Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[quadraginta]

<snip>

You also obviously need reminding that the defence teams had the statements ruled inadmissible, both by the Italian High Court and the Cort De Assize. Yet, you seem to be demanding that both these courts be over ruled, Italian law be over ruled and broken, the defenders be over ruled in what they themselves wanted and won, to produce something that doesn't actually exist, simply to please an anonymous blowhard on a message board in a foreign country thousands of miles away to satisfy his whim in wanting to prove something he has zero evidence for. No arrogance or anything...

All of this, plus the likelyhood that the unspoken suggestion something is being hidden might not work out so well for Knox supporters. If the veracity of their other claims and insinuations are any indicator the last thing they might really want to see could be actual recordings of the witness questioning.

If such recordings were to exist I wonder if we'd still be hearing such strident demands from certain quarters for their release to the public. Somehow I doubt it.

As has been pointed out, one of the things that has most encouraged the recording of witness interrogations in the U.S. has been its utility to prosecutors. Unlike the benighted Italian system, such statements are normally admissible as prosecution evidence here. In fact in some states they are public domain and required by law to be released. In the Casey Anthony case every interview with all prosecution (and most defense) witnesses, including those with Casey Anthony herself prior to her being charged, are down-loadable on the internet. This has not been an asset to her defense.

 

[Kestrel]

Argument from incredulity. Or, as we like to call it, Kestrel's Befuddlement Syndrome.

It's rather clear you don't understand the local fallacy you just claimed I used. Following it up with a personal attack just compounds the error.

 

[Kestrel]

So, not only is all DNA evidence compromised by contamination, so all testimony of any suspect is compromised by abusive interrogators.

I doubt Chris has objections to properly collected DNA evidence processed in a lab that followed scientifically sound protocols. I also doubt he objects to witness testimony conducted in the open with legal advice available.

You seem really fond of sweating out the truth. Locking people up in little rooms, keeping them up all night, lying to them, yelling and screaming at them, perhaps tossing in a few well place blows. Show them who is boss, make them really afraid of you, let them know it will not stop unless they say what you want. Do you really believe this is the best way to find the truth?

Scientific experiments have proved it is not.

 

[shuttlt]

I doubt Chris has objections to properly collected DNA evidence processed in a lab that followed scientifically sound protocols. I also doubt he objects to witness testimony conducted in the open with legal advice available.

You seem really fond of sweating out the truth. Locking people up in little rooms, keeping them up all night, lying to them, yelling and screaming at them, perhaps tossing in a few well place blows. Show them who is boss, make them really afraid of you, let them know it will not stop unless they say what you want. Do you really believe this is the best way to find the truth?

Scientific experiments have proved it is not.

Kestrel, are you meaning to imply than Amanda and Raffaele's confessions were as a result of them having been kept up all night, or is this a general point not meant to specifically apply to them?

 

[tsig]

Quadraginta,

I have cited three news articles, all of which appeared in the fall of 2009, all of which were consistent with the notion that the prosecution did not release all of the information. In addition, we know that the defense asked for a mistrial on these and other grounds. One piece of evidence that the fsa files were not released is indirect. We know that Johnson, Hampikian, and their co-signers do not have them, and one strongly suspects that the defense team would release them, because the arguments in the letter are consistent with arguments made by the expert witnesses called by the defense at the trial. But Chris Mellas also stated that they were not released, along with other information ordered by the court to be released in the summer and requested by the defense earlier than that. When I raised Mr. Mellas’s comments previously, Fulcanelli attacked Mr. Mellas’s credibility, but Fulcanelli did not offer any facts or reasons to support his charge. My comments at this stage are intended as an interim report only.

There were hundreds of DNA samples run. To have a lawyer present for running all of the samples would engender an extremely large legal bill, as pointed out in Darkness Descending. It makes more sense to release the fsa files. This would allow the defense expert witnesses to ask and answer questions such as, “Were Stefanoni’s thresholds always set to < 20 RFUs, or was this standard employed for only some samples,” or perhaps, “How did Stefanoni descriminate between real peaks and blobs or stutters?” It is not just the observation of the analysis that is critical, it is the ability of the defense to do its own independent analysis.

Chris

The FOA couldn't pay for a lawyer?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA forensics and interrogation

So, not only is all DNA evidence compromised by contamination, so all testimony of any suspect is compromised by abusive interrogators.

Right?

BobTheDonkey,

My position on DNA forensics is that of one of the nine cosigners of the open letter: “The science of DNA profiling is sound. But, not all of DNA profiling is science,” Dan Krane, professor of biology at Wright State University.

My position on interrogation is that interrogators can unintentionally elicit false information from suspects or witnesses. Moreover, a false confession can color one’s evaluation of other evidence, as discussed by Ian Herbert (http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=2590)

Kassin and Hasel suspect that false confessions may also affect the memories of people who are potential alibis for defendants. Kassin worked on the actual case of John Kogut, who was accused of raping and murdering a 16-year-old girl. Kogut was at a party for his girlfriend at the time the crime was committed, and he had multiple alibi witnesses. But after 18 hours of interrogation, Kogut confessed to the grisly crime. “After he confessed to the crime, [the witnesses] started dropping off one-by-one,” Hasel said. “ ‘You know, maybe I saw him earlier in the night but not later; maybe I saw him later in the night but not earlier; it must have been a different night, I must be wrong.’ ” Kassin and Hasel are currently working on an experiment similar to their eyewitness study to test this theory on a broad basis.

This phenomenon may be explained by the same Loftus research about creating false memories that may have lead to the false confession in the first place. So it is plausible that eyewitnesses or alibi witnesses might begin to remember things differently when told about something as powerful as a confession. But what about scientific evidence? At least confessions can’t change something as concrete as DNA evidence or fingerprints, right? Even that belief may be untrue.

In 2006, University College London psychologist Itiel Dror took a group of six fingerprint experts and showed them samples that they themselves had, years before, determined either to be matches or non-matches (though they weren’t told they had already seen these fingerprints). The experts were now given some context: either that the fingerprints came from a suspect who confessed or that they came from a suspect who was known to be in police custody at the time the crime was committed. In 17 percent of the non-control tests, experimenters changed assessments that they had previously made correctly. Four of the six experts who participated changed at least one judgment based on the new context. “And that’s fingerprint judgments,” Kassin said. “That’s not considered malleable. And yet there was some degree of malleability and one of the ways to influence it was to provide information about the confession.”
[endquote]

Chris

 

[Chris_Halkides]

FOA

The FOA couldn't pay for a lawyer?

I am not sure what money you are talking about. The Friends of Amanda website says, "Friends of Amanda is a group of people who recognize that Amanda is innocent. We are not affiliated with her family, and no one is paying us. We simply want to see justice."

 

[shuttlt]

BobTheDonkey,

My position on DNA forensics is that of one of the nine cosigners of the open letter: “The science of DNA profiling is sound. But, not all of DNA profiling is science,” Dan Krane, professor of biology at Wright State University.

Am I remembering right that you have been in touch with some of the people who signed the letter? If so, do you know whether Dan Krane looked into this beyond reading the letter and signing on the bottom.

For myself, I have no problem agreeing that if the open letter is a reliable description of the forensics then there are grave problems. I just disagree that it is a reliable document.

The last page of the open letter makes it seem like none of the signers have read beyond the text that they signed.

 

[shuttlt]

But after 18 hours of interrogation, Kogut confessed to the grisly crime.

Was this 18 hours straight, or are we including time spent in waiting rooms, doing homework etc. in this? How much time was Amanda actually questioned? injusticeinperugia is currently claiming 50 hours. People claim 14 hours for her big interrogation, but include yoga/homework in that as well as all the time in the police station after she "confessed". How long was she interrogated?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Was this 18 hours straight, or are we including time spent in waiting rooms, doing homework etc. in this? How much time was Amanda actually questioned? injusticeinperugia is currently claiming 50 hours. People claim 14 hours for her big interrogation, but include yoga/homework in that as well as all the time in the police station after she "confessed". How long was she interrogated?

Shuttit,

The reason I included a discussion of Kogut's case was to point out the effect that the confession had on eyewitnesses. The other example showed that even forensic interpretation is not necessarily immune to what the forensic scientists are told. I don't know the details of Kogut's interrogation.

Chris

 

[tsig]

I doubt Chris has objections to properly collected DNA evidence processed in a lab that followed scientifically sound protocols. I also doubt he objects to witness testimony conducted in the open with legal advice available.

You seem really fond of sweating out the truth. Locking people up in little rooms, keeping them up all night, lying to them, yelling and screaming at them, perhaps tossing in a few well place blows. Show them who is boss, make them really afraid of you, let them know it will not stop unless they say what you want. Do you really believe this is the best way to find the truth?

Scientific experiments have proved it is not.

Please won't someone think of the strawmen?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Dan Krane

Am I remembering right that you have been in touch with some of the people who signed the letter? If so, do you know whether Dan Krane looked into this beyond reading the letter and signing on the bottom.

For myself, I have no problem agreeing that if the open letter is a reliable description of the forensics then there are grave problems. I just disagree that it is a reliable document.

The last page of the open letter makes it seem like none of the signers have read beyond the text that they signed.

Shuttit,

Dr. Krane was involved in writing an earlier draft of the letter. He brought the issue of the failure of the prosecution to turn over the electronic data files (the fsa files) to my attention without my so much as mentioning the subject. I quoted from his communication to me upthread in one of my messages on the importance of these files.

Chris

 

[shuttlt]

Shuttit,

The reason I included a discussion of Kogut's case was to point out the effect that the confession had on eyewitnesses. The other example showed that even forensic interpretation is not necessarily immune to what the forensic scientists are told. I don't know the details of Kogut's interrogation.

Chris

Fair enough. It just seems to me that Amanda's interrogation was nothing like what I imagine when I think of an 18 hour interrogation as mentioned in your quote. Sure she'd spent a lot of time with the police in one context or another, whether waiting around, going to the downstairs appartment to look at the cat blood, doing homework, or being interviewed/interrogated... but the context of her confession is a relatively short interview in which she cracked/crumbled/confessed/whatever the moment her alibi wobbled.

As for the possibility of false statements from innocent people and group think/confirmation bias in the forensics, in principle and in general I agree that these things are possible and I'm sure do happen.

 

[shuttlt]

Shuttit,

Dr. Krane was involved in writing an earlier draft of the letter. He brought the issue of the failure of the prosecution to turn over the electronic data files (the fsa files) to my attention without my so much as mentioning the subject. I quoted from his communication to me upthread in one of my messages on the importance of these files.

Chris

Thanks I thought I remembered something to that effect.

 

[tsig]

I am not sure what money you are talking about. The Friends of Amanda website says, "Friends of Amanda is a group of people who recognize that Amanda is innocent. We are not affiliated with her family, and no one is paying us. We simply want to see justice."

You're putting your conclusions before the evidence.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

FOA

You're putting your conclusions before the evidence.

You had assumed that FOA pays people. Since no one is paying them, it is unclear how they could be paying anyone else. Can you clarify this point?

I included the whole quote for the sake of completeness (context). If you don't agree with it, that's fine; just ignore it. The quote is found under a subheading "Who we are" at http://www.friendsofamanda.org/home_eng.html

 

[Fulcanelli]

I doubt Chris has objections to properly collected DNA evidence processed in a lab that followed scientifically sound protocols. I also doubt he objects to witness testimony conducted in the open with legal advice available.

Why, is that's how it's done in America is it? US police assign lawyers to witnesses do they?

 

[Fulcanelli]

[qyote="Kestrel"]You seem really fond of sweating out the truth. Locking people up in little rooms, keeping them up all night, lying to them, yelling and screaming at them, perhaps tossing in a few well place blows. Show them who is boss, make them really afraid of you, let them know it will not stop unless they say what you want. Do you really believe this is the best way to find the truth? [/quote]

Hardly, since this little fantasy of your never happened. The police were done with Amanda by 1:45...that's 'all night' is it?

And perhaps also Kestrel could kindly explain to us all how police 'should' go about catching criminals and solving cases, since questioning witnesses and suspects is clearly not allowed in his world.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You had assumed that FOA pays people. Since no one is paying them, it is unclear how they could be paying anyone else. Can you clarify this point?

I included the whole quote for the sake of completeness (context). If you don't agree with it, that's fine; just ignore it. The quote is found under a subheading "Who we are" at http://www.friendsofamanda.org/home_eng.html

The 'family' pay people. The FOA work for the family.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Shuttit,

Dr. Krane was involved in writing an earlier draft of the letter. He brought the issue of the failure of the prosecution to turn over the electronic data files (the fsa files) to my attention without my so much as mentioning the subject. I quoted from his communication to me upthread in one of my messages on the importance of these files.

Chris

And what is his source of evidence that the defence were ever denied these files? Also, what is his source that these files are handed over to defence teams as standard by forensic labs? What is YOUR source for this claim?

You keep making the same old tired assertions. In turn we keep asking you to provide the proof. In turn you respond without proof just more assertions. In turn, we are going to keep demanding you provide the proof.

(Chris Mellas is not a proof. A bunch of lapdog paper scientists not even involved in the case or part of the defence are not proof. Assertions made on FOA websites are not proof).