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

[Rolfe]

In Scotland there is an argument that the new state forensic laboratory must not be co-located with police services to avoid contaminating the assumptions of the scientists, no chance of quiet chats in the canteen etc.

In Scotland there is an argument that the entire criminal justice system neads a clean-out that would make the treatment of the Augean Stables look like a lick and a promise. I was discussing this only yesterday with Shirley McKie's father. As with the present discussion, overwhelming priority is given to defending an existing conviction even when the forensic evidence that secured it has been blown out of the water.

I do however take some pleasure, in these conversations, in pointing out that if we think Scotland is bad (which it is), the situation in Italy is a thousand times worse. (Then someone says "Perugia" and everyone nods sagely.)

Rolfe.

 

[Vibio]

I think in the broader scenario the most likely explanation is secondary transfer. Prof. Gill one of the inventors of forensic DNA techniques also says this.

No, Gill does not say that "the most likely explanation is secondary transfer". He says it could be a possibility. But he says this in an interview, we don't know how much of this case he has actually investigated, if anything. The actual pro and cons are taken into consideration and weighed by the court.

I've gotten a kick out of the pages and pages on this forum about Nencini and the "Y-stuff". All mostly from this Luca Cheli person's bizarre interpretation of what Nencini has actually written.

What Cheli has written is on par with the Steve Moore article claiming that Nencini says a selective cleaning took place.


---

 

[Bill Williams]

No, Gill does not say that "the most likely explanation is secondary transfer". He says it could be a possibility. But he says this in an interview, we don't know how much of this case he has actually investigated, if anything. The actual pro and cons are taken into consideration and weighed by the court.

I've gotten a kick out of the pages and pages on this forum about Nencini and the "Y-stuff". All mostly from this Luca Cheli person's bizarre interpretation of what Nencini has actually written.

What Cheli has written is on par with the Steve Moore article claiming that Nencini says a selective cleaning took place.


---

What did Nencini "actually write"?

Why would you say this and not provide the citation?

 

[Bill Williams]

The "independent scientific opinion" asserted that the additional sample on the knife handle at the blade was too small to be tested. In the next trial, it was tested successfully. Why should anybody think those "experts" were objective and/or competent?

Welcome to the forum.

The original Scientific Police destroyed Sample 36B, the claimed sample belonging to Meredith on the blade. They did not do thissuspiciously, there was only enough sample to allow one test.

In fact, its very claimed presence was a bit of a headscratcher to begin with. The claim was that the destructive "test for blood" would destroy the sample ( a correct claim), but this then begged a huge question. How could this sample survive the claimed bleach-cleaning of the knife, if the test-for-blood would eradicate it?

Enter the further baseless claim. The groove on the knife in which Stefanoni claimed, and Massei accepted, the sample had been protected. This is a striation no one else say, including the expert at the preliminary hearing, who was on the original prosecution's side.

The PMF website claims to have a picture of the knife which shows the groove. Yet the Massei report specifically mention why the groove cannot be seen, an specifically outlines the special lighting conditions Stefanoni said she had to use to see something no one else saw.

I think at this point any reasonable judge would have simply thrown out the sample 36B as useless. But no, it becomes the hinge on which others find guilt. Others even add a bit of hyperbole when they claim that there is "abundant evidence" to suggest their guilt.

But let's go back. This evidence no longer exists. Unlike sample 36i which was testable and verifiable (as Amanda's) four or five years later, sample 36b is non-verifiable and the electronic data files have not even been released to demonstrate why the "one-off" test should be considered valid.

The raw data for DNA was disclosed. It was referenced in court according to the transcript.

A crime lab isn't conducting science. It isn't research.

WTF!? It's not science? Well, quite literally what Stefanoni did, and what Massei signed off on, was actually NOT science, which is a reason for their conclusions to be discounted. This is a stunning admission.

 

[Desert Fox]

In Scotland there is an argument that the new state forensic laboratory must not be co-located with police services to avoid contaminating the assumptions of the scientists, no chance of quiet chats in the canteen etc.

If the play games, will not Professor Sue Black probably chase around the police with a stick? I am in the US and I know of her and her team.

 

[Bill Williams]

Found it!

Knox/Sollecito support, former FBI agent Steve Moore, and Florence convicting Judge Nencini agree on one thing: motive.

But not the assumed motive for Sollecito/Knox to have been involved in a murder. A motive for the Perugian police and Public Minister Giuliano Mignini had in framing them for the crime – while knowing full well of their innocence.

see: Amanda Knox Judge Nencini Motivation Lends Support To Theory Knox Framed By Italian Police From Day One Of Kercher Murder Investigation​

Both Moore and now Nencini in his recent motivation, agree that from the very first moments the Perugian investigators arrived at and began surveying the Kercher crime scene, they recognized the break-in methods as likely belonging to Rudy Guede. And that is a critical fact.

Moore goes further, and describes the reason for that familiarity: the Perugians knew Guede because he was working for them as an informant at the time of the Kercher killing, and were themselves de facto responsible for Guede’s actions. For this reason, the Perugian authorities had an immediate powerful motive for deflecting suspicion away from Rudy Guede, and blaming others for the Kercher killing.......​

In Nencini’s somewhat paradoxical rationale, Guede would have been foolish to create a crime scene of a break-in, exactly resembling Guede’s other crimes using exactly the same method, and Guede, knowing the Perugian authorities would recognize his signature style of breaking and entry, would not ‘stage a break-in’ in such a way so as to point back to himself. Nencini takes this as evidence that Knox and Sollecito ‘staged’ the break-in, since they were the only ones available for the ‘staging’, which Nencini is certain to have occurred. How it is that Knox and Sollecito would either be familiar with or otherwise managed to exactly mimic Guede’s signature method, is not addressed, nor why the break-in couldn’t simply be another actual break-in of Guede’s, in his classic style, and in fact not staged at all.​

Why Nencini says this, is perhaps the point. One reason why I reject this kind of conspiracy.... at least the part which Nencini seemingly confirms, is that overall Nencini has written a ridiculous report. If this report is "signed of" on by Cassazione, amongst other things women in Italy will judicially have Y-genetic material.

No wonder guilters will only discuss the Mignini prosecution, and the Massei conviction.

 

[Vibio]

"Both Moore and now Nencini in his recent motivation, agree that from the very first moments the Perugian investigators arrived at and began surveying the Kercher crime scene, they recognized the break-in methods as likely belonging to Rudy Guede. And that is a critical fact."

Nencini says nothing of the sort.

But please do continue: it's hilarious.

 

[NancyS]

The "independent scientific opinion" asserted that the additional sample on the knife handle at the blade was too small to be tested. In the next trial, it was tested successfully. Why should anybody think those "experts" were objective and/or competent ?

I thought there argument for not testing, was that it was too small to give a result that would be reliable enough to convict someone in any court that cared about safety standards and following guidelines

I'm continually amazed that people want to send anyone to prison for almost 30-years based on DNA evidence that has been so widely and independently criticised. If you really believe in the guilt of Amanda/Raffaele, why are you not incredibly angry about the shoddy forensics in this case that helped release them from prison. Why aren't you calling for the resignation of Stefanoni and co. because of their poor standards?

 

[Diocletus]

No, Gill does not say that "the most likely explanation is secondary transfer". He says it could be a possibility. But he says this in an interview, we don't know how much of this case he has actually investigated, if anything. The actual pro and cons are taken into consideration and weighed by the court.




---

Well, it appears that he has studied the case very closely . . . close enough to have written a book discussing it. Order your copy now:

Misleading DNA Evidence, 1st Edition

Reasons for Miscarriages of Justice

1st Edition, Peter Gill,ISBN9780124172142

Expected Release Date: 09 Jun 2014

http://store.elsevier.com/Misleading-DNA-Evidence/Peter-Gill/isbn-9780124172142/

Gee. I wonder if he thinks that the forensics work in this case resulted in a "Miscarriage of Justice."

LOL.

 

[Diocletus]

"Both Moore and now Nencini in his recent motivation, agree that from the very first moments the Perugian investigators arrived at and began surveying the Kercher crime scene, they recognized the break-in methods as likely belonging to Rudy Guede. And that is a critical fact."

Nencini says nothing of the sort.

But please do continue: it's hilarious.

I agree that this must be wrong. In fact, I'm sure that he says something much dumber: from the very first moments the Perugian super-sleuths recognized the break-in methods as not a break in.

 

[NancyS]

No, Gill does not say that "the most likely explanation is secondary transfer". He says it could be a possibility. But he says this in an interview, we don't know how much of this case he has actually investigated, if anything. The actual pro and cons are taken into consideration and weighed by the court.

---

Professor Gill suggested that this type of LCN DNA is not appropriate to use to convict people that had legitimate reasons to be at the crime scene. As Amanda and Raffaele had both spent time/lived at the cottage and had both spent time with Meredith earlier that day, secondary transfer is always going to be a possibility.

What is your opinion on the DNA of FOUR men being found on Meredith's bra clasp? I guess there are 3 options
a) contamination
b) Meredith had recently been intimate with many a young man
c) Meredith's bra had not seen any soap and water for a long time, which would therefore call into question the claim that Amanda was the only flatmate who was a bit rubbish at cleaning

 

[Diocletus]

It is hard to believe there are skeptics on this case when the victim's DNA was found on the blade of the knife, and the boyfriend's DNA was found on the bra clasp.

Was it there? I'm skeptical.

You really want to argue contamination in both? You essentialy have to argue that it was planted by the police, which makes no sense.

No you don't. Contamination happens all the time (especially in Stefanoni's lab). Tell us why it can't be contamination.

 

[Bill Williams]

"Both Moore and now Nencini in his recent motivation, agree that from the very first moments the Perugian investigators arrived at and began surveying the Kercher crime scene, they recognized the break-in methods as likely belonging to Rudy Guede. And that is a critical fact."

Nencini says nothing of the sort.

But please do continue: it's hilarious.

Can you please provide the citation. Otherwise all this is, is a baseless assertion....

 

[Vibio]

Can you please provide the citation. Otherwise all this is, is a baseless assertion....

Uh, no...you are the one (along with this Steve Moore guy) making the assertion.

Please provide the citation where Nencini claims that "from the very first moments the Perugian investigators arrived at and began surveying the Kercher crime scene, they recognized the break-in methods as likely belonging to Rudy Guede."

 

[Bill Williams]

Vibio. With your knowledge of Italian, can you please provide translations for:

This is the cite from Nencini's report which says that the other samples on the bra-clasp could belong to female (amica) friends of Merediths.

 

[Vibio]

And you just gotta love the way this Steve Moore fellow quotes Luca Cheli (who?).

It's a dog going after it's own tail (or should I say "tale")

 

[Bill Williams]

Uh, no...you are the one (along with this Steve Moore guy) making the assertion.

Please provide the citation where Nencini claims that "from the very first moments the Perugian investigators arrived at and began surveying the Kercher crime scene, they recognized the break-in methods as likely belonging to Rudy Guede."

Here's where Judge Nencini says that if Guede had left the cottage in the condition in which it was found, it would have signalled to the investigators that this was a break-in done by Rudy using a technique they knew to belong to him. Perhaps you could provide the translation.

 

[Bill Williams]

And you just gotta love the way this Steve Moore fellow quotes Luca Cheli (who?).

It's a dog going after it's own tail (or should I say "tale")

You have this wrong. Steve Moore did not quote Luca Cheli. And Lucas Cheli is simply quoting Judge Nencini from the report. Please read the cites I provided.

 

[Bill Williams]

What do you mean by "safety standards"? I don't think there is any danger to anybody regardless of what type of DNA test is performed.

It isn't just DNA evidence that points to their guilt. But you have no basis for your assertion is was "shoddy forensics".

The same crime lab determined it was Guede's DNA. It appears you cherrypick which forensics you think are legit and which ones you think are shoddy. It isn't a coincidence that matches up with who you think is innocent and who you think is guilty. It is more rational to believe all 3 are guilty if the same forensics team identified all 3 of their DNA plus the victim's DNA on the blade of the knife.

Then again, it is more rational to look at the methods of the sole person, Patrizia Stefanoni, who provided these conclusions.

For starters, do you agree with Stefanoni who said she had never had a case of contamination in her lab? Is that a rational claim?

 

[NancyS]

I think the burden of proof is on the defense to prove it was contamination, because the DNA is present on the bra clasp and on the knife. Most of the time in any case, the DNA is there because of direct contact.

I'm just amazed someone can believe this - it is against the very essence of people being presumed innocent and having the right to a fair trial. The burden of proof should always lie with the prosecution and the prosecution should always be able to show they have followed every guidelines and that their standards are beyond criticism.

And to ask again, if you really believe that Amanda/Raffaele are guilty, why aren't you angry with the police that did such shoddy work, which resulted in them being released from prison? Why aren't you calling for the resignation of Stefanoni, due to her widely criticised results leading to their release?