• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
shuttlt said:
Dan O.

What happened to the discussion of the traffic camera footage. That seemed like it had the potential to go somewhere new. Do you have links to the defence claiming they requested the footage but were denied?
Click to expand...

It can't go anywhere because the Italian officials allowed the evidence to be destroyed before the defense could acquire it.

I had forgotten to save the first reference which was a statement from the defense but I recently ran across this leak from an Italian source:
15 November 07 - Sollecito's lawyers have asked to purchase all the recordings of the cameras that are located between his house and the murder in order to prove the innocence of his client.
Click to expand...
 
Fiona said:
Just to add: it is interesting to find that the implied reason for distrust of the lab in question is not, apparently, applicable in the united states. I already mentioned that Dr Johnson's lab was not accredited, though Dan_O does not seem to have the same doubts about her credentials, for some reason.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the DNA lab that "Doctor" Johnson was director of for 3 years? link
 
Last edited:
Once more into the bleach

Let’s not forget the reference I gave some time ago: A. M. Prince, L. Andrus PCR: How to kill unwanted DNA Biotechniques, Vol. 12, No. 3 pp 358-360. This article indicates that a 10% dilution of bleach removes DNA from surfaces in less than a minute.
 
Dan O. said:
Could it be that you know nothing of this and refuse to do any legwork to find out because it might contradict your position? Other forensic labs in Italy and around the world are proud to display their credentials but this lab seems to be trying to stay out of sight. Finding the credentials would not do the FOA crowd any service yet I have been searching for them.

In my search I have found this tidbit that you may wish to chew on:

http://www.governo.it/biotecnologie/documenti/1.biosicurezza.pdf
Click to expand...

Did you actually read your link Dan_O? It does not appear to say what you think it says
 
http://www.enfsi.eu/page.php?uid=15

Biondi, who confirmed that the protocols adopted in this case were good, is the Italian member of ENFSI

That body has official contacts with a number of bodies across the world including the ASCLD which is the closest thing america has to a national accreditation body.
 
halides1 said:
This article indicates that a 10% dilution of bleach removes DNA from surfaces in less than a minute.
Click to expand...

Was it ever proven as a fact that the knife had been cleaned with bleach? Was bleach found on it while it was being tested?
 
Alt+F4 said:
Was it ever proven as a fact that the knife had been cleaned with bleach? Was bleach found on it while it was being tested?
Click to expand...

No, it was deduction. Dr Stefanoni reasoned that only an agent containing bleach would have so effectively removed so many of the cells that were originally on the blade leaving so few behind. That and the fact that it appeared, by eye to have been so particularly well cleaned.
 
Fulcanelli said:
No, it was deduction. Dr Stefanoni reasoned that only an agent containing bleach would have so effectively removed so many of the cells that were originally on the blade leaving so few behind. That and the fact that it appeared, by eye to have been so particularly well cleaned.
Click to expand...

Interesting. If RS or AK did clean the knife with bleach it's reasonable to assume that they would pour the bleach over the knife, rinse it in water and dry it off with something that would be thrown away, such a paper towel.

The question is, would pouring (household, I'm assuming) bleach over a knife for say ten seconds destroy all the DNA or could a very small amount survive the process?
 
halides1 said:
Let’s not forget the reference I gave some time ago: A. M. Prince, L. Andrus PCR: How to kill unwanted DNA Biotechniques, Vol. 12, No. 3 pp 358-360. This article indicates that a 10% dilution of bleach removes DNA from surfaces in less than a minute.
Click to expand...

Why should the knife have been treated with bleach if not to destroy blood and/or DNA in the first place?
 
Alt+F4 said:
Interesting. If RS or AK did clean the knife with bleach it's reasonable to assume that they would pour the bleach over the knife, rinse it in water and dry it off with something that would be thrown away, such a paper towel.

The question is, would pouring (household, I'm assuming) bleach over a knife for say ten seconds destroy all the DNA or could a very small amount survive the process?
Click to expand...

Alternatively, some bleach may simply have been poured into the washing up water and the knife washed in it.

Dr Stefanoni maintained that the trace of DNA that survived the bleach, only did so because the cells were in a micro scratch on on the blade and therefore somewhat sheltered in comparison to those cells originally exposed on the surface of the blade.

The cells being embedded in a micro scratch also works against the contamination argument. One would not expect contamination to result in cells embedding themselves deep in a micro scratch and nowhere else. Rather, it very strongly suggests the knife was at some point embedded in the victim.
 
Kestrel said:
Do you believe that people only deposit DNA during the commission of crimes? The Q-tip box, sink and bidet were in the bathroom shared by Amanda and Meredith. Finding Amanda's DNA and Meredith's DNA together in that bathroom would be expected, even if no crime had occurred. Just as finding your DNA in your own bathroom would be expected and finding your DNA mixed with others that share that room would be expected.

I should also mention that a mixed DNA sample testing positive for blood only indicates that blood is present. It doesn't indicate that the source of DNA for every person identified in that sample was blood.
Click to expand...

I don't think I'd expect to see my DNA stomped in blood on the bathmat of my bathroom or mixed with my deceased roommate's blood in a third room of the house which none of us shared.

I understand you're trying to argue as a partisan but you're being too selective even for that, Kestrel.

I cannot see how my DNA would be mixed with the blood of someone who had been knifed and locked in their bedroom. Can you?
 
Dan O. said:
It can't go anywhere because the Italian officials allowed the evidence to be destroyed before the defense could acquire it.
Click to expand...

Are you 100% sure that none of the traffic videos were available to anyone before the tapes were re-used? I would like your source for this.
 
bleach redux

Moss said:
Why should the knife have been treated with bleach if not to destroy blood and/or DNA in the first place?
Click to expand...

I have given a cite which indicates that if one cleaned the blade to be free of blood, it would be free of DNA first. In addition, I have documented that bleach is a potent destroyer of DNA, even at 2-10% of full strength. The rates of most chemical reactions are linear with respect to the concentration of the reactant; therefore, full strength bleach is expected to be much faster. My comment and literature reference in #2623 was in response to Fiona's request in #2601.
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
I have given a cite which indicates that if one cleaned the blade to be free of blood, it would be free of DNA first. In addition, I have documented that bleach is a potent destroyer of DNA, even at 2-10% of full strength. The rates of most chemical reactions are linear with respect to the concentration of the reactant; therefore, full strength bleach is expected to be much faster.
Click to expand...

It's not a scientific law halides1! Were it so, were it so established there would be much literature on the matter. There's a big difference between arguing something and proving it.

Why would it be clear of DNA 'first', before blood? Blood is made up of cells. The rest of the body is made up of cells. DNA is inside of cells, not on the outside. Therefore, I would suggest that cells would be the first to go after the cell walls had been destroyed and DNA would be the last.

And of course, red blood cells and platelets don't contain DNA anyway, only white blood cells do and for every white blood cell there are millions of red.

Your arguments are becoming evermore desperate. And all thid effort from you to throw out the knife. And for what? 'If' the knife is thrown out, which it won't be because your arguments are complete pants, does it suddenly make Raffaele and Amanda innocent? Hardly.

Again, as I said before, you persist in your misguided and erroneous belief that Amanda and Raffaele were convicted solely on the basis of the knife (and perhaps the clasp) and if those are dismissed, somehow they walk. In your world, the footprints, DNA in other places in the cottage it shouldn't be, the lies, the behaviour and all the witness testimony...just vapourise into nothing if only you can get rid of the knife and clasp. You're deluding yourself. That's 'your' problem. But, you seem determined to make it also our problem by dragging us into your delusion.
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
I have given a cite which indicates that if one cleaned the blade to be free of blood, it would be free of DNA first. In addition, I have documented that bleach is a potent destroyer of DNA, even at 2-10% of full strength. The rates of most chemical reactions are linear with respect to the concentration of the reactant; therefore, full strength bleach is expected to be much faster. My comment and literature reference in #2623 was in response to Fiona's request in #2601.
Click to expand...

You do realize that commercially available bleach is sold in concentrations of 3-6%, correct?

So, when we add that bleach to water, we get an even lesser concentration, meaning it would take longer than a quick scrub/rinse to eradicate all of the DNA.

Additionally, as Fulcanelli and Moss have pointed out (respectively):

Not only was there only a minute amount of DNA cells found, they were found in a microscopic crack that eliminated the ability of the bleach to destroy the DNA as well as eliminates the possibility of contamination to effectively nil.

And the reason the knife was cleaned with bleach was...? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?



Halides/Kestrel/Dan O./MatthewB, why, oh why, do you insist on disagreeing with the Defense and with Sollecito himself?
 
Alt+F4 said:
Do those the defending the innocense of RS and AK have an answer for this?
Click to expand...

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict they'll claim that this is the manner in which Sollecito normally cleaned his knife while refusing to acknowledge that this knife was chosen out of the drawer specifically because it was more shiny than the other knives - i.e. this would have been the only knife he cleaned in that manner.
 
I am not sure if it pertains to this case and if has already been submitted but this paper about the use of bleach as decontaminant in archeological DNA testing is interesting with its talk about necessary solution strength and length of immersion.
The knife might not have been immersed for the right length. Or not thoroughly enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom