Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

If one of our Italian readers could give me some human translated quotes from this article, I would appreciate it (Sarah Scazzi case). I get the impression from the very poor Goggle translation that this is written in a way that I would love to be able to read.

http://albatros-volandocontrovento.blogspot.com/2011/07/sarah-scazzi-portare-il-sogno-in.html

 

[Lothian]

If one of our Italian readers could give me some human translated quotes from this article, I would appreciate it (Sarah Scazzi case). I get the impression from the very poor Goggle translation that this is written in a way that I would love to be able to read.

http://albatros-volandocontrovento.blogspot.com/2011/07/sarah-scazzi-portare-il-sogno-in.html

Sure it says

Page not found

Sorry, the page you are looking for - the blog of Massimo Prati - does not exist.​

 

[Matthew Best]

Weird - works fine for me.

 

[RoseMontague]

Sure it says

Page not found

Sorry, the page you are looking for - the blog of Massimo Prati - does not exist.​

I edited and fixed the link. Do you speak Italian?

 

[RoseMontague]

I am particularly interested if it contains a literary allusion to the The Rime of the Ancyent Marinere, as you know I like the Moby Dick references to this case and that particular poem is one of my favorites.

 

[Lothian]

I edited and fixed the link. Do you speak Italian?

Un poco.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Thompson on the discovery of electronic data files

I asked Professor William Thompson, an expert in DNA and the law, his opinion on this previously discussed statement: "Raw data does not exist in a readily accessible form that can be disclosed to the defense." He was unequivocal: "The argument that disclosure of electronic data is burdensome is simply a lie...This is simply obstruction of the judicial process that serves no legitimate purpose. The real goal is to hide problems in laboratory work." Why is this important? Professor Dan Krane wrote, "“I believe that a defense expert cannot competently evaluate the results of an STR DNA test without having access to the test’s underlying electronic data. In my experience, review of electronic data has often led directly to the discovery of important problems or limitations in the STR testing, or to alternative theories of the evidence, that would not have been apparent based on a review of laboratory reports or other laboratory records."

 

[Kaosium]

I am afraid I am going to go with the guilt side on this one and say that Massei believes it was mixed blood. Massei acknowledges that it was not scientifically possible to prove it but I believe this is another of those possible and in fact quite probable lines of reasoning. Massei goes on to say that Raffaele's fantasy pricking story is one reason to take this line of reasoning.

Read that quote again in this context and tell me what you really think Massei is saying.

I couldn't find the part about Raffaele's diary, perhaps you were thinking of another section? I did however revert to my previous suspicion that perhaps Stefanoni, despite that quote, did indeed advance the hypothesis that the blood was mixed, because reviewing this section again has firmed up my recollection that Massei was clear that he thought the blood was only Meredith's. To wit:

It is true that, according to what was asserted and explained, it is not possible with a mixed trace specimen that tested positive for human blood to determine which of the trace’s contributors the blood belongs to. In this case, however, non-mixed traces were also found, which were shown to be of a haematological nature [i.e. blood] and turn out to have the biological profile of the victim.

Here he reiterates that mixed trace specimens make it impossible to determine the origin of the blood, and then points out that the unmixed specimens are all Meredith's--with the exception of the coagulated blood from Amanda's ear on the tap from days previous. He also notes that Amanda was not wounded and had been examined thoroughly:

Amanda was not wounded; in the days following no one spoke of wounds that she might have had; the examination which was carried out on her when measures restricting her personal freedom were taken ruled out the presence of wounds. Meredith’s situation was the complete opposite. In relation to this and to the circumstance by which haematological stains attributable to Meredith were found on the inside of the door, on the toilet-seat cover, on the light switch, it should be deduced that the haematological components found in the sink, in the bidet, on the box of cotton buds were also from Meredith.

Nor can it otherwise be argued for the presence of a drop of Amanda’s blood on the tap of the sink. This consisted of a spot of coagulated blood, with respect to which Amanda explained that it came from her own ear having been pierced; this spot, furthermore, was located towards the inside of the sink: distinct, separate and morphologically different, therefore, from the trace found in the sink itself.

I think the report makes it clear in the end that Massei believes the mixed traces were from Amanda washing off Meredith's blood, and she left behind skin cells in the process, but no blood.

