Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.)

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.

In post 6161 it looks to me like that's what I was doing.

Are you playing some game here with the word "specifically" specifically in order to waste my time, or what?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

If you could point me to a post where I said otherwise, you would have evidence that you are discussing the point instead of enabling Quadraginta in his assault on a straw man.

 

[LondonJohn]

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?

No, that is what others were asserting. Please read back and look at the post I was originally replying to.

To answer your other point, it's fairly self-evident that scrubbing is going to remove cells of equivalent size and shape in equivalent numbers. And given that human blood contains around 800 times more red blood cells than white blood cells, it's virtually impossible that at least one white cell remained while all the red cells were removed. Incidentally, in this respect, the standard instruction for forensics labs is to conduct presumptive tests for blood (TMB or other) first. If these tests are not positive, then no DNA analysis should be performed, since there will almost certainly be no blood-originated DNA present if there are no red blood cells present.

As concerns the DNA coming from another type of cell - of course it's possible. But one then has to consider the mechanism whereby an (e.g.) dermal cell or muscle cell remained on the blade, while all the blood cells - which would undoubtedly have covered the blade after such an attack - were absent.

And lastly, if the prosecution are claiming (as they are) that this knife was cleaned with a strong solution of bleach, then ALL DNA (and other proteins) should have been quickly denatured and destroyed by the bleach, and therefore no DNA profile would have been recoverable. Indeed, standard cleaning procedures in labs where DNA testing is conducted is to clean all surfaces with a 10% solution of bleach - to destroy all residual DNA and prevent contamination.

 

[LondonJohn]

___________________________

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.

///

*shakes head in mild disbelief*

For DNA analysis purposes, Meredith's blood would have been separated (by centrifuge) into its constituent parts, and only the DNA-bearing white cells would have been retained for DNA analysis. It's only the (non-DNA-bearing) red blood cells which provide a positive in the presumptive blood tests. Make sense?

 

[Chris C]

Yes. That's what I just said. Absence of evidence is evidence of evidence.

Isn't it nice when we all agree like this?

Absence of Knox's or Sollecito's DNA in the room is evidence of evidence?

 

[LondonJohn]

I wonder if we could take a couple of dozen posts to have an earnest discussion about the feet of former FBI agent and Knox advocate Steve Moore? I feel sure it would be informative and entertaining - and certainly of high relevance to the murder case.

 

[pilot padron]

I wonder if we could take a couple of dozen posts to have an earnest discussion about the feet of former FBI agent and Knox advocate Steve Moore? I feel sure it would be informative and entertaining - and certainly of high relevance to the murder case.

Almost as informative and entertaining and as relative to the murder case as the plethora of posts from several members here on this distinguished board within the past week or so expending the profusion of time contemplating and comparing their own big toes

 

[LondonJohn]

Almost as informative and entertaining and as relative to the murder case as the plethora of posts from several members here on this distinguished board within the past week or so expending the profusion of time contemplating and comparing their own big toes

I don't think there were all that many posts on this topic. And anyhow, it was directly relevant to the case because Guede has an unusually long second toe. This is important in the analysis of the bathmat partial print, and also in helping to explain why Guede's shoe size is much larger than Sollecito's, yet their footprint lengths are extremely similar.

 

[Mary_H]

Almost as informative and entertaining and as relative to the murder case as the plethora of posts from several members here on this distinguished board within the past week or so expending the profusion of time contemplating and comparing their own big toes

LOL, pilot -- I believe it was the second toe's length (i.e., "Morton's Toe") that was the topic of contemplation here (pages 134-135). For more on LondonJohn's post, see this photo:

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/oct/08/good-deed-costs-a-job/?partner=RSS

If you look at it long enough, it starts to make sense.

 

[pilot padron]

LOL, pilot -- I believe it was the second toe's length (i.e., "Morton's Toe") that was the topic of contemplation here (pages 134-135). For more on LondonJohn's post, see this photo:

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/oct/08/good-deed-costs-a-job/?partner=RSS

If you look at it long enough, it starts to make sense.

Yes, and a red and green graphic style enhanced image created on the same source LondonJohn alluded to may even reduce time required looking.

Also readily concede that the Morton toe contemplation certainly does have significantly more relevance to the forensics of the case

 

[odeed]

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.

*shakes head in mild disbelief*

For DNA analysis purposes, Meredith's blood would have been separated (by centrifuge) into its constituent parts, and only the DNA-bearing white cells would have been retained for DNA analysis. It's only the (non-DNA-bearing) red blood cells which provide a positive in the presumptive blood tests. Make sense?

Would that not rule out halides1 second theory, that a police officer who had been at the cottage earlier, transferred DNA when he went to Sollecito's flat and collected the knife.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Would that not rule out halides1 second theory, that a police officer who had been at the cottage earlier, transferred DNA when he went to Sollecito's flat and collected the knife.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. Can you join the dots a bit for me, and explain why you think this might rule out the possibility that the collecting officer contaminated the knife with non-blood tissue from Meredith?

 

[RoseMontague]

From Perugia Shock:

Patumi showed the judges the instructions of the sequencer. They say Don't go below 50 RFU. The scientists didn't think about bringing in this little document, and it looked like a rumor that a user shouldn't go below that value. Thanks to doctor Patumi now the judges know that if you go below 50 the machine can read pieces of DNA that are not from the sample: a lab contamination may occur.
And he recalled a mysterious contamination happened to him. A machine had been reading sheep blood instead of human blood for six months. They kept cleaning and cleaning everything, but every sample kept resulting: sheep blood. They didn't know were the sheep blood was, only the machine knew, and the machine doesn't speak.
Stefanoni's sequencer as well is never going to tell us where that shred of Meredith's DNA was from, if on the knife or in the machine itself.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/09/psychiatrist-and-coroner-for-amanda.html

Due the low values and due the fact that it was an invisible trace, as she also defined it, she thinks we are allowed to assume that it resulted from a contamination from the machine. Concepts always expressed here. The electroforetic run should have been done on the substrate too. How not to agree? (She means it should have be run without the sample on the substrate. The substrate is a gel on which the electric field is applied and, in case of a stronger-than-recommended electric field, if pieces of DNA from a previous test are around, the machine may read them, as it probably happened in this case).

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/07/coroner-sarah-gino-accuses.html

It's normal to find blood on a kitchen knife. Chicken blood, fish blood. But here the blood test was negative. No problem, we can at least look at the picture taken with the steromicroscope , Gino explained, which will tell us the color. If it's red-brawn we could at least assume that the substance is blood, even if we don't know if is human.
But no pictures from steromicroscope have been taken, so we haven't seen the substance. And we haven't seen not even the groove.
We don't know absolutely nothing, Gino said, We don't even know if there was biological matter

Here is the picture Frank hosted showing the "DNA" location on the knife blade. Yep, that's it. Resistant to cleaning with bleach? Seen only by Stefanoni.
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/07/coroner-sarah-gino-accuses.html

 

[RoseMontague]

The test Stefanoni did on the knife blade was completely bogus. Hundred's of samples had been tested prior to this one, many containing Meredith's DNA. In my opinion, there was no DNA on the knife blade. It is a complete disgrace that the court accepted this as scientifically sound.

 

[odeed]

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. Can you join the dots a bit for me, and explain why you think this might rule out the possibility that the collecting officer contaminated the knife with non-blood tissue from Meredith?

Because blood from the cottage would be the most likely source for contamination.

Also if the claim is that contamination occurred at the lab, why was there not any other items taken from Sollecito's flat which tested positive for Kercher's DNA?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Because blood from the cottage would be the most likely source for contamination.

I'm not necessarily sure about that. Lots of things in Meredith's room or house could have had non-blood DNA from Meredith's skin cells on them. Bearing in mind this is only a speculative hypothesis, I don't think this rules it out.

Also if the claim is that contamination occurred at the lab, why was there not any other items taken from Sollecito's flat which tested positive for Kercher's DNA?

I'm not aware of any rule that says that contamination occurring at the lab must have been evenly distributed amongst all the items there - it just takes one error where someone doesn't change gloves or a particle gets swept up by an air current to cause contamination, there is no requirement that someone get an aerosol can full of contaminant and hose the place down.

In addition I believe the knife sample is the only sample where Stefanoni used her unique "LCN" analysis method of cranking up the number of replications without using additional precautions to avoid contamination. So contamination that might have gone unnoticed in less-amplified samples might have been detectable in the knife sample.

Halides1 is better at this stuff than I am and will no doubt correct any errors I may have made.

 

[loverofzion]

I don't think there were all that many posts on this topic. And anyhow, it was directly relevant to the case because Guede has an unusually long second toe. This is important in the analysis of the bathmat partial print, and also in helping to explain why Guede's shoe size is much larger than Sollecito's, yet their footprint lengths are extremely similar.

Come again?
Shoe size can increase from 42 to 46 size because of a large toe??

 

[loverofzion]

The test Stefanoni did on the knife blade was completely bogus. Hundred's of samples had been tested prior to this one, many containing Meredith's DNA. In my opinion, there was no DNA on the knife blade. It is a complete disgrace that the court accepted this as scientifically sound.

"In your opinion" there was no DNA on the knife??
Come on surely you can do better than that.

 

[loverofzion]

I'm contacting the DOJ Monday to see what the statistics are on falsification of evidence by the police. In Oklahoma and LA the numbers were huge. The officers usually get off with a slap on the wrist because it is so hard to prove especially when the people investigating are also the police. The police consider other police their fraternal brothers. They almost have the camaraderie of a terrorist cell. But with 20 million arrests in the USA alone each year, falsification of reports and evidence could be the second biggest crime in the USA - right behind the falsification of tax returns.

The double DNA knife is, to me, obviously a case of falsification of evidence. I can't even imagine why it isn't so obvious to others. But to that end, I'm doing more research.

Why is it obvious?
Police conspiracy again?

 

[loverofzion]

I think Raffaele says they didn't have a knife like that one, not that they didn't have knives at the girls' place at all ("un coltello così"). There didn't seem to be that sort of knife in the picture of the knives in the cottage, though I guess there might've been a similar one in the set Amanda had. Not that it matters whether there was or wasn't I suppose, since he's quoting Tiziano who wouldn't have known anyway.

And what ihn your opinion made Raf's knife that special that it had to be trasnported to his girlfriend's house?
We just read here that it was a cheap blunt knife.
So which one is it?