Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[lector]

See, that's how it works. You're not guilty, you tell the truth, the truth is verified, and you're released.

That's how it works outside of Texas, anyway.

 

[katy_did]

I'm still interested in my question:

Will you accept the verdict of the appeal court when it comes out they are still guilty? Or is there never a possibility of Amanda and Raffaele being guilty of the murder of poor Meredith?

I'm not sure who this question was addressed to, but in any case speaking for myself, I'll read the verdict and make up my own mind. Unlike the people currently using the verdict as evidence of Knox and Sollecito's guilt, who if they're acquitted, will immediately have to start arguing for their innocence. Fun.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I'm not sure who this question was addressed to, but in any case speaking for myself, I'll read the verdict and make up my own mind. Unlike the people currently using the verdict as evidence of Knox and Sollecito's guilt, who if they're acquitted, will immediately have to start arguing for their innocence. Fun.

Wait...a guilty verdict 'isn't' evidence of their guilt?

And wait some more...will you also be arguing for Mignini's innocence if he's found innocent in 'his' appeal, or Rudy's if he's found innocent in his third degree appeal? Or, do these hypothetical allegiance shifts only apply to the little angels? Somehow, I suspect so. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

summary

And what exactly are the facts that should lead us to believe contamination occurred with knife and/or clasp?

Moss and Piktor,

Dr. Elizabeth Johnson said, “if someone had a knife covered in blood and they tried to clean it very well, they would remove their ability to detect the DNA before they removed the ability to detect the chemical traces of blood.” Therefore, the DNA profile seen in the electropherogram must have arisen from material not on the knife when it was taken into evidence, by definition contamination.

The bra clasp is a different story. Raffaele’s profile was only about 200-300 RFU, roughly sixfold lower than Meredith’s profile, which is at least 1200-1400 RFU. According to the article in the Independent, two other unidentified males contributed to the DNA found there. These two profiles could not be more than roughly tenfold weaker or they would be unobservable. The most fundamental question I can think of is why treat Raffaele’s profile any differently from the other two. If the other (non-Meredith) DNA arose from innocent secondary transfer, why not Raffaele’s DNA? His fingerprints were on the door. The bra clasp was dusty by the time it was collected, and the gloves of one of the person handling it were dirty. The forensic technicians handled it excessively (IIRC, General Garofano said as much in Darkness Descending), leading to the possibility of contamination as an alternative to secondary transfer.

The Johnson/Hampikian letter states, “DNA testing cannot determine how biological material was deposited onto an item of evidence: whether by direct deposit, or by secondary transfer through an intermediary.” Contamination events have been known to produce both partial (usually meaning low quality) and full DNA profiles. In other words there is no reason to rule out contamination or secondary transfer, according to the open letter.

 

[piktor]

I'm not sure who this question was addressed to, but in any case speaking for myself, I'll read the verdict and make up my own mind. Unlike the people currently using the verdict as evidence of Knox and Sollecito's guilt, who if they're acquitted, will immediately have to start arguing for their innocence. Fun.

A person is dead. Not fun at all.

This is a search for truth, not a game of gotcha.

 

[Moss]

I'm not sure who this question was addressed to, but in any case speaking for myself, I'll read the verdict and make up my own mind. Unlike the people currently using the verdict as evidence of Knox and Sollecito's guilt, who if they're acquitted, will immediately have to start arguing for their innocence. Fun.

Well, the verdict is the result of the sum of evidence presented and the ruminations of qualified experts. Those together managed to persuade a judge of the guilt of Raffaele and Amanda. You can take THAT as evidence of a sound case.
I laud your willingness to read and think about the verdict. Better than a gut reaction.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Dr. Elizabeth Johnson said,

Oh FFS, Johnson again...give us a break.

Nobody cares about your johnson Chris.

 

[Moss]

Moss and Piktor,

Dr. Elizabeth Johnson said, “if someone had a knife covered in blood and they tried to clean it very well, they would remove their ability to detect the DNA before they removed the ability to detect the chemical traces of blood.” Therefore, the DNA profile seen in the electropherogram must have arisen from material not on the knife when it was taken into evidence, by definition contamination.

The bra clasp is a different story. Raffaele’s profile was only about 200-300 RFU, roughly sixfold lower than Meredith’s profile, which is at least 1200-1400 RFU. According to the article in the Independent, two other unidentified males contributed to the DNA found there. These two profiles could not be more than roughly tenfold weaker or they would be unobservable. The most fundamental question I can think of is why treat Raffaele’s profile any differently from the other two. If the other (non-Meredith) DNA arose from innocent secondary transfer, why not Raffaele’s DNA? His fingerprints were on the door. The bra clasp was dusty by the time it was collected, and the gloves of one of the person handling it were dirty. The forensic technicians handled it excessively (IIRC, General Garofano said as much in Darkness Descending), leading to the possibility of contamination as an alternative to secondary transfer.

The Johnson/Hampikian letter states, “DNA testing cannot determine how biological material was deposited onto an item of evidence: whether by direct deposit, or by secondary transfer through an intermediary.” Contamination events have been known to produce both partial (usually meaning low quality) and full DNA profiles. In other words there is no reason to rule out contamination or secondary transfer, according to the open letter.

The question I have about the DNA on the knife is whether remains of cut tissue could produce a DNA traces without reacting to a blood test. Therefore if there is a third option different from either DNA from removed blood or DNA from contamination.

We have no means of knowing how the two other DNA profiles came to the clasp. The letter you cite clearly states the same. So why should we assume the two profiles came there by secondary transfer?
And even if we assume they were deposited there by secondary transfer, why does it automatically follow that Raffaele's DNA came there the same way? The strength of the deposited DNA does make a difference in that regard.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The question I have about the DNA on the knife is whether remains of cut tissue could produce a DNA traces without reacting to a blood test.

Yes, of course...because cut tissue isn't blood.

 

[piktor]

Moss and Piktor,

Dr. Elizabeth Johnson said, “if someone had a knife covered in blood and they tried to clean it very well, they would remove their ability to detect the DNA before they removed the ability to detect the chemical traces of blood.” Therefore, the DNA profile seen in the electropherogram must have arisen from material not on the knife when it was taken into evidence, by definition contamination.

The bra clasp is a different story. Raffaele’s profile was only about 200-300 RFU, roughly sixfold lower than Meredith’s profile, which is at least 1200-1400 RFU. According to the article in the Independent, two other unidentified males contributed to the DNA found there. These two profiles could not be more than roughly tenfold weaker or they would be unobservable. The most fundamental question I can think of is why treat Raffaele’s profile any differently from the other two. If the other (non-Meredith) DNA arose from innocent secondary transfer, why not Raffaele’s DNA? His fingerprints were on the door. The bra clasp was dusty by the time it was collected, and the gloves of one of the person handling it were dirty. The forensic technicians handled it excessively (IIRC, General Garofano said as much in Darkness Descending), leading to the possibility of contamination as an alternative to secondary transfer.

The Johnson/Hampikian letter states, “DNA testing cannot determine how biological material was deposited onto an item of evidence: whether by direct deposit, or by secondary transfer through an intermediary.” Contamination events have been known to produce both partial (usually meaning low quality) and full DNA profiles. In other words there is no reason to rule out contamination or secondary transfer, according to the open letter.

You can throw away the knife evidence and the bra clasp with it and still you have enough evidence to convict.

As I stated before, the prosecution theory is solid and convincing. The defence cannot tear it down.

The defendants are betting on dismissal on technical grounds or on reduced jail time on appeal. They have locked themselves in a shroud of incredible explanations because they know the truth would send them to longer sentences than already have been handed them.

Knox in particular is the one creating the grander snow job. She is the one with the most to hide.

The three have not come clean. They have no credibility. At all.

They can only wait for the prosecution to trip and then for the judges to set them free. Clear as a pool of mountain spring water.

 

[katy_did]

Wait...a guilty verdict 'isn't' evidence of their guilt?

And wait some more...will you also be arguing for Mignini's innocence if he's found innocent in 'his' appeal, or Rudy's if he's found innocent in his third degree appeal? Or, do these hypothetical allegiance shifts only apply to the little angels? Somehow, I suspect so. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong.

Noooo Fulcanelli, a verdict isn't 'evidence'.

And yes, of course: if people are found innocent, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Don't you think? What will your reaction be, if Knox and Sollecito are acquitted?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Noooo Fulcanelli, a verdict isn't 'evidence'.

And yes, of course: if people are found innocent, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Don't you think? What will your reaction be, if Knox and Sollecito are acquitted?

Katy, I think you see the World in a rather warped way. A guilty verdict is evidence of guilt since it is the final assessment of the sum total of evidence of guilt...it is the 'conclusion'. And it has authority, since it has followed a 'process'.

As for if they're found innocent...you may as well ask me what I'd do if I won the £56 million lottery tomorrow. It's a silly question as it will never happen and therefore, there's little point in my answering such questions.

 

[quadraginta]

I'm not American, so I'm not familiar with the cases you mention. As I understand it, the jury in Italy are permitted to follow press coverage of the case in a way they wouldn't be allowed to do under other legal systems, and the press are not restricted in their coverage of the case in the same way as they would be in other countries.

Clearly, this is a potential problem in terms of the jury being influenced by factors outside the courtroom. If it also takes place in America, then obviously it's a problem there too. National differences are relevant in so far as there are always going to be specific problems relating to a particular country's legal system, so in that sense I can't really see the problem in pointing those issues out. If they exist in America as well, then by all means let's say there are similar problems there too.

If you are not American then what is the authority that you bring to the discussion when you present the claim that the American system is fundamentally superior to the Italian system, and that such imagined flaws were even more egregious as far as the Knox case in particular is concerned.

There are many sources available reviewing the Knox/Sollecito trial. The only ones making such baseless and prejudiced slurs against Italian jurisprudence as a substitute for rational analysis are the ones associated with the Friends Of ...

Oh. Yeah.

Never mind.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

That's how it works outside of Texas, anyway.

Interesting. I lived in Texas and my experience was that as long as you weren't guilty, telling the truth exonerated you just as readily as any other state...

Of course, as with any dealings with any legal system: YMMV.

ETA: Forgot the smiley...

 

[katy_did]

If you are not American then what is the authority that you bring to the discussion when you present the claim that the American system is fundamentally superior to the Italian system, and that such imagined flaws were even more egregious as far as the Knox case in particular is concerned.

There are many sources available reviewing the Knox/Sollecito trial. The only ones making such baseless and prejudiced slurs against Italian jurisprudence as a substitute for rational analysis are the ones associated with the Friends Of ...

Oh. Yeah.

Never mind.

When on earth did I claim that the American system is fundamentally superior to the Italian system?

 

[katy_did]

Katy, I think you see the World in a rather warped way. A guilty verdict is evidence of guilt since it is the final assessment of the sum total of evidence of guilt...it is the 'conclusion'. And it has authority, since it has followed a 'process'.

As for if they're found innocent...you may as well ask me what I'd do if I won the £56 million lottery tomorrow. It's a silly question as it will never happen and therefore, there's little point in my answering such questions.

Except that this guilty verdict is not the 'final assessment' of their guilt, and in fact they're still innocent until the final appeal.

As for your second point, that's a cop out as I'm sure you're well aware. I answered your hypothetical scenario about Guede being innocent, and there's more evidence against him than any of them. Very interesting that you can't even bring yourself to answer, though...

 

[BobTheDonkey]

And what exactly are the facts that should lead us to believe contamination occurred with knife and/or clasp?

That's a no-brainer. The fact that Sollecito and Knox are implicated is sufficient to cause 100% doubt in the lab results. Duh.

 

[quadraginta]

I'm still interested in my question:

Will you accept the verdict of the appeal court when it comes out they are still guilty? Or is there never a possibility of Amanda and Raffaele being guilty of the murder of poor Meredith?

I have a premonition that this may join the ever-growing list of direct questions which are unsubtly evaded unanswered.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Moss and Piktor,

Dr. Elizabeth Johnson said, “if someone had a knife covered in blood and they tried to clean it very well, they would remove their ability to detect the DNA before they removed the ability to detect the chemical traces of blood.” Therefore, the DNA profile seen in the electropherogram must have arisen from material not on the knife when it was taken into evidence, by definition contamination.

The bra clasp is a different story. Raffaele’s profile was only about 200-300 RFU, roughly sixfold lower than Meredith’s profile, which is at least 1200-1400 RFU. According to the article in the Independent, two other unidentified males contributed to the DNA found there. These two profiles could not be more than roughly tenfold weaker or they would be unobservable. The most fundamental question I can think of is why treat Raffaele’s profile any differently from the other two. If the other (non-Meredith) DNA arose from innocent secondary transfer, why not Raffaele’s DNA? His fingerprints were on the door. The bra clasp was dusty by the time it was collected, and the gloves of one of the person handling it were dirty. The forensic technicians handled it excessively (IIRC, General Garofano said as much in Darkness Descending), leading to the possibility of contamination as an alternative to secondary transfer.

The Johnson/Hampikian letter states, “DNA testing cannot determine how biological material was deposited onto an item of evidence: whether by direct deposit, or by secondary transfer through an intermediary.” Contamination events have been known to produce both partial (usually meaning low quality) and full DNA profiles. In other words there is no reason to rule out contamination or secondary transfer, according to the open letter.

Really? There are no cells that carry DNA other than blood cells?

Interesting. So then Sollecito's blood was found on the bra clasp? Now the plot just thickens even more. How did not just his skin cells but his blood find it's way to the clasp?

ETA: Oh, I see we're going with contamination at the crime scene:

Ok. Explain where the contamination came from that his DNA was found in solely one other place (a cigarette butt in the kitchen).

 

[Fulcanelli]

Except that this guilty verdict is not the 'final assessment' of their guilt, and in fact they're still innocent until the final appeal.

As for your second point, that's a cop out as I'm sure you're well aware. I answered your hypothetical scenario about Guede being innocent, and there's more evidence against him than any of them. Very interesting that you can't even bring yourself to answer, though...

So it's meaningless? Really, you guys are working so hard to sweep the trial and the verdict under the rug...'we don't like what it said, so we'll just erase it from history'.

Except, the first trial and it's verdict is the most crucial...88% of first degree verdicts stand. That can't be swept under any rug.

As for your question, the answer depends on several factors.