Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[js202]

Yes, why have scientific police in the first place, if you're just going to invent stuff? it's much easier and cheaper to "improvise" sitting in your desk or sofa.

Or, of course, why not just do science the way you would a nice ragu, consisting of bits of leftover this or that from the fridge?

 

[Desert Fox]

This is a skeptical forum

I don't believe those criticisms that you must use tweezers not gloves or paper bags etc. I do think that quantity is important, and I also believe that a principle that is also the basic one of Italian Cousine always applies, that is: always think you need to make the best of what you have.
You must start by optimizing what you have, start plans and procedures based on what is possible.

You have been given numerous citations on these points. At some point ignorance of a topic becomes fecklessness.

One issue that skepticism always discusses is people who argue about the sheer quantity. Examples include arguing about "how could all those sights of UFOs or ghosts be wrong." Discussed as well with poorly controlled studies on ESP. Quantity does not matter unless they are well done.

In addition, there is an issue with medical studies (and others) called the file drawer effect where studies which support your conclusion (even if poorly done) but studies that do not support your conclusion are never published or ended early.

I could go on but there is a lot on the pro guilt side that violates basic skepticism.

 

[Dan O.]

This is nit-picking, and only part of a guilter narrative.

The problem with guilters is that they keep bringing up the same old talking points. It's like they aren't capable of thinking for themselves and just read off the master list which never gets updated.


Way way back in the first or second thread I looked at these statements of Raffaele's and Amanda's concerning their return to the cottage. The key is that Raffaele describes putting the mop down and Amanda takes it to another part of the cottage. Raffaele himself goes the other way. We know the mop ended up in the closet in the hall leading to Amanda and Meredith's rooms. The "other way" is through the kitchen towards Laura's room.

If you look at the crime scene photos, when entering the cottage you cannot see directly into Filomena's room. Walking into the dark cottage after having been in the bright noon daylight you may not even be able to see Filomena's door, much less be able to tell preciesly how far open it is. But once you pass the fridge and turn the other way you are looking straight through the wide open door of Laura's room and the sunlit curtain on her window.

I believe it is Laura's door that Raffaele is remembering being wide open and either he made a mistake on the name or since there was nothing memorable about Laura's room the memories were confabulated and he associated the open door with the broken window and trashed apparence of Filomena's room.

 

[Dan O.]

... The volume of tasks she - and her team - fulfilled within a short time seems huge to me.

Especially given the number of times they did retakes for the camera. It's amazing that they were even able to finish and didn't need to come back after a month and a half to collect what they forgot the first time.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

By the way, did you notice Sollecito lied, and that he is belied by an official legal paper?

Machiavelli,
Let's play a game. You post an alleged lie by Sollecito, along with the evidence it was a lie. Something like this -- Sollecito said X, but the truth was Y as evidenced by Z. The evidence part is important. Note that a "lie" is not simply a "mistake" which is later corrected -- "lie" implies intent.

The side that is defending two wrongful convictions will then have a chance to refute this. Next, we will follow up with a lie from Stefanoni along with evidence. You then have a chance to refute Stefanoni's lie.

We will go back and forth and tally the number of proven, actual lies by both Sollecito and Stefanoni. This way we can see an explicit list of all the actual lies by each side with any accompanying evidence and (if applicable) refutation. That way you can stop promoting your propaganda by being vague about these "lies" by Sollecito (which actually consist of honest mistakes that were immediately corrected when he was given the chance), and we can get to the actual truth. This should be what you want unless you are deliberately trying to spread misinformation.

We will then compile this list in a spreadsheet that you can post on TJMK, PMF, and your fake wikipedia page so that everyone can see the truth. Are you game?

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Speaking of fallacies, I came across this recently:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shill_gambit

The shill gambit is a type of ad hominem and poisoning the well wherein one party dismisses the other's arguments by proclaiming them to be on the payroll of some agency. It usually goes something like this:
“Alice: There is absolutely no evidence that explosives were planted in the Twin Towers.
Bob: Ah, I knew it, another Bush administration shill spreading disinfo! Go spew your lies somewhere else, shill!"

Sound familiar?? Lol. I didn't know this fallacy had a name. Maybe we can propose it also be called the "guilter gambit"?

 

[platonov]

The problem with guilters is that they keep bringing up the same old talking points. It's like they aren't capable of thinking for themselves and just read off the master list which never gets updated.


Way way back in the first or second thread I looked at these statements of Raffaele's and Amanda's concerning their return to the cottage. The key is that Raffaele describes putting the mop down and Amanda takes it to another part of the cottage. Raffaele himself goes the other way. We know the mop ended up in the closet in the hall leading to Amanda and Meredith's rooms. The "other way" is through the kitchen towards Laura's room.

If you look at the crime scene photos, when entering the cottage you cannot see directly into Filomena's room. Walking into the dark cottage after having been in the bright noon daylight you may not even be able to see Filomena's door, much less be able to tell preciesly how far open it is. But once you pass the fridge and turn the other way you are looking straight through the wide open door of Laura's room and the sunlit curtain on her window.

I believe it is Laura's door that Raffaele is remembering being wide open and either he made a mistake on the name or since there was nothing memorable about Laura's room the memories were confabulated and he associated the open door with the broken window and trashed apparence of Filomena's room.

That’s the ticket – his memories were confabulated.
By Jove you’ve cracked it. It wouldn’t surprise me if Raffy was actually in Rome [ or Berlin, yea Berlin ] with Laura and he forgot.
Perhaps a visit from the nun that cured AK’s memory troubles would sort the matter out. Sr Gentile IIRC.

Lets get her on the case and quickly – the clock is ticking.

 

[Samson]

'Fraid not. Suggesting someone is a totemic figure is not an attack against a person (indeed some may call it laudatory) so it does not qualify as an ad hominem. Of course, it does suggest that those for whom someone is a totemic figure are somewhat lacking in their own grey cells department in their constant appeal to authority, but that's neither here nor there.

KarmaComing
You have inverted the principle of appeal to authority. You will soon discover that authority is wrong, but those scientists are right in analysing what is possible and what is proable in this case.

I am always intrigued that you would entrust the application of justice exclusively to a collection of legally trained minds, yet the manufacture and flight of airplanes to scientists. I wonder why that is. You can have neither safe justice nor safe flight without science to plan the safe landing.

 

[KarmaComing]

KarmaComing
You have inverted the principle of appeal to authority. You will soon discover that authority is wrong, but those scientists are right in analysing what is possible and what is proable in this case.

I am always intrigued that you would entrust the application of justice exclusively to a collection of legally trained minds, yet the manufacture and flight of airplanes to scientists. I wonder why that is. You can have neither safe justice nor safe flight without science to plan the safe landing.

You what? Can we leave your damn airplanes out of this, for heaven's sake?

 

[MDDVS]

You what? Can we leave your damn airplanes out of this, for heaven's sake?

Why?

 

[Samson]

You what? Can we leave your damn airplanes out of this, for heaven's sake?

My analogy is laboured I agree, so ignore the post, and relax in the sure knowledge that the Italians always get it just right when analysing crime scenes. After all they busted Sollecito pretty damn quick with those Nikes all over the floor.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

European Code of Police Ethics

Let's see what The European Code of Police Ethics says:

"60. State control of the police shall be divided between the legislative, the executive and the judicial powers.
Commentary
In order to make the control of the police as efficient as possible, the police should be made accountable to various independent powers of the democratic state, that is the legislative, the executive and the judicial powers.
In a simplified model, the legislative power (the parliament) exercises an a priori control by passing laws that regulate the police and their powers. Sometimes the legislative power also performs an a posteriori control through “justice and interior commissions” or through “parliamentary ombudsmen”, who may initiate investigations, ex officio or following complaints by the public concerning maladministration...The judicial powers (in this context the courts), also perform an a posteriori control of the police through civil and criminal proceedings initiated by other state bodies as well as by the public. SNIP

61. Public authorities shall ensure effective and impartial procedures for complaints against the police.
Commentary
Complaints against the police should be investigated in an impartial way. “Police investigating the police” is an issue which generally raises doubts as to impartiality. States must therefore provide systems which are not only impartial but also seen to be impartial, to obtain public confidence. Ultimately, it should be possible to refer such complaints to a court of law."

Based on the guidelines in paragraph 60, any system that requires a public complaint to initiate action is deficient; public officials should also be able to initiate investigations. Paragraph 61 should be read side by side with Amnesty International's 2007 statement: "There was no independent police complaints and accountability body."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a Yes or a No would be a good start

You really shouldn't be allowed try to divert attention away from Machiavelli's simple point about the need for a victim complaint.

General blathering about Amnesty International, true Italian "patriotism", etc is puerile and emotive. Not to mention tending towards xenophobia - a recurring and disgraceful theme hereabouts.

KarmaComing,

Do you think that the paragraph I quoted from Amnesty International is accurate? Why or why not?

 

[jhunter1163]

There have been an inordinate number of reports coming from this thread in recent days. All posters are cautioned to keep to the subject of the thread, and to remain civil and polite. If civility is not voluntarily maintained, it will be enforced, and no one (least of all the Mod Team) wants that. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[Planigale]

Back to the point.

When DNA typing was introduced, it enabled identification of real tissue. Definite blood stains, decomposed bodies, identifiable semen stains, skin samples under nails. The tissue, the location, and the significance was clear. what DNA typing offered was an identity.

The type of LCN DNA typing that found Sollecito DNA on the bra hook, or the MK DNA on the knife blade is quantitatively different. It is divorced from an identifiable tissue. No blood, or epithelials of Sollecito or Knox were identified. This is the type of the result that may be the result of contamination. But I think there is an argument that the defence ned to do more than just assert contamination.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

sub-source DNA

Back to the point.

When DNA typing was introduced, it enabled identification of real tissue. Definite blood stains, decomposed bodies, identifiable semen stains, skin samples under nails. The tissue, the location, and the significance was clear. what DNA typing offered was an identity.

The type of LCN DNA typing that found Sollecito DNA on the bra hook, or the MK DNA on the knife blade is quantitatively different. It is divorced from an identifiable tissue. No blood, or epithelials of Sollecito or Knox were identified. This is the type of the result that may be the result of contamination. But I think there is an argument that the defence ned to do more than just assert contamination.

Planigale,

This is an important point. In his book Professor Gill labeled such samples sub-source DNA, the lowest level in a well-known hierarchy of DNA-based evidence.

 

[Numbers]

Back to the point.

When DNA typing was introduced, it enabled identification of real tissue. Definite blood stains, decomposed bodies, identifiable semen stains, skin samples under nails. The tissue, the location, and the significance was clear. what DNA typing offered was an identity.

The type of LCN DNA typing that found Sollecito DNA on the bra hook, or the MK DNA on the knife blade is quantitatively different. It is divorced from an identifiable tissue. No blood, or epithelials of Sollecito or Knox were identified. This is the type of the result that may be the result of contamination. But I think there is an argument that the defence ned to do more than just assert contamination.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Do you believe that there is a valid argument that the defense needs to do something to establish that there is contamination? What do you mean, more specifically.

The standard of legal proof in the US and in the countries under the ECHR is that the prosecution must establish guilt in a criminal case. For the US, this means that it is the responsibility of the prosecution to show that its evidence is reliable, for example, that DNA evidence is free of confounding contamination.

 

[Planigale]

I like to consider the arguments of those who disagree with me. One point the pro guilt of Sollecito group make is that skepticism about DNA tests should apply equally to Guede as to Sollecito. This is a fair comment.

Let us assume that items contaminated with Guede's DNA were collected in an equally casual fashion to that contaminated with Sollecito's DNA. One similarity is that neither Guede's nor Sollecito's DNA was associated with identifiable tissue. A difference is that there are multiple samples that were positive for Guede's DNA, another is that the positive samples were obtained by different people at different times, there was DNA from Knox's clothes, and purse found by the scientific police and a separate sample from the post mortem obtained by the forensic pathologist from within MK.* But finally there is a question as to how Guede's DNA could contaminate the crime scene, he had never (legitimately) been in the flat before the murder, the police had had no contact with Guede, so how would contamination occur? The contrast is with one low copy DNA isolate of Sollecito in a mixed sample with other people's DNA. In a sample that was collected late after people had been in and out of the murder room, and the bra hook had been moved around before collecting. Gill suggested that the plastic gloves (he described these as being sticky for DNA), could have been contaminated from the outside bedroom door handle then transferred DNA when the bra hook was picked up in a gloved hand, handed around put down and picked up again. Other options are that Knox and Kircher may have shared a wash or a dry of their smalls with solicitors DNA transferring from Knox's to Kircher's clothes. Knox may have touched or sorted laundry of Kircher, contaminating them with Sollecito's DNA. Solicit may have touched them directly if they were hanging up to dry, Kircher may have hugged or shook hands with Sollecito then directly transferred DNA to her bra hook from her own hands.

* The palm print of Guede is sufficient in itself even if DNA typing was ignored.

So I think one could argue that there are routes for Sollecito's DNA contamination of the bra hook. What I do not think is reasonable to require 'proof'. In general on can disprove something, proving is harder. If the Italian courts are going to require 'proof' they need to be clear what is the definition of 'proof'. Is it on the balance of probability? Is it sufficient to establish reasonable doubt? I think that to argue Guede's DNA arrived by contamination on multiple samples when collected at separate times and places is very unlikely. I think there is a quantitative difference of many orders of magnitude in arguing Sollecito's DNA arrived in a single mixed sample of LCN level on the bra hook by contamination. Without some definition by the judiciary of what level of proof is required for contamination, it becomes impossible for any defence to meet the standard required. The judiciary ask an impossible standard of the defence.

 

[lonepinealex]

I actually agree that Guede might have a case for an appeal on the basis of poor forensics. It's not a strong case and it probably wouldn't be a successful appeal, but if Amanda and Raff are cleared I wouldn't blame Guede for trying to get an appeal.

But that's on the Perugian cops and authorities - they screwed up.

 

[Bill Williams]

I like to consider the arguments of those who disagree with me. One point the pro guilt of Sollecito group make is that skepticism about DNA tests should apply equally to Guede as to Sollecito. This is a fair comment.

Let us assume that items contaminated with Guede's DNA were collected in an equally casual fashion to that contaminated with Sollecito's DNA. One similarity is that neither Guede's nor Sollecito's DNA was associated with identifiable tissue. A difference is that there are multiple samples that were positive for Guede's DNA, another is that the positive samples were obtained by different people at different times, there was DNA from Knox's clothes, and purse found by the scientific police and a separate sample from the post mortem obtained by the forensic pathologist from within MK.* But finally there is a question as to how Guede's DNA could contaminate the crime scene, he had never (legitimately) been in the flat before the murder, the police had had no contact with Guede, so how would contamination occur? The contrast is with one low copy DNA isolate of Sollecito in a mixed sample with other people's DNA. In a sample that was collected late after people had been in and out of the murder room, and the bra hook had been moved around before collecting. Gill suggested that the plastic gloves (he described these as being sticky for DNA), could have been contaminated from the outside bedroom door handle then transferred DNA when the bra hook was picked up in a gloved hand, handed around put down and picked up again. Other options are that Knox and Kircher may have shared a wash or a dry of their smalls with solicitors DNA transferring from Knox's to Kircher's clothes. Knox may have touched or sorted laundry of Kircher, contaminating them with Sollecito's DNA. Solicit may have touched them directly if they were hanging up to dry, Kircher may have hugged or shook hands with Sollecito then directly transferred DNA to her bra hook from her own hands.

* The palm print of Guede is sufficient in itself even if DNA typing was ignored.

So I think one could argue that there are routes for Sollecito's DNA contamination of the bra hook. What I do not think is reasonable to require 'proof'. In general on can disprove something, proving is harder. If the Italian courts are going to require 'proof' they need to be clear what is the definition of 'proof'. Is it on the balance of probability? Is it sufficient to establish reasonable doubt? I think that to argue Guede's DNA arrived by contamination on multiple samples when collected at separate times and places is very unlikely. I think there is a quantitative difference of many orders of magnitude in arguing Sollecito's DNA arrived in a single mixed sample of LCN level on the bra hook by contamination. Without some definition by the judiciary of what level of proof is required for contamination, it becomes impossible for any defence to meet the standard required. The judiciary ask an impossible standard of the defence.

I actually agree that Guede might have a case for an appeal on the basis of poor forensics. It's not a strong case and it probably wouldn't be a successful appeal, but if Amanda and Raff are cleared I wouldn't blame Guede for trying to get an appeal.

But that's on the Perugian cops and authorities - they screwed up.

One has to laugh when one reads - in other forums - that the forensics against Geuede is of the same nature/quantity than the forensics against AK and RS.

One also laughs when one considers that it is peculiar to the Italian system that so-called-experts (Stefanoni) are given a free ride by most judges. Most judges, it seems, simply do not investigate any allegation anyone within "the system" makes.

Indeed, Cassazione in this case has ruled that instead of it being the lower-courts' job to investigate the veracity of police claims; once the claim is made, it is up to the defence to prove them wrong - essentially reversing the burden of proof.

Machiavelli has said this: that the court assumes that people like Stefanoni come to court in good faith - and it is up to the defence to prove they do not.

All this while the prosecution and Stefanoni can get away with depriving the defence of the very tools they need to prove things like this.

It is a completely uneven playing field.

Still: yes it is a fair comment to be as critical about the forensics which condemn Rudy as one is about the factoid-forensics which condemn AK and RS. Either way, it is up to the prosecution to make the case, and for the prosecution witnesses to survive cross-examination.