Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

The knife

The inspector violated some basic principles of science when he plucked the knife from the drawer. As Steve Moore has pointed out, when evidence is collected from a crime scene, it is important to gather up everything at the scene, instead of picking and choosing what looks interesting.

In the case of the kitchen knife, the entire drawer should have been removed and taken to the lab. Every utensil in the drawer, as well as the drawer itself, should have been analyzed for DNA. Under those circumstances, if more of Meredith's DNA had been found, it would raise questions about whether her DNA was in the drawer for reasons other than that the drawer contained the murder weapon.

What if Meredith's DNA had been found on a spoon? Would that make the spoon the murder weapon? What if Filomena's and Laura's DNA had been found in the drawer? Would that make them murder victims, too?

Without all the possible evidence offered by the environment in which the knife was found, no valid conclusions can be drawn about any individual item from that environment. Along the same lines, it makes no sense that inspectors didn't confiscate every knife in Raffaele's house and take them to the lab for testing.

 

[treehorn]

Here's an SEM photo of human blood:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SEM_blood_cells.jpg

It shows that white blood cells are very similar in size and shape to red blood cells, although they have a slightly roughened surface. I don't believe that you will find any source which claims that white cells are harder to remove by scrubbing than red cells. In addition, if bleach were the cleaning medium (as suggested by the prosecution), it would denature the proteins in both red and white cells, and cause the internal destruction of the cells.

As I have stated before, I am not a doctor (of medicine or any other discipline). However, I do have an education in scientific disciplines, and I consider that I have a scientifically analytical mind. I would, however, appreciate a little less of the sarcasm - until and unless you are able to contradict anything that I've written, perhaps...

sarcasm?

my intent was to be respectful!

based on the detail and authoritative tone of your posts in respect of 'time lag', i made the assumption that you were not only a doctor but a specialist

who knew that anyone would consider gastroenterology as, shall i say, a 'hobby'? (ya learn somethin' everyday)

in any event, your amateur status has been duly noted

alas, i, too, have not a clue about the degree to which red and white blood cells can be said to have the same resistance (or lack thereof) to scrubbing or to various cleaning products

this is not a trivial lacuna in the debate, IMHO

to the extent that the defense is arguing that it is well-nigh impossible that WBC's could remain on the blade without the concomitant presence of not only RBC's, but RBC's in much greater number, evidence in support of this contention must be adduced

i was hoping you'd also mention why you thought that the DNA-containing cells in question were more likely to be WBC than cells from any of the other tissues and organs that were compromised in the attack

that is what you are asserting, no?

 

[Fine]

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.

___________________________

Halides,

As you mentioned earlier, Meredith's DNA was abundant in the lab. Well, since virtually all of the lab samples of Meredith's DNA would have been blood.........should we not expect that the DNA on the knife---if contaminated in the lab--- would have tested positive for blood? But it didn't. In which case, the negative test for blood should indicate that the knife was not contaminated in the lab.

///

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The knife was found to have Meredith's GENETIC PROFILE in a groove on the blade; it being on the blade it is a safe assumption that it was her blood.

Actually tests showed that whatever is was, it was not blood.

So what was it, if it wasn't contamination from the lab? Nobody has any remotely convincing explanation, any more than they have a remotely convincing explanation of how t(lag) can be five hours or more in a normal, healthy young woman eating a small-to-moderate meal of pizza with no alcohol, stress or other confounding factors.

