Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA has many mechanisms of being deposited

If one's genetic profile is found on the blade of a knife on which the handle carries the genetic profile of the convicted murderer then we ASSUME the matter on the blade would be blood.
Are you suggesting it was toenail clippings perhaps.

loverofzion,

Amanda's DNA profile on the handle is unsurprising, given that she cooked with Raffaele. Meredith's profile most likely arose from contamination within the lab or due to the second person from ILE who handled the knife (see my post addressed to Trigood). However, as Dr. Kekule pointed out, secondary transfer is also possible.

 

[RoseMontague]

The knife was tested for blood using both the TMB test as well as a second test called OBT.
Both test were negative:

From reading the statements of the geneticist's October 4, 2008 It is clear before extraction of DNA-that-has done the same to perform well two tests-blood of the nature of the track: TETRAMETILBENZIDINA_ generic tests for the presence of blood. OBT_ specific test for blood
Both tests were negative.
It 'worth mentioning as stated by Dr Stefanoni:

Q: Then he made the diagnosis of nature to see what kind
material there was?
A: Yes if it was blood or not ... I used a test called
OBT ... stick that is placed on the blade-that has been done before of sampling.
Q: So before there was that it was human blood?
A: Yes
Q: 'specific for human blood that OBT
A: yes ....
D.Before doing so also did the examination of tetramethylbenzidine?
A: No ... I remember because I could not look but remember
worse, they are passed, seven or eight months ... No word has been made, yes, it is been reported.
Q: So part of the streak was used to take the test
the tetramethylbenzidine?
A: Yes
Q: The same party to make specific diagnosis of blood then
human?
A: Yes
Q: And then a third sampling was performed for DNA
A: Yes>>
Interjected the judge for preliminary hearing, Dr.. Micheli:
Q: For a layman to understand the generic diagnosis
tetramethylbenzidine, here to understand this is to
A: to show any blood
Q: Is there a degree of sensitivity there?
A: 'very sensitive, now I do not know him say, however, in practice municipality
Q: You also cites the number of false positives
A: Yes in the sense that no distinction is whether human or animal blood example.
Q: But where is negative, I think that leaves quite convinced
that it is not
A: Yes that is not 'blood, that is not it>> (hearing transcripts
Preliminary October 4, 2008, p. 175).

 

[Justinian2]

loverofzion,

Amanda's DNA profile on the handle is unsurprising, given that she cooked with Raffaele. Meredith's profile most likely arose from contamination within the lab or due to the second person from ILE who handled the knife (see my post addressed to Trigood). However, as Dr. Kekule pointed out, secondary transfer is also possible.

There are innumerable cases of police deliberately fabricating evidence. The list of cities known to have police departments whose police have falsified evidence is long. DNA testing facilitates the effort to get convictions as a snippet of hair or a tiny drop of blood deliberately transferred to the property of the accused can create false evidence.

City and town police are neither the most moral or the brightest either.

When you start seeing randomly selected knives that are:

1) Tested for DNA.
2) Entered as evidence even though they are the wrong size, found in the wrong location, and don't match any other theory or profile.

Then alarms should go off all over the world. Leaders should pull the red flag from their sock and throw it on the field. "FOUL!" they should cry!

And people that wish to suppress this are also part of the problem, certainly not the solution to anything.

The police, the prosecutor, the judge, Perugia, Italy, the USA and the world appear to be very guilty.

 

[loverofzion]

There are innumerable cases of police deliberately fabricating evidence. The list of cities known to have police departments whose police have falsified evidence is long. DNA testing facillitates the effort to get convictions as a snippet of hair or a tiny drop of blood deliberately transferred to the property of the accused can create false evidence.

City and town police are neither the most moral or the brightest either.

When you start seeing randomly selected knives that are:

1) Tested for DNA.
2) Entered as evidence even though they are the wrong size, found in the wrong location, and don't match any other theory or profile.

