Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
halides1 said:
To the first question, http://www.sciencespheres.com/2009/10/lcn-dna-profiling-part-ii-watch-where.html Also, note the picture of the knife. To the second question, I refer you to General Garofano's comments.
Click to expand...
Round and round and round we go, eh?

This has already been discussed by Stilicho in much greater depth than I care to go into.

Do you have any other evidence, ya know, the real kind?, that Stefanoni's procedures were incorrect?

If so, why were you not called to the stand as a specialist for the defense? Obviously they could have used your help.
 
halides1 said:
Stilicho,

If your advice is that one should not to bother with a lawyer unless one is guilty, then that is questionable advice.

The Psychology of Confessions, A Review of the Literature and Issues
Saul M. Kassin and Gisli H. Gudjonsson
Psychological Science in the Public Interest
Volume 5, number 2, November 2004

Chris
Click to expand...

After the initial conversations with the police on the afternoon of the discovery of Meredith's body, I would have told all of them to seek legal advice. I have at no point argued that you should not seek it unless read your rights or anything close to that. AK should have known this since she emailed everyone on 04 NOV 2007 saying she was not going to be able to leave the country. Guilty or not, she should have lawyered up. Remember, she's revealing that in her email so she must have suspected she'd be questioned again. No reason not to.

But, when I think about it, you're correct that Sollecito (since he didn't live in the building) probably should have refused to go the Questura unless in custody and with representation. There was nothing linking him to the cottage murder scene at that time excepting his relationship with AK.
 
stilicho said:
After the initial conversations with the police on the afternoon of the discovery of Meredith's body, I would have told all of them to seek legal advice. I have at no point argued that you should not seek it unless read your rights or anything close to that. AK should have known this since she emailed everyone on 04 NOV 2007 saying she was not going to be able to leave the country. Guilty or not, she should have lawyered up. Remember, she's revealing that in her email so she must have suspected she'd be questioned again. No reason not to.

But, when I think about it, you're correct that Sollecito (since he didn't live in the building) probably should have refused to go the Questura unless in custody and with representation. There was nothing linking him to the cottage murder scene at that time excepting his relationship with AK.
Click to expand...

If we're going to get into what Amanda and Raffaele should/should not have done...

I'm going to go ahead and take it all the way back to these two should not have murdered Meredith. That would be one sure-fire way for the two to not spend the next 15-20 behind bars...
 
a few of the problems

BobTheDonkey said:
Round and round and round we go, eh?

This has already been discussed by Stilicho in much greater depth than I care to go into.

Do you have any other evidence, ya know, the real kind?, that Stefanoni's procedures were incorrect?

If so, why were you not called to the stand as a specialist for the defense? Obviously they could have used your help.
Click to expand...

Stilicho knows much less about DNA forensics than Dr. Waterbury does, so yours is not much of an argument. You are also ignoring the fact that the bra clasp was not handled with disposable tools and was handled too much and put onto the floor. It is also the international norm to release the electronic data files...
 
halides1 said:
Stilicho knows much less about DNA forensics than Dr. Waterbury does, so yours is not much of an argument. You are also ignoring the fact that the bra clasp was not handled with disposable tools and was handled too much and put onto the floor. It is also the international norm to release the electronic data files...
Click to expand...

Whatever Chris. Keep lying to yourself and anyone that will listen. Continue to twist the records to what you want to believe - it doesn't make it any less woo than any other bit of woo regularly discussed on these boards.

It is not international norm to release electronic data files to any and every body that wants them. The Defense requested files, they were given. Can you show evidence that the Defense did not receive all the requested files?

Dr Waterbury's article is so full of bias, that I am disinclined to believe he wrote it as much as a scientist as someone with a vested interest (of whatever kind) in the matter.

Where did the contamination on the bra clasp come from?
 
halides1 said:
Stilicho knows much less about DNA forensics than Dr. Waterbury does, so yours is not much of an argument. You are also ignoring the fact that the bra clasp was not handled with disposable tools and was handled too much and put onto the floor. It is also the international norm to release the electronic data files...
Click to expand...

And you base that claim on what? How is Waterbury any more qualified then Stilicho or anyone else here or anyone else on the Internet for that matter? I would put far more stock in anything Stilicho has to say as at least he is not a member of the FOA with a biased agenda as is the case with Waterbury and at least Stilicho researches beyond the loaded FOA sources Waterbury relies upon.

Oh and why do you keep waving Waterbury's PhD in an unrelated field around...do you imagine it somehow boosts his credibility and by proxy, you and your own weak arguments? Put it away, nobody's impressed.

The bra clasp was handled with disposable gloves. Was Raffaele's DNA on those gloves...did they have bionic arms and reach out to Raffaele and touch him in his apartment to grab a load of DNA? They put the clasp on the floor? Was Raffaele's DNA on Meredith's floor then?
 
International norm on the electronic files

BobTheDonkey said:
It is not international norm to release electronic data files to any and every body that wants them. The Defense requested files, they were given. Can you show evidence that the Defense did not receive all the requested files?
Click to expand...

BobTheDonkey,

If the fsa files were released, the defense would have the dates on which the testing was done in their possession. They did not have this information as of September of 2009, according to defense expert witness Sara Gino. In response to my question Chris Mellas told me specifically that they were not released. You and Fulcanelli cannot reasonably assert that I have not provided evidence, because that is false. If you choose not to believe this evidence, there is nothing I can do about it.

I have never said that it was the international norm to release the files to everyone, only to the defense. Professor Dan Krane wrote, “The biggest concern that I personally have regarding this case is the refusal of the prosecution to provide the defense with a copy of the electronic data that underlies the DNA test results -- that is virtually unheard of world-wide today and it would be especially important to review that data in a case such as this which seems to involve such low level samples.”

You also asked about the bra clasp. Other people deposited DNA on the clasp, not just Ms. Kercher and Mr. Sollecito. How did it get there?

If you are so confident in Dr. Stefanoni’s analysis, you should be clamoring for full release. What are you afraid of?

Chris
 
who moved the clasp

Fulcanelli said:
And you base that claim on what? How is Waterbury any more qualified then Stilicho or anyone else here or anyone else on the Internet for that matter? I would put far more stock in anything Stilicho has to say as at least he is not a member of the FOA with a biased agenda as is the case with Waterbury and at least Stilicho researches beyond the loaded FOA sources Waterbury relies upon....

The bra clasp was handled with disposable gloves. Was Raffaele's DNA on those gloves...did they have bionic arms and reach out to Raffaele and touch him in his apartment to grab a load of DNA? They put the clasp on the floor? Was Raffaele's DNA on Meredith's floor then?
Click to expand...

Fulcanelli,

The bra clasp was handled too much, and some of the gloves were dirty. No one knows how it was moved.

Do you mean this site is FOA?

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/lcn_testing.html

Or these?

http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/52-2/1003857.aspx
http://www.denverda.org/DNA_Documents/CMJ Budowle.pdf

That's rich!

Chris
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
If the fsa files were released, the defense would have the dates on which the testing was done in their possession. They did not have this information as of September of 2009, according to defense expert witness Sara Gino. In response to my question Chris Mellas told me specifically that they were not released. You and Fulcanelli cannot reasonably assert that I have not provided evidence, because that is false. If you choose not to believe this evidence, there is nothing I can do about it.
Click to expand...

All you've done is provide assertions, endlessly, by 3rd party individuals who are not the defence.

So again, provide your evidence that specific documents were requested IN COURT and that the defence later complained to the judge IN COURT that they hadn't been received. Also, provide your evidence of exactly what these documents are from what the defence lawters have said IN COURT along with some sort of evidence that defences in Italian are LEGALLY ENTITLED to under Italian law. It's a case of put up or shut up and move on.

Who is Dan Crane? Is he on the defence team? Was he in court? Does he have full unfettered access to the case file? Has he contacted Dr Stefanoni, her lab or the Italian court? If there is any validity to his claim, why has the defence teams not stated this case to the judge? Why did this Dan Crane not testify in the trial?

The bra clasp question you ask has been asked and answered in this thread 1000 times already, go back and read it if you missed (it would make a change from your reading nothing but your previous FOA scripture sites).

Full release? Full release of 'what' and to WHOM???
 
halides1 said:
Fulcanelli,

The bra clasp was handled too much, and some of the gloves were dirty. No one knows how it was moved.

Do you mean this site is FOA?

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/lcn_testing.html

Or these?

http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/52-2/1003857.aspx
http://www.denverda.org/DNA_Documents/CMJ Budowle.pdf

That's rich!

Chris
Click to expand...

Since when did you become a certified forensics expert qualified to 'pronounce'??

All those arguments regarding the clasp were put to the judges by the defence, they didn't wash. None of your arguments provide a reasonable explanation of where Raffaele's DNA came from.

So, I ask you once again, is that Raffaele's DNA on the gloves? How did it get there? And does gentle handling of the edges of the clasp transmit DNA of a volume that can only occur from VIGOROUS direct handling?

Your sources, aye you will refer to outside sources but only to make arguments that are not the least bit relevant to this case!
 
halides1 said:
I am not sure what money you are talking about. The Friends of Amanda website says, "Friends of Amanda is a group of people who recognize that Amanda is innocent. We are not affiliated with her family, and no one is paying us. We simply want to see justice."
Click to expand...
.
I guess it's just coincidence that the FOA and Amanda Defense Fund (run by family and friends) websites are set up using the same anonymizer service. I guess it's coincidence that FOA organises fund-raisers with the presence of The Family.
 
halides1 said:
If your advice is that one should not to bother with a lawyer unless one is guilty, then that is questionable advice.
Click to expand...
.
I believe that on one of these forums one of the Italian experts pointed out that as a witness you aren't allowed to have a lawyer in Italy.
 
Fulcanelli said:
And it's just a coincidence that Chris Mellas opened up an Italian site for Raffaele ;)

http://www.raffaelesollecito.org/index.html
Click to expand...
.
Now THAT is worth discussing on this site, not the same old rehashed, reheated we-debated-that-last-week stuff.

Vanessa is crazy if she thinks that Chris Mellas is interested in helping RS in an altruistic way. He just wants to have some linkage with the RS team, to ensure that RS doesn't start drifting more (or at least to be able to get some early warning if that starts happening)
 
Dan Krane and the fsa files

Fulcanelli said:
Who is Dan Crane? Is he on the defence team? Was he in court? Does he have full unfettered access to the case file? Has he contacted Dr Stefanoni, her lab or the Italian court? If there is any validity to his claim, why has the defence teams not stated this case to the judge? Why did this Dan Crane not testify in the trial?

The bra clasp question you ask has been asked and answered in this thread 1000 times already, go back and read it if you missed (it would make a change from your reading nothing but your previous FOA scripture sites).

Full release? Full release of 'what' and to WHOM???
Click to expand...

Fulcanelli,

I offered Dr. Krane’s words only as evidence that release of electronic data (fsa) files to the defense is the international norm. He publishes regularly in the DNA forensic literature; therefore, his words carry considerably more weight than Stilicho’s, for example. Dr. Stefanoni has had two years to release the files, four months since the release of the open letter. One might have hoped the entreaties of her colleagues in the field of DNA forensics would move her to providing these files at last, but this hope is still unfulfilled.

Your explanation of the DNA on bra clasp lacks evidentiary support. If the bra touched other clothing before it were washed, the DNA would be removed by the laundry detergent. On the other hand it is difficult to see how a clean bra clasp would come into contact with dirty clothes after the bra were laundered. Do you know of a similar case from the forensic literature? You have previously argued that Laura’s and/or Filomena’s DNA was on the clasp, but without reference samples that is pure conjecture, unencumbered by fact.

Chris
 
Kermit said:
.
Now THAT is worth discussing on this site, not the same old rehashed, reheated we-debated-that-last-week stuff.

Vanessa is crazy if she thinks that Chris Mellas is interested in helping RS in an altruistic way. He just wants to have some linkage with the RS team, to ensure that RS doesn't start drifting more (or at least to be able to get some early warning if that starts happening)
Click to expand...

Mellas also made sure the site linked to the donation site for Amanda:

http://www.raffaelesollecito.org/siti_web.html

and to a propaganda site they've set up for Amanda in Italy:

http://www.amandaknox.it/
 
halides1 said:
Fulcanelli,

I offered Dr. Krane’s words only as evidence that release of electronic data (fsa) files to the defense is the international norm. He publishes regularly in the DNA forensic literature; therefore, his words carry considerably more weight than Stilicho’s, for example. Dr. Stefanoni has had two years to release the files, four months since the release of the open letter. One might have hoped the entreaties of her colleagues in the field of DNA forensics would move her to providing these files at last, but this hope is still unfulfilled.

Your explanation of the DNA on bra clasp lacks evidentiary support. If the bra touched other clothing before it were washed, the DNA would be removed by the laundry detergent. On the other hand it is difficult to see how a clean bra clasp would come into contact with dirty clothes after the bra were laundered. Do you know of a similar case from the forensic literature? You have previously argued that Laura’s and/or Filomena’s DNA was on the clasp, but without reference samples that is pure conjecture, unencumbered by fact.

Chris
Click to expand...
Again, you should have been called on by the Defense as an expert witness. All this talk about the DNA evidence, you could have provided the Court with reasonable doubt as to it's veracity. And yet, the Defense didn't call you.

Do you have evidence of a Defense request for files that was denied by the Prosecution? Not hearsay. I mean evidence - i.e. a Court motion.

What was the source of the contamination DNA?
 
halides1 said:
Fulcanelli,

I offered Dr. Krane’s words only as evidence that release of electronic data (fsa) files to the defense is the international norm. He publishes regularly in the DNA forensic literature; therefore, his words carry considerably more weight than Stilicho’s, for example. Dr. Stefanoni has had two years to release the files, four months since the release of the open letter. One might have hoped the entreaties of her colleagues in the field of DNA forensics would move her to providing these files at last, but this hope is still unfulfilled.

Your explanation of the DNA on bra clasp lacks evidentiary support. If the bra touched other clothing before it were washed, the DNA would be removed by the laundry detergent. On the other hand it is difficult to see how a clean bra clasp would come into contact with dirty clothes after the bra were laundered. Do you know of a similar case from the forensic literature? You have previously argued that Laura’s and/or Filomena’s DNA was on the clasp, but without reference samples that is pure conjecture, unencumbered by fact.

Chris
Click to expand...

Oh my God, how tiresome...on and on and on and on and on you go. Perhaps your strategy is to win the debate by boring everybody to death?

As for Krane, the article in Nature says the opposite about what is the 'norm'. Now, who should I put more stock in...this Krane guy, or one of the most prestigious journals in the world...hmm, that's a tough one.

Has it occurred to you the house mates may have pulled Meredith's clothes out of the washing machine for her (friction on wet clothes, ideal for transferring DNA) or moved her clothes on the shared dryer so they could hang their own up? They are the likely source, since the other profiles are female and Meredith shared a house with three other women.

Also, it clearly doesn't seem to matter a jot to you that the other traces on the bra are so low, it's not even possible to get a profile off of them...they are in effect 'trace'. Yet, Raffaele's is there on the bra in high volume, an amount that could only have got there by direct and vigorous contact, not contamination or third party contact. The Judges heard ALL the experts on the matter and agreed the bra clasp is good evidence. Are you offering any new arguments, as opposed to the old ones that fell down in court? No? Then why are you wasting our time?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom