Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #18
- Thread starter Salem
- Start date
- Status
Allusonz
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2010
- Messages
- 4,679
- Reaction score
- 17
It actually sounds like they are throwing the police under the bridge aka scrapegoats in order to save the lab. Either way nothing that so far I have seen today has dented the experts report as the experts are the only ones in this mess of a trial that have nothing to gain. It appears that the prosecution is not even bothering to address the issues of collection at the cottage (first impressions only) Will have to wait till I get more time to review information later today
SkewedView
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2009
- Messages
- 753
- Reaction score
- 6
It helps if it is in order to follow this protocol (from my above link):
The question is, did she specify whether or not all of those 4 areas are indeed separated by such partitions in her lab.
SkewedView
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2009
- Messages
- 753
- Reaction score
- 6
Take your time, it's quite in depth, and contains plenty of fodder for both sides of the DNA issues.
So to sum up, she is basically saying:
"I am unbelievably professional. Don't question me, because everything I do is so meticulous and above reproach it would blow your mind. I know exactly where the documents are. Just give me a few years. Oh wait! Here they are. No? They're wrong? All the information on them is wrong? I'm sure I can find them... somewhere... somewhere.... aha! In my garage! Don't you see how meticulous and professional I am?"
I found her substantially more credible before she engaged in this song and dance.
Thanks for the detailed information. I'm of the opinion that when it comes to understanding and interpreting advanced biochemistry, it's a bit like understanding and interpreting advanced complex analysis. It makes a lot of sense to people that are experts in the field, but for those with no training, it's looks like this:
To a mathematician, the above makes complete sense. To everyone else, there is no way to truly understand the implications. Unless someone posting here has advanced degrees in biochem, I suspect we're all guessing at what all this DNA stuff means while trying to reduce it to some sort of laymen's terms. I could never pretend to understand advanced DNA analysis, not even after reading some articles on the science ... so I'll never be able to give an opinion on the debate ... other than to look at the legal arguments and weigh that which appears stronger.
SkewedView
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2009
- Messages
- 753
- Reaction score
- 6
Thanks for the detailed information. I'm of the opinion that when it comes to understanding and interpreting advanced biochemistry, it's a bit like understanding and interpreting advanced complex analysis. It makes a lot of sense to people that are experts in the field, but for those with no training, it's looks like this:
To a mathematician, the above makes complete sense. To everyone else, there is no way to truly understand the implications. Unless someone posting here has advanced degrees in biochem, I suspect we're all guessing at what all this DNA stuff means while trying to reduce it to some sort of laymen's terms. I could never pretend to understand advanced DNA analysis, not even after reading some articles on the science ... so I'll never be able to give an opinion on the debate ... other than to look at the legal arguments and weigh that which appears stronger.
A very good point. Thank you for your honesty.
I happen to have the advantage (or disadvantage :waitasec: ) of having a wife who works with this stuff on a daily basis, and talks my head off about it on just as regular of a basis (she's quite passionate about it), so in self-defense I've had to familiarize myself with it to a stupid degree (along with loads about Immunology, genetic diseases, cancers etc). I forget that this stuff looks like gobledy-gook to most people.
Nevertheless, I do recommend that you give the link a good look, as it is sort of a reader's digest of far more detailed papers, and so does have some pretty concise statements, analysis etc. I'd really like to see what you think, as there is material in there that supports the independent experts and Steffanoni.
SkewedView
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2009
- Messages
- 753
- Reaction score
- 6
Yeah, and the use of a household freezer to store samples didn't help any either. I really can't believe that she volunteered that information, as it not only looks bad (as in unprofessional and country bumpkinish), it is bad forensically (SOP for freezing of DNA samples is to use a precision -20c or -70c freezer, usually a walk in - household freezers continuously vary in temp, thus freezer burn). That said, studies have shown that freezing aids PCR, when done properly.
RoseMontague
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 179
- Reaction score
- 0
I think it is a great resource, one I have now bookmarked. Thank you. I look forward to your analysis and conclusions.
I have to admit that I'm skimming a bit right now, as I have something else that needs my attention, but when I read something like this:
"The use of laser microdissection techniques allows sufficient numbers of relevant target cells to be isolated from the other overwhelming cell types."
... I think this must be why Sollecito's profile, with 17 loci and the Y match, emerged even though there are other DNA profiles with 9 loci. The existence of other profiles does not negate the strongest profile.
This
"There may be some jurisdictions that require the retention of a specific portion of the collected sample for repeat analysis. However, when this is not the case, and when dealing with a trace sample, the elution of the DNA in a relatively large volume could be limiting. Whilst there may be sufficient DNA in total to acquire a good profile, the concentration may be so low from trace samples that when only a proportion of the available volume is utilized in the amplification, less than optimal profiles are generated"
... appears to be the point of disagreement in the debate surrounding the LNCDNA. Specifically, some have argued that if the tests cannot be repeated, they were never valid in the first place, but here we see that not all labs require a portion be retained for retesting. Similarly, we see that when low volume of DNA is amplified, optimal profiles may not be available.
Here:
"The most commonly used method of enhancing the success of trace DNA amplification is to increase the number of cycles. This procedure, developed at the Forensic Science Service (FSS) in the UK (and adopted by other laboratories), is often referred to as an LCN analysis [77]. "
... we have the procedure used by Dr Stefanoni, where she enhanced the trace by increasing the number of cycles ... suggesting that her procedure was correct.
This I had read before:
"However, it also brings with it a need to increase the stringency of contamination prevention, as it is likely that more sporadic contamination will be detected due to the increased sensitivity."
... specifically that with lower volume DNA test samples, the possibility of detecting contaminants is increased. There was an excellent article from Australia that I came across months ago criticizing all LNCDNA that was not done in much more sterile conditions.
I'll give it more attention when I have a little more time to concentrate, but in general it seems to be that the DNA debate in the courtroom echoes the debates in the scientific communities. One thing is clear, and that is that the analysis of DNA is a dynamic field, and that what was done in 2008 could be better done in 2011. Ever smaller DNA samples will result in accurate matches, and, it seems to me, that the DNA match to Meredith's profile is valid even though the peaks are lower than they would be if the DNA were not LNCDNA. That is, the profile is correct.
It's unfortunate that the Rome Experts did not test the sample from the knife even though they got a sample and had the facilities to test it. They claimed it was too small, did not attempt to identify the sample and simply dismissed it. Instead, they focused on some starch and felt that was worth testing. Furthermore, Judge Hellman requested that the Experts review LNCDNA analysis as it is conducted in Europe. They didn't do this, and instead referred to some non-existent international protocols. I see problems with the DNA Report and indeed several of those are being discussed in the appeal. Instead of the focus remaining on the evidence, it appears that the Rome Experts would like to discuss DNA analysis theory - in some respects, it appears that they are trying to discredit their own profession.
Chris_Halkides
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 608
- Reaction score
- 12
SkewedView,
There might be a double-whammy with respect to DNA in the low template range. One, it is easier to transfer small amounts of material than large amounts; therefore, contamination and secondary transfer are more likely. Two, it is easier to detect low quantities of DNA when one does 34 PCR cycles, rather than 28. I am not aware of any evidence that Stefanoni took the extra precautions that scientists and technicians who regularly work in this range of DNA do.
Chris_Halkides
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 608
- Reaction score
- 12
otto,
To the best of my knowledge, Stefanoni did 28 cycles, not 34. If one believes that the knife was the murder weapon, then it follows that the blade must have been cleaned once, then used to cut bread, which might also remove biological material left on the blade. Without the presence of blood, it is very difficult to believe that DNA was present on the blade when tested. The DNA that was observed is more likely to have arisen from contamination.
34 may well be the new standard today (linked DNA paper was published Dec 2010), but if the standards in 2007-08 were 28, then she followed the European Protocols that were in place during the investigation. The fact that European Protocols may have changed in the last 3-4 years does not mean that tests done 3-4 years ago are no longer valid. I don't know that the protocols were changed from 28 to 34, but since Dr Stefanoni is a highly respected scientist, I doubt she was sloppy in her work. I'm sure that she performed whatever protocols were required at the time that the work was done.
What source for contamination exists? It certainly didn't happen in the apartment, as DNA does not fly and Meredith had never been in the apartment. It is highly unlikely that it occurred in the lab given the sterile environment (behind glass) and several day interval between the testing of the knife blade DNA and other related evidence.
My impression is that the courts are leaning towards excluding the possibility of contamination in the lab. That helps a little with the clasp DNA, but not with the knife DNA. The alternative of completely discrediting the forensic lab seems highly unlikely because of the obvious serious implications.
And yet we have ILE bringing the mop from the hall closet into the murder room within that period as seen in this video:
Forensic Expert Patrizia Stefanoni Gift Wraps A Mop - Amanda Knox Case - YouTube
Is there a link to Dr Stefanoni saying that in the 46 day period, nothing from outside the room was brought inside? It seems to me that the investigators and their equipment were brought into the room.
Are you thinking that Sollecito's DNA was on the mop after it was wrapped by the forensic team and then his DNA flew onto the clasp, but not the sock that was touching the clasp? Weird thing ... Sollecito's DNA wasn't on the mop, even after it was supposedly used to mop up water on the floor of his apartment.
Are you thinking that Sollecito's DNA was on the mop after it was wrapped by the forensic team and then his DNA flew onto the clasp, but not the sock that was touching the clasp? Weird thing ... Sollecito's DNA wasn't on the mop, even after it was supposedly used to mop up water on the floor of his apartment.
Whoops, here you go:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/09/06/general-eu-italy-knox_8661397.html
No, I'm not saying his DNA was on the mop. I'm pointing out that it appears Stefanoni is not being truthful about how her team handled evidence in this case. And more than the mop was probably brought into the room. It just happens I was immediately reminded of the mop when I read that quote. Not to mention, we've been over how they didn't test every square inch of the cottage for DNA, so it's unknown how much of Sollecito's DNA was already present there.
Thanks. From the next sentence in the same article ... "She insisted that out of 133 specimens analyzed in the house of the murder - including 89 in Kercher's room - Sollecito's genetic profile was only found in a cigarette butt in an ashtray, mixed with Knox's." I'm not particularly interested in attempting to discredit experts in order to get someone out of prison - that does seem to be such an old argument commonly used by criminals on a daily basis. I prefer to see a clean argument based on evidence. It seems to me that the only question is how Sollecito's DNA got onto the clasp. Since 89 samples were taken from the bedroom and the only good sample matching Sollecito was on the clasp, it's difficult to argue that it got there by contamination ... unless DNA flies ... which it doesn't. It's also difficult to argue that the mixed sample of Sollecito/Knox DNA on the cigarette flew into the room since it had to drop the Knox profile on the way down the hall ... also not realistic.
It's worthwhile noting that Meredith's DNA was not on her sock, which gives an indication of how DNA transfer works, or doesn't work.
What is proven regarding the case or the evidence by showing that something, like the investigator's tools, were taken into the bedroom?
So that's 43 samples taken from everywhere except Kercher's room. Not very much. Regardless, that's not what my post was about.
I believe the independent experts, who have no stake in the outcome, have already discredited Stefanoni, and she continues to embarrass herself by revealing information such as keeping DNA in her freezer. I don't believe it's possible to discredit the defense or independent experts because they have not made the grave errors committed by the prosecution's experts.
I believe the Rome experts have made the argument that the profiles were so weak they could have been anyone's, depending on how you interpret them, including their own and Hellman's. But additionally, that contamination was very likely.
That they are dishonest, and therefore not motivated by the search for truth.
I understand that your post was to point out that in Nov 2007, one of the investigators stood just inside the bedroom holding a mop that had been wrapped to preserve evidence and this contradicts Dr Stefanoni's claims today, four years later, that nothing was brought into the room. I wouldn't draw any conclusions from this, but that's just me. Others may conclude that this means Dr Stefanoni is incompetent, perhaps corrupt or even dishonest.
~Respectfully snipped~
From your link, I found this quote (emphasis added):
"Prosecution consultant Giuseppe Novelli struck back at the independent experts, saying they could have and should have retested the material still present on the blade, as their mandate allowed them to do."
And my jaw dropped. I thought that was a major part of this appeal. Retesting the blade? Wasn't there talk of removing the handle and all kinds of things? It seems really stange to me that they didn't retest. The argument is that there is too little material to retest, but now that is being disputed.
Oh my goodness....... :waitasec:
Just surprised me. :crazy:
Salem
From your link, I found this quote (emphasis added):
"Prosecution consultant Giuseppe Novelli struck back at the independent experts, saying they could have and should have retested the material still present on the blade, as their mandate allowed them to do."
And my jaw dropped. I thought that was a major part of this appeal. Retesting the blade? Wasn't there talk of removing the handle and all kinds of things? It seems really stange to me that they didn't retest. The argument is that there is too little material to retest, but now that is being disputed.
Oh my goodness....... :waitasec:
Just surprised me. :crazy:
Salem
- Status