Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Dan O.]

If the Independant experts say that from their viewing of the evidence that this is their conclusion, I'd have to agree with them based on their evaluation of the evidence, unless there was good reason to reject their findings.

How are the independent experts going to rule out the possibilities of:

• Contamination in the lab.
• Accidental or deliberate contamination in the police station.
• Contamination from mishandling during evidence collection.
• Deliberate planting of evidence on Nov. 14 when the crime scene was supposed to be sealed but was photographed with the front door open.
• Contamination from being kicked around the crime scene.
• Contamination from a mop that was most recently used to clean the defendants home and then gift wrapped and taken on a tour of the murder room.
• Contamination from before the time of the crime.

 

[shuttlt]

I am not surprised at the findings on the bra clasp. If I had seen that video in real time I believe I would have predicted the result of a testing would be something incriminating.

Is this because you believe his DNA was deliberately put there, or because the most likely type of contamination would be incriminating?

I am certain that Meredith's DNA was not on the knife blade.

I can't remember, is that because you don't accept that the graph we've all seen is a match for Meredith, or for some other reason?

 

[shuttlt]

How are the independent experts going to rule out the possibilities of:

• Contamination in the lab.
• Accidental or deliberate contamination in the police station.
• Contamination from mishandling during evidence collection.
• Deliberate planting of evidence on Nov. 14 when the crime scene was supposed to be sealed but was photographed with the front door open.
• Contamination from being kicked around the crime scene.
• Contamination from a mop that was most recently used to clean the defendants home and then gift wrapped and taken on a tour of the murder room.
• Contamination from before the time of the crime.

Isn't it always difficult to rule out the cops having planted the evidence, and similar explanations?

 

[PhantomWolf]

How are the independent experts going to rule out the possibilities of:

• Contamination in the lab.
• Accidental or deliberate contamination in the police station.
• Contamination from mishandling during evidence collection.
• Deliberate planting of evidence on Nov. 14 when the crime scene was supposed to be sealed but was photographed with the front door open.
• Contamination from being kicked around the crime scene.
• Contamination from a mop that was most recently used to clean the defendants home and then gift wrapped and taken on a tour of the murder room.
• Contamination from before the time of the crime.

One assumes that the reason they have asked for all the extra data including the how, when, where and who it was collected by is so they can figure all this out.

Will you only accept their report if it clears AK and RS?

 

[platonov]

"not visible to the naked eye"

After seeing the video of the collection of the bra clasp, I am not at all surprised. They could obviously see Raffaele's DNA on it, before it was even tested. Must have been a couple ounces of DNA, at least.

I don't believe Meredith's DNA was ever on the knife and I believe the experts will confirm that.

No, According to Dan O HERE and halides1 appeared to agree, the DNA on the bra clasp was 'LCN' and thus not visible to the naked eye

Really RM, what's the point of all these Foaker 'sciency' posts if you wont read and learn from them

ps halides1 How are we doing on that Idaho 'rock video'

 

[Matthew Best]

lol. I have never had "strong un-impenetrable opinions" about this case.

I do have some strong non-unimpenetrable opinions about the case.

Either that, or I don't have any strong non-unimpenetrable opinions about the case.

I'm not sure.

 

[RoseMontague]

Is this because you believe his DNA was deliberately put there, or because the most likely type of contamination would be incriminating?

No. I just said I was not surprised after watching the video, nor would I have been surprised if I had seen it in real time and later got the results that were reported. The video itself is what leads to my opinion. It is like watching a silent movie, self captioned by my own personal opinion. Being not surprised is well, being not surprised.

I can't remember, is that because you don't accept that the graph we've all seen is a match for Meredith, or for some other reason?

The knife is not the murder weapon and Meredith had never come in contact with it. Therefore Meredith's DNA was not on the blade of the knife when it was collected and possibly never was on the blade of the knife. My opinion is that the experts will say Meredith's DNA on the blade of the knife is not proven.

 

[Kaosium]

Given that Amanda and Raffaele are assumed to be innocent, they are surprising findings though, aren't they?

Hypothetically were those both to come back as legitimate they would interesting, but hardly evidence of murder in and of themselves. Consider the evidence against Guede in comparison. Off the top of my head there's the three instances of his DNA on Meredith's clothes, the DNA inside, the shoeprints all over the murder room and leading out the door, the DNA on the purse, the bloody handprint and his admission he was there when she was stabbed. Oh, and the dump in the toilet. That's a lot of corroborating evidence.

On the other hand the evidence in the murder room against Amanda amounts to 10 picograms of (we're assuming here) Meredith's DNA on a knife she used, thus bore her DNA, but with no traces of blood, doesn't match two of the wounds or the outline and was found in Raffaele's drawer, not the murder room. Much easier explanation than it being used in the murder thus implicating Amanda: she used it, cleaned it, and wiped it on her sleeve to dry it as she put it away; as she lived with Meredith something adhered to it from her sweatshirt.

What I find more interesting is that with all conditions considered anyone could think that knife was ever used in the murder just because they found 10 pg of Meredith's non-blood DNA on it. If they found a piece of paper with Amanda and Meredith's DNA on it would you assume it was proof of her being involved in the murder because it could have caused a cut on her hand and pulled it away real fast before it started bleeding?

If the Independent experts say that from their viewing of the evidence that this is their conclusion, I'd have to agree with them based on their evaluation of the evidence, unless there was good reason to reject their findings.

They may confirm that the DNA is Raffaele's, however while they have instructions to check the procedures used, it has been said in Italy that contamination has to be 'proven.' I'm not sure exactly what that means either, perhaps someone else can explain, but speculatively, let's assume it's something arcane ( ) and virtually impossible to prove, (this is the hope of some of the guilt faction last I checked) and Italy's total lack of DNA standards whatsoever otherwise allows it in court.

What is it that makes you think that DNA being found on the clasp necessarily means Raffaele was in the room during the murder with absolutely nothing to corroborate his presence there? Having viewed the tape and all? Does that also prove the other two or so people whose DNA was also on the clasp were in there too?

 

[RoseMontague]

No, According to Dan O HERE and halides1 appeared to agree, the DNA on the bra clasp was 'LCN' and thus not visible to the naked eye

Really RM, what's the point of all these Foaker 'sciency' posts if you wont read and learn from them

LOL. Good point. This article is one of my earliest bookmarks relating to this case. It is called Making the invisable visable, and still is one of the best articles relating to LCN DNA that I have found.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10408000

 

[Dan O.]

Isn't it always difficult to rule out the cops having planted the evidence, and similar explanations?

There are procedures that go a long way to help rule out such possibilities such as timely collection of the evidence, sealing the evidence to prevent tampering after collection, maintaining a chain of custody of the evidence, having the evidence tested by independent labs, using blind testing and controls to verify the accuracy and integrity of the labs and full disclosure of the test results from the labs.

 

[shuttlt]

No. I just said I was not surprised after watching the video, nor would I have been surprised if I had seen it in real time and later got the results that were reported. The video itself is what leads to my opinion. It is like watching a silent movie, self captioned by my own personal opinion. Being not surprised is well, being not surprised.

I can accept and understand arguments for accidental/incompetent contamination. It's just that to me it seems like incriminatory evidence isn't what one would have expected. I certainly wouldn't go into it thinking Raffaele's DNA would be, given the number of other people who spent time in the apartment, particularly likely to come out on the top of the heap.

The knife is not the murder weapon and Meredith had never come in contact with it. Therefore Meredith's DNA was not on the blade of the knife when it was collected and possibly never was on the blade of the knife. My opinion is that the experts will say Meredith's DNA on the blade of the knife is not proven.

OK, so your just reasoning backwards from AK and RS being innocent.

 

[shuttlt]

There are procedures that go a long way to help rule out such possibilities such as timely collection of the evidence, sealing the evidence to prevent tampering after collection, maintaining a chain of custody of the evidence, having the evidence tested by independent labs, using blind testing and controls to verify the accuracy and integrity of the labs and full disclosure of the test results from the labs.

I don't see that this would prevent the police and the prosecutor from corruptly manipulating the evidence if they wanted to. It would make it harder, sure, but they could still do it, particularly if they were working with the lab. Planting the evidence is never going to be ruled out.

