Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #16

[wasnt_me]

Are you suggesting that AK got her nose bashed in the attack?

Because if so isn't it extraordinary that in the photos/body exam afterwards she clearly has no sign of bruising or swelling to the nose?

You can get highly excitable and have a nose bleed without being hit. However you most likely are gonna get your blood on whatever and wherever you were standing at the time unless you for some reason are expecting this sudden blood flow. I doubt AK got a nose bleed so conveniently as she was bending over to the mirror, and I doubt it would have been just a drop or two. I also doubt you can staunch a nosebleed with a q tip as has been implied.

If AK felt that blood was about to come out of her nose, so she rushed to the sink I think that unexpected act would probably have caused her to leave DNA somewhere else as she would have gotten careless in her rush to the bathroom.

The question is, if this happened to AK, where is the rest of her blood? Where are the tissues she used to clean it up?

What's more logical is that when AK let RS pierce her ears earlier that week, they bled. She cleaned them up but did NOT see the small blood spatter on the silver faucet and there it sat until discovered by super stephanoni.

 

[wasnt_me]

I don't understand how skin cells with DNA are liable to be found in a hat or bandanna...

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/bc000657.pdf


(last page)


...but not on a floor where a bare foot has stepped (per sherlockh).

Do we not use friction to propel ourselves across the floor? And in that propulsion, would we not shed DNA if barefoot?

 

[wasnt_me]

Yes, of course it came from her nose. The water tap is right under your nose if you are washing your hands.

I don't think you need to hunch over this sink to wash your hands. How many people bend over the sink to wash their hands? I don't. I can't just by that AK is leaning over the sink washing her hands and blood just happens to fall out.

 

[SkewedView]

I don't think you need to hunch over this sink to wash your hands. How many people bend over the sink to wash their hands? I don't. I can't just by that AK is leaning over the sink washing her hands and blood just happens to fall out.

Actually, the key thing that I noted right away is that the placement of that shelf would make it quite awkward to hunch in such a manner that one's nose would be over the faucet, regardless of one's normal habits. You would have to bend uncomfortably low to put your head under that shelf, or else you would bop your head against the shelf before being able to get your nose over the faucet, which is, I should note, set farther back towards the wall than most modern faucets.

 

[Malkmus]

I was just stating what was said during the trials. Skin that just falls off does not contain any DNA, but I understand you don't believe a word that DNA expert says

This may surprise you, Sherlock. But the outermost layer of skin, the epidermis, is made up of dead skin cells. We shed roughly 40,000 skin cells a minute. When you touch something these are the skin cells left behind. I searched and found nothing to back your claim that dead skin cells don't contain DNA. You might not want to rely solely on things the proscution's expert claims. I don't know if you noticed, but her credibility went down the drain just recently.

 

[Malkmus]

Yes, of course it came from her nose. The water tap is right under your nose if you are washing your hands. So what do you do to stop the nosebleed? You grab a q-tip. The prosecutions theory fits perfectly together, even to the smallest details.

The blood on the water tap is strong supporting evidence and points directly at AK being the murderer. Maybe you know many people with blood on the tap but I certainly don't. And now there is blood and a bloody murder. Really what are the chances? I am not sure what is your point. Maybe we are agreeing after all

You don't get a bloody nose from someone smacking you without some visible bruising...

 

[wasnt_me]

I think we also miss the complete obvious, which is why in the world would AK call RF and tell her about blood in the bathroom, if it is her own blood?

Why is she pointing out blood in the sink, in the bidet and on the bathmat?

She's not doing that because she got caught by the PP. Remember, they arrived at least an hour after Ak's calls to RF. I still do not understand why AK is telling anything to RF about blood in the bathroom IF AK had tried to do a clean up. Makes no sense. At no time before the postal police arrived was AK under pressure to have the crime scene revealed to the world. So it stands to reason that even in that time before the PP arrived, she should have been getting that bathmat up off the floor and wiping down the sink and the bidet. But instead, she reports these items to RF as being strange.

Why does she do this? Why does she call RF about these things at 1207pm but the postal police dont arrive until 100pm?

And it's not good enough to say AK was trying to get RF to discover the crime scene, because in their first calls to each other, AK didn't try to persuade RF to go home. To our knowledge, it was RF who told AK to go back to the house and see if anything had been stolen. AK didn't tell RF, "No, you do it." instead, she went back. To my knowledge, we have no testimony from RF that stated Ak tried to pressure her to go to the cottage. In fact, AK only asked RF to come to the cottage after the second trip revealed the broken window.

This is my understanding of it. And it my understanding it correct, then a coverup, clean up is unlikely, as it is unlikely that AK's blood was deposited during a nefarious act.

 

[SMK]

From Candace Dempsey, on the eve of the final appellate hearings:

Once they proudly called themselves the colpevisti (believers in guilt), the hardy band of fast-typing journalists convinced that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito murdered her British roommate in an infamous sex game gone wrong–with the assistance of petty crook Rudy Guede.

The colpeviste scoffed at the naivité of the innocente, a much smaller group of renegade fact-checking journalists and bloggers who figured out early on that the satantic ritual, girls gone wrong, Manga comic, Halloween-influenced crime theories of prosecutor Giuliano Mignini didn’t make a lick of sense. And where, they wondered, was the proof? But the two college students were convicted in December 2009. Rudy was convicted in a seperate trial.

Now, during Amanda and Raffaele’s appeal trial, even the colpeviste have started to sing a different tune–and just in the nick of time. Even Italian journalists are predicting that the two college students could be acquitted in the fall. “If she lived in the U.S., the beautiful blonde with the blue eyes would already be free,” wrote one.

Tomorrow, two highly respected, judge-appointed, independent scientific experts will testify that the DNA evidence used to convict the two college students never amounted to a hill of beans. In their long, meticulous report, Professors Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti of La Spienza University found neither blood nor the victim’s DNA on the alleged murder weapon. As for the bra clasp that supposedly linked Raffaele to the murder scene, they said it was too rusted to retest–and any DNA most likely came from contamination.

In a spectacular display of dirty pool, discredited police forensic scientist Patrizia Stefanoni has even threatened to sue the two experts for casing aspersions on her work. She vows to put up a furious battle in court, claiming that her credentials outrank theirs.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/07/24/will-eexperts-knox-out-dna-evidence-against-amanda-knox/

 

[SkewedView]

This may surprise you, Sherlock. But the outermost layer of skin, the epidermis, is made up of dead skin cells. We shed roughly 40,000 skin cells a minute. When you touch something these are the skin cells left behind. I searched and found nothing to back your claim that dead skin cells don't contain DNA. You might not want to rely solely on things the proscution's expert claims. I don't know if you noticed, but her credibility went down the drain just recently.

To be fair, in my research I found that Stephanoni was partially correct in her assertions - exfoliated skin cells are terrible Nuclear DNA carriers, as the nucleus of the cells are badly degraded by the time that they are ready to be shed, to the point that the great majority of them do not carry viable DNA. However, there are usually still some cells that have viable nDNA (enough to show up on a sensitive enough test, or normal tests if there was enough exfoliation taking place in the sampled area, such as through forceful contact), and all of them have usable mitochondrial DNA (not that the last has any bearing on this case, as such DNA would not be a contamination factor).

As per usual, if you wish me to provide links to the stuff I've found, please ask and I'll do my best to do so in a timely fashion. For now, I'm just too darned tired to find them again.

 

[Malkmus]

To be fair, in my research I found that Stephanoni was partially correct in her assertions - exfoliated skin cells are terrible Nuclear DNA carriers, as the nucleus of the cells are badly degraded by the time that they are ready to be shed, to the point that the great majority of them do not carry viable DNA. However, there are usually still some cells that have viable nDNA (enough to show up on a sensitive enough test, or normal tests if there was enough exfoliation taking place in the sampled area, such as through forceful contact), and all of them have usable mitochondrial DNA (not that the last has any bearing on this case, as such DNA would not be a contamination factor).

As per usual, if you wish me to provide links to the stuff I've found, please ask and I'll do my best to do so in a timely fashion. For now, I'm just too darned tired to find them again.

Yes, I've noticed that there is apparent degradation in said cells. At a rate of 40,000 shed per minute what is the percentage of "unreadable" ones? I think my claim is in stark contrast to sherlock's "no dead cells contain DNA". Regardless, I still dont see how AK's DNA found where she lives is proof of anything. If someone bled on my floor and the police collected a sample, my reaction to them finding my DNA in that sample would be a big fat "And...?"

 

[sherlockh]

But why no AK blood in MK's room? One drop of blood on a water tap doesn't mean much to me - could have come from other parts of her body under any number of circumstances.
Also no bruises were found on AK after the murder...

I can only speculate on that. Indeed no blood was found in the room. Could have been covered by all the blood from MK that spread on the floor. I dunno. More likely is that AK rushed off after she stabbed her roommate and because of the excitement got a nosebleed. There is also speculations that she stuffed drugs up her nose and the nosebleed was a reaction to that. Again that is just speculations, and there is no way for me to tell for sure.

My main point was that there is nothing normal about blood on your tap, and certainly not in combination with a very bloody murder of your roommate. Then adding the mixed spots in the sink and bidet, but especially the one on the q-tip box is case closed already. For me at least

 

[Malkmus]

I think we also miss the complete obvious, which is why in the world would AK call RF and tell her about blood in the bathroom, if it is her own blood?

Why is she pointing out blood in the sink, in the bidet and on the bathmat?

She's not doing that because she got caught by the PP. Remember, they arrived at least an hour after Ak's calls to RF. I still do not understand why AK is telling anything to RF about blood in the bathroom IF AK had tried to do a clean up. Makes no sense. At no time before the postal police arrived was AK under pressure to have the crime scene revealed to the world. So it stands to reason that even in that time before the PP arrived, she should have been getting that bathmat up off the floor and wiping down the sink and the bidet. But instead, she reports these items to RF as being strange.

Why does she do this? Why does she call RF about these things at 1207pm but the postal police dont arrive until 100pm?

And it's not good enough to say AK was trying to get RF to discover the crime scene, because in their first calls to each other, AK didn't try to persuade RF to go home. To our knowledge, it was RF who told AK to go back to the house and see if anything had been stolen. AK didn't tell RF, "No, you do it." instead, she went back. To my knowledge, we have no testimony from RF that stated Ak tried to pressure her to go to the cottage. In fact, AK only asked RF to come to the cottage after the second trip revealed the broken window.

This is my understanding of it. And it my understanding it correct, then a coverup, clean up is unlikely, as it is unlikely that AK's blood was deposited during a nefarious act.

Or, more to your point, why would rs call the police and tell them about blood in the bathroom which includes his own bloody footprint?

 

[SkewedView]

Yes, I've noticed that there is apparent degradation in said cells. At a rate of 40,000 shed per minute what is the percentage of "unreadable" ones? I think my claim is in stark contrast to sherlock's "no dead cells contain DNA". Regardless, I still dont see how AK's DNA found where she lives is proof of anything. If someone bled on my floor and the police collected a sample, my reaction to them finding my DNA in that sample would be a big fat "And...?"

Yeah, I didn't bother to comment on that, as I've pointed out such things before and attracted a ****storm, including accusations that 'layman's terms' is somehow insulting/condescending. :waitasec:

The percentage of viable cells is very low indeed, but as you say, given a large enough sample...not to mention, forceful contact, or contact with freshly washed skin can cause live cells to be left along with the dead cells.

That's the cunning beauty of Stephanoni's testimony (amongst others in this trial) - she often takes the truth and then alters it just enough to get the (erroneous) impression across that she wants, a common (albeit unethical) tactic amongst serial expert witnesses. That's why I usually double check what the experts for both sides in a trial say, as you can never tell what ones are going to be shills.

 

[miley]

There was more than Just Meredith and Amanda's DNA in those samples. I know I sound like a broken record. But ILE didn't take reference DNA samples of the other girls living in the cottage. So we don't know who it belongs to.

Maybe she did do the control samples and is withholding the information.

When I was re reading Franks older posts, I came across Frank talking about the control tests - indicating Stefanoni preformed them. (DNA 101)
at the time, it didn't quite sink in - but here, in the PS comments, Chris Halkides refers to the tests too:

Chris Halkides says:
July 23, 2011 at 8:08 pm

Frank,
Thank you for a very informative post. If Dr. Stefanoni said that her lab did the controls but did not report them, that is still not good enough, IMO. Curiously negative controls are sometimes faked by the technicians running the equipment, and the defense can sometimes detect this if they have the electronic data files. Forensic science should be transparent.
http://perugiashock.com/2011/07/23/the-war-over-dna/#comments​

if this is correct, why is Stefanoni withholding the report? clearly, she doesn't want it revealed, (why?) this is what I've been trying to figure out.

 

[Allusonz]

IF Amanda is truly innocent.... (Which she is not) Why frame your boss for murder..... why have no alibi (That your boyfriend will not even back up for you). Why have your blood mixed in with the victim ( and It's not just "because Amanda lived there") and your bloody footprints around the house and why stage a break in....... Amanda is not innocent, I believe she was there and knew what was happening.

No innocent person continues to lie and lie to the police and no innocent person frames someone else for murder. Amanda had a reason to lie..

I hope she never gets out.....

I have to ask this of you. What do you consider to be the most convincing evidence that ties her to this murder? As well, what would it take for you to change your mind? Also what do you consider to be reasonable doubt?

 

[Allusonz]

I think she's as innocent as Casey Anthony.

Based on what evidence? What evidence in your mind puts this case beyond a reasonable doubt for you? I am basically asking you the same questions that I have asked in the post above. What evidence if tossed would put this case beyond a reasonable doubt in your mind?

 

[wasnt_me]

I can only speculate on that. Indeed no blood was found in the room. Could have been covered by all the blood from MK that spread on the floor. I dunno. More likely is that AK rushed off after she stabbed her roommate and because of the excitement got a nosebleed. There is also speculations that she stuffed drugs up her nose and the nosebleed was a reaction to that. Again that is just speculations, and there is no way for me to tell for sure.

My main point was that there is nothing normal about blood on your tap, and certainly not in combination with a very bloody murder of your roommate. Then adding the mixed spots in the sink and bidet, but especially the one on the q-tip box is case closed already. For me at least

I don't see the big deal about the q-tip box. It's like not even two inches from the faucet. I'm sorry you don't see anything normal about someone not seeing a blood drop on a silver faucet. If she was cleaning her new piercings and a drop or two fell, it's perfectly reasonable that she didn't notice that. Since it wasn't completely dry, it could have possibly even have happened that morning after her shower. I don't know how long it takes blood to dry but I'm thinking if the murder even happened at midnight, it's more than likely the blood would have been dry by 1pm the next day.

Am I correct about this? They said it wasn't completely dry, right? I need to look that back up again.

 

[miley]

Yes, of course it came from her nose. The water tap is right under your nose if you are washing your hands. So what do you do to stop the nosebleed? You grab a q-tip. The prosecutions theory fits perfectly together, even to the smallest details.

The blood on the water tap is strong supporting evidence and points directly at AK being the murderer. Maybe you know many people with blood on the tap but I certainly don't. And now there is blood and a bloody murder. Really what are the chances? I am not sure what is your point. Maybe we are agreeing after all

You hold your head back, pinch your nose and feel your way to a rag or kleenex
yeah, I'm not buying the whole karate kid kick --

 

[SMK]

<modsnip>
I think it was that you said the court was "wasting time and money trying to free a killer"---it sort of irritated, because 1. this appeal is her due under Italian law and 2. many intelligent people believe she was wrongly convicted. Wrongful convictions happen all the time. Casey Anthony was NOT convicted, and yet millions are screaming that she OUGHT to have been. So we are saying Knox ought NOT to have been.

 

[wasnt_me]

Or, more to your point, why would rs call the police and tell them about blood in the bathroom which includes his own bloody footprint?

Yep, that, too.