Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[scissorhands]

I still find the DNA evidence somewhat dubious.
I accepted that Knoxs behaviour after arrest could be due to a desire to release stress in the manner of her choosing.
But looking at the other evidence of lying/changing of stories of Knox and Solliceto, computer and phone evidence that they were lying about their story of what they did that evening, clear evidence of a botched attempt at staging a fake burglary, that table lamp, the footprints, the mop and bucket, and the witness statements putting the pair in the vicinity is enough to convince me that they were involved in the clean up and staged break in.
That necessarily means they were involved in the murder in some way.
Maybe it was a revenge killing, due to Knox being sacked from that club by Lumumba and Kercher gaining the job?
Maybe the prosecutors overactive imagination concerning satanic sex orgies didnt help the case.
The real motive and the actual events in that room may never come to light.

 

[Kestrel]

Hard to say. Is that a theory you're proposing? Do you have any science to back it up?

It doesn't seem to be anyone else's theory, here.

Are you basing a lot of your contributions here on TV crime shows?

I was making a remark about Bob's logic. The knife must be the murder weapon because one of the suspects admitted that the victim came into contact with the knife. His reasoning assumes that the only possible explanation for the DNA is that it was used as a murder weapon.

 

[Fiona]

Do you have another explanation?

 

[William Parcher]

What is your basis for being surprised, & for the claim that there should have been hair/fiber transfer?

This is one of the issues that drew me to the discussion boards on the case. I initially thought the same thing, but I've found no substantiation for that expectation.

I should qualify my earlier reference to MK's body apparently not having been cleaned. There are unequivocal descriptions of blood spatter on her chest, & no descriptions of the rest of her body, so I can really conclude only that her chest wasn't cleaned.

If people are struggling, grappling or wrestling with each other there are forceful movements such as push, pull, twist, punch, kick, etc. Those movements will dislodge head and body hairs and skin cells which fall out as a matter of normal life anyway. Fibers from clothing are shaken off or directly transferred (ie. fibers from your sleeve become embedded in my sleeve if they touch or rub). Even if those physical artifacts aren't on the victim's body or clothing, they will likely appear on the floor or anything around where the struggle is occuring.

But something like a vacuum could remove some of these things from surfaces that allow. Fibers and hairs embedded in clothing might remain unless laundered, but may still be present even afterwards.

If the clothing worn by the victim during the murder actually was placed into the washer... the entire washer contents (including any soapy water) should have been taken as evidence.

 

[piktor]

Your predicament is my soapbox

they argue (fallaciously/dishonestly) that the DNA being collected improperly or tested improperly will somehow exonerate Knox and Sollecito.

The defense has not presented a case to debunk the prosecution theory. If anything, the prosecution has honestly presented evidence of its meek results. The prosecution has been honest and believable. The defense has been equally meek and honest with no convincing arguments to help their clients. This is why the accused are in jail today.

The self-appointed crusaders for the defense have all something to gain. The 9 Scientist Committee (3 of them, at least) has been duly exposed by Fiona.

The self-promoting Dick Tracy from Chicago http://www.pjcinvestigations.com/paul-j-ciolino.htm is not spending his time out of the kindness of his heart.

The ''Monster of Florence'' author has a book to promote, and also a personal beef with prosecutor Mignini, etc.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I was making a remark about Bob's logic. The knife must be the murder weapon because one of the suspects admitted that the victim came into contact with the knife. His reasoning assumes that the only possible explanation for the DNA is that it was used as a murder weapon.

Well...when does Sollecito say that Kercher was at his apt?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

RFU

Fiona,

You wrote,
Quote:

There are no generally accepted thresholds for how high peaks must be to qualify as a “true allele.” Applied Biosystems, Inc., which sells the most widely used system for STR typing (the ABI Prism 310 Genetic Analyzer™ with the ProfilerPlus™ system) recom-mends a peak-height threshold of 150 RFU, saying that peaks below this level must be interpreted with caution. However, many crime laboratories that use the ABI system have set lower thresholds (down to 40 RFU in some instances). And crime laboratories sometimes apply their standards in an inconsistent manner from case to case or even within a single case. Hence, a defendant may be convicted in one case based on “peaks” that would not be counted in another case, or by another lab. And in some cases there may be unreported peaks, just below the threshold, that would change the interpretation of the case if considered

“It is interesting to note that the manufacturer recommends a peak height but says that peaks below that height must be treated "with caution". That does not support any contention that they have no value at all

Note also that the authors say in passing that some labs adopt lower standards (down to 40 RFU). So it does not seem that this is the unheard of scientific procedure we are told it is.”

I take this to mean that some labs reject all peaks below 150 RFU, whereas others treat peaks between 150-40 RFU with caution. I counted 16 of the 29 peaks in Figure 1 of the petition as being below even 40 RFU.

Chris

 

[lector]

If people are struggling, grappling or wrestling with each other there are forceful movements such as push, pull, twist, punch, kick, etc. Those movements will dislodge head and body hairs and skin cells which fall out as a matter of normal life anyway. Fibers from clothing are shaken off or directly transferred (ie. fibers from your sleeve become embedded in my sleeve if they touch or rub). Even if those physical artifacts aren't on the victim's body or clothing, they will likely appear on the floor or anything around where the struggle is occuring.

But something like a vacuum could remove some of these things from surfaces that allow. Fibers and hairs embedded in clothing might remain unless laundered, but may still be present even afterwards.

If the clothing worn by the victim during the murder actually was placed into the washer... the entire washer contents (including any soapy water) should have been taken as evidence.

This is what I would expect based on common sense, but I've yet to see an expert weigh in on this point. I don't trust my common sense in this area.

If it is likely, is the absence of fibers/hairs evidence of a cleanup?

I've also wondered how much, if any, DNA evidence from Meredith was found in the room. If none, does that too become evidence of a cleanup? Was the forensic team even looking for that?

I've yet to search the PMF site thoroughly for statements of exactly what was found, what wasn't found, & what was tested for in MK's room, so the answers may be out there. I wasn't going to get into this area at this juncture but since it's come up, well, there it is.

 

[quadraginta]

I was making a remark about Bob's logic. The knife must be the murder weapon because one of the suspects admitted that the victim came into contact with the knife. His reasoning assumes that the only possible explanation for the DNA is that it was used as a murder weapon.

You're not making a remark about anyone's logic at all. Certainly not Bob's, at least as I have interpreted it.

His reason for thinking that that may be an explanation is that Sollecito's explanation has been contradicted by witnesses.

The problem is not about the DNA testing. It is about Sollecito suddenly concocting another phony, last minute explanation when he learned about the DNA. Another busted, desperate story.

Another stone in a growing wall.

 

[dasmiller]

After 1000+ posts, we've reached the limit of my attention span. I know it's not big news when a lurker drops out of a thread, but I wanted to give kudos to the people doing most of the actual posting. I've learned a lot, and a lot of why I've stayed with it so long is that it's been a remarkably civil, reasoned discussion. Yes, there've been a some unpleasant moments, but in general, the last several hundred posts have been a big cut above most of the contentious threads I've read.

So, thanks, all of you.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

You're not making a remark about anyone's logic at all. Certainly not Bob's, at least as I have interpreted it.

His reason for thinking that that may be an explanation is that Sollecito's explanation has been contradicted by witnesses.

The problem is not about the DNA testing. It is about Sollecito suddenly concocting another phony, last minute explanation when he learned about the DNA. Another busted, desperate story.

Another stone in a growing wall.

Thanks.

Following up, my logic is this:

If there is a plausible, innocent explanation for Kercher's DNA on the knife, then why did Sollecito feel the need to lie about how it got there?

If there is a plausible, innocent explanation for the knife (i.e. kitchen knife Meredith used at some point), why was it hidden away in a box instead of in the kitchen with all the other knives?

When did Meredith visit Sollecito's apt and help him cook? Why was the knife, that supposedly was used in the kitchen for cooking, hidden away in a box after being scoured and bleached?

Where did the DNA that contaminated the clasp come from, and how did it manage to contaminate the clasp without contaminating anywhere/anything else that was tested?


The Defense has presented no plausible answer to these questions. Using Occam's razor, we therefore lean towards incrimination.


If there is a plausible, innocent explanation that answers all the questions left by the evidence/testimonies, then what is it and why wasn't it presented?

 

[Fiona]

Fiona,

You wrote,
Quote:

There are no generally accepted thresholds for how high peaks must be to qualify as a “true allele.” Applied Biosystems, Inc., which sells the most widely used system for STR typing (the ABI Prism 310 Genetic Analyzer™ with the ProfilerPlus™ system) recom-mends a peak-height threshold of 150 RFU, saying that peaks below this level must be interpreted with caution. However, many crime laboratories that use the ABI system have set lower thresholds (down to 40 RFU in some instances). And crime laboratories sometimes apply their standards in an inconsistent manner from case to case or even within a single case. Hence, a defendant may be convicted in one case based on “peaks” that would not be counted in another case, or by another lab. And in some cases there may be unreported peaks, just below the threshold, that would change the interpretation of the case if considered

“It is interesting to note that the manufacturer recommends a peak height but says that peaks below that height must be treated "with caution". That does not support any contention that they have no value at all

Note also that the authors say in passing that some labs adopt lower standards (down to 40 RFU). So it does not seem that this is the unheard of scientific procedure we are told it is.”

I take this to mean that some labs reject all peaks below 150 RFU, whereas others treat peaks between 150-40 RFU with caution. I counted 16 of the 29 peaks in Figure 1 of the petition as being below even 40 RFU.

Chris

I am really tired of your approach here, Halides1. You arrived making assertions with absolutely no knowledge of this case and with a breathtaking presumption that you could find simple answers to complex questions which had been the subject of two years of intensive investigation. For example in your early post you asserted that Guerde had been in the bloody bathroom because of the **** in the toilet: you did not appear to know there were two toilets. There is no reason why you should have if you were new to the case: that I don't criticise. I do criticise the fact that you could contemplate for one moment that such a simple explanation could be correct: it is hardly possible that something so obvious would have been missed but apparently it did not occur to you to go and look.

And that has set the tone of your contribution ever since. You have been condescending but without much evidence that you have anything to be condescending about. You have asked questions and gone so far as to say you will not respond to people unless they answer them. Yet I notice you do not answer any yourself. What gave you the right to talk de haut en bas?

Each time your own questions have been answered you neither address the point not concede it: you move on to another. You appear to found on one rabid site whicn no honest person would rely on without information from elsewhere and you do not appear to recognise that it condemns its objectivity out of its own mouth in the very first link to it you provided. It is true that we all have to look at all kinds of sources when we are trying to get our heads round something so complex: but when the source is so obviously tainted most of us try to find at least some other confirmation: but not you. You do not acknowledge its limitations in any way. I am beginning to wonder if you wrote it

So I will take a leaf out of your book. I will not pursue anything you dredge up unless it suits me, until you answer some of the many questions you have avoided so far.

If you do that then perhaps we will have a basis for discussion: but we do not have one now

 

[lector]

Knife in drawer not box

If there is a plausible, innocent explanation for the knife (i.e. kitchen knife Meredith used at some point), why was it hidden away in a box instead of in the kitchen with all the other knives?

When did Meredith visit Sollecito's apt and help him cook? Why was the knife, that supposedly was used in the kitchen for cooking, hidden away in a box after being scoured and bleached?

Bob, I am with you most of the way, but the knife wasn't hidden in a box. It was found in a kitchen drawer with other cutlery & utensils & then placed in a shoebox by the team that found it for transport to the lab.

A newspaper erroneously reported that the knife was hidden in a box , & that tidbit has taken on a life of its own.

This has been well documented on PMF &, I believe, TJMK as well.

This doesn't change the significance of Sollecito's stories about the knife, of course.

 

[Fiona]

If that is correct then I believe Bob's error is based on my earlier posts because I did believe it was found in a box and I have seen different reports since then which I do not think I remembered to post. I am not certain which version is correct but I am happy to accept what you say, lector.

So my apologies to all for the confusion and error

 

[lector]

If that is correct then I believe Bob's error is based on my earlier posts because I did believe it was found in a box and I have seen different reports since then which I do not think I remembered to post. I am not certain which version is correct but I am happy to accept what you say, lector.

So my apologies to all for the confusion and error

I just did a quick search on PMF. There were two posts on Dec 08 to this effect but neither gives a source. There are posts from much earlier in the year stating "hidden in shoebox" that apparently weren't contradicted.

I am pretty sure I read something definitive about the knife being found in a drawer on TJMK but it's too late here for me to go on searching now.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Bob, I am with you most of the way, but the knife wasn't hidden in a box. It was found in a kitchen drawer with other cutlery & utensils & then placed in a shoebox by the team that found it for transport to the lab.

A newspaper erroneously reported that the knife was hidden in a box , & that tidbit has taken on a life of its own.

This has been well documented on PMF &, I believe, TJMK as well.

This doesn't change the significance of Sollecito's stories about the knife, of course.

My mistake. Carry on

 

[Matthew Best]

Did K/S make any testimony as to why the washer was running. This makes it looks like a cleanup but there could be a natural explanation. For example sometimes when laundry gets left in the washer overnight without being dried you would run the washer again to make sure the clothes don't get funky. So maybe Amanda re-started the wash so she could use the washer. I don't believe this btw, it's just that I want to know how they try and explain it.

Nobody had to explain it because it didn't happen and nobody testified at the trial that it did happen. It's just another one of those stories that got started somehow and turned out not to be true.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

If that is correct then I believe Bob's error is based on my earlier posts because I did believe it was found in a box and I have seen different reports since then which I do not think I remembered to post. I am not certain which version is correct but I am happy to accept what you say, lector.

So my apologies to all for the confusion and error

No worries, I should have double checked it

 

[Fulcanelli]

No. The clothes were washed the day before (while Kercher was still alive - she put them in the machine) and they were still in the machine the following day as she hadn't had time to take them out.

The only reference we have for that is Amanda.

 

[Fulcanelli]

At this point, it's become a point of contention mainly, at least for me, over how this information is being attacked.

Exactly. Especially when one considers that this has already been discussed by multiple experts in the court room during the trial. And that isn't even the first court it went through, as it also went through Judge Micheli's pre-trial hearing as well.