It's very possible that people who live together could end up with foreign DNA on clothes, even on underwear without the owner of the DNA ever touching the garment.
It is plausible, but if you accept that his DNA could have gotten there through washing, sharing items in the house, door handles etc.
then surely plenty of Amandas DNA would be present in Merediths room as she lived there, as opposed to visiting a handful of times, as RS did. I'm not aware that any of Amandas DNA was present in MKs room.
You're correct. I haven't watched the video, but transference of DNA from skin cells is not done as easily as some people seem to think. There has to be a sustained and/or certain amount of pressure. Its not feasible for RS's DNA to just accidentally appear just on tiny bra clasps accidentally (the bra of someone whose room he'd never been in, etc, etc).
It is plausible, but if you accept that his DNA could have gotten there through washing, sharing items in the house, door handles etc.
then surely plenty of Amandas DNA would be present in Merediths room as she lived there, as opposed to visiting a handful of times, as RS did. I'm not aware that any of Amandas DNA was present in MKs room.
I appreciate it's a long one, but if you watch the longer video it, a forensics expert answers your questions here far better than I will.
If you (or indeed other people) have a genuine interest, they should watch it, regardless of whether they currently think she did it or not.
I'm not trying to persuade anyone she is innocent, or convince people I am definitely right (as that would be ridiculous).Genuinely.
All I am trying to do is persuade them to look at all the evidence (or as much as possible) and expert opinion on BOTH sides, and then make their own independent judgement as to what they think is most plausible/ convincing.
That bit in bold is interesting, because it seems that the prosecution has presented an entirely new theory of the crime. That, to me, would breach double jeopardy but I'm no lawyer.
Yes it seems unheard of to me, to change theories within the same criminal case ( unless there is new evidence). If you check the history of the case, it is filled with sexual references, and then doubt that Kercher was sexually assaulted, and then the sex game theory is inexplicably dropped altogether.
Yet I see some posters cannot let go of the theory, even after the prosecution let it go.
If Knox had been into such activities, surely it would come out in court that she had tried to hit on Kercher, or otherwise was sexually inappropriate? She should have been expected to display this aggression while in jail, instead of just keeping to herself. As a new couple, it isn't clear why S & K would even need a threesome. The whole scenario does not make sense. It is incredible the court would wind the public up like that and expect us to forge what was said.
Well theres a trick that I'll have to learn - how to wash my hands and leave only DNA from someone else and not any of mine !
As has already been pointed out, you are labouring under the misapprehension that the only way the mixed sample of A and B could occur is from A washing B's blood from them.
You're correct. I haven't watched the video, but transference of DNA from skin cells is not done as easily as some people seem to think. There has to be a sustained and/or certain amount of pressure. Its not feasible for RS's DNA to just accidentally appear just on tiny bra clasps accidentally (the bra of someone whose room he'd never been in, etc, etc).
But the brush study refutes this.. a brush doesn't apply much pressure and it could pick up and transfer DNA. It only takes one cell... And it could also easily happen with the root of a hair cell.
It is plausible, but if you accept that his DNA could have gotten there through washing, sharing items in the house, door handles etc.
then surely plenty of Amandas DNA would be present in Merediths room as she lived there, as opposed to visiting a handful of times, as RS did. I'm not aware that any of Amandas DNA was present in MKs room.
Its not by any means definite that Sollecito's DNA even was on the bra clasp. I think people watch stuff like CSI and have an idealistic impression of DNA evidence.
The DNA on the bra clasp was a mixed sample from up to four different contributors, which is more difficult to interpret than a sample from one lone contributor. Stefanoni's interpretation is open to some doubt...
Add to that the fact that it wasn't collected till Dec 18th, at which stage it had moved across the room from where Meredith's body was found to underneath the desk, and was then picked up with dirty gloves...hmmm.
I appreciate it's a long one, but if you watch the longer video it, a forensics expert answers your questions here far better than I will.
If you (or indeed other people) have a genuine interest, they should watch it, regardless of whether they currently think she did it or not.
I'm not trying to persuade anyone she is innocent, or convince people I am definitely right (as that would be ridiculous).Genuinely.
All I am trying to do is persuade them to look at all the evidence (or as much as possible) and expert opinion on BOTH sides, and then make their own independent judgement as to what they think is most plausible/ convincing.
I plan to watch it, but my question will probably still remains, because I can't think there is a possible explanation.
Why was it the only place RSs DNA was found other than the cigarette butt, but that was a mi of his and MKs, which would mean the clasp would have a mix also.
Also, if DNA can be contaminated so easy, as to have contaminated the clasp with RSs even though it was only present in one other place in the building, then AKs DNA would most certainly be present in MKs room, regardless of if she's been in there or not.
It clearly looks like the defense is that they can't be 100% certain, which is right I guess.
The DNA on the bra does it for me, or atleast makes me think something isn't quite right.
RS's DNA was only found in one place other than the clasp, the cigarette butt, mixed with Amandas, it's understandable it wasn't everywhere, as they hadn't been going out long.
Where would the DNA have came from to contaminate the clasp.
If you think it came from the cigarette butt, then surely it would also be contaminated with Amanda's, as this was also on the butt.
Exactly! It couldn't have come from the cigarette butt, as that had been removed for testing weeks before, so there had to be a primary source of Sollecito's DNA somewhere else in Meredith's room for cross contamination to occur. Either way it places Sollecito in Meredith's bedroom.
As for the burglary most experienced burglars will always look for the easiest point of entry with the least possible exposure. That would have been the patio doors to the rear of the property. Very easy to gain entry, no shutters and not overlooked by the road or other properties. In fact that cottage had been broken into before and the patio doors at the rear was how entry was gained.
Well since I personally know some of the people involved in this case, I think I probably am better informed than you'll ever be. Who I am is not your concern, and I don't feel I need to reveal my identity. That's all I'm saying on the matter. You can choose to disbelieve me- at the end of the day, whether you believe me or not is of no consequence to me whatsoever and I won't be discussing that particular element further..
If you know some of the people in this case, then I'm surprised you don't know that the sex games gone awry theory is yesterday's. Not to mention that people who are only smoking weed are usually chill and not into all the violence.
I plan to watch it, but my question will probably still remains, because I can't think there is a possible explanation.
Why was it the only place RSs DNA was found other than the cigarette butt, but that was a max of his and MKs, which would mean the clasp would have a mix also.
Also, if DNA can be contaminated so easy, as to have contaminated the clasp with RSs even though it was only present in one other place in the building, then AKs DNA would most certainly be present in MKs room, regardless of if she's been in there or not.
It clearly looks like the defense is that they can't be 100% certain, which is right I guess.
How about the door handle, Pepsi? Raffaele touched the door handle of Meredith's room on the morning after the murder when he and Amanda arrived at the cottage when he tried the door and found it locked. Do you think the person inside Meredith's room handling the bra clasp with dirty gloves might have turned the door handle wearing those same gloves?
I plan to watch it, but my question will probably still remains, because I can't think there is a possible explanation.
Why was it the only place RSs DNA was found other than the cigarette butt, but that was a mi of his and MKs, which would mean the clasp would have a mix also.
Also, if DNA can be contaminated so easy, as to have contaminated the clasp with RSs even though it was only present in one other place in the building, then AKs DNA would most certainly be present in MKs room, regardless of if she's been in there or not.
It clearly looks like the defense is that they can't be 100% certain, which is right I guess.
I think you may be surprised re answering your questions. There is a large portion that discusses nothing but the forensic errors and indeed the DNA evidence. It also covers many of the other issues that people have brought up in this thread, and specifically address many of the things that people see as proof absolute of their guilt/ involvement.
I agree that no side can have 100% clarity on EVERYTHING. If they did then this would be an open and shut case.
What I would urge is people to look at ALL the evidence and then make as balanced and objective an opinion as possible, based on ALL the evidence.
The problem for me on threads like this is how many people (and am not referring to you or anyone else per se) who will clutch onto 1 piece of 'evidence' (even if it's disputed) and see this as proof of AK & RS's guilt OR innocence.
Look at it all (or as much as possible) and then decide.
Please reread my post where I quoted the specific part of the official report that states that the break-in was staged.
I realize that, but there is an excellent refutation to that done by an American expert who did an entire mock up and recreation of the crime scene. There were errors and presumptions in originally stating that the shutters were closed and the stone was thrown from inside. It broke the glass in the expected way of a stone coming from outside, related to how the glass fell, and came inside with just the right trajectory. Had the stone been thrown from inside, the glass fall pattern would have been different. This expert has examined numerous glass break patterns and his assessment is very thorough, down to fibers that would have come from Guede's shirt as he scaled the wall.
If you know some of the people in this case, then I'm surprised you don't know that the sex games gone awry theory is yesterday's. Not to mention that people who are only smoking weed are usually chill and not into all the violence.
How about the door handle, Pepsi? Raffaele touched the door handle of Meredith's room on the morning after the murder when he and Amanda arrived at the cottage when he tried the door and found it locked. Do you think the person inside Meredith's room handling the bra clasp with dirty gloves might have turned the door handle wearing those same gloves?
Just a suggestion.
How do you even know that he did try the door handle to Meredith's room? That's just according to RS and AK's testimony when they went back to the flat the next day. To be fair, their whole account of the incident seemed to change more than the weather in the days following the incident so, in my opinion, anything they have said can't be taken as gospel for whatever reason (they were unsure, tired, in shock, confused or of course guilty).
I realize that, but there is an excellent refutation to that done by an American expert who did an entire mock up and recreation of the crime scene. There were errors and presumptions in originally stating that the shutters were closed and the stone was thrown from inside. It broke the glass in the expected way of a stone coming from outside, related to how the glass fell, and came inside with just the right trajectory. Had the stone been thrown from inside, the glass fall pattern would have been different. This expert has examined numerous glass break patterns and his assessment is very thorough, down to fibers that would have come from Guede's shirt as he scaled the wall.
Um, that's funny- I don't recall there being any evidence of Guede scaling any wall? Please provide a link to this from an official source.
Well the prosecution don't. The prosecution now admit the sex thing is preposterous and stupid.
They think now it was a fight over cleanliness.
I don't think that it was a 'satanic sex game', or whatever else the prosecution said about it- I just think it was a situation that got out of hand, which is proven to have a sexual element to it.
I don't think that it was a 'satanic sex game', or whatever else the prosecution said about it- I just think it was a situation that got out of hand, which is proven to have a sexual element to it.
There is certain proof that the crime had a sexual element - from ONE person. There is nothing indicating the involvement of the other two (and if the only thing you have is the bra clasp, it's risible).
There is certain proof that the crime had a sexual element - from ONE person. There is nothing indicating the involvement of the other two (and if the only thing you have is the bra clasp, it's risible).
Even if the other two weren't involved in the sexual assault, it doesn't mean that they weren't somehow ultimately involved in the murder and it's aftermath.
Comments
An example is this study which found how easy contamination is.. a brush applied to a finger print could transfer DNA to a different location...
http://www.isfg.org/files/6834bde1ff72de292232127e2a49d99fa490b26e.05015669_296249835236.pdf
It's very possible that people who live together could end up with foreign DNA on clothes, even on underwear without the owner of the DNA ever touching the garment.
You're correct. I haven't watched the video, but transference of DNA from skin cells is not done as easily as some people seem to think. There has to be a sustained and/or certain amount of pressure. Its not feasible for RS's DNA to just accidentally appear just on tiny bra clasps accidentally (the bra of someone whose room he'd never been in, etc, etc).
Repeating it doesn't make it true.
I appreciate it's a long one, but if you watch the longer video it, a forensics expert answers your questions here far better than I will.
If you (or indeed other people) have a genuine interest, they should watch it, regardless of whether they currently think she did it or not.
I'm not trying to persuade anyone she is innocent, or convince people I am definitely right (as that would be ridiculous).Genuinely.
All I am trying to do is persuade them to look at all the evidence (or as much as possible) and expert opinion on BOTH sides, and then make their own independent judgement as to what they think is most plausible/ convincing.
Well theres a trick that I'll have to learn - how to wash my hands and leave only DNA from someone else and not any of mine !
Yes it seems unheard of to me, to change theories within the same criminal case ( unless there is new evidence). If you check the history of the case, it is filled with sexual references, and then doubt that Kercher was sexually assaulted, and then the sex game theory is inexplicably dropped altogether.
Yet I see some posters cannot let go of the theory, even after the prosecution let it go.
If Knox had been into such activities, surely it would come out in court that she had tried to hit on Kercher, or otherwise was sexually inappropriate? She should have been expected to display this aggression while in jail, instead of just keeping to herself. As a new couple, it isn't clear why S & K would even need a threesome. The whole scenario does not make sense. It is incredible the court would wind the public up like that and expect us to forge what was said.
As has already been pointed out, you are labouring under the misapprehension that the only way the mixed sample of A and B could occur is from A washing B's blood from them.
Certain noted forensics experts however agree with 'some people'.
But the brush study refutes this.. a brush doesn't apply much pressure and it could pick up and transfer DNA. It only takes one cell... And it could also easily happen with the root of a hair cell.
Its not by any means definite that Sollecito's DNA even was on the bra clasp. I think people watch stuff like CSI and have an idealistic impression of DNA evidence.
The DNA on the bra clasp was a mixed sample from up to four different contributors, which is more difficult to interpret than a sample from one lone contributor. Stefanoni's interpretation is open to some doubt...
http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/expert-review-of-exhibits-36-and-165b/
Add to that the fact that it wasn't collected till Dec 18th, at which stage it had moved across the room from where Meredith's body was found to underneath the desk, and was then picked up with dirty gloves...hmmm.
I plan to watch it, but my question will probably still remains, because I can't think there is a possible explanation.
Why was it the only place RSs DNA was found other than the cigarette butt, but that was a mi of his and MKs, which would mean the clasp would have a mix also.
Also, if DNA can be contaminated so easy, as to have contaminated the clasp with RSs even though it was only present in one other place in the building, then AKs DNA would most certainly be present in MKs room, regardless of if she's been in there or not.
It clearly looks like the defense is that they can't be 100% certain, which is right I guess.
Exactly! It couldn't have come from the cigarette butt, as that had been removed for testing weeks before, so there had to be a primary source of Sollecito's DNA somewhere else in Meredith's room for cross contamination to occur. Either way it places Sollecito in Meredith's bedroom.
As for the burglary most experienced burglars will always look for the easiest point of entry with the least possible exposure. That would have been the patio doors to the rear of the property. Very easy to gain entry, no shutters and not overlooked by the road or other properties. In fact that cottage had been broken into before and the patio doors at the rear was how entry was gained.
If you know some of the people in this case, then I'm surprised you don't know that the sex games gone awry theory is yesterday's. Not to mention that people who are only smoking weed are usually chill and not into all the violence.
How about the door handle, Pepsi? Raffaele touched the door handle of Meredith's room on the morning after the murder when he and Amanda arrived at the cottage when he tried the door and found it locked. Do you think the person inside Meredith's room handling the bra clasp with dirty gloves might have turned the door handle wearing those same gloves?
Just a suggestion.
Please reread my post where I quoted the specific part of the official report that states that the break-in was staged.
I think you may be surprised re answering your questions. There is a large portion that discusses nothing but the forensic errors and indeed the DNA evidence. It also covers many of the other issues that people have brought up in this thread, and specifically address many of the things that people see as proof absolute of their guilt/ involvement.
I agree that no side can have 100% clarity on EVERYTHING. If they did then this would be an open and shut case.
What I would urge is people to look at ALL the evidence and then make as balanced and objective an opinion as possible, based on ALL the evidence.
The problem for me on threads like this is how many people (and am not referring to you or anyone else per se) who will clutch onto 1 piece of 'evidence' (even if it's disputed) and see this as proof of AK & RS's guilt OR innocence.
Look at it all (or as much as possible) and then decide.
I realize that, but there is an excellent refutation to that done by an American expert who did an entire mock up and recreation of the crime scene. There were errors and presumptions in originally stating that the shutters were closed and the stone was thrown from inside. It broke the glass in the expected way of a stone coming from outside, related to how the glass fell, and came inside with just the right trajectory. Had the stone been thrown from inside, the glass fall pattern would have been different. This expert has examined numerous glass break patterns and his assessment is very thorough, down to fibers that would have come from Guede's shirt as he scaled the wall.
Well the prosecution don't. The prosecution now admit the sex thing is preposterous and stupid.
They think now it was a fight over cleanliness.
Not to mention paranoid and unpredictable.
Um, that's funny- I don't recall there being any evidence of Guede scaling any wall? Please provide a link to this from an official source.
I don't think that it was a 'satanic sex game', or whatever else the prosecution said about it- I just think it was a situation that got out of hand, which is proven to have a sexual element to it.
There is certain proof that the crime had a sexual element - from ONE person. There is nothing indicating the involvement of the other two (and if the only thing you have is the bra clasp, it's risible).