Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

This issue arose because Vixen said that the quantity of DNA was too great for the DNA to have been the result of secondary or greater transfer but must be the result of direct contact. This is an arbitrary claim by Vixen, there is no evidence in the literature that the quantity of DNA found in trace samples can define primary secondary or tertiary transfer. This is untrue. Certainly this level of transmission has been demonstrated in studies. Transfer during simulated crime scene examination has been demonstrated e.g. on gloves.
DNA transfer by examination tools – a risk for forensic casework? Forensic Science International: Genetics Volume 16, May 2015, Pages 246–254

In other words, when one applies skeptical standards, on a skeptics' site, one finds that most PGP postings lead nowhere.......

....... because they come from nowhere. Well - nowhere near actual evidence.

 

[Grinder]

Yes.

We will never know the absolute amount of Sollecito's DNA on the bra hook. If we exclude the possibility of laboratory contamination, and that the DNA was never on the hook, and assume the DNA was on the hook. The amount of DNA is defined relative to the amount extracted and typed. If a larger amount of DNA was present initially, then a larger amount would be extracted and the amount typed would not be LCN. That the amount typed (admittedly only a fraction of the total DNA on the hook) was small, means the amount originally present was small. In the studies of trace DNA transfer, this would fit with the amounts found by secondary or greater transfer. There is a standard process of extraction to 50mcl, quantifying, then typing if DNA present. The concentration of Sollecito DNA in the extract would be about 10 - 20mcg/l. (I use these units as easier to imagine, a grain of sugar is about a milligram, so imagine the DNA is the equivalent of 1/50 th of a grain of sugar in a litre (or for our US colleagues say in a quart). Then 10mcl of this extract is used in typing. This is fairly standard and so quantities found can be compared by the amount in the proportion assayed as the proportion is the same.

Anyway the point is the original amount was relatively small.

Thank you for sharing your expertise. I have no training in the field at all and rarely participate in the discussion beyond very basic issues such as whether a knife has ever been found to contain DNA of the victim but test negative for blood.

I have tried to demonstrate how small the samples of DNA have been in this case, using grains of salt. Could you give a maximum size the knife DNA and the bra clasp DNA were in terms of a grain of sugar or salt?

 

[Diocletus]

We will never know the absolute amount of Sollecito's DNA on the bra hook.

That's for sure. Stefanoni's lab screwed up the quantification eight ways from Sunday: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/bra-clasp-contamination/

Forget about Sollecito's DNA--we don't even know how much DNA, of any/all origin, was in the sample.

 

[LondonJohn]

That's for sure. Stefanoni's lab screwed up the quantification eight ways from Sunday: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/bra-clasp-contamination/

Forget about Sollecito's DNA--we don't even know how much DNA, of any/all origin, was in the sample.

Absolutely. In fact, one could take this single element of Stefanoni's gross incompetence - the near-unbelievable failure to properly/accurately quantify ANY of the DNA - to show just how generally incompetent and unfit-for-purpose Stefanoni and her "laboratory" were, especially in the area of low-template magnitudes of DNA. She simply didn't know what she was doing, and (probably worse still) she appears to have no comprehension of the fact that she didn't know what she was doing (nor, of course, its implications).

Total joke. With horribly serious effects.

 

[Bill Williams]

Interrogations and false memories

Moral of the story, if you are a suspect in a crime, they are not trying to help you. Indeed, if you are guilty of the crime that's probably a good thing. If you are not then you need to understand this....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ubc-study-finds-police-interrogation-techniques-can-create-false-memories-1.3326896

 

[Antony]

...

it is difficult to be exact about the ratio of Sollecito (and I accept Sollecito's DNA was detected) to Kercher DNA.

...

However I repeat I accept the profile found was that of Sollecito.

...

Why? Based on Stefanoni's fraudulent results? Conti and Vecchiotti were very clear about Stefanoni's work - it was meaningless because of faulty interpretation even of the incomplete data that she presented.

 

[Vixen]

Why? Based on Stefanoni's fraudulent results? Conti and Vecchiotti were very clear about Stefanoni's work - it was meaningless because of faulty interpretation even of the incomplete data that she presented.

You do know Conti & Vecchiotti were heavily criticised by Chiefi as "intellectually dishonest"?

In addition, their labs were closed down as being in a frightful condition.

 

[Grinder]

You do know Conti & Vecchiotti were heavily criticised by Chiefi as "intellectually dishonest"?

In addition, their labs were closed down as being in a frightful condition.

Putting Conti & Vecchiotti and "labs closed"in Google search only your posts and a twitter from a KriisyG comes up. Do you have any credible (not R Owen) source?

 

[Bill Williams]

You do know Conti & Vecchiotti were heavily criticised by Chiefi as "intellectually dishonest"?

In addition, their labs were closed down as being in a frightful condition.

Not exactly true. At the institution they work at, the cadaver area was shut down. It had nothing to do with them.

As for the Chieffi court's view of Conti-Vecchiotti: this is what that court had to say about it:

- whereas the Galati appeal wanted the C-V report struck down, Chieffi said that their expertise was quite legitimate as a point of law (which is, afterall, what ISC rules on - points of law).

- The Chieffi court was contradictory as to whether or not actually did need Hellmann's permission to not test the second sample on the blade. (At the Nencini trial it was found to be unconnected to the crime anyway.)

- said that if C&V's protocols were accepted... "otherwise all DNA analyses made ​​since 1986 would be put into question” and with Torricelli who “had pointed out as such protocols can be waived, precisely because of the peculiarities of individual cases."​

 

[Methos]

You do know Conti & Vecchiotti were heavily criticised by Chiefi as "intellectually dishonest"?

In addition, their labs were closed down as being in a frightful condition.

It should be obvious why Chieffi ruled on the DNA evidence as he did (pages 90/91):

Prof. Novelli did agree with the fact that there are protocols and recommendations, but added that above all the technician’s competence and common sense must come into play, [67] (hearing 6.9.2011, page 59 of transcript), otherwise every DNA analysis from 1986 onwards could be called into question.

Dottoressa Stefanoni becoming the Italian Annie Dookhan had to be prevented (at all costs...)

Putting Conti & Vecchiotti and "labs closed"in Google search only your posts and a twitter from a KriisyG comes up. Do you have any credible (not R Owen) source?

Vixen is refering to this one:
Roma: cadaveri nei corridoi dell’obitorio, chiuso l’istituto di medicina legale della Sapienza
No mention of Conti or Vecchiotti in the article...

 

[Vixen]

Yes.

We will never know the absolute amount of Sollecito's DNA on the bra hook. If we exclude the possibility of laboratory contamination, and that the DNA was never on the hook, and assume the DNA was on the hook. The amount of DNA is defined relative to the amount extracted and typed. If a larger amount of DNA was present initially, then a larger amount would be extracted and the amount typed would not be LCN. That the amount typed (admittedly only a fraction of the total DNA on the hook) was small, means the amount originally present was small. In the studies of trace DNA transfer, this would fit with the amounts found by secondary or greater transfer. There is a standard process of extraction to 50mcl, quantifying, then typing if DNA present. The concentration of Sollecito DNA in the extract would be about 10 - 20mcg/l. (I use these units as easier to imagine, a grain of sugar is about a milligram, so imagine the DNA is the equivalent of 1/50 th of a grain of sugar in a litre (or for our US colleagues say in a quart). Then 10mcl of this extract is used in typing. This is fairly standard and so quantities found can be compared by the amount in the proportion assayed as the proportion is the same.

Anyway the point is the original amount was relatively small.

Rubbish, there was 120 picograms (look the word up) of Raff's DNA (compare and contrast to Vecchiotti & Conti's dishonest claim in Hellmann-Zanetti's court it was 5 picograms).

It doesn't "fit in with secondary or greater transfer". Balderdash. V&C FAILED to demonstrate any plausible "contamination" scenario.

Answer the question: WHAT WAS RAFF'S DNA DOING ON MEZ' BRA?

Obviously, he handled it.

 

[Antony]

You do know Conti & Vecchiotti were heavily criticised by Chiefi as "intellectually dishonest"?

In addition, their labs were closed down as being in a frightful condition.

Yawn. Others have dealt with your "points" more fully than I need to. Even if Chieffi used this description, you are just indulging in the appeal to authority fallacy and in a spectacularly selective way, at that.

You can't get away from the fact that the Italian judicial system is in conflict with itself. Either Hellman and Bruno/Marasca got it wrong, or it was Massei, Chieffi and Nencini. Given that either way Italian justice can't be trusted, the only rational response is to disregard their authority and go back to the actual evidence - which clearly tells us that the prosecution against Knox and Sollecito never had any merit.

The bra clasp - just like the kitchen knife - was a cheap conjuring trick on the part of the Perugian police which never had any credibility. Your endless citing of judges who agree with you, and rubbishing of judges who don't, is simply mindless partisan behaviour.

 

[Bill Williams]

Anyway the point is the original amount was relatively small.

Rubbish, there was 120 picograms (look the word up) of Raff's DNA (compare and contrast to Vecchiotti & Conti's dishonest claim in Hellmann-Zanetti's court it was 5 picograms).

It doesn't "fit in with secondary or greater transfer". Balderdash. V&C FAILED to demonstrate any plausible "contamination" scenario.

Answer the question: WHAT WAS RAFF'S DNA DOING ON MEZ' BRA?

Obviously, he handled it.

No, that is not obvious at all. There were 3 other male contributors to that sample - did they all handle that clasp?

Added to this discussion, read what Judge Massei quotes from almost-a-doctor Stefanoni about this - this is Massei quoting Stefanoni & Gino (albeit in the text below, this refers to the "Meredith sample" claimed to be on the knife):

Dr. Stefanoni had affirmed that the DNA extracted from this sample taken from the scratches was low, that is it was ‚low copy number‛, or in other words a small quantity of DNA. In this regard, she explained what low level DNA usually signifies: DNA present in amounts smaller than 100 picograms, and, taking into account that usually work is done with one nanogram – which is 1000 picograms – Dr. Gino further added, the quantity of material in ‚low copy number‛ is considerably less than a forensic genetics laboratory’s standard working conditions, conditions which allow a genetic profile obtained to be considered a good genetic profile, useful for making comparisons.​

Exhibit 165B was also "low copy number", with the following provisio - that Meredith's DNA was found in a 6:1 ratio (or 10:1 as claimed by Tagliabracci) from that which could-not-be-ruled-out as Raffaele's. Tagliabracci estimates that it is about 100 picograms which is low copy number.

when dealing with low copy number, there may be variations in the amplification from one case to another, and phenomena may occur such as loss of alleles or addition of alleles, and there may also be an imbalance of the peaks. In relation to this, it would have been necessary to carry out another amplification. The consultant lamented that it had not been shown that such a repetition had been made and disputed the assertions made by Dr. Stefanoni who had held that the data obtained on this basis was sound, and had not performed a repetition.​

As to this positively I.D.ing Raffaele, Massei notes that Professor Tagliabracci said this:

Speaking of the Y haplotype, which was also found in specimen 165B, Professor Tagliabracci made no criticism of the reading/interpretation, but emphasised that such analysis could exclude, but not establish, the presence of a given male subject.​

Massei notes, though, that Dr. Torricelli said that this, in his opinion, actually did establish the minor donor as Raffaele. Professor Tagliabracci's refusal to say it was a match was because he disputed the interpretation of some of the loci.

Even though Massei "judicially ruled" that 165B contained a match to Raffaele, there is plenty of reason to believe it did not - even before considering that C&V basically trashed Stefanoni.

 

[Vixen]

Not exactly true. At the institution they work at, the cadaver area was shut down. It had nothing to do with them.

As for the Chieffi court's view of Conti-Vecchiotti: this is what that court had to say about it:

- whereas the Galati appeal wanted the C-V report struck down, Chieffi said that their expertise was quite legitimate as a point of law (which is, afterall, what ISC rules on - points of law).

- The Chieffi court was contradictory as to whether or not actually did need Hellmann's permission to not test the second sample on the blade. (At the Nencini trial it was found to be unconnected to the crime anyway.)

- said that if C&V's protocols were accepted... "otherwise all DNA analyses made ​​since 1986 would be put into question” and with Torricelli who “had pointed out as such protocols can be waived, precisely because of the peculiarities of individual cases."​

Before criticising Dr. Stefanoni, Drs.Vecchiotti and Conti should put their own house in order.

Chieffi said, of V&C. "it must be added that what certainly must be censured is the
management of the mandate conferred on the chosen experts".

regarding their failure to test sample 36(i) on the knife.

Vecchiotti & Conti led Hellmann to LIE re "Prof. Novelli, a geneticist of undisputed repute recognized by the [appeal]
court itself (page 79 statement of reasons), regarding the availability of instruments
capable of reliably analysing quantities even smaller than ten picograms in diagnostic
fields (such as embryology) in which the need for certainty is no less important than in the
courts, the Hellmann Court of Appeal refused on the assumption that the methods
mentioned by Prof. Novelli were “in an experimental phase” (page 84), thereby freely
interpreting and misrepresenting the testimony of the professor, who on the contrary
mentioned the use of such techniques in diagnostic domains in which the certainty of the
result is essential."

"All in all, the modus operandi of the Hellmann Court of Appeal which, unacceptably
delegating its own function, entrusted to the unquestioned evaluation of the expert the
decision of whether or not to submit the new trace for analysis, is open to understandable
and justified censure."

On receiving a reporrt from Professor Novello, "the Court fell into another gross
misinterpretation, in a significant argument concerning the reliability of the results of the
analyses made, by assuming the impossibility of repeating the tests even on traces found
at a later time, thereby affecting the logic of the statement of reasons (Section I, 25.6.2007,
n. 24667). The Hellmann Court of Appeal also completely ignored the authoritative points
offered by Professor Torricelli, who shed serious doubt on the fact that a very small
quantity was found; she quantified the useful material in the new trace as 120 picograms."

Regarding Professor Novello's observation that V&C's criticisms of the DNA analysis meant that every DNA analysis since 1986 must therefore come under the same rubric as defective, "Not only that, but he added that taking Sollecito’s
alleles from trace 165B and making a statistical investigation, one finds a probability of one
in 3 billion, meaning that there is one person in every 3 billion compatible with that
profile.

Prof Torricelli (for the Scientific Police), "gave precise arguments underlining the
fact that on the bra clasp (trace 165B) the important factor was the Y haplotype, which was
very clear in all its 17 loci; so much so that inserting these 17 loci into the database yielded
no hits other than Sollecito, whereas if only 11 loci were inserted, they found 31 people
with the same haplotype. These observations, made by experts with the same amount of
expertise as the ones that wrote the expert report, were not even quoted in" ...Hellmann's report.

Chieffi also rapped Hellmann re Vecchiotti & Conti, "Even more surprising was to accept, without any critical thinking, the thesis of the court appointed
experts on the “possible” contamination of the samples, a thesis which is
completely disconnected from any scientific basis suitable to adequately justify it.

Novello confirmed there was no possibility of contamination, yet Hellmann ignored it (reprimands Chieffi).

"The principle which must be followed, as
mentioned by the public party submitting the appeal, is the “onus probandi incumbit ei qui
dicit, non ei qui negat” [“the burden of proof lies upon the one who asserts, not the one who
denies”]."

"Therefore, by the nature of things, the refutation of the scientific proof would
have had to be accomplished by a demonstration of the concrete and specific factual
circumstances establishing the claimed contamination."

Source: Perugia Murder org. Chieffi Report (in the public domain).

 

[Bill Williams]

Before criticising Dr. Stefanoni, Drs.Vecchiotti and Conti should put their own house in order.

Chieffi said, of V&C. "it must be added that what certainly must be censured is the management of the mandate conferred on the chosen experts".

regarding their failure to test sample 36(i) on the knife.

Vecchiotti & Conti led Hellmann to LIE re "Prof. Novelli, a geneticist of undisputed repute recognized by the [appeal]
court itself (page 79 statement of reasons), regarding the availability of instruments
capable of reliably analysing quantities even smaller than ten picograms in diagnostic
fields (such as embryology) in which the need for certainty is no less important than in the
courts, the Hellmann Court of Appeal refused on the assumption that the methods
mentioned by Prof. Novelli were “in an experimental phase” (page 84), thereby freely
interpreting and misrepresenting the testimony of the professor, who on the contrary
mentioned the use of such techniques in diagnostic domains in which the certainty of the
result is essential."

"All in all, the modus operandi of the Hellmann Court of Appeal which, unacceptably
delegating its own function, entrusted to the unquestioned evaluation of the expert the
decision of whether or not to submit the new trace for analysis, is open to understandable
and justified censure."

On receiving a reporrt from Professor Novello, "the Court fell into another gross misinterpretation, in a significant argument concerning the reliability of the results of the
analyses made, by assuming the impossibility of repeating the tests even on traces found
at a later time, thereby affecting the logic of the statement of reasons (Section I, 25.6.2007,
n. 24667). The Hellmann Court of Appeal also completely ignored the authoritative points
offered by Professor Torricelli, who shed serious doubt on the fact that a very small
quantity was found; she quantified the useful material in the new trace as 120 picograms."

Regarding Professor Novello's observation that V&C's criticisms of the DNA analysis meant that every DNA analysis since 1986 must therefore come under the same rubric as defective, "Not only that, but he added that taking Sollecito’s
alleles from trace 165B and making a statistical investigation, one finds a probability of one
in 3 billion, meaning that there is one person in every 3 billion compatible with that
profile.

Prof Torricelli (for the Scientific Police), "gave precise arguments underlining the
fact that on the bra clasp (trace 165B) the important factor was the Y haplotype, which was
very clear in all its 17 loci; so much so that inserting these 17 loci into the database yielded
no hits other than Sollecito, whereas if only 11 loci were inserted, they found 31 people
with the same haplotype. These observations, made by experts with the same amount of
expertise as the ones that wrote the expert report, were not even quoted in" ...Hellmann's report.
Chieffi also rapped Hellmann re Vecchiotti & Conti, "Even more surprising was to accept, without any critical thinking, the thesis of the court appointed
experts on the “possible” contamination of the samples, a thesis which is
completely disconnected from any scientific basis suitable to adequately justify it.

Novello confirmed there was no possibility of contamination, yet Hellmann ignored it (reprimands Chieffi).

"The principle which must be followed, as
mentioned by the public party submitting the appeal, is the “onus probandi incumbit ei qui
dicit, non ei qui negat” [“the burden of proof lies upon the one who asserts, not the one who
denies”]."

"Therefore, by the nature of things, the refutation of the scientific proof would
have had to be accomplished by a demonstration of the concrete and specific factual
circumstances establishing the claimed contamination."

Source: Perugia Murder org. Chieffi Report (in the public domain).

OMG! You really do not get it.... Chieffi was, rightly or wrongly, criticizing Hellmann and his court!
Conti and Vecchiotti should put their own house in order because of Chieffi's report? LOL!

 

[Vixen]

Yawn. Others have dealt with your "points" more fully than I need to. Even if Chieffi used this description, you are just indulging in the appeal to authority fallacy and in a spectacularly selective way, at that.

You can't get away from the fact that the Italian judicial system is in conflict with itself. Either Hellman and Bruno/Marasca got it wrong, or it was Massei, Chieffi and Nencini. Given that either way Italian justice can't be trusted, the only rational response is to disregard their authority and go back to the actual evidence - which clearly tells us that the prosecution against Knox and Sollecito never had any merit.

The bra clasp - just like the kitchen knife - was a cheap conjuring trick on the part of the Perugian police which never had any credibility. Your endless citing of judges who agree with you, and rubbishing of judges who don't, is simply mindless partisan behaviour.

Not really. There is no way dunce not-even-a real-doctor Stefanoni could have faked Raff's DNA. It is all done by machine. Wow imagine bottom-of-the-class Steffi managing to recreate a double helix strand of DNA to match Raff's Y haplotype (which was how Rudy was ID'ed, after all, yet no-one argues about this) and 17 loci - wow! Imagine winning the lottery jackpot required correctly choosing 17 numbers. You are claiming stupid Stefanoni was scientifically capable of all of this, and more.

Perhaps Raff was simply one of her own Frankenstein recreations, constructed out of various bits of DNA.

We-ell!!!

 

[Vixen]

OMG! You really do not get it.... Chieffi was, rightly or wrongly, criticizing Hellmann and his court!
Conti and Vecchiotti should put their own house in order because of Chieffi's report? LOL!

The "independent" witnesses were in cahoots with the defence - look out for Luca Maori's corruption arraignment hearing - wherein the prosecutors claim the pair were seen wining and dining with the defence during the hearing.

Conti & Vecchiotti produced a knowingly bent report with the aim of perverting justice, and Hellmann surely knew this and colluded with it.

 

[Bill Williams]

The "independent" witnesses were in cahoots with the defence - look out for Luca Maori's corruption arraignment hearing - wherein the prosecutors claim the pair were seen wining and dining with the defence during the hearing.

Conti & Vecchiotti produced a knowingly bent report with the aim of perverting justice, and Hellmann surely knew this and colluded with it.

Right. It's a conspiracy.

 

[bagels]

We'll have to see if the conspiracy reaches all the way to Strasbourg when the ECHR weighs in.

 

[Planigale]

OMG! You really do not get it.... Chieffi was, rightly or wrongly, criticizing Hellmann and his court!
Conti and Vecchiotti should put their own house in order because of Chieffi's report? LOL!

Vixen does have a habit of posting things that actually say something different from what Vixen thinks.

V&C were the only independent experts. The others were paid by one side or the other and represented the views of that side.

The principle in forensic DNA testing is the need to ensure no contamination has occurred. Steffanoni would have no need to create DNA, she had the DNA of all the relevant people in her laboratory. As the court said if the prosecution say no contamination occurred they should show they took actions to prevent it. Saying that retrospectively the defence have to prove a route of contamination is impossible without a time machine - how do you do it? Setting an impossible standard is just foolish.