Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011


Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Feb 11, 2017 11:32 am


This can be summarized in one word.....

Italy.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby european neighbour » Sat Feb 11, 2017 1:12 pm

Bill Williams wrote:This can be summarized in one word.....

Italy.

And thanks to them by protracting this nonsense it's still "not over". Will they entertain us for a further decade?
european neighbour
 
Posts: 901
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 9:28 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Feb 11, 2017 1:23 pm

european neighbour wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:This can be summarized in one word.....

Italy.

And thanks to them by protracting this nonsense it's still "not over". Will they entertain us for a further decade?

Italy's judiciary continues to decide things based on what someone else knows nothing about.

The ONLY thing Raffaele knew about either the murder or the investigation leading to his arrest is what the cops told him. To say that he "lied" to them is simply bizarre - the police's own "theories of the crime" changed.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Sat Feb 11, 2017 1:34 pm

european neighbour wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:This can be summarized in one word.....

Italy.

And thanks to them by protracting this nonsense it's still "not over". Will they entertain us for a further decade?

Yes, this case may continue for years.

The next step would appear to be an appeal to the CSC, if Raffaele pursues it.

After that, the ECHR. Compensation for unfair detention is a right under the Convention.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:11 pm

Numbers wrote:
european neighbour wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:This can be summarized in one word.....

Italy.

And thanks to them by protracting this nonsense it's still "not over". Will they entertain us for a further decade?

Yes, this case may continue for years.

The next step would appear to be an appeal to the CSC, if Raffaele pursues it.

After that, the ECHR. Compensation for unfair detention is a right under the Convention.


The relevant Convention articles include but may not be limited to: Articles 5.5, 5.1c, 5.1a, 5.2, 5.3, 6.3a, 6.3b and 6.3c.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:34 pm

Relevant European Convention on Human Rights Articles:

5.5 Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention
in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an
enforceable right to compensation.

5.1 Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No
one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and
in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for
the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal
authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed
an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary
to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after
having done so;

(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a
competent court;

5.2 Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a
language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and
of any charge against him.

5.3 Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the
provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article [5] shall be brought
promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to
exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a
reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be
conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.

6.3 Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following
minimum rights:

(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he
understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him;

(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of
his defence;

(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of
his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay
for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests
of justice so require;
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Sat Feb 11, 2017 5:58 pm

The bottom line (PQM, For these reasons section) of the decision by the Court of Appeal of Florence to deny Raffaele Sollecito's request for compensation for unfair detention:

Corte de Appello di Firenze
Terza Sezione Penale
Camera di Consiglio Penale
....

P.Q.M.
La corte, visto l'art 341 c.p.p.,
respinge la richiesta di riparazione per l'ingiusta detenzione patita, avanzata da Sollecito Raffaele nato a Bari ..., elettivamente domiciliato in Roma ... nello studio del difensore di fiducia avv Giulia Bongiorno, e condanna il medesimo al pagamento delle spese a cui ha dato causa.
....

Firenze, 27.1.2017

Il Presidente,
dr.ssa Silvia Martuscelli

Google translation (with my assistance):

Court of Appeal of Florence
Third Criminal Division
Criminal Board Room
.....
P.Q.M. {For these reasons}
The court, having regard to Article 341* Code of Criminal Procedure,
rejects the request for redress for the wrongful imprisonment suffered, advanced by Raffaele Sollecito born in Bari ..., address for service in Rome ... in the office of defense lawyer of trust Giulia Bongiorno, and condemns him only for the payment of costs to which the request gave cause.
....

Florence, 01/27/2017

President,
Dr. Silvia Martuscelli

* A typo for Article 314 (Compensation for unfair detention, Prerequisites for and methods of decisions)?
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:27 pm

Numbers,

RE: "and condemns him only for the payment of costs to which the request gave cause."

Does that mean he must pay court costs?
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:34 pm

carlofab wrote:Numbers,

RE: "and condemns him only for the payment of costs to which the request gave cause."

Does that mean he must pay court costs?


I believe that is the meaning.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:45 pm

Apparently an appeal to the CSC will be filed:

The lawyer Giulia Bongiorno, who defends the young {Sollecito} with Luca Maori, has already announced an appeal in cassation. Reserving a more complete reading of the document, Bongiorno speaks of "a multitude of errors in the reconstruction of the facts, as well as document-related." {Google translated}

Original Italian:

L’avvocato Giulia Bongiorno, che difende il giovane insieme a Luca Maori, ha già annunciato ricorso in Cassazione. Riservandosi una più completa lettura del documento, Bongiorno parla di “una moltitudine di errori nella ricostruzione dei fatti, oltreché a livello documentale”.

Source: http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2017/02 ... i/3385125/
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:27 am

Questions that need to be answered by the Italian authorities based on ECHR case law: when Raffaele was called into the police station, was he interviewed as a witness or interrogated as a suspect? If he was a witness initially, when during the interview did he become a suspect? Did the police follow Italian procedural law regarding the questioning of suspects either at the beginning or at any other time during the questioning? For example, when was Raffaele officially told he was a subject of investigations, and that he should retain a lawyer (CPP Article 63)? The police took (seized) his pocket knife, cell phone, and shoes, if I understand correctly, in the course of the questioning. These actions would indicate he was a suspect by the time such seizures without a warrant occurred. What was the effect of denying him a lawyer during his interrogation and initial custody, and was that consistent with his rights under Italian law and ECHR case law? Did he have adequate time and facilities to prepare his defense for the arrest hearing?
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby european neighbour » Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:27 am

Numbers wrote:Yes, this case may continue for years.

