Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[nopoirot]

Actually, Raf tells his diary that he first told the police that Amanda had been with him all night, then shot himself in the foot by saying that she had gone to Le Chic, then settled into the version, that, gee, try as he can, he just can't be sure. You have to read the several relevant passages together, and distinguish between what Raf claims to remember (or not remember) at the time of the writing, and what he remembers having told the police. The supposition that he did no more than admit that he can't be 100% certain that Amanda was with him all night is wishful thinking / damage control. You can not here rely on second and third hand accounts (except mine, of course) for the contents of the diary. I would also suggest that because something was leaked to the press is not conclusive proof of its falsity. These indicate that Raf at one point said that Amanda had gone to Le Chic that night. As I suggested a couple of days ago, this accounts for Amanda coming unglued.

 

[Justinian2]

[On LCN DNA qualifications]

&moodstream

Pages 198-199:

She knew what the certification of quality assurance ISO 9001 was, and she specified that they had been waiting for over a year for said certification for which they had carried out the necessary procedures. She specified that, contrary to the ISO 9001 quality assurance certification which pertains to the procedures to follow in order to guarantee good execution of the analyses, the ISO 17025 certification is pertains to the technical laboratory verifications and also the instruments and the equipment that are used for the analyses.

She added that they were in the process of requesting this certification as well. She explained that in order to be able to obtain said certifications ‚one needs to put in writing things, that, maybe, are already being done, however, certainly, it’s necessary to put it in writing because there is an external certification agency which must be informed‛(page 106).

She explained that the procedures adopted and that yielded the results presented, were the ones that were implemented by all genetic forensic laboratories that dealt with this type of analysis.

ISO 9000 & 9001 require that you write your program from a document, among other things. It is VERY general. The reason that you would want to describe what you are about to do before you get into the technicalities is that it allows for a review and, perhaps, modification of the process by others. Bosses don't want to, and sometimes don't have the ability, to get bogged down in the technical details. Bosses and reviewers need to be able to directly review the process, so they look at the document from which the technical procedures were made.

ISO 9000 doesn't make a procedure good, it allows the procedure to be more easily reviewed. That's what ultimately gives the procedure quality.

This relates to the standards that are used to qualify a Lab for LCN DNA testing.

 

[RoseMontague]

Actually, Raf tells his diary that he first told the police that Amanda had been with him all night, then shot himself in the foot by saying that she had gone to Le Chic, then settled into the version, that, gee, try as he can, he just can't be sure. You have to read the several relevant passages together, and distinguish between what Raf claims to remember (or not remember) at the time of the writing, and what he remembers having told the police. The supposition that he did no more than admit that he can't be 100% certain that Amanda was with him all night is wishful thinking / damage control. You can not here rely on second and third hand accounts (except mine, of course) for the contents of the diary. I would also suggest that because something was leaked to the press is not conclusive proof of its falsity. These indicate that Raf at one point said that Amanda had gone to Le Chic that night. As I suggested a couple of days ago, this accounts for Amanda coming unglued.

I agree with you on most of this. It can't be denied that Raffaele lied. I also believe that part of breaking Amanda down included the police saying Raffaele had dropped her alibi. It is still a matter of deciding which version is the correct one based on the evidence. I believe they were both coerced and both made the terrible choice of not hiring a lawyer. I believe what any of them said in a diary has to be viewed with a degree of doubt as well.

 

[RoseMontague]

&moodstream

Pages 198-199:



ISO 9000 & 9001 require that you write your program from a document, among other things. It is VERY general. The reason that you would want to describe what you are about to do before you get into the technicalities is that it allows for a review and, perhaps, modification of the process by others. Bosses don't want to, and sometimes don't have the ability, to get bogged down in the technical details. Bosses and reviewers need to be able to directly review the process, so they look at the document from which the technical procedures were made.

ISO 9000 doesn't make a procedure good, it allows the procedure to be more easily reviewed. That's what ultimately gives the procedure quality.

This relates to the standards that are used to qualify a Lab for LCN DNA testing.

A (now former) member of this board had told me that LCN DNA had been used in Italy for years in various court cases. This poster failed to provide even one cite and I was never able to find another case that LCN DNA evidence was used against an accused person in Italy. This may be the first. I would love to see a cite, if not.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

on mental confusion

colonelhall,

Some commenters falsely talk about Raffaele or Amanda saying that they smoked so much that they had amnesia. I think that one reason that Amanda and Raffaele displayed confusion in the days after they were incarcerated was that their interrogators claimed that they had evidence to the effect that their memories were faulty. A normal person would become confused--even a highly intelligent one would. Derek Tice, one of the Norfolk Four, had an IQ of greater than 148.

I agree that Raffaele has damaged his credibility as a witness, though I do not go as far as you do.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Actually, Raf tells his diary that he first told the police that Amanda had been with him all night, then shot himself in the foot by saying that she had gone to Le Chic, then settled into the version, that, gee, try as he can, he just can't be sure. You have to read the several relevant passages together, and distinguish between what Raf claims to remember (or not remember) at the time of the writing, and what he remembers having told the police. The supposition that he did no more than admit that he can't be 100% certain that Amanda was with him all night is wishful thinking / damage control. You can not here rely on second and third hand accounts (except mine, of course) for the contents of the diary. I would also suggest that because something was leaked to the press is not conclusive proof of its falsity. These indicate that Raf at one point said that Amanda had gone to Le Chic that night. As I suggested a couple of days ago, this accounts for Amanda coming unglued.

Sure. It accounts for lots of suspects coming unglued. The cops say, "We have a witness who saw you at the crime scene. We have proof you were involved. The only thing that can save you is to tell us what really happened." It's a great way to get a statement that will justify an arrest, perhaps even lead to a conviction, but has no basis in fact. Let me know if you want specific examples.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

gloves; proper LCN technique is nothing to sneeze at

Your picture proves nothing. I see discarded gloves that appear soiled.. So what.

bucketoftea,

That glove should embarrass ILE. However, there is also a photographic still from a video of a dirty glove picking up the clasp, and that is even more decisive.

The quote below is taken from Mark Waterbury's second article on LCN. It originates from here.

“The FSS LCN test requires an ultra-clean laboratory and so is more expensive and less widely offered than the standard test.... The site of this bespoke laboratory is remote from other DNA Units, operates stringent entry requirements, is fitted with positive air pressure and specialist lighting and chemical treatments to minimize DNA contamination.”

The specialist lighting is probably UV light, which destroys DNA by forming what are called thymidine (or thymine) dimers, and the chemical treatment may be bleach.

 

[Justinian2]

A (now former) member of this board had told me that LCN DNA had been used in Italy for years in various court cases. This poster failed to provide even one cite and I was never able to find another case that LCN DNA evidence was used against an accused person in Italy. This may be the first. I would love to see a cite, if not.

It's my understanding that LCN DNA has to be copied, grown, or reproduced before there is sufficient quantity to analyze. Does this grow DNA for all DNA in the sample as would be my guess. If this is the case, sorting out the results would be problematic, as previous discussions have revealed.

Or perhaps a single broken strand of DNA is amplified. Or perhaps a single molecule of a contaminate - introduced in several possible ways - is amplified.

What does a molecule of DNA weigh? One pico gram perhaps?

Standards have to be followed. The jury cannot make the standards. If there are not limits on the amount of material needed, DNA testing conceivable becomes less reliable than Voodoo.

 

[colonelhall]

halides 1: "Some commenters falsely talk about Raffaele or Amanda saying that they smoked so much that they had amnesia."

Isn't this encouraged by their own words? I fail to see how you can accuse commentators of "falsely" talking, when both suspects interweave their statements with talk about smoking too much and not being entirely sure if what they are saying is the truth.

"I agree that Raffaele has damaged his credibility as a witness, though I do not go as far as you do."

How far do you go. Perhaps you feel that he is only stating the truth, when it backs up Knox's alibi.

Throughout this case, Solecito remains a shadowy figure. For me, he poses a great problem for Knox's defence.

 

[Justinian2]

Our cells have about 6 picograms of DNA/cell. A picogram is one trillionth (10 to the -12) of a gram. Conceivably, that is all it takes to amplify, grow, copy and reproduce in order to get some type of DNA result.

Like all amplified signals, the problem eventually becomes one of noise (contaminants introduced in several ways).

 

[christianahannah]

&moodstream

Pages 198-199:



ISO 9000 & 9001 require that you write your program from a document, among other things. It is VERY general. The reason that you would want to describe what you are about to do before you get into the technicalities is that it allows for a review and, perhaps, modification of the process by others. Bosses don't want to, and sometimes don't have the ability, to get bogged down in the technical details. Bosses and reviewers need to be able to directly review the process, so they look at the document from which the technical procedures were made.

ISO 9000 doesn't make a procedure good, it allows the procedure to be more easily reviewed. That's what ultimately gives the procedure quality.

This relates to the standards that are used to qualify a Lab for LCN DNA testing.

Both certifications (ISO 9001 and ISO 17025) deal with LCN DNA testing standards? So the lab in Rome was in the process of being certified for this testing?

 

[nopoirot]

Raf's claim that Amanda had parted from him to go to Le Chic may or not be true (see LondonJohn's comment of Dec 20, 22002.) I'm tempted to believe that it is.

Raf is certainly problematic. He has left himself at liberty to claim that, the fog having cleared his memory, he can now state for fact certain that Amanda wasn't with him all night. It's my understanding that his lawyer wants to separate him from Amanda, and she just may do that when she takes an appeal.

 

[platonov]

When is an alibi not an alibi - more Cheshire Cat than Macavity

colonelhall,

Some commenters falsely talk about Raffaele or Amanda saying that they smoked so much that they had amnesia. I think that one reason that Amanda and Raffaele displayed confusion in the days after they were incarcerated was that their interrogators claimed that they had evidence to the effect that their memories were faulty. A normal person would become confused--even a highly intelligent one would. Derek Tice, one of the Norfolk Four, had an IQ of greater than 148.
I agree that Raffaele has damaged his credibility as a witness, though I do not go as far as you do.

I agree with you on most of this. It can't be denied that Raffaele lied. I also believe that part of breaking Amanda down included the police saying Raffaele had dropped her alibi. It is still a matter of deciding which version is the correct one based on the evidence. I believe they were both coerced and both made the terrible choice of not hiring a lawyer. I believe what any of them said in a diary has to be viewed with a degree of doubt as well.

Sure. It accounts for lots of suspects coming unglued. The cops say, "We have a witness who saw you at the crime scene. We have proof you were involved. The only thing that can save you is to tell us what really happened." It's a great way to get a statement that will justify an arrest, perhaps even lead to a conviction, but has no basis in fact. Let me know if you want specific examples.

Do you have any actual evidence that it happened in this case.

We have already had numerous iterations of various other cases of MoJ [evidence by anecdote]. Another spin of the Cartwheel of Analogy wont achieve what the first 37* failed to do.

On the general issue both convicts have lied, changed their stories, remained silent, been 'confused' when the situation demanded etc etc.

We have AK's own testimony as her last words on this alibi - do we have anything from RS since his lawyers went to court [pretrial] to 'move' that the 'evidence' against AK shouldn't also be held against him.
Doesn't sound like a strong alibi claim - and no, the fatuous arguments that this meant he couldn't know where she was when he was asleep don't carry any weight.

Did he for example ever make a spontaneous statement in court that AK was with him all night - or from 9.10 till 1.00 (bedtime) if you prefer.

I don't think so.

He obviously never took the stand or AFAIK answered Q's after Nov 8 on this (or any) issue.

PS Now that's a LCN - it could actually be much higher, I was being very conservative

 

[Justinian2]

http://www.suite101.com/content/what-is-low-copy-number-dna-a38840

Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA
LCN DNA was developed by the UK Forensic Science Service (FSS) in 1999. The technique, performed by only a few laboratories across the world, is extremely expensive but is necessary when only small amounts of DNA are recovered for analysis.

What is LCN DNA?
Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA analysis is like traditional DNA analysis. The purpose is the same: to try and match the DNA extracted from cells found at the scene of the crime.

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.

Problems with LCN DNA
Because of the small amount of starting DNA, many more cycles of replication are necessary and contaminants will be also be replicated, creating a greater risk of inaccurate results.​

Personally, I wouldn't decide ANYTHING based on one laboratory test because I've been burned too many times. There are lives at stake. It's one think to use unreliable test results to narrow down the suspect search in order to get more reliable proofs. To use the results in court? That seems highly criminal.

