Replies

My answer is that if this is true then their case falls further apart:

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

When the knife was tested, Amanda’s DNA was found on the handle. This was expected because Amanda often prepared meals and Raffaele’s apartment. She used the knife for cooking.

A sample was taken from the knife blade and was tested for blood. The result was negative. There was no blood on the knife.

This needs to be repeated, THERE WAS NO BLOOD ON THE KNIFE.

What was left of the sample from the blade was tested for DNA. The results were negative.There was no DNA on the blade.

This is when all guidelines for testing DNA were thrown out the window. The machine parameters were over-ridden. The tests kept coming back “too low.”

Then machine parameters were pushed far past the level of reliability finally producing the result they needed. Keep in mind, the test was done in a lab using large amounts of Meredith’s DNA. No negative controls were used.

The result was extremely low, measuring in trillionths of a gram of DNA. The procedures used to get the result they needed were deeply flawed. The DNA found on the knife came from the lab. The knife had no DNA from Meredith Kercher on the blade when it arrived for testing.

The DNA sample was so small that only one test could be performed.

No additional testing will ever be available.

Aw Shucks — we ran out of stuff — you’ll just have to take our word for it.

Well, that's certainly the position taken by the "Free Amanda at Any Cost" people. Don't forget they also argued that the DNA that was "too low" was also "too contaminated" as a fall-back position.

It's amazing that when the machine was pushed past the parameters they needed, it happened to give results that matched exactly with Meredith's DNA, don't you think? The expert who did the DNA test on this knife is also the person who ID's Guede's DNA at the scene. If she's incompetent and lied about Meredith, why should we trust her on Guede?

I'm going to give up on this and move onto something else.

I know you're a man of strong convictions and you're convinced that Amanda Knox is innocent.

I'm not somebody who's convinced of Knox's innocence or guilt. I lean toward her innocence the more I read the Italian trial records (the original source, not the agenda-driven innocence project materials).

I simply disagree with those who suggest there is not now, and never has been, any evidence suggestive of Knox's complicity in the murder of Merdith Kercher.