Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Antony]

The contamination claimed by the defence is a contamination from the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito . Not a generic contamination from extra alleles, of male or female contributors whatever.
Nencini points out - and this is the logics point - that only Sollecito's DNA is what needs to be explained.

... which just underlines the faulty logic running through all of the thinking of the prosecution and the convicting courts. It's not possible, logically, to separate the alleged DNA of Sollecito, from the other identifiable DNA profiles. You can't simply act as though the other DNA doesn't exist (but of course, that kind of "reasoning" is what this prosecution and convictions are based on).

The existence of unattributed male DNA prove contamination, and is one of several reasons making the clasp invalid as evidence.

 

[Samson]

The contamination claimed by the defence is a contamination from the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito . Not a generic contamination from extra alleles, of male or female contributors whatever.
Nencini points out - and this is the logics point - that only Sollecito's DNA is what needs to be explained.

Would you be prepared to execute Raffaele on this dna evidence? This is the litmus test.
This is a serious question, because if it is not a "smoking gun", then there is reasonable doubt.
You can shelter behind the humanity of Italy being prepared to wreck but not take lives.
I am sure you will not answer this post with a yes or no, but I would respect you more were you prepared to do so.

 

[Samson]

As an aside (and I maybe in danger from the mods) there are parallels with Andrew Wakefield and the Measles vaccine controversy. Wakefield started doing PCR looking for measles virus in the bowel of children with colitis (not an unreasonable hypothesis), but he did so in a laboratory not set up to do PCR and in which there was live measles vaccine virus. It is very likely that his initial findings wee due to laboratory contamination, this then drove him down a route of looking for vaccine virus as a cause for colitis and subsequently into autistic enteropathy. There are a number of learning points, but the Royal Free failed to carry out what would have been a useful inquiry as people covered their backs. Wakefield was a young researcher, inadequately supervised, using novel (then) methodology he was not trained in. Laboratory records were poorly kept, so not subsequently verifiable, and almost certainly his output was greater than could be expected given his resources.

Your post is disturbing, I truly fear for freedom of speech that you feel the need to qualify a serious analogy thus.
A comment from the mods would be welcome.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

We can thank Dr. Novelli for this idiocy

There are so many possibilities of where and how the clasp might have been contaminated -- it's almost endless. But for some reason, per Mach and the Italian courts, the defense is supposed to prove when and where it was contaminated!!

Dougm,

Even in cases in which everyone agrees that there was contamination, the exact route is not always known (Farah Jama, John Ruelas's DNA on evidence from the Jane Mixer murder, and the Jaidyn Leskie case come to mind). In the present case the towels that Rudy brought into the room are another possible vector for contamination.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

How to prove contamination is unclear in Italy

They could easily have proven how it could have been contaminated, but not prove exactly how.

Dougm,

One of the many bewildering aspects of the SCC's ruling in 2013 is exactly what would count as evidence of contamination in their eyes. If they cannot enunciate a standard, they should rethink their position.

It is not clear that alibi evidence would be enough to save an innocent person in the event of DNA contamination; alibi evidence is often not believed (Farah Jama and Russ Faria come to mind; many others could be offered). A demand for an exact route of contamination makes it unclear what would happen in the following hypothetical case: Mr. Smith's DNA is found at the scene of a murder, which is localized to between 7 and 9 PM. Mr. Smith is arrested, and his defense team cannot specify a route of contamination. However, Archbishop Desmond Tutu is called as a witness, "Mr. Smith and I were studying the Bible together that evening, as we do each week at that time." Even an alibi from an unimpeachable source does not constitute showing what the route of contamination was. In Italy Mr. Smith might be convicted.
EDT
It is also unclear what the response in Italy would be to a positive result from a forensic DNA negative control. By itself, this does not provide a route of contamination, only that it must have occurred.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

innocent deposition of DNA

Nencini did not say he identified the profiles.

In fact he said something quite to the contrary effect: he said it would be irrelevant whose DNA that is. He said their identification and their number wouldn't matter at all.

Machiavelli,

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. The identity of the donors is less important than the fact of their DNA being present. If their DNA was not deposited as part of the crime, then there is no reason to conclude that Sollecito's must have been.
EDT
It is also incorrect to state that Sollecito's DNA could only have arrived innocently via tertiary transfer. They may have hugged earlier in the day, followed by Meredith's touching her bra clasp. In addition, examples of tertiary and higher order DNA transfers have been documented in the forensic literature.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Gubbiotti

Not ideal but this gives a brief summary of key issues.
http://www.enfsi.eu/sites/default/f...idance_document_for_best_practice_manuals.pdf

Points of interest:

All of appendix 1

"the use of the correct protective clothing and disposable equipment"

"the principle that after material has been recovered, packaged and sealed it must only be re-opened under controlled conditions and preferably not before laboratory examination" cf the knife being repackaged at the police station.

Planigale,

This point has never gotten the attention it deserves. This would be bad technique under any circumstances. One thing that makes it worse is that we are talking about low template DNA. In addition Gubbiotti had previously been to the women's flat that day, if I am not mistaken. Others with a better memory than I have will know what he was doing there and then later at the station. But I seem to recall he was making a list or catalog of items.

 

[Dan O.]

Again, reversing the burden of proof. Let's turn it around: what is the probability of the killer leaving DNA on the metal clasp of the bra during the course of the murder? How, exactly, does Machiavelli and the prosecution claim that the crime played out, such that the culprit's fingers (allegedly Raffale) came into contact with the metal hook of the bra clasp during the attack?

Machiavelli has never answered this, even when directly asked. Some of the guilters have tried to claim that Raffaele used his fingernail to open the hook (never mind that when the bra is attached the hooks face into the fabric on the eye strap and face Meredith's back so they are inaccessible to prying fingers). The pathological liar (not a real doctor Patriza Stefanoni) tells the court that this must have happened when Raffaele cut the clasp off with a knife. But the forensics tell us that the clasp was torn from the bra when Rudy Guede pulled out and down on the back band causing the straps and clasp to peel off at the stitching and distorting the top hook of the clasp. The forensics tell us that it was Rudy Guede that ripped the bra because he left his DNA on the band where he grabbed it. The clasp whould be thrown to the floor by the recoil of the band when it broke and was subsequently covered by the pillow with Rudy Guede's palm print in Meredith"s blood.

During the murder it was all Rudy Guede. If Raffaele's DNA was in fact on that clasp it could not have happened during the murder. The hooks were inaccessabe while the bra was on Meredith and the clasp was inaccessible after it was ripped off, covered by the pillow which was then covered by the semi naked body of Meredith Kercher [insert photo here].

If Raffaele's DNA was in fact on the hook of the bra clasp it got there either before Meredith put the bra on that morning or after the forensics team discovered the clasp on November 3.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Nencini fails logic 101

The contamination claimed by the defence is a contamination from the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito . Not a generic contamination from extra alleles, of male or female contributors whatever.
Nencini points out - and this is the logics point - that only Sollecito's DNA is what needs to be explained.

No, this is an excellent example of Nencini defying logic. How did the DNA of the other 2-4 men who contributed to this clasp get there?

 

[Dan O.]

Your post is disturbing, I truly fear for freedom of speech that you feel the need to qualify a serious analogy thus.
A comment from the mods would be welcome.

The mods do not read this thread except when posts are reported. Proof of this is easily seen where a recent post of mine was infarcted where I called the poster child for forensics fraud a pathological liar yet only a couple of posts later Machiavelli is telling another poster to go kill someone and that post is left unscathed.

This is also proof that I didn't report Machiavelli's post but rather gave him fair warning in the thread in time for him to correct his post and avoid moderation. It is unfortunate that we are again inflicted with juvinals calling down the wrath of the mods. Why can't they just learn the facts of this case and join the adult conversation.

 

[Antony]

Is it too obvious?

It must be obvious to anyone following the discussion about the bra clasp, although I guess someone who swallows the prosecution line without understanding all the things that are wrong with the clasp as evidence, might not make the connection.

Of course, there's one respect (at least) where your scenario doesn't parallel the Kercher case: when fastening or unfastening a button, the person's fingers do actually touch the button; with a bra, you don't touch the metal hooks with your fingers.

 

[Bill Williams]

The contamination claimed by the defence is a contamination from the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito . Not a generic contamination from extra alleles, of male or female contributors whatever.
Nencini points out - and this is the logics point - that only Sollecito's DNA is what needs to be explained.

I agree, this is what Nencini "points out". Then he goes on to destroy his own argument, by accepting the extra Y-material as needing explanation, too!!!!

He then, without a shred of proof must less a shred of evidence, goes on to speculate that the extra Y-material is probably from the boyfriend and (further) the other two from two "amica".

That, my friend, destroys his own argument that only Raffaele's needs explaining. Why? Because he, himself, goes on to explain what the other three might be! (But I like your method, M. Simply ignore what he says about the other stuff.)

Add to this, that he's implicitly relying on C&V, which you say was nullified by Cassazione. If it had been nullified, why even bother trying to refut C&V on this point? Because otherwise he would have simply argued like Massei and Stefanoni by sweeping the whole issue under the rug. (Which, perhaps, had been Cassazione's hope by turning back the clock.)

Oooooops, sorry, that was the bra-clasp. I mean, look how dirty it got being swept under the carpet! Dirty enough to ruin Stefanoni's pristine forensic-gloves!

 

[Strozzi]

Your post is disturbing, I truly fear for freedom of speech that you feel the need to qualify a serious analogy thus.
A comment from the mods would be welcome.

Planigale is worried the mods may charge him with calunnia. He knows the police have already found a witness who will swear the bar was closed that night.

 

[carbonjam72]

I don't remember this claim from Stefanoni. We're you perhaps referring to the scratch she saw on the knife and subsequently swabbed that area? There were some independent sources who said they did not see the scratch but one who did, if I remember correctly.

That's not my recollection. I thought only Stefanoni saw the "scratch", and only Stefanoni found Meredith's DNA in a swab from the scratch that only Stefanoni could see.

Massei describes that no other expert could find the scratch on the knife that Stefanoni was referring to, nor could it be photographed for anyone else to see it, but that Stefanoni could see it because she used a special light source, and tilted the knife at an angle.

Personally, if only one expert claims to see evidence, and then its gone and can't be verified, that doesn't sound like reliable evidence. But that's just me...

 

[Bill Williams]

The contamination claimed by the defence is a contamination from the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito . Not a generic contamination from extra alleles, of male or female contributors whatever.
Nencini points out - and this is the logics point - that only Sollecito's DNA is what needs to be explained.

... which just underlines the faulty logic running through all of the thinking of the prosecution and the convicting courts. It's not possible, logically, to separate the alleged DNA of Sollecito, from the other identifiable DNA profiles. You can't simply act as though the other DNA doesn't exist (but of course, that kind of "reasoning" is what this prosecution and convictions are based on).

The existence of unattributed male DNA prove contamination, and is one of several reasons making the clasp invalid as evidence.

If nothing else, this whole line of (laughable) defence of Nencini is proof.....

..... that the only way to drag Raffaele into this crime is to think un-osmotically. Even un-osmotic in the way that the misleading PMF translation of the Nencini-document renders it: "organically".

One simply has to lop off and ignore the extra Y-material and do exactly as Nencini does - consider this ONLY as proof that Raffaele's DNA is on that hook non-innocently.

Pay no attention to the amica's-haplotypes behind the curtain.

 

[Bill Williams]

That's not my recollection. I thought only Stefanoni saw the "scratch", and only Stefanoni found Meredith's DNA in a swab from the scratch that only Stefanoni could see.

Massei describes that no other expert could find the scratch on the knife that Stefanoni was referring to, nor could it be photographed for anyone else to see it, but that Stefanoni could see it because she used a special light source, and tilted the knife at an angle.

Personally, if only one expert claims to see evidence, and then its gone and can't be verified, that doesn't sound like reliable evidence. But that's just me...

Only Stefanoni saw the striation on the knife in which she claimed resided the now-destroyed*** single sample of Meredith DNA.

When other experts told Judge Massei that they could not detect such a striation, Massei accepted Stefanoni's argument that it had been only visible under certain light conditions, and further that it was so faint that it could not be photographed.

Yet - the PMF-bunch claims to have a photograph plainly showing it.

Then again why did Massei in 2009 eventually believe Stefanoni on this point? It was a variation of, "Stefanoni is not the one on trial here. Besides, she told me she saw it."


***ETA - in perhaps the only decision Stefanoni made which was a sound one (hypothetically, if she was not just outright lying) concerns her choice to test the "Meredith sample" for it's ownership, rather than for its composition. The sample was so small (as claimed by S.) that the necessary destructive test meant only one shot. Therefore, S. decided (without the necessary judicial authority which Cassazione later said incriminated Conti and Vecchiotti in not testing 36I) to test it to see who it belonged to, rather than what it was.

This is BEFORE considering that it was allegedly found in a striation no one else on the planet has ever seen. A "Meredith-sample" similarly, no one else on the planet saw, or now can see given that it is gone.

Note to fair minded people: is this a conviction you'd hang your hat on? Your country's reputation on?

 

[Strozzi]

Dougm,

One of the many bewildering aspects of the SCC's ruling in 2013 is exactly what would count as evidence of contamination in their eyes. If they cannot enunciate a standard, they should rethink their position.

It is not clear that alibi evidence would be enough to save an innocent person in the event of DNA contamination; alibi evidence is often not believed (Farah Jama and Russ Faria come to mind; many others could be offered). A demand for an exact route of contamination makes it unclear what would happen in the following hypothetical case: Mr. Smith's DNA is found at the scene of a murder, which is localized to between 7 and 9 PM. Mr. Smith is arrested, and his defense team cannot specify a route of contamination. However, Archbishop Desmond Tutu is called as a witness, "Mr. Smith and I were studying the Bible together that evening, as we do each week at that time." Even an alibi from an unimpeachable source does not constitute showing what the route of contamination was. In Italy Mr. Smith might be convicted.EDT
It is also unclear what the response in Italy would be to a positive result from a forensic DNA negative control. By itself, this does not provide a route of contamination, only that it must have occurred.

No, in Italy Mr. Smith and Archbishop Desmond Tutu would both be convicted! . Quintavale would come forwards and say he saw the archbishop in his bleach aisle the morning after the murder.

 

[christianahannah]

That's not my recollection. I thought only Stefanoni saw the "scratch", and only Stefanoni found Meredith's DNA in a swab from the scratch that only Stefanoni could see.

Massei describes that no other expert could find the scratch on the knife that Stefanoni was referring to, nor could it be photographed for anyone else to see it, but that Stefanoni could see it because she used a special light source, and tilted the knife at an angle.

Personally, if only one expert claims to see evidence, and then its gone and can't be verified, that doesn't sound like reliable evidence. But that's just me...

I'm sorry I should have given more information. Even though I wrote the scratch I should have written scratches. Whether this corresponds to Stefanoni's scratch, I can't say but there was another source who saw scratches on the knife. How all the experts viewed the knife, in person, from photos, etc., I do not know the answer.

Testimony from Dr. Liverio, Massei Motivations - page 118:

With reference to the exhibited knife, she noticed that it had some fine scratches [zigrinature] on the blade, at a distance of two, eleven and four centimeters (pages 82 and 83).

ETA: I didn't think Stefanoni used a special light to see the scratch but rather testified it could be seen in good lighting.

 

[Dan O.]

ETA: I didn't think Stefanoni used a special light to see the scratch but rather testified it could be seen in good lighting.

Maybe she borrowed Amanda's lamp and could see the DNA

 

[carbonjam72]

I'm sorry I should have given more information. Even though I wrote the scratch I should have written scratches. Whether this corresponds to Stefanoni's scratch, I can't say but there was another source who saw scratches on the knife. How all the experts viewed the knife, in person, from photos, etc., I do not know the answer.

Testimony from Dr. Liverio, Massei Motivations - page 118:



ETA: I didn't think Stefanoni used a special light to see the scratch but rather testified it could be seen in good lighting.

Thanks Christianah, I'm curious if anyone else has any thoughts on this issue.

Incidentally, was Dr Liverio an expert for the civil parties, by any chance?

By any chance, do you have an over all opinion as to guilt or innocence for Amanda and Raf that you would be willing to share?

Do you think Rudy Guede killed Meredith alone, or with others, or that Rudy isn't guilty at all?

I understand if you don't wish to express an opinion.