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

[js202]

And this anti-science statement says everything we need to know about your opinion. And as I thought, you avoided the question I asked in my last post

Yes, the Kool-Aid was drunk and found delicious.

 

[Desert Fox]

Are you talking about the Dumber&Dumber Amateur Hour non-experts Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti... the ones appointed by the corrupt Claudio Hellman? The one whose court was completely discredited?

Does confirmation bias mean anything to you?
Anything that agrees with them being guilty, you think is wonderful even if it conflicts with itself
Anybody who disagrees is a moron
You are not operating as a skeptic.
Several of those who think that AK/RS are innocent have tried to argue the guilt side and never seem to be able to get very far in our own minds.

 

[Anode]

In other news, Hurricane Amanda is headed towards the Baja coast. I'm sure that witch is somehow responsible for this...

 

[kwill]

He said he had sex with her. No need to contest it. But this is still proof that the crime lab people have some competence. They also had to go to his house and get the profile to even compare with that at the cottage. So in two DNA tests involving Rudy, they nailed it. But the shoddiness occures with the knife and the bra clasp pointing to the other two? Don't you see how that argument is a tough sale?

Don't you see what's wrong with your logic here?

1. People gathered and tested physical samples that they claim turned out to have Guede's DNA on them. These were taken from the victim's genitals, one of the two toilets in the flat, the victim's purse, the victim's bra, and the victim's jacket. All but the toilet DNA were found in the room where the murder took place, and all were collected within a day of the crime.

2. The same people gathered and tested a single physical sample that they claim turned out to have Sollecito's DNA on it. This was taken from a metal hook on a bra clasp that was left unsecured and physically moved from its original location after the murder. It was handled with dirty gloves. It was found under a rug. It's unknown how it got moved across the room, how it got under the rug, or what else it might have touched during the six + weeks it was missing.

3. The same people gathered and tested a single physical sample that they claim turned out to have both the victim's and Knox's DNA on it. This was taken from a kitchen drawer a few blocks away from the cottage several days after the murder. The sample was destroyed in the single test for the victim's DNA. Further testing found no evidence of the victim or of human cells or blood.

4. The same people have steadfastly refused to provide documentation that would show how they ran the tests on the samples mentioned in #2 and #3. (Claiming that they provided it is not the same as actually providing it.)

So . . . what we have is a pair of destroyed samples, both collected under odd circumstances, both tested without proper documentation, one definitely tampered with (because it was moved), the other not even of a size or shape to match the victim's wounds.

And you want to say that if Stephanoni did a good job with Guede's DNA testing, she must have done just as good a job with the other two? Really?

This makes sense on the surface, but if you look at what happened for 15 seconds, you have to admit that it's just not a conclusion that can be drawn.

The problems with the clasp are insurmountable. It's not evidence because there was no chain of custody. The SC sent the case back specifically so that the knife could be tested again for evidence that it ever touched Meredith, and that test came back negative. There's no forensic evidence against AK & RS, because they weren't there when Meredith was killed.

 

[Diocletus]

All of the pro Knox arguments can be applied to Guede,

Shoddy forensics work rules out the DNA

Forced false confession.

They just wanted to convict an immigrant / black person / drug user / thief much like it is asserted they wanted to convict Knox b/c she is American / sexual / pretty

All that is left is the handprint, given the footprint doesn't match. Could aruge the handprint could be some unknown person, one of the 4 on the bra clasp.

There was never any evidence outside the house that he climbed up that way and I can't see an experienced thief going in that way. If the goal was to rape her , he would have just waited outside the house until she came home and forced his way in.

What about the semen?

 

[xinonix]

Knox and the deal

Amanda is not being prosecuted for murder, her crime is breach of contract.
We can be 99% sure that Amanda made a secret deal with the Italians. Their offer was we will arrange for your appeal to be heard by a judge who likes you and then you can go home, if you promise to not write a book about your ordeal and go on the tv talk shows to promote it.
They did their part, Amanda failed to make good on her promise.
Amanda got back home and they left her alone for a few months.
Then the Italians found out that Amanda has this book that will be published and she is scheduled to be on tv. Of course the Italians got pissed off and they took back the acquittal they gave her.
I am not saying that Amanda did something bad, the money from the book was needed to pay the lawyer's fees and get her family out of debt.
I suspect that a lawyer or a guy from a PR firm advised her that she should do the book anyway and use the money to pay her debts. Then he advised her that there was nothing put in writing, and Italy wants her story to reach it's end and be forgotten. Therefore there was nothing the Italians could do about it now that she was in the USA, and the Italians would be worried about all the bad publicity they would get if they tried to get her extradited.
I suppose the Italians considered these reasons, but they said ****that! The bitch lied to us, we will take back her acquittal.
Look if you don't want a book about what you did to be published " Waiting to be Heard" is the last thing you want to read.
I am sure this all happened to Rafael too.

 

[Desert Fox]

2. The same people gathered and tested a single physical sample that they claim turned out to have Sollecito's DNA on it. This was taken from a metal hook on a bra clasp that was left unsecured and physically moved from its original location after the murder. It was handled with dirty gloves. It was found under a rug. It's unknown how it got moved across the room, how it got under the rug, or what else it might have touched during the six + weeks it was missing.

Isn't it more accurate to say Sollecito Y Haplotype?
It could be one of many males but he cannot be excluded but it is not an uncommon haplotype.
Do we actually know what the Y hapolotype her boyfriend and the other males she was in contact with?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Review article on DNA forensics and trace DNA

"The published work to date establishes:
a) The possibility, but not the probability, of DNA transfer.
b) It is not possible to use the amount of DNA recovered from a surface to assess whether the DNA was deposited there by a single touch or by regular use.
c) It is not possible to use the amount of DNA recovered from an item of interest to inform whether the DNA was deposited by direct contact or indirect transfer.d) There is no strong correlation between a full or partial profile and the amount of DNA template (at sub-optimal amounts of DNA)
e) The quality of a DNA profile cannot be used to establish whether the DNA recovered came from the last handler.
f) The number of factors, and the relative effect of those factors, involved in the transfer of DNA is unknown.
g) The initial amount of DNA deposited, and any activity likely to reduce the number of cells or DNA-containing material from donor surfaces (e.g. hand), and the time since those activities, is a key factor in determining the amount of DNA recovered."
DNA transfer: Review and implications for casework
Georgina Meakin, Allan Jamieson, Forensic Science International: Genetics 7 (2013) 434–443 Link
(highlighting mine)

People who claim that one can tell how DNA arrived on an item by how much is present are willfully spouting dangerout nonsense.

 

[Bill Williams]

Are you talking about the Dumber&Dumber Amateur Hour non-experts Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti... the ones appointed by the corrupt Claudio Hellman? The one whose court was completely discredited?

Vibio.... this is an ad hominem, quite factually incorrect post. Even Judge Nencini relied on the Conti & Vecchiotti report to establish some of the (all-be-they ridiculous) parameters Nencini works with.

One of them is Necini's claim of female Y-genetic material on the clasp. Nencini did not have to assume four profiles other than Meredith's on that clasp. The Massei report only says there were OTHER profiles, other than Meredith's....

.... as well as a sample from which Raffaele cannot be ruled out.

This is the most disingenuous part of what both you and Aiken77 are claiming is "abundant evidence". It is not abundant evidence, it is a sample which rules out Rudy Guede but does not rule out Raffaele, as well as perhaps 1/3 of the Italian males in the courtroom the day this was discussed.

It's like saying that an unknown blond hair was found, and Raffaele cannot be ruled out because he has blond hair, but so do 1/3 of Italian men.

This is not something you end someone to jail over.

But your claim about Nencini's dismissal of C&V is not accurate. He relies on independent genetic evaluations to make other ridiculous claims, like women having Y-genetic material.

I showed you the text from Nencini upthread about this. And you have simply ignored it.

 

[Diocletus]

Are you talked about the untested trace of what some say is semen?

Yup. Definitely semen.

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/sperma_e_orma_ultima_p10.jpg

 

[Bill Williams]

Was there semen? Pardon my ignorance but I have not focused on the evidence against Guede given he's in jail and nobody thinks he is innocence. I thought he manually raped MK.

Are you talked about the untested trace of what some say is semen?

Even Patricia Stefanoni speculated that it was semen, when she ordered that it be tested....

.... and then somwhat inexplicably was not tested. Massei covers this topic in his motivations report. Massei himself is quite willing to accept that it IS semen. He, however, in a ridiculous example of logic, says that even if it IS semen, it cannot be time-stamped, since Meredith had an active sex-life.

(This reason disappears when it comes to finding Amanda's DNA in her own living space! All of a sudden, Massei claims that it all can be time-stamped to the night of the murder!)

So you say, "some say is semen". You are out of step with Judge Massei on this, who wrongly rejected its forensic usefulness on other grounds.

The failure to test this putative semen stain for its ownership remains the most glaring example of either investigative incompetence, or judicial confirmation bias.

There is no reason NOT to test it. Period.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

giving good laboratory technique the finger

Their standard is the technician has some discretion in when he changes his gloves.

There would have been Raffaele's DNA all over the place if the gloves theory was legit, not just one piece of evidence. What could a tech touch that had Raffaele's DNA on it to then transfer to the bra clasp. We come back to a lack of a source of contamination. A source must be established or this theory is dead on arrival.

The answer to your question is a glove can transfer the DNA. And there is no discretion about when to change gloves in competent laboratories. From a link previously given today:
On page 38 of John Butler's 2005 textbook Forensic DNA Typing, he wrote, "Use clean latex gloves for collecting each item of evidence. Gloves should be changed between handling of different items of evidence." Dick Warrington is the author of some articles in Forensic Magazine and is employed by a company which makes equipment for crime scene investigations. He wrote, “If you pick up one piece of evidence and then pick up another piece of evidence you can transfer evidence from the first item to the second item. You can avoid this kind of cross-contamination if you remember to change your gloves before handling each piece of evidence.” He also advised, “Put on gloves, use gloves, change gloves. Do that every time you touch a piece of evidence. Likewise, use disposable tweezers, scalpels, etc. Change these each time they are used, as well.” Orchid Cellmark’s guidelines for collecting DNA evidence read in part, “Use clean latex gloves for collecting each item of evidence. It is recommended the gloves be changed between the collection of each item of evidence.”

It is feckless to ignore reality, but that is exactly what the CSC has done in this regard.

 

[kwill]

The time factor doesn't mean anything. That is a red herring. If the DNA profile is there, it is there. You have not explained how it got there, or what the source of contamination is, as Raffaele's DNA was not even in the bedroom anywhere else, and only one tiny trace in the rest of the house.

The time factor would not mean anything if

a) the crime scene had been sealed during the 6 + weeks that the clasp was lost, and
b) the clasp had been discovered exactly where it was photographed on the day after the murder.

It's not the time, it's what happened during that time. The thing moved across the room and found its way underneath a rug. That's the problem.

Okay, that's the first problem. There are others.

 

[acbytesla]

You need to slow down and think Aiken before you post.

All of the pro Knox arguments can be applied to Guede,

Shoddy forensics work rules out the DNA...

Let's say that it true. Are you saying the palm print isn't Rudy Guede's or the the shoe prints in Meredith's blood?

Forced false confession.

You really need to learn the facts of this case. Rudy Guede admitted being there at the crime scene during a SKYPE call while he was in Germany. There wasn't a police officer in sight.

They just wanted to convict an immigrant / black person / drug user / thief much like it is asserted they wanted to convict Knox b/c she is American / sexual / pretty

I don't believe that they wanted to convict Amanda because she was and American of because she is pretty. I think they thought she was guilty because she acted differently and that they said she was guilty. They declared that they had their killers without examining any actual physical evidence.

As for wanting to convict a black person..I doubt it. It was Rudy's friend who told the cops that it was Rudy. Rudy himself declared he was at the crime scene without any pressure at all.

All that is left is the handprint, given the footprint doesn't match. Could aruge the handprint could be some unknown person, one of the 4 on the bra clasp.

Now you are just being absurd. Have you forgot that Rudy left about dozen shoe prints that matched Rudy's shoes?

There was never any evidence outside the house that he climbed up that way and I can't see an experienced thief going in that way. If the goal was to rape her , he would have just waited outside the house until she came home and forced his way in.

How would you know? Did they dust the outside of the cottage wall for prints? No they didn't. The real truth is they didn't really investigate outside for physical evidence. It's all anecdotal. I also am not sure Rudy's goal was to rape Meredith.

 

[platonov]

At last

Amanda is not being prosecuted for murder, her crime is breach of contract.
We can be 99% sure that Amanda made a secret deal with the Italians. Their offer was we will arrange for your appeal to be heard by a judge who likes you and then you can go home, if you promise to not write a book about your ordeal and go on the tv talk shows to promote it.
They did their part, Amanda failed to make good on her promise.
Amanda got back home and they left her alone for a few months.
Then the Italians found out that Amanda has this book that will be published and she is scheduled to be on tv. Of course the Italians got pissed off and they took back the acquittal they gave her.
I am not saying that Amanda did something bad, the money from the book was needed to pay the lawyer's fees and get her family out of debt.
I suspect that a lawyer or a guy from a PR firm advised her that she should do the book anyway and use the money to pay her debts. Then he advised her that there was nothing put in writing, and Italy wants her story to reach it's end and be forgotten. Therefore there was nothing the Italians could do about it now that she was in the USA, and the Italians would be worried about all the bad publicity they would get if they tried to get her extradited.
I suppose the Italians considered these reasons, but they said ****that! The bitch lied to us, we will take back her acquittal.
Look if you don't want a book about what you did to be published " Waiting to be Heard" is the last thing you want to read.
I am sure this all happened to Rafael too.

Finally .... a new conspiracy theory.

At last – it was starting to get slightly ! repetitive around here ( I see the EDF's are back )
However while I applaud your effort it's actually a bit BIGGER than that.

What do you think ?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a standard axiom of DNA forensic testing

That is just two people's opinion. We cannot extrapolate that to mean all or most DNA techs agree with it.

It appears that, in Italy, that according to the courts, the lab followed protocols well enough, or there wouldn't have been 2 convictions. Obviously the juries in those 2 did not find this argument convincing.

Two reputable scientists writing in a peer-reviewed article carries more weight than non peer-reviewed comments do, as a general rule. In addition Jason Gilder wrote, "One of the standard axioms of DNA typing is, the presence of a DNA profile says nothing about the time frame or the circumstances under which DNA was transferred to that item. Contamination falls into is one such instance of an issue that cannot be identified by the electropherogram alone (unless you are dealing with a control sample or other known profile)." So according to your argument, science changes as one crosses the border from one country to another. I don't find that to be a convincing argument, nor do I think much of another variation of the authoritarian refrain, "The courts found them guilty, so they must be guilty."

 

[Desert Fox]

That is just two people's opinion. We cannot extrapolate that to mean all or most DNA techs agree with it.

It appears that, in Italy, that according to the courts, the lab followed protocols well enough, or there wouldn't have been 2 convictions. Obviously the juries in those 2 did not find this argument convincing.

You need to be careful here. . . .
It is two published authors who are experts in their field publishing in a peer reviewed publication. That is a high bar.
What is more, almost all forensic scientists will agree with them.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

facts are stubborn things

I don't deny that a glove CAN transfer DNA, but given there was no source DNA of Raffaele's in the bedroom, it doesn't seem even possible in this case.

I don't think that guy writes Italian forensics protocols so this is a red herring.

Raffaele's fingerprints were on the door, and fingerprints contain enough DNA for forensics. Good science does not change from one country to the next. If the FP in any country are not changing gloves and/or using disposable tools, then they are doing sloppy, unacceptable work. In other words that country needs to change its protocols, because reality is not going to change.

 

[Planigale]

Their standard is the technician has some discretion in when he changes his gloves.

There would have been Raffaele's DNA all over the place if the gloves theory was legit, not just one piece of evidence. What could a tech touch that had Raffaele's DNA on it to then transfer to the bra clasp. We come back to a lack of a source of contamination. A source must be established or this theory is dead on arrival.

Could you reference this? Who is the 'their' whose standard you refer to?

The contamination theory is that of Peter Gill one of the inventors of forensic DNA and a Professor of Forensic Science; I wonder why he did not spot that flaw? The theory is that the external door handle to MK bedroom would have Sollecito DNA on it from trying to force open the door. The forensic scientist opened the door with their gloved hand picked up DNA on the glove (Prof Gill pointed out the type of gloves worn were 'sticky' for DNA) then handled the bra hook transferring the DNA. What else did they handle with those gloves? One of the interesting things (and I do not believe in a conspiracy), is that the police went into Sollecito's flat and picked only one knife. The scientific police returned to Knox's flat and out of all the blood stained possibly handled material left behind from the initial crime scene investigation they picked up only the little bra hook. Why only those items? Bit of a coincidence?

 

[anglolawyer]

"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?

Aiken77

This is how I understand this part of C-V. There are two separate and quite distinct conclusions. One is that the defects in Stefanoni's methodology are not sufficiently rigorous to rule out contamination as a source of the results. The second is that she has not shown the result to be the product of a valid scientific method. The difference is subtle but important and, I believed, has entirely eluded the Italian courts and the pro-guilt community.

I will try to illustrate it with an example. Imagine a maths exam. The students are set the task: give the correct value of pi to 10 decimal places and show your method of calculation. All the students but one fail to produce anything at all and the one exception only produces the result

3.14159 26535

When asked for the method the student produces some meaningless scraps of paper. When pressed it turns out he used a computer but cannot or will not furnish a log of what operations were conducted on that computer.

On these facts, should the student get a pass or a fail? If you answer 'pass' then you simply haven't got it. The result does not validate the method. This is what the courts, including the ISC, wrongly think about Stefanoni's results, that the results themselves prove that Meredith Kercher's tissue was on the blade and that Sollecito's was on the clasp.

ETA hmm, I seem not to be getting any response from you. Fair enough. I will post my own observations as the conversation proceeds, noting for the moment that you have not backed up your claim that raw data (including EDFs) was disclosed, nor have you shown any understanding of the inadequacy of the evidence that purports to show that any incriminating genetic material was ever on the clasp or the blade.