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

[dgfred]

The work of Hampikian for Knox is an Idahoan Trade Secret, so I am not sure if we are allowed to discuss it
http://blogs.orrick.com/trade-secre...nsic-evidence-in-the-amanda-knox-murder-case/
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...two_positions_of_trust_in_serially_misrepres/

Thanks!

No wonder that got such a rude reception.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Well (admitting I missed a lot of the finer details in this case) were there any independent Italian DNA experts who confirmed Hampikian's findings?

Yes, Conti and Vecchiotti. But good science does not change when one crosses the border between one nation an the next.

 

[dgfred]

Maybe the question should have been- were there any independent Italian dna experts who confirmed H's findings that were not picked by Hellmann

 

[SMK]

Yes, Conti and Vecchiotti. But good science does not change when one crosses the border between one nation an the next.

No, nor should it . But how then was C & V dismissed by the other side? What was the argument against it?

 

[otto]

Yes, Conti and Vecchiotti. But good science does not change when one crosses the border between one nation an the next.

The court found the Conti and Vecchiotti report illogical and incomplete.

 

[otto]

No, nor should it . But how then was C & V dismissed by the other side? What was the argument against it?

There really isn't any "side" regarding the court's findings. C & V used Hampikian's logic (or lack thereof) and concluded that because contamination is hypothetically possible, the DNA analysis should be excluded. The court requested specific details about how contamination could have occurred. The expert testimony from C & V was that they were unable to provide any details about how contamination could have occurred. They essentially agreed that there was no evidence of contamination.

It's similar to saying that, hypthetically, the world could explode tomorrow, but without any logical reason to believe that it will indeed explode tomorrow, the claim can pretty much be ignored.

I can only assume that, according to Hamkipian logic, DNA evidence should never be accepted in court proceedings because, hypothetically, the evidence could be a result of contamination. QED

 

[SMK]

The court found the Conti and Vecchiotti report illogical and incomplete.

Thanks. So I presume Hellmann accepted their conclusions, and this current Nencini court overturned and rejected them. Thanks once more.

 

[SMK]

There really isn't any "side" regarding the court's findings. C & V used Hampikian's logic (or lack thereof) and concluded that because contamination is hypothetically possible, the DNA analysis should be excluded. The court requested specific details about how contamination could have occurred. The expert testimony from C & V was that they were unable to provide any details about how contamination could have occurred. They essentially agreed that there was no evidence of contamination.

It's similar to saying that, hypthetically, the world could explode tomorrow, but without any logical reason to believe that it will indeed explode tomorrow, the claim can pretty much be ignored.

I can only assume that, according to Hamkipian logic, DNA evidence should never be accepted in court proceedings because, hypothetically, the evidence could be a result of contamination. QED

Yes, I understand. Although wasn't there a dispute about the collection methods, the tardiness thereof, the lack of changing gloves, etc, as well as the number of people having been at the crime scene? (ie, contamination could be inferred with some logic?) ETA: I sometimes think in this case the circumstantial evidence is more compelling than the direct and forensic evidence.

 

[SMK]

Addendum:

I am right now reading part of the Wiki which disputes that the forensic evidence was faulty or contaminated. Here is the section about the bra clasp:

Turning to the bra clasp, the reviewers affirmed Sollecito's profile (17 alleles) on the hooks in a Sollecito/Kercher mix, but suggested that its collection during the second pass meant contamination could not be ruled out as an explanation. (During this second pass two items with Guede profiles, the purse and the sweatshirt, were also collected.) They did not explain how the passage of time in a sealed crime scene would cause the clasp to become contaminated in this way, nor did they identify a source of so much Sollecito DNA, his only other genetic trace in the house being on a cigarette butt in the kitchen, mixed with Knox's (this was removed on November 3). By way of explanation reviewer Conti only said "anything is possible." In other words, the Hellmann court held contamination to be a probable explanation for the trace on the clasp without identifying a likely route or even source. The Supreme Court, in overturning Hellmann's ruling, was especially harsh regarding the lack of logic on this point, calling it completely unmoored from scientific reasoning.

themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Myths_debunked

 

[otto]

Addendum:

I am right now reading part of the Wiki which disputes that the forensic evidence was faulty or contaminated. Here is the section about the bra clasp:

themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Myths_debunked

Hampikain, Conti and Vecchiotti all alleged that contamination occurred, but when asked for specific information about how that could have happened, they threw up their hands and said "don't know". Regarding the clasp, Sollecito's DNA is on the clasp. If it is a result of contamination, it logically had to come from somewhere. Sollecito had been at the cottage once or twice, but never in Meredith's bedroom. He had no reason to handle Meredith's underwear. His DNA was found on a cigarette in the kitchen. I don't know whether it was found anywhere else, but for Sollecito's DNA to be to transferred to the clasp, it had to originate somewhere, and that is where the question remains unanswered.

DNA has been collected and identified years after a crime occurred and it is valid.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The court found the Conti and Vecchiotti report illogical and incomplete.

Do you mean the CSC? They are projecting. The CSC knows far less about DNA forensics than it should. Their discussion of the genetics of this case failed on factual, logical, and scientific grounds.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

There really isn't any "side" regarding the court's findings. C & V used Hampikian's logic (or lack thereof) and concluded that because contamination is hypothetically possible, the DNA analysis should be excluded. The court requested specific details about how contamination could have occurred. The expert testimony from C & V was that they were unable to provide any details about how contamination could have occurred. They essentially agreed that there was no evidence of contamination.

It's similar to saying that, hypthetically, the world could explode tomorrow, but without any logical reason to believe that it will indeed explode tomorrow, the claim can pretty much be ignored.

I can only assume that, according to Hamkipian logic, DNA evidence should never be accepted in court proceedings because, hypothetically, the evidence could be a result of contamination. QED

I have been studying cases of DNA contamination for almost four years, and almost none would meet the criteria set up by the CSC. No one knows the mechanism of contamination in the Lukis Anderson, Farah Jama, or Jaidyn Leskie cases, but it happened. In addition, the defense never received the electronic data files. To ask the defense or anyone else to prove contamination and then not ensure that the information that might help one demonstrate gross (as opposed to sporadic) contamination is in their hands is to pile an absurdity on top of an absurdity.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Regarding the clasp, Sollecito's DNA is on the clasp. If it is a result of contamination, it logically had to come from somewhere. Sollecito had been at the cottage once or twice, but never in Meredith's bedroom. He had no reason to handle Meredith's underwear.

Sollecito's DNA may have gotten onto the clasp the same way the DNA from 2-4 other males got there. We know that three other men did not participate in the crime; therefore, the clasp is contaminated by the Van Oorshot definition. There is no reason to ask how when we already know that it is.

 

[miley]

snipped for space

Yes, as a result of the CLEANING OF THE KNIFE WITH BLEACH. That would be the whole purpose of cleaning the knife, I presume.

On the other hand, it would make sense that Amanda and RS would bring the knife back and clean it all off with bleach. Put it back in the drawer like nothing ever happened. They had to put it back in the drawer....where else would they put it? Remember they know this is the murder weapon. Yes, he had other knives in other places, but would they really take a chance of putting the murder weapon in a conspicuous place? No, the best place to keep it was in an ordinary place where it would not look out-of-place and would not raise any red flags.

Also, they couldn't throw away the clean knife either, what if someone (investigators) found it? A cleaned-off knife in the trash would look very strange after what they did. I'm coming at this from the viewpoint of, they committed it and they know they're guilty. When you look at it from that view, the things they do make a lot of sense in terms of they never wanted to get caught.

(except the knife found at Raff's - there was no bleach) how I basically understand it is, in the first trial, the prosecution said the knife found at Raffs was scrubbed cleaned with bleach. They also claimed to have found meredith's dna on the tip and amanda's on the handle.

The defense objected to meredith's dna due to improper procedure.(low template) They didn't object to Amanda's dna, but said in theory, it was impossible to find any dna if it had been scrubbed clean with bleach.

So, in the second trial, the defense was given the opportunity to prove their theory by having the knife retested. It was agreed to test the crevices connecting the handle to the blade since this is where blood would seep in.

Instead of finding blood, they found a starchy substance relating to bread which would have been destroyed had the knife been cleaned with bleach.

this supports the defense.. And since the knife wasn't cleaned with bleach, and if it was the murder weapon, then they most likely would have found meredith's blood seeped into the crevices.

so, how did this low template dna of meredith's get there? either contamination or it's not hers at all. Steph. refuses to show her work.

Like I said, this is just how I basically understand it.

 

[otto]

Do you mean the CSC? They are projecting. The CSC knows far less about DNA forensics than it should. Their discussion of the genetics of this case failed on factual, logical, and scientific grounds.

What is CSC?

 

[aa9511]

Yes, Conti and Vecchiotti. But good science does not change when one crosses the border between one nation an the next.

Yes, it does. There's a big difference b/w someone being given all the data and samples in a case, and even testing it themselves, and someone else given their opinion second-hand. Big difference!!

 

[SMK]

Hampikain, Conti and Vecchiotti all alleged that contamination occurred, but when asked for specific information about how that could have happened, they threw up their hands and said "don't know". Regarding the clasp, Sollecito's DNA is on the clasp. If it is a result of contamination, it logically had to come from somewhere. Sollecito had been at the cottage once or twice, but never in Meredith's bedroom. He had no reason to handle Meredith's underwear. His DNA was found on a cigarette in the kitchen. I don't know whether it was found anywhere else, but for Sollecito's DNA to be to transferred to the clasp, it had to originate somewhere, and that is where the question remains unanswered.

DNA has been collected and identified years after a crime occurred and it is valid.

Yes, I see. It is baffling to me why they didn't simply suggest some reasonable avenue of transfer to make their case plausible.
ETA: Have found a pro-defense explanation here:
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheBraClasp.html

 

[aa9511]

Yes, I understand. Although wasn't there a dispute about the collection methods, the tardiness thereof, the lack of changing gloves, etc, as well as the number of people having been at the crime scene? (ie, contamination could be inferred with some logic?) ETA: I sometimes think in this case the circumstantial evidence is more compelling than the direct and forensic evidence.

All of that didn't give incorrect results for Rudy G's DNA. It was collected and sampled same way everything else was.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Addendum:

I am right now reading part of the Wiki which disputes that the forensic evidence was faulty or contaminated. Here is the section about the bra clasp:


themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Myths_debunked

This is the same Wiki that made an incorrect assertion about Sollecito's knives, citing an anonymous blogger as its reference. Consider the source.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

What is CSC?

The Italian high court.