Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

The failure of the prosecution to provide these details to Knox and Sollecito’s defence teams is one of their central complaints.

They have provided it. There is nothing else to provide!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Three whoppers

They have provided it. There is nothing else to provide!

That is your third false statement I have counted at this site, and it is directly contradicted by the article cited, an article that is not friendly to Knox. False statement one was that there was no noise in the electropherogram. Later you changed your position: there was noise but it was neglgible, a change from absurdly at odds with physical reality to merely wrong. False statement two was that the DNA on the knife handle could give evidence as to whether the knife had been used for cutting versus stabbing.

Why don't you go back to your day job, that of "Michael," a moderator at PMF, the most rabidly anti-Knox site I have seen so far? You have no credibility on forensics here.

 

[piktor]

Stefanoni claimed that her lab had not had contamination in seven years (see upthread). Another prosecution waffle.

I understand ''contamination'' as trace DNA found as a result of contamination by Filomena and Laura flatmates.

This contamination, due to casual contact in the course of daily cohabitation.

 

[Fiona]

I do not think we can be sure about that Piktor: well I can't. We have already seen how translation can confuse us and we really need the original in Italian and a native speaker to be certain: though it is odd that he could say who's dna it was if it could not be used.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Why don't you go back to your day job, that of "Michael," a moderator at PMF, the most rabidly anti-Knox site I have seen so far? You have no credibility on forensics here.

Is this halide "civility"? A little bit salty, isn't it?

Are there any sites that fail to present Knox as a harmless, maltreated innocent which would qualify as not being "rabidly anti-Knox" in your oh-so-humble opinion?

Got links?

 

[Fiona]

That is your third false statement I have counted at this site, and it is directly contradicted by the article cited, an article that is not friendly to Knox. False statement one was that there was no noise in the electropherogram. Later you changed your position: there was noise but it was neglgible, a change from absurdly at odds with physical reality to merely wrong. False statement two was that the DNA on the knife handle could give evidence as to whether the knife had been used for cutting versus stabbing.

Why don't you go back to your day job, that of "Michael," a moderator at PMF, the most rabidly anti-Knox site I have seen so far? You have no credibility on forensics here.

Evidence for the idea that the documents have not been released to the defence?

Evidence that the DNA can not give an indication as to how the knife was held: since this was stated in court?

Evidence for contamination in the lab in the last seven years?

Evidence that the cleaning of the knife was not possible (and no, the paper you cite does not demonstrate that)

Evidence that the peaks were not clear?

Evidence that PCR was not the technique used to amplify the dna?

Evidence that there were no controls done?

I do not think on your showing so far you have any better credibility than anyone else here. And you take an awful lot on trust from you engineer and his "anonymous molecular biologist". Not very scientific compared to the wide ranging sources and real attempts to get at hard information seen at PMF. Sure folk make mistakes: but nitpicking is not evidence and assertion isn't either

ETA: and I have to agree with Quadraginta: your civility is not apparent on this board whatever you might be like elsewhere.

 

[Kestrel]

"Lawyers for Mr Sollecito have told the judge that, according to a forensic expert called by the defence, Ms Knox's DNA is on Ms Kercher's bloodied bra-strap as well as that of Mr Sollecito and Rudy Guede*.

Professor Francesco Vinci, the forensic scientist, said the DNA traces were "too contaminated" to be useable as evidence, but showed the presence of "at least three people".

The admission appears to support the prosecution case that all three were present at the scene of the crime."


THE TIMES

*The statement in the report that Guede's DNA was on the clasp is in error, likely to have been confused with the fact that his DNA is on the main body of the bra. On the clasp: Meredith Kercher, Raffaele Sollecito and partial trace profiles of: Amanda Knox + 2 unidentified females (probably Laura and Filomena)

From another source, we get a different version of what was said.

Francesco Vinci, a forensic expert hired by Sollecito's legal team, said the DNA of all three suspects and two other unidentified people might be on the bra.

One of these two reporters got it wrong. If we had the direct quote from Francesco Vinci, we could figure out which one.

 

[Fiona]

If we are going to be very literal in interpretation of the word "contamination" then we need to be equally literal with the rest. The bra is not the bra clasp: and "might" is not "was"

But there is no doubt that the victim's dna was on the bra clasp: and no doubt that Sollecito's was.

And I believe that I cannot find Vinci's actual words because I do not think he spoke them: they were reported by Sollecito's lawyers so presumably he made a report: but I do not think it has been released

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Salt

Is this halide "civility"? A little bit salty, isn't it?

Snip

Got links?

You forfeited any right to pass judgment on civility long ago on this thread. All three of Fulcanelli's falsehoods can be found in approximately the last ten pages of comments. Are you claiming that PMF is not anti-Knox?

 

[Fiona]

Your link doesn't work for me, Halides1: I am not sure why this is a problem for my computer. But from what you report it says it does not support your proposition. Again

 

[piktor]

Infer: to derive by reasoning

And I believe that I cannot find Vinci's actual words because I do not think he spoke them: they were reported by Sollecito's lawyers so presumably he made a report: but I do not think it has been released

This discussion of ''what did he say, when did he say it, etc'', plus ''it depends what 'contamination' is''.

If we are inferring a little here, imagine the six lay jurors plus two judges (lawyers), in effect eight innocents in a sciensce wonderland, hearing all this.

halides1 understands 'contamination' as happening because of shoddy Stefanoni lab work. I say contamination because of flatmate's cohabitation.

If clasp DNA lab results were admitted in court, in probability, contamination was not forensics-lab-related. I am inferring, though.

 

[Fulcanelli]

That is your third false statement I have counted at this site, and it is directly contradicted by the article cited, an article that is not friendly to Knox. False statement one was that there was no noise in the electropherogram. Later you changed your position: there was noise but it was neglgible, a change from absurdly at odds with physical reality to merely wrong.

You are splitting hairs. When a noise to peak ratio is more or less non-existent it is referred to as a 'non-noisy' or clean sample. There is no such thing as 'zero' noise at all because everything tested comes from an 'environment'. My statement was correct and I stand by it.

False statement two was that the DNA on the knife handle could give evidence as to whether the knife had been used for cutting versus stabbing.

It is not I that made the statement, I merely repeated it as it had been stated by the EXPERT. I suppose halides1 you missed my quote from the last page. Here it is again, just for you:

""The Italian news agency ANSA quoted Stefanoni as testifying that traces of Knox's genetic code were found in a small scratch on the knife's handle, and that the point in which the genetic material was found indicates that the knife "was used to pierce and not to cut."

After Stefanoni testified, Knox's lawyer told reporters outside the courtroom that the and that the defense was considering asking the court to order DNA testing by an outside expert."

Associated Press

PERUGIA MURDER FILE

Why don't you go back to your day job, that of "Michael," a moderator at PMF, the most rabidly anti-Knox site I have seen so far? You have no credibility on forensics here.

Good to see you've taken off your mask, it was only a matter of 'when' rather then if. Somehow, I suspect though you are very much of the mind that being 'rabidly anti-Rudy Guede' is just a-okay. Certainly, the sites you laud are all just that. But let's be clear, PMF is not 'anti' anyone. It is a site that is pro-victim (try it some time)...Meredith Kercher (remember her?) and is concerned only with the truth (try that some time too). In contrast, you have an agenda as do the people and sites you represent. My knowledge base is comprised of literally hundreds of sources while yours depends on nothing wider then a couple of FOA sites and their hirelings. Therefore, were I you, I wouldn't be throwing stones in that glass house of yours and I certainly wouldn't be messing with this dog that has very big teeth.

 

[piktor]

Your link doesn't work for me, Halides1: I am not sure why this is a problem for my computer. But from what you report it says it does not support your proposition. Again

Fiona, halides1 link did not work for me either. I searched at Daily Mail "bob graham" and scrolled down the long article until I found the Graham appeal story.

Here's the Bob Graham article:

The Appeal, by BOB GRAHAM

From the day Amanda Knox’s trial began, her family and lawyers were preparing for what they felt was an inevitable finding of guilt and the automatic appeal that follows.

Their deep distrust of an Italian legal process they view as flawed – even corrupt – primed them months ago for Friday’s verdict that convicted the 22-year-old American student and her 25-year-old ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito.

Under the Italian judicial system, an appeal is mandatory and the defence team must highlight the perceived failures of the ‘Court of First Instance’ which convicted the pair. According to the Knox family and close associates, there are plenty.

The appeal will focus on four specific areas: The DNA linking Knox and Sollecito to the murder scene; the criminal background of Rudy Guede, the drifter already convicted of Meredith’s murder; the manner in which Knox’s confession was obtained; and the conduct of the police and prosecution.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...inton-launch-investigation.html#ixzz0aM2FTt0D

Edited by Professor Yaffle: 

Article snipped as per Rule 4

 

[Fulcanelli]

Here's the Bob Graham article:

Piktor, perform a search on PMF for Bob Graham...if you have trouble nailing it down add 'Garfield Kennedy' to your keywords

 

[piktor]

Edited by Professor Yaffle: 

Article snipped as per Rule 4

My sincere apologies, will not happen again, Professor Yaffle.

 

[Fiona]

Thank your for the link, piktor. I have read this article before. It is from the daily mail: not a paper of record by any stretch of the imagination. The article is in two parts. There are inaccuracies in it of quite a nasty kind.

In the first part

nicknamed Foxy Knoxy for her string of boyfriends in her short time in Italy

Nope. She called herself that on facebook. She acquired the nickname because of her soccer skills as an 8 year old - at least according to her family. And it is interesting to note that Bob Graham, at least, was well aware of this because he reported it here:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/126957/My-Foxy-s-no-evil-murderer

His oeuvre is not going to be used at journalism school as a model of balanced reporting

drug dealer Rudy Guede, 22,

Guede has no convictions for drug dealing

Father Scarabattoli admitted Knox had not made friends within the prison walls.

Mr Ghirga revealed that Knox’s cell mates had waited up for her and comforted her with warm milk when she got back early yesterday morning.

Both statements very likely true: but the spin is interesting is it not? Mr Ghirga is her lawyer. I wonder what impression he was trying to give us? I do not think it was to show what warm hearted people criminals are.

Moving to the second part, which Halides1 drew our attention to:

The appeal will focus on four specific areas: The DNA linking Knox and Sollecito to the murder scene;

Yes

the criminal background of Rudy Guede,

He hasn't got one. But even if he had, what has that to do with the question of Knox or Sollecito's guilt?

the drifter

He is not a drifter

already convicted of Meredith’s murder;

Yes.

the manner in which Knox’s confession was obtained; and the conduct of the police and prosecutiom

She didn't confess: as it says earlier in the article

said she saw bar owner Patrick Lumumba, 40, a father of two, rape and kill the British undergraduate.

That is not quite accurate either, I think: but it is not like any confession I ever saw

The divide between the two countries

What has that got to do with anything at all?

was highlighted last weekwith an open letter

So are we to conclude that they are patriots, not scientists? if not what are these two phrases doing side by side?

from nine leading US DNA specialists questioning the validity of the only forensic evidence which implicates either Knox or Sollecito at the murder scene: DNA on a kitchen knife claimed to be the murder weapon and on a bra clasp ripped from Meredith.

Other forensic experts in several countries – including two from Britain – have started to study the DNA results but have delayed giving a verdict until they have received precise details on the methodology used by their Italian counterparts.

So scientists from other countries are not prepared to form conclusions before they see the evidence. Just what I would have expected: why are the nine not of the same mind?

The following sentence comes straight after

The failure of the prosecution to provide these details to Knox and Sollecito’s defence teams is one of their central complaints.

One of who's central complaints? The forensic scientists from other countries? The defence team? Who? Sloppy writing or spin: you decide, cos I don't know

Greg Hampikian of Boise State University, Idaho, signed the open letter having reviewed the DNA evidence

He harbours ‘grave concerns’ over the ‘methodology and manner in which the DNA was gathered and tested’.

How did he do that when it has not been passed over to the defence?

Disturbingly, police failed to act against Guede, despite having clear evidence of him committing break-ins or burglaries – some of them armed with a knife

There was the accusation from Tramontano that he broke into his home and threatened him with a knife: that accusation was thrown out as being fantasy, by the judge who was reviewing this case.

The mention of the earlier burglary at the nursery school is pure innuendo: quite shameful in fact. Itris true that a member of staff found him in the nursery early one morning: he waited quietly until the police arrived, you will notice: I don't recall the locksmith being mentioned, though he may have been: but the knife was the school's. Guede said he slept in the nursery that night presumably being unable to get home, for some reason. Since he was there in the morning and he neither tried to run or to fight I still don't see this scary figure we are asked to accept.

I do not know about the lawyer incident, but I am sure others do. These are hardly major crimes and I am not certain he would have been remanded in custody in this country if he had been arrested and charged with the two which may have some validity. It is hardly a "failure to act [which] left Guede free to murder Meredith."

It is now known that Knox was interrogated for nearly 53 hours over five days

No, it isn't.

This article is spin and nothing more, IMO

 

[Chris_Halkides]

thanks for the help

Evidence for the idea that the documents have not been released to the defence?

Evidence that the DNA can not give an indication as to how the knife was held: since this was stated in court?

Evidence for contamination in the lab in the last seven years?

Evidence that the cleaning of the knife was not possible (and no, the paper you cite does not demonstrate that)

Evidence that the peaks were not clear?

Evidence that PCR was not the technique used to amplify the dna?

Evidence that there were no controls done?

I do not think on your showing so far you have any better credibility than anyone else here. And you take an awful lot on trust from you engineer and his "anonymous molecular biologist". Not very scientific compared to the wide ranging sources and real attempts to get at hard information seen at PMF. Sure folk make mistakes: but nitpicking is not evidence and assertion isn't either

ETA: and I have to agree with Quadraginta: your civility is not apparent on this board whatever you might be like elsewhere.

My link works just as well as Piktor’s and both have the text I quoted about the incomplete nature of the data files. If Dr. Stefanoni did claim that the DNA on the knife shows it was used for stabbing and not cutting, I hope someone here can document her testimony. It will make the appeal process that much easier. The issue of the peak heights in the electropherogram being too small was discussed in a series of comments, culminating in #1136. I pointed out that 16 of 29 peaks fell below a height of 40 RDU, which means that more than 50% that were smaller than this cutoff value. Where did this standard come from? From a link that you, Fiona, provided. You helped me show that Fulcanelli’s claim to the effect that the noise was insignificant, was erroneous. Thank you.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Here it is

You are asking for a simple answer? I don't think it can be given a rating, but it is serious because in terms of the clasp, it puts Raffaele in the room messing with Meredith after her death. That can only lead to the conclusion he was involved in the murder directly. This is also bad for Amanda as she claims Raffaele as her alibi.

With the knife, it's possibly slightly weaker. Not so much due to the DNA, but due to the stain of another knife on the bed. Yes, it's thought there were two knives but we don't have the 2nd knife. Although, the kitchen knife is part compensated for by being bolstered by certain other clues (it's being scrubbed, Raffaele's lie to cover it, Kokomani's witness testimony where he saw two knives, Amanda's DNA on the handle in a position that showed she held it in a grip for a stabbing motion and not cutting action, it's matching the fatal wound). However, what the real strength of both the clasp and knife is, is not really their individual merits, but their being viewed in the context of all the other case evidence. In short, when looking at everything combined, any judge is going to ask 'well, what is the probability of those two pieces of evidence coming about as a result of purely innocent reasons when viewed in the context of all the other evidence against them?'. I would say very low and that affords them a lot of strength.

Fulcanelli said Amanda's DNA, not MK's.

 

[Fiona]

Your link did not work for me Halides1. I do not appreciate the inference. And it did not work for Piktor either so I doubt the fault is my machine.

What text about incomplete data files? I read the whole article: not for the first time. It does not seem to me to support your proposition. But do point out where it does.

As to her testimony: do your own research. I am tired of spoon feeding you when all I get back is links to the daily mail.

My link did not address the question you are trying to force into it and that is just more of the same. The noise is insignificant: many have shown that there have been miscarriages of justice based on peaks higher than 150 rfu in noisy samples: and there have been miscarriages of justice based on clear peaks which were not admitted because of the arbitrary limits set on this kind of evidence. Do you not do any research of your own Halides1?

 

[Fiona]

Fulcanelli said Amanda's DNA, not MK's.

Yes of course. what is your point?