It should also be noted that the statements according to which the traces in the sink and in the bidet each constituted a single specimen correspond to the act of cleaning the victim’s blood, an action previously mentioned and during which it would have been easy to leave a mixed sample, constituted precisely of biological material from the victim (blood) and biological material from whoever was cleaning (cells lost during scrubbing/rubbing). It should further be noted that such mixed trace specimens, with the morphology shown, were found both in the sink and in the bidet.

It should be considered that those in the sink occurred when Amanda, as hasbeen said, washed her hands which were stained with Meredith’s blood; in the bidet it should be considered that they [the traces] originated from a similar activity, but in relation to the feet, which must also have been covered with blood as can be inferred from the print of a bare foot left on the sky-blue mat, stained with Meredith’s blood. This print will be dealt with subsequently. Reference to it is made now in order to make the point that the presence of such a print of a bare foot brings one to consider that Amanda (also) could have had bare feet, stained with Meredith’s blood.

I think when everything is put together the picture that emerges is that in fact Massei was definitely not convinced the mixed traces were in fact mixed blood, but that despite being forced to admit there was no way of telling scientifically, Stefanoni in court proposed the theory that the mixed DNA traces did in fact constitute 'evidence' that Amanda and Meredith's blood had mixed the night of the murder. There's just too many diverse accounts of people saying 'mixed blood' for me to assume they were all in error.

Our good friend The Machine thoughtfully collected some of them here and Ann Wise also noted that the prosecution had theorized the mixed DNA samples were in fact 'mixed blood' and the defense had even formulated arguments against it, which must have been convincing to Massei because he makes a strong argument in his motivations report that the mixed DNA was not in fact mixed blood.

The Machine appears to believe the prosecution may in fact argue again that the mixed DNA traces are in fact 'mixed blood,' however I would tend to doubt that possibility because Mignini--who I suspect would argue anything if it suggested a greater possibility of Amanda and Raffaele being guilty--isn't calling the shots. The new prosecutor, Costagliola, who appears to have muzzled Mignini, may not because last time they couldn't even convince Massei of this dubious proposition.

This is ominous for Biondo and Stefanoni.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

sodium chlorate

halides1,

Bleach (candeggina) is mentioned exactly three times in the report: twice while discussing laboratory procedure, and once while discussing how easily DNA is degraded or destroyed (a passage I believe I translated earlier here on JREF).

komponisto,

If one left bleach on a knife, the hypochlorite would eventually decompose, possibly to chlorate and other substances. I did not find any mention of chlorate in the report, but I seem to recall reading that Conti and Vecchiotti tested for a substance that would indicate bleach. I read through some old posts at Perugia Shock, but I did not find anything, so it could be my memory playing tricks on me.

 

[RoseMontague]

I couldn't find the part about Raffaele's diary, perhaps you were thinking of another section? I did however revert to my previous suspicion that perhaps Stefanoni, despite that quote, did indeed advance the hypothesis that the blood was mixed, because reviewing this section again has firmed up my recollection that Massei was clear that he thought the blood was only Meredith's. To wit:



Here he reiterates that mixed trace specimens make it impossible to determine the origin of the blood, and then points out that the unmixed specimens are all Meredith's--with the exception of the coagulated blood from Amanda's ear on the tap from days previous. He also notes that Amanda was not wounded and had been examined thoroughly:



I think the report makes it clear in the end that Massei believes the mixed traces were from Amanda washing off Meredith's blood, and she left behind skin cells in the process, but no blood.



I think when everything is put together the picture that emerges is that in fact Massei was definitely not convinced the mixed traces were in fact mixed blood, but that despite being forced to admit there was no way of telling scientifically, Stefanoni in court proposed the theory that the mixed DNA traces did in fact constitute 'evidence' that Amanda and Meredith's blood had mixed the night of the murder. There's just too many diverse accounts of people saying 'mixed blood' for me to assume they were all in error.

Our good friend The Machine thoughtfully collected some of them here and Ann Wise also noted that the prosecution had theorized the mixed DNA samples were in fact 'mixed blood' and the defense had even formulated arguments against it, which must have been convincing to Massei because he makes a strong argument in his motivations report that the mixed DNA was not in fact blood.

The Machine appears to believe the prosecution may in fact argue again that the mixed DNA traces are in fact blood, however I would tend to doubt that possibility because Mignini--who I suspect would argue anything if it suggested a greater possibility of Amanda and Raffaele being guilty--isn't calling the shots. The new prosecutor, Costagliola, who appears to have muzzled Mignini, may not because last time they couldn't even convince Massei of this dubious proposition.

This is ominous for Biondo and Stefanoni.

A beautiful post, Kaosium.

I think the quotes both for and against make it clear that Massei doesn't really want to be completely clear by absolutely contradicting Stefanoni, at least not directly.

It seems that Mignini is convinced that it is mixed blood and Stefanoni believes it as well, despite acknowledging it is not scientifically proven. I have previously stated my belief that this would not come up in the appeal because it is something that Massei doesn't claim. I don't know if the prosecution will seek to advance this now that the DNA on the two main pieces of evidence have been reduced to shambles, but it is possible and in fact, quite probable that I was wrong about this.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

locating the mixed DNA samples in time

Kaosium and RoseMontague,

I will reread the passage tonight. However, previous readings made me think that Massei is trying to date the mixed DNA samples to the crime without committing to the theory that they are mixed blood.

 

[Dan O.]

How does one leave a single drip of watery blood behind after washing their hands that are covered in blood? The act of washing would leave blood smeared in the whole basin of the sink and that basin would need to be rinsed out. At this point, there is no visible blood present on the hands or in the sink so what is the source of the drip?

 

[Kaosium]

komponisto,

If one left bleach on a knife, the hypochlorite would eventually decompose, possibly to chlorate and other substances. I did not find any mention of chlorate in the report, but I seem to recall reading that Conti and Vecchiotti tested for a substance that would indicate bleach. I read through some old posts at Perugia Shock, but I did not find anything, so it could be my memory playing tricks on me.

You may be thinking of starch, that was something leaked from the report and you thought especially significant and mentioned numerous times, in part as it would have 'soaked up' any blood that had been on that blade, and it also was yet another indication the blade had not been thoroughly cleaned. It is not difficult for me to believe that typical college students wouldn't scrub every knife as though it were a surgical instrument, however it is nigh impossible for me to believe they could have scrubbed away every last trace of blood on that knife but left a scrap of DNA that could be 'found' by the 'meticulous' Stefanoni

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium and RoseMontague,

I will reread the passage tonight. However, previous readings made me think that Massei is trying to date the mixed DNA samples to the crime without committing to the theory that they are mixed blood.

That's exactly the way I read it, and I think he actually does work to refute the theory that they're mixed blood through noting that Amanda had no wounds and had been thoroughly examined in custody, as well as pointing out all the unmixed samples were solely Meredith's. He definitely dates them to the crime, notably because of Amanda's statement that the bathroom was clean when she left:

Instead, the defendants’ teams maintained that these traces and the outcome of the analyses with reference to the mixed sample traces were irrelevant. In this regard, starting from the scientific data which emerged, according to which DNA analysis does not permit the age of the sample/trace to be determined, nor, in the case of a sample/trace indicating the presence of several biological profiles, can it be established whether their apposition-formation was contemporaneous or not, it was affirmed that, since it concerned a bathroom which was used both by Meredith and by Amanda, the presence of mixed traces seemed to be a completely normal circumstance, and had no significance. All the more so since the samples had been taken using the same blotting paper which had been used for various parts of the bidet and the sink.

The Court, however, believes that the presence of the biological trace specimens that were found is of great importance.
First, it should be recalled that Amanda Knox, in the course of her own examination (questioning), declared that when she left the house on Via della Pergola on the afternoon of November 1st, the bathroom was clean.

 

[Kaosium]

How does one leave a single drip of watery blood behind after washing their hands that are covered in blood? The act of washing would leave blood smeared in the whole basin of the sink and that basin would need to be rinsed out. At this point, there is no visible blood present on the hands or in the sink so what is the source of the drip?

If you're referring the the smeared stain on the faucet, Massei doesn't think that involved with the murder either, he accepts that it's from Amanda's ear-piercing:

Nor can it otherwise be argued for the presence of a drop of Amanda’s blood on the tap of the sink. This consisted of a spot of coagulated blood, with respect to which Amanda explained that it came from her own ear having been pierced; this spot, furthermore, was located towards the inside of the sink: distinct, separate and morphologically different, therefore, from the trace found in the sink itself.

 

[ForTruth]

Mixed blood

For references to mixed blood (actually, mixed dna traces) in the Massei report as well as the appeals, see the write-up I put together in response to Andrea Voigt's article in Dec 2010:

http://www.injusticeinperugiaforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=547

(check me out! posting links now!)

 

[Kaosium]

A beautiful post, Kaosium.

I think the quotes both for and against make it clear that Massei doesn't really want to be completely clear by absolutely contradicting Stefanoni, at least not directly.

He doesn't even bring up the possibility there was actually two sources of blood, other than to refute the likelihood. He's pretty clear he thinks all the relevant blood is Meredith's and doesn't even (initially) preclude the chance that it was someone other than Amanda:

The above observation leads to the deduction that whoever went into the bathroom at that point (after the stabbing of Meredith) must have had to do so to clean him/herself of Meredith’s blood with which he/she was staining the various things he/she touched or leaned against: the door, the light switch, the mat.

In fact he doesn't even deny the possibility that whoever did the washing up might not have left anything:

And it is probable - not necessary, but probable - that during the following act of scrubbing the hands to remove the blood, he/she left the mixed trace consisting of Meredith’s blood and of cells which had been removed by rubbing during the act of washing. An entirely probable outcome given the likelihood of the act of scrubbing, yet not a necessary one, since the running water which was used in the shower stall or in the bidet or in the sink, or in several of these sanitary fittings, might well have rinsed away the washed-up blood and the cells which had been lost during this washing.

It seems that Mignini is convinced that it is mixed blood and Stefanoni believes it as well, despite acknowledging it is not scientifically proven. I have previously stated my belief that this would not come up in the appeal because it is something that Massei doesn't claim. I don't know if the prosecution will seek to advance this now that the DNA on the two main pieces of evidence have been reduced to shambles, but it is possible and in fact, quite probable that I was wrong about this.

I dunno, I've been thinking about just what they might contend in the appeal, and as you note they possibly could argue the mixed DNA evidence as 'evidence' of murder, due to the 'possibility' there was mixed blood there. Massei is awfully dismissive of this, though that doesn't preclude the chance they might try it anyway, they need to advance something as 'evidence' of murder, because with the bra-clasp and knife sinking into the muck of the Tiber, they don't have much of anything left regarding physical 'evidence' of murder. However as that one juror quoted by Barbie noted, that is the sort of thing that definitely suggests Amanda was involved in the murder and that is why I wouldn't put it past a desperate prosecution to attempt it. They have to offer something.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

to what test do they refer?

Kaosium and RoseMontague,

Massei 278 "It should then be highlighted that in that same bathroom various [300] trace specimens were found, of a mixed nature and testing positively for blood." Which test do they mean? I think it is inevitable that the mixed DNA and luminol-positive sets of evidence (which have some overlap) will become more central to the prosecution's case, now that the knife and clasp look so iffy.

 

[Kaosium]

For references to mixed blood (actually, mixed dna traces) in the Massei report as well as the appeals, see the write-up I put together in response to Andrea Voigt's article in Dec 2010:

http://www.injusticeinperugiaforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=547

(check me out! posting links now!)

Very thorough! I had forgotten that Vogt had written an article as late as last December describing 'mixed blood.' I see, like myself, you found Vogt a good resource, but I cannot help but note the quality of her work has deteriorated alarmingly as of late, and I cannot get over (in retrospect) that she actually quoted a PMF member to 'refute' Ann Bremner's contention of the DNA scientists as 'groundless.' Did anyone happen to see what 'Nicki' said about the C & V report (at PMF-Michael) when it was released? It amounted to basically two sentences that could have been gleaned from news reports. This person who reads Italian and whose 'credentials' in this field were deemed worthy by Andrea Vogt to 'refute' the defense's contentions, claimed they read the report and issued nothing more than I could have by simply coping and pasting from the translated conclusions page.

Did you ever get a response to your e-mail?

 

[Kaosium]

Massei 278 "It should then be highlighted that in that same bathroom various [300] trace specimens were found, of a mixed nature and testing positively for blood."

That's a very good question. I have been wondering for a while just what tests ILE uses to confirm for blood. I would hope they would have done more than the pink bathroom test, perhaps a TMB test on the area in question as well, but there has to be something more or it hasn't been conclusively revealed to be human blood. In this case there's cat blood in a room the victim might well have entered shortly before they died. Some of these blood traces could have been from Meredith having gotten cats blood on her, unless of course a confirmation test for human blood was performed.

Incidentally, there is a reference in Massei to testing the cat blood, but I cannot for the life of me find it. Fine knows where it is, and I even recall reading about it at PMF last summer when that section was being translated as they were having difficulty figuring out what that part meant. At any rate perhaps that section indicates what test they used to differentiate between the blood of a cat and the blood of a human? At least that indicates they must have some sort of confirmatory test, as every presumptive test I know of can't make that distinction.