User:FormerIP/Michelli

Extracts from the Michelli Report, relating mainly to DNA evidence
====

Some time ago, however, it was found that on the blade of a kitchen knife seized at the house of S. (Sollecito), there was a trace of organic material from K, while the handle of that knife, close to where it joins the blade and thus at the point which, in theory, would have been gripped with the most pressure, there was a separate trace from which it was possible to extract DNA from K. On the other hand, the bra-clasp, attached to the strip of cloth torn from the garment and recovered only after the body had been moved (as indicated in the first note of investigation), when compared with other samples, those of DNA belonging to the victim and S, the results were deemed by their defenses particularly controversial, because of the possible unreliability of examination, owing to the small amount of biological material available and to the risk of contamination of the exhibits (this complaint relates primarily to the strip of bra, already identified by the forensic team during the night of 2 and 3 November, but actually collected and examined only after a second visit on 18 December 2007.

====

Thus, reversing the problem, and starting from the case against the defendants, the most important factors - as is well-known - are the results of scientific investigations. On this point, I turn to the issue of the possible unreliability of the results of the tests, and to the alleged contamination of exhibits.

In the first case, as outlined in the testimony of Dr. Stefanoni, I must remark that the suggestion of bogus results with reference to unreliability, rather than contamination, I find very imaginative with regard to the particulars of this case. It is indisputable that, if a quantity of DNA is obtained from an organic sample which is insufficient (perhaps because it has a low Copy Number), it may be that the process of "photocopying" or other processes yields results that may be taken lightly, and actually produce an incorrect DNA.

But, in general, such a result should be considered in the context of the independent investigations and subsequent findings. If the DNA in a murder case in Rome is that of a previous offender in Milan, then we should rely on the result to a certain point, unless there is other evidence to suggest that the person was in Ontario on the relevant day. In the case that concerns us, it is opportune that the DNA of S. is on the bra-clasp (as it happens, he is the boyfriend of a flat-mate of the owner of the bra) and that of MK is on the knife (incidentally, the flat-mate of the girlfriend of its owner), statistically as probable as its being the DNA of the judge of this Court or of the President the Republic. And so, the objection - based on a scientific conjecture - loses much of its weight in a criminal trial.

Coming to contamination, it is significant that we are discussing objects found in complete isolation to each other. The knife No 36 was at the home of S. (where M. had never entered, as remembered by M.) and the clasp of the bra No 165 was in the victim’s bedroom (with whom S had nothing to do, and whose DNA elsewhere in the house was found only on a cigarette-end in the kitchen).

There is certainly a risk of the deterioration of this exhibit (here magnified by the gross neglect of the piece of cloth with the clasp, following a site visit and cataloguing for analysis), but this affects primarily the progressive difficulty in deriving worthwhile traces from the exhibit compared to what it would otherwise have given. It certainly doesn’t give rise to the prospect of obtaining the DNA of a new person. If we posit a contamination, we should imagine that the DNA of S. (from another, unsuspicious location) had "touched" the clasp in M’s bedroom and the DNA of the latter had contaminated the knife at the house of the accused. But, as has been mentioned, neither the one nor the other had anything to do with each other's environments.

It makes no sense to imagine that there was contamination during cataloguing, or even during the delay (which, unfortunately, occurred in the case of the clasp) between 2 November and the visit of 18 December. Even if you imagine that in hard times disposable gloves may be reused, gloves and boots were certainly changed between one house and the other. Furthermore, the visits were carried out simultaneously by different individuals. Analyzing the documents, it is clear that the search was made by different personnel from the Forensic Police (indeed, simultaneously) at 7 Via della Pergola and 110 Corso Garibaldi. There were only two visits, on November 6, 2007 at 09:40 at the house where the murder had taken place, carried out by Profazio, Napoleon, BIGINI, Gubbiotti, Barbadoro and ZUGARINI; and at 10:00 at the home of S., by CHAT, Finzi, Passeri, Ranauro, Camarda, Red and ŠIŠAN. Where is the source, or even the suspicion, of contamination?

It should be remarked that, surely, to forget the clasp for 46 days, what is more at a scene with evidence of rape, and after finding a bra, constituted a serious lapse. But it should equally be remembered that the risk would have been the loss of traces found there, not the risk of somehow discovering new traces.

====

Concerning the correctness of the results, which the Assize Court should certainly look into thoroughly, one must take account of a circumstantial but undoubtedly significant detail arising in the Y haplotype as evidenced by the forensic team. In discussions between the consultants an impressive counter-argument was made about pairs of alleles, with discussion of stutters, peak areas and other considerations. This merely infers that that the investigation of the male chromosome – here we are talking about the results of a hypothetical analysis – could lead to ambiguous results in the case of two different subjects with ancestors in common. But we do not know if such subjects exist, where they live, whether they have ever set foot in Perugia or even in Italy or Europe.

====

Another issue, which the trial judge is also required to determine but which I find to be a serious circumstantial matter, is the singling-out of the aforementioned knife as the murder weapon. It is said that the DNA of the victim (as well that of K., in a position coinciding precisely with the part of the handle where the greatest force is exerted) is there, and it would be nothing short of unbelievable if this were a mistake, that the trace could have given unreliable results or the genetic profile of the wrong person. I find that that the scarcity of the trace may well explain the negative results of tests carried out to ascertain blood-type.

(Translated by Former IP)