Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[CoulsdonUK]

What is the relevance of Dr Gill’s opinion in the context of this case and the judicial proceedings? He was not called as an expert witness by either defence teams during the trial or any of the subsequent appeals; he certainly will not be appearing before the court of cassations next week, that’s for sure.

 

[Dan O.]

He does kind of have a vested interest in keeping alive the prosecution theory that he, Amanda and Raffaele all arrived at the house together. Admitting that it was him in the video tends to undermine that (not that I know whether it's him or not, but I can see why he might lie about it if it is).

I hadn't thought of that angle. He is lying to discredit his original story and support Mignini's. You win this round.

 

[Dan O.]

What is the relevance of Dr Gill’s opinion in the context of this case and the judicial proceedings? He was not called as an expert witness by either defence teams during the trial or any of the subsequent appeals; he certainly will not be appearing before the court of cassations next week, that’s for sure.

Have you still not noticed that this is an Internet forum. We are not bound by the rules of the court in seeking our own truth.

 

[katy_did]

What is the relevance of Dr Gill’s opinion in the context of this case and the judicial proceedings? He was not called as an expert witness by either defence teams during the trial or any of the subsequent appeals; he certainly will not be appearing before the court of cassations next week, that’s for sure.

Mostly the fact he invented LCN DNA testing, I think.

IIRC he was also referenced by defence, prosecution, and C & V in court testimony and documents (Crini called him the father of LCN DNA testing, or something similar).

 

[Diocletus]

What is the relevance of Dr Gill’s opinion in the context of this case and the judicial proceedings? He was not called as an expert witness by either defence teams during the trial or any of the subsequent appeals; he certainly will not be appearing before the court of cassations next week, that’s for sure.

I guess we'll see, since his book is cited in raffaele's appeal brief. And, perhaps one or two of the cassation judges watch ports a porta.

 

[katy_did]

I hadn't thought of that angle. He is lying to discredit his original story and support Mignini's. You win this round.

Haha, thanks.

I don't think it's so much that he wants to discredit his story, more that he's walking this fine line between on the one hand repeating a story everyone knows is a lie (and he knows we know it's a lie) while on the other keeping open the possibility the prosecution story might actually be true. The defence were the ones trying to argue it was him, so maybe he just disagreed on principle.

Or y'know, perhaps it really isn't him (I'm not convinced it is him myself).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Gill's interviews

What is the relevance of Dr Gill’s opinion in the context of this case and the judicial proceedings? He was not called as an expert witness by either defence teams during the trial or any of the subsequent appeals; he certainly will not be appearing before the court of cassations next week, that’s for sure.

CoulsdonUK,

Your argument is exactly the same as that of PG commenters elsewhere on the web, not that I am implying any connection. However, it is worth examining regardless of its source. One point of relevance is that what Professor Gill has said is not that different from what other experts who were part of the trial (Conti & Vecchiotti and Budowle) have said, but it gains credibility as it becomes clear that a number of scientists are in agreement. Another point is that Professor Gill is not generally thought of as a critic of low template DNA profiling in the same way as Professor Budowle has been perceived. A second point is that science works differently from many other disciplines in that it is more nearly objective. If two people perform a scientific experiment, the result should be the same, regardless of gender, ethnicity, etc. of the scientists. Likewise, when one scientist reviews the work of another (in a manuscript or grant proposal), competent reviewers don't change their reviews on the basis of such considerations. What I am getting at is that whether a scientist does or does not appear at a trial is relatively unimportant. As W. Wallace Cleland said, "The data are the data." Yes, it could be argued that the opposing counsel might be able to ask some devastating questions in cross-examination, but while I acknowledge this possibility in theory, I discount it in practice. The lawyers and the judges know very little about forensic science.

 

[sept79]

What is the relevance of Dr Gill’s opinion in the context of this case and the judicial proceedings? He was not called as an expert witness by either defence teams during the trial or any of the subsequent appeals; he certainly will not be appearing before the court of cassations next week, that’s for sure.

If there were an unassailable truth serum, would you not attempt to have it administered to the defendants in this case?

Hmm, maybe administering it to 'dr.' Stefanoni would be appropriate . . .

 

[carbonjam72]

Because you can't enhance what is not there ( in the image). Either you have enough resolution ir you don't. However it can help when you have a noisy image.

I agree that information that is missing, can't be replaced if it isn't captured originally. However, I would have thought that if one knew the original parameters of the photographic instrument, that an evaluation of pixels that are present might allow for a mathematical interpolation of pixel measurement and enhancement, that could allow for things like, better sharper images.

So, if for example, there's a pattern say; 1,2,3,4.....9.10,11,12; one might guess the intervening values as 5,6,7,8.

I was under the impression that some facial recognition software have used this technique, having real world investigators going back to the original site of the photographs to take precise measurements of identifiable objects in frame, so as to help reconstruct the photos underlying physical characteristics.

So the photograph may lack clarity based on the original, but the missing information might yet be susceptible to approximation, by which the object or scene being photographed could be reconstructed in a more cognizable form. It's actually not technically real or direct evidence anymore. But it could conceivably be good enough to allow a reading of the plate from a state of being unreadable, to possibly readable.

I could have sworn this is an actual discipline. I will be heartbroken if I've been duped by pseudo science, as it seems like such an obvious extension of the basic math. I'd be shocked if this isn't real.

 

[Bill Williams]

What is the relevance of Dr Gill’s opinion in the context of this case and the judicial proceedings? He was not called as an expert witness by either defence teams during the trial or any of the subsequent appeals; he certainly will not be appearing before the court of cassations next week, that’s for sure.

If there were an unassailable truth serum, would you not attempt to have it administered to the defendants in this case?

Dr. Gill is the kind of person who should have been called - indeed, should have been used by the prosecution in assessing the evidence they wanted to bring to trial.

With the exception of Conti & Vecchiotti, all attempts to bring in such independent opinion was rejected by the courts. So if Dr. Gill himself had been recommended to the court, the court (in all likelihood) would have rejected him.

 

[carbonjam72]

What is the relevance of Dr Gill’s opinion in the context of this case and the judicial proceedings? He was not called as an expert witness by either defence teams during the trial or any of the subsequent appeals; he certainly will not be appearing before the court of cassations next week, that’s for sure.

It gives cassation the option of citing Dr Gill as an authority in support of their evaluation of the DNA evidence in the case.

Whereas it also becomes more difficult to support the previous cassation ruling overturning Hellman and upon which Nencini's verdict is based, which as Dr Gill pointed out, reverses the burden of proof, and that which is effectively an impossible burden for the defendants to meet in this or any case. And as Dr Gill points out, it is especially troubling in a case, like this, where DNA is the only evidence.

Reversing the burden of proof with DNA evidence is bad case law and it has to be fixed. AT this point, I think its a no-brainer these convictions will be vacated.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

Your argument is exactly the same as that of PG commenters elsewhere on the web, not that I am implying any connection. However, it is worth examining regardless of its source. One point of relevance is that what Professor Gill has said is not that different from what other experts who were part of the trial (Conti & Vecchiotti and Budowle) have said, but it gains credibility as it becomes clear that a number of scientists are in agreement. Another point is that Professor Gill is not generally thought of as a critic of low template DNA profiling in the same way as Professor Budowle has been perceived. A second point is that science works differently from many other disciplines in that it is more nearly objective. If two people perform a scientific experiment, the result should be the same, regardless of gender, ethnicity, etc. of the scientists. Likewise, when one scientist reviews the work of another (in a manuscript or grant proposal), competent reviewers don't change their reviews on the basis of such considerations. What I am getting at is that whether a scientist does or does not appear at a trial is relatively unimportant. As W. Wallace Cleland said, "The data are the data." Yes, it could be argued that the opposing counsel might be able to ask some devastating questions in cross-examination, but while I acknowledge this possibility in theory, I discount it in practice. The lawyers and the judges know very little about forensic science.

Chris_Halkides

My point as ever is a simple one, namely Dr Gill did not appear as an expert witness in the trial or subsequent appeals and at this stage of the process I fail to see how his opinion can or will have any impact on proceedings next week. Judicially speaking Conti & Vecchiotti have been knocked into the deep rough and I do not recall Dr Budowle expert testimony.

I do find this all rather bizarre, it is almost though some folks believe experts such as Dr Gill and Dr Budowle transcend a judicial process.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Hoey case and low template work

katydid,

Thanks for the link. "The central plank in the attack made on the evidential value and reliability of this system by the Defence witnesses, Dr Krane and Professor Jamison, was that the LCN system which had been invented by Dr Gill of Birmingham FSS and whose use for evidential purposes is being promoted by him and a colleague at that laboratory, Dr Whitaker, has not been 'validated' by the international scientific community."

When an inventor of one type of LCN profiling speaks out against low template results in a particular case, it carries some weight IMO.

 

[Desert Fox]

I'm surprised to hear this.

I thought it was a recognized field, and that the FBI has a unit devoted to digital photo enhancement, and regularly consults experts in the field. (I remember some guy named Hani something from Dartmouth).

I'd be very surprised to find out I'm mistaken in this regard. Photo optical reconstruction through pixel analysis seems intuitively obvious as a field.

Wonder why you're so sure its an urban myth?

This gives a pretty good description of what I am arguing
http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/43078/stop-believing-tvs-lies-the-real-truth-about-enhancing-images/

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Budowle's letter

Chris_Halkides

My point as ever is a simple one, namely Dr Gill did not appear as an expert witness in the trial or subsequent appeals and at this stage of the process I fail to see how his opinion can or will have any impact on proceedings next week. Judicially speaking Conti & Vecchiotti have been knocked into the deep rough and I do not recall Dr Budowle expert testimony.

I do find this all rather bizarre, it is almost though some folks believe experts such as Dr Gill and Dr Budowle transcend a judicial process.

CoulsdonUK,

YMMV, but I cannot help but be impressed with both Professor Gill's credentials and his arguments. The defense wished for Professor Budowle to testify, but Judge Hellman demurred. He did, however, accept a letter from Dr. Budowle that is now part of the court record. I am not sure what being knocked into the deep rough means in this context. Professors Conti and Vecchiotti's report is likewise part of the court record. If a new evidentiary trial takes place, the new court could use it. They should use it in preference to the misleading quarter-truths that Professor Novelli provided IMO.

The fact that you are putting words into people's mouths such as "transcend" is disappointing and not accurate. Those of us in the reality-based community don't need a court to make up our minds about what constitutes properly versus improperly performed DNA profiling. The court will do whatever it wants to do, but it cannot change the reality of DNA profiling.

 

[Bill Williams]

Chris_Halkides

My point as ever is a simple one, namely Dr Gill did not appear as an expert witness in the trial or subsequent appeals and at this stage of the process I fail to see how his opinion can or will have any impact on proceedings next week. Judicially speaking Conti & Vecchiotti have been knocked into the deep rough and I do not recall Dr Budowle expert testimony.

I do find this all rather bizarre, it is almost though some folks believe experts such as Dr Gill and Dr Budowle transcend a judicial process.

As I understand it, this is a very accurate rendering of the Conti & Vecchiotti report, judicially speaking. If it had been annulled along with the Hellmann verdict, then Nencini should not have made any reference to it, at all.

Remember, part of the annulment in March 2103 against Hellmann, was that Cassazione said that Hellmann (the judge) de facto allowed Vechiotti (only the expert) to make the judicial decision with regard to the testing of Exhibit 36I. Indeed one of the few bits of new evidence Nencini allowed, was because he was directed by ISC to test 36I: which if you remember came back in the defence's favour.

Nencini also evaluated C&V's findings that contamination could not be ruled out, by calling such "generalized" findings and "abstract possibilities" as being "deceptive" in the context of a criminal trial. (Note: Nencini, on page 196 of his report, effectively reverses the burden of proof with regards to contamination..... but that is for another conversation.)

Also, on pages 215ff Nencini makes copious reference to why in his opinion, Conti & Vecchiotti are wrong on specific points, begging the question as to why he's mentioning them at all, if C&V died with Hellmann. Nencini makes many points which start with the assumption that Vecchiotti disagreed with the merits of Stefanoni's analysis, and even Nencini subsequently believe these objections needed explaining - why do that if C&V was dead?

And the last thing is - why did Nencini feel a need to assign identities (even if it's just a guess on his part) to the other minor contributors to 165B? The only people who specifically say that there ARE more minor identities are Conti & Vecchiotti.

So CoulsdonUK, it is a fairly accurate expression.... C&V have been assigned to the rough. Many claim that they've been banned from the golf course all together.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

YMMV, but I cannot help but be impressed with both Professor Gill's credentials and his arguments. The defense wished for Professor Budowle to testify, but Judge Hellman demurred. He did, however, accept a letter from Dr. Budowle that is now part of the court record. I am not sure what being knocked into the deep rough means in this context. Professors Conti and Vecchiotti's report is likewise part of the court record. If a new evidentiary trial takes place, the new court could use it. They should use it in preference to the misleading quarter-truths that Professor Novelli provided IMO.

The fact that you are putting words into people's mouths such as "transcend" is disappointing and not accurate. Those of us in the reality-based community don't need a court to make up our minds about what constitutes properly versus improperly performed DNA profiling. The court will do whatever it wants to do, but it cannot change the reality of DNA profiling.

Oh ok, well the simple reality in this case like any other murder case it will be resolved in a court of law, whether an Italian court or ECHR, it will be a judicial reality.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Nencini's necessities

And the last thing is - why did Nencini feel a need to assign identities (even if it's just a guess on his part) to the other minor contributors to 165B? The only people who specifically say that there ARE more minor identities are Conti & Vecchiotti.

Bill Williams,

I realize that this is incidental to your main argument, but Nencini may have felt that he needed to discuss the minor profiles because Novelli's table acknowledged that there were indeed additional contributors to the YSTR electropherogram. As profoundly as I disagree with Novelli on some things, I agree with him that there were such contributors, and I recently posted a portion of the electropherogram that shows some of the peaks which necessitates this conclusion.

 

[LondonJohn]

As I understand it, this is a very accurate rendering of the Conti & Vecchiotti report, judicially speaking. If it had been annulled along with the Hellmann verdict, then Nencini should not have made any reference to it, at all.

Remember, part of the annulment in March 2103 against Hellmann, was that Cassazione said that Hellmann (the judge) de facto allowed Vechiotti (only the expert) to make the judicial decision with regard to the testing of Exhibit 36I. Indeed one of the few bits of new evidence Nencini allowed, was because he was directed by ISC to test 36I: which if you remember came back in the defence's favour.

Nencini also evaluated C&V's findings that contamination could not be ruled out, by calling such "generalized" findings and "abstract possibilities" as being "deceptive" in the context of a criminal trial. (Note: Nencini, on page 196 of his report, effectively reverses the burden of proof with regards to contamination..... but that is for another conversation.)

Also, on pages 215ff Nencini makes copious reference to why in his opinion, Conti & Vecchiotti are wrong on specific points, begging the question as to why he's mentioning them at all, if C&V died with Hellmann. Nencini makes many points which start with the assumption that Vecchiotti disagreed with the merits of Stefanoni's analysis, and even Nencini subsequently believe these objections needed explaining - why do that if C&V was dead?

And the last thing is - why did Nencini feel a need to assign identities (even if it's just a guess on his part) to the other minor contributors to 165B? The only people who specifically say that there ARE more minor identities are Conti & Vecchiotti.

So CoulsdonUK, it is a fairly accurate expression.... C&V have been assigned to the rough. Many claim that they've been banned from the golf course all together.

I disagree though. I believe the C/V Report still stands in its entirety (including its conclusions) as evidence in this case. What the Supreme Court ruled was that the Hellmann verdict was incorrect and unlawful, but that doesn't in any way consign evidence/testimony gathered in the Hellmann trial to the rubbish (garbage).

If, for example, the Italian Supreme Court sent the case back, yet again, to the appeal court level, I believe the C/V Report could be used (presumably by the defence) in argument. I don't really understand why the defence teams didn't seek to use it more in the Nencini trial, but perhaps they understood the implicit instruction to convict that had been handed down by the Supreme Court in that instance.

 

[LondonJohn]

CoulsdonUK,

YMMV, but I cannot help but be impressed with both Professor Gill's credentials and his arguments. The defense wished for Professor Budowle to testify, but Judge Hellman demurred. He did, however, accept a letter from Dr. Budowle that is now part of the court record. I am not sure what being knocked into the deep rough means in this context. Professors Conti and Vecchiotti's report is likewise part of the court record. If a new evidentiary trial takes place, the new court could use it. They should use it in preference to the misleading quarter-truths that Professor Novelli provided IMO.

The fact that you are putting words into people's mouths such as "transcend" is disappointing and not accurate. Those of us in the reality-based community don't need a court to make up our minds about what constitutes properly versus improperly performed DNA profiling. The court will do whatever it wants to do, but it cannot change the reality of DNA profiling.

And aside from this, it's nonsense to suggest that the expert opinion of someone like Gill might not have a future role to play in this sorry saga. After all, if there are convictions there will be a) an extradition battle for Knox, and b) most probably applications by both Knox and Sollecito to the ECHR. In all of these potential future judicial processes, the opinion of Gill (and others) might very well play an important part.