Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

Where are the resources?

In the "File Library" of McCall's wiki, there is the following section:

"Extra material"

"This section contains various files peripheral to the case. They include: articles on forensics; correspondence by entities or people peripheral to the case; analyses of various types; media presentations and documentaries; interviews."

Seems straightforward. However, there is nothing of the sort available. All he's got in there are lab manuals.

You'd think after years of belligerent campaigning, he could find some easily accessible academia, some expert opinion sympathetic to the pro-guilt position, something helpful.

Apparently not.

 

[Vibio]

The English girls don't say Knox was "slightly loud and outgoing". They report different things, such as "posing" and "seeking to attract attention".

They said much more than that. Read their testimony about Knox's sickening, gleeful performance in front of the mourners at the police station.

 

[lonepinealex]

It's because of your habit, guys, here to pack and unison your opinions.
In fact two strategies i have noticed here on months of reading:
1-Packing, one single voice, one single opinion, and months reading you all, you all look one same person to me. (using a voice changer for multiple pranks).
Look at the last 3 pages all posts starts with "Machiavelli", you are ALL ONE person answering to Machivelli, one beast with many mouths (must be a chore to feed).
2-Sniping strategy, you hide behind false names and go hunt for personal intel on people you disagree to get at them in a personal way, under the belt from a hidden rooftop.
…
lol, thinking of it, maybe they are your real names, real funny names, i didn't take the time to check.
In the meantime i have one blob with many vociferating mouths, coming at me or going on Platonov or Machiavelli, and my feeling is, if i ever become disrespectful with you or engage the personal run-in you seem to be seeking, I'll have some of it all over me.
So "ye'all" will always see me polite and civil here.
So yes Matthew (y'all), I'm here.
((LOVE)) (and hugs --metaphorically)

This would make more sense if you weren't the only guilter to use his own name on here.

But still, if you only want to debate with people who aren't anonymous, why not engage with Chris Halkides and put everyone else on ignore? Luckily for you, he almost exclusively discusses the DNA evidence, which is your speciality.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)

So, why is my argument stupid? You have confirmed from your reading of Giobbi, like everyone else, that they were immediately identified as suspects.

The moment that identification is made is the moment they get a lawyer.

Tell me why that isn't so.

But absolutely not. You are simply living in a fantasy world just out of touch with investigation and procedure. First, the, police cannot decide whether a person is a suspect of a charge. A magistrate's decree is needed for that. Second, it is not true that suspicion nor focusing on a person of interest implies the right to a lawyer. A right to lawyer enters in play only if there is already significant and usable circumstantial eidence aggainst the person, or when the person has made declarations that appear prima facie incriminating.
Also, the rigth to a lawyer attaches when the person who is already a formal suspect is interrogated, the status of suspect can be kept secret before that (this was not Knox's case, but it is legal).

 

[Machiavelli]

They said much more than that. Read their testimony about Knox's sickening, gleeful performance in front of the mourners at the police station.

Sure, they said much, much more.
But also other people did. For example Knox sobbing on Halloween night because Meredith didn't answer her messages. Laura Mezzetti who noted how Knox copied her ear piercing. Knox's comments about Giacomo. There is so many, so many episodes.

 

[Kauffer]

It's because of your habit, guys, here to pack and unison your opinions.
In fact two strategies i have noticed here on months of reading:
1-Packing, one single voice, one single opinion, and months reading you all, you all look one same person to me. (using a voice changer for multiple pranks).
Look at the last 3 pages all posts starts with "Machiavelli", you are ALL ONE person answering to Machivelli, one beast with many mouths (must be a chore to feed).
2-Sniping strategy, you hide behind false names and go hunt for personal intel on people you disagree to get at them in a personal way, under the belt from a hidden rooftop.
…
lol, thinking of it, maybe they are your real names, real funny names, i didn't take the time to check.
In the meantime i have one blob with many vociferating mouths, coming at me or going on Platonov or Machiavelli, and my feeling is, if i ever become disrespectful with you or engage the personal run-in you seem to be seeking, I'll have some of it all over me.
So "ye'all" will always see me polite and civil here.
So yes Matthew (y'all), I'm here.
((LOVE)) (and hugs --metaphorically)

So give some citations to back up your arguments! Deal with the evidence!

You mean that "Platonov" and "Machiavelli" are real names and that Peggy Ganong (Skep - to her friends) wasn't doing drive-bys of the Knox residence?

There are a variety of opinions here on all aspects of the case - dissent is tolerated; unsupported argument is taken to task; opinion is tested.

Right now, over at PMF, some of the current topics include: Speculating about how and when Ms Knox will go on the run and the narcissism of Mr Sollecito.

Don't you think all that stuff is a bit beneath you?

 

[Kauffer]

But absolutely not. You are simply living in a fantasy world just out of touch with investigation and procedure. First, the, police cannot decide whether a person is a suspect of a charge. A magistrate's decree is needed for that. Second, it is not true that suspicion nor focusing on a person of interest implies the right to a lawyer. A right to lawyer enters in play only if there is already significant and usable circumstantial eidence aggainst the person, or when the person has made declarations that appear prima facie incriminating.
Also, the rigth to a lawyer attaches when the person who is already a formal suspect is interrogated, the status of suspect can be kept secret before that (this was not Knox's case, but it is legal).

I think you need some case law - from memory, Brusco v France is on the money here. Italian procedure is irrelevant to the determination of rights violations where they exist. The court (ECHR) will make that determination based on the evidence - which is not in your favour, I'm afraid.

 

[kwill]

No, actually you also called her names, you defined their characters, and you made a statement aimed at putting distance between their reports and Meredith.

Meredith was not like them, she did not share their feelings and opinions, that's what you said. And you implied their testimony and Point of view should not be taken as the truth.

Nah. You were explaining why Mignini was so certain that Amanda hated Meredith: because of Meredith's behaviour gradually cutting her out from friendship circle,

And I said that that that was "Kind of a snotty thing to say about the victim. I don't think Meredith was nearly as catty and vicious as the rest of the English women turned out to be . . . or at least, again, there's no evidence that she ever did any such thing."

The issue you keep avoiding is why anything those English women said is evidence about what Amanda thought or felt.

Yes you were very quick having your amateurish opinion on human characters, quicker than me, for multiple people which you never saw. Whether you admit it or not, you draw logical conclusions directly linked to your derogatory attitude towards their characters and from the denial or dismissal of their words.

This isn't complicated at all. I made an observation about the English women's behavior, about a specific thing they did that was catty and vicious. It's called gossip. They were clearly talking about another person behind her back. I didn't diagnose them as psychologically abnormal as you have done to Amanda.

Do you want an example?

Let's say Sophie testifies: Amanda wa always acting to show off and to seek others' attention.

Let's draw logical options from a report of this kind; which one do you think is true, of the following:

a) report is true true, Knox had symptoms of narcissistic behavior pattern
b) report is false/biased , English girls are catty and bitchy

Which one do you chose?

c) Sophie thought that Amanda was a showoffy attention-seeker during the few times Sophie was in Amanda's company. This doesn't meant Sophie is lying, and it's not the evidence that she was catty.

Sophie might very well have been annoyed by Amanda, so she's telling the truth. When she says that she and Meredith and the others were discussing Amanda's bathroom habits, she's admitting to being catty.

Mature people don't talk behind each others' backs. They either accept that not everybody is like them, or if the situation warrants it, they work through differences.

The point is that whatever Sophie or Meredith thought of Amanda, it can't be evidence about what Amanda felt about Meredith.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The potential for error in forensic DNA testing

ericparoissien,

In a 2008 essay (the name is the title of this comment) William Thompson wrote, {start quote} Doubt was also cast on a number of convictions in Queensland when a forensic scientist who had previously worked for a state forensic laboratory publicly expressed concerns about the reliability of the lab’s work. He told The Australian newspaper that it was not uncommon for the lab to mix up DNA samples from different cases.[62] For example, he said that analysts’ own DNA, from blood samples used as analytical controls, often was mixed up with (or found its way into) casework samples,creating false matches: “[Q]uite often my (colleague) would walk down the aisle and say, ‘I’ve just committed another rape on the Gold Coast.’”[62] [endquote}

Sample mixups have been documented in one or more cases in the California/Nevada area. Although they are not contamination, they can have the same effect in terms of implicating the wrong individual. Neither type of event only happens with astronomical odds, or do you have citations which indicate otherwise?

 

[NancyS]

Actually Giobbi said he could detect the main suspects immediately based on their behaviour. Something all police detectives do. Simply any good detective observes the suspect's behaviour and draws assessments from it.

Bad police draw conclusions from buying pants and eating pizza - and you also have to be incredibly culturally sensitive. An Italian policeman is unlikely to be able to make an accurate assessment of someone from the U.S.

 

[Vibio]

Actually Giobbi said he could detect the main suspects immediately based on their behaviour. Something all police detectives do. Simply any good detective observes the suspect's behaviour and draws assessments from it.

It is funny how the Knoxians insist on misrepresenting Giobbi.

"He knew Knox was guilty because she was eating a pizza" or whatever (he never said that).

In the famous (poorly translated) youtube video of him, he says absolutely nothing out of the ordinary... he describes what all detectives do and how they come to their conclusions in the course of an investigation.

 

[NancyS]

They said much more than that. Read their testimony about Knox's sickening, gleeful performance in front of the mourners at the police station.

And as I said to Machiavelli, you can't diagnose psychopathology from the second hand reports of someon's behaviour in the aftermath of a traumatic event

 

[Kauffer]

Sure, they said much, much more.
But also other people did. For example Knox sobbing on Halloween night because Meredith didn't answer her messages. Laura Mezzetti who noted how Knox copied her ear piercing. Knox's comments about Giacomo. There is so many, so many episodes.

Sobbing, really - about that? Does any of this stuff relate to the physical evidence of her presence in the murder room?

Oh, I guess you dealt with that didn't you when you said they ran out the door and that's how she didn't leave any. But then you said they came back to cleanup - even though they didn't need to clean up...it's all a bit bewildering isn't it?

And we've got all these Guede traces...it's no wonder the lay jurors were confused by it all...and by what they were hearing on their TVs about the case.

 

[Kauffer]

It is funny how the Knoxians insist on misrepresenting Giobbi.

"He knew Knox was guilty because she was eating a pizza" or whatever (he never said that).

In the famous (poorly translated) youtube video of him, he says absolutely nothing out of the ordinary... he describes what all detectives do and how they come to their conclusions in the course of an investigation.

Have you read his testimony? It's a hoot!

 

[ericparoissien]

This would make more sense if you weren't the only guilter to use his own name on here.

But still, if you only want to debate with people who aren't anonymous, why not engage with Chris Halkides and put everyone else on ignore? Luckily for you, he almost exclusively discusses the DNA evidence, which is your speciality.

I didn't dream your DNA mix-up, y'all mixed up smear (which is chaos) with contamination (which is a rare constructed occurrence).
If Peter Gill lectures all the DNA specialists that came before him on Meredith's case like they're 6 year olds who don't know:
1-What a DNA trace is and how to interpret it as signal/noise
2-How a judge can use a DNA expert and build his case
Then no one should be embarrassed pointing at Peter Gill's simple mistake:
We don't live through our day leaving a trail of DNA.
DNA is produced on impact. Namely all denaturation processes: heat, friction, stress, acid, etc.
RS came in significant collision with Meredith's bra.
Please give it some consideration, Peter Gill is mistaken.

 

[NancyS]

Your guess is incorrect.
I did not draw my assessment from Knox's eyes.
The fact that you call some witness reports "bitchy comments", on the other hand, is actually very telling to me about your own, profound prejudice.

You're accusing Meredith of talking about AK behind her back, which is a bit bitchy - although, it is also very very normal. I doubt whether there have ever been flatmates anywhere in the world that haven't been driven to despair by their housemates habits. It's something we all do - and if anything Meredith probably moaned far less about AK, than I've moaned about some of my ex-housemates. This is only evidence for murder in crazy fantasy land!

 

[Kauffer]

I didn't dream your DNA mix-up, y'all mixed up smear (which is chaos) with contamination (which is a rare constructed occurrence).
If Peter Gill lectures all the DNA specialists that came before him on Meredith's case like they're 6 year olds who don't know:
1-What a DNA trace is and how to interpret it as signal/noise
2-How a judge can use a DNA expert and build his case
Then no one should be embarrassed pointing at Peter Gill's simple mistake:
We don't live through our day leaving a trail of DNA.
DNA is produced on impact. Namely all denaturation processes: heat, friction, stress, acid, etc.
RS came in significant collision with Meredith's bra.Please give it some consideration, Peter Gill is mistaken.

Clasp surely

How do you discern "significant collision" from the evidence?

Why is there no other evidence of him in the room?

Why is there no evidence of Ms Knox in the room?

What is Peter Gill mistaken about, exactly.

Where are your citations?

 

[Dan O.]

It's because of your habit, guys, here to pack and unison your opinions.
In fact two strategies i have noticed here on months of reading:
1-Packing, one single voice, one single opinion, and months reading you all, you all look one same person to me. (using a voice changer for multiple pranks).
Look at the last 3 pages all posts starts with "Machiavelli", you are ALL ONE person answering to Machivelli, one beast with many mouths (must be a chore to feed).
2-Sniping strategy, you hide behind false names and go hunt for personal intel on people you disagree to get at them in a personal way, under the belt from a hidden rooftop.
…
lol, thinking of it, maybe they are your real names, real funny names, i didn't take the time to check.
In the meantime i have one blob with many vociferating mouths, coming at me or going on Platonov or Machiavelli, and my feeling is, if i ever become disrespectful with you or engage the personal run-in you seem to be seeking, I'll have some of it all over me.
So "ye'all" will always see me polite and civil here.
So yes Matthew (y'all), I'm here.
((LOVE)) (and hugs --metaphorically)

Perhaps you are thinking of another site where everybody speaks with a single voice and don't dare contradict the pre-ordained view. If we appear to have similar views that is likely because we have had the open debate for several years and dug deep into the evidence and science to reach a supportable conclusion. If you think you have reached a better conclusion, bring it on. But be prepared to defend your position.

... and please, don't just repeat "all the other evidence" without discussing any of it.

 

[lonepinealex]

I didn't dream your DNA mix-up, y'all mixed up smear (which is chaos) with contamination (which is a rare constructed occurrence).
If Peter Gill lectures all the DNA specialists that came before him on Meredith's case like they're 6 year olds who don't know:
1-What a DNA trace is and how to interpret it as signal/noise
2-How a judge can use a DNA expert and build his case
Then no one should be embarrassed pointing at Peter Gill's simple mistake:
We don't live through our day leaving a trail of DNA.
DNA is produced on impact. Namely all denaturation processes: heat, friction, stress, acid, etc.
RS came in significant collision with Meredith's bra.
Please give it some consideration, Peter Gill is mistaken.

I'm afraid I don't know all that much about DNA - I defer to the experts. Try Chris Halkides if you want a discussion about DNA.

Also, my user name is only partly my own name (the "lonepine" is a reference to some children's books I liked to read), so I expect you'll disregard 30% - 50% of my posts. It's up to you which ones.

 

[Antony]

Actually Giobbi said he could detect the main suspects immediately based on their behaviour. Something all police detectives do. Simply any good detective observes the suspect's behaviour and draws assessments from it.

... so Amanda and Raff were suspects before the night of 5th November? Interesting.