Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

Once again, the thread has grown lengthy, so this is a continuation from the previous thread, Continuation 13.
For further reference, see: Part 12, Part 11, Part 10, Part 9, Part 8, Part 7, Part 6, Part 5, Part 4, Part 3, Part 2, and Part 1.

Posted By: Agatha

I didn't dream your DNA mix-up, y'all mixed up smear (which is chaos) with contamination (which is a rare constructed occurrence).
If Peter Gill lectures all the DNA specialists that came before him on Meredith's case like they're 6 year olds who don't know:
1-What a DNA trace is and how to interpret it as signal/noise
2-How a judge can use a DNA expert and build his case
Then no one should be embarrassed pointing at Peter Gill's simple mistake:
We don't live through our day leaving a trail of DNA.
DNA is produced on impact. Namely all denaturation processes: heat, friction, stress, acid, etc.
RS came in significant collision with Meredith's bra.
Please give it some consideration, Peter Gill is mistaken.

You act as if you know what you are talking about. But in truth, it is the epitome of absurd arrogance and foolish behavior. Dr. Gill is a DNA expert of the highest standards. And your own expertise in DNA science is non existent. Yet you dismiss and denigrate Dr.Gill. I don't understand that. Consider the following advice "best to keep silent and have people believe you to be a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt".

 

[Welshman]

Again you are either completely misinformed, or are choosing to lie to make Amanda Knox look bad. Anyone that knows anything about this knows that her costume for Halloween after her release was not a cat "burglar", but rather a local Seattle soccer player.

You are so biased against her that your mind just jumps to the worst possible explanation for everything.

I think it might be a good idea to keep a list on the lies Machiavelli says on this forum for two reasons. Firstly, it shows Machiavelli to be a hypocrite to constantly accuse Amanda of lying whe he constantly lies himself. Secondly, it shows there was no case or evidence against Amanda and Raffaele if Machiavelli and other PGP can not argue their case without resorting to lying.

 

[Planigale]

I didn't dream your DNA mix-up, y'all mixed up smear (which is chaos) with contamination (which is a rare constructed occurrence).
If Peter Gill lectures all the DNA specialists that came before him on Meredith's case like they're 6 year olds who don't know:
1-What a DNA trace is and how to interpret it as signal/noise
2-How a judge can use a DNA expert and build his case
Then no one should be embarrassed pointing at Peter Gill's simple mistake:
We don't live through our day leaving a trail of DNA.
DNA is produced on impact. Namely all denaturation processes: heat, friction, stress, acid, etc.
RS came in significant collision with Meredith's bra.
Please give it some consideration, Peter Gill is mistaken.

I think you have your own unique terminology that is hard for others to comprehend. Smear is not an often used term in DNA, it might help if you defined your terms.

I do not mean to be condescending, but it may be worth considering the history of forensic DNA. Originally the DNA was testing a known sample with intrinsic meaning. So you have a rape murder, a semen sample is found. There is not much doubt about what the donor of that semen was doing, nor when. The semen is typed then it can be compared to suspects. To begin with one needed around 2 square cm of blood stain to extract a DNA profile. Contamination was less of an issue because so much DNA was needed to type and the source of the DNA was overt. As extraction methods improved, and sensitivity of typing methods improved the DNA became divorced from its source. This is what is termed trace DNA. DNA with no clear origin. One cannot tell if the DNA originated from snot, pee, tears, blood.

So you have low transcript number DNA a few cells worth. Perhaps you find the DNA in a bomb. The prosecution argue that the DNA must have originated from the bomb maker. But the courts ruled that DNA typing of this type was qualitatively different from e.g. the DNA typing of a blood stain. Strenuous precautions needed to be taken to ensure that the sole source of the DNA was the thing being tested. This issue was recognised from the very first time LCN DNA trace typing was presented as evidence in court.

There are no distinguishing features of DNA trace that determines whether it was deposited by primary, secondary or tertiary plus transfer. It has been shown that if say person A shakes hands with person B, then person B handles e.g. a glass more DNA of person A can be deposited than of person B who actually handles the glass. What a few years ago was undetectable or a partial match could be retested now and give a full profile. Guilty people can deposit partial profiles and innocent people full profiles.

An honest statement about the DNA on the bra hook (assuming that the DNA was there in the first place and it was not in laboratory contamination) is
1) It is not known when it was deposited. A reasonable time frame is between the last wash (and there is some evidence for DNA transfer during washing of clothes), and the bra hook collection.
2) It is not known the source of the DNA. It might be from a sneeze or sweat or skin cells.
3) It is not known whether the DNA was deposited by direct contact with Sollecito, or indirect - secondary or greater transfer.

The prosecution need to make a case that the DNA transfer occurred during the crime. The defence need to argue the converse. It is not reasonable for the prosecution to be given a pass on this, but the defence be made to prove a route of transfer.

 

[kwill]

For example Knox sobbing on Halloween night because Meredith didn't answer her messages.

Hey! Where's the citation? Nobody can find it. Where did you get this idea from?

I hope we get something on this very important piece of evidence soon. It's going to be a game-changer for sure.

 

[Desert Fox]

For example Knox sobbing on Halloween night because Meredith didn't answer her messages.

Hey! Where's the citation? Nobody can find it. Where did you get this idea from?

I hope we get something on this very important piece of evidence soon. It's going to be a game-changer for sure.

Of note, even if it were true, my answer would be so what?

 

[Numbers]

Not to mention the sobbing reference does not seem to exist. I've flipped through all the pages about Halloween in my Kindle copy of Burleigh's book, and there's nothing about Amanda doing any such thing.

A mistake on Machiavelli's part, or is it part of his being completely misinformed?

Or is it making up the "evidence".

 

[Kauffer]

I hope we get something on this very important piece of evidence soon. It's going to be a game-changer for sure.

From small acorns do mighty oaks grow.

The misinformation these people peddle is treated as gospel by some. Best dig out the acorns when they start to come up.

 

[Dougm]

For example Knox sobbing on Halloween night because Meredith didn't answer her messages.

Hey! Where's the citation? Nobody can find it. Where did you get this idea from?

I hope we get something on this very important piece of evidence soon. It's going to be a game-changer for sure.

Mach actually cited a specific page in Burleigh's book, but so far, no one can find the quote.

Maybe it was removed with the same magic soap that Amanda and Raffaele used to clean up their DNA from the murder room.

 

[carbonjam72]

The recent post about Dershowitz offering an opinion, I'm pretty sure that's an old quote from after the last convictions in Jan 2014.

I think Dersh has kept out of the media, after his initial tantrum. Seems like poetic justice, even if its lousy that anyone is smeared just by the fact that an allegation is made in public.

But he certainly does look like a creepy sex offender, its that look in his eyes. Ok, just saying, how does it feel professor?

btw, does anyone know if the persona of "the professor" that Rudy Guede would sometimes take on in a fugue state, by any chance might Rudy have been channeling the Dersh?

 

[LondonJohn]

I think you have your own unique terminology that is hard for others to comprehend. Smear is not an often used term in DNA, it might help if you defined your terms.

I do not mean to be condescending, but it may be worth considering the history of forensic DNA. Originally the DNA was testing a known sample with intrinsic meaning. So you have a rape murder, a semen sample is found. There is not much doubt about what the donor of that semen was doing, nor when. The semen is typed then it can be compared to suspects. To begin with one needed around 2 square cm of blood stain to extract a DNA profile. Contamination was less of an issue because so much DNA was needed to type and the source of the DNA was overt. As extraction methods improved, and sensitivity of typing methods improved the DNA became divorced from its source. This is what is termed trace DNA. DNA with no clear origin. One cannot tell if the DNA originated from snot, pee, tears, blood.

So you have low transcript number DNA a few cells worth. Perhaps you find the DNA in a bomb. The prosecution argue that the DNA must have originated from the bomb maker. But the courts ruled that DNA typing of this type was qualitatively different from e.g. the DNA typing of a blood stain. Strenuous precautions needed to be taken to ensure that the sole source of the DNA was the thing being tested. This issue was recognised from the very first time LCN DNA trace typing was presented as evidence in court.

There are no distinguishing features of DNA trace that determines whether it was deposited by primary, secondary or tertiary plus transfer. It has been shown that if say person A shakes hands with person B, then person B handles e.g. a glass more DNA of person A can be deposited than of person B who actually handles the glass. What a few years ago was undetectable or a partial match could be retested now and give a full profile. Guilty people can deposit partial profiles and innocent people full profiles.

An honest statement about the DNA on the bra hook (assuming that the DNA was there in the first place and it was not in laboratory contamination) is
1) It is not known when it was deposited. A reasonable time frame is between the last wash (and there is some evidence for DNA transfer during washing of clothes), and the bra hook collection.
2) It is not known the source of the DNA. It might be from a sneeze or sweat or skin cells.
3) It is not known whether the DNA was deposited by direct contact with Sollecito, or indirect - secondary or greater transfer.

The prosecution need to make a case that the DNA transfer occurred during the crime. The defence need to argue the converse. It is not reasonable for the prosecution to be given a pass on this, but the defence be made to prove a route of transfer.

Exactly so. It's absolutely critical to understand that all DNA evidence is not the same. And the great paradox about advances in DNA typing is that as it becomes technically possible to identify profiles from lower and lower quantities of DNA, so the risk of contamination (not to mention drop-ins/out or other noise-related artifacts) increases exponentially in proportion.

As you point out so well, DNA typing works fantastically well when investigators have a truly abundant source of DNA to work from, and as you also say, pretty much all the most important DNA-related criminal cases involved semen (which, as you point out, is very compelling evidence in a rape or sex murder). But it's critical that courts understand (and are instructed appropriately) that where tiny low-template quantities of touch DNA are concerned, all sorts of massive issues around contamination and probative value become hugely prominent.

Frankly, it's appalling in this particular case that the DNA "evidence" has been allowed to assume the weight that it has done. The quantities involved should have raised a big red flag to start with, but under ideal collection/testing circumstances it is still possible that they might have had probative value. However, the fact that multiple grotesque errors and act of incompetence were involved right throughout the identification, collection, transportation, storage and testing of these items leads to a single, inexorable, unequivocal conclusion: all the DNA evidence in this case should have been thrown out by the courts as worthless and inadmissible.

 

[Dougm]

Frankly, it's appalling in this particular case that the DNA "evidence" has been allowed to assume the weight that it has done. The quantities involved should have raised a big red flag to start with, but under ideal collection/testing circumstances it is still possible that they might have had probative value. However, the fact that multiple grotesque errors and act of incompetence were involved right throughout the identification, collection, transportation, storage and testing of these items leads to a single, inexorable, unequivocal conclusion: all the DNA evidence in this case should have been thrown out by the courts as worthless and inadmissible.

Thank you for reminding us all. The DNA evidence in this case would have not even been admissible as evidence of anything in most advance countries. I had thought Italy was one of those countries, before learning otherwise from this case.

 

[TruthCalls]

I think you have your own unique terminology that is hard for others to comprehend. Smear is not an often used term in DNA, it might help if you defined your terms.

I do not mean to be condescending, but it may be worth considering the history of forensic DNA. Originally the DNA was testing a known sample with intrinsic meaning. So you have a rape murder, a semen sample is found. There is not much doubt about what the donor of that semen was doing, nor when. The semen is typed then it can be compared to suspects. To begin with one needed around 2 square cm of blood stain to extract a DNA profile. Contamination was less of an issue because so much DNA was needed to type and the source of the DNA was overt. As extraction methods improved, and sensitivity of typing methods improved the DNA became divorced from its source. This is what is termed trace DNA. DNA with no clear origin. One cannot tell if the DNA originated from snot, pee, tears, blood.

So you have low transcript number DNA a few cells worth. Perhaps you find the DNA in a bomb. The prosecution argue that the DNA must have originated from the bomb maker. But the courts ruled that DNA typing of this type was qualitatively different from e.g. the DNA typing of a blood stain. Strenuous precautions needed to be taken to ensure that the sole source of the DNA was the thing being tested. This issue was recognised from the very first time LCN DNA trace typing was presented as evidence in court.

There are no distinguishing features of DNA trace that determines whether it was deposited by primary, secondary or tertiary plus transfer. It has been shown that if say person A shakes hands with person B, then person B handles e.g. a glass more DNA of person A can be deposited than of person B who actually handles the glass. What a few years ago was undetectable or a partial match could be retested now and give a full profile. Guilty people can deposit partial profiles and innocent people full profiles.

An honest statement about the DNA on the bra hook (assuming that the DNA was there in the first place and it was not in laboratory contamination) is
1) It is not known when it was deposited. A reasonable time frame is between the last wash (and there is some evidence for DNA transfer during washing of clothes), and the bra hook collection.
2) It is not known the source of the DNA. It might be from a sneeze or sweat or skin cells.
3) It is not known whether the DNA was deposited by direct contact with Sollecito, or indirect - secondary or greater transfer.

The prosecution need to make a case that the DNA transfer occurred during the crime. The defence need to argue the converse. It is not reasonable for the prosecution to be given a pass on this, but the defence be made to prove a route of transfer.

I don't have the graphs in front of me at the moment, but IIRC, the peaks from the bra clasp results for Raffaele were perhaps 20-30% that of Meredith and were not consistent with one would expect if Raffaele had directly deposited his DNA on the clasp during the commission of the crime. I don't recall the prosecution ever being asked to explain that. They certainly used the strength of the peaks to dismiss all other 'minor male contributors', but apparently there is no concern with Raffaele's direct contact DNA being so weak as compared to Meredith's.

 

[kwill]

Mach actually cited a specific page in Burleigh's book, but so far, no one can find the quote.

The most generous way to look at that is that Mach is mistaken. He thought it was in Burleigh's book, but he actually heard it somewhere else. I really hope he figures out where, because even though it's completely irrelevant it seems to be one of the pegs upon which hangs the idea that Amanda Knox was really crazy enough to murder her friend for not liking her enough.

You know, like the testimony of the English women who didn't like Amanda. Their catty reports are also supposed to be evidence that Amanda resented Meredith (which she didn't).

 

[Samson]

I hope the guilters have read the transcripts of Amanda's bugged telephone conversations after the murder. I have, and have my opinions. What are yours, Eric, Machiavelli, Vibio, platonov? Have I missed anybody?

 

[Numbers]

An excerpt from the US Supreme Court judgment opinion of Reid v Covert:

{From http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=354&page=1}

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . . ."

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [354 U.S. 1, 17] War, would remain in effect. 31 It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights - let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition - to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. 32 In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. 33 For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 , it declared:

 

[kwill]

I hope the guilters have read the transcripts of Amanda's bugged telephone conversations after the murder. I have, and have my opinions. What are yours, Eric, Machiavelli, Vibio, platonov? Have I missed anybody?

Is there a link somewhere?

 

[Methos]

Is there a link somewhere?

At the bottom of this page: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/statements-phone-taps-prison-intercepts/

 

[Samson]

Is there a link somewhere?

Methos is right, but this is the link Bill posted,

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-co...Amanda-Knox-Phone-Intercepts-November-3-6.pdf

I personally believe these can only be profiled as the talk of an innocent young woman being mercilessly hunted, though the hunters see a valid prey. These transcripts are heart rending.

 

[Kauffer]

An excerpt from the US Supreme Court judgment opinion of Reid v Covert:

{From http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=354&page=1}

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . . ."

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [354 U.S. 1, 17] War, would remain in effect. 31 It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights - let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition - to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. 32 In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.:

Reid v Covert actually originated in the Uk so even I am slightly familiar with this very well known US case. Perhaps someone who knows about constitutional law can explain how and when 5th and 6th amendment arguments might come into play during an extradition process.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Pretzel logic from Nencini

I don't have the graphs in front of me at the moment, but IIRC, the peaks from the bra clasp results for Raffaele were perhaps 20-30% that of Meredith and were not consistent with one would expect if Raffaele had directly deposited his DNA on the clasp during the commission of the crime. I don't recall the prosecution ever being asked to explain that. They certainly used the strength of the peaks to dismiss all other 'minor male contributors', but apparently there is no concern with Raffaele's direct contact DNA being so weak as compared to Meredith's.

truthcalls,

I am very hesitant to draw the inference that you are drawing with respect to primary transfer. However, PG commenters who stress that Raffaele's putative profile is more abundant than the additional contributors usually fail to interpret the fact that his profile is between 1/6 and 1/10 the amount of Meredith's profile, a fact which is problematic for their argument. In other words, there is a lack of consistency to their thinking. I am completely in agreement with the notion that these other contributors have to be explained. Novelli saw the additional YSTR alleles, as well as everyone who has examined the electropherogram. Even Nencini knows that they are present, even if he tied himself into a pretzel to explain them.