Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Dan O.]

Stefanoni testified the controls were done. Biondi said the protocols were adequate. That is the evidence. You claim the controls were not done: the onus is now on you to prove that claim. That is how it works.

Stefanoni also testified that they never detected contamination in that lab in 7 years. That is an extraordinary claim that requires further proof because we don't see any other DNA labs making such a claim. How many negative controls were amplified to show that there were no profiles in the 40 RFU range in those 7 years? How many times was the lab certified to perform LCN DNA work (or even just DNA work) in those 7 years?

 

[Fulcanelli]

And when did they have a chance to tell her? Amanda speaks the truth when she writes "Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly." In a hand written note the evening of Novmber 6, 2007.

Well, if she's telling the truth...they were telling her the truth. Were they lying to her? If she was found to be involved in the murder she would indeed have been looking at 30 years +. There is no rule that police can't tell someone they're questioning how serious the matter is and how much trouble they might be in of they don't speak the truth, especially if they believe the person is telling lies or holding back. Police do that everywhere. What's the foul?

Or is this just you insisting again she should have got special treatment in comparisson to everyone else and should have been treated like the Her Royal Majesty the Queen of England?

But you know what, things may go faster (and be incredibly shorter) if you simply list the things that in you book the police 'are' allowed to do. What a short list that will be!

 

[Fulcanelli]

Stefanoni also testified that they never detected contamination in that lab in 7 years. That is an extraordinary claim that requires further proof because we don't see any other DNA labs making such a claim. How many negative controls were amplified to show that there were no profiles in the 40 RFU range in those 7 years? How many times was the lab certified to perform LCN DNA work (or even just DNA work) in those 7 years?

'She' doesn't have to prove it at all. 'She' and her lab are not on trial.

 

[shuttlt]

Stefanoni also testified that they never detected contamination in that lab in 7 years. That is an extraordinary claim that requires further proof because we don't see any other DNA labs making such a claim. How many negative controls were amplified to show that there were no profiles in the 40 RFU range in those 7 years? How many times was the lab certified to perform LCN DNA work (or even just DNA work) in those 7 years?

Do we have a direct, extended quote of Steffanoni saying this (preferably in Italian) along with the question it was in answer to, so that we can independently judge what she was asserting? I just had a scan around for the source of this "no contamination for 7 years" claim and I can't find it. Fulcanelli, do you know?

 

[Dan O.]

'She' doesn't have to prove it at all. 'She' and her lab are not on trial.

They are here in this thread.

 

[Fulcanelli]

They are here in this thread.

Like I said, Stefanoni doesn't have to prove anything. She certainly doesn't have to prove anything to you. Her job is to convince an Italian court within the framework of Italian law and that she has done.

 

[Dan O.]

Stefanoni isn't here to prove herself. If you are going to use her testimony and the results of her lab in your arguments on this thread, it is up to you to back her up.

 

[shuttlt]

Dan O.

The claim is that it can be demonstrated that the trial was unfair and that Amanda Knox is innocent, the claim is not that it can be demonstrated based on the information thus far released to the public, that Amanda Knox is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It's not for Stefanoni to reprove her work to the Internet, it is for people who claim to be able to show that Amanda Knox is innocent to prove it. If that proof involves assuming things like "Steffanoni didn't carry out any controls", or "Steffanoni covered up the fact that there was contamination at the lab", then OK, prove it, drop it because it isn't important, or admit that any proof of Amanda Knox's is based on assuming things that aren't in the public domain.

If you are going to rule out all the evidence that isn't available to the public in a form where it can be independently assessed, then there is certainly not enough evidence to say that Amanda Knox is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. We haven't been able to interrogate witnesses after all, perhaps they should be ruled out as well? How many trials are available to the public in a form where such an independent judgement about guilt can be done?

 

[Alt+F4]

Stefanoni also testified that they never detected contamination in that lab in 7 years. That is an extraordinary claim that requires further proof because we don't see any other DNA labs making such a claim.

Did any of the defense lawyers question this claim and ask for verification?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Fulcanelli writes:

No, I'm not kidding you. Do you know what a blind control is? You try and match the finding to someone else's DNA, someone not connected with the case.

No, that's not what a control is.

 

[Montmorency]

How does Amanda happen to know that the maximum jail term in Italy (apart from a life sentence perhaps) is 30 years? Is it just possible that they actually were threatening her in that interrogation?

Personally I don't think it is an unreasonable police tactic to put this to a murder suspect, eg. 'You know that a life sentence is thirty years, that's what you're facing unless you tell us what happened...' etc This nonsense about tough questioning is ridiculous. She was a suspect in a murder. What would you want? Tea and cakes? The whole point of questioning a suspect is to break them down a little, unsettle them, get them to tell the truth...

 

[Fulcanelli]

Stefanoni isn't here to prove herself. If you are going to use her testimony and the results of her lab in your arguments on this thread, it is up to you to back her up.

And she has done so, in court. Perhaps you should have attended the trial, then maybe she wouldn't have to do so twice.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli writes:

No, I'm not kidding you. Do you know what a blind control is? You try and match the finding to someone else's DNA, someone not connected with the case.

No, that's not what a control is.

Oh, then you tell us Charlie. We wait with baited breath.

 

[Montmorency]

Yes, preferring a dead girl he never met to a live girl he never met speaks volumes about his psychology. Not to mention the fact that he is as motivated by his fantasy life as was Mignini.

Brrrr.

Mary, excuse me for addressing you thus, but isn't this a rather unpleasant comment? I find it much harder to understand why old men are so willing to make fools of themselves slobbering over a convicted murderer. She was found guilty as I understand it, meaning she killed a young woman and helped in her sexual assault! What is remotely attractive about her in the light of this? There are some mighty strange tastes out there, to be sure. Amanda, attractive? She's rough Mary. Maybe that's the attraction!

 

[shuttlt]

Surely there are all manner of types of blind control? A blind control will be any experiment where the person doing the experiment doesn't know which of the things he's testing is the subject of the experiment, and which isn't. I would imagine one can have blind controls that are meant to be blank, and blind controls that are meant to produce some particular reading, and probably other types of blind controls besides. Testing a blank slide, a spoon from Raffaele's kitchen draw, or a knife that wasn't associated with the case could all be blind controls depending on what one was trying to control for, so long as the tester was ignorant about the significance of what they were testing. Presumably you could even use different samples from different cases to be one anothers blind controls so long as the person doing the test didn't know whose profile they were looking for?

Trying to match the test results to other peoples profiles would, I imagine, be a kind of blind control (so long as the person doing it was blinded) to the subjective aspects of the profile matching process that we debate from time to time. You could certainly address the "the profile matches half of Italy" issue this way.

Am I right?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

When they run DNA tests, they put the sample into a certain type of gel. Controls runs consist of gel to which nothing has been added. Theoretically, there is nothing there for the machine to detect. But in practice, these control runs often show faint traces of DNA because of contamination in the laboratory or on the instruments.

 

[Fulcanelli]

When they run DNA tests, they put the sample into a certain type of gel. Controls runs consist of gel to which nothing has been added. Theoretically, there is nothing there for the machine to detect. But in practice, these control runs often show faint traces of DNA because of contamination in the laboratory or on the instruments.

Oh Charlie...you've just invented this (note all, the absent 'gel control' raised for the very first time by the FOA on the 1st May - that even rhymes).

So Charlie, give us your data. This data should include, primarily: 1) This exercise was a requirement...and 2) As a requirement it wasn't performed.

I await your response.

 

[Amazer]

When they run DNA tests, they put the sample into a certain type of gel. Controls runs consist of gel to which nothing has been added. Theoretically, there is nothing there for the machine to detect. But in practice, these control runs often show faint traces of DNA because of contamination in the laboratory or on the instruments.

Which brings us back to the main question for this issue. Do you have evidence that the lab didn't do this blind controls?

If so, why didn't the defense bring this up during the trial?

 

[shuttlt]

Which brings us back to the main question for this issue. Do you have evidence that the lab didn't do this blind controls?

If so, why didn't the defense bring this up during the trial?

Again, the only two sources of evidence we have on this are Stefanoni, at the trial saying that controls were done (we have very little detail on this), and Dr Waterbury saying he has somehow managed to get hold of all the forensic data that the defence has access to and, since no controls are mentioned in that, no information about the controls was handed over to the defence. Quite what information Dr Waterbury has and where he got it is a mystery. It's a great pity that it isn't being shared more widely as reacquiring and retranslating it into English would cost many 10's of thousands of pounds.

 

[stilicho]

Stefanoni isn't here to prove herself. If you are going to use her testimony and the results of her lab in your arguments on this thread, it is up to you to back her up.

That's not how it works and you know it. Halides1 even helpfully reprinted comparisons of real-life contamination in which there were both audit reports and media reports to rely on to support the allegations.

So, either produce the reports or you must withdraw your claim. Capiche?