Continuation Part Eight: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[anglolawyer]

That is how I remember it as well but I leave this to the DNA experts. Maybe Chris or Dio will chime in.

Pending that, it is not my understanding that she cranked up the machine. It's simpler than that. She said she used Real Time PCR to quantify and that the blade sample was positive to quantification. She also said the quantity was of the order of some hundreds of picograms. By 'said' I mean she told the court. But in fact she used the Qubit fluorometer which returned a 'too low' result meaning the quantity of DNA was below the machine's minimum detectable level:

On the other hand, it is not possible to comprehend the criteria adopted in the assessment of the positive quantification result for sample B and the negative result for sample C, given that the same result, “too low”, was obtained for both samples: that is, a value which must be considered not only below the sensitivity threshold of the Fluorimeter indicated by the manual (DNA concentrations equal to 0.2 ng/μl), but below 0.08 ng/μl, a value which the Fluorimeter detected for sample A.

Nor is it comprehensible, considering the negative results on sample B, what Dr. Stefanoni reported during the GUP questioning (page 178) where she stated that the DNA in sample B, quantified with Real Time PCR (it is recalled that such quantification as confirmed during the hearing was never carried out or, at least, no documentation was provided to support this claim), was “in the order of some hundreds of picograms”, a value which does not appear in any of the documents provided to us (SAL, Fluorimeter report, Real Time report, RTIGF).

It occurs to me that those who still give Stefanoni a pass, and those who trash C-V because Carla despised Stef and didn't confirm plainly to the court that it was Meredith's profile on the blade result etc etc have not read and/or understood the report.

 

[Planigale]

Also, I'm curious about another thing: where is the specific proof that the defense, or C&V, never received all the files from Stefanoni that they are alleged not to have received?

Additionally, I don't recall (and I could be very wrong) the defense bringing up the issue of not receiving missing files from Stefanoni at the most recent appeal. Was the issue of missing data from Stefanoni raised before Nencini by the defense attorneys?

I do not mean to be difficult but proving an absence is difficult. My belief is that if the full records had been disclosed these would have been released by now. The current available records show significant gaps (see http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/missing-profiles-draft/ ). In addition to the electropherograms of the negative controls for the knife there are other samples missing. Presumably they showed no DNA from Kercher, Sollecito, Guede or Knox so were of no interest to the prosecution. The results may be of value to the defence, they may have shown DNA of another unidentified individual. Multiple low level DNA samples would demonstrate environmental contamination.

Comments are made about the lack of Knox DNA and fingerprints indicating cleaning, but why no DNA from MK's boyfriend? Is this present on some unreported samples? It should not be upto the police alone to decide what results are relevant.

 

[Annella]

This from the Conti Vecchiotti Report is extraordinary!!


Related to the above, no security corridor was created for internal access with anticontamination criteria between the various environments; and indeed on these first two points, Dr. Stefanoni herself has stated, in the deposition of 10-4-2008 on pp.38-39: “…since we had our foot-covers [calzari], and had been entering many times obviously for the inspection activities in that room, and since the blood was abundant…the floor was certainly dirtier the second time, quote unquote, that is the blood had actually been spread around compared to the beginning of the inspection… this is the point, that is contamination is to be understood as something foreign [esogeno] brought in from the outside onto the crime scene… the only thing that could have happened in general in any inspection is that something could have been transferred which however is already there, if this something was moved, this can’t be ruled out but certainly nothing was brought in from the outside….Q:..So the most you can assume is a movement of DNA already present at the site?…A: Yes…” And again on pp. 83-84: “…Q: However the foot-covers aren’t being changed while you move around the house? A: It was possible to go back in…Q:…you went in and out of the rooms without changing the foot-covers…? A: Yes…“

 

[Desert Fox]

I'm good with the first but not the second. Suing the manufacturer may make sense, but you are getting nowhere with the interrogation. I don't see how Amanda is going to get money from the mfr but she might be able to get the manufacturer to say on the record that Stefanoni definitely misused their equipment.

Why not just simply request that the company on record give their position on the use of their machine for that kind of use? Such companies are probably far more sensitive to accusations of misuse than most companies.

 

[anglolawyer]

I do not mean to be difficult but proving an absence is difficult. My belief is that if the full records had been disclosed these would have been released by now. The current available records show significant gaps (see http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/missing-profiles-draft/ ). In addition to the electropherograms of the negative controls for the knife there are other samples missing. Presumably they showed no DNA from Kercher, Sollecito, Guede or Knox so were of no interest to the prosecution. The results may be of value to the defence, they may have shown DNA of another unidentified individual. Multiple low level DNA samples would demonstrate environmental contamination.

Comments are made about the lack of Knox DNA and fingerprints indicating cleaning, but why no DNA from MK's boyfriend? Is this present on some unreported samples? It should not be upto the police alone to decide what results are relevant.

The answer to griffinmill's question is in the Conti-Vechiotti report which s/he evidently has not read. This is the pattern with the PGPs. If there is something they don't like they put their heads in the sand and resort to ad hominem.

Griffinmill - read the sodding report. How much can it hurt? If you don't understand any of it there are folks here who will explain it for you.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Bongiorno addressed the lack of discovery in 2009

Griffinmill - read the sodding report. How much can it hurt? If you don't understand any of it there are folks here who will explain it for you.

anglolawyer,

Indeed, but there are additional pieces of information. There is Bongiorno's 2009 address to the court, to which a link was given in an earlier continuation thread some time ago (the document is available in both machine-translated English and Italian IIRC). There is also the story “Knox appeal: DNA experts to request more time” from the AFP on 20 May 2011, Knox lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova said “The experts asked the forensic police to hand over information essential to their report on the DNA. They still haven't received it and will therefore request a 40 days extension.” He added, “It's not the first time we've asked for the police to hand over this information,” He also said, “But they need the raw data they have asked for from the police to do so. We first asked for it in 2009 and it's still not been handed over.” The original link is now dead, but this appears to be identical.

 

[Strozzi]

Why not just simply request that the company on record give their position on the use of their machine for that kind of use? Such companies are probably far more sensitive to accusations of misuse than most companies.

Request the company . . . ? NO! Order the company with a court order!

The company could have done that voluntarily - but didn't. The company could have notified the Italian scientific lab, Stefanoni herself, the court, the prosecutor and defendants that it has come to their attention thst their instrument or test kit has been used in ways for which it was not intended and that the techniques and results may be false. The company chose to remain silent, probably for commercial reasons (future sales).

The Italian misuse was foreseeable and the company failed to protect against it. Their equipment or test kits were being misused, the company knew or should have known (it was in the media), and remained silent while harm was done. Knox and Sollecito suffered great harm. (product liability case)

My thought is that a civil suit for a massively-large sum (the hypothetical $100 million) against the manufacturer of equipment or test kit and police will put the issue /story of Italian scientific misuse/fraud on the evening news in Italy, US, Britain, and elsewhere. Imagine the headline "Amanda Knox sues US instrument manufacturer and Italian police for $100 million . . . Charges Italian police used fraudulent techniques to pruduce false test results and manufacturer knew and kept silent."

It will require detailed response in US court from the manufacturer that the Italians misused the equipment or test kit.

The Italian police lab and each police official named will have to cause their attorney to go before the US court to exclude them from the case due to jurisdiction issue.

It may invigorate Amanda and Raffaele to go on the offensive, for once. To paraphrase what Amanda wrote in an email about Laura when Laura finally got what she wanted after many nights alone: "Forca, Amanda!"

 

[Dan O.]

Has this point been made previously?

Yes, I brought it up in connection with the time constraints for when the DNA could have gotten on the bra clasp.

Amanda, the last reliable eyewitness of Meredith in the cottage says

As we were eating together Meredith came out of the shower and grabbed some laundry or put some laundry in, one or the other and returned into her room after saying hi to Raffale. After lunch I began to play guitar with Raffale and Meredith came out of her room and went to the door. She said bye and left for the day. It was the last time I saw her alive.

Why not test the stain for substance and dna, since with the above evidence from Amanda, it was almost certain to be part of the evening's tragedy?

Since we have been told that under Italian law, suspects are presumed to be lying, statements by Amanda are unusable as fact. But we don't need Amanda for this since it was independently observed that the washer contained Meredith's clothes, the contents were still wet at the time of discovery and the contents did not include the clothes she was wearing the previous day.


It is quite reasonable to conclude that this bra had limited exposure to male DNA. It could have been exposed to two male visitors to the cottage because as some point in the preeceeding week it would have been sitting out in tha hall on the drying rack. It is not reasonable to presume that there were 4 or more male visitors and that they each independentry touched the same hook on that clasp.

The other vector for the DNA to get on that clasp is through secondary transfer. Either the clasp contacted something in the environment that had collected the DNA or somebody that touched the clasp had collected the DNA from multiple male subjects before transfering it to the clasp. Again, the environment is confined to the cottage because it is not reasonable that Meredith left the cottage dragging the bra and it's clasp on the pavement.

I have mentioned before the indications that the bra was torn off of Meredith while she was dying. This action would not expose the clasp except perhaps to be stepped on and there are no indications that anyone was walking around in the murder room with bare feet. The location of the clasp excludes subsequent DNA transfer before it's discovery and since Italian law prohibits questioning Italian authorities thereby precluding a subsequent transfer, the only viable vector remaining for the DNA transfer to the clasp is a secondary transfer using Meredith herself as the intermediat carrier.

My speculation is that it would be entirely within her character the previous night while dressed as a vampire to assault multiple male "victims" and dig her vampire claws into their skin before sucking the life out of them through her vampire fangs. The same assault would have been repeated on Raffaele the next morning if while cooking lunch he were to turn in the house and accidentally touch Meredith with the tip of the knife he was using. Meredith then returns to her room, lays out the clothes she will be wearing that day, checks the clasp on the bra to insure that the hook is open by inserting her fingernail under the hook then takes a shower where the cleaning action removes the DNA she had collected the previous day.

I submit that this theory is entirely reasonable and consistent with the known facts. While the details cannot be proven, it provides reason for doubt of the DNA on the clasp being an indication that Raffaele was involved in Meredith's murder.

 

[Diocletus]

Pending that, it is not my understanding that she cranked up the machine. It's simpler than that. She said she used Real Time PCR to quantify and that the blade sample was positive to quantification. She also said the quantity was of the order of some hundreds of picograms. By 'said' I mean she told the court. But in fact she used the Qubit fluorometer which returned a 'too low' result meaning the quantity of DNA was below the machine's minimum detectable level:

There are several different issues on "cranking up" the machine that get confused in the discussion. E.g.:

1) "Too Low": This refers to the repeated "too low" notations found in the Qubit Flourometer quantification results. This is NOT an example of cranking up, but rather, shows that she disregarded the quantification process for the Batch 2 of the testing (this includes the knife). If a sample returned "too low" she sent it on to amplification anyway. This happened many times, hence the repeated "too low" entries in the records.

2) RFU scale: This is a kind of cranking up. Basically, she used a very low RFU scale, which effectively increased the magnification that was used to review the profiles, allowing Stefanoni to selectively use very low peaks to create a profile where one would not be found given proper interpretation guidelines. This happened with the knife.

3) Amplification Cycles: The amplification kit that Stefanoni used is calibrated to 28 cycles of amplification. It seems to me very likely that in some cases she "cranked up" her equipment to run 31, 34 or even more cycles of amplification, thus exceeding ordinary operating parameters. We do not know when she did this, though, because all of the amplification records have been suppressed. Running the amplification process at 31+ cycles would increase the probability of contamination and require a whole litany of prophylactic measures in the lab, but she did not implement these measures.

 

[Grinder]

Median household income in Italy in 2007 was 15,005 Euro
Median household income in US in 2007 was 52,673 USD (presently 38,636.38 Euros at 1.36 dollars per Euro)
In 2007, it varied from 1.29 to 1.48 dollars per euro so likely not too bad using today's rates.
On average, an Italian will make less than an American
50 Euros today is 68.17 dollars.
I can get a hotel room in a not horrid but not great area for that (in 2014.)
Figure though since people on average make less money in Italy, 50 Euro would likely be pretty easy to get a room.

Go to hotels.com if that's what you are interested in but the issue isn't whether he paid the 20 Euros he told the PLE or whether he paid nothing. The issue is whether he was let in or had a way in (key broken lock).

RW posted a translation of Rudi's interrogation in which he claimed the 20 Euros. I doubt anybody believed the 50 Euros that was originally reported. But as I said, that isn't what's important.

There is no credible information that states he broke in as in a forced window or door.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, I brought it up in connection with the time constraints for when the DNA could have gotten on the bra clasp.

Since we have been told that under Italian law, suspects are presumed to be lying, statements by Amanda are unusable as fact. But we don't need Amanda for this since it was independently observed that the washer contained Meredith's clothes, the contents were still wet at the time of discovery and the contents did not include the clothes she was wearing the previous day.

It is quite reasonable to conclude that this bra had limited exposure to male DNA. It could have been exposed to two male visitors to the cottage because as some point in the preeceeding week it would have been sitting out in tha hall on the drying rack. It is not reasonable to presume that there were 4 or more male visitors and that they each independentry touched the same hook on that clasp.

The other vector for the DNA to get on that clasp is through secondary transfer. Either the clasp contacted something in the environment that had collected the DNA or somebody that touched the clasp had collected the DNA from multiple male subjects before transfering it to the clasp. Again, the environment is confined to the cottage because it is not reasonable that Meredith left the cottage dragging the bra and it's clasp on the pavement.

I have mentioned before the indications that the bra was torn off of Meredith while she was dying. This action would not expose the clasp except perhaps to be stepped on and there are no indications that anyone was walking around in the murder room with bare feet. The location of the clasp excludes subsequent DNA transfer before it's discovery and since Italian law prohibits questioning Italian authorities thereby precluding a subsequent transfer, the only viable vector remaining for the DNA transfer to the clasp is a secondary transfer using Meredith herself as the intermediat carrier.

My speculation is that it would be entirely within her character the previous night while dressed as a vampire to assault multiple male "victims" and dig her vampire claws into their skin before sucking the life out of them through her vampire fangs. The same assault would have been repeated on Raffaele the next morning if while cooking lunch he were to turn in the house and accidentally touch Meredith with the tip of the knife he was using. Meredith then returns to her room, lays out the clothes she will be wearing that day, checks the clasp on the bra to insure that the hook is open by inserting her fingernail under the hook then takes a shower where the cleaning action removes the DNA she had collected the previous day.

I submit that this theory is entirely reasonable and consistent with the known facts. While the details cannot be proven, it provides reason for doubt of the DNA on the clasp being an indication that Raffaele was involved in Meredith's murder.

I really hate this theory Dan. Not that it didn't happen, but that anyone has to suggest what cannot really be known about how 4 males came to leave their DNA on that bra clasp. The idea from the ISC that the defense has to suggest a specific route for something that is clearly contamination drives me crazy and which I find stupid.

 

[Bill Williams]

This from the Conti Vecchiotti Report is extraordinary!!


Related to the above, no security corridor was created for internal access with anticontamination criteria between the various environments; and indeed on these first two points, Dr. Stefanoni herself has stated, in the deposition of 10-4-2008 on pp.38-39: “…since we had our foot-covers [calzari], and had been entering many times obviously for the inspection activities in that room, and since the blood was abundant…the floor was certainly dirtier the second time, quote unquote, that is the blood had actually been spread around compared to the beginning of the inspection… this is the point, that is contamination is to be understood as something foreign [esogeno] brought in from the outside onto the crime scene… the only thing that could have happened in general in any inspection is that something could have been transferred which however is already there, if this something was moved, this can’t be ruled out but certainly nothing was brought in from the outside….Q:..So the most you can assume is a movement of DNA already present at the site?…A: Yes…” And again on pp. 83-84: “…Q: However the foot-covers aren’t being changed while you move around the house? A: It was possible to go back in…Q:…you went in and out of the rooms without changing the foot-covers…? A: Yes…“

As well as this, Massei himself writes in his 2010 motivations report:

Dr. Chiacchiera reported that he stood in front of Meredith's room without entering; Napoleoni drew near to Meredith's room together with the assistant Buratti. They remained at the door, and Napoleoni took a step inside the room when the doctor from 118, who had arrived, uncovered the body. Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni stated that everyone who entered wore gloves and shoe-covers except for the personnel from 118, who, even without the precaution of shoe-covers and gloves could not have contaminated the clasp, it is observed, since it was well-hidden and, one might say, protected by Meredith's body and by the pillow under which it was found.​

Massei seems to be implying that contamination can only come about through direct contact, which none of the 118 staff had of the bra-clasp. Being medical people, they can be assumed not to have tracked in DNA!!!

But add to this what Stefanoni was to say about one of the 4 potential methods of contamination she admitted to at trial - she told the Massei court that at the Dec 18 collection the act of replacing an item on the floor is itself a potential route.

But it is good to see Massei go all "Nencini" on us. After writing that the 118 staff went in to Meredith's room with no protection he in another pace writes that there is no possible way Raffaele's DNA could make it into Meredith's room.

once the door was broken down, everyone was ordered to leave the house and Raffaele Sollecito did not enter into the cottage again, much less into Meredith's room.

There is no hypothesis for the ‚placing‛ of Raffaele Sollecito's DNA in Meredith's room which could have actually occurred under these circumstances.​

Maybe Massei's report is not deserving of a Nobel prize in literature when compared to Nencini!!!!

 

[Grinder]

So do you think 20 Euros is much money Grinder? I don't. Sounds broke to me.

Can you ever keep anything straight? I'm saying that the 50 Euro number is not what he told the PLE. But according to you he probably could buy a few laptops with 20 Euro

You have him stealing 2000 Euro then have him broke then have him stealing worthless laptops then setting fire and killing the cat all based on essentially nothing. We have no solid information of his rent situation but it is repeated over and over that it was due and that's why he was at the cottage.

You still fail to acknowledge that an unlocked window is all that Rudy needs to get inside the nursery and that wouldn't leave evidence of a break in.

You refuse to acknowledge that there is nothing that points to a break-in in the record. It is quite obvious that the nursery had been compromised and that's why the locks were being fixed.

You are making some big assumptions Grinder. How many times did the Spanish girls see the laptops at Rudy's? How many precisely were there? You'll have to excuse me. I don't have RW story accessible so this is friom memory. I din't think the Spanish girls story was specific about the number. We also don't know if they were there one day and gone the next.
Does anyone have an inventory of his apartment after he left town? Police or from his landlord?

The story had an precise amount. Anglo and I figure more than 3. Yes he may have fenced them before the murder. I think it was the Spanish guys not the girls.

We all make assumptions. Look at what you actually have. He was in the nursery with a kitchen knife and some petty cash. He had stolen merchandise on him. A guy came forward after Rudi's picture was in the paper and claimed Rudi was the guy in his place a month before. He claimed to have recognized him in a club shortly after the crime but neglected to report it to the police. Rudi was a regular at Domus. You have him desperate for rent money based on nothing that I've seen.

 

[Grinder]

Hi Nancy

Recall also that Meredith did her laundry that very day, so it seems likely she would have put all her dirty laundry, including semen stained pillow cases and previously worn bras in the laundry.

Cody

Some women like to preserve semen stained items (blue dress).

 

[acbytesla]

Can you ever keep anything straight? I'm saying that the 50 Euro number is not what he told the PLE. But according to you he probably could buy a few laptops with 20 Euro

Now you're being just petty and silly. We had been discussing how much money Rudy had with him when he was caught. It was my understanding that all he had was change on him. But you were referring to how much he paid to stay at the nursery.
But he can have all three of those laptops in my closet for 20 Euros. That would work for me. One is a Toshiba 3100 with Network General Sniffer Software on it. Believe it or not, This laptop (with the software on it sold for $30K) at one time.

You have him stealing 2000 Euro then have him broke then have him stealing worthless laptops then setting fire and killing the cat all based on essentially nothing. We have no solid information of his rent situation but it is repeated over and over that it was due and that's why he was at the cottage.

The 2000 Euros was stolen a month before. Maybe he did. maybe he didn't. I do believe he burglarized Ms. Diaz' home and yes, the only thing I have on that is the proximity of the victim's residence to Rudy's domicile.

You refuse to acknowledge that there is nothing that points to a break-in in the record. It is quite obvious that the nursery had been compromised and that's why the locks were being fixed.

I don't refuse to acknowledge it.

The story had an precise amount. Anglo and I figure more than 3. Yes he may have fenced them before the murder. I think it was the Spanish guys not the girls.

We all make assumptions. Look at what you actually have. He was in the nursery with a kitchen knife and some petty cash. He had stolen merchandise on him. A guy came forward after Rudi's picture was in the paper and claimed Rudi was the guy in his place a month before. He claimed to have recognized him in a club shortly after the crime but neglected to report it to the police. Rudi was a regular at Domus. You have him desperate for rent money based on nothing that I've seen.

I don't have him desperate for rent money at all. All I said is that Rudy's rent was probably due. Whether he was desperate or not is just your color commentary. A burglar need not be desperate...just motivated.

 

[anglolawyer]

There are several different issues on "cranking up" the machine that get confused in the discussion. E.g.:

1) "Too Low": This refers to the repeated "too low" notations found in the Qubit Flourometer quantification results. This is NOT an example of cranking up, but rather, shows that she disregarded the quantification process for the Batch 2 of the testing (this includes the knife). If a sample returned "too low" she sent it on to amplification anyway. This happened many times, hence the repeated "too low" entries in the records.

2) RFU scale: This is a kind of cranking up. Basically, she used a very low RFU scale, which effectively increased the magnification that was used to review the profiles, allowing Stefanoni to selectively use very low peaks to create a profile where one would not be found given proper interpretation guidelines. This happened with the knife.

3) Amplification Cycles: The amplification kit that Stefanoni used is calibrated to 28 cycles of amplification. It seems to me very likely that in some cases she "cranked up" her equipment to run 31, 34 or even more cycles of amplification, thus exceeding ordinary operating parameters. We do not know when she did this, though, because all of the amplification records have been suppressed. Running the amplification process at 31+ cycles would increase the probability of contamination and require a whole litany of prophylactic measures in the lab, but she did not implement these measures.

Thank you for improving on my reply and confirming my understanding on point one. As to your third point, I understood from Kaosium's posts several continuations ago that for LCN profiling 28 cycles are insufficient and 31 should be used (no doubt with the added risks you mention). Kaosium used to illustrate the point with a graphic from some learned paper he had somehow unearthed. Just quickly looking for a reference I recall in C-V I failed to find it (although there is a lengthy discussion of LCN typing which indeed mentions the 31 cycles it's not what I was looking for). If it turns up, I will post. The point was IIRC she accepted the need for 31 cycles but said (seemingly without explanation) she only amplified through 28.

 

[Bill Williams]

Just in case Vibio can find the time to post here again.....

I am wondering if he/she could translate this piece of the Nencini report for us. I would hope Vibio would pay special attention to the word, "amica".

If time allows, perhaps Vibio could offer an opinion on how this plays into Judge Nencini's view that contamination was impossible, so as to discredit the DNA evidence at trial.

 

[anglolawyer]

I really hate this theory Dan. Not that it didn't happen, but that anyone has to suggest what cannot really be known about how 4 males came to leave their DNA on that bra clasp. The idea from the ISC that the defense has to suggest a specific route for something that is clearly contamination drives me crazy and which I find stupid.

By slow drip, involving repetition, patience, courtesy and tolerance I aim to firmly embed the idea here that, as with the lamp being IN THE ROOM, there is insufficient evidence that anything was ON THE CLASP at all. Recall, she destroyed the evidence (enough by itself). Recall further that, as well as that, she misrepresented it (suppressing information about the other peaks) until forced to disgorge more data. She still has not provided the EDFs. The item in question is itself open to serious objection as a piece of evidence for many well-rehearsed reasons. She is at best subject to 'understandable lapses of memory' and at worst a liar. Why would anybody take her word for it that 165B really came from the clasp itself?

 

[acbytesla]

There are several different issues on "cranking up" the machine that get confused in the discussion. E.g.:

1) "Too Low": This refers to the repeated "too low" notations found in the Qubit Flourometer quantification results. This is NOT an example of cranking up, but rather, shows that she disregarded the quantification process for the Batch 2 of the testing (this includes the knife). If a sample returned "too low" she sent it on to amplification anyway. This happened many times, hence the repeated "too low" entries in the records.

2) RFU scale: This is a kind of cranking up. Basically, she used a very low RFU scale, which effectively increased the magnification that was used to review the profiles, allowing Stefanoni to selectively use very low peaks to create a profile where one would not be found given proper interpretation guidelines. This happened with the knife.

3) Amplification Cycles: The amplification kit that Stefanoni used is calibrated to 28 cycles of amplification. It seems to me very likely that in some cases she "cranked up" her equipment to run 31, 34 or even more cycles of amplification, thus exceeding ordinary operating parameters. We do not know when she did this, though, because all of the amplification records have been suppressed. Running the amplification process at 31+ cycles would increase the probability of contamination and require a whole litany of prophylactic measures in the lab, but she did not implement these measures.

I'm curious about the amplification process. This is an exponential type process...correct? Like 1 amplification would b like 2x2, 2 amplifications 2x4, 2x8 or some other multiple? It's like the old question would you rather I pay you a million dollars today or I'll pay you 1 cent today and ever day for a month I'll double that payment.

I'll save you the time to figure it out. Take the penny. If we are talking about July, it close to 11 million dollars.

 

[Diocletus]

By slow drip, involving repetition, patience, courtesy and tolerance I aim to firmly embed the idea here that, as with the lamp being IN THE ROOM, there is insufficient evidence that anything was ON THE CLASP at all. Recall, she destroyed the evidence (enough by itself). Recall further that, as well as that, she misrepresented it (suppressing information about the other peaks) until forced to disgorge more data. She still has not provided the EDFs. The item in question is itself open to serious objection as a piece of evidence for many well-rehearsed reasons. She is at best subject to 'understandable lapses of memory' and at worst a liar. Why would anybody take her word for it that 165B really came from the clasp itself?

I've been taking a close look at the lab data, and there are some really screwy things going on with the clasp. Examples:

The numbering for the clasp sub-Reps is transposed: 165b comes before 165a. This is not seen in any other sample.

The 165b egram comes from a different plate (414) than it should be in (410), and is the only sample identified for that plate. This suggests that it is the result of an unreported re-run after the main batch runs were completed.

More later.