Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[lector]

But perhaps the most serious problem with the bra clasp is that it is just one piece of evidence, as opposed to the bra itself, or Meredith’s body, neither of which had DNA on them. To posit an attack where Raffaele holds Meredith’s arms but leaves no DNA (as I have heard somewhere) is absurd. For this reason, even if the clasp had only Meredith’s and Raffaele’s DNA on it, and even if the clasp had no other DNA on it, I would look upon it quizzically, as a possible outlier. But these other problems are real as well, and they further reduce the evidentiary value of the clasp....

I have wondered the same thing, many times, but:

1) See Fiona's well-taken point above.

2) Why didn't the jury / lay judges see this as a problem? Were they fools? Did they all simply defer to authority? Were they led around by their noses by the professional judges who already had decided on the guilt of A&R? How does one explain this?

Seriously, we on the outside are dealing with only a fraction of what the jury had to consider. (I know this point has been made many times before; I don't claim it as original but I do think it's important.) It may yet be shown that the jury got it wrong, but we will have to wait for that. In the meantime, I don't find that it stretches credibility to think that they may have gotten it right.

Next, let me deal with lector’s claim (#8223) that finding the identity of the other three individuals is not the prosecution’s job, because this claim is relevant to your arguments as well. To be concerned with how Raffaele’s DNA got there and not how the other people’s DNA got there is a mistake, and not taking appropriate reference samples was bad forensic science. If RS was a suspect, then so should the other three unknown depositors have been, unless they could be ruled out. Because DNA cannot be interrogated as to how it arrived, if their DNA was deposited innocently on the clasp, there is no reason to assume that RS’s DNA also arrived innocently....

1) Re-read your last sentence in this quotation. You just said that RS's DNA indicates guilt. I don't think that's what you really meant.

2) Assuming that that I am correct in point (1), I still respectfully disagree with your view of the prosecution's role. It is not the prosecutiion's job to explain every last scintilla of evidence collected. If there is some evidence that shows that other evidence being advanced as an indicator of guilt is, in fact, not good evidence, then it's the job of the defense to hammer on that and convince the jury that the evidence is weak.

That did not happen in the original trial, as we know. If it happens on appeal, great. If the evidence is that weak, the defense should have plenty of ammunition to demolish it.

 

[shuttlt]

It's in the Massei Report. And to be quite honest, I didn't know about a missing 4 cm knife either until I saw it in the report...I hadn't seen it reported before anywhere else. And I should say, the report has many new details like that.

Thanks. I'll sit tight and wait for the translation.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Just to clarify:

When I state that Raffaele's DNA was found on the bra clasp in an amount of greater magnitude than that of Meredith's roommates (with whom she lived and shared laundry facilities), this is not a matter of dispute, nor a matter of contrived hyperbole. Let me explain:


1) There were 5 profiles found on the clasp.

2) The highest level of material found belonged to Meredith.

3) The second highest level of material found belonged to Raffaele.

4) There were only three other signatures found, all of a lower concentration than Raffaele's. Regardless of to whom they belong, whether it's the 3 roommates, whether it's Amanda, Amanda's mother's great-aunt's first cousin's sister, and Filomena's (or any combination of the billions of females in the world) - it is impossible for any of the 3 roommates to have a greater concentration of DNA on the clasp than Raffaele.
Therefore, his DNA is necessarily in a greater amount than that of Meredith's 3 roommates.

 

[Dan O.]

Could be, but how many cleaning ladies carry around the same mop from home to home? In addition, who would want someone to mop their apartment with a mop that had been used somewhere else?

http://www.merrymaidsclean.com/services/faq.php#6

Q. Do you bring your own cleaning supplies, chemicals and equipment?
A. Yes, we bring everything we need to clean your home. You don't have to provide a thing.
​

http://www.mollymaid.com/faqs.aspx

DO I PROVIDE CLEANING SUPPLIES OR EQUIPMENT?
No. Every Molly Maid cleaning service crew comes prepared with all the cleaning supplies necessary. However, because Molly Maid is flexible, if requested and provided, we are happy to clean with your preferred products.​

http://www.maids.com/aspx/cleaning-service.aspx#five

Do I need to provide my own house cleaning products?
The Maids Home Services will always arrive at your home in one of our yellow company cars with our own cleaning products and equipment. All of our products are environmentally-preferable and are safe for small children and pets. Visit our Healthy Touch® page for more information about the products our cleaning service team members will use in your home.​

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Fiona, thanks for your great line-by-line response to Halides.


Just a few clarifications (besides the one I just posted):

1) When I claim "orders of magnitude", I meant "roughly" what it means in a scientific manner. I was under the impression that Raffaele's DNA was found in a concentration of 1400RFU, whereas the other 3 signatures measured <200RFU. Not quite a full order of magnitude, but close enough for Gov't work (as the saying goes).



As you've clearly shown, the issue still remains:

Where did Raffaele's DNA come from to contaminate the clasp.


If dust, then why was Raffaele's DNA in a higher concentration than that of anyone else who lived in the house? Raffaele had, supposedly, never even been in Meredith's room and only been to the cottage a handful of times - so if from dust/fingerprints/whatever, why was his DNA in said dust/fingerprints/whatever in a higher concentration than that of the people who lived in the cottage and necessarily would have had more dead skin cells (dust), fingerprints, etc floating around?


No matter the dance routine Halides, et al, perform, they cannot suitably answer this question without resulting to generalities that would necessarily negate any DNA evidence ever collected - including that which they champion has proven Guede was the "lone wolf".

 

[BobTheDonkey]

http://www.merrymaidsclean.com/services/faq.php#6

Q. Do you bring your own cleaning supplies, chemicals and equipment?
A. Yes, we bring everything we need to clean your home. You don't have to provide a thing.
​

http://www.mollymaid.com/faqs.aspx

DO I PROVIDE CLEANING SUPPLIES OR EQUIPMENT?
No. Every Molly Maid cleaning service crew comes prepared with all the cleaning supplies necessary. However, because Molly Maid is flexible, if requested and provided, we are happy to clean with your preferred products.​

http://www.maids.com/aspx/cleaning-service.aspx#five

Do I need to provide my own house cleaning products?
The Maids Home Services will always arrive at your home in one of our yellow company cars with our own cleaning products and equipment. All of our products are environmentally-preferable and are safe for small children and pets. Visit our Healthy Touch® page for more information about the products our cleaning service team members will use in your home.​

Agreed. I wouldn't find it unusual for a cleaning service to use the same mop in different houses. Honestly, if I was concerned about it, I would ensure I had a mop/cleaning supplies of my own for the service to use.

 

[Dan O.]

Halides1, a short, brief question: who engaged "Libby" Johnson to "work pro bono" in writing her limited scope report?

Many fellow posters have asked you this. Before you embark on new evidence quests, we'd appreciate it if you could reply to that.

A similarly short, brief response will do. No need to extend yourself.

Now I remember why I put Kermit on ignore. I've found 7 times before where he has asked this same question (and that doesn't include all the copycats).

Does it really matter whether it was the prosecution or the defense that engaged her or if she heard about the case and chose to write the report on her own. It's her name signed on the report.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Now I remember why I put Kermit on ignore. I've found 7 times before where he has asked this same question (and that doesn't include all the copycats).

Does it really matter whether it was the prosecution or the defense that engaged her or if she heard about the case and chose to write the report on her own. It's her name signed on the report.

Well, if someone answered the question, he wouldn't need to keep asking it, would he? It's not even a tough question.

 

[shuttlt]

Dan O.

For myself, I think it does matter. Dr Johnson is quoted over and over again as being an independent Scientist. The Open Letter is cited as proof that the forensic science community is rising up against this trial. If the Open Letter was organised by the defence, or the PR firm... then this is somewhat undermined. Perhaps this isn't crucial, but there are surely issues of transparency. Steffanoni is questioned at least in part because she is the prosecution expert and therefore not 'objective'. Is Dr Johnson effectively a defence expert? If she is it seems wrong to me that this should be kept secret. If Dr Johnson had published a controversial scientific paper, but failed to mention that she had undertaken all the work at the prompting of a party with an interest in her findings coming out a particular way and all her data had been provided by that party (possibly at considerable expense), and she only included facts that supported her conclusions while omitting those facts that undermined her conclusions, and she stated things as being facts that were just assertions from the interested party, this would be a problem. Why then is it not a problem in this case?

 

[stilicho]

Now I remember why I put Kermit on ignore. I've found 7 times before where he has asked this same question (and that doesn't include all the copycats).

Oh, so you really don't have Kermit on ignore but are simply reading his entries and ignoring them. I figured that was the case since he has stumped you again and again.

Did you enjoy his shoe analysis with one sole turned 90^o just for your satisfaction?

 

[stilicho]

Has Rafaele's defense used the case of Jaidyn Leskie as a basis for their theory of lab based contamination? For those unfamilar with the case, Jaidyn Leskie was a baby murdered in Australia in 1997. Shortly after his body was found DNA on his bib was matched to a woman who apparently had nothing to do with the case.

As it turned out the woman was a rape victim and that the DNA lab, "received clothing from both cases within seven minutes on January 30, 1998. And six days later, samples from both cases were examined at the same time."

If this is the angle Raffaele's defense team is taking they why didn't they at least try to match the unknown DNA to other cases the lab was testing at the time?

Bingo.

Have the defence teams used any of the irrelevant cases Halides1 has included here and on his site?

It might be better to ask why the defence teams took special care to avoid attending the analysis sessions and allowed an independent observer to take their places.

Still unanswered is Halides1's barnacle-like grip on Gino's testimony about incomplete file data two weeks after the resumption of the trial. If the "incomplete file data" was so crucial to the defence then why wasn't it included in any of the official defence arguments about the data?

Cue crickets now.

 

[Dan O.]

Oh, so you really don't have Kermit on ignore but are simply reading his entries and ignoring them. I figured that was the case since he has stumped you again and again.

Yes I did have him on ignore. I even have the option in my preferences turned off so I don't even see the notice that I'm missing a post. But Google doesn't have anyone on ignore and sometimes finds things that need responding to.

For instance, who's been saying that there was no stick found at the crime scene? This is another lie. The Perugia police deserve a caning^WP for turning their back on the evidence.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Yes I did have him on ignore. I even have the option in my preferences turned off so I don't even see the notice that I'm missing a post. But Google doesn't have anyone on ignore and sometimes finds things that need responding to.

For instance, who's been saying that there was no stick found at the crime scene? This is another lie. The Perugia police deserve a caning^WP for turning their back on the evidence.

There are at least 2 questions I've had to ask repeatedly. And I will continue to do so until a satisfactory, evidence based answer can be found for them.

I find nothing wrong with this tactic. It's a perfectly reasonable/solid counter to one side's attempts to switch to a new subject every time one of these "unanswerable" questions comes up.


So, now there are 3 questions:


1) Where were Amanda and Raffaele on the night of the murder?

2) Who commissioned Dr Johnson's Pro Bono analysis?

3) Where did Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp come from?

 

[tsig]

Yes I did have him on ignore. I even have the option in my preferences turned off so I don't even see the notice that I'm missing a post. But Google doesn't have anyone on ignore and sometimes finds things that need responding to.

For instance, who's been saying that there was no stick found at the crime scene? This is another lie. The Perugia police deserve a caning^WP for turning their back on the evidence.

Why would anybody want to fetch your stick?

If you have anything besides insinuations please post it.

 

[lane99]

...Check with lane99 on that. We have it on good authority rolleyes that without a complete, airtight "scenario" no conviction can be made....

Haha, nice try. Needless to say that's not my postion at all. As any reasonable person who read my comments on the matter undoubtedly would already know.

Ragsinya's clumsy assertion is simply another instance of axe-grinders turning a blind eye to even the most straightforward and uncomplicated notions should those notions happen to call their agenda into question.

 

[Juror]

There are at least 2 questions I've had to ask repeatedly. And I will continue to do so until a satisfactory, evidence based answer can be found for them.

I find nothing wrong with this tactic. It's a perfectly reasonable/solid counter to one side's attempts to switch to a new subject every time one of these "unanswerable" questions comes up.


So, now there are 3 questions:


1) Where were Amanda and Raffaele on the night of the murder?

2) Who commissioned Dr Johnson's Pro Bono analysis?

3) Where did Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp come from?

New to JREF so I apologize in advance if I don't have the "JREF logic" down.

1) Shouldn't the question be is there evidence they were at the crime scene? Not having an alibi does not make one guilty. What am I missing here?

2) Is your point that Dr. J's analysis is somehow tainted and not reliable due to who commissioned it? Have you emailed her/him and asked?

3) If it is Raffaele's DNA, then it came from Raffaele. How it got there is unanswerable.

Best of luck finding "satisfactory, evidence based answers".

 

[lane99]

Let's suppose for the moment that Rudy did act alone... and that he did break in.

From all accounts given so far... all his alleged criminal acts in the past lacked a sexual component.

Why this sudden change... that is almost unheard of. How did Rudy go from breaking and entering for material gain to sexual assault and murder?

No, it's not almost unheard of. It's fairly common. As (not having read the rest of the week's posts yet) I suspect someone might have already pointed out to you.

Please reconsider your opinion as it's based on erroneous assumptions.

 

[lane99]

Why did you put the word genuine in scare quotes? Are you becoming convinced that it wasn't a genuine robbery? Raffaele certainly didn't think it was a genuine robbery when he called 112. Amanda agreed that it was a most unusual robbery in her court testimony. Most unusual in that nothing was taken. So--not a robbery at all.

To the contrary. Under the circumstances it seems to me not at all improbable as a genuine robbery. Since the most commonly stolen items were indeed stolen. And even if they hadn't been, considering the apparent burglary was interrupted and subsequently escalated to a murder, it wouldn't be particularly unusual that nothing that could be traced was taken and converted into cash.

Besides which the arguments made that it was "staged" by and large won't make much sense to anyone not already predisposed to uncritically accepting the prosection's theories.

Apparently your theory is that Amanda and Raf staged a burglary, but in the course of that staging didn't actually take anything (duh), then called the police and reported that a staged burglary had taken place.

I tend to think most sensible people will regard that as unlikely. And that conclusions which rely on that sort of reasoning will likely be wrong.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

To the contrary. Under the circumstances it seems to me not at all improbable as a genuine robbery. Since the most commonly stolen items were indeed stolen. And even if they hadn't been, considering the apparent burglary was interrupted and subsequently escalated to a murder, it wouldn't be particularly unusual that nothing that could be traced was taken and converted into cash.

Besides which the arguments made that it was "staged" by and large won't make much sense to anyone not already predisposed to uncritically accepting the prosection's theories.

Apparently your theory is that Amanda and Raf staged a burglary, but in the course of that staging didn't actually take anything (duh), then called the police and reported that a staged burglary had taken place.

I tend to think most sensible people will regard that as unlikely. And that conclusions which rely on that sort of reasoning will likely be wrong.

But, they did take something in the staging, in fact the most "often stolen items" (as you claim them to be) - the phones and credit cards.

Care to explain how the window was opened through the hole in the pane without knocking any glass to the ground?

 

[Amazer]

No, it's not almost unheard of. It's fairly common. As (not having read the rest of the week's posts yet) I suspect someone might have already pointed out to you.

No, no one did point that out. Can you point me in the right direction where I could find more information about this?

Please reconsider your opinion as it's based on erroneous assumptions.

I'll gladly reconsider once I have studied this in a little more detail. And if what you say holds up.