Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[platonov]

I think it was both, she needed to 'build' a profile and she did it. Kinda like having the box in front of you with the picture on it when you put together a puzzle. 'Suspect-centered analysis.'

You think.

OK - that's good enough for me !

As expert witnesses go your arguments are on a par with those of halides1 and Rolfe.

Simply Irrefutable.

 

[Draca]

Here is what I've collected on the diary so far. Please let me know if there is anything relevant that needs to be added.

Wow Dan O.,

That must have taken a lot of research to put together. Great post.

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium,

You explain yourself so much clearer than the cryptic Frank Sfarzo! I understand now finally what he meant. I can certainly believe she was under pressure from the police to provide them with the evidence that they needed. Not being in the same position I suppose I can't understand how strong that pressure is. There is her job at stake, finances, etc. Does her falling to police pressure excuse her, no. It does raise the possibility this could be understandable human failure vs. corruption. She has always appeared cozy with the prosecution though, whispering to them in court. If she is not the corrupt core as you said, I think she is complicit with them. We also don't know if it was police pressure or voluntary help because she also thought they were guilty.

I hope she squeals though, loudly like a stuck little piggie!

I don't think Frank understood just what she did, he was thinking maybe she just 'found' what they put there for her to 'find.'

 

[platonov]

I hope she squeals though, loudly like a stuck little piggie!

I don't think Frank understood just what she did, he was thinking maybe she just 'found' what they put there for her to 'find.'

Well why dont you explain it in detail and someone can pass it on to Frank (these Italians are kinda slow apparently) and the Court.

[And the rest of us might learn something]

 

[Kaosium]

You think.

OK - that's good enough for me !

As expert witnesses go your arguments are on a par with those of halides1 and Rolfe.

Simply Irrefutable.

It's not done translating!

Here's where Komponisto is at the moment, he has a nice description of the knife already completed, but I'm looking forward to the next section entitled 'Laboratory Analysis of Item 36 (Knife).' That sounds very promising, doesn't it? Then maybe I will be done 'thinking' and can move on to 'knowing!'

It's looking ominous for Biondo and Stefanoni...

 

[Kaosium]

Well why dont you explain it in detail and someone can pass it on to Frank (these Italians are kinda slow apparently) and the Court.

[And the rest of us might learn something]

I already tried, in fact that's about the only comments page that got restored, the one where Frank made fun of me the whole page for simply asking him about Nara regarding Ciolino and Oggi's remarks before I said anything about it. Can you believe my luck--that had to be the only one they could restore!

At any rate if you look at the end of the page I agreed with him, but noted what Stefanoni has said she'd 'accomplished.'

 

[platonov]

Feel free to have the last 500 20 words.

This stuff isn't as simple as the 'Nov 5th / cute white chick being abused by swarthy foreigners' , is it ?

We shall have to wait for London John or komponisto to explain all, it seems.

 

[theRealBob]

Well why dont you explain it in detail and someone can pass it on to Frank (these Italians are kinda slow apparently) and the Court.

[And the rest of us might learn something]

I think the main thing we need to know today is that even some of the hardline PMF posters are aware of the fact that Stefanoni's been cheating, and her results will be proven to be at the minimum of no value in court.

We'll get a translation to that effect later.

 

[Kaosium]

Feel free to have the last 500 20 words.

This stuff isn't as simple as the 'Nov 5th / cute white chick being abused by swarthy foreigners' , is it ?

Would that explain your interest in the case?

You walked right into that one!

We shall have to wait for London John or komponisto to explain all, it seems.

You won't believe them anyways. You only believe the corrupt fat man in the bib, and he'll never admit he was wrong. I wonder how he will try to avoid the consequences of this, though? It was his 'duty' to see that Stefanoni's work was reliable, and he just asked her boss. Do you suppose there should be punishment for the fat man?

 

[platonov]

Would that explain your interest in the case?

You walked right into that one!



You won't believe them anyways. You only believe the corrupt fat man in the bib, and he'll never admit he was wrong. I wonder how he will try to avoid the consequences of this, though? It was his 'duty' to see that Stefanoni's work was reliable, and he just asked her boss. Do you suppose there should be punishment for the fat man?

Please, stop already.

Again, that's a great response if one doesn't read english.

Seriously, as I told LJ the big green smiley is a giveaway.

 

[Kaosium]

Again, that's a great response if one doesn't read english.

Seriously, as I told LJ the big green smiley is a giveaway.

Not for me it's not, it's just a pretty picture, in this case meaning a broad happy grin 'cuz I was just messing with you.

Some people think an overuse of emoticons suggests mental instability, I, like you perhaps, think of them simply as pretty pictures to indicate tone.

 

[platonov]

Not for me it's not, it's just a pretty picture, in this case meaning a broad happy grin 'cuz I was just messing with you.

Some people think an overuse of emoticons suggests mental instability, I, like you perhaps, think of them simply as pretty pictures to indicate tone.

If you say so.

But [to repeat a Q I posed to halides1 a while back] - I know we are both anonymous posters here but don't you get embarrassed posting this stuff.

TBH I am kinda' embarrassed even being part of this 'dialogue' - well the part after my original Question.

Seriously ?????

ps The same goes for many/most/all of the 'Manders is innocent' posters here.

 

[RandyN]

Kaosium,

You explain yourself so much clearer than the cryptic Frank Sfarzo! I understand now finally what he meant. I can certainly believe she was under pressure from the police to provide them with the evidence that they needed. Not being in the same position I suppose I can't understand how strong that pressure is. There is her job at stake, finances, etc. Does her falling to police pressure excuse her, no. It does raise the possibility this could be understandable human failure vs. corruption. She has always appeared cozy with the prosecution though, whispering to them in court. If she is not the corrupt core as you said, I think she is complicit with them. We also don't know if it was police pressure or voluntary help because she also thought they were guilty.

Draca,

Both you and Kaosium are being far too easy on Stefanoni. I’m sure you read my reply to Franks pity party for Stefanoni. I wont repeat that here but I will say this...Stefanoni is the police. Let me say that again. Stefanoni is the police! She may well have been pressured but I doubt it was the Perugia police who pressured her.

Her boss Renato Biondo worked as a consultant for the prosecutor Mignini. Any questions now as to who may have pressured her? Or any questions as to who may have sent her back to the cottage on Dec 18th to find what was not found in Nov? BTW what was not found in Nov. was anything linking the 2 defendants to the crime.

Just this part alone stinks to high heaven in the level of corruption between the prosecutor, his consultant and the consultants number 2 employee. Frank is completely wrong in his assessment of Stefanoni. She’s as dirty as sin, in this case at least. She lied in court about TMB tests. She withheld the electronic data files from the defense in the first trial and she tried to keep them from the court appointed experts in the appeal. No scientist keeps his work hidden. W/O peer review science just cant be science.

The question remains why Massei refused independent review in the first trial. We all saw the collection video and what a mess that was, but we only had rumor that no control samples were taken. This lab held zero certification for petes sake! It has yet to be determined if they had any kind of operation manual or any SOP's at all.

Now we at least know why Stefanoni claimed she never had a lab contamination. You cant check for contamination w/o proper control samples.

More ominous is the contention from Darkness Descending that Stefanoni led the meetings that consisted of the prosecutor, the police chief, and several other detectives that involved putting the case together. She actually led the discussion starting with the staged break-in and running thru the whole case. Talk about your conflict of interest.
Personally, I think these actions must be illegal and some of these people should not just lose their job but some should be sent to jail. This was a mafia like mob. They all knew what they were doing.

 

[Poppy1016]

I think there is plenty of blame to go around. The prosecutor,police,judges,forensic personell,and media,all contributed to this mess. The finger pointing will be interesting to watch. I definitely believe that if the knife and bra clasp are proven to be false evidence, AK and RS will be acquitted. There will be no evidence that can place AK or RS in the murder room. Also the fact that there is no murder weapon.

 

[komponisto]

Tagliabracci's forensic genetics book

Adriano Tagliabracci, Sollecito's DNA expert, is the author of a textbook on forensic genetics:

http://books.google.it/books?id=EUL...=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=perossiesano&f=false

(It's published by Springer -- which, as one with a mathematical background, I know means Serious Business.)

Notable because some were doubting the quality of the experts engaged by Bongiorno to support Sollecito's defense.

(Stumbled across this wholly incidentally during research related to the translation.)

 

[Kaosium]

If you say so.

But [to repeat a Q I posed to halides1 a while back] - I know we are both anonymous posters here but don't you get embarrassed posting this stuff.

TBH I am kinda' embarrassed even being part of this 'dialogue' - well the part after my original Question.

Seriously ?????

ps The same goes for many/most/all of the 'Manders is innocent' posters here.

I dunno what you're getting at, I just agreed with Komponisto that Stefanoni must have employed 'suspect-centered analysis' as Tagliabracci had contended, in other words she was looking for something or building to something, as opposed to doing it blind like she was supposed to. My point was it seemed like it would have been difficult to do the knife any other way as well, but we'll see just what criticisms they made when it is done translating.

The interpretation of an evidentiary DNA profile should not be influenced by information about a suspect's DNA profile (3-6). Each item of evidence must be interpreted independent of other items of evidence or reference samples. Yet forensic analysts are commonly aware of submitted reference profiles when interpreting DNA test results, creating the opportunity for a confirmatory bias, despite the best intentions of the analyst. Furthermore, analysts are sometimes exposed to information about the suspects, such as their history or motives, eyewitness identifications, presence or absence of a confession, and the like. Such information should have no bearing on how the results of a DNA test are interpreted, yet may compound an unintentional confirmatory bias. This bias can result in false inclusions under not uncommon conditions of ambiguity encountered in actual casework. It can also render currently used frequency statistics or likelihood ratios misleading.

These problems can be minimized by preventing analysts from knowing the profile of submitted references (i.e., known samples) when interpreting testing results from evidentiary (i.e., unknown or questioned) samples. The necessary filtering or masking of submitted reference profiles can be accomplished in several ways, perhaps most easily by sequencing the laboratory workflow such that evidentiary samples are interpreted, and the interpretation is fully documented, before reference samples are compared. A simple protocol would dictate a separation of tasks between a qualified individual familiar with case information (a case manager) and an analyst from whom domain-irrelevant information is masked.

Here's what he was referring to as 'suspect-centered analysis' on page 217 of the original Italian.

I see everything that the machine shows me, after which...by inserting particular settings, which have been set up objectively with a knowledge of forensic genetics...I see what comes out, and if the results can be identified with people whose DNA I already have" (p. 188). She declared that she was aware of the prohibition of the "suspect-oriented" method, according to which it is incorrect to have the genetic profile of a suspect in front of one when interpreting the electropherogram. She further declared that she had respected that prohibition, and analysed the trace in an absolutely objective manner.

 

[Chris C]

If you say so.

But [to repeat a Q I posed to halides1 a while back] - I know we are both anonymous posters here but don't you get embarrassed posting this stuff.

TBH I am kinda' embarrassed even being part of this 'dialogue' - well the part after my original Question.

Seriously ?????

ps The same goes for many/most/all of the 'Manders is innocent' posters here.

And yet you offer no counter argument to prove them wrong.

 

[platonov]

'Serious Business'

Adriano Tagliabracci, Sollecito's DNA expert, is the author of a textbook on forensic genetics:

http://books.google.it/books?id=EUL...=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=perossiesano&f=false

(It's published by Springer -- which, as one with a mathematical background, I know means Serious Business.)

Notable because some were doubting the quality of the experts engaged by Bongiorno to support Sollecito's defense.

(Stumbled across this wholly incidentally during research related to the translation.)

If only real life was so simple.

So the argument is: If Springer publishes ones work then ones 'expert witness' testimony will always beat a murder rap.

I see a possible flaw in this theory.

Nor was I aware that one had to have a 'mathematical background' to have heard of 'Springer'

 

[komponisto]

...huh?

 

[komponisto]

Nor was I aware that one had to have a 'mathematical background' to have heard of 'Springer'

I didn't say it was necessary; I implied that it was sufficient.