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

[Bill Williams]

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.

What proof do you have that contamination occurs all the time in Stefanoni's lab? I thought even the two independent experts agreed contamation could not have occured in the lab due to the passage of time between tests.

The DNA is not present on the clasp, because the clasp no longer exists. The DNA is no longer present on the knife, because it was destroyed (necessarily) due to testing.

So the "rational", scientific way of putting this is that a sole person, one person Patrizia Stefanoni, once claimed these things, and these outcomes are no longer reproducible. Furthermore, there are no electronic data files available so that Stefanoni's peers can confirm her results.

I think this is why even you conceded that what Stefanoni was doing was not science.

 

[NancyS]

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 too small of an amount if you have a clear profile.

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.

Sorry, but cross-posted before and didn't see your reply. I think the independent DNA experts confirmed shoddy standards. And as for Guede's DNA, Professor Gill would argue that his results would be more valid as he had no legitimate reason to visit the cottage and had no recent contact with Meredith, unlike Amanda and Raffaele. However, due to the poor standards, I would probably also chuck out the DNA evidence against Guede and instead convict him based on his hand print and shoe prints.

 

[Vibio]

which says that the other samples on the bra-clasp could belong to female (amica) friends of Merediths.

He does not specifically say the other samples. It's a general scenario: DNA could have been left by her BF or any friend (male or female) that had reason to touch the clasp. What is important is the next line: "Ma tutto questo e irrilevante..." "
But all of this is irrelevant ..." What is significant is that Sollecito's was found there.

 

[Diocletus]

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.

What proof do you have that contamination occurs all the time in Stefanoni's lab? I thought even the two independent experts agreed contamation could not have occured in the lab due to the passage of time between tests.

The prosecution is the party proffering the DNA results, so in a normal system, the prosecution should establish the authenticity and reliability of the lab results. This means that they would prove their protocols and disclose the underlying data. They didn't.

In effect, the Italian supreme court has reversed the burden of proof by requiring the defense to negate the authenticity and reliability of the results, and at the same time, has denied discovery of the underlying data to the defense. This is highly abnormal.

There are contaminated negative controls in Stefanoni's quantification records--some of the few records that she actually did disclose.

 

[NancyS]

The burden of proof has been more than met by the fact it is a clear DNA profile of Sollecito, and Meredith's on the knife blade. Their DNA is there. What is your source DNA for the contamination to even be possible? Meredith had never been to his house. Only one other spot of Raffaele DNA was found in the cottage.

I reject your premise they did shoddy police work. You don't back that up, and their shoddy police work also convicted Guede. Do you think Guede was wrongfully convicted? You are cherrypicking what you consider legit and what you consider shoddy by the same forensics team. Your cherrypicking lines up precisely with who you believe is guilty and who you believe is innocent. It sounds like you are an advocate, not going to where the evidence leads you.

And the conclusions of the Independent experts state

3. Taking into account that none of the recommendations of the international scientific community relative to the treatment of Low Copy Number (LCN) samples were followed, we do not accept the conclusions regarding the certain attribution of the profile found on trace B (blade of knife) to the victim Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher, since the genetic profile, as obtained, appears unreliable insofar as it is not supported by scientifically validated analysis;

4. International protocols of inspection, collection, and sampling were not followed;

5. It cannot be ruled out that the result obtained from sample B (blade of knife) derives from contamination in some phase of the collection and/or handling and/or analyses performed.

Meredith had spent time with Raffaele and Amanda earlier that day, shortly before getting dressed. One kiss hello/goodbye or just using the same cup, plate, towel could potentially transfer DNA.

How do you account for the DNA of FOUR men being found on the bra clasp? Is this possibly contamination or are you trying to argue that Meredith was intimate with rather a lot of young men and hadn't washed her bra in weeks?

 

[Diocletus]

But all of this is irrelevant ..." What is significant is that Sollecito's was found there.

LOL. So all of the contamination is irrelevant, we should just disregard it and focus on the defendant?

 

[JREF2010]

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 too small of an amount if you have a clear profile.

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.

This is just it you can't compare Rudys strong , normal profile seen and his admission to his bloody tennishoeprint and his bloody handprint to the evidence against the two innocents.

1) knife has no blood on it, per the police lab and the independent lab. the knife was determined not to be cleaned by the independent lab with Stefoni and the prosecution being present during the testing.

2) the bra clasp has other peoples peaks and it is exactly cherry picking when the prosecution counts some peaks and not others, thats what they had to do find something on Raffaelem to create something against him. They had nothing on Raffaele after they found out the bloody shoeprint was Rudys.

All they have on the bra clasp is a bunch of garbage peaks, and other peoples DNA on it too. So I believe if you want to believe that the DNA is Raffaele and it is part of the murder then you need to go find the other men and women who left peaks on the bra clasp too, because they are there too in the "noise garbage" level of the tools reading the low rfu chaotic peaks of misinformation.

 

[NancyS]

He does not specifically say the other samples. It's a general scenario: DNA could have been left by her BF or any friend (male or female) that had reason to touch the clasp. What is important is the next line: "Ma tutto questo e irrilevante..." "
But all of this is irrelevant ..." What is significant is that Sollecito's was found there.

Nencini is subtly being quite insulting to poor Meredith Kercher and claiming that all these men have touched her unwashed bra . Why aren't the Pro-Guede posters who claim to honour her memory not angry about this?

 

[acbytesla]

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.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_539715385f07c3dedc.jpg[/qimg]

I find it quite interesting that Vibio is mocking Cheli's translation yet refuses to offer an alternative translation. I can't understand or imagine why? We have frequently used translations from the PGP community.

If there is a problem Vibio with the translation specifically, POINT IT OUT and provide what you think is a correct translation. Otherwise, you should shut up about it.

 

[NancyS]

Understood. This is why that verdict was thrown out. DNA evidence could not be used in any case if this was the standard. They do not prove contamation occured or even lay out how it occured. You have to back up your assertions in court. Even if we stipulate the top crime lab in Italy violates protocols, which seems unlikely, that does not mean their violations of protocols lead to contamination. First you need to tell what the source of contamination was, because A) Meredith was never at the cottage and B) only one small trace was found in the cottage of Sollicito's DNA. These are real constraints that you can't sweep under the rug. Your premise appears to be Meredith's DNA is all over the place, even places she doesn't live, and Raffeel's was all over the cottage.

Violations of protocols means that the results are not valid. If you believe in a fair trial, you would agree that it is right to throw out the DNA results and your anger would be directed at the poor science of Stefanoni.

We have no idea of how much DNA of anyone was at the cottage as only a few areas were tested. A kiss on the cheek as an Italian hello greeting, is more than enough to transfer DNA.

 

[Diocletus]

"we do not accept the conclusions regarding the certain attribution of the profile found on trace B (blade of knife) to the victim Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher, since the genetic profile, as obtained, appears unreliable insofar as it is not supported by scientifically validated analysis"

This comment by C&V makes absolutely no sense. Note they do not deny it is a match for Meredith. They say it is "unreliable". They then imply it was contamination which implies the profile is Meredith's, otherwise you would simply argue it is not Meredith's profile. Why waste our time with talk of contamination?

First, could you explain how all that dirt got on the clasp?

 

[NancyS]

4 men's profiles were not found on the bra clasp. Raffael's was found in abundance, a stronger result than for Guede. You support the Guede result but trash the Sollecito profile. I'm not saying you do but this does indicate you might have an agenda to advocate.

I've already said I would also throw out Guede's DNA results and convict on handprint and shoe prints. I also explained that I agree with Professor Gill and that using LCN DNA is not appropriate when people have legitimate reasons for being at the crime scene and have had close contact with Meredith

The DNA of FOUR men were found on the bra clasp - FOUR men on the clasp screams contamination to me

 

[NancyS]

I don't believe it is true that they determined it was not cleaned. The defense no doubt argued that but that was not determined in the lab. The police said the house smelled like bleach when they entered, and they found two bottles under the sink. Their mop story was about explaing the bleach smell.

It was tissue in the scratch. The blood was no doubt removed from the blade upon scrubing and washing.

The print on the mat is Raffaele's. Like 12 of the measurements were 100 percent match for Raffaele.

I think you've missed that Amanda is a pants buying, cartwheeling, witch - who could control 2 men and make them protect her regardless the cost for themselves?

If the prosecution theory is remotely true, what is your explanation for Guede staying quiet and giving such vague statements - instead of blaming it all on Amanda and Raffale and allowing himself to be cross-examined as a witness at their trial? There is no logical reason for his continued silence

 

[Samson]

I don't believe it is true that they determined it was not cleaned. The defense no doubt argued that but that was not determined in the lab. The police said the house smelled like bleach when they entered, and they found two bottles under the sink. Their mop story was about explaing the bleach smell.

It was tissue in the scratch. The blood was no doubt removed from the blade upon scrubing and washing.

The print on the mat is Raffaele's. Like 12 of the measurements were 100 percent match for Raffaele.

The reference prints have sharp edges but the bathmat print has diffuse edges. 100% matching is mathematically impossible. You know this but you need evidence so you tell the lie.

 

[Bill Williams]

They did not prove any protocols were not followed, and there is no one set of protocols that much be followed in foresnics.

Why wasn't DNA found on other items if this incompetence was leading to contamination. You have to admit the bra clasp and blade of the knife could not be worse locations to find DNA that points to guilt.

You are not proving contamination or even logical mechanism by which it occured. Given the proseuction's case does not rest soley on DNA evidence, and this DNA evidence does not rule out Knox and Sollicto given you can only speculate it was contamination, that isn't good if you are pleading innocence.

I hope you keep pounding away at this "contamination must be proven" argument. You are in step with the standard of guilt in Italy as far as this case is concerned. Guilty until proven innocent.

As for logical mechanisms, Stefanoni herself at the Massei trial admitted to four possible routes.

1) her handling of the clasp in Dec 2007 with anobviously dirty glove
2) her admission that another investigator in Dec 2007 also handled that clasp
3) the act of replacing the clasp on the flor after handling it was also a possible route of contamination
4) on Nov 2 the 118 Medical team came into Meredith's room without anti-contamination clothing. Massei goes to great length in saying why the obvious route of possible contamination did not contaminate things - Massei said that at that time the clasp was under the pillow. Strangely in Dec it wasn't.​

Are you still wanting to claim the no one showed any logical mechanisms?

 

[NancyS]

What was the source of the other 4 men's DNA? None other was found and nobody else was even proposed as being in the bedroom. She only dated one guy over there as I understand it. It seems like if 4 other men were at the house, that at least 1 of them would have been a suspect. Yet we don't even have 1 single name out of 4 theoretical men touching the bra clasp.

Thus, 4 men in addition to Raffaele did not touch the bra clasp.

So answer this, have you never asserted Rudy is the only one guilty? I'm skeptical of this.

Also, what say you about lack of Rudy DNA in the bedroom where he supposedly broke in?

Guede is the only one that I believe can be found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. In contrast, there is fairly good evidence to support the innocence of Amanda and Raffaele

I think it would be fairly easy to not leave DNA when climbing through a window, especially if wearing gloves - a violent and bloody struggle in a small room, would be more likely to leave DNA or fingerprints and shoe prints or blood on the clothes and possessions of those involved.

I have no idea who the FOUR men on the bra are, which is why I'm thinking contamination

 

[Anode]

The burden of proof has been more than met by the fact it is a clear DNA profile of Sollecito, and Meredith's on the knife blade. Their DNA is there. What is your source DNA for the contamination to even be possible? Meredith had never been to his house. Only one other spot of Raffaele DNA was found in the cottage.

I reject your premise they did shoddy police work. You don't back that up, and their shoddy police work also convicted Guede. Do you think Guede was wrongfully convicted? You are cherrypicking what you consider legit and what you consider shoddy by the same forensics team. Your cherrypicking lines up precisely with who you believe is guilty and who you believe is innocent. It sounds like you are an advocate, not going to where the evidence leads you.

If I might interrupt for just a minute here. Was there ever any evidence presented at trial by any lab that Sollecito's DNA was on the blade? Or are you just believing everything the judge asserts as fact?

I've never seen any verification of this. Anyone?

 

[Bill Williams]

He did blame them as time went by. There was no reason for him to say anything though, as he was already found guilty and it wasn't going to change his outcome.

Ahhhhhh... he was convicted but his blaming (without cross-examination allowed!) AK and RS resulted in his reduced sentence.

Are you happy he (Guede) will soon be free?

 

[Vibio]

First, could you explain how all that dirt got on the clasp?

(in the US DNA is often collected years after a crime and convictions are made ... but never mind.)

 

[Diocletus]

(in the US DNA is often collected years after a crime and convictions are made ... but never mind.)

I asked about dirt. Not DNA.