Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[BobTheDonkey]

You seem to be saying that if there was any contamination, there ought to have been lots of contamination. I can't see why.

I'm not saying "lots", I'm saying if there was any contamination, why was it specifically on this important piece of evidence? Why was it not on any other item tested in the room?

 

[Matthew Best]

Perhaps because the officers who are seen on the video spent a lot of time passing this particular piece of evidence from one hand to another and from one person to another, thus increasing the chances of contamination. I don't know if they did that to every piece of evidence they picked up in the room.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Perhaps because the officers who are seen on the video spent a lot of time passing this particular piece of evidence from one hand to another and from one person to another, thus increasing the chances of contamination. I don't know if they did that to every piece of evidence they picked up in the room.

And yet nothing else these same officers picked up was contaminated.

Again, I feel you are intentionally ignoring that there was no other evidence of contamination by Sollecito's DNA found. Not one bit.

So, you not only do we have to deal with where the DNA came from, we have to deal with why it's only on this one item and nowhere else. It's not just a higher concentration of his DNA, it's the only location it was found.

 

[Matthew Best]

And yet nothing else these same officers picked up was contaminated.

Yes, perhaps for the very reason I posited in the post immediately before yours. Did you read it?

Again, I feel you are intentionally ignoring that there was no other evidence of contamination by Sollecito's DNA found. Not one bit.

I know how you feel!

Let me try again. What else did these officers pick up on this visit to the crime scene? My understanding is that they came back specifically for the clasp - so they may well not have been interested in anything else. Most of the collection of evidence had taken place weeks before. Might that explain it?

 

[Fiona]

Fiona and BobTheDonkey asked me to contact Professor Hamkinian for video evidence that the bra strap had been moved.

I certainly did not ask you for it "as evidence that the bra strap had been moved".There is no dispute that it was moved. It was moved, so far as I recall, about a yard. It was found under the pillow which was under the victim's body on Nov 2nd. It was not collected that day and I do not know anyone who does not agree that was a problem. On Dec 18th, it was collected and at that point, IIRC, it was on or under the mat in front of the cupboard.

Again, if you had read the thread you would be aware that there is no dispute on that issue.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Yes, perhaps for the very reason I posited in the post immediately before yours. Did you read it?



I know how you feel!

Let me try again. What else did these officers pick up on this visit to the crime scene? My understanding is that they came back specifically for the clasp - so they may well not have been interested in anything else. Most of the collection of evidence had taken place weeks before. Might that explain it?

This wasn't a light dusting of Sollecito's DNA though. This was a massive (relatively) amount of DNA found.

How about this: The officers had to open the door during the first collection of evidence. Why was nothing found with even light traces of his DNA? Not just a lack of substantial traces, but a lack of any traces at all? And yet, when they came back for that single item the Officers were so inept (the 2nd time, but not the 1st?) that they left substantial traces of his DNA on the item?

Sorry, you're stretching to make your argument jive.

There was no cross-contamination of any other item, at any other time. And yet because they were so inept the 2nd time around, they managed to saturate this single piece?

I agree that the passing around of the clasp and that it was in the room for 47 days is a problem. But that doesn't, in any way, explain how Sollecito's DNA was not found anywhere else. If they, as you stated, used the door at any other time to enter the room, would they not have approx the same level of contamination on other items tested - or at least a light amount of his DNA present. Instead, we find his DNA nowhere else. Nowhere. Not even a trace. Traces of his DNA on other items would greatly support your proposition of cross-contamination by inept officers - however, we don't even have the slightest trace anywhere else.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

And yet, and yet, there was no cross-contamination from Sollecito's DNA on any other tested items?.


ETA: Are you attempting to imply that the door handle was touched only when the officers went to retrieve the clasp? That at no other time during the investigation was the door/door handle touched?

Again, I ask if you are intentionally being obtuse?

BobTheGoat,

I may not be understanding you completely. I am not aware of other evidence being collected on the same day the clasp was. I am not saying that your questions are without merit, but I wonder whether some of your focus ought to be elsewhere. The discussion so far has centered around two instances of potential mishandling of the strap. The open letter (pdf address given earlier) stated, “Handling and movement of this sample has compromised its probative value. The laboratory results for this sample cannot reliably be interpreted to show that the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito was actually on the bra clasp at the time of Meredith Kercher’s murder, and it does not establish how or when this DNA was deposited or transferred.” It seems to me that we are coming to a better understanding of this statement and why the US department of Justice (http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/nij/bc000614.txt) advised, “Wear gloves. Change them often.” In other words, if the correct protocols were not followed, the probative value of the evidence was compromised. Identifying a route of contamination, while intellectually satisfying, would just be the icing on the cake.

Chris

 

[BobTheDonkey]

BobTheGoat,

I may not be understanding you completely. I am not aware of other evidence being collected on the same day the clasp was. I am not saying that your questions are without merit, but I wonder whether some of your focus ought to be elsewhere. The discussion so far has centered around two instances of potential mishandling of the strap. The open letter (pdf address given earlier) stated, “Handling and movement of this sample has compromised its probative value. The laboratory results for this sample cannot reliably be interpreted to show that the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito was actually on the bra clasp at the time of Meredith Kercher’s murder, and it does not establish how or when this DNA was deposited or transferred.” It seems to me that we are coming to a better understanding of this statement and why the US department of Justice (http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/nij/bc000614.txt) advised, “Wear gloves. Change them often.” In other words, if the correct protocols were not followed, the probative value of the evidence was compromised. Identifying a route of contamination, while intellectually satisfying, would just be the icing on the cake.

Chris

We've identified possible routes. However, none of them satisfy my questions pertaining to why there are not other traces of Sollecito's DNA. IF the by-air route, then why no other contaminated items? If by officers touching, then why no other contaminated items? Are you saying the door wasn't touched at any time other than when they picked up the clasp?

Given the lack of any other traces of Sollecito's DNA, we objectively lean toward the clasp being handled by Sollecito at some point in time as the most reasonable source of the DNA.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

splitting hairs

I certainly did not ask you for it "as evidence that the bra strap had been moved".There is no dispute that it was moved. It was moved, so far as I recall, about a yard. It was found under the pillow which was under the victim's body on Nov 2nd. It was not collected that day and I do not know anyone who does not agree that was a problem. On Dec 18th, it was collected and at that point, IIRC, it was on or under the mat in front of the cupboard.

Again, if you had read the thread you would be aware that there is no dispute on that issue.

Fiona,

In an earlier comment you wrote, "So show it" Now you are splitting hairs. What were your reasons for asking if not to send me on a wild good chase? Do you acknowledge seeing dust on the glove?

Chris

 

[quadraginta]

Yes, perhaps for the very reason I posited in the post immediately before yours. Did you read it?



I know how you feel!

Let me try again. What else did these officers pick up on this visit to the crime scene? My understanding is that they came back specifically for the clasp - so they may well not have been interested in anything else. Most of the collection of evidence had taken place weeks before. Might that explain it?

You're not really helping yourself much here.

After the body was discovered the scene was isolated. If Sollecito had DNA on the doorknob it was from before that. If the bra clasp was contaminated from undiscovered DNA on the doorknob in this late return visit why was nothing else contaminated from that same door knob while "most of the collection of evidence had taken place weeks before."

There seems to be an increasing need for complexity and extremes of probability in the elements of the defense. Occam's Razor is a helpful tool with this.

ETA: Hey, Bob. See you got there first.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

What other items were collected on the same day?

Chris

 

[BobTheDonkey]

You're not really helping yourself much here.

After the body was discovered the scene was isolated. If Sollecito had DNA on the doorknob it was from before that. If the bra clasp was contaminated from undiscovered DNA on the doorknob in this late return visit why was nothing else contaminated from that same door knob while "most of the collection of evidence had taken place weeks before."

There seems to be an increasing need for complexity and extremes of probability in the elements of the defense. Occam's Razoris a helpful tool with this.

Phew, at least I'm not the only one.


I know my posts of late show frustration, and that's because, well, I've become more and more frustrated with Knox-apologists.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

What other items were collected on the same day?

Chris

What other items were collected without the door being touched/opened?


ETA: What other items show contamination from the identified possible sources of Sollecito's DNA (door/cigarette butt)?

 

[Matthew Best]

Was the collection team the same one that collected evidence first time around?

 

[Fiona]

However, your question is a good one, and I regret that I cannot spare the time just now to give it my full attention. But this site (http://www.sciencespheres.com/2009/10/lcn-dna-profiling-part-ii-watch-where.html) is a start. It is implied that this expert, Sara Giro, while being correct, did not commununicate her thoughts in a way that the jury understood. I would draw your attention to paragraph five:

A lot of things are implied at that site.

I have read the article you cite before. Leaving aside the reliance on Frank Sfarzo (anyone who is interested in his stance can read his own blog or can search PMF for extensive detail): let us look at some of what is claimed:

There are two common definitions of low copy number DNA profiling. The first states that profiling that falls below the normal stochastic limits can be considered LCN profiling. That is, when random noise becomes very loud because the sample size is very small, you have LCN, not standard DNA profiling. The second definition uses some quantity threshold criterion. If you have less than 200 picograms of DNA, for example, it is LCN. The critical factor is that the number of original template molecules in the sample is very few, on the order of 5 – 10.

So far as I have been able to discover this is not true. LCN profiling cannot be defined as that in which the "noise" is very loud: that can happen with normal profiling of full sized samples as well if the sample is degraded or damaged. As to the second definition: that is not correct. The standard definition of LCN is where the sample is less than 100 picograms, not 200 as claimed.

http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc/ussymp19proc/abstracts/poster26.pdf

http://forensicscience.suite101.com/article.cfm/what_is_low_copy_number_dna

Advantages of LCN DNA Profiling
The upside of this type of DNA profiling is that it allows a very small amount of DNA to be analyzed, even the DNA from just 15 to 20 cells

And from your own CPS link

The standard DNA test (SGM+) is used where an identifiable stain such as blood or semen is found. The smallest bloodstain visible with the naked eye (c. 50 - 100 cells) contains enough DNA for this test.

Do you have other work which shows that Sfarzo is correct and these sources are not?

And then

This amplification increase was not achieved by the PCR technique.

*The use of multiplex PCR and fluorescent dye technology in the automated detection and analysis of short tandem repeat loci provides not only qualitative information about the profile - i.e. which alleles are present - but can provide also quantitative information on the relative intensities of the bands, and is therefore a measure of the amount of amplified DNA.”

Stefanoni said this under oath. What is the status of what you cite? Was it also given under oath and subject to cross examination?

We're not through. Laboratories performing LCN rely heavily on what are called “negative controls.” The following quote is from The Law Society of Scotland's publication at: http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/52-2/1003857.aspx

“In forensic science the fact to be established is that the DNA profile originated from the material recovered from a crime scene or a suspect, not the investigator, the laboratory, packaging, or analytical instruments. A “negative control” is set up by simply processing a “blank” sample that has no DNA. All being well, this control will not show any DNA. The presence of DNA in the negative control illustrates that there has been a source of contamination in the analytical method. It does not, of itself, show where that occurred, merely that it has. The tradition over many years has been, for very sound reasons, that anything found in the “negative control” invalidates the analysis.

...even in a tightly controlled analytical procedure a significant number of supposedly negative controls give a positive result, i.e. they indicate the presence of DNA.”

Stefanoni apparently did not perform any negative controls with same system parameters as that used for the kitchen knife DNA. That's another deficiency.

I have not read her detailed report. Can you link please?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Was the collection team the same one that collected evidence first time around?

So you're making the claim that the items collected initially were properly collected?

 

[Matthew Best]

I am?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I am?

Well, it would appear that your argument is that if there were two teams, perhaps the first team was more careful with contamination than the second.

In that case, all the initial DNA evidence must be accurate and not cross-contaminated

 

[Matthew Best]

Must it?

 

[Fiona]

Fiona,

In an earlier comment you wrote, "So show it" Now you are splitting hairs. What were your reasons for asking if not to send me on a wild good chase? Do you acknowledge seeing dust on the glove?

Chris

I am certainly not splitting hairs: there are a number of videos in this case. The letter, in line with its generally vague content, did not specify which video and so I wished to see which one they were talking about.

As to your other question: yes. And your point is?