Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Kestrel]

Kestrel, you have to bear in mind that the torn bra was placed next to the underwear, next to the pants. This is a rape scene with the torn clothing off the victim in full display at the feet of the victim, aligned and improbably neat and conveniently displayed at the victim's feet. Lest the people watching the crime scene might be lost in a jungle of fathomless mystery.

It has been established that the pants, underwear and soxs were pulled off the victim post-mortem.

Now I will refer you to this photo and you tell me after pulling the underwear and pants off the victim, if one leg will pull itself up in the position it is or more likely would remain like the left leg which is perfectly straight:

http://i35.tinypic.com/v6t6qs.jpg

It seems you don't understand the nature of proof. You assert that the pants, underwear and socks were pulled off post-mortem, but don't provide evidence to back it up. Is it simply blood patterns this is based on, or do the Italian police have a magic box that detects post-mortem clothing removal?

The fact that Rudy Guede's DNA was found inside Meredith also doesn't fit with your assertion that the victims clothing could only have been removed hours after the crime.

 

[quadraginta]

From the evidence presented so far, it cannot be concluded whether the incident occurred or not. From reading the passages in Raffaele's diary, I believe that an incident similar to what he describes had happened. It could have been a different knife, it may not have been in his apartment and possibly did not even involve Meredith. But in the two days following the devastating news of the DNA found on the knife, Raffaele mind had constructed from this seed of a memory an imagined (or possibly dreamed) recreation of the event with the current cast. These two days were a period of high stress for Raffaele where a dream could become indistinguishable from a real memory.

Ahh! 'Constructed-Imagined/Dreamed Seed Recreation Memory'. Of course!

Is this in the same part of the DSM as 'Induced False Memory'?

Now you are lying. There is no evidence that says it didn't happen. Only a lack of evidence that says it did.

You seem to have less trouble accusing random strangers of lying than you do two convicted murderers.

So. Was Knox "lying" when she said Meredith hadn't been at Sollecito's?

Or was it 'Induced False Memory'?

Or 'Constructed-Imagined/Dreamed Seed Recreation Memory'?

 

[quadraginta]

Are we to believe both Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are mentally fragile enough that a time of high stress leads to the fornation of false memories?

Apparently. And in times of low stress ... or even no stress.

Not to mention similar impediments to memory recall.

Studying for school must have been quite a challenge.

 

[quadraginta]

It seems you don't understand the nature of proof. You assert that the pants, underwear and socks were pulled off post-mortem, but don't provide evidence to back it up. Is it simply blood patterns this is based on, or do the Italian police have a magic box that detects post-mortem clothing removal?

The fact that Rudy Guede's DNA was found inside Meredith also doesn't fit with your assertion that the victims clothing could only have been removed hours after the crime.

So. Kestrel. Tell us all what you really think. In simple language. Answer this one question . Yes or no.

Are you saying that you do not believe that Meredith's body was moved post-mortem and before it was discovered by the police?

Why are you dodging this very simple question? Are you that afraid to commit yourself to anything which may cast a doubt on your position concerning Sollecito and Knox's sterling virtue and absolute innocence?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

It seems you don't understand the nature of proof. You assert that the pants, underwear and socks were pulled off post-mortem, but don't provide evidence to back it up. Is it simply blood patterns this is based on, or do the Italian police have a magic box that detects post-mortem clothing removal?

The fact that Rudy Guede's DNA was found inside Meredith also doesn't fit with your assertion that the victims clothing could only have been removed hours after the crime.

Have you bothered to read the report, Kestrel? No? It shows.

This wasn't, exactly, the cowboy's first rodeo - as the saying goes. This wasn't the first time a murder has ever occurred, nor was it the first murder investigation in recorded history. It wasn't even the first death in recorded history.


Do you believe Meredith's body was moved after her death? Yes or No.

 

[Kestrel]

Are we to believe both Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are mentally fragile enough that a time of high stress leads to the fornation of false memories?

The commonly held belief is that our memories are like a TIVO box, we simply replay the recording and it shows exactly what happened. The scientific view is a lot different. It recognizes that our memories of an event can be altered, even by something as trivial as the choice of words used when asking us about an event.

When common wisdom conflicts with science, a skeptic should take the side of science.

 

[Moss]

The commonly held belief is that our memories are like a TIVO box, we simply replay the recording and it shows exactly what happened. The scientific view is a lot different. It recognizes that our memories of an event can be altered, even by something as trivial as the choice of words used when asking us about an event.

When common wisdom conflicts with science, a skeptic should take the side of science.

I'm rather well acquainted both with the experience of the malleability of memory and the scientific stance on how we recall memories.
And that's exactly why I think there is a big difference between a variances of recall of a specific event and fabricating it out of the whole cloth like was postulated in the case of the Sollecito knife story.

 

[Alt+F4]

The commonly held belief is that our memories are like a TIVO box, we simply replay the recording and it shows exactly what happened. The scientific view is a lot different. It recognizes that our memories of an event can be altered, even by something as trivial as the choice of words used when asking us about an event.

When common wisdom conflicts with science, a skeptic should take the side of science.

What you are saying might be true but it has nothing to do with Raffaele's lie. There was no "event" and no one asked him about it.

The point of writing a prison diary is for the accused to get his or her side of the story out without being subjected to police questioning. Raffaele chose to explain how Meredith's DNA got on the big knife. Are you calling him a liar?

 

[quadraginta]

The commonly held belief is that our memories are like a TIVO box, we simply replay the recording and it shows exactly what happened. The scientific view is a lot different. It recognizes that our memories of an event can be altered, even by something as trivial as the choice of words used when asking us about an event.

When common wisdom conflicts with science, a skeptic should take the side of science.

We are learning many important things in this thread.

1) A suspect's statements can consist of any allegation, inconsistency, or fabrication whatsoever without in any way reflecting on the veracity of said statements. Anyone taking such issues into account while evaluating these statements is not being "scientific".

2) DNA is utterly worthless as a forensic tool. The mere potential for incompetence and evil intent make it completely unreliable, regardless of the total absence of any evidence of such problems.

3) No aspect of a suspect's actions or behavior should ever be considered indicative of possible complicity or guilt.

4) Anything potentially damaging to a suspect which can be explained away by any interpretation or flight of fancy at all must be considered only in the most exculpatory fashion possible (i.e. "reasonable doubt".)

Anyone want to add to the list?

It is obvious to the most simple of minds. The failure to adhere to these basic standards of jurisprudence is proof of the corruption and xenophobia inherent in the primitive Italian legal system.

QED

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA: the good, the bad, and the ugly

We are learning many important things in this thread.

2) DNA is utterly worthless as a forensic tool. The mere potential for incompetence and evil intent make it completely unreliable, regardless of the total absence of any evidence of such problems.
QED

Quadraginta,

No one on this thread, certainly not I, has come close to saying anything like what I have quoted above from you. One has to look at some good electropherograms before one fully appreciates how bad the knife electropherogram looks by comparison.

Chris

 

[Oliebol]

Do you accept Meredith's body was moved, stripped and rearranged after her death or not?

I don't remember any evidence presented in court on the body being moved hours after death either. What day was that and who was the expert?

Here is what Luciano Garofano, Carabinieri and supposedly Italy's top forensic scientist had to say in 'Darkness Descending':

"Look at the clotted blood. Where there are large blood clots indicates that she was long enough in that position to create a puddle of blood. Whith that kind of wound it wouldn't have taken long - tens of seconds, not minutes"
Then while she is bleeding, so still alive, she is flipped over and moved to a supine position where her wound continues to bleed into the corner between the wall and the wardrobe.
...
The fact that the autopsy says there are droplets on her chest indicates that she was still coughing when supine." p.383,4

 

[quadraginta]

Quadraginta,

No one on this thread, certainly not I, has come close to saying anything like what I have quoted above from you. One has to look at some good electropherograms before one fully appreciates how bad the knife electropherogram looks by comparison.

Chris

Taken as a whole the efforts in this thread to discount the DNA evidence have ranged from vague aspersions upon collection technique, to vague aspersions upon lab technique, to allegations of possible incompetence by the lead scientist, to allegations of possible duplicity and collaboration between the lab and the prosecution, to theories of mystically targeted flying DNA, to endless litanies of other cases on other continents concerning other labs with problems of their own unrelated to this case. Etc., etc. Your rather feeble protestations about result interpretations, protestations which you refuse to back up with any commitment of your own, are only a small contribution to the overall noise.

I think my summary is a fairly accurate review of the cumulative message concerning DNA evidence by Knox partisans. Most of these objections could be applied to any DNA evidence. And frequently are. Many defense "experts" make a respectable living attempting to discount evidence in exactly this fashion. Some of them are in the employ of Knox's defenders in the media. You yourself have cited some of them.

It is a pity that they were not involved in the actual trial, where they could be interviewed while under oath. Do you suppose that would have helped Knox's case?

 

[lane99]

I've no idea who Funnacello is, but perhaps you are referring to these posts:

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showpost.php?p=13869689&postcount=334

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showpost.php?p=13873282&postcount=343

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showpost.php?p=13873285&postcount=344

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showpost.php?p=13873291&postcount=346

All can be found on this page here: http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?p=13874492&posted=1#post13874492

I'm just guessing, deductive skills and all that, but would that be what you were talking about?


Now, tell us about all about the 'lies' about the mop again...if you would?

I certainly challenge anyone to review that thread and then go on record here denying it's a manifest example of you willfully misleading readers.

And, incidentally, until someone does, you're speaking for yourself. So there's no "us" for me to tell anything to.

Unless you're including those other "people" who's voices you've admitted hearing screaming in your head on a nightly basis.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

General Garofano

Taken as a whole the efforts in this thread to discount the DNA evidence have ranged from vague aspersions upon collection technique, to vague aspersions upon lab technique, to allegations of possible incompetence by the lead scientist, to allegations of possible duplicity and collaboration between the lab and the prosecution, to theories of mystically targeted flying DNA, to endless litanies of other cases on other continents concerning other labs with problems of their own unrelated to this case. Etc., etc. Your rather feeble protestations about result interpretations, protestations which you refuse to back up with any commitment of your own, are only a small contribution to the overall noise.

I think my summary is a fairly accurate review of the cumulative message concerning DNA evidence by Knox partisans. Most of these objections could be applied to any DNA evidence. And frequently are. Many defense "experts" make a respectable living attempting to discount evidence in exactly this fashion. Some of them are in the employ of Knox's defenders in the media. You yourself have cited some of them.

It is a pity that they were not involved in the actual trial, where they could be interviewed while under oath. Do you suppose that would have helped Knox's case?

Contrary to your assertions, those of us who have been critical of the DNA forensics have linked videos and lists of correct protocols for evidence handling. Nothing vague about it.

Dr. Elizabeth Johnson used to work in the forensics lab in Houston. Thus your implication that the signers of the open letter are always on the side of the defense is wrong. Nor is it true that the only people to raise questions about the DNA forensics are Americans. General Garofano did so in Darkness Descending. Moreover, no one was paid to write the open letter. I think that the defense’s expert witnesses could have done a slightly better job, and quite possibly people such as Dr. Krane or Dr. Johnson would have made for a more effective defense for either Knox or Sollecito.

I did not offer an opinion on the likelihood of the knife profile’s being Meredith’s DNA for several reasons. I have backed up my positions with citations from the primary literature and textbooks. But the more central question is how did the profile originate, and on that issue I have been unequivocal. And contrary to your words, the objection raised in the letter, the lack of blood on the knife, is not something that applies in most cases.

 

[lane99]

Thanks for clarifying that, lane. I completely agree with you, there are quite a few claims presented as fact which when you look into them, either turn out to be completely false or a total distortion of the truth.

Another claim I've heard thrown about is the idea that the defence were responsible for the 46 day delay in the collection of the bra clasp. This was presented completely unsourced on PMF, and I then saw it repeated on various comments threads and forums, again totally unsourced. I suspect this is another 'fact' which, if we were to look into it, would turn out to be rather less true than the person posting it would like us to believe.

You're welcome, Katy (although it was actually another poster-sorry I can't remember exactly who- that clarifed the point. I just commented on it, in passing).

PMF is pretty much as waste of time for anyone interested in an honest examination of this case. It's essentially a cult website run by people with an ax to grind who shamelessly pollute the internet with misinformation.

 

[quadraginta]

Contrary to your assertions, those of us who have been critical of the DNA forensics have linked videos and lists of correct protocols for evidence handling. Nothing vague about it.

Dr. Elizabeth Johnson used to work in the forensics lab in Houston. Thus your implication that the signers of the open letter are always on the side of the defense is wrong. Nor is it true that the only people to raise questions about the DNA forensics are Americans. General Garofano did so in Darkness Descending. Moreover, no one was paid to write the open letter. I think that the defense’s expert witnesses could have done a slightly better job, and quite possibly people such as Dr. Krane or Dr. Johnson would have made for a more effective defense for either Knox or Sollecito.

I did not offer an opinion on the likelihood of the knife profile’s being Meredith’s DNA for several reasons. I have backed up my positions with citations from the primary literature and textbooks. But the more central question is how did the profile originate, and on that issue I have been unequivocal. And contrary to your words, the objection raised in the letter, the lack of blood on the knife, is not something that applies in most cases.

I'll bet you were wizard at dodge-ball. That is an excellent job of ducking what I said. The highlighted parts are not your best efforts at mis-characterization, though.

Your first sentence however is just plain wrong. The thread is rife with insinuation, innuendo, and weird comparisons to other trials as some sort of purported demolition of this trial's circumstances. The DNA discussions have not been at all immune from this. That some few of you (mostly you) have increased the dilution by data-dumping only adds to the homeopathic approach taken towards attempts at Knox's defense.

The ludicrous efforts to discount Sollecito's own desperate attempt to rationalize the presence of Meredith's DNA on the knife are alone sufficient to indicate what a travesty the other protestations amount to. He certainly exhibited no doubt that there was reason for it to be found which didn't require hypothetical bad lab work to explain away.

 

[tsig]

What you are saying might be true but it has nothing to do with Raffaele's lie. There was no "event" and no one asked him about it.

The point of writing a prison diary is for the accused to get his or her side of the story out without being subjected to police questioning. Raffaele chose to explain how Meredith's DNA got on the big knife. Are you calling him a liar?

The only thing that counts is Amanda's innocence. Facts and Amanda's own statements can be ignored or twisted as long as we hold to the first principle.

 

[tsig]

Quadraginta,

No one on this thread, certainly not I, has come close to saying anything like what I have quoted above from you. One has to look at some good electropherograms before one fully appreciates how bad the knife electropherogram looks by comparison.

Chris

And did you come to this conclusion as you ran the tests on the knife or did you figure it out later?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

electropherogram

And did you come to this conclusion as you ran the tests on the knife or did you figure it out later?

tsig,

The electropherogram can be viewed in a number of places on the web. I have written on about it extensively upthread, in #2599 IIRC.

Chris

 

[Chris_Halkides]

plain wrong?

I'll bet you were wizard at dodge-ball. That is an excellent job of ducking what I said. The highlighted parts are not your best efforts at mis-characterization, though.

Your first sentence however is just plain wrong.

Quadraginta,

In my first sentence of comment #3754, I stated that I had linked to videos and protocols. Your statement is false. In comments #637 and #1244 I did link to videos, and in comment #807 I linked to a document that dealt with good forensic practice at the point of case review.

Chris