Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[christianahannah]

I can only conclude that they are Stefanoni's source data files. This article says that they have asked to view some documents that are not in the case file, but that they have been told they will be provided with. This describes the electronic data files pretty accurately.

Zašto ne čudi.....?

How do you think this describes the electronic files pretty accurately?

The neutrals were tasked with first testing of the knife and bra clasp if possible. They tried, it was not possible to re-test the items so now they will do a thorough review of everything that is known about the testing - which they should do. This will not be quick and I hope they are granted the time extension by the court.

I see this more as a place where science moves further ahead of the court/judicial process. In the future it will be difficult to keep both on the same track so as to respect the rights of all involved.

 

[RoseMontague]

How do you think this describes the electronic files pretty accurately?

The neutrals were tasked with first testing of the knife and bra clasp if possible. They tried, it was not possible to re-test the items so now they will do a thorough review of everything that is known about the testing - which they should do. This will not be quick and I hope they are granted the time extension by the court.

I see this more as a place where science moves further ahead of the court/judicial process. In the future it will be difficult to keep both on the same track so as to respect the rights of all involved.

Regardless of the exact nature of the information, my conclusions are:
1. Stefanoni has more information that was not provided in the case files.
2. The experts need that information to do a proper evaluation
3. If the neutral experts need it then it makes sense that the defense experts have also said they needed more information
4. IIRC, ChrisHalkides has been saying this for some time.

The good thing about this is that if the experts get this information, they will report on it and maybe the defense team will also finally get what they need to properly evaluate the original results as well as the results provided by the new experts.

 

[Kaosium]

Regardless of the exact nature of the information, my conclusions are:
1. Stefanoni has more information that was not provided in the case files.
2. The experts need that information to do a proper evaluation
3. If the neutral experts need it then it makes sense that the defense experts have also said they needed more information
4. IIRC, ChrisHalkides has been saying this for some time.

The good thing about this is that if the experts get this information, they will report on it and maybe the defense team will also finally get what they need to properly evaluate the original results as well as the results provided by the new experts.

My conclusion is they wouldn't have failed to provide that information to either the defense or the independent experts unless there was a damn good reason they didn't want them seen. They could be either the EDFs or the control samples--or lack thereof the latter.

 

[christianahannah]

Regardless of the exact nature of the information, my conclusions are:
1. Stefanoni has more information that was not provided in the case files.
2. The experts need that information to do a proper evaluation
3. If the neutral experts need it then it makes sense that the defense experts have also said they needed more information
4. IIRC, ChrisHalkides has been saying this for some time.

The good thing about this is that if the experts get this information, they will report on it and maybe the defense team will also finally get what they need to properly evaluate the original results as well as the results provided by the new experts.

But I don't think the defense has argued that they did not receive the information asked for but rather it was not given to them in the very beginning and that they had to request further documentation mid-trial. The prosecution said they had all that was required by law but gave them the extra they were requesting.

If it is true that the defense did not have all documentation they were entitled to by law or that they had asked for this needs to be addressed in their appeal documents but I do not think it is (I will admit I have not read every line of both appeals so if someone could point me to that argument I would be most grateful).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

ABA guidelines

RoseMontague and christianahannah,

Whether or not the appeals documents discussed it specifically, the electronic data files could not have been released as part of whatever was released after July of 2009. Greg Hampikian has been most clear on this point, as Charlie Wilkes mentioned at the IIP forum about a month or so ago. I will reiterate a point I have made before. The American Bar Association guidelines bring up the EDFs explicitly, and with good reason. If by any chance the legal standard in Italy does not specify release of these (and other) files, then the law is in need of reform.

 

[billyryan]

My conclusion is they wouldn't have failed to provide that information to either the defense or the independent experts unless there was a damn good reason they didn't want them seen. They could be either the EDFs or the control samples--or lack thereof the latter.

Stefanoni by her actions is definitely showing she is trying to hide something,I find it hard to believe that storing of the bra clasp in liquid was an accident either,Conti and Vecchiotti first looked for ninety days then they looked for a eleven day extension now another forty days,there must be something major wrong with the original DNA analysis

 

[RoseMontague]

But I don't think the defense has argued that they did not receive the information asked for but rather it was not given to them in the very beginning and that they had to request further documentation mid-trial. The prosecution said they had all that was required by law but gave them the extra they were requesting.

If it is true that the defense did not have all documentation they were entitled to by law or that they had asked for this needs to be addressed in their appeal documents but I do not think it is (I will admit I have not read every line of both appeals so if someone could point me to that argument I would be most grateful).

I have seen hints that it is included in her supplemental appeal filing (both she and Raffaele filed additions to their appeals just before the deadline). I have not seen hers and only parts of Raffaele's.

 

[babycondor]

...Conti and Vecchiotti first looked for ninety days then they looked for a eleven day extension now another forty days,there must be something major wrong with the original DNA analysis

[cynical] Are they being paid by the hour? [/cynical]

 

[Antony]

It is often procedure for police forces to conceal details of the crime so they can verify witness accounts to ensure they are accurate.

I could understand that if it was some detail of a witness's account which needed corroboration. But I don't see why they would do that with a detail that was there for all to see.

This makes the fact the 'confession' completely excluded any mention of the break-in even more curious.

This suggests to me even more that they hadn't yet decided how to explain it away. When was the "staging" fairy-tale first mentioned?

 

[Katody Matrass]

CNN - Amanda Knox case resurfaces as key hearing nears

Retesting of the evidence was supposed to conclude by May 9 so the results could be presented on May 21 to a jury of two judges and six citizens. However, the report has been pushed back until June, a representative of the Knox family told CNN Thursday, while forensic experts are still waiting for more information from Italian police, the representative said.

So it's pretty much official. What takes them so long to release that data? What are they so afraid of?

 

[JREF2010]

oxymoron

Sure is taking a long time to validate Stefanoni's procedures. Gosh golly.

thats a good point. its says a lot in such few words....why is it so difficult for the neutral experts to decipher Stefonanis work?

why is everything done in this lab abnormal, example the bra clasp stored incorrectly and rotted away?

why was the knife not thoroughly tested by Stefonani for bleach and blood by the crevice of the knife handle?

and as I wondered about the computer hardrives being ruined by "experts", one has to then wonder if an expert can be so incompetent, or is it more logical to believe the sloppy work was done intentionally.

Does anyone have more details of the bra clasp being stored incorrectly?
IS this common in the DNA labs to store things incorrectly?
And the infamous "Too Low" results and Stefonani continuing anyway (at least on the stuff against the two college kids)....is this normal?

Any DNA Lab workers online here?

incompetent experts....

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Garofano in Darkness Descending

Anonymous commenter The Machine asked about Luciano Garofano’s words in the book Darkness Descending elsewhere Here are the quotes: “However, here is the electropherogram and you can see that the RFU value is very high, so the sample is undoubtedly blood, which is the body fluid that provides the greatest amount of DNA. In some cases you see higher peaks of Amanda's DNA than Meredith's. Amanda has been bleeding. Nor is it old blood, as the defence might say, because blood decays fast. We have the same result on the cotton-bud box. The light switch was over-scrubbed, but from the film the way the cotton-bud was good enough. There too we have mixed blood. So that's pretty significant for Amanda, Unfortunately for her, she bled at the same time Meredith was bleeding. That's a lot to explain" (Darkness Descending, page 371).

"Look, ten out of sixteen loci have peaks that correspond to Amanda's DNA profile. The hypothesis is that Amanda also touched the bra clasp"

"My conclusion is that the bra clasp certainly works as a piece of evidence - it is a strong clue against the suspects Amanda and Raffaele. The RFU number is high enough. So the result is perfect." (Darkness Descending, page 379).”

These passages are pure drivel. (1) The size of the peaks (their RFU values) cannot be related to tissue-type, as Greg Hampikian told Charlie Wilkes, at the IIP forum, IIRC, and also on the first continuation thread. Consider Meredith’s peaks on the clasp, as just one of many examples in which the peaks are strong but there is no blood. The cigarette butt may be even a better example of a piece of evidence with strong peaks but no blood. (2) Garofano is trying to claim that the lack of degradation means that it is a fresh sample. In general, the rates of decay of DNA depend upon so many factors that one cannot say when the DNA was deposited. (3) I have looked at the electropherogram myself, and I see a small number of extra peaks in a few loci. Anyone who claims that there are ten loci out of sixteen that have Amanda’s DNA is a knave or a fool. MOO.

 

[spartacus]

thats a good point. its says a lot in such few words....why is it so difficult for the neutral experts to decipher Stefonanis work?

Probably because there are problems with it and it now a hot potatoe.

why is everything done in this lab abnormal, example the bra clasp stored incorrectly and rotted away?

My understanding is that the lab is not certified according to international standards of forensice science, and that Italian courts do not require that. Stefanoni has said that there has NEVER been contamination in her lab, which other forensic scientists say is highly improbable. She probably has never had outside scrutiny before, and we don't know what kind of training went into it. So she is able to make her own rules, e.g. adjusting the limits of her machine down to detect very low levels of DNA. The DNA clasp was put in water (it should have been dry) and it rusted and the results cannot be replicated.

why was the knife not thoroughly tested by Stefonani for bleach and blood by the crevice of the knife handle?

It was tested for both and came up negative. When the independent expert asked to open the crevice the prosecution objected, which indicates that they themselves don't really believe it is the murder weapon, or maybe they don't want to take a chance, who knows.

and as I wondered about the computer hardrives being ruined by "experts", one has to then wonder if an expert can be so incompetent, or is it more logical to believe the sloppy work was done intentionally.

They ruined one right after the other. Like a lot of things it certainly raises the question of whether it was intentional to ruin the RS alibi.

Does anyone have more details of the bra clasp being stored incorrectly?
IS this common in the DNA labs to store things incorrectly?

see above. no not common at all. that should be forensic science 101.

And the infamous "Too Low" results and Stefonani continuing anyway (at least on the stuff against the two college kids)....is this normal?

My understanding is it is a fuzzy area but she essentially invented her own unvalidated methodology by re-setting the limits on the machine which puts her out there on her own. She also refused to handover the results of the control testing and electronic files which puts her out there on her own. So the Perugia court is essentially letting one person create a new science which cannot be confirmed by outside sources which is not how science is done.

Any DNA Lab workers online here?

incompetent experts....

 

[spartacus]

I think Stefanoni was spouting this drivel about knowing if there was blood or not by the size of the peaks as quoted in the Massei Report. Who is this Luciano Garofano character anyway?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Colonel Garofano

I think Stefanoni was spouting this drivel about knowing if there was blood or not by the size of the peaks as quoted in the Massei Report. Who is this Luciano Garofano character anyway?

He was head of the forensics unit at the Carabinieri before he retired, IIRC. He was a coauthor of the book "Darkness Descending," and he also wrote an article for a British newspaper about the case last November or so.

 

[HumanityBlues]

thats a good point. its says a lot in such few words....why is it so difficult for the neutral experts to decipher Stefonanis work?

why is everything done in this lab abnormal, example the bra clasp stored incorrectly and rotted away?

why was the knife not thoroughly tested by Stefonani for bleach and blood by the crevice of the knife handle?

and as I wondered about the computer hardrives being ruined by "experts", one has to then wonder if an expert can be so incompetent, or is it more logical to believe the sloppy work was done intentionally.

Does anyone have more details of the bra clasp being stored incorrectly?
IS this common in the DNA labs to store things incorrectly?
And the infamous "Too Low" results and Stefonani continuing anyway (at least on the stuff against the two college kids)....is this normal?

Any DNA Lab workers online here?

incompetent experts....

Ya I mean, look, the writing is on the wall here. You have to be pretty blind to not see the way things are going right now on appeal. If guilters are going to be blindsided by a change of trajectory in this case, well, that probably explains why their deductions led them to be guilters in the first place.

 

[LondonJohn]

He was head of the forensics unit at the Carabinieri before he retired, IIRC. He was a coauthor of the book "Darkness Descending," and he also wrote an article for a British newspaper about the case last November or so.

What concerns me about forensic science in Italy is the seeming inability of both Stefanoni (whom Mignini has trumpeted as pretty much the best in the Italian Scientific Police) and Garofano (ex-head of forensics at the Carabinieri) to understand the importance of internationally-agreed standards on testing, interpretation, documentation and contamination of DNA evidence. These standards have evolved for very good reasons: to minimise the chance of errors, and to provide as dispassionate and accurate an analysis as possible to the court (and, of course, to the defence).

I wonder how many other people have been convicted on the strength of Stefanoni's special crank-up-the-machine-beyond-its-agreed-operational-parameters let-have-a-crack-at-LCN-even-though-we-don't-have-any-of-the-necessary-additional-cleanliness-safeguards DNA evidence, or on the strength of Garofano's "expertise" as a prosecution witness. If I were one such person, I'd be observing the media reports with interest, and requesting that my lawyer visits me in prison pretty sharpish!

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, just so that people understand: the review scientists are not determining whether LCN-range DNA analysis is acceptable in Italian courtrooms. This is not about LCN in and of itself*. This is about the simple fact that Stefanoni went about her LCN-range analysis in a completely non-standard and unscientific manner. Every genetic scientist worth a dime knows that if LCN-range analysis is to be carried out, special procedures must be adopted, and special standards of cleanliness must be observed - otherwise the results of LCN testing are essentially devalued at best, and completely invalidated at worst. Needless to say, Stefanoni did not observe a single one of these special protocols for LCN-range analysis. Her results from the knife blade (and very likely also the bra clasp) are therefore highly likely to be thrown out by scientists who actually know what they are doing.

* although some commentators try to make the mendacious "argument" along the following lines: a) Meredith's DNA on the knife blade (for example) was in the LCN range; b) LCN analysis has been accepted in criminal courts in many countries across the World; therefore c) the analysis showing Meredith's DNA on the knife blade is a valid and admissible piece of analysis.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

low template number

LondonJohn,

I agree on all points. Low template number DNA profiling accurately describes what Dr. Stefanoni did. However, low copy number (LCN) DNA requires special facilities and protocols, and there is every indication that she did not take these extra precautions into account.

 

[RandyN]

spartacus says...

"My understanding is it is a fuzzy area but she essentially invented her own unvalidated methodology by re-setting the limits on the machine which puts her out there on her own. She also refused to handover the results of the control testing and electronic files which puts her out there on her own. So the Perugia court is essentially letting one person create a new science which cannot be confirmed by outside sources which is not how science is done."

Stefanoni's lab was not of the necessary design required to test low copy number or low template number samples. That makes any result she "obtained" impossible to be considered as evidence...or so says the whole rest of the DNA lab world.

She did state in court that she has never had a contamination. But of course one needs to run neutral samples to prove this ...anyone can say they are perfect...in this case though she must prove it. I suppose all these extensions are efforts at finding this proof. Which I expect is as about as likely as finding Bigfoot.

I have never seen an actual proven reason given as to why the bra clasp was allowed to rust. I seriously doubt that it was stored in water...more likely it was stored in a sealed plastic bag...which we see being used incorrectly but constantly in the crime scene videos. Everyone knows you store this type of material in paper bags. I never saw one item placed into a paper bag though. No doubt that rot caused by mishandling is the reason Stefanoni was unable to obtain ANY DNA from a blood soaked towel...yet somehow we must believe this < 10 picogram sample (maybe 0 picograms). Yea right!