Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:21 pm

Diocletian had an excellent suggestion today that we create a new discussion thread for 'Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife.

I would suggest that this thread consider this subject broadly and welcome comments from everyone about multiple aspects related to how the prosecution has historically attempted to present this 'evidence'; including basic facts and issues about what I will call the prosecution's 'kitchen knife hypothesis', as well as current technical details about the present DNA test.

Hopefully such a discussion will be useful as the Court in Florence addresses the upcoming DNA test to be performed by the Italian Carabinieri.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:39 pm

To provide some context, allow me to post a few fundamental links.

"The Truth About The Knife" http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheKnife.html

Chris Halkides' analysis: "An ordinary kitchen knife or a murder weapon?"http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/02/ordinary-kitchen-knife-or-murder-weapon.html

and the Conti and Vecchiotti report: http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/

Further, the nth trial court in Florence has determined that 'sample I' from Rafaelle's kitchen knife requires special scrutiny. Thus the motivation for this discussion thread. Rather than having independent forensic experts further examine this object, the court in Florence has decided that the Italian Carabinieri should perform an analysis. The execution of a lab test (whatever that means, this is not clear) is now scheduled to occur beginning on October 10.

In any event, 'the whole world is watching' as an undefined number of picograms of DNA (perhaps it may even be femtograms at this point) are 'analyzed'.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:04 pm

To initiate the discussion, it would be useful if forum members could articulate the multiple problems/issues surrounding the prosecution's premise here. (I do DNA, in case anyone somehow missed that. I am not at all the best one to elaborate on these issues.)
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby RoseMontague » Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:22 am

1. It's obvious that this knife could not have caused all the knife wounds.
2. A smaller knife consistent with the knife imprint in blood on the bed could have.
3. This knife had to have been transported from Raffaele's kitchen drawer, used in the murder, and then placed back in the drawer after the murder.
4. The prosecution maintains the knife was cleaned with bleach before it was placed back in the drawer.
User avatar
RoseMontague
 
Posts: 3526
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:59 am

Good idea Tom

Let's start by forgetting about DNA altogether! :) That should pull in the crowds and set them up nicely for the more technical stuff. It's good when investigating a murder to find the murder weapon. Especially if it should turn out to have some provable link to the perpetrator, like fingerprints or DNA (drat, I mentioned it after all). I am just reading a book by a South African forensic scientist in which he describes the process by which the cops sometimes form a theory before the evidence comes in and then set about trying to prove it, ignoring or misinterpreting evidence as the theory requires. The Perugians cops seem to have taken the next step and actually made (=fabricated) the evidence their theory demanded.

How many knives from the via Della Pergola apartment were tested? How many from Lumumba's apartment or from Le Chic? Maybe Diocletian knows. AFAIK they tested one knife of Raff's. Was a fingertip search conducted of the route between the apartment and Lana's garden to find the knife? If so, I never heard about it. How many knives were retrieved from Rudy's apartment when he came into the picture? The 'search' seems to have consisted of an officer plucking just the one knife from the drawer and saying (according to Raffaele) 'this will do'. We must perhaps discount the last part since Raffaele, if guilty, might have made this bit up.

What luck! To find the murder weapon without hardly looking for it. This supports Giobbi's claim that Italian police interrogation techniques are so good they don't really need evidence. They form a theory so strong that the evidence just falls into their hands.

Consider, apart from the question of luck, the problems the knife creates. Cops are stupid the world over. This is because criminals are even dumber. There is no need to employ rocket scientists to catch them and the Italians do not. To a cop, 'finding' the knife is all that counts. The imponderables associated with it (wrong size, premeditation, improbability of retention and of return to drawer for further use) do not matter. And don't forget, this Neanderthal line of thinking is not wrong! The two were convicted, largely because of that knife and the knife still takes centre stage now, 6 years down the line. People are still seriously wondering whether 36I will throw up something incriminating.

The circumstantial evidence, taken in the round and viewed osmotically, is conclusive. That evidence includes, of course, all the evidence that proves Raffaele and Amanda had no involvement in the crime. It allows us to hypothesise with confidence that the knife evidence is fabricated and, like all good theories, to make a prediction. The prediction is that the DNA evidence will turn out to be wholly bogus. Of course, this prediction has already been thoroughly verified by Conti and Vechiotti and if anyone has an hour or two to spare they should read the C-V report for themselves. If time is short, these are the (non-technical) highlights:

Sample 36B (taken from one side of the blade) was tested negative for blood and negative for the human species. It was not examined to determine its morphology (the 'WTF is it?' test). It was in these respects indistinguishable from 36C (a sample form the other side of the blade) but that sample was not further tested. These facts were not disclosed by Stefanoni at the preliminary hearing before Michel in 2008 when Stefanoni gave oral evidence and presented her 'RTIGF' report. On 30 Jul 2009, when the full trial was already far-advanced, Massei acceded to a defence application for disclosure of lab records and the result was Stefanoni disgorged the so-called SAL records ( incompletely) and it was these that revealed the above and very much more. When reading C-V, bear this sequence of events in mind, because C-V do not themselves say anything explicit about this sequential, reluctant and partial disclosure, so it doesn 't leap from the page.

Disclosure in in this manner is another prediction of The Theory, fully justified by empirical study. The Theory predicts that sample 36I will not contain any DNA of Meredith Kercher because her DNA was never on the knife at all. The Theory requires someone like TomZ or ChrisH or Kaosium or Not Even Wrong to make a prediction about exactly how the profile was generated but it precludes them (using the writer's confirmation bias and single-track thinking) from hypothesising that it came from any material sampled from the knife.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby Hans » Sun Oct 06, 2013 6:01 am

A few pictures:
259
260
261
262

Prof Potenza's reports:
Prof. Potenza - Note preliminari per la difesa del Sig. Raffaele Sollecito (28 Novembre 2007)
Prof Potenza (pg 3) wrote:36) type of kitchen knife with black handle overall length of 31 cm to 17 cm in blade and handle 14 (Measures reported by PS).
On this finding were carried out n. Two samples:
(A) In correspondence of the blade; (B) in correspondence of the handle.
None of the samples and underwent preliminary investigation for the detection of human blood, but both have been subjected to DNA analysis that gave amplification products of extremely weak intensity and considerably below the minimum recommended by the recommendations of the GEFI (Italian Group Pathologists Forensic); furthermore, the results obtained have not been consistently reproduced in the other amplifications since for the same samples were obtained amplifications with buoyancy allelic differences for some loci.

Prof. Potenza - Ulteriori brevi note per la difesa di Raffaele Sollecito (03 Gennaio 2008)
Prof Potenza (pg 8/9) wrote:36) type of kitchen knife with black handle overall length of 31 cm.
On this finding were carried out, as known, No.2 samples each (A) in correspondence of the blade and the other (B) in correspondence of the handle.
The results of the forensic analysis previously performed on blood specimen, as indicated in the notes already developed made it possible to exclude the presence on it of biological traces attributable to Sollecito, which made it possible, in my opinion since then to exclude him that he has done use in the period before its evidence collection.
I had also already expressed a technical opinion on the results obtained by the two samplings performed respectively on the handle and on the blade of the knife, for which there was no investigation was performed peliminare for highlighting the nature of the traces given the absolute skimpiness of them, emphasizing also that DNA analysis has provided for them amplification products that, because of their analytical characteristics do not provide a correct use of the results in the forensic field, as it uniquely interpretable and theoretically also due to analytical artifacts.
In light of these clear, the day 14.12.07 the employees have conducted an investigation, in my presence, a total of. 4 new samples, according to the minutes, including two on the blade and two on the knife handle and are identified by letters (D - E, F - G).
On all four of these new samples the new analysis for the detection of blood-borne nature of the track by Tetra Methyl Benzidine (TMB) gave a negative result, thus confirming that the kitchen knife (rep.36) Raffaele Sollecito arrested, there is no adherent blood.
Include investigations of DNA by specific polymorphisms in the human genome performed on the same analytes was consistently negative since it did not provide any amplification product, excluding in particular the presence of biological traces belonging to Raffaele Sollecito.
These additional analytical data thus agree with previous investigations carried out and exclude the presence of any biological trace belonged to Raffaele Sollecito on the kitchen knife he seized therefore also strengthening the belief that it is not used it in the period before its evidence collection.

Prof Torre:
2009-07-06 - Torre Carlo, Gino Sarah.pdf

Prof Torre (pg 46) wrote:PUBBLICO MINISTERO DOTT.SSA COMODI - Sì ma io le ho chiesto una cosa, l’evidente violenza di cui ha parlato prima da che cosa la desume l’evidente violenza?
CONSULENTE - Insomma un va e vieni di un coltello in parti molli così molli non è facile controllarsi andare... a non andare fino in fondo e a me par strano che uno che insiste con quella tenacia in un inserimento di un coltello che neanche una volta in quei tre colpi gli sia andata più giù, invece tutti questi tramiti vanno a finire a 8 centimetri, allora cos’è ha preso la lama a 8 centimetri e ha usato il coltello prendendolo a 8 centimetri dalla punta.
PUBBLICO MINISTERO DOTT.SSA COMODI - Ma anziché l’evidente violenza che presuppone anche la volontà omicida abbastanza determinata, no?
CONSULENTE - Ma di solito uno che sgozza un altro vuole ucciderlo.

Prof Introna:
Prof Introna (Massei translation pg 167) wrote:"In the first place, Professor Introna maintains that the ecchymotic area underneath the wound constituted a sign of the impact of the proximal part of the knife handle against the skin. He had to necessarily derive from this that the entire length of the blade must have penetrated and thus, that the wound with a depth of 8-­‐‑9 cm could not have been caused by a knife with a blade of 17.5 cm in length."
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby RoseMontague » Sun Oct 06, 2013 6:50 am

The test results indicate only three knives were tested. The large kitchen knife, the knife Raffaele took to the police station, and one more short knife collected at Raffaele's apartment.
User avatar
RoseMontague
 
Posts: 3526
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby sept79 » Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:11 am

There is no evidence of Amanda Knox's presence in the bedroom--no shoe print, no footprint, no fingerprint, no DNA. How could Knox have been wielding this knife killing Meredith Kercher without leaving some evidence of her presence? The notion put forth by the prosecution of a 'clean-up' doesn't explain how 1) Knox's presence could be erased while leaving evidence of Guede and 2) there is no physical indication of a clean-up.
sept79
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 7:16 am

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:37 am

RoseMontague wrote:The test results indicate only three knives were tested. The large kitchen knife, the knife Raffaele took to the police station, and one more short knife collected at Raffaele's apartment.

Thank you Rose. Since at least two knives must have been used on the prosecution's theory (the kitchen knife being too large for the print on the bed sheet) it is remarkable they didn't turn all the places
I mentioned upside down looking for the other one(s).

Hans - I think Introna has transposed exhibits: 36A was the handle and 36B was the blade.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:39 am

sept79 wrote:There is no evidence of Amanda Knox's presence in the bedroom--no shoe print, no footprint, no fingerprint, no DNA. How could Knox have been wielding this knife killing Meredith Kercher without leaving some evidence of her presence? The notion put forth by the prosecution of a 'clean-up' doesn't explain how 1) Knox's presence could be erased while leaving evidence of Guede and 2) there is no physical indication of a clean-up.

Quite. Why even waste brain cells thinking about it? The question should be: how could a profile of the victim show up on that knife without corruption?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby Billy_Ray » Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:45 am

With no free press, a credulous population, no functioning democratic institutions, no oversight bodies and no standards, I'm sure the knife is just typical police procedure in Italy.
Billy_Ray
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:31 am

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:04 am

RoseMontague wrote:1. It's obvious that this knife could not have caused all the knife wounds.
2. A smaller knife consistent with the knife imprint in blood on the bed could have.
3. This knife had to have been transported from Raffaele's kitchen drawer, used in the murder, and then placed back in the drawer after the murder.
4. The prosecution maintains the knife was cleaned with bleach before it was placed back in the drawer.


Thanks Rose,

A couple of questions;

1) how is it that the knife does not match the wounds, while the knife represented by the bloody imprint does. I recall reading something about how the knife would have had to be stabbed to a certain limited depth. Is there also anything about the width or edges of the wounds to go on?

2) The knife would have had to have been transproted back and forth and then placed back. This part of teh fabrication has always bee a major stretch. What is the prosecution's narrative here?

I would add one point to your list above (ignoring Clive's admonition below about DNA...

5) there would need to be some unknown molecular mechanism by which DNA could be specifically extracted from blood and precisely adhered to a metallic surface (while evading chemical degradation from bleach) for detectable MK DNA from blood to be present on the knife.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:07 am

Billy_Ray wrote:With no free press, a credulous population, no functioning democratic institutions, no oversight bodies and no standards, I'm sure the knife is just typical police procedure in Italy.


Billy Ray,

I think that your line of reasoning here is central to understanding what is going on with the kitchen knife. Extrapolating, it appears that this might not only be standard police procedure but further, standard procedure for the entire justice system. I am waiting to see credible evidence to the contrary.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:23 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:Good idea Tom

Let's start by forgetting about DNA altogether! :) That should pull in the crowds and set them up nicely for the more technical stuff. It's good when investigating a murder to find the murder weapon. Especially if it should turn out to have some provable link to the perpetrator, like fingerprints or DNA (drat, I mentioned it after all). I am just reading a book by a South African forensic scientist in which he describes the process by which the cops sometimes form a theory before the evidence comes in and then set about trying to prove it, ignoring or misinterpreting evidence as the theory requires. The Perugians cops seem to have taken the next step and actually made (=fabricated) the evidence their theory demanded.

How many knives from the via Della Pergola apartment were tested? How many from Lumumba's apartment or from Le Chic? Maybe Diocletian knows. AFAIK they tested one knife of Raff's. Was a fingertip search conducted of the route between the apartment and Lana's garden to find the knife? If so, I never heard about it. How many knives were retrieved from Rudy's apartment when he came into the picture? The 'search' seems to have consisted of an officer plucking just the one knife from the drawer and saying (according to Raffaele) 'this will do'. We must perhaps discount the last part since Raffaele, if guilty, might have made this bit up.

What luck! To find the murder weapon without hardly looking for it. This supports Giobbi's claim that Italian police interrogation techniques are so good they don't really need evidence. They form a theory so strong that the evidence just falls into their hands.

Consider, apart from the question of luck, the problems the knife creates. Cops are stupid the world over. This is because criminals are even dumber. There is no need to employ rocket scientists to catch them and the Italians do not. To a cop, 'finding' the knife is all that counts. The imponderables associated with it (wrong size, premeditation, improbability of retention and of return to drawer for further use) do not matter. And don't forget, this Neanderthal line of thinking is not wrong! The two were convicted, largely because of that knife and the knife still takes centre stage now, 6 years down the line. People are still seriously wondering whether 36I will throw up something incriminating.

The circumstantial evidence, taken in the round and viewed osmotically, is conclusive. That evidence includes, of course, all the evidence that proves Raffaele and Amanda had no involvement in the crime. It allows us to hypothesise with confidence that the knife evidence is fabricated and, like all good theories, to make a prediction. The prediction is that the DNA evidence will turn out to be wholly bogus. Of course, this prediction has already been thoroughly verified by Conti and Vechiotti and if anyone has an hour or two to spare they should read the C-V report for themselves. If time is short, these are the (non-technical) highlights:

Sample 36B (taken from one side of the blade) was tested negative for blood and negative for the human species. It was not examined to determine its morphology (the 'WTF is it?' test). It was in these respects indistinguishable from 36C (a sample form the other side of the blade) but that sample was not further tested. These facts were not disclosed by Stefanoni at the preliminary hearing before Michel in 2008 when Stefanoni gave oral evidence and presented her 'RTIGF' report. On 30 Jul 2009, when the full trial was already far-advanced, Massei acceded to a defence application for disclosure of lab records and the result was Stefanoni disgorged the so-called SAL records ( incompletely) and it was these that revealed the above and very much more. When reading C-V, bear this sequence of events in mind, because C-V do not themselves say anything explicit about this sequential, reluctant and partial disclosure, so it doesn 't leap from the page.

Disclosure in in this manner is another prediction of The Theory, fully justified by empirical study. The Theory predicts that sample 36I will not contain any DNA of Meredith Kercher because her DNA was never on the knife at all. The Theory requires someone like TomZ or ChrisH or Kaosium or Not Even Wrong to make a prediction about exactly how the profile was generated but it precludes them (using the writer's confirmation bias and single-track thinking) from hypothesising that it came from any material sampled from the knife.


Clive,

Excellent summary. What I am always waiting for is to have these fundamental facts become part of the standard news narrative when a story is written about the knife. Journalists need to include these fundamental facts in their stories to provide accurate context. How does that get accomplished?
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby pmop57 » Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:24 am

TomZ53 wrote:
RoseMontague wrote:1. It's obvious that this knife could not have caused all the knife wounds.
2. A smaller knife consistent with the knife imprint in blood on the bed could have.
3. This knife had to have been transported from Raffaele's kitchen drawer, used in the murder, and then placed back in the drawer after the murder.
4. The prosecution maintains the knife was cleaned with bleach before it was placed back in the drawer.


Thanks Rose,

A couple of questions;

1) how is it that the knife does not match the wounds, while the knife represented by the bloody imprint does. I recall reading something about how the knife would have had to be stabbed to a certain limited depth. Is there also anything about the width or edges of the wounds to go on?

2) The knife would have had to have been transproted back and forth and then placed back. This part of teh fabrication has always bee a major stretch. What is the prosecution's narrative here?

I would add one point to your list above (ignoring Clive's admonition below about DNA...

5) there would need to be some unknown molecular mechanism by which DNA could be specifically extracted from blood and precisely adhered to a metallic surface (while evading chemical degradation from bleach) for detectable MK DNA from blood to be present on the knife.


to 1) the knife was moved in the wound after the initial stabbing
to 2) Amanda was carrying the knife for self-protection in her purse from Raffaele's flat to the cottage and after having committed the crime back to the flat. The Prosecution was guessing that the cleaning of the knife with bleach was done at the flat but as far as I know there was no analysing of the purse. If the knife was carryed back to the flat there MUST have been traces of the carrying, blood or whatever in the purse.

The entire knife story is a product in a class of its own. It is simply an invention to produce results, it's to obvious and it fits a specific pattern ... . Many crimes may be solved due to coincidence. But in this case there are simply to much coincidences.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby bluebird55 » Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:49 am

I am sorry for asking this stupid question. From which part of the knife is 36I coming from? Are they going to pull apart the handle of the knife to get more specimens?
bluebird55
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:56 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby Hans » Sun Oct 06, 2013 11:09 am

bluebird55 wrote:I am sorry for asking this stupid question. From which part of the knife is 36I coming from? Are they going to pull apart the handle of the knife to get more specimens?

Vecchiotti & Conti wrote:With the agreement of the parties, two further samples were taken from the point of contact between the blade and the handle, on opposite sides of the knife, and these samples were indicated with the letters H-I.
Not sure which trace is on which side of the blade... I don't think they are going to take the handle apart, it looks like the new test will only be on the sample C&V extracted.
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby bluebird55 » Sun Oct 06, 2013 11:15 am

Thanks Hans. But wasn't that sample too small to be tested? Is there a new technique for dealing with such a small sample to get an accurate reading?
bluebird55
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:56 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby Hans » Sun Oct 06, 2013 11:25 am

TomZ53 wrote:
RoseMontague wrote:1. It's obvious that this knife could not have caused all the knife wounds.
2. A smaller knife consistent with the knife imprint in blood on the bed could have.
3. This knife had to have been transported from Raffaele's kitchen drawer, used in the murder, and then placed back in the drawer after the murder.
4. The prosecution maintains the knife was cleaned with bleach before it was placed back in the drawer.


Thanks Rose,

A couple of questions;

1) how is it that the knife does not match the wounds, while the knife represented by the bloody imprint does. I recall reading something about how the knife would have had to be stabbed to a certain limited depth. Is there also anything about the width or edges of the wounds to go on?

2) The knife would have had to have been transproted back and forth and then placed back. This part of teh fabrication has always bee a major stretch. What is the prosecution's narrative here?

I would add one point to your list above (ignoring Clive's admonition below about DNA...

5) there would need to be some unknown molecular mechanism by which DNA could be specifically extracted from blood and precisely adhered to a metallic surface (while evading chemical degradation from bleach) for detectable MK DNA from blood to be present on the knife.

On the size of the wounds:
Image
The large wound:
Massei (Translation page 111) wrote:Once the neck had been cleaned, it was possible to observe wounds which Dr. Lalli attributed to the action of a pointed cutting instrument. The main wound was located in the left lateral region of the neck, and was 8cm in length; the width could not be measured because the edges had separated due to the elasticity of the tissues both in relation to the region and to the position of the head, which could have modified the width. These wounds had a small "ʺtail"ʺ at the posterior end. The wound "ʺpenetrated into the interior of the structure of the neck in a slightly oblique direction, upwards and also towards the right"ʺ (page 15). Underneath this large wound another wound was visible, rather small and superficial, with not particularly clear edges "ʺbecoming increasingly superficial until they disappeared"ʺ, in the reddish area of abrasions.

The wound on the other side of the neck:
Professor Bacci via Massei (Translation page 121) wrote:He ruled out that the knife (Exhibit 36) could have caused the wound on the opposite side (still inflicted on the neck but on the right side) because of the size of the wound (1 cm and a half with a depth of 4 cm) and the fact that at 4 cm from the tip the width of the blade of the knife is about 3 cm and therefore much larger than the width of the wound (as indicated, 1.5cm).
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby Hans » Sun Oct 06, 2013 11:33 am

bluebird55 wrote:Thanks Hans. But wasn't that sample too small to be tested? Is there a new technique for dealing with such a small sample to get an accurate reading?
C&V thought it too small to give an accurate reading, but there was this debate at the end of the Hellmann appeal that new "cutting edge" technologies could be used to test that sample.
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Sun Oct 06, 2013 1:19 pm

Hans wrote:
bluebird55 wrote:Thanks Hans. But wasn't that sample too small to be tested? Is there a new technique for dealing with such a small sample to get an accurate reading?
C&V thought it too small to give an accurate reading, but there was this debate at the end of the Hellmann appeal that new "cutting edge" technologies could be used to test that sample.


Hans and bluebird55,

There are new techniques for working with such tiny LCN DNA samples (LCN = Low Copy Number), nevertheless they are intrinsically limited, error prone, and subject to ambiguity. It would not be surprising if the sample I test gave a messy result that was difficult to interpret. I would be curious to learn what technology the carabinieri were proposing to employ.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby Hans » Sun Oct 06, 2013 1:48 pm

TomZ53 wrote:
Hans wrote:
bluebird55 wrote:Thanks Hans. But wasn't that sample too small to be tested? Is there a new technique for dealing with such a small sample to get an accurate reading?
C&V thought it too small to give an accurate reading, but there was this debate at the end of the Hellmann appeal that new "cutting edge" technologies could be used to test that sample.


Hans and bluebird55,

There are new techniques for working with such tiny LCN DNA samples (LCN = Low Copy Number), nevertheless they are intrinsically limited, error prone, and subject to ambiguity. It would not be surprising if the sample I test gave a messy result that was difficult to interpret. I would be curious to learn what technology the carabinieri were proposing to employ.

I wouldn't be surprised if they come back empty handed or with a "messy, difficult to interpret" result. I'd really like them to find Finzi's DNA on that knife, just to reopen the debate about contamination that the Supreme Court closed by ruling it had to be proven... :twisted:
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby Alex_K » Sun Oct 06, 2013 2:05 pm

BTW, Francesco Introna, a highly qualified forensic biologist, must be on Mignini's list of personal enemies. In 2004, Introna's work helped fix the date of one murder committed by the Monster of Florence one day earlier than the official version, dealing a deadly blow to the Guittari-Mignini satanic cult theory. Not that Introna's conclusion, which was corroborated by a witness' recollection, could stop the Guittari-Mignini juggernaut.
Alex_K
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:16 am

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby Hans » Sun Oct 06, 2013 2:30 pm

Alex_K wrote:BTW, Francesco Introna, a highly qualified forensic biologist, must be on Mignini's list of personal enemies. In 2004, Introna's work helped fix the date of one murder committed by the Monster of Florence one day earlier than the official version, dealing a deadly blow to the Guittari-Mignini satanic cult theory. Not that Introna's conclusion, which was corroborated by a witness' recollection, could stop the Guittari-Mignini juggernaut.
:jaw-dropping: Do you have reading material on that? (I'm not that well sourced on the MOF case) :Asche auf mein Haupt:
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby Alex_K » Sun Oct 06, 2013 2:59 pm

Hans wrote:
Alex_K wrote:BTW, Francesco Introna, a highly qualified forensic biologist, must be on Mignini's list of personal enemies. In 2004, Introna's work helped fix the date of one murder committed by the Monster of Florence one day earlier than the official version, dealing a deadly blow to the Guittari-Mignini satanic cult theory. Not that Introna's conclusion, which was corroborated by a witness' recollection, could stop the Guittari-Mignini juggernaut.
:jaw-dropping: Do you have reading material on that? (I'm not that well sourced on the MOF case) :Asche auf mein Haupt:


Yes, The Monster of Florence by Preston and Spezi. I haven't yet finished the book, but it has already explained to me the way Giuttari and Mignini put their cases together. This writeup is partly based on the Preston-Spezi book.
Alex_K
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:16 am

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby Hans » Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:30 pm

Alex_K wrote:
Hans wrote:
Alex_K wrote:BTW, Francesco Introna, a highly qualified forensic biologist, must be on Mignini's list of personal enemies. In 2004, Introna's work helped fix the date of one murder committed by the Monster of Florence one day earlier than the official version, dealing a deadly blow to the Guittari-Mignini satanic cult theory. Not that Introna's conclusion, which was corroborated by a witness' recollection, could stop the Guittari-Mignini juggernaut.
:jaw-dropping: Do you have reading material on that? (I'm not that well sourced on the MOF case) :Asche auf mein Haupt:


Yes, The Monster of Florence by Preston and Spezi. I haven't yet finished the book, but it has already explained to me the way Giuttari and Mignini put their cases together. This writeup is partly based on the Preston-Spezi book.

Thank you, I'll take a look. :::thumbs up:::
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby Justinian » Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:27 pm

Is there any dispute about the knife?

Nobody disputes the fact it was a knife randomly chosen from Raffaele's apartment that Amanda used for cutting bread.

Amanda's DNA was on the handle, as would be expected.

The wounds don't match, as would be expected.

No blood was found on the knife.

The prosecution claims that one incomplete strand of Kercher's DNA may been either on the knife or in the lab equipment that was used to amplify and test the DNA.

There is no dispute that the DNA readings were of the level of random noise and that the tests weren't conducted with the necessary care.

Ok, there is a tiny dispute with that last statement. Hardly beyond a reasonable doubt!
Is it ignorance or apathy? Hey, I don’t know and I don’t care. -- Jimmy Buffett
Anti-intellectualism is plausibly anger against those that undermine ones' biases.
User avatar
Justinian
 
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:51 am
Location: European American

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:59 pm

Justinian wrote:Is there any dispute about the knife?

Nobody disputes the fact it was a knife randomly chosen from Raffaele's apartment that Amanda used for cutting bread.

Amanda's DNA was on the handle, as would be expected.

The wounds don't match, as would be expected.

No blood was found on the knife.

The prosecution claims that one incomplete strand of Kercher's DNA may been either on the knife or in the lab equipment that was used to amplify and test the DNA.

There is no dispute that the DNA readings were of the level of random noise and that the tests weren't conducted with the necessary care.

Ok, there is a tiny dispute with that last statement. Hardly beyond a reasonable doubt!


Justinian,

Just a couple of comments. First regarding, "The prosecution claims that one incomplete strand of Kercher's DNA may been either on the knife or in the lab equipment that was used to amplify and test the DNA." I would say that the prosecution contends that there was DNA from MK on the blade of the knife and it did not come from the lab. In fact they contend that there has never ever been a single incident in which contamination has ever occurred in their lab, ever. Further, they contend that it came from blood (without providing any evidence of blood or explanation how this is supposed to have been converted to clean DNA, with all blood cells and hemoglobin specifically removed). Further they claim that the knife was cleaned with bleach, which damages DNA so that it cannot be detected by PCR, but it didn't do this in this case (???).

Second, about "There is no dispute that the DNA readings were of the level of random noise and that the tests weren't conducted with the necessary care." I would not say it this way. I would say that Stefanoni obtained an egram with a pattern of genetic markers that was consistent with the genotype of MK. I say it this way because there is no data that makes it possible to interpret how this egram was generated and there are many possible explanations. This leads to the problem of the missing controls and failure to provide the electronic data files (the EDF's). This information is required in order to logically interpret the egram, although even this information would not be sufficient to provide a definitive explanation of whether or not MK DNA was ever on the knife, and if so, how did it get there.

This is a part of how I see the dispute. Then there are the other parts of the prosecution's story. I have a specific question about the part where AK carried Rafaelle's kitchen knife around for protection. I was wondering if this is typical behavior among Italian college girls. I would be surprised if it was, and so why would anyone take it seriously? Don't women go out in groups or with a man, or perhaps carry a can of mace if they are worried for their safety?
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby struoc » Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:30 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote: The Perugians cops seem to have taken the next step and actually made (=fabricated) the evidence their theory demanded.


The complex part of this is likely due to the logicality only a few participated in fabricating the evidence.
If a crime happens in your work building, maybe 3 or 4 partook in it but the other 300-400 in the building knew nothing of it and are normal honest people.

I suspect the polizia in Perugia operate the same way, majority are just working stiffs while a few like Monica Napoleoni and maybe a couple henchmen who she has control over create the corruption.
This is how they usually get away with the crimes of the police. The majority testify "nothing bad happened", the corrupt abusers of their office lie on the stand.
struoc
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 6:05 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby diocletian » Mon Oct 07, 2013 7:30 am

Hans wrote:Prof Potenza's reports:
Prof. Potenza - Note preliminari per la difesa del Sig. Raffaele Sollecito (28 Novembre 2007)
Prof Potenza (pg 3) wrote:36) type of kitchen knife with black handle overall length of 31 cm to 17 cm in blade and handle 14 (Measures reported by PS).
On this finding were carried out n. Two samples:
(A) In correspondence of the blade; (B) in correspondence of the handle.
None of the samples and underwent preliminary investigation for the detection of human blood, but both have been subjected to DNA analysis that gave amplification productsof extremely weak intensity and considerably below the minimum recommended by the recommendations of the GEFI(Italian Group Pathologists Forensic); furthermore, the results obtained have not been consistently reproduced in the other amplifications since for the same samples were obtained amplifications with buoyancy allelic differences for some loci.

Prof. Potenza - Ulteriori brevi note per la difesa di Raffaele Sollecito (03 Gennaio 2008)
Prof Potenza (pg 8/9) wrote:36) type of kitchen knife with black handle overall length of 31 cm.
On this finding were carried out, as known,No.2 samples each(A) in correspondence of the blade and the other (B) in correspondence of the handle.
The results of the forensic analysis previously performed on blood specimen, as indicated in the notes already developed made it possible to exclude the presence on it of biological traces attributable to Sollecito, which made it possible, in my opinion since then to exclude him that he has done use in the period before its evidence collection.
I had also already expressed a technical opinion on the results obtained by the two samplings performed respectively on the handle and on the blade of the knife, for which there was no investigation was performed peliminare for highlighting the nature of the traces given the absolute skimpiness of them, emphasizing also that DNA analysis has provided for them amplification productsthat, because of their analytical characteristics do not provide a correct use of the results in the forensic field, as it uniquely interpretable and theoretically also due to analytical artifacts.


A couple of comments here.

First, notice how Potenza keeps referring to just two samples, i.e., A and B. isn't this odd, since we now know that there was a third sample, "C"? And, we also know that this third sample received different treatment in processing, i.e., allegedly it was not referred on for further processing after receiving a "too low" quantification.

Second, Potenza clearly references an amplification process. We have no reason to believe that this process is anything other than real Time PCR, since that is the only known amplification process that Stefanoni was using. Further, the way he describes it, it sounds like RT-qPCR: he mentions the GEFI minimum (Let's try to find out what is the GEFI minimum standard). Note that no amplification records have been produced for the knife, and in fact, the amplification records for the knife belong to a determinable gap in the amplification records that have been produced, i.e., they would fall somewhere within amplification run nos. 545 through 548, yet the records of these runs have been suppressed.

Third, he seems to refer to a multi-amplification process: "results obtained have not been consistently reproduced in the other amplifications." This is interesting. What we can tell from the quantification results, is that Stefanoni's amplification procedure involved her splitting the 50 ml extraction sample into two, and running two 25 ml amplifications, which were both subjected to PCR in consecutive wells of the same run. Potenza's language suggests to me that she in fact did this for the Rep. 36 samples, but that the amplification products showed either allele drop out or allele drop in. This further suggests, to me, that there must have been multiple egrams for at least 36a and 36b very early on in the case, and yet, the only repeat egram that I can find is for 36a: for 36a, she ran the initial egram in plate 365bis, and then repeated the egram in plate 366 (i.e., right away, suggesting that she knew that there was a problem with this result). The repeat egram that Stefanoni provided for 36b, as far as I can tell, is dated much later. So, my take on all of this is that we are missing an egram for 36b.

For those keeping track, here is a list of records that have been suppressed relating to 36b:

1. Extraction: The SAL gives the extraction plate no. and well location. (261/L1-2), but we don't know exactly what else was in this plate, since we are missing any records for rows A through G, an critically, J-K, which are the immediately preceding rows.

2. Amplification: The records for the amplification have been suppressed, in my view, clearly intentionally. The RT-qPCR records for 36b lie somewhere in the run nos. 545 to 548 gap. If I had to guess, I'm thinking that we will see that 36b is a 50-cyclce amplification in two wells, both showing Cts in the 36-40 range.

3. Concentration: No records have been produced. I think that Stefanoni combined her two wells and concentrated them down to a volume that her electrophoresis machine would accept. For example, she may have concentrated 25+25 down to a combined 10 ml.

4. Qubit: These were produced. But, note that there is only one entry for 36b, not the two that we would expect if she quantified two wells independently. This suggests to me that at the point that she used the Qubit, she had only one vial of sample, i.e., the two wells had been combined and concentrated already. The Qubit measurement of "too low" is thus the measurement AFTER amplification AND concentration have both already occurred.

5. Electrophoresis. The relevant plate is 365bis, but we have only 4 of the 16 egrams from that plate. Further, we appear to be missing a possible second egram of 36b (possibly from run no. 366, which was the case for 36a, but we have only the single 36a egram from 366), although, given the fact that it appears that she combined her two wells of 36b sample, what would be the source of the sample that generated a second 36b egram???
diocletian
 
Posts: 1275
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:09 am

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Mon Oct 07, 2013 7:36 am

Could someone correct me if I have this wrong, but regarding the misfit between the kitchen kinfe and the wounds, my recollection is that the wounds are all only as deep as the knife in the bloody imprint. Thus in order for the kitchen knife to be involved the killer would have to be careful to never stab too deeply, since this knife is considerably longer than any of the wounds. Is that statement correct? Also, is there any evidence about the width of the knives?

I remain curious about my comment above about Italians walking around carrying knives for protection. This part of the story always seemed so far fetched. Do Italian women routinely walk around with knives in their purses? Why would anyone take this seriously?
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Mon Oct 07, 2013 7:51 am

diocletian wrote:
Hans wrote:Prof Potenza's reports:
Prof. Potenza - Note preliminari per la difesa del Sig. Raffaele Sollecito (28 Novembre 2007)
Prof Potenza (pg 3) wrote:36) type of kitchen knife with black handle overall length of 31 cm to 17 cm in blade and handle 14 (Measures reported by PS).
On this finding were carried out n. Two samples:
(A) In correspondence of the blade; (B) in correspondence of the handle.
None of the samples and underwent preliminary investigation for the detection of human blood, but both have been subjected to DNA analysis that gave amplification productsof extremely weak intensity and considerably below the minimum recommended by the recommendations of the GEFI(Italian Group Pathologists Forensic); furthermore, the results obtained have not been consistently reproduced in the other amplifications since for the same samples were obtained amplifications with buoyancy allelic differences for some loci.

Prof. Potenza - Ulteriori brevi note per la difesa di Raffaele Sollecito (03 Gennaio 2008)
Prof Potenza (pg 8/9) wrote:36) type of kitchen knife with black handle overall length of 31 cm.
On this finding were carried out, as known,No.2 samples each(A) in correspondence of the blade and the other (B) in correspondence of the handle.
The results of the forensic analysis previously performed on blood specimen, as indicated in the notes already developed made it possible to exclude the presence on it of biological traces attributable to Sollecito, which made it possible, in my opinion since then to exclude him that he has done use in the period before its evidence collection.
I had also already expressed a technical opinion on the results obtained by the two samplings performed respectively on the handle and on the blade of the knife, for which there was no investigation was performed peliminare for highlighting the nature of the traces given the absolute skimpiness of them, emphasizing also that DNA analysis has provided for them amplification productsthat, because of their analytical characteristics do not provide a correct use of the results in the forensic field, as it uniquely interpretable and theoretically also due to analytical artifacts.


A couple of comments here.

First, notice how Potenza keeps referring to just two samples, i.e., A and B. isn't this odd, since we now know that there was a third sample, "C"? And, we also know that this third sample received different treatment in processing, i.e., allegedly it was not referred on for further processing after receiving a "too low" quantification.

Second, Potenza clearly references an amplification process. We have no reason to believe that this process is anything other than real Time PCR, since that is the only known amplification process that Stefanoni was using. Further, the way he describes it, it sounds like RT-qPCR: he mentions the GEFI minimum (Let's try to find out what is the GEFI minimum standard). Note that no amplification records have been produced for the knife, and in fact, the amplification records for the knife belong to a determinable gap in the amplification records that have been produced, i.e., they would fall somewhere within amplification run nos. 545 through 548, yet the records of these runs have been suppressed.

Third, he seems to refer to a multi-amplification process: "results obtained have not been consistently reproduced in the other amplifications." This is interesting. What we can tell from the quantification results, is that Stefanoni's amplification procedure involved her splitting the 50 ml extraction sample into two, and running two 25 ml amplifications, which were both subjected to PCR in consecutive wells of the same run. Potenza's language suggests to me that she in fact did this for the Rep. 36 samples, but that the amplification products showed either allele drop out or allele drop in. This further suggests, to me, that there must have been multiple egrams for at least 36a and 36b very early on in the case, and yet, the only repeat egram that I can find is for 36a: for 36a, she ran the initial egram in plate 365bis, and then repeated the egram in plate 366 (i.e., right away, suggesting that she knew that there was a problem with this result). The repeat egram that Stefanoni provided for 36b, as far as I can tell, is dated much later. So, my take on all of this is that we are missing an egram for 36b.

For those keeping track, here is a list of records that have been suppressed relating to 36b:

1. Extraction: The SAL gives the extraction plate no. and well location. (261/L1-2), but we don't know exactly what else was in this plate, since we are missing any records for rows A through G, an critically, J-K, which are the immediately preceding rows.

2. Amplification: The records for the amplification have been suppressed, in my view, clearly intentionally. The RT-qPCR records for 36b lie somewhere in the run nos. 545 to 548 gap. If I had to guess, I'm thinking that we will see that 36b is a 50-cyclce amplification in two wells, both showing Cts in the 36-40 range.

3. Concentration: No records have been produced. I think that Stefanoni combined her two wells and concentrated them down to a volume that her electrophoresis machine would accept. For example, she may have concentrated 25+25 down to a combined 10 ml.

4. Qubit: These were produced. But, note that there is only one entry for 36b, not the two that we would expect if she quantified two wells independently. This suggests to me that at the point that she used the Qubit, she had only one vial of sample, i.e., the two wells had been combined and concentrated already. The Qubit measurement of "too low" is thus the measurement AFTER amplification AND concentration have both already occurred.

5. Electrophoresis. The relevant plate is 365bis, but we have only 4 of the 16 egrams from that plate. Further, we appear to be missing a possible second egram of 36b (possibly from run no. 366, which was the case for 36a, but we have only the single 36a egram from 366), although, given the fact that it appears that she combined her two wells of 36b sample, what would be the source of the sample that generated a second 36b egram???


Diocletian,

Regarding the 'amplification' I read this differently. I think Prof Potenza is referring to the genotyping process that also uses PCR to amplify 'STR's'. Thus the reference to multiple 'amplifications: "... both have been subjected to DNA analysis that gave amplification productsof extremely weak intensity and considerably below the minimum recommended by the recommendations of the GEFI(Italian Group Pathologists Forensic); ..." (The STR test is a 'multi-plex' PCR that amplifies multiple DNA fragments simultaneously.)

It sounds to me like he is explaining that these samples were LCN DNA and that the genotyping gave results that did not meet international standards for use in court.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby diocletian » Mon Oct 07, 2013 8:07 am

TomZ53 wrote:
diocletian wrote:A couple of comments here.

First, notice how Potenza keeps referring to just two samples, i.e., A and B. isn't this odd, since we now know that there was a third sample, "C"? And, we also know that this third sample received different treatment in processing, i.e., allegedly it was not referred on for further processing after receiving a "too low" quantification.

Second, Potenza clearly references an amplification process. We have no reason to believe that this process is anything other than real Time PCR, since that is the only known amplification process that Stefanoni was using. Further, the way he describes it, it sounds like RT-qPCR: he mentions the GEFI minimum (Let's try to find out what is the GEFI minimum standard). Note that no amplification records have been produced for the knife, and in fact, the amplification records for the knife belong to a determinable gap in the amplification records that have been produced, i.e., they would fall somewhere within amplification run nos. 545 through 548, yet the records of these runs have been suppressed.

Third, he seems to refer to a multi-amplification process: "results obtained have not been consistently reproduced in the other amplifications." This is interesting. What we can tell from the quantification results, is that Stefanoni's amplification procedure involved her splitting the 50 ml extraction sample into two, and running two 25 ml amplifications, which were both subjected to PCR in consecutive wells of the same run. Potenza's language suggests to me that she in fact did this for the Rep. 36 samples, but that the amplification products showed either allele drop out or allele drop in. This further suggests, to me, that there must have been multiple egrams for at least 36a and 36b very early on in the case, and yet, the only repeat egram that I can find is for 36a: for 36a, she ran the initial egram in plate 365bis, and then repeated the egram in plate 366 (i.e., right away, suggesting that she knew that there was a problem with this result). The repeat egram that Stefanoni provided for 36b, as far as I can tell, is dated much later. So, my take on all of this is that we are missing an egram for 36b.

For those keeping track, here is a list of records that have been suppressed relating to 36b:

1. Extraction: The SAL gives the extraction plate no. and well location. (261/L1-2), but we don't know exactly what else was in this plate, since we are missing any records for rows A through G, an critically, J-K, which are the immediately preceding rows.

2. Amplification: The records for the amplification have been suppressed, in my view, clearly intentionally. The RT-qPCR records for 36b lie somewhere in the run nos. 545 to 548 gap. If I had to guess, I'm thinking that we will see that 36b is a 50-cyclce amplification in two wells, both showing Cts in the 36-40 range.

3. Concentration: No records have been produced. I think that Stefanoni combined her two wells and concentrated them down to a volume that her electrophoresis machine would accept. For example, she may have concentrated 25+25 down to a combined 10 ml.

4. Qubit: These were produced. But, note that there is only one entry for 36b, not the two that we would expect if she quantified two wells independently. This suggests to me that at the point that she used the Qubit, she had only one vial of sample, i.e., the two wells had been combined and concentrated already. The Qubit measurement of "too low" is thus the measurement AFTER amplification AND concentration have both already occurred.

5. Electrophoresis. The relevant plate is 365bis, but we have only 4 of the 16 egrams from that plate. Further, we appear to be missing a possible second egram of 36b (possibly from run no. 366, which was the case for 36a, but we have only the single 36a egram from 366), although, given the fact that it appears that she combined her two wells of 36b sample, what would be the source of the sample that generated a second 36b egram???


Diocletian,

Regarding the 'amplification' I read this differently. I think Prof Potenza is referring to the genotyping process that also uses PCR to amplify 'STR's'. Thus the reference to multiple 'amplifications: "... both have been subjected to DNA analysis that gave amplification productsof extremely weak intensity and considerably below the minimum recommended by the recommendations of the GEFI(Italian Group Pathologists Forensic); ..." (The STR test is a 'multi-plex' PCR that amplifies multiple DNA fragments simultaneously.)

It sounds to me like he is explaining that these samples were LCN DNA and that the genotyping gave results that did not meet international standards for use in court.

So are you saying that the reference to "other amplifications" is a reference to amplifications of different fragments within a single STR multi-plex process? I'm a little confused by what distinction you're seeing.
diocletian
 
Posts: 1275
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:09 am

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Mon Oct 07, 2013 8:13 am

diocletian wrote:
TomZ53 wrote:
diocletian wrote:A couple of comments here.

First, notice how Potenza keeps referring to just two samples, i.e., A and B. isn't this odd, since we now know that there was a third sample, "C"? And, we also know that this third sample received different treatment in processing, i.e., allegedly it was not referred on for further processing after receiving a "too low" quantification.

Second, Potenza clearly references an amplification process. We have no reason to believe that this process is anything other than real Time PCR, since that is the only known amplification process that Stefanoni was using. Further, the way he describes it, it sounds like RT-qPCR: he mentions the GEFI minimum (Let's try to find out what is the GEFI minimum standard). Note that no amplification records have been produced for the knife, and in fact, the amplification records for the knife belong to a determinable gap in the amplification records that have been produced, i.e., they would fall somewhere within amplification run nos. 545 through 548, yet the records of these runs have been suppressed.

Third, he seems to refer to a multi-amplification process: "results obtained have not been consistently reproduced in the other amplifications." This is interesting. What we can tell from the quantification results, is that Stefanoni's amplification procedure involved her splitting the 50 ml extraction sample into two, and running two 25 ml amplifications, which were both subjected to PCR in consecutive wells of the same run. Potenza's language suggests to me that she in fact did this for the Rep. 36 samples, but that the amplification products showed either allele drop out or allele drop in. This further suggests, to me, that there must have been multiple egrams for at least 36a and 36b very early on in the case, and yet, the only repeat egram that I can find is for 36a: for 36a, she ran the initial egram in plate 365bis, and then repeated the egram in plate 366 (i.e., right away, suggesting that she knew that there was a problem with this result). The repeat egram that Stefanoni provided for 36b, as far as I can tell, is dated much later. So, my take on all of this is that we are missing an egram for 36b.

For those keeping track, here is a list of records that have been suppressed relating to 36b:

1. Extraction: The SAL gives the extraction plate no. and well location. (261/L1-2), but we don't know exactly what else was in this plate, since we are missing any records for rows A through G, an critically, J-K, which are the immediately preceding rows.

2. Amplification: The records for the amplification have been suppressed, in my view, clearly intentionally. The RT-qPCR records for 36b lie somewhere in the run nos. 545 to 548 gap. If I had to guess, I'm thinking that we will see that 36b is a 50-cyclce amplification in two wells, both showing Cts in the 36-40 range.

3. Concentration: No records have been produced. I think that Stefanoni combined her two wells and concentrated them down to a volume that her electrophoresis machine would accept. For example, she may have concentrated 25+25 down to a combined 10 ml.

4. Qubit: These were produced. But, note that there is only one entry for 36b, not the two that we would expect if she quantified two wells independently. This suggests to me that at the point that she used the Qubit, she had only one vial of sample, i.e., the two wells had been combined and concentrated already. The Qubit measurement of "too low" is thus the measurement AFTER amplification AND concentration have both already occurred.

5. Electrophoresis. The relevant plate is 365bis, but we have only 4 of the 16 egrams from that plate. Further, we appear to be missing a possible second egram of 36b (possibly from run no. 366, which was the case for 36a, but we have only the single 36a egram from 366), although, given the fact that it appears that she combined her two wells of 36b sample, what would be the source of the sample that generated a second 36b egram???


Diocletian,

Regarding the 'amplification' I read this differently. I think Prof Potenza is referring to the genotyping process that also uses PCR to amplify 'STR's'. Thus the reference to multiple 'amplifications: "... both have been subjected to DNA analysis that gave amplification productsof extremely weak intensity and considerably below the minimum recommended by the recommendations of the GEFI(Italian Group Pathologists Forensic); ..." (The STR test is a 'multi-plex' PCR that amplifies multiple DNA fragments simultaneously.)

It sounds to me like he is explaining that these samples were LCN DNA and that the genotyping gave results that did not meet international standards for use in court.

So are you saying that the reference to "other amplifications" is a reference to amplifications of different fragments within a single STR multi-plex process? I'm a little confused by what distinction you're seeing.


Diocletian,

I do not think Potenza is referring to Real Time PCR quantification. The record as described by C&V indicates that Real Time PCR was not performed for Samples A. B, and C. These were quantified by Qubit. In contrast, samples D, E, and F were quantified by Real Time PCR. see http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/cont ... on-of-dna/

Yes, I think Potenza is referring to the STR genotyping PCR's is these comments.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Mon Oct 07, 2013 8:22 am

Another point about Potenza's comments; it appears that he inverts the origins of samples A and B in comparison with C&V: "Two samples: (A) In correspondence of the blade; (B) in correspondence of the handle." C&V has these the other way around: "In particular, it is apparent that three samples were taken from the handle of the knife (samples indicated with the letters A-D-F) and four samples from the blade (samples indicated with the letters B-C-E-G) for a total of seven samples." http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/cont ... -36-knife/ (no wonder people find all of this confusing).

As an aside, I could not help but notice the explicit bias in Stefanoni's designations of the various samples:

The Work Status Report cards (SAL) show that each individual sample was given an identification code (Sample ID Code), reported below:

Sample A (“presumed exfoliated cells, letter A”) = 47329

Sample B (“presumed haematic substance, letter B”) = 47330

Sample C (“presumed haematic trace, letter C”) = 47331

Sample D (“presumed exfoliated cells, letter D”) = 48649

Sample E (“presumed haematic substance, letter E”) = 48651

Sample F (“presumed exfoliated cells, letter F”) = 48654

Sample G (“presumed haematic substance, letter G”) = 48655

(Presume means "to think that (something) is true without knowing that it is true" or "to accept legally or officially that something is true until it is proved not true".)
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby diocletian » Mon Oct 07, 2013 8:46 am

TomZ53 wrote:Diocletian,

I do not think Potenza is referring to Real Time PCR quantification. The record as described by C&V indicates that Real Time PCR was not performed for Samples A. B, and C. These were quantified by Qubit. In contrast, samples D, E, and F were quantified by Real Time PCR. see http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/cont ... on-of-dna/

Yes, I think Potenza is referring to the STR genotyping PCR's is these comments.

As we know, Stefanoni initially testified that Real Time was used on 36a-b.

Then, she produced some amplification records, but withheld the records that apparently would have shown the Real Time amplification for Rep. 36 (somewhere in PCR runs 545 through 548). She produced some Qubit records.

So, when C&V reviewed the records, they see Stefanoni's testimony, but an absence of the supporting records. They apparently give Stefanoni too much credit, and assume that the absence of records means that the Real Time wasn't done, instead of the possibility that Stefanoni actually did the Real Time, but chose to hide the records.

What I'm thinking is that the Real Time WAS done, and the records have been withheld, obviously because they would show a problem: probably an extremely high Ct. I think that the Qubit records reflect post-amplification quantities, and that the Qubit was therefore used to quantify amplification product and not to quantify DNA prior to amplification. She used Real Time to quantify during the amplification process, and then she did something else with the samples that required further quantification (i.e., she concentrated amplification samples together), for which she used the Qubit in order to make sure that she wasn't forcing too much DNA through electrophoresis (she didn't care about too little).

So, I think that C&V were fooled by Stefanoni's selective production of Real Time records, and that Real Time was in fact done.

I'm curious how the STR genotyping process might change this analysis.
diocletian
 
Posts: 1275
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:09 am

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:07 am

diocletian wrote:
TomZ53 wrote:Diocletian,

I do not think Potenza is referring to Real Time PCR quantification. The record as described by C&V indicates that Real Time PCR was not performed for Samples A. B, and C. These were quantified by Qubit. In contrast, samples D, E, and F were quantified by Real Time PCR. see http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/cont ... on-of-dna/

Yes, I think Potenza is referring to the STR genotyping PCR's is these comments.

As we know, Stefanoni initially testified that Real Time was used on 36a-b.

Then, she produced some amplification records, but withheld the records that apparently would have shown the Real Time amplification for Rep. 36 (somewhere in PCR runs 545 through 548). She produced some Qubit records.

So, when C&V reviewed the records, they see Stefanoni's testimony, but an absence of the supporting records. They apparently give Stefanoni too much credit, and assume that the absence of records means that the Real Time wasn't done, instead of the possibility that Stefanoni actually did the Real Time, but chose to hide the records.

What I'm thinking is that the Real Time WAS done, and the records have been withheld, obviously because they would show a problem: probably an extremely high Ct. I think that the Qubit records reflect post-amplification quantities, and that the Qubit was therefore used to quantify amplification product and not to quantify DNA prior to amplification. She used Real Time to quantify during the amplification process, and then she did something else with the samples that required further quantification (i.e., she concentrated amplification samples together), for which she used the Qubit in order to make sure that she wasn't forcing too much DNA through electrophoresis (she didn't care about too little).

So, I think that C&V were fooled by Stefanoni's selective production of Real Time records, and that Real Time was in fact done.

I'm curious how the STR genotyping process might change this analysis.


diocletian,

This is an interesting hypothesis. I agree, Stefanoni's adamant refusal to provide proper documentation needs to be explained and it suggests that she is purposefully concealing incriminating evidence.

