Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
What gets to me, and the reason I keep reading this thread, in the same way as people slow down to look at road accidents, is that so many here contend that this thread is a bastion of truth and rationality, when it is just as partisan as other forums on their other side. How many here have stated as a fact that AK and RS are innocent? Not rationality, but zealotry.
 
halides1 said:
LondonJohn,

He has written some articles about single nucleotide polymorphisms, IIRC. Those might be used in forensics in the future. He also coauthored a review about forensics. Here is the abstract.
Click to expand...


But isn't the paper you've referenced essentially intending to paint a picture of what will be possible in the future, when whole-genome sequencing will enable genomes to be built and replicated from miniscule amounts of cell matter (including those with damaged or broken genomes)? It seems to be a theoretical discourse on the potential future applications of the genome sequencing work that their lab is currently doing.

What seems pretty clear is that Novelli's department does not deal with low-template DNA analysis in a forensic context. It just so happens that he and his colleagues realise that their genome work will have potential future applications in this area, which is why they wrote that paper. And clearly one must contextualise the discussion by including the progression to date of low template DNA analysis, in order to set the scene for the potential future progression.
 
lionking said:
What gets to me, and the reason I keep reading this thread, in the same way as people slow down to look at road accidents, is that so many here contend that this thread is a bastion of truth and rationality, when it is just as partisan as other forums on their other side. How many here have stated as a fact that AK and RS are innocent? Not rationality, but zealotry.
Click to expand...


Not many. And I would not be one of those people. Any other questions?
 
Dougm said:
I am sure that Stefanoni feels that what she did was correct, and even if she doesn't, she needs to defend it to protect her reputation. :
Click to expand...

Other posters have complained about some of my replies not responding to the current page, after coming home from long days and having a lot of reading to do to catch up, but...........

that's just crap...
 
Last edited:
pilot padron said:
Naw:

Just to illustrate that I try to weigh 'arguments from both sides:

1) Yesterday, an innocence newbie here made the dogmatic 'argument': "What people say does not count for anything"
He stood by this incredible unique assertation even after it was pointed out to him that the statement in question was made *while under oath*
How does one now discuss or comment to you after that piece of brilliance ??

2) Also yesterday (sorry you missed all this) several of the similarly 'experienced' arguers opined that the guilter arguments here "were petty and concentrated on molehills".

With all due respect to you but with some 'regard' for that (mostly 'tag team pile on' newbie) ever so unbiased *opinion*, your request for additional comment about *what people said* about the case is understandably denied,
Click to expand...


No.

My question to you was this: why are you passing off the work of other pro-guilt commentators either as objective reportage or as your own work? Care to answer? Your avoidance of this question in your near-incomprehensible "reply" was noteworthy.
 
christianahannah said:
I think this information you write about has been in the file, though maybe obscure (such as a CD), because it was not practice to include it along with the official report. I don't think there were any attempts to hide anything from the defense.
Click to expand...

So where are the original November 2007 knife blade e-grams?

And, what is this "file"? Is this the 10,000 page thing? Does it include all the stuff in Stef's garage?
 
criticisms of the Kerchers should obviously be civil

lionking said:
Are you saying that there are not posters here who have attacked the Kerchers simply for stating their opinion?
Click to expand...
lionking,

Perhaps I do not understand your question. Would you supply an example? There is a big difference in saying that the Kercher family is presenting false information or weak arguments (which I have seen) and saying bad things about the Kercher family (which I have not seen). There is nothing wrong with doing the former; as long as the Kerchers enter into a public debate, they should expect civil and courteous opposition. The latter is so obviously wrong that it does not need explanation. The only thing that I have seen that falls into a gray zone is the argument that the Kercher family is motivated in part by money. I happen not to agree with those those who may think that money is important to the Kerchers, but I also think that the topic should not be off limits.

I applaud the Kerchers for the idea of a scholarship in Meredith's name.
 
Novelli quotes

LondonJohn said:
But isn't the paper you've referenced essentially intending to paint a picture of what will be possible in the future, when whole-genome sequencing will enable genomes to be built and replicated from miniscule amounts of cell matter (including those with damaged or broken genomes)? It seems to be a theoretical discourse on the potential future applications of the genome sequencing work that their lab is currently doing.

What seems pretty clear is that Novelli's department does not deal with low-template DNA analysis in a forensic context. It just so happens that he and his colleagues realise that their genome work will have potential future applications in this area, which is why they wrote that paper. And clearly one must contextualise the discussion by including the progression to date of low template DNA analysis, in order to set the scene for the potential future progression.
Click to expand...
LondonJohn,

Here are some relevant quotes from page 265:

"Thus in these conditions [less than 100 picograms of DNA] there is a greater probability of artefacts, partial profiles with fewer alleles, contamination, preferential allele amplification, the complete absence of one allele (allele drop-out) in heterozygous loci and the nonspecific generation of extra alleles (allele drop-in) [78,79]."

And

"Very few laboratories perform low template DNA typing properly, because it requires dedicated facilities and great experience, although there are several published methods for the interpretation of such profiles [80-82]."

It is very difficult for me to square these quotes with an endorsement of Ms. Stefanoni's work.
EDT
It would be hypocritical to criticize Conti and Novelli for being Ivory-tower intellectuals and not leveling the same charge against Novelli, IMO.
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
lionking,

I applaud the Kerchers for the idea of a scholarship in Meredith's name.
Click to expand...

I think the scholarship is a great idea, too--beats the heck out of the hate sites that have sprung up "in memory" to Meredith Kercher. But, what's the relevance of adding this to Stephanie Kercher's letter to the judge? Since the point of the letter is to prejudice the defendants in the eyes of the judge, I can only assume that this bit was also added to the letter to make the judge more likely to affirm the conviction of the defendants.
 
lionking said:
How many? I've seen a lot of posts recently that have stated with great certainty that they are innocent.
Click to expand...


Have you? I haven't. I did a quick search back ten pages on the thread - covering the previous 400-odd posts - to see how much it's been asserted "recently". As far as I could see (using a search for the words "innocent" or "innocence"), only RandyN, BillyRyan and Diocletus have made such an assertion. And none of them seems to have done so with your hyperbolic level of "great certainty". Kaosium also mentioned innocence in a specific context, but I believe that he is generally a pro-acquittal arguer with a belief in likely innocence.

By the way, do you also slow down to gawp at car crashes as well (as per your comment a few posts back)?
 
Last edited:
Pretty basic and self evident to most, is it not ?

LondonJohn said:
No.

My question to you was this: why are you passing off the work of other pro-guilt commentators either as objective reportage or as your own work? Care to answer? Your avoidance of this question in your near-incomprehensible "reply" was noteworthy.
Click to expand...

If my sincere attempt to reply to you above is in your opinion derided/denigrated/determined to be ..."near incomprehensible", would not any rational semi literate human being on God's good earth easily understand even more fully now why your request/challenge for more "near comprehensible" stuff was/is definitely denied ??.
 
Last edited:
Diocletus said:
So where are the original November 2007 knife blade e-grams?

And, what is this "file"? Is this the 10,000 page thing? Does it include all the stuff in Stef's garage?
Click to expand...

This I will ask of halides1 - if there is a run sheet of what was tested and when (along with negative controls) do the e-grams have to be printed on that same day this sheet is run or does the software provide that they can be printed out later. So if I tested samples on November 5 can I then print out the e-grams for those samples on December 5 (or does this have to be done at the same time the samples are tested)?

I am not sure it is the 10,000 page thing (I don't even know if there is such a file that large) but it would be documents from the preliminary hearings, SAL records, formal reports, etc.
 
pilot padron said:
Naw:

Just to illustrate that I try to weigh 'arguments from both sides:

1) Yesterday, an innocence newbie here made the dogmatic 'argument': "What people say does not count for anything"
He stood by this incredible unique assertation even after it was pointed out to him that the statement in question was made *while under oath*
How does one now discuss or comment to you after that piece of brilliance ??

2) Also yesterday (sorry you missed all this) several of the similarly 'experienced' arguers opined that the guilter arguments here "were petty and concentrated on molehills".

With all due respect to you but with some 'regard' for that (mostly 'tag team pile on' newbie) ever so unbiased *opinion*, your request for additional comment about *what people said* about the case is understandably denied,
Click to expand...

Wow, just wow.

I would prefer that if you are going to mangle my point of view, and make a bizarre illogical response to it, would you please refer to me as "Dr. Newbie"?
 
pilot padron said:
If my sincere attempt to reply to you above is in your opinion derided/denigrated/determined to be ..."near incomprehensible", would not any rational semi literate human being on God's good earth easily understand even more fully now why your request/challenge was/is denied ??.
Click to expand...

Hard to argue with all that.
 
lionking said:
What gets to me, and the reason I keep reading this thread, in the same way as people slow down to look at road accidents, is that so many here contend that this thread is a bastion of truth and rationality, when it is just as partisan as other forums on their other side. How many here have stated as a fact that AK and RS are innocent? Not rationality, but zealotry.
Click to expand...
It may not be the bastion of truth and rationality, but the application of logic and rationality continually disabuses the ludicrous assertions made by the pro-guilt posters.

For example, just look at the nonsense posted earlier about how the defense needed to prove DNA contamination. Claims like that are often thrown around, but then are never supported once others challenge them.

It's nothing but good old-fashioned mudslinging in an attempt to persuade those who aren't paying attention. I can see how that works on the general population where most people aren't paying attention, but trying to do it where people are paying attention only speaks the irrationality of anyone who thought they could get away with such foolishness.

My personal opinion is that such posters are really only interested in the attention they get, so they are more than willing to keep posting all kinds of nonsense just to keep the spotlight shining on them.
 
pilot padron said:
If my sincere attempt to reply to you above is in your opinion derided/denigrated/determined to be ..."near incomprehensible", would not any rational semi literate human being on God's good earth easily understand even more fully now why your request/challenge for more "near comprehensible" stuff was/is definitely denied ??.
Click to expand...


So you don't want to answer my question? Oh well.

Maybe in future you can just make sure that you offer your own words and opinions in your JREF posts, rather than dishonestly cut-and-pasting those of other pro-guilt commentators without attribution? Deal?
 
christianahannah said:
This I will ask of halides1 - if there is a run sheet of what was tested and when (along with negative controls) do the e-grams have to be printed on that same day this sheet is run or does the software provide that they can be printed out later. So if I tested samples on November 5 can I then print out the e-grams for those samples on December 5 (or does this have to be done at the same time the samples are tested)?

I am not sure it is the 10,000 page thing (I don't even know if there is such a file that large) but it would be documents from the preliminary hearings, SAL records, formal reports, etc.
Click to expand...

Of course they can be printed later if you have the raw data. The issues are: 1) should a hard copy be created at the time of the actual test, and 2) if not, should the computer data be "date stamped" so that you have either an image of the original e-gram or it is possible to determine, on the face of the e-gram, when the source data was generated?

There is just no way that it is proper scientific/legal protocol to preserve, as manipulable raw data only, the results of a test that is going to be used to put someone in jail. There must be a mechanism for "locking down" the test at the time it is conducted.

Further, I think that original e-grams or images thereof exist somewhere and they should have been produced in court.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom