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

[Jack by the hedge]

You must have really hated the guy..?

Which guy, and why?

Wait, do you mean my Kercher colleague? No of course I don't hate him. I have nothing but sympathy for the poor guy. Why on earth do you think I would hate him?

 

[Darat]

If you wish to discuss forum moderation please do so in the Forum Management section. I've moved 44 posts to AAH. If you wish to start a thread in Forum Management to discuss what has been moved to AAH you can do so and if you may copy or quote from the posts moved to AAH in such a thread.

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

 

[Numbers]

It's interesting that almost 4 months after the motivation report of the final re-conviction of Amanda Knox for calunnia against Lumumba was filed, and more than a year after the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the first conviction and ordered a retrial on alleged other evidence, Italy has yet to have filed any Action Plan or Action Report on the case, as none is shown in the HUDOC EXEC database for the case Knox v. Italy. Under ECHR - CoM procedures. Italy was required to file an Action Plan within 6 months of the date (24 June 2019) the ECHR judgment became final.

Why has Italy not made any attempt to communicate to the CoM on its plans or progress in the case, following its 10 January 2020 letter to the CoM acknowledging that the ECHR ruled against Italy in the case, and stating that the Italian government had paid the Just Satisfaction adn translated the text of the judgment into Italian and making that translation available on its website for judges to read?

I suspect that the Italian government hopes that the CoM will not pay much attention to its 74 pending cases - the oldest pending case has the final judgment date of 12 August 1999 - before the CoM by the trick of not responding to as many of them as it can without causing a fuss in the CoM bureaucracy.

Source: https://hudoc.exec.coe.int

 

[Jack by the hedge]

How fascinating! So Guede came back to do a bit of mopping up? Are you able to offer a theory as to how there are no apparent footprints leading up to the one on the bathmat and why you think he might have left one set of his own shoeprints whilst cleaning his chums'?

There were no "chums". Why on earth would you suppose anyone who says Guede acted alone would think there were other people there?

You seem to have particular difficulty grasping the idea that anyone believes something different from what you believe. Let me explain: Guede committed the murder by himself. Knox and Sollecito were not there. People who believe that to be the case really do believe that to be the case. They do not secretly believe you are right but have decided to lie to you about it. They believe you are wrong.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Given Knox claimed there was a burglary and that she averred she looked in her room and checked that NOTHING WAS MISSING, how on earth could she miss a table lamp?

Why do you find that hard to imagine?

Burglars do not steal desk lamps. Burglars steal cash and valuables. If you think you've been burgled what would you look to first? Is my laptop gone? Is the TV still there? Check the drawer with the passports and bank stuff. How long might it take before you spotted that for some weird reason the burglar seemed only to have taken the toaster?

 

[TruthCalls]

How fascinating! So Guede came back to do a bit of mopping up? Are you able to offer a theory as to how there are no apparent footprints leading up to the one on the bathmat and why you think he might have left one set of his own shoeprints whilst cleaning his chums'?

You're working from a position of speculation. There was no evidence of a clean-up, and the mop tested negative for anything related to the crime.

Several people have offered theories for how a lone Guede print got on the mat. Either you've got a flawed memory, or you're deliberately ignoring them for some reason. It's OK to disagree with a theory, but don't keep asking if someone can offer a theory when multiple theories have been given, just list your reasons for disagreeing with it.

I suspect he left his shoe prints because he didn't even notice them. They are, after all, rather faint and blend with the color of the tile.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I don't have time for a lengthy post, but I wanted to mention a problem in the analysis of DNA mixtures, namely that of a "suspect-centered analysis." Although it seems counterintuitive, one should not begin an analysis of a mixture with the suspect's DNA reference profile in hand. Although I do not believe that the host of the blog Maundy Gregory is an expert in DNA profiling, his exercise concerning the bra clasp illustrates one problem with suspect-centered analyses: He demonstrates that it is possible to find Casey Anthony's DNA on the clasp. Another problem in the interpretation of DNA mixtures are addressed in this introduction to the topic. A more advanced discussion can be found here.

 

[Numbers]

You're working from a position of speculation. There was no evidence of a clean-up, and the mop tested negative for anything related to the crime.

Several people have offered theories for how a lone Guede print got on the mat. Either you've got a flawed memory, or you're deliberately ignoring them for some reason. It's OK to disagree with a theory, but don't keep asking if someone can offer a theory when multiple theories have been given, just list your reasons for disagreeing with it.

I suspect he left his shoe prints because he didn't even notice them. They are, after all, rather faint and blend with the color of the tile.

Guede may have also wished to leave the cottage as quickly as possible with whatever he had seized. (There's a possibility that he had entered the downstairs apartment using a key after the murder/rape; Stefanoni did not claim in her lab notes that the blood stain above the light switch was from a "cat".) He had already left his DNA inside Kercher, on her clothes, and on her purse (bag), and how would he have cleaned or eliminated all of those? Further, there were the seeming semen stains on the pillow found under Kercher's body, which were fresh when the murder/rape occurred, because Guede left a footprint on them.

 

[Stacyhs]

How fascinating! So Guede came back to do a bit of mopping up? Are you able to offer a theory as to how there are no apparent footprints leading up to the one on the bathmat and why you think he might have left one set of his own shoeprints whilst cleaning his chums'?

What's 'fascinating' is the logic you use to explain away WHY RS and AK would not only leave "RS's" bloody footprint in the first place (if it were his) but then specifically point it out to the police. According to you, they were trying to "pull one over on the police for laughs".

Are you able to offer a theory as to why they also didn't wash down the entire hallway if they knew "Knox had walked around barefoot in Kercher's blood"? Maybe they were in a hurry and only spot cleaned what they could see instead of the entire hallway because they only had 13+ hours before alerting Filomena and the police?

 

[Stacyhs]

The forensic scientific engineers identified the shoe

Any evidence they were scientific "engineers". They were dactyloscopists; print experts.

from the shoe imprint which WAS there on the pillow. Your kneejerk denial of facts found doesn't change anything.

Move that goalpost, Vixen! No one, including me, said a print claimed by the prosecution to be a woman's shoe WASN'T there. Let me refresh your memory as to what I did say:

Vixen said:
The size 37 ladies trainer was not attributed by Massei in the MR to Knox because the ASICS shoe it matched was never recovered.

My reply:

False. Massei clearly states that there was no attempt to identify the print as an ASICS shoe, but only for dimension comparisons to women's shoes vs men's.

The purpose of the investigation of merchants and shoe manufacturers was not to propose the ASICS as the shoe that produced the print in question; the objective, more modestly, was simply to indicate how the dimensions of the print (held to be sufficiently complete and not merely partial) were in themselves comparable to women's shoes available on the market...

(Massei MR, pg. 343)

Your kneejerk reaction to misrepresent our exchange doesn't change anything. You made a false claim which I disproved by quoting Massei which won't admit.

 

[Stacyhs]

Given Knox claimed there was a burglary and that she averred she looked in her room and checked that NOTHING WAS MISSING, how on earth could she miss a table lamp?

What part of my previous response are you having trouble understanding?

"Yeah, just how could Knox not notice her lamp was missing during the day when she had a window and terrace glass door across from her room admitting natural light? So you turn on your bedroom light when there is abundant natural light coming through? I don't. But maybe that's just me.

I notice that you, yet again, misrepresented what I said about DYED, NOT BLEACHED, hair but fail to acknowledge it. Nor do you acknowledge that we were, in fact, discussing the hair SHAFT. You also misrepresented what I said about who the blonde hair MAY have belonged to and fail to admit that. Par for the course.

 

[TruthCalls]

Any evidence they were scientific "engineers". They were dactyloscopists; print experts.


Move that goalpost, Vixen! No one, including me, said a print claimed by the prosecution to be a woman's shoe WASN'T there. Let me refresh your memory as to what I did say:


My reply:


(Massei MR, pg. 343)

Your kneejerk reaction to misrepresent our exchange doesn't change anything. You made a false claim which I disproved by quoting Massei which won't admit.

And all of this becomes moot once you accept the print WAS a partial of Guede's shoe. The concentric rings match perfectly.

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't have time for a lengthy post, but I wanted to mention a problem in the analysis of DNA mixtures, namely that of a "suspect-centered analysis." Although it seems counterintuitive, one should not begin an analysis of a mixture with the suspect's DNA reference profile in hand. Although I do not believe that the host of the blog Maundy Gregory is an expert in DNA profiling, his exercise concerning the bra clasp illustrates one problem with suspect-centered analyses: He demonstrates that it is possible to find Casey Anthony's DNA on the clasp. Another problem in the interpretation of DNA mixtures are addressed in this introduction to the topic. A more advanced discussion can be found here.

Hi, Chris. Your last link talked about probabilistic genotyping software (PGS). Prof. David Balding developed such a program and he concluded that Knox's DNA was NOT on the bra fabric Vixen refers to.

Software says Knox's DNA not on crime scene bra clasp | New Scientist

Genetic profiles built on tiny traces of DNA – like that used in Amanda Knox's trial – are often controversial. New software could clear up the confusion

www.newscientist.com

 

[Stacyhs]

And all of this becomes moot once you accept the print WAS a partial of Guede's shoe. The concentric rings match perfectly.

You know that, I know that. Apparently, Vixen doesn't.

 

[Stacyhs]

Why do you find that hard to imagine?

Burglars do not steal desk lamps. Burglars steal cash and valuables. If you think you've been burgled what would you look to first? Is my laptop gone? Is the TV still there? Check the drawer with the passports and bank stuff. How long might it take before you spotted that for some weird reason the burglar seemed only to have taken the toaster?

I think the entire PGP love affair with the lamp is because they can assign a nefarious reason for it being there with no supporting evidence. They don't have to prove their theory because there's no way it can be disproven. There's no way to prove or disprove who put it there or why.

I find it perfectly plausible that Meredith could have borrowed it herself for her study desk due to the lighting situation in her room and Knox's absence from the cottage every night for the past week. It's also logical to me that Knox, if guilty, would given an innocent and plausible explanation such as Kercher borrowing it. Instead, she said she did not know how it got there.

But rather than acknowledge that as being logical and plausible, we are presented with rubbish such as Knox needing to turn her light on during the day to see in a room with two sources of natural light.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Hi, Chris. Your last link talked about probabilistic genotyping software (PGS). Prof. David Balding developed such a program and he concluded that Knox's DNA was NOT on the bra fabric Vixen refers to.

Software says Knox's DNA not on crime scene bra clasp | New Scientist

Genetic profiles built on tiny traces of DNA – like that used in Amanda Knox's trial – are often controversial. New software could clear up the confusion

www.newscientist.com

I have some reservations about probabilistic genotyping software, one of which is indicated in the NIST report. The other concerns how one sets up the likelihood ratio; I believe that Dan Krane might have written something on this matter, but I don't have a citation handy. I initially had some reservations about Professor Balding's work; Professor Balding was kind enough to answer questions, which I posted at my blog. With time I became more inclined to trust both of his conclusions, namely, that Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was present, and Amanda Knox's was not.

 

[Numbers]

Hi, Chris. Your last link talked about probabilistic genotyping software (PGS). Prof. David Balding developed such a program and he concluded that Knox's DNA was NOT on the bra fabric Vixen refers to.

Software says Knox's DNA not on crime scene bra clasp | New Scientist

Genetic profiles built on tiny traces of DNA – like that used in Amanda Knox's trial – are often controversial. New software could clear up the confusion

www.newscientist.com

Here's a link to Balding's scientific paper that is cited in the New Scientist article you cite.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1219739110

Balding's conclusion is that there is extremely low probability that Knox could have been a contributor to the bra clasp DNA, based on his mathematical analyses of the DNA profile:

Using this uncertain designation for the six subthreshold alleles, the estimated dropout rate for Knox is close to 100%. A separate analysis with her as the queried contributor returned an LR < 1, also favoring a conclusion of no DNA from her.

On the other hand, Balding's analyses show that Sollecito's DNA is on the bra clasp. Balding emphasizes that his analyses don't show how the DNA got onto the bra clasp, and notes that it is certain that there was one or more additional contributors. Balding writes:

Note that I cannot address here issues of how the DNA came to be in the exhibit: Possible contamination was an issue in the trial and appeal. I only consider whether there is DNA from Sollecito for which the evidence remains very strong after allowing for the additional alleles identified by Vecchiotti and Conti (2) and the possibility that apparent stutters are allelic.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I think the entire PGP love affair with the lamp is because they can assign a nefarious reason for it being there with no supporting evidence.

Did the forensics team at least try rubbing the lamp? The genie may have seen something. Or could even have been an accomplice.

The police and prosecutors should beware that the perps clearly did not wish to avoid jail so they may have some wishes left and could be extremely dangerous.

This scenario may seem unlikely, but I feel it stands up pretty well in the perspective of the original prosecution case.

 

[TruthCalls]

I have some reservations about probabilistic genotyping software, one of which is indicated in the NIST report. The other concerns how one sets up the likelihood ratio; I believe that Dan Krane might have written something on this matter, but I don't have a citation handy. I initially had some reservations about Professor Balding's work; Professor Balding was kind enough to answer questions, which I posted at my blog. With time I became more inclined to trust both of his conclusions, namely, that Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was present, and Amanda Knox's was not.

Based on my understanding, Amanda could be eliminated due to....

• There are 11 alleles missing from Amanda's profile (50 RFU threshold) or 6 (no threshold)
• There are 16 alleles that Amanda shares between Meredith (10), Raffaele (3), and Guede (3)
• There are only 3 alleles (50 RFU threshold) or 7 (no threshold) unique to Amanda found on the clasp.

So, in summary;

When adhering to the 50 RFU threshold, out of 30 alleles evaluated, 10 can be attributed to Meredith, Raffaele and Guede, and there's another 11 that are missing. Only three are detected and unique to Amanda.

With no threshold, the number of missing alleles from Amanda's profile drops to 6, the number attributed to Meredith, Raffaele and Guede goes up to 17, and the number unique to Amanda increases to 7.

In either case, it would seem there is no argument to be made that would suggest Amanda's DNA profile is present.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I wanted to expand upon something that I wrote earlier: Pro-guilt blogger Maundy Gregory appeared to find Amanda's DNA, but he also appeared to find Casey Anthony's DNA. He concluded, "For me, it seems hard to see how you could justify being confident that Knox’s profile is there without also thinking that there is a least a decent chance that Anthony’s could also be there." He did not discuss suspect-centered analysis by name, but I think that his exercise illustrates a weakness of this approach. I have looked for good citations to the topic of suspect centered analysis* over the years and only found a few.

I have long been intrigued by the fact that probabilistic software requires knowledge of the reference profiles. This requirement may help to rationalize (in the good sense of the word) why it is important to construct the numerator and denominator of a likelihood ratio in an objective manner. I also am concerned that the specifics of any single piece of software might give different results versus another piece of software. IMO what a likelihood ratio is and all of these matters must be explained to the jury by a competent, objective expert witness.
*EDT There are guidelines which direct the analyst away from suspect centered analysis, from which I quoted in these threads a long time ago.