Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Strozzi]

We are only concerned with statements in this discussion. I gave you the Seattle info on how an advanced society handles language. Witnesses are provided with non-police translators both before and during court testimony. We do not ask people to sign statements in English if they are not fluent in it. The statement would then be translated for the court.

My niece is a professional sign-language interpreter in the US. She has a professional responsibility to the hearing-impaired people whom she serves to provide them with her best, most accurate, complete two-way translation. If she was with a client in a meeting and the other person said to my niece "Don't tell him, but . . . " my niece is duty-bound to sign that exactly to her client, the hearing-impaired person. She is not to be a manipulator, which is what Perugia Police interpreter Anna Donnino was.

Get it, Vixen?

 

[Grinder]

I guess that must be doctored or misleading because of reflection. Here is the crime scene video.

Look carefully. It freezes the frame on the faucet at 3:00.

Surely you've seen this before!!

http://youtu.be/n71ZJPBq8uk

If you closely the drop of blood is clear and the rest is a reflection.

Who cares? I just hope the translators are getting lots of sleep and getting ahead in their chores.

I look forward to the ISC tearing apart the prosecution's case.

 

[Strozzi]

"Spontaneous" in this context is an Italian legal term; that is, there are CPP Articles that - in translation - use that term. There is probably no daylight between "spontaneous" and "voluntary" in the meaning, which probably is:

Spontaneous:
proceeding from natural feeling or native tendency without external constraint

controlled and directed internally : self-acting <spontaneous movement characteristic of living things>

developing or occurring without apparent external influence, force, cause, or treatment

Voluntary:
proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent

unconstrained by interference : self-determining

acting or done of one's own free will without valuable consideration or legal obligation

Source of definitions: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/

ETA: The small difference between the meanings that I think the Italian wordsmithing is getting at is that a "voluntary" statement may be in response to a question, while a "spontaneous" statement is entirely self-generated and not in response to a question or prompt. Of course, the statements made by Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito during their interrogations on Nov. 5/6 and by Amanda during her "interview" with "notary" Mignini were not spontaneous or voluntary, and were obtained in violation of Italian procedural law and ECHR case-law.

Vixen, here is a question for you:
Can someone who is detained in a police station, who has a few hours earlier been subjected to intense (unrecorded) police interrogation, been shouted at, been called a liar, been told that if she doesn't cooperate she will be sent to prison for 30 years, been struck, and been manipulated by a police employee posing as an interpreter, give a statement that is spontaneous or voluntary?

 

[Dan O.]

The story is that the scarf caught on fire and that started enough fire to badly damage the house. the scarf would have been long gone.

You can try the experiment yourself and see how it works out. Presuming a typical lamp shade with a metal framework and open at the top. The scarf tossed over the shade is going to heat up and catch fire in the center. fragments of the burning cloth drop to the floor and ignite something like loose papers there. Meanwhile when the flame front on the scarf reaches the metal rim it loses heat to the metal and the flame goes out. What's left is a scarf with a circular hole hanging on the lamp shade and the ash where the papers burned on the floor below. Away from these papers the fire will be hotter as it grows.

You clearly haven't watched enough investigative crime shows where they explain this stuff.

 

[acbytesla]

If Amanda did it, and several judges, including the pre-trial judges believed she did, and not only that, wielded the killer knife, then Amanda joins Joanna as being that ultra rare killer, a female who kills by stabbing.

As my father used to tell me. IF is a condition contrary to fact.
About the only thing remotely similar about Joanna is that they are both female. Joanna was and is a serious nutjob. She frightened people long before her killings. I challenge you to find people that actually knew Amanda say anything remotely similar.

I love just how crazy you've made Amanda in your mind when NOTHING could be further from the truth.

 

[Vixen]

If you look at a larger image
[qimg]http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/images/2/2e/Sink2.jpg[/qimg]
There is a single spot
Most of what you see in the small image is reflected light, much clearer if you play with gamma and brightness.
Only place where there is a spot is right side of the faucet. Could be from spitting out after brushing teeth or from a ear bleeding.

Fact remains, that is Amanda's blood, deposited either on the eve of 1.11.2007 or on the 2.11.2007, and her blood was mixed with Mez'. Amanda confirmed with Dr Mignini the blood was not there the day before.

