The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[NotEvenWrong]

Tutorial No. 2

Today's exercise

Apparatus
I want you all to take a small glass of fruit juice and another of tap water.

Method

1. Take a small amount of the fruit juice and mix it 1:1 with the water. Stir. Put aside.

2. Taking a small amount of the water, say a teaspoon, pour it onto a thick absorbent kitchen towel, or cloth. Leave to dry overnight.

3. 24 hours later, take a teaspoonful of the juice and pour it onto the spot where the water had been poured the previous day. Leave to dry.

4. Take a teaspoon of your stirred fruit juice/water from the day before and por onto a separate sheet of kitchen towel. Leave to dry.

5. Next day, compare the two sheets of kitchen towel.

Results

1. The paper with the fruit juice added to the water 24 hours later is much darker and shows as a separate stain to the water (see around the edges).

2. The mixed fruit juice and water remains a paler colour than the fruit juice added later, as above.

Conclusion

Now imagine scenario one represents Knox' DNA/blood left in the sink sometime before the murder. It is possible to differentiate them as two separate stains left at different times. It will reveal two separate incidences of water and blood but n'er the two were mixed.

In scenario two, the diluted blood of the victim and Knox are deposited in the sink and bidet at the same time means the streak is pale pink (as discovered by Giao (_sp?) and Stefanoni and contains a mix of Knox and Mez', which were deposited at the same time and a separation of the two fluids cannot be ascertained.

Knox' DNA/blood mixed in with Mez' DNA/blood and diluted with water was found as a long narrow streak in the sink and again in the bidet and confirmed by DNA tests showing it was:

- of Knox and the victim

- it was a single sample of blood and water mixed together at the same time

- the mixed DNA was of Knox and Kercher

- the mixed sample tested positive for human blood.

Here endeth today's lesson.

Vixen,
Typically, a scientist (of which you are clearly one, as we can see from your intellect), when performing an experiment, will use the same substance in their method of testing as the one they're trying to learn about. For example, they wouldn't use fruit juice as the compound for experimentation when they're trying to study the properties of blood.

Can you think of why that might be? Hint: it has to do with not making up crazy **** in your head and stating it as fact. You know, science.

 

[whoanellie]

Tutorial No. 2



Today's exercise



Apparatus

I want you all to take a small glass of fruit juice and another of tap water.



Method



1. Take a small amount of the fruit juice and mix it 1:1 with the water. Stir. Put aside.



2. Taking a small amount of the water, say a teaspoon, pour it onto a thick absorbent kitchen towel, or cloth. Leave to dry overnight.



3. 24 hours later, take a teaspoonful of the juice and pour it onto the spot where the water had been poured the previous day. Leave to dry.



4. Take a teaspoon of your stirred fruit juice/water from the day before and por onto a separate sheet of kitchen towel. Leave to dry.



5. Next day, compare the two sheets of kitchen towel.



Results



1. The paper with the fruit juice added to the water 24 hours later is much darker and shows as a separate stain to the water (see around the edges).



2. The mixed fruit juice and water remains a paler colour than the fruit juice added later, as above.



Conclusion



Now imagine scenario one represents Knox' DNA/blood left in the sink sometime before the murder. It is possible to differentiate them as two separate stains left at different times. It will reveal two separate incidences of water and blood but n'er the two were mixed.



In scenario two, the diluted blood of the victim and Knox are deposited in the sink and bidet at the same time means the streak is pale pink (as discovered by Giao (_sp?) and Stefanoni and contains a mix of Knox and Mez', which were deposited at the same time and a separation of the two fluids cannot be ascertained.



Knox' DNA/blood mixed in with Mez' DNA/blood and diluted with water was found as a long narrow streak in the sink and again in the bidet and confirmed by DNA tests showing it was:



- of Knox and the victim



- it was a single sample of blood and water mixed together at the same time



- the mixed DNA was of Knox and Kercher



- the mixed sample tested positive for human blood.



Here endeth today's lesson.

I am wondering if you actually performed this "experiment "?

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen,
Typically, a scientist (of which you are clearly one, as we can see from your intellect), when performing an experiment, will use the same substance in their method of testing as the one they're trying to learn about. For example, they wouldn't use fruit juice as the compound for experimentation when they're trying to study the properties of blood.

Can you think of why that might be? Hint: it has to do with not making up crazy **** in your head and stating it as fact. You know, science.

There is one scientist with more credibility than Vixen.

Stefanoni.

Stefanoni ruled out mixed blood, and said so to the original provisionally-convicting court. Ok, maybe not "ruled out", but she said science could not determine who the blood in the bathroom belonged to. Vixen claims she knows a way to determine this - not even Stefanoni agrees, and Stefanoni is a crap clinician.

Stefanoni also never once used the familiar name for the victim, feigning false intimacy with someone she'd never met.

It's also unknown the details of Stefanoni's fantasy life. It would be a mercy to us all if we could say the same for some of the guilter-nutters.

 

[TruthCalls]

I haven't had a chance, yet.

You haven't had a chance? Wait, haven't you been making this claim for years now? And clearly, someone as upstanding and honest as you would never make such a claim without having evidence to support it. So are you saying that you can't locate in the 'more than a month' since you've been asked to provide it, evidence you had to have had years ago??? Not very organized, are you.

 

[TruthCalls]

There is one scientist with more credibility than Vixen.

Stefanoni.

Stefanoni ruled out mixed blood, and said so to the original provisionally-convicting court. Ok, maybe not "ruled out", but she said science could not determine who the blood in the bathroom belonged to. Vixen claims she knows a way to determine this - not even Stefanoni agrees, and Stefanoni is a crap clinician.

Stefanoni also never once used the familiar name for the victim, feigning false intimacy with someone she'd never met.

It's also unknown the details of Stefanoni's fantasy life. It would be a mercy to us all if we could say the same for some of the guilter-nutters.

Hey, don't tell Harry Rag that... he insists Stefanoni testified to mixed blood samples. Claims it was on pages 112-115 of her 22/23 May 2009 testimony. Of course, no such thing is testified to by Stefanoni, and when Harry was challenged to provide the quote he disappeared.

 

[TruthCalls]

Vixen,
Typically, a scientist (of which you are clearly one, as we can see from your intellect), when performing an experiment, will use the same substance in their method of testing as the one they're trying to learn about. For example, they wouldn't use fruit juice as the compound for experimentation when they're trying to study the properties of blood.

Can you think of why that might be? Hint: it has to do with not making up crazy **** in your head and stating it as fact. You know, science.

Actually, the fallacy of Vixen's little experiment is worse than that. Not only is she not using the same substances (assumed to be saliva and diluted blood) but she's also not using the same substrate (paper towel instead of a ceramic sink).

Another error she makes is to assume the two substances are on top of each other. While this might have been the case had the tech collected the samples correctly (i.e., used a q-tip to collect just the drop of diluted blood), it doesn't work when the tech swabs two drops and everything in-between. The sample, as testified to by Stefanoni, gets mixed because of the way the sample was collected. So there is no evidence the two substances were ever in contact with one another UNTIL the tech mixes them by aggressively swabbing such large areas.

 

[Bill Williams]

Here endeth today's lesson.

And what have we learned?

Speaking only for myself - nothing, other than that you have a creepy appropriated intimacy with someone you've never met.

 

[Stacyhs]

I told you to refer to Curt Knox' speech on some steps shortly after his daughter was charged. It's in the public domain. Nothing obscure or mysterious about it.

I haven't had a chance, yet.

It must be 'obscure enough' that you can't find it. Or maybe...just maybe...it doesn't exist.

Color me shocked.

 

[Stacyhs]

Tutorial No. 2

Today's exercise

Apparatus
I want you all to take a small glass of fruit juice and another of tap water.

Method

1. Take a small amount of the fruit juice and mix it 1:1 with the water. Stir. Put aside.

2. Taking a small amount of the water, say a teaspoon, pour it onto a thick absorbent kitchen towel, or cloth. Leave to dry overnight.

3. 24 hours later, take a teaspoonful of the juice and pour it onto the spot where the water had been poured the previous day. Leave to dry.

4. Take a teaspoon of your stirred fruit juice/water from the day before and por onto a separate sheet of kitchen towel. Leave to dry.

5. Next day, compare the two sheets of kitchen towel.

Results

1. The paper with the fruit juice added to the water 24 hours later is much darker and shows as a separate stain to the water (see around the edges).

2. The mixed fruit juice and water remains a paler colour than the fruit juice added later, as above.

Conclusion

Now imagine scenario one represents Knox' DNA/blood left in the sink sometime before the murder. It is possible to differentiate them as two separate stains left at different times. It will reveal two separate incidences of water and blood but n'er the two were mixed.

In scenario two, the diluted blood of the victim and Knox are deposited in the sink and bidet at the same time means the streak is pale pink (as discovered by Giao (_sp?) and Stefanoni and contains a mix of Knox and Mez', which were deposited at the same time and a separation of the two fluids cannot be ascertained.

Knox' DNA/blood mixed in with Mez' DNA/blood and diluted with water was found as a long narrow streak in the sink and again in the bidet and confirmed by DNA tests showing it was:

- of Knox and the victim

- it was a single sample of blood and water mixed together at the same time

- the mixed DNA was of Knox and Kercher

- the mixed sample tested positive for human blood.

Here endeth today's lesson.

Hmmmmm.... what possible evidence could exist that would prove your little scenario..um..faulty?

Maybe the fact that no forensic expert agrees with you? Nah.They're just all 'bent' (or mafia members or Masons).

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Wait a minute. I got notified a bunch of my posts, all requesting a citation and quote (to a poster who had the book with them at that very second) were moved.

Is there a rule against THAT now??

 

[Welshman]

Tutorial No. 2

Today's exercise

Apparatus
I want you all to take a small glass of fruit juice and another of tap water.

Method

1. Take a small amount of the fruit juice and mix it 1:1 with the water. Stir. Put aside.

2. Taking a small amount of the water, say a teaspoon, pour it onto a thick absorbent kitchen towel, or cloth. Leave to dry overnight.

3. 24 hours later, take a teaspoonful of the juice and pour it onto the spot where the water had been poured the previous day. Leave to dry.

4. Take a teaspoon of your stirred fruit juice/water from the day before and por onto a separate sheet of kitchen towel. Leave to dry.

5. Next day, compare the two sheets of kitchen towel.

Results

1. The paper with the fruit juice added to the water 24 hours later is much darker and shows as a separate stain to the water (see around the edges).

2. The mixed fruit juice and water remains a paler colour than the fruit juice added later, as above.

Conclusion

Now imagine scenario one represents Knox' DNA/blood left in the sink sometime before the murder. It is possible to differentiate them as two separate stains left at different times. It will reveal two separate incidences of water and blood but n'er the two were mixed.

In scenario two, the diluted blood of the victim and Knox are deposited in the sink and bidet at the same time means the streak is pale pink (as discovered by Giao (_sp?) and Stefanoni and contains a mix of Knox and Mez', which were deposited at the same time and a separation of the two fluids cannot be ascertained.

Knox' DNA/blood mixed in with Mez' DNA/blood and diluted with water was found as a long narrow streak in the sink and again in the bidet and confirmed by DNA tests showing it was:

- of Knox and the victim

- it was a single sample of blood and water mixed together at the same time

- the mixed DNA was of Knox and Kercher

- the mixed sample tested positive for human blood.

Here endeth today's lesson.

It is hilarious that Vixen who has consistently shown scientific illiteracy in her posts feels she is in a position to give science lessons.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen,
Typically, a scientist (of which you are clearly one, as we can see from your intellect), when performing an experiment, will use the same substance in their method of testing as the one they're trying to learn about. For example, they wouldn't use fruit juice as the compound for experimentation when they're trying to study the properties of blood.

Can you think of why that might be? Hint: it has to do with not making up crazy **** in your head and stating it as fact. You know, science.

I was merely demonstrating to those ignorant of biology (cf the C5 documentary) that DNA does NOT get passed around 'like talcum powder' *Stacyhs: nor do germs).

 

[Vixen]

Actually, the fallacy of Vixen's little experiment is worse than that. Not only is she not using the same substances (assumed to be saliva and diluted blood) but she's also not using the same substrate (paper towel instead of a ceramic sink).

Another error she makes is to assume the two substances are on top of each other. While this might have been the case had the tech collected the samples correctly (i.e., used a q-tip to collect just the drop of diluted blood), it doesn't work when the tech swabs two drops and everything in-between. The sample, as testified to by Stefanoni, gets mixed because of the way the sample was collected. So there is no evidence the two substances were ever in contact with one another UNTIL the tech mixes them by aggressively swabbing such large areas.

Amanda Knox's DNA RFU's have high peaks and these are associated with blood which is the richest source of DNA. Saliva mixed in with Mez' blood would not have been more copious than the blood of a murder victim stabbed in the neck (wickedly). Even if it were saliva or other bodily source, it was mixed in at the same narrow streak of diluted blood and it is certain it was deposited at the same time.

They would not have 'been on top of each other. When two liquids of similar density mix (in this case blood and water diluted under a running tap) the resulting mixture does not 'sit on top of each other' (unless one was deposited a while earlier and left to dry) they mix. How do we know it was mixed? It was a consistent pale pink, almost invisible to the eye. It was one long line of drips in one contiguous line. Something dripping with blood (for example, the murder weapon) would form such a line.

 

[Vixen]

Hmmmmm.... what possible evidence could exist that would prove your little scenario..um..faulty?

Maybe the fact that no forensic expert agrees with you? Nah.They're just all 'bent' (or mafia members or Masons).

Stefanoni argued this successfully at trial and it lead to a firm conviction of the pair, together with all the other hard evidence.

 

[Vixen]

It is hilarious that Vixen who has consistently shown scientific illiteracy in her posts feels she is in a position to give science lessons.

It is hilarious that Amanda Knox fans believe DNA has the property of being able to glide underneath locked doors and dead bodies and that it is 'just like talcum powder.

 

[LondonJohn]

Stefanoni argued this successfully at trial and it lead to a firm conviction of the pair, together with all the other hard evidence.

Problem is, Stefanoni was either ignorant or lying. Or a bit of both. And the errant convicting courts believed her unquestioningly (that's against the law, Vixen).

 

[LondonJohn]

It is hilarious that Amanda Knox fans believe DNA has the property of being able to glide underneath locked doors and dead bodies and that it is 'just like talcum powder.

Who are "Amanda Knox fans", please?

(And nobody believes or proposes what you've just made up above, anyhow)

 

[LondonJohn]

Amanda Knox's DNA RFU's have high peaks and these are associated with blood

Uh.... what? You're claiming high peaks in PCR analysis are "associated with blood"? You're wrong, and you don't know what you're talking about.

which is the richest source of DNA.

This could hardly be more ignorant and incorrect. Blood is actually a relatively poor source of DNA. But you don't know why that is, do you Vixen? You might want to start by figuring out the constituent parts of blood, figuring out which constituent parts make up (by a gigantic ratio) the largest proportion of blood, then figuring out whether or not they contain DNA......

Saliva mixed in with Mez' blood would not have been more copious than the blood of a murder victim stabbed in the neck (wickedly).

This is incorrect, wrongly "deducted", and clearly borne of sheer ignorance. And that last word in parentheses is both irrelevant and telling.

Even if it were saliva or other bodily source, it was mixed in at the same narrow streak of diluted blood and it is certain it was deposited at the same time.

You've now been told several times: go and have an actual look at the video of the forensic sample-gathering from that sink bowl. And then tell us all how a meandering smear with a swab can gather evidence which indicates that the DNA admixture was "in (at) the same narrow streak of diluted blood".

Furthermore, even if it could have been demonstrated that Knox's DNA and Kercher's DNA were in the same spot in the sink bowl (and remember, it cannot be so demonstrated), that's absolutely no reason to be able to deduce that "it is certain" that both would have been deposited at the same time. For example, if Knox's DNA were widely distributed in the sink bowl (e.g. from her spitting out after brushing her teeth), it would be entirely feasible for Knox's DNA and Kercher's DNA to be found in the same spot without them having been deposited at the same time.

However, as I said already, this is moot because the shockingly inept swabbing technique used to gather "evidence" from that sink - as captured for posterity on video - proves conclusively that the swab MUST have picked up DNA from all over that sink bowl.

They would not have 'been on top of each other. When two liquids of similar density mix (in this case blood and water diluted under a running tap) the resulting mixture does not 'sit on top of each other' (unless one was deposited a while earlier and left to dry) they mix. How do we know it was mixed? It was a consistent pale pink, almost invisible to the eye. It was one long line of drips in one contiguous line. Something dripping with blood (for example, the murder weapon) would form such a line.

This is just scientific illiteracy, I'm afraid.

 

[Planigale]

Tutorial No. 2

Today's exercise

Apparatus
I want you all to take a small glass of fruit juice and another of tap water.

Method

1. Take a small amount of the fruit juice and mix it 1:1 with the water. Stir. Put aside.

2. Taking a small amount of the water, say a teaspoon, pour it onto a thick absorbent kitchen towel, or cloth. Leave to dry overnight.

3. 24 hours later, take a teaspoonful of the juice and pour it onto the spot where the water had been poured the previous day. Leave to dry.

4. Take a teaspoon of your stirred fruit juice/water from the day before and por onto a separate sheet of kitchen towel. Leave to dry.

5. Next day, compare the two sheets of kitchen towel.

Results

1. The paper with the fruit juice added to the water 24 hours later is much darker and shows as a separate stain to the water (see around the edges).

2. The mixed fruit juice and water remains a paler colour than the fruit juice added later, as above.

Conclusion

Now imagine scenario one represents Knox' DNA/blood left in the sink sometime before the murder. It is possible to differentiate them as two separate stains left at different times. It will reveal two separate incidences of water and blood but n'er the two were mixed.

In scenario two, the diluted blood of the victim and Knox are deposited in the sink and bidet at the same time means the streak is pale pink (as discovered by Giao (_sp?) and Stefanoni and contains a mix of Knox and Mez', which were deposited at the same time and a separation of the two fluids cannot be ascertained.

Knox' DNA/blood mixed in with Mez' DNA/blood and diluted with water was found as a long narrow streak in the sink and again in the bidet and confirmed by DNA tests showing it was:

- of Knox and the victim

- it was a single sample of blood and water mixed together at the same time

- the mixed DNA was of Knox and Kercher

- the mixed sample tested positive for human blood.

Here endeth today's lesson.

Vixen discovers paper chromatography!
Sadly sixty years too late for a Nobel.
https://www.nature.com/articles/1821159a0
https://wiki.artscienceblr.org/wiki/index.php/Circular_chromatography

Sorry to say that if you actually did the experiment letting some water dry on the paper beforehand makes no difference to migration of particles. Surface tension effects attract particles to the edge of the drop where it adheres to a hydrophilic surface. This will leave a ring appearance as the water dries / migrates. Smaller chemicals will differentially migrate depending on complex factors including their size and ionisation, giving a halo appearance.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Vixen discovers paper chromatography!
Sadly sixty years too late for a Nobel.
https://www.nature.com/articles/1821159a0
https://wiki.artscienceblr.org/wiki/index.php/Circular_chromatography

Sorry to say that if you actually did the experiment letting some water dry on the paper beforehand makes no difference to migration of particles. Surface tension effects attract particles to the edge of the drop where it adheres to a hydrophilic surface. This will leave a ring appearance as the water dries / migrates. Smaller chemicals will differentially migrate depending on complex factors including their size and ionisation, giving a halo appearance.

Egad! Good point Planigale. Not only did poor ol' Vixen not even use the right compound nor use the right substrate, she clearly lied (again!!! how many lies does Vixen have in her?) that she actually performed the experiments and/or lied about the results.

Vixen, if you have such a strong argument, why do all your posts contain 90% lies? Did you ever find the quote/sources for your $2M PR claim and claim about Peter Gill saying it's impossible to transfer DNA after 24 hours? Or were those lies too? No seriously, let's pretend for a minute we don't already know they're all lies -- can you just provide the evidence for us to peruse? D)

What kind of team of scientists do you have over there in TJMK land that every single claim you make is completely wrong?