Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[BobTheDonkey]

Kestrel, you still haven't explained (or even attempted to explain) how the clasp could be heavily saturated with RS' DNA through contamination, and yet no other swab revealed a source of that contamination, nor revealed any signs of contamination.

So, again, we have majic DNA that targeted a specific item, an item that just so happened to be the bra MK was wearing when she was murdered.

To use your analogy, it's like finding your fingerprint DNA on the beer bottle that was used as the murder weapon, but nowhere else in the house, save for a cigarette butt.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Do you have the lab results handy, or are you just making things up as you go along?

No, I've just followed this case daily for over two years, that's all. And I was responding to an incorrect assertion made by you, which funnily enough...you made without any lab results.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Kestrel, you still haven't explained (or even attempted to explain) how the clasp could be heavily saturated with RS' DNA through contamination, and yet no other swab revealed a source of that contamination, nor revealed any signs of contamination.

Neither has he/she explained how it was only saturated with Raffaele's DNA in such a high quantity, yet nobody else's, like the postal police, forensic officers or any of the boyfriends of the flat mates, the latter having visited the cottage far more often then Raffaele who had hardly ever been in the cottage.

Neither does he explain how a volume of DNA that could only have gotten on the bra via DIRECT and VIGOROUS contact got on the clasp via third party transference or 'floating' around the room.

 

[Kestrel]

Kestrel, you still haven't explained (or even attempted to explain) how the clasp could be heavily saturated with RS' DNA through contamination, and yet no other swab revealed a source of that contamination, nor revealed any signs of contamination.

So, again, we have majic DNA that targeted a specific item, an item that just so happened to be the bra MK was wearing when she was murdered.

To use your analogy, it's like finding your fingerprint DNA on the beer bottle that was used as the murder weapon, but nowhere else in the house, save for a cigarette butt.

Do you really think the investigators tested every surface in the living room the investigators had to come through to collect that final piece of evidence? All it really takes is for the investigator to come into contact with a different spot. And if you watch the video of the bra clasp being collected, it's almost as if they wanted to assure contamination.

And as has been mentioned before, the bra clasp showed DNA from several other persons besides just MK and RS.

As for contamination, it clearly occurred. The prosecution presented DNA tests of swabs showing both Meredith's and Amanda's DNA as evidence in this case. The swabs were collected from a bathroom shared by both women. Do you understand the problem with this?

 

[Fiona]

They didn't have to come through it so far as I know. Do you have any evidence that they did? What is your evidence for contamination in the bathroom? Why do you assume that you know better than people who make a living in this field? People who are experts employed by the defense? Did they make such a statement and if they did how was it answered? What is your expertise in this field Kestrel? I don't think making up stories about the forensic team is very scientific to be honest, yet you seem to think you are the only one with any understanding of the issues here. I don't think that is true. It would be better if you actually answered some of the questions put to you I think

 

[Kestrel]

Neither has he/she explained how it was only saturated with Raffaele's DNA in such a high quantity, yet nobody else's, like the postal police, forensic officers or any of the boyfriends of the flat mates, the latter having visited the cottage far more often then Raffaele who had hardly ever been in the cottage.

Neither does he explain how a volume of DNA that could only have gotten on the bra via DIRECT and VIGOROUS contact got on the clasp via third party transference or 'floating' around the room.

A nanogram is 1 x 10^-9 grams. Do you have any clue how small that is?

The direct and vigorous contact claim is simply false.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Do you really think the investigators tested every surface in the living room the investigators had to come through to collect that final piece of evidence? All it really takes is for the investigator to come into contact with a different spot. And if you watch the video of the bra clasp being collected, it's almost as if they wanted to assure contamination.

Funny how they came into contact ONLY with Raffaele's and nobody else's don't you think? And how would they have come into contact with anything to transfer it onto the clasp when as testified, it is their protocol to change their gloves after each item is touched? I also see no problems in how the clasp was handled. It was handled gently and holding it by the edges. That sort of handling would not have transfered DNA, certainly not the amount on the clasp.

Also, and I'm getting really tired of repeating this over and over, but the amount of DNA on the clasp rules out contamination and can only have occurred by direct and vigorous contact ...Raffaele had to have touched the clasp! This was testified in court.

As for contamination, it clearly occurred

Yeah, Amanda contaminated Meredith's blood when she had it all over her hands and on the soles of her feet!

 

[Fiona]

A nanogram is 1 x 10^-9 grams. Do you have any clue how small that is?

The direct and vigorous contact claim is simply false.

Like to give us evidence in support of that claim? At least one person who works in this field does not agree.

 

[Fulcanelli]

A nanogram is 1 x 10-9 grams. Do you have any clue how small that is?

I've got news for you Kestrel, DNA is small...didn't you know that?

The direct and vigorous contact claim is simply false.

Hmm, On who's opinion should I rely on that matter? Kestrel, a poster with an agenda on a message board who has no expertise either in genetics, forensic science or police work and didn't even have a clue how much of Raffaele's material was on the clasp until I told him...or, Dr Patrizia Stefanoni, head of the Rome forensics lab, also head of the forensic investigation on this case, who has years of forensic experience and testified this fact under oath in a court of law?

I'll think that one over...

 

[Kestrel]

They didn't have to come through it so far as I know. Do you have any evidence that they did? What is your evidence for contamination in the bathroom? Why do you assume that you know better than people who make a living in this field? People who are experts employed by the defense? Did they make such a statement and if they did how was it answered? What is your expertise in this field Kestrel? I don't think making up stories about the forensic team is very scientific to be honest, yet you seem to think you are the only one with any understanding of the issues here. I don't think that is true. It would be better if you actually answered some of the questions put to you I think

Look at the diagram of the flat on Wikipedia. There is only one door and it enters the living room. Unless the investigators crawled in the window, they had to enter through the living room.

I suspect you are bright enough to figure out why blood traces from two women who share a bathroom might be found in a bidet in that bathroom. It's an expected result even when no crime has occurred. The forensic team presented it as evidence in this case. Since when does finding the expected become proof of guilt?

 

[Jungle Jim]

Does anyone have any ideas as to why Meredith's cell phones were taken from the cottage and deposited in a neighbor's garden?

 

[Kestrel]

Does anyone have any ideas as to why Meredith's cell phones were taken from the cottage and deposited in a neighbor's garden?

Here is my theory. There is a ready market for stolen cell phones. Rudy took them to sell. After leaving the flat he figured out that keeping them after murdering the owner was a really bad idea. So he tossed them.

 

[Fiona]

I suspect you are bright enough to figure out why blood traces from two women who share a bathroom might be found in a bidet in that bathroom. It's an expected result even when no crime has occurred. The forensic team presented it as evidence in this case. Since when does finding the expected become proof of guilt?

The diagram you show is not the one I have seen and I will have to search for that.

As to the point I have quoted: It is very far from an "expected result" as has been pointed out on this thread. Are you now or have you ever been a woman? If you are or have ever lived with a woman can you honestly say this is what your experience has been? Did you, or the women you have lived with get mixed blood on the light switch? Are you aware that menstrual blood is different from ordinary blood in forensic terms? You are really reaching here Kestrel

 

[Kestrel]

The diagram you show is not the one I have seen and I will have to search for that.

As to the point I have quoted: It is very far from an "expected result" as has been pointed out on this thread. Are you now or have you ever been a woman? If you are or have ever lived with a woman can you honestly say this is what your experience has been? Did you, or the women you have lived with get mixed blood on the light switch? Are you aware that menstrual blood is different from ordinary blood in forensic terms? You are really reaching here Kestrel

Flipping a light switch can leave some skin cells on the switch. Swab a light switch in your house and you will likely find DNA. If someone comes along later with blood on their hand, they will leave blood on the switch. A swab will pick up both the DNA in the blood and DNA that was already on the switch. Analysis of that swab will show both the pattern from the DNA in the blood and the patterns from the DNA that was on the switch before the blood was added.

ETA: The swab will test positive for blood, because there is blood on the swab. But that doesn't mean that both DNA profiles came from DNA in blood.

 

[Fiona]

Yes, a lot of things can happen. So do you have any evidence that Kercher left dna on the light switch prior to her murder? Or do you suppose the dna was knox's and it was Kercher who left the blood? If so then how did she come to bleed on the light switch? If it was Knox who was bleeding on the light switch then why was she bleeding on it? For all of these things I am not going to be happy with any old made up story: I would like a story with some evidence to support it please.

And can you answer my question about your gender status and present or previous living arrangements?

Oh and while we are about it: how did guede cut the bra clasp off without touching it? I think I asked you before and I don't recall your answer

 

[Jungle Jim]

Here is my theory. There is a ready market for stolen cell phones. Rudy took them to sell. After leaving the flat he figured out that keeping them after murdering the owner was a really bad idea. So he tossed them.

This makes sense except for the following:

1. If a cell phone is lost or stolen one can contact their service provider and have the service suspended. This can be done in minutes after having notified the cell phone provider.

2. I would imagine that in a college town like Perugia most if all students have cell phones. So who would be the market for a stolen phone?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Look at the diagram of the flat on Wikipedia. There is only one door and it enters the living room. Unless the investigators crawled in the window, they had to enter through the living room.

Doesn't your argument apply to almost any crime scene and the DNA evidence therein in the World? So, therefore what's your underlying point, we should drop forensic evidence because 'CSI's can't levitate'??? Otherwise, what makes it so specifically important to 'this' case and why aren't you decrying all the other cases where CSI's haven't levitated?

I think it's a stupid argument, simply because it's an argument that can be made in ANY case. But also because:

1. These are professional CSI's who deliberately look where they're going and do NOT go stepping on evidence

2. The bra clasp was not in a place in the room where it would be stepped on since it was practically under the desk.

3. For the umpteenth time, there was too much DNA on the bra to be from third party transference. It was via direct contact from the owner of the DNA...Raffaele...he touched it period!!

 

[Fiona]

It is all speculation Jungle Jim. It appears that there is reason to suppose Kercher was not dead when they left her and I have speculated (as have others) that they took the phones in order to ensure she could not call for help. It is not likely that she could have done that given her injuries: but they may not have known that.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Flipping a light switch can leave some skin cells on the switch. Swab a light switch in your house and you will likely find DNA.

Well, they found no DNA on the light switch (in this case, the bathroom light switch). I guess DNA is not quite so easy to transfer as you believe.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Does anyone have any ideas as to why Meredith's cell phones were taken from the cottage and deposited in a neighbor's garden?

I believe they were taken for two reasons. Firstly, to prevent Meredith calling for help. And secondly, to try and emphasise that there was a burglary and therefore divert suspicion away from anyone who lived in the cottage.