Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[HumanityBlues]

Who said depraved or danger to society? I sure didn't. I said if it weren't for her murdering her roommate then I'd feel sorry for her.

It's unfortunate, but there are a lot of young adults in exactly the same situation as she was.

I probably misread something. Regardless, I can't believe they spent ANY time talking about this incident in court, to the point of introducing a Daily Mail article as evidence. How can someone not laugh at this? Maybe if they have no legal background I can understand I guess....

 

[stilicho]

We are not limited there. We able to get an opinion on what he wrote.

Whimisical would imply pure fancy. Whereas I doubt that is the calliber of work he presents. The best thing to do would be to analyze his actual work, especially two PDF documents and linked documents that weren't written by him, to determine if there is anything to it or not.

I disagree with your approach to science. If a gravel truck driver or a commercial fisherman had written a blog objecting to the DNA evidence we wouldn't be having this discussion. Waterbury makes a number of blatant claims on his site without any corroboration whatsoever. It isn't up to you or me to sift through his claims and verify them. That's his job since he's the one making them.

Then there are the patently unscientific and absurd statements that litter his blog. He calls Mr Lumumba a glutton for wanting to be compensated for being slandered by AK. He calls Italy a totalitarian state and argues that RS and AK are being held hostage instead of being imprisoned lawfully. He predicted that a guilty verdict would be returned to help Mignini avoid embarrassment rather than that the pair was truly guilty.

When we know much of his blog is simply tripe, why should we believe his unsourced pseudo-science?

 

[Open Inquiry]

He certainly does make a number of claims. In fact, he appears to be the source for a lot of them. This is worrisome for someone claiming to be objective.

Because he is not working within his field of expertise, we have to take his conclusions in the whimsical fashion they were arrived at.

I sounds like you are shutting down investigation.

 

[shuttlt]

How do you know he is the source of the claims?

Dr Waterbury is who most people are quoting when they take a pro-FOA stand in the forensics. Along with the open letter he's as close to a primary source as the average poster can get.

One thing I'd like to add though. Dr Waterbury's has been criticised because his field isn't forensics, but I'm not sure that that matters. There are people with the necessary qualifications behind the open letter. The issue is his source. He could be professor of LCN testing at Oxford University and it wouldn't matter. The question is, is his source reliable, or is it feeding him something other than the whole unvarnished truth? I really don't know where to begin in establishing that, but equally I don't see the point in wasting my time looking into this case further when FOA has access to all this information and are withholding it, or unable to pass it on. They claim this information proves their case. Fine, we need to find a way to access it.

 

[Open Inquiry]

Dr Waterbury is who most people are quoting when they take a pro-FOA stand in the forensics. Along with the open letter he's as close to a primary source as the average poster can get.

One thing I'd like to add though. Dr Waterbury's has been criticised because his field isn't forensics, but I'm not sure that that matters. There are people with the necessary qualifications behind the open letter. The issue is his source. He could be professor of LCN testing at Oxford University and it wouldn't matter. The question is, is his source reliable, or is it feeding him something other than the whole unvarnished truth? I really don't know where to begin in establishing that, but equally I don't see the point in wasting my time looking into this case further when FOA has access to all this information and are withholding it, or unable to pass it on. They claim this information proves their case. Fine, we need to find a way to access it.

I think there is a way to get to it. I don't think as much is as hidden or secret as it might seem.

The information on the testing was also present by Frank Sfarzo in Perugia Shock. The judge's report references "low copy number".

I think it could be taken on good faith there are people truly interested in the background information and some examination might be possible. I guess I didn't think the prosecution denied the method Mark Waterbury described.

 

[Open Inquiry]

...unsourced pseudo-science?

"Unsourced" meaning how do we know that the procedure went like he describes?

He does give sources for the process itself.

 

[Open Inquiry]

Clearly both what Shuttit brings up about original information and what Stilicho brings up about a biologist/genticist's review needs to faced. I think we need to do this.

 

[stilicho]

Dr Waterbury's has been criticised because his field isn't forensics, but I'm not sure that that matters. There are people with the necessary qualifications behind the open letter. The issue is his source.

Is he the source for the claim that there were no controls, incomplete controls, or some other deficiency in the controls for the DNA testing? I too have tried to trace the source of this statement and it looks like it's Waterbury.

 

[Open Inquiry]

Clearly both what Shuttit brings up about original information and what Stilicho brings up about a biologist/genticist's review needs to faced. I think we need to do this.

In other words, we need to get more help on original information and scientific analysis. Otherwise, discussing this case will continue into vertices of oblivion. It's time to bring it all out into the light.

[In my opinion.]

 

[Open Inquiry]

Is he the source for the claim that there were no controls, incomplete controls, or some other deficiency in the controls for the DNA testing? I too have tried to trace the source of this statement and it looks like it's Waterbury.

There is a way to find out!

 

[HumanityBlues]

Is he the source for the claim that there were no controls, incomplete controls, or some other deficiency in the controls for the DNA testing? I too have tried to trace the source of this statement and it looks like it's Waterbury.

So if all those claims were true, would that make any difference to you anyways?

 

[stilicho]

So if all those claims were true, would that make any difference to you anyways?

I suppose not. Are they true?

Here's the real problem. Waterbury has some pieces of the case but not all of them. He's got enough to create an effective argument but I am not even sure that he knows he's working with incomplete information.

 

[shuttlt]

I think there is a way to get to it. I don't think as much is as hidden or secret as it might seem.

The information on the testing was also present by Frank Sfarzo in Perugia Shock. The judge's report references "low copy number".

I think it could be taken on good faith there are people truly interested in the background information and some examination might be possible. I guess I didn't think the prosecution denied the method Mark Waterbury described.

Everybody agrees it was an LCN test. The prosecution don't deny it. LCN tests can be fine or not fine depending on all the other details. It's all the other details that are the question. Were LCN controls done, what and where were the potential sources of contamination, why did the lab think there was something there to find despite the initial readings, what is being withheld and by whome.....

 

[shuttlt]

Is he the source for the claim that there were no controls, incomplete controls, or some other deficiency in the controls for the DNA testing? I too have tried to trace the source of this statement and it looks like it's Waterbury.

All trails lead to him in so far as the lack of controls go. They aren't mentioned in the open letter, so I think he's the only source. Equally both he and the open letter are derived from the same source, i.e. the FOA files.

 

[shuttlt]

I suppose not. Are they true?

Here's the real problem. Waterbury has some pieces of the case but not all of them. He's got enough to create an effective argument but I am not even sure that he knows he's working with incomplete information.

He believes he has access to the full information available to the defence. Whether or not he is right is beyond me. If he is right there would seem to be some fairly obvious grounds for appeal.

 

[Open Inquiry]

Everybody agrees it was an LCN test. The prosecution don't deny it. LCN tests can be fine or not fine depending on all the other details. It's all the other details that are the question. Were LCN controls done, what and where were the potential sources of contamination, why did the lab think there was something there to find despite the initial readings, what is being withheld and by whome.....

"The following quotes are all from the Crown Prosecution Service in the U.K. at: HYPERLINK "http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/lcn_testing.html" http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/lcn_testing.html that supports the use of LCN.


“The FSS LCN test requires an ultra-clean laboratory and so is more expensive and less widely offered than the standard test.... The site of this bespoke laboratory is remote from other DNA Units, operates stringent entry requirements, is fitted with positive air pressure and specialist lighting and chemical treatments to minimize DNA contamination.”
Stefanoni’s procedure, in sharp contrast to these requirements, was performed in an ordinary DNA analysis laboratory with other DNA units present. An ultra-clean laboratory, positive air pressure systems, and photo and chemical DNA sterilization are vital techniques to avoid contamination of samples within the laboratory. None of these facilities and procedures appears to have existed for Stefanoni’s test. That makes four more technique deficiencies." - Mark Waterbury, Science Spheres

 

[Open Inquiry]

I suppose not. Are they true?

Here's the real problem. Waterbury has some pieces of the case but not all of them. He's got enough to create an effective argument but I am not even sure that he knows he's working with incomplete information.

What sorts of pieces do you think he might be missing?

 

[shuttlt]

Open Inquiry,

Have a read of the full CPS review of LCN testing and the FSS response. They're a better source than the bullet points you hit first via Google. I'll help if you can't find these documents.

One of the interesting things I got from the review was that they appear to be quite critical, picking up on all sorts of things that they should be doing differently in much the way Waterbury and others do with the Italians. They give a bunch of recommendations, but then say that they see no problem with LCN testing and they're fine to carry on. I think there is a difference between best practice and acceptable practice that is missed from a lot of this analysis.

The CPS and FSS aside, we don't know what the lab facilities were like in Rome, or what their procedures were.

 

[shuttlt]

Another issue to take into account is that LCN testing is used in cold cases where evidence gathering, handling, storage techniques made no allowance for the requirements of LCN. The CPS view is that if the evidence was collected during the modern DNA era, it is assumed to be fine. If it was collected prior to that, it may or may not be fine and is handled on a case by case basis. I'm not convinced LCN samples are quite as delicate as people sometimes make out.

 

[shuttlt]

Open Inquiry,

Ultimately I think you're wasting your effort. Even if we fully grasped the what's and the why's of the CPS rules on LCN evidence, unless we know what was going on in the lab in Rome we can't advance. Were controls done, were samples of Merediths DNA run through the same machine as the knife, ever in the same room, ever on the same floor? Perhaps there were perfectly sensible and thorough steps taken to avoid contamination that may or may not be the ones the CPS recommend.