Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[bolint]

The entire report is 40 pages, and the experts who wrote it are scheduled to testify about it at length.

In the Conclusion it is clearly written that they think the two evidences unreliable and they are the court-appointed experts not some defence hired men.
So I think these two pieces will be thrown out, the knife for the LCN and the bra clasp for the six week laying around.

 

[Chris C]

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.

Yes that was a huge debate amongst pro-innocence. Some believed that it was Sollecito's dna because of the Y chromosomal and others believed it wasn't because the dna alleles profile didn't match regardless of the Y chromosomal. So it will be interesting to see how this develops.

 

[LondonJohn]

In the Conclusion it is clearly written that they think the two evidences unreliable and they are the court-appointed experts not some defence hired men.
So I think these two pieces will be thrown out, the knife for the LCN and the bra clasp for the six week laying around.

Yes, that's what will almost certainly happen, for the reasons you give above. Of course, there should be a debate, but I believe it will be almost impossible for the prosecution (or court) to refute the findings of Conti and Vecchiotti.

However, you should understand that some people have a huge amount of emotional investment in "being right" about this case, coupled with distasteful levels of pride and stubbornness. Such people have a tendency to need to spin everything to support (or at least not destroy) their own positions. It's a very interesting psychological process to observe.

 

[Fuji]

The sole proven witness to the murder who has given details of it says that Meredith was killed between 9:20pm and 9:30pm. True, he's a chronic lair, so why believe that part of his mostly fictional tale? Because he seems to have seeded it with the truth to account for any evidence that might be found against him.

And yet, not once in any of his alternative accounts (or even Alessi's purported hearsay) of his actions that evening has he ever claimed to have gained entry to the cottage through Filomena's window, or even so much as entered her room.

 

[lionking]

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.

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.

Thank you Rose. I worked for Victoria Police for seven years. I can't accept the conspiracy that I think is required to maintain a guilt position.

 

[pilot padron]

There is 'lots' left

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.

Your 'argument' although understandable in the midst of this unequalled but IMHO as of yet unjustified euphoria here this morning, seems to me to be little other than....

Rah, Rah, Sis Boom Ba
Gimme an.. A
Gimme an.. M
and so on

Your strange observation about "what is left" might just strike some as a teeny bit premature...even if the crux of the argument seems simply to lead cheers.

Cognizant of the additional latest argument 'from on high' that there is nothing 'irrational' in today's unbridled exuberance on this venue; (in fact nothing here is ever irrational ?), I merely prefer to (as also just snidely derided 'from on high'), "just wait and see".

 

[Kaosium]

And yet, not once in any of his alternative accounts (or even Alessi's purported hearsay) of his actions that evening has he ever claimed to have gained entry to the cottage through Filomena's window, or even so much as entered her room.

Of course not! That would be slipping his head into the noose!

If he can pretend he had a legitimate reason for being there, then he can be a bystander. Who is going to believe he broke in and it just so happened that someone else decided to kill Meredith at that exact moment?

 

[komponisto]

La Sapienza lives up to its name

Here is a translation of Conti and Vecchiotti's conclusions:

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the considerations explained above, we are able to respond as follows to the inquiries posed at the assignment hearing:

"Having examined the record and conducted such technical investigations as shall be necessary, the Expert Panel shall ascertain:

1. whether it is possible, by means of a new technical analysis, to identify the DNA present on items 165b (bra clasp) and 36 (knife), and to determine the reliability of any such identification"

- The tests that we conducted to determine the presence of blood on item 36 (knife) and item 165B (bra clasps) yielded a negative result.

- The cytomorphological tests on the items did not reveal the presence of cellular material. Some samples of item 36 (knife), in particular sample "H", present granules with a circular/hexagonal characteristic morphology with a cental radial structure. A more detailed microscopic study, together with the consultation of data in the literature, allowed us to ascertain that the structures in question are attributable to granules of starch, thus matter of a vegetable nature.

- The quantification of the extracts obtained from the samples obtained from item 36 (knife) and item 165B (bra clasps), conducted via Real Time PCR, did not reveal the presence of DNA.

- In view of the absence of DNA in the extracts that we obtained, with the agreement of the consultants for the parties, we did not proceed to the subsequent amplification step.

2. "if it is not possible to carry out a new technical analysis, shall evaluate, on the basis of the record, the degree of reliability of the genetic analysis performed by the Scientific Police on the aforementioned items, including with respect to possible contamination."

Having examined the record and the relevant documents, we are able to report the following conclusions regarding the laboratory analyses performed on Item 36 (knife) and Item 165B (bra clasps):

ITEM 36 (KNIFE)

Relative to the genetic analysis performed on trace A (handle of the knife), we agree with the conclusion reached by the Technical Consultant regarding the attribution of the genetic profile obtained from these samples to Amanda Marie Knox.

Relative to trace B (blade of the knife) we find that the technical analyses performed are not reliable for the following reasons:

1. There does not exist evidence which scientifically confirms that trace B (blade of knife) is the product of blood.

2. The electrophoretic profiles exhibited reveal that the sample indicated by the letter B (blade of knife) was a Low Copy Number (LCN) sample, and, as such, all of the precautions indicated by the international scientific community should have been applied.

3. Taking into account that none of the recommendations of the international scientific community relative to the treatment of Low Copy Number (LCN) samples were followed, we do not accept the conclusions regarding the certain attribution of the profile found on trace B (blade of knife) to the victim Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher, since the genetic profile, as obtained, appears unreliable insofar as it is not supported by scientifically validated analysis;

4. International protocols of inspection, collection, and sampling were not followed;

5. It cannot be ruled out that the result obtained from sample B (blade of knife) derives from contamination in some phase of the collection and/or handling and/or analyses performed.


ITEM 165B (BRA CLASPS)

Relative to Item 165B (bra clasps), we find that the technical analysis is not reliable for the following reasons:

1. There does not exist evidence which scientifically confirms the presence of supposed flaking cells on the item;

2. There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile of the autosomic STRs;

3. There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile relative to the Y chromosome;

4. The international protocols for inspection, collection, and sampling of the item were not followed;

5. It cannot be ruled out that the results obtained derive from environmental contamination and/or contamination in some phase of the collection and/or handling of the item.

THE EXPERTS

Prof. Carla Vecchiotti

Prof. Stefano Conti

 

[Diocletus]

Your 'argument' although understandable in the midst of this unequalled but IMHO as of yet unjustified euphoria here this morning, seems to me to be little other than....

Rah, Rah, Sis Boom Ba
Gimme an.. A
Gimme an.. M
and so on

Your strange observation about "what is left" might just strike some as a teeny bit premature...even from one whose main argument seems to be to lead cheers.

Cognizant of the additional latest argument 'from on high' that there is nothing 'irrational' in today's unbridled exuberance on this venue; in fact nothing here is ever irrational, I merely prefer to (as also snidely derided 'from on high'), "just wait and see". (although happy to see that even I am therefore not 'irrational',

Do any of the "lots left" things depend on Stefanoni? Because she's not coming across as very competent, honest or unbiased at this point. I would LOVE to see her get back on the stand--she'd end up spending the rest of her career identifying typhoon victims in Timbuctoo.

 

[Kaosium]

Do any of the "lots left" things depend on Stefanoni? Because she's not coming across as very competent, honest or unbiased at this point. I would LOVE to see her get back on the stand--she'd end up spending the rest of her career identifying typhoon victims in Timbuctoo.

She has some 'splaining to do about the luminol footprints she withheld the TMB negatives on as well as the lack of DNA.

 

[Diocletus]

These are my favorite parts of the conclusions:

1. Knife: "none of the recommendations of the international scientific community relative to the treatment of Low Copy Number (LCN) samples were followed"

2. Clasp: "There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile[s for both autosomic STRs and the Y chromosome]"

What a total screw up.

 

[LondonJohn]

The idiots have predictably grasped at the contamination angle as a possible escape route. Unfortunately they are wrong and ignorant to do so. Their "argument" is along the lines that since the possibility of contamination can never be totally eradicated under any circumstance (true), the onus is always on the person claiming contamination to prove the contamination.

But, as I've said before already today, the situation in this case is different. If the investigators had handled, collected, transported and stored the knife and bra clasp in accordance with internationally-accepted procedures and protocol, and if the items had been tested in accordance with the very specific (and crucial) protocols necessary for low template number analysis, then the idiots' argument would hold water. The courts would rule that the investigators had taken every reasonable step to minimise the possibility of contamination, and the onus would indeed be upon the defence to prove that contamination had indeed occurred.

However......... it's abundantly clear that this is not what happened in this case. Instead, the way in which the knife and bra clasp were handled, collected, transported and stored almost defies belief, in the almost comical number of ways in which accepted protocols/procedures were either ignored or violated. And the ways in which the knife and bra were tested were also in gross violation of all accepted testing principles.

So, in this case, the onus shifts away from the defence to prove that there was contamination. The fault for all this fiasco lies squarely with the police and the forensics team (who are, lest we forget, also the police!). I can only hope that they get properly trained before they get involved in the next investigation of serious crime. Unfortunately, they're probably more likely to get a medal instead......

 

[Chris C]

Your 'argument' although understandable in the midst of this unequalled but IMHO as of yet unjustified euphoria here this morning, seems to me to be little other than....

Rah, Rah, Sis Boom Ba
Gimme an.. A
Gimme an.. M
and so on

Your strange observation about "what is left" might just strike some as a teeny bit premature...even if the crux of the argument seems simply to lead cheers.

Cognizant of the additional latest argument 'from on high' that there is nothing 'irrational' in today's unbridled exuberance on this venue; (in fact nothing here is ever irrational ?), I merely prefer to (as also just snidely derided 'from on high'), "just wait and see".

Really? Without the knife and bra clasp, what is left that puts them in the murder room? Is there some unknown and hidden information that no one knows about, including the defense? You seem to have forgotten to add that to your post.

 

[LiamG.]

"international procedures for inspection and international protocols for gathering and sampling exhibits have not been followed."

Wow, really wow. I mean, if a scientist is researching a new topic in his field, mistakes in his analysis and conclusion are common and absolutely normal and can even help to understand the topic better if they are found and solved correctly.
But when a scientist, here those of the scientific Police in Rome(?) can`t even stick to the basics of their job, it makes me really sad and angry given the importance of their task. I mean, this is like a mathematician, who can`t solve a quadratic equation. Though his failure wouldn`t have such a large impact...

 

[Paninaro]

And yet, not once in any of his alternative accounts (or even Alessi's purported hearsay) of his actions that evening has he ever claimed to have gained entry to the cottage through Filomena's window, or even so much as entered her room.

Why should he? He's lying. There's was no-one with him, no imaginary friend, he's trying to explain the evidence against him with his silly stories to Alessi and Giacomo. It wasn't me, the window wasn't broken. Meredith had clothes on when I left. I was in the bathroom.

Nobody is arguing the story told to Alessi is true. Just that it's true that he told it to Alessi. What we're arguing is that he's lying to protect himself. But this totally unbelievable story still cast reasonable doubt on the presence of Knox and Sollecito, because he has on two different occasions both before and after his testimony said that they were not there. And he should know, because he most certainly was there. And his lies are most certainly not protecting Knox and Sollecito. So if he says they were not there, this fact and this fact alone in his lies cannot be disregarded.

Good news about the independent experts report.

There is now nothing to connect Knox and Sollecito to the murder left. No murder weapon, Time of death that don't give them enough time and opportunity, no witnesses to break their alibi, no credible murder scenario involving three people, two of whom have never met and no DNA.

Even if one still finds the staged break in and the alleged cleanup and footprints and changing stories valid evidence its no proof of murder.

 

[uk_dave]

This thread is massive. My first post on it.

I'm Canadian and find it hard to believe anyone that posts on here (I would suspect skeptics to be more educated about a subject then the average person) could come to the conclusion she is guilty.

Well, there's your first problem.

Put it this way, we've had years of 'truthers' coming to this forum and exclaiming that they cannot see how we can't accept that 9-11 was an inside jobby job and how can we possibly call ourselves skeptics when it's all soooooooo obvious.

But the truth is that the defendants were found guilty. Their innocence is not obvious.

 

[Chris C]

"international procedures for inspection and international protocols for gathering and sampling exhibits have not been followed."

Wow, really wow. I mean, if a scientist is researching a new topic in his field, mistakes in his analysis and conclusion are common and absolutely normal and can even help to understand the topic better if they are found and solved correctly.
But when a scientist, here those of the scientific Police in Rome(?) can`t even stick to the basics of their job, it makes me really sad and angry given the importance of their task. I mean, this is like a mathematician, who can`t solve a quadratic equation. Though his failure wouldn`t have such a large impact...

More like a mathematician who says, "I got the answer, just dont ask me how i got there."

 

[Justinian2]

Justinian, I understand from experience exactly what you are going through. You have to get over it and get on with your life. These laws were created by politicians who for the most part don't understand the concept of an honest person. One set of laws specify the penalties for various infractions and another set of laws allows for plea bargains to a lesser offense. They can't just find you guilty of the actual offense and wave half the penalty because that isn't what the law says.

Honesty is a concept thet the guilters probably don't understand either. Would they correct the cashier that gave back too much change? If they stepped into a shuttle bus and spotted an overstuffed wallet lost in a crack, would they immediately report it to the driver? This world rarely rewards honesty. That's probably why they say honesty is it's own reward.

There is something about both Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito that causes me believe they are honest people too. It's a shame that they had to get entangled with that nest of dishonesty in Italian law enforcement. I really hope they are strengthened by this experience and not broken.

The people that write the laws take no responsibility because they defer the responsibility to the police, judges and prosecutors who take no responsibility because they attribute the responsibility to the legislators that made the laws. The result is that government may act in a totally criminal/insane manner with self righteous indignation if anybody dare criticize their goodie-goodie selves.

I saw it in court recently and I see it in Italy.

 

[Chris C]

The people that write the laws take no responsibility because they defer the responsibility to the police, judges and prosecutors who take no responsibility because they attribute the responsibility to the legislators that made the laws. The result is that government may act in a totally criminal/insane manner with self righteous indignation if anybody dare criticize their goodie-goodie selves.

I saw it in court recently and I see it in Italy.

Dont forget the part that when the people try to fix the laws they created, the courts will overrule them trying to fix what they screwed up to begin with.

 

[LondonJohn]

She has some 'splaining to do about the luminol footprints she withheld the TMB negatives on as well as the lack of DNA.

Frankly, she (and Mignini) has some 'splaining to do about why the hell she was in charge of crime scene investigation in the first place. It's highly irregular for laboratory scientists to be the ones who are identifying and gathering the evidence: it's improper, and the two roles require very different skill sets.

But while we're on the subject, let's not forget Stefanoni's now-legendary wrapping of the mop handle in gift wrapping from the very cottage in which the murder occurred. Or the police photographer being the one who smeared up all the evidence in the bathroom sink.

There are many questions for Patrizia Stefanoni to answer, in my opinion. I very much hope that Judge Hellmann decides to recall her to the stand, and that he allows her to be asked the questions that matter. I then hope that she either gets extensively retrained, or else she gets transferred to a non-operational admin position where she can't harm anyone else.