Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[AmyStrange]

BTW DNA does not crawl across the room. DNA has no ability to fly under a door and land on an item covered by a body.

Actually, that's not true, and you can look it up if you dare.

A small percentage of the dust in just about everyone's home is actually dead skin cells.

Every time you shake your head, or scratch, or just put on or take off clothes, you shed dead skin which can sometimes literally fly across the room like you wouldn't believe.

As a matter of fact, transferring dead skin from one surface to another is relatively easy and happens a lot more than you think. All one has to do is rub up against some dust or touch it and any dead skin will adhere to whatever touches it.

And yes, you CAN get DNA from dead skin cells.

Dust - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Touch DNA - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

-

 

[Vixen]

Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem. Or a memory - retention of information problem. The concepts you bring up have been discussed previously on the many continuations of this thread many times.

For anyone who has forgotten:

1. Knox entered the police station with Sollecito solely with the intent of seeking shelter from any possible attack by whoever had killed Kercher; she had not come to the station with the intent of providing any additional information, according to her statements. She had already been interviewed on previous days for many hours, according to police records.

2. The police, after beginning their interview or questioning of Sollecito, asked Knox to answer additional questions, according to both Knox and the police.

3. Knox was being asked questions as though she were a witness, whether or not the police in their reality viewed her as a suspect.

4. When Knox made her statement about Lumumba, she became a suspect in accordance with Italian law, CPP Article 63. This is true whether or not the police privately, in their view, considered her a suspect prior to that time. It is clear from certain events of the interrogation that Knox was considered a suspect by the police in reality even before she made her statement about Lumumba. A telling example is that the police asked Knox for her phone and read messages on it. This taking of an object from a person and with no prior warrant is generally done to a suspect - a person under investigation - not to a witness, under Italian law. As reported by the police, Knox was crying and emotional during the latter part of the questioning, an indication of the aggressive and hostile nature of the interrogation. Furthermore, at the news conference following the arrests, the police chief stated that Knox had been broken under questioning and told the police what they already knew.

5. In accordance with Italian law, Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba were charged with a crime - the murder/rape of Kercher - prior to the "official" arrests in a document prepared by the prosecutor, Mignini. Prior to their first trial, Knox and Sollecito were charged with the murder/rape and Knox was charged with calunnia against Lumumba.

Yes, and when she placed herself and Lumumba at the crime scene the interview was terminated, as per protocol.



.

 

[Vixen]

To add to the above post (#2818), I should mention we also know that Knox was a suspect from the beginning of the impugned interrogation based on Sollecito's account of his interrogation, which started prior to Knox's. The interrogators pressured Sollecito to abandon his alibi supporting Knox. Unfortunately, the Italian police violated Italian procedural law and left no documentation of the questions and answers during Sollecito's interrogation.

As discussed previously here, the ECHR in its judgment Knox v. Italy examined the issue of whether or not Knox was a suspect during the two episodes of questioning that resulted in two statements on 6 November 2007 - the one first before the police (1:45 am statement) and the second before the prosecutor (5:45 am statement). In paragraphs 147 through 152, the ECHR judgment discusses this issue. In paragraph 151, the reasons why the ECHR believes that Knox may have been a suspect (even though claimed to be a witness by the authorities) during the first interrogation are listed (Google translation):


It seems to me that the ECHR decided not to conclusively hold that Knox was a suspect during the first interrogation because from a human right viewpoint, the actions of the interpreter were so unfair to the outcome of the trial that it was unnecessary. The ECHR instead in paragraph 152 focused the denial of a defense lawyer claim to the second interrogation, because the Italian courts (CSC) itself stated that contrary to Italian law, Knox had been denied a lawyer during that interrogation even though she had clearly become a suspect with her first (1:45 am) statement:



The ECHR then, in paragraph 153, acknowledges that the Italian courts had stated that both of Knox's statements could be used against her only for the alleged crime of calunnia against Lumumba:



Finally, the ECHR concludes that the Italian Government has not justified use of the impugned statements, made without a lawyer, as evidence against Knox in any way that is valid under ECHR case law. Therefore, there was a violation of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3c:


See: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-189422

But the Italian Criminal Code defines a 'suspect' as 'the accused'. 'Accused' is a verb which demands a subject and an object. Someone has to do the accusing for one to be 'accused'. Nobody had accused Knox of a criminal offence as of the time she accused Lumumba.



It is all very well your claiming the police did suspect Knox but didn't express it. But the law requires an explicit chronology as to WHEN, name, time and place, a person becomes 'a suspect'. For the avoidance of doubt: Knox became a suspect AFTER she committed the apparent crime of Calunnia, as defined by statute.


.

 

[Vixen]

Actually, that's not true, and you can look it up if you dare.

A small percentage of the dust in just about everyone's home is actually dead skin cells.

Every time you shake your head, or scratch, or just put on or take off clothes, you shed dead skin which can sometimes literally fly across the room like you wouldn't believe.

As a matter of fact, transferring dead skin from one surface to another is relatively easy and happens a lot more than you think. All one has to do is rub up against some dust or touch it and any dead skin will adhere to whatever touches it.

And yes, you CAN get DNA from dead skin cells.

Dust - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Touch DNA - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

-

Dead skin cells will not yield a DNA profile that is up to legal standard (i.e, at least 11 alleles, bare minimum). There were plenty of DNA fragments in the dust and even some of Knox and Guede on the bra but not sufficient to be considered legally significant.


Interestingly, Knox' counsel walked off the case after this came to light.




.

 

[AmyStrange]

But the Italian Criminal Code defines a 'suspect' as 'the accused'. 'Accused' is a verb which demands a subject and an object. Someone has to do the accusing for one to be 'accused'. Nobody had accused Knox of a criminal offence as of the time she accused Lumumba.



It is all very well your claiming the police did suspect Knox but didn't express it. But the law requires an explicit chronology as to WHEN, name, time and place, a person becomes 'a suspect'. For the avoidance of doubt: Knox became a suspect AFTER she committed the apparent crime of Calunnia, as defined by statute.

If she's not a suspect, then she's there as a witness.

I suppose in Italy they slap witnesses around too, and that alone is pretty sad, but now it ALL makes sense.


-

 

[Vixen]

If she's not a suspect, then she's there as a witness.

I suppose in Italy they slap witnesses around too, and that alone is pretty sad, but now it ALL makes sense.


-

Exactly, and as a witness, there was no requirement to be provided with a lawyer.


As for being 'slapped around' it is a pity Knox' barrister didn't lodge a complaint as would have been his duty to his client.

.

 

[AmyStrange]

Dead skin cells will not yield a DNA profile that is up to legal standard (i.e, at least 11 alleles, bare minimum). There were plenty of DNA fragments in the dust and even some of Knox and Guede on the bra but not sufficient to be considered legally significant.


Interestingly, Knox' counsel walked off the case after this came to light.

Dead skin cells may not ALL be viable, but some can, and it's why they scrap under the victim's fingernails for possible DNA evidence.

What they collect is the same thing your body sheds when you scratch.


-

 

[AmyStrange]

Exactly, and as a witness, there was no requirement to be provided with a lawyer.


As for being 'slapped around' it is a pity Knox' barrister didn't lodge a complaint as would have been his duty to his client.

.

I agree. They should have filed a complaint.


-

 

[Vixen]

Dead skin cells may not ALL be viable, but some can, and it's why they scrap under the victim's fingernails for possible DNA evidence.

What they collect is the same thing your body sheds when you scratch.


-

As Peter Gill confirms, such DNA cannot undergo secondary transfer after 24 hours, or is exceedingly unlikely.

Sollecito's DNA was on a bra hook (where the hook bends, so any flyaway DNA would somehow have to get into that bend, as well as under the body and under a sheet). The PIP claims that his DNA was a TERTIARY transfer: from door, to forensic glove six weeks later, to bra clasp.


Even Gill considers this utter rubbish!



.

 

[Vixen]

Dead skin cells may not ALL be viable, but some can, and it's why they scrap under the victim's fingernails for possible DNA evidence.
don't have sweat gland
What they collect is the same thing your body sheds when you scratch.


-

According to expert witnesses to the trial, for Sollecito to have yielded a FULL DNA profile, he would have had to have been gripping the object quite firmly. Conti in the Netflix tried to make out DNA 'is scattered about like talcum powder', that is how crooked he is as a 'scientist'. In fact, the palms of hands don't really yield much DNA as they don't have sweat glands. The DNA comes from wiping your hands over your hair or your face which has sweat condensed into the perspiration that mixes in with the sebaceous gland excretions (the same glands that cause greasy hair or a greasy face). Whilst Sollecito may have left his greasy hand marks on the door, there is no way that could then transfer x 3 to the bra clasp under the body via a sterile latex glove, especially as no-one was pressing down hard on the bra hook bend, and certainly not after six weeks. According to Gill himself, SECONDARY transfer (x 2) is very unlikely after 24 hours. This is because sweat and DNA carriers, such as bodily fluids, including blood DRIES very quickly. Blood starts drying within half an hour so to find a mixed blood DNA (as with Knox/Kercher mixture in the bathroom) the blood, of both persons must have almost certainly still have been in a recently-shedded - WET - stage.

 

[AmyStrange]

As Peter Gill confirms, such DNA cannot undergo secondary transfer after 24 hours, or is exceedingly unlikely.

Sollecito's DNA was on a bra hook (where the hook bends, so any flyaway DNA would somehow have to get into that bend, as well as under the body and under a sheet). The PIP claims that his DNA was a TERTIARY transfer: from door, to forensic glove six weeks later, to bra clasp.


Even Gill considers this utter rubbish!

Fair enough, but first I'd like to know your source, so I can check them out myself, especially the "rubbish" part.

I suspect all of that is just your opinion and nothing else, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt for now.



-

 

[AmyStrange]

According to expert witnesses to the trial, for Sollecito to have yielded a FULL DNA profile, he would have had to have been gripping the object quite firmly. Conti in the Netflix tried to make out DNA 'is scattered about like talcum powder', that is how crooked he is as a 'scientist'. In fact, the palms of hands don't really yield much DNA as they don't have sweat glands. The DNA comes from wiping your hands over your hair or your face which has sweat condensed into the perspiration that mixes in with the sebaceous gland excretions (the same glands that cause greasy hair or a greasy face). Whilst Sollecito may have left his greasy hand marks on the door, there is no way that could then transfer x 3 to the bra clasp under the body via a sterile latex glove, especially as no-one was pressing down hard on the bra hook bend, and certainly not after six weeks. According to Gill himself, SECONDARY transfer (x 2) is very unlikely after 24 hours. This is because sweat and DNA carriers, such a sbodily fluids, including blood DRIES very quickly. Blood starts drying within half an hour so to find a mixed blood DNA (as with Knox/Kercher mix int he bathroom) the blood of both persons must have almost certainly still have been in a recently-shedded stage.

How about hair follicles, what does your "expert" say about that?

And besides, you've probably never lived with a bunch of women. They borrow stuff from each other all the time, including bras.

It's quite possible the DNA on Meredith's bra might've transfer from when Amanda was wearing it and Raffaele... well, you know.

Bra clips are not always easy to open. Sometimes you have to squeeze...


-

 

[Vixen]

Fair enough, but first I'd like to know your source, so I can check them out myself, especially the "rubbish" part.

I suspect all of that is just your opinion and nothing else, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt for now.



-

Gill, himself, I'm afraid. He contradicts himself on the case by saying chances of getting a reportable profile via passive transfer is "very low" >24 hrs after last contact (p76-77).

Incidentally, there is zero evidence that Sollecito ever tried to 'break down the door'. His fingerprints were only ever found in one place in the cottage, and that was on a discarded cigarette butt.

So the claim by PIP that his DNA got on the bra clasp because his DNA was on the door is pure cuckoo-land fantasy.




.

 

[Vixen]

How about hair follicles, what does your "expert" say about that?

And besides, you've probably never lived with a bunch of women. They borrow stuff from each other all the time, including bras.

It's quite possible the DNA on Meredith's bra might've transfer from when Amanda was wearing it and Raffaele... well, you know.

Bra clips are not always easy to open. Sometimes you have to squeeze...


-

If wishes were horses beggars would ride. That claim was never presented as a defence so is pure conjecture.

Let's stick to known facts and reality.

 

[Numbers]

But the Italian Criminal Code defines a 'suspect' as 'the accused'. 'Accused' is a verb which demands a subject and an object. Someone has to do the accusing for one to be 'accused'. Nobody had accused Knox of a criminal offence as of the time she accused Lumumba.



It is all very well your claiming the police did suspect Knox but didn't express it. But the law requires an explicit chronology as to WHEN, name, time and place, a person becomes 'a suspect'. For the avoidance of doubt: Knox became a suspect AFTER she committed the apparent crime of Calunnia, as defined by statute.


.

You need to brush up on your grammar. You should also remember that Italian grammar and English grammar differ. The words differ as well.

In Italian, the person called a "defendant" in English is called an "imputato" (masculine) or "imputata" (feminine). These words are nouns. Now a person who is a defendant may also be called an "accused person" in English, or simply the "accused" (a noun). The translation of "imputato" / "imputata" is also "the accused".

 

[AmyStrange]

Gill, himself, I'm afraid. He contradicts himself on the case by saying chances of getting a reportable profile via passive transfer is "very low" >24 hrs after last contact (p76-77).

Incidentally, there is zero evidence that Sollecito ever tried to 'break down the door'. His fingerprints were only ever found in one place in the cottage, and that was on a discarded cigarette butt.

So the claim by PIP that his DNA got on the bra clasp because his DNA was on the door is pure cuckoo-land fantasy.

IOW, you have no proof. Got it.


-

 

[AmyStrange]

If wishes were horses beggars would ride. That claim was never presented as a defence so is pure conjecture.

Let's stick to known facts and reality.

You mean let's pretend your opinions are facts, right?


-

 

[Stacyhs]

You are still completely failing to grasp the point being made. As a corollary:

• In the case of Lee Rigby killed by two Islamist terrorists, one of the convicted men claimed the police knocked out his teeth whilst he was being arrested. QUESTION: Does this mean he did not commit the murder?
• In the case of OJ Simpson, an openly racist police detective is alleged to have planted 'the glove' at the crime scene to ensure - it is claimed - OJ Simpson got convicted. Simpson was acquitted as a result. QUESTION: Does this mean OJ Simpson did not commit the murders?

That was not the point being made you or me in our exchange, Vixen. Don't try and gaslight me. THIS was the exchange:
Numbers said:

Some posters here, IIUC, claim that the police and prosecutor had no reason to falsify or coerce any statements. Those posters claim essentially that the police involved in the case followed the law. However, facts reported since the impugned investigation show that certain of the key police officers in the Knox - Sollecito case in fact are willing and capable of breaking the law.

Your response:

As I keep saying before, the personal beliefs and acrimonious divorce details of the police don't cancel out that a horrible murder was committed with the perps interfering with the victim's underwear to present her half naked. Sollecito's DNA was on the bra strap hook beneath the body.

No amount of propaganda by self-professed Knox advocate Nina Burleigh changes the truth of the matter.

YOU brought up Napoleoni's "acrimonious divorce details" which I pointed out had nothing to do with the murder. But which, as Numbers said, is evidence of Napoleoni's and other Perugia police's willingness to break the law as evidenced by their convictions for breaking the law.

Notice that the Rigby and Simpson cases were NOT part of our exchange.

Nobody is claiming the police are paragons of saintly godliness and yes, whilst contraventions of protocol and Human Rights issues might render any conviction 'unsafe' legally, it does not nullify the actuality of an offence that was committed in reality.

No one has argued otherwise. But violations of Human/Legal rights certainly increase the likelihood of a wrongful conviction.

BTW DNA does not crawl across the room. DNA has no ability to fly under a door and land on an item covered by a body.

When you have to resort to such silliness, it doesn't help your argument. No one said it does either. Please remember that you're not talking to a bunch of rubes with no understanding of DNA contamination. But, as has been pointed out time and time again seemingly to no effect, DNA most certainly can be transferred from one object to another by a vector. A vector like dirty, unchanged gloves, DNA tracked in on the bottom of feet or shoes or shoe covers, among others.

Please stop living a fairy story and face reality:

Ah, I see you DO have a sense of humor!

Sollecito's full DNA was on the victim's underwear. "

That's not denied.

As confirmed under cross examination by one of Italy's leading DNA experts. A top expert in DNA also attended as the defence witness for the DNA testing as it took place live in front of him, and who reported no anomalies in the process.

As I said, that is not denied. But the contamination likely took place during the 46 days before collection, therefore BEFORE the lab testing. Seeing no anomalies during the lab testing does not mean contamination can't occur. An improperly sanitized slide or machine can't be seen by an observer.

In addition, Kercher's near full DNA (15 alleles) was on Sollecito's kitchen knife blade with Knox' on the hilt.

Citation for "Kercher's near full DNA (15 alleles)" was found.
As you are already aware of Conti and Vecchiotti completely disagree with Stefanoni:
" we do not accept the conclusions about the certain attribution of the profile detected in Sample B to the victim Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher since the genetic profile, as obtained, is unreliable in that it is not supported by scientifically valid analytical procedures.

But Kercher had never been in Sollecito's kitchen. Yet Sollecito made up a story of having pricked her hand with it whilst they were cooking together. Sollecito lied, lied and lied. So much so, that when he tried to claim compensation, he was found to have behaved in a legally 'gross misconduct' manner and had his cheeky attempt to profit from HIS crimes thrown out.

Blah, blah, blah....the fact remains that Kercher's DNA was not on the knife blade. But what do two medical doctors who are also Ph.D's in forensics know about this compared to a Bachelor of Science in biology "Dr." Stefanoni?

 

[Stacyhs]

It was proven as far as the Criminal Law Court was concerned.

Based almost solely on Knox's false and retracted 'confession'. Your resorting to the "legally" excuse is trotted out because you cannot provide any evidence that indisputably places them in the cottage at the time of the murder. If it existed, they would never have been acquitted not once, but twice, and definitively.

 

[Stacyhs]

Gill, himself, I'm afraid. He contradicts himself on the case by saying chances of getting a reportable profile via passive transfer is "very low" >24 hrs after last contact (p76-77).

And yet we know it happens. After all, he is firmly convinced in Knox's and Sollecito's complete innocence.

Incidentally, there is zero evidence that Sollecito ever tried to 'break down the door'. His fingerprints were only ever found in one place in the cottage, and that was on a discarded cigarette butt.

Zero evidence you say? Then why does Altieri testify he saw a small crack in the door? Why did Privitera testify that he found two of his prints on Kercher's bedroom door?

"Five prints belonged to Sollecito, said Privitera, two of which were found on the outside of Kercher's bedroom door."

So the claim by PIP that his DNA got on the bra clasp because his DNA was on the door is pure cuckoo-land fantasy.

You're limiting it to the door. The police...for some reason only they understand...failed to test the OUTSIDE of the bedroom door handle for anything, including DNA. What's the logical place to try and open a closed door?