Even if the blood came from Amanda's ear, or brushing teeth, it was wet the same time as Mez'. There's no getting away from it.

 

[Dan O.]

If you walk into the police station and proffer information of your own volition, there is no requirement for the police to advise a lawyer.

We covered this in the original thread back in February 2010 and it's in my timeline which I just posted on the 18th:

22:29 Amanda makes a 3 minute phone call to Filomena
Amanda says she "Just arrived" and Raffaele is being questioned. The call ends with Amanda saying: "Now somebody wants to talk to me."​

Amanda wasn't proffering information on her own volition. She was in the hall doing her homework while waiting for the police to finish with Raffaele and stopped to make a call when the police came up and interrupted her while she was on the phone. Now how rude is that?

Less rude would be to read the information that is being proffered so that questioning doesn't get repeated.

 

[Vixen]

If you look at a larger image
[qimg]http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/images/2/2e/Sink2.jpg[/qimg]
There is a single spot
Most of what you see in the small image is reflected light, much clearer if you play with gamma and brightness.
Only place where there is a spot is right side of the faucet. Could be from spitting out after brushing teeth or from a ear bleeding.

My niece is a professional sign-language interpreter in the US. She has a professional responsibility to the hearing-impaired people whom she serves to provide them with her best, most accurate, complete two-way translation. If she was with a client in a meeting and the other person said to my niece "Don't tell him, but . . . " my niece is duty-bound to sign that exactly to her client, the hearing-impaired person. She is not to be a manipulator, which is what Perugia Police interpreter Anna Donnino was.

Get it, Vixen?

I agree it's not the job of an interpretor/translator to play detective.

 

[Vixen]

As my father used to tell me. IF is a condition contrary to fact.
About the only thing remotely similar about Joanna is that they are both female. Joanna was and is a serious nutjob. She frightened people long before her killings. I challenge you to find people that actually knew Amanda say anything remotely similar.

I love just how crazy you've made Amanda in your mind when NOTHING could be further from the truth.

Joanne, like Amanda, came from a respectable, well-educated background. Joanne went off the rails as a teenager and indulged in promiscuous sex with strangers - read, older men - took drugs (strong cannabis) and binge-drank.

Joanne went on a killing spree, "To find out if I really was cold".

Amanda, who knows <shrug>

 

[Vixen]

We covered this in the original thread back in February 2010 and it's in my timeline which I just posted on the 18th:

22:29 Amanda makes a 3 minute phone call to Filomena
Amanda says she "Just arrived" and Raffaele is being questioned. The call ends with Amanda saying: "Now somebody wants to talk to me."​

Amanda wasn't proffering information on her own volition. She was in the hall doing her homework while waiting for the police to finish with Raffaele and stopped to make a call when the police came up and interrupted her while she was on the phone. Now how rude is that?

Less rude would be to read the information that is being proffered so that questioning doesn't get repeated.

Cops are rude. They have to deal with homicide, felony, road accidents every day.

Amanda did not get homework at her language school.

 

[Strozzi]

Cops are rude. They have to deal with homicide, felony, road accidents every day.

Amanda did not get homework at her language school.

Amanda submitted a written assignment to her teacher on the Monday or Tuesday. (Her teacher gave it to the police after Amanda was arrested.). Amanda did homework.

Why do you want to deny that she studied her lessons?

 

[Dan O.]

I already did. The DNA firm appointed by Nencini showed it was not impossible, as claimed by Vecchiotti and Conti, to duplicate a Low Copy Number sample.

The as of yet untested sample V&C said was food starch, on exhibit 36(i), was found to be Amanda's DNA, and, what's more, was duplicated.

Q.E.D.::

No. Vixen has run out of Guilter talking points and now is just making up crap.

C&V's claim was not that it couldn't be done. Their claim was that the results would not be scientifically or legally valid because the procedure is not backed by the necessary studies to show the reliability of the result. And that forensics procedures for labs in the rest of the world (which they cited examples from the lab manuals) say that testing should not proceed.

And the location that the starch was found was not the same location where they found the LCN blood that they refused to test.


