Motivation Report has been released

[Chris_Halkides]

How can a negative control have a Ct 32 and not contain DNA. If it does not contain DNA it should register a Ct 50 (Ct refers to the number of amplifications a sample goes through before DNA is detected. If the sample is amplified 50 times and shows no DNA, it is considered free of DNA. All negative controls should have a Ct = 50). As I just stated, Steffanoni's work shows negative controls with a CT = 32. Thus they contain DNA, thus THERE IS CONTAMINATION. What's worse, Steffanoni testified that her lab never had contamination, obviously a lie.

Besides Stefanoni, Dr. Novelli also said that there was no contamination. Therefore his testimony also needs to be considered in light of his failure to find these problems in the quantitation data.

 

[otto]

If there was any evidence of contamination, that information should have been presented during court arguments a couple of years ago. Instead, the defence simply argued that contamination was possible. No additional information was presented. On that basis, the court ruled that there was no evidence of contamination.

No court will rule that contamination occurred on the basis that it is hypothetically possible.

 

[Bill C]

If there was any evidence of contamination, that information should have been presented during court arguments a couple of years ago. Instead, the defence simply argued that contamination was possible. No additional information was presented. On that basis, the court ruled that there was no evidence of contamination.

No court will rule that contamination occurred on the basis that it is hypothetically possible.

It's not hypothetical. Steffanoni's own data PROVES that there was contamination in the lab. I don't know why the defense hasn't brought it up before. Maybe because it does take significant digging through the data to find it but IT IS THERE. It appears to be the proverbial smoking gun. Let's take stock of some of Steffanoni's lies: 1) In court she lied about the amount of DNA on the knife, 2) She lied by ommision by failing to reveal the negative TMB tests on the "footprints", and now 3) we have proof that she lied about never having contamination in her lab. How can we believe anything this woman said or now says. In my opinion, the least the ISC can do is send the case back to the appelate court so that Steffanoni can be cross-examined again to expose her shotty work and her lies.

 

[otto]

It's not hypothetical. Steffanoni's own data PROVES that there was contamination in the lab. I don't know why the defense hasn't brought it up before. Maybe because it does take significant digging through the data to find it but IT IS THERE. It appears to be the proverbial smoking gun. Let's take stock of some of Steffanoni's lies: 1) In court she lied about the amount of DNA on the knife, 2) She lied by ommision by failing to reveal the negative TMB tests on the "footprints", and now 3) we have proof that she lied about never having contamination in her lab. How can we believe anything this woman said or now says. In my opinion, the least the ISC can do is send the case back to the appelate court so that Steffanoni can be cross-examined again to expose her shotty work and her lies.

Attacking the credibility of yet another professional that worked towards justice for Meredith leaves another black mark on Knox. There has been a trial, and there have been evidentiary points that were reviewed again through the appeal process. If there was a contamination argument that held water, that would have been presented during the trial and the appeals.

 

[Bill C]

Attacking the credibility of yet another professional that worked towards justice for Meredith leaves another black mark on Knox. There has been a trial, and there have been evidentiary points that were reviewed again through the appeal process. If there was a contamination argument that held water, that would have been presented during the trial and the appeals.

To be honest applying the word "professional" to Steffanoni and her work in this case is quite a stretch. With regard to your claiming that "if there was a contamination argument that held water, that would have been presented during the trial and the appeals" you must remember that C and V said both the bra clasp DNA and the knife DNA evidence were unreliable. Helliman believed them, 5 judges of the ISC and Nencini did not. None of these judges seem to have any significant forensic DNA background. How else due you explain Nencini claiming that some of the Y-hapotypes found on the bra clasp might be attributable to females. Without such background, how can they begin to understand the nuances and requirements of such technology. Consequently it seems logical that they would give the benefit of the doubt to a state employed "professional". I'm told that in the US, judges who handle such cases have to at least read an extensive manual concerning DNA analysis before trying these cases.
Now I'm not defending the A/R defense teams. I personally feel they did a suboptimal job in several areas. They should have had their own experts examine the information Steffanoni provided with a fine-tooth comb. If they had, they would have come to the same conclusions that Chris Halkides and his colleague did, there was contamination. And in reaching such a conclusion they should have found some way to dumb-down the information so that even an uninformed judge could understand. Unfortunately, they did not.
By the way, this is not the first time a forensic expert has been found to be either incompetent or corrupt. I refer you to the case(s) of a forensic expert in the state of North Carolina. Now, 100's of her cases are in the process of being reexamined because of her corrupt behavior.
I would think people on this board would be more interested in finding the truth than supporting the supposed "professionals" in Italy.

 

[otto]

To be honest applying the word "professional" to Steffanoni and her work in this case is quite a stretch. With regard to your claiming that "if there was a contamination argument that held water, that would have been presented during the trial and the appeals" you must remember that C and V said both the bra clasp DNA and the knife DNA evidence were unreliable. Helliman believed them, 5 judges of the ISC and Nencini did not. None of these judges seem to have any significant forensic DNA background. How else due you explain Nencini claiming that some of the Y-hapotypes found on the bra clasp might be attributable to females. Without such background, how can they begin to understand the nuances and requirements of such technology. Consequently it seems logical that they would give the benefit of the doubt to a state employed "professional". I'm told that in the US, judges who handle such cases have to at least read an extensive manual concerning DNA analysis before trying these cases.
Now I'm not defending the A/R defense teams. I personally feel they did a suboptimal job in several areas. They should have had their own experts examine the information Steffanoni provided with a fine-tooth comb. If they had, they would have come to the same conclusions that Chris Halkides and his colleague did, there was contamination. And in reaching such a conclusion they should have found some way to dumb-down the information so that even an uninformed judge could understand. Unfortunately, they did not.
By the way, this is not the first time a forensic expert has been found to be either incompetent or corrupt. I refer you to the case(s) of a forensic expert in the state of North Carolina. Now, 100's of her cases are in the process of being reexamined because of her corrupt behavior.
I would think people on this board would be more interested in finding the truth than supporting the supposed "professionals" in Italy.

Dr. Steffanoni is a high-ranking forensics expert in Italy's equivalent of the FBI.

There are no grounds for slandering her character and professionalism.

 

[whoanellie]

By the way, this is not the first time a forensic expert has been found to be either incompetent or corrupt. I refer you to the case(s) of a forensic expert in the state of North Carolina. Now, 100's of her cases are in the process of being reexamined because of her corrupt behavior.

You may be referring to Duane Deaver (a him)?

 

[otto]

You may be referring to Duane Deaver (a him)?

There were problems with 233 cases, 3 of which resulted in people being put to death. Prosecutors wrote positive performance reviews for forensic analysts that testified in the way that the prosecution wanted ... regardless of whether the testimony was true and accurate.

 

[Bill C]

Dr. Steffanoni is a high-ranking forensics expert in Italy's equivalent of the FBI.

There are no grounds for slandering her character and professionalism.

It's not slander when you speak the truth so please tell me how I've slandered. Did she lie during court procedings (claiming more MK DNA on the knife than was actually there and did she say her lab never had contamination when newly discovered evidence proves she did)? Did she omit significant information in her testimony (the TMB studies)? Even high-ranking forensics experts can act unprofessionally (ie Duane Dever in N.C.). When they do, they should be called on it, even when they are high ranking. Even the President of the United States can be impeached.

 

[Bill C]

You may be referring to Duane Deaver (a him)?

I apologize! You are absolutely correct. I had Steffanoni on my mind when I used the pronoun she:blushing:

 

[whoanellie]

It's not slander when you speak the truth so please tell me how I've slandered. Did she lie during court procedings (claiming more MK DNA on the knife than was actually there and did she say her lab never had contamination when newly discovered evidence proves she did)? Did she omit significant information in her testimony (the TMB studies)? Even high-ranking forensics experts can act unprofessionally (ie Duane Dever in N.C.). When they do, they should be called on it, even when they are high ranking. Even the President of the United States can be impeached.

Wikipedia has an excellent discussion on the issues with an argument from authority (e.g. Steffanoni is an "expert" so she must be correct).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

 

[otto]

It's not slander when you speak the truth so please tell me how I've slandered. Did she lie during court procedings (claiming more MK DNA on the knife than was actually there and did she say her lab never had contamination when newly discovered evidence proves she did)? Did she omit significant information in her testimony (the TMB studies)? Even high-ranking forensics experts can act unprofessionally (ie Duane Dever in N.C.). When they do, they should be called on it, even when they are high ranking. Even the President of the United States can be impeached.

Is it the truth that each prosecutor, Judge, jury, investigator, and forensic expert in the case should be slandered? They all have been slandered. Today it is Dr Stefanoni's turn, some other day it was Dr Mignini, tomorrow it is Judge Nencini. It hardly seems like a valid debate when comments barely rise above slandering Italian professionals, and links have no author.

Is it not possible to make a point without slandering someone?

 

[sherlockh]

How can a negative control have a Ct 32 and not contain DNA. If it does not contain DNA it should register a Ct 50 (Ct refers to the number of amplifications a sample goes through before DNA is detected. If the sample is amplified 50 times and shows no DNA, it is considered free of DNA. All negative controls should have a Ct = 50). As I just stated, Steffanoni's work shows negative controls with a CT = 32. Thus they contain DNA, thus THERE IS CONTAMINATION. What's worse, Steffanoni testified that her lab never had contamination, obviously a lie.

There is no contamination since all negative controls showed CT=50 for the batch in question and no DNA. So it is impossible that DNA came from the machine. One negative control showing 'DNA' at ct=32 does not necessarily mean anything. Especially when 2 runs show nothing. Especially not when it concerns a completely different batch! So Stefanoni never lied. Is this in the appeals?

 

[sherlockh]

Only in local news. "Amanda Knox appeals murder conviction ... again "
http://www.king5.com/news/local/Amanda-Knox-appeals-murder-conviction--again-263556141.html

 

[Linda7NJ]

Only in local news. "Amanda Knox appeals murder conviction ... again "
http://www.king5.com/news/local/Amanda-Knox-appeals-murder-conviction--again-263556141.html

What a wonderful unbiased article! Kudos to the reporter!


Public relations...pfft


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bill C]

There is no contamination since all negative controls showed CT=50 for the batch in question and no DNA. So it is impossible that DNA came from the machine. One negative control showing 'DNA' at ct=32 does not necessarily mean anything. Especially when 2 runs show nothing. Especially not when it concerns a completely different batch! So Stefanoni never lied. Is this in the appeals?

On what basis do you make the claim that one negative control showing a Ct=32 does not necessarily mean anything. Ask international DNA experts, it means contamination pure and simple. How does DNA get into a sample that is supposed to contain NO DNA, other than by contamination. Provide an alternate explanation if you can. [modsnip] As Chris Halkides said above, "Facts are stubborn things".

 

[otto]

On what basis do you make the claim that one negative control showing a Ct=32 does not necessarily mean anything. Ask international DNA experts, it means contamination pure and simple. How does DNA get into a sample that is supposed to contain NO DNA, other than by contamination. Provide an alternate explanation if you can. [modsnip] As Chris Halkides said above, "Facts are stubborn things".

If this is true, why wasn't it presented during the appeal?

 

[Bill C]

Is it the truth that each prosecutor, Judge, jury, investigator, and forensic expert in the case should be slandered? They all have been slandered. Today it is Dr Stefanoni's turn, some other day it was Dr Mignini, tomorrow it is Judge Nencini. It hardly seems like a valid debate when comments barely rise above slandering Italian professionals, and links have no author.

Is it not possible to make a point without slandering someone?

First off, as soon as I found out about who the authors were who proved contamination, I provided the link to their names.
How many guilters hide behind anonymous webnames? How many have actually identified themselves? Very few compared to the number of innocenter experts who have publically come forward with their identities and consequently suffered harassment from the guilter community.
If you have read my posts you will note that the only 2 people I have "slandered" are Steffanoni and Nencini. I am a scientist and as such I am qualified to judge scientific credibility. I have said that by her actions Steffanoni is not a credible scientist or witness. I have also criticized Nencini for his lack of scientific knowledge.
In talking about slander aren't guilters (including Mignini and the various prosecutorial lawyers) guilty of slander as well. Look at all the lies leaked to the press about A/R early in this 7 year odyssey? How about all the name calling, particularly of Amanda (ie-Luciferina) duirng the trials by lawyers for the prosecution? Italian law allows that but if a defense lawyer were to use similar or milder language against prosecution witnesses you can bet a charge of Calunia would be leveled in a heartbeat.
On a personal level, is it ok for people on this board to call A/R murderers when they haven't been formally convicted of anything other than Calunia until the ISC finally convicts them, if in fact they do? Should A/R not be referred to as ALLEGED MURDERERS? So, aren't you being a bit hypocritical complaining about slander on the part of innocenters? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

 

[Bill C]

If this is true, why wasn't it presented during the appeal?

My post #385 answers your question. It's getting late and I have to be in work tomorrow at 6 am so I am going to say good night.

 

[sherlockh]

On what basis do you make the claim that one negative control showing a Ct=32 does not necessarily mean anything. Ask international DNA experts, it means contamination pure and simple. How does DNA get into a sample that is supposed to contain NO DNA, other than by contamination. Provide an alternate explanation if you can. [modsnip] As Chris Halkides said above, "Facts are stubborn things".

The facts show that there were 3 negative controls done for batch 5 showing no contamination. And with that this whole internet theory completely fails.