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

[charlatan]

I remind you that she is a molecular biologist; that she is also the author of scientific articles that went in the top-list of international forensic litarature, and that, albeit you never investigated that, in al likeliness, she also has a PhD. (these are facts not opinions).

"In all likeliness." This really shouldn't be hard for you to verify, unless of course it isn't true. You have previously stated that Stefanoni has the equivalent of a Master's degree.
And please do furnish citations for these alleged "top-list" forensics articles by Stefanoni. Last time I looked I was able to find a bevy of forensics articles authored by Vecchiotti, and none at all by our dear Steffy.

 

[charlatan]

I actually think this supports the fact that she didn't have them. Clearly she emailed asking for them several times. Why didn't someone respond telling her they were in the file? The prosector asserts they were in the file but no one has seen them there. Did he put on a witness who confirmed they were in the file since 2008... or ever?

And honestly, he is just as confusing or dancing around as she is, if not more. This doesn't do much for your argument they were available, IMO.

He even highlights the portions of the testimony that demonstrate no one has actually seen the controls. This is sheer idiocy. To paraphrase Barbie, he essentially kicked the goal into his own net.

 

[acbytesla]

No. Logic is based on alternatives. Do you know the word 'alternative'?
The Supreme Court (in a 2008 ruling) makes clear that in order to have a doubt, or to challenge the concept of confirmation, what matters is the existence of a plausible alternative. You must draw an alternative scenario.
There is no "negative" or "positive", there is scenario A and scenario B.
You don't like explanation A. Ok. You must tell me what explanation B is.
THEN, only after that, if explanation B is equally plausible or anyway strong enough, you can say there is no indication to assume explanation A.
This evidentiary kind of reasoning is called a contrario.

This sounds like a Chinese restaurant not a court of law. I'm curious, Who's Supreme Court are referring to? Italy's or a modern nation where they respect science?

 

[Strozzi]

Presumptive tests for blood?

The simple fact is an unknown substance was subjected to TWO PRESUMPTIVE tests for blood in which the second test was NEGATIVE. and a total of ZERO CONFIRMATORY tests. This is the very definition of a a NEGATIVE result for blood.

Please excuse my ignorance of chemistry, but in the interests of objectivity shouldn't we really be referring to the two tests as "presumptive tests for bleach, beauty agents, iron rust, blood, fruit juice, et al."

 

[Strozzi]

Presumptive tests for blood?

duplicate deleted

 

[Strozzi]

Presumptive tests for blood?

duplicate post deleted

 

[acbytesla]

Please excuse my ignorance of chemistry, but in the interests of objectivity shouldn't we really be referring to the two tests as "presumptive tests for bleach, beauty agents, iron rust, blood, fruit juice, et al."

Well yes, of course you are right. But then again it is only a presumptive test so it really shouldn't matter. It shouldn't make it into court without the confirmatory test.

 

[moodstream]

A pmf'er posted the below in a comment to a Peter Popham article. There are large segments that don't seem correct to me, but I can't be sure. I am hoping I might find someone who can validate or repudiate these statements by Fona.

regarding the previous DNA which was shown to be that of Meredith Kercher on the knife, I re-post what was written so well by my fellow justice-seeker, Fiona:

In this case the quantification said there was too little dna. That is not in dispute. Stefanoni decided to go ahead and test anyway and she did this on (IIRC) three samples which yielded that same "too low" result. Two of them did not yield a result, as is often the case when the quantity of dna is too low. One did. It produced a complete profile of Meredith Kercher. Stefanoni acknowledged from the start that the method she used is not standard (because she did not split the sample and because she amplified more than is usual, IIRC) , but that is not relevant so far as I can see. If the test failed (as it did with the other samples) there would have been no result or a very incomplete one. The test did not fail and it produced a full profile. The experts acknowledged that in court under cross examination

What we have here is a series of different claims: a scatter gun approach.

1. The method used was not standard. That is agreed
2. The result should be be thrown out because the method was not standard, with no further consideration of what it meant. That is nonsense
3. If that is not accepted then they fall back on the fact that a small sample is more susceptible to contamination. That is true but there remains the fact that contamination must be shown
4. Without bothering to find out they asserted that contamination was likely in the lab because other samples were tested there. That is nonsense as they acknowledged when they were shown that the negative controls were done; and that there were several days between the test of this sample and others from the case.
5. Failing lab contamination they suggest that contamination could have come from either the collection process or the handling of the samples thereafter. That is nonsense without a specific route for contamination, and if accepted it would rule out any use of dna anywhere, ever.

C&V agree that MK's profile was on that knife. The rest is froth

 

[Strozzi]

Well yes, of course you are right. But then again it is only a presumptive test so it really shouldn't matter. It shouldn't make it into court without the confirmatory test.

I believe when speaking to a court of laymen jurors/judges (who in Italy are ofen required to be educated only to a high school level) it is important that the juror/lay judge understand (be reminded) each time that this so-called presumptive test for blood is really a "presumptive test for bleach, beauty aids, iron rust, blood, fruit juice, et al". If the results of the test are negative, then the test has not responded to any of those substances. If the results are positive, then the juror/judge needs to be aware precisely that the test responded to something that might be any of a list of substances - not just blood per se. And NOT specifically blood.

 

[kwill]

A pmf'er posted the below in a comment to a Peter Popham article. There are large segments that don't seem correct to me, but I can't be sure. I am hoping I might find someone who can validate or repudiate these statements by Fona.

In this case the quantification said there was too little dna. That is not in dispute. Stefanoni decided to go ahead and test anyway and she did this on (IIRC) three samples which yielded hat same "too low" result. Two of them did not yield a result, as is often the case when the quantity of dna is too low. One did. It produced a complete profile of Meredith Kercher. Stefanoni acknowledged from the start that the method she used is not standard (because she did not split the sample and because she amplified more than is usual, IIRC) , but that is not relevant so far as I can see.

Others with more expertise can get into details, but here is the problem:

It is absolutely relevant that Stefanoni chose to ignore standards. Standards are there to make sure that results are both valid and verifiable. Suggesting that it's irrelevant that she conducted her testing without regard to standards is, pardon me, crazy.

It's as if she erased all the markings on a thermometer, took her own temperature, and declared it to be 102, or 76, or 30, instead of 98.6. No markings means any result you get is whatever you want it to be. The markings are the standards. Ignoring them is a guaranteed way to make the reading meaningless.

 

[acbytesla]

A pmf'er posted the below in a comment to a Peter Popham article. There are large segments that don't seem correct to me, but I can't be sure. I am hoping I might find someone who can validate or repudiate these statements by Fona.

regarding the previous DNA which was shown to be that of Meredith Kercher on the knife, I re-post what was written so well by my fellow justice-seeker, Fiona:

In this case the quantification said there was too little dna. That is not in dispute. Stefanoni decided to go ahead and test anyway and she did this on (IIRC) three samples which yielded that same "too low" result. Two of them did not yield a result, as is often the case when the quantity of dna is too low. One did. It produced a complete profile of Meredith Kercher. Stefanoni acknowledged from the start that the method she used is not standard (because she did not split the sample and because she amplified more than is usual, IIRC) , but that is not relevant so far as I can see. If the test failed (as it did with the other samples) there would have been no result or a very incomplete one. The test did not fail and it produced a full profile. The experts acknowledged that in court under cross examination

What we have here is a series of different claims: a scatter gun approach.

1. The method used was not standard. That is agreed
2. The result should be be thrown out because the method was not standard, with no further consideration of what it meant. That is nonsense
3. If that is not accepted then they fall back on the fact that a small sample is more susceptible to contamination. That is true but there remains the fact that contamination must be shown
4. Without bothering to find out they asserted that contamination was likely in the lab because other samples were tested there. That is nonsense as they acknowledged when they were shown that the negative controls were done; and that there were several days between the test of this sample and others from the case.
5. Failing lab contamination they suggest that contamination could have come from either the collection process or the handling of the samples thereafter. That is nonsense without a specific route for contamination, and if accepted it would rule out any use of dna anywhere, ever.

C&V agree that MK's profile was on that knife. The rest is froth

Well of course, that isn't the truth. Stefanoni never presented the negative control documents and the prosecution actually tried to pass off phony negative control documents. Heather Orth's argument that "contamination" is just froth is silly.

 

[moodstream]

Others with more expertise can get into details, but here is the problem:

It is absolutely relevant that Stefanoni chose to ignore standards. Standards are there to make sure that results are both valid and verifiable. Suggesting that it's irrelevant that she conducted her testing without regard to standards is, pardon me, crazy.

It's as if she erased all the markings on a thermometer, took her own temperature, and declared it to be 102, or 76, or 30, instead of 98.6. No markings means any result you get is whatever you want it to be. The markings are the standards. Ignoring them is a guaranteed way to make the reading meaningless.

I know she amplified whatever she had way over the recommend amounts, but personally, I think the whole report from her smells. There is something wrong with having to lie about it, and then resisting / failing to turn over documentation. It doesn't have the marks of a first class operation.

 

[kwill]

I know she amplified whatever she had way over the recommend amounts, but personally, I think the whole report from her smells. There is something wrong with having to lie about it, and then resisting / failing to turn over documentation. It doesn't have the marks of a first class operation.

Sorry, but I just can't get over this comment:

Stefanoni acknowledged from the start that the method she used is not standard (because she did not split the sample and because she amplified more than is usual, IIRC) , but that is not relevant so far as I can see

You're right.
The report smells, there is something wrong with having to lie, resisting requests for documentation, and never turning over documentation are all the marks of a low rent operation.

In science, working within established standards is how you achieve relevance.

 

[moodstream]

Sorry, but I just can't get over this comment:



You're right.
The report smells, there is something wrong with having to lie, resisting requests for documentation, and never turning over documentation are all the marks of a low rent operation.

In science, working within established standards is how you achieve relevance.

Here is a list of the places that Stefanoni checked ( sadly it comes fromTJMK):
A: Amanda Knox’s DNA. On Knife-Handle, near cutting-edge of Blade, non-logo side.
B: Meredith Kercher’s DNA. On Blade, non-logo side, near tip of cutting-edge.
C: No biological profile. On Blade, logo-side, near tip of blunt-edge.
D: No biological profile. On Knife-Handle, near Butt, non-logo side.
E: No biological profile. On Blade, logo-side, near tip of blunt-edge.
F: No biological profile. On Knife-Handle, nearer Blade than Butt, logo side.
G: No biological profile. On Blade, logo-side, nearer tip of blunt-edge than stain C.

Now, maybe it was labeled for the presentation, and not true to the order she checked them. But it is mighty strange to me that the very first test has Knox, the very second has Kercher, and everything else is a complete blank. It makes me wonder if the whole thing isn't a hoax. C&V found starch, and low template Knox. Why didn't Stefanoni find more than she did? Why, after finding Ms Kercher's DNA did she just take a few more samples? I find that ridiculous. Maybe there is a good explanation but if I found the victim's DNA in a low copy number sample, you can bet I would be going over every millimeter of that knife for additional samples.

 

[moodstream]

Well of course, that isn't the truth. Stefanoni never presented the negative control documents and the prosecution actually tried to pass off phony negative control documents. Heather Orth's argument that "contamination" is just froth is silly.

I thought that was the case, but I wasn't sure. Thanks.

 

[acbytesla]

I thought that was the case, but I wasn't sure. Thanks.

Of course Heather doesn't address just how ridiculous this "cooking" knife found 5 blocks away from the murder scene where there were almost dozen similar cooking knives NONE of which were ever tested for DNA. How this knife doesn't match the bloody stain on a sheet.

No one would realistically look at this knife as the possible murder weapon.

 

[moodstream]

I found this at UNDERSTANDING THE INDEPENDENT DNA EXPERTS’ REPORT IN THE AMANDA KNOX CASE (PART I)

3. Meaning of Results From Knife

When attempting to re-analyze biological evidence for which there is no visible staining, it becomes difficult to make ‘apples and apples’ comparisons between the original and subsequent analyses. For example if a relatively large bloodstain is involved, both parties can test areas where there is known cellular material and similar results would be expected if both tests were carried out correctly. In the case of the knife, there are only some streaks and dark material that may resemble blood, but were in fact shown to not be blood. Thus, the sampling is almost random as no biological material was identified, and tries to pick up any invisible cellular material that may be present. Obviously, the first time the knife was swabbed some cellular material may have been removed from the knife. Based on the low level DNA profile (of unknown biological source) obtained by Stefanoni originally on the blade it can be predicted that if DNA were present on that knife in the area sampled, it was likely completely removed by the first swabbing and there is no way to predict whether similar cellular material might be adjacent to the first swabbing and thus picked up in the second sampling. This would also potentially explain why the second testing did not replicate the finding of Amanda Knox’s DNA on the handle of the knife-it may have simply been consumed in the first analysis.

It is however significant, that two laboratories tested various areas of the knife (including the new areas at the handle/blade intersection) with sensitive means, and absolutely no trace of blood was detected.

One explanation is that all the dna was picked up on the first swabbing for both samples. Another explanation is there was no dna tested the first time.

 

[moodstream]

Of course Heather doesn't address just how ridiculous this "cooking" knife found 5 blocks away from the murder scene where there were almost dozen similar cooking knives NONE of which were ever tested for DNA. How this knife doesn't match the bloody stain on a sheet.

No one would realistically look at this knife as the possible murder weapon.

No, and I had forgotten that it was tested for blood and came back negative.

 

[Dan O.]

Now, maybe it was labeled for the presentation, and not true to the order she checked them. But it is mighty strange to me that the very first test has Knox, the very second has Kercher, and everything else is a complete blank. It makes me wonder if the whole thing isn't a hoax. C&V found starch, and low template Knox. Why didn't Stefanoni find more than she did? Why, after finding Ms Kercher's DNA did she just take a few more samples? I find that ridiculous. Maybe there is a good explanation but if I found the victim's DNA in a low copy number sample, you can bet I would be going over every millimeter of that knife for additional samples.

The process of sampling, extraction, amplification and then testing may have something to say about why more tests aren't generated when there is one positive result. By the time the results are known, the knife would have long ago been repackaged and sealed away. There are also many more items to be processed.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

What a completely whacky thing to claim.... are you quite all right?

That's just what I was wondering. This gets more and more bizarre. He seems to be saying a presumptive blood test is more accurate than a confirmatory test.

The transcript about the negative controls is weird too. Does he read that as Vecchiotti's acknowledging that she got them? I don't see it.

I feel like I'm watching cognitive dissonance erupt into full-blown psychosis.