Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[platonov]

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).

Dan O

Before any further arguments on DNA are advanced did you find a cite to back up your claim which I addressed HERE that non 'LCN' DNA typing/profiling had something to do with visibility to the naked eye ?

There is already much confusion here over DNA typing - best to clear up this matter first.

 

[LondonJohn]

Thanks for this L.J. Pretty damning stuff!

Am I reading this right? Amanda had told him to lie about them being together. He then retracted the lie, but he is not sure of it is a lie or not.

Any jury in the world ......

You're not reading it right.

Read again what Sollecito is referring to as the "cavolo" (rubbish).

(Hint: it's not the version where Knox is together with him in his apartment)

 

[shuttlt]

I don't believe Stefanoni claimed to have seen material in the scratches. Her statement from the motivations, page 221:



I believe she is saying the reason to swab that particular area on the knife was because if any material had been left after cleaning it probably would have been lodged in the scratches.

In which case you have to wonder what Frank was talking about here:

Patrizia --she confessed today-- put the knife under a powerful light until she saw something. Little, little signs of something. And then a tiny, tiny scratch on the blade only visible while moving it in the right way against the powerful light. And in that tiny scratch a tiny little stripe of something. It's on the blade, it must be blood, she thought.
But the substance was minimal and if she took it to test the blood than nothing would remain to test the DNA. So she said O la va o la spacca, make it or break it, and took a 20% of it to test it for blood: negative.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html

 

[nopoirot]

If you believe, of course, that Amanda "came unglued" as a result of being informed that Raf had destroyed her alibi, you are undermining the contention that her damaging admissions came only after 14 (40?) hours of unrelenting police brutality (the screams, the screams.)

 

[Antony]

Draca is on our side.

Sorry about that - I was thrown by this comment from him (her?):

There's a door in the background. She may have held her like that while walking through the door single file...

... which sounded like s/he was making excuses for the way Amanda was being handled. Even if they had to come through the door in single file, Amanda is hardly going to make a break for freedom.

It's a disturbing picture, but mostly because of the expression on Amanda's face. She realizes she is in the grip of a system that does not care about the truth.

That's true, but hardly because of this particular incursion into Amanda's dignity. It's disturbing because it shows how she has been habitually treated, not because it's any moment of realisation for her.

 

[shuttlt]

Stefanoni says herself that the scratch could only be seen under strong light at the proper angle. In this condition, she is not seeing the scratch in terms of resolving details but catching a glint of light reflecting off the wall of the scratch in contrast to the darker reflection off the mirrored surface of the blade. This is much like being able to see the reflecting sunlight off a spider web in the distance when the sun is at the right angle. What material do you propose could be in that scratch that would reflect enough light to be visible on it's own against the background?

Dirt can be visible when viewed from the right angle in decent lighting. This isn't generally because the dirt is more reflective than the surface it's on. Why couldn't the dirt in the scratch have been made visible in the same way?

 

[platonov]

I don't see what evidence is needed. Nobody claims that Amanda made a truthful statement that night.

So that would be a NO in this case - you have no evidence.

You claimed (implied) knowledge of why she made an untruthful statement [it was the cops fault] - we can consider this assertion withdrawn.

Progress !

 

[shuttlt]

shuttlt,

As I understand it, you are disputing the necessity of carrying out the test at least twice. From the Crown Prosecution Service site that I previously mentioned:

"The standard test produces reproducible and repeatable results when the quantity of DNA is not a limiting factor. This is like casting a net into a well-stocked lake with a variety of fish; the catch will represent the different types of fish.

The LCN test is more like casting a net into a lake with few fish; the catch may not represent all the types of fish and a second attempt may contain different types. The individual catches may not fully represent all the types but repeat analysis may assist.

In LCN testing, each sample is divided into three parts or aliquots, and two of these are tested. The third is retained for further testing in the event of a failure or to confirm the presence of a mixture.

