Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mary_H said:
Wait a sec, Stacyhs. Is that what you meant to say?

Amanda's blood was not on the faucet. She never said so, either.
Click to expand...

Yes, her blood was on the faucet. A couple small drops that contained only her DNA that she thinks came from her infected piercing.
 
This article may be useful for this thread on a skeptics forum:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161026-how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth

The article discusses how those who want to make false information appear to be true resort to continual repetition of the false information, because there is a tendency - at least in lab studies - for people to be more likely to accept as true information that is repeated many times, even if it is false. However, in a study more closely modeling real experience, there was resistance to accepting the false information among persons who knew the true information.

The article concludes with these statements:

This [study by Lisa Fazio and her team at Vanderbilt University] shows something fundamental about how we update our beliefs – repetition has a power to make things sound more true, even when we know differently, but it doesn't over-ride that knowledge. ...

If repetition was the only thing that influenced what we believed we'd be in trouble, but it isn't. We can all bring to bear more extensive powers of reasoning, but we need to recognise they are a limited resource. Our minds are prey to the illusion of truth effect because our instinct is to use short-cuts in judging how plausible something is. Often this works. Sometimes it is misleading.

Once we know about the effect we can guard against it. Part of this is double-checking why we believe what we do – if something sounds plausible is it because it really is true, or have we just been told that repeatedly? This is why scholars are so mad about providing references - so we can track the origin on any claim, rather than having to take it on faith.
But part of guarding against the illusion is the obligation it puts on us to stop repeating falsehoods. We live in a world where the facts matter, and should matter. If you repeat things without bothering to check if they are true, you are helping to make a world where lies and truth are easier to confuse. So, please, think before you repeat.
Click to expand...
 
Stacyhs said:
I omitted nothing. Neither I, nor anyone else, has ever said that Amanda's blood was not on the faucet. You claimed her blood on the faucet was "fresh from the night of the murder" and "Amanda said so herself" I pointed out that just because she didn't SEE her blood on the faucet does not mean it wasn't there before the murder. It could have been deposited earlier. I can only imagine you are making false claims about what I said because you have a mission to twist things like a pretzel.

Nice attempt at diversion. Why all this info that has nothing to do with what I said? You claimed that Amanda had to have washed her hands of Meredith's blood leaving epithelial cells mixed in the blood. "Shedding DNA that only comes from intense friction (rubbing of hands together). This is not a scientific fact. Epithelial cells are shed naturally and copiously without "intense friction" and are found even in dust. These cells contain DNA. As for the content of your claim, Planigale has already addressed that.
Click to expand...

Do read the court documents. It is a scientifically established fact Amanda washed Mez' blood from her hands. Your denying it doesn't change it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bill Williams said:
Obviously when the Italians wrote their Constitution, they only used descriptive terms, rather than legal words with legal weight.

(I just wanted to beat Vixen in replying to why quoting the Italian Constitution is useless...... I bet the authors of the Constitution are in on this Masonic conspiracy - knowing full well that this American Luciferina would need those words to weasel out of a murder charge!)
Click to expand...

A constititution is not a statute.
 
Vixen said:
Do read the court documents. It is a scientifically established fact Amanda washed Mez' blood from her hands. Your denying it doesn't change it.
Click to expand...


"It is a scientifically established fact Amanda washed Mez' Mez's Kercher's* blood from her hands"?

Seriously, do you not realise just what a stupid, incorrect, unsupported and irrational statement this is? Seriously?


* Do stop using the diminutive pet name for someone you never knew. It's creepy and wrong. Thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stacyhs said:
Ummmm, no I never claimed that at all. YOU twisted what I said. THIS is what I said;

"Shedding of epithelial cells occurs naturally and without having to use "intense" (or any) friction. Dust itself contains naturally shed epithelial cells. "Household dust may contain some human DNA from shed epithelial cells. " (Crime Reconstruction. Chisum, Turvey, pg 274) "

This was in response to your claim that epithelial cells in the mixed blood/DNA could only have come from "intense rubbing" of Amanda's hands washing off blood. Bringing up dust was to point out that it doesn't take "intense rubbing" for epithelial cells to be naturally discarded. But that went right past you like so much else. Once again, stop claiming I have said something I have not. I NEVER claimed dust was the source of Amanda's DNA in Meredith's blood.
Click to expand...


Did you not read my earlier response that household dust is not considered useful for forensic DNA analysis? I am not really sure why you find Chisum, Turvey's quote so important. Is this something new for you, that you have to share it? Trying to conflate the scientific finding of Amanda's DNA mixed in with Mez' on the murder night with common household dust is pure obfuscation.
 
Bill Williams said:
In fairness to Vixen, she's just parroting Nencini's bizarre assertion in his motivation report that:

1) it is the height of coicidence that Knox's DNA from skin cells just happened to fall onto the victim's blood found in the small bathroom

2) And this whopper: "For the loss of biological material that is useful for DNA extraction, there must be a considerable rubbing action that leaves behind biologically significant traces."​
It is from THAT that Nencini asserts that the only reason Knox could have been rubbing that forcefully was to clean blood off of her hands.

​
So, Nencini infers that Knox must have cleaned blood from her hands.... why? Because there was evidence presented to the court that this had happened?

No, because Nencini otherwise could not explain why Knox's DNA had so fortuitously landed on the three spots which the Scientific Police made those wide swabs.

Once again, no evidence, just a Judge with a hunch. Aside from the fact that this begs a rather large question of how all that blood got on to Amanda, with no evidence of Amanda in the murder room and no evidence of blood on Amanda's clothes.....

.... this is why The Italian Supreme court, in exonerating the pair, has that discussion in it's own 2015 motivation report about the perils of a judge setting himself up as an expert of the experts.

When the 2015 Supreme Court motivation report gets around to listing this "Knox rubbed blood from her hands," in its motivations report, the whole topic had already been destroyed and trashed by the Supreme Court's prior logic. The ISC is conceding that Nencini's lower, fact-finding court had "found that as a fact - but had so trashed Nencini's reasoning as illegal and illogical, that by the time you get to that "even if" part of the report in Section 9, The Supreme Court wants the reader to roll their eyes at the claim - not suppose that the ISC was adopting the claim.

Unless, of course, you're part of a PR-guilt campaign.
Click to expand...

Nencini's report is far more logical and intrinsically legally sound than Marasca, who is simply rehashing Hellmann.
 
Vixen said:
Did you not read my earlier response that household dust is not considered useful for forensic DNA analysis? I am not really sure why you find Chisum, Turvey's quote so important. Is this something new for you, that you have to share it? Trying to conflate the scientific finding of Amanda's DNA mixed in with Mez' on the murder night with common household dust is pure obfuscation.
Click to expand...


This is total and utter nonsense, and entirely incorrect. Low template levels of DNA can routinely be found, analysed and matched from household dust. The first breakthroughs in this area took place back in 2008:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826584-200-telltale-dna-sucked-out-of-household-dust/

And technology has advanced since then to the point that, in properly equipped labs under stringent protocols and standards (unlike those in not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni's unfit-for-purpose lab......), DNA can now be amplified, typed and matched from dust.

It's considered dreadfully intellectually dishonest to pull scientific "facts" out of one's backside. Just sayin'......
 
LondonJohn said:
This is total and utter nonsense, and entirely incorrect. Low template levels of DNA can routinely be found, analysed and matched from household dust. The first breakthroughs in this area took place back in 2008:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826584-200-telltale-dna-sucked-out-of-household-dust/

And technology has advanced since then to the point that, in properly equipped labs under stringent protocols and standards (unlike those in not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni's unfit-for-purpose lab......), DNA can now be amplified, typed and matched from dust.

It's considered dreadfully intellectually dishonest to pull scientific "facts" out of one's backside. Just sayin'......
Click to expand...


NEW SCIENTIST LOL You really must learn to tell the difference between academic theory and what happens in everyday life.

Crude language is all you have.
 
the peaks are actually pretty large in a few locations

The bra clasp was noticeably darker in photos taken on 18 December than it looked in early November. I was the first person who brought Brown and coworkers' study (Toothman et al., 2008) to the attention of this thread. IIRC some of the peaks are above 2000 RFUs, but the DNA was mixed and showed signs of degradation. My point in discussing this study was to highlight how important cleanliness is when one collects DNA evidence. A great deal more is known about DNA transfer than was known in 2007, and it is easier to understand how innocent DNA transfer can occur, even when an item is under police control.
 
Vixen said:
Boninsegna obviously used the word as a descriptive term, rather than a legal one, because as you know, the pair were NOT found innocent. The word innocent does not appear in Marasca's judgment.
Click to expand...

That's because courts return a verdict of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". Never a verdict of "innocent". There are long historical and logical and legal reasons why this is so.
 
Vixen said:
NEW SCIENTIST LOL You really must learn to tell the difference between academic theory and what happens in everyday life.

Crude language is all you have.
Click to expand...


Where to start, where to start.......?

Well, number one: the statement that "You really must learn to tell the difference between academic theory and what happens in everyday life" is as stupid and nonsensical as it is patronising. We are talking here about whether a) human DNA can be transported in regular house dust, and b) human DNA in house dust can be detected forensically and matched forensically. The answer to both those questions is Yes. And they are scientific questions and answers, based on what happens in real life.

And you also seem blissfully unaware that a) New Scientist is an internationally respected science journal, and b) within that article are numerous references to the academic study upon which the article was based. Even an idiot can find the source study if he/she wishes to read it in detail. I felt that linking to an article about the study in a reputable scientific journal would be the best way to convey the information to a non-scientist such as you.

And again, you seem to be (wilfully?) ignoring the vast majority of my post in favour of one word. Highly intellectually dishonest. As usual. Jesus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom