Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[js202]

This has been discussed more than once. The watery drips were missed that night but used the next day to have a reason to fetch Raf call home and set the stage for discovery. The story continued to evolve even to include a bathmat scoot to help explain things. The doors went from open closed to ajar an attempt to make the sequence fit.

Why did AK and RS need to "set the stage for discovery"? After all, hadn't they already masterfully cleaned up? Wouldn't they be nervous as hell, and immediately fly out of town on the trip they'd already planned?

In the annals of crime, how often do perpetrators return to the scene to actually greet the police? Wouldn't these two individuals - barely out of their teens - be frightened to death they would immediately do something to catch themselves up?

And this "bathroom scoot" nonsense is, again, something pro-guilt persons with too much time on their hands prattle on about. If it occurred, it is proof of nothing.

 

[Bill Williams]

This has been discussed more than once. The watery drips were missed that night but used the next day to have a reason to fetch Raf call home and set the stage for discovery. The story continued to evolve even to include a bathmat scoot to help explain things. The doors went from open closed to ajar an attempt to make the sequence fit.

The saddest thing about this comment is that you have discussed this more than once.

You are inventing a scenario which fits a predetermined conclusion of guilt. You are saying, "It must have gone this way, or else I cannot find them guilty. They are guilty, therefore it must have happened this way."

I'm beginning to understand where you're coming from. You really do need these two to be guilty, don't you? Otherwise you'd use the evidence to evaluate this, rather than present a series of events which must have happened (without a scintilla of indication it actually DID happen that way) to arrive at the conclusion you started with.

 

[Bill Williams]

Sorry Bill you]re sounding a little too much like Nina and her pagan angle.

You mean Nina got it right, too?

 

[acbytesla]

I've never understood why the guilters try and say that Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood is probative. It is so incredibly disingenuous, so why do they do it? Amanda had spent up to 960 hours in that cottage before the night of the murder and if the murder took say an hour, there is 960 time the chance that any of Amanda's DNA being found anywhere in the cottage is something innocent as opposed to being related to the murder.

So Briars, why do you repeat it like it means something?

 

[Briars]

I've never understood why the guilters try and say that Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood is probative. It is so incredibly disingenuous, so why do they do it? Amanda had spent up to 960 hours in that cottage before the night of the murder and if the murder took say an hour, there is 960 time the chance that any of Amanda's DNA being found anywhere in the cottage is something innocent as opposed to being related to the murder.

So Briars, why do you repeat it like it means something?

Why do you suggest that a lone blob of mixed DNA and blood Massei said was deposited at the same time in Filomena's room is nothing? Cohabitation doesn't explain that.Why do you not find that odd? Right because they are innocent, and that explains why you don't have to worry about that or why Guede left no trace on the wall or spec of dirt in that room.

 

[js202]

Why do you suggest that a lone blob of mixed DNA and blood Massei said was deposited at the same time in Filomena's room is nothing? Cohabitation doesn't explain that.Why do you not find that odd? Right because they are innocent, and that explains why you don't have to worry about that or why Guede left no trace on the wall or spec of dirt in that room.

There is no way whatsoever to conclusively determine that the entities were "deposited at the same time."

As for a merely plausible explanation of how they were deposited there, consult the protocols - or lack thereof - of the Perugian forensic technicians. This procedural flaw has been repeatedly mentioned by experts who do not accept the results achieved by such "techniques", and, moreover, have no dog in this fight.

As for the timing, Amanda's DNA could have been deposited one day when she paid a friendly visit to Filomena in her room. It could also have been transferred on the booties of a forensic tech moving from the bathroom to Filomena's room. Meredith's blood could have been transferred on the booties of such a tech. It also could have been transferred by Rudy as he made one more pass through Filomena's room after having murdered Meredith.

You do not consider such possibilities - advocated by professionals with far more experience than you or me - because you want to remain steadfast in your belief that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are guilty. Therefore you blithely reject any data that is recalcitrant to the conclusion you have reached.

 

[acbytesla]

Why do you suggest that a lone blob of mixed DNA and blood Massei said was deposited at the same time in Filomena's room is nothing? Cohabitation doesn't explain that.Why do you not find that odd? Right because they are innocent, and that explains why you don't have to worry about that or why Guede left no trace on the wall or spec of dirt in that room.

One, there is no way that Massei can make that statement with any reliability. He simply is talking out his ass.

As with the semen stain you can't time stamp DNA. And you absolutely can explain that with cohabitation. Random bits of Amanda's DNA is all over that house and I mean all over. You do realize that a major component of dust is sloughed off epithelial cells don't you? And guess what Briars? DNA does in fact fly, or float through the air.

Two, Guede had been in the house for maybe an hour, and he left 5 DNA samples All within the murder room. That is very significant. The fact that other samples of his DNA were not found elsewhere may be the result that he just wasn't in the house long enough, or that there weren't enough samples taken. I certainly don't draw a conclusion from the absence of his DNA elsewhere. especially since a very limited number of samples were taken outside the bedroom and Amanda and Meredith's shared bathroom.

 

[Skind]

Why do you suggest that a lone blob of mixed DNA and blood Massei said was deposited at the same time in Filomena's room is nothing?

Because the person whose job it was to collect it and analyse it properly managed to totally fail to demonstrate that she did either of those things, despite being given significant chances to do so - far greater than would be allowed in the health or medical professions.

Thus we cannot make any statement other than "one of the test results came back as a mixed profile".

At this point, we can't even legitimately call it a mixed sample, as we cannot eliminate sampling or post-sampling errors.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA has no timestamp

Why do you suggest that a lone blob of mixed DNA and blood Massei said was deposited at the same time in Filomena's room is nothing? Cohabitation doesn't explain that.Why do you not find that odd? Right because they are innocent, and that explains why you don't have to worry about that or why Guede left no trace on the wall or spec of dirt in that room.

Massei runs roughshod over certain forensic principles, but he is a judge and can be forgiven up to a point. Johnson and Hampikian wrote, "DNA testing cannot determine how biological material was deposited onto an item of evidence: whether by direct deposit, or by secondary transfer through an intermediary. DNA testing cannot determine how long biological material may have been on an item, or whether contamination occurred during collection."

DNA has no timestamp, and neither does luminol. Guede was only in Filomena's room for a relatively brief period. Did the police swab for DNA on any items that he might have touched? I can't find any indication that they did, beyond swabbing the rock. There are specks of dirt in that room that look to me as though they came from outside (the photos may be at IA, but I am not certain).

As Acbytesla pointed out, the TMB test was negative and no confirmatory test (one involving antibodies that are specific for a component of blood) was run. Calling the luminol-positive blob in Filomena's room blood does not make it so (check the relevant entries at viewfromwilmington for expert opinion from world-recognized experts on this question). The burden of proof is on the forensic police to show that it is, and they failed. However, I happen to believe that there is a small chance that the luminol positive area is blood. The FP walked in Meredith's dried blood (shown on a photograph), and they wore one-piece garments. They might have brought Meredith's blood into Filomena's room on the boot portion of their garments. That having been said, I don't find this explanation terribly likely. For example, it does not explain why some areas and not others are luminol-positive. However, it does highlight why one is supposed to collect forensic evidence in a timely manner and with good technique.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

airborne DNA

As with the semen stain you can't time stamp DNA. And you absolutely can explain that with cohabitation. Random bits of Amanda's DNA is all over that house and I mean all over. You do realize that a major component of dust is sloughed off epithelial cells don't you? And guess what Briars? DNA does in fact fly, or float through the air.

Indeed, DNA does fly, and the forensic police should have changed gloves each time they handled a new piece of evidence. The fact that they did not should bother even PG commenters. Even if one thinks that the two are guilty, he or she should also acknowledge that the FP will eventually put away innocent people with their sloppy way of working.

 

[acbytesla]

It is very clear Briars that you are reading the evidence with guilt in mind. As Halides as clearly demonstrated the "blob" with Amanda' DNA in Filomena's bedroom may be blood, and may not be blood. You have to want it to be blood to come to that conclusion when in fact there is no way to "honestly" determine that it is. And given that Amanda lived in that house there is no way to come to the conclusion that this tiny microscopic piece of DNA in Filomena's room has to be there as the result of something nefarious.

I've said a hundred times that the absence of Amanda's DNA in Meredith's bedroom is significant, however, if they had found Amanda;s DNA all over Meredith's bedroom that however wouldn't have been. And having that opinion is not some kind of selective interpretation. It is with the knowledge that the cottage was Amanda's domicile and one could expect to find her DNA everywhere in that cottage.

It is simply wrong to come up with a guilty interpretation of Amanda's DNA in her own home.

 

[Briars]

One, there is no way that Massei can make that statement with any reliability. He simply is talking out his ass.

As with the semen stain you can't time stamp DNA. And you absolutely can explain that with cohabitation. Random bits of Amanda's DNA is all over that house and I mean all over. You do realize that a major component of dust is sloughed off epithelial cells don't you? And guess what Briars? DNA does in fact fly, or float through the air.

Two, Guede had been in the house for maybe an hour, and he left 5 DNA samples All within the murder room. That is very significant. The fact that other samples of his DNA were not found elsewhere may be the result that he just wasn't in the house long enough, or that there weren't enough samples taken. I certainly don't draw a conclusion from the absence of his DNA elsewhere. especially since a very limited number of samples were taken outside the bedroom and Amanda and Meredith's shared bathroom.[
Calling it a semen stain , and not understanding that sloughed of skin cells are very different from the DNA found in the blob and clasp help me to under stand your perspective.

 

[acbytesla]

One, there is no way that Massei can make that statement with any reliability. He simply is talking out his ass.

As with the semen stain you can't time stamp DNA. And you absolutely can explain that with cohabitation. Random bits of Amanda's DNA is all over that house and I mean all over. You do realize that a major component of dust is sloughed off epithelial cells don't you? And guess what Briars? DNA does in fact fly, or float through the air.

Two, Guede had been in the house for maybe an hour, and he left 5 DNA samples All within the murder room. That is very significant. The fact that other samples of his DNA were not found elsewhere may be the result that he just wasn't in the house long enough, or that there weren't enough samples taken. I certainly don't draw a conclusion from the absence of his DNA elsewhere. especially since a very limited number of samples were taken outside the bedroom and Amanda and Meredith's shared bathroom.

Calling it a semen stain , and not understanding that sloughed of skin cells are very different from the DNA found in the blob and clasp help me to under stand your perspective.

I'm not saying it is a semen stain. but DNA date stamping was the reason that Massei used to refuse testing that stain.

You have no idea of the nature of the DNA cells found in the blob. And frankly, neither do I. What I do know about the blob, is that it tested negative for blood.

So what is it Briars?

The reality is that nobody knows. Not you, not me, not Massei, not Stefanoni, not anybody. There is no reason not to think that it isn't epithelial cells. Even in your belief, aren't they Amanda's epithelial cells in Meredith's blood or are you hypothesizing something else?

 

[Briars]

I'm not saying it is a semen stain. but DNA date stamping was the reason that Massei used to refuse testing that stain.

You have no idea of the nature of the DNA cells found in the blob. And frankly, neither do I. What I do know about the blob, is that it tested negative for blood.

So what is it Briars?

The reality is that nobody knows. Not you, not me, not Massei, not Stefanoni, not anybody. There is no reason not to think that it isn't epithelial cells. Even in your belief, aren't they Amanda's epithelial cells in Meredith's blood or are you hypothesizing something else?

The reality is that sloughed of dry skin abundant in dust is not the type of DNA found in the blob which is a concern. To explain how it arrived mixed in the sample with Meredith's blood, Massei gave an example of vigourous hand washing which extracted a very different and far less common type of DNA.

 

[Bill Williams]

The reality is that sloughed of dry skin abundant in dust is not the type of DNA found in the blob which is a concern. To explain how it arrived mixed in the sample with Meredith's blood, Massei gave an example of vigourous hand washing which extracted a very different and far less common type of DNA.

A different kind of DNA? Are you serious?

Everyone. Please copy and save this post of Briars'. I will leave it to Briars to either discover the "problem" with this post or let him/her wallow in what seems to be extreme ignorance.

A different kind of DNA? Ah. Er. OK.

 

[Briars]

A different kind of DNA? Are you serious?

Everyone. Please copy and save this post of Briars'. I will leave it to Briars to either discover the "problem" with this post or let him/her wallow in what seems to be extreme ignorance.

A different kind of DNA? Ah. Er. OK.

This is news to you Bill that sloughed off DNA found in dry skin cells is incomplete and different from a live sample ?? wow

 

[Bill Williams]

Sorry. Formatting screwed up. It is Briars not acbytesla who is claiming differing kinds of DNA.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is news to you Bill that sloughed of DNA found in dry skin cells is incomplete and different from a live sample ?? wow

You then seem to know something that Massei does not. Massei calls it "biological material". I sincerely hope you are the forensic interpreter to the new prosecution.

If it is incomplete DNA, how do you attribute to someone?

 

[MDDVS]

A different kind of DNA? Are you serious?

Everyone. Please copy and save this post of Briars'. I will leave it to Briars to either discover the "problem" with this post or let him/her wallow in what seems to be extreme ignorance.

A different kind of DNA? Ah. Er. OK.

Maybe he meant RNA. Or maybe he's implying Amanda is not really human?

 

[acbytesla]

The reality is that sloughed of dry skin abundant in dust is not the type of DNA found in the blob which is a concern. To explain how it arrived mixed in the sample with Meredith's blood, Massei gave an example of vigourous hand washing which extracted a very different and far less common type of DNA.

Excuse me? You see this is where both you and Massei go riding the train off the rails. There in fact is no evidence that the DNA in this blob is any different than any epithelial cell (dried or fresh) That is of course, impossible to determine. Please provide scientific peer reviewed evidence, not some know it all lawyer or judge who flunked out of science class. (Also, you still keep saying this blob is Meredith's blood despite the negative TMB test or any confirmatory antibody test)

How do you or anyone have the right to say that it is blood given that fact? Do you think that if you call it blood over and over again without the test that somehow the world should believe it to be blood?

You see, that is the difference between you and I Briars. I think the police and prosecution have to prove their contentions, not merely make them.

All we know about that blob, is that it fluoresced under Luminol and that when swabbed a DNA profile from Amanda was identified. No one, not Massei, not me, not you NOT ANYONE can tell us the nature of that DNA. That is the fact. The rest, is in fact, conjecture.