Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #18

[SMK]

MK's sister asked for this in her letter, and I want it, too:



But what witnesses came forward with significant information that wasn't brought forth by the media?

This, however, I respectfully disagree with:



MK has not been forgotten. But this appeal is not about her or what happened that night. It's about whether the first court got the conviction right.

I agree. This appeal is really about whether or not Knox and Sollecito were fairly convicted.

 

[wasnt_me]

At this point, I want to know if PS made a case for keeping the DNA in the case for the bra and the knife. I just don't see how she can say ANYTHING significant at this point to negate the Independent report.

Picking at small things in it doesn't negate the big elephant. That is, they found up to 17 partial profile combinations on that bra clasp. That means PS HAD TO HAVE HAD RS's DNA in front of her while matching it up. I guess the expert witness knows her own DNA profile. That's why she said some of the alleles and peaks matched her own. She said that because she KNOWS her own profile. So PS had to KNOW RS's profile to pull his out of there.

She had to have RS's dna in front of her at the time she chose which DNA peaks to save and which to ignore. How else could she have gotten his profile out of that mix?

And regardless, if there are 17 partials on it, then 17 people had to be in the house, touching that bra clasp--or it is indeed contaminated. If this is used as evidence against RS, then first, 16 others need to be found and ruled out as suspects.

 

[SMK]

At this point, I want to know if PS made a case for keeping the DNA in the case for the bra and the knife. I just don't see how she can say ANYTHING significant at this point to negate the Independent report.

Picking at small things in it doesn't negate the big elephant. That is, they found up to 17 partial profile combinations on that bra clasp. That means PS HAD TO HAVE HAD RS's DNA in front of her while matching it up. I guess the expert witness knows her own DNA profile. That's why she said some of the alleles and peaks matched her own. She said that because she KNOWS her own profile. So PS had to KNOW RS's profile to pull his out of there.

She had to have RS's dna in front of her at the time she chose which DNA peaks to save and which to ignore. How else could she have gotten his profile out of that mix?

And regardless, if there are 17 partials on it, then 17 people had to be in the house, touching that bra clasp--or it is indeed contaminated. If this is used as evidence against RS, then first, 16 others need to be found and ruled out as suspects.

I do not think she negated their report. I think the independent report will stand.

 

[SMK]

@wasnt_me: Here is Nick Pisa's headline from today's hearings, Sky News: too bad the article does not go into more detail about the proceedings:

DNA Evidence Slammed At Amanda Knox Appeal

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16063292

 

[SMK]

@ wasnt_me: This is what i meant by some saying yea and nay. This is what was said in court by Francesco Maresca...So Dr. Stefanoni is claiming that the independent experts COULD have retested the knife....

Stefanoni said according to the protocol she used, the amount of DNA on the knife was sufficient and clearly attributable to Kercher. She said the new experts have equipment capable of examining very small DNA samples and that testing should have been done.
"Stefanoni has thoroughly and calmly clarified the principal elements of the work she carried out -- in a clear manner, given the complex subject ... during the examination at the time," Francesco Maresca, attorney for the Kercher family, said Monday. "I think she managed to get the court's full attention and to have damaged the independent forensic work."
Vecchiotti and Conti also said the clasp from Kercher's bloodied bra, which allegedly contained Sollecito's DNA, was "dirty" and had been allowed to rust, making further testing futile. The evidence, the two argued, should be "inadmissible."
Stefanoni is expected to testify about the bra clasp Tuesday. She testified Monday that she wore anti-contamination equipment when examining the DNA evidence.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/09/05/italy.knox.appeal/index.html

 

[sherlockh]

@ wasnt_me: This is what i meant by some saying yea and nay. This is what was said in court by Francesco Maresca...So Dr. Stefanoni is claiming that the independent experts COULD have retested the knife....http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/09/05/italy.knox.appeal/index.html

I am so happy the issue of paper vs plastic baggies has been explained. I was worried they had to open all Italian prison gates because of that one

http://abcnews.go.com/International...ice-defend-forensic-methods/story?id=14449107

Stefanoni said they used U.S. made plastic sealed certified bags instead of paper in the DNA collection.

Looks like the independent experts made a complete fool of themselves with their 9 loci argument, and 'nobody in the world' would test such a small amount of DNA. No judge will fall for those tricks. I wouldn't be surprised if the report isn't even mentioned by the judges anymore.

 

[SMK]

I am so happy the issue of paper vs plastic baggies has been explained. I was worried they had to open all Italian prison gates because of that one

http://abcnews.go.com/International...ice-defend-forensic-methods/story?id=14449107


Looks like the independent experts made a complete fool of themselves with their 9 loci argument, and 'nobody in the world' would test such a small amount of DNA. No judge will fall for those tricks. I wouldn't be surprised if the report isn't even mentioned by the judges anymore.

Could be, we do not know ..."the jury is still out" on all. Both sides insist that the other is crumbling. What Hellman and the jury will decide is unknown. I am taking nothing for granted.

 

[SMK]

2 new posts from PERUGIA SHOCK:

http://perugiashock.com/

Of course Frank Sfarzo saw Stefononi as having a bad time on the stand...

wasnt_me, tell me what you think of Frank's critiques.

 

[sherlockh]

2 new posts from PERUGIA SHOCK:

Of course Frank Sfarzo saw Stefononi as having a bad time on the stand...

Now even Frank starts attacking the victims family. <modsnip>. I thought this was a victim friendly forum?

 

[wasnt_me]

2 new posts from PERUGIA SHOCK:

http://perugiashock.com/

Of course Frank Sfarzo saw Stefononi as having a bad time on the stand...

wasnt_me, tell me what you think of Frank's critiques.

In a word...confusing....

I am extremely surprised the DNA was kept in the refridgerator at the cottage. That is NOT a sterilized environment. DNA from beef could be on it! LOL

I don't think she should have told the court that little tidbit. I guess we'll see where we stand after she is cross-exmined, but talk of garage's and refridgerators aint good.

I'm just looking for information that tells me PS refuted the report and proved that MK's dna was on the knife and RS's on the bra clasp. Did we get anything like that today?

 

[wasnt_me]

Right. Hopefully, the kerchers will find their peace with things, and hopefully AK and RS will find their justice. Hopefully.

 

[Allusonz]

MK's sister asked for this in her letter, and I want it, too:



But what witnesses came forward with significant information that wasn't brought forth by the media?

This, however, I respectfully disagree with:



MK has not been forgotten. But this appeal is not about her or what happened that night. It's about whether the first court got the conviction right.

BBM

I must agree with that statement strongly. The Kerchers have lost a daughter but 2 wrongs do not make a right. They strike me as being intelligent people that I believe are being mislead regarding information.

 

[Allusonz]

I don't really think anyone else's opinions matter. This case is very polarized. I just want to know exactly what was said today in court.

To be honest there was nothing earthshattering MOO

A couple of new things one being that 8 profiles were found on the bra clasp of which 9 loci of Prof Carla Vecchiotti matched but as well those 9 loci could match many other individuals including the judge

The second being somehow the negative controls for the tests were supposedly found. The problem being that negative controls are usually the easiest thing to forge as they should show no peaks. Stephanoni did not come across well

I suspect we will see much of the same thing over the next couple of days

 

[Allusonz]

2 new posts from PERUGIA SHOCK:

http://perugiashock.com/

Of course Frank Sfarzo saw Stefononi as having a bad time on the stand...

wasnt_me, tell me what you think of Frank's critiques.

Again Frank brings a different perspective and additional information that is often not found in other reports. Such as the reactions of the judge, jury, etc.

I think we must also remember that Frank originally believed in AK's and RS's guilt until the evidence started to come out

Thanks SMK for posting his link as I do enjoy his insight as to what is going on in the courtroom

 

[Allusonz]

Perhaps you have a link to this information about the downstairs flat being searched a day or 2 after the murder of Meredith Kercher?

The particulars are, per my recollection, that at the time of the murder the entire cottage was searched as a potential crime scene. Because the occupants of the downstairs flat were out of town, and the keys that they had given to Meredith were missing, police had to break into the downstairs flat. This photo, originally posted on CNN, is attributed to Anne Bremner, lawyer for Friends of Amanda. It was posted on CNN with the implication that police were aggressively kicking down the door to the flat shared by Meredith and roommates, but it is the downstairs flat occupied by the male students.

The grate on the door, clearly visible and unlocked, would have provided a "ladder" for climbing onto the small roof over the door and then anyone could easliy climb onto the balcony. The door is not visible from the road as it is on the back of the cottage and obscured by trees. Once on the balcony, the kitchen window was the easiest way to enter the cottage.

You have often posted the picture of AK standing amoung many of the PLE in a number of these threads. The first place that comes to mind as to this being mentioned is in her email that she sent to 25 individuals

 

[Allusonz]

In a word...confusing....

I am extremely surprised the DNA was kept in the refridgerator at the cottage. That is NOT a sterilized environment. DNA from beef could be on it! LOL

I don't think she should have told the court that little tidbit. I guess we'll see where we stand after she is cross-exmined, but talk of garage's and refridgerators aint good.

I'm just looking for information that tells me PS refuted the report and proved that MK's dna was on the knife and RS's on the bra clasp. Did we get anything like that today?

It is my personal opinion that she did nothing to detract from the experts report.

In fact I believe the experts were able to get out more damning information such as the 8 profiles on the bra clasp. Most of what she stated i will simply classify as fluff (long winded with little to no substance)

 

[Allusonz]

In a word...confusing....

I am extremely surprised the DNA was kept in the refridgerator at the cottage. That is NOT a sterilized environment. DNA from beef could be on it! LOL

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

OMG my chuckle for the day!!!

 

[Sonata]

Anyone seen Barbie Nadeau's tweets?

Sounds like utter madness in court with lots of bickering and sounds like Hellman might be getting fed up...

"Mayhem. Comodi offended by comment made by Sollecito's expert witness. Maybe it's time to stop for the day."

"Judge clearly tired of bickering between prosecutor and witness. Move on people."

"Court discussing the appropriate way to cut a bra off a dead body. Where is a mannequin when you need one?"

 

[SkewedView]

I promised Otto waayyyy back that I would respond to him on the knife dna before I did anything else, and haven't had time to do so...but here's a start.

This link:

http://www.investigativegenetics.com/content/1/1/14

is a very good reference to trace DNA protocols, standard procedures, and problems with the process etc.

From this, I will be noting multiple things as I have time, but first I should note that I was incorrect in my puzzlement over PS sampling from an area that had a negative initial quantitative result - in the above link it notes:

However, a negative quantitation result should not prevent the downstream processing of trace samples. Partial or even complete 9 locus STR profiles have been obtained from samples giving a negative result

Here's a (long) bit that is relevant to the MK dna findings (BBM):

Despite all the above options for improving the amplification and detection success of trace (or, indeed, any forensic sample), many forensic laboratories have been reluctant to validate and implement them into standard case-work procedures. It is only recently that internal validations of trace DNA profiling using commercial multiplexes (with and without extended cycles/LCN methodology) have been published in peer-reviewed literature [79,80,173]. However, none of the commercial kits are validated by their manufacturer for 34 cycles or very low template amounts. The lack of validation is partially due to the innate variability that exists with trace DNA samples and their analysis. Any trace DNA sample, by its very nature, is below the stochastic threshold and is, thus, subject to the inherent variation which comes with operating at such low levels. A major cause of the reluctance in the forensic community to use methods designed for successful trace DNA analysis may be the increased level of artefacts that result from the increased sensitivity. Concomitant with the ability to amplify minute quantities of material is the increased likelihood of contamination being detected and of artefacts of the amplification process being increased due to stochastic effects. Four features are common across many trace DNA amplifications:

1. allele drop-out due to preferential amplification of one allele at one or more heterozygous loci. This is a near-constant feature of extremely low template and increases as template levels decrease [77,78,177,178]. Despite improving technologies rapidly increasing sensitivity, any amplification of trace DNA amounts must be interpreted in light of the probable drop-out of alleles

2. decreased heterozygote allele balance within a locus and between loci. The same stochastic sampling and amplification effects that cause drop-out also cause extreme peak height imbalance within and between loci, which can create difficulties evaluating zygosity at particular loci

3. allele drop-in, due to amplification artefacts such as stutter. Artefact rates can substantially increase with trace DNA amounts [78], leading to difficulties in characterizing the number of donors to a STR profile and to the assigning of alleles within a mixture

4. allele drop-in, caused by sporadic contamination occurring from either the crime-scene or the laboratory. Although the probability of allele drop-in remains the same, regardless of the template amount, the probability of detection increases with lowered genuine template levels [77,80,173]. Additionally, depending on when the contaminating source entered a sample, reanalysis may or may not reproduce the initial result.

