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 , sexism issues

Reply
Old Today, 01:50 PM   #2081
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,435
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Looks like that study was based on fraud and deliberate misrepresentation.

If those experts with 'confirmation bias' were to be cross-examined, their bias and having been deceived by 'authority figures', would soon be exposed by skilled questioning.
LOL! Is that really the best you can do? Accuse the study of "fraud and misrepresentation"?

How about this one? Just another case of "fraud and misrepresentation"?
From "Forensic Confirmation Bias: When the Evidence Doesn’t Speak for Itself". Kukucka, J. 6/2013

Quote:
Along these same lines, we propose that forensic analysts who possess an a priori belief in a suspect’s guilt are vulnerable to forensic confirmation biases that render them more likely to see evidence as incriminating — even when it is not.

A growing body of real-world cases and research studies demonstrate this point. For example, following the 2004 Madrid train bombings, three FBI fingerprint experts confidently concluded that a latent print taken from a bag containing detonating devices belonged to Brandon Mayfield, an American Muslim attorney in Oregon. Mayfield spent 17 days in FBI custody before Spanish authorities identified the true perpetrator. At that point, the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General ordered a full review of the case and ultimately implicated “confirmation bias” as contributing to Mayfield’s misidentification, adding that a “loss of objectivity” led examiners to see “similarities... that were not in fact present.”

Inspired by this case, Itiel Dror and his colleagues cleverly tested whether forensic examiners can be biased by their expectations. They presented five fingerprint experts with prints that, unbeknownst to them, they had deemed a “match” earlier in their career. When told that these prints were taken from the Mayfield case, four of the five experts now concluded that they did not match, suggesting that their judgments were sensitive to context. In a follow-up study, Dror and David Charlton gave experts case files containing prints that they had (unknowingly) examined before, along with additional evidence that implied guilt (i.e., a confession) or innocence (i.e., an iron-clad alibi). When given this new information, experts changed 17 percent of their own prior judgments.

Knowledge of other evidence against a suspect biases judgments in other domains as well. For example, it affects whether investigators see their face as similar to a computer-generated composite, whether eyewitnesses identify them from a lineup, whether polygraph examiners score their charts as deceptive, whether DNA experts conclude that a complex DNA sample implicates them, and whether jurors perceive auditory and handwriting evidence as incriminating.

Latent fingerprint analysis is one of the more well-established domains of forensic science — it has been routinely admitted in courts for nearly a century and studies find that experts generally produce highly accurate judgments — yet these human examiners are vulnerable to the same confirmation biases that plague us all. It logically follows that other, less ‘scientific’ domains of forensic science that involve visual comparisons (e.g., handwriting identification, microscopic hair and fiber analysis, forensic odontology, etc.) could be similarly hampered by confirmation bias.
Next excuse!
Stacyhs is online now   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 Today, 02:00 PM   #2082
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,847
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Well there's nothing wrong with opinion per se - it's when that opinion is so poorly formed, so horribly biassed, so misrepresentative of facts and evidence, so laced with hyperbolic personal animosity towards certain protagonists, so constructed from long-discredited pro-guilt propaganda, so devoid of intelligent and objective analysis and reason....... it's then that it becomes a problem
It's beginning to sound like you do not approve!
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams 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 Today, 02:01 PM   #2083
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,435
Vixen, are you going to respond to my request to quote Knox where she shows "appalling disrespect" to Don Saulo in her article? Or is your claim going to be thrown onto the rapidly growing pile of your other unsupported allegations?
Stacyhs is online now   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 Today, 02:11 PM   #2084
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,679
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Vixen, are you going to respond to my request to quote Knox where she shows "appalling disrespect" to Don Saulo in her article? Or is your claim going to be thrown onto the rapidly growing pile of your other unsupported allegations?

I have it on exceptionally reliable pro-guilt sources that Knox called Don Saulo "the devil incarnate" and she said that if she was able to get close to him again she would stab him through the heart with kitchen scissors. She's an evil, evil bitch, that Knox. Not like Saint Mez of Coulsdon.
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 Today, 02:16 PM   #2085
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,679
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
It's beginning to sound like you do not approve!

It's more a mixture of bafflement at such shockingly poor reasoning and latent bias, and genuine curiosity at how that level of poor reasoning and vindictiveness could go on for so long (seemingly with zero ability or desire to assimilate a true representation of facts), than it is disapproval.........
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 Today, 02:23 PM   #2086
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 566
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Don't be silly. Rinaldi & Boemia were not shy in rejecting some prints as not usable.

Being bent, as you claim, surely they would have pinned more on Rudy Guede.

You are deluding yourself if you sincerely believe the Forensic Police and the Fingerprint experts ignored their objective scientific training to fix it for the prosecution.
Right, actually they labled all of the prints they worked with "non utile...", the problem is, that they "used" them anyway....

May I remind you of this post, which you chose to ignore at the time?
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Unlike Gill, Budowle, Conti et al Rinaldi & Boemia are employed by the Scientific Police, which tells you they have proved they are of a high professional standard. Professional means ethically sound, proven reliablitly of results and excellent academical credentials to have beaten off the fierce competition at entry level, in the first place.


They have zero motive to fake their results (unlike the crook, Vinci, who would swing it for Saddam for the right price). In any case, if they were bent, being Italians, they would have swung it in favour of their own kind and pinned it on the African.
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
Actually Rinaldi and Boemia were doing that analysis not in their position as police officers, but as hired consultants for the prosecution, as this document shows.

They were - as you seem to like that term so much - paid shills for the prosecution, paid to find evidence against the defendants. Not being paid for not delivering the "right" evidence, looks like a quite likely "motive to fake their results". At least to me, it does.
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..."
Methos 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 Today, 02:31 PM   #2087
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 566
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Marasca-Bruno said it and they are not a lower court, they are the highest court (Supreme Court). Even Bruno as friend of Bongiorno (she repreented him in his indictment for mafia involvement) stated Amanda washed off Mez' blood, was at the scene and did cover up for Rudy.

The pair may have got out of jail but they are by no means exonerated or declared innocent.

Turning this FACT into an ad hominem against the messenger, doesn't help your argument, in fact, it underpins how weak it is.
Source for the highlighted part, please...
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..."
Methos 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 Today, 02:33 PM   #2088
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 566
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Sure, there might be one, there might even be two. However, what is the likelihood that every single forensic police and expert witness, including some of Italy's leading geneticists were all completley and utterly bent to a man?

Zilch, zippo, nada.
Who are those "Italy's leading geneticists" supposed to be, and did they testify in court under cross examination?
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..."
Methos 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 Today, 02:38 PM   #2089
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,679
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
Who are those "Italy's leading geneticists" supposed to be, and did they testify in court under cross examination?

Well, Vixen's post seems to imply that (in her view) these "leading Italian geneticists" came from within the ranks of the "forensic police (working on this case)" and "expert witnesses (who testified in court for the prosecution in this case)".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA!!
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 Today, 03:16 PM   #2090
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,908
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I wouldn't last five minutes in jail, I am sure. You make a good point about prisoners seizing the chance to get out of their cell and possibly some 'god-botherers' might take advantage of the jailbird's vulnerable position.

However, that isn't the issue. The issue according to Amanda Knox' case study, someone called McKibben (_sp?) an atheist, was freaking out because she couldn't commit to an AA-style 12 step recovery programme as an atheist and was thus, worried she would go back to jail as being perceived as not wanting to reform.

That is to misunderstand how the 12-step recovery process works, it is ipso facto based on the participant being (a) at rock bottom (b) wanting to transform their lives (for example, away from drug/alcohol addiction, a life of crime and anti-social attitudes) and concurring they have no power to do this on their own, because of (i) the people they mix with (ii) too much temptation, and (iii) weakness of will.

I don't know why the AA 12-step programme works, but it does work, with many ex-addicts finding a new hidden resource to overcome their cravings and to transform their lives.

McKibben seems to be saying she was resistant to admitting she had no control over her own impulses and to surrender to a 'higher power'.


If atheists do not believe in any higher power, then I don't see how there can be an atheist equivalent. Fact is, addicts are resistant to change. All they live for is scoring their next fix or sneaking a drink.


Knox unfairly calls the AA 12-step programme a 'cult tactic' to use on vulnerable prisoners. Fact is, the AA 12-step has been successful,which is why it is used. The consent comes from the individual. Your life won't change, unless you make the decision you want to change it. It is the person's own hidden resources that overcomes their obstacle to recovery.

She doesn't outline an alternative programme.

In other words, she is promoting her own atheism and defiance by attacking a benevolent programme designed to help vulnerable prisoners and falsely labelling it 'a cult'.

The AA is not a cult.
Really? The “Twelve Steps” of Alcoholics Anonymous have a significant spiritual component, and six of the twelve make direct reference to God or a “higher power.” Those following the program must acknowledge their powerlessness over alcohol and their dependence upon God to restore them to health.
In the third step, for instance, members “Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.”

Now I know that you as a Christian think all of this is all true and good. But as an atheist, I think it is a crock and it insults my intelligence and how I think. I don't drink or take drugs so I have never attended a 12 step program. But I can't tell you how much I would resist this program.

There is significant argument over the efficacy of 12 step programs for multiple reasons.
1. It's anonymous and no data is actually kept.
2.It also has a self affirming loophole that limits accountability. Basically, if you follow the steps it works and if you regress you weren't following the steps.

This whole subject is miles off topic. We wouldn't be discussing it at all if not for Amanda's column. As an atheist who believes that God is superfluous and that religions have unfair and way too much influence I agree with Amanda.

I also believe Amanda has the right to express her opinion on any subject without that opinion being judged as right or wrong based on the events in Perugia.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; Today at 03:17 PM.
acbytesla is online now   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 Today, 03:22 PM   #2091
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 566
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Well, Vixen's post seems to imply that (in her view) these "leading Italian geneticists" came from within the ranks of the "forensic police (working on this case)" and "expert witnesses (who testified in court for the prosecution in this case)".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA!!
Well, Garofano gave testimony on Italian "National" TV and in "Darkness Descending", that's as good as any courtroom, I guess...

Stefanoni's boss confirmed "that we did a good job" and

Stefanoni herself (who are you to call her "not a real doctor") made clear that Pascali's request for the "raw data" was actually a calunnia against her, so she righteously and rightfully refused that attempt...

On a sidenote, Vixen, looking at the documents, it looks like Pascali left because Stefanoni wasn't cooperating... another myth busted
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..."
Methos 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 Today, 04:01 PM   #2092
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,679
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
Stefanoni herself (who are you to call her "not a real doctor") made clear that Pascali's request for the "raw data" was actually a calunnia against her, so she righteously and rightfully refused that attempt...

Who can fail to look on in awe and wonder as not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni here attempts (apparently with success!) to convince a judge that the ONLY reason why Pascali would be asking for the raw data would be that he suspected her of deliberate falsification of results* (as opposed, of course, to the far more likely factors related to unconscious bias in interpretations, contamination, or good old-fashioned incompetence....). A case study in scientific objectivity and honesty there from Stefanoni. Not.



Quote:
On a sidenote, Vixen, looking at the documents, it looks like Pascali left because Stefanoni wasn't cooperating... another myth busted

Indeed. And Indeed. What number are we up to now? 27,308?


* With, of course, the attendant screamed implication that Pascali's request for the raw data was an outrageous, dishonourable one which was more-or-less directly accusing her of criminal-level acts of "fitting up", that obviously (your honour Micheli) this was inconceivable, and that the judge should therefore totally disregard Pascali's request without a second thought as the disgraceful smear (and exercise in mischievousness, not to mention pointlessness) that it so clearly was........

Last edited by LondonJohn; Today at 04:12 PM.
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 Today, 05:11 PM   #2093
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,435
I asked Vixen earlier for evidence that Pascali walked off the case due to his finding "Amanda's DNA on the bra clasp". She never supplied it. Classic.

Referring back to the discussion about Amanda being "appallingly disrespectful" to Don Saulo, this is what he had to say about Amanda:

Quote:
Mandela spent half his life in prison yet he was free within his heart and conscience because he said, 'I'm innocent.' That's how it is with Amanda.
From what I know of her I can say Amanda is incapable of murder. People say she was drugged, I don't know about that, but the person I know couldn't have done that on that night.
This is my conviction. I could be wrong and we'll find out in Paradise.
(Daily News, Feb 08, 2014)

Of course, I'm sure he was just a shill.

Last edited by Stacyhs; Today at 05:21 PM.
Stacyhs is online now   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 06:29 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.