Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Another thoughtful quote:

But about the pings, if it's true that the pings happen when the phone changes location, then it should be noted that all of Meredith's phone calls from the cottage during the day (5 calls between 14:00 and 16:00) were picked up by cells 25620 and 25621, both mounted on a mast in Piazza Lupatelli, whereas the 22:13 connection was picked up by a cell 30064 which is in a different place, Strada Vicinale Ponte Rio. The 00:10 ping was picked up by cell 25622 which is mounted on the same mast as 25620 and 25621, but facing in the opposite direction, so would not pick up calls from the cottage.

Calls to Meredith's phone on Nov. 2 were picked up by 25622, like the 00:10 ping, until the phone went to the police station.

Therefore, it seems legitimate to wonder where Meredith's phone was at 22:13. Assuming that it was certainly in some position on the line between Meredith's room and the villa garden, the thing to do is to see what part of that line is covered by cell 30064. This is done by technicians who make tests.

According to the technician cited in the Massei report, sent by the Scientific Police, this cell covers Meredith's room but not the garden in the villa. At the risk of annoying Stilicho, I'll just mention that the engineer consultant for the defense tested the reception of cell 30064 inside the Parco St. Angelo (on the way to the villa) and found good reception there.

The appeal also notes that that call is the first one ever picked up by 30064 on Meredith's phone (at least I think that's what it says. It mentions two other phone calls at 12:11 and 16:22 picked up by that cell, but doesn't specify the date. If these are on Nov. 2 then this would be in contradiction with the Massei report, which states that all calls from 12:07 onwards were picked up by 25622.)

Personally, I find all this quite intriguing, and in particular the question of why the cell that picked up the 22:13 GPRS connection was not the same one that picked up all of Meredith's other calls.

It seems that thoughtful is not clear on the defense meaning of this either, Michiavelli, perhaps you could provide your translation?

 

[RoseMontague]

Here is Al-Fakh's translation:

Al-Fakh Yughoud said...

This is the translation of the appeal piece posted above:

It is surprising that the ruling did not take into consideration the important results of the measurements made by defense consultant (Mr. Pellero) inside the St. Angelo Park, in spite of the fact that on page 352 the ruling acknowledges that: “the site [where the cell phone was located at 22:13] that is being proposed [by the defense] is inside St. Angelo Park, opposite the famous Villa [in Via Sperandio 5bis], a place that enjoys the best coverage of the cell Wind 30064, as was found by appropriate instruments used by the engineer Mr. Pellero”, i.e. the cell pinged by the 22:13:29 GPRS connection, crucial to determine the time of the crime. The information was therefore accepted and included in the ruling, however, [the Court] did not draw the necessary conclusions in order to identify a likely place where the phone could have been at that moment.
Overall, the above described fact (the dismissal by the court of those results) leads to a serious bias in the judgment.
The statements contained in the ruling according to which "The immediate deduction reached by the judicial police was therefore that Meredith’s British cell phone was in Via della Pergola 7 on Nov. 1, 2007, (…) at 22:13:19 when the phone was engaged by the GPRS connection” and “the dichotomy between cell 25622 (incompatible with the cottage in via Pergola 7) and 30064 (incompatible with the garden of via Sperandio) brings us to the acquisition of a firm conclusion. At least until 22:13:19 the British cell phone was at the student’s (Meredith’s) house” (page 337 of ruling) are dispelled by the optimal coverage provided by the cell 30064 inside the St. Angelo Park. Indeed, as the consultant clearly demonstrated-considering that the only other communications in which Meredith’s British phone pinged solely on cell 30064 of Ponte Rio occurred at 12:11 and 16:22-there is no valid element to connect the pinging of cell 30064 with Meredith’s presence at her residence.
August 13, 2010 3:31 PM

 

[RoseMontague]

I believe someone had asked earlier if the cell phones could have been throw down over a rail or something along those lines, ending at the location they were found. In looking for the above quote I also found Al-Fakh's referrence to that one:

The St. Angelo park is a park in Perugia where concerts are held in summer during Perugia's numerous festivals. It's right above the villa in via Sperandio (you can see it on Google Maps, and you can recognize the small amphiteather where the concerts are held). The defense is arguing that probably the phone was there in the murderer's hands when the GPRS connection occurred at 22:13 and the murderer decided at that time to throw it down below from the park, and the phone landed in the Villa's garden.

 

[Machiavelli]

Indeed, as the consultant clearly demonstrated-considering that the only other communications in which Meredith’s British phone pinged solely on cell 30064 of Ponte Rio occurred at 12:11 and 16:22-there is no valid element to connect the pinging of cell 30064 with Meredith’s presence at her residence.

The 12:11 and 16:22 may only accept an implicit reference to the same date (in the absence of a date specification I must read the sequence as: 12:11 - 16:22 - 22:13).
Given that at 12:11 and 16:22 Meredith was at home, for no reason the phone be elsewere at 22:13.

But the argument of the defence document only aims to objetc the (alleged) Massei's assessment that sees the 22:13 connection to 30064 as a proof. Bongiorno only objects to the probative value seen by the court.
The actual defense argument is explained at he beginning of the chapter 9 about the telephone records:

"Se la sentenza sembra, addirittura, “pretendere” che siano gli imputati a ribaltare il teorema accusatorio (così invertendo l’onere della prova) .."

Bongiorno laments that the court demands that the defence should "bring evidence" of something and "overturn" the accusatory theory. Thus, implicitly admits at the beginning of this chapter, that she can in fact not bring evidence of something based on the telephone records.

 

[Machiavelli]

I believe someone had asked earlier if the cell phones could have been throw down over a rail or something along those lines, ending at the location they were found. In looking for the above quote I also found Al-Fakh's referrence to that one:

I always thought that the cellphones could have been tossed across the street from the walkway below S.Angelo park, and, as a consequence, landed in the villa's garden.

 

[Machiavelli]

I believe katy_did is quite capable of reading Italian. I don't know if "totally absent" is the correct descriptive. See my post prior to yours.

Do you deny Michali gave a precise statement where he mentions several previous connections to the same cell in the previous days, referring to the cell involved in the specific 22:13 call?

Do you acknowledge that the area of Ponte Rio - Montelaguardia does not indicate a mast in via Luppatelli?

Do you acknowledge there is no mention of an absence of prior connections to the 30064 cell in the defence documents?

 

[Dan O.]

Are you for real?

You have an opportunity here to do a little bit of light research and prove me wrong. Are you going to squander it by questioning my existence?

The Massei report lists the results of many of the blood samples. Charlie had also listed some earlier. The crime scene video showed the collection of this sample and if my memory is correct, the swab was dropped on the floor and picked up. It was in this discussion that I remember it being stated that there was no result.

I could search the thread and find a cite for you faster than I can type this response. But i'm not going to do that. If you cannot do this little bit of research you are useless to me on this thread.


If there is a result for this sample it will add to our knowledge of the crime. I do await the result and will need to revise my thinking if this is not Meredith's blood with no other DNA.

 

[christianahannah]

Here is another reference in the motivations made to the Via dell’Aquila 5- Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 not providing coverage to Raffaele's flat with regards to a message sent by Amanda.

Would text messages use different cells on towers than actual phone calls? So an actual call could be compatible to sector 3, however, a text message compatible to sector 3 would be out of area of the flat? Or is there an error in the Massei document of the actual calls (and the cell they connected to) made by Amanda on the late morning of November 2, 2007?

Page 322:

− 00:57:20: Amanda’s mobile phone sent an SMS, using the cell on Via dell’Aquila 5-
Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 (which does not provide coverage to Sollecito’s
house, since it pertains to Via Ulisse Rocchi, Piazza Cavallotti, etc. and therefore at
the heart of Perugia’s historic center). This consisted of the SMS which the young
woman exchanged with Raffaele at the end of the Halloween evening to arrange
meeting up with her boyfriend and be accompanied home

 

[Justinian2]

My current understanding is that Ronchi made some statements to the effect that ligatures were not used (Massei 148), which is highly curious in light of the fact that they were in fact used.

Ronchi seems to have been well aware that if Dr Lalli had not somehow misplaced food which was in Meredith's duodenum, then Meredith didn't die at 23:30. Ronchi came up with the story, in court, that no ligatures were used and speculated that Dr Lalli might have manually squeezed all the material in Meredith's duodenum down five meters of intestine to the very end, which would beggar belief even if ligatures were not used.

So why does Massei come up with his own fairy story about improperly applied liagtures? That seems to be because Massei saw the autopsy video where ligatures were clearly applied. Whoops. I guess Ronchi's memory must have been going, right? Because otherwise it looks a bit like perjury. It's also a curious bit of writing by Massei, because he quotes Ronchi making statements he knows are false, but leaves the reader assuming those statements are true. If you just read p148 and don't read p178, you come away with the distinct impression no ligatures were used. Hmm.

Anyway, Massei was left in the awkward spot of knowing that ligatures were applied, and knowing that if there was no food in Meredith's duodenum and Dr Lalli hadn't totally botched the autopsy then she didn't die at 23:30, but having to justify the verdict that she did indeed die at 23:30. Thus his own invention of "improperly applied" ligatures, which we see on Page 178 of the Massei report. You'll notice that by page 178 the story about ligatures not being used has vanished, since Massei can quote other people getting it wrong but can't make such false factual statements himself.

Opinion 1: Justice means that not only are RS and AK released and compensated, but that Massei is put in jail.

Opinion 2: In the OJ trial, OJ was probably guilty, but the LA police (with a bad reputation at the time) seem to have tried to frame OJ by the fabrication a story that a glove found at the scene was his. When the glove did not fit, they let a probably guilty man go free rather than convict a popular black man with shady evidence. In this trial, AK and RS are probably innocent and the prosecutor (with a bad reputation at the time) seem to have tried to frame RS and AK by the fabrication a story that made their alibi's not fit. Will RS and AK (innocent people) now be let go for the same reasons (fabricated or destroyed evidence) that OJ (a probably guilty person) was let go?

After fact checking, this quote from Wikipedia is added:

[...] but Cochran [OJ's lawyer] was able to persuade the jurors that there was reasonable doubt about the DNA evidence (then a relatively new type of evidence in trials) - including that the blood-sample evidence had allegedly been mishandled by lab scientists and technicians - and about the circumstances surrounding other exhibits.

What irony that a guilty man goes free and two innocent people are jailed for decades. Doesn't say much for world-wide justice, does it?

 

[RoseMontague]

Do you deny Michali gave a precise statement where he mentions several previous connections to the same cell in the previous days, referring to the cell involved in the specific 22:13 call?

Do you acknowledge that the area of Ponte Rio - Montelaguardia does not indicate a mast in via Luppatelli?

Do you acknowledge there is no mention of an absence of prior connections to the 30064 cell in the defence documents?

Yes, I agree with you (No), yes, and see my previous message. I don't read Italian and that is why I asked you for a translation. Thoughtful indicates some doubt, Al-Fakh less if I interpret the comments they have made correctly. However, I believe my recent statement that the defense indicates an unusual nature belonging to this connection still stands.

You shrugged off an error of Massei regarding a different connection, stating it was a harmless mistake. Seeing three different people that are evidently fluent in the Italian to English genre give somewhat different interpretations of the defense argument is confusing to me, and I am fairly certain I can honestly state that it is not clear what the defense is saying here based on these interpretations. You need to put yourself in my position, not having the benefit of your translation skills in this regard and also to take into account both the quotes from thoughtful and Al-Fakh that I have provided.

 

[Magister]

You might as well postulate space aliens.

Let's look at the physical evidence against Rudy, inside the room where the murder took place:

- bloody fingerprints
- bloody shoe prints
- DNA inside the victim's vagina
- DNA on two articles of the victim's clothing
- DNA on the victim's purse

.

None of the above undisputed physical evidence against Rudy conflicts with the alternative theories.

 

[Withnail1969]

It's called the genetic profile.

What would you think created this piece of genes on the BLADE of the kitchen knife, the same one on whcih Amanda's genetic profile was found on the handle?

Remember, Meredith had NEVER been to Raffaello's apartment where the knife was supposedly resting in the drawer throughout the period of time RS knew AK.

Nothing did. There was no definitive DNA result.

 

[Withnail1969]

As I play catch up reading, the thesis (with illustrations) proposed here earlier that the ability of a glass of water to remain undisturbed IF indeed a multi combatant struggle had occurred in close proximity definitely caught my attention.

The fact that this was the first time I had been presented with this argument, after a 3 year rather intense following of the case, is well a credit to the postulant, (and to Mr Randi's objectives).
The thesis caused some deep personal reflection, which in turn generated a twinge of doubt.

Then as rebuttal thoughts began, consideration given particularly to:

1) Verified and universally accepted findings of the *total number of*, and particular emphasis by me now to the *bruise type* wounds to Meredith.

2) Having Witnessed at innumerable air shows the ability of a pilot in a correctly executed complete vertical loop to fly completely inverted at the apex of the maneuver with a glass of water on the console remaining un disturbed.....

Doubts sufficiently were erased about this inconsistency thesis and/or the possibility that the close proximity of an undisturbed glass of water negates co-existence of multi person "struggle"

Would you mind speaking English please; I apologise if English is not your first language. While the individual words may be English, whatever you are speaking now is not English as I understand it.

 

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by pilot padron View Post
As I play catch up reading, the thesis (with illustrations) proposed here earlier that the ability of a glass of water to remain undisturbed IF indeed a multi combatant struggle had occurred in close proximity definitely caught my attention.

The fact that this was the first time I had been presented with this argument, after a 3 year rather intense following of the case, is well a credit to the postulant, (and to Mr Randi's objectives).
The thesis caused some deep personal reflection, which in turn generated a twinge of doubt.

Then as rebuttal thoughts began, consideration given particularly to:

1) Verified and universally accepted findings of the *total number of*, and particular emphasis by me now to the *bruise type* wounds to Meredith.

2) Having Witnessed at innumerable air shows the ability of a pilot in a correctly executed complete vertical loop to fly completely inverted at the apex of the maneuver with a glass of water on the console remaining un disturbed.....

Doubts sufficiently were erased about this inconsistency thesis and/or the possibility that the close proximity of an undisturbed glass of water negates co-existence of multi person "struggle"

Would you mind speaking English please; I apologise if English is not your first language. While the individual words may be English, whatever you are speaking now is not English as I understand it.

He is saying that at first glance it sounds like a good argument but does not hold up under closer inspection, both due to evidence in the case and a real life example. (Real English to Plain English translation provide by Gobble)

 

[Withnail1969]

He is saying that at first glance it sounds like a good argument but does not hold up under closer inspection, both due to evidence in the case and a real life example. (Real English to Plain English translation provided by Gobble)

I'll take your word for it. I assume you're fluent in gobbledegook.

 

[RoseMontague]

I'll take your word for it. I assume you're fluent in gobbledegook.

Zing.........Good comeback.

 

[Withnail1969]

Zing.........Good comeback.

I'm not trying to make a comeback. Whatever he is writing is garbage, it's not English as it's generally spoken among educated people. I have a hard time understanding what on Earth this person is trying to say.

 

[RoseMontague]

The 12:11 and 16:22 may only accept an implicit reference to the same date (in the absence of a date specification I must read the sequence as: 12:11 - 16:22 - 22:13).
Given that at 12:11 and 16:22 Meredith was at home, for no reason the phone be elsewere at 22:13.

But the argument of the defence document only aims to objetc the (alleged) Massei's assessment that sees the 22:13 connection to 30064 as a proof. Bongiorno only objects to the probative value seen by the court.
The actual defense argument is explained at he beginning of the chapter 9 about the telephone records:

"Se la sentenza sembra, addirittura, “pretendere” che siano gli imputati a ribaltare il teorema accusatorio (così invertendo l’onere della prova) .."

Bongiorno laments that the court demands that the defence should "bring evidence" of something and "overturn" the accusatory theory. Thus, implicitly admits at the beginning of this chapter, that she can in fact not bring evidence of something based on the telephone records.

Yes, the central theme of the appeal appears to be one of having to prove innocence to overcome the prosecution arguments. This theme appears quite often in the appeal.

To this it must be added that, in the rare portions of the provision in which the sentencing report gives credit to a hypothesis, it displays a second defect: the contested judgment proposes a reversal of logical procedure in its evaluation of the criminal responsibility of the accused.
Rather than beginning with an objective analysis of the evidence which emerged during the course of the trial, and from this proceeding to an evaluation of the importance it assumes in the verification of the facts, the contested judgment has begun with the fact that the accused are unable to conclusively demonstrate their lack of involvement in the crime and deduces their guilt as an immediate consequence.
Ultimately, the reasoning guiding the entire judgment rests on the inability of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox to disprove the charge [against them].

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Four problems with the DNA

Hi Halides,

I hope you don't mind that I've numbered your queries, as it's easier than inserting all those "quote" tags. Thanks.

1) DNA cannot be dated, as Stefanoni readily admitted. However, the presence of AK's DNA on the knife handle with the victim's DNA on the same knife's blade, and the knife being found in AK's alibi's home, strongly indicates it was used in the murder. Also, the presence of AK's DNA in the nub under the handle where it attaches to the blade indicates more a stabbing than a cutting motion with the knife, resulting in DNA deeply embedded in the plastic there, which was unable to be removed after much energetic washing, further indicating tight gripping at that point while making a stabbing motion.

2) No, I don't acknowledge three innocent people deposited their DNA "innocently" on Meredith's bra clasp. However, I do acknowledge that Raffaele's DNA was found there, by both regular profile and Y-haplotype, and I don't think it was "innocently" deposited, as he had no relationship with her.

3) No, I don't acknowledge that Stefanoni's LCN method was "different ... than has ever appeared in the forensic DNA literature before." She used the standard equipment and got a standard profile. LCN profiles are commonly used now, especially in Europe, but more and more in the States.

Thanks.

T.

Trigood,

1. Do you have any evidence that the handle was cleaned with energetic scrubbing? Do you have any example from the forensic literature where the position of the DNA on a knife handle has been used to infer that it was used for stabbing not cutting? This latter claim was one that Dr. Stefanoni herself made, according to one news report. I find it implausible on at least two grounds, the second of which is that when I picked up a knife and made both stabbing and cutting motions, I found that my grip did not change.

There are many problems with the assertion that Meredith’s DNA profile came from deposition during the murder, so many that it is not possible to do them full justice without referring to discussions in this thread and the previous one. I will try to summarize them. The lack of blood on the blade is a huge problem, unless one believes that cleaning a knife will remove blood much more efficiently than other cell types. The knife was not taken apart, and although I acknowledge that Fine made some useful comments to the effect that disassembling it might not be possible, I still think that searching for blood there would have made perfect sense, if it were practical to do so.

The profile was weak, with almost all of the peaks below 50 RFU. One the other hand, Dr. Stefanoni may have felt that a peak of 108 RFU in the bra clasp trace was too small to count an allele or she perhaps she felt that this peak belonged to an unidentified person (Massei, page 242). It is unclear from the Massei report exactly what Dr. Stefanoni believed about the peak with a height of 108 RFU, but the possible inconsistency of ignoring it while accepting the knife profile is troubling.

2. “It was then subjected to testing, which revealed microscopic traces of DNA belonging to Sollecito as well as at least three other unidentified people. “

One can also find a discussion of some of the extra peaks in the electropherogram starting around page 241 of the English translation of the Massei report. If you continue to deny the existence of additional peaks in the electropherogram, we will be at an impasse. However, assuming that we are able to resolve this issue, I would draw your attention to the dirty gloves that were used to collect this item of evidence as opposed to disposable tools, the fact that it was found about 1.5 meters from where it was originally seen, and the unnecessary number of times it was passed around when it was collected as additional reasons to conclude that the evidentiary value of this item is limited.

In addition, you are ignoring the fact that Dr. Tagliabracci disputed six of the alleles that Dr. Stefanoni wished to attribute to Raffaele Sollecito. One of Judge Massei’s reasons for preferring Dr. Stefanoni’s interpretations was rightly labeled as being contrary to the fundamental principles of forensic genetics. That does not necessarily mean his conclusion was wrong, but it does strongly indicate to me that he should have granted the defense’s request for an independent review of the forensics. In reading the Massei report, I was impressed with Dr. Tagliabracci’s conservative approach to deconvoluting mixtures, a subject on which I have previously quoted comments from experts in the field.


3. Stefanoni apparently used the standard equipment and protocols for regular DNA profiling, but the profile she obtained was clearly in the LCN region. Her technique differed from LCN in that she did only 28 cycles of PCR and in that she only tested the item once, whereas LCN typically is done at least twice, and sometimes more. LCN profiling is typically done in buildings that are separate from the main testing facility, that are equipped with lighting to destroy unwanted DNA, and that are equipped with other amenities, including positive air pressure work areas. Had Stefanoni set out to do PCR with 34 cycles, it is unlikely that her DNA quantitation experiment would have read “too low.” Can you cite a previous example of a forensic scientist using Stefanoni’s protocol for LCN profiling? I have never seen one.

Contamination is always a possibility in PCR-based profiling, but LCN DNA profiling is more susceptible. Meredith’s DNA was abundant in the lab. In addition the second person to handle the knife in custody had just been to the girls’ flat. This raises the possibility of contamination occurring outside the lab.

4. Until the defense experts are given the electronic data files, the machine logs, the standard operating procedures, and the contamination logs (if they exist), I do not see why any skeptical person would say that there is no getting around this evidence. The defense has not yet had a chance to examine and challenge the data, almost three years into the case. What there is no getting around is that ILE is virtually alone in denying requests for such information (as I have richly documented) and that ILE is acting as if it had something to hide.

Best regards.

 

[RoseMontague]

Trigood,

1. Do you have any evidence that the handle was cleaned with energetic scrubbing? Do you have any example from the forensic literature where the position of the DNA on a knife handle has been used to infer that it was used for stabbing not cutting? This latter claim was one that Dr. Stefanoni herself made, according to one news report. I find it implausible on at least two grounds, the second of which is that when I picked up a knife and made both stabbing and cutting motions, I found that my grip did not change.

There are many problems with the assertion that Meredith’s DNA profile came from deposition during the murder, so many that it is not possible to do them full justice without referring to discussions in this thread and the previous one. I will try to summarize them. The lack of blood on the blade is a huge problem, unless one believes that cleaning a knife will remove blood much more efficiently than other cell types. The knife was not taken apart, and although I acknowledge that Fine made some useful comments to the effect that disassembling it might not be possible, I still think that searching for blood there would have made perfect sense, if it were practical to do so.

The profile was weak, with almost all of the peaks below 50 RFU. One the other hand, Dr. Stefanoni may have felt that a peak of 108 RFU in the bra clasp trace was too small to count an allele or she perhaps she felt that this peak belonged to an unidentified person (Massei, page 242). It is unclear from the Massei report exactly what Dr. Stefanoni believed about the peak with a height of 108 RFU, but the possible inconsistency of ignoring it while accepting the knife profile is troubling.

2. “It was then subjected to testing, which revealed microscopic traces of DNA belonging to Sollecito as well as at least three other unidentified people. “

One can also find a discussion of some of the extra peaks in the electropherogram starting around page 241 of the English translation of the Massei report. If you continue to deny the existence of additional peaks in the electropherogram, we will be at an impasse. However, assuming that we are able to resolve this issue, I would draw your attention to the dirty gloves that were used to collect this item of evidence as opposed to disposable tools, the fact that it was found about 1.5 meters from where it was originally seen, and the unnecessary number of times it was passed around when it was collected as additional reasons to conclude that the evidentiary value of this item is limited.

In addition, you are ignoring the fact that Dr. Tagliabracci disputed six of the alleles that Dr. Stefanoni wished to attribute to Raffaele Sollecito. One of Judge Massei’s reasons for preferring Dr. Stefanoni’s interpretations was rightly labeled as being contrary to the fundamental principles of forensic genetics. That does not necessarily mean his conclusion was wrong, but it does strongly indicate to me that he should have granted the defense’s request for an independent review of the forensics. In reading the Massei report, I was impressed with Dr. Tagliabracci’s conservative approach to deconvoluting mixtures, a subject on which I have previously quoted comments from experts in the field.


3. Stefanoni apparently used the standard equipment and protocols for regular DNA profiling, but the profile she obtained was clearly in the LCN region. Her technique differed from LCN in that she did only 28 cycles of PCR and in that she only tested the item once, whereas LCN typically is done at least twice, and sometimes more. LCN profiling is typically done in buildings that are separate from the main testing facility, that are equipped with lighting to destroy unwanted DNA, and that are equipped with other amenities, including positive air pressure work areas. Had Stefanoni set out to do PCR with 34 cycles, it is unlikely that her DNA quantitation experiment would have read “too low.” Can you cite a previous example of a forensic scientist using Stefanoni’s protocol for LCN profiling? I have never seen one.

Contamination is always a possibility in PCR-based profiling, but LCN DNA profiling is more susceptible. Meredith’s DNA was abundant in the lab. In addition the second person to handle the knife in custody had just been to the girls’ flat. This raises the possibility of contamination occurring outside the lab.

4. Until the defense experts are given the electronic data files, the machine logs, the standard operating procedures, and the contamination logs (if they exist), I do not see why any skeptical person would say that there is no getting around this evidence. The defense has not yet had a chance to examine and challenge the data, almost three years into the case. What there is no getting around is that ILE is virtually alone in denying requests for such information (as I have richly documented) and that ILE is acting as if it had something to hide.

Best regards.

Terrific post.

The bogey is contamination. The very sensitivity of the technique which enables it to extract a DNA profile from the tiniest sample also makes it extremely vulnerable to contamination. Stringent measures are needed to minimise that risk.

The ESR has spent $1 million building special anti-contamination areas at its premises in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. Protocols are being developed for crime scenes where the LCN technique is used and for the handling of samples from collection through to courtroom.

LCN crime scenes will be divided into cold, warm and hot zones hot being the crime zone. Clothes are put on and discarded at each zone to minimise the risk of contamination.

We live in a "soup" of DNA, explains ESR forensic programme manager Keith Bedford. "If I were to shed dandruff, massive amounts of dna could fall ... hair could carry DNA. The way I am speaking at the moment, we could probably detect DNA on this pad in front of me."

"LCN is not just about turning up the dial in the DNA lab, or about a tweak to the DNA system," says Bedford, "it is a reworking of the the whole process."

Scene examiners and sample analysts gown up like surgeons, dressing down from hairnet to booties to avoid, for example, a dislodged hair falling on to the gown.

Consumables, such as the water used to dampen swabs, must be DNA free.

Back at the laboratory, there are a range of measures from sticky mats to remove material from footwear to special fluids and ultra-violet light for cleaning the sparse examination area which has separate air conditioning to avoid contamination from air elsewhere in the building.

At the ESR's Auckland premises, entry to the LCN examination area is restricted to three specialist analysts and an equipment calibration technician. It includes a dressing lobby and a sampling room with a "biological safety cabinet" in which the sample is placed inside a tube that in turn is certified by its manufacturers to be free of DNA.

The tube containing the sample is taken to the next sealed area where chemicals are added as part of the process of extracting a DNA reading.

As an aid to accounting for extraneous DNA, people who come into contact with the scene or sample through their work (scientists, police, emergency service staff, pathologists) will have their DNA stored on a special register.

British analysts were puzzled when the new technique turned up the same DNA profile from samples taken from the scenes of three very different types of crimes. The prospect of it being the DNA fingerprint of a most versatile criminal was extinguished when it proved to be the DNA of an employee of the German manufacturer of a piece of equipment used by the scientists.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10408000

There is a lot more involved with LCN testing procedures than turning up the dial.