Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[HumanityBlues]

According to this article quoting Professor Mastronardi, the Italian courts do recognize graphology.





It would be nice to track down the original article published in Il Messaggero in October of 2009 . All I have found so far is the translation on Perugia Murder File.

It's amazing the kind of idiocy people think pass for science. A lot of psychics make idiotic claims like this and then say they're backed up by science too under the guise of "parapsychology".

 

[nicole]

...to experience visions, to enter a state of confusion, to be overcome by imaginings...

Well, this certainly covers Rudy, the Police, most of the prosecution witnesses and Mignini himself, plus a sizeable minority (not all, by no means all) of those in another place, maybe.

I am reliably informed by my unnamed contacts who are "in the know" that this malaise can be induced by being caught with one's finger in the till, failing to record 'peaceable' Q&A sessions, media persuasion/cheques, a fat salary and ego to match, Schadenfreude, or, in the case you mention, being knocked about by police during an interrogation.

 

[stilicho]

...being knocked about by police during an interrogation...

When did this happen? To whom? Cite?

Anyhow, this is an attempt to derail. I am actually curious. Did the affliction I mentioned come with any expert opinion? Or did AK just invent it while her defence team did nothing to support it?

 

[stilicho]

According to this article quoting Professor Mastronardi, the Italian courts do recognize graphology.


It would be nice to track down the original article published in Il Messaggero in October of 2009 . All I have found so far is the translation on Perugia Murder File.

Here's Mastronardi's home page: http://w3.uniroma1.it/iissrcm/

Not for the faint of heart. Possible Surefire quack. And, yes, I'm basing that analysis only by looking at his web design.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not incompatible

So, here we go with more of these mental gymnastics.

We're supposed to believe that the full disclosure of the DNA evidence was not provided. And yet there was enough provided to the defense (and world, I suppose) that these 9 (the letter only has 2 signatures...and as Fiona pointed out, quite a few of those 9 have vested interests in this matter) were able to write a letter claiming the DNA evidence was poorly or incorrectly analyzed.

Well, which was it?

Either the DNA evidence was not fully released or the DNA evidence was fully released and further analysis points to Amanda/Raf not being involved.

This is not a false dichotomy as these are necessarily mutually incompatible arguments. If the DNA evidence was able to be analyzed further, than the data was made available to the Defense. If the evidence was not made available, then how have these 2 authors been able to further analyze the data and show Stefanoni's lab's analysis to be incorrect?


Ahh, the mental gymnastics are almost refreshing after 2 days without power/internet access...almost.

BobTheDonkey,

With respect to the number of signatures on the letter, I saw one pdf file with two signatures (Drs. Johnson and Hampikian) on page 4 and seven signatures on page 6. The pdf file at the FOA site has no signatures on page 6. Nevertheless, this site says that the seven additional names listed there (the seven given in message #4326) also signed the letter, making nine altogether. Although several of the signatories are members of forensics companies, the claim that they have a vested interest in this case is quite a stretch.

You seem to be arguing that the only way the DNA forensic evidence could be evaluated is if all of it were released; however, I disagree. The electropherograms that are available to everyone include the knife profile and the bra clasp profile. The issues that are evident in these two electropherograms are discussed in the open letter, as well as in this thread. The complete fsa files would have data for every sample and contain information that would allow reanalysis by any DNA forensic specialist. One of the things that might be learned is how well the negative control experiments were performed. Another is when each sample was run. The authors of the open letter are saying in effect that the evidence in front of them is problematic, and they would like to see the rest of the evidence so that they can also evaluate it for possible additional problems.

Chris

 

[piktor]

Selective memory erasure: a wonder of the brain!

Well, this certainly covers Rudy, the Police, most of the prosecution witnesses and Mignini himself, plus a sizeable minority (not all, by no means all) of those in another place, maybe.

I am reliably informed by my unnamed contacts who are "in the know" that this malaise can be induced by being caught with one's finger in the till, failing to record 'peaceable' Q&A sessions, media persuasion/cheques, a fat salary and ego to match, Schadenfreude, or, in the case you mention, being knocked about by police during an interrogation.

.

Ooh, the obscure Jarring Of The Memory Jar syndrome. I see...​

.

 

[stilicho]

The authors of the open letter are saying in effect that the evidence in front of them is problematic, and they would like to see the rest of the evidence so that they can also evaluate it for possible additional problems.

Chris

Why aren't they asking the defence teams for it then? If these other data were not released then what reason was provided? Do you have examples of other trials in Italy where the defence teams asked for these files? What was the result?

I find it difficult to believe that the data used to convict the three accused was concealed from the defence and the court. How do you know it was so concealed?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Why aren't they asking the defence teams for it then? If these other data were not released then what reason was provided? Do you have examples of other trials in Italy where the defence teams asked for these files? What was the result?

I find it difficult to believe that the data used to convict the three accused was concealed from the defence and the court. How do you know it was so concealed?

It's a relevant question, but put your common sense hat on Stilcho. Who do you think gave access to those scientists in the first place? If that person had the other data that they said was necessary......probably would have given it to them.

 

[shuttlt]

It's a relevant question, but put your common sense hat on Stilcho. Who do you think gave access to those scientists in the first place? If that person had the other data that they said was necessary......probably would have given it to them.

Depends whether the additional data supports the case they are trying to make.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

It's a relevant question, but put your common sense hat on Stilcho. Who do you think gave access to those scientists in the first place? If that person had the other data that they said was necessary......probably would have given it to them.

This post reeks of ethno-centrism.

At what point does the Defense have to provide all it's evidence to a 3rd party that won't be included in the trial?

Again, is there any proof that the Defense did not receive the entire forensics/DNA report?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Depends whether the additional data supports the case they are trying to make.

Or it doesn't.

 

[HumanityBlues]

This post reeks of ethno-centrism.

At what point does the Defense have to provide all it's evidence to a 3rd party that won't be included in the trial?

Again, is there any proof that the Defense did not receive the entire forensics/DNA report?

Ethnocentricism? Please. That's such a lame card to pull. Just your very utterance in response to that makes me think you don't even understand the meaning of the word in the first place. Your usage of it is so misplaced it's more laughable than offensive. You have a totally incoherent understanding of ethnocentricism. Are we going to start calling people communists now too every time they question anything in the case? Unless English is your second language, you really have no justification to use that term in such an asinine an incoherently placed way.

I didn't claim anyone withheld evidence or anything of the matter. It's just as possible whoever did the report left relevant things out of it, or a mistake was made, or whatever. I don't even care about this issue that much to begin with.

"At what point does the Defense have to provide all it's evidence to a 3rd party that won't be included in the trial?".

I don't even know what you're asking.

Edit: I'm not going to banter back and forth on this topic of missing DNA information since it's not going to be possible with limited online resources. In the words of Stilcho, it's a "fool's errand".

It does seem however that the prosecution might have at least once withheld evidence concerning the DNA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=175_XEfLrFc

In that video the Newsweek reporter said it was pretty clear evidence was withheld. Maybe they corrected it and gave over the necessary documents. I have no idea. Take if for what you will.

 

[shuttlt]

Why aren't they asking the defence teams for it then? If these other data were not released then what reason was provided? Do you have examples of other trials in Italy where the defence teams asked for these files? What was the result?

I find it difficult to believe that the data used to convict the three accused was concealed from the defence and the court. How do you know it was so concealed?

There are some odd things about this missing data though. On annebremner.com, she complains that:

"On September 16 [2008], [the prosecutor] submitted a forensic report that included over a hundred pages of raw technical output, but offered no conclusion as to what all this output means."
http://annebremner.com/Amanda Knox.htm

So, if this site is to be believed, 100 pages of raw technical output from the knife was provided prior to the trial. Perhaps it's not everything they wanted, but there must be quite a bit of information there.

This from October 2008:

"The problem is that the defenses never received the complete study of that DNA. Since this lack of information we have only heard words about this important evidence. The words of the prosecutors, saying that there's not doubt about who's DNA that is. And the words of Raffaele and Amanda's defenses, swearing that that DNA comes from a trace so minimal that cannot be attributed to anyone."

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008/10/waiting-for-dna.html

This whole thing has been going on since before the trial. If this evidence is so important in mounting a defence, where are the official requests from the defence to the court for this information in the first days of the trial? Why wait until the following October when the trial was almost over before making an issue out of it? Perhaps the prosecution, or the lab, or whoever should have provided it without the defence having to ask. But the defence aren't children.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Ethnocentricism? Please. That's such a lame card to pull. Just your very utterance in response to that makes me think you don't even understand the meaning of the word in the first place. Your usage of it is so misplaced it's more laughable than offensive. You have a totally incoherent understanding of ethnocentricism. Are we going to start calling people communists now too every time they question anything in the case? Unless English is your second language, you really have no justification to use that term in such an asinine an incoherently placed way.

I didn't claim anyone withheld evidence or anything of the matter. It's just as possible whoever did the report left relevant things out of it, or a mistake was made, or whatever. I don't even care about this issue that much to begin with.

"At what point does the Defense have to provide all it's evidence to a 3rd party that won't be included in the trial?".

I don't even know what you're asking.

Edit: I'm not going to banter back and forth on this topic of missing DNA information since it's not going to be possible with limited online resources. In the words of Stilcho, it's a "fool's errand".

It does seem however that the prosecution might have at least once withheld evidence concerning the DNA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=175_XEfLrFc

In that video the Newsweek reporter said it was pretty clear evidence was withheld. Maybe they corrected it and gave over the necessary documents. I have no idea. Take if for what you will.

I say ethnocentrism, and I stand by it, because there seems to be this underlying belief that maybe, just maybe, the Italian forensics teams aren't as capable as those in the U.S. That, somehow, the American scientists (and businessmen) have a right to the lab-data. That, sir, is ethnocentrism.

I am asking, very specifically, what makes anyone here think the Defense (or Prosecution) has to provide the DNA testing results to a 3rd party, especially when that 3rd party is not, in any way, involved in the trial. I didn't think my question was that difficult to understand.

 

[shuttlt]

Or it doesn't.

Or it might?

I don't understand your objection. If we're going to suppose that there has been some kind of corrupt attempt to conceal the incompitent/fraudulent forensics on the part of the prosecution, and possibly the judges, I don't see why we can't entertain the possibility that FOA aren't being wholely and in all ways honest either.

Why couldn't it be that one of the reasons that the US experts seem to have so little information to go on is that whoever is providing them with information is only supplying them with a subset of what is available? If they did have all the information that the defence has and reached their considered opinion on the basis of it then they should be commended for the effort that they put in. 100+ pages of raw data prior to the case, presumably more documents besides, then all the data that was provided to the defence that they needed the summer to chew over and that's just the knife. Perhaps a significant amount of that could be ignored, but it's still quite a bit of material to chew over unless they were relying on some kind of an executive summary.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

forensic files

There are some odd things about this missing data though. On annebremner.com, she complains that:

"On September 16 [2008], [the prosecutor] submitted a forensic report that included over a hundred pages of raw technical output, but offered no conclusion as to what all this output means."
http://annebremner.com/Amanda Knox.htm

So, if this site is to be believed, 100 pages of raw technical output from the knife was provided prior to the trial. Perhaps it's not everything they wanted, but there must be quite a bit of information there.

This from October 2008:

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008/10/waiting-for-dna.html

This whole thing has been going on since before the trial. If this evidence is so important in mounting a defence, where are the official requests from the defence to the court for this information in the first days of the trial? Why wait until the following October when the trial was almost over before making an issue out of it? Perhaps the prosecution, or the lab, or whoever should have provided it without the defence having to ask. But the defence aren't children.

shuttIt,

According to Chris Mellas, the defense asked for documentation prior to the summer of 2009 and were told that the files did not exist any longer. Then they found out that the lawyer(s) for Ms. Kercher had some of the files that were not supposed to exist. The defense then asked the judge to order their release, which he did in the summer of 2009. The investigators did release some files, but by no means exactly what was requested and not the fsa files. Therefore, the defense moved essentially for a mistrial in the fall of 2009, partly on the basis of the recalcitrance on the part of the investigators. The motion was not granted, but I have not seen any news reports that provide their reasons.

Some here have dismissed what Mr. Mellas said, but they have not provided any reasons for doing so. However, I have cited two news reports from the fall of 2009 which are consistent with lack of full disclosure. In addition, Mr. Mellas's account is supported by the open letter. Either the defense does not have all of the files, or the defense is withholding the files from a group of people who could help them with the analysis. The former possibility seems far more likely than the latter.

Attempts to withhold or limit access to forensic DNA information by prosecutors has been documented in Michigan, North Carolina, and Texas. It probably has gone on in other states as well. I have previously documented that release of the fsa files is now an international norm. Therefore, I resist the label of ethnocentrism.

Chris

 

[stilicho]

According to Chris Mellas...

Chris

No. Not "according to Chris Mellas".

You're telling us that the three were convicted partly by DNA evidence that was concealed from, at least, the people now attempting to find something wrong with it. How do you know that this evidence was concealed? Is it only Chris Mellas' word? Or have you seen the requests and the replies from the court and/or the lab and/or the authorities responsible for providing it to the prosecution?

@HumanityBlues: Re: "It's a relevant question, but put your common sense hat on Stilcho. Who do you think gave access to those scientists in the first place? If that person had the other data that they said was necessary......probably would have given it to them."

I have my common sense hat on quite fittingly. The claim here is that relevant data were concealed. Support that claim. You don't have to but you must want evidence of this concealment.

I'll tell you why I am suspicious of this claim.

It appears to originate not from the undersigned scientists or from the lawyers but from the lips of Chris Mellas alone. Correct me if I'm wrong but the September objections from the defence teams was not that the data were incomplete but that they hadn't been provided sufficient time to peruse them and that the independent test observer was not someone in their employ but a disinterested third party.

Very different than concealing evidence.

 

[shuttlt]

shuttIt,

According to Chris Mellas, the defense asked for documentation prior to the summer of 2009 and were told that the files did not exist any longer. Then they found out that the lawyer(s) for Ms. Kercher had some of the files that were not supposed to exist. The defense then asked the judge to order their release, which he did in the summer of 2009. The investigators did release some files, but by no means exactly what was requested and not the fsa files. Therefore, the defense moved essentially for a mistrial in the fall of 2009, partly on the basis of the recalcitrance on the part of the investigators. The motion was not granted, but I have not seen any news reports that provide their reasons."

Thanks. I find it very hard to believe that this material was concealed in the way discribed without it being more of an issue. If this is what happened though I would imagine that this will be mentioned at any appeal, if not in the judges report (released tomorrow?). That comment about late comes from quotes on perugiamurderfile. I'll try and dig them out if its important.

Some here have dismissed what Mr. Mellas said, but they have not provided any reasons for doing so. However, I have cited two news reports from the fall of 2009 which are consistent with lack of full disclosure. In addition, Mr. Mellas's account is supported by the open letter. Either the defense does not have all of the files, or the defense is withholding the files from a group of people who could help them with the analysis. The former possibility seems far more likely than the latter.

Do we have any quotes from the defence? Are we sure it is the defence who are providing whatever information these scientists have analysed. I've seen quotes from people tangentially connected with the defence, from Chris Mellas, from the Innocence Project. My view is there is so much spin and accusations of lying that I have difficulty trusting anything that wasn't said in court, made public by the court, or stated by one of the lawyers directly involved. At least there is some possibility of some kind of accountability for making stuff up for these people. Chris Mellas is an easy target because everyone always mentions him, and I pick on him for no other reason than that, but look at the situation with something as unimportant as the cartwheel. The story on that has been altered and added to for two years and is different to the one presented by the defence.

It could be that the prosecution has witheld evidence. It could also be that Chris Mellas, or some other FOA has taken a subset of the available evidence to the Innocence project.

 

[shuttlt]

I'd missed the end of the open letter before:

"I have read the attached letter dated November 19, 2009 written by Elizabeth A. Johnson,
Ph.D. and Greg Hampikian, Ph.D. regarding DNA evidence in the trial of Amanda Knox
and Raffaele Sollecito. While I have not had the opportunity to review all of the case-
specific data in this matter, I agree that the scientific evidence that they describe does not
convincingly associate the kitchen knife with the murder of Meredith Kercher. I also
agree that the handling and movement of the bra clasp that they describe would have
compromised its probative value, and that the presence of a DNA profile does not speak
in any way to the time frame or the circumstances under which DNA became associated
with this sample. The DNA testing results that they describe could have been obtained
even if no crime had occurred. As such, they do not constitute credible evidence that
links Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to the murder of Meredith Kercher. "

So basically all they're saying is that IF the executive summary of the forensics they have been given is accurate and representative then they have grave concerns about the case. This is kind of a side issue to the current discussion, but since I'd missed it I thought others might have done so as well.

 

[shuttlt]

A few other things from the open letter:

"The knife was selected from among several knives in the kitchen drawer of
Raffaele’s apartment. It was the only knife collected from the kitchen, although it
had no visible stains or notable characteristics."

According to Frank Sfarzo, this is not what was claimed at the trial.

"Patrizia --she confessed today-- put the knife under a powerful light until she saw something. Little, little signs of something. And then a tiny, tiny scratch on the blade only visible while moving it in the right way against the powerful light."

I suppose this relates to Stefanoni rather than the collection of the knife, but still they don't mention it. They don't mention that the police claimed the knife appeared to be freshly cleaned. Presumably the other knives did not look freshly cleaned which is surely a notable characteristic. We can debate what "freshly cleaned" means and whether a "freshly cleaned" knife would still appear so if it was examined a year or two later, howvere, they state "no visible stains or notable characteristics" as a fact. Is it a fact? They are surely taking the defences contentions as facts?

Nowhere is the word "control" mentioned in the open letter. Do they know whether a control was performed? If as Mark Waterbury (www.sciencespheres.com) claims it wasn't, they'd mention it. Surely they know? Don't they? This isn't information that can have been lost or deleted. Either it was or it wasn't. Did the defence not bother to ask? They mention that the .fsa files haven't been handed over so surely they would mention it if basic stuff like whether controls were done hadn't been made clear. Their claim is that the profile was the result of lab contamination so this seems important.

An extremely sensitive chemical test for the presumptive presence of blood,
tetramethyl benzidine (TMB, a chemical capable of detecting at least a 1:10,000
dilution of blood), was negative for both the handle and blade.

"This DNA does not originate from blood. A highly sensitive chemical test
for blood was negative, and it is unlikely that all chemically detectable
traces of blood could be removed while retaining sufficient cells to
produce a DNA profile consistent with the victim."

I was under the impression that TMB was a lot more sensitive that 1:10,000 however, is 1:10,000 sufficiently sensitive to detect blood when LCN techniques were required to detect the DNA? I would really like to see somebody produce actual data to back up their claim. What is the point of saying 1:10,000 other than that it looks like a big number? Without throwing a bunch of maths and guesses at it it's impossible to convert that to anything meaningful in terms of this case. I've tried to do that and I don't think 1:10,000 is good enough for the small quantity of cells we are talking about. If it's a mixture of flesh and blood I feel quite doubtful that 1:10,000 is sensitive enough.