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

[Skind]

Ah yes but did you use one of those long keys that they use in Italy you know the ones that take a few attempts to get in and turn properly. A distinctive rattling metal sound.

I've used these keys extensively in both shared accomodation, clinical work and in the doors we had in the family home.

If they "take a few attempts" everytime then you best go see a neurologist, pronto. That level of discoordination is not normal and possibly indicative of an underlaying motor-neurone or motor co-ordination disorder.

 

[Skind]

A plausible route of contamination will need to be shown to the court for them to make a mental note and toss it out . There is no plausible contamination route yet and ditto for the clasp.

Only if the defence wish to claim contamination.

If they wish to claim it was never reliable in the first place, they merely (if the process worked correctly) have to show that it does not meet reasonable standards.

The RIS report makes it clear by implication what those standards are, and Stefanoni did not meet them.

 

[Briars]

Thank you for confirming that the responder asked about the theft first.

Not sure how that helps RS .He made the call and reported a break-in,He then said there was no theft when the responder assumed that was why someone broke in and tossed things about.

 

[Antony]

A plausible route of contamination will need to be shown to the court for them to make a mental note and toss it out . There is no plausible contamination route yet and ditto for the clasp.

Wrong on both counts. The prosecution must show that contamination is excluded, otherwise the results are invalid. The defence does not have to show that contamination occurred.

In any case, both the knife and the bra-clasp were exposed to contamination at numerous points in the collection/testing cycle. There is even a video on YouTube of the bra-clasp collection, showing the investigators handling it with dirty gloves. The existence of unattributed DNA on the bra-clasp is actually proof that contamination did occur.

 

[acbytesla]

They said it was bogus?

judge asks what minimum testing is for validation of DNA, RIS says "at least two"

Stefanoni only performed one test.

 

[Briars]

I've used these keys extensively in both shared accomodation, clinical work and in the doors we had in the family home.

If they "take a few attempts" everytime then you best go see a neurologist, pronto. That level of discoordination is not normal and possibly indicative of an underlaying motor-neurone or motor co-ordination disorder.

how worrisome do you think speaking another language will help in the end? What about my ballet classes doc?

 

[RoseMontague]

You said this:

I asked you to back it up. I'm willing to believe that this is so, but not on your say so.

I have seen any recent polls on this in the UK. But I can say from someone who follows the many comments the UK stories generate that the run of the mill non pmf/tjmk member comments are much more pro-innocent in the last several months than I have seen in the past.

Take it for what that is worth, YMMV.

 

[Briars]

Wrong on both counts. The prosecution must show that contamination is excluded, otherwise the results are invalid. The defence does not have to show that contamination occurred.

In any case, both the knife and the bra-clasp were exposed to contamination at numerous points in the collection/testing cycle. There is even a video on YouTube of the bra-clasp collection, showing the investigators handling it with dirty gloves. The existence of unattributed DNA on the bra-clasp is actually proof that contamination did occur.

wrong the SC said claiming contamination is not enough.

 

[Bill Williams]

You said this:

I asked you to back it up. I'm willing to believe that this is so, but not on your say so.

I have seen any recent polls on this in the UK. But I can say from someone who follows the many comments the UK stories generate that the run of the mill non pmf/tjmk member comments are much more pro-innocent in the last several months than I have seen in the past.

Take it for what that is worth, YMMV.

It's the trouble with anecdotal stuff.... there's also the possibility that the tabloids, ever with their wet finger up into the wind, sense where the Nencini court is going - and as a result is self-moderating the comments' sections. That could skew results, too.

Me, I go with my relatives/friends in two of the three countries in question. Number one on the list of criteria for English folk is sensitivity to the Kerchers, and value that the Kerchers have, in the main, kept a measure of dignity in very trying circumstances. This is held over against the English stereotype of brash, in-your-face Americans.

Still when it gets down to talking about pooh and/or knifes which have nothing to do with a case, they readily concede that, "The American probably didn't do it but I don't have to like her." Fair enough, I guess.

Still, given the almost universal vilification of Knox early on, open hunting season, even an anecdotal turn around for the Daily Mail is, well.... remarkable (even if only directed by their libel lawyers!).

 

[acbytesla]

It's the trouble with anecdotal stuff.... there's also the possibility that the tabloids, ever with their wet finger up into the wind, sense where the Nencini court is going - and as a result is self-moderating the comments' sections. That could skew results, too.

Me, I go with my relatives/friends in two of the three countries in question. Number one on the list of criteria for English folk is sensitivity to the Kerchers, and value that the Kerchers have, in the main, kept a measure of dignity in very trying circumstances. This is held over against the English stereotype of brash, in-your-face Americans.

Still when it gets down to talking about pooh and/or knifes which have nothing to do with a case, they readily concede that, "The American probably didn't do it but I don't have to like her." Fair enough, I guess.

Still, given the almost universal vilification of Knox early on, open hunting season, even an anecdotal turn around for the Daily Mail is, well.... remarkable (even if only directed by their libel lawyers!).

All I know is that when I use to visit a UK site, there would be an avalanche of venom directed toward them. And the highest rated comments would always be the guilty comments. In contrast, today there are more "Amanda is innocent posts" than guilty posts, actually by a two to one margin at least and the highest rated comments are the pro innocent comments.

 

[Bill Williams]

Wrong on both counts. The prosecution must show that contamination is excluded, otherwise the results are invalid. The defence does not have to show that contamination occurred.

In any case, both the knife and the bra-clasp were exposed to contamination at numerous points in the collection/testing cycle. There is even a video on YouTube of the bra-clasp collection, showing the investigators handling it with dirty gloves. The existence of unattributed DNA on the bra-clasp is actually proof that contamination did occur.

wrong the SC said claiming contamination is not enough.

Briars, you will be surprised to hear that I agree with you.

Whether innocenters like it or not, Judge Massei and his court set the bar in the wrong place - but he set the bar at where Briars says. And the stunning thing is that the ISC, in fact, said what Briars said it said.

Antony is quite correct, in general, when he says:

The prosecution must show that contamination is excluded, otherwise the results are invalid. The defence does not have to show that contamination occurred.

It is up to Stefanoni and her lab to provide the evidence which satisfies Antony's words.... except that the judge in question, Massei, set the bar at the wrong place. If you read Massei's motivations report, he literally says, "The reason I know there was no contamination, was because I asked Stefanoni and she (verbally) assured me there was none."

The sane part of the world waited for Hellmann to comment - well, Hellmann got quashed by the ISC and the ISC, uncritically, simply repeated the bare claim - contamination must be proven.

If Nencini convicts, and IF this assertion turns out to be a main part of Nencini's motivations to support a conviction..... then it is off to the ECHR on this point alone.

Indeed, they will point to the method used by the RIS Carabinieri to provide the report to the Nencini court itself.

So, Briars, I agree with you, the ISC did in fact say what you said it said. But as lionking points out, the video provided by the very Scientific Police themselves shows only one of the methods of contamination... and this can then be tied to Stefanoni's own testimony....

.... when shown the video and the way she handled the clasp, she could neither confirm nor deny that her obviously dirty glove touches the bra-hook in question.

Contamination must be proven, apparently so in Italy. But contamination WAS proven. Watch the video. Read Stefanoni's own testimony.

And do not, repeat, do not get yourself embroiled in a criminal dispute in Italy where your own life is on the line, and DNA is in the balance. If Italy's ISC ruling holds, then I'd be on YOUR side Briars...

 

[Skind]

Not sure how that helps RS .He made the call and reported a break-in,He then said there was no theft when the responder assumed that was why someone broke in and tossed things about.

It helps RS as it disconfirms the theory that he was trying to control discovery. You want the police to get there AND for them to think a theft had taken place.

It makes zero sense for a guilty Knox and Sollecito to set up a burglary gone wrong scenario to then downplay the burglary part of the scenario.

It also provides circumstantial evidence that he didn't know what had been taken, had he been there, he would have known that things were taken, and would have to act as if he didn't.

Conversely, it makes perfect sense for a confused Knox and Sollecito to wander around the house trying to see if anything was missing, and then get confused when nothing was missing (because if it had been, the burglary would have been completed, thus no burglary for Meredith to come home in the middle of, thus no murder). It makes sense for a confused Knox and Sollecito to be able to see with their eye-holes and notice nothing obvious was missing. It makes perfect sense for them to be more concerned about the broken window and blood spatter than any potential theft.

 

[acbytesla]

It helps RS as it disconfirms the theory that he was trying to control discovery. You want the police to get there AND for them to think a theft had taken place.

It makes zero sense for a guilty Knox and Sollecito to set up a burglary gone wrong scenario to then downplay the burglary part of the scenario.

It also provides circumstantial evidence that he didn't know what had been taken, had he been there, he would have known that things were taken, and would have to act as if he didn't.

Conversely, it makes perfect sense for a confused Knox and Sollecito to wander around the house trying to see if anything was missing, and then get confused when nothing was missing (because if it had been, the burglary would have been completed, thus no burglary for Meredith to come home in the middle of, thus no murder). It makes sense for a confused Knox and Sollecito to be able to see with their eye-holes and notice nothing obvious was missing. It makes perfect sense for them to be more concerned about the broken window and blood spatter than any potential theft.

The one thing that is totally clear is that this case is a logical mine field for the prosecution. There is a reason that we have yet to see a timeline that fits the evidence or a motive.

That's why we have had a new theory every few months.

 

[Bill Williams]

judge asks what minimum testing is for validation of DNA, RIS says "at least two"

Stefanoni only performed one test.

This is something that Massei covers at length in his motivations report. Stefanoni readily admits that there was only one chance to test 36b, because the tests were destructive tests. And to add to this, the ability to tell who it belonged to (whose DNA was it) was a separate test from the other test that determined what kind of biological material it was.

And one needs to do two tests of each of those to determine things.

So, in perhaps the only sound choice Stefanoni made, she decided to do the test to see who the sample belonged to; because doing the other test would only tell her what kind of biological material it was - no good, really when trying to ID a victim....

