Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[smkovalinksy]

Sorry to break in with this question - I am reading as many of the posts as I can but it is difficult indeed to catch up here:

There is an argument on another forum as to the exact current status of Knox and Sollecito:

• Are they once again convicted murderers with an appeal trial pending?
• If so, why are they free?
• Do the convictions stand provisionally as Quennell says? What does this mean applied to the situation?

Also, how comprehensive is this trial to be? Is it going to go over everything, or just re-examine what Hellmann re-examined?

My sincere and grateful thanks to anyone who can answer.

 

[Dan O.]

My understanding is that they have exactly the same standing as they had on November 6, 2007. They stand accused of murder pending the final ruling of Italy's supreme court. The difference after Hellmann is that he obliterated the prosecution's case so they had insufficient evidence to hold them and Hellman ruled that they should be set free.

Defendants in Italy are permitted to remain free until the final ruling unless the prosecution can show cause why they should be held. One of the points in Mignini's request to hold Amanda was that she might flee to America. Amanda is now in America so that point is moot.

The Italians would have to be insane to subject themselves to the scrutiny of an extradition hearing. That means we'll probably start hearing about such shortly after the supreme court motivation is released.

 

[Prometheus]

When is the SC motivation due to be released?

 

[Kaosium]

With the elapsed time it's getting harder to track down the source material for this case.

My notes say that it was about 50 picograms of DNA which would represent all of the DNA in less than 10 whole cells. The cells themselves were never found. Nothing was seen visually and the test for cellular material was skipped or came back negative. (Chapter 11 of Hellmann gives the details). The original report from ms not-a-doctor should be in the case file. If anything further is found, it needs to go into the wiki for future reference.

Are you thinking of the fifty microliters of solution she got out of the extractor? She tested that with the Qubit Flurometer and got 'too low,' then reduced it to ~22 μl (thus making it more concentrated if there was anything in there) and still got 'too low,' and finally to 10 μl (microliters) where she still received the 'too low.' There's no actual measure of material in picograms there, it was just noted at the trial that due to the sensitivity of the equipment that the maximum possible amount was less than 10 picograms, as it would have picked up 10 pg if there was anything in there.

Then she failed to run Real Time DNA sequencing which would have revealed the quantity, oddly enough that and the other sample from the knife were the only ones she failed to do that with, even though the rest of the others had tested 'too low' as well. I wrote a long post to AL about this with citations and everything from the trial about a year ago, it should be relatively early in the 4th continuation.

I dug it up, here it is with citations, links and a walkthrough of the process with videos and pictures of the DNA analysis equipment, manuals, and kits and such so you can get a 'you are there feel' for how the whole process is performed.

Beware though, it is long. You may get lost, you may get hurt! Tread carefully within it!

 

[Bill Williams]

Sorry to break in with this question - I am reading as many of the posts as I can but it is difficult indeed to catch up here:

There is an argument on another forum as to the exact current status of Knox and Sollecito:

• Are they once again convicted murderers with an appeal trial pending?
• If so, why are they free?
• Do the convictions stand provisionally as Quennell says? What does this mean applied to the situation?

Also, how comprehensive is this trial to be? Is it going to go over everything, or just re-examine what Hellmann re-examined?

My sincere and grateful thanks to anyone who can answer.

Dan O. describes it as I understand it.

They've never been "convicted murderers" in the Italian sense, it probably is a semantics thing - but important in Italian law - they now stand convicted by a 1st instance court waiting on a mandatory appeal and the process to play out to a final signing off by the SC. They are not convicted murderers. They remain charged.

The comprehensiveness of the new appeals' trial will depend on the parameters put on it by the SC in it's reasons for quashing the acquittals. Theoretically it could be something as simple as - The SC believes everything Hellmann said, except that Hellmann erred in law on saying that the appeals level did not need to rule on multiple attackers. So the "marching orders" could be to uphold all of Hellmann, but come to some determination "in fact" on the issue of multiple attackers.

Similarly, if it was the Conti-Vecchiotti report that was brought about the wrong way, in law, then the marching orders could be to uphold Hellmann on all points, except this time do the third-party review of Stefanoni's work the right way, in law.

Or it could be both those things mandated.

Or it could be to start afresh with a new appeals' trial, straight from where Massei's motivations report left off in May 2010.

The thing to remember is that the SC has not ruled on facts - except those facts arrived at by the wrong application of law are now in question and would have to be established again as per what the SC said was done wrong. This could result in the old fact being sustained, overturned, or some new fact found.

