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

[acbytesla]

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.

Actually no. It would only need to be in one place that a tech touches. ONE SINGLE PLACE.

 

[Diocletus]

If it was semen, how would that disprove Knox and Raffaele's invovlement.

It wouldn't be Knox's semen. And everyone knows that it's not Sollecito's, or it would have been tested.

 

[Bill Williams]

If it was semen, how would that disprove Knox and Raffaele's invovlement. His DNA is still on the bra clasp, their prints were found with Luminol, his print is on the mat, she had a key to the house, her blood and/or dNA was found mixed with the victim's in various isolated spots which indicates both were bleeding at same time and she said there was no blood in bathroom when she left that day.

Corrections to this post:

- It is misleading to say Raffaele's DNA was found on the clasp. The very best you can say is that he cannot be ruled out as the secondary donor. It's like saying we know the murderer was blond, and since Raffaele is blond he must be the killer.

- There is no mixed blood, you tried to suggest that above. Amanda Knox was not bleeding at the time of the murder. Judge Massei covers this in his own motivations report, and even Harry Rag has given up on the mixed-blood fallacy.​

And why an investigator would neglect to test the putative semen stain, found under the hips of the victim, is beyond me. It's crazy to defend the non-testing of the stain.

 

[Desert Fox]

It wouldn't be Knox's semen. And everyone knows that it's not Sollecito's, or it would have been tested.

Would not put it past the Italian forensic personnel

 

[Bill Williams]

Ok well the Italian forensics people are not here to defend themselves. I would like to hear their defense. I have no reason to believe they did shoddy work. Loaded charges are usually baseless.

This isn't science we are talking about. It is simply data collection.

You can hear Stefanoni's "defence". It came on cross examination, after the video from the Dec 18 forensic collection was shown in court at the Massei trial in 2009.

Bongiorno shows to Stefanoni the place in the video where Stefanoni (incredibly!) picks up the bra-clasp. Stefanoni is shown turning it over and over, from hand to hand with obviously dirty gloves.

At one point it cannot be seen if Stefanoni actually touches the clasp (because of the angle of view of the camera). So Bongiorno asks, "Did you touch the clasp?"

Stefanoni under oath can neither confirm nor deny that she touched the clasp.

At trial, as recorded in the Massei report, Stefanoni goes on to identify three other possible routes for contamination.

- another investigator that day touched the braclasp, and potentially the hasps.

- Stefanoni admitted that the mere act of replacing the clasp on to the floor after handling it, is itself a possible route of contamination

- Stefanoni reveals that back on Nov 2, the 118 Medical team came into Meredith's room to investigate the body, without themselves being protectively clad.​

All this will bear repeating every time someone says that a route of contamination has never been demonstrated. That factoid simply cannot be repeated as if Stefanoni did not make these admissions at trial.

 

[Diocletus]

You can hear Stefanoni's "defence". It came on cross examination, after the video from the Dec 18 forensic collection was shown in court at the Massei trial in 2009.

Bongiorno shows to Stefanoni the place in the video where Stefanoni (incredibly!) picks up the bra-clasp. Stefanoni is shown turning it over and over, from hand to hand with obviously dirty gloves.

At one point it cannot be seen if Stefanoni actually touches the clasp (because of the angle of view of the camera). So Bongiorno asks, "Did you touch the clasp?"

Stefanoni under oath can neither confirm nor deny that she touched the clasp.

At trial, as recorded in the Massei report, Stefanoni goes on to identify three other possible routes for contamination.

- another investigator that day touched the braclasp, and potentially the hasps.

- Stefanoni admitted that the mere act of replacing the clasp on to the floor after handling it, is itself a possible route of contamination

- Stefanoni reveals that back on Nov 2, the 118 Medical team came into Meredith's room to investigate the body, without themselves being protectively clad.​

All this will bear repeating every time someone says that a route of contamination has never been demonstrated. That factoid simply cannot be repeated as if Stefanoni did not make these admissions at trial.

Don't forget the random route of contamination, within the lab, as evidenced by the contaminated negative controls. I mean, can anyone prove the path of contamination for the controls that weren't supposed to be contaminated?

 

[Planigale]

Ok well the Italian forensics people are not here to defend themselves. I would like to hear their defense. I have no reason to believe they did shoddy work. Loaded charges are usually baseless.

This isn't science we are talking about. It is simply data collection.

Data collection is what we scientists do. Data is what we are obsessed with. (Well except for those theoretical physicists.) How to get data, how to get more data, how to get better data, whether you want to measure gravitons or behaviour of cetaceans it's all data. You have your hypothesis, you predict the outcome then you see if reality meets your expectations. Forensic science is real science. In 2008 LCN was cutting edge. Most of the world was not attempting to do what Stephanoni was routinely doing. Gill and the UK forensic science service had only just introduced the concept and it was still being argued over. People were trying to work out what the results meant, how reliable they are, Steph was oblivious of this; crank the machine up and ignore the fact you don't really understand the output. GIGO.

 

[Diocletus]

How does everybody know that if it was in fact not tested. It was my understanding it was not requested to be tested until last second by the defense when it was too late to submit it, which was probably so they could say the court didn't test everything and cast doubt. Lawyers are good at tricks like this.

Who cares what some lawyer says? It's semen at the site of a sexual assault. Why wouldn't the authorities test it?

 

[acbytesla]

How does everybody know that if it was in fact not tested. It was my understanding it was not requested to be tested until last second by the defense when it was too late to submit it, which was probably so they could say the court didn't test everything and cast doubt. Lawyers are good at tricks like this.

If they thought anything, they thought it was probaby Guedes.

It was asked to be tested many times Aiken and it probably still wouldn't be too late to test it unless they stored it in liquid like the bra clasp. And it might have been Rudy's.

So if it is Rudy's do you believe that the murder was now the result of a sexual assault with Amanda/Raffaele/Rudy? Or that it was as Nonsencini has said and that it was the result of an argument between Meredith and Amanda over money? If so, then you are saying that Rudy had a consensual sex with Meredith? And if it was consensual, do you think that Rudy would have stood for Amanda killing her? And if Amanda and Raffaele had stabbed Meredith to death, do you really think that they would have let Rudy get away?

They should have tested the pillowcase and it seems like it was always Stefanoni's intent to test the pillowcase.

 

[NancyS]

The inverse is that because you don't like their protocols, that they must be innocent. I think sometimes people use science as a prop to push their agenda. Scientists disagree with each all the time. Just go ask a physician what the best medication is for a disease and you will get numerous answers, and some will say Drug A is horrible while another says Drug A is the best.

This might have been the case 30-years ago, but we now base medication choices on the evidence

 

[NancyS]

If it only moved within the bedroom, any DNA that adhered to it would be just as incriminating because he should have never been in the bedroom of this young woman. There was no source of contamination. Thus, there was no contamination.

He had spent time with this young woman earlier that day. If you have lunch with a friend, do you think it would be impossible for there to be any DNA transfer between you?

 

[Anode]

Who cares what some lawyer says? It's semen at the site of a sexual assault. Why wouldn't the authorities test it?

Yes, this is another thing that I find ridiculous. I mean if the sample was up on the bed in the sheets somewhere I can see why it might be less important. That might indicate normal sexual behavior from a different time. But on the pillow positioned where it was on a raped and murdered victim?? Are you kidding? That should be one of the most important pieces of evidence there. The prosecution should have been all over that piece of evidence while the defense parties should have been very nervous about it. Why was it the other way around?

And if it was RS's, then I'd be on the guilt side. But now we don't know who it was from. I can only assume Rudy?

Did someone also say that one of Rudy's footprints touched the stain? That would time stamp it and make it even more relevant.

 

[NancyS]

There is no logical excuse for not testing the possible semen stain - and it is unbelievable that it is the prosecution objecting to the testing

 

[Skind]

If they thought anything, they thought it was probaby Guedes.

Impossible, as no-one knew Guede had any involvement in the case until later.

A possible semen stain in a possible rape-murder case? You'd process that immediately as a priority.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the system must build in incentives or disincentives

The inverse is that because you don't like their protocols, that they must be innocent.

No, that is not what I said or meant. When the FP use bad protocols, that evidence should be tossed. If one doesn't toss badly collected evidence, then there is no incentive to use good protocols next time, and sooner or later an innocent person will be convicted. Once the bad evidence gets tossed, then the defendants should either be convicted or found not guilty as the remaining good evidence dictates.

 

[Bill Williams]

If it was semen, how would that disprove Knox and Raffaele's invovlement. His DNA is still on the bra clasp, their prints were found with Luminol, his print is on the mat, she had a key to the house, her blood and/or dNA was found mixed with the victim's in various isolated spots which indicates both were bleeding at same time and she said there was no blood in bathroom when she left that day.

Please remember, that as soon as Nov 7 Knox was retracting the things they said she'd said at interrogation.

And that these things were said about Patrick Lumumba. Regardless of the knife or the bra-clasp there was nothing against Lumumba at all.... except the police fantasy that it had to have been Lumumba because of the SMS message to Knox.

Wouldn't they have ordered the testing of this presumed semen stain in the hopes of getting SOMETHING against Lumumba, even as the reality of the "fourth suspect" began to dawn about two weeks after the arrests?

Just a note: guilters never put things to a timeline, not the details of the death, not Time of Death, nor even the events of the first six weeks of the case.

When one does that, the obvious inference is that there was nothing against Knox, Raffaele, or Lumumba. All the evidence, even if you still want to question the obvious DNA evidence against Guede (eg. his DNA found in the victim's vagina, not mised with anyone else's signature...) all the evidence still pointed to Guede.

There was/is no "all the other evidence" as Aiken77 says whenever addressing something. "All the other evidence" points to Guede and Guede alone.

It remains the responsibility of the first investigators to build a case, and avoid being locked into a predetermined conclusion by testing ALL the evidence - this is exactly what the Kerchers themselves requested before the latest Florence trial.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The need for intellectual rigor in the forensic sciences

I have no reason to believe they did shoddy work. Loaded charges are usually baseless.

This isn't science we are talking about. It is simply data collection.

This is untrue; I have given you a quote about gloves from someone who wrote the most widely used textbook on DNA typing, and you can contrast that with what Stefanoni said her glove-changing protocol as discussed in Massei. If one doesn't understand that forensic science needs to be done at the same level of intellectual rigor as any other science, then one simply doesn't understand the first thing about the good, the bad, and the ugly of forensics and the law.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, that is not what I said or meant. When the FP use bad protocols, that evidence should be tossed. If one doesn't toss badly collected evidence, then there is no incentive to use good protocols next time, and sooner or later an innocent person will be convicted. Once the bad evidence gets tossed, then the defendants should either be convicted or found not guilty as the remaining good evidence dictates.

Please remember what the Supreme Court said in their March 2013 overturning of the Hellmann acquittals. They said that if Italy was to adopt proper protocols, that this would call into question all geneticly based convictions since 1986.

Also well founded is further criticism raised by the public plaintiff, according to which the signs of the experts were passively incorporated, as to the mere inadequacy of the investigations carried out by the Scientific Police, who were not renewed, the experts having considered inadequate the two samples in question ( 36 and 165 B) for the detection of the genetic profile and due to the fact that it could not be ruled out that the result was derived "from contamination phenomena occurring at any stage of sampling and/or handling and/or analytical processes made” . From p. 75 p. 82 the Court adopted the arguments developed in the assesment that, indeed, had been the subject of severe disagreement with both Prof. Novelli that Prof. Torricelli, consultants of the Procurator General and the civil parties, whose authoritative voices were completely neglected. Prof. Novelli had agreed that there are protocols and recommendations, but added that first of all the operator had to contribute his common sense (ud. 6.9.2011, p. Transcription 59.), otherwise it put in question all the DNA analysis done from 1986 onwards.​

 

[RWVBWL]

<snip>
bra clasp
<snip>
4 males
<snip

Hi Aiken 77,
Greetings, welcome to The JREF!
I'm pretty well versed, as are many others here too,
on Meredith Kercher's tragic murder, as it seems you are too, stoked you joined, let's discuss!


Dontcha just luv how the only piece of evidence against Raffaelle Sollecito bein' in Meredith's bedroom the night she had sex with Rudy Guede and was horribly knifed to death, has 4 other, what is it, male, female, or both males and females DNA on it?

A person studyin' this tragic case might wonder,
Was Meredith bi-curious?
Diggin' both guyz and dollz?

Don'tcha wonder why none, (as far as I know),
of the DNA Samples of Rudy Guede touching anything DO NOT have other similar DNA profiles of 4 other people too?

What,
did everybody and their brother or sister wanna un-hook Meredith's Bra?


Why aren't there DNA samples of Raff or Amanda on Meredith's
light blue sweatshirt jacket, there, on her sleeve cuff?
Rudy Guede's is the only one leavin' DNA there.

How'd it get there?
Did he help Mez remove her jacket before he had sex with her?
If so, surely his DNA should be on her panties and bra too, right?
Wait a sec, isn't Rudy's DNA on her bra strap? It is!

Forget the bra clasp for a moment.
Don'tcha find it weird that there are no other male or females DNA on Meredith's bra strap?
Or the front of the bra cups? Gosh, I don't recall ever removing a bra without 1st touchin' the cups...
But only Rudy G'Dayz DNA is elsewhere on the bra strap, no one elses, none of the 4 other DNA profiles, right?
Weird...

Now,
let's talk sex.
Rudy Guede left his DNA inside Meredith, right?
Where is Raffaele's DNA inside of Meredith vagina?
Why isn't there any sample of Amanda Knox's DNA inside Meredith's vagina?
Only Rudy Guede got to ^^^^ her, or was that ****** ^^^^ her?


Rudy also left,
amongst other places, his DNA on Meredith's purse.
Don'tcha find it odd that there are not any DNA from other folks too, (like on the bra clasp),
on her purse too? Only Rudy Guede went into it?
Hmmmm...

 

[Desert Fox]

Please remember what the Supreme Court said in their March 2013 overturning of the Hellmann acquittals. They said that if Italy was to adopt proper protocols, that this would call into question all geneticly based convictions since 1986.

Did their forensics people really screw up every case as badly as this one. . .If so, the answer is YES!