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

[Bill Williams]

Bill have you seen the latest on RS's facebook the DNA results from the knife. The clean sample was run twice and was a match. RIS would prefer a second double test I know but those results! Combine that with the clasp ,short of DNA planted deliberately by a knowing investigator placed on the tip of her glove. A pre planned transfer??

First of all, you are mischaracterizing what the RIS Carabinieri said. It's not that they would prefer a second test - a second test is mandatory to meet guidelines. A second test is the one, when combined with the first test, establishes the forensics.

This is well travelled territory. Even Stefanoni herself runs through this reasoning with sample 36b from the knife, and this is explained well in the Massei report. The real trouble with the Massei report - contrary to what the RIS Carabinieri report said in Nov 2013 - is that Massei makes the judgement that Stefanoni's single, destructive test is definitive forensically. Stefanoni claims to have established that 36b belongs to Meredith - which a single test cannot really do. But she had no choice, because as she correctly notes, the sample was so small that only one test was possible.

The bra clasp is a little different, because as the very film showing Stefanoni collecting the clasp shows - and to which she admits under oath at trial - she can neither confirm nor deny that she herself, right there in the collection-film, that she herself contaminated the clasp with her own dirty glove.

Briars... now you're simply ignoring that by arguing what you're arguing above. No wonder you do not even attempt a full and comprehensive time-line which explains the evidence - and want to take things in isolation one from another.

Why not attempt a comprehensive timeline of this crime rather than speculate on these so called "gotcha" moments, like Rudy claiming someone said, "Let's Go", and therefore it had to have been Raffaele saying that... or that Raffaele during the 112 call was the one bringing up the subject of "no theft"?

Take a look at the FULL story of that clasp! Read what the RIS Carabineiri said about real forensic DNA work at crime scenes.... read Massei's report where he mostly gets the information right, and then incredibly makes the contrary decision about guilt.

Do you know how Massei established that there was no contamination in Stefanoni's lab? He asked her, "Is there contamination in your lab?" She said that there wasn't. That was the sum total of his investigation into contamination in her lab.

Why do these things NEVER make it into your analysis? Or are you still with The Machine who claims that there is "an abundance of DNA evidence linking Amanda Knox to this crime"? If there is, why did the RIS Carabinieri in Nov 2013 say the exact opposite?

 

[Diocletus]

Bill have you seen the latest on RS's facebook the DNA results from the knife. The clean sample was run twice and was a match.

When was the second electrophoresis run?

 

[Diocletus]

The ample source of RS needs a reasonable explanation,key here a realistic point of transfer.

What quantity of Sollecito's DNA was contained in the overall sample?

 

[Briars]

That is not how the independant experts described what was found. Are you professing to know more?

They agreed the complete profiles were the victim and Sollecito's please share what else you think they found different.

 

[Poppy1016]

First of all, you are mischaracterizing what the RIS Carabinieri said. It's not that they would prefer a second test - a second test is mandatory to meet guidelines. A second test is the one, when combined with the first test, establishes the forensics.

This is well travelled territory. Even Stefanoni herself runs through this reasoning with sample 36b from the knife, and this is explained well in the Massei report. The real trouble with the Massei report - contrary to what the RIS Carabinieri report said in Nov 2013 - is that Massei makes the judgement that Stefanoni's single, destructive test is definitive forensically. Stefanoni claims to have established that 36b belongs to Meredith - which a single test cannot really do. But she had no choice, because as she correctly notes, the sample was so small that only one test was possible.

The bra clasp is a little different, because as the very film showing Stefanoni collecting the clasp shows - and to which she admits under oath at trial - she can neither confirm nor deny that she herself, right there in the collection-film, that she herself contaminated the clasp with her own dirty glove.

Briars... now you're simply ignoring that by arguing what you're arguing above. No wonder you do not even attempt a full and comprehensive time-line which explains the evidence - and want to take things in isolation one from another.

Why not attempt a comprehensive timeline of this crime rather than speculate on these so called "gotcha" moments, like Rudy claiming someone said, "Let's Go", and therefore it had to have been Raffaele saying that... or that Raffaele during the 112 call was the one bringing up the subject of "no theft"?

Take a look at the FULL story of that clasp! Read what the RIS Carabineiri said about real forensic DNA work at crime scenes.... read Massei's report where he mostly gets the information right, and then incredibly makes the contrary decision about guilt.

Do you know how Massei established that there was no contamination in Stefanoni's lab? He asked her, "Is there contamination in your lab?" She said that there wasn't. That was the sum total of his investigation into contamination in her lab.

Why do these things NEVER make it into your analysis? Or are you still with The Machine who claims that there is "an abundance of DNA evidence linking Amanda Knox to this crime"? If there is, why did the RIS Carabinieri in Nov 2013 say the exact opposite?

Maybe he is also of the opinion that Conti, Vechiotti, Hellman, and the RIS Carabinieri are all criminals.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

lack of DNA in the Gregory Taylor case

With respect to the Gregory Taylor case in North Carolina, Joseph Neff and Mandy Lock wrote, "DNA tests performed in 2007, prior to Taylor’s innocence hearing, showed the stain was not blood. Still, the lead prosecutor in the case, questioned in May as part of Taylor’s lawsuit, continued to say that the stain on Taylor’s truck was blood." IIRC the original presumptive blood test was a Kastle-Meyer test. The lack of DNA is interesting, because it suggests that the failure to find DNA in a presumed blood stain can be taken as evidence that the stain is not blood. The converse situation (finding DNA in a presumed blood stain) is different, as we have discussed many times.

 

[GreyFox]

You are very wrong there are only two profiles that are complete the victim and RS's. Partial profile bits maybe off the victim's hand from doing up her bra are not the same. The ample source of RS needs a reasonable explanation,key here a realistic point of transfer.

Well in case you haven't been following the thread as close as the rest of us ... We are all waiting for Steffanoni's response to this as well. It would appear that she forgot her homework or she put it in the case file but then the dog ate it.

Either way the answer to your question is: It is on the bra because it needed to be , since the shoe didn't fit !

Ask her how she did it . Were not in the business of explaining the prosecutions case .

If we were we would have warned you that the real reason for the murder was the girls were fighting over some turd !

 

[Bill Williams]

That is not how the independant experts described what was found. Are you professing to know more?

They agreed the complete profiles were the victim and Sollecito's please share what else you think they found different.

Briars.... this is where you are just disingenuous.

My reading of even Judge Massei's analysis is that it was a single Y-Haplotype, which (rather than id'ing Raffaele) simply could have been half the Italian men in the courtroom, including Raffaele.

This is where halides1 needs to come into play here... or Kaosium.

There simply is no "complete profile of the victim" on the knife in any meaningful forensic sense. Even if there were, even Stefanoni and Massei go through that in the Massei report.... that a mandatory second set of tests could not be performed to find out what the 36B material was..... if it was not blood, for instance, then it would be forensicly worthless to find Meredith's (for instance) hair....

But this is the point. You keep flooding posts here with completely misleading posts. In no way shape or form did ANYONE say that Meredith's complete profile was found... not in the sense which is forensicly meaningful.

That you continue to do that betrays an agenda.

 

[Briars]

First of all, you are mischaracterizing what the RIS Carabinieri said. It's not that they would prefer a second test - a second test is mandatory to meet guidelines. A second test is the one, when combined with the first test, establishes the forensics.

This is well travelled territory. Even Stefanoni herself runs through this reasoning with sample 36b from the knife, and this is explained well in the Massei report. The real trouble with the Massei report - contrary to what the RIS Carabinieri report said in Nov 2013 - is that Massei makes the judgement that Stefanoni's single, destructive test is definitive forensically. Stefanoni claims to have established that 36b belongs to Meredith - which a single test cannot really do. But she had no choice, because as she correctly notes, the sample was so small that only one test was possible.

The bra clasp is a little different, because as the very film showing Stefanoni collecting the clasp shows - and to which she admits under oath at trial - she can neither confirm nor deny that she herself, right there in the collection-film, that she herself contaminated the clasp with her own dirty glove.

Briars... now you're simply ignoring that by arguing what you're arguing above. No wonder you do not even attempt a full and comprehensive time-line which explains the evidence - and want to take things in isolation one from another.

Why not attempt a comprehensive timeline of this crime rather than speculate on these so called "gotcha" moments, like Rudy claiming someone said, "Let's Go", and therefore it had to have been Raffaele saying that... or that Raffaele during the 112 call was the one bringing up the subject of "no theft"?

Take a look at the FULL story of that clasp! Read what the RIS Carabineiri said about real forensic DNA work at crime scenes.... read Massei's report where he mostly gets the information right, and then incredibly makes the contrary decision about guilt.

Do you know how Massei established that there was no contamination in Stefanoni's lab? He asked her, "Is there contamination in your lab?" She said that there wasn't. That was the sum total of his investigation into contamination in her lab.

Why do these things NEVER make it into your analysis? Or are you still with The Machine who claims that there is "an abundance of DNA evidence linking Amanda Knox to this crime"? If there is, why did the RIS Carabinieri in Nov 2013 say the exact opposite?

The ample amount of his DNA needs a realistic point of transfer. If she cannot be sure that the glove didn't touch the metal you still need a realistic source from where his DNA came from. Unfortunately there was only one source outside the cigarette mixed sample in the entire cottage.Not the mixed cigarette sample not the open door, not the soaked towel so where? A realistic source for that amount involving a possible touch from a glove would be a deliberate plant. Short of this which only your side believes possible I don't see it.

 

[NancyS]

You are very wrong there are only two profiles that are complete the victim and RS's. Partial profile bits maybe off the victim's hand from doing up her bra are not the same. The ample source of RS needs a reasonable explanation,key here a realistic point of transfer.

How about Raffaele gave Meredith a far too sloppy kiss on the cheek as he said goodbye earlier that day. Meredith went yuck, wiped it away and then adjusted her bra. I could think of a million similar examples seeing as they had lunch together earlier that day - if you spend time with someone, there are lot of ways that tiny bits of DNA can be transferred

 

[Briars]

Well in case you haven't been following the thread as close as the rest of us ... We are all waiting for Steffanoni's response to this as well. It would appear that she forgot her homework or she put it in the case file but then the dog ate it.

Either way the answer to your question is: It is on the bra because it needed to be , since the shoe didn't fit !

Ask her how she did it . Were not in the business of explaining the prosecutions case .

If we were we would have warned you that the real reason for the murder was the girls were fighting over some turd !

Did Crini say it was just the disregard of housekeeping no , but this group loves to repeat that.

 

[Briars]

How about Raffaele gave Meredith a far too sloppy kiss on the cheek as he said goodbye earlier that day. Meredith went yuck, wiped it away and then adjusted her bra. I could think of a million similar examples seeing as they had lunch together earlier that day - if you spend time with someone, there are lot of ways that tiny bits of DNA can be transferred

That could be a possible transfer and is at least believable.He did wrote somewhere that they kept a bit of distance between them though. More important to me anyway is the clasp is just one of the things that points to guilt.

 

[moodstream]

Briars, could you take a quick look at my post and respond?

Briars,
Thank you for coming on JREF to argue for guilt. The more the better. It helps keep the conversation fresh.

Can you stand to go back to the topic of the phone calls. Sorry, I missed out on the discussion
Correct me if I am wrong but it seems your core claim is that RS stating there was no theft was a “boo boo” and he knew it. RS knows there was no theft because he staged the break in. By telling the police there was no theft, RS is giving himself away. You also just don’t like that RS’s account of the call in Honor Bound does not seem to you to correspond with an accurate objective reporting of the call, and you feel this is an intentional distortion, a lie.

One puzzling thing is that when RS told the police nothing was taken, RS actually knew something was taken, the $400 and the phones. How does this fit with your claim? You can’t be suggesting RS did not know of the theft from Ms Kercher’s room but did know nothing was missing from Filomena’s room, especially as you make a point of RS/AK not calling Ms Kercher after arriving at the cottage. How do you fit this with your claim that RS stating there was no theft was a boo-boo, if, as is so, there was a theft? On the other hand, had RS said it seemed like a theft occurred, that would have implied he must be guilty because how could he have known? Isn’t it damned if he did and damned if he didn’t? Seriously, that’s a question. Putting the money and phones aside, if the break in was staged but a decision had been made not to actually steal anything (which you explain how? btw), what’s the problem with telling the police nothing was stolen. It can’t be your position that the dispatcher would have expected RS to have an inventory of Filomena’s possessions! You’re not building your claim on a distinction between the spoken phrase ‘they did not take anything’ and ‘it doesn’t appear anything was taken’. Are you?

I just don’t see where RS’s statement to the police has any implicative value. I think you are falling into the basic guilter loop. You are forcing the conclusion that RS’s acts because he is guilty and offering your forced conclusion as proof your conclusion is correct.

 

[moodstream]

Sorry for the duplicate post. I was trying to just get a link to the old one.

 

[NancyS]

That could be a possible transfer and is at least believable.He did wrote somewhere that they kept a bit of distance between them though. More important to me anyway is the clasp is just one of the things that points to guilt.

But it should make you question whether it is beyond a reasonable doubt - and most Italians kiss hello/goodbye

Here are a few more
Raffaele is drinking out a glass - Meredith picks up glass to wash
Meredith's clothes are drying in the flat - Raffaele touches them
Raffaele uses their bathroom, rinses mouth and spits in sink - Meredith touches sink
Raffaele uses towels in their bathroom - Meredith uses towels

There are so many possible ways to transfer DNA if two people have spent time in the same place.

 

[Grinder]

Bill have you seen the latest on RS's facebook the DNA results from the knife. The clean sample was run twice and was a match. RIS would prefer a second double test I know but those results! Combine that with the clasp ,short of DNA planted deliberately by a knowing investigator placed on the tip of her glove. A pre planned transfer??

I would like Chris to weigh in on this. The same amplified sample was tested twice and came back with similar results, which isn't the same as splitting a sample and separately amplifying and then testing which is the RIS and the rest of world's methodology.

Many have described how easily some of Raf's DNA could have transferred to the clasp. If that last day of Meredith's life he had washed his hands and used a towel in the bathroom or kitchen to dry them and then Meredith did the same, she could easily then transfer the DNA to her clasp. This was a tiny amount not a pile of spit or semen or blood.

You should wonder how he ripped a bra off her without getting more DNA on it and not on the other part of the bra. How did he hold her down while Rudy fingered her and Amanda toyed with the knife and not leave DNA there? No DNA of Meredith found at his place. No blood found on his clothes or shoes.

By all accounts there were several other profiles on the clasp. How did those get there.

If the DNA chart posted by Raf is such a big deal why hasn't the prosecution been touting it?

 

[Antony]

How about Raffaele gave Meredith a far too sloppy kiss on the cheek as he said goodbye earlier that day. Meredith went yuck, wiped it away and then adjusted her bra. I could think of a million similar examples seeing as they had lunch together earlier that day - if you spend time with someone, there are lot of ways that tiny bits of DNA can be transferred

Exactly ... there is a heap of reasons to think that the DNA reading on the bra-clasp (and the knife) is not genuine - but it wouldn't mean anything even if it was genuine!

 

[Grinder]

She named Lumumba and placed him at the scene. They were pressing her on where she was and who she met.The basketball court meeting, kitchen , black man wanting Meredith, sexual assault , single scream, was provided by Amanda.

Well I don't think the single scream is in any way a fact but if you wish to believe what the police knew to be correct she met Patrick right away and they went to the cottage and PL killed Meredith. Nothing in that tale had almost three hours pass.

 

[Grinder]

You are very wrong there are only two profiles that are complete the victim and RS's. Partial profile bits maybe off the victim's hand from doing up her bra are not the same. The ample source of RS needs a reasonable explanation,key here a realistic point of transfer.

How much is needed for a complete profile?

 

[kwill]

The ample amount of his DNA needs a realistic point of transfer. If she cannot be sure that the glove didn't touch the metal you still need a realistic source from where his DNA came from. Unfortunately there was only one source outside the cigarette mixed sample in the entire cottage.Not the mixed cigarette sample not the open door, not the soaked towel so where? A realistic source for that amount involving a possible touch from a glove would be a deliberate plant. Short of this which only your side believes possible I don't see it.

You're assuming that they tested everything in the cottage for Raffaele's DNA. That's the only way you could make the highlighted statement. Obviously, that didn't happen.

It's moot, anyway. The police lost custody of the clasp for more than six weeks. They don't know exactly where it was during that time, they don't know who might have touched it, and they don't know how it got moved from where they left it to its new location. This makes the thing not evidence but junk, because usable evidence requires a documented chain of custody.

Italian legal procedure allows anything and everything into the courtroom, and then it's incumbent on the judges (pro and lay) to try to figure out what has value and what doesn't. In our system there are rules about what can be put in front of jurors -- rules that are there to ensure that what they see and hear in the courtroom is reliable and real.

Proving chain of custody is necessary to "lay a foundation" for the evidence in question, by showing the absence of alteration, substitution, or change of condition. Specifically, foundation testimony for tangible evidence requires that exhibits be identified as being in substantially the same condition as they were at the time the evidence was seized, and that the exhibit has remained in that condition through an unbroken chain of custody.

source

Since they don't have this kind of constraint (or any constraint, apparently) in Italy, the prosecution is allowed to wave the clasp around as if it's reliable evidence. In fact, it's just another meaningless claim, like the conjecture about how much Amanda hated Meredith or that it would have been impossible for Rudy to climb in the window, and so on.