Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#9

[Chris_Halkides]

Conti & Vecchioti ... good forensic science?

I agree with almost everything that they did and said. They are much more experienced than Dr. Novelli, most of whose work is not in forensic DNA.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

They concluded that there was no blood or DNA on the knife or the bra clasp, which obviously was incorrect.

From their report

Their test for blood was negative, as was Stefanoni's test. They did not have a chance to test the bra clasp, because it was incomprehensibly stored in the presence of extraction buffer, causing it to rot and rust. They made the correct decision not to amplify the DNA sample that they did find IMO. That noted, the fact that Amanda's DNA was later identified actually strengthens the case that Meredith's profile arose from a source that is unrelated to the crime. How can one clean a bloody knife so thoroughly that it escapes the limit of detection (at least one part in 500,000) yet leave DNA in two places and starch in at least one? It is absurd.

 

[SMK]

Their test for blood was negative, as was Stefanoni's test. They did not have a chance to test the bra clasp, because it was incomprehensibly stored in the presence of extraction buffer, causing it to rot and rust. They made the correct decision not to amplify the DNA sample that they did find IMO. That noted, the fact that Amanda's DNA was later identified actually strengthens the case that Meredith's profile arose from a source that is unrelated to the crime. How can one clean a bloody knife so thoroughly that it escapes the limit of detection (at least one part in 500,000) yet leave DNA in two places and starch in at least one? It is absurd.

BBM - Have the prosecution or their related experts offered anything in the way of a theory or explanation as to this?

 

[SMK]

I agree with almost everything that they did and said. They are much more experienced than Dr. Novelli, most of whose work is not in forensic DNA.

Did the Supreme Court (really not sure how this works) review both, compare them, and make a corresponding judgment?

 

[otto]

What witness is this?

BTW Amanda never changed her story. She never lied, either.

Are you unable to access the linked report?

 

[otto]

I agree with almost everything that they did and said. They are much more experienced than Dr. Novelli, most of whose work is not in forensic DNA.

So Balding got it wrong?
Was he told that he got it wrong during the interview ... when he did not provide the preferred answers?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

BBM - Have the prosecution or their related experts offered anything in the way of a theory or explanation as to this?

The closest thing of which I am aware is the claim that there was a groove in the knife. If it were real, one might argue that some biological matter could get caught in it. However, the photos that I have seen do not lead me to believe in its existence. Even if it existed, I don't see what would keep cells in this putative groove from being lysed by, for example, detergent.

 

[otto]

Their test for blood was negative, as was Stefanoni's test. They did not have a chance to test the bra clasp, because it was incomprehensibly stored in the presence of extraction buffer, causing it to rot and rust. They made the correct decision not to amplify the DNA sample that they did find IMO. That noted, the fact that Amanda's DNA was later identified actually strengthens the case that Meredith's profile arose from a source that is unrelated to the crime. How can one clean a bloody knife so thoroughly that it escapes the limit of detection (at least one part in 500,000) yet leave DNA in two places and starch in at least one? It is absurd.

Therefore, C&V got it wrong. They concluded in their report that there was no DNA on the clasp or the knife. If they were unable to examine the bra clasp, they should not have stated an opinion about DNA on the bra clasp. Furthermore, if they had not reported on the bra clasp, Balding would not have been able to peer review their report and write about the DNA on the bra clasp. It cannot be true that there was no DNA on the bra clasp and that Balding was able to review the analysis of the DNA on the bra clasp. Regarding the knife, C&V concluded that there was no DNA. Again, they got it wrong because we just received the results of DNA on the knife.

It strikes me as ridiculous to say that C&V got it right when they concluded that there was no DNA on the knife, or bra when we know that is not true.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

So Balding got it wrong?
Was he told that he got it wrong during the interview ... when he did not provide the preferred answers?

I am not sure what you mean.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Did the Supreme Court (really not sure how this works) review both, compare them, and make a corresponding judgment?

They engaged in a certain amount of puffery with respect to Novelli IMO. One thing that is so bothersome is that if court prefers the prosecution's experts to independent experts, what chance does the defense have?

 

[otto]

BBM - Have the prosecution or their related experts offered anything in the way of a theory or explanation as to this?

What is there to explain? The knife was cleaned so thoroughly that only two specks of DNA were left behind, neither of which belonged to the owner, and regular user, of the knife

 

[otto]

Did the Supreme Court (really not sure how this works) review both, compare them, and make a corresponding judgment?

C&V were rejected, along with Hellman, on the basis of being illogical and failing to complete the task with which they were tasked.

 

[SMK]

They engaged in a certain amount of puffery with respect to Novelli IMO. One thing that is so bothersome is that if court prefers the prosecution's experts to independent experts, what chance does the defense have?

What in your opinion is the reason that the Supreme Court would not be open to independent experts, while maintaining a protective stance toward the prosecution expert? (I really am not sure of how prosecutors and SCs are connected)

 

[otto]

The closest thing of which I am aware is the claim that there was a groove in the knife. If it were real, one might argue that some biological matter could get caught in it. However, the photos that I have seen do not lead me to believe in its existence. Even if it existed, I don't see what would keep cells in this putative groove from being lysed by, for example, detergent.

Thankfully, experts were able to identify and analyze the DNA.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Therefore, C&V got it wrong. SNIP

Some time ago I looked at the standard curve that Conti and Vecchiotti used with respect to real-time PCR. My recollection is that the knife sample in question fell below the lowest data point in the standard curve, meaning it was a very small amount. They made the correct call not to amplify it, as I said before.

Dr. Balding reviewed a paper that Dr. Vecchiotti wrote. He must have agreed that it was worthy of publication in the journal in question. Dr. Balding did not peer review the work that Conti and Vecchiotti did with respect to this case, however. Dr. Balding did acknowledge that he had not examined the negative controls and that he had not examined the electronic data files or other case-related files. His statistical technique for analyzing mixtures no doubt has great merit. However, one cannot perform a complete case review without the things I just mentioned.

 

[otto]

I am not sure what you mean.

Balding concludes that the DNA on the clasp belongs to Sollecito. C&V concluded that there was no DNA on the clasp. Can't have it both ways. Either C&V got it right or Balding got it right.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Thankfully, experts were able to identify and analyze the DNA.

DNA from a bleached sample would show evidence of degradation. This sample did not show such evidence.

 

[otto]

They engaged in a certain amount of puffery with respect to Novelli IMO. One thing that is so bothersome is that if court prefers the prosecution's experts to independent experts, what chance does the defense have?

Perhaps C&V should not have relied on people across the pond stomping their feet and claiming that contamination is possible without forming a logical explanation for how that was possible. No one needs experts like that.

The courts everywhere prefer experts with integrity, something that C&V lacked.

 

[otto]

Some time ago I looked at the standard curve that Conti and Vecchiotti used with respect to real-time PCR. My recollection is that the knife sample in question fell below the lowest data point in the standard curve, meaning it was a very small amount. They made the correct call not to amplify it, as I said before.

Dr. Balding reviewed a paper that Dr. Vecchiotti wrote. He must have agreed that it was worthy of publication in the journal in question. Dr. Balding did not peer review the work that Conti and Vecchiotti did with respect to this case, however. Dr. Balding did acknowledge that he had not examined the negative controls and that he had not examined the electronic data files or other case-related files. His statistical technique for analyzing mixtures no doubt has great merit. However, one cannot perform a complete case review without the things I just mentioned.

Balding examined only the bra clasp DNA evidence that was made available to him via C&V. When asked to offer an opinion about how the clasp was collected, he stated that he did not review that information. It was not possible to manipulate Balding into stating that Sollecito's DNA on the clasp should be ignored.

Balding didn't agree that anything was "worthy". It is not necessary to know how the evidence was collected in order to analyze the DNA results.

Balding stated that the DNA on the clasp belongs to Sollecito. C&V said that there was no DNA on the clasp. Who made the correct conclusions and who got it wrong?

 

[Katody]

Are you unable to access the linked report?

I wonder why the name of the witness is so inconvenient? What's the problem with simply giving it?
We know it's not Amanda. It's not Filomena either. The only person directly connected to the discovery of the break-in was Raffaele and he didn't testify.