Thursday, December 17, 2009
I must say, Ann is pretty persuasive on this one...
Who knew she did true crime?
If you remember when Ann hit the national scene via the tube, it was on Bill Mahr's (sp?) Politically Incorrect show. Which by the way, was a very good show and Bill had to play the counter to every argument (always realizing that he bent left). In those shows Ann would always come forward with her homework done on any and all topics and would make similarily compelling arguments. She left the snarky Liberal comments out and stuck to the facts. In my opinion, I wish she would have stayed on that course because no matter what she says, 50% of the country wont listen to it. By the way, if you read her column every week there are few columns better researched than hers. Easily two-thirds to three-quarters of her column is fairly objective data, the remaining parts are Ann slamming home the points of data with a sledge hammer.
In case anyone wants to get their heads out of their asses:
The only real "evidence" against Amanda was based on a super-sensitive form of DNA testing called Low Count Number (LCN). This technique isn't admissible in most US courts, and most countries (e.g. UK) that do allow it require special procedures, because the super sensitive nature of the technology vastly increases the risk of contamination. The Italian lab techs handled Kercher's DNA in the same lab where they "found" her DNA on the blade of Sollecito's kitchen knife; big suprise, since with LCN you could find traces of any DNA that has ever been present in the space where you're doing the testing. The Italians didn't take the extra precautions that labs in other countries that allow LCN (e.g. UK) require, and so they got exactly the kind of bogus results these precautions are designed to prevent.
That's it. The only "evidence" against Amanda was pseudoscientific crap. Oh, I'm sorry, she also bought some underwear.