ETA: Everything you should want to know about the knife: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/

 

[Strozzi]

Fact remains, that is Amanda's blood, deposited either on the eve of 1.11.2007 or on the 2.11.2007, and her blood was mixed with Mez'. Amanda confirmed with Dr Mignini the blood was not there the day before.

Even if the blood came from Amanda's ear, or brushing teeth, it was wet the same time as Mez'. There's no getting away from it.

Vixen, are you getting this info from someone else or are you making it up yourself?

 

[Grinder]

You can try the experiment yourself and see how it works out. Presuming a typical lamp shade with a metal framework and open at the top. The scarf tossed over the shade is going to heat up and catch fire in the center. fragments of the burning cloth drop to the floor and ignite something like loose papers there. Meanwhile when the flame front on the scarf reaches the metal rim it loses heat to the metal and the flame goes out. What's left is a scarf with a circular hole hanging on the lamp shade and the ash where the papers burned on the floor below. Away from these papers the fire will be hotter as it grows.

You clearly haven't watched enough investigative crime shows where they explain this stuff.

The rest of the stoty is that the house was badly damaged meaning the table must hvae caught fire and burn significant ly enough to burn up the scarf. You must not watch Myth Busters

 

[acbytesla]

Joanne, like Amanda, came from a respectable, well-educated background. Joanne went off the rails as a teenager and indulged in promiscuous sex with strangers - read, older men - took drugs (strong cannabis) and binge-drank.

Joanne went on a killing spree, "To find out if I really was cold".

Amanda, who knows <shrug>

Apparently you know as little about that case as you do this one. Joanna'a own family said that Joanna had serious problems. Joanna fully admits all of her crimes and describes herself as a monster.

And by the way, there is no link between promiscuity and violence. NONE. So the idea that just because a woman or a man enjoys sex does not mean ANYTHING. Do you think there is?
Hmmmmmmmm.

 

[Dan O.]

The rest of the stoty is that the house was badly damaged meaning the table must hvae caught fire and burn significantly enough to burn up the scarf. You must not watch Myth Busters

I thought you were unable to find confirmation for this story. We don't know what is meant by heavily damaged. The claim that the door was closed trapping the cat in the room would support a slow burning fire with smoke damage being the major cause of damage.

I am surprised that Frank has not offered anything pro or con for this story. There should be a trail to follow in either property records or interviewing the neighbors/landlord. Has anyone bothered to ask Nina for the details that weren't in the book?

 

[davefoc]

Professor David Balding of UCL.

http://m.pnas.org/content/110/30/12241.full

science
Authors
David J. Balding1
University College London Genetics Institute, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom
Edited by Terence P. Speed, University of California, Berkeley, CA, and accepted by the Editorial Board May 31, 2013 (received for review November 13, 2012)
Abstract

Enhancements in sensitivity now allow DNA profiles to be obtained from only tens of picograms of DNA, corresponding to a few cells, even for samples subject to degradation from environmental exposure. However, low-template DNA (LTDNA) profiles are subject to stochastic effects, such as “dropout” and “dropin” of alleles, and highly variable stutter peak heights. Although the sensitivity of the newly developed methods is highly appealing to crime investigators, courts are concerned about the reliability of the underlying science. High-profile cases relying on LTDNA evidence have collapsed amid controversy, including the case of Hoey in the United Kingdom and the case of Knox and Sollecito in Italy. I argue that rather than the reliability of the science, courts and commentators should focus on the validity of the statistical methods of evaluation of the evidence. Even noisy DNA evidence can be more powerful than many traditional types of evidence, and it can be helpful to a court as long as its strength is not overstated. There have been serious shortcomings in statistical methods for the evaluation of LTDNA profile evidence, however. Here, I propose a method that allows for multiple replicates with different rates of dropout, sporadic dropins, different amounts of DNA from different contributors, relatedness of suspected and alternate contributors, “uncertain” allele designations, and degradation. R code implementing the method is open source, facilitating wide scrutiny. I illustrate its good performance using real cases and simulated crime scene profiles.
<SNIP>

Edited by jsfisher: 

Excessive copied text removed for compliance with Rule 4 of the Membership Agreement.

How is this related to a discussion on the reliability of Stefanoni's techniques? Did David J. Balding review the processes and data from the testing of the knife and provide a judgment on that? Did you review Balding's recommendations and determine that Stefanoni had followed them?

Note the highlighted part in the section you quoted. Does Balding make a statement some place in what you linked to or what you quoted that the strength of the evidence put forth by Stefanoni was not over stated?

 

[davefoc]

A general comment on what is happening in this thread

Once again the thread is shooting all over the place. It seems clear that responding to Vixen on more than one subject at a time just leads to quick responses with standard pro-guilt arguments and no serious engagement with the issues.

In order to not be part of the problem, I am not going to participate in any discussions that involve Vixen unless the thread narrows its focus for at least enough time to get to the point where a reasonable discussion of the particular issue can occur.

 

[Planigale]

The pro innocent people around here make several claims with regard to Kercher's DNA on the knife.
1. The concentration of DNA on the knife was apparently too low for a reliable test.
2. Patrizia Stefanoni failed to provide relevant underlying information about the testing done on the knife including things like the results of testing done for control purposes and the results of testing that would have identified the DNA concentration reliably.
3. Blood was not identified on the knife so the source of the DNA could not be identified. There is a large distinction between the evidential value of a finding of DNA associated with an identifiable biological source and DNA where the biological source can be identified. If Kercher's blood had been found on the knife the very likely explanation would be that the knife was used in the murder of Kercher. However when a biological source is not identified innocent explanations for the finding of DNA become much more likely, including contamination and incidental touch transfer.
4. If the knife was to be used as evidence the most likely place that blood or other evidence could be found would be the crack between the hilt and the blade. The blade was not removed so this area could be tested. This suggests to the pro-innocent people that Stefanoni was not thoroughly investigating the knife evidence. She was just going with anything that she could find that had the ring of incriminating evidence. It was also curious that the prosecution would resist the disassembly of the knife for the purposes of collection of evidence if they were truly involved in a search for truth about this case.
5. When the knife was retested no evidence of human blood or Kercher's DNA was found on the knife, most especially in the area where Stefanoni claimed to have found it.
6. The collection of the knife was done under very suspicious circumstances where the police had just been shown to have made a horrible error when they misidentified a foot print in blood as consistent with shoes that Sollecito owns when in fact the foot print was incompatible with Sollecito's shoes and was compatible with shoes that Guede owned. So they go on a sort of scavenger hunt to find incriminating evidence of AK and RS and incredibly find what they were looking for after completely missing any real evidence of AK and RS on their first crime scene investigation. And both pieces of evidence that they find do not stand up to additional scrutiny. The bra clasp because it was destroyed by the storage technique.
7. The knife that Kercher's DNA was allegedly found on is both incompatible with a knife stain in blood on the sheets on Kercher's bed and the nature of the wound reported by the first pathologist involved with the case.

All of these points have been made in this thread since you have been participating in this thread. So what was the purpose of a post indicating that you still believe the DNA found on the knife collected in Sollecito's apartment is evidence of guilt? Do you dispute any of the arguments made in this thread that the DNA findings are not valid evidence? For instance, do you believe that the concentration of DNA found on the knife was sufficient for a reliable DNA test? You claim to be objectively analyzing the evidence in this case. So what are the results of this objective analysis with regard to the DNA evidence on the knife beyond the repetition of a claim that you think the evidence is valid?

8. Even if this was the murder knife Knox's DNA could not originate from handling it at the time of the murder, so is irrelevant. Therefore the evidential value of the knife is purely dependant on the DNA typing of Kercher that may or may not have originated from the knife.

9. Lack of any controls for the testing process that resulted in the positive DNA result for Kercher.

10. The knife did not fit the bloody imprint on the sheet.

11. The knife was incompatible with most of the wounds. (All wounds could have been made by a single knife of a smaller size similar to that suggested by the bloody imprint.

 

[Sergei Walankov]

Fact remains, that is Amanda's blood, deposited either on the eve of 1.11.2007 or on the 2.11.2007, and her blood was mixed with Mez'. Amanda confirmed with Dr Mignini the blood was not there the day before.

Even if the blood came from Amanda's ear, or brushing teeth, it was wet the same time as Mez'. There's no getting away from it.

And in the course of her fabulously elaborate clean-up, she didn't think to wipe it off.