ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Reply
Old 2nd November 2019, 12:00 PM   #1
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,574
The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 30

Mod Info This is a continuation thread as the previous edition had got too long. You may quote freely from the previous threads.
Posted By:Agatha



Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
That two million went further than I thought.
You haven't heard? G-M had a money tree in the office.

Last edited by Agatha; 2nd November 2019 at 02:28 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2019, 12:04 PM   #2
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,245
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Not quite. Despite your refusal to do more than finally present the Vinci report (in Italian and not searchable or translatable by Chrome or c & p) I typed the relevant parts into a translation program. Unsurprisingly, your claim was false. Vinci found some DNA that was compatible with Knox just as it would be compatible with other people.
But it is his conclusion regarding that DNA that puts the lie to your claim:





In other words, Vixen, Vinci did NOT find Knox's DNA on the bra clasp. Will you now stop claiming he did?

I wonder of The Machine will bother to include Vinci's conclusion in his hit job...er...'article'.
If it is uploaded as a scan it can't be converted to Word. You can try an OCR reader. I didn't do the upload to the site so it is no good having a go at me.

Of course Vinci played it down but that is undoubtedly what he found.

Knox and Guede.

If it had been Guede alone you would be the first to be screeching how correct the results are.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2019, 12:12 PM   #3
TomG
Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 175
Where to find Harry Rag

Do you remember when you were a kid and you'd indulge in a bit of DIY biology? You'd explore wasteland and lift various abandoned debris just to see what various bugs, beasties and creepy-crawlies lay underneath. Sometimes you'd be surprised and say "WTF is that?" Well, that's the very terrain that Rag inhabits on YouTube. Some uninformed eejit makes a comment, you click the "view replies" button and there you will find the genus "Harrius Raggus" scuttling around in circles having never witnessed the cold light of day in the past ten years or more.

The genus "Harrius Raggus" is impervious to change and cannot mutate into anything resembling intelligent life. The only answer is to grab the nearest copy of the Daily Mail and mash the poor specimen to a pulp which is all the Daily Mail is good for anyway, although it does provide a rather easy crossword as its only redeeming feature.

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2019, 12:13 PM   #4
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 730
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Not quite. Despite your refusal to do more than finally present the Vinci report (in Italian and not searchable or translatable by Chrome or c & p) I typed the relevant parts into a translation program. Unsurprisingly, your claim was false. Vinci found some DNA that was compatible with Knox just as it would be compatible with other people.
But it is his conclusion regarding that DNA that puts the lie to your claim:





In other words, Vixen, Vinci did NOT find Knox's DNA on the bra clasp. Will you now stop claiming her did?

I wonder of The Machine will bother to include Vinci's conclusion in his hit job...er...'article'.
Vixen contradicts herself. Vixen boasts about the strong evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. If this was the case why does Vixen have to lie about non existent evidence such as Amanda's DNA being on the clasp when Vixen claims she has genuine evidence to argue her case with. I remember Vixen attacking Amanda for telling blatant lies but Vixen on numerous occasions tells blatant lies in her posts which is typical of the disgusting hypocrisy we see from Vixen.
Welshman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2019, 12:21 PM   #5
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,574
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If it is uploaded as a scan it can't be converted to Word. You can try an OCR reader. I didn't do the upload to the site so it is no good having a go at me.

Of course Vinci played it down but that is undoubtedly what he found.

Knox and Guede.

If it had been Guede alone you would be the first to be screeching how correct the results are.
Oh, I see. So now Vinci 'played it down'. Nope. Did the prosecution challenge his finding? Nope. Did they present another expert who disputed Vinci's conclusion? Nope. Why is that, Vix?

Vinci was quite clear in what he found. And it does NOT support your claim that Vinci said he found Knox's DNA on the bra. No matter how hard you try to twist what he said, you are just plain wrong.

You said yourself " I am rarely wrong as my assertions are based on well-founded facts or sources". The report you provided clearly states that attribution of the traces Vinci found could not be unequivocably assigned to a person.

You also said "I have no problem admitting I'm wrong. I am first to put my hand up, and it's immediate. It is a mystery to me why anyone would refuse to admit an error, apart from politicians, I suppose."

Where is your hand, Vix? Where is your hand?

Last edited by Stacyhs; 2nd November 2019 at 12:50 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2019, 02:13 PM   #6
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,574
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
All of these epithets are toned down versions of what used to be called blasphemy.
Correct...but what has this to do with calling out another poster for "disrespecting St. Peter"?

Quote:
Sorry, are you denying Curt Knox hired David Marriott's then PR company Marriott and Gogerty? Do you know what the commercial rates are for intensive advertising in the media?
May we have some examples of this "intensive advertising in the media" allegedly undertaken by G-M, please? Once you've established with evidence that this actually occurred, then we'll discuss the commercial rates. Unless the former is verified, the latter is a waste of time.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 03:27 AM   #7
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,234
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If it is uploaded as a scan it can't be converted to Word. You can try an OCR reader. I didn't do the upload to the site so it is no good having a go at me.

Of course Vinci played it down but that is undoubtedly what he found.

Knox and Guede.

If it had been Guede alone you would be the first to be screeching how correct the results are.


Now Guede's DNA was on the bra strap??

But aside fram that, once again your post demonstrating a lack of understanding of DNA science. That chart was covered in small peaks. Do you know why that was? Probably not, so I'll tell you. It was because, once more, not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni cranked up the amplification and machine sensitivity improperly. And the result was a whole bunch of phoney "peaks". And once you have all those "peaks", you can - if you so desire - match almost anyone's reference DNA profile to them. And we call that "suspect-centric identification".

As Maundy Gregory pointed out (and as you still apparently cannot understand), you can take almost any person you like and "match" them to that chart to a greater or lesser degree of reliability. As he/she noted, Casey Anthony actually "matches" to a greater degree of reliablity than Knox does. Now, that should cause a large pause for thought, shouldn't it? It's rather obvious why it should cause such a pause for thought (to most people, at least....)
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 03:36 AM   #8
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,234
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
May we have some examples of this "intensive advertising in the media" allegedly undertaken by G-M, please? Once you've established with evidence that this actually occurred, then we'll discuss the commercial rates. Unless the former is verified, the latter is a waste of time.


Not to mention the fact that Vixen created a stonking great straw man right up front. The matter in hand is whether or not the Knox family embarked upon a "$2 million PR campaign". But Vixen chose to start her "response" with:

"Sorry, are you denying Curt Knox hired David Marriott's then PR company Marriott and Gogerty?"

And then, as you point out, she (rather spectacularly) decided to invent an "intensive media advertising" piece of nonsense. Quite remarkable.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 06:28 AM   #9
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,245
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Oh, I see. So now Vinci 'played it down'. Nope. Did the prosecution challenge his finding? Nope. Did they present another expert who disputed Vinci's conclusion? Nope. Why is that, Vix?

Vinci was quite clear in what he found. And it does NOT support your claim that Vinci said he found Knox's DNA on the bra. No matter how hard you try to twist what he said, you are just plain wrong.

You said yourself " I am rarely wrong as my assertions are based on well-founded facts or sources". The report you provided clearly states that attribution of the traces Vinci found could not be unequivocably assigned to a person.

You also said "I have no problem admitting I'm wrong. I am first to put my hand up, and it's immediate. It is a mystery to me why anyone would refuse to admit an error, apart from politicians, I suppose."

Where is your hand, Vix? Where is your hand?
Stefanoni and Vinci both found a partial match to Amanda Knox on the bra and Vinci spends four pages discussing it.

Luckily for Knox the ten alleles (legal standard in the UK and USA) was not legal standard in Italy.

So you fibbed.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 06:32 AM   #10
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,245
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Correct...but what has this to do with calling out another poster for "disrespecting St. Peter"?



May we have some examples of this "intensive advertising in the media" allegedly undertaken by G-M, please? Once you've established with evidence that this actually occurred, then we'll discuss the commercial rates. Unless the former is verified, the latter is a waste of time.
The chutzpah. Stacyhs sets herself up as the judge and jury, whilst I am expected to jump through her hoops, when at the end of the day she dismisses anything contrary to her heroes. Justice, which is supposed to be cold, objective and neutral is not her strong point, at least not one likely to lead to a career in the judiciary that would last five minutes.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 06:37 AM   #11
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,245
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Now Guede's DNA was on the bra strap??

But aside fram that, once again your post demonstrating a lack of understanding of DNA science. That chart was covered in small peaks. Do you know why that was? Probably not, so I'll tell you. It was because, once more, not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni cranked up the amplification and machine sensitivity improperly. And the result was a whole bunch of phoney "peaks". And once you have all those "peaks", you can - if you so desire - match almost anyone's reference DNA profile to them. And we call that "suspect-centric identification".

As Maundy Gregory pointed out (and as you still apparently cannot understand), you can take almost any person you like and "match" them to that chart to a greater or lesser degree of reliability. As he/she noted, Casey Anthony actually "matches" to a greater degree of reliablity than Knox does. Now, that should cause a large pause for thought, shouldn't it? It's rather obvious why it should cause such a pause for thought (to most people, at least....)
So if the 'it slid under the door' counter-theory doesn't work, let's try the 'it would fit any Tom Dick or Harry, er, Thomasina, Dicketta or Harriet - whoops - just realised we need to insert any old female name' <fx pats each other on the back laughing uproariously at their own cleverness>
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 07:41 AM   #12
TomG
Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 175
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Stefanoni and Vinci both found a partial match to Amanda Knox on the bra and Vinci spends four pages discussing it.

Luckily for Knox the ten alleles (legal standard in the UK and USA) was not legal standard in Italy.

So you fibbed.
OMG! So Stefanoni actually adhered to accepted standards? There's a novelty. She didn't let accepted standards interfere with her treatment of the knife and bra-clasp both of which should never have made it to court due to failure to repeat the amplification of traces and obvious contamination.

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 08:01 AM   #13
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,024
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9#post12878629

A useful non-technical reference on the analysis of profiles of DNA mixtures:

https://www.nist.gov/featured-storie...ence-explainer

Here is a quote from the above source with an analogy on DNA mixtures:

"UNCERTAINTY #2: Whose peak is it anyway?

When analyzing a DNA mixture, the alleles from all the contributors show up on the same chart. This can make it difficult to tease apart the DNA profiles of the individual contributors. To understand why this makes things complicated, recall that after amplifying the DNA, the forensic scientist has a test tube with millions of copies of the alleles in solution. Think of that test tube as a bowl of alphabet soup.

In this bowl of soup, each letter represents a different type of allele. Our suspect is named JOHN Q SUSPECT.



We analyze the soup and find that all the letters in the suspect’s name are present. Does that mean someone named JOHN Q SUSPECT contributed to the soup?

Not necessarily. There could have been two contributors named PATRICK QUEEN and JUSTIN OHR. In that case, the soup would have all the letters needed to spell JOHN Q SUSPECT, even though no person with that name contributed to the soup."
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 08:12 AM   #14
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,234
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So if the 'it slid under the door' counter-theory doesn't work, let's try the 'it would fit any Tom Dick or Harry, er, Thomasina, Dicketta or Harriet - whoops - just realised we need to insert any old female name' <fx pats each other on the back laughing uproariously at their own cleverness>


Yeah.....uhh.... you just don't understand the science here.

<fx laughs again at how Vixen doesn't understand what "fx" actually means (and doesn't mean) and thus where the annotation should (and should not) be used in a scipt or screenplay>
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 10:08 AM   #15
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,245
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9#post12878629

A useful non-technical reference on the analysis of profiles of DNA mixtures:

https://www.nist.gov/featured-storie...ence-explainer

Here is a quote from the above source with an analogy on DNA mixtures:

"UNCERTAINTY #2: Whose peak is it anyway?

When analyzing a DNA mixture, the alleles from all the contributors show up on the same chart. This can make it difficult to tease apart the DNA profiles of the individual contributors. To understand why this makes things complicated, recall that after amplifying the DNA, the forensic scientist has a test tube with millions of copies of the alleles in solution. Think of that test tube as a bowl of alphabet soup.

In this bowl of soup, each letter represents a different type of allele. Our suspect is named JOHN Q SUSPECT.



We analyze the soup and find that all the letters in the suspectís name are present. Does that mean someone named JOHN Q SUSPECT contributed to the soup?

Not necessarily. There could have been two contributors named PATRICK QUEEN and JUSTIN OHR. In that case, the soup would have all the letters needed to spell JOHN Q SUSPECT, even though no person with that name contributed to the soup."
Er, best stick to law.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 10:38 AM   #16
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,574
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Now Guede's DNA was on the bra strap??

But aside fram that, once again your post demonstrating a lack of understanding of DNA science. That chart was covered in small peaks. Do you know why that was? Probably not, so I'll tell you. It was because, once more, not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni cranked up the amplification and machine sensitivity improperly. And the result was a whole bunch of phoney "peaks". And once you have all those "peaks", you can - if you so desire - match almost anyone's reference DNA profile to them. And we call that "suspect-centric identification".

As Maundy Gregory pointed out (and as you still apparently cannot understand), you can take almost any person you like and "match" them to that chart to a greater or lesser degree of reliability. As he/she noted, Casey Anthony actually "matches" to a greater degree of reliablity than Knox does. Now, that should cause a large pause for thought, shouldn't it? It's rather obvious why it should cause such a pause for thought (to most people, at least....)
It was the bra clasp, not strap.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 11:32 AM   #17
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,574
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Stefanoni and Vinci both found a partial match to Amanda Knox on the bra and Vinci spends four pages discussing it.
Vinci's report clearly and explicitly details why it could not be assigned to Knox. So your claim that Vinci said he found Knox's DNA on the bra is false.

Quote:
Luckily for Knox the ten alleles (legal standard in the UK and USA) was not legal standard in Italy.

So you fibbed.
What did I fib about, Vix? Quote it.

You claimed Vinci said Knox's DNA was on the bra.

The report clearly says that the DNA could NOT be unequivocally attributed to Knox.

Even David Balding's own software program found it was not Knox's DNA:

Quote:
Using the software on a sample from a bra clasp found near Kercherís body suggests it is very unlikely that the item carries Knoxís DNA.
https://www.newscientist.com/article...#ixzz643m6it2n
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 11:49 AM   #18
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,024
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9#post12878629

A useful non-technical reference on the analysis of profiles of DNA mixtures:

https://www.nist.gov/featured-storie...ence-explainer

Here is a quote from the above source with an analogy on DNA mixtures:

"UNCERTAINTY #2: Whose peak is it anyway?

When analyzing a DNA mixture, the alleles from all the contributors show up on the same chart. This can make it difficult to tease apart the DNA profiles of the individual contributors. To understand why this makes things complicated, recall that after amplifying the DNA, the forensic scientist has a test tube with millions of copies of the alleles in solution. Think of that test tube as a bowl of alphabet soup.

In this bowl of soup, each letter represents a different type of allele. Our suspect is named JOHN Q SUSPECT.



We analyze the soup and find that all the letters in the suspect’s name are present. Does that mean someone named JOHN Q SUSPECT contributed to the soup?

Not necessarily. There could have been two contributors named PATRICK QUEEN and JUSTIN OHR. In that case, the soup would have all the letters needed to spell JOHN Q SUSPECT, even though no person with that name contributed to the soup."
Here's some more information on DNA profiling using the STR - PCR method, the one used (and misused) by Stefanoni and the one generally used currently for forensic analysis. Note that STRs are also called microsatellites:

"A microsatellite is a tract of repetitive DNA in which certain DNA motifs (ranging in length from one to six or more base pairs) are repeated, typically 5–50 times. Microsatellites occur at thousands of locations within an organism's genome. They have a higher mutation rate than other areas of DNA leading to high genetic diversity. Microsatellites are often referred to as short tandem repeats (STRs) by forensic geneticists and in genetic genealogy....

Forensic and medical fingerprinting

Microsatellite analysis became popular in the field of forensics in the 1990s. It is used for the genetic fingerprinting of individuals where it permits forensic identification (typically matching a crime stain to a victim or perpetrator). It is also used to follow up bone marrow transplant patients.

The microsatellites in use today for forensic analysis are all tetra- or penta-nucleotide repeats, as these give a high degree of error-free data while being short enough to survive degradation in non-ideal conditions. Even shorter repeat sequences would tend to suffer from artifacts such as PCR stutter and preferential amplification, while longer repeat sequences would suffer more highly from environmental degradation and would amplify less well by PCR. Another forensic consideration is that the person's medical privacy must be respected, so that forensic STRs are chosen which are non-coding, do not influence gene regulation, and are not usually trinucleotide STRs which could be involved in triplet expansion diseases such as Huntington's disease. Forensic STR profiles are stored in DNA databanks such as the UK National DNA Database (NDNAD), the American CODIS or the Australian NCIDD.

Amplification
Microsatellites can be amplified for identification by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) process, using the unique sequences of flanking regions as primers. DNA is repeatedly denatured at a high temperature to separate the double strand, then cooled to allow annealing of primers and the extension of nucleotide sequences through the microsatellite. This process results in production of enough DNA to be visible on agarose or polyacrylamide gels; only small amounts of DNA are needed for amplification because in this way thermocycling creates an exponential increase in the replicated segment."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsatellite

"A Short Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis is a common method in molecular biology which is used to compare specific loci on DNA from two or more samples. A short tandem repeat is a microsatellite, consisting of a unit of two to thirteen nucleotides repeated several to dozens of times in a row on the DNA strand. STR analysis measures the exact number of repeating units. This method differs from restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis (RFLP) since STR analysis does not cut the DNA with restriction enzymes. Instead, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is employed to discover the lengths of the short tandem repeats based on the length of the PCR product.

STR analysis is a tool in forensic analysis that evaluates specific STR regions found on nuclear DNA. The variable (polymorphic) nature of the STR regions that are analyzed for forensic testing intensifies the discrimination between one DNA profile and another. Scientific tools such as FBI approved STRmix incorporate this research technique. Forensic science takes advantage of the population's variability in STR lengths, enabling scientists to distinguish one DNA sample from another. The system of DNA profiling used today is based on PCR and uses simple sequences or short tandem repeats (STR). This method uses highly polymorphic regions that have short repeated sequences of DNA (the most common is 4 bases repeated, but there are other lengths in use, including 3 and 5 bases). Because unrelated people almost certainly have different numbers of repeat units, STRs can be used to discriminate between unrelated individuals. These STR loci (locations on a chromosome) are targeted with sequence-specific primers and amplified using PCR. The DNA fragments that result are then separated and detected using electrophoresis. There are two common methods of separation and detection, capillary electrophoresis (CE) and gel electrophoresis.

Each STR is polymorphic, but the number of alleles is very small. Typically each STR allele will be shared by around 5 - 20% of individuals. The power of STR analysis comes from looking at multiple STR loci simultaneously. The pattern of alleles can identify an individual quite accurately. Thus STR analysis provides an excellent identification tool. The more STR regions that are tested in an individual the more discriminating the test becomes.

From country to country, different STR-based DNA-profiling systems are in use. In North America, systems that amplify the CODIS 13 core loci are almost universal, whereas in the United Kingdom the DNA-17 17 loci system (which is compatible with The National DNA Database) is in use. Whichever system is used, many of the STR regions used are the same. These DNA-profiling systems are based on multiplex reactions, whereby many STR regions will be tested at the same time.

The true power of STR analysis is in its statistical power of discrimination. Because the 13 loci that are currently used for discrimination in CODIS are independently assorted (having a certain number of repeats at one locus does not change the likelihood of having any number of repeats at any other locus), the product rule for probabilities can be applied. This means that, if someone has the DNA type of ABC, where the three loci were independent, we can say that the probability of having that DNA type is the probability of having type A times the probability of having type B times the probability of having type C. This has resulted in the ability to generate match probabilities of 1 in a quintillion (1x1018) or more. However, DNA database searches showed much more frequent than expected false DNA profile matches. Moreover, since there are about 12 million monozygotic twins on Earth, the theoretical probability is not accurate.

In practice, the risk of contaminated-matching is much greater than matching a distant relative, such as contamination of a sample from nearby objects, or from left-over cells transferred from a prior test. The risk is greater for matching the most common person in the samples: Everything collected from, or in contact with, a victim is a major source of contamination for any other samples brought into a lab. For that reason, multiple control-samples are typically tested in order to ensure that they stayed clean, when prepared during the same period as the actual test samples. Unexpected matches (or variations) in several control-samples indicates a high probability of contamination for the actual test samples."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STR_analysis

Last edited by Numbers; 3rd November 2019 at 11:51 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 11:51 AM   #19
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,574
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Correct...but what has this to do with calling out another poster for "disrespecting St. Peter"?



May we have some examples of this "intensive advertising in the media" allegedly undertaken by G-M, please? Once you've established with evidence that this actually occurred, then we'll discuss the commercial rates. Unless the former is verified, the latter is a waste of time.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The chutzpah. Stacyhs sets herself up as the judge and jury, whilst I am expected to jump through her hoops, when at the end of the day she dismisses anything contrary to her heroes. Justice, which is supposed to be cold, objective and neutral is not her strong point, at least not one likely to lead to a career in the judiciary that would last five minutes.
Is this ridiculous accusation supposed to divert us from noticing that you have not provided any examples of your claim? You made a claim; I asked for evidence of such by requesting examples. According to you, asking for evidence of a claim is making you 'jump through (my) hoops'. No, Vixen. Providing evidence is standard practice. Something which you seem reluctant ...or unable... to do. Why is that?

You are resorting to the tactic of "the best defense is a good offense". It's the go to response when someone is backed into a corner and they know it. Once you resort to it, you've lost the argument. Pack it up and go home.

Let me remind you of your own words, once again:

Quote:
If you want to make an allegation, the onus is on you to prove it, or at least to show probable cause.
(ISF 28, #2443)
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 12:29 PM   #20
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,574
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So if the 'it slid under the door' counter-theory doesn't work, let's try the 'it would fit any Tom Dick or Harry, er, Thomasina, Dicketta or Harriet - whoops - just realised we need to insert any old female name' <fx pats each other on the back laughing uproariously at their own cleverness>
The only person here to mention a "it slid under the door" theory is you. None of us has ever proposed such a thing. I'd ask for a quote from any of us here proposing said theory but we all know that would be futile. Why you insist on attributing such a ridiculous theory to us is intellectual dishonesty.

The rest of your post reveals that you missed LJ's point completely. Swoosh...
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 01:10 PM   #21
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,574
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9#post12878629

A useful non-technical reference on the analysis of profiles of DNA mixtures:

https://www.nist.gov/featured-storie...ence-explainer

Here is a quote from the above source with an analogy on DNA mixtures:

"UNCERTAINTY #2: Whose peak is it anyway?

When analyzing a DNA mixture, the alleles from all the contributors show up on the same chart. This can make it difficult to tease apart the DNA profiles of the individual contributors. To understand why this makes things complicated, recall that after amplifying the DNA, the forensic scientist has a test tube with millions of copies of the alleles in solution. Think of that test tube as a bowl of alphabet soup.

In this bowl of soup, each letter represents a different type of allele. Our suspect is named JOHN Q SUSPECT.



We analyze the soup and find that all the letters in the suspectís name are present. Does that mean someone named JOHN Q SUSPECT contributed to the soup?

Not necessarily. There could have been two contributors named PATRICK QUEEN and JUSTIN OHR. In that case, the soup would have all the letters needed to spell JOHN Q SUSPECT, even though no person with that name contributed to the soup."
The example provided by Numbers comes directly from NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology):

Quote:
NIST has produced several PCR-based DNA Profiling Standard Reference Materials (SRMs) for the forensic community. The primary uses of these materials are validation and calibration of currently used methods for quality assurance purposes.
But what do they know? They're only scientists, four of whom are Nobel Prize winners.



Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Er, best stick to law.

Er, best stick to accounting.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 02:44 PM   #22
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,234
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
It was the bra clasp, not strap.


Well yes (though obv the clasp is part of the strap...). And Guede's DNA was not on the clasp

(I'm guessing that Vixen meant Sollecito, not Guede)
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 02:48 PM   #23
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,234
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
The example provided by Numbers comes directly from NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology):



But what do they know? They're only scientists, four of whom are Nobel Prize winners.


There's really very little one can do to counter opinions that are borne of scientific illiteracy, Stacy. Especially when a body such as NIST does excellent lay analogies - which are explicitly intended to explain and reveal somewhat esoteric/complex science concepts to non-scientists - and those analogies apparently remain misunderstood (or totally lacking in understanding) as well....
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 02:56 PM   #24
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,234
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The chutzpah. Stacyhs sets herself up as the judge and jury, whilst I am expected to jump through her hoops, when at the end of the day she dismisses anything contrary to her heroes. Justice, which is supposed to be cold, objective and neutral is not her strong point, at least not one likely to lead to a career in the judiciary that would last five minutes.


No, Vixen. You're being asked to supply evidence to support YOUR claims.

Specifically, in this instance:

1) Evidence to support your claim that the Knox family engaged in a "$2 million PR campaign" (evidence which you claimed you possessed....)

2) Evidence to support your claim that the PR activities undertaken by the Knox family included "intensive advertising in the media".


No known evidence exists (in the public domain), as yet, to support either of these claims of yours, Vixen. And it's you who made these claims. Therefore it's entirely incumbent upon you to support these claims with (credible, reliable) evidence, or else withdraw them (I can't really believe that I and others are still having to explain this concept to you).

On the other hand, you could simply admit that both claims are lies (which, in fact, they are, aren't they), and move on to raise (yet) another mole from a different burrow.....
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 03:35 PM   #25
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,574
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Well yes (though obv the clasp is part of the strap...). And Guede's DNA was not on the clasp

(I'm guessing that Vixen meant Sollecito, not Guede)
For accuracy's sake, the clasp is not part of the strap. The straps are the part that go over the shoulder. The clasp we are talking about is part of the back band.

According to the Vinci report, he found some alleles that were compatible with Guede, just as with Knox. But again, it could not be reliably used to identify anyone as Vinci wrote in his conclusion.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 03:54 PM   #26
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,234
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
For accuracy's sake, the clasp is not part of the strap. The straps are the part that go over the shoulder. The clasp we are talking about is part of the back band.

According to the Vinci report, he found some alleles that were compatible with Guede, just as with Knox. But again, it could not be reliably used to identify anyone as Vinci wrote in his conclusion.


Oh OK, I concede my lack of familiarity with bra component part names


(And the presence of some of Guede's alleles only tends to point once again to the dangers of suspect-centric "identification". It wouldn't be surprising if one could have found some (or even more) of the Pope's alleles on that noise-compromised admixture.....)
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 04:21 PM   #27
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,574
Vinci found some alleles that were compatible with Guede and Knox. Just as the letters S, E, N, and T are compatible with the names Steven, Stephen, Esteban, Nestor, Stanley, and Estancia.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 04:40 PM   #28
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,234
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Vinci found some alleles that were compatible with Guede and Knox. Just as the letters S, E, N, and T are compatible with the names Steven, Stephen, Esteban, Nestor, Stanley, and Estancia.


Exactly - just like the "John Q Suspect" analogy in the NIST paper.

Of course though, there are none so blind as those who will* not see.


* As a point of accuracy, the word "will" is used here in its original sense meaning "want to", not as the expression of the future tense it has come to represent. Therefore the quote in more modern language is "there are none so blind as those who do not want to see"....
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 01:06 AM   #29
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,245
Experiment

Aim

To examine genome sequencing.

Apparatus

- Plastacine, PlayDoh or dough made from a mix of flour water and oil. Alternatively, a paper and pencil. Pen and paper.

- Four different coloured highlighter pens.

- A knife or a pair of scissors.

Method

Roll out the plastacine (or other) into two long strips, reasonably thick.

Make a mark on one of them to denote 'SIDE A'.

Roll out and insert twenty 'rungs' to make your two strips look like a ladder.

Alternatively, draw your 'ladder' on a piece of paper.

Now using the four different colour highlighters mark the 'SIDE A' rungs different colours in any order, ensuring the full range of the four is spread along 'SIDE A' of the ladder. If using paper and pencil, simply write in the letters A,B,C or D along the side of the rungs, in any order but using all four evenly, so there is five of each.

Now repeat this process on the other side of the ladder 'SIDE B' using the same method as for 'SIDE A'.

Now carefully take one end of of your 'ladder' in one hand and the other in the other hand. Carefully turn one end clockwise whilst turning the other end anti-clockwise, just once or twice.

If on paper, cut around the ladder drawing and twist, as above.

This represents the double helix of a DNA strand. (NB: In a DNA model the 'rungs' strictly speaking are four-cornered squares with a different sugar/amino-acid on each corner, but to keep it simple, we will not concern ourselves with that, here.)

STEP 2.

Now straighten out your ladder again and keeping it flat, lay it down on a flat even surface in any direction you like, back to front, upside down, obliquely or even in a curve.

Jot down the sequence you have on 'SIDE A' and then the sequence on 'SIDE B' as per your highlighter colours (see above) or your pencil annotation on a piece of paper or laptop.

These sequences represent your pairs of alleles, with opposite sides of each rung pairing with each other. For example, RED/BLUE, GREEN/GREEN, YELLOW/BLACK, BLACK/RED etc., etc., or A/B, C/C, D/B, D/A, etc, etc. Jot down your pairs, using the same order. These are your markers.

STEP 3.

Taking a knife, or a pair of scissors, cut your double helix into three sections, horizontally, so that you have two sections with seven pairs of alleles and one with six.


Mix them around.

Jot down the paired sequences of each of your sections. This represents your STR strings.


Results

Your DNA sequencing remains in a fixed particular sequence regardless of how much you stir them around, mix them up or amplify them. The STR sections are allele fragments and can still be used in DNA identification if sufficient pairs of alleles match.

Homework So, a forensic police officer now hands you the DNA/STR sequence of a possible suspect. You are asked to calculate the probability the suspect's markers matches that found at the scene of the crime, as per your analysis, above.

What is the probability that the suspect's DNA/STR marker sequence matches your sample? (Hint: work on the basis of NULL HYPOTHESIS: the probability the sample comes from a completely random section of the population and not the crime scene. At what level will you rule out it is pure chance? Hint: this could be at the 95% level or 99% or even 99.9%. [Note as the alleles are paired the probability calculation will be based on (4 x 4) ^20, (or ^7 or ^6, depending on number of loci you are looking at.]

CONCLUSION

Your marker sequences do not change position in a random higgledy piggledy manner like an anagram. A sequence showing, say:

JOHN Q SUSPECT

Cannot possibly match a suspect with the DNA/STR sequence of

PATRICK QUEEN

or

JUSTIN OHR

DNA is not an alphabetti-spaghetti soup, as this experiment demonstrates.

It will be readily seen that the probability that a random man in the street has the same sequence of markers as DNA found at a crime scene to be objectively vanishingly remote and resistant to manipulation.


Here endeth today's lesson.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'

Last edited by Vixen; 4th November 2019 at 01:29 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 03:37 AM   #30
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 730
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Experiment

Aim

To examine genome sequencing.

Apparatus

- Plastacine, PlayDoh or dough made from a mix of flour water and oil. Alternatively, a paper and pencil. Pen and paper.

- Four different coloured highlighter pens.

- A knife or a pair of scissors.

Method

Roll out the plastacine (or other) into two long strips, reasonably thick.

Make a mark on one of them to denote 'SIDE A'.

Roll out and insert twenty 'rungs' to make your two strips look like a ladder.

Alternatively, draw your 'ladder' on a piece of paper.

Now using the four different colour highlighters mark the 'SIDE A' rungs different colours in any order, ensuring the full range of the four is spread along 'SIDE A' of the ladder. If using paper and pencil, simply write in the letters A,B,C or D along the side of the rungs, in any order but using all four evenly, so there is five of each.

Now repeat this process on the other side of the ladder 'SIDE B' using the same method as for 'SIDE A'.

Now carefully take one end of of your 'ladder' in one hand and the other in the other hand. Carefully turn one end clockwise whilst turning the other end anti-clockwise, just once or twice.

If on paper, cut around the ladder drawing and twist, as above.

This represents the double helix of a DNA strand. (NB: In a DNA model the 'rungs' strictly speaking are four-cornered squares with a different sugar/amino-acid on each corner, but to keep it simple, we will not concern ourselves with that, here.)

STEP 2.

Now straighten out your ladder again and keeping it flat, lay it down on a flat even surface in any direction you like, back to front, upside down, obliquely or even in a curve.

Jot down the sequence you have on 'SIDE A' and then the sequence on 'SIDE B' as per your highlighter colours (see above) or your pencil annotation on a piece of paper or laptop.

These sequences represent your pairs of alleles, with opposite sides of each rung pairing with each other. For example, RED/BLUE, GREEN/GREEN, YELLOW/BLACK, BLACK/RED etc., etc., or A/B, C/C, D/B, D/A, etc, etc. Jot down your pairs, using the same order. These are your markers.

STEP 3.

Taking a knife, or a pair of scissors, cut your double helix into three sections, horizontally, so that you have two sections with seven pairs of alleles and one with six.


Mix them around.

Jot down the paired sequences of each of your sections. This represents your STR strings.


Results

Your DNA sequencing remains in a fixed particular sequence regardless of how much you stir them around, mix them up or amplify them. The STR sections are allele fragments and can still be used in DNA identification if sufficient pairs of alleles match.

Homework So, a forensic police officer now hands you the DNA/STR sequence of a possible suspect. You are asked to calculate the probability the suspect's markers matches that found at the scene of the crime, as per your analysis, above.

What is the probability that the suspect's DNA/STR marker sequence matches your sample? (Hint: work on the basis of NULL HYPOTHESIS: the probability the sample comes from a completely random section of the population and not the crime scene. At what level will you rule out it is pure chance? Hint: this could be at the 95% level or 99% or even 99.9%. [Note as the alleles are paired the probability calculation will be based on (4 x 4) ^20, (or ^7 or ^6, depending on number of loci you are looking at.]

CONCLUSION

Your marker sequences do not change position in a random higgledy piggledy manner like an anagram. A sequence showing, say:

JOHN Q SUSPECT

Cannot possibly match a suspect with the DNA/STR sequence of

PATRICK QUEEN

or

JUSTIN OHR

DNA is not an alphabetti-spaghetti soup, as this experiment demonstrates.

It will be readily seen that the probability that a random man in the street has the same sequence of markers as DNA found at a crime scene to be objectively vanishingly remote and resistant to manipulation.


Here endeth today's lesson.
It is hilarious that Vixen who has consistently shown scientific illiteracy and ignorance in her posts still feels she is in a position to give science lessons.
Welshman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 05:05 AM   #31
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 544
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
[(NB: In a DNA model the 'rungs' strictly speaking are four-cornered squares with a different sugar/amino-acid on each corner, but to keep it simple, we will not concern ourselves with that, here.)
You still haven't figured out the difference between DNA and protein? This has been going on for years now Vixen.
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 05:21 AM   #32
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,234
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
You still haven't figured out the difference between DNA and protein? This has been going on for years now Vixen.


"A different sugar on each corner" LMAO

Pitiful
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 05:23 AM   #33
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 544
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post

Your marker sequences do not change position in a random higgledy piggledy manner like an anagram. A sequence showing, say:

JOHN Q SUSPECT

Cannot possibly match a suspect with the DNA/STR sequence of

PATRICK QUEEN

or

JUSTIN OHR

DNA is not an alphabetti-spaghetti soup, as this experiment demonstrates.

It will be readily seen that the probability that a random man in the street has the same sequence of markers as DNA found at a crime scene to be objectively vanishingly remote and resistant to manipulation.
Forensic DNA profiling is not the same as DNA sequencing. Thus beginneth your error.
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 08:47 AM   #34
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 43,958
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
(NB: In a DNA model the 'rungs' strictly speaking are four-cornered squares with a different sugar/amino-acid on each corner, but to keep it simple, we will not concern ourselves with that, here.)



That's right up there with males are YY and males don't have mitochondrial DNA.

Vixen, you would not get a job even as a demonstrator in my lab. Even when we use simplistic models to get a point across it is required that both students and staff actually understand the basics of the biology involved.


ETA: Oops, sorry, everybody else seems to have noticed this too.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 4th November 2019 at 08:48 AM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 11:52 AM   #35
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,574
Where did you get this 'experiment', Vixen? You didn't cite it and I can't find it anywhere.

Is this another made up experiment similar to your "ketchup transfer" experiment?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 12:53 PM   #36
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,245
Vixen still does not understand the difference between base pairs, loci and alleles. It is as if she does not understand that some of us have actually done this stuff as undergraduates, now I am not going to claim to be an expert, it was 15 years ago, but I have extracted DNA, done PCR, sequenced a small part of a gene. tagged a house keeping gene with a fluorescent marker inserted it in to a plasmid injected it into the girlfriend and now she glows in the dark when she hoovers.

ETA some of the above I will deny if any of you report me to the ethics board.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 03:25 PM   #37
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,380
Vixen, the following table represents Amanda's DNA profile and how it maps to the DNA extraction performed on sample 165B - the bra clasp.

There are three columns (A, B & C), which represent three different interpretations of the egram from the sample. Col A is what is reported in the RTIGF. Col B is every peak, with no minimum RFU value and Col C is all peaks with an RFU of 50 and above.

For each loci, I compare Amanda's profile to those of the sample as cited in each of the three interpretations. If there is a match, then I highlight the box with either yellow (found in Meredith's profile), red (Sollecito), purple (Guede) or white text on black (unique to Amanda).

As you can see, based on what was reported in the RTIGF, there were no unique allleles from Amanda. Where a minimum of 50 RFU is enforced from the egram (Col C), there are three alleles unique to Amanda. As 50 RFU is the limit Stefanoni adheres to, this is the most incriminating result one can reasonably argue. And I'm sure even Balding would tell you (as he already has) this is NOT evidence of Amanda's profile on the clasp.



In case you're confused on how to interpret this...

Consider locus D8S1179 (Amanda profile: 11, 12)

The RTIGF reports 13, 15 & 16 so no alleles match Amanda's profile and so under Col A for this loci the two boxes are not highlighted.

Per the egram, 12,13,14,15 & 16 are all above 50 RFU and so under Col C for this loci the box with 12 is highlighted (allele 12 is in Amanda's profile and this interpretation of the egram), 11 is not.

If either 11 or 12 was found in Meredith, Raffaele or Guede's profile then those boxes would be highlighted with the correct color. In this case, 12 is not in anyone else's profile so it's unique to Amanda and is highlighted as white on black.

There is far more information to consider than just this. For example, in the Vinci report, regarding this particular locus he writes;

"D8S1179: a profile 13, 15, 16 was attributed to the trace. Alleles 12 and 14 (RFU> 50) were omitted. The 12 allele having an area of 689 (less than 15% of the area of ​​the neighboring main peak (6239) could have been considered a stutter of the main allele 13 (the percentage of stutter for these small ones varies from 3 to 8% as reported by the manufacturer). This eventuality can not excluded but, in the presence of no more DNA present in the mixture at a concentration of about one tenth compared to the component greater, a stutter band is absolutely indistinguishable from a true allele that should have been attributed. For the 14 allele of the assessment (469 ie at least 45% of the peak area 15 next , (1171)) shows that this peak is not considered in the analysis has a higher percentage of 15% (if we consider the definition stutter band) and therefore must be considered in all respects effects a definable allele and attributable in the mixture."

So even though in the more liberal interpretation of the egram we see allele 12 appear, based on it's relative low RFU, it's reasonable to consider this stutter.

I can't wait to see The Machine's presentation. That should really push his creative writing skills to the limit.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 04:18 PM   #38
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,574
Thank you, TC.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 4th November 2019 at 04:32 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 05:47 PM   #39
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,574
Vecchiotti testified that the DNA on the bra was so mixed that she could find her own loci in that mix:
Quote:
1.20 pm - In the mixed track of DNA found on the hook of the bra worn by Meredith Kercher, the genetic profile of one of the experts of the Court of Appeal of Perugia can also be identified. "There's also me", explained Professor Carla Vecchiotti, answering a question from Raffaele Sollecito's defense. "Nine loci correspond to me," said the expert. Experts have argued that the trace on the hook is composed of the DNA of several subjects. One is "certainly" - it was explained - that of the student. For others - according to the experts - the genetic profiles of more people can be reconstructed. Like Sollecito but also - it has emerged today - by Professor Vecchiotti herself.
http://www.umbrialeft.it/notizie/pro...cesso-dappello

If I'm reading the chart above correctly, Amanda matched only 5 loci whereas Vecchiotti matched 9 loci. Crime solved: Vecchiotti did it!
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 06:00 PM   #40
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,234
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Vixen, the following table represents Amanda's DNA profile and how it maps to the DNA extraction performed on sample 165B - the bra clasp.

There are three columns (A, B & C), which represent three different interpretations of the egram from the sample. Col A is what is reported in the RTIGF. Col B is every peak, with no minimum RFU value and Col C is all peaks with an RFU of 50 and above.

For each loci, I compare Amanda's profile to those of the sample as cited in each of the three interpretations. If there is a match, then I highlight the box with either yellow (found in Meredith's profile), red (Sollecito), purple (Guede) or white text on black (unique to Amanda).

As you can see, based on what was reported in the RTIGF, there were no unique allleles from Amanda. Where a minimum of 50 RFU is enforced from the egram (Col C), there are three alleles unique to Amanda. As 50 RFU is the limit Stefanoni adheres to, this is the most incriminating result one can reasonably argue. And I'm sure even Balding would tell you (as he already has) this is NOT evidence of Amanda's profile on the clasp.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ictureid=12295

In case you're confused on how to interpret this...

Consider locus D8S1179 (Amanda profile: 11, 12)

The RTIGF reports 13, 15 & 16 so no alleles match Amanda's profile and so under Col A for this loci the two boxes are not highlighted.

Per the egram, 12,13,14,15 & 16 are all above 50 RFU and so under Col C for this loci the box with 12 is highlighted (allele 12 is in Amanda's profile and this interpretation of the egram), 11 is not.

If either 11 or 12 was found in Meredith, Raffaele or Guede's profile then those boxes would be highlighted with the correct color. In this case, 12 is not in anyone else's profile so it's unique to Amanda and is highlighted as white on black.

There is far more information to consider than just this. For example, in the Vinci report, regarding this particular locus he writes;

"D8S1179: a profile 13, 15, 16 was attributed to the trace. Alleles 12 and 14 (RFU> 50) were omitted. The 12 allele having an area of 689 (less than 15% of the area of ​​the neighboring main peak (6239) could have been considered a stutter of the main allele 13 (the percentage of stutter for these small ones varies from 3 to 8% as reported by the manufacturer). This eventuality can not excluded but, in the presence of no more DNA present in the mixture at a concentration of about one tenth compared to the component greater, a stutter band is absolutely indistinguishable from a true allele that should have been attributed. For the 14 allele of the assessment (469 ie at least 45% of the peak area 15 next , (1171)) shows that this peak is not considered in the analysis has a higher percentage of 15% (if we consider the definition stutter band) and therefore must be considered in all respects effects a definable allele and attributable in the mixture."

So even though in the more liberal interpretation of the egram we see allele 12 appear, based on it's relative low RFU, it's reasonable to consider this stutter.

I can't wait to see The Machine's presentation. That should really push his creative writing skills to the limit.


Exactly.

And it's not just those alleles that (according to one's interpretation* of the eGram) might be present at any given locus - it's also those which are not present.

For example, at D7S820, if Knox's DNA were indeed present on the sample we would expect to see a peak at allele 9. But no such peak is present. This in itself is good evidence for the absence of Knox's DNA on the sample. And there are several other similar instances from that chart.


* Uninformed/uneducated pro-guilt commentators also seem to believe that DNA analysis is a "black and white" matter, where there's no room for subjectivity or operator bias. But of course that's nonsense, especially when one is analysing a) samples near or below the low-template range, and/or b) samples which contain admixtures of DNA from several contributors. In the case of the bra clasp, both these things are true. In these circumstances, it's vital that analysts guard strongly against subject-centric identifications, and it's equally vital that analysts are rigorous in their interpretation of true peaks from stutter and other noise. Not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni did neither......
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:12 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.