Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fine]

Today's hearing has concluded.

Court in session tomorrow.

///

 

[billyryan]

Today's hearing has concluded.

Court in session tomorrow.

///

Any info on how Tagliabracci's evidence went,he made calculations when he was wrongfully denied a lot of information,and as far as I can see he was right in all his predictions

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Both sides could bring in countless experts like Novelli to say the DNA was or was not there. The court appointed experts will be the final word.

It is all theatrics now. The prosecution is just spinning its wheels all while irritating Hellmann.

They may drag it out with a delay here or there but it will not stop Hellmann's court from correcting this injustice and setting Amanda and Raffaele free.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Any info on how Tagliabracci's evidence went,he made calculations when he was wrongfully denied a lot of information,and as far as I can see he was right in all his predictions

I wait for Frank's report.
Tagliabracci must have made some good points, prompting Comodi to play the pathetic "my dignity is insulted" card. She's somewhat easily insulted recently. Last time Conti "insulted" her when she jumped to interrupt his demolition of Stefi. She started to whine and Hellmann told her to shut up. Now this, and looks like she didn't score any points with the judge, again.

 

[billyryan]

Both sides could bring in countless experts like Novelli to say the DNA was or was not there. The court appointed experts will be the final word.

It is all theatrics now. The prosecution is just spinning its wheels all while irritating Hellmann.

They may drag it out with a delay here or there but it will not stop Hellmann's court from correcting this injustice and setting Amanda and Raffaele free.

Before the month is out I hope

 

[Caper]

Ok.... I need a little help in wrapping my head around the DNA. I believe she is innocent.

The DNA on the clasp. Apparently not enough was tested for the test to be reliable. What does that mean? Specifically, what did they find the first time? As someone who believes she is innocent am I to believe that, yes they did find his DNA and yes it was on the clasp, but it must have been from contamination because of it laying around for however many days? If that is what must be true for them to be innocent, then yes that is what I believe... but still that is one strange coincidence.

But is there another explanation that makes more sense?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

A report on today's hearing

From the ASAP news network, "The prosecution today called Giuseppe Novelli, an expert on human genetics at Rome’s Tor Vergata University, to bolster its case against Knox and Sollecito. Novelli said he reviewed the prosecution’s procedures and he 'absolutely excludes' contamination on the knife and bra clasp.

'If the origin and vehicle of contamination is not proved, this is just a hypothetical theory,' Novelli said, adding that panel of experts did not state precisely how the two items may have been contaminated with DNA."

This is grade A bologna from someone who should know better. With respect to Profile N that I discussed earlier, the laboratory manager said, "No direct evidence of either accidental or deliberate contamination has come to light. Existing facilities and protocols were shown to meet independent quality audit requirements." The take home message is that one can follow protocols and one can fail to see where contamination happens, but sometimes it still does.

 

[Dougm]

From the ASAP news network, "The prosecution today called Giuseppe Novelli, an expert on human genetics at Rome’s Tor Vergata University, to bolster its case against Knox and Sollecito. Novelli said he reviewed the prosecution’s procedures and he 'absolutely excludes' contamination on the knife and bra clasp.

'If the origin and vehicle of contamination is not proved, this is just a hypothetical theory,' Novelli said, adding that panel of experts did not state precisely how the two items may have been contaminated with DNA."

This is grade A bologna from someone who should know better. With respect to Profile N that I discussed earlier, the laboratory manager said, "No direct evidence of either accidental or deliberate contamination has come to light. Existing facilities and protocols were shown to meet independent quality audit requirements." The take home message is that one can follow protocols and one can fail to see where contamination happens, but sometimes it still does.

In layman's terms, isn't this a bit like someone not washing their hands, then someone else demanding to know where the bacteria came from? The point is, if the correct protocol is not followed, the possibility of contamination is way too high to create a reliable result.

 

[billyryan]

From the ASAP news network, "The prosecution today called Giuseppe Novelli, an expert on human genetics at Rome’s Tor Vergata University, to bolster its case against Knox and Sollecito. Novelli said he reviewed the prosecution’s procedures and he 'absolutely excludes' contamination on the knife and bra clasp.

