ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING! , Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Reply
Old 3rd December 2018, 06:13 PM   #2041
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,829
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Shan't. It is as reported by your very own Candace Dempsey. ::
No, it is most glaringly not as YOU described it. Here is everything Dempsey said about the DVD incident:

Quote:
In a thug move, Perugia prosecutors sent two police patrols to Rome today and tried to seize a DVD from the court-appointed independent experts who testified Monday in the Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito appeals trial, according to Perugia-based blogger Frank Sfarzo and confirmed by Libero News.

This latest harassment follows threats by police forensic scientist Patrizia Stefanoni to sue the experts for “false statements” supposedly made in their 145-page, meticulously argued report. After a five-month investigation, the experts reject police forensics, call the DNA tests “unreliable,” and identify 54 glaring mistakes that could free the two college students.
Quote:
So what did the experts do when two police patrols invaded their workspace?

“Today cops entered at the same time the hospital Gemelli and La Sapienza University, both in Rome, looking for Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti, ” wrote blogger Frank Sfarzo. Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini convinced Google to pull his blog, but U.S. supporters have rebuilt it in WordPress. “According to university sources who witnessed part of the event the cops were sent by the Procura of Perugia (ndr., prosecutor’s office), and ordered Conti and Vecchiotti to hand over the DVD containing the presentation with which yesterday the two scientists had explained their report in court.”

Since the cops didn’t have warrants, the experts didn’t hand over the DVD. Instead, they dialed Judge Hellmann for support. He made a copy available to the prosecution.
Notice there is NO mention of it being a 'secret' tape, no mention of Vecchiotti being in danger of having her 'collar felt', no mention of Vecchiotti making the DVD 'for the defence', no mention that she 'rang up Hellmann to save herself', no mention of Hellmann 'huffily ordering' her to do anything (giving permission is not 'ordering') and certainly nothing about Vecchiotti engaging in any 'corrupt behavior'. This is why we take nothing you say at face value. You just make stuff up.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 3rd December 2018 at 06:48 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2018, 08:39 PM   #2042
whoanellie
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 328
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
And your scientist credentials are..?
We're all well aware of your scientific credentials.
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2018, 10:35 PM   #2043
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,994
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Luckily, two expert defence witnesses were present when Stefanoni carried out the test. Top forensic expert Torres (_sp?) did not complain of any anomalies and nor did either of them complain about contamination.

The PCR equipment - culminating in a computer printout, which cannot be faked - showed Meredith Kercher's DNA loud and clear on the knife blade found in Raff's knife drawer.

Knox' DNA on the hilt.
You are not getting my point. The fundamental problem had nothing to do with how the steps of the test were performed, which is what the defense witnesses observed and did not complain about. There would have been no anomalies detectable at the time of running these steps, nor would any contamination. No one is proposing the computer printout was faked either. It has everything to do with if the original amount of DNA was adequate to even begin to use in a proper test, a number that I bet was not available to the defense witnesses at the time and which indeed proved too low relative to established standards for trustworthy evidence. As a result it simply could not "show Meredith Kercher's DNA loud and clear" no matter what it appeared to show. An old rule in science is crap in, crap out. Even if the craps out appears to smell good, it is still crap and not a rose.

Last edited by Giordano; 3rd December 2018 at 10:37 PM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2018, 10:39 PM   #2044
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,634
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I am only a very rare lurker to this site. But I did drop by today. As a researcher who uses disposable gloves and PCR a lot in my job, looking at the photo suggests to me that the material on the "obviously dirty gloves" could easily have come from the bra clasp sample itself. Certainly it is not evidence of contamination from any other source; not at all. How the gloves were replaced between samples, not the photo you cite, is the information required.
All true. I am as guilty as Vixen in simply rehashing old stuff. This business of the obviously dirty gloves and how they got that way has been hashed and rehashed dozens of times in this thread and its continuations.

Yet this is a criminal case, and one of the convicting judges has convicted partially on the issue that it the defence had to do more than simply assert "contamination". Just suggesting it was possible was not enough, hence Stefanoni's own video of the collection of the bra clasp....

..... collected 46 days after both the murder and initial forensic sweep where the clasp had been ignored.

That, according to later judgments, was the possible route - in meeting that high bar from earlier judgments.

So you're correct. But this is a court case.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2018, 10:40 PM   #2045
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,994
My point was simply the photo itself was not evidence of cross-contamination and, as I did post, the important aspects were handling aspects that could not be shown by the photo. Apparently the sample was in fact handled and interpreted abysmally.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2018, 11:40 PM   #2046
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,634
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I am only a very rare lurker to this site. But I did drop by today. As a researcher who uses disposable gloves and PCR a lot in my job, looking at the photo suggests to me that the material on the "obviously dirty gloves" could easily have come from the bra clasp sample itself. Certainly it is not evidence of contamination from any other source; not at all. How the gloves were replaced between samples, not the photo you cite, is the information required.
Consider the implications of it being the clasp which had contaminated the formerly pristine gloves. What does that say about the context in which the clasp had been found?

Found 46 days after the original collection in a place on the floor other than the one photographed on Nov 2? Where by 46 days later it was clear the room had been tampered with?

Sollecito had pounded on the victim's door prior to her being found. The lead investigator, Napoleoni, testified at trial that all proper forensic countermeasures had been followed, all except - as she testified - the four medical staff who'd been allowed entry without booties or gloves so as to examine the victim prior to removal.

Are bra-clasps really so dirty as to cause that visible mess on pristine gloves?

And remember, there was only one DNA sample collected from it. One Sample, with from four to six identifiable donors....

The majority donor was the victim. The minority donors were all id'ed as Male, with Sollecito's **presumed** part being more than the other two to four.

Of the rest, one convicting court dismissed them as being obviously from the victim's **girlfriends**. As if women regularly touch each other's bra clasps or even have Y-material!

Those are the issues to consider when contemplating that it was the clasp which contaminated the glove.

Does that merit a guilty finding for Sollecito?
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2018, 11:42 PM   #2047
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,634
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
My point was simply the photo itself was not evidence of cross-contamination and, as I did post, the important aspects were handling aspects that could not be shown by the photo. Apparently the sample was in fact handled and interpreted abysmally.
Conceded.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2018, 04:49 AM   #2048
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,227
Tale of the tape

There is a video recording of some aspects of the data collection. (From my imperfect memory) there was one time that someone used both sides of a collection pad. Conti and Vecchiotti had access to the recording and commented on it. IIRC there was also an anonymous letter that claimed that gloves were used until they broke.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2018, 07:40 AM   #2049
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,479
Here is a table (part 1 of 2) that summarizes some of the issues in the DNA profiling:


Last edited by Numbers; 4th December 2018 at 08:35 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2018, 07:46 AM   #2050
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,479
Here's part 2 of 2 of the table summarizing some of the issues with the DNA profiling:


Last edited by Numbers; 4th December 2018 at 08:35 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2018, 08:15 AM   #2051
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,479
Here are some of the issues (Chris, please provide any corrections or additions):

According to the information supplied by Stefanoni, Raffaele's kitchen knife was DNA-quantified by qPCR in Run 544 on 6 Nov 2007. Analysis of the qPCR calibration from that run in comparison to Run 543 (5 Nov 2007, used to obtain DNA profiles for Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba) shows a machine malfunction or lab misconduct. Oddly, Run 544 is the only run with the identification number written in by hand rather than generated by computer printer, again suggestive of malfunction or manipulative misconduct. Stefanoni switched from qPCR to the Qubit Fluorometer to in this run to obtain DNA quantification; the Qubit is less accurate for low quantification and in fact returned "too low" (meaning out of range for quantification or possibly no DNA) for critical samples including sample "B", the alleged Kercher DNA on the knife blade. Contrary to guilter misstatements, at the time this sample was quantified and tested, Knox and Sollecito were not allowed legal representation (or were just having their arrest hearings) and certainly would not have had defense experts present in Stefanoni's lab to observe the testing. Following use of the Qubit Fluorometer for this Run 544, Stefanoni returned to qPCR quantification.

Subsequently, in Run 564, the results show obvious DNA contamination in a negative (no DNA) control. The level of DNA contamination is about the amount of DNA that allegedly was in sample "B".

Run 570 on 3 Jan 2008 shows significant DNA contamination in positive DNA controls (one that is intended to contain a pre-determined amount of DNA for calibration and quality control purposes). This is the run in which the bra clasps were tested for DNA.

Subsequent DNA quantifications using a different qPCR machine also show contaminations: Plate 17 of 5 Mar 2008 shows excess DNA in positive controls, while Plate 19 of 7 Mar 2008 shows excess DNA in negative controls.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2018, 08:34 AM   #2052
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,479
Deleted - repeat

Last edited by Numbers; 4th December 2018 at 08:36 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2018, 08:37 AM   #2053
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,093
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
My point was simply the photo itself was not evidence of cross-contamination and, as I did post, the important aspects were handling aspects that could not be shown by the photo. Apparently the sample was in fact handled and interpreted abysmally.
I think there are two issues here. You are absolutely correct that in the final analysis there was simply not enough DNA present to reliably test and that, in itself, invalidates the results. However, if the defense can show that proper procedures were not followed during collection of the clasp, and that by their own actions they introduced the possibility of contamination, then that will often be sufficient to consider the sample unreliable.

Similarly, it's always been my belief that when the knife was removed from it's collection bag, at the police station, by a cop without proper training, in a non-sterile environment, and then placed inside a box that had been sitting on his desk where other items containing Meredith's DNA had resided, that those actions should have rendered the knife inadmissible.

So it's not just that it was an insufficient amount that rendered the sample crap, but how it was collected and handled as well.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2018, 09:00 AM   #2054
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,479
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Here are some of the issues (Chris, please provide any corrections or additions):

According to the information supplied by Stefanoni, Raffaele's kitchen knife was DNA-quantified by qPCR in Run 544 on 6 Nov 2007. Analysis of the qPCR calibration from that run in comparison to Run 543 (5 Nov 2007, used to obtain DNA profiles for Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba) shows a machine malfunction or lab misconduct. Oddly, Run 544 is the only run with the identification number written in by hand rather than generated by computer printer, again suggestive of malfunction or manipulative misconduct. Stefanoni switched from qPCR to the Qubit Fluorometer to in this run to obtain DNA quantification; the Qubit is less accurate for low quantification and in fact returned "too low" (meaning out of range for quantification or possibly no DNA) for critical samples including sample "B", the alleged Kercher DNA on the knife blade. Contrary to guilter misstatements, at the time this sample was quantified and tested, Knox and Sollecito were not allowed legal representation (or were just having their arrest hearings) and certainly would not have had defense experts present in Stefanoni's lab to observe the testing. Following use of the Qubit Fluorometer for this Run 544, Stefanoni returned to qPCR quantification.

Subsequently, in Run 564, the results show obvious DNA contamination in a negative (no DNA) control. The level of DNA contamination is about the amount of DNA that allegedly was in sample "B".

Run 570 on 3 Jan 2008 shows significant DNA contamination in positive DNA controls (one that is intended to contain a pre-determined amount of DNA for calibration and quality control purposes). This is the run in which the bra clasps were tested for DNA.

Subsequent DNA quantifications using a different qPCR machine also show contaminations: Plate 17 of 5 Mar 2008 shows excess DNA in positive controls, while Plate 19 of 7 Mar 2008 shows excess DNA in negative controls.
To the above should be added:

"{Apparent laboratory misconduct in an unacknowledged rerun of DNA profiling on the Bra Clasp, with suppression of the original results}

Reconstruction of plate 410 demonstrates that Rep 165b’s profile was run once, suppressed, and re-run in a separate plate at the very end of the batch. It is only this second run of 165b that has been produced by the prosecution and touted as an incriminating profile, with the first run remaining unacknowledged and indeed secreted by the prosecution.

As can be seen in the chart for Batch 5, the amplification corresponding to Rep 165b is ID No. 681. This ID No. falls within the range of ID Nos. contained within the 32-sample plate no. 410, which spans ID Nos. 680 through 711. Yet, the prosecution has never produced an electropherogram corresponding to plate no. 410, ID 681. Instead, the prosecution has produced an ID No. 681 purportedly generated in plate no. 414. This electropherogram for plate no. 414, ID 681, is remarkable, because it is the only known electropherogram produced for this plate (a single-sample plate being a phenomena that is seen in only one other example in this case). In addition, plate no. 414 itself is remarkable, because it sequentially follows plate no. 413, which contains Y profiles and thus should mark the end of batch no. 5. In effect, the electropherogram that has been produced for Rep. 165b is from the wrong plate and appears exceptionally to have been generated after the end of the relevant batch analyses."

Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/bra-clasp-contamination/

Summary: The bra clasp DNA data is not to be considered credible evidence against Knox or Sollecito. It can be considered evidence of laboratory error or misconduct.

Last edited by Numbers; 4th December 2018 at 09:01 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2018, 02:05 PM   #2055
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,479
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
To the above {table and explanations} should be added:

"{Apparent laboratory misconduct in an unacknowledged rerun of DNA profiling on the Bra Clasp, with suppression of the original results}

Reconstruction of plate 410 demonstrates that Rep 165b’s profile was run once, suppressed, and re-run in a separate plate at the very end of the batch. It is only this second run of 165b that has been produced by the prosecution and touted as an incriminating profile, with the first run remaining unacknowledged and indeed secreted by the prosecution.

As can be seen in the chart for Batch 5, the amplification corresponding to Rep 165b is ID No. 681. This ID No. falls within the range of ID Nos. contained within the 32-sample plate no. 410, which spans ID Nos. 680 through 711. Yet, the prosecution has never produced an electropherogram corresponding to plate no. 410, ID 681. Instead, the prosecution has produced an ID No. 681 purportedly generated in plate no. 414. This electropherogram for plate no. 414, ID 681, is remarkable, because it is the only known electropherogram produced for this plate (a single-sample plate being a phenomena that is seen in only one other example in this case). In addition, plate no. 414 itself is remarkable, because it sequentially follows plate no. 413, which contains Y profiles and thus should mark the end of batch no. 5. In effect, the electropherogram that has been produced for Rep. 165b is from the wrong plate and appears exceptionally to have been generated after the end of the relevant batch analyses."

Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/bra-clasp-contamination/

Summary: The bra clasp DNA data is not to be considered credible evidence against Knox or Sollecito. It can be considered evidence of laboratory error or misconduct.
To tie the above in with the timeline shown in the table, on part 1, Run 570, which initiated on 3 Jan 2008, the Comment section entry "Bra Clasp DNA Profile Plate ID Numbering Anomalies - Tampering?" refers to the issue described in more detail in the above-quoted post.

It was during this period that Raffaele Sollecito's father went on TV to show that Raffaele's shoe soles were not a match for the shoe sole prints in blood in Meredith Kercher's room, as falsely claimed by the police and prosecutor, but rather the soles of Nike Outback 2 shoes. Immediately following this disclosure by Raffaele's father, the police publicly announced the alleged evidence of Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp. And, as shown by the later examination of the plate ID numbering, this DNA "evidence" was obtained under suspicious circumstances in Stefanoni's laboratory and was in fact by definition contamination (it showed the DNA profiles of several unknown males, as well as a DNA profile compatible with that of Raffaele Sollecito). This sequence of events is itself highly suspicious, and leads to the possibility that the police fabricated and publicly disclosed the bra clasp "evidence" to wrongfully maintain the Kercher murder/rape case against Sollecito and Knox.

Last edited by Numbers; 4th December 2018 at 02:08 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2018, 02:46 PM   #2056
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,227
for the love of gloves

I covered gloves and related issues in a blog entry some years ago. Since then there has been additional work in the primary forensic literature.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2018, 03:25 PM   #2057
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,829
From Chris' link to his paper above:

Quote:
What the police did and did not do with respect to changing gloves
When the forensic police collected evidence at Ms. Kercher’s flat, they did not change their gloves frequently. One can observe in a series of photographs a failure to change gloves over several minutes and several evidence samples. Barbie Nadeau reported, “Sollecito’s attorney, Giulia Bongiorno, stopped the crime scene video several times to point out errors. For example, Stefanoni testified that she had changed gloves according to official investigation procedures, but Bongiorno stopped the crime scene video twice to show that Stefanoni’s bracelet and the fold of her glove were exactly the same before and after the time she claimed to have changed gloves.” Ms. Nadeau recounts the same incident on p. 133 of Angel Face, her book on the murder of Meredith Kercher.

