Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fiona]

Yes; for example

Meredith, Amanda and their friends spent Halloween at a party downstairs at the home of Giacomo Silenzi, the Italian boy Meredith was dating.

So far as I know it is not disputed that Kercher spent Halloween at the Merlin pub and later at the Domos club with her friends. Knox was not there. Guerde may or may not have been there.

 

[piktor]

Correct? Sloppy? Correct and sloppy?

Found this raw footage of forensic team at work on Nov. 3, 2007

http://www.king5.com/archive/60344057.html

 

[Jungle Jim]

To be clear I'm not stating that everything presented in the summary is 100% accurate. It does, however, present the timeline of events in an orderly fashion. From Chapter 2 "They were both humanities students at large, research-oriented universities, and, friends say, both enjoyed drinking in all-night bars, smoking marijuana and playing guitar." The writer's sources are listed in Chapter 10.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not good practice

Found this raw footage of forensic team at work on Nov. 3, 2007

http://www.king5.com/archive/60344057.html

Piktor,

This may be the same video that was discussed at the trial in the link below.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-24/will-dna-damn-amanda-knox-/2/

In another segment of the video, defense lawyers insisted that one of the officers used the same collection swab to swipe two different blood samples, but Stefanoni quickly explained that even if she had, it would not matter. “If the same cloth was used to collect two samples of different blood it would be evident in the data analysis," she said. “These samples match Knox and the victim.”

[end quote]

The person who teaches forensic chemistry here pointed out that using the same swab to wipe two samples means that you lose the information about which sample in a mixture came from where. She also said it would be enough to get the data thrown out in the US. I do not know whether the same rule would apply in Italy or not.

Chris

 

[Jungle Jim]

Yes; for example



So far as I know it is not disputed that Kercher spent Halloween at the Merlin pub and later at the Domos club with her friends. Knox was not there. Guerde may or may not have been there.

You would think that this issue would be easy to nail down. After all, one of the guys in the downstairs apt. was reported to be Meredith's boyfriend. In any case, they were neighbors. Ask him: 'Was she there that night?" Maybe she made it to all three places?

 

[Fiona]

Everyone in that flat was away for the holiday weekend

 

[Jungle Jim]

Everyone in that flat was away for the holiday weekend

OK, so you're saying there was no Halloween party hosted by the downstairs neighbors?

 

[Fiona]

That is right

 

[Matthew Best]

Everyone in that flat was away for the holiday weekend

But Halloween was on a Wednesday.

 

[Fiona]

It is apparently a holiday in Italy

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165&p=17374&hilit=holiday+halloween+boys#p17374

GM: Hm. All right. Listen, when did you know that the boys from the downstairs
apartment were all leaving for the long weekend?

AK: I had kind of heard that they wanted to celebrate Halloween somehow or
other, but I didn't understand or didn't know where they were going and how long
they were going to be away. It's always because when everyone was talking
together, us and the boys from downstairs, I didn't really understand very
well, I didn't get a really clear sense of what was happening.

GM: But you know that November 2nd, unless I'm mistaken, was a Friday. No?

AK: Yes.

GM: So then there was Saturday and Sunday; you knew that those days were a
holiday here, didn't you? The 1st and the 2nd.

AK: Yes, I wanted to go to Gubbio.

 

[Jungle Jim]

Nov. 1 is a public holiday in Italy, but no matter if it's a fact that the downstairs neighbors did not have a Halloween party on the evening Oct. 31. This would then refute the accuracy of the summary I linked to.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Sollecito's statement about the knife

If, as you claim, you have addressed the issue of Sollecito himself bearing witness to the presence of Meredith's DNA on the knife then you have not succeeded in doing so in a manner which is very clear, except perhaps to yourself. Maybe you would like to sum it up in a way that is not obfuscated with technobabble legerdemain. His own admission that there was a cause for the presence of her DNA on the knife, however in dispute that explanation may be, is not affected in any way by lab technique, collection procedure, or interpretation of graphs.

The post which I responded to was at the end of a chain of discussion about the knife.

The. Knife.

