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

[Chris_Halkides]

Prince and Andrus

My micro biologist buddy says that in household bleach destruction would take a little time.

\
There is a paper in Biotechniques that looked into the use of bleach to destroy DNA sufficiently to prevent its replication by PCR. I have given the citation many times. IIRC the reaction is pretty rapid, even using diluted household bleach.
Prince, A.M. and L. Andrus. 1992. PCR: How to kill unwanted DNA. BioTechniques 12: 358-360.
EDT
Abstract
Avoidance of contamination in the PCR laboratory requires the use of strict precautions. Among these, chemical decontamination of surfaces and equipment is desirable to prevent inadvertent contamination of samples by the gloved hand and by pipettors. We have investigated the use of sodium hypochloride (Clorox), in comparison to concentrated HCl, for PCR sterilization. Ten percent Clorox was found to eliminate all ethidium bromide-stainable DNA and to prevent PCR amplification of a 600-bp DNA segment within one minute of template treatment. RNA was similarly destroyed. By contrast, even 2.0 N HCl did not destroy DNA detectable by PCR within five minutes. Because of its high efficacy, low cost and relatively low corrosiveness, we recommend the use of ten percent Clorox as a decontaminant for elimination of DNA templates in the PCR laboratory.

 

[Bill Williams]

In the US, the jury does not even need to give reasoning behind a guilty verdict.
How many US trials have verdicts for just as bad a reasoning?

In Canada, it is illegal for a jury or a juror to divulge their reasons for convicting/acquitting. It's only at Judge-only trials that a judge must deliver a "reason for judgement".

So, in Canada it is better for a jury to make a bad decision and not write about it, than it is for a judge to make a bad decision and then HAVE to write about it.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is all wrong. Guede threw the rock partly to confirm no one was home. This is a common procedure according to an experienced member here. No doubt he realised before throwing that the external shutters would allow concealment of the entry once inside. The glass distribution was professionally placed for a staging, which it wasn't.
Nothing taken is because of interruption. How does Nencini know that Rudy doesn't enjoy the challenge of a difficult entry.
The most insulting thing he has done is stating Amanda stole the money, which she didn't need and Rudy did, leaving his fingerprints. Think about that. Luca Cheli could do a brilliant update of his story.

Nothing was taken from Filomena's room because it was dark, and Rudy (after breaking in) simply transited her darkened room, with perhaps a plan to return.

What I don't get is that Nencini says Amanda stole the money, solely on Guede's say-so, when it is Guede's DNA in Meredith's purse!!!!!!!

Next time I commit a capital crime, I certainly hope I get a judge like Nencini!

 

[acbytesla]

Jury deliberations in the US are secret by law. So, we'll never know.

But the likelihood is high I think that jury verdicts are horrendous contraptions of compromises and illogic, though while reaching the same conclusions, may do so in flatly contradictory ways.

All that counts is a unanimous vote, or lack thereof. So don't look to US for any help in safeguarding verdicts.

One only can look at the recent Russ Faria case to see that what goes on in the mind of some US juries must be bizarre.

 

[acbytesla]

In Canada, it is illegal for a jury or a juror to divulge their reasons for convicting/acquitting. It's only at Judge-only trials that a judge must deliver a "reason for judgement".

So, in Canada it is better for a jury to make a bad decision and not write about it, than it is for a judge to make a bad decision and then HAVE to write about it.

I think that is wrong. One of the things that has resulted in new trials in the US is when a juror shows themselves and their jury to be morons and having very unsound judgement.

 

[RandyN]

Originally Posted by RandyN View Post
OH dear ...now we are going to have a "time to dissolve DNA in bleach of different concentrations" argument much like Grinders endless and pointless "digestion data".


It's not my data - contentions are made that can't be backed up.



Who cares about this pointless data? (still waiting for the cite btw) You are suggesting that the remotest most farfetched possibility must lead every logical normal point in this case. And not just one topic but the whole frgging case for you. It just BS! And you are the biggest shoveler of it.

Quote:
OK lets have your cites that the knife washed in household bleach can retain detectable DNA...and how long does it take to actually destroy the DNA? For crists sakes........while you're at it why not re-throw-up the diluted enough bloody footprints that react to luminol and yet test TMB negative?

Why not Randy? It has been shown that it is possible for Luminol to light up from a more diluted mixture than TMB can pick up and that adds another possible connection which means it has less gravity under Italian law. The point wasn't that bleach doesn't destroy DNA but that it takes a little time. The greater point that may have eluded you is that if Amanda knew about bleach and DNA it could be used Italian style as defense. She knew about bleach destroying DNA, they had bleach therefore it probable they used it and destroyed any DNA so the DNA must be from contamination.

Yes certainly Knox at 20 years old understood the dissolution of DNA by bleach. WTF? Sure, make up a tortured illogical (false by the way) defense case as twisted and stupid as the prosecution and therefore the craziness will counteract and cancel each other and therefore it will become a fair balanced trial. What is eluding me is what are we to do with the 1000 points of remote and unlikely BS
you argue about? You spend 99% of your time considering 1% of the unlikely possibilities. And that accomplishes nothing except to keep the flow targeted on points outside the bell curves. The thinned blood argument that lights up luminol is in the same class as your outside the bell curve digestion data and now your "takes some time" to dissolve DNA in bleach argument. You miss the larger point that you are distracting the important huge and obvious mistakes about this case by keeping the conversation distracted by unlikely minutia.


Quote:
Dozens of scientists have already far exceeded necessary efforts that discrediting of Stefanonis DNA work especially as it relates to LTN/LCN DNA requires.


I think you see too much red to be able to read accurately.

I don't even know what that is suppose to mean? Do you think I am angry? Wrong. I just suck at composition. But I am hoping that folks here are smart enough to figure out most of my comments...even when they seem written by an idiot.

Let me restate...The vast majority of scientists who have reviewed the DNA data and the way it was collected, stored, analyzed and interrupted find it to be seriously compromised and wrong. No need to discuss contamination when the scientist didn't have the skill, tools, or procedure to do a reliable peer reviewable test.

That the defense cant get those critical facts across to the Italian courts will not be aided by a paper from a web forum ...especially one that has Big Foot as an important topic.]/quote]

Are you working on a Big Foot article, that's nice.


Sorry I spoke over your head. Do you drink? Are you drinking?


Quote:
I see today that the Kerchers are calling on the USA to follow the law and allow the easy extradition of Miss Knox. Let me guess...they don't get any money until the defendants are back in jail? I think I have seen enough from these people. They cant be this stupid. They dishonor the memory of their daughter by being incredibly simple and vindictive IMHO.


You should get right on it.

Get right on what? Step away from the gin bottle.

 

[Bill Williams]

As mentioned on another service (but by a poster here.....)

Proof of incompetence of the judiciary in Italy with regard to this case.....

Can you count the number of times the destruction of the bra-clasp (because of improper storage) is mentioned in ANY of the motivations reports generated?

Zero.

How does this speak to a system of judges impartially adjudicating a case?

 

[anglolawyer]

Also, she is on the crime scene video from the first day asking urgently about getting a 'presumable semen' stain tested (MMK.com), and that tested stain never surfaced.


This is from a video clip on the MurderofMerdithKercher.com site. Its where the detective are going around to the bottom of the house, Stefanoni is outside talking into her cell phone, and there is a translation offered of what she's saying. She talking about a stain ample and actually says, "presumably semen".

Here's the link and a quote above the clip:

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/failed-sexual-assault-investigation/

From MMK.com

"Missing Sperm-Specific Analyses

The laboratory records also reveal that both of the “sperm fractions,” i.e., the subtraces that were supposed to contain only sperm, tested positive for human DNA. Although the amounts of detected DNA were relatively small (1200 and 700 picograms, respectively), the quantities were well within the parameters that the lab was using to determine whether to further analyze the samples. Indeed, discernable gaps in the lab records suggest that these DNA-positive sperm fractions were in fact subjected to genetic profiling as profile nos. 626 and 628. However, no amplification or electrophoresis records corresponding to profile nos. 626 and 628 were ever disclosed by the prosecution. As shown in the video below, crime scene investigator/lab technician Patrizia Stefanoni can be heard on November 3 telling her assistant of an urgent need to test “presumed seminal fluid”. They knew the perpetrator had ejaculated. Stefanoni would later claim testing the stain would compromise the shoe print evidence."

How do you know she was not referring to the vaginal swab?

 

[JREF2010]

This is all wrong. Guede threw the rock partly to confirm no one was home.

I agree, the rock throwing gets the dogs barking or the lights to come on.

Rudy probably tossed it earlier, when he says he made the first trip there. He'd probably knocked on the doors downstairs knowing they werent home. These are logical common tactics.

Another sad fact is that often the stranger you invite over, like Rudy, could be the worst thing to do. They then become familiar with the cottage, then if caught they even have a lie-abi that they were visiting, or going on a date.

Common burglary's and thefts are by the handyman, and other workers, who come through your door. The very strangers you hire, are often the same who will come back a few months later and rob you. Hopefully you wont be home at least.

Rudy did this crime, and the prosecution needing multiple people need to read other cases like the Anne Presely case. One perp, and a lot of wounds on the victim. More so than this case.

Rape, Burglary, whatever, the motives for Rudy all sound logical.

 

[acbytesla]

I agree, the rock throwing gets the dogs barking or the lights to come on.

Rudy probably tossed it earlier, when he says he made the first trip there. He'd probably knocked on the doors downstairs knowing they werent home. These are logical common tactics.

Another sad fact is that often the stranger you invite over, like Rudy, could be the worst thing to do. They then become familiar with the cottage, then if caught they even have a lie-abi that they were visiting, or going on a date.

Common burglary's and thefts are by the handyman, and other workers, who come through your door. The very strangers you hire, are often the same who will come back a few months later and rob you. Hopefully you wont be home at least.

Rudy did this crime, and the prosecution needing multiple people need to read other cases like the Anne Presely case. One perp, and a lot of wounds on the victim. More so than this case.

Rape, Burglary, whatever, the motives for Rudy all sound logical.

But you can't live like a hermit. The world is an interdependent world, so unless you are a consummate dyi person like me, you have to hire people to help you. And I've made so many mistakes doing it myself, where I'm sure I would have been better off hiring someone.

 

[Desert Fox]

But you can't live like a hermit. The world is an interdependent world, so unless you are a consummate dyi person like me, you have to hire people to help you. And I've made so many mistakes doing it myself, where I'm sure I would have been better off hiring someone.

My biggest problem is that often they lie to you and try to get you to make unnecessary repairs. Tend to be a DYI person myself for that reason whenever possible.

On the post you responded to though, think about the fact that BTK was a security system installer
Believe the Hillside Strangers were security officers as well.

 

[Samson]

But you can't live like a hermit. The world is an interdependent world, so unless you are a consummate dyi person like me, you have to hire people to help you. And I've made so many mistakes doing it myself, where I'm sure I would have been better off hiring someone.

Acbytesla, from time to time you mention a close Seattle police friend. What does he think, is this business of hurling rocks common? In all honesty I have never really heard of it, but in his precinct a question would be would there be a red alert when there was a second instance, or would he do a Massei theorisation, it could not be Rudy because he would be obviously suspected?
I hope you follow the question.

 

[Dan O.]

This is all wrong. Guede threw the rock partly to confirm no one was home. This is a common procedure according to an experienced member here. No doubt he realised before throwing that the external shutters would allow concealment of the entry once inside. The glass distribution was professionally placed for a staging, which it wasn't.
Nothing taken is because of interruption. How does Nencini know that Rudy doesn't enjoy the challenge of a difficult entry.

Filomena's window isn't even a challenge to somebody that is physically fit. However there are thoes that rightfully call the climb impossible.

Once you understand that the rock is used to verify that nobody is home, Filomena's window is the best choice for the breakin. Amanda's window is even smaller and the kitchen window leaves the rock thrower exposed should somebody still be home.

When the cottage is known to be vacated such as when it is under police seal the rock is not necessary and the kitchen window becomes a viable entry point.

 

[Dan O.]

Acbytesla, from time to time you mention a close Seattle police friend. What does he think, is this business of hurling rocks common? In all honesty I have never really heard of it, but in his precinct a question would be would there be a red alert when there was a second instance, or would he do a Massei theorisation, it could not be Rudy because he would be obviously suspected?
I hope you follow the question.

There are sometimes downsides to throwing rocks through windows.

Here is just the first result of a search to see if it was common:

 

[Suffolk Skeptic]

is this Amanda Knox?

Sorry if this has already been posted but I just saw it on the DM website. It purports to show AK walking through a car park at 8.53 on the night of the murder.

I will go and look for more info.

 

[Dan O.]

is this Amanda Knox?

Sorry if this has already been posted but I just saw it on the DM website. It purports to show AK walking through a car park at 8.53 on the night of the murder.

I will go and look for more info.

The car park video has been available and scrutinized for years. Why would the Daily Fail suddenly find Amanda there? I suspect an article written by a guilter.

ETA: I waisted my time clicking on that link. They have a grainy photo of someone possibly carrying a backpack with no recognizable features from which to make a comparison.

The split in comments is typical. Most say there is insufficient detail (you can't even tell if this is a man or a woman) and then there are the standard guilter replies that don't even address the article.

 

[Suffolk Skeptic]

The car park video has been available and scrutinized for years. Why would the Daily Fail suddenly find Amanda there? I suspect an article written by a guilter.

ETA: I waisted my time clicking on that link. They have a grainy photo of someone possibly carrying a backpack with no recognizable features from which to make a comparison.

The split in comments is typical. Most say there is insufficient detail (you can't even tell if this is a man or a woman) and then there are the standard guilter replies that don't even address the article.

It was stolen from the Times. The best thing about the DM is that you don't have to subscribe to online newspapers because they always nick everyone else's articles.

Yeah, it doesn't look like her at all, but it was part of a programme in Italy so I suppose it shows one angle being taken by the Italian media.

 

[andreajo]

In Canada, it is illegal for a jury or a juror to divulge their reasons for convicting/acquitting. It's only at Judge-only trials that a judge must deliver a "reason for judgement".

So, in Canada it is better for a jury to make a bad decision and not write about it, than it is for a judge to make a bad decision and then HAVE to write about it.

I think that is wrong. One of the things that has resulted in new trials in the US is when a juror shows themselves and their jury to be morons and having very unsound judgement.

By 'wrong', do you mean incorrect or problematic in terms of fairness to the defendant? It does protect the privacy of the jurors, as you aren't allowed to discuss what happened in the jury room. Maybe you'd feel free to do what you felt was correct rather than what was publicly popular if you thought the deliberations were truly private.

 

[anglolawyer]

is this Amanda Knox?

Sorry if this has already been posted but I just saw it on the DM website. It purports to show AK walking through a car park at 8.53 on the night of the murder.

I will go and look for more info.

It's not her. You can tell by the fact it doesn't remotely resemble her.

 

[Suffolk Skeptic]

It's not her. You can tell by the fact it doesn't remotely resemble her.

Haha, that made me laugh.