 

[treehorn]

...Every utensil in the drawer, as well as the drawer itself, should have been analyzed for DNA. Under those circumstances, if more of Meredith's DNA had been found, it would raise questions about whether her DNA was in the drawer for reasons other than that the drawer contained the murder weapon.

i used to find argument along these lines more appealing

then i saw the photo

one big, bad a## mofo of a butcher knife sitting atop an orderly tray of small, harmless looking utensils

you don't have to be Dr. Henry Lee (or Horatio Caine) to look at a drawer like that and surmise that the big 'F U knife' is the one to collect in the wake of a brutal rape/ homicide at knife point

spoons?!

as for the argument that MK's DNA could be in that utensil drawer, at RS's apartment, by innocent means... i'm not sure that even passes the smell test, much less the air of reality test:

o AK only knew RS for 6 days, correct?

o most of that period was spent in RS's apartment, no?

o MK had only been briefly introduced to RS, correct? (RS's sister described it as RS having only glanced at MK once or twice, barely speaking, correct?)

o MK had never set foot in RS's apartment, correct?

now, how likely is it that, at that point in a 'relationship', utensils (or laundry) are swapped between residences?

6 DAYS???

if true, the claim that AK slept with another man (Nadeau - is she correct
?) during that 6 day period makes it all the more absurd to suggest there was some rapid shift to shared domesticity/ co-mingling of kitchen, bath and laundry items as between AK and RS such that MK's DNA could have been transferred to RS's kitchen

indeed, how many times did AK and MS cross paths during the 6 day period? (AK is either at RS's or off with the man Nadeau referred to, and MK is socializing almost exclusively with her own friends, correct?)

if MK and AK were barely in contact during the 6 days, and AK was barely in their shared cottage during those 6 days, how likely is it that MK's DNA could have (innocently) wound up in RS's kitchen, on his butcher knife, on the blade?

the fact he appears to have lied to the police in an effort to come up with an innocent explanation for this turn of events arguably seals the deal

(did the defense argue, as some here have, that RS was referring to AK rather than MK?)

if it is a lie, the prosecution doesn't even need MK's DNA to be on the blade

they can secure his conviction merely by dint of the fact he thought it necessary to lie when confronted with the fact (feigned or real) that MK's DNA was on that blade (trickery of suspects is sanctioned, with good reason, by the courts in common law jurisdictions)

baring duress, a low IQ, mental illness or extreme introversion, an innocent person is not likely to fabricate lies under police interrogation

if innocent, a relatively stable 24 year old man of reasonable intelligence could/ would/ should be expected to deny the evidence and state that it is impossible

i've noted that RS has never claimed duress

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I believe this is where Kevin Lowe is supposed to swoop in and pontificate about 'argument from incredulity'. Or maybe not, since that is only a forensic flaw for certain perspectives.

I was away while this (IMHO, irrelevant and stupid) subthread popped up, but I agree with you that the pro-innocence arguments people are making up here are unsupported.

My preference would be to stick to more important issues with arguments we can actually back up: As this subtopic has shown, we've got a few guilters who are hovering over the thread ready to flood it with discussion of any error that any innocenter makes. When people hand them easy targets like this the thread fills up with meaningless fluff and important issues get hidden.

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.

I think this point nicely illustrates the difficulties in communication we are having. The guilter community as a whole, as you have just demonstrated, doesn't really understand logical thinking. They can repeat some of the sound bites associated with it, and try to use them to set up "gotchas", but in doing so they just highlight the errors in their understanding.

Best practice in a DNA testing facility is to maintain contamination logs, and the labs that do so regularly catch and correct errors made due to such contamination. Stefanoni's lab is either the best lab in the world, in that it never ever makes errors (highly improbable, although perhaps less so than some other points of faith the guilters cling to), or it is a substandard lab to the extent that it does not make efforts to catch and correct such errors (highly likely).

For legal purposes, where proof beyond reasonable doubt is the goal, failure to observe good forensic practice is needed because that failure introduces reasonable doubt about the conclusions drawn. Can we be sure beyond reasonable doubt of the results coming out of Stefanoni's lab? No, we can't.

In fact you've got the maxim that absence of evidence is not absence of evidence exactly backwards in this case. In this case absence of positive evidence of error or misconduct is not evidence of the absence of error or misconduct. The expected standard is to have positive evidence that the lab diligently seeks out and corrects errors - claiming your DNA lab never makes errors is approximately as believable as Ahmedinejad claiming Iran had no gay people.

You don't have to repeat yourself. You've already convinced me that DNA evidence is completely useless for any sort of forensic purpose in any court anywhere under any circumstances.

If someone sat in a witness stand and told me that my DNA proved that I was me I'd call them stone cold liars to their face.

I have you to be grateful to for that insight. Thanks.

If you prefer not to engage in this discussion in good faith, there are alternative forums where this is not expected of you.

If you want to engage in discussion of the issue here, then you should engage with what other people have actually said as opposed to straw men so ill-built as to insult our intelligence.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

It's arguably not your fault you don't have the money, time, inclination or combination thereof to check your sources. It is your fault that you don't act as if you understand that this places profound limits on your ability to draw supported conclusions from those sources since you can't actually read them. It is your fault that you act as if reading abstracts and cherry-picking fragments of them that suit your prejudices somehow gives you an informed opinion.

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?

You are, perhaps deliberately and perhaps not, trying to waste my time. I have already done so in direct response to your previous posts. I feel no obligation to repeat myself for your benefit. Learn to use the advanced search function.

 

[Justinian2]

There has been a major scandal in North Carolina regarding the SBI crime lab. Of course, this is not Italy.

http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_...ntinue-in-court-system?instance=homethirdleft

That's a great link! Shows that problems with forensic analysis are plentiful in the USA. It seems from discussions here, that the forensics in Italy (at least in this case) are as bad as the worst in the USA.

I see the imperfections in the systems of the USA and Italy. The guilters see imaginary imperfections in AK, RS, me, and the innocenters without seeing the imperfections of government.

 

[Mary_H]

i used to find argument along these lines more appealing

Alas for me.

then i saw the photo

one big, bad a## mofo of a butcher knife sitting atop an orderly tray of small, harmless looking utensils

According to Judge Massei, there were other knives in the drawer (Motivaziones, page 106, page 264).

you don't have to be Dr. Henry Lee (or Horatio Caine) to look at a drawer like that and surmise that the big 'F U knife' is the one to collect in the wake of a brutal rape/ homicide at knife point

How dare you take the name of Horatio Caine in vain?

Can anyone here explain why the police went to Raffaele's apartment on November 6th (Motivaziones, page 106) and seized a large knife from his kitchen drawer? Raffaele had been arrested the night before, and Amanda was arrested that day. Three days later, on November 9th, Judge Claudia Matteini released her report that said, “.... [Meredith] was then threatened with a knife, the knife which Sollecito generally carried with him and which was used to strike Meredith in the neck." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2843350.ece

Why would the police go looking for a kitchen knife when they were already pinning the crime on Raffaele's flick knife?

spoons?!

as for the argument that MK's DNA could be in that utensil drawer, at RS's apartment, by innocent means... i'm not sure that even passes the smell test, much less the air of reality test:

o AK only knew RS for 6 days, correct?

o most of that period was spent in RS's apartment, no?

o MK had only been briefly introduced to RS, correct? (RS's sister described it as RS having only glanced at MK once or twice, barely speaking, correct?)

o MK had never set foot in RS's apartment, correct?

now, how likely is it that, at that point in a 'relationship', utensils (or laundry) are swapped between residences?

6 DAYS???

if true, the claim that AK slept with another man (Nadeau - is she correct
?) during that 6 day period makes it all the more absurd to suggest there was some rapid shift to shared domesticity/ co-mingling of kitchen, bath and laundry items as between AK and RS such that MK's DNA could have been transferred to RS's kitchen

indeed, how many times did AK and MS cross paths during the 6 day period? (AK is either at RS's or off with the man Nadeau referred to, and MK is socializing almost exclusively with her own friends, correct?)

if MK and AK were barely in contact during the 6 days, and AK was barely in their shared cottage during those 6 days, how likely is it that MK's DNA could have (innocently) wound up in RS's kitchen, on his butcher knife, on the blade?

The point is not how it would have gotten there (although that is certainly worthy of speculation), the point is the investigators could not rule out, with scientific validity, that more of Meredith's DNA was in the drawer. It's basic control group stuff -- you can't set the "murder weapon" apart from the other knives unless you test the other knives.

the fact he appears to have lied to the police in an effort to come up with an innocent explanation for this turn of events arguably seals the deal

It appears to the guilters that Raffaele lied. It appears to the innocenters that he was trying to figure out some possible explanation for why the police would have found Meredith's DNA on a knife from his kitchen. Which raises another interesting question -- why did the investigators find Amanda's DNA on a knife in Raffaele's kitchen but they didn't find Raffaele's DNA on it?

(did the defense argue, as some here have, that RS was referring to AK rather than MK?)

if it is a lie, the prosecution doesn't even need MK's DNA to be on the blade

they can secure his conviction merely by dint of the fact he thought it necessary to lie when confronted with the fact (feigned or real) that MK's DNA was on that blade (trickery of suspects is sanctioned, with good reason, by the courts in common law jurisdictions)

First they would have to prove it was a lie. Then, let's hope, they would throw some actually substantial evidence into the mix.

baring duress, a low IQ, mental illness or extreme introversion, an innocent person is not likely to fabricate lies under police interrogation

if innocent, a relatively stable 24 year old man of reasonable intelligence could/ would/ should be expected to deny the evidence and state that it is impossible

i've noted that RS has never claimed duress

You might want to read his prison diary.

 

[Dan O.]

Treehorn, I take it that you don't know what a control is with regard to DNA testing. Yes, a spoon would have been a suitable substrate control to show if Meredith's DNA was uniquely on the knife or generally in the environment of the drawer.

Of course, very few believe that any of Meredith's DNA was in that drawer on either knives or spoons. The most probable source of the DNA is contamination in the lab which has neither the equipment nor the procedures to properly handle LCN DNA testing.


And you haven't apparently done your homework with regard to Raffaele's statement about the knife. If you had you would have known that the statement was not made to the police.

Are you here in a search for the truth or just to spread rumors?

 

[moodstream]

Is it possible for Trace B to valid? Can you clean an object with a liquid such that a residue of under 10 picograms of a material remains in one spot, yet the material does not dilute such that the material spreads evenly across the object being cleaned, leaving an evenly spread residue on the object when dry? I ask this because apparently there is a Trace C that contains 0 picograms also taken from the blade.

If it can be cleaned this way, Dr.Stefanoni's choice of where to swab was darn lucky for her.

 

[Justinian2]

You are, perhaps deliberately and perhaps not, trying to waste my time. I have already done so in direct response to your previous posts. I feel no obligation to repeat myself for your benefit. Learn to use the advanced search function.

I have posted on forums for 20 years. Some posters are like clones because they don't write anything unique. They aggravate, waste your time, repeat the obvious, and even call you the same unimaginative names over and over. I just use the clones to form replies that will educate those that will listen and can learn. Yes, I believe that they are deliberately trying to waste your time. So write for us, not them.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

been there, done that

Doctor, where is your evidence that red blood cells and white blood cells are removed by cleaning/ scrubbing with EQUAL ease?

can you cite a peer-reviewed journal or an authoritative text in support of this proposition?

Treehorn,

I suggest you search on my username and use Dr. Johnson as the search term in the previous thread.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

PCR is a double edged sword

___________________________

Halides,

As you mentioned earlier, Meredith's DNA was abundant in the lab. Well, since virtually all of the lab samples of Meredith's DNA would have been blood.........should we not expect that the DNA on the knife---if contaminated in the lab--- would have tested positive for blood? But it didn't. In which case, the negative test for blood should indicate that the knife was not contaminated in the lab.

///

Fine,

There are a couple of possibilities here, but I will only mention two. When sample of DNA is amplified by polymerase chain reaction, its amount increases by more than a millionfold. Therefore, only a tiny contaminant from a post-PCR reaction can yield a profile on another item of evidence. Also Meredith's belongings would have her DNA even if they were not tested for its presence.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the science of DNA profiling is sound...

You don't have to repeat yourself. You've already convinced me that DNA evidence is completely useless for any sort of forensic purpose in any court anywhere under any circumstances.

If someone sat in a witness stand and told me that my DNA proved that I was me I'd call them stone cold liars to their face.

I have you to be grateful to for that insight. Thanks.

but not all DNA profiling is sound science (paraphrased from Dan Krane).

Quadraginta,

You have been misunderstanding my comments for six hundred pages now. You don't have to repeat yourself. I have explained what is different between good DNA evidence and the knife profile on several occasions. If you don't recall the exact message numbers, PM me and I will try to help.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

If you prefer not to engage in this discussion in good faith, there are alternative forums where this is not expected of you.

I have been entertained by your developing caricature as self-appointed Thread Arbiter of Propriety and Relevance, but I fear that you may have begun to take the pretense too much to heart. It would be more persuasive if your pronouncements were not so inflexibly partisan, but then, that's why it's a caricature, I guess.

It is not for you to decide for the benefit of this thread whether my posts (or anyone else's) are made in good faith or not, even if you possessed the necessary clairvoyance to make such a determination. Nor is it your responsibility or privilege to select what venues I post in.

I shall post what I choose, when I choose to. If the posts fail to meet your peculiarly myopic standards you have the options to ignore them, or report them. Not to tell me to shut up or go away. This thread is not your fiefdom.

If you want to engage in discussion of the issue here, then you should engage with what other people have actually said as opposed to straw men so ill-built as to insult our intelligence.

Apparently you haven't noticed but there isn't an issue here. There is a collection of often disjointed and frequently tangential discussions that are generally related to the topic of the Knox conviction (In theory, at any rate.). My suggestion in response to yours is that if you find such an environment unsatisfactory you should heed your own advice and find a venue where your desire to mandate your own standards of appropriate censorship is more easily implemented.

I think your understanding of the actual meaning of such logical fallacies as "straw man" is flawed. I've seen evidence of this in many of your past critiques. Or maybe it was the less than consistent manner in which you choose to invoke such observations. I suppose it could be both. Perhaps you should devote some further study to the concepts. I expect your posts will be less amusing as a result, but I, for one, am willing to make the sacrifice.

I appreciate the opportunities offered by the "insult our intelligence" straight line, but I shall forebear, this time. Thanks anyway, though.

Oh, yeah. One parting suggestion. If you aren't actually trying to present yourself as a caricature you might consider taking more of your own advice. Otherwise you only impress the very gullible, and I can't imagine that that can be very satisfying.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>
Quadraginta,

You have been misunderstanding my comments for six hundred pages now. You don't have to repeat yourself. I have explained what is different between good DNA evidence and the knife profile on several occasions. If you don't recall the exact message numbers, PM me and I will try to help.

Oh, I understand 'em just fine.

I make a conscious effort to repeat myself at least several orders of magnitude less often than you do. It seems to suffice, but I can do better. It will still leave me a plethora of opportunities.

 

[Trigood]

It's arguably not your fault you don't have the money, time, inclination or combination thereof to check your sources. It is your fault that you don't act as if you understand that this places profound limits on your ability to draw supported conclusions from those sources since you can't actually read them. It is your fault that you act as if reading abstracts and cherry-picking fragments of them that suit your prejudices somehow gives you an informed opinion.

I cannot read this article, or some others. That is a fact. I was merely trying to explain why. If you wish not to understand why I can't, or accept that, it is not my problem. (If you wish to buy me a subscription to MEDline, of course, that would be gratefully accepted.)

You are, perhaps deliberately and perhaps not, trying to waste my time. I have already done so in direct response to your previous posts. I feel no obligation to repeat myself for your benefit. Learn to use the advanced search function.

Waste your time? You dance around and around, saying this paragraph proves this, and those articles prove that, but yet, you never support your statements!

I was very politely and circumspectly, asking you to please summarize the crucial paragraphs that you say support your main assertion.

I have read all your responses to my previous posts, and nowhere have you specifically said what was in that Jaffe article paragraphs 7-12 in the Discussion, that specifically contradicts why stomach contents can't be used to determine TOD.

If I am wrong, and you have responded with what those paragraphs say, please direct me to the post (which I apologize that I missed), and I will happily read it.

If you refuse to tell me how Jaffe supports your assertion, I don't know what to think.

Kevin_Lowe, I am serious: My post to which you are responding above, was extremely polite, and even included an apology for calling you by a nickname that you objected to. Really, your response above is bordering on abusive. Please, calm yourself, tell me what Jaffe says, and let's get on with it. You have NOT answered this question previously. If you have, I apologize in advance, please point me to the post where you did. Thank you!

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I have been entertained by your developing caricature as self-appointed Thread Arbiter of Propriety and Relevance, but I fear that you may have begun to take the pretense too much to heart. It would be more persuasive if your pronouncements were not so inflexibly partisan, but then, that's why it's a caricature, I guess.

It is not for you to decide for the benefit of this thread whether my posts (or anyone else's) are made in good faith or not, even if you possessed the necessary clairvoyance to make such a determination. Nor is it your responsibility or privilege to select what venues I post in.

Aye - you can behave as you see fit, and I made no statements to the effect that you cannot.

I spoke merely about how one should behave, a very different thing indeed.

I shall post what I choose, when I choose to. If the posts fail to meet your peculiarly myopic standards you have the options to ignore them, or report them. Not to tell me to shut up or go away. This thread is not your fiefdom.

I see this form of arguing past the point frequently from posters from the USA, interestingly enough. When criticised for something they said, they respond by defending on Constitutional grounds their right to say it, which was never contested and was never the point in the first place.

Apparently you haven't noticed but there isn't an issue here. There is a collection of often disjointed and frequently tangential discussions that are generally related to the topic of the Knox conviction (In theory, at any rate.). My suggestion in response to yours is that if you find such an environment unsatisfactory you should heed your own advice and find a venue where your desire to mandate your own standards of appropriate censorship is more easily implemented.

We don't do censorship here - we merely robustly criticize foolish arguments and ill-founded opinions based on unscientific or anti-scientific nonsense.

I think your understanding of the actual meaning of such logical fallacies as "straw man" is flawed. I've seen evidence of this in many of your past critiques. Or maybe it was the less than consistent manner in which you choose to invoke such observations. I suppose it could be both. Perhaps you should devote some further study to the concepts. I expect your posts will be less amusing as a result, but I, for one, am willing to make the sacrifice.

I appreciate the opportunities offered by the "insult our intelligence" straight line, but I shall forebear, this time. Thanks anyway, though.

I have seen this and similar claims made by yourself and other guilters, but never properly backed up.

Oh, yeah. One parting suggestion. If you aren't actually trying to present yourself as a caricature you might consider taking more of your own advice. Otherwise you only impress the very gullible, and I can't imagine that that can be very satisfying.

On certain forums of their own guilters collaborate enthusiastically to caricature anyone who disagrees with them. As an argument, or rather as a substitute for an argument, I find this reflective of a fairly low level of intellectual and moral development.

I guess it serves a purpose as a form of community bonding, where they can unite in an in-joke that denigrates and trivialises outsiders, and gives otherwise worthless ad hominem arguments a kind of faux acceptability through social reinforcement.

I'd prefer it if this substitute for an argument did not pollute these forums, but as you have so clearly asserted we cannot stop you bringing that sort of intellectual toxic waste here. We can merely label it as such and then move on.

 

[lionking]

Aye - you can behave as you see fit, and I made no statements to the effect that you cannot.

I spoke merely about how one should behave, a very different .

Perfectly illustrating Quadraginta's point. I know you like preaching to the choir and all, but until you take ownership of this forum you are just going to have to put up with people posting in ways you disapprove of.