Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[HumanityBlues]

How do you know what ILE should have tested and what they shouldn't have tested? I see a lot of armchair amateurs shrieking 'incompetence' and 'fabrication' without any access to the primary documentation, any of the forensic analyses, or indeed of any procedures employed during a murder investigation.

You can't just post something on the internet, label it suspicious, and conclude that the investigators were incompetent. If the investigation was so incompetent, then why did a team of some of the highest-paid lawyers in Italy fail to convince the court?

Whatever cradles you ma' dear.

 

[stilicho]

What was the big barricade that stopped them from discovering it in the first place?

How do you know they did not discover it in the first place? Cite?

 

[stilicho]

Whatever cradles you ma' dear.

Excuses.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Excuses.

Well, you know what? You're very good at asking inane questions and demanding answers, but I'm still waiting for you to answer 'my' questions on the matter which I've asked several times now, for you've not attempted to answer a single one.

1. Why did the defence wait until the last minute to raise the matter in court when they knew the answer for their request would certainly be no?

2. Why did they not test it themselves?

3. Why is it important? What will it prove about the case?

 

[HumanityBlues]

How do you know they did not discover it in the first place? Cite?

First of all, they didn't. But let's even suppose for your sake they did. Why didn't they test it if that was the case?

 

[Fulcanelli]

HB,

If the item in question is in the possession of the authorities, could the defense test it? I don't see how.

Also, I find the idea that the stain was due to previous, consensual sex to be questionable. Would Meredith not have laundered the item in question?

No, it was in the defence possession, how do you think the defence expert found the stain?

 

[Fulcanelli]

First of all, they didn't. But let's even suppose for your sake they did. Why didn't they test it if that was the case?

How do you know they didn't?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Well, you know what? You're very good at asking inane questions and demanding answers, but I'm still waiting for you to answer 'my' questions on the matter which I've asked several times now, for you've not attempted to answer a single one.

1. Why did the defence wait until the last minute to raise the matter in court when they knew the answer for their request would certainly be no?

2. Why did they not test it themselves?

I'm not answering your questions because they're stupid. One is a strategic matter having to do with defense, one concerns what involves what is supposed to be a competent investigation.

Maybe Raffaele's lawyers were worried it was his semen. Big deal. That doesn't excuse the lack of competence on the investigators. Quite frankly, I'm not really asking you anything, but more the group. I could care less what you think. You've exhibited about 2500 times on this thread that your only agenda is to justify anything the court says.

 

[HumanityBlues]

How do you know they didn't?

Oh i'm sorry, if I'm mistaken show us the goods. It doesn't make the investigators look any better.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I'm not answering your questions because they're stupid. One is a strategic matter having to do with defense, one concerns what involves what is supposed to be a competent investigation.

Maybe Raffaele's lawyers were worried they were his. Big deal. That doesn't excuse the lack of competence no the investigators. Quite frankly, I'm not really asking you anything, but more the group. I could care less what you think. You've exhibited about 2500 times on this thread that you're only agenda is to justify anything the court says.

Excuses.

 

[RWVBWL]

But would be useless as evidence since the stain cannot be dated.

Hi Fulcanelli,
Please correct me if I am wrong, but it appears in this posting by Frank Sfarzo of Perugia Shock that indeed the stain might be dateable...

Title: "IMPORTANT EVIDENCE WITHHOLD"
"A substance between the victim legs"

"As we can see in the picture above, in the middle of the pillowcase there's another of those shoeprints so familiar to us. It has the same white luminescence of the first picture, as if the shoe had touched the same substance of the two stains and then, in some way, imprinted it on the tissue. If that's true this second picture is particularly revealing, since it suggests that the substance must have been left during the crime."

Link: http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/10/defensive-strategy-for-knox-and.html

I personally find it interesting that you don't seem curious about this information. Makes a guy with sisters wonder why another guy, who is very interested in this particular murder case, wouldn't feel the need to know what the substance is...
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[Fulcanelli]

Oh i'm sorry, if I'm mistaken show us the goods. It doesn't make the investigators look any better.

Show you what? I wasn't on the investigation team. Neither were you.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Excuses.

It's not an excuse. It's completely irrelevant to how the original investigation was conducted. You can keep making excuse after excuse and keep asking stupid questions to put it on the defense, but their job is not the same as the investigators for the state.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Show you what? I wasn't on the investigation team. Neither were you.

The problem is, even that doesn't matter. You have two options. One, they knew about it, and didn't test it. Or two, they didn't find it and needed a defense expert to find what they should have found if they were doing their jobs. Back to the drawing boards jester.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Hi Fulcanelli,
Please correct me if I am wrong, but it appears in this posting by Frank Sfarzo of Perugia Shock that indeed the stain might be datable...

Title: "IMPORTANT EVIDENCE WITHHOLD"
"A substance between the victim legs"

"As we can see in the picture above, in the middle of the pillowcase there's another of those shoeprints so familiar to us. It has the same white luminescence of the first picture, as if the shoe had touched the same substance of the two stains and then, in some way, imprinted it on the tissue. If that's true this second picture is particularly revealing, since it suggests that the substance must have been left during the crime."

Link: http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/10/defensive-strategy-for-knox-and.html

I personally find it interesting that you don't seem curious about this information. Makes a guy with sisters wonder why another guy, who is very interested in this particular murder case, wouldn't feel the need to know what the substance is...
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

No, it isn't. And even Frank doesn't say so there. 'Suggests' is opinion and subjective and does not constitute a fact. How can you date a stain? How can you show it wasn't left the night before or the night before that?

 

[Fiona]

http://www.linkedin.com/in/jasongilder
The material you quoted comes from his LinkedIn profile, not the company website. BTW, population genetics, which is listed under his interests, is one of the multiple disciplines needed for DNA profiling.

No, it doesn't. It comes from Forensic Bioinformatics website, actually. But since it is also on the site you linked I can discard the idea that it has nothing to say one way or the other about Gilder's self esteem.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It's not an excuse. It's completely irrelevant to how the original investigation was conducted. You can keep making excuse after excuse and asking stupid question to put it on the defense, but their job is not the same as the investigators for the state.

Of course it's an excuse. Your issue has nothing to do with evidence and proving guilt or innocence, but to slag off the investigators. And my questions are perfectly valid and very important in the scheme of the subject at hand. If the stain is so important, why then did the defence not test it? If it isn't important, why then all the fuss? If it's not the job of the defence, why were the defence looking at the pillow in the first place?

You do realise make-up lights up under a black light don't you? You do also realise Vaseline glows under a black light too? And since the defence knew Meredith would have worn make-up and that she used Vaseline lip balm on her lips, and since they knew Meredith had used that pillow to sleep on and put her face in they could be absolutely certain before they even turned on their black light they would find something that glows? So, you don't think it's the slightest bit off that they looked for something they knew they would find, didn't test it and then presented it as a last minute surprise in the trial when they knew it couldn't be tested in order to try and make the police look bad? We're not stupid. Neither was the court.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Of course it's an excuse. Your issue has nothing to do with evidence and proving guilt or innocence, but to slag off the investigators. And my questions are perfectly valid and very important in the scheme of the subject at hand. If the stain is so important, why then did the defence not test it? If it isn't important, why then all the fuss? If it's not the job of the defence, why were the defence looking at the pillow in the first place?

You do realise make-up lights up under a black light don't you? You do also realise Vaseline glows under a black light too? And since the defence knew Meredith would have worn make-up and that she used Vaseline lip balm on her lips, and since they knew Meredith had used that pillow to sleep on and put her face it they could be absolutely certain before they even turned on their black light they would find something that glows? So, you don't think it's the slightest bit off that they looked for something they knew they would find, didn't test it and then presented it as a last minute surprise in the trial when they knew it couldn't be tested in order to try and make the police look bad? We're not stupid. Neither was the court.

The jester can whine until the cows come home, it doesn't make his arguments any better, even if accepted by the court. It may have something to do with guilt or innocence, or at the very least, certainly is relevant to level of culpability. All your ramblings about what the investigators thought it could have been are meaningless because it could have been semen.

We can muse for hours on end about why the Defense didn't test it originally. Do you want us all to think something prejudicial? Fine, as I said before, and as Frank I believe speculated, they were probably worried it was Raffaele's semen. But even if it is Raffaele's, why wouldn't the prosecution be desperate to find if Raffaele was even more culpable than what he was found guilty for? Their lack of interest into testing this is very laughable. Obviously jesters of the courts will disagree, but that's neither here nor there.

The investigators should have tested it in the first place.

Cut out the name calling.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[Danceme]

Originally Posted by Malkmus
Jason is the first full-time employee of Forensic Bioinformatics and he is the primary author of the Genophiler® automated software analysis system.


Not denying that. But you write it, as Fiona has, as if his position excludes him from being able to criticize analysis of DNA evidence by Stefanoni. That notion requires disregarding his credentials, which specifically includes forensic DNA interpretation, DNA profiling, and his actual job description which claims he has analyzed the data of DNA evidence in over 800 cases, not to mention his thesis and dissertation on forensic DNA analysis. The man's world is DNA analysis. The fact that he's written a program designed to evaluate the results of others' DNA analysis only further proves his expertise in the field.

(snip)

The very purpose of Dr. Glider's [sic] position is to evaluate the work of people like Dr. Stefanoni!

Jason Gilder's credentials are impressive but it does seem strange that computer science degrees qualifies one to analyze DNA. According to the research I just did on the educational background required for a DNA analyst, degrees in the natural sciences such as forensic science, biology, chemistry, physics etc, with Master's degrees in forensic science, genetics, chemistry or molecular biology are recommended.

http://www.ehow.com/about_6395433_education-training-forensic-dna-analysis.html

The website for Forensic Bioinformatics describes Dr. Gilder and several others as "recognized for their work with computational automation and the use of biological data". DNA detection seems pretty black and white to me, it is what it is or it isn't. The machines and the software themselves don't lie. If they detect it it's really there. (Contamination is a whole other issue.) Writing and using computer software to enable this detection and analyzing results is, I guess, something computer scientists can and do do.

However there's not much in the description of the field to lead one to think its part of the work. Here's a googled blurb on computer science;

Computer science (CS) spans the range from theory through programming to cutting-edge development of computing solutions. Computer science offers a foundation that permits graduates to adapt to new technologies and new ideas. The work of computer scientists falls into three categories: a) designing and building software; b) developing effective ways to solve computing problems, such as storing information in databases, sending data over networks or providing new approaches to security problems; and c) devising new and better ways of using computers and addressing particular challenges in areas such as robotics, computer vision, or digital forensics (although these specializations are not available in all computer science programs). Most computer science programs require some mathematical background.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The jester can whine until the cows come home, it doesn't make his arguments any better, even if accepted by the court. It may have something to do with guilt or innocence, or at the very least, certainly is relevant to level of culpability. All your ramblings about what the investigators thought it could have been are meaningless because it could have been semen.

We can muse for hours on end about why the Defense didn't test it originally. Do you want us all to think something prejudicial? Fine, as I said before, and as Frank I believe speculated, they were probably worried it was Raffaele's semen. But even if it is Raffaele's, why wouldn't the prosecution be desperate to find if Raffaele was even more culpable than what he was found guilty for? Their lack of interest into testing this is very laughable. Obviously jesters of the courts will disagree, but that's neither here nor there.

The investigators should have tested it in the first place.

I refer you back to all the answers, statements and questions I've offered on this matter previously.