Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fiona]

The only possible point of testing the other knives is a claim of contamination in Sollecito's home. It has no bearing at all on contamination in the lab.

Halides1 says

If Meredith’s DNA had shown up on multiple knives, the contamination might come from handling the knife after handling one of Meredith’s possessions without changing gloves.

Since the people who collected the knife were not the same people who were at the cottage I can see no source for such contamination. If there is evidence that this happened now would be a good time to produce it.

We are left with the possibility of contamination in the lab. The controls showed no such contamination: the tests of Guede's samples showed none: the tests of the knife showed one profile and that profile was Kercher's.

Halides1 wrote:

Changing the limit after the experiment was done opens the door to bias.

No. It doesn't. You either get a profile or you don't. It either matches or it doesn't. It is either agreed to be a match by the independent experts who witnessed the test or it is not. In this case they got a profile: it was a match: and the experts who were there agreed that the protocols were good and that it was a match. There is no bias in play at all.

Halides1 wrote

Therefore, the lack of blood makes it impossible for there to be DNA on the knife,

No, it doesn't. As was noted in an earlier link bleach will remove dna from old bones if you immerse them for 15 minutes but it will not remove it reliably in less time than that. So do you have a study which shows that it will not remove blood in less time than that? I do not think Dr Johnson cited in support of her assertion? I may have missed that, so if I did can you link again, because that is what we need to see.

halides1 wrote

And if any were left there would be the same amount of DNA belonging to Amanda Knox as to Meredith Kercher. Next to nothing…So the fact that there is a lot of Amanda Knox's DNA and a little of Meredith's doesn't sound logical to me.”

I am not sure how much of Knox's dna was on the knife and I don't recall reading those figures. But I cannot see any problem arising if you are correct. There does not appear to have been any of RS's dna on it (though perhaps that was not reported), yet it was his knife. Can you show his was there? In what quantity? Seems to me this is the obvious question, because if his dna is not there then the most natural explanation would be that Knox cleaned it with bleach and then she put it away. In that case what we would expect is her dna in quantity. That would pose no problem for her because she cooked at that house. The presence of her dna is not a surprise. If I were the defence I would be making a great deal of the fact that RS's dna was on that knife in quantity, because that would be the best argument against it having been cleaned up. Yet they do not seem to have mentioned that. I think it was not there (though I am very willing to be corrected) and if it was not why was it not?

 

[quadraginta]

Has it actually been proven that Meredith never visited Raffaele's apartment? Do we have a diary of every place Meredith visited while in Perugia?


But that aside, the most probable source of contamination is the amplified DNA from the 200+ samples collected at the cottage and analyzed in the same lab. The video we've seen shows a lab technician using a pair of metal tweezers to to collect the sample from the knife on a blotter. These were not disposable tweezers as required practice when doing LCN DNA testing. These were ordinary reusable lab tweezers. There is no tracking in the lab to follow how the tweezers were used in the previous weeks. They were probably washed between uses. But if washing were sufficient, there would be no DNA on the knife either.

So there it is. The DNA from meredith could have come from the knife -or- the DNA that was in the lab could have been transfered on the tweezers.

With these two options and no measurements of the contamination levels in the lab and no repeatability of the test, we are left with at best a 50/50 probability for each.

Very creative math. They would truly love you in Las Vegas.

Instead of bothering with the obvious response in detail I'll just ask this one question. If their forensic technique is that poor then the lab should be rife with constant incidents of contamination. Do you have any evidence to suggest that to be the case? There doesn't seem to be any problem about finding such examples about other labs which have nothing to do with this case and offering them up as some sort of (perplexing) argument in favor of Knox's innocence.

So. Just one proven example of this lab's error prone history.

No?

What are the odds of that, Mr. Math?

 

[Dan O.]

Where's the data?

The lab has refused to turn over the raw data to be independently analyzed. When the raw data is made available, all of those 600+ results (assuming they ran controls like they should have) can be examined for signals that show contamination in the LCN range that were simply not visible when the graphs are scaled to show peaks of several thousand RFUs.


Also, the first thing that a lab that want to produce trusted results will do is get accredited. For a lab in Italy, they would get this from ACCREDIA. Accredia publishes their database of all Italian labs that have been accredited. When I try to find the lab where Dr? Patrizia Stefanoni works, all I get back is (Risultati di ricerca, E' stata ricercata la parola" poliziadistato ", Sono stati trovati 0 risultati).

