Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Mary_H]

Their opinions are out there for all to see and criticize, aren't they? Yet for some reason it's never the arguments that are questioned, except by the occasional poster like Shuttlt; almost invariably it's their right to comment in the first place that is attacked. No scientist has stepped forward to contradict them, in fact even a PMF stalwart like Greggy agrees that the knife evidence should never have been admitted.

As I said, I would totally welcome an alternative scientific perspective; some sort of discussion amongst scientists as to the validity of the forensic evidence would be very interesting. Unfortunately, at this point you'd just have Stefanoni on one side of the debate, and every other scientist who's ever commented on the case on the other... Might still be interesting, though.

According to the guilters, this would be an appeal to authority, which is verboten. No science, please. The DNA evidence must be decided exclusively on the basis of pure reason.

 

[christianahannah]

I have prepared a quick-and-dirty fact summary regarding Sample 176, the luminol reaction on the floor of Filomena's room.

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/sample_176.html

Charlie the electropherogam for sample 176 does not show the peaks (?) in the second or the fourth row. Is this how the document appeared when submitted as evidence in court? Do you know if there were any other documents submitted as pertaining to this sample?

 

[odeed]

I have prepared a quick-and-dirty fact summary regarding Sample 176, the luminol reaction on the floor of Filomena's room.

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/sample_176.html

Have I seen those gloves before?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

christianahannah writes:

Charlie the electropherogam for sample 176 does not show the peaks (?) in the second or the fourth row.

Go back to the link - I have now added the color egram, which I have for some samples but not all. The b/w scans are from an e-fax tif file, and a fax scanner doesn't pick up certain colors.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

odeed wrote:

Have I seen those gloves before?

I hope so. I want everyone interested in this case to see those gloves.

 

[odeed]

According to the guilters, this would be an appeal to authority, which is verboten. No science, please. The DNA evidence must be decided exclusively on the basis of pure reason.

Because the arguments from the innocenters comprise of the

• The police were in love with Amanda
• They were framed and the evidence planted
• Filomena's room was a mess before it was messed up
• 40 hours of interrogation condensed into 3 hours
• The rock has different laws of physics when thrown outside a room
• She too pretty to have done it

 

[odeed]

odeed wrote:

Have I seen those gloves before?

I hope so. I want everyone interested in this case to see those gloves.

But are they relevant to the collection of evidence you are trying to show in the link?

I thought the gloves had to do with collection of the bra clasp?

 

[christianahannah]

christianahannah writes:

Charlie the electropherogam for sample 176 does not show the peaks (?) in the second or the fourth row.

Go back to the link - I have now added the color egram, which I have for some samples but not all. The b/w scans are from an e-fax tif file, and a fax scanner doesn't pick up certain colors.

Thanks. So where does the suggestion for Amanda's DNA being mixed with Meredith's DNA in Filomena's room come from? If I was a juror I wouldn't be able to infer that from this document.

 

[odeed]

odeed wrote:

Have I seen those gloves before?

I hope so. I want everyone interested in this case to see those gloves.

But are they relevant to the collection of evidence you are trying to show in the link?

I thought the gloves had to do with collection of the bra clasp?

Just checked the name of image "kitchen_dec_18_07_closeup_of_gloves.jpg", so had nothing to do with the collection of evidence from Filomena room (dated 3 Nov 2007 according to the pictures).

Totally dishonest to post them on the page, in some way implying that they are the same gloves used in Filomena's room.

And Mary_H does not understand why some people are skeptical of claims.

 

[stilicho]

I would totally welcome an alternative scientific perspective; some sort of discussion amongst scientists as to the validity of the forensic evidence would be very interesting.

There is such a thing and it's called peer review. Chris and Mark have all the opportunity they need to present their findings and have them critically reviewed. So far, the team cannot even agree on when, where, or how any of the DNA evidence was contaminated or invalidated.

In fact, if you read Chris carefully, you will discover that he merely does not rule out the possibility of contamination. Nobody else on this board (and probably at PMF) has done so either. If he intends to go any further--proving contamination--then he's free to do so. Scientists routinely provide evidence for their claims.

What are they waiting for?

 

[odeed]

I have prepared a quick-and-dirty fact summary regarding Sample 176, the luminol reaction on the floor of Filomena's room.

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/sample_176.html

and one more thing, on the page you say

The crime scene video shows that investigators were sloppy in handling DNA swabs. They did not change gloves between samples, and they pressed their thumbs into the swabs in a way that would tend to spread material from one swab to the next. Protocols for collecting DNA evidence specifically warn against this. It may be that a number of DNA samples show what the investigators had on their gloves rather than what was in the area being swabbed.

The pictures have timestamps 12:45:30, 12:45:32, 12:45:32 so they show the same sample being taken with the same gloves, unless they were really quick taking the samples with different swabs.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

odeed writes:

The pictures have timestamps 12:45:30, 12:45:32, 12:45:32 so they show the same sample being taken with the same gloves, unless they were really quick taking the samples with different swabs.

Yes, these frames show the gathering of a single sample. Maybe she changed her gloves after she took this sample. Or maybe not. I have several hours of video showing the police at the crime scene, and no one is ever shown changing into a fresh pair of gloves.

BTW, the luminol test in Filomena's room was done on Dec. 18, the same day the photo of the dirty gloves was taken.

 

[odeed]

The date on the pictures show 3 11 2007, which is 3rd November 2007, not 18th December.

As for pictures of the gloves on the kitchen floor, do you have any information on who wore them, which room (or rooms) they were in, what evidence they touched or are they just a picture of disposable gloves on the floor?

 

[christianahannah]

Just wondering, is there a list of items/swabs collected from the crime scene, Raffaele's flat, and items collected of Rudy's? It would be interesting to compare the time they were collected, the time they were tested, etc.

It appears the Italian investigators/police weren't trying to hide anything with the amount of video and photos that are out there.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

odeed writes:

The date on the pictures show 3 11 2007, which is 3rd November 2007, not 18th December.

Yes, the frames showing the thumb on the blood drop are from November 3. I don't have video showing the actual swabbing of Sample 176. Nor do I have a log that documents which gloves were used where. I am obliged to use the information I do have to evaluate this investigation.

If you want documentation of how evidence was handled on December 18, here's a little clip...

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/dropped_swab.avi

Notice how the investigator (Stefanoni again, I suspect) is trying to use the right technique, i.e., grasping the swab with a tweezers instead of gloves. But she doesn't have the hand/eye coordination down, so she drops the swab and then picks it up off the floor and resumes swabbing as though nothing had happened.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

christianahannah writes:

Just wondering, is there a list of items/swabs collected from the crime scene, Raffaele's flat, and items collected of Rudy's? It would be interesting to compare the time they were collected, the time they were tested, etc.

I have most of that information, but the raw files are a mess. I will be glad to answer questions and post specific results.

It appears the Italian investigators/police weren't trying to hide anything with the amount of video and photos that are out there.

I suspect they would rather the public not have a chance to see this stuff because it makes them look bad.

 

[odeed]

odeed writes:

The date on the pictures show 3 11 2007, which is 3rd November 2007, not 18th December.

Yes, the frames showing the thumb on the blood drop are from November 3. I don't have video showing the actual swabbing of Sample 176. Nor do I have a log that documents which gloves were used where. I am obliged to use the information I do have to evaluate this investigation.

So the pictures (dated 7 Nov) have nothing to do with the collection of evidence from Filomena room, and you cannot say for certain the glove was used for collecting any evidence, even though it has been used to show how the bra clasp was collected (and now Filomena's room).

If you want documentation of how evidence was handled on December 18, here's a little clip...

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/dropped_swab.avi

Notice how the investigator (Stefanoni again, I suspect) is trying to use the right technique, i.e., grasping the swab with a tweezers instead of gloves. But she doesn't have the hand/eye coordination down, so she drops the swab and then picks it up off the floor and resumes swabbing as though nothing had happened.

Thank you for the video, by itself it looks damning, but I would like more information, I assume that it was taken from Meredith's room and the blood marks probably came directly from the victim touching the wall.

Also was it the first swab of many or the only swab, and what where the results of the forensic analysis, was there contamination detected, mixed DNA?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

odeed writes:

Thank you for the video, by itself it looks damning, but I would like more information, I assume that it was taken from Meredith's room and the blood marks probably came directly from the victim touching the wall.

Also was it the first swab of many or the only swab, and what where the results of the forensic analysis, was there contamination detected, mixed DNA?

This sample (164) tested negative for DNA, which is an unexpected result because it is clearly a bloodstain.

I don't know how it fits in the order of samples taken. My point is that one can measure what is shown on the video against recommended practices and see problems. That does not mean every DNA test yielded an incorrect result, but it does mean that any given DNA test may have yielded an incorrect result. That is why the bra fastener is so controversial. Without it, there is no physical evidence that either Amanda or Raffaele ever set foot in the room where Meredith was killed. Is it sufficient to bear the burden of proof? Given what is known about the way evidence was handled at this crime scene, is contamination a reasonable possibility? I would say no, it's not sufficient, and contamination is a very real possibility.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

odeed writes:

Thank you for the video, by itself it looks damning, but I would like more information, I assume that it was taken from Meredith's room and the blood marks probably came directly from the victim touching the wall.

Also was it the first swab of many or the only swab, and what where the results of the forensic analysis, was there contamination detected, mixed DNA?

This sample (164) tested negative for DNA, which is an unexpected result because it is clearly a bloodstain.

I don't know how it fits in the order of samples taken. My point is that one can measure what is shown on the video against recommended practices and see problems. That does not mean every DNA test yielded an incorrect result, but it does mean that any given DNA test may have yielded an incorrect result. That is why the bra fastener is so controversial. Without it, there is no physical evidence that either Amanda or Raffaele ever set foot in the room where Meredith was killed. Is it sufficient to bear the burden of proof? Given what is known about the way evidence was handled at this crime scene, is contamination a reasonable possibility? I would say no, it's not sufficient, and contamination is a very real possibility.

Where did Raffaele's DNA come from to contaminate the bra clasp?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Chief investigator Giobbi claimed that he knew both Amanda and Raffaele were guilty before their interrogations on the night of Nov. 5-6.

Please cite a quote from Giobbi saying so and prove your claim that Giobbi made this claim.