• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

There certainly are a lot of claims being bandied about regarding the DNA evidence. Chief among these are that controls were not applied and that some of the evidence was concealed from the defence team*. Both of those are pretty serious charges.

Now if only somebody could provide evidence that these claims are true.

*In one version of the tale, evidence is concealed from the defendants' counsel yet supplied to Maresca.
 
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.

Well being that I didn't even say the third party had a right to it, it is completely misplaced. You can "stand by it" all you want just as a fool can stand by their belief that the moon is made of cheese.

And actually there are many reasons others might think third parties should have rights to documents or information from a trial that go beyond ethnocentricism: They believe in trials open to the public. That is a principle that many believe in and can serve as a strong check against miscarriages of justice. If you don't particularly like that as a policy, that's fine by me. Do you even believe the Italian public should have a right to the data introduced in trial? Or are you for closed trials?

I have no idea either way, but if for some reason that Italian forensics team weren't as capable as in other jurisdictions, you'd never find the answer here, because you can't even ask the question without moronic calls of xenophobe and ethnocentricism.
 
Last edited:
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?

Hey, I never said that wasn't possible. I was just implying the inverse could be true as well.
 
evidence

There certainly are a lot of claims being bandied about regarding the DNA evidence. Chief among these are that controls were not applied and that some of the evidence was concealed from the defence team*. Both of those are pretty serious charges.

Now if only somebody could provide evidence that these claims are true.

*In one version of the tale, evidence is concealed from the defendants' counsel yet supplied to Maresca.

Stilicho,

Perhaps you can tell us what sort of proof you would find convincing and whether or not you think that fsa files and logs should be released as a general principle.

Chris
 
I think I asked it before, but I'll ask again: Does anyone know whether disclosing the data to a third party is legal in Italy? There could be privacy issues involved.
 
The privacy issue is a moot point since the personal genetic information has already been released in the few charts that we've seen. Everything else is just the details to prove that the data is real.
 
Stilicho,

Perhaps you can tell us what sort of proof you would find convincing and whether or not you think that fsa files and logs should be released as a general principle.

Chris

How about one of Sollecito's or Knox's lawyers to start with?

If the controls were missing, you'd expect to see that in some sort of official auditor's report. That's how the crime labs you frequently cite were discovered.

If evidence were concealed from the defence teams, you'd expect to see a motion to provide that evidence. In SEP 2009, the defence argued for dismissal on the grounds that the DNA evidence was not provided early enough, not that it was incomplete, nor that any DNA evidence was being withheld, nor that some was provided to Maresca but not to them. I don't know what you're going to do about your claim since it's different than that of the defence teams. If I'm mistaken about that, please provide cites to the contrary.

------

On a slightly related issue, Chris, this entry at Friends of Amanda has come to my attention:

"Chris Halkides ... has added his voice to those of other experts ..."

It's implied that you are one of the DNA experts but I don't think you've ever made that claim here. Would you be willing to ask them to change that ambiguous wording so it's clearer that you are an interested party but are not an expert in DNA forensic analysis?

(Source: http://www.friendsofamanda.org/articles.html )
 
Just an FYI. The Sentencing Report is loose.

The excerpts I've read confirm the facts of the case. The question of premeditation seems to have been laid to rest.

Mind you, the whole thing is 427 pages, we only get excerpts, and so the AK-supporters here will continue to be dissatisfied.
 
The excerpts I've read confirm the facts of the case. The question of premeditation seems to have been laid to rest.

Mind you, the whole thing is 427 pages, we only get excerpts, and so the AK-supporters here will continue to be dissatisfied.

Actually, it's 854 pages, since it's back and front. It's huge. The Micheli Report was only 106 pages.

As for Amanda's supporters, they wouldn't accept her role even if a video in colour 3D with stereo surround sound of them murdering Meredith appeared and Amanda went up in front of the World media and swore on the Holy Virgin's cotton socks that she actually was indeed guilty. No evidence, no arguments will ever be good enough for these people. Denial is a powerful thing. What's more, admitting they were wrong is too much for some to bear.

Premeditation never was an issue since the prosecution have always maintained they don't believe it to have been premeditated. Of course, there was always a possibility that the judges may have disagreed and believed there was indeed premeditation. In this case, they have simply agreed with the prosecution on that particular matter.
 
Actually, it's 854 pages, since it's back and front. It's huge. The Micheli Report was only 106 pages.

As for Amanda's supporters, they wouldn't accept her role even if a video in colour 3D with stereo surround sound of them murdering Meredith appeared and Amanda went up in front of the World media and swore on the Holy Virgin's cotton socks that she actually was indeed guilty. No evidence, no arguments will ever be good enough for these people. Denial is a powerful thing. What's more, admitting they were wrong is too much for some to bear.

Premeditation never was an issue since the prosecution have always maintained they don't believe it to have been premeditated. Of course, there was always a possibility that the judges may have disagreed and believed there was indeed premeditation. In this case, they have simply agreed with the prosecution on that particular matter.

Here's a synopsis: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7049945.ece

I didn't realise they counted the pages like that...I learned something new!
 
sentence report

How about one of Sollecito's or Knox's lawyers to start with?

If the controls were missing, you'd expect to see that in some sort of official auditor's report. That's how the crime labs you frequently cite were discovered.

If evidence were concealed from the defence teams, you'd expect to see a motion to provide that evidence. In SEP 2009, the defence argued for dismissal on the grounds that the DNA evidence was not provided early enough, not that it was incomplete, nor that any DNA evidence was being withheld, nor that some was provided to Maresca but not to them. I don't know what you're going to do about your claim since it's different than that of the defence teams. If I'm mistaken about that, please provide cites to the contrary.

------

On a slightly related issue, Chris, this entry at Friends of Amanda has come to my attention:

"Chris Halkides ... has added his voice to those of other experts ..."

It's implied that you are one of the DNA experts but I don't think you've ever made that claim here. Would you be willing to ask them to change that ambiguous wording so it's clearer that you are an interested party but are not an expert in DNA forensic analysis?

(Source: http://www.friendsofamanda.org/articles.html )

Stilicho,

I think it is interesting that forensics appears to have played a major role in the decision. Andrea Vogt said, “For example, the jury disagreed with the murder dynamic that prosecutors put forth. Both the alleged murder weapon (a knife with Knox's DNA on the handle and a trace amount of Kercher's on the blade) and the bra clasp with Sollecito's DNA were considered reliable elements of proof.”

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/416178_knox04.html

Richard Owen said, “In a riposte to Knox's family and friends who claim she was the victim of a mistrial based on flawed evidence, the judges said the prosecution had drawn ‘a comprehensive and coherent picture, without holes or inconsistencies’. The defendants had been able to describe Ms Kercher's injuries, and their guilt was clear from DNA traces and naked footprints found ‘in various parts of the house.’”

“In their 427-page summing up the two judges, Giancarlo Massei and Beatrice Cristiani, indicated that they and the jury of six had also been swayed by Knox's attempts to shift the blame by falsely accusing Patrick Diya Lumumba, a Congolese barman for whom she worked part time, ‘knowing him to be innocent.’”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7049945.ece

With respect to this case, I am in no way shape or form an “interested party,” as that term is most commonly applied. With respect to the incomplete release of evidence, I gave my cites, and message #4432 and #4433 give supporting, but indirect, information. BTW, there was a motion to release evidence from the summer of 2009. The rest of the information I have given comes directly from Chris Mellas. This will have to be my last comment for some time. Real life has intervened.

Chris
 
Last edited:
With respect to this case, I am in no way shape or form an “interested party,” as that term is most commonly applied. With respect to the incomplete release of evidence, I gave my cites, and message #4432 and #4433 give supporting, but indirect, information. BTW, there was a motion to release evidence from the summer of 2009. The rest of the information I have given comes directly from Chris Mellas. This will have to be my last comment for some time. Real life has intervened.

Chris

If you aren't an interested party or an expert then why are you cited on Friends of Amanda? "Random blogger" doesn't seem appropriate, somehow, but you must agree their entry on you is beguiling at the very least. It would take no effort on your part to ask them to fix it.

I know there were motions to release evidence but the important motion for dismissal was not put forward on those grounds. You didn't give cites in those entries, either. I'll ignore that those aren't even your entries but that you were referring to a couple that came later. It was those later posts that made me ask the question in the first place. It seems odd that those in charge of AK's and RS's defence did not think evidence had been withheld.

It appears from the preliminary reports on the sentencing report that there will be little room for successful appeal. It will centre on DNA muddling as we both have predicted.
 
It appears from the preliminary reports on the sentencing report that there will be little room for successful appeal.

Claims built on bad science and faulty logic don't magically become valid when they are written down on paper.

For example, this item in the report noted by the Daily Mail:

A footprint found under the duvet which had been used to cover Meredith's lifeless body which according to judge Matteini "represented a sign of serious evidence of Sollecito's guilt".

In the trial, it was shown that this was a partial print of from the Nikes worn by Rudy Guede. Simply counting the circles in the pattern proved the print wasn't from Sollecito's shoe.
 
Thanks for that, shuttlt. Wow, that's by far the most detailed description of the report I've seen so far, good for Frank - he must've been up all night! Random thoughts just based on the first blog entry (could be disproved by the second one, which he says is soon to be posted):
At the cottage, instead, the purpose wasn't stealing since there were many valuable things, and easily transportable, and they weren't stolen.
Once again, I'm stunned by this conclusion. I can understand the postal police having been surprised nothing was taken when they first arrived, since they didn't know about the murder at the time - but surely, only an idiot would try and sell stuff from the scene of a murder, especially someone whose alibi was that he was on a 'date' with the victim? The rejection of robbery as the primary motive on the grounds nothing was taken has never made any sense to me.
In his call to the Carabinieri Raffaele said that nothing was stolen. But only Filomena could have said that nothing was stolen from her room. Or the one who did the staging.
Later, indeed, when the postal police arrived, they will not make the same mistake. They will say they had just called the Carabinieri because there had been a theft.
Difficult to say with certainty, but if what Frank writes here is accurate, does that mean the debate over when Raffaele called the Carabinieri can be put to bed? :p

The first bit about Raffaele not knowing whether anything was stolen is, like a lot of the report if Frank's description is accurate, merely conjecture - Amanda told Filomena she didn't think anything had been stolen, based on the fact her laptop was still there. Presumably Raffaele was repeating what Amanda had already told him; I can't see any mystery there.

Amanda walked to her room with bare feet under which there was still some residual of Meredith's blood, that's why the luminol detected it. Indeed no presence or smell of other luminol-positive substance was detected.
So no clean-up? How then can they rule out the prints having been made by Amanda stepping on the bath-mat, then walking back to her room and leaving residual traces of Meredith's blood on the tiles? In fact, how else could those residual prints have been made, except by stepping on the bathmat, since there were no prints in the room itself?

The stains of presumed semen on the pillowcase are not that important since, even once the test confirms that it's sperm, it couldn't be dated.
What now? They think Rudy might've left his semen on the pillow some other night? :confused:

No mention anywhere so far of the body having been moved, though possibly that'll be mentioned in the second part of Frank's report. Also although they discuss the reliability of the knife DNA, so far there's no description of how they think the knife came to be involved, since they rule out premeditation. Overall, I'm actually sort of pleasantly surprised the jury rejected the prosecution's more ludicrous theories; it cuts out a lot of the irrelevant stuff about vibrators, cleaning, olive throwing and so on and puts the focus on the forensics, which for me is where it should be.
 
Last edited:
Difficult to say with certainty, but if what Frank writes here is accurate, does that mean the debate over when Raffaele called the Carabinieri can be put to bed?
Possibly so. For me, an extended quot from the Motivations document would be required to be certain. It would be nice to have a timeline we can all agree on.

So no clean-up?
I didn't read that into it.

"What now? They think Rudy might've left his semen on the pillow some other night?"
Do we know it was his?
 
Thanks for that, shuttlt. Wow, that's by far the most detailed description of the report I've seen so far, good for Frank - he must've been up all night! Random thoughts just based on the first blog entry (could be disproved by the second one, which he says is soon to be posted):

Once again, I'm stunned by this conclusion. I can understand the postal police having been surprised nothing was taken when they first arrived, since they didn't know about the murder at the time - but surely, only an idiot would try and sell stuff from the scene of a murder, especially someone whose alibi was that he was on a 'date' with the victim? The rejection of robbery as the primary motive on the grounds nothing was taken has never made any sense to me.

The possibility of an interrupted burglary seems to have been dismissed out of hand. Perhaps because it didn't support the suspects determined guilty by purely psychological means being actually guilty.

Besides, we do know that cash, cell phones, and credit cards were taken.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom