Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[shuttlt]

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.

OK. I'll look. Before I do, do you recall whether there was more to the quote that her simply saying that "controls were done"?

 

[Alt+F4]

Much of this trial has been based on cultural misreading of cues and assumptions drawn from cultural misunderstandings.

No, much of this trail has been based on the evidence presented to the jury.

 

[Fiona]

OK. I'll look. Before I do, do you recall whether there was more to the quote that her simply saying that "controls were done"?

A quick search led me to post 1337 where I quoted a report from PMF. Best I can do, I am afraid

 

[shuttlt]

A quick search led me to post 1337 where I quoted a report from PMF. Best I can do, I am afraid

Thanks Fiona, you're a star. I did search, but clearly not hard enough. Thanks.

Incidentally I've emailed Mark Waterbury to try and track down the origins of the claim about lack of controls.

 

[Open Inquiry]

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.


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.

Are you saying there is one level of cleaning that yields a slightly murky looking knife and another level that produces something outstanding? The dish soap under the sink did contain bleach. Second, if Amanda had cleaned the knife, perhaps she is a more thorough dishwasher. Just speculating. They said they took it due to scratches like it had been scrubbed. It was probably the knife used most often in the drawer.

But that aside, as I don't think that is as important as the real question of the DNA. And the above is only my take on it. It seems a subjective matter at this point. I am not convinced of the reasoning to take that knife. Raffeale had smaller collection knives and these were tested as well. Negative. But the kitchen knife, since it was cleaned with the dish soap, had bleach on it.

I'm going to take a break there and write about my understanding of the DNA results in another post.

 

[Open Inquiry]

Post canceled.

 

[Open Inquiry]

Was the 80% sample of the material enough to test positive or negative for blood with standard DNA testing?

 

[shuttlt]

Was the 80% sample of the material enough to test positive or negative for blood with standard DNA testing?

I think I know what you're asking, but your question seems a little confused. The blood test is a chemical test looking for, depending on which blood test use choose, particular chemical properties of red blood cells. I think the test performed on the knife is looking for hemoglobin. Since there is no DNA in red blood cells the DNA test is a somewhat is a seperate issue. It may be that had the entire sample been tested for blood then that would have been enough to record a result. I don't think we have enough information to say. As previously mentioned all the sensitivity figures are given in terms of ratios, e.g. 1:10,000. That's then further complicated by us having to infer how many red blood cells there might have been. Perhaps one of the experts can flesh out the reasoning on this. Until then I don't think there is an answer to your question.

 

[shuttlt]

Are you saying there is one level of cleaning that yields a slightly murky looking knife and another level that produces something outstanding? The dish soap under the sink did contain bleach. Second, if Amanda had cleaned the knife, perhaps she is a more thorough dishwasher. Just speculating. They said they took it due to scratches like it had been scrubbed. It was probably the knife used most often in the drawer.

There are certainly innocent explanations for the knife looking like it had been cleaned differently/better than the others.

But that aside, as I don't think that is as important as the real question of the DNA.

It depends. People like to imply that the knife was randomly chosen for no reason and that the lab randomly conducted an LCN test on one spot of the blade for no reason. If that's true, I find it so strange as to be significant.

And the above is only my take on it. It seems a subjective matter at this point. I am not convinced of the reasoning to take that knife. Raffeale had smaller collection knives and these were tested as well. Negative. But the kitchen knife, since it was cleaned with the dish soap, had bleach on it.

The court certainly has access to a lot of information that we don't (100's of pages of forensic reports had already been handed over peior to the case). I assume there is a bunch of information about the knife collection and the selection of the kitchen knife that we don't have access to. What did the other knives in the draw look like? For all I know there was nothing but butter knives and plastic camping cuttlery. On the whole, as you say this is way too subjective to feel confident either way.

 

[Open Inquiry]

I think I know what you're asking, but your question seems a little confused. The blood test is a chemical test looking for, depending on which blood test use choose, particular chemical properties of red blood cells. I think the test performed on the knife is looking for hemoglobin. Since there is no DNA in red blood cells the DNA test is a somewhat is a seperate issue. It may be that had the entire sample been tested for blood then that would have been enough to record a result. I don't think we have enough information to say. As previously mentioned all the sensitivity figures are given in terms of ratios, e.g. 1:10,000. That's then further complicated by us having to infer how many red blood cells there might have been. Perhaps one of the experts can flesh out the reasoning on this. Until then I don't think there is an answer to your question.

I've been asking around and reading, though will read more, but it sounds like the test on the 20% of the material for blood was conclusive as negative. I guess I was thinking that if a test for blood could be done conclusively on that amount of material, then 4x that amount would be plenty for a test for the presence of human DNA, negative or positive (not regarding an ID at that point.) Stefanoni tested for DNA with the standard test and it came up negative. Why wasn't that enough? Why proceed further? Was it the question of a mixed material? That it could have been nongenetic material with some genetic material and amplification could determine that?

 

[Open Inquiry]

It depends. People like to imply that the knife was randomly chosen for no reason and that the lab randomly conducted an LCN test on one spot of the blade for no reason. If that's true, I find it so strange as to be significant.

What I mean is that however it was selected, which is important, it is the presence of DNA that really matters at that point. Selection is an issue, but doesn't matter if the knife comes up clean of DNA. I don't think shiny/scrubbed would be enough to present it as evidence. So, granted, they thought it might be something to check. I'll give them that, grant them that. But once it comes up negative for incriminating DNA, it isn't significant to the case.

What do you find so strange as to be significant? Do you mean the seemingly random selection was strange? Or that the appearance of the knife was stand-outish enough as to be a strange factor?

 

[shuttlt]

I've been asking around and reading, though will read more, but it sounds like the test on the 20% of the material for blood was conclusive as negative.

I completely agree that that is how it is presented. If you can find somebody explaining the reasoning rather than just asserting it, I would greatly appreciate a link. The assertion that this is conclusive appears to be contrary to statements in the Perugia-Shock summary of the motivations report which claim that there was too little material to say.

I guess I was thinking that if a test for blood could be done conclusively on that amount of material, then 4x that amount would be plenty for a test for the presence of human DNA, negative or positive (not regarding an ID at that point.)

That doesn't seem to be the case.

Stefanoni tested for DNA with the standard test and it came up negative. Why wasn't that enough? Why proceed further? Was it the question of a mixed material? That it could have been nongenetic material with some genetic material and amplification could determine that?

All of these tests have limits on their sensitivity. The blood tests have limits, the tests for DNA, and the LCN test. My assumption has been that, ignoring lab contamination for a moment, the material must have been beyond the limits of all but the LCN test. Information is very thin, as you may have discovered on what the limits of these tests are, certainly in a way that allows one to do meaningful comparisons. I confess I don't know much about tests for DNA other than in the context of trying to get a profile. I'll add that to the list of things to keep an eye out for.

As to why Stefanoni decided to do an LCN test, perhaps those who were in court know. It seems like a reasonable and obvious question to ask. She stood up in court for at least a couple of days and was cross-examined. Take a look around for the amount of material available on what questions she was asked and what her replies were. There is next to nothing compared to what must have been said. Is it reasonable to suppose that the defence never thought to ask about negative controls, or why she decided to use an LCN test? Perhaps we will know more when the motivations report is translated.

 

[shuttlt]

What I mean is that however it was selected, which is important, it is the presence of DNA that really matters at that point.

Is there really an argument that it is her DNA? Surely the question is how it got there?

Selection is an issue, but doesn't matter if the knife comes up clean of DNA. I don't think shiny/scrubbed would be enough to present it as evidence. So, granted, they thought it might be something to check. I'll give them that, grant them that. But once it comes up negative for incriminating DNA, it isn't significant to the case.

It is significant though once her profile comes out of the LCN test, unless the claim is that it isn't her profile but instead a random statistical fluke.

What do you find so strange as to be significant? Do you mean the seemingly random selection was strange? Or that the appearance of the knife was stand-outish enough as to be a strange factor?

The way the story is told by the Perugia-shock crowd, the bumbling police randomly choose a knife from a draw full of other knives. The knife they choose doesn't look like the knife they are looking for and has no interesting features to mark it out from the other knives. They send this knife to the lab and for no reason ignore initial negative results and run an LCN test on a single random part of the knife. If that is what happened I struggle not to conclude the evidence was planted with the collusion of the lab and the team that collected the knife. The story, if remotely representative of what happened, just makes no sense to me otherwise.

As to the appearence of the knife. One would have to know what other knives were in the draw, what condition they were in and what the team that found it thought the knife they were looking for looked like and what they instructions were given. Again, for all I know it was the only remotely offensive looking knife in the draw, all the other cuttlery wasn't particularly well cleaned, but this knife was dazzlingly clean and appeared to have been scrubbed to within an inch of its life. In isolation in court it may well not have looked so remarkable a year later. Or it could be that it was an unremarkable knife in a draw full of other unremarkable knives. Anyway, this is one section of the motivations report that I am looking forward to finding out about.

 

[Open Inquiry]

I completely agree that that is how it is presented. If you can find somebody explaining the reasoning rather than just asserting it, I would greatly appreciate a link. The assertion that this is conclusive appears to be contrary to statements in the Perugia-Shock summary of the motivations report which claim that there was too little material to say.


QUOTE]


I thought it was agreed upon even by the prosecution.

Franks says, "For The Knife, the fact that the blood test was negative depends on the quantity used for that test, extremely small, but it doesn't mean that it can't be blood."

Is this the statement of the jury and judge? From that I assume this was the prosecution's argument. If we grant inconclusive test results, at minimum that means reasonable doubt. Also, for what reason could it have been so small? I need to read and ask more about this discrepancy.

 

[shuttlt]

I thought it was agreed upon even by the prosecution.

Many blog posters in the "haters" camp certainly believed it. I assume the judge didn't just make it up in his summary, so perhaps there were statements in court on this that we are unaware of?

Franks says, "For The Knife, the fact that the blood test was negative depends on the quantity used for that test, extremely small, but it doesn't mean that it can't be blood."

Is this the statement of the jury and judge? From that I assume this was the prosecution's argument. If we grant inconclusive test results, at minimum that means reasonable doubt.

What do you mean? There might be blood, or there might not be blood.

Also, for what reason could it have been so small?

There was a tiny amount of material in the scratch on the knife. Are you asking why there was so little material in the scratch?

I need to read and ask more about this discrepancy.

I think you know close to everything there is to know now about the knife without access to the non-public domain data. We really fumbling in the dark compared to the court and FOA.

 

[shuttlt]

I just had an interesting little exchange with Dr Mark Waterbury over at Science Spheres. He says that he has access to all the information that the defence have. There is no information about negative controls in that data. So, either he is being lied to, or no controls were done. I'm not sure what to make of this, but thought it was worth sharing.

 

[Open Inquiry]

Many blog posters in the "haters" camp certainly believed it. I assume the judge didn't just make it up in his summary, so perhaps there were statements in court on this that we are unaware of?


What do you mean? There might be blood, or there might not be blood.


There was a tiny amount of material in the scratch on the knife. Are you asking why there was so little material in the scratch?


I think you know close to everything there is to know now about the knife without access to the non-public domain data. We really fumbling in the dark compared to the court and FOA.

This might be a funny question, but which group is the haters camp?

By the fact of an inconclusive test, there is at least reasonable doubt that it was blood.

I am seeking info about the statement about it being uncertain if it was blood or not.

As for the quantity, at this point, a positive result seems indistinguishable from contamination from the equipment. Especially given the kind of lab and preparation needed to correctly perform LCN DNA testing.

 

[Open Inquiry]

I just had an interesting little exchange with Dr Mark Waterbury over at Science Spheres. He says that he has access to all the information that the defence have. There is no information about negative controls in that data. So, either he is being lied to, or no controls were done. I'm not sure what to make of this, but thought it was worth sharing.

Thanks for sharing. That was my understanding, that negative controls were not performed.

 

[shuttlt]

This might be a funny question, but which group is the haters camp?

It is and you're right to ask. The "haters" are of course the people who think she's probably guilty. Personally I think all that partisan crap is one of the biggest problems for the FOA cause, there are very few people who post here, or on PMR who could be fairly described in that way. I have been described as a liar, a hater and a fool quite a few times for posting in pretty much exactly the tone I am posting in now.

By the fact of an inconclusive test, there is at least reasonable doubt that it was blood.

Certainly. if the amount really is too small there should be around the same amount of doubt as if no test had been performed.

I am seeking info about the statement about it being uncertain if it was blood or not.

Good luck. I've tried. I've asked. I know no more than you.

As for the quantity, at this point, a positive result seems indistinguishable from contamination from the equipment. Especially given the kind of lab and preparation needed to correctly perform LCN DNA testing.

It certainly would be indestinguishable from contamination, just as it would be if a standard DNA test got contaminated. The question is really what the odds are. I don't think we know anything about the test with enough certainty to say. It could be that no negative controls were done and the last sample in the machine is known to have contained Meredith's DNA (in which case contamination seems like a decent explanation). It could be that Dr. Waterbury is misinformed and negative controls were done and no other samples relating to the case were anywhere near the machine.

 

[Open Inquiry]

As for the quantity, at this point, a positive result seems indistinguishable from contamination from the equipment. Especially given the kind of lab and preparation needed to correctly perform LCN DNA testing.

This was referring to a positive result for DNA.