Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Kestrel]

So what does the judge say about this 'clear' evidence of contamination?

A skeptic should be able to evaluate logic and evidence directly, instead of deferring to a judge, priest or shaman.

If the DNA profile of a suspect on a piece of evidence is proof the suspect was involved in a crime, why don't the DNA profiles of unknown persons also prove they were involved in the crime?

If the DNA from unknown persons is present due to factors unrelated to the crime, shouldn't this also be possible for the the DNA of the suspect?

 

[Fiona]

Not really, I don't think. Trace DNA can be transferred in many ways: that is not in dispute. However the quantity of the DNA from Raffaele is sufficient to make a qualitative difference. That is my understanding and it seems to be the part you skip over in outlining what you call the logic of the situation.

 

[Kestrel]

Not really, I don't think. Trace DNA can be transferred in many ways: that is not in dispute. However the quantity of the DNA from Raffaele is sufficient to make a qualitative difference. That is my understanding and it seems to be the part you skip over in outlining what you call the logic of the situation.

The judges report includes a statement that the ratio between the victims DNA and all others on the bra clasp was 10 to 1. This was determined by looking at the relative strength of peaks on the chart. Assuming 1.4 ng of total DNA, the amount from the others is clearly in the LCN range. And only a fraction of that quantity is attributable to Raffaele.

 

[Fiona]

You have a cite for the notion that the 1.4 ng figure relates to all of the DNA on the clasp? You have a cite which overturns the figure of 6:1 ratio for Meredith and Raffaele's DNA on it? You have a cite which establishes that Raffaele's DNA was not "abundant", as testified, but was in fact in the LCN range?

 

[Kestrel]

You have a cite for the notion that the 1.4 ng figure relates to all of the DNA on the clasp? You have a cite which overturns the figure of 6:1 ratio for Meredith and Raffaele's DNA on it? You have a cite which establishes that Raffaele's DNA was not "abundant", as testified, but was in fact in the LCN range?

The testimony at trail simply said there was 1.4 ng. of DNA. If Fulcanelli has proof for his claim it was only Raffaele's DNA, he should come forward with it now.

The 10 to 1 ratio is from the recently released judges report. The bra clasp is sample 165B, searching for that should help you find it.

As for being in the LCN range, that is simple math. Anything below 200 pg. is considered to be LCN. One tenth of 1.4 ng. is clearly below 200 pg.

 

[Dan O.]

What was it? Induced false memories? Created false memories? I know you talked about it and none of the evidence you presented had anything in common with AK's "Vision Quest" that she self-diagnosed. The defence teams produced no experts to argue that such a condition existed at all--let alone in the defendant.

I talked about injecting lies in the interview:

Without a recording of the complete interrogation sessions it is impossible to separate the truth from the lies that were injected by the interrogators. That these "confessions" were at all allowed in court shows just how backwards the Italian justice system is.

It was you that made the immediate jump to "Injected false memories".

So what happened to the recordings of that interrogation? We have testimony in court that they were recording everything else. How are they claiming that these most important interrogations in a place called the Questura in a room they specifically moved Amanda into to repeat what she said in another room didn't get recorded?

Instead, it's likely a handy paraphrase that has no bearing whatsoever on this case or on Stefanoni's integrity as a world-class forensic expert.

Speaking of class, Have you ever managed to dig up any credentials on Patrizia Stefanoni? It seems she got her BA back in 95 but I've found no record beyond that. Most "world-class" scientists are proud to display their credentials.

 

[Fiona]

@ Kestrel: Since the testimony was that there was an abundant amount of Raffaele's DNA on the clasp and since LCN amounts are not abundant and since LCN testing was not required the conclusion in your last sentence only holds if you can show the evidence which supports the premise

 

[Kermit]

Most "world-class" scientists are proud to display their credentials.

You must be referring to scientists like Dr. Mark C. Waterbury, Ph.D.

 

[quadraginta]

What was it? Induced false memories? Created false memories? I know you talked about it and none of the evidence you presented had anything in common with AK's "Vision Quest" that she self-diagnosed. The defence teams produced no experts to argue that such a condition existed at all--let alone in the defendant.

I talked about injecting lies in the interview:

Without a recording of the complete interrogation sessions it is impossible to separate the truth from the lies that were injected by the interrogators. That these "confessions" were at all allowed in court shows just how backwards the Italian justice system is.

It was you that made the immediate jump to "Injected false memories".
<snip>

No, Dan O. It was you. That's one of the disadvantages of the forum format. Your statements can't be forgotten and denied as easily.

<snip>

Or was it the confession that the police tricked out of Amanda after hours of interrogation with physical abuse and deprivation of sleep; though not so much a confession as the implanting of false memories in a young girl who immediately corrected the error when she woke up with a clearer head?

<snip>

Of course, denial is such an integral part of your argument style that I can understand the difficulty you have refraining, even at times like this when your denials are such obvious, calculated, blatant lies.

 

[Fiona]

The mundane false memories are in fact the easiest to create. Creation a false memory of a traumatic event takes more time. For an example of how a self induced false memory could be created, I would refer you to Chuck Erickson. There is already a thread started on that case here.

False memories were your own introduction Dan_O

 

[lector]

That is not uncommon. Nobody wants to be the prison snitch. You can put your life at serious risk in jail by turning in others. All three are, by now, accustomed to imprisonment and wouldn't see much to gain by getting that stain on their record.

You should look into the details of that case. I know we always call them "cold cases" but only because they take so long to resolve. The police have limited resources, of course, but there are always people in the department who know what happened and simply haven't been able to get sufficient evidence to go to trial. TV shows sensationalise these as "cold cases" but they aren't thrown into a bin that everybody forgets about.

None of these guys was in prison, at least currently. (One had died 2 years ago.) That of course makes this a different case from the Perugia Three.

According to the press coverage, yes, the two who are still living were suspects at the time but there wasn't enough evidence. And they still aren't talking, so the bodies still haven't been found.

Actually, going further afield, some people seem to be willing to be prison snitches if they think it'll buy them something. A prison snitch is the main witness in the upcoming trial of Ingmar Guandique, alleged murderer of Chandra Levy in Washington DC in 2001. (I don't buy the case, but that's a subject for another thread.)

OK, back to the endless wheel of implanted memories.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The testimony at trail simply said there was 1.4 ng. of DNA. If Fulcanelli has proof for his claim it was only Raffaele's DNA, he should come forward with it now.

The 10 to 1 ratio is from the recently released judges report. The bra clasp is sample 165B, searching for that should help you find it.

As for being in the LCN range, that is simple math. Anything below 200 pg. is considered to be LCN. One tenth of 1.4 ng. is clearly below 200 pg.

Why would Stefanoni be including essentially irrelevant DNA in the amount?

One of Raffaele's experts while on the stand complained that he did not know the original amount of Raffaele's DNA on the clasp as the prosecution had not given him that information. To which, Comodi responded during cross examination (Having got the information from Dr Stefanoni) that the amount of Raffaele's DNA on the clasp was 1.4 ng (1400 picograms). Raffaele's expert had already admitted that he could get a full profile from an amount of DNA as little as 50 picograms without amplification. The 1.4 ng is in relation to Raffaele's DNA and his alone.

This you would know had you bothered following the trial from the outset, instead of jumping on the wagon pontificate well after its conclusion.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The 10 to 1 ratio is from the recently released judges report. The bra clasp is sample 165B, searching for that should help you find it.

SO? A 1:10 ratio for Raffaele's DNA to Meredith's is extremely HIGH, the addition of a piddling 4 makes a 'negligible' difference since were it a case of contamination we would instead expect to see a ratio of 1:100+ !!!

 

[Fulcanelli]

As for being in the LCN range, that is simple math. Anything below 200 pg. is considered to be LCN. One tenth of 1.4 ng. is clearly below 200 pg.

Umm, NO Kestrel I fear for your maths. 200 pg = 0.2 ng. The amount on the clasp is 1.4 ng = 1400 pg, 7 x 200 pg. The clasp DNA isn't LCN.

ng = nanograms
pg = picograms

picograms are a decimal fraction of nanograms

 

[Chris_Halkides]

one to one hundred?

SO? A 1:10 ratio for Raffaele's DNA to Meredith's is extremely HIGH, the addition of a piddling 4 makes a 'negligible' difference since were it a case of contamination we would instead expect to see a ratio of 1:100+ !!!

I have already given a citation that shows an example of contamination giving a stronger profile that Raffaele's profile on the bra clasp. You have never backed up your assertion about 1:100 ratios with any literature citation, and that lack of support does not surprise me.

 

[Dan O.]

False memories were your own introduction Dan_O

Perhaps that's what you remember. But you were talking about the subject before that...

I am not a big fan of false memory syndrome: but if it exists it is not generally spontaneous. When people say spontaneously things which are not true most people think it is more likely that they are lying than that they are suffering from "false memory".

Are you still waiting for an authority figure to tell you if you should believe in false memory syndrome?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I have already given a citation that shows an example of contamination giving a stronger profile that Raffaele's profile on the bra clasp. You have never backed up your assertion about 1:100 ratios with any literature citation, and that lack of support does not surprise me.

Were it contamination, we would expect to see a ratio in excess of 1:100.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Are you still waiting for an authority figure to tell you if you should believe in false memory syndrome?

Did both Amanda and Raffaele suffer from the same 'false memory syndrome'?

 

[Fiona]

Perhaps that's what you remember. But you were talking about the subject before that...

Nice try, Dan_O. Shame you did not quote the whole post, which clearly shows I was responding to your introduction of false memory syndrome at post 1834: as cited by quadraginta.

The introduction of "false memory" is intriguing though. I am not a big fan of false memory syndrome: but if it exists it is not generally spontaneous. When people say spontaneously things which are not true most people think it is more likely that they are lying than that they are suffering from "false memory". Not you though. Once again, anything can happen: but some things are more likely than others. I happen to think that false memory of a non-existent dinner party/cosy cooking episde is less likely than a lie.

Are you still waiting for an authority figure to tell you if you should believe in false memory syndrome?

Well if I was it would be somebody reliable and that excludes you and anything you say, Dan_O. This is just the latest in a series of posts which are curiously misleading. For error this just seems too big

 

[Dan O.]

Nice try, Dan_O. Shame you did not quote the whole post, which clearly shows I was responding to your introduction of false memory syndrome at post 1834: as cited by quadraginta.

So you've claimed twice now that I introduced false memory syndrome to this thread (pointing to different posts even). The fact is that this concept was introduced here long before I even started reading the thread. I'll let you look it up and offer a correction.

Well if I was it would be somebody reliable and that excludes you and anything you say, Dan_O. This is just the latest in a series of posts which are curiously misleading. For error this just seems too big