Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #18

[SkewedView]

Sorry all I blew my promise to self to limit my posts. In fact I tossed it right out to space :giggle:

Pooosssttsssss iiinnnn spacceeee.....(que cheesy spaceship model and corny robot)


But to keep this post on topic, I should add that while I find PS's demonstrated poor adherance to scientific ethics deplorable, she has nothing but sympathy from me for the unusually massive, intense pressure that this case has put her under from day one. They had to have known pretty early on that forensics was going to be the make or break part of the case, and since all of the key non-medical forensic procedures were put in her lap...man, I wouldn't want to have been in her shoes for all the tea in China...(and I really, really like tea)

 

[wasnt_me]

otto, sonata, and wasn't me,

I am not sure how long the time between the crime and the typical application of luminol is, but my main point is that the forensics should be completed early on. I was just watching a film of the crime scene being processed, and Meredith's mattress appears to be outside of her bedroom near the kitchen. I did not see anyone who handled her mattress change his or her gloves. With respect to the blob near the big toe, I agree that it should not be considered part of the big toe; it looks like a drop of blood landed nearby.

Meredith's stomach had food matter, but her duodenum was empty. We know that the British women ate pizza roughly at 6:00-6:30, then they watched a two-hour movie. For Meredith's duodenum to be empty at 9:00 is unusual, but for it to be empty around 11:30-11:40 is essentially impossible. LondonJohn, KevinLowe, and Rolfe (who is a veterinary forensic pathologist) have discussed this extensively at JREF. Massei's discussion obscures the point by bringing up the time it takes for complete emptying of the stomach to occur, which is different from the time at which it begins to empty.

Thanks. If I recall correctly, the luminol was done the night of Dec 18th. Anyone let me know if I'm wrong.

 

[wasnt_me]

It is hard for me to believe you can get a measurement from a carpet stain that is reliable to the actual measurement of the feet in question. Soaking, spreading, and dripping are problems. I agree on the big toe question. It looks like Rudy's to me.

Prof Tower said something along the lines of all these gentlemen doing all these fancy calculations but if you just look at Amanda's second toe, is it a match? Rinaldi has this print belonging to Amanda. This is the only decent print in the lot, btw.

Rinaldi measures everything but the second toe. I wonder why he skipped that one?

It looks like RG's foot to me, too. I say that because RG's foot looks like it's got a dip of a valley between the big toe and the second toe. I see that also on the luminol print attributed to AK. RG has a long second toe, which this partial print also has.

 

[wasnt_me]

As may be, but I'm still awaiting an answer to the following question:



Does the prosecution have to disprove Bigfoot...yes or no?

Why are you asking if the prosecution has to disprove something when it's the function of the prosecution to prove things, such as guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

Sorry, I don't know I've ever heard of a prosecution ever being asking to disprove something. For example, I don't think I've ever heard if the prosecution is supposed to disprove innonence. We would ask if they were supposed to prove guilt.

Before answering this question, I'd have to rephrase it so that it would logically follow the prosecution's function. So I'd ask, "is it the prosecution's job to prove big foot exists?"

In this context, the answer is yes, the prosection is supposed to prove that big foot does exist.

 

[wasnt_me]

Maybe this site will help then

"So if a crime happened and LAPD or the FBI was handling it, you would have at the scene, in civilian clothes:

1) a fingerprint expert

2) a photographer

3) a criminalist - The criminalist would gather all evidence for serology (blood people), physical (hairs and fibers, shoe tracks, or anything dealing with shoes), firearms, (unless the firearms expert is present), documents (anything having to do with handwriting analysis), toxicology (any unknown liquids), and narcotics (any narcotics that are found at the scene would need to be tested).

4) If one were needed, a firearms expert would be called to the scene. If a bullet trajectory reconstruction is anticipated, the firearms people like to view the scene"

http://www.mitchpileggi.net/Deep_Background/resources/forensics/crimesce.htm

You cannot answer the question with a definitive number because each crime scene is different. They are not cookie cutter receipes that you can always send just 3 people to each and everyone. For example, when kids shoot up a school campus, the LE would have to send more people to cover more ground than that little cottage required.

But, we know that the amount of people is exhorbitant in Mk's case because the independent experts have reviewed the footage of the evidence collection, and they have deemed it so. Since we are respecting these experts' opinion, we have trust that in MK's case, more than their min. entered the house. If another expert IN THIS CASE gave testimony to the contrary, let's hear that. Otherwise, we just go with what these experts said.

If anyone else wants to have a different opinion, that's fine for them, because everyone can have their own opinions here.

 

[wasnt_me]

Yeah, and Curatolo testified he saw Raffaele and Amanda in the park beginning at 9:29.

I'm not sure why this is being mentioned. Are you saying the 9 to 10pm TOD is acceptable because Curatolo says he saw the pair near the house at 930pm? If so, that still brings into question Nara, the ear-witness, who claimed to hear a scream somewhere around 1130pm.

If Nara and Curatolo are to both be believed, doesn't this take the TOD outside the timeframe? What is the theory of what AK and RS were doing outside the cottage for two hours, because before Curatolo was pinned down on a time frame, he said he saw them out there on and off between that timeframe. Not being sarcastic, but I'm truly asking, where they taking a killing break? Is that the theory? Which of Curatolo's testimonies are to be believed?

I ask because some have claimed that AK and RS can't be believed because of changing stories. Curatolo changed his story to a more percise time and he also switched nights, as did Nara. Why are they anymore reliable than AK, RS, or even RG, who puts the TOD at 930pm, for that matter? Some say RG put the time at 1030pm. I never, ever read that anywhere, but it still begs the question of doesn't he know better than Nara's ears?

 

[wasnt_me]

They didn't continue to do the testing because the results would have been meaningless at best. Profiles extracted from extremely low count samples are notoriously unreliable and open to gross misinterpretation. That there is a divide between scientists who feel that their ethics don't allow for the use of dubious evidence in criminal trials, while others think it's just peachy, shows how badly corrupted some of the Forensic Science community has become.

This isn't just me talking here - all of the major Accrediting Societies of Forensic Scientists have been growing increasingly alarmed by abuses in their various fields, and are seeking ways to counter them. In the meantime, questionable science continues to be used to imprison people unjustly in the name of furthering careers.

I thought the report said there wasn't more material? If I understood that incorrectly, and there was more material, then I have two questions:

Were C&V trained or ceritified on extracting and testing low copy DNA?
I'm thinking they were or else they wouldn't have been called to the case, but question 2, did they have access to a certified lab and equipment to handle low copy DNA?

Wasn't this a problem with the original tests? that PS, who didn't have the certifications for the test performed "her version" of the test in an uncertified lab?

I'm unfamiliar with this assertion that there was more MK DNA for the testing, but if C&V didn't have the proper lab or certifications in time, it would be negligent to do as PS had done.

This is actually why I'd signed on tonight, is to pose that question, because it seemed that talk of PS creating her own testing method in an uncertified lab had fallen to the wayside. Is that still accurate information? She did do that, right?

Does anyone know yet what was stored in MK's freezer?

 

[wasnt_me]

You are so right and I am not buying this either. I do wonder though if it is for sale how much anyone would pay for it? (Sorry my quirky sense of humour made me )

"I got 5 on it!" (You know that's a lyric to a rap song. Might be the title, I don't recall....) :rocker:

5 :twocents:, that is.

Wait, what am I buying?

 

[wasnt_me]

To be honest, after doing some research, I found that while PS used a combination of techniques that was unique, she did seem to be attempting to replicate a variety of (at the time) brand new techniques used in studies and 'bleeding edge' labs of the time, one after another, to try to get the results that she desired. Was that reckless, given the lack of study into the viability of those techniques, especially in combination with each other? Yes. Does it look...suspicious, or at least unprofessional? To enough people to present a potential problem, yes. Was it a sign of criminal behavior? Probably not.

The holes in the paper trail and testimony that directly contradicted her own records that were done...well, that's a whole 'nother can of worms (I'm leaning towards plain old sloppiness due to overwork and too much pressure from above to get the results that her bosses wanted - call me sentimental, but I'm back to doubting malign intent here).

Thanks. with the way you wrote it, it makes me think that her effort to "cover up" was really CYA herself because she'd been reckless. The prosecution is being challenged in a way that it isn't used to. I think she really thought she could slip her methods under the rug and get away with it, given how it's happened before. Maybe she wasn't being malicious, but overzealous to provide the "correct" results after the rush to judgement about AK and RS.

Still pondering the part of the report where the experts said they couldn't follow how she'd gotten no result for B and I believe C on the knife, but she'd labeled one as such and the other as getting a hit on it. Was it brought up in court two samples with the same result were labeled differently?

Using the Qubit Fluorometer™, the following concentration values for the samples were obtained:
•Sample A (sample code ID 47329): 0.08 ng/μl
•Sample B (sample code ID 47330): too low
•Sample C (sample code ID 47331): too low

On the other hand, it is not possible to comprehend the criteria adopted in the assessment of the positive quantification result for sample B and the negative result for sample C, given that the same result, “too low”, was obtained for both samples: that is, a value which must be considered not only below the sensitivity threshold of the Fluorimeter indicated by the manual (DNA concentrations equal to 0.2 ng/μl), but below 0.08 ng/μl, a value which the Fluorimeter detected for sample A.

Nor is it comprehensible, considering the negative results on sample B, what Dr. Stefanoni reported during the GUP questioning (page 178) where she stated that the DNA in sample B, quantified with Real Time PCR (it is recalled that such quantification as confirmed during the hearing was never carried out or, at least, no documentation was provided to support this claim), was “in the order of some hundreds of picograms”, a value which does not appear in any of the documents provided to us (SAL, Fluorimeter report, Real Time report, RTIGF).
http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/...egarding-item-36-knife/quantification-of-dna/

Additionally, I find it hard to believe that after all that testing and blowing up of the "dna" she did, that there could be anything left for CV to test. How do we know that there actually was? Help, cause it's hard for me to deceipher the report's tech language.

 

[Fulcanelli]

To some degree I must state that I am not of the same opinion. In many trials there is often alot of technical information presented.

In the trial of the first instance the jury (trying like SV not to laugh) i mean lay judges did not even require a grade 12 education yet they are expected to understand the difference which involves various science such as pathologists, ballistic experts, DNA experts which in this case included LCN DNA contrary to some of the testimony of Stephanoni. For the common individual this information can be overwhelming to the point that it has been even suggested in threads on this website that professional jurors are considered

There have even been suggestions that criminal judges and lawyers start receiving training in some aspects of DNA etc in many countries

This is the difference in their system They are judges and judges are dynamic, they are investigators. If they don't understand anything, they are able to question the experts, call in more experts, request documentation. They are also guided by the two professional judges who explain the material at hand and all the judges discuss it together.

With an amateur jury the danger of being dazzled or confused with science or law is far greater. And, you'll never know if they've come to wrong decision through misunderstanding since they don't have to write a report to explain their reasoning, in fact they don't have to explain it in any way. Moreover, there's no minimum level of education for an amateur jury.

 

[Fulcanelli]

There is also computer evidence showing that the cartoon was accessed as well this is in RS's appeal.

It appears that Curatolo mistook his evenings and was actually speaking of the evening of the 31st which I am quite sure you have seen the testimony of in the appeal. Not to even get to his drug use

No, the defence haver 'argued' there was a cartoon. 'Arguing' us not the same thing as 'was'. There was no cartoon, as was found by the trial and the appeal is not even discussing that aspect so that one's a no go.

 

[Fulcanelli]

They didn't continue to do the testing because the results would have been meaningless at best. Profiles extracted from extremely low count samples are notoriously unreliable and open to gross misinterpretation. That there is a divide between scientists who feel that their ethics don't allow for the use of dubious evidence in criminal trials, while others think it's just peachy, shows how badly corrupted some of the Forensic Science community has become.

This isn't just me talking here - all of the major Accrediting Societies of Forensic Scientists have been growing increasingly alarmed by abuses in their various fields, and are seeking ways to counter them. In the meantime, questionable science continues to be used to imprison people unjustly in the name of furthering careers.

They wouldn't have been meaningless at all! They had kits and machines capable of extracting a profile from that amount and that would have constituted the 're-test' that the defence and C & V argued should have been done. It's scandalous that they found DNA and didn't test it, doing so was the primary task set to them by judge Hellman. By small amounts. you mean 'LCN' (Low Copy Number). The use of LCN DNA in European trials is standard practice and has been for years. That is no excuse to not to test the DNA.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Yet tested in a regular uncertified DNA lab. Not even tested in an LCN DNA environment using methodolody never written about previously in any scientific literature. :giggle:

There lab was fully equipped to handle and process LCN DNA. She raised the sensitivity of the machine. I don't care if that has not been done before, it doesn't manufacture DNA that isn't there. The DNA is either there or it isn't. It was there.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Could I see a cite please? With normal pathology? Regarding specifically slippage into the duodeum?

I don't need a cite. The fact is, as it says in the cite I provided earlier and in all the other literature, is that stomach content should only be used to form a rough guide to TOD in collaboration with other evidence, never to form an actual TOD.

And in fact, had in this case the prosecution used stomach content to determine TOD and that conformed to their current TOD, you'd be telling me know how unreliable stomach contents are for establishing TOD and it should be rejected.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Is it being suggested that the state employees such as Mignini are not being paid? How would he support his large family?

The prosecutors are on a fixed salary, not a commission for every person they lock up.

 

[Fulcanelli]

On the wrong night.

No, he was very clear about the night and so was the kiosk owner. It was the night of the murder.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Is it then being stated that we should keep the bad guys on the street just so it is brighter at 6 weeks? That would be ridiculous

What you wrote doesn't make sense.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I think particularly with this case, they didn't expect the high level of scrutiny that they're work has fallen under.

Of course they expected scrutiny. They knew their evidence would have to go through the GIP, the GUP, the High Court, a full pre-trial, a full trial and two automatic appeals, under the full scrutiny of judges, lawyers and scientific experts. They have done their job before, so they kind of know.

But if you mean they didn't think their work would come under attack with endless conspiraloon theories, each nuttier then the last, you're probably right that they didn't expect that.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I thought the report said there wasn't more material? If I understood that incorrectly, and there was more material, then I have two questions:

Were C&V trained or ceritified on extracting and testing low copy DNA?
I'm thinking they were or else they wouldn't have been called to the case, but question 2, did they have access to a certified lab and equipment to handle low copy DNA?

Wasn't this a problem with the original tests? that PS, who didn't have the certifications for the test performed "her version" of the test in an uncertified lab?

I'm unfamiliar with this assertion that there was more MK DNA for the testing, but if C&V didn't have the proper lab or certifications in time, it would be negligent to do as PS had done.

This is actually why I'd signed on tonight, is to pose that question, because it seemed that talk of PS creating her own testing method in an uncertified lab had fallen to the wayside. Is that still accurate information? She did do that, right?

Does anyone know yet what was stored in MK's freezer?

There is no such thing as 'LCN certification'.

They didn't test the DNA because they chose not to, despite it being their task. It has long been established, since the pre-trial, that the material levels on the blade of the knife was LCN. Do you think Judge Hellman is going to appoint independent experts to examine LCN DNA that don't have the machinery or capability to examine LCN DNA?

But I'll answer question anyway, yes they had the machinery and the equipment to extract LCN profiles, as was heard in court this week and they did not do it. This was the primary complaint of the prosecution.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You cannot answer the question with a definitive number because each crime scene is different. They are not cookie cutter receipes that you can always send just 3 people to each and everyone. For example, when kids shoot up a school campus, the LE would have to send more people to cover more ground than that little cottage required.

But, we know that the amount of people is exhorbitant in Mk's case because the independent experts have reviewed the footage of the evidence collection, and they have deemed it so. Since we are respecting these experts' opinion, we have trust that in MK's case, more than their min. entered the house. If another expert IN THIS CASE gave testimony to the contrary, let's hear that. Otherwise, we just go with what these experts said.

If anyone else wants to have a different opinion, that's fine for them, because everyone can have their own opinions here.

Since they are DNA experts and not forensic SCI's, they are hardly qualified to pronounce how many SCI's should be in a room. And as was heard in court, departmental standards were followed. As for 'respecting their opinion', I respect it no more then any other expert on the case, nor is there any reason why I should...especially when they're not CSI's and it's not even their field.