Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

I thought HuffPO never pays anyone? Maybe different in UK?

The Huffington Post certainly doesn't pay for blog pieces, but I think it does sometimes pay for proper copy in the main section - but its rates are (unsurprisingly) very low, which brings to mind the old adage: "if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys" ).

Many people - "serious" freelance journos and bloggers alike - seem to use exposure in the Huffington Post as a way of marketing their work, and of driving traffic to sites they control. And if they're hosting advertising on their own sites, a HuffPo article or blog piece can indirectly result in additional advertising revenue.

 

[Sergei Walankov]

At the time I thought he had over-reached, but listening to this discussion, I'm getting the sense that it may have to do with creative editing by Vogt to give an inaccurate sense of what Baldong actually said.

I just think he used the word "evidence" in its scientific sense in a context where it wasn't going to be interpreted as such.

 

[Kauffer]

I thought HuffPO never pays anyone? Maybe different in UK?

You maybe right - it seemed like the most high profile organ of the ones she's written for - hence my guess.

 

[carbonjam72]

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

By the way, how ironic would it be, if Selene's article alleging Knox only is seen as being innocent because of a PR campaign, was itself part of a PR campaign?

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Or more like the Pot mistaking the toaster for a kettle, and calling it black just for spite.

 

[carbonjam72]

I just think he used the word "evidence" in its scientific sense in a context where it wasn't going to be interpreted as such.

Is that then Balding's fault, or a consequence of Vogt's editing? Or just one more 'happy accident' we can add to Stefanoni's lab work?

(I can't explain why I keep misspelling Balding as Baldong, I wonder if Tesla's tablet could be somehow implicated?)

 

[LondonJohn]

Is that then Baldong's fault, or a consequence of Vogt's editing. Or just one more 'happy accident' we can add to Stefanoni's lab work?

Careful! This is an even more unfortunate misspelling of his name than "Blading"

 

[Dan O.]

Maybe. But he should know full well that the term "evidence" has a specific meaning when he's working in the world of criminal trials. It means that the fact has probative value in regard to assessing guilt or non-guilt.

And his findings about the bra clasp can only be considered "strong evidence" under this definition once one has also considered how and why Sollecito's DNA might have come to be present on the clasp. Until and unless that is considered, he should have been using terminology such as this: "...it's an extremely strong indicator that Sollecito's DNA was physically present on that bra clasp".

I think you still go too far. The presence of Sollecito's DNA is indicated but how that DNA got into the analysis is not.

 

[Kauffer]

Careful! This is an even more unfortunate misspelling of his name than "Blading"

But of course, if you look, you will see he is actually balding. I have found it helps to visualise before writing.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think you still go too far. The presence of Sollecito's DNA is indicated but how that DNA got into the analysis is not.

You don't think the words "extremely strong evidence" are inappropriate - particularly in the context of the understanding of "evidence" in a criminal trial - if Balding's only (as seems to be the case) saying that it's extremely likely that Sollecito's DNA was physically present on the bra clasp?

Note that I'm not stating that Balding is necessarily trying to knowingly use the term "evidence" in the sense of a trial - i.e. that he's saying that his conclusions are extremely strong evidence of Sollecito's guilt - but that he simply shouldn't be introducing this sort of ambiguity through his choice of words.

 

[carbonjam72]

You don't think the words "extremely strong evidence" are inappropriate - particularly in the context of the understanding of "evidence" in a criminal trial - if Balding's only (as seems to be the case) saying that it's extremely likely that Sollecito's DNA was physically present on the bra clasp?

Note that I'm not stating that Balding is necessarily trying to knowingly use the term "evidence" in the sense of a trial - i.e. that he's saying that his conclusions are extremely strong evidence of Sollecito's guilt - but that he simply shouldn't be introducing this sort of ambiguity through his choice of words.

His (Bald...'s etc) words yes, but chosen and placed in sequence by Vogt and her editorial staff.

 

[LondonJohn]

His (Bald...'s etc) words yes, but chosen and placed in sequence by Vogt and her editorial staff.

Well that's true too of course. It's interesting (and amusing, not to mention ironic) to see how pro-guilt commentators are slowly coming to realise what a biddable shill Arrrndrea Vogt is

 

[Bill Williams]

Well that's true too of course. It's interesting (and amusing, not to mention ironic) to see how pro-guilt commentators are slowly coming to realise what a biddable shill Arrrndrea Vogt is

Is An-DREY-a Vogt now distancing herself from Mignini? At one point she was a virtual press agent for him. Look at the number of times she quotes an anonymous legal source.......

 

[Bill Williams]

Related to this: Maresca said today that his time defending the Kerchers is formally over. Case closed.

But "defending"!? At most he was **advancing** their interests at trial! To the point of his shameful display of Meredith's lifeless body in court.

He was defending the police and Mignini, he was never truly serving the Kercher's interests. I don't know why that's so hard for them to figure out.

I need to correct something - as per a PM I got. I may have left the impression that the relationship between the Kerchers and Maresca is now severed. I do not know that.

The intent of Mareca's statement was merely to say that as far as the criminal case involving AK and RS, and the concurrent victim's prosecution of it, it is now "case closed" as per the ISC acquittal and annulment and exoneration.

No use criticizing the other side of taking liberties with facts, if one does it as well.

 

[Grinder]

No use criticizing the other side of taking liberties with facts, if one does it as well.

Btw do you know how you were characterized on Porta-a-Porta?

 

[Kaosium]

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.

I think that's it. He was probably putty in their hands. When I was reading his page I noted he was non-plussed by some marketing campaigns for those genealogy kits or whatever it was, he called it a 'PR campaign.' He also seemed bemused that an article on his paper highlighted the fact that he'd eliminated Amanda Knox as a contributor, perhaps he didn't realize that 'The Machine' and friends had been saying for six or so years (at that point) that Amanda Knox's DNA was on the clasp as they'd misinterpreted/mistranslated/lied about what that defense expert said.

I would like to see an experiment where a lab is set up and then have about a dozen people trash it much like the Polizia Scientifica did processing that room, including taking things in and out to the non-sterilized hall and the items in the room tossed like in Meredith's room. Then the door and a window in the hall is left open for six weeks and forensic technicians who don't bother with changing gloves or other standards collect numerous items from the room and see if any DNA can be found at the ~100 RFU level with a 28 cycle Identifiler kit.

If Dr. Balding's right, there's no point to all those collection and testing standards everyone else seems to think necessary with low template DNA. He might well save a lot of organizations quite a bit of cash and make everyone else look like utter fools for buying into the idea that they needed to be careful when collecting samples and preserving crime scenes with low template DNA.

Then cheek swabs can be taken from all the officers and we'll see if Dr. Balding can use his skills to see who planted Raffaele's DNA on that clasp. With all the evidence of police malfeasance in this case it can hardly be pretended that one match with Raffaele was more likely the only evidence of his participation in the crime rather than slight-of-hand by a desperate police force who realized they had no real evidence against Raffaele and had to find some quickly or they'd have to admit to the mistake.

 

[Numbers]

Maybe. But he should know full well that the term "evidence" has a specific meaning when he's working in the world of criminal trials. It means that the fact has probative value in regard to assessing guilt or non-guilt.

And his findings about the bra clasp can only be considered "strong evidence" under this definition once one has also considered how and why Sollecito's DNA might have come to be present on the clasp. Until and unless that is considered, he should have been using terminology such as this: "...it's an extremely strong indicator that Sollecito's DNA was physically present on that bra clasp".

I think you still go too far. The presence of Sollecito's DNA is indicated but how that DNA got into the analysis is not.

Based on the evidence and lack of evidence from Stefanoni's lab itself, in terms of procedures and sample handling, there can be no assurance that the DNA profile alleged to be Sollecito's, and as reported as originating from the bra clasp, actually was ever present on the bra clasp. There is evidence of contamination and tampering with the samples in Stefanoni' lab. See:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/bra-clasp-contamination/

 

[acbytesla]

Not having read in detail Balding's work, I am curious as a laymen just how correct the statistical analysis of DNA match profiling actually is. It seems that coming up with credible and reliable odds at this time in history might border on impossible.

For example. As I understand, there are say 20 markers in a set. And we look for the number of matches at each marker. Do statisticians assume that the odds of matching each marker is the same? Or can and do they recognize that the odds of matching certain specific markers are higher and lower at each individual position?

 

[Dan O.]

You don't think the words "extremely strong evidence" are inappropriate - particularly in the context of the understanding of "evidence" in a criminal trial - if Balding's only (as seems to be the case) saying that it's extremely likely that Sollecito's DNA was physically present on the bra clasp?

Note that I'm not stating that Balding is necessarily trying to knowingly use the term "evidence" in the sense of a trial - i.e. that he's saying that his conclusions are extremely strong evidence of Sollecito's guilt - but that he simply shouldn't be introducing this sort of ambiguity through his choice of words.

He is not a lawyer so you shouldn't be attributing legal precision to the words he chooses.

Before Balding I looked at this problem myself. You have a result that is a given profile and the natural question to ask is if this result is due to the presence of Raffaele or a coincidence of DNA fragments mimicking Raffaele. At the level of this analysis, the "presence of Raffaele" can only mean the presence of whole cells of Raffaele's DNA material. From that starting point we can apply statistical methods and arrive at a conclusion. The resulting profile is very strong evidence that DNA from Raffaele was present.

We can use this result to eliminate those theories of random DNA fragments mimicing Raffaele's presence and focus on the theories involving direct or indirect transfer.

 

[Grinder]

Mach wrote that the translation was wrong, but offered no proof (except her/his memory), as usual,
-

as i recall he said that they said some of what she said was wrong and they knew some of what she confessed was correct but really who cares what mach says without a hard cite. as you pointed out

 

[Grinder]

as always thanks to the dna junkies (positive sense) for all their work. could someone give us a description of how much the dna on the knife and clasp amounted to? not pico-grams but something everyone could picture like a tenth of a flake of dust or 1/100 of a grain of salt. i don't think the pgp really get how tiny amount of dna was the abundant amount.

ETA okay found it myself = 58,500,000 picograms in a grain of salt. how many alleged picograms on the knife and clasp?