Part 24 in the Knox/Sollecito case
It is sometimes claimed that the defense teams of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito failed to show up for the DNA forensic testing in this case. Therefore, they do not know what went on and do not have cause to complain about the testing methods or lack of disclosure. This argument is false on a number of fronts. Ms. Knox’s stepfather Chris Mellas said that the defense was given only a few hours of notification, yet Rome is a considerable drive from Perugia (in addition to the defense having other responsibilities). This argument also ignores the fact that several of the experts from the defense only came aboard long after the testing was over. It is absurd to contend that they should be denied free access to the data. However, another problem with this argument is that it assumes that observing the testing is really that critical in the first place.
I posed the question of whether it would be more useful to observe the testing or to have the electronic data files to Professor Dan Krane, one of the cosigners of the open letter on the DNA forensics of this case. He responded:
“Having the electronic data for review is enormously important. Having the opportunity to witness the testing of samples is of marginal utility at best. Reviews of the underlying data for DNA tests often reveals alternative interpretations of the evidence samples, especially in circumstances were small amounts of DNA are involved and it is difficult to distinguish between signal, noise, and technical artifacts. Observing testing rarely provides any more insights than what should be possible from a review of contemporaneous notes that should be part of a lab's case file. Witnessing testing is far from a cure-all. Problems such as contamination of samples can easily arise before a sample arrives in a laboratory yet could not be detected by an expert observing the testing process itself.”
The subject of the electronic data files has been a major theme of this blog’s coverage of the Knox/Sollecito case. Every expert whom I have contacted has spoken in support of full release, and some private DNA forensic companies even have a standard form for the defense to fill out to obtain them. Another benefit of full release of all case files is that serious clerical errors are occasionally found and corrected.
In addition to forensic experts, legal experts within the United States support complete disclosure of all pertinent information, including but not limited to the electronic data files. Nothing close to full disclosure happened in this case. Bob Graham wrote, “It has also emerged that the prosecution has failed to deliver to the defence all the paperwork and documentation related to the forensic testing.” He reported on the prosecution’s response: “Deputy prosecutor Manuela Comodi brushed off the request for all forensic documentation and added: ‘They have everything they need. That is enough.’”
The American Bar Association’s Criminal Justice Section Standards on DNA evidence discusses disclosure in section 4.1:
(a) The prosecutor should be required, within a specified and reasonable time prior to trial, to make available to the defense the following information and material relating to DNA evidence:
(iii) the laboratory case file and case notes;
(iv) a curriculum vitae for each testifying expert and for each person involved in the testing;
(viii) all raw electronic data produced during testing;
(ix) reports of laboratory contamination and other laboratory problems affecting testing procedures or results relevant to the evaluation of the procedures and test results obtained in the case and corrective actions taken in response; and
Obviously the Italian courts are not bound by the ABA’s guidelines. However, the ABA guidelines are additional documentation, as if any were required, that release of the electronic data files is a near-universal norm in most nations. Ms. Comodi indicating that she has the right to decide what documentation is enough is remarkable given the unanimity of opinion on the usefulness of full disclosure among DNA forensic experts.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
An overview of some DNA evidence in the murder of Meredith Kercher
Part 23 in the Knox/Sollecito case
Executive summary
The most severe problems with the bra clasp are that three other partial profiles are present, that it was moved by unknown means before it was collected, that it was handled way too much during its collection, and that it might be within LCN range. Massei’s reasoning with respect to the disputed loci is fundamentally flawed. The most severe problems with Meredith’s profile on the knife are lack of blood, the low peak heights, the alleles that dropped in and dropped out, and the fact that an inferior version of low copy number (LCN) DNA analysis was used. Amanda’s DNA found with Meredith’s blood is not inculpatory, because DNA in one’s home is rarely out of the ordinary, and there are collection problems with these samples. Finally, the electronic data files were not released, and this has hampered the ability of the defense to challenge the evidence properly.
General defense arguments
Besides the argument that a profile is insufficient to identify a person (see below), an argument that the defense can use is that the DNA is present due to innocent activity. For example, Amanda’s DNA on the handle of the knife may be due to her using it to cook. In addition, the defense can argue three things with respect to how a defendant’s DNA came to be on an item of evidence: secondary/tertiary transfer, contamination, and evidence tampering.
The legal standard for a DNA profile and low copy number DNA
One argument that the defense can use is to say that a given DNA profile fails to clear the legal bar for identifying someone. One might use the analogy to a partial fingerprint. An example here is the necessity of testing low copy number (LCN) DNA twice, whereas the knife was only tested once. The bra clasp falls into a gray area in terms the amount of Raffaele’s DNA present; the defense is arguing that it, too, falls into the LCN range. Meredith’s profile on the knife also shows other evidence of being in the LCN range, such as peak height imbalance. Moreover, the majority of the peaks are below 50 RFU in peak height, most labs have set a threshold of at least 50 RFU as the minimum height for a peak to be counted. Meredith’s DNA profile should not have been accepted by the court as evidence, and Raffaele’s lawyers may have success with their argument.
Contamination
If we only allowed the contamination argument in cases where the defense could demonstrate the exact mechanism of when and how it happened, we would exclude known cases where it did happen. The prosecution must perform negative controls under the same conditions as the evidence and disclose the results of these control experiments to the defense. If DNA shows up in the negative controls, my understanding is that all evidentiary samples processed at the same time must be performed over. When no rational explanation for the presence of DNA on an item can be offered, one is forced to assume that the DNA arrived via contamination. Some cases of DNA contamination are the Jaidyn Leskie murder, the Jane Mixer murder, the Farah Jama rape case, the Gregory Turner case, and the profile N case in New Zealand.
The lack of frequent glove changes and the handling of the clasp by many forensic technicians are problematic for the prosecution. Moreover, Dr. Stefanoni’s testimony as presented in the Massei report (pp. 202-203 in the English translation at Perugia Murder FIle) on this subject is open to serious challenge. Her argument is that they did not change gloves with respect to a certain item of evidence and this piece of evidence did not show contamination. Therefore, contamination is difficult, requiring either liquids or vigorous rubbing. This view seems to be at odds with the consensus of the field, as well as the facts of the Gregory Turner case, which involved transfer of DNA from fingernails to a wedding ring.
Confirmation bias
Not doing what amounts to substrate controls on the mixed Knox/Kercher DNA samples might have been due to confirmation bias. Not obtaining DNA reference samples from Laura and Filomena are behaviors consistent with confirmation bias. Using a lower peak height threshold for the knife than any other piece of evidence contradicts the words of an introductory textbook on DNA forensics as well as general scientific principles. However, there is an additional reason to suspect that some form of investigator bias was at work with respect to the knife profile. Sample 164 was blood from the wall of a bedroom, but it was not tested because of a “negative preliminary (quantification) result.” One surmises that there was not enough DNA to continue the forensic analysis. Why should testing have been stopped for item 164, which had blood, when it was continued for the knife, which had no blood?
Expert testimony
The prosecution’s witnesses and the defense’s witnesses do not have equal scientific standing. Dr. Stefanoni has not published any articles on DNA forensics of which I am aware. On the other hand the nine signers of the open letter (Dr. Johnson, Dr. Hampikian, and the seven co-signers) publish regularly. That is not to say that publication record or academic prestige is everything; there is also variation in the abilities of expert witnesses to convince a jury that they are correct. In this matter the defense may have not fared as well.
The bra clasp
The following discussion assumes that a full DNA profile corresponding to Raffaele Sollecito’s is present, but that does not answer the question of how or when it got there. One problem with the bra clasp as evidence against Raffaele is that his DNA is not found on the bra itself, a point that his lawyers raised in the Micheli preliminary hearing. A more serious problem is that partial profiles of three other people have also been reported.
An answer to the question of how Raffaele’s DNA was deposited on the clasp is that it might have been deposited the same way as three DNA profiles from unknown individuals. To put it another way, if we acknowledge that DNA from three unknown individuals came to be on the clasp innocently, then what makes Raffaele’s DNA different? It is very unlikely that four people handed the bra clasp as part of a sexual assault and murder. Primary transfer before the assault seems equally unlikely; most people fold their own laundry, and someone else folding it would only account for one profile. So the unknown DNA had to arrive either from secondary transfer or from contamination.
One possibility involving secondary transfer involves the towels. The towels that Rudy probably took from the bathroom might have had DNA from anyone who washed his or her hands in the bathroom and used the towels to dry off, including Raffaele, who had cooked there. If the towel were placed over the clasp and stepped on, it could transfer DNA to the clasp. This might also explain the deformation of the clasp. Another possible route of secondary transfer is that whoever moved the clasp before it was collected deposited Raffaele’s DNA (possibly originating from the door).
There is a good deal of misunderstanding involving DNA contamination and the clasp. It is often said that the only item that tested positive for Raffaele’s DNA was a cigarette butt, and so how could contamination occur? There are several problems with this argument. First, one should not equate the DNA that the investigators found with the total amount of DNA Raffaele left at the cottage. The investigators seemed to be focused on blood, as well as Meredith’s body. They were not taking a random sampling of the cottage. Second, there is no reason to exclude contamination from the cigarette butt in the lab, although if they were tested far apart in time, contamination is less likely. Third, Raffaele’s reference sample is a potentially serious source of contamination. In PCR-based DNA forensics, the DNA is amplified very roughly a millionfold in amount. That is why good labs separate the pre-PCR from the post PCR-samples.
The amount of Raffaele’s DNA on the clasp is borderline LCN. If it is judged to be below the LCN cutoff, it would ordinarily have to be tested twice and only those alleles that showed up in both runs should be counted. It is sometimes said that the amount of Raffaele’s DNA was so large as to mean that it could only arise from vigorous rubbing (primary transfer). The fact that the amount of DNA is actually low would seem contradict such an argument. However, it is the premise that is wrong; the DNA profile itself can rarely give an indication of when and how it was deposited. One cannot rule out primary transfer when the amount of DNA is low any more than one can rule out secondary transfer when the amount of DNA.
Raffaele’s appeal with respect to the bra clasp
The discussion above presumes that a good, complete profile was found. However, Dr. Tagliabracci disputed that the profile matched Raffaele’s for at least six of the loci. If Sollecito’s profile were strong and if the bra clasp DNA were not a mixture, there might be fewer opportunities for disagreement between Dr. Tagliabracci and Dr. Stefanoni. Of the six disputed loci from the bra clasp DNA profile, Massei wrote (pp. 296-297 of the Perugia Murder File English translation):
“Consequently, there are apparently a considerable number of loci that are not the subject of dispute, a number which seems to be greater than the number of disputed loci and greater than the number of six loci with reference to which Professor Tagliabracci had previously declared, before the current systems were available‚ it was enough ... we made hypotheses even with six loci‛ (page [319] 103). The circumstance now exposed allows, it was held, the following consideration: if, despite the subjective contribution of the geneticist, the interpretative disagreement regarding the non-compatibility of Raffaele Sollecito’s profile with the loci that had contributed to forming trace 165B involved those loci indicated by Professor Tagliabracci during the course of the hearing and at pages 20 and 21 of the previously mentioned memorandum conclusions, it must be held that, for the greatest number of loci at least, the peaks were so clear and the interpretation so sound that they could not be contested. Consequently, the overall result should be considered fully reliable, even disregarding the repetition of the analysis. It should however be noted that Dr. Stefanoni, during the hearing at which she testified, had offered suitable explanations and answers which this Court considers acceptable.”
Raffaele’s appeal document correctly notes that Massei’s argument about the numbers of disputed and undisputed loci is contrary to the principles of forensic genetics. Let us assume that the data are clear enough to avoid ambiguity and consider the following analogy. Suppose that a winning lottery number is 12497635834, and I have a lottery ticket that is 12497235834. And suppose I claim that since my ticket has 10 out of the 11 numbers identical, I am a winner. That argument makes as much sense as Massei’s does.
But what of Dr. Tagliabracci’s statement that six loci used to be enough to form hypotheses? Suppose that initially a complete profile consisted of six loci. If a person matched all six loci, he or she would not be excluded as the DNA donor to that sample. However, if that person matched at only 5 loci and failed to match at the sixth locus, then he or she would be excluded. Now suppose an improved test with 10 loci became available. Then a person who matched all ten loci would not be excluded, and the number of other people who could also match would be much smaller than in the case with 6 loci. However, a person who matched at 9 loci but failed to match the tenth locus would still be excluded, even though 9 is greater than 6.
Massei must believe that at all six disputed loci, the DNA is Raffaele’s, or at the very least that the results in all six loci are indeterminate (if the latter were true, it would indicate that Raffaele’s DNA constituted a partial profile, not a complete one). Massei does not provide a clear reason for rejecting Dr. Tagliabracci’s assessment in favor of Dr. Stefanoni’s. It is difficult to see why a sentencing report the fails to provide reasons is any better than no sentencing report at all.
The knife profile
The peak heights on the DNA profile culled from the kitchen knife are all below 100 relative fluorescence units (RFU), and most are below 40 RFU. This is below any threshold of which I am aware. What was the harm in using a lower peak threshold? One can argue that it obliges the forensic scientist to use the same threshold for all the samples on the basis of consistency. It is a dollars-to-donuts bet that some evidence of contamination could be found at this atypically low peak threshold among the hundreds of samples run.
There is no detectable blood on the knife. The open letter asserts that if a bloody knife were cleaned, one would remove detectable traces of DNA before detectable traces of blood. If one claims that the DNA arose from other tissue, then I would ask how it is possible to remove blood cells and not other cells. The cleaning problem only grows more severe if one claims that the knife were cleaned with bleach and that traces of bleach were found. Even trace amounts of bleach are known to destroy DNA for forensic profiling.
The profile shows evidence of alleles dropping in and dropping out. In other words there is one allele where Meredith’s profile is weak or absent, and there is one locus with two peaks that are not part of Meredith’s profile. The peaks within each locus are often very uneven (as much as roughly threefold) in peak height, yet they should be approximately the same height in a good profile. These problems are to be expected when DNA is in the low copy number (LCN) range. When DNA falls into such a low range of amounts, forensic scientists generally test it at least twice and accept only those peaks that appear in both runs.
One can argue that LCN profiling should ordinarily be accepted by a court. However, Dr. Stefanoni used an inferior version of LCN DNA profiling, one that has never appeared in the scientific literature. LCN profiling is typically done in specialized buildings, away from the laboratory doing regular profiling. These precautions are necessary because LCN profiling is more prone to contamination than ordinary PCR-based profiling. These precautions were not followed with respect to the knife, and it was only tested once.
Another problem with the knife is that the second officer to have possession of the knife was at Meredith’s cottage just before receiving it. This raises the odds of contamination outside of the lab. Meredith’s profile probably arose through contamination in the laboratory, but contamination during the time it was taken into custody is also a possibility.
The mixed DNA samples
A number of samples that appeared to be blood had both Meredith’s and Amanda’s DNA. Three of the mixed DNA samples were probably blood and three may or may not have been blood. This would be very weak evidence under most conditions. Amanda’s DNA is expected to be in many locations in her own home. The fact that samples were not taken close to the blood (essentially substrate controls) means that one cannot rule out an innocent explanation for their existence. To argue that these samples are inculpatory, one is almost forced to assume that Amanda’s DNA is from her blood. White blood cells contain DNA; therefore, Amanda’s DNA might have arisen from her blood. Yet without characterizing or quantifying the amount of biological material that gave rise to her DNA, there is no reason to believe that the samples must be from blood. No such tests were done.
However, the prosecution has two additional problems with its case. First, Dr. Stefanoni did not change gloves when collecting multiple samples (see above). Therefore, she might have mixed samples herself. Second, at least one of these samples had a third profile in it, from an unknown individual. If this person’s DNA arose from innocent means, there is no reason to exclude the possibility that Amanda’s did also.
The lack of DNA
The lack of Raffaele’s DNA or Amanda’s DNA on Meredith’s body, when Raffaele is thought to have restrained her and Amanda to have throttled her calls into question this part of the prosecution’s narrative. The number of actual instances where DNA was used in strangulation cases where the DNA originated from the victim’s neck, as opposed to the victim’s fingernails, is small. However, some instances of alleged domestic violence cases have used swabbing of bruised or reddened areas on the alleged victim as evidence.
Conclusions
The way that the bra clasp was handled and the lack of a clear chain of custody cast doubt on this piece of evidence. The lack of blood on the knife calls into grave question whether the DNA got there before or after the police took it into evidence, as argued in the Johnson/Hampikian open letter. Secondary transfer is a likely means for Raffaele’s DNA being in the bra clasp, and contamination, either in the lab or during collection, is a likely means for Meredith’s DNA being found on the knife. The mixed DNA samples are virtually meaningless. The single most troubling aspect of the DNA evidence is the lack of full disclosure of the electronic data files and other documentation relating to the DNA forensics. The prosecution is acting as if it had something to hide.
Executive summary
The most severe problems with the bra clasp are that three other partial profiles are present, that it was moved by unknown means before it was collected, that it was handled way too much during its collection, and that it might be within LCN range. Massei’s reasoning with respect to the disputed loci is fundamentally flawed. The most severe problems with Meredith’s profile on the knife are lack of blood, the low peak heights, the alleles that dropped in and dropped out, and the fact that an inferior version of low copy number (LCN) DNA analysis was used. Amanda’s DNA found with Meredith’s blood is not inculpatory, because DNA in one’s home is rarely out of the ordinary, and there are collection problems with these samples. Finally, the electronic data files were not released, and this has hampered the ability of the defense to challenge the evidence properly.
General defense arguments
Besides the argument that a profile is insufficient to identify a person (see below), an argument that the defense can use is that the DNA is present due to innocent activity. For example, Amanda’s DNA on the handle of the knife may be due to her using it to cook. In addition, the defense can argue three things with respect to how a defendant’s DNA came to be on an item of evidence: secondary/tertiary transfer, contamination, and evidence tampering.
The legal standard for a DNA profile and low copy number DNA
One argument that the defense can use is to say that a given DNA profile fails to clear the legal bar for identifying someone. One might use the analogy to a partial fingerprint. An example here is the necessity of testing low copy number (LCN) DNA twice, whereas the knife was only tested once. The bra clasp falls into a gray area in terms the amount of Raffaele’s DNA present; the defense is arguing that it, too, falls into the LCN range. Meredith’s profile on the knife also shows other evidence of being in the LCN range, such as peak height imbalance. Moreover, the majority of the peaks are below 50 RFU in peak height, most labs have set a threshold of at least 50 RFU as the minimum height for a peak to be counted. Meredith’s DNA profile should not have been accepted by the court as evidence, and Raffaele’s lawyers may have success with their argument.
Contamination
If we only allowed the contamination argument in cases where the defense could demonstrate the exact mechanism of when and how it happened, we would exclude known cases where it did happen. The prosecution must perform negative controls under the same conditions as the evidence and disclose the results of these control experiments to the defense. If DNA shows up in the negative controls, my understanding is that all evidentiary samples processed at the same time must be performed over. When no rational explanation for the presence of DNA on an item can be offered, one is forced to assume that the DNA arrived via contamination. Some cases of DNA contamination are the Jaidyn Leskie murder, the Jane Mixer murder, the Farah Jama rape case, the Gregory Turner case, and the profile N case in New Zealand.
The lack of frequent glove changes and the handling of the clasp by many forensic technicians are problematic for the prosecution. Moreover, Dr. Stefanoni’s testimony as presented in the Massei report (pp. 202-203 in the English translation at Perugia Murder FIle) on this subject is open to serious challenge. Her argument is that they did not change gloves with respect to a certain item of evidence and this piece of evidence did not show contamination. Therefore, contamination is difficult, requiring either liquids or vigorous rubbing. This view seems to be at odds with the consensus of the field, as well as the facts of the Gregory Turner case, which involved transfer of DNA from fingernails to a wedding ring.
Confirmation bias
Not doing what amounts to substrate controls on the mixed Knox/Kercher DNA samples might have been due to confirmation bias. Not obtaining DNA reference samples from Laura and Filomena are behaviors consistent with confirmation bias. Using a lower peak height threshold for the knife than any other piece of evidence contradicts the words of an introductory textbook on DNA forensics as well as general scientific principles. However, there is an additional reason to suspect that some form of investigator bias was at work with respect to the knife profile. Sample 164 was blood from the wall of a bedroom, but it was not tested because of a “negative preliminary (quantification) result.” One surmises that there was not enough DNA to continue the forensic analysis. Why should testing have been stopped for item 164, which had blood, when it was continued for the knife, which had no blood?
Expert testimony
The prosecution’s witnesses and the defense’s witnesses do not have equal scientific standing. Dr. Stefanoni has not published any articles on DNA forensics of which I am aware. On the other hand the nine signers of the open letter (Dr. Johnson, Dr. Hampikian, and the seven co-signers) publish regularly. That is not to say that publication record or academic prestige is everything; there is also variation in the abilities of expert witnesses to convince a jury that they are correct. In this matter the defense may have not fared as well.
The bra clasp
The following discussion assumes that a full DNA profile corresponding to Raffaele Sollecito’s is present, but that does not answer the question of how or when it got there. One problem with the bra clasp as evidence against Raffaele is that his DNA is not found on the bra itself, a point that his lawyers raised in the Micheli preliminary hearing. A more serious problem is that partial profiles of three other people have also been reported.
An answer to the question of how Raffaele’s DNA was deposited on the clasp is that it might have been deposited the same way as three DNA profiles from unknown individuals. To put it another way, if we acknowledge that DNA from three unknown individuals came to be on the clasp innocently, then what makes Raffaele’s DNA different? It is very unlikely that four people handed the bra clasp as part of a sexual assault and murder. Primary transfer before the assault seems equally unlikely; most people fold their own laundry, and someone else folding it would only account for one profile. So the unknown DNA had to arrive either from secondary transfer or from contamination.
One possibility involving secondary transfer involves the towels. The towels that Rudy probably took from the bathroom might have had DNA from anyone who washed his or her hands in the bathroom and used the towels to dry off, including Raffaele, who had cooked there. If the towel were placed over the clasp and stepped on, it could transfer DNA to the clasp. This might also explain the deformation of the clasp. Another possible route of secondary transfer is that whoever moved the clasp before it was collected deposited Raffaele’s DNA (possibly originating from the door).
There is a good deal of misunderstanding involving DNA contamination and the clasp. It is often said that the only item that tested positive for Raffaele’s DNA was a cigarette butt, and so how could contamination occur? There are several problems with this argument. First, one should not equate the DNA that the investigators found with the total amount of DNA Raffaele left at the cottage. The investigators seemed to be focused on blood, as well as Meredith’s body. They were not taking a random sampling of the cottage. Second, there is no reason to exclude contamination from the cigarette butt in the lab, although if they were tested far apart in time, contamination is less likely. Third, Raffaele’s reference sample is a potentially serious source of contamination. In PCR-based DNA forensics, the DNA is amplified very roughly a millionfold in amount. That is why good labs separate the pre-PCR from the post PCR-samples.
The amount of Raffaele’s DNA on the clasp is borderline LCN. If it is judged to be below the LCN cutoff, it would ordinarily have to be tested twice and only those alleles that showed up in both runs should be counted. It is sometimes said that the amount of Raffaele’s DNA was so large as to mean that it could only arise from vigorous rubbing (primary transfer). The fact that the amount of DNA is actually low would seem contradict such an argument. However, it is the premise that is wrong; the DNA profile itself can rarely give an indication of when and how it was deposited. One cannot rule out primary transfer when the amount of DNA is low any more than one can rule out secondary transfer when the amount of DNA.
Raffaele’s appeal with respect to the bra clasp
The discussion above presumes that a good, complete profile was found. However, Dr. Tagliabracci disputed that the profile matched Raffaele’s for at least six of the loci. If Sollecito’s profile were strong and if the bra clasp DNA were not a mixture, there might be fewer opportunities for disagreement between Dr. Tagliabracci and Dr. Stefanoni. Of the six disputed loci from the bra clasp DNA profile, Massei wrote (pp. 296-297 of the Perugia Murder File English translation):
“Consequently, there are apparently a considerable number of loci that are not the subject of dispute, a number which seems to be greater than the number of disputed loci and greater than the number of six loci with reference to which Professor Tagliabracci had previously declared, before the current systems were available‚ it was enough ... we made hypotheses even with six loci‛ (page [319] 103). The circumstance now exposed allows, it was held, the following consideration: if, despite the subjective contribution of the geneticist, the interpretative disagreement regarding the non-compatibility of Raffaele Sollecito’s profile with the loci that had contributed to forming trace 165B involved those loci indicated by Professor Tagliabracci during the course of the hearing and at pages 20 and 21 of the previously mentioned memorandum conclusions, it must be held that, for the greatest number of loci at least, the peaks were so clear and the interpretation so sound that they could not be contested. Consequently, the overall result should be considered fully reliable, even disregarding the repetition of the analysis. It should however be noted that Dr. Stefanoni, during the hearing at which she testified, had offered suitable explanations and answers which this Court considers acceptable.”
Raffaele’s appeal document correctly notes that Massei’s argument about the numbers of disputed and undisputed loci is contrary to the principles of forensic genetics. Let us assume that the data are clear enough to avoid ambiguity and consider the following analogy. Suppose that a winning lottery number is 12497635834, and I have a lottery ticket that is 12497235834. And suppose I claim that since my ticket has 10 out of the 11 numbers identical, I am a winner. That argument makes as much sense as Massei’s does.
But what of Dr. Tagliabracci’s statement that six loci used to be enough to form hypotheses? Suppose that initially a complete profile consisted of six loci. If a person matched all six loci, he or she would not be excluded as the DNA donor to that sample. However, if that person matched at only 5 loci and failed to match at the sixth locus, then he or she would be excluded. Now suppose an improved test with 10 loci became available. Then a person who matched all ten loci would not be excluded, and the number of other people who could also match would be much smaller than in the case with 6 loci. However, a person who matched at 9 loci but failed to match the tenth locus would still be excluded, even though 9 is greater than 6.
Massei must believe that at all six disputed loci, the DNA is Raffaele’s, or at the very least that the results in all six loci are indeterminate (if the latter were true, it would indicate that Raffaele’s DNA constituted a partial profile, not a complete one). Massei does not provide a clear reason for rejecting Dr. Tagliabracci’s assessment in favor of Dr. Stefanoni’s. It is difficult to see why a sentencing report the fails to provide reasons is any better than no sentencing report at all.
The knife profile
The peak heights on the DNA profile culled from the kitchen knife are all below 100 relative fluorescence units (RFU), and most are below 40 RFU. This is below any threshold of which I am aware. What was the harm in using a lower peak threshold? One can argue that it obliges the forensic scientist to use the same threshold for all the samples on the basis of consistency. It is a dollars-to-donuts bet that some evidence of contamination could be found at this atypically low peak threshold among the hundreds of samples run.
There is no detectable blood on the knife. The open letter asserts that if a bloody knife were cleaned, one would remove detectable traces of DNA before detectable traces of blood. If one claims that the DNA arose from other tissue, then I would ask how it is possible to remove blood cells and not other cells. The cleaning problem only grows more severe if one claims that the knife were cleaned with bleach and that traces of bleach were found. Even trace amounts of bleach are known to destroy DNA for forensic profiling.
The profile shows evidence of alleles dropping in and dropping out. In other words there is one allele where Meredith’s profile is weak or absent, and there is one locus with two peaks that are not part of Meredith’s profile. The peaks within each locus are often very uneven (as much as roughly threefold) in peak height, yet they should be approximately the same height in a good profile. These problems are to be expected when DNA is in the low copy number (LCN) range. When DNA falls into such a low range of amounts, forensic scientists generally test it at least twice and accept only those peaks that appear in both runs.
One can argue that LCN profiling should ordinarily be accepted by a court. However, Dr. Stefanoni used an inferior version of LCN DNA profiling, one that has never appeared in the scientific literature. LCN profiling is typically done in specialized buildings, away from the laboratory doing regular profiling. These precautions are necessary because LCN profiling is more prone to contamination than ordinary PCR-based profiling. These precautions were not followed with respect to the knife, and it was only tested once.
Another problem with the knife is that the second officer to have possession of the knife was at Meredith’s cottage just before receiving it. This raises the odds of contamination outside of the lab. Meredith’s profile probably arose through contamination in the laboratory, but contamination during the time it was taken into custody is also a possibility.
The mixed DNA samples
A number of samples that appeared to be blood had both Meredith’s and Amanda’s DNA. Three of the mixed DNA samples were probably blood and three may or may not have been blood. This would be very weak evidence under most conditions. Amanda’s DNA is expected to be in many locations in her own home. The fact that samples were not taken close to the blood (essentially substrate controls) means that one cannot rule out an innocent explanation for their existence. To argue that these samples are inculpatory, one is almost forced to assume that Amanda’s DNA is from her blood. White blood cells contain DNA; therefore, Amanda’s DNA might have arisen from her blood. Yet without characterizing or quantifying the amount of biological material that gave rise to her DNA, there is no reason to believe that the samples must be from blood. No such tests were done.
However, the prosecution has two additional problems with its case. First, Dr. Stefanoni did not change gloves when collecting multiple samples (see above). Therefore, she might have mixed samples herself. Second, at least one of these samples had a third profile in it, from an unknown individual. If this person’s DNA arose from innocent means, there is no reason to exclude the possibility that Amanda’s did also.
The lack of DNA
The lack of Raffaele’s DNA or Amanda’s DNA on Meredith’s body, when Raffaele is thought to have restrained her and Amanda to have throttled her calls into question this part of the prosecution’s narrative. The number of actual instances where DNA was used in strangulation cases where the DNA originated from the victim’s neck, as opposed to the victim’s fingernails, is small. However, some instances of alleged domestic violence cases have used swabbing of bruised or reddened areas on the alleged victim as evidence.
Conclusions
The way that the bra clasp was handled and the lack of a clear chain of custody cast doubt on this piece of evidence. The lack of blood on the knife calls into grave question whether the DNA got there before or after the police took it into evidence, as argued in the Johnson/Hampikian open letter. Secondary transfer is a likely means for Raffaele’s DNA being in the bra clasp, and contamination, either in the lab or during collection, is a likely means for Meredith’s DNA being found on the knife. The mixed DNA samples are virtually meaningless. The single most troubling aspect of the DNA evidence is the lack of full disclosure of the electronic data files and other documentation relating to the DNA forensics. The prosecution is acting as if it had something to hide.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Eighteen false or misleading claims about Edda Mellas
Part 22 in the Knox/Sollecito case
In the previous entry I invited my readers to examine the claims that Edda Mellas made eighteen false claims, a view that was advanced at the site True Justice for Meredith by an anonymous individual calling herself “The Machine.” The following condensation is my synthesis of many of those comments. Thanks to Bob, Bruce Fisher, Kate, Mary H, Rose Montague, and all of the other contributors.
False claim 1: “The prosecution had changed the motive four times during the trial. and at the end they finally had to say we don’t have a motive but it doesn’t matter.” (minute 4.22 above)
Barbie Nadeau pointed out that the prosecutors had changed their theory, but only rather slightly:
“The prosecution lawyers began their case in January 2009 by arguing that Kercher was killed during a sex game gone awry. When it came time for closing arguments, they had changed the theory slightly, trying to make the case that Knox resented her prissy British roommate and killed her in hatred” A sex attack was still involved.
Prosecutor Mignini also suggested that a hards (sic) drug like cocaine might have been involved, and certainly never said that they didn’t have a motive. Co-Prosecutor Manuela Comodi said that she didn’t know precisely what the motive was, but certainly never claimed that there was none.
Response
It is misleading to begin the clock at January 2009. The motive progression was: **Beginning motive (Nov. 2007) – Conspired satanic group sex activity.
**Beginning of trial – Conspired group sex activity.
**End of trial per Mignini– Knox’s resentment of her prissy British roommate--i.e., Knox’s hatred of Meredith.
**End of trial per Comodi – No motive but it doesn’t matter.
**Motivation report – Lust and marijuana induced aggression.
Finally, Ms. Nadeau herself reported (Angel Face, p. 158) that Mignini wanted to reintroduce the Satanic ritual, but Comodi blocked this.
False claim 2: “He (Rudy Guede) all of a sudden had money that he didn’t have earlier in the day” (minute 3.22 above)
Edda Mellas is plucking “facts” out thin air with this claim. No evidence was presented at any court hearing that showed that Rudy Guede suddenly had money that he didn’t have earlier in the day on 1 November 2007.
Response
No one knows for sure whether Rudy Guede was able to buy a train ticket to Germany or simply avoided paying. However, he had not worked in two months. The facts that Meredith’s rent money was missing, his DNA was found on the zip of her purse point toward him as the thief. By contrast, neither Amanda nor Raffaele had money problems, despite the latter having a low bank account.
False claim 3: “There is no murder weapon.” (minute 4.32 above)
Judge Massei indicates in the sentencing report that Amanda Knox’s judges concluded that the double DNA knife, the larger of the two indicated by Meredith’s autopsy, is indeed the murder weapon.
It is totally compatible with the deep puncture wound in Meredith’s neck, and according to a number of independent forensic experts, it contained Meredith’s DNA on the blade..
Response
Besides the problems with the DNA on the knife (see Response 13), it neither matched two of the three major wounds nor the bloody outline of a knife on the bed. If this were the murder weapon, it would have had blood on the handle, which would need to be cleaned off. This would remove the putative murderer’s fingerprints at the same time. The forensic police did not disassemble the knife to look for blood, as General Garofano pointed out in the book Darkness Descending. Why not? Perhaps even they doubt that Raffaele’s ordinary kitchen knife is a credible murder weapon.
False claim 4: “The Italian Supreme Court found the interrogation illegal” (minute 7.54 above)
Though this claim has been repeated in different ways, the Italian Supreme Court has NEVER ruled that Amanda Knox’s interrogation either as a witness or a suspect was illegal. In the suspect interview, she had both a lawyer and interpreter present.
Response
The Machine is being cagey with respect to what constituted the suspect interview. The Supreme Court ruled that any information resulting from the interrogation was inadmissible in the Knox/Sollecito trial, but, in a mockery of justice and a violation of basic human rights, interrogation information was entered into the trial due to the Lumumba defamation/slander case.
False claim 5: “They admit to the fact they really have no physical evidence” (minute 7.54 above)
As it took the prosecutors four or five months to present it, they have never admitted that they have no physical evidence. The stop-start-stop nature of the defense phase of the trial showed how very telling the evidence was.
Response
If the prosecution had solid physical evidence they would not be trampling all over Amanda’s rights by withholding evidence and lying as per the following:
*The prosecution withheld crucial testing information from the defense for the first 6 months of the trial of first instance.
*The prosecution lied for the first 6 months of the trial when they continually repeated that the footprints revealed by luminol were not tested for blood—documents released to the defense by the judge’s order show that the footprints were tested and that the results were negative, i.e., no blood.
*The prosecution is still withholding crucial testing information--the electronic data files (.fsa files), the instrument log files, and (if they exist) the contamination log files.
A succinct description of the lack of evidence for the prosecutor’s case is found here.
False claim 6: “They believe Meredith was killed at about 9.30pm” on Larry King Live (minute 0.54 here)
The prosecutors didn’t claim this at the trial. According to Mignini’s timeline, which he used when presenting his scenario for what happened to the judges and jury at trial, Meredith was killed at about 11.50pm.
Response
The Machine ignores the fact that Public Minister Mignini moved the time of death back an hour during his closing statement. There are several reasons for rejecting Mignini’s revised time of death, not the least of which are the contents of Meredith’s stomach.
However, the cell phone evidence is perhaps the most exculpatory. The cell phone evidence is very clear and Raffaele’s appeal makes a very good argument that it is a good indication of a time of death between 9 and 10 pm. At 8:56 pm there is an attempt to call Meredith’s parents that does not go through. There is no further attempt despite the fact that her normal habits as shown by her phone records has her calling them before she went to bed on a regular basis. Just a few minutes before 10 pm there is an attempt to call voicemail that is ended before the message was heard and at 10 pm there is an attempt made to call her bank that does not use the international code prefix and does not go through. At 10:13 the cell phone shows there is a GRPS (mms) reception to the cell phone from a tower that does cover Meredith’s place but not as strongly as the tower that normally covers her flat. This is the first time she has gotten a call covered by this particular mast. The next incoming call at 10 past midnight shows the location of the phones in the garden where they were found based on the mast that covers that area. The Massei report speculates that Meredith was just playing around with her phone at the times all these earlier calls. The defense had the idea of testing an area between Meredith’s apartment and the garden where they were found and discovered that this particular mast (the one showing the 10:13 call) covers an area between Meredith’s flat and the garden where they were found, meaning that at 10:13 the phone was in route to the garden and Meredith was already dead.
False claim 7: Amanda Knox didn’t know Rudy Guede (minute 1.02 here)
Unbelievably, Edda Mellas claimed that Amanda Knox didn’t know Rudy Guede despite the fact that Amanda Knox testified IN COURT that she had met Rudy Guede on several occasions.
Here’s the actual court transcript:
Carlo Pacelli (CP), Patrick Lumumba’s lawyer: In what circumstances did you meet him (Rudy)?
Amanda Knox (AK): I was in the center, near the church. It was during an evening when I met the guys that lived underneath in the apartment underneath us, and while I was mingling with them, they introduced me to Rudy.
CP: So it was on the occasion of a party at the house of the neighbors downstairs?
AK: Yes. What we did is, they introduced me to him downtown just to say “This is Rudy, this is Amanda”, and then I spent most of my time with Meredith, but we all went back to the house together.
CP: Did you also know him, or at least see him, in the pub “Le Chic”, Rudy?
AK: I think I saw him there once.
CP: Listen, this party at the neighbors, it took place in the second half of October? What period, end of October? 2007?
AK: I think it was more in the middle of October.
Response
“To meet” is to be introduced or come together at a particular time and place. “To know” in this case would be “to be acquainted or familiar with.” in other words she didn’t know Guede personally. She knew who he was but didn’t know him. Apparently The Machine must havea hard time understanding American English. Amanda met the guy 1 time and might have saw him at a club 1 time. That does not mean she knows him. The Machine is pretending that the there is no difference between the two.
False claim 8: Rudy Guede’s DNA was in Meredith’s purse (minute 3.16 here
Edda Mellas’s claim that Rudy Guede’s DNA was in Meredith’s purse is completely untrue. According to the Micheli report, which was made available to the public in January 2008, Guede’s DNA was found on the zip of Meredith’s purse and not inside it.
Response
The Machine is making a distinction without a difference. Rudy Guede’s DNA was found on her purse, on the sleeve of her sweatshirt and in her body. The lack of Amanda’s or Raffaele’s DNA on Meredith’s body is a problem for the prosecution’s case.
False claim 9: “Even the Italian Supreme Court ruled that her rights were repeatedly violated.” (minute 5:32 here)
The Italian Supreme Court has NEVER ruled that Amanda Knox’s rights were repeatedly violated. Not even her own lawyers claimed that, and no complaint was ever lodged.
The first of Knox’s two written statements couldn’t be used against her simply because she wasn’t represented by a lawyer when she made it – and she volunteered that statement, in a seeming state of panic, when she was told Sollecito was no longer supporting her alibi..
We continue next with Edda Mellas making claims in an interview for the CBS Early Show.
Whilen Edda Mellas was in Perugia, she was interviewed by CBS’s Chris Wragge. (Embedding of this CBS video YouTube on sites like TJMK is disabled, which suggests that CBS might be worried that the claims made were wrong and they should have been challenged on-air.)
Response
An even higher court is beginning to realize that Amanda’s rights were repeatedly violated—society, which demands fundamental justice and the rule of law:
*Denial of legal representation
*Interrogation statements ruled to be inadmissible by the Supreme Court were thrust into the trial due to the Lumumba defamation/slander case.
*The prosecution withheld crucial testing information from the defense for the first 6 months of the trial of first instance.
*The prosecution lied for the first 6 months of the trial when they continually repeated that the footprints revealed by luminol were not tested for blood—documents released to the defense by a judge’s order revealed that the footprints were tested and that the results were negative, i.e., no blood.
*The prosecution is still withholding crucial testing information--the electronic data files (.fsa files), the instrument log files, and (if they exist) the contamination log files.
*Amanda Knox has been charged with slander for defending herself in court.
False claim 10: The double DNA knife is incompatible with the wounds on Meredith’s body. (minute 0.16 above)
In the interview Edda Mellas made the following claim: “The knife they think is the murder weapon is way too big and demonstrated how it had to have been a much smaller knife that caused all the wounds.”
Edda Mellas’s claim above is simply not true.
Barbie Nadeau reported directly from the courtroom in Perugia that multiple witnesses for the defence, including Dr. Carlo Torre, conceded that the double DNA knife was compatible with the deep puncture wound in Meredith’s neck.
“According to multiple witnesses for the defense, the knife is compatible with at least one of the three wounds on Kercher’s neck, but it was likely too large for the other two.” (Barbie Nadeau, Newsweek).
“He (Dr. Carlo Torre) conceded that a third larger wound could have been made with the knife, but said it was more likely it was made by twisting a smaller knife.” (Barbie Nadeau, The Daily Beast).
Judge Massei categorically states in the judges’ sentencing report that the double DNA knife was compatible with the large wound on Meredith’s neck.
Response
The problems with the knife as evidence are discussed in Responses 3 and 13, however it is worth repeating that any knife could have made the larger wound, including the one that made the other two wounds on Meredith’s neck. What makes no sense is why Amanda and Raffaele would take a knife from his apartment even if their intent were to scare Meredith that night. There were knives at the girls’ flat. The notion that Amanda carried the large kitchen knife for protection (in a cloth bag, no less) is absurd.
False claim 11: Meredith’s room was so tiny, there wasn’t enough room for four people in some kind of tussle. (minute 0.27 above)
In the same interview with Chris Wragge, Edda Mellas asserts that there couldn’t have been an attack on Meredith involving three assailants.
“The space available this crime happened is so tiny you can’t have had four people in that room in some kind of tussle.”
The Violent Crimes Unit itself used detailed images at the trial (this is one below) to show that there was more than enough room for an attack involving three attackers.
Response
Edda may have been questioning whether a struggle involving four people would create more damage in the room than was observed. If three people attacked Meredith, where are Knox’s or Sollecito’s shoeprints or fingerprints? If they restrained her and throttled her, why is there no DNA evidence of this contact?
Update 15 September 2010
It was originally Raffaele Sollecito’s expert witness, Francesco Introna, who argued that the room was too small for three people to assault Meredith Kercher.
False claim 12: There is no evidence of Amanda Knox at the actual crime scene. (minute 2.06 above)
“I fact at the actual crime scene there is no physical evidence of Amanda; not a hair, not a fingerprint, not a nothing.”
The crime scene involves the whole cottage and it isn’t limited to Meredith’s room. Knox and Sollecito were both CONVICTED of staging the break-in and tampering with the crime scene.
Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence actually placing Amanda Knox in Meredith’s room on the night of the murder: the double DNA knife, and the blood she tracked into the bathroom, the hallway, Filomena’s room, and her own room.
According to two imprint experts, there was a woman’s bloody shoeprint on the pillow under Meredith’s body which matched Knox’s foot size.
Even Sollecito’s forensic consultant, Professor Vinci, claimed that he had found Amanda Knox’s DNA on Meredith’s bra.
Response
Because the date at which DNA arrived on an object cannot be known and because Amanda used the knife when she cooked at Raffaele’s flat, the presence of Amanda Knox’s DNA on the handle is strictly meaningless.
Every single shoe print found in the murder room belongs to Rudy Guede. The two imprint experts that The Machine is referring to were proven wrong. The Machine and everyone else at TJMK and PMF are well aware that this information has been refuted but they continue to spread this lie. Raffaele Sollecito’s forensics expert Francesco Vinci showed in great detail, in court, that all of the prints found in the murder room belonged to Rudy Guede. The prosecution had originally stated that there was one shoe print matching Raffaele Sollecito’s shoes found on the tile floor. They also stated that one shoe print of a woman’s size 37 shoe was found on a pillow case. The shoe print said to be a woman’s shoe was attributed to Amanda. The truth is, all of the shoe prints match Rudy’s Nike Outbreak 2 shoes.
The Machine’s reasoning with respect to staging the break-in and tampering with the crime scene assumes Knox’s and Sollecito’s guilt, which are the very questions under dispute. In addition, luminol is a presumptive test for blood, no more. The luminol-positive footprints were negative by the TMB test and did not have Meredith’s DNA; therefore, there is no reason to believe that they originated from blood.
If one claimed that the DNA on the bra clasp is conclusive evidence of guilt, one would have to begin searching for the three unidentified individuals also deposited DNA on the clasp. One thing that the bra clasp implies is that contamination might be alive and well in the Rome testing laboratory. Either that or secondary transfer could explain all of the DNA on the clasp.
False claim 13: “The DNA is so insignificant. It’s this tiny spot. It’s not blood.” (minute 2.16 above)
Three independent DNA experts - Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo, and Professor Francesca Torricelli – confirmed that Meredith’s DNA was definitely on the blade of the double DNA.
The DNA charts themselves show a clear and unmistakable match. Edda Mellas doesn’t seem to understand that DNA evidence almost always involves only microscopic traces of DNA.
Dr. Stefanoni testified at the trial that the DNA on the blade could indeed have come from Meredith’s blood.
We continue next with Edda Mellas in an Interview with Linda Byron on Seattle TV station King 5.
Response
The Machine ignores that Meredith’s DNA was in the low copy number (LCN) range, demonstrating that she understands less about DNA profiling than Edda Mellas does. First, LCN samples should be tested at least twice, and only those alleles that show up in both runs are should be counted. Second, Stefanoni did not use standard LCN conditions in other ways, such as the number of cycles of the amplification step and working under lighting and air-handling conditions that minimize the possibility of DNA contamination. New methods are typically vetted in peer-reviewed journals before they are accepted. Third, the Machine also ignores the well known possibility of contamination, as well as the fact that contamination is a greater risk for samples in the LCN range.
There are some problems with The Machine’s assertion that there is a “clear and unmistakable match.” First, in locus D3S1358 there are two peaks, each with peak height of about 20 RFU, which are not seen in Meredith’s reference profile. They have 15 and 16 repeats, respectively, but Meredith’s profile has peaks at 14 and 18 repeats. Second, in the D21S11 locus, the knife profile has a peak at 30 repeats, but Meredith’s profile has peaks at 30 and 33.2 repeats. It is possible to explain the two extra and one missing peak as a consequence of the amount of DNA being in the LCN range. Yet, this explanation only underscores the fact that Stefanoni should have used the services of a lab that has proper facilities and experience, instead of making up her own inferior method.
It is now well known that Stefanoni went ahead with the analysis, despite the fact that her instrument read “too low,” meaning that there was not enough DNA to continue. What is less well appreciated is the fact that Stefanoni treated this sample differently from other samples, where she discontinued the analysis under similar circumstances. The Machine ignores Stefanoni’s apparent inconsistency.
Dr. Stefanoni’s assertion that the DNA could have come from Meredith’s blood is extremely dubious. The knife tested negative for blood with tetramethylbenzidine (TMB), and Dr. Elizabeth Johnson and Professor Gregory Hampikian indicated that the test for blood is more sensitive than the test for DNA. In other words, if a bloody knife were cleaned of all traces of blood, all traces of DNA would also be removed. They and the cosigners of an open letter on the DNA evidence in this case publish regularly in the field of DNA forensics. The same cannot be said of Dr. Stefanoni.
Furthermore, The Machine ignores the fact that Stefanoni did not turn over the electronic data files or the machine logs. This failure to abide by the international standards of discovery of DNA evidence means that any claim about the quality of the results is suspect. The defense expert witnesses did not have all of the information that they would need to evaluate Stefanoni’s dubious results.
False claim 14: Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito maintained the same story (minute 3.17)
Edda Mellas claimed in this interview with Linda Byron that Amanda Knox had maintained the same story for over a year when she was asked whether her daughter had lied. In another interview with Linda Byron in November 2009, Edda Mellas bizarrely claimed that Amanda Knox hadn’t changed her story. KING 5 Investigator Linda Byron asked her: “Did she change her story?”
Edda Mellas responded: “No, no. For this whole year they have maintained the story – what they did that night. They stayed at Raffaele’s, they made dinner, they watched a movie. That’s it, that’s the story.”
Edda Mellas’s statement that Amanda Knox didn’t change her story and that she and Sollecito maintained the same story is yet another incorrect and misleading claim. Knox and Sollecito both gave three different alibis. The posts on their alibis are linked-to up at the top here. Knox gave at least three different times for when she and Sollecito had dinner on the night of the murder.
Knox gave different reasons for writing her handwritten confession, and she gave different accounts of seeing the blood in the bathroom which contradict each other.
And most devastating of all, Sollecito stopped providing Knox with an alibi on 5 November 2007. Sollecito is STILL nearly three years later refusing to corroborate her alibi. He clearly hasn’t maintained that Knox was with him at his apartment – actually he claimed that she went out for four hours.
Response
Amanda has had two basic accounts; before and after the night of 5-6 November, she said that she was with Raffaele. Only on the night of the interrogation did she say anything different, and she almost immediately backed away from what she said that night. Amanda’s own words and actions and the observations of others all indicate that Amanda was physically and emotionally worn out by the time of her interrogation. We will never know how her interrogation progressed, because the police either lost it or never made a recording of it.
The claim that Raffaele stopped providing an alibi for Amanda after 1 November 2007 is among The Machine’s most serious misstatements. The accounts in Murder in Italy and Darkness Descending both indicate that Raffaele backed Amanda up, although Ms. Dempsey indicates that Raffaele got some of the times wrong. Raffaele has always stated that to the best of his knowledge Amanda spent the entire night with him on 1 November 2007. He does add that it would have been possible for Amanda to have sneaked out for maybe an hour without his knowledge.
Raffaele’s lawyers appeared before the Supreme Court in the spring of 2008 to argue for his release, inasmuch as he had not even been formally charged at this point. Their words are sometimes taken as evidence that he was claiming he was not with her on the night of 5 November. His lawyers used words that were translated as “erroneous assumption” at Perugia-Shock that they were together, but a better translation is undeserved or unwarranted assumption. The key to understanding his lawyers’ argument is that they did not call it an erroneous belief, which would be a denial that they were together. The lawyers are saying that any evidence that would place Amanda outside Raffaele’s flat ought not be counted as evidence that Raffaele were outside his flat. As Kate wrote, “She’s not saying they were together or that they weren’t together; she’s challenging the Court to provide the evidence it NEEDS to provide if it’s going to transfer evidence to Sollecito on the basis of an unsupported assumption.”
False claim 15: Amanda Knox wasn’t provided with an interpreter (minute 2.37)
Edda Mellas made this false claim, which has been widely propagated by Knox groupies, in an interview with Linda Byron on King5. It’s not difficult to prove that this claim is completely false. Knox’s interpreter on 5 November 2007, Anna Donninio, even testified at the trial. And Amanda Knox herself spoke about her interpreter when she gave testimony at the trial.
We continue next with the claims of Edda Mellas on ABC TV.
Response
The interpreter in this case was a participant in the interrogation process. According to Andrea Vogt, “But Knox said her interpreter's ‘traumatization’ was actually used to pressure her. ‘Ms. Donnino then later suggested that ... perhaps I didn't remember well because I had been traumatized, and so I should try to remember something else.’”
John Hooper reported on Ms. Donnio’s testimony: “Under cross-examination she described her role as that of a ‘mediator’ rather than a mere translator of words.” Knox Clashes With Interpreter." That seems to be an unusual role for an interpreter. One wonders whether there is a defined role that an interpreter can play and if there are limits to what role they can take, as proscribed in Italian law.
False claim 16: “Amanda Knox is incredibly honest” (minute 11.25)
In an interview with ABC’s Elizabeth Vargas (ABC have rendered this video not embeddable) Edda Mellas claimed that her daughter is “incredibly honest”. And Edda Mellas told The Guardian’s Simon Hattenstone that “Amanda doesn’t know how to lie.”
In fact, Amanda Knox’s mobile phone records, data recovered from Sollecito’s computer, and corroborative testimony of numerous witnesses, provide irrefutable proof that Amanda Knox has lied – again and again. For example, her lies about him directly led to Diya Lumumba, an innocent man, spending two weeks in prison – even though as recorded in prison she told her mother Edda Mellas that her claims were not true.
Response
The Machine provides no specifics for her claims. Blaming Ms. Knox for what she said during an interrogation without knowing what went on between 11 PM and 5:45 AM the next morning is jumping to conclusions without facts. The authorities knew that Ms. Knox had already backed away from her statements about Lumumba long before she spoke to her mother. And the fact that this interview was recorded means that ILE knew exactly how Ms. Knox perceived her false statement. If they had decided her statement were false on the basis of what she said to her mother, they could have released Mr. Lumumba. Moreover, the authorities were not proactive with respect to an exculpatory witness for Mr. Lumumba; he came to Perugia on his own initiative.
Amanda’s family and all of her friends have always said that Amanda is ‘honest to a fault’. Why would anyone wish to accuse Amanda’s family and all of her friends of being liars?
False claim 17: Amanda Knox could have left Italy, but she chose to stay and help the police.
In an earlier interview with Larry King in October 2009, Edda Mellas told him that Amanda Knox could have left Italy, but she chose to stay and help the police: “After the murder, Mellas said, friends and family told Knox to leave Italy—to either come home or stay with relatives in Germany—but Knox refused because she wanted to help find the killer and prove that she had nothing to do with it.”
