Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Rolfe]

I have not read the details of the expert reports on the DNA testing, and I'm hoping people can clarify a couple of points for me.

The bra clasp. My impression from the discussion was that in fact C&V actually proposed that Raffaele's DNA was not provably on the clasp, as such. Rather, that there was such a mix of DNA resulting in such a mix of alleles, that a suspect-centred approach to interpretation could pretty much find evidence of anybody it liked. Hence the remark that Vecchiotti's or even Hellman's profiles might be found there. If this is what they were saying, then asking about how the clasp might have become contaminated with Raffaele's DNA is totally missing the point.

The knife. This was one of the few items on which Stefanoni over-rode a "too low" message on the analyser, and cranked up the sensitivity way beyond the capabilities of the assay, as I understand it. To detect DNA at that level, reliably, requires very specialist LCN working conditions, which her lab simply doesn't possess.

The point has been made that Meredith's DNA didn't appear as a contaminant in other samples analysed around the same time, including samples from other cases. So how come it managed miraculously to drift on to that knife, of all things? This argument ignores the use of the very high sensitivity examination which seems to have been virtually unique to that item. You'd need to have access to the assay details of all these other items at that same level of sensitivity to know that Meredith's DNA wasn't present, at the tiny amount alleged was found on the knife. So far as I know, no such evidence has been presented to the court. It seems to me entirely possible that Meredith's DNA was ubiquitous enough in that laboratory that a tiny trace might have been detected in many assays, if the sensitivity was cranked up high enough. This danger is exactly why such stringent precautions are needed for valid LCN work, precautions not employed when the knife was analysed.

Do we have any evidence at all that Meredith's DNA was not detectable at LCN levels on anything else it shouldn't have been on? I don't think we do.

This is my understanding of the evidence, as I've seen it discussed. I'd be grateful if anyone can clarify these issues for me.

Rolfe.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I have not read the details of the expert reports on the DNA testing, and I'm hoping people can clarify a couple of points for me.

The bra clasp. My impression from the discussion was that in fact C&V actually proposed that Raffaele's DNA was not provably on the clasp, as such. Rather, that there was such a mix of DNA resulting in such a mix of alleles, that a suspect-centred approach to interpretation could pretty much find evidence of anybody it liked. Hence the remark that Vecchiotti's or even Hellman's profiles might be found there. If this is what they were saying, then asking about how the clasp might have become contaminated with Raffaele's DNA is totally missing the point.

The autosomal profiles are inconclusive because of the mix, but there is a distinct Y-haplotype profile compatible with Raffaele's ( among other weaker/incomplete male profiles).

 

[Rolfe]

The autosomal profiles are inconclusive because of the mix, but there is a distinct Y-haplotype profile compatible with Raffaele's ( among other weaker/incomplete male profiles).

OK, I understand. So either there was actual Sollecito DNA there, or DNA of someone else with the same y-chromosome. Did they take any steps to ascertain whether anyone else whose DNA might have been in the cottage had the same y-chromosome?

My own (possibly simplistic) view is that Rudy Guede was the sole attacker, because no matter how incompetent the investigation, I can't quite see how they could have missed DNA from another attacker (or attackers) if there had been such people. Thus I'm not a fan of the idea that this y-haplotype might have been from an as-yet-unidentified assailant who just happened to be a match for Raffaele. Too big a coincidence as well.

Raffaele had been in the cottage, visiting the girls. Given that the bra clasp was kicking around for such a long time, and the amount of DNA it seems to have accumulated in that time, and the lack of isolation of the murder room itself, I don't have a problem as regards contamination in that way being the most probable explanation for the y-haplotype. However, the sheer convenience of this finding, in the context of the way the investigation was proceeding and the circumstances of the clasp being collected, makes me a bit suspicious that there could be more to it than that.

Rolfe.

 

[shuttlt]

Now consider that this is THE ONE thing you have....the only thing you have that links RS to this crime. Is that enough?

