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

[LondonJohn]

Raffe's DNA just flew off him and landed right on the victim's bra clasp, basically the worse place possible and this despite the bedroom door was locked. Had he spent time in Meredith's room before?

Talk about some bad luck for Raffe.

I'm done with the luminol blood trace question. You guys aren't going to concede that no matter how foolish. lol

How about this:

Sollecito apparently handled the outside of Meredith's door heavily and repeatedly (by his own account) when he and Knox were (by their own account) trying to get into Meredith's room before the Postal Police turned up.

It's therefore - shall we say - not improbable that Sollecito shed epithelial and/or sweat* DNA at various parts on the outside face of Meredith's door, including of course the handle.

What if - just what if - one of the "crack" forensics team that turned up in December had pushed on the outside of Meredith's door to open it - or indeed had turned the door handle - and in doing so had transferred some of Sollecito's DNA to his/her glove.

And then, what if - just what if - that same "crack" forensic technician had neglected to change his/her gloves?

And then, what if (etc...) (s)he had then been part of the bizarre spectacle where the bra clasp was passed around several white-suited goons, each of whom handled it quite clearly, and quite clearly with non-sterile gloves, and turned it around and over in their hands?

I wonder..................


* i.e. from white blood cells present in sweat

 

[Chris_Halkides]

you say crevice, I say crevasse

Knox's DNA should prove to him/pisa and others that the knife was not cleaned with bleach or in any way out of the ordinary.
The more of her DNA the better IMO.

You raise a good point. Supposedly, Meredith's DNA stayed around because it was caught in a crevice in the knife,* but it is difficult to argue that Amanda's DNA was likewise trapped in some sort of imperfection. Along with the starch, this argues against the theory that the knife was carefully cleaned.

*There are at least two problems with the crevice theory. One is that photos don't show anything. Two is that even if a small number of cells got caught in some sort of imperfection in the knife, they should still be lysed by detergent-water.

 

[LondonJohn]

lol, well maybe i'll get 3 years in prison like Knox did for accusing an innocent man of murder. A black man, by the way. Hmmmmmmm.

All I did is report what I read in a expose about Knox in a british paper.

they also interviewed a guy who said Knox tried to pay some people to arrive at her girlfriends house brandishing knives and wearing masks to scare them on Aprils fool's day.

given this murder happened the day after Halloween and Knox was trying to meet up with her on Halloween, sounds similar to this prank idea in Seattle.

Ah no, you see in properly-developed judicial systems, defamation is a civil offence.

Do you think that if Knox had been employed by a white American bar-owner in Perugia, and that she had had the same text exchange with him on the night of the murder, that she would have named a white American? (Hint: yes)

In which newspaper did you read that Knox "had a reputation of being a habitual hard drug user in Seattle"?

 

[Poppy1016]

lol secondary dna transfer is improbable. it has to stick to one object and then come off that object and stick to another. given there was only one other dna trace of raff in the house, that didn't happen. plus the door was closed.

i think only Raff, the victim and Knox (according to Steff but not enough for court) were found on the bra.

lol Now Knox's DNA was found on the bra? lol

 

[acbytesla]

lol secondary dna transfer is improbable. it has to stick to one object and then come off that object and stick to another. given there was only one other dna trace of raff in the house, that didn't happen. plus the door was closed.

i think only Raff, the victim and Knox (according to Steff but not enough for court) were found on the bra.

Improbable? So is 4 men having their DNA on the bra clasp. Yes, it is improbable. Everything about Amanda and Raffaele being involved is improbable.

 

[Skind]

don't ask me, google that -----

it is out there on the Google machine. british newspapers do real news.

You're clearly not British if you think that.

I guess all the bumpf about Chris Jefferies must be true then? After all, it was in a British newspaper.

 

[LondonJohn]

don't ask me, google that -----

it is out there on the Google machine. british newspapers do real news.

Ah best you read up on the rules of the game, old chap.

