Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[AmyStrange]

My interpretation of yesterday's statement was that the presence of Raffaele's profile on the clasp has no significance because an arbitrary number of profiles can be constructed from the data. The original report only alluded to this critical point. C&V are arguing that what investigators interpreted as signal should have been interpreted as noise.

-

Thank you charlatan for sharing,

and you could be right, but I think the y-halotype interpretation was on a different level than the noise to signal mix-ups, but I could be wrong and I'm always willing to keep my mind open and listen to and consider opposing views,

Dave

 

[AmyStrange]

good catch...

Haplotype as in the western European R1b for example? Or is it something more exclusive?

-

CRAP! My spelling is usually (most of the time anyway) spot on Ammonitida, but thank you for catching that,

Dave

 

[RoseMontague]

I would take it a step further and argue that the bra clasp itself is evidence of contamination. It wasn't properly stored, thus preventing retesting. It was moved during the two weeks it remained at the crime scene, a time during which the investigators cannot fully account for their comings and goings. We know gloves and booties were not consistently changed during evidence collection. And finally, additional contributors were found that match an arbitrary number of genetic profiles, as one might expect from a contaminated item.

Based on the last round of testimony, Judge Hellmann appears to agree that contamination may have occurred before evidence reached the lab. I find it telling that the prosecution is arguing about lab work rather than the sloppy work that was performed at the crime scene.

Yes, I believe it is definite evidence of contamination. You have to use common sense. What are the chances that 5-8.3 people handled Meredith's bra clasp and left a partial profile on it versus just look at the video and the before and after shots of that room.

This hired liar by the prosecution just threw his reputation in the trash can.
You don't have to be an expert with an impressive CV to see all the examples of bad evidence collection and possible contamination. Stefanoni's voodoo hoodoo with the knife blade and the keystone cops attempt at an academy award in the bra clasp collection video are telling. These people look like untrained, unorganized, unprofessional goons in bunny outfits trying to act like they have a clue that they actually know what they are doing. Pathetic.

 

[Justinian2]

The New Scientist reported:
Quote
Mixed-up DNA from crime scenes already causes headaches for analysts; now it seems it can even be difficult to tell how many people's DNA is present in a sample.

Dan Krane of Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, and his team took 959 full DNA profiles and modelled all the possible three and four-person mixtures that could arise from them. They found that 3 per cent of three-person mixtures could be mistaken for those of two people, and more than 70 per cent of four-person mixtures could be mistaken for two or three-person mixtures (Journal of Forensic Sciences, DOI: 10.1520/JFS2004475).

"If you can't determine how many contributors there were, it is ludicrous to suggest that you can tease apart who those contributors were or what their DNA profiles were," says Krane.
Endquote
This article also touches upon forensic bias. I believe that LondonJohn originally brought this article to everyone's attention.

I hope FOA knows about this. It could be important right now.

 

[LondonJohn]

The New Scientist reported:
Quote
Mixed-up DNA from crime scenes already causes headaches for analysts; now it seems it can even be difficult to tell how many people's DNA is present in a sample.

Dan Krane of Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, and his team took 959 full DNA profiles and modelled all the possible three and four-person mixtures that could arise from them. They found that 3 per cent of three-person mixtures could be mistaken for those of two people, and more than 70 per cent of four-person mixtures could be mistaken for two or three-person mixtures (Journal of Forensic Sciences, DOI: 10.1520/JFS2004475).

"If you can't determine how many contributors there were, it is ludicrous to suggest that you can tease apart who those contributors were or what their DNA profiles were," says Krane.
Endquote
This article also touches upon forensic bias. I believe that LondonJohn originally brought this article to everyone's attention.

I just read your earlier post where you referenced this article - sorry for not noticing it earlier, or I'd have relinked to the New Scientist article sooner. It is indeed a very well-researched and well-written article highlighting numerous problems related to DNA evidence in criminal courts, particularly when it comes to low-template volumes and mixed DNA. And it also highlights the clear conflict of interest that can occur when the police's own forensics labs are looking for DNA belonging to suspects under police investigation.

You are far, far more illuminating and knowledgeable about all things DNA than I am, to the immense benefit of this thread. But thanks for the name-check though

 

[LondonJohn]

-

I think the testimony actually was that the only "complete" profile found on the bra clasp was Merediths. Everything else was a mixture of many incomplete profiles.

Except that Raffaele's y-halotype was also found in that mixture which (although not absolute) does narrow one of the profiles down to coming from someone from his family, but I could be wrong.

Sollecito's y-haplotype is not unique to him and his close family. In fact, there are only around 30 main haplotypes found across the entire human race. These are differentiated along ethnic and geographical lines. It's therefore highly likely that a large proportion of men in central and Southern Italy share Sollecito's haplotype, as well as a significant proportion of males across the whole of Europe.

 

[christianahannah]

There are lots of updates since court adjourned today. Some even repeated.

I haven't read through all but they give an interesting account of what went on today in court and quote many parties on both sides.

http://www.libero-news.it/regionenotizia.jsp?regione=Umbria

 

[LondonJohn]

Haplotype as in the western European R1b for example? Or is it something more exclusive?

No, you're right. It's nothing more exclusive than this level of differentiation. I suspect that Sollecito's haplotype might either have been R1b (as you note) or I2. And both of these groups constitute many millions of individuals alive today.

 

[christianahannah]

I just read your earlier post where you referenced this article - sorry for not noticing it earlier, or I'd have relinked to the New Scientist article sooner. It is indeed a very well-researched and well-written article highlighting numerous problems related to DNA evidence in criminal courts, particularly when it comes to low-template volumes and mixed DNA. And it also highlights the clear conflict of interest that can occur when the police's own forensics labs are looking for DNA belonging to suspects under police investigation.

You are far, far more illuminating and knowledgeable about all things DNA than I am, to the immense benefit of this thread. But thanks for the name-check though

I don't think for-profit labs will/have fare/d any better in conflict of interest. halides1 had linked a case here months ago where a lab had committed egregious offenses and they were a for-profit lab. It all narrows down to the integrity and honesty of those performing the lab work.

 

[charlatan]

and you could be right, but I think the y-halotype interpretation was on a different level than the noise to signal mix-ups, but I could be wrong and I'm always willing to keep my mind open and listen to and consider opposing views

I claim no specialized knowledge here but I see some other folks chimed in.

You don't have to be an expert with an impressive CV to see all the examples of bad evidence collection and possible contamination. Stefanoni's voodoo hoodoo with the knife blade and the keystone cops attempt at an academy award in the bra clasp collection video are telling. These people look like untrained, unorganized, unprofessional goons in bunny outfits trying to act like they have a clue that they actually know what they are doing. Pathetic.

The prosecution is in an extraordinary bind right now. If they offer up a blanket defense of the forensic work they look weak. If they try to attack the report in detail they need to introduce new evidence, leaving them open to the charge of stonewalling the investigators. If they go after C&V's credibility they're effectively questioning Hellmann's judgement.

I would not want to be in their shoe covers right now.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well. Well. Well. Published this evening on The Daily Beast:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-attacked-conviction-could-be-overturned.html

Knox Appeal Down to the Wire
Sep 6, 2011 3:36 PM EDT

With new experts attacking the investigation, the trial is suddenly pivoting in Amanda Knox’s favor — and could free not only her, but everyone linked to the crime.

By Barbie Latza Nadeau.

The ferret has well and truly been slammed into reverse. Clouseau's article - apart from the astonishing opening paragraph reproduced above - also contains the following statements (my bolding):

The most likely scenario, according to most court watchers and legal pundits, including those involved in this case, is that this court will overturn the convictions.

On Knox’s side is the fact that an independent forensic review requested but denied in the original trial was allowed for the appeal. Those experts’ findings are proving to be a game changer, both in the Perugia courtroom and in the court of public opinion.

The prosecution tried to poke holes in the experts’ testimony with little success.

Sollecito’s expert Adriano Tagliabracci and prosecutor Manuela Comodi exchanged barbs and insults, but Tagliabracci clearly pressed the basic issue that reasonable doubt on any of the specimens collected for analysis is unacceptable, and the fact that the bra clasp with Sollecito’s DNA sat uncollected for nearly six weeks means it cannot be held reliable. “How can we be certain that is a reliable exhibit?”

The Kerchers’ expert, Francesca Torricelli, asked why a tiny amount of DNA still present on the knife wasn’t tested by the independent experts “just to be sure,” prompting the prosecution to hint after court that they just might ask for yet another forensic review. The experts said that they didn’t test the DNA because it wasn’t blood.

An amazing volte-face from Clouseau, and one which does her integrity very little good. However, at least she finally seems to be understanding the truth behind this case, and colouring her reporting appropriately. The same goes for Pisa, but not for the single most deluded and ignorant reporter still covering the case: Andrea Vogt.

 

[curi0us]

What gets to me, and the reason I keep reading this thread, in the same way as people slow down to look at road accidents, is that so many here contend that this thread is a bastion of truth and rationality, when it is just as partisan as other forums on their other side. How many here have stated as a fact that AK and RS are innocent? Not rationality, but zealotry.

When you posted at PMF did you ever tell any of them that they were engaging in "zealotry" if they stated "as a fact" that AK and RS were guilty?

This case hasn't generated interest because it looks like a road accident, it's generated interest because it looks like modern day witch hunt being cheered on by an on-line lynch mob dishonestly demonizing the accused while ignoring major flaws with the prosecutions case.

I respect that your time with law enforcement causes you to be doubtful about theories that involve a number of ILE being corrupt, incompetent and/or involved in some form of conspiracy, but have noticed the PMF view on American law enforcement? Have you noticed how many of their core members and leaders speak of a vast American PR conspiracy that they claim is the driving force behind people disagreeing with their views?

Did you notice how they praised <Dr. Stefoni and argued that criticisms of her work were just Marriot PR and/or anti-Italian bigotry even when there was legitimate evidence suggesting she made numerous errors? Now that the Italian independent experts are highly critical of her work they are some how part of the PR conspiracy too. Unlike <Dr. Stefanoni the person who performed the autopsy Dr. Lali made no mistakes in tying off the intestines yet somehow his expertise is just ignored. When (Dr.) Rolfe points out that the empty duodenum indicates a time of death within three hours of the last meal she is mocked by the PMFcore even though she was in agreement with what the Italian expert said. There is no honest rational examination of the evidence going on with the PMFcore, they just praise those things and people that support their position and ridicule those that don't.

Mignini has made at least five ridiculous and/or dishonest statements about the case but rather than address this PMF/TJMK have invented a narrative where Mignini was just wronged by the massive and "unprecedented" Marriot/Preston PR machine. They now just ignore the implications of Mignini being convicted and sentenced to a 16 month prison sentence for abuse of office. Preston's words a year before Knox was broken during an interrogation sure look prophetic now, but in PMF land Preston is a lying villain. In order to believe the PMF narrative about the Marriot PR conspiracy you need to believe Marriot has a time machine to get Preston's story about Mignini published in 2006. Marriot would also need to have the Italian Judiciary in their pocket to convict the supposedly valiantly exceptional Mignini. If you have a hard time believing in conspiracies you should be tilting heavily towards innocence.

The group think dynamic you tend to post about is a good topic and I appreciate that you are willing to against the crowd, but have you honestly evaluated what the environment is like at PMF? Have you noticed how PMF has consistently banned (and often erased) everyone who even hints they think AK and RS are innocent? Here the debate is sometimes far from ideal but it is clear that there is a sincere effort to be rational, open and informed. There they pretend they have sound arguments by closing off sources of dissent, referencing their own misinformation, and ultimately being collectively irrational to a degree that would make most cults look reasonable by comparison.

If you disagree with me then explain why PMFers can post freely at JREF but not the other way around? Why are they so afraid of dissenting opinions?

 

[christianahannah]

I claim no specialized knowledge here but I see some other folks chimed in.



The prosecution is in an extraordinary bind right now. If they offer up a blanket defense of the forensic work they look weak. If they try to attack the report in detail they need to introduce new evidence, leaving them open to the charge of stonewalling the investigators. If they go after C&V's credibility they're effectively questioning Hellmann's judgement.

I would not want to be in their shoe covers right now.

I don't know about introducing new evidence but here is an article where new testing on evidence is asked and contains criticism of the independent experts' report:

http://www.libero-news.it/articolo.jsp?id=816139

 

[JREF2010]

There are lots of updates since court adjourned today. Some even repeated.

I haven't read through all but they give an interesting account of what went on today in court and quote many parties on both sides.

http://www.libero-news.it/regionenotizia.jsp?regione=Umbria

Anything about Stefanoni having C&V arrested or charged with defamation?
Maresca taking on the case, no doubt.

 

[RoseMontague]

I don't know about introducing new evidence but here is an article where new testing on evidence is asked and contains criticism of the independent experts' report:

http://www.libero-news.it/articolo.jsp?id=816139

I don't think it is very likely that the judge is going to ask for an expert review of his experts' review. It is just posturing on the part of <Dr Stefi and Maresca. I can't understand what difference it makes where the rye in that starch was grown. Just my opinion.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't think for-profit labs will/have fare/d any better in conflict of interest. halides1 had linked a case here months ago where a lab had committed egregious offenses and they were a for-profit lab. It all narrows down to the integrity and honesty of those performing the lab work.

No, there's a massive difference. There is a chance of incompetence whatever system is used. We're talking about conscious or unconscious bias here though. Now, it's also true to say that there is still a possibility of bias if independent labs are used: this is due to the fact that the single largest client of any forensic lab will always be the police, so there may consequently be circumstances in which the lab will seek to give the police "the result they want", in order to continue receiving lucrative police contract work.

But when the lab is the police (or a branch of the police), it's been empirically shown that the chances of conscious or unconscious bias towards "finding" the DNA of the suspect is way higher. In addition, it's far more likely that a police lab will be inappropriately close to the investigation. This was quite self-evidently the case in this particular instance: Ms Stefanoni was even apparently part of the investigative team's case conferences. She therefore knew exactly who the police were trying to link to the murder - and what those individuals' DNA profiles were - long before she performed the actual DNA tests. And that's totally improper.

In order to obtain the most reliable and objective results, any lab should merely be supplied with the piece of evidence to be tested, and told to identify the DNA loci present on the sample. If positive matches to a known suspect are to be attempted, then the most objective method would be to provide the suspect's reference profile alongside the reference profiles of several control individuals (i.e. the DNA-matching equivalent of a visual identification parade, where the suspect is lined up alongside several control individuals).

 

[christianahannah]

Anything about Stefanoni having C&V arrested or charged with defamation?
Maresca taking on the case, no doubt.

Haven't read that yet. There is an update quoting Raffaele's father among others. And there is more information on the deposition of Tagliabracci.

I like this link because the updates usually tell what the tone of other media articles will be.

 

[christianahannah]

I don't think it is very likely that the judge is going to ask for an expert review of his experts' review. It is just posturing on the part of <Dr Stefi and Maresca. I can't understand what difference it makes where the rye in that starch was grown. Just my opinion.

My point in linking that particular article was to show that the gloves have come off and it appears it is an all out fight between the prosecution and the independent experts regardless of their appointment by Hellmann.

 

[RandyN]

lionking,

Perhaps I do not understand your question. Would you supply an example? There is a big difference in saying that the Kercher family is presenting false information or weak arguments (which I have seen) and saying bad things about the Kercher family (which I have not seen). There is nothing wrong with doing the former; as long as the Kerchers enter into a public debate, they should expect civil and courteous opposition. The latter is so obviously wrong that it does not need explanation. The only thing that I have seen that falls into a gray zone is the argument that the Kercher family is motivated in part by money. I happen not to agree with those those who may think that money is important to the Kerchers, but I also think that the topic should not be off limits.

I applaud the Kerchers for the idea of a scholarship in Meredith's name.

Yes I applaud the idea too. Its been 4 years now. What are they waiting for?

 

[HumanityBlues]

I don't think it is very likely that the judge is going to ask for an expert review of his experts' review. It is just posturing on the part of <Dr Stefi and Maresca. I can't understand what difference it makes where the rye in that starch was grown. Just my opinion.

Why would the prosecution want more testing on already unassailable evidence?