Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL* #2

[Chris_Halkides]

Chris Halkides, I hope that you will take the time to demonstrate your expertise in DNA by explaining the apparent DNA match between LNC DNA evidence of Meredith on the knife.

As someone that holds that the knife was not part of the murder, how do you explain the problem that the "starch" has the same allele layout as Meredith's DNA?

Your explanation is (deliberately?) incorrect. Conti and Vecchiotti swabbed the same area as Stefanoni, along with taking other swabs but did not find Meredith's DNA. What Stefanoni's profile 36B showed was a low template amount of Meredith's profile. I think it is approximately a 50/50 proposition whether or not Meredith's DNA was ever physically on the knife. Stefanoni concentrated the samples using a Speed-Vac. She would have had to release the vacuum at the end of the run, and this would have been an opportunity for airborne DNA to enter into the the experiment. Even if Meredith's DNA were on the knife, secondary or tertiary transfer is also a reasonable explanation from either Amanda herself or from Gubbiotti, who inexcusably handled the knife after being at the women's flat. It is the lack of blood by either a TMB test or a species-specific test that may be the strongest evidence for contamination. How one could clean a knife of blood, but leave starch and tiny amounts of DNA is a conundrum that the the court in its "wisdom" did not explain.

 

[sherlockh]

You may have misunderstood what I wrote. A species-specific test refers to a test for blood, not for DNA. I would like to see another case where someone made a successful claim that he or she can tell how a knife was used by where the DNA was found on the handle. That argument sounds fanciful at best. It is remarkable how many false or illogical arguments the court of supreme cassation managed to stuff into their report.

It is just common sense that DNA does not belong on a knife blade. Blood can not be excluded no matter how many times you try to spin it. So we can't definitely say the DNA comes from blood but it seems it is the most logical explanation. Especially after these new tests. Nothing is definite yet, but calling secondary and even tertiary contamination theories reasonable is hilarious. JMO.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Blood can not be excluded no matter how many times you try to spin it. So we can't definitely say the DNA comes from blood but it seems it is the most logical explanation. Especially after these new tests. Nothing is definite yet, but calling secondary and even tertiary contamination theories reasonable is hilarious. JMO.

Every test comes with a limit of detection. In the case of TMB it is sensitive enough to detect blood that has been diluted between 10,000 and 1,000,000-fold. Modern confirmatory blood tests have approximately the same sensitivity. I have been waiting for a long time for an explanation of how a knife could be cleaned of blood but not of DNA or starch. BTW, bleach is wonderful at destroying DN; therefore, a claim that the knife was cleaned with bleach won't wash.

Does the DNA of Lukis Anderson on a murder victim mean that he was one of the killers?

 

[aa9511]

Everybody on Websleuths is just speculating? Every case has a defense team that tries to refute evidence. It doesn't mean that the evidence was actually refuted. You can't speculate about hard facts. If you say there were "undoubtedly many knives in the flat" then you were simply wrong.

I agree with you on this....anyone can try to refute anything or any piece of evidence. It doesn't mean that first of all, the facts/logic they use to refute it are correct and secondly, that the original fact/evidence is false.

What is happening in this case is that since many don't trust the original gathering of facts/evidence, people are discounting vitrually all the facts and information gathered in the case.

 

[aa9511]

:floorlaugh:

My version of speculating is the generally accepted one, which means "expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence". The key part being incomplete evidence, which I explained thoroughly in my previous post.

The whole reason that this case has dragged on for so long is because of incomplete evidence. If the evidence were complete, it would be extremely easy to convict with no further trials.

To think that anyone on this forum is able to know anything outright about this case would be naive, unless they have some deeper level of involvement. Since I am self-reflective enough to know that I am a distant observer and that my opinion is purely mine and not a fact, yes; I am quite sure that I am speculating.

I would be very surprised that anyone would think otherwise.

Yes, of course we don't know exactly what happened that night....which is the case is probably ever single case that goes to trial. We never know EXACTLY what happened.

That doesn't mean that we can change facts that exist, or explain away things by kind of reaching out there and grabbing something from outer space.

 

[aa9511]

I think much of the confusion, for me at least, is that the 2 sides (pro and contra guilt) interpret the court findings in so diverse a manner.

An article such as Dempseys which appeared yesterday definitely makes you doubt what you were reading elsewhere (such as TJMK, where they believe the finding was a huge blow to the defense):

<modsnip>
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2...r-amanda-knox-victims-dna-not-found-on-knife/

I really hope the discussion on Nov. 6 will clear this up, and that the case will wrap soon after (as the appeal process is supposed to be a brief one).

bbm

I agree. In this case they definately need people who are removed from the case and can interpret the evidence with common sense and no swaying to either side.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

So does this preclude it being found to belong to the victim? There will be no way to ascertain?

The reports I have heard is that Amanda is not excluded as a donor to this sample. Her DNA is on the handle; therefore, finding her DNA on the blade just more evidence that she used it. I am still waiting for an explanation of how one can remove blood from a knife but not starch or DNA.

One question that does not get asked enough is this: Amanda did not even mention Raffaele in her 1:45 statement and said something along the lines of that she did not know whether or not he was present in her 5:45 statement. Yet the police apparently do not take Lumumba's kitchen knives or the kitchen knives at the women's flat to check them; they take a knife from Sollecito's drawer. Maybe it was the only non-serrated, non-butter knife in the drawer, or maybe not. Why were his knives tested and no others? It makes no sense.

 

[aa9511]

They were convicted and put in prison. They appealed. Hellman's annulled ruling resulted in their release from prison. The prosecution appealed that ruling. This is a legitimate legal process, but there is a lot of objection because it can mean that a convicted felon can be returned to prison.

There seems to be a lot of confusion and objection regarding the fact that the prosecution had the right to appeal Hellman's decision. That process is not confusing. It is common practice in the second largest country in the world (after Russia). It is common practice in the country just North of the border. I fail to understand how there can be such a protest regarding a legal process in Italy when that same legal process is commonly practiced in Canada.

Based on the objection to the legal right of the prosecution to appeal any verdict, one almost gets the impression that it is a completely crazy thing that only lunatic Italians do. It is not. In the US, if the jury gets it wrong (OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony, etc.), that murderer is free to victimize others and no one can do anything about it. Some may find that practice a bit crazy.

Otto, I think what Sonata was trying to say is that there she feels like the totality of the evidence is in dispute because Hellman overturned the conviction. I believe that she is saying that if the evidence was not in dispute, than why would Hellman have viewed the evidence differently and come to a different conclusion? I also believe she is saying that if the facts of evidence were not in dispute, then there would be no need for overturning convictions or for annulments, because each court would uphold the lower decision.

 

[aa9511]

Actually, Rudy Guede did. And his account did not include AK's or RS' involvement--until after he had been in custody awhile. Hmmm...
As for your intuition, it is spot on. RS may have carried pocket knives, but there's no evidence he wandered around with kitchen utensils in hand. What's more the victim's DNA was only "found" on the kitchen knife after the results were gamed by the DNA tester--per every reputable DNA expert on the planet, IIRC.

bbm

Sorry, but to call Rudy G's initial "confession" "concrete" is very misleading. Nothing he said was remotely plausible. It was obviously all a pack of lies. You are making it sound like he actually confessed the truth.

 

[otto]

Otto, I think what Sonata was trying to say is that there she feels like the totality of the evidence is in dispute because Hellman overturned the conviction. I believe that she is saying that if the evidence was not in dispute, than why would Hellman have viewed the evidence differently and come to a different conclusion? I also believe she is saying that if the facts of evidence were not in dispute, then there would be no need for overturning convictions or for annulments, because each court would uphold the lower decision.

Thanks. I suppose I'm looking at it from the viewpoint that the facts have remained the same and their interpretation has remained the same. The Hellman appeal had serious problems. To hold up the Hellman conclusions as an example of problems with evidence doesn't work for me. The Hellman conclusions were annulled and wiped from the books because there were serious flaws in his reasoning and because Conti and Vecchiotti failed to do what they were tasked to do, not because the evidence was ambiguous. For example Conti and Vecchiotti concluded that there was no blood and no DNA on the knife or bra clasp. The previous examination of the same evidence concluded the opposite. That does not mean that the evidence is changing or difficult to interpret, it means that Conti and Vecchiotti got it wrong. This third examination of the evidence seems to be confirming the findings of the first examination. We're looking at 2/3 consistent results and a complete rejection of 1/3 sloppy results.

 

[otto]

I find this interesting. Knox has just been formally arrested and told that she will spend a year in jail, but she's not sad. I would expect a person in that position, especially an innocent person, to be completely outraged and beside themselves, but Knox seems to be taking it in stride.



http://thefreelancedesk.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Knox_lettertoherlawyers21.pdf

 

[Chris_Halkides]

For example Conti and Vecchiotti concluded that there was no blood and no DNA on the knife or bra clasp. The previous examination of the same evidence concluded the opposite. That does not mean that the evidence is changing or difficult to interpret, it means that Conti and Vecchiotti got it wrong.

Conti and Vecchiotti noted that prior to their own work, both the TMB and the "species-specific" tests for blood (both performed by Stefanoni's lab) were negative. Conti and Vecchiotti used a version of the TMB test called the Combur test, and also saw a negative result. In other words three instances of testing in two different labs were negative for blood. You also seem to be implying that the bra clasp has blood on it, but there is no reason to associate the bra clasp DNA with blood. IIRC Stefanoni hypothesized that these were exfoliated cells.

 

[aa9511]

Thanks. I suppose I'm looking at it from the viewpoint that the facts have remained the same and their interpretation has remained the same. The Hellman appeal had serious problems. To hold up the Hellman conclusions as an example of problems with evidence doesn't work for me. The Hellman conclusions were annulled and wiped from the books because there were serious flaws in his reasoning and because Conti and Vecchiotti failed to do what they were tasked to do, not because the evidence was ambiguous. For example Conti and Vecchiotti concluded that there was no blood and no DNA on the knife or bra clasp. The previous examination of the same evidence concluded the opposite. That does not mean that the evidence is changing or difficult to interpret, it means that Conti and Vecchiotti got it wrong. This third examination of the evidence seems to be confirming the findings of the first examination. We're looking at 2/3 consistent results and a complete rejection of 1/3 sloppy results.

bbm

Otto, I agree with you, but you know what others might say - that Conti and Vecchiotti got it right and that the first findings were wrong. It just gives an opening in there where there is confusion. Believe me, I agree with your viewpoint. But I'm saying that for others who believe in Amanda and RS's innocence, you can see why they would view this report and overturning as supporting everything they are saying.

 

[otto]

Conti and Vecchiotti noted that prior to their own work, both the TMB and the "species-specific" tests for blood (both performed by Stefanoni's lab) were negative. Conti and Vecchiotti used a version of the TMB test called the Combur test, and also saw a negative result. In other words three instances of testing in two different labs were negative for blood. You also seem to be implying that the bra clasp has blood on it, but there is no reason to associate the bra clasp DNA with blood. IIRC Stefanoni hypothesized that these were exfoliated cells.

BBM

Not at all. I'm saying that per the conclusions of Conti and Vecchiotti (p 143 of report), there was no blood and no DNA on the knife and clasp.

 

[SMK]

I find this interesting. Knox has just been formally arrested and told that she will spend a year in jail, but she's not sad. I would expect a person in that position, especially an innocent person, to be completely outraged and beside themselves, but Knox seems to be taking it in stride.



http://thefreelancedesk.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Knox_lettertoherlawyers21.pdf

That is indeed an odd reaction to hearing a year will be spent in prison.

 

[aa9511]

I find this interesting. Knox has just been formally arrested and told that she will spend a year in jail, but she's not sad. I would expect a person in that position, especially an innocent person, to be completely outraged and beside themselves, but Knox seems to be taking it in stride.



http://thefreelancedesk.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Knox_lettertoherlawyers21.pdf

Yes, very interesting. An innocent person staying in jail for a year is no big deal to that person?

I also found the part interesting where she says she received a text from Patrick saying she didn't have to go to work that night, "even though we had decided I was to work every night." (sorry, I don't know how to copy just that one portion on here!). So I'm just quoting. And didn't Patrick say that she was very annoyed when he told her he might replace her with Meredith at the job?!

 

[otto]

bbm

Otto, I agree with you, but you know what others might say - that Conti and Vecchiotti got it right and that the first findings were wrong. It just gives an opening in there where there is confusion. Believe me, I agree with your viewpoint. But I'm saying that for others who believe in Amanda and RS's innocence, you can see why they would view this report and overturning as supporting everything they are saying.

Going with that line of reasoning, that Conti and Vecchiotti got it right when they concluded that there was no blood or DNA on the knife and clasp, then something very unusual is going on regarding the current testing of the knife. Leaks regarding the current tests suggest that Knox's DNA and a second unidentified sample may be on the knife. Of course, this can be explained using the same claims that are used to explain other evidence: myth, contamination, error. I don't think that makes the evidence ambiguous, particularly since we know that Conti and Vecchiotti did not use the most recent tools that were available for identifying DNA. I suspect that if Conti and Vecchiotti had done what they were asked to do, their results would be consistent with the results that are now being discovered.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

bbm

Otto, I agree with you, but you know what others might say - that Conti and Vecchiotti got it right and that the first findings were wrong. It just gives an opening in there where there is confusion. Believe me, I agree with your viewpoint. But I'm saying that for others who believe in Amanda and RS's innocence, you can see why they would view this report and overturning as supporting everything they are saying.

I have already gone through the blood. With respect to DNA, the fact that Conti and Vecchiotti did not find more DNA in exactly the same spot is not in question, nor is it the issue (both results may be true). The issue is whether or not the DNA profile that Stefanoni culled in her extraction of the knife convincing ties the knife to the crime. Secondary/tertiary DNA transfer is well documented. If one doesn't believe that DNA contamination exists, it might be worth his or her time to talk to Farah Jama, Russell Gesah, Lukis Anderson, or Gregory Turner before forming a final opinion. Low template samples only raise the odds of contamination; that is why legitimate forensics in this range uses a dedicated facility and a reworked process of handling the evidence. Stefanoni's lab was not even certified for standard profiling. It is bewildering how a knife that doesn't match some of the wounds, doesn't match the bloody outline of a knife, and has no blood even according to Stefanoni can still be considered a possible murder weapon.

 

[aa9511]

I find this interesting. Knox has just been formally arrested and told that she will spend a year in jail, but she's not sad. I would expect a person in that position, especially an innocent person, to be completely outraged and beside themselves, but Knox seems to be taking it in stride.



http://thefreelancedesk.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Knox_lettertoherlawyers21.pdf

"to prove that I'm not guilty and that I wasn't there."

In her "interview" with Diane Sawyer, when asked whether she knew of any information about the murder that the police didn't already have she said, "no....I wasn't there." NOT no of course I don't, I had nothing to do with it....but rather, "I wasn't there."

Her line in the letter reminds me of the same thing. NOT to prove that I had nothing to do with it, but to prove that I'm "not guilty" and "I wasn't there."

Something is not right about the way she says those things. Why didn't she just say "to prove that I didn't have anything to do with this?"

 

[aa9511]

I have already gone through the blood. With respect to DNA, the fact that Conti and Vecchiotti did not find more DNA in exactly the same spot is not in question, nor is it the issue (both results may be true). The issue is whether or not the DNA profile that Stefanoni culled in her extraction of the knife convincing ties the knife to the crime. Secondary/tertiary DNA transfer is well documented. If one doesn't believe that DNA contamination exists, it might be worth his or her time to talk to Farah Jama, Russell Gesah, Lukis Anderson, or Gregory Turner before forming a final opinion. Low template samples only raise the odds of contamination; that is why legitimate forensics in this range uses a dedicated facility and a reworked process of handling the evidence. Stefanoni's lab was not even certified for standard profiling. It is bewildering how a knife that doesn't match some of the wounds, doesn't match the bloody outline of a knife, and has no blood even according to Stefanoni can still be considered a possible murder weapon.

So what you're saying is that #1 scenario is, Conti and Vecchiotti did not find DNA on the knife and #2 scenario is, even if they did, it's probably due to contamination and thus can't be taken into consideration?

Can't have it both ways!