Meredith Kercher murdered - Amanda Knox convicted, now appeals #5

[otto]

The arguments regarding lie detectors go back even further and they are still not accepted in any court. So let's don't assume the process always goes from exclusion to acceptance.

And in any event, one CA judge in 2009 and one NY judge in 2010 do not a "trend" make.

But frankly, even if the court decides that the tiny bit of matter on the knife is MK's DNA, I will still assume it was incidental transfer from AK, who was in close contact with MK and also had access to RS' kitchen.

It simply makes no sense that AK went running around Perugia at night carrying a foot-long kitchen knife. Nobody has come up with a reasonable explanation for why she would do so.

True, what happens in California and NewYork do not make a trend, nor do they set international standards. In 2008, LNC DNA was accepted and considered "robust" and
"fit for purpose" in the UK.

Was Amanda high? Did she admit using so many drugs mixed with alcohol that she had absolutely no recollection of many events on the night that Meredith was murdered? Was her recollection of eating dinner late accurate? Do Amanda and Raffaele have alibis for the night in question? It makes no sense that Raffaele cannot say whether Amanda was at his apartment during the night, and it makes no sense that Amanda doesn't know what she did that night. Does it make sense that she was running around with a knife? No. It also doesn't make sense that she was so out of it she doesn't remember whether she was intimate with Raffaele.

We have to keep in mind that this was such a drug fueled night that both Amanda and Raffaele have vowed that they will never again use drugs. We are not discussing the actions of rational, sober people, but rather the actions of two people that were so high on "pot" that their memories were wiped clean.

 

[otto]

Exactly!

And the prosecution doesn't want additional testing because they know full well that knife wasn't used in the murder. IMHO, of course. They were lucky to get the knife into evidence and anything else found on it can only hurt them.

What can be learned about the DNA on the knife blade by disassembling the handle of the knife?

 

[otto]

The best adjective for LCN DNA testing has been and still is "controversial".

Low number count DNA is being challenged in the Knox case, but the science has been accepted in the UK since 2008 ... and apparently Italy ... and apparently in New York as recently as 2010.

 

[otto]

"Amanda Knox could not stick with an alibi. On November 2, she told officials she had spent the night at her boyfriend’s house. Four days later, she changed her story, saying she was at home and Kercher was “having sex.” At some point she stated she had observed Kercher’s former supervisor [Patrick] in the home and he had committed the crime; on November 30 she recanted this statement. In December of 2007 she claimed as she slept, her boyfriend raced over to her home, killed Kercher, snuck back to his place, and put Knox’s fingerprints on the murder weapon as she slept.

Perhaps she does not understand, because of her youth, or arrogance, or both, anything she writes can be seized as evidence. But it has, and her diary contains excerpts such as, "I have received letters from fellow inmates and admirers telling me that I am hot and they want to have sex with me." She also writes of, “smoking a lot of pot.”

Ref: http://www.examiner.com/true-crime-in-nashville/amanda-knox-guilty-or-not-guilty#ixzz1C1KS1Fsb

"She [Amanda's mother] admits being surprised to learn that her daughter was smoking marijuana on the night Meredith Kercher died"

Ref: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...a-Knox-the-shy-former-Jesuit-school-girl.html

 

[SleuthyGal]

We are not discussing the actions of rational, sober people, but rather the actions of two people that were so high on "pot" that their memories were wiped clean.

And yet these 2 kids who were so high on pot and alcohol and somehow thought to carry a 12" kitchen knife around with them (for what purpose, no one has been able to determine, let alone prove), and managed to do so in such an inebriated state they couldn't remember their evening and yet...they didn't harm, cut, or nick themselves one time. Imagine that! High as a kite and with a 12" knife on your person, but no one saw it and you managed not to cut yourself.

I believe that kitchen knife never left RS's apt except under the guise of it being the "murder weapon" by zealous police, after the fact.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Low number count DNA is being challenged in the Knox case, but the science has been accepted in the UK since 2008 ... and apparently Italy ... and apparently in New York as recently as 2010.

Can any lab do these tests or does a lab need to be qualified to do so? Was the lab where the 12" knife tested a qualified LCN DNA lab? Was the test run by a qualified LNC DNA specialist?

 

[SleuthyGal]

What can be learned about the DNA on the knife blade by disassembling the handle of the knife?

Without disassembling the handle, we'd never know what could be learned. Why is the prosecution so against additional testing on this knife? What have they got to fear?

 

[otto]

And yet these 2 kids who were so high on pot and alcohol and somehow thought to carry a 12" kitchen knife around with them (for what purpose, no one has been able to determine, let alone prove), and managed to do so in such an inebriated state they couldn't remember their evening and yet...they didn't harm, cut, or nick themselves one time. Imagine that! High as a kite and with a 12" knife on your person, but no one saw it and you managed not to cut yourself.

I believe that kitchen knife never left RS's apt except under the guise of it being the "murder weapon" by zealous police, after the fact.

There were no "kids" involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher. The three convicted murderers were stoned, and that drug use was used as an excuse for memory failure on the night that Meredith was murdered. If they were too stoned to remember whether they were intimate, or where they were, it's not much of a stretch to believe they were too stoned to make rational decisions. Raffaele habitually carried a knife. Is it a stretch to believe that Amanda decided to carry one too?

 

[otto]

Can any lab do these tests or does a lab need to be qualified to do so? Was the lab where the 12" knife tested a qualified LCN DNA lab? Was the test run by a qualified LNC DNA specialist?

I don't know, but a little research would probably answer your question. I wouldn't be surprised that if this lab completed the analysis, the use of LNC DNA analysis wouldn't be debated.

http://www.lgc.co.uk/news/13-dec-2010_-_thompson.aspx

 

[otto]

Without disassembling the handle, we'd never know what could be learned. Why is the prosecution so against additional testing on this knife? What have they got to fear?

Is the prosecution "so against" testing? I haven't read any of the debate about the handle being disassembled. On the surface, it seems that the handle has nothing to do with the DNA on the blade ... grounds for objection.

 

[Malkmus]

Low number count DNA is being challenged in the Knox case, but the science has been accepted in the UK since 2008 ... and apparently Italy ... and apparently in New York as recently as 2010.

That hardly makes it mainstream, or "widely accepted", if you will. When the UK reinstated its use they made clear that it is only acceptable if done according to the correct protocols. Without the .fsa files in this case (knowing the machine settings), it seems that the DNA evidence would not have been allowed in a court in the UK.

 

[Malkmus]

In December of 2007 she claimed as she slept, her boyfriend raced over to her home, killed Kercher, snuck back to his place, and put Knox’s fingerprints on the murder weapon as she slept.

To clarify, so that those less familiar are not confused, this last part is a grossly inaccurate portrayal by the media of what was actually said.

 

[SleuthyGal]

To clarify, so that those less familiar are not confused, this last part is a grossly inaccurate portrayal by the media of what was actually said.

Yes, this sounds a lot like those "twisted statements" that was mentioned, as an example of problems in this case. Apparently it's okay to twist statements and concoct rumors when attributed to either AK or RS-- in fact, the more outrageous the alleged statement, the better, because demonizing the defendants is an important goal.

Pay no attention to numerous holes in the case and instead please turn your attention to subjective behavioral and creative interpretations of things the defendants supposedly said or did, particularly statements which have no corroboration, recording, or transcript. Give special thanks to a variety of tabloids--they are trusted allies in this endeavor.

 

[Allusonz]

I don't know, but a little research would probably answer your question. I wouldn't be surprised that if this lab completed the analysis, the use of LNC DNA analysis wouldn't be debated.

http://www.lgc.co.uk/news/13-dec-2010_-_thompson.aspx

This is highly unlikely if they adhere to the standard protocols around the world but this very well could be the case:

Italy is the one of the only European countries that has not signed on to the Prum Convention, which establishes protocols and certification standards for DNA testing. Italy has no labs that meet the certification requirements applied throughout the rest of western europe

Italy's inability to meet certification requirements and continuing refusal to sign on to the convention have been topics of discussion within the EU for some time

These are only 9 of noted errors specific only to the LCN DNA

nine distinct ways, Stefanoni's improv LCN DNA profiling was even worse than unproven and inadmissible LCN DNA profiling tests.
1. The DNA wasn't amplified enough; the very weak fluorescence was simply blown up.
2. The test site was not remote from other DNA tests to avoid contamination.
3. Specialized LCN-quality entry procedures to avoid contamination were not used.
4. A positive pressure environment was not maintained to exclude contamination.
5. Special LCN sterilization procedures to destroy errant DNA were not used.
6. The entire sample was consumed in a single test; no comparison of tests was possible.
7. No sample was retained for future reference. The test can never be reproduced.
8. No negative control tests were run to check for contamination.
9. No control tests to check for field contamination were performed

 

[Allusonz]

I don't know, but a little research would probably answer your question. I wouldn't be surprised that if this lab completed the analysis, the use of LNC DNA analysis wouldn't be debated.

http://www.lgc.co.uk/news/13-dec-2010_-_thompson.aspx

this lab was not even certified and still is NOT certified

 

[Allusonz]

"Amanda Knox could not stick with an alibi. On November 2, she told officials she had spent the night at her boyfriend’s house. Four days later, she changed her story, saying she was at home and Kercher was “having sex.” At some point she stated she had observed Kercher’s former supervisor [Patrick] in the home and he had committed the crime; on November 30 she recanted this statement. In December of 2007 she claimed as she slept, her boyfriend raced over to her home, killed Kercher, snuck back to his place, and put Knox’s fingerprints on the murder weapon as she slept.

This is a huge distortion of the facts and i must state i am very disappointed

 

[otto]

That hardly makes it mainstream, or "widely accepted", if you will. When the UK reinstated its use they made clear that it is only acceptable if done according to the correct protocols. Without the .fsa files in this case (knowing the machine settings), it seems that the DNA evidence would not have been allowed in a court in the UK.

The UK and Italy recognize low number copy DNA as valid in court. In the US, the latest ruling is that it is valid. I would hazard a guess that if LNC DNA is accepted in the Northern UK and Southern Italy, it is probably more widely accepted in Europe ... but I don't know. LNC DNA analysis appears to be performed by some excellent labs, like the one in the UK (linked above).

Are you saying that the machine calibration information was not released? I have read that labs that perform LNC analysis do not want to reveal that information because it is considered to be protected or something like a patent right ... don't know the details.

Are calibrations and scientific methods typically released? Wouldn't the important detail be: how much DNA was available to analyze, not what were the machine settings? Is there any standard for how much DNA should be available before it is considered a valid test? Are scientists and courts discovering that with better technology, smaller and smaller samples provide results? Isn't it understood that the LNC results alone would not identify someone, but they are useful for comparision after a suspect is apprehended ... or if there is someone for comparison?

 

[otto]

This is a huge distortion of the facts and i must state i am very disappointed

Let's dissect it.

True: Amanda Knox could not stick with an alibi.
True: On November 2, she told officials she had spent the night at her boyfriend’s house.
True: Four days later, she changed her story, saying she was at home and Kercher was “having sex.” At some point she stated she had observed Kercher’s former supervisor [Patrick] in the home and he had committed the crime;
True: on November 30 she recanted this statement.
True: In December of 2007 she claimed as she slept, her boyfriend raced over to her home, killed Kercher, snuck back to his place, and put Knox’s fingerprints on the murder weapon as she slept. (didn't she put this in her diary after hearing that her fingerprints were on the knife?)

There are certainly circumstances around this "alibi", but it appears to all be true.

 

[otto]

this lab was not even certified and still is NOT certified

What type of DNA analysis do you think would be used to identify a partial sample?

 

[otto]

This is highly unlikely if they adhere to the standard protocols around the world but this very well could be the case:

Italy is the one of the only European countries that has not signed on to the Prum Convention, which establishes protocols and certification standards for DNA testing. Italy has no labs that meet the certification requirements applied throughout the rest of western europe

Italy's inability to meet certification requirements and continuing refusal to sign on to the convention have been topics of discussion within the EU for some time

These are only 9 of noted errors specific only to the LCN DNA

nine distinct ways, Stefanoni's improv LCN DNA profiling was even worse than unproven and inadmissible LCN DNA profiling tests.
1. The DNA wasn't amplified enough; the very weak fluorescence was simply blown up.
2. The test site was not remote from other DNA tests to avoid contamination.
3. Specialized LCN-quality entry procedures to avoid contamination were not used.
4. A positive pressure environment was not maintained to exclude contamination.
5. Special LCN sterilization procedures to destroy errant DNA were not used.
6. The entire sample was consumed in a single test; no comparison of tests was possible.
7. No sample was retained for future reference. The test can never be reproduced.
8. No negative control tests were run to check for contamination.
9. No control tests to check for field contamination were performed

Only a couple of labs in the US require blind testing ... why do you expect it in Italy?