Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[stilicho]

Stilicho,

....

I do not have any reason to think that they hired the wrong expert. Please bear in mind that this comment is intended primarily as a summary; therefore, I suggest that people replying to this comment focus on whether it accurately summarizes the positions of Professors Tagliabracci and Hampkinian. I am particularly eager for people to address any omissions I have made or for someone to summarize Professor Tagliabracci’s report. A follow-up comment will be my attempt to evaluate the DNA data. Thank you for your patience when I attended to other matters.

Chris

Hi Chris:

I agree they didn't hire the wrong expert. In fact, I will take a wild stab at it to suggest that the appeal won't use the nine experts' tack on the DNA, either, but to repeat and probably emphasise the same arguments without supplying a definitive narrative to explain the rest of the evidence against AK and RS.

It's also clear to me that this thread is veering far away from the "Social Issues and Current Events" section and well into the "Science and Technology" section at the JREF. Almost all the discussion over the past ten or so pages has focused on the DNA evidence.

We should be able to agree that the defence, on appeal, is going to have to do a lot more than simply cast aspersions on the DNA evidence. Maybe the DNA discussion should be started on a separate thread in "Science and Technology" where a broader discussion might take place that evaluates the techniques employed by various agencies in different jurisdictions. Think about it like this. The Perugia murder case didn't hinge on DNA evidence but other equally high profile cases have and maybe there are broader implications.

 

[stilicho]

It's rather clear at this point that you don't understand the problem. Assume one of the technicians accidentally contaminated himself with DNA from the living room. Perhaps sitting on the couch while putting on his suit. He then goes into the Meredith's bedroom and handles the bra clasp. While doing so, some of the material from the living room is transferred to the clasp. Since the contamination happened during the second evidence collection, it would not affect any items from the first collection.

You'll have to enlighten me, Kestrel. How much dust would have to be collected for 1.4 nanograms of Sollecito's DNA to be transferred from the gloves (actually the dust on the gloves) to the bra clasp? Does dust collect DNA 47 days after a crime scene is sealed? I had thought that DNA is primarily left by bodily fluids which would have necessarily dried before any dust collected on it.

If this weren't the case then wouldn't the forensics team find DNA everywhere? Dust tends to stir even by mere air currents.

Moreover, you keep talking about the forensics team suiting up in the living room. Do you have any evidence they did this? I had thought they suited up somewhere there would be no possibility of such dusty/DNA/material contamination.

We do know that the bra clasp was contaminated to some extent, because the tests picked up DNA from unknown persons.

The traces were very small--possibly untestable. IIRC, they were female and likely would have been those of Laura and Filomena since they shared laundry facilities at the suite.

 

[stilicho]

What is the truth about the washing machine? I lack the time to read all the available transcripts and my brain is starting hurt with all the contradictory statements about very basic things like this that should be trivial to establish. Either the police did, or didn't say that the machine was running.

It is dizzying, isn't it?

The confusion about the washing machine is deliberately spun (pun intended) by FOA because the officers who discovered it running were the Postal Police and the officers who arrived after the cycle ended were the Carabinieri. Two different groups of police.

It was Filomena who testified that the machine was warm which led investigators to finding Meredith's clothes inside. This was damning evidence because it meant that Meredith could not have possibly been the one who started it to wash her own clothes, having been dead for some time. Investigators later found traces of her own blood on them.

 

[William Parcher]

So the clothing in the washer did belong to the victim and it did have traces of her blood. Was it determined that these clothes were not worn by the victim during the murder? Laying nearby the murder location and got splashed with blood?

 

[stilicho]

So the clothing in the washer did belong to the victim and it did have traces of her blood. Was it determined that these clothes were not worn by the victim during the murder? Laying nearby the murder location and got splashed with blood?

Oh boy. Now I'm going to have to go back and find that?

I don't want to go on fishing expeditions and I can only relay to you the information known and supplied as evidence at the trial. I had thought they were clothes that Meredith was wearing before she was murdered but maybe they were other clothes in the room.

Would that make a difference? If so, what difference?

I believe the washing machine was only presented to furnish the prosecutor's case with evidence that someone who was not Meredith had found a reason to clean blood from clothing found at the crime scene. Since it was warm, was operating when the Postal Police arrived, and had been wiped of prints, it was support for the narrative that whoever had cleaned the footprints from the hallway had also washed Meredith's clothes.

 

[JihadJane]

Perhaps we'll leave that to those judges who were present at his cross examination on the stand to decide. In the meantime, you can continue to apologise for them.





Yes, the laughing and joking, that's what I said in my post. Does laughing and joking rule out their likelihood of planning to have sex? It was the day after her house mate had been found butchered in her room. Just as an observer, they didn't seem to be too cut up about it (no pun intended).



I'm sure you'll think up thousands for us.

So does your claim that the couple were "very turned on" when they were buying underwear have any foundation whatsoever?

 

[Fulcanelli]

He didn't have to. All it would take is one of the evidence technicians being contaminated with his DNA from the living room.

Regardless of the claims made in this thread, they could not have tested everything in the apartment. If they did, the number of tests would have to be in the thousands. Notice that even in the room where the murder occurred, they didn't remove all the objects for testing.

I do not agree with this argument (for as I've stated earlier, the volume on the clasp is too high to have been transferred by a third party. The amount shows Raffaele touched the clasp directly).

But in any case, could you not make exactly the same argument if the clasp was picked up on day one? Could not the exact same argument be made for any DNA evidence found in the cottage? Could not the same arguments be made for the DNA found in any crime scene in any case ('they picked up the DNA while walking to the evidence and transferred it')? Isn't it basically an argument to throw the usage of DNA evidence in criminal cases out period? And don't you think forensic departments will be aware of any such dangers as these if they exist and have protocols in place to prevent such things happening?

You seem to like clutching at straws quite a lot.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli,

You wrote,
Quote:
he Perugia News Digest on 18 July 2009 reported the testimony
the examination of the bra-clasp followed incorrect protocols (4): in the collection of the evidence, in its analysis, and in interpretation (4): the evidence can be given no weight: ‘it cannot be considered as bona fide evidence” (4) “given the inappropriate and anomalous collection methodology” (3, 4) [end quote]
But quoted 'who' as saying that? Not the judge, that's for sure. It wasn't the experts for the prosecution or the victims either, so who's left?

Halides1 one, I didn't write a single word of what you've quoted me as saying there.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Wow. What was his explanation for that?

Because they had Meredith's blood all over them.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcinelli,

You wrote, “There is no noise on the sample. All the peaks match Meredith's locus. Even Amanda and Raffaele's own experts are not arguing that it isn't Meredith's DNA, that's beyond doubt.”

My friend, I think you are using the word “noise” differently from spectroscopists. None of the peaks in the electropherogram in question had a signal-to-noise value that was greater than about 100; therefore, the noise could not have been zero. Whether the signal that is observed is Meredith’s DNA is exactly what is in dispute here.

Chris

Compare the graphs. Meredith's peaks only, no noise in between them.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Why was DNA found just the on bra clasp and not on Meredith's body?

Chris

Why does it have to be? Guede's wasn't.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It's rather clear at this point that you don't understand the problem. Assume one of the technicians accidentally contaminated himself with DNA from the living room. Perhaps sitting on the couch while putting on his suit. He then goes into the Meredith's bedroom and handles the bra clasp. While doing so, some of the material from the living room is transferred to the clasp. Since the contamination happened during the second evidence collection, it would not affect any items from the first collection.

We do know that the bra clasp was contaminated to some extent, because the tests picked up DNA from unknown persons.

I doubt they'd sit on a sofa to put on their suits since they put them on outside before entering the cottage. I also don't think any of them then went into Meredith's bedroom and sat on the clasp.

 

[Fulcanelli]

So the clothing in the washer did belong to the victim and it did have traces of her blood. Was it determined that these clothes were not worn by the victim during the murder? Laying nearby the murder location and got splashed with blood?

No traces of blood on the clothing in the washing machine. At least, no such traces were reported as being found.

 

[Fulcanelli]

So does your claim that the couple were "very turned on" when they were buying underwear have any foundation whatsoever?

Does it really matter? The witness reported they were having a good time, getting frisky and were talking about going home and having hot sex. Make of it what you will, accept it or don't.

 

[William Parcher]

No traces of blood on the clothing in the washing machine. At least, no such traces were reported as being found.

But...

This was damning evidence because it meant that Meredith could not have possibly been the one who started it to wash her own clothes, having been dead for some time. Investigators later found traces of her own blood on them.

I hate this thread.

 

[Fulcanelli]

No, they weren't bloody. That's why the washing machine wasn't a key feature in the trial.

But, there is an issue with 'washing'. Amanda took an empty plastic bag to the cottage in the morning. She claimed this was to pick up dirty washing. Amanda maintained she never used the washing machine in the cottage because it was broken (which is clearly false) and always used a launderette instead. Yet, there is no mention in her story of actually collecting any washing or taking any back to Raffaele's. So, 'what' was this bag for and what happened to it and any of its contents?

 

[Kestrel]

But...



I hate this thread.

Some of the "facts" posted in this thread may be nothing more than rumors. Especially those posted without any indication of source.

Given this, contradictions are to be expected.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Some of the "facts" posted in this thread may be nothing more than rumors. Especially those posted without any indication of source.

Given this, contradictions are to be expected.

What, like CSI's sitting on sofas?

 

[Kestrel]

What, like CSI's sitting on sofas?

If you can parse English, you should have noticed that this was clearly presented as speculation. An example showing one way that items in one room could be contaminated with material from another room.

This is different from stilicho posting "investigators later found blood on them" without a source for this information.

 

[piktor]

Character evidence

One important element considered by the Perugia jury was the ''character'' of the convicted. It was a convincing portrait and it sold.

One high police official said that their careful psychological observations solved the case for them.

This might sound preposterous but it did the job. There are more instances from other authorities, of perceptions leading to conclusions. There is a lot of human watching and storytelling that rang true to the jury. The defense did not match and overwhelm the prosecution with their alternative narrative for the defendants. The defendants themselves have no credibility.

The NBC Dateline show on the case mentions ''Character Evidence'' of equal weight as forensic evidence in Italy @4:30. This is an Italian court and the rules are different, the mindset is different, the weight of physical, forensic and psychological evidence that lead to unique conclusions. Listen also to Barbie Nadeau @5:00. She has been at the trial and translates what impressed her from what she heard there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGnWCwbI0Qk