• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting pics in Frank's new post.

Everybody can see for themselves how was the bra clasp stored. It's crumpled into a narrow plastic airtight vial, moist inside. Patrizia is really a forensic genius. The experts will have a word of comment about that one blunder, too.

If you recall, Stefanoni was oh so precise, taking samples from various spots on that piece of evidence. Good luck with that now, when it's deformed beyond recognition. She decided nobody needs to repeat her tests, judging from what she did to that clasp. She practically ensured it wouldn't happen.
 
Katody Matrass said:
Interesting pics in Frank's new post.

Everybody can see for themselves how was the bra clasp stored. It's crumpled into a narrow plastic airtight vial, moist inside. Patrizia is really a forensic genius. The experts will have a word of comment about that one blunder, too.
Click to expand...

Isn't that a crack cocaine vial? Maybe we now know the root of the difficulty here: "Bitch set me up."
 
Fine said:
Frank has posted a new comment: The Vienna Circle

///
Click to expand...


It's an interesting post, although I fundamentally disagree with his main thesis. While he is claiming (correctly) that every test can be incorrect, he is then going on to argue that the single tests on the bra clasp and knife - coupled with the paucity of other evidence implicating Knox/Sollecito - implies somehow that these particular tests are likely incorrect.

That's an intellectually bankrupt argument, in my opinion. And it also has no legal (or logical) weight either. One simply cannot suggest that the knife/clasp tests are probably wrong simply on the basis that a) only one test was performed on each item, and b) there's little other evidence of Knox's/Sollecito's presence. The knife and the bra clasp have to be evaluated strictly on their own merits, and not in the way that Sfarzo is arguing.

My view is that the knife has been irrevocably compromised by both the way in which it was handled/stored and the way in which it was tested/interpreted. No "context" is necessary in order to conclude that the knife is utterly worthless as evidence against either Knox or Sollecito. With the bra clasp, I think that it might be possible to show that low-template levels of Sollecito's DNA may be present (although I think that even that is not worthy of definitive confirmation). But I think that the way in which the clasp was identified (or not), collected (or not), handled, transported and stored - coupled with the clear likelihood of others' DNA profiles on the clasp - means that there was a very real possibility (some might say "probability") of contamination; and that contamination might have occurred while the clasp was being moved around on the dirty floor of the cottage in those 46 days, or while it was being passed around the "crack" forensics team on the day of its eventual collection, or while it was in the laboratory (where plenty of Sollecito's reference DNA was also present by that time).
 
Katody Matrass said:
Interesting pics in Frank's new post.

Everybody can see for themselves how was the bra clasp stored. It's crumpled into a narrow plastic airtight vial, moist inside. Patrizia is really a forensic genius. The experts will have a word of comment about that one blunder, too.

If you recall, Stefanoni was oh so precise, taking samples from various spots on that piece of evidence. Good luck with that now, when it's deformed beyond recognition. She decided nobody needs to repeat her tests, judging from what she did to that clasp. She practically ensured it wouldn't happen.
Click to expand...


It truly beggars belief that the "world-class" Stefanoni chose to store an item that was - at that time - a major piece of evidence against one of the defendants in a very high-profile murder trial, in such a way. To place that clasp into an airtight and watertight container which is designed for use with liquid samples (note the cc measurement scale up the side of the tube) is contrary to the most basic principles of storage of such items. The bra clasp should have been thoroughly dried out, then placed into a sterile paper envelope. This would have preserved both the clasp itself and - most importantly - any DNA evidence remaining on the clasp, for decades to come.

For me, this one dreadful mistake should, all by itself, lead to a serious disciplinary action against Stefanoni (and/or whoever was responsible for storing the clasp). But knowing the way the "crack" Italian State Police operate, she'll probably get a medal.......
 
not a game of horseshoes

Katody Matrass said:
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.
Click to expand...
Katody Matrass,

My comments languish at Maundy Gregory's blog for days in moderation and are sometimes not cleared at all, while others are cleared more quickly. Maundy has also avoided discussing Stefanoni's team's collection practices, which is myopic. The collection practices might be enough to get the evidence excluded to my way of thinking.

His discussion of forensic genetics falls into the same fundamental error as Massei's did. Forensic genetics is not like horseshoes or hand grenades, where close counts. Discussing the Dixon case, "Forensic scientist Fay Southam explained that what is known as SGM Plus testing looks at ten sites on strands of DNA to identify 20 ‘numbered components’ which are compared to an identical test carried out on a suspect’s DNA. If any single component does not match, then the two samples cannot have come from the same person, but if they do match, a statistical analysis is carried out on the odds against it having come from anyone else." The sites are loci and the numbered components are alleles. For a single profile in the normal range of analysis, these words of a forensic scientist are worth heeding: "It only takes a single allele difference to constitute an exclusion."

That having been said, the bra clasp is a mixture, and mixtures are necessarily complex. It is made more complex by Raffaele's putative profile being on the borderline of the low template region, the sharing of eleven alleles between Raffaele and Meredith, and by the stutter peaks from Meredith's profile.
 
Last edited:
Fine said:
_______________________

Here's what's crackpot about the Rinaldi Report. When determining the dimensions of the bathmat print and the luminol prints, Rinaldi had ---at the same moment---the inked impressions of the three suspects feet. So there was confirmation bias back-loaded into his study. Instead, when determining the dimensions of the bathmat print and the luminol prints, he should not have seen the inked impressions. He should have first determined, dimensionally, which feet would be consistent with the prints and which would be inconsistent with the prints. Only then should he have been able to see the inked impressions of the suspects' feet.

I wonder whether Rinaldi's results would have been the same had he performed in a scientifically respectable manner.

///
Click to expand...


A good point. And not only that: the Massei Report also makes the astonishing revelation that once Rinaldi (et al) decided that the bathmat print best "matched" Sollecito's reference print with regard to the big toe, they then went back and sought to match the bathmat print to Sollecito's reference print with a higher degree of accuracy!

Given that the analyses of the size of Sollecito’s big toe had already led the technicians to conclude that there was compatibility between print ‚A‛ on the mat and the defendant’s right foot, Dr Rinaldi and Chief Inspector Boemia now carried out an in-depth metrical analysis of the sizes, and as a result their level of certainty increased with regard to this kind of identification.
Click to expand...
(Massei, English trans, p340, my bolding)


This is an extraordinary admission that the "matching" was done almost entirely on a suspect-centred approach, and that Rinaldi was essentially "trying" to match the bathmat print to Sollecito's reference print!

Incidentally, in reference to all these "millimetre-accurate" measurements - the ones obtained from the bathmat all need to be taken with an enormous dose of salt. The partial print on the bathmat simply is not measurable with "millimetre accuracy" - it's made on a very thick-pile tufted bathmat, which also has a ridged pattern, it's made in a saturated mixture of blood and water, and it's impossible to accurately gauge the weight placed onto the footprint (for example, it's entirely possible that the foot only rested lightly onto the mat, while most of the body weight remained on the other foot).

Therefore, the very fact that Rinaldi - together with some of my learned friends (hehehe) - has attempted to attach "millimetre accuracy" to the bathmat print for the purposes of comparison with reference prints (which were obtained using a proper footfall onto a hard flat surface using a reference printer's ink) is not only risible and bogus, but it also (in my view) calls into question Rinaldi's basic competence and level of objectivity in this case.
 
halides1 said:
Katody Matrass,

My comments languish at Maundy Gregory's blog for days in moderation and are sometimes not cleared at all, while others are cleared more quickly. Maundy has also avoided discussing Stefanoni's team's collection practices, which is myopic. The collection practices might be enough to get the evidence excluded to my way of thinking.
Click to expand...


This is my way of thinking also. I think that all the discussion about DNA interpretation is most likely moot in these cases. In my opinion, it's virtually irrelevant to be dissecting the accuracy of the DNA results interpretation on the knife or the bra clasp. Thus, for example, I believe that whether or not Sollecito's DNA really was found on the bra clasp is rather immaterial: more important is the fact that the mistakes made in the collection, handling, storage and testing of the clasp - coupled with the extreme low levels of Sollecito's DNA allagedly found on the clasp - mean that contamination was highly possible.

My personal view is that it's likely that the bra clasp was contaminated with the DNA of Sollecito and others at the lab - where, after all, reference samples of Sollecito's DNA were also present.
 
TJMK is wrong from the domain name onward.

Whether the Webster definition is used or other definitions, Justice is not what TJMK is about.

Personally, I think Justice simply means restitution. Restitution implies accuracy and correctness.

Punishment and revenge have been euphemized and perverted to mean Justice by those wishing to spin their activity in a more favorable way. The only thing just about punishment is, however, the logic, reason and truth with which it was administered. It's absurd to think TJMK does that. Most debate is suppressed. Surely none of us have ever been allowed to post on that site.
 
inconvenient peaks

LondonJohn said:
This is my way of thinking also. I think that all the discussion about DNA interpretation is most likely moot in these cases. In my opinion, it's virtually irrelevant to be dissecting the accuracy of the DNA results interpretation on the knife or the bra clasp. Thus, for example, I believe that whether or not Sollecito's DNA really was found on the bra clasp is rather immaterial: more important is the fact that the mistakes made in the collection, handling, storage and testing of the clasp - coupled with the extreme low levels of Sollecito's DNA allagedly found on the clasp - mean that contamination was highly possible.

My personal view is that it's likely that the bra clasp was contaminated with the DNA of Sollecito and others at the lab - where, after all, reference samples of Sollecito's DNA were also present.
Click to expand...
LondonJohn,

The key is to understanding the bra clasp DNA is not to focus on the peaks that are coincident with Raffaele's reference sample in my judgment. The key is to look at the other peaks. Stefanoni seems to want to assign a small peak that occurs to the immediate right of a large peak of Meredith's, to the category of stutter peaks. This despite the fact that stutters almost always occur to the immediate left (which represents a shorter DNA fragment than the main peak). There is another peak which is too large to be stutter, which she calls stutter. If one does this sort of quasi-analysis enough, pretty soon all of those inconvenient unexplained peaks will go away.

The presence of two or three individuals who also contributed DNA to the sample is hard to imagine by invoking primary transfer (direct handling of the clasp). Therefore, secondary transfer or contamination become very likely possibilities.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Bruce Fisher said:
The prosecution's forensic expert Lorenzo Rinaldi used incorrect measurements when analyzing the footprints and shoe prints.

Here are a couple of links discussing Rinaldi's analysis. I also included Rinaldi's analysis.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/appeal4.html#anchor_162

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-01.html

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/rinaldi1.pdf

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/rinaldi2.pdf
Click to expand...

Makes you dread going to court. I'm always nervous going to court. I don't trust them at all.

Actually, I've found a way to argue with the judge that makes it kind of fun - a game within the game. The judges like a little give and take. Judges don't like the defendants to lie down and just take a beating. With the exception of Mignini and Massei.
 
halides1 said:
LondonJohn,

The key is to understanding the bra clasp DNA is not to focus on the peaks that are coincident with Raffaele's reference sample in my judgment. The key is to look at the other peaks. Stefanoni seems to want to assign a small peak that occurs to the immediate right of a large peak of Meredith's, to the category of stutter peaks. This despite the fact that stutters almost always occur to the immediate left (which represents a shorter DNA fragment than the main peak). There is another peak which is too large to be stutter, which she calls stutter. If one does this sort of quasi-analysis enough, pretty soon all of those inconvenient unexplained peaks will go away.

The presence of two or three individuals who also contributed DNA to the sample is hard to imagine by invoking primary transfer (direct handling of the clasp). Therefore, secondary transfer or contamination become very likely possibilities.
Click to expand...


I agree. The demonstrable presence of others' DNA on the bra clasp definitely serves to strongly bolster the argument for contamination at some point (with the two most likely candidates being the time when the clasp was finally collected from the cottage, or the time when it was tested in the lab).

But in my view (and yours too, I think), even if only one profile had been found on that clasp - and if, for the sake of argument, that profile belonged to Sollecito - the serious procedural lapses in identification, collection, transportation, storage and lab handling mean that it's highly possible that this profile was deposited through contamination (or secondary transfer).
 
Bruce Fisher said:
The prosecution's forensic expert Lorenzo Rinaldi used incorrect measurements when analyzing the footprints and shoe prints.

Here are a couple of links discussing Rinaldi's analysis. I also included Rinaldi's analysis.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/appeal4.html#anchor_162

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-01.html

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/rinaldi1.pdf

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/rinaldi2.pdf
Click to expand...


I'd forgotten how huge a whopper Rinaldi had made with that stupid 66.7mm mis-measurement of Sollecito's reference print (the actual measurement was some 55mm!).

The "millimetre-accurate" measurements applied by Rinaldi to the partial print on the bathmat are clearly either arbitrary (at best), or fudged to match Sollecito's reference print (at worst). In some measurements, Rinaldi has quite visibly set his measurement end points either inside or outside the actual stain on the mat. In my opinion, the man is little more than a fraudulent pseudoscientist in relation to this particular footprint analysis.
 
Quoting SB:

This should clear up the misunderstanding once and for all. I hope Fine et al will read this and take it back to the mothership.

I received a PM from Norbert alerting me to a possible error/inconsistency in the Massei translation. I then asked Clander to check the translated passages against the original, which he did. Below, here is the complete email he then sent to me, reposted here with his permission. The last sentence, which I have underlined, is particularly important:
Click to expand...

Here is the underlined portion:

It must have been past midnight when I tried to figure out the error a year ago…
That “trace 194 (L9)” (on page 282) should be “trace 183 (L8)”.
Click to expand...

Well Duh, that is exactly what we have been saying for three days now. The Machine is wrong and again Massei has been shown to be in error.

Thanks SB.
 
RoseMontague said:
Quoting SB:

Here is the underlined portion:

Well Duh, that is exactly what we have been saying for three days now. The Machine is wrong and again Massei has been shown to be in error.

Thanks SB.
Click to expand...


And I see that when "The Machine" was making his/her (incorrect) arguments, this was a proper discussion for the board, but when this is successfully challenged, it's suddenly a matter only fit for PM. What a fine bunch of rational sceptics they are! Thanks for stopping by...........

PS It's interesting too, isn't it, that Ganong doesn't even realise that what she quoted was proof that you (and others) were correct in your analysis, and that "The Machine" was wrong. Not the sharpest tool in the box, I think we can agree :)
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
And I see that when "The Machine" was making his/her (incorrect) arguments, this was a proper discussion for the board, but when this is successfully challenged, it's suddenly a matter only fit for PM. What a fine bunch of rational sceptics they are! Thanks for stopping by...........

PS It's interesting too, isn't it, that Ganong doesn't even realise that what she quoted was proof that you (and others) were correct in your analysis, and that "The Machine" was wrong. Not the sharpest tool in the box, I think we can agree :)
Click to expand...

The Machine still does not (want to) understand that Massei is wrong. It is sad,
really.
 
I think much of the confusion of the lovely bunch from PMF comes from Massei's deceptiveness. Not once does he state clearly which of the luminol traces correspond to the mixed DNA. The reason for this dishonesty is quite clear - in his conclusions he puts up a conjecture that Amanda tracked Meredith's blood barefoot.

There are inconvenient facts that disprove it immediately, when connected together:
The luminol traces are dissimilar - some are shapeless blobs, some are footprints, and one is a shoe print. There was no Meredith's DNA in any of the footprint traces. The mixed DNA was found in a shapeless blob in Filomena's room and in a shoe print in the corridor. Those two traces are far apart and form no logical trail.
So, the matter is delicate and Massei must be as vague as possible to let his illusion hold. It's a tactic that's often used in the motivation (e.g. with the shopkeeper vs cop that showed him photos issue).


Just to add: none of the traces form any logical trail and none of them tested positive for blood. No control samples were taken from the floor nearby to show that the DNA found in the traces is connected to them, meaningful and not simply commonly occurring across the cottage floor.

Hope that will be helpful to the bunnies that still read here. (We know you do :) )
 
RoseMontague said:
The Machine still does not (want to) understand that Massei is wrong. It is sad,
really.
Click to expand...

The Machine puts Massei's opinion above that of the prosecution's expert. I often wonder why the pro-guilt crowd views the judge as the chief expert of all things.
 
Forgive me if I find humor in the latest conversation about the shoe print in the hall. Fine was attacked and thrown out of the discussion for posting a link that was claimed to be inaccurate. Fine was accused of running to me for all of her information. FOA and IIP were accused of intentionally providing false information and called crackpot sites. High fives all around for another victory!

Now that the information Fine provided has been proven credible this is the response given: "And what exactly does all this have to with the convictions of Knox, Guede, and Sollecito?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom