Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Chris_Halkides]

What am I missing here?

Now, see, here's why we call you disingenuous.

It doesn't matter what the DNA says, Sollecito admits that her DNA is on the knife.

And there is no "innocent" explanation. Sollecito's attempted explanation wasn't corroborated by anyone, and in fact many of Meredith's friends testified that his account was highly unlikely.

BobTheDonkey,

1. Please explain the nature of the magic cleaning fluid that can remove blood but not DNA.

2. Suppose the following. The DNA is found on the knife by incontrovertible forensics. Yet Sollecito says, "Meredith never used my knives and I did not stab her with one of them." I'm sure you would not say that Sollecito's statement overrules the forensic data in this case. How is this hypothetical different from the present case?

I would not waste my time being disingenuous, and I regret having said anything that implies that about anyone else here.

Chris

 

[lector]

Micheli Report

I see several details that, at the very least, contradict what I have read elsewhere in the first 3 pages alone. Example: Meredith smoked pot. It is implied that she & Amanda got high together, or at least shared a common interest in weed. Where does that detail come from? It may be accurate but it's completely new to me.

I am currently, at last, reading the Google translation of The Micheli Report. This was linked somewhere earlier, whether here or at PMF, I'm no longer sure. I could not get it to load. I found another link to the Micheli Report, entered it in Google Translate & voila! - this time it worked.

It's difficult going in some places, due to the translation, & to the fact that all the actors are identified by initials. It's not always clear to whom a "K" or an "R" refers.

In any event, at one point there is an uncorraborated statement by one of the "R" people that Amanda & Meredith smoked pot together with the guys downstairs at their house. Whether that's true or not, it's probably the basis of the reference on the TrueCrime site.

 

[piktor]

Swabs and the blond CSI babe

Majic DNA?

The bra clasp DNA is very little of the evidence against these two. Watching too many CSI episodes can (and does) leave one to assume many things about real world evidence.

Barbie Nadeau said it was probably the accused themselves that was the biggest factor in tipping the case the prosecution's way. Plus the luminol, the cleanup, the fake break in, the 'visions' thing, their testimony at trial, the changing alibis...

And you're right, BobTheDonkey, CSI will do irreparable harm to real reality.

 

[stilicho]

Nov. 1 is a public holiday in Italy, but no matter if it's a fact that the downstairs neighbors did not have a Halloween party on the evening Oct. 31. This would then refute the accuracy of the summary I linked to.

Don't sell that summary too short, Jungle Jim. It does clearly state which details were used in court and (usually) who it was who used them.

---------

halides1: You are still on about the DNA evidence and alleged contamination. I looked up cases where DNA contamination was proved and they aren't even remotely similar to the Perugia murder case. They are cases where labs were proved to have deliberately or accidentally had false positives or even falsified reports. One case included a set of contaminated swabs. None of the ones I read had the laboratory volunteer that there were four other small samples on the swabs. None.

Is any of what's been historically found to be wrong with DNA investigation evident in the Perugia case?

Or is this a new method of contamination unknown before Perugia? If it's a new method then really its discussion belongs on one of the medical, science, or technology threads. It doesn't belong here since this new method (as in cold case conviction reversals) will be brought out by the scientists and not by the lawyers.

 

[stilicho]

I am currently, at last, reading the Google translation of The Micheli Report. This was linked somewhere earlier, whether here or at PMF, I'm no longer sure. I could not get it to load. I found another link to the Micheli Report, entered it in Google Translate & voila! - this time it worked.

It's difficult going in some places, due to the translation, & to the fact that all the actors are identified by initials. It's not always clear to whom a "K" or an "R" refers.

In any event, at one point there is an uncorraborated statement by one of the "R" people that Amanda & Meredith smoked pot together with the guys downstairs at their house. Whether that's true or not, it's probably the basis of the reference on the TrueCrime site.

Yes, I posted a Micheli Report Google translation here and had even asked Catnip at PMF if there was a better translation forthcoming. There probably isn't due to legal issues and the honour accorded the victim and her family. The one you're reading is redacted and it will always remain so.

The Micheli Report was also, importantly, the preliminary step to moving to trial. As Fiona once reported here, that step is far more important than the alleged improprieties of Mignini, and something thoroughly ignored by the FOA camp.

You are aware, I hope, that a lot of university kids these days smoke pot. And it has never, to my knowledge, caused a near-complete memory loss of something as important as knowing where you were or what you were doing at the time your roommate was murdered.

FYI, AK nor RS were convicted of smoking pot, either.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Why was it only on the clasp and not on the bra itself? Also, it was not the only bit of "Majik DNA." Three other contributors were just as magic.

I call it majic because it's not anywhere else that was swabbed - NOWHERE. Including on the swabs that video shows taken from the door/door handle

So, where did his DNA come from?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

BobTheDonkey,

1. Please explain the nature of the magic cleaning fluid that can remove blood but not DNA.

2. Suppose the following. The DNA is found on the knife by incontrovertible forensics. Yet Sollecito says, "Meredith never used my knives and I did not stab her with one of them." I'm sure you would not say that Sollecito's statement overrules the forensic data in this case. How is this hypothetical different from the present case?

I would not waste my time being disingenuous, and I regret having said anything that implies that about anyone else here.

Chris

1) Ahh, but it didn't remove all the DNA, did it?

2) It's a bit different situation. Here we have evidence of Sollecito attempting to explain away some piece of evidence. In this situation, I find it hard to believe anyone would attempt to claim that the knife was indeed touched by the victim, even if there were no DNA evidence to prove that valid. Again, you are being disingenuous by attempting to ignore everything except for the DNA.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA contamination and CSI-fantasy

Don't sell that summary too short, Jungle Jim. It does clearly state which details were used in court and (usually) who it was who used them.

---------

halides1: You are still on about the DNA evidence and alleged contamination. I looked up cases where DNA contamination was proved and they aren't even remotely similar to the Perugia murder case. They are cases where labs were proved to have deliberately or accidentally had false positives or even falsified reports. One case included a set of contaminated swabs. None of the ones I read had the laboratory volunteer that there were four other small samples on the swabs. None.

Is any of what's been historically found to be wrong with DNA investigation evident in the Perugia case?

Or is this a new method of contamination unknown before Perugia? If it's a new method then really its discussion belongs on one of the medical, science, or technology threads. It doesn't belong here since this new method (as in cold case conviction reversals) will be brought out by the scientists and not by the lawyers.

Stilicho,

I think the question could be turned around. How is it possible to get so many individuals to contribute their DNA without invoking contamination?

Here is a good general discussion of contamination from the point of view of a lawyer. I don't know whether you have seen it or not.

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/0/6285f6867724e1e685257124006f9177

"DNA evidence is difficult to challenge in the courtroom because most people think it is virtually infallible. It is not just jurors, fed on a media diet of CSI-style fantasies, who think so."

Chris

 

[Chris_Halkides]

1) Ahh, but it didn't remove all the DNA, did it?

2) It's a bit different situation. Here we have evidence of Sollecito attempting to explain away some piece of evidence. In this situation, I find it hard to believe anyone would attempt to claim that the knife was indeed touched by the victim, even if there were no DNA evidence to prove that valid. Again, you are being disingenuous by attempting to ignore everything except for the DNA.

With respect to 1, you appear not to have read my question. The prosecution claims it has found DNA but not blood. What cleaning fluid will allow even some DNA to remain even as it removes all blood, and how does it work?

With respect to 2, the defense has argued that some of the wounds could not have been made by the kitchen knife, and all of the wounds might have been caused by a made by a smaller knife. Why posit two knives when the crime only requires one, Guede's?

 

[lionking]

I have followed this thread from the start, and as someone said earlier, it is everything that the JREF forum is meant to be. Informative, interesting and above all civil. People have strong feelings here, but if this was a global warming, 9/11 or Israel/Palestine thread, it would have degenerated into a morass of flames, insults, mod warnings and infractions.

Well done to all.

 

[stilicho]

I have followed this thread from the start, and as someone said earlier, it is everything that the JREF forum is meant to be. Informative, interesting and above all civil. People have strong feelings here, but if this was a global warming, 9/11 or Israel/Palestine thread, it would have degenerated into a morass of flames, insults, mod warnings and infractions.

Well done to all.

Thank you, Lionking. Part of the reason for the civility is that all of us here definitely know our limitations. It's true scepticism in action. Perhaps startling to you, that's what I would have expected all the threads and forums to be like. I've personally had my butt handed to me on the AGW threads and I don't mind being wrong as long as I know why (as well as where, when and how!)

We will now modestly accept your nomination of everyone here for the next Nobel Peace Prize--I already have my speech chosen since I've practiced it since the third grade.

 

[stilicho]

Stilicho,

I think the question could be turned around. How is it possible to get so many individuals to contribute their DNA without invoking contamination?

Here is a good general discussion of contamination from the point of view of a lawyer. I don't know whether you have seen it or not.

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/0/6285f6867724e1e685257124006f9177

"DNA evidence is difficult to challenge in the courtroom because most people think it is virtually infallible. It is not just jurors, fed on a media diet of CSI-style fantasies, who think so."

Chris

I read that and it actually backs up what I said and not what you said. I explained that dishonest analysts and cross-contamination cannot be the basis of the Perugia "contamination" because of, and not in spite of, the other DNA discovered on the bra clasp.

The examples provided are ones where a false positive or faked evidence eliminates all other possible suspects. In Perugia, the bra clasp was known to contain DNA evidence from four or five persons. The abundant evidence was of one person only.

I cannot find it right now but I believe that the reputation of the lead scientist at the laboratory was examined by the court. Maybe you know where and when that happened.

What I would like you to find for me is an example of a false positive or faked analysis which (as in Perugia) included evidence that other small samples were found along with the suspect's. Please note that the article you cite claims laboratory wrongdoing while I believe you and Kestrel have been arguing crimescene contamination (47 days after the fluids had dried).

What else do I need to provide and, in return, what do I get that satisfies my own queries?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

contamination can happen in the lab

I read that and it actually backs up what I said and not what you said. I explained that dishonest analysts and cross-contamination cannot be the basis of the Perugia "contamination" because of, and not in spite of, the other DNA discovered on the bra clasp.

The examples provided are ones where a false positive or faked evidence eliminates all other possible suspects. In Perugia, the bra clasp was known to contain DNA evidence from four or five persons. The abundant evidence was of one person only.

I cannot find it right now but I believe that the reputation of the lead scientist at the laboratory was examined by the court. Maybe you know where and when that happened.

What I would like you to find for me is an example of a false positive or faked analysis which (as in Perugia) included evidence that other small samples were found along with the suspect's. Please note that the article you cite claims laboratory wrongdoing while I believe you and Kestrel have been arguing crimescene contamination (47 days after the fluids had dried).

What else do I need to provide and, in return, what do I get that satisfies my own queries?

Stilicho,

I can see right away some areas in which our views differ. The first is that accidental contamination can happen in the crime lab itself (as discussed in the link I provided), not just the crime scene. I have always made my arguments on the assumption that contamination in this case was accidental, but I think contamination in the lab is every bit as likely as at the crime scene. The second is that you appear to be making inferences based on the amount of Sollecito's DNA (which was the second most abundant). Far upthread I quoted the open letter from Dr. Johnson and Professor Hampikian that disputed such an idea, and the pdf file of that letter is still available. I have asked someone to provide a link to the primary literature which contradicts this argument in the letter, but no one has offered it. The third area is an argument I discussed in #1136, namely, that if evidence is improperly collected, it should be excluded, and the question of the mechanism of contamination becomes moot. As an aside, I pointed out an example with respect to the knife that no one here has disputed. Since the time I wrote #1136, Piktor (IIRC) has provided a link to a video which raises further serious questions about how samples were collected after the crime.

For argument's sake, let us assume that Sollecito did handle the bra clasp in the murder. How did the other three individuals contribute their DNA?

Chris

 

[stilicho]

Stilicho,

I can see right away some areas in which our views differ. The first is that accidental contamination can happen in the crime lab itself (as discussed in the link I provided), not just the crime scene. I have always made my arguments on the assumption that contamination in this case was accidental, but I think contamination in the lab is every bit as likely as at the crime scene. The second is that you appear to be making inferences based on the amount of Sollecito's DNA (which was the second most abundant). Far upthread I quoted the open letter from Dr. Johnson and Professor Hampikian that disputed such an idea, and the pdf file of that letter is still available. I have asked someone to provide a link to the primary literature which contradicts this argument in the letter, but no one has offered it. The third area is an argument I discussed in #1136, namely, that if evidence is improperly collected, it should be excluded, and the question of the mechanism of contamination becomes moot. As an aside, I pointed out an example with respect to the knife that no one here has disputed. Since the time I wrote #1136, Piktor (IIRC) has provided a link to a video which raises further serious questions about how samples were collected after the crime.

For argument's sake, let us assume that Sollecito did handle the bra clasp in the murder. How did the other three individuals contribute their DNA?

Chris

Let's go back a bit though to see if we have any basis of understanding about the DNA evidence in the Perugia case.

Have you ruled out dishonest analysis? And, if so, why? If not, then why isn't your argument different than what you've presented?

 

[quadraginta]

Now, see, here's why we call you disingenuous.

It doesn't matter what the DNA says, Sollecito admits that her DNA is on the knife.

And there is no "innocent" explanation. Sollecito's attempted explanation wasn't corroborated by anyone, and in fact many of Meredith's friends testified that his account was highly unlikely.

Thank you, Bob. You said that more succinctly, and probably more politely than I would have.

 

[Matthew Best]

Now, see, here's why we call you disingenuous.

It doesn't matter what the DNA says, Sollecito admits that her DNA is on the knife.

And there is no "innocent" explanation. Sollecito's attempted explanation wasn't corroborated by anyone, and in fact many of Meredith's friends testified that his account was highly unlikely.

My guess is that Sollecito's explanation for Kercher's DNA being on the knife is a prevarication. It's a desperate attempt to explain the unexplainable.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

My guess is that Sollecito's explanation for Kercher's DNA being on the knife is a prevarication. It's a desperate attempt to explain the unexplainable.

I'm in complete agreement here. Sollecito heard that they'd found DNA on the knife, so he wrote that Meredith had cut herself on it while cooking in an attempt to explain the DNA findings. He had no reason to believe the DNA would be inconclusive or false - and that in and of itself is very telling.


Halides:

Contamination in the lab faces the exact same problem as contamination in the apartment. Where did the contamination come from that it did not contaminate anything else?

In fact, in the lab we have 1 source of Sollecito's DNA - the cig butt. The one that was collected 47 days before the clasp even entered the lab. So how did that contamination take place in the lab?


As for the collection video, I didn't see a real issue with how the evidence was collected - and here's why:

The location from which each swab was collected was labeled. The goal of collecting the evidence is to find out what DNA is present - not to prove any one specific person was there. As long as the gloves were changed from location to location, the chances of cross-contamination are incredibly slim. And since the lab is almost guaranteed to have the forensics team's DNA on file, those DNA findings can be taken out of the equation.

The distinct lack of Sollecito's DNA anywhere in the room/hallway/bathroom leads me to rule out cross-contamination as a real issue. What little DNA evidence that is in dispute is solely that of the clasp and the knife - nothing else in the room is in dispute. Not even the finding of Knox's DNA mixed with Kercher's in the bathroom.

So the team contaminated the bra clasp and the knife and nothing else?

Or is this more of that majic DNA?

 

[lector]

Yes, I posted a Micheli Report Google translation here and had even asked Catnip at PMF if there was a better translation forthcoming. There probably isn't due to legal issues and the honour accorded the victim and her family. The one you're reading is redacted and it will always remain so.

The Micheli Report was also, importantly, the preliminary step to moving to trial. As Fiona once reported here, that step is far more important than the alleged improprieties of Mignini, and something thoroughly ignored by the FOA camp.

You are aware, I hope, that a lot of university kids these days smoke pot. And it has never, to my knowledge, caused a near-complete memory loss of something as important as knowing where you were or what you were doing at the time your roommate was murdered.

FYI, AK nor RS were convicted of smoking pot, either.

Ah, perhaps it was your link I'd clicked a few days ago. That time the hourglass just spun & spun.

I went to college in the 1960s, so let's just say that I have some anecdotal knowledge of weed & its effects. I thought I'd read a quote from one of MK's friends that she never indulged, which is the only reason I mentioned the subject at this point.

I've picked up some interesting points in the Micheli Report but they'll have to wait.

 

[JihadJane]

Or maybe, even seeing people having sex isn't 'evidence' of their having sex because they could still be just 'joking' huh?

Are you now claiming they were having sex in the shop?

Yes it is evidence. The words I think you're really reaching for (and you'd really have to reach) is 'absolute proof'. Were you to argue their fondling each other and talking about going home to have hot sex isn't 'proof', you may be able to argue some sort of small point. But to argue it isn't 'evidence' of it is plain ridiculous. Of course it bloody is!

Only if you want it to be.

Sure just like it's possible to think of all sorts of funny stories of how Raffaele's DNA got on the bra clasp, or Meredith's DNA got on the knife blade or Rudy's DNA got inside the victim or any single other piece of evidence on any single murder case, but the court has accepted none of them. Just because one can think up stories, it doesn't mean those stories are credible or have any value.

My point exactly.

Well fortunately we don't need a porn film from someones 'head', it's on CCTV...it's all laid on! Not to mention an ear and eye witness to back it up. That'll do me.

The shop video is in no way equivalent to a porn film and certainly doesn't support your claim that the two were "very turned on".

And really, forensic evidence doesn't seem to impress you either, as you claim, since you are just as active in thinking up stories to dismiss that as you are for their behaviour.

I'm not convinced of your porn stars' innocence. The forensic evidence, thin as it is, is the just about the only thing I am impressed by, though it appears to point to Guede more than anyone else.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Dishonest analysis?

Let's go back a bit though to see if we have any basis of understanding about the DNA evidence in the Perugia case.

Have you ruled out dishonest analysis? And, if so, why? If not, then why isn't your argument different than what you've presented?

Stilicho,

One of the most memorable things my PhD advisor said to me was that there is no clear line between sloppy science and fraudulent science. Based on my present understanding of the evidence, I am not sure that evidence tampering (if that is what you mean by dishonest analysis) can be excluded here, nor do I see a reason to conclude that it must have happened. That is why I have not discussed it. I am still waiting for an answer to my question.

Chris