Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#4

[otto]

The CSC preferred to trust a prosecution witness, most of whose academic work is not in DNA forensics over two independent witnesses, whose academic work is more relevant. Besides being questionable in its own right, the CSC was trying to rule on facts (through the back door), even though it is not supposed to do so.

If the CSC wanted to make better rulings on DNA it could look to how Australia has dealt with the Farah Jama or the Jaidyn Leskie cases, each of which was the subject of a special enquiry. A former Australian Supreme Court Judge, Frank Vincent wrote in his report on the Jama case: “Precisely how it [contamination] may have happened cannot be determined as the deposition of the minute quantity of material involved could have occurred in a number of ways. It is possible to speculate about the probability of transference through various mechanisms, but ultimately pointless to do so.”

Judges weigh evidence. They are not expected to be experts in every field of study that is introduced in a courtroom. Regarding C & V, the academics, I think it will be very easy to find many people that do not hold academic work in higher esteem than field work.

Clearly, in the case you reference, the judge reviewed the evidence and accepted that transference was likely through various mechanisms. In this case, C & V have been unable to present any logical argument regarding the realistic transference of evidence. Clearly, the cases have nothing in common.

 

[dgfred]

A bone can be used to find the DNA within the bone itself. It would not be useful for finding DNA of persons who had been near the bone, which is what we are looking at in regards to the bra clasp.

There is a difference between DNA from human remains vs. DNA left by people who may have touched an object. Do you really not understand the difference?

Did you notice the 'other material' part?

In my example dna check/find was for the beast that chewed the bones... how is that?

 

[aa9511]

you asked for the opinion of someone from a university... and was given one.




b/c you disagree with the expert opinion provided, motives are immediately questioned?

about the opinion piece slamming hampikian on TJMK another poster provided... did someone pay for that to be written? how is that more credible than the conclusions of hampikian?




like the inaccuracies, blatant lies and mistruths on TJMK and other similar sites?





so, when one doesn't like the information received, the goal posts are changed? now no american opinions are acceptable? only case files are? those includes C&V, who are not american.

Yes, I have a problem with someone thousands of miles away who suppposedly has no connection to the case....commenting on the case and pretending that their opinions should be respected and taken as part of the case just because they're from a university! I meant, when I said talk to someone from a University....I meant asking them GENERAL questions about DNA. Preferably, that they not even know it is from THE Amanda Knox case. As in, what is the preponderance of someone's own DNA around the home where they live? What are the chances, if there are any, that a victim's blood would land on the DNA of someone who lives in the home? What are possibilities of contamination and can you give examples in a typical case? What about delay in collecting evidence, what happens then? What are the chances that some DNA results in a case would be accurate, but others might be inaccurate if they were both collected using same techniques, etc.? Is that possible and explain how. Explain to me about Low Density DNA. Etc., etc..

So that's what I might.

I am not ignoring Conti & Vecchioti (sp?). In fact, their findings are discussed much on this thread, and I take their findings to be a part of the case, regardless of whether they were subsequently annulled or not. Their findings were obviously an important part of the case as it got both Amanda and RS out of jail! And that is the reason they are now free.

 

[otto]

you asked for the opinion of someone from a university... and was given one.

b/c you disagree with the expert opinion provided, motives are immediately questioned?

about the opinion piece slamming hampikian on TJMK another poster provided... did someone pay for that to be written? how is that more credible than the conclusions of hampikian?

like the inaccuracies, blatant lies and mistruths on TJMK and other similar sites?

so, when one doesn't like the information received, the goal posts are changed? now no american opinions are acceptable? only case files are? those includes C&V, who are not american.

Hampikian did an experiment where the objective was to transfer DNA from one pop can to another. He succeeded. On that basis, he concluded that it was possible to transfer DNA from one pop can to another. I hardly consider that scientific. Perhaps, if Hampikian wants to be taken seriously regarding his DNA science regarding the murder of Meredith Kercher, he should publish his results. Peer reviews would be interesting.

American opinions have no place in the courts of a foreign country unless that opinion is presented as an expert opinion in the courtroom. Case filse are the most objective source of information. C&V results have been rejected by the court as being illogical and incomplete. There is also the lingering question of whether Hampikian attempted to influence their work.

 

[otto]

I have examined egrams from both the autosomal and YSTR DNA from the clasp. With respect to the YSTR results, even using criteria that would minimize the number of other contributors, it come out to 2 other males besides Sollecito. If I use criteria for peak size similar to the knife, I count four other males besides Sollecito. A claim to the effect that one contributor is Silenzio is pure conjecture.

It makes more sense that the other contributor was the boyfriend than to assume that the other contribution is a result of contamination ... hypothetical contamination that cannot be grounded in fact.

 

[aa9511]

A bone can be used to find the DNA within the bone itself. It would not be useful for finding DNA of persons who had been near the bone, which is what we are looking at in regards to the bra clasp.

There is a difference between DNA from human remains vs. DNA left by people who may have touched an object. Do you really not understand the difference?

Ah, you had me until your last sentence.

 

[otto]

here, here! Cheers to that! It took me a long while to get used to all the back-and-forth....I was used to being on threads where we all agreed on the same thing. Quite a change on here! But now I'm getting used to you all

I can't think of any other case where the culprit's DNA on the alleged murder weapon resulted in headlines such as "Culprit's DNA on Murder Weapon Means the Culprit is Innocent!" I also can't think of another case where each piece of DNA evidence was argued to be useless because of every reason under the sun - never the same reason for more than one piece of DNA. We also have the unusual situation where all the circumstantial evidence, from the culprit knowing how Meredith died before the coroner had released a statement to changing alibis, false accusations, and so much more, is all interpretted as having no meaning whatsoever. If every case was treated like this, the discussion would be equally divided between those that accept investigator information and those that believe every aspect of the case is a conspiracy.

 

[sherlockh]

Hampikian did an experiment where the objective was to transfer DNA from one pop can to another. He succeeded. On that basis, he concluded that it was possible to transfer DNA from one pop can to another. I hardly consider that scientific. Perhaps, if Hampikian wants to be taken seriously regarding his DNA science regarding the murder of Meredith Kercher, he should publish his results. Peer reviews would be interesting.

American opinions have no place in the courts of a foreign country unless that opinion is presented as an expert opinion in the courtroom. Case filse are the most objective source of information. C&V results have been rejected by the court as being illogical and incomplete. There is also the lingering question of whether Hampikian attempted to influence their work.

Anyone who does not even consider the possibility that Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp came directly from himself, or that Meredith's DNA on the knife came directly from herself, is not objective. The usual way DNA is transferred is by direct transfer from the person the DNA belongs to. Contamination theories, mishandling, 46 days, or whatever do not exclude this. There is a lot of bias included in the opinions of those so called US 'experts'. JMO.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

So I give you a passage from the reasoning and you still stand by the claim that your 100% sure the negative controls were not done? I guess again the judges are wrong and you are right.

And why didn't the defense ever fight this at the Massei level. This too is from the cassation reasoning:

"All the more so given that the second instance court completely ignored the fact that the original tests were made in accordance with the provisions of Article 360 Criminal Procedure Code, without any criticisms having been lodged during the various phases of the operations, and without the suspects or their legal representation having requested a pre‐trial hearing [regarding testing procedures]."

I did not say that the negative controls were not done; I am saying that they were not handed over to the defense in the form of electronic data files, and I am reiterating that these files are far more valuable in the form of raw data than as egrams. I have discussed the importance of these files extensively in a series of entries. I strongly doubt that the negative controls were handed over to the defense in any form at all. The defense has plenty of expertise in the area of DNA forensics, particularly due to Dr. Hampikian, and everyone in the field knows how important the negative controls are.

Dr. Hampikian made it clear to Amanda's lawyers in 2010 that he needed the EDFs (and this was not the first time that a DNA scientist had asked the defense to ask for them). There are a pair of interviews he did in the spring of 2010 to two Irish news outlets, where he also complained about the lack of discovery. Bongiorno addressed the court in 2009 and complained about the lack of discovery. There is a pdf file of her remarks available at JREFF, but it may be a machine translation. <modsnip> So the answer to your question is that the defense did fight it.

Any claim that rests on what Stefanoni says is weak by definition. She overstated the amount of DNA in 36B by a wide margin, and she failed to disclose the negative TMB tests. Hellmann at one point referred to her understandable lapses of memory. OK, fine.

 

[Amber29]

I can't think of any other case where the culprit's DNA on the alleged murder weapon resulted in headlines such as "Culprit's DNA on Murder Weapon Means the Culprit is Innocent!" I also can't think of another case where each piece of DNA evidence was argued to be useless because of every reason under the sun - never the same reason for more than one piece of DNA. We also have the unusual situation where all the circumstantial evidence, from the culprit knowing how Meredith died before the coroner had released a statement to changing alibis, false accusations, and so much more, is all interpretted as having no meaning whatsoever. If every case was treated like this, the discussion would be equally divided between those that accept investigator information and those that believe every aspect of the case is a conspiracy.

Not to mention the phones being turned off that night and Raffaele listening to music at 5:30 am when he was "sleeping". The list could go on and on of the things that are hand waved away in the case.

 

[Amber29]

I did not say that the negative controls were not done; I am saying that they were not handed over to the defense in the form of electronic data files, and I am reiterating that these files are far more valuable in the form of raw data than as egrams. I have discussed the importance of these files extensively in a series of entries. I strongly doubt that the negative controls were handed over to the defense in any form at all. The defense has plenty of expertise in the area of DNA forensics, particularly due to Dr. Hampikian, and everyone in the field knows how important the negative controls are.

Dr. Hampikian made it clear to Amanda's lawyers in 2010 that he needed the EDFs (and this was not the first time that a DNA scientist had asked the defense to ask for them). There are a pair of interviews he did in the spring of 2010 to two Irish news outlets, where he also complained about the lack of discovery. Bongiorno addressed the court in 2009 and complained about the lack of discovery. There is a pdf file of her remarks available at JREFF, but it may be a machine translation. <modsnip> So the answer to your question is that the defense did fight it.

Any claim that rests on what Stefanoni says is weak by definition. She overstated the amount of DNA in 36B by a wide margin, and she failed to disclose the negative TMB tests. Hellmann at one point referred to her understandable lapses of memory. OK, fine.

And what of no complaints made by the defendants lawyers over the testing method?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

This was what I had read many times, and surmised as well. Thanks, for a minute CH had me feeling that I had come to an illogical conclusion. :facepalm:

My apologies if you felt uncomfortable because of something I wrote; that was not my intention. However, I cannot see how the CSC could throw out Conti and Vecchiotti without exceeding its role (which is to judge points of law but not facts IIUC). The credibility of witnesses should be left to the court that is the trier of facts. More worrying still is the fact that the CSC seems strangely deferential to the prosecution's expert witnesses over independent expert witnesses. I would not want to be a defendant under those circumstances. MOO.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

And what of no complaints made by the defendants lawyers over the testing method?

I am glad you brought that up. It is another thing* that the CSC got wrong. Link here to Kaosium's post at JREFF. His post includes links to Potenza's report, both in the original Italian and also in a (machine?) translation.

There is a bigger issue, however, and it is that observing the tests is of lesser value than having the EDFs. This is a point that Professor Dan Krane made in response to a question of mine: &#8220;Having the opportunity to witness the testing of samples is of marginal utility at best. Reviews of the underlying data for DNA tests often reveals alternative interpretations of the evidence samples, especially in circumstances were small amounts of DNA are involved and it is difficult to distinguish between signal, noise, and technical artifacts. Observing testing rarely provides any more insights than what should be possible from a review of contemporaneous notes that should be part of a lab's case file. Witnessing testing is far from a cure-all. Problems such as contamination of samples can easily arise before a sample arrives in a laboratory yet could not be detected by an expert observing the testing process itself.&#8221;

EDT
*It is sometimes claimed that the defense did not object to the testing in 2007, which I don't believe is true (as discussed above). Yet I may have misunderstood your comment. Bongiorno complained to the court in 2009, and dalla Vedova complained in an interview in 2011 (I have provided this quote previously).

 

[otto]

My apologies if you felt uncomfortable with something I wrote; that was not my intention. However, I cannot see how the CSC could throw out Conti and Vecchiotti without exceeding its role (which is to judge points of law but not facts IIUC). The credibility of witnesses should be left to the court that is the trier of facts. More worrying still is the fact that the CSC seems strangely deferential to the prosecution's expert witnesses over independent expert witnesses. I would not want to be a defendant under those circumstances. MOO.

The C&V report was rejected on the basis of law. C&V had been told to test a specific piece of DNA. They concluded that there were no suitable methods for testing it, and so they did not do the work. There were suitable methods for testing the DNA, so they were mistaken. On that basis, whereby they failed to complete the work for which they were tasked, their report was rejected.

Furthermore, their work was illogical. The absence of logic can be recognized without consideration of the facts of the argument. Premises have to be valid and a deductive argument has to be constructed. If that does not occur, the argument is not logical. For example, it is illogical to say that the world will explode tomorrow and then to provide no valid premises or logical constructs to defend that position. Similarly, stating that DNA should be rejected because contamination occurred is illogical without further logical constructs.

 

[aa9511]

Not to mention the phones being turned off that night and Raffaele listening to music at 5:30 am when he was "sleeping". The list could go on and on of the things that are hand waved away in the case.

Oh yes....the phones, I completely forgot about the phones being turned off! LOL! All the discussion about DNA has been going on for so long........

Ok, but question about phones is....if this was not pre-planned, how would they have thought to turn their phones off ahead of time? Doesn't that lend itself to it being planned in some way, at least back to the point of time they turned their phones off?

Also, IIRC, their excuse for that is that they didn't want to be disturbed on their "sex and movie" night. Do we have any data on whether or not Amanda and RS did this before during the week (?) they were together at any point (both turning off cell phones)? What about prior to that....did either RS or Amanda have their cell phones turned off for the night in, say, the last 2 or 3 months before that night?

TIA.

 

[otto]

Oh yes....the phones, I completely forgot about the phones being turned off! LOL! All the discussion about DNA has been going on for so long........

Ok, but question about phones is....if this was not pre-planned, how would they have thought to turn their phones off ahead of time? Doesn't that lend itself to it being planned in some way, at least back to the point of time they turned their phones off?

Also, IIRC, their excuse for that is that they didn't want to be disturbed on their "sex and movie" night. Do we have any data on whether or not Amanda and RS did this before during the week (?) they were together at any point (both turning off cell phones)? What about prior to that....did either RS or Amanda have their cell phones turned off for the night in, say, the last 2 or 3 months before that night?

TIA.

As far as I know, neither of them had ever turned off their phones for the evening and night before.

 

[aa9511]

The C&V report was rejected on the basis of law. C&V had been told to test a specific piece of DNA. They concluded that there were no suitable methods for testing it, and so they did not do the work. There were suitable methods for testing the DNA, so they were mistaken. On that basis, whereby they failed to complete the work for which they were tasked, their report was rejected.

Furthermore, their work was illogical. The absence of logic can be recognized without consideration of the facts of the argument. Premises have to be valid and a deductive argument has to be constructed. If that does not occur, the argument is not logical. For example, it is illogical to say that the world will explode tomorrow and then to provide no valid premises or logical constructs to defend that position. Similarly, stating that DNA should be rejected because contamination occurred is illogical without further logical constructs.

Yes, I agree that the higher court was within bounds to toss out the C&V analysis. Chris_H, I believe you said the credibility should be left to the "jury," but in this case the jury in terms of "not judges" is no longer a factor. Like in cases in the U.S., we just saw in the Kent Heinholt (sp??) case where the defendant was just released based on an appeals court ruling. And the court said that, basically, the lower court judge who had upheld the original conviction, was not being logical and his reasonings were not based in logic. That is what the basic premise was, IIUC. For example, the appeals court said things like, paraphrasing, the State contended that the murder was the result of a robbery, however there was no money taken. Also, State contended that the robbery was for money to keep drinking at the bar they were drinking at, but however no money was taken, and yet the two men still returned to the same bar. The appeals court talked about how the jury didn't have truthful information, as 2 witnesses confesed they were lying. The the Appeals opinon also went into detail of why the original conviction was not based in logic and reason.

 

[dgfred]

Oh yes....the phones, I completely forgot about the phones being turned off! LOL! All the discussion about DNA has been going on for so long........

Ok, but question about phones is....if this was not pre-planned, how would they have thought to turn their phones off ahead of time? Doesn't that lend itself to it being planned in some way, at least back to the point of time they turned their phones off?

Also, IIRC, their excuse for that is that they didn't want to be disturbed on their "sex and movie" night. Do we have any data on whether or not Amanda and RS did this before during the week (?) they were together at any point (both turning off cell phones)? What about prior to that....did either RS or Amanda have their cell phones turned off for the night in, say, the last 2 or 3 months before that night?

TIA.

I think the turning off of phones was around when the plan started in full, but what exactly the plan was I am unsure of. Doesn't really matter IMO if it started as a prank/scare/assault/fight/theft/etc. it ended in murder. I have only seen the phone call number/minutes/time of day for that day and the night before in which they didn't turn them off. I think they didn't want them to ring or vibrate while they were in action... but don't know why they didn't just leave them on and at the apt. If someone calls then and they don't answer... it still pings at the apt (answering service) and they could say they were 'busy'. Most of all it shows me they were not thinking clearly at that moment. Reasons are plentiful IMO.

 

[Amber29]

I am glad you brought that up. It is another thing* that the CSC got wrong. Link here to Kaosium's post at JREFF. His post includes links to Potenza's report, both in the original Italian and also in a (machine?) translation.

There is a bigger issue, however, and it is that observing the tests is of lesser value than having the EDFs. This is a point that Professor Dan Krane made in response to a question of mine: “Having the opportunity to witness the testing of samples is of marginal utility at best. Reviews of the underlying data for DNA tests often reveals alternative interpretations of the evidence samples, especially in circumstances were small amounts of DNA are involved and it is difficult to distinguish between signal, noise, and technical artifacts. Observing testing rarely provides any more insights than what should be possible from a review of contemporaneous notes that should be part of a lab's case file. Witnessing testing is far from a cure-all. Problems such as contamination of samples can easily arise before a sample arrives in a laboratory yet could not be detected by an expert observing the testing process itself.”

EDT
*It is sometimes claimed that the defense did not object to the testing in 2007, which I don't believe is true (as discussed above). Yet I may have misunderstood your comment. Bongiorno complained to the court in 2009, and dalla Vedova complained in an interview in 2011 (I have provided this quote previously).

Yet another thing SCC got wrong?

Who do we think knows this case better the lawyers/judges handling it or posters on forums?

 

[whoanellie]

Yes, true. But what stunned me is that Halkides said there were profiles of "2-4 males" in addition to Sollecito? Sounds like contamination, if true? Just very puzzled at this info......

What do you find puzzling it? .