Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Moss]

Poor Bulwer-Lytton, always getting lampooned.

I can see that an overcast and moonless night would make it harder to find a stick in woods, but it's not impossible.
But given that we don't know either way if there was a stick involved at all...

 

[Fulcanelli]

Poor Bulwer-Lytton, always getting lampooned.

I can see that an overcast and moonless night would make it harder to find a stick in woods, but it's not impossible.
But given that we don't know either way if there was a stick involved at all...

We know there was no stick at the crime scene. We know there was no evidence of any stick being used for the break-in. We know that fetching any stick would would have been difficult and a huge amount of trouble to go to just to on top of everything else, to break into a house of two students and two office juniors where there was very little value and a lot of risk (wouldn't a thief supposedly so brazen, industrious, determined and hard working as this be be off breaking into properties with richer pickings?). And then it all becomes rather ridiculous when one considers there was a window he could have gotten in through very easily without having to put in any of this massive effort or risk (the kitchen) all topped off by the fact that all the evidence at the crimes scene shows clearly that no intruder entered the cottage via Filomena's window (also combined with the fact that the evidence also indicates burglary was not the intent of anyone that night).

 

[Juror]

.
1) If you're new, what you're missing is that there is (disputed) DNA evidence which links both Amanda and Raffaele to the crime, there are witnesses who link them to the crime, there is other circumstantial evidence which links them to the crime .... and they still don't have alibis which coincide as to their whereabouts on the night of the crime. We had a rather long debate here, which petered out once it was underlined that in addition to stating to police prior to his arrest that Amanda wasn't in his apartment between 9 p.m. and 1 a.m. on the night of the crime, Raffaele's most recent pronouncement concerning their alibis was to the supreme court in early 2008 when he stated that it was erroneous to believe that they were together that evening. So the alibis are just another layer of inconsistency in Amanda's legal posture.


2) As for "Libby" Johnson's document, some noise was made here some time back by the pro-Amanda crowd, that Dr. Stefanoni's analysis could be tainted by a pre-existing belief in the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele. While I don't believe that, the pro-Amanda crowd should apply a similar posture to Johnson's paper. Here is a DNA scientist whom FOA and The Entourage want to paint as independent, however, Johnson doesn't limit herself to merely and coldly analysing peaks and noise, but includes in her report as fact debatable statements such as:

-"Her body was found the next day when her housemate, Amanda Knox, called police after noticing blood in their common bathroom, a broken window, and Meredith’s locked door. Before the police arrived, Amanda’s Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, unsuccessfully attempted to force open Meredith’s door." (evidence contrasts with this version of the suspects)

- "Police initially theorized that Amanda, Raffaele and Amanda’s boss, Patrick Lumumba, were involved with Meredith in a group sex tryst gone awry." (Knox is the one who fingered Patrick, not the police)

- "a drifter named Rudy Guede" (at the time of the crime, Rudy was living in the city that he had grown up in)

- "Although Rudy Guede has been tried and convicted of Meredith’s murder, the prosecution continues to believe that Amanda and Raffaele are complicit in this crime" (this is classic FOA spin. In fact, Amanda, Rudy and Raffaele were all tried on the basis of the same body of evidence which resulted from the same and only investigation. The only difference is that Rudy chose the fast-track trial)

Poster Hilades has claimed to have contacts sufficiently close to the action to be able to state that Johnson was "working pro bono". We have merely asked him to complete / extend his sentence and say for whom. The person, persons or group who engaged or commissioned Johnson could be part of the explanation for the totally non-scientific and very partial preamble to her document.


3) I think that Bob is merely trying to evoke a consistent response, as sometimes it seems that the pro-Amanda crowd say that the bra clasp DNA comes from crime-scene contamination (pe. household dust, fingerprints on door), sometimes from lab contamination (pe. not following "Libby" Johnson's best practises), sometimes from Amanda and Meredith swapping bras, sometimes from Raffaele kindly helping out by hanging the laundry .... but never from Raffaele touching the item on the night / morning after the crime.

Thanks for replying and yes I am new to JREF - followed the posts for awhile but have not posted myself.

The framing of Bob's question is my issue as it is not A and R's job to prove they were somewhere else. Of course it would help their case if they could.

So the physical evidence, recognizing it is disputed, of them being at the crime scene is:

1. Double DNA Knife
2. Bra Clasp
3. Footprints

anything else?

Then you have the:

1. conflicting alibis
2. A and K statements
3. staged break-in
4. witnesses

anything else?

The Libby Open letter seems like it was clearly asked for by someone sympathetic to Amanda's cause for the reasons you cite. That does not make the science necessarily wrong but it should be read with such recognition. It would be more "open" if the letter provided such background. My day job is writing "independent" reports and we always state the purpose and limitations of our work.

I don't claim to be any DNA expert so have nothing to contribute to that debate but I would think it is obvious that a "possible" way for someone's DNA to get on an object is through direct contact. I don't agree with a line of reasoning that unless you can prove contamination did happen and how, it did not happen. Rather I see it that the prosecution needs to show appropriate procedures were made to make the risk of contamination negligible and thus the evidence reliable.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The framing of Bob's question is my issue as it is not A and R's job to prove they were somewhere else. Of course it would help their case if they could.

Well, it is when evidence has been presented against them that shows they were at the cottage. Of course they don't 'have' to, but if they don't, few can really complain if they are then found guilty.

So the physical evidence, recognizing it is disputed, of them being at the crime scene is:
Double DNA Knife
Bra Clasp
Footprints
anything else?

4. Amanda's blood in the bathroom
5. Meredith's blood mixed with Amanda's DNA at several points in the cottage
6. Meredith's physical injuries that show she was assaulted by multiple people
7. Amanda's lamp in Meredith's room

Then you have the:
conflicting alibis
A and K statements
staged break-in
witnesses
anything else?

5. Multiple lies
6. Explanations of scenarios which are not compatible with the known facts or logic
7. Their highly questionable behaviour in the days following the murder
8. Falsely accusing an innocent man

and:

1 a: Not only conflicting alibis, but alibis that do not match the known facts (ie: lies)

You don't have to prove contamination 'did' happen, but you should have to prove there is good reason to believe something 'was' contaminated, that it is highly plausible. After all, otherwise, DNA couldn't be used in 'any' trial, since contamination is always 'possible'. Possible alone isn't good enough. A plausible source for the contamination needs to be offered.

 

[Amazer]

The framing of Bob's question is my issue as it is not A and R's job to prove they were somewhere else. Of course it would help their case if they could.

I disagree with you here... It is Amanda's and Raffaele's job to prove they were somewhere else. There is evidence that places them at the crime scene,

In such a case you better hope tor have a real good alibi, with preferably a couple of witnesses that will vouch for you being somewhere else at time of the murder scene. Or (for A and R) stories that match to a large extend.

 

[tsig]

Looking at the evidence in front of us and not going into fairy tails about how the evidence could have been faked, there is a shutter to be opened if it wasn't open already. In the case of the shutter being closed, the burglar could climb up to the window and open the shutter or fetch a handy long stick to open it from the ground. In the case where the burglar chooses to us the stick, the stick can either be left on the ground, tossed away like a javelin or put somewhere where it would not look out of place. Since we haven't heard any stories of blind inspectors tripping over a carelessly dropped stick we can presume that the stick was either tossed away or put back where it wouldn't be noticed as out of the ordinary (and apparently not noticed at all). The case of putting the stick back where it came from just happens to be on the way to where there are a number of suitable rocks for tossing through the window so it would not be out of the way and would be the logical place to leave the stick so as not to have to carry both stick and rock at the same time.

So he threw away the stick so the burglary won't be noticed? Shame he didn't have time to get rid of the rock and replace the window pane.

 

[tsig]

And then he used his knife to hack the little branches off of his stick to form a tool.

Then he looks around and sees a large black rock shaped like a rectangle.

Oops, sorry wrong movie.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Then he looks around and sees a large black rock shaped like a rectangle.

Oops, sorry wrong movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML1OZCHixR0&feature=related

 

[LiamG.]

Well, it is when evidence has been presented against them that shows they were at the cottage. Of course they don't 'have' to, but if they don't, few can really complain if they are then found guilty.



4. Amanda's blood in the bathroom
5. Meredith's blood mixed with Amanda's DNA at several points in the cottage
6. Meredith's physical injuries that show she was assaulted by multiple people
7. Amanda's lamp in Meredith's room



5. Multiple lies
6. Explanations of scenarios which are not compatible with the known facts or logic
7. Their highly questionable behaviour in the days following the murder
8. Falsely accusing an innocent man

and:

1 a: Not only conflicting alibis, but alibis that do not match the known facts (ie: lies)

You don't have to prove contamination 'did' happen, but you should have to prove there is good reason to believe something 'was' contaminated, that it is highly plausible. After all, otherwise, DNA couldn't be used in 'any' trial, since contamination is always 'possible'. Possible alone isn't good enough. A plausible source for the contamination needs to be offered.

9. The crucial thing for me: All the evidence listed above, combined with the staging of the scene, fits in a totale plausible scenario, which involves all three convicted, whereas the scenario that only involves Rudi doesn`t make sense.
Even if you assume, that some critical pieces of evidence (for example double DNA knife, bra clasp) are flawed and all the Italian investigators/scientists being incopetent, there`s still no credible theory, that Rudi did it alone, if u take the remaining evidence into account.

LiamG.

 

[tsig]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML1OZCHixR0&feature=related

Yes the chimps reaction to the rock seems similar to some peoples reaction to evidence.

Thanks for the link.

 

[Alt+F4]

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.
​

How about a maid service that actually operates in Italy? Any evidence that Raffaele used a maid service to employ either of the cleaning ladies? A few more questions asked of the second cleaning lady should clear this up, hopefully she will be recalled during the appeal.

 

[katy_did]

3) Actually, how it got there is answerable. He handled the bra clasp. This answer can be given because it is skin cells. Shed surface cells (the kind that can be transferred by a third party for example) are dead and therefore keretinised and so do not contain DNA profiles. Live skin cells, just under the surface contain full profiles and they only come off via direct and vigorous contact with an object (friction, or scraping). Therefore, he directly handled the bra clasp.

I think you are mistaken here. In fact, I made a similar mistake when I first read the report.

It isn't that the cells on the bra clasp could only have gotten there by direct contact by the person concerned; it's just that, however they got there, there had to be a certain amount of friction or pressure for them to have been transferred. But that certainly doesn't rule out secondary contamination. They could also have been transferred there by contact with something else that Raffaele had handled in that kind of a way (rubbing, friction etc).

For example, let's say that DNA from Meredith, Amanda and Raffaele was on the hand towels Rudy took from the bathroom (highly probable, since they'd all used the bathroom in the days before the murder). Drying your hands on a hand towel is exactly the kind of rubbing action that would shed DNA. If Rudy had trodden on one of the towels, then trodden on the bra clasp (one of the hooks was deformed, of course) that could have transferred DNA from the towels to the hook, with no direct contact from Raffaele necessary. In turn, Raffaele's DNA was more easily identified because they could use the more sensitive tests for the Y chromosome, whereas the other DNA would have been mixed female and thus tricky to correctly identify.

So no, I don't think it is actually necessary that Raffaele handled the bra clasp for his DNA to have been transferred there (although as I said, I did originally think that was what the report was suggesting).

 

[LiamG.]

*posted too fast, sorry*

 

[Juror]

I disagree with you here... It is Amanda's and Raffaele's job to prove they were somewhere else. There is evidence that places them at the crime scene,

In such a case you better hope tor have a real good alibi, with preferably a couple of witnesses that will vouch for you being somewhere else at time of the murder scene. Or (for A and R) stories that match to a large extend.

We may agree - just coming at it from different perspectives.

I see what matters for a conviction is the evidence that proves they are at the crime scene - not the lack of a credible alibi.

1. Conclusive evidence and no alibi - guilty.
2. Inconclusive evidence and no alibi - not guilty
3. Inconclusive evidence and alibi - not guilty
4. Conclusive evidence and credible alibi - can't have both

Agree?

Fulcanelli - thanks for expanding my list. Helps frame my perspective and summarize the issues.

 

[Fulcanelli]

katy_did -

How would Rudy have stood on the towels if he was putting them to Meredith's neck (if you believe his version of events in the first place)? How is it that it isn't Amanda's DNA on the clasp that has a higher reading then Raffaele's since they were her's and Meredith's towels?

Also, the method you are suggesting may at BEST and that's stretching things, have resulted in a very low LCN profile of Raffaele on the clasp, but it wasn't. Also, skin cells are not crazy glue, they don't just stick onto any smooth flat surface that touches them when the are embedded in material.

Moreover, Rudy couldn't step on the clasp after getting the towels since the clasp was under the pillow which in turn was under Meredith. Finally, none of Raffaele's DNA was found in any of Rudy's footprints as we'd expect to find were he 'covered' in Raffaele's DNA.

Back to the drawing board with that one I think.

 

[Juror]

Burden of Proof

You don't have to prove contamination 'did' happen, but you should have to prove there is good reason to believe something 'was' contaminated, that it is highly plausible. After all, otherwise, DNA couldn't be used in 'any' trial, since contamination is always 'possible'. Possible alone isn't good enough. A plausible source for the contamination needs to be offered.

I agree stating that simply stating contamination is possible is not grounds for dismissing the DNA evidence.

I disagree the defense needs to prove there is "good" reason to believe something was contaminated and that such is "highly" plausible. This seems like a shift in the burden of proof to me. The prosecution needs to show proper procedures were followed so the risk of contamination was negligible.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I agree stating that simply stating contamination is possible is not grounds for dismissing the DNA evidence.

I disagree the defense needs to prove there is "good" reason to believe something was contaminated and that such is "highly" plausible. This seems like a shift in the burden of proof to me. The prosecution needs to show proper procedures were followed so the risk of contamination was negligible.

Well, I think they've done that.

 

[Alt+F4]

I disagree the defense needs to prove there is "good" reason to believe something was contaminated and that such is "highly" plausible. This seems like a shift in the burden of proof to me.

I don't think it's about a shift in the burden of proof, but rather establishing reasonable doubt. If RS's defense could establish that it is "highly plausible" that there was contamination, a jury might see that as reasonable doubt of his guilt.

The problem is that they haven't even tried (as far as I know) to match the unknown DNA on bra clasp with anyone involved with the collection or testing of it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I see what matters for a conviction is the evidence that proves they are at the crime scene - not the lack of a credible alibi.
Conclusive evidence and no alibi - guilty.
Inconclusive evidence and no alibi - not guilty
Inconclusive evidence and alibi - not guilty
Conclusive evidence and credible alibi - can't have both

Agree?

Well, that all depends on what you define as 'conclusive evidence', doesn't it? It is understood subjectively. For example, would you call the evidence that convicted Scott Peterson and put him on death row 'conclusive'?

 

[Fiona]

It is like ping-pong. the burden of proof does shift and so it should. You make a claim and that claim is answered: the ball is now over the net and you have to play it back. Playing it back means you need to evidence your refutaton: it is not enough to assert it

Not sure if that helps but it makes sense to me