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

[snook1]

Yes, from what I understood, it was indeed sample 36I that was tested and the result was Amanda Knox's DNA and starch (and it had to be tested twice??). From what I understand also, there are no other DNA tests ordered regarding the knife and the RIS will now work on the report due by the end of October and will present their findings on Nov 6th.

It's just that there are many people saying different things at the moment and we don't have a real credible confirmation.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Apparently they did not.

Here's a link to la Repubblica:

http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2013/10/11/news/omicidio_meredith_su_coltello_indizi_del_dna_di_amanda-68410733/

This piece makes specific reference to the issue with Amanda's (new) DNA on the knife as low copy number, being the same reason why the knife was rejected as containing Meredith's DNA.

Thanks!

It's hard to see how the prosecution can continue much past Nov 6th, if this is what it is.

Oh, yes they can. Lumumba will be the deciding point of evidence. If Amanda's defence will play it with the same lack of plan or commitment as they shown in the first trial I can easily see a conviction coming.

 

[RandyN]

I don't see that a failure confirm Kercher's DNA is categorically exculpatory.

Why couldn't the first finding be correct and the second finding be correct. There was Kercher DNA on the knife where Stefanoni detected it in a small quantity and there wasn't DNA on the knife where the samples used in the recent test was done.

Of course, the failure to be able to duplicate Stefanoni's results is a strong point for the defense especially given the questionable nature of the collection and testing of the knife. But there is already a very strong case that the defendants are innocent and that hasn't done anything to halt a prosecution spanning many years. Is the case for the defense that much stronger with the reported result (albeit reported so far in a questionable way).

I agree Dave. So far I see nothing except for the opinion of C & V that ends the knife ploy the prosecution has played with. Even though no dispute remains that this knife doesnt match all the wounds ....it could match one wound... and even though the knife does not match the sheet imprints...there could be several knives involved...and even though no one has ever proved this knife was carried by anyone from RS to the cottage... that little problem seems irrelevant to Italian courts.

I await the song and dance about how we must consider the original finding at 36b of the great Stefanoni...and never forget her work was confirmed by the great Biondo. (her boss...shhhhh) and everyone forget that all standards were ignored including sample size, kit and machine design, special lab requirements including being in a whole separate building for LTN DNA samples. Easily reviewable contamination control records...that no one seems able to lay hands on...and on and on...

It will never end this easily.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, from what I understood, it was indeed sample 36I that was tested and the result was Amanda Knox's DNA and starch (and it had to be tested twice??). From what I understand also, there are no other DNA tests ordered regarding the knife and the RIS will now work on the report due by the end of October and will present their findings on Nov 6th.

It's just that there are many people saying different things at the moment and we don't have a real credible confirmation.

It would appear surprising if sample 36I didn't contain some male DNA, albeit at very low template levels. That's because the Conti/Vecchiotti analysis showed very small traces of male haplotypes (part of the overall DNA mix on 36I that C/V deemed too small to usefully try to identify).

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a tiny DNA contribution from Sollecito on 36I as well. I guess we'll see.

Incidentally, I guess that a standard pro-guilt response to today's news will be something like "Yeah, so Knox's DNA on 36I only goes to further suggest that she held the knife during the murder; when you add it to Meredith's DNA on the blade, it only strengthens the prosecution case if anything."

But of course the answer to that is that the presence of Meredith's DNA on the knife has already been utterly discredited by the C/V report (which, don't forget, is still a valid and authoritative piece of expert evidence). Their view is that the way in which the knife was stored, transported and tested by Stefanoni and her chums was laughably incompetent and contrary to pretty much every vital protocol of low template DNA identification. And on top of that, the alleged amount of Meredith's DNA was so ridiculously small that it was unable to be retested - thus violating yet another absolutely mandatory rule for low template DNA identification.

In summary, therefore, what we're left with is a knife on which the victim's DNA presence is not credible or reliable, which contains the possible presence of one of the suspect's DNA (when this suspect was known to have used the knife in a totally innocent context anyhow), and which has the overall stench of contamination, shocking forensic malpractice, and an inept rush to judgement.

 

[LondonJohn]

PS: The relevant table from the C/V analysis:

http://knoxdnareport.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/cvtablep021.png

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't see that a failure confirm Kercher's DNA is categorically exculpatory.

Why couldn't the first finding be correct and the second finding be correct. There was Kercher DNA on the knife where Stefanoni detected it in a small quantity and there wasn't DNA on the knife where the samples used in the recent test was done.

Of course, the failure to be able to duplicate Stefanoni's results is a strong point for the defense especially given the questionable nature of the collection and testing of the knife. But there is already a very strong case that the defendants are innocent and that hasn't done anything to halt a prosecution spanning many years. Is the case for the defense that much stronger with the reported result (albeit reported so far in a questionable way).

Judge Massei covers this, although IMO Massei comes to the wrong conclusion. Massei concedes that Stafanoni did the right thing with a one-off test: the test could either find the identity of the donor, or determine what the specimen was, not both. They required separate tests.

So at best, at best, there is some trace Kercher biological material that is not suspicious in and of itself unless it is blood. And the act of cleaning, as alleged by the PLE, would get rid of non-blood DNA before it would get rid of the blood.

Then when C&V review Stefanoni's work, the trace could have been ry-bread.

Now that the third trial has had at it, and things remain unchanged, what is it about THAT knife that is remotely incriminating? That's the question.

The failure to find anything related to Kercher this time around rules out that knife. Face it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Thanks!


Oh, yes they can. Lumumba will be the deciding point of evidence. If Amanda's defence will play it with the same lack of plan or commitment as they shown in the first trial I can easily see a conviction coming.

Lumumba? How on earth can Lumumba speak to guilt (or innocence for that matter) about the murder itself?

For me, if there's a conviction at the end of November, then the fix is really in.

 

[Mary_H]

I don't see that a failure confirm Kercher's DNA is categorically exculpatory.

Why couldn't the first finding be correct and the second finding be correct. There was Kercher DNA on the knife where Stefanoni detected it in a small quantity and there wasn't DNA on the knife where the samples used in the recent test was done.

Of course, the failure to be able to duplicate Stefanoni's results is a strong point for the defense especially given the questionable nature of the collection and testing of the knife. But there is already a very strong case that the defendants are innocent and that hasn't done anything to halt a prosecution spanning many years. Is the case for the defense that much stronger with the reported result (albeit reported so far in a questionable way).

Like Randy, I also agree, dave. With so many people already persuaded the knife is "thought to the murder weapon" (as the media keep repeating endlessly) and that Meredith's DNA was found on it at one time (albeit fraudulently), for them this will be simply more confirmation that Amanda was the one holding the knife.

 

[billyryan]

Thanks!


Oh, yes they can. Lumumba will be the deciding point of evidence. If Amanda's defence will play it with the same lack of plan or commitment as they shown in the first trial I can easily see a conviction coming.

Respectfully Katody;I don't think so there is only one way this case is going now,the supreme court wanted Aveillo heard one last test on the knife,the all came back in Amanda and Raffaele's favour,this is now a world famous case with a movie to be made at some stage,what's really in it now for any judge to send these two innocent defendants to prison

 

[RandyN]

So Machiavelli, who did release the "bloody bathroom" picture? It wasn't the one taken by the Nikon that was in the case file. Here is the picture of him taking that photo with his little camera:

[imgw=640]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=5160[/imgw]


ETA: And where arer the rest of the photos taken by that liffle camera durring an official visit to the crime scene?

A picture truly does say more than a thousand or in Yummi/Mac case 10,000 words.

Notice dr Mignini in full bunny suit taking crime scene photos...such a multi-talented man...oh and look at dr Stefanoni struggling with her mask in the background...I see this mask issue a lot in the ICSI photos...is it the vanity of not having ones face completely covered or do the noses simply not fit? We see it on the guy ...well one of many guys handling the bra clasp...Stefanoni is always is several states of dis-uniform, and then there is this guy who doesn't seem to get it either...oh wait that is just an Italian crime TV show...never mind. But wait...in the top photo is one of the guys giving the secret Mason hand signal or is he gonna give Mignini the rabbit ears?

 

[Rolfe]

What was the point of all this if they didn't actually open the knife? This is completely batsqueak bonkers.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

A picture truly does say more than a thousand or in Yummi/Mac case 10,000 words.

Notice dr Mignini in full bunny suit taking crime scene photos...such a multi-talented man...oh and look at dr Stefanoni struggling with her mask in the background...I see this mask issue a lot in the ICSI photos...is it the vanity of not having ones face completely covered or do the noses simply not fit? We see it on the guy ...well one of many guys handling the bra clasp...Stefanoni is always is several states of dis-uniform, and then there is this guy who doesn't seem to get it either...oh wait that is just an Italian crime TV show...never mind

It's not quite the same thing, but we have to use disposable respirator masks at work. We have to undertake periodic "face-fit" tests where we put the mask on and do various things like walking on the spot and talking and so on, with instruments fitted to determine whether the seal against the face is complete. The main thing it does is teach you how tight the straps have to be and how to shape the nose-piece to fit properly. We have to pass these tests and the results go in our training records.

Looks to me like nobody ever did anything like that with these jokers.

Rolfe.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I don't see that a failure confirm Kercher's DNA is categorically exculpatory.

Why couldn't the first finding be correct and the second finding be correct. There was Kercher DNA on the knife where Stefanoni detected it in a small quantity and there wasn't DNA on the knife where the samples used in the recent test was done.

Of course, the failure to be able to duplicate Stefanoni's results is a strong point for the defense especially given the questionable nature of the collection and testing of the knife. But there is already a very strong case that the defendants are innocent and that hasn't done anything to halt a prosecution spanning many years. Is the case for the defense that much stronger with the reported result (albeit reported so far in a questionable way).

One cannot improve on the truth, which is that this knife was not the murder weapon. IMO everyone with a trace of common sense already knew that. That is why the prosecution objected to further tests during the first appeal, especially tests that would open up the handle of the knife and sample the area where blood would likely have seeped, had it actually been a murder weapon.

At the same time, the prosecution wanted to protect the myth that this knife might have been the murder weapon. Their hope (and the fear of the defense) was that whatever contamination produced the 2007 result (Sample 36B, with Meredith's genetic profile) came from mishandling by police, rather than the lab, in which case some of Meredith's DNA might actually be on the knife itself. But experts who have looked at the e-gram for 36B think it is most likely the result of lab contamination involving amplified PCR product from another test. The e-gram shows a complete profile, but at a very low level, rather than a partial profile with some markers missing or attenuated, which would be more typical of a sample with a very low starting template.

 

[snook1]

Guilters are persistent in suggesting that Amanda's DNA did not come from 36I but from "previously untested sample" that weighs 2 picograms while 36I weighs 120 picograms and Vogt is saying that "another profile is (still) being studied".

 

[Mary_H]

There is no more proof for a drug fueled sex party, whatever that is, than there is for a satanic rite.

I really don't understand why it is so important as whether Mignini did or did not at some point use the precise terms satanic, rite, or satanic rite.

I agree, Grinder. When I asked Machiavelli, he said that Mignini wants people to stop claiming that he ever said Satan or the devil simply because it isn't true. I think they may be right that there is no documentation of Mignini saying those specific words with regard to this case.

There also may be truth to what Machiavelli claims about Mignini referring to "themes," keeping in mind, as Diocletus pointed out with his post about bobbing for apples, Halloween can mean different things to different people. Apparently Mignini referred to the ancient Celtic celebration of Samhain, which traditionally marked the end of summer and has nothing to do with the way some people celebrate Halloween in some countries today.

That's the source of the problem, I think. When Mignini said Halloween (which he did say), the English reporters concluded he was referring to the occult. In the first weeks after the murder, many papers printed the pictures of Meredith dressed as a vampire, with blood dripping down her chin. (The blood was removed from those pictures later.) That sort of thing is connected with Halloween in our minds, but it may not have been connected with Halloween in Mignini's mind.

The question remains why he did not raise a stink about this five+ years ago.

The more important issue is the concept of the three people he believes murdered Meredith getting together for the crime or just getting together.

There is no evidence that the three were ever together before they brought Rudy into the court room, as Raf pointed out at the time.

Arguing over the exact terms used seems hugely secondary to showing that they ever were together. Where is the video the police collected showing them walking around that evening and night. It is impossible to believe that the three were able to avoid being captured on video during the day of the first.

As you correctly state, there is no more evidence for a drug-fueled sex party or for anything in Claudia Matteini's report than there is for a Satanic rite. Personally, I am very interested in finding out more about this file they kept on Amanda's "psychology," indicating she was sexually attracted to Meredith. This is another proposition they have no evidence of, but it appears to have fueled the accusations, as well as Machiavelli's (and probably Mignini's) belief in guilt.

 

[LondonJohn]

Guilters are persistent in suggesting that Amanda's DNA did not come from 36I but from "previously untested sample" that weighs 2 picograms while 36I weighs 120 picograms and Vogt is saying that "another profile is (still) being studied".

As far as I can tell, this is wrong for two reasons:

1) The Carabinieri did not even have the knife to test: they had the swab taken by Conti & Vechiotti containing sample 36I

2) The Carabinieri were tasked specifically and exclusively with testing sample 36I. They were not asked to test any other sample from the knife, nor were they given any other sample(s) from the knife to test.

 

[Mary_H]

The lying by the forensic scientists on behalf of Mignini's satanic case ended with Stefanoni,there is nothing on the knife to link it or Amanda or Raffaele to Meredith Kercher's murder,fool me once ,shame on you,fool me twice ,shame on me.The Italian press and the British press were fooled by these cretins Mignini and Stefanoni,the Italian press is too cowed to turn on these framers,I still hold out a smidgen of hope that the British press will take vengeance on those who deceived them

Any truth in the rumour that Mignini Stefanoni Machiavelli and Andrea Vogt are seeking asylum in Syria

I know the four magic words for the High court need to hear

NOT GUILTY **** YE

I think Mignini will write a letter to another Italian newspaper denying he ever claimed the knife played a part in Meredith's murder

You're on a roll today, Billy.

 

[snook1]

LondonJohn, that really sounds logical. I do wonder though why they are unable to come to this conclusion andthink there is some mysterious testing still going on.

 

[RoseMontague]

As far as I can tell, this is wrong for two reasons:

1) The Carabinieri did not even have the knife to test: they had the swab taken by Conti & Vechiotti containing sample 36I

2) The Carabinieri were tasked specifically and exclusively with testing sample 36I. They were not asked to test any other sample from the knife, nor were they given any other sample(s) from the knife to test.

Hopefully the folks that believe they have yet to test 36i will wait patiently another few years for the real test result to come in.

 

[RoseMontague]

Personally, I am very interested in finding out more about this file they kept on Amanda's "psychology," indicating she was sexually attracted to Meredith. This is another proposition they have no evidence of, but it appears to have fueled the accusations, as well as Machiavelli's (and probably Mignini's) belief in guilt.

Yes, I want to hear the reasoning on this as well.