Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

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.

And yet, none of that 'shed DNA in the lab' of their's came to be on the knife, despite your argued lack of protocols. Amazing!

If you are interested in their testimony, why don't you go back and read it? Thanks for the admission that you haven't already bothered though. It's amazing how little, all those arguing the case to be flawed, have actually read.

And could someone please tell me the actual name of the Laboratory that did the testing.

Wait. You don't even know the name of the lab you claim to know was flawed and have been working so hard to discredit? I can honestly say, hand on heart, you're amazing

 

[tsig]

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.

The ever increasing demand for more and more minutiae is a sure sign that you have already decided the case and are seeking confirmation rather than evidence.

 

[shuttlt]

The defence not bothering to show for the DNA analysis looks like a good pragmatic move under the circumstances.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not good

I see a good match

Fiona,

There are at least two major problems with some of the peaks in this electropherogram. One is the low value of the S/N for some of the peaks (below 40-50 RFU). This alone would force one to declare the data to be no better than a partial match. The other is the very unequal size (roughly 2-3 fold) of the pair of peaks in each the two loci I specifically pointed out earlier. This is consistent with being in the LCN-range of DNA typing. This would oblige one to retest the sample as well as to take other extra precautions (Butler, Forensic DNA Typing, pp. 168-170). Because a retest is impossible, it may be best to describe the result as a possible partial match to Ms. Kercher’s. Assigning a probability that the signals are a match to Ms. Kercher is very problematic, IMO.

Chris

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Fiona,

There are at least two major problems with some of the peaks in this electropherogram. One is the low value of the S/N for some of the peaks (below 40-50 RFU). This alone would force one to declare the data to be no better than a partial match. The other is the very unequal size (roughly 2-3 fold) of the pair of peaks in each the two loci I specifically pointed out earlier. This is consistent with being in the LCN-range of DNA typing. This would oblige one to retest the sample as well as to take other extra precautions (Butler, Forensic DNA Typing, pp. 168-170). Because a retest is impossible, it may be best to describe the result as a possible partial match to Ms. Kercher’s. Assigning a probability that the signals are a match to Ms. Kercher is very problematic, IMO.

Chris

And yet, it doesn't matter because Sollecito himself claims (and therefore expected to find) Meredith had contact with the knife, using a fictitious story about how it happened, nonetheless.

Anytime you're ready to address that with a plausible explanation (not just "false memory"), we're waiting.


ETA: Wait...what happened to the contamination claim?

So, you're basically saying that: Well, it's not Meredith's DNA because the results aren't perfect. But even if the results were perfect, the DNA results are due to contamination anyway.

Wouldn't the 2nd part of that preclude that the first part is necessarily false? Given that the results are inaccurate, how could they then be attributable to contamination? Are you claiming that someone else, with incredibly similar DNA to Meredith, contaminated the lab/knife?

Plausibility must be a really hard concept for you...

 

[Fiona]

Halides1: Can you honestly say that you do not see a good match?

What range of probability do you think can be encompassed ?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Shuttit,

I note the sarcastic tone of some of your comments in 1873 and elsewhere, but I will tentatively assume good faith. What you are ignoring is that the kitchen knife was selected from a drawer with several knives by “police intuition,” as reported by Newsweek, despite its being larger than the bloody outline of a knife at the crime scene. This case is nothing like a situation in which a knife were recovered at the crime scene. Therefore, it is best to answer your question from the point of view of what is good science. Good scientists try to falsify their hypotheses, in this case the hypothesis that the selected knife is a murder weapon. If another implement from Sollecito’s house that was handled in the same way also showed a possible partial match to Ms. Kercher’s DNA the hypothesis about the knife would be falsified. The contamination in this hypothetical could either come from the person who collected the knife or from the analysis in the lab. The kitchen knife in this case was kept in a box at the police station for a time, and it was stored in a plastic bag. Finally with respect to other control experiments, a person’s testifying to the controls being done is not the same thing as demonstrating that they were done, and neither is the same as releasing the results of controls and other data to outside experts.

Chris

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Johnson and Hampikian

Halides1: Can you honestly say that you do not see a good match?

What range of probability do you think can be encompassed ?

Fiona,

Drs. Johnson and Hampikian do not see a good match either. What makes you a greater authority than they are?

Chris

 

[Fiona]

I am not: but Dr Stefanoni and Dr Torrecelli are

 

[Dan O.]

Wait. You don't even know the name of the lab you claim to know was flawed and have been working so hard to discredit? I can honestly say, hand on heart, you're amazing

The ever increasing demand for more and more minutiae is a sure sign that you have already decided the case and are seeking confirmation rather than evidence.

Is this your way of saying that you don't know either?

The reference I have is: "Merito di Patrizia Stefanoni, 40 anni, laurea in Scienze Biologiche e già ricercatrice in genetica, dal 2000 in polizia e ora direttore tecnico-biologo della Sezione Genetica-Forense della Scientifica di Roma che riesce a respingere con decisione le osservazioni dei consulenti scientifici della difesa", but that lab doesn't come up in an extensive list of accredited labs in Rome. Perhaps some of my information is incorrect. I'd best head over to FOA where I can get an honest reply without the personal attacks.

I am not: but Dr Stefanoni and Dr Torrecelli are

The bio I have must be out of date to. I'm not aware of a BA degree that earns the title of "Dr".

 

[Chris_Halkides]

profiles

ETA: Wait...what happened to the contamination claim?

So, you're basically saying that: Well, it's not Meredith's DNA because the results aren't perfect. But even if the results were perfect, the DNA results are due to contamination anyway.

Wouldn't the 2nd part of that preclude that the first part is necessarily false? Given that the results are inaccurate, how could they then be attributable to contamination? Are you claiming that someone else, with incredibly similar DNA to Meredith, contaminated the lab/knife?

The issues of the observation of partial profiles and contamination are not contradictory; they are interrelated.

Even if Meredith did not cook with Sollecito, it matters not at all whether Sollecito lied about this or really believed it. Neither possibility can bring DNA into existence. This argument had no logical force the first time I heard it, and its repetition wearies the ears.

 

[stilicho]

Is this your way of saying that you don't know either?

The reference I have is: "Merito di Patrizia Stefanoni, 40 anni, laurea in Scienze Biologiche e già ricercatrice in genetica, dal 2000 in polizia e ora direttore tecnico-biologo della Sezione Genetica-Forense della Scientifica di Roma che riesce a respingere con decisione le osservazioni dei consulenti scientifici della difesa", but that lab doesn't come up in an extensive list of accredited labs in Rome. Perhaps some of my information is incorrect. I'd best head over to FOA where I can get an honest reply without the personal attacks.

The bio I have must be out of date to. I'm not aware of a BA degree that earns the title of "Dr".

Not sure what your fresh claim is but it sounds as though you think the court ruled on the basis of not only fraudulent evidence but also a fraudulent laboratory. You better phone Dr Waterbury right away, Dan O, because he thinks the laboratory and its experts are real. So does halides1. So does Ted Simon.

Sounds like you're very alone in this fresh claim. Any evidence?

 

[stilicho]

...no logical force...

Any word yet on Dr Waterbury's anonymous forensic expert? Any word on the accredited scientific organisation who has endorsed his findings?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Any word yet on Dr Waterbury's anonymous forensic expert? Any word on the accredited scientific organisation who has endorsed his findings?

What Dr. Waterbury has written is similar to what Dr. Hampikian and Dr. Johnson have written in their open letter. I suggest searching for scientific papers published by Dr. Hampikian, and then doing the same search for Patrizia Stefanoni. The results are enlightening.

 

[stilicho]

What Dr. Waterbury has written is similar to what Dr. Hampikian and Dr. Johnson have written in their open letter. I suggest searching for scientific papers published by Dr. Hampikian, and then doing the same search for Patrizia Stefanoni. The results are enlightening.

So no accredited scientific body has endorsed their opinions?

Have the defence teams even contracted them? Are any of them going to be appearing as defence experts at their appeal?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The issues of the observation of partial profiles and contamination are not contradictory; they are interrelated.

Even if Meredith did not cook with Sollecito, it matters not at all whether Sollecito lied about this or really believed it. Neither possibility can bring DNA into existence. This argument had no logical force the first time I heard it, and its repetition wearies the ears.

The argument isn't that it brings the DNA into existence. The argument is that it relegates the DNA evidence on the knife to be inconsequential.

Still waiting for your response regarding how the contamination happened on only these two key pieces of evidence, why the contamination wasn't just anyone in the lab's, but people involved the night of the murder, how the DNA managed to contaminate just the clasp (and nothing else) and just the knife (and nothing else), as well as the likelihood that of all the people in the world working in the lab, Meredith's match would be close at hand.


You claim the DNA is not Meredith's (invalid results), and then claim the DNA arrived on the knife via contamination. So, either it is Meredith's, and it arrived on the knife via contamination or it isn't Meredith's and someone involved in the investigation has DNA that is remarkably similar to Meredith's. I fail to see how the one is not contradictory to the other. The DNA is hers, or it's not. In order for you to claim the DNA is hers but arrived due to contamination, then you necessarily must claim that the DNA testing is valid. To claim that the DNA is not hers, you must preclude that one of the investigators/techs has DNA similar enough to Meredith's to be a near perfect match.


Regardless of whether the DNA is due to contamination or a result of poor testing, Sollecito places the knife in question in contact with Meredith - and not just in contact, but he fully expects her blood residue to have been found on the knife. Therefore, the DNA testing doesn't matter anyway.

You weary of hearing this because you have yet to satisfactorily answer these questions - instead you play the dodge and hope it will work. Too bad it won't

 

[quadraginta]

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.

Well. Let's just see what really happened.

I said this,

<snip>

In your personal, professional opinion, having reviewed what you have, what do you think the odds are that in this particular case the DNA on that knife was not Kercher's?

<snip>

You claim that I asked the same thing before "in a different way", and cite this post.

So in your carefully considered expert opinion, what are the odds of it being from someone else with an opportunity to have DNA deposited on the knife.

I concur with that evaluation, even though, being the master of evasion that you are I'm sure that you could find a way to deny that they actually are if you were the one making the attempt.

Okay. Lets look at the answer you now claim you provided, citing (not coincidentally) the post which prompted my first question.

It is one thing to say that it might be DNA from MK. It is another thing to affirm that it is DNA from MK. The second has a much higher bar.

How does that answer either version of the question I asked?

You speak glibly of the peaks, valleys, noise, and other fine details of the particular results of this particular case. You criticize lab technique. You make veiled and not so veiled insinuations about the competence, professionalism, and honesty of strangers. Never, ever providing anything of detail to back up your innuendo, only the equally questionable insinuations of equally biased third parties with no more direct evidence to supply than you have had.

Put a number on your opinion.

What are the odds that it is not Kercher's DNA? What are the odds that it is someone else's.?

These are very simple questions. You have touted or at least implied your expertise in this discipline with stentorian regularity. Why are you waffling about this? Just a ballpark, order-of-magnitude estimate. Or even as close as you think you can get. Go ahead and qualify the number to a range you feel comfortable with. Just tell us why. Are you afraid that an honest answer will reflect poorly on the position you are preaching?

You are still dodging my question about the bra clasp.

I wasn't asking you about the bra clasp. I was asking you about the knife.

Who do you think you fool with incessant 'duck and weave'? No one in this thread.

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.

Since Fulcanelli made no such claim, I have no need to distance myself from it. Your sophomoric taunts are less well grounded even than your tenuous grasp of history. Your drinking buddies must be easily amused.

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

Chris

I'm still waiting to see the first time you actually answer any question straightforwardly, so the absence will not be much loss.

 

[shuttlt]

Shuttit,

I note the sarcastic tone of some of your comments in 1873 and elsewhere, but I will tentatively assume good faith.

I certainly am posting in good faith.

What you are ignoring is that the kitchen knife was selected from a drawer with several knives by “police intuition,” as reported by Newsweek, despite its being larger than the bloody outline of a knife at the crime scene.

OK. A bit odd if true. I must admit I've gotten lost in all the claims about the origins of the knife. As I recall at one point it was said that the knife was found in a shoebox, but this turned out not to have been the case. At the risk of taking advantage of other peoples research, I wonder whether anybody could clarify why this knife was chosen? I take it it didn't reek of bleach, or match the neck wound, or something?

This case is nothing like a situation in which a knife were recovered at the crime scene. Therefore, it is best to answer your question from the point of view of what is good science.

Surely lots of the time items are recovered from places other than a crime scene. Guns are recovered from dumpsters, knives are recovered from bushes in locations other than the scene of the crime. Are control guns and knives normally sent through to forensics?

Good scientists try to falsify their hypotheses, in this case the hypothesis that the selected knife is a murder weapon. If another implement from Sollecito’s house that was handled in the same way also showed a possible partial match to Ms. Kercher’s DNA the hypothesis about the knife would be falsified.

Is this what police in other nationalities would do? If they found a knife in a dumpster, would they send other items from the dumpster to forensics to test whether there was contamination/corruption/incompetence in the evidence chain?

The contamination in this hypothetical could either come from the person who collected the knife or from the analysis in the lab.

How would the person who collected the knife have Kercher's DNA on them? Very unlucky for Knox and Sollecito that they would be contaminated with Kercher's DNA and nobody else’s, no? As for the lab, the controls didn't get contaminated, so Knox and Sollecito appear to be very unlucky that only the test sample did.

The kitchen knife in this case was kept in a box at the police station for a time, and it was stored in a plastic bag.

Why would being stored in a plastic bag cause it to be contaminated? I had thought this was more likely to cause the DNA to degrade.

Finally with respect to other control experiments, a person’s testifying to the controls being done is not the same thing as demonstrating that they were done, and neither is the same as releasing the results of controls and other data to outside experts.

The defense have access to all this. If, as you suggest, the prosecution witnesses can be shown to have lied about the controls, then presumably that will be the basis of the appeal. It seems a bit of a stretch to assume that the did lie though. I can't see what basis one would have for assuming that other than them telling the truth is incompatible with Knox and Sollecito being innocent.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Is this your way of saying that you don't know either?

No Dan o. I was saying that you don't know jack. Yet, it doesn't stop you decrying the case. Hubris.

 

[Fulcanelli]

[quote="halide1]The issues of the observation of partial profiles and contamination are not contradictory; they are interrelated.[/quote]

It is NOT a partial profile. All of Meredith's loci are present. Not even the defence experts and defence lawyers, ANY of them have maintained it is only a partial match and every single one of them admit that it IS Meredith's DNA

You have been told this several times. It still doesn't stop you spinning though. Aren't you dizzy yet?