Only those DNA components that are seen twice are included in any calculation, to show that the result is reproducible.

If the result is not reproducible or is a complex mixture then it is disclosed but no calculation is carried out."

I've quoted this myself, and personally I believe I was the first to dig out the CPS quote back when we were all talking about the open letter. It doesn't say that if you can't repeat the test you throw the results in the bin, or at least that isn't my reading.

 

[LondonJohn]

ISO 9001^WP is a very general quality management standard. ISO/IEC 17025^WP is a more specific standard for testing and calibration labs. Both are a step in the right direction, but far from proof that the lab is accredited to do forensic DNA testing, much less LCN DNA testing.

Exactly. I think many people have got the wrong end of the stick here. The ISO standards that the lab was apparently "working towards" are general laboratory standards (including contamination logs!). So it may well be that the Rome lab got some nice ISO certification for general lab work, and probably also for regular PCR DNA analysis, by 2009.

But the issue here is very specific: the particular and extreme procedures/protocols that are necessary when handling/testing/interpreting LCN-range DNA samples. I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't even an ISO standard for LCN DNA testing yet. But there are agreed forensic standards which MUST be in place and rigorously followed before LCN-range evidence can be considered reliable. And I think it's been shown beyond all doubt that Stafanoni didn't follow most (if not all) of these special procedures/protocols when she did her amateur-hour LCN testing. Therefore it's not valid.

 

[christianahannah]

In which case you have to wonder what Frank was talking about here:


http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html

Frank could have interpreted what she stated wrong or he could be writing a script of what might have been going on in her mind.

The court transcript would be helpful to clarify what she said but from what I have read in the motivations I haven't seen it stated that she saw anything in the scratch (it may be in the motivations, I just haven't read it yet).

 

[christianahannah]

Exactly. I think many people have got the wrong end of the stick here. The ISO standards that the lab was apparently "working towards" are general laboratory standards (including contamination logs!). So it may well be that the Rome lab got some nice ISO certification for general lab work, and probably also for regular PCR DNA analysis, by 2009.

But the issue here is very specific: the particular and extreme procedures/protocols that are necessary when handling/testing/interpreting LCN-range DNA samples. I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't even an ISO standard for LCN DNA testing yet. But there are agreed forensic standards which MUST be in place and rigorously followed before LCN-range evidence can be considered reliable. And I think it's been shown beyond all doubt that Stafanoni didn't follow most (if not all) of these special procedures/protocols when she did her amateur-hour LCN testing. Therefore it's not valid.

See, that's it. What are the procedures for LCN DNA testing and what of those procedures didn't Stefanoni follow?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Amanda's interrogation

If you believe, of course, that Amanda "came unglued" as a result of being informed that Raf had destroyed her alibi, you are undermining the contention that her damaging admissions came only after 14 (40?) hours of unrelenting police brutality (the screams, the screams.)

nopoirot,

Dr. Giobbi testified that he heard Amanda screaming. Your use of the phrase "unrelenting police brutality" does not resemble anything said by the pro-innocence posters (your choice of words is an exaggeration). I would use the phrase coercive interrogation, and if you want to know what one is, I strongly urge you to read "The Wrong Guys." Comparing any two cases has pitfalls, but I am not saying anything about ILE that I would not also say about the authorities in Norfolk VA.

I think that Amanda's statements were the result of a multiplicity of factors, including starting out the interrogation in a worn-out state, being told that ILE had video evidence of her at the cottage, being told that Raffaele had said that she was not there, being yelled at, being threatened with 30 years of imprisonment, etc.

 

[colonelhall]

halides 1: "Neither Amanda nor Raffaele have ever used the word amnesia, nor do they claim to have used cannabis heavily (to the best of my understanding)."

Nov 7th Sollecito:

"I'm accountable that if we all ended up in jail it is also the fault of my light regard to the facts of that evening and also that we smoked (Amanda and I) several joints. "

Sounds like he's blaming the mess on drugs, to me.

 

[shuttlt]

Frank could have interpreted what she stated wrong

I don't see how this could be a question of interpretation.

he could be writing a script of what might have been going on in her mind.

It makes PerugiaShock more than somewhat problematic as a source if there is no way to tell the difference between statements that are intended to be facts and statements that are intended to be creative writing exercises.

The court transcript would be helpful to clarify what she said but from what I have read in the motivations I haven't seen it stated that she saw anything in the scratch (it may be in the motivations, I just haven't read it yet).

Transcripts would be nice, but I doubt we'll see more than small chunks that people close to the case chose to hand over for one reason or another.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is not what the UK forensic science people say. For some reason they are never quoted by seattlepi.com

Yes they do. This is from the CPS guidelines (the CPS is the UK's prosecution authority):

In LCN testing, each sample is divided into three parts or aliquots, and two of these are tested. The third is retained for further testing in the event of a failure or to confirm the presence of a mixture. Only those DNA components that are seen twice are included in any calculation, to show that the result is reproducible.

 

[LondonJohn]

Does Yes now mean No

The 8 November statement wasn't made in court - it was an appearance before Matteini.By court I meant his/their Murder Trial - you remember the one, they were found guilty and its now at the appeal stage.
Did my mention of the Cheshire Cat bring the methods of Humpty Dumpty to mind ?

Indeed hence my reference to fatuous arguments.

Where was Sollecito when he made his appearance before Judge Matteini?

You have a really odd definition of the term "in court".

 

[shuttlt]

Yes they do. This is from the CPS guidelines (the CPS is the UK's prosecution authority):
In LCN testing, each sample is divided into three parts or aliquots, and two of these are tested. The third is retained for further testing in the event of a failure or to confirm the presence of a mixture. Only those DNA components that are seen twice are included in any calculation, to show that the result is reproducible.

How do you interpret the last sentence? For me, I see it as saying they don't calculate the odds of the match.

By the way, how do you interpret the sentence after where you stopped quoting where it says that even after failing to reproduce a result, it is still disclosed?

 

[LondonJohn]

See, that's it. What are the procedures for LCN DNA testing and what of those procedures didn't Stefanoni follow?

The special procedures which Stefanoni didn't follow have been listed numerous times already. They include physical separation of the LCN testing area from the rest of the DNA lab; special air-handling precautions including positive-pressure ventilation; extreme sterilisation of all equipment, including UV sterilisation; additional protective clothing including IIRC breathing filtering apparatus and total facial covering; and of course the replication aspects of the LCN analysis.

 

[christianahannah]

I don't see how this could be a question of interpretation.


It makes PerugiaShock more than somewhat problematic as a source if there is no way to tell the difference between statements that are intended to be facts and statements that are intended to be creative writing exercises.


Transcripts would be nice, but I doubt we'll see more than small chunks that people close to the case chose to hand over for one reason or another.

Well, he is a journalist and journalists do at times get facts wrong or jumbled up.

I do think he is probably the most reliable journalist of fact on this case, however, he has a different way of expressing facts than the mainstream media does.

As I wrote, it could be further in the motivations that she saw material in the scratch, however, I would think it would have had to been with a microscope, if so, since she has stated nothing could be seen with the naked eye.

 

[shuttlt]

The special procedures which Stefanoni didn't follow have been listed numerous times already. They include physical separation of the LCN testing area from the rest of the DNA lab; special air-handling precautions including positive-pressure ventilation; extreme sterilisation of all equipment, including UV sterilisation; additional protective clothing including IIRC breathing filtering apparatus and total facial covering; and of course the replication aspects of the LCN analysis.

Not that it's central to the issue, but generally these lists seem to be focused on contamination making the LCN analysis useless. Facial covering for example is about preventing the testers DNA getting into the sample rather than some randomly matched suspects DNA. It's much harder to find discussions of what steps are necessary to prevent the kind of contamination we are talking about here.