Continuation Part Eight: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[proudfootz]

Cells exposed to water will lyse under osmotic stress. Detergents will aid the process by dissolving the phospholipids that make up the plasma membrane. The cellular contents will then spill out and be washed away. I suggest you assuage your ignorance of basic cellular biology by reading a textbook.

So... the scientists who found Knox's DNA on the knife planted that, too?

Please assuage my ignorance by telling me how many conspirators are in on this.

 

[Planigale]

Not sure what kind of 'proof' you're looking for.

Knife found in possession of suspect consistent with fatal wound on victim.

Knife has DNA of victim on blade.

Knife has DNA from suspect on handle.

No innocent explanation for how this came to be, except lame and false 'cooking accident' alibi floated by suspect.

It's just another example of a couple of idiots thinking they can outsmart detectives and get away with murder.

Nothing special about this.

This is JREF, what it is about is exposing bad and bogus science. Lawyers are not scientists, the court can rule that the sun goes round the earth, that does not make it true.

Much of the 'science' presented by the scientific police is bogus. GIGO.

Take one example: "Knife has DNA from suspect on handle.

No innocent explanation for how this came to be"

May I suggest that using the knife to slice bread is an innocent explanation for how Knox DNA was on the handle of the bread knife!

What is scientifically impossible is that the knife was so thoroughly cleaned that the haemoglobin (remember 30 billion times more haemoglobin than DNA), was entirely removed, but the DNA on the handle remains! There is no way the DNA of Knox on the handle means anything other than she used it to slice bread. Whatever a judge with no knowledge of DNA may think; it means nowt.

Without following the correct methodology we really do not know what the output of the machine means. We have a profile that matches Kercher. We do not know that this matches the DNA in the sample run through the machine. At these very low levels of DNA you can get random output. As has been repeatedly said the sample should have been split into at least two and the profile can only be accepted if replicated. That only indicates that the sample in the machine contains Kercher DNA. Not where it came from. LCN is so sensitive you have to take special precautions to prevent contamination, people build special laboratories to do this. You have to do laboratory environment sampling as well as the routine assay controls to detect contamination. This is what the experts say and do. This is what the standards say.

Knife found in possession of subject: innocent explanation - it was his bread knife in the kitchen draw.

Knife consistent with fatal wound; there were no identifying features of this wound that meant it could not have been done with the same knife as all the other wounds; wounds that could not have been inflicted with Sollecito's bread knife.

Judges are just as susceptible to a smooth talking 'expert' talking nonsense as anyone else. That the 'expert' works for the scientific police does not make nonsense correct.

 

[proudfootz]

Your labeling a very reasonable substrate control experiment is proof that you are ignorant of basic forensic theory.

I forget - what label did I use again?

Professor Thompson's writings about negative controls are general and some predate this case, but they are applicable to this or any other case involving DNA forensics. Only a fool would stopper his or her ears. Your comments about him are feckless and snarky. If you want to have a serious discussion about DNA forensics, you are going about it 180° wrong.

I'm happy to not be snarky, so long as it is guaranteed posters won't be snarky to me.

Agreed?

 

[carbonjam72]

Finally, an admission of mobbiness!

^^ Classic psychological projection? ^^

Where should people who have a non-CT point of view go to discuss the case?

But I do enjoy the petulant accusations about those who thoughtfully concur with the evidence presented in this case as a 'mob of criminally minded unreasoning abnormal people who delight in the misery of innocents'.
I can just imagine the spittle flying as these turgid posts are typed!

May I quote you elsewhere on the internet? You've summed it up beautifully.

 

[Desert Fox]

So... the scientists who found Knox's DNA on the knife planted that, too?

Please assuage my ignorance by telling me how many conspirators are in on this.

You are not being very bright here

It was not a scientist who found the DNA but a lab tech. . . .Big Difference
She was performing a test she was not trained to perform with equipment not designed for that role.
What is so hard for you to grasp that?

BTW: Did you note that Chris Halkides works in a related field.
He is himself not an amateur in this issue.

 

[anglolawyer]

I'm perfectly willing to look at it, and also critiques of it.

Indeed, I think subsequent courts have had a little to say about that whole affair.

ETA - as for sticking around, it all depends on how much irrational abuse I have an appetite for.

Right. So you haven't read C-V. Thanks for clearing that up.

Abuse is not allowed here. If anyone abuses you, complain. You won't stick around because you won't be able to handle the heat.

 

[proudfootz]

This is JREF, what it is about is exposing bad and bogus science. Lawyers are not scientists, the court can rule that the sun goes round the earth, that does not make it true.

True. But we are talking about a case of law. Typically experts witnesses are called and their testimony is weighed and tested, as appears happened here.

Much of the 'science' presented by the scientific police is bogus. GIGO IMHO.

Fixed that for you.

Take one example: "Knife has DNA from suspect on handle.

No innocent explanation for how this came to be"

May I suggest that using the knife to slice bread is an innocent explanation for how Knox DNA was on the handle of the bread knife!

Which is good as far as it goes. But there was part of the argument that somehow got left out in your editing.

What is scientifically impossible is that the knife was so thoroughly cleaned that the haemoglobin (remember 30 billion times more haemoglobin than DNA), was entirely removed, but the DNA on the handle remains!

Which is an interesting claim. Was the haemoglogin entirely removed, or sufficient to be too low to be detected by ordinary tests? Isn't there a threshold?

There is no way the DNA of Knox on the handle means anything other than she used it to slice bread. Whatever a judge with no knowledge of DNA may think; it means nowt.

Fortunately, the judges had the expert testimony of forensic scientists to consider.

Without following the correct methodology we really do not know what the output of the machine means. We have a profile that matches Kercher. We do not know that this matches the DNA in the sample run through the machine. At these very low levels of DNA you can get random output.

So this allegedly 'random output' just happens to coincidentally be a match for the victim's DNA profile. What are the odds for that?

As has been repeatedly said the sample should have been split into at least two and the profile can only be accepted if replicated. That only indicates that the sample in the machine contains Kercher DNA. Not where it came from.

Apparently it came from the knife - that's what they were testing.

LCN is so sensitive you have to take special precautions to prevent contamination, people build special laboratories to do this. You have to do laboratory environment sampling as well as the routine assay controls to detect contamination. This is what the experts say and do. This is what the standards say.

That may be so. However, it would seem even more 'scientifically impossible' for random noise to match a particular person's DNA than for some cells containing DNA to survive an incomplete washing.

As for the allegations of 'contamination' it would seem unlikely that this and only this piece of evidence would be contaminated in this way. We'd expect to get all kinds of random results (like Guede's DNA on the blade and Kercher's DNA on the handle, or Knox's DNA on the blade Sollecito's tactical knife, etc).

Knife found in possession of subject: innocent explanation - it was his bread knife in the kitchen draw.

No one AFAICT is arguing that having a knife in one's home is by itself damning evidence.

Knife consistent with fatal wound; there were no identifying features of this wound that meant it could not have been done with the same knife as all the other wounds; wounds that could not have been inflicted with Sollecito's bread knife.

No one AFAICT is arguing the smaller wounds were made with the large kitchen knife.

Judges are just as susceptible to a smooth talking 'expert' talking nonsense as anyone else. That the 'expert' works for the scientific police does not make nonsense correct.

Yes, there could be 'smooth talking experts' talking nonsense on any side of the case. Which is part of the virtue of an adversarial system.

 

[proudfootz]

Right. So you haven't read C-V. Thanks for clearing that up.

I don't read a lot of Creationist literature, either.

Abuse is not allowed here. If anyone abuses you, complain.

It's not?

You won't stick around because you won't be able to handle the heat.

There may be a lot of heat, but what I'm looking for is a little light.

 

[Planigale]

True. But we are talking about a case of law. Typically experts witnesses are called and their testimony is weighed and tested, as appears happened here.



Fixed that for you.



Which is good as far as it goes. But there was part of the argument that somehow got left out in your editing.



Which is an interesting claim. Was the haemoglogin entirely removed, or sufficient to be too low to be detected by ordinary tests? Isn't there a threshold?



Fortunately, the judges had the expert testimony of forensic scientists to consider.



So this allegedly 'random output' just happens to coincidentally be a match for the victim's DNA profile. What are the odds for that?



Apparently it came from the knife - that's what they were testing.



That may be so. However, it would seem even more 'scientifically impossible' for random noise to match a particular person's DNA than for some cells containing DNA to survive an incomplete washing.

As for the allegations of 'contamination' it would seem unlikely that this and only this piece of evidence would be contaminated in this way. We'd expect to get all kinds of random results (like Guede's DNA on the blade and Kercher's DNA on the handle, or Knox's DNA on the blade Sollecito's tactical knife, etc).



No one AFAICT is arguing that having a knife in one's home is by itself damning evidence.



No one AFAICT is arguing the smaller wounds were made with the large kitchen knife.



Yes, there could be 'smooth talking experts' talking nonsense on any side of the case. Which is part of the virtue of an adversarial system.

Yes but the Italian system is NOT an adversarial system! It is an inquisitorial system.

 

[proudfootz]

May I quote you elsewhere on the internet? You've summed it up beautifully.

So long as it's quoted in context.

 

[bri1]

[QUOTE\]



So this allegedly 'random output' just happens to coincidentally be a match for the victim's DNA profile. What are the odds for that?



Apparently it came from the knife - that's what they were testing.



That may be so. However, it would seem even more 'scientifically impossible' for random noise to match a particular person's DNA than for some cells containing DNA to survive an incomplete washing.
.[/QUOTE]


Posters have attempted to explain to you lab contamination and how it occurs. I would suggest you do some more research and make an honest attempt to understand it before posting on the issue. This is JREF, after all.

 

[MDDVS]

Proudfootz, it's getting embarassing reading your posts. You're doing nothing but displaying your ignorance for all to see.

 

[Planigale]

True. But we are talking about a case of law. Typically experts witnesses are called and their testimony is weighed and tested, as appears happened here.



Fixed that for you.



Which is good as far as it goes. But there was part of the argument that somehow got left out in your editing.



Which is an interesting claim. Was the haemoglogin entirely removed, or sufficient to be too low to be detected by ordinary tests? Isn't there a threshold?



Fortunately, the judges had the expert testimony of forensic scientists to consider.



So this allegedly 'random output' just happens to coincidentally be a match for the victim's DNA profile. What are the odds for that?



Apparently it came from the knife - that's what they were testing.



That may be so. However, it would seem even more 'scientifically impossible' for random noise to match a particular person's DNA than for some cells containing DNA to survive an incomplete washing.

As for the allegations of 'contamination' it would seem unlikely that this and only this piece of evidence would be contaminated in this way. We'd expect to get all kinds of random results (like Guede's DNA on the blade and Kercher's DNA on the handle, or Knox's DNA on the blade Sollecito's tactical knife, etc).



No one AFAICT is arguing that having a knife in one's home is by itself damning evidence.



No one AFAICT is arguing the smaller wounds were made with the large kitchen knife.



Yes, there could be 'smooth talking experts' talking nonsense on any side of the case. Which is part of the virtue of an adversarial system.

Re sensitivity of testing for blood vs. DNA. Do you believe that the luminol positive marks found in the flat were blood? Most of them tested negative for DNA.

The sensitivity of tests for haemoglobin is about the same as the sensitivity of tests for DNA.

 

[proudfootz]

Yes but the Italian system is NOT an adversarial system! It is an inquisitorial system.

"Some countries, such as Italy, use a blend of adversarial and inquisitorial elements in their court system...

...prosecutors in the inquisitorial system do not have a personal incentive to win convictions for political gain, which can motivate prosecutors in an adversarial system. Most scholars agree that the two systems generally reach the same results by different means."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Inquisitorial+System

I merely mean to point out that both sides are represented by counsel.

 

[proudfootz]

Re DNA on knife... as Nadeau explains in her recent article:

"An earlier court heard testimony that a tiny smidgeon of DNA on the groove of the blade was Kercher’s, but the first appellate court agreed with witnesses who testified that the sample was too small to be considered a perfect match. The second appellate court not only considered the knife to be the murder weapon, it also ruled that Knox “plunged the knife into the left side of Kercher’s neck, causing the fatal wound.”

The Knoxians (hey, if I'm a "guilter"... can I call them Knoxians?) seem to forget that the Hellman court and C&V have been scathingly criticized as being corrupt and incompetent. Hellman's ruling was ANULLED dears.

People are still touting C&V like it's 2011.

 

[Diocletus]

People are still touting C&V like it's 2011.

Personally, I just watch the video.

 

[Grinder]

The most recent change in Italian law came with the introduction of a new code of criminal procedure in 1988. This not only swept away the fascist-influenced criminal procedure code of 1930, it also changed the entire approach of Italian criminal procedure law. Hitherto Italian criminal procedure has been modeled on the French Code d’instruction criminelle based on an inquisitorial system followed in most of the countries of Europe, both western and eastern. The new code, in a revolutionary stroke, adopts the adversarial approach found in the Anglo-American system.

 

[MDDVS]

Personally, I just watch the video.

Exactly. I mean, people inside the court LOLed when they played that video.

 

[lane99]

Another beautiful blonde...

Oh great, a quote from John Douglass.

Now I'll pull up one from Alan Dershowitz....

Or you could pull the quotes from John Douglas where he's want to portray Karla Homolka (who participated in raping and killing schoolgirls- including her own sister) as a victim and downplays her responsibility for the shockingly evil crimes she committed.

.
.

 

[MDDVS]

Or you could pull the quotes from John Douglas where he's want to portray Karla Homolka (who participated in raping and killing schoolgirls- including her own sister) as a victim and downplays her responsibility for the shockingly evil crimes she committed.

.
.

Like "Poor Rudy"?