Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[MDDVS]

I don't think the geocentrism/heliocentrism (17th century) controversy is a good analogy at all for this case.

 

[anglolawyer]

The luminol evidence, IMO, is only suggestive.

The "all kinds of things point to the person being murdered..." sounds as though it is conclusive in itself.

Suggestive is more than nothing. It's part of the picture. Let's say consistent, not in the dishonest sense used by Massei, Nencini et al but in the true sense as assisting in pointing to a single, coherent set of facts.

 

[Numbers]

Yes Numbers. And the proof people had that the stars were so distant was... There was no proof actually. The fact remained that the stars appered to not have parallax. Heliocentrism at the time required special pleading.

You cannot use Occam's razor to explain away observational facts. Both theories were consisten with evidence but one of them required special pleading regarding the distances to the other stars.

Also note that there were improved variants of Tycho's model which included a rotating Earth, for example.

I think that it is a mistake to judge Science in the past using knowledge that we have now but was not available at the time.

You have your own view and you are entitled to it.
The Tycho article, read to the end, explains the religious motivation behind the persistence of the various geo-heliocentric models.
The differences in retrograde motion of inner and outer planets were known to the ancient Greeks (such as Ptomely). The proper interpretation required the work of Copernicus, Tycho, Kepler, and Galileo.

Can we drop this now?

 

[MDDVS]

You have your own view and you are entitled to it.
The Tycho article, read to the end, explains the religious motivation behind the persistence of the various geo-heliocentric models.
The differences in retrograde motion of inner and outer planets were known to the ancient Greeks (such as Ptomely). The proper interpretation required the work of Copernicus, Tycho, Kepler, and Galileo.

Can we drop this now?

I tried to continue via private message.

 

[Numbers]

Suggestive is more than nothing. It's part of the picture. Let's say consistent, not in the dishonest sense used by Massei, Nencini et al but in the true sense as assisting in pointing to a single, coherent set of facts.

Please see my edit. I made my point more clear (at least to me).

 

[griffinmill]

This is a good example of muddled thinking. A luminol-positive result means that peroxidase activity is present. It could come from blood, from peroxidase enzymes, from metal ions, or from other things. It does not point one way or the other on its own. In a 2005 article James O. Pex wrote, "Luminol does not positively identify blood. This procedure requires a confirmatory test before blood is identified. Although luminol may be more sensitive than the confirmatory tests, this does not alleviate the need for confirmation. In the absence of confirmation, it cannot be stated that blood is present." I would like to add that with the availability of HemaTrace, the lower limit of detection is so low as to alleviate any concern.

In the present case, the lack of Meredith's DNA in the majority of the luminol-positive areas along with the negative TMB results point away from the conclusion that blood is present. On the other hand, the presence of Meredith's DNA in the minority of the stains does not constitute a confirmatory test for blood. The following passage is helpful in regards to interpreting the blobs in Filomena's room: "A positive luminol reaction and a DNA profile from that area does not identify blood. It is possible that the DNA profile originated from another biological fluid such as saliva or semen in the same area." I would add that in the time since 2005 research into DNA forensics has made everyone become increasingly aware of the possibility of DNA deposition that does not involve a particular body fluid.

This would be the same James Pex who rented himself out in 2009 to Ronnie Spector, cleared 66K, and was accused of perjury. The judge even went so far as to read him his rights while on the witness stand.

But I'm sure when he conducts his experiments and writes his papers, he's purely a man of science and has no agenda whatsoever.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/23/local/me-spector23/2

 

[Chris_Halkides]

luminol results prejudicial?

Suggestive is more than nothing. It's part of the picture. Let's say consistent, not in the dishonest sense used by Massei, Nencini et al but in the true sense as assisting in pointing to a single, coherent set of facts.

anglolawyer,

I am sympathetic to the idea that a positive result with luminol has some informational value, but I worry that the average jury would not understand the distinction between presumptive versus confirmatory tests and just conclude that the substance must be blood. Therefore, I lean slightly toward the view of excluding luminol results which have not corroborating information. With respect to this case, the potentially corroborating tests either were not done, or they were done and pointed to the conclusion that the stains were not blood.

 

[Desert Fox]

I thought it was a living room rather than a garage. Luminol may not be the best example for the point I am making because it's evidence that can be firmed up but let's try anyway. Suppose someone has disappeared, last seen entering a particular house on a particular date. A lot of suspicious activity has been noted, including extensive and uncharacteristic cleaning of the house and, let's say, a car. All kinds of things point to the person having been murdered after entering the house. A luminol test reveals a large blotch on the living room floor, about the size of a body but, unfortunately, TMB and other tests are negative. Do you say that evidence is completely worthless?

If not, pretty damn close. Any other evidence is going to be far more important. What happens if I spilled a bottle of cleaner for example.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

James Pex

This would be the same James Pex who rented himself out in 2009 to Ronnie Spector, cleared 66K, and was accused of perjury. The judge even went so far as to read him his rights while on the witness stand

Well this is a better effort from you than your statements about lemon juice. However, the issue is not as clear cut as you imply. The defense attorney had a very different view: "It was a mistake on a very small point. It's not perjury. It's not a lie. It's a mistake and it's being blown out of proportion," Weinberg said.

 

[Dan O.]

That's hilarious. griffinmill is deriding a defense team for 66k in services when Mignini spent twice that producing a single cartoon.
Ohh, but Pox was charged with perjury. What ever became of that charge? Is it even relevant in this case? Has griffinmill forgotten about the charges against Mignini?

 

[platonov]

Dear Platonov

Please post a link to these documents of yours or I will be forced to conclude you are afraid to argue this point with me.

Sincerely

Anglo

(Polite enough?)

There appears to be some confusion here.
I’m not going to argue the point with you. These arguments have been disposed of years ago – hence the link.

Now I am happy to accept (as you earlier claimed) that you have refuted arguments/evidence you have never read.
That’s not unusual on CT threads.
The only remaining Q is whether you can find the evidence referred to AND having read it THEN refute it.
In my experience that’s where the problems arise with these arguments.

But, your call. Note ‘Them Italians are liars’ has already been raised & dealt with.


Dan O – I’m beginning to regret having tried to help you out on this lamp evidence. Still the link is there.

 

[Numbers]

If not, pretty damn close. Any other evidence is going to be far more important. What happens if I spilled a bottle of cleaner for example.

Yes, or spaghetti sauce that then was cleaned up. Of course, the victim was killed and buried in the backyard, but we missed that because of our fascination with the luminol hit.

 

[Desert Fox]

Yes, or spaghetti sauce that then was cleaned up. Of course, the victim was killed and buried in the backyard, but we missed that because of our fascination with the luminol hit.

It is a lot like the semen evidence in the Russ Faria case. . . .What do you expect, they were husband and wife.

 

[anglolawyer]

There appears to be some confusion here.
I’m not going to argue the point with you. These arguments have been disposed of years ago – hence the link.

Now I am happy to accept (as you earlier claimed) that you have refuted arguments/evidence you have never read.
That’s not unusual on CT threads.
The only remaining Q is whether you can find the evidence referred to AND having read it THEN refute it.
In my experience that’s where the problems arise with these arguments.

But, your call. Note ‘Them Italians are liars’ has already been raised & dealt with.


Dan O – I’m beginning to regret having tried to help you out on this lamp evidence. Still the link is there.

In case you didn't notice, the point has not been settled, surprisingly. Nencini claims it is of 'undoubted importance' but, rather like your inability to post a link, seems unable to say why in 355 pages of drivel. Mach lobbed it into the discussion recently also, as part of his osmotic case, a very strange part given that Massei, Hellman and the ISC all ignored it, but it seems nothing can stop you guilters re-heating old crap in the hope that nobody is watching.

Let's just agree you are full of hot air and outside your comfort zone and leave it at that, shall we?

 

[anglolawyer]

anglolawyer,

I am sympathetic to the idea that a positive result with luminol has some informational value, but I worry that the average jury would not understand the distinction between presumptive versus confirmatory tests and just conclude that the substance must be blood. Therefore, I lean slightly toward the view of excluding luminol results which have not corroborating information. With respect to this case, the potentially corroborating tests either were not done, or they were done and pointed to the conclusion that the stains were not blood.

I am sure there is a better example of the point I am making. Luminol evidence can be improved intrinsically, as it were, whereas other types of evidence stand or fall by themselves unless shored up by something else.

In the English legal world, all this legal theorising is not really evident in trials. None of the leading texts you might expect to concern themselves with evidential logic (e.g.Phippson on Evidence, Archbold) do so. In Italy things are the other way around - the theory comes first. The subject, however, is extremely resistant to systemisation and I believe the motivations we have seen are riddled with logical inconsistencies, contradictions and hypocrisy. The unwarranted attack on Hellman's supposed failure to address all the evidence by a remand judge who laughably pronounces on the 'undoubted' importance of the lamp without saying what it is and discusses luminol without ever considering TMB or confirmatory testing, both of which were live issues before him, are good illustrations. Galati's own crime of petitio principii regarding which night Curatolo saw them, now sealed for all time into the Italian judgments in this case, is another.

 

[griffinmill]

Well this is a better effort from you than your statements about lemon juice. However, the issue is not as clear cut as you imply. The defense attorney had a very different view: "It was a mistake on a very small point. It's not perjury. It's not a lie. It's a mistake and it's being blown out of proportion," Weinberg said.

So his defense attorney thinks it was all an innocent mistake. How surprising.

It's also not the point as you well know. You love to quote scientific articles, but prefer not to mention that many of them are authored by professional defense witnesses. Like Dan Krane, who owns Forensic Biofinformatics, a for profit firm that is estimated to take in 500k - 1 million in revenues annually.

The interests of Pex, Krane, and others you cite are frequently aligned with the interests of defense attorneys in the guise of protecting innocents or raising standards, their beloved buzzwords. Defeating DNA evidence is what they get paid a lot of money to do, and pretending their research isn't agenda driven is a bit naive.

 

[Kauffer]

Reputation and science

So his defense attorney thinks it was all an innocent mistake. How surprising.

It's also not the point as you well know. You love to quote scientific articles, but prefer not to mention that many of them are authored by professional defense witnesses. Like Dan Krane, who owns Forensic Biofinformatics, a for profit firm that is estimated to take in 500k - 1 million in revenues annually.

The interests of Pex, Krane, and others you cite are frequently aligned with the interests of defense attorneys in the guise of protecting innocents or raising standards, their beloved buzzwords. Defeating DNA evidence is what they get paid a lot of money to do, and pretending their research isn't agenda driven is a bit naive.

You don't defeat DNA evidence. That's the point. The evidence is the evidence. It's not a team in a hockey match. But what you can do is misrepresent it. In this case it is only the misrepresentation that is advanced in support of guilt. The unadulterated science is soundly indicative of innocence. You can't attack the science and so you attack the scientist.

 

[Desert Fox]

You don't defeat DNA evidence. That's the point. The evidence is the evidence. It's not a team in a hockey match. But what you can do is misrepresent it. In this case it is only the misrepresentation that is advanced in support of guilt. The unadulterated science is soundly indicative of innocence. You can't attack the science and so you attack the scientist.

That is a lot like with global warming

 

[Diocletus]

So his defense attorney thinks it was all an innocent mistake. How surprising.

It's also not the point as you well know. You love to quote scientific articles, but prefer not to mention that many of them are authored by professional defense witnesses. Like Dan Krane, who owns Forensic Biofinformatics, a for profit firm that is estimated to take in 500k - 1 million in revenues annually.

The interests of Pex, Krane, and others you cite are frequently aligned with the interests of defense attorneys in the guise of protecting innocents or raising standards, their beloved buzzwords. Defeating DNA evidence is what they get paid a lot of money to do, and pretending their research isn't agenda driven is a bit naive.

This would be an interesting point except that every actual DNA expert who has ever weighed in on the issue says that the Stefanoni's work is crap. Except say-anything-for-a-buck Novelli.

 

[Kauffer]

Pex's credentials

So his defense attorney thinks it was all an innocent mistake. How surprising.

It's also not the point as you well know. You love to quote scientific articles, but prefer not to mention that many of them are authored by professional defense witnesses. Like Dan Krane, who owns Forensic Biofinformatics, a for profit firm that is estimated to take in 500k - 1 million in revenues annually.

The interests of Pex, Krane, and others you cite are frequently aligned with the interests of defense attorneys in the guise of protecting innocents or raising standards, their beloved buzzwords. Defeating DNA evidence is what they get paid a lot of money to do, and pretending their research isn't agenda driven is a bit naive.

So, James Pex was actually Director of the Oregon State Police Forensic Laboratory. How does that fit your thesis?

"James Pex joined the Oregon State Police (OSP) Crime Laboratory in 1978 and rose to the rank of Lieutenant before retiring to focus on his work at IFE. During his tenure with the OSP, Pex served as Director at the Oregon State Police Forensic Laboratory in Coos Bay, Oregon, undertaking a wide range of responsibilities that included analysis and processing of crime scene evidence and appearing in court as a forensic science expert witness. Over the course of his career with the OSP, James Pex devoted a considerable amount of time and energy outside of the laboratory and courtroom to his scholarly pursuits, writing and publishing over 20 in-depth articles on myriad forensic science-related issues. Moreover, Pex often attended symposiums and conferences in Oregon and across the United States, acting in the capacity of a guest lecturer at many of these events."

http://jamespex.wordpress.com/about/