• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

Was Sollecito's DNA actually on the bra at all? I thought it was just a random collection of mixed alleles that could be interpreted to be practically anyone.
Analysis of the DNA profile results by Conti and Vecchiotti showed that the scientific police (Stefanoni) analysis was flawed; it dismissed several alleles present above the threshold and not in a stutter position. These dismissed alleles are indicative of the presence of the DNA on the bra clasp from other individuals besides Sollecito and Kercher for the autosomal STRs (short-tandem-repeats). Furthermore, for the Y Chromosome DNA profile analysis, there are a number of dismissed allele peaks which indicate the presence in the sample tested of DNA from several males.

Because the DNA profiles show a mixture of alleles not exclusively to one person, or even to one person plus the victim (Kercher), there can be no certainty that Sollecito's profile is present in the mixture. That is, the DNA profile results are ambiguous, and not precise and consistent, so under Italian law, CPP Article 192, paragraph 2, no "fact" against the accused, Sollecito, can be inferred from the results.

Also, the DNA profile results cannot be considered "serious". They were collected from the bra clasp, which is not touched during the process of taking off or putting on a bra. The only known contact with the bra clasp was by the dirty glove of a scientific police officer during the collection process. Otherwise, the bra had lain on the floor of the crime scene for 46 days and subject to collection of dust. It has been established that household dust contains human DNA from the constant normal exfoliation of human skin cells as well as through speaking, coughing, and sneezing. Kercher's DNA could have been on the bra clasps due to exfoliation or her routine handling of the garment.

See:


 
Last edited:
We analyze the soup and find that all the letters in the suspect’s name are present. Does that mean someone named JOHN Q SUSPECT contributed to the soup?

Not necessarily. There could have been two contributors named PATRICK QUEEN and JUSTIN OHR. In that case, the soup would have all the letters needed to spell JOHN Q SUSPECT, even though no person with that name contributed to the soup.
DNA mixtures produce complex profiles that are ambiguous. That is what happened with the bra clasps. Furthermore, there is no way to be sure how the DNA entered the sample that was analyzed, especially if, as in the forensic DNA collection and testing for the Knox - Sollecito case, the proper, internationally recognized quality control and assurance procedures were not followed.

See:
 
Was Sollecito's DNA actually on the bra at all? I thought it was just a random collection of mixed alleles that could be interpreted to be practically anyone.
It probably was. But that was not the issue, according to Dr. Peter Gill, the forensic DNA expert who wrote extensively about this:

...... the distributions of DNA profiles were a critical feature. Contrast the widespread presence of Rudy Guede’s DNA in the murder room, bearing in mind he had no legitimate access to the premises. In stark contrast, the DNA of both Knox and Sollecito was absent from the murder room (apart from the discredited bra-clasp DNA profile that matched Sollecito). This contrast is even more poignant given that Knox lived in the apartment with Kercher, and Sollecito had legitimate access. There is an a priori expectation that their DNA should be present at the crime scene.

See:

https://www.fsigenetics.com/article/s1872-4973(16)30033-3/fulltext

Please also note, that the statement Vixen makes from the convicting Nencini court (2014) omits that Nencini thought that the three additional profiles on the clasp as noted by Stefanoni's original work, theorized that those three were from Kercher's 'amiga', or girlfriends.

Finally, the manner of collection of that clasp, 46 days following the murder, casts all sorts of doubt on its usefulness to begin with. I'll post it again if you wish, but the Forensic police photographed themselves collecting that from the floor with obviously dirty forensic gloves. Forensically, the bra-clasp was useless as evidence. They could have just as easily charged one of those three 'amiga' with murder, or perhaps all three of them. If the Nencini court had done more to i.d. who those women were, rather than just to hand-wave them away......
 
It probably was. But that was not the issue, according to Dr. Peter Gill, the forensic DNA expert who wrote extensively about this:



See:

https://www.fsigenetics.com/article/s1872-4973(16)30033-3/fulltext

Please also note, that the statement Vixen makes from the convicting Nencini court (2014) omits that Nencini thought that the three additional profiles on the clasp as noted by Stefanoni's original work, theorized that those three were from Kercher's 'amiga', or girlfriends.

Finally, the manner of collection of that clasp, 46 days following the murder, casts all sorts of doubt on its usefulness to begin with. I'll post it again if you wish, but the Forensic police photographed themselves collecting that from the floor with obviously dirty forensic gloves. Forensically, the bra-clasp was useless as evidence. They could have just as easily charged one of those three 'amiga' with murder, or perhaps all three of them. If the Nencini court had done more to i.d. who those women were, rather than just to hand-wave them away......
And how do we know this, considering there was a mixture of male (Y chromosome) DNA found on the clasp, as noted by C & V, but not declared by Steffanoni?

There is a difference between "it perhaps could have been" and "it probably was": the last phrasing indicates a high degree of probability, while the first phrasing is neutral. Is there evidence to support a high degree of probability?
 
Last edited:
And how do we know this, considering there was a mixture of male (Y chromosome) DNA found on the clasp, as noted by C & V, but not declared by Steffanoni?

There is a difference between "it perhaps could have been" and "it probably was": the last phrasing indicates a high degree of probability, while the first phrasing is neutral. Is there evidence to support a high degree of probability?
There is a difference between "it perhaps could have been" and "it probably was": the last phrasing indicates a high degree of probability, while the first phrasing is neutral. Is there evidence to support a high degree of probability? In a complex DNA mixture, it is not necessarily true that a perceived "match" is indeed real evidence of the DNA of a subject. What is not excluded in this case is that all the DNA on the clasp, except probably Kercher's, is a result of contamination. If the DNA profile alleged to match Sollecito is indeed from Sollecito, no evidence excludes its presence as a result of contamination. There is positive evidence that the clasp was collected under circumstances that would almost certainly have contaminated it. Those circumstances include that the clasp lay on the floor unprotected for 46 days and was collected by a police officer using dirty gloves.
Therefore, by Italian law CPP Article 192, paragraph 2, no fact against Sollecito can be inferred from the alleged and uncertain presence of alleles on the clasp that appear to match his DNA profile.
 
This was the problem with Nencini and one of the reasons Marasca annulled their verdict.

To declare that a low copy number 17-allele sample could not be explained by contamination is just plain wrong.

As Marasca-Bruno found:

"His presence on the murder scene, and specifically inside the room where the murder was committed, is linked to only the biological trace found on the bra fastener hook (item 165/b), the attribution of which, however, cannot have any certainty, since such trace is insusceptible of a second amplification, given its scarce amount, for that it is – as we said – an element lacking of circumstantial evidentiary value."
 
Thanks for all that, everyone. I realise it's entirely possible for Sollecito's DNA to have got there by contamination, considering that he touched the door (rather a lot I think) and then the forensic officers touched the door. Plus all the lying-on-the-floor-for-six-weeks and the dirty-gloves stuff. However, having been quite persuaded by the alphabet soup analogy, I question whether all this theorising is really needed.
 
Thanks for all that, everyone. I realise it's entirely possible for Sollecito's DNA to have got there by contamination, considering that he touched the door (rather a lot I think) and then the forensic officers touched the door. Plus all the lying-on-the-floor-for-six-weeks and the dirty-gloves stuff. However, having been quite persuaded by the alphabet soup analogy, I question whether all this theorising is really needed.
Oh dear. DNA is not 'an alphabet soup'. It is structured as a double helix. It is simply not possible to obtain anyone's full DNA profile - for forensic criminal purposes, this is the full 17-alleles, as was found of Sollecito's, by stirring it in an alphabet soup; and as expert witness to the court, Professor Novelli testified under cross-examination, the chances of the profile being for anyone other than Sollecito is over 3.4billion to one against. No, they didn't throw it in the air and it landed in the exact order of Sollecito's. Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

1737071156767.png
a
 
Oh dear. DNA is not 'an alphabet soup'. It is structured as a double helix. It is simply not possible to obtain anyone's full DNA profile - for forensic criminal purposes, this is the full 17-alleles, as was found of Sollecito's, by stirring it in an alphabet soup; and as expert witness to the court, Professor Novelli testified under cross-examination, the chances of the profile being for anyone other than Sollecito is over 3.4billion to one against. No, they didn't throw it in the air and it landed in the exact order of Sollecito's. Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

View attachment 58504
a
Lessee...."Vixen" vs the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

What we do​

NIST has played a key role in the historical development of forensic DNA analysis. Today, our forensic DNA program has three major components.

Hmmmm....whom to believe?
It is simply not possible to obtain anyone's full DNA profile -

Really? You might want to inform forensic experts. They're under the misguided opinion that it is.
A DNA profile is made of a set of specific points on a DNA molecule. Points of data, or loci, are examined to create a complete DNA profile, unique to the contributor.

Some evidence may not produce a full DNA profile if the DNA is degraded, and there isn’ t information present at all loci. Some DNA evidence may be too degraded for any testing. Under some circumstances, a partial profile, or a profile that includes fewer than the full number of loci detected by a particular kit, can still be compared against a suspect’ s profile.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all that, everyone. I realise it's entirely possible for Sollecito's DNA to have got there by contamination, considering that he touched the door (rather a lot I think) and then the forensic officers touched the door. Plus all the lying-on-the-floor-for-six-weeks and the dirty-gloves stuff. However, having been quite persuaded by the alphabet soup analogy, I question whether all this theorising is really needed.
Not just the door but probably the outside door handle since they knew it was locked. The door handle that the police, in their infinite professionalism, didn't bother to test for anything.
 
Oh dear. DNA is not 'an alphabet soup'. It is structured as a double helix. It is simply not possible to obtain anyone's full DNA profile - for forensic criminal purposes, this is the full 17-alleles, as was found of Sollecito's, by stirring it in an alphabet soup; and as expert witness to the court, Professor Novelli testified under cross-examination, the chances of the profile being for anyone other than Sollecito is over 3.4billion to one against. No, they didn't throw it in the air and it landed in the exact order of Sollecito's. Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

View attachment 58504
a
Your post above shows considerable confusion in the methodology of how DNA profiles are obtained from forensic samples. The method requires the extraction of the DNA - which may have been left behind by several, even many, contributors - into a single solution. The complete DNA chains of the chromosomes are not of interest for forensic purposes, since about 99.9% of each person's DNA is the same as another's. What is evaluated (in current technology) are the small segments of DNA that are called STRs (short tandem repeats). A known preselected group of these repeats - 20 in current US practice; fewer were in the forensic group in previous years, and the numbers and members of the group may vary among the various countries - are selected to provide a DNA profile. Except in the case of identical (homozygotic) twins (or other multiples), the forensic group of STRs is considered relatively unique to each person. Each STR group member is a "locus" and each locus, for autosomal and X chromosomes, has two alleles, while the Y (male) chromosome STRs will only display a single allele. Each allele of each locus displays a number of repeats, which will vary, within a certain known range, from one person to the next. However, many persons share some number of common alleles, with the same number of repeats, at certain loci. That is why a relatively large number of loci - such as 20 - are selected for the DNA profile test, to help assure that a relatively unique DNA profile "fingerprint" will be found for any one person. Since a mixture of DNAs from several persons are contained in a sample will all go into one solution during sampling and extraction, and for the final DNA profiling, the "alphabet soup" analogy used by NIST is appropriate. DNA profile analysis of complex mixtures (for example, from 3 or 4 contributors) therefore is a challenging task, and misleading conclusions can be inferred by incautious interpretation of the DNA profile results of DNA mixtures.

DNA can be transferred from one surface or person to another, and this can potentially occur multiple times. Therefore, the relevance of the DNA to the crime being
investigated should be considered when evaluating the evidence.
Highly sensitive DNA methods increase the likelihood of detecting DNA mixtures that may or may not be related to the crime being investigated. In cases that involve
very small quantities of DNA, it is especially important for the users of the information to consider context when determining the utility of the evidence.
Contamination avoidance procedures should be robust both at the crime scene and in the laboratory. ....
DNA statistical results such as a likelihood ratio given sub-source propositions do not provide information about how or when DNA was transferred, or whether it is relevant to circumstances of a case.
The fact that DNA can transfer between objects does not negate the value of DNA evidence. However, the value of DNA evidence depends on the circumstances
of the case.
DNA mixtures vary in complexity. Factors that contribute to complexity include the number of contributors, the quantity of DNA from each contributor, contributor mixture ratios, sample quality, and the degree of allele sharing. These factors will impact the degree of variation in interpretation.

For a more detailed professional-level examination of the issues with the forensic DNA profile analysis of mixtures, where the alphabet soup analogy was avoided, and the source of the quotes above, see:

 
Last edited:
In a 2013 article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science David Balding wrote, "I reran the analysis excluding Knox from both
pnas.1219739110i7.gif
and
pnas.1219739110i8.gif
, and obtained an LR in favor of
pnas.1219739110i9.gif
of 42 million (WoE = 7.6 bans). Thus, although the additional alleles have, by providing evidence for an additional contributor, weakened the evidence implicating Sollecito by a massive 8 bans, this evidence nevertheless remains strong." Hp and Hd are the presumed prosecution and defense hypotheses, and LR is the likelihood ratio. My informal analysis of the Y-STR profile also suggested that Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was present (Professor Balding's program is not suitable for Y-STR profiles). Other computer programs, such as TrueAllele and STRmix also attempt to deconvolute autosomal mixtures, but there are legal controversies which exist around their use.

One major problem for the prosecution is that in both the autosomal profile and the YSTR profile, there are other alleles. IIRC there were three people who contributed to the Y-STR profile. If the prosecution concedes that these other profiles arose from some form of contamination, then there is no reason to say that Mr Sollecito's profile might also have arisen this way. And that is before we bring in other valid points that the defense and others made, many of which have come up here in the last day or two. I will mention one more. It is possible that Stefanoni used a suspect-centered analysis in her interpretation of the bra clasp profile, meaning that she analyzed it with Mr Sollecito's reference profile in hand. This type of analysis is strongly discouraged in the sources I have consulted.
 
Last edited:
In a 2013 article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science David Balding wrote, "I reran the analysis excluding Knox from both
pnas.1219739110i7.gif
and
pnas.1219739110i8.gif
, and obtained an LR in favor of
pnas.1219739110i9.gif
of 42 million (WoE = 7.6 bans). Thus, although the additional alleles have, by providing evidence for an additional contributor, weakened the evidence implicating Sollecito by a massive 8 bans, this evidence nevertheless remains strong." Hp and Hd are the presumed prosecution and defense hypotheses, and LR is the likelihood ratio. My informal analysis of the Y-STR profile also suggested that Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was present (Professor Balding's program is not suitable for Y-STR profiles). Other computer programs, such as TrueAllele and STRmix also attempt to deconvolute autosomal mixtures, but there are legal controversies which exist around their use.

