Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[MiloMinderbinder]

I wish I had as much confidence as you do. I'm a science junkie Milo and I have been studying the processes involved in DNA testing and I seriously doubt that most jury members have the patience to fully understand the nuances beyond being told that the suspect is or isn't a match to a DNA profile.

I get what you're saying, but that's why I also said that the defense needs to be capable of effectively challenging DNA evidence and making sure the jury has a chance to make a reasonable judgment of the evidence.

Also, wasn't the lack of DNA evidence pointing to Knox one of the main reasons she was ultimately freed?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

sloppy work and lack of discovery

I get what you're saying, but that's why I also said that the defense needs to be capable of effectively challenging DNA evidence and making sure the jury has a chance to make a reasonable judgment of the evidence.

Also, wasn't the lack of DNA evidence pointing to Knox one of the main reasons she was ultimately freed?

Milo,

The DNA and other forensic evidence is a complicated story that I have been closely monitoring for over three years. Here is a quick summary: In order for the defense to mount an effective challenge, there has to be full discovery, but the prosecution and the forensic police stonewalled, and the first judge let them get away with it. In the second trial, independent experts were appointed, and there was partial release of information. The independent experts went farther in their criticism of the FP than most expected, but still not far enough IMO. The supreme court of Italy threw out the acquittal. With respect to the DNA evidence they effectively endorsed a lack of discovery and tilted the playing field so heavily in favor of the prosecution, that if every case in Italy now plays by their rules, the defense has almost no chance to challenge DNA evidence, except perhaps in cases where the DNA would be strictly irrelevant to the crime.

It would help if the forensic police were competent, but they don't know what they are doing. Even if one thinks Knox and Sollecito are guilty, one should be up in arms over the quality of the work and the lack of discovery in this case, because sooner or later they will put more innocent people away.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the undiscovered continent

That's not at all what I was getting at.

For the record, I do believe DNA has a legitimate and very useful role in criminal cases. But, it has to be used wisely and fairly in order to be meaningful. The problem, as I see it, isn't with DNA, but with attorneys who will use it and anything else in order to win a case. It's one thing when defense attorneys do it, but it's beyond shameful when prosecutors will lie, cheat, and steal in the name of 'justice.'

I am sorry to have misunderstood. Among the commenters here, you will find a spectrum of opinions as to how competent the lawyers were at the trial of first instance (2009). I happen to believe that the competency of the lawyers was not the most important factor with respect to the forensics; instead, it was the shameful lack of discovery.

 

[MiloMinderbinder]

Milo,

The DNA and other forensic evidence is a complicated story that I have been closely monitoring for over three years. Here is a quick summary: In order for the defense to mount an effective challenge, there has to be full discovery, but the prosecution and the forensic police stonewalled, and the first judge let them get away with it. In the second trial, independent experts were appointed, and there was partial release of information. The independent experts went farther in their criticism of the FP than most expected, but still not far enough IMO. The supreme court of Italy threw out the acquittal. With respect to the DNA evidence they effectively endorsed a lack of discovery and tilted the playing field so heavily in favor of the prosecution, that if every case in Italy now plays by their rules, the defense has almost no chance to challenge DNA evidence, except perhaps in cases where the DNA would be strictly irrelevant to the crime.

It would help if the forensic police were competent, but they don't know what they are doing. Even if one thinks Knox and Sollecito are guilty, one should be up in arms over the quality of the work and the lack of discovery in this case, because sooner or later they will put more innocent people away.

That is essentially how I remembered this happening, and I agree that the prosecution and police were either were incompetent or committed malpractice. And, I do agree that for an effective defense, the prosecution needs to provide full discovery.

But, in general, that's not a DNA issue. That's a fairness and corruption issue surrounding the use of evidence.

 

[acbytesla]

Who's to say the girls weren't drinking one night and Meredith didn't spill her drink in Filomenia's room. Lot's of drinks have some sort of fruit juice in them. Amanda could have stepped in it or like Chris said sneezed etc. Would these be live cells ? Either way I don't think guilters should be posting in comment sections telling readers that it's blood but they do just to get people who don't know any better on their side. Dirty pool just like the PLE and the pink photo.

They weren't "live" cells Grey Fox. Briars simply doesn't understand this. Were they "year old" sloughed off skin cells? Probably not, well absolutely not. (Amanda had only lived in the house for 40 days). But they could have been deposited to this spot the day before the murder, or 30 days before the murder, or by a technician two days later, there is absolutely no way to know.

As for why the spot fluoresced, we will never know. What we do know is that the TMB test revealed it NOT to be blood.

 

[MDDVS]

They weren't "live" cells Grey Fox. Briars simply doesn't understand this. Were they "year old" sloughed off skin cells? Probably not, well absolutely not. (Amanda had only lived in the house for 40 days). But they could have been deposited to this spot the day before the murder, or 30 days before the murder, or by a technician two days later, there is absolutely no way to know.

As for why the spot fluoresced, we will never know. What we do know is that the TMB test revealed it NOT to be blood.

From my understanding it wasn't even a footstep but a shapeless blob. Is that right?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

From my understanding it wasn't even a footstep but a shapeless blob. Is that right?

That is my understanding, but I don't believe that a photo was ever made public.

 

[acbytesla]

Who's to say the girls weren't drinking one night and Meredith didn't spill her drink in Filomenia's room. Lot's of drinks have some sort of fruit juice in them. Amanda could have stepped in it or like Chris said sneezed etc. Would these be live cells ? Either way I don't think guilters should be posting in comment sections telling readers that it's blood but they do just to get people who don't know any better on their side. Dirty pool just like the PLE and the pink photo.

