Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[stilicho]

That might not be so accurate. Given the US media blitz and the resulting ethnocentrism, apparent in this thread, I could see bringing Knox to the US to serve likely resulting in a very early release.

The best stuff I can find, and it's not conclusive, suggests ten years served until eligibility in both countries. However--and this appears to be vital to Ms Knox' chances--if she doesn't recover her sense of clarity in time for the appeal then all bets are off. I don't know of a jurisdiction anywhere that rewards liars. I provided the contrasting fates of Corby and Lawrence as examples of this. I doubt the Italians take any less dim a view of uncooperative convicts than the Indonesians do.

Since reading up on the case (and nowhere near an expert on it) I personally hope Ms Knox repeats her 'dream sequence' version at the appeal. I know it's not very compassionate of me to wish that on her but my only kind feelings are for the victim's family and Mr Lumumba.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The best stuff I can find, and it's not conclusive, suggests ten years served until eligibility in both countries. However--and this appears to be vital to Ms Knox' chances--if she doesn't recover her sense of clarity in time for the appeal then all bets are off. I don't know of a jurisdiction anywhere that rewards liars. I provided the contrasting fates of Corby and Lawrence as examples of this. I doubt the Italians take any less dim a view of uncooperative convicts than the Indonesians do.

Since reading up on the case (and nowhere near an expert on it) I personally hope Ms Knox repeats her 'dream sequence' version at the appeal. I know it's not very compassionate of me to wish that on her but my only kind feelings are for the victim's family and Mr Lumumba.

I was alluding to a greater possibility of a pardon here in the US.

 

[stilicho]

I was alluding to a greater possibility of a pardon here in the US.

I'm going to demonstrate my complete ignorance of the US justice system but doesn't a pardon for a second-degree murder conviction require acceptance of responsibility on the part of the applicant, a review of new evidence not previously considered, and the signature of the Governor of the State? Can't see any of that happening!

 

[lionking]

FWIW I think Knox is guilty from what I have read here and elsewhere, but (and I apologise if this has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread) the Victorian legal system will not allow DNA evidence to be admitted for some months.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/ch...e-in-court-cases/story-e6frf7jo-1225808687704

VICTORIA'S DNA evidence system is in turmoil after a ban was placed on its use in criminal court cases.
In a blow to public credibility of the crucial evidence, Chief Commissioner Simon Overland ordered that forensic officers not provide DNA testimony before next year.

And, Victoria, Australia is not some hick legal backwater. DNA evidence may now need to be treated with skepticism.

 

[mbp]

the Victorian legal system will not allow DNA evidence to be admitted

That would explain why Sherlock Holmes never relied on it.

 

[Matthew Best]

It doesn't really have any relevance to the guilt or innocence of anybody, but the Daily Mail has this interesting story:

Disturbingly, police failed to act against Guede, despite having clear evidence of him committing break-ins or burglaries – some of them armed with a knife – at least three times in the weeks leading to Meredith’s murder.

On September 27, 2007 – five weeks before the killing – Perugia bar tender Cristian Tramantano heard a noise downstairs in his home and found Guede wandering around with a large knife.

Tramantano recognised Guede from his work in a nightclub. There was a confrontation between the two, ending when Guede ran away.

On four occasions, Tramantano went to Perugia’s central police station to report the break-in, identify Guede as the culprit and to detail how the intruder was armed and threatened him. On each occasion, he was ignored and police refused to log his complaint.

The following weekend, there was a break-in at an English-speaking nursery school in Milan in which
€2,000 and a digital camera were stolen. The school owner, Maria Antoinette Salvadori del Prato, reported it to her local police station.

Three weeks later, on Saturday, October 27 – one week before the murder – Mrs Prato arrived at the school early in the morning with a locksmith to replace the front door, only to be confronted by Guede standing in the main school entrance.

Police were called and Guede questioned. A stolen laptop, digital camera and a ten-inch kitchen knife were found in his backpack.

But instead of being arrested and charged, Guede was merely escorted to Milan central railway station and placed on a train back to Perugia.

In the interim, on the weekend of October 13, there had been a break-in at the office of lawyers Paolo Brocchi and Luigi Palazzoli in which a first-floor window was smashed – similar to the break-in at Meredith’s house.

A computer and other items were stolen. They were later found in Guede’s possession but he was neither arrested nor charged.

They then go on to speculate that Guede could have been a police informant. Hanlon's razor probably applies to that speculation, but I wonder if anything will be made of this in the long run.

 

[Symbol]

Wow, Fiona is getting a tougher interrogation than Knox did.

I appreciate your work, Fiona, and that of others. I've seen the case mentioned in Norwegian media, but never got deeper into it than noting that Knox is a pretty gal. This thread, although it started out weird, has been very informative and interesting.

I completely agree on all counts (except I don't live in Norway )

I understand Fiona's pernacity*, because when I start investigating an issue I get highly involved too.

Appreciate your thorough research and scepticism, Fiona.

* ETA: Meant to say, and tenacity!

 

[Matthew Best]

I understand Fiona's pernacity*,

That sounds like it might be a personal attack.

 

[Kestrel]

I'm going to demonstrate my complete ignorance of the US justice system but doesn't a pardon for a second-degree murder conviction require acceptance of responsibility on the part of the applicant, a review of new evidence not previously considered, and the signature of the Governor of the State? Can't see any of that happening!

In most states, all it requires is the signature of the Governor of the State.

 

[Fiona]

I believe it's supposed to be this one:

Well if it is I can see nothing of note. They are clearly gloved, and there is no source for either Sollecito's or Knox's DNA in that room. The comments are froth.

 

[Kestrel]

FWIW I think Knox is guilty from what I have read here and elsewhere, but (and I apologise if this has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread) the Victorian legal system will not allow DNA evidence to be admitted for some months.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/ch...e-in-court-cases/story-e6frf7jo-1225808687704

And, Victoria, Australia is not some hick legal backwater. DNA evidence may now need to be treated with skepticism.

The consensus in this thread is that that DNA evidence collected in a suspects own bathroom would not contain the suspects DNA unless the suspect committed a crime.

 

[Fiona]

That might not be so accurate. Given the US media blitz and the resulting ethnocentrism, apparent in this thread, I could see bringing Knox to the US to serve likely resulting in a very early release.

Problematic. So far as I am aware most countries do try to arrange that their nationals will serve their sentences in their native land, and we have seen that with people convicted of drug trafficking in the far east, for example. But there are rules about it and it is normally a condition that the person will serve out the sentence imposed. Any breach of that would carry the risk that in future people would not be transferred, since there is no obligation to make such an arrangement so far as I know: and certainly not to a country which does not honour the sentence.

There is the additional complication in this case that it is forbidden to extradite anyone if there is any possibility of capital punishment for the crime. That may not apply after conviction and sentencing: I do not know. But if there is not a firm agreement to honour the sentence there is in logic not only the prospect of early release: but also the possibility of execution.

To secure her return I think the US would have to honour the existing sentence ( as it is after the appeal, presumably).

 

[Symbol]

I understand Fiona's pernacity*

That sounds like it might be a personal attack.

I think I may have accidentally made up a word there

I meant something like perspicuity.

 

[Matthew Best]

Well if it is I can see nothing of note. They are clearly gloved, and there is no source for either Sollecito's or Knox's DNA in that room. The comments are froth.

I am not qualified to collect DNA evidence so I can't be sure of anything, but a quick Google turns up Forensic Magazine which says you should "avoid touching areas where you might find DNA. Don’t grab an item the way you—or the suspect— would normally grab the item. If DNA is present, you’re likely to find it in this spot, so protect it by not handling it. Also, when possible, use disposable tools, such as disposable tweezers, to handle evidence. If you don’t have disposable tools, clean the tools thoroughly between dealing with each piece of evidence to avoid cross-contamination."

They appear to be handling the clasp and are not using disposable tools. I don't know if this would make any major difference, but presumably these guidelines are written down for a reason.

 

[quadraginta]

I understand Fiona's pernacity*

That sounds like it might be a personal attack.

I think I may have accidentally made up a word there

I meant something like perspicuity.

Darn.

I thought you were making a clever play on words and just misspelled "pernicity".

You shoulda' kept mum.

 

[shuttlt]

I am not qualified to collect DNA evidence so I can't be sure of anything, but a quick Google turns up Forensic Magazine which says you should "avoid touching areas where you might find DNA. Don’t grab an item the way you—or the suspect— would normally grab the item. If DNA is present, you’re likely to find it in this spot, so protect it by not handling it. Also, when possible, use disposable tools, such as disposable tweezers, to handle evidence. If you don’t have disposable tools, clean the tools thoroughly between dealing with each piece of evidence to avoid cross-contamination."

They appear to be handling the clasp and are not using disposable tools. I don't know if this would make any major difference, but presumably these guidelines are written down for a reason.

I confess, I am not one of the hard working folks who have labored through all the documentation relating to the case, but wasn't the material on the clasp described as if it was more than simply a trace resulting from accidental contamination in the way you imply? I got the impression that it was a decent amount of some undisclosed substance that was stuck on pretty good.

 

[Brainster]

I did some Googling on Halides1 and found that he has some credibility in several of the topics, although he may not be completely up to speed on the individual facts of the case. Just a suggestion for those who are tempted to toss off what he has to say lightly.

As such I thank him as well for his contributions to this thread as well.

 

[Kestrel]

I am not qualified to collect DNA evidence so I can't be sure of anything, but a quick Google turns up Forensic Magazine which says you should "avoid touching areas where you might find DNA. Don’t grab an item the way you—or the suspect— would normally grab the item. If DNA is present, you’re likely to find it in this spot, so protect it by not handling it. Also, when possible, use disposable tools, such as disposable tweezers, to handle evidence. If you don’t have disposable tools, clean the tools thoroughly between dealing with each piece of evidence to avoid cross-contamination."

They appear to be handling the clasp and are not using disposable tools. I don't know if this would make any major difference, but presumably these guidelines are written down for a reason.

Do we know what had they been handling with those gloved hands before they picked up the clasp?

 

[NewtonTrino]

What evidence ties them together in your opinion?

Nothing that I'm aware of other than them being acquaintances.

What makes you think there is no evidence Guede did not act alone?

There isn't NO evidence, there just just a lot of circumstantial evidence. We need a theory of the crime to make this evidence make sense. Otherwise it could just be coincidence.

Like I said I'm completely willing to believe Amanda committed this crime. However, the circumstances of them working together are EXTREMELY UNUSUAL to the point where I personally need a plausible explanation of why they worked together on this. Without that the rest of the very circumstantial case just wouldn't be enough to convict.

It's possible that I have a higher standard for convicting someone of a crime than the average person.

Anyway I still haven't heard a plausible theory of why Amanda would get involved in the rape and murder of a room-mate with someone she barely knows. If all of the evidence was the same but Rudy wasn't involved it would be a simple case. With Rudy in the scene though I think a deeper explanation is needed. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.

I'm also surprised at how many people think that the weak DNA evidence we have in this case is useful at all. From what I'm seeing there were multiple handling issues as well as the fact that AMANDA LIVED IN THE HOUSE!!! That alone makes it suspect!

Sure Amanda has said a lot of stupid stuff. She's just a kid and not a bright one from what I've seen.

Also Raf's potential lie about the knife DNA doesn't suddenly make that evidence valid. I'm extremely skeptical of any test which can't be repeated like in that case. It's just weak evidence.

Again, like I said, the circumstantial case isn't horrible, it's just that it gets demolished without a good reason to tie Amanda and Raf to committing the crime with Rudy (unless he wasn't involved which I can buy but seems even harder to prove).

Halloween sexual rites? Makes no sense.

I'm curious about the post above BTW. Was Rudy really caught in Milan with stolen items and a knife?

Honestly I think I'm being more skeptical than many people on this board. It's up to the prosecution to prove they committed this murder and the proper place for skepticism is to apply it to that.

IMHO this is a weak circumstantial case with very little theory of the crime. No motive and no theory as to why all three would work together. Random 20 year old female college students aren't exactly world renowned for murder.

 

[Matthew Best]

I confess, I am not one of the hard working folks who have labored through all the documentation relating to the case, but wasn't the material on the clasp described as if it was more than simply a trace resulting from accidental contamination in the way you imply? I got the impression that it was a decent amount of some undisclosed substance that was stuck on pretty good.

A comment on this page says there was 1.4 nanograms. I don't know if that's a lot or a little (it doesn't sound like much but this is DNA after all).