Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

In my correspondence with the BBC complaints department over the "Is Amanda Knox Guilty?" pseudo-documentary, they asserted that "the programme is based strictly on evidence presented in court". Yet the only "scientist" featured was Professor Balding, whose contribution never made it into evidence. Not only that, but they skipped over the whole Conti-Vecchiotti analysis - which was part of the court record.

In my opinion, that Vogt documentary shown on BBC3 was fair comment at the time, even though it was low-quality and wrong in most respects. It certainly fell well within the tolerance limits for protected free speech. At that time.

I wrote long ago that as and when Knox and Sollecito were acquitted and exonerated, that would - in and of itself - solve any substantial PR/reputational issues they might have. It would also pretty much put an end to media reports/documentaries that suggested their involvement. And that's exactly what I think has happened and will continue to happen. As they say: sunlight (through truth and justice) is the best disinfectant.

 

[lonepinealex]

In my opinion, that Vogt documentary shown on BBC3 was fair comment at the time, even though it was low-quality and wrong in most respects. It certainly fell well within the tolerance limits for protected free speech. At that time.

I wrote long ago that as and when Knox and Sollecito were acquitted and exonerated, that would - in and of itself - solve any substantial PR/reputational issues they might have. It would also pretty much put an end to media reports/documentaries that suggested their involvement. And that's exactly what I think has happened and will continue to happen. As they say: sunlight (through truth and justice) is the best disinfectant.

I agree, I think the Vogt documentary stayed on just the right side of actionable, annoyingly! And it was mainly focussed on the evidence brought before the Nencini trial.

I did complain about it at the time, but gave up after a bit of back and forth with the audience complaint people. The problem was that you couldn't argue with the fact that the doc just parroted the Nencini decision, and therefore appeared accurate because of the conclusions of that court. Those of us complaining must have sounded like tinfoil hat wearing conspiracists to the audiences team!

Anyway, it doesn't matter now, and not many people watched it so meh.

 

[Kauffer]

What David Balding actually says in the BBC documentary

-snip-

To me, it's simply not acceptable for Balding to keep referring to what lies outside his "field of competence". To take matters to extremes in order to illustrate, suppose I were a particularly nefarious lab technician who had a set of EDF data showing peaks at virtually every locus, and I then (for my own reasons) decided to scrub everything except the peaks which matched a certain individual, then gave these filtered data to Balding together with a bunch of reference profiles, he'd come back and tell me that the data showed an exact - and exclusive - match with that particular individual.

I have, verbatim, what David Balding tells the BBC about his analysis - I now think the position is more worrying than the one you describe. He clearly and dangerously over reaches, in my opinion, entering an area that is outside his field of competence, but he also makes claims for the evidence that are too much for the evidence to bear, it would seem.

"When you just look at the evidence by eye, you can see very strongly all of Raffaele Sollecito's DNA types are there and that can't be explained by any kind of environmental contamination. And I calculate how likely is the evidence under the prosecution assertion that DNA is there from Raffaele Sollecito and again how likely it is without him being present and the former is much greater than the latter, so that's when I say that it's extremely strong evidence."
Whereas, in his paper, he writes, as follows

"Note that I cannot address here issues of how the DNA came to be in the exhibit: Possible contamination was an issue in the trial and appeal. I only consider whether there is DNA from Sollecito for which the evidence remains very strong after allowing for the additional alleles identified by Vecchiotti and Conti and the possibility that apparent stutters are allelic."

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/30/12241.full

There are problems too with the language used by the narrator to introduce the Balding interview. It is misleading:

"Police say Raffaele Sollecito's DNA is on one of the hooks. This is the only evidence placing him in her bedroom. David Balding, a DNA statistician at University College London is recognised as one of the world's leading analysts. In 2012, he's asked by the Italian Forensic Association to study Meredith Kercher's bra clasp and to give an independent view on whether Sollecito's DNA is present. His findings are not part of the court case"

- the DNA on the clasp is not "evidence placing him in her bedroom"

- Balding did not 'study Meredith Kercher's bra clasp'.

Furthermore, it is not clear to me that the 'Italian Forensic Association', referred to, actually exists. Do they mean that it was the 'Italian Society of Legal Medicine', which asked Balding to look at this? Or was it, in fact, the prosecution? IIRC, Crini quoted him in closing arguments in front of Nencini.

The documentary is here:

http://youtu.be/RS9PtoLiM4M - Segment starts at approx 30:20.

 

[LondonJohn]

I have, verbatim, what David Balding tells the BBC about his analysis - I now think the position is more worrying than the one you describe. He clearly and dangerously over reaches, in my opinion, entering an area that is outside his field of competence, but he also makes claims for the evidence that are too much for the evidence to bear, it would seem.

"When you just look at the evidence by eye, you can see very strongly all of Raffaele Sollecito's DNA types are there and that can't be explained by any kind of environmental contamination. And I calculate how likely is the evidence under the prosecution assertion that DNA is there from Raffaele Sollecito and again how likely it is without him being present and the former is much greater than the latter, so that's when I say that it's extremely strong evidence."
There are problems too with the language used by the narrator to introduce the Balding interview. It is misleading:

"Police say Raffaele Sollecito's DNA is on one of the hooks. This is the only evidence placing him in her bedroom. David Balding, a DNA statistician at University College London is recognised as one of the world's leading analysts. In 2012, he's asked by the Italian Forensic Association to study Meredith Kercher's bra clasp and to give an independent view on whether Sollecito's DNA is present. His findings are not part if the court case"

- the DNA on the clasp is not "evidence placing him in her bedroom"

- Balding did not 'study Meredith Kercher's bra clasp'.

Furthermore, it is not clear to me that the 'Italian Forensic Association', referred to, actually exists. Do they mean that it was the 'Italian Society of Legal Medicine', which asked Balding to look at this? Or was it, in fact, the prosecution? IIRC, Crini quoted him in closing arguments in front of Nencini.

http://youtu.be/RS9PtoLiM4M - Segment starts at approx 30:20.

Indeed - and this is the nub of the problem here. Balding is in fact only able, both logically and ethically, to state that the data he was given show Sollecito's DNA profile. That's all.

When he starts trying to place his findings into a real-world situation, where he draws (incorrect) inferences regarding the actual evidence against Sollecito, he's acting from a position of ignorance and incomplete information.

To go back to my little example for a moment, it would be as if the statistician tasked with analysing the filtered numbers I'd given him were to say something like "The machine outputs the number 7 more than any other number". In fact, all the statistician could say was that from the data (s)he was given, the number 7 occurred more than any other number. And (s)he would have actually have been factually incorrect to say that the machine outputs the number 7 the most, since the unfiltered data show that 4 is the most common output number. And what would be worse would be if that statistician didn't even know that the numbers had gone through my subjective filtering exercise before (s)he was given them to work with.

Balding's comment on environmental contamination is, as you point out, worse still. It's stunningly ignorant and, as you say, entirely outside his field of competence and his remit. From an academic, this is an extremely worrying situation.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

how about a second point of view on the DNA

In my correspondence with the BBC complaints department over the "Is Amanda Knox Guilty?" pseudo-documentary, they asserted that "the programme is based strictly on evidence presented in court". Yet the only "scientist" featured was Professor Balding, whose contribution never made it into evidence. Not only that, but they skipped over the whole Conti-Vecchiotti analysis - which was part of the court record.

Antony,

Good point. Or if they were going to run with Dr. Balding, then they should have put someone else on to balance the program, for example Alan Jamieson or Mehul Anjaria. Dr Balding's expertise is not in the area of benchtop work, so someone with the appropriate experience would have made sense.

 

[carbonjam72]

Just a quick observation - Selene Nelson acknowledged on twitter that she had been paid for 1 anti-knox article.

So which article? Wo paid her? Who else did they pay for guilter articles? Where? When?

The phony meme of Amanda's PR super-tanker, seems once again an intentional distraction from the guilter's own identical behavior. Total hypocrisy.

There is probably no better description of Mignini's conduct in the case and his own true character, than all the aspersions he's hurled at others.

 

[anglolawyer]

Indeed - and this is the nub of the problem here. Balding is in fact only able, both logically and ethically, to state that the data he was given show Sollecito's DNA profile. That's all.

When he starts trying to place his findings into a real-world situation, where he draws (incorrect) inferences regarding the actual evidence against Sollecito, he's acting from a position of ignorance and incomplete information.

To go back to my little example for a moment, it would be as if the statistician tasked with analysing the filtered numbers I'd given him were to say something like "The machine outputs the number 7 more than any other number". In fact, all the statistician could say was that from the data (s)he was given, the number 7 occurred more than any other number. And (s)he would have actually have been factually incorrect to say that the machine outputs the number 7 the most, since the unfiltered data show that 4 is the most common output number. And what would be worse would be if that statistician didn't even know that the numbers had gone through my subjective filtering exercise before (s)he was given them to work with.

Balding's comment on environmental contamination is, as you point out, worse still. It's stunningly ignorant and, as you say, entirely outside his field of competence and his remit. From an academic, this is an extremely worrying situation.

To you and Kauffer

It seems to me that Balding has allowed himself to be taken under the guilter-wing and to have been flattered and tempted by their attention into stepping beyond the proper boundaries of his field.

 

[analemma]

And from that point on the cycle that the later judges got caught in was this - Gentlemen, start your imaginations. Pooh in the toilet. Argument over rent money.

The important thing from Massei onwards was not to explain to the Kerchers how their loved one was brutally murdered - it was to save judicial ass. Knox and Sollecito were just collateral damage. I mean, why not just lock up someone who sang at the oddest moments in exchange for protecting powerful men?

Bill
I could not agree more: "it was to save judicial ass"
BTW,
"Gentlemen, start your imaginations" is priceless

 

[Kauffer]

Just a quick observation - Selene Nelson acknowledged on twitter that she had been paid for 1 anti-knox article.

So which article? Wo paid her? Who else did they pay for guilter articles? Where? When?

The phony meme of Amanda's PR super-tanker, seems once again an intentional distraction from the guilter's own identical behavior. Total hypocrisy.

There is probably no better description of Mignini's conduct in the case and his own true character, than all the aspersions he's hurled at others.

I would guess that the one she was paid for was this "huffpouk" article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/selene-nelson/amanda-knox-pr_b_5694432.html

Interestingly, Nelson works as a "content executive" for a digital marketing company called "Jellyfish" in Brighton and Nigel Scott has suggested that her connections there may well have helped her in placing the article.

See:

"Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and the troll factor"
http://injustice-anywhere.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/HolidayNewsletter2014PDF.pdf

http://www.jellyfish.co.uk

 

[analemma]

Almost ...but no.

LOL

 

[analemma]

Just a quick observation - Selene Nelson acknowledged on twitter that she had been paid for 1 anti-knox article.

So which article? Wo paid her? Who else did they pay for guilter articles? Where? When?

The phony meme of Amanda's PR super-tanker, seems once again an intentional distraction from the guilter's own identical behavior. Total hypocrisy.

There is probably no better description of Mignini's conduct in the case and his own true character, than all the aspersions he's hurled at others.

Sorry,

I missed the post above with the dettails

 

[katy_did]

"When you just look at the evidence by eye, you can see very strongly all of Raffaele Sollecito's DNA types are there and that can't be explained by any kind of environmental contamination. And I calculate how likely is the evidence under the prosecution assertion that DNA is there from Raffaele Sollecito and again how likely it is without him being present and the former is much greater than the latter, so that's when I say that it's extremely strong evidence."

The way I interpret the first highlighted part is that he's saying environmental contamination couldn't have replicated Sollecito's DNA, not that his DNA couldn't have arrived there through environmental contamination.

I don't quite understand the bit about "...how likely it is without him being present..." etc and which two theories he's comparing there. Is he still talking about how likely it is to be Raffaele's DNA or is he talking about how it got there?

 

[Kauffer]

The way I interpret the first highlighted part is that he's saying environmental contamination couldn't have replicated Sollecito's DNA, not that his DNA couldn't have arrived there through environmental contamination.

I don't quite understand the bit about "...how likely it is without him being present..." etc and which two theories he's comparing there. Is he still talking about how likely it is to be Raffaele's DNA or is he talking about how it got there?

I'm not sure I understand your point. Replication refers to the PCR process doesn't it? He doesn't mention that. Indeed, he has no knowledge of it. All he has is an electropherogram. Have I misunderstood you? (And him?).

 

[katy_did]

I'm not sure I understand your point. Replication refers to the PCR process doesn't it? He doesn't mention that. Indeed, he has no knowledge of it. All he has is an electropherogram. Have I misunderstood you? (And him?).

Sorry, perhaps I should've used "reproduced" Sollecito's DNA to avoid confusion!

I mean that he's saying those results wouldn't have been obtained unless Sollecito's DNA were actually present in the sample they were analysing, and that environmental contamination on its own (absent Sollecito's DNA) wouldn't have produced those results. I don't think he's making a comment on how Sollecito's DNA arrived on the clasp, just whether or not it's there at all.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

thanks for dropping in

The way I interpret the first highlighted part is that he's saying environmental contamination couldn't have replicated Sollecito's DNA, not that his DNA couldn't have arrived there through environmental contamination.

