Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Chris_Halkides]

Who told Sollecito

Just curious.


As a follow-up question why do you think that, on the basis of little more than a rumor that such DNA had been found, Sollecito immediately assumed it was true and attempted to fabricate an explanation for its presence?

Can you be more specific about the exact circumstances of Sollecito's being informed of the DNA on the knife? Do you have a cite?

 

[Megalodon]

I've asked this before and it wasn't answered, and I haven't seen any evidence that the argument is erroneous.

The DNA test only proved that the victim was in contact with the blade of the knife. That contact was confirmed by Sollecito. He went to the trouble of explaining why blood could be found in the knife. And it all happened in a dinner for which there is no evidence or corroboration whatsoever.

The DNA test could have been performed by drunk monkeys, because Sollecito admitted that he stabbed Meredith with that knife. If you throw out the DNA test, you still have his admission and confabulation.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

laboratory requirements

Wasn't designed for LCN DNA testing? You mean when the architects designed the lab...'We have to design this lab for LCN...make sure you put the doors here instead of here'...wrong bricks? What are the proper specs for an LCN lab, do you have the blueprints handy for the universal standard? What's the 'right' design for an LCN testing lab? I thought labs simply updated their equipment and techniques as the technology advanced. If I'm wrong about that...how so?

Butler's textbook, Forensic DNA Typing, discusses the need for sterility and a dedicated laboratory and other issues surrounding the special problems of LCN DNA typing starting on page 168. See

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/lcn_testing.html

for a discussion of the use of positive pressure air systems, a laboratory space that is remote from other labs, and special lighting.

Chris

 

[quadraginta]

Can you be more specific about the exact circumstances of Sollecito's being informed of the DNA on the knife? Do you have a cite?

Quit playing games. To use an appropriate quote,

Cites have been posted ...

... Far upthread ... several times ...

Enjoy.

(P.S., I see you dodged the first question, too.)

 

[Fiona]

Do you not have anything new, Halides1? Because we have discussed all of these cites before and you still have not replied to any of the points raised to you. You appear to only transmit

 

[Chris_Halkides]

drunk monkeys

I've asked this before and it wasn't answered, and I haven't seen any evidence that the argument is erroneous.

The DNA test only proved that the victim was in contact with the blade of the knife. That contact was confirmed by Sollecito. He went to the trouble of explaining why blood could be found in the knife. And it all happened in a dinner for which there is no evidence or corroboration whatsoever.

The DNA test could have been performed by drunk monkeys, because Sollecito admitted that he stabbed Meredith with that knife. If you throw out the DNA test, you still have his admission and confabulation.

Let us consider a matrix four possibilities. You will have to reformat this table in your word processing program.

RS cut MK cooking RS did not cut MK cooking
MK DNA is present on blade (1) (3)
MK DNA is not present (2) (4)

Let us say (1) that MK did get cut while cooking with RS, and there is DNA present. Then there would be an innocent explanation for the DNA, and nothing ties it to the crime. Now let us say (2) that she did get cut, but no DNA is present. This would be ascribed to someone’s cleaning the knife, but nothing would tie the knife to the crime. Now let us say (3) that she did get cut, and DNA was present. This would favor the prosecution’s case. Finally let us say (4) she did not get cut, and no DNA is present. Thus nothing would tie the knife to the crime.

My interpretation of the defense’s position is that the prosecution’s claim of DNA being present is dubious, and even if the DNA were there, an innocent explanation for it exists. I do not see how the second half of this argument in any way invalidates the first. I would point out that if Sollecito is not telling the truth, possibilities (3) and (4), it does not necessarily follow that he is lying; the alternative is that he sincerely believes something that is not true (I call this a false memory). The distinction between RS’s possibly speaking falsely and lying is important to make from the point of view of language; whether or not it is important to the case is in the eye of the beholder, IMO.

Suppose a different situation existed: Kercher’s DNA is indisputably found on the knife. Sollecito says that neither he nor the other defendants killed her, and she never cooked with him. We would not say that his words exclude the knife as the murder weapon. Why would we say that his words identify the knife as the weapon in this case? BobTheDonkey attempted to answer this question once, but I found his argument unconvincing.

Finally, let us not forget that the kitchen knife does not match all of the wounds, nor does it match the knife outline on the sheet.

Chris

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Butler's textbook

Do you not have anything new, Halides1? Because we have discussed all of these cites before and you still have not replied to any of the points raised to you. You appear to only transmit

Fiona,

Butler's textbook answers some of the questions you raised about LCN testing. It has not been brought into this discussion before I did so yesterday. So your claim of nothing new and your claim that I have not been responsive are both false.

Chris

 

[quadraginta]

Let us consider a matrix four possibilities. You will have to reformat this table in your word processing program.

RS cut MK cooking RS did not cut MK cooking
MK DNA is present on blade (1) (3)
MK DNA is not present (2) (4)

Let us say (1) that MK did get cut while cooking with RS, and there is DNA present. Then there would be an innocent explanation for the DNA, and nothing ties it to the crime. Now let us say (2) that she did get cut, but no DNA is present. This would be ascribed to someone’s cleaning the knife, but nothing would tie the knife to the crime. Now let us say (3) that she did get cut, and DNA was present. This would favor the prosecution’s case. Finally let us say (4) she did not get cut, and no DNA is present. Thus nothing would tie the knife to the crime.

My interpretation of the defense’s position is that the prosecution’s claim of DNA being present is dubious, and even if the DNA were there, an innocent explanation for it exists. I do not see how the second half of this argument in any way invalidates the first. I would point out that if Sollecito is not telling the truth, possibilities (3) and (4), it does not necessarily follow that he is lying; the alternative is that he sincerely believes something that is not true (I call this a false memory). The distinction between RS’s possibly speaking falsely and lying is important to make from the point of view of language; whether or not it is important to the case is in the eye of the beholder, IMO.

Suppose a different situation existed: Kercher’s DNA is indisputably found on the knife. Sollecito says that neither he nor the other defendants killed her, and she never cooked with him. We would not say that his words exclude the knife as the murder weapon. Why would we say that his words identify the knife as the weapon in this case? BobTheDonkey attempted to answer this question once, but I found his argument unconvincing.

Finally, let us not forget that the kitchen knife does not match all of the wounds, nor does it match the knife outline on the sheet.

Chris

Hilarious.

Sophistry as physical science.

What a hoot.

 

[Fulcanelli]

To all,

Here is a cite for the lack of controls with respect to the knife:
http://www.sciencespheres.com/2009/10/lcn-dna-profiling-part-ii-watch-where.html
http://www.sciencespheres.com/2009/10/methods-of-polizia-pseudoscientificaa.html

A good negative control would have been to test other kitchen knives for Kercher’s DNA. Since no other knives were taken into custody, these controls could not have been done.

Chris

What??? For your evidence, you give us the links to an FOA propaganda site? For the record, the FOA have NEVER demonstrated there weren't proper controls. Like you and Dan o, they've merely asserted it. This is in direct contradiction to the evidence actually presented in court. I don't know why, but you seem to be deliberately spreading misinformation.

 

[Fiona]

Fiona,

Butler's textbook answers some of the questions you raised about LCN testing. It has not been brought into this discussion before I did so yesterday. So your claim of nothing new and your claim that I have not been responsive are both false.

Chris

Does it address this case?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

asked and answered

Quit playing games. To use an appropriate quote,

Cites have been posted ...




Enjoy.

(P.S., I see you dodged the first question, too.)

Quadraginta,

I decided to answer Megalodon's question, which you asked in a different way. I have already answered your question about Meredith's DNA some time ago. If you are too lazy to look it up, that is not my problem. But if you expect me to overlook your dodging my question, I am sorry to disappoint you.

Chris

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Fiona,

Yes.

Chris

 

[shuttlt]

halides1,

I don't see how any of that implies other knives should have been tested to conform to best practice. I can see how these are reasonable sources of concern surounding the DNA that were presumably considered by the defence.

Your quote says:

The low copy number test on the kitchen knife was apparently performed without any negative controls.

According to Fiona, this is false.

On the one hand Dr Stefanoni testified that there were controls: the tests were witnessed by the expert hired by the Kerchers: the protocols in place were confirmed by Biondi. On the other hand Dan_O says they were all lying or mistaken. You pays your money .....

Is she wrong? I had understood you were saying that regular controls were no good and they should have used other knives as the control. I'm not sure any longer whether you are wanting this to be a control of lab procedure, or a control of the crime scene in some way. Unless you correct me I'll assume you mean that there were controls on the lab tests, but no additional tests on control objects sent through the same handling process. Would such checks be standard practice elsewhere on a case like this?

Perhaps even more important for the knife DNA, no control experiments were run to follow the handling of the item from the field through to the laboratory. That is, to see if other, random objects retrieved from the same drawer and handled in the same, unprofessional way, might also appear to have DNA on them.

This seems like a very odd thing to say. Presumably the claim is contamination, so they would indeed have DNA on them, unless the claim is that it's a false positive in the lab, in which case it's confusing to use objects from the same location.

It would be interesting to hear the prosecution spinning a sinister implication out of DNA found on a can opener.

No such thing was found though. Is it normal procedure to exhaustively send random items to the lab for testing just in case like this?

Perhaps one can use canned peas for satanic rituals.

Would sending cans of peas to the lab be normal procedure in the US?

Would Meredith's DNA be found on a spoon from the same drawer?

Would it be normal practice in the US to send all the teaspoons to the lab for testing in such a case?

How about Filomena's? Would the spoon then be cast as the murder weapon, whether it matches any wounds or not?

If Kercher had been shot rather than stabbed would the presence of her DNA on the spoon have mattered? No such spoon has been found, this is wild speculation.

All this is preposterous of course. But think about it. We have no way of knowing what the supposed knife DNA means, or where it came from, because no comparison tests of any kind were performed.

It certainly is proposterous. Further, according to Fiona negative control tests were done. Do we have any evidence that the US police would routinely send random items through to the lab on a case like this?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Can you be more specific about the exact circumstances of Sollecito's being informed of the DNA on the knife? Do you have a cite?

I think it's about time you read Sollecito's prison diary. Obviously you haven't otherwise you wouldn't be asking such stupid questions. It seems to me you have plenty of time to read the FOA propaganda sites, but none at all to read the actual case data. How can you sit there and lecture us on the case when clearly you haven't even studied the basics of it?!

 

[Fiona]

A different way? I think you posted this before did you not? It was not convincing than and repeating it does not make it more so.

The introduction of "false memory" is intriguing though. I am not a big fan of false memory syndrome: but if it exists it is not generally spontaneous. When people say spontaneously things which are not true most people think it is more likely that they are lying than that they are suffering from "false memory". Not you though. Once again, anything can happen: but some things are more likely than others. I happen to think that false memory of a non-existent dinner party/cosy cooking episde is less likely than a lie.

 

[Fiona]

Fiona,

Yes.

Chris

Then quote the relevant parts please. It will no doubt show in detail from Dr Stefanoni's report what went wrong on this occasion

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Galileo

I think it's about time you read Sollecito's prison diary. Obviously you haven't otherwise you wouldn't be asking such stupid questions. It seems to me you have plenty of time to read the FOA propaganda sites, but none at all to read the actual case data. How can you sit there and lecture us on the case when clearly you haven't even studied the basics of it?!

Fulcanelli,

You wrote:

“There is no noise and this has been proven in court. In two courts in fact.” (#1197)

“There is no noise in between peaks” (#1201)

About 380 years ago another Italian court tried to rule against physical reality, and it has been a public relations disaster for them ever since. Your statements about the lack of noise between peaks is belied by the figure you presented in a later post. The low signal-to-noise ratio is a problem with the DNA profile from the knife, as I have said repeatedly. I have supplied links and citations of the forensic literature to correct some of the misapprehensions about DNA typing. Perhaps it is time that you and others read them. If you do not wish to educate yourselves, that is your choice.

Chris

 

[shuttlt]

Fulcanelli,

You wrote:

“There is no noise and this has been proven in court. In two courts in fact.” (#1197)

“There is no noise in between peaks” (#1201)

About 380 years ago another Italian court tried to rule against physical reality, and it has been a public relations disaster for them ever since. Your statements about the lack of noise between peaks is belied by the figure you presented in a later post. The low signal-to-noise ratio is a problem with the DNA profile from the knife, as I have said repeatedly. I have supplied links and citations of the forensic literature to correct some of the misapprehensions about DNA typing. Perhaps it is time that you and others read them. If you do not wish to educate yourselves, that is your choice.

Chris

If it's just noise, why didn't the negative controls in the lab reveal this, or is Fiona wrong about them having been performed?

 

[Fiona]

Fulcanelli,

You wrote:

“There is no noise and this has been proven in court. In two courts in fact.” (#1197)

“There is no noise in between peaks” (#1201)

About 380 years ago another Italian court tried to rule against physical reality, and it has been a public relations disaster for them ever since. Your statements about the lack of noise between peaks is belied by the figure you presented in a later post. The low signal-to-noise ratio is a problem with the DNA profile from the knife, as I have said repeatedly. I have supplied links and citations of the forensic literature to correct some of the misapprehensions about DNA typing. Perhaps it is time that you and others read them. If you do not wish to educate yourselves, that is your choice.

Chris

[sings] But a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest [/sings]

Cherry picking quotes like that is not doing anything to persuade me to your point of view. It is difficult to believe you are arguing in good faith

 

[quadraginta]

Quadraginta,

I decided to answer Megalodon's question, which you asked in a different way. I have already answered your question about Meredith's DNA some time ago.

No you didn't. I never asked it "some time ago". This is the first time.

If you're going to pretend that you answered the same question to someone else you're gonna have to prove it, 'cause I've been here for the whole thread, and I think I would have noticed.

(Looking for a number, BTW, not an evasion.)

If you are too lazy to look it up, that is not my problem.

Can't look up what isn't there. Not inclined to try. If there is some reason you can't simply repeat a simple number rather than try and send me off on a wild goose chase perhaps you might share that instead?

But if you expect me to overlook your dodging my question, I am sorry to disappoint you.

Chris

I didn't dodge diddly. I responded with exactly the same answer you used in your response to Megalodon. In fact, I quoted you.

Unless ... oh, wait. You're trying to say that that was dodgy.

Very admirable of you to 'fess up.