Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[platonov]

The Ghost of Withnail [ & Monty ]

Yes, I realise that, my point is hypothetical. It is more important with the bra clasp,for the following reasons.
It is incontestable that Mignini was in very serious trouble when he lost the shoe print evidence. At this point, he was about to have to justify keeping in jail a man with absolutely no evidence, and this was the 23rd or so occurrence in rough succession where he would have to release suspects he had jailed. It is very likely that a reasonable person would conclude he was a disgrace to his position for such incompetence.
At this point, he absolutely needed evidence he could only hope for in vain, like holing from the 18th to get to a play off.
He sunk the shot.
How?
While there are plausible routes for contamination via the door handle, he could not possibly rely on this hope. After the identical route to conviction occurred with Arthur Allan Thomas, a case I grew up watching, where noble cause corruption was employed three months into the investigation with the planting of an incriminating cartridge case, I have always expected to see it proved again, and I think this is such a case.
The knife was probably accidental contamination, the bra clasp probably deliberate.

And yet according to Bill, and the ‘DNA experts’ here seem to agree, the bra clasp was only Y chromosome and thus not definitive.As framing goes it leaves a lot to be desired. No?

I am starting to wonder if Planigale is right in that these Italians are not very smart, relative to the English at any rate.

 

[carbonjam72]

I tend to believe that the most likely location for contamination was always Stefanoni's lab. We know for sure that they were working with fairly large quantities of Kercher's reference DNA, plus they were testing dozens of other samples from the crime scene which likely contained Kercher non-blood DNA.

I think that the most likely route was either airborne or touch contamination of Kercher's DNA onto the knife (with another possibility being contamination at the machine/equipment level). Regardless of how shoddily the knife was collected, treated at the police station, and transported to the lab (and it was shockingly shoddy), I think the lab has to be by far the prime suspect.

I think Stefanoni has happy accidents, then covers her tracks.

 

[Strozzi]

. . .

And in a very similar manner, it wouldn't matter one iota if an even more sensitive test on the bra clasp could "confirm" Sollecito's DNA there: if there's a real possibility of contamination, then any further testing is wholly moot, just as it was with the knife. Oh but of course the bra clasp can't be tested again in any event can it: the dissembling, obstructive, incompetent not-a-doctor Stefanoni destroyed it by letting it rust until it rotted, didn't she........

I am interested in knowing if any of the commentators here who lean toward Knox's and/or Sollecito's guilt have commented on Stefanoni's storage of the bra clasp. Have any of them indicated that Stefanoni inadvertantly (accidentally) stored it that way which unfortunately resulted in the clasp being unsuitable for further testing, or have pro-guilt commentators indicated that Stefanoni deliberately stored it in a way that would knowingly compromise the clasp fabric and metal hooks?

 

[Desert Fox]

I am interested in knowing if any of the commentators here who lean toward Knox's and/or Sollecito's guilt have commented on Stefanoni's storage of the bra clasp. Have any of them indicated that Stefanoni inadvertantly (accidentally) stored it that way which unfortunately resulted in the clasp being unsuitable for further testing, or have pro-guilt commentators indicated that Stefanoni deliberately stored it in a way that would knowingly compromise the clasp fabric and metal hooks?

Machiavelli first argued that they did not have storage for it and then argued that it had to be destroyed anyway.

 

[Strozzi]

I think Stefanoni has happy accidents, then covers her tracks.

So you think Stefanoni sweetens the evidence to help convict accused persons?

 

[platonov]

I am interested in knowing if any of the commentators here who lean toward Knox's and/or Sollecito's guilt have commented on Stefanoni's storage of the bra clasp. Have any of them indicated that Stefanoni inadvertantly (accidentally) stored it that way which unfortunately resulted in the clasp being unsuitable for further testing, or have pro-guilt commentators indicated that Stefanoni deliberately stored it in a way that would knowingly compromise the clasp fabric and metal hooks?

How interested are you?
IIRC correctly that issue has been addressed at some length here.

For my own part I am interested in where RS gives AK an alibi in his appeal doc.
While I am waiting for a response you could read the thread. I suspect that despite the obvious disparity you will have your answer first

 

[Desert Fox]

So you think Stefanoni sweetens the evidence to help convict accused persons?

Doing that period is not an uncommon occurrence with law enforcement.

 

[carbonjam72]

So you think Stefanoni sweetens the evidence to help convict accused persons?

Yes. But only if she can maintain plausible deniability. They are inherently cowards.

 

[Bill Williams]

And yet according to Bill, and the ‘DNA experts’ here seem to agree, the bra clasp was only Y chromosome and thus not definitive.As framing goes it leaves a lot to be desired. No?

I am starting to wonder if Planigale is right in that these Italians are not very smart, relative to the English at any rate.

Who says anything like tha?

You should read the docs. Start with C&V.

Do you believe a peak above 50 is a stutter or an allele?

 

[NotEvenWrong]

What she says is

"The question you ask is of the right type, but it's not the right question: the right question should not concern a likely circumstance but an unlikely one, since a likely circumstance will simply not give much information. The proper question is:

Given that Meredith's DNA was actually found on the knife,

Question #1: What is the probability of that circumstance occurring if the knife was used in the murder?

Question #2: What is the probability of that circumstance occurring if the knife was not used in the murder?

This is awful. Simply awful. I refuse to believe this woman is a paid mathematician.

The premise to her question, "Given that Meredith's DNA was actually found on the knife," is already assuming that the egram profile was not due to lab (reagents, instrumentation, etc.) contamination. Given there is an entire chapter in a book written about this very case from the inventor of the genotyping technology used on the knife blade, one should probably know this is a bad premise. She is begging the question, and she is committing this fallacy in about as direct a way as possible.

There are multiple routes of contamination. The knife could be contaminated directly given poor handling, or the experiment itself could have been contaminated. If the experiment was contaminated directly then the DNA never need touch the knife. No one, and I mean no one, from the pro-guilt community seems to get this. You can get a false positive from contamination even if the DNA never contacted the knife.

The correct question that "Thoughtful" is after is this:

Given the egram output was a specific profile:

What is the probability it was a true positive, and Meredith's DNA was actually on the sample/knife?

What is the probability it was a false positive, and Meredith's DNA was never actually on the sample/knife?

And if it was a TRUE positive, then the followup question is: what is the probability the knife was used to kill Meredith? i.e. it could have an innocent explanation. Poor handling / contamination. Secondary transfer. Meredith touching the knife at some point. etc. If all if these scenarios are deemed unlikely only then can we infer the knife was probably used to kill Meredith.

Hint for "Thoughtful": The knife not being compatible with the wounds. The outline of the knife not matching the knife outline on the blood stained sheets. The knife testing negative for blood. The knife testing positive for starch/food granules. And proper LCN procedures not being followed (according to the inventor of the technology and one of the top forensic geneticists in the world, Peter Gill) are all reasons we know with overwhelming certainty that the "positive" egram result was a false positive due to instrument or reagent contamination with DNA that was all over the lab from prior testing. Thus we know for a fact (fact being 99%+ certainty) that this was not the knife that killed Meredith.

 

[platonov]

"The suspense is killing me"

Who says anything like tha? You should read the docs. Start with C&V.

Do you believe a peak above 50 is a stutter or an allele?

Oh Bill.

Prepare yourself for a shock.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The sixty-four dollar question

I am interested in knowing if any of the commentators here who lean toward Knox's and/or Sollecito's guilt have commented on Stefanoni's storage of the bra clasp. Have any of them indicated that Stefanoni inadvertantly (accidentally) stored it that way which unfortunately resulted in the clasp being unsuitable for further testing, or have pro-guilt commentators indicated that Stefanoni deliberately stored it in a way that would knowingly compromise the clasp fabric and metal hooks?

Strozzi,

To the best of my knowledge, no one but Mach has even tried, and his attempt was...illogical. However, it remains a powerful argument. Why should anyone trust a lab that destroys a piece of evidence, even if it were by accident?

 

[Dan O.]

The PMF crowd are trying so hard to fit the stain on the bed to a large kitchen knife. Would they consider it possible that the stain was made by the large kitchen knife discovered in the bathroom where Rudy left his ******

 

[Samson]

The PMF crowd are trying so hard to fit the stain on the bed to a large kitchen knife. Would they consider it possible that the stain was made by the large kitchen knife discovered in the bathroom where Rudy left his ******

Ergon should try harder, he blithely places a large curved portion on a very clear nearly straight line of blood. He could have avoided this and got a good match to the line by turning the knife over so the straight topside matched.
But the distinctive oblong blood patch two thirds to the hilt can only result from exact placement of an object that shape, not blood drops, so the exercise is square pegs and round holes. I hope this is in Raffaele's appeal document to refute Crini. He can beat this rap with a mountain of evidence.

 

[MDDVS]

What she says is

"The question you ask is of the right type, but it's not the right question: the right question should not concern a likely circumstance but an unlikely one, since a likely circumstance will simply not give much information. The proper question is:

Given that Meredith's DNA was actually found on the knife,

Question #1: What is the probability of that circumstance occurring if the knife was used in the murder?

Question #2: What is the probability of that circumstance occurring if the knife was not used in the murder?

The quotient of answer #1 divided by answer #2 gives the likelihood ratio. If it is larger than 1, it tends towards guilt, and the larger it is, the more strongly it tends. If it is smaller than 1, obviously it tends towards innocence.

Put this way it is completely obvious that the answer to #1 is very large and the answer to #2 is very small, so there you go.

Indeed, the possibility of transferring a perfect, complete, single-person DNA sample, precisely of the victim in spite of all the people and places the policemen would have been in contact with all day, is minuscule. What the FOA fail to realize is that while yes, it is true that the possibility of DNA contamination is always present, and lab contamination exists and is frequent, it comes from random people and leaves partial traces."

Depressing for a mathematician. She presumably has never heard of Bayes. The question is given the prior probability (a knife that does not fit most wounds, does not fit the bloody imprint, that was randomly picked from many equally applicable knives, a knife with no blood, no detectable DNA on it) what is the probability that the DNA was attributable to 'error'. I am afraid that my maths makes the likelihood ratio low; certainly well below 1.

Even if we assume her initial premise (DNA was on the blade) although there's no reason to do so, why is she giving a low probability to event #2? This probability can vary wildly from case to case.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I disagree it would be a finding supportive of guilt. There's only one set of footprints in blood in the room. There is no evidence they ever left Raf's apartment that night. Rudy said they weren't there.

The DNA is not a magic bullet, imo. It has to be taken in the context in which it is found. Raf's trace DNA on the bra clasp (metal hook), doesn't "place him in the room".

But Rudy's DNA is in reliable quantity in the room, and on and in the victim. AND, corroborated by footprints in blood, hand prints, fingerprints, etc. And he admits to being there.

Just saying, Dr Peter Gill refers to this thinking as the "CSI effect", or "the confirmation effect" (from a BBC Radio 4 interview. And says even some scientists are susceptible to it. But its not a correct line of thought.

-

This is definitely true. If it could be proven that the bra never left that room, then yeah you might have a case for placing Raffaele in the room, otherwise
any number of people could have touched it anywhere, and the number of people can sometimes depend on how long Meredith wore that bra.

My sisters have told me they will sometimes wear the same bra a couple days in a row, sometimes more.

Another thing my sisters do, and I've actually seen them do it, is when they are introduced to a new guy, sometimes after shaking their hands, they will adjust their bras, sometimes before, sometimes after, and sometimes both, but mostly after. I told them about it, and they didn't consciously realize they were doing it, but the next time they did it, they realized it was kind of a grooming and attraction thing. Fix themselves up quickly. Like when you pass a mirror. Most people will stop and check to see if nothings out of place. That kind of thing.

Me and my sisters talk about some weird stuff, as you can tell,

d

-
ETA: someone else here mentioned that touching the bra thing a long time ago (2 or 3 years ago), but I can't remember who exactly.

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

This is awful. Simply awful. I refuse to believe this woman is a paid mathematician.

The premise to her question, "Given that Meredith's DNA was actually found on the knife," is already assuming that the egram profile was not due to lab (reagents, instrumentation, etc.) contamination. Given there is an entire chapter in a book written about this very case from the inventor of the genotyping technology used on the knife blade, one should probably know this is a bad premise. She is begging the question, and she is committing this fallacy in about as direct a way as possible.

There are multiple routes of contamination. The knife could be contaminated directly given poor handling, or the experiment itself could have been contaminated. If the experiment was contaminated directly then the DNA never need touch the knife. No one, and I mean no one, from the pro-guilt community seems to get this. You can get a false positive from contamination even if the DNA never contacted the knife.

The correct question that "Thoughtful" is after is this:

Given the egram output was a specific profile:

What is the probability it was a true positive, and Meredith's DNA was actually on the sample/knife?

What is the probability it was a false positive, and Meredith's DNA was never actually on the sample/knife?

And if it was a TRUE positive, then the followup question is: what is the probability the knife was used to kill Meredith? i.e. it could have an innocent explanation. Poor handling / contamination. Secondary transfer. Meredith touching the knife at some point. etc. If all if these scenarios are deemed unlikely only then can we infer the knife was probably used to kill Meredith.

Hint for "Thoughtful": The knife not being compatible with the wounds. The outline of the knife not matching the knife outline on the blood stained sheets. The knife testing negative for blood. The knife testing positive for starch/food granules. And proper LCN procedures not being followed (according to the inventor of the technology and one of the top forensic geneticists in the world, Peter Gill) are all reasons we know with overwhelming certainty that the "positive" egram result was a false positive due to instrument or reagent contamination with DNA that was all over the lab from prior testing. Thus we know for a fact (fact being 99%+ certainty) that this was not the knife that killed Meredith.

-

Is statistical probabilities even a real science? I've heard it said that you can make any statistic say anything you want it to, if you know how to do it, even if it doesn't favor your arguement.

The problem with "real-life" statistical probabilities is that it's almost impossible to know all the variables involved.

I'll even admit my probability analysis is flawed, but I'm willing to be convinced that I'm wrong, but no one has come forward yet to disprove my probability analysis.

But, I'm patient, and maybe some day, someone might convince me that I'm wrong.

It'd be nice for the probably guilty crowd to think along the same lines, but most of them that come here are not even at probably but at 100% instead.

That to me proves confirmation bias,

d

-

 

[Strozzi]

This is awful. Simply awful. I refuse to believe this woman is a paid mathematician.

The premise to her question, "Given that Meredith's DNA was actually found on the knife," is already assuming that the egram profile was not due to lab (reagents, instrumentation, etc.) contamination. Given there is an entire chapter in a book written about this very case from the inventor of the genotyping technology used on the knife blade, one should probably know this is a bad premise. She is begging the question, and she is committing this fallacy in about as direct a way as possible.

There are multiple routes of contamination. The knife could be contaminated directly given poor handling, or the experiment itself could have been contaminated. If the experiment was contaminated directly then the DNA never need touch the knife. No one, and I mean no one, from the pro-guilt community seems to get this. You can get a false positive from contamination even if the DNA never contacted the knife.

The correct question that "Thoughtful" is after is this:

Given the egram output was a specific profile:

What is the probability it was a true positive, and Meredith's DNA was actually on the sample/knife?

What is the probability it was a false positive, and Meredith's DNA was never actually on the sample/knife?

And if it was a TRUE positive, then the followup question is: what is the probability the knife was used to kill Meredith? i.e. it could have an innocent explanation. Poor handling / contamination. Secondary transfer. Meredith touching the knife at some point. etc. If all if these scenarios are deemed unlikely only then can we infer the knife was probably used to kill Meredith.

Hint for "Thoughtful": The knife not being compatible with the wounds. The outline of the knife not matching the knife outline on the blood stained sheets. The knife testing negative for blood. The knife testing positive for starch/food granules. And proper LCN procedures not being followed (according to the inventor of the technology and one of the top forensic geneticists in the world, Peter Gill) are all reasons we know with overwhelming certainty that the "positive" egram result was a false positive due to instrument or reagent contamination with DNA that was all over the lab from prior testing. Thus we know for a fact (fact being 99%+ certainty) that this was not the knife that killed Meredith.

One more hint for "Thoughtful". The large knife which was allegedly transported in Amanda's purse did not snag or cut or puncture the fabric inner-lining of her purse.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes, I realise that, my point is hypothetical. It is more important with the bra clasp,for the following reasons.
It is incontestable that Mignini was in very serious trouble when he lost the shoe print evidence. At this point, he was about to have to justify keeping in jail a man with absolutely no evidence, and this was the 23rd or so occurrence in rough succession where he would have to release suspects he had jailed. It is very likely that a reasonable person would conclude he was a disgrace to his position for such incompetence.
At this point, he absolutely needed evidence he could only hope for in vain, like holing from the 18th to get to a play off.
He sunk the shot.
How?
While there are plausible routes for contamination via the door handle, he could not possibly rely on this hope. After the identical route to conviction occurred with Arthur Allan Thomas, a case I grew up watching, where noble cause corruption was employed three months into the investigation with the planting of an incriminating cartridge case, I have always expected to see it proved again, and I think this is such a case.
The knife was probably accidental contamination, the bra clasp probably deliberate.

And yet according to Bill, and the ‘DNA experts’ here seem to agree, the bra clasp was only Y chromosome and thus not definitive.As framing goes it leaves a lot to be desired. No?

I am starting to wonder if Planigale is right in that these Italians are not very smart, relative to the English at any rate.

Who says anything like tha?

You should read the docs. Start with C&V.

Do you believe a peak above 50 is a stutter or an allele?

Oh Bill.

Prepare yourself for a shock.

Do you believe that a peak above 50 RFU is a stutter or an allele? You simply evade the question.

Who on earth said, "the bra clasp was only Y chromosome and thus not definitive."

If you would read Massei about Sample 165B, then C&V about 165B, then Hellmann about 165B, then Nencini about 165B, then you might understand the issues here.... none of which are, "the bra clasp was only Y chromosome and thus not definitive." The main sample on 165 was Meredith's found in either 6x or 8x or 10x the amount of the total of 165B depending on who you listen to.

You might start addressing real issues by answering: do you believe that a peak above 50 RFU is a stutter or an allele?

 

[codyjuneau]

One more hint for "Thoughtful". The large knife which was allegedly transported in Amanda's purse did not snag or cut or puncture the fabric inner-lining of her purse.

.
I've kind of lost track but at the last trial was the prosecution still arguing a planned murder, as in:

'I'm bored with all the sex Raf, and I've got a premonition I won't have to work tonight, so let's grab this big kitchen knife from your cutlery drawer because I don't want to dirty any of the large kitchen knives at the cottage, then see if we can find some guy on the street with his own small knife, and for laughs take him to the cottage to help us murder my friend Meredith'

or was it arguing a spontaneous non planned murder a la Massei, as in:

'Oh look, this friend of Meredith's boyfriend, the one they call the Baron or something, is murdering my friend Meredith with his little knife, that looks like such fun, let's join in, and oh how fortunate Raf, I just remembered putting a large kitchen knife from your apartment in my purse, so I won't have to dirty up any of the large kitchen knives already here at the cottage. Do be a dear and fetch it for me would you Raf?'

?
Cody
.