Continuation Part Six: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[GreyFox]

Yes - decent article.

By the way, just for everyone's info - whether pro-acquittal or pro-guilt - the Carabinieri RIS experts did indeed provide the court with the full set of source data for their DNA tests, including the EDFs with negative controls. As did Vecchiotti. And they all changed their gloves properly where required.

Excellent point for the defense to bring up in closing arguments that could also tie into proving contamination as a source for the dna on the bra.
The defense could say :
Without the professionalism like the Carabinieri displayed in presenting the edfs/negative controls for 36I we are not given the opportunity by Steffanoni/prosecution to properly defend our client . As this same documentation for the bra is vital in determining who else's dna (contamination) is on the bra. Without it our hands are tied behind our back and the defendant's cannot receive a fair trial as the Supreme court has required through it's verdict by sending the case back for further review.

 

[codyjuneau]

...
Once again it would appear that the Carabinieri are not worried about making Stefi and the municipal police look bad, which is a good thing.

.
Yes, and I do not see any reason for the Florence court to perpetrate an obvious and terrible injustice in order to save the faux honour of a known nut case living in Perugia.
.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes - decent article.

(I hope it doesn't need to be reiterated that Sfarzo's alleged domestic issues have zero relevance to his commentary/reporting on the Kercher case, and that his alleged defamation of Mignini will only be relevant if it is ever proven that such defamation actually occurred, and even then it will only be relevant on the narrow points proven).

By the way, just for everyone's info - whether pro-acquittal or pro-guilt - the Carabinieri RIS experts did indeed provide the court with the full set of source data for their DNA tests, including the EDFs with negative controls. As did Vecchiotti. And they all changed their gloves properly where required.

Compare this with what is in Massei's 2010 motivations report on all this....

On page 252 Massei recalls Professor Tagliabracci's criticisms of Stefanoni's work, including Tagliabracci's analysis of Stefanoni's flawed methodology. This included Stefanoni's own admission.....

that, 47 days afterwards, she (Stefanoni) had noted conditions of soiling (imbrattamento) and dirtiness in the room which were decidedly greater than what she had observed on November 3rd./quote]

Tagliabracci goes on to say that the scene had been hopelessly compromised thusly.....

Between November 3rd and December 18th, there were, in fact, multiple searches conducted [253] an unspecified number of persons. On 3 November this bra fragment with the deformed clasp had been found under a pillow; it was photographed and left where it was found. Subsequently, 47 days later, it was found near the desk underneath the mat that on 2 November was found next to the duvet, more than a metre from the original position where it had, by contrast, been identified in on 3 November. It was also shown that, as it appears in the 18 December video, this bra fragment was passed from the one technician’s hands to another’s.

Massei writes about Tagliabracci's conclusions, and knows full well that Stefanoni's work is substandard and not to be trusted....

And with all these problems that Massei knows about, and with us now knowing (in Nov 2013) the proper court protocols to follow: cf. RIS Carabinieri automatically providing the EDFs, etc.) what does Massei conclude about Stefanoni's work - a conclusion that weighs heavily on a wrongful finding of guilt:

What Dr. Stefanoni declared during the preliminary hearing of October 4, 2008 (the transcript of which was tendered during the course of legal debate) about Professor Potenza’s presence throughout all phases of the sampling of Exhibit 36 (page 29 of the relevant transcript) bears remembering with regard to this specific point. And no objections were raised concerning the methods or procedures used.

In short, even though Tagliabracci completely debunks Stefanoni's work at trial, Massei rules that no objection had been raised at the time of collection about methods or procedures.

Therefore, truth should be sacrificed (and people sent to jail) because of a court technicality. (This is a flawed procedure that the ISC should have picked up on in March 2013 as final arbiters of law and procedure... instead, the ISC made rulings on findings of fact.)

But as to why Massei let Stefanoni get away with flawed work......

It must also be emphasised that, as Dr. Stefanoni said, every technician in the Forensic laboratories adheres to all precautionary measures to ensure that there is no contamination from one sample to another. This was stated in reference both to the handling method used for the various samples and their analysis. She also testified and affirmed that the various tools and instruments were changed and underwent customary maintenance, checks and replacements

In other words: despite Tagliabracci's warnings that Massei knew about, Massei simply chose to take Stefanoni at her word.

Dr. Sarah Gino also maintained that laboratory contamination is possible, and Dr. Patumi referred to a contamination case that occurred in a particular genetic analysis laboratory: possibility of contamination, therefore, and objective confirmation that contamination can occur. In the present case, none of any of this emerged, however, and Dr. Stefanoni’s testimony rules out that any laboratory contamination could have occurred.

So, Massei reasoned, who are you going to believe: Stefanoni or your lying eyes.

The ISC last March 2013 seemingly upheld this principle as an anchor of Italian law.

How scary is that?

 

[acbytesla]

What's really sad about this case is just how humanly silly and stupid it is. And how some people end up paying the price for other's foibles. We all make mistakes. We all mis-calculate from time to time and we all sometimes make those mistakes in front of the world.

It is embarrassing to do so. I hate losing a chess game, especially when I can point the loss to missing something that should be obvious. It's even more painful when you are convinced that you know something deep down in your soul and somehow are proven to be so wrong.

Edison was more than convinced that alternating current was far too dangerous and could never be used to run a motor. Einstein thought that quantum mechanics was absurd, thus his famous line that "God does not play with dice". Fortunately those men had great accomplishments that the world could point to so their light still shined.

But maybe when some people are less accomplished the embarrassment is just too much. So they hold on far too long their errors in judgment. Too afraid that the world will only see their mistake. They are like the gambler playing with house money who doubles down on a bad hand.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Dear diary

I believe that was one of the nuns, was it not?

It was the guards. It is on p. 179 of the paperback edition.

 

[JREF2010]

I don't know where Mach is, BUT another Italian writer is back!

Frank Sfarzo. Yea!

Link:
http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/raffaele-sollecito-those-illusions-they-built-against-us/

thats great news, always enjoyed his writing so much.

 

[acbytesla]

thats great news, always enjoyed his writing so much.

He certainly has a way with stirring up the masses.

 

[Strozzi]

Amanda's interrogators believed Amanda's nighttime confession was the result of their resolute investigation and smart interrogation, not realizing that their interrogation created her false memories. When Amanda's midnight confession was shown to be false and they had to release Lumumba (after crowing that they had solved the crime), the police and prosecutors were acutely embarrassed and angry that Amanda had set them up. They blamed her for deceiving them. The police and prosecutors cannot accept their errors.

 

[charlatan]

Excellent point for the defense to bring up in closing arguments that could also tie into proving contamination as a source for the dna on the bra.
The defense could say :
Without the professionalism like the Carabinieri displayed in presenting the edfs/negative controls for 36I we are not given the opportunity by Steffanoni/prosecution to properly defend our client . As this same documentation for the bra is vital in determining who else's dna (contamination) is on the bra. Without it our hands are tied behind our back and the defendant's cannot receive a fair trial as the Supreme court has required through it's verdict by sending the case back for further review.

Yup. Asking the defense to prove contamination and then denying them the data required to establish the claim is what we would call reversible error. This is why I believe Nencini will sidestep the contamination issue and argue that neither the knife nor the bra clasp meets the minimum standard for so-called 'serious' evidence that's laid out in the cpp. Just my hunch.

 

[kwill]

Amanda's interrogators believed Amanda's nighttime confession was the result of their resolute investigation and smart interrogation, not realizing that their interrogation created her false memories. When Amanda's midnight confession was shown to be false and they had to release Lumumba (after crowing that they had solved the crime), the police and prosecutors were acutely embarrassed and angry that Amanda had set them up. They blamed her for deceiving them. The police and prosecutors cannot accept their errors.

That has the feel of truth, at least for some of them. What's shocking is that the Lumumba fiasco didn't prompt them to go back and look at everything again.

They had recordings of phone calls and private conversations, right? And there was nothing in them to indicate that Amanda and Raffaele were guilty. Did they really think that absence of evidence was just craftiness, or luck? No moment of thinking it might be innocence? Not even when they first heard Guede's voice on that set up call to Germany saying that Amanda had nothing to do with it, that she wasn't there? Wow.

She must have somehow really gotten under their skin, or at least under the skin of a few at the top, for there to have been no moment of doubt about her guilt. I do think that Mignini believes she killed Meredith . . . I just don't understand why he believes that.

ETA: "She must have really gotten under their skin" isn't meant to imply that there's something wrong with her or that she did something wrong, which I emphatically don't believe. I should have said it differently. Maybe: She must have been an unwitting catalyst to some of them. Their bizarre, intense reactions to a perfectly ordinary girl make no sense.

 

[acbytesla]

That has the feel of truth, at least for some of them. What's shocking is that the Lumumba fiasco didn't prompt them to go back and look at everything again.

They had recordings of phone calls and private conversations, right? And there was nothing in them to indicate that Amanda and Raffaele were guilty. Did they really think that absence of evidence was just craftiness, or luck? No moment of thinking it might be innocence? Not even when they first heard Guede's voice on that set up call to Germany saying that Amanda had nothing to do with it, that she wasn't there? Wow.

She must have somehow really gotten under their skin, or at least under the skin of a few at the top, for there to have been no moment of doubt about her guilt. I do think that Mignini believes she killed Meredith . . . I just don't understand why he believes that.

He's a moron perhaps?? I agree with your assessment. Totally.

I don't think Mignini had ever known a young woman quite like Amanda. She was direct, unabashed and without guile,that he was convinced it was all some kind of act.

Mignini and Giobbi were so arrogant about what they saw was their innate ability to read others. It makes you wonder how many other innocent people they have arrested and put in jail?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

If this had been the reporting in the U.K. in 2007-'08, then justice would have arrived a lot sooner for the Kerchers, and Knox and Sollecito would not have been wrongfully prosecuted - as much as they have been....

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/justice-but-not-as-we-know-it-meredith-kercher-retrial-marches-on-without-amanda-knox-8927032.html

"(T)he diseased imagination of the profoundly buttoned-up". Machiavelli - this is who you and Vogt are defending.....

Machiavelli and Vogt are the profoundly buttoned up.

This article is a gem, and it comes closer than anything I have seen to describing Amanda accurately. She is the antithesis of danger, but not incapable of putting her foot in her mouth. And the quote from Chris is without doubt authentic. That is exactly how he would put it.

 

[LondonJohn]

If this had been the reporting in the U.K. in 2007-'08, then justice would have arrived a lot sooner for the Kerchers, and Knox and Sollecito would not have been wrongfully prosecuted - as much as they have been....

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/justice-but-not-as-we-know-it-meredith-kercher-retrial-marches-on-without-amanda-knox-8927032.html


I can't let this pass without correcting it: it's intellectually dishonest not to do so.

Popham is just plain wrong in two major assertions in this article. He wrote (my highlighting):

But as was revealed in court this week, a fresh examination for the re-trial found no trace of Ms Kercher anywhere on the knife. What remains is an ordinary kitchen knife, chosen, as the cop at the first trial explained disarmingly, by his “investigator’s intuition”.

The highlighted part is simply wrong, and is extremely bad reporting from someone who ought to know better. The "fresh examination for the retrial" only tested one swab - Vecchiotti's 36I - on which it's true to say that it found none of Meredith's* DNA. It's ignorant and misleading of Popham to have written that the new tests found "no trace of Ms Kercher anywhere on the knife".

Popham could instead, of course, have accurately reported that the Carabinieri, in their testimony yesterday, offered the inferred opinion that Stefanoni's prior "finding" of Meredith's DNA on her 36B swab was invalid and inadmissible. And that as a result, the knife is essentially now worthless as evidence against Knox/Sollecito. But that's very different indeed from what Popham claimed in print.


The second bad mistake Popham made was this (again, my highlighting):

And as there is no other evidence linking either Amanda or Raffaele to the murder scene, the judges are face to face with the perverted imaginations of the people who put these modern innocents in the dock in the first place, and then in jail. A hideous wrong has been done. It is high time it was undone.

The fact is that there IS currently still evidence linking Knox and Sollecito to the crime scene - the court has yet to be persuaded about the credibility and reliability of that evidence, but that's very different from claiming that there's "no other evidence". This evidence includes the bra clasp, the partial print on the bathmat, the alleged footprints in the hallway, the mixed DNA in the small bathroom, the spot in Filomena's room. And that's before even starting on the witness testimony.

All of this evidence and testimony currently EXISTS. It's up to the defence teams to discredit each and every part of this evidence - and I firmly believe they have the grounds and the information to enable them to do so. But it's there right now. Popham is simply either ignorant or misleading when he claims it's not there.

Look, I think it's really important to correct media reports that are misleadingly "pro-defence", just as much as it's important to correct media reports that are misleadingly "pro-prosecution". To me, not to do so is to lose fundamental objectivity and intellectual honesty. I believe overwhelmingly that the actual facts are clearly on the side of acquittals, and that they also point very strongly to total innocence. In my opinion, though, incorrect/misleading/biased reporting in either direction is nothing but damaging in any search for the truth - whether that's the judicial truth or the attempt to best-guess the truth about what actually happened that Autumn night in Perugia. And I feel very strongly about that.


* See my next post for a side discussion on this....

 

[LondonJohn]

* I see that some pro-guilt commentators are still trying to dissemble about what was and wasn't found by the Carabinieri on 36I.

Some are clearly trying to claim that any incomplete (and therefore unattributable) profiles present on the sample might be Meredith's DNA, and that it's only the partial nature of the profile that prevented the Carabinieri from making a positive match to Meredith.

Sorry: this is wrong and massively misleading. Those who conveyed this opinion are either ignorant of the facts, or flat-out lying, or both.

The Carabinieri report is absolutely explicit in its analysis of 36I: Meredith Kercher can be excluded as a possible contributor of DNA to the sample.

Meredith's DNA was not on that sample. She can be excluded as a possible contributor of DNA. Full stop. Shame on those who are trying to claim that it might have been there... just only in too small a quantity to positively match......

 

[Chris_Halkides]

more on DNA transfer

How scary is that?

For someone who professes to be bored by DNA, you have written a very good summary of much of what is wrong. I would add a few things. One, many experts came into the case later than the first few days (Tagliabracchi and Hampikian). They had no opportunity to object. Two, one expert who was there did object (Potenza). Three, even if every protocol is apparently followed, there can still be contamination. Four, Stefanoni did not follow every protocol. Her ideas about how frequently gloves should be changed are out of step with others in the field. A paper from van Oorshot's lab noted, "To further help evaluate the above finding swabs were taken from gloves worn whilst examining a heavily soiled dress during routine casework examination. A significant amount of DNA was retrieved which exhibited a genetic profile that matched that of samples taken from the exhibit." It is not clear whether the gloves themselves were heavily soiled. But this result does demonstrate what should be obvious; that gloves can transfer DNA.

As long as we are discussing this paper, one more point is worth emphasizing, one that katy-did mentioned: Tools in a forensics lab can hold onto DNA for a long time. Van Oorshot and colleagues wrote, "The profile obtained from the magnification lamp was entered onto a database of laboratory generated DNA profiles and found to match a number of samples, all related to one case, including two evidentiary samples that were examined on the bench associated with the magnifying lamp in question. These two samples, one bloodstain and one trace, were taken from the same item, described as a 'bulky jacket,' 3 months prior to the swabbing of the magnifying lamp. Themagnifying light would have been used during this examination (personal communication with the analyst). As it is unlikely that the exhibit came into direct contact with the top side of the lamp we suggest that the likely cause of this DNA appearing on the lamp is due to DNA-containing material transferring from the jacket on to a glove and then from the glove on to the lamp whilst examining the jacket." (highlighting mine)

The CSC failed miserably to protect the rights of defendants, particularly with respect to discovery. But it also failed to get the facts right when it comes to DNA forensics.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli and Vogt are the profoundly buttoned up.

This article is a gem, and it comes closer than anything I have seen to describing Amanda accurately. She is the antithesis of danger, but not incapable of putting her foot in her mouth. And the quote from Chris is without doubt authentic. That is exactly how he would put it.

This is from the "Boy, do I wish I was a fly on the wall," department....

It seems Andrea has now, in her blog, conceded that C&V is both judicially still in play and valid.

Machiavelli thinks Vecchiotti is a criminal.

I'm staying out of this one!

 

[LondonJohn]

I think it may be time to remind ourselves once more of Conti/Vecchiotti's damning verdict on 36B - and Stefanoni's disgustingly-incompetent testing of it (Komponisto's translation, p144, my highlighting/bolding):

Relative to trace B (blade of the knife) we find that the technical analyses performed are not reliable for the following reasons:

1. There does not exist evidence which scientifically confirms that trace B (blade of knife) is the product of blood.

2. The electrophoretic profiles exhibited reveal that the sample indicated by the letter B (blade of knife) was a Low Copy Number (LCN) sample, and, as such, all of the precautions indicated by the international scientific community should have been applied.
3. Taking into account that none of the recommendations of the international scientific community relative to the treatment of Low Copy Number (LCN) samples were followed, we do not accept the conclusions regarding the certain attribution of the profile found on trace B (blade of knife) to the victim Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher, since the genetic profile, as obtained, appears unreliable insofar as it is not supported by scientifically validated analysis;

4. International protocols of inspection, collection, and sampling were not followed;

5. It cannot be ruled out that the result obtained from sample B (blade of knife) derives from contamination in some phase of the collection and/or handling and/or analyses performed

Utterly damning. And entirely supported yesterday by the testimony of the Carabinieri experts.

 

[Bill Williams]

For someone who professes to be bored by DNA, you have written a very good summary of much of what is wrong. I would add a few things. One, many experts came into the case later than the first few days (Tagliabracchi and Hampikian). They had no opportunity to object. Two, one expert who was there did object (Potenza). Three, even if every protocol is apparently followed, there can still be contamination. Four, Stefanoni did not follow every protocol. Her ideas about how frequently gloves should be changed are out of step with others in the field. A paper from van Oorshot's lab.

I'm far from "bored" by DNA... I am tone deaf, mystified, and it's like someone running dry-finger-nails on a chalkboard to listen to the techies go through their paces.....

I wish I knew enough to be bored. But I'm also a firm believer than unless us way up in the cheap seats know what's going on, then the technical stuff is useless....

Just don't ask me what a Y-Haplotype is.... sounds like something Gutenberg would have used in the 16th Century between the 'X' and the 'Z'.

 

[Grinder]

If this had been the reporting in the U.K. in 2007-'08, then justice would have arrived a lot sooner for the Kerchers, and Knox and Sollecito would not have been wrongfully prosecuted - as much as they have been....

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/justice-but-not-as-we-know-it-meredith-kercher-retrial-marches-on-without-amanda-knox-8927032.html


I can't let this pass without correcting it: it's intellectually dishonest not to do so.

Popham is just plain wrong in two major assertions in this article. He wrote (my highlighting):




The highlighted part is simply wrong, and is extremely bad reporting from someone who ought to know better. The "fresh examination for the retrial" only tested one swab - Vecchiotti's 36I - on which it's true to say that it found none of Meredith's* DNA. It's ignorant and misleading of Popham to have written that the new tests found "no trace of Ms Kercher anywhere on the knife".

Popham could instead, of course, have accurately reported that the Carabinieri, in their testimony yesterday, offered the inferred opinion that Stefanoni's prior "finding" of Meredith's DNA on her 36B swab was invalid and inadmissible. And that as a result, the knife is essentially now worthless as evidence against Knox/Sollecito. But that's very different indeed from what Popham claimed in print.


The second bad mistake Popham made was this (again, my highlighting):




The fact is that there IS currently still evidence linking Knox and Sollecito to the crime scene - the court has yet to be persuaded about the credibility and reliability of that evidence, but that's very different from claiming that there's "no other evidence". This evidence includes the bra clasp, the partial print on the bathmat, the alleged footprints in the hallway, the mixed DNA in the small bathroom, the spot in Filomena's room. And that's before even starting on the witness testimony.

All of this evidence and testimony currently EXISTS. It's up to the defence teams to discredit each and every part of this evidence - and I firmly believe they have the grounds and the information to enable them to do so. But it's there right now. Popham is simply either ignorant or misleading when he claims it's not there.

Look, I think it's really important to correct media reports that are misleadingly "pro-defence", just as much as it's important to correct media reports that are misleadingly "pro-prosecution". To me, not to do so is to lose fundamental objectivity and intellectual honesty. I believe overwhelmingly that the actual facts are clearly on the side of acquittals, and that they also point very strongly to total innocence. In my opinion, though, incorrect/misleading/biased reporting in either direction is nothing but damaging in any search for the truth - whether that's the judicial truth or the attempt to best-guess the truth about what actually happened that Autumn night in Perugia. And I feel very strongly about that.


* See my next post for a side discussion on this....

I haven't read your next post but would like to complement you for making the points on precision of language.

I too, as you know, believe that guilt has not been proven BRD, but to say there is no evidence is just false.

As you also know that was the point I was making about CD's the DNA turned out to be starch.

I'm still waiting, though possible I missed it, a source for Mignini consulting a psychic or for saying satanic rite.

 

[LondonJohn]

Incidentally, since we've been discussing Stefanoni's "match" of Meredith's DNA to 36B, it might be time for a little recap on RFU thresholds.

Stefanoni herself claimed - and Massei's court appears to have agreed - that she had matched Meredith's reference DNA to the sample on 36B at something like 13 pairs of peaks. Sounds impressive, huh?

Well, it would be impressive if those matches were reliable. Unfortunately for Stefanoni, virtually none of them are reliable matches. That's because the RFU peak heights on the 36B trace were significantly below the recommended minimum threshold for positive matching.

In fact, Applied Biosystems - who actually made the equipment used by Stefanoni - recommend that anything lower than 150 RFUs should be discarded for positive matching purposes (there are very sound scientific reasons for setting this sort of threshold, linked to noise, stutter and drop-in/drop-out). Some forensics labs have decided that their techniques allow them to go aw low as 100 RFUs (but that reduction in threshold is based on solid scientific analysis and constant running of positive and negative controls to check the validity of using the lower threshold).

http://www.nfstc.org/pdi/Subject06/pdi_s06_m02_02.htm

But guess what? Stefanoni appears to have abandoned the whole idea of applying thresholds - in direct contradiction of the recommended protocol. And what's more, she appears to have done so entirely arbitrarily - with no sign of any validation of her methods. And in doing so, she's essentially acting in a maverick and scientifically-unsupportable way.

So what happens if we apply a 100 RFU threshold to Stefanoni's charts? Well, we find that we should eliminate - wait for it........ EVERY SINGLE PEAK MATCH to Meredith's reference DNA. In other words, every peak on 36B (except for one half of one pair) falls significantly below the 100 RFU threshold.

So let's cut Stefanoni some extraordinary slack, and pretend for one moment that 50 RFU is an appropriate threshold (even though Stefanoni's lab techniques clearly don't warrant such a low threshold). With a 50 RFU threshold, we get.... wait for it.... just TWO pairs of peaks on 36B that exceed the threshold. Meaning that with a 50 RFU threshold, only a 2-pair match to Meredith can be made. Which is to say, no match at all.

In short, there never was a valid match to Meredith's DNA on 36B, let alone one at "multiple points" on the charts. Oh, and also the amplification/test cycle was only run once, which invalidates any results in and of itself.

Congratulations, not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni, on your stellar techniques