Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
red herring

stilicho said:
With all due respect, Chris, the fsa files are therefore and by your own admission a complete red herring. The kicker is that if you found that the defence actually has the things you can simply argue that the data were compromised.

You're getting nowhere, anywhere, with this continued fsa file mantra.

Why not just stick with the DNA contamination and blurry allele tropes instead? At least you can post links to that stuff even though your links are almost always either out-of-date or irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Stilicho,

They cannot be a red herring if they might contain exculpatory information. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Suppose that you were on trial and the prosecution introduced DNA forensic evidence. Would you want your defense team to have access to the fsa files?

Chris
 
They can't very well say, "we found Amanda and Raffaele guilty because to do otherwise would humiliate people we have to work with every day." So they assign certainties to evidence that is in fact marginal. There is no absolute proof that the DNA test on the knife blade resulted from contamination in the lab, and therefore it is certainly the murder weapon. There is no absolute proof Guede made the print on the bathmat, and therefore it was certainly made by Sollecito.

I've seen it again and again - speculation presented as certainty, and the public is totally convinced. One of my favorites is in a dog-eared book by Harlan Levy:

"The prosecutors... stood squarely behind the DNA evidence and explained the absence of DNA evidence against the defendants in reasonable and logical terms. There was no assault on DNA testing, no argument that such testing itself was somehow flawed.

"Over the years, this would become the norm among the best and most ethical prosecutors. They would follow the DNA evidence wherever it led."

I enjoy the irony of that last sentence every time I re-read it. These prosecutors were Levy's colleagues, and he is celebrating their greatest and most high-profile victories. But the book was written in 1996, and the case in question is that of the Central Park Jogger It would be another five years before anyone knew the three boys convicted were innocent.

I lived in NYC during that case, and I was one of the people who got suckered. I remember when some damn liberal at a cocktail party tried to tell me I was wrong. I didn't listen. I just couldn't imagine that all those fine police officers and lawyers were absolutely, utterly wrong and were desperately hiding the flaws in their case to save face and get a conviction no matter what.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
They can't very well say, "we found Amanda and Raffaele guilty because to do otherwise would humiliate people we have to work with every day." So they assign certainties to evidence that is in fact marginal. There is no absolute proof that the DNA test on the knife blade resulted from contamination in the lab, and therefore it is certainly the murder weapon. There is no absolute proof Guede made the print on the bathmat, and therefore it was certainly made by Sollecito.

I've seen it again and again - speculation presented as certainty, and the public is totally convinced. One of my favorites is in a dog-eared book by Harlan Levy:

"The prosecutors... stood squarely behind the DNA evidence and explained the absence of DNA evidence against the defendants in reasonable and logical terms. There was no assault on DNA testing, no argument that such testing itself was somehow flawed.

"Over the years, this would become the norm among the best and most ethical prosecutors. They would follow the DNA evidence wherever it led."

I enjoy the irony of that last sentence every time I re-read it. These prosecutors were Levy's colleagues, and he is celebrating their greatest and most high-profile victories. But the book was written in 1996, and the case in question is that of the Central Park Jogger It would be another five years before anyone knew the three boys convicted were innocent.

I lived in NYC during that case, and I was one of the people who got suckered. I remember when some damn liberal at a cocktail party tried to tell me I was wrong. I didn't listen. I just couldn't imagine that all those fine police officers and lawyers were absolutely, utterly wrong and were desperately hiding the flaws in their case to save face and get a conviction no matter what.
Click to expand...

So...where was Amanda on the night of the murder?
 
halides1 said:
Stilicho,

They cannot be a red herring if they might contain exculpatory information. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Suppose that you were on trial and the prosecution introduced DNA forensic evidence. Would you want your defense team to have access to the fsa files?

Chris
Click to expand...

Can you show the Defense team requested the files and were denied this request?

Perhaps the Defense team felt there was no reason to suspect the work Stefanoni's lab performed - as much as you may wish to waive your ethno-centrism around and shout that there is.

There is no requirement for 3rd party investigation into the matter - in fact, I challenge you to prove that 3rd party investigation into DNA reports are a norm.

The Defense Attorneys did not feel the need for the .fsa files, nor did they feel the need for a 3rd party audit of the files they did receive. Why should you think you know better than these Attorneys who actually have the evidence/report?
 
Sara Gino

BobTheDonkey said:
Perhaps the Defense team felt there was no reason to suspect the work Stefanoni's lab performed - as much as you may wish to waive your ethno-centrism around and shout that there is....

The Defense Attorneys did not feel the need for the .fsa files, nor did they feel the need for a 3rd party audit of the files they did receive. Why should you think you know better than these Attorneys who actually have the evidence/report?
Click to expand...

BobTheDonkey,

We know that at least two witnesses challenged the DNA results, Dr. Tagliabracci (http://www.forensicmag.com/News_Articles.asp?pid=632), and Sara Gino (http://abcnews.go.com/International...a-evidence-amanda-knox-trial/story?id=8680234). Sara Gino specifically noted that the dates of the tests were missing. These dates would be in the fsa files.

Do you think it was perfectly OK for Patrizia Stefanoni to ignore the appearance of two extra peaks in locus D3S1358, both of which have a peak height of about 20 RFUs? They have fifteen and sixteen repeats, respectively, and neither of which is part of Meredith’s profile, which has fourteen and eighteen repeats at this locus. There is one peak in locus D7S820 with an intensity of only 15 RFU, which is interpreted to be part of Meredith’s profile. Why should this latter peak be treated as part of Meredith’s profile and the two other peaks ignored?

Maybe you should spend some time coming up with a reasonable response to this question, instead of bringing up canards about ethnocentrism and that I reject all DNA forensic evidence.

Chris
 
Bob the Donkey writes:

So...where was Amanda on the night of the murder?

She was at Sollecito's apartment with him.
 
Bob the Donkey writes:

There is no requirement for 3rd party investigation into the matter - in fact, I challenge you to prove that 3rd party investigation into DNA reports are a norm.

It's not the norm by any means. But it's not the norm to convict people based on DNA results as doubtful as the ones in this case. It's not the norm to have scientists and legal experts assert publicly that a court has convicted two innocent people. This case is highly unusual.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
Bob the Donkey writes:

So...where was Amanda on the night of the murder?

She was at Sollecito's apartment with him.
Click to expand...

OH? Because their stories don't match (as has been pointed out time and again) - not with each other, not with their own various re-tellings.

Nor can Amanda even remember what happened that night - her infamous trick memory isn't sure where she was, how can you be so sure she was at Sollecito's apartment? Do you have any evidence, or is this more bare assertion?
 
Last edited:
Charlie Wilkes said:
Bob the Donkey writes:

There is no requirement for 3rd party investigation into the matter - in fact, I challenge you to prove that 3rd party investigation into DNA reports are a norm.

It's not the norm by any means. But it's not the norm to convict people based on DNA results as doubtful as the ones in this case. It's not the norm to have scientists and legal experts assert publicly that a court has convicted two innocent people. This case is highly unusual.
Click to expand...

Doubtful by whose standards? The standards of those with a vested interest or 3rd parties without access to the full case file?

Or the standards of the Defense Attorneys and Judges?

Or your standards?


Keep in mind that this case does not hinge on the DNA evidence. There is plenty enough other evidence (such as the footprints, lack of alibis, etc) that led to the guilty verdict.
 
halides1 said:
BobTheDonkey,

We know that at least two witnesses challenged the DNA results, Dr. Tagliabracci (http://www.forensicmag.com/News_Articles.asp?pid=632), and Sara Gino (http://abcnews.go.com/International...a-evidence-amanda-knox-trial/story?id=8680234). Sara Gino specifically noted that the dates of the tests were missing. These dates would be in the fsa files.

Do you think it was perfectly OK for Patrizia Stefanoni to ignore the appearance of two extra peaks in locus D3S1358, both of which have a peak height of about 20 RFUs? They have fifteen and sixteen repeats, respectively, and neither of which is part of Meredith’s profile, which has fourteen and eighteen repeats at this locus. There is one peak in locus D7S820 with an intensity of only 15 RFU, which is interpreted to be part of Meredith’s profile. Why should this latter peak be treated as part of Meredith’s profile and the two other peaks ignored?

Maybe you should spend some time coming up with a reasonable response to this question, instead of bringing up canards about ethnocentrism and that I reject all DNA forensic evidence.

Chris
Click to expand...

Ok...so...Instead of a 14, we have a 15 (at the same location) and instead of a 16, we have an 18 (at the same location). Am I interpreting that correctly?

What are the odds that someone else would have contact with the knife who's DNA just so happens to be nearly identical to Meredith's? And I really would like to know the numbers on this.

Regardless, Sollecito claims to have pricked Meredith's finger with the knife. He attempted to create an excuse to explain the DNA rather than deny she could have ever had contact with it.

On one hand we have screams of "it's not Meredith's DNA", followed shortly by "even if it is Meredith's DNA, it's from contamination", meanwhile Sollecito admits contact between Meredith and the knife in a scenario that is completely made up. Sollecito has no reason to doubt it's Meredith's DNA - so why do you?

The Defense Attorneys have no reason to doubt it's Meredith's DNA, so why do you? Because it's convenient to what you want to believe to be true? Welcome to woo-ism ;)

It's amazing the mental gymnastics we have to play to fit all the pieces just right so that Amanda and Raffaele can be free.
 
shuttlt said:
This all may be, and if so it's pretty scandalous. I've seen many people say this stuff, I haven't seen anybody offer much in the way of proof. I've been looking and looking for transcripts no matter how incomplete of Stefanoni's cross examination and have come up practically empty handed. If this was the first and only time the lab have done and LCN test the defence presumably challenged her on that. The same goes for controls and all the rest. If FOA, the defence, or whoever has proof of all of this I really think their time and money could be better served by making this information public. Why not get Stefanoni's cross examination translated and published so we can see her admitting all this stuff? If she denies it, but there is proof that she has perjured herself, then terrific! a site should be set up dedicated to publicising this as it would make the FOA case credible to many people who currently find it incredible.
Click to expand...

I've been thinking that, if the FOA mob want to seem at all credible, their first priority right now should be to translate the Massei report & make it available to the public (assuming that that's kosher with Italian law & procedure). Because if the case against A&R is so weak, a reading of the report ought to make that clear as day.
 
three strikes

BobTheDonkey said:
Regardless, Sollecito claims to have pricked Meredith's finger with the knife. He attempted to create an excuse to explain the DNA rather than deny she could have ever had contact with it.

On one hand we have screams of "it's not Meredith's DNA", followed shortly by "even if it is Meredith's DNA, it's from contamination", meanwhile Sollecito admits contact between Meredith and the knife in a scenario that is completely made up. Sollecito has no reason to doubt it's Meredith's DNA - so why do you?

The Defense Attorneys have no reason to doubt it's Meredith's DNA, so why do you? Because it's convenient to what you want to believe to be true? Welcome to woo-ism ;)
Click to expand...

BobTheDonkey,

It is not just this one problematic locus I discussed; it is the extremely low threshold Stefanoni chose and the widely varying peak heights in many of the alleles. There is a critical difference between saying that the profile is not Meredith’s versus saying that the profile fails to clear the bar to warrant being called Meredith’s. The defense’s expert witnesses have both presented what is in effect the latter position, mainly on the basis of the second of the three problems I noted above. The first and third points reinforce the second one. Your comment does not accurately reflect the defense’s stance, and it surely does not reflect mine.

I read Mr. Sollecito’s diary, and I got the impression that he told his probable lie about the knife because he thought if he explained away the DNA result, the authorities would let him go. It was a very foolish thing to do, but it cannot turn an extremely problematic DNA profile into a good one.

Chris
 
Bob the Donkey wrote:

OH? Because their stories don't match (as has been pointed out time and again) - not with each other, not with their own various re-tellings.

Actually they do match, and always did match except when they were interrogated on the night of Nov. 5-6. It is unfortunate that the police, who recorded everyone else's statements, apparently did not record these crucial interrogations. In any case, both Amanda and Raffaele quickly reverted to their original account of the evening, and both have based their defense on the premise that they spent the night together at his apartment.

There is plenty enough other evidence (such as the footprints, lack of alibis, etc) that led to the guilty verdict.

But none of the evidence is credible and it doesn't fit into a believable scenario.
 
halides1 said:
<snip>

I read Mr. Sollecito’s diary, and I got the impression that he told his probable lie about the knife because he thought if he explained away the DNA result, the authorities would let him go. It was a very foolish thing to do, but it cannot turn an extremely problematic DNA profile into a good one.
Click to expand...


This is a refreshingly generous way of saying, "He lied in the hopes of not being convicted."

It is not apparent how it is functionally different.

It certainly was foolish, but then desperate people do foolish things. Statistically, in similar situations that desperation is most commonly found in the guilty. You're wrong, though in saying, "... it cannot turn an extremely problematic DNA profile into a good one." That is exactly what it does. It leaves the defense with the requirement of impeaching the testimony of their own client. It is affirmative evidence by the one person in the entire world with the least to benefit from such a statement, because it demonstrates that for whatever reason he had cause to expect the DNA results to be positive for Meredith.

A less ... er ... generous person might find it reasonable to conclude that the desperation was caused by the surprise that such DNA evidence had been not been successfully obliterated.
 
halides1 said:
BobTheDonkey,

It is not just this one problematic locus I discussed; it is the extremely low threshold Stefanoni chose and the widely varying peak heights in many of the alleles. There is a critical difference between saying that the profile is not Meredith’s versus saying that the profile fails to clear the bar to warrant being called Meredith’s. The defense’s expert witnesses have both presented what is in effect the latter position, mainly on the basis of the second of the three problems I noted above. The first and third points reinforce the second one. Your comment does not accurately reflect the defense’s stance, and it surely does not reflect mine.

I read Mr. Sollecito’s diary, and I got the impression that he told his probable lie about the knife because he thought if he explained away the DNA result, the authorities would let him go. It was a very foolish thing to do, but it cannot turn an extremely problematic DNA profile into a good one.

Chris
Click to expand...

What are the odds that the alleles would all match those of Meredith's DNA?

I asked this before, I notice you dodged that question.
 
quadraginta said:
Halides1 doesn't like that question, or any others resembling it. I expect this is why he limits himself to vague, generalized aspersions, and references to unrelated cases.
Click to expand...

It's actually quite telling the questions the Pro-Amanda posters won't answer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom