Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Mr Fied]

"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..........

The way the swabs were collected from the crime scene video should have been enough to have the results thrown out as evidence.

They swabbed over such a large area I'm surprised the next door neighbours DNA wasn't mixed in as well.

 

[Vixen]

The way the swabs were collected from the crime scene video should have been enough to have the results thrown out as evidence.

They swabbed over such a large area I'm surprised the next door neighbours DNA wasn't mixed in as well.

Mr Fied have you ever considered putting your name down on the expert witnesses register?

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Mr Fied have you ever considered putting your name down on the expert witnesses register?

He doesn't need to. The Italian Supreme Court and all the independent DNA experts came to the same conclusion and Amanda and Raffaele are now free and exonerated, remember?

Have you ever considered putting your name down on the expert witnesses register to correct this travesty? Don't forget your copies of the tabloids and true crime novels so you have your primary sources to use as citations.

 

[andreajo]

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.

In this discussion, the phrase 'common sense tells us' often appears before an assertion that is not supported by scientific opinion and literature. It's kind of like giving yourself permission to believe whatever you want regardless of what the science actually shows.

It doesn't matter what Stefanoni said in court; common sense tells us that Amanda's DNA came from blood!

It doesn't matter what the DNA textbooks say! Common sense tells us that Amanda's DNA came from blood!

It doesn't matter what Dr. Gill or any other DNA scientist tells us! Common sense tells us that Amanda's DNA came from blood!

And anyway even if it didn't, common sense tells us that she was shedding DNA in that very sink within half an hour of MK's death!

 

[Numbers]

1. Vixen is right to an extent. 2. 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 3. 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.

Planigale, your language in these statements is somewhat vague.

1. Vixen's post was inaccurate in terms of the methodology of differentiation of sperm from other cells and the DNA extraction from the sperm. And that is the whole point. Vixen is implying that somehow there is excessive effort to extract sperm DNA in current forensic practice. It would be highly inefficient in a forensic technique to rely on a micropipette to penetrate the cell and nuclear membranes and extract the sperm's DNA. That method will (sometimes) work, and may be used in certain areas, such as assisted reproduction.

2. DNA extraction from sperm requires an extra biochemical technology step, which had been incorporated into commercially available forensic DNA profiling kits available to Stefanoni in 2007. Peter Gill and co-workers did the research (published in 1985) and commercial organizations did the developments of off-the-shelf kits to make this method simple and reliable for forensic technicians such as Stefanoni to perform.

Such kits continue to be the current standard for forensic analysis of sperm DNA.

3. The DNA must be extracted to be replicated in the PCR process or otherwise studied or tested for forensic purposes.

 

[Vixen]

In this discussion, the phrase 'common sense tells us' often appears before an assertion that is not supported by scientific opinion and literature. It's kind of like giving yourself permission to believe whatever you want regardless of what the science actually shows.

It doesn't matter what Stefanoni said in court; common sense tells us that Amanda's DNA came from blood!

It doesn't matter what the DNA textbooks say! Common sense tells us that Amanda's DNA came from blood!

It doesn't matter what Dr. Gill or any other DNA scientist tells us! Common sense tells us that Amanda's DNA came from blood!

And anyway even if it didn't, common sense tells us that she was shedding DNA in that very sink within half an hour of MK's death!

AndreaJo I said:

quote: 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

It is common sense Amanda's DNA doesn't come from spermatozoa. I won't patronise you by explaining why.

 

[Stacyhs]

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?

That was not the point, as you well know. I never said anything about where the DNA came from. You touted Garofano's credentials to bolster the truth of his claim that blood is the body fluid with the most DNA. I provided evidence that semen, not blood, contains the most DNA.

 

[Stacyhs]

AndreaJo I said:

quote: 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

It is common sense Amanda's DNA doesn't come from spermatozoa. I won't patronise you by explaining why.

Red herring. No one has claimed Amanda's DNA came from spermatozoa. You insist that, because Amanda's DNA in a sample was greater than Meredith's, then the source had to have been blood. Yet no expert testified in court that this was so, including Stefanoni. She clearly testified it is not possible to determine the source. Yet, you insist on claiming that Stefanoni believed this was so because Garofano claimed she said it in DD. That, and "common sense".

 

[Bill Williams]

Red herring. No one has claimed Amanda's DNA came from spermatozoa. You insist that, because Amanda's DNA in a sample was greater than Meredith's, then the source had to have been blood. Yet no expert testified in court that this was so, including Stefanoni. She clearly testified it is not possible to determine the source. Yet, you insist on claiming that Stefanoni believed this was so because Garofano claimed she said it in DD. That, and "common sense".

It's a question of sources. Vixen claims that Darkness Descending is a better source than both Stefanoni and Judge Massei's court.

Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

 

[TruthCalls]

Red herring. No one has claimed Amanda's DNA came from spermatozoa. You insist that, because Amanda's DNA in a sample was greater than Meredith's, then the source had to have been blood. Yet no expert testified in court that this was so, including Stefanoni. She clearly testified it is not possible to determine the source. Yet, you insist on claiming that Stefanoni believed this was so because Garofano claimed she said it in DD. That, and "common sense".

Common Sense tells us that a trace highlighted by Luminol but which tests negative for blood using TMB and negative for Meredith's DNA is indeed NOT Meredith's blood.

Common Sense tells us that a shallow knife wound into soft tissue that has bruising consistent with the hilt of a knife striking the skin was not made by a knife with a blade over twice as long as the wound was deep.

Common Sense tells us that a knife blade that tests negative for blood (TMB), negative for human biological material (human antibody, aka; species test) and negative for DNA ("too low" twice on the Qubit Fluorometer) does not have any DNA resulting from a stabbing.

Common Sense tells us two people, dating for only a week and completely infatuated with each other, and upon realizing that both of their obligations for the evening no longer existed, would prefer to remain at home and be intimate than to head out and collaborate with someone they don't even know to assault and murder a friend and roommate.

Common Sense tells us that three people can not commit a bloody murder and then have only one of the three leave behind forensic evidence of their presence.

Apparently in Vixen's world "common sense" should be ignored when it doesn't fit the preferred conclusion.

 

[Stacyhs]

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.[/QUOTE]


Please provide Amanda's quote and cite the source of the bathroom being cleaned the day before. I believe you are getting this from TMOMK which claims that "Amanda testified that the bathroom was clean the day before the murder." Amanda said no such thing. When asked if her blood was on the faucet the day before, she said "no". She did not say the bathroom was cleaned. It is quite possible that Amanda simply had not noticed the droplets on the faucet the day before.

As for "Mez's spilled blood" on Filomena's floor, what part of TMB negative for blood are you not understanding? It was simply DNA that was mixed, not blood. Neither was the other floor sample blood that had only Meredith's DNA.

"Almost certainly" according to whom? Not Stefanoni, nor any other expert who testified. When Amanda's DNA became mixed with Meredith's blood cannot be determined according to expert testimony. The mixing could have occurred when the sample was improperly taken as more than one place was swabbed with the same piece of gauze.

No sign of Rudy unless you count his bloody footprint on the mat. It belongs to the killer. Vinci ruled out Sollecito. Then there's also Meredith's blood smear on the light switch that yielded no DNA of who put it there. It wasn't Meredith. Guede admits he went into the bathroom twice.

Now you've decided that someone has to be have "super rock climbing expertise" to climb into that window. Yet an actual expert climber, when asked if it would take an experienced climber to access the window, responded it would be easy "not only for me, for another person it would be no problem."
Please remind me exactly how Guede managed to get into the law office just a couple weeks earlier? The one that was actually higher off the ground than Filomena's window. And please, don't tell me he didn't break into that office but only bought the stolen items.

 

[Stacyhs]

Common Sense tells us that a trace highlighted by Luminol but which tests negative for blood using TMB and negative for Meredith's DNA is indeed NOT Meredith's blood.

Common Sense tells us that a shallow knife wound into soft tissue that has bruising consistent with the hilt of a knife striking the skin was not made by a knife with a blade over twice as long as the wound was deep.

Common Sense tells us that a knife blade that tests negative for blood (TMB), negative for human biological material (human antibody, aka; species test) and negative for DNA ("too low" twice on the Qubit Fluorometer) does not have any DNA resulting from a stabbing.

Common Sense tells us two people, dating for only a week and completely infatuated with each other, and upon realizing that both of their obligations for the evening no longer existed, would prefer to remain at home and be intimate than to head out and collaborate with someone they don't even know to assault and murder a friend and roommate.

Common Sense tells us that three people can not commit a bloody murder and then have only one of the three leave behind forensic evidence of their presence.

Apparently in Vixen's world "common sense" should be ignored when it doesn't fit the preferred conclusion.

It's the Perugia Police and Prosecutors School of Common Sense. It's unaccredited.

 

[andreajo]

AndreaJo I said:

quote: 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

It is common sense Amanda's DNA doesn't come from spermatozoa. I won't patronise you by explaining why.

I accept that Amanda's DNA does not come from spermatozoa. I accept it as both common sense and supported in the scientific literature.

However, the 'common sense' story that you are telling yourself about the white blood cells is not supported by expert opinion, Stefanoni's testimony in court, or the literature.

 

[Bill Williams]

Perhaps this news is stale, but it was new to me:

Andrea Vogt reports that Oggi magazine has been cleared in the defamation case brought against it. Starting with the March 2015 acquittals, the people who brought this prosecution - including the predatory side-prosecutions - have pretty much lost everything since.

 

[Numbers]

Perhaps this news is stale, but it was new to me:

Andrea Vogt reports that Oggi magazine has been cleared in the defamation case brought against it. Starting with the March 2015 acquittals, the people who brought this prosecution - including the predatory side-prosecutions - have pretty much lost everything since.

Was this a suit against Oggi from Mignini? When was it launched?

To answer my own questions:

Yes, Mignini sued Oggi in 2011. See:

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-585804

 

[Bill Williams]

Perhaps this news is stale, but it was new to me:

Andrea Vogt reports that Oggi magazine has been cleared in the defamation case brought against it. Starting with the March 2015 acquittals, the people who brought this prosecution - including the predatory side-prosecutions - have pretty much lost everything since.

Was this a suit against Oggi from Mignini? When was it launched?

To answer my own questions:

Yes, Mignini sued Oggi in 2011. See:

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-585804

I am assuming that the "it" Vogt mentions is the suit brought by Mignini, against Umberto Brindani, the editor of Oggi, and Giangavino Sulas, a crime reporter at the magazine.

Mignini's suit against Gumbel and Sollecito seems to have another hearing on May 16. If Mignini loses that one too......

 

[toto]

So Vogt was referring to the Oggi case that the True Justice site said was starting in I think April 26? As a matter of interest where do you get the info on the the case re: the Sollecito book? If I recall the True Justice site made a big thing about AK's slander trial, the Oggi magazine case and Sollecit's book as all elements to bring down the reputation of A and R. So we just have the Sollecito book and any possible ECHR developments ? I am very much unimpressed by the True Justice site for not reporting fully on these developments, and mildly surprised there is little on the Injustice site. It seems to me the only things of interest now.

 

[Bill Williams]

So Vogt was referring to the Oggi case that the True Justice site said was starting in I think April 26? As a matter of interest where do you get the info on the the case re: the Sollecito book? If I recall the True Justice site made a big thing about AK's slander trial, the Oggi magazine case and Sollecit's book as all elements to bring down the reputation of A and R. So we just have the Sollecito book and any possible ECHR developments ? I am very much unimpressed by the True Justice site for not reporting fully on these developments, and mildly surprised there is little on the Injustice site. It seems to me the only things of interest now.

There's also the predatory prosecution of Knox's parents by Mignini, based on John Follain's interview with him which was printed in England.

TJMK used to predict doom and gloom for RS and AK, and anyone who said anything remotely positive about either them or their innocence. If TJMK had had its way, Bruce Fisher would be Interpol's most-wanted by now. So far crickets. The failure rate of those predictions as well as the lack of reporting when their "end of the world" stuff does not materialize is the reason to stop reading.

 

[toto]

There's also the predatory prosecution of Knox's parents by Mignini, based on John Follain's interview with him which was printed in England.

TJMK used to predict doom and gloom for RS and AK, and anyone who said anything remotely positive about either them or their innocence. If TJMK had had its way, Bruce Fisher would be Interpol's most-wanted by now. So far crickets. The failure rate of those predictions as well as the lack of reporting when their "end of the world" stuff does not materialize is the reason to stop reading.

Well that's obviously not going anywhere. Inevitable I suppose that it all ends with crickets as you say. I would check back to read about the Sollecito book but it looks like any reports will be only briefly mentioned, and any ECHR developments so far ahead that it seems pointless to continue monitoring. It was interesting to read all these years.

 

[Vixen]

There's also the predatory prosecution of Knox's parents by Mignini, based on John Follain's interview with him which was printed in England.

TJMK used to predict doom and gloom for RS and AK, and anyone who said anything remotely positive about either them or their innocence. If TJMK had had its way, Bruce Fisher would be Interpol's most-wanted by now. So far crickets. The failure rate of those predictions as well as the lack of reporting when their "end of the world" stuff does not materialize is the reason to stop reading.

The OGGI case acquittal was to do with Narducci (_sp?) and the Monster of Florence case.