Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

Anglo this is the quote we spoke about.

Knox looked intently at Guede as he spoke just a few feet away from her in the packed courtroom. In the letter Guede had said: "Everything I want to say I have told the court and my lawyers. Do you think if I had anything to say I would speak with a child killer?"
After Guede had finished his testimony, Knox stood up and said: "The first time that Rudy Guede, Raffaele and I were all together in the same space was in a court room. We have never been in contact. I am shocked and anguished, truly, by what he says."
Sollecito was also granted permission to speak and said: "Guede has never seen me before in his life, not even fleetingly, I don't know how he can say I was with Amanda Knox."

interesting wording by Raf.

Why????

 

[Desert Fox]

I remember saying that the pro guilt arguments had a lot of parallels with those for ID or HIV denialism only for Briars to come back trying to defend ID. I think Briars then realised even in our obscure corner of JREF trying to defend ID would rapidly attract the attention of the big boys.

One of the strong themes of this case is the inability of most of the court to distinguish between proper science and pseudo-science. The identification of footprints on the bathmat to anyone is clearly pseudo science - they even reference pseudo -science methodology. That stefanoni used a PCR machine does not make the DNA MK DNA on knife any less pseudo science. Ignoring the empirical study showing the glass distribution could only have arisen from a stone thrown from outside is just appalling.

My Pet Peeve is Amanda and Raff supposedly in the [Tiny] bedroom without leaving any signs. I want to see somebody show that they really could clean the evidence of them being in the room while leaving evidence of Rudy Guede in the room.

 

[Planigale]

What do you think of the fact that Balding got his data through the work of Conti & Vecchiotti? Do you share with Machiavelli that this is a fruit from a poison tree sort of situation?

What do you make of the fact that Dr. Peter Gill believes categorically that the DNA in this case is unsafe, and has devoted a chapter in his recent book to this belief? Dr. Peter Gill is one of the true founders of the use of DNA science in crime scenes, and has professional accolades that far exceed Balding's. Are you still more inclined to trust Balding? And, if so, why?

If I may defend Prof. Balding, I think he is equally eminent as Prof. Gill. He is a genetic statistician. His contribution was to say that even taking into account the mixed alleles found on the bra hook it was likely that some DNA originated from Sollecito. I have read his argument and think this is correct. He says nothing about how it arrived there. Prof Gill in contrast is a Forensic Scientist who specialised in DNA. He takes the view that the presence of Sollecito's DNA on the bra derives from contamination and not from transfer at the time of the murder. He states that appropriate precautions were not taken and the crime scene investigations did not meet appropriate professional standards. The two are not in conflict.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Rep. 180 does not look like Amanda's foot

Is there anything in these answers that is ground-breaking or new information? It does verify that the footprints could come from something besides blood, but we already knew that.

The false negative by TMB was known by some here because TMB needs a denser amount of blood mixture which could mean it was blood that was old or very diluted. Given that the prints match no one and the substance wasn't proven to be blood it isn't precise and the gravity is weak.

Grinder,

The answers come from two independent, internationally recognized experts who specifically addressed this case. That is why the information is valuable. The theory that the prints were made in dilute blood is weakened by Rep. 180 to the degree that one believes that it is not Amanda's foot which made it. I agree that the prints cannot be used to match anyone. In the case of Rep. 180, I think that the lack of a mark for the second toe in the correct position, coupled with a mark suggesting a shorter second toe suggest to my nonexpert eyes that Amanda did not make it. If she did not make it on 2 November (innocently or not), then the print would have to be made some time earlier than the murder. If it were made earlier, then there is no reason to assume it was made in blood as opposed to any other luminol-positive substance.
EDT
If your implied point is that no one should be surprised at what they said, then obviously I agree. Several of us have posted many citations from books and articles that all say very similar things about luminol. The most recent flurry of citations was about a month ago in the 9th continuation thread, if I am not mistaken.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The PNAS article was fine

If I may defend Prof. Balding, I think he is equally eminent as Prof. Gill. He is a genetic statistician. His contribution was to say that even taking into account the mixed alleles found on the bra hook it was likely that some DNA originated from Sollecito. I have read his argument and think this is correct. He says nothing about how it arrived there. Prof Gill in contrast is a Forensic Scientist who specialised in DNA. He takes the view that the presence of Sollecito's DNA on the bra derives from contamination and not from transfer at the time of the murder. He states that appropriate precautions were not taken and the crime scene investigations did not meet appropriate professional standards. The two are not in conflict.

Planigale,

I don't have any problems with Dr. Balding's PNAS article, and I disagree with little he said at View from Wilmington. However, his statements made on the BBC's documentary and his interview with Leila Schneps are another matter. IMO he mades statements that are very much open to question.

 

[anglolawyer]

Anglo this is the quote we spoke about.

Knox looked intently at Guede as he spoke just a few feet away from her in the packed courtroom. In the letter Guede had said: "Everything I want to say I have told the court and my lawyers. Do you think if I had anything to say I would speak with a child killer?"
After Guede had finished his testimony, Knox stood up and said: "The first time that Rudy Guede, Raffaele and I were all together in the same space was in a court room. We have never been in contact. I am shocked and anguished, truly, by what he says."
Sollecito was also granted permission to speak and said: "Guede has never seen me before in his life, not even fleetingly, I don't know how he can say I was with Amanda Knox."

interesting wording by Raf.

I don't think it means anything but I see what you mean.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill please share with us what data is acceptable to lock up innocents for a crime they did not commit.

It's good to see the old Grinder back. Read my post again and tell me why it does not answer your question. Otherwise I fear another outburst.

 

[Planigale]

Planigale,

I don't have any problems with Dr. Balding's PNAS article, and I disagree with little he said at View from Wilmington. However, his statements made on the BBC's documentary and his interview with Leila Schneps are another matter. IMO he mades statements that are very much open to question.

OK I admit I only read the PNAS article. The BBC documentary - was that the bought in thing on BBC3 TV as opposed to the in house documentary on radio 4, I did see / listen to both but cannot remember Balding. I do not know who Leila Schneps is and as for the view from Wilmington - well I have been to Dartford and the best thing about it is the tunnel out.

So I am obviously ignorant of the 'Balding' issue.

 

[Samson]

OK I admit I only read the PNAS article. The BBC documentary - was that the bought in thing on BBC3 TV as opposed to the in house documentary on radio 4, I did see / listen to both but cannot remember Balding. I do not know who Leila Schneps is and as for the view from Wilmington - well I have been to Dartford and the best thing about it is the tunnel out.

So I am obviously ignorant of the 'Balding' issue.

Leila Schneps posts on PMF dot ORG as Thoughtful, maths professor teaching in France. Polite no smilies and corrects wrong conclusions such as calling the police after the postals arrived. It is incomprehensible she can be a guilter.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill please share with us what data is acceptable to lock up innocents for a crime they did not commit.

Ahhh.... I see now where you've set the goalposts. It's not a bad place to set them, but you could have given fair warning that this was what interested you.

So to restate - there is no legitimate data which is acceptable to lock up innocents. But time after time after time there is data which courts find as acceptable to accomplish this - which is the reason for appeals, and eventually in rare cases for executive overruling of the judiciary.

Is that what you were looking for? Please advise.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Dr. Balding at VfW

OK I admit I only read the PNAS article. The BBC documentary - was that the bought in thing on BBC3 TV as opposed to the in house documentary on radio 4, I did see / listen to both but cannot remember Balding. I do not know who Leila Schneps is and as for the view from Wilmington - well I have been to Dartford and the best thing about it is the tunnel out.

So I am obviously ignorant of the 'Balding' issue.

Planigale,

Here is the link to the interview at View from Wilmington. I don't have other links handy; maybe someone else does.

 

[Samson]

Ahhh.... I see now where you've set the goalposts. It's not a bad place to set them, but you could have given fair warning that this was what interested you.

So to restate - there is no legitimate data which is acceptable to lock up innocents. But time after time after time there is data which courts find as acceptable to accomplish this - which is the reason for appeals, and eventually in rare cases for executive overruling of the judiciary.

Is that what you were looking for? Please advise.

And once again the Arthur Allan Thomas case is a perfect example of this.

Parallels are
1. He actively and voluntarily helped the police with their inquiries.
1. There was no motive.
3. Their was proven evidence tampering, a cartridge case fired from his rifle planted several weeks after the crime.

It took two trials finding him guilty before a pardon was issued by the prime minister 9 years on.

I accept 3. is not proved here.

 

[Grinder]

I don't think it means anything but I see what you mean.

It is just odd that he didn't say 'I don't know how he could say he saw me at the cottage' instead of being with Amanda.

It is similar to him saying that "nothing" was stolen.

It may not mean anything but never the less saying "Guede has never seen me before in his life, not even fleetingly, I don't know how he can say I was with Amanda Knox" is plain odd.

While I believe that Raf didn't think Rudi had ever seen him before wouldn't it be more important to say he couldn't have seen me at the cottage because I wasn't there that night at all. Btw, as an aside how would anyone know that someone hadn't seen that person even fleetingly? In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that Rudi had seen them unbeknownst to them.

 

[acbytesla]

It is just odd that he didn't say 'I don't know how he could say he saw me at the cottage' instead of being with Amanda.

It is similar to him saying that "nothing" was stolen.

It may not mean anything but never the less saying "Guede has never seen me before in his life, not even fleetingly, I don't know how he can say I was with Amanda Knox" is plain odd.

While I believe that Raf didn't think Rudi had ever seen him before wouldn't it be more important to say he couldn't have seen me at the cottage because I wasn't there that night at all. Btw, as an aside how would anyone know that someone hadn't seen that person even fleetingly? In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that Rudi had seen them unbeknownst to them.

I think you are being picky on this. This what came to his mind at that time. Perhaps it would have been better to address it your way...but as I said, I think this is just picky.

 

[Desert Fox]

I think you are being picky on this. This what came to his mind at that time. Perhaps it would have been better to address it your way...but as I said, I think this is just picky.

Not like most of us have not said something or written something and wondered "Why the hell did I put it that way?"

 

[Grinder]

I think you are being picky on this. This what came to his mind at that time. Perhaps it would have been better to address it your way...but as I said, I think this is just picky.

Not like most of us have not said something or written something and wondered "Why the hell did I put it that way?"

Yes, yes nothing means anything. This was during his appeal. This was 3 years into the case. This wasn't a big surprise that he didn't have time to think about.

It is odd and I don't see any reason to deny that it was odd.

Whether you two like it or not that sort of thing makes people wonder. Sort of in the realm of some kind of a slip.

 

[acbytesla]

Not like most of us have not said something or written something and wondered "Why the hell did I put it that way?"

It's not that Raffaele put it poorly, he just phrased it differently. His point was crystal clear to me. Rudy had never laid eyes him...PERIOD. ANYWHERE. That he had never seen Raffaele with Amanda or the cottage goes without saying.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Analyze This

Not like most of us have not said something or written something and wondered "Why the hell did I put it that way?"

Desert Fox,

I am not a big fan of Statement Analysis^TM, especially when amateurs apply it to this case. I don't advise giving the blog in question any clicks; therefore, I won't link to it. I am reluctant to read too much into what Raffaele said in 2011.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, yes nothing means anything. This was during his appeal. This was 3 years into the case. This wasn't a big surprise that he didn't have time to think about.

It is odd and I don't see any reason to deny that it was odd.

Whether you two like it or not that sort of thing makes people wonder. Sort of in the realm of some kind of a slip.

I'm not trying to be argumentative Grinder. I simply don't find it odd in the least bit and am a little surprised that anyone would.

 

[Desert Fox]

DF,

I am not a big fan of Statement Analysis^TM, especially when amateurs apply it to this case.

In that list of amateurs, I would include the Italian authorities