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

[Chris_Halkides]

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!

No, you misunderstand. Conti and Vecchiotti took several swabs of the knife. The one taken exactly where Stefanoni took 36B was negative. The swab taken near where the handle meets the blade yielded what appears to be a low template sample attributable to Ms. Knox (if the news reports are accurate). Conti and Vecchiotti did not amplify this in 2011, after all parties agreed not to proceed.

The question that is of the greatest present debate is Stefanoni's 36B. Both contamination and secondary/tertiary transfer are reasonable given the lack of blood and the fact that the testing was not done in a dedicated low template DNA profiling facility.

 

[aa9511]

No, you misunderstand. Conti and Vecchiotti took several swabs of the knife. The one taken exactly where Stefanoni took 36B was negative. The swab taken near where the handle meets the blade yielded what appears to be a low template sample attributable to Ms. Knox (if the news reports are accurate). Conti and Vecchiotti did not amplify this in 2011, after all parties agreed not to proceed.

The question that is of the greatest present debate is Stefanoni's 36B. Both contamination and secondary/tertiary transfer are reasonable given the lack of blood and the fact that the testing was not done in a dedicated low template DNA profiling facility.

Where is Juanderful when I need him?! I don't see how they expected the jury to be PhD's in DNA analysis. This is all very confusing. I'm not attacking you or anything like that, I'm just saying that how can it be this confusing? Either the DNA is there or it isn't there. And if it is there, either it's this person's (whoever that person is) or it's not. Ok, maybe it could be too low for them to see what person's it is....however why is it then that the other lab could test it AND match it to a person. They couldn't have magically rigged up the equipment to produce a false match with someone?? How could they have done that? If they got a match, that means it is a match. I don't understand how it can then get so complicated from there.....

 

[otto]

No, you misunderstand. Conti and Vecchiotti took several swabs of the knife. The one taken exactly where Stefanoni took 36B was negative. The swab taken near where the handle meets the blade yielded what appears to be a low template sample attributable to Ms. Knox (if the news reports are accurate). Conti and Vecchiotti did not amplify this in 2011, after all parties agreed not to proceed.

The question that is of the greatest present debate is Stefanoni's 36B. Both contamination and secondary/tertiary transfer are reasonable given the lack of blood and the fact that the testing was not done in a dedicated low template DNA profiling facility.

I-36 is the only sample being examined right now.

Is 36B the sample that identifies DNA from Meredith Kercher on the knife?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I am short on time right now, but I found this link showing how to grip a chef's knife. The fingers are on both the handle and the blade.

 

[noneareworthy]

Is it just me or do I see a lot of similarities between Amanda and jodi arias? Just finished knox's book and it just sticks in my mind--socially awkward, covers her tracks before asked (trying to anticipate), excuses for self and quirky ways, sexually loose, etc

 

[sherlockh]

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?

Why so easy with the contamination theories for the DNA but not for the starch? Knox's DNA seems to be on the blade even so that is an easy explanation for the starch. Maybe it came off her hand. Why no starch all over the blade if it was not cleaned? When did Knox even claim to have cut some bread? Why not use the bread knife for that? Why does a bit of starch by the handle exclude cleaning of the blade?

I have seen the sensitivity for TMB described as 10,000 times. That is of course sensitive but not even close to the sensitivity of Luminol and you can't exclude the possibility it was blood based on that. There is no disagreement in court on that so I don't know why you keep implying that you can. The expert gave the explanation that only a part of the already microscopically small trace was used for blood testing. If Knox wants to claim that she didn't stab Meredith but only 'touched' her with the knife she better start explaining. JMO.

 

[noneareworthy]

Even when she gets a chance to have a spontaneous comment (or whatever it's called) she talks about something unimportant. When she has the opportunity to address the court...same. Her letters talk around it. Just very strange.

 

[whoanellie]

"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?"

I really don't understand what you think is not right about her saying "I wasn't there" and why "I didn't have anything to do with this" would be so much better.

It's not like anyone thinks she hired or sent Guede to kill Meredith - or do you think that?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Even when she gets a chance to have a spontaneous comment (or whatever it's called) she talks about something unimportant. When she has the opportunity to address the court...same. Her letters talk around it. Just very strange.

The hallmark of a psychopath. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Nova]

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.

BBM: much as I might love to share a meal with you, please don't invite me to your house for dinner. Apparently, you don't clean your knife blades very thoroughly. (This is just a joke.)

People touch knife blades for various reasons, when cleaning them and when picking them out of a crowded drawer. That DNA would be left is hardly surprising.

 

[Nova]

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.

I was referring to his Skype call with his friend, the closest RG ever came to telling the truth. AK and RS were not mentioned until RG read news reports accusing them and/or heard about them from Perugia LE.

 

[aa9511]

Is it just me or do I see a lot of similarities between Amanda and jodi arias? Just finished knox's book and it just sticks in my mind--socially awkward, covers her tracks before asked (trying to anticipate), excuses for self and quirky ways, sexually loose, etc

I can tell you that she made herself very presentable for those interviews she did on TV. No quirkiness there. But when I read some things she wrote after she was arrested, I definately "saw" a different Amanda. Also very telling that she said in one of her letters that she was very unpopular in high school.

The thing with her is this...MOO....she was kind of on the outside in high school, one of those artsy ones who Kanye West so eloquently described on Jimmy Kimmel last week as the ones "sitting in the back" doodling and making sketches, etc.. Writer, deep thinker, not really *typical* high school girl worrying about what to wear for prom. Anyway, when she went off to college, no one knew her, no one knew the "mold" she was stuck in during high school. She was free to re-invent herself. She started caring more about how she looked, put make-up on, suddenly she was attractive to guys. Guys were actually hitting on her! She loved the attention, combine it with alcohol and some drugs and she could just let go of all her inhibitions and she could finally be the "cool" girl. She learned how to flirt and put her charm on for guys.

I don't know if the recent interviews were an act or she has really grown out of "that phase."

 

[Nova]

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

You are grossly misrepresenting the content of AK's note. I'd like to think the error isn't deliberate.

WHAT SHE ACTUALLY SAYS is that she will be in jail for a year "unless they can prove me innocent." So, she continues, she doesn't expect to be in jail very long. THAT is why she is happy, she says.

That is absolutely the note of an innocent woman who assumes she will be exonerated. It may be naive, but it isn't even remotely suggestive of guilt.

 

[Nova]

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

See my post above (or read the note for yourself). Otto is misrepresenting the note.

 

[Nova]

"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?"

The cherry-picking that is required to provide proof of AK's and RS' guilt (beginning with the prosecutor) is extraordinary.

"I wasn't there" is the same thing as "I didn't have anything to do with this."

Geeze, Louise!

 

[Nova]

Is it just me or do I see a lot of similarities between Amanda and jodi arias? Just finished knox's book and it just sticks in my mind--socially awkward, covers her tracks before asked (trying to anticipate), excuses for self and quirky ways, sexually loose, etc

It's just that both cases remain in the news and have for a long time.

Now if Raffaele had been killed, I might grant you the comparison.

But there's no evidence that Jodi Arias went around killing girls she knew casually.

 

[Nova]

Even when she gets a chance to have a spontaneous comment (or whatever it's called) she talks about something unimportant. When she has the opportunity to address the court...same. Her letters talk around it. Just very strange.

First, walk a mile in her shoes...

 

[aa9511]

I really don't understand what you think is not right about her saying "I wasn't there" and why "I didn't have anything to do with this" would be so much better.

It's not like anyone thinks she hired or sent Guede to kill Meredith - or do you think that?

This is MOO....I think that the way she tries to answer direct questions about whether she committed the murder or played any part in the murder is just strange. I saw it in the Diane Sawyer interview, her words combined with her facial features and the way she said it just struck me as odd.

Perhaps she says "I wasn't there" because she thinks that is what the investigators have been unable to prove. I believe, MOO, that a real innocent person would automatically say something like, "i had nothing to do with any of that, I had no idea what was going on, I didn't have any part in any of that...." or some variation of that.

I don't know the meaning behind the strange-ness of it, I just know it's strange.

 

[aa9511]

I was referring to his Skype call with his friend, the closest RG ever came to telling the truth. AK and RS were not mentioned until RG read news reports accusing them and/or heard about them from Perugia LE.

I wouldn't expect him to tell the real truth to even his friends.

 

[aa9511]

You are grossly misrepresenting the content of AK's note. I'd like to think the error isn't deliberate.

WHAT SHE ACTUALLY SAYS is that she will be in jail for a year "unless they can prove me innocent." So, she continues, she doesn't expect to be in jail very long. THAT is why she is happy, she says.

That is absolutely the note of an innocent woman who assumes she will be exonerated. It may be naive, but it isn't even remotely suggestive of guilt.

Nova, you subconciously wrote what an innocent person would really write - unless they can prove me innocent. That is how a real innocent person would write.

Do you notice that Amanda did not say it like that? She wrote "only if they can't prove that I did or did not do it."

It's hard to describe in words exactly what is not right with that portion of her statement. It's just not how an innocent person would have phrased things and written things - IMO. MOO.

Btw I know this is not "evidence," but I don't care how right or wrong I am - that's the way I feel when I read what she wrote - that she's not innocent.