So she did the single test to determine identity. The result, really, can only at best to say "Meredith was not ruled out." As the RIS Carabinieri say, at least two tests are required to determine identity... and here's hoping to God that the Nencini court is guided by the RIS Carabinieri! From what I heard, they actually brought the negative controls with them in the test of 36l..... standard practise, that we are still fighting about with Stefanoni, who (4 years later) has still not complied with the court order to produce her negative controls....

It should also be noted that as we all come up to speed with the proper way of doing these things, when the RIS Carabinieri folk say, "at least two," they are talking about a complete bare minimum which, itself, may still not yield reliable results.

It's actually not Stefanoni's fault that there was only enough material in 36b to do one test. What is her fault is making ANY claim about the sample's identity, and it is also incredible to read the Italian courts go so off-side in forensic DNA analysis.

It's not just the world watching the Nencini court on this.... it is those very RIS Carbineiri officers who will judge the Nencini court too....

 

[acbytesla]

This is something that Massei covers at length in his motivations report. Stefanoni readily admits that there was only one chance to test 36b, because the tests were destructive tests. And to add to this, the ability to tell who it belonged to (whose DNA was it) was a separate test from the other test that determined what kind of biological material it was.

And one needs to do two tests of each of those to determine things.

So, in perhaps the only sound choice Stefanoni made, she decided to do the test to see who the sample belonged to; because doing the other test would only tell her what kind of biological material it was - no good, really when trying to ID a victim....

So she did the single test to determine identity. The result, really, can only at best to say "Meredith was not ruled out." As the RIS Carabinieri say, at least two tests are required to determine identity... and here's hoping to God that the Nencini court is guided by the RIS Carabinieri! From what I heard, they actually brought the negative controls with them in the test of 36l..... standard practise, that we are still fighting about with Stefanoni, who (4 years later) has still not complied with the court order to produce her negative controls....

It should also be noted that as we all come up to speed with the proper way of doing these things, when the RIS Carabinieri folk say, "at least two," they are talking about a complete bare minimum which, itself, may still not yield reliable results.

It's actually not Stefanoni's fault that there was only enough material in 36b to do one test. What is her fault is making ANY claim about the sample's identity, and it is also incredible to read the Italian courts go so off-side in forensic DNA analysis.

It's not just the world watching the Nencini court on this.... it is those very RIS Carbineiri officers who will judge the Nencini court too....

It makes you wonder, does the Italian judicial system really want this crazy, contrary to the rest of the scientific world type of precedent?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

magic cleaning fluid is one explanation

Hold on no one has ruled out the DNA of Meredith on the knife. The second sample from Amanda only adds to the probability it was used on the victim

It decreases the chances that this knife was used to stab Meredith. How is it possible to clean a knife of blood but not DNA in two spots plus starch? It makes no sense.

 

[yimyammer]

It's incredible that we're parsing the diction of a transcript of Raffaele's 30-second conversation with a police dispatcher while having to take Mignini's word that he never asked a single question of Amanda once he'd determined that she was a suspect.

When was that magic moment? Are we to believe -- seriously -- that she was not asked a single question between the first (inadmissable) statement and the second? That she just was so eager to talk that they all just patted her hands, brought her tea, and held their breath?

Incredible. Mignini is a liar.

lol, so true..

 

[yimyammer]

The responder was being told in the first sentence that someone broke in the window made a huge mess and there is a closed door. That was the opening sentence from Sollecito. Then the responder takes the names and the address of the event. Then having done that he says so "they broke the window and there was a theft?"That was in response to RS's call a question or statement. Sollecito says right away "no there was no theft" This isn't difficult.

Brother, I'm willing to accept however this conversation actually went down, but you're not making any sense here (at least to me).

Are you saying the posted transcripts are incorrect?

If so, since you speak and write Italian, can you post your complete translation so we can see how you came to the conclusion Raf volunteered this info without being asked?

 

[Poppy1016]

Publications on November the 4th said they suspected the killer was female, and Matteini said they needed to arrest Knox before her mother arrived on the 6th. Therefore she was interviewed as a suspect, backdated to interviewed as a witness so they could destroy the tapes, tapes showing she was beaten, and pretend they didn't exist.
Someone will explain how I have erred in this analysis, hopefully you Briars.

Maybe the word beaten is too strong. Otherwise spot on.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Ominous signs and Castellini's viewpoint

Publications on November the 4th said they suspected the killer was female, and Matteini said they needed to arrest Knox before her mother arrived on the 6th. Therefore she was interviewed as a suspect, backdated to interviewed as a witness so they could destroy the tapes, tapes showing she was beaten, and pretend they didn't exist.
Someone will explain how I have erred in this analysis, hopefully you Briars.

I seem to recall a headline in an Italian paper on 5 November that said words to the effect, "Meredith knew her killers." There is also Castellini's article, which indicates that Amanda and Raffaele were suspects prior to their interrogations. There was also a report from an Italian news source on 5 November that said something along the lines of "Ominous words. It is not to be dismissed that sometime in the next few hours witnesses will become suspects." The latter two points have been made and cited repeatedly here and at Websleuths.