Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#6

[SMK]

The reason I mention it is AK will have no problem making out a case if the decision is based on bad DNA, but if it is upheld as a circumstantial case, I am not sure there is much they can legally do. Yet the public outcry will be insane, bc even if they do not rely on DNA, the narrative will be all about the DNA. In that situation, I don't know what will happen re extradiction.

Even if convicted, I don't think they would extradite her. At worse, they would make her serve in a US prison, they can make deals like that, like at some point they were trying to do that for holloway case for him to serve in Holland, though it did not work out for some reason. AK will never serve time in an Italian prison, I am confident,

BBM - I guess as you said before this is why Crini was pushing so much of the circumstantial evidence - does not mean it will work, but I can understand his strategy. What chance do you feel there would actually be of the lay judges going with circumstantial over DNA and blood and prints?

 

[Katody]

<modsnip>

Hello,

The spreadsheet definitely doesn't come from Massei. It is a work of a anonymous pro-guilt poster who has been caught posting manipulated photos on JREF forum quite a while ago. I doubt it is accurate.

 

[MichaelSmith]

There is no evidence that Guede washed his clothes in the bathroom. There is no evidence that he was in the bathroom. If Guede was washing his clothes and feet in the bathroom, shouldn't there be at least some evidence that this happened?

Guede's diary page 20

I went to the bathroom took a towel, and it was soaked. I took another one,

 

[whoanellie]

Chris, someone yesterday said the reason why there is blood but not DNA is because of the white blood cells (or red, I am not sure which). Given your biochemistry background what is your view? Can you have blood without DNA? Why no MK DNA here and is that significant that there is no MK DNA?

If I might,
Red blood cells do not contain DNA but white bood cells do. Luminol detects the iron in rbcs, DNA is in the wbcs. Unless there was a minute amount of blood there should have been white blood cells and DNA present. One issue is whether the luminol interferes with the PCR process used in DNA testing. I haven't read this entire paper but the abstract suggests that DNA testing should work fine after the use of luminol.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10432617
There may be other published work on this issue.
The other issue relates to the sensitivity of luminol versus the sensitivity of the DNA testing. Is it possible that there was a small amount of blood present such that luminol testing was positive and DNA testing negative? I don't know about the relative sensitivities of the two tests and whether that has ever been researched. If the DNA testing failed the forensic scientists could have tried other antibody based tests that are highly sensitive and are specific to human blood.
Of course the other explanation is that luminol reacted to something other than blood and thus no DNA was present.

 

[Yellow]

BBM - I guess as you said before this is why Crini was pushing so much of the circumstantial evidence - does not mean it will work, but I can understand his strategy. What chance do you feel there would actually be of the lay judges going with circumstantial over DNA and blood and prints?

I think it is a weak case once you no longer have the DNA. You have to make some inferences and you basically have to be sold on the story on the cleanup and that only AK and RS had an incentive to clean up.

That would be weak in itself but once you add in some weird stuff, like why no MK DNA in footsteps, and the negative tests for blood it makes it difficult to prove as the only scenario.

I also think this is a complicated circumstantial case for a lay jury to understand. W DNA in there, you can say the circumstantial case is "possibly" and maybe still get to a conviction. But without DNA, you need to PROVE that circumstantial case and if the lay jury does not understand it, they will take their lack of understanding as doubt

 

[Katody]

Well, <modsnip>, :blushing: and yes, i understand - the actual table, yes--- but the measurements are taken from Massei.

Good to meet <modsnip> I must say I don't see any measurements comparison in Massei apart from the big toe dimensions. About that one we can say something because the measurement is exemplified in the picture you posted. It comes from the Rinaldi report and it shows how arbitrary his measurements were. If you just look at the arrow measuring the big toe. I must say it doesn't correspond at all to the edges of the print.

 

[Yellow]

If I might,
Red blood cells do not contain DNA but white bood cells do. Luminol detects the iron in rbcs, DNA is in the wbcs. Unless there was a minute amount of blood there should have been white blood cells and DNA present. One issue is whether the luminol interferes with the PCR process used in DNA testing. I haven't read this entire paper but the abstract suggests that DNA testing should work fine after the use of luminol.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10432617
There may be other published work on this issue.
The other issue relates to the sensitivity of luminol versus the sensitivity of the DNA testing. Is it possible that there was a small amount of blood present such that luminol testing was positive and DNA testing negative? I don't know about the relative sensitivities of the two tests and whether that has ever been researched. If the DNA testing failed the forensic scientists could have tried other antibody based tests that are highly sensitive and are specific to human blood.
Of course the other explanation is that luminol reacted to something other than blood and thus no DNA was present.

Thanks, they had no problem finding AK DNA so it would seem odd if the luminol interfered w. MK DNA but not AK DNA.

 

[DerKritiker2011]

The measurements in the Massei report have the probability much higher with Sollecito than with Guede. I don't think it can be seen with precision with just the naked eye.

The gap of sollecitos toe is missing. It's a significant difference between Sollecitos and a normal feet like Guedes.

The margins are not clearly defined. In this case the determination of the size is very difficult.

If the measurement of Rinaldi is taken, the toe has a stupid shape.

 

[whoanellie]

awesome! and only one case was requested lol

We could post 100 and it wouldn't make any difference. lol

 

[SMK]

The gap of sollecitos toe is missing. It's a significant difference between Sollecitos and a normal feet like Guedes.

The margins are not clearly defined. In this case the determination of the size is very difficult.

If the measurement of Rinaldi is taken, the toe has a stupid shape.

Well in the Supreme Court Report of Sep 2013, it is said that Hellmann in his ruling supposed Guede's sneaker had come off , which they refute. The argument is that Guede was not barefoot at any point, which cannot be proven. But this is the argument now. (although earlier in the report they do try and justify the measurements pointing to Sollecito)

 

[sherlockh]

RG's shoeprints in visible blood were out of the murder room and out the door. Given the bloody bathmat and other blood around, I guess MK was right in AK being w horrible cleaner, she cannot even clean a murder scene up right.

Good enough. It worked. Nobody noticed that morning that a bloody murder had just happened.

 

[sherlockh]

When a presumptive test is positive, one should perform a confirmatory test. A positive forensic DNA test is not a confirmatory test for blood. "For example, while examining the clothing of a suspect, a forensic biologist might visually locate a brown stain that presumptively tested positive for blood and was then DNA typed. The DNA type is found to match the victim. Knowing that the loci tested are higher primate specific, what conclusions can be drawn? The only unqualified conclusion that can be offered is that the stain contains DNA that matches the victim. It has not been proven to be blood."

On the other hand if a separate confirmatory test for blood came up positive, then one would conclude that blood was present. "The method of choice today is the ABAcard® HemaTrace test strips manufactured by Abacus Diagnostics, Inc....The pink dye becomes visible as a band in the test region at concentrations of human hemoglobin above about 0.05 µg/ml."

And when a presumptive test is negative there is no point in taking any confirmatory tests. A negative DNA test is obviously not conclusive otherwise there wouldn't be any need for further tests after that. Luminol test came first, second the DNA test, third the TMB test. The DNA that was found was LCN and only tested once IIRC. So very small amounts which is in line with the negative TMB test. Negative TMB test is not conclusive either. Overall, there is no conclusive blood test and the assumption that it is blood is not a scientific issue. It is a CSI issue. JMO.

 

[Katody]

Well in the Supreme Court Report of Sep 2013, it is said that Hellmann in his ruling supposed Guede's sneaker had come off , which they refute. The argument is that Guede was not barefoot at any point, which cannot be proven. But this is the argument now. (although earlier in the report they do try and justify the measurements pointing to Sollecito)

How do they justify the measurements?

 

[otto]

I went to the bathroom took a towel, and it was soaked. I took another one,

Guede's diary page 20

Guede said that the window was not broken when he left the cottage.
Should we believe him?

 

[SMK]

How do they justify the measurements?

They said it could be attributed to Sollecito owing to the dimensions of the big toe and it's metatarsal, whatever that may mean. Too bad footprints are not as precise, apparently, as are fingerprints.

 

[otto]

They said it could be attributed to Sollecito owing to the dimensions of the big toe and it's metatarsal, whatever that may mean. Too bad footprints are not as precise, apparently, as are fingerprints.

Half the problem with the footprint debate is that we are working from online photos, and we have no idea how they have been scaled. The court would have been working with precise measurements.

 

[SMK]

Half the problem with the footprint debate is that we are working from online photos, and we have no idea how they have been scaled. The court would have been working with precise measurements.

Quite true. I had posted a table of the measurements, but the adm. has deleted it, for some reason. But I understand, the online images are not what the court worked with.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Guede said that the window was not broken when he left the cottage.
Should we believe him?

No because he (the burglar) had every reason to lie about not breaking the window. Isn't that obvious?

 

[Amber29]

Was the sink faucet dusted for fingerprints? If not, why not? There is clearly blood on it so someone had to touch Meredith, get her blood on their hands and then touch the faucet. Is this another example of shoddy police work?

The blood on the faucet belonged to amanda Knox not Meredith.

 

[otto]

No because he (the burglar) had every reason to lie about not breaking the window. Isn't that obvious?

Guede has every reason to lie about going to the bathroom to get towels because it gives the illusion that he cared. Knox's towel was in her bedroom, and it's quite likely that Meredith kept her towels in her bedroom.