I don't quite understand the bit about "...how likely it is without him being present..." etc and which two theories he's comparing there. Is he still talking about how likely it is to be Raffaele's DNA or is he talking about how it got there?

katydid,

I interpret his statement to be about the DNA, not about Raffaele's being present in the murder room at the time of the murder. Clearly the latter would be a fallacy in the sense of taking sub-source level DNA evidence and drawing conclusions at the activity level. With respect to environmental DNA, it is possible that some PG commenters, including Thoughtful, are trying to draw a distinction between one or two drop-in alleles and Sollecito's putative profile.

 

[katy_did]

In other words, if you leave an object in a room and it's contaminated by partial profiles of lots of people's DNA, according to Balding it's still unlikely that by chance you'd get a full profile for Sollecito. Therefore it's much more likely Sollecito's DNA is actually there (regardless of how it might have got there).

 

[LondonJohn]

The way I interpret the first highlighted part is that he's saying environmental contamination couldn't have replicated Sollecito's DNA, not that his DNA couldn't have arrived there through environmental contamination.

I don't quite understand the bit about "...how likely it is without him being present..." etc and which two theories he's comparing there. Is he still talking about how likely it is to be Raffaele's DNA or is he talking about how it got there?

No - I think Balding is being explicit (and he explains his position in a different way in the second sentence of that quote) in stating this:

As a result of studying the electropherograms provided to him by the prosecution, Balding is saying that

a) Sollecito's profile is on the bra clasp;

b) by his "calculations", it's far more likely that Sollecito's profile that he sees on the clasp is there because Sollecito actually touched that clasp in person, as opposed to the DNA having been deposited there second-hand+ (i.e. via secondary+ contamination);

c) therefore he can conclude that the bra clasp is "extremely strong evidence" against Sollecito - since it shows (to him) that Sollecito must have touched that clasp directly, and obviously that would be hard for an innocent Sollecito to explain.


And I cannot see how he could possibly have arrived at (b) or (c) in a logically-rigorous manner - and even (a) is potentially debatable given that Balding was working with data that had already been filtered by Stefanoni. When you realise that Balding doesn't even appear to understand that he was only ever working with a subjectively-filtered set of data, it makes his conclusion (and him) even less credible.

 

[katy_did]

katydid,

I interpret his statement to be about the DNA, not about Raffaele's being present in the murder room at the time of the murder. Clearly the latter would be a fallacy in the sense of taking sub-source level DNA evidence and drawing conclusions at the activity level. With respect to environmental DNA, it is possible that some PG commenters, including Thoughtful, are trying to draw a distinction between one or two drop-in alleles and Sollecito's putative profile.

Thanks Chris, yes that seems the most likely interpretation to me too. I think Balding is only interested in whether Raffaele's DNA is on the clasp and that he's not commenting on the different ways it might have got there. He does phrase it a bit confusingly though!

 

[Sergei Walankov]

Sounds right to me. As I understand it, he's developed a statistical model that tells you the likelihood of this set of data implying the presence of that set of data, taking into account the height of the peaks and everything else. I can very easily see how a statistician could do such a thing without actually knowing that much about DNA forensics.

 

[katy_did]

No - I think Balding is being explicit (and he explains his position in a different way in the second sentence of that quote) in stating this:

As a result of studying the electropherograms provided to him by the prosecution, Balding is saying that

a) Sollecito's profile is on the bra clasp;

b) by his "calculations", it's far more likely that the reason for this is that Sollecito touched that clasp in person than that the DNA was deposited there second-hand+ (i.e. via secondary+ contamination);

c) therefore he can conclude that the bra clasp is "extremely strong evidence" against Sollecito - since it shows (to him) that Sollecito must have touched that clasp directly, and obviously that would be hard for an innocent Sollecito to explain.

No, I think he's calculating how likely you'd be to get those results if Sollecito's DNA were present, and how likely you'd be to get them if his DNA weren't present. The two theories are:

a) The results are due to Sollecito's DNA being present in the mixture, and;

b) Sollecito's DNA isn't present in the mixture; the results are due to contamination from a combination of other people's profiles.

I don't see how he could make any determination of how it arrived there, and at least here he doesn't give any reasons or explanations which might support that.