Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#6

[SMK]

I've circled the area

Yes, looking more closely now, I see the straight edges. It suggests something with weight - like a book, or a laptop, or a strong mat. There is a stencil effect in that it blocked any blood from that area. The CSI must have noted this and explained it?

 

[SMK]

Thanks Amber! I see I've missed a lot....pages and pages! :seeya:

Yes, its been quite an active but frustrating time. Have fun playing catch-up; tee hee :loveyou:

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I don't know anything about it, but in skimming, I understand that Balding developed software for amplifying DNA. The prosecutor would not quote Balding in response to Vecchioti unless Balding contradicted the methods of Vecchioti.

Balding developed a statistical method for analyzing mixtures of DNA.

 

[Amber29]

Yes, looking more closely now, I see the straight edges. It suggests something with weight - like a book, or a laptop, or a strong mat. There is a stencil effect in that it blocked any blood from that area. The CSI must have noted this and explained it?

Yeh I don't know, every time I see that pic it grabs my eyes. Maybe it was that dictionary as some have suggested but I just don't know. It seems like a large area. IMO

 

[otto]

Balding developed a statistical method for analyzing mixtures of DNA.

Isn't it also for identifying DNA, amplifying samples, and separating out information that is not relevant?

It's unfortunate that no one here is able to explain why the prosecutor referenced Balding and Gill in the context of using the same testing methods for Guede and Sollecito. I have the impression that Vecchioti suggested that higher standards were required for identifying Sollecito's DNA than were acceptable for identifying Guede's DNA.

 

[sherlockh]

IMO Dr Balding focused on a question that was already settled by Conti and Vecchiotti (whether Sollecito's DNA was on the clasp) while ignoring a more interesting one (were there other contributors and how many), and the prosecutor knew that. Do you think that Stefanoni should have acknowledged the presence of other DNA in the YSTR analysis? Do you think that Stefanoni's claims of stutter in the +1 position are scientifically valid? If this and other claim had been true, would suggest that there were only two contributors to the autosomal DNA profile.

I don't know what Stefanoni answered to that, as I am sure this was discussed in court. But assuming that she made a mistake here then we should analyze how serious it is. IMO a few extra peaks stand in no comparison to the full profiles of Meredith and Sollecito. Those imply touch DNA, where a few extra peaks do not indicate much of anything. It doesn't really matter if it came from secondary transfer through Meredith, or her boyfriend, or Guede (I doubt he would leave just a few peaks), or whoever. This is just a few peaks and therefore I doubt if it is related to the case. It would have been different if there had been actual DNA profiles. The independent experts should have been fired on the spot when they claimed these few peaks could be the judge. Of course, there are just a few! This shows they weren't all that 'independent'. Galati and the SC were right to criticize them. JMO.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Do you have any proof that these were 4 Y haplotype peaks?

At 15 RFU as the minimum peak height cutoff, there is at least one locus (DYS458) with three additional peaks besides the one attributed to Sollecito. In locus DYS391 there are four peaks above 10 RFU that are not in obvious stutter positions besides the main peak. The Conti-Vecchiotti report also indicates that there were several contributors. I think I posted the quote previously.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Isn't it also for identifying DNA, amplifying samples, and separating out information that is not relevant?

It's unfortunate that no one here is able to explain why the prosecutor referenced Balding and Gill in the context of using the same testing methods for Guede and Sollecito. I have the impression that Vecchioti suggested that higher standards were required for identifying Sollecito's DNA than were acceptable for identifying Guede's DNA.

I wouldn't take the person who tweeted that to seriously. He's a prolific pro guilt poster and a <modsnip> who's been around for years blogging about the case.

The only credible tweets about what was said are from La Nazione imo.

 

[aa9511]

Yeh I don't know, every time I see that pic it grabs my eyes. Maybe it was that dictionary as some have suggested but I just don't know. It seems like a large area. IMO

So why would that have been moved? Do you guys think there was some evidence on it, and whatever it was, was thrown away?

 

[otto]

An interview with David Balding

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.ca/2013/07/an-interview-with-david-balding.html

 

[otto]

Evaluation of mixed-source, low-template DNA profiles in forensic science
by David J. Balding

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/30/12241.full?sid=a253ef82-c033-47a6-8d9b-c5abfbd8c926

Conclusion: DNA against Sollecito is strong

 

[otto]

I wouldn't take the person who tweeted that to seriously. He's a prolific pro guilt poster and a <modsnip> who's been around for years blogging about the case.

The only credible tweets about what was said are from La Nazione imo.

What is a proguilt poster? Who is a liar and why?

 

[otto]

At 15 RFU as the minimum peak height cutoff, there is at least one locus (DYS458) with three additional peaks besides the one attributed to Sollecito. In locus DYS391 there are four peaks above 10 RFU that are not in obvious stutter positions besides the main peak. The Conti-Vecchiotti report also indicates that there were several contributors. I think I posted the quote previously.

Essentially, it is well known that Balding concludes that Sollecito's DNA is a good sample.

In the UK, 10, not 15, is the cutoff. Conti Vecchiotti identified 12 alleles. Balding reduced that to 4 DNA alleles. The four are negligible. There are two strong DNA contributors.

 

[otto]

David Balding Conclusions

"Vecchiotti and Conti (2) agreed with the alleles originally identified but also reported many additional epg peaks. They cited recommendation 6 of Gill et al. (4) in concluding that all peaks in stutter positions should be regarded as allelic.

...
Using this uncertain designation for the six subthreshold alleles, the estimated dropout rate for Knox is close to 100%. A separate analysis with her as the queried contributor returned an LR < 1, also favoring a conclusion of no DNA from her. I reran the analysis excluding Knox from both and , and obtained an LR in favor of of 42 million (WoE = 7.6 bans). Thus, although the additional alleles have, by providing evidence for an additional contributor, weakened the evidence implicating Sollecito by a massive 8 bans, this evidence nevertheless remains strong. Moreover, Gill et al. (4) did not consider uncertain designations for peaks that are potentially due to stutter. After reclassifying as uncertain all peaks below 15% of the height at one extra repeat unit, a common stutter guideline (4), there remain four alleles not attributable to either Sollecito or Kercher
The number of above-threshold alleles recorded at any locus is six or less, which implies three or more contributors of DNA. However, if Knox is assumed to be a contributor, the alleles not attributable to her still imply three or more other contributors.

...
Moreover, Gill et al. (4) did not consider uncertain designations for peaks that are potentially due to stutter. After reclassifying as uncertain all peaks below 15% of the height at one extra repeat unit, a common stutter guideline (4), there remain four alleles not attributable to either Sollecito or Kercher and the WoE is increased to 10.7 bans.

...
I only consider whether there is DNA from Sollecito for which the evidence remains very strong after allowing for the additional alleles identified by Vecchiotti and Conti (2) and the possibility that apparent stutters are allelic.

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/30/12241.full?sid=a253ef82-c033-47a6-8d9b-c5abfbd8c926

 

[otto]

From the above linked interview with Balding:

Balding states that it is unlikely that contamination of Sollecito's DNA on the clasp came from people walking in and out of the room at the crime scene.

Meredith and Sollecito are both clear contributors to the DNA on the clasp.

 

[MichaelSmith]

What is a proguilt poster? Who is a liar and why?

Who is the person tweeting? What is his real name? All I see is another anonymous blogger used by people to try and prove a point as if they're opinions are credible when they're quite possibly very deceptive.

 

[otto]

Bottom line, Balding identifies two very strong DNA contributors on the clasp: Sollecito and Meredith. He states that the standards for acceptable DNA are much lower in the UK than in Italy, meaning fewer criteria are required to make a positive identification. Four alleles suggest DNA from another source, but he also discusses "drop in" DNA that is calculated within the probabilities. He states that the 4 alleles are very low, possibly fragmentary DNA from degraded cells.

 

[otto]

Who is the person tweeting? What is his real name? All I see is another anonymous blogger used by people to try and prove a point as if they're opinions are credible when they're quite possibly very deceptive.

Some people were tweeting from the court room during the trial. I posted a couple of them that directly relate to Crini's remark about Gill and Balding. If the suggestion is that the tweets are lies, then please provide information beyond the phrase: "liar".

 

[MichaelSmith]

Some people were tweeting from the court room during the trial. I posted a couple of them that directly relate to Crini's remark about Gill and Balding. If the suggestion is that the tweets are lies, then please provide information beyond the phrase: "liar".

The only media tweeting the prosecutions closing arguments was LaNazione afik. I don't think tweets from some anonymous agenda driven blogger are credible or should be taken seriously.

 

[Amber29]

The only media tweeting the prosecutions closing arguments was LaNazione afik. I don't think tweets from some anonymous agenda driven blogger are credible or should be taken seriously.

Same answer as before. Is what was said in the tweet a lie or not? Just calling someone a liar is not good enough.