Check YOUR/their facts:
1-No blood needs to be on the blade, especially if cleaned. That is irrevelant.
dna of AK and Meredith would be quite enough.
2-Do you have a link backing up your 'no dna' statement, especially the 'when it arrived in the lab' part??? I seriously doubt it.
3-How does it not match the wounds? A big knife can make small wounds and a small knife can make large wounds.
4-Who has said it was supposed to 'match' the bed print? Why would it if other knives were involved?
5-What other knives were in his drawer? Why would a control test be needed for that one knife.
Maybe thinking RS pricked Meredith with some of the other knives too perhaps??? :innocent:
Yes everyone should!!!!
The Italian labs are not even Certified
1-No blood needs to be on the blade, especially if cleaned. That is irrevelant.
Not irrelevant. Impossible!!! If that knife had been cleaned then there would of been no DNA period
“If someone had a knife covered in blood and they tried to clean it very well,
they would remove their ability to detect the DNA before they removed the ability to detect the chemical traces of blood.” Therefore, the lack of blood makes it impossible for there to be DNA on the knife, so the DNA that was observed has to arise from contamination."
http://injusticeinperugia.org/TheKnife.html
One can argue that LCN profiling should ordinarily be accepted by a court. However,
Dr. Stefanoni used an inferior version of LCN DNA profiling, one that has never appeared in the scientific literature
http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010_09_01_archive.html
Please note the Open Letter signed by DNA experts. There is no way
9 DNA experts would attached their name to this document if it was not accurate as they would not want to lose the respect of the DNA experts within the scientific field let alone their jobs
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/files/KnoxSollecitoDNAPetitionSubmitted11.19.09b.pdf
2-Do you have a link backing up your 'no dna' statement, especially the 'when it arrived in the lab' part??? I seriously doubt it.
Lets see. The knife was chosen based on investigative intuition. It was placed in an envelope, take to the ILE station, removed, handled, placed back into another envelope which was then put into a box and taken to the lab. Where should i start......
There was so little DNA present that the
instrument indicated no DNA until Stefanoni overrode the machine limits. This amplification increase was not achieved by the PCR technique. Once the sample has been chopped up and subjected to electrophoresis, it is too late for that. The increase was performed by other methods, such as lowering the threshold level, or simply changing the display scale until the minute fluorescence peaks were visible
http://www.sciencespheres.com/2009/10/lcn-dna-profiling-part-ii-watch-where.html
3-How does it not match the wounds? A big knife can make small wounds and a small knife can make large wounds.
So the experts in this field, including the ME for the prosecution that stated in testimony that this same knife could not of made all these wounds were wrong?
Think about it.
The PROSECUTION ME stated that this knife could NOT make all these wounds....
4-Who has said it was supposed to 'match' the bed print? Why would it if other knives were involved?
It is physically impossible for the "supposed" murder weapon to of made those marks as testified by the all the experts
5-What other knives were in his drawer? Why would a control test be needed for that one knife.
Laboratories performing LCN rely heavily on what are called “negative controls
The Law Society of Scotland's publication at:
http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/52-2/1003857.aspx
“In forensic science the fact to be established is that the DNA profile originated from the material recovered from a crime scene or a suspect, not the investigator, the laboratory, packaging, or analytical instruments. A “negative control” is set up by simply processing a “blank” sample that has no DNA
http://www.sciencespheres.com/2009/10/lcn-dna-profiling-part-ii-watch-where.html
So we see that in roughly nine distinct ways,
Stefanoni's improv LCN DNA profiling was even worse than unproven and inadmissible LCN DNA profiling tests
1. The DNA wasn't amplified enough; the very weak fluorescence was simply blown up.
2. The test site was not remote from other DNA tests to avoid contamination.
3. Specialized LCN-quality entry procedures to avoid contamination were not used.
4. A positive pressure environment was not maintained to exclude contamination.
5. Special LCN sterilization procedures to destroy errant DNA were not used.
6. The entire sample was consumed in a single test; no comparison of tests was possible.
7. No sample was retained for future reference. The test can never be reproduced.
8. No negative control tests were run to check for contamination.
9. No control tests to check for field contamination were performed
http://www.sciencespheres.com/2009/10/lcn-dna-profiling-part-ii-watch-where.html
I only have started here......