Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

If it was a tiny speck, almost indiscernable to human eye, then that may explain why Amanda did not simply wipe it off. Fact is, Amanda's blood was found mixed with Mez'.

No mixed blood found but regardless she took the PP to the bathroom and showed them the drops. She knew they were there and could have wiped them away in seconds but didn't because she had no reason to.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>One perp, C (Rudy) left African hair, one perp left chestnut hair, and one left fair hair.<snip>

See here:

Hairs

(Dr. Stefanoni Genetic Test, SAL report, Dr. Stefanoni slide presentation)
Of the over 480 tests prepared on samples, 93 of these constituted hairs or fibers. 86 were human hairs of varying length, in varying colors. The most significant colors noted were black, blonde, chestnut, light chestnut and red chestnut.
Only 3 hairs yielded DNA; all 3 hairs yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA. All 3 hairs were chestnut colored and over 15 cm long.
35 hairs were chestnut in color; the vast majority of these were found in Ms. Kercher’s room. 2 were also found on a kitchen sponge at Sollecito’s apartment.
7 hairs were black in color. 6 of these were 4 cm long or less, and so likely Guede’s hair. 4 of these were on the duvet and 1 was on the mattress cover, both in Ms. Kercher’s room. 1 was also on a sponge at Sollecito’s apartment.
21 blonde hairs were analyzed, and were likely Knox’s hairs. Most were found at Sollecito’s apartment, 10 on a sponge in the kitchen and 5 on a sweater.
Of the 6 blonde hairs found at the cottage, 2 were on the duvet, 1 was inside the small bathroom sink, 1 was on Ms. Kercher’s purse and 1 was on her mattress cover.
4 light chestnut hairs were found. 3 of these were 9 cm long or less. 1 was found on the kitchen sponge; 1 was found on the bra and one was found on Ms. Kercher’s sweat jacket. Sollecito had light chestnut colored hair.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Evidence_List#Hairs

Thank you, that's very helpful.

Unfortunately, it looks like the lab was not able to determine who left any of the hairs that did not belong to Meredith. It follows that it is not accurate to attribute them to any of the three suspects. Given that five different hair colors were found, it would be equally valid to conclude there were five different perpetrators.

It doesn't look like they did anything more than DNA tests. It would have been more informative if they had tried to match the hairs specifically to each other. From a stringently scientific point of view, since they were able to positively identify only 3 out of 86 hairs, it is possible there were 83 perpetrators.

 

[Grinder]

Vixen,

I noted on the wiki link for hairs just below is written that Curatolo saw the kids from 9:30 until 1,1 but in fact he said until just before midnight. Why do you think the writer changed it to 11?

 

[Dan O.]

Mixed blood

If it was a tiny speck, almost indiscernable to human eye, then that may explain why Amanda did not simply wipe it off. Fact is, Amanda's blood was found mixed with Mez'.

Total ******** argument. Even you could not distinguish the actual blood spot from the reflections on the tap and you were looking at it specifically to find the blood.

There is no getting away from it. Yes, you might try to downplay it by saying, "Amanda lived there".

How do you explain five mixed DNA traces all together found at the murder scene of Amanda and Mez. Not Amanda and Filomena, not Filomena and Mez, not Amanda and Laura, not Laura and Mez, not Laura and Filomena. Of the probability of 16% of finding one such permutation (4 x 4), the probability of finding FIVE of *just Amanda and Mez mixed DNA* is ( 0.16 x 0.16 x 0.16 x 0.16 x 0.16).

IOW Vanishingly remote. Easily within the 0.01 significance level, or three standard deviations, that this occurred purely by chance, "because Amanda lived there".

How do we say "wrong again Vixen".

Theses were not random samples. There was one characteristic that biased the sample selection. Do you know what that was? Also, the living area for the 4 girls was not uniformly distributed over the entire cottage. Can you come up with a formulation that properly considers the distribution? The answer is: no. And the reason is because the pretend doctor didn't collect a proper data set.

 

[Kauffer]

If this is so, how come Amanda herself does not mention it in her book?

Please advise which degree course you claim this was a part?

You could start by reading Amanda's book : "I signed up for Italian 101...University of Washington hosted a summer creative writing programme in Rome, taught in Italian....Step one was to master Italian and immerse myself in the culture for nine months in...Perugia. Then I'd be ready to take on Rome in June." P.7

"And all my credits will transfer to UW" P.9

Here's the programme linking UW to the University for Foreigners

http://studyabroad.washington.edu/index.cfm?FuseAction=Programs.ViewProgram&Program_ID=10462

And here's the creative writing course in Rome:

http://depts.washington.edu/engl/abroad/romesummer14.php

 

[Desert Fox]

Theses were not random samples. There was one characteristic that biased the sample selection. Do you know what that was? Also, the living area for the 4 girls was not uniformly distributed over the entire cottage. Can you come up with a formulation that properly considers the distribution? The answer is: no. And the reason is because the pretend doctor didn't collect a proper data set.

I don't any scientist could get a proper distribution as far as these samples to be meaningful because I think there would always be a large element of randomness in any case.

 

[Kauffer]

Total ******** argument. Even you could not distinguish the actual blood spot from the reflections on the tap and you were looking at it specifically to find the blood.





How do we say "wrong again Vixen".

Theses were not random samples. There was one characteristic that biased the sample selection. Do you know what that was? Also, the living area for the 4 girls was not uniformly distributed over the entire cottage. Can you come up with a formulation that properly considers the distribution? The answer is: no. And the reason is because the pretend doctor didn't collect a proper data set.

In the large bathroom there would likely be mixed traces collectable in the same manner as in the small bathroom of all the flat mates in various combinations.

You are absolutely right about the absence of a proper data set.

 

[Dan O.]

I don't any scientist could get a proper distribution as far as these samples to be meaningful because I think there would always be a large element of randomness in any case.

It's a process that scientists use all the time. If you limit the study area to where you can presume a uniform likelihood of finding a given person's DNA in any sample, for instance the inside of the bidet, and then take multiple equivalent samples from both the blood stained areas and the non blood stained areas, then you can setup the proper equations to determine the likleyhood that the blood or DNA was mixed. Without the negative substrate controls you end up with zero divided by zero and the answer is meaningless.

 

[Kauffer]

If it was a tiny speck, almost indiscernable to human eye, then that may explain why Amanda did not simply wipe it off. Fact is, Amanda's blood was found mixed with Mez'.

There is no getting away from it. Yes, you might try to downplay it by saying, "Amanda lived there".

How do you explain five mixed DNA traces all together found at the murder scene of Amanda and Mez. Not Amanda and Filomena, not Filomena and Mez, not Amanda and Laura, not Laura and Mez, not Laura and Filomena. Of the probability of 16% of finding one such permutation (4 x 4), the probability of finding FIVE of *just Amanda and Mez mixed DNA* is ( 0.16 x 0.16 x 0.16 x 0.16 x 0.16).

IOW Vanishingly remote. Easily within the 0.01 significance level, or three standard deviations, that this occurred purely by chance, "because Amanda lived there".

They were not found at the "murder scene". The murder scene is Kercher's room. But according to you, samples of Amanda found in selected but only selected shared additional areas of the apartment where there were visible traces of blood transferred from Kercher's room are necessarily incriminating.

Mezzetti and Romanelli didn't use the small bathroom. But interestingly, all four of them used the large bathroom. Why don't we have any samples of Mezzetti and Romanelli, do you think?

 

[Grinder]

Mezzetti and Romanelli didn't use the small bathroom. But interestingly, all four of them used the large bathroom. Why don't we have any samples of Mezzetti and Romanelli, do you think?

It's obvious. They cleaned their traces.

 

[Vixen]

They were not found at the "murder scene". The murder scene is Kercher's room. But according to you, samples of Amanda found in selected but only selected shared additional areas of the apartment where there were visible traces of blood transferred from Kercher's room are necessarily incriminating.

Mezzetti and Romanelli didn't use the small bathroom. But interestingly, all four of them used the large bathroom. Why don't we have any samples of Mezzetti and Romanelli, do you think?

There is none of their DNA mixed in Mez' blood from the murder night?

 

[Vixen]

You could start by reading Amanda's book : "I signed up for Italian 101...University of Washington hosted a summer creative writing programme in Rome, taught in Italian....Step one was to master Italian and immerse myself in the culture for nine months in...Perugia. Then I'd be ready to take on Rome in June." P.7

"And all my credits will transfer to UW" P.9

Here's the programme linking UW to the University for Foreigners

http://studyabroad.washington.edu/index.cfm?FuseAction=Programs.ViewProgram&Program_ID=10462

And here's the creative writing course in Rome:

http://depts.washington.edu/engl/abroad/romesummer14.php

I didn't know October and November = summer in Italy.

Looks like ghost writer Linda Kuhlman(_sp?) either deliberately wrote the above to obfuscate, or Amanda misled her to make people believe she was some kind of exchange student with UW.

 

[Grinder]

Hey Vixen, if it is proven that she had homework will you concede she had nothing to do with the murder?

Everyone here admits that Amanda's DNA was found all over the house. Can you provide us with all the DNA of everyone found there? Was Giacomo's DNA found? Were his prints found on Mez's lamp? Whose prints were found on her lamp?

Why did the Wiki writer change Curatolo's testimony?

Do you believe the texting was what the police now knew was correct but not PL's involvement?

Why didn't the police stop the interrogation interview when she said she was there at the time?

 

[Bill Williams]

There is none of their DNA mixed in Mez' blood from the murder night?

It was "mixed" during the evidence collection. The Scientific Police filmed themselves taking samples, particularly from the bathroom. From the wide swipes the took overtly visible from their own video (!) (and from not changing gloves) they mixed a whole host of stuff on the same sample-cloth.

 

[Kauffer]

I didn't know October and November = summer in Italy.

Looks like ghost writer Linda Kuhlman(_sp?) either deliberately wrote the above to obfuscate, or Amanda misled her to make people believe she was some kind of exchange student with UW.

Oh do read more carefully! The summer programme was in Rome not Perugia.
Nobody was obfuscating. She was on an exchange programme in Perugia and it was recognised by UW and she earned credits for it. You've had the evidence.

 

[acbytesla]

If this is so, how come Amanda herself does not mention it in her book?

Please advise which degree course you claim this was a part?

First off, why does she have to mention it Vixen? It wasn't the slightest bit interesting to me until the nutty guilt morons started posting their stupid demonizing comments all over the web. Then I looked it up. Otherwise, who cares?

And by the way, I don't claim it is an accredited course at the University of Washington. I KNOW it is. If you want to learn the truth I suggest you go to the UW website and do your own damn research. It should take you about 15 minutes. UW.edu. Search for "study abroad" and Italy. Even you should be able to find it.

 

[Kauffer]

There is none of their DNA mixed in Mez' blood from the murder night?

If Kercher's blood had been rinsed off in the large bathroom instead and had been sampled mixed with Romanelli and Mezzetti's DNA, would that mean we would have two more murderers? Is it possible, according to you, for a mixture to occur for innocent reasons?

What I'm trying to get at is that we know people leave their DNA in their own bathrooms - you would agree with this right? So, why do you necessarily infer from the mixture and given the collection techniques employed that it is in fact one sample? Why can't it also be reasonably possible that:

1) Amanda's DNA was already in situ and Kercher's blood was deposited on top of it
2) The two samples were not mixed in situ but mixed in the collection?

 

[Desert Fox]

If Kercher's blood had been rinsed off in the large bathroom instead and had been sampled mixed with Romanelli and Mezzetti's DNA, would that mean we would have two more murderers? Is it possible, according to you, for a mixture to occur for innocent reasons?

What I'm trying to get at is that we know people leave their DNA in their own bathrooms - you would agree with this right? So, why do you necessarily infer from the mixture and given the collection techniques employed that it is in fact one sample? Why can't it also be reasonably possible that:

1) Amanda's DNA was already in situ and Kercher's blood was deposited on top of it
2) The two samples were not mixed in situ but mixed in the collection?

If there was Amanda's blood in Meredeth's room, that might have far more meaning because my understanding was that they did not spend much, if any, time in each others rooms.

 

[Kauffer]

If there was Amanda's blood in Meredeth's room, that might have far more meaning because my understanding was that they did not spend much, if any, time in each others rooms.

It seems to me that it is reasonable to expect a similar weight of physical evidence that was left by Guede. I have always thought it to be Amanda's good fortune that nothing of her was found in Kercher's room. If they misconstrued the bathroom DNA, imagine what they would have done with stuff in the bedroom! But it would not have been odd if hers, Romanelli's and Mezzetti's traces had shown up there, had they taken reference samples to allow them all to be isolated of course. But not bloody shoe prints or DNA on the corpse.

 

[Bill Williams]

If there was Amanda's blood in Meredeth's room, that might have far more meaning because my understanding was that they did not spend much, if any, time in each others rooms.

The whole issue can the whittled down to this:

There simply is no evidence of Amanda or Raffaele in Meredith's room. None. If there had been "mixed-blood" found somewhere else in the cottage, that may be a sign that Amanda was once in Meredith's room at a suspicious time, but that would be met by the fact that none of this was found in Meredith's room.

"Mixed blood" is something even comments-sections-flooders like Harry Rag has dropped after years of making this claim.

Judge Massei in his motivations report, even in convicting them in 2009, simply ignores the issues inherent in this. He simply ignores that there is no forensics in the room you'd expect - especially since Massei conjectures that the "biological matter mixed in with Meredith's blood" found in the bathroom was, for him in his imaginings, the result of Amanda cleaning herself vigourously of Meredith's blood in the bathroom - Massei simply ignores that he's made no mention of how that blood got onto Amanda, or why if she'd been covered in blood in Meredith's room, none of that is forensically evident in Meredith's room!

In short, nothing about Massei's imaginings/reconstructions or assertions of "mixed blood" actually make sense.

Further imaginings are required. Guilters, before they vanished, used to claim that Amanda had been hit in the nose and bled from there. Yet no forensics support that. Then they claimed the mark on Amanda's neck was either originally a gaping wound, or at least a source of blood. This requires they ignore the police-evidence collected at the time of Amanda's arrest, that clearly support that mark as inoffensive and more than likely a hickey.

The imaginings, both online and even more stupefying in the judiciary prove that there is no mixed-blood. Or else: why the imaginings?