They weren't "live" cells Grey Fox. Briars simply doesn't understand this. Were they "year old" sloughed off skin cells? Probably not, well absolutely not. (Amanda had only lived in the house for 40 days). But they could have been deposited to this spot the day before the murder, or 30 days before the murder, or by a technician two days later, there is absolutely no way to know.

As for why the spot fluoresced, we will never know. What we do know is that the TMB test revealed it NOT to be blood.

 

[GreyFox]

So could it be a drink she spilled ? Couldn't it have been tested to determine if it was? I would think the defense would have tested it unless it's more garbage submitted by the PM to (persuade)the general public but not used in court ?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the possibility of blood vs. proof that something is blood

So could it be a drink she spilled ? Couldn't it have been tested to determine if it was? I would think the defense would have tested it unless it's more garbage submitted by the PM to (persuade)the general public but not used in court ?

I don't see how the defense could compel the FP to test it. Yet in any case, the consensus among forensic scientists presumptive tests indicate the possibility of blood but that confirmatory tests are necessary before one concludes that something is blood. One disturbing possibility is that confirmatory tests were done and were negative but the results were disappeared.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't see how the defense could compel the FP to test it. Yet in any case, the consensus among forensic scientists presumptive tests indicate the possibility of blood but that confirmatory tests are necessary before one concludes that something is blood. One disturbing possibility is that confirmatory tests were done and were negative but the results were disappeared.

Maybe it's just that I believe in Amanda's innocence but I don't think so.

The Scientific Police conducted two tests. The first test "Luminol" demonstrated that the blob could be blood as well as other substances. The second test demonstrated that it wasn't blood and therefore must be one of the other substances that Luminol reacts to. You can't just ignore the results of the TMB test just because. If for example the Scientific Police had doubts about the negative results of the TMB test it would be incumbent upon them to to perform the more conclusive and confirmatory test and if and only if the results of that test were positive, would it be reasonable to discount the negative TMB test. However, without that test, one must conclude that there is no way to determine what substance caused the Luminol to glow and it is wrong for the prosecution to continue to speculate that it was blood.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not continuing actually made sense

You can't just ignore the results of the TMB test just because. If for example the Scientific Police had doubts about the negative results of the TMB test it would be incumbent upon them to to perform the more conclusive and confirmatory test and if and only if the results of that test were positive, would it be reasonable to discount the negative TMB test. However, without that test, one must conclude that there is no way to determine what substance caused the Luminol to glow and it is wrong for the prosecution to continue to speculate that it was blood.

I agree. If the TMB assay had come back positive, as it did for Rep. 199, then the FP would probably move on to a confirmatory assay (they were slow to do this with Rep. 199 however). Given that the TMB was negative, it is likely that they discontinued further testing for that reason. RoseMontague, however, suggested otherwise one time.

 

[MiloMinderbinder]

Sorry to do this, but does anyone here seriously believe that the evidence demonstrates that Knox was the killer?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the TOD is the key

Sorry to do this, but does anyone here seriously believe that the evidence demonstrates that Knox was the killer?

Not me. And beyond that, the TOD suggests that Amanda and Raffaele would not have had time to get messed up and murder Meredith.

 

[acbytesla]

Sorry to do this, but does anyone here seriously believe that the evidence demonstrates that Knox was the killer?

No, I think the evidence clearly demonstrates that Rudy Guede was Meredith's killer.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Who's to say the girls weren't drinking one night and Merideth didn't spill her drink in Filomenia's room. Lot's of drinks have some sort of fruit juice in them. Amanda could have stepped in it or like Chris said sneezed etc. Would these be live cells ? Either way I don't think guilters should be posting in comment sections telling readers that it's blood but they do just to get people who don't know any better on their side. Dirty pool just like the PLE and the pink photo.

They have elevated luminol to the status of a definitive rather than presumptive test for blood, which is ridiculous. They rely on a bubble of forensic ignorance to protect this belief.

The DNA in these samples is more puzzling than incriminating. There is no obvious explanation, and any specific hypothesis, whether incriminating or not, is pure speculation. My preferred speculation is that the DNA came from dirty gloves. They performed the luminol tests and swabbed the results at the very end of the day, after spending many hours handling all kinds of things at the crime scene.

 

[MiloMinderbinder]

No, I think the evidence clearly demonstrates that Rudy Guede was Meredith's killer.

That's what I thought as well, which is why I asked the question. I know some people refuse to believe that Knox is innocent and I was wondering if there are diehards on this thread arguing for her guilt.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the need to change gloves

The DNA in these samples is more puzzling than incriminating. There is no obvious explanation, and any specific hypothesis, whether incriminating or not, is pure speculation. My preferred speculation is that the DNA came from dirty gloves. They performed the luminol tests and swabbed the results at the very end of the day, after spending many hours handling all kinds of things at the crime scene.

Good point. Stefanoni's views on how often gloves need to be changed is well out of the mainstream.

 

[acbytesla]

That's what I thought as well, which is why I asked the question. I know some people refuse to believe that Knox is innocent and I was wondering if there are diehards on this thread arguing for her guilt.

They come and go. Look back through the thread, Recently Briars, Cuki, Coulsdon, Sherlock and Machiavelli have argued in this forum that Amanda and Raffaele were involved to varying degrees.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

A Response to the Court of Cassation's report

That's what I thought as well, which is why I asked the question. I know some people refuse to believe that Knox is innocent and I was wondering if there are diehards on this thread arguing for her guilt.

The Court of Cassation seems to believe that they are guilty. Luca Cheli has written a critical review of their decision.