Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fiona]

No, I am not losing focus Dan_O. Are you aware that Dr Johnson's lab was not accredited though she regularly gave evidence in American courts, and apparently was prepared to do so without having done the work? If you have any reason apart from xenophobia to doubt the fitness of the lab in question then show it. A prima facie case is required before anyone would take your demand seriously. It is frankly insulting as it stands.

 

[lector]

Originally Posted by Dan O.
Fiona, I did not say they were all lying. I've only said that without the documents I've requested it's not possible to assign any quantitative value to the results. I'm not just asking for evidence as a diversion, the numbers from the certification documents are exactly what is needed to complete the analysis and compute the odds that the result was not due to contamination.

Won't the defence have checked this?

Even if there's any significance here & they somehow missed it, surely they will get into it during the appeal.

Of course we may have to wait the better part of a year for that to happen, but I'm sure there'll be no shortage of issues to keep us busy until then.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fiona, you are loosing focus. The accreditation and independent testing which is required of all DNA labs in the rest of the civilized world would give us an independent and unbiased judgement as to the conditions at the lab in Italy and whether they can in fact perform LCN DNA testing and return reliable results. Where is this documentation?

No Dan o, you're the one that's losing focus. You seem to demonstrate the ideology of 'unless I've seen personally the lab accreditation and the control list, I'm simply going to assume the lab has no accreditation and there were no controls and then assert to everyone that will listen that that is a fact!'. And in effect, you are saying the Italians aren't capable of testing DNA. Are only the 'superior' Americans capable of doing so? Ethnocentric much? This is the main forensic DNA lab in Italy based in Rome we are talking about!

The independent testing was not required because other experts were invited to be present during the testing to see that it was done correctly.

As for the documentation, the lab, prosecution and defence teams have it, as well as the teams representing the victims. Should there be anyone else who has it? Who? Why?

 

[Alt+F4]

An explanation with no corroboration whatsoever, which suggests that the accused was expecting DNA to be on the blade and made it up on the spot.

Good point, especially considering the very short window of time in which everything transpired. AK and RS met on October 25th and the murder occurred on November 1st. I don't think it would be that hard to reconstruct where MK spent her evenings from October 26th to October 31th.

The thing I was not able to find out is: did AK back up the "we were all cooking together" story?

 

[stilicho]

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.

That's a quote from Mark Waterbury, halides1. I thought we'd already agreed that he was not quite the DNA expert he pretends to be. I would recommend taking his observations with light regard to avoid embarrassment.

 

[stilicho]

Fiona, you are loosing focus. The accreditation and independent testing which is required of all DNA labs in the rest of the civilized world would give us an independent and unbiased judgement as to the conditions at the lab in Italy and whether they can in fact perform LCN DNA testing and return reliable results. Where is this documentation?

You mean this is the only question that AK, RS and RG had to ask in court and they'd each walk free? It's not the Polizia, the forensics experts or the prosecution who are imbeciles, Dan O; it's the defence lawyers.

Has it occurred to you that it is up to the defence teams to examine the documentation themselves? If this is all they had to do then why isn't AK's new "consultant" shouting it from the mountaintops? According to the Seattle media he's rounding up experts. Maybe you should apply!

Speaking of which, this new "consultant" might not be all he's cracked up to be:

In an interview on Good Morning America, Simon said, "The theory of the prosecution really wasn't made out by the evidence. All you have to do is ask yourself: Here you have youthful college exchange student with no prior record, no history of violence - yet somehow she's miraculously transformed into a Satanic, ritualistic, evil, premeditated murderer. It doesn't make any sense. And if you get past that you have to ask yourself how is this possible without one bit of evidence of Amanda Knox found in the room where Meredith Kercher was found."

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/81045802.html

His approach is very much like yours, Dan O, although he is considerably less well-informed.

 

[piktor]

He said she said

Here's an interview with barrister Simon on GMA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbRZjKg0JTU

FOAs choose their talking points and criticisms at will, painting a shallow picture full of holes that should acquit the accused.

American journalists actually in the Perugia courtroom would differ, though.

Ms. Bardach, also in the GMA interview is also a Knox booster. Whatever her reasons, she does not understand or cares to, that the American judicial system is different from the Italian system.

Knox and her Italian attorney have called the process "fair". So much for the Ted Simons and Judy Bardachs of America and the world.

Media trials in Europe and PR campaigns from America have done nothing to shape the investigation, prosecution and sentencing of the accused.

The Italian judicial system works. Ask Knox and her lawyer.

 

[Brainster]

Seattle postpones naming a park after Perugia--all because of a cartwheel?

"Due to community concerns about the naming of Perugia Park on the heels of the recent verdict in the criminal case involving ... Knox, we will temporarily shelve the naming process for this park," Parks Superintendent Tim Gallagher said the day after he announced the naming decision. "We will take up the process again in the spring."

 

[Fiona]

Funny, I thought an italian and someone from the Ivory coast were convicted too. Must have been wrong about that

 

[Chris_Halkides]

materials scientist

That's a quote from Mark Waterbury, halides1. I thought we'd already agreed that he was not quite the DNA expert he pretends to be. I would recommend taking his observations with light regard to avoid embarrassment.

Stilicho,

What was said upthread about Dr. Waterbury was wrong; he is not an engineer, but rather he is a materials scientist. He is a paid consultant in the area of anti-counterfeiting. His posts on DNA forensics are checked by an anonymous DNA forensic expert. This information clearly stated on his blog; he is not pretending anything at all. By your own admission, you know little about DNA forensics, and you have not refuted anything he has said. It is impressive how much you can get wrong in one short comment. The only way you can avoid embarrassing yourself is to stop posting altogether.

Chris

 

[Chris_Halkides]

shuttit,

You seem to have some peculiar ideas about the nature of DNA contamination (comment 1873). I recommend the links in comment 1736.

Chris

 

[Chris_Halkides]

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.
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?

Quadraginta,

In comment 1880 you quoted me as saying, “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.” You replied, “No you didn't. I never asked it ‘some time ago’. This is the first time,” with reference to comment 1857. This is false, as is so much of what you write; you asked what amounts to the same question in comment 1429. I had already answered this question in comment 1426.

You are still dodging my question about the bra clasp. Moreover, you have never distanced yourself from Fulcanelli’s claim that a court can overrule physical reality (you just provided misdirection). My colleagues and I chuckled over the amazing power of this court at dinner tonight.

This is the last time I will answer one of your uncivil and disingenuous questions.

Chris

 

[stilicho]

His posts on DNA forensics are checked by an anonymous DNA forensic expert.

Why is this other expert anonymous?

I have little doubt that Dr Waterbury is on to something but unless he subjects his analyses to peer review then they are worthless as science. I've read his "sciencespheres" stuff and it is about as scientifically rigorous as anything I've heard at the pub on a Saturday afternoon.

Which accredited scientific body has endorsed his findings?

 

[stilicho]

Seattle postpones naming a park after Perugia--all because of a cartwheel?

AK's parents are spending a lot of money to move public opinion their way. They pushed AK's parochial school into perverting a regular season basketball game into a political statement:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/413745_knox04.html?source=mypi

PMF regulars have sent Seattle Prep a list of incarcerated alumni who have not warranted a charity basketball game to defer the costs of their lawyers. This list has circulated widely so far and I've urged them to send it to the equivalent of the Washington State education ministry.

It's going to be a long and fervent battle against the relentless PR campaign that seeks to overturn justice, Brainster. The main thing now is to ensure that the convicted murderers pay for their crimes. That's a standard that we know Americans hold dearly.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Quadraginta,

In comment 1880 you quoted me as saying, “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.” You replied, “No you didn't. I never asked it ‘some time ago’. This is the first time,” with reference to comment 1857. This is false, as is so much of what you write; you asked what amounts to the same question in comment 1429. I had already answered this question in comment 1426.

You are still dodging my question about the bra clasp. Moreover, you have never distanced yourself from Fulcanelli’s claim that a court can overrule physical reality (you just provided misdirection). My colleagues and I chuckled over the amazing power of this court at dinner tonight.

This is the last time I will answer one of your uncivil and disingenuous questions.

Chris

Interestingly enough, you haven't answered any of his (or my) questions. Oh, you've attempted to throw dodges our way...but you haven't sufficiently explained:

a) Where the contamination came from. Seeing as only the pertinent items in this case appear to be contaminated and keeping in mind that the contamination is not random persons, nor the investigators, nor the same on the multiple items. So we have contamination from Sollecito on one specific item (out of 400+ tested), we have contamination from Meredith on one specific item, but nowhere else is the existence of her DNA contested, you have yet to present a plausible contamination scenario.

b) How the authors of your letter were able to accurately critique the methods of Stefanoni's lab and technicians if the procedures/findings had not been fully released to the public. Either the procedures/findings had been fully released, or the authors of your letter were talking out their collective asses.

c) Why Sollecito would place Meredith's DNA on the knife if he had no reason to believe it was indeed hers, and not just this - but to invent (yet another) fictitious story to do so.

d) Given that Sollecito admits to Meredith's contact with the murder weapon and given that she never visited his apartment - how would contamination of this particular piece of evidence change the outcome of the trial?


So, anytime you're ready to quit dodging and provide plausible responses to these points/questiosn, it would be much appreciated.

 

[shuttlt]

shuttit,

You seem to have some peculiar ideas about the nature of DNA contamination (comment 1873). I recommend the links in comment 1736.

Chris

Thankyou halides1. I read the links, they were certainly interesting and I'll read them more thoroughly when I have time. At the moment though I fail to see the relevence. My understanding from them is that it would not be standard practice in the US to have sent other cutlery for testing. Am I wrong? There seem to be general comments in the first link about how DNA labs can ******** controls, is there any evidence this happened here? As far as I'm aware there were additional experts from outside the lab on hand to observe the testing. Is the claim that they were all part of a conspiracy?

Could you be more specific about what it is that you feel I've misunderstood?

 

[Dan O.]

a) Where the contamination came from. Seeing as only the pertinent items in this case appear to be contaminated and keeping in mind that the contamination is not random persons, nor the investigators, nor the same on the multiple items. So we have contamination from Sollecito on one specific item (out of 400+ tested), we have contamination from Meredith on one specific item, but nowhere else is the existence of her DNA contested, you have yet to present a plausible contamination scenario.

Bob, do you have any concept of the nature of contamination in DNA testing?

The DNA found when the knife was tested was from only a handful of cells (about 10). Most DNA tests start with thousands of cells. If you throw another 10 into the mix the contamination will be so far down in the noise that the equipment won't register it. There probably was contamination in all of those other tests. It just couldn't be seen.

Then there is the one page of the lab record that has managed to escape to the net. If you haven't seen it I can try and dig up a link. It shows "Too Low", "Too Low" ... for most of the results. Notice that the wording is not "No DNA". These tests are all showing results but the numbers are too low to rule out contamination so they are discarded.

When testing minute samples, the potential of contamination is so high even when taking the utmost precautions that the suppliers of LCN DNA testing kits have taken to supplying a DNA database of all of their employees because that DNA could contaminate the supplies.


And Patrizia Stefanoni's claim that her lab has never been contaminated tells me that she is either an idiot or a compulsive liar. There is always some degree of contamination in any environment. What's important is whether the contamination has affected the results. We determine this by the repeatability of the experiment and negative results in negative controls. In the current example of the DNA on the kitchen knife we have neither a repeatable result nor a negative control.

The result of this test would have been discarded again as "Too Low" if it had not identified as Meredith's DNA. This is a clear case of deliberate confirmation bias.

 

[Fiona]

Ok: there were no controls and the three experts who testified in court perjured themselves. I don't know why they did that but it may come out in their trials: when are those being held?

 

[Fulcanelli]

shuttit,

You seem to have some peculiar ideas about the nature of DNA contamination (comment 1873). I recommend the links in comment 1736.

Chris

Actually, it's 'you' that has very peculiar ideas in regard to contamination. You have failed to explain how it is that Meredith's DNA and NOBODY else's came to be on that knife.

The knife had always been kept separate from all the evidence from the cottage. It was tested on a machine that had not been used to test any other materials from the case. Proper protocols were effected during the testing. An expert from the victim's team was present and Amanda's/Raffaele's experts were invited to attend but opted not to. On the knife, we are not talking about one cell from Meredith being present, but up to 20.

Now, what you are unable to even attempt to explain is how it was Meredith's DNA on that blade and ONLY hers when if contamination was an issue, we would expect to see the DNA of many different individuals, possibly hundreds or even thousands before hers - Stefanoni's, the victims expert that witnessed the test, any of the other lab technicians, the policeman that retrieved the knife from the apartment, the policemen that mailed it off to the lab, any of the hundreds of thousands of individuals that had either had their DNA go through the lab previously for tests or previous visitors and employees of the lab. Or, we'd have expected to see Amanda's DNA on that blade especially as her DNA was already on the handle to get transfered over, or Raffaele's. Yet the only profile we got was Meredith's! Now, just what are the odds of that, just how stratospheric are those?

Oh, but the stratospheric odds don't stop there, they rocket even higher. We are also expected to believe the odds that Raffaele's DNA found only in one other place in the whole cottage, somehow travelled into Meredith's room and didn't land just anywhere in it, oh no, but with precise homing/AI abilities landed on the most key piece of evidence in the whole room, the clasp, in HIGH VOLUME.

The odds don't stop there. Bloody footprints revealed by luminol just 'happen' to match Raffaele and Amanda.

I could go on.

Now, just what are the odds of ALL these amazing unfortunate circumstances, these accidents of probability, these huge coincidences, happening to two completely innocent people???

My, with the luck those two have...you'd never want to buy a lottery ticket with them!

 

[Dan O.]

Ok: there were no controls and the three experts who testified in court perjured themselves. I don't know why they did that but it may come out in their trials: when are those being held?

What did the three experts say in court? Did any of them have a background in LCN DNA testing or were they just there to shed more DNA in the lab.

The Judge said the proper procedures were followed with regard to the documentation but he was only talking about "court procedures" that allowed the prosecution to withhold the documentation from the defense until seven months after the trial had started. At least he gave the defense a few days to review the video the the prosecution suddenly discovered they had of the collection of DNA evidence.


And could someone please tell me the actual name of the Laboratory that did the testing. I searched through the international board of laboratory accreditation and found the only accreditation testing service in Italy. From their page I can pull up the list of all accredited labs in Italy. But none of the labs listed in Rome that handle microbiology appear to fit with the reference I have for Patrizia Stefanoni.