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

[acbytesla]

To be more specific, we're talking about quantification.

T
Well, wait a minute. The validity of this piece of evidence is based in part on testimony that there was "abundant" DNA on the bra clasp hooks, and the fact of the matter is that: (i) that amount of DNA is commensurate with contamination that we see elsewhere in the quantification run, and (ii) the entire run is unreliable due to the contamination and what might also be an irregularity in the behavior of the machine.

??? Can you explain this better? How is this showing this?

T
The threshold was adjusted from .10 to .13. This suggests either a high level of background noise or early flourescence activity. Why? And, why did Stefanoni take the machine off line afterwards?

And why does this mean ANYTHING??

Just playing devils advocate.

 

[acbytesla]

So how precise do we need to be. Classic STR typing takes 500 - 2000pg. 200 - 500pg is iffy and less than 200 is LCN DNA (or was at the time). So broadly we could say more than 400pg good more than 200 iffy but probably OK less than 100pg seriously dubious LCN and less than 50pg...! So in someways we would be best actually talking about ng with 0.1 as the lower limit anything less being zero. We probably only need to consider 1 decimal point of precision in ng.

Primarily the amplification cycle consists of a machine; the thermal cycler, that is just a sophisticated cooker, joined with the laser quantifier. The reagents are bought in and go in the plate wells. I think it is unlikely the hardware was bust. Usually the software crashes, or the lease is up and you get new kit from the manufacturer. The calibration suggests a reagent issue.

I keep reading about "abundant amount of DNA on the bra clasp but I haven't read how much that it is. I know the knife is beyond infinitesimal. Does this mean that the bra clasp is too?

 

[acbytesla]

But remember, the "plate" that we're talking about isn't the quantification plate. It's the "plate" referenced in the egrams.

I understand that but anglo was asking what a "plate" was. I find that visual image solves the question. Where it goes or what machine it goes in is the rest of the story.

 

[acbytesla]

To Diocletus.

I want you to understand that I admire the work that you have done here. It's clear a lot of work went into it. I also understand that you believe it is extremely significant. I am drilling you for a few reasons. One, this a good way for me to understand your work and your analysis. I want to believe in it more than you know. I'm convinced even without it that Stefanoni had deliberately corrupted these tests even before your latest revelation. I found the going back to the cottage after 46 days and the show they put on when collecting the bra clasp to be proof that they thought even before Stefanoni put the bra clasp to a test that they were announcing to the world that it was the smoking gun. But how would they know that? It really should have been blase and routine...not an ah ha moment.

Please be patient with the questions and thank you for the work you have done. Either way I find it to be impressive.

 

[Anode]

Anglo.... this is what separates innocenters from guilters, in my opinion. To echo what you said.....

I have nothing but respect for Chris_Halkides, Tom Zed, and Diocletian. My respect for them comes from me not understanding anything they say.

Yet people who i.d. themselves as experts, seem to agree with them. And what guilters have in reply is ad hominem - and this whole saga judicially has not moved from the fact that Massei believed Stefanoni on her say-so, not because of independent review.

And yet - what separates us from the heavy-browed set, is that if I were on a jury listening to what has transpired in the last few days, my vote would be to discount it.

And my own confirmation bias is to believe it. It would be nice to unquestionably believe it. It certainly makes sense in the "osmotic" view I've adopted.....

..... but I cannot accede to something I cannot understand.

I do understand that women do not have Y-genetic material. They told me that in science class the year I graduated highschool. Apparently no one told Nencini. Otherwise I know nothing of twin helixes - I cannot off the top of my head tell you how many human gene-pairs there are.... although, I seem to remember they come in pairs.

But as it rests I would have to simply set this aside - and the problem is not science, it is me.

I'm desperate not to get drawn into things the way guilters do. Mignini says it, so it must be true. Stefanoni said it, so Massei sends two kids to jail for a quarter century.

I may move to Missouri.

Like when they refer to Steve Moore as an "out of work security guard". That one always gets me.

 

[Strozzi]

Anglo. I downloaded the manual for the ABI 7700 which is the DNA machine we are talking about. There are pictures of most everything.

The plate is essentially a plate of wells for either DNA samples or control samples. On page 46 of the manual is a picture of a 96 well plate.

The manual can be obtained at the following link. http://www.genomica.uaslp.mx/Databases/ABI7700 Users Manual.pdf

I just looked at the ABI 7700's manual. Looks like a fun machine to work with. I like the purple and violet drawings of the plates. I'm a college grad - that would make me a "Dr." in Italy - so I'm gonna send my resume to the Italian police lab to be a DNA expert. Do you think they really require staff to always change gloves when preparing the trays? If Stefanoni isn't hiring for her lab, maybe I can be a footprint expert.

 

[Strozzi]

Dan: I stared hard at that for 30 seconds and then looked at a blank wall, and I could a perfect likeness of Howard Stern.

I looked at it, too, but I saw the Little Dipper.

 

[Strozzi]

So how precise do we need to be. Classic STR typing takes 500 - 2000pg. 200 - 500pg is iffy and less than 200 is LCN DNA (or was at the time). So broadly we could say more than 400pg good more than 200 iffy but probably OK less than 100pg seriously dubious LCN and less than 50pg...! So in someways we would be best actually talking about ng with 0.1 as the lower limit anything less being zero. We probably only need to consider 1 decimal point of precision in ng.

Primarily the amplification cycle consists of a machine; the thermal cycler, that is just a sophisticated cooker, joined with the laser quantifier. The reagents are bought in and go in the plate wells. I think it is unlikely the hardware was bust. Usually the software crashes, or the lease is up and you get new kit from the manufacturer. The calibration suggests a reagent issue.

Lease is up??? That's great news as it suggests to me that the manufacturer has sold or provided the machine with some sort of license. Licenses come with conditions. I assume that a condition put on the user is that the machine is to be used according to instructions. In other words, it won't be misused.

I smell a lawsuit. A product liability lawsuit against the machine's manufacturer and the Italian police. Oh, did I mention that before? Am I repeating myself?

 

[acbytesla]

Lease is up??? That's great news as it suggests to me that the manufacturer has sold or provided the machine with some sort of license. Licenses come with conditions. I assume that a condition put on the user is that the machine is to be used according to instructions. In other words, it won't be misused.

I smell a lawsuit. A product liability lawsuit against the machine's manufacturer and the Italian police. Oh, did I mention that before? Am I repeating myself?

Yea you are repeating yourself. But we love it. While there may be a license on the software for the accompanying Macintosh...(What? no PC) the actual machine may not have a license associated with it. I'm really curious if maintenance contracts are sold for the equipment and who maintains it? I do notice that they are sold both new and used.

While I love the idea of a product liability suit, I'd bet that they say they aren't responsible for how the machine is used and it is up to the customer to maintain it properly.

 

[Strozzi]

To Diocletus.

I want you to understand that I admire the work that you have done here. It's clear a lot of work went into it. I also understand that you believe it is extremely significant. I am drilling you for a few reasons. One, this a good way for me to understand your work and your analysis. I want to believe in it more than you know. I'm convinced even without it that Stefanoni had deliberately corrupted these tests even before your latest revelation. I found the going back to the cottage after 46 days and the show they put on when collecting the bra clasp to be proof that they thought even before Stefanoni put the bra clasp to a test that they were announcing to the world that it was the smoking gun. But how would they know that? It really should have been blase and routine...not an ah ha moment.
Please be patient with the questions and thank you for the work you have done. Either way I find it to be impressive.

I had the same thoughts that Stefanoni going back for the bra clasp 46 days later was done to frame Raffaele. She went back within days of the police learning from phone taps that the Sollecito family had located Rudy's shoe model and could prove that it is different from Raffaele's shoe. Her purpose was to find something more. When she "found" the bra clasp she held it up for the camera like a trophy, mugged into the lens, stroked it with her dirty-gloved fingers, then placed it back on the floor to be photographed "in-situ" as if that was where it was.

I previously wondered if Stefanoni was the "innocent" tech unwittingly being used by Perugia cops who slipped in the cottage beforehand to doctor the bra clasp. I thought perhaps she was asked to come back for it. But her triumphant mugging with the clasp in her fingers showed that she knew she had the jewel to secure the case. She may not have been the one to dirty the clasp on the floor, but she knew she was to collect it and that she would find something incriminating on it.

Does anyone believe that Stefanoni would have pulled her lab team off their heavy workload in the lab in Rome to return to Perugia to collect an item or two, triumphantly mug for the camera with the clasp, return to her lab in Rome with the clasp, test it, and NOT find Raffaele's DNA on it?

Now we are learning what Dr. Stefanoni did with her instrument to cook the clasp DNA results.

 

[carbonjam72]

just saying

I see the following possibilities. Raffaele's dna was present on the bra clasp hook
1. As it lay on the floor.
2. Accidentally deposited as it was collected.
3. Deliberately deposited as it was collected.
4. Accidentally before testing in the lab.
5. Deliberately before testing in the lab.
6. Never on the clasp.

As I understand it the strange testing procedures suggest 4 5 or 6.

6 is consistent with 2,3,4, and 5.

 

[christianahannah]

I had the same thoughts that Stefanoni going back for the bra clasp 46 days later was done to frame Raffaele. She went back within days of the police learning from phone taps that the Sollecito family had located Rudy's shoe model and could prove that it is different from Raffaele's shoe. Her purpose was to find something more. When she "found" the bra clasp she held it up for the camera like a trophy, mugged into the lens, stroked it with her dirty-gloved fingers, then placed it back on the floor to be photographed "in-situ" as if that was where it was.

I previously wondered if Stefanoni was the "innocent" tech unwittingly being used by Perugia cops who slipped in the cottage beforehand to doctor the bra clasp. I thought perhaps she was asked to come back for it. But her triumphant mugging with the clasp in her fingers showed that she knew she had the crown jewel to secure the case. She may not have been the one to dirty the clasp on the floor, but she knew she was to collect it and that she would find something incriminatory on it.

Does anyone believe that Stefanoni would have pulled her lab team off their heavy work tasks in the lab in Rome to return to Perugia to collect an item or two, triumphantly mug for the camera with the clasp, return to her lab in Rome with the clasp, test it, and NOT find Raffaele's DNA on it?

Now we are learning what Dr. Stefanoni did with her instrument to cook the clasp DNA results.

Was the bra clasp the only reason Stefanoni went back to the cottage? Was not the luminol applied and photographed during this time; other items of evidence collected which further pointed to Rudy's involvement in the crime; swabs taken of evidence in Filomena's room, Amanda's room and Meredith's room; and probably other things I haven't mentioned.

It would be interesting to know why the long delay to return to the cottage and when was it known the bra clasp was missing?

 

[acbytesla]

Was the bra clasp the only reason Stefanoni went back to the cottage? Was not the luminol applied and photographed during this time; other items of evidence collected which further pointed to Rudy's involvement in the crime; swabs taken of evidence in Filomena's room, Amanda's room and Meredith's room; and probably other things I haven't mentioned.

It would be interesting to know why the long delay to return to the cottage and when was it known the bra clasp was missing?

How do they leave that room during the original collection without taking every piece of clothing and bedding?

 

[Desert Fox]

Is Stefanoni in charge of all Italian law enforcement DNA testing?
If so, that is pretty horrid

 

[Strozzi]

Boy was I excited. On a hunch, I went to the Italian version of EBay. I typed in ABI 7700 and 4 machines for sale came up. Ranging in price from $350 - $5,950. I searched for the seller's identity - hoping I would find one being sold used by "Stefanoni & Co." in Rome! .

Just my luck - all are being sold by US sellers.

See them on EBay Italiano at: http://www.ebay.it/sch/i.html?_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.Xabi+7700&_nkw=abi+7700&_sacat=0&_from=R40

 

[Strozzi]

Stefanoni selling used ABI 7700, cheap

Duplicate

 

[Samson]

I had the same thoughts that Stefanoni going back for the bra clasp 46 days later was done to frame Raffaele. She went back within days of the police learning from phone taps that the Sollecito family had located Rudy's shoe model and could prove that it is different from Raffaele's shoe. Her purpose was to find something more. When she "found" the bra clasp she held it up for the camera like a trophy, mugged into the lens, stroked it with her dirty-gloved fingers, then placed it back on the floor to be photographed "in-situ" as if that was where it was.

I previously wondered if Stefanoni was the "innocent" tech unwittingly being used by Perugia cops who slipped in the cottage beforehand to doctor the bra clasp. I thought perhaps she was asked to come back for it. But her triumphant mugging with the clasp in her fingers showed that she knew she had the jewel to secure the case. She may not have been the one to dirty the clasp on the floor, but she knew she was to collect it and that she would find something incriminating on it.

Does anyone believe that Stefanoni would have pulled her lab team off their heavy workload in the lab in Rome to return to Perugia to collect an item or two, triumphantly mug for the camera with the clasp, return to her lab in Rome with the clasp, test it, and NOT find Raffaele's DNA on it?

Now we are learning what Dr. Stefanoni did with her instrument to cook the clasp DNA results.

I do believe the guilters would be uncomfortable without the bra clasp. They would be left with only the bathmat print tying Raffaele to the crime scene. This would be far less satisfying. They certainly have no direct evidence in the break in room, another crime he stands convicted of.
The police knew all this, so with one item they prove he is the sex offender and present in the crime room.
So far it has worked, but, they must now account for a further improbability

The unique testing and cataloguing protocol for the item. My maths tells me that must be multiplied to the other improbabilities, in order.

1. The perfectly useful shoe prints are disqualified, he must be released. I cite this as an improbability because the evidence must have seemed outstanding, he was never in the room after the murder because he could not break the door down, and how could a crack forensics team be mistaken in identifying the staple diet of Sherlock Holmes etc, footprints? Therefore guilty.
2. His dna is only on a cigarette butt and an item that proves Mignini's predetermined case. No other dna found.
3. The collection process of a routine item becomes a cinematic production.
4. And now the unique testing and cataloguing procedures.

Probability, generously say 0.1*0.1*0.1*0.1 = 1 in 10,000.

I bet they all believe in the tooth fairy, but so far it is working just fine

 

[Strozzi]

How do they leave that room during the original collection without taking every piece of clothing and bedding?

There is an easy answer to your question. They could only take what they could wrap and they ran out of wrapping paper.

 

[carbonjam72]

Product law suit in the US

Great explanation, Dan O. And I contend that the machine software should identify/flag anything like this and that the printed data should alert to it and warn that something atypical or abnormal is occurring. A red warning message needs to be included in the data field of any printed result.

I see it as a product design defect when something that can be misconstrued by the machine operator or data analyst is allowed to occur without a warning message hightlighting it.

The manufacturer knows his device is being used by police labs to prepare evidence to send people to prison. There should be no design leeway for anything untoward to occur.

I'm just responding here, though this issue has come up repeatedly in this thread.

Of course I applaud the initiative and creativity of trying to find ways to force the Italians to tell the truth.

But law suits are slow, grueling, expensive and heart breaking things. No amount of legal pressure can force an anItalian court to do anything, other than a higher court that has jurisdiction, like the European Court of Human Rights.

But I have to say, it seems like wishful thinking to think a product liability suit in the US will force change in the Italian system, or have an impact on the US system, should extradition come into play.

I think at this point, its been well proven that Knox and Sollecito had zero to do with this crime.

If only the Italians could be made to tell the truth.

I'd rather see a full congressional investigation into the case, with the outcome of a indictments, prosecution and extradition of Mignini et als to stand trial in the US, or the Hague, for what they did to Amanda Knox.

Then at least if the Italains won't cough up the underlying evidence, like the fried computer drives, or the undisclosed DNA data, then how could they object to any extradition request being refused consideration until they do.

It's also difficult for the defendants to be too combative while they're still hoping to gain favor before the Italian courts. Along with the Calumnia laws.

It's long past time the US gov stepped up and actually did something to protect a US citizen. There are amenable representatives like Maria Cantwell. I think that's a better road. imo

 

[Strozzi]

I'm just responding here, though this issue has come up repeatedly in this thread.

Of course I applaud the initiative and creativity of trying to find ways to force the Italians to tell the truth.

But law suits are slow, grueling, expensive and heart breaking things. No amount of legal pressure can force an anItalian court to do anything, other than a higher court that has jurisdiction, like the European Court of Human Rights.

But I have to say, it seems like wishful thinking to think a product liability suit in the US will force change in the Italian system, or have an impact on the US system, should extradition come into play.

I think at this point, its been well proven that Knox and Sollecito had zero to do with this crime.

If only the Italians could be made to tell the truth.

I'd rather see a full congressional investigation into the case, with the outcome of a indictments, prosecution and extradition of Mignini et als to stand trial in the US, or the Hague, for what they did to Amanda Knox.

Then at least if the Italains won't cough up the underlying evidence, like the fried computer drives, or the undisclosed DNA data, then how could they object to any extradition request being refused consideration until they do.

It's also difficult for the defendants to be too combative while they're still hoping to gain favor before the Italian courts. Along with the Calumnia laws.

It's long past time the US gov stepped up and actually did something to protect a US citizen. There are amenable representatives like Maria Cantwell. I think that's a better road. imo

Since DNA machines generate data and incompetent or corrupt lab techs can misplace or destroy sets of data for fraudulent purposes, suppose all such machines used by crime (not medical) labs be required/designed to simultaneously store/back-up their data through the cloud to the manufacturer's backup facility. Then, if certain data goes missing it can be obtained from an off-site facility not under the control of a police lab.