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

[toto]

evidence is not about scientifc realities, .

Surely this is wrong?

 

[GreyFox]

The Hellmann&Zanetti-appointed experts; not the 'independent' experts.

And, Hellmann & Zanetti are, by definition, no longer regarded as impartial.

Funny how you talk about Hellmann now but neither you or that crooked S.O.B Mignini were crying foul before the first appeal. If Hellman was so bad/impartial why didn't we hear the Masonic logic before the first appeal ? Why only after his ruling . And if an Italian court has judges on the take as well as their own experts, then how can anyone trust any verdict coming from your court system.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach 1 seems to be posting more out of fear and desperation than with logic or information.

.. fear and desperation ?!

Bill, you are a paranoid.

 

[Machiavelli]

I find this reversal of the burden of proof and reasoning quite amusing. So "any DNA finding is itself contamination by definition", so from this point of view the finding of Meredith's DNA comes from contamination. The interesting part then is how the prosecution doesn't have to "provide an explanation about a mechanism that describes the event and document the probability of its occurrence". In other words, the prosecution doesn't have to show that this contamination event is related with the crime. We just have to assume that for some strange reason, when there are many other possible routes of contamination. It is the defense who must do the providing of the mechanism.
(..)

What are the many other routes of contamination?

 

[Grinder]

Thanks for all the great posts on the DNA, they've been really informative. I'm amazed at the anti-science posting - are the independent experts aware of how much they are being criticised by sources close to the prosecution? If not, someone should let them know



That is quite an odd infection analogy that you're using - and wouldn't be considered by any doctor or scientist. If you want a medical analogy, I would probably use infection control. Hospitals now have very strict infection control policies because we know that when it comes to transmitting infections 'anything is possible' - and if you're working with vulnerable patients (analogy with LCN DNA), the policies in place are far more extensive and have to be much more closely followed. If none of the basic standards of infection control are followed, you'll never be able to find out the exact source of an infection outbreak as anything can happen - and if it is possible for it happen, at some time it probably will.

If a vulnerable patient was subject to the infection control standards that were as shoddy as the standards used to collect the DNA, I might consider starting them on some broad spectrum antibiotics, regardless of whether they were showing acute signs of an infection

Nice.

I would say that Mach would argue that the patient isn't really sick unless you can show how he got the bug. The family of the patient couldn't successfully sue the hospital, if there was severe illness or death, by showing that the hospital didn't follow proper protocol. They would have to prove that the improper instituted safeguards resulted in the disease. They would also have to have investigated the process immediately on the entering of the hospital by the patient.

If, in fact, Mach is correct that not following scientific standards is no problem for Italian law then he is making a case for an extradition hearing here.

I wonder what would happen in Italy if a policeman took evidence home and the change of custody was broken, would it still be good because no one could prove that the cop put drugs into the evidence? Would the defense be chided because the lawyer didn't drive to the policeman's house and check his truck?

Even if the defense made mistakes any reasonably fair judicial system would try to correct the finding and seek the truth.

 

[GreyFox]

But I think you can see the oddity, the non-correspondence of this last example. In fact, the doctor / infection example points out exactly the difference between the example, and the proposing of a contamination scenario.
In fact, if the doctor commences an infection treatment, it means he has clinical evidence of infection. That is, it means precisely he has a proof that infection exists.
The detalis about the exact time and event, could be investigated or remain unknown, but the details are secondary insofar as the infection has been already proven, independently from this information.

A quite different thing it would be if the doctor had no evidence at all that any infection is ongoing or ever occurred.
In a case whete you may have have no clinical indicators, except, maybe, only the possible information about how the person got infected... Well, in that case, when you don't have anything but that information... with no information, you have no event.

In the Kercher DNA case (and in Sollecito's DNA on the clasp), the factual element is the finding of the DNA; if you don't have any contamination scenario that is credible, meaning you can explain this by offering a probable explanation based on a factual element (that is: information about a certain event that would itself cause that specific contamination event to be a very probable consequence of it), well if you don't have this you don't have anything to argue contamination. Even a child understands this. There is no need to ask a scientist about something that is elementary logic. "Everything is possible" cannot be an answer. There should be no need to argue this.



1. If you prove the contamination occurred, then proving the exact way in which it occurred, becomes irrelevant. If you did not prove the contamination, then you need to at least prove the mechanism.

2. The logical procedure, following the above statement, now is: a) make a list of the possible number of ways; b) assess whether among this ways there is one which is probable (and calculate the probability).

Oh...You mean like how C&V played the handling of the bra with dirty gloves using the video the prosecution presented themselves DOH !!
By your own words...The bra's evidence gone !!!

 

[Grinder]

I find this reversal of the burden of proof and reasoning quite amusing. So "any DNA finding is itself contamination by definition", so from this point of view the finding of Meredith's DNA comes from contamination. The interesting part then is how the prosecution doesn't have to "provide an explanation about a mechanism that describes the event and document the probability of its occurrence". In other words, the prosecution doesn't have to show that this contamination event is related with the crime. We just have to assume that for some strange reason, when there are many other possible routes of contamination. It is the defense who must do the providing of the mechanism.

If the reasoning by Machiaveli is not a blatant reversal of the burden of proof I don't know what is.

Mach is just playing games with words. If there is dirt on a shirt the shirt became dirty. If there is DNA on a shirt, the shirt is dirty. Therefore; DNA is dirt.

Also, Mach doesn't fully understand the difference between dirt and contamination. Or doing science properly and following Italian law.

 

[Machiavelli]

That is quite an odd infection analogy that you're using - and wouldn't be considered by any doctor or scientist. If you want a medical analogy, I would probably use infection control. Hospitals now have very strict infection control policies because we know that when it comes to transmitting infections 'anything is possible' - and if you're working with vulnerable patients (analogy with LCN DNA), the policies in place are far more extensive and have to be much more closely followed. If none of the basic standards of infection control are followed, you'll never be able to find out the exact source of an infection outbreak as anything can happen - and if it is possible for it happen, at some time it probably will.

If a vulnerable patient was subject to the infection control standards that were as shoddy as the standards used to collect the DNA, I might consider starting them on some broad spectrum antibiotics, regardless of whether they were showing acute signs of an infection

But a vulnerable patient (a patien with reduced immunitary defence) is not a fitting comparison. Because, the point here is the rarity of the contaminating agent.
In general, a patient with low defense is exposed to infection, meaning a generic infection by some common agent.
But the patient is not going to be infected by on specific peculiar variant of the anthrax virus only possessd by a Russian military laboratory.

Here you are not talking about 'contamination' in general.
You are talking about how Sollecito's DNA could have contaminated a metal surface of a bra clasp inside Meredith's room, and how Kercher's DNA could have contaminated the blade of a knife that belongs to Sollecito's apartment.
Sollecito's DNA and Kercher's DNA are an extremly rare product. They are much more rare than polonium 210 and it's extremly difficult to have a transfer of a microscopic amount from one microscopic source (where was depositated in a microscopic amount) to another item (this would be 'tertiary' transfer, something that statistically just doesn't occur).
The theory is simply crazy from a statistic vewpoint.

 

[Diocletus]

But a vulnerable patient (a patien with reduced immunitary defence) is not a fitting comparison. Because, the point here is the rarity of the contaminating agent.
In general, a patient with low defense is exposed to infection, meaning a generic infection by some common agent.
But the patient is not going to be infected by on specific peculiar variant of the anthrax virus only possessd by a Russian military laboratory.

Here you are not talking about 'contamination' in general.
You are talking about how Sollecito's DNA could have contaminated a metal surface of a bra clasp inside Meredith's room, and how Kercher's DNA could have contaminated the blade of a knife that belongs to Sollecito's apartment.
Sollecito's DNA and Kercher's DNA are an extremly rare product. They are much more rare than polonium 210 and it's extremly difficult to have a transfer of a microscopic amount from one microscopic source (where was depositated in a microscopic amount) to another item (this would be 'tertiary' transfer, something that statistically just doesn't occur).
The theory is simply crazy from a statistic vewpoint.

What's so rare about Meredith Kercher's DNA? 105 out of Stefanoni's 155 Egrams show Meredith Kercher's profile. Her DNA was all over the crime scene and the lab. If there was to be an instance of lab contamination, I would actually expect it to show Meredith Kercher's DNA.

For that matter, Sollecito's DNA is common enough in the evidence collection and certainly was to be found in the cottage. I think I can see it on the rubber gloves that were used to pick up the clasp. The other guys whose, DNA is on the clasp, on the other hand . . . I'm not so sure about them.

 

[MDDVS]

What are the many other routes of contamination?

You're kidding right?

 

[MDDVS]

Mach is just playing games with words. If there is dirt on a shirt the shirt became dirty. If there is DNA on a shirt, the shirt is dirty. Therefore; DNA is dirt.

Also, Mach doesn't fully understand the difference between dirt and contamination. Or doing science properly and following Italian law.

My point is that if we assume his premisse "DNA is contamination", then it doesn't make sense that the defense must prove the mechanism whereas the prosecution doesn't as this reverses the burden of proof. If everything is contamination, by his own logic "the mechanism must be proven", then the prosecution must prove it, otherwise there was no contamination. His logic is self-contradictory and circular.

 

[snook1]

Mach's persistance is noteworthy and should be recognized but his opinions and objectivity needs upgrading, ASAP. Asking for routes of contamination? Really? Where was he when the whole world was watching and laughing at Stefanoni's sloppy work?

It's amazing how the Italian courts just can't let this one go. It really is. After what happened at the appeal (C&V report) there shouldn't be any, even brief, discussion about the knfie and the bra clasp.

 

[Grinder]

My point is that if we assume his premisse "DNA is contamination", then it doesn't make sense that the defense must prove the mechanism whereas the prosecution doesn't as this reverses the burden of proof. If everything is contamination, by his own logic "the mechanism must be proven", then the prosecution must prove it, otherwise there was no contamination. His logic is self-contradictory and circular.

I wasn't disagreeing with you.

Mach would say that the prosecution explained how the DNA contaminated the knife by saying it was used to kill Meredith.

He wants the defense to say exactly how it got on (contaminated) the knife.

The PGP believe that knife was used and they believe Amanda and Raf used it so they demand that they be convinced another route was more likely but since they are 100% sure there is no more likely way.

Now if the knife had been found, transported and tested properly (to international standards or probably Italian standards) I would agree with him. Even if they had sent the knife to another lab it would be better evidence. If the records showed proper negative controls that would be more convincing.

Of course if the knife fit the murder and the outline that too would be more convincing.

 

[Machiavelli]

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:

Who released the photo?
The question itsef is wrong; it should be 'who released the photos'. Because it was not the release of a photo we are talking about. It was the release of a package of about 30-40 photos at least. I don't recall the number exactly but it was many tens.
They were not released to a newspaper.
As we found out years ago (now I don't remember what page it was, maybe on Dempsey's blog) the photo set was released to a photo agency (a British one if I recall correctly).
The Daily Mirror (I think that was the tabloid's name) simply bought the photos. And picked up one that was suitable to make their graphic cover and make up a story, just for sale.

So, in fact, the first thing that you shold point out and emphasize (if you were honest and not propaganda activists) is that nobody ever 'released a photo to a newspaper': you should point out that release in fact occurred in at least a two-stage process: it was a set of photos released, not a picture; and not to a newspaper, but to a press photo agency. The decision about which photo to publish and how to use it, therefore, has nothing to do with the person/s who released the photo.

Now the subsequent question: who released the set of pictures to the photo agency, obviously cannot be answered.
Because that set of photos was depositated at the preliminary investigation office and even before that it was accessed by lawyers from all parties (Lumumba, Kerchers, apartment owners, defendants). And therefore, it was not secret.
Whas it a police officer who sold the pictures set for money? Was it a clerk's office employee? Was it a lawyer (or someone among their teams) or a family member? Was it a PR firma like Gogerty Marriott itself?
It's impossible to tell.
Many of these people could have done this without violating any law.

What does not make sense, it is to attribute the leak to the prosecution. This is simply the everyday documentation leak in Italy which is the consequence of the fact that the system is not protected. Whenever information is depositated into a preliminary investigation file, it is leaked. Always.
But above all, what it does not make sense is to figure that the purpose of the leak could be to influence the Perugian court (btw, the picture was never published in Italy); or the public opinion anywhere. The idea that this could be the purpose of the leak, or that the tainting of judgement could be the effect, this is the nonsense.
This is the part of the reasoning which is foolish and nonsense.
I was quite astonished by the fact that some non-Italians apparently failed to see how nonsense this theory is.

 

[Machiavelli]

What's so rare about Meredith Kercher's DNA? 105 out of Stefanoni's 155 Egrams show Meredith Kercher's profile. Her DNA was all over the crime scene and the lab. If there was to be an instance of lab contamination, I would actually expect it to show Meredith Kercher's DNA.

No Kercher's DNA was not 'all over the lab'. The lab was clean and 100+ tests from other items were performed over the six days before the knife was texted.
Moreover, no contamination from Kercher's DNA occurred in the several hundreds of other tests.
And, negative controls did exist; and they showed, in fact, no contamination issue.

For that matter, Sollecito's DNA is common enough in the evidence collection and certainly was to be found in the cottage. I think I can see it on the rubber gloves that were used to pick up the clasp.

You can see Sollecito's DNA on the rubber gloves used to collect items?

You can see Sollecito's DNA got on those gloves that were new and put on the first time when they were already inside the murder room? So you can see Sollecito's DNA in the murder room?

I suppose you can also see Sollecito's DNA on the floor and abundant everywhere spattered in some kind of substance in the rest of Kercher's apartment. Where it was never found (despite the 20+ samples collected from the floor).

 

[Machiavelli]

You're kidding right?

What are the many other routes of contamination?

(are they probable?)

 

[MDDVS]

I wasn't disagreeing with you.

Mach would say that the prosecution explained how the DNA contaminated the knife by saying it was used to kill Meredith.

He wants the defense to say exactly how it got on (contaminated) the knife.

The PGP believe that knife was used and they believe Amanda and Raf used it so they demand that they be convinced another route was more likely but since they are 100% sure there is no more likely way.

Now if the knife had been found, transported and tested properly (to international standards or probably Italian standards) I would agree with him. Even if they had sent the knife to another lab it would be better evidence. If the records showed proper negative controls that would be more convincing.

Of course if the knife fit the murder and the outline that too would be more convincing.

Yes, if it was proper evidence then we wouldn't be having this discussion. The problem is that it isn't proper evidence. So you can't use it to prove the crime and say the crime proves it's good evidence, at the same time.

 

[Antony]

But a vulnerable patient (a patien with reduced immunitary defence) is not a fitting comparison. Because, the point here is the rarity of the contaminating agent.
In general, a patient with low defense is exposed to infection, meaning a generic infection by some common agent.
But the patient is not going to be infected by on specific peculiar variant of the anthrax virus only possessd by a Russian military laboratory.

Here you are not talking about 'contamination' in general.
You are talking about how Sollecito's DNA could have contaminated a metal surface of a bra clasp inside Meredith's room, and how Kercher's DNA could have contaminated the blade of a knife that belongs to Sollecito's apartment.
Sollecito's DNA and Kercher's DNA are an extremly rare product. They are much more rare than polonium 210 and it's extremly difficult to have a transfer of a microscopic amount from one microscopic source (where was depositated in a microscopic amount) to another item (this would be 'tertiary' transfer, something that statistically just doesn't occur).
The theory is simply crazy from a statistic vewpoint.

Machiavelli, this is justice turned on its head. You are demanding that the defence and Knox/Sollecito supporters demonstrate how contamination occurred (in spite of the fact of publicly-available video showing them handling evidence with visibly-dirt gloves), yet you accept no obligation to demonstrate how the DNA traces ended up on the items in the course of the crime, including how this could have occurred in the absence of all other relevant traces.

Others have pointed out the principle of burden of proof. Do you accept, or not, that the prosecution have the onus of proving their case - which includes eliminating the possibility of contamination?

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach's persistance is noteworthy and should be recognized but his opinions and objectivity needs upgrading, ASAP. Asking for routes of contamination? Really? Where was he when the whole world was watching and laughing at Stefanoni's sloppy work?

It's amazing how the Italian courts just can't let this one go. It really is. After what happened at the appeal (C&V report) there shouldn't be any, even brief, discussion about the knfie and the bra clasp.

'My persistence' will be just the persistence of the Florence court.
As it was in the ruling of the Supreme Court (as I did anticipate).

Your 'argument' is actually the showing of your lack of arguments.

You can entertain and laugh as long as you like, but you don't have any plausible contamination scenario.

You don't have it. This is all.
The two 'experts' (C&V) only showed their corruption or dishonesty, but above all the lack of any possible argument. This was also absolutely clear to everybody.

 

[MDDVS]

What are the many other routes of contamination?

(are they probable?)

There are many possible routes of contamination. There's a reason proper protocols exist in the first place. All the other routes of contamination are orders of magintude more probable than the one proposed by the prosecution.