Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris C]

Thinking about it logically, if the killers knew enough to perform such an expert cleanup, why would they forget to dispose of the bra clasp which they must have known carried a high risk of carrying DNA, given that they had been handling it?

Yet another part of the guilter narrative which doesn't seem to make any sense.

Actually if they where doing a cleanup why would Sollecito not just take all the clothes he touched and dump them. Unless the guilters believed he only touched the clasp when doing this supposed rape staging.

 

[Withnail1969]

Amazing - you’re the only one here talking about whatever the heck you’re talking about, therefore I suggest you take the time to go back and re-read what you have obviously missed and then politely, apologize, because you are a mile off track here.

You haven't yet addressed the points which were put to you earlier. Would you be able to do that at your earliest convenience, thank you so much.

 

[RWVBWL]

Okay... so we're roughly talking about 0.6% of the cases studied.
Which means that in about 99.4% of the cases the correct results were obtained.
I really don't think this does much to bolster your case for Amanda

Hi Amazer,
What if it was you yourself or that cute lil' kid in your avatar who was sitting in jail,
convicted of a crime you or the lil' kid did not commit,
found guilty due, in large part, to contaminated DNA results?

Would you feel differently about that 0.6% then?
I wonder...
Peace,
RWVBWL

 

[shuttlt]

Hi Amazer,
What if it was you yourself or that cute lil' kid in your avatar who was sitting in jail,
convicted of a crime you or the lil' kid did not commit,
found guilty due, in large part, to contaminated DNA results?

Would you feel differently about that 0.6% then?
I wonder...
Peace,
RWVBWL

What if the police had done a competent job and yet the innocent Amazer was still in jail? What if well meaning people managed to get Amazer out of jail on the basis of possible police incompetence, but Amazer was actually guilty all along?

I don't see how what you say undermines whatever merit their may be in Amazers claim that this is rare.

 

[Withnail1969]

What if the police had done a competent job and yet the innocent Amazer was still in jail? What if well meaning people managed to get Amazer out of jail on the basis of possible police incompetence, but Amazer was actually guilty all along?

I don't see how what you say undermines whatever merit their may be in Amazers claim that this is rare.

Such cases may be rare in advanced countries like the UK, USA and Australia, but unfortunately in countries like Italy corruption and faking results is sadly all too common.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Maybe they didn't think tiny wire shapes could accumulate significant amounts of DNA. Other people have been known to harbor similar beliefs.

After all, they were obviously unconcerned about the gritty, abrasive surface of the bra itself, which should have scoured off pounds of incriminating evidence while being handled.

Then where is all the DNA from the gritty, abrasive surface of the bra itself? You're absolutely correct, it should have scoured off pounds of incriminating evidence but for some reason the DNA was only on the wire clasp?

 

[billyryan]

Yes, they would be entitled to the standard 20 or 30 Euros/day spent in jail, that's it.

Patrick Lumumba got 8000 euros for fourteen days in jail,that works out at over 571 euros a day

When Amanda and Raffaele are acquitted,Perugia will then be associated with the murder of one beautiful girl,and the framing of another by corupt police prosecuters and forensic scientists

When Amanda is acquitted,film makers, journalists, tv programe presenters will be queing up to tell the world what a corupt and dangerous place Perugia is,to be avoided by all freedom lovers like the plague

One thing certain,should any other foreign student turn up dead in Perugia,Mignini wont have any problem deciding on wheather or not to hide his interrogation tapes,because he wont be interviewing anybody the departure of foreign students,will be like the flight from Eygpt

 

[RWVBWL]

What if the police had done a competent job and yet the innocent Amazer was still in jail? What if well meaning people managed to get Amazer out of jail on the basis of possible police incompetence, but Amazer was actually guilty all along?

I don't see how what you say undermines whatever merit their may be in Amazers claim that this is rare.

Hi Shuttlt,
Nice to see you get back here!
With regards to your question #1,
That would suck!
With regards to your question #2,
That would suck too!

