Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Open Inquiry]

Never before attempted anywhere. Science is progressive...didn't you know?

Regarding contamination...'where' did it come from? Why was it not contaminated with anything or anyone else? Hoew is it it hit the jackpot...of only one person, Meredith Kercher? If controls were not in place, shouldn't the DNA of many different persons have been found on that knife? Therefore, how come it was the profile of only one person...the victim? How is it that this contamination only got into a microscopic scratch in the knife and not anywhere else on the blade...contamination bullseye?

This rules out bad controls or contamination, especially when the potential for contamination was mere centimetres away...Amanda's DNA on the handle, Dr Stefanoni's...who tested it...the police officer who collected it. Their DNA was not on the blade...how is that possible? Yet, we are supposed to expect that Meredith's DNA floated down through the lab, landed on the knife, settling into the depths of a micro crack in the blade?

The knife originally tested negative for DNA until it was overridden. The question is how does contamination occur in a lab? How certain is it that it was Meredith's DNA? What are the odds of the DNA pattern being on the knife? How is it possible to remove blood and not DNA - even in a minute crack in the blade? I don't want to gloss over your questions, nor mine. I don't want to gloss over the question of the writer of Science Sphere's qualifications to analyze this testing procedure. I will approach him myself with these questions.

But still, my question is, if it tested negative for blood, the DNA could have gotten there from being at the cottage, not from an injury, so how is it shown to be a murder weapon?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The knife originally tested negative for DNA until it was overridden. The question is how does contamination occur in a lab? How certain is it that it was Meredith's DNA? What are the odds of the DNA pattern being on the knife? How is it possible to remove blood and not DNA - even in a minute crack in the blade? I don't want to gloss over your questions, nor mine. I don't want to gloss over the question of the writer of Science Sphere's qualifications to analyze this testing procedure. I will approach him myself with these questions.

But still, my question is, if it tested negative for blood, the DNA could have gotten there from being at the cottage, not from an injury, so how is it shown to be a murder weapon?

It was Raf's knife, from his apartment. Not from Amanda/Meredith's cottage.

I feel this is where you are confused.

The knife counts as evidence as there is no plausible alternate story for how Meredith's DNA came to be in the microscopic crack (as Fulcanelli pointed out above) - blood or not. DNA is DNA, and it exists in cells other than merely blood cells. That it was skin cells means nothing as the knife would have had to pass through Meredith's skin to reach her blood

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Right, but none of this information is out there. So we're to be expected to "take Fulcanelli's word for it". It's rumor on message boards. I don't see any journalists clawing their way to get down to the bottom of it. This "he" you are talking about, we have no way of validating if "he" is who "he" says he is. For all you know "he" was playing you all for fools. Again, nothing substantiated. It's fine if you don't want to call it gossip, but at this point it's no better than that, so call it whatever you like. It's certainly not fact. Not one legitimate source has ever reported it to my knowledge.

It's not on public record is it? Who is "we" anyways? Whoever investigated further couldn't even get someone directly affected by it or involved to say anything. It's useless. If you want to investigate it further, by all means do. But at this point, the info remains message board gossip.

Your baby analogy is a pretty bad one. You have to let the baby in before you throw it out.

So, I'm a fool because I don't agree with you?

Because I'm willing to call people out on their ethno-centrism (and yes, I know what it is). Again, I ask what makes you think the letter writers had any kind of right to access the full data set? Do you feel the Italian lab and Defense counsel are incompetent/incapable when it comes to proper interpretation of the results?



So now I will ask you what I've yet to see a reasonable response to:

Where was Amanda on the night of the murder?

 

[Open Inquiry]

The police claimed that the knife was chosen because it appeared to have been recently cleaned and, I think, smelled of bleach. One can doubt, disagree with and question this, but it is no less a fact than that there were "no visible stains or notable characteristics".

Then there is the material in the scratch that was visible on close inspection. They either haven't been told about this claim, or decide not to mention it.

"Notable" would mean that knives that have been cleaned would look like that, so any of the knives recently cleaned could bear that description. It could be that knife was the one used to cook with the most, or the night before, since they made fish. A well-cleaned knife is typical, in other words.

But I'm wondering what do you mean by "the material"? As far as I know, it wasn't a visible material that the DNA originated from. Or was it? I guess I can look it up to find out if no one gets back to me on it.

Thanks.....

 

[Open Inquiry]

It was Raf's knife, from his apartment. Not from Amanda/Meredith's cottage.

I feel this is where you are confused.

Just taking it a step at a time...

What I mean is that the Massei Report still claims it as the murder weapon, so he is placing it at the cottage. But Amanda and Raffaele did not premeditate the murder or attack so the knife was there as a result of a different cause. Therefore, if it tested negative for blood, is it logically possible that the DNA could have gotten on the knife from being at cottage in general, for whatever reason it was there?

The knife counts as evidence as there is no plausible alternate story for how Meredith's DNA came to be in the microscopic crack"

Saliva contains DNA. I have a list provided to me by a lawyer of what contains DNA and can transfer to objects yielding a positive test for DNA. I'll check it. Maybe that would help answer my question... and maybe help me ask it better, since I could provide examples of possible scenarios (of course taking into account each one's relative probability).

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Just taking it a step at a time...

What I mean is that the Massei Report still claims it as the murder weapon, so he is placing it at the cottage. But Amanda and Raffaele did not premeditate the murder or attack so the knife was there as a result of a different cause. Therefore, if it tested negative for blood, is it logically possible that the DNA could have gotten on the knife from being at cottage in general, for whatever reason it was there?




Saliva contains DNA. I have a list provided to me by a lawyer of what contains DNA and can transfer to objects yielding a positive test for DNA. I'll check it. Maybe that would help answer my question... and maybe help me ask it better, since I could provide examples of possible scenarios (of course taking into account each one's relative probability).

If such was the case, why would Raffaele provide an obviously false story placing Meredith at his apartment? Why not just claim that Amanda carried the knife for protection so it was possible for Meredith to have come into contact at the cottage?

Yes, you're right. It is possible. But unlikely given what we know from Raf's own mouth (actually, diary...you get the point).

 

[shuttlt]

Go onto PMF, back around the date for the ending of his trial and you should see some articles and translations on the board. I also recommend Andrea Vogt's article on the affair...it contains an interesting subtext

My recollection from reading PMF and Mignini's own explanation was that he paid to have some existing wiretaps reanalysed. The wiretaps proved that the charges in another case were false and it's for this that he was convicted.

FOA clearly have another take on it. They believe he ordered illegal wiretaps and faked evidence against people to try to secure a conviction.

Unless I've misunderstood, or missed something vital in the PMF side of the case, I think the PMF position is expressed perfectly clearly. I've asked and asked at Perugia-shock and nobody is willing to tell me specifically what they think he's been convicted of. I just get a load of people telling me to do a google search, that it's obvious, that it's corruption, abuse of authority etc. Personally, I don't think many of them know.

 

[shuttlt]

You may be interested to contact the writer of "Science Spheres" with regards to corroboration on the forensics testing on the knife. See what you think about his work. He is not associated with the open letter and wrote his blog long before the open letter was written.

I've read it and I'm not impressed. He goes on about his Phd's, but he's a materials scientist working in engineering. I'm not sure that he's an authoritative source at all. He says as a fact that no controls were done. His claim that "A knife boiled in acid would have given the same test results." is rather dependent on that being the case. I haven't found anybody who can validate his claims on the controls, the open letter doesn't mention them at all.

I don't see any new authoritative source for the claim that the blood test one 1/4 of the sample size as the LCN test would be expected to be more sensitive. I could go on, but basically I'm not convinced.

 

[shuttlt]

Furthermore, I didn't just suggest that Shuttit read "Science Spheres" but contact the writer himself with questions.

I've been thinking about doing that for a while to get the source of his claim about the lack of controls.

 

[shuttlt]

LCN DNA testing has been done before. It requires a certain kind of lab. I don't understand what you mean.

It's a bit more complicated than that I think. I'll write something longer shortly, but much of the demands for positive pressure rooms etc. seems to me to be at odds with taking samples from the dirty world outside the lab and the widespread use of LCN on cold cases where the samples haven't been handled particularly carefully, certainly not in the way that positively pressurized rooms seem to imply.

 

[shuttlt]

"Notable" would mean that knives that have been cleaned would look like that, so any of the knives recently cleaned could bear that description. It could be that knife was the one used to cook with the most, or the night before, since they made fish. A well-cleaned knife is typical, in other words.

Clearly not, since the police took the knife because it looked much cleaner than the other knives and, so they say, smelled strongly of bleach. I had a look at my kitchen knives. None of them are "notably" clean. They have water marks on them for example. In my kitchen draw a knife that was shining like a mirror would certainly be notable.

But I'm wondering what do you mean by "the material"? As far as I know, it wasn't a visible material that the DNA originated from. Or was it? I guess I can look it up to find out if no one gets back to me on it.

The honest answer is that I don't know what the material was, or if it existed. Perugia-shock claimed that this material was reported in court. As far as I'm aware Perugia-shock is the only source for this claim:
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/05/lab-of-wonders.html
Having said that, I don't see that it would server their editorial line to make it up.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

what is good for the goose is good for the gander

Where was Amanda on the night of the murder?

BobTheDonkey,

I answered this question some time ago. Now how about answering mine which I asked about the same time. Did forensics DNA cotamination occur in the Mixer case? Why or why not?

Chris

 

[shuttlt]

BobTheDonkey,

I answered this question some time ago. Now how about answering mine which I asked about the same time. Did forensics DNA cotamination occur in the Mixer case? Why or why not?

Chris

Can we just assume contamination did happen in that case and move on with argument? I don't think anyone is arguing that contamination is impossible, or never happens.

At the moment we have no idea what other material relating to Meredith, Knox, Sollecito or anybody else were in the lab on any given day. We don't know what the machine used in the LCN was used for prior to testing the knife. We don't know what samples the technicians involved tested prior to the knife. We don't know whether controls were done. One would need to have answers to those or similar questions in order to accept lab contamination as plausible. Perhaps the court has access to some/all of the answers to these questions. If not, then the defence probably should look into this.

In the case of Mixer the only reason they were suspected was the results of the DNA test. Had the two people been suspects for other reasons we probably wouldn't be discussing the case. Also, by the sound of it they have some of the answers to the above questions. I'm a little concerned about where your description of the case comes from. The only link is to the National Association of Criminal Defence lawyers. I'm sure they're kosha, but are you sure they haven't left out off message details in the way the Innocence Project have? Presumably the summary you posted in post #2892 isn't what the prosecution said? If we relied on FOA/Innocence Project descriptions of the Kercher case we'd all have a very different opinion of things.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

BobTheDonkey,

I answered this question some time ago. Now how about answering mine which I asked about the same time. Did forensics DNA cotamination occur in the Mixer case? Why or why not?

Chris

I must have missed that response. Could you link me to it, please?


And I agree with Shuttit that no one is claiming contamination is impossible. The argument is that contamination in this case is unlikely (unless you feel that DNA evidence should never be submitted in Court as it could always be contaminated).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

contamination happens

Can we just assume contamination did happen in that case and move on with argument? I don't think anyone is arguing that contamination is impossible, or never happens.

At the moment we have no idea what other material relating to Meredith, Knox, Sollecito or anybody else were in the lab on any given day. We don't know what the machine used in the LCN was used for prior to testing the knife. We don't know what samples the technicians involved tested prior to the knife. We don't know whether controls were done. One would need to have answers to those or similar questions in order to accept lab contamination as plausible. Perhaps the court has access to some/all of the answers to these questions. If not, then the defence probably should look into this.

In the case of Mixer the only reason they were suspected was the results of the DNA test. Had the two people been suspects for other reasons we probably wouldn't be discussing the case. Also, by the sound of it they have some of the answers to the above questions. I'm a little concerned about where your description of the case comes from. The only link is to the National Association of Criminal Defence lawyers. I'm sure they're kosha, but are you sure they haven't left out off message details in the way the Innocence Project have? Presumably the summary you posted in post #2892 isn't what the prosecution said? If we relied on FOA/Innocence Project descriptions of the Kercher case we'd all have a very different opinion of things.

ShuttIt,

I am not sure what you are talking about when you bring up the Innocence Project. Professor Hampikian, a coauthor of the open letter, is also Director of the Idaho Innocence Project, but I have seen no evidence that the Innocence Project itself is involved in this case. I also seem to recall that you did not think that the description of the knife in the open letter was accurate, but the photographs I have seen do not show any scratches on the blade. Also, do you have a cite for their being a smell of bleach on the knife? I think that is one of those rumors that did not pan out. Do you have any other issues with the open letter with respect to accuracy?

Neither BobTheDonkey nor one other commenter whom I asked could bring himself or herself to admit that contamination must have occurred in the Mixer case (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/15/ctv.serial.slaying/index.html). Given this inability, why one should take BobTheDonkey’s contention that contamination is unlikely in this case seriously is mysterious. The reason why contamination is at least likely in this case is the lack of blood on the knife. The writers of the open letter made clear that they understood very well that there was a low template number with respect to the knife. Yet, they still wrote that one would remove traces of DNA before traces of blood. Even Colonel Garofano, a prosecution-friendly expert consulted by the authors of Darkness Descending, was puzzled over the negative result of the TNB test (pp. 368-369). Given this result, contamination is the most likely reason for DNA to have been observed.

@BobTheDonkey. It is precisely because I respect DNA evidence so much when obtained correctly, that I have such grave reservations about how it was obtained in this case. Please put away this canard that you and Quadraginta have brought forth.

Chris

 

[shuttlt]

I am not sure what you are talking about when you bring up the Innocence Project. Professor Hampikian, a coauthor of the open letter, is also Director of the Idaho Innocence Project, but I have seen no evidence that the Innocence Project itself is involved in this case.

It may be that I am making an error about the innocence project and that their Idaho director is doing this outside his Innocence Project role. I'm not sure that it's important and for the moment I'm happy to drop all mention of the Innocence Project.

I also seem to recall that you did not think that the description of the knife in the open letter was accurate, but the photographs I have seen do not show any scratches on the blade.

I don't recall debating with you about whether there are any scratches. I think there was some question about marks caused be excessive scrubbing, but that is something else again. In any case, I haven't seen any photographs that are detailed enough to say for sure one way or another.

Also, do you have a cite for their being a smell of bleach on the knife?

I've been meaning to look at the source for this claim again. I will do so and get back to you.

I think that is one of those rumors that did not pan out. Do you have any other issues with the open letter with respect to accuracy?

I'll write something up on that and get back to you.

Neither BobTheDonkey nor one other commenter whom I asked could bring himself or herself to admit that contamination must have occurred in the Mixer case (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/15/ctv.serial.slaying/index.html).

I have no problem admitting that, as described contamination seems like a good explanation. Equally, based on the open letter it looks quite likely in this case. I'd have to read into the Mixer case in more detail than I'm prepared to do to render a proper judgement. Is it sufficient to say that assuming the facts you presented are accurate and representative then contamination is very likely to be the explanation?

The reason why contamination is at least likely in this case is the lack of blood on the knife.

There is precious little of anything on the knife. We don't know whether there is blood or not. We just know that if there is, there is very little.

Darkness Descending[/U], was puzzled over the negative result of the TNB test (pp. 368-369). Given this result, contamination is the most likely reason for DNA to have been observed.

If they are correct I agree with you. What I doubt is that they are correct. The test can vary in it's sensitivity, I am not sure quite what the influences are on this. Peoples blood varies in the red/white balance by a lot. The LCN test is far more powerful than regular DNA tests and the sample used in the blood test 1/4 the size of the one used for the LCN test.

All I am asking for is for something more than an assertion and an appeal to authority. We have a disagreement between expert witnesses. The prosecution witnesses have given hours of testimony to support their findings and been cross-examined. The authors of the open letter have just asserted that the DNA would be removed before the blood without further explanation or cross-examination.

I have tried as far as I am able to see whether their claims are justified. I think sometimes for some peoples blood, if the sample sizes are the same and the sensitivity is better than 1:10,000 they may be right. I have trouble with the lack of if's and but's in their statements.

 

[Fiona]

Why do people keep saying controls were not done? Stefanoni testified that they were and I have seen nothing else from the trial to suggest she lied.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

ShuttIt,

I am not sure what you are talking about when you bring up the Innocence Project. Professor Hampikian, a coauthor of the open letter, is also Director of the Idaho Innocence Project, but I have seen no evidence that the Innocence Project itself is involved in this case. I also seem to recall that you did not think that the description of the knife in the open letter was accurate, but the photographs I have seen do not show any scratches on the blade. Also, do you have a cite for their being a smell of bleach on the knife? I think that is one of those rumors that did not pan out. Do you have any other issues with the open letter with respect to accuracy?

Neither BobTheDonkey nor one other commenter whom I asked could bring himself or herself to admit that contamination must have occurred in the Mixer case (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/15/ctv.serial.slaying/index.html). Given this inability, why one should take BobTheDonkey’s contention that contamination is unlikely in this case seriously is mysterious. The reason why contamination is at least likely in this case is the lack of blood on the knife. The writers of the open letter made clear that they understood very well that there was a low template number with respect to the knife. Yet, they still wrote that one would remove traces of DNA before traces of blood. Even Colonel Garofano, a prosecution-friendly expert consulted by the authors of Darkness Descending, was puzzled over the negative result of the TNB test (pp. 368-369). Given this result, contamination is the most likely reason for DNA to have been observed.

@BobTheDonkey. It is precisely because I respect DNA evidence so much when obtained correctly, that I have such grave reservations about how it was obtained in this case. Please put away this canard that you and Quadraginta have brought forth.

Chris

Did I not just say that no one disputes contamination in the Mixer case. Did I not just post that?

Now you, along with others, have taken to painting me in a bad light simply because I don't agree with you about the knife?


The crack is microscopic - so no, it would not have been readily visible to the naked eye.

Controls were performed.

Are you, along with HB, arguing that the Italian lab is incompetent? Do you have any evidence of said incompetence? I mean, sure, you can link to the Mixer case...but this is a different lab and thus the Mixer case is, relatively, irrelevant. The only relevance it presents is the possibility of contamination. That, sir, is a well known possibility. No one denies that it could have happened.

However, it requires a special kind of naivette to believe all the "coincidences" required to believe in the innocence of Amanda and Raf.

How terribly inconvenient that Meredith's DNA would be the one that was found on the knife.

How terribly inconvenient that Raf's DNA would be the one found on the bra clasp.

How terribly inconvenient that neither Amanda nor Raf have alibis for the night of the murder.

How terribly inconvenient the bloody footprints, and the mixed blood, and the staged burglary, and et al.



If you continue to argue the Mixer case as a reason to dismiss this evidence, I will continue to assume this argument means you believe DNA should not be used as evidence. I mean, if any case in which there could have been contamination means eliminating the DNA as evidence, then DNA should never be allowed.

Of course, to follow that to it's logical extreme, no evidence should ever be submitted since any and all of it could have been tampered with.

 

[shuttlt]

Why do people keep saying controls were not done? Stefanoni testified that they were and I have seen nothing else from the trial to suggest she lied.

That is my understanding. Over at Perugia-shock many believe the contrary. Many cite Mark Waterbury over at Science Spheres as a source for this. The open letter doesn't mention controls either way.

By the way, do you have a transcript of that portion of Stefanoni's testimony that deals with controls?

Edit ->
If it is merely saying that controls were done, then I think I've seen it. What I think is missing is detail.

 

[Fiona]

It is upthread somewhere, Shuttit. I am sorry I don't have time to look for it again but this has been done to death too: somewhere near where Halides1 entered the thread IIRC. I am really tired of this advertising-jingle approach to the issues: keep repeating stuff till it goes in, no matter what else is said.