'If the origin and vehicle of contamination is not proved, this is just a hypothetical theory,' Novelli said, adding that panel of experts did not state precisely how the two items may have been contaminated with DNA."

This is grade A bologna from someone who should know better. With respect to Profile N that I discussed earlier, the laboratory manager said, "No direct evidence of either accidental or deliberate contamination has come to light. Existing facilities and protocols were shown to meet independent quality audit requirements." The take home message is that one can follow protocols and one can fail to see where contamination happens, but sometimes it still does.

It is indicative of how low the police forensic department is prepared to stoop to prove that their theory is correct,I would be willing to bet in any other case the prosecution would have got a conviction using these tactics,it is the international aspect of this case that is undoing the prosecution,Amanda Knox's American and other nationality supporters that can not be intimidated by calumnia charges that is forcing the Italian justice system to prove Amanda and Raffaele guilt or acquit.

In all other cases it is business as usual,as is proven by the Sabrina Misseri case

 

[Dougm]

Ok.... I need a little help in wrapping my head around the DNA. I believe she is innocent.

The DNA on the clasp. Apparently not enough was tested for the test to be reliable. What does that mean? Specifically, what did they find the first time? As someone who believes she is innocent am I to believe that, yes they did find his DNA and yes it was on the clasp, but it must have been from contamination because of it laying around for however many days? If that is what must be true for them to be innocent, then yes that is what I believe... but still that is one strange coincidence.

But is there another explanation that makes more sense?

I might politely suggest that you let the facts lead you to the conclusion, not the other way around, but I suspect that is what you meant!

From what I understand, the answer to what you asked is: The clasp was collected in a questionable manner, not because of the time it sat in the cottage, but because during that time, it was not secure, it got pushed around the floor, and was under a pile of stuff, was likely stepped on, etc. (it moved a few feet from where it was originally found, and the room was trashed). C&V are saying there are so many DNA profiles on it, most of them partial, that it is impossible to tell for sure who they are from, or how they got there. They are saying that someone (in this case, Stefanoni) can cherry pick which alleles to match up, and that it is possible in that way to match Sollecito, but she could also have matched a series of other people. The only clear, full profile on the clasp is that of Meredith Kercher.

Other JREFers, please correct me if I am wrong on this.

 

[Swimfish]

Other JREFers, please correct me if I am wrong on this.

Well stated and completely correct.

 

[AmyStrange]

From the ASAP news network, "The prosecution today called Giuseppe Novelli, an expert on human genetics at Rome’s Tor Vergata University, to bolster its case against Knox and Sollecito. Novelli said he reviewed the prosecution’s procedures and he 'absolutely excludes' contamination on the knife and bra clasp.

'If the origin and vehicle of contamination is not proved, this is just a hypothetical theory,' Novelli said, adding that panel of experts did not state precisely how the two items may have been contaminated with DNA."
This is grade A bologna from someone who should know better. With respect to Profile N that I discussed earlier, the laboratory manager said, "No direct evidence of either accidental or deliberate contamination has come to light. Existing facilities and protocols were shown to meet independent quality audit requirements." The take home message is that one can follow protocols and one can fail to see where contamination happens, but sometimes it still does.

-

I hope they recorded his words and play it in court while they also show C&V's video presentation at the same time. It may not prove contamination absolutely, but it certainly proves there is a high probability it may have occurred.

Doesn't he realize that he's in a court of law and that very rarely is there ever evidence in any criminal case that absolutely proves guilt or anything for that matter. You don't have to prove absolutely the defendants are guilty, but that there is a high enough probability that they are guilty and that's all you have to prove. That standard in my opinion (and with regards to the defendants) hasn't happened here, but it has happened with the DNA contamination theory.

The bra clasp collection video, the "gift-wrapped" mop video, the extra alleles on the graph (enough to prove with a high probability that Conti may have touched the bra clasp), the small quantity of DNA found only on the small metal part of the clasp, no other DNA of Raffaele found on the rest of the bra or in the room, and the fact that the bra clasp is rusted; all together make a high probability case that contamination (through improper gathering, testing, and storing of evidence) did in fact occur.

The video alone proves it in my opinion and it seems that everyone that gasped when they watched the video might just also believe it also,
at least believes it happened with a higher probability than that God would rain a storm of meteors on that courtroom anyway, but that is my opinion,

Dave

 

[Chris_Halkides]

When and where did you pick up your last head cold?

In layman's terms, isn't this a bit like someone not washing their hands, then someone else demanding to know where the bacteria came from? The point is, if the correct protocol is not followed, the possibility of contamination is way too high to create a reliable result.

Dougm,

I think that is a good analogy. In fact there are some commonalities between good sterile technique and good PCR technique, except that the latter has to be even better. Dr. Donald Riley wrote an article in which contamination is treated in two separate sections, and he discusses both the similarities of PCR contamination to an infection and the difference. He wrote, "When contamination occurs there is rarely any way to confirm how it happened."

 

[pilot padron]

But ??

The take home message is that one can follow protocols and one can fail to see where contamination happens, but sometimes it still does.

With all due respect, is not the crux of your technical "take home" argument that contamination is always possible even when existing facilities and protocols were shown to meet independent quality audit requirements?

Then, is not the logical common sense extension of this argument the tacit statement that all dna evidence is worthless ??.

This argument of yours BTW very nicely dovetails with the Prosecution elicited, very damning admission from C&V that " yes,anything is possible"

Therefore, common sense would further force a logical person to conclude that every person incarcerated on correctly collected dna must now go free, because contamination is always possible.

Additionally, our common law system would thusly make all past and present dna completely worthless as a tool to convict anyone in the future.
This because contamination is always 'possible'.

Isn't that the common sense result of what you are now telling us ??

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Isn't evolution still only a hypothetical theory also? Or at the least, still only a theory?

 

[AmyStrange]

With all due respect, is not the crux of your technical "take home" argument that contamination is always possible even when existing facilities and protocols were shown to meet independent quality audit requirements?
Then, is not the logical common sense extension of this argument the tacit statement that all dna evidence is worthless ??.

This argument of yours BTW very nicely dovetails with the Prosecution elicited, very damning admission from C&V that " yes,anything is possible"

Therefore, common sense would further force a logical person to conclude that every person incarcerated on correctly collected dna must now go free, because contamination is always possible.

Additionally, our common law system would thusly make all past and present dna completely worthless as a tool to convict anyone in the future.
This because contamination is always 'possible'.

Isn't that the common sense result of what you are now telling us ??

-

The lower the amount of DNA the greater the chances it can be contaminated easily, while the greater the amount of DNA, the harder it is to contaminate as easily. I think that's the general rule of thumb, so to answer your question, no it does not make ALL DNA evidence worthless,

Dave

 

[christianahannah]

I might politely suggest that you let the facts lead you to the conclusion, not the other way around, but I suspect that is what you meant!

From what I understand, the answer to what you asked is: The clasp was collected in a questionable manner, not because of the time it sat in the cottage, but because during that time, it was not secure, it got pushed around the floor, and was under a pile of stuff, was likely stepped on, etc. (it moved a few feet from where it was originally found, and the room was trashed). C&V are saying there are so many DNA profiles on it, most of them partial, that it is impossible to tell for sure who they are from, or how they got there. They are saying that someone (in this case, Stefanoni) can cherry pick which alleles to match up, and that it is possible in that way to match Sollecito, but she could also have matched a series of other people. The only clear, full profile on the clasp is that of Meredith Kercher.

Other JREFers, please correct me if I am wrong on this.

DNA mixtures are difficult to analyze. Meredith's profile is not difficult to match from a mixture on the bra clasp and Sollecito's profile was expanded to the Y-haplotype test which is not definitive, however, I'm fairly certain Vecchiotti's profile would not match the Y-haplotype .

Stefanoni's and Novelli's statments go like this (and where I am wrong please correct): There were 133 samples taken from the flat, 89 of those from Meredith's room. Only one from the flat had the DNA of Sollecito (a cigarette butt with the shared DNA of Knox and Sollecito) and the inside the room the bra clasp with the mixture DNA of Meredith and Sollecito. If contamination comes from dust well dust is everywhere and Sollecito's DNA did not turn up anywhere else except on those two items. If contamination occurred from the cigarette butt to bra clasp well Knox's DNA was not on the bra clasp. And collection of these two items and testing were many days apart.

Whether this is sound science or not remains to be debated. I am trying to read more about Tagliabracci's deposition in court today but the headlines are mainly concentrating on Novelli and no contamination. I am sure they will be updated later with more information on Tagliabracci's answers in court.

 

[AmyStrange]

Also...

-

The lower the amount of DNA the greater the chances it can be contaminated easily, while the greater the amount of DNA, the harder it is to contaminate as easily. I think that's the general rule of thumb, so to answer your question, no it does not make ALL DNA evidence worthless,

Dave

-

...the lower the amount of DNA found, the greater the care needed to (collect and store) and the more precise the techniques needed in evaluating them which is why a different (and tougher) certification standard is needed for this type of work.

As an aside, it doesn't help when there are so many other alleles that you can pick and chose which ones to use as a profile match. So many so that you might even be able to connect up the sitting judge with the evidence. That's not a good thing,


Dave

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA evidence is not worthless

With all due respect, is not the crux of your technical "take home" argument that contamination is always possible even when existing facilities and protocols were shown to meet independent quality audit requirements?

Then, is not the logical common sense extension of this argument the tacit statement that all dna evidence is worthless ??.

This argument of yours BTW very nicely dovetails with the Prosecution elicited, very damning admission from C&V that " yes,anything is possible"

Therefore, common sense would further force a logical person to conclude that every person incarcerated on correctly collected dna must now go free, because contamination is always possible.

Additionally, our common law system would thusly make all past and present dna completely worthless as a tool to convict anyone in the future.
This because contamination is always 'possible'.

Isn't that the common sense result of what you are now telling us ??

pilot padron,

No, I don't think anyone is saying all DNA evidence is worthless. First, negative controls can detect some instances of contamination, but the defense has the right (I would say the duty) to see the control runs and judge them independently. Second, the lack of blood and the presence of starch strongly indicate that the knife was not the murder weapon (among other considerations), just as Ms. P's and Profile N's living in different cities from the cities in which the crimes occurred make them very unlikely criminals (among other factors). Third, one has to ask whether or not the evidence was collected cleanly. Fourth, the bra clasp has almost certain evidence of either contamination or secondary transfer: the extra alleles.

It is not that DNA evidence is worthless. However, its existence in a case does not mean that the judge and jury should not check their brains at the courthouse door, either. MOO.

 

[Diocletus]

With all due respect, is not the crux of your technical "take home" argument that contamination is always possible even when existing facilities and protocols were shown to meet independent quality audit requirements?

Then, is not the logical common sense extension of this argument the tacit statement that all dna evidence is worthless ??.

This argument of yours BTW very nicely dovetails with the Prosecution elicited, very damning admission from C&V that " yes,anything is possible"

Therefore, common sense would further force a logical person to conclude that every person incarcerated on correctly collected dna must now go free, because contamination is always possible.

Additionally, our common law system would thusly make all past and present dna completely worthless as a tool to convict anyone in the future.
This because contamination is always 'possible'.

Isn't that the common sense result of what you are now telling us ??

Novelli missed the point. There actually IS proved contamination.

We know there was contamination because we have more DNA profiles on the clasp than Freddy Krueger had fathers.

Same with the knife. It wasn't cleaned; it wasn't bloody. So, the "flesh" is just contamination.

So, they DID prove contamination. What they didn't prove is the specific act, out of the 56 identified breaches of protocol, that caused the contamination. But who cares about that when the issue is whether there was contamination, and we know that there was.