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

[davefoc]

To any objective observer, there was only one development of real note in today's hearing. Granted, one has to draw inferences to realise the important point, but it was *ahem* fairly well-telegraphed.

It's the fact that the Carabinieri experts testified that no low-template DNA typing is valid unless at least two tests (with separate amplifications) have been conducted on the same sample.

And this has huge relevance to the trial because it's a fact that Stefanoni only conducted one amplification + test on 36B, on which she alleges she discovered Meredith's DNA.

Put these two together and you get the inferred conclusion: in the opinion of the Carabinieri experts, the finding of Meredith's DNA on the knife was invalid and inadmissible.

Nadeau did say this about the DNA on the knife

... The knife, which was considered the murder weapon by the court that convicted Knox and Solllecito, had a small sample of DNA in a tiny groove on the blade that had been attributed to Kercher. But because the sample was too small to double test and had to be amplified beyond the standard forensic protocols, the appellate court essentially discounted it as the murder weapon. ...

I found Nadeau on this to be a bit ambiguous but the gist of it seemed to be that the finding of Kercher's DNA on the knife was based on improper procedures. What would have been better from my perspective was if she had made clear that this was validated by the testimony of the Carabineri today. Still, I think she conveyed a proper sense of what the situation was.

Frankly, nothing that Sollecito said was real news at all, in that no new information was imparted and nothing new was learned. Likewise, the fact that Dalla Vedova was censured by the judge was of fleeting interest (and some here may already know what I think of Dalla Vedova's performance as a criminal defence court lawyer), but it was by some enormous margin NOT the story of the day.

Nothing he said was unexpected, but the fact that he said it in court today was news and the fact that he was a nice looking lad that would appeal to a significant portion of the readers of that column suggests spending a few moments on what he said was the right choice if you were trying to write a piece on the trial that would have commercial value.

Sorry, but only one important new thing came to light today (given that we already knew about the Carabinieri test results). And Nadeau failed to include it at all in her report. I don't care whether her report was or was not "sympathetic" to Sollecito - that's not the point.

I think you make a fair point that she could have covered this issue more precisely, but the detailed facts about the testing of the knife would need to be covered in a separate article that would have less general appeal than the article she wrote.

 

[acbytesla]

I wish I had assembled it at the time, but with the stuff that is out there about her on YouTube and her book, she seemed fascinated by student three-somes....

Who isn't??

 

[moodstream]

A pro-guilt commentator demonstrates that he does not understand DNA testing science properly (or perhaps he DOES understand it, but is being deliberately misleading...):




The highlighted part is just plain wrong. It doesn't matter at all whether there's just one putative profile on the sample or several, or whether it's a partial or fuller match. The whole point is that the extreme amplification of low-template samples can easily result in noise and other artifacts rendering as false alleles in the amplified sample. This means that if you think you've got a match at a certain allele, you can't be at all sure whether the peak on your graph at that allele is genuinely from the DNA of the person being matched, or whether it's the product of noise/stutter/drop-in etc.

That's why it's mandatory to do a second test, including a full re-amplification of the original sample. If this second amplified sample also has a peak (or peaks) at the same places as the first, then it's likely (for evidential purposes) that this peak(s) is indeed from the DNA of the person being matched. If, however, matching peaks that are present in the first sample are not present in the second sample, then it's pretty likely that these peaks are the result of noise amplification rather than a genuine DNA match. It's at that point you do a third test, again amplifying from the original sample. If this also shows differing peaks, then you can conclude that you don't have a true match to the person being assessed - otherwise their DNA alleles would have constantly shown up as peaks on all three graphs.

Again, this is all totally irrespective of whether you're looking at a sample with multiple peaks (potentially corresponding to multiple people plus noise) or a sample with fewer peaks (potentially corresponding to just one person plus noise). Noise is noise. Two or more tests are required. End of story. End of 36B. End of knife.

Pardon me for displaying my ignorance about this, but, it seems likely to be argued that, maybe it's not good enough for a court, but nevertheless, if you apply the rules of probablity to 36B, even with its problems, you will still conclude that almost certainly this is a match for Ms Kercher. Can you or someone take some whacks at this? Thanks.

