There are several things wrong with your arguments.... Four is to make an allegation that Dr. Johnson is benefiting financially from this case without factual substantiation of any kind.
Dr. Stefanoni’s poor technique at forensic swabbing has been documented in photographs. That is one of many things one can criticize about her work here. Your criticisms of Dr. Johnson are not based in fact, so what is their basis?
Chris
.
I'm not aware that anyone accused Elizabeth Johnson of benefiting financially from her report (but now you mention it, did she?).
Of more interest to me is: who engaged her to write the report? what constraints were incorporated into her report? For example, why did she not write about the samples of Amanda's and Meredith's mixed DNA found in Filomena's bedroom?
Why did Johnson dedicate almost as much space to a lengthy "background" introduction to her report as to her actual science comments concerning the Double DNA Knife. That's not very becoming a scientist to talk about rumours or alleged abilis as fact, without underlining that the trial has heard other versions concerning the same issues.
I quote from the start of her report:
"
Background
This case involves the murder of Meredith Kercher, a British exchange student living in Perugia, Italy. On the night of November 1, 2007 Meredith Kercher was brutally attacked in her residence. She sustained three slash wounds to her throat, one of which was fatal. Her body was found the next day when her housemate, Amanda Knox, called police after noticing blood in their common bathroom, a broken window, and Meredith’s locked door. Before the police arrived, Amanda’s Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, unsuccessfully attempted to force open Meredith’s door. The police were able to open the door and found Meredith’s partially disrobed body under a duvet cover.
Police initially theorized that Amanda, Raffaele and Amanda’s boss, Patrick Lumumba, were involved with Meredith in a group sex tryst gone awry. However, during the ensuing forensic investigation, a drifter named Rudy Guede was conclusively linked to the scene by DNA found within the victim’s body, DNA from a bowel movement left unflushed in one bathroom, a bloody handprint under the victim’s body, and other items at the scene. After Lumumba was released based on an airtight alibi, the police theorized that Guede was the fourth participant in an alleged lethal sex game, although the only foreign DNA found on and within Meredith’s body matched Guede.
Rudy Guede fled to Germany but was arrested and returned to Italy. He initially told police that he had consensual sex with Meredith and that while he was in the bathroom a stranger came into the room and attacked her. Some months after his arrest he changed his story to identify the stranger as Raffaele and said that Amanda was present outside of the room. Although Rudy Guede has been tried and convicted of Meredith’s murder, the prosecution continues to believe that Amanda and Raffaele are complicit in this crime.
.... The following paragraphs outline the facts and our conclusions about this evidence."
Some comments on my part:
"Her body was found the next day when her housemate, Amanda Knox, called police after noticing blood"
Why does Johnson preface her science report with actions which a suspect alleges to have carried out? If Johnson really felt this was important to understanding DNA testing, she should have also supplied a Police version of events which contests Amanda's statements.
==================
"Before the police arrived, Amanda’s Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, unsuccessfully attempted to force open Meredith's door"
Again, now with Raffaele, Johnson writes her science report with a suspect's version (if this is in fact still Raffaele's version, shortly after arrest, he invoked and has basically maintained to this day his right to silence).
==================
"Police initially theorized that Amanda, Raffaele and Amanda’s boss, Patrick Lumumba, were involved with Meredith"
Wrong. Amanda initially accused Lumumba of murdering Meredith while she (Amanda) was in the house. Italy's constitution protected Amanda from this statement being used against her in the murder trial, but it was introduced into the charge against her for false accusation.
In any case, the investigators took a calculated risk of accepting Amanda's statement, as that helped pushed the investigation along at a moment when the killer or one of the killers was still not under police control.
==========================
"the police theorized that Guede was the fourth participant"
Fourth? Third. At the same time that Amanda's false accusation was proven false, the forensic testing pointed towards Guede, who may or may not have been a "drifter" as characterised (why?) by scientist Johnson, but he certainly was a person known to Amanda, as she admitted in the trial.
==========================
"Although Rudy Guede has been tried and convicted of Meredith’s murder, the prosecution continues"
Johnson reiterates a frequent FOA insinuation: that since Rudy has already been convicted of Meredith's murder, there's no need to pursue charges against Amanda and Raffaele.
In fact, the decision to charge Rudy with murder, and the body of evidence presented in his trial resulted from the same investigation report as was used as the basis for the charges against Amanda and Raffaele. The evidence used against the three is intrinsically intertwined.
The only difference is that Rudy's lawyer decided on a "fast-track" trial and at the same time Amanda and Raffaele's respective lawyers decided to go for a full, long trial.
====================
"The following paragraphs outline the facts and our conclusions about this evidence"
Who gave Johnson the "facts" she examined (data, graphs, crime background information)? Why was she given what she was given and not other information, for example about the mixed DNA samples of Meredith and Amanda?
What constraints were given to her?
Would she (Johnson) be willing to travel to Italy to testify? Why did the people who engaged Johnson wait until just a few days before the end of the trail to publisize the report? If it could have had an impact on the trial, it should have been presented months earlier when the DNA data was being dealt with in court.
====================
Johnson signs off her report in the following manner:
Who did she "respectfully submit" the report to? Was it to the same persons who originally engaged her?
Did she ever try to contact Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, who Johnson severely criticised, in order to obtain further information about the testing procedures which were followed?
