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

[Charlie Wilkes]

If Rudy's DNA was found on the knife from the sample found by C&V it would have been damning as Vogt stated, not withstanding your issues with bigfoot.

It would have helped the guilters cling to their idiotic belief that this knife was the murder weapon, but it wouldn't have altered the big picture, which is that this knife is not plausible as the murder weapon for all kinds of reasons.

In any case, it didn't come to pass.

How do you know when she formed her opinion and when FOA was formed? Curt went to Marriott within days. Candace was pitching her book by Feb 2008. Given she was a lowly blogger in Seattle with limited Italian skills what do you think she sold Penguin?

If you think Marriott had some influence over Candace, that's your affirmative claim and the ball is entirely in your court.

I can tell you what I know as a charter member of FOA. The first meeting took place in August 2008, at Chris and Edda's kitchen table. They were there along with Tom Wright, Mike Heavey and myself. We discussed what we were going to do to help the public see this case for what it is, made plans for a website, etc. Marriott was not present, and nor was Candace.

Meanwhile Candace had been blogging about the case since November 2007 and she and I were in touch from early 2008. By that point, she saw exactly what I saw - the accusation was absurd and the evidence was contrived, but most of the public was dumb enough to believe it, and the media loved it because it made for a good story.

After I developed a relationship with Chris and Edda, Candace tapped me many times to answer questions, but not because she wanted my opinion much less my approval or guidance on what to write. She turned to me because I had the case files - the crime scene photos, the video, the DNA results.

And you know something? Hardly any other reporter ever did ask about what was in those files, even though I was constantly mentioning them and offering to help clarify facts. They would contact me with questions about FOA, what kind of relationship I had with Amanda's family, etc., but Candace was pretty much alone in caring about the facts as shown by the police evidence.

There were a couple of exceptions later on down the road, the guy at CNN in particular.

You can twist it all you want but the DNA sample of Meredith was never found to be starch. It is a significant error or propaganda statement. The fact that there was starch on a bread knife means less than nothing. The knife could have been cleaned completely and then used to cut something starched based.

I'm not twisting anything. Meredith's DNA is what came out of the sequencer after they mixed up their chemicals in the lab and bypassed the quality controls ("too low, too low, too low...") Nobody has ever said otherwise. The question has always been, why did Meredith's DNA show up in that test, because starch (and not human tissue) is what they found on the knife when they looked under a microscope. That is not propaganda, and it is not an error. It is a fact no one disputes.

If your claim is that the knife really was the murder weapon, and it was used to cut food after the murder, again, the ball is in your court.

Her misreporting a major point says more about her. Your stubborn refusal to just acknowledge that it is a serious mischaracterization of what happened says a lot about you.

Really? What does it tell you about me? That I'm blind to the truth and I can't see that Rep. 36B proves irrefutably that the knife was the murder weapon? That the absence of human tissue and the presence of food debris is irrelevant to that claim? Is that what you believe?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The six-day war

One of the planks in the PG arguments against DNA contamination is the supposed six-day gap in testing. Let us take as a given that the gap was real. There are several reasons why this gap does not preclude DNA contamination. One, there was a one-day gap in the Farah Jama case and a two-day gap in the Jaidyn Leskie case, yet there was still contamination in both instances. What is so magical about six days? Two, DNA can be found on forensic tools such as fingerprint brushes, and there is no reason to believe that this DNA won't persist unless the tool is cleaned properly (I can think of no reason to believe that the Rome lab has a clue about how to clean its tools). Three, Meredith reference profile was run prior to the six-day gap, from what I have been able to gather. That should have been the last item run, because it was abundant DNA. In response to a question of mine Professor Dan Krane replied, “Was Meredith's DNA processed in the lab before the knife? If so, then I don't accept that six days is sufficient to exclude contamination in the lab. That would just be bad practice, plain and simple." Dr. Theodore Kessis wrote (p. 9), “It must be noted however that contamination errors have been documented where no direct processing link between sample and contaminant have been established, raising the specter that a source of contamination can linger in a laboratory for some time.”

 

[RoseMontague]

Me too, the PGP (who has been proven correct in quite a few issues) at the other forum thread I used to follow is adamant the C&V report is basically null and void.

He's prone to hyperbole so I don't know what the truth is.

I can tell you what Luca said in his article regarding the ISC Motivation...

The Galati appeal had gone so far as to ask that the Conti-Vecchiotti expertise ordered by the court of second instance be declared illegitimate: on this point, the Supreme Court is very clear and while saying that its necessity was poorly motivated, considers such expertise perfectly legitimate from the point of view of law.

 

[Grinder]

Incidentally, amidst all this to-and-fro on the "speck" and Dempsey's claims, an extremely important factor is brought into sharp relief:

One of the internationally-agreed mandatory safeguards when working with low-template DNA is that all tests MUST be repeated (and thus must be repeatABLE) in order to compare at least two different tests for allele stutter/dropout and relative peak heights. This is critical because at these ultra-low quantities there is so much background noise relative to the sensitivity of measuring instruments, and because the amplification process can cause erratic amplification of noise.

Stefanoni (surprise, surprise) chose to base her conclusions on the interpretation of only ONE test of 36I - a test to which she hasn't even yet supplied the raw data or negative controls. This in itself renders the conclusion invalid according to international protocols. And of course this is before one even stops to consider all of the other areas of grotesque malpractice and ineptitude employed by Stefanoni and her inglorious cohorts.

Low-template DNA work is so hyper-sensitive that it is ONLY ever admissible in criminal cases when every mandatory protocol and process has been adhered to. That's why the protocols and processes have been developed. Without strict adherence to each and every one of them, low-template work is unreliable and inadmissible. It's almost laughable (if it wasn't so serious) to observe just how many of these protocols Stefanoni omitted to follow.

Of course at the heart of C&V and the defense experts was the winning argument that protocols weren't followed.

What remains troubling is the ISC stating that in support of the idiotic arguments of Novelli that contamination must be proven. How will the appeal court deal with that mandate from the ISC?

The entire case will most likely hinge on that point.

 

[Grinder]

I can tell you what Luca said in his article regarding the ISC Motivation...

And Luca while informed and Italian isn't an attorney, correct?

Did he deal with the contamination must be proven aspect?

 

[Grinder]

One of the planks in the PG arguments against DNA contamination is the supposed six-day gap in testing. Let us take as a given that the gap was real. There are several reasons why this gap does not preclude DNA contamination. One, there was a one-day gap in the Farah Jama case and a two-day gap in the Jaidyn Leskie case, yet there was still contamination in both instances. What is so magical about six days? Two, DNA can be found on forensic tools such as fingerprint brushes, and there is no reason to believe that this DNA won't persist unless the tool is cleaned properly (I can think of no reason to believe that the Rome lab has a clue about how to clean its tools). Three, Meredith reference profile was run prior to the six-day gap, from what I have been able to gather. That should have been the last item run, because it was abundant DNA. In response to a question of mine Professor Dan Krane replied, “Was Meredith's DNA processed in the lab before the knife? If so, then I don't accept that six days is sufficient to exclude contamination in the lab. That would just be bad practice, plain and simple." Dr. Theodore Kessis wrote (p. 9), “It must be noted however that contamination errors have been documented where no direct processing link between sample and contaminant have been established, raising the specter that a source of contamination can linger in a laboratory for some time.”

I don't think anyone here disputes that the DNA work done by Stefanoni on the knife in particular was not acceptable for any court in the world.

But that has nothing to do with finding starch on the knife

 

[LondonJohn]

Me too, the PGP (who has been proven correct in quite a few issues) at the other forum thread I used to follow is adamant the C&V report is basically null and void.

He's prone to hyperbole so I don't know what the truth is.

In my mind, the descriptors "proven correct in quite a few issues" and "prone to hyperbole", if applied to the same individual, would not make me particularly prone to trust his/her judgement in general...

And on this issue in particular, if (s)he is a pro-guilt commentator, I might be inclined to throw the terms "confirmation bias" and "believing what you want to believe" into the mix

Look - I don't have definitive proof on this issue. But it's abundantly clear to me that a reading of the relevant codes and procedures, coupled with a reading of the Supreme Court motivations in this case, leads to the inexorable, objective conclusion that the only thing the SC has struck out is the Hellmann Court's verdict and reasoning. The evidence/testimony from the Hellmann trial remains on the record and admissible in the new appeal.

There are myriad circumstantial(!) reasons to believe this to be the case. Among the more obvious is the fact that the SC asks for the C/V report to be, in essence, "completed" by testing Vechiotti's 36I swab for DNA. Had C/V been thrown out as evidence, then even the swabbing itself would have needed to have been redone - there would be no sample 36I to work with! Added to this is the clear fact that the SC does not dismiss the C/V report in and of itself - rather, it dismisses the way in which (as it sees it) Hellmann's court unquestioningly adopted the C/V report's conclusions.

Anyhow, until and unless there's clear evidence that the C/V report has been invalidated and ruled inadmissible in the new appeal, I will continue to insist that the only logical inference to be drawn from the available facts is that the C/V report stands in its entirety as a piece of evidence. If so, it's now up to the new appeal court to decide whether it favours the testimony of the prosecution experts (and thus accepts Stefanoni's original results as credible and reliable), or whether it accepts C/V's conclusions (and thus rejects Stefanoni's findings). And when it decides, it had better be able to justify its decision to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court

 

[acbytesla]

One of the planks in the PG arguments against DNA contamination is the supposed six-day gap in testing. Let us take as a given that the gap was real. T

I'm sorry given the duplicitous nature of Stefanoni's behavior, there is no way that I can believe that there was a six day gap. Maybe if Stefanoni presented the EDF files that would confirm that gap, but really, we only have Stef's word on that.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't think anyone here disputes that the DNA work done by Stefanoni on the knife in particular was not acceptable for any court in the world.

But that has nothing to do with finding starch on the knife

Are you now saying that CV didn't find starch on the knife??

 

[LondonJohn]

And Luca while informed and Italian isn't an attorney, correct?

Did he deal with the contamination must be proven aspect?

Here's a reductio ad absurdum to try to illustrate the point:

Suppose Curatolo, when he appeared before Hellmann, has said that God had appeared to him and told him that Knox and Sollecito were definitely involved.

Suppose (for a moment) that the Hellmann court was so religious and gullible that it took this as proof of guilt, and had convicted Knox and Sollecito on this evidence (among other things, even).

The SC might say to Hellmann "You can't use this argument to support conviction. This annuls the conviction, and a new appeal trial must take place".

If that were to happen, the testimony of Curatolo would STILL STAND before the new appeal. The new appeal court would still consider that Curatolo had claimed a divine intervention. They would then be charged with deciding whether or not that was credible/reliable/sane(!) evidence pointing to guilt, or whether to discount it totally.

It's the same with the C/V report. The report and its conclusions stands in its entirety before the new appeal court. It's up to the court to decide how much of the report to accept, and how much to reject.

 

[RoseMontague]

And Luca while informed and Italian isn't an attorney, correct?

Did he deal with the contamination must be proven aspect?

A very well educated Italian yes.

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/c...he-supreme-court-on-the-knox-sollecito-trial/

 

[Chris_Halkides]

must contamination be proven?

And Luca while informed and Italian isn't an attorney, correct?

Did he deal with the contamination must be proven aspect?

The exact mechanism of contamination has yet to be proven in the Farah Jama, Jaidyn Leskie, or Lukis Anderson cases. There was a case in England (the details escape me) where a route of contamination was at least proposed and plausible (it had to do with a particular kind of equipment being reused that should not have been). But I strongly doubt that a mechanism of contamination is determined in the majority of cases. Dr. Donald Riley wrote, “When contamination occurs there is rarely any way to confirm how it happened.” The argument that contamination must be proved suggests an analogy: that doctors should demand that the patient prove the exact moment at which he or she became infected before the doctor commences treatment.

In his 2010 report on the Farah Jama case, Former Australian Supreme Court Judge Frank Vincent wrote (p. 24), “Precisely how it [contamination] may have happened cannot be determined as the deposition of the minute quantity of material involved could have occurred in a number of ways. It is possible to speculate about the probability of transference through various mechanisms, but ultimately pointless to do so.”

 

[RoseMontague]

On Vogt...

Biographical Sketch
Andrea Vogt is an Italy-based author and freelancer...(snip)...

She migrates with her husband and two children between central Italy and the Pacific Northwest each year.

http://www.thefreelancedesk.com/bio.html

 

[yimyammer]

In my mind, the descriptors "proven correct in quite a few issues" and "prone to hyperbole", if applied to the same individual, would not make me particularly prone to trust his/her judgement in general...

And on this issue in particular, if (s)he is a pro-guilt commentator, I might be inclined to throw the terms "confirmation bias" and "believing what you want to believe" into the mix

Look - I don't have definitive proof on this issue. But it's abundantly clear to me that a reading of the relevant codes and procedures, coupled with a reading of the Supreme Court motivations in this case, leads to the inexorable, objective conclusion that the only thing the SC has struck out is the Hellmann Court's verdict and reasoning. The evidence/testimony from the Hellmann trial remains on the record and admissible in the new appeal.

There are myriad circumstantial(!) reasons to believe this to be the case. Among the more obvious is the fact that the SC asks for the C/V report to be, in essence, "completed" by testing Vechiotti's 36I swab for DNA. Had C/V been thrown out as evidence, then even the swabbing itself would have needed to have been redone - there would be no sample 36I to work with! Added to this is the clear fact that the SC does not dismiss the C/V report in and of itself - rather, it dismisses the way in which (as it sees it) Hellmann's court unquestioningly adopted the C/V report's conclusions.

Anyhow, until and unless there's clear evidence that the C/V report has been invalidated and ruled inadmissible in the new appeal, I will continue to insist that the only logical inference to be drawn from the available facts is that the C/V report stands in its entirety as a piece of evidence. If so, it's now up to the new appeal court to decide whether it favours the testimony of the prosecution experts (and thus accepts Stefanoni's original results as credible and reliable), or whether it accepts C/V's conclusions (and thus rejects Stefanoni's findings). And when it decides, it had better be able to justify its decision to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court

Thx, I understand your rationale but if I could rely on logic being used in this case, we would have quit discussing it years ago. Like so many things in this case, I don't understand why this isn't easily knowable from reliable Italian sources. Having said that, I hope you're correct.

I'm not going to waste any keystrokes discussing the PGP from the other forum, its a useless black hole of an endeavor but if you would like to take him on, that thread could use an informed PIP view. The thread pretty much died after being dominated by an overwhelming PGP position effectively shouting down anyone who attempts to post otherwise. Feel free to PM me if you want the site/thread as it would be fun to see someone knowledgeable provide a counterpoint.

 

[LondonJohn]

A quick final clarification (particularly aimed at certain *ahem* pro-guilt commentators):

1) The knife itself was not examined, opened, touched or even physically seen by the Carabinieri last week.

2) Rather, the Carabinieri received - then tested - a SAMPLE taken from the knife by Vecchiotti back in 2011: Sample 36I. They did not - I repeat NOT - receive the knife itself.

3) Vecchiotti's Sample 36I was one of two samples taken by Vecchiotti (the other being 36H) in 2011; both of these were obtained when she bent back the knife blade such that a small gap opened up between the blade and the joint with the plastic handle - a swab was inserted into this gap on either side, resulting in Samples 36H and 36I.

4) The knife handle has NEVER been removed or opened up. The most that was done is the "bending" work described above, conducted by Vecchiotti in 2011. The knife handle was not opened up or removed this week.

Hope that's clear! As you were.....

 

[yimyammer]

A quick final clarification (particularly aimed at certain *ahem* pro-guilt commentators):

1) The knife itself was not examined, opened, touched or even physically seen by the Carabinieri last week.

2) Rather, the Carabinieri received - then tested - a SAMPLE taken from the knife by Vecchiotti back in 2011: Sample 36I. They did not - I repeat NOT - receive the knife itself.

3) Vecchiotti's Sample 36I was one of two samples taken by Vecchiotti (the other being 36H) in 2011; both of these were obtained when she bent back the knife blade such that a small gap opened up between the blade and the joint with the plastic handle - a swab was inserted into this gap on either side, resulting in Samples 36H and 36I.

4) The knife handle has NEVER been removed or opened up. The most that was done is the "bending" work described above, conducted by Vecchiotti in 2011. The knife handle was not opened up or removed this week.

Hope that's clear! As you were.....

Yet another mind-blowing decision. I've seen numerous cases where this is done immediately because its seen as a very reliable way to obtain blood/DNA because its impossible to clean away any that may have seeped into the area covered by the handle

 

[charlatan]

It's the same with the C/V report. The report and its conclusions stands in its entirety before the new appeal court. It's up to the court to decide how much of the report to accept, and how much to reject.

Indeed. Cassation is quite clear that their problem is not with the existence of the C&V report per se, but with Hellmann's 'incomplete' assessment of the totality of the expert testimony and, of course, his failure to direct C&V to complete their analysis of the new trace.

[It] cannot be overlooked that the decision to have expertise falls still in the assessment of merit that this Court cannot criticize.

The judge's decision having to be based on a solid foundation of certainty, the right could not and cannot be disclaimed to operate with better insight in one of the key steps in the collection of evidence, as argued by Sollecito's defense.

Thus the decision is not improper in this place, if not for a profile of inadequate motivation, to proceed to a new survey ...

 

[acbytesla]

A quick final clarification (particularly aimed at certain *ahem* pro-guilt commentators):

1) The knife itself was not examined, opened, touched or even physically seen by the Carabinieri last week.

I'm not really sure the knife really could be "opened" successfully to obtain any DNA that may have "seeped" into the handle. It's a hard plastic handle that is "fused" around the stainless steel blade.Maybe if you cut it open by sawing the middle of the handle. Maybe..

 

[RoseMontague]

I'm not really sure the knife really could be "opened" successfully to obtain any DNA that may have "seeped" into the handle. It's a hard plastic handle that is "fused" around the stainless steel blade.Maybe if you cut it open by sawing the middle of the handle. Maybe..

There is already a gap there, why Stefi would not open the knife or at least test there makes no sense to me. (picture attached)

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm not really sure the knife really could be "opened" successfully to obtain any DNA that may have "seeped" into the handle. It's a hard plastic handle that is "fused" around the stainless steel blade.Maybe if you cut it open by sawing the middle of the handle. Maybe..

I'm not sure that it could actually be opened either. These sorts of cheap knives either have the handle injection-moulded around the tang in one piece, or are a two-part plastic handle that is fused (usually using high-frequency sound fusion) around the tang.

My point was merely that the knife handle HAS NOT ever been opened, contrary to some "reports". And that the Carabinieri did not even have the knife in their possession last week, let alone open the handle...