WARNING:GRAPHIC PHOTOS Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #9

[wasnt_me]

"Court TVs Harriet Ryan reported that on the eve of the trial, DNA tests conducted on a 28-year-old mentally ill homeless mans clothes revealed Stephanies blood."

Ref: Rachael Bell
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/not_guilty/coerced_confessions/6.html

I think you forgot to put quotes and source some of your remarks.

Oh, I'm supposed to be doing that each time? Please let me know. Don't want to violate TOS.

 

[wasnt_me]

This is the case of Ryan Ferguson which I have followed for some time and am amazed that the prosecutor which is now a judge took this to trial

We'd have to go to the other thread to talk about these two, but i believe that coworker did it, for real.

 

[wasnt_me]

Doesn't it seem awfully coincidental that the results are a match to Meredith, with the only difference being that the graphed results have lower numbers than Meredith's DNA ... which is to be expected since it's LNC DNA?

It isn't co-incidental. The defense contends lab contamination because the machine had been used to test other things with MK's DNA. Also the lad wasn't even certified to carryout that DNA technique.

I don't know anything about a cigarette. where did that info come from?

 

[otto]

It isn't co-incidental. The defense contends lab contamination because the machine had been used to test other things with MK's DNA. Also the lad wasn't even certified to carryout that DNA technique.

I don't know anything about a cigarette. where did that info come from?

Are you suggesting that the knife or the clasp evidence was a result of a dirty lab?

 

[wasnt_me]

Are you suggesting that the knife or the clasp evidence was a result of a dirty lab?

I'm not suggesting a thing.

I said the defense is suggesting that the machine used still had MK's DNA traces on it. I do not know about a dirty lab overall.

I looked it up for reference and found there is/or was a contamination claim like this on the clasp as well.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/325...ue-to-lab-contamination-claims-Sollecito.html

This is one pro AK RS agrument about the knife:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheKnife.html

I'll try to find a "more objective" one, if possible.

I don't know if this site is pro AK:


Specifically, he took Stefanoni to task for incomplete documentation of her scientific process and even produced a daily registry from the machine that detected Knox's and the victim's DNA on the knife and showed where Stefanoni had handwritten "too low" four times.

"It could be contamination of the laboratory. It could have been anything," Tagliabracci said. "''Too low' means it should not have been used for analysis."

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/arti...-knocks-DNA-evidence-895012.php#ixzz1JA6D8DiV

I am wondering what this is about, though:


He also pointed out contradictions between the results and what Stefanoni actually wrote in her technical report. Specifially, Stefanoni wrote that a mattress cover from the downstairs apartment had tested positive for cat blood and negative for human DNA, when the actual results showed a positive result for human DNA.

Maybe it's nothing, since we haven't heard much about it. anybody know?

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/arti...-knocks-DNA-evidence-895012.php#ixzz1JA6fcjrg

 

[otto]

I'm not suggesting a thing.

I said the defense is suggesting it, and it is in regards to the knife.

The defense is alleging contamination, but I haven't read anywhere that they went so far as to suggest that the lab was dirty. There's certainly no evidence of that, and we know that there were no problems in testing Rudy's DNA in the same lab.

 

[Nova]

Contamination hasn't been demonstrated yet, but maybe the experts in Rome will come up with something. The only DNA from Raffaele in the cottage, other than the clasp, was on the cigarette in the kitchen. That was collected early on. If the clasp was contaminated while it was on the floor of the bedroom, where did the DNA come from?

If the kitchen knife had been the murder weapon, it should have been coated thickly with blood. There is no evidence that bleach or some other special agent was used to clean it.

So the fact that so few particles remained is strongly suggestive of contamination. That those few matched the victim, whose DNA was already in the lab from other items, only makes contamination MORE probable.

I.e., if the knife contained NO DNA, one could at least argue that it had been thoroughly cleaned.

 

[Nova]

Oh, I'm supposed to be doing that each time? Please let me know. Don't want to violate TOS.

In theory, yes. But as in correcting Allusonz' spelling, calling you on this was petty and unnecessary. I'm afraid ILE's screw ups are so many, those trying to defend the verdicts are left to pick at people's grammar and spelling.

 

[otto]

In theory, yes. But as in correcting Allusonz' spelling, calling you on this was petty and unnecessary. I'm afraid ILE's screw ups are so many, those trying to defend the verdicts are left to pick at people's grammar and spelling.

I only said that I was sure I'd seen that spelling of perjury before ... but couldn't place it until today. As for taking statements written by others, yes, it is necessary to reference all of them. If they're not referenced, people like me will see them jump off the page as being out of place.

 

[otto]

If the kitchen knife had been the murder weapon, it should have been coated thickly with blood. There is no evidence that bleach or some other special agent was used to clean it.

