April 7, 2010

Lie of the Month Club

It is as if there is some form of “Lie of the Month Club” at work here. When the “cleanup” myth is corrected, and abandoned even by the prosecution, and the bleach receipts turn out to be non-existent, then even some of the most dedicated of the “Guilters” give up and admit that “the Knife” had nothing to do with the murder. When twisted truth, after distorted fact, after groundless innuendo gets shot down by the facts, somewhere, out of some dark heart, a new Lie is born about Amanda Knox. The latest one, recycled from earlier claims, is “mixed blood.”

This claim is that Amanda’s blood, mixed with Meredith’s, was found in five different places in the apartment that they shared. This was never claimed by the prosecution, it was never testified to in the trial. The forensics experts said no such thing. There is no way that they could, because there was never any test that found Amanda’s blood mixed with Meredith's.

First, let’s get one thing straight. DNA tests determine the presence of DNA. They do not specify the source of that DNA, whether it is from blood, or other biological matter. They can discriminate sperm, or egg DNA, “haploid DNA” but that is another matter. So the DNA tests that found mixed traces of DNA, found just that, DNA, they did not find mixed traces of blood. No other tests have made any such determination. Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher shared a bathroom. There is nothing whatsoever surprising about Amanda’s DNA being present in Amanda’s bathroom and apartment. Your DNA is in your bathroom, I guarantee it. 

The mixed samples were samples of Meredith’s blood, with Amanda’s shed skin from normal bathroom cleaning. There is nothing surprising about this, and it has no probative value in this case. That is, it doesn’t mean a damned thing that Amanda’s DNA was found in Amanda’s own house!

That’s the technical background, but you don’t even need to go there to realize that this is absolute nonsense. It is nonsense for a very basic reason. Amanda Knox had no wounds. She had what resembled a faint hickey on her neck, and that was recorded in detail. She had no other wounds. So where is all this blood supposed to have come from?

A nosebleed? Menstruation? Neither of which has anything to do with a crime. Amanda did, in fact, have a recently pierced ear, which had become infected. This ear piercing was apparently the source of a small amount of her dried blood on one faucet, in her own bathroom. Just Amanda’s, no one else's. There was nothing resembling the kind of blood that would have resulted had she been involved in any kind of violent assault.

Yet we have a new Lie of the Month regarding Amanda Knox. It sounds bad. It is like the Knife lie, but is the new talking point, and needs to be shot down just like those. As I wrote in The Media Lottery, “Let’s see if the Ace Journalists can write articles full of lies claiming that your daughter has a wild sex life and murderous psychological makeup, faster than you can refute them.”www.sciencespheres.com