Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[quadraginta]

Quadraginta,

In my first sentence of comment #3754, I stated that I had linked to videos and protocols. Your statement is false. In comments #637 and #1244 I did link to videos, and in comment #807 I linked to a document that dealt with good forensic practice at the point of case review.

Chris

Nope. You stated that "those of us who have been critical of the DNA forensics have linked videos and lists of correct protocols".

Your words. Your choice to associate yourself with a group.

Leaving aside the rather disingenuous unspoken implication that videos and lists were the only thing that you personally have offered I don't think you can support your assertion here that those are the only things anyone else in this thread has offered as an argument to discount the DNA evidence.

I am not the only one in this thread to have come to the wry conclusion that the standards insisted upon here for the Knox trial would largely discount the use of DNA as a forensic tool in general. After all, isn't there always the very least scintilla of a possibility that something somewhere in some lab may have been wrong somehow? You have adamantly evaded any commitment to a statistical probability that the DNA results from the knife might be right. You have only repeatedly stressed that error is possible. No kidding. Error is always possible. That's the sort of mealy-mouthed smokescreen defense "experts" always blow. Please share with us your personal opinion as to how probable it is in this particular instance.

As an additional exercise compare and contrast your professional opinion on lab discipline and protocol as relates to this particular case with the apparent expectation by the owner of the knife in question that the lab was right. Is there a possibility that that individual is privy to information which you, your letter writers, and your textbook authors do not share?

 

[stilicho]

The commonly held belief is that our memories are like a TIVO box, we simply replay the recording and it shows exactly what happened. The scientific view is a lot different. It recognizes that our memories of an event can be altered, even by something as trivial as the choice of words used when asking us about an event.

When common wisdom conflicts with science, a skeptic should take the side of science.

I always blame my boss of murder and sexual assault any time I have a problem with my memory. And I leave him to rot for two weeks while my memory remains altered by trivial word choice.

 

[stilicho]

We are learning many important things in this thread.

1) A suspect's statements can consist of any allegation, inconsistency, or fabrication whatsoever without in any way reflecting on the veracity of said statements. Anyone taking such issues into account while evaluating these statements is not being "scientific".

2) DNA is utterly worthless as a forensic tool. The mere potential for incompetence and evil intent make it completely unreliable, regardless of the total absence of any evidence of such problems.

3) No aspect of a suspect's actions or behavior should ever be considered indicative of possible complicity or guilt.

4) Anything potentially damaging to a suspect which can be explained away by any interpretation or flight of fancy at all must be considered only in the most exculpatory fashion possible (i.e. "reasonable doubt".)

Anyone want to add to the list?

It is obvious to the most simple of minds. The failure to adhere to these basic standards of jurisprudence is proof of the corruption and xenophobia inherent in the primitive Italian legal system.

QED

5) When defence experts, using photos as their primary sources, directly contradict one another and the medical examiner who performed the autopsy, the two contradictory defence experts are to be fully believed.

6) Failure to demonstrate that a burglar might scale a wall and enter through a window is evidence that a burglar scaled the wall and entered through the window.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Farah Jama

Nope. You stated that "those of us who have been critical of the DNA forensics have linked videos and lists of correct protocols".

Your words. Your choice to associate yourself with a group.

Leaving aside the rather disingenuous unspoken implication that videos and lists were the only thing that you personally have offered I don't think you can support your assertion here that those are the only things anyone else in this thread has offered as an argument to discount the DNA evidence.

I am not the only one in this thread to have come to the wry conclusion that the standards insisted upon here for the Knox trial would largely discount the use of DNA as a forensic tool in general. After all, isn't there always the very least scintilla of a possibility that something somewhere in some lab may have been wrong somehow? You have adamantly evaded any commitment to a statistical probability that the DNA results from the knife might be right. You have only repeatedly stressed that error is possible. No kidding. Error is always possible. That's the sort of mealy-mouthed smokescreen defense "experts" always blow. Please share with us your personal opinion as to how probable it is in this particular instance.

Quadraginta,

My assertion was that those of us who have been critical of the DNA forensics have included links to videos and discussions of protocols in our comments, not that our comments were limited to these things. If you search through Matthew Best’s comments you will also find a link to a video (#578) and a link to some forensics guidelines (#594). So my choice of words “those of us” was perfectly accurate. Thank you for the opportunity to review some of Matthew’s fine posts.

You seem to be changing the question you are asking. Previously you asked what were the odds that the DNA profile from the knife matched Meredith’s profile. Now you are asking what are the odds that the lab’s conclusions were correct. Those are very different questions. The former question cannot be answered unless we agree on which loci to include or exclude in a calculation of probability, among other issues. This would require us to agree on a peak threshold.

The lab’s position is that the DNA profile arose from Meredith’s biological material deposited on the knife during her murder, and the reason for the small amount of DNA on the blade and the complete lack of blood is that the blade was cleaned, possibly with bleach. Based on the lack of blood and on Dr. Johnson’s interview with ABC, I am at least 95% sure that they are wrong.

I have already given two examples where contamination is the only reasonable explanation of the forensic DNA results. A third example where contamination is probable was suggested in a link that Lionking provided (#584), and I explored further, the case of Farah Jama (thank you, Lionking). The reporter in the first story linked below wrote “it is unknown exactly how the contamination occurred.” (emphasis added)

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/ma...een-contaminated/story-e6frf7jo-1225807656413

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/dna-in-the-dock/story-e6frg6z6-1225809214024

Which do you think is more likely, that Mr. Jama raped the victim, or that contamination occurred?

Chris

 

[piktor]

This is not scientific, but it does make enough sense

It seems you don't understand the nature of proof. You assert that the pants, underwear and socks were pulled off post-mortem, but don't provide evidence to back it up. Is it simply blood patterns this is based on, or do the Italian police have a magic box that detects post-mortem clothing removal?

The fact that Rudy Guede's DNA was found inside Meredith also doesn't fit with your assertion that the victims clothing could only have been removed hours after the crime.

I am not privy to the detailed forensic narration of the chain of events. Unless the person that did this comes upfront and tells what happened judges will use or not use the forensic report, the prosecution's theory and the testimony of expert witnesses to reach a judgement. Until now, the judges agree with the prosecution's narrative. Circumstantial cases work this way. There is a lot of "reasoning" and "inferencing" and "logic thinking".

There are no tables to measure believabilty or probability or are there guidelines for inferencing what is "logic" or "reasonable".

The end result, so far: the three accused are in jail. Guede's sentence was reduced by a few years but his guilt was confirmed on his first appeal. It is more than likely Knox/Sollecito will remain in jail after their first appeal because the appeal judges for Guede used the same investigation used to convict Knox/Sollecito.

The crime scene tells its own story. The team of police investigators presented their analysis. The defence team did likewise and the judges came to a verdict.

There is factual evidence presented by the coroner stating the genital area of the victim presented signs of forceful invasion. A dead body does not become reddened and bruised after death. It had to be while the person was alive. Guede's DNA traces on the victim's vagina, annus and rectum are epithelial cell traces with no traces of genital fluids from the attacker.

Why do I infer it was not Guede that came back hours later? Would Guede commit to a massive and thorough cleanup and leave HIS bloody palm print, HIS feces in the unflushed toilet, erase as best he could luminol traces of foot prints and succeed at completely erasing his footprints but leave foot prints in the corridor that match Knox/Sollecito's foot size but not his or the victim's. Would he "stage" a rape he already knew he had commited hours earlier so investigators could not possibly miss this was a rape scene, not a stabbing scene? And rearrange the body, undress the body, present at the feet of the victim the clothing in a distinctly staged manner? Does this make sense?

Or, maybe the other two accused came back to do the selective cleaning, the staging, the undressing and the displaying. This sounds more likely.

In a circumstantial case it is one narrative put against the other narrative. One narrative for the defence, one for the prosecution.

In a circumstantial case you do not need scientific proof, you need believability. Here the accused have no credibility, the defence has nothing to disprove the facts presented by the prosecution.

The prosecution has made a thorough and responsible investigation. The prosecution's story is believable and there is credible evidence to back their theory. In a few weeks the Knox/Sollecito "Sentenza" will be out with the explanation by the head judge on how and why this verdict was arrived at. More than likely, many details and facts admitted by the judges will be made public. The defense can then do on appeal its best to claim innocence for their represented.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

correction

tsig,

The electropherogram can be viewed in a number of places on the web. I have written on about it extensively upthread, in #2599 IIRC.

Chris

I meant comment #2590 (not #2599), and please change the words in the first sentence of paragraph 4 from "signal-to-noise ratio" to "peak height in RFU."

 

[shuttlt]

You seem to be changing the question you are asking. Previously you asked what were the odds that the DNA profile from the knife matched Meredith’s profile. Now you are asking what are the odds that the lab’s conclusions were correct. Those are very different questions. The former question cannot be answered unless we agree on which loci to include or exclude in a calculation of probability, among other issues. This would require us to agree on a peak threshold.

I don't think I've mentioned it on this forum, but the CPS seem to feel that with non-repeatable samples like this one shouldn't calculate the odds of the match, perhaps for the reasons you indicate.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/lcn_testing.html

Which do you think is more likely, that Mr. Jama raped the victim, or that contamination occurred?

But how often does meaningful contamination occure? I don't think anybody here denies that it can, whether transfered by third parties, during collection, or in the lab. It could happen in any case where the suspect has any connection at all to the victim, or where more than one item from the same case is analysed in any one lab. Don't we need to argue that it is actually really quite common to reject other explanations. In the case of Jama it seems the DNA was the only evidence against him and there was strong evidence to suggest he was elsewhere. Amanda and Raffaele don't have an alibi as Jama did. If they did things would be different. Contamination certainly seems more likely than a random false match, but how likely?

I've been asking on Perugia-shock if anybody has any evidence that LCN controls weren't done, as often seems to be assumed. There seems to be no evidence to support it other than it hasn't been explicitly stated by anyone important that they were. It seems to me dangerous to build a chain of reasoning on the fact that they weren't when it seems like such a basic question and yet the defence don't seem to have made an issue of it. If such controls were done, surely it makes contamination quite a bit less likely.

Based on the lack of blood and on Dr. Johnson’s interview with ABC, I am at least 95% sure that they are wrong.

Do Dr Johnson's comments refer to testing using LCN?

 

[stilicho]

A third example where contamination is probable was suggested in a link that Lionking provided (#584), and I explored further, the case of Farah Jama (thank you, Lionking). The reporter in the first story linked below wrote “it is unknown exactly how the contamination occurred.”

.....

Which do you think is more likely, that Mr. Jama raped the victim, or that contamination occurred?

Chris

Given your confidence in the contamination theory, what would you give as the odds AK and RS will be acquitted upon the appeal? If they are worse than that of the probability of contamination, can you explain the variance? I would put the chances of their acquittal on the "Jama Defence" as roughly nil.

Seriously, did you even read the article? Are you going to go up on the stand and argue that Meredith wasn't even murdered? What kind of person says such a thing even in jest?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Dr. Johnson

Do Dr Johnson's comments refer to testing using LCN?

shuttit,

I will not have the opportunity to respond to some of your questions for some time. However, Dr.Johnson's comments were to the effect that cleaning a knife would remove traces of DNA before traces of blood.

Chris

 

[shuttlt]

shuttit,

I will not have the opportunity to respond to some of your questions for some time. However, Dr.Johnson's comments were to the effect that cleaning a knife would remove traces of DNA before traces of blood.

Chris

If that was in reference to conventional tests for DNA then that fits with what was found. I'm not sure how to interpret the statement in the absence of some specific type of test.

In any case, not that it's definitive but, presumably the prosecution experts disagree. Do we know if the defence cross-examine the prosecution witnesses on this point?

 

[stilicho]

shuttit,

I will not have the opportunity to respond to some of your questions for some time. However, Dr.Johnson's comments were to the effect that cleaning a knife would remove traces of DNA before traces of blood.

Chris

Why is it necessary that the DNA remaining on the knife was from blood rather than tissue?

 

[shuttlt]

Why is it necessary that the DNA remaining on the knife was from blood rather than tissue?

I had assumed this to mean that given a bunch of material mainly composed of blood, scubbing with bleach will, over a period of time, eliminate the chemical traces of blood and the DNA. Any cleaning involving bleach that removes the chemical traces of blood will have destroyed the DNA, whether in blood, skin, or whatever.

Personally, I think there are a whole load of ifs and buts that need to be included in that statement to allow us to understand it properly in context of the knife. Personally I don't have much of a problem with the idea that if I stabbed somebody, cleaned the knife so that no blood was detectable it's likely that a conventional DNA test would come back negative. This is of course not what happened with the knife. For one thing some material, visible to the naked eye, was discovered in a flaw in the knife. For another the test done on the material in the flaw wasn't a conventional DNA test.

 

[stilicho]

This is of course not what happened with the knife.

That's the issue, isn't it? Dr Johnson's TV appearance wasn't relevant to the evidence or the way it was handled.

 

[Fulcanelli]

shuttit,

I will not have the opportunity to respond to some of your questions for some time. However, Dr.Johnson's comments were to the effect that cleaning a knife would remove traces of DNA before traces of blood.

Chris

But that's not what she said. That's what 'you' are trying to claim. Are you able to support this claim with any of the literature?

 

[katy_did]

I don't remember any evidence presented in court on the body being moved hours after death either. What day was that and who was the expert?

Here is what Luciano Garofano, Carabinieri and supposedly Italy's top forensic scientist had to say in 'Darkness Descending':

"Look at the clotted blood. Where there are large blood clots indicates that she was long enough in that position to create a puddle of blood. Whith that kind of wound it wouldn't have taken long - tens of seconds, not minutes"
Then while she is bleeding, so still alive, she is flipped over and moved to a supine position where her wound continues to bleed into the corner between the wall and the wardrobe.
...
The fact that the autopsy says there are droplets on her chest indicates that she was still coughing when supine." p.383,4

The problem with the evidence for the body having been moved after death is that it would all have been discussed during the closed court sessions, as far as I can make out. So everyone stating lists of facts must be going on the Micheli report (unless anyone has another source?) and the problem with that is we don't know which of those facts, if any, were proven and which were refuted. Micheli's focus is mainly on the blood having begun to clot when Meredith was turned onto her back, but this doesn't necessarily mean she was even dead at that point, let alone that it was hours later. Micheli clearly has no idea, since all he's able to say is that it would have been 'quite some time'. I've actually read something similar to what you've quoted, that being turned onto her back would have hastened or even caused Meredith's death, since the blood would have run down into her lungs rather than out of the wound as it would have when she was lying on her side.

To know how inaccurate some of Micheli's speculations are you only have to look at his total acceptance of the prosecution's claim that the lack of Amanda's fingerprints in the house was an indication that she'd cleaned them up - that is, until the prosecution's own fingerprint expert said it was entirely normal not to find any 'usable' fingerprints in the house in which someone lives. And even before that happened, how did Micheli ever think it would have been possible for Amanda to have cleaned up only her own fingerprints but to have left everyone else's intact? It's a suggestion that completely defies logic (much like the idea she could have cleaned up her own invisible DNA and have left Guede's) yet Micheli found it totally plausible. How many other completely implausible prosecution scenarios did he accept?

The simple fact is that unless anyone has had access to the closed sessions and knows what was discussed in them, any suggestion that it is 'proven' that the body was moved a long time after death is so much moonshine.

 

[piktor]

Let's say the attackers got rid of the knives and they will never be found. Would this be the first homicide conviction where there is no murder weapon?

For a conviction you need a body. You do not need a motive or a murder weapon.

You can discard the knife as evidence and still you have a case for conviction.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The problem with the evidence for the body having been moved after death is that it would all have been discussed during the closed court sessions, as far as I can make out.

1. This is an assumption, that it 'would' have. Who is setting the rules here, you or the prosecution?

2. Why do only the 'last days' matter? All that had gone before doesn't?

3. It is also an assumption that it didn't, since the summing up of both Mignini and Comodi took hours each, allowing only limited space for a few key phrases in media reports.


4. Have you forgotten the Micheli Report already which layed all this data out?

The problem with the evidence for the body having been moved after death is that it would all have been discussed during the closed court sessions, as far as I can make out.

Are you to cite any testimony at all from defence experts during any period of the trial, contesting the fact that the victim's body was stripped and moved long after death? In short, are you able to provide anything that overturns the Micheli Report on this particular aspect?

=Micheli's focus is mainly on the blood having begun to clot when Meredith was turned onto her back, but this doesn't necessarily mean she was even dead at that point, let alone that it was hours later.

Aye, lets ignore the facts that not only had the blood dried in the imprint of her shoulder and also displaying the imprint of her bra strap, let's also ignore the shoulder lividity as well.

To know how inaccurate some of Micheli's speculations are you only have to look at his total acceptance of the prosecution's claim that the lack of Amanda's fingerprints in the house was an indication that she'd cleaned them up

Yet you stretch things to claim that makes him 'wrong'. A lack of prints is also consistent with there being a clean-up. Do you deny, you would not be arguing that had there been many prints from Amanda at the scene, that that would be strong evidence there was no clean-up? And even were we to indulge you, if for sake of argument we were to expect that Micheli was wrong on a single conclusion on a particular aspect, does it then make all his conclusions wrong? If so, is this law a universal and does it then also apply to the defence, in that, if a single one of their conclusions is wrong, then all their conclusions are? And if not, why not?

how did Micheli ever think it would have been possible for Amanda to have cleaned up only her own fingerprints but to have left everyone else's intact?

'Who' exactly are these 'everybody else's'? How many prints for each involved individual...Laura, Filomena, visitors to the cottage? Do you have that raw data in order to make these claims?

The simple fact is that unless anyone has had access to the closed sessions and knows what was discussed in them, any suggestion that it is 'proven' that the body was moved a long time after death is so much moonshine.

Ahh, at least you're savy enough to know that there 'were' closed sessions.

But moonshine? Come on, we already had a good idea of the evidence against the pair before it even went to trial, already established in one court, Micheli's. And anything established in a court room is hardly 'moonshine'.

And you may also like to answer, why the defence has been so silent about this moonshine both publicly and in open court session, when this 'moonshine' was one of the core elements that sent them to trial in the first place?

I don't know about you, but for me, the silence is deafening...at least from the defence. Why is that?

 

[katy_did]

As I said, Fulcanelli, the only evidence you have is from the highly speculative Micheli report, and you have no idea which of those speculations were proven and which were not. You're treating what Micheli says as fact, when it isn't. It's really that simple.

 

[piktor]

The problem with the evidence for the body having been moved after death is that it would all have been discussed during the closed court sessions, as far as I can make out. So everyone stating lists of facts must be going on the Micheli report (unless anyone has another source?) and the problem with that is we don't know which of those facts, if any, were proven and which were refuted. Micheli's focus is mainly on the blood having begun to clot when Meredith was turned onto her back, but this doesn't necessarily mean she was even dead at that point, let alone that it was hours later. Micheli clearly has no idea, since all he's able to say is that it would have been 'quite some time'. I've actually read something similar to what you've quoted, that being turned onto her back would have hastened or even caused Meredith's death, since the blood would have run down into her lungs rather than out of the wound as it would have when she was lying on her side.

To know how inaccurate some of Micheli's speculations are you only have to look at his total acceptance of the prosecution's claim that the lack of Amanda's fingerprints in the house was an indication that she'd cleaned them up - that is, until the prosecution's own fingerprint expert said it was entirely normal not to find any 'usable' fingerprints in the house in which someone lives. And even before that happened, how did Micheli ever think it would have been possible for Amanda to have cleaned up only her own fingerprints but to have left everyone else's intact? It's a suggestion that completely defies logic (much like the idea she could have cleaned up her own invisible DNA and have left Guede's) yet Micheli found it totally plausible. How many other completely implausible prosecution scenarios did he accept?

The simple fact is that unless anyone has had access to the closed sessions and knows what was discussed in them, any suggestion that it is 'proven' that the body was moved a long time after death is so much moonshine.

The problem for the accused is their able lawyers did not/could not refute the prosecution's theory. If Michelli accepted the prosecution's narrative, it is because it makes sense and if it is so incredible as to defy logic, why was the defense powerless to refute the crazy prosecution theory. What is a judge to do- wait an eternity for the culpable to confess?

The appeal proceedings will either confirm the conviction sentence or overturn it.

Guede went first on appeal and the sentence was confirmed minus a few years, so his jail time is similar to the other two. This means the appeal judges endorsed, once again, the prosecution's findings. The Guede case is based on the same investigation for Knox/Sollecito. We should expect on appeal the same result for the two as was for Guede.

This is not a problem for the judges to solve. This is a problem for the accused and their lawyers to solve. If it is such a bad narrative, why can't the defence set everyone straight and free their clients?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Let's say the attackers got rid of the knives and they will never be found. Would this be the first homicide conviction where there is no murder weapon?

For a conviction you need a body. You do not need a motive or a murder weapon.

You can discard the knife as evidence and still you have a case for conviction.

You don't even have to have a body