Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[BobTheDonkey]

It's a start.

So did the other objects that they handled with the non-disposable tools have DNA of Raffaele?
Did the other objects they handled without changing gloves have DNA of Raffaele?
What's on the ground that could have possibly yield DNA from Raffaelo?

It should be clear that DNA just doesn't magically appear from nowhere, so if the DNA on the clasp is due to contamination or secondary transfer, where did it come from? If no other objects/surfaces yielded Raffaelo's DNA would it be safe to assume that the DNA from the clasp is there due to direct contact?

Good luck getting forthright responses on those from Halides. He'll likely resort to his "primary sources" and his quote that "we cannot know when/where contamination occurs".

Completely ignoring that as he's making the claim that Raffaele's DNA on the clasp is due to contamination in opposition to the Court and the Forensics Specialists who performed the gathering/testing, he has the onus of proving the experts wrong and showing that the DNA results are, indeed, the result of contamination.

 

[stilicho]

If you were trying to paper over the fact that Stilicho is in effect calling me a liar, it did not work.

It doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is yours. Since you have the evidence for who "engaged" Drs Johnson and Hampikian then it's your responsibility to produce it.

 

[quadraginta]

Where did you get the silly idea that independently living adults always have an alibi?

<snip>

Where did you get the idea that having several different, contradictory ones depending on which lie is being explained away is the same as having none at all?

 

[Amazer]

Good luck getting forthright responses on those from Halides. He'll likely resort to his "primary sources" and his quote that "we cannot know when/where contamination occurs".

That would be along the expected lines. Doesn't help Amanda or Raffaelo in the least though.

Completely ignoring that as he's making the claim that Raffaele's DNA on the clasp is due to contamination in opposition to the Court and the Forensics Specialists who performed the gathering/testing, he has the onus of proving the experts wrong and showing that the DNA results are, indeed, the result of contamination.

Well, clearly throwing mud and seeing what sticks has been a winning combination so far.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Bob the Donkey writes:

1) That the burden of proof was, in all actuality, properly satisfied - that is what the Court is for. Amanda herself even has stated that it was a fair trial.

We don't know what Amanda herself stated. We only know what an Italian politician who visited Amanda told the media.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Bob the Donkey writes:

1) That the burden of proof was, in all actuality, properly satisfied - that is what the Court is for. Amanda herself even has stated that it was a fair trial.

We don't know what Amanda herself stated. We only know what an Italian politician who visited Amanda told the media.

Ahhh. The conspiracy forum is thataway -------> CT forum

 

[Kermit]

Bob wrote: "So, where did Raffaele's DNA come from to be spread around? Besides the cigarette butt in the kitchen that had been collected 46 days prior, none of the other swabs tested positive for DNA from Raffaele."

Charlie replied: "I don't know where it came from, but he had been in the house, and he left his fingerprints on the outside of her door."

Halides has also said: "The person who moved the clasp may have transferred RS's DNA. RS's fingerprints were found on the door."

Halides, you once suggested that dust could have transported Raffaele's DNA to the clasp.

In recent pages, Dan O. was suggesting that Meredith wore Amanda's bra (previously handled during the week they went out by Raffaele).

Now you and Charlie are suggesting that Raffaele, who never entered Meredith's bedroom by anyone's account, got his DNA on the bra clasp which was under a pillow which in turn was under the victim, because his fingerprints were on the door.

If you read your pile of textbooks about theoretical contamination, I think you'll find that fingerprints don't transfer DNA.

Not even Elizabeth "Libby" Johnson got around to going beyond theory in suggesting that contamination could be the explanation for Raffaele's bra DNA.

 

[Kermit]

We don't know what Amanda herself stated. We only know what an Italian politician who visited Amanda told the media.

.
Amanda has not denied it (that she had stated that hers was a fair trial).

The only person who has denied it was her father (or was it Chris Mellas) a millisecond after the news hit the airwaves, before they even had a chance to speak with Amanda in their weekly phonecall. (Maybe they have a secret radio link with her)

I can understand why the family (acting on instructions from Wizard Marriott?) would deny those reported words of Amanda: those words don't jive with the media message being concocted and broadcast from Marriott's PR office in Seattle.

In fact, as I recall there was some suggestion from Seattle that it was inappropriate for an Italian politician to show up and talk to his daughter. In fact, Amanda is well into her twenties and is an adult, on one hand, and Italian politicians have a right by law to visit prisons (I believe as a sort of control over how penal centres are managed and to ensure that prisoners are taken care of.).

 

[Kermit]

The problem with this bra fastener is that it doesn't fit with any believable scenario. Guede left bloody shoe prints in the room as well as bloody fingerprints and multiple DNA traces. If Knox and Sollecito were there, participating in the murder, they should have left a similar pattern of evidence, not just this one anomalous finding.

.
Guede left his evidence. Raffaele left his DNA on the clasp. There is evidence of manipulation of the crime scene. There is no believable scenario where Rudy would have done a partial cleanup of his shoes, yet leave his shoeprints and (according to you) the bathmat print.

Why would Knox and Sollecito have to leave the same evidence as Rudy. Each had their role. Each had their position. Each had the activities they carried out once Meredith had been murdered.

 

[Kermit]

Where did you get the silly idea that independently living adults always have an alibi?

.
We spent a number of days last week arguing over Raffaele's last official alibi, which we agreed would come from his statements to the Supreme Court in early 2008, where he stated that it's erroneous to believe that he and Amanda were together all evening (if you need the Perugia Shock link again, I'll find it for you).

That's a credibility problem for Amanda's "Harry Potter and we talked about his mother's suicide" alibi. (Independently of the lack of credibility which Raffaele has generated for himself)

Or are you trying to suggest that in this trial alibis (their existence, non-existence, changes and contradictions) simply shouldn't be taken into account? Indeed, that would make Amanda's fight so much easier.

 

[Kermit]

Now we're getting somewhere

To repeat my answer: I got this straight from the horse's mouth. Dr. Johnson and Professor Hampikian worked pro bono.

.
Okay, thanks for that tidbit, we're advancing.

Working "pro bono" implies a relation, be it written or verbal, between two parties. (You don't write a personal diary "pro bono", but you may offer computer services "pro bono" to your child's scout group)

So who did Elizabeth "Libby" Johnson work "pro bono" for?

If you got the "pro bono" part straight from the horse's mouth, you should be able to extract her client's name as well. That is, who engaged her?

And while you're at it, please ask for her terms of reference, technical and data constraints (for example, "please look at the bra clasp, but not at the mixed DNA in Filomena's room", or "here's the data which we have, we want you to comment on the peak heights on the knife, but not on a possible explanation for the DNA destruction in the hallway footprints due to the application of luminol)

Also, what publicity and intellectual property (copyright) constraints there may have been (although, as Alt+F4 pointed out, there isn't really much in her document which isn't already in the public domain and has been talked out).

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Kermit writes:

Amanda has not denied it (that she had stated that hers was a fair trial).

Nor has she confirmed it. She's not able to call a press conference or put out a press release.

 

[Fiona]

Now we're getting somewhere

Yah think?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Kermit writes:

(for example, "please look at the bra clasp, but not at the mixed DNA in Filomena's room", or "here's the data which we have, we want you to comment on the peak heights on the knife, but not on a possible explanation for the DNA destruction in the hallway footprints due to the application of luminol)

Libby Johnson has seen enough to know that all the DNA work at the crime scene is subject to a reasonable challenge. They were slobs whose sole virtue as forensic investigators was that they documented their own incompetence with video and photographs.

But, in any case, I assume you are aware that the "mixed DNA" from Filomena's room was also derived from swabbing a stain that showed up under luminol. Why would luminol destroy the DNA in the corridor but not in Filomena's room, or for that matter, in Amanda's room where Amanda's DNA was found in the footprint that showed up with luminol? Or in Sollecito's apartment, where his DNA was found mixed with Amanda's in stains that showed up under luminol?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Bob the Donkey writes:

Ahhh. The conspiracy forum is thataway

Am I a conspiracy nut because I don't believe everything I read in the paper or hear from politicians?

 

[Amazer]

Bob the Donkey writes:

Ahhh. The conspiracy forum is thataway

Am I a conspiracy nut because I don't believe everything I read in the paper or hear from politicians?

No, there are other more compelling reasons for you being a conspiracy nut.

 

[stilicho]

Am I a conspiracy nut because I don't believe everything I read in the paper or hear from politicians?

No. You're a conspiracy nut because you've made several unsupported claims. Chief among these is documentation you've been invited to upload so we can look at it too. This forum is your best opportunity to provide the evidence for the public to see for themselves that Amanda is innocent.

Do you have the documentation proving who engaged Drs Johnson and Hampikian to do their pro bono work?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Bob the Donkey writes:

Ahhh. The conspiracy forum is thataway

Am I a conspiracy nut because I don't believe everything I read in the paper or hear from politicians?

No.

In fact, you'll find most of the posters in this discussion are here because we read something in the paper that didn't match what actually happened in the courtroom (i.e. papers say Amanda was wrongly accused, Judges say Amanda's guilty as sin).

However, the idea that there's some great Italian Justice System Conspiracy to Blame-The-Blonde-Haired-Blue-Eyed-American-Because-She's-American firmly lands you (and Kestrel, and Dan O., and Halides, et al) in the realm of "Conspiracy Nut".

 

[shuttlt]

Quadraginta writes:

Well, what are you holding back for?

I'm holding back on account of bandwidth and the sensitivity of some of the material. This is 2gb of data with individual files over 100mb. Is there anything in particular you want to see?

Is there no way we can help Charlie here? This doesn't sound like a very difficult problem. One would have to manage the bandwidth, sure, but that's not an impossible task by any means. Waterbury's data could be made public in the same way, assuming he's willing.

By the way Charlie. I know we've discussed this before, but where did you get your data from? I'm curious to know so I can understand what you can and can't get hold of. As you know there is information that I'm after which the defence certainly has but isn't in your library.

 

[shuttlt]

Seriously 2Gb isn't an issue. Assuming copyright isn't a problem, there are all sorts of sites for sharing large file that could be used.