Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Montmorency]

In other words, you weren't here with any intention of evidencing your claims and were just here to plug your book.

yes, one more to make money out of Meredith Kercher's murder. He said nothing except how clever he thought he was, and how he is writing a book!!! Did not sound like an eminent scientist to me. And these were not attacks just comments! This Waterbury man, he seems to be made of nothing but boasts.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I would like to see the photos showing the lack of glass in the garden. Past the small concrete walkway, there is more of a rough terrain. Small glass particles or glass dust would not be noticeable with out proper investigation. We are not talking about a lot of glass. Only a portion of the window was broken. We can clearly see that a large percentage if not all of the glass can be accounted for inside the room and on one side of the sill.

The whole area outside the window...the ground below and the wall and window frame, were carefully examined by the forensic police.

Why do you think that balance would have been so difficult? He put his left hand on the sill and opened the latch with his right hand. The left side of the sill had very little to no glass on it.

The burglary was interrupted because Rudy attacked and murdered Meredith. Due to the circumstances, it was not unusual to see that Rudy did not take valuables from Filomena's room. He got sidetracked. He did take what he wanted out of Meredith's purse.

He still would have had to clamber in over the glass. Glass would also still have fallen to the ground when he through the rock through the window.

Is anyone banned from posting on my blog? Is there another moderator that I am unaware of?

How can you ban anons and people that don't have to register to post?

 

[Fulcanelli]

yes, one more to make money out of Meredith Kercher's murder. He said nothing except how clever he thought he was, and how he is writing a book!!! Did not sound like an eminent scientist to me. And these were not attacks just comments! This Waterbury man, he seems to be made of nothing but boasts.

It's all pretty sordid isn't it, all these FOA's running to feed at the trough.

 

[katy_did]

It's all pretty sordid isn't it, all these FOA's running to feed at the trough.

Almost as bad as Barbie Nadeau, eh? At least none of their books were rushed out even before the judge's report was published.

By the way, are you aware of any inaccuracies/rumours in Candace Dempsey's book comparable to those that litter Barbie's? I'm thinking about buying it, but if it's as tabloid-y and inaccurate as Barbie's I won't bother.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Almost as bad as Barbie Nadeau, eh? At least none of their books were rushed out even before the judge's report was published.

By the way, are you aware of any inaccuracies/rumours in Candace Dempsey's book comparable to those that litter Barbie's? I'm thinking about buying it, but if it's as tabloid-y and inaccurate as Barbie's I won't bother.

Barbie's a PROFESSIONAL JOURNALIST, that's her JOB. She's also one who has covered this case from the beginning and attended almost every hearing. I'm sorry you can't tell the difference and have to compare the likes of Waterbury and Barbie in the same breath.

 

[katy_did]

Evidence? What was this protocol? How sure are you it has never been done before and why will it never be used again?

Here's a bit of information from a scientist who posts over at PMF:

Dr. Stefanoni and her DNA technicians did not use the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) protocol that many people refer to as low copy number (LCN) analysis. They developed a somewhat unique protocol, one aspect of which employed even more DNA replication cycles than LCN analysis, resulting in greater amplification and, unfortunately, inducing greater artifacts. In my opinion, the Kercher DNA results on the blade should never had been allowed in court, and actually weakened the entire case, because it opened the door for a possibly successful appeal.[...]

You can't wear the distinguished mantle of scientific evidence unless you use an approved method and reproduce the results. Presenting evidence in court is not the same as presenting a research project. One commentator on this forum compared the MK DNA results on the blade to a photograph, but a photograph cannot carry the mantle of scientific results because it can be easily manipulated, as poor Megan Fox will attest to, having her head stapled on bodies in photos all over the internet.

My company makes PCR kits for scientists. We don't guarantee the results unless you follow the protocol. We follow ISO, an international system of quality. Every time you change anything you have to document it and then validate it versus the old method. It is a way of thinking that ensures the highest level of quality control. In this case, Dr. Stefanoni needed to validate her new PCR protocol before being able to use it in court as scientific evidence to convict AK47.

And another post:

You can't use a research project to help convict someone of murder. If Dr. Stefanoni had come into the courtroom with a stack of data and graphs showing that her new PCR protocol worked with other samples compared to control PCR protocols and didn't give non-specific results, I would stand down. The fact that the results couldn't be reproduced is also a major sticking point. Every new form of scientific evidence has its first birthday in a courtroom if it can be shown to be valid. But in this case, what I perceive from a continent away is that Dr. Stefanoni pulled out all stops to get results. She knew Ak47 was guilty. That worries me as a scientist. What would worry me more is if AK47 is able to mastermind a successful appeal out of this PCR protocol controversy, which is why I suggested that this particular piece of evidence should have been dropped.

This person obviously thinks Knox is "guilty as hell", to quote him (hence the cute little nickname 'AK47') so I think it's quite revealing that even he has serious doubts about the knife evidence.

 

[katy_did]

Barbie's a PROFESSIONAL JOURNALIST, that's her JOB. She's also one who has covered this case from the beginning and attended almost every hearing. I'm sorry you can't tell the difference and have to compare the likes of Waterbury and Barbie in the same breath.

Erm, is the difference that Waterbury has expertise relevant to the case, expertise most of us don't have, including Barbie? I have to admit that Waterbury's book is the one I'm looking forward to the most for exactly this reason.

All the tabloid journalists are 'professionals', but I'm not sure I'd rush out to buy a book written by one, much less unquestioningly accept its accuracy...

 

[bucketoftea]

Where's Waterbury gone? No biology,eh? Biochemistry is so much more complicated in practice than physical chemistry, for example so many variations of common enzymes.

I'm surprised he regards the scientists using sophisticated instruments whose principles are well understood by them as though they were consumers of domestic appliances.

There is absolutely nothing wrong to me in principle with hoiking up the sensitivity beyond the manufacturer's recommendations in the context of this test. I was performing PCR years ago long before there were machines for the job...makes me feel quite nostalgic...it entailed a certain amount of improvisation and what we fondly called our *bucket chemistry" trial and error honing (can you hone a fluid?) our buffers.

The scientist utilises the tool.

Dr.Waterbury is being disingenuous with us. He should know all about quality control methods and the largest margin of error (narrowest range guaranteed) sought by manufacturers and still be reasonable/competitive. There are at least 2 reasons for this:
1. liability
2. room for "improvement" for a subsequent model.

As for the inability to retest because the sample was destroyed, a scientist would still report the findings, not throw them out. We find the findings. And we report them

...I just isolated a teeny tiny quantity of unknown genetic material from inside a meteorite, but the sample was consumed. The genie's out of the bottle, mate.

Usually one of the things you learn when you become as advanced in your studies as you have is not only an awareness of how much there is still to know of one's own metier, but a humble appreciation of how damn. little you probably know about anyone else's

* * * * *

"Hi folks. Just one final note. As I said in an earlier post, I don't intend to get into the debates here, but only wanted to respond to criticisms of my credentials. In case anyone is concerned that I've found the nasty (and predictable) comments that provoked to be daunting, or intimidating, let me remind you that as a scientist I've regularly stood up in front of a dozen, or fifty, or a hundred people in dressed in suits to present and defend my work. These are people with decades of studies to prepare them to be qualified to critique technical work. That's the most fun part of the job, the exhilarating part after the grunt work of research. That rigorous process of continual challenge is the core of scientific research, and is a far, far cry from the unfortunate sophistry and scurrilous slams of the discussions here.

Which makes me wonder, out of those here who claim I don't have enough science in my site, or am not qualified because, gosh, DNA is complicated, how many of you have advanced technical degrees? Hmm? Quick show of hands! I didn't think so."

Dr Waterbury sticks his tongue out. He knows not nearly enough to pursue this line. Your materials science advanced degree butters no parsnips with me . I laugh! although MSc in Biomedical science is not a Phd, it is at least in the right field.

 

[Fiona]

This person obviously thinks Knox is "guilty as hell", to quote him (hence the cute little nickname 'AK47') so I think it's quite revealing that even he has serious doubts about the knife evidence.

Certainly Greggy said that, but he also said other things which are relevant. Greggy took the view that this technique was impressive and he believes the results show what Stefanoni says they show. He said he did not expect the match to be so certain and he said he has no doubt of it. That is one of the reaons he thinks Knox is guilty, if I read him right.

Once the excitement wore off I think he took a more judicious view of this issue. He is perfectly correct that this is groundbreaking science, and that such techniques should be replicated and tested within the scientific community before they are used as evidence in court: Dr Johnson also used non standard protocols in court at one time: and her technique has since been replicated and is routinely used. It is my understanding that her test could be done again so it is not directly comparable (though a second test is not actually as good as proper independent replication and peer review - that came later, I think).

As has been pointed out, there are two issues here:
first, is it Meredith's dna? That does not seem to be in dispute, so far as I can tell. The defence accept that it is; Greggy accepts that it is. That it was detected using new techniques has not led anyone to deny that (maybe it should have, but that is another question).


The second issue is whether the fact that it is Meredith's dna should be admitted in court, given that it was detected using a new technique which has not been established as legitimate in the normal way. That is a real question. It depends on how you weigh two very important and sometimes conflicting principles. I have not come to a settled conclusion on that. On the one hand the enterprise of science rests crucially on peer review and replicability: and if we do not hold to that we are in danger of moving from science to scientism, and reliance on authority. That is a must to avoid, and it is particulary distasteful in the context of a court case. On the other hand there is the search for truth (which is intrinsic to inquisitorial systems of justice) and the interests of justice for the victim of a horrible crime.

If the defence experts were arguing that this is not Meredith's dna; and they could show real, hard evidence which cast doubt on that; then I would have no problem. It is comparable to the contamination argument: if a route could be shown I would accept that there was a possibility sufficient to engender reasonable doubt. So here. If the defence replicated this test and showed it produces false results which appear to be a match for particular people, but are in fact an artefact of the testing procedure then that would settle the matter, and the evidence should be rejected.

They have not sought to do that, so far as I know. Instead they have accepted it is Meredith's dna but have relied on what the ordinary person often calls a "technicality". Don't get me wrong: technicalities are important in law: particularly procedural technicalities. But this is not of that sort. If it is accepted it is Meredith's dna then I can see no reason to throw it out on the grounds that the technique is new

And this seems to be Greggy's position also: he fears that a general objection will undermine the case, insofar as this evidence is concerned: and that that will have a wider impact on the case as a whole. This is in line with many of the kinds of argument we have seen about various aspects of this case. This was well laid out by quadraginta in an earlier post so there is no need to go into it again

I have long taken the view that if the dna evidence did not exist these people would still have been convicted and so this is not a particularly important issue for me: I doubt the decison rested on that evidence, primarily. I can see why the defence wish to make it central, but it is not central for me and I do not think it is central for the court. I may be wrong
As others have said, RS's explanation for why it was there is far more telling than whether it is accepted to be there or not. I realise others see that differently.

 

[Alt+F4]

All I did was ask for evidence.

Me too, and I added "welcome to the JREF Dr. Waterbury". Several other posters said hello or welcome as well.

 

[Fiona]

Must have been my fault. I was not very welcoming. I did not see anything in his first post which suggested he was likely to engage with us. I was introduced to his site first by Halides1 round about post #550 and I formed my conclusions about it then. Nothing he said led me to re-assess: nothing current on his site does either. I suppose I should not have responded negatively before he proved his initial words: but the outcome has not persuaded me I was wrong in my assessment.

 

[Alt+F4]

Who has the authority to supply them to you? Did you sign a contract when you accepted them? Who signed them over to you?

As far as I can tell there is only two ways Dr. Waterbury could have gotten all the court documents relating to the case. Either the defense provided them to him or he obtained them independently through the Perugia court.

If the defense provided them to him why not just admit it? I see nothing wrong in Amanda's family asking him to write a book explaining the reasons some believe her conviction was wrong.

If he obtained them on his own well that would cost quite a bit. The case file is about 10,000 pages, correct? Assume the Perugia court charges 1 Euro a page and a translator 2 Euros a page, we are talking about 30,000 Euros (about $38,000 U.S.). Are we supposed to believe that Dr. Waterbury spent $38k-$40k of his own money to obtain these files? He said he has not taken money from anyone.

 

[Alt+F4]

The room wasn't ransacked. Filomena's room was messy. There was no intentional ransacking to be seen.

If Filomena's room was just messy then it is even less likely that Raffaele could have known nothing was taken. It makes logical sense that a burglar coming in through a broken window would start stealing from the room into which they entered, yet Raffaele was certain nothing was taken from the room. How could he know that?

You seem to believe that Rudy didn't take anything from Filomena's room because he almost immediately heard Meredith in another other room, went there and murdered her. That makes no sense. If it really was a burglary Rudy would have been back out that window as soon as he heard someone else in the apartment. I'm not saying that violence can't happen during a burglary but that usually occurs when the burglar is discovered by someone else in the home. Burglars (especially unarmed ones) don't want to be discovered.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Fiona wrote: "I have long taken the view that if the dna evidence did not exist these people would still have been convicted and so this is not a particularly important issue for me: I doubt the decison rested on that evidence, primarily. I can see why the defence wish to make it central, but it is not central for me and I do not think it is central for the court. I may be wrong
As others have said, RS's explanation for why it was there is far more telling than whether it is accepted to be there or not. I realize others see that differently."

You have a unique view of this case. You are entitled to it of course but the prosecution would disagree with you. If it wasn't for the DNA evidence, Amanda and Raffaele would have never gone to trial for murder.

You put a lot of weight on Raffaele's speculation. He speculation several things. We have talked about this before. Raffaele's speculation would not have been sufficient evidence to convict.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

If Filomena's room was just messy then it is even less likely that Raffaele could have known nothing was taken. It makes logical sense that a burglar coming in through a broken window would start stealing from the room into which they entered, yet Raffaele was certain nothing was taken from the room. How could he know that?

You seem to believe that Rudy didn't take anything from Filomena's room because he almost immediately heard Meredith in another other room, went there and murdered her. That makes no sense. If it really was a burglary Rudy would have been back out that window as soon as he heard someone else in the apartment. I'm not saying that violence can't happen during a burglary but that usually occurs when the burglar is discovered by someone else in the home. Burglars (especially unarmed ones) don't want to be discovered.

You are placing way too much weight on quick observations. This happens when the evidence is weak. You look for other minor elements and try to boost them up.

Raffaele saw the broken window. In his mind he was thinking about a burglary. That is a normal thought. He may have seen one or two things of value in the room, such as Filomena's computer, and he made a quick observation. He had no idea at the time that something horrible had occurred. He wasn't on trial. Not much thought went into his statement. It was a quick thought.

Keep in mind, Raffaele called the police to investigate the cottage. He wanted the police there.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

You put a lot of weight on Raffaele's speculation. He speculation several things. We have talked about this before. Raffaele's speculation would not have been sufficient evidence to convict.

If nothing else this thread has proven to be an invaluable source of euphemisms for "lying". Sadly, mere repetition does nothing to improve the essentially flawed nature of this approach.

 

[quadraginta]

You are placing way too much weight on quick observations. This happens when the evidence is weak. You look for other minor elements and try to boost them up.

Raffaele saw the broken window. In his mind he was thinking about a burglary. That is a normal thought. He may have seen one or two things of value in the room, such as Filomena's computer, and he made a quick observation. He had no idea at the time that something horrible had occurred. He wasn't on trial. Not much thought went into his statement. It was a quick thought.

Keep in mind, Raffaele called the police to investigate the cottage. He wanted the police there.

Of course he did. Exactly when seems to be a matter of some dispute.

Of course he wouldn't have wanted all of the work done to prepare things for the police to be wasted, but he may have preferred to have the scene set properly before they visited. Maybe if there had been a bit more time he would have thought to brush some glass off to the outside of the windowsill.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

The whole area outside the window...the ground below and the wall and window frame, were carefully examined by the forensic police.



He still would have had to clamber in over the glass. Glass would also still have fallen to the ground when he through the rock through the window.



How can you ban anons and people that don't have to register to post?

So the entire argument with the window comes down to a little bit of glass that may or may not have been on the ground. We are past the spiderman talk and the wall walker talk. Now it simply comes down to some glass on the ground.

Keep in mind that we are dealing with a small amount of glass. over half of the sill had very little to no glass on it at all.

I would really like to see the photographs of the ground that were taken. Of course if they thoroughly investigated the ground outside, they certainly would have taken some pictures.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Of course he did. Exactly when seems to be a matter of some dispute.

Of course he wouldn't have wanted all of the work done to prepare things for the police to be wasted, but he may have preferred to have the scene set properly before they visited. Maybe if there had been a bit more time he would have thought to brush some glass off to the outside of the windowsill.

This point was heavily disputed. You are aware of that fact.

Now that it has been proven that Raffaele called the police before the postals arrived, the theory simply changes for you.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

If nothing else this thread has proven to be an invaluable source of euphemisms for "lying". Sadly, mere repetition does nothing to improve the essentially flawed nature of this approach.

You need to go back and read Raffaele's statements again. Speculation is not lying. He came up with several different scenarios.

It is good to see that this thread now understands that Raffaele called the police before the postals arrived.

It is also good to see that all of the PMF wall walking and spiderman BS is starting to be exposed.