Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
It's what makes her a talented forensic scientist.

A friend of mine wasn't even allowed to be a police expert witness until she got her first class in Chemistry.
Click to expand...

Stefanoni's education, training and employment record has been well hidden. This "talented forensic scientist" has published little and nothing of note. There is considerable doubt if she really has earned a bona fide doctorate rather than the use of the term "Dr" being applied to her as a courtesy title.

Whereas, Conti and Vechiotti, for example, have their own histories available for scrutiny - as you would expect.

I asked Stefanoni's employers to provide a copy of her CV. They declined to do so.

Additionally, it should be noted that American Bar Association guidelines for disclosure require all experts connected with the provision of evidence in criminal cases to submit their CVs as part of the regime. And of course this is sensible because it permits courts to assess the value of expertise.
 
Last edited:
Kauffer said:
Stefanoni's education, training and employment record has been well hidden. This "talented forensic scientist" has published little and nothing of note. There is considerable doubt if she really has earned a bona fide doctorate rather than the use of the term "Dr" being applied to her as a courtesy title.

Whereas, Conti and Vechiotti, for example, have their own histories available for scrutiny - as you would expect.

I asked Stefanoni's employers to provide a copy of her CV. They declined to do so.

Additionally, it should be noted that American Bar Association guidelines for disclosure require all experts connected with the provision of evidence in criminal cases to submit their CVs as part of the regime. And of course this is sensible because it permits courts to assess the value of expertise.
Click to expand...

Her training was perhaps appropriate to do DNA work in a laboratory. There is no evidence she had broader training in forensic laboratory science. There is no evidence that she had any training in crime scene investigation. Indeed there is evidence from the crime scene videos of her incompetence, suggesting she had not been formally trained.
 
Vixen said:
If the haematic substance has already been oxidised by bleach (as in cleaning up), there won't be any haemoglobin to trace.
Click to expand...
Do you understand what a catalyst is?

What we know is that chlorine based bleaches do not effect Luminol. Oxygen based bleaches do. Both will effect DNA. The strength and duration of bleach exposure in experiments with Luminol are much higher than that used for DNA cleaning in labs. Although I can find no direct comparisons. The chemistry suggests DNA is more susceptible to bleach than haemoglobin. I think that the idea that bleach cleaning would eradicate Luminol reactivity but preserve intact DNA is not scientific.
 
Vixen said:
You have identified the defense tactic of "blind with science".

Call it 1/500 of a grain of salt and the hope is people will say, wow, that's impossibly small!

Have you seen the size of sea salt?
Click to expand...

Yep, the grains are like boulders.
 
Kauffer said:
Stefanoni's education, training and employment record has been well hidden. This "talented forensic scientist" has published little and nothing of note. There is considerable doubt if she really has earned a bona fide doctorate rather than the use of the term "Dr" being applied to her as a courtesy title.

Whereas, Conti and Vechiotti, for example, have their own histories available for scrutiny - as you would expect.

I asked Stefanoni's employers to provide a copy of her CV. They declined to do so.

Additionally, it should be noted that American Bar Association guidelines for disclosure require all experts connected with the provision of evidence in criminal cases to submit their CVs as part of the regime. And of course this is sensible because it permits courts to assess the value of expertise.
Click to expand...


Stefanoni has a 4 year college degree. Apparently, many people in Italy refer to themselves as "doctor" when they only have the equivalent of a 4 year college B.A. or B.S. degree.
 
Planigale said:
Her training was perhaps appropriate to do DNA work in a laboratory. There is no evidence she had broader training in forensic laboratory science. There is no evidence that she had any training in crime scene investigation. Indeed there is evidence from the crime scene videos of her incompetence, suggesting she had not been formally trained.
Click to expand...

She's certainly good at something that landed her in that top position.
 
acbytesla said:
Now I'm laughing hysterically!! Talented forensic scientists do not feel the need to hide their work product. (Refusing to disclose the Electronic Data Files) They understand that gloves need to be changed often. They don't leave the victim's bloody sweatshirt at the scene for 46 days. They get the job done. They adhere to strong forensic controls.

Even if you think Raffaele and Amanda did it, you have to admit that Stefanoni is a poor excuse for a scientist.
Click to expand...

Careful, bad sign! Steff was the head of a huge forensic team.

A tiny speck of Stephen Lawrence blood on David Norris' clothes was not even tested for DNA until a decade later.

This idea DNA mysteriously appears or flies through the air is one of the biggest "urban myths" you guys like to propagate.
 
Vixen said:
Careful, bad sign! Steff was the head of a huge forensic team.

A tiny speck of Stephen Lawrence blood on David Norris' clothes was not even tested for DNA until a decade later.

This idea DNA mysteriously appears or flies through the air is one of the biggest "urban myths" you guys like to propagate.
Click to expand...
As Alice said when confounded by protocols in addressing those who were not easy to locate in one's social milieu
"Oh rat"
 
Vixen said:
Careful, bad sign! Steff was the head of a huge forensic team.

A tiny speck of Stephen Lawrence blood on David Norris' clothes was not even tested for DNA until a decade later.

This idea DNA mysteriously appears or flies through the air is one of the biggest "urban myths" you guys like to propagate.
Click to expand...

Do certified labs have positive pressure hoods? If so, why?

Any cases found yet with no blood but DNA on a murder knife? One that was cleaned with bleach? What do they use to clean DNA equipment?
 
Vixen said:
Careful, bad sign! Steff was the head of a huge forensic team.

A tiny speck of Stephen Lawrence blood on David Norris' clothes was not even tested for DNA until a decade later.

This idea DNA mysteriously appears or flies through the air is one of the biggest "urban myths" you guys like to propagate.
Click to expand...

There's no mystery, in the sense you mean. You should listen to guilters' favourite David Balding:

"Every crime sample that was ever collected was contaminated. Even in the most pristine conditions in a laboratory, you cannot have a DNA-free environment."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24534110
 
Planigale said:
Her training was perhaps appropriate to do DNA work in a laboratory. There is no evidence she had broader training in forensic laboratory science. There is no evidence that she had any training in crime scene investigation. Indeed there is evidence from the crime scene videos of her incompetence, suggesting she had not been formally trained.
Click to expand...

Like the fingerprint expert who Mignini repurposed to claim the half foottrack on the bath mat was Raf's, the forensic experts are all as Mach says, "approximate experts".
 
Kauffer said:
Stefanoni's education, training and employment record has been well hidden. This "talented forensic scientist" has published little and nothing of note. There is considerable doubt if she really has earned a bona fide doctorate rather than the use of the term "Dr" being applied to her as a courtesy title.

Whereas, Conti and Vechiotti, for example, have their own histories available for scrutiny - as you would expect.

I asked Stefanoni's employers to provide a copy of her CV. They declined to do so.

Additionally, it should be noted that American Bar Association guidelines for disclosure require all experts connected with the provision of evidence in criminal cases to submit their CVs as part of the regime. And of course this is sensible because it permits courts to assess the value of expertise.
Click to expand...

Much like the lay judges, the prosecution's experts are only required to have graduated the 8th grade, so they are approximately qualified.
 
Planigale said:
Her training was perhaps appropriate to do DNA work in a laboratory. There is no evidence she had broader training in forensic laboratory science. There is no evidence that she had any training in crime scene investigation. Indeed there is evidence from the crime scene videos of her incompetence, suggesting she had not been formally trained.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could help me. How much MK DNA was on the knife per Stef? Could you then give me a good description of how small that would be? Maybe something better than the salt grain or validate the grain example?

With the cube assumption, we find that a grain of salt is about 5.85x10^-5 grams.

www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae342.cfm
 
Grinder said:
Perhaps you could help me. How much MK DNA was on the knife per Stef? Could you then give me a good description of how small that would be? Maybe something better than the salt grain or validate the grain example?

With the cube assumption, we find that a grain of salt is about 5.85x10^-5 grams.

www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae342.cfm
Click to expand...

First it was "in the order of a few hundred picograms" at the pre-trial then at the trial she couldn't remember.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
 
MichaelB said:
First it was "in the order of a few hundred picograms" at the pre-trial then at the trial she couldn't remember.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
Click to expand...

Thanks for all your work and thanks for this post. I think it's important for us to quantify how small this amount of DNA supposedly was. I would like to put an end to the urban myth that DNA cannot float around a room and how easy it is to have secondary transfer
 
Grinder said:
Thanks for all your work and thanks for this post. I think it's important for us to quantify how small this amount of DNA supposedly was. I would like to put an end to the urban myth that DNA cannot float around a room and how easy it is to have secondary transfer
Click to expand...

Will this help a little? Or perhaps it muddies the water. From my earlier link:

"The precise mechanics of the process by which a person's DNA can be transferred from one object to another, without that person being present, is still poorly understood.
Allan Jamieson, director of the Forensic Institute in Glasgow, is keen to highlight this problem.
It is well known, he says, that DNA moves around very easily but "the reality is we don't know enough about DNA transfer to explain it".
When an object is found to have traces of several people's DNA on it, this says little about who touched the object last, Dr Jamieson explains."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24534110

It's an interesting article. And Jamieson is a very interesting scientist.
 
Kauffer said:
Will this help a little? Or perhaps it muddies the water. From my earlier link:

"The precise mechanics of the process by which a person's DNA can be transferred from one object to another, without that person being present, is still poorly understood.
Allan Jamieson, director of the Forensic Institute in Glasgow, is keen to highlight this problem.
It is well known, he says, that DNA moves around very easily but "the reality is we don't know enough about DNA transfer to explain it".
When an object is found to have traces of several people's DNA on it, this says little about who touched the object last, Dr Jamieson explains."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24534110

It's an interesting article. And Jamieson is a very interesting scientist.
Click to expand...

Except when one of those people is your suspect. Then one can safely apply suspect-centric reasoning to conclude that they are a murderer.

- Judge Nencini
 
Kauffer said:
Will this help a little? Or perhaps it muddies the water. From my earlier link:

"The precise mechanics of the process by which a person's DNA can be transferred from one object to another, without that person being present, is still poorly understood.
Allan Jamieson, director of the Forensic Institute in Glasgow, is keen to highlight this problem.
It is well known, he says, that DNA moves around very easily but "the reality is we don't know enough about DNA transfer to explain it".
When an object is found to have traces of several people's DNA on it, this says little about who touched the object last, Dr Jamieson explains."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24534110

It's an interesting article. And Jamieson is a very interesting scientist.
Click to expand...


Yes and thank you as always. But I would like some hard comparison such as the salt example. Obviously some other common, small, relatively uniform, thing could be used instead.

I'm mostly asking for one of the DNA experts here to do the math and compare it to the number of pico grams claimed by Stef. If my math is reasonably correct and the DNA is even 1/10,000 of grain of salt it is clear to all how easy it would be to transfer or move around a lab.

Anyway thanks again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom