Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Bill Williams]

Here's where Leila/Thougtful's BBC piece breaks down, and soon there are going to be mathematicians worldwide climbing all over the BBC for falling for Leila's fallacy.

A Facebook poster has nailed the issue from a "math" standpoint. The issue is not like flipping a coin, which is a "discrete" test. Flipping a coin on each flip gives a 100% verifiable result. A heads or a tails. Has to be one of those options.... and more flipping actually "does" test the reliability of the coin itself as heads/tails as the only two discrete options each settle in, over the long term with more tosses, to 50% each.

DNA testing returns "continuous" data each time, meaning that each time a test is done, unlike a coin toss something in the neighbourhood of 30% or 40% reliability can only be confirmed on EACH SAMPLE. Not 100% on each sample like a coin toss.

MORE DNA testing does NOT settle into one of the options..... MORE DNA testing will simply give more results, all within the 30% - to 40% range, because "continuous data" does not settle into saying anything about the two "discrete" options we're looking for - is it or isn't it Meredith's DNA?

And if, say as the C&V report finds.... the result of each "continuous data" test is actually 0%, doing more tests will simply give further 0% results.

What Leila is actually hoping for is not mathematical. She's hoping that the new prosecution team can get some other DNA-analyst to lie about the data, as Patrizia Stefanoni did.

Point is.... on continuous data-testing.... you don't raise the reliability of the 30% or 40% found (or in the case of Meredith's DNA on the knife 0%) by doing more testing. You do ENOUGH testing. Isn't this what Stefanoni herself did for the multiples times she wrote down "No copy", until she turned up the machine's tolerance to even have it register?

 

[Grinder]

My recollection from the earliest reports in the London Times was that the police thought it was an everyday, run-of-the-mill burglary, and that the idea of a staging was not an immediate thought.

I recall it differently. I recall that from the very beginning the reporting centered around a sex party, ritual etc. I do not recall the reporting ever stating that it looked like a break-in gone bad.

Here's and early Mirror story that implies that the window was in Meredith's room.

Other stories talk about the killer likely being someone she met the night before. Another story referred to her as a party girl.

Here's a snip from Nov. 3rd notice the emphasis on the lack of theft once again no speculation on burglary gone bad. Nicola Miriano, the chief prosecutor of Perugia, said murder was "the most credible hypothesis". But he added that he did not want to rule out other explanations until he had the results of the forensic investigation.

According to Italian media reports, the dead woman was found lying on her bed covered by a duvet. A window in the cottage in Viale Sant'Antonio, not far from the city centre, was reportedly broken. But the door to the victim's room was locked. Computers and gold objects in the house had been left untouched.

From an Italian (Google translation) - The squad of Perugia - directed by Marco Chiacchera - and the forensic police have started investigations. It appears that traces of blood have been found on the broken window and on a handkerchief near a railing which delimits the overlying road, as well as in the chamber of the victim. No sign of forced entry was evident instead identified on the front door. In the evening, however, came from Rome a team Ert, Experts raised tracks, the police for further investigations still ongoing. Investigators - coordinated by the deputy prosecutor Giuliano Mignini - are trying to reconstruct the last hours of the student. Seems to have been seen alive for the last time on Thursday afternoon. It is not clear how he spent the next few hours and if you've met someone. ( 2 November 2007 )

This is from croydon guardian The police arrived soon after with her mobile phone and broke the door down.

It is believed Meredith's attacker escaped through the window.

The early stories did not speak of a burglary gone bad - go look it up. From the very beginning they spoke of sex gone bad. The early reports made it sound like the room was locked from the inside and the perp escaped through a broken window in her room.

I doubt you'll find a story with a burglary gone bad. They thought the break-in odd to say the least from day one. I do remember and can't find one story that talks about a burglary.

 

[Grinder]

Here's where Leila/Thougtful's BBC piece breaks down, and soon there are going to be mathematicians worldwide climbing all over the BBC for falling for Leila's fallacy.

A Facebook poster has nailed the issue from a "math" standpoint. The issue is not like flipping a coin, which is a "discrete" test. Flipping a coin on each flip gives a 100% verifiable result. A heads or a tails. Has to be one of those options.... and more flipping actually "does" test the reliability of the coin itself as heads/tails as the only two discrete options each settle in, over the long term with more tosses, to 50% each.

This is what i wrote in part yesterday - Sadly she is wrong with her analysis as LCN DNA isn't the same thing as a biased coin. The nature of the LCN test being unreliable isn't just because of the reading of the results or the number of amplifications but the gathering, transport and lab protocol.

DNA testing returns "continuous" data each time, meaning that each time a test is done, unlike a coin toss something in the neighbourhood of 30% or 40% reliability can only be confirmed on EACH SAMPLE. Not 100% on each sample like a coin toss.

That is not true. It depends on the quality of the sample.

MORE DNA testing does NOT settle into one of the options..... MORE DNA testing will simply give more results, all within the 30% - to 40% range, because "continuous data" does not settle into saying anything about the two "discrete" options we're looking for - is it or isn't it Meredith's DNA?

UR repeating here. So UR saying that DNA testing doesn't work.

And if, say as the C&V report finds.... the result of each "continuous data" test is actually 0%, doing more tests will simply give further 0% results.

What Leila is actually hoping for is not mathematical. She's hoping that the new prosecution team can get some other DNA-analyst to lie about the data, as Patrizia Stefanoni did.

No she hopes to sell books just like Follain, Dempsey, Nadeau et al.

Point is.... on continuous data-testing.... you don't raise the reliability of the 30% or 40% found (or in the case of Meredith's DNA on the knife 0%) by doing more testing. You do ENOUGH testing. Isn't this what Stefanoni herself did for the multiples times she wrote down "No copy", until she turned up the machine's tolerance to even have it register?

She wrote down "Too Low" - can you explain what a turning up a machine's tolerance means? didn't think so.

No God Bill.

You still haven't described what evidence of a staging would look like.

 

[Grinder]

So over there stories of threats by phone to BRMull who claims he is using real name. If someone knows his story send me a PM as curiosity is intense.

Looks like Knox's book is going to sell a lot from the interest in "<thoughtful's" book promo article. Funny that the PGP don't see that popularity is associated with AK's name and nothing else.

Oh and once again they are advising people to call the cops for being called.

For those of you that don't remember the queen PGP filed against someone in 2008/9 which surprisingly went nowhere. Sources tell me she has flag next to her name in the Seattle system.

 

[Dan O.]

Grinder, are you paying attention to what had been discussed at length over the years in this case?

Rudy had an immediate need for cash as his rent was due on Monday just like everyone else. He had just been busted with the stolen laptop from the lawyers office so his attempt to raise the cash by pawning or fencing stollen goods had failed. He may not have time to find a fence and the ones he knows in Milan may be leery to talk to him so soon after his interactions with the authorities there. Also, these girls are friends of his friends. He may reason that the rich girls can replace money easily enough but to steal their stuff would invite serious repercussions from the few friends he has.

Anyone who has lived in this town would know the deal. The landlords want the rent paid in cash. It's a good bet that they don't want a traceable record because they don't report the full amount as income. I wouldn't be surprised if the ATMs were running out of cash in the days before the end of the month. Students typically don't carry €300-€400 on their person and would feel uncomfortable carrying it so they would stash it in their rooms. The underware drawer is apparently a common hiding place as is under the mattress. Rudy reveals that Meredit's money was in her underware drawer. If you look at Laura's room, you see that somebody has opened her undware drawer and also lifted the corner of her bed.

To me, this looks like a cash only robbery. Such a thing is not unheard of in other venues such as store hold ups or bank robberies. How often do banks get robbed and anything other than cash get taken? If the prosecution grabbed 6 strangers off the street and showed them the scene and said nothing was taken, how many of them would agree that this was no robbery? The prosecution is betting every one because the average stranger doesn't have all the information nor the experience. Why do you think the prosecution put the postal inspector who had no crime scene investigation history on the stand to repeat that he didn't think it looked like a robbery. The prosecution had several better qualified detectives but they would all have a problem. Every one of them would probably have analyzed a cash only robbery. And would be forced by the defense to admit that this case too could have been a cash only robbery.

I have no aspirations that Grinder is ever going to absorb this information. I thought he had before but he seems to be forgetful these days. I fully expect that he will see the resistance in pursuing this path and will switch to a different topic. But in time, this too will be forgotten and we'll be back. Such is the nature of linear threads.

 

[Alt+F4]

Oh and once again they are advising people to call the cops for being called.

We should call the cops for calling the cops or should we call cops cops?

 

[Grinder]

Grinder, are you paying attention to what had been discussed at length over the years in this case?

Been paying attention longer than you. Needless attack, and what has been discussed by the polar opposites on this is not necessarily informative as Sherlock pointed out.

Rudy had an immediate need for cash as his rent was due on Monday just like everyone else. He had just been busted with the stolen laptop from the lawyers office so his attempt to raise the cash by pawning or fencing stollen goods had failed.

Oft repeated and a long meme. It has never been established that he was desperate for cash. Most people including Amanda pay their rent when it was due. He wasn't busted if that means charged but was let go to return to Perugia. Was he ever charged with that or any other crime. Since Amanda and Raf were charged with like 6 crimes. Just curious.

He may not have time to find a fence and the ones he knows in Milan may be leery to talk to him so soon after his interactions with the authorities there. Also, these girls are friends of his friends. He may reason that the rich girls can replace money easily enough but to steal their stuff would invite serious repercussions from the few friends he has.

Huh? So are you trying to spit out that he would only steal cash? So does that mean Amanda stole the phones?

Anyone who has lived in this town would know the deal. The landlords want the rent paid in cash. It's a good bet that they don't want a traceable record because they don't report the full amount as income. I wouldn't be surprised if the ATMs were running out of cash in the days before the end of the month. Students typically don't carry €300-€400 on their person and would feel uncomfortable carrying it so they would stash it in their rooms. The underware drawer is apparently a common hiding place as is under the mattress. Rudy reveals that Meredit's money was in her underware drawer. If you look at Laura's room, you see that somebody has opened her undware drawer and also lifted the corner of her bed.

Is underware a british spelling of underwear? I always hid money in socks that were rolled into a ball but basically you have no isea and this is a bunch of speculation. Certainly it is very possible that money was hidden in the room, maybe the underwear drawer. Do we have any evidence of the percentage of rent paid in cash?

To me, this looks like a cash only robbery. Such a thing is not unheard of in other venues such as store hold ups or bank robberies.

Or when a mint is robbed. Or a check cashing place. But this was a house and a digital camera like a phone could fetch a few bucks

How often do banks get robbed and anything other than cash get taken?

Money bags are almost always also stolen along with exploding red dye packs.

If the prosecution grabbed 6 strangers off the street and showed them the scene and said nothing was taken, how many of them would agree that this was no robbery?

5

The prosecution is betting every one because the average stranger doesn't have all the information nor the experience. Why do you think the prosecution put the postal inspector who had no crime scene investigation history on the stand to repeat that he didn't think it looked like a robbery. The prosecution had several better qualified detectives but they would all have a problem. Every one of them would probably have analyzed a cash only robbery. And would be forced by the defense to admit that this case too could have been a cash only robbery.

Wild guess, because he was first on the scene and heard Raf's comment and saw the glass on top.

I have no aspirations that Grinder is ever going to absorb this information. I thought he had before but he seems to be forgetful these days. I fully expect that he will see the resistance in pursuing this path and will switch to a different topic. But in time, this too will be forgotten and we'll be back. Such is the nature of linear threads.

Yes Dan O why don't you go back to your spinning of the bath mat theory.

I show clips from stories from the 2nd and 3rd where no mention of a burglary gone can be found. I suggest looking for early reports that show that it was originally thought that it was a burglary gone bad but you can't so write a bunch of drivel about cash only robberies.

From the start the PLE felt there was something amiss about the burglary such as the laptop and camera being left in F's room and Raf saying nothing was stolen which is a very odd comment to make to the 911 operator.

Instead of your fabrications why don't you give one piece of evidence that proves it was a real break-in and how Rudi entered the cottage?

I am not saying the rock wasn't thrown from outside. That does not prove it was a real break-in.

Charlie gets it. We can't prove it one way or the other. If you wish to believe one way that is of course your prerogative.

 

[lionking]

I hope this isn't considered to be off topic. I've been in Italy for a month and have spoken to many about this case. I haven't yet found one who believes that AK is innocent, but when pressed, their belief is strengthened, or indeed formed, by the continual, unrelenting criticism of the Italian justice system by Americans.

I would have thought that the pro-innocence case would be best served by non-criticism of, indeed respect for, the Italian justice system. Yet even in this thread you see insults galore. Is this smart? Can't Italy, as an ancient civilisation, and still one of the world's top ten economies, be trusted to run a fair trial? Is continual reference to Italy as a backward and uncivilised country a good idea, even in this forum?

 

[anglolawyer]

Two things about the burglary:

1 he would likely have expected to leave the way he came in which rules out taking anything big, like a laptop, since you can't chuck that out a 10 foot window and expect to have a saleable item - therefore, before she got home, he would only be looking for things he could stuff in his pockets. After he murdered her, different priorities would also dictate that he did not encumber himself unduly - getting away fast trumped everything else.

2 if it were staged to make a sex crime look like a burglary and the rock were thrown from outside (as it clearly was) the stagers had to come back in to close the outer shutter. We know this happened because the shutter organised the glass on the sill into a straight line. While this is possible, it does seem very high risk. Dan made a great point about the risk calculation but I am adding to it that a throw from outside has to be supplemented by a return inside to close the shutter which is not only risky but also perhaps not something a stager would think of.

3 furthermore (Spanish Inquisition) the stager had also to think to pluck large shards of glass out of the frame, as was clearly done, taking further time and incurring greater risk.

4 (see SI above) can we please drop the glass on the grass meme for the next 50 pages minimum? It's a non-point since we know the rock was thrown from outside due to the glass pattern inside.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is what i wrote in part yesterday - Sadly she is wrong with her analysis as LCN DNA isn't the same thing as a biased coin. The nature of the LCN test being unreliable isn't just because of the reading of the results or the number of amplifications but the gathering, transport and lab protocol.



That is not true. It depends on the quality of the sample.



UR repeating here. So UR saying that DNA testing doesn't work.

And if, say as the C&V report finds.... the result of each "continuous data" test is actually 0%, doing more tests will simply give further 0% results.



No she hopes to sell books just like Follain, Dempsey, Nadeau et al.



She wrote down "Too Low" - can you explain what a turning up a machine's tolerance means? didn't think so.

No God Bill.

You still haven't described what evidence of a staging would look like.

Whatever. My point is that Thoughtful/Leila is using discrete data examples (coin tossing) to explain continuous data sampling (DNA testing).

 

[Bill Williams]

I hope this isn't considered to be off topic. I've been in Italy for a month and have spoken to many about this case. I haven't yet found one who believes that AK is innocent, but when pressed, their belief is strengthened, or indeed formed, by the continual, unrelenting criticism of the Italian justice system by Americans.

I would have thought that the pro-innocence case would be best served by non-criticism of, indeed respect for, the Italian justice system. Yet even in this thread you see insults galore. Is this smart? Can't Italy, as an ancient civilisation, and still one of the world's top ten economies, be trusted to run a fair trial? Is continual reference to Italy as a backward and uncivilised country a good idea, even in this forum?

You've answered your own question about the ability to run a fair trial. If the common person there believe in guilt because of criticism of their system, and not the evidence, then that's all you need to hear.

They cannot get a fair trial is the jury pool is polluted with, "They must be guilty because Americans don't like our system." I call that backward.

 

[lionking]

You've answered your own question about the ability to run a fair trial. If the common person there believe in guilt because of criticism of their system, and not the evidence, then that's all you need to hear.

They cannot get a fair trial is the jury pool is polluted with, "They must be guilty because Americans don't like our system." I call that backward.

But isn't non-stop criticism a self-defeating strategy? Wouldn't it be far better to say "in your hands, good luck"?

 

[Bill Williams]

But isn't non-stop criticism a self-defeating strategy? Wouldn't it be far better to say "in your hands, good luck"?

No one is engaging in a "strategy". The myth of the American PR machine is just that. People here call it as they see it - no one is trying to "influence" the Italian system in the sense that is being spouted - esp. by people like Mignini who at the end of the Hellmann-trial said that things in the court were being too much influenced by American propaganda.

Will not a court in Italy simply decide a case on the evidence? Acc. to you and people on the street, apparently not.

 

[lionking]

No one is engaging in a "strategy". The myth of the American PR machine is just that. People here call it as they see it - no one is trying to "influence" the Italian system in the sense that is being spouted - esp. by people like Mignini who at the end of the Hellmann-trial said that things in the court were being too much influenced by American propaganda.

Will not a court in Italy simply decide a case on the evidence? Acc. to you and people on the street, apparently not.

And yet I've read in this very thread how influential it has been. Assuming this is the case, wouldn't the posts which refer to the Italian system as barbaric be a very bad idea?

 

[Grinder]

Two things about the burglary:

1 he would likely have expected to leave the way he came in which rules out taking anything big, like a laptop, since you can't chuck that out a 10 foot window and expect to have a saleable item - therefore, before she got home, he would only be looking for things he could stuff in his pockets. After he murdered her, different priorities would also dictate that he did not encumber himself unduly - getting away fast trumped everything else.

In first world nations like Italy I would guess the law requires doors to open from the inside without a key. Remember all the PIP theories that have Rudi going back to MK's room for the keys when he realizes that the door requires a key?

2 if it were staged to make a sex crime look like a burglary and the rock were thrown from outside (as it clearly was) the stagers had to come back in to close the outer shutter. We know this happened because the shutter organised the glass on the sill into a straight line. While this is possible, it does seem very high risk. Dan made a great point about the risk calculation but I am adding to it that a throw from outside has to be supplemented by a return inside to close the shutter which is not only risky but also perhaps not something a stager would think of.

The wind can blow shut what it blows open. the risk calculation is no more valuable than Leila Schneps and her daughter's work on probabilities. For a rational person, perhaps but a crazed killer that thought his victim had told others about their date would have acted irrationally.

3 furthermore (Spanish Inquisition) the stager had also to think to pluck large shards of glass out of the frame, as was clearly done, taking further time and incurring greater risk.

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn - i.e. your best point.

4 (see SI above) can we please drop the glass on the grass meme for the next 50 pages minimum? It's a non-point since we know the rock was thrown from outside due to the glass pattern inside.

meme - a bullet - but glass outside would be there either way unless the shutter were closed as glass flies in both directions.

 

[Alt+F4]

Is underware a british spelling of underwear?

Again, what point are you trying to make about this case?

 

[Grinder]

And yet I've read in this very thread how influential it has been. Assuming this is the case, wouldn't the posts which refer to the Italian system as barbaric be a very bad idea?

You make sense but I'd think the comments of the family and their spokespeople and CBS commentators would trump anything said here or on comment threads. Comments on news stories would have more impact IMO.

 

[Kaosium]

Anyone wanting a walkthrough of the DNA process and Stefanoni's curious methodology and what that actually means should try to digest this post first. That has an explanation of the process, fully linked and cited, with videos so you can see what these machines look like and how they're used, along with the instruction manuals and further citations from the FBI, Massei, C&V and the Hellmann reports. On that post one should follow all the links, starting especially with those pages from the FBI report to get an overview of this process and the importance of doing it right and what Stefanoni actually did.

From Math on Trial with my comments inserted:

According to her testimony, Dr. Stefanoni began by unpacking the knife from its wrappings and examining it under a strong light. She perceived a few streaks on the blade, perhaps indicative of vigorous scrubbing. She took swabs along these streaks, managed to obtain an infinitesimal quantity of biological material— human cells, in fact, but precious few of them

This may have been her testimony but it is untrue (a significant cause for alarm, one might think). As Conti-Vechiotti point out:

Originally Posted by C-V
It must be emphasized that no laboratory tests were performed to detect biological material of a non-haematic nature on any of the samples analyzed.

It is considered that it would have been necessary to proceed to morphological tests to identify cells which might have been present, by means of colouration with one of the reagents commonly employed in histology (hematoxylin). Such a test, quick and easy to carry out, would have required a minimum quantity of material and would not in any way have compromised further laboratory testing, but could have clarified the nature of the material removed from the item under examination.

Despite the negative result of the blood identification test and the failure to carry out cell identification tests (and therefore the failure to identify the material removed from Exhibit 36) the Technical Consultant hypothesized the presence of “presumed exfoliated cells” on the material sampled from the knife handle (traces A-D-F) and of “presumed biological material” of another nature (presumably blood, considering the tests aimed at the detection of haematic peroxidases) on the material sampled from the blade (samples B-C-E-G).

— and proceeded to perform two analyses on it: one to determine whether or not the cells were blood cells, and the other to obtain a DNA identi- fication.

Also incorrect. She performed a blood test - negative, a species specific test - negative and DNA quantification, falsely recorded as positive but in fact negative.

She also swabbed the handle of the knife. The DNA on the handle turned out to be Amanda’s, but this was not considered incriminating, as she had used the knife while cooking at Raffaele’s house. The DNA on the blade, however, was a different story. The first test could not establish whether or not the cells were from blood. They were human cells, but they might have been from skin or tissue.

Incorrect. No human cells were detected in sample 36B.

For the second test, Stefanoni’s machine was set up to work with a minimal quantity of biological material that was significantly greater than what she had at her disposal. At first this machine simply output “too low,” indicating that using the standard settings it was not able to analyze such a tiny quantity. Many forensic geneticists would have followed the accepted rules and stopped the analysis at this point. But Stefanoni elected to continue, modifying the settings and pushing the machine beyond the limits recommended in the manufacturer’s guidelines. By doing this she managed to obtain a DNA profile for the cells on the knife.

Incorrect. The Qubit fluorometer yielded one result only - too low - as it did for sample C which Stefanoni ceased to process further. Schapps thinks the Qubit fluorometer is itself used for generating DNA profiles, ignoring altogether amplification and electrophoresis in which it plays no par at all. She has over-simplified and elided crucial steps in the process to such an extent as to render her opinion worthless. She finds no room to mention the significant falsehoods retailed by Stefanoni when giving evidence and in her records. These are not matters for mathematics but for forensics.

Great post, Anglo! You can add this part regarding what the actual scientists thought of Stefanoni's 'hypothesis' regarding what she found:

From what has been set forth above, we hold that the documentation in the case file reveals inaccuracies and gaps about the analytical procedures performed on Exhibit 36.

In particular:

- regarding the nature of the material collected, there is no scientifically conclusive evidence to support the possible blood nature of sample B (knife blade) in that both the generic blood test and the human species test were negative.

The existence of presumed exfoliated cells on the samples taken from the knife handle is equally lacking in scientific basis.

Therefore we repeat that the theories formulated by the Technical Consultant about the nature of the material removed from Exhibit 36 are wholly arbitrary in that they are not supported by any objective confirmation.

(emphasis retained)

This was an egregious error on the part of the author of "Maths on Trial," not very thoughtful of her. Stefanoni didn't actually find any cells, she 'theorized' that there were some there--and they were blood--despite the sample failing two highly sensitive blood tests and her not testing the samples further to attempt to identify the substance, which may have been nothing--or nothing but starch--as far as anyone knows.

Also, the issue with the knife (and to an extent the clasp) is not (simply) one of probabilities regarding the DNA matching, but even if that sample was handled perfectly and all requirements were met for scientific validity thus the DNA was a match as best as can be scientifically determined, the issue comes down to whether the result was obtained due to contamination or fraud--the likelihood of it being due to the knife being used in the murder is so remote it's not worthy of consideration.

There's four basic possibilities of how that DNA result may have been obtained:

1.) Contamination: the sample was contaminated inside the lab in the process of Stefanoni testing some 3-400 items with Meredith's DNA and her lab not being properly equipped to handle LCN DNA which requires much stricter standards because they're looking for contamination-level DNA. In addition, the fact that Stefanoni never quantified or identified any substance supports that conclusion as that would be the case if the contaminating DNA was the result of the amplification process, which replicates DNA but not human cells or biological material.

2.) Fraud: The sample never contained anything and she knew it, she just produced a electropherogram from another sample she knew had Meredith's DNA in it. This would explain her bizarre procedure in which she (supposedly) got a negative ('too low') from the handheld Quibit Fluorometer (a quantifier which will measure the amount of DNA) but ran the sample anyway without amplifying it 31 (or more) times as the literature from the kit explains and then not using Real Time PCR (which she did for all the rest of the samples--even negative ones--anyway) which would have given her the quantity of the sample she was testing. Not being able to quantify the substance is also suggestive of contamination, though her inexplicably ignoring the 'too low' negative and then avoiding Real Time PCR is more suggestive of fraud or incompetence. Not amplifying the sample more than 28 times is also suggestive of incompetence if she actually proceed the way she claimed in court. Once she knew she was testing a sample that was 'too low' she had to realize it would be by definition 'Low Copy Number' or 'Low Template' DNA.

3.) Secondary (or tertiary) transfer. Meaning there actually was a handful of picograms on the knife blade, but it was the result of Amanda (or theoretically Raffaele) having touched Meredith or something of Meredith (skin cells) was on their bodies or clothes and they touched the knife, or they touched something Meredith touched. For example Amanda might have dried it off on her sleeve as she put it away and her clothes had miniscule quantities of Meredith's DNA on it. If the result was not because of contamination or fraud this is the most likely explanation for Meredith's DNA being on the blade for numerous reasons, mainly being there is absolutely nothing else forensically that suggests that knife was used in the murder and a few very good reasons to believe it wasn't.

4.) The knife was used in the murder. This one faces a number of obstacles, mainly being the knife did not match the wounds nor the outline left on the bed, plus it was tested extensively for blood not just by Stefanoni but also Conti & Vecchiotti with negative results. The idea that every last trace of blood was scrubbed from the knife but that some DNA of Meredith's was left on the blade and plenty of Amanda's DNA on the handle is damned silly. Basically impossible, DNA you can extinguish with a spray bottle, blood can be detected even on clothes that have been washed, for crissakes it might leave a visible stain if not done thoroughly enough!

Just one last note on what most people think of DNA evidence and the difference in the DNA evidence in this case. What is usually presented (almost always in British or American courts) as DNA evidence is that process identifying the person who left whatever incriminating substance that was found at a crime scene. For example investigators find a bite wound, they test it for saliva and if they obtain a positive result they determine that it was so-and-so. Or perhaps they find skin under the fingernails of the victim, or semen in the case of rape, all of which are highly suggestive they were involved in the crime. They don't just find trace elements (LCN/LT DNA) and then go 'presuming' they were the result of the murder, because those sorts of trace elements are so easily transferred in non-incriminating ways.

In this case there's so many reasons to think that knife was not involved in the murder, the real question is how was that DNA result obtained. If they'd found Meredith's DNA under the refrigerator would they think the fridge was involved? If they found it in a goldfish bowl would that implicate the goldfish? No, those one can just dismiss with an eyeroll, however the same is conceptually true of a knife found in a drawer a quarter-mile away from the crime scene that tested negative for blood and was too big to cause the wounds.

 

[Grinder]

Whatever. My point is that Thoughtful/Leila is using discrete data examples (coin tossing) to explain continuous data sampling (DNA testing).

Bill you just grab onto expressions and repeat them endlessly. Fog of nonsense, in situ, now continuous data sampling as supplied on the greatest source known to mankind FB.

The issue for Leila Schneps isn't mainly the nature of DNA testing but rather that the there could have been more than one transfer of touch DNA or contamination in the lab.

If two well handled and to protocol samples came to the same result it would be significantly more reliable than just one. The problem here is they weren't handled well.

Your repeating that a DNA test is only 30% reliable is bunk. Rudi's results from her body, purse, sleave etc. have never been questioned by anyone.

The argument made by Hellmann that a second test of unreliable material is correct because of the handling, What Leila Schneps and daughter Coralie are trying to say is that testing a second time is the same as being able to split the sample and run the test more than once. They are correct in that but neglect that the second sample whether found at the same time or later still could be a result of bad protocol and a transfer or contamination.

 

[Grinder]

Kaosium thanks but who's that Anglo guy inserting himself in an otherwise great post ?

Just one last note on what most people think of DNA evidence and the difference in the DNA evidence in this case. What is usually presented (almost always in British or American courts) as DNA evidence is that process identifying the person who left whatever incriminating substance that was found at a crime scene. For example investigators find a bite wound, they test it for saliva and if they obtain a positive result they determine that it was so-and-so. Or perhaps they find skin under the fingernails of the victim, or semen in the case of rape, all of which are highly suggestive they were involved in the crime. They don't just find trace elements (LCN/LT DNA) and then go 'presuming' they were the result of the murder, because those sorts of trace elements are so easily transferred in non-incriminating ways.

In this case there's so many reasons to think that knife was not involved in the murder, the real question is how was that DNA result obtained. If they'd found Meredith's DNA under the refrigerator would they think the fridge was involved? If they found it in a goldfish bowl would that implicate the goldfish? No, those one can just dismiss with an eyeroll, however the same is conceptually true of a knife found in a drawer a quarter-mile away from the crime scene that tested negative for blood and was too big to cause the wounds.

While I agree in principal wasn't one of the first US cases in NY about LCN found in a car of the suspect?