Meredith Kercher case

[Ally]

I keep seeing little bits and pieces that remind me of the Maddy McCann case in Portugal, and how some of us discussed at length the attitude and behaviour of the parents in front of the world's media, and how they were not helping themselves, despite there being no hard evidence that they were in any way directly involved in their daughter's disappearance. We were pretty much all in agreement that they were wholly responsible for leaving their children vulnerable to harm, but a few more vocal posters thought their actions from start to finish pointed to something more sinister. I don’t remember anyone here getting hot under the collar when it was suggested they were damaging their cause and even inviting suspicion by their own behaviour under the spotlight.

First of all there are a couple of key differences in this. The McCanns were RESPONSIBLE for what happened to their daughter, whether they killed her or not. Their negligence and their neglect of her allowed what happened to occur. My comments on their behavior was STRICTLY limited to them as parents and I did in fact challenge some of the more outlandish accusations of their behavior being proof of anything. I do think they were absolutely rotten, miserable self-absorbed parents but I made a clear distinction between their behavior and their guilt. Also, the McCanns despite behaving in a way that was taken by many to be an indication of their guilt were never arrested and never imprisoned based SOLELY on their behavior. THat is what we are dealing with here. A girl who was imprisoned based solely on the fact that people don't like how she behaved. The ONLY time I can see behavior being used as an attribution of guilt is when the behavior has a direct link to the victim: A man sells his wife's car when she is "missing" for 3 weeks. That might seem...uh...suspicious? If Knox had been found pawning jewelry of Meredith's THAT behavior I would have been willing to discuss as a callousness that indicates guilt, but smiling, laughing, etc. are NOT indications of guilt. My family burst out laughing in the middle of my father's funeral because we remembered all at once something hysterical that he had said ...if someone had been looking at us they would have thought we'd been guilty of murder when there was no such intention, we were remembering good times. You CANNOT look at isolate incidences of behavior and say they mean anything at all.

In the Kercher case we are saying (well, most of us) that it shouldn’t matter what a person says or does in the immediate wake of a terrible crime against someone they know (from the cartwheels and splits in the police station to expressing a desire for wild sex, or from describing the victim's screams to 'imagining' your boss murdering her) because the jury must totally wipe it all from their minds - which is fine in theory but a bit harder in practice, with human nature getting in the way of the legal process if one is not careful.

Isn't that why the legal process should be slightly more strict than what is apparently allowed in the Italian courts? With the prosecutor allowed to call the defendant a whore...which she may well be what does that have to do with murder? I think the problem most people have with this, is that there was no LEGAL standard that one can point to and say: this is indicative of her guilt. She was tried and convicted solely on her behavior.

I’m struggling with your conclusion here. If they had found Sollecito not guilty, or if Kercher had not been a foreigner, you might have begun to sway me. Did the jurors hide their Italian flag pins, or display them openly? And why would that automatically make them blatantly biased against Knox for being American? Are you saying that all the flag-waving Americans go in for on their own soil is not a simple show of national pride, nor even the sign of a widespread identity crisis, but blatant bias against bastard foreigners?

Caz. You aren't as stupid or naive as you are pretending to be in struggling to understand the point. I guarantee in America, despite all the flag waving on our soil, if jurors in charge of trying a foreigner were to come into the court room wearing American flag pins, not only would the judge grant an immediate mistrial but they would be crucified in the press for being bigots.


Anyway I am off for now... but I'll address the rest later when time permits, though I am sure, John will be in to clean up the mess (while conveniently leaving the most visible piece of evidence unlaundered).

[caz]

...Also, the McCanns despite behaving in a way that was taken by many to be an indication of their guilt were never arrested and never imprisoned based SOLELY on their behavior. THat is what we are dealing with here. A girl who was imprisoned based solely on the fact that people don't like how she behaved.

Hi Ally,

You mean the jury, presumably. They were responsible for judging this 'girl's' innocence or guilt and this 'girl' was responsible for behaving in a way the bigoted, anti-American Italian jury didn't like. NOT FAIR. NOT RIGHT. NOT JUSTICE. But shi* happens to people (whether they are immature brats or worldly wise women) when they behave in a foreign country in ways that the people there don't like and can't even begin to understand.

Your fellow student is found with her throat cut while you were lucky enough to be staying somewhere else and didn't return until the unknown nutjob had gone. He broke in, so it could have been you and he's still out there, maybe wanting to do it again. You naturally go to the police station to help as much as you can - which is obviously not a lot if you weren't there and speak the language very badly. And then you - do cartwheels and the splits and sit on your new boyfriend's lap. And then you bleat about the foreigners taking against you?

When in Perugia...?

Now what's to be done about this? How are you going to help turn this sorry situation round in time for the first appeal?

I'm quite surprised by your strong reaction here, Ally. You are well known for your view that people are all too often the authors of their own misfortune. The ripper victims should not have become addicted to alcohol, you usually say - their choice, their downfall. You always add that they didn't deserve to be murdered for it, but your argument is that it was in their hands not to drink themselves stupid and prostitute themselves to pay for it, making themselves doubly vulnerable.

Knox didn't deserve to be sent down for 26 years for behaving in a way that the jury didn't like either. But it was in her hands, as an intelligent and decently brought-up 'girl', to know how to behave in a formal and extremely serious situation and to give them no reasonable excuse to dislike her. It wasn't purely because she was American. Sollecito was Italian and Meredith was British. If she acted like the average American, and all she did was smile at those who smiled at her, then she would hardly have found herself convicted, as you allege, SOLELY on that behaviour. That's just silly.

Love,

Caz
X

PS Have you tried to find out why the Italian jurors were wearing flag pins? Or are you presuming, because you don't like this behaviour, that they must be anti-American and must have only convicted Knox (and her Italian boyfriend) because they didn't like her behaviour? I think that would be called ironic.

[cappuccina]

American jurors and expert witnesses wear american flag lapel pins and ties all the time, and did during some of the 911-related cases for example.

Here's what happened when some idiot made a fuss about that...nothing...

http://www.med.uscourts.gov/opinions/Hornby/2002/DBH_08012002_2-01cv133_FORD_v_NATIONWIDE.pdf

Ally, for some reason, Knox is like your shadow BFF....why? Why deny the obvious things in this case that point to her guilt?

When I was a government employee I testified in court as an expert witness many times....Often, I was wearing a flag lapel pin in the shape of a heart that I wore a lot...I remember other times wearing "Give to United Way" or Red Cross pins I happened to have on at the time...I sometimes happened to be wearing a red white and blue combination, or a suit with a scarf that was red, white and blue...

So what?

[caz]

Just a quickie...

Four of us went by coach to Germany a couple of years ago, and by coincidence we were there on November 11, when we would normally be sporting our Remembrance Day poppies. I had to gently remind the other three, as they bought poppies at the ferry terminal in Dover, that it might just be a tad insensitive to wear them when we got to Germany. It didn't even occur to them, and they had trouble initially seeing my point. But there was no intention on their part to cause offence to anyone, and in truth I doubt any would have been taken.

Love,

Caz
X

[cappuccina]

....exactly....

[Ally]

Hi Ally,
I'm quite surprised by your strong reaction here, Ally. You are well known for your view that people are all too often the authors of their own misfortune. The ripper victims should not have become addicted to alcohol, you usually say - their choice, their downfall. You always add that they didn't deserve to be murdered for it, but your argument is that it was in their hands not to drink themselves stupid and prostitute themselves to pay for it, making themselves doubly vulnerable.

So you believe that turning cartwheels is sufficient for being found guilty of murdeR? Yes, people are often the authors of their own misfortune and as you say just because I have no sympathy for drunk alcoholics who end up on the street is NOT saying they deserve to be murdered, an immature spoiled brat turning cartwheels is NOT saying she deserves to be convicted of murder and imprisoned on such completely shoddy evidence.

Knox didn't deserve to be sent down for 26 years for behaving in a way that the jury didn't like either. But it was in her hands, as an intelligent and decently brought-up 'girl', to know how to behave in a formal and extremely serious situation and to give them no reasonable excuse to dislike her.

You are kidding me right? That Knox should somehow have psychically predicted that the jury and the world would look at this as evidence of guilt? I doubt sincerely she ever for a minute considered she would be a suspect AT ALL. In fact, one could argue that her turning cartwheels could be total evidence of her innocence because wouldn't a guilty person have TRIED to maintain some level of decorum and pose of grief?

