• 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.
Kevin_Lowe said:
With the evidence now in hand concluding that Raffele's DNA was on the bra clasp therefore he handled it at the time of the murder is pretty much like thinking that because your car won't start that the spark plugs have been stolen by midgets. You're ignoring multiple much more likely hypotheses that explain the available facts.
Click to expand...

Sound reasoning, as always. The frustrating thing is that even before the C/V report the guilter conclusion that the presence of the DNA proved that Raff took part in the murder was never sustainable.

I have seen bloggers commenting "DNA does not lie" and similar; there seems to be a widespread perception that DNA evidence = guilt, regardless of any rationalising of the circumstances of how the DNA could have been deposited. In the case of the bra-clasp DNA, there is no clear explanation whether or not Raff was involved in the murder - simply because there would be no occasion to handle the clasp of the bra during the attack.

Combined with the fact that there is no corroborating evidence whatsoever, the bra-clasp DNA, even if genuine, should never have been considered conclusive evidence of anything at all.
 
piktor said:
It comes down to Stefanoni's "stutter" versus C&V's "other minor contributor/contributors".

It sounds to me a matter of academic opinion. The traces that matter are the ones that belong to Sollecito, identified by name and also called a major contributor.

This trial is an accruement of facts and evidence that form a narrative. It is a circumstantial case. Italian rules apply, not English or American rules.

I see it as one more arrow pointing to the defendant, not as THE arrow pointing to Sollecito.

It is just my layman's opinion. Will the judges fixate on "unreliable" or will they fixate on the 16 Sollecito peaks on the clasp is anyone's guess. I have no idea how the Perugia judges will rule on it.
Click to expand...

If all that mattered was whether DNA is on a particular item, then we could do away with all standard procedures designed to minimise the risk of contamination.
It is enough to dismiss the evidence to show that standard procedures were not followed. The report has demonstrated that it is possible, indeed probable (:)), that contamination occurred.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
If you think it through, it's not evidence of anything at all at this stage.

The guilter dogma (before C&V demolished it) was that there was "abundant" DNA from Raffaele on the clasp, and that this proved he had handled it. Now if there really was proof that Raffaele had handled that bra clasp he would have some serious explaining to do. However we now know from the C&V report that there was a tiny amount of DNA-bearing material if there was any at all, that proper tests to confirm that skin cells were present as opposed to the DNA coming from lab contamination were inexplicably not conducted, the test was not replicated and incompetent evidence handling destroyed the bra clasp before it could be re-examined.

Cynics might think that this is consistent with Stefanoni deliberately spiking the test run with Raffaele's DNA by one means or another, and then destroying the evidence so nobody could establish that she had done so. However we'll probably never know.

So take-home message #1 is: We now have is evidence that Raffaele's DNA got on to the bra clasp somehow, but contamination at the scene or contamination at the lab are explanations that cover that fact.

Then, and this is the bit that the guilters don't seem to grasp very well, we have extremely strong evidence that contamination occurred somewhere along the line. The existence of multiple DNA profiles on the clasp means either that lots of murderers handled the clasp (good luck with that theory) or that the DNA of non-murderers got on to that clasp somehow.

So do the math:

1. Raffaele's DNA got there either because he was a murderer, or because the sample was contaminated.
2. We know the bra clasp was contaminated.

Once you have those two facts in hand you no longer need to invoke the zebra hypothesis of a totally unprecedented three-way murder and sexual assault involving people who barely knew each other or did not know each other at all, with no motive and a serious language barrier to overcome to boot. You've got a much more ordinary hypothesis to go to - the bra clasp got contaminated either in a house Raffaele had visited or in a lab storing "abundant" amounts of his DNA from other samples.

I suspect some guilters, the ones not very good at joined-up thinking, might respond by saying something like "Um, er, but there was more of Raffaele's alleles than there were of the other peoples', more! More means something, right? It can't be contamination if it's more. It must mean he handled the bra clasp! I don't understand science but my uninformed guesswork is good enough for me". However absolutely nothing about the laws of the universe says that contaminating material must be a homogenous mix of DNA from every contributing source, and if you think about it that very idea is a bit weird.

With the evidence now in hand concluding that Raffele's DNA was on the bra clasp therefore he handled it at the time of the murder is pretty much like thinking that because your car won't start that the spark plugs have been stolen by midgets. You're ignoring multiple much more likely hypotheses that explain the available facts.
Click to expand...

Just a terrific post, Kevin.

I have to wonder if the experts saw the video of the collection of the bra clasp and if they were thinking the same thing I think every time I see it. I am still not convinced that there is not a third option for how the DNA got there. I wonder if the experts feel the same way?
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
If you think it through, it's not evidence of anything at all at this stage.

The guilter dogma (before C&V demolished it) was that there was "abundant" DNA from Raffaele on the clasp, and that this proved he had handled it. Now if there really was proof that Raffaele had handled that bra clasp he would have some serious explaining to do. However we now know from the C&V report that there was a tiny amount of DNA-bearing material if there was any at all, that proper tests to confirm that skin cells were present as opposed to the DNA coming from lab contamination were inexplicably not conducted, the test was not replicated and incompetent evidence handling destroyed the bra clasp before it could be re-examined.

Cynics might think that this is consistent with Stefanoni deliberately spiking the test run with Raffaele's DNA by one means or another, and then destroying the evidence so nobody could establish that she had done so. However we'll probably never know.

So take-home message #1 is: We now have is evidence that Raffaele's DNA got on to the bra clasp somehow, but contamination at the scene or contamination at the lab are explanations that cover that fact.

Then, and this is the bit that the guilters don't seem to grasp very well, we have extremely strong evidence that contamination occurred somewhere along the line. The existence of multiple DNA profiles on the clasp means either that lots of murderers handled the clasp (good luck with that theory) or that the DNA of non-murderers got on to that clasp somehow.

So do the math:

1. Raffaele's DNA got there either because he was a murderer, or because the sample was contaminated.
2. We know the bra clasp was contaminated.

Once you have those two facts in hand you no longer need to invoke the zebra hypothesis of a totally unprecedented three-way murder and sexual assault involving people who barely knew each other or did not know each other at all, with no motive and a serious language barrier to overcome to boot. You've got a much more ordinary hypothesis to go to - the bra clasp got contaminated either in a house Raffaele had visited or in a lab storing "abundant" amounts of his DNA from other samples.

I suspect some guilters, the ones not very good at joined-up thinking, might respond by saying something like "Um, er, but there was more of Raffaele's alleles than there were of the other peoples', more! More means something, right? It can't be contamination if it's more. It must mean he handled the bra clasp! I don't understand science but my uninformed guesswork is good enough for me". However absolutely nothing about the laws of the universe says that contaminating material must be a homogenous mix of DNA from every contributing source, and if you think about it that very idea is a bit weird.

With the evidence now in hand concluding that Raffele's DNA was on the bra clasp therefore he handled it at the time of the murder is pretty much like thinking that because your car won't start that the spark plugs have been stolen by midgets. You're ignoring multiple much more likely hypotheses that explain the available facts.
Click to expand...


I think that your reasoning is absolutely correct on this point. I'd also add another factor to the contamination issue: the item in question (the bra clasp) is from an intimate piece of underwear - a bra. This means two things: 1) the bra is likely to have been frequently laundered, and 2) very few people would handle the bra in the ordinary course of events.

To illustrate my point, imagine if the item in question had been a portion of Meredith's overcoat. In such an instance, one could argue that many people might have handled the coat in ordinary circumstances (e.g. if Meredith had put the coat down in a bar, and someone had moved the coat in order to sit down), and it would also be unlikely that the coat would have been cleaned in the recent past. For both of these reasons, it would not be unusual to find unknown DNA profiles on a piece from an overcoat. And if Sollecito had never had any reason to come into contact with that coat before the murder, then any proven presence of his DNA on the coat would potentially be of strong probative value - even if other profiles were also present.

Instead, we have a portion of an intimate undergarment that has multiple DNA profiles upon it - including, potentially, Sollecito's. In this instance, I think it is reasonable to assume that multiple unknown people cannot have handled Meredith's bra between its previous laundering and the murder, and that therefore the only reasonable explanation for the presence of DNA profiles on the clasp is via contamination. And that - as you so correctly point out - makes it all the more arguable that Sollecito's DNA on the clasp (if indeed it is present on the clasp) is as likely to be the result of similar contamination as it is to be from primary transfer during the murder. And let's also never forget that Stefanoni's lab had abundant amounts of Sollecito's DNA present at the time that the bra clasp tests were being carried out...
 
LondonJohn said:
I think that your reasoning is absolutely correct on this point. I'd also add another factor to the contamination issue: the item in question (the bra clasp) is from an intimate piece of underwear - a bra. This means two things: 1) the bra is likely to have been frequently laundered, and 2) very few people would handle the bra in the ordinary course of events.

To illustrate my point, imagine if the item in question had been a portion of Meredith's overcoat. In such an instance, one could argue that many people might have handled the coat in ordinary circumstances (e.g. if Meredith had put the coat down in a bar, and someone had moved the coat in order to sit down), and it would also be unlikely that the coat would have been cleaned in the recent past. For both of these reasons, it would not be unusual to find unknown DNA profiles on a piece from an overcoat. And if Sollecito had never had any reason to come into contact with that coat before the murder, then any proven presence of his DNA on the coat would potentially be of strong probative value - even if other profiles were also present.

Instead, we have a portion of an intimate undergarment that has multiple DNA profiles upon it - including, potentially, Sollecito's. In this instance, I think it is reasonable to assume that multiple unknown people cannot have handled Meredith's bra between its previous laundering and the murder, and that therefore the only reasonable explanation for the presence of DNA profiles on the clasp is via contamination. And that - as you so correctly point out - makes it all the more arguable that Sollecito's DNA on the clasp (if indeed it is present on the clasp) is as likely to be the result of similar contamination as it is to be from primary transfer during the murder. And let's also never forget that Stefanoni's lab had abundant amounts of Sollecito's DNA present at the time that the bra clasp tests were being carried out...
Click to expand...
John: is it your belief that chain of custody of the evidence was violated or broken?

If so, did the Knox legal team raise that objection.

If so, what was the ruling?

If not, what have you done to alert her legal team of this issue in her appeal process?

If nothing, why not?

(If you have, tip of the cap).

I continue to note the usual BFA nature of this discussion. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7397095&postcount=227
 
Darth Rotor said:
John: is it your belief that chain of custody of the evidence was violated or broken?

If so, did the Knox legal team raise that objection.

If so, what was the ruling?

If not, what have you done to alert her legal team of this issue in her appeal process?

If nothing, why not?

(If you have, tip of the cap).

I continue to note the usual BFA nature of this discussion. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7397095&postcount=227
Click to expand...


1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) It was overridden in the first trial as one of a number of poor judicial rulings. It has been correctly addressed in Hellmann's appeal court (watch the hearing on Monday for confirmation of this).
4) N/A*
5) N/A


* and, in any case, this is merely an internet discussion board. Do people discussing the Eurozone debt crisis on economics internet forums feel compelled to email European leaders or the EBC to pass on their views? What a strange question for you to have asked......
 
Probable or definite in or out

bri1 said:
If all that mattered was whether DNA is on a particular item, then we could do away with all standard procedures designed to minimise the risk of contamination.
It is enough to dismiss the evidence to show that standard procedures were not followed. The report has demonstrated that it is possible, indeed probable (:)), that contamination occurred.
Click to expand...
If evidence on the clasp is dismissed because it is contaminated, why do C&V discuss Stefanoni's findings on the clasp at all. They should throw it out as unreliable and not touch dubious evidence. End of story.

Yet C&V concur with Stefanoni's findings on the larger contributors identified as the victim and Sollecito.

This is the definite (:)) opposite of dismissal of evidence by the Rome experts.
 
Darth Rotor said:
John: is it your belief that chain of custody of the evidence was violated or broken?

If so, did the Knox legal team raise that objection.

If so, what was the ruling?
Click to expand...

The bra clasp piece of evidence has been retrieved from the crime scene 46 days after it's initial discovery. The police did an additional search of the crime scene after another solitary piece of "damning" evidence had been discredited, while the defendants were already in jail.
The clasp has been collected from another area of the room then where initially noticed and photographed. The room, together with the entire crime scene got completely trashed in the meantime by multiple police teams. It's not documented in any way how did the bra clasp change position or who handled it during that month and a half period of time.

Of course defence teams are aware of it. In fact the info above is part of Raffaele Sollecito's appeal motion. They argue the evidence is invalid because of the errors in it's securing and collection.

The appeal judge ordered independent experts to probe the validity of that evidence also "with respect to possible contamination". In the report which they filed a month ago they agree with the defence, pointing out errors in "inspection, collection and handling" of the bra clasp. They are going to testify on Monday, presenting their findings in court.
 
LondonJohn said:
Do people discussing the Eurozone debt crisis on economics internet forums feel compelled to email European leaders or the EBC to pass on their views? What a strange question for you to have asked......
Click to expand...

Yes, I would think they do. The constituents let their elected representatives know what their opinions are on the issues. That's how a democracy works.
Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for moderated thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
piktor said:
If evidence on the clasp is dismissed because it is contaminated, why do C&V discuss Stefanoni's findings on the clasp at all. They should throw it out as unreliable and not touch dubious evidence. End of story.
Click to expand...

They did exactly what the court asked them to do. They tried to redo the tests, found no DNA or any human cells. Then they reviewed the documentation.

piktor said:
Yet C&V concur with Stefanoni's findings on the larger contributors identified as the victim and Sollecito.
Click to expand...
There's no question that there is his Y-haplotype on the graph that Stefi mailed them. The question is what was there really on the clasp, and how did she arrived at her findings.

For me it does look more like a dismissal:

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.
 
piktor said:
If evidence on the clasp is dismissed because it is contaminated, why do C&V discuss Stefanoni's findings on the clasp at all. They should throw it out as unreliable and not touch dubious evidence. End of story.

Yet C&V concur with Stefanoni's findings on the larger contributors identified as the victim and Sollecito.

This is the definite (:)) opposite of dismissal of evidence by the Rome experts.
Click to expand...


Conti and Vecchiotti were asked to review all aspects of the DNA evidence on the knife and the bra clasp. This would necessarily involve evaluating the accuracy of the testing/interpretation, as well as evaluating the circumstances of their identification, collection, handling, transportation and storage.

You seem to be suggesting that merely because the independent experts address the DNA interpretation/identification, this somehow indicates that they (Conti/Vecchiotti) believe that contamination is not a significant possibility (and significant to the point of inadmissibility of the DNA findings). I would suggest that your argument is completely specious and incorrect. The independent DNA report is unequivocal in its opinion that the significantly high possibility of contamination of the bra clasp (and the knife, for that matter) - caused by totally improper methods of identification, collection, handling, transportation, storage and testing - render any actual test results invalid.

I strongly hold the view that many pro-guilt commentators - including you, by the looks of things - are in for a big surprise regarding the court discussion, conclusions and rulings around the independent DNA report. I am being utterly objective when I say, with high confidence, that by the end of the court discussions, the ruling will be that neither the knife nor the bra clasp have any validity as evidence in this case.
 
"Journalists there assume they're wiretapped"

Nina Burleigh, author of a new book about the case speaks on MSNBC. Very interesting insights about media - judiciary interactions in Italy.
 
Hi everyone,
Babie Nadeau has a new article out, and she writes of this:
What complicates the Kercher murder case more than anything else, if that’s possible, is the third person convicted of the murder, Ivory Coast native Rudy Guede. To be sure, Guede is hardly a reliable witness—traces of his fingerprints, DNA, feces, and semen were found at the crime scene in ample quantity—but he is the only person to admit being with Kercher the night she was killed. The problem for Knox and Sollecito is that he also says they were there.
Click to expand...

Link:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...t&utm_medium=Twitter&utm_source=SNS.analytics

Does Barbie Nadeau know something that you nor I do not?
Rudy Guede left ample quantity of his semen in Meredith Kercher's bedroom?

Hmmmm,
RWVBWL
 
piktor said:
If evidence on the clasp is dismissed because it is contaminated, why do C&V discuss Stefanoni's findings on the clasp at all. They should throw it out as unreliable and not touch dubious evidence. End of story.

Yet C&V concur with Stefanoni's findings on the larger contributors identified as the victim and Sollecito.

This is the definite (:)) opposite of dismissal of evidence by the Rome experts.
Click to expand...

Another question I have based on this weird statement here. If C&V simply confirmed Stefanoni's findings, why is she threatening to sue them now for slander?

You can't make this stuff up!
 
Last edited:
RWVBWL said:
Hi everyone,
Babie Nadeau has a new article out, and she writes of this:


Link:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...t&utm_medium=Twitter&utm_source=SNS.analytics

Does Barbie Nadeau know something that you nor I do not?
Rudy Guede left ample quantity of his semen in Meredith Kercher's bedroom?

Hmmmm,
RWVBWL
Click to expand...


Interesting......

Either Latza Nadeau knows something that is not public knowledge (as you say), or she is just demonstrating her usual high degree of rigorous journalistic accuracy in regard to this case. You'd think that three years of being paid for articles about this case might mean that she could get her facts straight, wouldn't you? And if she can't even get her facts straight, then what value her "opinions"?
 
Katody Matrass said:
Frank Sfarzo in his recent blogpsot wrote
How about suing Conti & Vecchiotti, too?

Well, it seems his insight is not failing him:

Forensic scientist threatens to sue after her work on Meredith Kercher murder is attacked in Amanda Knox appeal report

:D
Click to expand...


Well, well, well. So La Stefanoni has chosen the "come out fighting" approach. She will live to regret that choice, in my view.

Here's something interesting from the Guardian article (my bolding):

"I am angry about the false statements in this report and ready to come to court to highlight the past record of these experts," she told the Observer. "I am also looking into taking legal action against them. What international DNA protocols are they talking about? The Italian police is a member of the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI), while they are not."

"We followed the guidelines of the ENFSI, theirs is just a collage of different international opinions," said Stefanoni.
Click to expand...


How curious it is to see Stefanoni making such claims. After all, the Conti/Vecchiotti report makes explicit reference to the European Crime Scene Management Good Practice Manual - issued by..... you've guessed it...... the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI)! The DNA report states that Stefanoni (and her "crack" team) failed to follow numerous standard procedures and protocols from this manual (and all the others they referenced) in their identification, collection, handling, transportation, storage and testing of the knife and bra clasp.

This attempt by Stefanoni to defend herself against Conti's/Vecchiotti's allegations is a near-farcical turn of events, and certainly one worthy of a Greek tragedy. My prediction is that Stefanoni will go down in flames over this whole issue, and I further predict that the prosecution/police will start to turn on each other in last-ditch efforts to salvage their reputations. Aside from the main outcome of the appeal process - the entirely correct acquittals of Knox and Sollecito - I think there could be a somewhat entertaining (if ultimately tragic) sideshow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom