Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fulcanelli said:
Thanks Shuttit. That's new. That account belongs to some individual called 'Circej' and it's the only document they have up. It looks like they registered an account for the sole reason of putting up that doc. However, that wasn't the scribd account it was originally up under. It was originally posted under Elizabeth Johnson's scribd account, only for her to later remove it citing copyright.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it wasn't her document to publish? Do we know what the original timeline was for the open letters release? Was scribd first, FOA, New Scientist...? If scribd was first then I wonder whether it wasn't an issue of managing the release of the document rather than a longer term wish to enforce copyright.
 
shuttlt said:
Do we have a good quote of the "there is no DNA in dry skin cells" argument from the prosecution/Stefanoni/the judges report. This seems like a discrete issue that I am quite willing to open a thread on and put some time into if we can formulate a meaningful claim.

Katy_did, have you got a quote/page number from the judges report? I take it you mean the motivations document. My translation is good enough that I can get a small section cleaned up well enough to post.
Click to expand...
Sure, I'll have a look for a quote - it's repeated quite a lot, towards the end of the document and obviously in the section dealing with the DNA evidence. They may be right with regard to dry skin cells not containing DNA, but it still seems like an odd claim to say that the only way this DNA could have been transferred is by 'vigorous rubbing' and direct contact, since it would make transferral of DNA by any other means a virtual impossibility. It's not as if it was a huge amount of DNA (one of the defense experts even argued it was low copy number since he estimated the ratio at 10:1 or 8:1 of Meredith's DNA to Sollecito, which would have made it LCN, while Stefanoni said it was 6:1 and therefore it wasn't. But quite a fine line).

As regards the complaint about the lack of information on order of testing and other things, I'm not sure as to when the requests were made, but Gino and Tagliabracci were testifying in September so presumably they made the complaints then. I don't know if there was a more formal date for the request though.
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
Perhaps it wasn't her document to publish? Do we know what the original timeline was for the open letters release? Was scribd first, FOA, New Scientist...? If scribd was first then I wonder whether it wasn't an issue of managing the release of the document rather than a longer term wish to enforce copyright.
Click to expand...

Well, it was put up on the scribd Johnson account shortly after it's publication in New Scientist. Some time after it was removed from the Johnson scribd account it was then put up on the FOA site.

And if you want my guess...the 'circej' account on scribd is a secondary anonymous account belonging to Johnson, created especially for her to shift the doc over to from her official account. That makes any copyright issues go away while at the same time ensuring the doc is still available from a seemingly neutral source.
 
[quoye="katy_did"]As regards the complaint about the lack of information on order of testing and other things, I'm not sure as to when the requests were made, but Gino and Tagliabracci were testifying in September so presumably they made the complaints then. I don't know if there was a more formal date for the request though.[/quote]

They made the complaint before the summer break. They requested extra data and the prosecution agreed and since they agreed so did the judge. They then had two months to review the new data...not that any of it was of help to them (hence why they weren't given it in the first place, it wasn't considered relevant). After the break, they then requested that the case against Raffaele be dismissed because they had got the new data late in the trial. The judge dismissed the request because the data they had requested had been duly handed over and that had had a full two months to examine it. This the judge considered ample time. And since the new data didn't help them anyway, it was clear they were trying to pull a fast one with the dismissal request. There was no mention at this point or after of any further data still being witheld.
 
katy_did said:
As regards the complaint about the lack of information on order of testing and other things, I'm not sure as to when the requests were made, but Gino and Tagliabracci were testifying in September so presumably they made the complaints then. I don't know if there was a more formal date for the request though.
Click to expand...
Thanks! That's still, what, 8 months into the trial and 3 months or so from the end of the trial. The only request for additional forensic information that got refused that I am aware of is from October.

My view is that this information is so obviously essential if one wishes to make a legitimate argument for lab contamination that not having formally complained to the court about it until the trial was half gone, if we count the granted request before the summer break, or three quaters gone if you count the October request is negligence bordering on madness. Steffanoni tetified in May! Months before the defence made any complaint to the court. Clearly this is something that the defence should make an effort to resolve for the appeal. Depending on what they find it could make a big difference to the case.
 
Let me get this straight

Fulcanelli said:
There was no mention at this point or after of any further data still being witheld.
Click to expand...
.
Fulcanelli, so let me get this straight:

- the defense asks for further data
- the prosecution gives it to them
- the defense examines the data for two months
- the defense calls for a new trial / new delay because they didn't have enough time
- the judge says no because they had 2 months

Sounds fine to me.

So why have Halides and Kestrel been hitting us over the head with the "the prosecution/Stefanoni should have sent Elizabeth Johnson the information she wanted" argument?

((BTW, Halides and Kestrel, when you get a moment, please try to answer my questions in post 5747589))
 
Last edited:
Kermit said:
Fulcanelli, so let me get this straight:

- the defense asks for further data
- the prosecution gives it to them
- the defense examines the data for two months
- the defense calls for a new trial / new delay because they didn't have enough time
- the judge says no because they had 2 months

Sounds fine to me.
Click to expand...

Well, this is how it all went in COURT. Of course, it didn't stop the defence lawyers making an occasional whine outside the court to the media afterwards and giving the impression they were somehow short of data or that they didn't have enough time to review. But it's what happens in court that counts. They requested further data, their request was granted by the prosecution and the judge, it was given to them and they were given 2 months to review it. They requested the case be dismissed as they'd got it late and the judge said no since they'd had plenty of time to review the new data. After that point there was no second overture made in court to either the judge or prosecution requesting more data. So, either the defence had all the data they required, or they wanted more but did not make that request to the court. Their whinging to the media seems to me just like a defence team tactic to try and give the public the impression that some foul has been committed or they've been treated unfairly. But then, we've seen that tactic used by the defence a number of times.
 
katy_did said:
The judge's report actually claims that there can be no DNA in dust, for instance, because dry skin cells do not contain DNA, so the only way DNA can be transferred is through direct contact (or presumably having gotten someone's saliva on your skin, or something!). Even as a non-scientist, this seems like a nonsense to me, since it would imply that transferring DNA from one source to another is a virtual impossibility. They use this argument repeatedly to deny the possibility of contamination.
Click to expand...

This argument does show how disconnected this court is from scientific reality. Skin cells have DNA. When cells die, the DNA in the cell doesn't ascend to heaven, it stays in the cell. The DNA present in dead skin cells is the foundation for "touch DNA" evidence.
 
Kestrel said:
This argument does show how disconnected this court is from scientific reality. Skin cells have DNA. When cells die, the DNA in the cell doesn't ascend to heaven, it stays in the cell. The DNA present in dead skin cells is the foundation for "touch DNA" evidence.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the DNA stays IN the cell, self contained and then rapidly degrades, not leaking and oozing about everywhere. The cell is also dead because most of the DNA is destroyed...that's how cells 'die' in the first place.

I'm wondering, talking of skin cell DNA, do you imagine Raffaele had 'special' DNA, like a sort of 'special homing' DNA absent in everyone else's DNA that caused his cells amongst the dust to all gather together and fly in a swarm to colonise the clasp?

Do your silly arguments not negate the use of using DNA in crime detection full stop? I take it dust and such isn't a problem in 'other' crimes, only this one?

In fact, we could get really really silly in the contamination arguments (as opposed to only really silly) and argue that since Rudy had visited the downstairs apartment on several occasion, he too shed dust and DNA and the girls after visiting downstairs could have stepped in or touched a puddle of his dust or lake of his DNA and then transferred it upstairs, only for the forensics team to later then pick it up and transfer it to those places his DNA was found. How about that?
 
More on Raffaele's amazing magical dust. Isn't it funny how his amazing magical dust was found nowhere else or on any other item in the cottage that was tested? How amazing it is, that his Amazing magical dust was of such a high amount that it ended up on Meredith's bra clasp in such a high volume even though in total he'd never spent more then mere 'hours' in that cottage, yet all the other visitors to the cottage and residents who had spent far longer in that cottage didn't have 'high profile dust' on Meredith's clasp? Amazing!!! Maybe..maybe, he had help from the fairies in it getting there Kestrel, what do you think?

So the options are:

a) Accept Kestrel's amazing magical dust fantasy

or

b) Declare it to be the complete pants that it is and concur with the experts tested in court, that his sample only got on the clasp via direct vigorous contact


Hmmm...tough one that....
 
dust facts versus fallacies

Kestrel said:
This argument does show how disconnected this court is from scientific reality. Skin cells have DNA. When cells die, the DNA in the cell doesn't ascend to heaven, it stays in the cell. The DNA present in dead skin cells is the foundation for "touch DNA" evidence.
Click to expand...

Kestrel,

Exactly right. And skin cells are a major component of dust, which can potentially generate forensic DNA profiles:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826584.200-telltale-dna-sucked-out-of-household-dust.html

This is my busiest day at work, or I would say more.

Chris
 
Last edited:
Halides, beam me up ...

halides1 said:
Kestrel,

Exactly right. And skin cells are a major component of dust, which can generate forensic DNA profiles:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826584.200-telltale-dna-sucked-out-of-household-dust.html
Click to expand...

Kestrel and Halides, glad to see you here.

Halides, your article goes on to say "With further research it might be possible to find ways of recreating someone's profile or even working out how recently they'd visited a crime scene from the decay of their DNA."

So it seems that the technique isn't quite there yet for useful forensic purposes, to the contrary of what you write.

Scientists have also teletransported photons, but that doesn't mean that Scotty can beam me up yet.
============================

Since you're both here, when you get a moment, please try to answer my questions in post 5747589. Thanks.
 
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...

Well they were in Italy and it looks like they'll stay in Italy.
 
That quote also has the following:

The amount of DNA in dust is tiny and from so many people that singling out any individual could be tricky.
Click to expand...

I really think it supports the objections to the contamination arguments rather than contradicting them
 
Kermit said:
Kestrel and Halides, glad to see you here.

Halides, your article goes on to say "With further research it might be possible to find ways of recreating someone's profile or even working out how recently they'd visited a crime scene from the decay of their DNA."

So it seems that the technique isn't quite there yet for useful forensic purposes, to the contrary of what you write.

Scientists have also teletransported photons, but that doesn't mean that Scotty can beam me up yet.
============================

Since you're both here, when you get a moment, please try to answer my questions in post 5747589. Thanks.
Click to expand...


Thank you Kermit for establishing that they cannot yet extract a profile from dust. Raffaele's profile on the clasp was complete. Now that we've established Raffaele's DNA on the clasp was not as a result of magic dust, perhaps we can move on. Or perhaps halides1 can EVEN answer your questions.

In fact, I've got a couple more questions for halides1.

1. WHEN did Elizabeth Johnson and her cohorts receive their DNA data, was it before or after the defence received the further DNA information they requested from the prosecution during the summer?

2. How long a period of time was it from the point Johnson and her friends received the data to their writing of the letter?

3. During that time, did the Johnson team contact (or vice versa) either the Italian defence lawyers or their Italian defence experts? If so, which defence teams, one (which one) or both? What was the nature of that contact and what, if any, DNA data was exchanged?
 
Fulcanelli said:
[quoye="katy_did"]As regards the complaint about the lack of information on order of testing and other things, I'm not sure as to when the requests were made, but Gino and Tagliabracci were testifying in September so presumably they made the complaints then. I don't know if there was a more formal date for the request though.
Click to expand...

They made the complaint before the summer break. They requested extra data and the prosecution agreed and since they agreed so did the judge. They then had two months to review the new data...not that any of it was of help to them (hence why they weren't given it in the first place, it wasn't considered relevant). After the break, they then requested that the case against Raffaele be dismissed because they had got the new data late in the trial. The judge dismissed the request because the data they had requested had been duly handed over and that had had a full two months to examine it. This the judge considered ample time. And since the new data didn't help them anyway, it was clear they were trying to pull a fast one with the dismissal request. There was no mention at this point or after of any further data still being witheld.[/QUOTE]

Looks like the defense lawyers raked the coals and sifted the ashes and still couldn't find anything to stand up in court.

ETA:? quote function
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom