Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

I have looked at the bra clasp electropherogram. I would say a minimum of two people besides Meredith and Raffaele, possibly more. A better answer would require the EDFs and more expertise than I have.

Halides1

My post was simply to point out that Katody Matrass made a claim that is not possible to substantiate for the reasons you state whilst surprisingly appearing to acknowledge Raffaele’s DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp, do you agree with Katody?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

how the DNA was deposited is the key question

Halides1

Thank you.

Could you refresh my memory was there any speculation as to who the other two people might have been? I understand that the EDFs weren’t made available to the defence and court appointed experts until fairly recently.

CoulsdonUK,

There were two speculations, both courtesy of PMF. One is that Amanda was a contributor. Two is that the other roommates contributed DNA, because of shared laundry facilities. I don't recall seeing that the PMF posters understood that the notion of DNA being present from a shared laundry facility would explain the presence of Amanda's DNA, if it were there. Having examined the peaks, I would say that there are no complete profiles present of the third, fourth, and fifth individuals, and even the peaks that are present are low in intensity and probably would fall into the low template range. Moreover, there are no reference profiles for Laura or Filomena.

I don't think that the identity of the 2-3 individuals is as important as how their DNA got there. Primary transfer of so many individuals seems most unlikely, which points to secondary transfer or contamination. However, if one of those mechanisms is involved for these 2-3 individuals, then why is it excluded for Raffaele's DNA?

 

[Mary_H]

Get ready for a bunch of abusive posts and very abusive PMs.

I was not offended by the part of his post that said Amanda did it. I was offended by the part that said there is no debate. What is someone who believes there is no debate doing here?

 

[LondonJohn]

Justinian2,

I have my doubts about the letter. See this.

Reading that piece, I have to disagree with Dempsey's assertion that "the fate of this case (is) hanging on the DNA report that the court’s independent witnesses will file on Wednesday." In my opinion, this is a facile and simplistic view of the situation. Even if the DNA report says that both the knife and he bra clasp are useless as evidence against Knox and Sollecito, it's nowhere near game over. It will, of course, mean that two very important planks of the prosecution's original case are removed, but that's not the be-all-and-end-all. There is still plenty of other evidence that needs to be debated. I would contend that all of the other evidence is weak, and can be adequately attacked by the defence, but this is by no means a given.

So the trial will roll on, regardless of whether the DNA report is totally favourable to Knox and Sollecito, whether it's totally damning to them, or anything in-between. There will still be arguments over things like Quintavalle's story, ToD, computer activity, behavioural activity, phone records, etc, etc. In my view, therefore, the whole case does not "hang on" the DNA report. It has the potential to make a huge dent in the prosecution case (or to reaffirm those aspects of the prosecution case), but nothing more or less than that.

 

[LondonJohn]

I was not offended by the part of his post that said Amanda did it. I was offended by the part that said there is no debate. What is someone who believes there is no debate doing here?

Trying to stir things up for his/her own amusement, per haps......?

 

[Kevinfay]

CoulsdonUK,

There were two speculations, both courtesy of PMF. One is that Amanda was a contributor. Two is that the other roommates contributed DNA, because of shared laundry facilities. I don't recall seeing that the PMF posters understood that the notion of DNA being present from a shared laundry facility would explain the presence of Amanda's DNA, if it were there. Having examined the peaks, I would say that there are no complete profiles present of the third, fourth, and fifth individuals, and even the peaks that are present are low in intensity and probably would fall into the low template range. Moreover, there are no reference profiles for Laura or Filomena.

I don't think that the identity of the 2-3 individuals is as important as how their DNA got there. Primary transfer of so many individuals seems most unlikely, which points to secondary transfer or contamination. However, if one of those mechanisms is involved for these 2-3 individuals, then why is it excluded for Raffaele's DNA?

Halides,

I'm sorry, but if Raff's DNA was found on my girlfriend's bra, I'd beat his ******* brains out !!!

.... don't care about your peaks etc!!!

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 10.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

problems with the DNA on the clasp

Halides1

My post was simply to point out that Katody Matrass made a claim that is not possible to substantiate for the reasons you state whilst surprisingly appearing to acknowledge Raffaele’s DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp, do you agree with Katody?

CoulsdonUK,

Perhaps Katody Matrass meant that the other individuals whose DNA is present come from ILE, and their reference profiles would be on file somewhere. It is certainly possible that members of ILE did deposit DNA on the clasp (this is a fairly common occurrence in DNA forensics). Katody also mentioned the irregularities in collecting the clasp and the logical problem (as noted by Raffaele's lawyers in 2008) that it is difficult to see how Raffaele would not have deposited DNA on the bra if he had deposited his DNA on the clasp by primary transfer. I would say that I am basically in agreement with Katody on these points. For these reasons, the clasp is of little or no evidentiary value. MOO.

 

[LondonJohn]

Perhaps it doesn't 'fly' as far as you are concerned, but have you contrasted:

The duration of the Skype call

with

The amount of time Guede was interograted for between being arrested and the publication of the Micheli Report.

You would expect far more detail in the latter?

Of course one would expect more detail. But this is far more than just adding more detail. This is wholesale reinvention.

Just think about the accent issue for a moment, and imagine you're in Guede's situation (but in a house in the UK). Imagine that a man confronted you, the two of you argued, and the man had a strong Scottish accent.

If you were describing this confrontation to a friend on the phone a few weeks later, and you were specifically discussing the accent of the man with whom you'd fought, do you think you would say something like "well, he had an accent which made me think he was not from outside the UK", or would you say "he had a Scottish accent"? Now can you understand where I'm coming from?

But perhaps you are ready to say something like: "Well perhaps I might have forgotten the man's exact accent by that time". In that case, I would reply: "Fine. That's entirely possible. But how come you can then suddenly remember that the man had a Scottish accent some months later?"

The fact is that Guede went to some length to describe the accent of this mystery assailant, and the best that he could come up with on the Skype call was "non-foreign", yet by the time of his trial, he was certain that the man had a Southern Italian accent. And similar re-inventions take place regarding the physical appearance of this mystery man, and the very existence of Knox at the scene.

 

[jhunter1163]

As mod:

Given the history of this thread, I would strongly suggest that all posters refrain from sending abusive PMs. As you are all no doubt aware, PMs are also subject to the Membership Agreement. If such PMs are received, they should be reported.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

 

[LondonJohn]

Halides,

I'm sorry, but if Raff's DNA was found on my girlfriend's bra, I'd beat his ******* brains out !!!

.... don't care about your peaks etc!!!

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

This is, in my opinion, a poor argument based on emotion rather than logic. The logical first questions you should ask are these: How did that DNA get there? Why are there other profiles on the bra clasp? What is the possibility of contamination?

In my view, wading straight in with boots and fists is....erm......far from a rational reaction. Just my opinion though

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Leiterman case

Halides,

I'm sorry, but if Raff's DNA was found on my girlfriends bra, I'd beat his ******* brains out !!!

.... don't care about your peaks etc!!!

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

Kevinfay,

How do you think that three other people got their DNA on the bra clasp? How would you exclude the possibility that Raffaele's DNA got there the same way? DNA does not have a time stamp or a label that says whether it arrived via primary transfer, secondary transfer, or contamination. DNA forensics is very powerful, and the basic science is sound, but it would be folly to fail to acknowledge its limitations. Someday I will write an essay on the CSI effect...

Consider for a moment the Leiterman case (the murder of Jane Mixer). Originally it was thought to be the work of a serial killer who was caught. Then someone ran the evidence through DNA testing and identified Gary Leiterman's DNA. So Leiterman did it? They also found the DNA of John Ruelas, who was four years old and lived in a different city at the time of the murder. The prosecution somehow argued that Ruelas happened to have a nosebleed over the crimescene (I am not making this up). However, the only rational explanation is that the forensic workers contaminated the evidence. It was discovered that all of the evidence was tested at about the same time (within a week?) in a single crime laboratory.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Get ready for a bunch of abusive posts and very abusive PMs.

I'll report them. It's a good way to weed out trolls!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

William Thompson and DNA from the defense attorney's standpoint

Ever been selected for jury service? I hope not.

LondonJohn,

I don't watch much TV, but I am tempted to blame the simplified forensics that the crime shows employ. However, Kevinfay is not alone. William Thompson begins one of his excellent articles on DNA forensics by quoting a lawyer who says words to the effect, "When the DA says that he has DNA evidence, I start looking to make a plea deal." I don't agree with that attitude. However, even if the lawyer knows better, it might still be good advice if the jury does not.

 

[Alt+F4]

You don't hate them. You merely consider Sollecito to be a vile piece of sub-human filth because he murdered Meredith Kercher (in your opinion), while Knox gets off lightly by being called a fool.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6828322#post6828322

Not quite right. I also called RG a sub-human piece of filth.

 

[Kevinfay]

Of course one would expect more detail. But this is far more than just adding more detail. This is wholesale reinvention.

Just think about the accent issue for a moment, and imagine you're in Guede's situation (but in a house in the UK). Imagine that a man confronted you, the two of you argued, and the man had a strong Scottish accent.

If you were describing this confrontation to a friend on the phone a few weeks later, and you were specifically discussing the accent of the man with whom you'd fought, do you think you would say something like "well, he had an accent which made me think he was not from outside the UK", or would you say "he had a Scottish accent"? Now can you understand where I'm coming from?

But perhaps you are ready to say something like: "Well perhaps I might have forgotten the man's exact accent by that time". In that case, I would reply: "Fine. That's entirely possible. But how come you can then suddenly remember that the man had a Scottish accent some months later?"

The fact is that Guede went to some length to describe the accent of this mystery assailant, and the best that he could come up with on the Skype call was "non-foreign", yet by the time of his trial, he was certain that the man had a Southern Italian accent. And similar re-inventions take place regarding the physical appearance of this mystery man, and the very existence of Knox at the scene.

We know Guede was fitting his story to what was known, or expecting to become known, so did Micheli ... if he knew knox was not in the murder room, it makes sense that he doesn't place her there. He probably wasn't thinking about DNA, more likely, fingerprints. If she was in the kitchen, as she claimed, when the murder was taking place, she would have been waiting first at the door, then at the gate for Raff ... I'd believe him.

It is just that he wanted to shift the blame entirely onto Raff for the murder and came up with the nonsense about 'helping Meredith'.

The business about 'black man found, black man guilty' sounds like AK and RG threatening each other if they 'grass', while Knox is waiting at the door and then the gate for Raff.

It is similar to Knox panicing and naming Patrick as the killer ... makes sense, she was scared of Guede who was still on the loose.

What Guede actually said about the accent when questioned was that it was Non Foriegn, Not Northern, Not Local (central Italy) ... that only leaves the south

For me, the whole thing fits ... more than one killer, no sign of knox in the room, etc.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

Perhaps Katody Matrass meant that the other individuals whose DNA is present come from ILE, and their reference profiles would be on file somewhere. It is certainly possible that members of ILE did deposit DNA on the clasp (this is a fairly common occurrence in DNA forensics). Katody also mentioned the irregularities in collecting the clasp and the logical problem (as noted by Raffaele's lawyers in 2008) that it is difficult to see how Raffaele would not have deposited DNA on the bra if he had deposited his DNA on the clasp by primary transfer. I would say that I am basically in agreement with Katody on these points. For these reasons, the clasp is of little or no evidentiary value. MOO.

Halides1

Sorry you lost me just after “Perhaps Katody meant” as you are clearly speculating then extrapolating Katody post. Katody clearly stated that Raffaele’s DNA was on Meredith’s bra clasp! I look forward to Katody’s clarification.

 

[Kaosium]

Probably didn't have to offer Guede much to get him to contradict himself - again. Maybe a subscription to a magazine that all serial killers are known to love.

I was kinda wondering that myself. When did the (actually) convicted murderer of Meredith Kercher get attributed with any credibility when he says 'Nope, didn't do it, forget all that evidence of me all over her room, on her clothes, inside, it was them--those two did it!'

This should at least make for an entertaining week of debate though!

Was Mignini in the court today? Didn't he produce the letter that supposedly Guede wrote?

Why didn't the defense know about the letter? Doesn't the prosecution have to disclose all evidence?

Very good questions! Especially when he wouldn't confirm his signature. What was that all about? They read the letter in court but he wouldn't admit to signing it? Was that an error by the person that posted that information?

Just one more example of how this is a kangaroo court. I thought it was getting better, but I'm not sure now.

In an American court, all the evidence against Amanda would have been thrown out - as far as I know.

I think it depends on just how credible the jury found Rudy compared to Amanda and Raffaele when they rebutted his 'testimony.' There's also the three others who testified they said he'd admitted they weren't there, as well as his changing story on the subject.

 

[platonov]

Reading that piece, I have to disagree with Dempsey's assertion that "the fate of this case (is) hanging on the DNA report that the court’s independent witnesses will file on Wednesday." In my opinion, this is a facile and simplistic view of the situation. Even if the DNA report says that both the knife and he bra clasp are useless as evidence against Knox and Sollecito, it's nowhere near game over. It will, of course, mean that two very important planks of the prosecution's original case are removed, but that's not the be-all-and-end-all. There is still plenty of other evidence that needs to be debated. I would contend that all of the other evidence is weak, and can be adequately attacked by the defence, but this is by no means a given.

So the trial will roll on, regardless of whether the DNA report is totally favourable to Knox and Sollecito, whether it's totally damning to them, or anything in-between. There will still be arguments over things like Quintavalle's story, ToD, computer activity, behavioural activity, phone records, etc, etc. In my view, therefore, the whole case does not "hang on" the DNA report. It has the potential to make a huge dent in the prosecution case (or to reaffirm those aspects of the prosecution case), but nothing more or less than that.

But its not quite that simple.

The prosecution can possibly ?? afford to 'lose' on 2 of the 3 items - say Curatolo and the knife for arguments sake and the case is still pretty strong but definitely weakened and the other issues will then be the focus of intense scrutiny by the court.

The defence however cant afford not to win on at least 2 of these items.

C is a dealbreaker - he has to go.
Same with the knife.
Same with the bra clasp.

On top of all that today RG who has been convicted* of the murder has confirmed 'the letter'.
The evidence from his trial had already been entered into this case a few months back.

Today was a new addition - and not good for the defence. Exactly how bad is open to conjecture but potentially disastrous. All this talk of 'trial de novo' is all very well but things just got worse !

Arguments from incredulity on his changing/developing 'story' wont fly in court. The concept of 'thieves hanging together or they will definitely hang apart' is not unknown to most rational observers. [see AK & RS for example - although that may have been a close run thing ]

I strongly suspect the Italian jurists will have no problem understanding it -- the perplexity it causes in some quarters may not be universal !!

 

[Kaosium]

But its not quite that simple.

The prosecution can possibly ?? afford to 'lose' on 2 of the 3 items - say Curatolo and the knife for arguments sake and the case is still pretty strong but definitely weakened and the other issues when then be the focus of intense scrutiny by the court.

Seriously Platonov, what is 'strong' about this case?

The case against Rudy Guede was 'strong,' it was not airtight but it was a powerful case.

The defence however cant afford not to win on at least 2 of these items.

C is a dealbreaker - he has to go.
Same with the knife.
Same with the bra clasp.

What makes you think a reasonable person might not have doubt all three of those things are evidence of murder?

On top of all that today RG who has been convicted* of the murder has confirmed 'the letter'.
The evidence from his trial had already been entered into this case a few months back.

Today was a new addition - and not good for the defence. Exactly how bad is open to conjecture but potentially disastrous. All this talk of 'trial de novo' is all very well but things just got worse !

What gives Rudy Guede more credibility than the three that testified he told them Raffaele and Amanda weren't involved? Do you think a reasonable person would conclude all three of them have more motivation to lie than Rudy Guede?

Arguments from incredulity on his changing/developing 'story' wont fly in court. The concept of 'thieves hanging together or they will definitely hang apart' is not unknown to most rational observers. [see AK & RS for example - although it may have been a close run thing ]

I strongly suspect the Italian jurists will have no problem understanding it.

What would you have said in court today were you Raffaele or Amanda?

 

[Kaosium]

Yes, it could be, but it won't. Instead yet another embarassing fiasco. Bribery for money for sex change surgery! This is a disgrace to the little dignity this court still has left. These criminals who have testified have done nothing to advance either the prosecution or the defense. They have done nothing but take up time the court could have used to consider the more important aspects of the appeal - like the computer.

If they run out of time, doesn't that mean Raffaele and Amanda go free? I thought I recalled reading that was considered a viable strategy in Italian Courts. Isn't that how Raffaele's lawyer earned her reputation, running out the clock in that former PM's appeal?

I will say on Aviello's alleged future plans what I've said many times before regarding this case: you couldn't make this up! There are so elements of this case that are already so 'Hollywood' they're going to need to take some of it out to make the plot believable to most in the movie!