Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[BobTheDonkey]

You haven't seen the fsa files, so how can you be sure?

*eyeroll*

So you're saying there was not enough information for Dr Johnson to write the letter?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

straight from the horse's mouth

Link?

HumanityBlues is correct. The work was done pro bono.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

double standard redux

Stilicho,

You have extolled the virtues of peer review on this thread on more than one occasion. In message #5645 you wrote, “If we're going to argue on the basis of who is a worse DNA scientist then we'd all have to admit we're worse than Dr Stefanoni, whose credentials are impeccable.” In message #6098 you wrote, “Most of those credited in the open letter are unqualified.” Dr. Stefanoni has never published a paper on forensic DNA to the best of my knowledge. However, at least three of the nine co-signers of the open letter have published, and I have not yet checked all of them. Publishing in leading journals is done on the basis of anonymous peer review. By your criterion, the co-signers have better credentials than Stefanoni, yet you dismiss them while lauding Stefanoni. Again, we see your double standard in action.

 

[HumanityBlues]

*eyeroll*

So you're saying there was not enough information for Dr Johnson to write the letter?

Assuming the .FSA files are necessary for the proponent to show the validity of the DNA results, and they were not released, then your argument here is invalid.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the knife DNA profile was shown in the letter

*eyeroll*

So you're saying there was not enough information for Dr Johnson to write the letter?

The fsa files of the controls could be examined for contamination. The fsa files of the evidence samples may show weak peaks, as I documented today with respect to the Leskie case. However, anyone who looks at the DNA profile from the knife blade can see the problems associated with it. The open letter from nine DNA forensic scientists lays out the issues clearly and objectively. So the answer to your question is "No."

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Assuming the .FSA files are necessary for the proponent to show the validity of the DNA results, and they were not released, then your argument here is invalid.

I think you don't understand what you're arguing here.

If the files were not released, then how did Dr Johnson have enough information to write her letter claiming the DNA evidence is invalid.

If the files were not needed and Dr Johnson has enough information to write her letter, why is there a claim that these files are needed?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The fsa files of the controls could be examined for contamination. The fsa files of the evidence samples may show weak peaks, as I documented today with respect to the Leskie case. However, anyone who looks at the DNA profile from the knife blade can see the problems associated with it. The open letter from nine DNA forensic scientists lays out the issues clearly and objectively. So the answer to your question is "No."

So, there isn't enough information available to Dr Johnson for her to conclusively state the DNA evidence is invalid?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

was it sealed

You tell me. You seem to be insinuating that the place was not properly sealed and that intruders entered between the initial inspections following the crime and 18 December 2007 (a part from any authorised access, if any).

Did the bra clasp move itself?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

did you read it

So, there isn't enough information available to Dr Johnson for her to conclusively state the DNA evidence is invalid?

From your comments here, I cannot believe that you have ever read the open letter, or watched the videos pertaining to the collection of the bra clasp. The answer to your question is again "No," as it has been for the last 100+ pages every time you asked it.

If I had access to the fsa files, the first thing I would do is check to see whether Stefanoni used the same peak threshold for all of the other samples as she used for the knife sample. It is doubtful that she did, because the threshold in the knife experiment was below the manufacturer's preset limit.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

From your comments here, I cannot believe that you have ever read the open letter, or watched the videos pertaining to the collection of the bra clasp. The answer to your question is again "No," as it has been for the last 100+ pages every time you asked it.

If I had access to the fsa files, the first thing I would do is check to see whether Stefanoni used the same peak threshold for all of the other samples as she used for the knife sample. It is doubtful that she did, because the threshold in the knife experiment was below the manufacturer's preset limit.

So then, by your own admission, the conclusions of the open letter are crap.

(I've read the letter and I've watched the video)

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the open letter deserves better

So then, by your own admission, the conclusions of the open letter are crap.

(I've read the letter and I've watched the video)

I am wholly at a loss to understand how you could so completely misstate my position. The conclusions of the open letter are one of the few worthwhile things in 150 pages of a thread that has had its fair share of crap. Bob, I would urge you to take a fresh look at what you have written. I have documented that the FSA files are important, adding several orders of magnitude of certainty to the conclusion that contamination occurred in the Leskie case, for example. Then the failure to release them to the defense means that the defendants are being tried on the basis of evidence that they cannot see, and therefore cannot challenge properly. Does this not strike you as wrong?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

my summary of the open letter

So, there isn't enough information available to Dr Johnson for her to conclusively state the DNA evidence is invalid?

To make a long story short, my summary of the letter is: The evidence that has been released is dubious. The evidence that has not been released might show additional problems.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I am wholly at a loss to understand how you could so completely misstate my position. The conclusions of the open letter are one of the few worthwhile things in 150 pages of a thread that has had its fair share of crap. Bob, I would urge you to take a fresh look at what you have written. I have documented that the FSA files are important, adding several orders of magnitude of certainty to the conclusion that contamination occurred in the Leskie case, for example. Then the failure to release them to the defense means that the defendants are being tried on the basis of evidence that they cannot see, and therefore cannot challenge properly. Does this not strike you as wrong?

Ahh, so now you're redacting your prior statement(s)?

If we lived in your world, DNA evidence would never be allowed in a courtroom as there's always the possibility of contamination.

Do you have reason to suspect Stefanoni's team is incapable of properly testing the DNA? Not a link to a non-related case here in the US...one where Stefanoni's crime lab was suspected of foul play, or misinterpretation of the results, etc.

Can you provide evidence that Raffaele's DNA was found anywhere else in the cottage (besides the cigarette butt in the kitchen)? Can you provide evidence that the odds of random spikes in the results of the knife testing matching that of Meredith's DNA are high enough for contamination of the knife blade to be suspect? Can you provide evidence of contamination from sources other than those involved in the murder?


ETA: Wait, let me guess...that's all contained in the .fsa files. What reason do we have to believe that the Defense experts were not presented with all the available information? What reason do we have to believe that "scientists" half the world away that couldn't be bothered to testify/weren't invited to testify have a right to these files when, as has already been pointed out, it's not the norm to do so?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Kermit writes:

You tell me. You seem to be insinuating that the place was not properly sealed and that intruders entered between the initial inspections following the crime and 18 December 2007 (a part from any authorised access, if any).

I don't think "intruders," got in. It was cops. They ransacked the place. Look at the gloves in the picture I linked. Do you think maybe some DNA could have been spread around on those gloves?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Dan O. writes:

I know this is a lot to ask of Italian authorities; but is there an official record that records when the police were at the house and the condition of the seals on each visit? Is it possible that the front door could have been left open sometime in mid November and the police not know about it?

I think the official story is that nobody set foot inside the place between Nov. 3 and Dec. 18. Just like the official story is that nobody considered the idea that Lumumba might have been involved until Amanda blurted out his name, which caused so much excitement at the cop shop that they forgot to turn on a tape recorder.

And, as you can see here, many people believe everything they say.

 

[Kermit]

Do you think maybe some DNA could have been spread around on those gloves?

.
If your question is if I believe that Raffaele's DNA was spread around on those gloves, my reply is no.

 

[Kermit]

I think the official story is that nobody set foot inside the place between Nov. 3 and Dec. 18 ... And, as you can see here, many people believe everything they say.

.
I think your date of Nov. 3 is a little early. Where did you get that from?

In any case, these posts of yours are the first time I've seen any claim of activity in the cottage in late November or early December. (The mysterious double breakin later on raised some eyebrows, Bongiorno or one of the other Sollecito lawyers made a statement about bad security, but that was that).

Is this a new talking point on the part of FOA? If so, it bears no relation to Amanda's legal defence, which hasn't ever suggested such illicit activity. (Wait, maybe the Candace Dempsey cooking blog brought it up - I'll have to check - but again, that's hardly Amanda's legal defence posture).

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Kermit writes:

You tell me. You seem to be insinuating that the place was not properly sealed and that intruders entered between the initial inspections following the crime and 18 December 2007 (a part from any authorised access, if any).

I don't think "intruders," got in. It was cops. They ransacked the place. Look at the gloves in the picture I linked. Do you think maybe some DNA could have been spread around on those gloves?

So, where did Raffaele's DNA come from to be spread around? Besides the cigarette butt in the kitchen that had been collected 46 days prior, none of the other swabs tested positive for DNA from Raffaele.

 

[Kermit]

my summary of the letter is: The evidence that has been released is dubious.

.
What "evidence has been released"? Released by who? Stefanoni or FOA?

The evidence that Johnson reviewed? What did she review? Where did she get that application screen shot from which she includes in her report? It's not the same image as we've seen in other sources. Are all the peaks the same? She refers to specific values, where did she get them from?

What information did she review concerning procedures, to get to her general conclusion regarding the clasp that contamination is a possibility?

I'm not convinced. And I believe that FOA wasn't sufficiently confident in such conclusions to take Johnson's report into the courtroom. It has remained simply an element of a PR campaign aimed at the American public, rather than a serious (or even non-serious) element of a legal defence.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Forget it.