Now, here's some of what they have to say about analysis of trace dna (this bit has more relevance to the bra clasp, methinks) - again, BBM:

The interpretation of trace DNA analyses is currently the most controversial aspect of its use within the medico-legal systems. In placing a profile obtained from trace amounts of biological material found at the crime-scene into context, the analyst should take into account the potential for transfer of the material, the possible cellular origin of the DNA profile in question, the stochastic nature of the collection and analytical procedures and the possibility of artefacts confounding the true result. In most laboratories the analytical methods and statistical calculations employed for standard DNA typing are used for trace DNA - a process which is statistically and scientifically incorrect and which can bias calculations heavily against the defendant. In 2007, a high-profile case in Northern Ireland [180] raised questions regarding the appropriate interpretation methods of low template DNA and the subsequent UK Forensic Regulator's report recommended the development and validation of methods specific to trace DNA amounts [181].
Interpretation methods specific for trace DNA

Guidelines and models for the interpretation of trace level DNA profiles have existed for over a decade [77] but there has been no widespread implementation across laboratories performing low template analysis. Instead, the same profile interpretation and statistical methods are used as for high quantity samples. However, it is imperative that any analysis of a trace profile considers the four most common features of trace amplification: allele drop-out, decreased heterozygote balance, allele drop-in (stutter) and contamination, as described above. The effects of these can be minimized by the implementation of strict interpretation guidelines and specialized statistical models and can give the user reliable and robust results from trace DNA.

The most common method of ensuring the reliability of trace DNA profiles involves the use of detection thresholds. In order to eliminate background noise, a ~50 RFU threshold is commonly used as a calling threshold, termed the limit of detection (LOD). To ensure allelic drop-out does not result in false homozygote calls, a separate threshold, referred to as the low-template DNA threshold, T [182], the MIT (match interpretation threshold) [183], or the limit of quantitation (LOQ) [184] is set at 150-200 RFU. Only peaks above this threshold may be called as homozygous. The purpose behind this decision is to ensure that the probability of allele drop-out (Pr(D)) is minimized and so the probability of defining either a mixture as a single-source, or a heterozygote as a homozygote, is low. However, even with a strict threshold, drop-out may still occur. Therefore, it has been recommended that, instead of thresholds, a more continuous measure should be used which is modelled on the risk of dropout based on peak heights. In this manner, the evidence intensity can be included in the exclusion calculation and informative alleles below an arbitrary threshold value do not have to be automatically ignored

/snipped/


Mixed trace DNA profiles add yet another level of complexity to the interpretative process. Mixed samples may be composed of one or more major contributors with high quantities of DNA and with a minor contributor present only at trace levels. Alternatively, all contributors' DNA within the mixture may be at trace levels. Furthermore, DNA truly derived from a single source could be treated as a mixture due to high stutter peaks being present and, therefore, wrongly interpreted as coming from multiple individuals. Given the high probability of drop-in, drop-out and increased stutter, estimating the number of contributors can be problematic, as can separating the contributors' genotypes at any given locus. Amplification bias may cause the minor contributor's alleles to drop out entirely at some loci or may cause over-amplification of some alleles, creating the appearance of a separate contributor. In particular, the increased stutter seen with trace DNA amplification [77,78,179] creates formidable problems for mixture interpretation. Although there are locus-specific stutter percentage guidelines for standard template amounts, none exist for trace DNA amounts. In addition, there is evidence that both forward and backward stutter increases with increasing allele length within a locus [20,194-196]. A difference in stutter percentage of 12% has been reported between alleles 10 and 17 at a commonly used locus [20]. From the limited data available, peak heights of backwards stutter may increase from 0%-4% at the smallest allele within a locus, to 12%-20% at the largest [194]. This difference may create a bias during interpretation, with longer molecular weight stutters being more likely to exceed thresholds and to be incorrectly designated as real. Alternatively, a peak at a stutter location of a small allele could potentially be perceived as a stutter when actually it represents a true allele from another source. Further efforts toward more precisely defining stutter peak expectations based on the laboratory specific methodologies in use, DNA template amount and allele height should assist profile interpretation.

More later on this (no analysis or conclusions of my own for the moment, no time, plus I'd like to see what y'all think first)...

 

[Allusonz]

I don't understand the significance of these statements:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/05/amanda-knox-italian-police_n_949234.html

I fail to see how a glass wall can deter machine contimination. I fail to see how it can help if the evidence was contaminated before reaching the lab.

Additionally, I do not see how her completing her work before a cited report was published has anything to do with it. That's kind of like saying that if she made a mistake, it ws because she didn't know the proper protocols. Ok, but you still made the mistakes. :waitasec: For example, say you killed someone while drinking and driving, but you say that at the time, no laws procluded you from drinking and driving, though they now exist. Okay....but you still killed someone in your car while driving it....

Of course she could not follow protocols that she allegedly knew nothing about; however, that doesn't negate whether the nonimplementation of those protocols left the evidence at risk of contimination. That's just like telling a person who has just contracted HIV from you that you didn't know the protocol of wearing condoms at the time.

BBM

It can't. It is just another thing that would require cleaning to avoid contamination