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

[acbytesla]

Nice stats. So, if that's the case, then where are all of the mixtures that we should be seeing in this case? 90% of the samples are "pure" and almost all of the mixtures involve one of the defendants.

While we're answering that question, we can also ponder the whereabouts of all of the missing egrams, which include but are not limited to egram nos. 600-604, 617, 622, 626, 628, 631, 685-86, 688-89, 693-94, 758-60, 764-769 and 772 (this is the list for the first three weeks .

Answer: the prosecution has suppressed the mixture egrams. Why? Because they can be used to show contamination.

This is what I don't like about DNA evidence. It's the prosecution's magic wand in today's trials. Jurors don't understand it but they do understand these ungodly statistics that get thrown around in these trials. Most of which I'm convinced are wild ass guesses. (at best).

But the key to the cases are what's in the sausage. But the cooks refuse to show what's in the sausage and the last thing they really want is for lay people to actually understand the nuances of their dishes. "God forbid!!!! Then the magic wand stops being so magical."

 

[MiloMinderbinder]

This is what I don't like about DNA evidence. It's the prosecution's magic wand in today's trials. Jurors don't understand it but they do understand these ungodly statistics that get thrown around in these trials. Most of which I'm convinced are wild ass guesses. (at best).

But the key to the cases are what's in the sausage. But the cooks refuse to show what's in the sausage and the last thing they really want is for lay people to actually understand the nuances of their dishes. "God forbid!!!! Then the magic wand stops being so magical."

Sounds like you're the one who doesn't understand DNA evidence in court cases.

 

[acbytesla]

Sounds like you're the one who doesn't understand DNA evidence in court cases.

I understand it to a certain degree. Clearly Halides and Charles Wilkes understands it better. I think there are nuances for example of reading an egram. Is that peak part of the profile or stutter? How do the negative controls effect that interpretation? How do substrate control effect the results? And when it comes to the odds, are they using the world population as a whole? Or does the fact that a specific region with a more homogeneous environment make a significant difference?

Do you really think Milo, that juries actually understand all of this?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

wrapped around the DNA double helix

Sounds like you're the one who doesn't understand DNA evidence in court cases.

Milo,

No, acbytesla and Diocletus are absolutely correct to discuss the indefensible lack of discovery of this case, as I have been doing for over three years. If you read just one article about the problems of DNA in court cases in general, read "Tarnish on the Gold Standard," by William C. Thompson. If you want to understand how wrapped around the axle some cases get because of DNA evidence, google "Phantom of Heilbronn," "Jaidyn Leskie," "Gary Leiterman," or more recently "Lukis Anderson."

My biggest issue with the random match probability is not that it is necessarily calculated incorrectly (although it sometimes is), or that it is misinterpreted (which it sometimes is), but that it does not take into account the chances of contamination or sample mislabeling, both of which have occurred on multiple occasions.

 

[Dan O.]

Oh Geez! If this is Bayesian theory at work then I'm with Briars.

That had nothing to do with Bayes. The question asked was a simple probability of coincidence.

 

[anglolawyer]

That had nothing to do with Bayes. The question asked was a simple probability of coincidence.

I'll take your word for it Dan.

 

[acbytesla]

Milo,

No, acbytesla and Diocletus are absolutely correct to discuss the indefensible lack of discovery of this case, as I have been doing for over three years. If you read just one article about the problems of DNA in court cases in general, read "Tarnish on the Gold Standard," by William C. Thompson. If you want to understand how wrapped around the axle some cases get because of DNA evidence, google "Phantom of Heilbronn," "Jaidyn Leskie," "Gary Leiterman," or more recently "Lukis Anderson."

My biggest issue with the random match probability is not that it is necessarily calculated incorrectly (although it sometimes is), or that it is misinterpreted (which it sometimes is), but that it does not take into account the chances of contamination or sample mislabeling, both of which have occurred on multiple occasions.

You know Chris, I don't really mind Milo questioning my understanding of the DNA evidence. I'm a pretty smart guy and I've spent a lot of hours reading about the DNA and I still feel as if there is lot more to understand. So he's not entirely wrong.

I get the feeling that many jurors and the public as a whole's understanding of DNA comes from CSI on tv. I'd be a pain in the ass juror as I refuse to just accept what a technical expert has to say. I WOULD DEMAND that I fully understand whatever technical evidence is presented as opposed to just accepting the conclusions of expert testimony as gospel.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the CSI effect

You know Chris, I don't really mind Milo questioning my understanding of the DNA evidence. I'm a pretty smart guy and I've spent a lot of hours reading about the DNA and I still feel as if there is lot more to understand. So he's not entirely wrong.

I get the feeling that many jurors and the public as a whole's understanding of DNA comes from CSI on tv. I'd be a pain in the ass juror as I refuse to just accept what a technical expert has to say. I WOULD DEMAND that I fully understand whatever technical evidence is presented as opposed to just accepting the conclusions of expert testimony as gospel.

I agree on all points. If Milo's point was that there are sensible ways to deal with the calculation of the random match probability in a single donor situation, then I agree. However, I would also say that just because a prosecutor says, "I have DNA evidence," the jury cannot be allowed to check its collective brain at the door. That is not justified by the facts. MOO.

 

[Dan O.]

I'll take your word for it Dan.

Now that you've brought it up, the same result could be derived from Bayes for uncoorelated events where the conditional probability is the same as the prior probability. If you stick around I can show you the math.

 

[anglolawyer]

Now that you've brought it up, the same result could be derived from Bayes for uncoorelated events where the conditional probability is the same as the prior probability. If you stick around I can show you the math.

If you want me to stick around you won't.

 

[acbytesla]

I agree on all points. If Milo's point was that there are sensible ways to deal with the calculation of the random match probability in a single donor situation, then I agree. However, I would also say that just because a prosecutor says, "I have DNA evidence," the jury cannot be allowed to check its collective brain at the door. That is not justified by the facts. MOO.

That's exactly my point. DNA shouldn't just be a magic wand. All DNA evidence is NOT created equally.

I admit, I don't like DNA evidence that much. It's not like a fingerprint for example, that the prosecution can take a picture of and I can compare the swirls and ridges and see the similarities. It's invisible, the jury can't see it. A doctor in a white coat walks into the court room and says here's irrefutable evidence that the defendant committed this AWFUL crime.

Now, I'm into science in a big way. So I know that our world is run by things we cannot see, hell we can"t actually pinpoint exactly where they might be at any given time, we can only say that it there is a very high probability where they are. I am of course talking about electrons.

So I know that just because it is invisible, it would be wrong to ignore DNA evidence. But I don't like a system that is left up to experts...experts that are human and who are fallible and can be corrupted. I want a system that provides as many checks and balances and controls that increase the infallibility and decrease the corruptibility.

That's one reason for example, I think that DNA egram peaks should be calculated in a entirely blind fashion.

 

[Bill Williams]

The difference between Barbie Nadeau and other guilters is subtle.

When Barbie Nadeau trumpets out, "Amanda Knox is not telling us everything she knows about the murder," she just leaves it as that as one of those unanswerable questions. It leaves her readers/viewers thinking that it actually might be true, that Knox knows something she's not letting on about. But Barbie never tells us - ok, what is it that Knox is withholding.

Other guilters actually do us a favour. One can immediately see why Barbie does not fill in the blanks because when others do, it turns out to be cockamamie. My favourite "fill in the blank," was when one guilter said, "Amanda Knox is not telling us everything she knows about the murder," and then actually did say something the Knox was (presumably) withholding, it was - "She never talks about how the knife got from Raffaele's to the cottage, and why she would later use that knife for cooking! That just proves how depraved she is."

Ten points to the first person who spots the logical error in the way that's phrased.

What I'd like to know about the guilters or about Nadeau is - why aren't they asking: "Giuliano Mignini is not telling us everything he knows about how he framed Knox and Sollecito." I mean, everything that was supposed to have been known was known on Nov 6, 2007, wasn't it? That was the day the case was closed.

Why isn't Mignini telling us what HE knows about why that turned out not to close the case. So far he's being telling us that it's because Amanda Knox is a diabolical witch. Or at least he's stood by while Lumumba's lawyer said it for him. Has Mignini ever confirmed or denied Lumumba's lawyer's take on why the case was not, in fact, closed?

What is Mignini not telling us? One thing I'd like him to say is why he's abandoned 3 motives he's advanced, and settled on the "she did it for no reason at all" motive. Why is Mignini not telling us why he's shifted gears on this?

See? It works both ways.

 

[Dan O.]

...
That's one reason for example, I think that DNA egram peaks should be calculated in a entirely blind fashion.

I'll take that a step further and say that all subjective evaluations should be done blind and with controls so there is a measure of the reliability of the expert.


I learned long ago as a juror that the prosecution pulls games when it comes to expert testimony. The prosecution brought in the expert that showed us what he looked for in verifying signatures. Then the prosecutor showed the expert a series of checks and the expert declared that the signatures were compatible with the handwriting of the defendant.

In deliberations we discovered that only three of the checks had the mark the expert applied to show that he had looked at that check. This forth check would have been deliberately withheld from the expert so that unqualified jurors with only a few minutes of training would make the critical decision where the expert would likely have rejected it.

My regret is that I didn't hold out to acquit on the charge related to that one check on the grounds that the prosecution knew that the evidence wasn't solid and they withheld that fact from us.

 

[acbytesla]

The difference between Barbie Nadeau and other guilters is subtle.

When Barbie Nadeau trumpets out, "Amanda Knox is not telling us everything she knows about the murder," she just leaves it as that as one of those unanswerable questions. It leaves her readers/viewers thinking that it actually might be true, that Knox knows something she's not letting on about. But Barbie never tells us - ok, what is it that Knox is withholding.

Other guilters actually do us a favour. One can immediately see why Barbie does not fill in the blanks because when others do, it turns out to be cockamamie. My favourite "fill in the blank," was when one guilter said, "Amanda Knox is not telling us everything she knows about the murder," and then actually did say something the Knox was (presumably) withholding, it was - "She never talks about how the knife got from Raffaele's to the cottage, and why she would later use that knife for cooking! That just proves how depraved she is."

Ten points to the first person who spots the logical error in the way that's phrased.

What I'd like to know about the guilters or about Nadeau is - why aren't they asking: "Giuliano Mignini is not telling us everything he knows about how he framed Knox and Sollecito." I mean, everything that was supposed to have been known was known on Nov 6, 2007, wasn't it? That was the day the case was closed.

Why isn't Mignini telling us what HE knows about why that turned out not to close the case. So far he's being telling us that it's because Amanda Knox is a diabolical witch. Or at least he's stood by while Lumumba's lawyer said it for him. Has Mignini ever confirmed or denied Lumumba's lawyer's take on why the case was not, in fact, closed?

What is Mignini not telling us? One thing I'd like him to say is why he's abandoned 3 motives he's advanced, and settled on the "she did it for no reason at all" motive. Why is Mignini not telling us why he's shifted gears on this?

See? It works both ways.

I'm not sure it is so much a logical error as it is a leading question that she conveniently never answers herself. Chelsea Hoffman does it in her articles as well. It is of course asserting something that the author has no idea whether it is true or not. And she almost always does it in the form of a question as opposed to a statement. "Amanda Knox has not told us everything she knows about the murder" Amanda has written a book and done countless interviews as well as provided witness testimony. In fact Amanda has pretty much always been forthcoming. In fact, if Amanda hadn't been so forthcoming it is possible she might never had to face a trial.

It is Barbie's way of being a guilter but still never pulling the fence pole out of her backside.

 

[Bill Williams]

Does anyone know the pedigree of this video, released by Oggi in March 2012?

http://www.oggi.it/video/notizie/2012/03/05/caso-di-perugia-il-video-mai-visto-di-rudy-guede/

If the make in the car-park is Rudy Guede, this shows him heading in the direction of the cottage as early as 7:50 pm, Nov 1st. It also shows Meredith heading to the cottage at about 9 pm, everything depending on the accuracy of the on-screen clock.

If, and I say "if", this is a fair rendering then Rudy had broken into the cottage early than thought, and was already there when Meredith (tragically) returned. Also, by witness, Amanda Knox was at Raffaele's and could not have let Rudy in with her key.

Can anyone comment on the pedigree of this car-park video?

 

[acbytesla]

Does anyone know the pedigree of this video, released by Oggi in March 2012?

http://www.oggi.it/video/notizie/2012/03/05/caso-di-perugia-il-video-mai-visto-di-rudy-guede/

If the make in the car-park is Rudy Guede, this shows him heading in the direction of the cottage as early as 7:50 pm, Nov 1st. It also shows Meredith heading to the cottage at about 9 pm, everything depending on the accuracy of the on-screen clock.

If, and I say "if", this is a fair rendering then Rudy had broken into the cottage early than thought, and was already there when Meredith (tragically) returned. Also, by witness, Amanda Knox was at Raffaele's and could not have let Rudy in with her key.

Can anyone comment on the pedigree of this car-park video?

I can't connect to this, but I swear I saw it before. If I remember correctly the image of the person is very grainy and while it could be Rudy, it also could be a lot of people. Am I right Bill?

 

[Bill Williams]

I can't connect to this, but I swear I saw it before. If I remember correctly the image of the person is very grainy and while it could be Rudy, it also could be a lot of people. Am I right Bill?

I can't read Italian, have never seen this before, and Google translate gives me the willies.

At least there is SOME positive evidence of when Rudy arrived IF this is legit. Then again the lack of such video for Knox and Sollecito can also pretty much end this, because everyone admits Rudy was there when Meredith was killed, even Rudy.

Whereas there should be such video evidence of Knox and or Sollecito on the many other cameras, there is none. And there's no trace of them at the cottage either, save for a hotly contested Y-Haplotye.

So I don't know if you're right.

 

[acbytesla]

I can't read Italian, have never seen this before, and Google translate gives me the willies.

At least there is SOME positive evidence of when Rudy arrived IF this is legit. Then again the lack of such video for Knox and Sollecito can also pretty much end this, because everyone admits Rudy was there when Meredith was killed, even Rudy.

Whereas there should be such video evidence of Knox and or Sollecito on the many other cameras, there is none. And there's no trace of them at the cottage either, save for a hotly contested Y-Haplotye.

So I don't know if you're right.

Can't you look at the video? I say video, but it really is the same camera that saw the postal police arrive the next day and it is just a series of photos taken with the parking lot camera. I thought I looked at the image and while Oggi says that this is Rudy, It looked to me to be pretty non-descript. I don't remember being able to see the face of the person at all. I also don't think anyone could match the clothes in the image either. I think Rudy denied it was him and I have never heard that this was brought forth during the trial.

 

[anglolawyer]

Does anyone know the pedigree of this video, released by Oggi in March 2012?

http://www.oggi.it/video/notizie/2012/03/05/caso-di-perugia-il-video-mai-visto-di-rudy-guede/

If the make in the car-park is Rudy Guede, this shows him heading in the direction of the cottage as early as 7:50 pm, Nov 1st. It also shows Meredith heading to the cottage at about 9 pm, everything depending on the accuracy of the on-screen clock.

If, and I say "if", this is a fair rendering then Rudy had broken into the cottage early than thought, and was already there when Meredith (tragically) returned. Also, by witness, Amanda Knox was at Raffaele's and could not have let Rudy in with her key.

Can anyone comment on the pedigree of this car-park video?

Remember Rudy's story was he went there twice. After the first visit he went and got a kebab. He returned, he said, around 8.30p.m.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The footage might have been overwritten

I seem to recall reading or hearing that Raffaele's lawyers asked for CCTV footage and were told that it had been overwritten with subsequent footage; in other words too much time had elapsed between the night of the murder and the time of the request. Assuming that the report and my memory are both accurate, one interpretation of this sequence of events is that the cops looked at the tapes, did not see Raffaele, and then did not want to give the defense that information.