 

[RoseMontague]

I can accept and understand arguments for accidental/incompetent contamination. It's just that to me it seems like incriminatory evidence isn't what one would have expected. I certainly wouldn't go into it thinking Raffaele's DNA would be, given the number of other people who spent time in the apartment, particularly likely to come out on the top of the heap.



OK, so your just reasoning backwards from AK and RS being innocent.

Actually, I was making fun of Mignini's logic quote a few posts up that reasoned backwards from them being guilty.

However, other than this very disputed LCN DNA result from cranking up that knob, the knife makes no sense as the murder weapon. Despite Massei's attempt to logic out the large bag, large knife reasoning, there is no evidence that the large kitchen utensil in question is the murder weapon.

 

[shuttlt]

However, other than this very disputed LCN DNA result from cranking up that knob, the knife makes no sense as the murder weapon. Despite Massei's attempt to logic out the large bag, large knife reasoning, there is no evidence that the large kitchen utensil in question is the murder weapon.

I am certainly aware of no reason to think it was involved apart from the DNA result.

 

[Magister]

I don't "believe" she is the killer. I don't particularly care whether she is a killer of not.

Shuttlt

You have been posting on this case since way back on PMF
and more recently here, several times a day.

Yet you have admitted that you have not read the Massei Report.

Now the above quote.

So what is it that is motivating you?

 

[Katody Matrass]

One assumes that the reason they have asked for all the extra data including the how, when, where and who it was collected by is so they can figure all this out.

Will you only accept their report if it clears AK and RS?

I never could understand how one can take seriously DNA evidence in the situation when all of the involved people are connected in the way that we have here.

1) Amanda lived in the cottage. Amanda's DNA is expected to be found there - simple as that.

2) For a week or so Amanda is basically living at Raffaele's but comes regularly to the cottage where she uses bathroom and kitchen that she shares with Meredith, eats, changes clothes etc. Raffaele comes to the cottage a few times, too.

Is it completely unexpected to find Meredith's DNA at Raffaele's or Raffaele's DNA at the cottage? No. In fact it's not unreasonable to think a transfer could have occurred.

And this is just one factor, without considering the doubtful actions of cops and Scientifica.




Contrast it with finding so much traces of Guede in places where they definitely don't belong to.

 

[PhantomWolf]

What is it that makes you think that DNA being found on the clasp necessarily means Raffaele was in the room during the murder with absolutely nothing to corroborate his presence there? Having viewed the tape and all? Does that also prove the other two or so people whose DNA was also on the clasp were in there too?

I still think you are missing what I am saying. If the Indpendant Experts come back and say "We have investigated these things thoroughly, and in our expert opinion there was no contamination or foul play that we can detect, and that RS's DNA was found on the bra clip, and ML's DNA was on the knife blade and here's the evidence why," would you accept their report or not?

 

[shuttlt]

Shuttlt

You have been posting on this case since way back on PMF
and more recently here, several times a day.

I posted here first long before posting on PMF.

Yet you have admitted that you have not read the Massei Report.

Yes.

Now the above quote.

So what is it that is motivating you?

I've been a JREF member for quite a while before the Knox threads. Every once in a while I pick a thread and spend too much time on it. I enjoy seeing how people argue their points.

 

[Mary_H]

Given that Amanda and Raffaele are assumed to be innocent, they are surprising findings though, aren't they?

What's surprising is that Mignini is so childish he thought he could get people to believe the defendants' DNA had been found in only two places, and that those two places just happened to be more incriminating than just about any other places the DNA could have been found.

What's even more surprising is the number of people who actually did believe it.

 

[platonov]

I am certainly aware of no reason to think it was involved apart from the DNA result.

From the PoV of the 'forensics' doing the 'retest' - sure.

From the PoV of the 'court'* - they have RS's [repeated ?] lie to explain its presence.

ETA * and the Foakers - Have you forgotten the torturous arguments by Kevin Lowe and others (all non Italian speakers IIRC) to 'translate' the offending phrase to apply to AK not MK.