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

[Mary_H]

This seems odd - it would have been better to choose knives to test at random when trying to solve a murder?

It would have been a more reliable way to show that Meredith's DNA was not on the knife for random reasons. To choose a knife because it is big, clean, shiny and on top is the result of pure bias.

Perhaps they should have run DNA tests on swabs taken from random spots around the globe - just in case!

Actually, I think they do compare DNA samples to the entire human genome when they run the tests, don't they? The larger your control sample, the more reliable the results of your tests. It would have been best to have tested all the knives owned by all the suspects, as Chris pointed out.

There would seem to be good reasons for experienced investigators to focus their attention on likely murder weapons instead of wasting efforts on things like butter knives and serrated bread knives.

That's not the point (no pun intended). They would not be testing to see which knife was the murder weapon, they would be testing to see if Meredith's DNA was on any knife other than the one the cop chose.

Unfortunately for the perps, scientific analysis did find the victim's DNA on a knife in possession of a person with no reliable alibi who was found at the murder scene.

No, they didn't.

They did have business looking for one of the murder weapons at the apartment of the suspect. It is the business of the police to solve crimes in civilized countries.

The crime was already solved at the time the police went looking for the knife. Or so said Arturo de Felice et al.

So on one hand you say they shouldn't look at other knives, but earlier you write they should have. I guess no matter what they did they'd be wrong. Convenient!

Again, you're missing the point. It is true that they had no need to look for other knives. If they did want to look at knives, though, it would have been statistically more valid to look at ALL the knives, to see if the one with Meredith's purported DNA on it was anomalous.

I suppose they were constrained by going with the evidence. But it's hard to see how the absence of Kercher's DNA on one knife 'causes' her DNA to appear on another knife.

Unless it's a diabolical conspiracy...

An obsequious lab tech is pressured by her superiors into finding certain results to support their case..... maybe a conspiracy, maybe business as usual in many law enforcement agencies.

Sollecito also wrote:

"The fact that there is Meredithʹs DNA on the kitchen knife is because on one occasion, while we were cooking together, I, while moving around at home {and} handling the knife, pricked her hand, and I apologized at once but she was not hurt {lei non si era fatta niente}. So the only real explanation for that kitchen knife is this one."

So he is quick to dream up new alibis as needed, even if they are patently false.

Did he "dream up" more than one?

One of the other CTs was frantically denying there were scratches on the knife, and that only by some arcane and complex means could they be found.

Glad you are here to back me up on this rather mundane fact.

No problem.

 

[Grinder]

Strangely this was a point I made in my first post on this thread. Although there was a move towards the adversarial system, there appears to have been a conservative component of the judiciary who were reluctant to move from the inquisitorial mode. Hellman I think represented the adversarial faction. He took the view that the prosecution failed to prove their case. The other courts adopted a more inquisitorial mode, they provided their own explanation for events that was not identical to that provided by the prosecution. The supreme court review of Hellman was I think also a rejection of the adversarial approach adopted by Hellman.

I thinks it's that and more. They want (not wont) the best story. Nencini basically says that unless the defense can come up with a better narrative than the prosecution, the kids are guilty. If the ISC has stipulated that there were multiple killers, then the defense must have a better story for someone else being those accomplices or the kids are guilty.

It seems that the system doesn't require the defendants to prove their innocence but just have a better story. So in a way they require the defense to do more than show that the prosecution hasn't proven BRD.

This explains why three compatibles equals a match. This explains why a drug addled homeless person story is accepted. Why? Because the defense didn't have a better one.

It explains why Allessi and the other guy were brought in, because they offered another narrative. Ridiculous but different.

It explains why contamination "must be proven" because without the story of contamination the results as reported are a better story. The defense should have found drug addled fly on the wall to testify that it saw DNA float onto the knife. They needed a story.

Giulia Bongiorno understands adversarial but Amanda's Perugian lawyers has no clue.

What really screws up the adversarial approach are remnants of the inquisitorial specifically the calunnia and defamation laws that intimidate defense lawyers from going all out.

The notes should have been excluded from the trial and when they weren't the defense should have called the police chief and quizzed him about the "accusation" and the buckling as well as knowing she told them the truth...when it wasn't the truth.

 

[acbytesla]

How so? It is widely accepted that Sollecito's "hobby" was collecting knives (God help us). You may not like that but it is a fact.

Does owning 1 knife consist of a collection Supercal? 2 knives? 3 knives? I happen to own probably at least a half a dozen knives...actually a lot more if you include "cooking knives and silverware. This does not constitute a collection. Like Raffaele, I've been carrying a knife on me since I was in Cub Scouts when my Dad bought me one so I could carve a pine race car for the Pinewood Derby. I probably have two in my fishing tackle box and at least a couple of in my dresser drawer and like my wallet, I carry a flick or pocket knife with me probably 90 percent of the time.

From my understanding Raffaele had three knives. This is not a collection.

 

[Vibio]

Not only did Raffles collect knives but he always carried one with him in his pocket (even into the police station.... that's how screwed up he is). So what better name for him than knife-boy? (Btw: murderers don't get much love from me).

 

[Bill Williams]

Further to my claim that Judge Massei in 2009-2010 adopted a "if Stefanoni said it, I believe it," stand, I offer these from his 2010 motivations.

It must also be emphasised that, as Dr. Stefanoni said, every technician in the
Forensic laboratories adheres to all precautionary measures to ensure that there is no
contamination from one sample to another. This was stated in reference both to the
handling method used for the various samples and their analysis. She also testified
and affirmed that the various tools and instruments were changed and underwent
customary maintenance, checks and replacements. In addition, responding to
apposite questions about the quality certifications, she said that the procedure for
obtaining them were in place, and specified that it was only a matter of signing off
on what had already been done in order to obtain the said certification, without the
need to introduce any variation or modification in the methods currently in practice
or in the existing instruments.
Dr. Sarah Gino also maintained that laboratory contamination is possible, and Dr.
Patumi referred to a contamination case that occurred in a particular genetic analysis
laboratory: possibility of contamination, therefore, and objective confirmation that
contamination can occur.

In the present case, none of any of this emerged, however, and Dr. Stefanoni’s testimony rules out that any laboratory contamination could have occurred.​

In other words, with no reference to anyone other than Stefanoni to both provide the "results" and give testimony as to their "reliability", and with herself acting as the "independent third-party evaluating it from arms'-length", Massei says Stefanoni can be trusted.

Because she said so.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA Transfer: Review and implications for Casework

So... the scientists who found Knox's DNA on the knife planted that, too?

Please assuage my ignorance by telling me how many conspirators are in on this.

Knox's DNA on the handle is not difficult to explain. She probably used the knife, but she did not clean the handle. Knox's LT DNA on the blade comes from one of two things. She may have gripped it the way one would often grip a chef's knife. However, in the 2013 review article "DNA transfer: Review and implications for casework" that appeared in Forensic Science International Meakin and Jamison note, "More recent published research has also shown that transfer of DNA can occur between different sites of an item within packaging during its transport between the crime scene and the laboratory." Therefore, DNA from the handle might have transferred to the blade. It is an axiom of DNA testing that the existence of DNA gives little to no information on the time or manner of its deposition.

I have never maintained that profile 36B from the blade originated from planting. You are making stuff up, and it is getting very tiresome. If you are here for a serious discussion, I suggest answering the arguments that have been made in response to your assertions instead of flitting from one topic to the next.

 

[Samson]

I am surprised Barbie Nadeau included this in her CNN report

Lumumba spent nearly two weeks in prison without Knox correcting her false accusation

I thought she did in a substantial way correct her statement, or is Nadeau technically correct to write this?

 

[Machiavelli]

It would have been a more reliable way to show that Meredith's DNA was not on the knife for random reasons. To choose a knife because it is big, clean, shiny and on top is the result of pure bias.

The Big Mach is watching you.

Skimming here. Just to remind that the knife was not "chosen"; there was just no choice at all (and btw, the officer didn't say that che "chose" the knife because big, shining... he only said that it catched immediately attention).
That one simpy was the only dangerous knife (pointed, suitable for stabbing) in the apartment, together with a smaller pocket knife.
The only two knives that could be apt as weapons found in the apartment were seized (a third weapon Sollecito was carrying in his pocket was seized too).
That's all. So no bias and no strange methods of choice.
Innocentisti should abandon all such false stories once for all, if they are seeking any contact with the real world.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not only did Raffles collect knives but he always carried one with him in his pocket (even into the police station.... that's how screwed up he is). So what better name for him than knife-boy? (Btw: murderers don't get much love from me).

Can you connect any of Raffaele's knives to the murder? Or is your intent just to say "guilt-sounding" things about Raffaele?

 

[Bill Williams]

The Big Mach is watching you.

Skimming here. Just to remind that the knife was not "chosen"; there was just no choice at all (and btw, the officer didn't say that che "chose" the knife because big, shining... he only said that it catched immediately attention).
That one simpy was the only dangerous knife (pointed, suitable for stabbing) in the apartment, together with a smaller pocket knife.
The only two knives that could be apt as weapons found in the apartment were seized (a third weapon Sollecito was carrying in his pocket was seized too).
That's all. So no bias and no strange methods of choice.
Innocentisti should abandon all such false stories once for all, if they are seeking any contact with the real world.

That is not true, and if it is it would be nice to have a source. You are long on assertions, and assert a lot of things. It would be nice to have some reliable source to confirm this.

In any event! Welcome Back! Do you still think that Seattle practises the Mafia concept of Omerta?

 

[Vibio]

. Like Raffaele, I've been carrying a knife on me .....

This is Italy, not the US. Italians don't carry knives in their pockets unless they are up to something. It is illegal here to carry a knife.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a tabloid journalist at heart

Has anyone heard the claim that Amanda destroyed pages in her diary that represented the days preceding the murder while in prison?

If so, can you provide a link to the source?

I think I have heard the claim, but I am unsure of the source. Follain wrote a great deal of semi-true to completely untrue stuff, so it would not surprise me to find it in his book.

 

[Grinder]

The Big Mach is watching you.

Skimming here. Just to remind that the knife was not "chosen"; there was just no choice at all (and btw, the officer didn't say that che "chose" the knife because big, shining... he only said that it catched immediately attention).
That one simpy was the only dangerous knife (pointed, suitable for stabbing) in the apartment, together with a smaller pocket knife.
The only two knives that could be apt as weapons found in the apartment were seized (a third weapon Sollecito was carrying in his pocket was seized too).
That's all. So no bias and no strange methods of choice.
Innocentisti should abandon all such false stories once for all, if they are seeking any contact with the real world.

The motivations are out and Mach's back.

Were there no pointy knives at Patrick's home or bar?

Are you sure there were no other pointy knives at Raf's?

Why didn't they test all the knives at the cottage? After all they would be the most likely murder weapons.

 

[Mary_H]

I am surprised Barbie Nadeau included this in her CNN report

Lumumba spent nearly two weeks in prison without Knox correcting her false accusation

I thought she did in a substantial way correct her statement, or is Nadeau technically correct to write this?

She is incorrect.

 

[Grinder]

This is Italy, not the US. Italians don't carry knives in their pockets unless they are up to something. It is illegal here to carry a knife.

Funny, I bought a switchblade in Venice when I was eleven. It was after the war

ETA - pretty sure it was from a shop on the Rialto Bridge.

 

[MDDVS]

This is Italy, not the US. Italians don't carry knives in their pockets unless they are up to something. It is illegal here to carry a knife.

And nobody does illegal things in Italy? What you're saying is not true anyway. Maybe you just don0t many people.

 

[Samson]

She is incorrect.

Therefore unforgivable amongst many. I am appalled that CNN allow this. Nencini has just convicted with this as pivotal.

 

[JREF2010]

proudfootz,

Professor Bruce Budowle was formerly the director of a research lab at the FBI and is the author of numerous scientific papers on the use of DNA. In a letter accepted by the Hellmann court he wrote, "Caution shouldbe taken regarding placing significance on the DNA found on the knife (item 28669-01-036) and suggestions that this is indicative of Knox’s committing a murder. First, sample B from the handle of the knife yielded a negative result for the presumptive test for human blood known as tetramethyl benzidine (TMB). This test is extremely sensitive. Reports in the scientific literature show that blood can be diluted 1,000,000 times and the test can still detect the presence of blood. Given the peak heights in the electropherogram for sample B, I estimate that if the sample did derive from blood (and assuming no degradation occurred and all the sample was consumed for DNA analysis) approximately one hundredth to two hundredth of a microliter of blood could have yielded the DNA from sample B...However, it would seem extremely unlikely to have been able to wash away all traces of hemoglobin and preferentially left behind solely DNA. An alternate explanation is that DNA from sample B does not derive from blood. It is to be expected that people who frequent or habitate in areas will leave their DNA on items in that environment. A person’s DNA will be found on his/her items in his/her home, place of work, and other places. That DNA also can be picked up by others and passed on to other items. This process is known as secondary and tertiary transfer and is well-established in the scientific literature." Nor is he the only expert to make this point; Professor Hampikian and Dr. Johnson have also made it. I don't have Sarah Gino's words in front of me, but she also gave a cogent discussion of contamination. And it is worth recalling that Conti and Vecchiotti were independent experts, and they made it a point to discuss the lack of blood.

Mrs. Stefanoni is not an expert; she is a technician, nothing more. Nor is it true that there is zero evidence of contamination with respect to the DNA forensics in this case; for example, the existence of several male DNA profiles on the bra clasp is by definition contamination.

Chris, It's possible Nencini and his pretend judges didn't comprehend this document, when they had to read all the other court documents in the 12hrs they spent behind closed doors.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

triple play

I am surprised Barbie Nadeau included this in her CNN report

Lumumba spent nearly two weeks in prison without Knox correcting her false accusation

I thought she did in a substantial way correct her statement, or is Nadeau technically correct to write this?

Amanda wrote a memoriale on 7 November, and she wrote a letter to her lawyers on or about 9 November. She also communicated the same idea to her mother, who made a public statement on or about 11 November. That's three retractions in my book.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the Nencini court turned up little new evidence

Chris, It's possible Nencini and his pretend judges didn't comprehend this document, when they had to read all the other court documents in the 12hrs they spent behind closed doors.

I am unaware of anything involving science or logic that Nencini has correctly comprehended. If he had understood the Carabinieri report, profile 36B would have been tossed, as I discussed earlier today. So much for this "decisive" test. The Nencini court turned up little new evidence, and what it did develop was favorable to the defense.