Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Any bets on how much longer they will be in the slammer? For some reason I can see this dragging out, or even having to be appealed again. It's the cynic in me.

There's no "having to be appealed again". This is the appeal trial which automatically follows the first trial.

It's not like the anglo-saxon situation, where people are convicted, then they can apply to appeal, but only if new facts or evidence come to light. If the appeal gets granted they get an appeal hearing - in which they have to actively prove to the appeal judges that the conviction is unsafe with evidence (whether it's new evidence or a refutation of existing evidence). If their appeal fails, they go back to prison, and can only then re-apply for an appeal if further new facts or evidence come to light.

Basically, if Knox and Sollecito are found guilty in this appeal trial (and if the verdicts are confirmed by the Supreme Court), they will find it very difficult indeed to appeal again. They will then be in the same situation as convicted criminals in the anglo-saxon model: in other words, they will need to prove that there is significant new evidence (or a refutation of existing evidence) that was not available to the original trial courts, and they will need to meet the burden of proof in this regard.

But I think all this is moot anyway. I think that Knox and Sollecito will very probably be acquitted in this appeal trial. I have argued this for a very long time, based on what I believe to be a rational and reasonable analysis of all the evidence in this case. I (and many others here) have long argued that much of the so-called "key" evidence in the first trial was deeply flawed - and we've articulated the reasons why we think this. I think we are right. The independent DNA report and the unravelling of Curatolo are the first two vindications of our position. I think that various other elements (Quintavalle and Capezzali, computer/phone records, ToD*, bathmat print, blood in bathroom, prints on hallway floor) will also play out largely as we have predicted. We'll have to wait and see, of course, but my money is on Knox and Sollecito being acquitted by November.

* And, contrary to what you might read elsewhere from people who are either uninformed or aiming to mislead, ToD will most definitely be addressed in the appeal trial. Whether Hellmann decides to allow addition expert testimony about ToD is still uncertain; but regardless of whether he does or not, ToD will absolutely certainly be argued in the appeal trial. And there's in fact already ample testimony on the record to destroy the ToD accepted by the court in the first trial, and to place it before 10pm - in which case, it's very hard to argue that Knox and Sollecito were involved (and it destroys the testimony of Capezzali in and of itself).

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

This is a wonderful post. Too often in the heat of the discussion and the cauldron of debate, it's forgotten that it's also real people's lives. I hate to think what Meredith would have thought of the actions of the Perugia Police and the way they and the courts have treated people who were her friends. I also would hate to know what she would have thought of Maresca and his actions on her behalf.

If the trial continues the way it has been going, and the ToD and Computer logs play out as suspected, then hopefully AK, RS and the Kercher family can finally put this ugly and sorry incident behind them, grieve for Meredith, and be able to move on with their lives knowing that the real killer is in jail. It's just a shame he won't be there for the lifetime he deserves.

So true. Even though I don't have any connection to any of the players in this sad drama, I still find it obscene that certain factions not only use "justice for Meredith Kercher" as a shield for their actions and words, but (even worse) insinuate that those arguing for Knox's/Sollecito's acquittal somehow don't care about the victim or her family/friends.

I'm detecting a subtle but significant shift in the thinking amongst some pro-guilt commentators. It would appear that the full impact of the DNA report might now be just beginning to sink in. And the emphasis is consequently shifting from "mountains of evidence" and "they will rot in jail" to one of "well, they might get acquitted on a technicality, but everyone will always know that they are nasty little sex killers nonetheless". In other words, there appears to be a certain amount of pre-emptive rationalisation taking place in preparation for the prospect of acquittals.

Most irrationally (and nastily) of all, some are even suggesting that the independent DNA report (which was commissioned, monitored and received by Judge Hellmann) was somehow the product of bribery by Knox's family (with the help of the dastardly evil PR geniuses Gogerty Marriott, of course!). The idiocy continues....

[Fine]

Originally Posted by LEDrexel

My whole personal belief is that Knox did kill her daughter. From what I've seen on the news, she has no emotion, I know that if I were going on trial for killing a child I would be in scared out of my mind. You don't even see fear in her eyes, her face, in her anything. I hope they find her guilty and give the death penalty. If you kill a child, you know exactly what you are doing. That's one of the most hanous crimes anyone could do. If you kill someone else's child you deserve to die. If you kill your own child...... No words can express the discust I have. There's a very special place in hell for people like her.

____________________

LEDrexel,

I'm surprised the MODERATORS on this thread even let your opinion slip in..........usually what happened to Amanda's baby is regarded as a taboo topic. If I recall correctly, on the rare occasions this topic is discussed here, our resident innocentisti insist that it was never proved that Amanda had a baby, or ---if she did---some animal-or other stole the baby. Even a kangaroo has been mentioned. Though there are no wild kangaroos, worth mentioning, in Italy!

Expect my comment now to go POOOF!

///

[Katody Matrass]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

I have the full expert report on my docstoc page (Italian).

http://www.docstoc.com/profile/rosemontague

Huge thanks! Where did you get it from ?

I'm trying to decipher portions with google translate help. It's interesting that experts paid very close attention to the video of investigative methods at the crime scene. They are very critical

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

So true. Even though I don't have any connection to any of the players in this sad drama, I still find it obscene that certain factions not only use "justice for Meredith Kercher" as a shield for their actions and words, but (even worse) insinuate that those arguing for Knox's/Sollecito's acquittal somehow don't care about the victim or her family/friends.

What is most...curious...is the absolute insistence in certain quarters that justice for Meredith Kercher must be tied to the guilt of Amanda Knox. That's irrational of course, and in fact if Amanda is innocent those advocating wholesale for her guilt will of course have committed an absolute obscenity in the name of the person they seek justice for. If the evidence suggests Amanda is innocent, then justice for Meredith Kercher is intrinsically tied to seeking to punish those who attempted to prosecute her unjustly.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

I'm detecting a subtle but significant shift in the thinking amongst some pro-guilt commentators. It would appear that the full impact of the DNA report might now be just beginning to sink in. And the emphasis is consequently shifting from "mountains of evidence" and "they will rot in jail" to one of "well, they might get acquitted on a technicality, but everyone will always know that they are nasty little sex killers nonetheless". In other words, there appears to be a certain amount of pre-emptive rationalisation taking place in preparation for the prospect of acquittals.

It's too bad there's no one posting here to accuse you of 'mind-reading!'

I've not seen posts of that nature, but I only made a cursory survey, those that stuck out to me were the ones who were somehow trying to pretend the DNA expert's report was less damning than it was, and even if it was then it was just a minor part of the case.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Most irrationally (and nastily) of all, some are even suggesting that the independent DNA report (which was commissioned, monitored and received by Judge Hellmann) was somehow the product of bribery by Knox's family (with the help of the dastardly evil PR geniuses Gogerty Marriott, of course!). The idiocy continues....

That might be because the report Hellmann commissioned was so very similar to the letter Dan Krane, Elizabeth Johnson et al wrote and signed some three and a half years ago. The most interesting thing about the whole 'PR campaign' meme is it seems to have never occurred to any of them they even if there was a million dollar PR campaign with tentacles everywhere that they could still be right! The best 'spin' is the truth told prettily...

[Katody Matrass]

The report is referencing Toothman 2008 study about DNA in household dust, pointng out that no samples of ambient dust were tested for comparison to prove that the contamination didn't come from it. I got a feeling I've seen it mentioned before. Was is on this forum ?

The artifact was recovered 46 days after the crime, in an environment highly suggestive of contamination . The risk of incorrectly interpreting environmental contaminants such dust could be minimized only by having the foresight to establish very strict control procedures, including analysis of extracts from sterile cotton swabs soaked in sterile buffer passed to pick up on environmental surfaces dust samples, a procedure that has not been implemented; (google)

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by Katody Matrass

Huge thanks! Where did you get it from ?

I'm trying to decipher portions with google translate help. It's interesting that experts paid very close attention to the video of investigative methods at the crime scene. They are very critical

Yep. I wanted to do a full document translation through the toolkit but it has so many image files, charts, and tables that it will not work. It may be possible to translate the text only and add those things back in but I doubt I will have time to do this in the next few days.

Hopefully some of our Italian readers will give us some insight.

[Katody Matrass]

About the knife the experts are simply asking WTF?? time after time :

Despite the negativity of the test for the diagnosis of blood and omitted surveys for research of cells (hence the lack of identification of the material removed from the exhibit 36) CT suggested the presence of "alleged cells exfoliation" on the handle of the material taken knife (tracks ADF) and "alleged biological material" other (likely given the blood-specific investigations in search of blood peroxidase) on material taken from the blade (tracks BC - EG).

The assumptions made by CT. about the nature of the material analyzed, are completely arbitrary as not supported by any scientifically objective feedback.


it is not understandable what criterion has been adopted in the evaluation of the quantification of the positive trace B and trace C of negativity since for both tracks got the same result was "too low". ie a value that must be considered not only below the threshold of sensitivity of the fluorimeter indicated in the manual (DNA concentrations of 0.2 ng / PJ), but below the value of 0.08 ng / tl. fluorimeter has detected that the value for track A.

And now they notice Patrizia simply lied on the stand:

Nor is understandable, given the negative results on Track B, as reported by Dr. Stefanoni during interrogation GUP (p. 178) when it states that the DNA in Track B, quantified by Real Time PCR (please note that the quantification as well as confirmed at the hearing has never been enforced, least. there has been no documentation to support this assertion). was "in the order of a few hundred picograms," value, this, that does not emerge from any of the acts give yourselves (SAL, reports of the fluorometer, the Real Time reports, RTIGF).

(google translate all the way)

[Katody Matrass]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

Yep. I wanted to do a full document translation through the toolkit but it has so many image files, charts, and tables that it will not work. It may be possible to translate the text only and add those things back in but I doubt I will have time to do this in the next few days.

Hopefully some of our Italian readers will give us some insight.

I hope so

The PDF I downloaded from your docstoc is OCR'd quite tolerably, it requires minor corrections and removing of "newlines" to get through google translate.

[Diocletus]

Some posters at PMF were making a big stink about the report making reference to "international standards," the implication being how dare they defer to these international standards when Italy is an advanced nation with its own justice system, etc., etc. This got me thinking.

First, I think it's clear from the conclusions that the indepenent experts looked at the overall picture, and were absolutely horrified at what happened, from evidence collection all the way through to testing. I think they thought to themselves that "people cannot be sent to jail in Italy based on work like this." And then they must have thought "Patrizia Stefanoni is one of our best scientists in this field--how can this have happened? . . ."

And they looked around, and they found that in reality, Italy doesn't have clear standards governing much of what was done in this case. And they asked "if this is happening here, in this high-profile case with a good scientist, what is going on in other cases? Are we routinely locking away people based on work like this? Momma mia."

But then they thought: "we are Italy's leading scientists in this field. We are La Sapienza. We are internationally known and respected. People will listen to us, and this case is a big stage. Let's do something about this."

So what we ended up with is a report that is half about this case, and half statement to the justice system. The part that is statement to the justice system cites extensively to international standards and says that they must be followed. The experts know that this report will be widely publicized and discussed in the forensics community in Italy, and they know that if the report is accepted by the court, then the standards and practices advocated by the report will become de facto standards in Italy.

These experts together have said to the Italian justice system "this new science is a valuable tool, but you must use it properly or you will destroy lives. Here is how we will use it."

So in my view, this report may very well have a very powerful and important message that reaches well beyond the narrow boundaries of this case. And, taking a broader view, this is a very good thing for Italy.

[Rhea]

Originally Posted by Fine

____________________

LEDrexel,

I'm surprised the MODERATORS on this thread even let your opinion slip in..........usually what happened to Amanda's baby is regarded as a taboo topic. If I recall correctly, on the rare occasions this topic is discussed here, our resident innocentisti insist that it was never proved that Amanda had a baby, or ---if she did---some animal-or other stole the baby. Even a kangaroo has been mentioned. Though there are no wild kangaroos, worth mentioning, in Italy!

Expect my comment now to go POOOF!

///

Hihi, that is funny …

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by LEDrexel

My whole personal belief is that Knox did kill her daughter. From what I've seen on the news, she has no emotion, I know that if I were going on trial for killing a child I would be in scared out of my mind. You don't even see fear in her eyes, her face, in her anything. I hope they find her guilty and give the death penalty. If you kill a child, you know exactly what you are doing. That's one of the most hanous crimes anyone could do. If you kill someone else's child you deserve to die. If you kill your own child...... No words can express the discust I have. There's a very special place in hell for people like her.

If this is a meta-comment on how criminal litigation has seeped into the popular culture as entertainment, then it's brilliant. However, seeing the thread about education that the poster started, I fear this may not be satire at all.

In any case, if Knox did kill her daughter, I'm sure the Italian courts would find her guilty ... whether there was evidence of it or not.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Diocletus

Some posters at PMF were making a big stink about the report making reference to "international standards," the implication being how dare they defer to these international standards when Italy is an advanced nation with its own justice system, etc., etc. This got me thinking.

First, I think it's clear from the conclusions that the indepenent experts looked at the overall picture, and were absolutely horrified at what happened, from evidence collection all the way through to testing. I think they thought to themselves that "people cannot be sent to jail in Italy based on work like this." And then they must have thought "Patrizia Stefanoni is one of our best scientists in this field--how can this have happened? . . ."

And they looked around, and they found that in reality, Italy doesn't have clear standards governing much of what was done in this case. And they asked "if this is happening here, in this high-profile case with a good scientist, what is going on in other cases? Are we routinely locking away people based on work like this? Momma mia."

But then they thought: "we are Italy's leading scientists in this field. We are La Sapienza. We are internationally known and respected. People will listen to us, and this case is a big stage. Let's do something about this."

So what we ended up with is a report that is half about this case, and half statement to the justice system. The part that is statement to the justice system cites extensively to international standards and says that they must be followed. The experts know that this report will be widely publicized and discussed in the forensics community in Italy, and they know that if the report is accepted by the court, then the standards and practices advocated by the report will become de facto standards in Italy.

These experts together have said to the Italian justice system "this new science is a valuable tool, but you must use it properly or you will destroy lives. Here is how we will use it."

So in my view, this report may very well have a very powerful and important message that reaches well beyond the narrow boundaries of this case. And, taking a broader view, this is a very good thing for Italy.

Having read more of the report now myself, I completely agree with your assessment here. I think the authors want to send a blanket message, in addition to destroying the specific personalities and procedures involved in this case.

The more I read, the more it's clear that Conti and Vecchiotti are astonished that this stuff ever made it into a courtroom in the first place, and - if anything - are even more astonished that Massei not only let all this stand, but used it as a key basis for his verdict. There are so many extreme mess-ups across so many areas concerning this DNA evidence that it would be comical if it wasn't so deadly serious.

I can only start to think of what the consequences of all this will be - not only for Stefanoni (and everyone involved in the collection and storage of the evidence), but also for those who unequivocally endorsed the work being carried out. If anything, the latter group of people are even more culpable: it's perhaps marginally understandable for a person to defend his/her own work, even against perceived failings, but it's unforgivable for others - of even higher seniority - to sign off the shockingly bad work. And to sign it off not just as acceptable, but as "world class"!!

[Slayhamlet]

Originally Posted by Fine

____________________

LEDrexel,

I'm surprised the MODERATORS on this thread even let your opinion slip in..........usually what happened to Amanda's baby is regarded as a taboo topic. If I recall correctly, on the rare occasions this topic is discussed here, our resident innocentisti insist that it was never proved that Amanda had a baby, or ---if she did---some animal-or other stole the baby. Even a kangaroo has been mentioned. Though there are no wild kangaroos, worth mentioning, in Italy!

Expect my comment now to go POOOF!

///

Maybe a dingo ate her baby?

[LondonJohn]

One of the bigger idiots is still trying to assert that if it's Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp, then he's "toast". This is of course arrant nonsense. Even if it were shown to be Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp (and the report suggest that the electropherograms have been misinterpreted and it therefore may well not be his in any case), the report concluded that there is so much potential for contamination at so many levels (both within the cottage and at the lab), that anything found on the bra clasp is of no evidential value anyhow.

It's actually quite sad observing some of these people rage against the dying of the light. I think it's time for them to take some time out, and consider why they feel it so necessary to argue further and further away from logic and reason, simply in order to attempt to defend an increasingly indefensible position.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Slayhamlet

Maybe a dingo ate her baby?

That was my thought! And then I got a mental image of Elaine in Seinfeld:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghCTZF61ey0

[Katody Matrass]

Originally Posted by Slayhamlet

Maybe a dingo ate her baby?

The dingo is innocent!

[Katody Matrass]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

One of the bigger idiots is still trying to assert that if it's Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp, then he's "toast". This is of course arrant nonsense. Even if it were shown to be Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp (and the report suggest that the electropherograms have been misinterpreted and it therefore may well not be his in any case), the report concluded that there is so much potential for contamination at so many levels (both within the cottage and at the lab), that anything found on the bra clasp is of no evidential value anyhow.

I predict a huge come back of one of the more idiotic arguments, i.e. "where is the proof of contamination?"

[Dan O.]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

Yep. I wanted to do a full document translation through the toolkit but it has so many image files, charts, and tables that it will not work. It may be possible to translate the text only and add those things back in but I doubt I will have time to do this in the next few days.

Hopefully some of our Italian readers will give us some insight.

The toolkit doesn't know how to handle tags within text so these have to be moved to between sentences. Keeping the original page numbers (ie: [403]) and attempting to preserve the look with hard newlines helps tremendously when comparing the converted text to the original. The toolkit could be a lot better if it did some of this mechanical stuff automatically. Somebody should write Google and tell them

It is also helpful to have a glossary of names that shouldn't be translated and technical terms that should have a specific translation. I can convert the Kercher Case People list from the wiki into the format needed for the glossary. Anybody else that wants to submit a list of terms used in these documents and their translation, I'll create a page to keep the master list.

[Chris_Halkides]

Originally Posted by Diocletus

So in my view, this report may very well have a very powerful and important message that reaches well beyond the narrow boundaries of this case. And, taking a broader view, this is a very good thing for Italy.

Diocletus,

This is a very insightful comment. The Jaidyn Leskie case and the Farah Jama case (which Lionking brought to my attention indirectly) seemed to make some in Australia think long and hard about DNA evidence, IIUC. The Leskie case in particular was the subject of an extensive inquiry. And let me also echo LondonJohn's praise of Italy's automatic appeal system with its presumption of innocence, which is looking pretty good right now. Finally, there is a little snippet of Hampikian here.
EDT
I believe that both Leskie and Jama were cases from Victoria, a populous state.

[daydreamer]

Steve Moore is reporting the the knife handle was opened and no blood found. This is the first I heard of that, does anybody have confirmation?

"Additionally, and interestingly, when the handles were taken off the blade of the knife, no blood was found. Starch was found. Starch? Yes, as in the type of starch found in the water of boiling pots of pasta. If blood had EVER been on that knife, the starch would have absorbed it and preserved it. That knife has never even touched blood."

http://gmancasefile.blogspot.com/201...ng-of-end.html

[Chris_Halkides]

Originally Posted by Katody Matrass

The report is referencing Toothman 2008 study about DNA in household dust, pointng out that no samples of ambient dust were tested for comparison to prove that the contamination didn't come from it. I got a feeling I've seen it mentioned before. Was is on this forum ?

The artifact was recovered 46 days after the crime, in an environment highly suggestive of contamination . The risk of incorrectly interpreting environmental contaminants such dust could be minimized only by having the foresight to establish very strict control procedures, including analysis of extracts from sterile cotton swabs soaked in sterile buffer passed to pick up on environmental surfaces dust samples, a procedure that has not been implemented; (google)

Katody Matrass,

I may have been the first person to quote this article, and I contacted the lead author for clarification. Kestrel started a thread on DNA in skin cells that also dealt with the Toothman study. I have sometimes wondered whether or not a little of the DNA on the clasp came from dust.

[Diocletus]

Originally Posted by halides1

Diocletus,

This is a very insightful comment.

And let me also echo LondonJohn's praise of Italy's automatic appeal system with its presumption of innocence, which is looking pretty good right now.

Thank you. I will be most interested to read your analysis of the report when you have a chance to put something together, as I have found your prior work on this case to be excellent.

I'm afraid that I can't share the praise of Italy's two-trial system. Systems built like this tend to encourage error in the first go-round, because the first group knows that the error can be fixed later. This case, and the fates of the inncocent defendants, show why there needs to be a premium on getting it right the first time. The absence of a speedy trial safeguard compounds the problem, IMHO.

In the US and UK, assuming the same initial errors, there also would also have been two trials, because the first trial would have been thrown out by the appellate court. The trial and re-trial would have happened much more quickly then the two trials in this case.

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by daydreamer

Steve Moore is reporting the the knife handle was opened and no blood found. This is the first I heard of that, does anybody have confirmation?

"Additionally, and interestingly, when the handles were taken off the blade of the knife, no blood was found. Starch was found. Starch? Yes, as in the type of starch found in the water of boiling pots of pasta. If blood had EVER been on that knife, the starch would have absorbed it and preserved it. That knife has never even touched blood."

http://gmancasefile.blogspot.com/201...ng-of-end.html

I believe it said the starch was found on the part of the blade next to the handle, I haven't seen anything saying the handle was removed/taken apart.

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

The toolkit doesn't know how to handle tags within text so these have to be moved to between sentences. Keeping the original page numbers (ie: [403]) and attempting to preserve the look with hard newlines helps tremendously when comparing the converted text to the original. The toolkit could be a lot better if it did some of this mechanical stuff automatically. Somebody should write Google and tell them

It is also helpful to have a glossary of names that shouldn't be translated and technical terms that should have a specific translation. I can convert the Kercher Case People list from the wiki into the format needed for the glossary. Anybody else that wants to submit a list of terms used in these documents and their translation, I'll create a page to keep the master list.

I tried a few things this morning with no success although I did create a 700 page html version. LOL. I am letting this one rest for awhile.

[RoseMontague]

Here is a translation by thoughtful on this issue:

Quote:

It emerges from the SAL that on Exhibit 165B [bra clasp] the generic test for blood was not performed[...] nor was any lab investigation made with the goal of proving the presence of non-blood biological material.

It is held that it would have been necessary to proceed with a morphological analysis for the possible presence of cells, using coloring with one of the reactive agents usually employed in histology (hematoxylin). Such investigations are simple and fast and would have required only a minimal quantity of material, which would not in any way have compromised the further lab investigations, but could have clarified the nature of the material taken from the exhibit and examined.

In spite of these omitted investigations for the existence of cells (and thus the lack of identification of the material taken from exhibit 165B), the C.T. [Stefanoni] hypothesized the presence of "presumed exfoliation cells" on this exhibit.

The hypothesis formulated by the C.T. on the nature of the material under analysis (hypothesis confirmed [by her] in the GUP hearings and in the Assize Court) is absolutely arbitrary, in that it is absolutely not supported by any scientifically objective

thoughtful also indicates that there is mention in the report that Stefanoni did not run negative controls.

Very interesting information coming out of the report.

[Katody Matrass]

Originally Posted by halides1

Katody Matrass,

I may have been the first person to quote this article, and I contacted the lead author for clarification. Kestrel started a thread on DNA in skin cells that also dealt with the Toothman study. I have sometimes wondered whether or not a little of the DNA on the clasp came from dust.

Exactly, it does look like the independent experts swallowed your FOA talking points hook, line, and sinker

There are many potential paths of contamination, none of which can we exclude due to outstanding work and documentation of Scientifica. I suspect a "non-scientific" cop handling items of clothing or underwear in Amanda's room and then picking up and throwing away the clasp is as possible as transfer from the door handle or yes - simply dust.

[Diocletus]

Here is another fascinating item from Thoughtful:

"As for accuracy, I doubt that there is one single inaccurate statement in Conti-Vecchiotti's report (unless Stefanoni has documentation that she didn't send on, but that seems unlikely at this point). Conti and Vecchiotti date every document they received from her, and clearly she was sending them documents little by little and only on specific demand, as they were still receiving further documents on April 29 and May 11. I'm sure they requested and received the complete SAL."

(my emphasis)

[Bruce Fischer]

Originally Posted by daydreamer

Steve Moore is reporting the the knife handle was opened and no blood found. This is the first I heard of that, does anybody have confirmation?

"Additionally, and interestingly, when the handles were taken off the blade of the knife, no blood was found. Starch was found. Starch? Yes, as in the type of starch found in the water of boiling pots of pasta. If blood had EVER been on that knife, the starch would have absorbed it and preserved it. That knife has never even touched blood."

http://gmancasefile.blogspot.com/201...ng-of-end.html

Steve is incorrect to say the knife was taken apart but the basis of his statement is sound. They found starch in the seam where the handle meets the blade. His statement: "If blood had EVER been on that knife, the starch would have absorbed it and preserved it. That knife has never even touched blood" is absolutely true.

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by Diocletus

Here is another fascinating item from Thoughtful:

"As for accuracy, I doubt that there is one single inaccurate statement in Conti-Vecchiotti's report (unless Stefanoni has documentation that she didn't send on, but that seems unlikely at this point). Conti and Vecchiotti date every document they received from her, and clearly she was sending them documents little by little and only on specific demand, as they were still receiving further documents on April 29 and May 11. I'm sure they requested and received the complete SAL."

(my emphasis)

I have to say that I am somewhat surprised that thoughtful is going through the report with so little objection (from other posters there). Another quote:

Quote:

Pages 122-126 show a graphic analysis of several bits of the electropherogram from the bra clasp.

They quote Stefanoni as correctly citing the rules for declaring whether small-looking peaks in the graph are actual alleles or "stutter" (bumps in the graph due to background noise). The rules are basically:

1) a peak is not stutter if it's more than 50 RFU in height

2) a peak is not stutter if its height is greater than 15% of the height of the following peak (on the right)

3) a peak is not stutter if it is the last peak on the right in a group of peaks (stutter peaks always occur to the left of allele peaks)

They then give four specific places in the electropherogram where Stefanoni qualified as "stutter" peaks which according to the above 3 rules should have been taken to be alleles.

Quote:
Regarding the evaluation of stutter, it should be noted that while the C.T. [Stefanoni] asserted that there are "[i]recommendations for correct interpretation, which are really guidelines[i]", in practice she did not correctly apply the recommendations given in the guidelines of the ISFG.


They note that these remarks were already made to Dr. Stefanoni in court and quote her response as being: "As you rightly point out, the height, or rather the indications, as you correctly point out to me, have not been written down for certain peaks appearing in this electropherogram, that's obviously correct, I mean we can see that they are not there, but it's for the simple reason that having interpreted this mixture, obviously I took it as my responsibility to consider these alleles, so to speak, these peaks as not significant because from my point of view they are stutter, they are artifacts which have been described, measured and quantified both in the literature and in the kit that I'm using."

They then add that Stefanoni did not respect one of the guidelines which states that "in cases where alleles and stutter are indistinguishable, results must also include those alleles in stutter position which do not support the position of the prosecution", and also that even if one were to consider as stutter those peaks in stutter position but which are higher than 50 RFU, one still gets a much more complex interpretation of the electropherogram than Stefanoni's, with one major contributor and several minor ones.

At this point they don't openly address the question of whether Sollecito can be determined to be one of the minor contributors with certainty. You'd think it would be important enough to mention!

[JREF2010]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

Here is a translation by thoughtful on this issue:



thoughtful also indicates that there is mention in the report that Stefanoni did not run negative controls.

Very interesting information coming out of the report.

thats as bad as not recording, or transcribing, the interrogation.

to NOT run a simple "blank run", negative control, to ensure the tool is ready for the next sample, and all previous residual traces are cleared is hard to believe, even from a novice let alone a expert.

this possible residual, as I read, is why the equipment designer recommends a RFU limit too. Too Low is like trying to decipher music from a fuzzzy-radio station.

i'm not one for conspiracy's in general, but I do believe solo humans often lie and are biased. they might ignore data and justify their actions because they truly believe in their "team's goal".

makes me wonder if she ran negatives, like the interrogation tape, they realized it wasn't good info and it disappeared.

or I'm wrong again...and its common practice in the DNA world, not to run controls before running the sample.

this is huge. without the knife, there is absolutely nothing to place Amanda in Merediths room, not even Rudys "partial truths" support Amanda in the bedroom.

will the Guilters attack Raffaele now? They always seem to put Rudy on the pedestal as his words are believed the two students were there.



thanks Rose, great info..

[Bruce Fischer]

In the next few days it would be nice to see those, who have been involved in this heated debate, to take a step back and look at what the DNA report actually says. This debate has gone on for so long that it appears the online debate has become the focus rather than the actual people involved. Right now I see a lot of spin regarding the report which is to be expected for those determined to win their online shouting match, but not very realistic for those looking at this case based on the real lives being destroyed.

The knife and the clasp are gone. They will no longer be viewed as credible after the July hearing. The independent experts were appointed by the court and their results will be accepted.

The spin goes like this; "the DNA is only a small part of the 'mountain of evidence' to convict the two 'love birds.' The 'staged' break in is really what convicted them in the first place"

There is no credible evidence to prove a staged break in but Massei (the judge that refused additional testing on the DNA) said it was staged so that's good enough for those in spin mode now. If that's all you have to secure convictions then it's really time to walk away from the debate.

[lane99]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

If this is a meta-comment on how criminal litigation has seeped into the popular culture as entertainment, then it's brilliant. However, seeing the thread about education that the poster started, I fear this may not be satire at all...

Yea, satire was the first thing that occured to me. I was expecting a follow up post that, channeling the spirt of Gilda Radner, said simply:

"Nevermind"

[komponisto]

Originally Posted by Katody Matrass

I predict a huge come back of one of the more idiotic arguments, i.e. "where is the proof of contamination?"

Oh, it's already happening. But it's futile -- this is addressed in the report, as you know. Here is p. 136, regarding the bra clasp:

Quote:

Regarding the reliability of the item with specific reference to "possible contamination", we find it appropriate to examine the means by which and cirmustances under which Item 165B was acquired.

The item was recovered 46 days after the crime, in a context highly suggestive of environmental contamination.

The DNA obtained, though sufficient in quantity to permit analysis, does not satsify the mimimum quality requirements, due to clear environmental contamination.

Various peaks (cf. table of autosomic STRs and Y-chromosome haplotype) which should have been considered alleles until proven otherwise, were not taken into consideration in the analyses; yet their presence was indicative of the fact that, besides Kercher and Sollecito, other unidentified individuals were represented in the genetic traces found at the crime scene. In this regard, it was necessary to proceed to further amplifications of the extracted DNA in order to conferm the presence of the various haplotypes present at the crime scene -- something which was not done, even though a sufficient amount of extracted material was available (cf. SAL: 50μl of extracted material).

Furthermore, the documentation regarding possible contamination of the item, both before and after recovery, is inadequate. The mere fact that the amplification control -- which was not provided -- was negative is not enough to rule out environmental contamination of the item previous to the extraction and amplification of the DNA. It would have been necessary to obtain the allele profiles present in the surrounding environment.

The item was recovered on the floor, where it predictably had contact with ambient dust, which, in closed enviroments frequented by humans, is composed to a large extent of elements of human origin (cells, hairs, etc.).

It has been demonstrated that dust from closed environments can contain tens of micrograms of DNA per gram, with the amount of DNA depending on the level of frequentation by individuals and on the amount of dust that accumulates in the relevant environment.

It has been thoroughly demonstrated that the presence of ambient dust constitutes a significant source of contamination in forensic investigations, since the DNA deriving from such dust can present itself in the form of alleles in analyses of polymorphisms.

(more to come...)

[HumanityBlues]

Originally Posted by Bruce Fisher

In the next few days it would be nice to see those, who have been involved in this heated debate, to take a step back and look at what the DNA report actually says. This debate has gone on for so long that it appears the online debate has become the focus rather than the actual people involved. Right now I see a lot of spin regarding the report which is to be expected for those determined to win their online shouting match, but not very realistic for those looking at this case based on the real lives being destroyed.

The knife and the clasp are gone. They will no longer be viewed as credible after the July hearing. The independent experts were appointed by the court and their results will be accepted.

The spin goes like this; "the DNA is only a small part of the 'mountain of evidence' to convict the two 'love birds.' The 'staged' break in is really what convicted them in the first place"

There is no credible evidence to prove a staged break in but Massei (the judge that refused additional testing on the DNA) said it was staged so that's good enough for those in spin mode now. If that's all you have to secure convictions then it's really time to walk away from the debate.

Does this mean we can't make fun of Kermit's open letter to the independent experts?

[komponisto]

p. 137:

Quote:

The risk of incorrectly interpreting such enviromental contaminants can be minimized only by instituting extremely strict control protocols, including, the analysis of extracts from sterile cotton swabs soaked with sterile buffer that have passed on ambient surfaces to take dust samples (Toothman MH et al., 2008).

In any case, the allele profiles obtained from ambient dust, or from samples contaminated with ambient dust, can be indicative of the individuals who have frequented that environment.

Nevertheless, the aforementioned authors explain that it is diffiult to generalize to a direct correlation between human frequentation and levels of dust with the quantity and quality of human DNA therein present, because of the potential effects of other uncontrolled factors. Indeed, environmental variables, including light, heat, and humidity can degrade DNA, and residues of detergents (such as bleach) can destroy the DNA. Moreover, the ventilation system can act as a vehicle for transferring dust among different rooms, introducing DNA from individuals that have not necessarily frequented a specific environment (Toothman MH. et al., 2008).

In order to advance interpretive hypotheses, it would have been necessary, in our opinion, to proceed to multiple amplifications on item 165B, whose alleles should have been compared with the alleles obtained from multiple amplifications performed on extracts from multiple samples of ambient dust.

Only alleles found on Item 165B, and not in ambient dust, could be considered of possible evidentiary value -- independently of the height and area of the corresponding peaks. This [comparison] not having been done, the allele profiles of item 165B should not, in our opinion, be considered evidence.

[Rolfe]

I'm pleased to see this development, because it makes sense.

I simply couldn't see how the time of death evidence could possibly fit with the murder having happened much after 9 o'clock. By the way, I discussed that evidence with a colleague who is FRCPath, and her reaction was that she was mildly surprised there had been no transit to the duodenum by 9 o'clock, and was quite adamant that death must have occurred soon after the victim was last seen alive under the circumstances described. She also gave the opinion that while some artefactual slippage from the pylorus into the duodenum might happen if care wasn't taken, for duodenal contents to slip well down into the jejunum by accident, leaving an empty duodenum, was well-nigh impossible.

For the time of death to be much later than nine o'clock, we'd have to shift the time of the meal to after the film was watched, or even to after Meredith returned home, or we'd have to show that the post mortem results as reported were in error. The testimony of the friends as to the time of the meal seems clear enough that it was eaten before the film was watched, and I understand the post mortem examination was videoed and showed correct procedure with results as reported. Thus the time of death has to have been shortly after Meredith returned home. Which is conveniently consistent with the evidence in her home, indicating that she didn't do anything else once she got there, not even phone her mother.

I couldn't get much sense out of those posters supporting guilt on this point. Handwaving about "google time of death", and assertions that we had no idea at all when Meredith ate, really didn't help at all. As far as I could see what was actually being said was that the DNA evidence placed Knox and Sollecito at the scene of the crime, so if they couldn't have been there shortly after nine, the murder must have happened significantly later.

As I said, I couldn't see how the time of death could possibly be shifted, on the evidence as it stood. However, while I am not a molecular biologist and do not even play one on TV, I do have a molecular biology lab two doors down from my office. And I am occasionally on the receiving end of highly vocal ire from the technicians there for daring to step into their "clean lab", because of the risk of contamination. We don't want you in here, you might shed skin cells! Go away! Please, take the pipette and don't give it back because we don't want it again if you've touched it!

So yes, it occurred to me that those suggesting the DNA results were the weaker side of the argument might well be right. It's still a bit of a shocker that a forensic lab could be so wrong, and a forensic scientist stand up and defend such bad procedure in court.

The danger of forensic scientists who work on police cases starting to see themselves as part of the prosecution team instead of impartial seekers after truth is well-recognised. Somebody needs to tell the Italian criminal justice system about this phenomenon.

Rolfe.

[Chris_Halkides]

Thoughtful also translated a section that dealt with the need to run the reference samples after the evidence samples and the need to do LCN work in a separate facility. These are not new issues to readers of the first Knox thread. Mark Waterbury quoted the Crown’s guidelines with reference to having a separate facility with special precautions. Donald Riley’s excellent introductory article has two sections on contamination. This article alerted me to the problem of an amplified sample’s potentially contaminating an unamplified one, and I have quoted from it liberally on many occasions.
EDT
Dr. Riley's article discusses the problem of the PCR-amplified product of one reaction contaminating another sample that is yet to be amplified. He also draws an analogy between sterile technique and PCR (polymerase chain reaction) technique and notes its limitations.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by snook1

Speaking of Casey Anthony.

Did anyone see yesterday's testimony of a traumatologist who explained how different people, especially at a young age (20-25), deal with grief, sorrow and other strong emotions?

Yep.

Quote:

She would be a good witness for the defense in Amanda's trial. The woman said that there are hundreds of different reactions when a person is struck by a trauma, such as the loss of a daughter(in Anthony's case it's obviously a little bit different, since she killed her baby) or a friend, or a member of the family. And then she went on to explain that it's no wonder some people choose to laugh or act in an unusual way and some simply cry. All deal with the sorrow in their own way.

She'd be a good witness for nearly anybody ... and was. Or either not much good at all.

When questioned by Jose Baez, the defense attorney, her testimony in essence was that any type of reaction at all could be expressed by someone experiencing deep grief.

When cross-examined by the SA she testified with equal equanimity that the same could be true of someone experiencing deep guilt.

Taken as a whole her professional opinion appeared to be that anyone could express nearly anything in nearly any way at all.

It was yet another WTF moment in the trial, as in, "WTF is the point of this testimony?"

The prosecution's case in this trial would probably have be as strong if the defense had called fewer witnesses. I think 'Dr. Grief' might be an example. Not one of the best ones, since her testimony on cross wasn't outright detrimental to the defendant (as was that of some of the other defense witnesses), but I expect it left the jury wondering what the hell Baez was trying to do.

[Ampulla of Vater]

Originally Posted by Diocletus

Some posters at PMF were making a big stink about the report making reference to "international standards," the implication being how dare they defer to these international standards when Italy is an advanced nation with its own justice system, etc., etc. This got me thinking.

First, I think it's clear from the conclusions that the indepenent experts looked at the overall picture, and were absolutely horrified at what happened, from evidence collection all the way through to testing. I think they thought to themselves that "people cannot be sent to jail in Italy based on work like this." And then they must have thought "Patrizia Stefanoni is one of our best scientists in this field--how can this have happened? . . ."

And they looked around, and they found that in reality, Italy doesn't have clear standards governing much of what was done in this case. And they asked "if this is happening here, in this high-profile case with a good scientist, what is going on in other cases? Are we routinely locking away people based on work like this? Momma mia."

But then they thought: "we are Italy's leading scientists in this field. We are La Sapienza. We are internationally known and respected. People will listen to us, and this case is a big stage. Let's do something about this."

So what we ended up with is a report that is half about this case, and half statement to the justice system. The part that is statement to the justice system cites extensively to international standards and says that they must be followed. The experts know that this report will be widely publicized and discussed in the forensics community in Italy, and they know that if the report is accepted by the court, then the standards and practices advocated by the report will become de facto standards in Italy.

These experts together have said to the Italian justice system "this new science is a valuable tool, but you must use it properly or you will destroy lives. Here is how we will use it."

So in my view, this report may very well have a very powerful and important message that reaches well beyond the narrow boundaries of this case. And, taking a broader view, this is a very good thing for Italy.

And I sincerely hope this will be Amanda's and Rafaelle's legacy so they can live the rest of their lives knowing something positive came out of this entire fiasco. A protocol for the testing of DNA called the Knox-Sollecito standards maybe?