Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Alt+F4]

There are lots of easy to found info on false confessions

What is the connection between false confessions and Amanda Knox? She never confessed to murdering Meredith.

 

[RoseMontague]

Could someone explain to me what's Rose's quote from "A Street Car Named Desire" has to do with either the American Civil War or this case?

Vivian Leigh

It rather obscure, I realize.

 

[katy_did]

Could someone explain to me what's Rose's quote from "A Street Car Named Desire" has to do with either the American Civil War or this case?

Blanche as a descendant of Scarlett O'Hara, maybe? Nostalgia for the pre-Civil War South? Vivien Leigh? I don't know, I emptied my brain of it all. Maybe Rose can explain better.

 

[odeed]

No soil or rusty water?


....


How does that show they were made with blood, rather than dirt, or rusty water, or a household cleaner?



What properties to you mean?

I believe this study by Creamer, of 200+ substances lists, puts rust down as negligible effect on the luminescence of luminol (with a few other substances), and this one by the same man has bleach dissipating in less than 24 hours, no idea about dirt unless you can expand on what sort of dirt.

 

[Alt+F4]

I would point out that keyboards, phones, and other items such as these are not usually held in vise-like grips. Dan Krane commented to me that each fingerprint has about 100 cells associated with it. That translates to a considerable amount of DNA.

Indeed, yet not even one cell of Rudy's found in Filomena's room while he was "breaking in". However, after he leaves Filomena's room his DNA is all over the place.

 

[el buscador]

Indeed, yet not even one cell of Rudy's found in Filomena's room while he was "breaking in". However, after he leaves Filomena's room his DNA is all over the place.

Can you please define, "all over the place"?

 

[RoseMontague]

Blanche as a descendant of Scarlett O'Hara, maybe? Nostalgia for the pre-Civil War South? Vivien Leigh? I don't know, I emptied my brain of it all. Maybe Rose can explain better.

Good guess. I am sorry I went off topic in my attempt to explain my "thinking" and some of my short responses to posts in my reply to Michiavelli. And yes I was thinking of being self-depreciating as well as another poster mentioned. I have been also thinking of Mark Twain who when he passed away requested his autobiography not be published for 100 years. (About time, if you catch a Twain reference). Over one million words he dictated. Volume I is 700 pages.

 

[odeed]

I sometimes encounter erroneous thinking about how commonly we shed DNA. Here are a few comments from Dr. Leslie Pray, “We all shed DNA, leaving traces of our identity practically everywhere we go. Forensic scientists use DNA left behind on cigarette butts, phones, handles, keyboards, cups, and numerous other objects, not to mention the genetic content found in drops of bodily fluid, like blood and semen (Van Oorschot & Jones, 1997). In fact, the garbage you leave for curbside pickup is a potential gold mine of this sort of material.”

I would point out that keyboards, phones, and other items such as these are not usually held in vise-like grips. Dan Krane commented to me that each fingerprint has about 100 cells associated with it. That translates to a considerable amount of DNA.

But not every skin cell contains DNA, does Krane agree with your last sentence, as everytime I see his name he's usually criticising LCN profiling or on the defense team of some murderer or serial rapist appealing DNA evidence.

 

[platonov]

Could someone explain to me what's Rose's quote from "A Street Car Named Desire" has to do with either the American Civil War or this case?

I could explain what the Williams/Rose quote has to do with some of the opinions surrounding this case [as I understood the quote] but given that the mods are overworked and I'm from the science as opposed to literature field I'll leave it to Rose to explain if she wishes.

ETA This is both OT and strangely apposite

 

[katy_did]

Good guess. I am sorry I went off topic in my attempt to explain my "thinking" and some of my short responses to posts in my reply to Michiavelli. And yes I was thinking of being self-depreciating as well as another poster mentioned. I have been also thinking of Mark Twain who when he passed away requested his autobiography not be published for 100 years. (About time, if you catch a Twain reference). Over one million words he dictated. Volume I is 700 pages.

November, isn't it? I was checking that the other day; excellent marketing move, the 100 year thing. I downloaded his essay on Fenimore Cooper onto my e-reader just last week. I feel someone should write a similar tribute to Massei.

 

[RoseMontague]

I believe this study by Creamer, of 200+ substances lists, puts rust down as negligible effect on the luminescence of luminol (with a few other substances), and this one by the same man has bleach dissipating in less than 24 hours, no idea about dirt unless you can expand on what sort of dirt.

It is a good question odeed, and one I have been researching a good bit over the past few months. I even referenced tests some kid did at a science fair. You would think there would be more out there on this. What I would like to know is how often do you get some positives at locations that are not crime scenes. Is it normal would be my question.

 

[Danceme]

They were on a desperate quest for anything they could use to support their claim. They didn't bother to investigate whose blood was on the tissues in the driveway outside the cottage. They didn't try to figure out whose DNA was on the cigarette butts in the ashtray. All they cared about was finding evidence against Amanda and Raffaele.

Charlie, I thought they did test the cigarette butts, wasn't Raffaele's DNA found on one. There are also pictures showing the forensics collecting the bloodied tissues. How do you know they didn't then test them?

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=21&image_id=1693

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=21&image_id=1692

 

[Alt+F4]

Can you please define, "all over the place"?

Fair enough.

Evidence of him is found in the bathroom where he didn't flush (I believe on the toilet paper), in Meredith's room, in the kitchen and the bloody footprints going out the front door.

No evidence of him is found in Filomean's room where he supposedly broke in or in the smaller bathroom where he supposedly went into....maybe twice (once to get towels, a second time to clean up and leave the footprint on the bathmat). Also no evidence of him in Amanda's rooom where he again supposedly entered to take her lamp.

 

[katy_did]

Evidence of him is found in the bathroom where he didn't flush (I believe on the toilet paper), in Meredith's room, in the kitchen and the bloody footprints going out the front door.

So if he flushed, there would've been no evidence he ever went in there?

Also, I think your reasoning is a bit circular. You're saying he didn't go into various rooms, because he left no DNA there; then you're saying he left no DNA there, because he didn't go into those rooms. If he went into the rooms but left no DNA, we wouldn't know, would we?

 

[RoseMontague]

November, isn't it? I was checking that the other day; excellent marketing move, the 100 year thing. I downloaded his essay on Fenimore Cooper onto my e-reader just last week. I feel someone should write a similar tribute to Massei.

We did discuss doing one with Mody Dick and little whale footnotes back several months ago and then Dr Waterbury comes up with a nice analogy to Through The Looking Glass. Still a good idea eventually, and I have not shelved the idea. Dr Waterbury indicated in an e-mail that Part III should be up this week.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

mixed DNA samples

One was Knox and the other was mixed on (or in) a pair rubber gloves.

I do not think it should be a surprise that the flat was found to have both Knox and Sollecito's DNA, either mixed or individually, in different rooms, as they were having sex at the flat, and bodily fluids are a significant source of DNA.

I believe at least one of studies on strangulation you reference at your own blog, discusses finding DNA from saliva on the neck and face area from the partner of the volunteers, and you already covered secondary and tertiary transfer on your own blog some months to explain how it may have got to different areas/objects.

Odeed,

One of the three mixed AK/RS DNA samples was left in the bedroom, but one was in the bathroom and the third was on a rubber glove. Sample 96 yielded Amanda's profile alone. In reading your comments, I get the impression that you (might) believe that (a) mixed DNA samples indicate that the DNA was deposited at the same time, and (b) only saliva and other fluids give rise to facile or large transfers of DNA. If you believe otherwise, please feel free to state.

Because DNA cannot be dated, I see no way to conclude that a mixed profile must necessarily mean that the deposition time was the same. To the contrary, every mixed profile generated by the contamination of an evidence sample by a laboratory worker must by definition arise at two separate times. Such contamination events do not seem to be uncommon, based on the reference I gave to an article by William Thompson about a month ago.

With respect to DNA deposited during strangulation, I do not think that saliva was involved in any study I have cited on this thread. My comment earlier today on leaving DNA on everyday items was intended to bolster the notion that touch DNA is left easily.

Given both the locations of the profiles and the considerations above, I do not believe that the mixed samples at Raffaele’s flat can be definitively linked to intimate acts (though I cannot rule them out). My conclusion is that the samples were likely deposited in mundane ways.

Let me conclude with a comment on the mixed AK/MK DNA samples. The forensic team appears to have focused on bloody items, clothing, and a few unusual items such as a gummy white residue. It seems quite unlikely that the sample collection in this case would constitute a random sampling the flat for DNA. Therefore, trying to draw conclusions about how likely it is for DNA to be deposited casually based on this case is an unwise course, IMO. This is why I believe that the mixed samples in the two girls’ bathroom are not inculpatory. Amanda’s epithelial cells (from her hands or her gums), spittle, and possibly hair would be found there.

 

[Alt+F4]

So if he flushed, there would've been no evidence he ever went in there?

It's my understanding that the evidence of him (either DNA or fingerprints) was found on the toilet paper and not what he left in the toilet bowl.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

6.5 picograms per cell

But not every skin cell contains DNA, does Krane agree with your last sentence, as everytime I see his name he's usually criticising LCN profiling or on the defense team of some murderer or serial rapist appealing DNA evidence.

Dan Krane noted that each of those hundred cells has about 6.5 picograms of DNA. Do you have any citations to back up your claims about Dr. Krane?

 

[LondonJohn]

I think that's brilliant, Rose. Now I'm ashamed it didn't register with me earlier (especially as I did my MA thesis on E.L. Doctorow and wrote a whole chapter on The March, which included a bunch of references to Civil War literature, all of which I read and should have recognized. LOL. Perhaps I just emptied my brain of it all after I finished).

Now I know you're cleverly incorporating American literature references in your posts, I'll read more carefully. Time to reclaim the thread from the science buffs, in an engagingly subtle and non-confrontational way.

Hey, don't go dissing science Katy!

However, I do think that you have a point in saying that discussions about this case can get a little bogged down in very narrow scientific discourse. On the other hand, scientific analysis can provide levels of objective certainty that simply may not be possible any other way.

And, while we're on the subject of Time of Death........ maybe we should have a discussion about how the heck Massei's timeline completely railroads the testimony from the three people in the broken-down car: Massei suggests that the knife wounds were inflicted from 11.30pm onwards (to correlate with Nara's "recollection"); but in order to fix that point in time, he has Knox, Sollecito and Guede entering the girls' cottage "shortly after 11.00pm".

However, the broken-down car was sitting opposite the cottage from 10.30pm until at least 11.30pm (and most likely around 11.40pm), and the occupants testified that they neither heard nor saw any activity from the cottage during the whole time they were there waiting for the tow truck to arrive. It's inconceivable that three people could have entered via the front door of the cottage - which was in plain view of the broken-down car - without being noticed by the car's occupants. And the timings of the broken-down car can be accurately verified by the calls to the breakdown company and the tow truck.

It seems to me that Massei has dealt with these timeline problems in an extraordinary way. If he accepts the veracity and reliability of the people in the broken-down car (and there's no reason not to - there were three of them, they were sitting in a dark, quiet car, waiting for assistance), then nobody can have gone in or out of the cottage between 10.30pm and at least 11.30pm, and no loud or visible activity (screams, lights...) can have happened inside the cottage during this time either. So, the murderer(s) either entered and left the cottage at some time after 11.30pm, or some time before 10.30pm. In turn, this would imply that Meredith's death occurred either before 10.15pm or after 11.45pm.

But instead of accepting that the testimony of the people in the broken-down car makes the ToD only possible before 10.15pm or after 11.45pm, Massei instead appears to completely ignore this inconvenient factor in his conclusions on the timeline. He doesn't even bother to say that he disregards the testimony of the broken-down car people - he just seems to flat-out ignore the massive contradiction that their testimony places at the heart of his narrative.

 

[Alt+F4]

Also, I think your reasoning is a bit circular. You're saying he didn't go into various rooms, because he left no DNA there; then you're saying he left no DNA there, because he didn't go into those rooms. If he went into the rooms but left no DNA, we wouldn't know, would we?

Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly enough. I think it's highly unlikely that Rudy broke in through Filomena's window because there is no evidence of him ever being in that room. I've heard time and time again that Amanda couldn't have murdered Meredith because there is no evidence of her being in the bedroom. Fair enough. So how is it logical that Rudy might not leave evidence of being in Filomena's rooom but it's impossible for Amanda to not leave evidnece of being in Meredith's room?