Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[BobTheDonkey]

BobTheDonkey,

Several of the videos that have been linked here document bad collection technique. Thus, there is no contradiction in pointing this out, while also asking for files that have yet to be turned over. You are trying to muddy the waters, but you are not doing so very effectively.

The speed of your reply indicates that you did not bother to read the link I went to so much trouble to provide. Some might charitably describe your attitude as feckless. Sollecito's DNA was not saturating; it was pretty weak. And you are still deliberately asking the wrong question. How can you explain all of the DNA on the clasp without invoking contamination?

Chris

Ok. So bad technique was used. Where did the contamination come from if Sollecito's DNA was nowhere else to be found? Why was Sollecito's DNA in Meredith's room to contaminate the clasp? How, if Knox had lived there 2 months and left barely any DNA evidence, are we to believe that Sollecito's presence as a visitor for 2 weeks (or so) prior to the murder left enough DNA to be the most abundant DNA found on the clasp?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

RFU

And this is where I have to point out that it was not weak at all. When the "abundance" was quantified, Sollecito's defence team asked for a nearly two month postponement and even asked for a mistrial after court was convened. Why? Because they said they hadn't had enough time to examine the DNA evidence.

Why is it that you claim the DNA evidence was weak while Sollecito's defence team clearly disagrees with you?

Stilicho,

IIRC, the peaks were roughly 200-300 RFU in intensity, about sixfold weaker than Ms. Kercher's DNA. To say that it "saturated" the clasp, as Bob has twice done, is deliberately to mischaracterize the strength of the signal.

With respect to finding a contradiction where none exists, as Bob has done, you have done also. The defense has asked the prosecution for files that would allow them to analyze the data independently. That in no way contradicts what I have said. Quite the contrary, I support their call for full release of the files, as any good skeptic would.

Chris

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Reference samples

BobTheDonkey,

Wrong. Ms. Kercher's DNA was the most abundant, by about sixfold, not Mr. Sollecito's. You have asked this question before, and I gave you the answer. The reference samples themselves are a common source of contamination, as I have documented and which you choose to ignore. My question was: What possible scenario can account for ALL of the DNA on the clasp? I am still waiting for an answer.

Chris

 

[lector]

What is typical of this thread is the argument from intimidation, as exemplified by Lector’s insubstantial response (#1724) to Dan O.

Chris

"Argument from intimidation"? I wonder if we even speak the same language.

Dan O wants to explore theories that can be valid only if one ignores, or can contradict, what we know of the basic physical evidence at the heart of this case. Therefore I think that one first has to explain why that evidence is invalid. That's what I've asked here & on the separate thread that Dan O subsequently started. If that's intimidating, I'm stunned.

My point has been ignored, which is certainly everyone's prerogative, though lone-wolf theories will have zero credibility with me until it's answered. I remain interested in any serious analysis that refutes the evidence of more than one perp. I haven't been able to do it myself but I think I know my limitations in this area.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

BobTheDonkey,

Wrong. Ms. Kercher's DNA was the most abundant, by about sixfold, not Mr. Sollecito's. You have asked this question before, and I gave you the answer. The reference samples themselves are a common source of contamination, as I have documented and which you choose to ignore. My question was: What possible scenario can account for ALL of the DNA on the clasp? I am still waiting for an answer.

Chris

Ok, so even if the clasp was contaminated. You honestly believe that's the only piece of evidence linking Knox to this murder?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

which evidence

"Argument from intimidation"? I wonder if we even speak the same language.

Dan O wants to explore theories that can be valid only if one ignores, or can contradict, what we know of the basic physical evidence at the heart of this case. Therefore I think that one first has to explain why that evidence is invalid. That's what I've asked here & on the separate thread that Dan O subsequently started. If that's intimidating, I'm stunned.

My point has been ignored, which is certainly everyone's prerogative, though lone-wolf theories will have zero credibility with me until it's answered. I remain interested in any serious analysis that refutes the evidence of more than one perp. I haven't been able to do it myself but I think I know my limitations in this area.

The first thing to do is explain which basic physical evidence you are talking about.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

logical fallacy

"Argument from intimidation"? I wonder if we even speak the same language.

Dan O wants to explore theories that can be valid only if one ignores, or can contradict, what we know of the basic physical evidence at the heart of this case. Therefore I think that one first has to explain why that evidence is invalid. That's what I've asked here & on the separate thread that Dan O subsequently started. If that's intimidating, I'm stunned.

My point has been ignored, which is certainly everyone's prerogative, though lone-wolf theories will have zero credibility with me until it's answered. I remain interested in any serious analysis that refutes the evidence of more than one perp. I haven't been able to do it myself but I think I know my limitations in this area.

I would define the argument from intimidation in the following way: One implies that only the ignorant or foolish would say/believe such a thing as X. One's listener, not wanting to appear either, says of course I don't believe X. Perhaps that was not your intent, but such arguments have found their way onto this thread before.

 

[Fiona]

BobTheDonkey,

Several of the videos that have been linked here document bad collection technique. Thus, there is no contradiction in pointing this out, while also asking for files that have yet to be turned over. You are trying to muddy the waters, but you are not doing so very effectively.

The speed of your reply indicates that you did not bother to read the link I went to so much trouble to provide. Some might charitably describe your attitude as feckless. Sollecito's DNA was not saturating; it was pretty weak. And you are still deliberately asking the wrong question. How can you explain all of the DNA on the clasp without invoking contamination?

Chris

You mention in your earlier post that you see falsehoods trotted out: yet you continue to assert that the files have no been turned over to the defence. You have produced absolutlely nothing in support of this assertion. Why do you repeat it without evidence?

Your link does absolutely nothing to support the case you are making: it is, once agan, a general discussion of the precautions to be taken in a lab to deal with possible contamination. Those precautions are taken in Dr Stefanoni's lab:the testing was witnessed by an independent expert acting for the Kerchners and the lab procedures confirmed by a second independent source. Once again all you have is generalities and that is just not adequate in face of what really happened in the specific case. The defence experts have not been able to overturn the evidence: and that is because the "might have beens" cannot be shown to have happened.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Lionking,

Amanda Knox disputes even doing a cartwheel (http://www.westseattleherald.com/2009/03/01/news/knox-says-cop-misread-yoga-move). What is typical of this case that such information gets buried underneath the innuendo. What is typical of this thread is the argument from intimidation, as exemplified by Lector’s insubstantial response (#1724) to Dan O.

I left this thread because I was tired of being called disingenuous and being warned that I was messing with a dog with very big teeth. In my absence I see the same falsehoods being trotted out over and over again. I assumed people came here with open minds to debate and to learn, but that has not been my experience.

Chris

Amanda NEVER disputed doing the cartwheel. Her STEP FATHER was the one that gave a load of flannel about the cartwheel business. You would not be making this claim if you had ever actually bothered to read through Amanda's testimony that she gave in the trial, instead of second rate FOA authored articles. In fact, the reporter who wrote that article was a poster in this thread at the time I joined it. But, if you go back to the same rag that story is posted and review the NEXT story on the cartwheel Shay wrote, you'll see Mellas changes his story and makes the claim that a mystery policeman TOLD her to do it. Which kind of of makes him dishonest since in the first story he claimed Amanda told him and her father personally that she was only doing yoga and doing it to relieve stress. He just made it up. He also made up what he told shay in the second story about the policeman telling her to do a cartwheel, because what happened when Amanda went on the stand and was asked about the cartwheel? She not only admitted doing the cartwheel, but also told the court she did it to relieve stress. No mystery policeman telling her to do the cartwheel. What does this all mean? It means you need to do more research before telling people what's what and it also means you can't believe a damn thing Chris Mellas utters!

I suggest people read the story you linked.

Then I suggest people read the story that Mellas fed Frank Sfarzo of Perugia Shock here: http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/03/amanda-knox-finally-admits.html

Then I suggest people read Amanda's testimony on the stand in the trial which runs throughout this thread here: http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=17358#p17358

 

[stilicho]

The defense has asked the prosecution for files that would allow them to analyze the data independently.

So, is it the weakness of the DNA sample? Or is it the lack of "independent" analysis? Or is it contamination? Which one is it that's hampering the defence case? Or is it all three?

Do you have examples from any other cases where similar contentions were proved in court?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Stilicho,

IIRC, the peaks were roughly 200-300 RFU in intensity, about sixfold weaker than Ms. Kercher's DNA. To say that it "saturated" the clasp, as Bob has twice done, is deliberately to mischaracterize the strength of the signal.

With respect to finding a contradiction where none exists, as Bob has done, you have done also. The defense has asked the prosecution for files that would allow them to analyze the data independently. That in no way contradicts what I have said. Quite the contrary, I support their call for full release of the files, as any good skeptic would.

Chris

You are full of spin.

If the bra clasp was contaminated, we would expect to see a ratio of Raffaele's to Meredith's DNA on the clasp somewhere in the region of 100:1, what instead we have is a ratio of 6:1!!!

Raffaele gripped the clasp. End of!

 

[Dan O.]

So, is it the weakness of the DNA sample? Or is it the lack of "independent" analysis? Or is it contamination? Which one is it that's hampering the defence case? Or is it all three?

Do you have examples from any other cases where similar contentions were proved in court?

Don't you recognize "Hoey"?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Don't you recognize "Hoey"?

What's Hoey got to do with it?

 

[varwoche]

if you go back to the same rag...

Just as a side point, I've lived in the Seattle area for 20 years, I'm an avid news consumer, and I never even heard of the West Seattle Herald.

 

[Dan O.]

Just as a side point, I've lived in the Seattle area for 20 years, I'm an avid news consumer, and I never even heard of the West Seattle Herald.

Looks like they've been around for a while longer than you have but they cover a small territory.

http://web.archive.org/web/19981202075101/www.westseattleherald.com/insideherald.htm

In 1998 they claimed a circulation of 28,100 in a community of 31,000 households.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I have no idea if this programme will be any good or not, but for those of you in the UK, you can see it tomorrow night.

In a trial that gripped the world, American student Amanda Knox and her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were eventually found guilty of the brutal murder of Knox's flatmate, British student Meredith Kercher.
Knox was sentenced to 26 years in prison; she has maintained her innocence from the outset. This film, exclusive to the True Stories strand, gained intimate access to the Knox family and their friends for almost two years, beginning just after her arrest in November 2007.
It also includes extracts from letters Amanda wrote while awaiting trial and offers a unique insight into her life, getting behind the sensational headlines to answer the crucial question - who is the real Amanda Knox and was she really capable of murder?

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-trials-of-amanda-knox/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1

 

[Jungle Jim]

Then I suggest people read Amanda's testimony on the stand in the trial which runs throughout this thread here: http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=17358#p17358

I read the testimony. Its a shame the police did not record her interrogation. It is a pretty common practice for murder cases in the U.S.

 

[Alt+F4]

Does anyone know, was Amanda Knox ever given a psychological examination to try to determine her motivatio? Is she mentally ill?

 

[varwoche]

In 1998 they claimed a circulation of 28,100 in a community of 31,000 households.

28,000 households interested in pee-wee football scores, police blotter and yard sales. AKA a neighborhood rag, and not a source one would typically turn to for serious journalism (no offense intended Steve).

 

[lector]

I would define the argument from intimidation in the following way: One implies that only the ignorant or foolish would say/believe such a thing as X. One's listener, not wanting to appear either, says of course I don't believe X. Perhaps that was not your intent, but such arguments have found their way onto this thread before.

Sorry, that was not my intention. I may have overstated my point; there is something about this case that makes it difficult for many, including me, to remain dispassionate in discussion. I felt that Dan O was putting the cart before the horse, & that's all I should have said.

In my view, the most authoritative interpretation of the physical evidence of more than one perp is in the Micheli Report, which I linked on the lone-wolf thread. I am sure that similar evidence was presented at the AK/RS trial & am hoping that the judge's report will illuminate that. It's an ongoing issue & source of frustration for me because much of that evidence was given in closed sessions. One has to trust Micheli's account to a certain degree, which I do, though I'm not entirely comfortable with that. Again, though, I have yet to see anyone dispute that account convincingly.

Whatever was presented in the AK/RS trial, in order to buy a lone-wolf theory, I think that one has to believe that the judge & defense lawyers were incompetent and/or corrupt, and that the jury was duped or misguided. I don't discount those possibilities but at this point I think they're a stretch. That's just my current opinion & always subject to change as new information emerges.