I don't want to get into an argument about whether they did it or not, or whether there is enough evidence to prove they did it or not. I'll only end up defending positions that are stronger than I really hold.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't want to get into an argument about whether they did it or not, or whether there is enough evidence to prove they did it or not. I'll only end up defending positions that are stronger than I really hold.

Fair enough. I appreciate that you are doubtful, but rather incline to the possibility of guilt. It's a respectable intellectual position.

You mentioned the time of death question. That was what convinced me, utterly, that Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with it - on the assumption that they have a decent alibi for around 9.00 to 9.30. It certainly convinced me that the findings of the first trial were barking mad, in that a time of death of 11.40 seems to have been determined.

What is your position on that angle? If it is indeed the case that the medical evidence shows Meredith must have died before about 9.30pm, how do you deal with that?

Rolfe.

 

[shuttlt]

What is your position on that angle? If it is indeed the case that the medical evidence shows Meredith must have died before about 9.30pm, how do you deal with that?

If it stands up it comes pretty close to demonstrating their innocence, which all the refuted DNA findings in the world isn't going to do. The best result for this case would be a conclusive one going in either direction. Having them go free, but leaving doubt in the back of peoples minds that perhaps they might be guilty after all would be crap for them and crap for the Kerchers. I'm disappointed that it doesn't look like this is what we're going to get.

 

[smkovalinksy]

If it stands up it comes pretty close to demonstrating their innocence, which all the refuted DNA findings in the world isn't going to do. The best result for this case would be a conclusive one going in either direction. Having them go free, but leaving doubt in the back of peoples minds that perhaps they might be guilty after all would be crap for them and crap for the Kerchers. I'm disappointed that it doesn't look like this is what we're going to get.

I hope they do focus on that TOD being in the 9:30 range, which does point to their innocence. As well as many other factors.

There are of course many who are simply too invested in their guilt to ever admit that they are probably innocent, even if Hellman were to argue that robustly. But: It is no matter. I think they will be happy simply to be free, and living their private lives. There comes a point where you have to simply block out what strangers are saying about you.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Just so everyone knows, shuttlt has said in the past that he has no real interest in this case, he just likes to debate. He has no real goal of reaching a conclusion. It is almost like he is rehearsing for a debate class here.

 

[JREF2010]

I have not read the details of the expert reports on the DNA testing, and I'm hoping people can clarify a couple of points for me.

The bra clasp. My impression from the discussion was that in fact C&V actually proposed that Raffaele's DNA was not provably on the clasp, as such. Rather, that there was such a mix of DNA resulting in such a mix of alleles, that a suspect-centred approach to interpretation could pretty much find evidence of anybody it liked. Hence the remark that Vecchiotti's or even Hellman's profiles might be found there. If this is what they were saying, then asking about how the clasp might have become contaminated with Raffaele's DNA is totally missing the point.

The knife. This was one of the few items on which Stefanoni over-rode a "too low" message on the analyser, and cranked up the sensitivity way beyond the capabilities of the assay, as I understand it. To detect DNA at that level, reliably, requires very specialist LCN working conditions, which her lab simply doesn't possess.

The point has been made that Meredith's DNA didn't appear as a contaminant in other samples analysed around the same time, including samples from other cases. So how come it managed miraculously to drift on to that knife, of all things? This argument ignores the use of the very high sensitivity examination which seems to have been virtually unique to that item. You'd need to have access to the assay details of all these other items at that same level of sensitivity to know that Meredith's DNA wasn't present, at the tiny amount alleged was found on the knife. So far as I know, no such evidence has been presented to the court. It seems to me entirely possible that Meredith's DNA was ubiquitous enough in that laboratory that a tiny trace might have been detected in many assays, if the sensitivity was cranked up high enough. This danger is exactly why such stringent precautions are needed for valid LCN work, precautions not employed when the knife was analysed.

Do we have any evidence at all that Meredith's DNA was not detectable at LCN levels on anything else it shouldn't have been on? I don't think we do.

This is my understanding of the evidence, as I've seen it discussed. I'd be grateful if anyone can clarify these issues for me.

Rolfe.

I agree with your comments, thats how I'm understanding the Judge Hellman view also.

The bra clasp contamination is proven by the cornucopia of other DNA found on the clasp.

The knife failing as evidence is because there was the no blood/no cleaning = not the murder weapon.

<The other facts just make the articles weaker-> low RFU, unable to retest/confirm, doesnt match the wounds, doesnt match the bedsheet pattern, doesnt make sense they would put it back in the drawer, doesnt make sense they wouldnt use one from the cottage drawer, No other evidence to support they were at the cottage that night, not a picogram of evidence the two were in Merediths bedroom, articles rotted/rusted=proof mistakes were made.......enter others here... >

 

[Rolfe]

If it stands up it comes pretty close to demonstrating their innocence, which all the refuted DNA findings in the world isn't going to do. The best result for this case would be a conclusive one going in either direction. Having them go free, but leaving doubt in the back of peoples minds that perhaps they might be guilty after all would be crap for them and crap for the Kerchers. I'm disappointed that it doesn't look like this is what we're going to get.

It stands up. Honestly, it's a no-brainer. How the prosecution managed to obfuscate the issue as they did at the first trial is a mystery to me. Unless Meredith carried her uneaten pizza back to the cottage with her, microwaved it, and ate it after she got home, she was dead by 9.30.

Add that to the absence of any evidence that she lived beyond that time, and the evidence (the missing phone call) that she had come to harm before about 10.00 pm, and the extraordinarily tenuous nature of the forensic evidence linking Knox and Sollecito to the crime, and I really can't see any reasonable doubt as regards innocence.

The talking points of the guilters seem all to have been refuted. There's no proof at all that the break-in was staged in the first place, and certainly no proof that Knox and Sollecito staged it. Finding the DNA of both Meredith and Amanda in the bathroom they shared is quite unremarkable. I saw someone posting the other day about their "freshly mixed blood" being in the bathroom but as far as I can see this is nonsense. Someone is also going on and on about Amanda having confirmed "with her own lips" that her blood wasn't present on her tap the previous day. All she seems to have said is that the bathroom was clean the previous day. That smear of blood is small enough not to be noticed, and in any case, small enough that it would still be enough to regard the bathroom as "clean" to certain values of the word, if the rest of the room was in reasonable condition.

That footprint could belong to any one of scores of men. I don't see why it can't be Rudy Guede's, myself. But even if it isn't Rudy's, that doesn't prove it's Raffaele's if there's nothing else to incriminate him. It's not a fingerprint, for goodness sake. (I think it's Rudy's - I picked the one that turned out to be Rudy's from the blind-testing poll thread.)

The so-called bloody footprints in the hall seem to be nothing of the sort - just amorphous luminol blobs. Several pathology experts gave their view that the circumstances of Meredith's death were compatible with a single attacker. I don't rate Amanda's idiotic behaviour and statements at all. There's too much precedent for people saying and doing extraordinarily stupid things when questioned about serious crime to put any weight on that at all.

Have I missed anything?

Basically, moving the time of death later than about 9.30 requires an extraordinary suspension of the laws of physiology. Even discussing it is special pleading at its most blatant. It would only be legitimate to have that discussion if there were extremely compelling evidence that Meredith must have been killed by someone who could not have reached the cottage until later. There is simply no such evidence. Nothing but speculation and argument from incredulity.

Rolfe.

 

[shuttlt]

Just so everyone knows, shuttlt has said in the past that he has no real interest in this case, he just likes to debate. He has no real goal of reaching a conclusion. It is almost like he is rehearsing for a debate class here.

Thanks for warning people Bruce. I wouldn't want the JREF to get filled up with people who are interested in discussion and debate for it's own sake. Who knows what might happen, threads might go on and on circling around and around the same stuff. Much better to get as emotionally involved as possible, it makes ones thinking so much clearer and makes it so much easier for people to admit the strengths and weaknesses in one another's arguments.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Seconded. Further, I wouldn't get too worked up. They've only got two or three more weeks of self delusion left.

Then, if they were raised properly, they'll have to apologize.

I never get worked up by Pilot's posts. His intentions are crystal clear. Entertained is a better word when it comes to the stintpilotfarmer train wreck.

Much more can be said about the leaders that he so diligently reports back to.

 

[JREF2010]

Just so everyone knows, shuttlt has said in the past that he has no real interest in this case, he just likes to debate. He has no real goal of reaching a conclusion. It is almost like he is rehearsing for a debate class here.

thats interesting, I have no interest in debating. I find the "discussion of the Amanda Knox case" aspect more interesting, not the debate in and of itself. Of course discussions lead to many debates......

Mostly, I am mesmerized by the case and how it is slowly unfolding, the mystery and all the other aspects associated with this case. The abundance of information including translations and legal case files is something I have never seen the like of before.

I find the Judges reports very peculiar in comparison to the US. I like the report idea, but I realize how much is fiction, only thoughts and not really proof. But at the same time the US the Judges don't have to give an explanation, that then allows the Appeal process.
Neither are perfect and so many cases are so different in the details.

And where there are humans, there is a potential for skullduggery/ underhanded dealings....

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Thanks for warning people Bruce. I wouldn't want the JREF to get filled up with people who are interested in discussion and debate for it's own sake. Who knows what might happen, threads might go on and on circling around and around the same stuff. Much better to get as emotionally involved as possible, it makes ones thinking so much clearer and makes it so much easier for people to admit the strengths and weaknesses in one another's arguments.

My message was mostly for Randy. He had mentioned that you ignore his arguments. I figured he should know where you stand now rather than 50 posts down the line.

There is no real gift in being able to argue on any side of any debate never looking for any real answers. It is nothing more than a strange hobby.

 

[Rolfe]

The bra clasp contamination is proven by the cornucopia of other DNA found on the clasp.

Oh yes, I was just trying to establish whether there was proof that Raffaele's DNA was even on the clasp in the first place, rather than simply sufficient mixed alleles to pick out enough of his to call it a profile. Katody Matrass has pointed out that the y-haplotype findings are a reasonable assumption for his DNA actually being there.

The knife failing as evidence is because there was the no blood/no cleaning = not the murder weapon.

That too. I was struck by the starch issue as I saw it discussed even before the C&V report came out. If there was no detectable blood on the knife, then the detection of Meredith's DNA (assuming it must have originated from blood) must be artefactual.

The fact that (apparently) kitchen knives in the cottage were not tested, and no other knives in Raffaele's flat were tested, but somehow the investigators were mysteriously drawn to this single knife even though it didn't match either the bloodstained imprint or the wounds, and hit the jackpot - oh, come on!

I was simply trying to address the issue of the actual finding of a complete profile of Meredith, by Stefanoni. If this was the only item that was tested at LCN quantities, then stating that other items were not so contaminated is meaningless. You'd have to know that they didn't show Meredith's profile at LCN levels, and I don't believe that evidence has been presented.

I appreciate that the prosecution expert did say that he'd examined additional tests and there was no sign of contamination by Meredith's DNA. I find this outrageous, and I'm not quite sure why the defence didn't go ballistic. It implied that he had had access to evidence which was not available to the defence and not presented in court. For his statement to be acceptable, the court would have had to have seen all these other tests, and the defence given the opportunity to see if they really did show what the prosecution claimed. This is actually amazing. Did it really happen?

Rolfe.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Thanks for warning people Bruce. I wouldn't want the JREF to get filled up with people who are interested in discussion and debate for it's own sake. Who knows what might happen, threads might go on and on circling around and around the same stuff. Much better to get as emotionally involved as possible, it makes ones thinking so much clearer and makes it so much easier for people to admit the strengths and weaknesses in one another's arguments.

I don't think Fisher means that others are emotionally invested or ought to be; I think he means rather that for many there is a concern that an actual injustice of a considerable degree of gravity has occurred, and philosophically and intellectually, they seek to illuminate this, and want to see it righted.

 

[shuttlt]

thats interesting, I have no interest in debating. I find the "discussion of the Amanda Knox case" aspect more interesting, not the debate in and of itself. Of course discussions lead to many debates......

Can I just add that Bruce is off base with this being a debate class for me. It's not. It's just that "who did it" isn't my interest. There are interesting things in the case for their own sake. In general though, I find the contradictory views that different people can hold about essentially the same facts interesting. If that seems more pointless to Bruce than other peoples interests in the thread, then I'm sorry. I don't think posters here require a sheepdog to protect them from straying from what ever Bruce thinks they ought to be doing.

 

[shuttlt]

There is no real gift in being able to argue on any side of any debate never looking for any real answers. It is nothing more than a strange hobby.

I don't argue on any side of a debate. I am crap at and try to avoid arguing for things I don't believe in.

 

[shuttlt]

My message was mostly for Randy. He had mentioned that you ignore his arguments. I figured he should know where you stand now rather than 50 posts down the line.

I've said several times over the past couple of days that guilt/innocence doesn't interest me. It's not my purpose to trick people into arguing with me.

 

[JREF2010]

Have I missed anything?

Basically, moving the time of death later than about 9.30 requires an extraordinary suspension of the laws of physiology. Even discussing it is special pleading at its most blatant. It would only be legitimate to have that discussion if there were extremely compelling evidence that Meredith must have been killed by someone who could not have reached the cottage until later. There is simply no such evidence. Nothing but speculation and argument from incredulity.

Rolfe.

And the point that most convinces me of the ~9:30 murder time stamp is the cell connection to Merediths phone at 10:13pm.

Meredith made 4 cell calls early Nov 1 from inside the cottage, all the calls connected using the same tower.

At 10:13pm the tower used was a different one. This to me proves her cell phone had left the cottage.

So logic has to be either:

A) the murderer took off, out of the cottage with her stolen cell phone.

B) Meredith went outside at 10:13pm and allowed her cell phone to receive a text.

Massei Report- very poorly done on the cell tower info, making numerous mistakes (or the translation was wrong)

[350] As previously explained, the following and last [item] highlighted by the Wind [phone record] printout concerns the traffic registered at 22.13.29 hours on 1 November 07, where the cell providing the coverage was ..30064 on Strada Vicinale Ponte Rio Monte la Guardia, whose signal, as the on-the-spot measurements carried out by Chief Inspector Latella prove, can be received both at the level of Meredith’s bedroom window and in the courtyard of the cottage on Via della Pergola 7
Meredith's Vodafone-
In the cottage used base transceiver stations .25620 and .25621 for the previous calls she dialed inside. For the one at 22:13 it used 30064 which covers the courtyard of the cottage

14:31:43 2:31 PM MK, UK phone, Nov 1 GPRS G 25621 Piazza Lupattelli Via della Pergola 7
15:01:58 3:01 PM MK, UK phone, Nov 1 G 25621 Piazza Lupattelli Via della Pergola 7
15:48:56 3:48 PM MK, UK phone, Nov 1 G 25621 Piazza Lupattelli Via della Pergola 7
15:55:03 3:55 PM MK, UK phone, Nov 1 G 25621 Piazza Lupattelli Via della Pergola 7
15:55:57 3:55 PM MK, UK phone, Nov 1 G 25621 Piazza Lupattelli Via della Pergola 7

20:56:00 8:56 PM MK, UK phone, Nov 1 > Mom F No data (Phone memory only, no data on Wind Co. print out)
Neither section listed a tower and did not say no
data
21:58:00 9:58 PM MK, UK phone, Nov 1 > voicemail 901 F No data (Phone memory only, no data on Wind Co. print out) ?

22:00:00 10:00 PM MK, UK phone, Nov 1 > UK Bank, ABBEY F No data (Phone memory only, no data on Wind Co. print out) ?
22:13:19 10:13 PM MK, UK phone, Nov 1 < GPRS, TEXT MESSAGE 9 G 30064 Strada Vicinale Ponte Rio Monte la Guardia
Park S. Angelo near garden