If you are the one who makes an assertion (in this case, that Knox was known as a habitual hard drug user in Seattle), it's entirely incumbent upon you to support that assertion. Not me.

(ps: if I were you, I might do that googling sooner rather than later - it might come in handy if you receive a communication from Knox's lawyer.....)

 

[acbytesla]

I'm done with the luminol blood trace question. You guys aren't going to concede that no matter how foolish. lol

You're done with the Luminol trace question, because you got your ass kicked.

You're done because you look stupid arguing this point.

 

[LondonJohn]

ok, "old chap" i don't have to prove that to you..that story has been out there for awhile. Given you are a Knox SuperFan I figured you would have heard this by now. I'm not going to dig it up for you b/c you'll just say it isn't true at that point.

i'll be sweating that call from Knox's lawyer. lol we have free speech in America, this isn't the UK

Of course you don't HAVE to prove it to me!

I'll consider it withdrawn then.

 

[acbytesla]

your logic is circularlar. you are basically saying raffe's dna isn't there if a lot of people's dna is there.

given raffe's dna shouldn't be there, that is a problem.

No, in fact the opposite is true. You're the one using circular logic. I'm saying that it is obvious that contamination took place.

you say 4 men (imply Meredith is a slut?) but it was raffe, the victim, probably Knox and maybe her boyfriend. that is why i pointed out Knox was on there according to Stef but not enough for court.

[/QUOTE]

I would never call a woman a slut. That is your domain. The fact that there is 4 men's DNA on the bra clasp proves contamination. DOH!!!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

luminol, DNA, and blood

The forensic literature is clear that luminol tests for the possibility of blood, but that a confirmatory test is necessary to conclude that something is blood. Likewise, DNA is not a confirmatory test for blood. My own interpretation is that the lack of DNA is a point against the claim that a substance is blood. I hold this view because properly applied luminol does not interfere with DNA profiling.

With respect to the luminol-positive/TMB-negative/DNA-negative areas, I asked the authors of a 2009 review article on the forensics of body fluid identification for their interpretation. Drs. Virkler and Lednev replied, “So, there was either no blood and the luminol was wrong, or there was blood and the TMB had interference and the luminol damaged the DNA. We think it is more likely that there was no blood, and that the luminol was reacting with something else, possibly plant matter from the bottom of the shoes causing the footprints (the intensity of the luminol reaction might give some more insight). The prosecution should have used much more convincing evidence to prove the presence of blood.”

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Lukis Anderson DNA case and secondary transfer

With respect to the Lukis Anderson case, we can safely rule out primary transfer from the extremely inebriated Mr. Anderson to the unfortunate murder victim. Therefore, it must be secondary/tertiary transfer. It might or might not involve the gloves or clothing worn by the paramedics.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

presumptive and confirmatory tests for forensically important fluids

Virkler and Lednev wrote a review in Forensic Science International in 2009 on testing body fluids. Professor Lednev served on a White House subcommittee on the future of forensics. Their words carry a great deal more weight than some anonymous guy who runs a pseudo-wiki full of factual errors IMO. I think that everyone knows by now that I teach biochemistry and organic chemistry.
EDT
The luminol-positive footprints in the hallway tested negative for blood and cannot be matched to anyone. At least one footprint in Amanda's room does not look like her with respect to the second toe (Rep. 180). The lack of Meredith's DNA in Rep. 180 does not support any theory that suggests that Amanda made them by stepping in Meredith's blood.

 

[acbytesla]

ok, I am ok with letting the lurkers in the audience decide that point. we just kept repeating our previous points and I wanted to end the cycle.

So am I. Anyone who has studied forensic procedure would disagree with you.

there was DNA found in those traces so it appears to have been blood.

I thought you were done?? Repeat after me. NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD,

and you never explained what it was if not blood as the Court ordered the defense to do this time.

What are you arguing now?? I thought you said you were done.

TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD. TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD.

 

[Poppy1016]

or maybe he works. that is probably most logical answer. lol

Is Mach the only other Guilter on here?

So you are not a seeker of truth, just a guilter lol. I at one time believed in the guilt theory, until I came here and read real, honest discussion of the case by very credible people who use critical thinking skills. lol

 

[MDDVS]

Tesla argues a less sensitive blood test overrules a much more sensitive blood test.

that doesn't pass the logic test.

Where are the results of the confirmatory test proving that it is blood?

 

[acbytesla]

I would never call a woman a slut. That is your domain. The fact that there is 4 men's DNA on the bra clasp proves contamination. DOH!!!
nah because 4 people could have touched it. She was restrained by 3 people in the attack. She could have touched it, her boyfriend could have. 5 realistic possibilities. Raffe's was on there in abundance and was confirmed by two different DNA tests.

You have to lay out a logical scenario for contamination. His DNA was only in the house in one other spot on the other side of the door. on a cig. it didn't fly from there.

I never called Miss Knox a "slut". I think she is a sex addict and I don't agree she was "normal". That isn't a putdown, I think she had/has mental illness.

Seriously Geoffrey? You're arguing that is logical that 4 men touched her bra clasp? BTW, none of the 4 men were Rudy. I also don't think they matched it for Giaccomo. Either Meredith got around, or that there was a lot of men in that bedroom the night she got killed..and they all just left their DNA on the bra clasp but none of them left fingerprints or shoe prints... Well all except Rudy. Or the most likely of all. CONTAMINATION!!! Give me a C. Give me an O.

What constitutes a sex addict Geoffrey? Does having sex once a week make someone a sex addict? How about twice a week? How about every day? What makes one a sex addict? Is this because you haven't found anyone willing to have sex with you that you determine that others that might be having sex occasionally are sex addicts??

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla argues a less sensitive blood test overrules a much more sensitive blood test.

that doesn't pass the logic test.

No, Tesla argues that a complimentary presumptive test overrules Luminol. Tesla is arguing that without a positive confirmatory test, the secondary negative test must stand as the most logical.

 

[moodstream]

nah i just got tied up with this blood thing.

I think your argument is kind of circular, actually.
But how, Goeffrey? How is my argument "kind of circular"? This is a silly, childish retort. Are you an adult? Is English your native language?

it is clear she is trying to combine her 1st alibi with her 2nd alibi in her written statement. she makes certain to say she is confused. but then she says she stands by her statement it was Patrick.

Is this your argument:
1st alibi = she makes certain to say she is confused
2nd alibi = she says she stands by her statement it was Patrick.
Therefore, the statement that she is confused is contradicted by the statement it was Patrick, and,
therefore she is lying about being confused, and,
therefore she is lying, and
therefore she is guilty.

If this is not your argument, would you please clarify?


then she points out that the boyfriend had blood on his hand, and that appears to be her implying that he is guilty. It just didn't seem like something she would have wrote without that being the meaning

Question: are you imputing the conclusion "she is lying about being confused" into this argument to say:

she points out that the boyfriend had blood on his hand
She is lying about being confused
Thererfore she is attempting to evade the accusations of guilt against her by suggesting her boyfriend committed the crime.

Are these your arguments? Please advise. Thank you.

 

[Rolfe]

Tesla argues a less sensitive blood test overrules a much more sensitive blood test.

that doesn't pass the logic test.

Yes it does. Do you understand the difference between sensitivity and specificity?

It is common practice to use a test which is TOO sensitive as a preliminary screen. Too sensitive means that it will throw up some false positives. Another way of expressing that is to say that the test has poor specificity.

Such tests are useful for preliminary use because they don't miss anything. You then compensate for the poor specificity by subjecting the positive samples to a second test using a method with much better specificity. So as to weed out these false positives.

This is a common way to proceed in medical testing, and it works well. If you have an HIV test done, it may come up positive with the preliminary poor-specificity test. Your sample will then be tested using a test which has much better specificity and good news, it's negative.

Will you be insisting you must really by HIV positive because the preliminary screen was positive, even if the more specific test gave you the all clear?

Rolfe.