• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Numbers said:
8. She and her forensic police team mishandled specimen collection;

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.

Machiavelli has addressed #8 at length. I do not find his assertions convincing, but he has addressed it.

Chief evidence of Stefanoni's mishandling of specimen collection is the very video her own Scientific Police made of the Dec 2007 collection. This film was shown at trial in 2009, and should have stopped proceedings right then, right there.

In a back and forth with Machiavelli, he explained away that Stefanoni could neither confirm nor deny that the film showed that she, herself, had touched the bra-hook with obviously dirty gloves.

Machiavelli's claim was that Stefanoni testified that she had frequently changed gloves. Apparently, we should believe her on her word alone.

While this pic does not show the dirt on her glove, it shows her handling the bra-clasp by the hooks:


 
Last edited:
Machiavelli has addressed #8 at length. I do not find his assertions convincing, but he has addressed it.
Chief evidence of Stefanoni's mishandling of specimen collection is the very video her own Scientific Police made of the Dec 2007 collection. This film was shown at trial in 2009, and should have stopped proceedings right then, right there.

In a back and forth with Machiavelli, he explained away that Stefanoni could neither confirm nor deny that the film showed that she, herself, had touched the bra-hook with obviously dirty gloves.

Machiavelli's claim was that Stefanoni testified that she had frequently changed gloves. Apparently, we should believe her on her word alone.

While this pic does not show the dirt on her glove, it shows her handling the bra-clasp by the hooks:


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397154cd51816a9a7.jpg[/qimg]

His answer I really don't consider really addressing but playing games with the issue. I would argue that is is similar to religious and woo apologetics.
 
how not to perform chemical analysis

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

Quote:
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.
SNIP

Patrizia Stefanoni was the heiress of a long and ignominious tradition.
(highlighting mine)

This is a very valuable post for a couple of reasons. One is that there is sometimes no bright line between sloppy science and fraudulent science. Two is that there are sometimes conspiracies to conceal exculpatory forensic information. Three is that it is helpful to know as much as is possible about how a test is performed to understand how discriminating it is. The concept that coincident retention factors (Rf values) in thin-layer chromatography is not sufficient to demonstrate identity is something that I have covered (although I did not stress) in sophomore level organic chemistry lab.

As an aside, I would note that an analogous problem plagued the Patricia Stallings case, although there it was the values of retention times as opposed to Rf values that were sort of coincident. Retention times or retention factors are a single pieces of information. Modern techniques of identifying molecules (in which chromatography is coupled to mass spectrometry or nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometry) is much less likely to provide misleading results, because there is much more information.
 
Machiavelli has addressed #8 at length. I do not find his assertions convincing, but he has addressed it.

Chief evidence of Stefanoni's mishandling of specimen collection is the very video her own Scientific Police made of the Dec 2007 collection. This film was shown at trial in 2009, and should have stopped proceedings right then, right there.

In a back and forth with Machiavelli, he explained away that Stefanoni could neither confirm nor deny that the film showed that she, herself, had touched the bra-hook with obviously dirty gloves.

Machiavelli's claim was that Stefanoni testified that she had frequently changed gloves. Apparently, we should believe her on her word alone.

While this pic does not show the dirt on her glove, it shows her handling the bra-clasp by the hooks:


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397154cd51816a9a7.jpg[/qimg]

Yes. Quite a picture. Is there an Academy Award (R) for Photography of Forensic Misconduct?

ETA: The better way to have picked up the specimen would have been DNA-free forceps (tweezers). The sloppy handling may have been intentional to achieve contamination with Sollecito's DNA.
 
Last edited:
how not to make up test kits

In the New Scientist Mick Hamer wrote, "Sloppy laboratory practice helped to convict members of the Maguire family, a leading forensic scientist said, following the disclosure in the Court of Appeal that test kits used to detect traces of explosives were contaminated.

At the Old Bailey in 1976, six members of the Maguire family and a friend were convicted of running an IRA bomb factory in north London on the basis of forensic evidence, and sentenced to up to 14 years in jail. Scientists told the court in 1976 that the seven had been 'kneading' nitroglycerine. The last of the Maguire Seven was released from prison in 1985.

A fresh appeal, prompted by the release of the Guildford Four last year, was suddenly adjourned last week after the court was told that in 1977 a chance review of test kits by Home Office scientists had discovered that some kits had been contaminated with explosives. The test kits ..." link2 I don't have access to the entire article, but the issue of contamination in another context is worth noting. Apparently the kits were made in the same place as explosives, increasing the odds of contamination. Link2
 
Last edited:
Yes. Quite a picture. Is there an Academy Award (R) for Photography of Forensic Misconduct?

ETA: The better way to have picked up the specimen would have been DNA-free forceps (tweezers). The sloppy handling may have been intentional to achieve contamination with Sollecito's DNA.

Unlike Machiavelli's forgery of the kitchen-knife overlaying the bedsheet stain, we know the origin of that photo of Stefanoni handling the hooks of the clasp....

Stefanoni's team took the picture. It was available to the Massei court. Massei convicted Raffaele anyway.
 
Yes. Quite a picture. Is there an Academy Award (R) for Photography of Forensic Misconduct?

ETA: The better way to have picked up the specimen would have been DNA-free forceps (tweezers). The sloppy handling may have been intentional to achieve contamination with Sollecito's DNA.

Here's another one, this one from Frank Sfarzo's collection, available at IIP. It shows the condition of Stefanoni's glove. (Apparently, at the time the only thing Stefanoni thought would be of interest were the tears on the fabric part of the clasp, not the hooks.)

 
Unlike Machiavelli's forgery of the kitchen-knife overlaying the bedsheet stain, we know the origin of that photo of Stefanoni handling the hooks of the clasp....

Stefanoni's team took the picture. It was available to the Massei court. Massei convicted Raffaele anyway.

I think the only sensible explanation then is that the Massei court was biased. All the other non-evidence convinced that court of the defendants' guilt as well.

I looked at a youtube video of the forensic team picking up and handling the bra clasp and at least two of them handle the item by the clasps.

One has to wonder how typical this screwed-up treatment of evidence, and especially DNA evidence, is in Italy.
 
I think the only sensible explanation then is that the Massei court was biased. All the other non-evidence convinced that court of the defendants' guilt as well.

I looked at a youtube video of the forensic team picking up and handling the bra clasp and at least two of them handle the item by the clasps.

One has to wonder how typical this screwed-up treatment of evidence, and especially DNA evidence, is in Italy.


Well, it's been discussed here many times before of course, and it is truly astonishing. There is ample evidence that pretty much all the DNA-related physical evidence in this case - most particularly the knife and the bra clasp - was demonstrably collected, handled and stored in ways which rode roughshod over virtually every established element of best practice.

This should, in and of itself, have been enough to at the very least cast huge doubt over the reliability of the DNA evidence, and it should arguably have led to this evidence becoming inadmissible.

Unfortunately, I (again) don't think the defence teams covered themselves in glory in the Massei trial in terms of showing the court unequivocally that the items were shockingly mishandled, and that this necessarily must directly affect the credibility and reliability of the prosecution's "evidence" in this area. But also, it's clear that the courts were - once again - all too beholden to the prosecution's claims that it was all Kosher and OK. I strongly suspect that Massei and his happy band of pilgrims took the overarching view that if Mignini, Comodi and Stefanoni said it was all done properly, then it was all done properly (after all, they are public servants and are only interested in the truth, aren't they......?), and if the defence argued otherwise, well.... "they would, wouldn't they"
 
Machiavelli said:
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.

The list should be addressed to a psychiatric help center.

Why are Italian forensic techs special snowflakes? I have a feeling that if Annie Dookhan was Italian, you would be making excuses for her as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Dookhan

Edit: The only way a legal system fixes its mistakes is if the people put the system to the fire and make them fix the problems. Making excuses does not solve any problems.
 
Last edited:
17 Forensic Science Sins of Stefanoni: A Summary

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.

Machiavelli has addressed #8 at length. I do not find his assertions convincing, but he has addressed it.

Chief evidence of Stefanoni's mishandling of specimen collection is the very video her own Scientific Police made of the Dec 2007 collection. This film was shown at trial in 2009, and should have stopped proceedings right then, right there.

In a back and forth with Machiavelli, he explained away that Stefanoni could neither confirm nor deny that the film showed that she, herself, had touched the bra-hook with obviously dirty gloves.

Machiavelli's claim was that Stefanoni testified that she had frequently changed gloves. Apparently, we should believe her on her word alone.

While this pic does not show the dirt on her glove, it shows her handling the bra-clasp by the hooks:


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397154cd51816a9a7.jpg[/qimg]

The list should be addressed to a psychiatric help center.

Yes, the Italian Scientific Police are greatly in need of a forensic science help center.
 
Machiavelli said:
In Numbers post I can only see the delusional fantasies of a group of conspiracy theory fanatics.

Sop you should be able to point for point refute every claim on the list then?

.... or at least say something intelligent about the Scientific Police's own photos showing Stefanoni handling the hooks of the bra-clasp with obviously dirty gloves!
 
.... or at least say something intelligent about the Scientific Police's own photos showing Stefanoni handling the hooks of the bra-clasp with obviously dirty gloves!

The best answer would be "Ms. Stefanoni screwed up."
There are cases where I think the defendants are guilt and convicted fairly but I still think some of the evidence is screwed up. I think the problem with this case is that once you unravel one item, it is followed by unraveling everything else.
 
Some positive words about Italy...they're not as bad as before (for number of cases pending at the ECHR):

Press conference
President Dean Spielmann
Strasbourg, 29 January 2015

....

As has been the case for several years now, the solemn hearing will be preceded by a seminar, this time with the title “Subsidiarity: a two-sided coin”. This is a subject of obvious importance for our Court and for the Presidents of the highest-ranking courts who will be attending the event. The two speakers at the seminar will be Mr Sabino Cassese, Judge of the Italian Constitutional Court, and Mr Jean-Marc Sauvé, Vice-President of the French Conseil d’État.
....

Ukraine is now the highest case-count country, with 13,625 applications,
followed by Italy. As regards the latter, it is important to stress that Italy made
very considerable efforts last year. In September 2014 more than 17,000 cases were pending against Italy; by the end of the year that figure had been reduced to 10,000. I would like to thank the Italian authorities for their efforts,especially as regards the follow-up to the Torregiani judgment and all aspects
of the length-of-proceedings cases. I am pleased to say that Italy seems to be
on the right track as regards its cases before the Court.
....
 
Last edited:
Let's take no. 3 ...
No 3 concerns a very important artifice for the prosecution, but Machiavelli has combined this evidence of Sollecito with his 32 page proof that Sollecito's foot matches the bathmat print. I believe this is how he has become completely delusional himself, rather than those he targets. He has confused quantity, 32 pages, with quality, and closed his mind to the digestive evidence and so on.
In essence, he asserts, and leaves the room.
 
No 3 concerns a very important artifice for the prosecution, but Machiavelli has combined this evidence of Sollecito with his 32 page proof that Sollecito's foot matches the bathmat print. I believe this is how he has become completely delusional himself, rather than those he targets. He has confused quantity, 32 pages, with quality, and closed his mind to the digestive evidence and so on.
In essence, he asserts, and leaves the room.

I think that is a general problem with the Italian legal system where they replace quality with quantity. . . . Look at the various judge's motivation reports.
 
No 3 concerns a very important artifice for the prosecution, but Machiavelli has combined this evidence of Sollecito with his 32 page proof that Sollecito's foot matches the bathmat print. I believe this is how he has become completely delusional himself, rather than those he targets. He has confused quantity, 32 pages, with quality, and closed his mind to the digestive evidence and so on.
In essence, he asserts, and leaves the room.

Guilters tend to equate mass with quality. 10,000 pages = guilty!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom