Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Rolfe]

Oh, and it also clearly confirms just how hopelessly unscientific (and, incidentally, how poor a thinker) is the erstwhile member of this parish who left with such a flourish some months ago. Anyone who's of the opinion that this poster was an arguer of ferocious intellect and wisdom should peruse a certain pro-guilt forum for an abundance of evidence to the contrary.

I think we're allowed to talk about someone who is a "guest", at least until she re-registers.

I'm disappointed in Fiona, I have to say. I've been active in a LOT of threads with her over the years, and I've always had the highest regard for her thought processes and arguments. Her espousal of the guilter cause was a HUGE factor in my impression that there were two sides to this story, and a reasonable case to be made for guilt.

I haven't read any of Fiona's posts on the Kercher case, only the occasional post elsewhere indicating on what side of the argument she stood. I don't know how she explained the time of death evidence, which to me was the most difficult thing for the guilt side to get round. I wonder now, if I'd advanced the point of view back then that I've advanced in recent weeks, she'd have reconsidered. We were virtually always arguing on the same side in the Science and Medicine threads, and I still find it hard to understand how she could have got it quite so wrong.

I also find it hard to understand why she left JREF to participate in a one-issue forum, because for me one of the great things about this forum is the variety of topics one can discuss if one has a mind to do so. I'm not even a particular devotee of this case, but hey, it's a distraction.

This isn't the Fiona I knew for years and I don't really understand it.

Rolfe.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Does this report say that RS' DNA is not on the bra clasp

Yes. They found no DNA on it. Nor any kind of human cells whatsoever.

They however see in Patrizia's results that they cannot repeat that Y chromosome is Sollecito's along with some unidentified males (that she erroneously missed. They don't confirm the STR however, pointing more of her errors). The important reason why they consider that result unreliable is that no proper precautions were used to prevent contamination. They point to paths of contamination that cannot be ruled out now, because of, basically, incompetency of those working on the crime scene.

- or does it compare quantitatively his profile with the 'noise' / contamination.

They say it is contamination.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes. They found no DNA on it. Nor any kind of human cells whatsoever.

They however see in Patrizia's results that they cannot repeat that Y chromosome is Sollecito's along with some unidentified males (that she erroneously missed. They don't confirm the STR however, pointing more of her errors). The important reason why they consider that result unreliable is that no proper precautions were used to prevent contamination. They point to paths of contamination that cannot be ruled out now, because of, basically, incompetency of those working on the crime scene.


They say it is contamination.

Agreed. I'd point out that my reply to this same platonov question a little further up was purely dealing with what was actually found (and not found) on the bra clasp. It didn't even start to address the factors behind how that material might have got there in the first place.

So, in short, the bra clasp was wide open for contamination at almost every step of the forensic process: from its inexcusable delay in collection (and consequent "storage" in swept-up detritus and various items of clothing at some point during those 46 days), through to the ridiculous manner of its collection (helpfully captured on video), through to the slipshod and unscientific way in which Stefanoni treated the bra clasp during her testing of it.

And, on top of all the above, even if the bra clasp had been collected, handled and tested with absolute propriety, it would still have been impossible to show that Sollecito's DNA was present on the clasp.

So it's a double-whammy really: high contamination possibility, plus bad interpretation of testing. And all done with seemingly near-total disregard to internationally-accepted protocols and procedures. I hope that Stefanoni (and her bosses), Mignini and Napoleoni are proud of the contribution they've made to this fiasco.

 

[LondonJohn]

One little further point of redress to the idiot proposition about "academic" vs "field" science. The idiots seem to think that the report produced by the DNA review scientists is somehow compromised or diminished because they are (according to the idiots) some sort of ethereal academic types, who sit in the ivory towers of universities, and who are consequently divorced from the real "field" business of actually dealing with real-world DNA evidence.

This, once again, is a stupid and erroneous argument. Not only have the two scientists in question (Conti and Vecchiotti) been involved in many previous court reviews, but they are also renowned (and widely published) experts in DNA science. But before anyone says that these are just appeals to authority (which in a way they are), the important point is that the international standards, protocols and procedures to which they constantly refer in the report are not academic ideals: they are the very standards that have been rigorously compiled for field investigation. Law enforcement officials and forensic scientists are expected to follow these protocols and procedures; they are in place for very good reasons. And they will have been evolved, debated and amended over many decades, as knowledge and experience in this field have improved.

 

[Katody Matrass]

"Academic"? I'd say their report is very practical. They notice inconsistencies between what Stefanoni testified and what she really did (and didn't do). They pay close attention to the videos from the crime scene and to testimony about Scientifica's work on site. They did lab tests in search of any biological matter on the two pieces of evidence.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think we're allowed to talk about someone who is a "guest", at least until she re-registers.

I'm disappointed in Fiona, I have to say. I've been active in a LOT of threads with her over the years, and I've always had the highest regard for her thought processes and arguments. Her espousal of the guilter cause was a HUGE factor in my impression that there were two sides to this story, and a reasonable case to be made for guilt.

I haven't read any of Fiona's posts on the Kercher case, only the occasional post elsewhere indicating on what side of the argument she stood. I don't know how she explained the time of death evidence, which to me was the most difficult thing for the guilt side to get round. I wonder now, if I'd advanced the point of view back then that I've advanced in recent weeks, she'd have reconsidered. We were virtually always arguing on the same side in the Science and Medicine threads, and I still find it hard to understand how she could have got it quite so wrong.

I also find it hard to understand why she left JREF to participate in a one-issue forum, because for me one of the great things about this forum is the variety of topics one can discuss if one has a mind to do so. I'm not even a particular devotee of this case, but hey, it's a distraction.

This isn't the Fiona I knew for years and I don't really understand it.

Rolfe.

I see that she is currently trying to make the "argument" that not only is this thread unrepresentative of the "quality and propriety" of JREF in general, but also that posters here have some sort of "secret mandate" to engage in "rude, insulting behaviour" by the powers-that-be (ever read the board in your new "home", F?).

I happen to think that this thread is a good example of many of the things that JREF stands for. It has a high active level of debate on a contentious subject, and a subject where a sceptical, rational point of view is sorely needed. I doubt that F would have minded attacks (often vociferous) on the arguments of people like 911 truthers or pro-homeopathy posters - but that's the nature of hypocrisy for you, I guess...

PS: I am indeed one of those who could be categorised as a "single issue poster" here. But I struggle to understand how that fact on its own makes my argument any less valid or worthwhile. As it happens, I am actually interested in many of the subjects discussed on JREF (and read quite a few of the other threads), but I don't have the spare time (or energy) to engage in the debate on other topics to the degree that I would want to. In addition, many of the most well-known JREF topics are of far less interest to me, since I am pretty certain of the truth of the matter (homeopathy, JFK, moon landings, 911, etc), so would have no interest in posting about them anyhow.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Could Amanda Knox Have an Autism Spectrum Disorder?

interesting...

 

[LondonJohn]

"Academic"? I'd say their report is very practical. They notice inconsistencies between what Stefanoni testified and what she really did (and didn't do). They pay close attention to the videos from the crime scene and to testimony about Scientifica's work on site. They did lab tests in search of any biological matter on the two pieces of evidence.

I completely agree. It's just the idiots who are jumping on the fact that Conti and Vecchiotti are employed by a university to try this spurious "out-of-touch academics" nonsense.

 

[LondonJohn]

Could Amanda Knox Have an Autism Spectrum Disorder?

interesting...

Yes, interesting up to a point. But I maintain that it's extremely dangerous to even attempt diagnoses of mental illnesses from such a distance. The only way in which even a tentative diagnosis could be made of a condition of this sort would be after lengthy first-hand observation of the subject, coupled with specific tests and exercises.

 

[komponisto]

One little further point of redress to the idiot proposition about "academic" vs "field" science. The idiots seem to think that the report produced by the DNA review scientists is somehow compromised or diminished because they are (according to the idiots) some sort of ethereal academic types, who sit in the ivory towers of universities, and who are consequently divorced from the real "field" business of actually dealing with real-world DNA evidence.

This is a particularly strange argument indeed, because it is routine for academics in these fields to be involved in "real-world" cases. Torre, for instance, is an academic, yet has performed thousands of autopsies.

