Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
LondonJohn said:
A small not on Patrick Lumumba and his name:

Lumamba's birth forename is Diya. But Lumumba does not use this name. He has adopted the forename "Patrick". This is the name that he is known by, and the name that he wishes to be known by. Referring to him as "Diya Lumumba" is akin to referring to Tom Cruise as "Thomas Mapother", or Elton John as "Reg Dwight" (or Buck Rogers as "Anthony Rogers", notwithstanding that it's fictional!).

I can only assume that those who constantly refer to Lumumba using the forename "Diya" think that this somehow demonstrates a deeper knowledge of the case, and/or a commitment to accuracy. They are wrong on both counts.
Click to expand...

LOL -- how many pretentious friends did I have in college who referred to Bob Dylan as "Zimmerman"..... :D
 
I am curious about the bra clasp. Why wasn't stronger language used in the report about the ridiculous storage of the clasp by the independent investigators? Those believing in guilt fail to take this into consideration also. To me it shows a continuing display of incompetence. When I look at all the errors and incompetence regarding evidence, I am amazed that anyone can't have some level of doubt about guilt.
I also believe it is nearly impossible to touch the clasp without touching surrounding fabric. But handling and collection of evidence was atrocious.
 
Garofano's claim that there was mixed blood

Charlie Wilkes brought up an interesting point on the IIP Forum. Luciano Garofano, according to a TJMK poster, said he can tell there is mixed blood in the bathroom. Greg Hampikian says not true.

Charlie Wilkes:
Garofano claims he can tell a sample contains blood just by looking at the e-gram, because no other substance produces such high peaks. Greg Hampikian has told me this is false, and other samples from this investigation prove it is false. Above you see a portion of the e-gram from a cigarette butt in the kitchen, showing the mixed DNA of Amanda and Raffaele, along with the same portion of an e-gram from one of the samples from the bathroom that Garofano says is composed of "mixed blood." Note that the peaks on the cigarette butt are at least as high as those in the bathroom sample.
Click to expand...


 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
LondonJohn,

I agree that the claim that Raffaele’s DNA being abundant is entirely false, despite being repeated endlessly. In addition, some people use this falsehood to claim that Raffaele’s DNA could only have arisen through primary transfer. At PMF Fiona wrote, “Greggy has confirmed what the literature says: that the quantity makes it very unlikely that RS's dna was a result of contamination or transfer.” I challenge Fiona or anyone else to show where the literature on DNA contamination claims that the amount of DNA must be small. I have previously commented on this misunderstanding here.

Dr. Donald Riley wrote, “Full profile contaminants have been documented on multiple occasions and in multiple laboratories. Partial profile contaminants are more common and sometimes constitute a poorly recognized risk in using partial profiles in evidentiary samples as evidence. When contamination occurs there is rarely any way to confirm how it happened.” IMO it is unlikely that a full profile could be culled from “subpicogram” amounts of DNA.
Click to expand...

Hold on now! Isnt the amount we are talking about here < 200 picograms or am I dreaming up that number? I may be thinking about something else.

Or as I read on another post that the experts called this y haplotype another flawed result.

If I am correct then we enter the LCN range and y haplotype or no this is a very small quanity. And thus should be tossed as contamination or not?
 
Last edited:
RandyN said:
Hold on now! Isnt the amount we are talking about here < 200 picograms or am I dreaming up that number? I may be thinking about something else.

Or as I read on another post that the experts called this y haplotype another flawed result.

If I am correct then we enter the LCN range and y haplotype or no this is a very small quanity. And thus should be tossed as contamination or not?
Click to expand...

Raffaele's portion of that sample was less than 200 picograms, as pointed out in his appeal.
 
RandyN said:
Hold on now! Isnt the amount we are talking about here < 200 picograms or am I dreaming up that number? I may be thinking about something else.

Or as I read on another post that the experts called this y haplotype another flawed result.<snip>
Click to expand...

Perhaps it should be called a mishaplotype. Or a haplessotype.
 
The haplotype jokes are coming thick and fast today :D

I have to say that while certain erstwhile forum-associates have invested very large amounts of time and energy in a partisan attempt to question the DNA report, it's rather clear that they don't know what they are talking about. They are also focussing (probably deliberately) on one very narrow part of the report: the interpretation of the electropherograms.

But that's just one small part of this whole sorry story. GIGO means that all the errors that preceded the interpretation phase imply that the interpreted results cannot be trusted to be accurate or reliable - even if the interpretation was carried out absolutely properly. And part of that is directly Stefanoni's fault. After all, she was the one who attempted low template analysis in a lab environment that was not sufficient for such a task, and she herself was not trained (let alone accredited) in conducting low template analysis. SO her lab procedures (or, more accurately, lack of procedures) opened the door wide for contamination before the interpretation was ever even attempted.

I happen to believe that Stefanoni made serious (and provable) errors in the interpretation of the results. But she also made other massive errors - as did virtually everyone else throughout the process of collection, handling, storage and transportation of these items - that in themselves render these items inadmissible as evidence.
 
LondonJohn said:
The haplotype jokes are coming thick and fast today :D

I have to say that while certain erstwhile forum-associates have invested very large amounts of time and energy in a partisan attempt to question the DNA report, it's rather clear that they don't know what they are talking about. They are also focussing (probably deliberately) on one very narrow part of the report: the interpretation of the electropherograms.

But that's just one small part of this whole sorry story. GIGO means that all the errors that preceded the interpretation phase imply that the interpreted results cannot be trusted to be accurate or reliable - even if the interpretation was carried out absolutely properly. And part of that is directly Stefanoni's fault. After all, she was the one who attempted low template analysis in a lab environment that was not sufficient for such a task, and she herself was not trained (let alone accredited) in conducting low template analysis. SO her lab procedures (or, more accurately, lack of procedures) opened the door wide for contamination before the interpretation was ever even attempted.

I happen to believe that Stefanoni made serious (and provable) errors in the interpretation of the results. But she also made other massive errors - as did virtually everyone else throughout the process of collection, handling, storage and transportation of these items - that in themselves render these items inadmissible as evidence.
Click to expand...

The main criticism I am seeing is the use of non-Italian references in the report. What I haven't seen is somebody not agreeing with these references. Do they think there is some Italian protocol that allows these people to not change shoe covers and gloves, pass evidence around and handle it with dirty gloves and drop it back on the floor, or swab different places with the same material? I don't get the logic of this.
 
DNA in a single cell

RandyN said:
Hold on now! Isnt the amount we are talking about here < 200 picograms or am I dreaming up that number? I may be thinking about something else.
Click to expand...
Randy,

Estimates vary a little, but they are in the 100-200 picogram range for Raffaele's putative profile. The notion that contamination produces subpicogram amounts comes from an anonymous poster named Greggy, as far as I can tell. Even a single diploid cell has 6.6 picograms of DNA, however, so I fail to see any validity in this claim. In addition, when one considers that contamination can arise from a variety of mechanisms, I don't see how it is possible to argue that contamination always produces a certain amount of DNA.
 
RoseMontague said:
The main criticism I am seeing is the use of non-Italian references in the report. What I haven't seen is somebody not agreeing with these references. Do they think there is some Italian protocol that allows these people to not change shoe covers and gloves, pass evidence around and handle it with dirty gloves and drop it back on the floor, or swab different places with the same material? I don't get the logic of this.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I mean, is there some definitive source they should have cited but didn't? Does that source say something different to all the others? It seems to me that those are the key issues if the report is being criticized for its research. At the moment the criticism is limited to "OMGZ they cited this paper, it's American and it's on the internetz!" Well, so? I don't see that either of those are inherently bad things (Google-phobia notwithstanding!).

But hey, for all I know there's some definitive Italian crime scene collection manual the experts ignored, which gives different advice ("When using an old chip packet to collect a piece of evidence, it is crucial to shake all the crumbs out first". "Shoe-covers should, if possible, be of a colour which avoids clashing with the rest of the person's outfit". Etc).
 
Poppy1016 said:
I am curious about the bra clasp. Why wasn't stronger language used in the report about the ridiculous storage of the clasp by the independent investigators?
Click to expand...

I wonder if the way the experts stress the need to properly store items might be an implicit criticism of the way the bra clasp was stored (actually I'm still not clear exactly why it rusted, but I guess improper storage must have been the reason). Perhaps the reason they don't comment on it directly is because they weren't asked to, they were only supposed to look at the results of the tests and the way improper handling/storage etc might have affected them leading up to the testing.

I think the experts do that quite a bit actually: make very pointed remarks in bolded italics (or quote other experts in bolded italics), without explicitly commenting on the investigation in this case, but making it very clear what they think!
 
Hi Katy,
I agree that improper storage was inferred. The point is, both the knife and clasp were tested improperly. Proper storage of the clasp, may have allowed proper retesting. As a result of poor collection,storage, and testing, positive retesting was impossible. For the life of me, I can't understand how this was allowed to stand in the first trial.
While I'm not well versed in Italian procedures, common sense alone tells one that basic handling, storage, and testing procedures were not followed.
In my humble opinion, these factors alone discredit the prosecutions case.
The results of the independent review should, at the least, allow AK and RS to be released from prison for the duration of the appeal. The creation of extreme reasonable doubt, which in my mind, has already been established, should lead to a quick reversal of the guilty verdict of the first trial.
 
katy_did said:
Exactly, I mean, is there some definitive source they should have cited but didn't? Does that source say something different to all the others? It seems to me that those are the key issues if the report is being criticized for its research. At the moment the criticism is limited to "OMGZ they cited this paper, it's American and it's on the internetz!" Well, so? I don't see that either of those are inherently bad things (Google-phobia notwithstanding!).

But hey, for all I know there's some definitive Italian crime scene collection manual the experts ignored, which gives different advice ("When using an old chip packet to collect a piece of evidence, it is crucial to shake all the crumbs out first". "Shoe-covers should, if possible, be of a colour which avoids clashing with the rest of the person's outfit". Etc).
Click to expand...


:D

The bare truth is that the procedures and protocols listed by Conti/Vecchiotti are well-established across the world, and they will be completely defensible in court at the end of the month. And that's an objective assessment - not a partisan rationalisation.

In other news, I have now taken care to "lay smoke" ( :rolleyes: ) on my actual identity, so people would be wrong to look too closely for clues. And in totally unrelated news, congratulations to Paddy (Darren) Clarke on winning The Open Golf Championship :)
 
cheeky

LondonJohn said:
So a dilute spot of human blood is likely to only contain a very, very small amount of DNA. By contrast, if (for example) a person brushes their teeth and sloughs off gum or tongue skin cells, virtually all of these cells will contain DNA. It's therefore entirely likely that rinsings from tooth brushing - if not washed away - would contain a good degree more DNA than a diluted spot of blood.

Thus, if Knox had spat out after brushing her teeth, some of this had stuck to the side of the sink, and dilute spots of Meredith's blood had subsequently been deposited on top of ** this, it's entirely possible that there would be more of Knox's DNA present than Meredith's.

* even though I think there's bound to be doubt about this in light of the video and the DNA report).

** or even no more than near to each other - the "smearing" technique exposed in the crime scene video shows that the two didn't even need to be on top of each other. The blood spots should have been collected by carefully dabbing them with a small swab.
Click to expand...
LondonJohn,

Good points. Inner cheek cells are often used for reference profiles in DNA profiling.
 
Just a random thought. I was looking in the AAH forum for something else and found posts from this thread that were over a year old. Long as far as post counts go, yes I knew, but going on over a year? Wow, just wow.
 
RoseMontague said:
It seems the accusation is now some conspiracy on the part of FOA and C&V.

Wow, just wow.
Click to expand...

Hopefully a letter-writing campaign will let the prosecution know about this, so they can tell Judge Hellmann and he can have C & V explain themselves.
 
-

Even if Harry the Machine and Barbie don't post here (or read this forum), it's good to know the counter-arguments for and against so they can be used elsewhere to "set the record straight". Especially in some comment sections of some newspapers where only the "anti-innocence" side is touted as fact.

Thank you to everyone here who post information and rebuttals (whether for or against) as this has given all of us a broader understanding of the case,

Dave

-
 
Poppy1016 said:
Hi Katy,
I agree that improper storage was inferred. The point is, both the knife and clasp were tested improperly. Proper storage of the clasp, may have allowed proper retesting. As a result of poor collection,storage, and testing, positive retesting was impossible. For the life of me, I can't understand how this was allowed to stand in the first trial.
While I'm not well versed in Italian procedures, common sense alone tells one that basic handling, storage, and testing procedures were not followed.
In my humble opinion, these factors alone discredit the prosecutions case.
The results of the independent review should, at the least, allow AK and RS to be released from prison for the duration of the appeal. The creation of extreme reasonable doubt, which in my mind, has already been established, should lead to a quick reversal of the guilty verdict of the first trial.
Click to expand...

They've quite obviously deliberately spoiled the bra-clasp so it can't be re-tested. DNA is gathered from crime scene material in cases that happened years ago all the time.

The prosecution cheating as usual looks so bad that you have to let R & A out of this lop-sided looking crime that gathers a neatness and believability to it when it's just pinned on the burglar Rudy who supplied all the real evidence.

When you do the case appears sane....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom