Continuation Part Eight: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Desert Fox]

Whoa! So the conspiracy now extends to the jurors possibly not deciding on guilt. I don't suppose you by chance have any evidence of this gross illegality? It would be nice - even I might complain to the Supreme Court.

Don't rush - when you're ready.

In an adversarial court system, unless the jurors need a point of law clarified, they decide in a jury room away from the judge. It can get corrupted with little words from the judge effecting the outcome but the jury still has a level of independence.

The Italian hybrid system though has the main judge being with the lay judges in deliberation. He can almost certainly buffalo what he wants through, using his experience as a hammer. Even assuming not, I have not been able to get anything which indicates what occurs if the majority of lay judges disagrees with the main judges.

 

[Grinder]

Wow!!! We agree on something else!!!! Maybe the temperature in hell is dropping? I agree with you, it is a false choice. We have been shown two and only two samples footprints that might be a match to the bathmat print and both are possible matches. If we were presented with a hundred other footprints would we find another 100 possible matches? Probably not but that is as much a possibility as that these are the only two people who might match that print in the world or Perugia or even who live in that cottage.

My thought is that the print should be compared to a line-up of prints that resemble the one on the mat like would be done with an eye witness. They aren't supposed to put people in a line-up that don't resemble the suspect. Same with footprints. There is no way that the print on the bathmat can be matched with anyone and setting it up like described above would make it very tough. If experts without prior knowledge picked out one or the other that would mean something.

 

[Bill Williams]

x

I think the only one being childish around here is you Supercal. What you do is hit and run insult.

This forum is a skeptics forum. It allows both sides of pretty much any argument. This particular thread is about the guilt or innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. It is open to both sides of this question and has always been. But unlike TJMK or PMF.ORG or PMF. NET, both sides of the question is examined and insults are not tolerated. So over time, those that are unwilling to refrain from insulting people or find their logic failing disappear from the forum.

I would be pleased if you actually tried to present a logical case for guilt. But that has never been your modus operandi. You couldn't handle that case being torn apart as you know it would be. Which means that you don't actually have logic or intellect on your side. That your position is more like a religious fervor that is totally devoid of critical examination. Your position regarding Knox's guilt or innocence is a belief and nothing else.

So why don't you go back to your church of guilters and genuflect to Saint Mignini? Go back to where your you think the earth is flat and the earth is the center of the solar system. Where disease is because of God and not viruses and bacteria. Go back to where belief in the mystical and magical run supreme.

As usual, acbytesla, you have distorted a guilters' argument.

SuperCal HAS brought evidence to this forum, evidence of guilt that cannot be succumbed by the innocence echo-chamber.

Knox is smelly.

I note that you have no answer to this, nor do any of the other weak-kneed groupies.

I am now leaving JREF and joining PMF. I just cannot figure out which one is more true to Meredith's memory - .NET whcih is Michael's, or .ORG which Peggy stole from Michael in March 2011.

Please advise.

 

[acbytesla]

My thought is that the print should be compared to a line-up of prints that resemble the one on the mat like would be done with an eye witness. They aren't supposed to put people in a line-up that don't resemble the suspect. Same with footprints. There is no way that the print on the bathmat can be matched with anyone and setting it up like described above would make it very tough. If experts without prior knowledge picked out one or the other that would mean something.

While I agree that it should be done blind out of lot of sample prints, I still don't think that works. So, the jurors pick the closest one out of the samples? That doesn't mean that the sample prints are actually from a foot that made the bathmat print.

At best I think you could ever come up with is that a sample print would be compatible or not compatible. Not whether it is an actual match.

 

[Planigale]

I've wondered about this as well. The footprints wouldn't even have to fit better just be compatible.

I would like the footprints compared with the others in the house at the time and previous tenants and other "lineup" prints from ones that resembled them and have independent experts see if there was a match.

The idea that the bathmat print had to be either Rudi or Raf is a fallacy. It has always irritated me that the PGP have been allowed to get away with it.

IIRC there are prints and DNA that were never linked to anyone.

Btw, how is known that none of the DNA or reference prints were taken?

We do have records of the DNA testing. This includes reference samples for RG, RS, AK and MK. There do not appear to be reference samples for anyone else. There has not been full disclosure so we cannot be certain. Likewise there only appears to be prints for RG, RS and MK compared. There may have been others taken but with lack of disclosure we cannot know. One could come up with a scenario where some of the prints might be from MK. Shoe prints from MK were taken for comparison.

 

[acbytesla]

As usual, acbytesla, you have distorted a guilters' argument.

SuperCal HAS brought evidence to this forum, evidence of guilt that cannot be succumbed by the innocence echo-chamber.

Knox is smelly.

I note that you have no answer to this, nor do any of the other weak-kneed groupies.

I am now leaving JREF and joining PMF. I just cannot figure out which one is more true to Meredith's memory - .NET whcih is Michael's, or .ORG which Peggy stole from Michael in March 2011.

Please advise.

Well, I must say I don't know how to prove or disprove that Knox is smelly. Where do you start? And how do you prove or disprove this when you haven't smelled her? Haven't we all been "smelly" at some time or another? After a workout? After a shower? And what does she smell like? Chanel No. 5? Joy by Jean Patou? Or like Gillette Speedstick? I haven't actually spent much time at any of their sites in a long time. I'm not really which site would be the best for this discussion. I think you are on your own Bill. Good luck.

 

[Planigale]

As usual, acbytesla, you have distorted a guilters' argument.

SuperCal HAS brought evidence to this forum, evidence of guilt that cannot be succumbed by the innocence echo-chamber.

Knox is smelly.

I note that you have no answer to this, nor do any of the other weak-kneed groupies.

I am now leaving JREF and joining PMF. I just cannot figure out which one is more true to Meredith's memory - .NET whcih is Michael's, or .ORG which Peggy stole from Michael in March 2011.

Please advise.

Women have a better sense of smell than men, and I can advise what you are smelling is a red herring.

 

[xinonix]

This case is important not just because of Amanda and her boyfriend.
What happened here is the prosecutor was able to send 2 people to prison without any proof
The case was constructed not on evidence and witness testimony, but things you might consider similar to evidence and witness testimony.
If you have a justice system where this can be done, it means you can go to prison even if you have not done the crime you are charged with.

 

[Grinder]

While I agree that it should be done blind out of lot of sample prints, I still don't think that works. So, the jurors pick the closest one out of the samples? That doesn't mean that the sample prints are actually from a foot that made the bathmat print.

At best I think you could ever come up with is that a sample print would be compatible or not compatible. Not whether it is an actual match.

I wasn't suggesting that the judges look at the sample but rather that the independent experts look at them. I doubt that an expert could look at the bathmat print and 12 reference prints and say that the BM print matched any of them.

When there is a lineup the witness is not asked which person most resembles the person they saw.

We do have records of the DNA testing. This includes reference samples for RG, RS, AK and MK. There do not appear to be reference samples for anyone else. There has not been full disclosure so we cannot be certain. Likewise there only appears to be prints for RG, RS and MK compared. There may have been others taken but with lack of disclosure we cannot know. One could come up with a scenario where some of the prints might be from MK. Shoe prints from MK were taken for comparison.

I was just curious if there was some more definitive information such as a comment from a defense expert.

 

[Planigale]

Funny things you read on other web sites (PMF).

it appears that Gill agrees that Sollecito is on the clasp (though the concession seems deliberately muted). But he also accepts the C-V argument that the profiles on the clasp probably got there through contamination, one example being an investigator touching the outer door handle and then the clasp. SERIOUSLY? ONE OF THE WORLD'S LEADING FORENSIC DNA EXPERTS THINKS TOUCH DNA COULD HAVE WAS TRANSFERRED FROM SOLLECITO'S HAND, TO THE DOOR HANDLE, TO AN INVESTIGATOR'S GLOVE, TO THE BRA CLASP - ALTHOUGH IT IS PRESENT ON THE CLASP IN QUANTITY GREATER THAN WHAT IS USUALLY FOUND FROM DIRECT TRANSFER??? I'm shocked.

Just maybe if one of the world's top forensic DNA experts thinks this is possible….?

Then,

Professor Gill was criticised by the judge at the Omagh trial for giving contradictory evidence:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6162483.stm
The Machine

The crucial thing about the successful Omagh trial appeal was the use of LCN DNA evidence, which would have included both the significant pieces of DNA evidence in this case, which following the Omagh appeal would not have been accepted in a UK court because of insufficient precautions.

Gill... he co-authored the first paper on the forensic applications of DNA profiling (though he was very much the junior co-author, a kid with an eye for the main chance), and he worked on the Romanov family's remains at Ekaterinburg, but he's never worked a criminal case that I know of.

Apart from the fact he was a forensic scientist for 27 years.

Why don't these people find out some facts before opining? It's not like it isn't easy to fact check with the internet.

 

[Desert Fox]

This case is important not just because of Amanda and her boyfriend.
What happened here is the prosecutor was able to send 2 people to prison without any proof
The case was constructed not on evidence and witness testimony, but things you might consider similar to evidence and witness testimony.
If you have a justice system where this can be done, it means you can go to prison even if you have not done the crime you are charged with.

There are a number of cases which are just as bad so not such a shock.

 

[Dan O.]

Btw, how is known that none of the DNA or reference prints were taken?

In order to answer a negative requires considerable planning and work. For this question you first need to. Know who would be handling taking the reference prints. Then you need to find when they testified and find out if we even have their testimony in a searchable form. Then you need to scan their testimony to see if they list the reference prints that were taken and determine if this is a comprehensive list.

Since you are the one interested in this question, why don't you start by filling in what we do know along the lines of the above process. Then maybe others can fill in any points that you might have missed. That would give us the best starting point to start searching to see if it is possible to get closer to providing an answer.

 

[carbonjam72]

Fact check, feh.

Funny things you read on other web sites (PMF).



Just maybe if one of the world's top forensic DNA experts thinks this is possible….?

Then,



The crucial thing about the successful Omagh trial appeal was the use of LCN DNA evidence, which would have included both the significant pieces of DNA evidence in this case, which following the Omagh appeal would not have been accepted in a UK court because of insufficient precautions.



Apart from the fact he was a forensic scientist for 27 years.

Why don't these people find out some facts before opining? It's not like it isn't easy to fact check with the internet.

I don't think truth or accuracy is their objective. They aren't looking for facts, they are looking for confirmation. So when a respected source like Dr Gill contradicts their belief, the source must be diminished. Research would be an impediment.

 

[Bill Williams]

This case is important not just because of Amanda and her boyfriend.
What happened here is the prosecutor was able to send 2 people to prison without any proof
The case was constructed not on evidence and witness testimony, but things you might consider similar to evidence and witness testimony.
If you have a justice system where this can be done, it means you can go to prison even if you have not done the crime you are charged with.

There are a number of cases which are just as bad so not such a shock.

Sadly true.

The Nyki Kish case in Canada, there is literally NO evidence. None at all. And she was convicted, and the conviction upheld at appeal. What there was, was a judge who was also the trier of fact, who put together a scenario involving four people, one of whom sustained fatal injuries, and he "proved" that two of the other three could not have been involved.

This despite copious evidence that perhaps a dozen, or more, were involved.

All of this is the answer to SuperCal's claim that it causes him/her to reject innocence - namely, that it is a wide-ranging conspiracy to send two people to jail for something they didn't do. SuperCal doubts that can happen.

Tell that to Nyki Kish!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

gloves and the transfer of DNA

Quote:
it appears that Gill agrees that Sollecito is on the clasp (though the concession seems deliberately muted). But he also accepts the C-V argument that the profiles on the clasp probably got there through contamination, one example being an investigator touching the outer door handle and then the clasp. SERIOUSLY? ONE OF THE WORLD'S LEADING FORENSIC DNA EXPERTS THINKS TOUCH DNA COULD HAVE WAS TRANSFERRED FROM SOLLECITO'S HAND, TO THE DOOR HANDLE, TO AN INVESTIGATOR'S GLOVE, TO THE BRA CLASP - ALTHOUGH IT IS PRESENT ON THE CLASP IN QUANTITY GREATER THAN WHAT IS USUALLY FOUND FROM DIRECT TRANSFER??? I'm shocked.
Endquote

One, every expert whose opinion I have been able to find says to change gloves. Two, DNA has been found on examination gloves (IIRC it is in a paper by Van Oorshot and collaborators). Three, tertiary transfer is in the peer-reviewed literature. Four, I agree with the general principle that studies which are peer-reviewed carry more weight than studies which are not. However, two unpublished studies have also shown tertiary transfer, and one of them involved gloves. Five, the amount of DNA should not be used to discern the mode of its deposition, but if the PG-commenters chose to ignore that, then the should acknowledge that Raffaele's profile is present in about 1/8 the quantity of Meredith's, and it is on the borderline of being low-template. How one should interpret the fact that Meredith's profile is in such greater quantity is something that should be addressed in any intellectually honest argument.

