Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #13

[otto]

From reading the concluding remarks - and obviously, these DNA consulting experts have NO stake in whether Amanda lives or dies - I can only conclude that Dr. Stefanoni feels she has something to hide, or something to gain from her refusal: I am glad Judge Hellman ruled as he did:

Concluding remarks
The failure of Dr. Stefanoni’s laboratory to provide the data to the independent forensic scientists is a continuation of her refusal to provide them to the defense. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for her to do so. As Dan Krane noted, “It is a fundamental tenet of science that two reasonable experts should be able to independently arrive at the same conclusions after reviewing the same experimental data.”http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2011/05/independent-dna-experts-and-electronic.html

Blog opinions aren't news or factual.

"The two independent scientific experts from La Sapienza university in Rome told the court Saturday they had received emails and CDs with all the additional data they had requested from police biologist Patrizia Stefanoni and had enough information necessary to make their determination about the reliability of the two controversial pieces of evidence."

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/arti...ays-in-appeal-trial-1390009.php#ixzz1NOqC1ahW

 

[SMK]

I thought the experts said last weekend that they had received everything they needed.

That my have been written prior to resolving this.

 

[SMK]

When a link starts with 'according to Candace Dempsey'... well, that's really all that needs to be read IMO. It always seems to be saying what a supporter of AK wrote about what a supporter of AK said... about what a defense 'expert' for AK has said regarding evidence. Sorry.

I understand Candace is a sticking point for many, yes.

 

[SMK]

Blog opinions aren't news or factual.

"The two independent scientific experts from La Sapienza university in Rome told the court Saturday they had received emails and CDs with all the additional data they had requested from police biologist Patrizia Stefanoni and had enough information necessary to make their determination about the reliability of the two controversial pieces of evidence."

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/arti...ays-in-appeal-trial-1390009.php#ixzz1NOqC1ahW

Yes, it has been resolved. I was only pointing out what the refusal had seemed to many of us to be about. Thank you for this link.

 

[otto]

I understand Candace is a sticking point for many, yes.

She exaggerates and also believes that because it was not possible to retest the DNA, there was never any DNA to test. That's completely illogical.

 

[otto]

Yes, it has been resolved. I was only pointing out what the refusal had seemed to many of us to be about. Thank you for this link.

I don't think there was a refusal, I thought she needed clarification regarding what they wanted.

 

[dgfred]

That my have been written prior to resolving this.

Hey SMK,
You might be interested in a post just recently made today by Fiona at PMF. She really has Dr H pegged IMO. Gives you another point of view in the matter.

 

[SMK]

She exaggerates and also believes that because it was not possible to retest the DNA, there was never any DNA to test. That's completely illogical.

Yes, I believe she misunderstood the meaning of that. So did Time magazine, with its headline, "A Case of Too Little DNA?" - it depends on the perspective. Dr. Hampikian asserts that ORIGINALLY, there was too little. Time and Candace meant in the retesting.....

 

[SMK]

Hey SMK,
You might be interested in a post just recently made today by Fiona at PMF. She really has Dr H pegged IMO. Gives you another point of view in the matter.

I will go look at it, thanks.

 

[SMK]

Hey SMK,
You might be interested in a post just recently made today by Fiona at PMF. She really has Dr H pegged IMO. Gives you another point of view in the matter.

Yep, just read it, and of course this had occurred to me as well. Professionals will do pro bono work in the hopes that if it succeeds, it will raise their publicity and credibility, and if it fails, it will, as Fiona says, "go quietly away". Believe me, that had crossed my mind. We shall see which way it goes. Of course even if it fails, he can still maintain that in his expert opinion, there was no DNA to convict...............

 

[Nova]

An interesting piece on problems with forensics:

DNA’s Dirty Little Secret
A forensic tool renowned for exonerating the innocent may actually be putting them in prison.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1003.bobelian.html

Great article, SMK! I knew there was a problem with the odds given on DNA matches, but I didn't really understand the math. That article explains it quite clearly.

ETA: I saw a "48 Hours" program about a Michigan undergrad who was killed and dumped in a cemetery in the 1970s. They found bodily fluids in a few places and a single drop of blood on her body. Thirty-some years later, a lab matched the fluids to one man and the blood drop to another. The latter was only four-years-old at the time of the crime. The former was convicted of murder, even though he was a happily married accountant with no history of violence; his DNA was in the database because he had been convicted of embezzling from an employer. The prosecution couldn't even place him in the same county as the corpse at the time of the murder; an eyewitness had mentioned a particular car, but the prosecution couldn't prove the defendant ever had a car of that type.

There was literally nothing to convict him but the DNA testing that also fingered a four-year-old, yet lab worker after lab worker took the stand to testify there was no possibility that the results were in error.

DNA is indeed a double-edged sword in the search for truth. But it works quite well in cases such as those of AK and RS, where the DNA can be used for purposes of exclusion.

 

[SMK]

Great article, SMK! I knew there was a problem with the odds given on DNA matches, but I didn't really understand the math. That article explains it quite clearly.

Thanks, Nova - a bit scary, really...

 

[Nova]

Right, and I think Amanda was at that age, and away from home for the first time, where you do call your mother at every little thing. I know I used to. And this was a big thing.

Same here and I'm not a girl.

 

[Nova]

Experts are supposed to be independent and unbiased. That supposed expert is good buddies with Mellas. That would suggest that he is biased, which would present a problem in terms of him being a reliable witness.

This from the guy who wants us to take every statement from ILE or the prosecution at face value! Like none of the state's witnesses form friendships with judges!

The suggestion that an expert with Hampikian's credentials would risk his entire reputation over his friendship with a victim's parent is really quite ridiculous and shouldn't be proffered without some proof.

 

[Nova]

So now a renowned DNA expert is just flat out lying about working with the defense? Any proof for this Otto? SMK and I have offered you proof to the contrary. You have offered no proof for your pet theory. Why would there be any sort of documentation that Hellman has allowed him to cooperate with the defense that any of us here could get our hands on?
When you make wild requests like this it only makes your argument more irrational.

Now wait. Since you and SMK have shown otto yours, to to speak, I'm sure otto will want to provide a link showing that Stefanoni has comparable credentials.

 

[Nova]

I don't think there was a refusal, I thought she needed clarification regarding what they wanted.

 

[Nova]

Thanks, Nova - a bit scary, really...

Isn't it though!

 

[otto]

Now wait. Since you and SMK have shown otto yours, to to speak, I'm sure otto will want to provide a link showing that Stefanoni has comparable credentials.

We know that Dr Stefanoni was accepted as an expert witness qualified to testify about DNA because she did testify. There is absolutely no reason to believe that some other guy, unrelated to the murder investigation and trial, was qualified as an expert.

 

[Nova]

We know that Dr Stefanoni was accepted as an expert witness qualified to testify about DNA because she did testify. There is absolutely no reason to believe that some other guy, unrelated to the murder investigation and trial, was qualified as an expert.

Time to back off this one; you're not doing yourself any favors.

A world-renowned expert isn't "some other guy." And he's only one of a number of experts who have written that Stefanoni's work wasn't up to recognized, international standards.

 

[SMK]

Time to back off this one; you're not doing yourself any favors.

A world-renowned expert isn't "some other guy." And he's only one of a number of experts who have written that Stefanoni's work wasn't up to recognized, international standards.

I agree. Dr. Hampikian has impeccable references, and his Curriculum Vitae is just astounding. He is an international expert. There is no way to get around it. He surpasses Patrizia Stefanoni , and his judgement of her work is not some "Knox groupie" babbling.