Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Chris_Halkides]

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



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 ?

You haven't explained, let alone documented, why the letter is at odds with the evidence with have.

 

[Fiona]

I suspect that halides1 does not know where the knox dna on the handle was found, Fulcanelli: I think that is the source of his confusion.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

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

If ANSA's reporting is accurate, that is the best news I have heard all day. One more of Dr. Stefanoni's improbabilities.

 

[Fiona]

You haven't explained, let alone documented, why the letter is at odds with the evidence with have.

Yes. I have.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If ANSA's reporting is accurate, that is the best news I have heard all day. One more of Dr. Stephanoni's improbabilities.

You can't even spell her name right halides1.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The links to the threshold peak size

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

The link I provided in #1392 had the same paragraph you had in #1049.

There are no generally accepted thresholds for how high peaks must be to qualify as a "true allele." Applied Biosystems, Inc., which sells the most widely used system for STR typing (the ABI Prism 310 Genetic Analyzer(tm) with the ProfilerPlus(tm) system) recommends a peak-height threshold of 150 RFU, saying that peaks below this level must be interpreted with caution. However, many crime laboratories that use the ABI system have set lower thresholds (down to 40 RFU in some instances). And crime laboratories sometimes apply their standards in an inconsistent manner from case to case or even within a single case. Hence, a defendant may be convicted in one case based on "peaks" that would not be counted in another case, or by another lab. And in some cases there may be unreported peaks, just below the threshold, that would change the interpretation of the case if considered.

[End quote]

Your link has this quote as well. You have been hoisted by your own petard.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

You haven't explained, let alone documented, why the letter is at odds with the evidence with have.

See, here's what I don't get about this letter.

Iff the defense had access to the DNA/forensics report can the letter be accurate. Anything other than full access to the forensics report renders your letter to be nothing more than blowhards working for the FOA.

Ah, thank you. Have a nice day.


BTW, the quote from Stefanoni about the knife explicitly states that Knox's DNA was found in a crack on the handle and that the location of this crack/DNA sample indicates a stabbing motion was used.

Looks like it's time for a little grammar lesson. See, we have this phrase:

Stefanoni as testifying that traces of Knox's genetic code were found in a small scratch on the knife's handle

Followed by this phrase:

and that the point in which the genetic material was found indicates that the knife "was used to pierce and not to cut

See that "and"? Notice that "the point in which the genetic material was found" is therefore referencing the "small scratch on the knife's handle" where the sample was found. Therefore, the entire quote mentions nothing about the blade.

Given the difference in hand position on a knife handle (piercing vs cutting), I could see how the location of the DNA sample could indicate which motion was being used - whether it was while she was stabbing Meredith or while bleaching the knife, Knox held the knife in a manner consistent with a stabbing/piercing motion. Granted, we don't have access to the entire forensics report, so we aren't able to see the exact location for ourselves to verify this. However, we do have an expert - Stefanoni - who has presented a testimony that hasn't been refuted by the Defense.

 

[Fiona]

My link does have that quote, halides1. It still does not address the point you are trying to make. But I no longer expect you to grasp that, no matter what is said. Since you cannot tell the difference between "handle" and "blade" without it being pointed out to you in at least 3 posts there is no hope for anything more complex.

*goes back to talking to other people instead*

 

[Fulcanelli]

Your link has this quote as well. You have been hoisted by your own petard.

The quote of Fiona's that you referenced makes it clear. Different labs and different judicial zones have different protocols. So, since there is no 'rule' what is your problem?

And what is the point that you are trying to make? Are you trying to say it isn't Meredith's DNA? If not, then what 'are' you trying to say?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The electropherogram is public

My link does have that quote, halides1. It still does not address the point you are trying to make. But I no longer expect you to grasp that, no matter what is said. Since you cannot tell the difference between "handle" and "blade" without it being pointed out to you in at least 3 posts there is no hope for anything more complex.

*goes back to talking to other people instead*

Your message #1049 has the very same paragraph I quoted in #1406. Both indicate a minimum cutoff of 40 RFU. And we have the actual electropherogram in front of us to see that the majority of peaks fall below this value.

We are all agreed that ANSA reported that Stefanoni claimed the position of Knox's DNA on the handle indicated stabbing. I wonder whether ANSA was accurate, but I sure hope so.

 

[quadraginta]

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?

Observations on your intense disregard for anything not pertaining to your monomania on the subject of largely irrelevant DNA trivia does not constitute incivility, regardless of how thin skinned you might be personally. Neither does the observation that your approach to this discussion could lead one to believe you are less than dispassionate and unbiased.

Describing Fulcanelli's comments as "falsehoods", however, might. Of course it is up to him to decide how to respond to your calling him a liar.

I'm not claiming that PMF is anything in particular. You are.

My opinion is that it is a site with a wealth of references, evidence of a fair amount of work and study, and comments by people who have arrived at conclusions based on the totality of the evidence. (Not limited solely to some rather tenuous slurs on other people's labwork compiled by hired guns of dubious neutrality.) Not all of those opinions are complementary of Knox. This does not make the site "rabidly anti-Knox". Like any source it must be viewed in context, and reviewed by comparison with other sources.

I have offered you an opportunity to provide some examples of sites studying this tragedy in depth which are, in your opinion, unbiased. You have declined so far to do so. Perhaps there is a scarcity of sites which are in your opinion unbiased that fail to portray Knox as innocent as new fallen snow.

This might not be due to bias on the part of the sites in question.

Quite honestly I have not been able to find a site where serious research and review has been done which does not tend to develop a consensus that Knox was involved with this crime. As has happened even within the confines of this thread. Those places which do insist on her innocence seem to do so by means of denial, distortion, misdirection, and outright deception ... i.e., falsehoods.

It was exactly that sort of rhetoric displayed at length in the media which raised my suspicions to begin with. The efforts to paint her as blameless have resulted only in painting around everything of substance regarding the case, leaving (for those who bother to look) an unpainted hole through which to view her probable guilt.

 

[Fiona]

never mind: it is not worth it

 

[Kestrel]

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?

Stefanoni testified that finding DNA on a certain spot on a knife handle indicates that the knife was used to pierce and not cut.

I can understand making such a determination if a bloody handprint is found on the handle, but how can one can come to that conclusion with only one spot of DNA?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Your message #1049 has the very same paragraph I quoted in #1406. Both indicate a minimum cutoff of 40 RFU. And we have the actual electropherogram in front of us to see that the majority of peaks fall below this value.

We are all agreed that ANSA reported that Stefanoni claimed the position of Knox's DNA on the handle indicated stabbing. I wonder whether ANSA was accurate, but I sure hope so.

But your 'point' is?

Do any of the peaks not match Meredith's peaks? I already know the answer.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

falsehoods versus lies

Observations on your intense disregard for anything not pertaining to your monomania on the subject of largely irrelevant DNA trivia does not constitute incivility, regardless of how thin skinned you might be personally. Neither does the observation that your approach to this discussion could lead one to believe you are less than dispassionate and unbiased.

Describing Fulcanelli's comments as "falsehoods", however, might. Of course it is up to him to decide how to respond to your calling him a liar.

A falsehood is not a lie; it depends on what is in the mind of the person speaking it. On the other hand, I have repeatedly been called disingenuous on this site, and that is just an upscale way of saying that I lied. Please note the difference.

Fulcanelli has already made it clear that he is a dog with very big teeth and I should be wary. Please explain how this is civil.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

A falsehood is not a lie; it depends on what is in the mind of the person speaking it. On the other hand, I have repeatedly been called disingenuous on this site, and that is just an upscale way of saying that I lied. Please note the difference.

Fulcanelli has already made it clear that he is a dog with very big teeth and I should be wary. Please explain how this is civil.

No, a falsehood is a lie.

false⋅hood
  /ˈfɔlshʊd/

–noun
1. a false statement; lie.
2. something false; an untrue idea, belief, etc.: The Nazis propagated the falsehood of racial superiority.
3. the act of lying or making false statements.
4. lack of conformity to truth or fact.

And disingenuous does not mean lying. It's means you're not interested in a fair discussion

dis·in·gen·u·ous (dĭs'ĭn-jěn'yōō-əs)
adj.

1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating.

ETA: So, now that we've concluded our grammar and linguistics for the day, can we move on to discussing your evidence for your claims as requested previously by Fiona?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Stefanoni testified that finding DNA on a certain spot on a knife handle indicates that the knife was used to pierce and not cut.

I can understand making such a determination if a bloody handprint is found on the handle, but how can one can come to that conclusion with only one spot of DNA?

I would suppose because the positioning of the DNA would indicate the position of the grip and that grip is deemed different then the grip would be were it to cut. Why don't you write to her and ask her?

Whatever. She raised it in trial and testified to it on the stand and from the reports I linked to, she went to great lengths via graphs, media and data to demonstrate how she came to her conclusions and was cross examined by both the defence and the judges. However, there were no reports of the defence challenging that finding on cross. Neither are there any reports of the defence experts challenging it when they testified. I can only conclude that they either accepted her findings on that matter or at the least, were unable to challenge them.

I should also point point oit here, Stefanoni is a top scientist, well respected in her field. In fact, she was one of the leading scientists in the group that was responsible for the identifying via DNA, of victims of the Indonesian sunami:

"The forensics specialists include chief of the Italian Scientific Police Unit in Rome, Patrizia Stefanoni.

She was part of the Disaster Investigations Team sent to the scene of the 2004 tsunami to identify victims."

SKY NEWS

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Not according to Merriam Webster

No, a falsehood is a lie.



And disingenuous does not mean lying. It's means you're not interested in a fair discussion



ETA: So, now that we've concluded our grammar and linguistics for the day, can we move on to discussing your evidence for your claims as requested previously by Fiona?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/falsehood

Falsehood

Meaning: 1 a false idea or belief <the possibility of a perpetual motion machine is one falsehood that has been disproved by modern physics> — see fallacy 1
2 a statement known by its maker to be untrue and made in order to deceive <several falsehoods in the witnessʼs testimony that may be grounds for perjury> — see lie

Meaning 1 is what I intended. Only you know the reason why you missed this entry.

Maybe you can tell me the identity of the magic cleaning fluid used on the knife. I have been waiting to hear from you for several days about this.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

If you know the answer

But your 'point' is?

Do any of the peaks not match Meredith's peaks? I already know the answer.

Then there is no point in discussing it with you.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If anyone is in any doubt whether the knife DNA is a match for Meredith's DNA, here is the chart from the Knife laid over the chart for Meredith's DNA: PERUGIA MURDER FILE