One major problem for the prosecution is that in both the autosomal profile and the YSTR profile, there are other alleles. IIRC there were three people who contributed to the Y-STR profile. If the prosecution concedes that these other profiles arose from some form of contamination, then there is no reason to say that Mr cmeaning that she analyzed it with Mr Sollecito's reference profile in hand. This type of analysis is strongly discouraged in the sources I have consulted.
Chris, do you have any comments on these two issues that I recall that may be relevant to the bra clasp DNA profile analysis:

1. The bra clasp collection occurred 46 days after the murder of Kercher was discovered, and the clasp DNA profile analysis occurred soon after that discovery. In what some may view as a miraculous stroke for the prosecution, the results came out on the same day of the announcement that the shoe sole pattern ridges (was blood or semen residue a constituent of the pattern?) found in the murder room (on the pillow? elsewhere?) did not match Sollecito's shoes, contrary to claims of the police and prosecutor. Sollecito's father made this discovery by counting ridges, IIRC. Thus the only physical evidence alleged to link Sollecito to the murder room, the shoe sole pattern, was immediately replaced by the alleged DNA profile evidence on the bra clasps, previously left to lie uncollected by the police on the murder room floor, and there was therefore no risk to the prosecution case that Sollecito could be immediately cleared or released from detention.

2. IIRC, on the Injustice Anywhere or other related website, there was considerable analysis of the available DNA data (the website also pointed out that much of the DNA data, including almost all the postive and negative control results, had been suppressed, as well as certain other potenially important data, such as much of the rape kit data). One part of the analysis tracked the unique machine-assigned sequence number assigned to each DNA profile determination. For the date of the analysis of the bra clasp, it was claimed or hypothesized that a sequence number was missing, and it was suggested this missing number indicated that there had been a first DNA profile test of the clasp, but that the results had been suppressed for an unknown reason. It was further suggested that the test reported to the defense and the court was a retest carried out under a different sequence number. It was suggested that if this claim or hypothesis of a suppressed test result was true, the suppression was improper. If such suppression actually had occurred, and it reflected unfavorably on the methods or the validity of the reported result and its analysis, it certainly could have been a violation of Sollecito's European Convention rights to equality of arms.
 
Last edited:
Lessee...."Vixen" vs the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Hmmmm....whom to believe?


Really? You might want to inform forensic experts. They're under the misguided opinion that it is.
Hi, did you deliberately misquote me? It is poor netiquette to do so.

On the assumption that perhaps there was difficulty in comprehension, may I offer the following advice?


  • First, read carefully the post/s that were being responded to for full context. (This is indicated by the small arrow pointing upwards.)
  • Next, please be aware that a sentence doesn't end until a full stop - a period in the US - nor a subclause expressing a full idea until a semi-colon.
To run through my sentence again, carefully, we have:

"It is simply not possible to obtain anyone's full DNA profile - for forensic criminal purposes, this is the full 17-alleles, as was found of Sollecito's, by stirring it in an alphabet soup; and as expert witness to the court, Professor Novelli testified under cross-examination, the chances of the profile being for anyone other than Sollecito is over 3.4billion to one against. "

EXPLANATION

First subclause:

"It is simply not possible to obtain anyone's full DNA profile - for forensic criminal purposes, this is the full 17-alleles, as was found of Sollecito's, by stirring it in an alphabet soup;"

It is simply not possible to obtain anyone's full DNA profile - [this indicates an insertion] for forensic criminal purposes, [Subclause to explain why this is referred to as a FULL DNA profile] this is the full 17-alleles, [COMMA: this indicates a pause] as was found of Sollecito's, [COMMA relating to whom the full profile belongs and ending subclause] by stirring it in an alphabet soup; [SEMI- COLON indicates end of subsentence]. For ease of understanding: 'It is simply not possible to obtain anyone's full DNA profile by stirring it in an alphabet soup', or in other words lest the meaning still is not clear: simply chucking the letters of the alphabet, as it were, into a soup, will not by a fluke transform by chance into an ordered alphabet from A to Z, as the poster was claiming re Sollecito's DNA being found by a sheer fluke.

Second subsentence, as follows the SEMI-COLON, finishing the first:

"and as expert witness to the court, [COMMA = pause] Professor Novelli testified under cross-examination, [COMMA end of pause providing someone's name] the chances of the profile being for anyone other than Sollecito is over 3.4billion to one against. " [FULL STOP = end of sentence.]

Thus the full idea with supporting evidence and with reference to expert court testimony conveys that ,no, Sollecito's proven DNA-profile was not there by random chance.

To hammer the message home - and as confirmed by Dr. Gill who states secondary transfer of DNA is only likely to happen within 24-hours and not at all in tertiary transfer except under controlled conditions of keeping the initial organic material moist (such as sebaceous oil from skin that contains sebaceous sweat glands [the palm of the hand doesn't contain any unless you sweep your fingers through your hair or face]). The total lie that Sollecito's DNA was somehow conveyed there some six weeks later by a rogue detective is one AK fans prefer to believe because truth is expendable rather than to face the truth of the pair's involvement in a horrible murder.

I hope you are now able to comprehend the argument. Let me know if anything I said is still unclear.
 
Last edited:
In a 2013 article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science David Balding wrote, "I reran the analysis excluding Knox from both
pnas.1219739110i7.gif
and
pnas.1219739110i8.gif
, and obtained an LR in favor of
pnas.1219739110i9.gif
of 42 million (WoE = 7.6 bans). Thus, although the additional alleles have, by providing evidence for an additional contributor, weakened the evidence implicating Sollecito by a massive 8 bans, this evidence nevertheless remains strong." Hp and Hd are the presumed prosecution and defense hypotheses, and LR is the likelihood ratio. My informal analysis of the Y-STR profile also suggested that Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was present (Professor Balding's program is not suitable for Y-STR profiles). Other computer programs, such as TrueAllele and STRmix also attempt to deconvolute autosomal mixtures, but there are legal controversies which exist around their use.

One major problem for the prosecution is that in both the autosomal profile and the YSTR profile, there are other alleles. IIRC there were three people who contributed to the Y-STR profile. If the prosecution concedes that these other profiles arose from some form of contamination, then there is no reason to say that Mr Sollecito's profile might also have arisen this way. And that is before we bring in other valid points that the defense and others made, many of which have come up here in the last day or two. I will mention one more. It is possible that Stefanoni used a suspect-centered analysis in her interpretation of the bra clasp profile, meaning that she analyzed it with Mr Sollecito's reference profile in hand. This type of analysis is strongly discouraged in the sources I have consulted.
The others were fragments of DNA of less than 6 alleles (legal standard 10 or 11) which is found in normal every day dust. Sollecito's full DNA of 17 allele-pairs was found on the bra hook UNDER the body and can only have been so strong by Sollecito pressing down hard on it.

Combined with the rest of the forensic evidence - for example, his footprint in Mez' blood on the bathmat and in luminol on the floor outside her door - together with his all night cleaning spree and dismantling his U-bend to clear the blockage, plus, switching off his phone for the evening until 5:30 the next day, together with lying to the police over and over again, certainly proves his presence, not to mention Mez' full DNA on his knife.

Even the final Marasca-Bruno written reasons states the burglary was staged, that Knox was definitely present when Mez was murdered and DID wash off Mez' blood from her hands. Likewise M-B confirm Knox named Lumumba to cover up for Guede, who was also present. These are the legal facts of the matter.
 
Some additional thoughts:

The Italian courts, including the Florence Court of Appeal in the calunnia retrial, have taken no measures to redress the violation of Convention Article 3 (procedural limb ), so there has never been an independent and effective investigation of Knox's claims of mistreatment during the interrogations and that her statement against Lumumba was a result of a violation of her rights under CPP Article 188 (violation of the right of self-determination in giving evidence) and other Italian law, including the revised (2017) CPP Article 191 (prohibits the use of evidence obtained by mistreatment or torture against the person mistreated or tortured). Thus, use against her of her original statement(s) against Lumumba would be unlawful under CPP Articles 191 and 188.

As stated in the ECHR final judgment Knox v. Italy, the violations of either of Convention Articles 6.3c and 6.3e rendered the whole of the trial for calunnia unfair (violation of Convention Article 6.1). The ECHR judgment identified Memoriale 1 as a retraction (even with any ambiguity, Memoriale 1 cannot establish guilt of calunnia beyond a reasonable doubt). Since the ECHR judgment finds the the proceedings as a whole unfair, it suggests that any ambiguity in
Memoriale 1 must be regarded, in US legal terminology, as "fruit of the poisoned tree" and a residue of the alleged violation of CPP Article 188, which cannot be used against Knox, especially since she makes a clearer retraction in Memoriale 2 as well as in her statements to her lawyers.
I don't know of any reference to suggest that memoriale 1 was the "fruit of a poisoned tree" only that it was a retraction. I've also yet to discover any reference of memoriale 2 (written on the 7th Nov) in the current proceedings. Maybe it wasn't submitted to the ECHR as part of Amanda's appeal. If that's the case it might be unusable as evidence at this late stage, yet it appears to be a more emphatic retraction.
 
I don't know of any reference to suggest that memoriale 1 was the "fruit of a poisoned tree" only that it was a retraction. I've also yet to discover any reference of memoriale 2 (written on the 7th Nov) in the current proceedings. Maybe it wasn't submitted to the ECHR as part of Amanda's appeal. If that's the case it might be unusable as evidence at this late stage, yet it appears to be a more emphatic retraction.
The "fruit of the poisoned tree" was my comment based on US law, and not a statement in the ECHR final judgment Knox v. Italy. However, Italy does have procedural law (CPP Article 191) prohibiting the use of evidence obtained contrary to Italian law. Whether such law is applied in practice, and to what extent, is another question.
 
I don't know of any reference to suggest that memoriale 1 was the "fruit of a poisoned tree" only that it was a retraction. I've also yet to discover any reference of memoriale 2 (written on the 7th Nov) in the current proceedings. Maybe it wasn't submitted to the ECHR as part of Amanda's appeal. If that's the case it might be unusable as evidence at this late stage, yet it appears to be a more emphatic retraction.
I am myself a bit confused about the relevant text in the ECHR judgment because I don't have the texts of Knox's Memoriales 1 and 2 before me.

The text of paragraph 20 of the ECHR judgment states that Knox gave a written statement in English to the police at about 1 pm on 6 November 2007. The text goes on to summarize and quote "relevant" parts of Knox's statement but does not mention Memoriale 2.

The ECHR also considered Knox's English letter to her lawyers, dated 9 November 2007, also significant to the retraction (paragraph 24).

Without true copies of the original Memoriales before me, I am not sure whether the ECHR's quoted parts are only from Memoriale 1 or include some parts of Memoriale 2.

Perhaps the ECHR considered Memoriale 2 to be a kind of continuation of Memoriale1, at least from their legal point of view. The ECHR is retrying neither the murder/rape case nor the calunnia against Lumumba case; it is evaluating whether any Convention articles were violated by Italy with respect only to the calunnia against Lumumba case. Thus, it may simply be showing that Knox, as early as 1 pm on 6 November, was stating that her accusations against Lumumba should be considered unreliable and providing some of the circumstances that Knox cited to the authorities to support why they were unreliable. Under ECHR case law, any uncertainties or ambiguities in the evidence must be considered to the benefit of the defense in a criminal trial.

I don't know whether the Court of Appeals was allowed by the CSC to consider anything beyond Memoriale 1. The new CSC hearing may be free to consider additional information, or refer the case again.
 
Last edited:
Chris, do you have any comments on these two issues that I recall that may be relevant to the bra clasp DNA profile analysis:

1. The bra clasp collection occurred 46 days after the murder of Kercher was discovered, and the clasp DNA profile analysis occurred soon after that discovery. In what some may view as a miraculous stroke for the prosecution, the results came out on the same day of the announcement that the shoe sole pattern ridges (was blood or semen residue a constituent of the pattern?) found in the murder room (on the pillow? elsewhere?) did not match Sollecito's shoes, contrary to claims of the police and prosecutor. Sollecito's father made this discovery by counting ridges, IIRC. Thus the only physical evidence alleged to link Sollecito to the murder room, the shoe sole pattern, was immediately replaced by the alleged DNA profile evidence on the bra clasps, previously left to lie uncollected by the police on the murder room floor, and there was therefore no risk to the prosecution case that Sollecito could be immediately cleared or released from detention.
Let me comment on 1 for now and come back to 2 later, time permitting. The timing of the collection with respect to the shoe prints, the late collection relative to other pieces of evidence, and the damage to the clasp afterward are legitimate points against the clasp. In my opinion, it bears on how much weight the trier of fact should assign this piece of evidence. Based on Peter Gill's book, I think it falls to the forensic scientist to provide an unbiased discussion of the alternative ways in which DNA might arrive on an item of evidence, both innocent and as part of the crime. My present view is that the number of profiles is something that the forensic scientist should discuss in the context of these alternative ways.
 
Last edited:
Hi, did you deliberately misquote me? It is poor netiquette to do so.

On the assumption that perhaps there was difficulty in comprehension, may I offer the following advice?


  • First, read carefully the post/s that were being responded to for full context. (This is indicated by the small arrow pointing upwards.)
  • Next, please be aware that a sentence doesn't end until a full stop - a period in the US - nor a subclause expressing a full idea until a semi-colon.
To run through my sentence again, carefully, we have:

"It is simply not possible to obtain anyone's full DNA profile - for forensic criminal purposes, this is the full 17-alleles, as was found of Sollecito's, by stirring it in an alphabet soup; and as expert witness to the court, Professor Novelli testified under cross-examination, the chances of the profile being for anyone other than Sollecito is over 3.4billion to one against. "

EXPLANATION

First subclause:

"It is simply not possible to obtain anyone's full DNA profile - for forensic criminal purposes, this is the full 17-alleles, as was found of Sollecito's, by stirring it in an alphabet soup;"

It is simply not possible to obtain anyone's full DNA profile - [this indicates an insertion] for forensic criminal purposes, [Subclause to explain why this is referred to as a FULL DNA profile] this is the full 17-alleles, [COMMA: this indicates a pause] as was found of Sollecito's, [COMMA relating to whom the full profile belongs and ending subclause] by stirring it in an alphabet soup; [SEMI- COLON indicates end of subsentence]. For ease of understanding: 'It is simply not possible to obtain anyone's full DNA profile by stirring it in an alphabet soup', or in other words lest the meaning still is not clear: simply chucking the letters of the alphabet, as it were, into a soup, will not by a fluke transform by chance into an ordered alphabet from A to Z, as the poster was claiming re Sollecito's DNA being found by a sheer fluke.

Second subsentence, as follows the SEMI-COLON, finishing the first:

"and as expert witness to the court, [COMMA = pause] Professor Novelli testified under cross-examination, [COMMA end of pause providing someone's name] the chances of the profile being for anyone other than Sollecito is over 3.4billion to one against. " [FULL STOP = end of sentence.]

Thus the full idea with supporting evidence and with reference to expert court testimony conveys that ,no, Sollecito's proven DNA-profile was not there by random chance.

To hammer the message home - and as confirmed by Dr. Gill who states secondary transfer of DNA is only likely to happen within 24-hours and not at all in tertiary transfer except under controlled conditions of keeping the initial organic material moist (such as sebaceous oil from skin that contains sebaceous sweat glands [the palm of the hand doesn't contain any unless you sweep your fingers through your hair or face]). The total lie that Sollecito's DNA was somehow conveyed there some six weeks later by a rogue detective is one AK fans prefer to believe because truth is expendable rather than to face the truth of the pair's involvement in a horrible murder.

I hope you are now able to comprehend the argument. Let me know if anything I said is still unclear.
Congratulations! A word salad AND a gish gallop all in one post. I misquoted nothing.

What else did Peter Gill say specifically about the bra clasp DNA? Lessee..

The method of collecting, handling, transporting, and analyzing the bra clasp did not conform with basic protocols to minimize risks of cross-contamination. There were numerous opportunities in this process for cross-transfer and contamination of the clasp.

and

Whereas it was possible to agree that the tests detected DNA matching the reference profile of Sollecito’s on the bra clasp, it does not follow that this tells us anything about his presence at the crime scene. In light of the 46-day delay in collecting the clasp, the presence of profiles of other individuals in the sample (as discussed in the next section), and the failure to follow basic standard protocols for the collection and storage of the clasp, the evidence was irreversibly compromised. Consequently, the most likely explanation for the presence of Sollecito’s DNA is that it resulted from a contamination event, although the specific route cannot be discovered.
And I've never claimed that the DNA on bra clasp wasn't Raffaele's so your rant on that is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
The others were fragments of DNA of less than 6 alleles (legal standard 10 or 11) which is found in normal every day dust. Sollecito's full DNA of 17 allele-pairs was found on the bra hook UNDER the body and can only have been so strong by Sollecito pressing down hard on it.
In my strongly held opinion, a forensic scientist should not make statements regarding strong pressure (or based upon heights of the peaks), unless careful studies have been published in the peer-reviewed literature. Along similar lines statements about the biological source of the DNA must have experimental support, or they are pernicious nonsense.
 
To hammer the message home - and as confirmed by Dr. Gill who states secondary transfer of DNA is only likely to happen within 24-hours and not at all in tertiary transfer except under controlled conditions of keeping the initial organic material moist (such as sebaceous oil from skin that contains sebaceous sweat glands [the palm of the hand doesn't contain any unless you sweep your fingers through your hair or face]). The total lie that Sollecito's DNA was somehow conveyed there some six weeks later by a rogue detective is one AK fans prefer to believe because truth is expendable rather than to face the truth of the pair's involvement in a horrible murder.

I hope you are now able to comprehend the argument. Let me know if anything I said is still unclear.
Regarding the part of this passage that deals with Dr. Gill, do you have a citation?
 
Congratulations! A word salad AND a gish gallop all in one post. I misquoted nothing.

What else did Peter Gill say specifically about the bra clasp DNA? Lessee..


And I've never claimed that the DNA on bra clasp wasn't Raffaele's so your rant on that is irrelevant.


HOUSTON, WE HAVE A BREAK THROUGH!!!

Next step: do you still believe the full-profile DNA magically flew under a locked door and a corpse to land perfectly on a bra clasp hook, exactly where a person would grip to undo it...?
 
Last edited:
Regarding the part of this passage that deals with Dr. Gill, do you have a citation?
Try reading Peter Gill's "Misleading DNA Evidence" where he contradicts himself on the case by saying chances of getting a reportable profile via passive transfer is "very low" >24 hrs after last contact (p76-77)
 
I don't know whether the Court of Appeals was allowed by the CSC to consider anything beyond Memoriale 1. The new CSC hearing may be free to consider additional information, or refer the case again.
I'd be interested to know if the 1st memoriale was ever subsequently used as evidence or leverage against Lumumba when he was being detained. I can imagine the 1.45 and 5.45 statements being waved in front of Lumumba with the implication that they were incriminating; however, if the 1st memoriale wasn't regarded as incriminating when it was written then why would it be incriminating now?

Did Pacelli even know that the 1st memoriale and subsequent retractions even existed when Lumumba was being detained? No doubt he would jump into bed with Sacco now and agree that the 1st memoriale is a reiteration of calunnia since it benefits him and Lumumba to do so, but would he have seen it in the same light when it was originally written? My guess is that he'd have considered it to be a retraction since it would have benefitted Lumumba at the time.

My argument is that if the 1st memoriale wasn't considered at the time to implicate Lumumba then why should it be so now? The only reason it becomes significant now is due to the fact that the 5.45 and now the 1.45 statements are unusable. In that case I'd argue that the 1st memoriale shouldn't be considered as valid since it wasn't considered valid at the time when it could have been significant in influencing the proceedings.

Hoots
 
I'd be interested to know if the 1st memoriale was ever subsequently used as evidence or leverage against Lumumba when he was being detained. I can imagine the 1.45 and 5.45 statements being waved in front of Lumumba with the implication that they were incriminating; however, if the 1st memoriale wasn't regarded as incriminating when it was written then why would it be incriminating now?

Did Pacelli even know that the 1st memoriale and subsequent retractions even existed when Lumumba was being detained? No doubt he would jump into bed with Sacco now and agree that the 1st memoriale is a reiteration of calunnia since it benefits him and Lumumba to do so, but would he have seen it in the same light when it was originally written? My guess is that he'd have considered it to be a retraction since it would have benefitted Lumumba at the time.

My argument is that if the 1st memoriale wasn't considered at the time to implicate Lumumba then why should it be so now? The only reason it becomes significant now is due to the fact that the 5.45 and now the 1.45 statements are unusable. In that case I'd argue that the 1st memoriale shouldn't be considered as valid since it wasn't considered valid at the time when it could have been significant in influencing the proceedings.

Hoots
Your post seems intent on suggesting some aspects of rational logic motivated the actions and beliefs of the Italian authorities.

I suspect that Knox's 1:45 am coerced false statement was sufficient for the police to arrest Lumumba, and IIRC information from it was indicated as the major motivation in Mignini's arrest warrant for Lumumba, Sollecito, and Knox.

I believe that Memoriale 1 has only become a significant piece of evidence to the Italian authorities in response to the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy, and as a way to appear to avoid reversing Knox's conviction for calunnia against Lumumba, despite the clear violations by Italy of Knox's Convention rights to a fair trial found in the ECHR's judgment.
 
Last edited:
The concept of allele sharing, and its effects in mixtures, may need some examination for its relevance in STR DNA profiling of DNA mixtures.

Suppose that we consider three persons: A mother (A) and a father (B) and their biological child (C). Each autosomal chromosome of the child is composed of an autosomal chromosome from the mother and one from the father, and the sex chromosomes are either XX (female child) or XY (male child) - assuming no abnormalities in meiosis or related processes.
For each autosomal STR DNA locus, number i, for the mother, her two alleles are A(i_mA) and A(i_fA), where mA and fA indicate that the allele was derived from the mother's mother or father, respectively.

For the father, each autosomal STR DNA locus, i, has two alleles: B(i_mB) and B(i_fB), where mB and fB indicate the allele was derived from the father's mother or father, respectively.

For the child, each autosomal STR DNA locus, i, has two alleles: one from the mother that is either A(i_mA) or A(i_fA) and a second from the father that is either B(i_mB) or B(i_fB).

When a DNA sample consisting of about equal amounts of DNA from each of the mother, father, and child is mixed together, the DNA profiles of the mixture will appear to be the DNA profiles of only two persons, since each allele creates a separate peak in an electrophergram, and each of the child's alleles is also one its parent's alleles.

Among unrelated individuals, a certain amount of allele sharing is to be expected, although of course not to the extent of the parents and their biological child or of identical twins. That is one reason the US FBI DNA database (CODIS) is now based on the DNA profiling of 20 alleles, rather than the previous 13 alleles. The possiblity of the presence of allele sharing is one of the several challenges of interpreting DNA profiles of DNA mixtures. Another is that in a mixture of autosomal DNA from two or more individuals there is no simple scientific way to decide a priori which allele belongs to which of several persons of interest. The method used for the bra clasp appears to have been to assign those alleles that agree with the known DNA profile of Sollecito to him, and to ignore the other alleles of the mixture; this is called the "suspect-centric" method, and it is a violation of scientific integrity and the principle of innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Application of some of the issues of DNA mixtures is discussed specifically for the bra clasp and Sollecito in the following paper by Vecchiotti and Zoppis; this paper may clarify and expand some of the statements in the Conti-Vecchiotti report:

DNA and the law in Italy: the experience of “the Perugia case”​


 
Your post seems intent on suggesting some aspects of rational logic motivated the actions and beliefs of the Italian authorities.

I suspect that Knox's 1:45 am coerced false statement was sufficient for the police to arrest Lumumba, and IIRC information from it was indicated as the major motivation in Mignini's arrest warrant for Lumumba, Sollecito, and Knox.

I believe that Memoriale 1 has only become a significant piece of evidence to the Italian authorities in response to the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy, and as a way to appear to avoid reversing Knox's conviction for calunnia against Lumumba, despite the clear violations by Italy of Knox's Convention rights to a fair trial found in the ECHR's judgment.
It was Chieffi who first weaponised the 1st memoriale and the November 10th prison intercept when he was confronted with the fact that the 1.45 statement was extracted when Amanda was in a "prolonged moment of bewilderment, amnesia, and confusion" and the 1.45 statement became under pressure in that respect. None of it should matter given the overarching considerations of the ECHR judgment, I'm just pointing out how flimsy it was in the first place.

I would argue that if the 1st memoriale wasn't considered at the time to be significant in implicating Lumumba at the time then how can it be so now? If it was clear at the time that the 1.45 statement was unusable as it now is then the cops would have had no reason to hold him since the 1st memoriale wasn't considered to incriminating by the cops at that time. It's possible in that scenario that Pacelli would have considered the 1st memoriale as a retraction as do the ECHR and might have significantly altered events.

I'd say that Chieffi's and now the Florence appeal court's use of the 1st memoriale is flawed since their considerations are retrospective ignoring the possiblity that it may not have been viewed that way a the time by Lumumba or his lawyer if that was all that was all that was keeping him detained.
Hoots
 
Try reading Peter Gill's "Misleading DNA Evidence" where he contradicts himself on the case by saying chances of getting a reportable profile via passive transfer is "very low" >24 hrs after last contact (p76-77)
Pages 71-80 of Dr. Gill's book cover fingernail DNA specifically. On pages 78-79, the period of 24 hours is mentioned. The context is that Dr. Gill is discussing the likelihood of detecting foreign fingernail DNA as a function of time after the transfer took place. After 24 hours the probability of finding foreign DNA on the fingernails of a living person is very low, probably due to hand washing or showering. The Anne Le case showed that DNA deposition could happen a long time before its transfer of DNA to underwear of a murder victim (months or years).
 
Last edited:
It was Chieffi who first weaponised the 1st memoriale and the November 10th prison intercept when he was confronted with the fact that the 1.45 statement was extracted when Amanda was in a "prolonged moment of bewilderment, amnesia, and confusion" and the 1.45 statement became under pressure in that respect. None of it should matter given the overarching considerations of the ECHR judgment, I'm just pointing out how flimsy it was in the first place.

I would argue that if the 1st memoriale wasn't considered at the time to be significant in implicating Lumumba at the time then how can it be so now? If it was clear at the time that the 1.45 statement was unusable as it now is then the cops would have had no reason to hold him since the 1st memoriale wasn't considered to incriminating by the cops at that time. It's possible in that scenario that Pacelli would have considered the 1st memoriale as a retraction as do the ECHR and might have significantly altered events.

I'd say that Chieffi's and now the Florence appeal court's use of the 1st memoriale is flawed since their considerations are retrospective ignoring the possiblity that it may not have been viewed that way a the time by Lumumba or his lawyer if that was all that was all that was keeping him detained.
Hoots
Your arguments are interesting, but I'm not at all confident that the Italian courts work that way in practice.

I'll present this quote on Italian law from the Vecchiotti and Zoppis paper I cited above; the substance of the quote is itself referenced to another paper (Grosso C. F. (2011). L'incerta Prova Scientifica. Torino: La Stampa).

Finally, it is worth recalling a key principle of the Italian criminal justice system, the presumption of innocence: a defendant can only be declared guilty if the prosecution proves beyond any reasonable doubt that he committed the crimes for which he is being prosecuted. If a single doubt remains, even the slightest, the defendant must be acquitted. Judges who convict in the absence of strong, unambiguous and consistent evidence violate the law.
From the evidence of the Knox - Sollecito case, it appears to be not uncommon for Italian courts to violate the law. There are certainly many cases annulled without referral by the CSC in several years that I had checked in a CSC yearly review document.
 
Last edited:
Pages 71-80 of Dr. Gill's book cover fingernail DNA specifically. On pages 78-79, the period of 24 hours is mentioned. The context is that Dr. Gill is discussing the likelihood of detecting foreign fingernail DNA as a function of time after the transfer took place. After 24 hours the probability of finding foreign DNA on the fingernails of a living person is very low, probably due to hand washing or showering. The Anne Le case showed that DNA deposition could happen a long time before its transfer of DNA to underwear of a murder victim (months or years).
Thanks for putting Dr. Gill's statement into context which reveals Vixen's comment is either intellectual dishonesty or ignorance. I've seen that same snippet from Gill's book used by the colpevolisti many times as evidence that RS's DNA on the hook could not be from contamination.
 
HOUSTON, WE HAVE A BREAK THROUGH!!!

Next step: do you still believe the full-profile DNA magically flew under a locked door and a corpse to land perfectly on a bra clasp hook, exactly where a person would grip to undo it...?
How you infer Gill saying that RS's DNA on the hook was most likely from contamination as supporting your argument is mind-boggling.

Your fallacy of exaggeration is noted. I've never seen anyone, including me, ever claim that RS's DNA "magically flew under a locked door and a corpse to land perfectly on a bra clasp hook". Why you need to resort to that kind of rubbish only you can answer.

I know from previous discussions that you are well aware of the police video showing gross violations of anti-contamination protocols by the police during the clasp collection. You've seen that same hook being directly touched by a visibly dirty and admittedly unchanged glove...a glove that had previously touched who knows what. You are also well aware that it was passed around to others and dropped on the floor. A floor where people had walked during the past 46 days with no record of what, if any, anti-contamination protocols were followed.

It's glaringly dishonest to restrict the only time for this contamination to have occurred being during the time the bedroom door was locked and not during the following 46 days.

Your claim that the hook is "exactly where a person would grip to undo it" is nothing but BS. You know better than that and so do we. When you unhook a bra clasp, you don't touch just one of the hooks; you grasp both sides of the cloth that the hooks and eyes are sewn to. Yet none of RS's DNA was found on any of the cloth or the other hook or on the eyes side of the clasp.
You also know that the clasp was cut off, not unhooked.
You've been peddling your version of the facts for years but that doesn't make them actual facts.

ETA: How do you explain the Y-DNA of at least two other unidentified males on that same tiny bra hook? Did that DNA "magically [fly] under a locked door and a corpse to land perfectly on a bra clasp hook, exactly where a person would grip to undo it..."?
 
Last edited:
Your arguments are interesting, but I'm not at all confident that the Italian courts work that way in practice.

I'll present this quote on Italian law from the Vecchiotti and Zoppis paper I cited above; the substance of the quote is itself referenced to another paper (Grosso C. F. (2011). L'incerta Prova Scientifica. Torino: La Stampa).


