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

[davefoc]

Massei decided not to test the stain because "DNA doesn't have a time stamp." He said there'd be no way to know if the stain had been deposited the night of the murder.

Well... it's not hard to critique his decision. And evidence suggests it was deposited that night. (The stain is smeared, I think.)

I, personally, suspect Massei made that decision out of respect for Meredith's family. I suspect he initially thought the case was clear-cut, no more evidence was needed, so why open the door to discussion of Meredith's sex life.

I could be wrong, of course. It's the only semi-valid excuse I can come up.

This seems like the most likely explanation but it seems like by the time the Massei trial is underway that there was enough doubt about what was going on that it is hard to imagine what was really in his mind about this. Of course, the time stamp argument is complete crap, but what was Massei really thinking? Without more facts to constrain the speculation I can imagine lots of possibilities and there are certainly a lot more possibilities that I can't imagine right now.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

In defense of Briars, the article claims in effect that there is no DNA evidence against RS/AK. This is not strictly true and as such I think his criticism was warranted.

I don't see that. He acknowledges and discusses the main DNA evidence (knife and bra clasp) as well as other DNA traces.

The article was in the rant genre, and as such perfect attention to facts is never expected, at least by people that agree with the rant. People that disagree with the rant are not so forgiving and look for the imperfections to create a reason to ignore the conclusion of the rant.

The bottom line here is that the rant genre is useful for entertaining the folks that agree with the rant but it is not an effective form of prose for changing the minds of the people that disagree with the rant.

If it's a rant, it is a well-informed rant. It is less about the facts of the case than it is about the warped thinking that keeps the case alive.

Back in Nov. 2007, I followed the media coverage and concluded that Amanda Knox was an utterly disturbed, callous and repulsive human being, another Justina Morley. But I changed my mind as I gained a better understanding of the facts, and as I began to see good reasons to doubt the official claims.

Many people will never change their mind. They are incapable of doing so. Their beliefs flow from subjective but indelible character assessments. Their gut tells them they are right, even if the facts don't check out, so they find ways to dismiss the facts or distort their meaning. That is the problem Snowden addresses, and I think he does a good job.

 

[RandyN]

I assumed that somebody would object to my claim because the DNA evidence has been discredited. The problem is that while there is evidence that the evidence was not collected or tested properly and as such it might be excluded as evidence against an individual in many jurisdictions it has not been proved that the DNA of Kercher was not on the knife or that the DNA of Sollecito was not on the bra clasp.
My personal opinion is that it is very unlikely that Kercher's DNA was on the knife when it was removed from the drawer in Sollecito's kitchen drawer for all the reasons given in this thread. I also think that Sollecito was not involved in the murder of Kercher and that whatever the reason that Sollecito's DNA was detected on the bra clasp it was not that he happened to grab hold of Kercher's bra hook while he was managing to not leave any other trace of himself in the bedroom where the crime was committed while the crime was being committed. So I'm fine with somebody saying there is no DNA evidence against RS & AK. From my perspective there isn't.

But I think it should be acknowledged that there are people that don't agree with davefoc and that they are technically correct when they claim that DNA evidence that has not been categorically shown to be false has been presented against RS & AK.

True the DNA has not been disproved. How does one go about disproving that when the testing was scientifically incorrect?

For example the sample 36b tested negative for blood and was found to be not something of human origin or words to that effect.

In fact the sample was mis-quantified and lied about in the detention hearing when Stefanoni testified that it was ample in size..."a couple of hundred picograms" and later we discover that this was a lie. It was < 10 picograms and maybe zero picograms because at these quantification levels they are too low to test any further... it is hard to tell here.

Contamination is one and actually the only possibility and in 2007 and even today in 2014 I don't think a sample of 5 or 10 picograms can be used in court no matter who does the testing. It is just too likely to be contamination...the risk of error is so high as to be unusable as evidence of any sort. So why disprove?

Yes RS DNA was on the clasp...so were three other guys. Who do you suppose these other guys were and how did they get on that clasp??? A clasp that just so happened to be rusted and destroyed and is impossible to retest due to improper basic storage technique.

What do we need to disprove? First let the other three guys disprove and then we will disprove RS DNA...wait... Was it a full DNA sample or some Y type indications? Actually I contend that if RS unhooked MK bra then his shoe prints need to be somewhere in this room...and BTW if he ran barefoot during this murder and made the footprint image on the bathmat....where is the "negative image" ...you know...the place where he picked up that blood? Remembering that for Guede this blood washed down onto his foot from his blood covered pant leg...probably filled his shoe right up and soaked his foot.

That is Guedes big toe BTW....on the bath mat...impossible to be RS big fat big toe...a perfect match to Guedes rather normal looking big toe though... Have you ever seem Yummi/Machs analysis of that...all the hand drawn little arrows? Its funny really.

I think the burden should be on the prosecution to prove beyond doubt that these two DNA samples are safe and reliable and re-testable. Have they even come close to doing that? Not in the real world...not even close. In fact all indicators are that these two samples are suspiciously corrupt in nature. Mis-collected, subjected to secret test procedures and still no control proof or even full disclosure of the raw data in the form of EDF's.

Meanwhile the bra clasp is suspiciously destroyed and the knife which never matched the bed sheet imprint ...not even closely...has failed to reveal any MK DNA after several retests. A starch granule was found and another low template number sample purported to be a match to Knox but which can never be reliable because of its size and improper handling at collection. The 36I sample was a show...it is just as likely to be a incorrect result as well. The peer review on that test seems to be still out.

 

[codyjuneau]

This seems like the most likely explanation but it seems like by the time the Massei trial is underway that there was enough doubt about what was going on that it is hard to imagine what was really in his mind about this. Of course, the time stamp argument is complete crap, but what was Massei really thinking? Without more facts to constrain the speculation I can imagine lots of possibilities and there are certainly a lot more possibilities that I can't imagine right now.

.
Personally I think there are some people working in the Italian justice system, who just do not get the concept of 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'. They just don't get it, period. For them, close is good enough.

Massei did not get it. Not even close.
Hellmann got it.
Zanetti got it.

I think Nencini gets it. He does not appear to me, to be anyone's fool.

IMO
.

 

[davefoc]

...

Frank found it odd enough to write a story about it. He was in court every day. Yummi has only recently been making appearances AFAIK. In Yummis defense Frank is a terrible house guest from the stories I hear. But he always seemed to be a reliable reporter though. Much less bias than Yummi/Mach. Frank thought they were guilty then decided otherwise. Frank defended Stefanoni for ages...Mignini too and also Nara...but then he finally saw the impossible logic in what the facts were conclusively showing.

http://web.archive.org/web/20101015.../2009/10/defensive-strategy-for-knox-and.html

This wasn't easy. Is some form of Perugia Shock active today? I found a link to it in what looked like a reliable source and it was a site in Japanese. Somebody made a list of links to wayback versions of the articles on Quora but the link to this article didn't work. Eventually I found a link to the article in a blog which didn't work either but I used the date from that link to find the article in the wayback machine.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

This seems like the most likely explanation but it seems like by the time the Massei trial is underway that there was enough doubt about what was going on that it is hard to imagine what was really in his mind about this. Of course, the time stamp argument is complete crap, but what was Massei really thinking? Without more facts to constrain the speculation I can imagine lots of possibilities and there are certainly a lot more possibilities that I can't imagine right now.

I think Massei convicted Amanda and Raffaele with the full understanding that the case against them is nonsense, and it must contend with a far more plausible explanation of the crime.

He therefore did not want to deal with anything that would make it even harder to justify a bogus verdict. A finding that Guede ejaculated on the pillow, and then stepped in his semen, would make the truth of what happened that much more obvious. It would strengthen the point that irrefutable physical evidence points to Guede and no one else. It would underscore the narrative of a depraved predator acting alone for his own gratification.

Massei had the power to keep that finding from seeing the light of day. He exercised his power.

 

[davefoc]

True the DNA has not been disproved. How does one go about disproving that when the testing was scientifically incorrect?

...

I don't think it's possible. People that are in position to test evidence potentially have enormous power over people's lives. If they produce false results either because of mistakes or intentional misconduct the damage they do almost can not be undone.

In this case a positive result for Kercher's DNA was reported for the kitchen knife. That is evidence that there was Kercher DNA on the kitchen knife. Even after it was found that the collection and testing techniques were flawed the fact of the finding of the DNA can not be undone. The best that can be done is to explain why the result was not reliable. Claiming that there was no such result is not an effective argument against the view of people who know that there was such a finding and continue to believe the initially reported results.

ETA: As to the rest every single word was consistent with what I believe the situation is.

 

[Kaosium]

This seems like the most likely explanation but it seems like by the time the Massei trial is underway that there was enough doubt about what was going on that it is hard to imagine what was really in his mind about this. Of course, the time stamp argument is complete crap, but what was Massei really thinking? Without more facts to constrain the speculation I can imagine lots of possibilities and there are certainly a lot more possibilities that I can't imagine right now.

It was found in the middle of the trial by Vinci, a defense expert, who discovered it and presented it to the court. The prosecution countered that they didn't want it tested because they claimed it could damage one of the footprints if they took a sample. The defense didn't make too much of a fuss as they didn't trust the lab, or Comodi who might take any mixed sample of Rudy and Meredith (likely to be found too on her own pillow) who share ~6 alleles with Raffaele and 'hypothesize' a partial profile of Raffaele's DNA mixed with Rudy's and Meredith's. Mind you that's what you'd start with and there would be absolutely no positive evidence Raffaele contributed to the sample at all, but because it's also true that because it's possible that his alleles could be there and be 'masked' by Meredith's and Rudy's corresponding alleles, and the defense couldn't prove that Raffaele hadn't contributed to it for that reason, they might just say it anyway because to some people that would still be considered 'DNA evidence against Raffaele.'



So in the end the prosecution doesn't want it tested, Maresca doesn't want it tested because he's sold the Kerchers on the sick 'poor Rudy' fantasy and didn't protest his coddling by Mignini (Rudy coming up there would make the prosecution and Maresca look like morons) and the defense isn't making a fuss because they don't trust the lab and Comodi, though they did demand testing at the end of the trial and in the appeal document. Therefore it would be entirely on Massei to have it tested and no one enthusiastic about it and two factions whispering how it might be embarrassing to the Kerchers if her boyfriend (or worse someone else!) comes up there and is entirely unnecessary.

So Massei punts.

 

[Bill Williams]

.
Personally I think there are some people working in the Italian justice system, who just do not get the concept of 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'. They just don't get it, period. For them, close is good enough.

Massei did not get it. Not even close.
Hellmann got it.
Zanetti got it.

I think Nencini gets it. He does not appear to me, to be anyone's fool.

IMO
.

The phrase, "It's compatible with," to my ears seems to replace reasonable doubt in some Italian courtrooms. Most certainly Machiavelli uses this method a lot.

I just don't get it. The starting place doesn't seem to be evidence. It's almost exactly like the comment made that they solved the case before evidence came in.... through observation of...... what? An awkward foreigner?

But the problem is that as the evidence comes in, it's not as if it proves or disproves anything..... just if some tidbit is somehow "compatible" with some predetermined theory.

Which is another thing I don't get... they have theories by the sackful, all different but with guilt already predetermined.

 

[davefoc]

I don't see that. He acknowledges and discusses the main DNA evidence (knife and bra clasp) as well as other DNA traces.



If it's a rant, it is a well-informed rant. It is less about the facts of the case than it is about the warped thinking that keeps the case alive.

...

Ugh, can I take a bit of what I said about this back or maybe all of it?

I seem to have skipped over these paragraphs:

Two years later, the appellate judge ordered independent tests of the supposed murder weapon and a bra clasp found at the scene. The independent experts found that the scientific police made egregious errors in evidence collection, lab procedure, and data interpretation, and in doing so debunked the core of the prosecution’s case against the defendants.
In vacating Knox’s acquittal, the Court of Cassation moved the goalposts on some evidence (making the impractical demand that independent tests not only identify lab errors and other possible or probable sources of DNA contamination, but also find the exact vectors that led to each piece of evidence being contaminated) and demanded additional tests be done on the knife.
The new tests concluded on the knife in question showed no trace of the victim’s DNA or blood anywhere on it, confirming the results of the independent experts’ report and further debunking the prosecution’s scientific case.

I don't know how that happened, but I probably wouldn't have even posted about this issue if I had read those paragraphs. Sorry.

 

[codyjuneau]

I don't think it's possible. People that are in position to test evidence potentially have enormous power over people's lives. If they produce false results either because of mistakes or intentional misconduct the damage they do almost can not be undone.

In this case a positive result for Kercher's DNA was reported for the kitchen knife. That is evidence that there was Kercher DNA on the kitchen knife. Even after it was found that the collection and testing techniques were flawed the fact of the finding of the DNA can not be undone. The best that can be done is to explain why the result was not reliable. Claiming that there was no such result is not an effective argument against the view of people who know that there was such a finding and continue to believe the initially reported results.
ETA: As to the rest every single word was consistent with what I believe the situation is.

.
I suppose you are correct, but I think it is easier said than done. The accusers just say we found DNA. A nice concise sound bite that the media is eager to report, the audience is eager to read, and the audience can understand.

How can defenders explain the reasons the result is not reliable in a way that is concise enough to be reported, read, and understood?

I ask seriously, because it seems to be a common problem for defenders.
.

 

[codyjuneau]

The phrase, "It's compatible with," to my ears seems to replace reasonable doubt in some Italian courtrooms. Most certainly Machiavelli uses this method a lot.

I just don't get it. The starting place doesn't seem to be evidence. It's almost exactly like the comment made that they solved the case before evidence came in.... through observation of...... what? An awkward foreigner?

But the problem is that as the evidence comes in, it's not as if it proves or disproves anything..... just if some tidbit is somehow "compatible" with some predetermined theory.

Which is another thing I don't get... they have theories by the sackful, all different but with guilt already predetermined.

.
I think it was the book 'Monster of Florence', which was written well before the murder of Meredith, that explained how the courts in Italy often used the 'it is compatible with' weasel phrase . Other things also, like the tendency to believe nothing is as it appears.

It turned out to be a more accurate portrayal than I imagined.
.

 

[Kaosium]

True the DNA has not been disproved. How does one go about disproving that when the testing was scientifically incorrect?

For example the sample 36b tested negative for blood and was found to be not something of human origin or words to that effect.

In fact the sample was mis-quantified and lied about in the detention hearing when Stefanoni testified that it was ample in size..."a couple of hundred picograms" and later we discover that this was a lie. It was < 10 picograms and maybe zero picograms because at these quantification levels they are too low to test any further... it is hard to tell here.

Contamination is one and actually the only possibility and in 2007 and even today in 2014 I don't think a sample of 5 or 10 picograms can be used in court no matter who does the testing. It is just too likely to be contamination...the risk of error is so high as to be unusable as evidence of any sort. So why disprove?

Yes RS DNA was on the clasp...so were three other guys. Who do you suppose these other guys were and how did they get on that clasp??? A clasp that just so happened to be rusted and destroyed and is impossible to retest due to improper basic storage technique.

What do we need to disprove? First let the other three guys disprove and then we will disprove RS DNA...wait... Was it a full DNA sample or some Y type indications? Actually I contend that if RS unhooked MK bra then his shoe prints need to be somewhere in this room...and BTW if he ran barefoot during this murder and made the footprint image on the bathmat....where is the "negative image" ...you know...the place where he picked up that blood? Remembering that for Guede this blood washed down onto his foot from his blood covered pant leg...probably filled his shoe right up and soaked his foot.

That is Guedes big toe BTW....on the bath mat...impossible to be RS big fat big toe...a perfect match to Guedes rather normal looking big toe though... Have you ever seem Yummi/Machs analysis of that...all the hand drawn little arrows? Its funny really.

I think the burden should be on the prosecution to prove beyond doubt that these two DNA samples are safe and reliable and re-testable. Have they even come close to doing that? Not in the real world...not even close. In fact all indicators are that these two samples are suspiciously corrupt in nature. Mis-collected, subjected to secret test procedures and still no control proof or even full disclosure of the raw data in the form of EDF's.

Meanwhile the bra clasp is suspiciously destroyed and the knife which never matched the bed sheet imprint ...not even closely...has failed to reveal any MK DNA after several retests. A starch granule was found and another low template number sample purported to be a match to Knox but which can never be reliable because of its size and improper handling at collection. The 36I sample was a show...it is just as likely to be a incorrect result as well. The peer review on that test seems to be still out.

Great post Randy!

Kudos.

 

[Matthew Best]

Check it out.

In what sense is that the same show as the one about Knox/Sollecito? It's a show on the same channel, yes.

 

[katy_did]

How do they do that exactly? You think Massie's motivation was strange? Think about how they could possible write a motivation that comes to this conclusion Charlie. There is less credible evidence that Amanda is in that bedroom during the murder than Raffaele.

With all due respect Charlie, I couldn't disagree more. This is going either with both Raffaele and Amanda's convictions being exactly the same (with the exception of the callunia charge) or there will be an acquittal.

For me that's the one outcome which would be almost impossible. I could see them doing it the other way round - convicting Raffaele but acquitting Amanda - although I don't think it's all that likely. But if anything the evidence for Amanda being in the room is even more tenuous than that against Raffaele. I don't see any way they could conclude the knife is valid (and not only that, but that Amanda's DNA being on it links her to the murder) but then dismiss the bra clasp.

 

[katy_did]

This seems like the most likely explanation but it seems like by the time the Massei trial is underway that there was enough doubt about what was going on that it is hard to imagine what was really in his mind about this. Of course, the time stamp argument is complete crap, but what was Massei really thinking? Without more facts to constrain the speculation I can imagine lots of possibilities and there are certainly a lot more possibilities that I can't imagine right now.

I think that at that stage during a trial in Italy, a judge can only order the acquisition of new evidence if there's a clear need to do so from the point of view of reaching a verdict. They can't order it simply to gain more details on how the crime happened unless those details are critical to the decision. So what Massei is attempting to explain (albeit with pretty weak arguments) is why the outcome of such a test wouldn't be critical and therefore he doesn't have enough justification to order it (incidentally, that's why I think the RIS test on the knife has to have some kind of impact; it wouldn't have been ordered unless it was important in terms of reaching a verdict).

Machiavelli suggested Massei's refusal to order the test indicated he thought there was already enough evidence to convict Raffaele, but I disagree there: he was responding to a defence request, and naturally they weren't arguing the test would reveal Raffaele's DNA, but that it might turn out to be Guede's or (I think this was the main argument) from another man. Obviously Massei wasn't required to address imaginary arguments not made by anybody, like that it might be from Raffaele.

 

[anglolawyer]

3. 14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510 5820974944592307816406286208998

Hey! I calculated pi to 100 digits! Check it for yourself. How did I do it, you ask? I have a number of answers:

1 what does it matter? I got it right so my method must be valid.
2 I filed the calculation at court in October 2008
3 I divided 10 by 3 and sort of lopped a bit off and it came out right
4 I invited you to come see me make the calculation but you didn't show up.

 

[RoseMontague]

For me that's the one outcome which would be almost impossible. I could see them doing it the other way round - convicting Raffaele but acquitting Amanda - although I don't think it's all that likely. But if anything the evidence for Amanda being in the room is even more tenuous than that against Raffaele. I don't see any way they could conclude the knife is valid (and not only that, but that Amanda's DNA being on it links her to the murder) but then dismiss the bra clasp.

I don't think the evidence really matters in this case. A few of the pro-innocent Italians I have spoken to see a partial acquittal for RS and full conviction for AK as a strong possibility.

I have given up on predicting what an Italian court will do based on the evidence presented in court.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

For me that's the one outcome which would be almost impossible. I could see them doing it the other way round - convicting Raffaele but acquitting Amanda - although I don't think it's all that likely. But if anything the evidence for Amanda being in the room is even more tenuous than that against Raffaele. I don't see any way they could conclude the knife is valid (and not only that, but that Amanda's DNA being on it links her to the murder) but then dismiss the bra clasp.

You are hung up on facts and logic. If they cared about facts and logic, they wouldn't be doing this at all. They're looking at how they can placate internal stakeholders, along with the nitwit mob that supports them politically, without adding to the outside pressure on their system.

I might be wrong about how they will ultimately balance those interests, but I understand what the interests are.

We'll see in a week or so what they do.

 

[katy_did]

I don't think the evidence really matters in this case. A few of the pro-innocent Italians I have spoken to see a partial acquittal for RS and full conviction for AK as a strong possibility.

I have given up on predicting what an Italian court will do based on the evidence presented in court.

I'd still have to strongly disagree with them. Even the request to check whether Guede's DNA was on the knife handle suggests to me a willingness to consider that Amanda may have been present but not in the room (because if they'd found it, what would they have concluded? That Amanda stabbed Meredith then handed the knife to Guede to stab her as well? I doubt it. More likely that Guede stabbed her using that knife and Amanda handled it afterwards). They also have Amanda's statement that she was in the kitchen, which although they're not supposed to consider, has to be in their minds as a possible alternative narrative.

I can see almost any verdict - a full acquittal, a conviction for staging the scene but not guilty for murder, or a murder conviction - but a conviction for Amanda but not Raffaele is the one I'd consider most unlikely.