• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mary_H said:
Analogies are extremely important tools for reasoning -- that's why they have such a gigantic section of them in the SAT's for college-bound students.
Click to expand...

No, analogies were dropped from the SAT in 2005.
 
Onofarar said:
Earlier I posted a comment about Mooore having access to a 2.5 hour video of the forensic collection process at the cottage. Several people said mt recollection was faulty and at this point I have been unable to find the reference I recall. I did find a GMA interview with George Stephenoupoulous (I butchered the spelling of his name) of ABC where SM mentioned he watched 2.5 hours of video but no mention of how he obtained it and in the context he used the meaning could be construed as having viewed shorter segments multiple times. Therefore, unless or until I find support for it I will accept tthat Moore used Internet videos to analyze the crime scene and observe the forensic techniques.
Click to expand...

My understanding is the videos provided Mr. Moore were not of the YouTube variety. Charlie has posted a few here including the video of the evidence collection at Raffaele's.
 
evidence collection videos

RoseMontague said:
My understanding is the videos provided Mr. Moore were not of the YouTube variety. Charlie has posted a few here including the video of the evidence collection at Raffaele's.
Click to expand...

IIRC, Charlie said that he had viewed three hours of evidence collection video and never saw a glove being changed. I wonder if these are the videos that Steve looked at.
 
Machiavelli said:
His experience on what? What does he know of this terrain? A serious person won't start making conclusion about a case without having even read the process files. In addition he doesn't know the police, the prosecutor and judges in charge, the procedures, the law and legal context, he doesn't now the language and is not able to understand documents, he doesn't even know basic facts of the investigation and trial.
Click to expand...

A few days ago, I read your comments about the crime scene and it was obvious that you have not seen the photos and do not understand what was there. I asked you then if you had seen the crime scene photos, and you did not respond, which I took to mean "no." So, if you think of yourself as a "serious person" I would encourage you to follow your own advice and avoid drawing conclusions about matters on which you are not informed.
 
As a matter of interest, Linda Geddes' two extremely good articles on the fallibility of DNA testing in New Scientist have been shortlisted for the 2010 Paul Foot Award - the UK's premier award for investigative journalism:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...-dna-evidence-can-mean-prison-or-freedom.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727743.300-how-dna-evidence-creates-victims-of-chance.html

If people haven't read her articles yet, they are highly recommended. And parts of them are highly relevant to the Kercher case, in terms of LCN analysis, mixed-DNA analysis, and pre-cognition by the tester as to whose DNA they are searching for.
 
LondonJohn said:
As a matter of interest, Linda Geddes' two extremely good articles on the fallibility of DNA testing in New Scientist have been shortlisted for the 2010 Paul Foot Award - the UK's premier award for investigative journalism:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...-dna-evidence-can-mean-prison-or-freedom.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727743.300-how-dna-evidence-creates-victims-of-chance.html

If people haven't read her articles yet, they are highly recommended. And parts of them are highly relevant to the Kercher case, in terms of LCN analysis, mixed-DNA analysis, and pre-cognition by the tester as to whose DNA they are searching for.
Click to expand...

Thanks LJ. Is that Greg Hampikian mentioned in the first article the one that is mentioned in relation to the Meredith Kercher case?
 
Last edited:
RoseMontague said:
I meant the Miller Analogies Test by MAT. It was designed for getting into certain grad schools and was heavily based on Analogies.
Click to expand...

The math may still be there, but spelling appears to have disappeared.....

(May I take this opportunity to state that the correct contraction of "mathematics" is, of course, "maths" ;) )
 
Last edited:
RoseMontague said:
Thanks LJ. Is that Greg Hampikian mentioned in the first article the one that is mentioned in relation to the Meredith Kercher case?
Click to expand...

Indeedy so.

Oh, and of course experts quoted in the articles argue strongly for the total independence of DNA testing laboratories, as a crucial guarantor of impartiality. They say that the worst possible case scenario is for the DNA lab to be an actual arm of the police. Hmmmm...........

Oh....and I'd forgotten that there's an interesting part at the end of the 2nd article which talks about the importance of the defence having access to the underlying source data, particularly for LCN and near-LCN tests......
 
Last edited:
Tagliabracci's reservations about the interpretation of the clasp

LondonJohn said:
As a matter of interest, Linda Geddes' two extremely good articles on the fallibility of DNA testing in New Scientist have been shortlisted for the 2010 Paul Foot Award - the UK's premier award for investigative journalism:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...-dna-evidence-can-mean-prison-or-freedom.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727743.300-how-dna-evidence-creates-victims-of-chance.html

If people haven't read her articles yet, they are highly recommended. And parts of them are highly relevant to the Kercher case, in terms of LCN analysis, mixed-DNA analysis, and pre-cognition by the tester as to whose DNA they are searching for.
Click to expand...

LondonJohn,

The article you cited is even more pertinent now that I have reread it. Dr. Tagliabracci had concerns about the interpretation of the peaks in the bra clasp DNA. Here are three quotations (they do not cover all of his concerns) from the English translation of the Massei report, on pages 241-242:

[Tagliabracci] then turned to the Exhibit 165/B electropherograms (pages 47 and following) and emphasised that, as regards the mixed trace, there are rules which have been issued, some just recently, by the International Society for Forensic Genetics which give recommendations on how the interpretation of a mixture must be done. ‚In particular,‛ the consultant said, ‚they recommend following a different method to the one that was used by Forensics (Polizia Scientifica)‛, who had adopted a suspect-centric method.

Professor Tagliabracci then maintained that this suspect-centric method was detectible in Dr. Stefanoni’s report and presentation because, he affirmed, it was a case of ‚forcing the profile obtained < eliminating or leaving out alleles [257] solely for the purpose of making that profile compatible with Raffaele Sollecito’s profile‛ (page 51).

He pointed out that that there is a significant subjective element in reading the electropherograms. He focused in particular on locus D5S818, in which two principal alleles are present; together with a third peak with a height of 108 RFU; as this is higher than 50 RFU, it should have been considered an allele. Forensics [la Polizia Scientifica] did not, however, consider this to be the case; instead, they considered the 65 RFU peak to be an allele and observed that, in this way, a compatibility with Raffaele Sollecito’s profile resulted, which otherwise would not have been the case (page 59). With reference to this, Professor Tagliabracci repeated that there was a forced interpretation, which was typical of a suspect-centric attitude (page 60).
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
A few days ago, I read your comments about the crime scene and it was obvious that you have not seen the photos and do not understand what was there. I asked you then if you had seen the crime scene photos, and you did not respond, which I took to mean "no." So, if you think of yourself as a "serious person" I would encourage you to follow your own advice and avoid drawing conclusions about matters on which you are not informed.
Click to expand...

I am following my own advice, and I reaffirm my comments on Steve Moore: he has drawn conclusion demonstrating to get the basic facts wrong and fo lack basic knowledge of the case, this is obviosuly true independently from my knowledge and from my moral status, it is true whatever you say to divert attention from this point. Moore has shown he came on to his conclusion without knowing anything about the case, this can be demonstrated, and when you lack even the basic data you can claim no expertise. The very qualification of "expert" sounds ludicrous before such a methodology, and he is not making a point: he is making hyperbolic, over-confident claims of a conspiracy without knowing anything about it. It is embarassing if one thinks to an image of seriousness, honesty and quality. This is the reason why he was fired from his university. He is an embarassment to their name just in terms of quality.

Now, about your question about scene photos. I don't remember exactly what photos you were asking about (of the body?), but I remember your question was in the place of an answer. I think I made a list of points to exlain why the scene dosen't indicate Rudy committed a sexual violene after Meredith's death. You asked whether I saw photos, but you didn't say what you see in your photos that contradicts what I said.
I didn't see high quality photos of her naked body, at least not all parts, but I saw plenty of pictures of the room, and I read testimonies and reports. If you have more unseen photos to show just send them to me privately. Otherwise you may explain what is the contradiction in these photos in your opinion: as long as I don't know what you are objecting it's difficult for me to understand what you mean.
 
Dan O. said:
Are you saying that the only people qualified to comment on this case are those that "know the police, the prosecutor and judges in charge". I presume that since you have been commenting on this case that you consider yourself qualified. Do you actually know those people? I'm sure there are many questions waiting for a direct response from those in charge.
Click to expand...

I have never met them personally (except Lorenzo Rinaldi an I said). But I know who they are, in a sense that maybe you won't understand, and I know the people surrounding them as the social environment of various of these parties. I also know of their mentality, their praxis, the actual meaning of their actions and words. Why are you asking? What would you like to know?
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
LondonJohn,

The article you cited is even more pertinent now that I have reread it. Dr. Tagliabracci had concerns about the interpretation of the peaks in the bra clasp DNA. Here are three quotations (they do not cover all of his concerns) from the English translation of the Massei report, on pages 241-242:

[Tagliabracci] then turned to the Exhibit 165/B electropherograms (pages 47 and following) and emphasised that, as regards the mixed trace, there are rules which have been issued, some just recently, by the International Society for Forensic Genetics which give recommendations on how the interpretation of a mixture must be done. ‚In particular,‛ the consultant said, ‚they recommend following a different method to the one that was used by Forensics (Polizia Scientifica)‛, who had adopted a suspect-centric method.

Professor Tagliabracci then maintained that this suspect-centric method was detectible in Dr. Stefanoni’s report and presentation because, he affirmed, it was a case of ‚forcing the profile obtained < eliminating or leaving out alleles [257] solely for the purpose of making that profile compatible with Raffaele Sollecito’s profile‛ (page 51).

He pointed out that that there is a significant subjective element in reading the electropherograms. He focused in particular on locus D5S818, in which two principal alleles are present; together with a third peak with a height of 108 RFU; as this is higher than 50 RFU, it should have been considered an allele. Forensics [la Polizia Scientifica] did not, however, consider this to be the case; instead, they considered the 65 RFU peak to be an allele and observed that, in this way, a compatibility with Raffaele Sollecito’s profile resulted, which otherwise would not have been the case (page 59). With reference to this, Professor Tagliabracci repeated that there was a forced interpretation, which was typical of a suspect-centric attitude (page 60).
Click to expand...

Chris,
This is also covered in one of the appeals, I will have to see if I can find the reference.
 
Onofarar said:
Steve Moore knows forensics and how it should be collected. He observed the ILE methods and from that knew the collection techniques were deeply flawed. The bra clasp was touched by dirty gloves and surprise surprise they found RS DNA right there! The double DNA knife - no control for contaimation, no following of international testing standards = no reliability as evidence. Without the forensics you have NO physical evidence connecting AK and RS to the murder - and the prosecution would be left with a bunch of contradicted witnesses, their own rampant speculation and inappropriate (to some) behavior.

Terrain? Was MK pushed off a cliff? What a spurious argument.

Moore knows forensic methods and crime scene analysis it does not matter whether he knows how the Italian court system works. His opinions and observations go to the heart of the case - justice is justice anywhere in the world or should be.
Click to expand...

You are deluded if you think reality doesn't exist and doesn't matter just outside the "standards" claimed by a person who has not even taken part as an expert in the trial. By the way there are even some others who gave an opposite opinion, like Luciano Garofano (former director of the Ris). If you want to believe the evidence is "not reliable" on your own standards you have the freedom to do so. The Italian justice system will never follow your argumentation.
 
quadraginta said:
In general I'm inclined to agree with this.

Florida's example of their "Sunshine Laws, while well meant and useful in certain situations, such as politics, have instead swung the pendulum of privacy vs. public rights in criminal cases so far to one side that the plumb has flown out of the clock entirely and landed out in the surf somewhere.

There hasn't been much evidence I have seen that it has proven to be largely beneficial to anyone accused of a crime. More the contrary, I think.
Click to expand...

Each state has different laws. The Federal laws are also different.

No, in the USA information about each case is NOT published. Lots of people, for some idiotic reason, actually confess to crimes they didn't do. But all the police have to do is ask them something about the crime they couldn't have read in the newspapers. Sometimes mis-information is deliberately published. If they don't know the answers, they are told to go home. The police know when someone is actually guilty of the crime and not just confessing to a crime they didn't do.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
The math may still be there, but spelling appears to have disappeared.....

(May I take this opportunity to state that the correct contraction of "mathematics" is, of course, "maths" ;) )
Click to expand...

The maths may still be there, but reading comprehension appears to have disappeared...

Rose wasn't writing about mathematics, she was writing about a test that is abbreviated MAT.
 
Onofarar said:
Steve Moore knows forensics and how it should be collected. He observed the ILE methods and from that knew the collection techniques were deeply flawed. The bra clasp was touched by dirty gloves and surprise surprise they found RS DNA right there! The double DNA knife - no control for contaimation, no following of international testing standards = no reliability as evidence. Without the forensics you have NO physical evidence connecting AK and RS to the murder - and the prosecution would be left with a bunch of contradicted witnesses, their own rampant speculation and inappropriate (to some) behavior.

Terrain? Was MK pushed off a cliff? What a spurious argument.

Moore knows forensic methods and crime scene analysis it does not matter whether he knows how the Italian court system works. His opinions and observations go to the heart of the case - justice is justice anywhere in the world or should be.
Click to expand...

I agree. Good evidence collection doesn't stop at Italy's border and neither does good science. They are either good or bad, regardless of what country you are in or if you know the judges and lawyers. Stephanoni even indicated she didn't feel it was always necessary to change gloves unless she touched something wet. I really doubt that is a good technique in Italy or anywhere else. Stephanoni invented an untested an unproven procedure for LCN DNA testing that can't even be replicated because the one and only sample is gone. I really doubt that this is an accepted procedure in Italian labs or any other country, for that matter. They picked up the bra clasp and dropped it back on the floor where two of them had just stepped on with their little booties that were put on before they entered the room dragging who knows whom's DNA with them (Perhaps the origin of the extra unidentified profiles or even Raffaele's). And this is after the evidence had stayed on the floor for 46 days somehow moving around from it's original location to an are of other items that came from who knows where). Is that a good technique in Italy or anywhere else?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom