Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[ericparoissien]

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.

RS's time window to deposit it is so small, and to access so paradoxically that item. Remember in 2008 RS's father had to say "Maybe AK wore that bra." to make sense of that paradox.

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.

At each level the reduction of probabilities is tremendous, from one in a thousand chances, to one in a hundred thousands, etc.

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.

The prosecution has on the side a pile of evidence of variable validity, and on the wall a shelf with a definite number of small niches that they fill with elements from the pile as soon as an element reaches a probability threshold that makes it relevant information pointing to innocent or guilt; and that shelf on the wall works like a puzzle representing a portrait doesn't need to be even to be 50% completed for anyone with a good eyesight to recognize who is on the portrait.
Even if DNA evidence was as big as the nose on the portrait, and if it's relevance was missing, human pattern recognition routinely doesn't need it to make out a face.
For any person with good sense, from the start the inconsistencies in his story telling already had filled RS's portrait a good 30%.

 

[Samson]

RS's time window to deposit it is so small, and to access so paradoxically that item. Remember in 2008 RS's father had to say "Maybe AK wore that bra." to make sense of that paradox.



?!



At each level the reduction of probabilities is tremendous, from one in a thousand chances, to one in a hundred thousands, etc.



The prosecution has on the side a pile of evidence of variable validity, and on the wall a shelf with a definite number of small niches that they fill with elements from the pile as soon as an element reaches a probability threshold that makes it relevant information pointing to innocent or guilt; and that shelf on the wall works like a puzzle representing a portrait doesn't need to be even to be 50% completed for anyone with a good eyesight to recognize who is on the portrait.
Even if DNA evidence was as big as the nose on the portrait, and if it's relevance was missing, human pattern recognition routinely doesn't need it to make out a face.
For any person with good sense, from the start the inconsistencies in his story telling already had filled RS's portrait a good 30%.

Can you imagine the bra clasp being deliberately contaminated to make sure Raffaele can not be released from jail?

Was there motive?
Was there opportunity?

If you can answer no to these three questions with well reasoned theories I hope Raffaele is jailed and serves his sentence.

 

[ericparoissien]

Can you imagine the bra clasp being deliberately contaminated to make sure Raffaele can not be released from jail?

Was there motive?
Was there opportunity?

If you can answer no to these two questions I hope Raffaele is jailed and serves his sentence.

Accusations of contamination are anyway veiled accusations of planting evidence; Avv. Giulia Bongiorno or any other defence lawyer can't risk to lose their career, in France, in the States, in Italy, with a full frontal clash with the judges. A good lawyer's career is based on her courteous relationship with the judges. (A very good lawyer dines with the judges)
So yes, a good lawyer would say "evidence by contamination" as the worst possible thing to say in a world where professionals respect each other and where she knows her client did it.
Now, planted evidence of that magnitude, i imagine would be possible in the 3rd Reich, a puppet trial to frame a communist. That is a context where the author(s) of the conspiracy knows he holds each individual along the chain of command, by the balls, for ten years at least. Obviously, Italy, where RS can go on TV and insult judges repeatedly on years, doesn't qualify as dictatorship.

 

[Samson]

Accusations of contamination are anyway veiled accusations of planting evidence; Avv. Giulia Bongiorno or any other defence lawyer can't risk to lose their career, in France, in the States, in Italy, with a full frontal clash with the judges. A good lawyer's career is based on her courteous relationship with the judges. (A very good lawyer dines with the judges)
So yes, a good lawyer would say "evidence by contamination" as the worst possible thing to say in a world where professionals respect each other and where she knows her client did it.
Now, planted evidence of that magnitude, i imagine would be possible in the 3rd Reich, a puppet trial to frame a communist. That is a context where the author(s) of the conspiracy knows he holds each individual along the chain of command, by the balls, for ten years at least. Obviously, Italy, where RS can go on TV and insult judges repeatedly on years, doesn't qualify as dictatorship.

ericparoissien, you are adding value to this forum, (in my view because you bring an interesting skill set in subtitling videos and a willingness to reply to the actual post). I will return to this, but meanwhile would you consider contributing to the Sarah Scazzi thread? In some ways it is as interesting as this one.
And happy birthday if I understand right.

