Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kaosium]

Let's stop here first, and answer this point alone to avoid too long posts.

Well, no, no no. I think you develop your own concept of “contamination issue”, and probably that's the problem.
It would be better instead to look at what Stefanoni says altogether; and it’s better to use the information for building arguments that make sense. Stefanoni says some other, very different things, where she explains how negative controls work, she explains that the possibility of contamination in reagents - whether you see it as "contamination" by a whole profile or instead by single drop-in allele - in negative controls, is something that can always happen. This kind of contamination happens, the possibility of contamination is something “normal”, therefore the negative controls are part of the work.

Let's quote Stefanoni (Oct. 4. 2008). Sorry, I must quote he testimony in Italian:

Here is that passage as rendered by google translate:

50
I do not agree ... the methodology, we negative controls we use in our laboratory practice but have a different meaning, for example, we use them in any stage of the process from the extraction of the biological sample to the analysis electrophoretic why? Because in that case we are interested in two things: one see the goodness of the execution by the operator on methods that prevent possible pollution and therefore a possible transfer of its DNA operator to find, because even this can inadvertently do, despite all precautions, and to this end, each operator is typed fact that you know its genetic profile so that if, as often happens, the genetic profiles of people are unknown to us, we can definitely rule out that the genetic profile of the unknown is not even a technical operator or another any person who is coming in contact with the sample. Then another control that we put as negative, which we call "white" is a control that is used to verify that practically, as it were, the reagents used - because you use chemicals at all stages of processing, of course, because it is a chemical process is the extraction that DNA analysis - Has not itself of accidental contamination due to previous sampling operations, for example of a rate, because the reagents are obviously not single-dose, reagents must be taken each time by the operator from a test tube, a sheath because you use in very small amount in the order of micro liter! are a millionth of a liter so a thing absolutely very small so that the tube is used several times, for which our negative control, for example in the amplification step, is to observe having put all chemical reagents except the DNA, we do not any kind of DNA, that the sample once analyzed gives no signal of DNA of course (...)​

It has her saying the opposite of what you claim, she's agreeing with me (and everyone else) in saying that there should be no DNA in the negative control. This should be obvious to the most casual observer: if the negative control registers DNA then by definition there's lab contamination. It could have come from no where else, being as there's supposed to be strict controls and methods employed to ensure that none of the equipment or reagents being used have any DNA at all.

I think you're mistaking the fact that low level DNA ('stray alleles') can often be found in samples, the 'environmental contamination' which Dr Balding referred to, and while 'always' would be an exaggeration, 'most of the time' would not be inaccurate for samples taken from a typical crime scene. If you read through the Ct column for these five charts you'll see that most all of the samples have a number below 50 in the Ct column, meaning human DNA was found at that cycle of the process, but that some did go 50 cycles without finding anything and that all the other negative controls did go 50 cycles without registering DNA. You'll also be able to see that this information isn't available for batch 2 (the one embedded in 'these' above) and almost 90% of those profiles were withheld to this day, nor is there quantification data (the 'Ct column') for that batch, which is the one where the knife blade was processed.

That's because it's just lab contamination, there was never any DNA of Meredith Kercher on that knife, it was an empty sample which showed the background DNA of Meredith Kercher due to the fact that lab had recently amplified and processed dozens of samples with her DNA present and her methods to control contamination weren't up to snuff for LT/LCN DNA.

I don’t know what “contamination issue” would mean according to you (and I don’t think the defence lawyer has a precise, technical meaning in mind neither), but what I understand from Stefanoni’s explanation, is two things: first, that the contamination of a testing tube with an extra-profile (from a technician for example) or with the drop-in from an “aliquota” (a modicum, a small fraction) of the reagent that was used in the previous test with the same test tube, is to be considered relatively “normal” possibility (not something that you don’t meet for seven years). Second, as an implication of this, the meaning I understand she gives to a concept like “contamination issue”, is that you can deduce from what she explain, to say a DNA finding in the laboratory was due to “laboratory contamination” (there is an issue) is something that does not equate to mere “presence of an allele peak in a negative control”. You can well infer from what she says that, in order to say “this profile was contamination”, you need to have in your negative control something that yields a positive result that is significant, and possibly about the profile itself; it means that the profile extracted from the sample analysis (or most of it) is found in the negative control as well, so that you may conclude: the DNA did not come from the sample, it is found everywhere in controls so the reason must have been the reagent that was not “clean”.

I provided a link regarding contamination in LT/LCN samples in my last post and did so again above. If your negative control is contaminated as you detail above then the proper response is to throw all of that out and clean your lab and materials, not withhold 90% of the results from that batch as well as the negative controls and then produce that lab contamination as 'evidence' and dare the defense to disprove it when you know they can't because all the evidence necessary to do that has been withheld as well.



Cough up the EDFs and we'll talk.

I don’t think anything like that comes out anywhere in the DNA findings.

I also know that prof. Novelli testified that he analyzed a sequence of 105 tests carried on within a week with the machine that tested the knife, and he found no trace contamination. I also know that nobody, either Vecchiotti or the defences could disprove or dispute Novelli’s statement.

How do you know this? What exactly did he say and where did he say it?

So, what I see is that you are making up technical meanings, creating conditions, which in reality they do not belong to the true technical meaning. You say "in a negative control and there should be no DNA in it at all", and this appears to be just plain false. You use this false premise in order to build a conspiracy theory (at the same time, you delete parts from the meaning of what Stefanoni said). Don’t misunderstand me: by putting this objection to you about the flawed premise, I am not just limiting the focus on considering what Stefanoni says, I am not picking up the corret premise from Stefanoni alone; you could equally deduce the same, more correct premise regarding drop-in alleles in negative controls, by picking quotes from Vecchiotti as she quotes Caragine et al (translation of C-V report, p. 94):

Moreover the experiments done have shown that, despite the scrupulous application of adequate protocols in order to minimize the possible sources of alleles drop-in within the laboratory, anyway we should always expect to observe a few extra alleles in negative controls.

You can see Vecchiotti quotes Caragine, saying - read carefully the wording - one should always expect to find a few extra alleles in negative controls.

If you have DNA in your negative controls then you have contamination in your lab. I was unable to find your quote in the C&V translation that I use which doesn't have page numbers. I went to where I know they quoted Caragine and I didn't find it there. Could you post a link to that translation? That string only returns your post for that exact wording with a google search and considering how it is phrased I suspect a mistranslation.

Always. This as for Caragine and Vecchiotti seems to agree.

I doubt it, not for the negative controls at least. Those should be completely free of DNA, otherwise it was introduced in the lab itself and shows that there's contamination.

Vecchiotti also pointed out that currently no protocols have been developed in order to how to "count" the drop in alleles to the date in order to assess the quality of negative controls (p. 90):

So your first assumption, that "there should be no of DNA trace at all", not even a single drop-in allele in a negative control (I believe actually B11 is a negative sample rather than a negative control but it makes no big difference), is simply false. The ngative controls should have a good quality, but you should always expect to find a few drop in alleles (this is what I can read in reports and testimonies).

Last thing, I point out that there are no DNA profiles that were "withheld". Not even one. All documentation about all results that was requested - and btw all of what was requested was requested anyway late according to what the procedure code provides for - was all given. What was not given is what had just never been requested, certainly not within the timings and fashion in which it was offered according to the procedure code.

Read through those links I provided and you'll see just how much information Stefanoni withheld. The EDFs would provide the missing data and show just how much contamination was in that lab, specifically regarding the knife blade and also the curiosities surrounding the processing of the bra clasp. If there was nothing there then there would have been no reason for Stefanoni to so selectively withhold it, even defying a judges order. Pretending the defense didn't ask when there's copious evidence of them demanding all the files necessary and specifically requesting the EDFs when they were not provided both to Massei and the independent experts (who also asked for them) is pathetic and evidence of a corrupt prosecution.

 

[kwill]

Under the rules of the game, the time for making direct requests was supposed to be over with the formal closure of the investigation, on June 18. 2008.

What have the rules of the game got to do with anything?

Wait, what? Is this all just an elaborate game?! Sometimes, for sure, it feels that way . . . too crazy to be real.

Innocent people getting caught up in crappy police work is common. Innocent people getting thrown into prison by incompetent judges happens all the time. Innocent people being trashed for years by random people with crude & disturbing imaginations? That's the crazy part.

 

[Numbers]

Don't know where to best jump in but I'll try to here.

I believe there was a relative absence of bloody track between Meredith's bedroom, and the bathroom. Apart from the bath mat.

Rudy could have been trying to delay the discovery of the corpse upstairs, by doing a cursory clean-up with towelss of bloody tracks in the hallway. The half a bare foot track on the bath mat could simply have been an error. If trying to conceal his presence, wouldn't it have been the better choice to not throw out the bath mat, rather than leave it there with the small half foot print in blood? Indeed, Amanda didn't notice it and proceeded to take a shower, right?

Secondly, although its hard to tell how much of the recent posts actually connect to the evidence, its becoming increasingly plausible that something more funky than has been admitted went on downstairs.

By this I mean in particular, the removal of a shower curtain, which seems like a likely tool to wrap up, help conceal while carrying, and dispose of a body. The possible underpants add to the mix of the unexplained potential pieces of evidence.

Rudy behavior downstairs is different from upstairs because he is trying to delay the discovery of the corpse. Taking a shower curtain from upstairs would, be a noticeable disturbance in the flat. WHereas Rudy COULD have known the guys were gone for the holiday weekend.

The human DNA profiles from downstairs have to be handed over, its crazy that that evidence is with held.

Now, as to the possibly missing video from NOV 2.

As I have speculated before, if the police recognized Rudy's MO, because they were using him as an informant, and concealed his possible involvement at the crime scene to protect themselves for allowing him to remain free, THAT would explain an awful lot.

The footage of Zugarini kicking in the door downstairs might be something they had to keep in the video, because it might have been videtaped or photographed by the journalists outside. Whereas the video showing bloodspots downstairs on NOV 2nd, were video'd from inside the house, and could be made to disappear without fear of an independent contradictory record.

Rudy could have left the upstairs crime scene, and gone downstairs for a change of clothes, and to prepare to dispose of the body. He could have felt he was taking too much time, or lost track of time, and decided it was best to put as much distance between himself and the crime as possible, and establish an alibi (dancing) as soon as possible.

The idea that Guede had only one intention, that it was stable, that he was logical and thinking ahead, seems more like wishful thinking on our part, than careful forethought on Rudy's end.

We know Meredith was murdered. We know Guede was there. We know no one else except Guede was there. We know there are undisclosed human DNA profiles from downstairs, and IIRC, there was never any species specific test to determine it was in fact CAT's blood.

If the police are acting to conceal the crime scene downstairs, then why? They couldn't get past the downstairs boys alibis, and the Italian girls had lawyered up.

I feel like the police covering for Rudy fills in some holes, provides logical motivation for the police trying to first cover for him by framing Lumumba, and then deflecting guilt away from him by lessening his role.

I know many are against this idea of a connection between Rudy and the police/Mignini, but I'm still of the opinion its real, and explains a lot.

I would not disagree that there is possibly a connection between Rudy Guede and the police that motivated the arrests of Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, and Patrick Lumumba, and the prosecution of Amanda and Raffaele. But that connection has not been fully established.

The other possibility is often called "confirmation bias", but I would call it "targeting convenience". The police pick the easiest target against which to concoct a case - for example, some one without a lawyer or the experience to get one quickly and whose alibli can be readily, even if falsely, countered. Then the police maintain focus on such individuals, even if they know them to be innocent, because that means closing the case quickly. And closing the case quickly reassures the population and the politicians and improves the career status of the police. In maintaining their focus, the police may find investigating other potential perpetrators, even those more likely to be or even clearly to be guilty, to be a distraction. I believe this "targeting convenience" has occurred in US cases of wrongful accusation and conviction.

 

[Machiavelli]

What have the rules of the game got to do with anything?

We are all here to discover the truth, surely?

You seem to be arguing that it's okay to jail innocent defendants if their defence wasn't very competent, which is a very strange thing to say. Even if what you were saying was true, as opposed to revisionist history made up to make the Perugian law enforcement community less corrupt, it would still be irrelevant.

The rule of the game have to do with everything, because the rules of the game are the context, it's what determines whehter the players are honest or not. The honest players are those who play along with the game rules, first. Your red alarm and suspicion sets on when you see someone who glaringly violates the rules. Otherwise you would see just good players, average players, weak players.

It is not that makes people "look" more or less corrupt, it is actually a matter of making sense of human actions. That is, narratives. If you presume a disingenuous intent, you will interpret every action under a different meaning. The whole way of interpreting events may change. Whether you believe one source, or instead another one, your idea about facts of history may change completely.

But it's not just about that. There is more. The rules of the game are like a code and also like a landscape, they are essential to "read" the defence actions as well. When you know the landscape you know where you are and where you are going. It is, frankly, really unrealistic, more than naive, utterly nonsense to think the defence was incompetent. Or that the defences are forced to avoid criticism of authorities for fear of incrimination. These things lie among the most childish and ludicrous rationalizations. When Luciano Ghirga and Giancarlo Costa decide not to submit any complaint against the police about being slapped, when the defences calls phychiatrist Caltagirone to try to explain a "false memory", and when you know the actual rules that is the actual landscape, then you know the meaning of the path they are following.

 

[Diocletus]

The rule of the game have to do with everything, because the rules of the game are the context, it's what determines whehter the players are honest or not. The honest players are those who play along with the game rules, first. Your red alarm and suspicion sets on when you see someone who glaringly violates the rules. Otherwise you would see just good players, average players, weak players.

It is not that makes people "look" more or less corrupt, it is actually a matter of making sense of human actions. That is, narratives. If you presume a disingenuous intent, you will interpret every action under a different meaning. The whole way of interpreting events may change. Whether you believe one source, or instead another one, your idea about facts of history may change completely.

But it's not just about that. There is more. The rules of the game are like a code and also like a landsacp, they are essential to "read" the defence actions as well. It is, frankly, really unrealistic, more than naive, utterly nonsense to think the defence was incompetent. Or that the defences are forced to avoid criticism of authorities for fear of incrimination. These things lie among the most childish and ludicrous rationalizations. When Luciano Ghirga and Giancarlo Costa decide not to submit any complaint against the police about being slapped, when the defences calls phychiatrist Caltagirone to try to explain a "false memory", and when you know the actual rules that is the actual landscape, then you know the meaning of the path they are following.

So basically, your rules are that even though your trials last for 10 years you have to ask for everything in the first month. Unless you're Novelli. Right?

 

[Machiavelli]

Here is that passage as rendered by google translate:

It has her saying the opposite of what you claim, she's agreeing with me (and everyone else) in saying that there should be no DNA in the negative control. (...)

Stefanoni elsewhere speaks about also about the "quality" of negative controls. Now, this "no DNA at all" is not to be interpreted the way you mean it, this is sure because it's what you find in Vecchiotti/Conti quoting Caraigne, at page 94 of their report.

I think you're mistaking the fact that low level DNA ('stray alleles') can often be found in samples, the 'environmental contamination' which Dr Balding referred to, and while 'always' would be an exaggeration, 'most of the time' would not be inaccurate for samples taken from a typical crime scene.

No, I am talking specifically about what Vecchiotti calls "negative controls", which Stefanoni considers something totally separate from the concept of "environmantal sample".

But the snippet that I quoted obviously denies the claim that Stefanoni stated "never had any contamination event", anyway obviously denies your interpretation of Stefanoni's statement, since Stefanoni herself states that lab contamination in various forms is very possible despite all precautions and therefore she always performs a set of negative controls.

(...) and almost 90% of those profiles were withheld to this day, nor is there quantification data (the 'Ct column') for that batch, which is the one where the knife blade was processed.

It's false. Nothing was withheld (as I explained above). Moreover the claim that information about alleged contamination is "withheld" is something intrinsically inconsistent, it is inconsistent with the fact that you claim a finding of contamination based on the very same results that Stefanoni provided to the defence. If there was evidence of contamination in there (there isn't), this would mean Stefanoni would have offered evidence of lab contamination herself, in the first instance, since 2009, instead of hiding it.

That's because it's just lab contamination, there was never any DNA of Meredith Kercher on that knife, it was an empty sample (...)

I urge you to do an attempt to get away from conspiracy theory fantasy back into the track of rational thought.

I provided a link regarding contamination in LT/LCN samples in my last post and did so again above. If your negative control is contaminated as you detail above then the proper response is to throw all of that out and clean your lab and materials, not withhold 90% of the results

Nothing was withheld. Bear it well in mind, and put it into the equation.

If you have DNA in your negative controls then you have contamination in your lab. I was unable to find your quote in the C&V translation that I use which doesn't have page numbers. I went to where I know they quoted Caragine and I didn't find it there. Could you post a link to that translation? That string only returns your post for that exact wording with a google search and considering how it is phrased I suspect a mistranslation.

I don't use translations. I read only the original trial papers. I translated the statement from original for you myself. What kind of argument is that "I don't have page numbers on my translation"? (and what kind of translator is the one who doesn't put page numbers of a legal text?). The statement is at page 94 of the *original* document. Is it difficult for you to find that in the original document? If it's so difficult, then I paste the Italian text for you:

Gli esperimenti praticati hanno inoltre mostrato che, nonostante la scrupolosa applicazione di adeguati protocolli al fine di minimizzare le possibili sorgenti di drop-in interne al laboratorio, ci si deve comunque sempre aspettare di osservare alcuni alleli spuri nei controlli negativi.

So you can put it into "google translator" ( ! )

Vecchiotti herself says it is normal to find DNA in negative controls. A few pages above (at p. 90, which I quoted) she also picks the concept again, implying that there hasn't been a discussion yet to find a protocol in order to establish whether the drop-in alleles in negative controls are random, rare ("sporadici") or whether they indicate a contamination issue of some kind.
Ues you can find this too in the Conti-Vecchiotti report, it's all there.
And let's point out how the Conti-Vecchiotti report, at p. 94 speaks clearly of "sources of drop-in alleles inside the laboratory", therefore defines the "drop-in" phenomenon as a type of contamination (something that comes accidentally in contact with the sample, some DNA from a "source" located "inside the laboratory"). While at the same time, states that this phenomenon always happens in negative controls.
Yes, this is what's actually written in the document. No way you can escape from what the Conti-Vecchiotti report says about this point, yet you go after your conpsiracy theory; you deny that this is normal, in order to build a conspiracy theory of Stefanoni withholding a hundred of profiles.

 

[Machiavelli]

So basically, your rules are that even though your trials last for 10 years you have to ask for everything in the first month. Unless you're Novelli. Right?

I count eight months between November 2007 and June 2008. But maybe I am mistaken. I think that in July 2008 there was the Preliminary Hearing schedule, then started in September, this means a trial could theoretically well have ended there. If Knox and Sollecito had chosen the fast track and didn't appeal, their trial would have been over in September 2008. The seven or eight years is the consequence of their appeals.

 

[Kaosium]

The second point risen by Kaosium:



Now, first a tiny collateral point: Massei does not write "in contradiction with" ("in contraddizione con") as for my memory he writes "in contrast with" ("in contrasto con"). Maybe the translator or the defence enhanced a bit the "contrast"; the word contraddizione is a bit stronger than contrasto in my opinion, we may even prefer to talk about how the translator put it instead of how Massei put it. This point of wording was only a side note.

She certainly "laid only luminol there", if you put it literally like that, since TMB is not "laid" on the trace, it is an indirect test.

Now, there is the RTIGF where the TMB test is not indicated, but the argument that Stefanoni lied about the TMB test is an accusation that hinges entirely on the assertion that she explicitly denied having performed further tests on those samples.

But, what did she actually say?
Is it true, what you attribute to Sarah Gino reporting her words? Or is it just a hearsay from Sarah Gino? Or maybe even just your own interpretation of Sarah Gino?

Let's see what Stefanoni said, her actual words in the courtroom since her first hearing, Oct. 4. 2008, when she talked about the luminol tests for the first time:



Patrizia Stefanoni says: we have also done a series of tests in our laboratory about the possible blood nature on those luminol samples, then immediately makes a digression to explain: further tests done on luminol traces in order to establish if it's blood are at high-risk of yielding false negatives, since the traces are latent and usually at a too low concentration.

But she says: we have done "a series of tests" on these luminol traces. The prosecutor seems focused on the luminol traces picked from the floor in Filomena's room, but Stefanoni doesn't seem to be making clear distinctions.

She implies immediately after that these "tests", normally, should not be done, because they are at too high risk of yielding false negative results; yet, she says on this specific occasion they did further tests of multiple kind about the blood nature of the luminol traces.

If you read further on, at p. 112, while talking about a possible TMB test on the knife, she mentions again the luminol example and picks again the same concept: as a normal praxis, it's better to not do further tests on latent traces found with luminol, because they are at high risk of being negative, and the sample gets wasted. (we did it; but we shouldn't do it normally).

So the truth is, from her very first hearing as a witness, Stefanoni said she performed further tests (apparently multiple types of further blood tests) on the luminol traces.

Here is how google translate renders that passage in Italian:

"QUESTION - Here I wanted to ask about it if it was found to be blood stains, if it was blood?
ANSWER - Then it was not possible, it is presumably because the blood test is a test of the luminol practically orientation, a test is not specific for the substance in blood but of course also reacts with the substance in blood
Q. - Let's talk about floor room Romanelli then those spots, then analyzed those tracks were highlighted with luminol?
ANSWER - Yes, those tracks there, yes.
Q. - In what has been done so in a unique environment ...
/ REPLY - Those on the floor.
Q. - Let's talk about just inside the room Romanelli, eh, not on the floor?
ANSWER - No, no, I can look for a moment?
QUESTION - Yes, of course ..
ANSWER - I want to be precise but I think ... because I have to refer to the description of the tracks. So, yes, the 176 in the record that the inspection was named as L1.
QUESTION - Yes, highlighted by luminol technique, accurate, and then there is also 177.
ANSWER - Yes, 177, 180 and 183, are the only traces highlighted by Luminol and found in it which gave a result from the point of view of the genetic profile.
QUESTION - Ok! So then they gave result D.N.A. Meredith Kercher?
ANSWER - Yes, the 176.
QUESTION - Perfect! And for what concerns the verification if it were or less of blood?
ANSWER - You can not do it because the luminol, in fact, as I said before is a reactive chemical that reacts with various substances not only with blood, it reacts with some detergents day everyday ...
QUESTION - Yes, yes, we know, we have also seen in the observations of the consultants of Defense in connection with the ...
ANSWER - Yes. And it was, say, also highlighted by the tests carried out in our laboratories; that a determination can then track sampled in the laboratory, and highlighted the luminol, to determine whether or not the nature of blood, practically it is very risky because, being the trace of luminol by definition a track completely invisible to the naked eye so small, if it were a trace of blood would still be a blood trail that I would draw attention to the luminol - because the eye does not see it - so it's such an amount so small that I, despite being able to analyze, however, the track with a test that will show me whether or not the nature of blood, I would risk to get false negatives that is a test ...
QUESTION - I understand, I understand, I'm fine!
ANSWER - Ok, enough!
APPLICATION - The last question is in order to, if she had chaired and participated in the operations of the luminol to visit this track as it was interpreted in the floor of Filomena Romanelli's room, if you can say it, a track that laboratories where she lends his activities reported in shoe print, bare foot or something that can not be determined?
ANSWER - I can look at the inspection report because I do not remember by heart.
QUESTION - No, no, then we just need the content of the inspection report!"​

I get the impression she's saying the verification cannot be done with luminol and that it's 'too risky' to do with anything else. As for what she's referring to regarding the 'tests carried out in our laboratories' that couldn't have been TMB being as that was done at the scene, n'est pas? They didn't move that floor over to the lab and test it there did they? They tested it on site, right?



However that's not the testimony I'm referring to, it's the one where the defense consultant asks about a trace (in the hall IIRC) that tested positive with luminol and whether there were further tests done and Stefanoni says they just laid luminol there. I know you know what I'm referring to as it was you who posted the quote from the testimony and tried to spin it as her answering a question from another person 50 pages back as opposed to replying to the one who asked the question--or something like that. It was entertaining to behold!

So regardless of how you interpret the above passage it isn't relevant to the other time when she was asked about other tests and said they just used luminol there.

 

[Numbers]

I count eight months between November 2007 and June 2008. But maybe I am mistaken. I think that in July 2008 there was the Preliminary Hearing, this means a trial could theoretically well have ended there. If Knox and Sollecito had chosen the fast track and didn't appeal, their trial would have been over in July 2008. The seven or eight years is the consequence of their appeals.

Hi Mach,

Could there be an issue between a defendant choosing an adversarial trial - pleading that he or she is not guilty - and the length of trial in Italy? The third sentence of Article 111 of the Italian Constitution does state:

3) The law provides for the reasonable duration of trials.

A defendant should be able to plead "not guilty" and have a trial of reasonable length. Had the CSC accepted the Hellmann court acquittal, the trials would have ended; it was the prosecutor who appealed Hellmann, as allowed under Italian law.

Choosing a fast-track trial is equivalent to pleading guilty. Not what a defendant should be forced to do if he or she considers himself or herself innocent.

 

[Diocletus]

I count eight months between November 2007 and June 2008. But maybe I am mistaken. I think that in July 2008 there was the Preliminary Hearing schedule, then started in September, this means a trial could theoretically well have ended there. If Knox and Sollecito had chosen the fast track and didn't appeal, their trial would have been over in September 2008. The seven or eight years is the consequence of their appeals.

Right, and stefanoni didn't produce her report until may 2008.

I appreciate that you think they could have elected to the have prosecutor put in all of his evidence in a secret trial, and it's their fault they didn't do that. But I'm sure you can appreciate how ridiculous that sounds.

ETA it's all coming back to me now. Stefanoni produced her report in May 2008. Stefanoni and commodi then got in trouble for using at trial material that they hadn't turned over to the defendants, which is illegal. Massei ordered commodi and stefanoni to turn everything over, including raw data, but they refused. So then, the defendants requested it again and massei denied the request, because commodi said the defendants didn't need the information. But then she gave it to Novelli because he wanted to testify against the defendants.

 

[Numbers]

Machiavelli wrote:

And let's point out how the Conti-Vecchiotti report, at p. 94 speaks clearly of "sources of drop-in alleles inside the laboratory", therefore defines the "drop-in" phenomenon as a type of contamination. At the same time, states that this phenomenon always happens in negative controls.

Hi Mach,

You do realize that the "drop-in" only happens when there is some DNA in the sample, and the sample is subjected to many replications.

The negative (no template) controls are intended to start out with ZERO DNA in them, and therefore after many replications will, if not contaminated, continue to show ZERO DNA. There are no drop-ins in uncontaminated negative controls, because there is no DNA. If negative controls are contaminated, they show increased concentrations of DNA after a number of replication cycles. And if they are contaminated, that means there is likely to be a contamination problem in the lab. Then that means the results from the lab are not to be trusted - they are likely not to be valid.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the context of what Conti and Vecchiotti wrote

.

So, what I see is that you are making up technical meanings, creating conditions, which in reality they do not belong to the true technical meaning. You say "in a negative control and there should be no DNA in it at all", and this appears to be just plain false. You use this false premise in order to build a conspiracy theory (at the same time, you delete parts from the meaning of what Stefanoni said). Don’t misunderstand me: by putting this objection to you about the flawed premise, I am not just limiting the focus on considering what Stefanoni says, I am not picking up the corret premise from Stefanoni alone; you could equally deduce the same, more correct premise regarding drop-in alleles in negative controls, by picking quotes from Vecchiotti as she quotes Caragine et al (translation of C-V report, p. 94):



You can see Vecchiotti quotes Caragine, saying - read carefully the wording - one should always expect to find a few extra alleles in negative controls.

Always. This as for Caragine and Vecchiotti seems to agree.

Vecchiotti also pointed out that currently no protocols have been developed in order to how to "count" the drop in alleles to the date in order to assess the quality of negative controls (p. 90):

Let's look at the quote (from p. 95) in context.

"The amplification of LT-DNA samples typically produces stochastic phenomena like allele drop-in and drop-out, peak imbalance at the same locus and an increase in stutter. In the study in question, these effects were shown in DNA quantities equal to and less than 100 pg, and in particular for values below 50 pg. Despite the effects of drop-out for smaller DNA quantities, this method which provides for the development of the aforementioned parameters allowed good peak strength to be obtained, often above 1000 RFU.

The experiments carried out further show that, despite the strict application of appropriate protocols to minimize possible sources of drop-in within the laboratory, some spurious alleles in negative controls are nonetheless to be expected."

What is being discussed are the limitations of low-template DNA work. It is not a statement about negative controls in general.

They also wrote (p. 92): "Publicizing the potential of the application of LCN typing without describing its limitations is not a responsible role for the forensic geneticist to take."

"The authors stress that intensifying the DNA signal with these methods inevitably increases the risk of detecting contamination.
The protection measures advised and used by the authors to reduce contamination to the minimum possible are the following:
• Laboratory staff – who must always wear double gloves, hair coverings, shoe covers, safety glasses and lab coats – must work exclusively in areas dedicated to the analysis of LT-DNA samples or pre-amplification;" (p. 94)

Nencini is simply breathtaking in his ability to hand wave away all of these problems.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Dalla Vedova interview

It is interesting that you word a statement like "Prof. Krane and Prof. Hampikian made requests through the defence". Because nobody, in a trial, makes requests "through" the defence. Either you are the defence, or a party, or you are not in the position of making requests.

Under the rules of the game, the time for making direct requests was supposed to be over with the formal closure of the investigation, on June 18. 2008.

They asked the lawyers to ask for the EDFs, and it is only by an act of willful stupidity that one can misunderstand what I wrote. As for the rest of what you wrote, it is absurd. Why have a multistage process if it is over before it begins?

In 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.”

We have only your...interpretation... that Mr. Dalla Vedova's request was somehow obscure. The passage above is crystal clear.

 

[Machiavelli]

Here is how google translate renders that passage in Italian:
I get the impression she's saying the verification cannot be done with luminol and that it's 'too risky' to do with anything else. As for what she's referring to regarding the 'tests carried out in our laboratories' that couldn't have been TMB being as that was done at the scene, n'est pas? They didn't move that floor over to the lab and test it there did they? They tested it on site, right?

Here Stefanoni says they have conducted a series of tests to see if it was blood. A series, not just one type, and you can see that this is directly linked with TMB because she picks it up again at p. 112, when he talks about TMB.
It is at that point that she points out that she has mentioned the topic when she was talking about the luminol prints. When she talks about TMB test p. 112 she linkes it immediately to the topic of the luminol prints, explaining the problem with performing TMB on the knife is exactly the same of what she already explained with luminol traces. The "warning" and digression about "false negatives" she makes about blood tests p. 59 and at p. 112 is clearly about the same topic.
You say that TMB was done on the spot. But in fact it appears it's you who says that; it's far from being certain. Certainly she never lied TMB on the floor, because TMB is anyway an indirect test (at best is done with hemastix swabs, indicrect, not on the stains but on the swab instead).

However that's not the testimony I'm referring to, it's the one where the defense consultant asks about a trace (in the hall IIRC) that tested positive with luminol and whether there were further tests done and Stefanoni says they just laid luminol there. I know you know what I'm referring to as it was you who posted the quote from the testimony and tried to spin it as her answering a question from another person 50 pages back as opposed to replying to the one who asked the question--or something like that. It was entertaining to behold!

Yet, instead, what you seem to have is your paraphrasing a hearsay from Sarah Gino.

What Stefanoni said on Oct. 4. 2008, to a lisetner whithout previous knowledge of details of the case (such as a judge) it rings like the opposite of what you claim Stefanoni said: you say she lied because she claimed she only did TMB tests on luminol stains; what she says to the judge on the very first hearing is that they did "a series of other tests".
These are the facts.

But there is also another gem, if you want to browse the document further: we also know from her testimony that Prof. Potenza was there all the time during the performing of luminol tests. While insted the other experts had left earlier, because it was dark and getting late. Potenza was there to the end and he could see all tests that were performed. Thus the claim that she "kept hidden" from the defence what she was doing is somehting even more ludicrous.

But then, back to the point. The claim that Stefanoni said that she did not perform other tests other than TMB is disproven by a quote in which Stefanoni says the opposite. However, you still claim there is another paragraph - somewhere - where she states that she didn't perform TMB tests.
So you say it's "you know where", somewhere else.
Where is that? Where is "the other time" ? What do you have?

I bet there is nothing. I just bet you will step into one of the pro-Knox "translation" hoaxes such as the "control room" hoax et similia.

I can tell you in advance: there is no "TMB lie". You will never find it. Such claim is a hoax, doesn't exist in any trial paper.

 

[Dan O.]

Yes, but I'm waiting for Dan O to chime in, because I believe that he has a picture of those keys and I'm not sure when it was taken.

Those keys for a staging
Republic - November 14, 2007 Page 17 Section: CHRONICLE [1] (Google translation)

PERUGIA - Two keys connected with a ring. For the investigators have a 'further proof of the guilt of Amanda Knox, accused with Raffaele Sollecito and Patrick Lumumba' s murder of Meredith Kercher. Are key 'apartment below the one where the young Englishman was killed in the evening between the' one and two November. On that ground, with three other boys, lives Giacomo Silenzi, Meredith's boyfriend, on 3 November he had told police: "Before leaving for Porto San Giorgio I gave the keys to my house asking Meredith to disinfect one of my two cats that had injured her ear. " On 6 November, the two keys were found in the chamber of Amanda Knox. Not a clue just because the room of Stephen, one of the three tenants of silence were discovered traces of blood. The four students have vowed to clean the stains left by the injured cat el 'entire house before leaving for vacation of the Bridge of the Dead. I do not know how to explain the traces of blood on the duvet of Stephen - said James Silenzi - just remember that the blood there 'was, and that Stephen had locked the room. " Those traces of blood could be part of the screening, according to investigators, enacted by Amanda and his accomplices to dribble suspects. Even these mysterious bloodstains are finished to the laboratory of the forensic team in Rome, where began the analysis of findings.
...​

 

[Machiavelli]

They asked the lawyers to ask for the EDFs, and it is only by an act of willful stupidity that one can misunderstand what I wrote. As for the rest of what you wrote, it is absurd. Why have a multistage process if it is over before it begins?

It's not a multi-stage trial. It may become a multi-stage, well we say proceedings (we distinguish the terms procedimento from processo). But nobody says it has to be multi-staged. It may stop at the preliminary hearing, if nobody appeals.
It was an eight-month investigation anyway.

In 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.”

We have only your...interpretation... that Mr. Dalla Vedova's request was somehow obscure. The passage above is crystal clear.

It is also false. You know, the papers sing the song. No request was made to Stefanoni (Dalla Vedova request was certainly obscure, he was confused, the judge didn't understand and certainly nobody forwarded the request to Stefanoni).
But above all it was also very late. It was late even compared to the internal stages of the 2009 trial (istanze preliminari, dibattimento, discussione).
No request was ever made to Stefanoni.

There is no request instance submitted to Massei court; there is no instance submitted to the Supreme Court; there is no such request in both the submissions of Reasons for Appeal. No such request was forwarded at the Hellmann-Zanetti trial.
This is what you have in the trial papers.

Even at the 2008 preliminary hearing already there were complaints by the defence about the fact that they didn't have this and that document, and Stefanoni in the courtroom replied that she never denied anything, nor she was ever in the condition of neither consenting or denying requests, because no defence expert ever came to the laboratory to make any request (except Vinci who asked to examine the pillowcase), despite the fact that she invited everyone.

 

[Kaosium]

Stefanoni elsewhere speaks about also about the "quality" of negative controls. Now, this "no DNA at all" is not to be interpreted the way you mean it, this is sure because it's what you find in Vecchiotti/Conti quoting Caraigne, at page 94 of their report.



No, I am talking specifically about what Vecchiotti calls "negative controls", which Stefanoni considers something totally separate from the concept of "environmantal sample".

But the snippet that I quoted obviously denies the claim that Stefanoni stated "never had any contamination event", anyway obviously denies your interpretation of Stefanoni's statement, since Stefanoni herself states that lab contamination in various forms is very possible despite all precautions and therefore she always performs a set of negative controls.

What does she say should be in those negative controls? No DNA is what she says, despite your muddled reading of it and discerning the opposite.

It's false. Nothing was withheld (as I explained above). Moreover the claim that information about alleged contamination is "withheld" is something intrinsically inconsistent, it is inconsistent with the fact that you claim a finding of contamination based on the very same results that Stefanoni provided to the defence. If there was evidence of contamination in there (there isn't), this would mean Stefanoni would have offered evidence of lab contamination herself, in the first instance, since 2009, instead of hiding it.

She did not turn the information eventually provided willingly, it was kept hidden until the July 30, 2009 data dump. When considering the entire month of August is vacation, that was near the end of the original trial. There were also copious amounts of information missing which was noted at the time (it's in Massei!) and more has been discovered as brave adventurers such as Diocletus (and others I'm sure) have gone through the mess of material provided and tried to help piece together what more was missing. It looks like Stefanoni or Comodi missed some files when fleecing through it, notably the TMB negatives and the quantification cycle for well B-12.

I urge you to do an attempt to get away from conspiracy theory fantasy back into the track of rational thought.



Nothing was withheld. Bear it well in mind, and put it into the equation.

I urge you to wonder why so many experts starting with Prof Potenza and including so many different DNA experts from around the world, including Dr. Peter Gill who helped create this field, have so vigorously protested this DNA evidence. Calling someone who points out how much data is missing from records (eventually) released a 'conspiracy theorist' doesn't address this problem, nor does defending the prosecution's pathetic lies on why the defense didn't recieve required information like the EDFs.

I don't use translations. I read only the original trial papers. I translated the statement from original for you myself. What kind of argument is that "I don't have page numbers on my translation"?

It's not an argument, it's a statement. I cannot engage your argument until I know what you're talking about.

(and what kind of translator is the one who doesn't put page numbers of a legal text?). The statement is at page 94 of the *original* document. Is it difficult for you to find that in the original document? If it's so difficult, then I paste the Italian text for you:



So you can put it into "google translator" ( ! )

Vecchiotti herself says it is normal to find DNA in negative controls. A few pages above (at p. 90, which I quoted) she also picks the concept again, implying that there hasn't been a discussion yet to find a protocol in order to establish whether the drop-in alleles in negative controls are random, rare ("sporadici") or whether they indicate a contamination issue of some kind.

I put it through google translate and got:

Practical experiments have also shown that, despite the strict enforcement of appropriate protocols in order to minimize possible sources of drop-in internal to the laboratory, we must always expect to observe some aileli spurious in the negative controls.

I need more context here, could you go to this page and tell me where pages 90-94 of the original could be found?

This is also found in the Conti-Vecchiotti report, it's all there.
And let's point out how the Conti-Vecchiotti report, at p. 94 speaks clearly of "sources of drop-in alleles inside the laboratory", therefore defines the "drop-in" phenomenon as a type of contamination. At the same time, states that this phenomenon always happens in negative controls.
You can't really escape in no way fro what the Conti-Vecchiotti report says, yet you go after your conpsiracy theory; you deny that this is normal, in order to build a conspiracy theory of Stefanoni withholding a hundred of profiles.

My suspicion here is we're not talking about the same thing, almost all of those 100 missing electropherograms showed a greater amount of DNA than the knife blade, they're not just 'drop-ins.' Note that I am not talking about 'drop ins' either, but 'gross contamination.' This was on the page that I linked twice today and I'll quote the specific citation this time:

"Regarding the problem of contamination, the same authors emphasize the substantial difference between the phenomenon of drop-in and what is known as “gross contamination”: while the first refers to the appearance of one or two alleles in a sample originating from unrelated sources, the second refers instead to multiple alleles originating from a single unknown source (and therefore these alleles are dependent events)."​

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
What is being discussed are the limitations of low-template DNA work. It is not a statement about negative controls in general.
(...)

This is not an argument.
The context of the Vecchiotti statement is DNA profile extraction. LCN is just a sub-context of that.
If extra alleles are normal or acceptable in a sub-context set A of a broader set B, this logically implies you accept the presence of extra alleles in negative controls within the context set B.

If the number of template copies is low, the presence of spurious extra alleles in negative controls is normal; moreover there is no protocol to establish when an allele in a negative control is not normal.
It's clear, there is nothing to add.

PS: in a negative control the number of copies is supposed to be zero, thus. by definition, low. I don't know if the sample of reference batch B11 had a lable saying "LCN", but I suppose the matter of extra alleles in negative controls would be purely stochastic.

 

[js202]

This is not an argument.
The context of the Vecchiotti statement is DNA profile extraction. LCN is just a sub-context of that.
If extra alleles are normal or acceptable in a sub-context set A of a broader set B, this logically implies you accept the presence of extra alleles in negative controls within the context set B.

If the number of template copies is low, the presence of spurious extra alleles in negative controls is normal; moreover there is no protocol to establish when an allele in a negative control is not normal.
It's clear, there is nothing to add.

PS: in a negative control the number of copies is supposed to be zero, thus. by definition, low. I don't know if the sample of reference batch B11 had a lable saying "LCN", but I suppose the matter of extra alleles in negative controls would be purely stochastic.

Fascinating, indeed, how much this entity's idiomatic English has improved over the course of this abstruse discussion. Either the difficulty of the subject matter has helped focus the mind, or there is a ghostwriter at work.

 

[Numbers]

Those keys for a staging
Republic - November 14, 2007 Page 17 Section: CHRONICLE [1] (Google translation)

PERUGIA - Two keys connected with a ring. For the investigators have a 'further proof of the guilt of Amanda Knox, accused with Raffaele Sollecito and Patrick Lumumba' s murder of Meredith Kercher. Are key 'apartment below the one where the young Englishman was killed in the evening between the' one and two November. On that ground, with three other boys, lives Giacomo Silenzi, Meredith's boyfriend, on 3 November he had told police: "Before leaving for Porto San Giorgio I gave the keys to my house asking Meredith to disinfect one of my two cats that had injured her ear. " On 6 November, the two keys were found in the chamber of Amanda Knox. Not a clue just because the room of Stephen, one of the three tenants of silence were discovered traces of blood. The four students have vowed to clean the stains left by the injured cat el 'entire house before leaving for vacation of the Bridge of the Dead. I do not know how to explain the traces of blood on the duvet of Stephen - said James Silenzi - just remember that the blood there 'was, and that Stephen had locked the room. " Those traces of blood could be part of the screening, according to investigators, enacted by Amanda and his accomplices to dribble suspects. Even these mysterious bloodstains are finished to the laboratory of the forensic team in Rome, where began the analysis of findings.
...​

When the police "frame" some one in Italy, they try to cover as many of the bases as possible.

Did any of these allegations get into the trial? I suspect not, because of all the downstairs evidence that needed to be suppressed. It was probably safer for the frame to blame all the blood on the cat, limiting the false allegations of staging by Amanda to the upstairs.