Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

I am curious about this statement from Frank in the comments of his latest post:

What they’ve done in this case is nothing. It was the time they worked better…

This year they found on the rope of Alberica Filo della Torre, killed in Rome in 1991, the hair of the son of Annamaria Franzoni, killed 1,000 miles away in 2002…

Is anyone here familiar with this as to who, when, and where of the testing and if the source of contamination was located?

 

[komponisto]

It appears from news reports -- I've given up reading this thread closely -- that the Italian appeals court's own independent experts have discredited the meager DNA evidence that was key to the convictions of Knox and Sollecito, largely after reviewing the police's own videos of their evidence collection.

In addition to their laboratory records...

Question: Did their original defense lawyers have access to these videos?

Yes.

Did they challenge the way evidence was gathered at the original trial?

Yes.

Could a better defense have won an acquittal at the original trial, or was the fix in from the beginning?

The fix was in from the beginning, as is pretty clear from a reading of the original court's 427-page opinion.

You know the independent DNA review that the appeal court just had performed and that you referred to above? The defense requested that during the first trial, and it was denied.

 

[Diocletus]

At any rate, if it was the 14th, that would mean between the eighth, when they didn't have any forensic evidence at all before Matteini, they didn't test a damn thing until they they did the knife. It must have been their first day of testing they did that incredibly unlikely item? That doesn't make sense, and you wouldn't think they'd want to suggest what that might imply...

During the week of November 4 (probably toward the end), there seem to have been some DNA analysis, relating to the feces and possibly other traces believed to be from Lumumba.

A series of biological investigations started on Monday, November 12. Here is what Frank says about the knife blade:

"Stefanoni wrote: DNA extracted on November 13 2007 from the trace A (handle) B, C (blade). Quantification: done, with Real Time PCR. Positive for A and B, negative for C. But no value, no quantity of DNA was indicated."

"Then, on December 17, another quantification, provided with values this time, and when there are values a scientist starts to consider a test documented. This time, the documented quantification was done with another method, with the Fluorimeter Qubit, and on the presumed DNA taken from traces A,B,C plus three more: D,E,F. Result: A: ‘0,08 pg’; B and C: ‘too low’. (Yes, the famous ‘too low’). All the others: ‘nothing’."

So, some questions/comments that I have:

1. What exactly does the "6 day delay" refer to, e.g., extraction, amplification, quantification, machine analysis, etc.? Are there risks of contamination implicit in all of these phases?

2. When exactly was the testing done during the week of Monday, November 5? If as late as Friday of that week, then we are talking about November 9. SInce no testing was presented to Matteini on the 8th, this suggests that the testing was done on Thursday the 8th and/or 9th.

3. I'm guessing that the lab was locked tight during the weekend, but maybe not.

5. The knife blade quantification occurred on Tuesday the 13th, and the "match" had been completed and reported by the 14th.

6. It would seem that there was likely testing done on Monday the 12th, in which case there would be no delay between that testing and the knife testing on the 13th.

7. Even if we assume that the knife was the first item tested during the week of the 12th, and if there had been "testing" on the 9th, and the lab was closed for the weekend, and the knife was "tested" on Tuesday the 13th, then we are talking about only a one working-day delay.

8. The big question: When Comodi talks about a 6-day delay, is she talking about the testing associated with the SECOND set of quantifications/runs, described by Frank as occurring on 12/17? That would be more believable, but if so, what are the implications of this given the fact that a first quantification and analysis had already occurred??? Is there a lie here? Is something being hidden here?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Did Judge Hellman agree that the time of death will be reviewed along the lines of Meredith bra clasp and knife found in Sollecito’s apartment?

What happens if for example time of death and other disputed evidence from the first level trial are not reviewed during the appeal can the jurists still consider this evidence or anything else from the first level trial?

 

[LondonJohn]

Did Judge Hellman agree that the time of death will be reviewed along the lines of Meredith bra clasp and knife found in Sollecito’s apartment?

What happens if for example time of death and other disputed evidence from the first level trial are not reviewed during the appeal can the jurists still consider this evidence or anything else from the first level trial?

Ughhhhh. With respect, this subject has been discussed so very many times on here that I find it somewhat hard to believe that you can't understand the process. I'll have another go at explaining it.

In a criminal trial, there are usually a number of distinct phases, which take place in a specific order. First come the opening statements, in which prosecutors and defence counsel (if they want to) both outline the case that they intend to present to the court. Next comes the evidence and testimony phase, in which physical evidence is introduced, and testimony is heard (together with examination and cross-examination of those testifying). Importantly, no argument is allowed during this phase.

After the evidence/testimony phase comes the argument phase. In this section, all the parties make arguments in favour of their respective positions, based upon the evidence and testimony gathered during the previous phase. And after the argument phase comes jury (or judicial panel) deliberations, followed by the verdict, and sentencing if necessary.

So that's how a criminal trial broadly works. I hope that it's fairly easy to understand what I've just written. That's essentially what happened in Massei's court, and it's what is currently happening in Hellmann's court. In other words, the appeal trial follows the same sequence of stages. I hope I'm still making sense.

So, with that in mind, consider that we are now in the evidence/testimony phase of the appeal trial. It just so happens that this phase is a little different to that from the first trial, where all the evidence/testimony had to be introduced from scratch. In the Italian criminal justice system, all the evidence and testimony from the first trial is automatically introduced into the appeal trial. But the appeal judge can also decide to request additional evidence/testimony if (s)he thinks that it is necessary (e.g. for clarification, or where evidence/testimony from the first trial is disputed, or if events subsequent to the first trial have cast doubt onto certain areas of evidence/testimony).

I hope this is still making sense. The upshot is that by the second week of September, the evidence/testimony phase of the appeal trial will be complete. The body of evidence/testimony lodged in Hellmann's court will then consist of the new evidence/testimony (Curatolo's recall, the inmates, the DNA report + court discussion of the report) plus all the evidence/testimony from the Massei trial.

Still making sense? I hope so. In around the second week of September, the trial will then move on to the argument phase. The lawyers for all parties will then make their arguments to support their respective positions. And their arguments will be based on the entire body of evidence/testimony lodged with Hellmann's court.

So the prosecutors will still (presumably) argue that evidence for Sollecito's guilt includes the bloody partial print, since this evidence has been carried over from the first trial. They will also (presumably) argue that the brak-in was staged, based on the evidence and testimony from the first trial that has been carried over to the appeal trial. And so on, and so on.....

The defence will similarly address the entire body of evidence when making their arguments for acquittal. In the defence case, the additional evidence/testimony allowed by Hellmann will clearly be more useful than it is to the prosecutors, but the defence teams will also base parts of their arguments on evidence/testimony from the first trial.

So when you write "What happens if for example time of death and other disputed evidence from the first level trial are not reviewed during the appeal can the jurists still consider this evidence or anything else from the first level trial?", you are failing to see the difference between the introduction of additional evidence/testimony (whether this is in the form of a review of existing evidence/testimony as in the DNA report, or whether it's entirely new evidence/testimony) and a new argument based on the original evidence/testimony.

Take the time of death issue as an example. There is an amount of evidence and testimony from Massei's trial concerning this issue. There is the autopsy report, plus the testimony of a number of pathologists. This evidence/testimony formed the basis of the arguments around ToD in Massei's court (even though the evidence/testimony given in Massei's court clearly contradicts the court's own conclusion on ToD!).

Now, all this evidence and testimony has automatically been carried through to Hellmann's court. It was for Hellmann to decide whether any additional evidence/testimony on the ToD issue would be of any help. It seems that he has decided that this will not be of help. But that doesn't mean that the ToD issue will not be part of the argument phase. It simply means that all arguments on ToD in Hellmann's court will be based on evidence/testimony from the Massei trial.

So in September, it's almost certain that we will hear the defence lawyers, as part of their argument for acquittal, argue that - based on the evidence/testimony from the first trial - Meredith was almost certainly dead before 10pm, and most likely before 9.30pm. They will base this argument on a) the testimony of Meredith's English friends on when the pizza meal was started, b) the autopsy report showing the state of Meredith's stomach and duodenum, and c) the combined evidence of the expert witnesses in Massei's court, the majority of whom (including the police pathologist who conducted the autopsy) stated that death must have occurred within 3 hours maximum of the start of the meal. And the same sort of thing will also happen for every other significant area of evidence and testimony.

In summary, the argument phase of the appeal trial has not started yet. When it does start - in around the second week of September - all parties will make their arguments based on the entire body of evidence and testimony.

I sincerely hope that this is all clear. I apologise for the length of the post, but it seems that only a full explanation will suffice in such circumstances.

 

[pilot padron]

Horrors Indeed

Did Judge Hellman agree that the time of death will be reviewed along the lines of Meredith bra clasp and knife found in Sollecito’s apartment?

What happens if for example time of death and other disputed evidence from the first level trial are not reviewed during the appeal can the jurists still consider this evidence or anything else from the first level trial?

Oh Dear, OMG, Oh Dear

How could Judge Hellman not pay appropriate acclaim,homage and heed to the game changing 'get out of jail immediately', (or at least at any hour or at least to house arrest), information posted in so many of the 58,345+ posts here and confirmed here by:
1) A Library Card Holder
2) A Googler
3) A teacher of 7th grade *gifted* students
4) a communications engineer
5) A Vertical Gardener
6) A Veterinarian
7) A) self produced, self submitted You Tube

Apologies if I missed any other holders of higher post graduate degrees and professionally renowned TOD pontificators from here.

RE your concluding question:
One cannot even imagine Judge Hellman could possibly ever overlook this in light of information from the above sources here.
But in that ever so remote 'idiot like' instance; yes, all the information from the appropriately PhD holders and fully professionally accredited experts from the first trial is thereby accepted as accurate and certainly can be used by jurors at this level.

But this is really no cause for concern.
After all, these same above sources have unequivocally proclaimed..."It is over" and the "truth has set them free"..... at any hour.

 

[LondonJohn]

During the week of November 4 (probably toward the end), there seem to have been some DNA analysis, relating to the feces and possibly other traces believed to be from Lumumba.

A series of biological investigations started on Monday, November 12. Here is what Frank says about the knife blade:

"Stefanoni wrote: DNA extracted on November 13 2007 from the trace A (handle) B, C (blade). Quantification: done, with Real Time PCR. Positive for A and B, negative for C. But no value, no quantity of DNA was indicated."

"Then, on December 17, another quantification, provided with values this time, and when there are values a scientist starts to consider a test documented. This time, the documented quantification was done with another method, with the Fluorimeter Qubit, and on the presumed DNA taken from traces A,B,C plus three more: D,E,F. Result: A: ‘0,08 pg’; B and C: ‘too low’. (Yes, the famous ‘too low’). All the others: ‘nothing’."

So, some questions/comments that I have:

1. What exactly does the "6 day delay" refer to, e.g., extraction, amplification, quantification, machine analysis, etc.? Are there risks of contamination implicit in all of these phases?

2. When exactly was the testing done during the week of Monday, November 5? If as late as Friday of that week, then we are talking about November 9. SInce no testing was presented to Matteini on the 8th, this suggests that the testing was done on Thursday the 8th and/or 9th.

3. I'm guessing that the lab was locked tight during the weekend, but maybe not.

5. The knife blade quantification occurred on Tuesday the 13th, and the "match" had been completed and reported by the 14th.

6. It would seem that there was likely testing done on Monday the 12th, in which case there would be no delay between that testing and the knife testing on the 13th.

7. Even if we assume that the knife was the first item tested during the week of the 12th, and if there had been "testing" on the 9th, and the lab was closed for the weekend, and the knife was "tested" on Tuesday the 13th, then we are talking about only a one working-day delay.

8. The big question: When Comodi talks about a 6-day delay, is she talking about the testing associated with the SECOND set of quantifications/runs, described by Frank as occurring on 12/17? That would be more believable, but if so, what are the implications of this given the fact that a first quantification and analysis had already occurred??? Is there a lie here? Is something being hidden here?

I harbour significant doubts about this "6-day" "12-day" assertion by Comodi (presumably made under instruction from Stefanoni). Like you say, it's apparently still vague in terms of what was actually allegedly not done during these alleged time gaps.

I had to laugh when I read a pro-guilt commentator suggest (in all seriousness, apparently!) that Conti and Vecchiotti could simply have sent Stefanoni a "collegiate" email and obtained all this information during their investigation. Given that Stefanoni was clearly extremely obstructive and uncooperative with the independent experts over even the most simple requests, it's virtually inconceivable that she would have been forthcoming with information about positive/negative controls or anti-contamination measures.

I'd also add two things about this issue. Firstly, the extremely low template levels that Stefanoni was working with required very specific sterilisation procedures for the testing equipment, including UV sterilisation and positive pressure environments. Stefanoni's lab had none of these specific procedures in place. And secondly, "claims" of controls being run or time-buffer periods mean absolutely nothing without proper, verifiable documentation to support the claims. Already, there appears to have been a total fiasco around the so-called "documentation" of the control tests.

All of this should be bread and butter for a competent forensic scientist working in a major crime laboratory. But instead we have blurry faxes, "dog ate my homework"-style excuses, and documents that the court now apparently says weren't filed after all - contrary to the prosecution's claims. It's all far too reminiscent of the Keystone Cops. The amount of obfuscation, evasion, incompleteness and sheer oddity involved in Stefanoni's working practices and documentation raises sufficient red flags in and of itself, in my opinion. And that's before we even get to the question of outright lying or deception....

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh Dear, OMG, Oh Dear

How could Judge Hellman not pay appropriate acclaim,homage and heed to the game changing 'get out of jail immediately', (or at least at any hour or at least to house arrest), information posted in so many of the 58,345+ posts here and confirmed here by:
1) A Library Card Holder
2) A Googler
3) A teacher of 7th grade *gifted* students
4) a communications engineer
5) A Vertical Gardener
6) A Veterinarian
7) A) self produced, self submitted You Tube

Apologies if I missed any other holders of higher post graduate degrees and professionally renowned TOD pontificators from here.

RE your concluding question:
One cannot even imagine Judge Hellman could possibly ever overlook this in light of information from the above sources here.
But in that ever so remote 'idiot like' instance; yes, all the information from the appropriately PhD holders and fully professionally accredited experts from the first trial is thereby accepted as accurate and certainly can be used by jurors at this level.

But this is really no cause for concern.
After all, these same above sources have unequivocally proclaimed..."It is over" and the "truth has set them free"..... at any hour.

Pathetic attempt at an argument. Are you suggesting that our collective ToD argument is incorrect? If so, how and why is it incorrect? If you can't demonstrate that, then your "argument" is completely intellectually bankrupt. So, which is it to be?

Are you going to have a go at answering the questions directed at you following your last epic epistle?

PS: the presiding judge's name is spelled "Hellmann". I thought you'd want to get that one correct

 

[Supernaut]

I was wondering how many here think AK and RS are totally innocent, as opposed to not guilty by reasonable doubt. At first I thought them to be guilty. As the case progressed, I changed my belief to not guilty by reasonable doubt. I am now on the verge of believing in their total innocence.

They are totally innocent and should be exonerated, not merely found 'not guilty' and released.

Exoneration (assuming such a precept exists in the peculiar Italian judicial system) would allow action to be taken against the likes of Peter Quennell and others, should they persist with their hounding of the two.

I'm rather tired of the discussion about "reasonable doubt".

Wisdom is the capacity to exercise judgement of truth and falsehood, right and wrong. The eternal "skeptic" and his perpetual "reserving of judgement" is perilously close to an intellectual and moral coward.

 

[LondonJohn]

They are totally innocent and should be exonerated, not merely found 'not guilty' and released.

Exoneration (assuming such a precept exists in the peculiar Italian judicial system) would allow action to be taken against the likes of Peter Quennell and others, should they persist with their hounding of the two.

I'm rather tired of the discussion about "reasonable doubt".

Wisdom is the capacity to exercise judgement of truth and falsehood, right and wrong. The eternal "skeptic" and his perpetual "reserving of judgement" is perilously close to an intellectual and moral coward.

Being acquitted is actually totally synonymous with exoneration. As I've said very many times before, it can never be incumbent upon those accused to prove their innocence - and in most instances it's impossible to do so. People need to stop automatically equating "reasonable doubt" with "he/she probably did it, but there's sufficient doubt for him/her to wriggle out of a conviction." In some instances this may be true, but for most not-guilty verdicts it's simply not the case. It's actually legally (and practically) impossible to find someone "innocent" of a crime - unless they have an unimpeachable alibi (in which case it's virtually impossible that they would have ever been charged at all, of course).

A small example: suppose there was an unsolved murder in your town/city from 3 years ago. Suppose that the police knocked on your door one day and arrested you for the murder. Suppose it could be shown that you were in your town/city on the day of the murder, but that you obviously couldn't account for your whereabouts three years later. So you would never be able to prove your innocence. That's not important though: it would be entirely up to the prosecutors to prove your guilt in order to secure a conviction.

 

[LondonJohn]

PS: Much of the feeling about not-guilty verdicts not equating with exoneration comes - I strongly suspect - from the OJ Simpson case. But that case was a massive anomaly. The Casey Anthony verdict recently probably also added to the problem, but the little I know about that case suggests that the wrong charges were probably brought against her. If prosecutors hadn't been so keen to "go for the max", she'd likely have been convicted of lesser (but still very serious) charges.

 

[Supernaut]

No, I searched for a downloadable file and found it on a torrent site. I'm downloading it right now.

The viewable version is on YouTube somewhere.

I had many issues with the Lifetime documentary and in the end, I didn't see it. I can't watch it from Europe, as most of the viewable files are on US servers. I tried to download it via torrent site, but the file that I downloaded didn't work at all. No sound, no picture.

As far as I know, the documentary will be added to the DVD Amanda Knox Murder On Trial In Italy that will be relased sometime soon in the UK, so I guess it will be the only way for me to see it.

EDIT:
Here's the YouTube version:The Trials Of Amanda Knox
part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8lccObjh1U

The rest of it is there as well.

Any and all video content (including from Youtube) can be 'downloaded' using the "downloadhelper" extension for Firefox. It is very easy to use and installs in seconds.

 

[Lothian]

Being acquitted is actually totally synonymous with exoneration.

And being found guilty is actually totally synonymous with completely innocent and a grave miscarriage of justice.

Got it.

 

[Supernaut]

Being acquitted is actually totally synonymous with exoneration. As I've said very many times before, it can never be incumbent upon those accused to prove their innocence - and in most instances it's impossible to do so. People need to stop automatically equating "reasonable doubt" with "he/she probably did it, but there's sufficient doubt for him/her to wriggle out of a conviction." In some instances this may be true, but for most not-guilty verdicts it's simply not the case. It's actually legally (and practically) impossible to find someone "innocent" of a crime - unless they have an unimpeachable alibi (in which case it's virtually impossible that they would have ever been charged at all, of course).

A small example: suppose there was an unsolved murder in your town/city from 3 years ago. Suppose that the police knocked on your door one day and arrested you for the murder. Suppose it could be shown that you were in your town/city on the day of the murder, but that you obviously couldn't account for your whereabouts three years later. So you would never be able to prove your innocence. That's not important though: it would be entirely up to the prosecutors to prove your guilt in order to secure a conviction.

Well, the nub is; can AK and RS be proved to be innocent? Yes, almost certainly thay can. But not in the trial currently taking place, I guess. I would like to see further action taken to force the Italian state, by which I mean both the administration AND judiciary, to exonerate them.

 

[Supernaut]

I think we're seeing what happens when you get a bunch of people who mostly just don't understand science or rationality at all, fixing their beliefs based instead on wishful thinking, confirmation bias and groupthink. It's the witch-hunt mentality, still alive and well on-line in 2011.

I think we're seeing what happens when psychotics have internet access.

 

[Rolfe]

6) A Veterinarian

Apologies if I missed any other holders of higher post graduate degrees and professionally renowned TOD pontificators from here.

all the information from the appropriately PhD holders and fully professionally accredited experts from the first trial is thereby accepted as accurate and certainly can be used by jurors at this level.

Point of information. My medical expertise may be in the field of pretty much every mammal on the planet bar one, as opposed to being confined to just the one mammal. However I do have higher postgraduate degrees including a PhD.

And I am regularly called on by the courts to give forensic medical evidence in criminal prosecutions, and that includes evidence as to time of death.

Just to keep the record semi-straight.

Funny, you know. When I was ignoring these threads, one or two of the guilters PMed me and asked me to contribute, because of my expertise, and the respect in which I am apparently held in the forum. Now that I am contributing, somehow "veterinarian" has become a term of insult.

Rolfe.

 

[Onofarar]

Defense Team

It appears from news reports -- I've given up reading this thread closely -- that the Italian appeals court's own independent experts have discredited the meager DNA evidence that was key to the convictions of Knox and Sollecito, largely after reviewing the police's own videos of their evidence collection. Question: Did their original defense lawyers have access to these videos? Did they challenge the way evidence was gathered at the original trial? Could a better defense have won an acquittal at the original trial, or was the fix in from the beginning?

This was thoroughly discussed in either Continuation I or II or both. You can look there for more info. However, the short answer is AK's two original lawyers did not do a very good job. The "lead" attorney was Carlos Della Vadova - his specially was corporate law. The consensus was he was chosen for his fluency in English and ability to converse with AK's parents and AK in that language. The second attorney was Ghirga (forgot his first name). He was referred to as a "panel" lawyer - I never saw an explanation of what this was but have assumed it meant he was chosen from a list made available by some local organizeation as one of a "panel" looking for more clients - like calling the local ABA office in the states for a list of lawyers to talk to about a case/situation.

Their lack of experience, especially CDV, was evident throughout the trial. However, they did file a motion/request - Sept 2009 - that Massei order an independent review of the DNA evidence - Comodi argued "they had everything needed" ( they did not have the .fsa files, logs, control tests, which were key in the independent experts debunking of the original DNA "testing"). Massei in one of his many poorly reasoned rulings denied their request. (The only significant ruling he made that helped the defense was ordering - JUne 2009 - the release of about 200 pages of supporting documentation for the DNA testing - buried in these pages which were turned over unnumbered and in no particular order was the "to low too low" note.

Raf's top attorney was/is a leading Italian parlimentarian chosen I think for her political connections and clout - she had vever participated in a murder trial before. She was buzy with her parliament duties in Rome and it is the consensus here she did not devote enough time or attention to RS's case. There was asecond attorney for RS - last name started with an M - have seen mention of the name in recent news stories - do know if this attorney was on the first trial for RS or added for the appeal.

In the appeal AK's attorneys have had some help outside the courtroom from Ted Simon a noted international lawyer from Philadelphia and I think there is a second US attorney with good credentials aiding the defense as well. However, they are not in the courtroom - thus all they can do is prep CDV and Ghirga and go over possible lines of attack/questionning that Migweenie and Comodi could employ.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

got google?

And being found guilty is actually totally synonymous with completely innocent and a grave miscarriage of justice.

Got it.

Lothian,

Although convicted in the trial of first instance, Knox and Sollecito still enjoy the presumption of innocence. With respect to your question, the answer for Billy Wayne Cope, Cameron Todd Willingham, and Gary Leiterman is probably yes. The answer for the Norfolk Four and the West Memphis Three is almost certainly yes. The answer for Stefan Kiszko, Timothy Cole, Ron Williamson, Dennis Fritz, and Patricia Stallings is certainly yes. MOO.

 

[Onofarar]

<snip>
So in September, it's almost certain that we will hear the defence lawyers, as part of their argument for acquittal, argue that - based on the evidence/testimony from the first trial - Meredith was almost certainly dead before 10pm, and most likely before 9.30pm. They will base this argument on a) the testimony of Meredith's English friends on when the pizza meal was started, b) the autopsy report showing the state of Meredith's stomach and duodenum, and c) the combined evidence of the expert witnesses in Massei's court, the majority of whom (including the police pathologist who conducted the autopsy) stated that death must have occurred within 3 hours maximum of the start of the meal. <snip>

Another excellent post and what we have come to expect from you.

Do you think with Curatolo gone, can the defense also argue against how ludicrious the ToD advanced by the prosecution was in the first trial? And tie in the computer evidence that AK and RS were at home for the most likely actual ToD. Plus hold up to ridicule the moving target ToD was for Mignini during the various phases of the first trial. Can the defense introduce/mention the ToD finding of 10 PM or earlier in the Guede trial?

 

[Diocletus]

So, let’s put a finer point on this. For the week of Monday, November 5, the earliest date by which DNA testing (feces, and perhaps more) could have been complete is Thursday the 8th. This assumes that the DNA testing was coincident with that day’s Matteini hearing, during which the prosecution could not yet present DNA evidence.

Then we have intervening days: Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday.

The knife blade e-gram is run on Tuesday, November 13.

If we assume that the lab was operating, but no case-related testing was conducted, during Friday-Monday, then we have four intervening days (F, Sat, Sun, M) between tests. (That said, IMO, it is unlikely that the lab was conducting no case-related DNA testing during this time; it is very possible that they were running case-related DNA over most of this period, to the extent the lab was operating.)

Therefore, Comodi’s 6-day-delay hypothetical does not relate to the “first” knife blade egrams run on 11/13.

Therefore, either there was no 6-day delay or the 6-day-delay hypothetical relates to the second set of knife blade e-grams, run on December 17. In either situation, Comodi has posed a hypothetical which is either not grounded in the actual facts of the case or omits a material fact (that there was a prior e-gram). In my opinion, this is unethical.

So, if we have a 6-day-delay for the Dec. 17 e-gram, what does that tell us? Well, if the 6 days is enough to ensure no machine-related contamination, then the Dec. 17 e-gram would be a clean reading of the source material. BUT, the Dec. 17 e-gram had different alleles then the Nov. 13 e-gram, and therefore, if we accept a clean 12/17 run and proper LCN testing here, then the Nov. 13 e-gram shows contamination.

But what about “garbage in, garbage out”? It appears that both the Dec. 17 e-grams and the Nov. 13 e-grams were run from the same template/source material, i.e., only a single amplification. The fact that there were 6-days between e-gram runs for the Dec. 17 e-gram could exclude only machine contamination for that run, and does not tell us anything about whether the source material fed into the machine was already contaminated. If there was contamination in the extraction or amplification stages, the 6-day-delay for the Dec. 17 e-gram is meaningless—Stef was analyzing contaminated material in both of the e-gram runs.

It seems that the only way to suggest non-contamination of the source material used to generate the e-grams would be to produce the negative controls. But, (i) they don’t appear to really exist, and (ii) Hellmann has excluded them due to non-production.

I will be interested to see if the cross-examination touches this issue.