Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

It's a three ring circus in Perugia

You should be a fan of rings...since all you do is go around in never ending circles with circular arguments.

 

[stilicho]

You misunderstood my reason for posting those links. I intended them as documentation of the fact that expert witnesses expect to have access to the electronic records, not as documentation of how the data are used. Therefore, they are quite relevant to show that the Italian authorities in this case are out of step with the rest of the world.

I don't understand your conclusion. The release of the electronic files wasn't decisive. Then what's so important about them?

How did the same lab that botched Amanda's, Meredith's, and Raffaele's DNA profiles manage to correctly identify those of Rudy and Patrick? Wasn't it the same crimescene?

 

[Moss]

Who needs evidence for police brutality, incompetence AND "railroading" when allegations do a fine job of muddying the water?
Just for the sake of curiosity: Why would the Italian law enforcement want more perpetrators than necessary?`What would be THEIR motive to send innocent people to jail?

 

[quadraginta]

No, I am saying that just because something is ruled inadmissible in a trial does not mean that it is illegal or that it has broken the law. Under Italian law, statements made by a witness cannot be used in any trial against the witness that made it. But it does not therefore follow that questioning witness is 'illegal' or 'unlawful'.

Rudy Guede's statements were ruled inadmissible in RS's and AK's trial also. Does it therefore follow his questioning was illegal or somehow broke the law? No, of course not.

It is simply a case of Italian law having provision that that certain statements can be used only in certain ways and certain circumstances and not used in others. For example, witness statements can be used in a court of law against others, but not against the witness who made them. Statements by Suspects however, 'can' be used against the person who made them in a court of law. However, a suspect statement where a lawyer is not present cannot be used against the suspect or anyone else in court. But, it CAN be used to further the police investigation before the trial phase. So, some of these statements can be used in court against the accused, others cannot, but none of them are 'illegal', the law merely puts certain limitations on how and when they can be used.

I'd also like to point out, for Dan O.'s benefit, that this is not the case in the U.S., where the authorities can and do attempt to elicit incriminating statements from "witnesses" before they are formally charged as "suspects", with every intention of using such statements as part of the prosecution effort. This is SOP for investigations, and there is virtually nothing done to discourage it. The rare attempts to address this approach in court are almost invariably defeated.

This is in the U.S. Presumably part of the "civilized world" he speaks of when he said,

<snip>

I understand perfectly that there are formal transitions where the rights of the individual change under the law. I also understand how the police defer those formal transitions to get around those rights. And furthermore, I understand that the courts in the civilized world recognize cases where there is an effective transition of the individuals status based on the behavior of the police towards that individual.
<snip>

Somehow I expect that he will be oblivious to the unsubtle irony here.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Therefore, they are quite relevant to show that the Italian authorities in this case are out of step with the rest of the world.

You mean with 'America'. America is not the 'rest of the world'.

And that's what it's all about for you isn't it halides1, they're Italians and therefore 'not like us'?

 

[Dan O.]

This is your claim, not mine.

I made no claim either way. Only that I've been unable to locate any confirmation that she earned the title "Dr."

You however trotted out the claim of...

Stefanoni's integrity as a world-class forensic expert.

Care to back that up. Apart from a couple of presentations at conferences (where I've already noted the title Dr. was used) and matching bodies to their respective families after a disaster (a task suitable for an entry level lab technician), what has she done to stand out?

If you are claiming that the polizia scientifica are hiring unqualified people then it's up to you to prove it. Her exact title appears to be abbreviated in the Italian sources I've seen: "Dir. Tecn. Princ."

Fiona posted the position of miss BA in Biological Sciences as "technical director of the Section of Forensic Genetics-Scientific Rome" back in December. From the evidence seen in this case, the polizia scientifica as a whole are unqualified. That they have to recruit BA's for the director position would be unsurprising.

How do you know the Patrizia Stefanoni who got an Arts degree in 1995 is the same one who testified at the trial? Do we also have to dig up Manuela Comodi's law degree? Maybe she wasn't a real prosecutor either. Why stop there? Was Filippo Bartolozzi a real police officer? When did he graduate from the police academy?

Are you saying that we should question if Patrizia Stefanoni ever graduated from college?

 

[tsig]

What ropes? It's up to the Italians to decide if they want to own this circus or shut it down.


It's a three ring circus in Perugia.

In ring one we have the Perugia flying squirrels that have recordings of everything but when it comes to the critical interrogations in their own building in their interrogation room, they forgot to record it.

In ring three we have the flimsy physical evidence. Of all the evidence collected they had to go back days and even weeks later to find something to tied two of the suspects to the crime.

And in the center ring we have the ring leader Giuliano Mignini with his special talent for telling stories and spreading lies to the press.

I see you've given up any pretense to rational argument and are falling back on the "soapbox strategy", yell accusations loud and long.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I made no claim either way. Only that I've been unable to locate any confirmation that she earned the title "Dr."

You however trotted out the claim of...

This is nothing but a pathetic red herring from you and stinks of abject desperation. It is indeed so pathetic, it isn't worth responding to. I would advise other posters not to even bother humouring him on this matter.

Dan O, it's quite clear that you long ago lost the debate on this case, you've been well and truly 'owned' to use an Americanism and you are now turning to slinging mud at various members of the ILE, which is nothing more then an intent to distract from the fact that you have no debate left to offer.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

peak ratios

SO? A 1:10 ratio for Raffaele's DNA to Meredith's is extremely HIGH, the addition of a piddling 4 makes a 'negligible' difference since were it a case of contamination we would instead expect to see a ratio of 1:100+ !!!

I have repeatedly asked you to back it up with citations from the literature, and you have failed to do so; putting a few exclamation points on a statement does not make it true. I have presented arguments to counter your claims (message #5691), and those have gone unchallenged. If you go to http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/index.html and look for Dr. Krane's supplemental report on the Leskie case, you will see an electroferogram with peaks that are more intense than Raffaele's profile on the clasp, yet this is an undisputed example of contamination. Therefore, one is obliged to conclude that your ideas about the intensity ratios are nonsense and move on from there.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Stefanoni and the fsa files

I've been following this discussion for a while now... and it is interesting. I do think that you, Kestrel and Halides1 really need to go beyond the mudslinging to see what will stick and start offering something more substantial.

On the first issue, contamination in crime labs. I don't think that I have heard/seen anyone argue that contamination does not happen in Crime Labs. But it's up to you to prove that it happened in this case. And so far you have not given us anything credible that would indicate that contamination is an issue here.

On the second issue, Steffoni refusing to release the .fsa files. You would first would have to provide evidence that .fsa files are routinely released (in Italy). You haven't done this. Irrespective of the above point you would have to provide evidence that the court ruled that Steffoni had to release the .fsa files to the defense. You haven't done this either. And then you should provide evidence that Sfeffoni did not release the .fsa files even though the court had ordered her to do so. I've not seen evidence of this either.

Especially your second issue with regard to Steffoni should be easy to resolve. This matter would have been surely brought up by the defense in court.

With reference to the non-release of electronic files, Dan Krane said “that is virtually unheard of world-wide today” (emphasis added) Chromosomal Laboratories, Inc. has a techmical bullentin (40-035) that “is a checklist of critical components necessary for expert case review.” (emphasis added):

Laboratory Procedures
1. A copy of all Standard Operating Procedures used in connection with the testing in this case, including the result interpretation policy.
2. A list of the commercial software programs used in the DNA testing.
3. Copies of allelic frequency tables relied upon in making statistical estimates along with clearly stated hypotheses.

Chain of custody
1. Copies of all records that document the treatment and handling of the biological evidence in this case, from point of collection to current disposition.
2. This information should include documentation of where and how the materials were stored, the amount of evidence consumed in testing, the amount of material remaining after the testing and how the remaining evidence is stored.

Electronic Data Files
1. 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.

You and I may be in disagreement about several aspects of contamination. I am not sure what you mean by “anything credible that would indicate that contamination is an issue here. I have previously given citations which indicate that proving a route (exact mechanism) of contamination is rarely possible.

The second aspect is that the lack of blood on the knife blade makes it unlikely to impossible that the blade’s DNA profile truly arose from blood on the knife. If the knife had been cleaned with bleach, as Stefanoni suggested, it would have no DNA from any biological source at the time it was collected as evidence. I have previously documented that diluting bleach that has already been diluted 50-fold is still enough to damage DNA intended for forensics (Promega technical bulletin). In other words, contamination is the most likely explanation for the presence of DNA on the knife blade.

The third aspect is that the onus is on Stefanoni’s laboratory to document that proper procedures were followed to minimize the chances of contamination. For example, her lab should prove negative controls were done correctly (not skipped or faked). If her lab released the fsa files it would help to show this. I have rebutted the claim that her testimony about controls being done is equivalent to actually releasing the information far upthread, by pointing out that in at least one case such testimony was false.

Finally, Whenever Stefanoni makes an invalid claim, it diminishes her credibility. It is not mudslinging or a detour to point this out.

Chris

 

[Chris_Halkides]

some uses for the electronic files; Guede's DNA

I don't understand your conclusion. The release of the electronic files wasn't decisive. Then what's so important about them?

How did the same lab that botched Amanda's, Meredith's, and Raffaele's DNA profiles manage to correctly identify those of Rudy and Patrick? Wasn't it the same crimescene?

Stilicho,

Off the top of my head, I can think of several things I would look for using the electronic data files. The first is what peak threshold was used for the 400+ runs and whether or not it was the same threshold as the knife blade profile. Dan Krane wrote, “As Professor Thompson points out, ‘Most laboratories establish a peak height threshold for reporting alleles and make it a practice to ignore peaks falling below that threshold.’” The second is to zoom in on the small peaks in the bra clasp, as Jason Glider suggested. The third is to examine the negative control runs for evidence of fraud (the negative controls are the most common place for fraud to be detected). I don’t want to be misunderstood. I am not saying that fraud did occur, and even if the negative controls were done fraudulently, there is a good chance that Stefanoni would not have known about it (technicians running the instruments would be the most likely candidates).

IIRC, RS and AK were arrested before the forensics were complete, raising the possibility of confirmation bias. We know that neither Laura’s nor Filomena’s reference samples were taken, and we know that there were profiles from unknown persons generated during the course of this investigation. On the other hand RG was identified as a suspect primarily on the basis of forensics, and a substantial fraction of the forensics was not DNA-related.

In addition, simply examining the electropherograms of the knife and bra clasp raises the questions we have been discussing. For that last reason, I have said on at least two occasions that it would be nice to look at the electropherograms that have Mr. Guede’s profile also. I do not think that any electropherograms or other data have made it into the public arena. Without having seen any data RG, I cannot comment one way or another on how competently the work was done.

Chris

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Gino September interview

Great, well since Krane is 'not' an expert witness in this case he is neither in need of them, or entitled to them is he? Ditto with Johnson and her pals, right halides1?

And still, you have yet to offer proof that the defence were refused the .fsa files when legally entitled, or even that they don't actually have them (10th time of asking now).

It is nice that you concede that the defense expert witnesses are entitled to them. Sara Gino told ABC news that they did not have the dates on which the profiles were run, among other things, in September of 2009. Those dates would be part of fsa files. Therefore, the files were not released, even though they should have been.

 

[stilicho]

Off the top of my head, I can think of several things I would look for using the electronic data files.

I didn't ask you what you'd look for. I asked why they're important if they aren't decisive in establishing the guilt or innocence of a suspect. You agreed that they are helpful but not decisive. These files would be helpful if the data contradicted a strong alibi as in the latest of your examples.

RS and AK were arrested before the forensics were complete, raising the possibility of confirmation bias.

It's worse than that. You have charged that Stefanoni doesn't know what's going on in her own lab or whether her technicians are monkeying around with the data. Now you are suggesting that these same free-range technicians are potentially acting in concert with other unnamed agents to correctly identify Rudy and Patrick but to falsely identify Meredith, Amanda, and Raffaele.

These are very serious allegations.

I do not think that any electropherograms or other data have made it into the public arena. Without having seen any data RG, I cannot comment one way or another on how competently the work was done.

You cannot comment on any of it because you aren't an expert in the field. You can offer your opinions, which are as valuable as mine are, or you can submit your allegations to peer review. That's your responsibility.

 

[stilicho]

It is nice that you concede that the defense expert witnesses are entitled to them. Sara Gino told ABC news that they did not have the dates on which the profiles were run, among other things, in September of 2009. Those dates would be part of fsa files. Therefore, the files were not released, even though they should have been.

In other words, you have no evidence that the files were not released. You are making an assumption based on a news story.

 

[Dan O.]

I see you've given up any pretense to rational argument and are falling back on the "soapbox strategy", yell accusations loud and long.

And what has tsig contributed to this thread?

 

[Dan O.]

I would advise other posters not to even bother humouring him on this matter.

Why is that? Do you know of something that you don't want to be found out?

 

[Kermit]

Chromosomal Laboratories, Inc. has a techmical bullentin (40-035) that "is a checklist of critical components necessary for expert case review."

.
Are you aware if this private company's checklist has been adopted by legal institutions around the world?

Whenever Stefanoni makes an invalid claim, it diminishes her credibility. It is not mudslinging or a detour to point this out.

.
Maybe I missed out something. What is Stefanoni's invalid claim? Maybe you should inform Judge Massei about it.

 

[Dan O.]

Just for the sake of curiosity: Why would the Italian law enforcement want more perpetrators than necessary?`What would be THEIR motive to send innocent people to jail?

Because they screwed up early on and put 3 innocent people in jail and proclaimed the case solved before they found the owner of the bloody handprint under Meredith Kercher's body. If they were to admit their mistake they would suffer a loss of reputation and monetary damages. Best just to press on, run a smear campaign in the press and do whatever is necessary to find the evidence to insure a conviction.

 

[Dan O.]

.
Do your homework on this case.

Did you leave that folded sweater in the hall in Meredith's cottage?

 

[shuttlt]

Can I suggest a truce on the fsa files? None of us know for sure what has been released and what hasn't and who asked who for what and when because the information necessary to KNOW isn't in the public domain. If the prosecution, or the lab, or the defence, or the family wished it to be, it would be. None of them wish it to be, so it isn't.