Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#9

[Chris_Halkides]

Balding concludes that the DNA on the clasp belongs to Sollecito. C&V concluded that there was no DNA on the clasp. Can't have it both ways. Either C&V got it right or Balding got it right.

Nonsense. Upon rereading the C&V report I would say that they attempted to extract DNA from the clasp, despite the presence of rust. That extraction came up negative for DNA.

Conti and Vecchiotti analyzed the egram of the bra clasp from Stefanoni's extraction (Balding analyzed the same egram, according to the interview). Their conclusions are not very different.

 

[otto]

DNA from a bleached sample would show evidence of degradation. This sample did not show such evidence.

I think I'll trust the experts.

 

[otto]

Nonsense. Upon rereading the C&V report I would say that they attempted to extract DNA from the clasp, despite the presence of rust. That extraction came up negative for DNA.

Conti and Vecchiotti analyzed the egram of the bra clasp from Stefanoni's extraction (Balding analyzed the same egram, according to the interview). Their conclusions are not very different.

There's a big difference between DNA on the clasp and no DNA on the clasp.

Balding concludes that Sollecito's DNA is on the clasp, which is consistent with the results presented during the trial. C&V got it wrong ... per the Supreme Court.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

SNIP
Balding stated that the DNA on the clasp belongs to Sollecito. C&V said that there was no DNA on the clasp. Who made the correct conclusions and who got it wrong?

Conti and Vecchiotti wrote, "but we cannot accept the conclusion stating that “the genetic profile is compatible with the hypothesis of a mixture of biological substances (presumably flaking cells) belonging” only ”to Raffaele Sollecito and to Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher” insofar as, from what has been explained above, a mixture is present in which several contributors of male sex are present (a circumstance supported by the electropherogram relative to the Y chromosome, where several alleles are clearly present which, despite being particularly evident, were not taken into consideration by the Technical Consultant);"

Elsewhere in the report they wrote, "The genetic profile thus derives from a mixture of unidentified biological substances (it will be recalled that no test was performed with a view toward revealing the presence of flaking cells, and so the claim is without scientific basis), whose larger component is represented by the DNA of the victim and whose smaller component is represented by DNA from several individuals (cf. autosomic STRs) of male sex (cf. Y chromosome), of which one of the Y haplotypes corresponds to the Y haplotype of Raffaele Sollecito."

Anyone who sees the peaks in the egrams can conclude that DNA is present. Yours is a strange interpretation of what they wrote.

 

[otto]

Conti and Vecchiotti wrote, "but we cannot accept the conclusion stating that “the genetic profile is compatible with the hypothesis of a mixture of biological substances (presumably flaking cells) belonging” only ”to Raffaele Sollecito and to Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher” insofar as, from what has been explained above, a mixture is present in which several contributors of male sex are present (a circumstance supported by the electropherogram relative to the Y chromosome, where several alleles are clearly present which, despite being particularly evident, were not taken into consideration by the Technical Consultant);"

Elsewhere in the report they wrote, "The genetic profile thus derives from a mixture of unidentified biological substances (it will be recalled that no test was performed with a view toward revealing the presence of flaking cells, and so the claim is without scientific basis), whose larger component is represented by the DNA of the victim and whose smaller component is represented by DNA from several individuals (cf. autosomic STRs) of male sex (cf. Y chromosome), of which one of the Y haplotypes corresponds to the Y haplotype of Raffaele Sollecito."

Anyone who sees the peaks in the egrams can conclude that DNA is present. Yours is a strange interpretation of what they wrote.

Balding clarifies that there is possibly one other male contributor, in addition to Sollecito, and gives his reasoning.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

There's a big difference between DNA on the clasp and no DNA on the clasp.

Balding concludes that Sollecito's DNA is on the clasp, which is consistent with the results presented during the trial. C&V got it wrong ... per the Supreme Court.

I suggest that you read the links to the C&V report I just provided to clear up your misunderstanding. However, I would like to emphasize that the clasp was stored in the presence of extraction buffer and rusted. Under these circumstances no one should be surprised that it was not possible to recover additional DNA. Now let me ask you a few questions. Why was the clasp stored in the presence of an aqueous solution? Did this not make it more likely that the clasp would rust and/or rot? If this is the level of competence of the scientific police, why should we trust anything that they do?

 

[otto]

I suggest that you read the links to the C&V report I just provided to clear up your misunderstanding. However, I would like to emphasize that the clasp was stored in the presence of extraction buffer and rusted. Under these circumstances no one should be surprised that it was not possible to recover additional DNA. Now let me ask you a few questions. Why was the clasp stored in the presence of an aqueous solution? Did this not make it more likely that the clasp would rust and/or rot? If this is the level of competence of the scientific police, why should we trust anything that they do?

You have me at a distinct disadvantage in terms of chemistry, but I have read enough to know that there's a significant twist being applied to the information that is available.

Regarding the question: when one demonstrates failure in one task, can we assume failure in all tasks, I think not. Incorrect storage of one sample does not mean that contamination occurred during analysis.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I think I'll trust the experts.

I'm glad you said so: Conti and Vecchiotti are well regarded scientists in the field of forensic DNA. With respect to bleach the paper to consult IIRC is: A. M. Prince, L. Andrus PCR: How to kill unwanted DNA Biotechniques Vol. 12, pp 358-360.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Balding clarifies that there is possibly one other male contributor, in addition to Sollecito, and gives his reasoning.

Dr. Balding did not examine the egram from the Y-chromosomal amplification.

 

[Katody]

<snipped>

I checked the link and I see no proof whatsoever. I see the source is not Amanda's testimony.

 

[otto]

Dr. Balding did not examine the egram from the Y-chromosomal amplification.

Isn't that the same procedure that was done regarding Guede's DNA?

 

[redheadedgal]

in the previous thread a new timeline was mentioned due to what RS said in an interview earlier this year... i watched it last night and yes it did contradict what we know (that amanda did not wait 5 hours to be interviewed)... he did say earlier in the segment that he was called to the police "late at night... i didn't know the reason" (8:57) which corresponds to all other reports. i don't know why he'd exaggerate (?) the 5 hours though...

 

[otto]

I checked the link and I see no proof whatsoever. I know the source is not Amanda's testimony.

Regardless of additional questions, there was a request for proof that Knox knew that Meredith's bedroom door was locked during her first visit to the cottage. Proof was provided. If additional information is requested for different information, feel free to do the research, and good luck with it.

 

[Katody]

Regardless of additional questions, there was a request for proof that Knox knew that Meredith's bedroom door was locked during her first visit to the cottage. Proof was provided. If additional information is requested for different information, feel free to do the research, and good luck with it.

What you provided proves nothing, I'm afraid. Provide a testimony of Amanda Knox or someone involved in the discovery of the break-in.

So far it's just another falsehood, like the washing machine lie you've brought from some website.

 

[otto]

What you provided proves nothing, I'm afraid. Provide a testimony of Amanda Knox or someone involved in the discovery of the break-in.

So far it's just another falsehood, like the washing machine lie you've brought from some website.

It is the Massei Report, and everyone is welcome to accept or reject that summary of the court findings. I accept the report, and it seems that those that reject the report reject everything related to the investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher.

 

[SMK]

What you provided proves nothing, I'm afraid. Provide a testimony of Amanda Knox or someone involved in the discovery of the break-in.

So far it's just another falsehood, like the washing machine lie you've brought from some website.

Well, it was said that Filomena testified that the washing machine was still warm when she returned to the cottage; many press articles stated in 2007 that the Postal Police said it was running - Nadeau in her book also states this as fact. Who can blame people for taking it seriously? In any case, it was not part of the prosecution's case.

 

[Katody]

Well, it was said that Filomena testified that the washing machine was still warm when she returned to the cottage; many press articles stated in 2007 that the Postal Police said it was running - Nadeau in her book also states this as fact. Who can blame people for taking it seriously? In any case, it was not part of the prosecution's case.

Just like what Otto provided now isn't.

BTW neither the hickey red herring is.

I don't think anyone is suing the British TV for faking the climb with Hollywood tricks either, they also don't seem to have problems with any media ethics body about it

 

[Katody]

It is the Massei Report, and everyone is welcome to accept or reject that summary of the court findings. I accept the report, and it seems that those that reject the report reject everything related to the investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher.

I don't think your understanding of court findings is correct. JMO

 

[otto]

Just like what Otto provided now isn't.

BTW neither the hickey red herring is.

I don't think anyone is suing the British TV for faking the climb with Hollywood tricks either, they also don't seem to have problems with any media ethics body about it

Knox stated that she knew that Meredith's door was locked during her first visit to the cottage on Nov 2. I have provided a reference. If this is not true, then perhaps you have a reference that contradicts the Massei Report. If so, please provide the link. Barring that, the information in the Massei Report remains as the authority on the subject.

 

[SMK]

Just like what Otto provided now isn't.

BTW neither the hickey red herring is.

I don't think anyone is suing the British TV for faking the climb with Hollywood tricks either, they also don't seem to have problems with any media ethics body about it

OK, got it. All understood. And it's all good

But Battistelli (first officer of Postal Police who entered the cottage on Nov 2) did say in his court testimony that when they entered the cottage, he thought/ believed he heard a washing machine finishing its cycle. Not a big deal, and maybe amounted to nothing. But one can't be faulted for accepting it as part of the facts.