Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Katody Matrass]

I had previously said that I did not expect Novelli to defend Stefanoni in court. Even though this is not a statement from testimony (no one but Conti and Vecchiotti testified yesterday, as far as I know), I think it still counts as a significant surprise with respect to that expectation.

Novelli isn't actually defending Stefanoni's results or methods in this quote. Environment contamination by dust was just one of the possibilities highlighted by C&V, based on a fairly new (2008) research paper. It's understandable he's either not familiar or disagrees with it.

 

[komponisto]

Novelli isn't actually defending Stefanoni's results or methods in this quote. Environment contamination by dust was just one of the possibilities highlighted by C&V, based on a fairly new (2008) research paper. It's understandable he's either not familiar or disagrees with it.

He still should have known better than to say what he said. Either he hasn't read the C-V report, in which case he shouldn't be commenting, or else he's not being intellectually honest.

 

[Mary_H]

I never bought into the "media lies". eg "not a scintilla of evidence against them". How ironic.

I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong, so why would I walk away when it's amusing to watch you flailing about.eg your proclamation that it's all over, Stefanoni will not be allowed to rebut?

The bra clasp and knife are still on the table with everything else.

C&V haven't destroyed anything as far as I can see.

From what I've gathered lately, bucket, the current concern of the pro-guilt faction about the C & V report is that the pro-innocence faction has communicated with either the defense or with C & V themselves to try to influence their thinking. The guilters think the innocenters have gone so far as to provide C & V with some of the material they cited in their report. That's why you came to JREF a couple days ago and asked whether anyone had "any ideas how C&V assembled the bibliography they used in their report?"

The pro-guilt faction seems to fear that C & V, the defense lawyers, or even the judge, for that matter, can't think for themselves, and are therefore vulnerable to harmful influences from the likes of Bruce Fisher and Greg Hampikian. I think the guilters' concern about that stems from their own propensity for contacting employers, schools, regulating agencies and web administrators with information intended to complain about or damage the reputations of employees, professionals and writers.

I have no way of knowing whether any information has been conveyed to the defense team or to C & V from the innocenters (I don't know why C & V would need any help), but if it has, then my guess would be that the information has been only about facts that can be verified, and not about specific individuals or how we feel about them.

If the pro-guilt faction is currently gearing up to counter C & V's report by offering support and encouragement to the prosecution team, e.g., in the form of another letter-writing campaign, then I would hope it's also about providing facts, and not about trying to speak ill of certain individuals.

 

[Diocletus]

This latest deal with the suddenly appearing negative controls makes me reconsider deliberate falsification of evidence as a very real possibility. First Comodi argues that steffi does not document normal things such as washing her hands and the negative controls was done because she said so and it is just a normal thing that is always done that she didn't document. The judge is not buying it so then she suddenly says Hey wait a minute she does document it and I have it right here and (gasp) it is already part of the evidence submitted to the court back in 2008.

LOL. The judge had a right to be suspicious and it turns out they couldn't find this in the court records and it bears barely readable code numbers that don't match the numbers of the items under discussion. So Comodi says OMG how did this get missed it needs to be admitted now. I think the judge is smelling something like phogna bologna at this point and denies the request.

This is the give me a break moment I see in the latest news on the case.

Another thing that makes no sense: why would Comodi be making a request to admit these documents into the record if they're "already there"? It doesn't surprise me in the least that the judge would refuse a request to now "admit" the records: it's way too late, and anyway, if they're already in the record, as claimed, then it is superfluous to again admit them.

The thing that really puzzles me is the explanation that Hellmann supposedly gave--something to the effect that the documents are irrelevant because the contamination of both the knife and the clasp could have/would have happened before the samples got to the lab. Interesting insight on his thinking, if true.

