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

[Bill Williams]

Diocletus,
This is potentially a VERY significant explosive finding. Do you or anyone one on this forum know who authored this critique of the evaluation of DNA from the bra clasp by Steffanoni?

My hope is that it is explosive, but there's a whole host of questions. I don't want to go all griffinmill on you, but where has this been all these years?

Maybe no one thought it was needed, esp. since the Hellmann acquitals. And esp. since nothing was presented to the Nencini court, really that challenged C&V..... save for Nencini reinventing DNA forensics in deliberation.

These aren't the missing EDFs are they? If not, haven't they been around for seven years?

 

[Strozzi]

Remember how the cops went to get the bra clasp as soon as they learned that the Sollecitos had rubbished the shoe prints?

Check this out: http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/batch-5-bra-clasp-contamination-undocumented-re-run-tampering/

The Machine Malfunction results cited below, taken from the link above provided by Diocletus, are great. I say that because it can be a basis of the product liability lawsuit that I advocate Knox bring in a US court against the manufacturer of the DNA testing machine, the manufacturer of the test kit, Italian scientific police lab, and Stefanoni by name.

If Knox files suit, the Italian scientific police organization and Stefanoni will have to hire a US lawyer to appear in the US court to claim that the US court lacks jurisdiction over them and to request they be separated from the suit. US, Italian, and British journalists will line up 3-deep to cover the story - especially if Knox's suit asks $100 million in damages.

The manufacturers will not escape from jurisdiction, assuming they are US entities or foreign organizations with a nexus/ business presence in the US.

The machine manufacturer and test kit manufacturer will have to defend themselves from the product liability lawsuit. Most probably by testifying/proving in court that the Italian police lab misused their machine or test kit and that the results obtained from it are scientifically false, and perhaps the result of lab fraud.

Which then raises the question of what did the manufacturers do about it when it became public that the results obtained were possibly or probably false. Did the manufacturers notify the court and all parties involved that the machine has been misused? I see a product liability judgement in Knox's favor. Did the manufacturers revoke any licenses issued to the lab? If not, why not? Answer: didn't know, or did know but chose to do nothing in order to protect potential future sales in Italy.

The following is from the link:

3. Machine Malfunction

Not only is contamination in the Real Time run for Batch 5, but it is also evident that the machine was malfunctioning, likely due to a failure to maintain it properly. The dilution standards (i.e., dilutions used to calibrate the machine readings) for the quantification run are shown at wells A1 through B9, and when the Ct results for these standards are compared to other runs, it can be seen that the dilution standards for RT-qPCR Run 570 are approximately 4 Ct higher than for most of the other runs (there are a few prior RT-qPCR Runs for which the machine also appears to be malfunctioning). This discrepancy demonstrates that there is a problem with the operation of the machine. Notably, Batch 5 was the last batch for which the lab used the ABI 7700 Real Time machine: all subsequent samples were quantified via a Fast Time 7500 machine, demonstrating that the lab was aware of, and reacted to, the malfunctioning real Time machine.

 

[Strozzi]

Ct is the nth cycle at which the machine detects a critical mass of DNA in the reaction.

That said, the definition of Ct isn't that important to understand. All you need to know is that the calibration of this run is way different than the calibration of the other runs, and that isn't supposed to happen and it means that something is screwed up in the functioning of the machine.

I contend that the machine's software which calculates results should scream Possible Contamination or Tilt when results are not in a normal range. If a human can spot the discrepancy, the machine's software can too!

The machine is sold to a police lab, and it is foreseeable that a police lab tech (a "Dr." In Italy) can accidentally or deliberately "miss" a discrepancy and produce bad results that are used to cause harm to an individual.

 

[Bill Williams]

.
May I offer my own dumb-downed interpretation:

You have this machine.
You put something in one end and it gives a result out the other end.
To make sure it is working correctly you do a couple of things:

1. You put a known nothing in the input end, and expect a known nothing result from the output end.
2. You put a known something in the input end, and expect a known something result from the output end.

If either of these fails, something is wrong.

So to continue the analogy, how does this relate to this case? Remember, you are dealing with a simpleton.

 

[Strozzi]

So to continue the analogy, how does this relate to this case? Remember, you are dealing with a simpleton.

Bill, don't refer to yourself that way! You're brighter than an Italian "Dr."

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, don't refer to yourself that way! You're brighter than an Italian "Dr."

That's downright cruel! I thought you liked me!?

 

[acbytesla]

If the lab is s___, you must acquit.

This is absolutely amazing Diocletus. Impressive job. Amazing that this hasn't been noticed by anyone up until now. Not only are you proving the contamination but that Stefanoni's lab was beyond incompetent and probably corrupt.

I think the way it is described on the WIKI is excellent!!! Any possibilities that someone of stature, say ie: Greg Hampikian might comment on this information?

 

[JREF2010]

The Machine Malfunction results cited below, taken from the link above provided by Diocletus, are great. I say that because it can be a basis of the product liability lawsuit that I advocate Knox bring in a US court against the manufacturer of the DNA testing machine, the manufacturer of the test kit, Italian scientific police lab, and Stefanoni by name.

If Knox files suit, the Italian scientific police organization and Stefanoni will have to hire a US lawyer to appear in the US court to claim that the US court lacks jurisdiction over them and to request they be separated from the suit. US, Italian, and British journalists will line up 3-deep to cover the story - especially if Knox's suit asks $100 million in damages.

The manufacturers will not escape from jurisdiction, assuming they are US entities or foreign organizations with a nexus/ business presence in the US.

The machine manufacturer and test kit manufacturer will have to defend themselves from the product liability lawsuit. Most probably by testifying/proving in court that the Italian police lab misused their machine or test kit and that the results obtained from it are scientifically false, and perhaps the result of lab fraud.

Which then raises the question of what did the manufacturers do about it when it became public that the results obtained were possibly or probably false. Did the manufacturers notify the court and all parties involved that the machine has been misused? I see a product liability judgement in Knox's favor. Did the manufacturers revoke any licenses issued to the lab? If not, why not? Answer: didn't know, or did know but chose to do nothing in order to protect potential future sales in Italy.

The following is from the link:

3. Machine Malfunction

Not only is contamination in the Real Time run for Batch 5, but it is also evident that the machine was malfunctioning, likely due to a failure to maintain it properly. The dilution standards (i.e., dilutions used to calibrate the machine readings) for the quantification run are shown at wells A1 through B9, and when the Ct results for these standards are compared to other runs, it can be seen that the dilution standards for RT-qPCR Run 570 are approximately 4 Ct higher than for most of the other runs (there are a few prior RT-qPCR Runs for which the machine also appears to be malfunctioning). This discrepancy demonstrates that there is a problem with the operation of the machine. Notably, Batch 5 was the last batch for which the lab used the ABI 7700 Real Time machine: all subsequent samples were quantified via a Fast Time 7500 machine, demonstrating that the lab was aware of, and reacted to, the malfunctioning real Time machine.

The company who sells the machine isnt responsible for how purchasers/owners run the tool. It is the new owners responsibility to calibrate, maintain and operate it using the recommended methods.

It's no different than a car, or gun, or whatever else... a person buys it and owns it. If the state or Stefonani want to run the tool in a sloppy manner, in a unclean room, and not follow instructions on RFU thats not the tool manufacturers fault.

I do agree they might be great witnesses to testify Stefonani ran to the tool in a odd way, or incorrect way. Applied Biosystems most likely trains and installs the tools onsite, then the users are there to follow the rules.

I can take a lamens term explanation on the controls. Controls are used at my work a lot.

How do you know the tool is clean and ready to be used? a blank control goes in, negative controls, and if clean the sample should be clean coming out. If a clean sample goes in and comes out dirty, then some maintenance is needed on the tool, it is faulty and shouldnt be used.

How do you know the tool is calibrated? you put in a known sample, positive controls, when it reads the sample it should be reading what the known sample is...if not its not calibrated, its not reading correctly and needs to be calibrated.

IMagine a weight scale factory, to test the weight scale, you would put nothing on it and it should weigh zero.....put a known sample, say 5lb bag of sugar and the scale should read 5lbs.

 

[JREF2010]

I'm not sure I agree that what the pedestrians did or didn't see is insignificant (though I agree of course that there are other reasons to doubt Toto!). If the defence could have called the people who walked through the piazza from 9 to midnight to testify, and if none of them saw the couple by the railings who Toto says were there all evening, I think that would definitely be a point in favour of the defence. The same goes for anyone else who might have been in the piazza that night, the people who regularly played basketball there, for example. The police and prosecution should have wanted to find corroboration for what Toto supposedly saw as much as the defence wanted to refute it, so they should've been interested in questioning anyone who could support Curatolo's sighting too - assuming they actually believed in it...

According to Rudy Guede there were a lot of people to corroborate the heroin addict sloth, aka Toto's, story.

I left the house in shock. I was outside, but didn’t know where to go, seeing still all that blood. It was all so red. I thought of going home. I had wet trousers and tried to cover it with the sweatshirt. There were a lot of people in the street, in Piazza Grimana. There were some guys still playing basketball even though it was dark.

Did Migninni or Napoleoni do any standard questioning?...of course not.
We all saw the Edgardo Giobbi video, we know where his head is at now.
These are the types of retards who were doing this investigation.

 

[codyjuneau]

.
May I offer my own dumb-downed interpretation:

You have this machine.
You put something in one end and it gives a result out the other end.
To make sure it is working correctly you do a couple of things:

1. You put a known nothing in the input end, and expect a known nothing result from the output end.
2. You put a known something in the input end, and expect a known something result from the output end.

If either of these fails, something is wrong.

So to continue the analogy, how does this relate to this case? Remember, you are dealing with a simpleton.

.
Okay, for what it's worth, my understanding is:

• The lab put a batch of samples they wanted to profile, in the input side of the machine.
• The batch of samples included the bra clasp samples.
• The batch of samples also included a couple of 'known something' samples.
• The 'known something' samples should have given a 'known something' result at the output end.
• Instead, the 'known something' samples gave a 'known something' result which showed almost 5 times as much DNA as they should have.
• Hence, the same thing could have happened to some or all of the other samples in the batch, including the bra clasp.

Besides that, the results from many of the samples in the batch were suppressed, and there are numbering inconsistencies, but those are beyond my pay grade.

Cody
.

 

[RandyN]

That's downright cruel! I thought you liked me!?

No one likes you. Sorry.

 

[RandyN]

The Machine Malfunction results cited below, taken from the link above provided by Diocletus, are great. I say that because it can be a basis of the product liability lawsuit that I advocate Knox bring in a US court against the manufacturer of the DNA testing machine, the manufacturer of the test kit, Italian scientific police lab, and Stefanoni by name.

If Knox files suit, the Italian scientific police organization and Stefanoni will have to hire a US lawyer to appear in the US court to claim that the US court lacks jurisdiction over them and to request they be separated from the suit. US, Italian, and British journalists will line up 3-deep to cover the story - especially if Knox's suit asks $100 million in damages.

The manufacturers will not escape from jurisdiction, assuming they are US entities or foreign organizations with a nexus/ business presence in the US.

The machine manufacturer and test kit manufacturer will have to defend themselves from the product liability lawsuit. Most probably by testifying/proving in court that the Italian police lab misused their machine or test kit and that the results obtained from it are scientifically false, and perhaps the result of lab fraud.

Which then raises the question of what did the manufacturers do about it when it became public that the results obtained were possibly or probably false. Did the manufacturers notify the court and all parties involved that the machine has been misused? I see a product liability judgement in Knox's favor. Did the manufacturers revoke any licenses issued to the lab? If not, why not? Answer: didn't know, or did know but chose to do nothing in order to protect potential future sales in Italy.

The following is from the link:

3. Machine Malfunction

Not only is contamination in the Real Time run for Batch 5, but it is also evident that the machine was malfunctioning, likely due to a failure to maintain it properly. The dilution standards (i.e., dilutions used to calibrate the machine readings) for the quantification run are shown at wells A1 through B9, and when the Ct results for these standards are compared to other runs, it can be seen that the dilution standards for RT-qPCR Run 570 are approximately 4 Ct higher than for most of the other runs (there are a few prior RT-qPCR Runs for which the machine also appears to be malfunctioning). This discrepancy demonstrates that there is a problem with the operation of the machine. Notably, Batch 5 was the last batch for which the lab used the ABI 7700 Real Time machine: all subsequent samples were quantified via a Fast Time 7500 machine, demonstrating that the lab was aware of, and reacted to, the malfunctioning real Time machine.

I agree 100%!

Go after the manufacturer as if the Italians were not idiots and that the results they got were close to acceptable. Then, let the manufacturer prove that the Italians were corrupt deceptive idiots! Not that hard actually but the argument always gets lost in the BS. "OH but there was a a 6 day delay period"...etc blah blah...

Force the manufacturer to go before the world and explain (to the Italians) how they designed the machine (and the kits) to work. And what happens when you ignore the design limitations.

Sue the Bass...d's Thats the ticket!

 

[Strozzi]

The company who sells the machine isnt responsible for how purchasers/owners run the tool. It is the new owners responsibility to calibrate, maintain and operate it using the recommended methods.

It's no different than a car, or gun, or whatever else... a person buys it and owns it. If the state or Stefonani want to run the tool in a sloppy manner, in a unclean room, and not follow instructions on RFU thats not the tool manufacturers fault.

I do agree they might be great witnesses to testify Stefonani ran to the tool in a odd way, or incorrect way. Applied Biosystems most likely trains and installs the tools onsite, then the users are there to follow the rules.

I can take a lamens term explanation on the controls. Controls are used at my work a lot.

How do you know the tool is clean and ready to be used? a blank control goes in, negative controls, and if clean the sample should be clean coming out. If a clean sample goes in and comes out dirty, then some maintenance is needed on the tool, it is faulty and shouldnt be used.

How do you know the tool is calibrated? you put in a known sample, positive controls, when it reads the sample it should be reading what the known sample is...if not its not calibrated, its not reading correctly and needs to be calibrated.

IMagine a weight scale factory, to test the weight scale, you would put nothing on it and it should weigh zero.....put a known sample, say 5lb bag of sugar and the scale should read 5lbs.

I maintain that the manufacturer of the machine should provide safeguards against accidental or deliberate errors, since the machine if used in an unsound way can harm people. The manufacturer provides instructions to the customer so that the machine is used properly. That is acknowledgement that misuse can occur. The machine should be designed to alert the operator or others if/when results are outside normal ranges.

WHen I have medical tests done the lab conducting the tests provides numerical results. It also identifies where the results fall on a scale. If the results are outside a normal range, the printout flags that. The DNA machine sold to the scientific police lab should flag results that are outside the norm. It should provide numerical or graphical results and print a warning when those results are outside a norm.

Misuse is foreseeable. The manufacturer should build in precautions against misuse.

 

[acbytesla]

The company who sells the machine isnt responsible for how purchasers/owners run the tool. It is the new owners responsibility to calibrate, maintain and operate it using the recommended methods.

It's no different than a car, or gun, or whatever else... a person buys it and owns it. If the state or Stefonani want to run the tool in a sloppy manner, in a unclean room, and not follow instructions on RFU thats not the tool manufacturers fault.

I do agree they might be great witnesses to testify Stefonani ran to the tool in a odd way, or incorrect way. Applied Biosystems most likely trains and installs the tools onsite, then the users are there to follow the rules.

I can take a lamens term explanation on the controls. Controls are used at my work a lot.

How do you know the tool is clean and ready to be used? a blank control goes in, negative controls, and if clean the sample should be clean coming out. If a clean sample goes in and comes out dirty, then some maintenance is needed on the tool, it is faulty and shouldnt be used.

How do you know the tool is calibrated? you put in a known sample, positive controls, when it reads the sample it should be reading what the known sample is...if not its not calibrated, its not reading correctly and needs to be calibrated.

IMagine a weight scale factory, to test the weight scale, you would put nothing on it and it should weigh zero.....put a known sample, say 5lb bag of sugar and the scale should read 5lbs.

While I agree to a certain degree, I believe it could be argued that the manufacturer has a duty to the community that wrongful convictions are not made as a result of obvious misuse of their equipment. Turning a blind eye could be seen as abdicating their responsibility.

 

[codyjuneau]

No one likes you. Sorry.

.
I like Bill.

I like you too.

Cody
.

 

[acbytesla]

.
I like Bill.

I like you too.

Cody
.

Grinder doesn't like anyone..... Only kidding Grinder... Oh where are you Grinder???

 

[Planigale]

I think we need to remember this is a state institution, in Italy. I suspect that there will be no liability to the manufacturer in Italy where the sale happened. I think US courts would have no jurisdiction. I think this is not like European drug manufacturers who legally cannot sell drugs in to the US for purposes of execution, or similar legal bans e.g. selling weaponry to Iran, where legislation exists to ban the sale.

I think we may not understand the subtleties of Italian law. Machiaveli previously implied that the only evidence that Italian courts accept is the opinion / interpretation of the expert. The process by which the result is obtained is irrelevant, just what is reported as the result. We see that eye and ear witness testimony are given higher priority in the narrative than scientific analysis. The ballistics expert testimony on glass distribution is taken less seriously than the subjective opinion of the police on how the window was broken. Any computer alibi will be outweighed by the eyewitness testimony.

In common law jurisdictions, courts can make law. Thus when LCN DNA evidence was introduced, it was appealed, it became worth while for the appeal court to spend time and effort on this, setting rules about the evidence since this would bind other courts. Unless the Italian legislature passes law each court will come to their own conclusion, and they will only do this from the current legislative view point since they cannot make law. One of the reasons common law jurisdictions are popular for international companies is their ability to deal with novel issues ahead of legislation and consistency once a ruling has been made (and appealed). Oh and relative to Italy - speed.

 

[acbytesla]

I maintain that the manufacturer of the machine should provide safeguards against accidental or deliberate errors, since the machine if used in an unsound way can harm people. The manufacturer provides instructions to the customer so that the machine is used properly. That is acknowledgement that misuse can occur. The machine should be designed to alert the operator or others if/when results are outside normal ranges.

WHen I have medical tests done the lab conducting the tests provides numerical results. It also identifies where the results fall on a scale. If the results are outside a normal range, the printout flags that. The DNA machine sold to the scientific police lab should flag results that are outside the norm. It should provide numerical or graphical results and print a warning when those results are outside a norm.

Misuse is foreseeable. The manufacturer should build in precautions against misuse.

That would be the question at hand. Is it foreseeable that their equipment could be used in such a way that results in wrongful convictions. There is a reason that there are warning signs on just about everything. I can just imagine the maker of said equipment testifying in court saying that they cannot police every test and that they have made clear that results below a particular threshold or failure to maintain proper protocols forensically invalidates the results.

 

[anglolawyer]

I think we need to remember this is a state institution, in Italy. I suspect that there will be no liability to the manufacturer in Italy where the sale happened. I think US courts would have no jurisdiction. I think this is not like European drug manufacturers who legally cannot sell drugs in to the US for purposes of execution, or similar legal bans e.g. selling weaponry to Iran, where legislation exists to ban the sale.

I think we may not understand the subtleties of Italian law. Machiaveli previously implied that the only evidence that Italian courts accept is the opinion / interpretation of the expert. The process by which the result is obtained is irrelevant, just what is reported as the result. We see that eye and ear witness testimony are given higher priority in the narrative than scientific analysis. The ballistics expert testimony on glass distribution is taken less seriously than the subjective opinion of the police on how the window was broken. Any computer alibi will be outweighed by the eyewitness testimony.

In common law jurisdictions, courts can make law. Thus when LCN DNA evidence was introduced, it was appealed, it became worth while for the appeal court to spend time and effort on this, setting rules about the evidence since this would bind other courts. Unless the Italian legislature passes law each court will come to their own conclusion, and they will only do this from the current legislative view point since they cannot make law. One of the reasons common law jurisdictions are popular for international companies is their ability to deal with novel issues ahead of legislation and consistency once a ruling has been made (and appealed). Oh and relative to Italy - speed.

Hmm, I have been thinking about this a bit, trying to figure out what's wrong with Strozzi's idea. If an American citizen buys an American-made car in Italy and has a crash caused by a design defect, can't they sue in the States? There is probably a statutory product liability as well as contract and tort liability and the product liability case should be triable in the states. What if a US citizen is mown down by a defective American car while on holiday in Italy? Product liability? Tort?

By analogy, if the DNA sequencer or amplifier or whatever is knowingly sold for use in forensic labs and has a design defect such that it is liable, even if well maintained and used in accordance with the manual, to give false results that could lead to a wrongful conviction, why can't there be liability as above?

 

[Samson]

.
I like Bill.

I like you too.

Cody
.

This thread is scientific, because critical thinking entails science.
All contributions are useful if the attempt at refutation survives scrutiny.