Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Thank you Christiana, here's what the google gave me:



Unfortunately I cannot for the life of me figure out where it's supposed to be continued to. Perhaps someone who can read Italian can find out how to navigate that page.

I see Maresca and Novelli want new experts. For those ridiculous garbage DNA items that aren't really evidence of murder anyway. I like the way the phrasing gets translated as 'the prosecution may require an additional genetic expertise...' Frankly what the prosecution needs in my view is a chainsaw enema.

So I wonder what they're up to? Trying to find grounds for an appeal to the Supreme Court because the judge denied their request for another expert to be appointed because they didn't like the last ones?

It appears they are going to place the blame for a verdict of not guilty on the independent experts. I had so hoped to see them throw <Dr Stefi under the bus.

 

[charlatan]

So I wonder what they're up to? Trying to find grounds for an appeal to the Supreme Court because the judge denied their request for another expert to be appointed because they didn't like the last ones?

Ding ding ding! This is the opening salvo of a bitter post-acquittal fight.

Rose, we are clearly of the same hive-mind hehe.

 

[billyryan]

Hear, hear, well said.

A surreal case conjured from the realm of impossibilities by a disgusting prosecution team, then cheered on an ongoing daily basis by a team of psychos agreeing with wackos...
One of the weirdest cases in history due to the inability of the odious offense to generate any believable illusion from the slime they labelled evidence no matter how hard they try, try and well, just cheat again.....

Sorry Stephanie Kercher, don't side with those people. They stink.
Perverting the cause of justice is seen as a very serious crime.They should lock up the cops and lawyers

and let Aviello find the key...

Nominated if it is not worth all of the million it definitely is worth most of it,the more often I read your post the better it gets

 

[Chris_Halkides]

sequential unmasking and the analysis of mixtures

Once the set of loci (or possible loci) have been identified, it is simple math to say to what degree a given suspect is represented in a sample. Turning the problem into a subjective guessing game to come up with a near certain yes/no match to be paraded into court can only lead to an increase in erroneous conclusions.

Dan O. and LondonJohn,

The concept of sequential unmasking (not letting the analyst see a reference profile until after a particular individual profile in a mixture has been proposed) has some merit, IMO. Link here.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the stored items in the lab could contaminate other pieces of evidence

Agreed - most of the samples they took were obviously from things which were linked to or could have been linked to the murder (I think Massei says the majority of samples were from visible bloodstains). It's not as if they set out to find all the objects in the flat which could have contained Raffaele's DNA and tested them; they naturally only tested things which could be prove to be evidence.

It also seems like an argument where the prosecution get to win either way: if they had found Raffaele's DNA in any of the bloody traces they tested, I really doubt they'd now be acknowledging that contamination might have happened! Any other trace of Raffaele's DNA in Meredith's bedroom, the bathroom, the corridor or Filomena's room would be presented as evidence of his guilt. So for the prosecution expert (or Stefanoni, if it was her) to suggest that the lack of Sollecito's DNA in other samples somehow rules out contamination (and thus to imply presence of his DNA would support the contamination theory) is disingenuous on that level as well.

Katy_did and katody matrass,

Both of you raise some very good points. The only thing I can think to add is that any items being stored in the lab after they were tested are still potential sources of contamination.

 

[christianahannah]

Thank you Christiana, here's what the google gave me:



Unfortunately I cannot for the life of me figure out where it's supposed to be continued to. Perhaps someone who can read Italian can find out how to navigate that page.

I see Maresca and Novelli want new experts. For those ridiculous garbage DNA items that aren't really evidence of murder anyway. I like the way the phrasing gets translated as 'the prosecution may require an additional genetic expertise...' Frankly what the prosecution needs in my view is a chainsaw enema.

So I wonder what they're up to? Trying to find grounds for an appeal to the Supreme Court because the judge denied their request for another expert to be appointed because they didn't like the last ones?

Use this link http://www.libero-news.it/regionenotizia.jsp?regione=Umbria which will give updates for the Umbria region and you will see numbers after the original title (2, 3, etc.) and this is where to continue. For this article there are 4 extra updates (looks like someone got excited and included duplicates). I also like that the times are included when the updates occurred.

You can check this link tomorrow for updates concerning tomorrow's hearings.

 

[Justinian2]

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 ??

I heard that one DNA 'expert' (in another case) say that the chance was one in a thousand trillion that the DNA evidence could be incorrect (in another case) .

That's absurd. The probability depends on a lot of things. It depends on the honesty and integrity of the police force and the prosecutor. It depends on the competence of the forensic technicians. Find me a society where only one person in a thousand trillion ever screws up and I will go live there (but they wouldn't let us in).

 

[theRealBob]

Quote:
Tagliabracci's testimony came under withering cross examination from prosecutor Manuela Commodi as the chief police forensic investigator Patrizia Stefanoni sat at the table next to her. The sparring got nasty when Commodi said that Tagliabracci had insinuated that the police results were to support the prosecutors' theory.

"Don't make insinuations that you will be sorry about later," Commodi warned, prompting objections from defense lawyers and rumblings in the courtroom. Presiding Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann was forced to intervene and Commodi turned to Stefanoni a few times to tell her to "be quiet" as Stefanoni was heard loudly objecting to what Tagliabracci was saying.

Commodi seems to be the only person who is unaware that the whole world is very aware that Steff has obviously done this.(minus the True Justice and PMF asylum's inmates of course, who are a collective exception to any general rule)

I find the enitire conversation on this forum about contamination due to faulty collection to be dull and misplaced. Steffanoni wasn't just clumsy, though she also was that too. Steff has blatantly cooked the results through fraudulent practises to help out her mates on the team.

She's obviously been scared s***less from the moment she was asked to hand over the paperwork, and would not do so.

And put the bra-clasp deliberately in the jar.

And came up with the fraudulent blurred negative controls bs.

And returned with the new negative control pages that had now wandered out on their own, from the middle of the file, into a garage.

and on, and on, and on.

Send her to jail for a while. Society needs to ensure that other people in the same role are deterred from fiddling around with easily manipulative evidence and other peoole's lives.
Kercher's included. It's a pity they find it hard to see who the real perpetrators of the continual pain dragging on, they go through, really are.

The prosection have mainly been interested in themselves in this case. If they knew when to leave a bad job alone (somewhere near the start of the case when Rudy's DNA results came in) the Kerchers woud have suffered far less than they have as the four years this case spends in the public eye keeps on rolling (falsely) along....

 

[Grinder]

Stefanoni reportedly said in court that the DNA of Raf, if contamination, could only be if accompanied by Amanda's, because the cigarette butt had both of their DNAs.

She also said the clasp had always been face up during the six weeks it worked its way around the room.

If she said these things, the judges must be getting wise to her desperation.

Knox trial: Doubt reigns as experts fight over DNA
By ALESSANDRA RIZZO
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/09/06/general-eu-italy-knox_8661397.html

 

[Grinder]

Regarding the garage stored prosecution data. Does anyone know if in Italy the prosecution must turn over all information during a discovery period?

What else is in the garage and elsewhere?

 

[Dan O.]

Sarah at IIP posted a pic of the freezer in the apartment. I am not sure I would feel comfortable storing my ice tray in there, but whatever. They must have dumped out the rest of that stuff, probably threw it out of Filomena's window.

This whole freezer issue is strange. Freezing DNA samples that haven't been purified will subject them to damage by the formation of ice crystals. DNA labs will store samples in freezers for long term storage but these would first be processed to replace the water or flash frozen to prevent the formation of damaging crystals.

 

[christianahannah]

It appears they are going to place the blame for a verdict of not guilty on the independent experts. I had so hoped to see them throw <Dr Stefi under the bus.

What is happening here is not unlike what is happening in other countries. It is a conflict between science and the judicial system, prosecution and defense.

I don't think there will be any under the bus throwing from either side.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

damage from ice crystal formation

This whole freezer issue is strange. Freezing DNA samples that haven't been purified will subject them to damage by the formation of ice crystals. DNA labs will store samples in freezers for long term storage but these would first be processed to replace the water or flash frozen to prevent the formation of damaging crystals.

Dan O.,

What is strange is that Stefanoni seems to know about freezing damage. I think that christianahannah quoted a portion of the Massei report that demonstrated this, but I do not have it handy.

 

[christianahannah]

Dan O.,

What is strange is that Stefanoni seems to know about freezing damage. I think that christianahannah quoted a portion of the Massei report that demonstrated this, but I do not have it handy.

Stefanoni was speaking of extracted DNA, however, you are speaking of evidence samples collected in the house (which Stefanoni stated in court today or yestereday), correct?

 

[JREF2010]

It certainly looks like the prosecution thinks the DNA on the knife and clasp are very, very important and those that believe that "the lies" will convict them may be a minority in Perugia.

These are extremely important pieces for them because they are main pieces of the prosecutions animated video film they were planning on showing again.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

liquid or solid

Stefanoni was speaking of extracted DNA, however, you are speaking of evidence samples collected in the house (which Stefanoni stated in court today or yestereday), correct?

You may well be correct. However, I would imagine that both are potentially subject to freezing damage, with some conditions. If one or the other sample has a cryoprotectant, that would make a difference in how much damage would occur. Evidence samples in a house might also not even be in liquid form.

 

[AmyStrange]

From Perugia Shock...

Stefanoni was speaking of extracted DNA, however, you are speaking of evidence samples collected in the house (which Stefanoni stated in court today or yestereday), correct?

-

Christiana,

here's the quote from Frank's report on yesterday's (05-SEP-2011) court proceedings that references Dr. S' freezer comment:

FROM: http://perugiashock.com/
" ...She also revealed why you can put samples in plastic bags without that to cause problems: because you can store them in the victims freezer… That’s what she did on November 2 and 3, before bringing the samples to Rome: she froze the samples in the refrigerator of the house. That little freezer was quite capacious, it seems... "

Dave

 

[Dan O.]

Dan O.,

What is strange is that Stefanoni seems to know about freezing damage. I think that christianahannah quoted a portion of the Massei report that demonstrated this, but I do not have it handy.

I just happen to have it here:

[207]...
During the hearing on October 4, 2008, presided by the Preliminary Hearing Judge
[GUP] (see page 47. and what follows of the related acquired record) she stressed
that the analysis could also be repeated and she added that the ‚DNA that is
extracted is kept in the best possible conditions, and therefore, in a refrigerated
environment between minus 25 degrees and minus 28 degrees Centigrade< it is
however subject to atmospheric, physical and chemical aggressions that could
certainly compromise its usage; <DNA, however has a process, that is to say, a
molecule already in and of itself which has undergone damage and can continue to
be subject to it, even in position, in refrigeration preservation‛ and she further specified that ‚DNA<like any other molecule, when it is frozen and unfrozen<.can be subject to damage and one must verify if the molecule remained absolutely
intact‛.

Stefanoni was speaking of extracted DNA, however, you are speaking of evidence samples collected in the house (which Stefanoni stated in court today or yestereday), correct?

Correct. This starts with <Dr.'s BS testimony as reported by Frank

She also revealed why you can put samples in plastic bags without that to cause problems: because you can store them in the victims freezer… That’s what she did on November 2 and 3, before bringing the samples to Rome: she froze the samples in the refrigerator of the house.

Are there any photos of the evidence envelopes in the apartment freezer? With hours of videotape recording, how did they manage to miss this?

 

[Wildhorses]

I don't think for-profit labs will/have fare/d any better in conflict of interest. halides1 had linked a case here months ago where a lab had committed egregious offenses and they were a for-profit lab. It all narrows down to the integrity and honesty of those performing the lab work.

It's more than conflict of interest. Humans are inherently prone to confirmation bias and similar phenomena. Susceptibility to such things has nothing to do with integrity: the human mind just works that way.

Good research is double blind, not because it's assumed most researchers are deliberately dishonest, but because the tendency to see what we want to see is such a well-documented aspect of the human condition.

Of course, there will always be a certain (hopefully small) percentage of corrupt labs... just like there will always be a certain percentage of homicidal nurses and embezzling accountants. That doesn't mean we shouldn't TRY to find ways around issues known to affect work quality, objectivity, and accuracy.

 

[christianahannah]

-

Christiana,

here's the quote from Frank's report on yesterday's (05-SEP-2011) court proceedings that references Dr. S' freezer comment:

FROM: http://perugiashock.com/
" ...She also revealed why you can put samples in plastic bags without that to cause problems: because you can store them in the victims freezer… That’s what she did on November 2 and 3, before bringing the samples to Rome: she froze the samples in the refrigerator of the house. That little freezer was quite capacious, it seems... "

Dave

Also, to Dan O.,

I have found the article (which I linked to yesterday) where Stefanoni stated she kept some samples in the refrigerator of the flat. The article in Italian and the sentence:

http://www.grr.rai.it/dl/grr/notizi...5-ad7c-47ca-a37e-319bcdfae264.html?refresh_ce

La Stefanoni ha tra l'altro rivelato come alcune delle tracce raccolte nei primi due giorni di sopralluogo (ma non quelle al centro della perizia) siano state conservate nel frigorifero della casa di via della Pergola prima di essere portate nei laboratori di Roma.

I don't know if there is any difference between stored in refrigerator (cold) or freezer (much colder). She states it was only for a few samples on the first two days of collection but I guess not for items which are central to the case (I take that to mean items which yielded results but am not sure).

I don't think she was referring to the paper envelopes but only the plastic envelopes (as being stored in the refrigerator, again not sure).