Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Chris_Halkides]

some problems with the bra clasp as evidence

BobTheDonkey,

In comment #8370, you wrote, “interesting. So where did Raffaele's DNA come from? If there was so much handling, and it's the dirt/dust on the ground - then you most certainly have argued that it came from the dust/dirt. If you want to claim the inspectors/officers handling of the clasp is what deposited the DNA, fine. Where did they bring that DNA from? The cigarette butt was removed weeks before during the initial collection, so what other source of Raffaele's DNA was present in the cottage? And again, we're back to his fingerprints/dust on the door.”

You are playing fast-and-loose with certain words. My previous reference (#8065) to dust was the household dust found on the clasp when it was recovered (it looked like a small dust rag, BTW). Dirt is another matter, and so are fingerprints.

One problem with your comments is that you deliberately ignore the possibility of contamination occurring in the lab, where Raffaele’s DNA is in huge quantity, relative to a single evidence sample. PCR amplifies the amount of DNA by roughly one millionfold, and this fact makes the post-PCR DNA a serious risk in contamination, as I have previously said and backed with cites. Many of us have seen the video where the forensic technicians handle the clasp with gloves, not disposable tools, and put it on the ground (tsig, please take note). These are examples of poor collection technique, and they increase the risk of contamination.

Another problem is that you implictly equate the lack of finding Raffale’s DNA on items other than the clasp and cigarette butt, with the lack of Raffaele’s DNA in the apartment, which is false. Recently I implied that without independent examination of the data files, conclusions about what is or is not present are premature. And one of the problems that you have overlooked the longest is the fact that no other items were taken into custody at the same time as the clasp. But perhaps the most serious problem with the bra clasp is that it is just one piece of evidence, as opposed to the bra itself, or Meredith’s body, neither of which had DNA on them. To posit an attack where Raffaele holds Meredith’s arms but leaves no DNA (as I have heard somewhere) is absurd. For this reason, even if the clasp had only Meredith’s and Raffaele’s DNA on it, and even if the clasp had no other DNA on it, I would look upon it quizzically, as a possible outlier. But these other problems are real as well, and they further reduce the evidentiary value of the clasp, as I will now discuss.

In post #8220 you wrote, “Do I think the clasp is credible? Yes. And the reason is that contamination alone cannot explain the concentration of Raffaele's DNA on the clasp, notably that Raffaele's DNA was found in a higher concentration than any of Meredith's roommates - who's DNA we would expect to see signatures of due to shared laundry facilities/living quarters.” You also imply that I believe that contamination is responsible for the DNA profiles on the clasp.

The most important issue here is your claim that concentration is somehow related to the mechanism of DNA being deposited on the clasp. I have repeatedly asked you and Fulcanelli (#8221) to cite the forensic literature, and you have repeatedly failed to do so. I have repeated offered you evidence to the contrary—citing a profile in the Leskie case that was much stronger than Raffaele’s that came from contamination. Fulcanelli, especially, calls Raffaele’s DNA abundant or copious, in reckless disregard of the fact that it is only 200 RFU in intensity, far weaker than typical profiles. Second, you imply that two of the unknown profiles came from the flatmates, without one scintilla of evidence. Nor do you offer any citations from the literature showing how sharing laundry facilities leads to multiple individuals depositing their DNA. Finally, I have said before that both contamination and secondary transfer are possible routes of transfer. Again, please note that these two possibilities are not the same thing, and lector’s definition of contamination is not quite accurate.

Some unknown person moved the clasp. Therefore, the clasp was not in a secure location by definition. There is no reason to rule out this person as an agent of secondary DNA transfer. Another problem with your analysis is that you don’t differentiate between secondary transfer and contamination. I have said that both are possible.

Next, let me deal with lector’s claim (#8223) that finding the identity of the other three individuals is not the prosecution’s job, because this claim is relevant to your arguments as well. To be concerned with how Raffaele’s DNA got there and not how the other people’s DNA got there is a mistake, and not taking appropriate reference samples was bad forensic science. If RS was a suspect, then so should the other three unknown depositors have been, unless they could be ruled out. Because DNA cannot be interrogated as to how it arrived, if their DNA was deposited innocently on the clasp, there is no reason to assume that RS’s DNA also arrived innocently. Again, Fulcanelli’s arguments about how much is present being indicative of how it came to be deposited are unsupported by literature and contradicted by experts such as Jason Gilder whom I asked.

You wrote (#8259), “Regardless of whether the cottage was sealed, regardless of when the clasp was collected - there was no means for Raffaele's DNA to contaminate the clasp. To claim this is the case is to defy the laws of physics - and yes, I know what I'm claiming.” Later in the same comment, you wrote, “And yet, Raffaele's DNA was found in a concentration of magnitudes greater than that of Amanda (and presumably the other 2 roommates - regardless of whether the two unknowns are the roommates are not, we can be sure that Raffaele's DNA was in a concentration higher than any of Meredith's 3 roommates). So, if anyone would like to continue believing the contamination bit, I'd like to see a valid, rational response as to where, exactly, the DNA came from if not Raffaele himself.” Elsewhere in the same comment you wrote, “We've established that dust is not sufficient to provide such a large concentration of a single individual's DNA.”

That the hypothesis of contamination defies the laws of physics may be the most breathtaking claim I have heard on this thread, and that is quite an accomplishment, considering the competition. And true to form, it is offered without a single citation of the forensic literature. Yet your comment is false on several fronts, some of which I have already delineated. There are three contributors to the clasp, but no complete profiles, so claiming Amanda’s DNA is present is a serious misstatement. There is no reason whatsoever to claim that the other two flatmates deposited their DNA only the clasp without their reference profiles. I have pointed out that the source of DNA contamination is rarely known, and no one here has offered citations to counter to the ones I gave. To put it differently, if one had to prove where contamination originated, one would almost always be unsuccessful, despite the fact that it is known to happen in even the best labs. Yet another problem with your argument is that you claim orders of magnitude difference between Raffaele’s profile and the other three individuals. This is not possible; if the other profiles were even two orders of magnitude lower than his, they would be equal to or less than the level of noise in the electropherograms and would not be observable. Finally, if you look at the electropherogram I showed on the dust thread, you will see that there are peaks with intensities of roughly 2000 RFUs, or about tenfold higher than Raffaele’s profile on the clasp. The authors did not attempt to deconvolute the electropherogram (it was not their area of expertise, nor the point of this particular study); therefore, your claim about what a single individual would provide is an unjustified extrapolation from the data.

Let’s see what those who are among those writing the forensic literature said about the clasp. The Johnson/Hampikian open letter said:

“Raffaele Sollecito had been at the house shared by Amanda and Meredith several times. Furthermore, Amanda, Meredith and their guests shared a bathroom. Transfer of Raffaele’s DNA to the clasp could have occurred through several innocent means as a result of his DNA being in the apartment or via Amanda’s clothing or belongings.
• 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.

Conclusions about the bra clasp:
Handling and movement of this sample has compromised its probative value. The laboratory results for this sample cannot reliably be interpreted to show that the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito was actually on the bra clasp at the time of Meredith Kercher’s murder, and it does not establish how or when this DNA was deposited or transferred.”


What I find most troubling is that these problems with your arguments have almost all been pointed out to you before, sometimes repeatedly. Ignorance is one thing (we are all ignorant of many things), but fecklessness is more serious. And at some point your fecklessness on these matters threatens to become something even worse.

halides1

 

[Fiona]

While this is true a few of the details can be figured out quite easily by someone just asking:
1. Rafaelle's landlord if there was a dishwasher in the apartment.
2. Rafaelle's (second) cleaning lady if he had a mop in the apartment and to clairfy her testimony that she "mopped" his apartment on a weekly basis. Did she mean mop as a noun or a verb or both?

Yes we can check a lot of the facts and we can note the discrepancies. For me there is not doubt there is something odd about this mop and the water and all of that. But let us say we establish there is no dishwasher and also that Raffaele has a mop. Let us even say we establish for sure there was a broken pipe (or not) and by some means that there was a whole load of water (or not). We will have less uncertainty about the facts and that is great. But in terms of what it all means will it help us?

If he has a dishwasher it does not tell us whether he washed the knife in it: I don't wash my knives in the dishwasher because I value them and do them by hand. It does not tell us whether there is bleach in the brand of dishwasher detergent he uses because we do not know what it is. It does not explain the scratch marks which were reported to indicate vigorous cleaning. It does not tell us why RS's dna was not on the knife (if it wasn't). Even if he has a mop it does not tell us the significance of the cottage mop: we do not even know that mop ever went to RS's house, do we?

I have no idea what it is that is important about this water and this mop: we already have discrepancies: we can perhaps show more or fewer: but none of it makes a coherent story and without a scenario which is supported by evidence or at least by plausibility we cannot make one.

 

[RoseMontague]

Fiona said:
Let us even say we establish for sure there was a broken pipe (or not) and by some means that there was a whole load of water (or not). We will have less uncertainty about the facts and that is great. But in terms of what it all means will it help us?

I guess I tend to give the various water spill//broken pipe stories and the odyssey of the great mop the same importance that Amanda and Raffaele seem to give them in their statements. You are correct that the why of it is a mystery.

It just bugs me when a picture like this is presented with the intention of proving something that if not important, why be so deceptive about it? It is almost insulting to me that somebody expected many people to be misled by this proof. There is enough mystery in this case already without having to constantly be on the alert for bogus information. I don't mind when people make mistakes or if they have opinions that differ from mine. This, however, appears to me to be dishonesty on the part of FOA. I am willing to believe that Bruce was possibly misled by this, for now.

 

[odeed]

I have snipped most of what you wrote halides1, but just want to comment on

BobTheDonkey,

...
To posit an attack where Raffaele holds Meredith’s arms but leaves no DNA (as I have heard somewhere) is absurd.

...

Any proof of this?

...
Nor do you offer any citations from the literature showing how sharing laundry facilities leads to multiple individuals depositing their DNA.
...

The above seems contradictory to this part you wrote,

Let’s see what those who are among those writing the forensic literature said about the clasp. The Johnson/Hampikian open letter said:

“Raffaele Sollecito had been at the house shared by Amanda and Meredith several times. Furthermore, Amanda, Meredith and their guests shared a bathroom. Transfer of Raffaele’s DNA to the clasp could have occurred through several innocent means as a result of his DNA being in the apartment or via Amanda’s clothing or belongings.
...

either DNA can be mixed in a living quarters or cannot. How many times did Sollecito visit the flat in the week he was seeing Knox?

 

[Fiona]

It would be helpful if you would learn to use the quote function, really. But no matter

In comment #8370, you wrote,

“interesting. So where did Raffaele's DNA come from? If there was so much handling, and it's the dirt/dust on the ground - then you most certainly have argued that it came from the dust/dirt. If you want to claim the inspectors/officers handling of the clasp is what deposited the DNA, fine. Where did they bring that DNA from? The cigarette butt was removed weeks before during the initial collection, so what other source of Raffaele's DNA was present in the cottage? And again, we're back to his fingerprints/dust on the door.”

You are playing fast-and-loose with certain words. My previous reference (#8065) to dust was the household dust found on the clasp when it was recovered (it looked like a small dust rag, BTW). Dirt is another matter, and so are fingerprints.

I do not think this is more than nit-picking. I have noticed that you have some difficulty with other people's imprecision when the rest of us do not: it seems to be more of a problem for some than others and it does not seem to be applied evenly. We are all aware that dirt and dust and fingerprints are different things and we use them carefully when it makes a difference, insofar as we can. Does it make a difference in this case? Dont think so

One problem with your comments is that you deliberately ignore the possibility of contamination occurring in the lab,

Nope. This is not an example of BobTheDonkey ignoring anything: it is an example of you dancing about. The question of contamination in the lab is separate from contamination at the scene. You have been asked repeatedly to say which you are proposing and it is perfectly fair if you wish to say that either could be important and you are not prepared to adopt one stance. Nothing wrong with pointing to different possibilities and dealing with them: indeed I separated and acknowledged both a very long time ago in this thread. But if you are talking about one possibility then it is fair to address it. That is not ignoring the other: it is a proper separation whatever you may imply. So I think, anyway

where Raffaele’s DNA is in huge quantity, relative to a single evidence sample.

What is your evidence for this? His DNA was found on the cigarette butt and on the bra clasp. The butt was analysed some time before the clasp was collected. Why do you say that his DNA is in the lab in huge quantity? Where did it come from and why was it there at the point the clasp was collected? Bob has already asked you this and so he cannot be said to be ignoring this aspect. I have not seen you answer

PCR amplifies the amount of DNA by roughly one millionfold, and this fact makes the post-PCR DNA a serious risk in contamination, as I have previously said and backed with cites.

And you have been told that this is always true. That is why labs have protocols. It has been pointed out that if your approach is adopted we cannot use dna evidence at all. That is still the case and nothing you have said addresses it. What is your answer to that point?

Many of us have seen the video where the forensic technicians handle the clasp with gloves, not disposable tools, and put it on the ground (tsig, please take note). These are examples of poor collection technique, and they increase the risk of contamination.

The do not increase the risk of contamination if there is no source of contamination and this point has also been put to you before. You are talking in generalities and you seem to think that the specifics have no bearing on the conclusions to be reached. You are now talking about contamination at the crime scene so what is the source of contamintion which renders you observations significant? Please stop dancing about and answer that. Previously you said it was the dust. That has been refuted. Someone proposed fingerprints on the door and that has been refuted too. You have not identified any other source. What was that source? Without it you are once again saying "something could have happened" and that is true. Without any evidence or even a plausibe speculaton as to how it did happen it is so much froth

Another problem is that you implictly equate the lack of finding Raffale’s DNA on items other than the clasp and cigarette butt, with the lack of Raffaele’s DNA in the apartment, which is false.

It is not false though you may be talking at cross purposes. RS's dna was not found anywhere else in the apartment. That was stated in court. What evidence do you have that this is false? I have asked about this repeatedly because it surprises me: but so did the lack of fingerprints and so I have no idea what we should expect in terms of dna. That is because my view on the fingerprints was wrong and so I am conscious my assumptions are flawed. What assumptions are you making and why are you making them?

Recently I implied that without independent examination of the data files, conclusions about what is or is not present are premature.

You may have implied that: I did not understand and perhaps it would be more helpful if you stopped implying and started saying what you actually mean in plain language. You might start here because I do not understand yet. It seems to me that you are now claiming that there may be all sorts of dna on the bra clasp which we do not know about. But it is my understanding that the other traces were found by Vinci and if that is correct then not only did an "independent" (as in not part of the police team but working for the defence) do his own analysis on the clasp but he must presumably have made files available to the defense in support of his conclusions. Are you therefore now claiming that this expert, commissioned by the defence, also witheld files? That is beyond odd.

And one of the problems that you have overlooked the longest is the fact that no other items were taken into custody at the same time as the clasp.

That is a strength of the evidence not a weakness. It reduces the likelihood of contamination in the lab even further than the already low figure it is at already. That is one point

But let us look at the positive side of your point. If other items had been collected at the same time three things can happen: RS dna could show on those items too: does that help to exonerate him? I thought the claim was that this is the only dna of his in the room and the point of trying to undermine it was to show he wasn't there: such an outcome does not seem productive for the defence. Or other profiles could be found on those other items in large quantities like RS's on the clasp. Does that show contamination? I have seen those who argue for the innocence of these two say that dna from those who live in the house or visit it is to be expected; and that is why they seek to deny the importance of the mixed dna in the prints and in the bathroom. So I do not see how that helps the defence either. Thirdly they could show no further dna profiles at all. That does not seem to help any more than the other outcomes.

The fact remains that no matter what the outcome of taking other samples the problem is not the lack of them: it is the lack of a source for contamination at the crime scene. You can nit pick till you heart is content about general principles and all the rest: but without a source it does not matter one whit: it is like your open letter. Nothing specific to this case. Once again, unless you wish to reject dna evidence altogether you must show the problem with that evidence in this case. So far nothing you have raised does that: at least not so far as I can see.

But perhaps the most serious problem with the bra clasp is that it is just one piece of evidence, as opposed to the bra itself, or Meredith’s body, neither of which had DNA on them. To posit an attack where Raffaele holds Meredith’s arms but leaves no DNA (as I have heard somewhere) is absurd. For this reason, even if the clasp had only Meredith’s and Raffaele’s DNA on it, and even if the clasp had no other DNA on it, I would look upon it quizzically, as a possible outlier. But these other problems are real as well, and they further reduce the evidentiary value of the clasp, as I will now discuss.

Well if you ignore the fact that Meredith was extensively bruised yet there is no dna from anyone on her body where those bruises appear, I suppose you can make a case that this is a problem. The paucity of Guede's dna on meredith's clothing or body seems to undermine your point quite comprehensively to me, and again I ask what assumptions you are making about amounts and locations of dna are to be expected. I have to also ask where you think RS's dna came from if not from him, that it should be in such quantity on the clasp. You seem to be arguing that if it is not found elsewhere then some magic can put it there: do you use the same reasoning for Guede? there was not much of his on meredith's body or clothing either. Why is that not equally significant: if it is because there were three locations not one then what is the magic number which changes it from an "outlier" to evidence? Should we acquit Guede as well?

<snip>

The most important issue here is your claim that concentration is somehow related to the mechanism of DNA being deposited on the clasp. I have repeatedly asked you and Fulcanelli (#8221) to cite the forensic literature, and you have repeatedly failed to do so. I have repeated offered you evidence to the contrary—citing a profile in the Leskie case that was much stronger than Raffaele’s that came from contamination.

Without a source for the contamination this is irrelevant. Where did it come from?

Fulcanelli, especially, calls Raffaele’s DNA abundant or copious, in reckless disregard of the fact that it is only 200 RFU in intensity, far weaker than typical profiles.

Are you denying it is his? Are you saying that the technique used to get it was not standard? Are you saying that it falls below what is generally accepted as evidence? Presumably some profiles are weaker than others? does this fall below what is usually seen as within the normal range? If not why are you mentioning it?

Second, you imply that two of the unknown profiles came from the flatmates, without one scintilla of evidence.

No. So far as I have read that has not been said nor implied. All I have seen is that the traces are too small to identify and so we cannot know who they came from. That there are three such profiles (one of which was apparently identified as belonging to AK) makes it plausible to speculate they may have come from the three people who live in the house: but that has never been postively asserted and the status of that idea has been made clear in most posts seriously addressing it. It may be true that later on it was referred to more casually: and we know that any imprecision in language from anyone who does not agree with you turns you into a terrier with a rat: but that does not mean the rest of us do not see what you are doing with that. It is a bit sad, but it is your style and we have to live with it.

Nor do you offer any citations from the literature showing how sharing laundry facilities leads to multiple individuals depositing their DNA.

Interesting. You did read the earlier cites concerning secondary transfer I presume?

Finally, I have said before that both contamination and secondary transfer are possible routes of transfer. Again, please note that these two possibilities are not the same thing, and lector’s definition of contamination is not quite accurate.

Oh, I see you did. What, then, is the problem with the speculation about the unidentifiable traces on the bra clasp, I wonder? Secondary transfer is indeed a form of contamination, so far as I can judge. What distinction are you making here?

Some unknown person moved the clasp. Therefore, the clasp was not in a secure location by definition. There is no reason to rule out this person as an agent of secondary DNA transfer. Another problem with your analysis is that you don’t differentiate between secondary transfer and contamination. I have said that both are possible.

Some unknown person did indeed move the clasp. Some unknown person who was part of the investigating team who were suited up: nobody else was there unless you have the evidence which Dan_O has already been asked for. Do you?

And again: where did this DNA which you speculate may have been transferred come from?

Next, let me deal with lector’s claim (#8223) that finding the identity of the other three individuals is not the prosecution’s job, because this claim is relevant to your arguments as well. To be concerned with how Raffaele’s DNA got there and not how the other people’s DNA got there is a mistake, and not taking appropriate reference samples was bad forensic science.

Makes no difference if the unidentified samples are too small/partial to give a profile. Nobody can identify them if that is the case, surely?

If RS was a suspect, then so should the other three unknown depositors have been, unless they could be ruled out. Because DNA cannot be interrogated as to how it arrived, if their DNA was deposited innocently on the clasp, there is no reason to assume that RS’s DNA also arrived innocently.

Again, Fulcanelli’s arguments about how much is present being indicative of how it came to be deposited are unsupported by literature and contradicted by experts such as Jason Gilder whom I asked.

There is no innocent route for his DNA to get there in that quantity. Several articles about secondary transfer were linked much earlier in the thread. Perhaps you would like to read them again? Or perhaps you have fresh and more up to date studies which displaces those findings? Has Gilder published on this issue? I know he has a financial interest in dna testing and a product to sell because he is associated with Forensic Bioinformatics as are many of the people you rely on. He is a computer engineer, is he not?

You wrote (#8259),

“Regardless of whether the cottage was sealed, regardless of when the clasp was collected - there was no means for Raffaele's DNA to contaminate the clasp. To claim this is the case is to defy the laws of physics - and yes, I know what I'm claiming.”

Later in the same comment, you wrote,

“And yet, Raffaele's DNA was found in a concentration of magnitudes greater than that of Amanda (and presumably the other 2 roommates - regardless of whether the two unknowns are the roommates are not, we can be sure that Raffaele's DNA was in a concentration higher than any of Meredith's 3 roommates). So, if anyone would like to continue believing the contamination bit, I'd like to see a valid, rational response as to where, exactly, the DNA came from if not Raffaele himself.”

Elsewhere in the same comment you wrote,

“We've established that dust is not sufficient to provide such a large concentration of a single individual's DNA.”

That the hypothesis of contamination defies the laws of physics may be the most breathtaking claim I have heard on this thread, and that is quite an accomplishment, considering the competition. And true to form, it is offered without a single citation of the forensic literature. Yet your comment is false on several fronts, some of which I have already delineated. There are three contributors to the clasp, but no complete profiles, so claiming Amanda’s DNA is present is a serious misstatement.

I have also been puzzled by how Knox's dna was identified on the clasp, but since that has been accepted on the basis of Vinci's analysis (and perhaps another expert too, I can't remember that clearly) I have not explored it much. What is the basis for rejecting it: was there something wrong with what he did? I have only seen it second hand and assumed that this was because he left the case and did not testify.

There is no reason whatsoever to claim that the other two flatmates deposited their DNA only the clasp without their reference profiles.

And as shown in your quote, that was not asserted.

I have pointed out that the source of DNA contamination is rarely known, and no one here has offered citations to counter to the ones I gave. To put it differently, if one had to prove where contamination originated, one would almost always be unsuccessful, despite the fact that it is known to happen in even the best labs.

If you do not have to have evidence of contamination, then dna cannot be used in criminal cases. This has been pointed out before. It can happen and nobody denies it: but you have to have some evidence it did happen. Have you got any?

Yet another problem with your argument is that you claim orders of magnitude difference between Raffaele’s profile and the other three individuals. This is not possible; if the other profiles were even two orders of magnitude lower than his, they would be equal to or less than the level of noise in the electropherograms and would not be observable.

Really? That is interesting. So we have a full profile from RS; and the quantity of his dna on the clasp is very much higher than what is required to get a profile by the usual procedure; and there is no smaller quantity which is detectable, but which cannot yield a profile? I wonder how LCN profiling ever came into being. I wonder how Vinci detected these profiles? Or is this just another pounce on imprecise language? Perhaps order of magnitude is a term of art in your world and if so we should be more careful in how we express this idea. In science I believe it usually means an order of 10 and perhaps that is what you and lector actually mean: or you do and he does not. One order of magnitude lower would certainly be detectable if that is what you mean: two would not. I confess I do not use the term in that precise way, however. I took it to mean much, much smaller and that sloppy way of talking makes lector's statement meaningful in ordinary language. But I agree that it could have been better stated. Question is, does it make any substantive difference? or is it just more evidence of an uncooperative conversational partner?

Finally, if you look at the electropherogram I showed on the dust thread, you will see that there are peaks with intensities of roughly 2000 RFUs, or about tenfold higher than Raffaele’s profile on the clasp. The authors did not attempt to deconvolute the electropherogram (it was not their area of expertise, nor the point of this particular study); therefore, your claim about what a single individual would provide is an unjustified extrapolation from the data.

No idea what you are talking about here: are you saying that we can get dna profiles from dust? that the intensity of some peaks from dust has a bearing on a full attributable profile from standard testing? Does the fact that you can get some high peaks from dust mean that a full set of identifiable peaks is wortheless? Once again it seem to me we must abandon all dna profiling if that is what you are saying. A lot of evidence at crime scenes is dusty: tis the nature of things

Let’s see what those who are among those writing the forensic literature said about the clasp. The Johnson/Hampikian open letter said:

“Raffaele Sollecito had been at the house shared by Amanda and Meredith several times. Furthermore, Amanda, Meredith and their guests shared a bathroom. Transfer of Raffaele’s DNA to the clasp could have occurred through several innocent means as a result of his DNA being in the apartment or via Amanda’s clothing or belongings.
• 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.

Conclusions about the bra clasp:
Handling and movement of this sample has compromised its probative value. The laboratory results for this sample cannot reliably be interpreted to show that the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito was actually on the bra clasp at the time of Meredith Kercher’s murder, and it does not establish how or when this DNA was deposited or transferred.”

We have been through this. Quoting it again adds nothing.

What I find most troubling is that these problems with your arguments have almost all been pointed out to you before, sometimes repeatedly. Ignorance is one thing (we are all ignorant of many things), but fecklessness is more serious. And at some point your fecklessness on these matters threatens to become something even worse.

halides1

Where is that irony meter smilie when you need it ?

 

[christianahannah]

I have no idea what it is that is important about this water and this mop: we already have discrepancies: we can perhaps show more or fewer: but none of it makes a coherent story and without a scenario which is supported by evidence or at least by plausibility we cannot make one.

It might be important if there were a mop at Amanda's flat and a mop at Raffaele's flat.

Only one mop would need to be used to clean up the crime scene - it would then be disposed of. The second mop would be used to show that no cleaning was done of the crime scene and thus support the story of Amanda and Raffaele of cleaning up the leaky pipe.

Of course, this is conjecture and one would need to know if there were a mop at each flat before the crime and only one accounted for after the crime. I would imagine the cleaning lady had been questioned concerning a mop and Raffaele was not in possession of one.

 

[Kermit]

Halides1, a short, brief question: who engaged "Libby" Johnson to "work pro bono" in writing her limited scope report?

Many fellow posters have asked you this. Before you embark on new evidence quests, we'd appreciate it if you could reply to that.

A similarly short, brief response will do. No need to extend yourself.

 

[Alt+F4]

His DNA was found on the cigarette butt and on the bra clasp. The butt was analysed some time before the clasp was collected. Why do you say that his DNA is in the lab in huge quantity? Where did it come from and why was it there at the point the clasp was collected?

This is want I don't understand either, how the contamination could have taken place. I'm assuming that a cheek swab was taken from RS early in the investigation and from that a DNA profile was created for him. That DNA profile was written up in some sort of report.

Now we go 47 days later when the bra clasp was picked up. Why would any of RS's DNA still be in the lab after all that time? Wouldn't his DNA profile report just be checked against the DNA found on the clasp?

As for contamination at the scene it doesn't make sense that RS's DNA would get on the clasp as a result of it being moved around but AK's DNA wouldn't. RS visited the apartment a maximum of five times, meanwhile AK had being living there almost two months.

 

[Fiona]

DNA in labs just hangs around. DNA in cottages goes walk about. Simples !!

 

[Alt+F4]

I would imagine the cleaning lady had been questioned concerning a mop and Raffaele was not in possession of one.

The cleaning lady testified that she "mopped" his apartment on a weekly basis but it is not clear if she actually used a physical mop, or just mopped around with rags/towels. She was not asked specifically if Rafaelle's apartment had a mop.

 

[shuttlt]

Halides1, a short, brief question: who engaged "Libby" Johnson to "work pro bono" in writing her limited scope report?

Many fellow posters have asked you this. Before you embark on new evidence quests, we'd appreciate it if you could reply to that.

A similarly short, brief response will do. No need to extend yourself.

Perhaps Halides would agree some choice of words like this:

He won't confirm whether he has been told by who engaged Dr Johnson, however, the appearance is clearly created that whoever it is who did engage her wishes to remain anonymous, and the information on which she based her document to remain out of the public domain.

I have no problem with Halides having conversations with people that he is unable to discuss openly, or being given information in confidence, or however it was that he came by his information. Had Dr Waterbury been unwilling to to agree to me passing on what he had said I would have been in the same position.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Yes we can check a lot of the facts and we can note the discrepancies. For me there is not doubt there is something odd about this mop and the water and all of that. But let us say we establish there is no dishwasher and also that Raffaele has a mop. Let us even say we establish for sure there was a broken pipe (or not) and by some means that there was a whole load of water (or not). We will have less uncertainty about the facts and that is great. But in terms of what it all means will it help us?

If he has a dishwasher it does not tell us whether he washed the knife in it: I don't wash my knives in the dishwasher because I value them and do them by hand. It does not tell us whether there is bleach in the brand of dishwasher detergent he uses because we do not know what it is. It does not explain the scratch marks which were reported to indicate vigorous cleaning. It does not tell us why RS's dna was not on the knife (if it wasn't). Even if he has a mop it does not tell us the significance of the cottage mop: we do not even know that mop ever went to RS's house, do we?

I have no idea what it is that is important about this water and this mop: we already have discrepancies: we can perhaps show more or fewer: but none of it makes a coherent story and without a scenario which is supported by evidence or at least by plausibility we cannot make one.

Sometime ago on PMF, Michael mooted a theory that perhaps it was the leak under the sink (which we now know happened before 8:42 pm) and the need for a mop, that caused Amanda and Raffaele to head out to the cottage in the first place. That on the way, they bumped into Rudy and he was invited to head over with them, perhaps on the suggestion that he may have a chance with Meredith who he liked. Once at the cottage, maybe with Meredith not appreciating the invasion, things spiralled out of control. The following events saw the mop temporarily forgotten, but was remembered later simply because it was their primary reason for first heading to the cottage and it also happened to be helpful in providing a further excuse for Amanda to go to the cottage in the morning.

Make of it what you will.

 

[shuttlt]

By the way, a while back Bruce mentioned the lack of contaminants (e.g. the unknown partial female profiles) on the bra. That seems to me to be an angle that, had we access to more data, would be worth exploring. It would surely be odd if the housemates DNA (or whoever) got onto only the bra clasp through a shared washing machine, but not the rest of the bra.

 

[Alt+F4]

I have repeated offered you evidence to the contrary—citing a profile in the Leskie case that was much stronger than Raffaele’s that came from contamination.

Has Rafaele's defense used the case of Jaidyn Leskie as a basis for their theory of lab based contamination? For those unfamilar with the case, Jaidyn Leskie was a baby murdered in Australia in 1997. Shortly after his body was found DNA on his bib was matched to a woman who apparently had nothing to do with the case.

As it turned out the woman was a rape victim and that the DNA lab, "received clothing from both cases within seven minutes on January 30, 1998. And six days later, samples from both cases were examined at the same time."

If this is the angle Raffaele's defense team is taking they why didn't they at least try to match the unknown DNA to other cases the lab was testing at the time?

 

[shuttlt]

By the way, a shot while ago it got mentioned that there were two knives that Raffaele regularly carried. This got me thinking about his knife collection and I realized I have no idea how many knives were in it. Do we know?

 

[Fulcanelli]

By the way, a shot while ago it got mentioned that there were two knives that Raffaele regularly carried. This got me thinking about his knife collection and I realized I have no idea how many knives were in it. Do we know?

Two pocket knives confiscated, one combat knife and one pocket knife unaccounted for.

 

[Jungle Jim]

The cleaning lady testified that she "mopped" his apartment on a weekly basis but it is not clear if she actually used a physical mop, or just mopped around with rags/towels. She was not asked specifically if Rafaelle's apartment had a mop.

She may have brought her own mop.

 

[shuttlt]

Two pocket knives confiscated, one combat knife and one pocket knife unaccounted for.

That's it? Oh boy had I gotten the wrong impression. I thought he had loads, and hence wan't it odd that the police bothered with the one in the kitchen draw. So they took and tested the two knives that might have been involved, the combat knife clearly didn't cause the injuries and the other knife is missing. OK, that clears that up. Do we have a cite for this, or do I need to go hunt one down?

 

[Alt+F4]

She may have brought her own mop.

Could be, but how many cleaning ladies carry around the same mop from home to home? In addition, who would want someone to mop their apartment with a mop that had been used somewhere else?

 

[Fulcanelli]

That's it? Oh boy had I gotten the wrong impression. I thought he had loads, and hence wan't it odd that the police bothered with the one in the kitchen draw. So they took and tested the two knives that might have been involved, the combat knife clearly didn't cause the injuries and the other knife is missing. OK, that clears that up. Do we have a cite for this, or do I need to go hunt one down?

It's in the Massei Report. And to be quite honest, I didn't know about a missing 4 cm knife either until I saw it in the report...I hadn't seen it reported before anywhere else. And I should say, the report has many new details like that.