Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Chris_Halkides]

secondary transfer is not the same thing as contamination

The problem is that you haven't actually offered any evidence regarding DNA contamination in this particular case. Whenever pressed you resort to tell us how difficult it is to pinpoint exactly where contamination occurred. That will just not do.

Several of us have offered several possible routes of secondary transfer or contamination.

"When contamination occurs there is rarely any way to confirm how it happened,” Dr. Donald Riley

http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html

 

[quadraginta]

Quadraginta writes:

Well, what are you holding back for?

I'm holding back on account of bandwidth and the sensitivity of some of the material. This is 2gb of data with individual files over 100mb. Is there anything in particular you want to see?

All of it, Charlie.

- the DNA results
- more than 400 high-resolution photos from the crime scene
- several hours of police video
- several hundred files that constitute the output of the security camera across the street
- composite images showing the location of key evidence, like fingerprints, luminol prints, etc.
- spheron imagery (360 degree high-resolution images)
- forensic reports prepared by both the prosecution and the defense

... and the other parts you hinted at, too.


Just load up a server and let people browse for themselves. I'll bet bandwidth doesn't turn out to be too much of a problem. Picking and choosing won't help Knox's case. I thought that was one of the main beefs against the Italians. If transparency and full disclosure are to her advantage then the best thing to do is let it all hang out.

Right?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Several of us have offered several possible routes of secondary transfer or contamination.

"When contamination occurs there is rarely any way to confirm how it happened,” Dr. Donald Riley

http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html

And somehow, amazingly, the contamination just happens to be on the bra clasp and nowhere else inside the room. And somehow, amazingly, in addition, the contamination is in a higher concentration than that of Meredith's flatmates who shared laundry facilities with her. And somehow, amazingly, in addition to the addition, Raffaele's father believes that Amanda and Meredith borrowed each other's bras and that's how Raffaele's DNA came to be on the bra - most noticeably, not contamination.

Again, the mind reels.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no big surprise

And somehow, amazingly, the contamination just happens to be on the bra clasp and nowhere else inside the room. And somehow, amazingly, in addition, the contamination is in a higher concentration than that of Meredith's flatmates who shared laundry facilities with her.

Again, the mind reels.

So you are claiming that the DNA belongs to the flatmates? Their reference samples were not taken. You have absolutely no evidence for your assertion. Why am i not surprised?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

So you are claiming that the DNA belongs to the flatmates? Their reference samples were not taken. You have absolutely no evidence for your assertion. Why am i not surprised?

Oops, looks like you got me good (ish).

Can you explain how Raffaele's DNA arrived onto the clasp in a higher magnitude than any signature other than Meredith's?

Before you claim contamination is the cause of all 4, keep in mind that you'll still have to explain why Raffaele's shows up in a much larger quantity than the other 3...

Evidence? How about some evidence of contamination. Is there, besides wishful thinking, any reason to suspect contamination?


ETA:
And for the record, I am claiming that her flatmates DNA was not in excess of Raffaele's on the clasp. To clarify: it matters not if the 3 other signatures belong to Meredith's flatmates or not - regardless of to whom those signatures belong, Raffaele's DNA was still found in excess of that of her flatmates (whether her flatmates had zero DNA residue on the clasp or were any of the signatures).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

you have a perfect record

I must have missed where he did more than ask for the exact same thing you've asked for in this thread - evidence backing your claims.

Honestly, that's how debate works. You present evidence, that evidence is then countered by your opposition's evidence. If at any time one side fails to provide the requisite evidence to support one's position, well...that position is considered to be incorrect.

You have failed to provide evidence to back your claims - not just once, but many times over. As such, you have no legs to stand on. If you consider that the same as being a liar, then it is you yourself who has determined your status as a liar

BobTheDonkey,

I have offered quotes from textbooks, quotes from papers in the primary literature, and direct quotes from forensic experts I have contacted. Stilicho can either accept that I have been in contact with Dr. Johnson and that this matter was discussed, or he or she can call me a liar. There is no middle ground.

And how many citations from the primary literature, textbooks, or published forensic experts have you provided for this thread?

 

[Amazer]

Several of us have offered several possible routes of secondary transfer or contamination.

"When contamination occurs there is rarely any way to confirm how it happened,” Dr. Donald Riley

http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html

Yes, several of you have offered several possible routes or secondary transfer or contamination. But none of you have provided EVIDENCE that any contamination or secondary transfer actually occurred. And whenever pressed your standard excuse appears:

"When contamination occurs there is rarely any way to confirm how it happened,” Dr. Donald Riley

What you fail to understand is that this line of reasoning (raising possibilities without any evidence to support those possibilities) does nothing to convince me that secondary transfer or contamination actually happened.

I could for example consider secondary transfer or contamination if Raffaelo had a solid alibi for himself. He however doesn't have a solid alibi.

I could also consider secondary transfer or contamination if the Crime Lab didn't follow established procedure. But from all accounts they have and you have yet to provide evidence that they didn't.

Like that there are numerous ways that you could convince me of the validity of your claims. Instead you keep making claims, throwing out possibilities, and not following up with providing evidence that supports those claims. And that in the end, just doesn't convince me of the validity of your claims.

 

[Mr.D]

You'll find many news reports from the past saying all sorts of things that aren't true or are incorrect.

And you'll find many news reports from the past saying all sorts of things that are true and correct.

"So," Mr.D wrote with not a small hint of sarcasm.^* "I suppose now you two will come to an agreement on which reports are not reliable and which ones are (and for what they are reliable for) ..."





^* Mr.D sometimes refers to himself in the third person for dramatic or comedic effect. What's it to you?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

still waiting for a reply

Oops, looks like you got me good (ish).

Can you explain how Raffaele's DNA arrived onto the clasp in a higher magnitude than any signature other than Meredith's?

Before you claim contamination is the cause of all 4, keep in mind that you'll still have to explain why Raffaele's shows up in a much larger quantity than the other 3...

Evidence? How about some evidence of contamination. Is there, besides wishful thinking, any reason to suspect contamination?

How about answering the question I posed on this subject first?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

BobTheDonkey,

I have offered quotes from textbooks, quotes from papers in the primary literature, and direct quotes from forensic experts I have contacted. Stilicho can either accept that I have been in contact with Dr. Johnson and that this matter was discussed, or he or she can call me a liar. There is no middle ground.

And how many citations from the primary literature, textbooks, or published forensic experts have you provided for this thread?

You're right. I don't rely on textbooks that are close to a decade old (out-of-date relative to the current techniques, btw). I do, however, find errors in your logic that I am inclined to point out.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Y

I could also consider secondary transfer or contamination if the Crime Lab didn't follow established procedure. But from all accounts they have and you have yet to provide evidence that they didn't.

They failed to use disposable tools to handle the clasp. They handed the clasp forth and back, and they put it on the ground. They handled other objects without changing gloves. These are some of the examples of the established procedures they failed to follow. What more could you want?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Leskie

Oops, looks like you got me good (ish).

Can you explain how Raffaele's DNA arrived onto the clasp in a higher magnitude than any signature other than Meredith's?

Before you claim contamination is the cause of all 4, keep in mind that you'll still have to explain why Raffaele's shows up in a much larger quantity than the other 3...

Evidence? How about some evidence of contamination. Is there, besides wishful thinking, any reason to suspect contamination?


ETA:
And for the record, I am claiming that her flatmates DNA was not in excess of Raffaele's on the clasp. To clarify: it matters not if the 3 other signatures belong to Meredith's flatmates or not - regardless of to whom those signatures belong, Raffaele's DNA was still found in excess of that of her flatmates (whether her flatmates had zero DNA residue on the clasp or were any of the signatures).

You are ignoring the Leskie case, again (and again). Ms. P's DNA profile was almost as strong as Meredith's clasp profile, yet it was still a case of contamination. The notion that the strength of RS's profile tells us that it cannot be contamination is a case of truthiness winning out over truth.

 

[Kestrel]

I could for example consider secondary transfer or contamination if Raffaelo had a solid alibi for himself. He however doesn't have a solid alibi.

Where did you get the silly idea that independently living adults always have an alibi?

ETA: I also find it rather astonishing that you believe that the possibility of contamination somehow depends on the presence or absence of an alibi.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Bob the Donkey writes:

And somehow, amazingly, the contamination just happens to be on the bra clasp and nowhere else inside the room.

It's hard to explain why Sollecito's DNA was found on this particular item, but the police didn't do themselves any favors by let it get swept around on the floor until it ended up in a pile of debris, and then handling it extensively before bagging it.

I have learned from other criminal investigations that DNA is sometimes found where you wouldn't expect it, and the DNA of someone who has been at a given location may be found anywhere. There was a guy named Mark Winger who stabbed his wife and shot a cab driver and then told the police that he killed the driver after the driver stabbed his wife. At his trial, the defense produced DNA evidence that showed physical contact between the driver and the murdered woman, which would tend to confirm the husband's story. It should not have been there, but it didn't affect the verdict, because the case against Winger made sense overall.

The problem with this bra fastener is that it doesn't fit with any believable scenario. Guede left bloody shoe prints in the room as well as bloody fingerprints and multiple DNA traces. If Knox and Sollecito were there, participating in the murder, they should have left a similar pattern of evidence, not just this one anomalous finding.


And somehow, amazingly, in addition, the contamination is in a higher concentration than that of Meredith's flatmates who shared laundry facilities with her.

