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

[Chris_Halkides]

Even Comodi knows better than this

I jus point out Stefanoni is not a "technician", she is an expert in molecular biology, has a PhD and she is a high officer in charge of forensic investigations.

This is false, and one of the things that shows it to be false is the quote from Comodi that I provided at most a few days ago. If you think you can prove otherwise, let's see it.

 

[Machiavelli]

Apparently it is quite difficult to understand. To choose a specific knife because it looks to you like a murder weapon is analogous to choosing a redheaded person as a suspect because you think redheads are more likely to commit murder.

When Finzi chose the knife, it was not known whether Meredith had been killed with a box cutter or a straight razor. In Finzi's eyes, the kitchen knife looked like the most likely weapon. He had no other reason to choose it, as any evidence it might contain was invisible to the naked eye. That is bias, the opposite of random.

(...)

There are no other pointed knives in the apartment. You can see that clearly from the pictures. Unless you think a bread knife would be compatible with a stabbing, you can see there are no other possible knives left there as potential weapons. It's more than just "visible" to the naked eye, it's obvious, to any unbiased observer.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Novelli or Nencini?

(Nencini claims to have analyzed the negative controls, btw).

I think you mean Novelli. That is not what is quoted in the CSC's motivations. Did Novelli examine the raw data, meaning the fluoresence data found in the electronic data files?

 

[Machiavelli]

Do you claim to be more of an expert then Chris Halkides?

I claim to be less biased.
Including the reading about scientific topics.

 

[Bill Williams]

There are no other pointed knives in the apartment. You can see that clearly from the pictures. Unless you think a bread knife would be compatible with a stabbing, you can see there are no other possible knives left there as potential weapons. It's more than just "visible" to the naked eye, it's obvious, to any unbiased observer.

Who carried that knife from the apartment, and why did they carry it. I do not expect you to answer this.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the CSC's no-comment on the disappearing bra clasp

Have their findings disappeared with time? How would the results of independent court appointed experts become invalid due to age?

The only thing that disappeared was the integrity of the bra clasp itself. The fact that the CSC did not mention this destruction of evidence is a silence that shouts.

 

[Diocletus]

(Nencini claims to have analyzed the negative controls, btw).

We know he said that. But we found contaminated controls. Therefore, Novelli lied about the results of his search or he lied about doing the search. In either event, he's a liar.

And those contaminated controls were just from the quantifications. Imagine how many contaminated controls we could find if stefanoni hadn't suppressed hundreds of amplification results, including all of her negative controls.

She even contaminated the electrophoresis run that generated 36b, and reran it before she found the kercher result.

We're not surprised, though. This is how dishonest people work.

 

[JREF2010]

Stefanoni had the best system for this. She took no precautions against contamination and then cranked her machines up high enough to detect DNA sloughed off the lips of an ant. Sure enough, she maximized her certainty of obtaining a result. It's the same result that we see in her contaminated controls.

This is not a honest, upstanding person, but a phony lying human.
People laugh at CT's but Stephony is real and what she did is real and thats lie about her data and she was caught on the stand.

Still the truth stands in the face of all the retarded Italian mistakes and pro-guilt sloths, who spread lies and ill-will, that there is no blood found on the knife and it wasn't cleaned and this tells the truth, that this item is not the murder weapon.

I hope the ISC can put aside their ego to allow the truth to prevail, and maybe even test the semen stain too.

 

[Machiavelli]

I think you mean Novelli. That is not what is quoted in the CSC's motivations. Did Novelli examine the raw data, meaning the fluoresence data found in the electronic data files?

I mean Nencini.
Novelli also did examine the negative controls (don't know about raw data).
Nencini writes the negative controls were in fact included in the trial files (as Stefanoni declared), and found that the background noise was particularly low.
Novelli also examined the results of the 103 items tested over the 6-day period and found no contamination. I gues you would hope to find something looking like "contamination" by magnifying the noise in the raw data of those 103 items as much as possible. But I doubt that procedure would be a "scientific" method.

 

[JREF2010]

There seem to be other knives that could have been used in Raf's drawer

[qimg]http://aklwei.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/knife.jpg[/qimg]

no other sharp knives..huh. lol

This falls right in line with the rest of this case, the question is clear, but the answer isn't. All of the ruined hardrives, the horrifcally poor forensic work, the Stephony losing her papers and documents and can't find them...etc.et..

Is the defense dealing with:

A) incompetence
B) liars
C) a mixture of A&B

 

[Mary_H]

There are no other pointed knives in the apartment. You can see that clearly from the pictures. Unless you think a bread knife would be compatible with a stabbing, you can see there are no other possible knives left there as potential weapons. It's more than just "visible" to the naked eye, it's obvious, to any unbiased observer.

You are not reading our arguments. The idea of random selection is foreign to you. You think that subjective human judgment is a built-in right when it comes to making decisions. Science says otherwise.

The bread knife example is a good one. A bread knife would indeed be compatible with a stabbing, as those things can be super-sharp. But like you, Finzi believes they are not compatible, so he didn't choose it.

On the other hand, I agree that nobody would take a bread knife to a sex murder -- er, housemate argument -- any more than they would take a butcher knife.

 

[Machiavelli]

Who carried that knife from the apartment, and why did they carry it. I do not expect you to answer this.

You are correct: there is no reason why I should "answer" that. So be consistent, don't ask it.

 

[Diocletus]

I mean Nencini.
Novelli also did examine the negative controls (don't know about raw data).
Nencini writes the negative controls were in fact included in the trial files (as Stefanoni declared), and found that the background noise was particularly low.
Novelli also examined the results of the 103 items tested over the 6-day period and found no contamination. I gues you would hope to find something looking like "contamination" by magnifying the noise in the raw data of those 103 items as much as possible. But I doubt that procedure would be a "scientific" method.

LOL. Nencini wouldn't know a negative control if it bit him in the ass. He doesn't even know how long the knife was.

There are many, many more than 103 amplifications.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I mean Nencini.
Novelli also did examine the negative controls (don't know about raw data).
Nencini writes the negative controls were in fact included in the trial files (as Stefanoni declared), and found that the background noise was particularly low.
Novelli also examined the results of the 103 items tested over the 6-day period and found no contamination. I gues you would hope to find something looking like "contamination" by magnifying the noise in the raw data of those 103 items as much as possible. But I doubt that procedure would be a "scientific" method.

Did Novelli examine the raw data, yes or no?

With respect to what you wrote about the negative controls, someone is lying, and lying big-time. I would just like to know who it is.

 

[Machiavelli]

You are not reading our arguments. The idea of random selection is foreign to you. You think that subjective human judgment is a built-in right when it comes to making decisions. Science says otherwise.

The bread knife example is a good one. A bread knife would indeed be compatible with a stabbing, as those things can be super-sharp. But like you, Finzi believes they are not compatible, so he didn't choose it.

On the other hand, I agree that nobody would take a bread knife to a sex murder -- er, housemate argument -- any more than they would take a butcher knife.

I would never take a bread knife if I possess a butcher knife, in the event I decide to stab someone.
You know, a normal - unbiased - person wouldn't call the picking of pointed knives instead of a bread knife "biased". It's something obvious, whatever you think about, that a berad knife is not remotely as compatible as a butcher's knife or a pocket knife when if the purpose is to stab. I do think the use of intelligence at an elementary level includes these obvious assessements (how frequently people are stabbed with a bread knife? that is squared - doesn't even have a pointed shape - nor a cutting edge?), normal people don't call elementary logic "bias", unless they have extremely biased agandas.

 

[Diocletus]

I would never take a bread knife if I possess a butcher knife, in the event I decide to stab someone.
You know, a normal - unbiased - person wouldn't call the picking of pointed knives instead of a bread knife "biased". It's something obvious, whatever you think about, that a berad knife is not remotely as compatible as a butcher's knife or a pocket knife when if the purpose is to stab. I do think the use of intelligence at an elementary level includes these obvious assessements (how frequently people are stabbed with a bread knife? that is squared - doesn't even have a pointed shape - nor a cutting edge?), normal people don't call elementary logic "bias", unless they have extremely biased agandas.

At least a bread knife might actually fit all of the wounds. Come to think of it, maybe he should have grabbed a bread knife, too, since they are still missing one of the murder weapons.

 

[Bill Williams]

I would never take a bread knife if I possess a butcher knife, in the event I decide to stab someone.You know, a normal - unbiased - person wouldn't call the picking of pointed knives instead of a bread knife "biased". It's something obvious, whatever you think about, that a berad knife is not remotely as compatible as a butcher's knife or a pocket knife when if the purpose is to stab. I do think the use of intelligence at an elementary level includes these obvious assessements (how frequently people are stabbed with a bread knife? that is squared - doesn't even have a pointed shape - nor a cutting edge?), normal people don't call elementary logic "bias", unless they have extremely biased agandas.

Why do you give a partial answer to my question to Mary_H?

I repeat... who took that knife from the apartment, and what was their intent in taking it?

 

[Diocletus]

Did Novelli examine the raw data, yes or no?

With respect to what you wrote about the negative controls, someone is lying, and lying big-time. I would just like to know who it is.

Lol. Only in Italy could it be a mystery for 4 years whether the lab tech has turned over the negative controls.

 

[GWCarver]

I would never take a bread knife if I possess a butcher knife, in the event I decide to stab someone.
You know, a normal - unbiased - person wouldn't call the picking of pointed knives instead of a bread knife "biased". It's something obvious, whatever you think about, that a berad knife is not remotely as compatible as a butcher's knife or a pocket knife when if the purpose is to stab. I do think the use of intelligence at an elementary level includes these obvious assessements (how frequently people are stabbed with a bread knife? that is squared - doesn't even have a pointed shape - nor a cutting edge?), normal people don't call elementary logic "bias", unless they have extremely biased agandas.

What I've been hearing for years is the cop grabbed the knife out of the drawer because it looked "freshly bleached", not because it had a point.

 

[Machiavelli]

LOL. Nencini wouldn't know a negative control if it bit him in the ass. He doesn't even know how long the knife was.

There are many, many more than 103 amplifications.

I said 103 items, those tested over the 6-day period.
The amplification performed on those items over this period are the only ones with a potential use for detecting contamination, because if there is any contamination on the 36/B trace, then it must be detected on those amplification over the 6-days period. Nowhere else matters. If there is no contamination from Meredith on the tests performed within the 6-day period, there is no contamination at all.