Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Katody Matrass]

Katody Matrass,

The defense needs to counter with the existence of other DNA on the clasp. If that arrived innocently, then Sollecito's DNA could also have arrived innocently, from a number of mechanisms, such as secondary transfer or contamination during collection.

Interestingly it looks that although Y-STR is dominated by Raffaele's profile, the additional alleles that C&V pointed out in the STR are of strength similar to those attributed to Raffaele. It would be hard for the prosecution to argue that some of the alleles are contamination but those of Raffaele's are not.

Is it possible that there are also additional female contributors?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

malleable threshold

Interestingly it looks that although Y-STR is dominated by Raffaele's profile, the additional alleles that C&V pointed out in the STR are of strength similar to those attributed to Raffaele. It would be hard for the prosecution to argue that some of the alleles are contamination but those of Raffaele's are not.

Is it possible that there are also additional female contributors?

Katody Matrass,

There could be. I saw additional peaks in the electropherogram, but I do not know all of their peak heights. If Stefanoni is able to argue successfully that all peaks below 50 RFU should be excluded, then some of those peaks would go away. Of course, it is inconsistent to do so when one considers that 22 of 29 peaks in the knife blade profile were less than 50 RFU. So the 50 RFU threshold can apparently be ignored when it is convenient to do so. To avoid bias Rudin and Inman (in their textbook "Forensic DNA Analysis") urge the experimenter to set the threshold before doing the experiment. Pretty sound advice, IMO.

 

[RoseMontague]

There's something wrong here, I don't see how they can say "There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile relative to the Y chromosome" and then elsewhere blithely note that his y-haplotype (meaning the y-str haplotype test) was on the clasp.

I think they have serious doubts about how that DNA got on the bra clasp. If Stefi cheats one way it is easy to start wondering if she cheated another way. Anybody watching the video of the bra clasp collection has to wonder if there is "something wrong here" that goes beyond a faulty interpretation. The tone of the report leads me to believe they doubt Stefi's ethics.

The court may feel differently, we shall find out shortly.

 

[Kaosium]

It's pretty clear (to me, at least) that the "erroneous interpretation" refers to Stefanoni's disregarding of the non-Sollecito alleles.

Here is a table from p. 134 of the report (which you may have seen before, I'm not certain):

Thank you!

I've glanced over it but I need the instructions too, so I'm sure I know what it all means.

I will be a good boy and wait though, not trying to hurry you.

This pertains to the Y chromosome. The second column from the left is what Stefanoni reported, the third column is Conti and Vecchiotti's reading, and the fourth column ("ALLELES NOT READ") is the difference.

Looks like about three dudes, who share a number of alleles which wouldn't be all that uncommon if they were all Italian.

They concede that his Y-haplotype was among those on the clasp. Unfortunately, they do not explain how rare a particular Y-haplotype is. I cannot find any explicit statement that Sollecito's autosomic DNA is represented, even though the situation looks similar, at least superficially.

I wonder why she tried to hide it then? Something here is still making me wonder, and your latter statement is part of it: if this 17 loci y-haplotype is as rare as Massei and Maundy Gregory claim, then it ought to be Raffaele, and that should show in the autosomic results as well. If it doesn't then either it's a huge coincidence, or that isn't actually Raffaele's 17 loci Y-STR, but one that shares several alleles but got 'coverage' from the other contributors present.

Or, maybe it's not that rare, despite what that database and Massei said? Is it maybe that the rather depressed area that Raffaele is from isn't all that well represented in the data base, and maybe there's a technician or policeman from the same area?

Unlike the autosomal STR, Raffaele's profile stands out from the additional alleles. Take a look at pages 132-134 of the report. (ETA compare the table komponisto posted above)

I suppose it is possible that the profile is product of similar overlapping haplotypes. I have no idea what would be the probability of such, but it seems fairly low. Let's see if this argument emerges in court and what the experts think..

It's a far more interesting argument to me than academics hand-bagging each other over 'peer review' and hoping the Italian courts are xenophobic about sourcing.

 

[Kaosium]

I think they have serious doubts about how that DNA got on the bra clasp. If Stefi cheats one way it is easy to start wondering if she cheated another way. Anybody watching the video of the bra clasp collection has to wonder if there is "something wrong here" that goes beyond a faulty interpretation. The tone of the report leads me to believe they doubt Stefi's ethics.

The court may feel differently, we shall find out shortly.

You may very well be on to something here. I'm just wondering why she cheated in the first place, something just isn't adding up here. If Raffaele's y-haplotype is that rare, and she correctly identified it, then why pretend the two or so other dudes weren't there? It's not like she was able to hide that there were other contributors, everyone knew long before she coughed up the extra data.

Why give people more reason to be suspicious? I just don't get it.

 

[JREF2010]

Recent hints coming from Mignini suggest that prosecution is going to drop the knife - after the experts not only confirmed everything defence argued but also found starch instead of blood in the space between handle and blade it's hopeless to argue about it anymore.

I think instead they will focus on the bra clasp, basically ignoring all the experts objections and rehashing the line of argument from the first trial - "if the profile is contamination then show us where did it come from?"

I wonder how effective is it going to be this time and what strategy will the defence undertake?

The knife was the holy grail for the Amanda haters. Without the knife, its like Voldermort without a wand.

 

[JREF2010]

I suppose the argument will go along the lines
"right, contamination, right. But we found his DNA on the clasp! What is the chance that it got contaminated by Raffaele's DNA of all? His DNA is nowhere to be found in the cottage, how did it get there, then?"

They will try to distance the discussion from Stefanoni's criminal ineptness by opposing the simple "contamination or not, it is there" against defence's long winding explanations of various paths of contamination.

If they go with the theory change, bra clasp only, then in short they are changing to "it was Raffaele the murderer with Amanda now in the doorway, or driveway, or kitchen with her ears covered". I can't see them going this route, so far in the game. They kind of based their whole life & career on Amanda being the luciferina.


If the knife and bra clasp fail, then the prosecution will have to resort to possibly a scenario like this:
"Amanda and Raffaele only cleaned up and staged a break-in, to help Rudy get away with rape and murder."

With this scenario they might want to call in Edgardo Giobbi to convince the Judge and jurors they don't need to use science!

Last, isn't it risky for the prosecution to attack the new results and experts creditably. Obviously, they could attack the credibility of the Judge Hellman experts, calling them names like "academic" and non-experienced in the real world of DNA. But wouldn't this be an insult to the Judge's decision in using these experts?

It will be interesting to see what the prosecution does.

 

[komponisto]

The knife was the holy grail for the Amanda haters. Without the knife, its like Voldermort without a wand.

Whenever anyone mentions Amanda together with a Harry Potter reference, I have to put in a plug for Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, in particular Chapter 49:

"The other suspect for that murder was Slytherin's Monster, the legendary inhabitant of Slytherin's Chamber of Secrets. Which is why certain sources alerted me to the fact, and why it caught my attention sufficiently that I spent a good deal of bribe money to learn the details of the case. Now in point of fact, Mr. Potter, Mr. Hagrid is innocent. Ridiculously obviously innocent. He is the most blatantly innocent bystander to be convicted by the magical British legal system since Grindelwald's Confunding of Neville Chamberlain was pinned on Amanda Knox. Headmaster Dippet prompted a student puppet to accuse Mr. Hagrid because Dippet needed a scapegoat to take the blame for the death of Miss Myrtle, and our marvelous justice system agreed that this was plausible enough to warrant Mr. Hagrid's expulsion and the snapping of his wand. Our current Headmaster needs merely provide some new item of evidence significant enough to reconvene the case; and with Dumbledore applying pressure instead of Dippet, the result is a foregone conclusion. Lucius Malfoy has no particular reason to fear Mr. Hagrid's vindication; thus Lucius Malfoy will only resist to the extent that he can do so costlessly in order to impose costs on Dumbledore, and Dumbledore is clearly willing to prosecute the case regardless."

From the author's note for that chapter:

Amanda Knox was accused and convicted of the murder of Meredith Kercher in a highly controversial case. Komponisto posted some links to the different sides of the Amanda Knox case and Wikipedia to a LessWrong.com post, asking us to all independently evaluate what we thought happened. Essentially everyone on LessWrong who did that independently decided she was innocent. Komponisto has tried this in a couple of other atheist/skeptic fora and not gotten this result, just the standard controversy, which just goes to show that there is an awful lot more to rationality than being an atheist or skeptic, a theme I harp on sometimes.

I'm also told that Amanda Knox is reading a printed copy of this fic in prison. I don't know if it helps, Amanda, to be told that your innocence is demonstrably obvious to any sufficiently good rationalist, but it's true.

 

[RandyN]

The Y haplotype appears to belong to RS. Too bad Stefanoni didnt pick up the bra clasp when she photographed it on 2 Nov 2007. She even went back (in the video) and hovered over it for quite some time.

Now on Dec 18th...this bra clasp is hidden from the camera...there is a pile of garbage on top of a rug and under all this hides the bra clasp. How exactly did it get there? Who knows? How did RS y haplotype get on the tiny metal hook but not on the cloth part at all? The grasping and pulling and or cutting would not likely involve the tiny metal hook. Damn near impossible position to be finding such rare and vital (to the prosecution) evidence. But yet...there it is. All but confirmed. At least on that piece of paper....damn shame that hook rusted so as to be un-retestable. SO its just another mystery this Y haplotype...missing now from the actual bra clasp...missing just like the footprints of the person cutting or pulling this bra apart. Missing like all DNA of anyone except for Rudy on any cloth part of the bra. Rudys footprints are in that room...he could have cut or pulled that bra clasp off. But unless RS can hover it is impossible for him to have touched that metal hook.

Contamination is visable on the gloves of one of the many investigators all seeming that day to have some unrestrained urge to touch and hold that special piece of evidence. Its passed and photographed and videoed and passed and opppsss dropped...snap...snap...finally its picked up and deposited into a plastic bag....oppps again...should have used paper collection bag for that one.

I say THIS is when the y haplotype was planted. Or (as Comodi would leave a juror thinking) you can believe that RS hovered into that room and touched only that tiny metal hook. Its up to you to decide.

 

[LondonJohn]

In an extremely amusing irony, arch-idiot "Machine" (aka Harry Rag) has stated that the Caddy Report is essential reading:

http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/Caddy_Report.pdf

And it is indeed essential reading. Machine is either too stupid or too mendacious (or both) to realise that while this report - which was prepared to examine the validity and admissibility of low template DNA analysis in criminal trials - states that LCN is both valid and admissible, the crucial point (emphasised repeatedly throughout the report) is that LCN is only valid and admissible under certain very rigorous and specific conditions. The authors list specific conditions attached to the collection, storage, testing and interpretation of low copy DNA samples - all of which appear to have been egregiously ignored by "world class" Patrizia Stefanoni.

Here, for example, is what the report has to say about the importance of using special (and expensive) DNA-free swabs for colleciting low template DNA samples:

A most important aspect of this recovery process is associated with the
use of DNA free materials particularly in respect of swabs and containers. The
FSS do provide these under their SceneSafe Kits especially the K555 kit used
to recover ‘touch DNA’ such as would occur with finger prints. They have
entered into agreement with manufacturers to provide such DNA-free
materials using a specific ethylene oxide decontamination procedure they
have developed. We were informed that batches of these materials are quality
controlled (we believe that other forensic science providers should introduce
similar controls over their consumables). Additionally they have generated a
database of personnel working for the supply companies that can be used for
elimination purposes. Such precautions, which the review panel consider
valuable, do have a cost implication which may lead some police forces to
sanction the use of cheaper substandard kits for such purposes.

And here is what they have to say about the importance of proper specialised training for lab staff involved in low template analysis:

In relation to LTDNA analyses it is desirable that a decision is made at an
early stage as to whether such a sample submitted to the laboratory would be
best analysed by this method. This requires that staff to be suitably trained for
this role and we have been advised that in the FSS such specialised training
does take place and that the staff are mentored after training and their
casework peer reviewed. In addition such staff must undergo a specific written
test. We are advised by UKAS that these training programs are of a high
standard and that detailed records of conformity to these standards of
performance are maintained.

Here's what they say on the critical importance of specific additional anti-contamination protocols in the lab:

In all laboratories we have visited special precautions have been taken in
respect of LTDNA analysis to minimise the risk of contamination. These
include pressurised laboratories, ultraviolet irradiation of benches, a strict
bench cleaning regime and deep cleaning processes. Contamination levels
are continuously monitored. We have observed details of contamination levels
and the corrective procedures. All those who work within this environment are
suitably dressed with clean overwear, masks, footwear, and double rubber
gloves etc. Maintaining such laboratories is expensive and this will be
reflected in the cost of providing this service.

They then go on to discuss in detail the specific testing and interpretation methodologies necessary when working with low template DNA. Needless to say, "world-class" Stefanoni observed few (if any) of these methodologies in her ham-fisted attempt to squeeze profiles out of the bra clasp and knife. Incidentally, this report defines low template as anything below 200 picograms, meaning that Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp - assuming for a moment that it actually is his DNA - is in the low template range. It is not "abundant", as per "Machine's" lie.

The Caddy Report is indeed required reading. It details just how far the "crack" forensics team in Perugia deviated from the required procedures and protocols when it came to collecting, handling, storing, testing and interpreting much of the DNA evidence in this case.

 

[Mary_H]

The Y haplotype appears to belong to RS. Too bad Stefanoni didnt pick up the bra clasp when she photographed it on 2 Nov 2007. She even went back (in the video) and hovered over it for quite some time.

Now on Dec 18th...this bra clasp is hidden from the camera...there is a pile of garbage on top of a rug and under all this hides the bra clasp. How exactly did it get there? Who knows? How did RS y haplotype get on the tiny metal hook but not on the cloth part at all? The grasping and pulling and or cutting would not likely involve the tiny metal hook. Damn near impossible position to be finding such rare and vital (to the prosecution) evidence. But yet...there it is. All but confirmed. At least on that piece of paper....damn shame that hook rusted so as to be un-retestable. SO its just another mystery this Y haplotype...missing now from the actual bra clasp...missing just like the footprints of the person cutting or pulling this bra apart. Missing like all DNA of anyone except for Rudy on any cloth part of the bra. Rudys footprints are in that room...he could have cut or pulled that bra clasp off. But unless RS can hover it is impossible for him to have touched that metal hook.

Contamination is visable on the gloves of one of the many investigators all seeming that day to have some unrestrained urge to touch and hold that special piece of evidence. Its passed and photographed and videoed and passed and opppsss dropped...snap...snap...finally its picked up and deposited into a plastic bag....oppps again...should have used paper collection bag for that one.

I say THIS is when the y haplotype was planted. Or (as Comodi would leave a juror thinking) you can believe that RS hovered into that room and touched only that tiny metal hook. Its up to you to decide.

They say they didn't pick up the bra clasp and take it with them on November 2nd. That doesn't mean it's true.

 

[Mary_H]

Ah, Maundy! He is misguided in his overly optimistic assessment of Stefanoni's defensive options. For some reason he dislikes my comments, too, as they rarely get through the moderation there

In my opinion Stefanoni's methods are completely indefensible. That's why the prosecution will try to steer away from discussing them and concentrate on the single thing that experts accepted - the Y-haplotype.

I have had a couple of recent comments not show up as well.

Does anyone else think Maundy Gregory looks a lot like SomeAlibi? Coincidentally, SomeAlibi's participation on PMF dropped precipitously in April, the same month Maundy Gregory's blog entered the fray. He even commented on his mysterious transition recently:

I'm done with these guys, really, and have been for months. They add nothing, you can't have a sensible conversation with them and they won't have a single effect on the court proceedings (other than negative to the interests of Amanda and Raffaele according to their own advocates). I could chuckle some more about TomM's excellent work and ask him whether the terms of a typical confidentiality agreement attached to the outcome of a court ordered settlement conference or the laws of California are really happy with Moore sending public emails that he is "very happy", feels "vindicated!" and is going on a fat-chequed vacation in Maui (I killed myself laughing with this little "add" by Moore which I understand is correct).... but... I'll leave that to Tom...me I moved on in the spring. You should move on too guys; life is short. These anger issues are really bad for you. Love your partners like you do and good luck to you in that pure pursuit. Go and take a meditation class or something. I worry that someday somewhere over California and another unidentified part of America there will be two loud "FOOMS" and a small mushroom cloud as your heads explode.

And with that, NoMoores and NoFishers nomore. What a beautiful new day.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=375&p=92882#p92882

When the "new-on-the-scene" Maundy Gregory arrived on PMF to announce the birth of his new blog, he received welcomes from Fast Pete and Skeptical Bystander within the hour. It's almost as if they knew he was coming!

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=340&start=2750

 

[RandyN]

They say they didn't pick up the bra clasp and take it with them on November 2nd. That doesn't mean it's true.

