• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
shuttlt said:
Is there a reason to suppose this can be done? Halides? I thought the weakest two were very much weaker than Raffaele's supposed profile.
Click to expand...

Yet, if you are ruling that strong alleles that the prosecution claimed where Sollecito's are in fact not Sollecito's. Then you have strong alleles that belong to someone else. So in fact you have other profiles that are just as strong as Sollecito's.
 
shuttlt said:
Presumably this will only be demonstrated (assuming it can be) if it becomes an issue at the appeal.
Click to expand...

I think there's little doubt it will be (that is, that the evidence will be shown to be unreliable) with regard to the knife. If the judge is questioning whether testing procedures on the knife were carried out according to international standards, we already know the answer to that is no; that was established in the first trial.

Are we talking in court only here? In the world outside the courtroom, the possibility of contamination surely doesn't mean that the evidence has to be thrown out. We just see it in the light of this alternative explanation. There is always a possibility of contamination after all.
Click to expand...

I don't see a distinction. Surely the purpose of ensuring samples used as evidence in court cases are handled and tested correctly is to minimize any risk of contamination, conversely meaning that if the evidence isn't handled/tested properly the evidence isn't reliable, and that we have to assume contamination may have occurred? IMO, that people insist on looking for an exact route for contamination shows a misunderstanding of the way this type of evidence should be viewed. Improper handling/testing of the evidence isn't just a technicality - something that should only be considered in Court - it is itself a possible route for contamination.
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
In the case of the knife, an alibi for the murder would probably do it. The cases Halides quotes seem to involve almost a proof by contradiction.
Click to expand...

I guess that would do with the bra clasp, too. Or not? :)

Would something else be sufficient for you besides actually the defendants proving their innocence?
 
halides1 said:
shuttlt,

I have never assumed that the mixed DNA on the bra clasp is from the other housemates; Fulcanelli did, but there is no evidence, one way or another. BTW, mixed DNA is fairly common. There is mixed DNA of Amanda and Raffaele at his apartment; all it means is that they occupied the same space at not too distant times. If a mixed profile of Filomena and either Amanda or Meredith were observed, it would merely reinforce how much of a fool's errand it is to overinterpret mixed DNA.
Click to expand...

I think many would disagree that there is no evidence that the mixed feminine fragments belonged to the flatmates. They all shared laundry facilities.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Great poll! Apart from improper categories, a seriously biased introductory post, and a non-randomised self-selecting sample of just 121 respondents, it's brilliantly conceived and executed! Gallup and Mori should be quaking in their boots.
Click to expand...

Thanks LJ! Coming from you that's the highest praise it could have gotten.
 
Justinian2 said:
LondonJohn jumped on that - with great gusto - before I had a chance.

Considering the fact that I was banned for life from PMF after five quotes over a two hour period, I wouldn't exactly say that it's an unbiased poll, would you?
Click to expand...

The poll was here on JREF so what PMF has to do with it is beyond me.
 
LondonJohn said:
Great poll! Apart from improper categories, a seriously biased introductory post, and a non-randomised self-selecting sample of just 121 respondents, it's brilliantly conceived and executed! Gallup and Mori should be quaking in their boots.
Click to expand...

Wasn't there a poll on the bathmat print, whether it looked more like Raffaele's or Rudys? How did that one turn out?
 
Last edited:
katy_did said:
I think there's little doubt it will be (that is, that the evidence will be shown to be unreliable) with regard to the knife. If the judge is questioning whether testing procedures on the knife were carried out according to international standards, the only answer to that is no; that was established in the first trial.



I don't see a distinction. Surely the purpose of ensuring samples used as evidence in court cases are handled and tested correctly is to minimize any risk of contamination, conversely meaning that if the evidence isn't handled/tested properly the evidence isn't reliable, and that we have to assume contamination may have occurred? IMO, that people insist on looking for an exact route for contamination shows a misunderstanding of the way this type of evidence should be viewed. Improper handling/testing of the evidence isn't just a technicality - something that should only be considered in Court - it is itself a possible route for contamination.
Click to expand...

The key point, as I'd understand it, is this: nothing can completely eradicate the risk of contamination - this is known and understood in justice systems worldwide. But it's also generally accepted that if law enforcement and forensic science personnel carefully follow established guidelines with regard to evidence collection, handling, transportation, chain-of-custody, testing and interpretation, then contamination can be (to all intents) excluded - unless the defence can actually prove contamination.

But the flip side to this is that if correct procedures and protocols are not followed, the burden of proof regarding contamination progressively shifts towards the prosecution having to try to show that contamination could not have happened in spite of the breach of protocols/procedures.

There's a very, very good reason, in other words, why national and international standards/procedures/protocols are developed and agreed. And once they've been agreed and implemented, they're not simply a "nice to have" option - they must be rigorously adhered to (unless there happens to be a very good reason not to do so).

A micro-example of this might be the area of low-copy range DNA testing in this case. Some people seem to think that the argument begins and ends with the binary question of whether LCN DNA evidence is admissible in and of itself. These people don't understand that its admissibility - if it's admissible at all - is entirely contingent upon extremely rigorous standards of cleanliness and air handling in the testing lab, and multiple amplification/testing/interpretation of the low copy sample. I think I'd be correct to say that every court in the developed world which has accepted LCN DNA evidence - with the exception of the court in the first trial of Knox and Sollecito - has only done so if the LCN analysis has been conducted under these extremely strict protocols.
 
RoseMontague said:
Wasn't there a pool on the bathmat print, whether it looked more like Raffaele's or Rudys? How did that one turn out?
Click to expand...

I was going to post that as an example of how to write a neutral introduction that doesn't bias the poll (as opposed to the intro to the guilt/innocence poll...) 'Tis here.
 
halides1 said:
shuttlt,

You are forgetting that the second police officer to handle the knife had just come from the girls' flat; therefore, contamination outside the lab is still a possibility. I think that secondary transfer is not all that likely, but Dr. Kekule mentioned it in a German newspaper article about a year ago. Contamination within the lab is my pick as the most probable, given the factors we have already mentioned.
Click to expand...
_______________________

Halides,

Hmmm. I've read this multiple times at multiple web sites. Though I've never seen any reference to confirm it. I think this is an urban legend. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Who is this police officer that handled the knife? And what had he been doing in the cottage?

///
 
Draca said:
There's a door in the background. She may have held her like that while walking through the door single file...
Click to expand...

That is a reasonable possibility. It does look like the police office is past the doorway and has had time to move to the side, however. My original comment was that she did not look happy about it. It appears to me she is being posed for the picture. I don't recall seeing other pictures of her from this day with that same look on her face.
 
RoseMontague said:
That is a reasonable possibility. It does look like the police office is past the doorway and has had time to move to the side, however. My original comment was that she did not look happy about it. It appears to me she is being posed for the picture. I don't recall seeing other pictures of her from this day with that same look on her face.
Click to expand...

Her nose is red as if she had been crying. She looks apathetic, crushed and beaten. I'd have been in worse shape...
 
Fine said:
_______________________

Halides,

Hmmm. I've read this multiple times at multiple web sites. Though I've never seen any reference to confirm it. I think this is an urban legend. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Who is this police officer that handled the knife? And what had he been doing in the cottage?

///
Click to expand...

The police officer's name is Gubbiotti and there are several mentions of the transfer of the knife to him in the motivations. One such on page 264:

In turn, Superintendent Gubbiotti, who had participated in the search of the house on via della Pergola on that same date of November 6, stated that he was given the knife by Finzi when he returned to Police Headquarters and that it was inside a new and well-sealed envelope. Gubbiotti furthermore declared that when he collected [Note from the translator: the Italian word used here can also mean catalogued or indexed] the knife in question, he was wearing new gloves that had never been used before, which he had taken from the office. It was with these gloves that he took the knife from the bag and put it inside a box that he sealed with scotch tape and sent with the other evidence to the Forensic Police in Rome, where it underwent analysis as stated by Dr. Stefanoni.
Click to expand...

I don't have the Italian motivations to compare with the English translation so I am not sure if anything is lost in translation. I haven't checked out the English translation for all references to Gubbiotti but will try to do so later.
 
LondonJohn said:
The key point, as I'd understand it, is this: nothing can completely eradicate the risk of contamination - this is known and understood in justice systems worldwide. But it's also generally accepted that if law enforcement and forensic science personnel carefully follow established guidelines with regard to evidence collection, handling, transportation, chain-of-custody, testing and interpretation, then contamination can be (to all intents) excluded - unless the defence can actually prove contamination.

But the flip side to this is that if correct procedures and protocols are not followed, the burden of proof regarding contamination progressively shifts towards the prosecution having to try to show that contamination could not have happened in spite of the breach of protocols/procedures.

There's a very, very good reason, in other words, why national and international standards/procedures/protocols are developed and agreed. And once they've been agreed and implemented, they're not simply a "nice to have" option - they must be rigorously adhered to (unless there happens to be a very good reason not to do so).

A micro-example of this might be the area of low-copy range DNA testing in this case. Some people seem to think that the argument begins and ends with the binary question of whether LCN DNA evidence is admissible in and of itself. These people don't understand that its admissibility - if it's admissible at all - is entirely contingent upon extremely rigorous standards of cleanliness and air handling in the testing lab, and multiple amplification/testing/interpretation of the low copy sample. I think I'd be correct to say that every court in the developed world which has accepted LCN DNA evidence - with the exception of the court in the first trial of Knox and Sollecito - has only done so if the LCN analysis has been conducted under these extremely strict protocols.
Click to expand...

Is the lab in Rome equipped to do LCN testing/analysis? Do you know what procedures and protocols Stefanoni did not adhere to specifically?
 
christianahannah said:
Is the lab in Rome equipped to do LCN testing/analysis? Do you know what procedures and protocols Stefanoni did not adhere to specifically?
Click to expand...

It wasn't adequately equipped in 2007, as far as I know. And I believe that the procedures that should be adhered to for LCN-range analysis include additional sterilisation precautions for equipment and clothing, clean air handling (including positive-pressure ventilation in the testing area), and at least two (and preferably three) separate amplification/test/interpret runs (in order to properly corroborate the result). I don't believe that Stefanoni followed any of these additional procedures.

As a caveat, though, I'm not a DNA lab scientist - so someone like Chris would definitely be able to put more flesh on the bones of this answer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom