LCN is perfectly examinable, as the RIS in Rome demonstrated (Berti and Barni 2013, Nencini). If a result can be gleaned then it is successful.
Berti and Barni tested the LCN DNA sample 36-I and filed their report with Nencini, 30 Oct 2013.
The subject of the question, as formulated in the body of the assignment minutes of the assignment, recites the following:
"Examined the documents of the case and in particular the findings of the expert report submitted on 29 June 2011 by Prof.ssa Carla Vecchiotti and Prof. Stefano Conti, together with the statements formulated by the consultants of the parties Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni and Prof. Giuseppe Novelli in their papers filed at the hearing on September 6, 2011, and provided the analysis of the sample previously worked, the peritians say about the attribution of the track marked with the letter (I) found on the finding no. 36 and if DNA itself can be identified as referring to Meredith Kercher or the condemned Rudi Herman Guede.
In the event that the sample is not possible for failure to perform, poor conservation or any other cause, the pertinent experts will give the Court of Justice immediate notice by fax.”
The document is in the form of a laboratory report and is highly technical. The key finding is the following:
The comparison between the genetic profiles of the trace I and the genetic profiles of the comparison subjects and the subsequent biostatistic analysis allowed to find:
a high degree of compatibility. statistically supported. between the genetic profile of Amanda Marie Knox and the genetic tracers of the I track;
a high degree of incompatibility. statistically supported, among the genetic profiles of the remaining subjects (Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher, Rudy Hermann Guede, Raffaele Sollecito) and the genetic profiles of the trace I.
In plain English, the Sample 36-I is neither starch nor rye bread and is compatible with Amanda Knox. There is incompatibility with Meredith, Guede or Sollecito. It also demonstrates that the sample was not ‘too low copy number’.
In addition, Mignini in his closing statement to Massei (upheld) summed up as follows:
Ril ref. THE NOTO FINISH 36. Photo 4 Knife seized in the Sollecito house where genetic profile compatible with Amanda Knox and on the blade genetic profile compatible with Kercher Meredith was found on the handle. All the considerations on this knife are reported and on the fact that Meredith could not have had contacts under normal conditions with the terminal part of the blade of this knife. And the trace attributable to the accused Knox is significantly right on the terminal part of the handle, where the lateral enlargement of the handle begins and where, therefore, the thrust aimed at the penetration of the blade is exercised and the fingers of those who hold the knife are prevented to slip on the blade. Another detail of extraordinary importance.
And the imprint of the blade of this knife seems to have been preserved on the bed, to the left of point 0: see photo 0173 which corresponds to exhibit 124 in which the blood traces are of the victim.
It should be remembered that the characteristics of the knife in seizure are the following: “Overall length cm. 31.2, handle of the length of cm. 6.6 and blade, single-blade 17.5 cm long with width estimated at the proximal third equal to 3 cm and thickness of the “coast, equal to mm.1.5. Along the blade, on both sides, small knurlings were observed, in continuity with the tip and up to 2.2 cm. of 11.4 "distance (see. CT Bacci, Liviero, Marchionni). The imprint would have been left by the blade cm long. 17.5 and cm wide. 3.
<snip>
It is hardly necessary to add that there was no evidence to the contrary about the fact that the knife was in the availability of Sollecito and that it was used in the house of Via della Pergola 7, ie in that of Meredith. Also on this point, the decree of the First Section of the Supreme Court is now definitive and cannot be changed.
Speaking of the knife, it cannot fail to call attention to one of the stories found on Amanda Knox's blog when it tells of a kitchen knife taken from one of the characters, such as Edgar, from the kitchen of the house and secretly used by the same to self-harm.
The defence tried to claim the knife was too long as the wound was 8cm in and the knife longer than that. The prosecution successfully argued that the tip hit the hyoid bone, which is...8cm in from point of entry in Mez' neck....and which shows a serrated wound, compatible with the knife meeting resistance, and in addition, the knife matches the knife outline patch on the bed. Final as per Chieffi Supreme Court.
Crini believes the most incriminating evidence of all is against Knox:
…[…]… So there is a fluorescence in Romanelli's room, which remarks at the same time - we are not in the victim's room, we are not in the Knox room, indeed, that of Knox is totally cleaned from this point of view - simultaneously refers to DNA victim and Knox.
…[…]… That in this room of the Italian, in which the presence of the other two is certainly there ... yes, precisely in that room they were given a convention the two strangers, leaving their DNA exactly in the same spot in the room.’
In other words, Knox has trailed Meredith’s blood into Filomena’s room and shed her own DNA on exactly the same spot as the victim’s and that they were mixed together.
There is certainly plenty of forensic evidence against Knox, taking in the adjacent bathroom, hallway, Mez' and Filomena's room
The quotations you give do not say blood. Please quote the positive test for blood.
Your argument is that in an apartment where both Knox and Kercher were living both their DNA was found? In a site separate from the murder room? One cannot tell from a DNA test as Steffanoni testified when the DNA was deposited, nor the source of the DNA. You cannot tell whether Kercher's DNA was deposited first, then Knox's or vice versa. Did they walk around bare foot? If so all it would take was a sticky patch on the floor to trap DNA from their feet. I can think of myriads of ways for DNA to be transferred, all innocent. Why should it appear here after a murder elsewhere?
So if this is the most incriminating evidence against Knox...
It is indisputabe the DNA found on the knife blade was of Mez. RS had an expert witness there, Patumi. Knox did not bother but she WAS worried about the knife, as expressed to her parents at an earlier stage. RS quickly explained the DNA of Mez on HIS kitchen knife as being an occasion when he accidentally pricked her hand, which of course, never happened. Plus RS refused to take the witness box.
In addition, this was just ONE piece of evidence out of a whole range of evidence that built up the big picture. The judges and jury deliberate on a verdict only when they have seen ALL of the evidence from ALL of the parties, and not before then.
And yet, once again, you fail to address any of the numerous failures regarding the knife. You can keep posting this crap all day long and it will not change those facts.
You do realize that 50 RFU is the minimum value to be considered valid, and as such, this profile has only 6 peaks that are useful. That means it is far from "indisputable" in technical terms. And since it was tested only once, below the minimum standard for the results to be considered reliable, that's a second reason the results are nullified. And, of course, removing an item of evidence from it's sealed collection container by anyone other than a trained technician in a sterilized lab environment also invalidates the evidence.
And on and on.... The net is 36B was nothing more than lab contamination and that means there was nothing to connect Amanda to the murder.
This page has all the files related to crime scene evidence, including crime scene surveys, photos and videos of the cottage, Sollecito's apartment, Guede's apartment, villa Sperandio and Perugia. Meredith Kercher case file library archive.
themurderofmeredithkercher.net
The DNA of Mez was found on the blade of the said knife and Knox' DNA on the handle and lower hilt at the position where a person thrusting a stab would show it (as opposed to slicing food).
If the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was so solid, why is necessary to lie to make the evidence appear credible? This post makes the claim the knife matched a bloody imprint on the bed when it is a well documented fact Raffaele's knife didn't match the imprint.
The quotations you give do not say blood. Please quote the positive test for blood.
Your argument is that in an apartment where both Knox and Kercher were living both their DNA was found? In a site separate from the murder room? One cannot tell from a DNA test as Steffanoni testified when the DNA was deposited, nor the source of the DNA. You cannot tell whether Kercher's DNA was deposited first, then Knox's or vice versa. Did they walk around bare foot? If so all it would take was a sticky patch on the floor to trap DNA from their feet. I can think of myriads of ways for DNA to be transferred, all innocent. Why should it appear here after a murder elsewhere?
So if this is the most incriminating evidence against Knox...
Unfortunately, the claim 'there is no evidence against them' is a hoax.
See here, the prosecution's forensic evidence re blood.
FIND 137: Dripping of blood substance from the inside of the sink, in the small bathroom, containing a mixture of biological substances belonging to the victim and to Knox: the location of the find can be ascribed with certainty at the moment immediately following the crime, because otherwise the trace would be been eliminated from running water.
FINISH 66: Mixture of biological substances, containing human blood, belonging to Knox (to a lesser extent) and to the victim (to a greater extent), found in the left edge of the small bathroom's bidet drain. Another very important element, ascribable with certainty to the moment immediately following the crime, because otherwise the trace would have been eliminated from the running water.
FINISH 24: A blood substance where Amanda's genetic profile was found, is positioned on the faucet of the bathroom sink next to the victim's room: there is little to discuss about the relevance of the find. It is probably indicative of a lesion suffered in the scuffle by Knox and, given the extreme visibility of the trace, it is to be excluded that it could have been left before the crime.
This is an almost decisive element against Amanda regarding his presence on the crime scene the night between 1 and 2 November. As has been said, the blood stain found appears in a very visible way, on the faucet of the bathroom sink next to the crime room. The stain, evident to the naked eye, as ascertained by the Scientific Police Service of Rome, with the report dated 19.11.07, belongs to Amanda KNOX and, due to its size and positioning on the tap, may have been left following an epistaxis of the same as KNOX.
The visibility of the stain is such as to exclude, as has been said, that it may have been left in the days prior to the crime, as it would certainly have been washed.
Ril ref. Photo No. 2 Hematic substance where Amanda and Meredith's compatible genetic profile was found, found in the bathroom bidet adjacent room victim;
Rif. Ril Photo nr.3 Fragment of papillary imprint attributed to Knox Amanda highlighted on a glass in the kitchen-living room sink ~ GM
FIND 136. Biological material was certainly found containing a blood substance in which the mixed genetic profile belonging to Amanda and Meredith was found, in the cotton swab box, placed on the sink, left side of the small bathroom, adjacent to the crime room. The cotton swabs were placed on the sink of the usual bathroom. The presence of biological - blood substances would certainly have been seen by Meredith and the other girls if it referred to the period preceding the crime and, therefore, to the previous days. The combination of biological substances cannot be explained rationally as being connected at the time of the crime.
With reference to the technical report prepared by this PM on 12.05.08, entrusted to Dr. Lorenzo Rinaldi and the insp. Chief Pietro Boemia, of the Scientific Police Service of the Central Anti-Crime Department of the PS Department and deposited by the CCTTs themselves on May 31, 2008, of which we have mentioned, with reference to Sollecito, the conclusions are the following:
Comparisons with plantar footprints taken by the suspects have allowed us to ascertain that:
1. the footprint detected on the bath mat adjacent to the room where Mez's body was found. Marked with the letter A), as has been said, it is compatible with the general characteristics, with the right foot of Sollecito Raffaele, smeared with the victim's blood and allows to express a judgment of probable identity. (FIND 22). So, probably foot of Sollecito, smeared with the blood of Meredith, resting on the small bath mat (where the traces of Amanda were found).
2. one of the footprints smeared with blood of the victim, detected with luminol in the Knox chamber is compatible in order to the general characters with the foot of Knox Amanda and allows to express a judgment of probable identity (REPERTO 180)
3. another footprint smeared with blood, found in the corridor in front of Meredith's room, is compatible, as has been said, with regard to the general characteristics with the foot of Sollecito Raffaele and allows us to express a judgment of probable identity. (FIND 184). THE FOOTPRINT IS ON THE ANCIENT CORRIDOR THE CHAMBER OF THE VICTIM AND WITH DIRECTION TOWARDS THE SAME.
4. another footprint smeared with blood, detected with the luminol, entering, in front of the door of the victim's room, is compatible in order to the general characters with the foot of Knox Amanda and allows to express a judgment of probable identity. (FIND 181). The imprint is on the corridor, between the rooms of Amanda and Meredith, also extremely significant.
5. Furthermore, the imprint of shoes not yet attributed have not been produced of checked shoes but it has been ascertained, without a shadow of a doubt that the shoe print impressed on the pillow where the victim was lying is undoubtedly a female shoe since the numbering is included from 36 to 38
VERY IMPORTANT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF A POSSIBLE REBUILDING OF THE CREDIT DYNAMICS AND, ESPECIALLY, OF THE MOVEMENTS OF THE VICTIM, IS THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE BIOLOGICAL TRACES OF NATURE, REFERRING TO MEREDITH.
Of fundamental importance are the showy blood traces found in front of the wardrobe, placed on the right, at the back, with respect to the entrance to Meredith's room. This is Exhibit 135, in which the blood substance shows the DNA of the victim who was probably killed at the end of the criminal progression, and that makes the references of Amanda and Raffaele to the discovery of the corpse extremely important a closet"
This is confirmed by the findings of the Chief Physical Technical Director of the State Police, Dr. Francesco Camana, who puts the point of killing the girl in front of the wardrobe with certainty, while she was raised on her knees and with her face towards the closet and then moved about a meter towards the bed and turned upside down, with the face upwards.
Of the same significance the dramatic exhibit 129, characterized by a sort of bloodshed and dripping, was found to belong to Meredith in the lower third of the inner shoulder of the wardrobe, AS IF THE VICTIM HAD LEFT THE TRACK OF A HAND WITH WHICH YOU WANTED TO GRAFT AND TO RAISE FOR AN IMPOSSIBLE ESCAPE.
AT A PREVIOUS PHASE IT SHOULD BE REFERRED INSTEAD OF THE IMPRESSION OF A HAND AND FINGER ON THE WALL, IN FRONT OF THE ENTRY DOOR OF THE CHAMBER OF VICTIM: Here it is probable that the trace was left by one of the assassins with a wet hand, but with less intensity, than the victim's blood.
Also exhibit 140 relating to the blood substance resulting from Meredith, taken from the right-hand side of the door scaffold, at about 50 cm. from the floor, indicates an excited action (so much as to determine the soiling of the edge of the door, carried out by the two subjects to which the traces of the small bathroom refer, namely Amanda and Sollecito.
An analogous meaning is given by exhibits 126, relating to the handle and 127, relating to the lock on the door of Meredith's bedroom, conspicuously smeared with Meredith's blood, of which both Sollecito and Amanda were soaked.
The above is in addition to the knife forensic evidence. And the tour de force, re blood:
BUT THE MOST SIGNIFICANT FIND IS THAT NO. 23, THAT IS ON THE LIGHT SWITCH OF THE SMALL BATHROOM, THE ONE ON THE RIGHT BOTTOM OF THE SWITCH WITH WHICH THE LIGHT COMES ON: THE OVERVIEW HAS BEEN MADE IN THE EVENING WHEN YOU WERE NEEDED FOR LIGHT AND IN FACT THE SWITCH IS PRESSED TOWARDS THE BOTTOM AND ITSELF IN THAT POINT IT IS THE EMATICAL TRACK BELONGING TO THE VICTIM. THAT LOCAL IS FULL OF TRACES OF AMANDA AND ALSO OF SOLLECITO, but Amanda claims to have gone to the apartment in Via della Pergola and in the small bathroom, around 10.30 am on the morning of the 2. THERE WAS NO NEED FOR TURN THE LIGHT ON, BUT THAT SWITCH WAS ON, WITH PRESSURE TO THE LOW PART, FROM SOMEONE WHO HAD THE FINGER HANGED IN MEREDITH'S BLOOD AND THIS SOMEONE HAVE NOT BEEN THOSE SOLVED OR KNOX (WHICH LASTS, AS IT HAS SEEN, MANY TRACES IN THE SMALL BATH) AND NO OTHER, IN A NIGHT TIME WHO HAD BUILT THEM TO OPERATE THE SWITCH, BECAUSE IT WAS DARK. It could not have been Guede whose traces are placed in the large bathroom.
Incidentally, if you expected the pair to leave traceable blood on the knife after having rinsed it off, it doesn't scream 'innocence'. The police officer, Finci, who was struck by how shiny it was in the knife drawer, compared to other knives, said there was a strong smell of bleach, so the theory of the forensic police is that the pair used bleach to scrub it and this would have neutered any traceable blood. As you know, RS suddenly acquired bleach of the peroxide/ammonium type when his cleaner used the disinfectant type. But DNA doesn't have to be proven blood. It is enough it is 100% certainty the DNA of Mez.
And yet, once again, you fail to address any of the numerous failures regarding the knife. You can keep posting this crap all day long and it will not change those facts.
You do realize that 50 RFU is the minimum value to be considered valid, and as such, this profile has only 6 peaks that are useful. That means it is far from "indisputable" in technical terms. And since it was tested only once, below the minimum standard for the results to be considered reliable, that's a second reason the results are nullified. And, of course, removing an item of evidence from it's sealed collection container by anyone other than a trained technician in a sterilized lab environment also invalidates the evidence.
And on and on.... The net is 36B was nothing more than lab contamination and that means there was nothing to connect Amanda to the murder.
You seem unable to understand that this evidence was rejected by the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation in a final, definitive judgment, as being invalid and not meeting legal standards. For forensic test results to meet legal standards, the way the results are obtained must satisfy the requirements and limitations of forensic science technology.
You seem unable to understand that this evidence was rejected by the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation in a final, definitive judgment, as being invalid and not meeting legal standards. For forensic test results to meet legal standards, the way the results are obtained must satisfy the requirements and limitations of forensic science technology.
This didn't come from any trial finding (Massei or Nencini), it was a 'technicality' snuck in by Bongiorno, yet the facts found by the courts remain as it was never sent back down to be retried.
The pair might be free but the objective scientific and circumstantial evidence remains solid.
Read Marasca-Bruno who describe the pair in scathing terms which doesn't let them off the hook (no pun intended) at all.
AIUI the M-B criticism refers only to the bra-clasp collection. The knife and other issues remain settled as solid legal facts, and which were set in stone by Chieffi. The burglary being faked is also factual.
This didn't come from any trial finding (Massei or Nencini), it was a 'technicality' snuck in by Bongiorno, yet the facts found by the courts remain as it was never sent back down to be retried.
The pair might be free but the objective scientific and circumstantial evidence remains solid.
Read Marasca-Bruno who describe the pair in scathing terms which doesn't let them off the hook (no pun intended) at all.
AIUI the M-B criticism refers only to the bra-clasp collection. The knife and other issues remain settled as solid legal facts, and which were set in stone by Chieffi. The burglary being faked is also factual.
This didn't come from any trial finding (Massei or Nencini), it was a 'technicality' snuck in by Bongiorno, yet the facts found by the courts remain as it was never sent back down to be retried.
The pair might be free but the objective scientific and circumstantial evidence remains solid.
Read Marasca-Bruno who describe the pair in scathing terms which doesn't let them off the hook (no pun intended) at all.
AIUI the M-B criticism refers only to the bra-clasp collection. The knife and other issues remain settled as solid legal facts, and which were set in stone by Chieffi. The burglary being faked is also factual.
I tell you what... let's stop playing this stupid game. How about YOU address EACH of the items below and explain to me why it's not a violation of proper forensic protocols as called out in the ENFSI.
Improper chain of custody. Opening the sealed envelope in the police station was a complete fail.
Sample 36B was identical to 36C, yet Stefanoni listed 36B positive and 36C as negative, with no explanation for doing so.
Sample 36B tested negative for blood, for human species and for DNA
The sample was over-amplified, violating protocols.
The sample was tested only once, which means the results can not be considered reliable.
The knife was completely devoid of blood. It's not possible to remove all the blood and still leave DNA.
The wound was not a good forensic fit for the knife, as stated numerous times.
Only 6 peaks met the minimum requirement of 50 RFU to be considered reliable, ergo the sample is NOT a match for Meredith as there aren't enough peaks above the minimum to establish a profile.
This is what we call OBJECTIVE SCIENCE. Objective science doesn't mean you ignore everything that's wrong with the evidence because you like the conclusion. You follow the science, and when the science says the evidence is unreliable, you throw it away. Period. And Chieffi did not set anything in stone as all he did was send the case back to be retried. But even if he had, he'd be wrong. Your position is indefensible.
I tell you what... let's stop playing this stupid game. How about YOU address EACH of the items below and explain to me why it's not a violation of proper forensic protocols as called out in the ENFSI.
Improper chain of custody. Opening the sealed envelope in the police station was a complete fail.
Sample 36B was identical to 36C, yet Stefanoni listed 36B positive and 36C as negative, with no explanation for doing so.
Sample 36B tested negative for blood, for human species and for DNA
The sample was over-amplified, violating protocols.
The sample was tested only once, which means the results can not be considered reliable.
The knife was completely devoid of blood. It's not possible to remove all the blood and still leave DNA.
The wound was not a good forensic fit for the knife, as stated numerous times.
Only 6 peaks met the minimum requirement of 50 RFU to be considered reliable, ergo the sample is NOT a match for Meredith as there aren't enough peaks above the minimum to establish a profile.
This is what we call OBJECTIVE SCIENCE. Objective science doesn't mean you ignore everything that's wrong with the evidence because you like the conclusion. You follow the science, and when the science says the evidence is unreliable, you throw it away. Period. And Chieffi did not set anything in stone as all he did was send the case back to be retried. But even if he had, he'd be wrong. Your position is indefensible.
Here's the text on recovering biological materials for DNA testing from one ENFSI manual; the language is broad and general, and suggests that forensic police officials need to establish specific guidlines (my bolding for emphasis):
Preserving the quality of biological traces is essential to maximise the chance of obtaining
optimal results. The quality of trace material found at the scene can be influenced by the way
they are collected and stored as DNA is sensitive to humidity, temperature and direct sun light.
In general, guidelines should be provided for the following:
Minimize the risk of contamination and deterioration of the trace material.
Properly record the origin of the collected items.
Determine the order of sampling by different forensic disciplines to prevent destruction/
alteration of the item (e.g. collection of fingerprints versus DNA sampling).
Recovery methods, packaging and transport conditions required to preserve the integrity
of the item. FSR-C-116 may be consulted for packaging clothing of sexual assault
examinations.
But it was fulfilling the standards of CPP Art 360 iirc, which states that where there is a small amount of DNA material, it must be witnessed by all parties, who are invited to send expert witness along to observe the potential one-off incident. And this is what happened. AK failing to send an expert witness as was obligatory by law, doesn't mean they can later claim an error on the part of the analyst who performed the one -off test. But Prof Torre was there for RS, and he did not raise any objections whatsoever to the testing and he was one of Italy's leading DNA experts.
Conti & Vecchiotti OTOH refused to perform the analysis of the third sample from the knife, probably because they had already done their own testing and knew it was AK's.
Why do you insist on just making up things? Is it any wonder why we don't just take your word for things without a citation? They didn't "refuse" to test that sample, they said it was too small to test. Why on earth would they hide the fact that it was AK's DNA on the blade as they already had her DNA on the handle? C & V were appointed by the judge. They weren't working for or being paid by the defense. They had no reason to be dishonest. This is just another pitiful promotion of your false "the defense experts were all bent" nonsense.
Or are you claiming, this too, is not permissible, even though the criminal law courts of Perugia and Florence accepted the testings were of legal standards?
BTW the Kercher DNA tested negative for blood because it was probably a sample of her skin or sinews that was embedded in the knife blade scratch, the wet blood having been rinsed off under the tap,
Rinsing off a knife under the tap would remove visible blood, but not all traces including in the protected area where the blade inserted into the handle....which also tested negative for blood.
"The Great Bleach Cleanup Operation That Never Was". What part of "scrubbing the knife with bleach would have destroyed any DNA, including 36B" are you not understanding?
In any case, all of this was argued in court at the time, as per correct protocol, and Nencini upheld the Guilty verdicts. Florence being the highest court of the region.
In any case, all of this was argued in court at the time, as per correct protocol, and Hellmann annulled the Guilty verdicts. The M-B SC being the highest court of the country accepted the C&V report.
They can't have 'avoided all the blood'. There would have been a massive spurt of blood, according to blood splatter experts, so it would have been all over their clothes. RG said his trousers were covered in blood.
So where are those bloody clothes? Shoes would have had blood on them and no amount of washing them could have removed all it from leather or fabric or soles. Where are their bloody foot-shoeprints? And please, none of your "Great Bleach Clean Up" nonsense.
It's notable that not a single shoeprint of Guede's has another shoeprint above or below it. In that small room with blood all around the body, neither Knox nor Sollecito stepped in blood and then on top of one of Guede's prints nor he on top of theirs. But that's easily explained: no one else was in that room except for Guede and Kercher.
Here's the text on recovering biological materials for DNA testing from one ENFSI manual; the language is broad and general, and suggests that forensic police officials need to establish specific guidlines (my bolding for emphasis):
The Italian Scientific Police follow the guidelines of the ENFSI – the European Network Forensic Science Institutes. Dr Stefanoni observed that they followed these specific guidelines whereas Conti and Vecchiotti basically picked and mixed a random selection of international opinions:
“We followed the guidelines of the ENFSI, theirs is just a collage of different international opinions”.
In other words, Conti and Vecchiotti were not referring to the specific guidelines and recommendation of one particular international forensic organisation despite giving that impression at the appeal in Perugia. They cited a number of obscure American publications such as the Missouri State Highway Patrol Handbook and Wisconsin Crime Laboratory Physical Evidence Handbook. The Italian Scientific Police are under no obligation to follow the DNA protocols of the Missouri State Highway Patrol and Wisconsin Crime Laboratory.
I tell you what... let's stop playing this stupid game. How about YOU address EACH of the items below and explain to me why it's not a violation of proper forensic protocols as called out in the ENFSI.
Improper chain of custody. Opening the sealed envelope in the police station was a complete fail.
Sample 36B was identical to 36C, yet Stefanoni listed 36B positive and 36C as negative, with no explanation for doing so.
Sample 36B tested negative for blood, for human species and for DNA
The sample was over-amplified, violating protocols.
The sample was tested only once, which means the results can not be considered reliable.
The knife was completely devoid of blood. It's not possible to remove all the blood and still leave DNA.
The wound was not a good forensic fit for the knife, as stated numerous times.
Only 6 peaks met the minimum requirement of 50 RFU to be considered reliable, ergo the sample is NOT a match for Meredith as there aren't enough peaks above the minimum to establish a profile.
This is what we call OBJECTIVE SCIENCE. Objective science doesn't mean you ignore everything that's wrong with the evidence because you like the conclusion. You follow the science, and when the science says the evidence is unreliable, you throw it away. Period. And Chieffi did not set anything in stone as all he did was send the case back to be retried. But even if he had, he'd be wrong. Your position is indefensible.
The Italian Scientific Police follow the guidelines of the ENFSI – the European Network Forensic Science Institutes. Dr Stefanoni observed that they followed these specific guidelines whereas Conti and Vecchiotti basically picked and mixed a random selection of international opinions:
“We followed the guidelines of the ENFSI, theirs is just a collage of different international opinions”.
In other words, Conti and Vecchiotti were not referring to the specific guidelines and recommendation of one particular international forensic organisation despite giving that impression at the appeal in Perugia. They cited a number of obscure American publications such as the Missouri State Highway Patrol Handbook and Wisconsin Crime Laboratory Physical Evidence Handbook. The Italian Scientific Police are under no obligation to follow the DNA protocols of the Missouri State Highway Patrol and Wisconsin Crime Laboratory.
Really?! Hmmm, here, let me copy/paste section 8.2 from the Best Practice Manual for Scene of Crime Examination from ENFSI
APPROVED BY ENFSI BOARD ON 11.02.2022
BPM-SOC-01 Version 02 11-02-2022 21(39)
8.2 Preservation and Packaging
The material for recovery needs to be protected from interference or alteration and from the possibility of subsequent degradation and contamination. Health and safety issues must also be taken into consideration.
Suitable containment is normally achieved through the selection and correct use of approved packaging material. Packaging materials must be appropriate for the given applications and compliant with organizational SOPs.
Precautions must be taken to ensure the integrity of evidence, reduce the risk of contamination and minimize degradation. These will include:
● sealing containers to prevent accidental loss or contamination
● providing adequate protection to containers during transportation and storage to prevent loss through damage / contamination
● checking items at all stages of transfer throughout the chain of custody to ensure that their integrity has not been compromised
● all items should be packed and sealed as soon as they are taken, using bags or containers of an appropriate size
Packages should be sealed in such a way that all gaps are covered and secure, e.g. folded bags should be sealed with adhesive tape along all open edges and not by stapling.
Once sealed, packages should not be re-opened outside of the laboratory environment. If under exceptional circumstances they are re-opened then comprehensive documentation detailing the conditions under which they are opened must be made.
This is all pretty common sense stuff, though it does seem to be eluding you. So why don't you explain to us then what the "exceptional circumstances" that existed that required they open the sealed collection envelope.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