From the evidence of the Knox - Sollecito case, it appears to be not uncommon for Italian courts to violate the law. There are certainly many cases annulled without referral by the CSC in several years that I had checked in a CSC yearly review document.
The citation to Grosso in the V & Z paper links to a brief article, La Prova Scientifica, by S. Lorusso, in the Google Scholar database.

Here are some points from the Lorusso article (Google translation):

Scientific evidence must also be freely evaluated, and must contribute to overcoming any reasonable doubt in order to support a conviction: otherwise it would be legal evidence {meaning: arbitrary judicial fact (?)}, which our legal system has long since renounced. Scientific evidence, in short, is not infallible evidence but verifiable evidence - and to be verified - like any other evidence, the evaluation of which, indeed, requires greater attention since the interpretation of the evidentiary data presupposes the mediation of an expert. Its reliability, then, is directly proportional to the respect of internationally recognized and shared protocols in the collection, conservation (through a rigorous "chain of custody") and analysis of the traces of the crime {meaning: the overall evidence of the crime}. Otherwise, scientific evidence ends up becoming more misleading than any other evidence.
See:
 
Last edited:
I only have time for a short comment. It is possible that the DNA from the construction worker that was found on Annie Le's underwear in the Richard Clark case arrived from secondary, as opposed to tertiary or higher, transfer. There is no doubt, however, that Raymond Clark was guilty or that the transfer happened years after the deposition. Norm Pattis wrote, "In the Le case, investigators found that the mysterious DNA belonged to a construction worker who had done work at the lab in which Ms. Le’s body was found years before the killing. Interviews with co-workers suggested that as the work progressed, workers often sweat, sometimes copiously. Some may have worked with their shirts off. Investigators concluded that the DNA in question here was transferred innocently from a construction worker to a wall or other physical object in the wall. The humidity in the room created an environment in which the cells retained their structure. Had the DNA donor not died long before the event, his DNA would have made him a suspect."
 
Last edited:
The concept of allele sharing, and its effects in mixtures, may need some examination for its relevance in STR DNA profiling of DNA mixtures.

Suppose that we consider three persons: A mother (A) and a father (B) and their biological child (C). Each autosomal chromosome of the child is composed of an autosomal chromosome from the mother and one from the father, and the sex chromosomes are either XX (female child) or XY (male child) - assuming no abnormalities in meiosis or related processes.
For each autosomal STR DNA locus, number i, for the mother, her two alleles are A(i_mA) and A(i_fA), where mA and fA indicate that the allele was derived from the mother's mother or father, respectively.

For the father, each autosomal STR DNA locus, i, has two alleles: B(i_mB) and B(i_fB), where mB and fB indicate the allele was derived from the father's mother or father, respectively.

For the child, each autosomal STR DNA locus, i, has two alleles: one from the mother that is either A(i_mA) or A(i_fA) and a second from the father that is either B(i_mB) or B(i_fB).

When a DNA sample consisting of about equal amounts of DNA from each of the mother, father, and child is mixed together, the DNA profiles of the mixture will appear to be the DNA profiles of only two persons, since each allele creates a separate peak in an electrophergram, and each of the child's alleles is also one its parent's alleles.

Among unrelated individuals, a certain amount of allele sharing is to be expected, although of course not to the extent of the parents and their biological child or of identical twins. That is one reason the US FBI DNA database (CODIS) is now based on the DNA profiling of 20 alleles, rather than the previous 13 alleles. The possiblity of the presence of allele sharing is one of the several challenges of interpreting DNA profiles of DNA mixtures. Another is that in a mixture of autosomal DNA from two or more individuals there is no simple scientific way to decide a priori which allele belongs to which of several persons of interest. The method used for the bra clasp appears to have been to assign those alleles that agree with the known DNA profile of Sollecito to him, and to ignore the other alleles of the mixture; this is called the "suspect-centric" method, and it is a violation of scientific integrity and the principle of innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Application of some of the issues of DNA mixtures is discussed specifically for the bra clasp and Sollecito in the following paper by Vecchiotti and Zoppis; this paper may clarify and expand some of the statements in the Conti-Vecchiotti report:

DNA and the law in Italy: the experience of “the Perugia case”​


Whilst familial DNA will show some common characteristics, it is a mistake to imagine the DNA of two parents and a child mixed together somehow becomes an indistinguishable soup is erroneous. Firstly, to be of legal standard you need to identify SNP's with at least 11 allele peaks, fragments of <6 or any fragment cannot be stuck together to form one long ribbon. They remain individual fragments.
 
Hi, did you deliberately misquote me? It is poor netiquette to do so.

On the assumption that perhaps there was difficulty in comprehension, may I offer the following advice?


  • First, read carefully the post/s that were being responded to for full context. (This is indicated by the small arrow pointing upwards.)
  • Next, please be aware that a sentence doesn't end until a full stop - a period in the US - nor a subclause expressing a full idea until a semi-colon.
To run through my sentence again, carefully, we have:

"It is simply not possible to obtain anyone's full DNA profile - for forensic criminal purposes, this is the full 17-alleles, as was found of Sollecito's, by stirring it in an alphabet soup; and as expert witness to the court, Professor Novelli testified under cross-examination, the chances of the profile being for anyone other than Sollecito is over 3.4billion to one against. "

EXPLANATION

First subclause:

"It is simply not possible to obtain anyone's full DNA profile - for forensic criminal purposes, this is the full 17-alleles, as was found of Sollecito's, by stirring it in an alphabet soup;"

It is simply not possible to obtain anyone's full DNA profile - [this indicates an insertion] for forensic criminal purposes, [Subclause to explain why this is referred to as a FULL DNA profile] this is the full 17-alleles, [COMMA: this indicates a pause] as was found of Sollecito's, [COMMA relating to whom the full profile belongs and ending subclause] by stirring it in an alphabet soup; [SEMI- COLON indicates end of subsentence]. For ease of understanding: 'It is simply not possible to obtain anyone's full DNA profile by stirring it in an alphabet soup', or in other words lest the meaning still is not clear: simply chucking the letters of the alphabet, as it were, into a soup, will not by a fluke transform by chance into an ordered alphabet from A to Z, as the poster was claiming re Sollecito's DNA being found by a sheer fluke.

Second subsentence, as follows the SEMI-COLON, finishing the first:

"and as expert witness to the court, [COMMA = pause] Professor Novelli testified under cross-examination, [COMMA end of pause providing someone's name] the chances of the profile being for anyone other than Sollecito is over 3.4billion to one against. " [FULL STOP = end of sentence.]

Thus the full idea with supporting evidence and with reference to expert court testimony conveys that ,no, Sollecito's proven DNA-profile was not there by random chance.

To hammer the message home - and as confirmed by Dr. Gill who states secondary transfer of DNA is only likely to happen within 24-hours and not at all in tertiary transfer except under controlled conditions of keeping the initial organic material moist (such as sebaceous oil from skin that contains sebaceous sweat glands [the palm of the hand doesn't contain any unless you sweep your fingers through your hair or face]). The total lie that Sollecito's DNA was somehow conveyed there some six weeks later by a rogue detective is one AK fans prefer to believe because truth is expendable rather than to face the truth of the pair's involvement in a horrible murder.

I hope you are now able to comprehend the argument. Let me know if anything I said is still unclear.
If you need this many words to explain a sentence, then your sentence was poorly written.
 
Getting back to the 2013 paper by Vecchiotti and Zoppis, available at:


Table 1 of the paper compares the interpretations of the electropherograms (graphs) of the Y chromosome STRs - the Y chromosome DNA profiling results for the bra clasp - by the prosecution's technical consultant (Stefanoni) and by the Hellmann court's independent technical consultants (Conti and Vecchiotti).

There are 16 STRs listed; the DYS prefix on the locus identifiers stands for DNA - Y chromosome - sequence number; these identifiers are assigned by an international organization that sets standards for human gene nomenclature.

According to Table 1:

For 15 of the STR loci, Stefanoni reported only 1 peak, but for 1 STR she reported 2 peaks. She concluded that the Y-STR results showed the DNA profile of one male and that the profile was compatible with Sollecito.

For 4 of the STR loci, Conti & Vecchiotti reported only 1 peak, but for 9 STRs they reported 2 peaks, and for 3 STRs they reported 3 peaks. All the additional peaks were above the manufacturer's threshold (50 RFU), with the heights of the peaks not reported by Stefanoni ranging from 59 to 201 RFU. This last peak reached over 32% of the height of the Stefanoni-reported peak, while the others were also of significant relevant height. The peaks not reported by Stefanoni were not in stutter position. Therefore, since the peaks were above threshold and not in stutter position they were not artifacts of the test and, following accepted international DNA profiling standards should have been reported. The C & V results show that three males contributed DNA to the bra clasp sample.

Why did some of the STRs have only 1 or 2 peaks rather than 3? A likely reason is that the Y chromosome STRs of one or both of the males that were the source of the DNA that had not been reported by Stefanoni shared allele repeat values with the DNA profile attributed to Sollecito for those STR loci. "Allele sharing" - a person having some STRs with the same number of repeats as another, even unrelated, person is not uncommon. Persons who are in the same haplogroup although extremely very distantly related will be likely to share some STR alleles*. On the other hand, other technical reasons that are DNA profiling artifacts, for example, drop-out, may be responsible. Yet another possibility is that the two unknown male DNA deposits had degraded during the time (deposited up to 46 days prior to collection and subsequent profiling) that the bra clasp lay on the floor of the murder room, while possibly the DNA compatible with Sollecito's profile was deposited later, at the time the clasp was collected by the obviously dirty and possibly DNA contaminated gloves of the scientific police. (The recommended method of collection is to use DNA-free sterile disposable forcepts.)

The conclusion is that the DNA profiling results, and the known failings to follow appropriate storage, chain of custody, and collection methods strongly suggest the male DNA on the bra clasp are the result of contamination. Thus, under Italian law, CPP 192, paragraph 2, no fact against an accused could be lawfully inferred from the DNA profiling of the bra clasp.

*See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Y-chromosome_DNA_haplogroup
 
Last edited:
I only have time for a short comment. It is possible that the DNA from the construction worker that was found on Annie Le's underwear in the Richard Clark case arrived from secondary, as opposed to tertiary or higher, transfer. There is no doubt, however, that Raymond Clark was guilty or that the transfer happened years after the deposition. Norm Pattis wrote, "In the Le case, investigators found that the mysterious DNA belonged to a construction worker who had done work at the lab in which Ms. Le’s body was found years before the killing. Interviews with co-workers suggested that as the work progressed, workers often sweat, sometimes copiously. Some may have worked with their shirts off. Investigators concluded that the DNA in question here was transferred innocently from a construction worker to a wall or other physical object in the wall. The humidity in the room created an environment in which the cells retained their structure. Had the DNA donor not died long before the event, his DNA would have made him a suspect."

Crikey! I wasn't aware of that one.
 
How you infer Gill saying that RS's DNA on the hook was most likely from contamination as supporting your argument is mind-boggling.

Your fallacy of exaggeration is noted. I've never seen anyone, including me, ever claim that RS's DNA "magically flew under a locked door and a corpse to land perfectly on a bra clasp hook". Why you need to resort to that kind of rubbish only you can answer.

I know from previous discussions that you are well aware of the police video showing gross violations of anti-contamination protocols by the police during the clasp collection. You've seen that same hook being directly touched by a visibly dirty and admittedly unchanged glove...a glove that had previously touched who knows what. You are also well aware that it was passed around to others and dropped on the floor. A floor where people had walked during the past 46 days with no record of what, if any, anti-contamination protocols were followed.

It's glaringly dishonest to restrict the only time for this contamination to have occurred being during the time the bedroom door was locked and not during the following 46 days.

Your claim that the hook is "exactly where a person would grip to undo it" is nothing but BS. You know better than that and so do we. When you unhook a bra clasp, you don't touch just one of the hooks; you grasp both sides of the cloth that the hooks and eyes are sewn to. Yet none of RS's DNA was found on any of the cloth or the other hook or on the eyes side of the clasp.
You also know that the clasp was cut off, not unhooked.
You've been peddling your version of the facts for years but that doesn't make them actual facts.

ETA: How do you explain the Y-DNA of at least two other unidentified males on that same tiny bra hook? Did that DNA "magically [fly] under a locked door and a corpse to land perfectly on a bra clasp hook, exactly where a person would grip to undo it..."?

Forensic evidence is circumstantial evidence which needs to be looked at as a whole together with all of the other circumstantial evidence. Leaving your DNA at a crime scene is considered a strong piece of circumstantial evidence, when looked at as a whole with ALL of the evidence. The picture as a whole is why Knox and Sollecito, together with Guede, shows they are irrefutably involved in the murder and which is why Marasca-Bruno had little choice but to spell it out.

"Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime." wiki

Not only is Sollecito's DNA on the victim's bra hook, his footprint also appears in the victim's blood on the bathmat and his footprint highlighted in luminol - which is designed to highlight blood - outside the victim's locked door. The victim's DNA appears at the tip of Sollecito's kitchen knife, when the victim had never been in his apartment ever. Sollecito switched off his phone the same time as his co-partner as their victim returned home after an evening out with her college friends. Sollecito lied in his police statements, "I told you a sack of ◊◊◊◊" he affirms re claiming Knox was with him all evening. Sollecito has never retracted his claim Knox went out without him and did not return until 'about one a.m.'. Sollecito gave a false alibi of being on his computer all evening and speaking with his father on the phone. The forensic circumstantial evidence of hard phone logs and his internet provider shows Sollecito was not on his computer and nor did he pick up his father's phone call. Sollecito claimed his flat was flooded with water whilst he was doing the washing up, hence why Knox had to go back and forth between his flat and hers with a mop and why he had to dismantle his U-bend. Knox claimed to have had at least the need for two showers that evening and morning with Sollecito himself needing to scrub her thoroughly (she writes in an email to all her contacts as of the time). Knox' lamp was found on the floor underneath the victim's bed as though looking for something on the floor. When asked how come she didn't notice the lamp missing from her room when she had a shower next morning - despite the front door swinging open, she claims - and her response was she got dressed in the semi-dark. Sollecito claims he was too weak to smash down the victim's door, yet a colleague had no problem kicking it open, whilst Knox and Sollecito retreated to the back of the cottage whilst he did so. Clearly the pair locked the door themselves and wanted a third party to discover the body to offset any suspicion away from themselves.

Not to mention the staged burglary and the laptops of the victim, Knox and her flat mate's, plus one of Sollecito's laptops being professionally fried. How curious that Sollecito was a fourth year IT computer student who might know how to do such a thing! Yet Lumumba's tested the same time was absolutely fine, so the defence claim the police IT guys fried the incriminating ones makes you think, how unlucky for Knox and Sollecito that their frying was so highly selective!

Whilst it is understandable defence lawyers will look for holes in the prosecution case ("If the glove don't fit, you must acquit") it is hard to see why some killers attract a fan base that blindly refuses to accept any of the evidence.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom