Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chris_Halkides said:
Most of this post is garbled nonsense, but it might be worth pointing out why. One Vecchiotti did not testify to any such thing. Two, Professor Carlo Torre was not a DNA expert. Three, my best guess as to the PG-nonsense about 17 alleles is that it refers to the Y chromosomal results. However, the ability of YSTR DNA profiling to discriminate among individuals is far poorer than autosomal DNA profiling. If a man is included, then so are many of his relatives, plus an unknown number of unrelated individuals. Moreover, I posted portions of the YSTR chromatogram, and the presence of at least two contributors (above 50 RFU and not Guede) was obvious in the diagram that I attached.

One of the first things that this thread did was to explore various possibilities of innocent DNA transfer. From Raffaele to the door, to a glove, to the clasp was a hypothesis I put forward in 2010 (I am not sure how or where this idea originated). We now know a great deal more about tertiary transfer than we did in 2010, and such a putative transfer has much better support in the literature now.
Click to expand...

AIUI both types of testing were done. Professor Novelli calculated that the odds of the YSTR test being from a 'random man' was over three billion to one against. Prof David Balding is a strong advocate of performing statistical probability on forensic results.


The fact there is also the DNA of at least one other male (the rest were fragments of the 'household dust type') does NOT cancel out Raff's DNA.

The matching markers in the YSTR whilst it could also relate to Raff's close male relatives, the BARD standard rules out anyone other than Raff at the scene touching the bra clasp.



The same investigative method was also suggested by the consultant of the Prosecutor in
relation to the interpretation of the genetic profile of the markers located on the Y chromosome
of trace 165B. Here again, all alleles with RFU>50 were considered, giving the following table:

Table 3. Profiles of Chromosome Y taken from trace 165 B [the number on the far right is that of Raff's, the one on the left the sample on the bra clasp-V].

Marker Exhibit
165B
Raffaele
SOLLECITO
DVS456 13.15 13
DYS3891 12-13 12
DYS390 22-23-24 22
DYS3891 29 29
D'tS458 14-15-17 15
DVSI9 14 14
DVS385 13-14-16 13-14
DYS393 12-13-14 13
DYS39I 9-10-11 10
DYS439 11 11
DVS635 21-22 21
DVS392 11 11
V GAT,t 114 11-12 11
DYS437 14-15 15
D't'S438 9-10 10
DVS448 19-20-21 20
[246] On the basis of the data in the above table, applying the method of statistical calculation
indicated above, Prof. Novelli estimated the probability of a chance inclusion of a random
person from the population in the mixed profile, together with the chance compatibility of this
random individual with the major contributor to the Y chromosome, as about 1 in 3 billion.
Click to expand...
~ Nencini Appeal http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Nencini_Sentencing_Report_(English_PDF)
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
Do provide documented support for this false claim.
Click to expand...

Please read the court documents for yourself.

[189] In the case of all three traces, there was obvious blood, even though, with regard to the
blood found in Exhibits nos. 10 and 11, this blood was pale or [more precisely] diluted with
water. It is blood, therefore, that derives from a process of washing on the part of one of the
perpetrators of the murder and that survived the cleaning activities carried out in apartment's
small bathroom.
The presence of all three traces of blood, their position (on the mat as regards the foot print, on
the bidet and the washbasin as regards the remaining traces) shows that at least one of the
aggressors, but logically two of them – a man and a woman – entered the small bathroom in
order to cleanse themselves of the victim’s blood, which evidently had soaked them on various
parts of their bodies, and to wash themselves, using the bidet and washbasin. The presence of
mixed Kercher-Knox traces on the cotton-bud box, on the bidet, and on the washbasin leads to
the conclusion that it was Amanda Knox who washed her hands and feet, both stained with the
blood of Meredith Kercher and, in so doing, by rubbing [her hands and feet], losing epithelial
cells that were useful for DNA extraction.
The Court considers it extremely unlikely, in accordance with case record that is deeply rooted
in the common experience of life, that the man or woman who washed his or her hands and feet
in that bathroom could be someone other than Amanda Knox.
We would have to hypothesize, in fact, that the drops of blood – which were later diluted – fell
in precisely three distinct spots where previously (although it is not known when or how)
Amanda Knox had left her own DNA. While it is in fact true that the small bathroom in the
apartment was precisely the one used by the defendant and the victim, it should not be
forgotten that the loss of biological substances useful for the extraction of DNA is not a
phenomenon that normally happens often and with regularity in the areas that a given person
frequents (the argument is obviously different on objects in common usage and on clothing,
since both of these come into direct contact with the epidermis). For the loss of biological
material that is useful for DNA extraction, there must be a considerable rubbing action that
leaves behind biologically significant traces. [If we are to] follow the defense hypothesis,
therefore, Amanda Knox would have had to deposit her own DNA in precisely the three
different spots where subsequently the drops of Meredith Kercher’s blood fell as a consequence
of the [act of] washing with water: on the cotton-bud box, on the washbasin, and on the bidet.
And naturally without the murderer him/herself – who is assumed to be someone [190] other
than Amanda – losing significant biological material through the rubbing action required for
cleaning his or her limbs and hands.
Click to expand...
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Nencini_Sentencing_Report_(English_PDF)
 
Mary_H said:
Stacy is not guessing; she is referring to an e-mail Amanda wrote during the first week of the case.

You also erroneously claimed that Amanda said her own blood was on the faucet. Where did you get your information for that claim, if not from the same document?
Click to expand...

How are you in a position to accuse me of making things up when you haven't even read any of the court documents?

LG:
Now we come to the morning of Nov 2nd. What did you do the next morning, when you woke up?
AK:
So, when I woke up, I don't remember what time it was, but I think around 10, 10:30, I was there and I saw that Raffaele was still sleeping, so I watched him for a little while, then I said, okay, I'm going home to take a shower and change, and when I come back, we'll go, because we had this plan to go to Gubbio, because it was a holiday that day, there was no school for me, or anyway I was going to skip it. [Laughs.] Anyway, I wanted to go see Gubbio. So, I left his house, and when I got near my house, I saw that the door was open. And I thought, strange, because usually we had to lock that door, but I thought, if someone didn't close it properly, obviously it would open. I thought maybe someone had gone out very quickly, or just downstairs to get something, or to take out the trash, or something. When I went in, I called out "Is anybody there?" and no one answered, so I closed the door, but I didn't lock it, because I thought maybe someone would come, maybe they had just gone out to get cigarettes or whatever. Then I went into my room, um, and I changed, well no, I made a mistake, I went into the bathroom. I had these earrings, I had a lot of them, I like earrings, I had had them pierced recently, and I always had to wash them carefully because one was a little infected, and I had to take the earrings out and clean the ear, and that's when I saw some drops of blood on the sink. At first I thought they had come from my ears. But then when I scratched the drops a bit, I saw they were all dry, and I thought "That's weird. Oh well, I'll take my shower." Then when I got out of the shower, I saw that I had forgotten my towel, so I wanted to use the bathmat to get to my room, and that's when I saw the bloody stain that was on the bathmat. And I thought "Hm, strange." Maybe someone had a problem with menstruation that didn't get cleaned up right away. I used the mat to kind of hop over to my room and into my room, I took my towel, and I used the mat to get back to the bathroom because I thought well, by now...then I put the mat back where it was supposed to go, then I dried myself, put my earrings back, brushed my teeth, then I went back into my room to put on new clothes, I took -- no!
Click to expand...
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Testimony



Do also look up Mignini's meeting with Amanda. You originally asked Stacey for the info. Any reason you decided to ask me instead?
 
Vixen said:
LOL You are very good at knowing what Amanda 'thinks'. She would say that, wouldn't she, to borrow from Mandy Rice-Davies.
Click to expand...

Do read her testimony.

" I
had these earrings, I had a lot of them, I like earrings, I had
had them pierced recently, and I always had to wash them
carefully because one was a little infected, and I had to take
the earrings out and clean the ear, and that's when I saw some
drops of blood on the sink. At first I thought they had come from
my ears."
 
Vixen said:
Please read the court documents for yourself.

[189] In the case of all three traces, there was obvious blood, even though, with regard to the
blood found in Exhibits nos. 10 and 11, this blood was pale or [more precisely] diluted with
water. It is blood, therefore, that derives from a process of washing on the part of one of the
perpetrators of the murder and that survived the cleaning activities carried out in apartment's
small bathroom.
The presence of all three traces of blood, their position (on the mat as regards the foot print, on
the bidet and the washbasin as regards the remaining traces) shows that at least one of the
aggressors, but logically two of them – a man and a woman – entered the small bathroom in
order to cleanse themselves of the victim’s blood, which evidently had soaked them on various
parts of their bodies, and to wash themselves, using the bidet and washbasin. The presence of
mixed Kercher-Knox traces on the cotton-bud box, on the bidet, and on the washbasin leads to
the conclusion that it was Amanda Knox who washed her hands and feet, both stained with the
blood of Meredith Kercher and, in so doing, by rubbing [her hands and feet], losing epithelial
cells that were useful for DNA extraction.
The Court considers it extremely unlikely, in accordance with case record that is deeply rooted
in the common experience of life, that the man or woman who washed his or her hands and feet
in that bathroom could be someone other than Amanda Knox.
We would have to hypothesize, in fact, that the drops of blood – which were later diluted – fell
in precisely three distinct spots where previously (although it is not known when or how)
Amanda Knox had left her own DNA. While it is in fact true that the small bathroom in the
apartment was precisely the one used by the defendant and the victim, it should not be
forgotten that the loss of biological substances useful for the extraction of DNA is not a
phenomenon that normally happens often and with regularity in the areas that a given person
frequents (the argument is obviously different on objects in common usage and on clothing,
since both of these come into direct contact with the epidermis). For the loss of biological
material that is useful for DNA extraction, there must be a considerable rubbing action that
leaves behind biologically significant traces. [If we are to] follow the defense hypothesis,
therefore, Amanda Knox would have had to deposit her own DNA in precisely the three
different spots where subsequently the drops of Meredith Kercher’s blood fell as a consequence
of the [act of] washing with water: on the cotton-bud box, on the washbasin, and on the bidet.
And naturally without the murderer him/herself – who is assumed to be someone [190] other
than Amanda – losing significant biological material through the rubbing action required for
cleaning his or her limbs and hands.
Click to expand...


http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Nencini_Sentencing_Report_(English_PDF)
Click to expand...

Thanks for FINALLY posting part of the Nencinni report, but other than id'ing it as a "court document", you have missed that this "reasoning" - hypothesizing - on the part of Nencini is precisely the reason why the Supreme Court annulled his conviction and exonerated the pair.

Read the "court document" from the Supreme Court of 2015. It said that it was not enough for a judge to "hypothesize". There has to be evidence to convict someone.
 
Vixen said:
Please read the court documents for yourself.
Click to expand...

[189] In the case of all three traces, there was obvious blood, even though, with regard to the blood found in Exhibits nos. 10 and 11, this blood was pale or [more precisely] diluted with water. It is blood, therefore, that derives from a process of washing on the part of one of the perpetrators of the murder and that survived the cleaning activities carried out in apartment's small bathroom. The presence of all three traces of blood, their position (on the mat as regards the foot print, on the bidet and the washbasin as regards the remaining traces) shows that at least one of the aggressors, but logically two of them – a man and a woman – entered the small bathroom in order to cleanse themselves of the victim’s blood, which evidently had soaked them on various parts of their bodies, and to wash themselves, using the bidet and washbasin. The presence of mixed Kercher-Knox traces on the cotton-bud box, on the bidet, and on the washbasin leads to the conclusion that it was Amanda Knox who washed her hands and feet, both stained with the blood of Meredith Kercher and, in so doing, by rubbing [her hands and feet], losing epithelial cells that were useful for DNA extraction.

The Court considers it extremely unlikely, in accordance with case record that is deeply rooted in the common experience of life, that the man or woman who washed his or her hands and feet in that bathroom could be someone other than Amanda Knox. We would have to hypothesize, in fact, that the drops of blood – which were later diluted – fell in precisely three distinct spots where previously (although it is not known when or how) Amanda Knox had left her own DNA. While it is in fact true that the small bathroom in theapartment was precisely the one used by the defendant and the victim, it should not be forgotten that the loss of biological substances useful for the extraction of DNA is not a phenomenon that normally happens often and with regularity in the areas that a given person frequents (the argument is obviously different on objects in common usage and on clothing, since both of these come into direct contact with the epidermis). For the loss of biological material that is useful for DNA extraction, there must be a considerable rubbing action that leaves behind biologically significant traces. [If we are to] follow the defense hypothesis, therefore, Amanda Knox would have had to deposit her own DNA in precisely the three different spots where subsequently the drops of Meredith Kercher’s blood fell as a consequence of the [act of] washing with water: on the cotton-bud box, on the washbasin, and on the bidet. And naturally without the murderer him/herself – who is assumed to be someone [190] other than Amanda – losing significant biological material through the rubbing action required for cleaning his or her limbs and hands.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.co...t_(English_PDF)
Click to expand...


Thank you very much for the documentation; I appreciate it. However, it does not establish scientifically in any way, shape or form that Amanda washed Meredith's blood from her hands.
 
Numbers said:
I disagree with your statement. While I am unaware of "declarations of innocence" in Italy - beyond the relevant specifications of "the crime was not committed" or "the accused did not commit the crime" for a verdict of acquittal, in terms of US practice, persons who have been accused and convicted of crimes, but were subsequently found not guilty because their DNA was not detected at the relevant locations - such as on or in the body of a rape victim, while another person's DNA was so detected - have been considered factually innocent, and, depending on the specifics of state law, have been issued declarations of innocence or similar documents.

Thus, rather than go through the semantic gyrations sometimes employed on this forum, I suggest that Knox and Sollecito be considered INNOCENT of the murder/rape of Kercher, consistent with US practice.

I suggest that many persons could be considered "NOT INNOCENT" based on not being able to prove their innocence in terms of alibi or some other standard. But since there is no credible evidence of guilt in the case of Knox and Sollecito in the murder/rape of Kercher, and it is clear that there were "irregularities" (a euphemism) in the police investigation and prosecution, it is clear that Knox and Sollecito are innocent.
Click to expand...

Unlike in the USA where there are only two possible verdicts, you persistently side step the fact Italy has a third, 'insufficient evidence'.

This is a very different situation from an ordinary citizen 'presumed to be innocent', because in this case, the person has been tried and this is what we are looking at, not the man in the street.

For the person who has been tried, in Italy there is 'not guilty' para I, as we understand it, and there is a further 'not guilty' para2, 'insufficient evidence', which equates to 'Not Proven' in Scottish Law. It means the prosecutor failed to make a case of guilt but does NOT mean 'innocent' as we know it, for there was clearly sufficient and ground for cause for the pair to (a) be charged with the crimes and (b) to stand full trial. They were NOT exonerated at the end of the trial process.

Not even the corrupt Marasca could do that. The best it could do for Bongiorno, for whom it bent over backwards for, was to keep the kids out of jail by saying, yeah, their behaviour remains strongly suspicious, but we'll acquit anyway and blame the press for it and the police.
 
Vixen said:
Do read the court documents. It is a scientifically established fact Amanda washed Mez' blood from her hands. Your denying it doesn't change it.
Click to expand...

If it's a fact, then why were you unable to provide evidence of this when I asked you days ago? You could provide no record of any lab test that proved this. That's because no scientific test ever happened. Your claiming it doesn't change that fact.
 
Bill Williams said:
Thanks for FINALLY posting part of the Nencinni report, but other than id'ing it as a "court document", you have missed that this "reasoning" - hypothesizing - on the part of Nencini is precisely the reason why the Supreme Court annulled his conviction and exonerated the pair.

Read the "court document" from the Supreme Court of 2015. It said that it was not enough for a judge to "hypothesize". There has to be evidence to convict someone.
Click to expand...

This is where Marasca-Bruno is completely and unequivocally bent.

Of course a judge reasons. It's what they are paid very handsomely to do.


I may not agree with everything Nencini says, but I cannot fault his reasoning, which falls well within the bounds of reasonable, within his wide-ranging powers and within his jurisdiction.

Marasca had to turn to Hellmann, which tells you all you need to know about its integrity.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
How are you in a position to accuse me of making things up when you haven't even read any of the court documents?

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Testimony

Do also look up Mignini's meeting with Amanda. You originally asked Stacey for the info. Any reason you decided to ask me instead?
Click to expand...

Yes. You made fun of Stacy, as if Stacy could not know what Amanda was thinking, even though there was documentation of what Amanda was thinking.

I do realize now I was on the wrong track. You both were referring to Amanda's testimony, while I was referring to her e-mail home of 11/4/07.
 
Vixen said:
If you believe the mixed DNA comes from common house dust, I would urge you to at least have a peruse around http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Main_Page
so that you have the basic tools needed to debate the case effectively.
Click to expand...

No one here believes Amanda's DNA came from common household dust. The discussion of that premise, at least in my case, was to refute your refutation of Conti, who said that DNA flies around like dust, which it does. I am not sure anyone here tried to apply that fact to this case.

Amanda's epithelial-cell DNA on the sink in the small bathroom likely did come from her scrubbing her hands there. There is no way it can ever be established when she did it; even Patrizia Stefanoni admitted that.
 
Stacyhs said:
Ummmm, no I never claimed that at all. YOU twisted what I said. THIS is what I said;

"Shedding of epithelial cells occurs naturally and without having to use "intense" (or any) friction. Dust itself contains naturally shed epithelial cells. "Household dust may contain some human DNA from shed epithelial cells. " (Crime Reconstruction. Chisum, Turvey, pg 274) "

But that went right past you like so much else. Once again, stop claiming I have said something I have not. I NEVER claimed dust was the source of Amanda's DNA in Meredith's blood.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
Did you not read my earlier response that household dust is not considered useful for forensic DNA analysis? I am not really sure why you find Chisum, Turvey's quote so important. Is this something new for you, that you have to share it? Trying to conflate the scientific finding of Amanda's DNA mixed in with Mez' on the murder night with common household dust is pure obfuscation.
Click to expand...

Wow. What part of "This was in response to your claim that epithelial cells in the mixed blood/DNA could only have come from "intense rubbing" of Amanda's hands washing off blood. Bringing up dust was to point out that it doesn't take "intense rubbing" for epithelial cells to be naturally discarded." are you not understanding?
 
Mary_H said:
Yes. You made fun of Stacy, as if Stacy could not know what Amanda was thinking, even though there was documentation of what Amanda was thinking.

I do realize now I was on the wrong track. You both were referring to Amanda's testimony, while I was referring to her e-mail home of 11/4/07.
Click to expand...

No, I was not making fun of Stacey. I was questioning her propensity to claim to know what Amanda was thinking. OK, so she pointed out her email home, and I replied, well she would claim that wouldn't she? She's hardly going to say anything that's not an innocuous explanation for bleeding the same time as Mez.

This is why it helps to be objective, rather than assuming one knows someone else's motives or thoughts.
 
Stacyhs said:
Wow. What part of "This was in response to your claim that epithelial cells in the mixed blood/DNA could only have come from "intense rubbing" of Amanda's hands washing off blood. Bringing up dust was to point out that it doesn't take "intense rubbing" for epithelial cells to be naturally discarded." are you not understanding?
Click to expand...


The kind of cells we shed in skin and hair are generally dead cells and there is very little DNA to be gleaned from them. DNA degrades very quickly due to bacteria, heat, etc., so a good sample of the sort found mixed in with Mez' wherein Mez' DNA came from her white blood cells (as we can assume she did not place her blood in the sink), which is a very rich source of DNA and which had greater DNA than that even of a fatally bleeding Mez, a forensic scientist can reasonably make inferences as to the source of that DNA.
 
Vixen said:
No, I was not making fun of Stacey. I was questioning her propensity to claim to know what Amanda was thinking. OK, so she pointed out her email home, and I replied, well she would claim that wouldn't she? She's hardly going to say anything that's not an innocuous explanation for bleeding the same time as Mez.

This is why it helps to be objective, rather than assuming one knows someone else's motives or thoughts.
Click to expand...

No, I did not point out her email home. I quoted her court testimony.

I was not assuming what she thought. I based my comment on what Amanda said.

"well she would claim that wouldn't she? She's hardly going to say anything that's not an innocuous explanation for bleeding the same time as Mez"
Seems to me that you are the one assuming what Amanda thought and her motive.

And there is no scientific way to prove Amanda was "bleeding at the same time" as Meredith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom