Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

Forensic Sci Int. 2005 Nov 10;154(1):53-61.
Use of bleach to eliminate contaminating DNA from the surface of bones and teeth.

Kemp BM, Smith DG.

Speaking as a chemist, I can tell you that bleach is an oxidant, and there are chemical groups within DNA that could act as reductants.

Chris

But in DNA labs, bleach is what is used to clean the surfaces because it is so effective at removing DNA is it not?

But bleach is very effective at damaging blood and other forensic eveidence:

Detecting Evidence After Bleaching

 

[Fulcanelli]

How would the store owner be able to tell whether or not they were actually going to go home and have hot sex?

Do you have any expertise on how shock effects people's interest in sex or ability to joke about it?

According to the article you linked (see below) to it says they were "laughing and joking". It also says it was two days after the killing.

How did you come to the conclusion that they were "very turned on"?

How many other possible explanations for their behavior in the store did you consider before reaching your conclusion?

Perhaps we'll leave that to those judges who were present at his cross examination on the stand to decide. In the meantime, you can continue to apologise for them.

According to the article you linked (see below) to it says they were "laughing and joking". It also says it was two days after the killing.

Yes, the laughing and joking, that's what I said in my post. Does laughing and joking rule out their likelihood of planning to have sex? It was the day after her house mate had been found butchered in her room. Just as an observer, they didn't seem to be too cut up about it (no pun intended).

How many other possible explanations for their behavior in the store did you consider before reaching your conclusion?

I'm sure you'll think up thousands for us.

 

[quadraginta]

It also helps to note that an object weighing 1.4 nanograms is in the same size range as what we call dust. It shouldn't be considered massive by anything larger than a dust mite.

How big do you think microsopic cells are? 1,4 nanograms is 1400 picograms. That's no small sample.

I thought he was suggesting that professionals in DNA analysis are no larger than a dust mite.

 

[Fulcanelli]

"But unlike the the scientists, the judge doesn't have an agenda."

By claiming that the scientists have an agenda without offering proof, you do not help your argument. The judge may or may not have understood these sorts of arguments. I'll stick with the scientists any day of the week.

Chris

Paul Ciolino is one of the leading members of the FOA, has been for over a year and a half. Paul Ciolino is also a leading member of the Innocence Project. Paul Ciolino has been less then honest with the 'facts' that he has been preaching to the public. These are not neutral people. Ask yourself, why did they get involved in the first place? Better still, ask them...next time you speak to 'Greg', who I am familiar with and have had many an online debate with over this case elsewhere.

 

[Fulcanelli]

“This is their O.J. Simpson trial — it’s that big,” said Paul Ciolino told me Friday, a private investigator, who counsels for the Innocence Project, a group advocating on behalf of those they believe are wrongfully convicted. Ciolino was also an investigator for CBS, and called this case “the railroad job from hell.” He said he’s been subject to all manner of abuse from people who think he’s wrong. I wish people would try to look at the evidence in this case, but that’s what happens when tabloid journalism meets the judicial system.

OPINIONATOR BLOG - NEW YORK TIMES

Texas - July 18 , 2000
Center attorney Joe Bailey announced at a press conference Monday that a team of investigators, including Paul J. Ciolino of the Innocence Project out of Chicago, will be re-investigating a 1997 triple homicide in East Center.

PJC INVESTOGATIONS

Ciolino was the primary investigative advisor to the Innocence Projects at: Northwestern Law School, The Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University, and DePaul University, Center for Justice in Capitol Cases, College of Law, all in Chicago.

PJC INVESTIGATIONS

Wrongful Conviction Investigations

If you are innocent and you are sitting in a jail cell somewhere, there is nothing that we can say to ease your burden. However there is plenty that we can do to regain your freedom. At Paul J. Ciolino & Associates we are the number one agency in the world in regaining the freedom of people who were wrongfully sent to death row for a crime in which they were innocent,,.

Our method is a three-phase process. First we must review the case thoroughly. This can take several months depending upon the volume of materials to be reviewed. We then give you an oral assessment of what we feel your legitimate chances of succeeding are.

The second phase is our initial intelligence gathering and pre field investigation. This is primarily a short process. It really depends on how old the case is. Cases that are under five years old moved along much more quickly then cases that are twenty years old.

The third and final phase is the actual field investigation and coordinating of experts, and any other interested involved parties such as innocence projects or appellate counsel.

PJC INVESTIGATIONS

This is interesting, 'coerced' by Paul Ciolino? :

Ekl and Sotos are representing Alstory Simon who confessed to the murders in 1999 - which led to the release of Anthony Porter who spent 17 years on death row for the crimes.

Simon now says his videotaped confession was coerced by private investigator Paul Ciolino who was working on Porter's case with the innocence project at Northwestern University.

ABC

Innocence Project activists are working with society's underdogs, people with precious little in the way of resources but who are "outright innocent, didn't do it, weren't there," Ciolino told the crowd.

He said the legal system in his hometown of Chicago is fraught with conviction mistakes, and the most common causes are simple: prosecutors who lose notes, investigators who fail to videotape interviews, appellate defenders who neglect to read case files.

ARIZONA DAILY SUN

At 46, Paul Ciolino is big and loud.To some people-many of the cops and prosecutors he has gone up against, for example-he's a grandstanding blowhard.But Ciolino is also one of Chicago's most successful, most visible, most sought-after private investigators, a $150-an-hour, tough-talking savior to people caught in the worst kinds of jams.Working out of his downtown and Palatine offices, he has built a small empire on the standard trenchcoat-and-fedora fare of the P.I.: digging out those dirty little secrets that like to hide in the dark corners of suburban bliss.Swisher Sweet clamped between his teeth, a cashmere topcoat draped on his shoulders, he strides the Chicago region as a giant pain in the ass to those he has been hired to find, fluster, or expose....

Ciolino may grab headlines by getting people off death row-mostly on his own dime-but he is no one's picture of a liberal crusader: Six feet two inches tall, 250 pounds, with the flat accent of the South Side, he wears good wool suits-$1,500 a pop from Dei Giovani at Wells and Madison.On his wrist gleams a gold Rolex Presidential.He drives a slut-red Mercedes SL500-$106,000 new-and a silver Rolls-Royce he bought off eBay after a particularly lucrative case.When he talks, he swears like a cop, and he keeps enough guns in the coffin-size safe behind his desk to make Charlton Heston giddy.When he enters a room it is with the force of a hammer: shoulders back, hair frozen into a blow-dried helmet-part Tony Soprano, part Andy Sipowicz, part Wayne Newton.

CHICAGO MAG

Let's watch Paul Ciolino at work on this case. Download and view these:

EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY

and

RAILROAD TO HELL

 

[piktor]

Of lawyers and scientists and the conquest of the Moon

It's a fallacy when you invoke an authority outside of that persons area of expertise. A judge is not an expert on DNA, the nine scientists I referred to are experts in that field. They can speak with authority on that specific subject.

A judge is a trained lawyer with years of experience. Judges will never render a scientific opinion. Yet judges allow scientists to contribute in a trial with their findings. The big problem here is the defense, their scientists and all, could not defeat the prosecution's shaky science.

Why did the defense science strike out and not bat a homerun?

The judge and jury hear the case and make a considered opinion. That is the system.

Pres. Kennedy gave the go ahead to go to the moon. He was a lawyer so how did he know it was doable? Scientists had to translate their equations into English. They had to provide a narrative a lawyer like Kennedy could buy.

As I said before, this conviction could be reversed on appeal and that is how the system works.

This is a conviction based on circumstantial evidence and a prosecution theory that has convinced 19 judges and put three people in jail.

 

[Kestrel]

Paul Ciolino is one of the leading members of the FOA, has been for over a year and a half. Paul Ciolino is also a leading member of the Innocence Project. Paul Ciolino has been less then honest with the 'facts' that he has been preaching to the public. These are not neutral people. Ask yourself, why did they get involved in the first place? Better still, ask them...next time you speak to 'Greg', who I am familiar with and have had many an online debate with over this case elsewhere.

It's clear from your posts that you despise the Innocence Project. Do you really believe that courts are perfect and never send innocent people to jail?

 

[quadraginta]

It's clear from your posts that you despise the Innocence Project. Do you really believe that courts are perfect and never send innocent people to jail?

Yeah, Fulcanelli!!!

Why do you hate Innocence?

 

[Fulcanelli]

It's clear from your posts that you despise the Innocence Project. Do you really believe that courts are perfect and never send innocent people to jail?

I don't despise the Innocence Project. I'm sure they've helped no few people sitting in jail who may well have been innocent. However, in this case they have injected themselves at the behest of Paul Ciolino (who called Mignini a 'raving lunatic who shouldn't be allowed to give out parking tickets much less practice in a court room') who is certainly agenda driven and he's not helping the FOA for free, he's being paid to do this. He has then used his influence with his dual role in the innocence project to get them on board to help out a colleague. At the least, there is a severe conflict of interest here between paid work and charity work. But what they certainly are not is neutral scientists, especially when they are affiliated with the FOA who have been running an aggressive smear campaign against the ILE in general and the prosecutor personally.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

reference on the Duke lacrosse case DNA

This isn't the first time you've tried to create a confusion in contributors' minds by bringing the Duke lacrosse team case into this. Can you provide a list of the similarities and distinctions between the two cases?

Your own link explains that DNA evidence was central to that case:

"In the Duke case, the DNA was central to everything, not peripheral, as many would think."

In the Perugia case, the DNA is simply a small clump amid an enormous mound of evidence. (There's your first distinction; you may supply others at your leisure.)

In message 964 you wrote, “The DNA evidence places all three of them there. The murder weapon was found in RS's apartment.”

I have a difficult time reconciling your two statements about the importance of the DNA, and the identity of the murder weapon is in dispute.

To those that followed the DL case closely, the DNA evidence that was publicly available as of even October 2006 was strongly exculpatory: How could a thirty-minute rape yield no DNA on the AV?! Yet the MSM largely ignored or misunderstood the data, and the public sentiment was largely against the players. In addition, the defense lawyers knew that two of the three players had unimpeachable electronic alibis for the time in question. And still they thought that a hung jury was a possible result, due to negative pretrial publicity. Of course the two cases are different, but this episode serves as one cautionary tale among many about how to approach forensic evidence. More information can be found in Chapter 14 of the book “Race to Injustice,” edited by Michael L. Seigel, which is a fine introduction to DNA profiling and its relationship to the DL case. PM me if this comment is unclear, or if you would like further information. I can understand that this discussion might seem a little off-topic to some, but it would be regrettable if the MSM does not learn from its mistakes.

Chris

 

[Fiona]

"But unlike the the scientists, the judge doesn't have an agenda."

By claiming that the scientists have an agenda without offering proof, you do not help your argument. The judge may or may not have understood these sorts of arguments. I'll stick with the scientists any day of the week.

Chris

Well it is true that these scientists have qualifications. It is also true that they have not seen the evidence, so far as I am aware.

As to an agenda: do you know that three of them either work for or are associated with a company called Forensic Bioinformatics Inc. That that company has developed a system for dealing with DNA evidence electronically called Genophiler: that they are promoting that as a cheaper and quicker alternative to analysing DNA evidence in criminal cases: that they have a vested interest in both the publicity they can get from involvement in this case and from any doubt they can cast on human involvement in the interpretation of DNA evidence?

Now they might be right and they might be wrong: but I do not take the impartiality of those three, at least, for granted.

There is reason to believe they have at the very least mixed motives: this is not true for the judge, jury or prosecutor

 

[Alt+F4]

In message 964 you wrote, “The DNA evidence places all three of them there. The murder weapon was found in RS's apartment.”

Was the knife found in RS's apartment the actual murder weapon? I've read conflicting accounts.

 

[Kestrel]

Was the knife found in RS's apartment the actual murder weapon. I've read conflicting accounts.

If it's the murder weapon, there have to be two knives.

The knife found in RS's apartment doesn't match the bloody imprint in the shape of a knife found at the murder scene and is incompatible with some of the wounds on the victim.

 

[lector]

There was also an extensive cleanup. My understanding is that Guede's DNA was the only DNA (other than Kercher's) found in the room. (I may be wrong, I'll see if I can find a source for that).

In fact, there was no DNA evidence on Kercher's body except for Guede's DNA inside the body where it couldn't be found.

That, my friends, is a damned extensive cleaning.

First, apologies if this point is addressed somewhere in the succeeding pages, I am playing catchup on my reading today.

The blood splatter evidence on MK's body, which I have read about on the TJMK site, seems to indicate that her body was not cleaned.

This is one point where my uneducated assumptions are confounded. Given the lack of cleaning, I'd have expected someone's DNA to be found on her body. I don't know what the significance of its absence is.

If it were significant, I'd have expected the AK/RS defense to have made something of it. They didn't, to my knowledge. But you can't always expect a legal team on either side to do the smart thing (see OJ trial).

For the record, since this is my first post here: I provisionally believe that the jury got it right. I still have a couple of nagging questions before I can assuredly conclude that AK & RS were more than accessories. I may get into them as time allows. I expect that a full translation of the Micheli Report &/or the sentencing report on the AK/RS trial will answer them so I am not in a big rush with all this.

 

[William Parcher]

The blood splatter evidence on MK's body, which I have read about on the TJMK site, seems to indicate that her body was not cleaned.

This is one point where my uneducated assumptions are confounded. Given the lack of cleaning, I'd have expected someone's DNA to be found on her body. I don't know what the significance of its absence is.

I know very little about this case other than what I've read in this thread. I have questions concerning the lack of foreign DNA found on the victim's body.

Did I read here that her clothes were removed from her body after death and then laundered? Did the killer(s) DNA end up in the washing machine with the removed clothing?

 

[Fiona]

Some of her clothes were washed the following morning and were in the machine when the police arrived. I do not know if they were clothes she had been wearing at the time but I assume not

The only item of clothing which we know was removed after death was her bra. It was cut off and it was not laundered

 

[piktor]

Weak alleles did not set them free.

There is reason to believe they have at the very least mixed motives: this is not true for the judge, jury or prosecutor

A big problem for science reductionists, science amplifiers or friends of scientific cogency, is the bunch of people giving their judgement in Perugia are lay people with no strings attached to one or other party or to science at all.

The jury convicts or acquits based on the whole narrative, not on picas and nanos.

There is no science that measures how the jury will react to the witnesses, the experts, the accused, the police.

Three people are in jail as a result of what the judges and jury saw and heard at trial.

It is not a pretty picture now. It won't be prettier if they are set free on appeal.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

signal to noise

Well it is true that these scientists have qualifications. It is also true that they have not seen the evidence, so far as I am aware.

As to an agenda: do you know that three of them either work for or are associated with a company called Forensic Bioinformatics Inc. That that company has developed a system for dealing with DNA evidence electronically called Genophiler: that they are promoting that as a cheaper and quicker alternative to analysing DNA evidence in criminal cases: that they have a vested interest in both the publicity they can get from involvement in this case and from any doubt they can cast on human involvement in the interpretation of DNA evidence?

Now they might be right and they might be wrong: but I do not take the impartiality of those three, at least, for granted.

There is reason to believe they have at the very least mixed motives: this is not true for the judge, jury or prosecutor

Fiona,

I only have time for one more lengthy post today. The nine scientists have seen some of the data, and they show an electropherogram in their petition. In comment 572 you wrote, “A retest is certainly desirable. But one clear and unambiguous result is one clear and unambiguous result.” With due respect, I think you are making an overstatement about the data, as I will try to explain.

I quote from the figure legend of the petition: “Figure 1. The low copy DNA electropherogram of the knife described above. Almost all peaks are below 75 RFUs, and most are below 50 RFUs.” This issue is also discussed in the main body of their petititon. It is important because the lower the number of RFUs (relative fluorescence units), the lower the signal-to-noise ratio. When this ratio gets lower and lower, it becomes more difficult to distinguish what is real from what is random (the noise).

This is where the number of steps of PCR becomes important; each step of PCR amplifies the amount of DNA by a factor of two. Stefanoni’s team did not do as many cycles as is typical of LCN analysis, therefore, a low S/N ratio is not surprising. I know that you do not trust this site (http://www.sciencespheres.com/2009/10/lcn-dna-profiling-part-ii-watch-where.html), but for others who might:

There was so little DNA present that the instrument indicated no DNA until Stefanoni overrode the machine limits. This amplification increase was not achieved by the PCR technique. Once the sample has been chopped up and subjected to electrophoresis, it is too late for that. The increase was performed by other methods, such as lowering the threshold level, or simply changing the display scale until the minute fluorescence peaks were visible.

[End quote]

Matthew provided a link (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-14/no-mistrial-for-knox/?cid=bsa:moreauthor2) which is consistent with (but does not demand) the notion that the S/N ratio on the knife was too low:

The key evidence that the prosecution withheld pertains to test results on a knife found in Sollecito’s apartment with Knox’s DNA on the handle. Forensic scientist Patrizia Stefanoni, who testified as a prosecution witness last spring, wrote “too low” in English on initial results, assumed to mean that the samples of Kercher’s DNA on the alleged murder weapon—along with Knox’s DNA—did not meet the normal standards. Writing “too low” in English suggests that she was copying a reading directly from the machine, while she was continuing to test the sample. The implication, according to the defense, is that Stefanoni then had to amplify the tiny sample found on the blade beyond the protocol to find a match to Kercher’s DNA. Why she did that, and who may have ordered her to do so, are troubling questions. The knife evidence has been heavily contested because the sample on the blade was so small it could not be double-tested and because Stefanoni completed the one and only test without defense experts in the laboratory.
The day was not a complete loss for the defense. Their forensic expert, Adriano Taglibracci, testified that the standard protocol in DNA examination requires double testing to prove a match and that Stefanoni made what Taglibracci called intentional errors to mislead the jury. “This sample was so small that there was not enough to double-test it,” he told the court. “There are contradictions between what was recorded in the lab report and the court testimony signed by the same person.”

[End Quote]

One final, more general point. It seems to me that both those who accept and those who doubt the DNA evidence should agree that the .fsa files ought to be released, so as to allow independent analysis, as discussed upthread. To date I have not heard this call from those who accept the DNA evidence.

Chris

 

[Fiona]

All of the evidence was released at the request of the defence; unopposed by the prosecution; and ordered by the court to be made available by July 30th.

Do you have evidence that this court order was not complied with? Did the defence make that charge when the case re-opened after the summer recess in September?

 

[William Parcher]

Some of her clothes were washed the following morning and were in the machine when the police arrived. I do not know if they were clothes she had been wearing at the time but I assume not

The only item of clothing which we know was removed after death was her bra. It was cut off and it was not laundered

Okay. It's very surprising that there were no hairs or fibers collected that were from the attacker(s) and found on the victim's body or clothing. A 25 minute physical struggle should result in all sorts of material transferred to the victim.

Was there any mention of a vacuum cleaner used in the cleanup?