Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Dan O.]

It's been a regular theme here to equate the breakin at the lawyers office with the breakin in Filomena's room. But the only similarity is that an upper floor window was broken, most probably at night. The circumstances and methods in these two instances were quite different. Filomena's window was broken by the rock being thrown through the window with sufficient velocity to spread glass well into the room. At the lawyers office the rock was found outside on the balcony. An office is typically vacant at night and if occupied there would be lights on. A residential flat is typically occupied at night and the state of the lighting is not a reliable indicator of the occupancy. The lawyers office is in close proximity to residences so stealth is imperative if a burglar wants to avoid getting caught.

 

[Numbers]

I see the lab integrity part here but not the validation part. Is it that the Qubit fluorometer has not been validated for use with low template DNA?

Yes. And it's being used out-of-range. ETA: Was it validated for within range DNA work? Validation is not optional in a forensic lab. Same as for a device used in surgery, or in an airplane; you must have assurance that equipment is fit for purpose.

Suppose you try to measure the temperature inside the turkey (or other meat) you're cooking for Thanksgiving (or whenever) and the meat thermometer reading is "cannot record temperature...out-of-range"....would you then go ahead and immediately begin use of that food, as though it had been thoroughly cooked? That is a rough analogy.

Stefanoni did "compensate" for the "too low" by concentrating the remaining sample, but she would have no way to know what concentration was finally achieved. And the method for concentration uses a vacuum pump which can introduce contamination. And she did not treat all the samples that were "too low" the same way. She was, from a scientific POV, arbitrary. She was suspect-centered in her approach, an obviously incorrect methodology which tends to generate erroneous results.

Another point about measurement, especially of DNA concentration.

The measurements are indirect. That is, the measurement by RT-PCR or Qubit is actually the measurement of a dye that attaches to the DNA, and is fluorescent when it attaches to double-stranded DNA. However, for either measurement system there are artifacts (as there are for measurement systems in general). There is a "false signal" attributable to electronic or thermal noise in the instrument. There is another "false signal" due to the extraneous fluorescence of the dye, which occurs to an some extent when it binds to itself or otherwise.

A "too low" reading on the RT-PCR is eliminated in part by use of a "threshold" minimum fluorescence; readings are not to be taken below the threshold. A series of DNA positive control samples each of a different known initial concentration is measured, in the sense that the number of cycles required to reach a predetermined maximum fluorescence for each sample is recorded. A linearized plot of the number of cycles to maximum against initial concentration is then prepared and used to determine (that is, by interpolation, to calculate with some degree of accuracy) the concentration of DNA in the unknowns. As a mathematical principle, one is more confident in a statistical sense, of the result of an interpolated calculation than an extrapolated one (except when the extrapolation point is very close to a data point at the end the line). [The linearization technique used is called "linear regression" and is very commonly used in science, engineering, and statistics.]

For the Qubit, only two fluorescence measurement points are used to determine the line for interpolation. The sample is measured directly, with no replication (that is, no PCR) inherent to the equipment. The Qubit will be subject to "false signal", that is, instrument (electronic, thermal) noise and dye artifact noise. A "too low" reading means the measurement is less than the low end of the data point used to get the interpolation line, and may in fact be simply the fluorescence and electronic noise; the equipment is not sophisticated enough to make a determination.

 

[Numbers]

It's been a regular theme here to equate the breakin at the lawyers office with the breakin in Filomena's room. But the only similarity is that an upper floor window was broken, most probably at night. The circumstances and methods in these two instances were quite different. Filomena's window was broken by the rock being thrown through the window with sufficient velocity to spread glass well into the room. At the lawyers office the rock was found outside on the balcony. An office is typically vacant at night and if occupied there would be lights on. A residential flat is typically occupied at night and the state of the lighting is not a reliable indicator of the occupancy. The lawyers office is in close proximity to residences so stealth is imperative if a burglar wants to avoid getting caught.

I don't mean to dispute the differences, but one should also note the similarities.

These include, but are not necessarily limited to: 1) a climb required to reach the balcony or window; 2) use of a rock; 3) (possibly) indications the burglar "occupied" rather than took things and fled.

Is similarity of the MO close enough to be suggestive of the same burglar in the two cases? That may depend on all the other burglaries that were happening in Perugia at about that time.

 

[Numbers]

Here's the timeline charts which shows the malpractice in the lab and some major case events.

Note that the RT-PCR intercept value tended to creep to a higher value roughly before a run WHEN SOME SAMPLE CRITICAL TO THE CASE WILL BE MEASURED. The effect of that is to falsely indicate higher DNA concentrations than would be actually present. Each increase of 1 unit in the intercept amounts to a doubling of the double-stranded DNA concentration (in interpretation). The increase were due to either an unusual malfunction of the equipment, or possibly to intentional prepartion of positive controls that were too rich in DNA compared to stated quantity, which would make unknown samples appear to have higher concentrations than they really would show if measured fairly.

 

[carbonjam72]

Another point about measurement, especially of DNA concentration.

The measurements are indirect. That is, the measurement by RT-PCR or Qubit is actually the measurement of a dye that attaches to the DNA, and is fluorescent when it attaches to double-stranded DNA. However, for either measurement system there are artifacts (as there are for measurement systems in general). There is a "false signal" attributable to electronic or thermal noise in the instrument. There is another "false signal" due to the extraneous fluorescence of the dye, which occurs to an some extent when it binds to itself or otherwise.

A "too low" reading on the RT-PCR is eliminated in part by use of a "threshold" minimum fluorescence; readings are not to be taken below the threshold. A series of DNA positive control samples each of a different known initial concentration is measured, in the sense that the number of cycles required to reach a predetermined maximum fluorescence for each sample is recorded. A linearized plot of the number of cycles to maximum against initial concentration is then prepared and used to determine (that is, by interpolation, to calculate with some degree of accuracy) the concentration of DNA in the unknowns. As a mathematical principle, one is more confident in a statistical sense, of the result of an interpolated calculation than an extrapolated one (except when the extrapolation point is very close to a data point at the end the line). [The linearization technique used is called "linear regression" and is very commonly used in science, engineering, and statistics.]

For the Qubit, only two fluorescence measurement points are used to determine the line for interpolation. The sample is measured directly, with no replication (that is, no PCR) inherent to the equipment. The Qubit will be subject to "false signal", that is, instrument (electronic, thermal) noise and dye artifact noise. A "too low" reading means the measurement is less than the low end of the data point used to get the interpolation line, and may in fact be simply the fluorescence and electronic noise; the equipment is not sophisticated enough to make a determination.

Is this related to the comments (IIRC), saying that the Qubit does not consume any sample mass, where as RT-PCR requires some consumption of the sample?

Could the fact that Stef knows she's processing "air" (a contamination event) be another reason she chose the Qubit over the RT-PCR? How certain is it that the RT-PCR machine actually experienced a malfunction? Could that also be a lie?

 

[Numbers]

Is this related to the comments (IIRC), saying that the Qubit does not consume any sample mass, where as RT-PCR requires some consumption of the sample?

Could the fact that Stef knows she's processing "air" (a contamination event) be another reason she chose the Qubit over the RT-PCR? How certain is it that the RT-PCR machine actually experienced a malfunction? Could that also be a lie?

My understanding is that some sample mass is consumed by both methods.

Perhaps Chris or Diocletus could comment on any differences with respect to your question, or anything I've missed or got wrong.

 

[carbonjam72]

It's been a regular theme here to equate the breakin at the lawyers office with the breakin in Filomena's room. But the only similarity is that an upper floor window was broken, most probably at night. The circumstances and methods in these two instances were quite different. Filomena's window was broken by the rock being thrown through the window with sufficient velocity to spread glass well into the room. At the lawyers office the rock was found outside on the balcony. An office is typically vacant at night and if occupied there would be lights on. A residential flat is typically occupied at night and the state of the lighting is not a reliable indicator of the occupancy. The lawyers office is in close proximity to residences so stealth is imperative if a burglar wants to avoid getting caught.

Another similarity in addition to being a second story, is that it is directly above a metal grating, that can be used as a ladder to assist in the climb-up.

The fact that the rock at the lawyers office didn't spray glass inside, and was found outside on the balcony (taking your word for it here), could be due to the fact that the shutters didn't open at the lawyers office, when struck by the rock. Weren't the shutters malfunctioning at the cottage, unable to fully close? (Outside shutters and inside shutters?).

And of course it was a holiday, which supposedly many Italians go home for the holidays. Rudy knew the guys downstairs, it was a holiday, and a rent day. Rudy's choice of the cottage on that night actually seems pretty astute.

And the whole point of the rock, is to test if anyone is home and to avoid a hostile confrontation and reduce the risk of getting caught.

These break-ins, in terms of methodology, and the odd 'make-himself-at-home/make-a-mess/stacking-the-broken-glass/layout-tools-neatly (extremely weird)/ - seem very similar to my understanding, and Rudy is linked to both crimes (by possession of what was stolen from the law office).

Not sure why you're arguing these similarities aren't convincing?

 

[carbonjam72]

I don't mean to dispute the differences, but one should also note the similarities.

These include, but are not necessarily limited to: 1) a climb required to reach the balcony or window; 2) use of a rock; 3) (possibly) indications the burglar "occupied" rather than took things and fled.

Is similarity of the MO close enough to be suggestive of the same burglar in the two cases? That may depend on all the other burglaries that were happening in Perugia at about that time.

Plus, Rudy is specifically linked to this burglary by possession of the cell phone and computer stolen from it. Police had at least the opportunity to know this from Rudy's apprehension in Milan, and the reported contact between Perugia and Milan to help secure Rudy's release.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

platonov,

This is nonsense. I found two citations to demonstrate that a quote about the big lie, which is often attributed to Goebbels, is (almost certainly) a misattribution. One of these was from a group that took no position on the holocaust but seemed to me to be a bit off the historical mainstream (I don't recall the name of the group or the link). The second was from a scholar of Nazi propaganda, Randall Bytwerk:

"Goebbels actually accused others of using the technique. In a 1941 article titled “ Churchill’s Lie Factory,” he wrote:

“One should not as a rule reveal one’s secrets, since one does not know if and when one may need them again. The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.”

He accuses the English of the “big lie,” and suggests that, were he to use such a technique, he would not publicly announce it."

Chris,
Is Mignini and the pro-guilt community using this technique? Spread lies and slander about Amanda, and even fabricate the nature of the evidence and the opinion of experts (some of the stuff they throw out doesn't even show up in the trial); in the meantime, accuse the pro-innocence community, who are trying to help in a case of wrongful conviction, of being involved in a "PR" campaign that influences the opinions of the world's foremost criminal investigative experts and world-leading forensic geneticists. They even (and this one is really hilarious) accuse anyone trying to discuss the actual evidence of being paid internet shills. Is the intent to misdirect? -- if you accuse other people of lying, PR, and "shilling" then others are less likely to notice when you are the one actually doing it?

 

[carbonjam72]

Chris,
Is Mignini and the pro-guilt community using this technique? Spread lies and slander about Amanda, and even fabricating the nature of the evidence and the opinion of experts; yet, accuse the pro-innocence community, trying to help in a case of wrongful conviction, of a "PR" campaign. They even (and this one is really hilarious) accuse anyone trying to discuss the actual evidence of being paid internet shills. Is the intent to misdirect? -- if you accuse other people of lying, PR, and "shilling" then others are less likely to notice when you are the one actually doing it?

Or, also, of 'staging a crime scene' to 'mislead an investigation' and 'deflect blame from themselves'.

 

[Welshman]

With regards to the allegation of a staged break in, numerous issues are raised :-

1) If Amanda and Raffaele had killed Meredith, would they not be in a state of extreme panic and natural instinct would be flee from the cottage and not return. If they did stage the break in, when did they stage it? Did they do it immediately after killing Meredith or did they return to the cottage later and if so how long after the murder did they return to the cottage.

2) If the evidence of a staged break in was so strong, why did the prosecution not carry out a detailed investigation of the Filomena's room and the area outside the window to explain why the break in was staged?

3) If the window was broken from the inside, why did the prosecution oppose tests to carry out the direction the glass was broken. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did they oppose testing evidence?

4) If the window was broken from the inside, why did Raffaele's defense team hire a ballistics expert to show the window was broken from the outside?

5) If the climb was impossible or at least very difficult, why did Raffaele's defense lawyer try to climb up to the window?

6) If the climb up to the window was impossible, why would Amanda and Raffaele choose to break a window where there were no means of reaching the window? If you were staging a break in, would you not choose a window which is easy to reach?

7) On IIP Rony Hendry has carried out a detailed analaysis of the break in. If the case for a staged break in was so strong, why has no one ever written a rebuttal of his articles and instead resort to personal attacks.

 

[Numbers]

Chris,
Is Mignini and the pro-guilt community using this technique? Spread lies and slander about Amanda, and even fabricate the nature of the evidence and the opinion of experts (some of the stuff they throw out doesn't even show up in the trial); in the meantime, accuse the pro-innocence community, who are trying to help in a case of wrongful conviction, of being involved in a "PR" campaign that influences the opinions of the world's foremost criminal investigative experts and world-leading forensic geneticists. They even (and this one is really hilarious) accuse anyone trying to discuss the actual evidence of being paid internet shills. Is the intent to misdirect? -- if you accuse other people of lying, PR, and "shilling" then others are less likely to notice when you are the one actually doing it?

It's very clear that Mignini and the pro-guilt community are using this technique. I recall in Monster of Florence the mention that prosecutions in Italy aren't meant merely to convict someone, but to destroy that individual's reputation totally.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

transference

Chris,
Is Mignini and the pro-guilt community using this technique? Spread lies and slander about Amanda, and even fabricate the nature of the evidence and the opinion of experts (some of the stuff they throw out doesn't even show up in the trial); in the meantime, accuse the pro-innocence community, who are trying to help in a case of wrongful conviction, of being involved in a "PR" campaign that influences the opinions of the world's foremost criminal investigative experts and world-leading forensic geneticists. They even (and this one is really hilarious) accuse anyone trying to discuss the actual evidence of being paid internet shills. Is the intent to misdirect? -- if you accuse other people of lying, PR, and "shilling" then others are less likely to notice when you are the one actually doing it?

Not Even Wrong,

Good point. One definition of "transference" is 1. The projection of attitudes, wishes, desires, libidinous and aggressive thoughts to another party, usually understood to mean to the psychoanalyst.

Other than the part about the psychoanalyst, Mignini and his supporters are guilty of this, time and again. In this particular example, to equate a coerced false allegation which was soon retracted with a notorious propaganda campaign is risible. BTW if Mignini, Comodi, and their colleagues had spent $180,000 on psychological counseling for themselves (as opposed to an irresponsible cartoon), I would have no reason to complain.

 

[Numbers]

Is this related to the comments (IIRC), saying that the Qubit does not consume any sample mass, where as RT-PCR requires some consumption of the sample?

Could the fact that Stef knows she's processing "air" (a contamination event) be another reason she chose the Qubit over the RT-PCR? How certain is it that the RT-PCR machine actually experienced a malfunction? Could that also be a lie?

{Highlighting added to quote.}

For the second part of your post, I didn't want it to seem as though I was ignoring your question.

My questions are the same as yours. I suspect intentional misconduct.

The other anomalies that have been pointed out (initially found by other posters here and at IIP who thoroughly examined the available data; I am only attempting to summarize their results) lead me to "strongly suspect" intentional misconduct in the alleged machine malfunction. It might be exactly what a clever but unscrupulous cheating lab tech might do. But that is an inference without conclusive BARD direct evidence, AFAIK.

ETA: In addition, there is Stefanoni's failure - refusal - to turn over a copy of the EDFs, suppression of results, delays in supplying the data that was given to the defense, perjured testimony, misconduct in not revealing in a timely manner that TMB tests were done and precluded blood for the luminol hits attributed to Amanda Knox, and mishandling of specimen collection. I may have missed some items of misconduct/malpractice in the preceding list; the repeat tests conducted in secret (based on test numbering), and false data entries in the official report, for example. I believe based on this catalog of misconduct/malpractice, one can rightfully conclude the preponderance of the evidence is that the high intercept levels were associated with a pattern of misconduct.

 

[Bill Williams]

With regards to the allegation of a staged break in, numerous issues are raised :-

1) If Amanda and Raffaele had killed Meredith, would they not be in a state of extreme panic and natural instinct would be flee from the cottage and not return. If they did stage the break in, when did they stage it? Did they do it immediately after killing Meredith or did they return to the cottage later and if so how long after the murder did they return to the cottage.

This is where it really helps the pro-guilt lobby's case to talk about psychopathology for BOTH AK and RS. Of course, no psychopathology was mentioned, really, in the guilt-verdict motivation reports. For Judge Massei, the psychological factors for AK were being away from the normal paramters of home-life and drug use; not the kind of psychopathology referred to by the nastier guilters.

2) If the evidence of a staged break in was so strong, why did the prosecution not carry out a detailed investigation of the Filomena's room and the area outside the window to explain why the break in was staged?

They did not carry out any kind of investigation other than to ask people like Postal Police Battistelli their opinions of what they saw. Still, the condition of Filomena's room was hardly "in situ", after Filomena was allowed to rummage through her room undisturbed (prior to the grisly discovery). Even after, she took her own computer from her room, and it was supposed to be the glass on the closed computer which was one more factoid-clue as to the staging of a break-in!

3) If the window was broken from the inside, why did the prosecution oppose tests to carry out the direction the glass was broken. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did they oppose testing evidence?

The opposition of testing by the prosecution and by Maresca is one of the truly baffling aspects of this case.

4) If the window was broken from the inside, why did Raffaele's defense team hire a ballistics expert to show the window was broken from the outside?

Why did Raffaele's defence team even need to hire, since the prosecution presented no case (essentially) to refute, other than the assertion that the break-in was staged.

5) If the climb was impossible or at least very difficult, why did Raffaele's defense lawyer try to climb up to the window?

One hopes that there's no one alive who thinks only Spiderman could have made that climb. Any reasonably fit person (esp. someone like Rudy Guede) could have been up and in, regardless where the easiest entry point was. This was an easy entry point. Massei fibs a bit in his motivations report making mention of the windown being 3 1/2 meters above ground level, which is perhaps true. But as the Channel 5 documentary showed, standing on the top bar of the lower grate makes one already at shoulder level to the sill of Filomena's window. That is also clearly seen in the one picture of Raffaele's lawyer essentially doing the same thing.

6) If the climb up to the window was impossible, why would Amanda and Raffaele choose to break a window where there were no means of reaching the window? If you were staging a break in, would you not choose a window which is easy to reach?

Added to this - why would they (presumably unknowingly) choose the exact M.O. that Judge Nencini admits is Rudy's? Why would Amanda do that purposely and then name Lumumba?

7) On IIP Rony Hendry has carried out a detailed analaysis of the break in. If the case for a staged break in was so strong, why has no one ever written a rebuttal of his articles and instead resort to personal attacks.

Personal attacks are all that's left.

 

[Numbers]

....

The opposition of testing by the prosecution and by Maresca is one of the truly baffling aspects of this case.

....

Only baffling if one does not consider it a case of police, prosecution, civil party, and judicial misconduct - a frame-up.

That may be the standard for trials in Italy.

 

[Numbers]

The Forensic Science Sins of Stefanoni: A Summary

There was a pattern of misconduct and malpractice in Stefanoni's lab, treatment of evidence, and in her court testimony. The are violations of Convention Article 6 by Italy: failure to provide facilities to defense, and failure to provide equality of arms.

Here is a summary.

1. Stefanoni's failed - indeed, refused - to turn over a copy of the EDFs to the defense;
2. She suppressed numerous results, including potential exculpatory findings;
3. She destroyed evidence, in particular the bra clasp;
4. She entered false reports of data into her reports (RTIGF #1 & #2);
5. She committed perjury, for example, regarding the amount of DNA in the knife blade sample and that RT-PCR was used to quantify that DNA;
6. She delayed providing the minimal DNA data that was given to the defense until late in the trial;
7. She did not reveal in a timely manner to the defense and the court that TMB tests were done and precluded the presence of blood in the luminol foot print hits attributed to Amanda Knox;
8. She and her forensic police team mishandled specimen collection;
9. She repeated tests that were conducted in secret (based on test numbering), to obtain false inculpatory results;
10. She apparently manipulated positive control samples in the RT-PCR quantification to obtain high intercept levels probably in order to make unknown DNA samples appear more highly concentrated than they truly were.
11. She used the Qubit fluorometer to quantify DNA concentration in samples without having validated the equipment and procedure;
12. She arbitrarily used certain specimens registering "too low" for DNA concentration on the Qubit fluorometer for DNA profiling, and apparently not others, in a suspect-centered manner, violating good forensic practice. A reading of "too low" with the Qubit may mean there is actually no DNA present;
13. She attempted to conduct LCN DNA profiling in a method she had "invented" without validating the method;
14. She attempted to conduct LCN DNA profiling in a lab not adequately set up to prevent contamination, and thus inherently unsuited for LCN DNA profiling;
15. She stated in court testimony that she had never been told of a contamination incident in her lab, however, the data she gave to the defense shows several incidents of contamination;
16. She did not supply records of methodology and quality control (such as rate of contamination and corrective measures) to the defense, such records are ordinarily part of a report from a forensic DNA profiling lab;
17. She did not call out all the DNA alleles and profiles detectable on the bra clasp, instead only identifying the victim and one of the suspects (Sollecito), while DNA from several other males was detectable (indicating that the bra clasp had been contaminated).

 

[Numbers]

You simply asserted that Mark Waterbury was a clown and a conman, you did not at all demonstrate it.

In contrast, look at Numbers' list of sins of Stefanoni.

If no one can add to the list, a good title for it would be:

The Seventeen Forensic Science Sins of Stefanoni: A Summary

ETA: If there should be additional sins, the title may be altered to:

The Seventeen and Some Forensic Science Sins of Stefanoni: A Summary

or

The Seventeen-Plus Forensic Science Sins of Stefanoni: A Summary

 

[Desert Fox]

The Forensic Science Sins of Stefanoni: A Summary

There was a pattern of misconduct and malpractice in Stefanoni's lab, treatment of evidence, and in her court testimony. The are violations of Convention Article 6 by Italy: failure to provide facilities to defense, and failure to provide equality of arms.

Here is a summary.

1. Stefanoni's failed - indeed, refused - to turn over a copy of the EDFs to the defense;
2. She suppressed numerous results, including potential exculpatory findings;
3. She destroyed evidence, in particular the bra clasp;
4. She entered false reports of data into her reports (RTIGF #1 & #2);
5. She committed perjury, for example, regarding the amount of DNA in the knife blade sample and that RT-PCR was used to quantify that DNA;
6. She delayed providing the minimal DNA data that was given to the defense until late in the trial;
7. She did not reveal in a timely manner to the defense and the court that TMB tests were done and precluded the presence of blood in the luminol foot print hits attributed to Amanda Knox;
8. She and her forensic police team mishandled specimen collection;
9. She repeated tests that were conducted in secret (based on test numbering), to obtain false inculpatory results;
10. She apparently manipulated positive control samples in the RT-PCR quantification to obtain high intercept levels probably in order to make unknown DNA samples appear more highly concentrated than they truly were.
11. She used the Qubit fluorometer to quantify DNA concentration in samples without having validated the equipment and procedure;
12. She arbitrarily used certain specimens registering "too low" for DNA concentration on the Qubit fluorometer for DNA profiling, and apparently not others, in a suspect-centered manner, violating good forensic practice. A reading of "too low" with the Qubit may mean there is actually no DNA present;
13. She attempted to conduct LCN DNA profiling in a method she had "invented" without validating the method;
14. She attempted to conduct LCN DNA profiling in a lab not adequately set up to prevent contamination, and thus inherently unsuited for LCN DNA profiling;
15. She stated in court testimony that she had never been told of a contamination incident in her lab, however, the data she gave to the defense shows several incidents of contamination;
16. She did not supply records of methodology and quality control (such as rate of contamination and corrective measures) to the defense, such records are ordinarily part of a report from a forensic DNA profiling lab;
17. She did not call out all the DNA alleles and profiles detectable on the bra clasp, instead only identifying the victim and one of the suspects (Sollecito), while DNA from several other males was detectable (indicating that the bra clasp had been contaminated).

This list is worth repeating

Any one of these should have been enough for a mistrial and Ms Stefanoni be under investigation.

A few of these have been danced around by the pro guilt side but I have never seen any actually really addressed.

 

[Rolfe]

This will probably interest you in the context of incomplete disclosure of laboratory data by forensic scientists. It relates first to the hand swabs collected from the Maguire Seven, suspected of being responsible for one of a series of IRA terrorist attacks in the 1970s.

Q Was it not the case that in fact sections of the notebooks relevant to the trial had not been disclosed in the case of the Maguire Seven, Dr. Hayes?
A It’s conceivable that there were sections of notebooks which, with the benefit of hindsight became relevant to the trial, and apparently were therefore not disclosed at trial. That’s the best way I can explain that.
Q Well, can we look to section 11.3 of Sir John May’s interim report. And I think what he says there is in short terms: “My investigation of the RARDE notebooks revealed a number of disturbing features.”
A Yes, I see that.
Q And if we go on to section 11.4, he notes, does he not, that: “It is amply demonstrated by the RARDE notebooks that not only did the RARDE scientists know throughout the travel [trial?] that PETN was potentially confuseable with nitroglycerine on the TLC test in toluene” -- and that’s the thin-layer chromatography test, is it not?
A It is.
Q “But also their work at RARDE had taken this fully into account.”
And I think, if we then go onto section 11.5, it is noted: “That Dr. Hayes said that PETN simply did not figure in their minds at the time of the trial. Dr. Hayes said that PETN was known as an explosive use by terrorists groups mainly working from the Middle East.” Do you see that?
A I do, yes.
Q Do you recollect having given such evidence to the inquiry, Dr. Hayes?
A My recollection is poor, but I feel confident if it’s here in print, it’s accurate.
Q Well, if we go on in section 11.5, Sir John May noted that: “Only when the notebooks became available to the inquiry did the extent of RARDE’s interest in PETN become apparent. There was also testing to distinguish between nitroglycerine and PETN. This makes all the more disturbing the failure of a scientist to mention PETN.”

Hayes seems to have tried to maintain that the lab had no idea that the test couldn't distinguish between the two substances, but the full set of notebooks revealed that they had known that all along and had even done some experiments to investigate the issue.

Here's another section, which I believe is referring to the case of Judith Ward, another person wrongfully convicted of IRA terrorist offences.

In the appellant’s case, the disclosure of scientific evidence was woefully deficient. Three senior RARDE scientists took the law into their own hands, and concealed from the prosecution, the Defence, and the Court matters which might have changed the course of the trial. The catalogue of the lamentable omissions included failures to reveal actual test results, the failure to reveal discrepant Rf values, the suppression of the boot polishing experimental data, the misrepresentation of the first firing cell test results, the concealment of subsequent positive firing cell test results, economical witness statements calculated to obstruct inquiry by the Defence, and, most important of all, oral evidence at the trial in the course of which senior RARDE scientists knowingly placed a false and distorted scientific picture before the jury. It is in our judgement also a necessary inference that the three senior RARDE forensic scientists acted in concert in withholding material evidence.

The inquiry considered whether the failure to disclose the relevant results was as a result of a conspiracy between the scientists, or if it was capable of some other explanation. It was accepted that at first the failure to mention the possibility of PETN was a genuine error, based on the assumption that Irish terrorists didn't use that material.

It was nonetheless improper for the scientists to presume in that way to exclude it. At the time the material tests were carried out and reported on, the failure to report the confusion of nitroglycerine with PETN was honest but mistaken. However, before long, an element of calculation crept into the continuing failure.

These guys got away with this. Nobody was ever disciplined, and the whole thing was treated with a bit of a shrug of the shoulders.

I think it's emblematic of the way these things start. First they don't mention the PETN because they don't think it's relevant to a bunch of Irishmen (as opposed to Palestinians, presumably). But then they dig themselves further into it and do more tests and then they realise they can't really backtrack now and start mentioning it, so the selective editing of the results continues. After a while selective editing of results becomes second nature. And always the editing is done in such a way as to conceal exculpatory evidence and exaggerate incriminating evidence. One of the other tricks they were up to was marking peaks that were well below the height of the standard peak as "positive" when they should have been disregarded.

Patrizia Stefanoni was the heiress of a long and ignominious tradition.