 

[Grinder]

In order to answer a negative requires considerable planning and work. For this question you first need to. Know who would be handling taking the reference prints. Then you need to find when they testified and find out if we even have their testimony in a searchable form. Then you need to scan their testimony to see if they list the reference prints that were taken and determine if this is a comprehensive list.

Since you are the one interested in this question, why don't you start by filling in what we do know along the lines of the above process. Then maybe others can fill in any points that you might have missed. That would give us the best starting point to start searching to see if it is possible to get closer to providing an answer.

Not that interested but if the defense mentioned it or one of their experts that would be enough. One would think the expert on footprints would bring it up.

 

[Bill Williams]

I haven't actually spent much time at any of their sites in a long time. I'm not really which site would be the best for this discussion. I think you are on your own Bill. Good luck.

Way, way back when, when I was posting on IIP, someone made reference to the split between Michael and Peggy, who until March 2011 shared website duties at the lone PMF.ORG. Others were involved in the background in a more techincal capacity, but Micahel (in England) and Peggy (in Seattle) were Les Grand Fromages.

Initially I thought this was some sort of lie promulgated by otherwise well-meaning innocence supporters. But what was what on that, is that the denizens at both the subsequent PMF's kept fairly quiet about the split for the longest time....

.... until Michael of .NET took offense to something and the "behind the scenes" dirty laundry was aired. It's not documented at IIP in a long since dormant thread there.

Ergon of, "I am God" fame became a co-administrator at .NET, and Peter Quennell initially took sides, choosing Peggy over Michael. Apparently, all this internal drama was to treasure Meredith's memory in the most respectful way possible.

So I still am stumped at which PMF to choose? Can anyone help? After all, they are all for Meredith....

 

[acbytesla]

I wasn't suggesting that the judges look at the sample but rather that the independent experts look at them. I doubt that an expert could look at the bathmat print and 12 reference prints and say that the BM print matched any of them.

I'm not really a big fan of abdicating judgement for something that anyone should be able to tell with their own eyes.

When there is a lineup the witness is not asked which person most resembles the person they saw.

True. But can you imagine the witnesss going.. That's the one. I'd recognize that footprint anywhere?? (Just joking ..so don't respond to this) I'm afraid though that people would end up just selecting which one is the closest as if this is their only choices.

I was just curious if there was some more definitive information such as a comment from a defense expert.

Don't know.

 

[Desert Fox]

Calling Knox supporters "conspiracy theorists" seems to be the current talking point of the pro guilt faction. A rather poor fit for the pro innocence posters here on JREF, many of whom have a history of debunking CTs on JREF.

Several regular posters in this thread started out on the pro guilt side. What brought them over was the weight of the scientific and logical arguments for innocence.
It's also interesting to note how quickly the pro guilt side resorts to ad hominum arguments. Recognized experts are quickly dismissed with the claim they are being paid by the Knox family. No evidence is ever provided to back up this claim, it's just a tactic to avoid discussion of the points made by these outside experts.

I would be curious if there are any who are the reverse. . .
People who started out pro innocence and switched to pro guilt. If there are any, I would like to see their arguments.

 

[Strozzi]

This case is important not just because of Amanda and her boyfriend.
What happened here is the prosecutor was able to send 2 people to prison without any proof
The case was constructed not on evidence and witness testimony, but things you might consider similar to evidence and witness testimony.
If you have a justice system where this can be done, it means you can go to prison even if you have not done the crime you are charged with.

You are very right, xinonix. And if you or your defense attorney say that the police lab scientist who collected the evidence or analyzed it did it incorrectly or lied under oath about it, you can br prosecuted for that. What a foul system!