Ms. Stefanoni’s views on when gloves should be changed are found in the English translation of the Massei report. On p. 203 Massei wrote that Stefanoni "specified" that gloves were changed "every time an object was touched that was particularly soaked with blood, and when it was obvious that the gloves would be soiled;" Based on pages 204-205, she appears to believe that the presence of a liquid is necessary to bring about contamination by touch.
How long before Vixen asks Chris H. for his "science credentials"? ROTFLMAO!

Last edited by Stacyhs; 4th December 2018 at 03:32 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2018, 04:30 PM   #2058
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,479
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
My point was simply the photo itself was not evidence of cross-contamination and, as I did post, the important aspects were handling aspects that could not be shown by the photo. Apparently the sample was in fact handled and interpreted abysmally.
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Consider the implications of it being the clasp which had contaminated the formerly pristine gloves. What does that say about the context in which the clasp had been found?

Found 46 days after the original collection in a place on the floor other than the one photographed on Nov 2? Where by 46 days later it was clear the room had been tampered with?

Sollecito had pounded on the victim's door prior to her being found. The lead investigator, Napoleoni, testified at trial that all proper forensic countermeasures had been followed, all except - as she testified - the four medical staff who'd been allowed entry without booties or gloves so as to examine the victim prior to removal.

Are bra-clasps really so dirty as to cause that visible mess on pristine gloves?

And remember, there was only one DNA sample collected from it. One Sample, with from four to six identifiable donors....

The majority donor was the victim. The minority donors were all id'ed as Male, with Sollecito's **presumed** part being more than the other two to four.

Of the rest, one convicting court dismissed them as being obviously from the victim's **girlfriends**. As if women regularly touch each other's bra clasps or even have Y-material!

Those are the issues to consider when contemplating that it was the clasp which contaminated the glove.

Does that merit a guilty finding for Sollecito?
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
I covered gloves and related issues in a blog entry some years ago. Since then there has been additional work in the primary forensic literature.
Here's another excerpt from Chris' blog, with the first paragraph of this excerpt being the same as the last one quoted by Stacyhs:

Quote:
Ms. Stefanoni’s views on when gloves should be changed are found in the English translation of the Massei report. On p. 203 Massei wrote that Stefanoni "specified" that gloves were changed "every time an object was touched that was particularly soaked with blood, and when it was obvious that the gloves would be soiled;" Based on pages 204-205, she appears to believe that the presence of a liquid is necessary to bring about contamination by touch.

What forensic experts say about changing gloves
On page 38 of John Butler's 2005 textbook Forensic DNA Typing, he wrote, "Use clean latex gloves for collecting each item of evidence. Gloves should be changed between handling of different items of evidence." Dick Warrington is the author of some articles in Forensic Magazine and is employed by a company which makes equipment for crime scene investigations. He wrote, “If you pick up one piece of evidence and then pick up another piece of evidence you can transfer evidence from the first item to the second item. You can avoid this kind of cross-contamination if you remember to change your gloves before handling each piece of evidence.” He also advised, “Put on gloves, use gloves, change gloves. Do that every time you touch a piece of evidence. Likewise, use disposable tweezers, scalpels, etc. Change these each time they are used, as well.” Orchid Cellmark’s guidelines for collecting DNA evidence read in part, “Use clean latex gloves for collecting each item of evidence. It is recommended the gloves be changed between the collection of each item of evidence.
Here's a revealing excerpt from the Wikipedia article "Contaminated evidence":

Quote:
A woman, murdered in London in 1997, was taken to the lab for analysis. After searching under her fingernails investigators found a match to another woman whom they suspected to be the killer. However, the woman who came up as a match had been murdered herself three weeks prior to the incident. Investigators were confused as they could not find any correlation between the two women. Finally they came to the conclusion that the mix-up must somehow have stemmed from the forensics lab. After investigating the process in which the DNA was collected they discovered that a single pair of scissors was used to cut both woman's nails. Although they were washed in between, there was still enough DNA to contaminate the scene. [Reference: Sullivan, Mike. "The strange case of the 'time travel' murder". BBC News.]
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_evidence

The important question, contrary to some of the Italian courts and many (or all) of the guilters, was not the source of the contamination on the bra clasp or on the knife blade.

The bra clasp DNA was by definition contaminated: there was no other logical explanation for the DNA of several unknown persons that was found on it. Thus, the presence of DNA compatible with that of Raffaele Sollecito allegedly found on the bra clasp cannot be considered to be incriminating evidence; according to the principle of the presumption of innocence, it must be the result either of contamination or of police fabrication. Of the DNA reported to be on the bra clasp, only that of Meredith Kercher can be considered to not be the result of contamination.

Based on the usual rules of evidence, scientific or forensic, the refusal of the investigator - Stefanoni - to provide the raw data underlying the results can be considered as further indication that the alleged bra clasps evidence cannot be considered evidence of the guilt of anyone.

Consistent with this last view, the intentional storage of the bra clasps in a tube containing a liquid - apparently DNA extraction fluid - that caused the clasps to rust and thus almost certainly any remaining DNA to be broken up into its constituent nucleotides, suggests that Stefanoni did not want any further DNA analysis of the bra clasp that could confirm or contradict her analysis. And the only reasonable explanation of that would be if she realized further DNA analysis would contradict the analysis that she reported and thus potentially lead to legal or administrative measures adverse to her.

With respect to the alleged DNA of Meredith Kercher found on the blade of Raffaele Sollecito's kitchen knife, there is in fact no credible evidence that any DNA material was actually contained in the original sample "B", as the Qubit Fluorometer actually detected no such material; the Qubit read the DNA content as "too low" to detect. Stefanoni apparently did not attempt to DNA profile any other sample that registered as "too low" to detect on the Qubit Fluorometer. Although Stefanoni in response to a question denied in her court testimony that anyone had ever told her that there was DNA contamination in her lab, it is clear from her own DNA quantification records (qPCR) that in this case several controls (negative and positive) showed DNA contamination. Since no blood or other biological tissue was detectable on the blade, and the LCN character of the reported DNA profile attributed to sample "B", lead to the conclusion that this DNA profile was the result of a contamination. Furthermore, the knife blade did not match the geometry of any of Kercher's wounds. Thus, there is no probative value to the DNA profile alleged to have been found in sample "B" on the knife blade.

Again, based on the usual rules of evidence, scientific or forensic, the refusal of the investigator - Stefanoni - to provide the raw data underlying the results can be considered as further indication that the alleged knife blade evidence cannot be considered evidence of the guilt of anyone.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2018, 04:46 PM   #2059
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,829
I think the guilters won't be happy until Knox or Sollecito "kill again" being the "psychopaths" the guilters believe them to be. It's now been 7 years since their release from prison and neither have committed any crimes...much to the disappointment of guilters.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2018, 06:06 PM   #2060
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 652
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I think the guilters won't be happy until Knox or Sollecito "kill again" being the "psychopaths" the guilters believe them to be. It's now been 7 years since their release from prison and neither have committed any crimes...much to the disappointment of guilters.

In the comments section of Youtube videos the nutters keep asking when Amanda will kill again. If Amanda was such a vicious psychopath itching to kill again, why has Amanda shown no signs of violent behaviour since her release. For some strange reason the nutters never say Guede will kill again.
Welshman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2018, 07:03 PM   #2061
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,829
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post
In the comments section of Youtube videos the nutters keep asking when Amanda will kill again. If Amanda was such a vicious psychopath itching to kill again, why has Amanda shown no signs of violent behaviour since her release. For some strange reason the nutters never say Guede will kill again.
I've seen them. Amanda has never shown signs of violent behavior. Not a single person, except the Perugia police/prosecutors, ever made any such claims. Not one person who knew her as ever alleged she showed any inclination to violence...in fact, just the opposite. But we're all aware of how the PGP have created an Amanda that never existed except in their warped minds.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2018, 07:10 PM   #2062
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,479
On another aspect of this case, some, such as the guilters, don't believe that a 20-year-old adult such as Amanda Knox could have been coerced by threats, psychological tricks, and slaps on the head to make a false statement implicating Patrick Lumumba in the rape/murder of Meredith Kercher, although Knox had no idea who was guilty of that crime.

However, the Norfolk Four case in the US provides an example of how four young US Navy sailors could be intimidated by corrupt police into making false confessions to a murder/rape. They were eventually pardoned, and now compensation settlements have been reached in the case.

"Settlement reached in infamous ‘Norfolk 4’ case

RICHMOND, Va. — The city of Norfolk has agreed to pay $4.9 million to four former sailors who were wrongly convicted of a woman’s rape and murder based on intimidating police interrogations. A copy of the settlement agreement for the “Norfolk Four” was obtained by The Associated Press.

The state also has agreed to pay $3.5 million.

The payments close out a decades-long case that drew widespread attention as the men's innocence claims were backed by dozens of former FBI agents, ex-prosecutors and crime novelist John Grisham.
....


DNA evidence matched only one person: Omar Ballard, the fifth man convicted in the case. Ballard, who pleaded guilty in 2000, acknowledged he was solely responsible and is serving a life sentence.

The Norfolk Four have said they cracked after they were threatened with the death penalty and repeatedly called liars. One of the men recalled a detective shoving him into a corner and showing him a picture of Moore-Bosko's bloody body. The confessions conflicted with one another. Ballard's account was the only one containing information matching the crime scene.

The detective who questioned them, Robert Glenn Ford, was convicted in 2011 of extortion and lying to the FBI in unrelated cases.

In vacating some of the Norfolk Four's convictions, a federal judge once declared that "no sane human being" could find them guilty."

Source: https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-...orfolk-4-case/
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2018, 09:18 PM   #2063
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,479
Here's more information from the report on the case of the contaminated scissors that is relevant to the AK - RS case:

"I [forensic scientist Dr. Mike Silverman, who was the national account manager for the Forensic Science Service in 1997, during the contaminated scissors case] had started my career in forensic science during the late 1970s and back then, the idea of being able to identify someone from a few tiny drops of blood seemed like something out of science fiction.

In those early days, we rarely wore protective clothing at crime scenes or worried about potential contamination because there was no method to analyse any biological material that was as small as the eye could see.

Today, everyone entering a crime scene has to don a new, clean paper over-suit and overshoes as well as gloves since DNA retrieval techniques are now so sensitive that simply lightly touching an object - such as a door knob or knife handle - can leave enough of a trace to carry out a successful DNA analysis.

In 1997, the time of the mystery murder, DNA profiling was only a few years old and, as I was about to discover, the technology was improving so quickly that previously unforeseen problems were beginning to occur.

I arranged for the nail scissors from the mortuary to be analysed and discovered not two but three separate DNA profiles were present. Further examination found DNA contamination on several other mortuary instruments but it was only ever going to present a problem when it came to fingernail scissors.

The autopsy knives, for example, were found to have traces of DNA of several different people on them, but because incisions were never sampled for DNA, cross contamination was not an issue.

I immediately sent out an urgent memo to all coroners, mortuaries and forensic pathologists in the country, highlighting the problem and suggesting that, in the future, all nail clippings should be taken with disposable scissors and that the scissors should then be placed in the evidence bag with the nail clippings to confirm they had only been used once. It's a system that remains in place to this day.

Modern DNA analysis is now so sensitive that contamination is a major issue, with the potential to send criminal investigations spiralling off in the wrong direction.
....

For years DNA has been seen as the ultimate crime-fighting weapon with successful convictions arising from ever smaller traces, but in many ways DNA analysis has become a victim of its own success.

Now that we have the ability to create a DNA profile from just a few human cells, traces can be found almost everywhere.

But as we are all depositing DNA everywhere we go, the significance of finding and analysing these traces will become increasingly open to interpretation unless there is sufficient DNA material present to eliminate the possibility of secondary contact or cross-contamination, or additional evidence supporting direct involvement in the crime. "

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26324244

Comments:

This account of DNA contamination explains why (by analogy) the "dirty" gloves and all the other improper collection techniques and improper lab methods and lab misconduct used in the AK - RS case invalidate the alleged DNA evidence against Knox and Sollecito.

No doubt the guilters will now claim that distinguished forensic scientist Dr. Mike Silverman is another bent shill for Amanda Knox, since he states that DNA can be contaminated.

Last edited by Numbers; 4th December 2018 at 10:35 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 12:21 AM   #2064
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,829
Numbers, excellent post. However, just how sure are we that Dr. Silverman isn't driving around in a new Ferrari? Can you prove that he isn't?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 06:57 AM   #2065
sept79
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 323
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
.
.
.
Consistent with this last view, the intentional storage of the bra clasps in a tube containing a liquid - apparently DNA extraction fluid - that caused the clasps to rust and thus almost certainly any remaining DNA to be broken up into its constituent nucleotides, suggests that Stefanoni did not want any further DNA analysis of the bra clasp that could confirm or contradict her analysis. And the only reasonable explanation of that would be if she realized further DNA analysis would contradict the analysis that she reported and thus potentially lead to legal or administrative measures adverse to her.

With respect to the alleged DNA of Meredith Kercher found on the blade of Raffaele Sollecito's kitchen knife, there is in fact no credible evidence that any DNA material was actually contained in the original sample "B", as the Qubit Fluorometer actually detected no such material; the Qubit read the DNA content as "too low" to detect. Stefanoni apparently did not attempt to DNA profile any other sample that registered as "too low" to detect on the Qubit Fluorometer. Although Stefanoni in response to a question denied in her court testimony that anyone had ever told her that there was DNA contamination in her lab, it is clear from her own DNA quantification records (qPCR) that in this case several controls (negative and positive) showed DNA contamination. Since no blood or other biological tissue was detectable on the blade, and the LCN character of the reported DNA profile attributed to sample "B", lead to the conclusion that this DNA profile was the result of a contamination. Furthermore, the knife blade did not match the geometry of any of Kercher's wounds. Thus, there is no probative value to the DNA profile alleged to have been found in sample "B" on the knife blade.

Again, based on the usual rules of evidence, scientific or forensic, the refusal of the investigator - Stefanoni - to provide the raw data underlying the results (of alleged DNA of Meredith Kercher found on the blade of Raffaele Sollecito's kitchen knife) can be considered as further indication that the alleged knife blade evidence cannot be considered evidence of the guilt of anyone.

And yet Massei, Chieffi, Nencini, and the PGP ignore this flagrant, criminal activity by Stefanoni. How many other trials has Stefanoni provided fraudulent test results?
sept79 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 09:46 AM   #2066
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,479
The guilters maintain that the results of flawed and non-credible forensic tests allegedly implicating Knox and Sollecito in the Kercher murder/rape case must be taken at face value, with no investigation of their reliability or accuracy, such as examining the raw DNA data, because the authorities that conduct such tests or pursue criminal cases are never mistaken, always follow forensic science standards, and never commit misconduct.

A counter-example that demolishes this guilter argument recently came to light in the UK:

"At least 40 motorists convicted of drug-driving offences have been cleared after evidence of manipulation was found in the forensic testing process.

The motorists were banned from driving and in some cases fined, but their convictions have since been overturned.

About 10,500 test results are being reviewed after data was allegedly manipulated at Randox Testing Services.

The National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) described it as a "most serious breach" of forensic science standards. ...."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-46466710
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 10:46 AM   #2067
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,093
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The guilters maintain that the results of flawed and non-credible forensic tests allegedly implicating Knox and Sollecito in the Kercher murder/rape case must be taken at face value, with no investigation of their reliability or accuracy, such as examining the raw DNA data, because the authorities that conduct such tests or pursue criminal cases are never mistaken, always follow forensic science standards, and never commit misconduct.

A counter-example that demolishes this guilter argument recently came to light in the UK:

"At least 40 motorists convicted of drug-driving offences have been cleared after evidence of manipulation was found in the forensic testing process.

The motorists were banned from driving and in some cases fined, but their convictions have since been overturned.

About 10,500 test results are being reviewed after data was allegedly manipulated at Randox Testing Services.

The National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) described it as a "most serious breach" of forensic science standards. ...."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-46466710
Yeah, but that's in the UK. In Italy, and especially when it's Dr. Stefanoni's lab, this type of thing never happens.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 12:23 PM   #2068
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,829
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Yeah, but that's in the UK. In Italy, and especially when it's Dr. Stefanoni's lab, this type of thing never happens.

Expect to hear about Vecchiotti's lab being shut down with "rotting cadavers unclaimed by relatives' and that 'were said to have piled up in the corridors'.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 6th December 2018 at 02:10 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:21 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.