Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fulcanelli]

Ah, the good old argument from incredulity. If you express enough uninformed incredulity, it shifts the burden of proof! Apparently.

Really...a bit like that argument from incredulity that a girlfriend and boyfriend who knew each other for only six days couldn't possibly murder anyone...like that you mean?

If there's anything you don't like about my post Kevin, please feel free to report it to the moderators on the grounds that it "degrades the topic"

 

[RoseMontague]

Maybe, just like submarines often dive beyond their designed depth. We call that good engineering.

It's the question of whether it was good science that concerns me. Nice to see you back posting.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Unless the sub collapses and innocent people die, in which case we call it culpable stupidity on the part of the submarine operator, whose job it is to know better than to do that.

You're not talking to a tourist any more. You could however attempt to support your argument with statistics to support all these supposed "collapsed" subs these past few decade in order to demonstrate they're a commonality, rather then a once in a generation event.

 

[Diastole]

Handling of the knife

Why was the "double DNA" knife removed from its sealed evidence collection envelope, prior to being boxed for shipment to the Scientific Police? (Massei p.107)

 

[loverofzion]

Now either you too have a very short memory or you are deliberately trying to waste my time, because I corrected you on this point earlier and gave you the citation earlier.

Fortunately I know this one off by heart because Fulcanelli, oddly enough, had exactly the same poor memory you do and needed frequent reminders. Massei page 348.

Thank you for pointing me to that page in the Massei Report.
If anyone cares to delve more deeply into the difference in sole prints between the two male defendents he or she only need review that page.

It turns out-surprise!- that there are many other differentiating factors in the sole prints of the two. The width of RS's foot, the shape of the bumps, the outer profile etc.

So Keven was being less than forthright when he only quoted the 3 cm difference in the length of the two prints.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

loverofzion's misinformation about the DNA testing

If you bravely venture over to PMF today you will see that the forensic expert Stefanoni was an independent expert; the results were reviewed in 2008 by Dr. Biondo; the Kerchers' expert Dr. Torricelli and RG's lawyer Dr. Barbero.

All agreed there was no transferral of DNA; that the knife held the biological profiles of both AK and MK and furthermore the defense were notified of the time and place the tests were performed and CHOSE NOT TO SHOW UP as part of their defense strategy.

So where's the conspiracy?

loverofzion,

What are Dr. Stefanoni’s qualifications in DNA forensics? This is the second time I have asked you specifically to provide this information. To the best of my knowledge she is an M.D., and forensic DNA analysis is not part of typical training of physicians, at least in the U.S. She has never coauthored any journal articles or textbooks. I have pointed out the errors in her notions of DNA contamination upthread. She believes that it takes either liquids or vigorous rubbing for contamination to occur. Please see my citation on the Turner case for an example that disproves her notion. If the so-called experts you listed actually claimed that there was no transfer of DNA, then they have discredited themselves, once and for all. One cannot see DNA being transferred. One has to do negative controls, and even these are not perfect, as I have explained on numerous occasions here and on the previous thread.

A few days ago I went to PMF, where they were commenting to the effect that since the defense team was not present at the DNA testing, their views on the evidence were worthless. I contacted Dr. Dan Krane, who has coauthored articles and a textbook and who runs a DNA forensic company. He said that it would be far preferable for a defense expert to get the electronic data files and not be present at the testing than the other way around. I posted his comment here a few days ago, and it is clear that the comments at PMF were ill-informed (and vulgar, too).

Furthermore, your argument ignores the fact that ILE did not give sufficient notice to the defense about the testing date, as Chris Mellas discussed at Perugia-shock, and which has been quoted upthread. If you want to find his comments, I suggest learning how to use the advanced search function here or learn how to use Google.

Contacting the true experts directly is but one of several ways in which I have advanced the discussion of DNA forensics here. I have also quoted the literature and given textbook page references. So far you have done little or none of these things, and you have provided much misinformation, unwittingly I am sure. The offer of helping you learn how to do citations is still open.

 

[JREF2010]

I also want to add that it seems clear that Stephanoni thought she had 200+ picograms of material after splitting it for testing for blood with the rest for the DNA test. That is why she went the standard 28 cycles rather than the recomended 34. If it is LCN DNA the standard 28 cycles will just not give results that are accurate or will not even show any result (as in this case).

In my opinion this is probably due to the fact that the material she pulled out of that giant crack in the knife did not consist of DNA at all. She thought she had enough if it was DNA, but it was not.

The Appeal will spend much time on the Lab work, I assume...if the court allows it to be reviewed.

This "thought they had enough" is possible reason for her having to manually adjust the equipment. I always wondered why Stephanoni wouldn't just accept a non-trace result from the tool.

I am not familiar with DNA testing and terminology. But the concept of a reasonable amount of testing and verification second runs, and using controls ,seems to be a basic fair requirement for a trial.

The controls, a blank/ gel ran pre and then blank/gel ran post the crime-sample, as control would not require anything but gel and lab time. This was mentioned recently a few posts back. If this is true it seems a small requirement.

Do you have any inputs on how Merediths DNA would have a chance to get into the gel?

Or is it believed by the defense the DNA was only a noise/false read due to over amplfication?

Or was the DNA read of Meredith real, but from residual traces of the equipment and lab tools?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Really...a bit like that argument from incredulity that a girlfriend and boyfriend who knew each other for only six days couldn't possibly murder anyone...like that you mean?

The difference is that we have a very large body of evidence about what sort of people commit crimes and why.

Young people with no history of violence whatsoever very, very rarely if ever meet a local crook they are not friends with at 21:05 and then decide at 21:10 to team up with them to gang-rape and murder their housemate. (Don't blame me, I didn't invent that scenario).

Whereas criminals with a history do sometimes escalate to greater crimes, such as habitual housebreakers who carry weapons escalating to rape and murder when they catch a woman alone who could identify them if they lived.

If there's anything you don't like about my post Kevin, please feel free to report it to the moderators on the grounds that it "degrades the topic"

I've reported a few posts for blatant incivility in this thread, but none recently and none so far for "degrading the topic" or anything similar. As Quadraginta is at great pains to point out, as long as you don't engage in direct personal attacks you can post any kind of malignant nonsense you like here, and nobody can stop you. That's the great thing about these forums - people can't hide from ideas that threaten them by banning the speakers, but dumb ideas can be exposed as dumb.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Thank you for pointing me to that page in the Massei Report.
If anyone cares to delve more deeply into the difference in sole prints between the two male defendents he or she only need review that page.

It turns out-surprise!- that there are many other differentiating factors in the sole prints of the two. The width of RS's foot, the shape of the bumps, the outer profile etc.

So Keven was being less than forthright when he only quoted the 3 cm difference in the length of the two prints.

3mm, not 3cm. Massei, page 348.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I think the people that post here do not have as much of a group identity as is shown at certain other places. Differences of opinion on some of the details are common, just as I disagreed with Mary_H and halkides earlier today. Even among those here that believe in guilt there are differences, Michiavelli is one example that seems to me to go a different direction on certain issues. I thought your inclusion of number 9 was amusing, not sure about number 12, has that been claimed here?

Oh, I don't know...I saw you agreeing quite a lot...there wasn't DNA on the blade...it wasn't a total conspiracy, only half of one...the rest were just incompetent...etc. Where exactly was it you guys disagreed? I must have missed it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

What are Dr. Stefanoni’s qualifications in DNA forensics?

What are Hampikiens? What are Johnsons? We can all play that game Chris. I suggest you drop it.

 

[JREF2010]

How's this: Rudy didn't want blood on his clothes because it would make it obvious he had just murdered someone. So he went to the bathroom and washed blood off his clothes. Then he went back to the bedroom to steal and stepped in some blood, however he didn't care about that because a few steps later he was no longer leaving bloody footprints so it wasn't going to get him sprung as he walked away. Later he disposed of those shoes anyway.



Maybe he had a wet and bloody sock after washing blood off his trousers, so he took his sock off and put his foot down?

.

I always think Rudys tennis shoe prints went unseen by Rudy or he might have wiped them up.

Two thoughts-

1) It was dark in the cottage and Rudy mentions leaving in the evening. This makes them harder to see.

2) The prints were so faint that no on e ,the next morning, seemed to notice them immediately. Actually people were walking on the bloody tennis shoe prints during the initial arrival Nov 2 . or at least there's been no mention of it by the Postal Police, Amanda, Raffaele, Filomena and the rest.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I always think Rudys tennis shoe prints went unseen by Rudy or he might have wiped them up.

Two thoughts-

1) It was dark in the cottage and Rudy mentions leaving in the evening. This makes them harder to see.

2) The prints were so faint that no on e ,the next morning, seemed to notice them immediately. Actually people were walking on the bloody tennis shoe prints during the initial arrival Nov 2 . or at least there's been no mention of it by the Postal Police, Amanda, Raffaele, Filomena and the rest.

That works too. It just invites more arguments from incredulity ("Are you really saying that he walked out with blood dripping off his feet and he didn't notice? Yet he meticulously cleaned up every trace of blood he left between the murder room and the bathroom, which we know was there because there's no such thing as blood which is just on someone's trousers and not on the soles of their shoes?").

 

[Malkmus]

Really...a bit like that argument from incredulity that a girlfriend and boyfriend who knew each other for only six days couldn't possibly murder anyone...like that you mean?

If there's anything you don't like about my post Kevin, please feel free to report it to the moderators on the grounds that it "degrades the topic"

It's possible to express incredulity as a reason to doubt that Amanda and Raf would ever have committed a murder together, but no one is using that reason alone to prove that they couldn't have done it, and I don't think incredulity is ever regarded as a valid reason to negate certain pieces of evidence. Incredulity is a good reason to doubt that Amanda ever carried a kitchen knife around in her purse, for example, but it's not "the reason" the knife is considered a questionable piece of evidence. What Alt is doing is using incredulity to negate the idea of the lone wolf scenario. Much like incredulity is often the main reason to doubt that Rudy could possibly have climbed in through the window - despite his having done almost the exact same thing a month before. If we were arguing over whether Rudy would actually break into the law office, the argument from incredulity would be that no one in their right mind would climb a wall in the middle of a public courtyard in plain sight of other residents' windows.

 

[Withnail1969]

I wasn't questioning your veracity, just pointing out that Mary_H seemed to have unearthed a difference of opinion elsewhere.

I certainly have no intention of suggesting that Sollecito's statements are more reliable than your research.

Not my research. I'm sure anybody who knows anything about the case has seen the same photograph. I am sure you, for example, have seen it.

You're interpreting Sollecito's statement to mean that he definitely claimed to know the girls had no knives. I don't read it that way.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Not to mention most of the points Alt listed are not mutually exclusive. The ones I have highlighted can certainly coexist. As usual with this case, context is what matters.

1. Deliberate contamination.2. Accidential contamination.
3. Corrupt police.4. Incompetent police.5. Corrupt prosecution.6. Incompetent prosecution.7. Anti-Americanism.
8. Facism.
9. Horny police.
10. Cover up to protect Rudy.
11. Cultural differences.
12. Sexism

The rest of the points, I believe, are peripheral subjects that have only been argued by one or two members (some seem to have been thrown into the list without merit though). But I don't think anyone has argued, nor can you make an argument, that any one or two of the above points can be argued as the sole reason Amanda and Raf were wrongfully convicted. As far as "accidental" vs "deliberate" contamination, that is something that can only be theorized. But since we know Stefanoni was dishonest before (such as claiming that no blood tests were performed on the footprints when in fact they were), then assuming she was dishonest with how the results of the DNA were attained is not a stretch either.

Best we acquit and release Rudy then, don't you think?

 

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague View Post
I think the people that post here do not have as much of a group identity as is shown at certain other places. Differences of opinion on some of the details are common, just as I disagreed with Mary_H and halkides earlier today. Even among those here that believe in guilt there are differences, Michiavelli is one example that seems to me to go a different direction on certain issues. I thought your inclusion of number 9 was amusing, not sure about number 12, has that been claimed here?

Oh, I don't know...I saw you agreeing quite a lot...there wasn't DNA on the blade...it wasn't a total conspiracy, only half of one...the rest were just incompetent...etc. Where exactly was it you guys disagreed? I must have missed it.

I'll try to remember exactly when that was so I can highlite it for you.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The difference is that we have a very large body of evidence about what sort of people commit crimes and why.

As a NORM. But the point is, crimes don't always follow the norms, which is why some of those cases go down in infamy, never to be forgotten. People like Bonnie and Clyde, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, Fred and Rose West...the list goes on.

They are anomalies, yet all the same, they exist and the fact they are anomalies cannot be used as an argument to say they don't. Their existence is a fact.

 

[Malkmus]

Best we acquit and release Rudy then, don't you think?

No. His bloody fingerprint which led to his arrest and his own admission to leaving Meredith to die, means he is guilty without a doubt.

 

[Justinian2]

I've seen a photograph of the knives at the girls' place in which there seemed to be a plethora of sharp-looking potential murder weapons in a variety of sizes.

I'd really love to see a photograph of that plethora of potential murder weapons.