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

[Diocletus]

Trace C was from the other side of the blade, registered as too low and she dumped it.

Did she?

I think that she sent everything to STR amplification. This would include 36c and the many other samples that quantified "too low" via qubit.

What happened when these low samples were subjected to STR is the question. We don't have the STR records, and there are no egrams for any of them except for 36b.

IMO, she received STR results that she somehow determined to be indeterminate for these other samples, but what standards she used to make that determination we do not know.

I have said all along that the egram plate that contains 36b is called 365bis, with the "bis" probably indicating a re-run. I believe that there was a problem initially with these samples at either the STR or electrophoresis stages, and that the plate was re-run.

 

[Grinder]

I don't share your understanding of MoT. The single test in trace B was only 'too low' once. Stef got multiple 'too lows' from multiple knife samples, each sample being run through the Qubit just the one time. Trace C was from the other side of the blade, registered as too low and she dumped it. If we're all still around and Hell hadn't frozen over, Mach might one day tell us why she treated those two samples differently.

Also, Leila thought the fact the trace B egram matched MK's profile retrospectively validated everything that went before making it irrelevant that this or that phase was screwed up since the identical profile could not have arisen by chance. In vain have I likened this to my claiming to have calculated pi to 100 places (a vastly more improbable feat if achieved by chance) as no one here has got the point about that.

Well I sure could have it wrong or from the wrong place as I have read her posts about this and not her book .

I thought that Stef had repeat too lows from the same sample.

I'm pretty sure that Thoughtful made the case that a second MK DNA from a second spot would be the same as a second test from the original sample.

As always I claim no expertise in DNA science.

 

[Desert Fox]

I don't quite understand what you mean here. Do you mean why isn't it valid evidence?

Yes, evidence is a better wording. I will see if I can edit my post to reflect that

 

[Diocletus]

What document did we just have posted that said the knife was a small knife like Raf's pocket knife.

That's the arrest warrant. I believe that Matteini goes into this, too.

 

[anglolawyer]

Did she?

I think that she sent everything to STR amplification. This would include 36c and the many other samples that quantified "too low" via qubit.

What happened when these low samples were subjected to STR is the question. We don't have the STR records, and there are no egrams for any of them except for 36b.

IMO, she received STR results that she somehow determined to be indeterminate for these other samples, but what standards she used to make that determination we do not know.

I did not mean to suggest she dumped 36C straight after quantification, just that she did at some point toss it aside. But I am relying on C-V and they maybe expressed themselves in straight-lace style based on what was shown to them. The point is, according to Stef, she ran B all the way to an egram but not C even though there was nothing to distinguish either them from, er - nothing.

 

[Diocletus]

I did not mean to suggest she dumped 36C straight after quantification, just that she did at some point toss it aside. But I am relying on C-V and they maybe expressed themselves in straight-lace style based on what was shown to them. The point is, according to Stef, she ran B all the way to an egram but not C even though there was nothing to distinguish either them from, er - nothing.

I added the comment above about the electrophoresis plate for 36b being plate no. "365bis". I think it's a re-run. So, what failed? The STR for these samples or the electrophoresis?

What if the initial STR failed, and the amplifications were all indeterminate, and then, when a second STR was run, 36b (Meredith) pops up?

 

[Grinder]

Yes. A lot of people consider it the mother of all evidence.

The biggest problems are the DNA can't be dated, possible collection and lab contamination, and interpretation of partial or multiple profiles. When you are dealing with LCN results these last two problems are even more likely.

Explaining why a result is invalid is much harder than saying Meredith's DNA was found on the kitchen knife.

Yes, evidence is a better wording. I will see if I can edit my post to reflect that

From Mach's description of how the Italians operate, it appears that once a prosecution claim is made that defenses response must be of a higher quality or the prosecution claim stands. This turns the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on it's head. The example Mach most recently was discussing was TOD and the stomach contents. While the digestive evidence strongly points to a TOD well before the 11:30 + from the first trial Mach maintains that this is a defense point the therefore needs to be definitive. Apparently the defense is not allowed to use the osmotic system.

While it is true that DNA is not always date-able in this case it wouldn't matter as there is no time that Meredith came in contact with the knife. It is true that it could have been secondary or tertiary transfer but even that would most likely have been in a time frame that fit the crime.

The number one reason that I think the DNA must be disallowed is the lack of controls in collection, transportation and testing. The second reason is that no blood was detected on the knife. The third is that the knife didn't fit the description of the knife they were looking for or the outline on the sheet. The fourth would be that no theory has been put forward with any evidence of how the knife moved to and from the cottage.

Rose hits it square on that once they released the results undoing it is much more difficult, similar to branding in marketing. Look how long the bloody bathroom picture has been part of the Internet case.

 

[Diocletus]

I did not mean to suggest she dumped 36C straight after quantification, just that she did at some point toss it aside. But I am relying on C-V and they maybe expressed themselves in straight-lace style based on what was shown to them. The point is, according to Stef, she ran B all the way to an egram but not C even though there was nothing to distinguish either them from, er - nothing.

Well, there is an egram serial number that corresponds to 36c, it is no. 772. However, egram no. 772 is missing from the produced collection of egrams.

 

[Desert Fox]

From Mach's description of how the Italians operate, it appears that once a prosecution claim is made that defenses response must be of a higher quality or the prosecution claim stands. This turns the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on it's head. The example Mach most recently was discussing was TOD and the stomach contents. While the digestive evidence strongly points to a TOD well before the 11:30 + from the first trial Mach maintains that this is a defense point the therefore needs to be definitive. Apparently the defense is not allowed to use the osmotic system.

While it is true that DNA is not always date-able in this case it wouldn't matter as there is no time that Meredith came in contact with the knife. It is true that it could have been secondary or tertiary transfer but even that would most likely have been in a time frame that fit the crime.

The number one reason that I think the DNA must be disallowed is the lack of controls in collection, transportation and testing. The second reason is that no blood was detected on the knife. The third is that the knife didn't fit the description of the knife they were looking for or the outline on the sheet. The fourth would be that no theory has been put forward with any evidence of how the knife moved to and from the cottage.

Rose hits it square on that once they released the results undoing it is much more difficult, similar to branding in marketing. Look how long the bloody bathroom picture has been part of the Internet case.

My understanding with the knife is that it was not treated initially as an item to use for DNA evidence. It went through hands that may have been contaminated by Meredeth's DNA.

Granted, I actually think planting is more likely but still think contamination is more likely than it being tied to the murder.

 

[anglolawyer]

I added the comment above about the electrophoresis plate for 36b being plate no. "365bis". I think it's a re-run. So, what failed? The STR for these samples or the electrophoresis?

What if the initial STR failed, and the amplifications were all indeterminate, and then, when a second STR was run, 36b (Meredith) pops up?

The only way I am going to understand this is if you come to my house with all the papers.

 

[Grinder]

My understanding with the knife is that it was not treated initially as an item to use for DNA evidence. It went through hands that may have been contaminated by Meredeth's DNA.

Granted, I actually think planting is more likely but still think contamination is more likely than it being tied to the murder.

Personally I don't think that anything was planted on the knife because they would have put enough blood on it to get a positive TMB result and have enough material to retest. It could still have been a tiny amount and placed at the handle where it could be argued the kids didn't clean carefully.

The way that testing was done my guess would be a tiny amount of DNA in the lab which wasn't set up for LCN detection. It had no positive pressure hoods IIRC.

 

[Diocletus]

The only way I am going to understand this is if you come to my house with all the papers.

Jimmy Hoffa has them.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Schneps and Colmez on the 2011 request to retest

Supercalifragilistic,

“The prosecution submitted a formal request for the new, tiny sample swabbed from the knife by Conti and Vechiotti to be submitted for analysis. In court on September 5 and supported by expert prosecution witness Giuseppe Novelli, Stefanoni explained that newer generations of DNA analysis kits existed in 2011 that had not been available in 2007, and these new kits could give results on samples as small as a couple of cells. She wanted a new analysis performed to confirm that her previous work was correct. The prosecution agreed and asked the judge to order the new tests.” Math on Trial, p. 83.

 

[Desert Fox]

Personally I don't think that anything was planted on the knife because they would have put enough blood on it to get a positive TMB result and have enough material to retest. It could still have been a tiny amount and placed at the handle where it could be argued the kids didn't clean carefully.

The way that testing was done my guess would be a tiny amount of DNA in the lab which wasn't set up for LCN detection. It had no positive pressure hoods IIRC.

I don't think they are very skilled at framing either
I though about trying to use some ideas from this as part of a story but not sure my readers would believe me.

 

[katy_did]

BBC show actually not too bad so far - well done to them for getting Peter Gill to talk some sense on DNA at least!

Interviewer: "If you were the judge and jury on this case, would you be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the DNA evidence pointed to guilt?"

Gill: "No, absolutely not".

And the conclusion: "It all seems to add up to one certainty - that the case against Knox and Sollecito wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt".

 

[NancyS]

The radio 4 show wasn't too bad - I initially thought it was going to be just a summary of the prosecution arguments, however, they then covered the DNA evidence fairly sensibly - and his main argument seemed to be that for people sharing houses, DNA can easily be innocently transfered and shouldn't be used as evidence of being involved with the murder.

They even mentioned the semen stain and how ridiculous it seems that the prosecution do not want it tested

I do wish that someone would cover some of the exculpatory evidence though, as much of this always seems to be largely ignored.

 

[Planigale]

Less detailed than we would like, typical BBC very balanced first 15 minutes pro guilt last 15 minutes pro innocence; but a definite conclusion of poor investigation by ILE and not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Certainly sounds like defence should have engaged Gill.

 

[toto]

The Report BBC Radio 4 programme

I found this a better programme than the BBC3 tv programme the other day. The reporter , Ruth Alexander, seemed very sceptical of Amanda's and Raffaele's innocence : the very high window, the difficulty of heaving the rock through the window, the staging etc. And she was speaking from having been to the cottage.

She said she tried to get an interview with Amanda Knox, and wasn't able to, but by chance encountered Amanda's lawyer Ghirga in the town. He too declined an interview which she found "interesting". However, when the DNA evidence was being discussed more scepticism was shown, helped by Gill's comments.

Her last word is that guilt beyond reasonable doubt has not been shown: More investigations should have been carried out, including the "semen" stain.

 

[toto]

It's a shame that neither those who run tv or radio think an audience could be found for a thorough 2 hour programme. They could probably get mileage out of at least 6 one hour programmes.

 

[Grinder]

Here's a post from the dark side today:

The lack of physical evidence is not evidence.

Eg if you dont find someones dna, or saliva or blood in a given room, you cant conclude they werent there.

There is the footprint, compatible with AK, and the knife outline compatble with the kitchen knife with ak an mk dna on it. Im not a foensic expert, however.​

Of course this is another person that doesn't understand Locard.

The Machine is ranting as well that the shoe print on the duvet is compatible with Amanda but not Meredith shoe size (which I don't believe could be determined) which raises an issue. Where are the other woman's shoe prints? We know that the print was a partial left by Rudy which explains the "missing" small shoe prints but is this proof strong enough to over come the PG mistake?

I would like one of our PG people to explain how Amanda left a shoe print on the duvet or pillow, didn't leave another shoe print anywhere and left bare footprints in the hall.

Apparently the knife that didn't match the outline or the wounds for 5 years now does.