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

[Planigale]

The Italian top forensic scientists said it was a mixture of AK/Mez DNA, presumed to be blood because of the high RFU peaks. Blood can only mix whilst still wet. The evidence for the knife was not just Mez' DNA trapped in a scratch - and it was her near-full DNA profile BTW (15-alleles) - and AK's on the hilt, it was also the knife's outline on the bed's mattress protective sheet. Likewise it fit the stab wound on the left side of Mez' neck.




.

Quotation please. Which forensic scientist said one could assume it was blood from high RFU? It was not stefanoni. Also please provide a contemporaneous top ten of Italian forensic scientists (or top 100) so we can see if these people were top forensic scientists.

The samples from the bathroom were collected by the crime scene photohgrapher Gioia Brocci. Video recordings show she swiped large areas with a single swab, and did not just sample the presumed blood stains with a rolling motion to limit the sample collection to the actual stain. She failed to change gloves between samples which meant she could have produced contamination between samples. the first sample she took contained only Knox's DNA, therefore Knox's DNA on subsequent samples may have been introduced by cross contamination from her gloves.

Thus although the sample when tested contained a mix of DNA we cannot know whether the DNA was co-located, the DNA could be from two separate areas sampled in one swab. They Knox DNA could even be from the photographer's glove. Even if co-located that does not mean they were deposited at the same time rather than being overlaid. There is no way to tell if the samples were deposited at the same time at the same place or at separate times. Steffanoni testified to this fact.

The forensic scientist involved (Steffanoni) informed the court that one could not make an assumption about the source or timing of DNA deposition. So you are disagreeing with the prosecutions own forensic witness. She testified to mixed DNA not mixed blood. It was the prosecution lawyer not the forensic scientists who then said this was mixed blood.

The top forensic scientists hired by the defence also testified (along with the prosecution forensic scientist) that one could not assume it was blood blood.

Interesting that you accept that only one of the wounds was compatible with the knife from Sollecito's apartment. So you then have to introduce a second knife. Alternatively you could have had one smaller knife that could have inflicted all three wounds. The knife from Sollecito's apartment did not fit the bloody print on the sheet. A smaller knife could have left both the imprint on the bed sheet and caused all three wounds.

In many murders investigations one sees extensive searches of nearby drains, ditches etc by the police for the suspected knife on the basis that the murderer would have disposed of it nearby. The Italian police seem not to have done that.

They also had to create the bizarre fantasy that Knox carried a large kitchen knife from sollecito's for personal protection. They failed to find evidence of blood stains in Knox's purse which would have been present had she carried a bloody knife away from the murder to Sollecito's apartment.

Knox's DNA on the knife is not in doubt. It is the reliability of the test for low copy number DNA in a laboratory that was not properly equipped to do such testing with inadequate controls that is in doubt, which identified Kercher's DNA.

 

[TruthCalls]

AK left Geude's faeces there because she knew it was his and not hers. The pair made a point of dragging Napoleoni back out of her car, as she was leaving the cottage, to have a look at it. What they didn't realise is that there is too much bacteria in faeces for it to be particularly useful for DNA recovery. But the forensic police did manage to link it to Guede, who never denied it, anyway.

Unfortunately, there was no forensic sign of RG in Filomena's room but there WAS a damning mix of DNA of AK and Mez.
This was via blood which scientists could identify by the high RFU's, as only blood reacts in that way.

A complete falsehood. RFU values for Amanda's alleles in Rep: 177 were fairly low, with most being less than half the RFU values for Meredith's.

For example, consider position D8S1179. In Rep: 177 the RFU values are 173/215. For Rep: 180 (print in Amanda's bedroom) the RFU values are 1400/1297. And let's not forget, Rep: 180 tested negative for blood using TMB and the explanation for that, per the PGP, is that the sample was too diluted for TMB to detect. Yet now we're told that Rep: 177, which was 4-6X fainter than Rep: 180, is blood because only blood reacts this way.

I'm not sure if you figured no one ever bothered to look at these values or if your confirmation bias allowed you to believe this without actually checking yourself, but regardless, your comment if clearly false. In fact, the RFU values from Rep: 177 proves the exactly opposite of what you claimed - that is, the RFU values are far to low for this to be Amanda's blood. In fact, even Meredith's RFU values are extremely low such that they would not be consistent with blood.

 

[TruthCalls]

The Italian top forensic scientists said it was a mixture of AK/Mez DNA, presumed to be blood because of the high RFU peaks. Blood can only mix whilst still wet. The evidence for the knife was not just Mez' DNA trapped in a scratch - and it was her near-full DNA profile BTW (15-alleles) - and AK's on the hilt, it was also the knife's outline on the bed's mattress protective sheet. Likewise it fit the stab wound on the left side of Mez' neck.

The imprint on the sheet does not match the kitchen knife. The imprint clearly shows the tip of the blade as well as the hilt. This defines the size of the blade, which is clearly less than half the size of the kitchen knife, as is the width of the blade.

It also is a poor forensic fit for the one and only wound it could not be excluded from making. The depth of the wound was less than half that of the kitchen knife blade, and bruising around the perimeter of the wound would indicate the hilt repeatedly hit her skin during the attack. This would indicate a blade less than half that of the kitchen knife. Such a knife would be consistent with ALL wounds AND fit the imprint.

As for sample 36B... one has to wonder why Stefanoni recorded it as "positive" for DNA despite having identical results to sample 36C, which she recorded as "negative" for DNA. Let's also not forget she documented using R/T PCR to quantify the sample, when in fact she used a Qubit Fluorometer. Her documentation failed to identify the quantity of DNA, probably because the Fluorometer returned a "Too Low" result multiple times. When looking at the e-gram one can see only six allele's had an RFU greater than 50, whereas 21 were below 50, 9 of them were below 30. So, given the accepted threshold of 50 RFU, there are too few alleles meeting this threshold to confirm this is Meredith's DNA. Further, the sample was amplified only once, which according to all forensic experts, including Italy's own RIS, DNA must be amplified at least twice to be considered reliable, more for LCN profiling.

So, according to the forensic standards (ENFSI) that Italy is required to follow, it was never proven Meredith's DNA was on the blade. In fact, the results strongly suggest lab contamination. But common sense also tells us DNA can't get "trapped" in an invisible scratch on the blade when the entire knife, if it had been used in the murder, was so thoroughly cleaned that no trace of blood could be found anywhere on the knife. Further, it belies logic that such a cleaning took place yet starch could remain in the area of the seam between handle and blade, and that starch did not absorb blood. Finally, even if one were to overlook all of this and still believe the DNA was on the knife blade, there's still the issue of the knife being removed from it's collection bag not in the lab, but in the police station, not by a lab tech trained to handle the item, but by a cop.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, how did a member of a "prominent Italian crime family" get to be a lieutenant in the Carabinieri?

Asked and answered.

 

[Vixen]

1) Vixen appears unable or unwilling to assimilate the fact that mobile phone records do not include the time prior to connection of the call. In other words, if I call your phone and it rings and rings for 20 seconds then cuts into the voicemail message, which I listen to for 4 seconds before hanging up......the records show a call of 4 seconds, not 24 seconds.

2) Vixen also appears unable or unwilling to assimilate the fact that Kercher's Italian mobile phone was switched off by her killer (ie Guede) on the night of the murder. Therefore, when Knox called that phone - the phone on which they should have been able to contact Kercher wile she was in Italy - the following morning, it didn't ring at all but instead cut straight through to either the voicemail message or the "caller not available" message. Either way, Knox could immediately tell, literally as soon as the phone connected to either the voicemail or "not available" message, that it was proving impossible to actually reach Kercher, so it would have been entirely natural to hang up.

I sometimes wonder why people pontificate on topics that they so clearly know little or nothing about. Unfortunately, this curious and unedifying spectacle appears regularly within this thread. Courtesy of one poster exclusively.

It doesn't change the fact the pair switched off their phones for the duration of the murder*. AK made a cursory call to each of Mez' phones simply to establish an alibi. When she rang Filomena, she said she was going back to Sollecito's when he was probably standing at her shoulder.


*Criminals, let me give you some advice: if you think switching off your phone means that police 'can't prove' you were there at the crime scene, I assure you, nothing looks more suspicious.



.

 

[Vixen]

Irrelevant.


Ridiculous rank hyperbole. Suzanne Capper's family would like a word, as just one example.


Kindly explain how someone whose face was repeatedly plastered all over the front pages of US, British, and Italian tabloids does not qualify as "famous."


The fact that you would insinuate that Amanda is a prostitute speaks volumes about you.

Don't tell lies.


.

 

[Myriad]

Don't tell lies.

What lies has SpitfireIX told?

Or was this just general impromptu life advice unrelated to the discussion?

Don't run with scissors.

 

[Vixen]

The imprint on the sheet does not match the kitchen knife. The imprint clearly shows the tip of the blade as well as the hilt. This defines the size of the blade, which is clearly less than half the size of the kitchen knife, as is the width of the blade.

It also is a poor forensic fit for the one and only wound it could not be excluded from making. The depth of the wound was less than half that of the kitchen knife blade, and bruising around the perimeter of the wound would indicate the hilt repeatedly hit her skin during the attack. This would indicate a blade less than half that of the kitchen knife. Such a knife would be consistent with ALL wounds AND fit the imprint.

As for sample 36B... one has to wonder why Stefanoni recorded it as "positive" for DNA despite having identical results to sample 36C, which she recorded as "negative" for DNA. Let's also not forget she documented using R/T PCR to quantify the sample, when in fact she used a Qubit Fluorometer. Her documentation failed to identify the quantity of DNA, probably because the Fluorometer returned a "Too Low" result multiple times. When looking at the e-gram one can see only six allele's had an RFU greater than 50, whereas 21 were below 50, 9 of them were below 30. So, given the accepted threshold of 50 RFU, there are too few alleles meeting this threshold to confirm this is Meredith's DNA. Further, the sample was amplified only once, which according to all forensic experts, including Italy's own RIS, DNA must be amplified at least twice to be considered reliable, more for LCN profiling.

So, according to the forensic standards (ENFSI) that Italy is required to follow, it was never proven Meredith's DNA was on the blade. In fact, the results strongly suggest lab contamination. But common sense also tells us DNA can't get "trapped" in an invisible scratch on the blade when the entire knife, if it had been used in the murder, was so thoroughly cleaned that no trace of blood could be found anywhere on the knife. Further, it belies logic that such a cleaning took place yet starch could remain in the area of the seam between handle and blade, and that starch did not absorb blood. Finally, even if one were to overlook all of this and still believe the DNA was on the knife blade, there's still the issue of the knife being removed from it's collection bag not in the lab, but in the police station, not by a lab tech trained to handle the item, but by a cop.

These were the defence talking points. The courts preferred the court appointed independent expert witnesses. (cf. Nencini)


It was pointed out that in a crime scene LCN matters not if you can extract good quality DNA from it. The defence expert geneticist, Torre - a highly respected figure - was there as a witness for the defence to observe the DNA testing. He raised no objections as to the method, process or environment.



.

 

[Vixen]

What lies has SpitfireIX told?

Or was this just general impromptu life advice unrelated to the discussion?

Don't run with scissors.

That I called AK a prostitute,



.

 

[Myriad]

That I called AK a prostitute,

No, he said you insinuated that AK is a prostitute.

Which you did.

If you insist on running with scissors someone might get badly injured. Please don't do it. Aren't you more sensible than the people who usually run with scissors?

(See, that's insinuation. I never actually said you run with scissors, so don't lie and say I did.)

 

[Vixen]

Quotation please. Which forensic scientist said one could assume it was blood from high RFU? It was not stefanoni. Also please provide a contemporaneous top ten of Italian forensic scientists (or top 100) so we can see if these people were top forensic scientists.

The samples from the bathroom were collected by the crime scene photohgrapher Gioia Brocci. Video recordings show she swiped large areas with a single swab, and did not just sample the presumed blood stains with a rolling motion to limit the sample collection to the actual stain. She failed to change gloves between samples which meant she could have produced contamination between samples. the first sample she took contained only Knox's DNA, therefore Knox's DNA on subsequent samples may have been introduced by cross contamination from her gloves.

Thus although the sample when tested contained a mix of DNA we cannot know whether the DNA was co-located, the DNA could be from two separate areas sampled in one swab. They Knox DNA could even be from the photographer's glove. Even if co-located that does not mean they were deposited at the same time rather than being overlaid. There is no way to tell if the samples were deposited at the same time at the same place or at separate times. Steffanoni testified to this fact.

The forensic scientist involved (Steffanoni) informed the court that one could not make an assumption about the source or timing of DNA deposition. So you are disagreeing with the prosecutions own forensic witness. She testified to mixed DNA not mixed blood. It was the prosecution lawyer not the forensic scientists who then said this was mixed blood.

The top forensic scientists hired by the defence also testified (along with the prosecution forensic scientist) that one could not assume it was blood blood.

Interesting that you accept that only one of the wounds was compatible with the knife from Sollecito's apartment. So you then have to introduce a second knife. Alternatively you could have had one smaller knife that could have inflicted all three wounds. The knife from Sollecito's apartment did not fit the bloody print on the sheet. A smaller knife could have left both the imprint on the bed sheet and caused all three wounds.

In many murders investigations one sees extensive searches of nearby drains, ditches etc by the police for the suspected knife on the basis that the murderer would have disposed of it nearby. The Italian police seem not to have done that.

They also had to create the bizarre fantasy that Knox carried a large kitchen knife from sollecito's for personal protection. They failed to find evidence of blood stains in Knox's purse which would have been present had she carried a bloody knife away from the murder to Sollecito's apartment.

Knox's DNA on the knife is not in doubt. It is the reliability of the test for low copy number DNA in a laboratory that was not properly equipped to do such testing with inadequate controls that is in doubt, which identified Kercher's DNA.

Colonel Garafano, Professor Torrecelli, Professor Novelli (Nencini court).

As a point of fact, the Perugia police DID do an extensive search of the grounds for knives, including using metal detectors.

When Mez' DNA was found on Sollecito's knife - which was returned to the apartment as his landlords had taken an inventory of everything and would know it was missing - he immediately came back with the excuse he had pricked her hand whilst they were cooking. There really is no innocent way Mez' near full DNA profile got on the knife blade by accident. Again, Sollecito's defence sent a top forensic scientist to observe the testing and ths expert raised no objections as to the method. The DNA sample did come from a scratch on the blade. Of course the defence in their Netflix film lied and claimed there was no scratch.



.

 

[Numbers]

This is untrue.
Please provide reference.
This 2019 article says that stains have to be tested for blood. It does not say that a high DNA return can be assumed to be blood.

https://www.forensicpaper.com/article/21/2-1-5-791.pdf

A NOVEL METHOD FOR BLOOD DETECTION USING FLUORESCENT DYE

Detection of the body fluid present at a crime scene is essential for any forensic investigation. Amongst all the body fluids (sweat, semen, vaginal fluid, saliva, etc.,) blood is the most frequently encountered evidence at the crime scene. Currently, reagents like benzidine, orthotoluidine...

www.biorxiv.org

If this was true, you would be faced with the unsurmountable problem with the knife. The blade which should have had plenty of blood on it only returned a trace amount of DNA (and had not detectable blood) of Kercher. But returned 'normal' amounts of Knox DNA on the handle. Any cleaning that would have removed the copious DNA and all traces of blood from the knife would also have removed all traces of DNA of the welder. Therefore one can conclude that Knox's DNA could only have been applied after cleaning, and since the knife was lying in a draw and had probably been handled by Knox it has no probative value against Knox.

In reality the only (slim) evidence is against Solicito. The bra clasp, the bloody footprint (which is very dubious), the knife (very dubious). The discredited shoe print that Italian forensics incorrectly said was compatible with his trainer (which shows how generally reliable Italian forensics should be assumed to be).

Shouldn't the bra clasp be considered unreliable evidence because of contamination and issues that arose in the failure to exercise proper clean forensic collection procedures?

 

[Vixen]

A complete falsehood. RFU values for Amanda's alleles in Rep: 177 were fairly low, with most being less than half the RFU values for Meredith's.

For example, consider position D8S1179. In Rep: 177 the RFU values are 173/215. For Rep: 180 (print in Amanda's bedroom) the RFU values are 1400/1297. And let's not forget, Rep: 180 tested negative for blood using TMB and the explanation for that, per the PGP, is that the sample was too diluted for TMB to detect. Yet now we're told that Rep: 177, which was 4-6X fainter than Rep: 180, is blood because only blood reacts this way.

I'm not sure if you figured no one ever bothered to look at these values or if your confirmation bias allowed you to believe this without actually checking yourself, but regardless, your comment if clearly false. In fact, the RFU values from Rep: 177 proves the exactly opposite of what you claimed - that is, the RFU values are far to low for this to be Amanda's blood. In fact, even Meredith's RFU values are extremely low such that they would not be consistent with blood.

I am going by what came out in court. As you know, the prosecutor is not allowed to make false representations to the court (similar to our Bar Standards) so if the expert witnesses said they were mixed DNA samples - and there were five all together lining Knox and Mez - then I have no reason to believe they were lying and setting out to deceive.



.

 

[Vixen]

No, he said you insinuated that AK is a prostitute.

Which you did.

If you insist on running with scissors someone might get badly injured. Please don't do it. Aren't you more sensible than the people who usually run with scissors?

(See, that's insinuation. I never actually said you run with scissors, so don't lie and say I did.)

Explain how I insinuated AK was a prostitute.




.

 

[Vixen]

Shouldn't the bra clasp be considered unreliable evidence because of contamination and issues that arose in the failure to exercise proper clean forensic collection procedures?

That is not what the Massei or Nencini court found.




.

 

[Myriad]

Colonel Garafano, Professor Torrecelli (Nencini court).

As a point of fact, the Perugia police DID do an extensive search of the grounds for knives, including using metal detectors.

When Mez' DNA was found on Sollecito's knife - which was returned to the apartment as his landlords had taken an inventory of everything and would know it was missing - he immediately came back with the excuse he had pricked her hand whilst they were cooking. There really is no innocent way Mez' near full DNA profile got on the knofe blade by accident. Again, Sollecito's defence sent a top forensic scientist to observe the testing and ths expert raised no objections as to the method. The DNA sample did come from a scratch on the blade. Of course the defence in their Netflix film lied and claimed there was no scratch.

Considering all the evidence available, the most plausible narrative here is that police acting on behalf of corrupt prosecutors grabbed the biggest shiniest knife they could find at Sollecito's place, despite such a knife not matching the physical evidence in any way, because they knew it would look dramatic on the news and boost the public outrage they were fanning against innocent suspects.

That's the narrative history will tell, because it makes more sense and is more consistent with everything else known about the case than a wide knife making deep narrow wounds and then the murderer(s) taking it home with them.

 

[Myriad]

Explain how I insinuated AK was a prostitute.

By comparing your caricature of her behavior to that of "the usual streetwalkers."

 

[Vixen]

By comparing your caricature of her behavior to that of "the usual streetwalkers."

Let me explain carefully. Considering yourself 'famous' because you are a murder suspect is assuming a class hierachy, which places you higher than those on lesser charges, such as streetwalkers. In other words, the more serious your crime, the higher your class, according to AK's logic, and AK, herself in her preface 'free sample' states that most of the women in Capanne were prostitutes or other similar low-class types, not a high class 'famous' murder suspect like herself.


Clear now?


.

 

[LondonJohn]

"HIgh-class murder suspect" LMAO

Pointless even trying to argue with this level of mendacious, shape-shifting bat guano.

 

[Vixen]

Considering all the evidence available, the most plausible narrative here is that police acting on behalf of corrupt prosecutors grabbed the biggest shiniest knife they could find at Sollecito's place, despite such a knife not matching the physical evidence in any way, because they knew it would look dramatic on the news and boost the public outrage they were fanning against innocent suspects.

That's the narrative history will tell, because it makes more sense and is more consistent with everything else known about the case than a wide knife making deep narrow wounds and then the murderer(s) taking it home with them.

Incredibly interesting. I only deal in the real world so will back out of the room slowly....


.