Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mrs.Columbo]

Quite - ONE LOOK at that still (or the actual video) should be enough to tell anyone that this so-called evidence is hopelessly compromised.

That the techs actually handling the thing (one of whom could well be the great Stefanoni herself) were were so utterly oblivious that they actually flimed it is almost comical.

Therefore it has been easy for the defense and their experts to establish contamination at the trial, hasn't it?

 

[shuttlt]

But this just appears to be another way of saying what I was saying. If contamination has been (to all intents) ruled out, the situation is almost always that the prosecution says the defendant was at the crime scene and the defence says he wasn't (by definition - otherwise, proving that it's the defendant's DNA would be of no use to the prosecution).

The calculation is therefore this: what is the probability that the DNA profile found from the tested sample is from another unidentified member of the population (the defence's position), versus it being that of the defendant? Clearly, the more complete the match, the more remote would be the calculated possibility of the DNA coming from another person.

I've never seen any such calculation in this case. Did Stefanoni, or any of the other prosecution experts give odds? All I've seen is people saying that it matches Raffaele on so many alleles.

 

[Chris C]

Therefore it has been easy for the defense and their experts to establish contamination at the trial, hasn't it?

Technically contamination has been admitted to when Massei reasoned that some of the alleles on Sollecito's alleged partial profile wasn't his.

 

[LondonJohn]

An article about LCN in the Omagh Bomber case, which contains a relevant quote from a Forensic Science Service spokesperson:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/22/northernireland.northernireland

A FSS spokesperson said: "LCN DNA analysis is only carried out by the most-experienced DNA scientists, who have undergone special additional training and testing in this area of casework."

What special LCN training or testing programme had Patrizia Stefanoni gone on, again? Anyone?

 

[LondonJohn]

I've never seen any such calculation in this case. Did Stefanoni, or any of the other prosecution experts give odds? All I've seen is people saying that it matches Raffaele on so many alleles.

Yeah, I haven't seen any probabilities mentioned in this case either. Certainly in the UK and US there is routine reference to probabilities such as "odds of 1 in 2.5 billion that the DNA came from a person other than Mr Smith", since this makes it much easier for a judge and jury to put into the correct context. And it's this calculation (the "1 in 2.5 billion" in this example) that's being referred to in the CPS document.

 

[shuttlt]

Yeah, I haven't seen any probabilities mentioned in this case either. Certainly in the UK and US there is routine reference to probabilities such as "odds of 1 in 2.5 billion that the DNA came from a person other than Mr Smith", since this makes it much easier for a judge and jury to put into the correct context. And it's this calculation (the "1 in 2.5 billion" in this example) that's being referred to in the CPS document.

So we agree, more or less?

 

[LondonJohn]

Of course this is really not important in the bigger picture, but this video might show what happened:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/8211531/Amanda-Knox-back-in-court.html

It looks like Knox was paused momentarily by the guard - and it's inconclusive to me whether this was in order to make the right turn, or to provide the photographers with a picture. Certainly a rash of flash bulbs goes off the moment Knox comes to a halt, which kind of suggests the latter. But anyhow.......

Oops: an accidental quote by me of one of my own posts! Still, at least it shows how I actually interpreted the video of Knox being held as she arrived in court, and it indicates my general view on the futility of trying to draw conclusions from either single images or even video. Funny old world!

 

[LondonJohn]

So we agree, more or less?

Yes we do

It would be interesting to see such a calculation for the alleged Sollecito DNA found on the bra clasp, given that there were many inconsistencies or overlaps in matching the loci.

 

[Draca]

Sorry about that - I was thrown by this comment from him (her?):

... which sounded like s/he was making excuses for the way Amanda was being handled. Even if they had to come through the door in single file, Amanda is hardly going to make a break for freedom.

She was attempting to be fair and not just assume the worst.

 

[shuttlt]

Yes we do

It would be interesting to see such a calculation for the alleged Sollecito DNA found on the bra clasp, given that there were many inconsistencies or overlaps in matching the loci.

It would be nice, but I doubt anything would be resolved on the thread by it.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

Technically contamination has been admitted to when Massei reasoned that some of the alleles on Sollecito's alleged partial profile wasn't his.

so it was then thrown out and now the appeal judge ordered re-testing?

 

[Justinian2]

True, but we aren't claiming that the DNA on the knife, or the bra clasp are the results of amplifying noise, are we?

I'm saying that everything gets amplified, including the noise/contaminants. My take is that to get good results, one DNA type has to outnumber - or be greater than - the DNA or garbage in the contaminants.

Advantages of LCN DNA Profiling
The upside of this type of DNA profiling is that it allows a very small amount of DNA to be analyzed, even the DNA from just 15 to 20 cells.

Problems with LCN DNA
Because of the small amount of starting DNA, many more cycles of replication are necessary and contaminants will be also be replicated, creating a greater risk of inaccurate results.​

There are probably ways to mathematically 'lift' the results out of the garbage since there are ten points used for analysis. However, when the sample is small, how are we sure that the DNA wasn't introduced via an unclean lab, glove, or containment vessel?

6 picograms is quite invisible to the naked eye.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no engagement

So on being asked to back up your claim...




you had no evidence other than another spin on The Cartwheel of Analogy and this having been disqualified are responding with requests for definitions.

No it is then.

platonov,

The fact that you have referred to cartwheels at least twice recently is yet more evidence of the paucity of actual facts or arguments at your disposal. I am going to suspend briefly my general rule that your arguments are not worth my time to discuss. I accept Amanda's account of her interrogation and note that it is similar to both what I know of specific coercive interrogations and also what I know from reading about them in general. You did not answer my question; therefore, there is no point in discussing this matter further unless you do.

 

[moodstream]

As I understand it, it also wasn't standard LCN testing that was used, so in that sense Stefanoni obviously didn't follow standard procedure. I posted these quotes from PMF (believe it or not...) some time back.


And also this:

It's from a poster called Greggy, who obviously otherwise believes Knox to be guilty (hence the cute little nickname for her). AFAIK, no scientist who's spoken out about the case has endorsed what Stefanoni did, apart from her boss...

My understanding, which is entry level at best, of Patrizia Stefanoni's position is that she would love to have been able to test it it twice, but she did not have enough material. No, it should not be a research report, but they went with what they had. Surely, you are not accusing us of allowing contamination?

What are the odds of it being contamination, and then contamination from the one source that would damn Amanda Knox? You can complain that we did not do it perfectly. The real world isn't perfect. Nevertheless, there is a low probability of this being an error.

---------------

It is interesting that the prosecution will not release any information about when it was tested in relation to when a known MK sample was tested.

Besides, am I the only one who has raised an eyebrow over the statement that they did not have enough dna to duplicate the test because they used half of it to test for blood?

Would you, reader of this post, given the level of knowledge you currently have about DNA testing, which is certainly proportionally very small compared with Patrizia Stefanoni's (for most of us), have chosen to use part of that sample for any other purpose? What could be more important than establishing the DNA profile?

A second puzzle about the testing that I have is that I remember that I read in Massei the knife was tested on two different occasions. Does anyone know the back story to this? Why on two separate occasions and what were the results per occasion?

 

[RWVBWL]

I'm not getting your connection between the apparently soiled, discarded gloves, and the precautions taken in LCN labs. Are those gloves on a bench in an LCN lab?

Hi BOT,
Those gloves worn by an investigator collecting critical evidence they specifically went to get are dirty.

With you as a patient, would you want a person gathering the tools needed for the doctor who will soon start major brain surgery on you to wear those same dirty gloves?
Can you imagine someone start working on the glass components of a very critical optical instrument such as say, the Hubble telescope, while wearing those same dirty gloves?
Myself, I'd be a little pissed if I saw the guy or gal who assembled the 600mm lens I sometimes use was wearing those dirty gloves at the time.
I sometimes feel my action photographs are a little off, even though I might be shooting at 1/2500 a second. I wonder if the worker who put my lens together did so while wearing similiar, clean gloves that the expert evidence collectors in Perugia, Italy wore when they picked up that bra clasp:
(Any fellow photography lovers might like this video tour I linked below)
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/l_plant/index.html
For some reason, maybe it being the private sector, I doubt it...

Those gloves are dirty.
It is disgusting to watch the evidence collectors almost gleefully hold, handle, pass around, and then drop this critical piece of evidence
that they specifically went to get that day from Meredith Kercher's bedroom.

I am glad they video'd it though.

Did they also video the collection of that huge knife they went looking for at Raffaele's pad that Amanda supposedly carried around for protection?
I wonder...
RWVBWL

 

[Justinian2]

My understanding, which is entry level at best, of Patrizia Stefanoni's position is that she would love to have been able to test it it twice, but she did not have enough material.

LCN DNA reminds me of those paranormal investigators that rely on noise for their results. They search through photographs taken in the dark, turn up the gain on sound recorders left on overnight and similar things in order to find noise that they then use to support their arguments for the presense of the supernatural.

In this case, the Italian "paranormal investigators" have turned up the gain in their lab instruments to identify noise that is then attributed to the presence of the ghost of Amanda and the ghost of Raffael.

This paranormal investigation was done on Halloween!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

one joint or three is not a significant difference to me

So you choose to ignore his written comments. I see.

No, I did not ignore them; I put them alongside other things. Raffaele said nothing about amnesia; I take what he said to mean that the details of the evening were hard to recall exactly. In addition, I am under no obligation to put the whole blame on 1-3 joints, which seems to be Raffaele's position at the moment of his writing an entry in his diary. If Raffaele's interrogation were like Amanda's, then ILE deserves part of the blame, IMHO.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I have some high-brow reading to suggest: the January issue of Maxim. There's a great article about John Douglas:

You may not realize it, but you already know who John Douglas is: he has been portrayed in a number of feature films. He was the model for Scott Glenn's Jack Crawford character in The Silence of the Lambs. Dennis Farina brought him to life in Manhunter, Harvey Keitel portrayed him in Red Dragon, and HBO is currently developing a series based on Douglas' first book, Mind Hunter, to be produced and directed by David Fincher. In 1990 Douglas himself was profiled on a CBS series, Top Cops. The executive producer, Sonny Grosso, a highly decorated NYPD detective whose real-life casework was the basis for The French Connection, says of Douglas, "I don't think I could do what he does. Very few can. But I'm damn glad he is out there doing it."

This legendary crime fighter has an opinion about Amanda Knox as well:

"Amanda is innocent - I'm convinced of it," says Douglas. "The Italian police completely contaminated the crime scene. Besides, behavior reflects personality, and there is nothing in Knox's past behavior to indicate she is a murderer."

 

[RWVBWL]

The "information area" of PMF has come up with an interesting translation of an article from the Umbria Journal, discussing the views of a chemistry professor at Meredith's former university, Leeds (thanks to Jools for the identification and translation of the article):

LEEDS TEACHER: "JUSTICE BUT NOT WITH INNOCENTS JAILED"

Meredith Kercher “should have justice, but not at the expense of keeping two innocent persons in jail” quoted, as told in an interview with the weekly magazine OGGI, by a chemistry teacher from Leeds University where the English student murdered in Perugia studied, Michael Krom explains he’s is come to be an ardent follower of the case, having thoroughly studied it and become an “innocentista” regarding Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. “The thing that I’m most anxious - the teacher tells OGGI- is that Meredith Kercher gets justice. Condemning two innocent people breaks two lives but it also creates a third victim: the memory of Meredith." In the opinion of professor Krom there are no evidence to catch the two former sweethearts. “Let's start with Amanda – he adds -.

There is let’s say an anthropological objection. The cases of women participating in a rape and then kill are very rare. In the UK there have been two in 50 years. Circumstances different from those of Perugia, it was of women subjugated by psychopathic husbands that had childhoods full of violence and deprivation and the evidence against them were overwhelming. What is there against Knox? What is it of hers in the crime house? Nothing, zero… And Raffaeles’s position is even more absurd. Just a fragment of DNA on the hook ‘gets’ him. Here we are in my expertise field. And I say: in the case of the hook suspicions of contamination are enormous. It was recovered a month and a half after the murder. It was found in a different place from the original. As for the knife alleged as the murder weapon, the DNA traces are too low, too scarce to give reliable results in tests. It’s one of the first things I teach my students; when the traces are too low testing is not even done. On site we all agree: Raf (this is how he calls him -Ed.-) is collateral damage -concludes Krom- in a war that does not concern him.”

http://www.umbriajournal.com/mediac...ocente-leeds-giustizia-ma-no-a-innocenti.html

Thanks LondonJohn for pointing this out,
It's kinda nice to see others,
this time a chemistry professor at Meredith's former university, speak up too about this injustice.

Heck, even another regular follower of this case, a guy with an Italian background that I have always thought was very intelligent from reading his posts under the name of Al-Fakh Yughoud has voiced his strong doubts about this case too. That was interesting to read last night.

Have a good one, LJ!
RWVBWL

 

[Justinian2]

Maybe god gives Italy a special exemption to be contamination free so they can be pure. In Stefanoni's lab for instance, they didn't take any of the precautions that every other lab in the world takes to mitigate the contamination when processing LCN DNA. Yet unlike every one of those other labs, Stefanoni's lab has never had a case of contamination (according to Stefanoni's own words).

From Wikipedia:

Many ghost-hunting groups say they find evidence of something they can't explain through scientific or natural means, yet critics question ghost-hunting's methodology, particularly its use of instrumentation, as there is no scientifically-proven link between the existence of ghosts and cold spots or electromagnetic fields. According to skeptical investigator Joe Nickell, the typical ghost hunter is practicing pseudoscience.[15] Nickell says that ghost hunters often arm themselves with EMF meters, thermometers that can identify cold spots, and wireless microphones that eliminate background noise, pointing out the equipment being used to try to detect ghosts is not designed for the job. "The least likely explanation for any given reading is it is a ghost," maintains Nickell. Orbs of light that show up on photos, he says, are often particles of dust or moisture. "Voices" picked up by tape recorders can be radio signals or noise from the recorder, and EMF detectors can be set off by faulty wiring or microwave towers.[4]

Does this remind you of the pseudoscience used to detect Amanda's and Raffaele's DNA by using equipment in a way in which it was not designed to be used?

Doesn't Stefanoni's lab remind you of a lab for paranormal investigations?