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

[katy_did]

He did say those things in the paper that was circulating some time back.

Fair enough, then. I did read that he said something about how secondary transfer would never be "useful" in DNA analysis, whatever that's supposed to mean. That's certainly him giving an opinion on something he's not qualified to comment on (unless he just meant it wouldn't be useful to him personally in his work on statistics, since he doesn't know anything about it and doesn't take it into consideration).

 

[anglolawyer]

Fair enough, then. I did read that he said something about how secondary transfer would never be "useful" in DNA analysis, whatever that's supposed to mean. That's certainly him giving an opinion on something he's not qualified to comment on (unless he just meant it wouldn't be useful to him personally in his work on statistics, since he doesn't know anything about it and doesn't take it into consideration).

My understanding is that his work is strictly limited to the statistical interpretation of mixed profiles. So he can be used to rebut the argument that, because you could find anybody's profile on the clasp that does not mean Raffaele's is not very probably there. So he is not completely useless to the guilter cause.

 

[katy_did]

My understanding is that his work is strictly limited to the statistical interpretation of mixed profiles. So he can be used to rebut the argument that, because you could find anybody's profile on the clasp that does not mean Raffaele's is not very probably there. So he is not completely useless to the guilter cause.

Sure. There's probably nothing wrong with his arguments as far as the narrow statistical side of things goes. As I said, I doubt he'd take on Gill on the broader topic of contamination and transfer.

I thought the Radio 4 interviewer made a fair point when she said that Raffaele's argument that his DNA isn't on the clasp might be the wrong approach to take, and that the contamination argument was far more convincing. There again, I doubt Raffaele knows very much about DNA either.

 

[Diocletus]

My understanding is that his work is strictly limited to the statistical interpretation of mixed profiles. So he can be used to rebut the argument that, because you could find anybody's profile on the clasp that does not mean Raffaele's is not very probably there. So he is not completely useless to the guilter cause.

Being statistically likely to be there isn't the same as it being there. That to me seems to be a basic difficulty with dna mixtures.

Like junk science: http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/201...dy-science-for-dna-matching-legal-aid-alleges

Which can lead to consequences: http://www.ig.ny.gov/pdfs/OCMEFinalReport.pdf

 

[Bill Williams]

Guilters are strange people, not so much because of what they say.....

..... but because of what they're silent about.

Andrea Vogt does a documentary on BBC3 about how guilty Amanda Knox is supposed to be, and accomplishes this by implying Rudy Guede (who?) was falsely fingered by her.

This is buying Rudy's alibi for himself which no one corroborates.

But what guilters are silent about is the implication they make that Rudy and Meredith actually did have a date which included consensual sex.

Really? Do guilters believe that? It's hard to be 100% sure because they maintain an iron silence about it.

It's no wonder, then, why they rarely attempt a comprehensive timeline of the crime. When Massei did his 400+ page explanation of the crime he had to admit that Rudy was a botherer of women, and that his DNA in the victim's vagina was there without consent.

Guilters mainly have to be silent about this stuff because it is hard to pin this crime on AK and RS.

But they can sure give it the old college try - mainly by being silent about whole swaths of evidence, never presenting it all at once in a comprehensive way...

.. .. because saying that Rudy is also a victim of Knox implies strange things about Rudy and Meredith.

It's why they are mainly silent on why Rudy's DNA ended up where it did.

 

[anglolawyer]

Being statistically likely to be there isn't the same as it being there. That to me seems to be a basic difficulty with dna mixtures.

I thought DNA profiling was fundamentally statistical

 

[Diocletus]

I thought DNA profiling was fundamentally statistical

Yes, and the accuracy of the statistical models is also fundamentally statistical.

And of course, statistics are useless if they are based on crap. See above.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Dr. Balding on contamination

Yes, he qualifies his opinion rather than doing the ethical thing when you are supporting a pro-guilt stance, in my opinion. Perhaps a little research and self education in these areas would be called for. He has to realize how his opinion is being used to promote guilt.

RoseMontague,

He could have been a little bit more circumspect in his comments about contamination (and defined his terms) for the BBC TV "documentary." In an interview at View from Wilmington he acknowledged that he had not seen negative controls.

 

[Grinder]

About the only thing Nara is sure of in her testimony is her normal sleeping patterns. She went to bed at 9:00-9:30 and slept 2 hours or perhaps longer.

And what of the heroin addicted drug dealing park bench bum? He doesn't see them leave or return during this time. Every time he looks up they are there.

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/ear-witness-nara-capezzali/

Yeah and he has them there until "near midnight".

Maybe I should start a thread of this case without Curatolo and Nara. Obviously with those two and the car and the likely TOD the kids couldn't have done it but Curatolo's testimony is completely wrong and Nara's is worthless.

Part of the new thread would be what did the police know at every point of the investigation.

 

[christianahannah]

Crini's horribly disjointed way of speaking doesn't make things any easier either! This is my reading of the relevant part:

It sounds as if Gill was cited by someone else in court (probably Conti and Vecchiotti?).



It would be very interesting, but my suspicion actually is that Balding would defer to Gill on the issue of contamination and transfer, as he's said already this isn't his area. They might very well agree on the likelihood or not of Sollecito's DNA being present.

P.S. Well spotted, by the way.

There is more text before and after the part I excerpted which will lend more context to that paragraph (and I use the term paragraph loosely as the closing is almost one long continuous paragraph). Vecchiotti is definitely mentioned prior to the paragraph and after.

I don't know how either would think (Gill and Balding) were they together but they do have in common the statistical background and how to apply it to forensic DNA. Gill has also been very outspoken about the need for change in UK DNA forensics.

I added the link to the conference in Rome because of the participants and subjects discussed (one topic being Top Trials in Italy. Does Our Domestic DNA Evidence Betray Incompliance To International Standards Of Good Practice?).

http://roma.unicatt.it/events_POSTER_DNA.pdf

There is a document attributed to Gill (and Hinda Haned) dated April 24, 2012 titled Evaluation of the evidence in the murder of Meredith Kercher (implications and recommendations for forensic laboratories) which may have been used at the conference (and may be what Crini is referring to but of that I am not certain). Notice the report referenced in the PPT presentation.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...2RuYXN0YXRpc3RpY3N8Z3g6NGRmNzJjODA5NmZlZTczZg

 

[Chris_Halkides]

how one frames the hypothesis is important

My understanding is that his work is strictly limited to the statistical interpretation of mixed profiles. So he can be used to rebut the argument that, because you could find anybody's profile on the clasp that does not mean Raffaele's is not very probably there. So he is not completely useless to the guilter cause.

anglolawyer,

One possible problem with his approach is that it might be suspect-centered, perhaps depending on how it is applied. I think a great deal turns on the question of how the hypotheses he uses are generated. It would be helpful to know more about how the forensic science community views his work in this regard. Ultimately, we will have to wait and see how generally his method of mixture analysis is adopted.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

filling out a panel of experts

Christianahannah,

Thank you for the links. It would be good to have a panel discussion about this case that included Allan Jamieson (forensic DNA analysis) and William Thompson (discovery laws; probability as applied to forensics). They are unafilliated with this case, to the best of my knowledge.

 

[christianahannah]

anglolawyer,

One possible problem with his approach is that it might be suspect-centered, perhaps depending on how it is applied. I think a great deal turns on the question of how the hypotheses he uses are generated. It would be helpful to know more about how the forensic science community views his work in this regard. Ultimately, we will have to wait and see how generally his method of mixture analysis is adopted.

An article I linked further up thread has this concerning the software:

Peter Gill, a forensic geneticist at the University of Oslo in Norway, says the new software is based on theories he developed a decade ago, which he regularly uses to help train police. But he adds that implementation of those theories in courts, particularly in the UK, is long overdue. "Current methods of LTDNA interpretation are ineffective," he says.

Several groups are working on software to improve the handling of LTDNA, Gill says, but the exact methods used by most are protected for commercial reasons. Balding's software is open source. "In order to gain court acceptance I argue that transparency of software is required and therefore the way forward is open source," says Gill. "Balding's software satisfies this criterion."

The next step is to present the software's results in an intuitive manner that courts can understand, says Balding.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ot-on-crime-scene-bra-clasp.html#.Uwi9E3-9KSM

I don't understand the software and it's pros and cons but I guess the fact that it is transparent (open source) is a good thing even though I'm not exactly sure what that entails.

 

[Grinder]

This is absolutely true. It might. It might be a false negative.

But suggesting that it is blood in a court of law negates the accepted principle that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. They must affirmatively prove their evidence. By allowing Stefanoni to suggest it is unreasonable to think that it isn't blood in my opinion is downright morally and should be criminally wrong without something more conclusive.

Tesla, did I say that the court should accept that it was blood? No, that is a straw man. What I said was that in my opinion with the testing that we are aware of I don't believe that blood has been eliminated as the source, but that with what we know the prints could have preceded the murder as a weak solution of blood could have survived cleaning if a strong cleaner wasn't used. In that no one has determined what the substance was my speculation gives another option to the ridiculous horseradish or turnip juice thrown out by, what was the term Anglo protested, lame posters.

I'd never defer to Steffi's expertise. Her expertise on this case has been abominable. I hope that she has learned a few things and has improved..

I think you need to reread the passage.

And it might might be fine for you Grinder to suggest that it might be blood in a forum without consequences, but to actually consider it in a courtroom is irresponsible. I'm also afraid it gives license to guilters to dismiss both that it isn't blood and that it isn't blood from an earlier time. It kind of wrongly keeps the ball in their court.

Once again, straw man, I wasn't suggesting anything about how it should have been handled in court. At the time that the defense didn't know that a TMB test had come out negative I would think they would have pushed for the "blood" to be identified by DNA.

The PG have long ago determined that it is Meredith's blood left by Amanda's feet. I'm not the only one that can see the difference in the sensitivities.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Ignorance is Bliss

I thought DNA profiling was fundamentally statistical

anglolawyer,

It is when we are talking about a single profile. Mixture analysis has long been known to be subjective, as a fascinating study by Dror and Hampikian indicated. Link to The Economist article here.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

overapplication of luminol

The PG have long ago determined that it is Meredith's blood left by Amanda's feet. I'm not the only one that can see the difference in the sensitivities.

Grinder,

Both compounds have a range of reported lower limits of detection, and the ranges overlap. However, there is at least one alternative explanation. Garofano was of the opinion that the luminol was overapplied, and the photos would seem to bear this out. One can offer a plausible hypothesis that the overapplication of luminol interfered with the TMB test. My recollection based on the literature is that when luminol is properly applied, it does not interfere with a TMB test.

 

[Bill Williams]

There are two definitions picked up from another service which bear repeating. One is the concept of "denailism" and why it is almost fruitless to engage in debate with someone embroiled in and committed to it.

"Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions."

The "racist" claims come to mind. Mignini used that simply as a way to divert attention away from "poor Rudy". In the BBC3 documentary Rudy is praised as someone who's at least showed remorse - albeit after claiming he's innocent of murder.

But then there's the futility of debate with someone who constantly asserts peripheral things, and who never attempts timeline to explain essential and comprehensively considered evidence.

Denialists are not honest brokers in the debate . They aren’t interested in truth, data, or informative discussion, they’re interested in their world view being the only one, and they’ll say anything to try to bring this about.​

So this ism for me, a guide to assessing posts. Simple assertion of a point is more than likely someone promoting a confirmation bias. Be on the look out for someone who deals with data and evidence.

 

[Welshman]

I feel it is about time to expose of the hypocrisy of the haters who have crawled out of the woodwork on this forum to gloat since the kangaroo verdict :-

* The haters attack Amanda for inappropriate behaviour because she kissed and hugged Raffaele and wore an all you need is love T shirt in court. Rudy assaulted Meredith, stabbed her, sexually assaulted her as she lay dying, stole her possessions, went dancing as if nothing happened and then told a pack of lies. Rudy is never condemned by the haters for inappropriate behaviour.

The prosecution suppressed evidence, released lies to the media, lied in court, violated the rights of Amanda and Raffaele during the interrogations, slapped Amanda during the interrogation, lied to Amanda she had HIV and did not follow protocols with regards to forensic evidence. The prosecution are never condemned by the haters for inappropriate behaviour.

* The haters constantly attack Amanda for lying. When it comes to lying the following should be borne in mind :-

The haters slavishly defend corrupt prosecutors who told numerous lies.
The haters spread lies and misinformation on Amazon reviews and comments sections for articles about this case eg there were female thumbprints on Meredith's neck, Amanda's DNA was on Meredith's bra, Amanda's footprints were on Meredith's bed and Meredith's bedroom had been cleaned up.
The haters have set up a pro guilt wiki style website riddled with falsehoods.
The haters never complain about the lies Rudy told.
The haters believe the testimony of witnesses who lied about seeing Amanda and Raffaele.
The haters gave glowing 5 star reviews for John Kercher's book Meredith which was riddled with falsehoods.
The haters never condemn Rudy for his lies.

* The haters attack Amanda and Raffaele for changing their stories. The fact that the prosecution kept changing motives and scenarios is never mentioned by the haters.

* Amanda was condemned for writing a story about rape. Rudy carried out an actual rape on Meredith when she was dying but receives no condemnation from the haters.

* Raffaele was attacked by the haters for visiting Meredith's grave and this was seen as disrespectful. Rudy murdered Meredith and was responsible for putting Meredith in her grave. Rudy is never attacked by the haters or accused of being disrespectful.

* The haters use the derogatory term knife boy to describe Raffaele. Rudy was caught with a knife when he broke into a nursery and stabbed Meredith to death with a knife. Rudy is never called knife boy by the haters. Raffaele is accused of being evil because he carried a pocket knife with him. Rudy is never accused by the haters of being evil after stabbing Meredith to death with a knife.

* Amanda is accused by the haters of being a psychopath and being mentally. Rudy brutally sexually assaulted and killed Meredith. The haters never accuse Rudy of being a psychopath.

 

[Bill Williams]

Denialism blog

Ooooops.....

Here's the link I forgot to the blog discussing denialism:

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about/

I wish this could be "pinned" in the thread, so that all posts could be judged by these criteria.

What is depressing about following this case is how widespread this kind of rhetoric is, and how it undergirds many wrongful convictions worldwide.

5 general tactics are used by denialists to sow confusion. They are conspiracy, selectivity (cherry-picking), fake experts, impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts), and general fallacies of logic.

Note:

- conspiracy: claims of a non-existent and well funded PR Campaign which has influenced judicial findings. One poster here on JREF claims that Hellmann was bought off by the Masons, and knows the amount of Euros needed to "buy" an acquittal.

- selectivity: Rudy is not the prime instigator of this crime, even though his DNA is found inside the vicitm, and his forensic profile is the only one found in the murder room.

- fake experts: does anyone know who Edward McCall from the guilt wiki is? Who are Peter Quennell's 100s of lawyers? Is Ergon really an astrologer who practises "observational psychology", namely, "watching".

- impossible expectations: it is up to the defence to prove that contamination did not happen.

- general fallacies of logic: despite Quinatavalle and Nara coming forward months' later, and with a story where even the day of their tale is in doubt, is is "compatible" with something resembling evidence.​

 

[Dan O.]

Hi Dan O.,
Your photo's have me wondering something else.
I'm curious about Guede's shoe prints in Meredith's bedroom.

There are 5 of them found on the pillow underneath her,

and 3 near the foot of her bed, as this photo from IIP shows.

For this composite image I placed the reference shoe over the bloody shoe prints and lined up the rings and other details that left marks. This gives a precise position and orientation of the shoe as it made each print. As you can see, the prints near the bed are facing into the room.

But nowhere else in her bedroom.
Shouldn't there be more?

There are marks on the blue mat that might be more shoe prints but there is insufficient detail visible to be sure. Rudy could have been steping on towels, the duvet, Meredith's pants or he might have been down in his knees undressing Meredith.


BTW, the presumed semen stain is smeared by a footprint underneath where Meredith was laying. The stain must have happened before the pillow was placed under her.