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

Status
Not open for further replies.
anglolawyer said:
Yes but you told us you were a jailbird so clearly there was some effect. Have you reformed yet?

ETA for American readers - :)
Click to expand...

I'm not a recidivist.

The chef was definitely not 4 star, the entertainment was limited and the mattress was lumpy. Next time I'll stay at the Four Seasons.
 
Right on

-

Strozzi said:
Maybe Stefanoni and Rudy could share a 2 bedroom flat. :p
Click to expand...
-

And the TJMK fiends should pay for it, ha ha,

d

ETA not the ones who ACTUALLY want true justice, but those other ones who want to only GWAK
-
 
Last edited:
Lets take up a collection

And offer the proceeds to Stephanoni in exchange for the data files.

Dear Dottora!

We would be pleased to pay you personally XXXXX in US dollars for the files that contain complete records of your work on the Kercher murder case.

With deep respect,
Admiring citizens of the world
 
Saw this on "IIP"
http://www.umbrialeft.it/notizie/meredith-csm-acquisirà-interviste-del-giudice-nencini

From my translation of the translation, there are three (?) investigations occurring about Nencini's chat with the press? Apparently this includes an investigation by the Attorney General of the Supreme Court Gianfranco Ciani. Hopefully something positive comes out of this, although it's hard to get optimistic about anything right now.
=sd=


Google translate sayeth:
ROME - The CSM will acquire 'the interviews given after the ruling of the appeal process a murder of Meredith Kercher by the presiding judge Alexander Nencini. Sara 'This is the first step of the investigation entrusted to the First Commission must assess whether there are grounds for a possible procedure for office relocation to incompatibility' borne by the magistrate. Rapporteur of the dossier and 'the toga of Paul Area Carfi'.

The practical and 'was opened last week by the Executive Committee of the CSM, which accepted the request to that effect made before the laity of the center-right and then the entire First Commission and the toga of Unicost Richard Fuzio. At CSM, so 'as the Minister of Justice and Pg the Supreme Court, have filed a complaint against Nencini also Raffaele Sollecito's lawyers, who accused the judge of having with his statements to the press violated the secret of the council chamber and displayed bias against their client.

Today the Commission-chaired by a lay of the PDL-Annibale Marini and 'limited to formalities' rite, referring to Thursday' next to a first examination of the case.

That the CSM and 'just one of the investigations opened into the case. Another 'was entrusted by the Minister of Justice Inspectorate Arenula and a third' was initiated by the Attorney General of the Supreme Court Gianfranco Ciani. Both are functional to see if there are grounds for
the exercise of the disciplinary action against Nencini, who last week had to be excluded from having anticipated the reasoning of the judgment and of having expressed any kind of judgment on the choice of urge not to be questioned during the process.
Click to expand...
 
RandyN said:
Yes, funny you didnt know about the dead skin cell thing then. No DNA in poop either ...just saying.
Click to expand...

Hair and nails in themselves are protein products of e.g. hair follicle cells. They contain no DNA. However if you pull a hair out as opposed to cutting it e.g, by vigorous brushing, in a struggle etc. hair follicle cells would adhere to the root of the hair and provide DNA.

Skin cells change they start off growing at the bottom of the skin and as new skin cells grow beneath them they get pushed to the surface, a continual flow of new skin. As they approach the surface they change nature, stop growing and become hard and flat. The DNA undergoes destruction 'apoptosis' so the DNA in dead skin cells is all cut about and not good for analysis.

Cells from inside of mouth in contrast do not undergo the same process of ageing which is why mouth swabs, gargles and toothbrushes are good sources of DNA.

Faeces do contain human DNA, but also food DNA, and massive amounts of bacterial DNA. They are also yucky. Getting DNA is possible but difficult. given the alternative of the paper, I think the lab went with the least unpleasant option.

You can get data from damaged DNA e.g. recent neanderthal DNA studies but the sort of techniques are highly specialised and the sort of assumptions made would not be easy to argue as forensically safe.

Human red blood cells are devoid of DNA, but full of haemoglobin, which is what most tests for blood look for. There are roughly a thousand red cells to each white cell, which do contain DNA. Haemoglobin is quite tough as compared with DNA. This is why the complete failure to find blood on the knife is important.

No blood on the knife, no human cells on the blade. No DNA detected in the sample from the blade. (It is worth emphasising this; there is always the possibility that there is material below current ability to detect but it is a bit like saying we found no WMD in Iraq but that does not mean there is no WMD in Iraq; so we will just launch a war to look a bit closer). This means almost certainly the result on the knife blade is due to in laboratory contamination, hang over from a previous sample is possible, which is why the full records of the run and timing and processing of controls is needed.
 
"Yes it’s true you need to find the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as the high court has said, but the high court was merely codifying a principle that already existed in our jurisprudence […] It doesn’t mean you need to find the absolute truth, which is the province of God alone […] You need only be certain enough for the purposes of a trial. What does that mean? It means two things, essentially: that the reconstruction of the facts is based on logic, and that its elements are not in contradiction with each other." Mignini

Two things interesting, first 'our jurisprudence' either this is addressing perceived criticism from abroad, or worries that the jury may have been contaminated by american tv ideas of reasonable doubt.

More interestingly. There is no requirement even for the prosecution explanation to be the most likely. He seems to say so long as the prosecution have a coherent narrative however unlikely then you have to find guilt. This as has been said is close to what Machiavelli argues here and the criticism that the ISC had for the appeal, that hey considered the probability of the physical evidence rather than the coherency of the story told by the prosecution. It does seem that in Italian terms the conclusion of the court that AK and RS are guilty may be correct. This does not mean I think this conclusion is just or correct in any real world meaning of the word, just within the wonderland logic of Italian jurisprudence - but at least we now understand why the PGP keep crying 'Off with her head". I also claim the prize for identifying Harry Rag who is in fact …. the Red Queen.
 
Planigale said:
...
Skin cells change they start off growing at the bottom of the skin and as new skin cells grow beneath them they get pushed to the surface, a continual flow of new skin. As they approach the surface they change nature, stop growing and become hard and flat. The DNA undergoes destruction 'apoptosis' so the DNA in dead skin cells is all cut about and not good for analysis.
...
Click to expand...

Up to now, I assumed that test results that find DNA but no cells were probably caused by DNA from dead skin cells floating around. It sounds like my idea about that might have been wrong, so what are the likely sources of DNA for samples where the source cells can't be identified?

Also, is the use of DNA results from samples where source cells can't be identified a common forensic practice? (My apologies, I think this was already answered but I'd like to confirm my memory of the answer, thanks).

A completely unrelated item:
It just struck me today how strange the delayed finding of the bra clasp was. It seems like somebody would have noticed that the bra clasp was missing from the bra when the bra was first collected and initiated an intense effort to find it. I wonder who first noticed it was missing and when they noticed it was missing.
 
Planigale said:
"Yes it’s true you need to find the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as the high court has said, but the high court was merely codifying a principle that already existed in our jurisprudence […] It doesn’t mean you need to find the absolute truth, which is the province of God alone […] You need only be certain enough for the purposes of a trial. What does that mean? It means two things, essentially: that the reconstruction of the facts is based on logic, and that its elements are not in contradiction with each other." Mignini

Two things interesting, first 'our jurisprudence' either this is addressing perceived criticism from abroad, or worries that the jury may have been contaminated by american tv ideas of reasonable doubt.

More interestingly. There is no requirement even for the prosecution explanation to be the most likely. He seems to say so long as the prosecution have a coherent narrative however unlikely then you have to find guilt. This as has been said is close to what Machiavelli argues here and the criticism that the ISC had for the appeal, that hey considered the probability of the physical evidence rather than the coherency of the story told by the prosecution. It does seem that in Italian terms the conclusion of the court that AK and RS are guilty may be correct. This does not mean I think this conclusion is just or correct in any real world meaning of the word, just within the wonderland logic of Italian jurisprudence - but at least we now understand why the PGP keep crying 'Off with her head". I also claim the prize for identifying Harry Rag who is in fact …. the Red Queen.
Click to expand...
All Alice fans should read The Annotated Alice by Martin Gardner, it may throw further light in a humorous way on this sad story.
 
Planigale said:
"Yes it’s true you need to find the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as the high court has said, but the high court was merely codifying a principle that already existed in our jurisprudence […] It doesn’t mean you need to find the absolute truth, which is the province of God alone […] You need only be certain enough for the purposes of a trial. What does that mean? It means two things, essentially: that the reconstruction of the facts is based on logic, and that its elements are not in contradiction with each other." Mignini

Two things interesting, first 'our jurisprudence' either this is addressing perceived criticism from abroad, or worries that the jury may have been contaminated by american tv ideas of reasonable doubt.

More interestingly. There is no requirement even for the prosecution explanation to be the most likely. He seems to say so long as the prosecution have a coherent narrative however unlikely then you have to find guilt. This as has been said is close to what Machiavelli argues here and the criticism that the ISC had for the appeal, that hey considered the probability of the physical evidence rather than the coherency of the story told by the prosecution. It does seem that in Italian terms the conclusion of the court that AK and RS are guilty may be correct. This does not mean I think this conclusion is just or correct in any real world meaning of the word, just within the wonderland logic of Italian jurisprudence - but at least we now understand why the PGP keep crying 'Off with her head". I also claim the prize for identifying Harry Rag who is in fact …. the Red Queen.
Click to expand...


I agree with your analysis here.

And to me, Mignini's remarks strongly support the belief that the criminal justice system in Italy is still horribly tainted by its messy and clumsy amalgamation of inquisitorial and adversarial systems.

To me, Mignini's remarks hark back to the inquisitorial days when the PM found the "judicial truth" in any given case: the PM was supposed to be a "neutral" investigating authority, with no vested interest in any particular position. Therefore, the version of events that the PM placed before the court was meant to be the "objective" assessment of the crime. And, as Mignini alludes to, the only seeming requirements was that the PM's version of events a) fit with the known evidence, and b) was not self-contradictory in any way. If it passed those threshold tests, then it was the version that tended to be accepted by the courts.

Of course, it doesn't take a genius in jurisprudence to see how horribly flawed this sort of methodology is in the application of justice. It's why the inquisitorial system is totally unfit for purpose in an age where investigative tools are so sophisticated and varied, and where human rights have actually evolved to something close to acceptable levels. But for clarity, here again are the two main reasons why this sort of inquisitorial approach is so fatally flawed:

1) PMs under an inquisitorial system still quite clearly have a balance of interest in obtaining convictions. It's therefore arrant nonsense to suggest that their presentation of the case is objective and disinterested.

2) There is zero benefit of the doubt given in practice to the accused under an inquisitorial system. This is patently unfair and unjust when the accused a) is up against the power of the state, b) is the one who stands to be punished if convicted, c) is the one against whom the accusations are made (and it should always be incumbent upon the accuser to prove the accusations), and d) can often not prove his/her innocence (which should never be an impediment in and of itself to being found not guilty).


Mignini's remarks only strengthen my belief that one of the fundamental structural and institutionalised problems in Italian criminal justice is this failure to abandon many of the fondly-held tenets of the old inquisitorial system. And the problem is that this can actually result in a far worse system of justice than even the old pure-inquisitorial system. I think that courtroom judges and PMs are still far, far too close to each other, and that court judges are still clearly inclined to place the PM's version of events as the default "starting position" - thereby shifting the burden onto the defence of essentially having to show the court how and why the PM's version is incorrect. And if the PM's version is logically consistent and is consistent with the evidence (even if, as you say, it's far from the best fit with the evidence), then it effectively becomes virtually impossible for the defence to sway the court.

I think that this is, to all intents and purposes, exactly what has happened in the Knox/Sollecito case. I think that the "burden of disproof" was implicitly placed upon the defence. I think we see it in the SC ruling and in the Nencini judgement, and we most definitely see it in Mignini's remarks. And it's massively destructive to the fair and just application of criminal justice in a modern liberalised democracy.
 
davefoc said:
Up to now, I assumed that test results that find DNA but no cells were probably caused by DNA from dead skin cells floating around. It sounds like my idea about that might have been wrong, so what are the likely sources of DNA for samples where the source cells can't be identified?

Also, is the use of DNA results from samples where source cells can't be identified a common forensic practice? (My apologies, I think this was already answered but I'd like to confirm my memory of the answer, thanks).

A completely unrelated item:
It just struck me today how strange the delayed finding of the bra clasp was. It seems like somebody would have noticed that the bra clasp was missing from the bra when the bra was first collected and initiated an intense effort to find it. I wonder who first noticed it was missing and when they noticed it was missing.
Click to expand...

The knife and the bra fastener represent two different situations in terms of what probably happened.

The test result on the knife showed a complete profile at an infinitesimally low level, instead of a profile with dropped alleles, as one would expect with a low starting template. The most likely explanation is contamination from a previous test. PCR works by amplifying the DNA in a sample, using chemicals to reproduce millions of copies of the DNA molecule itself. The substance they end up with has an exponentially higher concentration of DNA than any natural tissue. If the smallest trace of that substance gets into another test, it will contaminate the result. This happens all the time in PCR labs, which is why they normally throw out marginal results like the one they got on the knife blade. It is also why they run controls, with no DNA in the starting sample, to test for contamination. Stefanoni claims she performed controls, but she has never provided valid data to prove it.

With the bra fastener, the first question to ask is why did they go back to the crime scene in the first place? And why would it be so important to find the bra fastener? It's not like it would add to their understanding of what happened. The only possible value would be to collect DNA evidence that might implicate a particular suspect.

They had three people locked up, they had made a public accusation, and they only had good evidence against one of them. Amanda's DNA, even in Meredith's room, could always be explained by the fact that she lived in that apartment. So they found Raffaele's DNA, on the bra fastener, which seems to link it to the crime and thereby links Amanda to the crime indirectly.

They went back to the crime scene, and they found exactly what they needed.

From the video, it's clear they knew it was an important find, even though they had not tested it yet.

It's possible this was an accidental event, caused by DNA transferred on the fingers of a dirty latex glove, not by "flying," which is a straw man argument put out by the prosecution's consultants.

It's far more likely a cop tampered with the evidence and put the word out, with a wink and a nudge, to be sure to find and test the bra fastener.

What is not plausible is that Raffaele ever touched the hook of the bra. The bra was not unhooked by him or anyone. It was pulled apart by brute force, when Guede used it to drag Meredith across the floor. That is why Guede's DNA was found on the back strap of the bra itself. It is why one of the hooks is bent almost straight. Ultimately, however, the stitching failed before the hooks did.
 
Mary_H said:
I am sure Rudy does not hold himself responsible for what happened. He has exhibited a pattern of denial from the beginning, when he went out dancing, as if what he had just done was not something that had to be dealt with, but would turn out to be okay in the end, as was the case with the rest of his burglaries.

There are a lot of aspects to the event that he can use to rationalize that he did not commit murder and/or that what happened was less his fault than the fault of Meredith or the circumstances. He might think:

1.) It was not premeditated; it was an accident.
2.) It would not have happened if Meredith had not provoked him in some way, e.g., by coming home, or by refusing his advances.
3.) It would not have happened if Meredith had not struggled or fought back.
4.) He tried to stem the flow of Meredith's blood.
5.) Meredith was not dead when he left.
6.) To me, it is within the realm of possibility that Rudy threw the rock through Filomena's window after he left the house in order to alert neighbors.

Rudy had never killed before and I doubt he wants to think of himself as a killer. Any natural tendency he would have to deny responsibility and shift blame was strongly exploited by the lawyers, who urged him to imagine a scenario that included other people, and eventually to name those people as Amanda and Raffaele. Just as Amanda was convinced by the police that she was there, it is very likely Rudy was convinced by the lawyers (and himself) that he actually did not commit murder.
Click to expand...
All agreed.
 
I see with inquisitorial system, you have a better opportunity to get a judge vs a jury to understand the evidence but not what you seem to have gotten here.
 
davefoc said:
Up to now, I assumed that test results that find DNA but no cells were probably caused by DNA from dead skin cells floating around. It sounds like my idea about that might have been wrong, so what are the likely sources of DNA for samples where the source cells can't be identified?

Also, is the use of DNA results from samples where source cells can't be identified a common forensic practice? (My apologies, I think this was already answered but I'd like to confirm my memory of the answer, thanks).

A completely unrelated item:
It just struck me today how strange the delayed finding of the bra clasp was. It seems like somebody would have noticed that the bra clasp was missing from the bra when the bra was first collected and initiated an intense effort to find it. I wonder who first noticed it was missing and when they noticed it was missing.
Click to expand...

Sorry I am not a forensic biologist so cannot answer your question directly. I think there is a difference between usable DNA, and DNA. If you have a chest infection, that sticky phlegm you cough up is sticky because it is full of DNA. The DNA molecules link up in a network to make the phlegm sticky. So in conditions like cystic fibrosis people breathe in chemicals designed to break up DNA.So as has been said a good cough or sneeze and DNA will go flying. Mostly useless for forensic purposes but there will be some shed cells. How long these remain good I do not know. Sunlight damages DNA, so light exposure will be one important consideration. As has been said upthread most guidelines are that you use DNA to identify known biological material as to origin. In any test you have to be cautious about random sampling vs directed sampling in terms on interpretation.
 
davefoc said:
<snip>A completely unrelated item:
It just struck me today how strange the delayed finding of the bra clasp was. It seems like somebody would have noticed that the bra clasp was missing from the bra when the bra was first collected and initiated an intense effort to find it. I wonder who first noticed it was missing and when they noticed it was missing.
Click to expand...

The first picture on this page shows the bra clasp during the first or one of the first sweeps of Meredith's room. This photograph would have been in the collection of all the photographs presumably studied by the investigators in the first days after the discovery of the crime. Presumably all the photos would have been labeled and catalogued, along with the evidence. If this piece of evidence were missing from the collection at the lab, I seriously doubt they would have waited six weeks to return and retrieve it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom