Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fiona]

Oh, and about that evidence? Got any?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

cleaning the knife

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

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

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

You have distorted what I said, and not for the first time. I indicated that it was implausible that cleaning a knife with bleach would remove all traces of blood and not all traces of DNA, not impossible. Of course, it is not that much more or less implausible than Dr. Stefanoni's opinion that the knife was cleaned with bleach. What was her evidence? They call it stainless steel for a reason, and bleach does not leave a corrosive mark. I hope someone is keeping a running tally of all of Dr. Stefanoni's implausible statements.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Still waiting for all of the data

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?

Go to the second half of the article, the part called "The Appeal." Here is the money quote from Graham's article: "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." And Professor Hampkinian's letter indicates that the .fst files were not released (see upthread for a discussion). Therefore, Michael Fulcanelli's claim in #1361 is at best disputed, no matter how many exclamation points he uses.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Yes of course. what is your point?

In #1372, Fulcanelli tried to shift the discussion to the blade of the knife, but I was referring to the handle, and I have just posted a message that proves that Fulcanelli did make this preposterous claim upthread.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The electropherogram

Oh, and about that evidence? Got any?

Sure do. Figure 1 in the open letter is the electropherogram of the knife. Anyone can tabulate for himself or herself the number of peaks that fall below 40 RFU. What about you?

 

[Fiona]

What is the significance of that ?

 

[Fulcanelli]

In #1372, Fulcanelli tried to shift the discussion to the blade of the knife, but I was referring to the handle, and I have just posted a message that proves that Fulcanelli did make this preposterous claim upthread.

I've no idea what you're huffing and puffing about. I stated the manner in which Amanda's DNA was on the handle of the knife, was according to the expert, aid in a position which suggested the knife had been held by Amanda in order to stab rather then cut. I then provided a link to support it. What is your issue?

 

[Fiona]

Go to the second half of the article, the part called "The Appeal." Here is the money quote from Graham's article: "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."

Not only did I read it, I commented on it. It does not even suggest what you seem to think it states

And Professor Hampkinian's letter indicates that the .fst files were not released (see upthread for a discussion). Therefore, Michael Fulcanelli's claim in #1361 is at best disputed, no matter how many exclamation points he uses.

Professor Hampkinian's letter does indicate that. The question is how would he know? And why should I believe his letter when it is at odds with the evidence we have ?

 

[Fiona]

In #1372, Fulcanelli tried to shift the discussion to the blade of the knife, but I was referring to the handle, and I have just posted a message that proves that Fulcanelli did make this preposterous claim upthread.

He was talking about the handle too. I worry about your reading level sometimes

 

[Fulcanelli]

Go to the second half of the article, the part called "The Appeal." Here is the money quote from Graham's article: "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." And Professor Hampkinian's letter indicates that the .fst files were not released (see upthread for a discussion). Therefore, Michael Fulcanelli's claim in #1361 is at best disputed, no matter how many exclamation points he uses.

What does that prove? Just because two experts in England don't have the Italian lab's protocols in their hands (why would they? They don't work in the Italian lab, they are not members of the defence team and they don't have access to the case files that contains all the scientific data as the defence does), how does that translate into the defence not having them?

 

[Fiona]

It doesn't Fulcanelli.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

S/N ratios and dogs with big teeth

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.

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.

Michael Fulcanelli,

Fiona provided some text and a link in #1049, in which the 40 RFU cutoff was discussed. Here is another link with the same text: http://www.bioforensics.com/conference04/Artifacts/index.html

If you still wish to claim that the noise in the knife electropherogram is insignificant or non-existent, I would ask what your definition of significance is when 16 of 29 peaks fall below this level.

Maybe you can tell me what you mean by “messing with a dog that has very big teeth.” It sure does not sound civil to me.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The blade

He was talking about the handle too. I worry about your reading level sometimes

In #1372, Fulcanelli wrote,

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."
[End quote]


So Fulcanelli was talking about the blade, and your statement that he was talking about the handle in #1372 is inaccurate. Again.

 

[Fiona]

You have a different definition of civility in Wilmington? Well that can happen

The link I posted does not address the issue you are trying to support. But that would not matter if you did some work of your own: you could try to meet the "highest standards of journalism" if you liked: though judging from what you have relied on of your own so far I am not certain you know what that means

 

[Fiona]

In #1372, Fulcanelli wrote,

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."
[End quote]


So Fulcanelli was talking about the blade, and your statement that he was talking about the handle in #1372 is inaccurate. Again.

Nope not as I read it. I am often wrong but I do not see this so can you spell it out.

What I see is that he was quoting what Stefanoni said about the handle: see it says the word handle in the quote and that may be what is confusing me.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Your quote is about the blade. Do you have any evidence that the placement of DNA on the handle was brought up? I hope you do. I ran this idea by two people who teach forensics and they were both incredulous.

Now I see what you mean. But I think that that ANSA may have gotten it wrong, mistaking Stefanoni's remarks about the blade for remarks about handle.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

 

[Fiona]

Your quote is about the blade. Do you have any evidence that the placement of DNA on the handle was brought up? I hope you do. I ran this idea by two people who teach forensics and they were both incredulous.

This is where you fall down halides1: that quote is about the handle. If you had done any work you would know that

 

[Fulcanelli]

So Fulcanelli was talking about the blade, and your statement that he was talking about the handle in #1372 is inaccurate. Again.

'I' was talking about the handle, 'Stefanoni' was talking about the handle, 'I' was referencing Stefanoni giving evidence about the handle. What is so difficult about that to understand?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Your quote is about the blade. Do you have any evidence that the placement of DNA on the handle was brought up? I hope you do. I ran this idea by two people who teach forensics and they were both incredulous.

Now I see what you mean. But I think that that ANSA may have gotten it wrong, mistaking Stefanoni's remarks about the blade for remarks about handle.

How can it be about the blade? Amanda's DNA isn't on the blade, it's only on the handle!