Motivation Report has been released

[sherlockh]

You are assuming that the cleaning was adequate. Where is the proof? The proof only comes from running duplicate samples and proper controls, neither of which are available(conveniently). As I have stated in my introductory post to this site, I have an M.D. and a PhD the latter of which is in genetics. Trust me when I tell you that lab contamination is not that rare, especially at the low levels of DNA obtained from the knife. That's why low content DNA should be analyzed in specificly designed high quality labs with specially designed laminar flow hoods to minimize contamination. Even under those condition, duplicate samples with the apprpriate controls need to be run to ensure proper identification without contamination.

I don't believe it ever came up in court that the lab was not properly cleaned for 6 days in a row. Any links? That claim is so extreme that it should be accompanied with some evidence. Not the other way around. JMO.

 

[Bill C]

Are you verified as an MD and a PhD ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I began my verification before the last verdict and soon thereafter all
Amanda Knox threads were closed so I didn't follow-up.
<modsnip>
Peace Out

 

[Bill C]

I don't believe it ever came up in court that the lab was not properly cleaned for 6 days in a row. Any links? That claim is so extreme that it should be accompanied with some evidence. Not the other way around. JMO.

No the cleanliness of the lab was not specifically brought up to my recollection but what you need to recognize is that even good cleaning does not eliminate the possibility of contamination at the level of picograms of DNA. That's why that even in labs specifically designed to do low content DNA analysis (Steffanoni's lab apparently was not so designed) duplicate, triplicate and sometimes more samples are run along with negative controls ( the amplification proocess carried out without any DNA present) to guard against contamination. The Cabonierri's evaluation of the single sample from the knife that yielded AK's DNA was performed in duplicate and controls were performed. All the data was made available to Nencini's court, the defense and the prosecution. In Steffanoni's evaluation a SINGLE sample was run and even though she claims that controls were also run, nobody (the judges in all 3 trials, the defense lawyers or even the prosecution), to my knowledge
has ever claimed to see the control data. Even if the data was lost, most reputable scientists keep computerized records, especially in high profile cases such as this. I'dbe willing to wager a significant sum of money that if asked for a copy of their data regarding their DNA analysis of the knife, the cabonierri scientists would be able to produce copies. Why hasn't Steffanoni produced such copies. With no taping of Ak's interrogation, fried computers, no copies of dna controls, poor storage of the bra clasp so that no retesting could performed, Steffanoni mistating or lying in court about the amount of DNA found on the knife and her failing to disclose in court that a second test for the luminol + "footprints" turned out to be neg for blood, is it any wonder why people are suspicious of the integrity of the prosecution and their minions?

 

[sherlockh]

No the cleanliness of the lab was not specifically brought up to my recollection but what you need to recognize is that even good cleaning does not eliminate the possibility of contamination at the level of picograms of DNA. That's why that even in labs specifically designed to do low content DNA analysis (Steffanoni's lab apparently was not so designed) duplicate, triplicate and sometimes more samples are run along with negative controls ( the amplification proocess carried out without any DNA present) to guard against contamination. The Cabonierri's evaluation of the single sample from the knife that yielded AK's DNA was performed in duplicate and controls were performed. All the data was made available to Nencini's court, the defense and the prosecution. In Steffanoni's evaluation a SINGLE sample was run and even though she claims that controls were also run, nobody (the judges in all 3 trials, the defense lawyers or even the prosecution), to my knowledge
has ever claimed to see the control data. Even if the data was lost, most reputable scientists keep computerized records, especially in high profile cases such as this. I'dbe willing to wager a significant sum of money that if asked for a copy of their data regarding their DNA analysis of the knife, the cabonierri scientists would be able to produce copies. Why hasn't Steffanoni produced such copies. With no taping of Ak's interrogation, fried computers, no copies of dna controls, poor storage of the bra clasp so that no retesting could performed, Steffanoni mistating or lying in court about the amount of DNA found on the knife and her failing to disclose in court that a second test for the luminol + "footprints" turned out to be neg for blood, is it any wonder why people are suspicious of the integrity of the prosecution and their minions?

The positive and negative controls were done and this excludes contamination. Nencini has seen the documentation. He mentions this failure of the rejected appeal court specifically. I suggest we wait for the translation before creating yet another internet myth. JMO.

 

[dgfred]

This is relevant to the case but was stricken from the media links thread for some reason so I am linking here. Crosses fingers. Interrogation hoaxes:

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

 

[dgfred]

Steffanoni lying, minions... Geez.

 

[Footwarrior]

The positive and negative controls were done and this excludes contamination. Nencini has seen the documentation. He mentions this failure of the rejected appeal court specifically. I suggest we wait for the translation before creating yet another internet myth. JMO.

The prosecution gave Nencini examples of controls being done. But no proof that controls were done on the specific samples (from the bra clasp and kitchen knife) that C&V were directed by the court to examine.

 

[Bill C]

Steffanoni lying, minions... Geez.

I believe that testifying in court that the quantity of DNA on the knife was significantly larger than it actually was constitutes lying. Additionally, her attempt to withhold the negative TMB tests done on the luminol positive "footprints" found in the hall is a form of lying by omission.

 

[sherlockh]

The prosecution gave Nencini examples of controls being done. But no proof that controls were done on the specific samples (from the bra clasp and kitchen knife) that C&V were directed by the court to examine.

Says who? Where are the links? Nencini says otherwise.

The absence of contamination is also proven by the records of negative and positive controls performed by much-maligned forensic biologist Patrizia Stefanoni. Those controls were done and had been referred to in court, but Vecchiotti and Conti overlooked this, claiming there was no record of them.

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

 

[Sigh Sister]

Says who? Where are the links? Nencini says otherwise.

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

The way it is worded, it sounds like Nencini is saying because it was said in court that they were done, it is proof they were done. The statement is the record. No other proof needed. :facepalm:

That is my take anyway.....

 

[sherlockh]

The way it is worded, it sounds like Nencini is saying because it was said in court that they were done, it is proof they were done. The statement is the record. No other proof needed. :facepalm:

That is my take anyway.....

No, there is more in the article then just that quote on the controls. Clearly there was documentation available in the court records about the controls being done so saying they were not done is simply wrong.

It was the responsibility of the experts to look at all the data available, Nencini said, but Vecchiotti and Conti did not. Their report cites no proof of negative and positive controls for contamination, yet Nencini found a deposition from one of the preliminary hearings in October 2008, where Stefanoni clearly said they had been done, and, in fact, examples of such were deposited that day. He notes that one of prosecution consultants requested and obtained that data and used it to rule out contamination. The fact that the two independent experts completely overlooked this data showed a &#8220;scarce attention was being given to the case documents deposited with the court.&#8221;

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

 

[MichaelSmith]

Knox and Sollecito: Dissection of a conviction

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/knox-and-sollecito-dissection-of-a-conviction/

 

[MichaelSmith]

Exactly how I had you pictured anyway... no verification needed

Maybe the defense or somebody besides some internet poster should challenge Steffanoni lying in court. What? No takers?

It's all documented here. http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/meredith-kercher-dna-edf/

At the pre-trial she said the DNA on the knife was in the order of a few hundred picrograms and her report said Real Time PCR for samples A-C. (not it wasn't)

DOMANDA &#8211; Ma secondo lei era nell&#8217;ordine di qualche nanogrammo o quasi al picogrammo?
RISPOSTA &#8211; Sì, era nell&#8217;ordine di qualche centinaio di picogrammi, questo sì, sulla quantità totale.

p178 http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2008-10-04_-_Stefanoni-OCR.pdf

Since from the Real Time quantification (never carried out!) she obtained a concentration of &#8220;a few hundred picograms of DNA&#8221; (GUP, page 178) she took steps to further concentrate the extract in order to obtain a final volume of 10 &#956;l which she would have used for the PCR reaction

p62 c&v report http://knoxdnareport.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/translation-of-the-conti-vecchiotti-report2.pdf

At the trial she testified before the defense even got access to her lab work and said she couldn't remember how much DNA was on the knife she was claiming is the murder weapon. <modsnip>

DEFENSE &#8211; Attorney Ghirga
QUESTION &#8211; One last question precisely in relation to how much emerged, the DNA extraction on the knife, you I believe, had said that you don&#8217;t remember how much DNA you extracted from the blade, from the scratches.
ANSWER &#8211; No.
QUESTION &#8211; Is it possible to check the extraction log?
ANSWER &#8211; Yes, one can check.
QUESTION &#8211; Is it a number that can be acquired?
ANSWER &#8211; Yes.
QUESTION &#8211; One can obtain the extraction in the extraction log as you say.
ANSWER &#8211; Yes.
QUESTION &#8211; But you do not remember, correct, how much DNA you extracted&#8230;
ANSWER &#8211; One can obtain the true extraction amount from that S.A.L., that one yes.
QUESTION &#8211; But you do not remember now?
ANSWER &#8211; No, here, no..
QUESTION &#8211; Can one acquire this data?
ANSWER &#8211; Yes, the data of the extraction, yes.
QUESTION &#8211; While you confirm then how much was&#8230; how much was the elution and the collection of DNA to do&#8230;
ANSWER &#8211; Yes, it was concentrated in the first sweep, then it was quantified, and then after that it was re-concentrated to 10 microlitres.
QUESTION &#8211; Now, being interested in the exact quantity of DNA extracted from the scratches we can obtain it, let&#8217;s say in the court files, is that so?
ANSWER &#8211; Yes.
DEFENSE &#8211; Attorney Ghirga &#8211; Thank you

p166 http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/...Trascrizioni-2009-May-23-Stefanoni-Camana.pdf

You might be interested in this.

The Prosecution&#8217;s Massive Suppression of Lab Data

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/meredith-kercher-dna-edf/

 

[redheadedgal]

MichaelSmith: It's all documented here. http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/meredith-kercher-dna-edf/

At the pre-trial she said the DNA on the knife was in the order of a few hundred picrograms and her report said Real Time PCR for samples A-C. (not it wasn't)

DOMANDA &#8211; Ma secondo lei era nell&#8217;ordine di qualche nanogrammo o quasi al picogrammo?
RISPOSTA &#8211; Sì, era nell&#8217;ordine di qualche centinaio di picogrammi, questo sì, sulla quantità totale.

p178 http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2008-10-04_-_Stefanoni-OCR.pdf

Since from the Real Time quantification (never carried out!) she obtained a concentration of &#8220;a few hundred picograms of DNA&#8221; (GUP, page 178) she took steps to further concentrate the extract in order to obtain a final volume of 10 &#956;l which she would have used for the PCR reaction

p62 c&v report http://knoxdnareport.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/translation-of-the-conti-vecchiotti-report2.pdf

At the trial she testified before the defense even got access to her lab work and said she couldn't remember how much DNA was on the knife she was claiming is the murder weapon.<modsnip>

DEFENSE &#8211; Attorney Ghirga
QUESTION &#8211; One last question precisely in relation to how much emerged, the DNA extraction on the knife, you I believe, had said that you don&#8217;t remember how much DNA you extracted from the blade, from the scratches.
ANSWER &#8211; No.
QUESTION &#8211; Is it possible to check the extraction log?
ANSWER &#8211; Yes, one can check.
QUESTION &#8211; Is it a number that can be acquired?
ANSWER &#8211; Yes.
QUESTION &#8211; One can obtain the extraction in the extraction log as you say.
ANSWER &#8211; Yes.
QUESTION &#8211; But you do not remember, correct, how much DNA you extracted&#8230;
ANSWER &#8211; One can obtain the true extraction amount from that S.A.L., that one yes.
QUESTION &#8211; But you do not remember now?
ANSWER &#8211; No, here, no..
QUESTION &#8211; Can one acquire this data?
ANSWER &#8211; Yes, the data of the extraction, yes.
QUESTION &#8211; While you confirm then how much was&#8230; how much was the elution and the collection of DNA to do&#8230;
ANSWER &#8211; Yes, it was concentrated in the first sweep, then it was quantified, and then after that it was re-concentrated to 10 microlitres.
QUESTION &#8211; Now, being interested in the exact quantity of DNA extracted from the scratches we can obtain it, let&#8217;s say in the court files, is that so?
ANSWER &#8211; Yes.
DEFENSE &#8211; Attorney Ghirga &#8211; Thank you

p166 http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/...Trascrizioni-2009-May-23-Stefanoni-Camana.pdf

You might be interested in this.

The Prosecution&#8217;s Massive Suppression of Lab Data

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/meredith-kercher-dna-edf/

more @

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/independentexperts.html

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2...evidence-judge-tells-amanda-knox-prosecution/

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.ca/2013/08/dna-does-fly-and-it-also-transfers.html

 

[redheadedgal]

giorgio dell'arti, italian journalist, writer and radio host, says re: the motivation:

--shaky assertions
--offers little clarity about the events surrounding the crime
--convoluted, forced reconstructions
--motive unsubstantiated
--US press will shred the italian trial system after reading

http://altrimondi.gazzetta.it/2014/04/30/sapremo-mai-la-vera-verita-sullomicidio-di-meredith/

(via bing/google translators)

 

[Linda7NJ]

giorgio dell'arti, italian journalist, writer and radio host, says re: the motivation:

--shaky assertions
--offers little clarity about the events surrounding the crime
--convoluted, forced reconstructions
--motive unsubstantiated
--US press will shred the italian trial system after reading

http://altrimondi.gazzetta.it/2014/04/30/sapremo-mai-la-vera-verita-sullomicidio-di-meredith/

(via bing/google translators)

I'm not seeing any "shredding" going on...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bill C]

Here is a quite interesting extensive article by an Italian, Luca Cheli who has read the entire motivations report, provides translated quotes and extensively summarizes the report.
http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/knox-and-sollecito-dissection-of-a-conviction/

 

[redheadedgal]

I'm not seeing any "shredding" going on...

has a full english translation been put out that i'm not aware of? does the press know about it, if i don't? how much time would it take to read, thoroughly analyze and report on findings?

i did find this: http://crimcourts.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/the-new-amanda-knox-verdict-is-ridiculous-wtf-italy/

 

[sherlockh]

has a full english translation been put out that i'm not aware of? does the press know about it, if i don't? how much time would it take to read, thoroughly analyze and report on findings?

i did find this: http://crimcourts.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/the-new-amanda-knox-verdict-is-ridiculous-wtf-italy/

So far we have 3 typos and 1 mistake made in 2008 (corrected many years ago). Seriously, why would Italy care about what the US media has to say? Nobody takes that WTF stuff seriously. Why even post that here?

 

[otto]

giorgio dell'arti, italian journalist, writer and radio host, says re: the motivation:

--shaky assertions
--offers little clarity about the events surrounding the crime
--convoluted, forced reconstructions
--motive unsubstantiated
--US press will shred the italian trial system after reading

http://altrimondi.gazzetta.it/2014/04/30/sapremo-mai-la-vera-verita-sullomicidio-di-meredith/

(via bing/google translators)

Will the US Press shred the Italian trial system after reading a Judge's reasoning and summary of a murder trial decision? I find that amusing. ... and then what with the US Press do - move on to the next story, or has that already happened?