Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[HumanityBlues]

Yes. He is a computer scientist. That is what I said and that is what he is.

Are you just trying to infer that he's not qualified to talk about DNA? Why don't you just say it then?

 

[Fiona]

I am not implying anything. He is a computer scientist. He works for Krane's company, Forensic Bioinformatics.

ETA. It is important,IMO, because I think that some people might get a false impression from things such as this:

Fulcanelli’s arguments about how much is present being indicative of how it came to be deposited are unsupported by literature and contradicted by experts such as Jason Gilder whom I asked.

DNA forensic scientist Jason Gilder said, "One of the central axioms of DNA typing is that the presence of a DNA profile says nothing about the time frame or circumstances under which DNA was transferred to that item."

Not saying he is wrong: just that describing him as a DNA forensic scientist might mislead people as to Gilder's field of expertise

 

[HumanityBlues]

I am not implying anything. He is a computer scientist. He works for Krane's company, Forensic Bioinformatics.

Ok thanks. Subject dropped.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Searching the literature by author

A quick literature search on Jason Gilder turned up some paper he coauthored. This should help to define his expertise:
1.
Magnitude-dependent variation in peak height balance at heterozygous STR loci.
Gilder JR, Inman K, Shields W, Krane DE.
Int J Legal Med. 2010 Feb 10. [Epub ahead of print]
PMID: 20145943 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

2.
Time for DNA disclosure.
Krane DE, Bahn V, Balding D, Barlow B, Cash H, Desportes BL, D'Eustachio P, Devlin K, Doom TE, Dror I, Ford S, Funk C, Gilder J, Hampikian G, Inman K, Jamieson A, Kent PE, Koppl R, Kornfield I, Krimsky S, Mnookin J, Mueller L, Murphy E, Paoletti DR, Petrov DA, Raymer M, Risinger DM, Roth A, Rudin N, Shields W, Siegel JA, Slatkin M, Song YS, Speed T, Spiegelman C, Sullivan P, Swienton AR, Tarpey T, Thompson WC, Ungvarsky E, Zabell S.
Science. 2009 Dec 18;326(5960):1631-2. No abstract available.
PMID: 20019271 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

3.
Comments on the review of low copy number testing.
Gilder J, Koppl R, Kornfield I, Krane D, Mueller L, Thompson W.
Int J Legal Med. 2009 Nov;123(6):535-6. Epub 2008 Sep 18. No abstract available.
PMID: 18800222 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

4.
Sequential unmasking: a means of minimizing observer effects in forensic DNA interpretation.
Krane DE, Ford S, Gilder JR, Inman K, Jamieson A, Koppl R, Kornfield IL, Risinger DM, Rudin N, Taylor MS, Thompson WC.
J Forensic Sci. 2008 Jul;53(4):1006-7. No abstract available.
PMID: 18638252 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

5.
Run-specific limits of detection and quantitation for STR-based DNA testing.
Gilder JR, Doom TE, Inman K, Krane DE.
J Forensic Sci. 2007 Jan;52(1):97-101.
PMID: 17209918 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

6.
Systematic differences in electropherogram peak heights reported by different versions of the GeneScan software.
Gilder JR, Ford S, Doom TE, Raymer ML, Krane DE.
J Forensic Sci. 2004 Jan;49(1):92-5.
PMID: 14979350 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

[Fiona]

What are you trying to establish here? That he is not a computer scientist? I think he says he is. Do you not believe him?

It is quite true he has a product to sell though. That was discussed in the earlier thread

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not mutually exclusive

I am documenting Dr. Gilder’s expertise in the area of DNA forensics. The two descriptions of his expertise, DNA forensics and computer science, are not mutually exclusive categories. To the contrary, I could not imagine tackling problems in bioinformatics without a background in statistics and/or computer science. I am aware his employer, Forensic Bioinformatics is a commercial firm and that this was discussed in the previous thread, yet the relevance of his company’s having a “product to sell” to the present case was not established.

 

[Fiona]

I do not see anything which suggests he has expertise in DNA forensics. His field is computers and that is his role in the company. It is an important field and I am not devaluing it at all. But it is not a biological field and that is not what he knows about. Unless he has qualifications I do not know about and which he does not choose to include in his profile, of course

 

[LondonJohn]

I do not see anything which suggests he has expertise in DNA forensics. His field is computers and that is his role in the company. It is an important field and I am not devaluing it at all. But it is not a biological field and that is not what he knows about. Unless he has qualifications I do not know about and which he does not choose to include in his profile, of course

Now I know very little about this issue, other than what I've read on here in the past 20-or-so posts. But it does seem to me that you're increasingly trying to defend your having described Dr Gilder as ONLY a computer scientist. To my mind (and you can argue as to whether my mind is objective here, but I believe it is), your original post WAS intended to belittle his credibility (i.e. an argument along the lines of: "But your so-called DNA expert is actually a computer scientist, isn't he?").

And I believe that the purpose of your post here ("His field is computers and that is his role in the company") is intended to do exactly the same thing. That sentence would, I believe, lead ANY neutral observer to infer that he was something like the company's "IT geek" - the guy that reboots when everything crashes, or who writes code that the "proper" DNA scientists instruct him to write.

However, Halides' list of Dr Gilder's academic papers, coupled with excerpts from his doctoral thesis, would (if the list is accurate) lead me to believe that Dr Gilder CAN actually be regarded as an expert in the science of DNA analysis itself. Whether he has a vested interest - via the commercial ambitions of his company - is a totally different matter, in my view.

To me, Dr Gilder seems to be much more than a "computer guy", and that consequently his opinions on DNA analysis deserve to be respected. He is not the ultimate authority of course (and one might argue that NOBODY is the ultimate authority in this relatively young filed of science), but his opinions deserve respect and weight.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Chapter 3

However, Halides' list of Dr Gilder's academic papers, coupled with excerpts from his doctoral thesis, would (if the list is accurate) lead me to believe that Dr Gilder CAN actually be regarded as an expert in the science of DNA analysis itself. Whether he has a vested interest - via the commercial ambitions of his company - is a totally different matter, in my view.

LondonJohn,

Here is an excerpt from Chapter 3 of Dr. Gilder's thesis (pp. 61-62):

In the absence of degradation and stochastic effects due to small sample sizes, the amount of genomic template associated with any given locus in an evidence sample should be equivalent (stoichiometric). Given that the amount of product generated during PCR ampli¯cation is generally proportional to the amount of starting template in multiplex reactions (Walsh et al., 1992), total peak height or area between alleles and loci should be roughly equivalent. As a result, progressively falling peak heights from small to large (left to right) DNA fragments on electropherograms are commonly considered to be an indication of degradation by forensic DNA testing laboratories. However, the absence of quantitative thresholds associated with these trends has made declarations of degradation subjective and commonly supported simply by an examiner's "past experience, training and expertise."

Chris

 

[LondonJohn]

It appears Curatolo's statements are not available.

The PMF post to which Fulcanelli linked says:


I snipped bickering from LJ and from Tara on PMF out of the quotes; I wish people would see it doesn't advance their argument (on either side) at all.

Thank you for doing the c&p'ing. As I suspected, it's purely to do with Curatolo's direct testimony on the stand. And I'd venture to suggest that Sr Curatolo might have had a few sessions with the police and/or prosecutor between November 2007 and March 2009, to ensure that his recall of the evening in question was in tip-top shape.

Stewart Home was certainly impressed (to the point of becoming gushing) with the authoritative certainty of this man who had lived on the street for eight years, but who had suddenly remembered the nondescript acts of people from a nondescript night (to him at the time), some three weeks or so after the event. I'm not saying that such impressive recall isn't possible, but I'd certainly place it in the "unlikely" bracket.

A number of points immediately spring to mind. Firstly, I simply cannot believe that the defence couldn't make strong inroads into this man's testimony. It's not unfair to take into account his homeless, street-dwelling status, and I additionally don't know whether questions were asked about substance abuse or other mental health problems. (Curatolo may not have touched a drink or other drug for years, for all I know, and might have been in A1 mental health - I'm absolutely not pre-judging him based on his homelessness. But, to me, the questions HAVE to be asked.)

And secondly, where have these stories come from about him mentioning masks and costumes? ARE they in his earlier witness statements to police, or aren't they? If they're not, then have they just been invented wholesale by elements of the media? (If they are inventions, then I suggest that Curatolo could make enough money in a defamation suit to put down a deposit on a small property....). But if these things WERE said in one or more of his witness statements, why did the defence not bring it up in trial? And that comes back to a question I asked earlier: did the police provide ALL of Curatolo's witness statements to the defence, under rules of discovery?

I am more and more thinking that this issue might (but ONLY might) present a sizeable open goal to the defence team on appeal. After all, Curatolo's identification testimony was important in that it directly contradicted RS/AK's alibis, and it also had them together, not far from the cottage, within an hour or so of the murder. And if Curatolo witness statements DID mention masks and costumes - and these statements can be unearthed - then I'd argue that this is further ammunition for the defence on appeal.

(By the way, I agree to an extent about the bickering. It's sometimes hard not to push back though, when someone's not only accused you - somewhat sarcastically - of sloppiness, but has then referred you to a post which links to a page that he knows you can't read........ And I also think that identifying and documenting this sort of behaviour can have some validity in terms of trying to figure out where different people are coming from in their arguments.)

 

[Agatha]

One problem is that so much which is untrue has been reported in the press and on various websites as fact, and getting to the truth becomes that much more difficult.

 

[LondonJohn]

LondonJohn,

Here is an excerpt from Chapter 3 of Dr. Gilder's thesis (pp. 61-62):

In the absence of degradation and stochastic effects due to small sample sizes, the amount of genomic template associated with any given locus in an evidence sample should be equivalent (stoichiometric). Given that the amount of product generated during PCR ampli¯cation is generally proportional to the amount of starting template in multiplex reactions (Walsh et al., 1992), total peak height or area between alleles and loci should be roughly equivalent. As a result, progressively falling peak heights from small to large (left to right) DNA fragments on electropherograms are commonly considered to be an indication of degradation by forensic DNA testing laboratories. However, the absence of quantitative thresholds associated with these trends has made declarations of degradation subjective and commonly supported simply by an examiner's "past experience, training and expertise."

Chris

I was already personally convinced of his credentials, but thanks for demonstrating further his depth of knowledge on DNA testing. I am a scientist by education (and a commercial/legal strategist and financial/econometrics analyst by trade) and I believe I can follow the scientific language around DNA profiling pretty well. I think I can also tell where my knowledge limitations are in this area!

 

[LondonJohn]

One problem is that so much which is untrue has been reported in the press and on various websites as fact, and getting to the truth becomes that much more difficult.

So true. It's in many ways a textbook example of the potential DISadvantages of a global, 24-hour-a-day mass media, which includes user-generated content. A "fact", planted out of thin air, with no substantiation whatsoever, gets reprinted or reposted - which in itself adds credence to the "fact". And so on, and so on. Before long, it becomes difficult - if not impossible - for ANYONE to apply any sort of filter to the corpus of "facts"......

 

[Fiona]

Now I know very little about this issue, other than what I've read on here in the past 20-or-so posts. But it does seem to me that you're increasingly trying to defend your having described Dr Gilder as ONLY a computer scientist.

Did I say that? I don't think I did.

To my mind (and you can argue as to whether my mind is objective here, but I believe it is), your original post WAS intended to belittle his credibility (i.e. an argument along the lines of: "But your so-called DNA expert is actually a computer scientist, isn't he?").

Can't help what you read into what I post

And I believe that the purpose of your post here ("His field is computers and that is his role in the company") is intended to do exactly the same thing. That sentence would, I believe, lead ANY neutral observer to infer that he was something like the company's "IT geek" - the guy that reboots when everything crashes, or who writes code that the "proper" DNA scientists instruct him to write.

I have already said why I think it is important. If there was no chance of anyone being mislead there is no harm done in any case

However, Halides' list of Dr Gilder's academic papers, coupled with excerpts from his doctoral thesis, would (if the list is accurate) lead me to believe that Dr Gilder CAN actually be regarded as an expert in the science of DNA analysis itself.

You can believe that if you like. Doesn't change the fact that he is a computer scientist

Whether he has a vested interest - via the commercial ambitions of his company - is a totally different matter, in my view.

Certainly. As I said that was discussed in the previous thread

To me, Dr Gilder seems to be much more than a "computer guy", and that consequently his opinions on DNA analysis deserve to be respected. He is not the ultimate authority of course (and one might argue that NOBODY is the ultimate authority in this relatively young filed of science), but his opinions deserve respect and weight.

His opinion on computer matters is an expert opinion. His opinion on biological matters is no better than yours. If you choose to be modest about your opinion then feel free. Doesn't change the facts

 

[LondonJohn]

That's your own fault. You were warned multiple times and you just gave the finger. Toodle pip.

Except I didn't give the finger. I know what I posted on PMF. It was not dissimilar in either content or tone to what I post on here. As I recall, the post that "officially" got me kicked out was where I pointed out the hypocrisy of the group sneering on PMF towards Chris Mellas for referring to LCN testing as "Low Carbon Number", when there had been earnest discussions on PMF - over the very same day and the previous day - about what most posters mistakenly (and equally-laughably) called "graphology", when actually they were conducting a study into the VERY different area of forensic document analysis (and a very unscientific and confirmation-biased study, with no control sample, I might add). This post resulted in me being called a fairly bad swear word - which is also slang for a female body part - by the "moderator", and summarily dismissed....

(I've posted this just in case anyone thinks I engaged in offensive, insulting behaviour on PMF, and that it was this behaviour that got me kicked out. I don't believe that I did - and certainly to nowhere near the extent and severity of many other posters - including one of the "moderators" - who seemed to get a free ride (wonder how!). But then I can't check back to confirm that.......)

PS I actually hope that this post (and the post that prompted it) might get removed from here. I have no time for personal invective. But, given that Fulcanelli's post is still up there, I feel justified in defending myself against a one-line slur on my character from the usual suspect.

 

[Mary_H]

It is actually a very useful question. If the answer to it is a negative, then that answer should therefore remove all the absolute certainty you assert. At least, it would do for those who can conceive of humility and is a must for those who scream 'reasonable doubt' at every opportunity. Apparently though, that maxim only applies to everyone 'else's' opinions or beliefs.

Fulcanelli, which parts of the trial did you attend?

 

[Mary_H]

His opinion on computer matters is an expert opinion. His opinion on biological matters is no better than yours. If you choose to be modest about your opinion then feel free. Doesn't change the facts

It is ridiculous to believe that someone who has a doctorate in the field he works in is not educated about the field he works in. If he studies DNA, he is educated about DNA, and he doesn't need a degree in biology to prove it. Your complaint is like saying atmospheric scientists know only about atmospheric sciences, without also mentioning all the other disciplines they are versed in - physics, chemistry, biology, botany, geology, seismology, astronomy, ecology and so on.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

cross-disciplinary research

DNA forensics is a cross-disiplinary field. It combines elements of molecular genetics, chemistry, spectroscopy, and population genetics.

Here are some excerpts from Dr. Gilder’s LinkedIn profile:

http://www.linkedin.com/in/jasongilder

Jason Gilder’s Education
• Wright State University
Ph.D. , Bioinformatics , 1997 — 2007
Ph.D. (2004-2007) Computer Science and Engineering. Dissertation: Computational methods for the objective review of forensic DNA testing results

M.S. (2001-2003) Computer Science. Thesis: Developing an expert system and discovering new standards for forensic DNA analysis

B.S. (1997-2001) Computer Engineering. Senior honors design project: Designing an interpretive language and compiler for ASM charts

Jason Gilder’s Interests:
Forensic DNA profiling, population genetics, graphics, computerized automation, human-computer interaction, evolutionary computation, neural networks, data mining, expert systems, and pattern recognition techniques

Jason Gilder’s Specialties:
Forensic DNA profiling, population genetics, computerized automation, evolutionary computation, neural networks, expert systems, graphics, and pattern recognition techniques.

 

[LondonJohn]

Did I say that? I don't think I did.




Can't help what you read into what I post



I have already said why I think it is important. If there was no chance of anyone being mislead there is no harm done in any case



You can believe that if you like. Doesn't change the fact that he is a computer scientist



Certainly. As I said that was discussed in the previous thread



His opinion on computer matters is an expert opinion. His opinion on biological matters is no better than yours. If you choose to be modest about your opinion then feel free. Doesn't change the facts

Hmmmmm. Firstly, I think you may be fundamentally misunderstanding the necessary fusion of computing (first) and biology (second) that is more-or-less a pre-requisite for becoming an expert in DNA testing. Biologists know a lot about DNA (what it's made of, what its purpose is, how it's constructed, how it can be split and replicated, etc). Computer scientists know how to test for DNA's presence (how to build and operate machines that identify, measure and report DNA profiles).

Dr Gilder doesn't NEED to be an expert in DNA BIOLOGY to be an expert in DNA TESTING - this is the crucial point. Nobody has been arguing that he is an expert in the biology of DNA. But that's not the area that's the subject for debate. The area of potential controversy is exclusively about DNA TESTING methodology, where - to my mind - Dr Gilder IS an expert.

I honestly thought that you weren't prone to engaging in this sort of arguing by sophistry. I also think, for example, that you might also know very well what meaning you intended to convey when you "corrected" halides by mentioning that Dr Gilder was a computer scientist. The clear implication of that was that he was therefore unqualified to have an opinion on DNA testing. Otherwise there can't have been any reason for you to mention it - since coming from a computer science background is absolutely no impairment (and in fact is a positive advantage) to gaining expertise in DNA testing.

Still, you live and learn.......

 

[Mary_H]

oops, looks like Fiona got a triple whammy on that one.