passports issued in Finland will include fingerprints. The President of the Republic approved the amendments to the Passport Act on 26 June. The amendments will enter into force on 29 June.
Under the Council Regulation on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and other travel documents, Member States are obliged to introduce fingerprints in national passports and travel documents by the end of June 2009. Fingerprints are the second biometric identifier to be included in national passports. Since 2006, passports have included an electronic chip containing the passport holder’s facial image.
Fingerprints will be taken of persons applying for a regular passport, Åland’s passport, temporary passport, diplomatic or service passport, national seafarer’s card, alien’s passport or refugee travel document.

Watch my lips: I have a biometric passport, with my unique fingerprint. I believe it would greatly improve border security if all passports had personal identifiers at that level.

In addition, re facial recognition from the passport photo. In Finland passport photos are taken at authorised photographers, who then relay the digital image to precise specifications directly to your local police station, which you then get an appointment to attend, to collect your passport.