Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

This is a continuation from Part 20 of this thread. As is usual, the split point is arbitrary and participants are free to quote from the previous iteration(s) of the thread.

Posted By:Agatha

Would all participants please make a greater effort to address the arguments rather than attacking the arguers. If your post talks ABOUT another member of the forum, you are almost certainly breaching rule 12.

Posted By:Agatha

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 11185625) I've always believed the smartest guys are the ones who take complex subjects and simplify them as much as possible. And in contrast, the dumbest people are the ones who complicate relatively easy subjects. It's the old "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bs. There are only 2 reasons to overly complicate a subject. 1. You don't understand it or 2. You're being deceptive. Other than the DNA, this case is really very simple. So, when I read these long-winded posts, I just know he's twisting the facts.

For DNA testing, there are two articles I am aware of, written to explain DNA profile testing to lawyers, that include accurate but not overly complicated explanations.

They can be found at:

http://ift.tt/1RW1Qd0

http://ift.tt/1MhZ2dG
(The second article is a continuation of the 1st. This link has a pay wall; there may be a free link.)

ETA: The 1st article includes the following:

Appendix: Model Discovery Request for STR Test Results

....
6. Data files: Please provide copies of all data files used and created in the course of performing the testing and analyzing the data in this case. These files should include all data necessary to, (i) independently reanalyze the raw data and (ii) reconstruct the analysis performed in this case.
....

ETA2: From http://ift.tt/1MhZ2dI

This appears to be an excerpt from Part 2.

Quote:

Breaking open the black box: How to review the electronic data Reviewing the electronic files produced by the ABI Prism 310 Genetic Analyzer™ (or similar equipment) has a number of additional benefits beyond revealing unreported low-level peaks. The software that controls these devices creates a complete record of all operations the device performs while typing samples in a particular case and records the results for each sample. These records can reveal a variety of problems in testing that a forensic laboratory may fail to notice or choose not to report, such as failure of experimental controls, multiple testing of samples with inconsistent results, re-labeling of samples which can flag potential sample mix-ups and failure to follow proper procedures. We know of several cases in which review of electronic data has revealed that the laboratory failed to run all of the necessary control samples needed to verify the reliability of the test results, or that the laboratory ran the control samples under different conditions than the analytical samples (a major breach of good scientific practice). .... It is easy for crime laboratories to produce the electronic data that underlie their conclusions. All that is necessary is to copy the files produced in the case onto a CD-ROM or other storage medium. CD-ROMs are generally preferred because they create an unalterable record of the data produced by the laboratory. Copying files to a CD-ROM is a simple point and click operation that can be accomplished in fifteen minutes or less in most cases. CD-ROM burners compatible with any laboratory computer are available commercially for under $200. There is no legitimate excuse for refusing to turn over electronic data for defense review. In a few instances laboratories have resisted producing electronic files, or have even destroyed the files, but the great majority of trial courts will not tolerate such obstructive behavior.

via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1Rb2QdB