The police did not collect reference samples for the other flatmates, or for their boyfriends. Arguably, they should have done so, because it might have explained a number of unknown DNA samples.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Amazer wrote:

What you fail to understand is that this line of reasoning (raising possibilities without any evidence to support those possibilities) does nothing to convince me that secondary transfer or contamination actually happened.

Who has the burden of proof in a criminal case?

Given photos like this:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/kitchen_dec_18_07_closeup_of_gloves.jpg

I would say the burden of proof ought to rest on the prosecution. They need to prove that this bra fastener test result did not result from the stunning lack of professionalism displayed at every point in the processing of this crime scene.

Instead the court has patched together a ridiculous, speculative fable about Rudy getting turned on because Amanda and Raffaele were having sex in Amanda's room, so he decided to rape and kill Meredith, and Amanda and Raffaele decided to help him.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Bob the Donkey writes:

And somehow, amazingly, the contamination just happens to be on the bra clasp and nowhere else inside the room.

It's hard to explain why Sollecito's DNA was found on this particular item, but the police didn't do themselves any favors by let it get swept around on the floor until it ended up in a pile of debris, and then handling it extensively before bagging it.

I have learned from other criminal investigations that DNA is sometimes found where you wouldn't expect it, and the DNA of someone who has been at a given location may be found anywhere. There was a guy named Mark Winger who stabbed his wife and shot a cab driver and then told the police that he killed the driver after the driver stabbed his wife. At his trial, the defense produced DNA evidence that showed physical contact between the driver and the murdered woman, which would tend to confirm the husband's story. It should not have been there, but it didn't affect the verdict, because the case against Winger made sense overall.

The problem with this bra fastener is that it doesn't fit with any believable scenario. Guede left bloody shoe prints in the room as well as bloody fingerprints and multiple DNA traces. If Knox and Sollecito were there, participating in the murder, they should have left a similar pattern of evidence, not just this one anomalous finding.


And somehow, amazingly, in addition, the contamination is in a higher concentration than that of Meredith's flatmates who shared laundry facilities with her.

The police did not collect reference samples for the other flatmates, or for their boyfriends. Arguably, they should have done so, because it might have explained a number of unknown DNA samples.

By default, whichever of the 3 unknowns match her flatmates - even if none do - they have a lower concentration on the bra clasp than Raffaele.

Perhaps you can answer this question then:

Where was Amanda on the night of the murder?

 

[Amazer]

Where did you get the silly idea that independently living adults always have an alibi?

Did I say independently living adults always have an alibi.... don't think I did.
But in this case, the lack of a sound alibi is problematic for Raffaelo.

ETA: I also find it rather astonishing that you believe that the possibility of contamination somehow depends on the presence or absence of an alibi.

It's amazing how you can read things that way... i hope you are not representative for the majority of the Amanda defenders. If you are she'll be spending a really long time behind bars.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Amazer wrote:

What you fail to understand is that this line of reasoning (raising possibilities without any evidence to support those possibilities) does nothing to convince me that secondary transfer or contamination actually happened.

Who has the burden of proof in a criminal case?

Given photos like this:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/kitchen_dec_18_07_closeup_of_gloves.jpg

I would say the burden of proof ought to rest on the prosecution. They need to prove that this bra fastener test result did not result from the stunning lack of professionalism displayed at every point in the processing of this crime scene.

Instead the court has patched together a ridiculous, speculative fable about Rudy getting turned on because Amanda and Raffaele were having sex in Amanda's room, so he decided to rape and kill Meredith, and Amanda and Raffaele decided to help him.

I would argue two things here:

1) That the burden of proof was, in all actuality, properly satisfied - that is what the Court is for. Amanda herself even has stated that it was a fair trial.

2) I have provided a different scenario that appears to fit what we know better than the Court's. However, that does not mean the Court's is wrong - they have far more information than you or I do.

 

[lector]

I'd add that it's not simply the lack of an alibi that mitigates against Raff. It's the mishmash of tales & lies he told in attempting to establish one.

 

[Amazer]

They failed to use disposable tools to handle the clasp. They handed the clasp forth and back, and they put it on the ground. They handled other objects without changing gloves. These are some of the examples of the established procedures they failed to follow. What more could you want?

It's a start.

So did the other objects that they handled with the non-disposable tools have DNA of Raffaele?
Did the other objects they handled without changing gloves have DNA of Raffaele?
What's on the ground that could have possibly yield DNA from Raffaelo?

It should be clear that DNA just doesn't magically appear from nowhere, so if the DNA on the clasp is due to contamination or secondary transfer, where did it come from? If no other objects/surfaces yielded Raffaelo's DNA would it be safe to assume that the DNA from the clasp is there due to direct contact?