Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Rolfe]

I'm not even clear that Raffaele's DNA was ever on the clasp. Wasn't that a case of so many peaks from so many contributors that you could pick out whatever you wanted? Sort of like allele scrabble?

 

[carbonjam72]

Is it just a coincidence that the residence of Sophie Purton, the last person known to be with Meredith before her fateful encounter with Rudy guede, overlooks the same courtyard where the breakin to the lawyers office could be witnessed?

No. It's a matter of quantum entanglement. I'm not kidding. Alright I'm kidding.

 

[anglolawyer]

I'm not even clear that Raffaele's DNA was ever on the clasp. Wasn't that a case of so many peaks from so many contributors that you could pick out whatever you wanted? Sort of like allele scrabble?

Not if you believe Balding, whose mathematical modelling is way above my head (but his methods of analysing mixed profiles are gaining serious attention in English criminal justice) but who regarded Raf's profile as almost certainly present within the mixture.

It's not just the knife and the clasp either. There is a wider context of questionable conduct that suggests misfeasance, some by Stef and some by others. I won't set it all out but I agree with Steve Moore's assessment that once they found they had arrested the wrong guy they just started making things up. And 'losing' stuff too, of course.

 

[Rolfe]

OK, I don't understand that either. But it seems to me that if you have a molecular lab that's analysing a variety of materials from the case, and has questionable biosecurity standards, you could get a fair sprinkling of spurious results if you just kept testing stuff.

You really have to be so careful with these tests. I just went into our molecular lab to beg them to test a sample that had been opened in another lab, to double-check a result. I got the expected lecture that a weak positive wasn't to be regarded as real, because just opening the tube in another lab, who knows what could happen. I practically had to sign in blood that I would only action a negative result, and would request a fresh sample for any other result.

 

[anglolawyer]

OK, I don't understand that either. But it seems to me that if you have a molecular lab that's analysing a variety of materials from the case, and has questionable biosecurity standards, you could get a fair sprinkling of spurious results if you just kept testing stuff.

You really have to be so careful with these tests. I just went into our molecular lab to beg them to test a sample that had been opened in another lab, to double-check a result. I got the expected lecture that a weak positive wasn't to be regarded as real, because just opening the tube in another lab, who knows what could happen. I practically had to sign in blood that I would only action a negative result, and would request a fresh sample for any other result.

Rolfe,

If what you describe had happened in Stef's lab then where are all the other results showing her DNA in unexpected but benign places?

 

[carbonjam72]

I will attempt to explain how an image is produced by an object coated with a visible liquid. I don't expect you to understand, but there may be some person reading this who may want additional information.

I will start with the concept of letterpress printing. This is the process where individual raised letters, or blocks of raised letters, are placed on a platen, inked, and a sheet of blank paper placed in contact with the inked letter assembly. A second, flat platen is then pressed against the back side of the paper that is resting on the inked platen (which has the raised letters). The images of the raised letters are transferred to the paper.

{This, of course, was the invention attributed to Gutenberg. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letterpress_printing}

Now consider a knife that has blood on it - and the knife must be soaked in blood because it has seconds ago been used to cut or stab someone's throat, and has severed one or more large blood vessels. There was a spurting of blood when this happened, because blood circulates in the body under pressure somewhat greater than atmospheric pressure.

The knife then comes into contact with a flat sheet on a bed. Just as in a letterpress printing machine, there is a transfer of the liquid - blood - on the points of contact from the knife to the sheet. Transfer from any recess on the knife not contacting the sheet is unlikely. And transfer from the air around the knife to the sheet is impossible.

Therefore, the image of a solidly-filled in part adjacent to the back of the blade must be the handle of the knife. The curved image is the curved cutting edge of the knife. There is some indication that the knife was wobbled (moved slightly) on the bed sheet.

The flat blade of a large knife would not reasonably create the image of the handle on the sheet.

The knife which made the image in blood on the sheet is thus considerably shorter than the large kitchen knife suggested by Machiavelli, and the depth (curved edge to straight edge) is also much less.

And the depth of the two neck wounds made by the smaller knife, were (IIRC) reported to be the same length, attributed to the knife being stuck in all the way to the hilt, establishing the length of that knife blade.

There should be an exact correspondence to the length of the knife blade on the bed sheet, if there was only one knife, and its the same knife on the bed sheet and used in the killing.

Since the square rectangle pattern on the bed sheet appears to mark the hilt, I'm not sure where the agrument is here.

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe,

If what you describe had happened in Stef's lab then where are all the other results showing her DNA in unexpected but benign places?

I was maybe thinking she hadn't told us about these.