Nooooooooooooo that would mean a CT. I actually think they are too stupid to think of that. Plus look at what they left behind after the Nov investigation. The shoes, hood, purse, and numerous other blood covered items including the bra clasp.

Remember this is the crack team that found zero DNA of Filomena in her own bedroom. Or did they really look for any other DNA?

The Machine....is an idiot! Here is her latest rant.

"Despite what the likes of Nina Burleigh and other simple-minded journalists think, Knox and Sollecito weren't convicted solely on the knife and bra clasp evidence. The following evidence is also key: the mixed blood samples, Sollecito’s bloody footprint on the blue bathmat, Knox’s and Sollecito’s bare bloody footprints which were revealed by Luminol, the three traces of Meredith’s blood in Knox’s room, the mobile phone and computer records that provide irrefutable proof that Knox and Sollecito lied, Knox’s telephone calls and conversations with Filomena on 2 November 2007, Knox’s false and malicious accusation against Diya Lumumba which she didn’t retract the whole time he was in prison, the staged break-in, the testimony of Nara Capezzali and Marco Qunitavalle and the testimony of countless forensic experts who testified that more than one person killed Meredith."

Im certain this person is a simply a basement dweller but I hope they sue it anyway.

1. What mixed blood samples Machine? This is a direct lie and there is nothing in any court document that speaks of mixed blood samples. In fact its impossible to tell where DNA comes from...spit,blood,skin cells all mix and there is no way to distinguish one from another. There are mixed DNA samples in the shared bathroom just as there are mixed DNA samples of AK and RS in his bathroom... so stop lying Mochine.

2. I think you mean Rudy Guede bloody footprint on the blue bathmat that go along with his bloody handprint on the pillow and his bloody shoe prints in MK room and in the hallway.

3. The luminol footprints are impossible to assign due to their irregular shape due to over application of luminol (per Garofano)...another example of the crack CSI team FU's. These footprints (whomever they belong to) were tested for blood and shown to be not from blood. Add the fact that these footprints appear in random places and show zero pattern related to the murder and that makes you more of an idiot Machine...

4.I would like to know where she came up with these three traces of MK blood in AK room...that is simply a bald faced lie! But please show citations and page reference anywhere in this whole case about this. You wont because you lie again.

5. Moblie phone and computer records (those that the police didnt burn up) prove the defendants are innocent and further prove it was impossible for them to be at the murder scene anywhere near the TOD...9:30 - 10 PM.

6. AK phone calls to Filomena show that AK was concerned and worried. Filomena left all details to AK who spoke little Italian. Filomena should have called police and should have have called MK phones...she did nothing though. This indicates Filomena might be involved in the murder not Knox.

7. Dont you just love when these idiots call Patrick Diya? As if they are concerned about him. Facts show the police illegally interrogated AK...they abused her and struck her...even Diya told the news that he was beaten and abused for ten hours by police. AK suffered this treatment for over 50 hours. In the end the Italian Supreme Court ruled this interrogation illegal and any statements derived from such as inadmissable. SO again you are wrong Machine...are you really that dumb?

8. There was no staged break-in. No fact shown in court would lead to this conclusion. You might mention Massei but that would be a joke....Massei may well end up in jail. In fact all the evidence shows that RG entered the cottage through this window. Nothing was staged except for Filomena disrupting a crime scene as well as the phone police.

9. Nara and Marco....I lump them together because if you add the Machine then you have the three stooges...One cant see or tell time, one cant remember facts after a day but his memory becomes clear after a year and another is a nutty basement dweller that couldnt argue his/her way out of a wet paper bag. yuck yuck....

10. Countless forensic experts??? Yes they add up to zero. No fact or anything in evidence shows more than one killer. This theory was invented by the criminal Mignini who should have been sitting in jail insted of prosecuting innocent persons for something they had nothing to do with.

SO Machine....whats your best guess on an actual TOD consistant with the known facts of this case? Idiot!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

contamination and the amount of DNA

They then go on to discuss in detail the specific testing and interpretation methodologies necessary when working with low template DNA. Needless to say, "world-class" Stefanoni observed few (if any) of these methodologies in her ham-fisted attempt to squeeze profiles out of the bra clasp and knife. Incidentally, this report defines low template as anything below 200 picograms, meaning that Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp - assuming for a moment that it actually is his DNA - is in the low template range. It is not "abundant", as per "Machine's" lie.

The Caddy Report is indeed required reading. It details just how far the "crack" forensics team in Perugia deviated from the required procedures and protocols when it came to collecting, handling, storing, testing and interpreting much of the DNA evidence in this case.

LondonJohn,

I agree that the claim that Raffaele’s DNA being abundant is entirely false, despite being repeated endlessly. In addition, some people use this falsehood to claim that Raffaele’s DNA could only have arisen through primary transfer. At PMF Fiona wrote, “Greggy has confirmed what the literature says: that the quantity makes it very unlikely that RS's dna was a result of contamination or transfer.” I challenge Fiona or anyone else to show where the literature on DNA contamination claims that the amount of DNA must be small. I have previously commented on this misunderstanding here.

Dr. Donald Riley wrote, “Full profile contaminants have been documented on multiple occasions and in multiple laboratories. Partial profile contaminants are more common and sometimes constitute a poorly recognized risk in using partial profiles in evidentiary samples as evidence. When contamination occurs there is rarely any way to confirm how it happened.” IMO it is unlikely that a full profile could be culled from “subpicogram” amounts of DNA.

 

[tsig]

Nooooooooooooo that would mean a CT. I actually think they are too stupid to think of that. Plus look at what they left behind after the Nov investigation. The shoes, hood, purse, and numerous other blood covered items including the bra clasp.

Remember this is the crack team that found zero DNA of Filomena in her own bedroom. Or did they really look for any other DNA?

The Machine....is an idiot! Here is her latest rant.

"Despite what the likes of Nina Burleigh and other simple-minded journalists think, Knox and Sollecito weren't convicted solely on the knife and bra clasp evidence. The following evidence is also key: the mixed blood samples, Sollecito’s bloody footprint on the blue bathmat, Knox’s and Sollecito’s bare bloody footprints which were revealed by Luminol, the three traces of Meredith’s blood in Knox’s room, the mobile phone and computer records that provide irrefutable proof that Knox and Sollecito lied, Knox’s telephone calls and conversations with Filomena on 2 November 2007, Knox’s false and malicious accusation against Diya Lumumba which she didn’t retract the whole time he was in prison, the staged break-in, the testimony of Nara Capezzali and Marco Qunitavalle and the testimony of countless forensic experts who testified that more than one person killed Meredith."

Im certain this person is a simply a basement dweller but I hope they sue it anyway.

1. What mixed blood samples Machine? This is a direct lie and there is nothing in any court document that speaks of mixed blood samples. In fact its impossible to tell where DNA comes from...spit,blood,skin cells all mix and there is no way to distinguish one from another. There are mixed DNA samples in the shared bathroom just as there are mixed DNA samples of AK and RS in his bathroom... so stop lying Mochine.

2. I think you mean Rudy Guede bloody footprint on the blue bathmat that go along with his bloody handprint on the pillow and his bloody shoe prints in MK room and in the hallway.

3. The luminol footprints are impossible to assign due to their irregular shape due to over application of luminol (per Garofano)...another example of the crack CSI team FU's. These footprints (whomever they belong to) were tested for blood and shown to be not from blood. Add the fact that these footprints appear in random places and show zero pattern related to the murder and that makes you more of an idiot Machine...

4.I would like to know where she came up with these three traces of MK blood in AK room...that is simply a bald faced lie! But please show citations and page reference anywhere in this whole case about this. You wont because you lie again.

5. Moblie phone and computer records (those that the police didnt burn up) prove the defendants are innocent and further prove it was impossible for them to be at the murder scene anywhere near the TOD...9:30 - 10 PM.

6. AK phone calls to Filomena show that AK was concerned and worried. Filomena left all details to AK who spoke little Italian. Filomena should have called police and should have have called MK phones...she did nothing though. This indicates Filomena might be involved in the murder not Knox.

7. Dont you just love when these idiots call Patrick Diya? As if they are concerned about him. Facts show the police illegally interrogated AK...they abused her and struck her...even Diya told the news that he was beaten and abused for ten hours by police. AK suffered this treatment for over 50 hours. In the end the Italian Supreme Court ruled this interrogation illegal and any statements derived from such as inadmissable. SO again you are wrong Machine...are you really that dumb?

8. There was no staged break-in. No fact shown in court would lead to this conclusion. You might mention Massei but that would be a joke....Massei may well end up in jail. In fact all the evidence shows that RG entered the cottage through this window. Nothing was staged except for Filomena disrupting a crime scene as well as the phone police.

9. Nara and Marco....I lump them together because if you add the Machine then you have the three stooges...One cant see or tell time, one cant remember facts after a day but his memory becomes clear after a year and another is a nutty basement dweller that couldnt argue his/her way out of a wet paper bag. yuck yuck....

10. Countless forensic experts??? Yes they add up to zero. No fact or anything in evidence shows more than one killer. This theory was invented by the criminal Mignini who should have been sitting in jail insted of prosecuting innocent persons for something they had nothing to do with.

SO Machine....whats your best guess on an actual TOD consistant with the known facts of this case? Idiot!

I don't think The Machine posts here at JREF so you're arguing with an empty chair.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't think The Machine posts here at JREF so you're arguing with an empty chair.

I don't think that Barbie Latza Nadeau posts here at JREF either, but it doesn't mean that it's not appropriate to discuss her output on the Knox/Sollecito trials here, does it?

 

[LondonJohn]

The Machine....is an idiot! Here is her latest rant.

"Despite what the likes of Nina Burleigh and other simple-minded journalists think, Knox and Sollecito weren't convicted solely on the knife and bra clasp evidence. The following evidence is also key: the mixed blood samples, Sollecito’s bloody footprint on the blue bathmat, Knox’s and Sollecito’s bare bloody footprints which were revealed by Luminol, the three traces of Meredith’s blood in Knox’s room, the mobile phone and computer records that provide irrefutable proof that Knox and Sollecito lied, Knox’s telephone calls and conversations with Filomena on 2 November 2007, Knox’s false and malicious accusation against Diya Lumumba which she didn’t retract the whole time he was in prison, the staged break-in, the testimony of Nara Capezzali and Marco Qunitavalle and the testimony of countless forensic experts who testified that more than one person killed Meredith."

Ahhh! The "mountain of evidence"

I really do wonder what motivates some of the pro-guilt commentators to perpetuate these misrepresentations and untruths (although I have a good idea what the reason might be). As you've pointed out, they are nearly all easy to rebut and/or disprove. Yet they keep being repeated like some sort of mantra. Hmmmm........mantra....cults.......groupthink....... I THINK I'M ON TO SOMETHING HERE

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, the mixed DNA evidence in the bathroom sink is interesting. Let's assume for a moment that the collection and testing of this evidence was accurate and reliable*. And let's assume that the peaks attributable to Knox are higher than those attributable to Meredith.

Now, some people (whom I like to refer to as idiots) are taking this to mean that the Knox contribution has to have come from her blood, since a) there were blood traces in the sink; b) these people assume (probably correctly) that Meredith's DNA contribution in the samples came from her blood; and c) if Knox's allele peaks are higher than Meredith's peaks from blood, Knox's DNA must be from blood also.

This is incorrect. The fact is that the blood in the sink was extremely dilute. And blood only contains a very small proportion of DNA-containing cells. In fact, nearly all of blood is plasma and red corpuscles - neither of which contain any DNA. Only around 1% of human blood consists of cells which contain DNA (most white blood cells).

So a dilute spot of human blood is likely to only contain a very, very small amount of DNA. By contrast, if (for example) a person brushes their teeth and sloughs off gum or tongue skin cells, virtually all of these cells will contain DNA. It's therefore entirely likely that rinsings from tooth brushing - if not washed away - would contain a good degree more DNA than a diluted spot of blood.

Thus, if Knox had spat out after brushing her teeth, some of this had stuck to the side of the sink, and dilute spots of Meredith's blood had subsequently been deposited on top of ** this, it's entirely possible that there would be more of Knox's DNA present than Meredith's.

* even though I think there's bound to be doubt about this in light of the video and the DNA report).

** or even no more than near to each other - the "smearing" technique exposed in the crime scene video shows that the two didn't even need to be on top of each other. The blood spots should have been collected by carefully dabbing them with a small swab.

 

[LondonJohn]

A small not on Patrick Lumumba and his name:

Lumamba's birth forename is Diya. But Lumumba does not use this name. He has adopted the forename "Patrick". This is the name that he is known by, and the name that he wishes to be known by. Referring to him as "Diya Lumumba" is akin to referring to Tom Cruise as "Thomas Mapother", or Elton John as "Reg Dwight" (or Buck Rogers as "Anthony Rogers", notwithstanding that it's fictional!).

I can only assume that those who constantly refer to Lumumba using the forename "Diya" think that this somehow demonstrates a deeper knowledge of the case, and/or a commitment to accuracy. They are wrong on both counts.

 

[komponisto]

My translation of Massei-Cristiani

For the heck of it, I've decided to post the completed portion of my Massei translation (pp. 20-78) here:

http://masseireport.wordpress.com

(I actually set this site up last year, when I was working on the translation, but never uploaded anything until now.)

Here's the About page:

On November 2, 2007, Meredith Kercher, a 21-year old British student studying in Perugia Italy, was found dead in her apartment, in a clear case of homicide. Her housemate, American student Amanda Knox, and Knox’s Italian boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, were soon charged with the killing based largely on circumstantial inferences and suspicions the police had about Knox and Sollecito’s behavior. The charges against Knox and Sollecito were not dropped even after physical evidence revealed that a burglar named Rudy Hermann Guede (who had little connection to either Knox or Sollecito) had been responsible for the murder. Instead, investigators theorized that the three of them, Knox, Sollecito, and Guede, had killed Meredith Kercher in the course of a violent sex orgy, and amassed various pieces of evidence which (they claimed) supported this theory.

Guede was soon convicted in a “fast-track” trial process in October of 2008, and sentenced to 30 years in prison (which was later reduced to 16 on appeal). The case against Knox and Sollecito continued according to a standard schedule, and in December of 2009, Knox and Sollecito were convicted of participating (along with Rudy Guede) in the killing of Meredith Kercher, and sentenced to 26 and 25 years respectively. That verdict is currently under appeal.

In the Italian judicial system, the judges in a case (who are themselves also part of the jury) are required to publish a written document “motivating”, or justifying, the verdict of the court. In March of 2010, the presiding judge in the trial of Knox and Sollecito, Giancarlo Massei, and assistant judge Beatrice Cristiani, released a 435-page report explaining the reasoning that had led them, along with the six “popular judges” (i.e. ordinary jurors), to believe that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito participated in the murder of Meredith Kercher. This is the Massei-Cristiani report that is presented here.

The translator, komponisto, believes that Knox and Sollecito are not only innocent but obviously so, and that the Massei-Cristiani report is of interest to students of human rationality, skepticism, and critical thinking as a case study in atrocious reasoning on the part of a judicial authority — about concrete empirical facts, not subtleties of jurisprudence.

This translation was begun in 2010, soon after the report was released, and was interrupted after a group advocating Knox and Sollecito’s guilt announced the imminent publication of a translation of their own. Now, while working on the translation of the Conti-Vecchiotti report, komponisto has decided to make the completed portion of his Massei-Cristiani translation available, with a view toward possibly finishing it in the future. Annotations containing critical commentary may also be added at a later date. (Such a document would be a valuable resource for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it would would eliminate the need for supporters of Knox and Sollecito to constantly pay homage to the efforts of a pro-guilt group by citing their translation.)

A note on nomenclature and attribution:

An ordinary (not fast-track) Italian murder trial is conducted by not one but two professional judges, a presiding judge (Presidente della Corte) and an assistant judge (giudice a latere); consequently, a motivation document issuing from such a trial is a work of joint authorship. (This applies both at the initial level, and at the first level of appeal.) And indeed, the motivation document in the Knox-Sollecito case is signed by two people, Giancarlo Massei (the presiding judge) and Beatrice Cristiani (the assistant judge); for this reason it is properly referred to as the “Massei-Cristiani report”, as it is here. However, it is widely known simply as the “Massei report”. While this might be justified as ellipsis or synecdoche, it is the present translator’s belief that this nomenclature in fact results from an incorrect analogy with the (first-level) motivation document in the Guede case, the Micheli report. In the case of that document, the single-author attribution is correct, because Guede’s trial was held under the “fast-track” rules, and only involved a single judge. In the case of the document translated here, it is komponisto’s opinion that Beatrice Cristiani should not be absolved of her role in its preparation.