Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Vixen]

Was Sollecito's DNA actually on the bra at all? I thought it was just a random collection of mixed alleles that could be interpreted to be practically anyone.

 

[Numbers]

Was Sollecito's DNA actually on the bra at all? I thought it was just a random collection of mixed alleles that could be interpreted to be practically anyone.

Analysis of the DNA profile results by Conti and Vecchiotti showed that the scientific police (Stefanoni) analysis was flawed; it dismissed several alleles present above the threshold and not in a stutter position. These dismissed alleles are indicative of the presence of the DNA on the bra clasp from other individuals besides Sollecito and Kercher for the autosomal STRs (short-tandem-repeats). Furthermore, for the Y Chromosome DNA profile analysis, there are a number of dismissed allele peaks which indicate the presence in the sample tested of DNA from several males.

Because the DNA profiles show a mixture of alleles not exclusively to one person, or even to one person plus the victim (Kercher), there can be no certainty that Sollecito's profile is present in the mixture. That is, the DNA profile results are ambiguous, and not precise and consistent, so under Italian law, CPP Article 192, paragraph 2, no "fact" against the accused, Sollecito, can be inferred from the results.

Also, the DNA profile results cannot be considered "serious". They were collected from the bra clasp, which is not touched during the process of taking off or putting on a bra. The only known contact with the bra clasp was by the dirty glove of a scientific police officer during the collection process. Otherwise, the bra had lain on the floor of the crime scene for 46 days and subject to collection of dust. It has been established that household dust contains human DNA from the constant normal exfoliation of human skin cells as well as through speaking, coughing, and sneezing. Kercher's DNA could have been on the bra clasps due to exfoliation or her routine handling of the garment.

See:

Assessment of the Forensic Genetic Tests Conducted by the Scientific Police on Item 165B (Bra Clasps)

From what has been explained above, we can draw the following conclusions about the analytical procedures performed on Exhibit 165B. – Regarding the nature of the material taken from the item…

knoxdnareport.wordpress.com

The invisible witness: air and dust as DNA evidence of human occupancy in indoor premises - PMC

Humans constantly shed deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) into the surrounding environment. This DNA may either remain suspended in the air or it settles onto surfaces as indoor dust. In this study, we explored the potential use of human DNA recovered from ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Numbers]

We analyze the soup and find that all the letters in the suspect’s name are present. Does that mean someone named JOHN Q SUSPECT contributed to the soup?

Not necessarily. There could have been two contributors named PATRICK QUEEN and JUSTIN OHR. In that case, the soup would have all the letters needed to spell JOHN Q SUSPECT, even though no person with that name contributed to the soup.

DNA mixtures produce complex profiles that are ambiguous. That is what happened with the bra clasps. Furthermore, there is no way to be sure how the DNA entered the sample that was analyzed, especially if, as in the forensic DNA collection and testing for the Knox - Sollecito case, the proper, internationally recognized quality control and assurance procedures were not followed.

See:

DNA Mixtures: A Forensic Science Explainer

What are DNA mixtures? And why are they sometimes so difficult to interpret?

www.nist.gov

 

[Bill Williams]

Was Sollecito's DNA actually on the bra at all? I thought it was just a random collection of mixed alleles that could be interpreted to be practically anyone.

It probably was. But that was not the issue, according to Dr. Peter Gill, the forensic DNA expert who wrote extensively about this:

...... the distributions of DNA profiles were a critical feature. Contrast the widespread presence of Rudy Guede’s DNA in the murder room, bearing in mind he had no legitimate access to the premises. In stark contrast, the DNA of both Knox and Sollecito was absent from the murder room (apart from the discredited bra-clasp DNA profile that matched Sollecito). This contrast is even more poignant given that Knox lived in the apartment with Kercher, and Sollecito had legitimate access. There is an a priori expectation that their DNA should be present at the crime scene.

See:

https://www.fsigenetics.com/article/s1872-4973(16)30033-3/fulltext

Please also note, that the statement Vixen makes from the convicting Nencini court (2014) omits that Nencini thought that the three additional profiles on the clasp as noted by Stefanoni's original work, theorized that those three were from Kercher's 'amiga', or girlfriends.

Finally, the manner of collection of that clasp, 46 days following the murder, casts all sorts of doubt on its usefulness to begin with. I'll post it again if you wish, but the Forensic police photographed themselves collecting that from the floor with obviously dirty forensic gloves. Forensically, the bra-clasp was useless as evidence. They could have just as easily charged one of those three 'amiga' with murder, or perhaps all three of them. If the Nencini court had done more to i.d. who those women were, rather than just to hand-wave them away......

 

[Numbers]

It probably was. But that was not the issue, according to Dr. Peter Gill, the forensic DNA expert who wrote extensively about this:



See:

https://www.fsigenetics.com/article/s1872-4973(16)30033-3/fulltext

Please also note, that the statement Vixen makes from the convicting Nencini court (2014) omits that Nencini thought that the three additional profiles on the clasp as noted by Stefanoni's original work, theorized that those three were from Kercher's 'amiga', or girlfriends.

Finally, the manner of collection of that clasp, 46 days following the murder, casts all sorts of doubt on its usefulness to begin with. I'll post it again if you wish, but the Forensic police photographed themselves collecting that from the floor with obviously dirty forensic gloves. Forensically, the bra-clasp was useless as evidence. They could have just as easily charged one of those three 'amiga' with murder, or perhaps all three of them. If the Nencini court had done more to i.d. who those women were, rather than just to hand-wave them away......

And how do we know this, considering there was a mixture of male (Y chromosome) DNA found on the clasp, as noted by C & V, but not declared by Steffanoni?

There is a difference between "it perhaps could have been" and "it probably was": the last phrasing indicates a high degree of probability, while the first phrasing is neutral. Is there evidence to support a high degree of probability?

 

[Numbers]

And how do we know this, considering there was a mixture of male (Y chromosome) DNA found on the clasp, as noted by C & V, but not declared by Steffanoni?

There is a difference between "it perhaps could have been" and "it probably was": the last phrasing indicates a high degree of probability, while the first phrasing is neutral. Is there evidence to support a high degree of probability?

There is a difference between "it perhaps could have been" and "it probably was": the last phrasing indicates a high degree of probability, while the first phrasing is neutral. Is there evidence to support a high degree of probability? In a complex DNA mixture, it is not necessarily true that a perceived "match" is indeed real evidence of the DNA of a subject. What is not excluded in this case is that all the DNA on the clasp, except probably Kercher's, is a result of contamination. If the DNA profile alleged to match Sollecito is indeed from Sollecito, no evidence excludes its presence as a result of contamination. There is positive evidence that the clasp was collected under circumstances that would almost certainly have contaminated it. Those circumstances include that the clasp lay on the floor unprotected for 46 days and was collected by a police officer using dirty gloves.
Therefore, by Italian law CPP Article 192, paragraph 2, no fact against Sollecito can be inferred from the alleged and uncertain presence of alleles on the clasp that appear to match his DNA profile.

 

[Stacyhs]

View attachment 58496

This was the problem with Nencini and one of the reasons Marasca annulled their verdict.

To declare that a low copy number 17-allele sample could not be explained by contamination is just plain wrong.

As Marasca-Bruno found:

"His presence on the murder scene, and specifically inside the room where the murder was committed, is linked to only the biological trace found on the bra fastener hook (item 165/b), the attribution of which, however, cannot have any certainty, since such trace is insusceptible of a second amplification, given its scarce amount, for that it is – as we said – an element lacking of circumstantial evidentiary value."

 

[Rolfe]

Thanks for all that, everyone. I realise it's entirely possible for Sollecito's DNA to have got there by contamination, considering that he touched the door (rather a lot I think) and then the forensic officers touched the door. Plus all the lying-on-the-floor-for-six-weeks and the dirty-gloves stuff. However, having been quite persuaded by the alphabet soup analogy, I question whether all this theorising is really needed.

 

[Vixen]

Thanks for all that, everyone. I realise it's entirely possible for Sollecito's DNA to have got there by contamination, considering that he touched the door (rather a lot I think) and then the forensic officers touched the door. Plus all the lying-on-the-floor-for-six-weeks and the dirty-gloves stuff. However, having been quite persuaded by the alphabet soup analogy, I question whether all this theorising is really needed.

Oh dear. DNA is not 'an alphabet soup'. It is structured as a double helix. It is simply not possible to obtain anyone's full DNA profile - for forensic criminal purposes, this is the full 17-alleles, as was found of Sollecito's, by stirring it in an alphabet soup; and as expert witness to the court, Professor Novelli testified under cross-examination, the chances of the profile being for anyone other than Sollecito is over 3.4billion to one against. No, they didn't throw it in the air and it landed in the exact order of Sollecito's. Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.


a

 

[Stacyhs]

Oh dear. DNA is not 'an alphabet soup'. It is structured as a double helix. It is simply not possible to obtain anyone's full DNA profile - for forensic criminal purposes, this is the full 17-alleles, as was found of Sollecito's, by stirring it in an alphabet soup; and as expert witness to the court, Professor Novelli testified under cross-examination, the chances of the profile being for anyone other than Sollecito is over 3.4billion to one against. No, they didn't throw it in the air and it landed in the exact order of Sollecito's. Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

View attachment 58504
a

Lessee...."Vixen" vs the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

What we do​

NIST has played a key role in the historical development of forensic DNA analysis. Today, our forensic DNA program has three major components.

• We conduct research to advance forensic DNA methods, including laying the groundwork for using next generation DNA sequencing for human identification.
• We conduct scientific foundation reviews in the forensic sciences, including for DNA mixture interpretation.
• We develop and manufacture physical reference standards that DNA labs across the country and the world use to help ensure reliable results.

Hmmmm....whom to believe?

It is simply not possible to obtain anyone's full DNA profile -

Really? You might want to inform forensic experts. They're under the misguided opinion that it is.

A DNA profile is made of a set of specific points on a DNA molecule. Points of data, or loci, are examined to create a complete DNA profile, unique to the contributor.

Some evidence may not produce a full DNA profile if the DNA is degraded, and there isn’ t information present at all loci. Some DNA evidence may be too degraded for any testing. Under some circumstances, a partial profile, or a profile that includes fewer than the full number of loci detected by a particular kit, can still be compared against a suspect’ s profile.

 

[Stacyhs]

Thanks for all that, everyone. I realise it's entirely possible for Sollecito's DNA to have got there by contamination, considering that he touched the door (rather a lot I think) and then the forensic officers touched the door. Plus all the lying-on-the-floor-for-six-weeks and the dirty-gloves stuff. However, having been quite persuaded by the alphabet soup analogy, I question whether all this theorising is really needed.

Not just the door but probably the outside door handle since they knew it was locked. The door handle that the police, in their infinite professionalism, didn't bother to test for anything.

 

[Numbers]

Oh dear. DNA is not 'an alphabet soup'. It is structured as a double helix. It is simply not possible to obtain anyone's full DNA profile - for forensic criminal purposes, this is the full 17-alleles, as was found of Sollecito's, by stirring it in an alphabet soup; and as expert witness to the court, Professor Novelli testified under cross-examination, the chances of the profile being for anyone other than Sollecito is over 3.4billion to one against. No, they didn't throw it in the air and it landed in the exact order of Sollecito's. Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

View attachment 58504
a

Your post above shows considerable confusion in the methodology of how DNA profiles are obtained from forensic samples. The method requires the extraction of the DNA - which may have been left behind by several, even many, contributors - into a single solution. The complete DNA chains of the chromosomes are not of interest for forensic purposes, since about 99.9% of each person's DNA is the same as another's. What is evaluated (in current technology) are the small segments of DNA that are called STRs (short tandem repeats). A known preselected group of these repeats - 20 in current US practice; fewer were in the forensic group in previous years, and the numbers and members of the group may vary among the various countries - are selected to provide a DNA profile. Except in the case of identical (homozygotic) twins (or other multiples), the forensic group of STRs is considered relatively unique to each person. Each STR group member is a "locus" and each locus, for autosomal and X chromosomes, has two alleles, while the Y (male) chromosome STRs will only display a single allele. Each allele of each locus displays a number of repeats, which will vary, within a certain known range, from one person to the next. However, many persons share some number of common alleles, with the same number of repeats, at certain loci. That is why a relatively large number of loci - such as 20 - are selected for the DNA profile test, to help assure that a relatively unique DNA profile "fingerprint" will be found for any one person. Since a mixture of DNAs from several persons are contained in a sample will all go into one solution during sampling and extraction, and for the final DNA profiling, the "alphabet soup" analogy used by NIST is appropriate. DNA profile analysis of complex mixtures (for example, from 3 or 4 contributors) therefore is a challenging task, and misleading conclusions can be inferred by incautious interpretation of the DNA profile results of DNA mixtures.

DNA can be transferred from one surface or person to another, and this can potentially occur multiple times. Therefore, the relevance of the DNA to the crime being
investigated should be considered when evaluating the evidence.

Highly sensitive DNA methods increase the likelihood of detecting DNA mixtures that may or may not be related to the crime being investigated. In cases that involve
very small quantities of DNA, it is especially important for the users of the information to consider context when determining the utility of the evidence.

Contamination avoidance procedures should be robust both at the crime scene and in the laboratory. ....

DNA statistical results such as a likelihood ratio given sub-source propositions do not provide information about how or when DNA was transferred, or whether it is relevant to circumstances of a case.

The fact that DNA can transfer between objects does not negate the value of DNA evidence. However, the value of DNA evidence depends on the circumstances
of the case.

DNA mixtures vary in complexity. Factors that contribute to complexity include the number of contributors, the quantity of DNA from each contributor, contributor mixture ratios, sample quality, and the degree of allele sharing. These factors will impact the degree of variation in interpretation.

For a more detailed professional-level examination of the issues with the forensic DNA profile analysis of mixtures, where the alphabet soup analogy was avoided, and the source of the quotes above, see:

https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2024/NIST.IR.8351.pdf

 

[Chris_Halkides]

In a 2013 article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science David Balding wrote, "I reran the analysis excluding Knox from both

and

, and obtained an LR in favor of

of 42 million (WoE = 7.6 bans). Thus, although the additional alleles have, by providing evidence for an additional contributor, weakened the evidence implicating Sollecito by a massive 8 bans, this evidence nevertheless remains strong." Hp and Hd are the presumed prosecution and defense hypotheses, and LR is the likelihood ratio. My informal analysis of the Y-STR profile also suggested that Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was present (Professor Balding's program is not suitable for Y-STR profiles). Other computer programs, such as TrueAllele and STRmix also attempt to deconvolute autosomal mixtures, but there are legal controversies which exist around their use.

One major problem for the prosecution is that in both the autosomal profile and the YSTR profile, there are other alleles. IIRC there were three people who contributed to the Y-STR profile. If the prosecution concedes that these other profiles arose from some form of contamination, then there is no reason to say that Mr Sollecito's profile might also have arisen this way. And that is before we bring in other valid points that the defense and others made, many of which have come up here in the last day or two. I will mention one more. It is possible that Stefanoni used a suspect-centered analysis in her interpretation of the bra clasp profile, meaning that she analyzed it with Mr Sollecito's reference profile in hand. This type of analysis is strongly discouraged in the sources I have consulted.

 

[Numbers]

In a 2013 article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science David Balding wrote, "I reran the analysis excluding Knox from both

and

, and obtained an LR in favor of

of 42 million (WoE = 7.6 bans). Thus, although the additional alleles have, by providing evidence for an additional contributor, weakened the evidence implicating Sollecito by a massive 8 bans, this evidence nevertheless remains strong." Hp and Hd are the presumed prosecution and defense hypotheses, and LR is the likelihood ratio. My informal analysis of the Y-STR profile also suggested that Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was present (Professor Balding's program is not suitable for Y-STR profiles). Other computer programs, such as TrueAllele and STRmix also attempt to deconvolute autosomal mixtures, but there are legal controversies which exist around their use.

One major problem for the prosecution is that in both the autosomal profile and the YSTR profile, there are other alleles. IIRC there were three people who contributed to the Y-STR profile. If the prosecution concedes that these other profiles arose from some form of contamination, then there is no reason to say that Mr cmeaning that she analyzed it with Mr Sollecito's reference profile in hand. This type of analysis is strongly discouraged in the sources I have consulted.

Chris, do you have any comments on these two issues that I recall that may be relevant to the bra clasp DNA profile analysis:

1. The bra clasp collection occurred 46 days after the murder of Kercher was discovered, and the clasp DNA profile analysis occurred soon after that discovery. In what some may view as a miraculous stroke for the prosecution, the results came out on the same day of the announcement that the shoe sole pattern ridges (was blood or semen residue a constituent of the pattern?) found in the murder room (on the pillow? elsewhere?) did not match Sollecito's shoes, contrary to claims of the police and prosecutor. Sollecito's father made this discovery by counting ridges, IIRC. Thus the only physical evidence alleged to link Sollecito to the murder room, the shoe sole pattern, was immediately replaced by the alleged DNA profile evidence on the bra clasps, previously left to lie uncollected by the police on the murder room floor, and there was therefore no risk to the prosecution case that Sollecito could be immediately cleared or released from detention.

2. IIRC, on the Injustice Anywhere or other related website, there was considerable analysis of the available DNA data (the website also pointed out that much of the DNA data, including almost all the postive and negative control results, had been suppressed, as well as certain other potenially important data, such as much of the rape kit data). One part of the analysis tracked the unique machine-assigned sequence number assigned to each DNA profile determination. For the date of the analysis of the bra clasp, it was claimed or hypothesized that a sequence number was missing, and it was suggested this missing number indicated that there had been a first DNA profile test of the clasp, but that the results had been suppressed for an unknown reason. It was further suggested that the test reported to the defense and the court was a retest carried out under a different sequence number. It was suggested that if this claim or hypothesis of a suppressed test result was true, the suppression was improper. If such suppression actually had occurred, and it reflected unfavorably on the methods or the validity of the reported result and its analysis, it certainly could have been a violation of Sollecito's European Convention rights to equality of arms.

 

[Vixen]

Lessee...."Vixen" vs the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Hmmmm....whom to believe?


Really? You might want to inform forensic experts. They're under the misguided opinion that it is.

Hi, did you deliberately misquote me? It is poor netiquette to do so.

On the assumption that perhaps there was difficulty in comprehension, may I offer the following advice?

• First, read carefully the post/s that were being responded to for full context. (This is indicated by the small arrow pointing upwards.)
• Next, please be aware that a sentence doesn't end until a full stop - a period in the US - nor a subclause expressing a full idea until a semi-colon.

To run through my sentence again, carefully, we have:

"It is simply not possible to obtain anyone's full DNA profile - for forensic criminal purposes, this is the full 17-alleles, as was found of Sollecito's, by stirring it in an alphabet soup; and as expert witness to the court, Professor Novelli testified under cross-examination, the chances of the profile being for anyone other than Sollecito is over 3.4billion to one against. "

EXPLANATION

First subclause:

"It is simply not possible to obtain anyone's full DNA profile - for forensic criminal purposes, this is the full 17-alleles, as was found of Sollecito's, by stirring it in an alphabet soup;"

It is simply not possible to obtain anyone's full DNA profile - [this indicates an insertion] for forensic criminal purposes, [Subclause to explain why this is referred to as a FULL DNA profile] this is the full 17-alleles, [COMMA: this indicates a pause] as was found of Sollecito's, [COMMA relating to whom the full profile belongs and ending subclause] by stirring it in an alphabet soup; [SEMI- COLON indicates end of subsentence]. For ease of understanding: 'It is simply not possible to obtain anyone's full DNA profile by stirring it in an alphabet soup', or in other words lest the meaning still is not clear: simply chucking the letters of the alphabet, as it were, into a soup, will not by a fluke transform by chance into an ordered alphabet from A to Z, as the poster was claiming re Sollecito's DNA being found by a sheer fluke.

Second subsentence, as follows the SEMI-COLON, finishing the first:

"and as expert witness to the court, [COMMA = pause] Professor Novelli testified under cross-examination, [COMMA end of pause providing someone's name] the chances of the profile being for anyone other than Sollecito is over 3.4billion to one against. " [FULL STOP = end of sentence.]

Thus the full idea with supporting evidence and with reference to expert court testimony conveys that ,no, Sollecito's proven DNA-profile was not there by random chance.

To hammer the message home - and as confirmed by Dr. Gill who states secondary transfer of DNA is only likely to happen within 24-hours and not at all in tertiary transfer except under controlled conditions of keeping the initial organic material moist (such as sebaceous oil from skin that contains sebaceous sweat glands [the palm of the hand doesn't contain any unless you sweep your fingers through your hair or face]). The total lie that Sollecito's DNA was somehow conveyed there some six weeks later by a rogue detective is one AK fans prefer to believe because truth is expendable rather than to face the truth of the pair's involvement in a horrible murder.

I hope you are now able to comprehend the argument. Let me know if anything I said is still unclear.

 

[Vixen]

In a 2013 article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science David Balding wrote, "I reran the analysis excluding Knox from both

and

, and obtained an LR in favor of

of 42 million (WoE = 7.6 bans). Thus, although the additional alleles have, by providing evidence for an additional contributor, weakened the evidence implicating Sollecito by a massive 8 bans, this evidence nevertheless remains strong." Hp and Hd are the presumed prosecution and defense hypotheses, and LR is the likelihood ratio. My informal analysis of the Y-STR profile also suggested that Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was present (Professor Balding's program is not suitable for Y-STR profiles). Other computer programs, such as TrueAllele and STRmix also attempt to deconvolute autosomal mixtures, but there are legal controversies which exist around their use.

One major problem for the prosecution is that in both the autosomal profile and the YSTR profile, there are other alleles. IIRC there were three people who contributed to the Y-STR profile. If the prosecution concedes that these other profiles arose from some form of contamination, then there is no reason to say that Mr Sollecito's profile might also have arisen this way. And that is before we bring in other valid points that the defense and others made, many of which have come up here in the last day or two. I will mention one more. It is possible that Stefanoni used a suspect-centered analysis in her interpretation of the bra clasp profile, meaning that she analyzed it with Mr Sollecito's reference profile in hand. This type of analysis is strongly discouraged in the sources I have consulted.

The others were fragments of DNA of less than 6 alleles (legal standard 10 or 11) which is found in normal every day dust. Sollecito's full DNA of 17 allele-pairs was found on the bra hook UNDER the body and can only have been so strong by Sollecito pressing down hard on it.

Combined with the rest of the forensic evidence - for example, his footprint in Mez' blood on the bathmat and in luminol on the floor outside her door - together with his all night cleaning spree and dismantling his U-bend to clear the blockage, plus, switching off his phone for the evening until 5:30 the next day, together with lying to the police over and over again, certainly proves his presence, not to mention Mez' full DNA on his knife.

Even the final Marasca-Bruno written reasons states the burglary was staged, that Knox was definitely present when Mez was murdered and DID wash off Mez' blood from her hands. Likewise M-B confirm Knox named Lumumba to cover up for Guede, who was also present. These are the legal facts of the matter.

 

[TomG]

Some additional thoughts:

The Italian courts, including the Florence Court of Appeal in the calunnia retrial, have taken no measures to redress the violation of Convention Article 3 (procedural limb ), so there has never been an independent and effective investigation of Knox's claims of mistreatment during the interrogations and that her statement against Lumumba was a result of a violation of her rights under CPP Article 188 (violation of the right of self-determination in giving evidence) and other Italian law, including the revised (2017) CPP Article 191 (prohibits the use of evidence obtained by mistreatment or torture against the person mistreated or tortured). Thus, use against her of her original statement(s) against Lumumba would be unlawful under CPP Articles 191 and 188.

As stated in the ECHR final judgment Knox v. Italy, the violations of either of Convention Articles 6.3c and 6.3e rendered the whole of the trial for calunnia unfair (violation of Convention Article 6.1). The ECHR judgment identified Memoriale 1 as a retraction (even with any ambiguity, Memoriale 1 cannot establish guilt of calunnia beyond a reasonable doubt). Since the ECHR judgment finds the the proceedings as a whole unfair, it suggests that any ambiguity in
Memoriale 1 must be regarded, in US legal terminology, as "fruit of the poisoned tree" and a residue of the alleged violation of CPP Article 188, which cannot be used against Knox, especially since she makes a clearer retraction in Memoriale 2 as well as in her statements to her lawyers.

I don't know of any reference to suggest that memoriale 1 was the "fruit of a poisoned tree" only that it was a retraction. I've also yet to discover any reference of memoriale 2 (written on the 7th Nov) in the current proceedings. Maybe it wasn't submitted to the ECHR as part of Amanda's appeal. If that's the case it might be unusable as evidence at this late stage, yet it appears to be a more emphatic retraction.

 

[Numbers]

I don't know of any reference to suggest that memoriale 1 was the "fruit of a poisoned tree" only that it was a retraction. I've also yet to discover any reference of memoriale 2 (written on the 7th Nov) in the current proceedings. Maybe it wasn't submitted to the ECHR as part of Amanda's appeal. If that's the case it might be unusable as evidence at this late stage, yet it appears to be a more emphatic retraction.

The "fruit of the poisoned tree" was my comment based on US law, and not a statement in the ECHR final judgment Knox v. Italy. However, Italy does have procedural law (CPP Article 191) prohibiting the use of evidence obtained contrary to Italian law. Whether such law is applied in practice, and to what extent, is another question.

 

[Numbers]

I don't know of any reference to suggest that memoriale 1 was the "fruit of a poisoned tree" only that it was a retraction. I've also yet to discover any reference of memoriale 2 (written on the 7th Nov) in the current proceedings. Maybe it wasn't submitted to the ECHR as part of Amanda's appeal. If that's the case it might be unusable as evidence at this late stage, yet it appears to be a more emphatic retraction.

I am myself a bit confused about the relevant text in the ECHR judgment because I don't have the texts of Knox's Memoriales 1 and 2 before me.

The text of paragraph 20 of the ECHR judgment states that Knox gave a written statement in English to the police at about 1 pm on 6 November 2007. The text goes on to summarize and quote "relevant" parts of Knox's statement but does not mention Memoriale 2.

The ECHR also considered Knox's English letter to her lawyers, dated 9 November 2007, also significant to the retraction (paragraph 24).

Without true copies of the original Memoriales before me, I am not sure whether the ECHR's quoted parts are only from Memoriale 1 or include some parts of Memoriale 2.

Perhaps the ECHR considered Memoriale 2 to be a kind of continuation of Memoriale1, at least from their legal point of view. The ECHR is retrying neither the murder/rape case nor the calunnia against Lumumba case; it is evaluating whether any Convention articles were violated by Italy with respect only to the calunnia against Lumumba case. Thus, it may simply be showing that Knox, as early as 1 pm on 6 November, was stating that her accusations against Lumumba should be considered unreliable and providing some of the circumstances that Knox cited to the authorities to support why they were unreliable. Under ECHR case law, any uncertainties or ambiguities in the evidence must be considered to the benefit of the defense in a criminal trial.

I don't know whether the Court of Appeals was allowed by the CSC to consider anything beyond Memoriale 1. The new CSC hearing may be free to consider additional information, or refer the case again.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Chris, do you have any comments on these two issues that I recall that may be relevant to the bra clasp DNA profile analysis:

1. The bra clasp collection occurred 46 days after the murder of Kercher was discovered, and the clasp DNA profile analysis occurred soon after that discovery. In what some may view as a miraculous stroke for the prosecution, the results came out on the same day of the announcement that the shoe sole pattern ridges (was blood or semen residue a constituent of the pattern?) found in the murder room (on the pillow? elsewhere?) did not match Sollecito's shoes, contrary to claims of the police and prosecutor. Sollecito's father made this discovery by counting ridges, IIRC. Thus the only physical evidence alleged to link Sollecito to the murder room, the shoe sole pattern, was immediately replaced by the alleged DNA profile evidence on the bra clasps, previously left to lie uncollected by the police on the murder room floor, and there was therefore no risk to the prosecution case that Sollecito could be immediately cleared or released from detention.

Let me comment on 1 for now and come back to 2 later, time permitting. The timing of the collection with respect to the shoe prints, the late collection relative to other pieces of evidence, and the damage to the clasp afterward are legitimate points against the clasp. In my opinion, it bears on how much weight the trier of fact should assign this piece of evidence. Based on Peter Gill's book, I think it falls to the forensic scientist to provide an unbiased discussion of the alternative ways in which DNA might arrive on an item of evidence, both innocent and as part of the crime. My present view is that the number of profiles is something that the forensic scientist should discuss in the context of these alternative ways.