 

[Planigale]

RS's time window to deposit it is so small, and to access so paradoxically that item. Remember in 2008 RS's father had to say "Maybe AK wore that bra." to make sense of that paradox.

Even if we consider only primary transfer, the transfer could have happened at any time that Sollecito and the bra were in the flat at the same time. So certainly on the morning of 1 November, and probably before.

?!

This is because of a misunderstanding about the source of DNA. One often sees that it is said that the DNA comes from 'epithelials'. There is an assumption that this means 'skin'. In fact the surface cells of skin from hands is relatively poor source of DNA. The cells from wet surfaces e.g. the inside of the mouth are much better sources of DNA, this is why cheek swabs are used in DNA tests. These are also epithelials, epithelials are anywhere on the outside of the body and that includes topologically the lungs and gut and bladder. Sputum is full of DNA laden epithelials from the airways, tears contain DNA laden epithelials from the eyes, urine contains DNA laden epithelials from the bladder, cough or sneeze and DNA laden epithelial cells fly out and are deposited on nearby surfaces. All of these are primary transfer. With LCN trace DNA tests all of these are potential sources of typable DNA.

At each level the reduction of probabilities is tremendous, from one in a thousand chances, to one in a hundred thousands, etc.

This is the prosecutors fallacy. You are saying, 'what is the chance that Sollecito would have deposited his DNA on the bra hook by accident?' This is only valid if before doing any tests you prespecified the bra hooks and only the bra hooks as of importance. The correct question is given that DNA is on the hooks what is the probability that it was deposited innocently or that it was deposited as part of a crime. If you are innocent there is a 100% probability it was deposited innocently. This is what even the prosecution accept for the DNA of MK, they do not argue it was deposited because she tried to take her bra off during the criminal assault. They do not argue this for the other DNA traces. So for three out of four people whose DNA is found on the bra hook the prosecution accept there is a 100% probability the DNA was deposited other than during the assault. Mach argues that because no DNA was found elsewhere in the room it makes it more likely this was the result of primary transfer during the crime. But even Mach will not agree that if DNA of Sollecito had been found elsewhere in Knox's room he would be arguing that this proved innocence. A single isolated LCN trace DNA sample is just what innocent transfer would look like. The prosecution have no clear mechanism for 'guilty' transfer. The prosecution argue that Sollecito cut the bra strap, (an error as it parted at the seam), a no touch process. Any attempt to manually undo the bra would have involved touching the fabric a much better surface to collect DNA, but no Sollecito DNA was found where he should have touched. There are many putative mechanisms for innocent transfer of Sollecito's DNA onto the bra hooks. Then you have to add in the possibility of laboratory error. The odds are not in the order of 1:100,000 the odds lie between 1 and perhaps 0.1. Remember even if Sollecito is guilty the DNA found could still be 'innocent' transfer and be unrelated to the criminal process. The likelihood that the DNA was deposited during the crime is less than the likelihood that individual concerned was a participant in the crime. The presence of the DNA cannot raise the a priori likelihood of Sollecito being guilty.

The prosecution has on the side a pile of evidence of variable validity, and on the wall a shelf with a definite number of small niches that they fill with elements from the pile as soon as an element reaches a probability threshold that makes it relevant information pointing to innocent or guilt; and that shelf on the wall works like a puzzle representing a portrait doesn't need to be even to be 50% completed for anyone with a good eyesight to recognize who is on the portrait.
Even if DNA evidence was as big as the nose on the portrait, and if it's relevance was missing, human pattern recognition routinely doesn't need it to make out a face.
For any person with good sense, from the start the inconsistencies in his story telling already had filled RS's portrait a good 30%.

This is in essence what Mignini argued; that the prosecution merely needed to provide a possible explanation. If the explanation held together logically then the accused were guilty. i happen to feel that if you slot all these pieces into the defences niches you get a more complete and likely explanation of the crime than the prosecution. I feel that to stretch your analogy the prosecution have had to hammer round pegs into square holes to complete a (partial) picture.

 

[NancyS]

Well in fact even Knox herself hints to the episode in her book, even if she paints her loneliness in soft distant colours ("social scene not for me", "nostalgy of friends") and pulls a curtain on details:



This "thankfully" the party was over is something you can't miss.
And you can guess why she doesn't have eyeliners anymore.
She calls Raffaele at 1am and she is glad Raffaele walks her home - she has no girl friend who does - she is glad, despite they had not been eager to spend the evening together. She was not so glad to spend the evening with him and apparently he too - so he says - preferred to remain closed at home rather than go out to party with Amanda on Halloween night.
Even from their own book, you bet she wanted to spend the night with Meredith.
This is what Sollecito wrote about that night:



Even Sollecito notes that she wanted to spend the night with Meredith.
The fact that even he knows Meredith didn't respond to her sms, it suggests that this must not have been a completely unimportant detail, must have had a consequence of some kind, some emotional importance.
Sollecito even adds that it was not a chance, it was not Amanda and it was not a forgetting on the part of Meredith, it was in fact that "Meredith's friends didn't like her".

Here it says really almost everything you need to know. Obviously Sollecito pins it on "her friends", it's they who appeared to dislike her, not Meredith. Such distinction is obviously pulling a compassionate curtain. The reader can well understand his distinction between Meredith and her friends makes no sense, Sollecito didn't know any of those girls and couldn't have a clue about what they actually thought, how could guess who didn't like who? He is making up this picture because it's the only thing he can say in order to keep Meredith out. The pro-Knox crowd will maintain that "didn't like" doesn't go for Meredith, she and her friends were separete entities with different views, that they only thought Amanda was a little "unrestrained" and that Amanda was only a bit nostalgic, but the public reading is not made of Kwills, the dynamic of a rejection of Amanda's feelings are clear, even just from these rather omissive accounts.

And your genre has now changed from erotic fiction to teenage melodrama - it really is like an episode of Melrose Place!

Overall though, I guess this can be seen as evidence that Amanda really liked Meredith - but that Meredith's friends were a bit insular - and finally that Amanda didn't like the 'scene' of getting so drunk you couldn't remember getting home and vomited out of your nose, which is often the typical scene in UK universities

 

[Samson]

And your genre has now changed from erotic fiction to teenage melodrama - it really is like an episode of Melrose Place!

Overall though, I guess this can be seen as evidence that Amanda really liked Meredith - but that Meredith's friends were a bit insular - and finally that Amanda didn't like the 'scene' of getting so drunk you couldn't remember getting home and vomited out of your nose, which is often the typical seen in UK universities

?
I think I know what you mean.

It is important to remember Meredith has a police record for drunkenness.
If I am wrong, someone please correct.

Everything is important now, including the family baying for Amanda's extradition.

 

[Kauffer]

Come on, any reasonalbe person can well understand. Really, I think the most revealing thing you could say is your judgement that Meredith's friends were "catty and vicious". You really don't need to say anything else, this view of yours is the alpha and the omega, what you have is your own axioms, it's pure crystal of complete prejudice. What I wonder is just how you think you could build arguments agaisnt my views based on them, from the inside of your system.

The fact that Amanda was rejected and felt hurt is obvious to any who wants to see. But your view of Meredith's friends as "catty and vicious", and at the same time claim that there is no evidence Meredith disliked Amanda, is really a master show.

Obviously Amanda liked Meredith. But the problem is that she liked her too much, also sexually, and she was hurt, both humiliated - opening multiple instances of jealousy - and rejected. This is what I believe but, without getting into details, I remind that this consideration goes together with my independent observation that Amanda Knox was not normal. She was a fragile person with a personality disturb, and also with some drug problem, who failed to handle narcissistic rage.

She is going to class, going to her job and she's got a new boyfriend. Ms Kercher also has a new boyfriend. So, at the time of the murder and for a short period before, Ms Knox and Ms Kercher spent less time together than they had previously, but still spent time together and still communicated with each other in a warm and friendly manner. I find this unremarkable.

You, on the other hand, construe that what this means is that Ms Knox has unrequited, unspoken lesbian lust for Ms Kercher, that Ms Kercher has rejected her and this builds up within Ms Knox a torrent of obsessive inclinations, which provides her with a realistic motive for punishment, violence and murder, which she eventually carries out on the 1st November, no doubt while high on drugs, in the company of Guede whom she barely knew and had no means to contact.

This is probably the most jaw droppingingly astonishing, evidence absent, fantastical argument I have read from you - even more astonishing than your "they left no evidence in the room because they ran out the door" argument.

Even Mignini would baulk at putting this raving madness forward to explain what happened to Ms Kercher.

 

[NancyS]

?
I think I know what you mean.

It is important to remember Meredith has a police record for drunkenness.
If I am wrong, someone please correct.

Everything is important now, including the family baying for Amanda's extradition.

)

How can a fair trial be expected, if the family are allowed to apply emotional pressure prior to any verdict

 

[Kauffer]

She's a suspect

We know that the Kerchers arrived in Perugia on the evening of the 3rd November.

"Doroty: Have you... have you spoken to the father?
Amanda: With whom?
Doroty:: With Meredith’s father.
Amanda: No, we... eh... Filomena talked to a policeman today to ask him for the father’s number. He’s coming... arriving tonight."

(Source: telephone intercepts/Amanda Knox conversation with Dorothy, 3rd November: 16:54 - 17:03)

Here's John Kercher's recounting of his first meeting with Mignini, that night, in Perugia.

"He was serious about obtaining information on Meredith, and wanted to know in particular what she had told us of her housemate Amanda Knox"

(Source: "Meredith" p 20)

So, Ms Knox's telephone is tapped on the 3rd and Mignini is questioning the father of the victim about his daughter's relationship with Ms Knox.

The vultures are circling and the case against her is being prepared - two days before the final interrogations, where she will later be described as a mere "witness".

 

[NancyS]

Come on, any reasonalbe person can well understand. Really, I think the most revealing thing you could say is your judgement that Meredith's friends were "catty and vicious". You really don't need to say anything else, this view of yours is the alpha and the omega, what you have is your own axioms, it's pure crystal of complete prejudice. What I wonder is just how you think you could build arguments agaisnt my views based on them, from the inside of your system.

The fact that Amanda was rejected and felt hurt is obvious to any who wants to see. But your view of Meredith's friends as "catty and vicious", and at the same time claim that there is no evidence Meredith disliked Amanda, is really a master show.

Obviously Amanda liked Meredith. But the problem is that she liked her too much, also sexually, and she was hurt, both humiliated - opening multiple instances of jealousy - and rejected. This is what I believe but, without getting into details, I remind that this consideration goes together with my independent observation that Amanda Knox was not normal. She was a fragile person with a personality disturb, and also with some drug problem, who failed to handle narcissistic rage.

And now the genre switches straight back to erotic fiction with your bizarre fantasy of some girl-on-girl 'sexy time'

It's definitely one very odd view of women. Did you invent such a thing as 'narcissistic rage' after watching re-runs of Dynasty?

 

[Samson]

Twitter users may be interested in this:

quote:

Hello everyone,
I'd like to let the forum know that I have created a twitter account @KristevaPMF to live tweet from the Court of Cassation tomorrow. I also want to thank Ergon from PMF net for having provided me with a press pass and given me this unique opportunity. snip

 

[Mr Fied]

RS's time window to deposit it is so small, and to access so paradoxically that item. Remember in 2008 RS's father had to say "Maybe AK wore that bra." to make sense of that paradox.

What was the time window for all the other males who deposited DNA on the bra clasp?

You mentioned before about the bra clasp not being contaminated.

The clasp was not collected on the first cottage visit. 46 days later it was "found" in a different place under other materials. It must have collected dust/dirt by the fact it had moved around a dirty floor and had been touched by other objects. It was then handed between forensic/police officers, at least one of whom had dirty gloves. So in the time between the murder and the collection of the clasp the state of the clasp must have altered. Yet you say the clasp was not contaminated.

 

[Kauffer]

Twitter users may be interested in this:

quote:

Hello everyone,
I'd like to let the forum know that I have created a twitter account @KristevaPMF to live tweet from the Court of Cassation tomorrow. I also want to thank Ergon from PMF net for having provided me with a press pass and given me this unique opportunity. snip

Ergon's been posing as a journalist for years.

 

[lonepinealex]

Ergon's been posing as a journalist for years.

Who does he write for?

 

[NancyS]

Who does he write for?

Razzle?

 

[Kauffer]

Who does he write for?

His blog and on the hate sites. It doesn't really count. I guess he might think himself a 'citizen journalist'.

It surprises me the manner in which the Italian courts hand out press passes.

In this case, it seems he's given his pass to someone else. Perhaps he's got PMF.net registered as a news organisation there. Hilarious.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Gregory Turner case of contamination

Accusations of contamination are anyway veiled accusations of planting evidence; Avv. Giulia Bongiorno or any other defence lawyer can't risk to lose their career, in France, in the States, in Italy, with a full frontal clash with the judges. A good lawyer's career is based on her courteous relationship with the judges. (A very good lawyer dines with the judges)
So yes, a good lawyer would say "evidence by contamination" as the worst possible thing to say in a world where professionals respect each other and where she knows her client did it.
Now, planted evidence of that magnitude, i imagine would be possible in the 3rd Reich, a puppet trial to frame a communist. That is a context where the author(s) of the conspiracy knows he holds each individual along the chain of command, by the balls, for ten years at least. Obviously, Italy, where RS can go on TV and insult judges repeatedly on years, doesn't qualify as dictatorship.

ericparossien,

No, contamination and evidence tampering is not the same thing. Consider the Gregory Turner case, or any of the other cases which I have named for the benefit of those who wish to study contamination. "The technician conceded at Mr. Turner's 2001 trial that she had also contaminated evidence in two previous cases. In another disturbing twist, it emerged that she had mistakenly contaminated Mr. Turner's ring with her own DNA, causing police to waste considerable time on a futile search for a presumed accomplice." Now if one were planting evidence, why would one do that? Your comment is confused and feckless; please read a few of the citations of contamination you have been given. Here is a blog entry of mine to help interested readers to get started.

On the other hand the negative controls in DNA forensics have been tampered with on more than one occasion. "Tarnish on the Gold Standard" by Professor William Thompson is the best reference on that subject. That is why full disclosure is so important.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Hierarchy of DNA evidence

?!

ericparossien,

Peter Gill describes framework or hierarchy of levels (Misleading DNA Evidence, p. 19) at which DNA evidence can be evaluated:
1. The sub-source level refers to the strength of evidence of the DNA profile itself.
2. The source level is an evaluation of the strength of the DNA profile if it can be associated with a particular body fluid, such as semen or blood
3. The activity level associates the DNA with the crime itself, e.g. sexual assault.

The DNA evidence related to the knife and clasp are both clearly in the sub-source category. They cannot be linked to any particular tissue. BTW this is one problem with low template DNA that does not go away with better DNA profiling kits.

 

[Kauffer]

ericparossien,

Peter Gill describes framework or hierarchy of levels (Misleading DNA Evidence, p. 19) at which DNA evidence can be evaluated:
1. The sub-source level refers to the strength of evidence of the DNA profile itself.
2. The source level is an evaluation of the strength of the DNA profile if it can be associated with a particular body fluid, such as semen or blood
3. The activity level associates the DNA with the crime itself, e.g. sexual assault.

The DNA evidence related to the knife and clasp are both clearly in the sub-source category. They cannot be linked to any particular tissue. BTW this is one problem with low template DNA that does not go away with better DNA profiling kits.

See also the following:

"Case Assessment and Interpretation of Expert Evidence
Guidance for Judges, Lawyers, Forensic Scientists and Expert Witnesses"

Graham Jackson, Professor of Forensic Science, University of Abertay Dundee
Colin Aitken, Professor of Forensic Statistics, University of Edinburgh
Paul Roberts, Professor of Criminal Jurisprudence, University of Nottingham

P:128

(a) Offence level: If expert evidence addresses the offence, then that self-evidently
would be an offence level opinion (e.g. D raped V; D burgled the house, etc).

(b) Activity level: If the expert evidence is concerned with particular conduct (whether or not on its own amounting to a criminal offence) by named person(s), this would be an activity level opinion (e.g. D penetrated V sexually; D smashed the window, etc).

(c) Source level: If expert evidence is concerned with the physical origin or provenance of recovered evidential material or samples, or with establishing the identity of a particular person of interest (e.g. an offender or victim), this would be a source level opinion (e.g. Who was the donor of the semen recovered from V? What is the source of the fibres in combings from D’s head hair?).

(d) Sub-source level: If expert evidence reports analytical results which cannot be directly associated with a particular physical medium, this would be a sub-source opinion. One example would be a DNA profile obtained by taking tapings from a garment, where the bodily fluid facilitating the transfer of genetic material to the garment cannot be ascertained.

http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~cgga/Guide-4-WEB.pdf