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

Status
Not open for further replies.
obfuscation on the stain

Bill Williams said:
Ok, one last one....

Here is BBC4 interviewing Giancarol Costagliola (prosecutor) as to why the defence request to test the presumed semen stain was declined.

"Because if it pointed to someone unknown to us, it would have led us down the wrong path of investigation. Meredith Kercher was known to have an active sex life."
Click to expand...
American prosecutors do this sort of thing frequently enough that public defenders have a name for the person who is responsible for the putative semen stain, the unindicted co-ejaculator. How the PG commentariat can defend Costagliola's obfuscation is beyond me.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
American prosecutors do this sort of thing frequently enough that public defenders have a name for the person who is responsible for the putative semen stain, the unindicted co-ejaculator. How the PG commentariat can defend Costagliola's obfuscation is beyond me.
Click to expand...

That is funny Chris.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
American prosecutors do this sort of thing frequently enough that public defenders have a name for the person who is responsible for the putative semen stain, the unindicted co-ejaculator. How the PG commentariat can defend Costagliola's obfuscation is beyond me.
Click to expand...

A guy goes into a convenience store with a 6 shot revolver. Revolvers do not eject shell casings behind as evidence, and all witnesses identify what he was holding as a 6-shot revolver.

During the course of the robbery, the guy fires multiple shots from the revolver inside the store. All the witnesses say that the robber then fled.

At investigation, the Scientific Police recover 5 slugs, and prove that all five must have been fired from the same revolver. All witnesses say that the robber did not reload: but some counted five while others counted six shots.

Yet, the Scientific Police note a hole in a wall with a 6th slug embedded in a 2x4 behind it.

Patrick Stephens, the lead investigator, instructs his team not to dig out the slug. His rationale is this:

- bullets from guns are not "time stamped" as to when they've been fired
- this store has been robbed before, and there's a possibility the robber back then used a gun, although no one knows for sure
- if this 6th slug matched the other five then it adds nothing to understanding the robbery in question - those who counted 5 shots were obviously mistaken.
- if this 6th slug does not match the other five, then it will simply take the investigation down a path that does not involve the robber.​

What is wrong with Patrick Stephens and his instructions to his team?
 
One does a calibration curve because the readings one gets from run to run vary due to slight variations in reagents etc. Therefore a variation in calibration curve results is to be expected and does not in itself indicate any error in technique or contamination.

Discuss.

The manuals for the machine may set a range of expected values which if the positive controls fall out of range the run needs to be redone, do we know if this is the case?
 
Then what explains the change in Threshold for this particular run? For most runs Threshold is set to 0.10 but in the particular run in question, Threshold is set to 0.13.

In reading the documentation, I got the impression that Threshold was adjusted automattically to be above the baseline established by the earlier cycles. The reagents should all be comming from the same batch so there shouldn't be much variation from run to run. One possibility is if there is any light leak in the casing of the machine and for one run the machine is under intense illumination, that may be reflected by raising the baseline illumination and therefore result in an increased Threshold which in turn would result in more cycles for each cell to reach that higher Threshold.
 
Planigale said:
One does a calibration curve because the readings one gets from run to run vary due to slight variations in reagents etc. Therefore a variation in calibration curve results is to be expected and does not in itself indicate any error in technique or contamination.

Discuss.

The manuals for the machine may set a range of expected values which if the positive controls fall out of range the run needs to be redone, do we know if this is the case?
Click to expand...

Yup, a small variation is expected. But not by +4 Ct. That means that there is a problem.
 
Bill Williams said:
A guy goes into a convenience store with a 6 shot revolver. Revolvers do not eject shell casings behind as evidence, and all witnesses identify what he was holding as a 6-shot revolver.

During the course of the robbery, the guy fires multiple shots from the revolver inside the store. All the witnesses say that the robber then fled.

At investigation, the Scientific Police recover 5 slugs, and prove that all five must have been fired from the same revolver. All witnesses say that the robber did not reload: but some counted five while others counted six shots.

Yet, the Scientific Police note a hole in a wall with a 6th slug embedded in a 2x4 behind it.

Patrick Stephens, the lead investigator, instructs his team not to dig out the slug. His rationale is this:

- bullets from guns are not "time stamped" as to when they've been fired
- this store has been robbed before, and there's a possibility the robber back then used a gun, although no one knows for sure
- if this 6th slug matched the other five then it adds nothing to understanding the robbery in question - those who counted 5 shots were obviously mistaken.
- if this 6th slug does not match the other five, then it will simply take the investigation down a path that does not involve the robber.​

What is wrong with Patrick Stephens and his instructions to his team?
Click to expand...

Bill, refine your test question for a crime scene where there were no witnesses. From the slugs found you know that there was at least one gunman.

Then you find evidence indicating that an additional object which looks on the surface may be a slug is embedded in a wall stud, but you don't know for sure that it is indeed a slug and if it is is it from the same weapon that fired the other slugs or is it from a different weapon - perhaps even a different calliber, which could indicate a second person was present and who it might be. Plus, it is not time-stamped.

Should you test it to determine:
1) is it a slug?
2) is it a match to the other slugs fired during the crime?
3) does it belong to a different gun?
4) if it is determined to be from a different gun, can you identify the gun that fired from a ballestics database you possess?
--- Oh, bye the way, three caveats apply to the above:
a) the prosecutor is certain that another man was present during the shooting. The man legally carries a gun at all times.
B) The prosecutor is also certain that a woman was involved but it is known that due to a genetic quirk she lacks the digit to fire a gun.
C) lots of men in the neighborhood carry guns. The gun ballistics profiles of some of the men are in your crime database.
 
Last edited:
Strozzi said:
Bill, refine your test question for a crime scene where there were no witnesses. From the slugs found you know that there was at least one gunman.

Then you find evidence indicating that an additional object which looks on the surface may be a slug is embedded in a wall stud, but you don't know for sure that it is indeed a slug and if it is is it from the same weapon that fired the other slugs or is it from a different weapon - perhaps even a different calliber, which could indicate a second person was present and who it might be. Plus, it is not time-stamped.

Should you test it to determine:
1) is it a slug?
2) is it a match to the other slugs fired during the crime?
3) does it belong to a different gun?
4) if it is determined to be from a different gun, can you identify the gun that fired from a ballestics database you possess?
--- Oh, bye the way, three caveats apply to the above:
a) the prosecutor is certain that another man was present during the shooting. The man legally carries a gun at all times.
B) The prosecutor is also certain that a woman was involved but it is known that due to a genetic quirk she lacks the digit to fire a gun.
C) lots of men in the neighborhood carry guns. The gun ballistics profiles of some of the men are in your crime database.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. And as humble as ever. (Do you note that it is virtually impossible to brag about being so humble?)

And.................................... LOL!
 
Last edited:
Diocletus said:
Yup, a small variation is expected. But not by +4 Ct. That means that there is a problem.
Click to expand...

Has your analysis been seen by a true expert in the field Diocletus and have your received any feedback? It seems to me highly unlikely that Conti and Vechiotti would have missed this.
 
acbytesla said:
It seems to me highly unlikely that Conti and Vechiotti would have missed this.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about the ct variation, there is no way that they would have seen it, because you have to look beyond the bra clasp, which they didn't really do. I'll tell you who did notice it, though, and that's Patricia Stefanoni. She switched to a different machine immediately after this result.
 
Diocletus said:
If you're talking about the ct variation, there is no way that they would have seen it, because you have to look beyond the bra clasp, which they didn't really do. I'll tell you who did notice it, though, and that's Patricia Stefanoni. She switched to a different machine immediately after this result.
Click to expand...

What about the rest of my question? Have you shown this to any DNA experts and have they offered any feedback?
 
Diocletus said:
If you're talking about the ct variation, there is no way that they would have seen it, because you have to look beyond the bra clasp, which they didn't really do. I'll tell you who did notice it, though, and that's Patricia Stefanoni. She switched to a different machine immediately after this result.
Click to expand...

Diocletus, first I want to say that I greatly admire your posts for both their unfailing wit and intelligence. It's always a pleasure to read what you write. But I'm genuinely curious, what are your scientific credentials? We're on the same side of course, so that's not meant as a challenge. I would simply like to know more about what background you possess that positions you for the work you've done on the DNA.
 
Diocletus, You failed to mention that Threshold had changed for this run. That is a huge difference which alone could explain the increased cycle counts. There may be nothing here (except for what caused the Threshold change).
 
js202 said:
Diocletus, first I want to say that I greatly admire your posts for both their unfailing wit and intelligence. It's always a pleasure to read what you write. But I'm genuinely curious, what are your scientific credentials? We're on the same side of course, so that's not meant as a challenge. I would simply like to know more about what background you possess that positions you for the work you've done on the DNA.
Click to expand...


Whatever his background, we can always Photoshop in something better before going to press. :D
 
I couldn't pass up doing a little math. Here I have created a little chart showing the calibration curve data for the first 8 runs.
(Click on the chart to see the real thing. The thumbnail doesn't show very well)

The formulas that were calculated from the data have the form y= Slope * ln(x) + Intercept. The Slope and Intercept seem to match those calculated by the machine. R2 shown in the formulas is a statistical measure of how closely the data fits this curve. These values corresponds to the Fit values computed by the machine.

What is apparent is that there is a natural variation in the Intercept values. The one Diocletus has shown such an interest in (the yellow line at the top) appears to simply be an outlier. But one line shows an apparent abnormality in slope (the blue line for run 566 which crosses the yellow line).
 
Last edited:
stilicho said:
Exactly. Jim and his pals have been sitting on this explosive evidence for over six full years and left it to the Sollecitos to get it printed in some ridiculous tabloid.

The road above the cottage is busy around that time of night and nobody saw someone noisily shattering a window before dangling himself from a precarious perch. Everyone, including Introna--a defence expert--placed the murder after 22:00. Even Raffaele and Amanda placed the murder at that time, inadvertently, by inventing fake phone calls and mysterious dinners complete with blood-spattered fish.

Why do you think Bongiorno called up tow truck drivers and disco managers instead of the people who were filmed witnessing Guede's break-in?
Click to expand...

Why even use films just ask Edgardo Giobbi and he can just tell the whole crime scene without even being there. He just knows.

And Stefonani can do forensics without testing semen stains off the pillow between the legs of the victim in a rape/murder/burglary.

Of course Migninni can create sex orgys with his mind.

and Napoleoni can round up a heroin addict, delusional sloth bum for a super-witnesses.

what an amazing prosecution team. (sarcasm)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom