Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[komponisto]

komponisto,

One person here put reasonable doubt as 75%, which strikes me as very low. However, the advantage of putting a number on one's certainty is that it forces one to think about the level of false convictions, and this in turn forces one to rethink the appeals system in one's country. In the U.S. the burden of proof reverses, whereas in Italy it does not, as we see in the present case. Cameron Todd Willingham had many reviews of his case, but almost no reexamination of the inexcusably bad arson forensics that were done.

Indeed. I am very troubled by the lack of recourse that defendants in the U.S. have to have the facts of their case (as opposed to legal issues) reviewed post-conviction.

(As I understand it, until very recently the law in the state of Virginia was such that even the victim turning out to be alive was not necessarily grounds for appeal of a murder conviction.)

 

[Katody Matrass]

Buenos dias!

Just cannot help but ask:

Hi! Does your reappearance mean that you decided to bravely delve into discussion, like a real man? I'm craving for some intelligent on-topic pro-guilt arguments!

Or did you just pop in to make some unfavorable remarks about the disputants and immediately (and not so bravely) retreat from any discussion of the case itself? I hope it's not so - it would be quite a poor 'style'

 

[pilot padron]

nice try

Hi! Does your reappearance mean that you decided to bravely delve into discussion, like a real man? I'm craving for some intelligent on-topic pro-guilt arguments!

Or did you just pop in to make some unfavorable remarks about the disputants and immediately (and not so bravely) retreat from any discussion of the case itself? I hope it's not so - it would be quite a poor 'style'

1) Please note that my one and only post was carefully directed at the argument, and not the 'disputants' as you accuse me of in your personal 'spin' of what I argued.
Your 'spin' is probably for very obvious reasons to those of us cognizant of the MA and infractions thereof.

2) "idiots", of which I have been honored as being designated a full fledged vocal specimen of in past arguments here, rarely are concerned with 'style' or 'braveness', much less your argument's inapplicable,irrelevant and irreverent accusations toward me about same.

3) RE: "real man".... do your self implied mind reading skills include ability to determine gender of "idiots" both "full fledged" and "subset" as endlessly described when they argue guilt here and on other Boards ???

ETA : Adios Amigos, Redux

 

[Katody Matrass]

1) Please note that my one and only post was carefully directed at the argument

Yes, I note you've silently agreed with Komponisto's argument

While we're on topic, do you also agree with Fine's findings that were recently presented on PMF - about Massei's confusion with evidence numbering?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Just cannot help but ask:

When you are reduced to arguing as above with an absent poster from another (apparently admittedly *superior*) Board....

1) Does it help give strength to your argument if you do so in front of a mirror ???
Or per haps with a picture of the absent poster taped to your mirror ??

2) Do you always *win* when you have to argue (with yourself) in this very strange manner?

3) Since the 'style'/content of arguing that you continue alone now is sooo strange;

3A) is this the *lively friendly skeptical* arguments that Mr Randi envisioned...

3B)... for 55,000+, and often 50 a day from one individual ????

(Bolding in above lengthy quotes mine)

You must be referring to the weirdo on PMF who is always giving JREF updates and arguing with JREF posters by proxy. Spot on analysis mate.

 

[RoseMontague]

Yes, I note you've silently agreed with Komponisto's argument

While we're on topic, do you also agree with Fine's findings that were recently presented on PMF - about Massei's confusion with evidence numbering?

This is my understanding:

Foto 4 Rinaldi, Item L8 in the crime scene photo, Rep 183 in DNA results (Meredith and Amanda) are all the same. It is a shoeprint (not a bare footprint), revealed by Luminol in the hallway.

 

[Katody Matrass]

This is my understanding:

Foto 4 Rinaldi, Item L8 in the crime scene photo, Rep 183 in DNA results (Meredith and Amanda) are all the same. It is a shoeprint (not a bare footprint), revealed by Luminol in the hallway.

And it's the one with "mixed" DNA.

 

[christianahannah]

Does the "simultaneously" deposited blood/DNA on the sink contain a profile of a third female subject?

This from Amanda's Appeal (?) is in reference to Stefanoni's testimony of May 2009.

I don't believe this possibility of a third person comes from the DNA mixture in the sink but rather from the DNA extracted from the cotton buds. This mixture was of equal profiles and as such, it cannot be ruled out that there could be another person's DNA present (other than Amanda's and Meredith's).

I do not know if further analysis was done on the cotton buds, I am not even sure what more can be done when trying to analyze a mixture of equal proportions (not sure if I am wording this correctly).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

laboratory cross contamination

I cannot do this topic justice right now, but this topic has recently been discussed at PMF. The time at which samples are run can affect the chances of contamination. From a 2006 article by William Thompson:

"One sure pathway to a false incrimination is accidental contamination of an evidentiary sample with DNA from a suspect’s reference sample. Given the known danger of cross-contamination among samples being processed together as a batch, most DNA laboratories take care to process the evidentiary samples at a different time or place than reference samples. However, some laboratories (the bad ones) insist on processing reference samples and evidentiary samples from a case all at the same time, a practice that seems irresponsible, even outrageous, given the danger that a laboratory accident could produce a false incrimination." (highlighting mine)

In a related matter, an article by Donald Riley that I recently cited points out the need to clean the PCR thermal cycler regularly because of chances of contamination, IIRC. Only a tiny amount (say, a millionth) of a Post-PCR product would be needed to compromise a pre-PCR evidence sample.

 

[RoseMontague]

And it's the one with "mixed" DNA.

Yes, Massei lists it one time as 184 in error as pointed out in Amanda's appeal but also lists it as L8 Rep183 correctly in a different place.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Some quotations to illustrate Massei's confusion about the "mixed DNA" prints:
page 194:
Of the samples L6, L7, L8 and L9, only L8 (item 183) from the corridor, almost in the middle of the corridor in front of the door to Amanda Knox's room, gave the result: victim plus Knox. The last sample L9 yielded no result.


page 282:
the traces 178, 179, 180 (L3, L4, L5) all found in Amanda's room had shown Amanda's biological profile; trace 184 (L9), found in the corridor, almost in front of the wall separating Amanda's and Meredith's rooms, had shown a mixed genetic profile attributable to both Meredith and Amanda.

which is it? L9 or L8 ( the shoeprint)?

Massei corrects himself again in his "closing considerations":

...traces highlighted by Luminol, some of which (one in the corridor, the L8, and one, the L2, in Romanelli’s room) were mixed, that is, constituted of a biological trace attributable to [both] Meredith and Amanda, and others with traces attributable only to Amanda (the three found in her own room and indicated as L3, L4 and L5) and only to the victim (one found in Romanelli’s room, the L1).

so looks like it's L8 after all...

Here's how it is described in testimony:

il reperto 183, campionatura L8 nel corridoio che ha dato come
risultato vittima più Knox; e vi pongo l’attenzione anche sulla forma che
avevano queste campionature, queste luminescenze, questa era diciamo
più simile, ricordava una forma di scarpa, un’impronta di scarpa[/B]

and in the DNA report:

impronta di scarpa direz. uscita corridoio nei pressi del montante che
separa le stanze KNOX-VITTIMA

So it's a shoe-print after all, not a footprint.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Yes, Massei lists it one time as 184 in error as pointed out in Amanda's appeal but also lists it as L8 Rep183 correctly in a different place.

Exactly. It's the only luminol revealed trace identified as shoe-print.

To reiterate the obvious truth, however uncomfortable will it be to the guilters:
None of the luminol footprints found on the scene tested positive for blood or for Meredith's DNA. Full stop.

 

[Rolfe]

One thing that strikes me as odd about the arguing going on at PMF is the assumption that it's all up for Amanda and Rafaelle if the PCR work was done by techniques which were accepted at the time, even if they have been shown to be unreliable by later work.

Oh, hard luck guys, if only they'd discovered how unreliable that technique was at the time, you'd have been exonerated. But since they didn't find out that the technique was rubbish until the year after your tests were done, you're stuck with it.

That's not how it works. If science is later shown to be unreliable, and that casts doubt on a conviction, that in itself is grounds for appeal.

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

You must be referring to the weirdo on PMF who is always giving JREF updates and arguing with JREF posters by proxy. Spot on analysis mate.

Pilot might want to have a go at stint7, who is seemingly obsessed with certain JREF posters (and not only their arguments, but also, it appears, their professions, education and anatomy....). Good old stint rarely discusses (let alone rebuts) the arguments set out here on JREF - preferring instead to focus purely on attacking the people who post here. I wonder if pilot ever communicates with stint7.....?

Pilot: if you're still around, a few questions:

What do you think of the recent "Google-de-gook" "library card" research carried out on the DNA report bibliography on other sites? Were you aware, for example, that the person doing most of the very time-consuming and laborious "research" into this subject not only has no scientific training, but also demonstrably has very little grasp of the subject at hand?

What do you think will be the outcome of the DNA report discussion in Hellmann's court at the end of this month?

Oh, and what do you think Meredith's time of death was (and how do you support this view)?

Enjoy! And I hope you have a fruitful two-way conversation with stint7 as well. I have the feeling that the two of you might find you have more in common that you both (and others) realise

 

[Justinian2]

It's totally exasperating that the amateurs should have to repeatedly correct the 'professionals' at their life's work - their area of greatest expertise. Not only that, but that the 'professionals' should have such a slow uptake - be such slow learners.

Casey Anthony, the woman guilty of negligent homicide goes free while Amanda, the woman guilty only of being the roommate of a murder victim spends her fourth year in jail with a longer sentence than the actual murderer.

I don't know how to form a satisfactory, non-depressing conclusion from all this.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

pre-PCR versus post-PCR work areas

One thing that strikes me as odd about the arguing going on at PMF is the assumption that it's all up for Amanda and Rafaelle if the PCR work was done by techniques which were accepted at the time, even if they have been shown to be unreliable by later work.

Oh, hard luck guys, if only they'd discovered how unreliable that technique was at the time, you'd have been exonerated. But since they didn't find out that the technique was rubbish until the year after your tests were done, you're stuck with it.

That's not how it works. If science is later shown to be unreliable, and that casts doubt on a conviction, that in itself is grounds for appeal.

Rolfe.

Rolfe,

I don't have time right now to dig up more citations other than the Thompson paper above, but the dangers of processing reference samples and evidence samples together was appreciated long before 2007. Sarah Gino also made reference to the problem in her testimony in 2009. IIRC some labs separate their pre-PCR work areas from their post-PCR work areas, along similar lines.

 

[LondonJohn]

One thing that strikes me as odd about the arguing going on at PMF is the assumption that it's all up for Amanda and Rafaelle if the PCR work was done by techniques which were accepted at the time, even if they have been shown to be unreliable by later work.

Oh, hard luck guys, if only they'd discovered how unreliable that technique was at the time, you'd have been exonerated. But since they didn't find out that the technique was rubbish until the year after your tests were done, you're stuck with it.

That's not how it works. If science is later shown to be unreliable, and that casts doubt on a conviction, that in itself is grounds for appeal.

Rolfe.

Exactly. And the same is true where new procedures can get more out of the evidence than was available at the time of the original trial. An example of this would be the ESDA document analysis used to show statement-forging in the Birmingham 6 case, plus of course many DNA reviews of cases which were tried long before DNA analysis was possible.

The only possible area of the Kercher case where the contemporaneity of information would have any relevance is in certain areas of best-practice for DNA evidence collection relating to contamination. If the investigators could be shown to have taken all reasonable precautions to minimise contamination according to the accepted standards of that time (late 2007), then the defence would have trouble arguing contamination - even if certain procedures had become more rigorous since that time. One cannot, after all, expect investigators to observe standards that haven't even been invented yet!

As it happens, the "crack" forensics team working on this case flouted pretty much every significant standard procedure that was in place in 2007. And that's why the defence will no longer have to prove contamination in order to successfully claim that it is a very real possibility here.

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, I chuckle heartily at the thought of Steve Moore "buckling" and accepting a settlement from Pepperdine in order to save himself from a drubbing in court.

The internal logical flaw in this argument is easy to see: if Pepperdine thought they would probably win a wrongful dismissal suit in court, they would never offer a settlement, and would instead tell Moore that they would see him in court. Similarly, if Moore thought he was being offered a settlement substantially below that which he could obtain through a court victory, he would decline the settlement and take things on to court. And lastly, if Moore had been advised that he didn't have a strong case against Pepperdine (which, if that had been the case, he should have been advised of very early in the process by his legal representative), he would almost certainly not have pursued a legal action in the first place - the cost risk to him (and/or his insurers) would simply have been far too high.

 

[Caper]

Just a quick question to long time posters and followers of this thread... it's massive.

Of the people posting on this thread, what percentage of people would you say believe Knox is innocent? Guilt?...... and other (was involved but not enough to prove?)

Also, has anyone changed their mind since the thread started?

 

[RoseMontague]

This from Amanda's Appeal (?) is in reference to Stefanoni's testimony of May 2009.

I don't believe this possibility of a third person comes from the DNA mixture in the sink but rather from the DNA extracted from the cotton buds. This mixture was of equal profiles and as such, it cannot be ruled out that there could be another person's DNA present (other than Amanda's and Meredith's).

I do not know if further analysis was done on the cotton buds, I am not even sure what more can be done when trying to analyze a mixture of equal proportions (not sure if I am wording this correctly).

Was it extracted from the case containing the cotton balls? Amanda's appeal is not real clear on this. Was there an attempt to match this partial profile to any of the lab techs or CSI's?

Good to see your post, btw. Where have you been?