And John Kercher requires Amanda and Raffaele to cease speaking? This isn't the case of his daughter anymore, this is Amanda and Raffaele vs. Italy.
european neighbour
 
Posts: 901
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 9:28 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Mon Feb 13, 2017 6:08 am

Numbers wrote:Questions that need to be answered by the Italian authorities based on ECHR case law: when Raffaele was called into the police station, was he interviewed as a witness or interrogated as a suspect? If he was a witness initially, when during the interview did he become a suspect? Did the police follow Italian procedural law regarding the questioning of suspects either at the beginning or at any other time during the questioning? For example, when was Raffaele officially told he was a subject of investigations, and that he should retain a lawyer (CPP Article 63)? The police took (seized) his pocket knife, cell phone, and shoes, if I understand correctly, in the course of the questioning. These actions would indicate he was a suspect by the time such seizures without a warrant occurred. What was the effect of denying him a lawyer during his interrogation and initial custody, and was that consistent with his rights under Italian law and ECHR case law? Did he have adequate time and facilities to prepare his defense for the arrest hearing?



The case for compensation is going as might be expected in Italy: The Florence Court of Appeal apparently did not consider the possibility that the police and prosecution violated Sollecito's rights as a defendant. The lower level court looks to the higher level court (CSC) to correct its errors, and the CSC may look to the ECHR to address any violation of rights. This enables the Italian courts to give the appearance of defying international pressures to administer Italian law according to the Italian Constitution, which I imagine satisfies the nationalism and authoritarianism of political cliques within the Italian courts.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Mon Feb 13, 2017 6:09 am

ECHR position on detention, especially regarding "arbitrary" detention:

77. No detention which is arbitrary can be compatible with Article 5 § 1, the notion of “arbitrariness” in this context extending beyond the lack of conformity with national law. As a consequence, a deprivation of liberty which is lawful under domestic law can still be arbitrary and thus contrary to the Convention. While the Court has not previously formulated a global definition as to what types of conduct on the part of the authorities might constitute “arbitrariness” for the purposes of Article 5 § 1, key principles have been developed on a case-by-case basis. ....

78. One general principle established in the case-law is that detention will be “arbitrary” where, despite complying with the letter of national law, there has been an element of bad faith or deception on the part of the authorities ... or where the domestic authorities neglected to attempt to apply the relevant legislation correctly ....

Source: MOOREN v. GERMANY[GC] 11364/03
___
So the relevant questions for the ECHR will include, but not necessarily be limited to, for Sollecito, as for Knox, did the authorities use deception or bad faith in arresting and detaining them, and did the authorities properly follow Italian procedural laws, including but not limited to CPP Articles 63, 64, and 188?
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Mon Feb 13, 2017 6:12 am

"While the court {Florence Court of Appeals} acknowledged Sollecito’s unjust imprisonment in the light of his eventual acquittal, it said in a ruling that he contributed by making “contradictory or even frankly untrue” statements in the early stages of the investigation, which constituted “intent or gross negligence”. The court ruled that this eliminated Sollecito’s right to compensation.

Sollecito’s lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, said she would appeal the decision at the supreme court, arguing that the Florence appeals court had failed to consider that his conflicting statements in the early days of the murder investigation were given under duress."

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... th-kercher
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Feb 13, 2017 11:37 am

Numbers wrote:"While the court {Florence Court of Appeals} acknowledged Sollecito’s unjust imprisonment in the light of his eventual acquittal, it said in a ruling that he contributed by making “contradictory or even frankly untrue” statements in the early stages of the investigation, which constituted “intent or gross negligence”. The court ruled that this eliminated Sollecito’s right to compensation.

Sollecito’s lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, said she would appeal the decision at the supreme court, arguing that the Florence appeals court had failed to consider that his conflicting statements in the early days of the murder investigation were given under duress."

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... th-kercher

Yet it is already established that interrogations in Italy are, "institutionally immune to anomalous psychological pressures."
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Mon Feb 13, 2017 2:26 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
Numbers wrote:"While the court {Florence Court of Appeals} acknowledged Sollecito’s unjust imprisonment in the light of his eventual acquittal, it said in a ruling that he contributed by making “contradictory or even frankly untrue” statements in the early stages of the investigation, which constituted “intent or gross negligence”. The court ruled that this eliminated Sollecito’s right to compensation.

Sollecito’s lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, said she would appeal the decision at the supreme court, arguing that the Florence appeals court had failed to consider that his conflicting statements in the early days of the murder investigation were given under duress."

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... th-kercher

Yet it is already established that interrogations in Italy are, "institutionally immune to anomalous psychological pressures."


I don't know how long it will be before the CSC passes judgment on the appeals to the Florence Court decision not to grant Raffaele compensation. Let's suppose its about 2 years from now. If the CSC confirms the refusal, the next step would be for Raffaele to lodge a complaint with the ECHR. That would likely take 2 or 3 years or more to reach judgment. The time required to get redress of a miscarriage of justice is daunting.

One motivation for the Italian courts to slow down the awarding of compensation for unfair detention may be to protect Italy's budget. Since there is no bail in Italy, many accused persons - including the innocent - are detained until trial and afterward if there is a provisional conviction, and of course, trials and appeals in Italy can last many years. The total payments for unfair detention must be quite large, and the courts may want to help keep them low by denying requests for compensation whenever laws or facts can be stretched to do so.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Zrausch » Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:01 pm

Bill Williams wrote:Yet it is already established that interrogations in Italy are, "institutionally immune to anomalous psychological pressures."


What's that quote from? And what's its context? It can't mean what I think it means.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby anonshy » Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:10 pm

Have to be honest, I could care less if RS or AK get any financial compensation, it is so minor in scope compared to their innocence and their freedom.

Let the PMF and the other wacko's wax poetic on this so call victory, they can have it, let them cling to something and be gone!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Zrausch » Mon Feb 13, 2017 5:00 pm

I don't really care about any of the remaining cases in Italy, which has proven itself judicially dysfunctional. I am still interested in the ECHR though, because it's an outside court re-examining the interrogation, which is the crux of the entire case, as well as the contested M&B report.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Mon Feb 13, 2017 5:26 pm

Zrausch wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:Yet it is already established that interrogations in Italy are, "institutionally immune to anomalous psychological pressures."


What's that quote from? And what's its context? It can't mean what I think it means.


The quote is from the Marasca CSC panel motivation report that acquitted Amanda and Raffaele of the murder/rape charges. It's in Section 2.2, page 23 of the English translation, and it pertains to Mignini questioning Amanda on Nov. 5/6.

"...the libelous accusations which the aforementioned defendant made against Lumumba owing to the impact of the alleged coercive acts were also confirmed by her before a public prosecutor, during questioning, therefore, in a context free of institutionally anomalous psychological pressures...."

Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/
Link to Supreme Court Motivation Report - PDF
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Zrausch » Mon Feb 13, 2017 5:31 pm

Oh yeah, thanks. I thought for a second it was in the latest decision.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Annella » Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:05 am

Amanda's words 1 day before Valentine's Day in 2014.


It’s interesting that this week dedicated to love should be the same week that a hate campaign is established on Facebook. It consists of photographs of various individuals, supposedly Perugian, holding placards reading Perugia Vi Odia (“Perugia Hates You”). They mimic a photograph I posted to my own website and Twitter account that professes Raffaele’s and my innocence to the Italian people despite the latest guilty verdict handed down by the Florentine Court of Appeals on January 30th.

The hate campaign was quickly reported in Perugia Today, an online publication also responsible for coining La Maledizione Amanda (“The Amanda Curse”) in a number of its articles, a term referring to the bad publicity Perugia has received due to the prolonged scandal that is the Meredith Kercher murder case, publicity which the publication attributes directly to me. The article claimed the hate campaign hoped their message would reach me and perhaps prompt a response.

Usually I don’t respond to hateful messages and rather let them speak for themselves. This is not the first time, nor will it be the last time, that I’ve received hateful messages from proud, irrational people. Proud, because their sentiment is automatic defensiveness against legitimate criticism. Irrational, because criticism of the Meredith Kercher murder case scandal usually has nothing to do with these individuals personally and the hate they feel is the expression of irrational emotional investment that is based on impression rather than objective evidence.

There are two reasons I bother to acknowledge these messages of hate in particular. The first is because these individuals claim to represent the feelings of Perugia as a whole. The second is because, while their disagreement with my declaration of innocence is implied, what these individuals choose to explicitly express is not a judgment, but a feeling that is irrelevant, if not impedimentary, to judgment. This is, unfortunately, not a surprise.

Nothing is more expected than to be told I am hated because hate reflects the nature of the Meredith Kercher murder case scandal. Hate, in addition to pride, is one of the few things that can explain the prosecution’s biased investigation and persecution of Raffaele and me despite a distinct lack of objective evidence incriminating us and a distinct abundance of objective evidence incriminating a single, separate person: Rudy Guede. Whether they mean to or not, these Perugia Vi Odia people, who bear their emotions on placards, are helping me and the world to understand what has really happened in this case.

Colpevolisti (“guilters”) lose their credibility once they reveal that their stance is founded upon irrational emotion rather than objective evidence. Justice cannot be expected to result from thinking tainted by pride and hate.

I know for a fact that not everyone in Perugia hates me or believes I’m guilty. My family and I have received tremendous support from many Italians and Perugians in the form of verbal and written messages of sympathy and solidarity, legal and linguistic assistance, generous hospitality, and friendship.

Ironically, Perugia Vi Odia simply reminds me of the part of Perugia they don’t represent. My love extends to the clear-headed, compassionate, and generous Perugia that my family and I came to know throughout my wrongful persecution and imprisonment at the hands of certain proud and hateful authorities, empowered by certain proud and hateful individuals.

Perugia, ti voglio bene.


http://www.amandaknox.com/2014/02/13/pe ... glio-bene/
'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby anonshy » Tue Feb 14, 2017 10:48 am

Zrausch wrote:I don't really care about any of the remaining cases in Italy, which has proven itself judicially dysfunctional. I am still interested in the ECHR though, because it's an outside court re-examining the interrogation, which is the crux of the entire case, as well as the contested M&B report.


I agree the EHCR will have the final say. Even if they award $1.00 as compensation but rule their rights were violated (which is obviously the case), I will be happy!

They have been found innocent of the crimes, EHCR will clarify the mechanisms that led to the injustices cast on these 2 individuals.

On thing I find very active in my thoughts of late is how Trump's Alternative facts, and the state of truth in the media, all vector's back to the advent of digital and social media and in this case in particular. It didn't start with this case, but this case is full of examples!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Tue Feb 14, 2017 4:50 pm

anonshy wrote:
Zrausch wrote:I don't really care about any of the remaining cases in Italy, which has proven itself judicially dysfunctional. I am still interested in the ECHR though, because it's an outside court re-examining the interrogation, which is the crux of the entire case, as well as the contested M&B report.


I agree the EHCR will have the final say. Even if they award $1.00 as compensation but rule their rights were violated (which is obviously the case), I will be happy!

They have been found innocent of the crimes, EHCR will clarify the mechanisms that led to the injustices cast on these 2 individuals.

On thing I find very active in my thoughts of late is how Trump's Alternative facts, and the state of truth in the media, all vector's back to the advent of digital and social media and in this case in particular. It didn't start with this case, but this case is full of examples!

Anon


This is the most important part to those of us who wish to see justice - which includes the acknowledgement of the violation of rights by the Italian authorities and the institution of measures to prevent such violations in the future.

I am sure that Amanda and Raffaele and their respective families would also much appreciate receiving the compensation that they are rightly entitled to under Italian and international (ECHR) law.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby anonshy » Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:07 pm

Some interesting reading, if your into that kind of thing

https://www.wwtdd.com/2017/02/amanda-knox-gay-for-the-stay

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby ScifiTom » Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:06 pm

To Everyone

Hey everyone, I want an answer from Peter Quennell and he got 28 hours left to pick best picture and if he doesn't pick a winner of best picture in that time zone. He going to lose the bet the clock start ticking right now!!!

My pick is already done and I will say it again. The winner of best picture is Lala land!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Freedom, The innocent 2
Kirstin B. Lobato
Dustin A. Turner
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4253
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

DNA contamination in the Adam Scott case

Postby Chris_Halkides » Sun Feb 26, 2017 5:24 pm

In his book Misleading DNA Evidence, Peter Gill discusses the case of Adam Scott on pp. 15-16, 21-27, and elsewhere. Mr. Scott's DNA and the DNA of her boyfriend was found during an exam of a rape victim. Semen was also identified. However, the prosecution/forensic scientists made the error of thinking that mixed DNA meant mixed semen. Mr. Scott had never been to the city in question and had alibi evidence, yet was convicted. Later it was found that the lab had mistakenly reused a plastic tray containing Mr. Scott's DNA from a spitting incident. They had also ignored a positive result from a negative control.

Professor Gill also quoted (p. 26) a 2013 paper* which stated, "Taken together, we discourage to associate cell types and donors from peak heights when performing RNA and DNA profiling."
*Harteveldt et al., (2013) "RNA cell typing and DNA profiling of mixed samples: can cell types be associated?" Sci Justice 53, 261-269.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bruce Fischer » Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:10 am

According to the National Registry of Exonerations, courts in the United States overturned 165 wrongful convictions in 2016, which broke 2015’s record of 149 corrected wrongful convictions. It is promising to see that the numbers continue to be on the rise. If you look at data over the past 25 years, we are now seeing substantial progress.

Over the past quarter century, America has incarcerated more people than any civilized nation on earth. A disturbing number of those incarcerations have been wrongful convictions. Hundreds of exonerations can be credited to advanced DNA technology. But research on topics like, bite mark evidence, fire investigation technology, and shaken baby syndrome, have all played a significant role as well. The ability to distribute information via the internet has also proven to be an invaluable resource when fighting wrongful convictions.

Exoneration statistics show that we are on the right track, but we have a long way to go. We need to correct the mistakes we have made, all while working to reforming the system which allowed those mistakes to occur in the first place. Sadly, the wrongful conviction problem is far more pervasive than most people realize, and even with increased interest, most cases continue to lack the attention they warrant. Many innocent people remain in prison. They need others to be their voice. They need you. Please join us in the fight to free the innocent.

http://www.injusticeanywhere.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/InjusticeAnywhereNewsletter2017-1.pdf

Image
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4416
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:35 am

Bruce Fischer wrote:According to the National Registry of Exonerations, courts in the United States overturned 165 wrongful convictions in 2016, which broke 2015’s record of 149 corrected wrongful convictions. It is promising to see that the numbers continue to be on the rise. If you look at data over the past 25 years, we are now seeing substantial progress.

Over the past quarter century, America has incarcerated more people than any civilized nation on earth. A disturbing number of those incarcerations have been wrongful convictions. Hundreds of exonerations can be credited to advanced DNA technology. But research on topics like, bite mark evidence, fire investigation technology, and shaken baby syndrome, have all played a significant role as well. The ability to distribute information via the internet has also proven to be an invaluable resource when fighting wrongful convictions.

Exoneration statistics show that we are on the right track, but we have a long way to go. We need to correct the mistakes we have made, all while working to reforming the system which allowed those mistakes to occur in the first place. Sadly, the wrongful conviction problem is far more pervasive than most people realize, and even with increased interest, most cases continue to lack the attention they warrant. Many innocent people remain in prison. They need others to be their voice. They need you. Please join us in the fight to free the innocent.

http://www.injusticeanywhere.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/InjusticeAnywhereNewsletter2017-1.pdf

Image

On on channel last night was the Oscar's debacle.

On another was 60 Minutes (CBS) interviewing Anthony Ray Hinton, Ken Ireland and Julie Baumer, about their experiences as exonerees.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Sun Mar 05, 2017 5:40 pm

On ISF, poster MDDVS has pointed out that Knox v. Italy is listed in the current Country Profile of Italy.

The Country Profile may be found at: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/CP_Italy_ENG.pdf

One may also go to the ECHR Home Page, http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home
and click the link (under Quick Links) to Factsheets & Country Profiles, then select Country Profiles, and Italy (English version).
___
I thank MDDVS for pointing this out. I had not looked at the Country Profile of Italy in some time.

Here is the full text of this summary, from page 12 of the Country Profile:

"Amanda Marie Knox v. Italy (no. 76577/13)
Case communicated to the parties in April 2016
This case concerns criminal proceedings in which Ms Knox was found guilty of making a false accusation. The offending statements were taken while she was being questioned in the context of criminal proceedings for the murder and sexual assault of her flatmate. The applicant was accused of implicating another person whom she knew to be innocent.
Ms Knox alleges that the criminal proceedings in which she was convicted were unfair, relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) (right to a fair trial – right to be informed promptly of the charge), (c) (right to legal assistance), (e) (right to assistance from an interpreter), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention."

Thus, the case of Knox v. Italy is proceeding and is considered significant, otherwise it would not be listed in the Country Profile of Italy.

The importance level as listed in the Case Details remains 3, which indicates that the ECHR considers that the judgment will rely upon existing case law and will probably not generate new case law and thus may not be listed in Case Reports, which summarizes judged cases that have generated new case law.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Sun Mar 05, 2017 5:47 pm

The time required for the ECHR case of KNOX c. ITALIE 76577/13 to be judged is of interest.

This case has entered the ECHR system, having been lodged in November, 2013, and has met the preliminary requirements for admissibility, as evidenced by its being Communicated to Italy on 29 April 2016. Since the initial Communication, it's been Communicated 2 more times to Italy to gather more information, as shown in the ECHR database. The final admissibility and judgment of merits will be given at some future date, since the ECHR has a large backlog of cases (about 84,000). As a guess, the publication of the judgment may occur in 2017 or 2018.

Some guilters post misleading information that the case has not been reviewed at all; obviously, a Communicated Case has survived an initial ECHR review.

In comparison, here is the ECHR timing for some other cases against Italy:

CESTARO c. ITALIE 6884/11 was lodged 28 January 2011 and Communicated to Italy 18 December 2012 (almost 2 years after being introduced). There was only one Communication. The judgment was published 07 April 2015, about 2.25 years after the (initial) Communication. The case relates to police brutality (violation of Convention Article 3).

TALPIS c. ITALIE 41237/14 was lodged 23 May 2014 and Communicated to Italy 26 August 2015, about 1.25 years later. There were a total of 5 Communications to Italy in this case. The judgment was published 02 March 2017, about 1.6 years after the (initial) Communication. The case concerns discrimination against women by the Italian authorities in ignoring a case of domestic violence, which led to the severe injury of the woman and the death of her son at the hands of her husband, who had a history of violence that the woman had complained of to the police and which they ignored until after the murder and assault. (Violations of Articles 2, 3, and 14 in conjunction with 2 and 3.)

AZZOLINA ET AUTRES c. ITALIE et 1 autre affaire 28923/09 67599/10 was lodged 27 May 2009 and 09 March 2010 (2 different applications) and was Communicated to Italy (as a single case, combined because the facts had similarities) 18 December 2012 (about 3.5 and 2.75 years later, respectively). There has been only the initial Communication to date. There has been no judgment published to date (as of about 4.1 years after Communication). The case relates to police brutality (violation of Article 3) and lack of an effective remedy (violation of Article 13).

Conclusion: The time between Communication and Judgment in ECHR cases varies considerably among cases. In this small sample, it was as low as about 1.6 years and as high as more that 4 years (and counting). Thus, the time anticipated to elapse between the Communication of Knox v. Italy and the anticipated publication of the judgment is not unusual.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Chris_Halkides » Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:08 am

Before reading the passage below, one needs a little background. The measles virus is made of RNA, not DNA. Professor Bustin was commenting about the problems he had detected in his examination of data purporting to show the presence of the measles virus from intestinal biopsies.

"Using this principle and other observations, Bustin demonstrated that it was indeed DNA contamination that O’Leary and Uhlman were reporting, not a real signal from the RNA of the measles virus. He concludes:

So I could speculate all day, and I really don’t want to speculate. It doesn’t actually matter.

The fact is that I’m showing that they are getting DNA contamination. Where it comes from is another matter. What matters is we’re getting DNA contamination, and, by definition, therefore, we’re not detecting measles virus." http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/ ... ce-betwee/
See also: http://web.archive.org/web/200706242150 ... /wp/?p=566

My inference is that Professor Bustin is not sure from where the contamination originated, but it does not matter to him, only the fact of contamination. My point about the Knox/Sollecito case is that an assertion that the route of contamination must be demonstrated before the the hypothesis that it occurred should be accepted is refuted by the words of one of the world's leading experts on quantitative polymerase chain reaction . Yet Dr. Novelli's testimony comes close to making just such an assertion. With respect to the DNA evidence in this case, there is at least one instance in which contamination must have occurred, namely in one of the no-template controls of the quantitation run. In my opinion the presence of DNA from at least two males who are not Sollecito or Guede is sufficient to deem the bra clasp as contaminated (a second instance).
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:19 am

On ISF, Bill Williams has posted: Sollecito's lawyer asks for Guede's expulsion from Italy, with source: http://www.newspuglia.it/cronaca/3091-a ... talia.html

An excerpt from a Google translation of the article:

The attorney Maori said that "once purged his sentence, Rudy Guede must be expelled from Italy." Because? "Many foreigners are expelled from our country for far less serious offenses to murder for which he was convicted of the Ivorian. I will ask the police headquarters in Perugia of action to undertake the removal procedures of Guede, who is not Italian citizen, just finished serving his sentence. "
_____
There was a discussion on ISF some time ago about whether or not Guede was an Italian citizen. He is not a citizen of Italy, according to this statement.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Desert Fox » Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:49 pm

Can you get citizenship while in prison?
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2200
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:43 pm

Desert Fox wrote:Can you get citizenship while in prison?


Desert Fox, according to a Wikipedia article on naturalization in Italy:

{Becoming an Italian Citizen} Through naturalisation:

A person who has been legally resident in Italy for at least ten years may apply for and be granted naturalisation as an Italian citizen if he or she does not have a criminal record and has sufficient financial resources. The residence requirement is reduced to three years for descendants of Italian citizen grandparents and for foreigners born in Italy, four years for nationals of EU member states, five years for refugees or stateless persons, and seven years for someone who was adopted as a child by an Italian citizen.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_nationality_law
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby erasmus44 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:21 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:Before reading the passage below, one needs a little background. The measles virus is made of RNA, not DNA. Professor Bustin was commenting about the problems he had detected in his examination of data purporting to show the presence of the measles virus from intestinal biopsies.

"Using this principle and other observations, Bustin demonstrated that it was indeed DNA contamination that O’Leary and Uhlman were reporting, not a real signal from the RNA of the measles virus. He concludes:

So I could speculate all day, and I really don’t want to speculate. It doesn’t actually matter.

The fact is that I’m showing that they are getting DNA contamination. Where it comes from is another matter. What matters is we’re getting DNA contamination, and, by definition, therefore, we’re not detecting measles virus." http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/ ... ce-betwee/
See also: http://web.archive.org/web/200706242150 ... /wp/?p=566

My inference is that Professor Bustin is not sure from where the contamination originated, but it does not matter to him, only the fact of contamination. My point about the Knox/Sollecito case is that an assertion that the route of contamination must be demonstrated before the the hypothesis that it occurred should be accepted is refuted by the words of one of the world's leading experts on quantitative polymerase chain reaction . Yet Dr. Novelli's testimony comes close to making just such an assertion. With respect to the DNA evidence in this case, there is at least one instance in which contamination must have occurred, namely in one of the no-template controls of the quantitation run. In my opinion the presence of DNA from at least two males who are not Sollecito or Guede is sufficient to deem the bra clasp as contaminated (a second instance).



"One of the no-template controls of the quantitation run..." This is cool but I have to be brutally honest and admit that I have no idea what you are talking about.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 2915
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:57 pm

erasmus44 wrote:
Chris_Halkides wrote:Before reading the passage below, one needs a little background. The measles virus is made of RNA, not DNA. Professor Bustin was commenting about the problems he had detected in his examination of data purporting to show the presence of the measles virus from intestinal biopsies.

"Using this principle and other observations, Bustin demonstrated that it was indeed DNA contamination that O’Leary and Uhlman were reporting, not a real signal from the RNA of the measles virus. He concludes:

So I could speculate all day, and I really don’t want to speculate. It doesn’t actually matter.

The fact is that I’m showing that they are getting DNA contamination. Where it comes from is another matter. What matters is we’re getting DNA contamination, and, by definition, therefore, we’re not detecting measles virus." http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/ ... ce-betwee/
See also: http://web.archive.org/web/200706242150 ... /wp/?p=566

My inference is that Professor Bustin is not sure from where the contamination originated, but it does not matter to him, only the fact of contamination. My point about the Knox/Sollecito case is that an assertion that the route of contamination must be demonstrated before the the hypothesis that it occurred should be accepted is refuted by the words of one of the world's leading experts on quantitative polymerase chain reaction . Yet Dr. Novelli's testimony comes close to making just such an assertion. With respect to the DNA evidence in this case, there is at least one instance in which contamination must have occurred, namely in one of the no-template controls of the quantitation run. In my opinion the presence of DNA from at least two males who are not Sollecito or Guede is sufficient to deem the bra clasp as contaminated (a second instance).



"One of the no-template controls of the quantitation run..." This is cool but I have to be brutally honest and admit that I have no idea what you are talking about.


The terminology does seem odd now that you point to it.

I'll attempt to explain some of the terminology in your quoted sentence. I would welcome Chris or TomZ or others who may wish to correct my anticipated errors.

The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a chemical method to get a tiny bit of DNA to double itself many times until there is a large enough amount available to conduct a reliable DNA profile test. To conduct a reliable DNA profile test, the DNA to be tested must be present in the right amount - not too little, nor too much. Therefore, when a forensic worker needs to test an "unknown" DNA sample which has been extracted from some biological trace - a cheek swab or a blood stain swab, for example - there needs to be a measurement of the amount of DNA dissolved in the extraction fluid. This is done by taking a fractional part of known volume from the extraction fluid containing the whole "unknown" DNA sample obtained from a trace. By measuring the amount of DNA in the fractional part, the amount of DNA in the whole sample can be calculated. Then, using appropriate dilutions (or concentrations) the volume of the whole sample remaining can be adjusted to be within the proper range to provide samples for reliable DNA profile testing.

"Non-template" means that no DNA was added to the control sample; the control sample only consists of the liquid solutions (reagents) used in the PCR method. Fluorescent dyes are included in the reagents; these dyes give off more fluorescence when there is more DNA present. This kind of control is useful in checking for any DNA contamination that may have been introduced (inadvertently) into the DNA profile and DNA quantification test samples.

The quantification run uses the PCR method on a set of "positive" samples with a known amount of DNA (generally supplied by the lab equipment manufacturer) added to each sample, and another sample that contains a fractional part of the "unknown" DNA sample to be tested. This fractional part is a known fractional volume of the larger volume of solution containing all the "unknown" DNA obtained from one specimen, such as a cheek swab or a blood stain swab.

The positive control samples, a non-template control sample, and the "unknown" sample, all containing PCR reagents, are then repeatedly subjected to the PCR method, until for each sample containing DNA, the amount of DNA in that sample crosses a predetermined threshold level based upon fluorescence. The non-template (no DNA) control should go to the limit of cycling (usually set at 50 cycles) without its fluorescence crossing the threshold. Using a mathematical interpolation method, the amount of DNA in the "unknown" sample is calculated from the number of PCR cycles required for it to cross the threshold compared to the number of cycles required for each of the positive controls to cross the threshold. The advantage of this PCR quantification method is that it allows very small amounts of DNA to be accurately measured.

Of relevance to this case, the police forensic technician, Patrizia Stefanoni, claiming that her quantitative PCR equipment was not functioning properly, used a much less adequate method to determine the amount of DNA in some samples, including the sample from the kitchen knife blade, the alleged murder weapon. She used a direct fluorescence method (Qubit fluorometer) which was unable to measure very small amounts of DNA. The amount of alleged DNA she reported on the knife blade registered as "too low" to measure - meaning there may have been no DNA present in the sample - but she proceeded to conduct one DNA profile test on the remaining knife blade sample.

The amount of DNA in the knife blade sample was about the same as that in one of the non-template (no DNA) controls that Stefanoni disclosed - without any comment - in her quantification report. The disclosure may perhaps have been inadvertent, because quantification results for many of the non-template controls were not reported ("suppressed"), although all such forensic data should be reported based upon ECHR case law.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby erasmus44 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:21 pm

Numbers wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:
Chris_Halkides wrote:Before reading the passage below, one needs a little background. The measles virus is made of RNA, not DNA. Professor Bustin was commenting about the problems he had detected in his examination of data purporting to show the presence of the measles virus from intestinal biopsies.

"Using this principle and other observations, Bustin demonstrated that it was indeed DNA contamination that O’Leary and Uhlman were reporting, not a real signal from the RNA of the measles virus. He concludes:

So I could speculate all day, and I really don’t want to speculate. It doesn’t actually matter.

The fact is that I’m showing that they are getting DNA contamination. Where it comes from is another matter. What matters is we’re getting DNA contamination, and, by definition, therefore, we’re not detecting measles virus." http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/ ... ce-betwee/
See also: http://web.archive.org/web/200706242150 ... /wp/?p=566

My inference is that Professor Bustin is not sure from where the contamination originated, but it does not matter to him, only the fact of contamination. My point about the Knox/Sollecito case is that an assertion that the route of contamination must be demonstrated before the the hypothesis that it occurred should be accepted is refuted by the words of one of the world's leading experts on quantitative polymerase chain reaction . Yet Dr. Novelli's testimony comes close to making just such an assertion. With respect to the DNA evidence in this case, there is at least one instance in which contamination must have occurred, namely in one of the no-template controls of the quantitation run. In my opinion the presence of DNA from at least two males who are not Sollecito or Guede is sufficient to deem the bra clasp as contaminated (a second instance).



"One of the no-template controls of the quantitation run..." This is cool but I have to be brutally honest and admit that I have no idea what you are talking about.


The terminology does seem odd now that you point to it.

I'll attempt to explain some of the terminology in your quoted sentence. I would welcome Chris or TomZ or others who may wish to correct my anticipated errors.

The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a chemical method to get a tiny bit of DNA to double itself many times until there is a large enough amount available to conduct a reliable DNA profile test. To conduct a reliable DNA profile test, the DNA to be tested must be present in the right amount - not too little, nor too much. Therefore, when a forensic worker needs to test an "unknown" DNA sample which has been extracted from some biological trace - a cheek swab or a blood stain swab, for example - there needs to be a measurement of the amount of DNA dissolved in the extraction fluid. This is done by taking a fractional part of known volume from the extraction fluid containing the whole "unknown" DNA sample obtained from a trace. By measuring the amount of DNA in the fractional part, the amount of DNA in the whole sample can be calculated. Then, using appropriate dilutions (or concentrations) the volume of the whole sample remaining can be adjusted to be within the proper range to provide samples for reliable DNA profile testing.

"Non-template" means that no DNA was added to the control sample; the control sample only consists of the liquid solutions (reagents) used in the PCR method. Fluorescent dyes are included in the reagents; these dyes give off more fluorescence when there is more DNA present. This kind of control is useful in checking for any DNA contamination that may have been introduced (inadvertently) into the DNA profile and DNA quantification test samples.

The quantification run uses the PCR method on a set of "positive" samples with a known amount of DNA (generally supplied by the lab equipment manufacturer) added to each sample, and another sample that contains a fractional part of the "unknown" DNA sample to be tested. This fractional part is a known fractional volume of the larger volume of solution containing all the "unknown" DNA obtained from one specimen, such as a cheek swab or a blood stain swab.

The positive control samples, a non-template control sample, and the "unknown" sample, all containing PCR reagents, are then repeatedly subjected to the PCR method, until for each sample containing DNA, the amount of DNA in that sample crosses a predetermined threshold level based upon fluorescence. The non-template (no DNA) control should go to the limit of cycling (usually set at 50 cycles) without its fluorescence crossing the threshold. Using a mathematical interpolation method, the amount of DNA in the "unknown" sample is calculated from the number of PCR cycles required for it to cross the threshold compared to the number of cycles required for each of the positive controls to cross the threshold. The advantage of this PCR quantification method is that it allows very small amounts of DNA to be accurately measured.

Of relevance to this case, the police forensic technician, Patrizia Stefanoni, claiming that her quantitative PCR equipment was not functioning properly, used a much less adequate method to determine the amount of DNA in some samples, including the sample from the kitchen knife blade, the alleged murder weapon. She used a direct fluorescence method (Qubit fluorometer) which was unable to measure very small amounts of DNA. The amount of alleged DNA she reported on the knife blade registered as "too low" to measure - meaning there may have been no DNA present in the sample - but she proceeded to conduct one DNA profile test on the remaining knife blade sample.

The amount of DNA in the knife blade sample was about the same as that in one of the non-template (no DNA) controls that Stefanoni disclosed - without any comment - in her quantification report. The disclosure may perhaps have been inadvertent, because quantification results for many of the non-template controls were not reported ("suppressed"), although all such forensic data should be reported based upon ECHR case law.


Thanks. But that's a little bit like me explaining to my Golden Retriever how my car works. It does make some sense ..................I think.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 2915
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:25 am

erasmus44 wrote:
Numbers wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:
Chris_Halkides wrote:Before reading the passage below, one needs a little background. The measles virus is made of RNA, not DNA. Professor Bustin was commenting about the problems he had detected in his examination of data purporting to show the presence of the measles virus from intestinal biopsies.

"Using this principle and other observations, Bustin demonstrated that it was indeed DNA contamination that O’Leary and Uhlman were reporting, not a real signal from the RNA of the measles virus. He concludes:

So I could speculate all day, and I really don’t want to speculate. It doesn’t actually matter.

The fact is that I’m showing that they are getting DNA contamination. Where it comes from is another matter. What matters is we’re getting DNA contamination, and, by definition, therefore, we’re not detecting measles virus." http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/ ... ce-betwee/
See also: http://web.archive.org/web/200706242150 ... /wp/?p=566

My inference is that Professor Bustin is not sure from where the contamination originated, but it does not matter to him, only the fact of contamination. My point about the Knox/Sollecito case is that an assertion that the route of contamination must be demonstrated before the the hypothesis that it occurred should be accepted is refuted by the words of one of the world's leading experts on quantitative polymerase chain reaction . Yet Dr. Novelli's testimony comes close to making just such an assertion. With respect to the DNA evidence in this case, there is at least one instance in which contamination must have occurred, namely in one of the no-template controls of the quantitation run. In my opinion the presence of DNA from at least two males who are not Sollecito or Guede is sufficient to deem the bra clasp as contaminated (a second instance).



"One of the no-template controls of the quantitation run..." This is cool but I have to be brutally honest and admit that I have no idea what you are talking about.


The terminology does seem odd now that you point to it.

I'll attempt to explain some of the terminology in your quoted sentence. I would welcome Chris or TomZ or others who may wish to correct my anticipated errors.

The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a chemical method to get a tiny bit of DNA to double itself many times until there is a large enough amount available to conduct a reliable DNA profile test. To conduct a reliable DNA profile test, the DNA to be tested must be present in the right amount - not too little, nor too much. Therefore, when a forensic worker needs to test an "unknown" DNA sample which has been extracted from some biological trace - a cheek swab or a blood stain swab, for example - there needs to be a measurement of the amount of DNA dissolved in the extraction fluid. This is done by taking a fractional part of known volume from the extraction fluid containing the whole "unknown" DNA sample obtained from a trace. By measuring the amount of DNA in the fractional part, the amount of DNA in the whole sample can be calculated. Then, using appropriate dilutions (or concentrations) the volume of the whole sample remaining can be adjusted to be within the proper range to provide samples for reliable DNA profile testing.

"Non-template" means that no DNA was added to the control sample; the control sample only consists of the liquid solutions (reagents) used in the PCR method. Fluorescent dyes are included in the reagents; these dyes give off more fluorescence when there is more DNA present. This kind of control is useful in checking for any DNA contamination that may have been introduced (inadvertently) into the DNA profile and DNA quantification test samples.

The quantification run uses the PCR method on a set of "positive" samples with a known amount of DNA (generally supplied by the lab equipment manufacturer) added to each sample, and another sample that contains a fractional part of the "unknown" DNA sample to be tested. This fractional part is a known fractional volume of the larger volume of solution containing all the "unknown" DNA obtained from one specimen, such as a cheek swab or a blood stain swab.

The positive control samples, a non-template control sample, and the "unknown" sample, all containing PCR reagents, are then repeatedly subjected to the PCR method, until for each sample containing DNA, the amount of DNA in that sample crosses a predetermined threshold level based upon fluorescence. The non-template (no DNA) control should go to the limit of cycling (usually set at 50 cycles) without its fluorescence crossing the threshold. Using a mathematical interpolation method, the amount of DNA in the "unknown" sample is calculated from the number of PCR cycles required for it to cross the threshold compared to the number of cycles required for each of the positive controls to cross the threshold. The advantage of this PCR quantification method is that it allows very small amounts of DNA to be accurately measured.

Of relevance to this case, the police forensic technician, Patrizia Stefanoni, claiming that her quantitative PCR equipment was not functioning properly, used a much less adequate method to determine the amount of DNA in some samples, including the sample from the kitchen knife blade, the alleged murder weapon. She used a direct fluorescence method (Qubit fluorometer) which was unable to measure very small amounts of DNA. The amount of alleged DNA she reported on the knife blade registered as "too low" to measure - meaning there may have been no DNA present in the sample - but she proceeded to conduct one DNA profile test on the remaining knife blade sample.

The amount of DNA in the knife blade sample was about the same as that in one of the non-template (no DNA) controls that Stefanoni disclosed - without any comment - in her quantification report. The disclosure may perhaps have been inadvertent, because quantification results for many of the non-template controls were not reported ("suppressed"), although all such forensic data should be reported based upon ECHR case law.


Thanks. But that's a little bit like me explaining to my Golden Retriever how my car works. It does make some sense ..................I think.


Methods such as DNA profiling tests can seem complicated (because they are), so depending on the depth or extent of information one wants, consulting the literature can be useful. One problem may be that the literature for specialists may start at too technical a level for beginners. The articles on DNA profiling and related methods in Wikipedia may be at a suitable level for many readers, and they have links that may be helpful.

For example, quantitative PCR (q-PCR) also called real-time PCR is covered in this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time ... n_reaction

DNA profiling, including historical information on its development and changing methodology, is covered in this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_profiling

For lawyers interested in a beginning overview of DNA profiling for forensics, there is an introductory article by Dan Krane and his associates, as well as other articles, that may be especially useful, that may be accessed at the Bioforensics site:

Evaluating Forensic DNA Evidence:
Essential Elements of a Competent Defense Review: Part 1
William C. Thompson, Simon Ford, Travis Doom, Michael Raymer and Dan Krane

http://www.bioforensics.com/download-articles/

Useful information may also be found on the sites of equipment vendors, for example, for real-time (quantitative) PCR:

http://www.bio-rad.com/en-us/applicatio ... pcr-qpcr#1
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Chris_Halkides » Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:23 am

Numbers,

Your summary looks fine. I will attempt to attach a screenshot of some data from Stefanoni's laboratory. When one quantifies the amount of DNA, the number to look for is the value of Ct, which is the number of PCR cycles to achieve a certain concentration. The smaller the value of Ct, fewer the number of PCR cycles and the greater the amount of DNA in the sample. In the attached screenshot NTC is no-template control. For experiments B10 and B12 Ct is 50. In other words 50 cycles of PCR were run, and no DNA was observed. This is the expected result because there is no DNA to serve as the template for rounds of DNA replication. However, for run B11 Ct is 34, meaning that it took 34 PCR cycles to attain a threshold amount of DNA. This is one instance of contamination, although arguably not a particularly critical one. Yet it shows that Stefanoni's claim of no contamination in seven years is not true.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:26 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:Numbers,

Your summary looks fine. I will attempt to attach a screenshot of some data from Stefanoni's laboratory. When one quantifies the amount of DNA, the number to look for is the value of Ct, which is the number of PCR cycles to achieve a certain concentration. The smaller the value of Ct, fewer the number of PCR cycles and the greater the amount of DNA in the sample. In the attached screenshot NTC is no-template control. For experiments B10 and B12 Ct is 50. In other words 50 cycles of PCR were run, and no DNA was observed. This is the expected result because there is no DNA to serve as the template for rounds of DNA replication. However, for run B11 Ct is 34, meaning that it took 34 PCR cycles to attain a threshold amount of DNA. This is one instance of contamination, although arguably not a particularly critical one. Yet it shows that Stefanoni's claim of no contamination in seven years is not true.


Chris, thanks for linking to that data. Interested readers should look at the following link for more information on the contamination:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamina ... k-coverup/

For any who wish to see a graph showing a typical fluorescence curve as obtained during qPCR (real-time PCR), with the threshold and Ct labelled, see this site:

http://www.bio-rad.com/en-us/applicatio ... e-pcr-qpcr

(Note that in the graph, "Ct" is labelled "Cq".)

This link may also be of interest (it uses the "Ct" notation), although there may be more information than many beginners would want:

sabiosciences.com/manuals/IntrotoqPCR.pdf

This youtube video may be a more concise and specific introdution to qPCR:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQOnX1-SUrI
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Previous

Return to Injustice in Perugia Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests