Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[stilicho]

I mentioned somewhere up thread that this is not clear at all. Early on it was mentioned somewhere that at one point Knox said the knife was hers. She is reported to have said she did not know how it got to Sollecito's place. This was put to the two Italian women, who said they had never seen it at the cottage. From then it seems to have been accepted it was Sollicito's and I have not seen that mentioned again.

I have not time to find the reference at present: perhaps Stilicho can help? Or someone else?

Almost all the information about the knife comes from RS's diary (top link here: http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=49 ). He hears about the DNA and the blood on NOV 16 and offers his own explanation for it on NOV 18. (This prison diary was seized by police and included in the infamous "dossier" used to build the case).

Hope I'm answering the question put to us!

 

[stilicho]

Only when DNA is found in decent amounts in important locations does it become forensically relevant. The problem with the DNA evidence in this case is the amount found. The knife handle is a pretty relevant location, but the amounts at issue are nearly laughable.

The DNA aspect of this case is a joke...

This is almost certainly the basis both AK and RS will use for appeal. Of course, it's directly in conflict with Sollecito's own explanation about how Meredith's DNA would show up on a knife in his kitchen--no less the knife found to be the murder weapon!

There is a possibility that RS could turn on AK (remember his post-sentencing statement denying he was her puppet) and this would not be inconsistent with his "prison diary" statements or the DNA evidence. But waiting until the appeal to try something like that sounds extraordinarily risky.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

If they walked through the room, there would be DNA there. Testing of really, really tiny amounts is a developing field. Because these amounts of DNA material are so easily deposited and moved around, they are more or less forensically irrelevant if there is an innocent reason for the person ever to be in the area.

Only when DNA is found in decent amounts in important locations does it become forensically relevant. The problem with the DNA evidence in this case is the amount found. The knife handle is a pretty relevant location, but the amounts at issue are nearly laughable. If it were possible that at any time she would have used the knife for an innocent purpose, her DNA on the handle becomes useless as all it shows is that at some time she touched the knife. DNA tests have no way of telling how old a sample is. Heck, it isn't that unlikely that someone else innocently tracked her DNA there, be it the police via bad collection procedures, or someone else six months before.

We've got to a point where people don't want to question DNA testing, and we've probably gone too far in considering DNA testing as infallible. If done by an honest lab, with confirmed knowable samples (like in a paternity test), DNA testing is as watertight as evidence gets. The problem is that crime scenes often result in unclear, and sometimes combined, samples, bad lab procedures can cause cross-contamination from a known sample to the sample to be tested. Plus some tests just aren't useful evidence because the presence of DNA isn't evidence of a crime, rather just evidence that a person was at a particular place some time in the past.

The DNA aspect of this case is a joke...

You're still missing the point. The DNA evidence in regards to the knife is superfluous because Sollecito claimed Kercher had contact with the knife, in fact that she pricked her finger with it. Regardless of DNA contamination, regardless of who's knife it actually is, regardless of too small a sample, Sollecito has testified that Kercher had contact with the knife.

 

[quadraginta]

You're still missing the point. The DNA evidence in regards to the knife is superfluous because Sollecito claimed Kercher had contact with the knife, in fact that she pricked her finger with it. Regardless of DNA contamination, regardless of who's knife it actually is, regardless of too small a sample, Sollecito has testified that Kercher had contact with the knife.

If I was less charitable I would suspect that Suddenly, et. al. don't want to admit that they understand this point.

It isn't really very confusing, and somebody who can't encompass it isn't going to be very good with any of the other evidence either.

 

[Suddenly]

You're still missing the point. The DNA evidence in regards to the knife is superfluous because Sollecito claimed Kercher had contact with the knife, in fact that she pricked her finger with it. Regardless of DNA contamination, regardless of who's knife it actually is, regardless of too small a sample, Sollecito has testified that Kercher had contact with the knife.

It appears you are for some reason assuming that I'm arguing she isn't guilty. I'm not.

I'm saying the DNA evidence is on the whole best ignored for a number of reasons having to do with amounts and methods. That there is non-DNA evidence that indicates guilt is totally irrelevant to that point.

Part of the DNA evidence was Knox having her DNA on the handle. This has nothing to do with the above testimony, which is about the victim having her DNA on the tip.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Knox's DNA on the handle isn't in dispute. The disputed DNA evidence concerning the knife is Kercher's because the sample was too small for the test to be reproduced by anyone else.

 

[Brainster]

I'm curious how the prosecution explained the use of a knife which as far as we know belonged in Sollecito's flat as the murder weapon. If they used that knife they surely must have brought it with them to the scene - and doesn't that imply premeditation?

It indicates that they were planning to do something with the knife, yes. Assuming it was a phony break-in and assault, bringing a knife with them makes a lot of sense.

 

[Suddenly]

Knox's DNA on the handle isn't in dispute. The disputed DNA evidence concerning the knife is Kercher's because the sample was too small for the test to be reproduced by anyone else.

The probity of the DNA on the handle is pretty clearly in dispute. That it was her DNA might not be, but these are not the same thing. There is enough DNA to test, but why, when, and how it got there isn't answered by DNA testing. The amount found does not suggest anything further. We could reasonably conclude she touched the knife at some point, but even that isn't a lock. In fact, given that the knife was scrubbed with bleach, it is likely the DNA found was pressed firmly into the handle, making it also reasonable to assume it wasn't from the last use... but that is pretty speculative.

The problem with the Kercher sample on the tip comes more from protocol issues in that from what I've seen the lab notes were rather inconsistent and near incoherent, and the sample had to be amplified as part of testing which is a bit touchy on the protocol side because such small amounts are extremely sensitive to contamination.
So you have a lab worker that it appears failed some basic protocol steps doing an extremely touchy test on something that will be destroyed with no defense representative to witness all of this. One account I read suggested the lab worker did this without being told to... Those lapses aren't proof of a conspiracy, rather evidence of being sloppy, which isn't a good thing with such touchy tests.

So sure, there could be independent evidence about the knife, but that DNA evidence probably would have been tossed in most US courts. I don't know what their standards are for that sort of thing over there.

 

[stilicho]

So sure, there could be independent evidence about the knife, but that DNA evidence probably would have been tossed in most US courts. I don't know what their standards are for that sort of thing over there.

I've heard this too. But most of those reports are from people with a stake in the matter including the fabled nine experts in an open letter. Before assuming the DNA evidence would have been thrown out I'd like to hear it from an objective source. I wouldn't expect anyone here to find that source on their own.

I'm much more interested in experts who actually testify over those who write open letters. If these experts existed, one would have thought that AK's family would have spared no expense to fly them to the trial to testify.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The probity of the DNA on the handle is pretty clearly in dispute. That it was her DNA might not be, but these are not the same thing. There is enough DNA to test, but why, when, and how it got there isn't answered by DNA testing. The amount found does not suggest anything further. We could reasonably conclude she touched the knife at some point, but even that isn't a lock. In fact, given that the knife was scrubbed with bleach, it is likely the DNA found was pressed firmly into the handle, making it also reasonable to assume it wasn't from the last use... but that is pretty speculative.

The problem with the Kercher sample on the tip comes more from protocol issues in that from what I've seen the lab notes were rather inconsistent and near incoherent, and the sample had to be amplified as part of testing which is a bit touchy on the protocol side because such small amounts are extremely sensitive to contamination.
So you have a lab worker that it appears failed some basic protocol steps doing an extremely touchy test on something that will be destroyed with no defense representative to witness all of this. One account I read suggested the lab worker did this without being told to... Those lapses aren't proof of a conspiracy, rather evidence of being sloppy, which isn't a good thing with such touchy tests.

So sure, there could be independent evidence about the knife, but that DNA evidence probably would have been tossed in most US courts. I don't know what their standards are for that sort of thing over there.

The evidence of Knox on the handle after the cleaning could more easily be explained if she was the one who bleached the knife...

 

[Chris_Halkides]

my interest in the case

I did some Googling on Halides1 and found that he has some credibility in several of the topics, although he may not be completely up to speed on the individual facts of the case. Just a suggestion for those who are tempted to toss off what he has to say lightly.

As such I thank him as well for his contributions to this thread as well.

Brainster,

Thank you for your kind words. I teach biochemistry at a university and have, on rare occasion, used some of the techniques that are the building blocks of forensic DNA, such as PCR and the use of restriction endonucleases to digest DNA. I am not a forensic DNA expert, however. I have also taken an interest in forensic DNA due to its importance in the Duke lacrosse case, of which I became a student some years ago. Contrary to claims made here, I take no position on the guilt or innocence of the two individuals in question, only on the quality of the DNA evidence.

Chris

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA handling protocols

Matthew,

You wrote, "I am not qualified to collect DNA evidence so I can't be sure of anything, but a quick Google turns up Forensic Magazine which says you should "avoid touching areas where you might find DNA. Don’t grab an item the way you—or the suspect— would normally grab the item. If DNA is present, you’re likely to find it in this spot, so protect it by not handling it. Also, when possible, use disposable tools, such as disposable tweezers, to handle evidence. If you don’t have disposable tools, clean the tools thoroughly between dealing with each piece of evidence to avoid cross-contamination."

They appear to be handling the clasp and are not using disposable tools. I don't know if this would make any major difference, but presumably these guidelines are written down for a reason."

Now you are warm to the scent. Let me encourage you to keep digging. I hope to come back to this topic once work-related pressures ease a bit, but that could be some time.

Chris

 

[Kestrel]

Matthew,

You wrote, "I am not qualified to collect DNA evidence so I can't be sure of anything, but a quick Google turns up Forensic Magazine which says you should "avoid touching areas where you might find DNA. Don’t grab an item the way you—or the suspect— would normally grab the item. If DNA is present, you’re likely to find it in this spot, so protect it by not handling it. Also, when possible, use disposable tools, such as disposable tweezers, to handle evidence. If you don’t have disposable tools, clean the tools thoroughly between dealing with each piece of evidence to avoid cross-contamination."

They appear to be handling the clasp and are not using disposable tools. I don't know if this would make any major difference, but presumably these guidelines are written down for a reason.

If you look at the video, both investigators are touching the evidence in multiple places. This kind of handling would almost assure transfer of any contamination present on their glove fingertips to the collected evidence. It would also transfer material from the evidence to their gloves, where it could contaminate the next piece of collected evidence.



Did the officers testify that they changed gloves before collecting each item of evidence?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

BobTheDonkey,

You wrote, "You're still missing the point. The DNA evidence in regards to the knife is superfluous because Sollecito claimed Kercher had contact with the knife, in fact that she pricked her finger with it. Regardless of DNA contamination, regardless of who's knife it actually is, regardless of too small a sample, Sollecito has testified that Kercher had contact with the knife."

Now I begin to see your point. And yet, tying the knife to Kercher is not the same thing as tying the knife into the crime, is that not so?

Chris

 

[stilicho]

If you look at the video, both investigators are touching the evidence in multiple places. This kind of handling would almost assure transfer of any contamination present on their gloves fingertips to the collected evidence. It would also transfer material from the evidence to their gloves, where it could contaminate the next piece of collected evidence.

Did the officers testify that they changed gloves before collecting each item of evidence?

This is exactly the issue brought up here after the JUL 2009 testimony:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=17074#p17074

And here's a link to an article in Italian (through the English forum entry at PMF) by the DNA witness for the RS defence team:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=17212#p17212

As always, I expect the DNA evidence to be the keystone of the appeal. But RS's defenders have argued that the contamination was somehow airborne and not transferred from the gloves. I cannot find out why they are insisting this if it's easy enough to just point at the video and argue otherwise.

 

[quadraginta]

BobTheDonkey,

You wrote, "You're still missing the point. The DNA evidence in regards to the knife is superfluous because Sollecito claimed Kercher had contact with the knife, in fact that she pricked her finger with it. Regardless of DNA contamination, regardless of who's knife it actually is, regardless of too small a sample, Sollecito has testified that Kercher had contact with the knife."

Now I begin to see your point. And yet, tying the knife to Kercher is not the same thing as tying the knife into the crime, is that not so?

Chris

No it isn't.

The thing is that Sollecito claimed that Kercher had cut herself on that knife while she was at his apartment having a meal. Other testimony asserts that Kercher was never at Sollecito's apartment, and what is known about the contact between the two would seem to support that.

What I find most disconcerting is that the questions about the DNA processing of the knife are being offered by this full court press of Knox apologists in the media as irrefutable proof of the mistreatment of Knox by Italian courts when it doesn't have anything significant to do with the case as it developed. Once Sollecito made his claims regarding the DNA's provenance the questions about the accuracy of the tests became moot.

My inclinations to consider Knox's innocence are not helped by such blatant manipulation and misdirection. Her supporters make no friends by insulting peoples' intelligence.

If they have valid concerns about the knife they would do better trying to prove that Sollecito wasn't lying about how the DNA got there, not trying to persuade everyone that he was lying about it being there in the first place.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

video of bra clasp at crime scene

And I suggest you stop taking things on authority of the people you happen to think agree with you

There is at least one video which makes assertions about the crime scene and which shows a different house entirely

If anyone should contact the signers of the letter it is you: it is your claim

Fiona,

Thank you for your suggestion. I contacted Professor Hampikian, and he was kind enough to provide the following link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLE4s3jXTVU&feature=related

Contrary to your assertion, I started out without an opinion on the DNA. It was the strength of the arguments such as given by Professor Hampikian and the other signers of the letter that swayed me.

Chris

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Fiona,

Thank you for your suggestion. I contacted Professor Hampikian, and he was kind enough to provide the following link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLE4s3jXTVU&feature=related

Contrary to your assertion, I started out without an opinion on the DNA. It was the strength of the arguments such as given by Professor Hampikian and the other signers of the letter that swayed me.

Chris

And, yet, Sollecito's DNA hadn't contaminated any other areas that were swabbed?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

BobTheDonkey,

You asked me for the video, as well as Fiona. Please tell me what you think of the specks on the gloves and the appearance and position of the strap.

Chris

 

[Fiona]

BobTheDonkey,

You asked me for the video, as well as Fiona. Please tell me what you think of the specks on the gloves and the appearance and position of the strap.

Chris

The short answer is I do not think they make any difference at all, for the reasons already given.