Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Kermit]

Kermit writes:

Amanda has not denied it (that she had stated that hers was a fair trial).

Nor has she confirmed it. She's not able to call a press conference or put out a press release.

.
How strange, Charlie. I would have thought that by being associated with a media driven, opinion shaping, message creating organisation such as FOA, that you were aware that Amanda and her family have access to the press and media whenever they want it.

 

[Kermit]

Libby Johnson has seen enough to know that all the DNA work at the crime scene is subject to a reasonable challenge.

.
Well, we all shout in unison, yet once again: "WHAT HAS SHE SEEN?"

What data was provided to her and by whom? What data was not provided to her and why?

When I look at the photo of the forensic left handed glove holding the clasp, and the forensic right handed glove with dark bits of something, I see those same dark bits on the clasp. To me (we would have to ask the investigator whose hands we see), I believe those dark bits are not contamination of Raffaele's DNA from the cigarette butt which he left (I think) in the kitchen, but simply dark bits (dried blood? dirt from under Raffaele's fingernails? ...) which were deposited on the clasp being held in the investigator's other hand.

In any case, it's a little premature to circle those dark bits and directly accuse the investigator of bringing in contamination from Raffaele's cigarette butt or his fingerprint (which doesn't contain DNA) on the outside handle of the bedroom door (which both you and Hilades have done).

 

[Alt+F4]

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?

Then why did RS's father disregard all of this and go with bra swapping as the cause of the DNA being present? What does he know that you don't?

 

[Kermit]

Why would luminol destroy the DNA in the corridor but not in Filomena's room, or for that matter, in Amanda's room where Amanda's DNA was found in the footprint that showed up with luminol? Or in Sollecito's apartment, where his DNA was found mixed with Amanda's in stains that showed up under luminol?

.
You're capable of doing the same googling as I, Charlie. (Well, no, I remember two summers ago, you were incapable of following my google instructions to find some positive information about Giuliano Mignini. More than incapable, you simply refused to do it).

If you google around regarding luminol, you'll see that the degree to which the luminol destroys the organic material depends on a number of factors, including the state of each testing sample (here's an observation on my part, I don't know if this explains the lack of DNA in the hall, and the preservation of DNA in Filomena's and Amanda's rooms, but the hallway was like Grand Central Station on the morning of Nov.2, with Amanda, Raffaele, 2 cops, 2 Italian girls, 2 Italian boyfriends all huddling about, moving, dragging their feet, taking a stance to knock down the door, being ushered out .... Filomena's and Amanda's floors didn't get that treatment).

Also, we're not aware of the dimensions or form of the DNA mix in Filomena's room. We understand it's not a footprint, so the luminol could spot the location of the mix, and the swabbing be done in an adjacent point.

In any case, it's not always black or white, "if you use luminol, then there's always a total loss of further organic testing".

Try this site, it's amazing: www.google.com

 

[Fulcanelli]

Here is a partial list:

- 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

Well done Charlie. So, which of those primary sources would what Raffaele's step-mother shouted at the judge be in then? In the spheron imagery? In the frorensic reports perhaps?

 

[Fulcanelli]

To repeat my answer: I got this straight from the horse's mouth. Dr. Johnson and Professor Hampikian worked pro bono.

Oh, because they 'said' so. And we should all have to just take their word for it on faith? Just like you take Dr Stefanoni's word on faith? A bit like that you mean?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Have you read the letter? Did you see that it is signed by more than one person?

It's signed by two people...two signatures.

 

[Kermit]

Well done Charlie. So, which of those primary sources would what Raffaele's step-mother shouted at the judge be in then? In the spheron imagery? In the frorensic reports perhaps?

.
Fulcanelli, Charlie has complained that the reason he doesn't release his 2 Gb of information is due to technical limitations.

I have an idea: could you use your good offices with the people at PMF, in order to secure 2 Gb of storage there?

Another idea: just in case Charlie is wary of the pro-victim stance of PMF and he wants a storage and transmission facility which is virgin, untouched by debate about Amanda's murder conviction (pending appeal), I would contribute personally to an independent data storage and sharing site with data integrity guarantees.

Charlie: this is your big opportunity to practise transparency. You (say you) have the information. Your concerns about technical limitations have a number of solutions.

Put the evidence on the table and stop doing your grotesque strip-tease (I'm not too grossed out about the strip tease, because I have a suspicion that Charlie won't go beyond plucking off his matinee gloves): "Hey boys, I have what you are all looking for".

 

[Fulcanelli]

what did the judge say
Originally Posted by Fulcanelli
False. The defence got what they asked for. This was stated in COURT, by the JUDGE. Was the judge lying?

Cite?

Here:

Judge rejects DNA challenge at Knox murder trial
Posted: Sep 14, 2009 1:09 PM
Updated: Sep 14, 2009 1:09 PM
By MARTA FALCONI
Associated Press Writer

PERUGIA, Italy (AP) - An Italian court on Monday rejected defense lawyers' requests to throw out the murder indictments of an American student and her former boyfriend ontrial for the slaying of her British roommate.

Lawyers for Amanda Knox and co-defendant Raffaele Sollecito, accused in the 2007 slaying of Meredith Kercher, had challenged key DNA findings in the case and asked the court to toss out the indictments. The indictments are partly based on DNA evidence.

Knox and Sollecito, who were both in court as the trial resumed after a summer break, deny wrongdoing.

Defense lawyers say some documentation supporting the attribution of DNA samples that prosecutors say link the defendants to the case were not made available to the defense in a timely manner.

But Presiding Judge Giancarlo Massei rejected the defense request and ruled that proceedings should go on. He argued that defense consultants were present when the DNA tests were carried out by forensic experts and said relevant documents had been made available a month and a half ago, suggesting that defense teams had enough time to review the DNA findings.

NBC29

 

[Fulcanelli]

I have offered numerous citations on DNA contamination. It has been your choice to ignore them in favor of how you feel DNA contamination should work. There is no evidence of DNA contamination that you would accept, because your mind is made up on this case.

All you've done is show that DNA contamination is 'possible'. It's always 'possible', with any and all DNA evidence.

It's not good enough to demonstrate that it's possible in this case. You have to demonstrate that it's 'probable'.

This, you have consistently failed to do.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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?

We don't need to evidence that it does. Since the profiles are completely irrelevant. They are so low as to be incomplete (hence, they 'cannot' be compared to anybody), they are female and they are exactly what we would expect to see in a shared household where washing and drying facilities are are also shared. It indeed would be surprising if there were't fragments of housemate DNA on the clasp. In any case, they are completely irrelevant to the crime or to the question of whether Raffaele's DNA was a result of contamination or not. This is because you cannot prove that those fragments did not arrive on the bra clasp before the murder and it is most likely that it did (we can be certain Raffaele's did 'not'). Unless you can prove that, you cannot claim it as evidence that the clasp became contaminated 'after' the murder/staging.

 

[Kermit]

"Defense lawyers say some documentation supporting the attribution of DNA samples that prosecutors say link the defendants to the case were not made available to the defense in a timely manner.

But Presiding Judge Giancarlo Massei rejected the defense request and ruled that proceedings should go on. He argued that defense consultants were present when the DNA tests were carried out by forensic experts and said relevant documents had been made available a month and a half ago, suggesting that defense teams had enough time to review the DNA findings."

NBC29

.
And thanks to Frank at Perugia Shock we can see what happened next that very same day in the courtroom:

"... the trial resumes from the point at which it was stopped (before summer): Adriano Tagliabracci and his analysis of the DNA tests. At least, though, he is now able to use the new data.

Tagliabracci gave a fascinating lesson explaining why, on the knife, the DNA is a Low Copy Number and can't be taken into account .... The reasoning looks perfect for the knife. But for the bra, which is what he had to study specifically, he didn't really clarify things. On the contrary. He made a lot of confusion ....

He maintains, now, that the profile on the bra is not Raffaele's.

Even President Massei, not exactly a DNA specialist, managed to make him say that Raffaele's profile can't be ruled out and Rudy's can.

But the most unbelievable result is achieved by Kercher's lawyer Francesco Maresca, who, simply using the logic, brought Tagliabracci, the prophet of the contamination theory, to say that there's no contamination.

Which is the most obvious consequence of Tagliabracci's new position. If that profile is not Raffaele's why did you always maintain that it was Raffaele's because of the contamination?

It would have been enough saying, I changed my mind due to new data acquisition and now propose a new theory. But he seems the kind of person not really keen to admissions, so, his contradiction remains in the trial acts, and, because of that, Raffaele's DNA too. A result of which the DNA on the blade certainly can't benefit, at least from the image point of view.

What to say, it seems that (Dr.) Franco Sollecito has bad luck with DNA experts."

 

[Fulcanelli]

But, in any case, I assume you are aware that the "mixed DNA" from Filomena's room was also derived from swabbing a stain that showed up under luminol. Why would luminol destroy the DNA in the corridor but not in Filomena's room, or for that matter, in Amanda's room where Amanda's DNA was found in the footprint that showed up with luminol? Or in Sollecito's apartment, where his DNA was found mixed with Amanda's in stains that showed up under luminol?

It depends on how much DNA is present to start with. The lower the amount, the higher the chance enough won't survive for a viable DNA test. Therefore, due to the cleaning, some spots will have had differing amounts of DNA. Some survived after the luminol and some didn't. Another variable is the amount of luminol applied to each spot and the amount of times it was applied. The more luminol/more times it was applied, the lower the chances of extracting a viable profile. Another factor may also be the concentration of possible cleaning products used during the clean-up. Those concentrations would have differed from spot to spot. The higher the concentration, then the more DNA potentially destroyed.

These three factors are the explanation to your question.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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?

They wore sterile gloves. They handled no other items with those gloves before the clasp, changing them each time before handling a new object. Their passing it to each other wasn't a problem since since they were both wearing a pair of fresh gloves., It doesn't matter that they put it on the floor since they put it down where they picked it up from. Raffaele's DNA had no business being on the floor in Meredith's room in any case. They put it on the floor lightly and that sort of contact will not have picked up enough DNA to explain the strength of Raffaele's profile in any case...friction, rubbing, scraping or DNA in a liquid substance (blood, semen, sweat, saliva etc) is required.

Your argument is invalid.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Kermit writes:

Amanda has not denied it (that she had stated that hers was a fair trial).

Nor has she confirmed it. She's not able to call a press conference or put out a press release.

No, but her lawyers can. Alternatively, she can write a letter. She's never denied it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

.
Fulcanelli, Charlie has complained that the reason he doesn't release his 2 Gb of information is due to technical limitations.

I have an idea: could you use your good offices with the people at PMF, in order to secure 2 Gb of storage there?

Another idea: just in case Charlie is wary of the pro-victim stance of PMF and he wants a storage and transmission facility which is virgin, untouched by debate about Amanda's murder conviction (pending appeal), I would contribute personally to an independent data storage and sharing site with data integrity guarantees.

Charlie: this is your big opportunity to practise transparency. You (say you) have the information. Your concerns about technical limitations have a number of solutions.

Put the evidence on the table and stop doing your grotesque strip-tease (I'm not too grossed out about the strip tease, because I have a suspicion that Charlie won't go beyond plucking off his matinee gloves): "Hey boys, I have what you are all looking for".

Hosting it up on PMF would be no problem

 

[shuttlt]

Hosting it up on PMF would be no problem

I seem to recall you saying that you'd gladly host Dr Waterbury's material as well (that is to say, all the forensic? documentation available to the defence), subject to issues of decency and privacy. Presumably it has been translated already.

 

[shuttlt]

Charlie,

I'd really be interested in an explanation about why your information, Bruce's information and Dr Waterbury's information isn't public? You say yours is due to considerations of bandwidth, OK, but that can be sorted. Also, Dr Waterbury seems to have access to a lot of material that you don't have access to. Do you know/are you at liberty say why?

Perhaps there are good reasons for not sharing it. Copyright? If so whose? Confidentiality? In respect to what/whome? Cost? Surely this can't be prohibitive if all that forensic material was translated (how much must that have cost?) for Dr Waterbury and the authors of the open letter. Bruce says he won't tell me where he got his information because I'll just say his source was biased and that he was part of the PR team. Everybody (well, perhaps not quite everybody) already thinks this information comes via the PR company, or from Chris Mellas, or via some other circuitous route involving an OK from Amanda's family. Why keep it a secret? At least explain in general terms where this information comes from.

To me this issue is important because it is one of the main things that settled my mind on the case.

 

[quadraginta]

Charlie,

I'd really be interested in an explanation about why your information, Bruce's information and Dr Waterbury's information isn't public? You say yours is due to considerations of bandwidth, OK, but that can be sorted. Also, Dr Waterbury seems to have access to a lot of material that you don't have access to. Do you know/are you at liberty say why?

Perhaps there are good reasons for not sharing it. Copyright? If so whose? Confidentiality? In respect to what/whome? Cost? Surely this can't be prohibitive if all that forensic material was translated (how much must that have cost?) for Dr Waterbury and the authors of the open letter. Bruce says he won't tell me where he got his information because I'll just say his source was biased and that he was part of the PR team. Everybody (well, perhaps not quite everybody) already thinks this information comes via the PR company, or from Chris Mellas, or via some other circuitous route involving an OK from Amanda's family. Why keep it a secret? At least explain in general terms where this information comes from.

To me this issue is important because it is one of the main things that settled my mind on the case.

There are terms used to describe someone who is insistent about the existence of a malicious act perpetrated by the concerted actions of unscrupulous operators, someone who is convinced of their position because (they claim) they have irrefutable proof, but they are unable to share that proof for any number of reasons which ultimately fail scrutiny.

None of those terms are complimentary ones.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

fingerprints; luminol and DNA forensics

.
Well, we all shout in unison, yet once again: "WHAT HAS SHE SEEN?"

What data was provided to her and by whom? What data was not provided to her and why?

When I look at the photo of the forensic left handed glove holding the clasp, and the forensic right handed glove with dark bits of something, I see those same dark bits on the clasp. To me (we would have to ask the investigator whose hands we see), I believe those dark bits are not contamination of Raffaele's DNA from the cigarette butt which he left (I think) in the kitchen, but simply dark bits (dried blood? dirt from under Raffaele's fingernails? ...) which were deposited on the clasp being held in the investigator's other hand.

In any case, it's a little premature to circle those dark bits and directly accuse the investigator of bringing in contamination from Raffaele's cigarette butt or his fingerprint (which doesn't contain DNA) on the outside handle of the bedroom door (which both you and Hilades have done).

Dr. Johnson, Professors Hampikian and Krane, and the other six signers of the open letter have not seen the fsa files, because they were never given to the defense, thus eviscerating the concept of discovery.

You imply that the cigarette butt is the only source of Raffaele’s DNA. Like BobTheDonkey, you are ignoring Raffaele's reference sample as a possible source of contamination. Only about 1 part in one million of his post-PCR reference sample would be enough to give a strong profile in any other sample it contaminated. With reference to the glove, you speak as if one can see DNA, which is untrue. Other sources for Raffale’s DNA also exist; everyone sheds skin cells all of the time. Raffaele’s fingerprints were found on the door, but not the door handle, IIRC. Fingerprints contain DNA. http://www.fdiai.org/articles/dna_extractable_from_fingerprint.htm

Elsewhere you overstated the problem of luminol with respect to DNA forensics. “A major advantage of the luminol test is the lack of significant damage to the genetic material, especially when modern PCR techniques are employed to analyze microsatellite DNA.”
Talanta 72 (2007) 896–913, “Forensic application of the luminol reaction as a presumptive test for latent blood detection” Filippo Barni, et al.