 

[anglolawyer]

I was maybe thinking she hadn't told us about these.

OK, well Diocletus may show up and back you on that because that's (one of) his department(s).

 

[carbonjam72]

She isn't "manufacturing" evidence as in a factory. She merely reruns samples until there is a convenient contamination accident, or relies on contamination through improper handling. Or she makes up new procedures without validating them. And, of course, she doesn't report these little miraculous happenings of contamination or rerunning samples when no one is looking. In her mind, perhaps, it is God or nature who is responsible for the contamination. She doesn't "intentionally" put it there, but she merely doesn't follow procedures that reduce the probability of contamination.

ETA: And she is careful to never reveal her original data - the electronic data files - that would show the contamination level and actual equipment settings during the DNA profiling. That stubborn refusal to show original data is one sign of scientific fraud.

Yes, she causes 'happy accidents', then conceals her methods so as to conceal the accidents she knows have occurred. She is guilty of fraud, as are the prosecutors and judges for not calling her out on it and demanding her notes, records and data be turned over to the defense.

More overt or "massive framing" prevents the escape hatch of claiming an "innocent mistake". They're willing to cheat, but only so far, for fear of getting caught. Nobody wants to live in an Italian prison.

 

[Numbers]

Rolfe,

If what you describe had happened in Stef's lab then where are all the other results showing her DNA in unexpected but benign places?

Hiding in the Electronic Data Files. If these were seen, it would be understand she ran a dirty lab, with enough contamination to, with a little fiddling, find Meredith Kercher's LCN DNA on the knife blade, and what seems to be Raffaele Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp (along with 3 or 4 other gents').

 

[Diocletus]

OK, well Diocletus may show up and back you on that because that's (one of) his department(s).

Did someone mention me?

Well, yes, there are lots and lots of samples that were assigned serial numbers during the amplification process, but for which no results/profile has ever been disclosed. I'm talking about something like 2/3 of the entire sample set.

In the case of the knife blade sample (36b), 90% of the samples fit in this category. 90%!

The key points on the bra clasp are:

1) the quantification results are contaminated and there was an equipment/setup malfunction, so who knows how much "stuff" was really in that sample, if any

2) the profile that has been disclosed to us is not the first profile run for this sample:

As can be seen in the chart for Batch 5, the amplification corresponding to Rep 165b is ID No. 681. This ID No. falls within the range of ID Nos. contained within the 32-sample plate no. 410, which spans ID Nos. 680 through 711. Yet, the prosecution has never produced an electropherogram corresponding to plate no. 410, ID 681. Instead, the prosecution has produced an ID No. 681 purportedly generated in plate no. 414. This electropherogram for plate no. 414, ID 681, is remarkable, because it is the only known electropherogram produced for this plate (a single-sample plate being a phenomena that is seen in only one other example in this case). In addition, plate no. 414 itself is remarkable, because it sequentially follows plate no. 413, which contains Y profiles and thus should mark the end of batch no. 5. In effect, the electropherogram that has been produced for Rep. 165b is from the wrong plate and appears exceptionally to have been generated after the end of the relevant batch analyses.

You can read all about it here.

 

[Numbers]

You lie.

{Referring to Mach}

And the depth of the two neck wounds made by the smaller knife, were (IIRC) reported to be the same length, attributed to the knife being stuck in all the way to the hilt, establishing the length of that knife blade.

There should be an exact correspondence to the length of the knife blade on the bed sheet, if there was only one knife, and its the same knife on the bed sheet and used in the killing.

Since the square rectangle pattern on the bed sheet appears to mark the hilt, I'm not sure where the agrument is here.

We are in agreement that the square rectangle stain marks the hilt (handle) of the knife. Only Mach is misstating the evidence by his BS mock-up, ignoring empirical knowledge (how images are made by, for example, letter-press or block print).

I went so far as to do some experiments on a kitchen knife coated with watered-down spaghetti sauce (a blood substitute in this experiment). Here's a photo from the experiment; the handle is on the left, the cutting edge of the blade to the top. The handle (part toward blade) is more in contact with the paper towel under the knife, and creates a rectangular stain. There's a gap in the stain between the handle and the blade, because the contact points are, in the ideal limits, the tip of the blade and the handle section nearest the blade. The stain is larger because of the low viscosity of the watered spaghetti; it flows. And the blade may bend to a degree.

[/IMG]

 

[Diocletus]

Yes, she causes 'happy accidents', then conceals her methods so as to conceal the accidents she knows have occurred. She is guilty of fraud, as are the prosecutors and judges for not calling her out on it and demanding her notes, records and data be turned over to the defense.

More overt or "massive framing" prevents the escape hatch of claiming an "innocent mistake". They're willing to cheat, but only so far, for fear of getting caught. Nobody wants to live in an Italian prison.

This is correct. She was basically running a procedure that was designed to produce and report contamination.

The lab was not operated under LCN conditions. Yet, she would submit for amplification any sample that quantified anything greater than 0. Any result that she claimed wasn't useful, she would suppress. So basically, we have a whole bunch of low-level samples being run, with the "unhelpful" profiles and controls being suppressed, and the "helpful" profiles being supplied to the prosecution. Based on the "protocol" used, Some of the "helpful" profiles are guaranteed to be contamination.

 

[Rolfe]

This reminds me a wee bit of the lab tests that were used to frame the Maguire Seven. Samples were taken from under the suspects' finger nails, and from their hands, and tested for explosives. The lab said it had generated positive results, but the reaction was later found to have been due to some sort of coating on playing cards they had been using to while away the time on a train journey.

One of the major problems identified by the subsequent public inquiry was that only selected results had been made available to the court. When the inquiry (conducted by Sir John May) asked for raw data to try to figure out what had been going on, the lab supplied only photocopies of selected pages of the lab notebooks (this was pre-computer). Only when May specifically requested the complete books to be turned over was that done, and in that he found all sorts of undeclared results that showed the scientists were basically at it.

After that, the lab switched from using bound laboratory notebooks to loose-leaf sheets torn off a pre-printed pad. I wonder why they did that? That's a whole other can of worms though.

 

[Numbers]

This is correct. She was basically running a procedure that was designed to produce and report contamination.

The lab was not operated under LCN conditions. Yet, she would submit for amplification any sample that quantified anything greater than 0. Any result that she claimed wasn't useful, she would suppress. So basically, we have a whole bunch of low-level samples being run, with the "unhelpful" profiles and controls being suppressed, and the "helpful" profiles being supplied to the prosecution. Based on the "protocol" used, Some of the "helpful" profiles are guaranteed to be contamination.

Actually, with the Qubit for quantification, she couldn't tell: "too low" apparently could be zero DNA, but she might test it anyway. The contamination might enter the sample as it was being concentrated using a vacuum pump. (Please correct this statement if it's not accurate.)

 

[anglolawyer]

This reminds me a wee bit of the lab tests that were used to frame the Maguire Seven. Samples were taken from under the suspects' finger nails, and from their hands, and tested for explosives. The lab said it had generated positive results, but the reaction was later found to have been due to some sort of coating on playing cards they had been using to while away the time on a train journey.

One of the major problems identified by the subsequent public inquiry was that only selected results had been made available to the court. When the inquiry (conducted by Sir John May) asked for raw data to try to figure out what had been going on, the lab supplied only photocopies of selected pages of the lab notebooks (this was pre-computer). Only when May specifically requested the complete books to be turned over was that done, and in that he found all sorts of undeclared results that showed the scientists were basically at it.

After that, the lab switched from using bound laboratory notebooks to loose-leaf sheets torn off a pre-printed pad. I wonder why they did that? That's a whole other can of worms though.

Fraud.

 

[anglolawyer]

This is correct. She was basically running a procedure that was designed to produce and report contamination.

The lab was not operated under LCN conditions. Yet, she would submit for amplification any sample that quantified anything greater than 0. Any result that she claimed wasn't useful, she would suppress. So basically, we have a whole bunch of low-level samples being run, with the "unhelpful" profiles and controls being suppressed, and the "helpful" profiles being supplied to the prosecution. Based on the "protocol" used, Some of the "helpful" profiles are guaranteed to be contamination.

Fraud

 

[Samson]

You lie.

If this statement is true then my post 2899 should be addressed (by anyone who believes the break in was staged).

 

[Rolfe]

Fraud.

The May Inquiry "stopped short of alleging a deliberate conspiracy to mislead the court", but it was pretty damn clear that at some point the scientists had lost objectivity and were actively trawling their results for data points to support the police case.

 

[Desert Fox]

I do not know if the defence made objections at the time. I am ignorant of how this is documented. certainly as I have said I do not think that with modern complex techniques turning up to observe particularly at short notice is a reasonable way to guarantee quality. One needs access ton protocols and manuals prior to the test being carried out otherwise how can one know whether the methodology is correct.

It strikes me that what is continually highlighted is the need for the Italian legal system to evolve. What I think even Mach will admit is the Italian political system does not make change easy in any sphere.

Defense would have to have an expert of their own to observe because a lawyer is not going to know enough to observe properly.