Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Chris_Halkides]

bra clasp and the open letter

So, I ask you once again, is that Raffaele's DNA on the gloves? How did it get there? And does gentle handling of the edges of the clasp transmit DNA of a volume that can only occur from VIGOROUS direct handling?

Fulcanelli,

No one can see DNA. However, a glove could easily transmit Sollecito’s DNA onto the clasp in a number of ways, such as contact with the door to the bedroom. I have never seen any forensic technician in the videos of the crime scene change gloves. This is contrary to accepted practice, which is to change gloves freqently.

Can you explain why Sollecito’s DNA is not on the rest of the bra? In a pretrial hearing, his lawyers pointed out the lack of his DNA on the bra as a problem with the prosecution’s theory.

Can you offer a citation from the primary forensic literature to the effect that the only way for the volume of Sollecito’s DNA to end up on the clasp is vigorous, direct handling? This is nonsense. From the open letter, “DNA testing cannot determine how biological material was deposited onto an item of evidence: whether by direct deposit, or by secondary transfer through an intermediary. DNA testing cannot determine how long biological material may have been on an item, or whether contamination occurred during collection.”

But even supposing (wrongly), that a large quantity of DNA were an absolute indicator of direct handling, your argument would still be wrong. Sollecito’s profile is only 200 RFU in peak height. A good profile is typically in the thousands of RFUs. So your argument is doubly wrong.

Chris

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli,

No one can see DNA. However, a glove could easily transmit Sollecito’s DNA onto the clasp in a number of ways, such as contact with the door to the bedroom. I have never seen any forensic technician in the videos of the crime scene change gloves. This is contrary to accepted practice, which is to change gloves freqently.

Can you explain why Sollecito’s DNA is not on the rest of the bra? In a pretrial hearing, his lawyers pointed out the lack of his DNA on the bra as a problem with the prosecution’s theory.

Can you offer a citation from the primary forensic literature to the effect that the only way for the volume of Sollecito’s DNA to end up on the clasp is vigorous, direct handling? This is nonsense. From the open letter, “DNA testing cannot determine how biological material was deposited onto an item of evidence: whether by direct deposit, or by secondary transfer through an intermediary. DNA testing cannot determine how long biological material may have been on an item, or whether contamination occurred during collection.”

But even supposing (wrongly), that a large quantity of DNA were an absolute indicator of direct handling, your argument would still be wrong. Sollecito’s profile is only 200 RFU in peak height. A good profile is typically in the thousands of RFUs. So your argument is doubly wrong.

Chris

The job of the camera man is not to film them changing gloves, getting dressed or nipping off to have a pee...but to video the 'evidence'. Testimony was given under oath in court that gloves were changed before the handling of each new object. Unless proof is offered otherwise, and the caner man not filming them doing so is not proof since that wasn't his job, then that's good enough for me.

The experts in court testified that volume of DNA from Sollecito could only have come about via direct and vigorous handling which was not convincingly challenged by the defence and therefore accepted by the judges. I'll take their sworn EXPERT testimony that has passed testing in court over the bloviating of an unqualified poster on a message board.

I'm sorry, what are your qualifications to designate what a 'good' profile is and what volume is required to indicate direct handling? And again I ask, if you're such an expert why weren't you testifying during the trial and will you be giving expert testimony during the appeal? If not, why not?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Fulcanelli,

No one can see DNA. However, a glove could easily transmit Sollecito’s DNA onto the clasp in a number of ways, such as contact with the door to the bedroom. I have never seen any forensic technician in the videos of the crime scene change gloves. This is contrary to accepted practice, which is to change gloves freqently.

Can you explain why Sollecito’s DNA is not on the rest of the bra? In a pretrial hearing, his lawyers pointed out the lack of his DNA on the bra as a problem with the prosecution’s theory.

Can you offer a citation from the primary forensic literature to the effect that the only way for the volume of Sollecito’s DNA to end up on the clasp is vigorous, direct handling? This is nonsense. From the open letter, “DNA testing cannot determine how biological material was deposited onto an item of evidence: whether by direct deposit, or by secondary transfer through an intermediary. DNA testing cannot determine how long biological material may have been on an item, or whether contamination occurred during collection.”

But even supposing (wrongly), that a large quantity of DNA were an absolute indicator of direct handling, your argument would still be wrong. Sollecito’s profile is only 200 RFU in peak height. A good profile is typically in the thousands of RFUs. So your argument is doubly wrong.

Chris

Can you explain why Sollecito's DNA would be on the door handle and yet not show up on any of the other tests? I guess the one and only time a technician handled that doorknob was the on day they retrieved the clasp? Of course, the doorknob itself wasn't swabbed during the initial collection - why would it have been? Not like there was any need to see who might/might not have used that door...

 

[Fulcanelli]

Can you explain why Sollecito's DNA would be on the door handle and yet not show up on any of the other tests? I guess the one and only time a technician handled that doorknob was the on day they retrieved the clasp? Of course, the doorknob itself wasn't swabbed during the initial collection - why would it have been? Not like there was any need to see who might/might not have used that door...

Oh yes and just like a magic mop, that glove just soaked up every last trace of Raffaele's DNA off the handle so that when they tested the handle...guess what? Every last trace of his DNA was gone. Just like magic! According to halides1 anyway.

Raffaele's DNA on the clasp was in a ratio to Meredith's of 1:6...that's high! Our DNA experts on PMF (Greggy and Nicki - and Halides1, Greggy has a PhD in the field of genetics) tell us that in the case of contamination, one would reasonably expect a ratio of 1:100 or higher. Greggy actually designs the DNA detection kits for one of the two international companies that provide forensic science departments around the world with DNA kits. Nicki is a professor of micro biology at the University of Milan.

 

[stilicho]

Stilicho knows much less about DNA forensics than Dr. Waterbury does, so yours is not much of an argument. You are also ignoring the fact that the bra clasp was not handled with disposable tools and was handled too much and put onto the floor. It is also the international norm to release the electronic data files...

I know less about vertical gardening than Waterbury does too. There's also a very good chance that Waterbury is an expert on vertical gardening. That's his field.

If we're going to argue on the basis of who is a worse DNA scientist then we'd all have to admit we're worse than Dr Stefanoni, whose credentials are impeccable.

Bob might have been confusing me (who doesn't care what an associate professor in an unconnected discipline thinks about DNA evidence) with ShuttIt, who has actually been asking incisive questions.

My point is that neither you nor Waterbury have any idea what you're talking about and haven't subjected your results to peer review. Once "science spheres" and "wilmington meanderings" send their science through peer review then I'll spend more time addressing them.

 

[stilicho]

Mellas also made sure the site linked to the donation site for Amanda:

http://www.raffaelesollecito.org/siti_web.html

and to a propaganda site they've set up for Amanda in Italy:

http://www.amandaknox.it/

I can almost guarantee that you'll get crickets here on something like that. After all, Chris Mellas is a free man with good ol' enterprising spirit and if he can make a fast buck off his ******** stepdaughter's ****-buddy's sympathisers then why not?

Always reminded of that Jeff Beck tune:

Here is a young girl, born down and out,
Locked up in jail when she was ten twenty and one.
Now in the courtroom, she's got a bit of doubt,
Sits on the judge side of the bench.

She's just ambitious,
She's not a bad girl,
She's just ambitious.
She's not a bad girl,
Just ambitious.
Whooah, yeah!
Just ambitious.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Bob might have been confusing me (who doesn't care what an associate professor in an unconnected discipline thinks about DNA evidence) with ShuttIt, who has actually been asking incisive questions.

My apologies to both you and Shuttit.

 

[stilicho]

My apologies to both you and Shuttit.

Mainly to ShuttIt. I am just a clown like Carlo Torre.

 

[stilicho]

(Greggy has a PhD in the field of genetics) tell us that in the case of contamination, one would reasonably expect a ratio of 1:100 or higher. Greggy actually designs the DNA detection kits for one of the two international companies that provide forensic science departments around the world with DNA kits. Nicki is a professor of micro biology at the University of Milan.

I should add that they are not doing what halides1 and Waterbury are doing, either. They have not subjected extraordinary claims to peer review. Rather they are explaining the science used to solve a crime to those of us who don't understand it that well.

Halides1 and Waterbury, on the contrary, are making extraordinary claims with no peer review whatsoever. There is a huge difference in these two approaches and ones appreciated by critical thinkers.

Once halides1 and Waterbury subject their claims to peer review (as I asked them to do on a preliminary basis on the Science and Medicine part of the JREF) then they will be able to deploy them in a responsible and factual way. Open letters and irrelevant links don't cut it in the science world. You actually have to know what you're talking about.

 

[Kermit]

Dr. Stefanoni has had two years to release the files, four months since the release of the open letter.

.
Didn't we spend two days last week discussing this before you changed the rehashed issue to what Raffaele's last alibi was and, having lost that battle, you're back to starting afresh the Stefanoni data argument, like we had never talked about it?

Since you didn't reply to my questions the last time, I'll try again:

- Who engaged Elizabeth Johnson and her cohorts to do her report? Under what terms and objectives? What were the implicit or explicit constraints (eg. why weren't mixed DNA samples of Amanda and Meredith from Filomena's room included?).

- Why wasn't this information included in the report?

- If her letter is an "open letter", why has it been removed from certain document sharing sites, on the basis on copyright? (I believe it's only on the FOA site, I may be wrong)

- What data was she provided, and by whom?

- She signs off her report with "respectfully submitted" .... who did she respectfully submit the report to? Was it the same person or party who engaged her?

- Once engaged to do her report, did Elizabeth Johnson at any time attempt to contact Stefanoni to review data and procedures? Or did her terms of engagement not permit that? If Elizabeth Johnson knew she was doing a critique of Stefanoni's work, wouldn't it have been professionally correct to have insisted in her engagament terms of reference that she be permitted such contact in order to have a report which might be worth something?

- When was she engaged to do her report? Assuming FOA (or other persons close to FOA or to the Knox/Mellas clan) was the engagement party and facilitator of what data was given to her, why did they program Elizabeth Johnson's report to be released just days before the end of the trial, when the closing arguments were already underway? If her report was so important, why wasn't it commissioned by FOA/Marriott/whoever earlier on? And if her report was so important, instead of spending money on a multidigit PR campaign (Curt Knox loses his house, but David Marriott gets a nice new one ...), maybe some of that money should have been used to notify the Italian justice system that a certain Elizabeth Johnson exists, and that Amanda's team feels that Johnson's critique should be heard in court, rather than being debated from its current priviledged position on the FOA web page.

- As for your expectation that Stefanoni should have somehow replied, or furnished information to Elizabeth Johnson or her other co-signers in the last 4 months, well, ...... Why?

Is Stefanoni to be expected to be monitoring websites and newspapers in the English-speaking world, looking out for wanna-be Meredith-Kercher-Murder-DNA-Experts? Should she be ready and willing to provide any investigation related information to them, if such requests don't come through legal or tribunal channels?

 

[shuttlt]

Is there a link to more information on the copyright on the open letter?

 

[Kermit]

Is there a link to more information on the copyright on the open letter?

.
I don't have any. Back in Nov. or Dec. there was a link on PMF to a document sharing site where the letter had been saved, but by the time I got there, the letter was gone, with the message that it had been removed because of a copyright complaint.

 

[shuttlt]

.
I don't have any. Back in Nov. or Dec. there was a link on PMF to a document sharing site where the letter had been saved, but by the time I got there, the letter was gone, with the message that it had been removed because of a copyright complaint.

Thanks, it's available at scribd, so if somebody is trying to enforce copyright they aren't doing a very good job. I just thought it might be worth looking into who the copyright holder was.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Thanks, it's available at scribd, so if somebody is trying to enforce copyright they aren't doing a very good job. I just thought it might be worth looking into who the copyright holder was.

Do you have a link to it on scribd? If it's there, it's been put back up because it was from there (under Elizabeth Johnson's account) that it was taken down due yo coptight. But certainly, it'd be interesting to know who the copyright holder is...would it be the Knox/Mellas family or FOA by any chance?

 

[shuttlt]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23891752/KnoxSollecitoDNAPetitionSubmitted11-19

 

[shuttlt]

Would it be worth contacting scribd and asking them whether the copyright situation on this document is now resolved? If it is, perhaps a copy can be hosted on PMF.

It does seem nuts to enforce copyright on an open letter.

 

[katy_did]

Fulcanelli,

No one can see DNA. However, a glove could easily transmit Sollecito’s DNA onto the clasp in a number of ways, such as contact with the door to the bedroom. I have never seen any forensic technician in the videos of the crime scene change gloves. This is contrary to accepted practice, which is to change gloves freqently.

Hi Chris, no, according to the judge's report they did not change gloves after touching each object. They say they changed gloves between rooms, but handled different objects in the same room with the same pair of gloves.

Can you offer a citation from the primary forensic literature to the effect that the only way for the volume of Sollecito’s DNA to end up on the clasp is vigorous, direct handling? This is nonsense. From the open letter, “DNA testing cannot determine how biological material was deposited onto an item of evidence: whether by direct deposit, or by secondary transfer through an intermediary. DNA testing cannot determine how long biological material may have been on an item, or whether contamination occurred during collection.”

But even supposing (wrongly), that a large quantity of DNA were an absolute indicator of direct handling, your argument would still be wrong. Sollecito’s profile is only 200 RFU in peak height. A good profile is typically in the thousands of RFUs. So your argument is doubly wrong.

The judge's report actually claims that there can be no DNA in dust, for instance, because dry skin cells do not contain DNA, so the only way DNA can be transferred is through direct contact (or presumably having gotten someone's saliva on your skin, or something!). Even as a non-scientist, this seems like a nonsense to me, since it would imply that transferring DNA from one source to another is a virtual impossibility. They use this argument repeatedly to deny the possibility of contamination.

In addition, they did not test many of the things in the room, concentrating on areas of visible blood stains. It's impossible to know if Sollecito's DNA (or anyone else's, for that matter) was on any of the many untested objects. One thing that seems to me highly likely to contain other people's DNA are the handtowels that were taken by Guede into Meredith's room - the bathroom that was used by Amanda, Meredith and their guests (no doubt including Sollecito). At least two were taken from their bathroom, and were found near (under?) the body, in the general area of the floor where the bra clasp was found and left lying for the following 46 days. They couldn't test the towels for DNA, because they allowed them to mildew.

I'd also recommend checking out the judge's report for details of some of the information the defense were not provided with, if you haven't already (both Sarah Gino and Tagliabracci complained that they did not have all the information they needed). Among the missing information was the order of testing in the lab, crucial of course to determining the likelihood of contamination. The judge dismissed the request on the grounds that the defense were invited to be present at all the testing, and that Stefanoni had absolutely promised there was no contamination...

 

[shuttlt]

The judge's report actually claims that there can be no DNA in dust, for instance, because dry skin cells do not contain DNA, so the only way DNA can be transferred is through direct contact (or presumably having gotten someone's saliva on your skin, or something!). Even as a non-scientist, this seems like a nonsense to me, since it would imply that transferring DNA from one source to another is a virtual impossibility. They use this argument repeatedly to deny the possibility of contamination.

I do remember remember reading that getting dried out damages the DNA. I'm going to try and get a good answer to this question. Given that the judges report is so arse achingly detailed, it will be good to read the fully fleshed out version of this argument.

I'd also recommend checking out the judge's report for details of some of the information the defense were not provided with, if you haven't already (both Sarah Gino and Tagliabracci complained that they did not have all the information they needed). Among the missing information was the order of testing in the lab, crucial of course to determining the likelihood of contamination. The judge dismissed the request on the grounds that the defense were invited to be present at all the testing, and that Stefanoni had absolutely promised there was no contamination...

Am I misremembering, or wasn't this request not made and denied until just before the closing arguments?

 

[Fulcanelli]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23891752/KnoxSollecitoDNAPetitionSubmitted11-19

Thanks Shuttit. That's new. That account belongs to some individual called 'Circej' and it's the only document they have up. It looks like they registered an account for the sole reason of putting up that doc. However, that wasn't the scribd account it was originally up under. It was originally posted under Elizabeth Johnson's scribd account, only for her to later remove it citing copyright.

 

[shuttlt]

Do we have a good quote of the "there is no DNA in dry skin cells" argument from the prosecution/Stefanoni/the judges report. This seems like a discrete issue that I am quite willing to open a thread on and put some time into if we can formulate a meaningful claim.

Katy_did, have you got a quote/page number from the judges report? I take it you mean the motivations document. My translation is good enough that I can get a small section cleaned up well enough to post.