 

[Supernaut]

bucketoftea,

One can see a series of photos from a video of some of the collection at IIP. In this series (I have cited this before but do not have it handy), which covers at least eight minutes and roughly half a dozen evidence samples, one sees the same crease in Dr. Stefanoni's glove. There is also trial testimony where Stefanoni is cross-examined and a bracelet is noticed in the same position outside of one glove over a certain amount of time. That the glove which collected the clasp is dirty is also evident in a photo. Finally, Dr. Stefanoni herself testified in a way that suggested changing gloves often was unnecessary because contamination required liquids or vigorous rubbing (I think it is about p. 202 in Massei, but I may be mistaken). I have often wanted to start a fund to pay for gloves for the forensic police. I wonder whether they take PayPal.

Note also that if the same pair is worn for long enough, the fatty-acids in the wearer's sweat begins to be absorbed into them and they swell, changing from having the appearance of a 'second skin' to a baggy mess (I often used them when mechanicing and it can be a real nuisance).

Look at this grab from the video - these gloves had plainly been worn for a VERY long time, possibly hours.

 

[shuttlt]

shuttlt,

Just to be clear, I think that contamination of the knife might have occurred outside of the lab, as well as inside, based on the removal of the knife from its collection bag and the fact that the second officer to handle it (Gubbiotti?) had just been to the girls' flat.

Apologies. I am aware that you don't want to discount the possibility. You just don't think it's the most likely explanation.

In addition, I think that you underestimated the sensitivity of the TMB test in some of your calculations. I have hear that its sensitivity may be as high as 1 part in 1 million for dilute blood.

This was one of the things to come out of my original attempt to calculate this 6+ months ago. Yes, the test used is very sensitive to red blood cells. In my recent post I was restricting myself to the statements made by LondonJohn (it was him, no?) in support of the claim that Stefanoni couldn't have seen any material in the scratch, mainly because I didn't want to go introducing any facts of my own to muddle things. I agree with you that his blood test sensitivity figure looks low to me. None the less, if the post I was responding to it representative of the current argument, I don't see that it has been shown that Stefanoni can't have seen the material in the scratch.

 

[Justinian2]

I wonder what one of those spots on the glove weighs. A million picograms, perhaps? One DNA molecule weighs in at 6 picograms, for comparison.

 

[nopoirot]

Telling a potential suspect their alibi has been destroyed is improper police procedure? I didn't know that. I didn't know Raf was coerced, either. Maybe they made him walk over broken glass in his bare feet.

 

[Dan O.]

Our cells have about 6 picograms of DNA/cell. A picogram is one trillionth (10 to the -12) of a gram. Conceivably, that is all it takes to amplify, grow, copy and reproduce in order to get some type of DNA result.

Like all amplified signals, the problem eventually becomes one of noise (contaminants introduced in several ways).

Maybe god gives Italy a special exemption to be contamination free so they can be pure. In Stefanoni's lab for instance, they didn't take any of the precautions that every other lab in the world takes to mitigate the contamination when processing LCN DNA. Yet unlike every one of those other labs, Stefanoni's lab has never had a case of contamination (according to Stefanoni's own words).

 

[shuttlt]

shuttlt,

I presume that you have not been reading all of my comments over the last two days. Calling anything on the clasp Amanda's profile is extremely misleading, IMHO. The unknown alleles are only slightly weaker than the average of Raffaele's putative profile, and the highest peak is higher than the weakest of Raffaele's.

Apologies, I am phrasing my comments too loosely rather than not reading yours.

If the unknown alleles arrived on the clasp innocently, how can anyone be certain that Raffaele's did not? That is the key question, and I have been waiting for the pro-guilt commenters to supply an answer for about a year now.

Do we have to know that Raffaele's didn't get there innocently? Isn't this going back to demanding every piece of evidence demonstrate their guilt in and of itself. The claim is that Raffaele's DNA is the strongest reading on Meredith's bra clasp, other than Meridith's own. Either that is surprising to us, or it isn't. For myself, I find it surprising. If my brothers DNA turned out to be the strongest contaminant on my wife's bra clasp I'd be surprised as well. There are innocent explanations, but it's still not what one would necessarily expect. Perhaps my expectations are wrong?

On it's own, I guess one could dismiss it. It's certainly not the kind of evidence that would shake my faith in the scientific method if it turned out that an alibi came out of the woodwork and the DNA must have gotten there innocently.

What part of the above is not an acceptable answer to you year old question?