Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

If that is correct then I believe Bob's error is based on my earlier posts because I did believe it was found in a box and I have seen different reports since then which I do not think I remembered to post. I am not certain which version is correct but I am happy to accept what you say, lector.

So my apologies to all for the confusion and error

There was confusion about this earlier in the case. It was found in the drawer and put in an envelope. The envelope was then put in a box for storage and transportation.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I would like to ask the most learned people commenting here, do you think the jury or the judges in Perugia are molecular-bio-informatic-allele-loving geeks that actually comprehend any of this mumbo jumbo strange factoids?

I'm a fairly inquiring mind and for me, all this DNA evidence is as difficult to decypher as Egyptian hieroglyphs. Maybe the judges are familiar with the basics but the lay jurors...

In this particular case neither the prosecution nor the defense offered unassailable DNA proof. It is all the other evidence added together that convicted the accused.

Well, the two professional judges will have had experience of course. But, the important thing to remember that the judges (including what you call a jury) and do also cross examine the experts on the stand. This is not simply left to prosecution and defence to question each other with it being left to the judges to decipher. The judges are able to ask whatever questions of the scientific questions they wish of the scientific experts to clarify anything they don't understand, recall any they wish and even appoint their own experts to clarify further. And it must also be remembered, it's not only the experts for the prosecution and defence, but also for the victims. It's quite a broad and in depth process.

 

[Fulcanelli]

This is what I would expect based on common sense, but I've yet to see an expert weigh in on this point. I don't trust my common sense in this area.

If it is likely, is the absence of fibers/hairs evidence of a cleanup?

I've also wondered how much, if any, DNA evidence from Meredith was found in the room. If none, does that too become evidence of a cleanup? Was the forensic team even looking for that?

I've yet to search the PMF site thoroughly for statements of exactly what was found, what wasn't found, & what was tested for in MK's room, so the answers may be out there. I wasn't going to get into this area at this juncture but since it's come up, well, there it is.

This is the point. Not much was found, of 'anyone' even of Rudy Guede. This suggests that she was effectively restrained, otherwise there would have been more of an effective struggle which would have left more forensic data. This is part of the evidence that argues Meredith was restrained by three attackers, rather then one (especially when we also have to remember that the attacker would also be holding a knife leaving him only one hand to use to restrain and partially undress her). Meredith struggled, she tried to fight back, as shown by the various bruising but that struggle wasn't effective.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the data are the data

Fiona,

You wrote, “You appear to found on one rabid site whicn no honest person would rely on without information from elsewhere and you do not appear to recognise that it condemns its objectivity out of its own mouth in the very first link to it you provided…. I am beginning to wonder if you wrote it” My answer is predicated on the assumption that you refer to the site hosted by Dr. Waterbury (sciencespheres). To answer your supposition, I have no connection to Dr. Waterbury whatsoever.

If you are implying that this is the only source I have relied upon, that would be false. In response to claims that the knife may have been cleaned with bleach, I have cited the primary scientific literature to show that bleach destroys DNA. I did not respond to Fulcanelli’s reply because I did not understand his point.

With respect to the issue of RFU and signal-to-noise ratios, I have relied upon two sources, the electropherogram produced by Dr. Stefanoni’s laboratory, and the comments from ABI which you yourself provided. Thank you for digging them out; they are very helpful. My previous comment (#1067) noted that if we adopt the relaxed standard indicated by ABI (keep peaks in the 40-150 RFU range, but treat them with caution) we would reject 16 out of the 29 peaks in this electropherogram. However, I failed to note that if we adopted the more stringent standard (to reject all peaks below 150 RFU), then all 29 peaks would have to be rejected. In other words, we don’t need Dr. Waterbury, or even Dr. Hampikian to tell us that the data are suspect; we only need the data themselves and the information from ABI!

You wrote, “It is interesting to note that the manufacturer recommends a peak height but says that peaks below that height must be treated "with caution". That does not support any contention that they have no value at all

Note also that the authors say in passing that some labs adopt lower standards (down to 40 RFU). So it does not seem that this is the unheard of scientific procedure we are told it is.”

If those comments were addressed to me, then I will tell you that they do not reflect what I wrote about them upthread. I only pointed out that as peaks become smaller, they are harder to distinguish from random noise.

I will be able to post more this evening.

Chris

 

[Fulcanelli]

In other words, we don’t need Dr. Waterbury

No we don't. Aside from being a member of the FOA, Waterbury's PhD is in engineering, nothing to do with Genetics, micro-biology or any related field. In other words, he's no more qualified then anybody else and has an agenda to boot.

There is no noise on the sample. All the peaks match Meredith's locus. Even Amanda and Raffaele's own experts are not arguing that it isn't Meredith's DNA, that's beyond doubt. Their argument is that it may have been as a result of contamination. Yet, they offer no viable path for that contamination to have occurred. Somehow though, we are supposed to believe that everyone in this case (convicted and accused) has some kind of unique homing DNA with artificial intelligence that everyone else on the planet lacks.

The other problem is, you seem to be holding up the knife and the bra clasp as some sort of 'smoking gun' on which the whole case rests and that if you could only remove those the case collapses. They are not. And I suppose it also serves to prevent everyone talking about all the 'other' evidence.

 

[shuttlt]

I have a question that I was hoping the people who have putting in so much effort research this case could answer. I had been under the impression that the washing machine was running when the police arrived on the scene. This seemed to get disputed not so many posts back and then I cam across the following:

MYTH: Someone used the washing machine to destroy evidence.
This is another case where the police misinformed the media. In Richard Owen's November 25 report mentioned above, he says police heard the washing machine spinning to the end of its cycle when they arrived at the cottage. Other media reports repeated this claim with various embellishments.

Early in the trial, the prosecutor seemed to be aware that the washing machine was a matter of interest to people discussing the case on the Internet, because he made a point of asking several witnesses about it. But nothing of value emerged from these questions. Insiders have known for a long time that the police examined the contents of the washing machine and found nothing incriminating.

At FriendsOfAmanda.org. Personally the site sets off all my spidey senses for ********. No comments allowed and a series of debunked Myths. It reminds me very much of HomeopathyWorkedForMe.org

What is the truth about the washing machine? I lack the time to read all the available transcripts and my brain is starting hurt with all the contradictory statements about very basic things like this that should be trivial to establish. Either the police did, or didn't say that the machine was running.

 

[piktor]

The ''other'' small elements of the big puzzle

The other problem is, you seem to be holding up the knife and the bra clasp as some sort of 'smoking gun' on which the whole case rests and that if you could only remove those the case collapses. They are not. And I suppose it also serves to prevent everyone talking about all the 'other' evidence.

It would be useful to see this case as the jury and multiple judges have. It is the accumulation of evidentiary ''coincidences'' by the three convicted and their storie's lack of credibility that makes the case.

If you remove the knife and the clasp, there are still many more elements that add up.

One element is the Knox email sent to her friends and family on Nov. 4. She mentions Meredith briefly but does not show any empathy or sheds a tear for her death. The email is all about Amanda.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/02/from-amanda-knox.html

 

[lector]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Did K/S make any testimony as to why the washer was running. This makes it looks like a cleanup but there could be a natural explanation. For example sometimes when laundry gets left in the washer overnight without being dried you would run the washer again to make sure the clothes don't get funky. So maybe Amanda re-started the wash so she could use the washer. I don't believe this btw, it's just that I want to know how they try and explain it.

Nobody had to explain it because it didn't happen and nobody testified at the trial that it did happen. It's just another one of those stories that got started somehow and turned out not to be true.

Matthew, where are you getting your information? According to this page* on TJMK by Peter Quennell, the communications police did find the washing machine running, and testiified to that during the Feb 6-7 session.

Do you have any information indicating that Quennell's reporting is not to be trusted?

* The board software won't let me post links until I've made 15 posts. This is the URL of the relevant page on TJMK:

//truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/highlights_of_the_testimony_on_6_february_and_7_february/

 

[Kestrel]

There is no noise on the sample. All the peaks match Meredith's locus. Even Amanda and Raffaele's own experts are not arguing that it isn't Meredith's DNA, that's beyond doubt. Their argument is that it may have been as a result of contamination. Yet, they offer no viable path for that contamination to have occurred. Somehow though, we are supposed to believe that everyone in this case (convicted and accused) has some kind of unique homing DNA with artificial intelligence that everyone else on the planet lacks.

Only if we ignore other possibilities, such as cross contamination in the lab.

 

[lector]

Washing machine

I should add to the above that, based on my memory of what I've read in the past week, the washing machine did contain a load of Meredith's clothes, & nothing of evidentiary value was found therein.

I have not seen any further details - e.g., what time the machine might have been started, what kind of machine it was, how long its cycles are, etc.

The only seemingly indisputable facts are that the communications police heard it running when they arrived at the house, it cycled off before they inspected it, and they testified to this in court in February.

 

[Empress]

Matthew, where are you getting your information? According to this page* on TJMK by Peter Quennell, the communications police did find the washing machine running, and testiified to that during the Feb 6-7 session.

Do you have any information indicating that Quennell's reporting is not to be trusted?

* The board software won't let me post links until I've made 15 posts. This is the URL of the relevant page on TJMK:

//truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/highlights_of_the_testimony_on_6_february_and_7_february/

lector's link:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php...of_the_testimony_on_6_february_and_7_february

And I want to take this opportunity to thank the participants for all the hard work they've done in this thread. I'm fascinated.

 

[Kestrel]

The Defense has presented no plausible answer to these questions. Using Occam's razor, we therefore lean towards incrimination.

Occam dropped his razor back when a case that started as a simple sexual assault and murder with one suspect who left a lot of DNA evidence at the murder scene mutated into a conspiracy involving three people and two knives

 

[Fulcanelli]

Only if we ignore other possibilities, such as cross contamination in the lab.

Which we can. Judge Micheli has already ruled that out. Read his report. Considering the knife was separated from all the other case evidence and kept that way and then tested on a machine that had not tested any other items connected with the case there is no avenue for contamination.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I have a question that I was hoping the people who have putting in so much effort research this case could answer. I had been under the impression that the washing machine was running when the police arrived on the scene. This seemed to get disputed not so many posts back and then I cam across the following

No, it wasn't running. Filomena simply testified that the machine was 'warm' and had Meredith's clothes in it.

 

[lector]

No, it wasn't running. Filomena simply testified that the machine was 'warm' and had Meredith's clothes in it.

See my two posts immediately above. You are, apparently, wrong in your first statement.

 

[shuttlt]

The only seemingly indisputable facts are that the communications police heard it running when they arrived at the house, it cycled off before they inspected it, and they testified to this in court in February.

Knox's supporters seem to dispute this. It does seem odd to me though, given the volume of information on the case, that we don't have the earliest and latest times the machine could have been started in the timeline, if indeed the machine was running at all.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Matthew, where are you getting your information? According to this page* on TJMK by Peter Quennell, the communications police did find the washing machine running, and testiified to that during the Feb 6-7 session.

Pete needs to fix that. I think he got a misreport on that.

 

[Fulcanelli]

See my two posts immediately above. You are, apparently, wrong in this statement.

Trust me. Go back to the trial reports from that date.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Occam dropped his razor back when a case that started as a simple sexual assault and murder with one suspect who left a lot of DNA evidence at the murder scene mutated into a conspiracy involving three people and two knives

Occam in fact would say, that if the evidence at the crime scene shows multiple attackers committed the crime, then the simplest conclusion would be that multiple attackers did so. All the intellectual gymnastics to try and sweep all that evidence under the carpet in order to 'force' a different conclusion because it's convenient would have Occam turning in his grave.

 

[Kestrel]

Occam in fact would say, that if the evidence at the crime scene shows multiple attackers committed the crime, then the simplest conclusion would be that multiple attackers did so. All the intellectual gymnastics to try and sweep all that evidence under the carpet in order to 'force' a different conclusion because it's convenient would have Occam turning in his grave.

Ignoring the fact that one of these suspects left zero detectable DNA at a room were are expected to believe she was involved in a life or death struggle.

The second suspect was only linked by an item retrieved weeks later that not only shows his DNA profile, but that of other unidentified persons. If it's impossible the suspects DNA profile could be the result of contamination, why don't we apply that same standard for other profiles found on the same sample?

Has anyone explained why Rudy would participate in a murder conspiracy with these two others in a way that would leave evidence pointing to him all over the scene?