Motivation Report has been released

[otto]

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.

I think many posters here have all sorts of interesting credentials ... otherwise we wouldn't be able to BS our way through so many scientific debates.

With the slander of two more professionals associated with the case, I cannot ignore the fact that this habit: to slander Italian officers of the court, started with Dr Mignini seven years ago. Since then, every officer of the court that participated in an appeal or conviction has been similarly slandered. It's tiring, and cannot be taken seriously seven years later.

Guede, Knox, and Sollecito have all been found guilty of murder. Knox and Sollecito will appeal to the Supreme Court to have the verdict overturned. If it is overturned, it returns to trial to address some more evidentiary points. It could also be confirmed, in which case there will not be another trial. That is, if the appeal is unsuccessful, the verdict will stand. They are convicted of murder, and are appealing that verdict.

 

[otto]

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.

If it's new evidence, and it's verifiable, then I'm sure that Knox and Sollecito will be granted an appeal where they can present the new DNA evidence. By then, everyone should understand the Italian appeals process whereby only some evidence is re-litigated ... it's not a new trial.

 

[MichaelSmith]

All but two of the slopes are well outside what would be considered a good reaction.

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Quantificazione.pdf

page 37 shows a -2.53

http://www.lrgc.ca/Forms/qPCR-Handbook-flr.pdf

Efficiency
A PCR efficiency of 100% corresponds to a slope of –3.32, as determined by the following equation:
Efficiency = 10(-1/slope) –1
Ideally, the efficiency (E) of a PCR reaction should be 100%, meaning the tem- plate doubles after each cycle during exponential amplification. The actual efficiency can give valuable information about the reaction. Experimental fac- tors such as the length, secondary structure, and GC content of the amplicon can influence efficiency. Other conditions that may influence efficiency are the dynamics of the reaction itself, the use of non-optimal reagent concentrations, and enzyme quality, which can result in efficiencies below 90%. The presence of PCR inhibitors in one or more of the reagents can produce efficiencies of greater than 110%. A good reaction should have an efficiency between 90%and 110%, which corresponds to a slope of between –3.58 and –3.10.

I always told you guys the DNA on the clasp was a fabricated result. :twocents:

 

[otto]

All but two of the slopes are well outside what would be considered a good reaction.

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Quantificazione.pdf

page 37 shows a -2.53

http://www.lrgc.ca/Forms/qPCR-Handbook-flr.pdf

I always told you guys the DNA on the clasp was a fabricated result. :twocents:

Why was this new evidence missed when David Balding reviewed the DNA analysis of the bra clasp? Did he not receive all the relevant documents? Even if it was not his mandate to assess contamination, surely he would have noticed and mentioned this alleged irregularity.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Why was this new evidence missed when David Balding reviewed the DNA analysis of the bra clasp? Did he not receive all the relevant documents?

Balding's position is basically the profile is Raffaele's and he has no opinion how it got there. That's it. He didn't even know they destroyed the clasp letting the hooks rust so what else doesn't he know?

Btw, Professor Peter Gill has a new book coming out discussing this case. It'll be interesting to read his analysis of the clasp and knife.

Misleading DNA Evidence: Reasons for Miscarriages of Justice

Amazon.com: Misleading DNA Evidence: Reasons for Miscarriages of Justice (9780124172142)

Misleading DNA Evidence: A Guide for Scientists, Judges, and Lawyers presents the reasons miscarriages of justice can occur when dealing with DNA, what the role of the forensic scientist is throughout the process, and how judges and lawyers can educate themselves about all of the possibilities to consider when dealing with cases that involve DNA evidence.

DNA has become the gold standard by which a person can be placed at the scene of a crime, and the past decade has seen great advances in this powerful crime solving tool. But the statistics that analysts can attach to DNA evidence often vary, and in some cases the statistical weight assigned to that match, can vary enormously. The numbers provided to juries often overstate the evidence, and can result in a wrongful conviction. In addition to statistics, the way the evidence is collected, stored and analyzed can also result in a wrongful conviction due to contamination.

This book reviews high-profile and somewhat contentious cases to illustrate these points, including the death of Meredith Kercher. It examines crucial topics such as characterization of errors and determination of error rates, reporting DNA profiles and the source and sub-source levels, and the essentials of statement writing. It is a concise, readable resource that will help not only scientists, but legal professionals with limited scientific backgrounds, to understand the intricacies of DNA use in the justice system.
•Ideal reference for scientists and for those without extensive scientific backgrounds
•Written by one of the pioneers in forensic DNA typing and interpretation of DNA profiling results
•Ideal format for travel, court environments, or wherever easy access to reference material is vital

 

[otto]

Should all that be in quotation marks?

Is the idea to educate officers of the court in the interpretation of DNA statistical analysis? 1 in 50 million is different than 1 in 50 thousand? Lawyers get that, don't they? ... or did I misunderstand the emphasis of the book?

 

[otto]

Are two schools of thought developing about the interpretation of DNA results?

 

[otto]

Balding did confirm that the DNA on the clasp belonged to Sollecito, but my question is: if Balding had all the documentation and he analyzed the findings, wouldn't he notice the alleged irregularity and mention it at some point ... perhaps in the interview with Halkides ... in response to the question about contamination? Has Halkides always been an advocate of ... if all else fails, claim contamination?

 

[redheadedgal]

re: stefanoni's "professionalism"

besides the points already made, here are two more:

*ruining the clasp which rendered it useless for further testing by putting it an incorrect solution
*"gift wrapping" a mop using paper found in the cottage -- so much for sterile!! (video below)

Forensic Expert Patrizia Stefanoni Gift Wraps A Mop - Amanda Knox Case - YouTube

 

[redheadedgal]

thanks michael for the book review -- looks like a great read !

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Has Halkides always been an advocate of ... if all else fails, claim contamination?

No, that is not my position at all. As for Professor Balding, he is an expert in statistics, not quantitative PCR. And he did not do a complete case review, just an analysis of the autosomal profile on the clasp.

 

[sherlockh]

What a wonderful unbiased article! Kudos to the reporter!

Public relations...pfft

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is very little information about these appeals in the news. Maybe this is the reason?

it is clear from an initial review that there is one important distinction from past trials: there is no longer a joint defense

http://thefreelancedesk.com/amanda-knox-trials-meredith-kercher-case/

 

[Chris_Halkides]

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?

You are ignoring the contamination that was contemporaneous with the runs that had the bra clasp DNA. Two experiments, H11 and H12 in Run 570, contain standards with known concentrations of DNA, 0.023 pg/µL. They measured 140 and 76 pg/µL, respectively. In other words, they have more DNA than expected. And those are not the only problems in these data.

 

[sherlockh]

You are ignoring the contamination that was contemporaneous with the runs that had the bra clasp DNA. Two experiments, H11 and H12 in Run 570, contain standards with known concentrations of DNA, 0.023 pg/µL. They measured 140 and 76 pg/µL, respectively. In other words, they have more DNA than expected. And those are not the only problems in these data.

And you are ignoring the 3 negative control runs that show no DNA after 50 cycles. How many more negative control runs do you need to show that machine contamination can be ruled out? Is this in the appeals or not? If not, it is off topic.

 

[Bill C]

And you are ignoring the 3 negative control runs that show no DNA after 50 cycles. How many more negative control runs do you need to show that machine contamination can be ruled out? Is this in the appeals or not? If not, it is off topic.

What you don't seem to understand is that a SINGLE negative control that is shown to contain DNA or a SINGLE sample with a known quantity of DNA that shows a significantly higher amount of DNA than the known quantity is evidence of contamination no matter how many negative controls demonstrate a Ct=50. Once contamination is found, most reputable labs would shut down operations and clean the lab thoroughly and ignore all data from contemporaneous runs. There is no evidence that Steffanoni did so. In fact in her court testimony she claims that her lab never had contamination. That is just NOT true. Either she was incompetant in not recognizing the contamination or recognized it and ignored it in order to get results that would make the prosecution happy. Take your pick.

 

[sherlockh]

What you don't seem to understand is that a SINGLE negative control that is shown to contain DNA or a SINGLE sample with a known quantity of DNA that shows a significantly higher amount of DNA than the known quantity is evidence of contamination no matter how many negative controls demonstrate a Ct=50. Once contamination is found, most reputable labs would shut down operations and clean the lab thoroughly and ignore all data from contemporaneous runs. There is no evidence that Steffanoni did so. In fact in her court testimony she claims that her lab never had contamination. That is just NOT true. Either she was incompetant in not recognizing the contamination or recognized it and ignored it in order to get results that would make the prosecution happy. Take your pick.

Of course not. It is impossible to have a negative control showing no DNA if the machine was contaminated with DNA. No DNA is no DNA. That is the whole purpose of running negative controls. The single result you are referring to belongs to another batch. Not to batch 5. Nobody shuts their lab down after a single negative control shows a slightly different result and multiple others prove that there was no contamination. Is this part of the appeal?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

And you are ignoring the 3 negative control runs that show no DNA after 50 cycles. How many more negative control runs do you need to show that machine contamination can be ruled out? Is this in the appeals or not? If not, it is off topic.

Your answer fails to address the point I just made, that contamination was happening in runs at the same time as the clasp. It also fails to address the other problems in quantitating the DNA at this time, such as the absurdly high efficiency numbers. This makes the quantitation of DNA on the bra clasp dubious at best, but perhaps worthless. Moreover, even one no-template control that showed DNA is enough to show contamination. This contradicts both Stefanoni's and Novelli's claims. Facts are stubborn things.

 

[Bill C]

On what basis do you make this claim?

As Chris Halkides has pointed out, there are at least three samples that show contamination (1 from a negative control and 2 from samples containing known quantities of DNA).

I have no way of knowing whether this is part of the appeal. I do not have access to a translation of the several hundred pages that constitute the appeal submission. Having said that, I certainly hope the appeal contains the data analysis.

 

[otto]

Per Andrea Vogt, in the link upthread, it seems that Sollecito is appealing on the basis that the trials should have been heard separately, while Knox is appealing on the basis of contamination, and faulty interpretation, of evidence. Is it the intent to demonstrate that the analysis of the bra clasp evidence is faulty, which implies that all the evidence analsysis could be faulty, therefore Knox is not guilty? Given that contamination and corruption arguments have already been considered by the courts, can this point be re-opened? Sollecito has a new approach, so that may have some success.

I suppose we saw it coming: that Sollecito would try to separate himself from Knox. It has been suggested that this is too little too late.

 

[sherlockh]

Your answer fails to address the point I just made, that contamination was happening in runs at the same time as the clasp. It also fails to address the other problems in quantitating the DNA at this time, such as the absurdly high efficiency numbers. This makes the quantitation of DNA on the bra clasp dubious at best, but perhaps worthless. Moreover, even one no-template control that showed DNA is enough to show contamination. This contradicts both Stefanoni's and Novelli's claims. Facts are stubborn things.

Yah sure, just keep ignoring the negative controls that rule out contamination. Good luck with the appeals!