Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

[quote="halides1]Drs. Johnson and Hampikian do not see a good match either. What makes you a greater authority than they are?[/quote]

Are they saying that it isn't Meredith's DNA? If so, please give us a quote of their saying so.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The bio I have must be out of date to.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

Then as you say, your bio is out of date. Stop trying to smear people!

 

[seycyrus]

Then as you say, your bio is out of date. Stop trying to smear people!

How is inquiring whether an individual has earned an M.D. or a doctorate, a "smear"?

 

[Fiona]

It isn't. And I am not even sure that what I said is correct because I cannot find where I got the information. But it makes no difference to the substantive point.

I cited earlier where some of the people who wrote the letter argued that academics are better placed to do this work even when they have no experience. A curious position and one that I find no reason to accept: not in their argument, such as it was: nor in common sense

Dr Johnson does, apparently, have a PhD. It does not change the fact that she was apparently prepared to testify about dna evidence in court, without having done the tests. Nor does it change the fact that her lab was not accredited when she was testifying about DNA matters, though it may be now.

So let us presume that Dan_O is right and Stefanoni does not have a PhD. She has got extensive experience both in Italy and abroad: she is the head of the forensic police and has been for quite some time. Unlike at least one of the people Dan_O wishes to rely on she has not shown any disposition to lie: nor does she have any reason to because, unlike several people who signed the open letter, she has no financial interest in this. There is no evidence that she is prepared to pronounce on the basis of work she has not done, and evidence she has not seen: a prerequisite for a scientist I would have thought, but a criterion that none of those who wrote the letter can meet.

And none of that is "smear" either

 

[Alt+F4]

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.

From how I understand it false memory syndrome involves the memory of a tramatic event, not something as mundane as cooking dinner. In addition isn't the false memory supposed to be suggested by others?

If this is the best story Sollecito's defense team can come up with to explain his remarks, I think he'll serve that whole sentence.

 

[Dan O.]

Mrs. Stefanoni could very well have a Ph. D. by now. The lab where she worked was created through an international cooperative in conjunction with the university in Rome. The University created it's 3 year Doctorate program in mid 2005 and her position at the lab would almost guarantee that she was part of that program.

But then, why am I spending so much time trying to prove her credentials? Shouldn't that be someone else's job?

 

[Fiona]

No idea

 

[Dan O.]

From how I understand it false memory syndrome involves the memory of a tramatic event, not something as mundane as cooking dinner. In addition isn't the false memory supposed to be suggested by others?

The mundane false memories are in fact the easiest to create. Creation a false memory of a traumatic event takes more time. For an example of how a self induced false memory could be created, I would refer you to Chuck Erickson. There is already a thread started on that case here.

 

[Fiona]

So now we must not use any DNA evidence at all: and we must not interview anyone in connection with a crime.

I see

 

[lector]

Originally Posted by halides1
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?

The knife stood out visually from the others in the drawer because it showed obvious signs of having been given a recent intensive cleaning. Apparently the blade surface was brighter than the rest & showed signs (scratches) of having been scrubbed hard with an abrasive instrument, like a Brillo pad. You don't clean knives like that unless you're a culinary idiot. That is why it was chosen for testing. Nothing wrong with good old-fashioned "police intuition" in this instance.

The usual disclaimer: this is what I remember from the thousands of words I've read daily on this case over the last 5 weeks. I can no longer point to a specific source, but the account can be verified.

 

[piktor]

See nuthin', say nuthin'. Just believe cuz the imprisonned say so

So now we must not use any DNA evidence at all: and we must not interview anyone in connection with a crime.

I see

You got the gist of it, Fiona. The defense case rests on the pillars of prosecutorial craziness, judicial blind incompetence, scientific non stories that mean nothing.

There is a murdered victim and a convenient black male scapegoat that has admitted he was there. End of story, right?

That's what the Knox/Sollecito camps want and are not getting.

We do get stories of forgetfulness, botched timelines, alibis that mismatch, a telephone call that apparently the prosecution is forcing upon a Amanda to admit she made, though but for the grace of God cannot bring herself to recall in any way, shape or form.

The grand strategy is to minimize, laugh off, dismiss, deny. A convenient fog of contradictions that will set the accused free.

I would say the knife and bra clasp DNA evidence can be stricken off and still the accused have so many gaps in their credibility that the judges have to conclude the fog of doubt created by the accused is one great element pointing to culpability.

The biggest hurdle for the accused in this case is to come up with a believable story, a believable timeline and a believable alibi.

As Fulcanelli said, Knox/Sollecito overcompensated with the presentation of the crime scene, the super-clean, DNA-and-fingerprint-free apartment, the bleach-redolent speckless knife, the cellphone shenanigans.

Someone had to drag the lifeless victim to its final staged position. Someone had to throw the quilt over the victim, after she had passed away and the quilt fabric could not absorb dried blood, which takes more than a few minutes. Someone had to stage a rape scene by cutting off the bra clasp after the victim had died. Someone had to do a thorough clean up of the apartment. Someone had to stage a nonsensical break-in at Filomena's room and take nothing from it.

All of this takes time and labor. Guede was dancing the night away but does leave one Pergola 7 toilet with his feces unflushed, though.

The cartwheel does not point to anything. We can take Knox at her word that she needed to do some stretching exercises.

It is the sheer girth and heft of disingeniousness exercised by the accused that has them sentenced to years and years of prison time.

 

[Oliebol]

The knife stood out visually from the others in the drawer because it showed obvious signs of having been given a recent intensive cleaning. Apparently the blade surface was brighter than the rest & showed signs (scratches) of having been scrubbed hard with an abrasive instrument, like a Brillo pad.

And when the knife was shown in court, it didn't have any scratches anymore.

 

[stilicho]

So let us presume that Dan_O is right and Stefanoni does not have a PhD.

I did find the credentials for Dr Renato Biondo, though. Odd that even Candace calls Stefanoni a "Dr" in her blog.

Dan O is really casting a wide net in this fishing expedition, though. None of the defence experts were called to testify that the DNA lab results were false because Stefanoni was not qualified.

I wonder if this is a retaliation against our discovery that Waterbury isn't qualified.

 

[stilicho]

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.

The most complete summary of the "double DNA knife" may be found here:

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...idence_the_myths_start_to_come_crashing_down/

Oliebol

Originally Posted by lector
The knife stood out visually from the others in the drawer because it showed obvious signs of having been given a recent intensive cleaning. Apparently the blade surface was brighter than the rest & showed signs (scratches) of having been scrubbed hard with an abrasive instrument, like a Brillo pad.

And when the knife was shown in court, it didn't have any scratches anymore.

This claim about the knife comes from Mariano Cingolani, a defence witness called in mid-September to help the RS defence team.

 

[Alt+F4]

The mundane false memories are in fact the easiest to create. Creation a false memory of a traumatic event takes more time. For an example of how a self induced false memory could be created, I would refer you to Chuck Erickson. There is already a thread started on that case here.

I don't see how the case of Chuck Erickson applies. RS did not come up with the cooking/nicking story as the result of a rough police interrogation. He was informed in November 2007 that MK's DNA was found on the knife. As far as I know he wrote the cooking/nicking story in his prison diary without prompting or questioning of anyone.

As for your "mundane false memories" link it clearly states that an outside person has to "plant" the memory on the subject in question. Is there any evidence that anyone tried to convince RS that the cooking/nicking story actually took place? As far as I know he came up with this story on his own. Your link also strongly suggests that false memories are almost exclusively linked to a childhood event, not something that happened to an adult a month earlier.

 

[Dan O.]

Would you accept the reading of tea leaves to be presented as evidence at a trial?

So now we must not use any DNA evidence at all.

The use of DNA evidence is based on scientific studies that had established what could be deduced from specific DNA analysis procedures. The DNA evidence in this case came from a process that was outside the bounds of the established procedures. We don't know how reliable this evidence is because there is no study that has ever measured the reliability of the results produced by the process used in this case.

Since you've resorted to mischaracterizing the argument, I suppose it's time to stop bothering arguing this point any further. I'll wait for Jim to return to see if he is satisfied with the answers provided.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

prosecution

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...

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

BobTheDonkey,

Evidently, the prosecution does not agree with your conclusion that the DNA testing does not matter. They presented the DNA evidence in court.

Chris

 

[Fulcanelli]

The use of DNA evidence is based on scientific studies that had established what could be deduced from specific DNA analysis procedures. The DNA evidence in this case came from a process that was outside the bounds of the established procedures. We don't know how reliable this evidence is because there is no study that has ever measured the reliability of the results produced by the process used in this case.

Since you've resorted to mischaracterizing the argument, I suppose it's time to stop bothering arguing this point any further. I'll wait for Jim to return to see if he is satisfied with the answers provided.

Since the process, innovative or not, cannot possibly manufacture DNA that does not exist, has revealed what is undoubtedly a match for Meredith will all parties of experts agreeing on that count, the fact that contamination can be ruled out and the fact defence experts were invited to attend the testing chose not to bother, then we have to accept that the DNA evidence is good and the procedure used therefore really doesn't matter.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not sure what you mean

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

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?

Stilicho,

Again, your view of the DNA is at odds with the prosecution’s view; they did think it mattered. Not sure what you mean by an accredited body. However, Dr. Kekule’s article was in agreement with the Johnson/Hampikian open letter and with Dr. Waterbury’s posts with respect to the lack of blood on the knife weakening the argument that the DNA profile constituted good evidence.

Chris

 

[Fulcanelli]

BobTheDonkey,

Evidently, the prosecution does not agree with your conclusion that the DNA testing does not matter. They presented the DNA evidence in court.

Chris

But it doesn't matter to the point that the whole case against the pair would fall without it. It matters only to the extent that it is part of the evidence against them and in a trial, it is standard practice to present all the evidence.

You seem to be under the deluded impression that if you guys can only get the knife and clasp ruled out, then Amanda and Raffaele walk with an innocent verdict on appeal.