Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Kestrel]

All this talk of bras and women sharing underwear has me distracted. Someone catch me up, why is Amanda guilty because of a cartwheel?

The thread title is obsolete. Three incidents that occurred before the cartwheel convinced investigator Giobbi that Amanda was guilty.

1. Amanda broke down and started sobbing when Giobbi told Knox he was going the the house next doer to ask if anyone witnessed anything unusual the night of the murder.

2. Amanda swiveled her hips after putting on protective shoe covers to enter the apartment two days after the crime.

3. When Giobbi called Amanda's boyfriend 3 days after the body was discovered, Raffaele was eating a pizza with Amanda.

The last incident clinched the case against both suspects.

 

[Ducky]

The thread title is obsolete. Three incidents that occurred before the cartwheel convinced investigator Giobbi that Amanda was guilty.

1. Amanda broke down and started sobbing when Giobbi told Knox he was going the the house next doer to ask if anyone witnessed anything unusual the night of the murder.

2. Amanda swiveled her hips after putting on protective shoe covers to enter the apartment two days after the crime.

3. When Giobbi called Amanda's boyfriend 3 days after the body was discovered, Raffaele was eating a pizza with Amanda.

The last incident clinched the case against both suspects.

yeah yeah yeah. Let's get back to bras and panties.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Kermit writes:

You're capable of doing the same googling as I, Charlie. (Well, no, I remember two summers ago, you were incapable of following my google instructions to find some positive information about Giuliano Mignini. More than incapable, you simply refused to do it).

Yes, I am familiar with this bizarre proposition. You can't form a coherent argument, so you ask me to use google to prove myself wrong.

Fulcanelli writes:

These three factors are the explanation to your question.

A more plausible explanation is that the luminol reacted with something other than blood.

They wore sterile gloves. They handled no other items with those gloves before the clasp, changing them each time before handling a new object. Their passing it to each other wasn't a problem since since they were both wearing a pair of fresh gloves.

Sterile gloves at the crime scene:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/kitchen_dec_18_07_closeup_of_gloves.jpg

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the door and DNA

Are you suggesting that the bra clasp somehow came into contact with Raffaele's fingerprints on the door?

No, but anyone who opened or pushed on the door and subsequently handled the clasp might have transferred DNA that way. It is one of many possible routes, although my preferred route for Raffaele's DNA might just be the route that the three unidentified depositors used.

 

[Moss]

The 2008 interview with Giobbi called and wanted to be important again?

 

[Kermit]

You wrote, "I believe those dark bits are not contamination of Raffaele's DNA from the cigarette butt," implying that DNA might be visible.

.
I can't help asking you if you ever played "join the dots" type games when you were a kid. And instead of a donkey or a car, you saw abstract art.

Of the many views of my comment today, I'm sure you're the only person who thought that my referring to the same specks that other persons, including pro-Amanda and FOA supporters, have seen means that I believe that DNA is visible.

Pathetic.

 

[Kermit]

Kermit writes: You're capable of doing the same googling as I, Charlie. (Well, no, I remember two summers ago, you were incapable of following my google instructions to find some positive information about Giuliano Mignini. More than incapable, you simply refused to do it).

Yes, I am familiar with this bizarre proposition. You can't form a coherent argument, so you ask me to use google to prove myself wrong.

.
What was bizarre with that incident two years ago (if you want, I'll dig up the posts we exchanged) was that you insisted that you couldn't find any positive information on Mignini. When I suggested you google for it, as I had done, you refused to do so (part of your excuse was that you only know how to google in English).

 

[BobTheDonkey]

No, but anyone who opened or pushed on the door and subsequently handled the clasp might have transferred DNA that way. It is one of many possible routes, although my preferred route for Raffaele's DNA might just be the route that the three unidentified depositors used.

And the reason Raffaele's was in a much higher concentration than the other 3 traces?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

what's the difference

And the reason Raffaele's was in a much higher concentration than the other 3 traces?

Why do you think that this difference is interpretable in terms of the means of deposition? Please give a citation, and preferably not from anything out of date.

Why do you think that the greater difference in concentrations between Raffaele's DNA and Meredith's DNA does not? Please provide a citation.

 

[Kermit]

The link I cited on fingerprints was from 2003. I asked someone who teaches forensic chemistry, and the answer was yes, they do routinely recover DNA from fingerprints.

.
I remember when Jimmy Carter was president, and reporters routinely went down to the peanut farm of his brother Billy, to get Billy's view on foreign affairs.

I have been googling up and down. The principal items I get on extracting DNA from fingerprints are variations on the 2003 article (why didn't you give us a more recent link?), and another one from 2005 which states:

"Will DNA from fingerprints be used more in the future?
Obtaining DNA from fingerprints will become more common, says Bever, as techniques improve on the collection of cells from a fingerprint, and as the DNA extraction process becomes more efficient. "The ability to quantify the amount of DNA collected from a fingerprint is critical to successfully obtaining a reliable DNA profile," he says. "The improvement of these collection, extraction, quantification methods, and amplification techniques will make DNA typing from fingerprints more common."

Now maybe your teacher friend has gotten involved in an extended law enforcement implementation since then, but I remain skeptical. Try digging up a 2010 reference on the subject.

... anyone who opened or pushed on the door and subsequently handled the clasp might have transferred DNA that way.

.
So we have DNA from fingerprints with very weak quantities of DNA, and that DNA jumps from the door and multiplies itself on its way to the bra clasp under a pillow, under the victim, under a duvet.

Keep trying.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

take the simplest explanation for all things

What I don't get is why RS's lawyers didn't try to get the unidentified DNA on the bra clasp matched to someone who handled it, worked in the lab or against another case they were working on. If it could be matched to any of those persons the contamination issue would have been solved.

The simplest explanation is that they did not have access to all of the data.

 

[Kermit]

Please give a citation, and preferably not from anything out of date.

.
I say the same thing to you regarding your 2003 DNA-from-fingerprints-as-a-common-forensci-technique article.

 

[Kermit]

The simplest explanation is that they did not have access to all of the data.

.
Dear Halides,

I understand that you and Charlie have some mysterious reason why you are allowed to say that Elizabeth "Libby" Johnson "worked pro bono", but you are not allowed to say for whom.

While you straighten out the protocol of how you'll respond to the ongoing question of who engaged Johnson, I have another question:

Was Johnson provided with the additional data which was given to the defence teams in the summer of 2009, following their request which Judge Massei approved?

 

[Fiona]

Got a copy of the open letter signed by 9 people yet, Halides1?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Why do you think that this difference is interpretable in terms of the means of deposition? Please give a citation, and preferably not from anything out of date.

Why do you think that the greater difference in concentrations between Raffaele's DNA and Meredith's DNA does not? Please provide a citation.

Really? You're seriously asking these questions? You must be pulling my leg.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

do your homework

.
I remember when Jimmy Carter was president, and reporters routinely went down to the peanut farm of his brother Billy, to get Billy's view on foreign affairs.

I have been googling up and down. The principal items I get on extracting DNA from fingerprints are variations on the 2003 article (why didn't you give us a more recent link?), and another one from 2005 which states:

"Will DNA from fingerprints be used more in the future?
Obtaining DNA from fingerprints will become more common, says Bever, as techniques improve on the collection of cells from a fingerprint, and as the DNA extraction process becomes more efficient. "The ability to quantify the amount of DNA collected from a fingerprint is critical to successfully obtaining a reliable DNA profile," he says. "The improvement of these collection, extraction, quantification methods, and amplification techniques will make DNA typing from fingerprints more common."

Now maybe your teacher friend has gotten involved in an extended law enforcement implementation since then, but I remain skeptical. Try digging up a 2010 reference on the subject.



.
So we have DNA from fingerprints with very weak quantities of DNA, and that DNA jumps from the door and multiplies itself on its way to the bra clasp under a pillow, under the victim, under a duvet.

Keep trying.

You are joking, right? When I gave you a 2008 paper, you said this technique is not developed enough. Now you say a 2003 paper is too old, and you want a paper from 2010? How about doing something a little bit more sophisticated than Googling? Here is a little bit of help. Open John Butler’s textbook Forensic DNA Typing to page 168, and check out any of the four references to this subject that you find there, and see which recent papers cite them. Medline works nicely for this.

Now let’s see. You have been wrong about the meaning of noise, wrong about DNA from fingerprints, wrong about luminol and DNA…

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Seriously

Really? You're seriously asking these questions? You must be pulling my leg.

I am seriously waiting to hear your answer.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I am seriously waiting to hear your answer.

Well, I would expect that Meredith's DNA was in a greater concentration because, well...it's her bra.

Raffaele's was in a higher concentration, most likely due to more direct contact than the remaining 3 signatures.

I don't see how this is anything new or different from what has been established/noted before. Anytime you're ready to knock off the mental gymnastics, it would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Amazer]

Well, I would expect that Meredith's DNA was in a greater concentration because, well...it's her bra.

Raffaele's was in a higher concentration, most likely due to more direct contact than the remaining 3 signatures.

I don't see how this is anything new or different from what has been established/noted before. Anytime you're ready to knock off the mental gymnastics, it would be greatly appreciated.

I think you are in for a long wait!

The Amanda supporters seem to be operating with the following rules:
1) Everything in favor of Amanda, no matter how improbable, has happened.
2) Everything going against Amanda, no matter how probable, did not happen.

 

[Kermit]

Falsehoods will get you no where

You are joking, right? When I gave you a 2008 paper, you said this technique is not developed enough.

.
Your falsehoods can't even be classified as rhetoric, as rhetoric implies some capability to convince.

I didn't say the DNA-from-dust technique is not developed enough. The very article which you googled and posted (perhaps without reading) said so:

"Human DNA has been identified in household dust for the first time.

The amount of DNA in dust is tiny and from so many people that singling out any individual could be tricky. With further research it might be possible to find ways of recreating someone's profile or even working out how recently they'd visited a crime scene from the decay of their DNA."

Halides' 2008 NewScientist article which he posted and contradicted the very argument he was trying to make a week or so ago

If FOA tries to present themselves as being at the forefront of talking truth, maybe you should pony up, yourself.

Is that clear now about the DNA-from-dust business? I didn't say it's immature, your link said so. Right?

Now you say a 2003 paper is too old, and you want a paper from 2010?

.
I take it that's your way of saying that you don't have a 2010 reference.