It wasn't purely because she was American. Sollecito was Italian and Meredith was British. If she acted like the average American, and all she did was smile at those who smiled at her, then she would hardly have found herself convicted, as you allege, SOLELY on that behaviour. That's just silly.

And if either Sollecito or Kercher had gotten 1/10 of the media exposure that Knox had, or if the prosecution had posed Sollecito as the mastermind and not just her lust filled dupe that argument might have merit. But it is quite clear the Knox was held up as THE person on trial, and unfortunately for Sollecito he was hanged with her rope.

PS Have you tried to find out why the Italian jurors were wearing flag pins? Or are you presuming, because you don't like this behaviour, that they must be anti-American and must have only convicted Knox (and her Italian boyfriend) because they didn't like her behaviour? I think that would be called ironic.

The only reason that is being offered is that supposedly Italian jurors are REQUIRED by law to wear the sashes (not pins). Which of course doesn't explain why all of them weren't wearing it and why they aren't worn in all trials.

[Ally]

Ally, for some reason, Knox is like your shadow BFF....why? Why deny the obvious things in this case that point to her guilt?

Cappucina, grow up. If you are going to argue like a five year old, and exhibit reasoning like that find some other thread to do it on. I started this thread to have a serious discussion and stupidity like you are showing is annoying. Why are you ignoring all the obvious flaws in the evidence? So far there is NOTHING that points to her guilt, except shoddy police work and crappy forensics. And pointing that out is not being her "BFF". I think she's an immature, spoiled and willfully stupid brat. That doesn't mean she's a murderer. And frankly there isn't a drop of evidence so far to prove she is.

[cappuccina]

Ally said: "...The only reason that is being offered is that supposedly Italian jurors are REQUIRED by law to wear the sashes (not pins). Which of course doesn't explain why all of them weren't wearing it and why they aren't worn in all trials..."
__________________


It doesn't matter, any more than it mattered whether or not I or thousands of other people in American courtrooms wear American flag lapel pins or red, white and blue.

Furthermore, if Amanda's cartwheels "don't matter" and are "not a sign of unusual behavior when in a police station for a murder interrogation", then why would a sash or a lapel pin matter? Oh, that's right, if YOU think it's weird or unusual, then it matters, if not, then it doesn't....

[John Hacker]

Heya Caz,

I’m struggling with your conclusion here. If they had found Sollecito not guilty, or if Kercher had not been a foreigner, you might have begun to sway me. Did the jurors hide their Italian flag pins, or display them openly? And why would that automatically make them blatantly biased against Knox for being American? Are you saying that all the flag-waving Americans go in for on their own soil is not a simple show of national pride, nor even the sign of a widespread identity crisis, but blatant bias against bastard foreigners? I’ll grant you, too much of the flag-waving in England these days seems to be down to racists marking their territory like insecure twats. But when juries all over the country wear their remembrance poppies in November, for example, it would be daft to infer blatant bias against any foreign defendant. It’s what we do here. Have you checked whether there may have been a special reason for the flag pins at the time?

Italian news reports at the time remarked that it was unusual. Whatever reason they might have had (pride, patriotism or whatever) for 6 out of the 8 to wear the pins it clearly shows that there was something on their mind other than justice and as you're putting emphasis on appearance it should be obvious how this give the appearance of bias. They knew the degree of media coverage this was recieving in the US and how the Italian system was being portrayed here, so perhaps it was simply a raised middle finger at the press. But it would have looked a lot better for them if they had focused on the task at hand rather then making a statement with their choice of accessories. Before you try and draw a parallel to Knox's and her behavior, I'd like to point out that in my opinion at least, those involved a criminal proceeding have the duty do so with the appearance of neutrality or the entire process is suspect.

As a side not, another consideration regarding bias is not an Italy vs. foriegners one, but one internal to Perugia. There is a great deal of tension between those who live there permanantly vs the students that flock there. This is fairly typical in college towns but it particularly strong in Perugia which is considered the "drug capital of central Italy" due to the market the students create. A college student who has admitted smoking pot isn't going to be a popular one in any case, Italian or American.

Of course, but is it that simple? By itself, the number of wounds (including bruises and so on) is not what’s relevant. It’s how and when they were inflicted in relation to whether Meredith was conscious at the time and able to put up a struggle or completely powerless in her killer’s grip. If it could be shown, for example, that she was physically fit when attacked, and also fully conscious and trying to defend herself, at least up until the fatal wound was inflicted, then any defence wounds or signs of a struggle would presumably be helpful in determining how easy or difficult it was for Guede to overpower her by himself and inflict the various injuries while holding her down. It would be very different, of course, if she was asleep, or quickly rendered unconscious and helpless.

I agree 100% that the number of wounds is not what's relevent, unfortunately that IS what the prosecution, judiciary and witnesses all focused on. I am not sure that her "ability to defend herself" plays in when you have an armed attacker. The guy with the knife is called "Sir", especially after you're cut the first time.

It's possible that there was more detailed evidence presented, but it's not what the press (Italian or international) reported or the judge cited in the famed "Micheli report" supporting the "3 on 1" theory. Given their apparent fascination with the clearly irrelevent I'm not going to hold my breath.

Well, presumably Guede wouldn’t have been part of any staged break in, as I said myself, and for that very reason. But a guilty insider would have had every reason to make it look like an intruder. Without going back to that blatantly biased site to check I recall claims of other indications of a staged scene in Filomena’s room, including the traces of DNA from Meredith and Knox, but apparently nothing from Guede, the one who supposedly broke in that way. And Filomena allegedly (see what I’m doing here, because I now don’t who or what to believe?) claimed that she found her clothes all messed up and in a different place from where she had left them, and with broken glass on top of them, which would make no sense if Guede had first broken the glass to get in and then tossed the clothes around looking for valuables.

Kercher's DNA in Filomena's room is in no way evidence of a "staged break-in", it merely shows that the room was entered after the attack.

The glass on top of the clothes could be an indication of "staging" but that is only valid if we assume that her testimony is accurate AND that the room remained static after the window breakage. If things were being moved around it's easy to see that glass could be picked up off the floor and end up on top of clothes or that glass that ended up on other surfaces could fall onto them if for example someone were searching for valuables or trying to wipe up any fingerprints they might have been left after having committed murder during the burglery. Crime scene pictures would be helpful here, but I haven't seen any of Filomena's room. And once again, the bizarre claim that a 10 pound rock is too hard to throw 13 feet is what keeps being cited by the prosecution and judiciary in this case and if that argument is even necessary then I tend to think that their case that the break is staged is more than a tad desperate.

I watched a British made tv documentary on the case again over the weekend, that I recorded when it went out back in April 2008. They picked up Knox on cctv going to the house, followed by Meredith’s arrival shortly afterwards. But I don’t recall any other sightings so it's hard to attach any significance either way. But I’m not sure about Guede’s window of opportunity - nor indeed if he was aware that the two other female housemates (both Italian) would not be around that night. If so, how and when did he find out?

The CCTV stuff is a load of hooey. There's been a lot of talk about various thing that supposedly turn up on the cameras (Know, Guede with Kercher, etc) but the footage was so grainy that no idetifications were possibile and the tapes were never used as evidence.

As far as Guede's window of opportunity goes, if he broke the window prior to Kercher's return he could simply have knocked at the door. or done so while she was talking to her mom on the phone.

Easy, yes. But then what? They have to be dumped somewhere (as both of Meredith’s phones were, in the garden of the woman who alerted the authorities) or destroyed somehow. And wouldn’t they be missed? Who would have the stronger motive to dispose of the two items: a lone intruder or an insider? Guede clearly didn’t bother.

And how obvious would these bloody footprints have been to anyone in a panic, trying to clean up the worst of the mess? I thought the argument was that Knox would not have seen the one on the bath mat when using that bathroom, and the one on the pillow case was so slight that it may not have been a footprint at all.

If we were to assume for a moment that Knox and Sollecito are guilty, they already cleanly disposed of at least one knife and the clothes they were wearing. How much more work would disposing of a bathmat and pillow case be? The mark on the case is poor enough that I can see that being left, but I find it hard to believe anyone scrubbing tiles clean of bloody foot prints would miss THAT one. It's one thing to walk in to take a shower and not look closely at your surrounding, but when you're scrubbing the floor it would be absurd to believe that it could be missed.


If the police didn't test it or colelct it then it's not evidence. For some reason the police didn't introduce the mop and bucket story at trial and if it would have helped their case they would have done so.

The Croydon Guardian reported on December 9 that Guede had ‘made friends’ with the four male students (who lived below the four females) and he told one of them that he was ‘infatuated with Knox’. But on the night in question he was clearly more intent on getting into Meredith’s knickers. So I wonder how Knox felt about that? Was she indifferent? Repulsed? Insulted? Something else?

Why would she even care? She had a boyfriend that she seemed quite happy with. There's no reason to believe she was even aware of his "infatuation".

So was that really all they found, or was it all they collected? Doesn’t seem to be in many places, if they examined every potentially DNA-rich surface. Did they miss a lot more traces than they collected?

Where does it say they didn’t bother testing any cleaning apparatus, such as mops or buckets? Or were there none to test? Claiming there had been a deliberate clean-up after the murder, the police would have been more than ‘incompetent and idiotic’ not to check any cleaning equipment for recent use and blood traces.

That really cuts to the heart of it doesn't it? We only have the evidence that was put forward and what they was, wasn't strong. (I will get into some detail on WHY in a later post) They could have missed all sorts of. They could have simply not submitted a lot of evidence that didn't bear out their theories. We simply don't know. We just have the facts that are in front of us.

I have to assume that the prosecutors put forward everything that they felt could help their case given their... zeal... And right now that leaves us sans CCTV footage, mop and bucket, rent money issues, etc.

Maybe one day we'll get a complete transcript and things will become clearer.

[John Hacker]

Ally, for some reason, Knox is like your shadow BFF....why? Why deny the obvious things in this case that point to her guilt?

Cappucinnia,

Do you have anything substantial to offer or is snide remarks your limit? I've yet to see you offer anything to support your position.

The court decision you linked to is so far removed from the current situation that I have to wonder if you read it. The issue there was whether or not the jury would infer membership in the Republican part as opposed to Democratatic. It went to the question of whether that perception would influence the jury, NOT whether it called into question if the jury itself was impartial. Had the jury turned up wearing a common accessory or tshirt on deliberation day that would be applicable.

You seem to believe strongly in Knox and Sollecito's guilt, could you perhaps offer a case to support your position? Or is it to be "just is"? Whether you agree with everything that has been said or not, people are offering specific concerns with the evidence and dealing with the actual issues. If you have a rebuttal to make, please do so. I am sure TJ.org has some talking points that you could use as a starting point.

[John Hacker]

Ok, let's talk evidence.

Now behavior aside, this really comes down to 2 broad categories of physical evidence: DNA and footprints.

On the DNA side we have 3 subsets. Knife, clasp and the mixed samples.

Let's go through them one at a time shall we?

Knife: We know that the defense raised issues about the DNA count level. Here's some bits and pieces from an article that went into some detail about an open letter written by 9 US DNA experts that reiterated the same concerns after reviewing evidence presented. Can we take it as gospe? Heck no! But it does give us some specifics about the tests were performed. (The emphasis is mine.)

The lab says that DNA taken from the knife's blade produced a series of peaks that matched Kercher's DNA, while DNA from the handle produced peaks that matched Knox's.

To minimise the risk that some peaks arise from contamination, most US labs only count peaks falling above a height threshold of 150 relative fluorescence units (RFUs) and all dismiss those below 50. The trouble with the DNA found on the knife is that "most of the peaks are below 50", says Greg Hampikian of Boise State University in Idaho, who signed the letter and reviewed the DNA evidence.

When this happens, samples can be rerun, but this doesn't appear to have been done in the Knox and Sollecito case. This means contamination cannot be ruled out, the open letter claims. The same lab may also have been running DNA profiles from other evidence in the case at the same time, it says, and tiny amounts of this could have contaminated the knife samples.

What's more, a sensitive chemical test for blood on the knife was negative, and it is unlikely that all chemically detectable traces of blood could be removed from the knife while retaining sufficient cells to produce a DNA profile. "No credible scientific evidence has been presented to associate this kitchen knife with the murder of Meredith Kercher," the letter concludes.

So clearly by US standards at least, we're looking at an incredibly weak sample. My understanding from earlier reports is that the sample was so small that it was destroyed in the initial tests and that they COULDN'T be rerun. In a US court, that would be a prerequisate for admissibility. LCN (Low Copy Number) tests are incredibly prone to contamination in particular.

I am not feeling too good about the kinfe. Is anyone else?

The Clasp:

Again, from the same article. (I tried to dig up the original document, but have been unable to do so as yet. Efforts continue)

Evidence from the clasp is equally inconclusive, according to the letter. What looks like a mixture of different people's DNA was found on it, and Sollecito could not be excluded. However, because Sollecito had visited the women's home several times before the murder, his DNA could have made its way onto the clasp "through several innocent means", the letter says.

Neither Sollecito's nor Knox's DNA was found on the remainder of the bra, other items of Kercher's clothing, objects collected from Kercher's room, or in samples from her body – although Guede's DNA was found everywhere, the letter points out.

This is important for a couple of reasons. One, I hope we've all seen the collection video and understand what it implies regarding the possibility of contamination.

Two, it reminded me about something that had slipped my mind recently. (I'm old, what do ya want?)

Multiple news reports have stated that the clasp had samples of 5 or more peoples DNA, at least 3 of which are unidentified. I think we can assume one was Kercher, and given what we know about her lifestyle I think it's likely that the DNA of at least 3 of those was due to contamination of one kind of another.

We know that the clasp remained on the floor for 47 days. We know it changed position in that time. And we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the people collecting it had NO clue what they were doing. Given that... Does anyone feel good about the clasp?

Anyone?

(And if so, WHY?)

The Mixed Samples:

This really shouldn't need explaining, but let's complete the list... shall we?

Blood does not equal DNA. DNA can be deposited in many ways. Skin cells, hair follicles, saliva, mucus, etc. Knox LIVED there. Her DNA was likely to be found in any area she frequented. Given the number of blood traces is it suprising that some would contain Knox's DNA? Heck no. It would be interesting to see how many of them contained Filomena's or Laura's. But as those tests were undoubtedly not run I guess we'll have to wonder there. Nor does it appear that tests of random areas to see if they contained Knox's DNA were performed. (But that would be scientific!) Again, we'll probably never know, but it would be interesting to see what the results would have been.

Here's a link to the article I was citing. By all means don't take it at face value (I wouldn't) and do your own research and if you come up with something to rebut it, please bring it to the table.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18215-knox-murder-trial-evidence-flawed-say-dna-experts.html

For the scientifically minded, here are some more in depth examinations of the evidence in regards to LCN DNA testing performed on the knife. The guy is definately opinionated on the state of the evidence, but he does give a strong background in what the DNA tests in this case mean specifically and gives more detail than we've had previously. It's not light reading, but it does try to give context.

http://freeaman.001webs.com/pdfs/LCN_DNA_I.pdf

http://freeaman.001webs.com/pdfs/LCN_DNA_II.pdf

Ok, on the other hand we have footprints.

A few things need to be noted...

1) Luminal is a presumtive test for blood. It will flouresce when it contacts blood, but that is not the only substance it will react with. Fruit juice, certain bleaches, iron containing compouds, etc will react with luminol and flouresce.

2) No tests on the luminol based foot prints actually detected the presence of blood.

3) Luminol tests cannot date when the substance that caused the reaction was laid down.

4) Like footprints in the sand, they can be distorted by being stepped on, wiping, etc.

5) All of the alleged footprints attributed to the various defendents had a remarkably similar prolfile in terms of how the flourescing agent covered the foot. Pictures of the luminol "footprints" can be found on TJ.org and it's an interested exercise to look at them. (And a highly amusing one if you read their speculations. It's like something from Wallace's "JtR: Lighthearted Friend")


I think at the end of the day, that this is a case where you find what you're looking for. You can look at the CCTV footage and see whoever you want. I'm fairly sure you could find the FM on the wall if you look hard enough. You can look at Knox cuddling with Sollecito in the police station and think "What a brazen hussy!" where another person would describe it as "two people drawing comfort from each other in a time of need".

There are a lot of ways to look at what's out there. (Heck, the prosecution changed it's theory every other day.) But in my book, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution. I believe in that principle. The Italian system is inquisitorial rather than adversarial which some feel brings you closer to the truth, but in my experience people find the answers that they're looking for.

Personally, if someone can make a solid case for Knox and Sollecito's guilt, I am more than willing to buy in. But right now the burden of proof (as far as I concerned) is on the prosecution and they're failed to meet that requirement.

To those who disagree... I'd love to hear why.

Until next time, smoke 'em if ya got 'em.

Peace.

[scarletpimpernel]

Hello John:

It is important to look at the Micheli report translations about DNA.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C343/

[John Hacker]

Hello John:

It is important to look at the Micheli report translations about DNA.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C343/

Ok, first off, that's not a translation. It's a summary done by someone who came in with an agenda and they're picking the bits they want to go into detail on.

But that having been said...

From the summantion:

Dr Stefanoni reported that the locus ascribable to Meredith and identified on the knife blade shows readings of 41 and 28 RFU. Conventionally, RFU values lower than 50 can be defined as low. But she maintained that the profile matched Meredith’s by explaining that there is no immediate correlation between the height of the peaks obtained by electropherogram and expressed in RFU, and the reliability of the biological investigation.

Well, yeah. There is. That's why the lower values are not used. There is always background noise in the electrophoresis process. It's especially significant when you're dealing with incredibly poor samples like this. LCN DNA testing is a new technique that the controls that are associated with it are much more stringent than with normal DNA testing and none of that occurred in this case.

But I think this bit (in the above links) give a pretty good idea of how stringent Stefanoni's work was. This was from someone who observed the hearing.

But the substance was minimal and if she took it to test the blood than nothing would remain to test the DNA. So she said O la va o la spacca, make it or break it, and took a 20% of it to test it for blood: negative.

The test failed but Dr Patrizia wasn't discouraged and she took what remained, about 20 microliters, she dried it to 10 and tested it for DNA. It didn't sort anything but Mrs Stefanoni didn't give up and started to amplify and amplify until the first peaks appeared. The machine was not allowed to go beyond, but something there was and had to be taken out. The goodwill scientist broke the seals and kept amplifying and amplifying and amplifying until, in a forest of background noise peaks, some alleles emerged. She decided which were the stutters, the false ones, and which the real alleles, et voila! The genetic profile of Meredith Kercher was served to Renato Biondo who could deliver it on a silver plate to the one who hired him, the prosecutor.

What he's saying, is that the machine automatically discards and won't display the low peaks because they're not considered reliable anywhere. She recalibrated the machine to show the unreliable peaks and then picked the ones she wanted and didn't want.

That's not science.

I strongly urge anyone who is interested in the case to read the above links because they're not only directly relevent here, they've got some good background on DNA testing in general and the ways that testing can go right or (as in this case apparently) wrong.

As for the clasp, all they had to offer was this bit. (Opinion, not translation)

As for Sollecito’s DNA found on the bra clasp, the match is unquestionable, according to the lab reports. Samples from crime scenes very often contain genetic material from more than one person (e.g. Rudy Guede’s DNA has been identified in a mixture with the victim’s DNA in a few places), and well-known recommendations and protocols exist in order to de-convolute mixed samples into single genetic profiles.

So if the lab reports indicate that unquestionable biological evidence of Sollecito’s DNA was found on the bra clasp, at the present time we have no reason to believe that these recommendations weren’t followed and that therefore the reports are not to be trusted.

Seperating the samples was never the primary issue raised by the defense and this is simply avoiding the issue. We know that the clasp ended up with several genetic profiles on it and from what is known of Kercher, it's pretty difficult to assume anything but that at least 3 of them got there in some way other direct contact. It's impossible to rule out contamination at the scene (as it sat there for 47 days, moving around the scene) and it's clear from observing the collection of the clasp that the people doing so had NO clue what they were doing.

Micheli can be as comfortable with it as he wants to be, but that is not how evidence is handled by professionals.

[scarletpimpernel]

Hello John

The thing is... that the three suspects fingered each other and only goes to show that the three suspects were involved. Amanda Knox apologised for her lies about implicating an innocent man so why should we believe the rest of her lies ? Also look at this:

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C297/

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tmk/C356/

[Ally]

Sigh. Anyone else notice how Scarlet has once again completely ignored all the evidence, provided absolutely no rebuttal to the points John raised that CLEARLY show the DNA tests were BS and just gone back to repeating the same old tired lies and already refuted propaganda as before?

It's like attempting to have a conversation with a goldfish.