Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Planigale]

Planigale,

Here is the link to the interview at View from Wilmington. I don't have other links handy; maybe someone else does.

Thanks. Just read. I do not really have much of an issue with this. I think he is careful to say he is only commenting on the data in front of him. Like all mathematicians he accept the data given as valid it is upto the applied scientists like Gill to ensure the methodology is adequate. He veers outside his expertise a bit but we all do this. What are your issues?

 

[Planigale]

It is just odd that he didn't say 'I don't know how he could say he saw me at the cottage' instead of being with Amanda.

It is similar to him saying that "nothing" was stolen.

It may not mean anything but never the less saying "Guede has never seen me before in his life, not even fleetingly, I don't know how he can say I was with Amanda Knox" is plain odd.

While I believe that Raf didn't think Rudi had ever seen him before wouldn't it be more important to say he couldn't have seen me at the cottage because I wasn't there that night at all. Btw, as an aside how would anyone know that someone hadn't seen that person even fleetingly? In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that Rudi had seen them unbeknownst to them.

He did not say this. He said something in Italian. It is difficult to know unless a fluent Italian speaker how 'normal' his phraseology is and how distorted the translation is.

 

[acbytesla]

DF,

I am not a big fan of Statement Analysis^TM, especially when amateurs apply it to this case.

I was on Youtube the other day and there was a video where the post suggested Amanda was lying because of what they said was micro-expressions.

I understand that Grinder finds something odd in Raffaele's statement and that is fine, but even he knows that he doesn't know what is going on in Raffaele's mind. I wonder how people can get so arrogant that they can convince themselves that they know what is going on someone else's minds.

I read about Rudy statement about how the murder happened during the Skype call. I don't disbelieve him because of his phrasing, but because the story is ridiculous. There is a difference.

 

[Desert Fox]

I was on Youtube the other day and there was a video where the post suggested Amanda was lying because of what they said was micro-expressions.

I think such things are less reliable than lie detectors and I consider lie detectors to be pretty much useless. Whenever I hear them used, I cringe.

 

[Grinder]

He did not say this. He said something in Italian. It is difficult to know unless a fluent Italian speaker how 'normal' his phraseology is and how distorted the translation is.

Of course, but that is true of most everything in the case. I beg to differ on the phraseology aspect as it isn't the phrase per se but rather the focus on 'he didn't know me" and seen with Amanda.

Whether Rudi knew Raf by sight or had seen him at some point with Amanda just isn't of any consequence at that point. Rudi could have seen Raf there with Amanda even if the rest was true.

 

[acbytesla]

Of course, but that is true of most everything in the case. I beg to differ on the phraseology aspect as it isn't the phrase per se but rather the focus on 'he didn't know me" and seen with Amanda.

Whether Rudi knew Raf by sight or had seen him at some point with Amanda just isn't of any consequence at that point. Rudi could have seen Raf there with Amanda even if the rest was true.

I disagree Grinder. "Guede has never seen me before in his life, not even fleetingly, I don't know how he can say I was with Amanda Knox."

Raffaele seems to me to be pretty definitive Grinder. He is saying that Rudy is lying. That Rudy had never seen him ever..not at the cottage, not with Amanda, not anywhere.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Thoughtful's interview with Dr. Balding

Planigale,

These are two exerpts from his interview with Thoughtful:

3) Is the presence of DNA at 36B and 36I an indication that the knife was not washed? He said no, the knife could have been washed and even quite well washed; DNA can be hard to get rid of.

9) This is actually my favorite one: it's about the EDF's, or "electronic data files", also known as "raw data files" -- those records of raw data produced by the machine that Halkides and others have made a great fuss over, saying that Stefanoni kept them secret and refused to hand them over to Conti and Vecchiotti, giving them only electropherograms labeled with peak heights and areas (with which they declared themselves satisfied, let it be mentioned in passing). I asked him (another of MisterPink's questions) whether they could contain information that could change his mind regarding the attribution of Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp, Meredith's on the knife, or any other. His answer: "What are these electronic data files? What is raw data? I thought that the raw data was just the electropherograms labeled with those numbers."

With respect to point 3, Professor Budowle's letter to the court goes through this problem, and Professor Gill explains how this might be tested experimentally (although the alleged groove adds complexity). I think that both of these responses were more on the mark. With respect to point 9, this goes back to a question at the VfW interview, in which he was asked whether or not he had examined the raw data. Raw data can be a little tricky to define (and I may not have always been clear in my usage), but what I mean is the fluorescence intensity vs. time data prior to the color separation used to make the 4-channel electropherograms. It seems to me that Dr. Balding did not fully appreciate the implications of the question posed to him at VfW. However (for the lurkers), every DNA consultant I have ever asked or whose work I have read has been crystal clear about the need for the release of the raw data. Having the raw data allows the user to look for artifacts, such as pull-up and to zoom in on small peaks (I know that Bill_Williams's eyes are glazing over at this point).

With respect to another question at VfW (the one about Y-chromosomal data), it seemed to me that Dr. Balding answered a different question from the one that he was asked. He answered that it would not change his interpretation of the autosomal (standard) DNA profile, but the question was only about the interpretation of the YSTR electropherogram. I don't have a link handy for his interview on the BBC3 documentary, but my recollection is that he acknowledged the existence of DNA from the environment that might be found on items of evidence, but he implied that one could tell it apart from DNA deposited as part of a crime. I would have to review the documentary to be sure.

 

[Grinder]

I disagree Grinder. "Guede has never seen me before in his life, not even fleetingly, I don't know how he can say I was with Amanda Knox."

Raffaele seems to me to be pretty definitive Grinder. He is saying that Rudy is lying. That Rudy had never seen him ever..not at the cottage, not with Amanda, not anywhere.

Since Rudi knew Amanda and hung out in the same places that the college kids hung out it is very likely that at some point he saw Raf. Since Raf had never been introduced to Rudi and didn't know him from Adam, how would he know that Rudi had never seen him?

It is a stupid statement because he couldn't know if Rudi had seen him at some time or not.

But the important part is that he said saw me with Amanda. Tesla have I seen you? Have you seen me? I've seen you moping by the Bertha pit - just kidding.

It is odd that he didn't just say he couldn't have seen me or Amanda because we were at my apartment and we were not anywhere near the cottage that night.

Raf's statement leaves open the possibility that Amanda was there but not him.

 

[whoanellie]

Desert Fox,

I am not a big fan of Statement Analysis^TM, especially when amateurs apply it to this case. I don't advise giving the blog in question any clicks; therefore, I won't link to it. I am reluctant to read too much into what Raffaele said in 2011.

I'm not sure what blog you are referring to but from everything I've seen Statement Analysis and the related body language analysis methods are junk science even when the "pros" apply it - to anything.

 

[Bill Williams]

Desert Fox,

I am not a big fan of Statement AnalysisTM, especially when amateurs apply it to this case. I don't advise giving the blog in question any clicks; therefore, I won't link to it. I am reluctant to read too much into what Raffaele said in 2011.

I'm not sure what blog you are referring to but from everything I've seen Statement Analysis and the related body language analysis methods are junk science even when the "pros" apply it - to anything.

Statement Analysis is not meant to be used as a stand-alone method to begin with. Itself, it is not junk science, it's when someone - pro or amateur - uses it to crack a case..... eg. there's no DNA of Raffaele in the murder room, but he made an awkward statement with a potential double meaning to it, so what the heck - he must be guilty.

I've heard that it is used to parse a transcript to ferret out deceptive answers to questions..... "Did you kill Bob?", "Look, I've told you, I've never been to Cleveland...." All it is is recognizing that strictly speaking that's not an answer to the question..... it's then up to a trained interrogator to come up with questions which don't allow rhetorical backpedelling - think Machiavelli.

Question: "How can you say Stefanoni did not lie?" Mach: "No judge ever cited Stefanoni for lying." Every one of us dies a version of statement analysis to parse that one......

 

[whoanellie]

Statement Analysis is not meant to be used as a stand-alone method to begin with. Itself, it is not junk science, it's when someone - pro or amateur - uses it to crack a case..... eg. there's no DNA of Raffaele in the murder room, but he made an awkward statement with a potential double meaning to it, so what the heck - he must be guilty.

I've heard that it is used to parse a transcript to ferret out deceptive answers to questions..... "Did you kill Bob?", "Look, I've told you, I've never been to Cleveland...." All it is is recognizing that strictly speaking that's not an answer to the question..... it's then up to a trained interrogator to come up with questions which don't allow rhetorical backpedelling - think Machiavelli.

Question: "How can you say Stefanoni did not lie?" Mach: "No judge ever cited Stefanoni for lying." Every one of us dies a version of statement analysis to parse that one......

Check out this study touting the "accuracy" of Statement Analysis. I guess it all depends on the meaning of the word "accurate".

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/pspi_10_6-editorial.pdf

 

[acbytesla]

Since Rudi knew Amanda and hung out in the same places that the college kids hung out it is very likely that at some point he saw Raf. Since Raf had never been introduced to Rudi and didn't know him from Adam, how would he know that Rudi had never seen him?

It is a stupid statement because he couldn't know if Rudi had seen him at some time or not.

As I said before, I think you are being picky. Could it have been worded more precisely??? Sure...but it doesn't mean anything. The point Grinder is that Rudy didn't know Raffaele from Adam. What's more, we don't know how the translation effects this statement.

But the important part is that he said saw me with Amanda. Tesla have I seen you? Have you seen me? I've seen you moping by the Bertha pit - just kidding.

Funny...lol

It is odd that he didn't just say he couldn't have seen me or Amanda because we were at my apartment and we were not anywhere near the cottage that night.

Raf's statement leaves open the possibility that Amanda was there but not him.

I don't think so. Raffaele knows that Rudy knew Amanda in passing. He is only speaking for himself that he and Rudy weren't acquainted. He also made this statement a long time ago. I don't think Raffaele was parsing his language that precisely. Maybe he should have been...but for me Grinder, this is a big "huh"?? and "so what"?

 

[whoanellie]

Check out this study touting the "accuracy" of Statement Analysis. I guess it all depends on the meaning of the word "accurate".

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/pspi_10_6-editorial.pdf

Here is the actual "study" I meant to link to:
http://www.statementanalysis.com/research/study-on-deception/

 

[Bill Williams]

If anyone questions what a weasel John Follain is, read what he writes about Mignini, p. 155 Death in Italy. "Mignini lost all hope of Amanda ever cooperating again with him as soon as he saw her in the Perugia law courts at a hearing held to decide whether or not she should stay in prison. Amanda avoided the prosecutor's gaze and huddled with her lawyers, talking intensely to them. To all appearances she was already building a close relationship with them."

So for Follain, it is all right for Mignini to deny Amanda a lawyer. So much so that the real reason acc. to Mignini this case wasn't solved in the first few hours is that he lost Amanda's "cooperation". Once Amanda met her lawyers - minutes before the Matteini hearing - all hope was lost (acc. to Follain and Mignini). It's amazing how cooperative young suspects are when in interrogation while being denied counsel, isn't it.

Follain's book is a must-read. It is the very road-map of wrongful conviction.

 

[Desert Fox]

If anyone questions what a weasel John Follain is, read what he writes about Mignini, p. 155 Death in Italy. "Mignini lost all hope of Amanda ever cooperating again with him as soon as he saw her in the Perugia law courts at a hearing held to decide whether or not she should stay in prison. Amanda avoided the prosecutor's gaze and huddled with her lawyers, talking intensely to them. To all appearances she was already building a close relationship with them."

So for Follain, it is all right for Mignini to deny Amanda a lawyer. So much so that the real reason acc. to Mignini this case wasn't solved in the first few hours is that he lost Amanda's "cooperation". Once Amanda met her lawyers - minutes before the Matteini hearing - all hope was lost (acc. to Follain and Mignini). It's amazing how cooperative young suspects are when in interrogation while being denied counsel, isn't it.
Follain's book is a must-read. It is the very road-map of wrongful conviction.

Is it a book you will want to throw against the wall?

 

[Bill Williams]

Check out this study touting the "accuracy" of Statement Analysis. I guess it all depends on the meaning of the word "accurate".

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/pspi_10_6-editorial.pdf

It's not supposed to be "accurate". Accuracy is about arriving at conclusions - Statement Analysis is not something that enables anyone to discern anything. At best what it does is narrow down what the next useful question might be.

There was a case in Canada where an RCMP officer had taken a $900 private Statement Analysis course. This cop became a "born again" convert to the method, so much so that he dispensed with other investigative tools, and treated what he'd learned as if it were some super-accurate lie detector.

I read about it in a Royal Commission report about another Canadian wrongful conviction where all this came out.... that a cop became, essentially, an amateur pop-psychologist and completely abandoned forensic common sense.

In short, statement analysis never ends the inquiry. It is a tool in investigative inquiry used solely with a view to narrowing the "what next" of it. And if it turns out this narrowing yields false leads, then the statement analysis results should be junked.

 

[Bill Williams]

Is it a book you will want to throw against the wall?

Yes. I threw it against a wall when I realized I'd paid full price from Amazon for it, with the expediated delivery rate!

This is Follain's book in a nutshell. It is totally from the point of view of the police, prosecutors and friends and family of Meredith. Where he has verbatim dialog from the Knox side of things, particularly those times when one assumes it is a private visit with Knox and family in prison.... one can only guess where Follain gets that dialog from!

There are three sections, really, to the book.

1) The Perugians were right to suspect Amanda Knox of murder
2) Why the case fell apart at trial, even though the Massei court convicted
3) the reactions of Meredith's family and the British friends.​

In the edition I have, there is the most sparse recounting of the second trial, the Hellmann trial. My edition has the update which includes the most bare bones recounting of the Hellmann motivations report.

As I've said before, Follain seems particularly interested in women's underwear - and seemingly has access to private prison conversations where Amanda asks her mother to bring more panties; what that has to do with Perugia's crime of the century is something only Follain can tell you. (I think he intends it as a subtle slutty remark about Knox, but it makes him look creepy.)

One exception is that Follain casts Edda Mellas as a curious character in his narrative - if there is some point which comes up which later becomes decisive for one of the courts, he puts it into Edda's mouth as dialogue, making her seem like the Oracle at Delphi in predicting what's what.

But he is slimey in the way he puts things.

He has that comment from Battistelli who looks into Filomena's room: "This is no burglary". The very next sentence is: Raffaele and Amanda say nothing.

What Follain is implying is that they know damn well why it doesn't look like a burglary!!! He is a complete weasel as an author.

He's also the sole source for Marco Chiacchiera's alleged comment that after Knox's confession and as they were considering going to round up Lumumba, that Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba be released and observed. Follain says that Chiacchiera is not convinced they have enough evidence - and Follain repeats this alleged comment a few pages later.

One gets the feeling that Follain tried - he really did try - to paint Knox and Sollecito as guilty; but that in the end even his narrative of guilt breaks down.

 

[whoanellie]

It's not supposed to be "accurate". Accuracy is about arriving at conclusions - Statement Analysis is not something that enables anyone to discern anything. At best what it does is narrow down what the next useful question might be.

http://www.statementanalysis.com/research/study-on-deception/

http://www.statementanalysis.com/why-is-it-accurate/

 

[acbytesla]

Here is the actual "study" I meant to link to:
http://www.statementanalysis.com/research/study-on-deception/

I wouldn't believe this under any circumstances.

1. It is not a peer reviewed study.
2.It is written by someone selling "statement analysis". seminars. He's an advocate trying to make money. Hardly someone that is trustworthy.


Here is criticism on Wikipedia.

Criticism[edit]
Aldert Vrij, one of the leading authorities on detection of deception (DOD) techniques, points out that most studies of the technique did not rely on the ground truth being established and thus examiners could not be certain if "examinees were actually telling the truth or lying."[4] He also notes that there is no standardization among the different methods of analysis and this "implies that much depends on the subjective interpretation and skill of the individual" performing the analysis. Vrij attributes this to an absence of theoretical underpinning behind SCAN/statement analysis.[4] Vrij characterizes SCAN/statement analysis as weaker than CBCA because SCAN/statement analysis lacks "a set of cohesive criteria," being instead "a list of individual criteria."[4] Vrij argues that SCAN/statement analysis is best used as a technique to guide investigative interviews rather than as a "lie detection tool."[5]

Critics argue that the technique encourages investigators to prejudge a suspect as deceptive and affirm a presumption of guilt before the interrogation process has even begun. Statement analysis in general has been criticized as "theoretically vague" with little or no empirical evidence in its favor, and SCAN in particular has been characterized as "junk science" [1] with the Skeptic's Dictionary and Skeptical Inquirer magazine[6] classifying it as a form of pseudoscience.[2]

 

[Bill Williams]

http://www.statementanalysis.com/research/study-on-deception/

http://www.statementanalysis.com/why-is-it-accurate/

Ok... that is junk science as described in those links.

This part is particularly disingenuous:

The reason the Statement Analysis techniques are accurate is because people's words will betray them. If you know what to look for in a verbal or written statement, you can determine if the statement is true or false. The Association for Psychological Science came to the same conclusion stating "verbal methods of deception detection are better than nonverbal methods." They published their findings in February 2011 - Pitfalls and Opportunities in Nonverbal and Verbal Lie Detection

It should be noted that some of the trained participants in this survey may have had other training in analyzing statements. This still verifies the theory if you know what to look for in a statement you stand a greater chance of detecting deception.​

The English language is not like mathematics, where, for instance 1 + 1 always equals 2. There are idiomatic ways of putting things which not everyone shares... there are people with English as a second language who awkwardly transpose idioms from one language to the next.... etc. etc.

The best debunking of this version of statement analysis which assumes that "English usage never lies", is as portrayed in the film Presumed Innocent by Paul Warfield (Judge Larren Lyttle)....

Rusty Sabich was accused of murder by the new D.A. Sabich's answer was, "Yea, you're right," said in a very sarcastic tone. The D.A. took it as a confession.

Judge Larren Lyttle intervened, recounting his old neighbourhood where he grew up, where in their vernacular they would often say the opposite of what they meant sarcastically.

Any form of statement analysis that is represented in the above is junk.