Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[stilicho]

Some African nations have much lower rates. I'm off to Nigeria.

Seriously, I think the adversarial legal system is superior to the inquisitorial system of Italy and other nations, but this is probably a topic for another thread.

I don't think it's out of bounds to discuss the various legal systems, lionking. Would you care to explain which features of each you like and dislike?

I am personally fascinated by the comparisons and contrasts in all facets of this case and that includes the language, the traditions, and the legal systems.

So feel free!

 

[Fiona]

I agree with lionking: that would be better discussed in a separate thread, I think: we have a lot of strands in this one already

 

[stilicho]

There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that the gloves were not new

This point was specifically challenged by Sollecito's defence team and met by the prosecution.

 

[Kestrel]

I am obviously not following your point Kestrel.

If I pick up an object from the floor in a room which has been closed for 47 days I will pick up dust as I do it. In fact if I do anything at all with my hands in such a room it is likely I will pick up dust.

In order for that dust to contaminate an object with DNA that DNA first has to be there. I still do not understand where it is supposed to come from.

Sollecito's DNA was not in the room
There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that the gloves were not new
There is no reason to suppose that the team got changed across town in the lab with the samples; or that they visited him in jail before they went to the scene; or that they searched his house first; or that they were in contact with any other source of his DNA.
The amount of DNA on the clasp was "abundant" ( which in this field actually means a sample size of 1400: a sample testable by normal means is 100 and up)
I just do not see what it is that makes you think contamination is possible, much less likely

I suspect the police changed in the living room of the apartment. A place where Sollecito had been and had possible left DNA. They changed into the suits, put on their gloves and picked up equipment that had been taken out for use. Did they touch anything in that room? Did they sit down to put on the little booties? Did they lay their flashlight on a countertop or table? Was that same flashlight used when collecting evidence at Sollecito's place?

Most of these concerns would be moot if they had used disposable tweezers to pick up the sample. Even if their suits and gloves had picked up something, it would not have been transferred to the evidence.

The technicians were wearing the suits, gloves and masks that would help keep their DNA off the evidence. But they didn't understand the how to avoid cross contamination.

 

[stilicho]

I suspect the police changed in the living room of the apartment. A place where Sollecito had been and had possible left DNA. They changed into the suits, put on their gloves and picked up equipment that had been taken out for use. Did they touch anything in that room? Did they sit down to put on the little booties? Did they lay their flashlight on a countertop or table? Was that same flashlight used when collecting evidence at Sollecito's place?

Most of these concerns would be moot if they had used disposable tweezers to pick up the sample. Even if their suits and gloves had picked up something, it would not have been transferred to the evidence.

The technicians were wearing the suits, gloves and masks that would help keep their DNA off the evidence. But they didn't understand the how to avoid cross contamination.

How much of this was presented and challenged in court?


---------

The Kercher family also had a DNA expert at the trial: Francesca Torricelli

 

[Kestrel]

That is nonsense, Kestrel. Read your link. You have misunderstood the nature of an appeal to authority fallacy.

That is arguable I suppose in respect of the second last line: but it is not certainly an appeal to emotion if taken in context.

Those are just cheap shots and not worthy of you

Judges and prosecutors may have experience using DNA evidence in the courtroom, but they are experts in the law and not experts on science. Scientists who do work in the field, run lab experiments routinely, understand the technical details of the tests and have experienced cross contamination are experts. We shouldn't dismiss them simply because a judge made a ruling.

 

[lionking]

I agree with lionking: that would be better discussed in a separate thread, I think: we have a lot of strands in this one already

I'll start a new thread.

 

[piktor]

Murder and logic

JREF is supposed to be a skeptics forum. What you have presented starts with an appeal to authority and ends with an appeal to emotion. Both of these are logical fallacies.

You have arrived at a great point in this discussion. Does murder have a logic?

Homicide is in itself a betrayal of logic. People are here to live and to die a natural death. Murder is never a part of life or a part of logic or reason. That is why it is highly punished. It is what is considered the highest crime.

It is a possibility that this terrible crime could be overturned on a technicality, the shining example of unemotional logic and due process. It will not bring back the dead or unring any bell. The problem with unemotional attitudes is then how do we remember what we are if not human and vulnerable. The victim here is one of us. We cannot put that in the back of our minds but front and center because we are more than logic and more than violence, more than lack of control that concludes in crime. We cannot be bested by the dark impulses that lead to a death.

Logic and method help but in this case people judging it have to use their experience and reasoning to substitute for the lack of heft in the evidence.

These three people were convicted because the evidence presented lead to a reasonable conviction on the merit of the facts.

In our search for truth here, logic and science might not be outstanding but human experience forged through the ages has shined eloquently. The problem of reconciling absolutes might never happen in this case but as averyone involved directly has said, the process has been fair. Whatever ''fair'' means.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I suspect the police changed in the living room of the apartment. A place where Sollecito had been and had possible left DNA. They changed into the suits, put on their gloves and picked up equipment that had been taken out for use. Did they touch anything in that room? Did they sit down to put on the little booties? Did they lay their flashlight on a countertop or table? Was that same flashlight used when collecting evidence at Sollecito's place?

Most of these concerns would be moot if they had used disposable tweezers to pick up the sample. Even if their suits and gloves had picked up something, it would not have been transferred to the evidence.

The technicians were wearing the suits, gloves and masks that would help keep their DNA off the evidence. But they didn't understand the how to avoid cross contamination.

If that were the case, then why was there no other sign of Sollecito on the 400+ swabs that were tested?

 

[stilicho]

Judges and prosecutors may have experience using DNA evidence in the courtroom, but they are experts in the law and not experts on science. Scientists who do work in the field, run lab experiments routinely, understand the technical details of the tests and have experienced cross contamination are experts. We shouldn't dismiss them simply because a judge made a ruling.

I agree. So why did Sollecito's DNA expert do such a bad job? What is it, specifically, that these nine experts know that he didn't? What special abilities do they possess that the experts don't?

And why are they spamming the internet instead of presenting their evidence to Dr Sollecito to help free his son?

 

[Fiona]

I suspect the police changed in the living room of the apartment. A place where Sollecito had been and had possible left DNA.

They changed into the suits, put on their gloves and picked up equipment that had been taken out for use. Did they touch anything in that room? Did they sit down to put on the little booties? Did they lay their flashlight on a countertop or table? Was that same flashlight used when collecting evidence at Sollecito's place?

Most of these concerns would be moot if they had used disposable tweezers to pick up the sample. Even if their suits and gloves had picked up something, it would not have been transferred to the evidence.

The technicians were wearing the suits, gloves and masks that would help keep their DNA off the evidence. But they didn't understand the how to avoid cross contamination.

That is a lovely story. It depends on them not having already investigated that room. It depends on them not knowing their job, as well.

But they had already investigated that room. They had found DNA from Sollecito in there on a cigarette butt. They had found fingerprint from knox on a water glass. They had found an absence of fingerprints on the cutlery. It seems quite reasonable to suppose that they had swabbed all the likely surfaces since that is their job. And there was no other dna in there.

 

[Fiona]

Judges and prosecutors may have experience using DNA evidence in the courtroom, but they are experts in the law and not experts on science. Scientists who do work in the field, run lab experiments routinely, understand the technical details of the tests and have experienced cross contamination are experts. We shouldn't dismiss them simply because a judge made a ruling.

Hmmm: but we are relying on an engineer who has not seen the evidence at all? How does that work then?

 

[Kestrel]

That is a lovely story. It depends on them not having already investigated that room. It depends on them not knowing their job, as well.

But they had already investigated that room. They had found DNA from Sollecito in there on a cigarette butt. They had found fingerprint from knox on a water glass. They had found an absence of fingerprints on the cutlery. It seems quite reasonable to suppose that they had swabbed all the likely surfaces since that is their job. And there was no other dna in there.

Is there a list somewhere of all the places the police swabbed for DNA?

 

[piktor]

Is a suspicion logical, a hunch, a certainty?

I suspect the police changed in the living room of the apartment.

Most of these concerns would be moot if they had used disposable tweezers to pick up the sample.

How does your suspicion differ from a hunch or a vision? How can you prove your suspicion?

Had they used tweezers, you would not suspect they had previously dragged said tweezers in Sollecito's DNA collected in abundance? They have him in custody and can collect his unlimited DNA with abandon, from his bed sheets, his prison laundry, etc.

 

[Kestrel]

How does your suspicion differ from a hunch or a vision? How can you prove your suspicion?

Had they used tweezers, you would not suspect they had previously dragged said tweezers in Sollecito's DNA collected in abundance? They have him in custody and can collect his unlimited DNA with abandon, from his bed sheets, his prison laundry, etc.

I simply pointed out the most logical place for them to slip on the suits they wore to collect the evidence. Doing it inside the room would have been rather pointless.

As for the rest of your argument, I haven't been suggesting a conspiracy, only incompetence.

 

[Kestrel]

Hmmm: but we are relying on an engineer who has not seen the evidence at all? How does that work then?

It works because logic, reason and evidence should stand on it's own. Instead of being propped up by a degree or certificate.

 

[piktor]

Nobody's perfect

As for the rest of your argument, I haven't been suggesting a conspiracy, only incompetence.

I agree with you on this. If you watch the retrieval of the clasp, it is passed from one technician to another and finally falls on the floor, miraculously next to its marker.

There are protocols that are witnessed and signed on to. The technicians that have been filmed do seem a little loose and a little bumbling.

The cottage was broken into a few months after the murder and the perpetrators left a mess.

 

[Kestrel]

I agree. So why did Sollecito's DNA expert do such a bad job? What is it, specifically, that these nine experts know that he didn't? What special abilities do they possess that the experts don't?

And why are they spamming the internet instead of presenting their evidence to Dr Sollecito to help free his son?

Perhaps they are doing so in the vain hope that some of us will learn a bit about the problems and limitations of DNA evidence.

 

[stilicho]

Perhaps they are doing so in the vain hope that some of us will learn a bit about the problems and limitations of DNA evidence.

Is it also possible that Sollecito's DNA expert knows more than they do? That their objections have already been raised in court? That these objections have been subjected to cross-examination by the prosecution experts? And by the DNA expert brought into court by the Kercher family?

All the principals in this case, including the Kercher family, had their own experts in court to testify about the science and the forensics. I would be behind you 100% that something important was missed if everyone sat back and watched the prosecution speculate wildly while they brought in amateurs and frauds. But this is clearly not what happened. All the evidence was scrutinised carefully by the defence teams and challenged on any grounds they had available.

Did Sollecito's family hire an incompetent DNA expert? I posted his experience and expertise a few pages back and nobody has yet challenged his competence. Will you be the first?

 

[Fiona]

It works because logic, reason and evidence should stand on it's own. Instead of being propped up by a degree or certificate.

Nope. There is such a thing as expertise. I am sorry if you do not believe that but it is not true that a lay person has the knowledge of a chemist or a psychologist or a lawyer. He could acquire it: but he hasn't. We are not all equally educated or experienced in every field: and if we do not trust those who have genuine skills then I think we are the losers.

In this particular case it seems to me that there is a lot of evidence quite apart from the DNA: but that still does not seem to me to warrant your certainty of incompetence on the basis of what we have seen so far