Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Bruce Fischer]

How much more of their DNA was found in Meredith's room? Was it more or less than the other housemates?

They didn't look for DNA from Laura or Filomena. They directed their search right at their suspects.

Same goes for footprints. They only compared prints to their suspects. Sample footprints were not taken of Laura or Filomena.

 

[Alt+F4]

Because the Italian Supreme Court is not in Perugia, Italy.

Ok. How does the Italian Supreme Court determine a case?

Do you honestly believe that all deals made between governments follow the guidelines that you can cut and paste online?

Since Amanda doesn't have diplomatic immunity what makes you think that she is entitled to special treatment? Do you think she is above the law regarding international prisioner transfers? Secretary Clinton was in Italy recently, tell us again what she told the Italian government regarding Amanda? Oh that's right, nothing.

Opinions on this case are shifting fast and furious all around the world.

All around the world? Really? I forget, is AfricaForAmandaKnox a .com or .org website?

Italy knows this is the case. They don't need the entire world looking down on them for this injustice. Pressure will eventually build to the point that they will take action just to make it go away.

Italy doesn't give a damn about Amanda Knox. Her defense team couldn't get anyone to even bother to testify for her over the summer except for convicts who don't have scheduling conflicts. As for your imaginary "pressure", sorry that doesn't work in either the United States or Italy, which have judicial systems based on the rule of law, not imaginary mob rule.

Hopefully Hellmann will do the right thing and release Amanda and Raffaele on appeal. It will take a lot of courage to go against his peers. We will see if he is a courageous man or if he is more concerned with his career. I tend to think he will chose the latter.

You think this and then believe that somehow the Italian Supreme Court will be any different?

 

[zeb]

Laptop

Except that he didn't seem to be claiming that he was typing on the computer, so its's unclear why it recorded what it did.

Even it raffaele even, touched the mouse of the computer it, would record when the keyboard light would come on.
Even if he shut the computer down, by turing the power off, the key board light would come on.
And that time would be recorded.
Even if the laptop battery ran down, the lights on the keyboard, would record the time of the battery, having no power.
Its the keyboard lights that will give Raffaele a alibi.
Here by gum, he's a cleaver lad.

 

[Mary_H]

Just an opinion (since I claim no supernatural abilities to read the minds of others).

However, IMHO since both the above personages argue here on an average, at least daily, they both have read here the answers to the questions they now pose to opponents at least a score of times , even in the very recent past.

Ever so obvious and repetitive queries are characteristically 'argued' here yet again for reasons other than requiring an answer to be yet again provided by unsuspecting, gracious acquiescent opposing arguers

Sometimes questions like that are part of a strategy to encourage the original poster to reflect on what they wrote.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

taking the starch out of Mignini's shirt

What makes you think that even if they can establish that was Meredith's DNA on the blade, and Raffaele's on the bra clasp, that it got there as a result of them being involved in the murder? It would seem to me they are far more likely to be the result of contamination or secondary transfer, if not slight of hand.

Kaosium and PhantomWolf,

This is a very important point. Some time ago I summarized my views on the DNA evidence in this case here. I have little doubt that Raffaele's DNA is on the clasp. Although I think that it falls short of being a good profile for legal purposes, I think Meredith's DNA is responsible for the peaks one observes on the knife electropherogram. If the independent experts merely affirm these two points without going further, they are not doing a proper job. The bra clasp and knife are both beset with problems in the way that the evidence was collected. Moreover, if the starch on the knife is not from powdered exam gloves, the idea that it was the murder weapon is even more preposterous than it was before, and that's going a piece.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

please clarify

Perhaps you need to reread what I actually said.

PhantomWolf,

Would you be so kind as to explain what you mean by the word vindicate? I was not sure, but I leaned toward interpreting it the way Kaosium did.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Ok. How does the Italian Supreme Court determine a case?



Since Amanda doesn't have diplomatic immunity what makes you think that she is entitled to special treatment? Do you think she is above the law regarding international prisioner transfers? Secretary Clinton was in Italy recently, tell us again what she told the Italian government regarding Amanda? Oh that's right, nothing.



All around the world? Really? I forget, is AfricaForAmandaKnox a .com or .org website?



Italy doesn't give a damn about Amanda Knox. Her defense team couldn't get anyone to even bother to testify for her over the summer except for convicts who don't have scheduling conflicts. As for your imaginary "pressure", sorry that doesn't work in either the United States or Italy, which have judicial systems based on the rule of law, not imaginary mob rule.



You think this and then believe that somehow the Italian Supreme Court will be any different?

The US government will most likely say nothing as long as the Italian court process is ongoing. Any involvement would most likely take place after the appeals are exhausted. It's possible that action could be taken shortly after the first appeal to encourage the supreme court to do the right thing.

"Italy doesn't give a damn about Amanda Knox"

Another good reason to eliminate the problem. Why defend an injustice when you really don't care about the person you have detained.

The rest of your post really doesn't warrant a response. If you can't see the shift in public opinion then you have blinders on. If you think that governments don't make deals that bypass the written law then you are wearing really good blinders.

 

[Alt+F4]

The US government will most likely say nothing as long as the Italian court process is ongoing. Any involvement would most likely take place after the appeals are exhausted. It's possible that action could be taken shortly after the first appeal to encourage the supreme court to do the right thing.

Again, why do you think Amanda Knox is not subject to the international prisoner transfer treaty as described by the United States Department of State?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not surprised

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

shuttlt,

I don't find the results from the knife surprising in the least. The lab was awash in Meredith's DNA, both pre- and post-PCR. The laboratories that intentionally work in the low template number range are equipped with positive airflow hoods and (from what I can gather) UV lighting to destroy unwanted DNA. Certain extra precautions such as these are necessary when dealing with such small amounts of DNA. I had an interesting conversation with Mark Waterbury (www.sciencespheres.com) about this one time, and he pointed out that small particles often act very differently from larger particles of the same substance, having a greater surface to volume ration, for example. This may help to explain Dr. Sarah Gino's comment to the effect that DNA does not have wings but can fly.

There are multiple contributors to the clasp, perhaps three people beyond Meredith and Raffaele. If their DNA got onto the clasp in a way that is unrelated to the crime, then how do you know that Raffaele's did not also get there by means that are unrelated to the crime? That is another question that the independent experts must answer clearly and convincingly for me to accept their work as valid.

 

[Dan O.]

I assume the computer evidence refers to his Macbook - how does activity on a laptop show that he didn't leave the apartment?

It's truly amazing in all the time this has been discussed, you are the first to bring up this possibility.

The answer is that there is other evidence that shows the laptop has remained connected to the Internet in the time from 21:10:32 of Nov. 1 to 5:32:08 of Nov. 2. The technical experts from the postal police assert this and it can be seen on page 328 of the Massei Report.

 

[Alt+F4]

If you think that governments don't make deals that bypass the written law then you are wearing really good blinders.

Can you give us even one example in recent history of a:

1. United States citizen;
2. who doesn't have dipolomatic imunity;
3. that has been convicted of murder in a foreign nation;
4. that was repatriated back to the U.S. and not subject to federal law 18 U.S.C. §§ 4100-4115 ?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

what is contamination

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?

PhantomWolf and Dan O.,

So far the experts have done what I would have hoped independent experts would do, namely ask to open the knife and ask for the electronic data files. However, their report must address the the issues that others have pointed out. To reiterate some of them, the overhandling of the bra clasp, the bad swabbing technique, the lack of frequent changes of gloves. It should discuss the negative controls, and it should explain how so many partial DNA profiles ended up on the clasp In addition, the report must explain how one can so clean a putative bloody knife so thoroughly that TMB can no longer detect blood, but nevertheless DNA and starch are left behind. This sounds like magic cleaning fluid to me. Finally, the report should address the issue of forensic bias. The most important pieces of forensic evidence in this case were collected after the suspects were in custody.

Finally, a word or two on the use of the word contamination. Contamination cannot happen until a piece of evidence is collected, but the officer collecting it can contaminate it by primary transfer or by secondary/tertiary transfer. By contrast, secondary transfer can happen at any time.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

low template number DNA on the bra clasp

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'

platonov,

I said I would look for it only when you showed me a video of Massei's version of how the window was broken. I am still waiting.

There is visible dirt on the glove of the person handling the clasp, IIRC. The DNA is low template number, not LCN.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

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.

shuttlt,

I don't see what the problem with Rose's position is. The knife doesn't match two of the wounds or the outline of a knife on the bed. It does not have blood on it, and one cannot clean blood yet leave DNA and starch behind. The conclusion that Meredith's DNA was not on the knife at the time of the murder follows from these facts. Nor does it help the prosecution's case that it must ask us to believe that the blade was cleaned but the handle was not. It is not surprising that a lab working in the low template region of DNA profiling but not using proper LCN techniques would find contaminating DNA, and the lab had many items of Meredith's in their possession.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

unclean

You think it's to be expected that Amanda would track back Meredith's DNA to Raffaele's so that it leaves as clean a sample as we have in this case? It strikes me as something that is a question for the experts in the case rather than people's expectations, but to me it seems like this.... Think of all the things Amanda would have touched in the course of the day. None of them make it onto the knife, somehow it's a Meredith's DNA. It's just like the bra clasp, it boggles my mind that this seems like the expected result to people.

shuttlt,

What do you mean clean? In order to accept it as Meredith's profile, one has to acknowledge that the stochastic effects are pretty strong, indicating that we are in the low template range. If we are in the low template range, one should be testing the sample twice in a specially equipped laboratory, distant from the main DNA laboratory. Finally there are a couple of extra alleles that do not belong to Meredith.

Dr. Hampikian did a nice experiment involving secondary transfer, and someone recently provided a link a few pages ago.

 

[Matthew Best]

Sometimes questions like that are part of a strategy to encourage the original poster to reflect on what they wrote.

Perhaps shuttit is still reflecting, as he hasn't said which couple of things he was thinking of.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Leskie and contamination

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?

PhantomWolf,

Negative controls can sometimes detect contamination, but not always. Donald Riley's article has a good discussion of this. Sometimes contamination is accepted by a process of elimination, as in the Leskie case. The lack of blood on the knife makes me inclined to think that contamination is far more likely an explanation than that the knife was used in this crime.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Kris Johnson

2) halides1 has been one of the most vocal in championing the charade that Marriott does nothing more than act as a scheduler for the Edda and Curt 'acts' on US TV.
Many others acknowledge that Marriott is indeed an impenetrable gate guard for any and all media family access, and in fact does *lots* more.
In fact Marriott 'showcases' the 'lots more' he himself does for Knox on his self promotional sales oriented web page.

3)The point was halides1 incredibly sent us to a page that cast even more doubt on his charade about Marriott that is IMHO agenda driven and absurd.
If the reporter is in your view is 'full of crap', that is only additional emphasis for my point that halides sent us where he probably now wishes we all did not go.
The page admittedly contains divergent views about the case.
Many of which certainly are not in lock step with the 'popular' views here
Still another reason for my surprise at being sent there by halides1

4) RE: quirky Seattle; please note above reply to Rose

pilot padron,

Mr. Stagliano seems to put much emphasis on Marriott. With more facts and less editorializing, his article might have been more useful. However, when he quotes one of Amanda's teachers, Kris Johnson as saying, "It was a pleasure to teach her," that cuts right through Mr. Stagliano's opinions.

 

[shuttlt]

shuttlt,

I don't find the results from the knife surprising in the least. The lab was awash in Meredith's DNA, both pre- and post-PCR. The laboratories that intentionally work in the low template number range are equipped with positive airflow hoods and (from what I can gather) UV lighting to destroy unwanted DNA. Certain extra precautions such as these are necessary when dealing with such small amounts of DNA. I had an interesting conversation with Mark Waterbury (www.sciencespheres.com) about this one time, and he pointed out that small particles often act very differently from larger particles of the same substance, having a greater surface to volume ration, for example. This may help to explain Dr. Sarah Gino's comment to the effect that DNA does not have wings but can fly.

There are multiple contributors to the clasp, perhaps three people beyond Meredith and Raffaele. If their DNA got onto the clasp in a way that is unrelated to the crime, then how do you know that Raffaele's did not also get there by means that are unrelated to the crime? That is another question that the independent experts must answer clearly and convincingly for me to accept their work as valid.

Halides,

Are you saying that, based on the available information, the odds of Meredith's DNA showing up on the knife, say, would be 50/50? Better than 50/50? Where as the odds of Stefanoni's DNA, or some other DNA, turning up on the LCN sample would be 10,000 to 1?

If you tell me that a sample caked in Meredith's DNA was examined by the same person, with the same equipment immediately prior to the knife, then OK, the result isn't so surprising. Until we know that, it seems to me like a surprising result.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

conjecture

What video is this ?

None was required, AFAIK, as the good people of Italy along with most of humanity had no difficulty with the concept of Inward Opening Windows which so perplexed many on this thread over countless posts.

You obviously argue ? it was required to counteract the expert who astonished the court by showing that windows could also be broken by hoofing large rocks through them from the outside.
Indeed one wonders what the court made of this - it beggars belief that the case wasn't dismissed on the spot Is he being called on again in the appeal ? - that kind of stuff deserves more exposure.

platonov,

The problem with Massei's conjecture is that the rock would have to hit the window in a different way (not the same position with respect to the rest of the room and not the same direction) than in Pasquali's experiment. If the actual spray of glass in the room is consistent with Pasquali's reconstruction, then it is inconsistent with Massei's conjecture. I do not entirely blame him for not asking someone to try his idea out; it would only show how absurd his idea is.