Page 26 of 81 FirstFirst ... 16 24 25 26 27 28 36 76 ... LastLast
Results 376 to 390 of 1207
  1. #376
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    N.C., USA
    Posts
    3,220
    Of course you know the doctors are not a part of LE or the prosecution... right?
    The Seeker / Sports Freak /


  2. #377
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,021
    Quote Originally Posted by dgfred View Post
    Check YOUR/their facts:
    1-No blood needs to be on the blade, especially if cleaned. That is irrevelant.
    dna of AK and Meredith would be quite enough.
    2-Do you have a link backing up your 'no dna' statement, especially the 'when it arrived in the lab' part??? I seriously doubt it.
    3-How does it not match the wounds? A big knife can make small wounds and a small knife can make large wounds.
    4-Who has said it was supposed to 'match' the bed print? Why would it if other knives were involved?
    5-What other knives were in his drawer? Why would a control test be needed for that one knife.

    Maybe thinking RS pricked Meredith with some of the other knives too perhaps???
    DNA has to be something (blood, saliva, skin cells, etc.), fred. If the kitchen knife were indeed the murder weapon, it would have been dripping with blood. It would be a virtual miracle if someone were able to clean all traces of blood off the knife, yet leave behind 5 cells of some other DNA from MK. Everyday contamination (AK unknowingly brought a bit of MK's DNA from home), lab contamination or faulty testing are more likely explanations for the results ILE got.

    Testing other knives from the same drawer would have told us if those knives, too, contained tiny amounts of MK's DNA. If they did, we would have to blame contamination (either at the lab or elsewhere), since all the knives can't be the murder weapon.

    The testing of the knife best typifies the way this case was handled. ILE ignored accepted testing procedures, worked until they got the result they wanted and not one minute more. As a result, all of their claims--but particularly their forensics--should be suspect.


  3. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Nova For This Useful Post:


  4. #378
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,021
    Quote Originally Posted by dgfred View Post
    Of course you know the doctors are not a part of LE or the prosecution... right?
    I assume the doctor wasn't a passing vagabond, but worked for the prison. So, yes, he is a representative of ILE.


  5. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Nova For This Useful Post:


  6. #379
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,679
    Quote Originally Posted by dgfred View Post
    Check YOUR/their facts:
    1-No blood needs to be on the blade, especially if cleaned. That is irrevelant.
    dna of AK and Meredith would be quite enough.
    2-Do you have a link backing up your 'no dna' statement, especially the 'when it arrived in the lab' part??? I seriously doubt it.
    3-How does it not match the wounds? A big knife can make small wounds and a small knife can make large wounds.
    4-Who has said it was supposed to 'match' the bed print? Why would it if other knives were involved?
    5-What other knives were in his drawer? Why would a control test be needed for that one knife.

    Maybe thinking RS pricked Meredith with some of the other knives too perhaps???
    Yes everyone should!!!!

    The Italian labs are not even Certified


    1-No blood needs to be on the blade, especially if cleaned. That is irrevelant.

    Not irrelevant. Impossible!!! If that knife had been cleaned then there would of been no DNA period


    “If someone had a knife covered in blood and they tried to clean it very well, they would remove their ability to detect the DNA before they removed the ability to detect the chemical traces of blood.” Therefore, the lack of blood makes it impossible for there to be DNA on the knife, so the DNA that was observed has to arise from contamination."

    http://injusticeinperugia.org/TheKnife.html

    One can argue that LCN profiling should ordinarily be accepted by a court. However, Dr. Stefanoni used an inferior version of LCN DNA profiling, one that has never appeared in the scientific literature

    http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.c...1_archive.html

    Please note the Open Letter signed by DNA experts. There is no way 9 DNA experts would attached their name to this document if it was not accurate as they would not want to lose the respect of the DNA experts within the scientific field let alone their jobs

    http://www.friendsofamanda.org/files...d11.19.09b.pdf


    2-Do you have a link backing up your 'no dna' statement, especially the 'when it arrived in the lab' part??? I seriously doubt it.

    Lets see. The knife was chosen based on investigative intuition. It was placed in an envelope, take to the ILE station, removed, handled, placed back into another envelope which was then put into a box and taken to the lab. Where should i start......

    There was so little DNA present that the instrument indicated no DNA until Stefanoni overrode the machine limits. This amplification increase was not achieved by the PCR technique. Once the sample has been chopped up and subjected to electrophoresis, it is too late for that. The increase was performed by other methods, such as lowering the threshold level, or simply changing the display scale until the minute fluorescence peaks were visible


    http://www.sciencespheres.com/2009/1...tch-where.html

    3-How does it not match the wounds? A big knife can make small wounds and a small knife can make large wounds.

    So the experts in this field, including the ME for the prosecution that stated in testimony that this same knife could not of made all these wounds were wrong?

    Think about it. The PROSECUTION ME stated that this knife could NOT make all these wounds....

    4-Who has said it was supposed to 'match' the bed print? Why would it if other knives were involved?

    It is physically impossible for the "supposed" murder weapon to of made those marks as testified by the all the experts


    5-What other knives were in his drawer? Why would a control test be needed for that one knife.

    Laboratories performing LCN rely heavily on what are called “negative controls

    The Law Society of Scotland's publication at: http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magaz...2/1003857.aspx

    “In forensic science the fact to be established is that the DNA profile originated from the material recovered from a crime scene or a suspect, not the investigator, the laboratory, packaging, or analytical instruments. A “negative control” is set up by simply processing a “blank” sample that has no DNA

    http://www.sciencespheres.com/2009/1...tch-where.html


    So we see that in roughly nine distinct ways, Stefanoni's improv LCN DNA profiling was even worse than unproven and inadmissible LCN DNA profiling tests

    1. The DNA wasn't amplified enough; the very weak fluorescence was simply blown up.
    2. The test site was not remote from other DNA tests to avoid contamination.
    3. Specialized LCN-quality entry procedures to avoid contamination were not used.
    4. A positive pressure environment was not maintained to exclude contamination.
    5. Special LCN sterilization procedures to destroy errant DNA were not used.
    6. The entire sample was consumed in a single test; no comparison of tests was possible.
    7. No sample was retained for future reference. The test can never be reproduced.
    8. No negative control tests were run to check for contamination.
    9. No control tests to check for field contamination were performed


    http://www.sciencespheres.com/2009/1...tch-where.html

    I only have started here......
    Last edited by Allusonz; 03-03-2011 at 06:51 PM. Reason: add link


  7. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Allusonz For This Useful Post:


  8. #380
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,679
    Quote Originally Posted by dgfred View Post
    Of course you know the doctors are not a part of LE or the prosecution... right?
    I guess that must mean the ME as well? I always thought the ME testified for the prosecution!!!


  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Allusonz For This Useful Post:


  10. #381
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,679
    The smaller knife that made the imprint on the bed is the correct size blade that would be compatible with all of Meredith's wounds. The wrong size knife was taken from the drawer by the police officer. This caused problems for the prosecution when it was proven that the knife was too big. Instead of correctly eliminating the big knife, the prosecution simply changed their theory and stated that two knives must have been used. Meredith Kercher was murdered with one knife. The knife that was used to murder Meredith was never found.

    http://injusticeinperugia.org/TheKnife.html


  11. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Allusonz For This Useful Post:


  12. #382
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,679
    There are very few labs certified to do LCN DNA testing

    In this particular case we are dealing with extremely LOW NUMBERS OF PICOGRAMS

    As much as the DNA technologies created controversy and challenges when they were introduced, LCN DNA has produced its very own set of problems. Not least among these is the limited number of providers of this technology. In many cases they are working with old, degraded, or sub-microscopic volumes of material

    http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magaz...2/1003857.aspx
    Last edited by Allusonz; 03-03-2011 at 07:19 PM.


  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Allusonz For This Useful Post:


  14. #383
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,679
    HUGE misconception. So many think that LCN DNA should be identical as in regular DNA. In fact the opposite is true

    the very small amounts of DNA and the vagaries of the method mean that it is frequently the case that replicate samples, that should produce the same results, don’t


    http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magaz...2/1003857.aspx


  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Allusonz For This Useful Post:


  16. #384
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,679
    This is only ONE item!!!! No wonder the prosecution will not turn over the .fsa files!!!! When I look at the way ILE treated that crime scene, piled items covered in DNA, then selectively took items to test is beyond what you would even see in the movies. That is INJUSTICE!!!

    And MK's family received a small tattered box of her items in the mail. THAT IS IT!!!! As a parent I would of been HORRIFIED!!!


  17. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Allusonz For This Useful Post:


  18. #385
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,078
    dgfred,

    The link is contained right in my posting. Just click on the word HERE from that post (it's bolded and underlined) and it will take you right to the page in which I pulled the knife info. None of the info is mine, btw.

    The analysis was done by Mark C. Waterbury, Ph.D


  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SleuthyGal For This Useful Post:


  20. #386
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,078
    Yes Alluson,

    The Italian police FUBAR'd the crime scene. We can see in pictures that they moved items that had blood on them, causing new blood stains to appear, they didn't carefully process the crime scene and certainly not in a timely fashion.

    Seeing pictures from a month apart where items had been moved in MK's room (moved by the investigators/crime scene folk) drives that home. That scene was full of blood and DNA and they treated it like it was a flea market, picking through the stuff and not taking care to make sure nothing got moved, blood wasn't transferred, etc.

    It's shameful. This scene could easily be used showing what not to do in future forensic student classrooms. The mistakes made make it look like the ILE had no in-depth training.


  21. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to SleuthyGal For This Useful Post:


  22. #387
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,078
    I'd like to see the look on Barry Scheck or Peter Neufield's faces upon being shown pictures of the crime scene and the DNA testing reports on the knife. Can you imagine the look of horror these 2 DNA experts would have? :-O


  23. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to SleuthyGal For This Useful Post:


  24. #388
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,635
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    DNA has to be something (blood, saliva, skin cells, etc.), fred. If the kitchen knife were indeed the murder weapon, it would have been dripping with blood. It would be a virtual miracle if someone were able to clean all traces of blood off the knife, yet leave behind 5 cells of some other DNA from MK. Everyday contamination (AK unknowingly brought a bit of MK's DNA from home), lab contamination or faulty testing are more likely explanations for the results ILE got.

    Testing other knives from the same drawer would have told us if those knives, too, contained tiny amounts of MK's DNA. If they did, we would have to blame contamination (either at the lab or elsewhere), since all the knives can't be the murder weapon.

    The testing of the knife best typifies the way this case was handled. ILE ignored accepted testing procedures, worked until they got the result they wanted and not one minute more. As a result, all of their claims--but particularly their forensics--should be suspect.
    You mean there would have been more than 5 cells left if it was the murder weapon, or that it is amazing that any cells were left after a scrubbing with bleach? I really don't know either way. I do find it funny to see all kinds of 'DNA experts' popping up on the internet to discuss the subject. No matter from which angle. The double DNA knife is one of those things where I step back and let the experts decide. I simply have no idea what is 'normal', what should or should not have been done.

    I only know the situation is this:
    - A police guy thought the shining knife on top in the drawer suspicious and collected it for testing.
    - The DNA expert found 7 traces of DNA and collected just enough (I see 5 cells mentioned) DNA from it to perform one test and one test only.
    - As a reason for why there still would be any DNA left, she said that under strong light and under a specific angle she saw very tiny scratches.
    - She cranked up the DNA machine several times according to some note that says 'too low, too low' several times.
    - Finally, she came up with a profile that matches the DNA profile of Meredith.

    Now what does this mean for the appeal?
    - Will the way it was collected be contested? Probably, but it is what it is and I don't see any reason why that would be a reason to throw it out.
    -Will the DNA profile be contested? Not sure. I think it is either Meredith's DNA profile or it isn't. I would be very surprised if it suddenly turned out to be somebody elses.
    - Will the single test, and the technical issues of cranking up the machine be contested? Absolutely, and here is a chance that the knife could be thrown out. But I have no idea what is allowed or not. How many cells is needed or what is legally accepted. Can you crank up the machine 10 or 20 times? I really don't know.

    So in summary..I let you guys..eehh, the court decide


  25. The Following User Says Thank You to sherlockh For This Useful Post:


  26. #389
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,078
    What should happen (in the appeals) and what will happen are likely two different things.

    No one should be thrown into jail for life if the evidence (esp DNA) has not been collected, processed, tested, and interpreted correctly. If DNA is the foundation of one's criminal case (and it is in this case), then it must stand up to scrutiny and every step of the procedures must be examined to ensure accurate results.

    On top of that you have the one of the DNA lab specialists lie on the stand (and get caught). How can anyone feel good about results after errors were noted in the very procedures?


  27. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to SleuthyGal For This Useful Post:


  28. #390
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,021
    Quote Originally Posted by sherlockh View Post
    You mean there would have been more than 5 cells left if it was the murder weapon, or that it is amazing that any cells were left after a scrubbing with bleach? I really don't know either way. I do find it funny to see all kinds of 'DNA experts' popping up on the internet to discuss the subject. No matter from which angle. The double DNA knife is one of those things where I step back and let the experts decide. I simply have no idea what is 'normal', what should or should not have been done.

    I only know the situation is this:
    - A police guy thought the shining knife on top in the drawer suspicious and collected it for testing.
    - The DNA expert found 7 traces of DNA and collected just enough (I see 5 cells mentioned) DNA from it to perform one test and one test only.
    - As a reason for why there still would be any DNA left, she said that under strong light and under a specific angle she saw very tiny scratches.
    - She cranked up the DNA machine several times according to some note that says 'too low, too low' several times.
    - Finally, she came up with a profile that matches the DNA profile of Meredith.

    Now what does this mean for the appeal?
    - Will the way it was collected be contested? Probably, but it is what it is and I don't see any reason why that would be a reason to throw it out.
    -Will the DNA profile be contested? Not sure. I think it is either Meredith's DNA profile or it isn't. I would be very surprised if it suddenly turned out to be somebody elses.
    - Will the single test, and the technical issues of cranking up the machine be contested? Absolutely, and here is a chance that the knife could be thrown out. But I have no idea what is allowed or not. How many cells is needed or what is legally accepted. Can you crank up the machine 10 or 20 times? I really don't know.

    So in summary..I let you guys..eehh, the court decide
    Fair questions all, sherlocklh. I meant there should either be (a) no DNA left on the knife due to cleaning; or (b) if some DNA were left behind, probability says it should be blood DNA if that knife was the murder weapon.

    The odds that all traces of blood were cleaned away, yet 5 or so cells of MK's non-blood DNA were conveniently left behind, must be astronomical! The supposed notches on the blade may indicate cleaning, but they don't explain magic cleaning that removes blood while leaving DNA from other sources.

    And this doesn't even begin to address irregularities with the testing and reaching results from inadequate testing.

    (And I'll repeat: since nobody believes AK left RS' apartment that night planning to kill MK (even the Court ruled out premeditation), it makes no sense that AK would choose an unwieldy, foot-long steak knife as a fashion accessory. Particularly not when her boyfriend had a collection of retractable knives that would have done as well.)


  29. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Nova For This Useful Post:


Page 26 of 81 FirstFirst ... 16 24 25 26 27 28 36 76 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 749
    Last Post: 02-24-2011, 10:59 PM
  2. Replies: 317
    Last Post: 02-11-2011, 06:45 PM
  3. Replies: 826
    Last Post: 02-07-2011, 01:46 PM
  4. Replies: 681
    Last Post: 12-25-2010, 02:11 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •