Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

An Italian looks at the Polizia Scientifica: Too Many Mistakes. (Note, this is a two page editorial.)

///

I thought Italy was teaching the world the right way to do things?

 

[RoseMontague]

There seems to me to be some confusion over how Stefanoni matched Raffaele's DNA. Looking at the pictures of those little pointy things it seems to me to be pretty simple. If one matches Raffaele it is real if it doesn't match it is not real and can be ignored. Pretend those do not exist. This is not rocket surgery.

 

[LondonJohn]

There seems to me to be some confusion over how Stefanoni matched Raffaele's DNA. Looking at the pictures of those little pointy things it seems to me to be pretty simple. If one matches Raffaele it is real if it doesn't match it is not real and can be ignored. Pretend those do not exist. This is not rocket surgery.

Exactly. Some people seem to be using a potent combination of scientific ignorance and confirmation bias to rationalise on this issue. The simple truth is that Stefanoni seemed to apply completely arbitrary and contradictory criteria when she was deciding which peaks were alleles and which were stutter/noise. And that she did so while having a chart of Sollecito's alleles in front of her. There's really nothing more to argue on this point. We will see what the fragrant Patrizia has to say in her defence at the end of the month.

 

[LondonJohn]

I thought Italy was teaching the world the right way to do things?

Some interesting quotes from the "renowned" Luciano Garofano there as well:

And the ex-general Luciano Garofano, for a long time the head of the RIS (Scientific Police) in Parma, admits the cultural lag: "The police have made leaps and bounds in the technical aspects of (crime scene) inspection and laboratory tests, but much remains to be done. At the crime scene there should only be pure specialists, but we don't have such people."

This explicitly ties in with something that I and others have been saying for some time: it was completely inappropriate for Stefanoni (and many of the other CSI's in this case) to have been the ones collecting the forensic evidence in the cottage. And it's also an implicit admittance that such issues potentially compromised the investigation. Funny how we didn't hear Garofano making this point before, isn't it?

 

[LondonJohn]

It looks like Steve Moore got a huge cash settlement from Pepperdine University for his wrongful termination and violation of his free speech rights.

Good. I happen to think that Moore is/was prone to hyperbole and a certain "over-confidence" when talking about this case (but that the logic underpinning his thesis was essentially bang-on). But it always seemed to me that Pepperdine never had any sort of a case under employment legislation to terminate him. And (as I wrote at the time) even if he had opined that Knox had to be innocent because fairies had appeared to him in the night and told him so, unless he was breaching his employment contract with Pepperdine by speaking out, they had no cause for termination.

I hope the idiots are all very pleased with themselves.

 

[LondonJohn]

My prediction is that Stefanoni will try to vigorously defend. Most likely by trying to smear those who made the report without actually trying to argue the facts.

But that might be my cynical side again.

You may well be right. And the dynamic between Stefanoni, her bosses, Napoleoni and Mignini/Comodi might also be a sight to behold (i.e. who throws whom under the bus). Whatever happens, I confidently predict that Stefanoni will face official censure (and that her career will be in tatters), and that Napoleoni and the other members of the "crack" police team will ultimately face an official inquiry about their conduct and practices in this case.

 

[LondonJohn]

An Italian looks at the Polizia Scientifica: Too Many Mistakes. (Note, this is a two page editorial.)

///

Il Giornale is a fairly highly-respected broadsheet daily newspaper, published out of Milan. This editorial is scathing of Italian forensic science competency - and not only in the Kercher case. It suggests that there is an institutionalised problem here in the way that forensic evidence is collected and analysed, and that courts have been guilty of blind acceptance of forensic evidence. Sounds familiar to me.........

 

[Kaosium]

There seems to me to be some confusion over how Stefanoni matched Raffaele's DNA. Looking at the pictures of those little pointy things it seems to me to be pretty simple. If one matches Raffaele it is real if it doesn't match it is not real and can be ignored. Pretend those do not exist. This is not rocket surgery.

Suspect-centered analysis, and the thoughtful have suggested that's what it says in C & V, and the thoughtless seem to be hoping if they don't understand it, then it can't mean what it says. I dunno what it says for sure, however just going by the conversation it seems C & V are contending there were at least two male contributors to the clasp, thus the Y-chromosome STR test was unable to totally unmask Raffaele's profile and instead Stefanoni just used all the alleles that worked for Raffaele and threw the rest out as stutter.

The thoughtless are arguing about whether she has to adhere to ISFG standards and missing the thoughtful point that the one thing she can't be doing is just throwing out possible peaks without rhyme or reason if they don't match Raffaele's and then pretending she has a 'profile' from only one person. This would be very ominous for Biondo and Stefanoni if that's indeed what C & V determined, and from the analysis so far by the thoughtful one that sure as hell seems like what she did...

In other news it seems some have totally mistaken what the argument between the former head of the FBI DNA lab and the lady from Nw'Yawk is all about, to the delusional point of trying to woo to their 'cause' the single person in the field who might most want to rip out Stefanoni's heart and dine in that evening; they have the e-mail, they're considering it. You see she disagreed with someone the experts cited, and since they don't know who he is and they don't understand why he disagrees with her or is leery of low-template DNA analysis, he must be lying, he must be guilty! Thus since she disagrees with him, by virtue of the 'enemy of my enemy must be my friend' theory of politics they figure they'll try to enlist someone determined to enforce standards in the LT-DNA field and make the practice generally acceptable.

As an added jest from the Gods of Irony, Caragine, who they suspect might want to help them keep Amanda and Raffaele caged for life, and who I'm guessing would go to a meeting with Stefanoni armed with a steak knife, recently made an appearance in this thread. She's the one with the Office of the Medical Examiner for New York City that some thought had a slide-show suggesting EDFs weren't and shouldn't be discoverable. Considering the context of her presentation, which seemed to be all about 'We Can Do This If We Do It Right, And I'm Gonna Make Sure We All Do It Right' and the legacy of her office which was/is in the forefront of LT-DNA acceptance and EDF discovery (because without discovery there's no admissibility for a technique that has yet to achieve "general acceptance" which is what her argument with Budowle was all about...) I'm guessing her opinion on Stefanoni and the EDFs might best be described as whether she wants her 'raw' or 'rare.'

All but the thoughtful one are still back at the 'she doesn't have to follow the international standards, they're just guidelines to her--she said so!' stage without realizing it how many times it's hammered home that she had to have developed an objective protocol regardless. The (other) biologist even chimed in on this point, but no one was paying attention it seems. The one thing she cannot have been caught doing was just allowing as alleles the ones that fit Raffaele and then throwing out other peaks as stutters without a detailed objective method for doing so. In fact that might be impossible to reconstruct with a post-hoc rationalization and would pretty much cook her goose on suspect-centered analysis.

Which means that DNA profile might not be Raffaele's at all, it might be the combination of two other men...or at least it will be with a lot lower confidence and with contamination basically proven...

 

[Bruce Fischer]

There seems to me to be some confusion over how Stefanoni matched Raffaele's DNA. Looking at the pictures of those little pointy things it seems to me to be pretty simple. If one matches Raffaele it is real if it doesn't match it is not real and can be ignored. Pretend those do not exist. This is not rocket surgery.

Love this!

 

[Bruce Fischer]

By now I am sure everyone has seen Stefanoni gift wrapping the mop. If not, here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=conjBUiEE9I

In the photo linked below, you can see another investigator attempting to correct Stefanoni's error. Of course the correction is made long after the mop was paraded around the cottage. I am posting this simply to show Stefanoni's negligence even with a simple task. After seeing the sloppy evidence procedures of Stefanoni at the crime scene, it is not difficult to believe that she behaved in the same fashion while testing the samples in the lab. I will forever wonder why Stefanoni gift wrapped a mop.

http://i.imgur.com/sv0ge.jpg

 

[platonov]

Dare mention ? !

I love your logic. If you come to JREF and debate back and forth posting 1300 plus comments there's no fixation or obsession of any kind but if you dare mention a group that discusses the same topic elsewhere then you are an obsessed freak that needs counseling.

I'm quite sure I didn't actually say that ..........


ps Friday nights generally find me engaged in doing complicated long-division sums.

 

[Kaosium]

By now I am sure everyone has seen Stefanoni gift wrapping the mop. If not, here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=conjBUiEE9I

In the photo linked below, you can see another investigator attempting to correct Stefanoni's error. Of course the correction is made long after the mop was paraded around the cottage. Why did Stefanoni gift wrap a mop?

http://i.imgur.com/sv0ge.jpg

Because she wanted the Experts report to contain citations from Wisconsin telling her that's not how we play football in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

Did you know that Experts report will now have to be (eventually) archived at the Wisconsin Historical Society being as it is their mission to collect every reference made in media to Wisconsin?

I see some are confused by all the references to basic police procedure manuals and the like from places like New Jersey, Michigan etc. I strongly suspect they wouldn't be so non-plussed if they watched your videos of the crime scene 'collection' and understood what they mean. Also, where would one go to find an evidence procedures manual in a country where the only evidence oversight comes from the prosecutor? In this case that would be the likes of a Dan Brown novel if Machiavelli was right about his literary tastes...

 

[Kaosium]

I'm quite sure I didn't actually say that ..........


ps Friday nights generally find me engaged in doing complicated long-division sums.

LOL!

Now Platonov, what was it you were asking about the Expert's report? The translation isn't complete yet, or even to the juicy parts yet, however one of the Italian speakers...elsewhere...has read it and I think I might be able to answer a question or two.

Did you get the drift of what I posted above? I don't know if it's entirely accurate having not had the pleasure of reading the report myself, but that poster does have some cred in my eyes and I think they're relaying honest information.

What do you think about that? Stefanoni playing beach blanket bingo with the two separate profiles and pretending it was just Raffaele, and that a dozen or so extra peaks were actually 'stutters?' This in violation of accepted standard practices for mixed profiles and without documenting her 'revised' protocols. Do you suppose that might make for an interesting day in court for the Lady Patrizia?

 

[komponisto]

LOL!

Now Platonov, what was it you were asking about the Expert's report? The translation isn't complete yet, or even to the juicy parts yet, however one of the Italian speakers...elsewhere...has read it and I think I might be able to answer a question or two.

Did you get the drift of what I posted above? I don't know if it's entirely accurate having not had the pleasure of reading the report myself, but that poster does have some cred in my eyes and I think they're relaying honest information.

What do you think about that? Stefanoni playing beach blanket bingo with the two separate profiles and pretending it was just Raffaele, and that a dozen or so extra peaks were actually 'stutters?' This in violation of accepted standard practices for mixed profiles and without documenting her 'revised' protocols. Do you suppose that might make for an interesting day in court for the Lady Patrizia?

Incidentally, I don't know if it's been mentioned over there, but the knife stuff is pretty damning too. That section is also filled with the sense of "she did what?!" accurately reported by the poster you refer to. I gave some examples as part of my debate with Rolf Nelson on Less Wrong:

[T]here's every reason to believe [the knife] is completely bogus. Indeed, Conti and Vecchiotti come pretty close to accusing Stefanoni of outright scientific fraud. Here are some of their observations:

• The sample in question (Trace B) tested negative for blood, as did every other sample taken from the blade. (Samples from the handle were not tested for blood.) No attempt was made to scientifically determine the actual nature of the alleged biological material.
  
• When "quantification" (test to determine whether there was enough DNA to be analyzed) was performed, Traces B and C both yielded a result of "too low". Stefanoni reported Trace B as a positive result, and Trace C as a negative result, without any justification. There is no documentation in the lab data to support her statement in court that the Trace B sample was in the range of several hundred picograms. Stefanoni also claimed to have executed steps in the quantification procedure that are not documented.
  
• The "amplification" (chemical copying of the sample in order to produce a large enough amount for analysis) was performed only once, despite the fact (admitted by Stefanoni) that it should be repeated in order to be considered reliable.
  
• Stefanoni did not perform negative controls, which could have indicated the presence of contamination.
  
• The sample was analyzed in the same laboratory at the same time as numerous samples containing Meredith Kercher's DNA.

In short, everything smacks of a deliberate effort to obtain a certain result -- which was obtained easily enough given the lax procedural standards and absence of safeguards. I thus have very little hesitation in dismissing the knife DNA.

By the way, katy_did will be joining the translation effort, which should help speed things up.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

evidence item 164

komponisto,

I have pointed out previously that evidence item 164 (a putative blood stain from Meredith's bedroom wall) was "Not tested because of negative preliminary
(quantification) result," according to a list of selected DNA test results compiled by Charlie Wilkes and available at the Friends of Amanda website. Trace C might be an even more likely instance of possible forensic bias. It is also difficult to see how trace B could be several hundred picograms.
EDT
With respect to the debate at LessWrong, I had hoped that the Conti/Vecchiotti report would bury the bleach business once and for all, but maybe it will not. Leaks from the report suggested that a residue from bleach were not found. If there were still traces of bleach on a knife that had been treated with it, the chances of finding DNA suitable for forensic work are so close to zero as to be almost indistinguishable. I have commented on this subject many times in the past.

 

[Kaosium]

Incidentally, I don't know if it's been mentioned over there, but the knife stuff is pretty damning too. That section is also filled with the sense of "she did what?!" accurately reported by the poster you refer to.

I figured that would be the case. That knife is....I wonder if the defense lawyer in the beginning wasn't right sometimes--it was just a mindgame to get a real confession, otherwise the implications of it's miraculous conception leave me...skeptical...if not downright cynical being as they all had to know it was never used in the murder.

Elsewhere the report is thrown into 'question' because the authors cited Budowle without explaining that Caragine et al don't agree with him, thus there must be something sinister about including his information without explaining the debate, when I'm of the view C & V want to import that debate, i.e. 'either you do it right (Caragine) or you don't do it at all!' (Budowle)

I gave some examples as part of my debate with Rolf Nelson on Less Wrong:

You poor bastard! You're debating with Harry Rag!

Since you hold him in such esteem, I'm sure it won't end that way and he has to get guilt info from somewhere. Beware the 'mixed blood' in the bathroom, The Machine has been on a kick regarding that lately, and there are media reports that indicate Stefanoni said the mixed DNA=mixed blood, though it's twice explicitly discredited in Massei and there's no wounds on Amanda's body and she was 'inspected' in police custody. That must have been fun for her.

By the way, katy_did will be joining the translation effort, which should help speed things up.

Great news, and thanks Komponisto!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no such animal

Kaosium,

I agree with you. There is no reason to conclude that any sample whatsoever was mixed blood. Stefanoni was correct not to refer to them as such as quoted in Massei.

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium,

I agree with you. There is no reason to conclude that any sample whatsoever was mixed blood. Stefanoni was correct not to refer to them as such as quoted in Massei.

You're right, she was actually quoted here, I'd forgotten/overlooked it was deliberately attributed to her, even though there's no quotes:

While it is not possible to use the genetic scientific data (Dr. Stefanoni explained the impossibility of determining the date, the succession or the simultaneity in the depositing of the components of the mixed trace specimen and the impossibility of attributing the haematological component to one or the other of the contributors), the information previously put forward provides answers which are entirely consistent with the circumstantial evidence that has emerged and which the Court considers convincing.

I wonder why there's all those media reports saying she said there was 'mixed blood?' Nadeau, that juror, Ann Wise reported they were going to 'hypothesize it' I think even Garafano chimed in.

Incidentally, speaking of him, did you read Fine's article on the state of forensic science in Italy, posted above? Garafano is in there admitting how clueless they are! How appropriate!

 

[komponisto]

EDT
With respect to the debate at LessWrong, I had hoped that the Conti/Vecchiotti report would bury the bleach business once and for all, but maybe it will not. Leaks from the report suggested that a residue from bleach were not found. If there were still traces of bleach on a knife that had been treated with it, the chances of finding DNA suitable for forensic work are so close to zero as to be almost indistinguishable. I have commented on this subject many times in the past.

halides1,

Bleach (candeggina) is mentioned exactly three times in the report: twice while discussing laboratory procedure, and once while discussing how easily DNA is degraded or destroyed (a passage I believe I translated earlier here on JREF).

 

[RoseMontague]

You're right, she was actually quoted here, I'd forgotten/overlooked it was deliberately attributed to her, even though there's no quotes:

Originally Posted by Massei 279 PMF
While it is not possible to use the genetic scientific data (Dr. Stefanoni explained the impossibility of determining the date, the succession or the simultaneity in the depositing of the components of the mixed trace specimen and the impossibility of attributing the haematological component to one or the other of the contributors), the information previously put forward provides answers which are entirely consistent with the circumstantial evidence that has emerged and which the Court considers convincing.

I wonder why there's all those media reports saying she said there was 'mixed blood?' Nadeau, that juror, Ann Wise reported they were going to 'hypothesize it' I think even Garafano chimed in.

I am afraid I am going to go with the guilt side on this one and say that Massei believes it was mixed blood. Massei acknowledges that it was not scientifically possible to prove it but I believe this is another of those possible and in fact quite probable lines of reasoning. Massei goes on to say that Raffaele's fantasy pricking story is one reason to take this line of reasoning.

Read that quote again in this context and tell me what you really think Massei is saying.