For that matter, what about Giuseppe Novelli, the prosecution's consultant? If he testifies on July 25, shall we disregard whatever he says on the grounds that he is employed by a university?

(By the way, a poster at "the other place" has expressed gratitude to [among others] me and LJ for contributing translations, so it's only fitting to acknowledge the acknowledgement!)

 

[Katody Matrass]

Yes, interesting up to a point. But I maintain that it's extremely dangerous to even attempt diagnoses of mental illnesses from such a distance. The only way in which even a tentative diagnosis could be made of a condition of this sort would be after lengthy first-hand observation of the subject, coupled with specific tests and exercises.

Agree, it is said that diagnosing from the distance is something no real psychologist would dare (and so is the one in he article disclaiming - "Everything I read would be consistent with it and it could be one alternative theory for the behavior that made her seem suspicious," says Gaus, while stressing that she has not met Knox and cannot diagnose her. )

There's also a sober look at the legal culture that condemned her:
Of course, whether or not a formal diagnosis of Asperger's would help or hurt Knox's case is hard to say: the stigma associated with autism spectrum disorders might make her seem more suspicious, rather than less, in the eyes of some legal authorities.

just interesting speculations, nothing more

 

[ForTruth]

Yes, interesting up to a point. But I maintain that it's extremely dangerous to even attempt diagnoses of mental illnesses from such a distance. The only way in which even a tentative diagnosis could be made of a condition of this sort would be after lengthy first-hand observation of the subject, coupled with specific tests and exercises.

Yes. The author bases this idea on behavioral info ultimately sourced/ exaggerated/or invented in tabloids. The author is a neuroscience journalism... does she have any actual educational credential related to the field?? (i wouldn't waste your time searching)

 

[Justinian2]

Any bets on how much longer they will be in the slammer? For some reason I can see this dragging out, or even having to be appealed again. It's the cynic in me.

I was wondering myself. Does anybody know if it's possible that Amanda and Raffaele could be released soon? At least out on bail?

There have been so many ruses and inaccuracies, that it's time to release Amanda and Raffaele. I mean if a plane was discovered with as many flaws as the case against Amanda and Raffaele, it would probably be grounded forever. Time to realize that this case is broken beyond repair.

Giuliano Mignini sat on a wall;
Giuliano Mignini had a great fall.
All the King's horses
And all the King's men
Couldn't put Mignini's case together again!

I sure would like to see a list of incorrect evidence, theory and testimony.
I also would like to know if Amanda can be released quickly.

 

[LondonJohn]

ANOTHER idiot "argument": how come the defence experts didn't pick up all this stuff in the new report during the first trial? Surely this means that either the defence experts are incredibly bad at their job, or the new report is not as authoritative as it appears.

Well, this one has a quick and simple answer: the defence experts in the first trial were denied the information from which to draw the correct conclusions.. Only the court (i.e. Massei) had the power to compel the prosecution and the police to hand over all the relevant evidence to enable a proper evaluation of this DNA evidence. Unfortunately, Massei was either too weak or too stupid to do so. But Hellmann was not, thankfully.

 

[platonov]

I don't suppose anyone could translate this while you're at it? What does this post actually mean?

Rolfe.

Its a perfectly straightforward Q

Obviously of you don't understand it then an answer won't be forthcoming which is fine.

The independent report essentially states the following about the bra clasp: there was lots of Meredith's DNA present, but also a small amount of other DNA which was a mixture of various other people. One of the y-haplotypes found matched that of Sollecito (but that's not a specific match for Sollecito). The report found that Stefanoni was incorrect and erroneous to conclude that only Meredith's and Sollecito's DNA was on the clasp. It concludes that only Meredith's DNA can be positively identified. The other DNA on the bra clasp is an unidentifiable mixture of several profiles.

So the report cannot say that Sollecito's DNA definitively was not on the bra clasp. What it can (and does) say is that there is no basis to assert that Sollecito's DNA was on the bra clasp.

(To use an analogy, there's no evidence that I definitely was not drinking a glass of water at 2.36pm this afternoon, but there's no evidence that I was drinking a glass of water at that time. As such, nobody could ever present evidence in court that I was drinking a glass of water at that time.)

I don't require or didn't request your summaries or homespun analogies.
As I said before with me you can take the obvious as read.


I asked two pertinent and straightforward Q's

Does this report say that RS' DNA is not on the bra clasp - or does it compare quantitatively his profile with the 'noise' / contamination.

The answers to which seem to be NO & NO.

Yes. They found no DNA on it. Nor any kind of human cells whatsoever.

They however see in Patrizia's results that they cannot repeat that Y chromosome is Sollecito's along with some unidentified males (that she erroneously missed. They don't confirm the STR however, pointing more of her errors). The important reason why they consider that result unreliable is that no proper precautions were used to prevent contamination. They point to paths of contamination that cannot be ruled out now, because of, basically, incompetency of those working on the crime scene.

Yes we know that and have done so for a couple of months.

For the rest see above. Perhaps you should have gone with Rolfe's answer - it seems I didn't ask the Q / get the point across with sufficient clarity, again the fault is mine no doubt

They say it is contamination.

They don't apparently - if there is no quantitative comparison between the putative RS profile Stefanoni 'found' and the 'noise' / 'contamination' we are none the wiser on this particular issue for the moment.

So we will have to wait and see. It should be interesting when this is argued in court. Stefanoni will certainly have to defend her work on this issue, leaving aside this particular case her professional reputation is at stake.

They [C & V] may may well be correct on this matter - but given the report is what 140 ? pages long I'm surprised (as a layman) that this quantitative aspect isn't addressed in detail.


Perhaps it is ??? I shall keep an eye on the PMF translations.

 

[Justinian2]

I loved this from Seattlest.com:

http://seattlest.com/2011/06/30/amanda_knox_update_another_black_ey.php

[...] Perhaps most damning of all, the cells originally identified as human on the knife blade don't even appear to be from a living creature: the independent experts assert that they are vegetable cells.

The scent of farce has never been far from the conduct of the investigation and prosecution, but mistaking a vegetable for a murder victim is a pathetically Clouseau-like misstep, even for Giuliano Mignini.

 

[LondonJohn]

Perhaps it is ??? I shall keep an eye on the PMF translations.

Yeah, you do that. That sounds like the rational, logical approach. You wait til you find something that you (or somebody else) can distort into something that supports a pro-guilt position. Go ahead: knock yourself out

 

[platonov]

Yeah, you do that. That sounds like the rational, logical approach. You wait til you find something that you (or somebody else) can distort into something that supports a pro-guilt position. Go ahead: knock yourself out

If you have an answer to the Q lets have it ?


ps Nice snip by the way
Which parts didn't you like or didn't find logical or rational.

Was it

So we will have to wait and see. It should be interesting when this is argued in court

or

They [C & V] may may well be correct on this matter

or something else ?

 

[LondonJohn]

If you have an answer to the Q lets have it ?

ps Nice snip by the way

Oh, I already answered your questions. Here, here and here

But, to recap, the answer to your first question is that the report said that Sollecito's profile could not be positively determined on the clasp (what you asked is not a simple "yes/no" question, as you well know), and the answer to your second question is moot because that's not the way one conducts DNA testing. One compares the test results with reference profiles, not the other way round. But I'm not surprised that you don't know how DNA testing works...

 

[Chris_Halkides]

thoughts on contamination and noise

It is not clear to me whether the extra alleles on the bra clasp did or did not arise through contamination (secondary transfer being another possibility). In order for the allele peaks to qualify as contamination, the DNA giving rise to them wold have to be deposited after the clasp was in the custody of law enforcement. In general it is difficult or impossible to know when DNA was deposited without additional information beyond the peaks in the electropherogram. In this instance the exact date at which the clasp came under the control of law enforcement could be debated, making the question even harder to answer.

Most spectroscopists would use the word "noise" to describe the baseline fuzz one sees between one peak and the next. When peaks are large, it is almost impossible to discern on a printed egram. However, I have sometimes seen people use the word noise when they were referring to small peaks in the egram, such as stutters or possibly alleles that arise from small amounts of contamination. This point has confused previous discussions.