The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[Stacyhs]

'EVEN IF' here translates from the Italian as 'EVEN THOUGH'. It is not correct for you to claim that M-B is saying it i untrue.

Please provide a link to the original Italian statement as evidence of your claim. And remember, it's YOUR claim so please don't tell me to go find it myself.

 

[Bill Williams]

'EVEN IF' here translates from the Italian as 'EVEN THOUGH'. It is not correct for you to claim that M-B is saying it i untrue.

You only have to look at the Florence court ruling which states:

Nope. "Even if" in the original italian translated literally as:

Nevertheless, even considering the attribution to be certain, the procedural element would be
not univocal, as a demonstration also of a posthumous contact with that blood, in the
probable attempt to remove the most obvious traces of what happened, perhaps for
help someone or to turn suspicions away, without this contributing to
give certainty of his direct involvement in the homicidal action. Each additional e
in fact, more meaningful value would have been resisted by the circumstance - this
so decisive - that no trace of her was found at the crime scene or
on the victim's body, so that - to all concede - the contact with the blood of the
it would have occurred at a later time and in another room in the house.

 

[Stacyhs]

What I wanted was the original Italian, which I found working from Bill's post. Unlike what Vixen claims, the translations do NOT say "even though" or its equivalent. In every translation "Nondimeno, anche a ritenere certa l'attribuzione, is expressing a conditional situation as:


DeepL: Nevertheless, even if the attribution is certain,
Google: Nevertheless, even considering certain attribution,
Reverso: However, even if the attribution is certain,
Bing: Nevertheless, even to believe that the attribution is certain,
Imtranslate:Nevertheless, even to consider certain attribution,


Vixen's claim that the correct translation is "even though" is false. It doesn't even make sense in context of the rest of the sentence.

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen's claim that the correct translation is "even though" is false. It doesn't even make sense in context of the rest of the sentence.

Exactly. Which is why Vixen avoids this source document, and instead quotes from Raffaele's compensation claim trial which itself heard no direct evidence about the murder.

We already know that trials in the multilevel Italian criminal process made horrible findings. In 2015 the Supreme Court evaluated the provisional-guilty verdict of the 2013-4 Nencini trial, and overturned it, based on "even if true" the prosecutor's/judges claim failed to put the pair in the murder room, except to say that all they'd proved was that they'd been there at a later time.

Vixen then cites a subsequent court, which is deciding a matter of compensation, and itself made a statement based on hearing no evidence/cross-examination about it.

So? There'd been trials under the scrutiny of the 2015 Supreme Court which had drawn worse conclusions from sillier evidence. That SC then evaluated it and acquitted.

On what basis does a peripheral court undo that?

 

[TomG]

..the fact that Knox was in the house 7 Via della Pergola at the time when young Meredith Kercher was killed constitutes a fact of absolute and indisputable certainty.
Martuscelli,Masi, Favi – Florence Court 10 Feb 2017

For me this has always raised more question than it answers. It seems to me that K&S's presence at VDP is obligatory in order to preserve the integrity of the calunnia. If K&S were there, what were they doing there? They would have had to arrive no earlier that 9.30 at the very earliest. What did they encounter when they got there? What was Rudy doing after 8.30 when he admitted being at the cottage? What was Meredith doing after she got home? Why was she still wearing her Adidas jacket and trainers when she wanted to go straight to bed? Considering the questionable tactics of Donnino, is a scream beyond the realms of imagination or even unique when a woman is attacked? The narrative isn't there to support the conclusion.

Hoots

 

[Numbers]

What I wanted was the original Italian, which I found working from Bill's post. Unlike what Vixen claims, the translations do NOT say "even though" or its equivalent. In every translation "Nondimeno, anche a ritenere certa l'attribuzione, is expressing a conditional situation as:


DeepL: Nevertheless, even if the attribution is certain,
Google: Nevertheless, even considering certain attribution,
Reverso: However, even if the attribution is certain,
Bing: Nevertheless, even to believe that the attribution is certain,
Imtranslate:Nevertheless, even to consider certain attribution,


Vixen's claim that the correct translation is "even though" is false. It doesn't even make sense in context of the rest of the sentence.

The text in question is in Section 9.4.1 of the Marasca CSC panel MR, page 46 of the original in Italian, 3rd paragraph up from the end of page.

"Nondimeno, anche a ritenere certa l'attribuzione, l'elemento processuale sarebbe non univoco, siccome dimostrativo anche di un contatto postumo con quel sangue, ...."

Google translation with help from Collins Reverso and me:

"However, even to consider the attribution certain, the {legal} procedural element would not be unique, as {it could be} also demonstrative of a posthumous contact with the blood, ...."

ETA: By "{legal} procedural element" or "trial element" the text means an element of alleged evidence intended to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt (BARD) in a criminal trial. The lack of uniqueness means that this particular trial element cannot establish proof BARD.

Examining the text of the sentence more completely makes the meaning clear; the Marasca CSC panel is stating that the alleged evidence cannot constitute a legal proof because of its lack of uniqueness.

 

[Bill Williams]

Examining the text of the sentence more completely makes the meaning clear; the Marasca CSC panel is stating that the alleged evidence cannot constitute a legal proof because of its lack of uniqueness.

But Numbers and Stacyhs, neither of you understand.

Vixen has told us that that is a mistranslation. Granted, Vixen has neither provided her version of the original text nor what the proper translation should be (except for "even though", but that obviously has to be from some other unknown part of the M/B report from 2015).

I tend to believe Vixen on this one based on two things:

• She's never lied before.
  
• Who are you going to believe, Vixen or your lying eyes?

 

[bagels]

For me this has always raised more question than it answers. It seems to me that K&S's presence at VDP is obligatory in order to preserve the integrity of the calunnia. If K&S were there, what were they doing there?

Making the Italian justice system look incompetent and ineffectual of course, and doing a damn good job of it I might add

 

[Numbers]

But Numbers and Stacyhs, neither of you understand.

Vixen has told us that that is a mistranslation. Granted, Vixen has neither provided her version of the original text nor what the proper translation should be (except for "even though", but that obviously has to be from some other unknown part of the M/B report from 2015).

I tend to believe Vixen on this one based on two things:

• She's never lied before.
  
• Who are you going to believe, Vixen or your lying eyes?

The repetitive posting of falsehoods and misrepresentations by the guilters parallels the behavior of police conducting an interrogation in which they repeat falsehoods and misrepresentations over long hours to a fatigued suspect in an effort to have that suspect make a false statement.

The point of the endless repetition is that eventually some reader will, probably only momentarily, think that one of the falsehoods is true and even post that it is correct. When that happens, the hypothetically present band of guilters high five each other and award themselves medals.

 

[Planigale]

What happens one in a thousand times in a sterile tightly controlled laboratory experiment by researchers influenced by a 'halo effect' (setting out to prove their own hypotheses for the benefit of the defence lawyers who hire them) simply becomes meanngless in a murder scene.

Criminal courts are crude and basic all it needs is beyond reasonable doubt. They don't give a toss what specious theory some clever dick defence researcher spouts.

I don't want to get into an argument about Knox's guilt, Vixen has her views and they are fixed.

I do want to take the opportunity to correct another error stated by Vixen for any lurkers.

Much of the research on tertiary plus transfer of DNA has been done by police forensic experts. It is of no value to the police if they misinterpret forensic evidence, they might end up pursuing innocent people rather than focussing on the search for the guilty. If you look at who does the research on DNA transfer they are police forensic institutes.

A bit of history may be helpful. Originally DNA typing was done on tissue, a blood stain, a body part, or semen. If investigating a rape, the presence of semen defines the time and method of deposition of the DNA, the DNA merely identified the source. As sensitivity of testing improved, trace DNA testing appeared. This is DNA that is dissociated from its source, one does not know if it comes from saliva, urine, touch etc. Thus one does not know the time of deposition nor the method.

An interesting early paper looked at DNA deposition during strangling. The researchers (police scientists) cleaned the necks of 'victims' (checking they were negative for others DNA), then simulated strangling to look at features associated with DNA deposition. To their surprise they found more than the assailants DNA, they found the DNA of other scientists and that of the significant others of the assailant in about a third of cases. The assailants were carrying DNA of others on their hands and depositing it on the victim. This is obviously important if a wife is found strangled and there is DNA of the husband and the husband's lover found on the wife's neck, the husband might claim his DNA was innocently deposited when he kissed his wife on the neck. The husband's lover would then be in the frame and the police might spend their efforts on braking his alibi rather than looking at the husband's alibi under the misapprehension that DNA could only be deposited by direct contact.

FWIW I think the ratio between the victim's DNA and Sollecito's DNA on the bra hook matches what one would expect if Sollecito's DNA was secondarily deposited from the victim touching her own bra hook and depositing her own and Sollecito's DNA.The only time a bra hook is really touched is when you put on a bra, you do not touch the hook when taking it off, and certainly not when the bra is torn apart separating at the seam.

 

[Stacyhs]

Very interesting, Planigale. It's possible then that Meredith herself transferred Sollecito's DNA to her bra hook after having touched him directly or something he touched (coffee cup, cabinet handle, a glass, door handle, refrigerator handle, toilet flush handle etc.). This could also explain the other DNA found on the hook.

Vixen's claims that tertiary transfer does not happen (or that it is even rare) is, as usual, not based on facts.

 

[LondonJohn]

Very interesting, Planigale. It's possible then that Meredith herself transferred Sollecito's DNA to her bra hook after having touched him directly or something he touched (coffee cup, cabinet handle, a glass, door handle, refrigerator handle, toilet flush handle etc.). This could also explain the other DNA found on the hook.

Vixen's claims that tertiary transfer does not happen (or that it is even rare) is, as usual, not based on facts.

Indeed. There are many, many ways in which Sollecito's DNA could have got onto that hook at that extremely small level of mass (especially given that 6-week kicked-under-a-rug-in-a-pile-of-dust-and-debris delay....) without his having necessarily been directly involved in handling Kercher's bra at or shortly after the time of her murder.

And that is the only important takeaway here. One simply cannot say (as did the buffoons, ignoramuses and dissemblers among the police scientists and prosecutors) that the finding of (the minuscule amount of) Sollecito's DNA in these circumstances can be presented as reliable proof of anything related to the murder - least of all Sollecito's direct participation in it.

Of course, most genuinely world-class(!) and objective forensic technicians would have needed look no further than the additional mixed profiles of the (at least) two further male individuals - as yet unidentified - on that bra clasp to realise that what they were looking at with that clasp was either an "intentional" tertiary+ transfer scenario, or tertiary+ contamination (e.g. via the forensics monkeys' dirty gloves, or via the dust/debris on the floor), or a combination. And any world-class(!) lab technician would have intimately understood the particular issues related to working with low-template levels of DNA, and the specific processes and protocols that are absolutely mandatory to employ if the outputs are to have even a chance at reliability and credibility. What a shame the "world-class" lab technician on this case was so shockingly bad at her job, eh......?

 

[Stacyhs]

But, LondonJohn, she followed all the international protocols AND defense experts witnessed her doing the analyses. If that knife or bra hook were contaminated, why didn't these experts SEE it with their own eyes?

 

[TomG]

Very interesting, Planigale. It's possible then that Meredith herself transferred Sollecito's DNA to her bra hook after having touched him directly or something he touched (coffee cup, cabinet handle, a glass, door handle, refrigerator handle, toilet flush handle etc.). This could also explain the other DNA found on the hook.

Vixen's claims that tertiary transfer does not happen (or that it is even rare) is, as usual, not based on facts.

Meredith's DNA could have been transferred onto Raffale's kitchen knife in much the same way. Both Meredith and Amanda shared the same bathroom, all it would have taken was for Amanda to dry her hands on a towel that Meredith had used previously, or to touch a surface that had Meredith's DNA on it at VDP to then be transferred on to Raffaele's kitchen knife. It's a long shot but the quality was either secondary or tertiary transfer and it might have survived the short journey for VDP to Raffaele's flat.

Hoots

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't think there was any of MK's DNA on the knife blade at all.

 

[TomG]

I don't think there was any of MK's DNA on the knife blade at all.

Well, I don't either but....

Hoots

 

[TruthCalls]

I don't want to get into an argument about Knox's guilt, Vixen has her views and they are fixed.
.
.
.
FWIW I think the ratio between the victim's DNA and Sollecito's DNA on the bra hook matches what one would expect if Sollecito's DNA was secondarily deposited from the victim touching her own bra hook and depositing her own and Sollecito's DNA.The only time a bra hook is really touched is when you put on a bra, you do not touch the hook when taking it off, and certainly not when the bra is torn apart separating at the seam.

I think this has been the key to the bra clasp all along. The prosecution wants you to believe that Raffaele, during the commission of this violent assault, touched the hook and transferred his DNA. If Raffaele had been involved it's very likely he would have been perspiring heavily and this would dramatically increase the amount of DNA his skin could transfer. He would have been the last person to touch the hook, which being made of smooth metal means it won't retain DNA as well as a porous surface would. In this scenario he would likely have wiped off most other latent DNA in the process of depositing his own. His DNA should have been the dominant DNA in this sample. Instead, it's only a minor contributor and only one sixth that of Meredith's. I think this all but proves his DNA didn't get there by direct transfer - it's simply to weak a trace. --at least that's my theory and I'm sticking to it (for now).

 

[Planigale]

I don't think there was any of MK's DNA on the knife blade at all.

In contrast to the bra hook where I accept Sollecito's DNA was present (although ideally the hook would have been correctly stored so it could have been retested - a competent forensic laboratory would have stored the hook appropriately!), I think the DNA of the victim on the knife blade was likely laboratory contamination. The method used to concentrate the DNA is notoriously susceptible to contamination, and the level of DNA was so low it fits with a contamination event, this is why LCN samples need to be replicated. (As others who did impressive work on the laboratory records commented the records suggest this was a redo of testing the knife and the previous test either had obviously contaminated controls or negative results.)

 

[Stacyhs]

>snip<

If Raffaele had been involved it's very likely he would have been perspiring heavily and this would dramatically increase the amount of DNA his skin could transfer. }
>snip<.

Agreed. According to the prosecution, RS was holding a struggling MK down. That, plus the 'adrenaline rush' (as Vixen has worded it previously) that would have resulted from such a situation would cause sweating. If RS were sweating profusely, he'd have left his DNA on MK's body and/or clothing. Just as Guede did. But we all know he did not.

 

[Stacyhs]

In contrast to the bra hook where I accept Sollecito's DNA was present (although ideally the hook would have been correctly stored so it could have been retested - a competent forensic laboratory would have stored the hook appropriately!), I think the DNA of the victim on the knife blade was likely laboratory contamination. The method used to concentrate the DNA is notoriously susceptible to contamination, and the level of DNA was so low it fits with a contamination event, this is why LCN samples need to be replicated. (As others who did impressive work on the laboratory records commented the records suggest this was a redo of testing the knife and the previous test either had obviously contaminated controls or negative results.)

What science and common sense tell us is that, IF there were MK's DNA on the knife blade, it could not have been deposited at the time of the murder. It could not have survived a bleach bath that would have been necessary to remove all traces of blood. Therefore there are only two scenarios: it was not MK's DNA Stefanoni 'found' OR it put there after the murder through contamination.