Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[komponisto]

Thanks to both of you for you efforts on this. I have been checking back daily to watch your progress. I would suggest a master document with all of your sections translated together that would also include the charts and tables. Perhaps when you are finished with the text, in any case.

The charts and tables have already been included! To view, click on "

" etc. (The quality is not always good, but it's the same as what's in the PDF.)

 

[RoseMontague]

The charts and tables have already been included! To view, click on "

" etc. (The quality is not always good, but it's the same as what's in the PDF.)

And so it is, my bad. The quality is not very good. I wonder if you took the actual report and edited out the text and replaced it with the translated text if it would present better.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'd agree broadly. I think that things like Bayes' Theorem certainly have their uses, and can be gainfully employed to help quantify particular issues. But, as you point out, the equations are only ever as good as the quality of the assumptions which underpin them. And, in addition, there are many other contributory factors here which do not lend themselves to cut-and-dried conditional probability analysis.

In my opinion, these sorts of mathematically-based analyses can only really be valid in an environment where hard numerical data points are applicable and valid themselves. Examples would be things like lottery outcomes, or mortality predictions (where detailed and reliable actuarial tables are available). I don't think that they lend themselves very well to things like criminal trials (other than to make the observation that for a conviction, P(guilt) must equal 1: any P(guilt)<1 equals an acquittal).

Bayes' Theorem is a beautiful thing and provides both proof of the correctness of the skeptical world-view, and a more rigorous formulation of it. It only requires Grade Seven mathematical skills to grasp and apply it, if it's properly taught, and I say that having taught (gifted) Grade Seven children to do so.

To say it repays some study is about as profound an understatement as you will ever see.

In that vein, no rational entity ever gets to P=1 about any proposition (except arguably mathematical proofs or logical tautologies) for it falls directly out of the theorem that you cannot get to P=1 from P<1, ever, and if you somehow managed to get to P=1 you could never find your way back to P<1. P=1 means absolute blind faith in P that can never be altered by any amount of evidence.

By the same token, P=0 means absolute blind denial that can also never be altered by any amount of evidence.

I think it's indicative of deep problems with the legal system that lawyers systematically avoid putting a precise value on "true beyond reasonable doubt". That level of belief must lie at some particular point on the continuum between 1 and 0, after all, and no good end is served by obfuscating what that point should be.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

evaluation of the Conti/Vecchiott report

At TJfMK on the subject of the Conti/Vecchiotti report, Fly by Night wrote, “Theresa Caragine [of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York] herself authored a powerful rebuttal of Budowle’s article…”

I question Ms. Caragine’s objectivity and sincerity. Ms. Caragine was the author of a presentation on low template DNA analysis. I present three quotes (highlighting mine):
“Defining what constitutes discovery material is a prosecutorial issue.”
“The electronic data files not discoverable under the statutes cited.”
“Raw electronic data does not have to be disclosed since it could result in the manipulation of data.
People v. Marcoux, No. 2009- 1176-FH (Mich. Cir. Ct., Macomb County, June 24, 2009”

I have previously commented on why this interpretation of discovery with respect to the electronic data files is both wrong and disingenuous. The claim that it is a prosecutorial issue is mind-boggling. Prosecutors sometimes shortchange defense teams on niggling little points such as the blood type of the perpetrator not matching the blood type of the suspect. These problems do not by themselves invalidate everything ever said by Dr. Caragine, but it gives one less confidence in it. MOO.

 

[shuttlt]

Indeed. Conti and Vechiotti have reached conclusions based on the evidence in front of them, without any preconceptions. But the fact that some people seem to think that these two experts somehow "set out" to trash the work of Stefanoni and the "crack" forensics team also (in my view) provides an interesting window to the prevailing pro-guilt mindset. I don't think that many of them (pro-guilt people) can properly conceive of the concept of objectivity and evidence-led beliefs.

Unsurprisingly I have less of a problem with this. Pro-innocence folks didn't have much of a problem trashing the Judge at the first trial as setting out to convict regardless of the evidence. Presumably the Judges honesty and objectivity were doubted at least in part because his view of the case and the evidence was impossible to reconcile with your own. Why shouldn't the PMF folks doubt these independent experts?

The references to American law enforcement manuals, rather than Italian ones (I'm basing this on Fiona on PMF, is it true?), about crime scene management isn't what I would have naively expected. Perhaps other things will turn up.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

How do you secure a crime scene? Any packing tape will do. Just use a lot of it!

http://i.imgur.com/ZodVV.jpg

 

[Chris_Halkides]

timing is everything

Why shouldn't the PMF folks doubt these independent experts?

shuttlt,

They should have put forward their objections about Conti's and Vecchiotti's credentials prior to the release of the report. That way one would know that the objections are unrelated to the contents of the report. As it stands, this just looks like confirmation bias. MOO.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Unsurprisingly I have less of a problem with this. Pro-innocence folks didn't have much of a problem trashing the Judge at the first trial as setting out to convict regardless of the evidence. Presumably the Judges honesty and objectivity were doubted at least in part because his view of the case and the evidence was impossible to reconcile with your own. Why shouldn't the PMF folks doubt these independent experts?

The references to American law enforcement manuals, rather than Italian ones (I'm basing this on Fiona on PMF, is it true?), about crime scene management isn't what I would have naively expected. Perhaps other things will turn up.

The point made is clear, evidence collection in this case falls short of any published guidelines for handing DNA evidence. We are all waiting to hear what guidelines were used.

 

[Katody Matrass]

The references to American law enforcement manuals, rather than Italian ones (I'm basing this on Fiona on PMF, is it true?), about crime scene management isn't what I would have naively expected. Perhaps other things will turn up.

It is a fact that they refer to handbooks and field manuals of some USA state criminal justice and law enforcement bodies but there are also more notable references:

European Crime Scene Management Good Practice Manual (European Network of Forensic Science Institutes)

Interpol Handbook on DNA data Exchange and Practice — Recommendations
from the Interpol DNA Monitoring Expert Group

Handbook of Forensic Services (Laboratory Division of FBI)

It may indicate that local Italian formalized police guidelines are scarce but I highly doubt that the prosecution could successfully argue that those highly regarded international sources are wrong and Patrizia's practices are better.

 

[shuttlt]

How do you secure a crime scene? Any packing tape will do. Just use a lot of it!

http://i.imgur.com/ZodVV.jpg

Don't you think it would be more natural for the Italian experts giving their opinion about how the Italian police handled this Italian crime scene to reach for a manual about Italian crime scene procedures, rather North Carolina, Missouri, New Jersey and so on? One of the things that is clear is that different countries have taken different views on LCN DNA - not admissible (with a few exceptions in the US), admissible in a bunch of countries in Europe including the UK, Australia as well I think. Are crime scene procedures different/or the same with different/identical steps taken to avoid contamination? Things would be simpler if they weren't following Italian procedure (which they may well not be), demonstrating that they weren't following Utah police procedure is still meaningful, but not as meaningful. There's the beginnings of an argument there that I hope gets worked through on PMF.

 

[shuttlt]

It may indicate that local Italian formalized police guidelines are scarce but I highly doubt that the prosecution could successfully argue that those highly regarded international sources are wrong and Patrizia's practices are better.

That may be the explanation. But it still seems to me less damning to say that there are no procedures, however if there were they should be X, Y, and Z and they weren't followed, than to say the procedure IS X, Y and Z and you didn't follow it.

The first version can then get bogged down in an argument about what the proper procedure should be. It can then be framed as a controversy (see loads of Evolution threads) regardless of whether that is a true representation.

 

[Katody Matrass]

There is currently a debate in progress at Less Wrong between me and Rolf Nelson, the most impressive believer in guilt I have ever encountered.

Added: although Rolf has just posted a comment questioning whether the discussion should continue. I'll have to consider what he says and then decide how to proceed.

I noticed there are some falsehoods that found it's way to the discussion:

Raffaele, at one point, claimed that Meredith visited his cottage and pricked herself on the knife

There is no such claim of Raffaele. There's just a sentence he wrote in his jail diary, that doesn't really clarify who was the pricked one. Apart from that writing he never testified anything about it nor was he interrogated about it.

 

[shuttlt]

They should have put forward their objections about Conti's and Vecchiotti's credentials prior to the release of the report. That way one would know that the objections are unrelated to the contents of the report. As it stands, this just looks like confirmation bias. MOO.

I'm not sure that matters. They believe what they believe about the case, if they're right they're right and if they're wrong they're wrong. As far as I'm concerned it's good to have people who want to find a flaw in this document. What harm can they do, they might even turn up the odd thing.

 

[Katody Matrass]

That may be the explanation. But it still seems to me less damning to say that there are no procedures, however if there were they should be X, Y, and Z and they weren't followed, than to say the procedure IS X, Y and Z and you didn't follow it.

The first version can then get bogged down in an argument about what the proper procedure should be. It can then be framed as a controversy (see loads of Evolution threads) regardless of whether that is a true representation.

They can claim there are no procedures, but that would be damning for the entire body of evidence. Defence will simply ask the experts what do they think about what they've seen - trashing the entire place beyond recognition, wrapping mops and walking it all over the place, passing the evidence around with dirty gloves etc. The actions that are documented on video present the police in very bad light and what if they admit they followed no procedures off-camera because no such exist?

 

[platonov]

Thank you once again for your contribution, which - once more - exclusively focusses on arguers rather than arguments. Do you have anything to say about the case being debated here, or do you prefer to stick to posts like this one?

<snip>

That is funny

I was responding to your verbose content free argument, the ~ 6th iteration since C&V was released, which focused entirely on other* arguers motives & personalities in contrast to your own self proclaimed objectivity.

* part of the ongoing fixation with PMF which seems to be the main driver of this thread recently.

I merely pointed out the 'irony' of this and highlighted one aspect of the recurring emotional vitriolic nature (misogynistic in this case) of your arguments.

Should you ever post a new argument with actual content I will happily have a look.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Don't you think it would be more natural for the Italian experts giving their opinion about how the Italian police handled this Italian crime scene to reach for a manual about Italian crime scene procedures, rather North Carolina, Missouri, New Jersey and so on? One of the things that is clear is that different countries have taken different views on LCN DNA - not admissible (with a few exceptions in the US), admissible in a bunch of countries in Europe including the UK, Australia as well I think. Are crime scene procedures different/or the same with different/identical steps taken to avoid contamination? Things would be simpler if they weren't following Italian procedure (which they may well not be), demonstrating that they weren't following Utah police procedure is still meaningful, but not as meaningful. There's the beginnings of an argument there that I hope gets worked through on PMF.

So if Italian procedure says you don't need to change gloves, we should just accept that cause, hey, that's their procedure?

 

[el buscador]

Does the independent report mention any guidelines from the forensic lab in Rome? Surely the lab has guidelines that need to be followed? And surely these guidelines were presented for the independent study so it could be determined whether or not Stefanoni and co. followed these guidelines?

 

[shuttlt]

So if Italian procedure says you don't need to change gloves, we should just accept that cause, hey, that's their procedure?

No, of course not. That's not what I said. However, if it were the case that the Italian guidelines said that, it would be an obvious thing for Stefanoni to point out with a view to undermining the independent experts. If things are as Bruce indicates she won't be able to do this.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Butler's textbook on DNA forensics and gloves

So if Italian procedure says you don't need to change gloves, we should just accept that cause, hey, that's their procedure?

HumanityBlues,

I was just thinking about the glove issue. On page 38 of John Butler's textbook "Forensic DNA Typing," he wrote, "Use clean latex gloves for collecting each item of evidence. Gloves should be changed between handling of different items of evidence." We know that this didn't happen. Should we start up a collection for gloves and another collection for transcribing witness/suspect interviews? Do they take PayPal?

 

[komponisto]

Unsurprisingly I have less of a problem with this. Pro-innocence folks didn't have much of a problem trashing the Judge at the first trial as setting out to convict regardless of the evidence. Presumably the Judges honesty and objectivity were doubted at least in part because his view of the case and the evidence was impossible to reconcile with your own. Why shouldn't the PMF folks doubt these independent experts?

As others have pointed out, they should be troubled by the fact that their advance predictions about the report's contents were falsified.

Here's an appropriate analogy, especially given that this is the JREF forum: they are like a purported psychic who undergoes scientific testing, only to find out that their psychic claims aren't confirmed, and then makes excuses after the fact for why the test wasn't valid.

Yes, maybe there was a problem with the test; but if you accepted the testing protocol and made an advance prediction about the result, you should at least have doubts about your theory if the result comes out differently.

The guilters did not raise these kinds of criticisms of Conti and Vecchiotti before the report came out. Instead, they confidently predicted that they would confirm Stefanoni. Which is a perfectly logical prediction of the guilter theory: if Stefanoni's results are truly sound, then surely an independent review of them by experts from the most prestigious university in Italy, with no prior connection to the case, would be extremely likely to provide confirmation.

However, what happened is exactly the opposite: Conti and Vecchiotti criticized Stefanoni in pretty much the strongest possible terms. So if you're a guilter, and thought Stefanoni's results were correct, you should find this very confusing. It means the world doesn't work the way you thought it did: either it's possible for independent experts from a prestigious university to deliver a scathing critique of perfectly good work (and thus to be incapable of telling good work from bad), or else Stefanoni's work wasn't so good after all. Either way, you have some belief updating to do. It can't be simultaneously true that (1) an independent scientific review of reliable scientific work will recognize it as reliable scientific work, and (2) Stefanoni's findings are reliable. The only question is: which of those two beliefs rests on a firmer foundation?

You're right that an analogous dilemma does indeed hold for any innocence believers who were confident that the Massei court would acquit. It can't be simultaneously true that (1') innocent people will be acquitted by a jury, and (2') Knox and Sollecito are innocent. The difference, of course, is that (1') is a much easier belief to give up than its analogue (1).

The references to American law enforcement manuals, rather than Italian ones (I'm basing this on Fiona on PMF, is it true?), about crime scene management isn't what I would have naively expected.

Your confusion is well-founded. Because as it turns out, it isn't true. On pages 38-39 of the report, Conti and Vecchiotti discuss the recommendations of the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes. In particular, on p. 39, they quote from the European Crime Scene Management Good Practice Manual, which is used by...guess who...the Scientific Police Service of Rome. (As well as the Carabinieri.)