Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Matthew Best]

Goodness knows what the former boss of Sky Music Italia will have to say about this.

 

[RoseMontague]

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/articoli/1014072/mez-non-esclusa-contaminazione.shtml

Click on La Perizia on left for conclusion to report (opens in pdf document).

Quick Google translation

CONCLUSIONS




Based on considerations previously specified del1e ritcniamo so you can! rispondcre qucsiti to places in the appointment of:


Having examined the''cause and place of al / technical and surveys: cal deemed necessary

c: if Cerlati College of experts:


I. and if you can. 'iibile. using new technical assessment. The 'degree of attribution eel allendibi / ila e, · enthusiastic / and alfribu:!. Ion of the DNA present on reperfi 165B (hook: bra ello) and 36 (knife / o) "


- The investigations we carried out to determine the Ia prescnza sanguc on

Rep.36 (knife) and Rep.165B (bra hooks) were negative.

- Investigations on the findings Cytomorphology predctti Ia showed no presence of cellular material. Some samples of Rep.36 (knife). especially the sample and m "H". have granular) the characteristic morphology with a circular / hexagonal structure with a central radially. A detailed microscopic study, along with other things access to data in the literature, have led to the conclusion that these structures are due to thione starch granules. Therefore materials that are vegetated.
- The quantification of the extracts obtained from samples taken on Rep.36 (knife) and Rep.165B (bra hooks). performed by Real Time PCR. has not and \ ¯ idenziato presence of DNA.
- In the absence of DNA extracts from not obtained. in accordance with
advisers of the parties, and not to the next step of amplification.

2. "Unless i! possihile. Nuo proceed to \ '0 technical assessment. Evaluate. Based on ag / s Atli. Aflendihilitii of the degree of genetic accerlamenti performed by the Police Scient (/ lca suddetli on the findings, with r {terimento also evenluali contamination "


Having examined the papers and documents of the case. prcsa vision of laboratory tests performed on Rep. 36 (coltcllo) and Rep. 1658 (bra hooks), you can make the following conclusions:


FIND 36 (KNIFE)



Relativamentc cseguiti genetic investigations on track A Ia (handle of the knife) you agree to come and when Ia Ia conclusionc CT attributing the genetic profile obtained from this sampling Amanda Marie Knox.


Relatively alia track B (knife blade) that we believe are reliable acccrtamcnti expenditure made no for the following reasons:
The. there are no scientifically conclusive elemcnti blood Ia nature of track B (knife blade);
2. performed by the electrophoretic pattern shows the EPC campionc denoted by Ia B (knife blade) was a champion Low Copy Number (LCN) and, as such, should be applied al'rebbero tuttc the precautions indicated by the lnternational Scientific Community;
3. taking into account that was not followed any of the recommendations of the

Intemational scientific community concerning the processing of samples Low Copy Number (LCN), do not you share some conclusions about the allocation of the profile Ia found on the track B (knife blade) Susan Meredith Kercher Dear alia victim because the genetic profile, as well as obtained , appears as inattendibilc not supported by scientifically validated analytical procedures;
4. were not followed international procedures and protocols of international inspection and sampling of specimen collection;
5. one can not exclude that the results obtained from sampling B (knife blade) can result from contamination phenomena occurring in any phase of rcpcrtazione and / or manipulation c / o of the analytical processes performed.


FIND REGGISENOl 1658 CGANCETI1 DL



With regard to Rep. 1658 (bra hooks) believe that

teenici eflettuati findings are not reliable peri following reasons:



1. DOD components remain scientifically probaDti presuDte presence of Ia on cells of crumbling relic;
2. There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic pattern of

Stib autosomal;

3. endorsed an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic pattern on the Y chromosome;
4. procedures were not followed and the international sopraUaogo

internazionall collection protocols and sampling of the exhibit;

5. Don is possible that poo irisultati obtained may result from contamination phenomena ambieotale elo verificata.si of contamination at any stage of the manipulation of that finding elo repertoire.




EXPERTS

 

[LondonJohn]

No, of course not, because (as I've pretty much always said) the piece of "evidence" they give the most importance to is the "confession". All this complicated sciency-sounding stuff (like DNA, or stomach contents) is neither here nor there.

The idiots are currently adopting a three-pronged rationalisation strategy:

1) Pretend that the report is too opaque to draw any real conclusions from

2) Pretend that the report is only very mildly critical of the DNA testing procedures and results (big hello to PQ!)

3) Pretend that there's "loads of other evidence" against Knox and Sollecito, and that therefore the loss of the DNA evidence is no big deal

It really is pathetic, in the true sense of the word. Why are some people so desperate to cling to their position, even as it crumbles around them? Is it hubris? Stupidity? Something else?

 

[LondonJohn]

Quick Google translation

Now THAT's a crappy machine translation!

However, AP and other news outlets have already paraphrased all this accurately in good English.

 

[Kaosium]

Personally, I believe lionking has some doubt about guilt and his concerns revolve around the form and direction the argument for innocence has taken, the CT factors and the lack of skepticism from the standpoint of innocence arguments.

Often the best remedy for that is to ante up and kick in.

Assuming I am not completely incorrect in my belief, the question to me is if that is a valid concern. Lately, I am not seeing a whole lot of skepticism from either side.

Just my opinion.

I think I do know what you mean.

 

[komponisto]

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/articoli/1014072/il-dna-sul-coltello-non-e-di-meredith.shtml :

According to the Perugia Corte d'Assise d'Appello experts, who have analyzed the murder weapon and the clasp of the bra worn by Meredith when she was killed, "it cannot be ruled out that the results obtained derive from contamination with the environment and/or contamination that occcurred in some phase of collection and/or handling." This according to the conclusions of the expert review submitted this morning.

The experts hold, in essence, that the technical analysis "is not reliable" because "there does not exist evidence that scientifically confirms the presence of supposed flaking cells [cellule di sfaldamento] on the item". "There was," the report reads, "an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile of the autosonic [sic] STRS; there was [also] an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile relative to the Y chromosome".

"The international protocols for inspection, collection, and sampling of the item were not followed", emphasized the experts who analyzed the DNA traces on the bra clasp and the knife. The details, which could be a turning point in the case, emerged today in the conclusions of the document submitted today as part of the appeal trial for Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. They are serving 25 and 26 years in prison for the crime, but claim to be innocent.

 

[christianahannah]

Quick Google translation

Not only quick but a very bad translation.

The report document is 145 pages in length so there will be much to discuss as to the experts' conclusions (no need to quick Google the 145 pages please, Rose ).

 

[bolint]

Hi, bolint!

As we both predicted Monday came and go and Guede failed to provide a believable story.

I remember you promised to disclose your version of events, based on the more believable ToD. Not much new information from Guede, so I don't think your reconstruction will need an update (Apart from that Guede sticks to his obvious lie and failed to give any new details - this is telling on its' own).

Well, obviously I have to think it over now in light of the new DNA report.
I did not use the knife evidence, only Raffaele's false explanation, but i did use the bra clasp and now I have to weight if I have to reject it or not.

The court will probably reject it, I think.

 

[RoseMontague]

Not only quick but a very bad translation.

The report document is 145 pages in length so there will be much to discuss as to the experts' conclusions (no need to quick Google the 145 pages please, Rose ).

Sorry guys, had to do a quick convert to a word doc to do da Google/Goobble is probably why even worse than normal.

 

[Diocletus]

The idiots are currently adopting a three-pronged rationalisation strategy:

1) Pretend that the report is too opaque to draw any real conclusions from

2) Pretend that the report is only very mildly critical of the DNA testing procedures and results (big hello to PQ!)

3) Pretend that there's "loads of other evidence" against Knox and Sollecito, and that therefore the loss of the DNA evidence is no big deal

It really is pathetic, in the true sense of the word. Why are some people so desperate to cling to their position, even as it crumbles around them? Is it hubris? Stupidity? Something else?

LJ--Let's not be too hard on them today. They must feel like they just lost a beloved pet kitty/bunny.

 

[Kaosium]

I wonder if things like this will make some of the pro-guilt advocates stop for a moment and think about their entire approach to this case. It should do, of course, but somehow history suggests that they will just continue to plough on along their illogical over-invested path until the bitter end. Poor them.

They've known for about a year. The ones worth reading once at any rate.

 

[Diocletus]

So far, I think what I am reading is:

1. LCN protocol not followed for the knife, therefore it is rejected

2. The clasp DNA results were erroneously interpreted!

That seems like a pretty big deal. This isn't just an "oh, we can't exclude contamination." They appear to me to be flat out saying that Stefanoni was wrong. That might explain why she was witholding the electronic data files, no? It will be interesting to get more detail to find out what role the electronic data files played in reaching the conclusion that Stefanoni blew it.

 

[christianahannah]

Well, obviously I have to think it over now in light of the new DNA report.
I did not use the knife evidence, only Raffaele's false explanation, but i did use the bra clasp and now I have to weight if I have to reject it or not.

The court will probably reject it, I think.

I think so, too (that the court will probably reject the bra clasp evidence). If evidence against an accused is with doubt the benefit must go to the accused and the evidence rejected.

 

[LondonJohn]

So far, I think what I am reading is:

1. LCN protocol not followed for the knife, therefore it is rejected

2. The clasp DNA results were erroneously interpreted!

That seems like a pretty big deal. This isn't just an "oh, we can't exclude contamination." They appear to me to be flat out saying that Stefanoni was wrong. That might explain why she was witholding the electronic data files, no? It will be interesting to get more detail to find out what role the electronic data files played in reaching the conclusion that Stefanoni blew it.

Well, tgcom says that the report states that the electropherograms were erroneously interpreted in multiple instances. This is also what many of us (led by halides) have been arguing for a long time was very likely to have been the case.

It also, of course, sheds new light on Stefanoni's extreme reluctance to release the source data. "They have everything they need", she said once when refusing to release the data files. Do they, Patrizia? Do they? They do now.

 

[LondonJohn]

PS One of the idiots is now attempting to argue that there couldn't have been a misinterpretation problem, because nobody complained about this in the first trial. (S)he is too stupid to understand that the very reason why the defence could not challenge the interpretations in the first trial is because Stefanoni refused to provide the source data from which these interpretations had been made. Idiot.

 

[pilot padron]

Another 'neutral at best' ??

Fully cognizant and with some empathy for the majority here who certainly are entitled to whoop n' holler at any hint of 'good news' after Monday's "neutral at best' disasterous defense debacle, may I simply suggest.

The entire report is scores of pages, and the experts who wrote it are scheduled to testify about it at great length.
Therefore I have some reservations about joining in the celebration (and usual bashing of Italian ILE) that seems here to rival those heralding the end of WW2.

Even if the report "at best" makes both items of evidence inconclusive, that is still quite a distance from an accomplished acquittal.

And even that total inconclusiveness is still far from certain based on tidbits leaked from experts and lavished by laymen here so far.

Edited: page length of initial Report

 

[LondonJohn]

Fully cognizant and with some empathy for the majority here who certainly are entitled to whoop n' holler at any hint of 'good news' after Monday's "neutral at best' disasterous defense debacle, may I simply suggest.

The entire report is 40 pages, and the experts who wrote it are scheduled to testify about it at length.
Therefore I have some reservations about joining in the celebration (and usual bashing of Italian ILE) that seems here to rival those heralding the end of WW2.

Even if the report "at best" makes both items of evidence inconclusive, that is still quite a distance from an accomplished acquittal.

And even that total inconclusiveness is still far from certain based on tidbits leaked from experts and lavished by laymen here so far.

Ahhh... the old "let's just wait and see" rationalisation gambit.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Y Star

PS One of the idiots is now attempting to argue that there couldn't have been a misinterpretation problem, because nobody complained about this in the first trial. (S)he is too stupid to understand that the very reason why the defence could not challenge the interpretations in the first trial is because Stefanoni refused to provide the source data from which these interpretations had been made. Idiot.

LondonJohn,

This is all very interesting, especially about the Y chromosomal stuff. I wish I had more time today to contribute to the discussion, but I will try to check back and read what others are saying. Thanks to all of those who have gathered news reports.

 

[Chris C]

Fully cognizant and with some empathy for the majority here who certainly are entitled to whoop n' holler at any hint of 'good news' after Monday's "neutral at best' disasterous defense debacle, may I simply suggest.

The entire report is 40 pages, and the experts who wrote it are scheduled to testify about it at length.
Therefore I have some reservations about joining in the celebration (and usual bashing of Italian ILE) that seems here to rival those heralding the end of WW2.

Even if the report "at best" makes both items of evidence inconclusive, that is still quite a distance from an accomplished acquittal.
And even that total inconclusiveness is still far from certain based on tidbits leaked from experts and lavished by laymen here so far.

What evidence is left? You really underestimated the value a jury will put on a murder weapon that has both the accused and the victim's dna on it. Without that knife the jury can't make the illogical leap on the ToD and it removes any evidence of a multiple knife theory. Without the knife and bra clasp, there is only one persons left convicted in this case whose dna is in the murder room and only evidence of 1 knife.

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, it's not "whooping and hollering". That may be the kind of irrational exuberance you're used to seeing elsewhere, but that's not what this is about here (except, perhaps, to Knox and her family/friends, who I'm sure are extremely relieved at this news). This is about a vindication of something that many of us have believed to be true for some time now - and it's especially satisfying because so many people have lambasted the very idea that the DNA evidence might be less than fantastic.

So, no "end zone dances" here. Just quiet satisfaction that the truth is slowly starting to come out. Carry on with the rationalisation by all means though....

ETA: Incidentally, if the independent report had come back and said that all the DNA evidence was sound and reliable (with a logical discussion of how it reached those conclusions), then I would have had no qualms about admitting that my thinking on this issue had been wrong. I would also have had no qualms about consequently changing my opinion of Knox's/Sollecito's guilt - not to a point of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but certainly significantly higher up the scale towards guilt.