Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Danceme]

(snip)
However, in response to you, I can understand why AK felt the need to send the "round robin" email. But I still think that she was wrong to actually send it - at least with some of the contents it included. I'd mitigate my belief by saying that she most likely didn't feel that she herself was under suspicion at the time of writing the email, and therefore might have felt free to say anything she liked.
(snip)
I believe she made a mistake in referring directly to her police questioning.

The 25 people on Amanda's email list, who were they, all college aged friends? or teachers, older relatives, other adults in her life as well besides friends?

I think just saying the police questioned her on Meredith's sex life would have sufficed at that point. I wouldn't think making reference to her own condoms, police questioning on meredith's sex life specifically mentioning anal sex, using "wtf" was not at all the way a well brought up, Jesuit educated, young woman would write to 25 people if they included the type of adults I mentioned above. Other college kids, maybe yes.

I also can't see the logic in sending this to 25 people at that time, so soon after the murder. Amanda could not have known at that point, a mere two days later, the international dimensions this case would eventually take on. I can see sending it to her closest friends such as DJ and Madison, her closest relatives (mother, father, sisters) but not anyone else, at least until after she was arrested. Then I could see the need to explain yourself to everyone you know well.

 

[Danceme]

The prosecution's worst-case scenario is that the stain is in fact semen left by Guede, because it becomes even harder to come up with a scenario in which the other two played a significant role, with two knives, staging, bare footprints in the corridor, and other improbable elements.

Can you think of a legitimate reason why a public institution devoted to the interests of truth and justice would block this test?

The defense expert found this stain with a crimescope I understand. It was not exactly visible without it. It is also my understanding the prosecution did not have a crimescope, is this true? so they could not have found it.

If the defense expert had the item, saw the stain, why not test it. If they were so convinced it could not in a million years be Rafaelle's then there is enormous reason for them to test it and prop up the lone wolf Rudy scenario. If it wasn't Rudy but an unknown, just as good.

Why didn't they test it?

 

[Mary_H]

No, it isn't. And even Frank doesn't say so there. 'Suggests' is opinion and subjective and does not constitute a fact. How can you date a stain? How can you show it wasn't left the night before or the night before that?

That's an interesting argument. Would you be willing to apply it to DNA and blood, as well?

 

[Fulcanelli]

That's an interesting argument. Would you be willing to apply it to DNA and blood, as well?

Sure...lack of possible source combined with witnesses who state the blood wasn't there previously.

 

[Mary_H]

Sure...lack of possible source combined with witnesses who state the blood wasn't there previously.

Would you test it anyway?

 

[LondonJohn]

The 25 people on Amanda's email list, who were they, all college aged friends? or teachers, older relatives, other adults in her life as well besides friends?

I think just saying the police questioned her on Meredith's sex life would have sufficed at that point. I wouldn't think making reference to her own condoms, police questioning on meredith's sex life specifically mentioning anal sex, using "wtf" was not at all the way a well brought up, Jesuit educated, young woman would write to 25 people if they included the type of adults I mentioned above. Other college kids, maybe yes.

I also can't see the logic in sending this to 25 people at that time, so soon after the murder. Amanda could not have known at that point, a mere two days later, the international dimensions this case would eventually take on. I can see sending it to her closest friends such as DJ and Madison, her closest relatives (mother, father, sisters) but not anyone else, at least until after she was arrested. Then I could see the need to explain yourself to everyone you know well.

So you're broadly agreeing with me, as far as I can understand?

So far as the "25 people" issue is concerned, I would agree that it's a pretty wide circulation list. I don't know exactly who these 25 people were, nor what their demographic/gender/age breakdown was. What I HAD argued though was that 25 people does not - in my view - constitute a "spam list". The term "spam list" implies, to me, a list including people you barely know (but whose email addresses you just happen to have at hand), and people whose interest in the email content you have no idea about. I don't think this was the case with Amanda Knox's email circulation list here. And I think that to refer to it offhandedly as a "spam list" is a deliberate act of defamation.

 

[Mary_H]

Jason Gilder's credentials are impressive but it does seem strange that computer science degrees qualifies one to analyze DNA. According to the research I just did on the educational background required for a DNA analyst, degrees in the natural sciences such as forensic science, biology, chemistry, physics etc, with Master's degrees in forensic science, genetics, chemistry or molecular biology are recommended.

http://www.ehow.com/about_6395433_education-training-forensic-dna-analysis.html

The website for Forensic Bioinformatics describes Dr. Gilder and several others as "recognized for their work with computational automation and the use of biological data". DNA detection seems pretty black and white to me, it is what it is or it isn't. The machines and the software themselves don't lie. If they detect it it's really there. (Contamination is a whole other issue.) Writing and using computer software to enable this detection and analyzing results is, I guess, something computer scientists can and do do.

However there's not much in the description of the field to lead one to think its part of the work. Here's a googled blurb on computer science;

Computer science (CS) spans the range from theory through programming to cutting-edge development of computing solutions. Computer science offers a foundation that permits graduates to adapt to new technologies and new ideas. The work of computer scientists falls into three categories: a) designing and building software; b) developing effective ways to solve computing problems, such as storing information in databases, sending data over networks or providing new approaches to security problems; and c) devising new and better ways of using computers and addressing particular challenges in areas such as robotics, computer vision, or digital forensics (although these specializations are not available in all computer science programs). Most computer science programs require some mathematical background.

I am going to hazard the uneducated guess that the reason DNA profiling is so new is because it couldn't be accomplished before the use of certain activities that were made possible by advances in computing. I will do more research and get back to you on that.

 

[LondonJohn]

With reference to dating the pillowcase stain (e.g. "How can you date a stain? How can you show it wasn't left the night before or the night before that?"), well of course you can't narrow down the stain to the murder night (unless it could be established that Meredith had changed her bedding that very evening).

But this is to miss the wider point. The stain would still be of potentially vast evidential value, EVEN IF (as would be likely) it couldn't be dated any more accurately than within two weeks (say) of the murder. This is because the police would have a good chance of determining who might have had consensual sexual relations with Meredith in her own room in the two weeks leading up to the murder. In fact, I'd imagine that they'd quickly be able to establish that only Meredith's new Italian boyfriend would fit that category.

So, having established this - and assuming for a moment that the semen didn't belong to Meredith's boyfriend - then the police could reasonably surmise that the only other ways in which semen could have got onto the pillowcase were either:

1) somebody entering her room while she was not there and ejaculating onto her bedding (possible, but unlikely);

2) someone having forced sexual relations with Meredith some other time over the two weeks prior to the murder night (very unlikely, since Meredith hadn't reported any such offence - and in any case this would be a separate crime worth investigating in its own right if this had happened); or

3) someone depositing the semen on her pillowcase at some point during the sexual assault/murder on the night of the 1st November 2007 (by far the most likely of the three possibilities, I'd argue).

So, the issue of narrowly dating the stain to the night of November 1st diminishes in importance, insofar as its evidential value is concerned.

 

[Mary_H]

The 25 people on Amanda's email list, who were they, all college aged friends? or teachers, older relatives, other adults in her life as well besides friends?

I think just saying the police questioned her on Meredith's sex life would have sufficed at that point. I wouldn't think making reference to her own condoms, police questioning on meredith's sex life specifically mentioning anal sex, using "wtf" was not at all the way a well brought up, Jesuit educated, young woman would write to 25 people if they included the type of adults I mentioned above. Other college kids, maybe yes.

I also can't see the logic in sending this to 25 people at that time, so soon after the murder. Amanda could not have known at that point, a mere two days later, the international dimensions this case would eventually take on. I can see sending it to her closest friends such as DJ and Madison, her closest relatives (mother, father, sisters) but not anyone else, at least until after she was arrested. Then I could see the need to explain yourself to everyone you know well.

She wasn't explaining herself; she was relating information. She would have known that everybody who knew she was in Perugia would be dying to know what happened. She knew what the pertinent details were because she had had to repeat them several times over the previous two days. Maybe she couldn't have known the international dimensions, but she knew that everybody in her life knew about the murder and would want the scoop.

By the way, I know about 200 people who were well brought up and Jesuit-educated, and many of them routinely use the more expanded version of "WTF" in conversation, including one with a Ph.D. in theology.

Contrary to the Puritanical attitudes of many of the people in this thread (as evidenced by their resistance to characterizing the Perugian police as sexual beings), talking about the police's questions about anal sex and condoms is not "dirty." In normal life, it is matter-of-fact, and in Amanda's e-mail it was necessary for her to make her point about how the police were asking her very personal questions about Meredith. And as I pointed out earlier, it comprised two or three phrases out of a very long e-mail, so it is a bit baffling why people are so focused on criticizing it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Would you test it anyway?

If appropriate or required.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

bioinformatics

Dr. Gilder was part of the Bioinformatics Research Group when he attended Wright State and is still affiliated with it.
http://birg.cs.wright.edu/textbook
Here is a description of the textbook on bioinformatics coauthored by Dr. Krane and Dr. Michael Raymer, with emphasis added. Dr. Raymer and Dr. Travis Doom head up the BRG. Dr. Raymer is in the department of computer science and engineering at Wright State.

"Fundamental Concepts of Bioinformatics is the first textbook co-authored by a biologist and computer scientist that is specifically designed to make bioinformatics accessible to undergraduates and prepare them for more advanced work. Students learn what programs are available for analyzing data, how to understand the basic algorithms that underlie these programs, what bioinformatic research is like, and other basic concepts. Information flows easily from one topic to the next, with enough detail to support the major concepts without overwhelming students. Problems at the end of each chapter use real data to help students apply what they have learned so they know how to critically evaluate results from both a statistical and biological point of view."

 

[Fiona]

Do we know that this stain was in fact semen?
Do we know that it was not discovered by the police investigators? Is it true they did not have the necessary equipement to detect it?
Do we know that the defence did find it and if so did they turn it over to the police?
If they did turn it over to the police did the police then test it?
If they did not turn it over to the police did they test it themselves?
If they tested it themselves what were the results
If they did not turn it over to the police, and did not test it themselves, why not?
Can someone please give a concise summary of the sequence of events relating to this stain? Not all of us know what the facts are. I probably should know, but I don't. I suppose I can dig, but since so many here seem to know all about it can one of you share to save me that work? I do not think that is an unreasonable request and I do not think it is asking others to act as servants: I have been consistently willing to share what I have discovered and I would appreciate reciprocity.

 

[RWVBWL]

If appropriate or required.

Hi Fulcanelli,
If the woman who was murdered was your own daughter, sister, Mother, girlfriend or wife,
would you want the stain, if semen, tested? Or left alone?

I know what I would want, I want it tested!
But my mindset might be different to yours...
Hmmm,
RWVBWL

 

[Fiona]

Hi Fulcanelli,
If the woman who was murdered was your own daughter, sister, Mother, girlfriend or wife, would you want the stain, if semen, tested? Or left alone?

I know what I would want, I want it tested!
But my mindset might be different to yours...
Hmmm,
RWVBWL

The problem with that is that it cuts both ways. If defence experts found something the police had missed and which might have a bearing on the question of my daughter's guilt when she was standing trial for murder I would want it tested. In fact I think I would insist

 

[HumanityBlues]

The problem with that is that it cuts both ways. If defence experts found something the police had missed and which might have a bearing on the question of my daughter's guilt when she was standing trial for murder I would want it tested. In fact I think I would insist

Who is the "I" in this equation? Are you putting yourself in the defense lawyer's position? I can think of why her lawyers would not want it tested. I can't think of why the prosecution, court, or the investigators wouldn't want it tested. I certainly don't buy the court's reasoning at all. If there's a spectrum and it cuts both ways, it sure seems to cut much further in one direction than the other.

 

[Fiona]

Who is the "I" in this equation? Are you putting yourself in the defense lawyer's position? I can think of why her lawyers would not want it tested. I can't think of why the prosecution, court, or the investigators wouldn't want it tested. I certainly don't buy the court's reasoning at all. If there's a spectrum and it cuts both ways, it sure seems to cut much further in one direction than the other.

I am not sure I understand what you are asking me, HumanityBlues. I was putting myself in the place of Knox's parents (and of course it also applies to Sollecito's parents). Whether the defence experts and lawyers thought it was a good idea or not, as a parent convinced of the innocence of my child, if I thought the evidence uncovered would help to establish that truth I would insist on it being tested. I am sorry if that was not clear, but I thought it was in context of the post I was responding to

It may also be important to remember that this was in the context of an inquisitorial system where the aim is different from the common law we are used to: both prosecution and defence are charged with seeking the truth. So that makes a difference to the defence obligations as well, or so it seems to me. But that is only a minor additional point: not the one I originally made

 

[HumanityBlues]

I am not sure I understand what you are asking me, HumanityBlues. I was putting myself in the place of Knox's parents (and of course it also applies to Sollecito's parents). Whether the defence experts and lawyers thought it was a good idea or not, as a parent convinced of the innocence of my child, if I thought the evidence uncovered would help to establish that truth I would insist on it being tested. I am sorry if that was not clear, but I thought it was in context of the post I was responding to

It may also be important to remember that this was in the context of an inquisitorial system where the aim is different from the common law we are used to: both prosecution and defence are charged with seeking the truth. So that makes a difference to the defence obligations as well, or so it seems to me. But that is only a minor additional point: not the one I originally made

Thanks for the clarification. I was honestly just asking from what position. Yes, I would think the parents would want it tested.

Also, there are plenty of adversarial elements within the Italian system. The defense may have obligations to hand over evidence they've discovered (this is the same in the United States too, which is one reason defense lawyers often do not write down witness statements when interviewing defense witnesses). I can't envision the scenario though where it would be the obligation of the defense to do the testing, inquisitorial system or adversarial. Either way, I still can't see an acceptable scenario where the prosecution or the investigators would not want further testing once this was found out.

Edit: The Italian system is more of a hybrid of the inquisitorial and adversarial systems.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Hi Fulcanelli,
If the woman who was murdered was your own daughter, sister, Mother, girlfriend or wife,
would you want the stain, if semen, tested? Or left alone?

I know what I would want, I want it tested!
But my mindset might be different to yours...
Hmmm,
RWVBWL

Not if I was convinced we already had the guilty parties bang to rights. I would probably prefer, in light of that, not to have my beloved daughter's memory suffer yet another humiliation and shame in front of the whole oggling World if it wasn't desperately needed in order to obtain justice. You?

 

[Mr.D]

Jason Gilder's credentials are impressive but it does seem strange that computer science degrees qualifies one to analyze DNA.

Oh fer crying out loud already.

Dr. Gilder's PhD. is in Computer Science. His dissertation and subsequent work experience has to do with computer analysis of DNA.

Thus the most accurate ways to describe him would go something like "a Computer Scientist who specializes in computer analysis of DNA."

He would likely be considered by those in the field an expert at analyzing the data files produced by the DNA testing. He would probably not be considered by those in the field as a "DNA expert," however as he lacks either the formal schooling in such things as genetics and cellular biology or a long history of working, publishing and researching in the DNA field.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Who is the "I" in this equation? Are you putting yourself in the defense lawyer's position? I can think of why her lawyers would not want it tested. I can't think of why the prosecution, court, or the investigators wouldn't want it tested. I certainly don't buy the court's reasoning at all. If there's a spectrum and it cuts both ways, it sure seems to cut much further in one direction than the other.

Because they didn't want to jump to the defence tune, which was nothing more then a scam to try and create diversions and string out the trial and delay the verdict in the event that some miracle my turn up in the meantime or some judge may fall down and break their leg on the way into court or picking the kids up from school and at least delay the inevitable.

Understand (and Mary H first raised the subject) this is a clear case of fabricating evidence, the only legal way to do so, but in this case by the defence...create evidence that doesn't exist from sheer innuendo.

It was deliberately left to the end of the trial as a cynical defence tactic...why should the court play along when it was clear to any idiot exactly what it was?