Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Kermit]

The victim's wounds and the bloodstain patterns in her room show an attack by one assailant. All the violence took place in one corner, close to the floor, in front of the wardrobe. The attacker clapped his hand over her face, and gripped her tightly enough to leave bruises on her jawline and her neck. He threw her to the floor and savagely cut her throat, and then he moved her body and sexually assaulted her. It wasn't a prank that escalated and got out of hand. It was a surprise attack that happened over the course of three or four minutes.

Actually, her wounds and bruises indicate she was held by one person while another or others threatened her with a knife or knives.

You say "All the violence took place in one corner" ... clarify what you mean by which violence: was she surprised in her room and never had a chance to leave it, or did the violence build up from some spark, like noise or an argument over drugs or missing money? Did such an argument start and end in her room, or did it start somewhere else in the cottage?

You say he "savagely cut her throat and then ... sexually assaulted her" . You are stating that he sexually assaulted her inert, dead body, with a slit throat and blood spray all over the place? And just a half an hour earlier, Rudy was a simple drifter, run-of-the-mill burglar?

What you don't include in your scenario is the mixed DNA sample from Filomena's room, nor the endless indicators and evidence and testimonies that this wasn't a lone-wolf crime.

And I still can't imagine Rudy hopping around in the bathroom, having decided he had to take off his shoes to clean them, yet he doesn't clean his shoeprints, nor the bloody bathmat print you say he made, while cleaning his shoe. Why didn't he take anything of value, yet he took enough time to wash up in the bidet?

 

[Kermit]

Meredith's DNA was 6-10X more abundant than Raffaele's on the clasp. Here is what the Johnson/Hampikian letter said about the clasp:

"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."

This paragraph is entirely consistent with everything I have read or been told about forensic DNA. I asked an expert and he said that contamination can present itself in any intensity. The Leskie case bears this out.

.
So, you have successfully underlined how Elizabeth "Libby" Johnson has concluded that contamination can theoretically occur.

Great.

Maybe that underwhelming conclusion is why FOA didn't pass on her document for presentation in court.

 

[quadraginta]

Fulcanelli writes:

Were you in the court room Charlie? Do you speak Italian?

I wasn't in the courtroom and I don't speak Italian. But, I have a library of primary source information about this case.
<snip>

What?? 'What' library? What 'primary source'? You don't get away with just throwing that out there Charlie, you need to clarify exactly what you mean by that.

<snip>

Fulcanelli writes:

What?? 'What' library? What 'primary source'? You don't get away with just throwing that out there Charlie, you need to clarify exactly what you mean by that.

Here is a partial list:

- the DNA results
- more than 400 high-resolution photos from the crime scene
- several hours of police video
- several hundred files that constitute the output of the security camera across the street
- composite images showing the location of key evidence, like fingerprints, luminol prints, etc.
- spheron imagery (360 degree high-resolution images)
- forensic reports prepared by both the prosecution and the defense

<snip>

This is a fairly startling revelation. You seem to be in possession of a great deal of material that few others are privy to.

Let's try one. Are you claiming that the police owned or had access to a Spheron-VR camera and related equipment which they used to record the Meredith Kercher murder site, and that you are personally in possession of copies of the data files from that photography?

Prove it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

how many individuals' DNA can one bra clasp hold?

The DNA of 3 unknown people has no bearing? Really? Are you sure?

If the DNA from three individuals can get onto the bra clasp by an unknown means, what makes the fourth individual (Raffaele) different? Nothing.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

If the DNA from three individuals can get onto the bra clasp by an unknown means, what makes the fourth individual (Raffaele) different? Nothing.

Yes, the fact that there are multiple DNA traces would render Raffaele's a moot point.

Except that Raffaele's was in a much larger abundance than the 3 others. That is what makes this match a piece of evidence against Raffaele.

ETA: I feel like we've been over this before.

And you call yourself a forensic scientist (oh, wait, no...you're just a chemist...sorry)

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not sure why the DNA on the clasp is not a real issue

That's because he's trolling.

Now can the thread get back to the real issues?

Mr. D,

Maybe someone can explain why the fact that Raffaele's DNA is 6-10 fold lower intensity is deemed to be unimportant, but the fact that the other three individuals' DNA is unlikely to be less than 4-5-fold less intense than Raffaele's is thought to be pregnant with meaning.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Yes, the fact that there are multiple DNA traces would render Raffaele's a moot point.

Except that Raffaele's was in a much larger abundance than the 3 others. That is what makes this match a piece of evidence against Raffaele.[1/Quote]

Did the bra clasp move itself?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

repeating myself

And again, to repeat Stilicho's question...link???

To repeat my answer: I got this straight from the horse's mouth. Dr. Johnson and Professor Hampikian worked pro bono.

 

[Kestrel]

Yes, the fact that there are multiple DNA traces would render Raffaele's a moot point.

Except that Raffaele's was in a much larger abundance than the 3 others. That is what makes this match a piece of evidence against Raffaele.

Were the other three profiles male or female?

Do you understand why I asked that question?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

huh?

And again, what work? Unless I'm missing something what was in that report that wasn't already in the public domain? What unique information did she provide?

Have you read the letter? Did you see that it is signed by more than one person?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

what did the judge say

False. The defence got what they asked for. This was stated in COURT, by the JUDGE. Was the judge lying?

Cite?

 

[stilicho]

To repeat my answer: I got this straight from the horse's mouth. Dr. Johnson and Professor Hampikian worked pro bono.

Who asked them for the "open letter"? Who provided them with the evidence that formed the basis of their alleged unpaid opinions? Can you scan the email and post it, please?

 

[stilicho]

Mr. D,

Maybe someone can explain why the fact that Raffaele's DNA is 6-10 fold lower intensity is deemed to be unimportant, but the fact that the other three individuals' DNA is unlikely to be less than 4-5-fold less intense than Raffaele's is thought to be pregnant with meaning.

*Sigh*

The defence lawyers are certainly not going to appeal on this basis. They have to explain its presence in any intensity. Why is Sollecito's DNA there?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Kermit writes:

Actually, her wounds and bruises indicate she was held by one person while another or others threatened her with a knife or knives.

That is what you have been told by the authorities. It isn't what the evidence actually shows.

You say "All the violence took place in one corner" ... clarify what you mean by which violence: was she surprised in her room and never had a chance to leave it,

Exactly. He might possibly have surprised her in some other part of the house and cornered her in her room, but he blitzed her, threw her to the floor, and killed her in a sudden, vicious attack.

or did the violence build up from some spark, like noise or an argument over drugs or missing money? Did such an argument start and end in her room, or did it start somewhere else in the cottage?

You say he "savagely cut her throat and then ... sexually assaulted her" . You are stating that he sexually assaulted her inert, dead body, with a slit throat and blood spray all over the place? And just a half an hour earlier, Rudy was a simple drifter, run-of-the-mill burglar?

You find this hard to believe, but you have no trouble believing Amanda and Raffaele would break off a quiet evening to commit a senseless murder with this simple drifter, run-of-the-mill burglar who they barely knew?

What you don't include in your scenario is the mixed DNA sample from Filomena's room, nor the endless indicators and evidence and testimonies that this wasn't a lone-wolf crime.

I have seen how Stefanoni handled swabs at the crime scene. I don't think the swab from Filomena's room is reliable evidence of anything.

And I still can't imagine Rudy hopping around in the bathroom, having decided he had to take off his shoes to clean them, yet he doesn't clean his shoeprints, nor the bloody bathmat print you say he made, while cleaning his shoe. Why didn't he take anything of value, yet he took enough time to wash up in the bidet?

How do you think the print got there?


Quadraginta writes:

Let's try one. Are you claiming that the police owned or had access to a Spheron-VR camera and related equipment which they used to record the Meredith Kercher murder site, and that you are personally in possession of copies of the data files from that photography?

Prove it.

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/spheron_sample.jpg

 

[stilicho]

This is a fairly startling revelation. You seem to be in possession of a great deal of material that few others are privy to.

Let's try one. Are you claiming that the police owned or had access to a Spheron-VR camera and related equipment which they used to record the Meredith Kercher murder site, and that you are personally in possession of copies of the data files from that photography?

Prove it.

 

[Amazer]

Meredith's DNA was 6-10X more abundant than Raffaele's on the clasp. Here is what the Johnson/Hampikian letter said about the clasp:

"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."

This paragraph is entirely consistent with everything I have read or been told about forensic DNA. I asked an expert and he said that contamination can present itself in any intensity. The Leskie case bears this out.

So we're back at having to determine how likely it is that contamination occurred as opposed to Raffaele having had direct contact with the bra clasp?

Best of luck with that.... so far you haven't made a very compelling case.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Yes, the fact that there are multiple DNA traces would render Raffaele's a moot point.

Except that Raffaele's was in a much larger abundance than the 3 others. That is what makes this match a piece of evidence against Raffaele.

Did the bra clasp move itself?

Where did Raffaele's DNA come from if it wasn't found elsewhere in the room/cottage (besides the cigarette butt)?

Do you understand why I'm asking this?

Because you're attempting to argue contamination, but the funny thing about contamination is that it has to have a source. So far you haven't provided much of a convincing argument for that source.sss

 

[Chris_Halkides]

So we're back at having to determine how likely it is that contamination occurred as opposed to Raffaele having had direct contact with the bra clasp?

Best of luck with that.... so far you haven't made a very compelling case.

Many routes of deposition are possible, as the open letter implied.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

No

So we're back at having to determine how likely it is that contamination occurred as opposed to Raffaele having had direct contact with the bra clasp?

Best of luck with that.... so far you haven't made a very compelling case.

Amazer,

When a DNA profile appears, it may happen because of direct contact, secondary transfer, or contamination by any one of several means. It is seldom possible to know how the DNA got there from the DNA itself.

If the way that the clasp was handled is not enough to convince you that contamination is possible, it is entirely unclear to me what would.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

please answer my question

Because you're attempting to argue contamination, but the funny thing about contamination is that it has to have a source. So far you haven't provided much of a convincing argument for that source.sss

Did the bra clasp move itself?