anglolawyer
Banned
Vixen
You claim the defence did not dispute that Meredith's DNA profile was produced from a sample taken from the blade of the knife. I said you were wrong and you asked for a cite. Under the informal rules of duscussion here, I accept your request and quote the following from Amanda's appeal from Massei:
The defense argues that the court should have excluded the DNA testing on Raffaele's kitchen knife. Dr. Stefanoni testified her job was to show objective proof by precise analysis, including use of scientific evidence as reflected by the IFIC. Her own notes reflect that the DNA on the knife blade was showing a finding of “too low, too low, too low ...” The testing done on the knife also showed it was not blood. Dr. Stefanoni initially stated that there was a finding of “a few hundred” picograms and she used real-time PCR for findings. When data was later provided to the defense it showed that it was actually under 10 picograms, and could even be ZERO. Dr. Stefanoni created her own form of LCN DNA to achieve the desired results. To make her finding she ran the test once, it destroyed the sample so no other testing can ever be done.
Dr. Stefanoni had to hand set the machine to get beyond the “too low” finding, which stopped her from testing dozens of other samples but pushing the machine to levels that are not permissible, but they provided her with the desired result that she needed on the knife. Dr. Stefanoni’s results show findings below peaks of 50 RFU which are not reliable.
In this case much of the information was withheld regarding the testing until July of 2009. At that time it was discovered that Dr. Stefanoni's testing was not reliable. The defense asked that the court order re-testing by new experts. This request was denied by the court. This denial was wrong, and lacked reasons which are required to be set forth. Even to date some of the data files and documents have never been produced to the defendants that could show how contamination occurred. Information that was turned over in July revealed inconsistencies and inadequacies that significantly undermine the reliability and trustworthiness of the results. Specifically, per scientific guidelines, when you get readings of “too low” on the machine, there is not a sufficient amount for subsequent amplification. There is too little to study, and no finding will be reliable to a reasonable degree of certainty. The court ruled by assumption that the phrase “too low” does not affect the outcome of the genetic results despite all others in science stating that is what it means.
You may read more here. Now, since you seem to have difficulty acknowledging error (who doesn't, after all) I have drafted a reply for you to adopt and use as a precedent in the further course of discussion:
Dear [anglolawyer/London John/Kauffer/Dan O. etc*]
Thank you for the helpful information you supplied at my request. Having given the matter of the [sample 36C/female shoeprint/use of Brillo pad/regular €300 deposit etc.*] further consideration, I see that my assertion about it was foolish and wrong and that I should not have made it without undertaking adequate, or any, prior reading or research of my own. I hope, despite this, you will continue to favour me with your helpful advice and assistance about this difficult case and overlook my crass and stupid error on this occasion.
Yours etc.
Vixen
*delete as appropriate
You claim the defence did not dispute that Meredith's DNA profile was produced from a sample taken from the blade of the knife. I said you were wrong and you asked for a cite. Under the informal rules of duscussion here, I accept your request and quote the following from Amanda's appeal from Massei:
The defense argues that the court should have excluded the DNA testing on Raffaele's kitchen knife. Dr. Stefanoni testified her job was to show objective proof by precise analysis, including use of scientific evidence as reflected by the IFIC. Her own notes reflect that the DNA on the knife blade was showing a finding of “too low, too low, too low ...” The testing done on the knife also showed it was not blood. Dr. Stefanoni initially stated that there was a finding of “a few hundred” picograms and she used real-time PCR for findings. When data was later provided to the defense it showed that it was actually under 10 picograms, and could even be ZERO. Dr. Stefanoni created her own form of LCN DNA to achieve the desired results. To make her finding she ran the test once, it destroyed the sample so no other testing can ever be done.
Dr. Stefanoni had to hand set the machine to get beyond the “too low” finding, which stopped her from testing dozens of other samples but pushing the machine to levels that are not permissible, but they provided her with the desired result that she needed on the knife. Dr. Stefanoni’s results show findings below peaks of 50 RFU which are not reliable.
In this case much of the information was withheld regarding the testing until July of 2009. At that time it was discovered that Dr. Stefanoni's testing was not reliable. The defense asked that the court order re-testing by new experts. This request was denied by the court. This denial was wrong, and lacked reasons which are required to be set forth. Even to date some of the data files and documents have never been produced to the defendants that could show how contamination occurred. Information that was turned over in July revealed inconsistencies and inadequacies that significantly undermine the reliability and trustworthiness of the results. Specifically, per scientific guidelines, when you get readings of “too low” on the machine, there is not a sufficient amount for subsequent amplification. There is too little to study, and no finding will be reliable to a reasonable degree of certainty. The court ruled by assumption that the phrase “too low” does not affect the outcome of the genetic results despite all others in science stating that is what it means.
You may read more here. Now, since you seem to have difficulty acknowledging error (who doesn't, after all) I have drafted a reply for you to adopt and use as a precedent in the further course of discussion:
Dear [anglolawyer/London John/Kauffer/Dan O. etc*]
Thank you for the helpful information you supplied at my request. Having given the matter of the [sample 36C/female shoeprint/use of Brillo pad/regular €300 deposit etc.*] further consideration, I see that my assertion about it was foolish and wrong and that I should not have made it without undertaking adequate, or any, prior reading or research of my own. I hope, despite this, you will continue to favour me with your helpful advice and assistance about this difficult case and overlook my crass and stupid error on this occasion.
Yours etc.
Vixen
*delete as appropriate
Last edited:
