Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

You have been told, and given a reliable source, Amanda contacted Mez throughout the day, with Mez only bothering to answer once. Did you wilfully disregard this fact?

Not this again! You have produced no source for these. You have been repeatedly told that additional messages between Amanda and Kercher did not take place. You actually went away to find them and could not. The actual messages, 2 from Amanda and 1 from Kercher have been shown to you. That's it! There are no more.

Why do you persist? Why aren't you embarrassed?

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm taking the pledge Bill.

From now on I'm IGNORING a female member who shall not be named. From this day forward I will not respond to ANY of her posts. I would suggest that others do the same. But that is your individual choices. I have found that it is impossible to limit myself to addressing only her deceptive posts that she unashamedly makes on this forum.

It is tiresome to play whack a mole and having your string pulled. And as much as I hate allowing her lies about 2 good and innocent people left unaddressed, but I must.

Or they'll ban me any way.

It's been fun playing.

Careful, js202 can be a harsh taskmaster. The thigh-cincher is the worst. Then again, the self-flaggelation ain't great either.....

I'm >< far from begging V**** to say something dumb again. Maybe about the non-existent striation. Maybe about the lamp....

 

[Mr Fied]

Please refer to her diary list of HIV suspects, where she writes after Raff's name he took a lot of cocaine and acid.

So you are familiar with Amanda's list of HIV suspects sexual partners.

How many were from her time in Italy?

 

[Vixen]

To put some facts

1) Sollecito DNA on bra clasp.

Steffanoni failed to properly quantify the DNA so we do not know.
The best estimate is relying on Steffanoni's estimates of 1 ng total DNA. About 1/6 being non Kercher DNA. So the Sollecito DNA is less than 200 pg this falls into the definition of LCN DNA.

2) There is no locus attributable to Sollecito with >1300 RFU. This is a lie. (Not surprising given the source.)

The only locus giving a reading of >1300 RFU is CSF1PO with 12 repeats. Kercher is homozygous for this. Sollecito is heterozygous with one allele being 10, the other being 12. Looking at CSF1PO for 10 repeats we se the RFU is about 50RFU. The contribution from each allele is equal. Therefore we can say that the contribution from Sollecito is about 50 of the 1300 RFU. The rest from Kercher. This really suggests that Sollecito's contribution to the DNA is about 10% putting a value of about 100 pg as his contribution. Even this ignores the other contributors, and assumes Steffanoni's estimate is correct, the latter is somewhat doubtful as she tends to overestimate DNA quantities. So the true quantity of Sollecito DNA is likely to be less than 100 pg.

Refs (because that is how you support statements by pointing to the original data) well presented here.
https://forensicdnaconsulting.wordp...perts’-report-in-the-amanda-knox-case-part-2/

With the greatest of respect, Planigale, the website of 'Amanda Knox' would downplay the significance of Raff's DNA, wouldn't it?

Vecchiotti and Conti were furtive, underhand and lacked credibility. As you know, they were admonished as intellectually dishonest by the Supreme Court (Chieffi).

Please may I refer you to a more reliable, neutral source:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Bra_Clasp

 

[carbonjam72]

Density of common salt is about 2g/cc.

So a grain that was at the limit of (unaided) vision 1/10 mm / side would weigh about 2 microgram, Ten thousand times than we are talking about. So we need to go down to a grain about 4 microns (4/1,000 mm) on the side. A red blood cell is about 8 micron in diameter. This about ten times the limit of vision with an optical microscope.

This explanation is intriguing to me. Thanks so much for trying to explain this, and I'm trying to figure out why I'm having trouble making sense out of it.

The notion of using a "grain" of sand or salt, is a common point of reference that most people will know or understand as being tiny in the familiar everyday kind of experience.

In the context of microscopic measurements, which can't be seen by the eye unaided by magnification, or even with simple glass lens magnification, the phrase "grain" is not helpful in assessing the quality or strength of scientific measurements, and hence the evidence at issue.

It's a poor analogy for comparing the reliability of a particular DNA result, because any DNA test below the threshold of visibility to the eye, will seem equally challenged. So its a poor analogy in the context it was brought up, namely, to challenge the validity of a DNA result at issue.
It is however instructive, in getting a sense of the physical challenges at issue, in the collection, preservation testing and susceptibility to contamination at issue in this type of scientific evidence. It gives us the chance to comprehend the relative size of sample, in comparison to a common familiar object. It shows us how far down the scale of measurement we are going, in order to grasp the nature of the substance at issue.

So then, what do these measurements actually mean?

1. "Density of common salt is about 2g/cc".
Ok, 2g means two grams. What is "cc"'s? Is this a measure of volume known as centiliters? (1/100th of a liter?).

2. So a grain that was at the limit of (unaided) vision 1/10 mm / side would weigh about 2 microgram, Ten thousand times than we are talking about.
A. So "a grain of sand has a 1/10 mm /side" - does this mean a grain of sand with a width (or length) of 1/10th of a millimeter? (does MM stand for millimeters?).

B. "... would weigh about 2 micro-grams" (If a milligram is 1,000th of a gram, is a micro gram equal to 1/1,000th of a milligram?).

C. ... "Ten thousand times that we are talking about." (What are we talking about? I've lost the object reference).

3. "So we need to go down to a grain about 4 microns (4/1,000 mm) on the side. A red blood cell is about 8 micron in diameter. This about ten times the limit of vision with an optical microscope."
A. ...So we need to go down to a grain of about 4 microns (4/1,000 mm) on the side... (What is a micron? Is it a 1,000th of a MM (millimeter?)

B. "A red blood cell is about 8 micron in diameter." (still not sure what a micron is, so maybe this is why I'm getting confused).

C. "This about ten times the limit of vision with an optical microscope." (Still not sure what a micron is).

--------------

The point of this exercise, is to explore how easy it is to get lost in technical explanations, and how hard it is to gauge the audience with whom one is hopefully communicating.

I've seen this over and over, where technical explanations become hard to follow because of a gap in vocabulary and basic concepts, that make arguments harder to understand than they need to be.

Without knowledgeable people to help lead us through the darkness, we really would be lost. But talking over the heads of the audience is frustrating to the listener and speaker both. Yet it happens so often, and so often the results of the conversation go astray, are misinterpreted, or put to improper use.

Mach, Ergon, and other folks think they are experts, and routinely spout numbers, challenge experts, and generally mislead people. Their arguments are best challenged on the merits. But that's hard to do without a grounding in the facts, and its hard to be an expert in all things, so we rely on experts to help us. But I advocate following the arguments rigorously, not just blind acceptance of what experts say.

So Planingale, thanks so much for your efforts and willingness to try to explain this 'sciency stuff'. For my own part, I know I've got a seat reserved on the short yellow bus, but I'm trying.

 

[Vixen]

Thanks for the facts, always useful. If you would take a minute to look at this - A single grain of salt weighs 100 MILLION picograms. (the best factual weight I can find, Allen Blackman. Chemistry Magazine 10/08/01)) then the material attributed to Raf would be 1/500,000 of a grain of salt.

Would you agree with the above as a way to demonstrate what tiny amounts the PGP have characterized as "abundant" or "large" amounts?

For me this makes perfectly clear that in those amounts DNA can "fly"and it makes clear how easy secondary and tertiary transfer is.

It's a bit silly talking about 'grains of salt' when this can vary wildly depending on how finely or coarsely it's ground. It's not as if we are talking about atoms, invisible to the human eye.

You need to state your assumption.

 

[acbytesla]

Careful, js202 can be a harsh taskmaster. The thigh-cincher is the worst. Then again, the self-flaggelation ain't great either.....

I'm >< far from begging V**** to say something dumb again. Maybe about the non-existent striation. Maybe about the lamp....

It's totally clear to me now that the Membership agreement makes it easy for a member to spread falsehoods on the forum without any ramifications. And that the only choice for other members is to ignore them.
Just one example,

The so called "barrage of Amanda's desperate texts" was brought up first as an accusation that another member was lying through omission.

This was disproven by multiple members and even agreed by this person as a mistake, error, false, etc. Now only days later it is regenerated by this same person and Kauffer just addressed it again for what? The thirtieth time? (Probably an exaggeration, but not much of one)

This has been a constantly repeated pattern. Personally, I am tired of it, but the rules of this forum don't preclude this behavior but in fact seems to encourage it. It is hard for me to not address the falsehoods and allow them to stand unanswered. Still, I have no desire to address them and then be forced to address them again and again and again.

I'll take my chances with js202.

 

[Vixen]

So it's "one thing" for Sollecito (and Knox) to have experimented with drugs at that time in their lives, is it? I thought the party line for the Knox-haters was to demonise them for their indulgences?

And I don't know if you were aware, but Knox and Sollecito were recently definitively acquitted of Kercher's murder, by means of being found innocent. It appears that you might not actually know that. You're welcome

(And it's "n'est-ce pas". If you're going to employ French phrases - and heaven knows why - at least get them right. eh?)

Stop being obtuse. You know perefectly well the prosecution case is that Mez was murdered by three maniacs giving themselves dutch courage with illegal drugs.

No doubt your views are so left field, you are arguing it's an infringement of the perps' rights to object to their criminal behaviour whilst stoned out of their boxes. Nothing wrong with three against one in your world, I'm sure.

 

[Vixen]

Please feel free to provide a Amy documentation that I have misrepresented or distorted the facts. That in contradiction to the fact that virtually EVERY POST of yours has been proven to be lie after lie after lie.

AND that is proven.

What's it like to live in a fantasy world?

Where's the proof?

There isn't any, because you have no debating tools except ad hominem.

 

[Mr Fied]

Stop being obtuse. You know perefectly well the prosecution case is that Mez was murdered by three maniacs giving themselves dutch courage with illegal drugs.

And you know perfectly well two of the accused were found not guilty.

 

[Numbers]

This explanation is intriguing to me. Thanks so much for trying to explain this, and I'm trying to figure out why I'm having trouble making sense out of it.

The notion of using a "grain" of sand or salt, is a common point of reference that most people will know or understand as being tiny in the familiar everyday kind of experience.

In the context of microscopic measurements, which can't be seen by the eye unaided by magnification, or even with simple glass lens magnification, the phrase "grain" is not helpful in assessing the quality or strength of scientific measurements, and hence the evidence at issue.

It's a poor analogy for comparing the reliability of a particular DNA result, because any DNA test below the threshold of visibility to the eye, will seem equally challenged. So its a poor analogy in the context it was brought up, namely, to challenge the validity of a DNA result at issue.
It is however instructive, in getting a sense of the physical challenges at issue, in the collection, preservation testing and susceptibility to contamination at issue in this type of scientific evidence. It gives us the chance to comprehend the relative size of sample, in comparison to a common familiar object. It shows us how far down the scale of measurement we are going, in order to grasp the nature of the substance at issue.

So then, what do these measurements actually mean?

1. "Density of common salt is about 2g/cc".
Ok, 2g means two grams. What is "cc"'s? Is this a measure of volume known as centiliters? (1/100th of a liter?).

2. So a grain that was at the limit of (unaided) vision 1/10 mm / side would weigh about 2 microgram, Ten thousand times than we are talking about.
A. So "a grain of sand has a 1/10 mm /side" - does this mean a grain of sand with a width (or length) of 1/10th of a millimeter? (does MM stand for millimeters?).

B. "... would weigh about 2 micro-grams" (If a milligram is 1,000th of a gram, is a micro gram equal to 1/1,000th of a milligram?).

C. ... "Ten thousand times that we are talking about." (What are we talking about? I've lost the object reference).

3. "So we need to go down to a grain about 4 microns (4/1,000 mm) on the side. A red blood cell is about 8 micron in diameter. This about ten times the limit of vision with an optical microscope."
A. ...So we need to go down to a grain of about 4 microns (4/1,000 mm) on the side... (What is a micron? Is it a 1,000th of a MM (millimeter?)

B. "A red blood cell is about 8 micron in diameter." (still not sure what a micron is, so maybe this is why I'm getting confused).

C. "This about ten times the limit of vision with an optical microscope." (Still not sure what a micron is).

--------------

The point of this exercise, is to explore how easy it is to get lost in technical explanations, and how hard it is to gauge the audience with whom one is hopefully communicating.

I've seen this over and over, where technical explanations become hard to follow because of a gap in vocabulary and basic concepts, that make arguments harder to understand than they need to be.

Without knowledgeable people to help lead us through the darkness, we really would be lost. But talking over the heads of the audience is frustrating to the listener and speaker both. Yet it happens so often, and so often the results of the conversation go astray, are misinterpreted, or put to improper use.

Mach, Ergon, and other folks think they are experts, and routinely spout numbers, challenge experts, and generally mislead people. Their arguments are best challenged on the merits. But that's hard to do without a grounding in the facts, and its hard to be an expert in all things, so we rely on experts to help us. But I advocate following the arguments rigorously, not just blind acceptance of what experts say.

So Planingale, thanks so much for your efforts and willingness to try to explain this 'sciency stuff'. For my own part, I know I've got a seat reserved on the short yellow bus, but I'm trying.

carbonjam,

You've made some good points about the difficulty of understanding scientific arguments without all the underlying vocabulary being clear*. But more importantly, you are pointing out, I believe, that the analogy about size is not as critical as an analogy or description about the relative lack of reliabilty of Low Copy Number DNA profiling technology compared to "conventional" DNA profiling technology.

Low Copy Number DNA is typically considered to be DNA samples of about 100 pg (where pg = picogram = 10^-12 grams, or 1 trillionth of a gram) mass.

The problems with LCN DNA are not merely the tiny size, but include, and are not limited to: 1) extreme problems with contamination from other such possibly extraneous tiny bits of LCN DNA at the crime scene or in the lab (or anywhere); 2. statistical anomalies in the replication of the alleles during the polymerase chain reaction, with some true alleles sometimes getting lost, other false one sometimes appearing; 3. the extreme difficulties of replicating tests due to the small amount of material - and replication of tests with statistical analysis is the primary method scientists use to determine reliability of tests; 4. the small amount of available DNA means that additional cycles of DNA replication must be used to gain enough DNA for adequate profile signal strength, and such new methods must be subjected to rigorous scientific validation, as must any new scientific method that is to be used for a critical purpose, such as trial evidence. This list of problems can probably be expanded by those with more knowledge of this area.


*cc = cubic centimeter; 1 cc = 1 ml where ml = milliliter (note meter = metre and liter = litre outside the US)

mm = millimeter = 1/1000 meter

micron = micrometer = 1/1000 millimeter {"micron" is an older term for micrometer.) Symbol for "micrometer" is: (Greek letter mu)m.

 

[Vixen]

Lalli didn't say she was over the legal limit just that she had IIRC .43 g/l
He stated that the results of the toxicological analyses revealed the absence of psychotropic drugs and a blood alcohol level of 0.43 grams/litre. which is about half the legal limit in England.

I don't believe she had enough alcohol in her system at 5 am to still have .43 at 9:30 pm. This means she drank during the day or evening and the birds didn't know or they lied to make Meredith look better.

Btw, do you feel the same way about booze as you do other drugs?

What do you mean? My view is, your body is a temple and you should keep it free of impurities.

There is a common perception, "we should be free to take drugs if we want to", and sure, mankind has had an urge to experience changes of consciousness since antiquity. Problem is, with substances being illegal, every time you obtain psychotropic drugs, you are funding serious organised crime.

Drugs, including one of the hardest drugs of all, according to WHO, alcohol, can do serious damage to your mind, body and spirit, not to mention your economic well-being.

I enjoy a good fine wine, but moderately. I rarely drink spirits or beer (mild intolerance). Being a Finn, I am very aware of the scourge alcohol has had on my country, - and alcoholism is a disease, too - therefore I am drink aware, and avoid excess.

Scandinavia has a strong macho culture, with men being traditionally very hard drinking. When we went to my uncles' island, in the archipelago, they would load the boat up with beer and spirits. They got my (British) stepfather so dreadfully drunk, my mother thought he was going to die!


In the Latin countries, they'll have wine with a meal, the germanic nations, binge-drink. I know in the US minors cannot be served alcohol until they are 21 (?). In Britain, you can drink in your teens and there is nothing at all eyebrow raising about Mez and her friends going around the bars and getting hammered.

It's part of our culture here. When I went for a job interview with a top 20 firm of accountants in the City, I had to pass a "beer test" - go drinking with the team - before I got the job. Every Friday, we finished at four to meet for drinks downstairs.

After a few free drinks, we'd grab a bottle of Bacardi Breezer and wander down the road to wine bar nightclubs, still in our posh expensive City suits - (dress code in insolvency practice: black) - which held up to five hundred people, the music got louder and louder and you'd have to shout louder and louder. Even if you didn't drink much, as soon as you came out in the night air, your head would be spinning, and you'd feel horribly sick all weekend.

So maybe your shock at the "British birds" going out and getting drunk is because you don't have that culture in the States?

The problem with Raff's type of drug taking, whilst the kids see it as cool and trendy and "feeling free", that shady drug dealer is usually working for some very sinister characters indeed. Rudy, for example, was said to be avoiding the Cathedral steps, where Perugian kids score, because he owed one of these evil characters money. Against this setting then, Mez was in a dangerous situation. You don't know what these drugs have been cut with. Seemingly innocent pot can be laced with acid. Certainly, both Amanda and Raff swore after the crime they would never smoke dope again.

 

[acbytesla]

carbonjam,

You've made some good points about the difficulty of understanding scientific arguments without all the underlying vocabulary being clear*. But more importantly, you are pointing out, I believe, that the analogy about size is not as critical as an analogy or description about the relative lack of reliabilty of Low Copy Number DNA profiling technology compared to "conventional" DNA profiling technology.

Low Copy Number DNA is typically considered to be DNA samples of about 100 pg (where pg = picogram = 10^-12 grams, or 1 trillionth of a gram) mass.

The problems with LCN DNA are not merely the tiny size, but include, and are not limited to: 1) extreme problems with contamination from other such possibly extraneous tiny bits of LCN DNA at the crime scene or in the lab (or anywhere); 2. statistical anomalies in the replication of the alleles during the polymerase chain reaction, with some true alleles sometimes getting lost, other false one sometimes appearing; 3. the extreme difficulties of replicating tests due to the small amount of material - and replication of tests with statistical analysis is the primary method scientists use to determine reliability of tests; 4. the small amount of available DNA means that additional cycles of DNA replication must be used to gain enough DNA for adequate profile signal strength, and such new methods must be subjected to rigorous scientific validation, as must any new scientific method that is to be used for a critical purpose, such as trial evidence. This list of problems can probably be expanded by those with more knowledge of this area.


*cc = cubic centimeter; 1 cc = 1 ml where ml = milliliter (note meter = metre and liter = litre outside the US)

mm = millimeter = 1/1000 meter

micron = micrometer = 1/1000 millimeter {"micron" is an older term for micrometer.) Symbol for "micrometer" is: (Greek letter mu)m.

I think it's also worth noting that we couldn't actually see it without making it reproduce itself "how many generations"? Any one? Any one? Bueller? Bueller?

 

[Vixen]

So you are familiar with Amanda's list of HIV suspects sexual partners.

How many were from her time in Italy?

I dunno, you tell me.

 

[JihadJane]

...alcoholism is a disease...

Evidence?

 

[davefoc]

Thanks for the facts, always useful. If you would take a minute to look at this - A single grain of salt weighs 100 MILLION picograms. (the best factual weight I can find, Allen Blackman. Chemistry Magazine 10/08/01)) then the material attributed to Raf would be 1/500,000 of a grain of salt.

Would you agree with the above as a way to demonstrate what tiny amounts the PGP have characterized as "abundant" or "large" amounts?

For me this makes perfectly clear that in those amounts DNA can "fly"and it makes clear how easy secondary and tertiary transfer is.

There is a problem with this analysis I believe. The DNA doesn't exist by itself. It is embedded in biological material. I don't think it is accurate to estimate the size of the material that somebody would see by assuming that they would only see the DNA. I made this argument previously and tried to get an estimate for how much biological material would have been mixed with the DNA. I don't remember the calculations now, but assuming the biological source was skin cells the total amount of biological material is much larger than the amount of DNA. If one assumes the biological source is blood then there is even much more biological material for a given amount of DNA then if the source is skin cells because red blood cells don't contain DNA.

I do not mean to argue in favor of the prosecution claims about the DNA on the knife. I think it is unlikely that any Kercher DNA was detected on the knife at all but I question the theory that there wasn't enough biological material on the knife to be observed by Stefanoni if the source was blood even with the small amount of DNA that was claimed to have been found. And of course, even if the calculated amount of biological material that would have been present is still too small to have been seen by Stefanoni, the possibility that the DNA was found mixed in with other detritus on the blade and that is what Stefanoni saw.

 

[Mr Fied]

So you are familiar with Amanda's list of HIV suspects sexual partners.

How many were from her time in Italy?

I dunno, you tell me.

So there wasn't untold sexual partners in Italy then. No sex in exchange for drugs with Guede, no sex with all these drug dealers, no shagging anything that had a pulse.

 

[Planigale]

This explanation is intriguing to me. Thanks so much for trying to explain this, and I'm trying to figure out why I'm having trouble making sense out of it.

The notion of using a "grain" of sand or salt, is a common point of reference that most people will know or understand as being tiny in the familiar everyday kind of experience.

In the context of microscopic measurements, which can't be seen by the eye unaided by magnification, or even with simple glass lens magnification, the phrase "grain" is not helpful in assessing the quality or strength of scientific measurements, and hence the evidence at issue.

It's a poor analogy for comparing the reliability of a particular DNA result, because any DNA test below the threshold of visibility to the eye, will seem equally challenged. So its a poor analogy in the context it was brought up, namely, to challenge the validity of a DNA result at issue.
It is however instructive, in getting a sense of the physical challenges at issue, in the collection, preservation testing and susceptibility to contamination at issue in this type of scientific evidence. It gives us the chance to comprehend the relative size of sample, in comparison to a common familiar object. It shows us how far down the scale of measurement we are going, in order to grasp the nature of the substance at issue.

So then, what do these measurements actually mean?

1. "Density of common salt is about 2g/cc".
Ok, 2g means two grams. What is "cc"'s? Is this a measure of volume known as centiliters? (1/100th of a liter?).

2. So a grain that was at the limit of (unaided) vision 1/10 mm / side would weigh about 2 microgram, Ten thousand times than we are talking about.
A. So "a grain of sand has a 1/10 mm /side" - does this mean a grain of sand with a width (or length) of 1/10th of a millimeter? (does MM stand for millimeters?).

B. "... would weigh about 2 micro-grams" (If a milligram is 1,000th of a gram, is a micro gram equal to 1/1,000th of a milligram?).

C. ... "Ten thousand times that we are talking about." (What are we talking about? I've lost the object reference).

3. "So we need to go down to a grain about 4 microns (4/1,000 mm) on the side. A red blood cell is about 8 micron in diameter. This about ten times the limit of vision with an optical microscope."
A. ...So we need to go down to a grain of about 4 microns (4/1,000 mm) on the side... (What is a micron? Is it a 1,000th of a MM (millimeter?)

B. "A red blood cell is about 8 micron in diameter." (still not sure what a micron is, so maybe this is why I'm getting confused).

C. "This about ten times the limit of vision with an optical microscope." (Still not sure what a micron is).

--------------

The point of this exercise, is to explore how easy it is to get lost in technical explanations, and how hard it is to gauge the audience with whom one is hopefully communicating.

I've seen this over and over, where technical explanations become hard to follow because of a gap in vocabulary and basic concepts, that make arguments harder to understand than they need to be.

Without knowledgeable people to help lead us through the darkness, we really would be lost. But talking over the heads of the audience is frustrating to the listener and speaker both. Yet it happens so often, and so often the results of the conversation go astray, are misinterpreted, or put to improper use.

Mach, Ergon, and other folks think they are experts, and routinely spout numbers, challenge experts, and generally mislead people. Their arguments are best challenged on the merits. But that's hard to do without a grounding in the facts, and its hard to be an expert in all things, so we rely on experts to help us. But I advocate following the arguments rigorously, not just blind acceptance of what experts say.

So Planingale, thanks so much for your efforts and willingness to try to explain this 'sciency stuff'. For my own part, I know I've got a seat reserved on the short yellow bus, but I'm trying.

Apologies.

It is really hard to explain things, especially if you come from a metric background, especially without seeming condescending. I not others have explained cc, mm, microns. (Thanks Numbers)

FWIW (for what it is worth), I do not think comparison with grain of salt is useful. (As Davefoc says). But grinder asked me to validate his estimate, I tried to do it by a different method.

As has been said, the real point is that there was mixed DNA present on the bra clasp. The dominant contributor by far was Kercher.My estimate looking at the epg (electropherogram) is that the non Kercher DNA was about 10%.¹ Steffanoni's was about 17%. The minor contributors were more than two. The quantity of DNA for the minor contributors falls into the LCN range where a number of methodological problems limit the reliability of testing. Equally the DNA is 'trace' DNA not attributable to any tissue. It is well documented trace DNA may result from secondary + transfer, and cannot be assumed to result from direct touch by the contributor.

Balding a statistician from UCL has looked at how you attribute mixed DNA profiles, his methodology is sound. Like all estimates the more information one has, the more reliable the estimate. It would have been better if profiles of Kercher's boyfriend(s) and other flatmates were available for comparison. It does seem probable that Sollecito's profile was in the extract profile attributed to the bra clasp.

The suspect centric approach is exemplified here. Sollito's DNA is assumed to result from participation in the murder of Kercher, whilst other contributors are assumed to be a result of innocent transfer. The presence of Sollicito's DNA is then used as evidence of his participation in the murder. This is a circular argument his DNA is evidence of his guilt because he is guilty. The DNA of others is not evidence of guilt because they are not guilty.

¹http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/images/b/b5/BraDNA2.png

Locus:
CSF1PO KERCHER 12, 12 Bra Clasps 12/10 SOLLECITO 10, 12

The data is the same no matter which site is is posted on. Look at the original data do not take anyone's word for it.

 

[acbytesla]

There is a problem with this analysis I believe. The DNA doesn't exist by itself. It is embedded in biological material. I don't think it is accurate to estimate the size of the material that somebody would see by assuming that they would only see the DNA. I made this argument previously and tried to get an estimate for how much biological material would have been mixed with the DNA. I don't remember the calculations now, but assuming the biological source was skin cells the total amount of biological material is much larger than the amount of DNA. If one assumes the biological source is blood then there is even much more biological material for a given amount of DNA then if the source is skin cells because red blood cells don't contain DNA.

I do not mean to argue in favor of the prosecution claims about the DNA on the knife. I think it is unlikely that any Kercher DNA was detected on the knife at all but I question the theory that there wasn't enough biological material on the knife to be observed by Stefanoni if the source was blood even with the small amount of DNA that was claimed to have been found. And of course, even if the calculated amount of biological material that would have been present is still too small to have been seen by Stefanoni, the possibility that the DNA was found mixed in with other detritus on the blade and that is what Stefanoni saw.

Let's be honest. They never saw any biological material on the knife.

PCR amplification doubles the amount of DNA each and every cycle and there is a minimum of 30+ cycles. So the single unseen DNA strand is replicated over and over and over and over and over times 30+ just so it can be detected later. 2 to the 30th power is 1,073,741,824. Staggering isn't it?

 

[Vixen]

9

I'm taking the pledge Bill.

From now on I'm IGNORING a female member who shall not be named. From this day forward I will not respond to ANY of her posts. I would suggest that others do the same. But that is your individual choices. I have found that it is impossible to limit myself to addressing only her deceptive posts that she unashamedly makes on this forum.

It is tiresome to play whack a mole and having your string pulled. And as much as I hate allowing her lies about 2 good and innocent people left unaddressed, but I must.

Or they'll ban me any way.

It's been fun playing.

Before you pick up your ball and go home, here's yet another source:

Critical Review Excerpt: Although she costumed herself as a cat complete with whiskers drawn on her cheeks, she spent much of Halloween night trying in vain to connect with her only English-speaking roommate, the vivacious Meredith Kercher, who was out there somewhere dressed as Dracula. Meredith had failed to answer Amanda’s phone calls and texts. Instead she continued to enjoy the company of her other friends and classmates as they drank and danced the night away. She didn’t roll home until 5 a.m. Amanda, on the other hand, wandered the streets aimlessly for much of the evening, a cat on the prowl. Since Meredith ignored her messages, Amanda called it a night relatively early, at 2 a.m. <snip>
For her part, Amanda decided to dress up like a black cat for Halloween—sweater and pants and face paint. Raffaele had come over to Via della Pergola and painted whiskers on Amanda’s face. Amanda had repeatedly texted Meredith trying hard to meet up with her. Already an empty feeling gnawed at Amanda. She grew more frantic by the moment as Meredith ignored her texts—one after another. But finally a little after 7 p.m. Meredith responded, “I’m going to a friend’s house for dinner. What are your plans?”—signing off with “xx love you.”That baker’s dozen words had given Amanda hope. She finished dressing up and then headed out into the night. She now hoped that Meredith would continue to reply and invite her to go to a nightclub with them. Quickly she told Raffaele that she would meet him later at the local gathering place Piazza IV Novembre, but now she had to drop by Le Chic—and wanted to be with Meredith and the other partiers. Not wanting to appear too anxious, Amanda waited nearly an hour to reply to Meredith. Amanda put it off until just before 8 p.m., when she had just gone out among the partygoers

~ Andrew Hodges As Done Unto You

There won 't be any apology, will there, as you knew that all along. LondonJohn was fully aware his version was carefully abbreviated, yet still had the temerity to throw his toys out of the pram.