 

[acbytesla]

Pardon me for displaying my ignorance about this, but, it seems likely to be argued that, maybe it's not good enough for a court, but nevertheless, if you apply the rules of probablity to 36B, even with its problems, you will still conclude that almost certainly this is a match for Ms Kercher. Can you or someone take some whacks at this? Thanks.

Is it really moodstream? What the RIS testified today that a minimum of two tests and controls used during Low Template or Low Copy DNA. Stefanoni only ran a single test. But lets say for argument sake that it was Ms. Kercher's DNA. What was said today is that 36B's results simply are not credible.

Because of Stefanoni's lack of rigor and adherence to minimum standards, the matched profile to Ms. Kercher was more likely the result of contamination as anything else.

 

[Matthew Best]

Yes, it is painfully obvious that they are willfully shutting their eyes to this. I was being objective up to this point and really attempting to be neutral; but it is beginning to remind of their obfuscations prior to the Hellman ruling. It will be a glad day when the verdict comes and this will all be over.

You're kidding, right? A not guilty verdict is not going to mean this is "all over". Some people are so invested in a guilty finding that they will insist on it for the rest of time, I promise you.

 

[Bill Williams]

Is it really moodstream? What the RIS testified today that a minimum of two tests and controls used during Low Template or Low Copy DNA. Stefanoni only ran a single test. But lets say for argument sake that it was Ms. Kercher's DNA. What was said today is that 36B's results simply are not credible.

Because of Stefanoni's lack of rigor and adherence to minimum standards, the matched profile to Ms. Kercher was more likely the result of contamination as anything else.

And on top of this no one has seen the EDFs to corroborate Stefanoni's interpretation. There's now grounds at least to claim she was simply lying.

 

[Rolfe]

You're kidding, right? A not guilty verdict is not going to mean this is "all over". Some people are so invested in a guilty finding that they will insist on it for the rest of time, I promise you.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Even if the DNA on the knife and the bra clasp is all thrown out, these guys are only going to claim they got off on a technicality. They'll probably still be discussing how the two students really did it in ten years time.

Leave them to it, I say.

Rolfe.

 

[snook1]

Yet, the PGP's are acting like it's a win win day for them. How can it be that they are twisting today's bad news so much that they think it's actually good news? What can possibly be in their minds? If all of what LJ said and others confirmed is true and it seems like it is, then for me it's game over (almost).

RIS said what we all knew all along and Stefanoni's sloppy work was exposed, once again. It wasn't as hostile (rightly so) as it was back in 2011 when C&V came to the scene and not so straightforward but still, from my undertanding of what people say, it was rather bad for Stefanoni and I hope the knife's 36B can be finally thrown out.

 

[Dan O.]

Seeing Guede's handwritting reminded me of his last letter during the Appeals Trial, which allowed Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to go free.

You might remember this letter, Rudy Guede supposedly wrote it BUT didn't PM Mignini read it to the court, as Guede apparently couldn't read the words or something like that? Which many of us thought was because Guede did not write it.

RG:
However I must say that from here you cannot read anything.
​

Apparently the letter is projected on a screen which is too far or at a bad angle for Rudy in the witness box to read.

DCS:
President excuse me, Rudy Hermann Guede has acknowledged that it is a letter addressed to his legal defence, I request that the letter does not get admitted into the case file, to reject it.
CPH:
Okay, we will hold back on the outcome, till after we review what is written in this letter.
GM:
Or else I read it to you. “Viterbo, March 7, 2010. As usual in this beloved beautiful country of ours there are many false people, devoted to mendacity, just as there are those who give a voice to people without having the slightest ...”.​

So the defense is asking that the letter not be accepted. Hellmann agrees that the defense should be allowed to review the contents of the letter so that they may properly contest if it should be admitted. And the worm ignores the judges request and reads the letter to the court.

 

[Poppy1016]

RG:
However I must say that from here you cannot read anything.
​

Apparently the letter is projected on a screen which is too far or at a bad angle for Rudy in the witness box to read.

DCS:
President excuse me, Rudy Hermann Guede has acknowledged that it is a letter addressed to his legal defence, I request that the letter does not get admitted into the case file, to reject it.
CPH:
Okay, we will hold back on the outcome, till after we review what is written in this letter.
GM:
Or else I read it to you. “Viterbo, March 7, 2010. As usual in this beloved beautiful country of ours there are many false people, devoted to mendacity, just as there are those who give a voice to people without having the slightest ...”.​

So the defense is asking that the letter not be accepted. Hellmann agrees that the defense should be allowed to review the contents of the letter so that they may properly contest if it should be admitted. And the worm ignores the judges request and reads the letter to the court.

And this goes undisciplined and he gets away with it. Only in Italy.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yet, the PGP's are acting like it's a win win day for them. How can it be that they are twisting today's bad news so much that they think it's actually good news? What can possibly be in their minds? If all of what LJ said and others confirmed is true and it seems like it is, then for me it's game over (almost).

RIS said what we all knew all along and Stefanoni's sloppy work was exposed, once again. It wasn't as hostile (rightly so) as it was back in 2011 when C&V came to the scene and not so straightforward but still, from my undertanding of what people say, it was rather bad for Stefanoni and I hope the knife's 36B can be finally thrown out.

I don't think it's game over for the case as a whole at all. The appeal court needs to be convinced of a number of other very important things before it can acquit. These include the following:

- clear demonstration that the evidence is totally compatible with the murder having been committed by just one person (Guede)

- a convincing argument for the clear plausibility - and high possibility - of contamination on the bra clasp, thereby rendering Sollecito's DNA match on the clasp unreliable

- clear and unequivocal decoupling of Sollecito from the bathmat partial print (and simultaneous demonstration of Guede's compatibility)

- clear demonstration that the evidence points to the break-in having been real, rather than staged

- comprehensive and irreversible demolition of the testimony of Curatolo and Quintavalle

- Clear demonstration that the ToD (per gastro-intestinal contents) is completely incompatible with the earwitness testimony of Capezzali and Monacchia, and that these witnesses are either mistaken, lying, or heard an event which was not the murder

- Demolition of the crime scene evidence collection, with reference to the videos and C/V's expert report (particularly in regard to the mixed DNA in the bathroom, and the so-called footprints in the hallway)


These, I think, are all vital to the acquittal. I think that if the defence fail to convince the court on more than one of these issues, convictions will unfortunately ensue. The knife would obviously have been one of these issues as well, but after today I consider it "solved" from a defence perspective and therefore crossed off the list.

 

[LondonJohn]

That's exactly what I was thinking. Even if the DNA on the knife and the bra clasp is all thrown out, these guys are only going to claim they got off on a technicality. They'll probably still be discussing how the two students really did it in ten years time.

Leave them to it, I say.

Rolfe.

That's what I say too.

I noticed one of the more rabid pro-guilt commentators tweeting today that if Knox proved her innocence, then this commentator would consider that sufficient reason to change his/her mind.

I would say the following to this pro-guilt commentator: prove you didn't commit any given crime in your home town/city between the local hours of 3am and 5am last Thursday, and I'll believe you didn't do it - but until and unless you prove your innocence, I'll consider you guilty of the crime. That OK?

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't think it's game over for the case as a whole at all. The appeal court needs to be convinced of a number of other very important things before it can acquit. These include the following:

- clear demonstration that the evidence is totally compatible with the murder having been committed by just one person (Guede)

- a convincing argument for the clear plausibility - and high possibility - of contamination on the bra clasp, thereby rendering Sollecito's DNA match on the clasp unreliable

- clear and unequivocal decoupling of Sollecito from the bathmat partial print (and simultaneous demonstration of Guede's compatibility)

- clear demonstration that the evidence points to the break-in having been real, rather than staged

- comprehensive and irreversible demolition of the testimony of Curatolo and Quintavalle

- Clear demonstration that the ToD (per gastro-intestinal contents) is completely incompatible with the earwitness testimony of Capezzali and Monacchia, and that these witnesses are either mistaken, lying, or heard an event which was not the murder

- Demolition of the crime scene evidence collection, with reference to the videos and C/V's expert report (particularly in regard to the mixed DNA in the bathroom, and the so-called footprints in the hallway)


These, I think, are all vital to the acquittal. I think that if the defence fail to convince the court on more than one of these issues, convictions will unfortunately ensue. The knife would obviously have been one of these issues as well, but after today I consider it "solved" from a defence perspective and therefore crossed off the list.

Well, then, the fix is in. Machiavelli tweeted that the "evidence phase" is done... two more days of hearing in December, and two in January with a decision on Jan 10.

How are they going to do all that in the time allowed?

 

[smkovalinksy]

You're kidding, right? A not guilty verdict is not going to mean this is "all over". Some people are so invested in a guilty finding that they will insist on it for the rest of time, I promise you.

You mean to say, that if the prosecutions fails in this appeal, they will appeal yet again? That seems a bit much but, I guess OK, as Italy goes...What I had meant by "all over" is an Acquittal, and the prosecution saying it would not appeal. Guess that was unrealistic.

 

[snook1]

Thank you, LJ for yet another informing post. By saying "game over" I meant only the knife. I agree with what you wrote. It's still far from over.

 

[snook1]

Well, then, the fix is in. Machiavelli tweeted that the "evidence phase" is done... two more days of hearing in December, and two in January with a decision on Jan 10.

How are they going to do all that in the time allowed?

I think they will cover these issues at the closing arguments.

 

[snook1]

You mean to say, that if the prosecutions fails in this appeal, they will appeal yet again? That seems a bit much but, I guess OK, as Italy goes...

Yes, the prosecution can and will apeal if they lose.

 

[codyjuneau]

Is it really moodstream? What the RIS testified today that a minimum of two tests and controls used during Low Template or Low Copy DNA. Stefanoni only ran a single test. But lets say for argument sake that it was Ms. Kercher's DNA. What was said today is that 36B's results simply are not credible.

Because of Stefanoni's lack of rigor and adherence to minimum standards, the matched profile to Ms. Kercher was more likely the result of contamination as anything else.

.
I believe the Carabinieri also performed their tests with more modern equipment than Stefanoni used, which Justice Nencini enquired about.

Also, the Carabinieri presumably performed the tests in a lab qualified to test such infinitesimal amounts of DNA, which Stefanoni did not.

I believe this re-trial is being conducted properly and fairly, by an intelligent experienced judge, the Carabinieri are displaying professional expertise, and consequently Raffaele and Amanda will be re-acquitted.
.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't think it's game over for the case as a whole at all. The appeal court needs to be convinced of a number of other very important things before it can acquit. These include the following:

- clear demonstration that the evidence is totally compatible with the murder having been committed by just one person (Guede)

- a convincing argument for the clear plausibility - and high possibility - of contamination on the bra clasp, thereby rendering Sollecito's DNA match on the clasp unreliable

- clear and unequivocal decoupling of Sollecito from the bathmat partial print (and simultaneous demonstration of Guede's compatibility)

- clear demonstration that the evidence points to the break-in having been real, rather than staged

- comprehensive and irreversible demolition of the testimony of Curatolo and Quintavalle

- Clear demonstration that the ToD (per gastro-intestinal contents) is completely incompatible with the earwitness testimony of Capezzali and Monacchia, and that these witnesses are either mistaken, lying, or heard an event which was not the murder

- Demolition of the crime scene evidence collection, with reference to the videos and C/V's expert report (particularly in regard to the mixed DNA in the bathroom, and the so-called footprints in the hallway)


These, I think, are all vital to the acquittal. I think that if the defence fail to convince the court on more than one of these issues, convictions will unfortunately ensue. The knife would obviously have been one of these issues as well, but after today I consider it "solved" from a defence perspective and therefore crossed off the list.

What is troubling to me LJ is that each of these on its own is crap. How any of them are ever argued in any court of law let alone 5 (minimum) is a real mystery.

But remember Galati's appeal argument. That this case must be viewed osmotically. As if the weight of a bunch of crappy arguments somehow makes one real good argument??

 

[GreyFox]

I got the feeling (from Barbie's CNN report when Knox was flying home 2011) she really wasn't sure which way the general public was going to go with this and she kind of wanted to move back to the center and say "well who really knows the truth".
Almost like she wanted to get a feel of how readers would perceive if she jumped ship.
Kind of like her article she just wrote. She avoids the DNA results that point to one side or another and stays with angry judge story.Her Movies the same way.It's about her and not so much the case itself.

I think long term she want's to be viewed as neutral now so as to keep from falling when the prosecution's case finally falls for good.

I think she want's to hide from the truth that she (like Mignini) benefitted from these outright lies and furthered her career at AK/RS expense. Not to mention one MK who may never get the justice she deserves thanks to Barbie's willingness to deceive the general public.

She may want to pretend she's a regular Sherlock Holmes now but I still see her as voice of the Nazi PLE Propaganda machine. She owes more than an apology for her role.