As I have been posting ad nauseum, Massei's findings of fact remain the gold standard unless overturned at appeal. For what it's worth, these findings of fact include Massei finding that there was no motive for Sollecito and Knox (it was Guede's motive), no mixed blood at the cottage, no psychopathology for either of the students, no strained relationship between Meredith and Amanda, and no presence of Knox at all in the murder room.

Granted, all those points, too, are themselves overturnable if the Florence trial finds new evidence to support it.

The strangest thing is that the calunnia against Lumumba can no longer be used as evidence against Knox to do with the murder. Hellmann got criticized for separating the two, saying that it WAS possible for an innocent Amanda to commit calunnia against Lumumba. Guilters said this was inconsistent and perhaps a point of appeal - only a guilty Knox could have known Lumumba was innocent.

Well, the SC has ruled on that, not quashing Hellmann's conviction on calunnia, but leaving it to the new Florence appeals' court to determine the grade of calunnia.... but the SC has backhandedly agreed with Hellmann - yes, acc. to the calunnia law, it IS possible for someone who has no knowledge of whether someone is guilty or innocent to commit calunnia. (The legislation doesn't say that, but I have to concede that the SC knows more about this than me!)

Both are free to travel to and from Italy. AFAIK Sollecito has done exactly that since March 26. They are obviously not flight risks, they cannot really tamper with evidence, and they have already shown that they are not likely to "reoffend" which are the standards for precautionary detention.

And pending the SC saying otherwise in the coming motivations report, the Hellmann standard still applies... they actually in fact did not offend in the first place, which was the reason Hellmann let them go. The SC will give guidance on that, and in absence of guidance I presume that, then, the standard of detention established by the Massei court would apply.

That would obviously effect Raffaele more than Amanda. I agree with Dan O., the LAST thing Italy wants is to put the case before the world in an extradition fight. By world standards, everyone except Massei is agreed the DNA is worthless. Does Italy REALLY want to parade this turkey around?

 

[RandyN]

Dan O. describes it as I understand it.

snip
That would obviously effect Raffaele more than Amanda. I agree with Dan O., the LAST thing Italy wants is to put the case before the world in an extradition fight. By world standards, everyone except Massei is agreed the DNA is worthless. Does Italy REALLY want to parade this turkey around?

You are kidding right? These stupid Italians have no sense of shame, no honor and they could care less that the whole rest of the world thinks they are crazy.

I present the case against the scientists who failed to predict an earthquake as one example. Next I present a SC that not only allowed facts to be argued but that did so even when it violated a previous SC ruling...that is the whole wrongful interrogation without required lawyers or video taping but that during same the police and court claim Knox committed calumy...this in spite and ignoring the facts that the police conducted an improper interrogation...and in spite of the fact that these "confessions" were ruled out by a SC ruling...

And yet somehow these stupid Italians want to keep charging Knox with calumy...when it seems it should be quite impossible to do so. And I disagree Bill...Im not convinced the SC does know more...but I will hold off on taking them to the mattress until after I read their stupid illogical and baseless motivation report.

Anglo...I see what you are getting at but dont forget that Stefanoni tested the "sample" for blood. That test was negative ...so it was not blood. Impossible unless you want to go along with the whole well it was so dilute and small that the result was....????WHAT? wrong? Sara Gino gave Stefanoni a facial on all this already...also the "TOO LOW" quantification which Stefanoni claimed was large and ample ....a couple of hundred picograms during the preliminary hearing but which we later found out was a LIE! Sure PGP and Mignini even claim that Stefanoni simply forgot her notes that day ....or was it the dog ate her notes??? Anyway she took a stab (sorry) and guessed a couple hundred when in fact the reality was 5 picograms and since that is such a small and unacceptable test quantity that it can also be called 0 ZERO picograms...too low never raises to Oh thats OK now simply because some numskull waters and fertilizes and grows it into a real testable sample...and sure that's how PCR works but there are limitations and design parameters of the test equipment along with special training and special handling and special equipment to analyze LCN samples... nothing about this knife sample comes close to being an acceptable result. Except for Stefanoni and her science whores who agree with her methodology. Novelli is one...there are many others...

So sure Italy will parade this turkey around...they dont have one of worst records in the European Court Of Human Rights for nothing...shameless pigs that not only allow a mockery to be made of their judicial system ....they also seem to be unconcerned about the lack of trust and respect the people have for the police and courts...well they respect it ...kinda like they "respect the mafia...same the same...

 

[RandyN]

There probably isn't any good source to your question because I don't think Comodi was ever accused by Hellmann of trying to infiltrate fake negative control results into the trial file.

There appears to be a mixing up of two events during the first appeal trial of Amanda and Raffaele. There were two instances of Comodi (the prosecution) asking that documentation re: negative controls be admitted to the case file; a CD (in late July 2011) and paper documentation (early September 2011). I think both times this was denied by Hellmann (but I am not sure); the first time I can't recall the reason (if it was denied) and the second time there was a discrepancy with the documents and there was also a defense objection to any documents being added to the file at this late date (even though these documents were already a part of the case file in the preliminary hearing).

There was also an instance of a document mistakenly ending up in the appeal case file had to do with a document concerning Vecchiotti and a prior work she had done. The prosecution wanted it admitted, it was denied. The jury later found this document among the file and had it removed. I can't recall how it came to be in the case file but its presence was described as having been accidental.

Yea....no. There is no mixing up of anything. Although I am a bit confused by your calling it "the first appeal trial" It was either Massei or Hellmann. And we are talking about Hellmann. And yes Comodi tried to claim the control data was already in the case file and that was when Hellmann said fine...recess...go find it and show it us....and she failed.

The second time she presented data with the wrong dates and the numbers did not match...

That is when we got to hear from Stefanoni ....in another lie ...where she claimed that no matter....like breathing, she does controls automatically...and yet I say like breathing, then the electronic data files will show this ....OR NOT! And since it remains unclear that Stefanoni ever turned over the EDF to anyone including C and V then I suspect she is just a lying weasel slob. You are free to disagree.

 

[anglolawyer]

Are you thinking of the fifty microliters of solution she got out of the extractor? She tested that with the Qubit Flurometer and got 'too low,' then reduced it to ~22 μl (thus making it more concentrated if there was anything in there) and still got 'too low,' and finally to 10 μl (microliters) where she still received the 'too low.' There's no actual measure of material in picograms there, it was just noted at the trial that due to the sensitivity of the equipment that the maximum possible amount was less than 10 picograms, as it would have picked up 10 pg if there was anything in there.

Then she failed to run Real Time DNA sequencing which would have revealed the quantity, oddly enough that and the other sample from the knife were the only ones she failed to do that with, even though the rest of the others had tested 'too low' as well. I wrote a long post to AL about this with citations and everything from the trial about a year ago, it should be relatively early in the 4th continuation.

I dug it up, here it is with citations, links and a walkthrough of the process with videos and pictures of the DNA analysis equipment, manuals, and kits and such so you can get a 'you are there feel' for how the whole process is performed.

Beware though, it is long. You may get lost, you may get hurt! Tread carefully within it!

Ah, thanks for this link Kaosium! This time it will go in my file of keepers as it should have already.

I still don't know what's wrong with my point about white cells and red cells. I am not forgetting the so-called sample tested negative for blood but there are people out there (one of them has written a book!) who think an electropherogram is a super-sensitive blood test and I am not the person to explain why that's wrong. I can however visualise 5, 6 or 10 little white cells in a lagoon of plasma and up to 10,000 red ones and I am betting that is too many to fool the tests Stefanoni did that showed up negative. I am just grossing up the white cells to bulk out the sample. What's wrong with that?

I have had a conversation here with Dan about scale and I think it came out that if the cells were tennis balls the scratch would be about the size of The Titanic and when we were having that conversation we were only imagining DNA-bearing cells, not a whole crate of the little suckers. Dan started going on about attograms and lost me right about there

 

[anglolawyer]

@Kaosium

Just reading through your long post (and being reminded just where I got just about everything I know about the DNA stuff!) there's this from Hellman:

Firstly, the cytomorphological tests carried out by the Expert Panel on the blade of the knife did not detect the presence of cellular material: in particular, there was no trace of blood. Furthermore, the confirmed presence of starch granules on the blade, particularly in the area where the blade is inserted [into the handle], discovered after a microscopic study and revealed by their structure to be vegetable material, shows that the knife was not washed. Therefore, the absence of blood cannot be attributed to washing.

Is this deduction valid? Couldn't the knife have been used in the killing, then washed back home, but leaving a trace of something in the scratch, then used to slice bread and then put back in the drawer?

While I'm here, you said this:

... you'll see just how much verbiage was expended by the prosecution and Massei in trying to get across how 'clean' this knife was. The reason for this is the idea that knife could have somehow have retained DNA of the victim but had all blood traces completely removed is damned silly. Or extremely unlikely, being as blood is especially durable

I hadn't understood this was the prosecution case. Surely DNA is inside cells usually (I know Chris has mentioned cell-free DNA but just leaving that aside for a second). How the heck do you clean away the blood cells without carrying off the DNA inside the cells? And, supposing you do, how do you then know the DNA came from blood cells and not sloughed off skin cells?

 

[Rolfe]

Actually I don't think there's anything wrong with your point about the red and white cells, it's just expressed rather strangely. If the DNA really came from five leucocytes, and we take Meredith's WBC count to be at the higher end of normal say 10 x 10⁹/l, and her red cell count to be about 5 x 10¹²/l, then you'd expect about 2,500 red cells in association with these white cells - and that's a low-end estimate.

The normal human MCH is about 30 pg per erythrocyte, so you're talking about 75 ng of haemoglobin if I've done the sums right (not always guaranteed). Probably closer to 100 ng actually. Should the test have been able to detect that?

Rolfe.

 

[anglolawyer]

And sorry to bore the crap out of everybody but I don't get this, again from Kaosium's monster post (quoting Massei)

Returning to the "too low" results, he observed critically that Dr. Stefanoni decided to continue, and used Real Time PCR, which is another type of reaction, obtaining peaks which were quite low, and that she did this even though "they were already not parameterised according to the normal conditions of genetic investigation recommended by the manufacturer in order to guarantee the accuracy of the result, but in fact well below the well-known 50 RFU required by the international community to obtain a reliable examination of low copy number DNA" (page 102).

'Obtaining peaks'? From Real Time PCR? I thought the peaks only come on the scene with the ABI Prism and that Real Time is quantification and amplification.

Another thing is this - since she used both the Qubit and Real Time, shouldn't there be a Real Time quantification somewhere? Real Time PCR both quantifies (more accurately than the Qubit) and amplifies, doesn't it? Or have I gone astray somewhere?

ETA forget the last question. I see from C-V that Real Time quantification was not carried out. God this is complicated!

 

[anglolawyer]

Actually I don't think there's anything wrong with your point about the red and white cells, it's just expressed rather strangely. If the DNA really came from five leucocytes, and we take Meredith's WBC count to be at the higher end of normal say 10 x 10⁹/l, and her red cell count to be about 5 x 10¹²/l, then you'd expect about 2,500 red cells in association with these white cells - and that's a low-end estimate.

The normal human MCH is about 30 pg per erythrocyte, so you're talking about 75 ng of haemoglobin if I've done the sums right (not always guaranteed). Probably closer to 100 ng actually. Should the test have been able to detect that?

Rolfe.

Thanks Rolfe! That's exactly what I was trying to say! Can we add plasma too, or does that just evaporate?

 

[smkovalinksy]

My understanding is that they have exactly the same standing as they had on November 6, 2007. They stand accused of murder pending the final ruling of Italy's supreme court. The difference after Hellmann is that he obliterated the prosecution's case so they had insufficient evidence to hold them and Hellman ruled that they should be set free.

Defendants in Italy are permitted to remain free until the final ruling unless the prosecution can show cause why they should be held. One of the points in Mignini's request to hold Amanda was that she might flee to America. Amanda is now in America so that point is moot.

The Italians would have to be insane to subject themselves to the scrutiny of an extradition hearing. That means we'll probably start hearing about such shortly after the supreme court motivation is released.

Thank you very much! Yes, I agree.

 

[Rolfe]

Thanks Rolfe! That's exactly what I was trying to say! Can we add plasma too, or does that just evaporate?

The plasma is irrelevant. The water would evaporate and the solutes don't add up to anything important.

Rolef.

 

[anglolawyer]

This bit always gets me:

Those electropherograms were generated from a sample contaminated somehow in the process of her testing fifty of Meredith's items, as also noted below. It may have nothing to do with whatever was in the tube for sample 36B, after all it wasn't generated until Sept. 25 2008, 01:17 PM, they announced the 'murder knife' to the world ~November 14th, 2007.

Garofano has her running off the e-gram on 12 Nov 2007 before, among others, Sarah Gino. How can it possibly be true that she did not perform a run until 25 Sep 08?

 

[smkovalinksy]

Dan O. describes it as I understand it.

They've never been "convicted murderers" in the Italian sense, it probably is a semantics thing - but important in Italian law - they now stand convicted by a 1st instance court waiting on a mandatory appeal and the process to play out to a final signing off by the SC. They are not convicted murderers. They remain charged.

The comprehensiveness of the new appeals' trial will depend on the parameters put on it by the SC in it's reasons for quashing the acquittals. Theoretically it could be something as simple as - The SC believes everything Hellmann said, except that Hellmann erred in law on saying that the appeals level did not need to rule on multiple attackers. So the "marching orders" could be to uphold all of Hellmann, but come to some determination "in fact" on the issue of multiple attackers.

Similarly, if it was the Conti-Vecchiotti report that was brought about the wrong way, in law, then the marching orders could be to uphold Hellmann on all points, except this time do the third-party review of Stefanoni's work the right way, in law.

Or it could be both those things mandated.

Or it could be to start afresh with a new appeals' trial, straight from where Massei's motivations report left off in May 2010.

The thing to remember is that the SC has not ruled on facts - except those facts arrived at by the wrong application of law are now in question and would have to be established again as per what the SC said was done wrong. This could result in the old fact being sustained, overturned, or some new fact found.

As I have been posting ad nauseum, Massei's findings of fact remain the gold standard unless overturned at appeal. For what it's worth, these findings of fact include Massei finding that there was no motive for Sollecito and Knox (it was Guede's motive), no mixed blood at the cottage, no psychopathology for either of the students, no strained relationship between Meredith and Amanda, and no presence of Knox at all in the murder room.

Granted, all those points, too, are themselves overturnable if the Florence trial finds new evidence to support it.

The strangest thing is that the calunnia against Lumumba can no longer be used as evidence against Knox to do with the murder. Hellmann got criticized for separating the two, saying that it WAS possible for an innocent Amanda to commit calunnia against Lumumba. Guilters said this was inconsistent and perhaps a point of appeal - only a guilty Knox could have known Lumumba was innocent.

Well, the SC has ruled on that, not quashing Hellmann's conviction on calunnia, but leaving it to the new Florence appeals' court to determine the grade of calunnia.... but the SC has backhandedly agreed with Hellmann - yes, acc. to the calunnia law, it IS possible for someone who has no knowledge of whether someone is guilty or innocent to commit calunnia. (The legislation doesn't say that, but I have to concede that the SC knows more about this than me!)

Both are free to travel to and from Italy. AFAIK Sollecito has done exactly that since March 26. They are obviously not flight risks, they cannot really tamper with evidence, and they have already shown that they are not likely to "reoffend" which are the standards for precautionary detention.

And pending the SC saying otherwise in the coming motivations report, the Hellmann standard still applies... they actually in fact did not offend in the first place, which was the reason Hellmann let them go. The SC will give guidance on that, and in absence of guidance I presume that, then, the standard of detention established by the Massei court would apply.

That would obviously effect Raffaele more than Amanda. I agree with Dan O., the LAST thing Italy wants is to put the case before the world in an extradition fight. By world standards, everyone except Massei is agreed the DNA is worthless. Does Italy REALLY want to parade this turkey around?

Thank you so much!

 

[anglolawyer]

The plasma is irrelevant. The water would evaporate and the solutes don't add up to anything important.

Rolef.

OK, thanks.

 

[anglolawyer]

Kaosium! Urgent! Please ignore all my recent posts. All these questions were asked and answered before. Apologies. I am just re-reading it all.

 

[Dan O.]

Is this deduction valid? Couldn't the knife have been used in the killing, then washed back home, but leaving a trace of something in the scratch, then used to slice bread and then put back in the drawer?

That bamboozled the prosecution. But then why wouldn't it. They already couldn't see the problem with the unpremeditated transportation of that knife to the cottage and the subsequent return of the murder weapon back to the drawer where it lived.

I saw this when we were discussing that the knife was not in fact super cleen but only had been routinely cleaned and thought for sure someone from the guilt sites would call me on it. But that call never came until much later.

Surely DNA is inside cells usually (I know Chris has mentioned cell-free DNA but just leaving that aside for a second). How the heck do you clean away the blood cells without carrying off the DNA inside the cells? And, supposing you do, how do you then know the DNA came from blood cells and not sloughed off skin cells?

Didn't the doctor with a BS say that the bleach washed away the cells and left the DNA? Why do you not believe the doctor with a BS?

Oh, and from that same BS source, dead skin cells don't contain DNA.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

"antibodies, Bones"

The plasma is irrelevant. The water would evaporate and the solutes don't add up to anything important.

Rolef.

With respect, the plasma would contain soluble antibodies (immunoglobulins). I seem to recall finding one confirmatory test for blood that relied upon the detection of immunoglobulin G, but I don't have a cite handy and am short on time for the next couple of days, so I cannot Star(t) the Trek to find it.