Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #15

[Malkmus]

No problem. Go back and look at the post I responded to and you will see that the post included the two points.
No, I'm not going to split the luminol hair with you. Luminol is used to reveal blood and in every US case that I've ever read about, blood is exactly what is revealed with luminol.

This from a US police lieutenant:

All luminol solutions can and do produce numerous false positive reactions. Opinions stating that a stain was blood because when he was sprayed with a luminol solution produced luminescence should be avoided!

http://www.redwop.com/technotes.asp?ID=118

So, obviously, in the US Luminol is not regarded as always revealing blood as you insinuate.

There is no debate about whether someone traipsed around with turnip juice on their feet, or whether there is turnip juice under the dead body. In Perugia, for some bizarre and inexplicable reason, luminol only detects something like turnip juice. I think the better question is why there is such an earnest effort to negate the luminol evidence.

Luminol reacts to much more than turnip juice. I don't know where you keep hearing it only reacts to that one thing.

A wide range of domestic and industrial substances that might be mistaken for haemoglobin in the forensic luminol test for blood were examined. The substances studied were in the categories of vegetable or fruit pulps and juices; domestic and commercial oils; cleaning agents; an insecticide; and various glues, paints and varnishes. A significant number of substances in each category gave luminescence intensities that were comparable with the intensities of undiluted haemoglobin, when sprayed with the standard forensic solution containing aqueous alkaline luminol and sodium perborate. In these cases the substance could be easily mistaken for blood when the luminol test is used, but in the remaining cases the luminescence intensity was so weak that it is unlikely that a false-positive test would be obtained. In a few cases the brightly emitting substance could be distinguished from blood by a small but detectable shift of the peak emission wavelength. The results indicated that particular care should be taken to avoid interferences when a crime scene is contaminated with parsnip, turnip or horseradish, and when surfaces coated with enamel paint are involved. To a lesser extent, some care should be taken when surfaces covered with terracotta or ceramic tiles, polyurethane varnishes or jute and sisal matting are involved.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bio.657/abstract

 

[Malkmus]

Does anyone expect to see Knox at home in October - like her family expects?

Significant difference between hope and expectation.

 

[dgfred]

No it won't stand up unless you believe the latest at TJMK which made me chuckle at the pile of incorrect info provided.

Care to post some :innocent: of the 'pile of incorrect info provided' ???

That post would be sure to bring some 'chuckles' IMO.

 

[Malkmus]

Care to post some :innocent: of the 'pile of incorrect info provided' ???

That post would be sure to bring some 'chuckles' IMO.

Apparently PMF's pwn Thoughtful has started her own list:

1) You do mention the ISFG guidelines, but only lower down, rather than up there with the numerous American references cited, giving the impression at first that European guidelines are not considered.

2) You leave out the two places where the report, to my mind, makes a fair and precise remark about contamination.

a) It can typically happen to LCN samples when they are run in the same machine where ample samples of the same person have already been run, and this is what was done with the knife blade DNA,

b) One way to check that the bra clasp did not pick up Raffaele's DNA from the floor would have been to swab the floor. This was apparently not done, and for all we know, Raffaele's DNA could have been all over the floor and if so, that would certainly have been a good thing to know.

3) You say that CV accuse Stefanoni of the "misattribution" of peaks, but you don't add the important facts that

a) she attributed certain peaks - quite a number of them - to stutter rather than human beings.

b) these were exactly every peak not belonging to Raffaele Sollecito (himself undoubtedly present in the Y-haplotype, and in greater quantity than other contributors)

c) she rejected those other peaks in spite of, and not according to, the ISFG guidelines. Indeed, the guidelines are not intended to be rigorously and rigidly followed, as she stated in court, but nor are they meant to be ignored in the case of every single peak except for that of the main contributor/suspect, unless another specific criterion or reason for doing so is supplied, which as far as we know it was not.

 

[dgfred]

Does that look like 'piles' to you?

As you are well aware of... I read there every day. I know what thoughtful posted.

 

[Malkmus]

Does that look like 'piles' to you?

As you are well aware of... I read there every day. I know what thoughtful posted.

Pile wasn't my word. I simply said Thoughtful has started a list of the inaccuracies. How many more does it take to show FBN's analysis is extremely biased against the expert's findings? It seems Thoughtful has pointed out just how accurate the expert findings are.

ETA: And yes I'm aware you post there. That doesn't mean others here are aware of the list.

 

[dgfred]

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

Here... posters can decide for themselves.

 

[dgfred]

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=375&p=92919#p92919

Then (and) only fair to read Fiona's replies/debate against thoughtful's 'analysis' of the report. The report doesn't seem to be as devastating to the prosecution as some 'think/hope'.

 

[SMK]

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

Here... posters can decide for themselves.

I have read TJMK's prologue and commentary on the DNA possible contamination and LCN analysis, and their concluding remarks. I agree that July 25 is not a foregone conclusion re the appeal. We shall have to wait and see, as "the jury is still out".

I do believe that this is a bit over-stated and too strongly worded. There do exist international standards. There are points of real strength within the report:

For an Italian report, it gives the appearance of being remarkably Amero-centric, and we find it ugly and unprofessional that the expert report chooses to attack Dr. Stefanoni and her colleagues by citing nonexistent international standards and by relying upon extraordinarily questionable resources in doing so. :razz::razz:

The report’s final conclusion that contamination cannot be completely ruled out is remarkably weak considering that there are relatively few real-world cases in which contamination of evidence might be completely ruled out.

It becomes clear, then, that well informed prosecution interrogators will have no problem in identifying and attacking the report’s multiple weaknesses. We should expect Dr. Stefanoni and the prosecution’s team of experts to present precise counter arguments for the challenges expressed in the expert report, strongly defending the forensic science capabilities of Stefanoni and her team.

 

[SMK]

I think this is the crux of it. July 25 and its aftermath will show if this is just rationalization and justification, or if it really bears weight:

And as we have seen in the current Knox/Sollecito trial, in Europe it has become customary to have independent experts attempt to convince the court of the validity, or invalidity, of the LCN typing results that have been presented in a trial. To be successful, it is essential that an independent expert provide the court with evidence of expertly-conducted retests of available evidence, relevant citations of appropriate research, and meaningful evaluations of protocols employed in outlining their objective and balanced set of opinions for the court.

In this regard, it appears that the independent expert report for the Knox/Sollecito appeal has completely missed the mark.

Their report gives the strong impression that Carla Vecchioti and Stefano Conti were overtly attempting to invalidate the findings of Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, the Polizia Scientifica in Rome, and the wealth of supportive testimony provided in court during the trial. The tone of their report strongly indicates that they have lined up with Sollecito defense experts Adriano Tagliabracci and Valerio Onofri of the Institute for Forensic Medicine in Ancona, and Knox defense experts Sara Gino, Walter Patumi and Carlo Torre from the University of Turin.

We will see in court on the 25th if they are really across the figurative aisle from the prosecution witnesses Dr. Stefanoni and Dr. Giuseppe Novelli, a highly esteemed professor of biomedicine at Tor Vergata in Rome who is considered to be the “father of police forensics” in Italy, along with the expert witnesses for the Kercher family Professor Torricelli, and Dr. Emiliano Giardina, who is a colleague of Professor Novelli at Tor Vergata University.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

 

[Malkmus]

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=375&p=92919#p92919

Then (and) only fair to read Fiona's replies/debate against thoughtful's 'analysis' of the report. The report doesn't seem to be as devastating to the prosecution as some 'think/hope'.

I think it's clear who had their hopes up for this independent review and boasted of the outcome (also from TJMK):

Manuela Comodi: As far as I am concerned this independent review will just confirm the excellent work carried out by the police scientific unit. The judge did not actually explain why he was allowing this review and although I do not agree with it I am sure it will underline the job originally done.

Mignini: I don’t agree with the request and I see it as a waste of time. The judge did not criticise the methods that were used to collect and test the DNA….. The review was granted because the jury needed help to interpret the findings as they are difficult to understand. I don’t see how it is a victory for the defence, as the methods were not criticised in the ruling. The review will confirm the sentence and the verdict will stand.

Why such faith in the expert review before, but not now?

 

[dgfred]

Maybe they didn't know the review would not really answer the actual question the court was asking of it.

 

[Allusonz]

Hi guys! Just stopping by for a check-in and a "hello" :wave:

I tried to read through to get a quick "what's new" but since the thread is so... um, ... :razz: and :slap: and :slapfight: :bigfight: ...it's hard to wade through it. Anyone kind enough to offer me a few quick "bullet-points" of the latest news/appeal status? Pretty please? :gift:
You know I'd rather hear it from you guys rather than try to decipher media coverage and blogs. :innocent:

As expected by most not much came of the inmates testimony save for the fact one was charged with slander. This pretty much sums up the the experts report.

EXPERTS CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS

Based on the considerations explained above, we are able to respond as follows to the inquiries posed at the assignment hearing:

"Having examined the record and conducted such technical investigations as shall be necessary, the Expert Panel shall ascertain:

1. whether it is possible, by means of a new technical analysis, to identify the DNA present on items 165b (bra clasp) and 36 (knife), and to determine the reliability of any such identification"

- The tests that we conducted to determine the presence of blood on item 36 (knife) and item 165B (bra clasps) yielded a negative result.

- The cytomorphological tests on the items did not reveal the presence of cellular material. Some samples of item 36 (knife), in particular sample "H", present granules with a circular/hexagonal characteristic morphology with a cental radial structure. A more detailed microscopic study, together with the consultation of data in the literature, allowed us to ascertain that the structures in question are attributable to granules of starch, thus matter of a vegetable nature.

- The quantification of the extracts obtained from the samples obtained from item 36 (knife) and item 165B (bra clasps), conducted via Real Time PCR, did not reveal the presence of DNA.

- In view of the absence of DNA in the extracts that we obtained, with the agreement of the consultants for the parties, we did not proceed to the subsequent amplification step.

2. "if it is not possible to carry out a new technical analysis, shall evaluate, on the basis of the record, the degree of reliability of the genetic analysis performed by the Scientific Police on the aforementioned items, including with respect to possible contamination."

Having examined the record and the relevant documents, we are able to report the following conclusions regarding the laboratory analyses performed on Item 36 (knife) and Item 165B (bra clasps):

ITEM 36 (KNIFE)

Relative to the genetic analysis performed on trace A (handle of the knife), we agree with the conclusion reached by the Technical Consultant regarding the attribution of the genetic profile obtained from these samples to Amanda Marie Knox.

Relative to trace B (blade of the knife) we find that the technical analyses performed are not reliable for the following reasons:

1. There does not exist evidence which scientifically confirms that trace B (blade of knife) is the product of blood.

2. The electrophoretic profiles exhibited reveal that the sample indicated by the letter B (blade of knife) was a Low Copy Number (LCN) sample, and, as such, all of the precautions indicated by the international scientific community should have been applied.

3. Taking into account that none of the recommendations of the international scientific community relative to the treatment of Low Copy Number (LCN) samples were followed, we do not accept the conclusions regarding the certain attribution of the profile found on trace B (blade of knife) to the victim Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher, since the genetic profile, as obtained, appears unreliable insofar as it is not supported by scientifically validated analysis;

4. International protocols of inspection, collection, and sampling were not followed;

5. It cannot be ruled out that the result obtained from sample B (blade of knife) derives from contamination in some phase of the collection and/or handling and/or analyses performed.

ITEM 165B (BRA CLASPS)

Relative to Item 165B (bra clasps), we find that the technical analysis is not reliable for the following reasons:

1. There does not exist evidence which scientifically confirms the presence of supposed flaking cells on the item;

2. There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile of the autosomic STRs;

3. There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile relative to the Y chromosome;

4. The international protocols for inspection, collection, and sampling of the item were not followed;

5. It cannot be ruled out that the results obtained derive from environmental contamination and/or contamination in some phase of the collection and/or handling of the item.
THE EXPERTS

Prof. Carla Vecchiotti

Prof. Stefano Conti

 

[Allusonz]

I think it's clear who had their hopes up for this independent review and boasted of the outcome (also from TJMK):



Why such faith in the expert review before, but not now?

Funky how it was initially stated as you said that they would back up Stephanoni's work and there were no issues to the Court appointed experts. Once the report was filed they became merely academics and when that did not work they are now trying to attack the report.

At this rate I am going to be fluent in Italian rofl

 

[Allusonz]

The simple truth is that Stephanini fudged it. After getting a negative on the TMB, she decided to hide it and fake that the luminol test was conclusive, rather than to do the confirmatory tests in the lab. I'm sorry, but the subjective impressions of the technician with regards to the strength and speed of the reaction are no substitute for verifiable lab tests. Period. What Stephanini did with her testimony was unethical at the very least. It is in fact the same thing that the FBI lab used to do, before it was discredited and forced to completely change the way that it trained and regulated its people.

From a Judicial standpoint, the Prosecution stating that something must be blood, when it in fact may or may not be blood, is good grounds to toss the whole mess of testimony in the trash - if you are in a court that understands that that is what indeed happened, that is. Good luck finding a Judge that understands Scientific Method well enough to do so :banghead:.

BBM

This cannot be stressed enough SV

ETA Then add in the missing documentation and the fact that LCN DNA testing was done in a regular DNA testing site, I sure would not want to be in the hot seat

 

[Allusonz]

I think this is the crux of it. July 25 and its aftermath will show if this is just rationalization and justification, or if it really bears weight:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

I am truly looking forward to hearing what the experts do state on the 25th. I believe from reading this report many of these arguments will be put to rest

 

[otto]

I am truly looking forward to hearing what the experts do state on the 25th. I believe from reading this report many of these arguments will be put to rest

Other than the brief remarks you copied from some other forum (above), what did you learn from reading the report?

I think you forgot to add the link for your post above ... was it Dempsey's blog or Fisher's blog, this one: http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/06/30/amanda-knox-dna-doesnt-fit-will-judge-acquit/ or perhaps this one: http://www.groundreport.com/World/Evidence-Gift-Wrapped-For-the-Prosecution-Proven-U/2939938 ... or perhaps another blog?

 

[Malkmus]

Other than the brief remarks you copied from some other forum (above), what did you learn from reading the report?

I think you forgot to add the link for your post above ... was it Dempsey's blog or Fisher's blog, this one: http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/06/30/amanda-knox-dna-doesnt-fit-will-judge-acquit/ or perhaps this one: http://www.groundreport.com/World/Evidence-Gift-Wrapped-For-the-Prosecution-Proven-U/2939938 ... or perhaps another blog?

Otto, what have you learned from the report?

 

[Malkmus]

I think this is the crux of it. July 25 and its aftermath will show if this is just rationalization and justification, or if it really bears weight:

Their report gives the strong impression that Carla Vecchioti and Stefano Conti were overtly attempting to invalidate the findings of Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, the Polizia Scientifica in Rome, and the wealth of supportive testimony provided in court during the trial. The tone of their report strongly indicates that they have lined up with Sollecito defense experts Adriano Tagliabracci and Valerio Onofri of the Institute for Forensic Medicine in Ancona, and Knox defense experts Sara Gino, Walter Patumi and Carlo Torre from the University of Turin.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

Other than the fact that the report disagrees with the Stefanoni's results, what does the author have to think that Vecchioti and Conti are "lined up" with the defense? And what does such an insinuation mean specifically? Reminds me of the popular mantra that any experts in the US siding with the defense are paid shills of the FOA. Only this time it's not as easy to make that accusation.
At least when we criticize ILE and the prosecution we have actual acts of incompetence/mistakes/errors/etc. to reference.

 

[otto]

Otto, what have you learned from the report?

I haven't read it. The report is 145 pages long, written in Italian and describes complex biochemistry. I am far too busy to set aside time to become an expert in the biochemistry of DNA as well as an expert in academic Italian language to plough through it. However, Allusonz has read the report so I'm curious about what is in the report ... aside from the information that was copied over from Dempsey, Fisher or other blogsters.

My knowledge of biochemistry is limited to brain chemicals and human behavior. It's a fascinating subject, by my interests took me in a different direction ... so I have to rely on information from those that have read this very interesting document.