The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[TomG]

The issue IS NOT that Raff's DNA was in the room, it's that Raff himself wasn't. All the prosecution's case proved EVEN IF TRUE!!! was that he'd been in another part of the cottage at a later time.

I've been having much the same conversation with Rag on YouTube. He still insists on the theory of mixed blood; however, if M/B effectively bars K&S from the murder room, it stands to reason that since there is 100% no evidence of K&S in the murder room, any evidence that Amanda was bleeding, even if it were true, would have had to have come from another source at another time. The same applies to Raffale's alleged bloody footprint. He wasn't in the murder room, courtesy of M/B, so where else in VDP would he have been able to accumulate enough blood to constitute the footprint on the bathmat? It just doesn't work.

Hoots

 

[Agatha]

Address the arguments, please, rather than the arguer. You all know this, so don't push the boundaries.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Agatha]

Address the arguments, please, rather than the arguer. You all know this, so don't push the boundaries.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[TruthCalls]

I've been having much the same conversation with Rag on YouTube. He still insists on the theory of mixed blood; however, if M/B effectively bars K&S from the murder room, it stands to reason that since there is 100% no evidence of K&S in the murder room, any evidence that Amanda was bleeding, even if it were true, would have had to have come from another source at another time. The same applies to Raffale's alleged bloody footprint. He wasn't in the murder room, courtesy of M/B, so where else in VDP would he have been able to accumulate enough blood to constitute the footprint on the bathmat? It just doesn't work.

Hoots

You mean the guy who insists Stefanoni testified to mixed blood but can't cite the passage in her testimony where she says it. That Rag?

 

[TruthCalls]

Dear, oh dear, oh dear.

From Misleading DNA Evidence – Reasons for Miscarriages of Justice, Peter Gill, Academic Press.

Quote:

Recommendation 1: The expert should provide the court with an unbiased list of all possible modes of transfer of DNA evidence (pg 20).”


This has not been provided when by Gill's own account it should have been. As Nencini pointed out if you want to claim contamination you have to show a feasible route.

You must think the public are idiots if you think they believe for a nanosecond Raff's DNA got there by accident - more rare than 'a meteorite hitting the court'.

OK Vixen, you need to help me out here.

You wrote; "So much for your fabulous claim that Stefanoni achieved a TERTIARY transfer from a door from which DNA of Raff was NEVER found"
I responded; "It can't be found if the side of the door that Raffaele touched wasn't tested."

And from that exchange you posted the above. In what universe does this have anything to do with the point being made in the ref post?

Let's review... Raffaele's DNA was not found on the door because the SP did not test the door for his DNA. Comprendere?

 

[LondonJohn]

Vixen, seriously...if that is what you got out of Bill's post, then all I can say is....



It's not like there's video of the forensic police handling the bra clasp, touching the hook, dropping it on the ground, picking it up, and then passing it around. Right?

This is what makes the way in which a) the prosecution handled this, and b) the convicting lower courts chose to assess it, all the more astonishing.

I feel extremely confident that (for all that the criminal justice systems in England or the US certainly aren't perfect) if Knox and Sollecito had gone on trial in either of those two jurisdictions and had the court seen those sorts of videos, then the following would have occurred:

Firstly, the prosecution would immediately concede that the crime scene investigators had not handled the evidence properly and there was an obvious possibility of (and route to) contamination;

And secondly (and especially if prosecutors had somehow had the brass balls to claim the evidence was treated in a "world class" fashion and contamination simply wasn't a reasonable possibility....), the courts would have found - or would have been instructed to find by the trial judge - that this evidence had to be hugely discounted owing to the possibility of contamination.


The way in which the Marasca SC panel approached this matter was an excellent example of that court acting perfectly properly within its remit and responsibility. The Marasca court clearly ruled on a point of law: the law pertaining to the way in which courts must assess and weigh evidence. Italian law (as in all "westernised" jurisprudences) states that courts must only use any given piece of evidence to support its reasoning if that evidence can objectively be shown to be credible and reliable. And furthermore, if there is a conflict between the prosecution and defence on the credibility and reliability of any particular piece of evidence, then (all else being equal, and the court being unable to distinguish further) the benefit of the doubt must be given to the defence.

In the case of the bra clasp hook (not the clasp itself, remember: just the TINY metal hook on the end of the clasp....), the video in and of itself PROVES a reasonable route to contamination there and then. And that's before one even stops to consider the fact that the clasp had literally been swept around Kercher's bedroom floor during the six weeks it was in there, such that it was found within a pile of dust and debris underneath a rug, well over a metre from where it was observed just after the body was discovered. And that during those six weeks, no controls or checks were made on who precisely had been within the room or the cottage in general, and nor was anybody who HAD been in the room and cottage been required to observe any crime scene protocols whatsoever.

It was a disgrace for the prosecution to hold this evidence up as reliable/credible in the first place. And then in turn it was a disgrace for the lower convicting courts to have sided with the prosecution. IMO this was clearly yet another illustration of the unhealthy (and anti-judicial) relationship between courts (i.e. judges) and prosecutors in the Italian criminal justice system, which itself is almost certainly an improper hangover from the now-abolished inquisitorial system in which the prosecutor's case was in effect the default position of the court as well.

 

[Bill Williams]

You mean the guy who insists Stefanoni testified to mixed blood but can't cite the passage in her testimony where she says it. That Rag?

The following is the entirety of what the first provisionally-convicting court write in 2010 about "mixed blood." In short, there was none, but this is what the Massei court wrtoe:

And it is probable - not necessary, but probable - that during the following act of scrubbing the hands to
remove the blood, he/she left the mixed trace consisting of Meredith’s blood and of cells which had been removed by rubbing during the act of washing. An entirely probable outcome given the likelihood of the act of scrubbing, yet not a necessary one, since the running water which was used in the shower stall or in the bidet or in
the sink, or in several of these sanitary fittings, might well have rinsed away the
washed-up blood and the cells which had been lost during this washing.​

While it is not possible to use the genetic scientific data (Dr. Stefanoni
explained the impossibility of determining the date, the succession or the
simultaneity in the depositing of the components of the mixed trace specimen and
the impossibility of attributing the haematological component to one or the other of the contributors), the information previously put forward provides answers which
are entirely consistent with the circumstantial evidence that has emerged and which
the Court considers convincing.​

In other words, Massei said that mixed-trace (not mixed-blood) was probably true - and not because it was scientifically provable, but because he had already made up his mind that Knox was guilty. Stefanoni herself had specifically testified that forensically, you simply could not source whose blood it was, from a single person or mixed.

 

[Numbers]

Vixen, #3551

You mean this?


(Bruno Marasca MR)

Stacyhs, the quote you have supplied from the Marasca CSC panel MR is actually part of their summary of Sollecito's appeal arguments on page 14 of the translation.

The actual Marasca CSC panel MR statement on the problems with the DNA collection and testing is on page 26 and goes beyond the obvious contamination problems:

"....In homicides such as this (such pressure {from the media}) affects not only the timing but also the competence and the correctness of the investigative activities. Not only this, but when – as in this case – the outcome of such research depends greatly on scientific investigations, the aseptic collection of all the samples useful for the investigation – in conditions that guarantee prior sterility that avoids possible contamination – constitutes, notably, the first prudent, shrewd and essential prelude – in its turn – of a correct analysis and “reading” of the recovered samples. So when the central point of technical activity contains specialist genetic investigations, the contribution of investigative activity is ever more relevant; credible parameters of correctness must respect international standards of protocols, following fundamental rules of approach prescribed by the scientific community, on the basis of statistical and validated observations.
The rigorous respect of such methodical norms offers a conventional coefficient of acceptable credibility of such results, primarily linked to their reproducibility - namely the possibility of obtaining these results, and only these, reproduced with a constantly identical method and under identical conditions, according to fundamental empirical rules. On a more general level following the scientific method starting with Galileo Galilei on the application of the “scientific method”. This is typically leading to “objective” reality, reliable, verifiable and agreeable – well-known to be consistent, on one hand, in the collection of empirical data agreeable with the hypothesis and the theory to be validated; on the other hand in the mathematical and rigorous analysis, associating in this way – as first affirmed by the above-mentioned Galilei - "sensible experiences" to "necessary demonstrations", that constitute experimental mathematics.

4.2. As will be seen, all of this {necessary attention to proper scientific procedures required to obtain credible forensic results in accordance with international standards as stated above} is essentially missing from the present trial."

 

[Stacyhs]

Ah, yes...you are correct. But as you note, Marasca-Bruno's actual comments are even more damning of the Scientific police.

 

[TruthCalls]

The following is the entirety of what the first provisionally-convicting court write in 2010 about "mixed blood." In short, there was none, but this is what the Massei court wrtoe:

​

​

In other words, Massei said that mixed-trace (not mixed-blood) was probably true - and not because it was scientifically provable, but because he had already made up his mind that Knox was guilty. Stefanoni herself had specifically testified that forensically, you simply could not source whose blood it was, from a single person or mixed.

Right, and I think everyone knows that the only person to ever imply there was a mixed blood sample was Garofano, who was not a witness during any of the trials. Harry Rag insists Stefanoni testified to mixed blood yet can't quote the testimony where she says this. At one point he claimed this was testimony not posted on the fake wiki - as if that was the only source for trial transcripts - but that he had special access to the transcript. I'm reading this and I'm almost - ALMOST - feeling embarrassed for him.

 

[Numbers]

Ah, yes...you are correct. But as you note, Marasca-Bruno's actual comments are even more damning of the Scientific police.

Indeed.

However, Sollecito's arguments in the appeal on the invalidity and unreliability of the alleged DNA evidence on the bra clasp go beyond the mention of contamination. Here is the text of that section 3.14), from page 14 of the translation:

"Further, the motivational deficiency was blatant with regards to the conclusions of the genetic examination of the bra clasp, with regard to which referral of the proceedings to the United Sections is requested.

Regarding the possible contamination of the sample, the appellate judges ignored the photographic materials included in the court records, which clearly demonstrated possible contamination in the way the clasp was treated, being passed from hand to hand by persons wearing dirty latex gloves.

Moreover, no second amplification was performed on the clasp despite there being a usable portion of the extract, which nonetheless remains actually unused.

Moreover, the clasp, although noted during the first site inspection by the Scientific Police, was left on the floor and remained there for quite some time. It is not true, moreover, that between the initial access and that during which the clasp was at last acquired, that there were only two site searches by the investigators, which were more numerous in reality and on those occasions everything was turned upside-down.

In this regard, no account was taken of the defence's observations and of the conclusions to the contrary reached by the party's consultant, Professor Tagliabracci."

 

[Numbers]

Because the Amanda Knox - Raffaele Sollecito case has generated one ECHR case to date (Knox v. Italy), and may possibly generate others, it may be of interest to examine Italy's relative standing regarding the number of cases listed against states in the Council of Europe's database, HUDOC-EXEC, on the execution of judgments of the ECHR.

Italy has the (negative) distinction of being the state with the highest number of cases (pending and settled) that are listed in HUDOC-EXEC as of 24 October 2019. Here are the number of listed cases for some of the large European states:

Italy ------------ 4215
Turkey ---------- 3988
Russia ---------- 2752
France ---------- 1024
UK --------------- 443
Germany -------- 226

 

[Vixen]

LOL! Sure, Vix. Sure. You just keep on telling yourself that. And that Stefanoni with her 4 year degree knows more about DNA than all the other forensic experts with their lousy doctorates in forensics.



Has anyone said it is?



Yep! When it's collected correctly according to scientific protocols (the bra wasn't) and when the analyses are run according to protocols (which Stefanoni didn't do).



Yep...by methods "HIGHLY INDICATIVE OF CONTAMINATION".



Yep again....but not in Kercher's bedroom where the murder took place.

Would you like to explain to us all again just how Guede left so much varied forensic evidence behind in that room in several places yet Knox left ZERO and the only indication of RS's presence was on a teeny, tiny bra hook that would have been turned towards Kercher's back and on absolutely ZERO else?

Guede left four samples of DNA, Amanda Knox, five.

 

[Vixen]

I'm really worried about you, Vix, if you think that addresses any of my questions/points in any conceivable way.

They assumed Kercher's blood would be here and there so they failed to clean up visible shoe prints in that blood which could be used to identify the killer (and did), to wipe up Knox's blood since she knew she'd been "bleeding profusely" according to you (she probably knew nothing about DNA, right?), or to wash or get rid of the bath mat Raff knew he'd stepped on in blood (they were either trying to put one over on the police or didn't know about footprint analysis, right?). Stop embarrassing yourself with these repeated attempts to justify your illogical and irrational reasoning.

The aim was to clean up all the blood in the hallway so it couldn't be asked of them, 'how come you didn't see it?'

 

[Vixen]

Darn it, Bill! Stop believing you lying eyes! Clearly that's been photoshopped or that finger touching the hook is a speck on the camera lens!

Stefanoni under oath in court said she was careful not to touch it.

BTW In any case, only Sollecito carries around his own unique DNA so it certainly was not produced by anyone else.

 

[Matthew Best]

Guede left four samples of DNA, Amanda Knox, five.

Amanda Knox left samples of her DNA in her own flat? How is this possible?

 

[Vixen]

This is what makes the way in which a) the prosecution handled this, and b) the convicting lower courts chose to assess it, all the more astonishing.

I feel extremely confident that (for all that the criminal justice systems in England or the US certainly aren't perfect) if Knox and Sollecito had gone on trial in either of those two jurisdictions and had the court seen those sorts of videos, then the following would have occurred:

Firstly, the prosecution would immediately concede that the crime scene investigators had not handled the evidence properly and there was an obvious possibility of (and route to) contamination;

And secondly (and especially if prosecutors had somehow had the brass balls to claim the evidence was treated in a "world class" fashion and contamination simply wasn't a reasonable possibility....), the courts would have found - or would have been instructed to find by the trial judge - that this evidence had to be hugely discounted owing to the possibility of contamination.


The way in which the Marasca SC panel approached this matter was an excellent example of that court acting perfectly properly within its remit and responsibility. The Marasca court clearly ruled on a point of law: the law pertaining to the way in which courts must assess and weigh evidence. Italian law (as in all "westernised" jurisprudences) states that courts must only use any given piece of evidence to support its reasoning if that evidence can objectively be shown to be credible and reliable. And furthermore, if there is a conflict between the prosecution and defence on the credibility and reliability of any particular piece of evidence, then (all else being equal, and the court being unable to distinguish further) the benefit of the doubt must be given to the defence.

In the case of the bra clasp hook (not the clasp itself, remember: just the TINY metal hook on the end of the clasp....), the video in and of itself PROVES a reasonable route to contamination there and then. And that's before one even stops to consider the fact that the clasp had literally been swept around Kercher's bedroom floor during the six weeks it was in there, such that it was found within a pile of dust and debris underneath a rug, well over a metre from where it was observed just after the body was discovered. And that during those six weeks, no controls or checks were made on who precisely had been within the room or the cottage in general, and nor was anybody who HAD been in the room and cottage been required to observe any crime scene protocols whatsoever.

It was a disgrace for the prosecution to hold this evidence up as reliable/credible in the first place. And then in turn it was a disgrace for the lower convicting courts to have sided with the prosecution. IMO this was clearly yet another illustration of the unhealthy (and anti-judicial) relationship between courts (i.e. judges) and prosecutors in the Italian criminal justice system, which itself is almost certainly an improper hangover from the now-abolished inquisitorial system in which the prosecutor's case was in effect the default position of the court as well.

It matters not a jot whether or not there was dust in the room. AIUI Mez was a good deal cleaner and tidier than her US counterpart. Dust contains fragments of alleles (such as those found on the clasp of 'other individuals').

Raff's FULL HOUSE DNA is not classed as background contamination (from, say,skin particles found in dust). It is firmly adhered to the bra clasp where SOMEONE bent it out of shape.

May I suggest you pop along to British Library and inform yourself of DNA?

 

[Vixen]

The following is the entirety of what the first provisionally-convicting court write in 2010 about "mixed blood." In short, there was none, but this is what the Massei court wrtoe:

​

​

In other words, Massei said that mixed-trace (not mixed-blood) was probably true - and not because it was scientifically provable, but because he had already made up his mind that Knox was guilty. Stefanoni herself had specifically testified that forensically, you simply could not source whose blood it was, from a single person or mixed.

What rot. It was determined that Knox' DNA (certainly blood because of the high RFU's and domination) was deposited the same time as Mez' in the sink and bidet because both were similarly diluted with water. The mixture was pink rather than dark red (as on the cotton bud box). As surface blood and water tend to dry pretty quickly it is a perfectly reasonable and scientific view the mixture was placed there the same time. It tested positive for human blood.

 

[Vixen]

Stacyhs, the quote you have supplied from the Marasca CSC panel MR is actually part of their summary of Sollecito's appeal arguments on page 14 of the translation.

The actual Marasca CSC panel MR statement on the problems with the DNA collection and testing is on page 26 and goes beyond the obvious contamination problems:

"....In homicides such as this (such pressure {from the media}) affects not only the timing but also the competence and the correctness of the investigative activities. Not only this, but when – as in this case – the outcome of such research depends greatly on scientific investigations, the aseptic collection of all the samples useful for the investigation – in conditions that guarantee prior sterility that avoids possible contamination – constitutes, notably, the first prudent, shrewd and essential prelude – in its turn – of a correct analysis and “reading” of the recovered samples. So when the central point of technical activity contains specialist genetic investigations, the contribution of investigative activity is ever more relevant; credible parameters of correctness must respect international standards of protocols, following fundamental rules of approach prescribed by the scientific community, on the basis of statistical and validated observations.
The rigorous respect of such methodical norms offers a conventional coefficient of acceptable credibility of such results, primarily linked to their reproducibility - namely the possibility of obtaining these results, and only these, reproduced with a constantly identical method and under identical conditions, according to fundamental empirical rules. On a more general level following the scientific method starting with Galileo Galilei on the application of the “scientific method”. This is typically leading to “objective” reality, reliable, verifiable and agreeable – well-known to be consistent, on one hand, in the collection of empirical data agreeable with the hypothesis and the theory to be validated; on the other hand in the mathematical and rigorous analysis, associating in this way – as first affirmed by the above-mentioned Galilei - "sensible experiences" to "necessary demonstrations", that constitute experimental mathematics.

4.2. As will be seen, all of this {necessary attention to proper scientific procedures required to obtain credible forensic results in accordance with international standards as stated above} is essentially missing from the present trial."

What utter nonsense. As has been pointed out, Marasca-Bruno have simply resurrected the previously dismissed Conti & Vecchiotti report. As Nencini said it was ENFSI standards they follow, not US highway handbook ones.

It's a straightforward copy and paste of the bent fascist Sicilian-born mafia sympathiser Andreotti worshipper Bongiorno's 360-page appeal.

 

[Vixen]

Ah, yes...you are correct. But as you note, Marasca-Bruno's actual comments are even more damning of the Scientific police.

Pathetic, isn't it. The only excuse they could find to annul the verdict was a finding never found by the merits court.