Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Open Inquiry]

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.

It wasn't first hit on Google... nor a bullet point. It was a quote that I thought was relevant, rather than posting the whole entry. It was an example.

Saying LCN is fine is different than saying it is okay in a standard facility.

Of course I am very interested to read any documents you suggest. Thank you...!!

 

[Open Inquiry]

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.

I'm not sure it is (only) an issue of the samples, but of the prep of the equipment and the type of lab. I'm pretty sure (though it would need to be verified) that Italy does not have LCN testing facilities.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Open Inquiry,

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.

It seems all this information should be readily available and testified to. I'm sure the trial transcripts would help to answer these questions.

 

[Open Inquiry]

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.

I'm not sure I am wasting my effort. I think there is a way to find out the conditions of the lab.

But these things in general need to be brought out into the open. Someone needs to review the forensics on the knife with as much information as possible, enough to make a meaningful assessment of went on. Right now, as it stands, no one can decide what these results mean. And because of that, how can anything be discussed? But I think it is excellent to find the points of disagreement. It helps immensely in the conversation. It's not productive to talk at cross purposes.

 

[Alt+F4]

Someone needs to review the forensics on the knife with as much information as possible, enough to make a meaningful assessment of went on.

As someone mentioned in a (much) earlier post, it doesn't matter if drunken monkeys did the DNA tests on the big knife, Raffaele has an explanation as to why Meredith's DNA would have been found on the knife. His explanation is a lie.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I'm not sure I am wasting my effort. I think there is a way to find out the conditions of the lab.

But these things in general need to be brought out into the open. Someone needs to review the forensics on the knife with as much information as possible, enough to make a meaningful assessment of went on. Right now, as it stands, no one can decide what these results mean. And because of that, how can anything be discussed? But I think it is excellent to find the points of disagreement. It helps immensely in the conversation. It's not productive to talk at cross purposes.

Someone did. Stefanoni and the Judges reviewed the forensics. If your case against their inclusion is sufficient, why then was the Defense unable to successfully offer these same arguments and have this data dismissed from the trial?

Unless you believe the tripe about an Anti-Amanda/Anti-Amanda-Because-She's-American conspiracy...

 

[Open Inquiry]

As someone mentioned in a (much) earlier post, it doesn't matter if drunken monkeys did the DNA tests on the big knife, Raffaele has an explanation as to why Meredith's DNA would have been found on the knife. His explanation is a lie.

Actually, regardless of what Raffaele said, it matters.

 

[Open Inquiry]

Someone did. Stefanoni and the Judges reviewed the forensics. If your case against their inclusion is sufficient, why then was the Defense unable to successfully offer these same arguments and have this data dismissed from the trial?

Unless you believe the tripe about an Anti-Amanda/Anti-Amanda-Because-She's-American conspiracy...

I thought maybe perhaps, they wanted it to be analyzed in the appeals process. ??

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I thought maybe perhaps, they wanted it to be analyzed in the appeals process. ??

Why?

Why not get that stuff thrown out during the trial?

It makes little strategic sense to have your clients pronounced guilty and hope to get them off during an appeal (at least, that's my interpretation of the Italian justice system).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Dr. Waterbury

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.

shuttIt,

I have also contacted Dr. Waterbury. He consults in the field of forensics. DNA forensics is not his specialty, but his work is checked by an anonymous DNA forensic specialist. In reading his blog I am always impressed with scientific way he approaches control experiments. I am a biochemist myself, and I have not seen any errors in the way he has presented this material.

Chris

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Actually, regardless of what Raffaele said, it matters.

Eh...not so much.

It's like a little extra mortar to the wall of evidence - but it isn't really needed.

The problem for Raf is that regardless of the DNA results, Raf expected the DNA results to test positive for Meredith and as such, made up a story in an attempt to explain the results away.

It wasn't a simple: "Well, she came over, and maybe she pricked her finger" or "Well, Amanda carried the knife in her purse, so maybe Meredith used it at the cottage".

He was direct in claiming that he, himself, pricked Meredith's finger while at his apartment. There was no doubt in the statement - that leads one to believe he lied as he was expecting the DNA to be Meredith's.

 

[Open Inquiry]

Why?

Why not get that stuff thrown out during the trial?

It makes little strategic sense to have your clients pronounced guilty and hope to get them off during an appeal (at least, that's my interpretation of the Italian justice system).

No, I meant the jury might have passed the forensics as far as the analysis went, and letting the appeals with a new prosecution/judge/jury/etc... sort out whether it was actually valid forensics. A closer look, as it were. In addition, with a new crew.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

No, I meant the jury might have passed the forensics as far as the analysis went, and letting the appeals with a new prosecution/judge/jury/etc... sort out whether it was valid forensics.

Isn't that something the first Court should do?

You advocate allowing shoddy evidence in the first Court?



Appeals have a low success rate compared to first Court convictions. So why make that gamble?

 

[Open Inquiry]

shuttIt,

I have also contacted Dr. Waterbury. He consults in the field of forensics. DNA forensics is not his specialty, but his work is checked by an anonymous DNA forensic specialist. In reading his blog I am always impressed with scientific way he approaches control experiments. I am a biochemist myself, and I have not seen any errors in the way he has presented this material.

Chris

Mark Waterbury has his work reviewed by a molecular biologist who works with DNA, in a DNA-related field.

 

[Open Inquiry]

Eh...not so much.

It's like a little extra mortar to the wall of evidence - but it isn't really needed.

Before reading past that, I have to say that a scientific test is needed. Raffaele words and his reasons for them are not reliable as a source for the presence of DNA nor whether that knife was used in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

 

[Open Inquiry]

The problem for Raf is that regardless of the DNA results, Raf expected the DNA results to test positive for Meredith and as such, made up a story in an attempt to explain the results away.

I'm pretty sure, but am in the process of checking, that until the lab results were in, he was so sure it be clean that he was relieved. I think he was shocked about such a claim about the knife and once he knew a little more, thought there would be no problem. Will check though.

The lie came after the results.

 

[Open Inquiry]

BobTheDonkey:

"The second is that
Amanda stole the knife from me to give to the son of a bitch that
killed Meredith ... This hypothesis is a bit of science fiction, but
possible, ...therefore I am troubled. They say that on the knife there
are no traces of blood, so I am much more relaxed ... I cannot wait
for the scientific results from Rome." - Raffaele Sollcito, Prison Diary/Letter to his father

 

[Alt+F4]

Mark Waterbury has his work reviewed by a molecular biologist who works with DNA, in a DNA-related field.

Will these new experts testify at the appeal?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Mark Waterbury has his work reviewed by a molecular biologist who works with DNA, in a DNA-related field.

Oh, Waterbury 'says' so, so it 'must' be true

 

[Alt+F4]

Raffaele words and his reasons for them are not reliable as a source for the presence of DNA nor whether that knife was used in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

He has given an explanation in his own words and without any police interrogation as to why Meredith's DNA would be found on the big knife. Do you think he is lying?