Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Chris_Halkides]

no foundation

False. Two. One of the individuals is Amanda Knox. You fail to mention the other two are partial profiles that are such trace, they can't be reconstructed. Shared house, shared laundry facilities, they are to be expected. A copious sample from Raffaele, indicationg direct and vigorous contact is not.

As for the bathroom, only the top layer of the stains was swabbed. That means Amanda's DNA was mixed 'in' with Meredith's blood and this had happened while the blood was fresh. Moreover, Amanda's DNA profiles in those samples are not trace, such as those of the two strangers on the clasp you identify, but full profiles.

Without profiles from Laura or Filomena, your conjecture about shared laundry facilities being responsible for the DNA is utterly without foundation in fact. While you are contemplating this, how about providing a more exact mechanism that just saying shared facilities. How, exactly?

The sample from Raffaele was not copious; it was only 200 RFU. The other three unknown profiles could not have been much weaker or they would not have been detectable.

 

[Kestrel]

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but Falcanelli seems to be saying that Amanda claimed to be at her own appartment around 11:30 during her original statements around the time of the murder. Falcanelli then goes on to say that at the trial she said she was at Raffaele's at 11:30. You seem to be arguing that in the trial she said she was at Raddaele's at 11:30. Surely this is in agreement with, not contradicting Falcanelli?

Did Fulcanelli back up this claim by posting evidence or by posting insults?

 

[shuttlt]

Did Fulcanelli back up this claim by posting evidence or by posting insults?

He didn't, but equally you seemed to be arguing with him by restating what he had already said Amanda had said at the trial. Anywho, everybody is getting pissy.

 

[odeed]

Without profiles from Laura or Filomena, your conjecture about shared laundry facilities being responsible for the DNA is utterly without foundation in fact. While you are contemplating this, how about providing a more exact mechanism that just saying shared facilities. How, exactly?

The sample from Raffaele was not copious; it was only 200 RFU. The other three unknown profiles could not have been much weaker or they would not have been detectable.

"utterly without foundation" or "speculation without support", I would like to know which it is?

and I'll quote the message just in case you delete it.

TM,

If the transfer were due to somehow sharing laundry facilities, the profiles would most likely arise from Amanda, Laura, and Filomena, Meredith's three flatmates. Yet there were no reference samples taken from either Laura or Filomena, from what I can gather. So the whole laundry idea is speculation without support, IMHO.

Chris

February 7, 2010 12:04 PM

As I said before, maybe the DNA references for Laura and Filomena were not needed as all the DNA samples taken could be linked to the victim or the three suspects, and there was no unknown DNA profiles (not counting those too small to test accurately), because I am sure the defense would have used this evidence to cast doubt on the investigation.

It is you that is asserting that Sollecito DNA would be in some of the rooms, and I assume that this is your explanation for his DNA being on the bra clasp (either by transfer or contamination), but you do not want to consider that it is equally likely (and probably more) to find Filomena DNA at least in her own room, where the mix of Kerchers and Knox DNA was found.

As I originally said, you want everyone to believe the DNA evidence against Sollecito and Knox is a coincidence (and I will use that word as you have not proven anything), and that Laura and Filomena are ghosts who do not shed DNA.

Maybe in the real world DNA material does not behave the way you assume.

 

[lector]

One thing about the bra clasp DNA that gives me pause is that, assuming it's not from contamination, it implies that RS & AK attempted to do the staging and cleanup bare handed, without wearing protective gloves. It's another of those things that makes me ask myself, "Can they really have been THAT dumb?"

Or is it the case that plastic/rubber gloves simply aren't as commonly available in Italy as they are in the U.S.?

Sometimes I total up the dumb things that AK & RS seem to have done and I almost find it easier to believe in DNA contamination, rather than in such a degree of stupidity. Almost.

 

[Alt+F4]

I understand that under the Italian judicial system the first appeal is in effect a re-trial and that the evidence can be re-examined and new evidence can be presented.

Does this mean she'll have to appeal along with RS or can she have a solo appeal?

 

[Alt+F4]

One thing about the bra clasp DNA that gives me pause is that, assuming it's not from contamination, it implies that RS & AK attempted to do the staging and cleanup bare handed, without wearing protective gloves. It's another of those things that makes me ask myself, "Can they really have been THAT dumb?"

I ask myself, "Can they really have been THAT high?". Their actions seem more indicitive of hard drugs use than being dumb.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

"utterly without foundation" or "speculation without support", I would like to know which it is?

and I'll quote the message just in case you delete it.


As I said before, maybe the DNA references for Laura and Filomena were not needed as all the DNA samples taken could be linked to the victim or the three suspects, and there was no unknown DNA profiles (not counting those too small to test accurately), because I am sure the defense would have used this evidence to cast doubt on the investigation.

It is you that is asserting that Sollecito DNA would be in some of the rooms, and I assume that this is your explanation for his DNA being on the bra clasp (either by transfer or contamination), but you do not want to consider that it is equally likely (and probably more) to find Filomena DNA at least in her own room, where the mix of Kerchers and Knox DNA was found.

As I originally said, you want everyone to believe the DNA evidence against Sollecito and Knox is a coincidence (and I will use that word as you have not proven anything), and that Laura and Filomena are ghosts who do not shed DNA.

Maybe in the real world DNA material does not behave the way you assume.

odeed,

Sollecito’s DNA was almost certainly in Knox’s flat for the same reason that Knox’s DNA was found in Sollecito’s flat, people shed skin and hair pretty regularly. Filomena’s DNA is likely to be in several rooms in their flat, but we cannot say that it was or was not found there: We have no evidence on Filomena’s DNA, one way or another.

I don’t see any difference in the two phrases you quote; to me they mean the same thing. The notion that shared laundry facilities explains the unknown DNA profiles on the bra clasp lacks factual basis. The laundry hypothesis predicts that the profiles belong to Laura, Filomena, and someone else, because they were doing the sharing. However, without profiles from Laura or Filomena, we cannot test the hypothesis. Moreover, no one has documented a prior occurrence of a similar transfer, or even explained more precisely how and when such a putative transfer could have occurred.

While we are at it, here is a question I posed to BobTheDonkey with respect to a murder in Michigan. Which is more likely, that a 4-year old Ruelas bled over Mixer’s body or that contamination occurred?

Chris

 

[Dan O.]

Wasn't it only the Daily Mail that he made this statement to, if indeed he made it? Don't you entertain the possibility that the original quote was wrong/an overstatement/a mistranslation etc? In the Madeleine McCann case I seem to recall British tabloids like the Mail getting in a bit of trouble for making up likely sounding statements that they didn't think anyone would bother to check/complain about. Is it quite impossible that he is telling the truth now?

The Daily Mail is not above publishing corrections where they make a mistake. If Patrick indeed was misquoted he could have simply asked them to correct the article. Of course, if the reporter has detailed contemporaneous notes or a recording of the interview they won't need to back down. Your bringing up the recent case where the tabloids did get in trouble lends weight to the publishers being more careful to have documentation of the interviews to protect themselves from subsequent adverse actions.

 

[Dan O.]

Amanda WAS NOT SHOWN A TEXT FROM PATRICK

Tell that to Fiona. She is the one that posted the quote and has refused to back it up or retract. Of course, the piece she posted came verbatim from PMF so maybe it isn't Fiona's fault.

 

[Kestrel]

One thing about the bra clasp DNA that gives me pause is that, assuming it's not from contamination, it implies that RS & AK attempted to do the staging and cleanup bare handed, without wearing protective gloves. It's another of those things that makes me ask myself, "Can they really have been THAT dumb?"

Or is it the case that plastic/rubber gloves simply aren't as commonly available in Italy as they are in the U.S.?

Sometimes I total up the dumb things that AK & RS seem to have done and I almost find it easier to believe in DNA contamination, rather than in such a degree of stupidity. Almost.

The cleanup theory is based on the concept that it's possible to pick up trace evidence from two people at a murder scene without disturbing the trace evidence pointing to a third or the blood splatters from the victim. How do you see a couple dozen human cells, much less know who they belong to?

I don't accept theories that require superhuman abilities.

 

[nicole]

Yet zero evidence that the door needed to be locked fro the inside and a key was needed in order to get out of the cottage. It is certainly important enough that had it been the case it would have been raised in court, yet not so much as a mention. Therefore, it's groundless speculation which you are trying to announce as fact.

Could this be it?...

From TJ site, Understanding Micheli #1:

"Micheli was also mystified as to why Amanda (named in Rudy’s March version) would ring the doorbell. Why wouldn’t she let herself in using her own key? He supposed it was possible Meredith had left her own key in the door which prevented Amanda from using hers, but the girls all knew the lock was broken and they were careful not to leave their own key in the door. Perhaps, Meredith wanted some extra security/privacy against someone returning and had left her key in the lock on purpose. Maybe Amanda was carrying something heavy and her hands weren’t free. Or, maybe, Rudy was just trapped by his December story of the doorbell when he didn’t name anybody and an anonymous ring on the doorbell was plausible."

 

[Fulcanelli]

There is no way to tell whether Filomena's DNA was anywhere or mixed with anything without a reference sample.

Why? It didn't require a reference sample to ascertain there was the DNA of two unknowns on the gra clasp. Were other profiles been found in the blood in the bathroom or Filomena's they would also have been listed, as 'unknowns'. ONLY Amanda's DNA was found mixed with Meredith's blood, nobody else's, known or unknown.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Could this be it?...

From TJ site, Understanding Micheli #1:

"Micheli was also mystified as to why Amanda (named in Rudy’s March version) would ring the doorbell. Why wouldn’t she let herself in using her own key? He supposed it was possible Meredith had left her own key in the door which prevented Amanda from using hers, but the girls all knew the lock was broken and they were careful not to leave their own key in the door. Perhaps, Meredith wanted some extra security/privacy against someone returning and had left her key in the lock on purpose. Maybe Amanda was carrying something heavy and her hands weren’t free. Or, maybe, Rudy was just trapped by his December story of the doorbell when he didn’t name anybody and an anonymous ring on the doorbell was plausible."

Not really. I sometimes leave my key in my door. The catch isn't broken and it doesn't require a key to lock it from the inside.

 

[odeed]

I will quickly answer for now,

odeed,

...
While we are at it, here is a question I posed to BobTheDonkey with respect to a murder in Michigan. Which is more likely, that a 4-year old Ruelas bled over Mixer’s body or that contamination occurred?

Chris

If it's the account I remember (a few pages ago) I agree with contamination.

The difference in this case is that there are two suspects (three including Guede), whose DNA was found in several places of interest, identified by investigators, and those samples were taken for testing not long after the crime was committed.

To me, "utterly without foundation" seems that you have considered all the facts and found the claims false, while "speculation without support" seems looser phrase and you would consider the claim if more facts came to light.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The cleanup theory is based on the concept that it's possible to pick up trace evidence from two people at a murder scene without disturbing the trace evidence pointing to a third or the blood splatters from the victim. How do you see a couple dozen human cells, much less know who they belong to?

I don't accept theories that require superhuman abilities.

How do you know what was disturbed and what wasn't?

The clean-up is not a theory, but a fact. As proven by luminol

 

[Fulcanelli]

The Daily Mail is not above publishing corrections where they make a mistake.

Really? I've never seen then do so. Provide us with an example or two...ones that haven't been ordered by a court.

 

[shuttlt]

The Daily Mail is not above publishing corrections where they make a mistake. If Patrick indeed was misquoted he could have simply asked them to correct the article. Of course, if the reporter has detailed contemporaneous notes or a recording of the interview they won't need to back down. Your bringing up the recent case where the tabloids did get in trouble lends weight to the publishers being more careful to have documentation of the interviews to protect themselves from subsequent adverse actions.

If, if, if,.... The man says he never said those things. The newspaper hasn't produced or claimed to have any contemporaneous notes. At the very least it is wrong to state with certainty that he made the claims of abuse. If we are talking about evidence that may be worth considering at the appeal he doesn't look like a very helpful witness for Knox and Co. regarding police brutality.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Your bringing up the recent case where the tabloids did get in trouble lends weight to the publishers being more careful to have documentation of the interviews to protect themselves from subsequent adverse actions.

Rubbish. Tabloids in the UK are ALWAYS getting into trouble. Indeed, they actually keep a kitty for the suits...it's factored into their business model.

 

[Kestrel]

Could this be it?...

From TJ site, Understanding Micheli #1:

"Micheli was also mystified as to why Amanda (named in Rudy’s March version) would ring the doorbell. Why wouldn’t she let herself in using her own key? He supposed it was possible Meredith had left her own key in the door which prevented Amanda from using hers, but the girls all knew the lock was broken and they were careful not to leave their own key in the door. Perhaps, Meredith wanted some extra security/privacy against someone returning and had left her key in the lock on purpose. Maybe Amanda was carrying something heavy and her hands weren’t free. Or, maybe, Rudy was just trapped by his December story of the doorbell when he didn’t name anybody and an anonymous ring on the doorbell was plausible."

Leaving your key in the lock indicates this is a deadbolt lock that requires a key to open from either side. A photo showing the door from the inside would confirm this one way or the other. Do any of the crime scene videos show the inside of this door?

If Rudy entered through the window, taking Meredith's keys to let himself out would be easier than climbing back out the window. After committing a murder, he wouldn't want to be seen outside the door of the cottage. Leaving directly without pausing to lock the door makes sense.

ETA: Meredith's keys have never been found. Could they have been discarded where the cell phones were tossed, or somewhere the along path to that place?

BTW - Welcome to JREF.