You have certainly gone on about both at great length, at times even seeming to conflate the various potential areas of question concerning the two separate issues, but I was not responding to a line of discussion about the clasp. It was about the knife.

Such misdirection on your part does not reflect well upon the sincerity of your position. It calls your objectivity into question.

Quadraginta,

When you previously used the phrase “voluminous contributions,” I thought you were referring to my comment #1136, which is long and does treat DNA issues related to both items. I misunderstood your comment #1203, but I now see that you were referring to the posts on signal-to-noise (in retrospect I should have come up with a shorter, clearer explanation of S/N ratios). I was not attempting misdirection, however.

Now I would like to answer your question. Let us consider four possibilities.

RS cut MK cooking RS did not cut MK cooking
MK DNA is present on blade (1) (3)
MK DNA is not present (2) (4)

Let us say (1) that MK did get cut while cooking with RS, and there is DNA present. Then there would be an innocent explanation for the DNA, and nothing ties it to the crime. Now let us say (2) that she did get cut, but no DNA is present. This would be ascribed to someone’s cleaning the knife, but nothing would tie the knife to the crime. Now let us say (3) that she did get cut, and DNA was present. This would favor the prosecution’s case. Finally let us say (4) she did not get cut, and no DNA is present. Thus nothing would tie the knife to the crime.

Here is another way of looking at it. Professor Tagliabracci’s report (http://www.istitutoaffarisociali.it/...co_forensi.pdf) questions the knife DNA result on page 13, to the best of my ability to understand Italian. I assume he brought this question up at the trial, but I do not have a complete summary of his testimony. Therefore, my interpretation of the defense’s position is that the prosecution’s claim of DNA being present is dubious, and even if the DNA were there, an innocent explanation for it exists. I do not see how the second half of this argument in any way invalidates the first.

I would point out that if Sollecito is not telling the truth, possibilities (3) and (4), it does not necessarily follow that he is lying; the alternative is that he sincerely believes something that is not true (I call this a false memory). The distinction between RS’s possibly speaking falsely and lying is important to make from the point of view of language; whether or not it it important to the case is in the eye of the beholder, IMO. Please let me know if I have not been clear.

Chris

 

[piktor]

Fawlty swabbing

The person who teaches forensic chemistry here pointed out that using the same swab to wipe two samples means that you lose the information about which sample in a mixture came from where. She also said it would be enough to get the data thrown out in the US. I do not know whether the same rule would apply in Italy or not.

Chris

Chris,

You can see in the video link I provided http://www.king5.com/archive/60344057.html the actual scientific team at work.

It looks too informal for my taste, although I'm not a forensics scientist.

The woman collecting the samples uses tweezers for the rag samples and then uses her gloved fingers to handle the blood swabs.

It looks like she is 'sweeping' for DNA in that room, regardless of location of said sample.

The swabs carry some liquid agent to pick up the dry blood patches. You can imagine, then, a contamination more likely.

The bra clasp was retrieved weeks later, several feet away from its original place of discovery.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Table for #1252

RS cut MK cooking RS did not cut MK cooking
MK DNA is present on blade (1) (3)
MK DNA is not present (2) (4)

I wrote this to clarify #1252 a little bit. It is supposed to be a table, but I cannot get it to look right. PM me with format suggestions.

Chris

 

[Matthew Best]

You can see in the video link I provided http://www.king5.com/archive/60344057.html the actual scientific team at work.

It looks too informal for my taste, although I'm not a forensics scientist.

All I can say about it is that it doesn't look like what I would have expected, but, not being an expert, I don't know if my expectations were reasonable or not.

(And I don't understand the point of her actions at 12:51:40 where she appears to take a swab which she's been using with her gloved hand, then transfer it to the other hand so she can then resume swabbing with the swab now held in a pair of tweezers. Not saying this is bad or good, just that I don't understand the purpose of it. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.)

 

[piktor]

If it looks wrong

All I can say about it is that it doesn't look like what I would have expected, but, not being an expert, I don't know if my expectations were reasonable or not.

(And I don't understand the point of her actions at 12:51:40 where she appears to take a swab which she's been using with her gloved hand, then transfer it to the other hand so she can then resume swabbing with the swab now held in a pair of tweezers. Not saying this is bad or good, just that I don't understand the purpose of it. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.)

If it looks wrong...

The bra clasp was first spotted in one place and then was collected weeks later several feet away. The prosecution might convince me Sollecito's DNA on the clasp shows evidence of energetic rubbing and not by absorption from a wet surface the swab might have provided.

Inadmissible in the U.S.

Misshandling of forensic evidence freed OJ Simpson.

In Italy it passed the scientific smell test.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

If it looks wrong...

The bra clasp was first spotted in one place and then was collected weeks later several feet away. The prosecution might convince me Sollecito's DNA on the clasp shows evidence of energetic rubbing and not by absorption from a wet surface the swab might have provided.

Inadmissible in the U.S.

Misshandling of forensic evidence freed OJ Simpson.

In Italy it passed the scientific smell test.

And yet, no one can explain how Sollecito's DNA made it onto the clasp and wasn't anywhere else they swabbed.

Majic DNA?

The bra clasp DNA is very little of the evidence against these two. Watching too many CSI episodes can (and does) leave one to assume many things about real world evidence.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Quadraginta,

When you previously used the phrase “voluminous contributions,” I thought you were referring to my comment #1136, which is long and does treat DNA issues related to both items. I misunderstood your comment #1203, but I now see that you were referring to the posts on signal-to-noise (in retrospect I should have come up with a shorter, clearer explanation of S/N ratios). I was not attempting misdirection, however.

Now I would like to answer your question. Let us consider four possibilities.

RS cut MK cooking RS did not cut MK cooking
MK DNA is present on blade (1) (3)
MK DNA is not present (2) (4)

Let us say (1) that MK did get cut while cooking with RS, and there is DNA present. Then there would be an innocent explanation for the DNA, and nothing ties it to the crime. Now let us say (2) that she did get cut, but no DNA is present. This would be ascribed to someone’s cleaning the knife, but nothing would tie the knife to the crime. Now let us say (3) that she did get cut, and DNA was present. This would favor the prosecution’s case. Finally let us say (4) she did not get cut, and no DNA is present. Thus nothing would tie the knife to the crime.

Here is another way of looking at it. Professor Tagliabracci’s report (http://www.istitutoaffarisociali.it/...co_forensi.pdf) questions the knife DNA result on page 13, to the best of my ability to understand Italian. I assume he brought this question up at the trial, but I do not have a complete summary of his testimony. Therefore, my interpretation of the defense’s position is that the prosecution’s claim of DNA being present is dubious, and even if the DNA were there, an innocent explanation for it exists. I do not see how the second half of this argument in any way invalidates the first.

I would point out that if Sollecito is not telling the truth, possibilities (3) and (4), it does not necessarily follow that he is lying; the alternative is that he sincerely believes something that is not true (I call this a false memory). The distinction between RS’s possibly speaking falsely and lying is important to make from the point of view of language; whether or not it it important to the case is in the eye of the beholder, IMO. Please let me know if I have not been clear.

Chris

Now, see, here's why we call you disingenuous.

It doesn't matter what the DNA says, Sollecito admits that her DNA is on the knife.

And there is no "innocent" explanation. Sollecito's attempted explanation wasn't corroborated by anyone, and in fact many of Meredith's friends testified that his account was highly unlikely.

 

[lector]

Investigation timeline

One can get an interesting timeline of the investigation by following the 9-page chronology of the Guardian's coverage of events in reverse.

I stress that this is a chronology of the investigation and related events, not the night of the crime. I find that it gives a good picture of AK's & RS's changing stories and so forth.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

And yet, no one can explain how Sollecito's DNA made it onto the clasp and wasn't anywhere else they swabbed.

Majic DNA?

The bra clasp DNA is very little of the evidence against these two. Watching too many CSI episodes can (and does) leave one to assume many things about real world evidence.

Why was it only on the clasp and not on the bra itself? Also, it was not the only bit of "Majik DNA." Three other contributors were just as magic.