Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Many thanks Komponisto, for your great work. I read the translations and all I can say is WOW.
 
Poppy1016 said:
Many thanks Komponisto, for your great work. I read the translations and all I can say is WOW.
Click to expand...


Id like to add my thanks for the great job in bringing this independent expert report to the English speaking public. Reading the whole report leaves little doubt as to how things will go later today. We knew for some time now what was wrong in this case...the independent experts confirm what we could see with our own eyes.

Mignini and company should be smart enough to know the truism...your sins will always find you out.
 
Katody Matrass said:
Outstanding job!

The depositions of Stefanoni and Napoleoni are ...striking.
Click to expand...

Too true.... What I find striking are Stefanoni's (and the prosecution more generally) extremely elastic definitions of the term 'clean'. How can a forensic scientist answer this question:
"Why does this piece of fabric with the two clasps pass from the hand of one operator to the hand of another operator?"
with this answer; "But if the gloves are clean it absolutely doesn’t matter”?

It reminds me of the section in the Massei motivation where they are trying to date the 'mixed DNA trace' by arguing that Amanda had stated that the bathroom was 'clean' when she left the cottage on 1st Nov.

Surely a forensic scientist should know that you can't actually see DNA unaided?
 
In that link..


Nick Pisa calling out that Stefanoni is going to question the experts today.


PERUGIA, Italy (CNN) -- An Italian police forensic expert will give evidence Saturday as the appeal of American Amanda Knox against her murder conviction resumes in Italy.
Stefanoni, the police expert, is expected to question Vecchiotti and Conti on how they reached their conclusions.
She is also expected to use video and computer presentations to illustrate her points as she defends her team's work on the case.
 
First reports: "the knife wasn't subject to careful washing, otherwise starch would not have been present...starch was present, but certainly not DNA" - Carla Vecchiotti, to a question from Ghirga.
 
Also, Hellmann opened the session by reading out a letter sent to him from the head of the anticrime section of the Scientific Police, defending the work of the police and calling C&V's report "harmful" to the police image.

I think it's the police work that's harmful to the police image, not C & V's report. :D
 
komponisto said:
Folks on PMF say the starch must have been secondary transfer.

Rather amusing, I must say.
Click to expand...

Did you see the logic they were trying to formulate a couple days ago? Something along the lines of, "Hey, clean gloves are dirty, too, ya know."
 
komponisto said:
...that part of Conti-Vecchiotti is now done and up.

You won't believe some of the stuff in this section. (Not to be confused with this one, linked earlier.)
Click to expand...

Thank you again, Komponisto, and Katy-Did as well, this is engrossing! :)

I tell ya though, I may be admonished for this, but I've found it's possible to actually feel sorry for Patrizia Stefanoni whilst reading it. It's kinda like one of those movies where Joe Pesci's character finally gets his just 'reward,' yet when it comes I can't help but feel sorry for the guy even though his character was so thoroughly repellent I'd been waiting for it to happen the whole movie, because I just can't countenance the horrific ends he comes to, or how they decide to fete him before doing him in. Just tell him how bad he sucks and pull the trigger, I don't need to imagine the horror of someone's last moments as they are buried alive with their brother with nearly every bone in their bodies broken.

They weren't amused by not getting those files until April 29th and May 11th, were they? Even when they were raking her over the coals in the quantification section (I especially like "...is not consistent with what was performed in reality..." as well as "...it is impossible to comprehend..." and "...nor is it comprehensible..." as those thoughts crossed my mind a few times being exposed to her work) they referred to her by name, all of a sudden in this one they break out the bold and she becomes the ominously entitled 'Technical Consultant.'

Reading through it, I cannot help but wonder why she just didn't have one of those 'Technical Consultants' of the Polizia di Stato,who did such fine work with the computers in this case, try to 'copy' those files and send it over to them when C&V cajoled the judge into making her cough them up. They threw the book at her, didn't they? It makes me wonder if she'll ever work again doing anything more challenging than tending bar. I'd seen excerpts from this and second hand references, but reading it in totality is lots more fun. It reminds me of a moment when I was reading the first thread and a former contributor was mocking someone for quoting from an introductory textbook regarding her methods, being as the great and glorious Patrizia Stefanoni couldn't be evaluated by such a lowly source, nothing there could contest her work!

Turns out the textbook was right, if I recall correctly that exact same objection was raised in their report. Who could have guessed? :p

I got a chance to catch up with your translation of the report, and I wish I had done it earlier as I would have found this, which should be making my posting experience a whole lot less excruciating. If I never have to see the names Tobe, Creamer, or Quickenden again I may die a happy man! :)

In order to establish the presumed biological nature of samples taken during an inspection or present on items under examination, presumptive tests are carried out, which allow a generic identification to be made of the presumed biological material (e.g. blood, seminal fluid, saliva, etc). However, these tests must be confirmed by other methods which are able to establish the nature of the material under examination. The presumptive reactions for the generic identification of blood are based on the properties some substances have, when reduced to a colourless state (leuco base [1]) to turn a particular colour when in the presence of a peroxide (e.g. H²O²) and a peroxidase (e.g. haemoglobin) due to oxidation. In current use is Adler’s reaction, which consists of testing the item under examination with a saturated solution of benzidine in acetic acid, subsequently adding drops of H²O². If blood is present, the solution rapidly turns blue. Recently, reagent strips (Combur Test) were introduced into laboratory practice: [the strips are] impregnated with organic hydroperoxide and tetramethylbenzidine as a colourmetric indicator; if haemoglobin is present, causing oxidation, [the strips] turn from yellow to green-blue. The test is quick and easy to carry out, and the sensitivity varies, according to the Authors, from 1:300,000 to 1:500,000. False positives are known due to the presence of oxidants (e.g. metals like copper and iron), vegetable or animal peroxidases etc, while false negatives [can occur] due to strong reductive substances (e.g. cyanide) inhibiting the action of the haemoglobin.

If the traces are not visible to the naked eye (e.g. if present on a dark substrate) the Luminol test can be used (composed of an alkaline solution of luminol, sodium carbonate and sodium perborate). The solution is sprayed onto the substrate and, on reacting with haemoglobin, produces a chemiluminescence which is visible for a few seconds. There may also be false positive results with this test if non-haematic peroxidases are present.

In order to confirm that the material under examination is human blood (species identification) specific tests are employed based on immunochromatographic reactions which use monoclonal anti-human haemoglobin antibodies combined with a chromogen substance. The extracted material is placed on a reagent strip on which anti-human haemoglobin antibodies are immobilized: if human blood is present, the haemoglobin-antibody complex will concentrate the chromogen particles in a blue line. A positive control allows the accuracy of the reaction to be verified.
Click to expand...
 
So it's over, eh?

Whew! I'm truly happen for Amanda, Raffaele, and their families.

I've lurked here since Part 1. I foreswore signing up for a JREF account (or any other forum) because reading about the case was time-consuming: I couldn't afford to get hooked on posting. Nevertheless, the C&V hearing was too exciting to sit through alone, so I succumbed (hoping I could post that night).

Thanks ALL for your informative, entertaining, and often passionate posts. I feel like I know most of you. Sure hope I'm not the only devoted long-term lurker... that'd make me too weird.

I did not think the appeal would end this soon. I feared it would devolve into lengthy face-savings rituals. Half the number of appeals end in acquittal, but I wonder how many acquittals involve the case falling apart once the ineptitude and irrational zealotry of the prosecution/police is revealed.

I followed the case out of interest in its psychological and cultural aspects; but y'all sure taught me a lot about the forensic evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom