Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Chris_Halkides]

confirmation bias in action

This is true. Peter Gill, sorry to say, is naive - and for a "scientist" there's no worse condemnation.

Supercalifragilistic,

This may be the most risible contention I have seen here in more than 4 1/2 years of discussion, and that is going a piece. It is always bad to shoot the messenger. When the messenger is among the most notable scientists in this field in all of Europe, then it sends one to the thesaurus to look for synonyms for fecklessness. Professor Gill is chair of the DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics, and he has published more than 180 peer-reviewed papers.

Recently I read a discussion of a paper in which the authors showed that reading something contrary to one's view causes one to dig in one's heels rather than to question one's own beliefs. Although I wish it were otherwise, the authors were probably right.

 

[js202]

Recently I read a discussion of a paper in which the authors showed that reading something contrary to one's view causes one to dig in one's heels rather than to question one's own beliefs. Although I wish it were otherwise, the authors were probably right.

Of course, such recalcitrance is a habit of mind of the unsophisticated and unschooled. There is a set of underclass, minimally-educated, maximally angry and florid internet denizens who have glommed onto this case, who seem to wear this condition as if it were a badge of honor. It is as if the practices of a scientist like Dr. Gill are so foreign, they cannot begin to enter his frame of reference and think from thence. Their true belief - as well as their anonymity - apparently renders them bulletproof to the redundant ways in which they make barking mad fools of themselves.

 

[Desert Fox]

Of course, such recalcitrance is a habit of mind of the unsophisticated and unschooled. There is a set of underclass, minimally-educated, maximally angry and florid internet denizens who have glommed onto this case, who seem to wear this condition as if it were a badge of honor. It is as if the practices of a scientist like Dr. Gill are so foreign, they cannot begin to enter his frame of reference and think from thence. Their true belief - as well as their anonymity - apparently renders them bulletproof to the redundant ways in which they make barking mad fools of themselves.

I think we are all guilty of it, intelligent or not, educated or not.
I constantly try to fight against it. That is why I want those who argue fro guilt to argue a strong case.

 

[anglolawyer]

Machiavelli,

What you are arguing is utter tripe. The videos showing how the evidence was collected and the electropherograms are there for everyone to see. John Butler, the author of a respected textbook on DNA profiling, wrote, “In my opinion, over the past three decades no one has done more to advance forensic DNA analysis and interpretation than Peter Gill.” By contrast Dr. Novelli's main research interest is not forensic DNA; he is not in the same league.

Dr. Novelli claimed that contamination must be proved; this claim is ridiculous, as I have pointed out with examples may times in these threads. Dr. Gill wrote, (p. 34) “It will always be difficult to prove cross transfer of DNA.” We all know from the videos that the FP did not change gloves, and I have given citations which show that they should have been. Dr. Gill wrote, “…the principle of cross transfer mediated by latex gloves is demonstrably high risk.” Dr. Novelli said that there were guidelines, but that the investigator must use common sense. An appeal to common sense usually sounds reasonable on the surface, but this one begins to crumble under closer examination. When does common sense suggest it is better not to change one's gloves? to have multiple people handle one item? to open and repackage an item of evidence? to test an item with methods that have never been validated? Dr. Gill wrote (p. 35), “If there is even a remote possibility that items have been handled inappropriately, then cross-transfer must always be put forward as a realistic explanation, and the crime scene investigation is therefore compromised. The European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) provide best practice manuals (ENFSI, 2008) for investigators to follow.” So much for the blather we sometimes hear about there being no international standards.

This is a legal question. What the heck has it to do with Novelli? Translated into a scientific proposition, it might be: unless a path of likely contamination can be proved it can be assumed there is no contamination. At my entry level of scientific understanding this is looks like utter nonsense, but Novelli's dictum is simply not a matter for him.

 

[js202]

I think we are all guilty of it, intelligent or not, educated or not.
I constantly try to fight against it. That is why I want those who argue fro guilt to argue a strong case.

It is a habit of mind. Some, of course, are autodidacts, and inherently smarter and more adept at building it into their thinking process. But, in general, the more education, the better. Graduate education instills the habits of self-questioning upon which the scientific method depends. Understanding the notion of recalcitrant data, and what to do when one confronts it, is a necessary precursor.

One of my thesis directors referred to undergraduate curricula as the means by which one achieves understanding, and graduate studies, those by which one aspires to "overstanding." I think this expresses it well, and observing the way most PGPs operate with regard to this case has only augmented my understanding of what Professor Kincaid meant.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the notion that contamination must be proved fails upon examination

This is a legal question. What the heck has it to do with Novelli? Translated into a scientific proposition, it might be: unless a path of likely contamination can be proved it can be assumed there is no contamination. At my entry level of scientific understanding this is looks like utter nonsense, but Novelli's dictum is simply not a matter for him.

anglolawyer,

Machiavelli claimed (but did not offer evidence) that Dr. Gill had not read Dr. Novelli's report. Whether or not Dr. Gill read Dr. Novelli's report seems like a sideshow to me; far better would be that Dr. Novelli should read Dr. Gill's book. With respect to whether or not contamination should have to be proved and to the related question of whether or not a specific route must be shown, it is helpful to know that Dr. Gill quotes at least one passage from Justice Vincent's report on the Farah Jama case that was quoted here.

The people who make the claim that contamination must be proved should start by explaining what they would take as proof. For example, is DNA found in a negative control evidence? Is an unimpeachable alibi evidence? And so forth. Second, there are only two cases in the forensic literature that I can think of in which the route of contamination is pretty well known, but there are also at least as many where it is not. Do the people who say that contamination must be proved believe that the mentally challenged Ms. P killed Jaidyn Leskie hundreds of kilometers away from her home? That Farah Jama raped a woman in a bar he had never been seen in? That a near comatose Lukis Anderson committed robbery and murder? Third, if contamination must be proved does that not also imply that the FP/prosecution must release all forensic data? If not, why not? The notion that a route of contamination must be proved is such an absurdly high bar that anyone who advocates it deserves to have his or her motives examined.

EDT
From the PMF translation of the SCC report of 2013, p. 94: "Laboratory contamination was also excluded by these experts. Prof. Novelli said that the origin or vehicle of any contamination must be demonstrated: he added that at the Scientific Police laboratory he had seen the 255 samples [68] extracted, had analysed all the profiles, and had not found any evidence of contamination; he ruled out in an absolutely convincing manner that a contamination agent could be present intermittently, or that DNA could remain suspended, and later fall down in a specific place."

From p. 33, "...even though Professor Novelli had warned that it is not enough to say that a result derives from contamination, but one must demonstrate it and show its origin."

 

[Desert Fox]

Isn't it quite possible that Dr. Novelli "Cooked the books" as far as his report?
The usual, report data that supports his position but ignores data that goes against him?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

puffery from the SCC

Isn't it quite possible that Dr. Novelli "Cooked the books" as far as his report?
The usual, report data that supports his position but ignores data that goes against him?

Desert Fox,

I think his testimony was what the SCC wanted to hear, and it puffed up his credentials while failing to ask the tough questions. For example, Novelli claimed to have examined hundreds of items of evidence and to have found no evidence of contamination. What were his criteria for judging whether or not there was contamination? What were his methods? If he did not examine the electronic data files for the negative controls, he wasn't doing his job. If he did, then he had access to something that the defense did not. Did he examine the quantification data? In these threads we have discussed evidence of contamination, based on this document. Why should we listen to this expert's views on contamination, when he missed the contamination in a no-template control (NTC) run?

 

[anglolawyer]

anglolawyer,

Machiavelli claimed (but did not offer evidence) that Dr. Gill had not read Dr. Novelli's report. Whether or not Dr. Gill read Dr. Novelli's report seems like a sideshow to me; far better would be that Dr. Novelli should read Dr. Gill's book. With respect to whether or not contamination should have to be proved and to the related question of whether or not a specific route must be shown, it is helpful to know that Dr. Gill quotes at least one passage from Justice Vincent's report on the Farah Jama case that was quoted here.

The people who make the claim that contamination must be proved should start by explaining what they would take as proof. For example, is DNA found in a negative control evidence? Is an unimpeachable alibi evidence? And so forth. Second, there are only two cases in the forensic literature that I can think of in which the route of contamination is pretty well known, but there are also at least as many where it is not. Do the people who say that contamination must be proved believe that the mentally challenged Ms. P killed Jaidyn Leskie hundreds of kilometers away from her home? That Farah Jama raped a woman in a bar he had never been seen in? That a near comatose Lukis Anderson committed robbery and murder? Third, if contamination must be proved does that not also imply that the FP/prosecution must release all forensic data? If not, why not? The notion that a route of contamination must be proved is such an absurdly high bar that anyone who advocates it deserves to have his or her motives examined.

EDT
From the PMF translation of the SCC report of 2013, p. 94: "Laboratory contamination was also excluded by these experts. Prof. Novelli said that the origin or vehicle of any contamination must be demonstrated: he added that at the Scientific Police laboratory he had seen the 255 samples [68] extracted, had analysed all the profiles, and had not found any evidence of contamination; he ruled out in an absolutely convincing manner that a contamination agent could be present intermittently, or that DNA could remain suspended, and later fall down in a specific place."

From p. 33, "...even though Professor Novelli had warned that it is not enough to say that a result derives from contamination, but one must demonstrate it and show its origin."

Good, helpful post.

I repeat a point I have made before: C-V make two distinct points (here) about the knife and clasp results and only one of them has been grasped by most uninformed commenters and the Italian courts:

5. It cannot be ruled out that the result obtained from sample B (blade of knife) derives from contamination in some phase of the collection and/or handling and/or analyses performed.

3 Taking into account that none of the recommendations of the international scientific community relative to the treatment of Low Copy Number (LCN) samples were followed, we do not accept the conclusions regarding the certain attribution of the profile found on trace B (blade of knife) to the victim Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher, since the genetic profile, as obtained, appears unreliable insofar as it is not supported by scientifically validated analysis;

I have put them in reverse order. 5 is the one everyone discusses while 3 is ignored and has nothing to do with routes of contamination. My example using pi to 10 digits illustrates it (to me anyway) that is: the method is integral to the result, otherwise there is no result.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

right and wrong ways to perform low template DNA analysis

anglolawyer,

Thank you for a good post. Point 3 is at least as important as point 5 IMO, and it is one that I have made many times. In print, even Novelli seems to agree that low template DNA presents special challenges. A review article he coauthored mentioned the need for dedicated facilities, etc. One more thing. Has anyone ever contended in the forensic literature that contamination (its vehicle...) must be proved? I have never seen it.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Are you British?

Read this and get with the trend.

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-britons-wikipedia-news.html

Britons trust Wikipedia 'more than the news'

Enjoy this last paragraph in Wikipedia on Amanda Knox.

Sean Casey, a former prosecutor who is now a partner at Kobre & Kim in New York, believes that under the extradition treaty between Italy and the US, extradition should not be granted as she was already acquitted for the same acts for which extradition is requested, and as double jeopardy is explicitly proscribed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Furthermore, Casey argues that Italian law enforcement may not seek extradition which would prolong the legal process because the "original verdict was so terribly flawed by prosecutorial overreaching," noting that the appellate court that overturned the original conviction detailed those flaws in a damning report more than 100 pages in length.[63]

Really!?

From the link you provided it also states that more people trust and I quote

The YouGov survey revealed however that the traditional Encyclopaedia Britannica is viewed as the most reliable source of information by far, trusted by 83 percent of respondents.

Based on a sample of 2,000 that is real extrapolation, must be true because Jim Wales said it was so, that is enough for some people.

ETA: There has been one trial; the (automatic) appeal held in Perugia was annulled by the Italian Supreme Court and a 2nd (appeal) took place in Florence and confirmed the verdict of the (trial), Raffaele and Amanda are currently waiting for the Italian Supreme Court to deliberate and either send the case back for the appeal stage again or confirm the verdict of the trial and automatic appeal.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

What you are arguing is utter tripe. The videos showing how the evidence was collected and the electropherograms are there for everyone to see. John Butler, the author of a respected textbook on DNA profiling, wrote, “In my opinion, over the past three decades no one has done more to advance forensic DNA analysis and interpretation than Peter Gill.” By contrast Dr. Novelli's main research interest is not forensic DNA; he is not in the same league.

Dr. Novelli claimed that contamination must be proved; this claim is ridiculous, as I have pointed out with examples may times in these threads. Dr. Gill wrote, (p. 34) “It will always be difficult to prove cross transfer of DNA.” We all know from the videos that the FP did not change gloves, and I have given citations which show that they should have been. Dr. Gill wrote, “…the principle of cross transfer mediated by latex gloves is demonstrably high risk.” Dr. Novelli said that there were guidelines, but that the investigator must use common sense. An appeal to common sense usually sounds reasonable on the surface, but this one begins to crumble under closer examination. When does common sense suggest it is better not to change one's gloves? to have multiple people handle one item? to open and repackage an item of evidence? to test an item with methods that have never been validated? Dr. Gill wrote (p. 35), “If there is even a remote possibility that items have been handled inappropriately, then cross-transfer must always be put forward as a realistic explanation, and the crime scene investigation is therefore compromised. The European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) provide best practice manuals (ENFSI, 2008) for investigators to follow.” So much for the blather we sometimes hear about there being no international standards.

So you think it's enough to have a video, while it's unnecessary to know anything about documentation and questionings in order to explain how Sollecito's DNA happened to travel on the metal hook and stick there as well as how Meredith's DNA managed to make it to Sollecito's kitchen knife, and show how this event is probable. I guess it would be worthless if I asked Gill where he could see Sollecoto's DNA in the video, or on how many spots on the floor he is aware such DNA was found (without having read the documentation) or how did he found out that the knife transportation box was "connected to Meredith Kercher" always from the video of course.
You write a lot of quotes, but in your thousands lines you are unable to point at a single realistic scenario for how the DNA of Sollecito happened to travel on the bra clasp or how Meredith's DNA could stick in a groove in Sollecito's kitchen knife. The only thing any expert needs to do to have a judge listen, is to explain how these contamination occurred and show what source and what event made them be probable. Even a little kid understands you are unable to do so, and Prof. Gill is unable to offer an explanation as well.
I remind you that you spectacularly violated your axiom #1, by assuming that the presence of some DNA material in a finding should be taken as an indication of the timing of when the deposit of the whole material occurred.
Last point: one doesn't need to be a genius in order to infer that if an expert refers to Vecchiotti as his source and presents his work as manifestly related to Vecchiotti, it would make no sense to consider such expert "neutral" and unrelated to any side.

 

[Samson]

Really!?

From the link you provided it also states that more people trust and I quote

Based on a sample of 2,000 that is real extrapolation, must be true because Jim Wales said it was so, that is enough for some people.

ETA: There has been one trial; the (automatic) appeal held in Perugia was annulled by the Italian Supreme Court and a 2nd (appeal) took place in Florence and confirmed the verdict of the (trial), Raffaele and Amanda are currently waiting for the Italian Supreme Court to deliberate and either send the case back for the appeal stage again or confirm the verdict of the trial and automatic appeal.

Coulsdon I am fully aware of the tortured logic that was needed to explain away Hellmann's impeccable reasoning. Fortunately Jimmy Wales took an interest, and is ably assisting you British to confront the facts of the case. I grew up with Britannica, and even the year books. I fully understand your nostalgia, and have the greatest respect for it.

You may have to help Soulmate with the conversion of Americans to the great Italian strategy, who wrote the following yesterday

@ catnip I agree with you. However many americans ( I happen to be there for a few weeks ) dont understand the H annullement. For them it still 'happened', no matter how you cut the mustard, wherein Konx waus 'found innocent'.

Oh the frustration.

I correspond regularly with a North Carolina Professor who doesn't understand the fuss. No one here thinks she's guilty he says.

By the way the hilited spelling is disgraceful and childish.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Coulsdon I am fully aware of the tortured logic that was needed to explain away Hellmann's impeccable reasoning. Fortunately Jimmy Wales took an interest, and is ably assisting you British to confront the facts of the case. I grew up with Britannica, and even the year books. I fully understand your nostalgia, and have the greatest respect for it.

Okay, you’ve lost me, I was quoting from the article you linked and in that article it stated more people ( I guess the 2,000 Brits) trusted Britannica.

This is another detour; I’ll jump out here, thanks.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

...Last point: one doesn't need to be a genius in order to infer that if an expert refers to Vecchiotti as his source and presents his work as manifestly related to Vecchiotti, it would make no sense to consider such expert "neutral" and unrelated to any side.

Vecchiotti was one of the independent forensics people required by judge Hellmann. She was neutral and unrelated to any side so why wouldn't any expert using her as a source be neutral?

 

[Samson]

Okay, you’ve lost me, I was quoting from the article you linked and in that article it stated more people ( I guess the 2,000 Brits) trusted Britannica.

This is another detour; I’ll jump out here, thanks.

You don't have an opinion on Britannica ?

 

[js202]

Okay, you’ve lost me, I was quoting from the article you linked and in that article it stated more people ( I guess the 2,000 Brits) trusted Britannica.

This is another detour; I’ll jump out here, thanks.

Just for the lurkers who may not follow the link, what you state is false to the extent it is incomplete. Though most Britons still prefer Britannica, as Samson states, the article claims that, out of 2,000 surveyed, more Brits trust Wikipedia than the news.

 

[Grinder]

So you think it's enough to have a video, while it's unnecessary to know anything about documentation and questionings in order to explain how Sollecito's DNA happened to travel on the metal hook and stick there as well as how Meredith's DNA managed to make it to Sollecito's kitchen knife, and show how this event is probable.

No, it's the job of the prosecution to produce evidence that is certain. Evidence that has been handled in a way that makes contamination as close to impossible as possible. The safeguards in the labs such as cleaning protocol and positive pressure hoods are required. They are required precisely to eliminate the possibility of contamination in vast, vast majority of tests.

If the safeguards were not present, it would be very difficult to show probable contamination often - if that were not true the more stringent protocols wouldn't be necessary.

I guess it would be worthless if I asked Gill where he could see Sollecoto's DNA in the video, or on how many spots on the floor he is aware such DNA was found (without having read the documentation) or how did he found out that the knife transportation box was "connected to Meredith Kercher" always from the video of course.

Well for one thing the box was handled by cops that were in the cottage IIRC. I could get a cite but no one would care.

You write a lot of quotes, but in your thousands lines you are unable to point at a single realistic scenario for how the DNA of Sollecito happened to travel on the bra clasp or how Meredith's DNA could stick in a groove in Sollecito's kitchen knife. The only thing any expert needs to do to have a judge listen, is to explain how these contamination occurred and show what source and what event made them be probable. Even a little kid understands you are unable to do so, and Prof. Gill is unable to offer an explanation as well.

Raf's DNA was on the door, someone in the 6 weeks between CSI visits got his DNA from door and then touched the bra clasp as they moved thing around in MK's room. MK's DNA wasn't on the knife at all but if it had been one source would from the lab itself. It could be secondary transfer from Amanda to the knife. The cop in the station could have picked up some MK DNA and then transferred to the box.

There are a plethora of ways it could have ended up there with the slack behavior of Stefanoni. Are you related to her?

Has any non-police associated or non Italian expert backed the work of Steffy.

Last point: one doesn't need to be a genius in order to infer that if an expert refers to Vecchiotti as his source and presents his work as manifestly related to Vecchiotti, it would make no sense to consider such expert "neutral" and unrelated to any side.

C&V compiled the available data. Would you suggest he used the defense experts files or...?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Just for the lurkers who may not follow the link, what you state is false to the extent it is incomplete. Though most Britons still prefer Britannica, as Samson states, the article claims that, out of 2,000 surveyed, more Brits trust Wikipedia than the news.

If I may offer a third option, this is a simple derailment of the discussion at hand. Indeed, given that I have read the link it has absolutely nothing to do with the case or discussion.

This is yet another pointless distraction.

 

[Samson]

If I may offer a third option, this is a simple derailment of the discussion at hand. Indeed, given that I have read the link it has absolutely nothing to do with the case or discussion.

This is yet another pointless distraction.

Supercalifragilistic launched an anti American rant, suggesting probably from Britain (language crude but probably native speaker)
I linked to an article saying Brits trusted wikipedia above BBC for news.
Wikipedia on Knox is scathing of the Italian process.
This is a joint British and Italian prosecution of an American.
I pointed out that Americans don't buy the annulment that you introduced to the dialogue, Briton Soulmate's American experience.
I pointed out no one (informal citation admittedly) from North Carolina is fooled by the Italian process and the joint British and Italian prosecution.

And so on.