• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kaosium said:
That's an interesting question, because of their limited sample they may have just decided to run the two tests and consider only alleles that showed up both times, because splitting it into another sample would have made each one of them significantly smaller--which also impacts the reliability of results.
Click to expand...

That sounds likely. It's a compromise, of course: repeat the test as many times as is possible (usually just 2 or 3) while at the same time avoiding making the samples so small you don't get any result from them anyway.

And I guess that's why quantifying the sample beforehand is so crucial, so that you know how many times you're going to be able to divide the sample while still getting a reliable result (like C & V, the RIS report also stresses the importance of quantification).
 
Grinder said:
First of all the example was in context of people having some moral right to ask people to respect the grave of a loved one not to compare Westborg with Raf.

After a final acquittal things change. Even Edda said they would wait until then to approach the Kerchers.

They just acquitted as they are still on trial. I don't know when Raf visited but Amanda made her comment after the SC ruled.
Click to expand...

Yes, not totally acquitted I agree. I was putting myself in Raffaele's shoes and thinking whether I would want to visit Meredith's grave after Hellman's ruling and thinking possibly I would. If the suggestion from a friend to visit the grave came after the SC ruling then it is more problematical, but as I say, even if there was, or possibly because of, the possibility of being put back into prison, I might want to take the opportunity to have some closure of being properly able to pay one's respects. But I agree it is a bit of a minefield. But the notion that we should respect the Kerchers' belief in their guilt (which is I acknowledge a possibly unfair way of putting it) is something I feel a bit uneasy about.
 
low template number replicates

I seem to recall one recommendation was that there should be three samples. The prosecution would be responsible for testing two, and there would be one left for the defense. I don't have a link handy, however.
 
katy_did said:
That sounds likely. It's a compromise, of course: repeat the test as many times as is possible (usually just 2 or 3) while at the same time avoiding making the samples so small you don't get any result from them anyway.

And I guess that's why quantifying the sample beforehand is so crucial, so that you know how many times you're going to be able to divide the sample while still getting a reliable result (like C & V, the RIS report also stresses the importance of quantification).
Click to expand...


Exactly. Obviously the root problem is that you have only a tiny amount of DNA to start with, otherwise the issue of noise amplification would not be so critical. So in some ways it's a bit of a Catch 22.

It then comes down to just how much low-template DNA you have. I am positing that the recommended procedure would be to split the original yield into three or four samples if possible, provided that each of the three/four contained enough source DNA to make amplification feasible. That way, you can isolate noise and stutter with a high degree of certainty.

But if there's not enough source DNA to do that, then AT A MINIMUM two separate source samples should be selected. And if you've only got enough to do one amplification then by definition you don't have enough to make a judicially-robust match anyhow. Interestingly, Stefanoni DID have enough on 36B to split into at least two source samples for amplification, but she messed up (again) in using everything up in one go.

Anyhow, regardless of sample splitting procedures (2 vs 3 vs 4 or more etc) the crucial overriding point is that for such low template amounts it's compulsory to run at least two tests in order to give the result any validity in a judicial context. Any less than two - i.e. one! - simply is not acceptable. As Conti and Vecchiotti said. As countless other DNA experts have said. As many of us here on this forum have said.

In short, Stefanoni's work simply was not good enough: it was riddled with incompetence and malpractice, and (perhaps worse still) dissembling and obfuscation when trying to justify and validate her shocking mess-up. If there's any accountability within the state police system, she should be properly investigated and censured for this fiasco once everything's over trial-wise.
 
Nadeau manifestly does not understand the significance of the RIS experts' evidence in court today:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/06/the-nightmare-end-to-amanda-knox-s-fairy-tale.html

I'm hardly surprised, I suppose, given her low intellect and dreadful reasoning skills. Instead, predictably, she homes in on Dalla Vedova being told off by Nencini, and the flowerier aspects of Sollecito's statement. I suppose that these are the things that she can actually understand......
 
And meanwhile, back over in "denial-and-ex-post-facto-rationalisation-r-us", one latest theory is that Hellmann deliberately forbade the DNA testing of 36I because he thought it might contain Meredith's DNA (and therefore scupper his "goal" of acquittals).

This same master-thinker then goes on to suggest that the 36I sample was stored incorrectly (deliberately, perhaps...), and that this in turn leaves open the possibility that Meredith's DNA actually WAS present on 36I originally, but that it has now degraded owing to the "poor storage".

I really shouldn't pay lip service to this sort of arrant nonsense, but I suppose it's somewhat instructive of the increasingly-desperate and increasingly-ludicrous rationalisations that are being clutched at by members of the pro-guilt commentator group. It's all rather embarrassing and demeaning to observe.
 
toto said:
Yes, not totally acquitted I agree. I was putting myself in Raffaele's shoes and thinking whether I would want to visit Meredith's grave after Hellman's ruling and thinking possibly I would. If the suggestion from a friend to visit the grave came after the SC ruling then it is more problematical, but as I say, even if there was, or possibly because of, the possibility of being put back into prison, I might want to take the opportunity to have some closure of being properly able to pay one's respects. But I agree it is a bit of a minefield. But the notion that we should respect the Kerchers' belief in their guilt (which is I acknowledge a possibly unfair way of putting it) is something I feel a bit uneasy about.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I think that family has the right to ask anybody not to visit the grave of a loved one at any time. That doesn't mean the family is in the right, just have the right.
 
LondonJohn said:
Nadeau manifestly does not understand the significance of the RIS experts' evidence in court today:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/06/the-nightmare-end-to-amanda-knox-s-fairy-tale.html

I'm hardly surprised, I suppose, given her low intellect and dreadful reasoning skills. Instead, predictably, she homes in on Dalla Vedova being told off by Nencini, and the flowerier aspects of Sollecito's statement. I suppose that these are the things that she can actually understand......
Click to expand...
Odd that this long-awaited court date and the report on the knife dna - which seemed to hurtle down into nothing today - would be skipped over by her. Having maintained an open mind this time around thus far, I do think that between the near-exclusion of the MK dna and Sollecito's soft sincerity in the face of the jurors, it pretty much tipped toward acquittal today; indeed, one long-time pro-guilt poster on another site has said as much. Too bad it must wait until Jan 10 for a ruling.
 
smkovalinksy said:
Odd that this long-awaited court date and the report on the knife dna - which seemed to hurtle down into nothing today - would be skipped over by her. Having maintained an open mind this time around thus far, I do think that between the near-exclusion of the MK dna and Sollecito's soft sincerity in the face of the jurors, it pretty much tipped toward acquittal today; indeed, one long-time pro-guilt poster on another site has said as much. Too bad it must wait until Jan 10 for a ruling.
Click to expand...


I honestly think it's a case of Nadeau not having the intellectual firepower to figure out the importance of what was said. I don't see it as malicious deliberate omission by her of the most important point - just sheer ignorance of it.
 
snook1 said:
I know it's nothing and most probably people will think I'm being silly, but at the end of this short video Raffaele and Judge Nencini exchange some "thank yous" and its nice how two of the female jurors (first and third one from left) are smiling at him. It's of no significance, still nice though.

http://www.tvn24.pl/wiadomosci-ze-swiata,2/byly-chlopak-amandy-knox-oskarzenia-wobec-mnie-to-absurd,369342.html
Click to expand...


Well, it shows a certain empathy. And perhaps it might in some small way demonstrate that the judicial panel is weighted with people who are prepared to judge the case on its merits.

I guess we'll see.
 
snook1 said:
I know it's nothing and most probably people will think I'm being silly, but at the end of this short video Raffaele and Judge Nencini exchange some "thank yous" and its nice how two of the female jurors (first and third one from left) are smiling at him. It's of no significance, still nice though.

http://www.tvn24.pl/wiadomosci-ze-swiata,2/byly-chlopak-amandy-knox-oskarzenia-wobec-mnie-to-absurd,369342.html
Click to expand...
I actually do think it is significant. I think they were stirred by him.
 
LondonJohn said:
Nadeau manifestly does not understand the significance of the RIS experts' evidence in court today:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/06/the-nightmare-end-to-amanda-knox-s-fairy-tale.html

I'm hardly surprised, I suppose, given her low intellect and dreadful reasoning skills. Instead, predictably, she homes in on Dalla Vedova being told off by Nencini, and the flowerier aspects of Sollecito's statement. I suppose that these are the things that she can actually understand......
Click to expand...

With respect LJ (and I do mean respect, your posts have been some of the most informed and interesting in this thread), I think you were a little tough on Nadeau if we are to judge by this article alone. It looked like a pretty reasonable update on the case to me.

Your objection seems to be that she reported the detail about the judge threatening to hold Vedova with contempt without additional reporting about Vedova's questions? Maybe, but threatening to hold Vedova in contempt seems like an interesting event to me and briefly mentioning in an overview article like this aimed at a general audience and not an audience steeped in Kercher murder trial minutia seemed OK to me.
 
LondonJohn said:
Nadeau manifestly does not understand the significance of the RIS experts' evidence in court today:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/06/the-nightmare-end-to-amanda-knox-s-fairy-tale.html

I'm hardly surprised, I suppose, given her low intellect and dreadful reasoning skills. Instead, predictably, she homes in on Dalla Vedova being told off by Nencini, and the flowerier aspects of Sollecito's statement. I suppose that these are the things that she can actually understand......
Click to expand...

Do we LJ? I'd like to think we understand. But this is Italy...or shall I say Wonderland.

Actually, I have no problem with this article. At all. While she is avoiding the real issue at hand,I thought her description of Raffaele and his testimony was fine. I think the headline is a little misleading.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
I honestly think it's a case of Nadeau not having the intellectual firepower to figure out the importance of what was said. I don't see it as malicious deliberate omission by her of the most important point - just sheer ignorance of it.
Click to expand...
Well, then that is actually pathetic, in a journalist of her (supposed) stature.:mad:
 
LondonJohn said:
And meanwhile, back over in "denial-and-ex-post-facto-rationalisation-r-us", one latest theory is that Hellmann deliberately forbade the DNA testing of 36I because he thought it might contain Meredith's DNA (and therefore scupper his "goal" of acquittals).

This same master-thinker then goes on to suggest that the 36I sample was stored incorrectly (deliberately, perhaps...), and that this in turn leaves open the possibility that Meredith's DNA actually WAS present on 36I originally, but that it has now degraded owing to the "poor storage".

I really shouldn't pay lip service to this sort of arrant nonsense, but I suppose it's somewhat instructive of the increasingly-desperate and increasingly-ludicrous rationalisations that are being clutched at by members of the pro-guilt commentator group. It's all rather embarrassing and demeaning to observe.
Click to expand...

I suppose this master thinker doesn't recall the storage methods employed by Stephony, that resulted in complete destruction of evidence.
 
LondonJohn said:
Nadeau manifestly does not understand the significance of the RIS experts' evidence in court today:

I'm hardly surprised, I suppose, given her low intellect and dreadful reasoning skills. Instead, predictably, she homes in on Dalla Vedova being told off by Nencini, and the flowerier aspects of Sollecito's statement. I suppose that these are the things that she can actually understand......
Click to expand...

I finally gave in yesterday and got a copy of Angel Face, just to experience BN's work for myself. All I can say is, she's not a good person. Her willingness to publish irrelevant trivia about the sexual habits of three random college students is disturbing, but what's really appalling is to see absolute falsehoods in print.

Here's a thought: I believe I'll write a novel (a la Cartwheel) that tells the story of a not-too-bright journalist with a secret sick sexual fascination who becomes the unwitting dupe of a ruthless prosecutor.

I'm not entirely kidding. There's a good narrative here about BN and others, and how their silliness, prudishness, and self-interest led to a cruel injustice being done right in front of our eyes.
 
science fiction

LondonJohn said:
And meanwhile, back over in "denial-and-ex-post-facto-rationalisation-r-us", one latest theory is that Hellmann deliberately forbade the DNA testing of 36I because he thought it might contain Meredith's DNA (and therefore scupper his "goal" of acquittals).

This same master-thinker then goes on to suggest that the 36I sample was stored incorrectly (deliberately, perhaps...), and that this in turn leaves open the possibility that Meredith's DNA actually WAS present on 36I originally, but that it has now degraded owing to the "poor storage".

I really shouldn't pay lip service to this sort of arrant nonsense, but I suppose it's somewhat instructive of the increasingly-desperate and increasingly-ludicrous rationalisations that are being clutched at by members of the pro-guilt commentator group. It's all rather embarrassing and demeaning to observe.
Click to expand...

So Meredith's DNA was selectively degraded but not Amanda's?! That is science fiction.

Perhaps the commenter has confused this with the bra clasp, which was stored in a closed tube in the presence of an aqueous solution, namely the extraction buffer. That did lead to degradation of this piece of evidence. I would liken this to storing a cassette tape next to a 11.4 Tesla magnet.
EDT
As LJ pointed out, the improper storage of the clasp is the fault of someone in Stefanoni's lab. Vecchiotti's lab found the clasp in unusable condition.
 
Last edited:
smkovalinksy said:
I actually do think it is significant. I think they were stirred by him.
Click to expand...

Yes, from various reports it's clear that the jurors were paying alot of attention and that Raffaele was very credible and the subtle smiles at the end seem to be confirming their appreciation and empathy, as LJ said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom