Massai report:
In answer to a specific question about the so- ‐‑called bench contamination, she explained that this is a contamination which can occur unintentionally at the moment in which one is analysing a sample or a collected biological item, by DNA extraneous to the sample or item inadvertently being placed into contact with the sample or item (page 155). She described this as possible but quite rare. She could exclude that this might have happened for the bra hooks, precisely by the timing and the analysis method used. She added that several exhibits forming part the search on December 18 were being analysed during that same work session. Each exhibit was examined separately, each item being taken in its own envelope, and studied sotto cappa (inside a decontamination fume cupboard) by the operator with single- ‐‑use laboratory paper, filters and tweezers, all these instruments being specially adapted to avoid contamination. She had not repeated the analysis because the results were clear and the procedures had never [238] "ʺevidenced any problems during the course of the analysis"ʺ, and thus the result should be considered as certain (page 156).
This is the level of safety they needed at the lab... but in the field?
‪Amanda Knox - "Unassailable Evidence" - Bra Clasp discovery crime scene video‬‏ - YouTube
Note: I had just read this part and then went to look at the video again, and then wanted to verify that this video was real and not someone trying to make the forensic team look bad.
Also from the Massai report:
With reference then to the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito and the fact that his profile was already present and available to her when she interpreted the collected samples, including the one relating to the hooks, she stated that the data was present as historical fact, but that she did not have it available before her at the moment in which she was interpreting the technical data, nor was she otherwise consulting this biological profile.
It did not appear that any of the various rules and recommendations for proper procedure had not been followed.
elsewhere in the report it states this:
As * for * the * recommendations * put * forth * by * the * scientific * community * according * to * which *the *so-*‐‑called *"ʺsuspect-*‐‑centric"ʺ *method *(in *which *the *geneticist *already *has *the * genetic *profile *of *the *suspect; *and *the *recommendation *is *to *avoid *this *before *having * the * profile, * so * as * not * to * be * influenced * by * it), * Dr. * Stefanoni * stated * that * when * she * did * her * analysis * on * the * various * biological * traces, * she * was * already * in * possession * of * four * swabs, *including *the *profile *of *Patrick *Diya *Lumumba *and *as *well *as *the *victim'ʹs.
**********
My comments on the above Massai report:
It states clearly that suspect-centric method is not approved and not standard. So those on the other forum who were arguing that it is fine to be suspect-centric are incorrect.
Stefanoni, however, stated that she did not do this. I believe one of the points being brought up with the new report is that the new experts do not understand how she could have arrived at this result unless she was being suspect-centric. (she happened to discount peaks as noise or statter that also happened to not match Sollecito's profile, and this happened more than once).
But, as of this moment, it appears to me that no matter what, Sollectio's DNA is on the clasp. I guess I'll need to more thoroughly review the new report to see if there is some reason to disbelieve that.
The end result, however, is there is fresh doubt about Stefanoni's motivations and honesty. If she is being dishonest about being suspect-centric (and did not disclose the TMB test) one wonders if she is also hedging information about possible contamination vectors? What else is she not being forthright about? Was she truly as careful as she stated she was inside the lab?
I guess we'll see what happens on the 25th.
In answer to a specific question about the so- ‐‑called bench contamination, she explained that this is a contamination which can occur unintentionally at the moment in which one is analysing a sample or a collected biological item, by DNA extraneous to the sample or item inadvertently being placed into contact with the sample or item (page 155). She described this as possible but quite rare. She could exclude that this might have happened for the bra hooks, precisely by the timing and the analysis method used. She added that several exhibits forming part the search on December 18 were being analysed during that same work session. Each exhibit was examined separately, each item being taken in its own envelope, and studied sotto cappa (inside a decontamination fume cupboard) by the operator with single- ‐‑use laboratory paper, filters and tweezers, all these instruments being specially adapted to avoid contamination. She had not repeated the analysis because the results were clear and the procedures had never [238] "ʺevidenced any problems during the course of the analysis"ʺ, and thus the result should be considered as certain (page 156).
This is the level of safety they needed at the lab... but in the field?
‪Amanda Knox - "Unassailable Evidence" - Bra Clasp discovery crime scene video‬‏ - YouTube
Note: I had just read this part and then went to look at the video again, and then wanted to verify that this video was real and not someone trying to make the forensic team look bad.
Also from the Massai report:
With reference then to the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito and the fact that his profile was already present and available to her when she interpreted the collected samples, including the one relating to the hooks, she stated that the data was present as historical fact, but that she did not have it available before her at the moment in which she was interpreting the technical data, nor was she otherwise consulting this biological profile.
It did not appear that any of the various rules and recommendations for proper procedure had not been followed.
elsewhere in the report it states this:
As * for * the * recommendations * put * forth * by * the * scientific * community * according * to * which *the *so-*‐‑called *"ʺsuspect-*‐‑centric"ʺ *method *(in *which *the *geneticist *already *has *the * genetic *profile *of *the *suspect; *and *the *recommendation *is *to *avoid *this *before *having * the * profile, * so * as * not * to * be * influenced * by * it), * Dr. * Stefanoni * stated * that * when * she * did * her * analysis * on * the * various * biological * traces, * she * was * already * in * possession * of * four * swabs, *including *the *profile *of *Patrick *Diya *Lumumba *and *as *well *as *the *victim'ʹs.
**********
My comments on the above Massai report:
It states clearly that suspect-centric method is not approved and not standard. So those on the other forum who were arguing that it is fine to be suspect-centric are incorrect.
Stefanoni, however, stated that she did not do this. I believe one of the points being brought up with the new report is that the new experts do not understand how she could have arrived at this result unless she was being suspect-centric. (she happened to discount peaks as noise or statter that also happened to not match Sollecito's profile, and this happened more than once).
But, as of this moment, it appears to me that no matter what, Sollectio's DNA is on the clasp. I guess I'll need to more thoroughly review the new report to see if there is some reason to disbelieve that.
The end result, however, is there is fresh doubt about Stefanoni's motivations and honesty. If she is being dishonest about being suspect-centric (and did not disclose the TMB test) one wonders if she is also hedging information about possible contamination vectors? What else is she not being forthright about? Was she truly as careful as she stated she was inside the lab?
I guess we'll see what happens on the 25th.
