Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[quadraginta]

Computer hackers have been covering up their intrusions for decades. Once you get root access nothing is prohibited. There are even stealth viruses that cover their tracks. But I'm not aware of any claim that such hacking took place.

A very appropriate analogy has been presented here earlier. The simple deletion of data from the disk, even a bit-by-bit overwrite would not be unlike ripping pages out of an account book in an attempt to hide bookkeeping discrepancies. Yes, in the hands of a very accomplished professional it could be done in a fashion which would make detection more difficult. This level of expertise does not square with the accompanying scenario of bumbling incompetents trashing the equipment after its confiscation.

I also don't believe that Raffaele's laptop was involved in the hard drive destruction fiasco. (link to evidence (Italian PDF))

What happened to Raffaele's laptop is apparently some joker decided to turn it on and play with it after it had been taken into evidence.

Do you have any sources which you would like to share which support this assertion? It doesn't seem to be present in what I can garner from a Google translation of the PDF document you cited.

 

[piktor]

What happened to Raffaele's laptop is apparently some joker decided to turn it on and play with it after it had been taken into evidence.

THAT IS DAMN CLOSE TO EVIDENCE TAMPERING. ​

 

[Chris_Halkides]

fsa files part 1

Am I right in thinking that the defence didn't request this from the court until close to the end of the trial? I appreciate that perhaps they shouldn't have had to ask the court and presumably did request it previously through less formal channels.

shuttIt,

I seem to recall that the defense made a formal request in the summer. I do not know what is standard practice in Italy, but I seem to recall that releasing all of the electonic data is now standard practice in the U.S, though in the past some labs, especially the one in Houston, have been recalcitrant about releasing information. Here is a portion of the checklist I mentioned:
“Copies of all data files used and created in the course of performing tests and analyzing data in this case, including .fsa files, if applicable. These files should include all data necessary to independently reanalyze the raw data.”
Chromosomal Laboratories, Inc.
www.chromosomal-labs.com/.../ForensicDNACaseReviewChecklist.pdf

The fsa files have the electropherograms, dates, times, and the RFU threshold that the forensic scientists used, among other information. If you have the electronic data, you can use the DNA analysis software (GeneScan & Genotyper or GeneMapper ID) to independently analyze the electronic data. That allows you to examine the results as closely as possible (zoom in on the electropherogram to evaluate low-level results) and establish the RFU threshold of your choosing.

Chris

 

[Fiona]

Halides1: the situation has been explained to you many times. Why do you persist with this in the absence of any evidence that this information was not released? Or do you have any?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

fsa files, part 2

Halides1: the situation has been explained to you many times. Why do you persist with this in the absence of any evidence that this information was not released? Or do you have any?

Fiona,

We know that the fsa files were not in the possession of the nine forensic scientists who signed the petition of 19 November 2009, because this document mentions their absence. I have since communicated with several of the co-signers of this letter, and no one has said that they now have the fsa files, even when the subject has come up. Therefore, either the prosecution did not release them to the defense, or the defense did not release them to the co-signers. The latter possibility is less likely than the former; the signers of the letter could help the defense analyze the contents of these files.

Having the .fsa files would allow independent investigators to analyze the forensic DNA data and come to their own conclusions. Having someone from the defense present when the data are first obtained would not be equivalent. I am not saying that the files contain a smoking gun. There is a good chance that there is nothing unusual in them. However, I cannot think of a single reason for not releasing them. Does anyone have evidence that they were released? Someone saying that there was a court order to release certain information is not the same thing at all.

Chris

 

[Fiona]

Fiona,

We know that the fsa files were not in the possession of the nine forensic scientists who signed the petition of 19 November 2009, because this document mentions their absence. I have since communicated with several of the co-signers of this letter, and no one has said that they now have the fsa files, even when the subject has come up. Therefore, either the prosecution did not release them to the defense, or the defense did not release them to the co-signers. The latter possibility is less likely than the former; the signers of the letter could help the defense analyze the contents of these files.

Having the .fsa files would allow independent investigators to analyze the forensic DNA data and come to their own conclusions. Having someone from the defense present when the data are first obtained would not be equivalent. I am not saying that the files contain a smoking gun. There is a good chance that there is nothing unusual in them. However, I cannot think of a single reason for not releasing them. Does anyone have evidence that they were released? Someone saying that there was a court order to release certain information is not the same thing at all.

Chris

So no evidence then? OK.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

independent analysis

Not my understanding. The prosecution did not delay in providing the documents. They are not routinely provided in Italy, presumably because the defence is expected to be present at the testing.them.

Having someone present when the data are initially gatherered is not enough. There are a number of decisions that a forensic DNA analyst must make that not every analyst would decide in the same way. Which peaks to include as real versus which ones to discard as being blobs or stutters, for example. The analysis of mixtures is also complex.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

release of files

So no evidence then? OK.

I am waiting for you to provide evidence that the files have been released. It is your claim to support, and you have not done so.

 

[Fiona]

Having someone present when the data are initially gatherered is not enough. There are a number of decisions that a forensic DNA analyst must make that not every analyst would decide in the same way. Which peaks to include as real versus which ones to discard as being blobs or stutters, for example. The analysis of mixtures is also complex.

Such things you tell me!. I think it is clear you have no evidence for your assertion and I will leave it there, thanks

 

[Fiona]

I am waiting for you to provide evidence that the files have been released. It is your claim to support, and you have not done so.

Nope. We had this conversation way back. You just keep asserting this as if it were fact. I will just keep on putting the burden of proof where it belongs. We can do this forever. Such fun

 

[Chris_Halkides]

utility of textbooks

Such things you tell me!.

Here is the standard textbook in the field:

John M. Butler, Forensic DNA Typing (2005), 2nd ed., Elsevier.

If you find something in it that runs contrary to my comments, please let me know.

 

[Fiona]

Not going there Halides1. You have not presented any evidence in support of your assertion and so the rest is not even worth discussing

 

[quadraginta]

I am waiting for you to provide evidence that the files have been released. It is your claim to support, and you have not done so.

Fiona has demonstrated that the information was requested by the defense, and that such a request was consented to.

Now which of the two possible consequences of this do you think are more likely to have generated further public discussion?

1) The defense received the information requested and found nothing of importance regarding Knox and Sollecito's innocence.

2) The defense never received the information as agreed upon, and concluded that the prosecution was trying to conceal some exculpatory information.

It appears to me that if there is some reason to cast doubt upon this question then evidence showing that the defense was not ultimately put in possession of the data it requested should be much easier to come by.

I'd have to say that the ball is in your court if your goal is a sincere desire to uncover the truth. If you are merely casting vague, unsubstantiated aspersions then you are performing that task well.

 

[Fiona]

All of the evidence was released at the request of the defence; unopposed by the prosecution; and ordered by the court to be made available by July 30th.

Do you have evidence that this court order was not complied with? Did the defence make that charge when the case re-opened after the summer recess in September?

Fiona,

Do you have evidence that the order was followed? I respectfully submit that the onus is on you.

Chris

And I disagree. There was no opposition to the request and the court ordered it. There is nothing to suggest that the defence complained it had not been complied with. The natural conclusion is that it was complied with. You are claiming it was not and so the ball is in your court.

We make no progress at all in this thread.

 

[Moss]

Wouldn't the defense be able disclose those files to those experts? Or are there legal barriers regarding that data?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

precise request

Fiona has demonstrated that the information was requested by the defense, and that such a request was consented to.

Now which of the two possible consequences of this do you think are more likely to have generated further public discussion?

1) The defense received the information requested and found nothing of importance regarding Knox and Sollecito's innocence.

2) The defense never received the information as agreed upon, and concluded that the prosecution was trying to conceal some exculpatory information.

It appears to me that if there is some reason to cast doubt upon this question then evidence showing that the defense was not ultimately put in possession of the data it requested should be much easier to come by.

I'd have to say that the ball is in your court if your goal is a sincere desire to uncover the truth. If you are merely casting vague, unsubstantiated aspersions then you are performing that task well.

Quadraginta,

What you are saying in 2) is closer to the truth, but it needs to be amended. No one is saying that the fsa files necessarily have exculpatory information. The writers of the open letter are saying, “Electronic (.fsa) files that would allow independent analysis of the data have not been disclosed.” That qualifies as further public discussion to me. There is nothing vague about this request.

I contacted one DNA forensic expert who regularly contributes to the primary literature, who said that a major concern was the “refusal of the prosecution to provide the defense with a copy of the electronic data that underlies the DNA test results -- that is virtually unheard of world-wide today and it would be especially important to review that data in a case such as this which seems to involve such low level samples.” And there is nothing vague about why this request was made.

Chris

 

[Fiona]

Still no evidence then

 

[Chris_Halkides]

worldwide

Still no evidence then

To the contrary, the quote I provided indicates that the disclosure of fsa files is a worldwide expectation.

 

[Fiona]

it does not show that it was not disclosed Halides1: but you know that fine

 

[piktor]

The Nine Wise Scientists Flying Squad to the rescue!

Fiona,

We know that the fsa files were not in the possession of the nine forensic scientists who signed the petition of 19 November 2009, because this document mentions their absence. I have since communicated with several of the co-signers of this letter, and no one has said that they now have the fsa files, even when the subject has come up. Therefore, either the prosecution did not release them to the defense, or the defense did not release them to the co-signers. The latter possibility is less likely than the former; the signers of the letter could help the defense analyze the contents of these files.

Having the .fsa files would allow independent investigators to analyze the forensic DNA data and come to their own conclusions.

Chris

And what fun that would be: Nine outside scientists are now going to parse the ugly Perugia trial to their heart's content and bring glowing scientific clarity to the motions. As should be.

Just what the defence needs- meddlesome busybodies shouting to the four winds mind boggling scientific proclamations and judicious pronouncements on Everything Amanda.

My guess is the defence will not risk the wrath of the Italian judiciary and consequently deprive the world of The Nine Wise Scientists and their most learned findings and opinions.