Rare that it would be, I am sure that both questions you asked do occur.
Amazer, doin' his math, noted 39 was only 0.6% of some 7000 cases.
That is very rare indeed.
But that 0.6%, however rare,
sure does take on a whole different meaning if you or 1 of your family members becomes 1 of those 39 individuals,
don'tcha agree?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

PS-I am working on a Great White Shark research project here in L.A..
With the millions of people who utilise the Pacific Ocean here in California for recreation such as surfing, swimming, and diving,
it is very rare to get getting bitten, much less killed by a GWS.
You have better odds, however slim, of winning the lottery, or heck, even getting zapped by lightening.
But don't tell that the the family and friends of Lucas Ransom, who was killed on last month on Oct. 22 after getting his left leg bitten off by a Great White Shark...
The odds, however rare, suck when you are on the wrong side of them.
I believe, as many others seemingly do too, that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were convicted with evidence that was most likely contaminated, however rare.
Which does indeed, suck...
Peace,
RW

PSS-Heard you English folks are getting blasted by snow! Stay warm!
As I am headin' back to the beach right now, I'll grab a few rays of L.A. sunshine for ya!
RW

 

[Kaosium]

What if the police had done a competent job and yet the innocent Amazer was still in jail? What if well meaning people managed to get Amazer out of jail on the basis of possible police incompetence, but Amazer was actually guilty all along?

I don't see how what you say undermines whatever merit their may be in Amazers claim that this is rare.

Do we know how 'rare' contamination is under the conditions specific to that bra clasp? Since Amazer, doubtless unintentionally, compiled the 'statistic' incorrectly as pointed out by John and Halides, it's certainly not 0.6% even for Victoria. Then we'd have to take into account that the clasp migrated along the dusty floor in its 46 days of neglect, before being 'collected' by passing it around like a joint at a Pink Floyd concert, then deposited back on the floor.

Is there any evidence suggesting this would be in compliance with Victoria's collection standards? If not then it wouldn't even get a chance to get to their lab for the chance of contamination there. It would be thrown out, like many assume it will be given the opportunity for an independent review.

 

[Alt+F4]

...in countries like Italy corruption and faking results is sadly all too common.

It's unproven, uncited comments like this that should make everyone hopeful that they will eventually get on his ignore list.

 

[shuttlt]

Hi Shuttlt,
Nice to see you get back here!

Thankyou for the welcome.

With regards to your question #1,
That would suck!
With regards to your question #2,
That would suck too!

Rare that it would be, I am sure that both questions you asked do occur.

A great deal of things in life and in this case are rare. Being murdered is very unlikely indeed, but it sucks like hell if it happens to you.

Amazer, doin' his math, noted 39 was only 0.6% of some 7000 cases.
That is very rare indeed.

I suspect the analysis is too simplistic to do much more than tell us that it's fairly rare, but not unheard of, when compared to the total number of cases. But then we get into a mess of conditional probabilities, so rare is pretty relative.

But that 0.6%, however rare,
sure does take on a whole different meaning if you or 1 of your family members becomes 1 of those 39 individuals,
don'tcha agree?

Hmmm...

As a general observation that it sucks to be Amanda, or Meredith, or their families, or anybody else who is the victim of a freak event? In which case agreed. Really it sucks to be them regardless of who the killer is. I suspect it sucks to be Guede too.

 

[shuttlt]

Such cases may be rare in advanced countries like the UK, USA and Australia, but unfortunately in countries like Italy corruption and faking results is sadly all too common.

How common? If we're getting mathematical, what percentage of people who get caught with these fake results are actually guilty?

I remember 6 months ago there were all sorts of claims on the pro-Amanda sites about the huge number of judgements that were overturned in Italian courts. It turned out that that really just meant that the sentences were amended to some degree, as I am sure they will be after the appeal in this case - could be up could be down. Did any evidence ever turn up to suggest that there really is a significant (10%, 1%, 0.1%?) of major cases where Italy where the police corruptly fit people up? The scandal must be almost continual, at least when ever they arrest somebody foreign, or with money behind them.

There were also a bunch of claims that people in Italy had no confidence in their judicial system. As I recall that claim didn't really go anywhere upon which you would want to depend when you tracked it back and Italians confidence was about the same as other countries in Europe in the justice system.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

more on the frequency of contamination

William Thompson is a lawyer who specializes in probability theory as it relates to DNA profiling. In 2008 he wrote an article, “The Potential for Error in Forensic DNA Testing (and How That Complicates the Use of DNA Databases for Criminal Identification).” (available on the web as a pdf file)

“Doubt was also cast on a number of convictions in Queensland when a forensic scientist who had previously worked for a state forensic laboratory publicly expressed concerns about the reliability of the lab’s work. He told The Australian newspaper that it was not uncommon for the lab to mix up DNA samples from different cases.[62] For example, he said that analysts’ own DNA, from blood samples used as analytical controls, often was mixed up with (or found its way into) casework samples, creating false matches: “[Q]uite often my (colleague) would walk down the aisle and say, ‘I’ve just committed another rape on the Gold Coast.’”[62] The analyst said that while many such errors were caught, sample limitations made it impossible to resample or retest in some questionable cases.”
62. A. McDonald, “DNA evidence claim clouds convictions,” The Australian, July 8, 2006.

highlighting added

 

[shuttlt]

Do we know how 'rare' contamination is under the conditions specific to that bra clasp? Since Amazer, doubtless unintentionally, compiled the 'statistic' incorrectly as pointed out by John and Halides, it's certainly not 0.6% even for Victoria. Then we'd have to take into account that the clasp migrated along the dusty floor in its 46 days of neglect, before being 'collected' by passing it around like a joint at a Pink Floyd concert, then deposited back on the floor.

When I left this I think the calculation was that you'd have needed to drag it through the equivalent of a couple of metres of standard density house dust to get as much DNA as was found belonging to Raffaele on the clasp. Almost all of that DNA would belong to Meredith as most of the dust was presumably hers and Raffaele had never been in her room, so house dust was an unlikely source. Perhaps somebody can correct my recollection, or update me if things have changed.

The absence of Raffaele on other samples in the room and more generally in the apartment, surely show that contamination of the clasp with Raffaele's DNA wasn't a very likely occurrence, if that is what happened. Assuming we know how unlikely it is, it still doesn't really help. What one would need is the odds of this turning up given that Raffaele is the killer and the odds given that he isn't.

Is there any evidence suggesting this would be in compliance with Victoria's collection standards? If not then it wouldn't even get a chance to get to their lab for the chance of contamination there. It would be thrown out, like many assume it will be given the opportunity for an independent review.

Perhaps, maybe it will be.

 

[Justinian2]

Originally Posted by shuttlt
What if the police had done a competent job and yet the innocent Amazer was still in jail? What if well meaning people managed to get Amazer out of jail on the basis of possible police incompetence, but Amazer was actually guilty all along?

I don't see how what you say undermines whatever merit their may be in Amazers claim that this is rare.

1700 forensic cases of 'Black Magic' were reviewed:

From Wikipedia: Gilchrist earned the nickname "Black Magic" for her ability to match DNA evidence that other forensic examiners could not.[1] She was also known for being unusually adept at testifying and persuading juries, thus obtaining convictions.[1][5] In 1994, Gilchrist was promoted to supervisor from forensic chemist after just 9 years on the job,[1] but her colleagues began to raise concerns about her work.[1][6][7]

Gilchrist was dismissed due to "flawed casework analysis" and "laboratory mismanagement".[7] Concerns about Gilchrist's actions were first raised when a landscaper, Jeffrey Todd Pierce, who had been convicted of rape in 1986 largely based on Gilchrist's evidence despite a clean record and good alibi, was exonerated based on additional DNA evidence. Pierce was released after 15 years in prison. After his release he filed a lawsuit against Oklahoma City seeking 75 million dollars and charging that Gilchrist and Bob Macy, a now retired district attorney, conspired to produce false evidence against him.[4][8]

The point is to eliminate the people like this and make false incarceration as unlikely as the crash of a major airliner.

Such cases may be rare in advanced countries like the UK, USA and Australia, but unfortunately in countries like Italy corruption and faking results is sadly all too common.

I don't know why Withnail1969 talks about 'advanced countries'. I'm not aware of any 'advanced countries'.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Okay... so we're roughly talking about 0.6% of the cases studied.

Which means that in about 99.4% of the cases the correct results were obtained.

I really don't think this does much to bolster your case for Amanda

I corrected this kind of misuse of statistics earlier in this thread but I'm happy to do it again.

If someone is looking out the window and saying "Hey, I think I see an albino pigeon!" it is not rational to respond by saying "What are the odds of any given, randomly-selected pigeon being an albino? If the chances are only 0.6% then I'm not going to get up and look at it, I'll just assume that you are mistaken and that it is not an albino pigeon".

Firstly, a rational person would get up an look at the specific case rather than taking a guess from their armchair based on generalities.

Secondly, we are looking at this particular pigeon because it looks like an albino pigeon. It has not been randomly selected from the whole pigeon population.

If you absolutely insisted on trying to fix a belief based on maths from your armchair rather than examining the specific case, the question you should ask in the case of the pigeon is "What percentage of cases where someone thinks they have seen an albino pigeon turn out to be caused by an actual albino pigeon?". Or in the Kercher murder case, "What percentage of cases where there is a strong case for contamination turn out to involve contamination?".

 

[Katody Matrass]

When I left this I think the calculation was that you'd have needed to drag it through the equivalent of a couple of metres of standard density house dust to get as much DNA as was found belonging to Raffaele on the clasp. Almost all of that DNA would belong to Meredith as most of the dust was presumably hers and Raffaele had never been in her room, so house dust was an unlikely source. Perhaps somebody can correct my recollection, or update me if things have changed.

Hi, shuttlt!

House dust is one of the less probable paths of contamination IMO. Other were pointed out here recently. DNA could have been transfered by the towels, or by cops touching the door or some items in the kitchen etc.

More importantly, given the way that piece of cloth was handled, and knowing ILE's general conduct at the crime scene, we absolutely cannot exclude the possibility of contamination. In my opinion it's enough to treat the bra clasp with utmost suspicion.

And by discussing all that probabilities and paths of contamination we are still cutting ILE a lot of slack.
After all the December excursion to the cottage had a single purpose. The cops were just humiliated on TV, and all the evidence on jailed Raffaele they had was reduced to absolute zero.
Apart from showing Sollecitos family their place and saving their own faces they had the best intentions, I'm sure. If you're doing what must be done to keep the criminal locked up you're still the good guy, isn't it? And I bet they were 99% sure they have the right guy locked up.

That's the big problem of this investigation: Not only all the evidence and witnesses were gathered after the cops already trumpeted "case closed" and after the locked up kids were smeared thoroughly in tabloids, but in fact most of the evidence showed up after the cops were repeatedly proven wrong in a humiliating way.

 

[shuttlt]

Hi, shuttlt!

House dust is one of the less probable paths of contamination IMO. Other were pointed out here recently. DNA could have been transfered by the towels, or by cops touching the door or some items in the kitchen etc.

True, true. The door handle has always been a popular explanation. The lab too of course.

More importantly, given the way that piece of cloth was handled, and knowing ILE's general conduct at the crime scene, we absolutely cannot exclude the possibility of contamination. In my opinion it's enough to treat the bra clasp with utmost suspicion.

The whole contamination thing has been kicking around for a year. I don't expect anybody to exclude it. Raffaele would still have to be very unlucky, but if the contamination statistics show nothing else, it's that every once in a while somebody gets very unlucky in ways not so very different from what you describe. In most cases though, the DNA on the bra clasp would be that of the killer, but then we are back into the realm of conditional probabilities again.

And by discussing all that probabilities and paths of contamination we are still cutting ILE a lot of slack.
After all the December excursion to the cottage had a single purpose. The cops were just humiliated on TV, and all the evidence on jailed Raffaele they had was reduced to absolute zero.
Apart from showing Sollecitos family their place and saving their own faces they had the best intentions, I'm sure. If you're doing what must be done to keep the criminal locked up you're still the good guy, isn't it? And I bet they were 99% sure they have the right guy locked up.

People's instincts about a case and assessment of the evidence can certainly be wrong.

That's the big problem of this investigation: Not only all the evidence and witnesses were gathered after the cops already trumpeted "case closed" and after the locked up kids were smeared thoroughly in tabloids, but in fact most of the evidence showed up after the cops were repeatedly proven wrong in a humiliating way.

It's a bit of an exaggeration to say that ALL the evidence and witnesses were gathered after they said "case closed". Quite a bit of interviewing of other housemates and so on had been done. I'm being a picky arse though and you probably don't really mean ALL.

As for all the rest of it, I'm sure it falls quite a long way short of what police work should be. Has anything new turned up to show a conspiracy? When I left there was nothing that anybody found particularly convincing who didn't already believe Amanda was innocent.

 

[shuttlt]

Or in the Kercher murder case, "What percentage of cases where there is a strong case for contamination turn out to involve contamination?".

Surely what you actually want is, "What percentage of cases where there is a strong case for contamination is it actually the case that there is contamination"? Of course we can't know this figure. We can't even know "how many cases where there is a strong case for contamination turn out to involve contamination (assuming here that the judgement of contamination is always correct, but gets a few false negatives)" since we don't have an infallible process for making the judgement. All we can know is how many cases does it eventually become accepted (based on some criterion that throws up some false positives and some false negatives, like being acquitted say) that there was contamination. Really all this does is give us some indication of the likelihood of the court deciding that there was contamination.

 

[platonov]

For the birds

I corrected this kind of misuse of statistics earlier in this thread but I'm happy to do it again.
If someone is looking out the window and saying "Hey, I think I see an albino pigeon!" it is not rational to respond by saying "What are the odds of any given, randomly-selected pigeon being an albino? If the chances are only 0.6% then I'm not going to get up and look at it, I'll just assume that you are mistaken and that it is not an albino pigeon".

Firstly, a rational person would get up an look at the specific case rather than taking a guess from their armchair based on generalities.

Secondly, we are looking at this particular pigeon because it looks like an albino pigeon. It has not been randomly selected from the whole pigeon population.

If you absolutely insisted on trying to fix a belief based on maths from your armchair rather than examining the specific case, the question you should ask in the case of the pigeon is "What percentage of cases where someone thinks they have seen an albino pigeon turn out to be caused by an actual albino pigeon?". Or in the Kercher murder case, "What percentage of cases where there is a strong case for contamination turn out to involve contamination?".

I wouldn't want to pigeon hole you here as somebody whose record in the field of statistical analysis is spotty as opposed to completely white but haven't you an outstanding issue to resolve in this area before we accept your authority on this.

i.e. The 21.6% issue or in layman's terms 'the more evidence adduced = the weaker the case'

On this pigeon analogy would the stats be skewed by the fact the 'observers' who claim it is an albino pigeon are convinced of this before the bird even appears (confirmation bias if you will).
Indeed every bird seen thru this particular 'window' is an albino pigeon apparently unless the bird is called Rudy Guede (Do your own jokes here).

& The fact that the argument seems to be ; albino pigeons are known to exist, therefore this is one all these are - and then proceed to list (repeatedly) other sightings of said creatures ('evidence by anecdote').

ETA Even Musmanno would throw this argument out.

.