 

[RoseMontague]

Charlie Wilkes has drawn my attention to Italian news reports quoting Giuseppe Novelli, the esteemed geneticist, as follows:

Quote:
«Il contaminante va dimostrato, dove nasce e dove è. Il gancetto contaminato dalla polvere? Più probabile che cada un meteorite e butti giù questo tribunale»

"The contaminant needs to be demonstrated, where it comes from and where it is. The clasp contaminated by dust? It's more likely that a meteorite comes down and knocks down this courthouse."

I notice that I am confused.

I had previously said that I did not expect Novelli to defend Stefanoni in court. Even though this is not a statement from testimony (no one but Conti and Vecchiotti testified yesterday, as far as I know), I think it still counts as a significant surprise with respect to that expectation.

My probability of Knox and Sollecito's guilt has just gone up by a factor of 2 (from "below 1/1000" to merely "below 1/500"). If Novelli gives testimony defending Stefanoni, it could go up by an order of magnitude, potentially reaching 1/100. My probability of Knox and Sollecito's acquittal by the Hellmann court, meanwhile, has gone down from 80% (after reading Sfarzo's latest) to 70%, where it currently sits. (As you can see, I have -- or rather had! -- slightly more respect for Novelli than I expect the court to: my odds of innocence were cut in half, but my acquittal odds were multiplied by a factor of 7/12.)

I know you mentioned before that you didn't see any way this guy would support the science behind the DNA results obtained based on your reading of his work in another area.

I felt at the time you were backing yourself into a corner on this one. He accepted the money to help the prosecution. At the time the C&V report was complete if he was such an ethical person he should have returned any monies and said see you later.

So now you are lowering the odds simply because your own expectation was not met.

 

[Mary_H]

It doesn't have to be a faked report. You could simply take something picked up from Raffaele like one of the two clasp knives or the computer and run the test on a sample from one of those items.

That's actually what I was referring to. There are plenty of opportunities for a prisoner's DNA to be had.

 

[komponisto]

I know you mentioned before that you didn't see any way this guy would support the science behind the DNA results obtained based on your reading of his work in another area.

I felt at the time you were backing yourself into a corner on this one. He accepted the money to help the prosecution. At the time the C&V report was complete if he was such an ethical person he should have returned any monies and said see you later.

That would be expecting too much, I think. He did his job simply by overseeing C&V's attempted retesting. He didn't need to critique their evaluation of Stefanoni.

But yes, I now have to update my model of how respected scientists behave under the influence of money. Unfortunately, this also causes at least a minor hit in the credibility of defense experts, such as Carlo Torre.

So now you are lowering the odds simply because your own expectation was not met.

Yep -- that's exactly how Bayesian updating works!

EDIT: But let's keep things in the proper perspective: instead of being (over) 99.9% sure of innocence, I'm now "merely" (over) 99.8% sure of innocence. That's still much higher than some of the most active innocentisti here (e.g. LondonJohn) are willing to go.

 

[bri1]

I don't understand the thinking around the DNA report at all.
Surely the guidelines and protocols surrounding evidence documentation, collection, transportation, storage and examination, is there to prevent any possible claim of contamination. Therefore the onus is on the people carrying out those procedures to follow those guidelines, and to document how those guidelines were followed carefully and methodically.
The burden falls squarely on them to show that all precautions deemed necessary by forensics guidelines were followed.
It is not up to the defense to show that contamination did actually occur or how exactly it occurred. All that's necessary from them is to show that the guidelines were not followed and therefore contamination cannot be ruled out. If contamination can't be ruled out, then the 'evidence' becomes proof of nothing!
That's the technical point.
Of course, last Monday, with the video presentations, C & V actually did the closest possible thing (given that we can't see DNA with our eyes or through a camera lens) to showing that contamination did take place, and showing exactly how it took place.
Anyone who views this as 'a technicality' has a sophomoric understanding of science at best, IMO.

 

[Katody Matrass]

This latest deal with the suddenly appearing negative controls makes me reconsider deliberate falsification of evidence as a very real possibility. First Comodi argues that steffi does not document normal things such as washing her hands and the negative controls was done because she said so and it is just a normal thing that is always done that she didn't document. The judge is not buying it so then she suddenly says Hey wait a minute she does document it and I have it right here and (gasp) it is already part of the evidence submitted to the court back in 2008.

LOL. The judge had a right to be suspicious and it turns out they couldn't find this in the court records and it bears barely readable code numbers that don't match the numbers of the items under discussion. So Comodi says OMG how did this get missed it needs to be admitted now. I think the judge is smelling something like phogna bologna at this point and denies the request.

This is the give me a break moment I see in the latest news on the case.

It was something Frank was bringing a few times already to attention:

Putting aside the the improper, disorganized and against guidelines work of the investigators, why is it that the contamination appears on two specific items and apparently nowhere else? It's not hard to envision a way the contamination got there in a non-deliberate way, but it is a lot of coincidence that exactly those two items got contaminated.
Unfortunately for the cops those two items are the ones that make completely no sense in the narrative of the crime, be it so the DNA found is genuine and valid:

- the knife wasn't cleaned and there was no blood on it, it does not fit neither the wounds nor the imprint, there is no sensible explanation for it's use and transport back and forth.

- the clasp - if we take DNA as valid, how much of a coincidence is it that there's no single other trace of Raffaele anywhere else, compared to Guede's handprints, shoeprints and DNA? Why is there no narrative to explain how it got there?

Suddenly the idea that someone put the Locard principle in action looks tempting.

From what Frank reports, it seems Hellmann has no such issues with logical reasoning as Massei had. He knows the case enough to see those problems and what is plausible explanation for them.

 

[RoseMontague]

That would be expecting too much, I think. He did his job simply by overseeing C&V's attempted retesting. He didn't need to critique their evaluation of Stefanoni.

But yes, I now have to update my model of how respected scientists behave under the influence of money. Unfortunately, this also causes at least a minor hit in the credibility of defense experts also, such as Carlo Torre.



Yep -- that's exactly how Bayesian updating works!

You mean you adjusted the odds upward for innocence when this guy joined the prosecution team? If you didn't adjust it downward at that time because you just couldn't convince yourself that this guy was going to help the prosecution, then maybe I can see an adjustment now.

 

[komponisto]

You mean you adjusted the odds upward for innocence when this guy joined the prosecution team? If you didn't adjust it downward at that time because you just couldn't convince yourself that this guy was going to help the prosecution, then maybe I can see an adjustment now.

He wasn't involved in the case before C&V were appointed (as far as I know), and I thought his job was just to oversee the retesting on behalf of the prosecution. My expectation was that when the C-V report came out, and the prosecution ran to him frantically begging for assistance, his reaction on reading it would be something like "sorry guys, but this [Stefanoni's work] is pretty egregious; I can't help you here."

Apparently that belief of mine was wrong.

 

[RoseMontague]

That's actually what I was referring to. There are plenty of opportunities for a prisoner's DNA to be had.

There are a few ways to detect fraud but this is one thing that is very difficult to show. Here is a link showing some of the common clues from the clueless techs found to be cheating.

http://www.bioforensics.com/conference05/FBS_Dayton_2005_Fraud.pdf

I wonder if any of these things are present in steffi's work?

 

[Katody Matrass]

There are a few ways to detect fraud but this is one thing that is very difficult to show. Here is a link showing some of the common clues from the clueless techs on cheating.

http://www.bioforensics.com/conference05/FBS_Dayton_2005_Fraud.pdf

I wonder if any of these things are present in steffi's work?

This is very interesting as potential explanation for Stefi's reluctance with providing the files. AFAIK she didn't provide them after all. She just made and e-mailed new graphs for C&V.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the exact mechanism of contamination is generally not known

bolint,

Dr. Donald Riley wrote, “Unfortunately, a few forensic DNA laboratories omit their controls. A few favor the controls by using special equipment on them, or by not carrying them through the entire procedure. Such practices are hazardous, especially when an important evidentiary sample has a low amount of DNA, degraded DNA, or otherwise presents as a minimal or partial (see below) sample. In short, while PCR is a useful research tool, all applications require extreme care and vigilance.”

He also wrote, “Full profile contaminants have been documented on multiple occasions and in multiple laboratories. Partial profile contaminants are more common and sometimes constitute a poorly recognized risk in using partial profiles in evidentiary samples as evidence. When contamination occurs there is rarely any way to confirm how it happened.” There are some well-studied examples of contamination (the Jaidyn Leskie case, for example), but even in those cases what brought about contamination is generally not known.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

all of the files are important

There are a few ways to detect fraud but this is one thing that is very difficult to show. Here is a link showing some of the common clues from the clueless techs found to be cheating.

http://www.bioforensics.com/conference05/FBS_Dayton_2005_Fraud.pdf

I wonder if any of these things are present in steffi's work?

RoseMontague,

That is a great link. This quote from the author (who is one of the cosigners of the 2009 open letter on the DNA results) helps to explain why a thorough case review requires much more than paper copies of the electropherograms. Simon Ford wrote, "Always, always, ALWAYS look at ALL the electronic data, particularly the injections lists."

 

[bolint]

So what is your theory as to how Raffaele's DNA got on the bra clasp? Was he helping Rudy with a sexual assault? Why? Did he participate further? Where was Amanda during all of this? Why would he help Rudy to begin with?
When did this happen? Why is no other evidence of Raffaele in the murder room? What was his motive? Did he also stab Meredith or was that just Amanda and/or Rudy? Was there a cleanup?

The bra clasp is a big problem for my theory, too, because it is hard to imagine a cleanup in which the bra clasp gets under the pillow. It would be a lot easier if it did not exist.
But I don't see how it got contaminated.

 

[Diocletus]

The bra clasp is a big problem for my theory, too, because it is hard to imagine a cleanup in which the bra clasp gets under the pillow. It would be a lot easier if it did not exist.
But I don't see how it got contaminated.

What are you looking for? It sounds to me like you want a video of the DNA getting onto the clasp. This would be nice to have, but c'mon.

 

[bolint]

bolint,

Dr. Donald Riley wrote, “Unfortunately, a few forensic DNA laboratories omit their controls. A few favor the controls by using special equipment on them, or by not carrying them through the entire procedure. Such practices are hazardous, especially when an important evidentiary sample has a low amount of DNA, degraded DNA, or otherwise presents as a minimal or partial (see below) sample. In short, while PCR is a useful research tool, all applications require extreme care and vigilance.”

He also wrote, “Full profile contaminants have been documented on multiple occasions and in multiple laboratories. Partial profile contaminants are more common and sometimes constitute a poorly recognized risk in using partial profiles in evidentiary samples as evidence. When contamination occurs there is rarely any way to confirm how it happened.” There are some well-studied examples of contamination (the Jaidyn Leskie case, for example), but even in those cases what brought about contamination is generally not known.

It's again general contamination theories.

Specifically for the clasp:
Was it contaminated before it got into the plastic bag or was it contaminated when they took it out and prepared it for the testing?
I don't beleive that it was contaminated after that in the equipment.

 

[bolint]

What are you looking for? It sounds to me like you want a video of the DNA getting onto the clasp. This would be nice to have, but c'mon.

Suppose you were to contaminate it in the cottage.
What would you have done?

 

[Katody Matrass]

The bra clasp is a big problem for my theory, too, because it is hard to imagine a cleanup in which the bra clasp gets under the pillow. It would be a lot easier if it did not exist.

So you can't fit the bra clasp into any narrative, too.

But I don't see how it got contaminated.

It had month and a half and multiple police inpections to get contaminated. I don't understand your problem.