• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
reference samples

BobTheDonkey said:
I'm in complete agreement here. Sollecito heard that they'd found DNA on the knife, so he wrote that Meredith had cut herself on it while cooking in an attempt to explain the DNA findings. He had no reason to believe the DNA would be inconclusive or false - and that in and of itself is very telling.


Halides:

Contamination in the lab faces the exact same problem as contamination in the apartment. Where did the contamination come from that it did not contaminate anything else?

In fact, in the lab we have 1 source of Sollecito's DNA - the cig butt. The one that was collected 47 days before the clasp even entered the lab. So how did that contamination take place in the lab?


As for the collection video, I didn't see a real issue with how the evidence was collected - and here's why:

The location from which each swab was collected was labeled. The goal of collecting the evidence is to find out what DNA is present - not to prove any one specific person was there. As long as the gloves were changed from location to location, the chances of cross-contamination are incredibly slim. And since the lab is almost guaranteed to have the forensics team's DNA on file, those DNA findings can be taken out of the equation.

The distinct lack of Sollecito's DNA anywhere in the room/hallway/bathroom leads me to rule out cross-contamination as a real issue. What little DNA evidence that is in dispute is solely that of the clasp and the knife - nothing else in the room is in dispute. Not even the finding of Knox's DNA mixed with Kercher's in the bathroom.

So the team contaminated the bra clasp and the knife and nothing else?

Or is this more of that majic DNA?
Click to expand...

BobTheDonkey,

You are ignoring the reference samples themselves, which are an obvious source of contamination. Did you not read the link I provided where this is discussed? The prosecution claims it found Amanda’s DNA with Meredith’s blood. That would be unremarkable in itself; however, their video-documented collection strategies only make such a finding more likely. When one attempts to amplify low template number DNA, the issues of contamination (as in the case of the knife) become even more challenging.

I am still hoping to learn the identity of the magic cleaning solution.

Chris
 
Dr Stefanoni testified that the knife was cleaned with bleach, in her opinion. Aepervius addressed this near the beginning of the thread, IIRC
 
halides1 said:
BobTheDonkey,

You are ignoring the reference samples themselves, which are an obvious source of contamination.
Click to expand...

How about you spell out how this happened? Not how it might have happened in any lab in the world, but how it DID happen in this lab on this occasion
 
JihadJane said:
The shop video is in no way equivalent to a porn film and certainly doesn't support your claim that the two were "very turned on".
Click to expand...

It looks like they are from where I'm sitting (through my own observational experience of human behaviour) and it looked so to the witness who was THERE as well. Personally, I think you're just being bloody minded.
 
Fiona said:
How about you spell out how this happened? Not how it might have happened in any lab in the world, but how it DID happen in this lab on this occasion
Click to expand...

Yes, like WHERE did this supposed contamination come from when neither the knife or the machine had been anywhere close to any of the other case evidence? It didn't get beamed on there by a teleporter off of the Star Ship Enterprise.

The fact is, contamination is 'possible' in the case of ANY piece of forensic evidence in ANY case and what is also fact, in nearly every case where the accused is pleading innocence contamination is claimed. It is the ultimate defence crying wolf. And it's meaningless, unless a source and route for that contamination can be reasonably evidenced.

Stefanoni's lab hadn't had a case of contamination for 7 years. For that to be the case, it is clear they have very strict protocols in regard to keeping evidence sealed and separated from each other and having spotless machines before performing each test.
 
Bleach destroys DNA

Fiona said:
Dr Stefanoni testified that the knife was cleaned with bleach, in her opinion. Aepervius addressed this near the beginning of the thread, IIRC
Click to expand...

Fiona,

Here is a reference on using bleach to destroy DNA

Forensic Sci Int. 2005 Nov 10;154(1):53-61.
Use of bleach to eliminate contaminating DNA from the surface of bones and teeth.

Kemp BM, Smith DG.

Here is another link, one that I have not provided before:

http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/methods/1998-June/067669.html

"Nicking" DNA means breaking the phosphodiester bonds.

Chris
 
Bad link, halides1 (the second one)

The first does not return any matches when I copy/ paste to the search line
 
Last edited:
the order is critical

Fiona said:
How about you spell out how this happened? Not how it might have happened in any lab in the world, but how it DID happen in this lab on this occasion
Click to expand...

Fiona,

I do not believe we can do that without knowing exactly when each sample was run.

Chris
 
text of link

Fiona said:
Bad link, halides1
Click to expand...

The link works for me when I just click on it. Biotechniques is a journal covering mainly practical biochemistry and molecular biology.

Here is the text I found there

See A. M. Prince, L. Andrus PCR: How to kill unwanted DNA Biotechniques
Vol. 12, No. 3(?) pp 358-360

In summary, they found that treatment with 2.5% v/v clorox caused extensive
nicking of DNA.10% Clorox was found to prevent PCR amplification of a 600-bp
segment within one minute of template treatment. And 2N HCl did not destroy
DNA detectable by PCR even after a five minute exposure.

Regards,
Bob DeLisio

[End Quote]

Chris
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Civil discussion?

lionking said:
I have followed this thread from the start, and as someone said earlier, it is everything that the JREF forum is meant to be. Informative, interesting and above all civil. People have strong feelings here, but if this was a global warming, 9/11 or Israel/Palestine thread, it would have degenerated into a morass of flames, insults, mod warnings and infractions.

Well done to all.
Click to expand...

Lionking,


In post #1270, you wrote that this thread, “is everything that the JREF forum is meant to be. Informative, interesting and above all civil.” People have repeatedly called me disingenuous on this thread. I responded in kind twice. When that word was used again yesterday, I responded by withdrawing my previous implications of mendacity or disingenuousness. I did find myself wondering whether these discussions were moderated. I also decided that the next time someone made a personal attack, I would withdraw from further active participation. Quadraginta quoted BobTheDonkey’s use of this word in #1175, “Thank you, Bob. You said that more succinctly, and probably more politely than I would have.” This implies that he or she would have used stronger words. Lionking, evidently, you and I have different understandings of the word “civil.”

On the other hand, the two signers of the open letter criticizing the forensic DNA evidence are considering whether to include the names of scientists from other disciplines. I have asked that my name be included. I suggest that the DNA-advocates here do likewise: Draft a signed, public letter explaining your position, starting with Fulcanelli’s claim in #1121, that “Amanda's DNA on the handle in a position that showed she held it in a grip for a stabbing motion and not cutting action.” Such nonsensical claims deserve every scrap of ridicule they will engender.

Chris
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
BobTheDonkey,

You are ignoring the reference samples themselves, which are an obvious source of contamination. Did you not read the link I provided where this is discussed? The prosecution claims it found Amanda’s DNA with Meredith’s blood. That would be unremarkable in itself; however, their video-documented collection strategies only make such a finding more likely. When one attempts to amplify low template number DNA, the issues of contamination (as in the case of the knife) become even more challenging.

I am still hoping to learn the identity of the magic cleaning solution.

Chris
Click to expand...

Did you even actually read my post?

I didn't think so. Of course you're going to find Knox's DNA mixed with Meredith's. That's the point of collecting from a specific location.

When we watch the video and use a bit of inductive reasoning, we find that the purpose of the swab is to identify who's DNA/blood is at a specific location.

It is to be expected that there will be more than one person's DNA present.

As long as new gloves are used for each location, what would be the source of contamination?.

You have yet to provide a reasonable avenue of contamination of either the bra clasp or the knife.

Try again. And I'm still not clear on what you think proving the clasp and knife DNA where contaminated would do to prove Knox or Sollecito's innocence. This isn't CSI-SVU, this case does not hinge on the DNA evidence.
 
It looks like they are from where I'm sitting (through my own observational experience of human behaviour) and it looked so to the witness who was THERE as well.
Click to expand...


The 'chain of events' did not happen in a void.

I have repeatedly stated that this case has been reviewed by 19 judges that reached a judgement for the prosecution. They are not scientists, historians, psychiatrists, coroners, geneticians, statisticians, blood spatter authorities...

These judges have a duty to interpret information and reach a decision within the context, as presented by the prosecution and the defense. All 19 judges agreed with the prosecution's theory of the crime.

For example (as reported by True Justice):

We have already described how Amanda Knox has boxed herself in with her own words.
.
Raffaele Sollecito has done precisely the same. Sollecito has also said things that are demonstrably untrue, and they now seriously haunt him and his team.
.
There is no question that Raffaele Sollecito has deliberately and repeatedly lied. He even himself admitted that he told the police “un sacco di cazzate” (a load of rubbish), and the judges at the Italian Supreme Court noted that he had lied and was reluctant to cooperate.
.
Lie one. Raffaele Sollecito first claimed in an interview with Kate Mansey from the Sunday Mirror that he and Amanda Knox were at a friend’s party on the night of the murder. It would have been obviously a tad difficult for Sollecito to find any witnesses who had attended an imaginary party to provide him and Knox with an alibi. This alibi was predictably abandoned very quickly.
.
Lie two. Sollecito then claimed that he was his apartment with Amanda Knox. This alibi is flatly contradicted by a silent witness: forensic evidence. According to the scientific police, there are six separate pieces of forensic evidence, including an abundant amount of his DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp, that place him in the cottage on Via della Pergola on the night of the murder.
Click to expand...
This list describes ten Sollecito lies

Also,

Manuela Comodi, the deputy prosecutor, explained during the hearings that the prosecution had not called either Knox or Sollecito as witnesses “because there is no point. Every time they were questioned during the pre-trial investigation they lied or tried to derail the inquiry.”

Judge Paolo Micheli, who presided over Rudy Guede fast-track trial and sent Knox and Sollecito to trial, didn’t believe many of their claims. He noted that they had given triple alibis and had lied in attempt to cover for each other.
Click to expand...


http://prairiechicken.blogspot.com/...dith-kercher-raffaele.html#uds-search-results

It is not Fulcanelli, exclusively, reaching conclusions based on common sense and reason.

The accused themselves have helped create a judgement of guilt that others like Fulcanelli agree with.
 
Is Page 13 germane? Sounds Chinese to me, too!

Fiona said:
That link works for me now, thanks. Are you sure it is halides1's link? It does not seem to me to have any relevance to what we are discussing?
Click to expand...


halides1 is a scientist and he posted a faulty link. What I did is search at the site's homepage www.istitutoaffarisociali.it "tagliabracci" and several PDF links were found. I clicked on the top link. One PDF has 7 pages and the other, the one I linked, has 18 pages. http://www.istitutoaffarisociali.it.../IT/ST/1?frmSearchText=tagliabracci&x=25&y=13

We have to ask halides1 if it is the correct PDF and "what it means" in plain English.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
I'm in complete agreement here. Sollecito heard that they'd found DNA on the knife, so he wrote that Meredith had cut herself on it while cooking in an attempt to explain the DNA findings. He had no reason to believe the DNA would be inconclusive or false - and that in and of itself is very telling.
Click to expand...

Now you've veered into mindreading and lost me, I'm afraid.

Contamination in the lab faces the exact same problem as contamination in the apartment. Where did the contamination come from that it did not contaminate anything else?

In fact, in the lab we have 1 source of Sollecito's DNA - the cig butt.
Click to expand...

If they only had one source of Sollecito DNA then what did they compare their readings to, in order to determine if it was his or someone else's? The obvious answer is that they must have had a sample of his DNA. I presume that sample would be a potential source of contamination in a lab.

My understanding is that in order to demonstrate that there hasn't been contamination you do control tests - you try to extract DNA from something you know has none and see what results you get. If you get Sollecito DNA from something that shouldn't have any DNA, then you can be fairly certain that contamination from his sample has taken place. I would presume such control tests must have been done, but we have also been told by Knox/Sollecito supporters that they weren't done. Do you have any further information about that?
 
I believe I asked halides1 that many pages ago but so far as I know he has not answered it.

ETA: yes I asked at post #572. If the answer has been given I have missed it
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom