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

[Dan O.]

Hmm. So where is this GIP warrant?

Massei ordered that these be made available to the defense

PRESIDENT - I agree, the important thing is that we can have the availability of requests and of decrees authorization of the interception, unless early now the parties were to say that there are no issues about ... but if we have it so maybe for verify.
DEFENSE - AVV. BONGIORNO - No, no, we want them too.

 

[MDDVS]

Oh no..no..no... continue please.

Now where were we... oh yes...the wire tapping, the huge infringements of personal liberties and privacy: "It's shocking, and hugely backward."

Do go on.

What's your point? Do you have a point?

 

[Supercalifragilistic]

Super,

Colmez made the case for retesting the knife, with the possibility of making the old result (the low template finding of Ms. Kercher's profile) more reliable. Whether her case is a good one or not is a matter for a separate comment. What the Carabinieri actually found was DNA that probably arose from Ms. Knox as a donor. Colmez should be asked how the fact of not finding Kercher's DNA impacts on the reliability of the first test. That was the whole point of doing the second test.

IIRC Ms. Knox was already shown to be a donor with respect to DNA on the handle; therefore, finding her DNA on the blade does not seem very surprising. However, the result is actually more exculpatory than inculpatory. Now the prosecution is asserting in effect that one can clean a knife of blood completely, yet still leave two traces of DNA on the blade, as well as starch on the blade. I am with Professor Budowle: The prosecution's case defies reason on this point. Perhaps Ms. Alexander will look into this question.

And there are still other questions to be asked, for example she could explore how many cases of DNA contamination exist where a route was shown vs. how many case of DNA contamination exist where a route is not known. This is one of the scientific errors perpetrated by the CSC...

Sorry but my post should have read "Swab B" not "Swab A". I edited my post but you obviously quoted me before the edit.

I think there is widespread confusion over all this. You say "Colmez should be asked how the fact of not finding Kercher's DNA impacts on the reliability of the first test. That was the whole point of doing the second test." ?? Colmez was using probability theory to show the increased reliability gained for the Swab B result by re-testing that same swab - Swab B, thus correctly refuting the uninformed and intuitive view of the appeal judge (Hellmann) that no purpose would be served.

In the latest Carabinieri testing only Swab I was tested (nowhere else). This was the first test of this swab and it revealed Knox DNA. The absence of Kercher DNA at this location on the knife has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the Kercher DNA at Swab B (quite obviously)!

We will likely see when the motivation report comes out that the court has accepted that B=Kercher and I=Knox.

 

[Diocletus]

Sorry but my post should have read "Swab B" not "Swab A". I edited my post but you obviously quoted me before the edit.

I think there is widespread confusion over all this. You say "Colmez should be asked how the fact of not finding Kercher's DNA impacts on the reliability of the first test. That was the whole point of doing the second test." ?? Colmez was using probability theory to show the increased reliability gained for the Swab B result by re-testing that same swab - Swab B, thus correctly refuting the uninformed and intuitive view of the appeal judge (Hellmann) that no purpose would be served.

In the latest Carabinieri testing only Swab I was tested (nowhere else). This was the first test of this swab and it revealed Knox DNA. The absence of Kercher DNA at this location on the knife has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the Kercher DNA at Swab B (quite obviously)!

We will likely see when the motivation report comes out that the court has accepted that B=Kercher and I=Knox.

Why would Colmez think that sample b could be retested? It is well-known that Stefanoni used up the entire amplification product during the first testing.

 

[Diocletus]

Massei ordered that these be made available to the defense

​

I would really like to see them. They are probably the first official acts of Mignini that spell out some reason for believing that Knox, Sollecito and others would have knowledge of the crime. I'd also like to see who the GIP was who approved, and what the reasoning was.

 

[Dan O.]

Methos is the go-to guy for OCR work.

He's probably the one that OCR'd Massei in the early days. But the machines wouldn't touch Matteini. I had to transcribe that one by hand. That's where this factoid on the two SIMs comes from:

The desire to prevent Diya Lumumba in the surveys could be traced to the same
consideration of the message sent to Amanda on the evening of November q, is clear in its
strange behavior on the exchange of its own mobile phone in the days immediately
after the fact, that fact is incontrovertible as the acquisition of traffic
phone shows that the predicted until November 2, used a mobile phone having IMEI No
354548014227980 as the day of boarding had used a mobile phone with IMEI No
354548014227987.
That fact would remain neutral if he himself had admitted, since
continuing to use the same number as there were still obstacles to trace the
same, but what it contributes instead to give him relief is just the stubbornness of that in
deny it, this factor which suggests that the same did it right on the erroneous
conviction of being thus able to deflect his identification.

So, the phone SIM that Rome examined was the second one (ending 987) that he had at the time of his arrest and not the first SIM that was used to send the texts on November 1. That seems to eliminate the PLE screwup theory.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the prosecution's spin on the retesting

Why would Colmez think that sample b could be retested? It is well-known that Stefanoni used up the entire amplification product during the first testing.

Diocletus,

IIRC Conti and Vecchiotti reswabbed the same area as was swabbed in the original 36B sample but found no DNA whatsoever. I will check again tonight to be certain. Therefore, the argument that Supercalifragilistic put forward is looking suspect. Perhaps it is just post-hoc spin.

 

[Grinder]

I believe that he was. He seems to love wiretaps.

I can see no reason, in a murder investigation, to wiretap someone unless you believe that: 1) they did it, or 2) they know facts that they are hiding (i.e., because they are an accessory/accomplice).

Basically, it seems to me that if you wiretap someone, they are a suspected.

Thanks for the wiretapping research.

But you're wrong about them being suspects because it is only compatible and any defense argument must be a match to overturn a prosecution assertion.

 

[Diocletus]

But you're wrong about them being suspects because it is only compatible and any defense argument must be a match to overturn a prosecution assertion.

I have a feeling that you're right about that.

I'm sure that Mignini was very careful to avoid calling them "suspects" because then they would have had all sorts of rights and other undesirable stuff. What he probably said was that there has been a murder, and it is indispensable to the investigation that we wire-tap the roommates, because we know that this was an inside job (because of the "obviously fake" break-in). This would put Knox and Sollecito within the zone of suspects, but would not mean that they were "the" suspects. It's just that they were the only ones within the "zone" who happen to have stayed in town and/or were not with third parties.

 

[Grinder]

Sorry but my post should have read "Swab B" not "Swab A". I edited my post but you obviously quoted me before the edit.

I think there is widespread confusion over all this. You say "Colmez should be asked how the fact of not finding Kercher's DNA impacts on the reliability of the first test. That was the whole point of doing the second test." ?? Colmez was using probability theory to show the increased reliability gained for the Swab B result by re-testing that same swab - Swab B, thus correctly refuting the uninformed and intuitive view of the appeal judge (Hellmann) that no purpose would be served.

In the latest Carabinieri testing only Swab I was tested (nowhere else). This was the first test of this swab and it revealed Knox DNA. The absence of Kercher DNA at this location on the knife has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the Kercher DNA at Swab B (quite obviously)!

We will likely see when the motivation report comes out that the court has accepted that B=Kercher and I=Knox.

A main point of Maths on Trial vis-a-vis the MK DNA was that a second test from another spot on the knife that turned up as Meredith would have the same weight as a second test of the original spot.

When they tested the new DNA and it came up as Amanda's leaving the single over duplicated (too low, too low) test, which not even the Thoughtful and her daughter would accept as scientifically viable.

 

[anglolawyer]

He's probably the one that OCR'd Massei in the early days. But the machines wouldn't touch Matteini. I had to transcribe that one by hand. That's where this factoid on the two SIMs comes from:

​

So, the phone SIM that Rome examined was the second one (ending 987) that he had at the time of his arrest and not the first SIM that was used to send the texts on November 1. That seems to eliminate the PLE screwup theory.

You are evidently well-schooled in making sense of this murk. I remember reading this the other day in your translation of Matteini which showed up on my computer.

 

[Strozzi]

Mach's posts contain lies and misrepresentations but at least he doesn't try to be insulting. I don't remember putting Mach on ignore. and haven't seen anyone quote him for a while. He's probably off on retreat with Mignini and co preparing the next phase of the prosecutions case.

I ask this as a serious question. Could "Yummiest" be helping Nencini write the motivation? Who exactly is permitted to draft or advise on the drafting of a motivation? Does anyone believe Yummiest works for a police or judicial entity?

 

[RoseMontague]

I have a feeling that you're right about that.

I'm sure that Mignini was very careful to avoid calling them "suspects" because then they would have had all sorts of rights and other undesirable stuff. What he probably said was that there has been a murder, and it is indispensable to the investigation that we wire-tap the roommates, because we know that this was an inside job (because of the "obviously fake" break-in). This would put Knox and Sollecito within the zone of suspects, but would not mean that they were "the" suspects. It's just that they were the only ones within the "zone" who happen to have stayed in town and/or were not with third parties.

IIRC, in the Avetrana case they tapped the phones of hundreds of people, friends and relatives and friends of those as well. It resulted in a charge against someone who happened to talk about illegally influencing a local election.

Par for the course in Italy. America has it's own problems with the NSA and privacy, apparently extending to foreign leaders and their calls as well. I expect this problem will continue to grow just about everywhere. That doesn't make it right.

 

[Desert Fox]

A main point of Maths on Trial vis-a-vis the MK DNA was that a second test from another spot on the knife that turned up as Meredith would have the same weight as a second test of the original spot.

When they tested the new DNA and it came up as Amanda's leaving the single over duplicated (too low, too low) test, which not even the Thoughtful and her daughter would accept as scientifically viable.

I have tried to discuss why the DNA on the knife (and the clasp) is not valid defense evidence and many people just seem to be mesmerised by "DNA" so it is something that it a pain in the gluteus maximus to deal with.

 

[Diocletus]

We will likely see when the motivation report comes out that the court has accepted that B=Kercher and I=Knox.

Yeah, probably. But not on the science. It will probably be some absurd, boot-strapped argument to the effect that we know Meredith's DNA is on the knife because it matches the wounds and Knox is guilty of callunia. Osmosis over science.

 

[Grinder]

I have tried to discuss why the DNA on the knife (and the clasp) is not valid defense and many people just seem to be mesmerised by "DNA" so it is something that it a pain in the gluteus maximus to deal with.

I don't quite understand what you mean here. Do you mean why isn't it valid evidence?

 

[anglolawyer]

A main point of Maths on Trial vis-a-vis the MK DNA was that a second test from another spot on the knife that turned up as Meredith would have the same weight as a second test of the original spot.

When they tested the new DNA and it came up as Amanda's leaving the single over duplicated (too low, too low) test, which not even the Thoughtful and her daughter would accept as scientifically viable.

I don't share your understanding of MoT. The single test in trace B was only 'too low' once. Stef got multiple 'too lows' from multiple knife samples, each sample being run through the Qubit just the one time. Trace C was from the other side of the blade, registered as too low and she dumped it. If we're all still around and Hell hadn't frozen over, Mach might one day tell us why she treated those two samples differently.

Also, Leila thought the fact the trace B egram matched MK's profile retrospectively validated everything that went before making it irrelevant that this or that phase was screwed up since the identical profile could not have arisen by chance. In vain have I likened this to my claiming to have calculated pi to 100 places (a vastly more improbable feat if achieved by chance) as no one here has got the point about that.

 

[RoseMontague]

I have tried to discuss why the DNA on the knife (and the clasp) is not valid defense and many people just seem to be mesmerised by "DNA" so it is something that it a pain in the gluteus maximus to deal with.

Yes. A lot of people consider it the mother of all evidence.

The biggest problems are the DNA can't be dated, possible collection and lab contamination, and interpretation of partial or multiple profiles. When you are dealing with LCN results these last two problems are even more likely.

Explaining why a result is invalid is much harder than saying Meredith's DNA was found on the kitchen knife.

 

[Grinder]

Yeah, probably. But not on the science. It will probably be some absurd, boot-strapped argument to the effect that we know Meredith's DNA is on the knife because it matches the wounds and Knox is guilty of callunia. Osmosis over science.

What document did we just have posted that said the knife was a small knife like Raf's pocket knife.

Not that I'm disputing what the "logic" of Nencini will be. I'm still interested in exactly what the RIS report said about the MK DNA.

Curious as to whether or not C&V will be referenced at all.

 

[Strozzi]

Originally Posted by Samson
I find all Machiavelli's posts extremely offensive, but they are quoted ad nauseam for a simple reason, it is an open forum, and frankly the most sophisticated forum for future research and reversal of this nonsense. (end of Samson post).

He is the closest thing we have to understand how the prosecution thinks, since Mignini, Commodi, and Stefanoni do not post on this board.

A few days ago I asked Mach how the bra clasp was stored and he replied that it was in a tube and that the moisture present caused it to deteriorate. Mach pointed out how storing it was a bit unusual, since some labs do not save items at all after testing due to space limitations. Charlie Wilkes commented that it was in a buffer and not properly dried.

What it comes down to is that the bra clasp was immersed in a liquid in a tube, so the item (fabric and metal hooks) deteriorated. That method does not conform with acceptable scientific techniques for storing an item made of fabric and metal. That prevents it from being examined or tested further.