Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Justinian2]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...es_cop_defends_probe_that_convicted_knox.html

Patrizia Stefanoni took the stand as Knox's appeals trial resumed after the summer recess. A verdict is expected by the end of the month.

PERUGIA, Italy - The police official who conducted the original investigation in the Amanda Knox case defended her standards Monday, after an independent review harshly criticized the evidence used to convict the American student of murdering her British roommate.

From the source link just given in the prior post:

Perugia, 5 sets. (Adnkronos)-While in Parliament rages a war with scientific graphs, electrophoretic and quantity of dna, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito speak, sitting at two ...

Is the parliament investigating methods of DNA analysis?

 

[Grinder]

It would appear that the real, in-court prosecution must think that the knife and bra DNA are very important to the case. It would appear (is that risultare ) they don't have faith that all the other evidence is enough for a sure conviction.

It is interesting that Novelli is considered with so much esteem by the PG people but isn't a police employee. He's a university professor just like C & V.

 

[LondonJohn]

Two observations here:

1. Novelli is saying that the knife should be analyzed with new technology that is capable of reading LCN. The tacit admission here is that the technology/procedure that Stefanoni used was NOT capable of reading LCN. That's a pretty remarkable bit of testimony by Novelli.

2. Novelli evidently had access to the complete lab records for this and other cases. So, once again, we see that the prosecution witnesses have access to far greater data/records than what is afforded to the defense. This disparity in access to information is a huge problem in this case. Criminal discovery procedures appear to be a serious problem in Italy.

3. If Novelli actually thinks that proper negative controls were used, then why is he going back and analyzing the records of these 100's of other DNA tests? Is he advocating this method of accidental negative testing as a proper protocol?

Firstly, I don't believe what Novelli is asserting about the possibility of a retest. Conti and Vecchiotti are at the forefront of European DNA research, and they would be very well aware of the current limitations of low template testing.

Secondly, as you say, it's abundantly clear that Novelli has had far more access (and for a far longer time) to certain parts of the original DNA data than Cont, Vecchiotti or the defence have had. This is a genuine scandal of discovery, and deserves an inquiry all on its own.

Thirdly, the whole point of negative controls is that they should show pretty much nothing - no peaks, minimal noise. That's the whole reason for conducting negative control tests. Therefore, one could run a negative control test on a certain machine at any time, doctor the date/time stamps, and claim that it was a negative control associated with any previous positive test (provided the dates and times matched). I'm not necessarily saying that this is what might have been done in this particular case of the miraculously-appearing negative control data, but..............

 

[Diocletus]

Novelli is speaking of contamination of other samples of other cases with Meredith's profile in which he could find no evidence of contamination. If Novelli had access to these records by being appointed as an expert for the prosecution during the appeal/expert report it is possible the defense experts also had access to these records.

It seems clear to me that Novelli went back and looked at the "hundreds" of other tests only after the negative control issue was raised. Therefore, he would have done this within the last month or two.

In my opinion, he should be barred from looking at and introducing new evidence that has not been provided to the defense beforehand.

 

[Fine]

Originally Posted by pilot padron View Post

"The contaminant must be demonstrated, where does it originate and where is it?" ---Professor Novelli

I don't believe this is correct. It seems to be placing the burden of proof on the defence to prove innocence, rather than on the prosecution to prove guilt. All the defence have to do is demonstrate reasonable doubt - and reasonable doubt about the DNA evidence is there in abundance. The defence don't have to demonstrate exactly how, when and where contamination took place, just that it was, to coin a phrase, "possible, and indeed probable".

___________________

Matthew,

Novelli's Axiom not only misplaces the burden of proof. If Novelli's Axiom were true the Scientifica Polizia could have collected the evidence wearing their street clothes and used their bare hands to handle the goods. (Neck, on their first visit to the cottage, they could have spent the night, Stefanoni in patriotic hot pants, invited Raffaele and Amanda to the party, maybe had a sex orgy in Meredith's room....) But--according to Novelli's Axiom---the forensic results should still stand, if there were no determinate known route for Raffaele's DNA to land on Meredith's bra clasp.

///

 

[Grinder]

Novelli is speaking of contamination of other samples of other cases with Meredith's profile in which he could find no evidence of contamination. If Novelli had access to these records by being appointed as an expert for the prosecution during the appeal/expert report it is possible the defense experts also had access to these records.


IIRC the Massei court had to order Stefanoni to turn over records to the defense but they never received them all. C & V, also had to have the court force Stefanoni to turn over records and now I read that they found crucial proof regarding the knife and clasp in a garage

Curious as to whether or not the defense will be given access to said garage, god only knows what they might find there - maybe interrogation tapes.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Stephanie Kercher and the evaluations of the evidence

Mary

Not sure how many different ways I can state my opinion. However, if one accepts the principal that Raffaele and Amanda’s families have right to speak to media about their perspective of Meredith Kercher’s murder then the same should apply to the Kercher family.

CoulsdonUK,

The first problem that I have with the Kercher family is that they came to a conclusion about guilt before the trial of first instance even started. The second problem I have is the question that Meredith's sister Stephanie had about the evidence, in effect how could it be good at the first trial and suspect at the second. Why should one necessarily assume that the questions brought up about the evidence are themselves questionable? Indeed, given what we now know about the lack of discovery, a stronger argument could be made that the first trial was on shaky ground than the second trial is.

I don't deny the right of the Kercher's to say what they will; however, some on discussion boards interpret criticism of what they say as attacking a grieving family. That argument is more than wrong. MOO.

 

[christianahannah]

"Legal fact" is an irrelevant concept. Right or wrong is absolute. And, the Kerchers are wrong.

PS: What's the point of the last part of Stephanie's letter where she talks about endowing a scholarship at the Univ. of Perugia? Is this to show that the Kerchers aren't really interested in money because they will be giving it all (or most/some of it) away or is supposed to be an incentive for the judge to convict?

The Kerchers probably want something good to honor Meredith's memory. There are many scholarships which are set up in many universities to honor the death of someone who formally attended there.

I think I have read that parties to a civil suit (in Italy) cannot collect damages if a verdict of not guilty (or perhaps an acquittal on appeal) is rendered in the criminal case (I am not certain of this). Even if a guilty verdict is given there is, in most cases, no money to award for damages from the defendants.

A civil suit in this case is different from say a civil suit in the states where one can be found not guilty in a criminal proceeding yet found guilty in a civil proceeding.

 

[bri1]

Please accept my apologies. However, I believe I have provided an opinion to Mary that addresses your post; I just seem to be repeating myself. You and others believe the Kercher family should not make any public statements whilst Raffaele and Amanda’s families can, I do not accept that position nor am I aware that any of the families directly involved have or are influencing the legal proceedings. Now if you or anyone else has any neutral evidence that John and Stephanie Kercher have influenced the appeal court then by all means provide links.

Coulsdon, thanks for the acknowledgment, no need for apologies though, the thread's moving pretty quickly at the moment and it's easy to miss responses.
Fair enough, if you don't want to discuss the issue any further, but I would like to point out that in your reply to Mary you ask 'what is the difference' between Amanda's family and Meredith's family talking to the press, and in my post I try to articulate the principle on which this difference is based.
Therefore, until it's pointed out why this distinction in invalid (thereby backing up the type of 'parity of reasoning' argument you use), those posting who hold a similar position to me on this issue (that the Kerchers should not be commenting in public about culpability until the outcome of the appeal) will continue to hold this position, and continue to comment on it whenever the Kerchers engage in this behaviour.
Now, obviously pointing out that a particular 'tactic' (if we wanna call it that, and I'm not sure I do) could influence jury opinion and behaviour is a very different thing from saying that we have proof that it actually does. But I'd also point out that we often have responsibility (whether moral or legal) for acts that have only possible or potential consequences, regardless of whether those consequences actually occur (e.g. one can be charged with dangerous driving without said driving resulting in any damage or injury to anyone else)
Cheers

 

[Diocletus]

Originally Posted by pilot padron View Post

"The contaminant must be demonstrated, where does it originate and where is it?" ---Professor Novelli

What does Novelli know about this anyway? The burden and standard of proof is a legal issue, not a forensics issue. The judge is not going to say that there was no contamination just because the defense doesn't have a Youtube video of Stefanoni treading the offending molecules onto the bra clasp. It's enough to know that there was plenty of opportunity (6 weeks of chaos) for contamination to occur, and there is in fact contamination (numerous profiles). The rest is just noise.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

faked negatives

Thirdly, the whole point of negative controls is that they should show pretty much nothing - no peaks, minimal noise. That's the whole reason for conducting negative control tests. Therefore, one could run a negative control test on a certain machine at any time, doctor the date/time stamps, and claim that it was a negative control associated with any previous positive test (provided the dates and times matched). I'm not necessarily saying that this is what might have been done in this particular case of the miraculously-appearing negative control data, but..............

LondonJohn,

Negative controls are faked in a number of DNA forensics cases. Sometimes the fraud is done so ineptly that it can be detected. As far as I am concerned, by failing to turn over complete records three years ago, the prosecution kissed goodbye to any reason for me to give them the benefit of the doubt. MOO.

 

[LondonJohn]

Wildhorses,

Novelli is a medical geneticist. Most of his work seems to be in that field, as opposed to forensics.

Exactly. He's head of the medical genetics lab at the University of Tor Vergata in Rome. His area of expertise is in genetics and gene therapy, as they relate to the investigation and treatment of diseases, genetic abnormalities or other medical conditions.

http://www.bio-nmd.eu/partners/university-of-rome-tor-vergata/

http://www.projects.mfpl.ac.at/euro-laminopathies/php/index.php?id=59

As far as I can tell, he has absolutely zero expertise in the field of criminal forensic DNA analysis, and nor does he appear to have any expertise in the area of low-template DNA collection, testing and interpretation. And as far as I can tell, he therefore has very little credibility in the areas that he is currently attempting to address.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the exact route of contamination is not usually known

What does Novelli know about this anyway? The burden and standard of proof is a legal issue, not a forensics issue. The judge is not going to say that there was no contamination just because the defense doesn't have a Youtube video of Stefanoni treading the offending molecules onto the bra clasp. It's enough to know that there was plenty of opportunity (6 weeks of chaos) for contamination to occur, and there is in fact contamination (numerous profiles). The rest is just noise.

Diocletus,

Dr. Novelli's view is wrong. No one proved contamination in the Farah Jama case or the murder of Jane Durrua. When two pieces of evidence are handled by the same lab within a day (the exact time period is not know, IIUC), then contamination is more likely.

 

[lionking]

I don't deny the right of the Kercher's to say what they will; however, some on discussion boards interpret criticism of what they say as attacking a grieving family. That argument is more than wrong. MOO.

Are you saying that there are not posters here who have attacked the Kerchers simply for stating their opinion?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Novelli's credentials

As far as I can tell, he has absolutely zero expertise in the field of criminal forensic DNA analysis, and nor does he appear to have any expertise in the area of low-template DNA collection, testing and interpretation. And as far as I can tell, he therefore has very little credibility in the areas that he is currently attempting to address.

LondonJohn,

He has written some articles about single nucleotide polymorphisms, IIRC. Those might be used in forensics in the future. He also coauthored a review about forensics. Here is the abstract.

 

[pilot padron]

Not Really

You've been doing rather a lot of this recently: passing off biased commentary either as objective reportage or as your own opinion. It's extremely intellectually dishonest behaviour. Care to comment?

Naw:

Just to illustrate that I try to weigh 'arguments from both sides:

1) Yesterday, an innocence newbie here made the dogmatic 'argument': "What people say does not count for anything"
He stood by this incredible unique assertation even after it was pointed out to him that the statement in question was made *while under oath*
How does one now discuss or comment to you after that piece of brilliance ??

2) Also yesterday (sorry you missed all this) several of the similarly 'experienced' arguers opined that the guilter arguments here "were petty and concentrated on molehills".

With all due respect to you but with some 'regard' for that (mostly 'tag team pile on' newbie) ever so unbiased *opinion*, your request for additional comment about *what people said* about the case is understandably denied,

 

[bri1]

Originally Posted by pilot padron View Post

"The contaminant must be demonstrated, where does it originate and where is it?" ---Professor Novelli



___________________

Matthew,

Novelli's Axiom not only misplaces the burden of proof. If Novelli's Axiom were true the Scientifica Polizia could have collected the evidence wearing their street clothes and used their bare hands to handle the goods. (Neck, on their first visit to the cottage, they could have spent the night, Stefanoni in patriotic hot pants, invited Raffaele and Amanda to the party, maybe had a sex orgy in Meredith's room....) But--according to Novelli's Axiom---the forensic results should still stand, if there were no determinate known route for Raffaele's DNA to land on Meredith's bra clasp.

///

No matter what Novelli's credentials, that this axiom should be introduced in a courtroom is mendacious, ominous for the future of forensic science in Italy, anti-science and just egregious nonsense.

Fine- you're absolutely right. If the burden is on the defendants to prove contamination, then all of the protocols and guidelines published for forensic collection should just be disposed of as unnecessary.
Those guidelines are there because the forensic officers should be taking all reasonable steps to guard against contamination, and if any defence can prove that these were not followed then the results are useless and the burden falls to the prosecution to prove that contamination did not take place.
I was pretty confident that AK and RS would be found not guilty on appeal. But if Novelli really has the standing in Italy's foresic science community claimed, and he is spouting this bulls__t in court, then I'm very, very worried indeed.
I wonder what the response of the defense was?

 

[christianahannah]

Novelli is speaking of contamination of other samples of other cases with Meredith's profile in which he could find no evidence of contamination. If Novelli had access to these records by being appointed as an expert for the prosecution during the appeal/expert report it is possible the defense experts also had access to these records.


IIRC the Massei court had to order Stefanoni to turn over records to the defense but they never received them all. C & V, also had to have the court force Stefanoni to turn over records and now I read that they found crucial proof regarding the knife and clasp in a garage

Curious as to whether or not the defense will be given access to said garage, god only knows what they might find there - maybe interrogation tapes.

This is what I am interested in - did the prosecution break any codes in the beginning when first depositing the report?

Judiciary and science are not necessarily compatible and I think the laws were not moving fast enough for the scientific part of a trial (not just in Italy but all over the world). So information asked for was not what was usually given to a defense, however, in very recent times the defense has started asking for all this data in which to review and come up with their own interpretations.

I think this information you write about has been in the file, though maybe obscure (such as a CD), because it was not practice to include it along with the official report. I don't think there were any attempts to hide anything from the defense.

 

[Grinder]

As with the defendants' families, the Kerchers words may be criticized but their persons should not be. I have seen very little criticism of the Kerchers nor should there be, but I have seen volumes of criticism of the K/M families just for believing in their daughter's innocence, which is wrong.

 

[christianahannah]

Diocletus,

Dr. Novelli's view is wrong. No one proved contamination in the Farah Jama case or the murder of Jane Durrua. When two pieces of evidence are handled by the same lab within a day (the exact time period is not know, IIUC), then contamination is more likely.

I am not familiar with the two cases you cite but were they able to find where the contamination might have occurred (such as this profile came from this sample)?