Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

The irony is that the highlighted part is 98.4% of every religion, yet you claim that it is only until someone mentions religion that the conversation breaks down. But you have just mentioned 98.4% of all religion!!!!!! At least what's important about it!

Heck, even Jesus says that that is the perfect summary of all the law and the prophets. To me this means that, essentially, religion that deifies the law and prophets but omits that 98.4% of what they are about is an empty, violence-prone religion.

It would be better to practice that 98.4% and not get your knickers in a knot about the 1.6% which is, perhaps, where the rest comes from.

If you arrive at the 98.4% via an atheistic route there is a Bible verse for that as well.....

Luke 9:50.

Or put another way, which is more important - memorizing Luke 9:50, or actually practicing that highlighted phrase, and NOT getting into a fight about where it came from?

I'm still a little lost Bill. Sorry. I can find wonderful teaching after wonderful teaching throughout the Bible as well as almost every religion on the planet. . We also can in Plato, Voltaire, Shakespeare, etc. One does not need any God to learn or teach morality. The insistence that we do is a fallacy. My problem is pointing to some horrible teachings from a bronze age civilization and basing morality today on it.

I have struggled with religion my entire life. I have been timid in my response to Christian soldiers hell bent on converting the rest of us or at least cowering the rest of us in the corner and living our lives by their codes. And as annoying as Evangelical Christians and Mormons may be they are nowhere near as frightening as Islamic Warriors armed with scimitars and bombs.

 

[Stacyhs]

You live in Saudi Arabia? My apologies. I thought you came from the land of the Brave and the Free.

I'll accept your apology. Thanks.

You may have had an "excellent scientific education" but apparently your reading comprehension skills could use some improvement. I never claimed, nor implied, that I was speaking only of atheists in any particular country. In fact, I wrote:
"Being an atheist in some parts of the world is tantamount to inviting social/professional ostracism. In extreme cases, it's legally punishable as it's considered heresy. "

What part of that is escaping you?

 

[Stacyhs]

Hope that you, acbytesla, are not my neighbor here in the midwest. Nevermind, I just remembered that you live in the Pacific Northwest, the bastion of atheism . . .

I live in the Pacific NW, too. Love it! We don't mind people who believe differently than we do living next door.

 

[Stacyhs]

Ah yes, Darkness Descending. Co-authored by Graham Johnson. The same guy who wrote Hack: Sex, Drugs, and Scandal from Inside the Tabloid Journal. Here is the summary of the book:



Yes, sounds like this Graham Johnson fellow does top notch original research. I wonder what he found in Amanda Knox's rubbish bin? It is good we have tabloid journalists writing true crime books with made up dialogue to make a quick buck. Need to keep those hacks and charlatans like Peter Gill and Forensic Science International in check. You know, those whores (or scientific researchers... whatever term you prefer) for the defense.

At least you have a talent for identifying reliable vs unreliable sources, Vixen. They may have been wrong about facts the first thousand times, but there is no way they are wrong the thousand and first time. So we should clearly trust the tabloid journalist true crime author over the top forensic geneticist on the planet. (Vixen's scientific mind in action, folks.)

We need a "like" button!

 

[acbytesla]

We need a "like" button!

Amem...

 

[Vixen]

You are ignoring some very salient facts.
The US Constitution, the foundation for all laws in the US strictly forbids any laws that aids or restricts religion. Contrast that to Britain which has a National religion and the Queen is not only the head of state but the leader of that Church.

That America has more than its share of religious buffoons like lying Ted Cruz who would like nothing more to change that is of constant concern. They are like roaches. Damn hard to eradicate. I'd be thrilled if another church was never built again. But I would be against laws restricting them too.

As much as I can't stand the religious right in the US they are not tying up young girls and setting them on fire. But I speak out against all atrocities. It's amazing how many have religious components. One of my favorite sayings on this subject is this. "Good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things but to get a good person to do bad things you need religion."

This really is nonsense; filled with just about every logical fallacy under the sun. First of all HM the Queen does a marvellous job. She is head of the Commonwealth and the Armed forces and the Defender of the Faith. Whilst the Church of England is full of agnostics who only turn up for hatching, matching and dispatching, thank goodness it is there, when in many parts of the world Christians are persecuted horribly.

Really? Are you sure it's religions that "do all the bad things"? Last time I looked, I noticed that almost all of the world's worst tinpot despots - Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler (actually, an occultist) - were atheists and the most oppressive countries in the world ban any form of religion at all (the old USSR; China). Some of the most passionate Christians I have met have been Chinese, Latvian and Malaysian. The more they were persecuted in their home country the more determined they were to follow their beliefs.


The USA might well have freedom of expression, yet it wasn't so long ago that all religions except Christianity were banned in Scandinavia up until as recently as the end of the C19. You could not get citizenship unless you gave up your non-Christian faith.

In the UK, after Henry VIII you were executed for being a Roman Catholic and all the monastries were desecrated.

Another logical fallacy is that one religion is equal to another. This again is not so, with most religions being quasi-religions and little more than cults or philosophies.

 

[Vixen]

Ah yes, Darkness Descending. Co-authored by Graham Johnson. The same guy who wrote Hack: Sex, Drugs, and Scandal from Inside the Tabloid Journal. Here is the summary of the book:



Yes, sounds like this Graham Johnson fellow does top notch original research. I wonder what he found in Amanda Knox's rubbish bin? It is good we have tabloid journalists writing true crime books with made up dialogue to make a quick buck. Need to keep those hacks and charlatans like Peter Gill and Forensic Science International in check. You know, those whores (or scientific researchers... whatever term you prefer) for the defense.

At least you have a talent for identifying reliable vs unreliable sources, Vixen. They may have been wrong about facts the first thousand times, but there is no way they are wrong the thousand and first time. So we should clearly trust the tabloid journalist true crime author over the top forensic geneticist on the planet. (Vixen's scientific mind in action, folks.)

Whilst it might be the case that journalists in America are broadly speaking, people, who according to acbytesla, were useless in college at other subjects, here in the UK, despite the SUN and NEWS OF THE WORLD having a well-deserved reputation as being the gutter press, before Rupert Murdoch came along, even the tabloids were of a very high quality. My parents used to buy two newspapers a day, including THE DAILY MIRROR, which was a decent read once, with some great cartoons, too.

You will find that most of these 'hack' writers adopting 'the voice of the ordinary man in the street' are actually the same old public school boys who dominate all the other professions: law, medicine and accountancy. IOW they are very well-educated. Many work their way up through local papers and the scrabble for places at the 'red top' tabloids is intensely fierce, so in fact, the hacks writing for the DAILY MAIL and the SUN are actually Britain's creme de la creme of journalists. You need to have good research skills.

Darkness Descending has three co-authors, one of them, Colonel Garafano, was the chief forensic scientist in the Carabinieri - the Italian military police force.

 

[andreajo]

LOL. I had an excellent scientific education, thanks very much, a couple of my classmates became successful surgeons and another has a long string of letters after his name and is/was a professor at Rutgers in the US specialising in physics and astrophysics. I used to beat these guys in exams.

Back to the drawing board on the idea people who can clearly see the kids' almost certain guilt lack precise critical thinking skills.

If you had weak critical thinking skills, how would you know?

 

[acbytesla]

This really is nonsense; filled with just about every logical fallacy under the sun. First of all HM the Queen does a marvellous job. She is head of the Commonwealth and the Armed forces and the Defender of the Faith. Whilst the Church of England is full of agnostics who only turn up for hatching, matching and dispatching, thank goodness it is there, when in many parts of the world Christians are persecuted horribly.

Really? Are you sure it's religions that "do all the bad things"? Last time I looked, I noticed that almost all of the world's worst tinpot despots - Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler (actually, an occultist) - were atheists and the most oppressive countries in the world ban any form of religion at all (the old USSR; China). Some of the most passionate Christians I have met have been Chinese, Latvian and Malaysian. The more they were persecuted in their home country the more determined they were to follow their beliefs.


The USA might well have freedom of expression, yet it wasn't so long ago that all religions except Christianity were banned in Scandinavia up until as recently as the end of the C19. You could not get citizenship unless you gave up your non-Christian faith.

In the UK, after Henry VIII you were executed for being a Roman Catholic and all the monastries were desecrated.

Another logical fallacy is that one religion is equal to another. This again is not so, with most religions being quasi-religions and little more than cults or philosophies.

I'm not really sure that you refuted anything I've said. But I'll add a few things. I'd grant you that statement about needing religion to get good people to do bad things is a slight exaggeration, but only slight. Above all it needs authority. And what greater authority could you have? Hitler wasn't an atheist or a Christian he had some Norse Cultis thing going on.

But I'm going to stop on this thread any references to religion. Not because I'm not willing to argue or discuss it. I am, on other threads. If you want to discuss it send me a pm or go to some of the other threads. This might seem unfair, but it is unfair of me on this thread to continue with this.

 

[Stacyhs]

Whilst it might be the case that journalists in America are broadly speaking, people, who according to acbytesla, were useless in college at other subjects, here in the UK, despite the SUN and NEWS OF THE WORLD having a well-deserved reputation as being the gutter press, before Rupert Murdoch came along, even the tabloids were of a very high quality. My parents used to buy two newspapers a day, including THE DAILY MIRROR, which was a decent read once, with some great cartoons, too.

You will find that most of these 'hack' writers adopting 'the voice of the ordinary man in the street' are actually the same old public school boys who dominate all the other professions: law, medicine and accountancy. IOW they are very well-educated. Many work their way up through local papers and the scrabble for places at the 'red top' tabloids is intensely fierce, so in fact, the hacks writing for the DAILY MAIL and the SUN are actually Britain's creme de la creme of journalists. You need to have good research skills.

Darkness Descending has three co-authors, one of them, Colonel Garafano, was the chief forensic scientist in the Carabinieri - the Italian military police force.

Col. Garofano declared that blood is the body fluid with the most DNA:
"...so the sample is undoubtedly blood, which is the body fluid that provides the greatest amount of DNA." (Darkness Descending, pg 331)

Garofano is incorrect. Sperm is the body fluid with the most DNA:

"Five µl of semen contains approximately the same amount of DNA as 50 µl of blood."

http://www.biology.arizona.edu/human_bio/problem_sets/dna_forensics_2/06t.html

"Since crime scene evidentiary materials most
often are shed body fluids, it is useful to estimate
the quantities of DNA expected to be in common
fluids. For example, the normal number of leukocytes
in human peripheral blood generally ranges
between 5 and l0 million cells per ml of blood.
This equates to DNA concentrations that can vary
between 30 y"g/ml and 60 pg/ml of peripheral
blood. The average number of spermatozoa per ml
of semen is 150 x 106/ml (Mann and Lutwak-Mann
1981). Thus the DNA concentration in semen is considerably higher than in blood and averages
about 450 pg/ml. Each ml of semen can contain
about 5 x 106 leukocytes which contribute another
30 pg DNA per ml. Thus semen from an average
male possesses approximately 480 pg DNA per ml.

http://projects.nfstc.org/workshops...on, Purification and Quatification of DNA.pdf


Garofano is also a source of the "mixed blood" nonsense in D.D. It is a fact that it is impossible to determine the source of Amanda's DNA that was mixed with Meredith's blood. Note that ALL the MRs referred to it as Amanda's "genetic material" and NOT as "blood".

Garofano also stated in DD page 374 that "There is a copious blood loss by Amanda." Yet only 3 small drops of Amanda's blood are identified on the faucet. Nowhere else is Amanda's blood identified. If she had "copious blood loss" then more of her blood would have been found with no other DNA found in it, as was found with Meredith's blood. As she had no wounds found on her, exactly where did all this "copious blood loss" originate? Her nose? Yet within hours of the murder, no one mentioned Amanda's nose showing signs of having any trauma such as swelling or bruising.

 

[Planigale]

Col. Garofano declared that blood is the body fluid with the most DNA:
"...so the sample is undoubtedly blood, which is the body fluid that provides the greatest amount of DNA." (Darkness Descending, pg 331)

Garofano is incorrect. Sperm is the body fluid with the most DNA:

"Five µl of semen contains approximately the same amount of DNA as 50 µl of blood."

http://www.biology.arizona.edu/human_bio/problem_sets/dna_forensics_2/06t.html

"Since crime scene evidentiary materials most
often are shed body fluids, it is useful to estimate
the quantities of DNA expected to be in common
fluids. For example, the normal number of leukocytes
in human peripheral blood generally ranges
between 5 and l0 million cells per ml of blood.
This equates to DNA concentrations that can vary
between 30 y"g/ml and 60 pg/ml of peripheral
blood. The average number of spermatozoa per ml
of semen is 150 x 106/ml (Mann and Lutwak-Mann
1981). Thus the DNA concentration in semen is considerably higher than in blood and averages
about 450 pg/ml. Each ml of semen can contain
about 5 x 106 leukocytes which contribute another
30 pg DNA per ml. Thus semen from an average
male possesses approximately 480 pg DNA per ml.

http://projects.nfstc.org/workshops...on, Purification and Quatification of DNA.pdf


Garofano is also a source of the "mixed blood" nonsense in D.D. It is a fact that it is impossible to determine the source of Amanda's DNA that was mixed with Meredith's blood. Note that ALL the MRs referred to it as Amanda's "genetic material" and NOT as "blood".

Garofano also stated in DD page 374 that "There is a copious blood loss by Amanda." Yet only 3 small drops of Amanda's blood are identified on the faucet. Nowhere else is Amanda's blood identified. If she had "copious blood loss" then more of her blood would have been found with no other DNA found in it, as was found with Meredith's blood. As she had no wounds found on her, exactly where did all this "copious blood loss" originate? Her nose? Yet within hours of the murder, no one mentioned Amanda's nose showing signs of having any trauma such as swelling or bruising.

Steffanoni to give her, her due, is quite clear in her testimony. Steffanoni says the source of the DNA cannot be determined she says it may be blood, saliva, sweat or epithelials. So Vixen has to decide who he believes, Steffanoni a current forensic scientist employed to carry out PCR work, and the testimony given in court that other experts accepted; or a retired (sacked) forensic scientist who left the profession before DNA became routine and probably never did any DNA work himself writing in a 'fictionalised' version of the case without access to the laboratory records, giving an opinion that is contrary to forensic specialists with experience of DNA work.

So Vixen.

Who is right Steffanoni or Garafano?

They cannot both be correct. Did Steffanoni lie in court, or was she incompetent? If Steffanoni is competent then Garafano is wrong. Garafanon is the source of the mixed blood meme. If Steffanoni is competent there is no mixed blood.

 

[Vixen]

Steffanoni to give her, her due, is quite clear in her testimony. Steffanoni says the source of the DNA cannot be determined she says it may be blood, saliva, sweat or epithelials. So Vixen has to decide who he believes, Steffanoni a current forensic scientist employed to carry out PCR work, and the testimony given in court that other experts accepted; or a retired (sacked) forensic scientist who left the profession before DNA became routine and probably never did any DNA work himself writing in a 'fictionalised' version of the case without access to the laboratory records, giving an opinion that is contrary to forensic specialists with experience of DNA work.

So Vixen.

Who is right Steffanoni or Garafano?

They cannot both be correct. Did Steffanoni lie in court, or was she incompetent? If Steffanoni is competent then Garafano is wrong. Garafanon is the source of the mixed blood meme. If Steffanoni is competent there is no mixed blood.

If you read Darkness Descending you will realise that Stefanoni had no doubt at all of the presence of Amanda's blood. In court, it mattered not a whit whence the DNA emanated, what was salient was that it was there, in five places, mixed in with Mez' DNA. Given there was no other sign of Amanda or Raff found in the entire cottage, or Raff's car, apart from one fingerprint on a cigarette butt (IIRC), that's pretty damning.

Then there is the objective luminol testing, together with the night photos taken of its after effects. So your argument is the pair soaked their feet in turnip juice and then waded in it along the floor. Even that proves they were there recently.

 

[Vixen]

Col. Garofano declared that blood is the body fluid with the most DNA:
"...so the sample is undoubtedly blood, which is the body fluid that provides the greatest amount of DNA." (Darkness Descending, pg 331)

Garofano is incorrect. Sperm is the body fluid with the most DNA:

"Five µl of semen contains approximately the same amount of DNA as 50 µl of blood."

http://www.biology.arizona.edu/human_bio/problem_sets/dna_forensics_2/06t.html

"Since crime scene evidentiary materials most
often are shed body fluids, it is useful to estimate
the quantities of DNA expected to be in common
fluids. For example, the normal number of leukocytes
in human peripheral blood generally ranges
between 5 and l0 million cells per ml of blood.
This equates to DNA concentrations that can vary
between 30 y"g/ml and 60 pg/ml of peripheral
blood. The average number of spermatozoa per ml
of semen is 150 x 106/ml (Mann and Lutwak-Mann
1981). Thus the DNA concentration in semen is considerably higher than in blood and averages
about 450 pg/ml. Each ml of semen can contain
about 5 x 106 leukocytes which contribute another
30 pg DNA per ml. Thus semen from an average
male possesses approximately 480 pg DNA per ml.

http://projects.nfstc.org/workshops...on, Purification and Quatification of DNA.pdf


Garofano is also a source of the "mixed blood" nonsense in D.D. It is a fact that it is impossible to determine the source of Amanda's DNA that was mixed with Meredith's blood. Note that ALL the MRs referred to it as Amanda's "genetic material" and NOT as "blood".

Garofano also stated in DD page 374 that "There is a copious blood loss by Amanda." Yet only 3 small drops of Amanda's blood are identified on the faucet. Nowhere else is Amanda's blood identified. If she had "copious blood loss" then more of her blood would have been found with no other DNA found in it, as was found with Meredith's blood. As she had no wounds found on her, exactly where did all this "copious blood loss" originate? Her nose? Yet within hours of the murder, no one mentioned Amanda's nose showing signs of having any trauma such as swelling or bruising.

AIUI to get DNA from spermatozoa you have to insert a fine needle in the head of the spermatozoa cell to extract the DNA for testing. Only epithethial (_sp?) cells (surface skin) were found of Rudy's so where would that spermatozoa have come from?

 

[Bill Williams]

If you read Darkness Descending you will realise that Stefanoni had no doubt at all of the presence of Amanda's blood. In court, it mattered not a whit whence the DNA emanated, what was salient was that it was there, in five places, mixed in with Mez' DNA. Given there was no other sign of Amanda or Raff found in the entire cottage, or Raff's car, apart from one fingerprint on a cigarette butt (IIRC), that's pretty damning.

Then there is the objective luminol testing, together with the night photos taken of its after effects. So your argument is the pair soaked their feet in turnip juice and then waded in it along the floor. Even that proves they were there recently.

No one contests they were there "recently". This post is a mass of illogic.

It's amusing that you would prefer Darkness Descending's portrait of Stefanoni over the very words she'd said in court.

This is what Judge Massei reports in his motivations.... it is hilarious you prefer D.D. to what Stefanoni said in court, and what Massei wrote in 2010....

With regards to the mixture of DNA attributable to the biological profiles of Meredith and Amanda Knox, (Stefanoni) affirmed that, certainly, there was blood content, there being a specific test carried out; further information given relative to the very pale pink colour could have led one to think that there might have been the presence of water. She added that in actuality there is water in blood, but in a different concentration; in blood there is less water than in a trace, which contains more water and is less rich in blood. Though, from the point of view of other substances (sweat, etc.), no tests were done. Therefore, it was definitely a mixture of biological substances, but it was not in any case possible to determine whether it was blood plus blood, or blood and saliva, or blood and exfoliation cells.​

 

[LondonJohn]

No one contests they were there "recently". This post is a mass of illogic.

It's amusing that you would prefer Darkness Descending's portrait of Stefanoni over the very words she'd said in court.

This is what Judge Massei reports in his motivations.... it is hilarious you prefer D.D. to what Stefanoni said in court, and what Massei wrote in 2010....

​

"It matters not a whit whence the DNA emanated" hehehehehehehe. If only I was were so erudite, eh?!

And as you (and Massei) are obviously wholly correct to point out, it DOES "matter a whit" "whence" the DNA "emanated". We are talking here about a bathroom sink - a sink where Knox frequently washed her hands and face (thus potentially depositing epithelial cells), spat out toothpaste (thus potentially depositing cheek lining or gum cells via the saliva/toothpaste mix spat out - a mix which is notoriously claggy and persistent in a sink bowl, it ought to be noted), or potentially deposited blood via entirely innocent means (a cut on the gums, or a bleeding ear piercing).

There is no evidence that the sink in the small bathroom was cleaned on a regular basis - it's a fairly high probability that the prosecution would have sought hard to find out when it was last cleaned, so the very fact that this was not raised in court suggests in and of itself that the sink possibly hadn't been cleaned in, say, over a week before the murder. So there is obviously the very real and feasible possibility of Knox's DNA from days previously being co-present with Kercher's blood DNA from the night of the murder (and, for that matter, Kercher's non-blood DNA from the days previous to the murder - from Kercher's own toothbrushing, handwashing etc).

When you add into this mix the egregiously improper and incompetent manner in which the swabs of the sink were taken, the sink evidence is effectively ruled null and void in terms of its probative value against Knox. End of story.


Oh and Garofano - in his boneheaded assertion that blood is the body fluid with the highest concentration of DNA - not only fails to include semen (which has a hugely higher concentration of DNA than blood) but also saliva, which typically also has a higher concentration of DNA than blood owing to the number of cheek-lining and gum cells it contains (though the DNA in saliva can often be of lower quality owing to bacteria and other enzymes present in saliva). So Garofano is wrong on two counts. How did this guy ever get to his position? It certainly can't have been on account of his scientific brilliance Just one more example of the incompetence, patronage and corruption which plagues the broken state of Italy..........

 

[Numbers]

{1.} AIUI to get DNA from spermatozoa you have to insert a fine needle in the head of the spermatozoa cell to extract the DNA for testing. Only epithethial (_sp?) cells (surface skin) were found of Rudy's so where would that spermatozoa have come from?

1. LOL! LOL! LOL!
Vixen, please provide a reference for this information you provide on how DNA is extracted from sperm for forensic DNA profiling.

The results for the sperm-bearing fraction of the rape kit sample was simply not reported by Stefanoni; a different non-fractionated sample (possibly containing presumed epithelial cells as well possibly sperm cells) was tested and reported and specifically the "Y" chromosome results reported matched Guede's DNA "Y" chromosome, excluding Sollecito and Lumumba.

As is well-known, presence of the "Y" chromosome is unique to genetic males in humans.

Here is a summary of what is known about the rape kit testing and reporting, as provided in:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/failed-sexual-assault-investigation/

The Rape Kit Results

The police understood immediately that the case involved a sexual assault. Accordingly, the examining pathologist, Dr. Lalli, performed a rape kit, i.e., a set of procedures used to collect forensic evidence in a sexual assault case. This resulted in the collection of vaginal and rectal swabs from the victim, in the hope that the swabs could be analyzed to reveal the DNA of the attacker.

The vaginal (Exhibit 12) and rectal (Exhibit 13) swabs were among the first items analyzed by the Scientific Police upon delivery to the laboratory in Rome, on or about November 5, 2007. Two traces of presumed seminal fluid were isolated and extracted from each swab, resulting in trace nos. 12a and 12b, and 13a and 13b.

The “a” traces were then subjected to a fractionation procedure, by which sperm and nonsperm DNA were separated. The so-called “nonsperm” fraction (i.e., the part of the trace containing no sperm DNA) were designated as subtrace “a1”, and the so-called “sperm” fractions (i.e., containing the isolated sperm cells) were designated as subtrace “a2”.

The “b” traces were not subjected fractionation, but instead, were subjected to standard STR analysis, and in the case of the vaginal swab, to Y-chromosome STR analysis (curiously, there is no indication that a Y-chromosome STR analysis was performed for the rectal swab).

There is a table provided in the cited link that provides a convenient brief summation.

 

[Numbers]

AIUI to get DNA from spermatozoa you have to insert a fine needle in the head of the spermatozoa cell to extract the DNA for testing. ....

For the benefit of anyone who wishes to know what the actual methods for the separation of sperm cells from other types and how the DNA is extracted, I recommend the following textbook:

Advanced Topics in Forensic DNA Typing - Methodology
John M. Butler*
Academic Press (an imprint of Elsevier)
(C) 2012

Page 64 provides a useful summary, quoted below**.

* Butler is a well-known researcher in DNA forensics and is currently at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the US.

John Butler, Ph.D., is a NIST Fellow and Special Assistant to the Director of Forensic Science.

http://www.cstl.nist.gov/strbase/butler.htm

**Page 64 excerpt

Differential extraction is a modified version of the organic extraction method that separates epithelial cells and sperm cells. Differential extraction was first described in 1985 by Peter Gill and co-workers. This method is commonly used today by the FBI Laboratory and other forensic crime laboratories to isolate the female and male fractions in sexual assault cases that contain a mixture of male and female DNA. By separating the male fraction away from the victim's DNA profile, it is much easier to interpret the perpetrator's DNA profile in a rape case.

The differential extraction procedure involves preferentially breaking open the female epithelial cells with incubation in an SDS/proteinase K mixture. Sperm nuclei are subsequently lysed by treatment with an SDS/proteinase K/dithiothreitol (DTT) mixture. The DTT breaks down the protein disulfide bridges that make up sperm nuclear membranes. Differential extraction works because sperm nuclei are impervious to digestion without DTT. ....

Thus, no needling of individual sperm cells and their nuclei is required to obtain the DNA in the sperm. That would not be a very practical method for forensics.

Thus, the high entertainment value of Vixen's post.

ETA: For clarification, the page 64 I refer to is in an electronic edition of Butler's methodology text. It is in Chapter 2, DNA Extraction Methods, beginning on page 56 (of 865 pages) in my e-book.

 

[Planigale]

For the benefit of anyone who wishes to know what the actual methods for the separation of sperm cells from other types and how the DNA is extracted, I recommend the following textbook:

Advanced Topics in Forensic DNA Typing - Methodology
John M. Butler*
Academic Press (an imprint of Elsevier)
(C) 2012

Page 64 provides a useful summary, quoted below**.

* Butler is a well-known researcher in DNA forensics and is currently at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the US.

John Butler, Ph.D., is a NIST Fellow and Special Assistant to the Director of Forensic Science.

http://www.cstl.nist.gov/strbase/butler.htm

**Page 64 excerpt


Thus, no needling of individual sperm cells and their nuclei is required to obtain the DNA in the sperm. That would not be a very practical method for forensics.

Thus, the high entertainment value of Vixen's post.

ETA: For clarification, the page 64 I refer to is in an electronic edition of Butler's methodology text. It is in Chapter 2, DNA Extraction Methods, beginning on page 56 (of 865 pages) in my e-book.

Vixen is right to an extent. DNA is harder to extract from sperm than other cells, which is the basis of the methods of separating sperm DNA from other sources. Of course all DNA is intracellular and all needs to be extracted for processing by PCR. Needles are never used (excepting certain in vitro fertilisation techniques).

At most all that the quantitation tells us is the amount of DNA. If you swab a large area as Steffanoni did you will collect larger amounts of DNA from epithelials etc.

Vixen fails to answer the question I asked. Did Steffanoni lie in court when she said it was not possible to identify the source of the DNA. Vixen seems to suggest that Steffanoni knew the source of the DNA and chose to tell the authors of Darkness Descending, but not the court. This is one of the areas where the obsession with mixed blood is foolish. Knox had no evidence of having bled. If you want to make an argument a better one is that Knox DNA was from her skin where she had scrubbed blood off her. It fits the evidence better than mixed blood.

Has Vixen watched the videos of the DNA collection (criticised in Darkness Descending), the large areas swabbed mean only that DNA of Knox and Kercher were present somewhere in the area swabbed not that it was co-located. DNA of people who used the facilities.

 

[Vixen]

"It matters not a whit whence the DNA emanated" hehehehehehehe. If only I was were so erudite, eh?!

And as you (and Massei) are obviously wholly correct to point out, it DOES "matter a whit" "whence" the DNA "emanated". We are talking here about a bathroom sink - a sink where Knox frequently washed her hands and face (thus potentially depositing epithelial cells), spat out toothpaste (thus potentially depositing cheek lining or gum cells via the saliva/toothpaste mix spat out - a mix which is notoriously claggy and persistent in a sink bowl, it ought to be noted), or potentially deposited blood via entirely innocent means (a cut on the gums, or a bleeding ear piercing).

There is no evidence that the sink in the small bathroom was cleaned on a regular basis - it's a fairly high probability that the prosecution would have sought hard to find out when it was last cleaned, so the very fact that this was not raised in court suggests in and of itself that the sink possibly hadn't been cleaned in, say, over a week before the murder. So there is obviously the very real and feasible possibility of Knox's DNA from days previously being co-present with Kercher's blood DNA from the night of the murder (and, for that matter, Kercher's non-blood DNA from the days previous to the murder - from Kercher's own toothbrushing, handwashing etc).

When you add into this mix the egregiously improper and incompetent manner in which the swabs of the sink were taken, the sink evidence is effectively ruled null and void in terms of its probative value against Knox. End of story.


Oh and Garofano - in his boneheaded assertion that blood is the body fluid with the highest concentration of DNA - not only fails to include semen (which has a hugely higher concentration of DNA than blood) but also saliva, which typically also has a higher concentration of DNA than blood owing to the number of cheek-lining and gum cells it contains (though the DNA in saliva can often be of lower quality owing to bacteria and other enzymes present in saliva). So Garofano is wrong on two counts. How did this guy ever get to his position? It certainly can't have been on account of his scientific brilliance Just one more example of the incompetence, patronage and corruption which plagues the broken state of Italy..........

Amanda confirmed to Mignini the bathroom had been cleaned the day before. It is obvious in a multiple occupancy, you'd need to clean it over regularly with something that kills off bacteria (bleach or disinfectant).

You misunderstand what Garafano and Stefanoni were saying. Whilst spermatozoa and saliva might iu for iu contain higher concentrations of DNA than blood as a whole, including the red blood cells when we look at the rfu peaks of the DNA analysis of the bathroom DNA, we realise that Amanda's DNA presence mixed in with Mez blood is higher than that of Mez'. The only part of blood that is nucleated are the white blood cells, which are indeed amongst the richest sources of DNA. When we look at the amount of Amanda's DNA found, she would have had to have been spitting huge volumes (and even then, what was her DNA mixed with Mez' spilled blood on Filomena's floor doing there?).

it really matters not a jot whether the DNA came from her pierced ear, spat out toothpaste and saliva or some kind of hermaphroditic spermatozoa (that would be medical history), fact is, we can reject spermatozoa as the source of Amanda's DNA (hullo?) and common sense tells us the voluminous level of Amanda's DNA (>than Mez' who bled profusely) almost certainly came from her white blood cells, and even if it didn't, it establishes scientifically, at least, that Amanda was present in person during the time Mez was dying, or within about half an hour. Yet she failed to report the accident at all.

We note there is no sign of Rudy in the small bathroom nor in the room you claim he burgled, using super rock climbing expertise.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen is right to an extent. DNA is harder to extract from sperm than other cells, which is the basis of the methods of separating sperm DNA from other sources. Of course all DNA is intracellular and all needs to be extracted for processing by PCR. Needles are never used (excepting certain in vitro fertilisation techniques).

At most all that the quantitation tells us is the amount of DNA. If you swab a large area as Steffanoni did you will collect larger amounts of DNA from epithelials etc.

Vixen fails to answer the question I asked. Did Steffanoni lie in court when she said it was not possible to identify the source of the DNA. Vixen seems to suggest that Steffanoni knew the source of the DNA and chose to tell the authors of Darkness Descending, but not the court. This is one of the areas where the obsession with mixed blood is foolish. Knox had no evidence of having bled. If you want to make an argument a better one is that Knox DNA was from her skin where she had scrubbed blood off her. It fits the evidence better than mixed blood.

Has Vixen watched the videos of the DNA collection (criticised in Darkness Descending), the large areas swabbed mean only that DNA of Knox and Kercher were present somewhere in the area swabbed not that it was co-located. DNA of people who used the facilities.

Maybe not by needle, but it has to be separated from its shell/membrane. I do not believe Stefanoni lied in court. The questions are supplied by the barristers and judges and a witness is prohibited from just going off on their own outbursts (apart from defendants who are allowed to make spontaneus statements without cross-examination). If the attorneys failed to ask the questions you wanted them to ask, you need to take it up with them, not the witness.

As Stefanoni points out, she is a humanistic Italian and had no reason or motive to falsely frame two youngsters on the edge of independent adult lives.

If anyone's a shameless liar, look to the ex-defendants. Their lies are myriad.