Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

I think there is a quote from PrugiaShock about her describing having seen some material in the crack. The only other information in the quote is that it was under bright illumination and it had to be held at the correct angle. My recollection was that it was naked eye stuff.

Yep, IIRC correctly she claims to have spotted these few skin cells with her naked eye!! Now, a human skin cell is around 30 microns in size. That's 0.03 millimetres, fact fans.

Stefanoni has instantly acquired superpowers of vision. Or else her credibility has just taken a huge dent. I wonder which of the two it might be?

 

[RoseMontague]

Yep, IIRC correctly she claims to have spotted these few skin cells with her naked eye!! Now, a human skin cell is around 30 microns in size. That's 0.03 millimetres, fact fans.

Stefanoni has instantly acquired superpowers of vision. Or else her credibility has just taken a huge dent. I wonder which of the two it might be?

To be fair here LJ, I think most of this dubiousness is coming from the Machine although Stefanono deserves a share as well.

 

[christianahannah]

And ? I would like to know where this is coming from as well. Where on the knife blade were the other six traces found? I think the Machine is presenting as fact some very dubious information.

I don't think there were seven traces on the knife. I believe seven samples were taken with two of those yielding results; one fitting Amanda's profile (handle), one fitting Meredith's profile (blade). The biological trace on the blade could not be determined.

Motivations page 194:

Seven samples were taken from the exhibit [reperto] acquired by the Flying Squad of Perugia (i.e, Exhibit [reperto] 36) and consisting of a large knife, 31 centimetres long; on the handle, from the trace indicated as "trace A", the genetic profile of Amanda Knox was found and in a point on the blade, the genetic profile of the victim was found. All of the other samples gave negative results.

Motivations page 287:

Furthermore, it was not possible to know the nature of the biological trace that had apparently been found on the blade, and in fact the test for blood had given a negative result.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I'm not referring to photos. I am referring to Rudy saying there was so much blood in the bathroom and corridor. He had also mentioned all the blood in the bedroom. I see no reason for him to lie about that, as he was obviously there, and would not exonerate him.

Yet he lied. There are no traces indicating that much blood was cleaned up.
I OTOH see no reason for him to be overly precise. The obvious reason of his writing is casting suspicion on others. Sharing guilt is better then being the single responsible. Remember, he was aiming at being found "the least guilty". What he wrote works like he intended, at least on you - his purpose is clear.

 

[RoseMontague]

Speculation alert:

Perhaps Dr. Stefanoni found a few alleles when she sampled from other parts of the blade. Either the peaks were too small or were incomplete. If there is DNA, one might say that there is flesh, but that is misleading, since one is not testing for skin, muscle, blood, etc. If so, this raises other questions.

Chris, I'll have to check the report when I get a chance but I don't think she even tested but a few places on the blade, certainly not seven.

 

[LondonJohn]

To be fair here LJ, I think most of this dubiousness is coming from the Machine although Stefanono deserves a share as well.

It's a festival of dubiousness!!

Stefanoni should never have claimed to have been able to see skin cells with her naked eye. And Mr Rag should never have amplified her claims and added a few dodgy ones of his own into the mix.

 

[shuttlt]

She could tell it was human flesh by the naked eye? Do you consider this credible? Could she tell the difference between a miniscule piece of human flesh from that of chicken, fish, or pork by eyeballing it? I don't see how she could tell it was even flesh at all.

I've never seen any claim that Stefanoni said she saw, detected, or in any other way positively identified flesh. People seem to assume flesh based on it being stuck in the knife, and supposedly not being blood. If she says more than this, then it's a new one on me.

 

[Onofarar]

And ? I would like to know where this is coming from as well. Where on the knife blade were the other six traces found? I think the Machine is presenting as fact some very dubious information.

I agree Rose. Personally I think this is another of Stefanoni's lies. The size of this "sample" was between 1 and 10 picograms - where a picogram is one -trillionth of a gram. My eyesight has not been 20/20 for 50 + years but even back then something that small would be microscopic - ("visible under a good light" - HFCB quote - lol).

 

[RoseMontague]

I don't think there were seven traces on the knife. I believe seven samples were taken with two of those yielding results; one fitting Amanda's profile (handle), one fitting Meredith's profile (blade). The biological trace on the blade could not be determined.

Motivations page 194:



Motivations page 287:

So the seven the Machine is referring to is every sample taken on the knife including the handle. And Stefanono found human flesh in all seven traces according to the Machine's post? Yet the motivation makes it clear that the nature of even the sample that tested positive can't be determined. I think the Machine needs to make some corrections on this one.

 

[christianahannah]

Yep, IIRC correctly she claims to have spotted these few skin cells with her naked eye!! Now, a human skin cell is around 30 microns in size. That's 0.03 millimetres, fact fans.

Stefanoni has instantly acquired superpowers of vision. Or else her credibility has just taken a huge dent. I wonder which of the two it might be?

That isn't what Stefanoni stated.

Motivations page 196:

She specified that trace B had been taken from a point on the face of the blade; she added that no biological trace was visible to the naked eye. However [she added that] "under considerable lighting, a series of streaks were visible to the naked eye. These streaks ran parallel to the upper part of the blade, therefore, more or less, they were parallel to this side [of the blade] and towards the point they went downward and, therefore, they followed the shape of the point. These streaks, anomalies in the metal, were visible to the naked eye under intense lighting" (page 95 of the transcript).

 

[Katody Matrass]

It's not about Curatolo. It's about her gift, ( I won't go into the interrogation ) given later, where Amanda admits, basically, to confusing everyone. And later, when she can't give times, can't remembers, etc. To me, if Rudy gives the same knid of testimony, as per Amanda's, it will not be cohesive, by any stretch of the imagination. He might be giving a lot of * The best truths that I can think of*.

For Rudy to be useful for the prosecution, he must fit his story into the prosecution narrative and be precise. If he comes up with "I vaguely remember" it will only hurt their case.

As for Amanda, her account of Nov 2 was quite precise and fully confirmed by evidence. Oh yes, I forgot Quintavalle but he will be thrown out in disgrace.

What details she remembers from the Nov 1 night is irrelevant because apart from Curatolo (no chance here, too) there is no one and nothing to contradict her simple version that she spent the night out of the cottage.

And her Nov 6 letter actually confirms that the interrogation was unlawful and her false confession coerced.

 

[shuttlt]

Stefanoni should never have claimed to have been able to see skin cells with her naked eye.

Why couldn't she have seen *something* in the scratch which, on the bases of the LCN tests, she concluded were cells associated with flesh, or at least partly composed of such?

 

[christianahannah]

So the seven the Machine is referring to is every sample taken on the knife including the handle. And Stefanono found human flesh in all seven traces according to the Machine's post? Yet the motivation makes it clear that the nature of even the sample that tested positive can't be determined. I think the Machine needs to make some corrections on this one.

I haven't any idea what The Machine is referring to. I think there are many urban legends masquerading as truth on both sides of this case.

 

[katy_did]

And ? I would like to know where this is coming from as well. Where on the knife blade were the other six traces found? I think the Machine is presenting as fact some very dubious information.

I'm pretty sure that the 'seven traces of flesh' thing is a claim from Barbie Nadeau's book. I think Christiana is right, the 'seven' figure comes from the number of samples that were taken from the knife, not 'traces of flesh' that were found. IIRC Massei says that six of the traces were taken from random places on the knife, because there was no visible sign of anything on it, and all tested negative [ETA: sorry, five were negative, but then obviously the one on the handle was positive], but that one trace (so Stefanoni claimed) is supposed to have been taken from a visible 'groove' where the DNA was found.

So yes, the 'seven traces of flesh' claim is dubious, to say the least...

 

[RoseMontague]

That isn't what Stefanoni stated.

Motivations page 196:

Thanks Christiana,
It doesn't appear that this statement from the Machine has any basis in fact according to Stefanoni's testimony.

 

[LondonJohn]

That isn't what Stefanoni stated.

Motivations page 196:

Well Frank Sfarzo, who was presumably in court, claims that Stefanoni testified to seeing a scratch on the blade, and to then seeing a tiny amount of material within that scratch:

Patrizia --she confessed today-- put the knife under a powerful light until she saw something. Little, little signs of something. And then a tiny, tiny scratch on the blade only visible while moving it in the right way against the powerful light. And in that tiny scratch a tiny little stripe of something. It's on the blade, it must be blood, she thought.

But the substance was minimal and if she took it to test the blood than nothing would remain to test the DNA. So she said O la va o la spacca, make it or break it, and took a 20% of it to test it for blood: negative.
The test failed but Dr Patrizia wasn't discouraged and she took what remained, about 20 microliters, she dried it to 10 and tested it for DNA. It didn't sort anything but Mrs Stefanoni didn't give up and started to amplify and amplify until the first peaks appeared.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/05/lab-of-wonders.html

But if Frank is wrong, then yes, the fault would all appear to lie with Mr Rag.

 

[LondonJohn]

Why couldn't she have seen *something* in the scratch which, on the bases of the LCN tests, she concluded were cells associated with flesh, or at least partly composed of such?

What would be the other material in which the skin cells were suspended? I thought that a large part of the prosecution rationale for the skin cells miraculously remaining on the blade was that they had somehow become "wedged" into this tiny crevice in the blade.

None of it makes any sense, unless you bring contamination into play. And boy, did Stefanoni bring contamination into play.......

 

[christianahannah]

Well Frank Sfarzo, who was presumably in court, claims that Stefanoni testified to seeing a scratch on the blade, and to then seeing a tiny amount of material within that scratch:



http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/05/lab-of-wonders.html

But if Frank is wrong, then yes, the fault would all appear to lie with Mr Rag.

If one has access to page 95 of the court transcript perhaps it would clarify this point.

It is possible Frank could have been writing a script of what Stefanoni might have been thinking while doing the examination and testing of the knife (rather than all of this being verbatim testimony).

 

[shuttlt]

What would be the other material in which the skin cells were suspended? I thought that a large part of the prosecution rationale for the skin cells miraculously remaining on the blade was that they had somehow become "wedged" into this tiny crevice in the blade.

Who can say? Some material lacking DNA? This could be red blood cells below the threshold of the blood test used. I guess if bleach was used it could be the debris left over from the action of the bleach on the cells.

You seem very certain on this. How much material would there need to be for it to be visible?

None of it makes any sense, unless you bring contamination into play. And boy, did Stefanoni bring contamination into play.......

So, what do you think was in the scratch?

 

[LondonJohn]

If one has access to page 95 of the court transcript perhaps it would clarify this point.

It is possible Frank could have been writing a script of what Stefanoni might have been thinking while doing the examination and testing of the knife (rather than all of this being verbatim testimony).

Yes, that's possible - although I'd suggest that his use of the words "she confessed today" tend to imply that she said these things on the stand.

It's a shame that court transcripts aren't available. It would be good to get exactly the same information that the court got. But never mind.