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

[Dan O.]

I'm glad any confusion over dried shed skin cells is past us. What you are left with though is a blob of mixed profiles which came together at the same instant, or Meredith's profile dropped on the exact little spot where a drop of Amanda's lay waiting. Keeping it to Filomena's room this would be a remarkable occurance. We are not talking about a large area just little spots of mixed profiles in a room that didn't belong to either girl. What would the odds be?

Do the math Briars, show us how those odds can be calculated with the information available.

 

[acbytesla]

Do the math Briars, show us how those odds can be calculated with the information available.

After he does that, I would like him to show the odds of a crime like this being committed. I've been searching for anything even remotely similar in the annals of criminal history and I can't find it. ANYWHERE.

 

[Briars]

Do the math Briars, show us how those odds can be calculated with the information available.

No need to bring math into it, the odds of it happening would be remote. So remote that you would have to fall back on your conspiracy theory which explains most things.

 

[acbytesla]

No need to bring math into it, the odds of it happening would be remote. So remote that you would have to fall back on your conspiracy theory which explains most things.

Not really Briars, the fact is that you have no idea. NONE. You have no idea if the DNA swab covered two square inches or a square foot. You have no idea if Amanda and Meredith had been in that room. There simply is no way to calculate this. Maybe Chris can answer this. How many mixed profiles did they find in all their testing. What are the chances of finding any two profiles together at a single time? All we really know is that two profiles were found together. The rest means nothing.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The case of the missing experiment

I'm glad any confusion over dried shed skin cells is past us. What you are left with though is a blob of mixed profiles which came together at the same instant, or Meredith's profile dropped on the exact little spot where a drop of Amanda's lay waiting. Keeping it to Filomena's room this would be a remarkable occurance. We are not talking about a large area just little spots of mixed profiles in a room that didn't belong to either girl. What would the odds be?

The missing experiment is a substrate control. Suppose that the FP had sampled nearby the stain. If DNA had turned up there, then there would be no reason to associate the stain with the DNA. "Dr. Richard Saferstein: 'Substrate control' is an interesting concept because one of the things that we're most concerned about in Forensics is contamination. That is, what we collect at the crime scene and what we find in the crime lab, is that ultimately something that we can relate to the perpetrator, to the victim? Or, is it something that came about as a result in inadvertent contamination let's say by a police officer who happens to be investigating that crime scene or a bystander? So in certain situations, a 'substrate control' is taken of areas that we think are uncontaminated, that are near important areas of the crime scene that contain important items of physical evidence. And we examine these 'substrate controls' to make sure that they are free of contaminants. So when we do examine the evidence that we've collected and the other 'substrate control' and we have information that we can extract from that piece of evidence, we know that that information is free of contamination, free of contaminants."

All of the evidence collected on 18 December should either be taken at a deep discount relative to other evidence, or it should be tossed entirely (including evidence against Guede). That is because it was not collected in a timely manner (against certain forensic guidelines) and because the FP did a poor job collecting it. Again let me draw everyone's attention to the dried blood as a source of material that could provide a luminol positive reaction and also provide DNA. Dried blood may be a greater problem than wet blood is, because small bits can flake away. Someone previously posted a photo of a member of the FP standing in dried blood. No conspiracy necessary, just run-of-the-mill sloppiness.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

mixed DNA is common

Not really Briars, the fact is that you have no idea. NONE. You have no idea if the DNA swab covered two square inches or a square foot. You have no idea if Amanda and Meredith had been in that room. There simply is no way to calculate this. Maybe Chris can answer this. How many mixed profiles did they find in all their testing. What are the chances of finding any two profiles together at a single time? All we really know is that two profiles were found together. The rest means nothing.

acbytesla,

At Raffaele's flat they found three mixed profiles of Raffaele and Amanda. What is the interpretation of that result? Cohabitation IMO. BTW, Rep. 177 has a few extra alleles, suggesting a third donor. Mixed DNA is common. About half of all DNA samples were either mixed or partial profiles. Head of the US National Institute of Standards and Technology's genetics group, “[John] Butler has reviewed more than 5000 DNA samples from 14 US labs and found that mixing is a common occurrence: 34 per cent of the samples he studied included DNA from two people, while 11 per cent were three or four-person mixtures.” Although some fraction of the two-person samples are from the victim and the perpretrator, it is not reasonable to suppose that this is the case for all of them, let alone the three or four-person mixtures.

The FP were not picking random spots around the cottage; often they were trying to individualize blood stains or luminol-positive stains. If they had swabbed randomly in the other bathroom, they would probably have found mixed Laura/Filomena samples (they would have had to take reference samples, which they did not do).

 

[Briars]

The missing experiment is a substrate control. Suppose that the FP had sampled nearby the stain. If DNA had turned up there, then there would be no reason to associate the stain with the DNA. "Dr. Richard Saferstein: 'Substrate control' is an interesting concept because one of the things that we're most concerned about in Forensics is contamination. That is, what we collect at the crime scene and what we find in the crime lab, is that ultimately something that we can relate to the perpetrator, to the victim? Or, is it something that came about as a result in inadvertent contamination let's say by a police officer who happens to be investigating that crime scene or a bystander? So in certain situations, a 'substrate control' is taken of areas that we think are uncontaminated, that are near important areas of the crime scene that contain important items of physical evidence. And we examine these 'substrate controls' to make sure that they are free of contaminants. So when we do examine the evidence that we've collected and the other 'substrate control' and we have information that we can extract from that piece of evidence, we know that that information is free of contamination, free of contaminants."

All of the evidence collected on 18 December should either be taken at a deep discount relative to other evidence, or it should be tossed entirely (including evidence against Guede). That is because it was not collected in a timely manner (against certain forensic guidelines) and because the FP did a poor job collecting it. Again let me draw everyone's attention to the dried blood as a source of material that could provide a luminol positive reaction and also provide DNA. Dried blood may be a greater problem than wet blood is, because small bits can flake away. Someone previously posted a photo of a member of the FP standing in dried blood. No conspiracy necessary, just run-of-the-mill sloppiness.

Even with dried blood I find the idea that a flake held on to a bootie and let go in a spot where Amanda's dna was located in Filomena's room implausible, If Amanda's was tracked from elsewhere a trail fron the bootie would be left. Like the DNA transfer to the clasp a believable path hasn't been demonstrated.

 

[acbytesla]

acbytesla,

At Raffaele's flat they found three mixed profiles of Raffaele and Amanda. What is the interpretation of that result? Cohabitation IMO. BTW, Rep. 177 has a few extra alleles, suggesting a third donor. Mixed DNA is common. About half of all DNA samples were either mixed or partial profiles. Head of the US National Institute of Standards and Technology's genetics group, “[John] Butler has reviewed more than 5000 DNA samples from 14 US labs and found that mixing is a common occurrence: 34 per cent of the samples he studied included DNA from two people, while 11 per cent were three or four-person mixtures.” Although some fraction of the two-person samples are from the victim and the perpretrator, it is not reasonable to suppose that this is the case for all of them, let alone the three or four-person mixtures.

The FP were not picking random spots around the cottage; often they were trying to individualize blood stains or luminol-positive stains. If they had swabbed randomly in the other bathroom, they would probably have found mixed Laura/Filomena samples (they would have had to take reference samples, which they did not do).

Thanks Chris. It's great having you answer these questions. I know more about polling than I do about DNA. And what I know about polling is that statistics lie. I know that one has to be very careful at drawing inferences from raw data. Is the sample large enough, how were the questions phrased, where did the sampling come from, is it representative, etc. etc. etc.

So when Briars asks a leading question about what are the odds of two profiles being mixed at a specific location, I know there is a lot more to the question than the answer. Is the mixture a truly a random possibility? What are the other factors involved? etc. etc. etc.

My father use to say that figures don't lie, but liars figure.

Not saying that Briars is lying, just that I know he is trying to paint a specific picture and he really doesn't care if it is an illusion or not.

 

[Dan O.]

Even with dried blood I find the idea that a flake held on to a bootie and let go in a spot where Amanda's dna was located in Filomena's room implausible, If Amanda's was tracked from elsewhere a trail fron the bootie would be left. Like the DNA transfer to the clasp a believable path hasn't been demonstrated.

Why do you presume that the DNA found at that spot is associated with Meredith's murder? What path for that has been demonstrated?

 

[acbytesla]

Even with dried blood I find the idea that a flake held on to a bootie and let go in a spot where Amanda's dna was located in Filomena's room implausible, If Amanda's was tracked from elsewhere a trail fron the bootie would be left. Like the DNA transfer to the clasp a believable path hasn't been demonstrated.

That's because you have already convicted Amanda in your mind. You think anything but some nefarious DNA transfer is impossible. You're a pure case of confirmation bias. You made up your mind a long time ago and you discount anything that might contradict that conclusion.

 

[Briars]

That's because you have already convicted Amanda in your mind. You think anything but some nefarious DNA transfer is impossible. You're a pure case of confirmation bias. You made up your mind a long time ago and you discount anything that might contradict that conclusion.

Just substitute the I for "you" in your post honesty is a valuable trait no matter which side you take.

 

[Bill Williams]

No need to bring math into it, the odds of it happening would be remote. So remote that you would have to fall back on your conspiracy theory which explains most things.

Please at least think about what you're saying. Calculating odds, by definition, IS bringing math into it.

I'm trying my best to follow everyone else here. I'm stuck with what you said to begin this, which is truly absurd, esp. compared to the posts of people who know what they're talking about. That there are different kinds of DNA, when what you said you meant was that there was "incomplete" DNA....

From where I sit, the reason you do not think math enters into it is because you're allowing confirmation bias to do the heavy lifting for you. For some weird reason you want to hang a horrible crime on to an innocent person.

Maybe we can talk about THAT weird behaviour, rather than someone who does the splits in a Questura somewhere.

 

[Dan O.]

Just substitute the I for "you" in your post honesty is a valuable trait no matter which side you take.

That's why I say "Do the Math". It's a universal equalizer. It allows the answer to be found without the personal bias.

You are the one that just recently brought up "What are the odds". Are you at all interested in knowing the odds and the process used to actually calculate them?

 

[acbytesla]

Just substitute the I for "you" in your post honesty is a valuable trait no matter which side you take.

NO BRIARS, Not really. I use to believe as you do and if any significant probative evidence was available, I would change my mind.

There could be a million reasons for this mixed profile at the location. Rudy could have killed Meredith and then went and looked through Filomena's room and transferred Meredith's genetic material then. We know that Amanda had gone into Meredith's room the morning after the murder. So that is when she could have left hers. This is just one possible scenario out of dozens

While finding both of their DNA in Filomena's room is a little curious, it does not prove anything. And if you're honest, you would have to agree.

 

[Briars]

That's why I say "Do the Math". It's a universal equalizer. It allows the answer to be found without the personal bias.

You are the one that just recently brought up "What are the odds". Are you at all interested in knowing the odds and the process used to actually calculate them?

This has slipped into the level of " I know your are but what am I " kind of meaningless nothing. I accept my role in keeping it going so I'll let you get back to your regular exchange now.

 

[Bill Williams]

This has slipped into the level of " I know your are but what am I " kind of meaningless nothing. I accept my role in keeping it going so I'll let you get back to your regular exchange now.

In internet parlance, this is known as a "punt". It's what happens when one cannot respond to the content.

Instead of punting. Perhaps you might answer this, Briars.... is there such a thing as "another kind of DNA"? And this - what is "incomplete DNA"?

 

[acbytesla]

This has slipped into the level of " I know your are but what am I " kind of meaningless nothing. I accept my role in keeping it going so I'll let you get back to your regular exchange now.

This is what is sad about your perspective Briars. You don't make the evidence take you to a conclusion of guilt, you take the evidence there.

There is a supposed to be both a presumption of innocence and the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. The blob with multiple DNA profiles in Filoemana's room and the bra clasp certainly doesn't qualify to meet that burden.

Especially when you consider
1. That Rudy IS a burglar.
2. Rudy left 5 instances of his DNA in the Murder room.
3 Amanda left none in the murder room.
4. Rudy left two palm prints in the murder room., one in Meredith's blood.
5.No fingerprints of Amanda and/or Raffaele's were found in the murder room.
6. Amanda was supposed to work that night.
7. Raffaele was supposed to take his neighbor to the train station.
8.. Amanda has never sent or received an email, phone call or text to/from Rudy in her life.
9. Raffaele has never sent or received an email, phone call or text to/from Rudy in his life.
10. That Amanda could barely speak any Italian at this time
11. The Rudy and Raffale's English is extremely rudimentary.
12. That Rudy left town.
13. That Amanda and Raffaele stayed and tried to help.
14. That there is no motive for Raffaele or Amanda to have committed this crime.
15. That there is no CCTV footage that puts them at or near the cottage on that night.


You can of course believe whatever you want to believe. It's a free country..well, that is if you live in the US.

Italy might just find them guilty, not that it won't be a stain on Italy like finding scientists guilty of a crime for failing to predict earthquakes. But they will do it in spite of the evidence, not because of the evidence.

 

[acbytesla]

In internet parlance, this is known as a "punt". It's what happens when one cannot respond to the content.

Instead of punting. Perhaps you might answer this, Briars.... is there such a thing as "another kind of DNA"? And this - what is "incomplete DNA"?

Of course, he's punting Bill. It's 4th and 35. There really is only one piece of actual evidence that implicates Amanda/Raffaele in any way whatsoever and that is the bra clasp. The rest is just innuendo piled on top of conjecture.

What is really said is that if Stefanoni had done her job competently maybe no one would be arguing about this. Imagine if Steffie had tested those Luminol stains with antibody tests for blood. If they had come back negative, would this case have ever gone to court? Would Briars be arguing? What if they came back positive? Would we be arguing for innocence? I know I might not be thoroughly convinced of their guilt, but I certainly wouldn't be thoroughly convinced of their innocence either.

The fact that there is questions about this case is because the Perugian investigators screwed the pooch. Failing to record the interrogations, failing to provide lawyers, destroying 4 computer hard drives. The list of screwups is far to many to list at the moment.

Briars judged these two on his gut instinct, not his intellect. If he had relied on his intellect, there is no way he could conclude that Amanda and Raffaele were guilty. He might still feel they were guilty but he would NEVER be able to support a guilty verdict.

 

[Bill Williams]

Of course, he's punting Bill. It's 4th and 35. There really is only one piece of actual evidence that implicates Amanda/Raffaele in any way whatsoever and that is the bra clasp. The rest is just innuendo piled on top of conjecture.

What is really said is that if Stefanoni had done her job competently maybe no one would be arguing about this. Imagine if Steffie had tested those Luminol stains with antibody tests for blood. If they had come back negative, would this case have ever gone to court? Would Briars be arguing? What if they came back positive? Would we be arguing for innocence? I know I might not be thoroughly convinced of their guilt, but I certainly wouldn't be thoroughly convinced of their innocence either.

The fact that there is questions about this case is because the Perugian investigators screwed the pooch. Failing to record the interrogations, failing to provide lawyers, destroying 4 computer hard drives. The list of screwups is far to many to list at the moment.

Briars judged these two on his gut instinct, not his intellect. If he had relied on his intellect, there is no way he could conclude that Amanda and Raffaele were guilty. He might still feel they were guilty but he would NEVER be able to support a guilty verdict.

Two things. I believe that Stefanoni prepared the results the way she did because she knew the pickle she was in. She had to make the "evidence" look enough like it supported a conviction, just in case Mignini was forced to take this to trial. Of course, Mignini's Plan A was to have Raffaele cave in and withdraw his alibi from Knox; which he supplied her with after the confusion of the interrogation. Raffaele was simply going to spend the rest of his life in jail rather than lie about Knox.... but it wasn't really about Knox, Raffaele just was not going to ie to save his own hide.

So Stefanoni also had to allow for an interpretation of her results that (in the long run) vindicated Raffaele - because why wouldn't Raffaele save his own hide? And without Raffaele, Amanda would do the wise thing (as Rudy did) and go fast-track where evidence is conceded and not really contested.

Then surprise surprise (in my best Jim Neighbor's rendition) Raffaele manned up and would not lie and Mignini was forced to go to trial. Suddenly, Stefanoni's results had to do some heavy lifting that the hedging of bets really did not allow.

Second - if Briars judged this on a fair rendering of the police's screwups (for all the reasons you mentioned) he/she would not have to be arguing-by-assertion; rather than by doing a fair evaluation of evidence.

Maybe you can tell me.... what is a "different kind of DNA"?

 

[acbytesla]

Two things. I believe that Stefanoni prepared the results the way she did because she knew the pickle she was in. She had to make the "evidence" look enough like it supported a conviction, just in case Mignini was forced to take this to trial. Of course, Mignini's Plan A was to have Raffaele cave in and withdraw his alibi from Knox; which he supplied her with after the confusion of the interrogation. Raffaele was simply going to spend the rest of his life in jail rather than lie about Knox.... but it wasn't really about Knox, Raffaele just was not going to ie to save his own hide.

So Stefanoni also had to allow for an interpretation of her results that (in the long run) vindicated Raffaele - because why wouldn't Raffaele save his own hide? And without Raffaele, Amanda would do the wise thing (as Rudy did) and go fast-track where evidence is conceded and not really contested.

Then surprise surprise (in my best Jim Neighbor's rendition) Raffaele manned up and would not lie and Mignini was forced to go to trial. Suddenly, Stefanoni's results had to do some heavy lifting that the hedging of bets really did not allow.

Second - if Briars judged this on a fair rendering of the police's screwups (for all the reasons you mentioned) he/she would not have to be arguing-by-assertion; rather than by doing a fair evaluation of evidence.

Maybe you can tell me.... what is a "different kind of DNA"?

Respectfully Bill, I'm not sure I agree ..well I don't totally agree. There are some aspects of your theory that I think are very possible. However, I have to conclude that Stefanoni is simply incompetent. I've often thought the knife was planted and Steffie made sure that evidence was weak so she'd have an out. But not doing the confirmatory tests for blood on the Luminol? What possible excuse could she have for that? The sneaker prints? That is just a major fu. You can't blame her for the computer hard drives.

The Perugian authorities are just a small town police force that is incapable of performing a competent scientific investigation.