So the fact that so few particles remained is strongly suggestive of contamination. That those few matched the victim, whose DNA was already in the lab from other items, only makes contamination MORE probable.

I.e., if the knife contained NO DNA, one could at least argue that it had been thoroughly cleaned.

How do you come to the conclusion that there is no evidence that the knife was cleaned?

 

[wasnt_me]

The defense is alleging contamination, but I haven't read anywhere that they went so far as to suggest that the lab was dirty. There's certainly no evidence of that, and we know that there were no problems in testing Rudy's DNA in the same lab.

Okay, who in the world said the lab was dirty? I didn't. These assumptions get us off track.

 

[Allusonz]

Allusonz, are you saying that the DNA results from the knife do not match Meredith?

It doesn't matter how much DNA was on the clasp since it's too corroded to be retested. I'm not sure how you get to the conclusion that there was not abundant DNA on that clasp.

You mean that you would hire someone in your defense that allowed a lifesaver you wanted to eat melt? :giggle:

 

[wasnt_me]

How do you come to the conclusion that there is no evidence that the knife was cleaned?

Nova did not come to any conclusion. She speculated a theory that if there was nothing on the knife, then there was a case for it being thoroughly cleaned as they have claimed. She is merely citing that it was not thoroughly cleaned if they found something on it, starch stuck in it even after all these years, for example.

Nova, are you a "she," because if not, I apologize.

 

[otto]

Okay, who in the world said the lab was dirty? I didn't. These assumptions get us off track.

It isn't co-incidental. The defense contends lab contamination because the machine had been used to test other things with MK's DNA. Also the lad wasn't even certified to carryout that DNA technique.

I don't know anything about a cigarette. where did that info come from?

I must have misunderstood. Alleging that the machine was contaminated with Meredith's DNA and that was the cause of DNA results from the knife ... sounds like a dirty lab problem to me.

 

[Allusonz]

How do you come to the conclusion that there is no evidence that the knife was cleaned?

The appointed analysts tested it for bleach and found starch

 

[otto]

You mean that you would hire someone in your defense that allowed a lifesaver you wanted to eat melt? :giggle:

The corroded clasp is unfortunate, but the original results still exist.

 

[otto]

The appointed analysts tested it for bleach and found starch

I wonder where that came from? Could it be lab contamination?

 

[wasnt_me]

I must have misunderstood. Alleging that the machine was contaminated with Meredith's DNA and that was the cause of DNA results from the knife ... sounds like a dirty lab problem to me.

One doesn't necessarily mean the other. They could have mopped, dusted, waxed, and cleaned the toilets in there, but didn't get all MK's DNA traces off the machine before starting again.

It's funny because I was reading an article about this case that said false assumptions on the premise (ie, the breakin being staged) led to more false assumptions (ie only AK could have done it) which led to more false assumptions (AK is the murder) which led to a false conclusion.

Same thing for PL. False assumption on what "See you later" meant for Americans led to false assumption that PL was involved. That led to a rigorous interrogation, where AK was hammered because the police "just knew" her and PL did this with RS. If they are under that belief because of the false premise, they will accept nothing from AK but agreement with it. Thus, she finally starts agreeing with it, which leads to his arrest.

I'm just saying these things because we have to be careful in our assumptions, make it known they're assumptions, be willing to be corrected if we're wrong, and basically stick with the facts and whether the facts bear out these assumptions.

 

[wasnt_me]

I wonder where that came from? Could it be lab contamination?

It is a possibility; however, more probable that it came from cooking something with strach using the knife in question, since it is a kitchen knife. If it did come from the lab, it is further proof of a "possibly dirty lab," but I am not stating that it is indeed dirty.

 

[otto]

One doesn't necessarily mean the other. They could have mopped, dusted, waxed, and cleaned the toilets in there, but didn't get all MK's DNA traces off the machine before starting again.

It's funny because I was reading an article about this case that said false assumptions on the premise (ie, the breakin being staged) led to more false assumptions (ie only AK could have done it) which led to more false assumptions (AK is the murder) which led to a false conclusion.

Same thing for PL. False assumption on what "See you later" meant for Americans led to false assumption that PL was involved. That led to a rigorous interrogation, where AK was hammered because the police "just knew" her and PL did this with RS. If they are under that belief because of the false premise, they will accept nothing from AK but agreement with it. Thus, she finally starts agreeing with it, which leads to his arrest.

I'm just saying these things because we have to be careful in our assumptions, make it known they're assumptions, be willing to be corrected if we're wrong, and basically stick with the facts and whether the facts bear out these assumptions.

Assumption: Amanda Knox accused Patrick Lumumba of murder after two hours of questioning because she was deprived of the necessities of life.

That's funny.