“Many people asked her to leave, but she said no. ‘I’m going to stay. I’m going to try and help. I’m going to try and finish school,’ ” Mellas said.” Edda Mellas’s claim is flatly contradicted by Amanda Knox herself, in the e-mail she wrote to her friends in Seattle on 4 November 2007: “I then bought some underwear because as it turns out I wont be able to leave italy for a while as well as enter my house”
And along with one of Meredith’s friends who walked home with Meredith on the night, the police told Amanda Knox pretty promptly that as her status was (then) a primary witness, she was not to go anywhere. The fact that Knox did stay was of little help to the investigation – in fact, she seemed to work hard to derail it – and one of her main concerns at the time, a pretty callous one, was whether she would be staying or moving out of the house and getting a rent refund.
Response
The following statement from Judge Matteini indicates that Amanda was free to leave Italy and didn’t: "Your family lives in the United States, so it would be extremely easy for you to leave the country," Matteini wrote. "The fact that you did not do so before you were arrested is totally irrelevant. We must remind you that your arrest was made very early, and was affected purposely before the arrival of your mother in order to avoid just such a possibility."
False claim 18: Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were not under the influence of drugs on the night of the murder (BBC Radio)
In an interview with BBC Radio after the verdict, Edda Mellas apparently stated that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were not under the influence of drugs on the night of the murder.
This is despite the fact that both Knox and Sollecito had both themselves actually claimed they had smoked cannabis. The prosecution believed they might have been on a hard drug like cocaine, which also seems the general belief around Perugia.
Response
The Machine is engaging in rumor-mongering. There was no evidence presented at the trial about cocaine or any other drug. Amanda never used cocaine in her life. Knox and Sollecito have stated that they had smoked cannabis. One suspects that Amanda’s parents were implying that they (Amanda and Raffaele) were not under the influence of ‘hard’ drugs as opposed to mildly euphoriant-like cannabis which does not induce aggressive behavior.
Part 3. And Some Conclusions
The fact that Edda Mellas has been able to propagate so many wrong claims in the media for so long without being challenged seems to speaks volumes about the naivety and unprofessionalism of her interviewers, and of the media organisations they work for. As they usually do, ABC News, CBS News, CNN, King 5, and other media outlets should have interviewed objective crime-case professionals, who don’t have a vested interest in the case.
Instead they have relied again and again on Amanda Knox’s mother and other family members as primary sources.
Amanda Knox is not an innocent political prisoner who was railroaded in some Third World country for some very murky reason. She was unanimously convicted after a lengthy trial at which the evidence was absolutely overwhelming.
As the Christian Longo and Scott Peterson cases that we posted on below go to prove, seemingly quite normal people commit horrific murders. Probably the vast majority of murders are committed by people who to many seemed normal.
It seems downright perverse that some of the journalists who have interviewed Edda Mellas treat Amanda Knox as a victim, and with cloying sympathy ask “How is Amanda doing?” They wouldn’t dream of asking Charles Manson’s mum how the Manson girls are doing.
It is time for the sake of the truth, the legitimacy of the verdict, the relations between the US and Italy, and the peace of mind of Meredith’s family and friends, that from now on they hold Edda Mellas’s feet to the fire..
Response
The premise of The Machine’s article is flawed. The Machine presented no evidence that the press has ever relied heavily on Edda Mellas as a primary source of information. Have they actually relied on family members as “primary sources?” Or are the interviews with Amanda’s parents intended to focus on the subjective, human-interest aspects of the story? The comparison to Charles Manson and the references to cocaine use (again without providing any evidence to support this claim) make it clear that The Machine has no business complaining about another person's lack of impartiality. Moreover, Ms. Knox’s lawyers made many of the same arguments as Edda Mellas; therefore, there is no reason to single her out. The Machine has chosen to personalize the debate for no good reason.
Many of the Non-errors that The Machine cites are repeated in the defense appeals and should not be taken as errors simply because it doesn't fit with the prosecution’s case or the Massei report. Many of these issues are disputed for good reason. The Machine’s credibility for posting accurate and objective information has to be evaluated in light of her many errors in this article and others. Moreover, since the posting of the previous entry, The Machine has neither explained why the arguments are incorrect, nor made any alterations in or retractions to her essay, further damaging her credibility.
In the previous entry I invited my readers to examine the claims that Edda Mellas made eighteen false claims, a view that was advanced at the site True Justice for Meredith by an anonymous individual calling herself “The Machine.” The following condensation is my synthesis of many of those comments. Thanks to Bob, Bruce Fisher, Kate, Mary H, Rose Montague, and all of the other contributors.
False claim 1: “The prosecution had changed the motive four times during the trial. and at the end they finally had to say we don’t have a motive but it doesn’t matter.” (minute 4.22 above)
Barbie Nadeau pointed out that the prosecutors had changed their theory, but only rather slightly:
“The prosecution lawyers began their case in January 2009 by arguing that Kercher was killed during a sex game gone awry. When it came time for closing arguments, they had changed the theory slightly, trying to make the case that Knox resented her prissy British roommate and killed her in hatred” A sex attack was still involved.
Prosecutor Mignini also suggested that a hards (sic) drug like cocaine might have been involved, and certainly never said that they didn’t have a motive. Co-Prosecutor Manuela Comodi said that she didn’t know precisely what the motive was, but certainly never claimed that there was none.
Response
It is misleading to begin the clock at January 2009. The motive progression was: **Beginning motive (Nov. 2007) – Conspired satanic group sex activity.
**Beginning of trial – Conspired group sex activity.
**End of trial per Mignini– Knox’s resentment of her prissy British roommate--i.e., Knox’s hatred of Meredith.
**End of trial per Comodi – No motive but it doesn’t matter.
**Motivation report – Lust and marijuana induced aggression.
Finally, Ms. Nadeau herself reported (Angel Face, p. 158) that Mignini wanted to reintroduce the Satanic ritual, but Comodi blocked this.
False claim 2: “He (Rudy Guede) all of a sudden had money that he didn’t have earlier in the day” (minute 3.22 above)
Edda Mellas is plucking “facts” out thin air with this claim. No evidence was presented at any court hearing that showed that Rudy Guede suddenly had money that he didn’t have earlier in the day on 1 November 2007.
Response
No one knows for sure whether Rudy Guede was able to buy a train ticket to Germany or simply avoided paying. However, he had not worked in two months. The facts that Meredith’s rent money was missing, his DNA was found on the zip of her purse point toward him as the thief. By contrast, neither Amanda nor Raffaele had money problems, despite the latter having a low bank account.
False claim 3: “There is no murder weapon.” (minute 4.32 above)
Judge Massei indicates in the sentencing report that Amanda Knox’s judges concluded that the double DNA knife, the larger of the two indicated by Meredith’s autopsy, is indeed the murder weapon.
It is totally compatible with the deep puncture wound in Meredith’s neck, and according to a number of independent forensic experts, it contained Meredith’s DNA on the blade..
Response
Besides the problems with the DNA on the knife (see Response 13), it neither matched two of the three major wounds nor the bloody outline of a knife on the bed. If this were the murder weapon, it would have had blood on the handle, which would need to be cleaned off. This would remove the putative murderer’s fingerprints at the same time. The forensic police did not disassemble the knife to look for blood, as General Garofano pointed out in the book Darkness Descending. Why not? Perhaps even they doubt that Raffaele’s ordinary kitchen knife is a credible murder weapon.
False claim 4: “The Italian Supreme Court found the interrogation illegal” (minute 7.54 above)
Though this claim has been repeated in different ways, the Italian Supreme Court has NEVER ruled that Amanda Knox’s interrogation either as a witness or a suspect was illegal. In the suspect interview, she had both a lawyer and interpreter present.
Response
The Machine is being cagey with respect to what constituted the suspect interview. The Supreme Court ruled that any information resulting from the interrogation was inadmissible in the Knox/Sollecito trial, but, in a mockery of justice and a violation of basic human rights, interrogation information was entered into the trial due to the Lumumba defamation/slander case.
False claim 5: “They admit to the fact they really have no physical evidence” (minute 7.54 above)
As it took the prosecutors four or five months to present it, they have never admitted that they have no physical evidence. The stop-start-stop nature of the defense phase of the trial showed how very telling the evidence was.
Response
If the prosecution had solid physical evidence they would not be trampling all over Amanda’s rights by withholding evidence and lying as per the following:
*The prosecution withheld crucial testing information from the defense for the first 6 months of the trial of first instance.
*The prosecution lied for the first 6 months of the trial when they continually repeated that the footprints revealed by luminol were not tested for blood—documents released to the defense by the judge’s order show that the footprints were tested and that the results were negative, i.e., no blood.
*The prosecution is still withholding crucial testing information--the electronic data files (.fsa files), the instrument log files, and (if they exist) the contamination log files.
A succinct description of the lack of evidence for the prosecutor’s case is found here.
False claim 6: “They believe Meredith was killed at about 9.30pm” on Larry King Live (minute 0.54 here)
The prosecutors didn’t claim this at the trial. According to Mignini’s timeline, which he used when presenting his scenario for what happened to the judges and jury at trial, Meredith was killed at about 11.50pm.
Response
The Machine ignores the fact that Public Minister Mignini moved the time of death back an hour during his closing statement. There are several reasons for rejecting Mignini’s revised time of death, not the least of which are the contents of Meredith’s stomach.
However, the cell phone evidence is perhaps the most exculpatory. The cell phone evidence is very clear and Raffaele’s appeal makes a very good argument that it is a good indication of a time of death between 9 and 10 pm. At 8:56 pm there is an attempt to call Meredith’s parents that does not go through. There is no further attempt despite the fact that her normal habits as shown by her phone records has her calling them before she went to bed on a regular basis. Just a few minutes before 10 pm there is an attempt to call voicemail that is ended before the message was heard and at 10 pm there is an attempt made to call her bank that does not use the international code prefix and does not go through. At 10:13 the cell phone shows there is a GRPS (mms) reception to the cell phone from a tower that does cover Meredith’s place but not as strongly as the tower that normally covers her flat. This is the first time she has gotten a call covered by this particular mast. The next incoming call at 10 past midnight shows the location of the phones in the garden where they were found based on the mast that covers that area. The Massei report speculates that Meredith was just playing around with her phone at the times all these earlier calls. The defense had the idea of testing an area between Meredith’s apartment and the garden where they were found and discovered that this particular mast (the one showing the 10:13 call) covers an area between Meredith’s flat and the garden where they were found, meaning that at 10:13 the phone was in route to the garden and Meredith was already dead.
False claim 7: Amanda Knox didn’t know Rudy Guede (minute 1.02 here)
Unbelievably, Edda Mellas claimed that Amanda Knox didn’t know Rudy Guede despite the fact that Amanda Knox testified IN COURT that she had met Rudy Guede on several occasions.
Here’s the actual court transcript:
Carlo Pacelli (CP), Patrick Lumumba’s lawyer: In what circumstances did you meet him (Rudy)?
Amanda Knox (AK): I was in the center, near the church. It was during an evening when I met the guys that lived underneath in the apartment underneath us, and while I was mingling with them, they introduced me to Rudy.
CP: So it was on the occasion of a party at the house of the neighbors downstairs?
AK: Yes. What we did is, they introduced me to him downtown just to say “This is Rudy, this is Amanda”, and then I spent most of my time with Meredith, but we all went back to the house together.
CP: Did you also know him, or at least see him, in the pub “Le Chic”, Rudy?
AK: I think I saw him there once.
CP: Listen, this party at the neighbors, it took place in the second half of October? What period, end of October? 2007?
AK: I think it was more in the middle of October.
Response
“To meet” is to be introduced or come together at a particular time and place. “To know” in this case would be “to be acquainted or familiar with.” in other words she didn’t know Guede personally. She knew who he was but didn’t know him. Apparently The Machine must havea hard time understanding American English. Amanda met the guy 1 time and might have saw him at a club 1 time. That does not mean she knows him. The Machine is pretending that the there is no difference between the two.
False claim 8: Rudy Guede’s DNA was in Meredith’s purse (minute 3.16 here
Edda Mellas’s claim that Rudy Guede’s DNA was in Meredith’s purse is completely untrue. According to the Micheli report, which was made available to the public in January 2008, Guede’s DNA was found on the zip of Meredith’s purse and not inside it.
Response
The Machine is making a distinction without a difference. Rudy Guede’s DNA was found on her purse, on the sleeve of her sweatshirt and in her body. The lack of Amanda’s or Raffaele’s DNA on Meredith’s body is a problem for the prosecution’s case.
False claim 9: “Even the Italian Supreme Court ruled that her rights were repeatedly violated.” (minute 5:32 here)
The Italian Supreme Court has NEVER ruled that Amanda Knox’s rights were repeatedly violated. Not even her own lawyers claimed that, and no complaint was ever lodged.
The first of Knox’s two written statements couldn’t be used against her simply because she wasn’t represented by a lawyer when she made it – and she volunteered that statement, in a seeming state of panic, when she was told Sollecito was no longer supporting her alibi..
We continue next with Edda Mellas making claims in an interview for the CBS Early Show.
Whilen Edda Mellas was in Perugia, she was interviewed by CBS’s Chris Wragge. (Embedding of this CBS video YouTube on sites like TJMK is disabled, which suggests that CBS might be worried that the claims made were wrong and they should have been challenged on-air.)
Response
An even higher court is beginning to realize that Amanda’s rights were repeatedly violated—society, which demands fundamental justice and the rule of law:
*Denial of legal representation
*Interrogation statements ruled to be inadmissible by the Supreme Court were thrust into the trial due to the Lumumba defamation/slander case.
*The prosecution withheld crucial testing information from the defense for the first 6 months of the trial of first instance.
*The prosecution lied for the first 6 months of the trial when they continually repeated that the footprints revealed by luminol were not tested for blood—documents released to the defense by a judge’s order revealed that the footprints were tested and that the results were negative, i.e., no blood.
*The prosecution is still withholding crucial testing information--the electronic data files (.fsa files), the instrument log files, and (if they exist) the contamination log files.
*Amanda Knox has been charged with slander for defending herself in court.
False claim 10: The double DNA knife is incompatible with the wounds on Meredith’s body. (minute 0.16 above)
In the interview Edda Mellas made the following claim: “The knife they think is the murder weapon is way too big and demonstrated how it had to have been a much smaller knife that caused all the wounds.”
Edda Mellas’s claim above is simply not true.
Barbie Nadeau reported directly from the courtroom in Perugia that multiple witnesses for the defence, including Dr. Carlo Torre, conceded that the double DNA knife was compatible with the deep puncture wound in Meredith’s neck.
“According to multiple witnesses for the defense, the knife is compatible with at least one of the three wounds on Kercher’s neck, but it was likely too large for the other two.” (Barbie Nadeau, Newsweek).
“He (Dr. Carlo Torre) conceded that a third larger wound could have been made with the knife, but said it was more likely it was made by twisting a smaller knife.” (Barbie Nadeau, The Daily Beast).
Judge Massei categorically states in the judges’ sentencing report that the double DNA knife was compatible with the large wound on Meredith’s neck.
Response
The problems with the knife as evidence are discussed in Responses 3 and 13, however it is worth repeating that any knife could have made the larger wound, including the one that made the other two wounds on Meredith’s neck. What makes no sense is why Amanda and Raffaele would take a knife from his apartment even if their intent were to scare Meredith that night. There were knives at the girls’ flat. The notion that Amanda carried the large kitchen knife for protection (in a cloth bag, no less) is absurd.
False claim 11: Meredith’s room was so tiny, there wasn’t enough room for four people in some kind of tussle. (minute 0.27 above)
In the same interview with Chris Wragge, Edda Mellas asserts that there couldn’t have been an attack on Meredith involving three assailants.
“The space available this crime happened is so tiny you can’t have had four people in that room in some kind of tussle.”
The Violent Crimes Unit itself used detailed images at the trial (this is one below) to show that there was more than enough room for an attack involving three attackers.
Response
Edda may have been questioning whether a struggle involving four people would create more damage in the room than was observed. If three people attacked Meredith, where are Knox’s or Sollecito’s shoeprints or fingerprints? If they restrained her and throttled her, why is there no DNA evidence of this contact?
Update 15 September 2010
It was originally Raffaele Sollecito’s expert witness, Francesco Introna, who argued that the room was too small for three people to assault Meredith Kercher.
False claim 12: There is no evidence of Amanda Knox at the actual crime scene. (minute 2.06 above)
“I fact at the actual crime scene there is no physical evidence of Amanda; not a hair, not a fingerprint, not a nothing.”
The crime scene involves the whole cottage and it isn’t limited to Meredith’s room. Knox and Sollecito were both CONVICTED of staging the break-in and tampering with the crime scene.
Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence actually placing Amanda Knox in Meredith’s room on the night of the murder: the double DNA knife, and the blood she tracked into the bathroom, the hallway, Filomena’s room, and her own room.
According to two imprint experts, there was a woman’s bloody shoeprint on the pillow under Meredith’s body which matched Knox’s foot size.
Even Sollecito’s forensic consultant, Professor Vinci, claimed that he had found Amanda Knox’s DNA on Meredith’s bra.
Response
Because the date at which DNA arrived on an object cannot be known and because Amanda used the knife when she cooked at Raffaele’s flat, the presence of Amanda Knox’s DNA on the handle is strictly meaningless.
Every single shoe print found in the murder room belongs to Rudy Guede. The two imprint experts that The Machine is referring to were proven wrong. The Machine and everyone else at TJMK and PMF are well aware that this information has been refuted but they continue to spread this lie. Raffaele Sollecito’s forensics expert Francesco Vinci showed in great detail, in court, that all of the prints found in the murder room belonged to Rudy Guede. The prosecution had originally stated that there was one shoe print matching Raffaele Sollecito’s shoes found on the tile floor. They also stated that one shoe print of a woman’s size 37 shoe was found on a pillow case. The shoe print said to be a woman’s shoe was attributed to Amanda. The truth is, all of the shoe prints match Rudy’s Nike Outbreak 2 shoes.
The Machine’s reasoning with respect to staging the break-in and tampering with the crime scene assumes Knox’s and Sollecito’s guilt, which are the very questions under dispute. In addition, luminol is a presumptive test for blood, no more. The luminol-positive footprints were negative by the TMB test and did not have Meredith’s DNA; therefore, there is no reason to believe that they originated from blood.
If one claimed that the DNA on the bra clasp is conclusive evidence of guilt, one would have to begin searching for the three unidentified individuals also deposited DNA on the clasp. One thing that the bra clasp implies is that contamination might be alive and well in the Rome testing laboratory. Either that or secondary transfer could explain all of the DNA on the clasp.
False claim 13: “The DNA is so insignificant. It’s this tiny spot. It’s not blood.” (minute 2.16 above)
Three independent DNA experts - Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo, and Professor Francesca Torricelli – confirmed that Meredith’s DNA was definitely on the blade of the double DNA.
The DNA charts themselves show a clear and unmistakable match. Edda Mellas doesn’t seem to understand that DNA evidence almost always involves only microscopic traces of DNA.
Dr. Stefanoni testified at the trial that the DNA on the blade could indeed have come from Meredith’s blood.
We continue next with Edda Mellas in an Interview with Linda Byron on Seattle TV station King 5.
Response
The Machine ignores that Meredith’s DNA was in the low copy number (LCN) range, demonstrating that she understands less about DNA profiling than Edda Mellas does. First, LCN samples should be tested at least twice, and only those alleles that show up in both runs are should be counted. Second, Stefanoni did not use standard LCN conditions in other ways, such as the number of cycles of the amplification step and working under lighting and air-handling conditions that minimize the possibility of DNA contamination. New methods are typically vetted in peer-reviewed journals before they are accepted. Third, the Machine also ignores the well known possibility of contamination, as well as the fact that contamination is a greater risk for samples in the LCN range.
There are some problems with The Machine’s assertion that there is a “clear and unmistakable match.” First, in locus D3S1358 there are two peaks, each with peak height of about 20 RFU, which are not seen in Meredith’s reference profile. They have 15 and 16 repeats, respectively, but Meredith’s profile has peaks at 14 and 18 repeats. Second, in the D21S11 locus, the knife profile has a peak at 30 repeats, but Meredith’s profile has peaks at 30 and 33.2 repeats. It is possible to explain the two extra and one missing peak as a consequence of the amount of DNA being in the LCN range. Yet, this explanation only underscores the fact that Stefanoni should have used the services of a lab that has proper facilities and experience, instead of making up her own inferior method.
It is now well known that Stefanoni went ahead with the analysis, despite the fact that her instrument read “too low,” meaning that there was not enough DNA to continue. What is less well appreciated is the fact that Stefanoni treated this sample differently from other samples, where she discontinued the analysis under similar circumstances. The Machine ignores Stefanoni’s apparent inconsistency.
Dr. Stefanoni’s assertion that the DNA could have come from Meredith’s blood is extremely dubious. The knife tested negative for blood with tetramethylbenzidine (TMB), and Dr. Elizabeth Johnson and Professor Gregory Hampikian indicated that the test for blood is more sensitive than the test for DNA. In other words, if a bloody knife were cleaned of all traces of blood, all traces of DNA would also be removed. They and the cosigners of an open letter on the DNA evidence in this case publish regularly in the field of DNA forensics. The same cannot be said of Dr. Stefanoni.
Furthermore, The Machine ignores the fact that Stefanoni did not turn over the electronic data files or the machine logs. This failure to abide by the international standards of discovery of DNA evidence means that any claim about the quality of the results is suspect. The defense expert witnesses did not have all of the information that they would need to evaluate Stefanoni’s dubious results.
False claim 14: Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito maintained the same story (minute 3.17)
Edda Mellas claimed in this interview with Linda Byron that Amanda Knox had maintained the same story for over a year when she was asked whether her daughter had lied. In another interview with Linda Byron in November 2009, Edda Mellas bizarrely claimed that Amanda Knox hadn’t changed her story. KING 5 Investigator Linda Byron asked her: “Did she change her story?”
Edda Mellas responded: “No, no. For this whole year they have maintained the story – what they did that night. They stayed at Raffaele’s, they made dinner, they watched a movie. That’s it, that’s the story.”
Edda Mellas’s statement that Amanda Knox didn’t change her story and that she and Sollecito maintained the same story is yet another incorrect and misleading claim. Knox and Sollecito both gave three different alibis. The posts on their alibis are linked-to up at the top here. Knox gave at least three different times for when she and Sollecito had dinner on the night of the murder.
Knox gave different reasons for writing her handwritten confession, and she gave different accounts of seeing the blood in the bathroom which contradict each other.
And most devastating of all, Sollecito stopped providing Knox with an alibi on 5 November 2007. Sollecito is STILL nearly three years later refusing to corroborate her alibi. He clearly hasn’t maintained that Knox was with him at his apartment – actually he claimed that she went out for four hours.
Response
Amanda has had two basic accounts; before and after the night of 5-6 November, she said that she was with Raffaele. Only on the night of the interrogation did she say anything different, and she almost immediately backed away from what she said that night. Amanda’s own words and actions and the observations of others all indicate that Amanda was physically and emotionally worn out by the time of her interrogation. We will never know how her interrogation progressed, because the police either lost it or never made a recording of it.
The claim that Raffaele stopped providing an alibi for Amanda after 1 November 2007 is among The Machine’s most serious misstatements. The accounts in Murder in Italy and Darkness Descending both indicate that Raffaele backed Amanda up, although Ms. Dempsey indicates that Raffaele got some of the times wrong. Raffaele has always stated that to the best of his knowledge Amanda spent the entire night with him on 1 November 2007. He does add that it would have been possible for Amanda to have sneaked out for maybe an hour without his knowledge.
Raffaele’s lawyers appeared before the Supreme Court in the spring of 2008 to argue for his release, inasmuch as he had not even been formally charged at this point. Their words are sometimes taken as evidence that he was claiming he was not with her on the night of 5 November. His lawyers used words that were translated as “erroneous assumption” at Perugia-Shock that they were together, but a better translation is undeserved or unwarranted assumption. The key to understanding his lawyers’ argument is that they did not call it an erroneous belief, which would be a denial that they were together. The lawyers are saying that any evidence that would place Amanda outside Raffaele’s flat ought not be counted as evidence that Raffaele were outside his flat. As Kate wrote, “She’s not saying they were together or that they weren’t together; she’s challenging the Court to provide the evidence it NEEDS to provide if it’s going to transfer evidence to Sollecito on the basis of an unsupported assumption.”
False claim 15: Amanda Knox wasn’t provided with an interpreter (minute 2.37)
Edda Mellas made this false claim, which has been widely propagated by Knox groupies, in an interview with Linda Byron on King5. It’s not difficult to prove that this claim is completely false. Knox’s interpreter on 5 November 2007, Anna Donninio, even testified at the trial. And Amanda Knox herself spoke about her interpreter when she gave testimony at the trial.
We continue next with the claims of Edda Mellas on ABC TV.
Response
The interpreter in this case was a participant in the interrogation process. According to Andrea Vogt, “But Knox said her interpreter's ‘traumatization’ was actually used to pressure her. ‘Ms. Donnino then later suggested that ... perhaps I didn't remember well because I had been traumatized, and so I should try to remember something else.’”
John Hooper reported on Ms. Donnio’s testimony: “Under cross-examination she described her role as that of a ‘mediator’ rather than a mere translator of words.” Knox Clashes With Interpreter." That seems to be an unusual role for an interpreter. One wonders whether there is a defined role that an interpreter can play and if there are limits to what role they can take, as proscribed in Italian law.
False claim 16: “Amanda Knox is incredibly honest” (minute 11.25)
In an interview with ABC’s Elizabeth Vargas (ABC have rendered this video not embeddable) Edda Mellas claimed that her daughter is “incredibly honest”. And Edda Mellas told The Guardian’s Simon Hattenstone that “Amanda doesn’t know how to lie.”
In fact, Amanda Knox’s mobile phone records, data recovered from Sollecito’s computer, and corroborative testimony of numerous witnesses, provide irrefutable proof that Amanda Knox has lied – again and again. For example, her lies about him directly led to Diya Lumumba, an innocent man, spending two weeks in prison – even though as recorded in prison she told her mother Edda Mellas that her claims were not true.
Response
The Machine provides no specifics for her claims. Blaming Ms. Knox for what she said during an interrogation without knowing what went on between 11 PM and 5:45 AM the next morning is jumping to conclusions without facts. The authorities knew that Ms. Knox had already backed away from her statements about Lumumba long before she spoke to her mother. And the fact that this interview was recorded means that ILE knew exactly how Ms. Knox perceived her false statement. If they had decided her statement were false on the basis of what she said to her mother, they could have released Mr. Lumumba. Moreover, the authorities were not proactive with respect to an exculpatory witness for Mr. Lumumba; he came to Perugia on his own initiative.
Amanda’s family and all of her friends have always said that Amanda is ‘honest to a fault’. Why would anyone wish to accuse Amanda’s family and all of her friends of being liars?
False claim 17: Amanda Knox could have left Italy, but she chose to stay and help the police.
In an earlier interview with Larry King in October 2009, Edda Mellas told him that Amanda Knox could have left Italy, but she chose to stay and help the police: “After the murder, Mellas said, friends and family told Knox to leave Italy—to either come home or stay with relatives in Germany—but Knox refused because she wanted to help find the killer and prove that she had nothing to do with it.”
“Many people asked her to leave, but she said no. ‘I’m going to stay. I’m going to try and help. I’m going to try and finish school,’ ” Mellas said.” Edda Mellas’s claim is flatly contradicted by Amanda Knox herself, in the e-mail she wrote to her friends in Seattle on 4 November 2007: “I then bought some underwear because as it turns out I wont be able to leave italy for a while as well as enter my house”
And along with one of Meredith’s friends who walked home with Meredith on the night, the police told Amanda Knox pretty promptly that as her status was (then) a primary witness, she was not to go anywhere. The fact that Knox did stay was of little help to the investigation – in fact, she seemed to work hard to derail it – and one of her main concerns at the time, a pretty callous one, was whether she would be staying or moving out of the house and getting a rent refund.
Response
The following statement from Judge Matteini indicates that Amanda was free to leave Italy and didn’t: "Your family lives in the United States, so it would be extremely easy for you to leave the country," Matteini wrote. "The fact that you did not do so before you were arrested is totally irrelevant. We must remind you that your arrest was made very early, and was affected purposely before the arrival of your mother in order to avoid just such a possibility."
False claim 18: Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were not under the influence of drugs on the night of the murder (BBC Radio)
In an interview with BBC Radio after the verdict, Edda Mellas apparently stated that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were not under the influence of drugs on the night of the murder.
This is despite the fact that both Knox and Sollecito had both themselves actually claimed they had smoked cannabis. The prosecution believed they might have been on a hard drug like cocaine, which also seems the general belief around Perugia.
Response
The Machine is engaging in rumor-mongering. There was no evidence presented at the trial about cocaine or any other drug. Amanda never used cocaine in her life. Knox and Sollecito have stated that they had smoked cannabis. One suspects that Amanda’s parents were implying that they (Amanda and Raffaele) were not under the influence of ‘hard’ drugs as opposed to mildly euphoriant-like cannabis which does not induce aggressive behavior.
Part 3. And Some Conclusions
The fact that Edda Mellas has been able to propagate so many wrong claims in the media for so long without being challenged seems to speaks volumes about the naivety and unprofessionalism of her interviewers, and of the media organisations they work for. As they usually do, ABC News, CBS News, CNN, King 5, and other media outlets should have interviewed objective crime-case professionals, who don’t have a vested interest in the case.
Instead they have relied again and again on Amanda Knox’s mother and other family members as primary sources.
Amanda Knox is not an innocent political prisoner who was railroaded in some Third World country for some very murky reason. She was unanimously convicted after a lengthy trial at which the evidence was absolutely overwhelming.
As the Christian Longo and Scott Peterson cases that we posted on below go to prove, seemingly quite normal people commit horrific murders. Probably the vast majority of murders are committed by people who to many seemed normal.
It seems downright perverse that some of the journalists who have interviewed Edda Mellas treat Amanda Knox as a victim, and with cloying sympathy ask “How is Amanda doing?” They wouldn’t dream of asking Charles Manson’s mum how the Manson girls are doing.
It is time for the sake of the truth, the legitimacy of the verdict, the relations between the US and Italy, and the peace of mind of Meredith’s family and friends, that from now on they hold Edda Mellas’s feet to the fire..
Response
The premise of The Machine’s article is flawed. The Machine presented no evidence that the press has ever relied heavily on Edda Mellas as a primary source of information. Have they actually relied on family members as “primary sources?” Or are the interviews with Amanda’s parents intended to focus on the subjective, human-interest aspects of the story? The comparison to Charles Manson and the references to cocaine use (again without providing any evidence to support this claim) make it clear that The Machine has no business complaining about another person's lack of impartiality. Moreover, Ms. Knox’s lawyers made many of the same arguments as Edda Mellas; therefore, there is no reason to single her out. The Machine has chosen to personalize the debate for no good reason.
Many of the Non-errors that The Machine cites are repeated in the defense appeals and should not be taken as errors simply because it doesn't fit with the prosecution’s case or the Massei report. Many of these issues are disputed for good reason. The Machine’s credibility for posting accurate and objective information has to be evaluated in light of her many errors in this article and others. Moreover, since the posting of the previous entry, The Machine has neither explained why the arguments are incorrect, nor made any alterations in or retractions to her essay, further damaging her credibility.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Eighteen claims about Edda Mellas’s interviews
Part 21 in the Knox/Sollecito case
At True Justice for Meredith, The Machine has posted eighteen supposed errors (“Why The Media Are Wrong To Rely On Amanda Knox’s Family For Impartial and Accurate Information”) made by Edda Mellas, Amanda Knox’s mother, in an interview on Larry King Live and in other interviews. I invite readers to examine The Machine’s assertions and evaluate their accuracy. Please add citations where appropriate. I’ll get the ball rolling with my replies to numbers 2, 3, and 8, which are given below the three claims made at TJfM.
False claim 2. “He (Rudy Guede) all of a sudden had money that he didn’t have earlier in the day” Edda Mellas is plucking “facts” out thin air with this claim. No evidence was presented at any court hearing that showed that Rudy Guede suddenly had money that he didn’t have earlier in the day on 1 November 2007.
False claim 3. “There is no murder weapon.”
Judge Massei indicates in the sentencing report that Amanda Knox’s judges concluded that the double DNA knife, the larger of the two indicated by Meredith’s autopsy, is indeed the murder weapon. It is totally compatible with the deep puncture wound in Meredith’s neck, and according to a number of independent forensic experts, it contained Meredith’s DNA on the blade.
False claim 8. Rudy Guede’s DNA was in Meredith’s purse.
Edda Mellas’s claim that Rudy Guede’s DNA was in Meredith’s purse is completely untrue. According to the Micheli report, which was made available to the public in January 2008, Guede’s DNA was found on the zip of Meredith’s purse and not inside.
Responses
2. The Machine’s claims about court hearings may be true, but he or she needs to explain where Rudy Guede, who was jobless, obtained the money for a train ticket to Germany. Because the murder occurred at the end of the day on 1 November, Guede’s actions on 2 November and later are equally relevant to a discussion of whether or not he had more money.
3. The Machine does not list these other supposed experts here but does in claim 13. Dr. Stafanoni’s boss, Dr. Renato Biondo, cannot reasonably be called independent. Amanda’s DNA on the handle is strictly meaningless, since we cannot know when it was deposited. The hypothesis that her DNA was deposited when she cooked with the knife is perfectly reasonable. Meredith’s DNA is highly contested. This banal kitchen knife is not compatible with two of the three wounds, and the third one could have been made with any sharp knife, including the one that made the first two.
8. The Machine makes a distinction without a difference. The fact that Rudy Guede’s DNA was found on the zip of Meredith’s purse makes it parsimonious to assume he took Meredith’s money (see claim 2).
Update 1, 4 August 2010
False claim 13: “The DNA is so insignificant. It’s this tiny spot. It’s not blood.” (minute 2.16 above)
Three independent DNA experts - Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo, and Professor Francesca Torricelli - confirmed that Meredith’s DNA was definitely on the blade of the double DNA. The DNA charts themselves show a clear and unmistakable match. Edda Mellas doesn’t seem to understand that DNA evidence almost always involves only microscopic traces of DNA. Dr. Stefanoni testified at the trial that the DNA on the blade could indeed have come from Meredith’s blood.
Response
The Machine ignores that Meredith’s DNA was in the low copy number (LCN) range, demonstrating that he or she understands less about DNA profiling than Edda Mellas does. First, LCN samples should be tested at least twice, and only those alleles that show up in both runs are should be counted. Second, Stefanoni did not use standard LCN conditions in other ways, such as the number of cycles of the amplification step and working under lighting and air-handling conditions that minimize the possibility of DNA contamination. New methods are typically vetted in peer-reviewed journals before they are accepted. Third, the Machine also ignores the well known possibility of contamination, as well as the fact that contamination is a greater risk for samples in the LCN range.
There are some problems with The Machine’s assertion that there is a “clear and unmistakable match.” First, in locus D3S1358 there are two peaks, each with peak height of about 20 RFU, which are not seen in Meredith’s reference profile. They have 15 and 16 repeats, respectively, but Meredith’s profile has peaks at 14 and 18 repeats. Second, in the D21S11 locus, the knife profile has a peak at 30 repeats, but Meredith’s profile has peaks at 30 and 33.2 repeats. It is possible to explain the two extra and one missing peak as a consequence of the DNA being in the LCN range. Yet, this explanation only underscores the fact that Stefanoni should have used the services of a lab that has proper facilities and experience, instead of making up her own inferior method.
It is now well known that Stefanoni went ahead with the analysis, despite the fact that her instrument read “too low,” meaning that there was not enough DNA to continue. What is less well appreciated is the fact that Stefanoni treated this sample differently from other samples, where she discontinued the analysis under similar circumstances. The Machine ignores Stefanoni’s apparent inconsistency.
Dr. Stefanoni’s assertion that the DNA could have come from Meredith’s blood is extremely dubious. The knife tested negative for blood with tetramethylbenzidine (TMB), and Dr. Elizabeth Johnson and Professor Gregory Hampikian indicated that the test for blood is more sensitive than the test for DNA. In other words, if a bloody knife were cleaned of all traces of blood, all traces of DNA would also be removed. They and the cosigners of an open letter on the DNA evidence in this case publish regularly in the field of DNA forensics. The same cannot be said of Dr. Stefanoni.
Furthermore, The Machine ignores the fact that Stefanoni did not turn over the electronic data files or the machine logs. This failure to abide by the international standards of discovery of DNA evidence means that any claim about the quality of the results is suspect. The defense expert witnesses did not have all of the information that they would need to challenge Stefanoni’s dubious results.
Update 2, 4 August 2010, approximately 10:15 PM
“False claim 14: Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito maintained the same story…And most devastating of all, Sollecito stopped providing Knox with an alibi on 5 November 2007.
Sollecito is STILL nearly three years later refusing to corroborate her alibi.”
The Machine’s claim about Raffaele is exactly false. Raffaele backed up Amanda at their hearing in front of Judge Matteini on 8 November 2007, discussed in Darkness Descending on p. 208.
“Judge Matteini said, ‘There are several points, Mr. Sollecito, that differ between your version of today and your version of events as related on the evening of 5 November just three days ago. Can you explain whether you were with Amanda Knox that evening or not?’
Now it was make-or-break time. Matteini had posed the million-dollar question. The one Mignini had been waiting for.
His pay-off was unexpected, effectively an explosive retraction of his initial confession.
Raffaele said, ‘I’m sorry I told you that crap about not being with Amanda. We were together that evening.’
…But now on the key point of the night in question, he was sticking to her like glue again. Backing her up… ‘I can confirm that I spent the night with Amanda Knox.’”
Murder in Italy, p. 198, summarized his appearance before Judge Matteini by noting that Raffaele got the times wrong, but the events right. “Then the judge asked the Italian student what he did remember, prompting a long, dull discussion about the broken pipe under the sink, which he had showed Amanda, discussing with her the probable cause of the leak, a perennial problem in that flat. He also remembered eating dinner with her, watching a movie, working on his computer, getting tired, and going to sleep. Yes of course they slept together. He just couldn’t remember what time they did each action, because he’d been stoned, in a holiday mood, and not punching a time clock.” Finally in his diary Raffaele recalls Amanda saying to him that if she had not been with him that night, she would also be dead.
It is often said that Raffaele did not support Amanda’s alibi of being with him the night of the murder in his appearance before the Supreme Court in the spring of 2008. It was actually Raffaele’s lawyers who appeared, and one of their jobs was to end Raffaele’s detention without charge by any reasonable legal argument. According to Perugia-Shock (25 April 2008) Raffaele’s lawyers invoked the concept of “erroneous assumption,” rather than “erroneous belief.” If they had said “erroneous belief”, it would mean that Amanda was not with him. But the “erroneous assumption” has to do with making an assumption, not so much with the thing being assumed, and then transferring evidence onto him as a result. His lawyers were saying that evidence that might place Amanda at the scene of the crime should not be used to justify holding Raffaele in custody. Raffaele’s lawyers might have meant that Raffaele obviously could not account for Amanda’s whereabouts after he fell asleep. Thus there is no justification for using his lawyers’ appearance before the Supreme Court as evidence that Raffaele claimed that Amanda was elsewhere.
At True Justice for Meredith, The Machine has posted eighteen supposed errors (“Why The Media Are Wrong To Rely On Amanda Knox’s Family For Impartial and Accurate Information”) made by Edda Mellas, Amanda Knox’s mother, in an interview on Larry King Live and in other interviews. I invite readers to examine The Machine’s assertions and evaluate their accuracy. Please add citations where appropriate. I’ll get the ball rolling with my replies to numbers 2, 3, and 8, which are given below the three claims made at TJfM.
False claim 2. “He (Rudy Guede) all of a sudden had money that he didn’t have earlier in the day” Edda Mellas is plucking “facts” out thin air with this claim. No evidence was presented at any court hearing that showed that Rudy Guede suddenly had money that he didn’t have earlier in the day on 1 November 2007.
False claim 3. “There is no murder weapon.”
Judge Massei indicates in the sentencing report that Amanda Knox’s judges concluded that the double DNA knife, the larger of the two indicated by Meredith’s autopsy, is indeed the murder weapon. It is totally compatible with the deep puncture wound in Meredith’s neck, and according to a number of independent forensic experts, it contained Meredith’s DNA on the blade.
False claim 8. Rudy Guede’s DNA was in Meredith’s purse.
Edda Mellas’s claim that Rudy Guede’s DNA was in Meredith’s purse is completely untrue. According to the Micheli report, which was made available to the public in January 2008, Guede’s DNA was found on the zip of Meredith’s purse and not inside.
Responses
2. The Machine’s claims about court hearings may be true, but he or she needs to explain where Rudy Guede, who was jobless, obtained the money for a train ticket to Germany. Because the murder occurred at the end of the day on 1 November, Guede’s actions on 2 November and later are equally relevant to a discussion of whether or not he had more money.
3. The Machine does not list these other supposed experts here but does in claim 13. Dr. Stafanoni’s boss, Dr. Renato Biondo, cannot reasonably be called independent. Amanda’s DNA on the handle is strictly meaningless, since we cannot know when it was deposited. The hypothesis that her DNA was deposited when she cooked with the knife is perfectly reasonable. Meredith’s DNA is highly contested. This banal kitchen knife is not compatible with two of the three wounds, and the third one could have been made with any sharp knife, including the one that made the first two.
8. The Machine makes a distinction without a difference. The fact that Rudy Guede’s DNA was found on the zip of Meredith’s purse makes it parsimonious to assume he took Meredith’s money (see claim 2).
Update 1, 4 August 2010
False claim 13: “The DNA is so insignificant. It’s this tiny spot. It’s not blood.” (minute 2.16 above)
Three independent DNA experts - Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo, and Professor Francesca Torricelli - confirmed that Meredith’s DNA was definitely on the blade of the double DNA. The DNA charts themselves show a clear and unmistakable match. Edda Mellas doesn’t seem to understand that DNA evidence almost always involves only microscopic traces of DNA. Dr. Stefanoni testified at the trial that the DNA on the blade could indeed have come from Meredith’s blood.
Response
The Machine ignores that Meredith’s DNA was in the low copy number (LCN) range, demonstrating that he or she understands less about DNA profiling than Edda Mellas does. First, LCN samples should be tested at least twice, and only those alleles that show up in both runs are should be counted. Second, Stefanoni did not use standard LCN conditions in other ways, such as the number of cycles of the amplification step and working under lighting and air-handling conditions that minimize the possibility of DNA contamination. New methods are typically vetted in peer-reviewed journals before they are accepted. Third, the Machine also ignores the well known possibility of contamination, as well as the fact that contamination is a greater risk for samples in the LCN range.
There are some problems with The Machine’s assertion that there is a “clear and unmistakable match.” First, in locus D3S1358 there are two peaks, each with peak height of about 20 RFU, which are not seen in Meredith’s reference profile. They have 15 and 16 repeats, respectively, but Meredith’s profile has peaks at 14 and 18 repeats. Second, in the D21S11 locus, the knife profile has a peak at 30 repeats, but Meredith’s profile has peaks at 30 and 33.2 repeats. It is possible to explain the two extra and one missing peak as a consequence of the DNA being in the LCN range. Yet, this explanation only underscores the fact that Stefanoni should have used the services of a lab that has proper facilities and experience, instead of making up her own inferior method.
It is now well known that Stefanoni went ahead with the analysis, despite the fact that her instrument read “too low,” meaning that there was not enough DNA to continue. What is less well appreciated is the fact that Stefanoni treated this sample differently from other samples, where she discontinued the analysis under similar circumstances. The Machine ignores Stefanoni’s apparent inconsistency.
Dr. Stefanoni’s assertion that the DNA could have come from Meredith’s blood is extremely dubious. The knife tested negative for blood with tetramethylbenzidine (TMB), and Dr. Elizabeth Johnson and Professor Gregory Hampikian indicated that the test for blood is more sensitive than the test for DNA. In other words, if a bloody knife were cleaned of all traces of blood, all traces of DNA would also be removed. They and the cosigners of an open letter on the DNA evidence in this case publish regularly in the field of DNA forensics. The same cannot be said of Dr. Stefanoni.
Furthermore, The Machine ignores the fact that Stefanoni did not turn over the electronic data files or the machine logs. This failure to abide by the international standards of discovery of DNA evidence means that any claim about the quality of the results is suspect. The defense expert witnesses did not have all of the information that they would need to challenge Stefanoni’s dubious results.
Update 2, 4 August 2010, approximately 10:15 PM
“False claim 14: Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito maintained the same story…And most devastating of all, Sollecito stopped providing Knox with an alibi on 5 November 2007.
Sollecito is STILL nearly three years later refusing to corroborate her alibi.”
The Machine’s claim about Raffaele is exactly false. Raffaele backed up Amanda at their hearing in front of Judge Matteini on 8 November 2007, discussed in Darkness Descending on p. 208.
“Judge Matteini said, ‘There are several points, Mr. Sollecito, that differ between your version of today and your version of events as related on the evening of 5 November just three days ago. Can you explain whether you were with Amanda Knox that evening or not?’
Now it was make-or-break time. Matteini had posed the million-dollar question. The one Mignini had been waiting for.
His pay-off was unexpected, effectively an explosive retraction of his initial confession.
Raffaele said, ‘I’m sorry I told you that crap about not being with Amanda. We were together that evening.’
…But now on the key point of the night in question, he was sticking to her like glue again. Backing her up… ‘I can confirm that I spent the night with Amanda Knox.’”
Murder in Italy, p. 198, summarized his appearance before Judge Matteini by noting that Raffaele got the times wrong, but the events right. “Then the judge asked the Italian student what he did remember, prompting a long, dull discussion about the broken pipe under the sink, which he had showed Amanda, discussing with her the probable cause of the leak, a perennial problem in that flat. He also remembered eating dinner with her, watching a movie, working on his computer, getting tired, and going to sleep. Yes of course they slept together. He just couldn’t remember what time they did each action, because he’d been stoned, in a holiday mood, and not punching a time clock.” Finally in his diary Raffaele recalls Amanda saying to him that if she had not been with him that night, she would also be dead.
It is often said that Raffaele did not support Amanda’s alibi of being with him the night of the murder in his appearance before the Supreme Court in the spring of 2008. It was actually Raffaele’s lawyers who appeared, and one of their jobs was to end Raffaele’s detention without charge by any reasonable legal argument. According to Perugia-Shock (25 April 2008) Raffaele’s lawyers invoked the concept of “erroneous assumption,” rather than “erroneous belief.” If they had said “erroneous belief”, it would mean that Amanda was not with him. But the “erroneous assumption” has to do with making an assumption, not so much with the thing being assumed, and then transferring evidence onto him as a result. His lawyers were saying that evidence that might place Amanda at the scene of the crime should not be used to justify holding Raffaele in custody. Raffaele’s lawyers might have meant that Raffaele obviously could not account for Amanda’s whereabouts after he fell asleep. Thus there is no justification for using his lawyers’ appearance before the Supreme Court as evidence that Raffaele claimed that Amanda was elsewhere.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
To those who believe that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are guilty, I issue a challenge.
Part 20 in the Knox/Sollecito case
Francesco Maresco, lawyer for the Kercher family, said after the verdict last December, “We are teaching the whole world and the United States how to collect, analyse and evaluate scientific technical aspects of the case.”
I have previously discussed how the electronic data files are used by independent experts in criminal cases. Those arguments are especially compelling in the murder of Meredith Kercher, in which the amount of DNA in two of the most important pieces of DNA evidence fall near or into the low copy number (LCN) range. The profile from the bra clasp is also a mixture, and it is well known that the analysis of mixtures introduces subjectivity into the analysis. I have also previously given my reasons for believing that these critical files were never released to the defense teams. Since that time some additional information has become available that puts this question to rest.
Raffaele Sollecito’s appeal documents indicate that his defense expert Dr. Pascali requested the raw data in 2008 (presumably the electronic data files). This request was prior to the preliminary hearing, and the lawyers supported their request with a reference to article 415. They also requested the log files. The judge granted the defense teams the right to forensic information in the summer of 2009 that they had been denied until that time. However, the prosecutions did not fully comply with this order, according to a source close to the defense, and this was one of the things that precipitated the defense teams’ asking for a mistrial in September of 2009.
An open letter coauthored by Dr. Elizabeth Johnson and Professor Gregory Hampikian noted that the prosecution failed to release the electronic data files (.fsa files) to the defense. Since the time of the letter’s release on 11/19/09, some have assumed that these two DNA forensic scientists were unrelated to the case and therefore had no standing to ask for these files. This argument is false. An article written by Fiona Ness on 25 April 2010 indicates that Professor Hampikian is a consultant for Amanda Knox’s defense team. As such, he has every reason to request the operating procedures of the lab, as well as the electronic data files that produce the electropherograms.
“The importance of DNA evidence in a conviction is highlighted in one of Hampikian’s cases - that of US student Amanda Knox. Knox was convicted of the murder of British student Meredith Kercher after a high-profile trial in Italy in 2009. Knox’s conviction was partly based on a sample of her DNA discovered on a knife found in the house. However, Hampikian says he is appalled by the standard of DNA evidence used by the Italian courts to convict Knox in the case. ‘The amount of DNA present is far below the normal cut-off for many labs that I know of. A one off spurious piece of DNA evidence shouldn’t be treated as a gold standard profile from a high-profile source. The issue of this low-template DNA sample is really troubling me.’ Trying to obtain the evidence to have it retested, however, is proving difficult. ‘The discovery rules in Italy are different to what I’m used to. It’s fairly routine in the US that I send a request and get what I want. But in the Knox case I haven’t been able to get a copy of the standard operating procedures of the lab and without that, it’s hard to see if they even followed their own guidelines.’ Evidence, Hampikian says, is a matter of science, to be reviewed, not protected.” (emphasis added) An article in the Irish Times confirms that a professional relationship exists between Professor Hampikian and the Knox family.
The words of an anonymous forensic DNA expert unconnected with the murder of Meredith Kercher are apropos here. This individual said with reference to a different case, “Honest differences of opinion by qualified experts should be welcomed by the Court. This can only be accomplished if the independent expert is provided full and complete discovery by the government.” Keith Inman and Norah Rudin gave ten ways to improve forensic science. Number five was “Provide transparency. Secrecy and gamesmanship are inappropriate to the work of the forensic scientist. All laboratory notes, data, results, procedures, logs, and records should be open to controlled
and appropriate scrutiny.”
To those who believe Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito are guilty, I respectfully issue a challenge: Join me in calling for the release of all of the forensic information that the defense has been denied until now. Some among you have argued that the Italian authorities should not release any more information than that demanded by Italian law. However, it is conceivable that Italian law is not yet settled on the question of whether or not to release the electronic data files. If it is not, why should the precedent be against full disclosure rather than in support of full disclosure? If the case against the defendants is as strong as you say it is, you have nothing to fear. On the contrary, your certainty would be stronger if the release and examination of these files produced nothing.
To the Italian authorities I respectfully issue a related challenge: Make good on Mr. Maresca’s claim. Show the world that forensic evidence is to be shared with the defense. At that point the analysis will be complete. Provide the electronic data files (.fsa files), and the instrument log files, and include the contamination log files if they exist. Then and only then will you indeed be showing the world the right way to treat forensic evidence.
Francesco Maresco, lawyer for the Kercher family, said after the verdict last December, “We are teaching the whole world and the United States how to collect, analyse and evaluate scientific technical aspects of the case.”
I have previously discussed how the electronic data files are used by independent experts in criminal cases. Those arguments are especially compelling in the murder of Meredith Kercher, in which the amount of DNA in two of the most important pieces of DNA evidence fall near or into the low copy number (LCN) range. The profile from the bra clasp is also a mixture, and it is well known that the analysis of mixtures introduces subjectivity into the analysis. I have also previously given my reasons for believing that these critical files were never released to the defense teams. Since that time some additional information has become available that puts this question to rest.
Raffaele Sollecito’s appeal documents indicate that his defense expert Dr. Pascali requested the raw data in 2008 (presumably the electronic data files). This request was prior to the preliminary hearing, and the lawyers supported their request with a reference to article 415. They also requested the log files. The judge granted the defense teams the right to forensic information in the summer of 2009 that they had been denied until that time. However, the prosecutions did not fully comply with this order, according to a source close to the defense, and this was one of the things that precipitated the defense teams’ asking for a mistrial in September of 2009.
An open letter coauthored by Dr. Elizabeth Johnson and Professor Gregory Hampikian noted that the prosecution failed to release the electronic data files (.fsa files) to the defense. Since the time of the letter’s release on 11/19/09, some have assumed that these two DNA forensic scientists were unrelated to the case and therefore had no standing to ask for these files. This argument is false. An article written by Fiona Ness on 25 April 2010 indicates that Professor Hampikian is a consultant for Amanda Knox’s defense team. As such, he has every reason to request the operating procedures of the lab, as well as the electronic data files that produce the electropherograms.
“The importance of DNA evidence in a conviction is highlighted in one of Hampikian’s cases - that of US student Amanda Knox. Knox was convicted of the murder of British student Meredith Kercher after a high-profile trial in Italy in 2009. Knox’s conviction was partly based on a sample of her DNA discovered on a knife found in the house. However, Hampikian says he is appalled by the standard of DNA evidence used by the Italian courts to convict Knox in the case. ‘The amount of DNA present is far below the normal cut-off for many labs that I know of. A one off spurious piece of DNA evidence shouldn’t be treated as a gold standard profile from a high-profile source. The issue of this low-template DNA sample is really troubling me.’ Trying to obtain the evidence to have it retested, however, is proving difficult. ‘The discovery rules in Italy are different to what I’m used to. It’s fairly routine in the US that I send a request and get what I want. But in the Knox case I haven’t been able to get a copy of the standard operating procedures of the lab and without that, it’s hard to see if they even followed their own guidelines.’ Evidence, Hampikian says, is a matter of science, to be reviewed, not protected.” (emphasis added) An article in the Irish Times confirms that a professional relationship exists between Professor Hampikian and the Knox family.
The words of an anonymous forensic DNA expert unconnected with the murder of Meredith Kercher are apropos here. This individual said with reference to a different case, “Honest differences of opinion by qualified experts should be welcomed by the Court. This can only be accomplished if the independent expert is provided full and complete discovery by the government.” Keith Inman and Norah Rudin gave ten ways to improve forensic science. Number five was “Provide transparency. Secrecy and gamesmanship are inappropriate to the work of the forensic scientist. All laboratory notes, data, results, procedures, logs, and records should be open to controlled
and appropriate scrutiny.”
To those who believe Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito are guilty, I respectfully issue a challenge: Join me in calling for the release of all of the forensic information that the defense has been denied until now. Some among you have argued that the Italian authorities should not release any more information than that demanded by Italian law. However, it is conceivable that Italian law is not yet settled on the question of whether or not to release the electronic data files. If it is not, why should the precedent be against full disclosure rather than in support of full disclosure? If the case against the defendants is as strong as you say it is, you have nothing to fear. On the contrary, your certainty would be stronger if the release and examination of these files produced nothing.
To the Italian authorities I respectfully issue a related challenge: Make good on Mr. Maresca’s claim. Show the world that forensic evidence is to be shared with the defense. At that point the analysis will be complete. Provide the electronic data files (.fsa files), and the instrument log files, and include the contamination log files if they exist. Then and only then will you indeed be showing the world the right way to treat forensic evidence.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
DNA transfer in Strangulation
Part XIX in the Knox/Sollecito case
Update 1, 22 August 2010
I communicated with an anonymous forensic nurse about their domestic violence program. If an alleged victim complained of an attempted strangulation, complained of a partner’s grabbing their arm, or showed bruising or redness, they have been swabbing that area for DNA, for two years. Positive results in at least one case helped to convict someone. This information confirms the reasonableness of swabbing Meredith’s body in appropriate places, although the bruise on the nape of Meredith’s neck may have been the result of her being thrown against the wall (as some have theorized). We do not know whether swabbing the bruised areas was done or not.
____________________________
PM Guiliano Mignini’s reconstruction of the murder of Meredith Kercher was shown to the jury in the form of an animated video. In his speculation Amanda Knox grabbed Meredith Kercher by the throat and slammed her against a wall. The video superimposed actual shots of Meredith’s bruises with Amanda’s animated hand to imply that Amanda’s action produced the bruises. Later, Rudy Guede and Raffaele Sollecito held Meredith’s arms back, and Amanda stabs her (Barbie Nadeau, Angel Face, p. 160). In forensics professor Carlo Torre’s reconstruction of the crime, the single assailant grabbed Meredith by the throat and stabbed her. The area under Meredith’s chin and her nape were bruised; the former bruising was the result of the knife and the latter when the assailant put Meredith down.
Although Mignini’s theory of the crime suggests a much longer amount of contact between the assailants and victim than does Torre’s, both imply contact. None of Amanda Knox’s DNA was found in Meredith’s bedroom or on her body. Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on a bra clasp (although the defense contests this piece of evidence) but not the bra itself. Rudy Guede’s DNA was found in several places, including on the sleeve of Meredith’s sweatshirt. Let us examine some forensic DNA studies to see if they shed any light on this tragedy.
The study by Wiegand and Kleiber gives a case study in which DNA evidence was collected 48 hours after a strangulation. They wrote, “Strangulation marks were clearly visible on the neck of the victim. Epithelial cells could be removed from the neck of the victim using separate cotton swabs for the left and the right side of the neck. Only the swab from the right side could be typed and included the pattern of the suspect (Fig. 3), a result which corresponded to the autopsy findings (the right neck side showed a higher intensity of bleeding in the muscles than the left side indicating a more intensive pressure against the right side). Altogether clear results could be obtained using four STRs (TH01, VWA, FGA, CD4) demonstrating the high utility and sensitivity of the method described.” These authors also conducted simulated strangulations, and they reported a success rate of better than 70%.
The simulated strangulation study in 2002 by Rutty used both SGMplus and LCN amplification. The simulated strangulation experiment was done with periods between the force and the sampling were 1, 5, 10, 15, 30, and 60 min, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 24, and 48 h and 3, 4, 5 and 10 days. When the author used SGMplus, he observed a full profile of the offender 7 out of 29 times, and always in the presence of the victim’s profile. When the author used LCN all 17 experiments yielded offender profiles, with the majority being partial profiles. Dr. Rutty wrote, “Of the test neck swabs, 19 yielded positive amplification results using SGMplus, 12 showed a victim-only profile and 7 a victim and offender profile with a full offender profile detectable up to 6 h after contact. When LCN was used (17 tests) all showed the offender to be present for all time periods i.e. up to 10 days. In the majority of cases it was a partial offender profile with the majority of the amplification result being a full victim profile.”
Dr. Rutty stated that “When considering the apparent time periods of DNA survival, passive transfer of the offender’s DNA onto the victim’s neck could also explain the presence of offender DNA several days after contact.” This study did not break down the results by time periods between simulated strangulation and DNA collection; therefore, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions based solely on the data presented.
A 2008 study by Graham and Rutty reexamined the question of DNA transfer to and from strangulation victims with an emphasis on innocent DNA transfers that might deposit DNA on the neck of a victim. In 24% of samples collected showed nonself DNA on the simulated victim from third party sources. The authors believe that such DNA transfers might confuse an investigation.
Finally, it might be helpful to return to the subject of primary and secondary DNA deposition. The study by Lowe and coworkers in 2002 looked at DNA transfer from a good DNA shedder to a poor DNA shedder to an object. By definition transfer was secondary from the good shedder, and transfer was primary from the poor shedder. When mixtures were observed, secondary transfer from the good shedder provided the major component, not primary transfer from the poor shedder. This study illustrates the dictum that one generally cannot infer the mechanism of how the DNA was deposited from the DNA itself. Along with the study by Graham and Rutty, this work suggests caution in the interpretation of nonself DNA on the body of the victim of strangulation. A similar caution should also be applied in the interpretation of DNA on the bra clasp.
In addition to the case study discussed by Wiegand and Kleiber, there are a small number of news reports of strangulations that mention DNA. One is from greater Detroit, and another is from Chicago. However, these articles do not specify the place on the body that was tested for DNA. In addition to the possibility that DNA was collected from the neck, it is possible that the victim’s fingernails contained the perpetrator’s skin cells or vice versa.
There are no reports that ILE found anyone’s DNA on Meredith’s bare wrists or her neck, and it is unclear whether or not the forensic police swabbed for DNA in these areas. It is also unclear whether some areas on the neck would have been free enough of Meredith’s blood to allow swabbing for the assailant’s DNA. Nevertheless it is difficult to see why the forensic police should not have swabbed the nape of Meredith’s neck or her wrists. If they did and found nothing, it would be strongly exculpatory, although it might fall short of proof of innocence due to uncertainties over collecting enough DNA or collecting it quickly enough after the murder. If the forensic police failed to swab these areas, it would suggest that they did not do as thorough a job as one would wish.
Bibliography
P. Wiegand and M. Kleiber, “DNA typing of epithelial cells after strangulation,” International Journal of Legal Medicine (1997) 110 :181–183. abstract
G. N. Rutty, “An investigation into the transference and survivability
of human DNA following simulated manual strangulation
with consideration of the problem of third party contamination,” International Journal of Legal Medicine (2002) 116 :170–173.
abstract
A. Lowe, C. Murray, J. Whitaker, G. Tully, P. Gill, “The propensity of individuals to deposit DNA and secondary transfer of low level DNA from individuals to inert surfaces.” Forensic Science International (2002) 129(1):25-34. abstract
E. A. M. Graham and G.N. Rutty, “Investigation into ‘normal’ background DNA on adult necks: implications for DNA profiling of manual strangulation victims.” Journal of Forensic Science, (2008) 53(5):1074-82. abstract
Update 1, 22 August 2010
I communicated with an anonymous forensic nurse about their domestic violence program. If an alleged victim complained of an attempted strangulation, complained of a partner’s grabbing their arm, or showed bruising or redness, they have been swabbing that area for DNA, for two years. Positive results in at least one case helped to convict someone. This information confirms the reasonableness of swabbing Meredith’s body in appropriate places, although the bruise on the nape of Meredith’s neck may have been the result of her being thrown against the wall (as some have theorized). We do not know whether swabbing the bruised areas was done or not.
____________________________
PM Guiliano Mignini’s reconstruction of the murder of Meredith Kercher was shown to the jury in the form of an animated video. In his speculation Amanda Knox grabbed Meredith Kercher by the throat and slammed her against a wall. The video superimposed actual shots of Meredith’s bruises with Amanda’s animated hand to imply that Amanda’s action produced the bruises. Later, Rudy Guede and Raffaele Sollecito held Meredith’s arms back, and Amanda stabs her (Barbie Nadeau, Angel Face, p. 160). In forensics professor Carlo Torre’s reconstruction of the crime, the single assailant grabbed Meredith by the throat and stabbed her. The area under Meredith’s chin and her nape were bruised; the former bruising was the result of the knife and the latter when the assailant put Meredith down.
Although Mignini’s theory of the crime suggests a much longer amount of contact between the assailants and victim than does Torre’s, both imply contact. None of Amanda Knox’s DNA was found in Meredith’s bedroom or on her body. Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on a bra clasp (although the defense contests this piece of evidence) but not the bra itself. Rudy Guede’s DNA was found in several places, including on the sleeve of Meredith’s sweatshirt. Let us examine some forensic DNA studies to see if they shed any light on this tragedy.
The study by Wiegand and Kleiber gives a case study in which DNA evidence was collected 48 hours after a strangulation. They wrote, “Strangulation marks were clearly visible on the neck of the victim. Epithelial cells could be removed from the neck of the victim using separate cotton swabs for the left and the right side of the neck. Only the swab from the right side could be typed and included the pattern of the suspect (Fig. 3), a result which corresponded to the autopsy findings (the right neck side showed a higher intensity of bleeding in the muscles than the left side indicating a more intensive pressure against the right side). Altogether clear results could be obtained using four STRs (TH01, VWA, FGA, CD4) demonstrating the high utility and sensitivity of the method described.” These authors also conducted simulated strangulations, and they reported a success rate of better than 70%.
The simulated strangulation study in 2002 by Rutty used both SGMplus and LCN amplification. The simulated strangulation experiment was done with periods between the force and the sampling were 1, 5, 10, 15, 30, and 60 min, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 24, and 48 h and 3, 4, 5 and 10 days. When the author used SGMplus, he observed a full profile of the offender 7 out of 29 times, and always in the presence of the victim’s profile. When the author used LCN all 17 experiments yielded offender profiles, with the majority being partial profiles. Dr. Rutty wrote, “Of the test neck swabs, 19 yielded positive amplification results using SGMplus, 12 showed a victim-only profile and 7 a victim and offender profile with a full offender profile detectable up to 6 h after contact. When LCN was used (17 tests) all showed the offender to be present for all time periods i.e. up to 10 days. In the majority of cases it was a partial offender profile with the majority of the amplification result being a full victim profile.”
Dr. Rutty stated that “When considering the apparent time periods of DNA survival, passive transfer of the offender’s DNA onto the victim’s neck could also explain the presence of offender DNA several days after contact.” This study did not break down the results by time periods between simulated strangulation and DNA collection; therefore, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions based solely on the data presented.
A 2008 study by Graham and Rutty reexamined the question of DNA transfer to and from strangulation victims with an emphasis on innocent DNA transfers that might deposit DNA on the neck of a victim. In 24% of samples collected showed nonself DNA on the simulated victim from third party sources. The authors believe that such DNA transfers might confuse an investigation.
Finally, it might be helpful to return to the subject of primary and secondary DNA deposition. The study by Lowe and coworkers in 2002 looked at DNA transfer from a good DNA shedder to a poor DNA shedder to an object. By definition transfer was secondary from the good shedder, and transfer was primary from the poor shedder. When mixtures were observed, secondary transfer from the good shedder provided the major component, not primary transfer from the poor shedder. This study illustrates the dictum that one generally cannot infer the mechanism of how the DNA was deposited from the DNA itself. Along with the study by Graham and Rutty, this work suggests caution in the interpretation of nonself DNA on the body of the victim of strangulation. A similar caution should also be applied in the interpretation of DNA on the bra clasp.
In addition to the case study discussed by Wiegand and Kleiber, there are a small number of news reports of strangulations that mention DNA. One is from greater Detroit, and another is from Chicago. However, these articles do not specify the place on the body that was tested for DNA. In addition to the possibility that DNA was collected from the neck, it is possible that the victim’s fingernails contained the perpetrator’s skin cells or vice versa.
There are no reports that ILE found anyone’s DNA on Meredith’s bare wrists or her neck, and it is unclear whether or not the forensic police swabbed for DNA in these areas. It is also unclear whether some areas on the neck would have been free enough of Meredith’s blood to allow swabbing for the assailant’s DNA. Nevertheless it is difficult to see why the forensic police should not have swabbed the nape of Meredith’s neck or her wrists. If they did and found nothing, it would be strongly exculpatory, although it might fall short of proof of innocence due to uncertainties over collecting enough DNA or collecting it quickly enough after the murder. If the forensic police failed to swab these areas, it would suggest that they did not do as thorough a job as one would wish.
Bibliography
P. Wiegand and M. Kleiber, “DNA typing of epithelial cells after strangulation,” International Journal of Legal Medicine (1997) 110 :181–183. abstract
G. N. Rutty, “An investigation into the transference and survivability
of human DNA following simulated manual strangulation
with consideration of the problem of third party contamination,” International Journal of Legal Medicine (2002) 116 :170–173.
abstract
A. Lowe, C. Murray, J. Whitaker, G. Tully, P. Gill, “The propensity of individuals to deposit DNA and secondary transfer of low level DNA from individuals to inert surfaces.” Forensic Science International (2002) 129(1):25-34. abstract
E. A. M. Graham and G.N. Rutty, “Investigation into ‘normal’ background DNA on adult necks: implications for DNA profiling of manual strangulation victims.” Journal of Forensic Science, (2008) 53(5):1074-82. abstract
Monday, June 21, 2010
Raffaele Sollecito's Appeal
Part XVIII in the Knox/Sollecito case
Update, 7/12/10
Here is a better translation of a portion of Sollecito’s appeal dealing with the bra clasp, provided by an anonymous translator:
“But there is more. The lack of full discovery was also found during the course of the trial:
- on July 18 2009, during cross-examination of the technical consultant of Raffaele Sollecito’s defence, Prof. Adriano Tagliabracci, there was an astonishing coup de theatre, in which the prosecution formulated a question which generated the suspicion that the Public Minister was in possession of further laboratory data never made available to the defence. In particular, the data relative to the quantity of the extract used for genetic analysis of the biological material found on the bra clasp of the victim;
- confronted with the reaction of the defence, the office of the Public Minister had to admit that there existed documents compiled by the scientific police never deposited at the conclusion of the investigations (contravening in this way the provision of Article 415 bis c.p.p.), nor sent to the Gup with the request for trial (in violation of Article 416, paragraph 2, c.p.p.).
In other words, the office of the PM denied a complete discovery of the documents of the investigation, extending this breach in the rights of the defence into the trial!”
This passage indicates that the prosecution failed to provide the defense with information relating to the single most important piece of evidence against Raffaele Sollecito all through the pre-trial and well into the trial phase. What is unclear from the appeal document alone is whether or not all information was ultimately released. However, other documents indicate that the prosecution never released all of the information that the defense teams sought.
___________________________________________________
The following is Google-translated from Raffaele's appeal document (pp. 51-57) with some minor edits. Although it is hard to decipher the meaning in places, it gives a picture of the defense continually asking for information on the DNA testing all throughout the preliminary hearing and trial, and the prosecution continually refusing. I have previously written about the importance of the electronic data files to a proper defense and about the near universality of this disclosure. I am eager to hear the prosecution’s explanation of how their refusal to hand over log files and electronic data files can be anything other than a trampling upon the right of discovery:
“And there is no doubt that, in terms of 'prosecution, failure to discovery on one of the main aspects of the process has been a considerable advantage over the defense, since the case involved Raffaele Sollecito is building right on genetic testing. In fact, it is useful to make a historical reconstruction of the case at hand:
- Following the conclusion of preliminary investigations, the defense could review the technical report of forensic genetic investigations in the signature of Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, to which were attached tables who reported only the number of alleles, without which they would specify any other information or scientific data (for clarity, we define each variant allele of a gene, the genotype of an individual gene has a relatively Kit alleles he is in possession);
- Given the extreme importance of this for proof on indication of Prof. Pascali expert defense Raffaele Reminder, on June 24, 2008 - pending the period of 20 days under Article. 415 bis -, was made an initial request to Prosecutor acquisition diagrams in electropherograms whereby the forensic results came in content Technical report on forensic genetics. In particular, this request is have specified the absolute necessity (in order of presentation defensive pleadings and petitions under Article. 415 bis cpp) to have the aforementioned documents available to the consultant of the could examine it in detail;
- However, against all evidence, the prosecutor dismissed the request was deemed inadmissible 'because the option in all.art.415 cpp a cover secured and only those acts ';
- To deal with a similar unjust refusal, the defense made on July 3, 2008, a further instance in which it sought to 'acquire forensic laboratories of the numerical values and RFU peaks on all findings, or alternatively to obtain police Scientific CDROM containing the raw data and peak RFU. It was asked, Moreover, in case it was not possible to obtain copies of these data, that the Prof. Pascali was allowed to go to the police service science for a spot inspection of the data and make it directly computerized copy;
- Even that request, however, was inexplicably rejected on 11 July 2008 with the anodyne statement that 'on the charts of Forensic there are already bars with generic value on fluorescence peaks.
The defense then returned to a preliminary hearing with a serious cognitive gap, due to lack of awareness of scientific data used by the police in their scientific investigations. As we shall see, this story had a further follow:
- Preliminary hearing of 16 September 2008, the defense reiterated request to acquire numerical values RFU and peaks at all findings or, alternatively, to acquire the CD-ROM containing the raw data RFU and peaks. The request filed at that meeting was based upon both the incompleteness detected in the diagrams attached to the report, and by the repeated requests made to the office of the C>P> to obtain the missing data;
- After this request, the Gup could not help but detect need 'for purposes of deciding' to understand 'fully (...) as procedure has been adopted for the analysis in question, and whether there further elaborations that constitute the necessary support conclusions reached. 'Consequently, the Gup has ordered the hearing in heard of Dr. Stefanoni calling 'to accompany their testimony with computer media containing data requested by the defense. "The same judge in that case was aware the extreme importance of data capture whereas the investigations living would receive 'the most important elements all.impianto accusatory;
- On September 25, 2008 in observance of the provision of Gup is was deposited by association. Zugarini on behalf of Dr. Stefanoni, the CD-Rom containing the requested data. In this regard like to highlight as the immediate acceptance of the instance in question proves unequivocally from the outset the importance of having the data available full scientific;
- Hearing on September 27, 2008, was then represented to the Gup need to obtain additional documentation because incomplete data, therefore, was asked to Court to acquire the service files (log files);
- However, the Judge, after seeking an opinion to Dr. Stefanoni has also rejected the application based on an uncritical adherence to its comments, coming to claim that "not be needed information contained in the logs (data nell.esperienza forensic are never identified, resulting standards approved by the parameters internationally and which appear to be in use in all Laboratories engaged in Forensic Genetics).
Such an established procedure is not, of course, acceptable under no point of view, since the unconditional adherence to observations of Dr. Stefanoni, has led to support the contention accusatory, without the technical-scientific comparison of an expert third and impartial.
And indeed, if it had consulted a person not bound by any constraint on the charge (ie a neutral), the parties would certainly have benefitted. And 'quite clear that to ask to review its person (Dr Stefanoni) which produced that result is, in fact, nonsense: can not say, claim of self-discipline science by the same technician who testified that result. Any specialist will of course be pushed, albeit inadvertently, to defend the validity of their work, even in front of a simple request for clarification, and justify - after all, understandably, by his point of view - that all data provided are sufficient.
Was evidence showed the need to provide all documentation scientific defense.
It 'important to note that log files are much scientific data relevant, if not indispensable, especially in situations (such as the case in point) where the peak height must be assessed together with other parameters (such as area) is also higher to determine the plausibility or, conversely, the unlikelihood attribution to a person's DNA. So it is true that during the preliminary hearing in court, the Dr. Stefanoni - at the request of the consultant that the Prosecution asked if it was important given the "peak area" – said "Normally not. "However, what is more surprising is that the very Dr. Stefanoni candidly admitted that it had no other experiences on (p. 68 transcription.'s preliminary hearing Oct. 4, 2009). The opinion of Dr. Stefanoni, in fact, emerged in all its fragility when the consultant has made the defense Reminder noted a recommendation of the International Society of Genetic Lawyers, which states that the method used to interpret traces of mixed DNA and consider l.area l.altezza of peaks "(p. 99 of those transcripts.)
The GUP at this point, he invited Dr. Stefanoni to be received by October 8, 'the data relating to the calculation of peak areas related to the finding 165 / B indicated by prof. Pascali in the third column, in his name, all.allegato referred to the report filed, and diagram on the second run on the sample elettroferografica 36B.
The epilogue of this long run-up occurred on October 8, 2008 with the filing by Dr. Stefanoni the CD-ROM containing the data dell.amplificato electrophoresis sample DNA called 165 / B (finding piece of cloth with hooks), and the CD-Rom containing: Sample data info for the two races dell.amplificato electrophoretic sample of DNA known as 36 / B (Finding knife) electropherograms of the second electrophoresis.
As can be seen from the picture just outlined, the defense did not have provision, at the conclusion of preliminary investigations, all acts of investigation as required by law, so much so that this uncertainty lasted at least for the preliminary hearing stage (and beyond, as you say).
For example, consider the simple analysis of the peak - technical data that was provided to the defense until after the hearing at the hearing Preliminary Dr. Stefanoni, damaging irreparably the rights of defense -revealed that the amount of DNA used for analysis was quite modest, which led the consultant to the defense clarified, that the interpretation given to the forensic graphics has minimally complied with the guidelines laid down by the International Society of Forensic Genetics.
But there is more. The lack of full discovery was also found in during the process:
- On July 18, 2009, during cross-examination technical consultant Defense Raffaele Sollecito, Professor Adriano Tagliabracci, there was an astonishing coup de théâtre, as the accusation made questions that have created the suspicion that the prosecutor had hold additional laboratory data ever made available to parties. It was, in particular, data on the amount of extract used for genetic analysis of biological material found on the hook of the bra of the victim;
- In front of the defense reaction, the Office of Public Prosecutor had to admit that there are acts performed by forensic ever deposited at the conclusion of the investigation (in contravention Thus the provision of art. 415 bis cpp) or sent to Gup with the request of trial (in violation of Article. 416, paragraph 2, cpp).
In other words, the Office of the PM or denied full discovery of documents investigation, pushing this lesion of the right of defense to the debate! We will now give an account of evaluations of the Court of Assizes of Perugia. The sentence I can refer about the motivations of the order of rejection "of All.audience 14/09/2009 defenses of the defendants objected l.avv n the interference with the right defense, arguing in this regard, which were verified the void. After hearing the other party seeking to disregard l.exception, this Court issued l.decree, which read out with which l.exception of nullity was rejected and was available to proceed further "(p.7. above).
Passing the order of 14 September 2009, the Assize Court noted as follows: 'respect of invalidity l.exception advanced and illustrated memory today filed for violation of the right of defense question exception is not admissible, l.activity sampling and comparison of traces biological object activity.exception the nature of prior technical investigation covered with the possibility dall.article 360 for parties to participate in and comment in this context is not apparent that there has been no lesion of the right of defense, for the nullity that would assessed in a case of a 415 dell.article knows nzione not provided by any specific provision or by a 415 Criminal Procedure Code that principle of mandatory nature of the void during preliminary dell.audience compare 1/10/2008 GUP measure included in documents filed today in support the plea of nullity that aspect has been addressed and its exception has not been repeated in terms of which all.article Code 491 Nell.audience of Criminal Procedure also before this Court on 18.7.2009 issue was not raised in terms of the void under the compare the transcripts of the hearing on 18.7.2009, with particular Refer to pages 102 et seq and 114 et seq therefore logical to conclude that l.aspect in all.exception now advances to integrate a nullity ta question But to sanction by the Supreme Court ruled on the matter for example compare Cassation Judgement second section 29573 of 2006 and Section Supreme number 21593 2009 its fifth exception was belatedly raised. As for the broken and also being the subject of advanced today than that penalty is justified in the presence of a omitted on filing all.entire investigations in this case l.omission h a covered part of the supporting documentation'”
Update, 7/12/10
Here is a better translation of a portion of Sollecito’s appeal dealing with the bra clasp, provided by an anonymous translator:
“But there is more. The lack of full discovery was also found during the course of the trial:
- on July 18 2009, during cross-examination of the technical consultant of Raffaele Sollecito’s defence, Prof. Adriano Tagliabracci, there was an astonishing coup de theatre, in which the prosecution formulated a question which generated the suspicion that the Public Minister was in possession of further laboratory data never made available to the defence. In particular, the data relative to the quantity of the extract used for genetic analysis of the biological material found on the bra clasp of the victim;
- confronted with the reaction of the defence, the office of the Public Minister had to admit that there existed documents compiled by the scientific police never deposited at the conclusion of the investigations (contravening in this way the provision of Article 415 bis c.p.p.), nor sent to the Gup with the request for trial (in violation of Article 416, paragraph 2, c.p.p.).
In other words, the office of the PM denied a complete discovery of the documents of the investigation, extending this breach in the rights of the defence into the trial!”
This passage indicates that the prosecution failed to provide the defense with information relating to the single most important piece of evidence against Raffaele Sollecito all through the pre-trial and well into the trial phase. What is unclear from the appeal document alone is whether or not all information was ultimately released. However, other documents indicate that the prosecution never released all of the information that the defense teams sought.
___________________________________________________
The following is Google-translated from Raffaele's appeal document (pp. 51-57) with some minor edits. Although it is hard to decipher the meaning in places, it gives a picture of the defense continually asking for information on the DNA testing all throughout the preliminary hearing and trial, and the prosecution continually refusing. I have previously written about the importance of the electronic data files to a proper defense and about the near universality of this disclosure. I am eager to hear the prosecution’s explanation of how their refusal to hand over log files and electronic data files can be anything other than a trampling upon the right of discovery:
“And there is no doubt that, in terms of 'prosecution, failure to discovery on one of the main aspects of the process has been a considerable advantage over the defense, since the case involved Raffaele Sollecito is building right on genetic testing. In fact, it is useful to make a historical reconstruction of the case at hand:
- Following the conclusion of preliminary investigations, the defense could review the technical report of forensic genetic investigations in the signature of Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, to which were attached tables who reported only the number of alleles, without which they would specify any other information or scientific data (for clarity, we define each variant allele of a gene, the genotype of an individual gene has a relatively Kit alleles he is in possession);
- Given the extreme importance of this for proof on indication of Prof. Pascali expert defense Raffaele Reminder, on June 24, 2008 - pending the period of 20 days under Article. 415 bis -, was made an initial request to Prosecutor acquisition diagrams in electropherograms whereby the forensic results came in content Technical report on forensic genetics. In particular, this request is have specified the absolute necessity (in order of presentation defensive pleadings and petitions under Article. 415 bis cpp) to have the aforementioned documents available to the consultant of the could examine it in detail;
- However, against all evidence, the prosecutor dismissed the request was deemed inadmissible 'because the option in all.art.415 cpp a cover secured and only those acts ';
- To deal with a similar unjust refusal, the defense made on July 3, 2008, a further instance in which it sought to 'acquire forensic laboratories of the numerical values and RFU peaks on all findings, or alternatively to obtain police Scientific CDROM containing the raw data and peak RFU. It was asked, Moreover, in case it was not possible to obtain copies of these data, that the Prof. Pascali was allowed to go to the police service science for a spot inspection of the data and make it directly computerized copy;
- Even that request, however, was inexplicably rejected on 11 July 2008 with the anodyne statement that 'on the charts of Forensic there are already bars with generic value on fluorescence peaks.
The defense then returned to a preliminary hearing with a serious cognitive gap, due to lack of awareness of scientific data used by the police in their scientific investigations. As we shall see, this story had a further follow:
- Preliminary hearing of 16 September 2008, the defense reiterated request to acquire numerical values RFU and peaks at all findings or, alternatively, to acquire the CD-ROM containing the raw data RFU and peaks. The request filed at that meeting was based upon both the incompleteness detected in the diagrams attached to the report, and by the repeated requests made to the office of the C>P> to obtain the missing data;
- After this request, the Gup could not help but detect need 'for purposes of deciding' to understand 'fully (...) as procedure has been adopted for the analysis in question, and whether there further elaborations that constitute the necessary support conclusions reached. 'Consequently, the Gup has ordered the hearing in heard of Dr. Stefanoni calling 'to accompany their testimony with computer media containing data requested by the defense. "The same judge in that case was aware the extreme importance of data capture whereas the investigations living would receive 'the most important elements all.impianto accusatory;
- On September 25, 2008 in observance of the provision of Gup is was deposited by association. Zugarini on behalf of Dr. Stefanoni, the CD-Rom containing the requested data. In this regard like to highlight as the immediate acceptance of the instance in question proves unequivocally from the outset the importance of having the data available full scientific;
- Hearing on September 27, 2008, was then represented to the Gup need to obtain additional documentation because incomplete data, therefore, was asked to Court to acquire the service files (log files);
- However, the Judge, after seeking an opinion to Dr. Stefanoni has also rejected the application based on an uncritical adherence to its comments, coming to claim that "not be needed information contained in the logs (data nell.esperienza forensic are never identified, resulting standards approved by the parameters internationally and which appear to be in use in all Laboratories engaged in Forensic Genetics).
Such an established procedure is not, of course, acceptable under no point of view, since the unconditional adherence to observations of Dr. Stefanoni, has led to support the contention accusatory, without the technical-scientific comparison of an expert third and impartial.
And indeed, if it had consulted a person not bound by any constraint on the charge (ie a neutral), the parties would certainly have benefitted. And 'quite clear that to ask to review its person (Dr Stefanoni) which produced that result is, in fact, nonsense: can not say, claim of self-discipline science by the same technician who testified that result. Any specialist will of course be pushed, albeit inadvertently, to defend the validity of their work, even in front of a simple request for clarification, and justify - after all, understandably, by his point of view - that all data provided are sufficient.
Was evidence showed the need to provide all documentation scientific defense.
It 'important to note that log files are much scientific data relevant, if not indispensable, especially in situations (such as the case in point) where the peak height must be assessed together with other parameters (such as area) is also higher to determine the plausibility or, conversely, the unlikelihood attribution to a person's DNA. So it is true that during the preliminary hearing in court, the Dr. Stefanoni - at the request of the consultant that the Prosecution asked if it was important given the "peak area" – said "Normally not. "However, what is more surprising is that the very Dr. Stefanoni candidly admitted that it had no other experiences on (p. 68 transcription.'s preliminary hearing Oct. 4, 2009). The opinion of Dr. Stefanoni, in fact, emerged in all its fragility when the consultant has made the defense Reminder noted a recommendation of the International Society of Genetic Lawyers, which states that the method used to interpret traces of mixed DNA and consider l.area l.altezza of peaks "(p. 99 of those transcripts.)
The GUP at this point, he invited Dr. Stefanoni to be received by October 8, 'the data relating to the calculation of peak areas related to the finding 165 / B indicated by prof. Pascali in the third column, in his name, all.allegato referred to the report filed, and diagram on the second run on the sample elettroferografica 36B.
The epilogue of this long run-up occurred on October 8, 2008 with the filing by Dr. Stefanoni the CD-ROM containing the data dell.amplificato electrophoresis sample DNA called 165 / B (finding piece of cloth with hooks), and the CD-Rom containing: Sample data info for the two races dell.amplificato electrophoretic sample of DNA known as 36 / B (Finding knife) electropherograms of the second electrophoresis.
As can be seen from the picture just outlined, the defense did not have provision, at the conclusion of preliminary investigations, all acts of investigation as required by law, so much so that this uncertainty lasted at least for the preliminary hearing stage (and beyond, as you say).
For example, consider the simple analysis of the peak - technical data that was provided to the defense until after the hearing at the hearing Preliminary Dr. Stefanoni, damaging irreparably the rights of defense -revealed that the amount of DNA used for analysis was quite modest, which led the consultant to the defense clarified, that the interpretation given to the forensic graphics has minimally complied with the guidelines laid down by the International Society of Forensic Genetics.
But there is more. The lack of full discovery was also found in during the process:
- On July 18, 2009, during cross-examination technical consultant Defense Raffaele Sollecito, Professor Adriano Tagliabracci, there was an astonishing coup de théâtre, as the accusation made questions that have created the suspicion that the prosecutor had hold additional laboratory data ever made available to parties. It was, in particular, data on the amount of extract used for genetic analysis of biological material found on the hook of the bra of the victim;
- In front of the defense reaction, the Office of Public Prosecutor had to admit that there are acts performed by forensic ever deposited at the conclusion of the investigation (in contravention Thus the provision of art. 415 bis cpp) or sent to Gup with the request of trial (in violation of Article. 416, paragraph 2, cpp).
In other words, the Office of the PM or denied full discovery of documents investigation, pushing this lesion of the right of defense to the debate! We will now give an account of evaluations of the Court of Assizes of Perugia. The sentence I can refer about the motivations of the order of rejection "of All.audience 14/09/2009 defenses of the defendants objected l.avv n the interference with the right defense, arguing in this regard, which were verified the void. After hearing the other party seeking to disregard l.exception, this Court issued l.decree, which read out with which l.exception of nullity was rejected and was available to proceed further "(p.7. above).
Passing the order of 14 September 2009, the Assize Court noted as follows: 'respect of invalidity l.exception advanced and illustrated memory today filed for violation of the right of defense question exception is not admissible, l.activity sampling and comparison of traces biological object activity.exception the nature of prior technical investigation covered with the possibility dall.article 360 for parties to participate in and comment in this context is not apparent that there has been no lesion of the right of defense, for the nullity that would assessed in a case of a 415 dell.article knows nzione not provided by any specific provision or by a 415 Criminal Procedure Code that principle of mandatory nature of the void during preliminary dell.audience compare 1/10/2008 GUP measure included in documents filed today in support the plea of nullity that aspect has been addressed and its exception has not been repeated in terms of which all.article Code 491 Nell.audience of Criminal Procedure also before this Court on 18.7.2009 issue was not raised in terms of the void under the compare the transcripts of the hearing on 18.7.2009, with particular Refer to pages 102 et seq and 114 et seq therefore logical to conclude that l.aspect in all.exception now advances to integrate a nullity ta question But to sanction by the Supreme Court ruled on the matter for example compare Cassation Judgement second section 29573 of 2006 and Section Supreme number 21593 2009 its fifth exception was belatedly raised. As for the broken and also being the subject of advanced today than that penalty is justified in the presence of a omitted on filing all.entire investigations in this case l.omission h a covered part of the supporting documentation'”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
