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

[GreyFox]

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.

For all we know Steffanoni could have swabbed Merideth's hair brush handle rather than the knife blade. Or Rafs tv remote rather than the bra clasp.

Hmmm here's a crazy ideal. Lets look at the edf. files so we can help determine for sure??? Maybe they will help explain why there's no evidence of food in Steffs knife report and there was in C&V's .
Likewise maybe they can help explain all the other guys on Merideth's bra clasp.

MK's DNA didn't all disappear the moment she passed nor did Rafs. How Mach can present it as rare is beyond me.

 

[Machiavelli]

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?

Your problem here seems to be not just with the burden of proof, but also with the concept of all other relevant traces.
It's this subjective judgement of yours what determines your cnclusion.

Actually, I see a lot of relevant traces. Crimes like this one were solved for decades without any DNA evidence.
DNA evidence is actually unnecessary in this case.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

some questions about the 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.

SNIP
Where it was never found (despite the 20+ samples collected from the floor).

What do you mean that the lab was clean? Did they release their cleaning protocols to the defense? What is your source for claiming that the negative controls showed no contamination? Did Novelli examine the EDFs of the negative controls? What is the source for your claim that 20+ samples were collected from the floor?

 

[MDDVS]

Your problem here seems to be not just with the burden of proof, but also with the concept of all other relevant traces.
It's this subjective judgement of yours what determines your cnclusion.

Actually, I see a lot of relevant traces. Crimes like this one were solved for decades without any DNA evidence.
DNA evidence is actually unnecessary in this case.

Yes, crimes like this were solved for decades by obtaining confessions. It's just that the means used to obtain those confessions are regarded as barbaric by civilized people. Personally I classify them as torture.

 

[snook1]

'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.

Clear to everybody? It was clear to the prosecution and to a sad group of people back at TWO other hate sites. The position of the SC is arguable.

There's no need for me to have a contamination scenario. It was out there. Everyone had the pleasure to watch Italian CSI at its best when they were messing this up. It started right there, at Via Della Pergola on Nov 2nd and ended in Stefanoni's lab. It was and still is a mess. Stefanoni's work was heavily criticized by court appointed experts, whether you like it or not. There is no investigation, no charges and no police actions against Conti and Vecchiotti and there never will be. They did their job and confirmed that Stefanoni's job was at best laughable when it comes to the knife and the bra clasp and the famous mop wrapping. Sadly, it wasn't really that funny, beacuse her incompetence resulted in imprisoning of two innocent people and preventing the justice for Meredith to be done back in 2009. And watch out, saying that C&V were corrupted, is a little bit risky when you have nothing on them. And we all know you have nothing.

If we're talking about scenarios - did you or anyone else for that matter, came up with a PLAUSIBLE scenario as to how, why, when Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede killed Meredith Kercher? Remember, plausible, which means based on evidence. I refuse to believe Florence, if convicting, will come up with something readable. We all remember Massei - complete utter mess of a judge and report.

 

[Diocletus]

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.

You have no proof of this whatsoever. You have no proof that there were 100+ tests between November 6 and November 12. You have no proof that there was a five day gap for each machine/process that implicated 36b; it is perfectly possible that 36b was in an extraction batch with Kercher DNA. Even if there are unknown tests performed during some gap, you do not know that they are for other cases. The simple fact is that the prosecution has never proved such a gap.

Moreover, no contamination from Kercher's DNA occurred in the several hundreds of other tests.

How do you know that some of the egrams showing Kercher's profile are the result of contamination? I wouldn't be surprised in the least if they are. In fact, I think that there are other contamination egrams, it's just that we don't know it because they are irrelevant to the outcome of the case, and also, because Stefanoni is hiding egrams that show mixed profiles.

And, negative controls did exist; and they showed, in fact, no contamination issue.

Yes, negative controls did exist. You have no idea what they show. The fact of the matter is that Stefanoni would have produced them if they show that the tests are clean. Since she is hiding them, we can guess what they show.

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

Yes, of course. That stuff on those gloves is just what I think DNA looks like. Prove me wrong.

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?

It looks like she just scrubbed the toilet with those gloves. And by that, I mean the toilet that Rudy used. Or, perhaps she ran them through a mop.

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).

Sollecito's DNA is definitely in the cottage. But, I'm not surprised that those buffoons didn't find it. They aren't good at finding real evidence, just the fake kind.

 

[Dan O.]

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.

Your spin of lies is unfolding Machiavelli. The bloody bathroom photo that the press got was not the one from the case file. A side by side comparison of the two shows this. All of the case file photos come from the Nikon cameras and have distinctive characteristics that set them apart from the photos taken by the pocket camera.

The other part of my post that you are pretending doesn't exist is that the videographer just happened to turn towards the door from Kerchers room and caught the perp with the pocket camera taking the famous photo of the pink bathroom.

Who is this fat perp behind the mask?
[imgw=640]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=5160[/imgw]

 

[davefoc]

The C & V report describes two different kinds of contamination:

Regarding the problem of contamination, the same authors emphasize the substantial difference between the phenomenon of drop-in and what is known as “gross contamination”: while the first refers to the appearance of one or two alleles in a sample originating from unrelated sources, the second refers instead to multiple alleles originating from a single unknown source (and therefore these alleles are dependent events). In this respect, the authors emphasize that the principle risk of (random) contamination is erroneous exclusion, particularly if the contaminant profile masks that of the perpetrator.

For what is called "drop-in" contamination here I see Machiavelli's point. The effect of this kind of contamination is erroneous exclusion. I understand this to mean that the contamination of the sample from random DNA in the environment can mask the data of the principle genetic contributor to the sample.

The claim about the DNA test results on the knife and the bra clasp is that a specific person was identified and not that a specific person was excluded. I take this to mean that to mean that contamination from random genetic sources is an unlikely explanation for the results.

This means that if the DNA test result is the result of contamination is the result of "gross contamination". That means if contamination is the explanation for Kercher's DNA on the knife then at some point Kercher's DNA came into contact with the knife or the sample taken. My understanding of the leaked results of the testing done on the knife is that Kercher's DNA was not identified on a sample taken from where Kercher's DNA was found by the first DNA testing of the knife.

This result suggests that the reason that Kercher's DNA was found on the knife was that "gross contamination" had occurred at some point during the collection or testing process of the first sample. It is also possible that tiny amounts of Kercher's DNA did exist in the exact spot that was sampled for the testing done by Stefanoni and not in the exact spot that was sampled by C & V. Right now it doesn't appear to be knowable which possibility occurred from the data that is publically available on this.

I am not sure that I understand Machiavelli exactly with his regards to his claims that a mechanism has not been shown to exist whereby "gross contamination" of the knife sample could have occurred. But if his claim is that possible mechanisms for "gross contamination" have not been shown to exist then he appears to be wrong on this. The C & V report says this about possible sources of contamination from the lab (quoting from a report by Caddy B., Taylor D.R., Lincare A.M., 2009):

reagents, consumables and laboratory instrumentation can contain low levels of extraneous DNA which may complicate the interpretation of LCN typing results.

If blood or any kind of identifiable human cells on the knife had been found the case that the DNA test results for the knife were strong evidence that something that originated from Kercher's body was on the knife. As it is, the evidence that there was ever something on the knife that originated from Kercher's body is weak at best if it is just seen in light of the reliability problems associated with the testing. When the evidence is seen in the context of this case and all the problems associated with the theory that this knife was involved in the murder I think it is very likely that the there never was any DNA on the knife that originated from Kercher. But even if a tiny amount of Kercher DNA did exist on the knife there are many innocent explanations for this that don't require that the knife was used in the murder of Kercher.

Besides contamination the C & V report also suggests the possibility that small sample sizes can lead to problems whereby the data is misinterpreted. I don't know enough to evaluate this possibility. But it still sounds like a viable possibility to me although I think Kaosium several pages ago seemed to suggest that he didn't think that was what occurred here.

 

[NancyS]

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.

Can you please show me the evidence that DNA transfer is that rare?

For those that do know about DNA transfer, what are the odds of finding random bits of DNA in strange places amongst people that either live together or whose home they've visited? I keep thinking that all it would have taken is too slobbery an Italian cheek kiss greeting - and for Meredith to wipe the saliva from her face and readjust her bra.

 

[Grinder]

Can you please show me the evidence that DNA transfer is that rare?

For those that do know about DNA transfer, what are the odds of finding random bits of DNA in strange places amongst people that either live together or whose home they've visited? I keep thinking that all it would have taken is too slobbery an Italian cheek kiss greeting - and for Meredith to wipe the saliva from her face and readjust her bra.

Or Raf drying his hands on a hand towel that Meredith later used or a dish towel.

Not that Mach cares but the room had been contaminated by the time they returned for the clasp as normal police had been in and out of the murder room moving things about. Raf had by his own admission said he had tried the door and therefore left his DNA on the knob.

If this is the believability of a real court case what must Italian TV crime shows be like?

 

[Antony]

Your problem here seems to be not just with the burden of proof, but also with the concept of all other relevant traces.
It's this subjective judgement of yours what determines your cnclusion.

OK, I'll put the question another way: how, in your view, was the crime committed so that it resulted in a trace of Raff's DNA on the metal hook of the bra clasp, and nowhere else in the murder room? How was the alleged murder knife cleaned so that a speck of Meredith's DNA remained at the tip, but no trace of blood anywhere on the knife? How was this knife involved in the murder when the victim's wounds and the print in blood on the bedsheet at the scene show a different knife?

These are questions you must answer before asking the defence to demonstrate that contamination occurred - particularly when the investigators manifestly did not take precautions against contamination. The fact is that you have no coherent account of the crime at all.

Actually, I see a lot of relevant traces.

This is characteristic of your arguments, Machiavelli. Lots of assertions but no specifics.

Crimes like this one were solved for decades without any DNA evidence.

Well I agree with this. In this case, the solution is straightforward: Guede broke in intending to burgle the house, but was interrupted by Meredith coming home. He killed her in a bungled rape-at-knifepoint attempt, then abandoned his burglary and fled with some money and her phones. All this took place between 9pm and 10:13pm, and is a scenario supported by all evidence at the scene.

DNA evidence is actually unnecessary in this case.

It's ironic that you should make this claim when the prosecution case depends entirely on compromised DNA "evidence", interpreted without any scientific basis.

No, it's not needed, but the DNA evidence when rationally interpreted supports all the other evidence of a lone burglary gone wrong.

 

[Supernaut]

I'd just like to remind everyone that a certain Italian poster (and perhaps one or more others using the account) is intent on maintaining the appearence of making an argument, not actually making one.

This (plainly desperate) hand-waving is meant for the gallery, not as genuine engagement.

I'm sometimes amazed that people can even parse something coherent enough to "argue" with from the verbose gibberish he comes up with.

 

[davefoc]

Can you please show me the evidence that DNA transfer is that rare?

For those that do know about DNA transfer, what are the odds of finding random bits of DNA in strange places amongst people that either live together or whose home they've visited? I keep thinking that all it would have taken is too slobbery an Italian cheek kiss greeting - and for Meredith to wipe the saliva from her face and readjust her bra.

I think random DNA transfer from a specific individual when that individuals DNA constitutes a minuscule proportion of the DNA lying around is rare. Perhaps rare enough that it is not a likely explanation as to how Sollecito's DNA came to be on the bra clasp.

This is a point that I have discussed before and it seems that others may have disagreed with it. I am not sure why. If samples were collected all over Kercher's room how often would a piece of Sollecito DNA be detectable? My guess is almost never. I continue to think that contamination from random DNA lying around in Kercher's room or the apartment that produced a false positive for Sollecito on the bra clasp is unlikely. There was vastly more of other people's DNA in Kercher's room and that apartment.

That doesn't mean I think the positive test for Sollecito's DNA was the result of his contact with the bra during the crime. I think there are two more likely explanations:
1. A gross contamination event occurred. That is a bit of Sollecito's DNA came to be on the sample as the result of contamination in the lab or during the collection process with Sollectio DNA.
2. The DNA test results were flawed because of misinterpretation of the test results.

I also think that other innocent explanations exist for Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp including such things as the fact that Kercher's clothes would have had the opportunity to come into contact with Sollecito's DNA since they were washed in the same house that Knox's clothes were and she had had significant contact with Sollecito.

 

[JREF2010]

Probably not important but the young man used in the test was an amateur climber from Perugia. Not sure how he came to be described as an expert?

you are talking about people who can imagine an unwashed knife that has no blood dna on it as the murder weapon?

 

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by RandyN View Post
Probably not important but the young man used in the test was an amateur climber from Perugia. Not sure how he came to be described as an expert?
you are talking about people who can imagine an unwashed knife that has no blood dna on it as the murder weapon?

Don't think there are many professional rock climbers. He was described as a climbing enthusiast.

It would have been better not using a climbing enthusiast but it is what it is.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I think random DNA of a specific individual when that individuals DNA constitutes a minuscule proportion of the DNA lying around is rare. Perhaps rare enough that it is not a likely explanation as to how Sollecito's DNA came to be on the bra clasp.

Forensic DNA contamination is quite common. It tends to be random and puzzling, and the exact means through which it occurs is seldom clear.

Here's an interesting case:

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...ely-brought-innocent-mans-dna-to-crime-scene/

Raffaele's DNA might have ended up on this article, and this article alone, through a fluke. Given the ritual we see on the video when the cops find it on the floor, it's tempting to infer something more than a random event. No one will ever know.

 

[Mary_H]

Your problem here seems to be not just with the burden of proof, but also with the concept of all other relevant traces.
It's this subjective judgement of yours what determines your cnclusion.

Actually, I see a lot of relevant traces. Crimes like this one were solved for decades without any DNA evidence.

Well, there's "solved" and there's "solved." A lot of people who were wrongly convicted in "solved" cases were later freed by new DNA technology.

DNA evidence is actually unnecessary in this case.

With the exception of the forensic evidence of Rudy, I agree. Without DNA, we have no knife and no bra clasp. The truth of the case is much more obvious without the contrived introduction of these two manufactured items.

P.S. Would you like to reply to this post of mine from yesterday?

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>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.

You have addressed this issue before:

I think it's simply utterly foolish, beyond any sense of reality, to belive the prosecution gave crime scenes to the press.
It is obviously also an unfounded wild claim.
It would be also a complete nonsense to do so, because it doesn't offer absolutely any legal advantage. It would be even more nonsense to publish them in another country, on newspapers which the Perugians will never read.

Yes, the mainstream media themselves are favourite means used by mafia powers and they play a major role in enforcing mafious methods.

PS: Personally, I have an (umproven) suspicion about the person who sold them for money, since a whole set of crime scene room pictures was sold to a UK press photo agency. It was then a British tabloid who bought them and 'picked' the photo they wanted, just to make a selling story.
There was obviously no 'prosecution leaking a picture to influence public opinion'.

Has it occurred to you to wonder why so many people could have done this leaking without violating any law? That is, why "the system is not protected?" Particularly considering what you claim about the mafia using the media in this way?

This tradition of leaking -- to use your word, "always" -- benefits those who make the laws. Otherwise, there would be laws against it.

And I will make the point I made before: You can't argue that the prosecution is not motivated by the power and influence of the press when you have a prosecutor suing everybody for allegedly slandering him in the press.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Lukis Anderson DNA contamination case

Forensic DNA contamination is quite common. It tends to be random and puzzling, and the exact means through which it occurs is seldom clear.

Here's an interesting case:

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...ely-brought-innocent-mans-dna-to-crime-scene/

Raffaele's DNA might have ended up on this article, and this article alone, through a fluke. Given the ritual we see on the video when the cops find it on the floor, it's tempting to infer something more than a random event. No one will ever know.

I have brought the Lukis Anderson case to people's attention before, here and elsewhere. There is not yet any specific idea how it happened, only that it did. One hopes that Mr. Anderson used his period of incarceration to dry out.

 

[Diocletus]

Your spin of lies is unfolding Machiavelli. The bloody bathroom photo that the press got was not the one from the case file. A side by side comparison of the two shows this. All of the case file photos come from the Nikon cameras and have distinctive characteristics that set them apart from the photos taken by the pocket camera.

The other part of my post that you are pretending doesn't exist is that the videographer just happened to turn towards the door from Kerchers room and caught the perp with the pocket camera taking the famous photo of the pink bathroom.

Who is this fat perp behind the mask?
[imgw=640]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=5160[/imgw]

I wonder if that fat guy did it for money, or was it just to prejudice the defendants before they ever had a trial?