What, it's proven that Raffaele's DNA got their via dust? No it isn't.
Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case
- Thread starter Chris_Halkides
- Start date
- Status
christianahannah
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2010
- Messages
- 1,426
I am not certain either. The reason I am in question about this is in both Raffaele's and Rudy's case (obviously more samples on Rudy's part) other than the handprint of Rudy I thought the other samples which pointed to Rudy's DNA were mixed samples which then had to be further tested by the Y-haplotype to narrow down the mixture to Rudy as one of the contributors (as was Raffaele's with the bra clasp).
I think the Y-haplotype test is done because the female profile overwhelms the male profile and the Y-haplotype narrows the male profile. It has mostly been used to rule out a profile of a suspect (such as in rape cases with the Innocence Project) and I guess recently has been used to narrow down a profile (where STR testing fails to do so). I am not sure this is a proper use for the Y-haplotype test and believe this was argued in court by one of the consultants on the defense side.
christianahannah
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2010
- Messages
- 1,426
I think even if she would be brought up on the callunia charge (and I think that is doubtful if acquitted of murder) it would be of no matter because she has already been almost four years in prison and it would be time served.
Oops. I see you have said the same as I so we agree.
Freedom of speech
There are always two sides to a story, if PQ and PG, said that these web sites are only for the people who think that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty that would be fine.
They have stated the case of what the web site was about.
But letting other people in and deleting their views, which are that Amanda and Raffaeale are innocent, that is not the freedom of speech.
As in the 1st amendment in the USA, there must be two points of view, right or wrong, they must always be publicly viewed, that is the freedom of speech.
So all in all the 1st Amendment will not apply to PQ or PG, and if AK and RS want to sue, they would have every right.
There are always two sides to a story, if PQ and PG, said that these web sites are only for the people who think that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty that would be fine.
They have stated the case of what the web site was about.
But letting other people in and deleting their views, which are that Amanda and Raffaeale are innocent, that is not the freedom of speech.
As in the 1st amendment in the USA, there must be two points of view, right or wrong, they must always be publicly viewed, that is the freedom of speech.
So all in all the 1st Amendment will not apply to PQ or PG, and if AK and RS want to sue, they would have every right.
Mop gift wrapping
At the end of the vid they walk it straight into the murder room. Why?????
I have to admit - I think it has only been suggested that this is the mop that Amanda brought to Raffaele's. Can anyone confirm that this is the mop used to mop up the mess at Raffaele's?
Also the more continuous video that is available should be analyzed to see what they did with this mop and understand how long they were in that room with the mop.
If indeed they were up to some "stack the deck" activities, all they would have had to do was take that mop and press it quickly against the bra clasp sitting right there on the floor.
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
Why doesn't it have to be proven it was the result of him being engaged in the murder, being as that's the topic under discussion? Can you explain the other two male contributors without mentioning a 'waxed Brazilian?' If that is too convoluted, why would you think his profile a result of him being involved in the murder?
I already know the answer to this, even if you don't!
Justinian2
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,804
The quantity of Meredith's DNA was huge. Her blood was splattered all over her room. Her DNA was on all her clothes. Everytime a DNA sample was tested, the copies of her DNA would get copied 128 million times. If there were a million of her cells in the various samples taken, that's a lot of DNA! At 10 pico grams per molecule, a million molecules only weighs 10 micro grams. That amount could be contained on one Q tip.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
I think your understanding of the First Amendment is incorrect, but I'm not American so I am not going to push the point.
My main point was that Knox will not want to skip from one courtroom where she has been effectively stuck for the last four years straight into another one. So I don't think she will be suing anybody in a hurry.
Kaosium,
for the 1001'th time I'm not convinced about the knife or the clasp. I'm not interested in being convinced. Some of the arguments about them interest me. I don't mean to take this stance as a trick, or a trap. It's how I feel. People keep arguing with me as if actually I really did think the knife was the murder weapon. None the less I think airborne contamination is surprising for the reasons I've stated. I'm not sure that there is much I can add.
for the 1001'th time I'm not convinced about the knife or the clasp. I'm not interested in being convinced. Some of the arguments about them interest me. I don't mean to take this stance as a trick, or a trap. It's how I feel. People keep arguing with me as if actually I really did think the knife was the murder weapon. None the less I think airborne contamination is surprising for the reasons I've stated. I'm not sure that there is much I can add.
All perfectly good arguments.
Well I would say that they are saying there was plenty of opportunity for Raffaele's DNA to have been transferred to the clasp outside of him actually being involved in the murder because the clasp sat around and moved, it is not documented how, when, and what the circumstances of this move were. They can't say that the contamination was from willful contamination without any other evidence to support that, but they certainly aren't explicitly excluding this scenario. For all I know, they took the clasp to Raffaele's house and rubbed it against his pillow and came back with it.
And if I understand the DNA report, isn't the bigger point that it is not even proven to be Raffaele's DNA on the clasp?
Last edited:
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Has anybody ever been able to come up with any sort of explanation as to what the hell they think they are doing in that video?
RoseMontague
Published Author
I don't understand most of this but I like the part about the female profile overwhelming the male. LOL.
If the rest of it means they cheated, fudged, or otherwise tried something fishy to fit the evidence into their pet theory, then I agree completely.
Katody Matrass
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,119
It's proven that the cops acted stupid. They facilitated so many paths of contamination that I really don't care about the dust.
RoseMontague
Published Author
Looking at <Dr Stefi's DNA presentations in court, it appears she used American sources on a lot of this, even left them in English on some of her powerpoints. Go figure. I'll try to snag a few shots on this.
JREF2010
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,786
I cant understand the reduced sentence view.
Covering for Rudys Lone Wolf crime in the bedroom?
Lets call it A day
It will not be knox going from court to court, it will be her lawers.
That will happen in the EU, and and In America.
So lets call it a day on that one.
And have nice one
.
It will not be knox going from court to court, it will be her lawers.
That will happen in the EU, and and In America.
So lets call it a day on that one.
And have nice one
Last edited:
christianahannah
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2010
- Messages
- 1,426
Well you know I don't subscribe to cheated, fudged(?) or otherwise tried something fishy to any side in this case. People can be innocent without these things happening.
I don't know if the Y-test is becoming more in use to narrow down a profile of a suspect. In the past (and by past it is meant very recent past) it was used mainly to rule out a suspect (or someone who was already convicted).
I think it was Tagliabracci who aruged that the Y-test was used to rule out and not to convict, though others had a different view. Out of all the profiles C&V said may be on the clasp, Tagliabracci did state that Rudy's was not on the clasp (due to the Y-test).
RoseMontague
Published Author
This sounds more like the Fairness in Reporting act that was repealed by Ronald Reagan in the 80s. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2053
I am not sure if this was allowed during the act, but I often hear that because of this we (in the USA) get guys like Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann spouting very one-sided BS all the time in the USA in TV and Radio programs.
I would think the 1st amendment interpretation of the scenario of TJMK and PMF would be that they are allowed to use their own sites to express whatever opinion, popular or not, however they like. These are their sites, and they can control what people post on them. Just like a newspaper can publish whatever article they like and have whatever slant. TJMK or PMF are not violating my freedom of speech when they delete my postings. They piss me off and they lose credibility, but they can do that all day long for eternity under the current laws in the USA.
If Peter Quennell marched on Washington with a bunch of guilters and said, picketed - "don't let Amanda Knox go free" and the police arrested them because of this message, that would be a violation. In the aftermath of 9/11, it was a very unpopular "non-american" view to dissent about the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq. Had someone been arrested for expressing this view, that would have been a violation.
Then there is defamation which people talk a lot about regarding PMF, TJMK, Barbie, Andrea, and the Daily Mail/Nick Pisa/Sky News. It seems you'd have to prove that the information they published was known by the publisher to be wrong and damaging to a person for any chance of success in a case like that.
You seem very keen on this very large number. It's not like they amplified all of Meredith's blood. They amplified a tiny tiny bit of it. They also amplified a bunch of other stuff as well. Not forgetting that the things doing the amplifying contained 10-50trillion cells of which approximately 3.6kg were shed per year. I don't know what fraction of the ambient DNA would have been Meredith's. I have no idea what the half life of it in the lab would be. I don't think you do either.
You've left out the comparison with the other DNA that there may have been floating about as well.
I'm not arguing that contamination did not or could not have occurred. I just think you are overstating your case.
- Status