I'd really appreciate it if someone would point out where Patrizia's lab is hiding in that database. It must be there. Right? Then we can simply look at the certifications that the lab has received and know what types of tests they are qualified to perform.

 

[stilicho]

The laboratory is fake?

Also, the first thing that a lab that want to produce trusted results will do is get accredited. For a lab in Italy, they would get this from ACCREDIA. Accredia publishes their database of all Italian labs that have been accredited. When I try to find the lab where Dr? Patrizia Stefanoni works, all I get back is (Risultati di ricerca, E' stata ricercata la parola" poliziadistato ", Sono stati trovati 0 risultati).

I'd really appreciate it if someone would point out where Patrizia's lab is hiding in that database. It must be there. Right? Then we can simply look at the certifications that the lab has received and know what types of tests they are qualified to perform.

That's it? You mean all the defence teams had to do is state that they aren't accredited and all the DNA evidence is thrown out. Why is this so simple and obvious to you but wasn't established in court by the defence teams?

Could it be they know more than you do? If you suspect you know more you are wasting your time posting on an internet forum. You should be phoning FOA now and offering your peerless consultations at a handsome fee.

 

[stilicho]

Stilicho,

From Professor William C. Thompson comes an example of cross contamination with relevance here:

In one particularly interesting Australian case....

All fine and dandy but what does Thompson say about the Perugia murder case? And, if he does have some insights, how do they differ from those of Tagliabracci?

Why are you posting the same link that details specific issues that were not established in the Perugia murder case? Have you read the link and noted the distinctions that have not emerged in Perugia?

 

[shuttlt]

Dan O.

What happened to the discussion of the traffic camera footage. That seemed like it had the potential to go somewhere new. Do you have links to the defence claiming they requested the footage but were denied?

 

[shuttlt]

As Fiona has said, it was a different team that examined Raffaele's appartment to the one that examined the murder scene on a different day. Unless they return their used gloves to a bucket back at head quarters ready for the next team to use, I struggle to see how the investigators might have been responsible for the contamination outside the lab.

If it was contamination at the lab, I fail to see the point of using other cutlery from the draw, unless out of a desire for completeness.

If the lab is indeed unaudited and is unable to demonstrate that they monitor and record incidents of contamination then I do think that boosts the argument for the defence somewhat. Is there any evidence that this is the case?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Has it actually been proven that Meredith never visited Raffaele's apartment?

Yes, it's been well established. Next.

But that aside, the most probable source of contamination is the amplified DNA from the 200+ samples collected at the cottage and analyzed in the same lab.

Samples which were kept fully separate from the testing apperatus that the knife was tested on. Samples which in any case would have contained the DNA of multiple different people. A lad which was also testing samples of DNA from many other unrelated cases. A lab which in its past had tested the DNA from thousands of unrelated DNA. A lab which many people had visited and all those people had DNA. A lab in which many people worked, all of whom had DNA. Yet, NONE of that DNA ended up showing on the blade the due to over amplification. This clearly demonstrates the labs protocols were sound and contamination be ruled out. It was Meredith's DNA on the knife. There was no contamination. And the pair were rightly found guilty. Next.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Where's the data?

The lab has refused to turn over the raw data to be independently analyzed. When the raw data is made available, all of those 600+ results (assuming they ran controls like they should have) can be examined for signals that show contamination in the LCN range that were simply not visible when the graphs are scaled to show peaks of several thousand RFUs.


Also, the first thing that a lab that want to produce trusted results will do is get accredited. For a lab in Italy, they would get this from ACCREDIA. Accredia publishes their database of all Italian labs that have been accredited. When I try to find the lab where Dr? Patrizia Stefanoni works, all I get back is (Risultati di ricerca, E' stata ricercata la parola" poliziadistato ", Sono stati trovati 0 risultati).

I'd really appreciate it if someone would point out where Patrizia's lab is hiding in that database. It must be there. Right? Then we can simply look at the certifications that the lab has received and know what types of tests they are qualified to perform.

WHO has refused to turn over the data? WHO has asked for it and been refused it? WHEN did you write your letter to the lab asking for information and if you haven't, WHY haven't you?

 

[Fiona]

Where's the data?

The lab has refused to turn over the raw data to be independently analyzed. When the raw data is made available, all of those 600+ results (assuming they ran controls like they should have) can be examined for signals that show contamination in the LCN range that were simply not visible when the graphs are scaled to show peaks of several thousand RFUs.

Where does this come from? The data was requested by the defence and this was agreed. The judge set a deadline for that to be handed over by 31/6/09 so they would have it over the summer recess. The defence did not claim that had not been done. We have already discussed this. What new evidence have you in support of this claim? Please link

Also, the first thing that a lab that want to produce trusted results will do is get accredited. For a lab in Italy, they would get this from ACCREDIA. Accredia publishes their database of all Italian labs that have been accredited. When I try to find the lab where Dr? Patrizia Stefanoni works, all I get back is (Risultati di ricerca, E' stata ricercata la parola" poliziadistato ", Sono stati trovati 0 risultati).

I'd really appreciate it if someone would point out where Patrizia's lab is hiding in that database. It must be there. Right? Then we can simply look at the certifications that the lab has received and know what types of tests they are qualified to perform.

Why would it be there? Have you read and understood the EU accreditation regulations which underpin Accredia? Presumably you have. So why do you expect this lab to be registered?

http://www.european-accreditation.org/content/ea/docs/regulation.pdf

 

[Fiona]

Just to add: it is interesting to find that the implied reason for distrust of the lab in question is not, apparently, applicable in the united states. I already mentioned that Dr Johnson's lab was not accredited, though Dan_O does not seem to have the same doubts about her credentials, for some reason. It is the same old " the Italians should meet standards not applicable in america" which we have seen trotted out in relation to recording of witness interviews and also with respect to sequestration of juries. I am beginning to think that Dan_O knows very little about how things actually work in his own country, much less anywhere else.

This is from the NAS report into forensic services in the USA in case anyone is interested.

The fragmentation problem is compounded because operational principles and procedures for many forensic science disciplines are not standardized or embraced, either between or within jurisdictions. There is no uniformity in the certification of forensic practitioners, or in the accreditation of crime laboratories. Indeed, most jurisdictions do not require forensic practitioners to be certified, and most forensic science disciplines have no mandatory certification programs. Moreover, accreditation of crime laboratories is not required in most jurisdictions. Often there are no standard protocols governing forensic practice in a given discipline. And, even when protocols are in place (e.g., SWG standards), they often are vague and not enforced in any meaningful way. In short, the quality of forensic practice in most disciplines varies greatly because of the absence of adequate training and continuing education, rigorous mandatory certification and accreditation programs, adherence to robust performance standards, and effective oversight.6 These shortcomings obviously pose a continuing and serious threat to the quality and credibility of forensic science practice.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12589&page=1#

Obviously there is an international recognition that more standardisation and oversight would probably be good thing: but it does not seem that it is very far forward anywhere. What seems to be happening is the birth of a profession: and of course it takes time for professional standards and ethics to develop. It is interesting: but it does not demonstrate any grounds for concern at all of the sort Dan_O is implying in this latest foray

 

[Matthew Best]

"a continuing and serious threat to the quality and credibility of forensic science practice" is no grounds for concern?

 

[Fiona]

That is the case for professionalisation and of course it is a good one, Matthew Best: but it apples to America and is a general statement of position.

Dan_O is implying that the lack of accreditation is unusual and cause for concern about this particular lab. That is a different matter altogether. I think you know that

 

[quadraginta]

"a continuing and serious threat to the quality and credibility of forensic science practice" is no grounds for concern?

Congratulations.

If cherrypicking were an Olympic event you would be brought to your knees by the weight of your gold medals alone.

Not that it would matter much, since you would be completely buried by the ones for evading the point entirely.

 

[Fulcanelli]

That is the case for professionalisation and of course it is a good one, Matthew Best: but it apples to America and is a general statement of position.

Dan_O is implying that the lack of accreditation is unusual and cause for concern about this particular lab. That is a different matter altogether. I think you know that

Well done Fiona. Not only have you put the accreditation non-issue to bed, you have also demonstrated that there is no standard universal set of protocols in place that the Rome lab has somehow breached, nor is there universal standardised system of testing that Stefanoni somehow fouled by performing a novel testing technique on the knife in order to retrieve the profile. Indeed, it is clear that the forensic labs are at the cutting edge and it is they that are inventing the techniques and advancing the science by their work in the actual field. Dr Stefanoni has done nothing here that is contrary to the codes of her scientific field. On the contrary, she's advanced it.

 

[stilicho]

In all of this discussion of DNA evidence, why are we spending so much time on the knife and the bra clasp while ignoring the the mixed samples on the floor of Filomena's room, the Q-tip box, the sink, and the bidet? There were also samples of Kercher's blood on the lightswitch in the bathroom and, of course, the footprint on the bathmat.

Or has it been conceded that these are, indeed, what Stefanoni and her team said they were?

 

[Alt+F4]

If the profile is Meredith’s, the question is how did it arise. My comment #2519 quoted Dr. Johnson, who indicated that the DNA would be removed from the knife more quickly than the blood. Therefore, the lack of blood makes it impossible for there to be DNA on the knife, and the DNA that was observed has to arise from contamination from mechanisms similar to those documented by Professor Thompson (comment #2585).

If it was impossible why did RS come up with an elaborate lie to explain it? Why didn't he say that is was impossible that Meredith's DNA could possibly be on that knife and that there must have been a mistake somewhere?

Secondly, they say it was cleaned with bleach.

Did the prosecution actually state at trial it was cleaned with bleach? I thought it was only that the police said the apartment smelled like bleach and the knife seemed cleaner than others in the drawer.

 

[Alt+F4]

You know, if the defence believed Raffaele's story about Meredith cutting herself on the knife, they should surely have hot footed it around to his appartment and swabbed things he thought she might also have touched/bled on. If the DNA on the knife survived, it might have survived elsewhere as well? A bit of DNA or even better, a fingerprint proving that she'd been there would help his case a lot. Maybe they don't have budget to do those kind of things? Or were they not allowed? I mean, if she'd cooked dinner there only a week earlier there is some hope of finding something isn't there?

Good point. If the police wouldn't allow them access to the apartment then all they would need was a witness who was either there or who had spoken to Meredith about it afterwards.

After all, we are talking about a very short time period. This incident had to have happened between October 26 and October 30. I'm sure it wasn't hard to retrace where Meredith was each of those nights.

More likely, RS's defense team knew the knife pricking story was a lie so they didn't bother to follow up on it.

 

[Kestrel]

In all of this discussion of DNA evidence, why are we spending so much time on the knife and the bra clasp while ignoring the the mixed samples on the floor of Filomena's room, the Q-tip box, the sink, and the bidet? There were also samples of Kercher's blood on the lightswitch in the bathroom and, of course, the footprint on the bathmat.

Or has it been conceded that these are, indeed, what Stefanoni and her team said they were?

Do you believe that people only deposit DNA during the commission of crimes? The Q-tip box, sink and bidet were in the bathroom shared by Amanda and Meredith. Finding Amanda's DNA and Meredith's DNA together in that bathroom would be expected, even if no crime had occurred. Just as finding your DNA in your own bathroom would be expected and finding your DNA mixed with others that share that room would be expected.

I should also mention that a mixed DNA sample testing positive for blood only indicates that blood is present. It doesn't indicate that the source of DNA for every person identified in that sample was blood.

 

[Dan O.]

That's it? You mean all the defence teams had to do is state that they aren't accredited and all the DNA evidence is thrown out. Why is this so simple and obvious to you but wasn't established in court by the defence teams?

Could it be they know more than you do? If you suspect you know more you are wasting your time posting on an internet forum. You should be phoning FOA now and offering your peerless consultations at a handsome fee.

Could it be that you know nothing of this and refuse to do any legwork to find out because it might contradict your position? Other forensic labs in Italy and around the world are proud to display their credentials but this lab seems to be trying to stay out of sight. Finding the credentials would not do the FOA crowd any service yet I have been searching for them.

In my search I have found this tidbit that you may wish to chew on:

http://www.governo.it/biotecnologie/documenti/1.biosicurezza.pdf

The scientific laboratories that intend to ascertain the DNA profiles should be accredited according to UNI CEI EN ISO / IEC 17025 and any subsequent amendments by 31 December 2008, however, immediately adopting a program of insurance and quality control as required by the document of the Working Group of DNA ENFSI (European Network of Forensic Science Institutes).