Then alarms should go off all over the world. Leaders should pull the red flag from their sock and throw it on the field. FOUL, they should cry!

And people that wish to supress this are also part of the problem, certainly not the solution to anything.

The police, the prosecutor, the judge, Perugia, Italy, the USA and the world are very guilty.

This is stark raving madness.

Please remember to address the argument, not the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[loverofzion]

loverofzion,

Amanda's DNA profile on the handle is unsurprising, given that she cooked with Raffaele. Meredith's profile most likely arose from contamination within the lab or due to the second person from ILE who handled the knife (see my post addressed to Trigood). However, as Dr. Kekule pointed out, secondary transfer is also possible.

Why fabricate unfounded theories of contamination or secondary transfer?
Why can't you accept that it is nor more or less than what it appears to be, the genetic profile of the vicitm.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

How about Leskie?

Why fabricate unfounded theories of contamination or secondary transfer?
Why can't you accept that it is nor more or less than what it appears to be, the genetic profile of the vicitm.

loverofzion,

I suggest that you read the Johnson/Hampikian open letter before commenting further. Secondary transfer is a well-known phenomenon. I have documented a number of cases of contamination in this thread. One often accepts contamination when it presents itself as the least unlikely possibility, such as the case of Ms. P in the Jaidyn Leskie murder.

 

[RoseMontague]

Why fabricate unfounded theories of contamination or secondary transfer?
Why can't you accept that it is nor more or less than what it appears to be, the genetic profile of the vicitm.

I go a step further than Chris. I think it is more or less what it appears to be, no DNA on the blade at all.

 

[loverofzion]

loverofzion,

I suggest that you read the Johnson/Hampikian open letter before commenting further. Secondary transfer is a well-known phenomenon. I have documented a number of cases of contamination in this thread. One often accepts contamination when it presents itself as the least unlikely possibility, such as the case of Ms. P in the Jaidyn Leskie murder.

It is the least unlikely possibility in YOUR MIND.

There was never any contamination proven in the history of the lab that did the testing; without proof of contamination we must accept the results as credible and scientifically valid.

 

[Draca]

Lab contamination

It is the least unlikely possibility in YOUR MIND.

There was never any contamination proven in the history of the lab that did the testing; without proof of contamination we must accept the results as credible and scientifically valid.

You're own words are condemning Stephanoni's lab. ALL labs have to fight to battle contamination. The fact that this lab reports there has been no lab contamination is actually a strong sign that they are not doing enough control tests. Were there control tests done in regards to the knife. We would know if the released the records.

 

[quadraginta]

Raffaele's diary is more suggestive of cooking at Amanda's, which he did one one occasion at least.

Is that where he said he was when he claimed he got Meredith's blood on that knife?

Sorry, my mistake. I thought he claimed it happened in his apartment. I must have that part wrong.

 

[Trigood]

Congratulations, you are now the fourth person by my count who found the abstract of that particular journal article, did not think they needed to bother themselves with reading the damned article, and promptly declared victory based on their laborious and thorough research.

Kevin,

I have explained several times that I, at least, cannot "read the damned article" because I do not have MEDLine access, which is quite expensive.

I could, I suppose, go over the the local university's health sciences laboratory, and try to find the article in the stacks. However, my devotion to this case does not extend to spending a whole afternoon perusing musty books and paying god-awful fees for parking (possibly up to $10). Sorree.

That's IF they even let me in. They may only let in registered students, or even registered health-science students. Security is pretty tight at universities these days.

I would suppose that many people reading this board do not even have access to a health sciences library.

You along with the rest of them are directed to paragraphs seven through twelve of the discussion section, which specifically cover situations exactly like the Knox case, where the details of the crime mean that you can in fact determine useful facts from stomach contents.

Is there any possible way you could summarize (in your own words) (or, preferably quote, though that may violate copyright, I don't know) these paragraphs that you claim cover an exception to the main thrust of this article?

If you have already summarized them elsewhere, could you provide a link to that post or posts?

It would be so kind of you, and would (as a side benefit) back up your contention that these six paragraphs prove that stomach contents can be used to determine TOD in certain situations, that is, in "situations exactly like the Knox case."

Again, if you have already summarized those paragraphs, or quoted excerpts of them, I'm sorry I missed them -- please just direct me to the relevant posts.

Thanks.

(Oh, and if you don't want me to call you by a nickname, fine. I didn't think it would bother you - frankly, I thought it was kind of "cute" as well as "clever," mimicking "J-Lo" and all, and I really admire Jennifer Lopez -- smart, beautiful, and talented -- but I guess it did bother you, so I will stop. )

 

[loverofzion]

loverofzion,

The knife was tested with TMB and it was negative for blood. It is extremely unlikely that a knife could be cleaned in such as way as to make it free of blood and leave DNA behind, as Dr. Johnson has said on more than one occasion. The mixed DNA is unsurprising given that Amanda lived there.

Stefanoni did perform the blood test and it did prove negative; but she averred that there was not enough material to test it successfully.
Massei said that the absence of sufficient material did not constitute proof that it was not blood.

Please try checking your facts thoroughly before making half truths and flying from there to the innocence stance.

 

[loverofzion]

Is that where he said he was when he claimed he got Meredith's blood on that knife?

Sorry, my mistake. I thought he claimed it happened in his apartment. I must have that part wrong.

Of course it was in his apartment.
He said as much.

 

[colonelhall]

An interesting discussion on the price and quality of knives. Keep it up folks!

That reminds me of the old English phrase "Not the sharpest Knife in the drawer"

Whilst we are on that topic, may I thank pilot padron for his very astute and polite posts on this thread and apologise for that person who is having difficulty with understanding English.

 

[loverofzion]

You're own words are condemning Stephanoni's lab. ALL labs have to fight to battle contamination. The fact that this lab reports there has been no lab contamination is actually a strong sign that they are not doing enough control tests. Were there control tests done in regards to the knife. We would know if the released the records.

How is lack of proven contamination proof that there were not enough control tests?
There are stringent standards in the labs there; on what basis do you imply that this one was contaminated?

 

[katy_did]

To reiterate, his Father said not only that he indeed did own more than one "pocketknife", and customarily usually *always" carried on his person the same.

Customarily usually always?

You're totally completely doing this on purpose now, aren't you?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

limit of detection

Stefanoni did perform the blood test and it did prove negative; but she averred that there was not enough material to test it successfully.
Massei said that the absence of sufficient material did not constitute proof that it was not blood.

Please try checking your facts thoroughly before making half truths and flying from there to the innocence stance.

Massei's claim is a one-size-fits-all argument. Anyone can say that there amount of material is less than the sensitivity of the test. Some commenters here have incorrectly claimed that this constitutes a third category for a possible outcome: positive, too small to see but still positive, and negative. In reality, there are only two categories: positive and negative (with the understanding that every test has a limit of sensitivity).

The additional problem with this argument is that the TMB test is very sensitive, and Johnson has been very clear in pointing out that its limit of sensitivity is so low that if one cleaned blood from a knife, the DNA would drop below its limit of detection first.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no control

How is lack of proven contamination proof that there were not enough control tests?
There are stringent standards in the labs there; on what basis do you imply that this one was contaminated?

Stefanoni never reported the results of control tests.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Raffaele's diary and the knife

Of course it was in his apartment.
He said as much.

Check comment 7228 by Mary_H.

 

[quadraginta]

How is lack of proven contamination proof that there were not enough control tests?
There are stringent standards in the labs there; on what basis do you imply that this one was contaminated?

Absence of evidence is evidence of evidence.

Except for when it isn't.

As long as you have unshakable faith that Knox must be innocent it is easy to determine when which is which. Otherwise it's more complicated. Stick around for a while and you'll get the hang of it. There's plenty of folks here to help you.