Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[piktor]

Dust will not contaminate

Dr. Stefanoni, for the prosecution on the bra clasp DNA:

''Dead skin cells floating around the room do not contain DNA and would not stick, she said.''

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php...the_day_report_on_fridays_forensic_testimony/

 

[quadraginta]

Only if we ignore other possibilities, such as cross contamination in the lab.

That's not the only thing we have to ignore. In addition to ignoring your "possibilities" we also have to ignore the fact that nobody has pointed out or even suggested any possible contamination of any other samples except for the ones which are inconvenient to the defense.

Since the only explanations offered by the defense, its own experts, or by the team of overseas hired guns for these "possibilities' is incompetence and inexperience one must needs consider the likelihood (i.e. the "possibility") that the only two samples out of hundreds taken by these inexperienced incompetents which are even alleged to be botched are the two which implicate the defendants.

 

[William Parcher]

This is the point. Not much was found, of 'anyone' even of Rudy Guede. This suggests that she was effectively restrained, otherwise there would have been more of an effective struggle which would have left more forensic data. This is part of the evidence that argues Meredith was restrained by three attackers, rather then one (especially when we also have to remember that the attacker would also be holding a knife leaving him only one hand to use to restrain and partially undress her). Meredith struggled, she tried to fight back, as shown by the various bruising but that struggle wasn't effective.

I'm still surprised at no hairs, fibers or skin cells (w/DNA). The act of restraining her should have transferred material. I read that she was thrown into a wall. How does the "thrower" prevent their own micro-bits from being left at the scene and/or on the victim herself?

During the lengthy restraining, the victim probably was sweating. This increases the chance of micro-materials clinging to her skin. Once blood is spilled, these tiny things can be absorbed by it. But then again, the process of searching through all of this is enormously tedious and time consuming. Other than head hairs, most of this stuff is invisible to the naked eye at the crime scene itself.

I think that in the end I'm just going to have to remain surprised and puzzled.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Ignoring the fact that one of these suspects left zero detectable DNA at a room were are expected to believe she was involved in a life or death struggle.

You've gone and shifted the goal posts. Absence of evidence is not proof of innocence (despote the fact your statement isn't true - footprint on the pillow matching Amanda's size and Raffaele's and Amanda's DNA on the bra clasp). So little evidence was left because Meredith was unable to fight back being restrained by 3 people. And lets take the physical attack (exclude the sexual attack for the moment) there is only two forensic traces of Rudy on Meredith. 1. We would expect to see more were he the lone attacker and 2. it proves an attack can take place leaving next to no evidence at all...none at all, is only marginally different then only two traces. You also ignore all possibilty that two of the attackers may have been wearing gloves.

Your limited arbitrary perspective also serves to conveniently ignore the wealth of other evidence that puts them at the cottage on the night of the murder and involved in the crime scene staging, staging they would only have reason to do if they were involved.

The second suspect was only linked by an item retrieved weeks later that not only shows his DNA profile, but that of other unidentified persons. If it's impossible the suspects DNA profile could be the result of contamination, why don't we apply that same standard for other profiles found on the same sample?

If I were to shoot someone and then had you hold the handle so you also left your traces on it, then got someone else to do the same, does that mean the gun shouldn't be considered as evidence and I should get off?

You also ignore the fact that those other profiles were so week a profile couldn't even be made from them, indicating it was by third party transfer simply by existing in a shared domicile with shared laudry facilities. While in contrast, Raffaele's sample was large, complete and could only have occurred via direct vigorous contact.

The time it took before the sample was tested is not an issue. If they did take the sample on day one to the lab and put it in a sealed box for weeks, then they tested it, would it still be invalid?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I'm still surprised at no hairs, fibers or skin cells (w/DNA). The act of restraining her should have transferred material. I read that she was thrown into a wall. How does the "thrower" prevent their own micro-bits from being left at the scene and/or on the victim herself?

Police didn't even know if those involved still had the clothes they were wearing the night of the murder in order for them to try and compare. We know Guede threw his clothes away. If the others did the same, what would fibres tell us? And even if a fibre match could be found for the other two, how could it be proved they only came into contact with Meredith's clothing on the night of the murder, rather then some previous day?

 

[shuttlt]

Has anyone explained why Rudy would participate in a murder conspiracy with these two others in a way that would leave evidence pointing to him all over the scene?

This keeps coming up. What specifically do people want? An explanation of why Guede does not now point the finger at Knox and Sollecito, and why Knox and Sollecito don't do the same to Guede? An explanation of how they planned the whole thing intending to kill her? An explanation of how they happened to be in the same appartment at the same time when the murder took place, were all involved in her death, and either fled or tried to cover up the plan? "Conspired" makes it sound like they planned together to do this because it was something that they all wanted to do.

You seem to be asking a "when did you stop beating your wife" style question. I doubt anybody thinks Knox, Sollecito and Guede sat in a bar and agree that they will all kill Meredith, that Guede will be sure to leave his DNA at the scene and that the other two will do their best to erase all evidence of themselves.

It may be that some people involved where not thinking very rationally during that night, or at least did not realize what they were getting themselves involved in. Must we believe that Guede entered the appartment intending murder? Must we believe that if Knox and/or Sollecito were involved in him getting into the appartment that they intended a murder to take place? Couldn't it be a situation that escalated beyond what some, or all, the people involved had anticipated and, by the time they did stop to think they felt they were in too deep to turn back.

Whatever happened, Knox and Sollecito are hiding something that seemed to them worse than lying to police investigating the murder of her housemate.

 

[Kestrel]

Dr. Stefanoni, for the prosecution on the bra clasp DNA:

''Dead skin cells floating around the room do not contain DNA and would not stick, she said.''

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php...the_day_report_on_fridays_forensic_testimony/

Since human skin cells do in fact contain DNA, where does it go when the cell dies?

If Dr. Stefanoni actually made that claim, she has forgotten basic biology.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Has anyone explained why Rudy would participate in a murder conspiracy with these two others in a way that would leave evidence pointing to him all over the scene?

Your question assumes there was a conspiracy to murder and Rudy was part of that conspiracy. Second, Rudy ran after the murder and didn't come back. Raffaele and Amanda didn't sit down with him and have a board meeting with him about what they were going to do with the evidence. Third, Rudy's cavalier behaviour at the crime scene leaving evidence that was unnecessary to the crime (he didn't need to go stepping in a puddle of blood so he left footprints, he didn't need to not bother flushing the toilet, he didn't need to put his hands in blood and instead of washing them right away go around touching things in the room with them) shows he was either not aware of the danger of leaving forensic evidence, didn't care or both. But just because he was that way, it doesn't mean the others were too.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Since human skin cells do in fact contain DNA, where does it go when the cell dies?

If Dr. Stefanoni actually made that claim, she has forgotten basic biology.

Not dead shed skin cells.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Since human skin cells do in fact contain DNA, where does it go when the cell dies?

If Dr. Stefanoni actually made that claim, she has forgotten basic biology.

Indeed, dust itself, which is partly epithelial cells, has recently become of DNA forensic interest:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826584.200-telltale-dna-sucked-out-of-household-dust.html

 

[Fulcanelli]

Indeed, dust itself, which is partly epithelial cells, has recently become of DNA forensic interest:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826584.200-telltale-dna-sucked-out-of-household-dust.html

But hardly at the stage of being relevant to forensics. Dust certainly does not explain Raffaele's DNA on the clasp.

 

[piktor]

Dead skin

Since human skin cells do in fact contain DNA, where does it go when the cell dies?

DNA heaven?

 

[Kestrel]

Not dead shed skin cells.

Quoting What is DNA:

Today, the sensitivity of PCR means that 1 nanogram (one billionth of a gram) or less of DNA can yield sufficient information to individualize evidence. With this technology in-hand, the horizon of the criminal investigator extends beyond the traditional dried blood or semen stain to include stamps and envelopes licked with saliva, a cup that has come in-contact with a person's lips, or a bedsheet containing dead skin cells.

(Emphasis added)

If you remember, the sample from the bra clasp was 1.4 nanograms. That is a tiny spec of material. It's in the size range we normally call dust.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If you remember, the sample from the bra clasp was 1.4 nanograms. That is a tiny spec of material. It's in the size range we normally call dust.

Maybe you didn't know this Kestrel, but DNA is smaller then dust. A LOT smaller then dust.

Quoting What is DNA:

It's the cell that protects the DNA. Once the cell dies, as in dead skin, the DNA starts to degrade.

 

[Kestrel]

It's the cell that protects the DNA. Once the cell dies, as in dead skin, the DNA starts to degrade.

Do you really believe that the decades old samples used to solve cold cases with DNA matching consisted of live cells?

 

[piktor]

There is "trace DNA'' that is found in dead skin cells, depending how long dead cells have been shed.

I am guessing that the bra clasp had ''complete DNA'' samples there because of direct rubbing and not ''trace DNA'' that does not attach itself because it is too dry to do so.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Do you really believe that the decades old samples used to solve cold cases with DNA matching consisted of live cells?

The discussion is irrelevant since you are missing the point. The bra clasp wasn't contaminated by dust or anything else.

The forensic scientists found the DNA to be of a volume that could ONLY have occurred by direct vigorous contact and could not have occurred by third party transference (that means 'contamination') period! The contamination issue is false, debunked, a red herring, untrue...kaput. A lame defence claim of contamination was entered into the trial and failed miserably and for good reason.

 

[funk de fino]

Just checking to see if there are still people acting like truthers here.

I see there are.

 

[Fulcanelli]

There is "trace DNA'' that is found in dead skin cells, depending how long dead cells have been shed.

I am guessing that the bra clasp had ''complete DNA'' samples there because of direct rubbing and not ''trace DNA'' that does not attach itself because it is too dry to do so.

Indeed. All twelve of Raffaele's locus were present on the clasp. All the other profiles on the clasp aside from Meredith's weren't...they were trace DNA.

 

[piktor]

@Fulcanelli -- Since you are more familiarized with the DNA evidence, on a scale of one to ten, how does the DNA evidence rate for Sollecito and Knox?