Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Chris_Halkides]

hard drives

Their alibis have nothing at all to do with those other three computers.

Stilicho,

The three hard drives may have been quite valuable, as well as the information on Stardust.

“The appeal will examine closely how potentially critical evidence on three laptops - two owned by Sollecito and one owned by Knox - was destroyed by a police 'computer expert'.
The computers were seized after the two lovers were arrested. The defence team claim examination of the hard-drives would have gone a long way to substantiating the version of events given by Knox and Sollecito.
At least two of the computers would have shown Knox or Sollecito were using them at the time Meredith is said to have been killed.
But the computer expert managed to systematically destroy all three hard-drives.
One defence source said: 'After destroying one hard-drive, common sense would have told him to stop and find out what he was doing wrong.
'But, no, he continued and didn't stop until all three were destroyed beyond any hope of reading from them what had actually taken place on the night in question.' “

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-Meredith-Kerchers-murder.html#ixzz0geQOAgnr


“So, today it was accepted that someone was at Raffaele's place after midnight and tried to listen to a song. A song which may save the lovebirds.

Amanda and Raffaele told us that on November 1 they watched Amelie and then, more or less, Stardust. Indeed the VLC reader does show the viewing of Amelie and then of Stardust, but it doesn't give a date.
The last access to Stardust is November 6. Raffaele and Amanda were in jail, so the police, while working at the computer, opened Stardust (everyone needs a break).

The problem is that access canceled the record of the previous one. So, if really Raffaele and Amanda watched that movie, instead of, for instance, going to kill Meredith, the proof was in the computer. But the police, by mistake, canceled it.
It's not that the running of a movie can really be an alibi, it can run by itself. But, for a number of reasons, it would have been a heavy clue. It would have been.”

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/09/computer-places-knox-and-sollecito-at.html

Ms. Knox’s defense team offered to pay for the cost of having her hard drive examined by someone who might be able to resurrect the files, but so far this offer has been rebuffed, IIRC.

Chris

 

[Chris_Halkides]

evidence withheld

If you are implying the investigation is witholding evidence, what is your proof.

Piktor,

"Further complaints centre on the failure of the prosecution to provide the defence teams with full details - the scientific protocols - of how their forensic experts arrived at their critical conclusions. It is an area the defence will insist upon before the appeal."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-Meredith-Kerchers-murder.html#ixzz0geXSsQgv

The .fsa files have never been released. It is standard practice to do so in cases where DNA forensics is involved, as I have documented. This would allow independent experts to check the DNA forensic work.

Chris

 

[shuttlt]

Ms. Knox’s defense team offered to pay for the cost of having her hard drive examined by someone who might be able to resurrect the files, but so far this offer has been rebuffed, IIRC.

The only reason I have heard for them wanting to do this is that they believe there are picture on it showing Amanda and Meredith to be happy in one anothers company. Do Amanda and/or raffaele claim to have used the computer that night, or can they not remember and are wanting to recover the drive in the hope that the computer remembers something they don't?

 

[shuttlt]

Piktor,

"Further complaints centre on the failure of the prosecution to provide the defence teams with full details - the scientific protocols - of how their forensic experts arrived at their critical conclusions. It is an area the defence will insist upon before the appeal."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-Meredith-Kerchers-murder.html#ixzz0geXSsQgv

The .fsa files have never been released. It is standard practice to do so in cases where DNA forensics is involved, as I have documented. This would allow independent experts to check the DNA forensic work.

Chris

Am I right in thinking that the defence didn't request this from the court until close to the end of the trial? I appreciate that perhaps they shouldn't have had to ask the court and presumably did request it previously through less formal channels.

 

[Alt+F4]

The only reason I have heard for them wanting to do this is that they believe there are picture on it showing Amanda and Meredith to be happy in one anothers company.

The computer isn't the only way to prove this. The camera that took the photograph might still have it on it's memory, if not, just find the person who took the photograph in question.

 

[shuttlt]

The computer isn't the only way to prove this. The camera that took the photograph might still have it on it's memory, if not, just find the person who took the photograph in question.

Personally I fail to see the point in the photo's. There are plenty of pictures of me smiling with people I don't get on with. The testimony of the people who knew them both is far more useful than a photo of Amanda doing bunny ears behind Meredith, or whatever the missing photos may contain.

Having said that, I don't see what the big deal is about doing the recovery. I appreciate that the control circuitry of the disk in knackered, but why not just dump an image of the disk and let the defence put the sectors back into the right order?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

computers

The only reason I have heard for them wanting to do this is that they believe there are picture on it showing Amanda and Meredith to be happy in one anothers company. Do Amanda and/or raffaele claim to have used the computer that night, or can they not remember and are wanting to recover the drive in the hope that the computer remembers something they don't?

shuttit,

I only have time for a quick reply right now. I believe that you are correct about Amanda's hard drive and the photos. I seem to recall that both Amanda and Raffaele used one of his computers on the night of November first, but I don't know which one they used. Therefore, the loss of information about Stardust may be the most important from the standpoint of the defense.

Chris

 

[shuttlt]

shuttit,

I only have time for a quick reply right now. I believe that you are correct about Amanda's hard drive and the photos. I seem to recall that both Amanda and Raffaele used one of his computers on the night of November first, but I don't know which one they used. Therefore, the loss of information about Stardust may be the most important from the standpoint of the defense.

Chris

So ther burned disks are a red herring? Thanks for the information on Stardust, I've been tunneling away on the LCN DNA test for too long.

 

[Alt+F4]

Personally I fail to see the point in the photo's. There are plenty of pictures of me smiling with people I don't get on with. The testimony of the people who knew them both is far more useful than a photo of Amanda doing bunny ears behind Meredith, or whatever the missing photos may contain.

Having said that, I don't see what the big deal is about doing the recovery. I appreciate that the control circuitry of the disk in knackered, but why not just dump an image of the disk and let the defence put the sectors back into the right order?

If the photo can't be produced, well fine, but I think it's telling that the defense can't produce anyone who said they took a buddy photograph of the two. As far I know, the defense can't produced anyone to testify that the girls were good friends at the time of the murder.

As for the recovery, are the Italians refusing to allow Amanda's computer to be examined by experts of her choosing?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Personally I fail to see the point in the photo's. There are plenty of pictures of me smiling with people I don't get on with. The testimony of the people who knew them both is far more useful than a photo of Amanda doing bunny ears behind Meredith, or whatever the missing photos may contain.

Having said that, I don't see what the big deal is about doing the recovery. I appreciate that the control circuitry of the disk in knackered, but why not just dump an image of the disk and let the defence put the sectors back into the right order?

There isn't any. It's all just smoke thrown up by Knox supporters in order to try and pretend that 'somewhere' there is a bonfire of evidence that proves Amanda's innocence. Of course, any such photo's prove no such thing, let alone evidence it. After all, I'm sure Scott Peterson would, just for example, be able to produce many a photo of his standing arm in arm with his with and them both smiling. Do they make him innocent? Of course not.

 

[Fulcanelli]

shuttit,

I only have time for a quick reply right now. I believe that you are correct about Amanda's hard drive and the photos. I seem to recall that both Amanda and Raffaele used one of his computers on the night of November first, but I don't know which one they used. Therefore, the loss of information about Stardust may be the most important from the standpoint of the defense.

Chris

It was his Mac laptop. He didn't use the other because it was already broken. He'd got it from his sister and had never used it because he'd never been able to fix it. Therefore, everything that happened in regard to Raffaele happened on that Mac. All the evidence was recovered and all the evidence proves his alibi to be completely false. Moreover, it also makes him (or at least one of them) a liar about what they were doing on the morning of the 2nd.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Piktor,

"Further complaints centre on the failure of the prosecution to provide the defence teams with full details - the scientific protocols - of how their forensic experts arrived at their critical conclusions. It is an area the defence will insist upon before the appeal."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-Meredith-Kerchers-murder.html#ixzz0geXSsQgv

The .fsa files have never been released. It is standard practice to do so in cases where DNA forensics is involved, as I have documented. This would allow independent experts to check the DNA forensic work.

Chris

Standard practice where? America?

The defence were provided with all the relevant computer data and had their own computer experts study the data.

 

[shuttlt]

Ok. I've been thinking about the blood test on the knife. Does anybody know what kind of test it was? I've been reading up on this and I wonder whether it isn't a Kastle-Meyer test. In which case it's got a sensitivity of 1:10⁷.

It's always stuck me as a bit silly to play amature detective, but it's been bothering me that people keep saying that the blood test is more sensitive than DNA tests, but not explicitly mentioning what DNA test, or even what blood test. So, in the absence of proper information on the sensitivity of the tests they are making this statement about, I thought I'd have a go. Clearly this must be taken with a pinch of salt, and I would very much appreciate all this being made redundant by some information from one of the experts who have seen the data.

Anyway, I gather the Kastle-Meyer test detects hemoglobin in red blood cells. On that basis I've been doing a bit of back of a fag (and somewhat approximate) packet maths:

I remember reading that there may have been between 10 and 20 cells for the LCN test, say they were all white blood cells (since red ones don't contain a nucleus). 20% was taken for the blood test, so that would be 2-4 cells white blood cells. Wikipedia indicates women have between 381 and 1350 times more red than white cells. So that would be 762-5400 red blood cells, or 6*10^-14 - 4*10^-13 litres (volume of a red blood cell = 8*10^-17m³).

The test has a sensitivity of 1:10⁷, so we can detect blood if we dilute these samples with no more than 6*10^-7 litres - 4*10^-6 litres of water/alcohol/whatever. There are, I believe 4*10^-5 litres in a drop of water, so we are looking at something like 1/100th - 1/10th of a drop of water as the maximum amount we can dilute the sample in and still hope to detect blood.

Like I say, this might be nonsense, I might have forgotten to carry a one somewhere, or it might not be the Kastle-Meyer test, or some other assumption could be wrong. I would greatly appreciate any corrections.

A number of interesting things have become apparant to me in looking into this, first that needing to do an LCN test doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't quite a bit of material in the scratch and possibly enough to be visible due to the overwhelming number of blood cells that do not contain DNA. Second that while the blood test may be sensitive it was used on a smaller sample than the LCN test which may invert the sensitivities and in any case may not be as sensitive as an LCN test.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I remember reading that there may have been between 10 and 20 cells for the LCN test, say they were all white blood cells (since red ones don't contain a nucleus). 20% was taken for the blood test, so that would be 2-4 cells white blood cells. Wikipedia indicates women have between 381 and 1350 times more red than white cells. So that would be 762-5400 red blood cells, or 6*10-14 - 4*10-13 litres (volume of a red blood cell = 8*10-17m3).

Hi Shuttit. I very much doubt it was 20 white blood cells. I think the odds of getting only 20 cells and they're being only white blood cells would be astronomical. However, it is possible that one or two of the cells may have been white cells, perhaps mixed with flesh cells. The problem as well is that the cells were damaged which prevented identifying what kind of cells they were, so we can never know for sure.

 

[shuttlt]

Hi Shuttit. I very much doubt it was 20 white blood cells. I think the odds of getting only 20 cells and they're being only white blood cells would be astronomical.

That's not what I meant.

However, it is possible that one or two of the cells may have been white cells, perhaps mixed with flesh cells. The problem as well is that the cells were damaged which prevented identifying what kind of cells they were, so we can never know for sure.

Why can't it be 20 white blood cells and 7620 red blood cells. How was the figure for the number of cells arrived at? Since red blood cells contain no DNA to sequence, why couldn't they have been there and not mentioned?

 

[shuttlt]

Assuming the ratio of red to white blood cells is at it's most favourable to white, the odds of 20 cells being all red is approximately 95%. The upper bound is more like 99%. I really think red blood cells must have been excluded from the cell count thats been quoted

 

[Fulcanelli]

That's not what I meant.


Why can't it be 20 white blood cells and 7620 red blood cells. How was the figure for the number of cells arrived at? Since red blood cells contain no DNA to sequence, why couldn't they have been there and not mentioned?

Yes, if it was only 20 blood cells (of any kind) a blood test may not have detected them. It depends what the test was. A good presumptive blood test is to use luminol, since that registers the iron from the blood rather then the cells themselves. However, luminol can damage the cell DNA so luminol can't be used for detecting blood on something as important as a potential murder weapon where one hopes to get DNA. It would also be worthless on a kitchen knife anyway, since it may well have been used to cut bloody meat or fish, so detecting blood alone isn't enough...you have to directly link that blood to the victim, which you can't do with only 20 cells. This is because as you said, red blood cells don't carry DNA, so the chances of one of those cells being a white cell is very low indeed.

In other words, it may be blood but you can't prove it. If you proved it, it doesn't matter, unless you can link that blood to the victim via DNA and one needs rather a large quantity of blood to do that, a whole lot more then 20 cells. So, the cells are unlikely to be blood, but it doesn't mean there hadn't been blood on the knife. It's not blood that's hard to wash away...it's the iron that it contained.

 

[shuttlt]

Yes, if it was only 20 blood cells (of any kind) a blood test may not have detected them. It depends what the test was. A good presumptive blood test is to use luminol, since that registers the iron from the blood rather then the cells themselves. However, luminol can damage the cell DNA so luminol can't be used for detecting blood on something as important as a potential murder weapon where one hopes to get DNA. It would also be worthless on a kitchen knife anyway, since it may well have been used to cut bloody meat or fish, so detecting blood alone isn't enough...you have to directly link that blood to the victim, which you can't do with only 20 cells. This is because as you said, red blood cells don't carry DNA, so the chances of one of those cells being a white cell is very low indeed.

In other words, it may be blood but you can't prove it. If you proved it, it doesn't matter, unless you can link that blood to the victim via DNA and one needs rather a large quantity of blood to do that, a whole lot more then 20 cells. So, the cells are unlikely to be blood, but it doesn't mean there hadn't been blood on the knife. It's not blood that's hard to wash away...it's the iron that it contained."

Do you know where the whole 20 cells quote comes from? Are they working back from the amount of DNA? Presumably if they actually had the cells and could count them they could have looked at them under a microscope and determined what type of cells they were. Traditionally it is attacked on the basis of the blood test, clearly though 20 random cells from blood isn't enough for there to be any chance of doing even LCN DNA testing on since the minimum number of white blood cells you would require is around 5 and the odds against that are very high indeed.

I'm also starting to wonder about the quote from Perugia-Shock about their being material visible in the scratch on the knife containing the DNA.

By the way, I think luminol is less sensitive, only 1:10⁶, plus it seems to mainly be used for detecting blood when you have large surfaces to consider rather than in the lab.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Do you know where the whole 20 cells quote comes from? Are they working back from the amount of DNA? Presumably if they actually had the cells and could count them they could have looked at them under a microscope and determined what type of cells they were. Traditionally it is attacked on the basis of the blood test, clearly though 20 random cells from blood isn't enough for there to be any chance of doing even LCN DNA testing on since the minimum number of white blood cells you would require is around 5 and the odds against that are very high indeed.

I'm also starting to wonder about the quote from Perugia-Shock about their being material visible in the scratch on the knife containing the DNA.

By the way, I think luminol is less sensitive, only 1:10⁶, plus it seems to mainly be used for detecting blood when you have large surfaces to consider rather than in the lab.

Well, the 'almost 20 cells' line originates from the FOA, so this is really a case of giving them the benefit of the doubt on that. If you listen to curt Knox, he'll tell it was only one cell, which certainly wasn't the case at all.

As for the cells themselves, the priority was extracting DNA. It doesn't matter what the cells were, or if they were cells at all, if one can't get DNA.

 

[Fiona]

Piktor,

"Further complaints centre on the failure of the prosecution to provide the defence teams with full details - the scientific protocols - of how their forensic experts arrived at their critical conclusions. It is an area the defence will insist upon before the appeal."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-Meredith-Kerchers-murder.html#ixzz0geXSsQgv

The .fsa files have never been released. It is standard practice to do so in cases where DNA forensics is involved, as I have documented. This would allow independent experts to check the DNA forensic work.

Chris

You keep saying this and judging from what has happened in this thread you have some reason to believe that if you continue to repeat something it eventually gets accepted. But it is my understanding that all of the forensic records were released to the defence as ordered by the court: they did not complain that order was not complied with

So I ask again: what evidence have you that the files were not released?