Just one technical detail to factor in; the Real Time PCR reaction amplifies two specific DNA fragments in a single reaction: the human specific "RPPH1" gene, and "SRY" (Sex determining region Y). For human female DNA, the PCR product will be comprised of only the RPPH1 DNA fragment. Thus, this PCR product would not be useful for STR genotyping which requires the full human genome. To perform the STR analysis Stefanoni would have needed to return to the original samples from the knife.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby schmidt53 » Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:42 am

TomZ53 wrote:
diocletian wrote:
Hans wrote:Prof Potenza's reports:
Prof. Potenza - Note preliminari per la difesa del Sig. Raffaele Sollecito (28 Novembre 2007)
Prof Potenza (pg 3) wrote:36) type of kitchen knife with black handle overall length of 31 cm to 17 cm in blade and handle 14 (Measures reported by PS).
On this finding were carried out n. Two samples:
(A) In correspondence of the blade; (B) in correspondence of the handle.
None of the samples and underwent preliminary investigation for the detection of human blood, but both have been subjected to DNA analysis that gave amplification productsof extremely weak intensity and considerably below the minimum recommended by the recommendations of the GEFI(Italian Group Pathologists Forensic); furthermore, the results obtained have not been consistently reproduced in the other amplifications since for the same samples were obtained amplifications with buoyancy allelic differences for some loci.

Prof. Potenza - Ulteriori brevi note per la difesa di Raffaele Sollecito (03 Gennaio 2008)
Prof Potenza (pg 8/9) wrote:36) type of kitchen knife with black handle overall length of 31 cm.
On this finding were carried out, as known,No.2 samples each(A) in correspondence of the blade and the other (B) in correspondence of the handle.
The results of the forensic analysis previously performed on blood specimen, as indicated in the notes already developed made it possible to exclude the presence on it of biological traces attributable to Sollecito, which made it possible, in my opinion since then to exclude him that he has done use in the period before its evidence collection.
I had also already expressed a technical opinion on the results obtained by the two samplings performed respectively on the handle and on the blade of the knife, for which there was no investigation was performed peliminare for highlighting the nature of the traces given the absolute skimpiness of them, emphasizing also that DNA analysis has provided for them amplification productsthat, because of their analytical characteristics do not provide a correct use of the results in the forensic field, as it uniquely interpretable and theoretically also due to analytical artifacts.


A couple of comments here.

First, notice how Potenza keeps referring to just two samples, i.e., A and B. isn't this odd, since we now know that there was a third sample, "C"? And, we also know that this third sample received different treatment in processing, i.e., allegedly it was not referred on for further processing after receiving a "too low" quantification.

Second, Potenza clearly references an amplification process. We have no reason to believe that this process is anything other than real Time PCR, since that is the only known amplification process that Stefanoni was using. Further, the way he describes it, it sounds like RT-qPCR: he mentions the GEFI minimum (Let's try to find out what is the GEFI minimum standard). Note that no amplification records have been produced for the knife, and in fact, the amplification records for the knife belong to a determinable gap in the amplification records that have been produced, i.e., they would fall somewhere within amplification run nos. 545 through 548, yet the records of these runs have been suppressed.

Third, he seems to refer to a multi-amplification process: "results obtained have not been consistently reproduced in the other amplifications." This is interesting. What we can tell from the quantification results, is that Stefanoni's amplification procedure involved her splitting the 50 ml extraction sample into two, and running two 25 ml amplifications, which were both subjected to PCR in consecutive wells of the same run. Potenza's language suggests to me that she in fact did this for the Rep. 36 samples, but that the amplification products showed either allele drop out or allele drop in. This further suggests, to me, that there must have been multiple egrams for at least 36a and 36b very early on in the case, and yet, the only repeat egram that I can find is for 36a: for 36a, she ran the initial egram in plate 365bis, and then repeated the egram in plate 366 (i.e., right away, suggesting that she knew that there was a problem with this result). The repeat egram that Stefanoni provided for 36b, as far as I can tell, is dated much later. So, my take on all of this is that we are missing an egram for 36b.

For those keeping track, here is a list of records that have been suppressed relating to 36b:

1. Extraction: The SAL gives the extraction plate no. and well location. (261/L1-2), but we don't know exactly what else was in this plate, since we are missing any records for rows A through G, an critically, J-K, which are the immediately preceding rows.

2. Amplification: The records for the amplification have been suppressed, in my view, clearly intentionally. The RT-qPCR records for 36b lie somewhere in the run nos. 545 to 548 gap. If I had to guess, I'm thinking that we will see that 36b is a 50-cyclce amplification in two wells, both showing Cts in the 36-40 range.

3. Concentration: No records have been produced. I think that Stefanoni combined her two wells and concentrated them down to a volume that her electrophoresis machine would accept. For example, she may have concentrated 25+25 down to a combined 10 ml.

4. Qubit: These were produced. But, note that there is only one entry for 36b, not the two that we would expect if she quantified two wells independently. This suggests to me that at the point that she used the Qubit, she had only one vial of sample, i.e., the two wells had been combined and concentrated already. The Qubit measurement of "too low" is thus the measurement AFTER amplification AND concentration have both already occurred.

5. Electrophoresis. The relevant plate is 365bis, but we have only 4 of the 16 egrams from that plate. Further, we appear to be missing a possible second egram of 36b (possibly from run no. 366, which was the case for 36a, but we have only the single 36a egram from 366), although, given the fact that it appears that she combined her two wells of 36b sample, what would be the source of the sample that generated a second 36b egram???


Diocletian,

Regarding the 'amplification' I read this differently. I think Prof Potenza is referring to the genotyping process that also uses PCR to amplify 'STR's'. Thus the reference to multiple 'amplifications: "... both have been subjected to DNA analysis that gave amplification productsof extremely weak intensity and considerably below the minimum recommended by the recommendations of the GEFI(Italian Group Pathologists Forensic); ..." (The STR test is a 'multi-plex' PCR that amplifies multiple DNA fragments simultaneously.)

It sounds to me like he is explaining that these samples were LCN DNA and that the genotyping gave results that did not meet international standards for use in court.[/quo

Just like Amanda statement without a lawyer, no recording of the integration, not collecting all the DNA evidence, not doing luminol test until Dec 18, 2007 to try to prove a clean up, proving a stage break-in. To me that proves that Mignini and the police thought that Amanda or Raffaele would confess to the murder because after all they were guilty. In their minds. So who cares if the DNA doesn't meet International standards for use in court it won't go that far. Well it did. Plan B.
schmidt53
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:10 am

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby diocletian » Mon Oct 07, 2013 11:28 am

TomZ53 wrote:
diocletian wrote:
TomZ53 wrote:Diocletian,

I do not think Potenza is referring to Real Time PCR quantification. The record as described by C&V indicates that Real Time PCR was not performed for Samples A. B, and C. These were quantified by Qubit. In contrast, samples D, E, and F were quantified by Real Time PCR. see http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/cont ... on-of-dna/

Yes, I think Potenza is referring to the STR genotyping PCR's is these comments.

As we know, Stefanoni initially testified that Real Time was used on 36a-b.

Then, she produced some amplification records, but withheld the records that apparently would have shown the Real Time amplification for Rep. 36 (somewhere in PCR runs 545 through 548). She produced some Qubit records.

So, when C&V reviewed the records, they see Stefanoni's testimony, but an absence of the supporting records. They apparently give Stefanoni too much credit, and assume that the absence of records means that the Real Time wasn't done, instead of the possibility that Stefanoni actually did the Real Time, but chose to hide the records.

What I'm thinking is that the Real Time WAS done, and the records have been withheld, obviously because they would show a problem: probably an extremely high Ct. I think that the Qubit records reflect post-amplification quantities, and that the Qubit was therefore used to quantify amplification product and not to quantify DNA prior to amplification. She used Real Time to quantify during the amplification process, and then she did something else with the samples that required further quantification (i.e., she concentrated amplification samples together), for which she used the Qubit in order to make sure that she wasn't forcing too much DNA through electrophoresis (she didn't care about too little).

So, I think that C&V were fooled by Stefanoni's selective production of Real Time records, and that Real Time was in fact done.

I'm curious how the STR genotyping process might change this analysis.


diocletian,

This is an interesting hypothesis. I agree, Stefanoni's adamant refusal to provide proper documentation needs to be explained and it suggests that she is purposefully concealing incriminating evidence.

Just one technical detail to factor in; the Real Time PCR reaction amplifies two specific DNA fragments in a single reaction: the human specific "RPPH1" gene, and "SRY" (Sex determining region Y). For human female DNA, the PCR product will be comprised of only the RPPH1 DNA fragment. Thus, this PCR product would not be useful for STR genotyping which requires the full human genome. To perform the STR analysis Stefanoni would have needed to return to the original samples from the knife.

Hm. OK, let's think that through. So there are in effect two amplifications: the first is the quantification amplification and the second is the STR amplification.

The amplification product from the quantification is thrown away, it sounds like. In which case, the quantification process should not have any impact on contamination seen in the egram. The contamination would arise before, during, or after the STR amplification. But, if quantification was by Real Time PCR, and that quantification was "positive," then this suggests that the contamination occurred prior to the STR amplification, because the contamination is also seen in both the quantification amplification and the STR amplification. Does that sound right?

I suppose it's also possible, since Stefanoni used a very high cycle count for her Real Time PCR, that she wound up with a positive quantification because she succeeded in amplifying just artifacts/environmental contamination, which show up at only very high Ct levels. This could mean that there was no Kercher DNA in the template sample, and that the Kercher DNA was added to the sample sometime during or after STR amplification.

And, where does the concentration process play in--is the quantification product concentrated or is it the result of the STR amplification that is concentrated?
diocletian
 
Posts: 1275
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:09 am

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby Hans » Mon Oct 07, 2013 12:08 pm

TomZ53 wrote:Could someone correct me if I have this wrong, but regarding the misfit between the kitchen kinfe and the wounds, my recollection is that the wounds are all only as deep as the knife in the bloody imprint. Thus in order for the kitchen knife to be involved the killer would have to be careful to never stab too deeply, since this knife is considerably longer than any of the wounds. Is that statement correct? Also, is there any evidence about the width of the knives?

I remain curious about my comment above about Italians walking around carrying knives for protection. This part of the story always seemed so far fetched. Do Italian women routinely walk around with knives in their purses? Why would anyone take this seriously?

- I don't think I've seen a picture of that imprint that's clear enough to tell the length of the blade.
- Yes, I think so, that's the point Prof. Torre makes in his statement.
- Take a look at the spoiler in this post :clue:
- I don't have any idea. This is what Massei came up with:
Massei (translation pg 376/377) wrote:Now, concerning how this knife could have found itself in the house at Via della Pergola when Meredith was killed, and in the custody of Amanda, the following must be observed: Amanda had with her a very large handbag, as Romanelli declared (page 51, hearing of 7 February 2009); in this handbag there could have been found a place for the knife in question. Amanda, in her various movements [about town], as for example to take herself to the le Chic pub situated in Via Alessi, could have found herself walking alone, even late into the night, on roads that could have seemed not very safe for a girl to be on at night time. It is thus possible and in fact probable, considering the relationship that Raffaele Sollecito had with knives (he never separated himself from his knife, as has been seen), that Amanda, advised and convinced by her boyfriend, that is Raffaele Sollecito, to take this knife with her, if not only to make her feel more secure, and that, if necessary, it could have served as a deterrent against possible ill-­‐‑intentioned persons that, at night and on her own, she may have encountered. Furthermore, since it was a kitchen knife, Amanda, were she to be checked, would have been able to easily explain why she was carrying it.
[...]
Moreover, the knife Raffaele Sollecito carried with him had a definitely shorter blade - as has been seen - than the length that would have been necessary for causing the deeper resulting wound, with a depth of 8cm, and therefore, there must necessarily have been [405] two knives at the scene of the crime, first one, and then the other, being used against Meredith.
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Mon Oct 07, 2013 12:13 pm

diocletian wrote:
TomZ53 wrote:
diocletian wrote:
TomZ53 wrote:Diocletian,

I do not think Potenza is referring to Real Time PCR quantification. The record as described by C&V indicates that Real Time PCR was not performed for Samples A. B, and C. These were quantified by Qubit. In contrast, samples D, E, and F were quantified by Real Time PCR. see http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/cont ... on-of-dna/

Yes, I think Potenza is referring to the STR genotyping PCR's is these comments.

As we know, Stefanoni initially testified that Real Time was used on 36a-b.

Then, she produced some amplification records, but withheld the records that apparently would have shown the Real Time amplification for Rep. 36 (somewhere in PCR runs 545 through 548). She produced some Qubit records.

So, when C&V reviewed the records, they see Stefanoni's testimony, but an absence of the supporting records. They apparently give Stefanoni too much credit, and assume that the absence of records means that the Real Time wasn't done, instead of the possibility that Stefanoni actually did the Real Time, but chose to hide the records.

What I'm thinking is that the Real Time WAS done, and the records have been withheld, obviously because they would show a problem: probably an extremely high Ct. I think that the Qubit records reflect post-amplification quantities, and that the Qubit was therefore used to quantify amplification product and not to quantify DNA prior to amplification. She used Real Time to quantify during the amplification process, and then she did something else with the samples that required further quantification (i.e., she concentrated amplification samples together), for which she used the Qubit in order to make sure that she wasn't forcing too much DNA through electrophoresis (she didn't care about too little).

So, I think that C&V were fooled by Stefanoni's selective production of Real Time records, and that Real Time was in fact done.

I'm curious how the STR genotyping process might change this analysis.


diocletian,

This is an interesting hypothesis. I agree, Stefanoni's adamant refusal to provide proper documentation needs to be explained and it suggests that she is purposefully concealing incriminating evidence.

Just one technical detail to factor in; the Real Time PCR reaction amplifies two specific DNA fragments in a single reaction: the human specific "RPPH1" gene, and "SRY" (Sex determining region Y). For human female DNA, the PCR product will be comprised of only the RPPH1 DNA fragment. Thus, this PCR product would not be useful for STR genotyping which requires the full human genome. To perform the STR analysis Stefanoni would have needed to return to the original samples from the knife.

Hm. OK, let's think that through. So there are in effect two amplifications: the first is the quantification amplification and the second is the STR amplification.

The amplification product from the quantification is thrown away, it sounds like. In which case, the quantification process should not have any impact on contamination seen in the egram. The contamination would arise before, during, or after the STR amplification. But, if quantification was by Real Time PCR, and that quantification was "positive," then this suggests that the contamination occurred prior to the STR amplification, because the contamination is also seen in both the quantification amplification and the STR amplification. Does that sound right?

I suppose it's also possible, since Stefanoni used a very high cycle count for her Real Time PCR, that she wound up with a positive quantification because she succeeded in amplifying just artifacts/environmental contamination, which show up at only very high Ct levels. This could mean that there was no Kercher DNA in the template sample, and that the Kercher DNA was added to the sample sometime during or after STR amplification.

And, where does the concentration process play in--is the quantification product concentrated or is it the result of the STR amplification that is concentrated?


diocletian,

You are a quick study. Yes, the Real Time PCR is used just to determine a quantity. It is not useful for further analysis because it only contains the specific fragment(s) employed to measure quantity. Yes, it is thrown away.

This result tells you that there is human DNA in your Real Time PCR reaction, it does not provide any information about where this DNA came from or how it got there. (This is where carefully conceived and executed controls come in to play if one's goal is to understand what is going on.) Again, yes, if the result of a Real Time PCR is due to contamination then the contamination occurred at some time up to and including the preparation of the Real Time PCR test. If the same sample were used for both Real Time PCR and STR analysis then the observation of contamination in the STR analysis would be consistent with the interpretation that the contamination occurred during or prior to the preparation of the sample from the knife, assuming that no other human DNA was truly present in the sample. However, with the Qubit analysis, which is not specific for human DNA, but rather detects any and all DNA, then it remains possible that the Stafanoni's sample became contaminated with MK DNA when she prepared it for STR analysis (the implication being that the DNA observed by Qubit was some other species, not human.)

Regarding your next comment, "I suppose it's also possible, since Stefanoni used a very high cycle count for her Real Time PCR, that she wound up with a positive quantification because she succeeded in amplifying just artifacts/environmental contamination, which show up at only very high Ct levels." Remember that the Real Time Assay is specific for human DNA. This test has a very clever design. If is very unlikely that it would give a positive for DNA that is not human.

Next question; "And, where does the concentration process play in--is the quantification product concentrated or is it the result of the STR amplification that is concentrated?" The quantification process was done on the sample prepared from the knife (sample B). The concentrated, unamplified sample was placed into Stefanoni's destructive, one time only, STR PCR. This appears to me to be a likely place for the contamination event, given that Stefanoni had been running multiple samples of MK DNA through the same lab (a very serious 'no-no' in forensic science!)
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Mon Oct 07, 2013 12:23 pm

Hans wrote:
TomZ53 wrote:Could someone correct me if I have this wrong, but regarding the misfit between the kitchen kinfe and the wounds, my recollection is that the wounds are all only as deep as the knife in the bloody imprint. Thus in order for the kitchen knife to be involved the killer would have to be careful to never stab too deeply, since this knife is considerably longer than any of the wounds. Is that statement correct? Also, is there any evidence about the width of the knives?

I remain curious about my comment above about Italians walking around carrying knives for protection. This part of the story always seemed so far fetched. Do Italian women routinely walk around with knives in their purses? Why would anyone take this seriously?

- I don't think I've seen a picture of that imprint that's clear enough to tell the length of the blade.
- Yes, I think so, that's the point Prof. Torre makes in his statement.
- Take a look at the spoiler in this post :clue:
- I don't have any idea. This is what Massei came up with:
Massei (translation pg 376/377) wrote:Now, concerning how this knife could have found itself in the house at Via della Pergola when Meredith was killed, and in the custody of Amanda, the following must be observed: Amanda had with her a very large handbag, as Romanelli declared (page 51, hearing of 7 February 2009); in this handbag there could have been found a place for the knife in question. Amanda, in her various movements [about town], as for example to take herself to the le Chic pub situated in Via Alessi, could have found herself walking alone, even late into the night, on roads that could have seemed not very safe for a girl to be on at night time. It is thus possible and in fact probable, considering the relationship that Raffaele Sollecito had with knives (he never separated himself from his knife, as has been seen), that Amanda, advised and convinced by her boyfriend, that is Raffaele Sollecito, to take this knife with her, if not only to make her feel more secure, and that, if necessary, it could have served as a deterrent against possible ill-­‐‑intentioned persons that, at night and on her own, she may have encountered. Furthermore, since it was a kitchen knife, Amanda, were she to be checked, would have been able to easily explain why she was carrying it.
[...]
Moreover, the knife Raffaele Sollecito carried with him had a definitely shorter blade - as has been seen - than the length that would have been necessary for causing the deeper resulting wound, with a depth of 8cm, and therefore, there must necessarily have been [405] two knives at the scene of the crime, first one, and then the other, being used against Meredith.


Hans,

This is very interesting. Here we have the Judge asserting that a young woman in Perugia would choose to carry around a kitchen knife in her purse when she walks around the town, (he writes, "It is thus possible and in fact probable...") Probable suggest probability/frequency implying that there is quantitative evidence. Probable based on the behavior of young women in Perugia? I'm speachless.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby Hans » Mon Oct 07, 2013 12:36 pm

TomZ53 wrote:
Hans wrote:
TomZ53 wrote:Could someone correct me if I have this wrong, but regarding the misfit between the kitchen kinfe and the wounds, my recollection is that the wounds are all only as deep as the knife in the bloody imprint. Thus in order for the kitchen knife to be involved the killer would have to be careful to never stab too deeply, since this knife is considerably longer than any of the wounds. Is that statement correct? Also, is there any evidence about the width of the knives?

I remain curious about my comment above about Italians walking around carrying knives for protection. This part of the story always seemed so far fetched. Do Italian women routinely walk around with knives in their purses? Why would anyone take this seriously?

- I don't think I've seen a picture of that imprint that's clear enough to tell the length of the blade.
- Yes, I think so, that's the point Prof. Torre makes in his statement.
- Take a look at the spoiler in this post :clue:
- I don't have any idea. This is what Massei came up with:
Massei (translation pg 376/377) wrote:Now, concerning how this knife could have found itself in the house at Via della Pergola when Meredith was killed, and in the custody of Amanda, the following must be observed: Amanda had with her a very large handbag, as Romanelli declared (page 51, hearing of 7 February 2009); in this handbag there could have been found a place for the knife in question. Amanda, in her various movements [about town], as for example to take herself to the le Chic pub situated in Via Alessi, could have found herself walking alone, even late into the night, on roads that could have seemed not very safe for a girl to be on at night time. It is thus possible and in fact probable, considering the relationship that Raffaele Sollecito had with knives (he never separated himself from his knife, as has been seen), that Amanda, advised and convinced by her boyfriend, that is Raffaele Sollecito, to take this knife with her, if not only to make her feel more secure, and that, if necessary, it could have served as a deterrent against possible ill-­‐‑intentioned persons that, at night and on her own, she may have encountered. Furthermore, since it was a kitchen knife, Amanda, were she to be checked, would have been able to easily explain why she was carrying it.
[...]
Moreover, the knife Raffaele Sollecito carried with him had a definitely shorter blade - as has been seen - than the length that would have been necessary for causing the deeper resulting wound, with a depth of 8cm, and therefore, there must necessarily have been [405] two knives at the scene of the crime, first one, and then the other, being used against Meredith.


Hans,

This is very interesting. Here we have the Judge asserting that a young woman in Perugia would choose to carry around a kitchen knife in her purse when she walks around the town, (he writes, "It is thus possible and in fact probable...") Probable suggest probability/frequency implying that there is quantitative evidence. Probable based on the behavior of young women in Perugia? I'm speachless.

He is asserting that a young woman in Perugia would choose to carry around a kitchen knife in her purse when she walks around the town, despite, according to his very own verdict, it is a crime to do this... :confused:
I think the second part about Raffaele's knife is also interesting, they had to rule out that knife because it's too small, so he had to adopt the prosecution's two knives theory, that ("Waiting to Be Heard" chapter 28) came up only at the closing arguments stage of the trial...
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby Grayhawker » Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:28 pm

TomZ53 wrote:
Hans wrote:
TomZ53 wrote:Could someone correct me if I have this wrong, but regarding the misfit between the kitchen kinfe and the wounds, my recollection is that the wounds are all only as deep as the knife in the bloody imprint. Thus in order for the kitchen knife to be involved the killer would have to be careful to never stab too deeply, since this knife is considerably longer than any of the wounds. Is that statement correct? Also, is there any evidence about the width of the knives?

I remain curious about my comment above about Italians walking around carrying knives for protection. This part of the story always seemed so far fetched. Do Italian women routinely walk around with knives in their purses? Why would anyone take this seriously?

- I don't think I've seen a picture of that imprint that's clear enough to tell the length of the blade.
- Yes, I think so, that's the point Prof. Torre makes in his statement.
- Take a look at the spoiler in this post :clue:
- I don't have any idea. This is what Massei came up with:
Massei (translation pg 376/377) wrote:Now, concerning how this knife could have found itself in the house at Via della Pergola when Meredith was killed, and in the custody of Amanda, the following must be observed: Amanda had with her a very large handbag, as Romanelli declared (page 51, hearing of 7 February 2009); in this handbag there could have been found a place for the knife in question. Amanda, in her various movements [about town], as for example to take herself to the le Chic pub situated in Via Alessi, could have found herself walking alone, even late into the night, on roads that could have seemed not very safe for a girl to be on at night time. It is thus possible and in fact probable, considering the relationship that Raffaele Sollecito had with knives (he never separated himself from his knife, as has been seen), that Amanda, advised and convinced by her boyfriend, that is Raffaele Sollecito, to take this knife with her, if not only to make her feel more secure, and that, if necessary, it could have served as a deterrent against possible ill-­‐‑intentioned persons that, at night and on her own, she may have encountered. Furthermore, since it was a kitchen knife, Amanda, were she to be checked, would have been able to easily explain why she was carrying it.
[...]
Moreover, the knife Raffaele Sollecito carried with him had a definitely shorter blade - as has been seen - than the length that would have been necessary for causing the deeper resulting wound, with a depth of 8cm, and therefore, there must necessarily have been [405] two knives at the scene of the crime, first one, and then the other, being used against Meredith.


Hans,

This is very interesting. Here we have the Judge asserting that a young woman in Perugia would choose to carry around a kitchen knife in her purse when she walks around the town, (he writes, "It is thus possible and in fact probable...") Probable suggest probability/frequency implying that there is quantitative evidence. Probable based on the behavior of young women in Perugia? I'm speachless.


For him to state that it is "probable" would mean that the vast majority of women in Perugia carry kitchen knives around in their purses. That could easily be tested.
Paolo Micheli stated with regard to Amanda and Raffaele: "We do not need evidence, common sense and logic tell us that they dated each other to commit this crime."
User avatar
Grayhawker
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:13 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Mon Oct 07, 2013 11:15 pm

RoseMontague wrote:1. It's obvious that this knife could not have caused all the knife wounds.
2. A smaller knife consistent with the knife imprint in blood on the bed could have.
3. This knife had to have been transported from Raffaele's kitchen drawer, used in the murder, and then placed back in the drawer after the murder.
4. The prosecution maintains the knife was cleaned with bleach before it was placed back in the drawer.


Rose,

I wanted to return to your list of issues in light of the developing discussion thread here. Again, the knife 'sample I' will be a major, and distorted, focus of the Florence nth retrial. Thus, I think it is worth discussing this issue in some detail as this latest examination nears. As I explained, I am not the expert on a number of these basic issues and I would hope that more informed forum members would join in with the details.

So far, after some back and forth I am still unclear about the issue of how Rafaelle's knife does not match the wounds. Several explanations have been posted, but the description of this one does not seem clear, at least to me.

The bleach thing is too ludicrous to comment on here (as a molecular biologist who uses bleach to destroy DNA like all of us do, so if AK and RS used bleach the DNA would have been destroyed...???), but the story that Amanda carried the knife around in her purse really caught my attention, because it is just too absurd to be taken seriously. This one deserves extensive discussion on this thread, in my opinion, as it relates to so many fundamental aspects of this case about how the Italian Justice System operates.

Again, about this thread, the analysis of knife is happening yet again and will no doubt receive uninformed and distorted coverage in the mindless media. I suggest that it would be useful for forum members to discuss it all here and now. Just my 2 cents worth.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Mon Oct 07, 2013 11:53 pm

I find the quote from the Italian Judge Massie posted by Hans above to be most revealing, "...It is thus possible and in fact probable..." (that Amanda chose to carry around in her purse a kitchen knife from the apartment of her boy friend of a few days). I find that this thinking is much more revealing about Massie, than it is about Amanda or Rafaelle.

Reason? Logic? Why would/should an Italian Judge care about esoteric principals such as these? Why should an Italian judge care one iota about the truth? What would he have to gain?

Fair enough, we get it.

This particular aspect of the contrived story of the knife is where the judge's narrative merges with the more comprehensive fabrication by the prosecution. It establishes the artificial foundation upon which subsequent lab results are presented and automatically/mindlessly (mis)interpreted. I would suggest that this logical incongruity is the starting point for our present discussion thread.

Any insights/comments?
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby hitchhiker » Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:19 am

TomZ53 wrote:
RoseMontague wrote:1. It's obvious that this knife could not have caused all the knife wounds.
2. A smaller knife consistent with the knife imprint in blood on the bed could have.
3. This knife had to have been transported from Raffaele's kitchen drawer, used in the murder, and then placed back in the drawer after the murder.
4. The prosecution maintains the knife was cleaned with bleach before it was placed back in the drawer.


Rose,

I wanted to return to your list of issues in light of the developing discussion thread here. Again, the knife 'sample I' will be a major, and distorted, focus of the Florence nth retrial. Thus, I think it is worth discussing this issue in some detail as this latest examination nears. As I explained, I am not the expert on a number of these basic issues and I would hope that more informed forum members would join in with the details.

So far, after some back and forth I am still unclear about the issue of how Rafaelle's knife does not match the wounds. Several explanations have been posted, but the description of this one does not seem clear, at least to me.

The bleach thing is too ludicrous to comment on here (as a molecular biologist who uses bleach to destroy DNA like all of us do, so if AK and RS used bleach the DNA would have been destroyed...???), but the story that Amanda carried the knife around in her purse really caught my attention, because it is just too absurd to be taken seriously. This one deserves extensive discussion on this thread, in my opinion, as it relates to so many fundamental aspects of this case about how the Italian Justice System operates.

Again, about this thread, the analysis of knife is happening yet again and will no doubt receive uninformed and distorted coverage in the mindless media. I suggest that it would be useful for forum members to discuss it all here and now. Just my 2 cents worth.


wrt highlighted sentence . . . my understanding is that there was bruising on Meredith's neck consistent with the handle of the murder weapon being pressed hard into her flesh. Raffaele's kitchen knife couldn't have caused that bruising, because the cuts that killed her would need to have been deeper than they actually were. The blade of his knife was good for cutting bread; it was long.

The prosecution is asking the court to believe that somehow the knife from Raffaele's kitchen drawer was used in such a way that the blade only went in part of the way (because the blade was longer than the cuts were deep) but still somehow the handle of that knife came into contact with her skin (which it couldn't have done if the blade was only part way in).

Add to that issue the imprint on the sheet, which matches the depth of the cuts and the bruising observed, and you get a completely different murder weapon.

Add to that the silliness of Amanda -- who had no reason to feel unsafe, ironically-- choosing to carry a foot-long bread knife around in her bag just in case she was randomly attacked.

It's incredible that anybody is even looking at DNA on this thing. What a travesty this case is. What a waste.
hitchhiker
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby Alex_K » Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:49 am

TomZ53 wrote:I find the quote from the Italian Judge Massie posted by Hans above to be most revealing, "...It is thus possible and in fact probable..." (that Amanda chose to carry around in her purse a kitchen knife from the apartment of her boy friend of a few days). I find that this thinking is much more revealing about Massie, than it is about Amanda or Rafaelle.

Reason? Logic? Why would/should an Italian Judge care about esoteric principals such as these? Why should an Italian judge care one iota about the truth? What would he have to gain?

Fair enough, we get it.

This particular aspect of the contrived story of the knife is where the judge's narrative merges with the more comprehensive fabrication by the prosecution. It establishes the artificial foundation upon which subsequent lab results are presented and automatically/mindlessly (mis)interpreted. I would suggest that this logical incongruity is the starting point for our present discussion thread.

Any insights/comments?


As I've said before, I believe a judge or a law clerk who has to write a motivation report justifying a conviction begins by identifying what he sees as the strongest, irrefutable arguments. Then he starts dealing with other facts of the case. He has to explain why these other facts do not contradict his theory of the crime. Here's where the judge/clerk sometimes has to jump through very narrow hoops.
Alex_K
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:16 am

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby acbytesla » Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:00 am

Billy_Ray wrote:With no free press, a credulous population, no functioning democratic institutions, no oversight bodies and no standards, I'm sure the knife is just typical police procedure in Italy.

I've always believed that the knife evidence was never intended to convict Amanda and Raffaele, only to get them to confess or keep them in jail. I don't believe that Meredith's DNA WAS EVER on the blade of that knife. It was essentially a placeholder to allow Mignini to keep Amanda and Raffaele locked up while they prepared a case. For me, the quantity of DNA found on the knife is the key. It is too small for oversight. This would allow them the freedom to walk the case back if it became 100 percent clear that the two kids weren't involved. But for whatever reason, they became unwilling to walk it back because it would be too embarrassing.
acbytesla
 
Posts: 1545
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 2:46 am

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby diocletian » Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:08 am

I was just looking at the 36i quantification records, and this is what I think I see:

The amplifications were performed in triplicate. For "Duo Human RPPH1," which I take to be representative of the gene under investigation here, all three of the 25 uL amplifications show some result as follows:

No. 1 = 0.009 ng/uL @ 25 uL = 225 picograms
No. 2 = 0.001 ng/uL @ 25 uL = 25 pictograms
No. 3 = 0.004 ng/ul @ 25 uL = 100 picograms

The average of all three of these measurements is 0.005 ng/uL @ 25 uL = 125 picograms

As TomZ53 pointed out earlier, there is also one (out of three) positive results for "Duo Male SRY" in the amount of 0.002 ng/uL @ 25 uL = 50 picograms. The other two amplifications for this Y DNA resulted in "undetermined," which seems to mean that the amplification failed to produce any detectable product.

I wonder whether we are going to see the Carabinieri run 2 tests here: One for the general and one for the Y DNA.
diocletian
 
Posts: 1275
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:09 am

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:47 am

diocletian wrote:I was just looking at the 36i quantification records, and this is what I think I see:

The amplifications were performed in triplicate. For "Duo Human RPPH1," which I take to be representative of the gene under investigation here, all three of the 25 uL amplifications show some result as follows:

No. 1 = 0.009 ng/uL @ 25 uL = 225 picograms
No. 2 = 0.001 ng/uL @ 25 uL = 25 pictograms
No. 3 = 0.004 ng/ul @ 25 uL = 100 picograms

The average of all three of these measurements is 0.005 ng/uL @ 25 uL = 125 picograms

As TomZ53 pointed out earlier, there is also one (out of three) positive results for "Duo Male SRY" in the amount of 0.002 ng/uL @ 25 uL = 50 picograms. The other two amplifications for this Y DNA resulted in "undetermined," which seems to mean that the amplification failed to produce any detectable product.

I wonder whether we are going to see the Carabinieri run 2 tests here: One for the general and one for the Y DNA.


diocletian,

You wrote, "I wonder whether we are going to see the Carabinieri run 2 tests here: One for the general and one for the Y DNA." This is a key point. Performing multiple runs is a fundamental requirement for making sense of LCD DNA samples because of the inherant variability and uncertainty of PCR results generated from such small samples. This variability is demonstrated by the range of amounts produced in the three RPPH1 human DNA markers above. It is particularly demonstrated by the 'sometimes it's there and sometimes it is not there' results obtained with the Y chromosome marker. This phenomenon is what is referred to as a 'stochastic' effect. It is the result of random chance. With a very small DNA sample, sometimes the target DNA sequence may be so rare that it may or may not get added to the reaction tube. The end result is also called 'allele drop out'. The problem is compounded by 'allele drop in' where spurious bands resulting from system artifacts randomly appear, confusing the analysis. These phenomena make it problematic to decide whether some particular peak on an egram should be counted or not.

All of this is part of what I was referring to upthread when I suggested that the lab test may well produce a messy result. I say 'part of why...' because we then have to consider the possibility that the sample in question will contain DNA from more than one individual. If so, the result could get quite messy.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby sept79 » Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:52 am

diocletian wrote:I was just looking at the 36i quantification records, and this is what I think I see:

The amplifications were performed in triplicate. For "Duo Human RPPH1," which I take to be representative of the gene under investigation here, all three of the 25 uL amplifications show some result as follows:

No. 1 = 0.009 ng/uL @ 25 uL = 225 picograms
No. 2 = 0.001 ng/uL @ 25 uL = 25 pictograms
No. 3 = 0.004 ng/ul @ 25 uL = 100 picograms

The average of all three of these measurements is 0.005 ng/uL @ 25 uL = 125 picograms

As TomZ53 pointed out earlier, there is also one (out of three) positive results for "Duo Male SRY" in the amount of 0.002 ng/uL @ 25 uL = 50 picograms. The other two amplifications for this Y DNA resulted in "undetermined," which seems to mean that the amplification failed to produce any detectable product.

I wonder whether we are going to see the Carabinieri run 2 tests here: One for the general and one for the Y DNA.


Diocletian, can you explain the meaning and implications of this? Also, how would access to the EDFs help in this assessment? Are you suggesting that fraud is possible and very likely undetectable?
sept79
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 7:16 am

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby diocletian » Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:49 pm

sept79 wrote:
diocletian wrote:I was just looking at the 36i quantification records, and this is what I think I see:

The amplifications were performed in triplicate. For "Duo Human RPPH1," which I take to be representative of the gene under investigation here, all three of the 25 uL amplifications show some result as follows:

No. 1 = 0.009 ng/uL @ 25 uL = 225 picograms
No. 2 = 0.001 ng/uL @ 25 uL = 25 pictograms
No. 3 = 0.004 ng/ul @ 25 uL = 100 picograms

The average of all three of these measurements is 0.005 ng/uL @ 25 uL = 125 picograms

As TomZ53 pointed out earlier, there is also one (out of three) positive results for "Duo Male SRY" in the amount of 0.002 ng/uL @ 25 uL = 50 picograms. The other two amplifications for this Y DNA resulted in "undetermined," which seems to mean that the amplification failed to produce any detectable product.

I wonder whether we are going to see the Carabinieri run 2 tests here: One for the general and one for the Y DNA.


Diocletian, can you explain the meaning and implications of this? Also, how would access to the EDFs help in this assessment? Are you suggesting that fraud is possible and very likely undetectable?

No, I'm not making a comment on fraud, just recording the information that I see about the quantity of DNA that the Carabinieri will be testing. I think that the implication is just that there appears to be a small amount of DNA in that sample.

As to EDF's, I'm not sure that they will be necessary to understand the results, but I suppose that would depend on how the results turn out.
diocletian
 
Posts: 1275
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:09 am

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:06 pm

hitchhiker wrote:
TomZ53 wrote:
RoseMontague wrote:1. It's obvious that this knife could not have caused all the knife wounds.
2. A smaller knife consistent with the knife imprint in blood on the bed could have.
3. This knife had to have been transported from Raffaele's kitchen drawer, used in the murder, and then placed back in the drawer after the murder.
4. The prosecution maintains the knife was cleaned with bleach before it was placed back in the drawer.


Rose,

I wanted to return to your list of issues in light of the developing discussion thread here. Again, the knife 'sample I' will be a major, and distorted, focus of the Florence nth retrial. Thus, I think it is worth discussing this issue in some detail as this latest examination nears. As I explained, I am not the expert on a number of these basic issues and I would hope that more informed forum members would join in with the details.

So far, after some back and forth I am still unclear about the issue of how Rafaelle's knife does not match the wounds. Several explanations have been posted, but the description of this one does not seem clear, at least to me.

The bleach thing is too ludicrous to comment on here (as a molecular biologist who uses bleach to destroy DNA like all of us do, so if AK and RS used bleach the DNA would have been destroyed...???), but the story that Amanda carried the knife around in her purse really caught my attention, because it is just too absurd to be taken seriously. This one deserves extensive discussion on this thread, in my opinion, as it relates to so many fundamental aspects of this case about how the Italian Justice System operates.

Again, about this thread, the analysis of knife is happening yet again and will no doubt receive uninformed and distorted coverage in the mindless media. I suggest that it would be useful for forum members to discuss it all here and now. Just my 2 cents worth.


wrt highlighted sentence . . . my understanding is that there was bruising on Meredith's neck consistent with the handle of the murder weapon being pressed hard into her flesh. Raffaele's kitchen knife couldn't have caused that bruising, because the cuts that killed her would need to have been deeper than they actually were. The blade of his knife was good for cutting bread; it was long.

The prosecution is asking the court to believe that somehow the knife from Raffaele's kitchen drawer was used in such a way that the blade only went in part of the way (because the blade was longer than the cuts were deep) but still somehow the handle of that knife came into contact with her skin (which it couldn't have done if the blade was only part way in).

Add to that issue the imprint on the sheet, which matches the depth of the cuts and the bruising observed, and you get a completely different murder weapon.

Add to that the silliness of Amanda -- who had no reason to feel unsafe, ironically-- choosing to carry a foot-long bread knife around in her bag just in case she was randomly attacked.

It's incredible that anybody is even looking at DNA on this thing. What a travesty this case is. What a waste.


hitchhiker,

Thanks. Your post refreshes my memory. It is the bruising that indicated the lenght of the murder weapon, and kitchen knife it too long. I now vaguely recall that the prosecution has attempted to supress the autopsy results about the bruising because it calls attention to a huge fundamental problem with the kitchen knife, but maybe I'm wrong about that. Anybody have a comment on that? Did the prosecution attempt to conceal the evidence about bruising?

I also agree that the fabricated story about Amanda walking around Perugia with Raffale's kitchen knife is absurd. But playing along for the moment, if Amanda wanted to carry kitchen cutlery in her purse, why wouldn't she simply take a knife from her own kitchen? If she was scared, why would that have just happend in the last week of October, after she met Raffaele? Wouldn't she have already started to carry a kitchen knife, one from her own kitchen?

These two huge flaws with the prosecution's contrived story create enormous doubt from the get go; American college girls don't walk around town with kitchen knives in their purses, and this particular knife does not even match the wounds. This sets the stage for understanding the DNA results.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby KayPea » Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:19 pm

TomZ53 wrote:
hitchhiker wrote:
TomZ53 wrote:
RoseMontague wrote:1. It's obvious that this knife could not have caused all the knife wounds.
2. A smaller knife consistent with the knife imprint in blood on the bed could have.
3. This knife had to have been transported from Raffaele's kitchen drawer, used in the murder, and then placed back in the drawer after the murder.
4. The prosecution maintains the knife was cleaned with bleach before it was placed back in the drawer.


Rose,

I wanted to return to your list of issues in light of the developing discussion thread here. Again, the knife 'sample I' will be a major, and distorted, focus of the Florence nth retrial. Thus, I think it is worth discussing this issue in some detail as this latest examination nears. As I explained, I am not the expert on a number of these basic issues and I would hope that more informed forum members would join in with the details.

So far, after some back and forth I am still unclear about the issue of how Rafaelle's knife does not match the wounds. Several explanations have been posted, but the description of this one does not seem clear, at least to me.

The bleach thing is too ludicrous to comment on here (as a molecular biologist who uses bleach to destroy DNA like all of us do, so if AK and RS used bleach the DNA would have been destroyed...???), but the story that Amanda carried the knife around in her purse really caught my attention, because it is just too absurd to be taken seriously. This one deserves extensive discussion on this thread, in my opinion, as it relates to so many fundamental aspects of this case about how the Italian Justice System operates.

Again, about this thread, the analysis of knife is happening yet again and will no doubt receive uninformed and distorted coverage in the mindless media. I suggest that it would be useful for forum members to discuss it all here and now. Just my 2 cents worth.


wrt highlighted sentence . . . my understanding is that there was bruising on Meredith's neck consistent with the handle of the murder weapon being pressed hard into her flesh. Raffaele's kitchen knife couldn't have caused that bruising, because the cuts that killed her would need to have been deeper than they actually were. The blade of his knife was good for cutting bread; it was long.

The prosecution is asking the court to believe that somehow the knife from Raffaele's kitchen drawer was used in such a way that the blade only went in part of the way (because the blade was longer than the cuts were deep) but still somehow the handle of that knife came into contact with her skin (which it couldn't have done if the blade was only part way in).

Add to that issue the imprint on the sheet, which matches the depth of the cuts and the bruising observed, and you get a completely different murder weapon.

Add to that the silliness of Amanda -- who had no reason to feel unsafe, ironically-- choosing to carry a foot-long bread knife around in her bag just in case she was randomly attacked.

It's incredible that anybody is even looking at DNA on this thing. What a travesty this case is. What a waste.


hitchhiker,

Thanks. Your post refreshes my memory. It is the bruising that indicated the lenght of the murder weapon, and kitchen knife it too long. I now vaguely recall that the prosecution has attempted to supress the autopsy results about the bruising because it calls attention to a huge fundamental problem with the kitchen knife, but maybe I'm wrong about that. Anybody have a comment on that? Did the prosecution attempt to conceal the evidence about bruising?

I also agree that the fabricated story about Amanda walking around Perugia with Raffale's kitchen knife is absurd. But playing along for the moment, if Amanda wanted to carry kitchen cutlery in her purse, why wouldn't she simply take a knife from her own kitchen? If she was scared, why would that have just happend in the last week of October, after she met Raffaele? Wouldn't she have already started to carry a kitchen knife, one from her own kitchen?

These two huge flaws with the prosecution's contrived story create enormous doubt from the get go; American college girls don't walk around town with kitchen knives in their purses, and this particular knife does not even match the wounds. This sets the stage for understanding the DNA results.


You are correct about the hilt bruising her skin. The wound is a titch over 3 inches deep. All three penetrations in this wound are the exact depth. So it's mathematically impossible for a killer to stab someone precisely the same depth with a 6+ inch kitchen knife.

Amanda quotes the precise measurements in her book. Page 336-7. I just remember a titch over 3 inches and a titch over 6 inches.

So the murder weapon was a pocketknife half the length of the kitchen knife.

Exactly what a burglar would carry, right Rudy?

ETA:
Wound depth 3.149 inches, "three times in a row"
Knife--6.89 inches
“If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it.”-- Marcus Aurelius
User avatar
KayPea
 
Posts: 3310
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 11:40 pm
Location: Seattle WA

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby hitchhiker » Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:21 pm

TomZ53 wrote:
Thanks. Your post refreshes my memory. It is the bruising that indicated the lenght of the murder weapon, and kitchen knife it too long. I now vaguely recall that the prosecution has attempted to supress the autopsy results about the bruising because it calls attention to a huge fundamental problem with the kitchen knife, but maybe I'm wrong about that. Anybody have a comment on that? Did the prosecution attempt to conceal the evidence about bruising?

I also agree that the fabricated story about Amanda walking around Perugia with Raffale's kitchen knife is absurd. But playing along for the moment, if Amanda wanted to carry kitchen cutlery in her purse, why wouldn't she simply take a knife from her own kitchen? If she was scared, why would that have just happend in the last week of October, after she met Raffaele? Wouldn't she have already started to carry a kitchen knife, one from her own kitchen?

These two huge flaws with the prosecution's contrived story create enormous doubt from the get go; American college girls don't walk around town with kitchen knives in their purses, and this particular knife does not even match the wounds. This sets the stage for understanding the DNA results.


On the subject of carrying around a weapon that will protect you . . . women do this, for sure. They carry mace, which can be sprayed into the face of an attacker. They carry loud whistles, which can draw attention to what's happening to you. They carry pepper spray. In the USA, some of them carry guns.

What they don't do is slip a foot-long kitchen knife into their bag or backpack, and as a woman I can tell you that no sane woman would do this, just because the likelihood of it being taken from her and used against her is very high, while the likelihood of it being used successfully as protection is just about zero. Think what you'd have to do! Somehow wrestle the thing out of your bag while you're under attack, hold it properly while fending off your attacker, and inflict a blow so serious that your attacker would be disabled. With a foot-long knife.

Here's a website that shows a variety of the kinds of things women actually do use if they're feeling vulnerable (which, by the way, there is no evidence that Amanda or any of the English girls was). See what they all have in common?

They're small, they can be held in one hand, it doesn't take strength to deploy them, they can be disguised as normal products (like lipstick) . . . this is how women go about protecting themselves. They don't grab a great big knife, stuff it into their bag, and saunter off secure in their ability to stab someone.

The prosecution theory here is utterly, utterly bananas.
hitchhiker
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby KayPea » Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:29 pm

I've a comparison of the knives in question in a visual on this article.

THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER

The fatal injury consisted of a series of 3 stab wounds on the left side of Meredith’s neck, all in the same place, in quick succession, from a short bladed knife whose hilt left a bruise on her skin. A short knife like the pocketknife Guede used to keep Christian Tremontano at bay while he escaped from Tremontano’s apartment just over a month earlier.

Three quick stabs wounds from a knife (3.149 inches) much smaller than the infamous Kitchen Knife (6.89 inches) that the prosecution entered into evidence, three wounds exactly the same depth. Had the infamous kitchen knife gone in hilt deep, three times, it would have almost decapitated Meredith; such a blade would have entered the front of her neck and come out of the back.

Amanda quotes in her book “Waiting To Be Heard,” “Professor Torre…explained that in a moment of homicidal frenzy, it would be highly unlikely for a killer to plunge a knife in only halfway…And the odds would rise to impossible when you considered driving a knife in, to precisely the same depth, measurable to a thousandth of an inch, three times in a row.”—Pg. 336-7.

Between the fatal wound and three shallow knife wounds on the right side of her neck (control wounds) Meredith bled profusely, but she exsanguinated from the fatal wound on the left side and her room became a blood bath within five minutes, a massacre. She lost consciousness from oxygen deprivation of the brain in approximately 10 minutes and would have bled out shortly thereafter.


http://groundreport.com/the-murder-of-meredith-kercher/
“If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it.”-- Marcus Aurelius
User avatar
KayPea
 
Posts: 3310
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 11:40 pm
Location: Seattle WA

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:08 pm

KayPea wrote:I've a comparison of the knives in question in a visual on this article.

THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER

The fatal injury consisted of a series of 3 stab wounds on the left side of Meredith’s neck, all in the same place, in quick succession, from a short bladed knife whose hilt left a bruise on her skin. A short knife like the pocketknife Guede used to keep Christian Tremontano at bay while he escaped from Tremontano’s apartment just over a month earlier.

Three quick stabs wounds from a knife (3.149 inches) much smaller than the infamous Kitchen Knife (6.89 inches) that the prosecution entered into evidence, three wounds exactly the same depth. Had the infamous kitchen knife gone in hilt deep, three times, it would have almost decapitated Meredith; such a blade would have entered the front of her neck and come out of the back.

Amanda quotes in her book “Waiting To Be Heard,” “Professor Torre…explained that in a moment of homicidal frenzy, it would be highly unlikely for a killer to plunge a knife in only halfway…And the odds would rise to impossible when you considered driving a knife in, to precisely the same depth, measurable to a thousandth of an inch, three times in a row.”—Pg. 336-7.

Between the fatal wound and three shallow knife wounds on the right side of her neck (control wounds) Meredith bled profusely, but she exsanguinated from the fatal wound on the left side and her room became a blood bath within five minutes, a massacre. She lost consciousness from oxygen deprivation of the brain in approximately 10 minutes and would have bled out shortly thereafter.


http://groundreport.com/the-murder-of-meredith-kercher/


KayPea,

Thanks for the information. Going back into the article archives I found this story from November 5, 2007 that you posted there: November 2007 La Repubblica viewtopic.php?f=176&t=2644

November 5..."Autopsy performed yesterday and lasting more than seven hours it was found that the girl's death to be reconnected to a hemorrhage for a deep neck injury "probably due to the action of a tool tip and cutting," perhaps a pocket knife."

So on November 4 the medical examiner had determined that the fatal wounds came from a weapon like a pocket knife. This information was promtly passed along to the press.

I would like to see the time line clarified, but Amanda and Raffale had not yet been arrested when the investigators knew the murder weapon was a small knife, such as a pocket knife. The police then, after this was known, went to Raffaele's apartment and picked out his large kitchen knife (what day was this?) The story of the autopsy results had already been in the newspaper when the kitchen knife was collected. Are we expected to believe that the investigators seriously thought that the kitchen knife had anything to do with the murder? Given the autopsy results, what would their reasoning have been?
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby KayPea » Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:52 pm

I'm of the opinion that the kitchen knife was specifically chosen because they knew Amanda had used it and most importantly, they knew her DNA would maybe be on it.

As she endlessly repeated what they did that night, why not slip in "what kind of knife did you use? So they knew what they were looking for, imho.

Rented Batchelor Pads don't have a wide selection of knives, as a rule.
“If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it.”-- Marcus Aurelius
User avatar
KayPea
 
Posts: 3310
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 11:40 pm
Location: Seattle WA

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby i-m-concerned » Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:18 pm

It continues to boggle my mind that:

1) We know Raffaele's kitchen knife was not the murder weapon. The wounds do not match. The imprints do not match.
2)The story about Amanda carrying around the knife in her purse is beyond bizarre. Can you imagine carrying around a knife that size in your purse? You would have to be extremely careful all the time reaching in to get some money or lipstick or whatever. This makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever. NO ONE would do this! And can you imagine bumping into a table or a door with that thing in there??
3) Also, I find it beyond belief they would suggest Amanda and Raffaele would actually use the knife to kill Meredith and then proceed to take the thing home and put it back in the drawer. Really? So that the next time they cooked dinner, they could open the drawer and say..."Oh, look, there is the knife we used to stab Meredith to death with... I guess I will use that one to cut the bread tonight." Not in a million years!!!
4) Apparently, if I recall correctly, the court eventually accepted that this was NOT the knife, because they then came up with the "theory" that there was another, smaller knife that actually made the wounds, but that knife was never found.
5) So why in God's name are they still obsessed with testing Raffaele's knife?
i-m-concerned
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:32 am

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby bluebird55 » Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:13 pm

Will the carabinieri inform the defense lawyers what cutting edge technology they are going to use. I wonder if the "scientists" they picked to evaluate the DNA uphold the scientific code or go wit the rest of Italy's Judiciary to save face. Remains to be seen.
bluebird55
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:56 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby roteoctober » Wed Oct 09, 2013 1:15 am

Another point about that knife, which is the size of a dagger, a small "gladio" (the gladio was the short sword of the Roman legionaries), is that it is extremely clumsy to be used to cut a throat the way the prosecution case alleges it was.

With a weapon of that size the most natural movement would be a fast swiping movement from left to right (for a right-handed person) aimed at the zone of the neck where Adam's apple is in men.

Such a move would be even more natural and efficient is someone were blocking and pushing backwards the victim's forehead.
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby Zrausch » Wed Oct 09, 2013 1:50 am

Didn't Rudy Guede go on several times about the attacker being left handed? Almost all of Rudy's statements read as transparent attempts to cover his own incriminating evidence. Is there any way to guess which hand made the knife wounds, and could Rudy have been using his left hand and later remembered this and thought it would be advantageous of him to point this out since he's presumably right handed? I suppose from an evidential standpoint this is just curious speculation and it could always just be an irrelevant red herring on his part.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby charlatan » Wed Oct 09, 2013 2:28 am

i-m-concerned wrote:5) So why in God's name are they still obsessed with testing Raffaele's knife?

The prosecution doesn't really want to test the knife. Up until the end of the appeal they fought against every request for additional testing. The C&V report put them on the defensive so they threw a bunch of arguments at the wall in the hope of winning over the high court. In granting the prosecution appeal on the grounds of allegedly incomplete motivations and inadequate work on the part of the experts, Cassation had little choice but to endorse the retest. We'll find out soon enough if this was a blunder on Galati's part, because it certainly doesn't look like he needed to ask for more testing. Everyone's following Cassation's marching orders (and the defense is pro-testing on principle) so here we are. The whole process is quite mad.

I don't think there's anything legitimately to be found on the knife, but then again legitimacy is always a problem with these clowns.
charlatan
 
Posts: 480
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 12:41 am

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby charlatan » Wed Oct 09, 2013 2:39 am

Has it been confirmed that the defense experts will be observing these new tests?
charlatan
 
Posts: 480
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 12:41 am

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby roteoctober » Wed Oct 09, 2013 5:23 am

charlatan wrote:Has it been confirmed that the defense experts will be observing these new tests?


The law grants them the right to be present.
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:47 am

roteoctober wrote:
charlatan wrote:Has it been confirmed that the defense experts will be observing these new tests?


The law grants them the right to be present.


roteoctober,

This is how I understand it as well; the defense should be allowed have an observer present at the testing. From what I recall, the lab testing is scheduled to begin tomorrow, October 10. It is not clear to me how long it will take the carabinieri, but this sort of analysis should not take more than a few days to complete in a thorough manner. It could go on further if repetitons are performed.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Wed Oct 09, 2013 8:01 am

i-m-concerned wrote:It continues to boggle my mind that:

1) We know Raffaele's kitchen knife was not the murder weapon. The wounds do not match. The imprints do not match.
2)The story about Amanda carrying around the knife in her purse is beyond bizarre. Can you imagine carrying around a knife that size in your purse? You would have to be extremely careful all the time reaching in to get some money or lipstick or whatever. This makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever. NO ONE would do this! And can you imagine bumping into a table or a door with that thing in there??
3) Also, I find it beyond belief they would suggest Amanda and Raffaele would actually use the knife to kill Meredith and then proceed to take the thing home and put it back in the drawer. Really? So that the next time they cooked dinner, they could open the drawer and say..."Oh, look, there is the knife we used to stab Meredith to death with... I guess I will use that one to cut the bread tonight." Not in a million years!!!
4) Apparently, if I recall correctly, the court eventually accepted that this was NOT the knife, because they then came up with the "theory" that there was another, smaller knife that actually made the wounds, but that knife was never found.
5) So why in God's name are they still obsessed with testing Raffaele's knife?


i-m-concerned,

Excellent observations. The obvious problems about needing to reach inside your purse are a useful addition to the list, together with the ones from hitchhiker about about how carrying a knife would be more dangerous than not having anything, and mace, pepper spray, or just a whistle are the things that women actually do carry.

Then, of course, the knife does not match the wounds. It would have been virtually impossible to use the kitchen knife and have it only penetrate to the depth of the pocket knife. Then we see that the investigators knew that the murder weapon was a short knife well before they went to Raffaele's place and collected the way too big kitchen knife (which they knew was likely to have Amanda's DNA on the handle... what were they thinking?)

The problems with the kitchen knife are legion. And we haven't even gotten to Stefanoni's DNA analysis and subsequent testimony yet.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby struoc » Wed Oct 09, 2013 9:07 am

charlatan wrote:Has it been confirmed that the defense experts will be observing these new tests?

Wouldn't you think it would be mandatory?
Hellman ordered both parties to be there, I would hope this is standard practice.
struoc
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 6:05 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby KayPea » Wed Oct 09, 2013 9:54 am

roteoctober wrote:Another point about that knife, which is the size of a dagger, a small "gladio" (the gladio was the short sword of the Roman legionaries), is that it is extremely clumsy to be used to cut a throat the way the prosecution case alleges it was.

With a weapon of that size the most natural movement would be a fast swiping movement from left to right (for a right-handed person) aimed at the zone of the neck where Adam's apple is in men.

Such a move would be even more natural and efficient is someone were blocking and pushing backwards the victim's forehead.


I've considered impaled as well, sadly. That would explain the hilt bruising.



Poor baby. Selfish bastards.
“If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it.”-- Marcus Aurelius
User avatar
KayPea
 
Posts: 3310
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 11:40 pm
Location: Seattle WA

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby KayPea » Wed Oct 09, 2013 9:59 am

Nobody listens to Meredith. How come nobody listens to Meredith? People should be listening to Meredith. Meredith has been telling the truth this entire time. That is really messed up that her own family's lawyers are ignoring her. That's just SO messed UP! It's evil.
“If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it.”-- Marcus Aurelius
User avatar
KayPea
 
Posts: 3310
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 11:40 pm
Location: Seattle WA

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby hitchhiker » Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:32 pm

charlatan wrote:The whole process is quite mad.



This x 1,000.
hitchhiker
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby pmop57 » Wed Oct 09, 2013 1:18 pm

Actually the Judge only followed the demand of the Court of Cassation:
1) - the witness Aviello, a complete failure, Aviello is not reliable and never was, his story cannot be proven.
2) - the retesting of the knife, IMO they will find nothing because there is nothing (am I to optimistic?)
And two new demands by the defense:
1) - the fingernail testing (which of the sense I do not understand)
2) - the investigating of Raffaele's computer log files (I didn't see any confirmation of that)
Important will be what will be following then!
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby struoc » Wed Oct 09, 2013 3:35 pm

diocletian wrote:
sept79 wrote:
diocletian wrote:I was just looking at the 36i quantification records, and this is what I think I see:

The amplifications were performed in triplicate. For "Duo Human RPPH1," which I take to be representative of the gene under investigation here, all three of the 25 uL amplifications show some result as follows:

No. 1 = 0.009 ng/uL @ 25 uL = 225 picograms
No. 2 = 0.001 ng/uL @ 25 uL = 25 pictograms
No. 3 = 0.004 ng/ul @ 25 uL = 100 picograms

The average of all three of these measurements is 0.005 ng/uL @ 25 uL = 125 picograms

As TomZ53 pointed out earlier, there is also one (out of three) positive results for "Duo Male SRY" in the amount of 0.002 ng/uL @ 25 uL = 50 picograms. The other two amplifications for this Y DNA resulted in "undetermined," which seems to mean that the amplification failed to produce any detectable product.

I wonder whether we are going to see the Carabinieri run 2 tests here: One for the general and one for the Y DNA.


Diocletian, can you explain the meaning and implications of this? Also, how would access to the EDFs help in this assessment? Are you suggesting that fraud is possible and very likely undetectable?

No, I'm not making a comment on fraud, just recording the information that I see about the quantity of DNA that the Carabinieri will be testing. I think that the implication is just that there appears to be a small amount of DNA in that sample.

As to EDF's, I'm not sure that they will be necessary to understand the results, but I suppose that would depend on how the results turn out.


How would a sample like this be stored, typically? Im not a scientist and have never phsycially even seen a lab that does DNA work.
Such tiny amounts, it seems would be hard to determine the source. Also do you see anything different from H in the data/files?
struoc
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 6:05 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Wed Oct 09, 2013 3:47 pm

In anticipation of tomorrow's start to the new DNA testing on sample I from the kitchen knife, I wanted to list possible outcomes based on the previous analysis of this sample performed by C&V which found a very small amount (maybe 150 picograms) of human DNA that tested positive for the human Y chromosome, ie. it contained human male DNA. So what might be the result of another test?

1. no DNA found
2. only male DNA found
3. male and female DNA found
4. only female DNA found (???)

1.no DNA found. This could occur if essentially all of the DNA that was present at this spot was removed by C&V

2. only male DNA found. Who? could be Raffaele's of course; could be a mixture of men; Could be difficult to unravel. (How long has this knife been around and how many tenants have handled it over time?)

3. male and female DNA found. Could be a combination of Raffale and Amanda DNA; if the male is from multiple males, it could get messy. (If a profile consistent with MK is observed it would suggest contamination or tampering.) There is an in between where a profile with a partial match to MK is observed. This could be very messy.

4. only female DNA found. This would be a contradiction of the C&V result. The profile is either is or is not consistent with MK profile or it is a messy mixture.

One more technical point. I compared Raffale's and Amanda's STR profiles with Meredith's and there is quite a bit of overlap. RS shares 11/29 somatic (non X or Y) markers with MK and AK shares 8/29. A mixture of RS + AK DNA shares 16/29 markers with MK. Thus clean results from an RS + AK DNA mixture will give a partial MK profile. Given that the sample is Low Copy Number, LCN DNA, extra bands could appear due to PCR artifacts and the nature of LCN PCR. If there are even more individuals included in a mixture, additional STR markers consistent with the MK profile could also show up. This is part of what I mean by messy.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Wed Oct 09, 2013 3:57 pm

struoc wrote:How would a sample like this be stored, typically? Im not a scientist and have never phsycially even seen a lab that does DNA work.
Such tiny amounts, it seems would be hard to determine the source. Also do you see anything different from H in the data/files?


struoc,

DNA is a remarkable stable substance when stored under conditions where it is not subject to degradation by microorganisms or digestive enzymes that might happen to be present in the sample. I routinely keep DNA in liquid solutions in the refrigerator for years. It is very stable in the freezer for many many years (consider the DNA from that Wooley Mammoth that was excavated in Siberia). Also, it is stable for long periods of time (many, many many years) if it is completely dry (scientists have recovered DNA from Neandertal Man and even from Tyrannosaurus rex). I do not know how they kept the kitchen knife, but the possibility of degradation by microorganisms or digestive enzymes is an obvious concern with this sample, since it was used to handle food and would be a natural target for spoilage.

I think that this kind of degradation is what happened to the bra clasp.

ETA. With such tiny amounts it is quite difficult to determine the source which is why forensic scientists have agreed that LCN DNA should never be used as evidence in court.

Sample H was negative for human DNA and is not being pursued.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby acbytesla » Wed Oct 09, 2013 4:35 pm

TomZ53 wrote:
struoc wrote:How would a sample like this be stored, typically? Im not a scientist and have never phsycially even seen a lab that does DNA work.
Such tiny amounts, it seems would be hard to determine the source. Also do you see anything different from H in the data/files?


struoc,

DNA is a remarkable stable substance when stored under conditions where it is not subject to degradation by microorganisms or digestive enzymes that might happen to be present in the sample. I routinely keep DNA in liquid solutions in the refrigerator for years. It is very stable in the freezer for many many years (consider the DNA from that Wooley Mammoth that was excavated in Siberia). Also, it is stable for long periods of time (many, many many years) if it is completely dry (scientists have recovered DNA from Neandertal Man and even from Tyrannosaurus rex). I do not know how they kept the kitchen knife, but the possibility of degradation by microorganisms or digestive enzymes is an obvious concern with this sample, since it was used to handle food and would be a natural target for spoilage.

I think that this kind of degradation is what happened to the bra clasp.

ETA. With such tiny amounts it is quite difficult to determine the source which is why forensic scientists have agreed that LCN DNA should never be used as evidence in court.

Sample H was negative for human DNA and is not being pursued.


Maybe I'm wrong on the number of years. But Gary Ridgeway, the Green River Killer was cracked as the result of a sample of DNA that was stored for about a decade. I believe the investigators waited for the PCR technique. The previous method of DNA typing required larger samples and the investigators were afraid that their evidence sample was too small for that previous methodology. I'm sure Tom probably knows the details of this. Actually I just pulled up the details on Wikipedia. The samples collected in 1987 weren't tested until 2001. They then arrested him after suspecting he was the killer for 13 years.
acbytesla
 
Posts: 1545
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 2:46 am

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Wed Oct 09, 2013 5:13 pm

Just one more comment about the DNA testing scheduled to start tomorrow, given the intrinsic problems inherent in LCN DNA testing, it would not be unexpected to have the test produce an ambiguous result and even with a clear negative, the prosecution will still revert to Stefanoni's irreproducible, uncontrolled analysis. Thus, the fundamental problems with the knife that are being reviewed on this thread will remain a key component of the defense case.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby charlatan » Wed Oct 09, 2013 5:45 pm

TomZ53 wrote:Thanks. Your post refreshes my memory. It is the bruising that indicated the lenght of the murder weapon, and kitchen knife it too long. I now vaguely recall that the prosecution has attempted to supress the autopsy results about the bruising because it calls attention to a huge fundamental problem with the kitchen knife, but maybe I'm wrong about that. Anybody have a comment on that? Did the prosecution attempt to conceal the evidence about bruising?

IIRC, the prosecution tried to argue that the bruising was caused by strangulation.

roteoctober wrote:
charlatan wrote:Has it been confirmed that the defense experts will be observing these new tests?

The law grants them the right to be present.

Thanks. This is my understanding as well but of course I am paranoid. I am hoping this also means we'll find out where we stand sooner rather than later.
charlatan
 
Posts: 480
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 12:41 am

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:35 pm

charlatan wrote:
TomZ53 wrote:Thanks. Your post refreshes my memory. It is the bruising that indicated the lenght of the murder weapon, and kitchen knife it too long. I now vaguely recall that the prosecution has attempted to supress the autopsy results about the bruising because it calls attention to a huge fundamental problem with the kitchen knife, but maybe I'm wrong about that. Anybody have a comment on that? Did the prosecution attempt to conceal the evidence about bruising?

IIRC, the prosecution tried to argue that the bruising was caused by strangulation.

roteoctober wrote:
charlatan wrote:Has it been confirmed that the defense experts will be observing these new tests?

The law grants them the right to be present.

Thanks. This is my understanding as well but of course I am paranoid. I am hoping this also means we'll find out where we stand sooner rather than later.


charlatan,

Thanks for the clarification about how the prosecution attempted to obfuscate the autopsy evidence. Of course, whatever the cause of the bruising, the fundamental observation remains a fact; the wounds inflicted on MK are all short and very close in depth, consistent with the findings of the medical examiner who performed the autopsy and concluded that the murder weapon was something like a pocket knife. Thus, to salvage their 'two knife' hypothesis, the prosecution must continue to contradict the autopsy conclusion and instead assert that some person using Raffaele's kitchen knife as a second murder weapon did so in such a way that they consistently stabbed this much longer blade to exactly the same depth as the short knife observed at the crime scene as represented by the blood imprint. All of this of course, as they were in a drugged out choice for evil, oops, I mispoke, I mean a satanic ritual (actually, the highly precise details fit best with this one), but oops again, rather I mean they did this in a moment of sexual lust. Got it.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby i-m-concerned » Wed Oct 09, 2013 9:03 pm

Hans wrote:
TomZ53 wrote:
RoseMontague wrote:1. It's obvious that this knife could not have caused all the knife wounds.
2. A smaller knife consistent with the knife imprint in blood on the bed could have.
3. This knife had to have been transported from Raffaele's kitchen drawer, used in the murder, and then placed back in the drawer after the murder.
4. The prosecution maintains the knife was cleaned with bleach before it was placed back in the drawer.


Thanks Rose,

A couple of questions;

1) how is it that the knife does not match the wounds, while the knife represented by the bloody imprint does. I recall reading something about how the knife would have had to be stabbed to a certain limited depth. Is there also anything about the width or edges of the wounds to go on?

2) The knife would have had to have been transproted back and forth and then placed back. This part of teh fabrication has always bee a major stretch. What is the prosecution's narrative here?

I would add one point to your list above (ignoring Clive's admonition below about DNA...

5) there would need to be some unknown molecular mechanism by which DNA could be specifically extracted from blood and precisely adhered to a metallic surface (while evading chemical degradation from bleach) for detectable MK DNA from blood to be present on the knife.

On the size of the wounds:
Image
The large wound:
Massei (Translation page 111) wrote:Once the neck had been cleaned, it was possible to observe wounds which Dr. Lalli attributed to the action of a pointed cutting instrument. The main wound was located in the left lateral region of the neck, and was 8cm in length; the width could not be measured because the edges had separated due to the elasticity of the tissues both in relation to the region and to the position of the head, which could have modified the width. These wounds had a small "ʺtail"ʺ at the posterior end. The wound "ʺpenetrated into the interior of the structure of the neck in a slightly oblique direction, upwards and also towards the right"ʺ (page 15). Underneath this large wound another wound was visible, rather small and superficial, with not particularly clear edges "ʺbecoming increasingly superficial until they disappeared"ʺ, in the reddish area of abrasions.

The wound on the other side of the neck:
Professor Bacci via Massei (Translation page 121) wrote:He ruled out that the knife (Exhibit 36) could have caused the wound on the opposite side (still inflicted on the neck but on the right side) because of the size of the wound (1 cm and a half with a depth of 4 cm) and the fact that at 4 cm from the tip the width of the blade of the knife is about 3 cm and therefore much larger than the width of the wound (as indicated, 1.5cm).



Just a point to clarify... someone correct me if i am wrong. The point is not that if Raffaeles's knife was used, the killer would have had to stop it at a certain point. Rather, as this post from Hans is saying, the wound on the right side of the neck was measured at a depth of 4 cm and a width of 1.5 cm. Therefore, because Raff's knife is so much larger, which when measured at 4 cm from the tip of the knife, the width is 3 cm. Hence, the larger knife (even if only stabbed in halfway) could have never made that wound, because the width (at 4 cm depth) would then have had to been 3 cm. I think the autopsy is saying that the fatal, large wound on the left side of the neck is inconclusive, (because the tissues had pulled away... or something), so the prosecution is using that to say this wound "could have, or probably, or possibly, or most likely, or may have been, or whatever, been made made by Raff's knife. Therefore, two knives.
i-m-concerned
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:32 am

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby charlatan » Wed Oct 09, 2013 9:07 pm

It's special pleading of the forensic variety and it's completely transparent. The authorities and the guilters are running a con where they pretend not to see these glaring contradictions.
charlatan
 
Posts: 480
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 12:41 am

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:14 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:Good idea Tom

Let's start by forgetting about DNA altogether! :) That should pull in the crowds and set them up nicely for the more technical stuff. It's good when investigating a murder to find the murder weapon. Especially if it should turn out to have some provable link to the perpetrator, like fingerprints or DNA (drat, I mentioned it after all). I am just reading a book by a South African forensic scientist in which he describes the process by which the cops sometimes form a theory before the evidence comes in and then set about trying to prove it, ignoring or misinterpreting evidence as the theory requires. The Perugians cops seem to have taken the next step and actually made (=fabricated) the evidence their theory demanded.

How many knives from the via Della Pergola apartment were tested? How many from Lumumba's apartment or from Le Chic? Maybe Diocletian knows. AFAIK they tested one knife of Raff's. Was a fingertip search conducted of the route between the apartment and Lana's garden to find the knife? If so, I never heard about it. How many knives were retrieved from Rudy's apartment when he came into the picture? The 'search' seems to have consisted of an officer plucking just the one knife from the drawer and saying (according to Raffaele) 'this will do'. We must perhaps discount the last part since Raffaele, if guilty, might have made this bit up.

What luck! To find the murder weapon without hardly looking for it. This supports Giobbi's claim that Italian police interrogation techniques are so good they don't really need evidence. They form a theory so strong that the evidence just falls into their hands.

Consider, apart from the question of luck, the problems the knife creates. Cops are stupid the world over. This is because criminals are even dumber. There is no need to employ rocket scientists to catch them and the Italians do not. To a cop, 'finding' the knife is all that counts. The imponderables associated with it (wrong size, premeditation, improbability of retention and of return to drawer for further use) do not matter. And don't forget, this Neanderthal line of thinking is not wrong! The two were convicted, largely because of that knife and the knife still takes centre stage now, 6 years down the line. People are still seriously wondering whether 36I will throw up something incriminating.

The circumstantial evidence, taken in the round and viewed osmotically, is conclusive. That evidence includes, of course, all the evidence that proves Raffaele and Amanda had no involvement in the crime. It allows us to hypothesise with confidence that the knife evidence is fabricated and, like all good theories, to make a prediction. The prediction is that the DNA evidence will turn out to be wholly bogus. Of course, this prediction has already been thoroughly verified by Conti and Vechiotti and if anyone has an hour or two to spare they should read the C-V report for themselves. If time is short, these are the (non-technical) highlights:

Sample 36B (taken from one side of the blade) was tested negative for blood and negative for the human species. It was not examined to determine its morphology (the 'WTF is it?' test). It was in these respects indistinguishable from 36C (a sample form the other side of the blade) but that sample was not further tested. These facts were not disclosed by Stefanoni at the preliminary hearing before Michel in 2008 when Stefanoni gave oral evidence and presented her 'RTIGF' report. On 30 Jul 2009, when the full trial was already far-advanced, Massei acceded to a defence application for disclosure of lab records and the result was Stefanoni disgorged the so-called SAL records ( incompletely) and it was these that revealed the above and very much more. When reading C-V, bear this sequence of events in mind, because C-V do not themselves say anything explicit about this sequential, reluctant and partial disclosure, so it doesn 't leap from the page.

Disclosure in in this manner is another prediction of The Theory, fully justified by empirical study. The Theory predicts that sample 36I will not contain any DNA of Meredith Kercher because her DNA was never on the knife at all. The Theory requires someone like TomZ or ChrisH or Kaosium or Not Even Wrong to make a prediction about exactly how the profile was generated but it precludes them (using the writer's confirmation bias and single-track thinking) from hypothesising that it came from any material sampled from the knife.


Clive,

Perhaps this is a useful time to bring your previous comment back into the discussion. I thought that you made several excellent points (and I will ignor your initial comment about DNA, in the interest of civility).
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby acbytesla » Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:44 am

I've always found the knife to be the most absurd piece of evidence there is. This suggestion that this particular knife made its way back and forth from Raf's apartment to the cottage has always struck me as downright ludicrous. Their simply is no reason to transport that knife to the cottage. NONE. Add that to the fact it definitely doesn't match the geometry of the stain and then that it doesn't match most of the wounds. I just can't believe that this knife was used in the crime. It could be covered with Meredith's blood and I would find it to be not believable.
acbytesla
 
Posts: 1545
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 2:46 am

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby struoc » Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:24 am

acbytesla wrote:I've always found the knife to be the most absurd piece of evidence there is. This suggestion that this particular knife made its way back and forth from Raf's apartment to the cottage has always struck me as downright ludicrous. Their simply is no reason to transport that knife to the cottage. NONE. Add that to the fact it definitely doesn't match the geometry of the stain and then that it doesn't match most of the wounds. I just can't believe that this knife was used in the crime. It could be covered with Meredith's blood and I would find it to be not believable.

I agree, Alessi's description of the knife is more believable.

TomZ53, thanks for the DNA basics explanation, its really taken "main stage" at the last two trials. The comparison to the knife storage versus the bra clasp storage is interesting too.
struoc
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 6:05 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby ScifiTom » Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:03 am

To everyone

Hey everyone, as knowing we are talking about the Kitchen Knife and now Peter Quennell talked today about the knife into his website and I am only going to show you the video, he did, even this was the video, even enjoy watching the video!!!

Watch on youtube.com


As knowing the video does has a song with it, even it sound like horror or suspend in some way. But the whole deal is like: Hey let pick a knife of crime, and play this nonsense game all over again, and talk to you soon everyone!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Free the Innocence 2

Free: Kirstin Lobato Las Vegas NV & Dusty Turner Norfolk VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4707
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby Justinian » Thu Oct 10, 2013 4:36 pm

TomZ53 wrote:
Justinian wrote:Is there any dispute about the knife?

Nobody disputes the fact it was a knife randomly chosen from Raffaele's apartment that Amanda used for cutting bread.

Amanda's DNA was on the handle, as would be expected.

The wounds don't match, as would be expected.

No blood was found on the knife.

The prosecution claims that one incomplete strand of Kercher's DNA may been either on the knife or in the lab equipment that was used to amplify and test the DNA.

There is no dispute that the DNA readings were of the level of random noise and that the tests weren't conducted with the necessary care.

Ok, there is a tiny dispute with that last statement. Hardly beyond a reasonable doubt!


Justinian,

Just a couple of comments. First regarding, "The prosecution claims that one incomplete strand of Kercher's DNA may been either on the knife or in the lab equipment that was used to amplify and test the DNA." I would say that the prosecution contends that there was DNA from MK on the blade of the knife and it did not come from the lab. In fact they contend that there has never ever been a single incident in which contamination has ever occurred in their lab, ever. Further, they contend that it came from blood (without providing any evidence of blood or explanation how this is supposed to have been converted to clean DNA, with all blood cells and hemoglobin specifically removed). Further they claim that the knife was cleaned with bleach, which damages DNA so that it cannot be detected by PCR, but it didn't do this in this case (???).

Second, about "There is no dispute that the DNA readings were of the level of random noise and that the tests weren't conducted with the necessary care." I would not say it this way. I would say that Stefanoni obtained an egram with a pattern of genetic markers that was consistent with the genotype of MK. I say it this way because there is no data that makes it possible to interpret how this egram was generated and there are many possible explanations. This leads to the problem of the missing controls and failure to provide the electronic data files (the EDF's). This information is required in order to logically interpret the egram, although even this information would not be sufficient to provide a definitive explanation of whether or not MK DNA was ever on the knife, and if so, how did it get there.

This is a part of how I see the dispute. Then there are the other parts of the prosecution's story. I have a specific question about the part where AK carried Rafaelle's kitchen knife around for protection. I was wondering if this is typical behavior among Italian college girls. I would be surprised if it was, and so why would anyone take it seriously? Don't women go out in groups or with a man, or perhaps carry a can of mace if they are worried for their safety?


I agree with your statement. I should have said that: "The prosecution claims thatOne incomplete strand of Kercher's DNA may been either on the knife or in the lab equipment that was used to amplify and test the DNA. The picogram quantity of DNA material given as the amount of DNA present corresponds to approximately the weight of one strand of DNA. Again I am no expert, I had just finished reading Waterbury's book when I came to that conclusion.

Since the knife was randomly selected and none of the other knives were tested and since the knife didn't match all the wounds or the bloody outline on the sheet, I think any hypothesis about the knife having been cleaned with bleach is a stretch, to say the least.

The intent of drawing attention to cleaning the knife was like a magicians trick. The intent was to distract attention away from the dubious worth of the knife as evidence by putting the focus on whether or not the knife was cleaned with bleach. Obviously if we focus on whether or not the knife was cleaned with bleach, we have already assumed the knife is the murder weapon. Most of us will fall for a trick like this if properly presented by a master magician.
Is it ignorance or apathy? Hey, I don’t know and I don’t care. -- Jimmy Buffett
Anti-intellectualism is plausibly anger against those that undermine ones' biases.
User avatar
Justinian
 
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:51 am
Location: European American

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby Justinian » Thu Oct 10, 2013 4:54 pm

ScifiTom wrote:To everyone

Hey everyone, as knowing we are talking about the Kitchen Knife and now Peter Quennell talked today about the knife into his website and I am only going to show you the video, he did, even this was the video, even enjoy watching the video!!!

As knowing the video does has a song with it, even it sound like horror or suspend in some way. But the whole deal is like: Hey let pick a knife of crime, and play this nonsense game all over again, and talk to you soon everyone!!!


I wouldn't agree that MK's DNA matched the DNA that was 'found' on the knife. I'm no expert, but I think the lines have to correlate perfectly. The amplitude is not important, just the position of the spikes. I saw more non-matches than matches. Again I am hardly the expert and I will defer to the non prosecution experts.

The DNA of humans is at least 98% the same, so there should be some similarities.
Is it ignorance or apathy? Hey, I don’t know and I don’t care. -- Jimmy Buffett
Anti-intellectualism is plausibly anger against those that undermine ones' biases.
User avatar
Justinian
 
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:51 am
Location: European American

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby Justinian » Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:22 pm

I know from building my own spectrometer as a teenager (it was part of a kit), that spectral lines would ALWAYS line up EXACTLY for each element. Were this a spectrograph, there would be NO matches. But this isn't a spectrograph and I am NO expert.

Knowing that half the people are crazy, and probably ALL of the guilters, I wouldn't get too upset about those results.
Is it ignorance or apathy? Hey, I don’t know and I don’t care. -- Jimmy Buffett
Anti-intellectualism is plausibly anger against those that undermine ones' biases.
User avatar
Justinian
 
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:51 am
Location: European American

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:20 am

Copy and paste from the main discussion forum...

"Flipp wrote:
Some rumors on twitter saying that the RIS found Amanda's DNA on the sample 36I. No official confirmation yet.

Latest information from ANSA is that the DNA is human and the Carabinieri are trying to identify the profile.
http://ansa.it/web/notizie/rubriche/cro ... 45217.html
Guilty! I always knew.

But wasn't the DNA supposed to be of male? I thought that's what Tomz said anyway."

I reply, "There is a contradiction in this Twitter post. One can only identify a match to any particular individual after the profile has been analyzed, so if the Carabinieri are now trying to identify the profile it is not possible to have already identified the profile as Amanda.

And yes, the C&V analysis of sample I found human male DNA. This result does not exclude the possibility that the sample contains a mixture of human male and female DNA. If would not be surprising for the sample to contain traces of both Amanda and Raffaele since they both handled the knife in Raffael's kitchen."

To elaborate further, I the other day I suggested a number of alternative outcomes to this analysis where a mixture of male and female DNA (RS and AK for example) was one of these alternatives. It is further useful to consider that the total amount of DNA present appears to to very small, on the order of picograms (one human cell contains 6.6 picograms of DNA). This spot on the knife has already been sampled, removing material and DNA, thus it is possible for a new sample to be even smaller, or, if the sample contains DNA from more than one individual, a new sample could have diferent relative amounts of DNA from these individuals as compared with the previous sample. These factors cause such samples to exhibit what are referred to as 'stochastic effects" where sometimes a particular marker shows up in the PCR product and other times it does not. Such are result was observed with the human male Y chromosome marker in the C&V analysis. We need to wait to see the data before trying to understand it. Everything now is speculation.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:57 pm

From recent reports being discussed on the main forum thread it appears I will not be going on and on about the minute details of LCN DNA analysis. That is a good thing I'm sure we all agree.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby KayPea » Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:59 pm

Breaking news.
Police experts found Amanda Knox’s DNA, not the victim’s, on the alleged murder weapon, a butcher knife supposedly used to slash Knox’s roommate Meredith Kercher to death in 2007.

Why is this finding a huge setback for the prosecution? Because Perugia police took the knife from the kitchen of Raffaele Sollecito, Knox’s then boyfriend, and she had used it to cut bread. Thus her DNA is not incriminating–unless the knife shows traces of the victim, in blood. The fact that Knox’s DNA showed up, not Kercher’s, increases the odds that she could be acquitted in this third murder trial, which should wrap up in late November in Florence, Italy.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2013/ ... -on-knife/
“If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it.”-- Marcus Aurelius
User avatar
KayPea
 
Posts: 3310
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 11:40 pm
Location: Seattle WA

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby i-m-concerned » Fri Oct 11, 2013 4:15 pm

Justinian wrote:I know from building my own spectrometer as a teenager (it was part of a kit), that spectral lines would ALWAYS line up EXACTLY for each element. Were this a spectrograph, there would be NO matches. But this isn't a spectrograph and I am NO expert.

Knowing that half the people are crazy, and probably ALL of the guilters, I wouldn't get too upset about those results.



Not to be off the subject, but I have to laugh (with you...) What an unusual sentence! LOL

In other news, maybe with the court now finding Amanda's DNA on Raffaele's knife, that is their way of saying ..."see we can do something right after all..." :clap:
i-m-concerned
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:32 am

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:37 pm

KayPea wrote:Breaking news.
Police experts found Amanda Knox’s DNA, not the victim’s, on the alleged murder weapon, a butcher knife supposedly used to slash Knox’s roommate Meredith Kercher to death in 2007.

Why is this finding a huge setback for the prosecution? Because Perugia police took the knife from the kitchen of Raffaele Sollecito, Knox’s then boyfriend, and she had used it to cut bread. Thus her DNA is not incriminating–unless the knife shows traces of the victim, in blood. The fact that Knox’s DNA showed up, not Kercher’s, increases the odds that she could be acquitted in this third murder trial, which should wrap up in late November in Florence, Italy.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2013/ ... -on-knife/


KayPea,

Thanks for the update. I agree, everyone always knew that Amanda had used this knife in Raffaele's kitchen. As you have pointed out, even the police knew this, before they picked it out of the drawer, and after the medical examiner had indicated that the murder weapon was knife with a short blade such as a pocket knife.

All that is left of the prosecution's case regarding the kitchen knife is Stefanoni's irreproducible result which has been previously called 'Mignini's cold fusion' (a mistaken interpretation for a strange observation that resulted from an unorthodox and inappropriate procedure).

It would not be unexpected to have this old strange result come back into play yet again. The question remains whether 'reason' can surpass 'authority' in the Italian Justice System in the 21st century.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby struoc » Sat Oct 12, 2013 2:53 am

TomZ53 wrote:From recent reports being discussed on the main forum thread it appears I will not be going on and on about the minute details of LCN DNA analysis. That is a good thing I'm sure we all agree.


Actually, if it comes up I appreciate your posts on all this. If LCN is made a topic, some clarity would be helpful!

If the prosecution chooses they can still rely on the DNA that Stefonani claims was Meredith, then maybe LCN will be an issue.
What is your take on the prosecutions "Merediths non blood" claim from the knife?

Also, I didn't get the Guilters hope that this test would be Rudys male DNA, they wanted to prove he was telling the truth about being cut on the hand, as in his alibi from the toilet.

If the judges uphold C&V things are looking up with todays news.
struoc
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 6:05 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby pmop57 » Sat Oct 12, 2013 3:20 am

In the ruling the Court of Cassation says that Rudy had no wounds at his hands after the crime when he was still in Perugia because this had been confirmed and testified by his friends. This is of cause in complete contradiction to what he had been writing himself about the wounds he had suffered by the unknown intruder he was mentioning
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby KayPea » Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:45 am

pmop57 wrote:In the ruling the Court of Cassation says that Rudy had no wounds at his hands after the crime when he was still in Perugia because this had been confirmed and testified by his friends. This is of cause in complete contradiction to what he had been writing himself about the wounds he had suffered by the unknown intruder he was mentioning


Like everything he said, that's why Hellmann and Zanetti rejected everything but original testimony, too much witness tampering by the Perugians.
“If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it.”-- Marcus Aurelius
User avatar
KayPea
 
Posts: 3310
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 11:40 pm
Location: Seattle WA

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:04 pm

Regarding Raffaele's kitchen knife, the report that the Carabinieri's lab analysis only found AK DNA in 'sample I' was not unexpected. Given everything that is known about this knife, I would suggest that the forum has not yet heard the last of all of this. The prosecution will no doubt revert to Stephanoni's result.

Thus, all of the obvious elements that have just been summarized in detail on this thread above and that articulate the fundamental logic that is absent from the prosecution's case will now become most significant. It appears the case now reverts to this. This and Stefanoni's result.

Stefanoni's irreproducible, misprepresented and uncontrolled egram. "Mignini's Cold Fusion!"

Fair enough. I may yet have a few more comments to make.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:49 pm

Just one detail from the news that I wondered about was the report that the Carabinieri found 'skin cells' from Amanda on the knife. I wondered about this. C&V looked carefully and never saw any cells of any kind on the kinfe. This makes me wonder if the news is accurrate here.

Just fyi, such 'trace DNA' is also commonly referred to as 'touch DNA' (suggesting 'skin'...). It would not surprise me if a reporter were to extrapolate from this to 'skin cells', but in the absence of actual data, who knows.

To elaborate a bit further, in the current forensic DNA discussion 'touch DNA' means DNA where one cannot tell exactly where it came from (or when or how it got there).
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Rafaelle's Kitchen Knife

Postby TomZ53 » Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:29 pm

Keeping with my tradition of posting technical details guananteed to bore even the most devoted forum member; regarding the Chelsea Hoffman article earlier this week http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne ... ar-suspect The logical incongruence here is most conspicuous and deserves to be recognized.

Chelsea asserts, "Truth be told, the trace DNA could belong to anybody, but it's been noted before that the blade had been scrubbed -- likely with bleach. This alludes to the possibility of it actually being the weapon, only it had been cleaned to purposely destroy evidence of hte murder."

Chelsea clearly knows little about DNA biochemistry and has no problem flaunting her ignorance. Hey, Chelsea! FYI DNA dissolves readily in water, so if anyone washed the knife, the DNA would be gone.

But Chelsea, further, bleach chemically destroys the ability of DNA to be detected by the kinds of PCR reactions that were used to show that DNA was present on the knife. I know this is hard Chelsea, but think... I know that is hard... It only takes a small, partial bleach reaction to completely wipe out the lab PCR test, just a fraction of a percent will do it.

Here is where the logical challenge now really comes to bear Chelsea. The lab results indicate, using PCR, than Amanda's DNA was on the knife. Such a result could only be obtained if the knife had not been washed. It most importantly demonstrates that the knife could not have been treated with bleach because otherwise the observed result would be impossible.

Chelsea, the lab results demonstrate that the kitchen knife was not washed and most certainly was not washed with bleach. This result is quite definitive. Raffaele's kitchen knife, most conclusively, was not cleaned. This is now an established scientific fact.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Next

Return to Injustice in Perugia Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests