Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

Perhaps his cooking was limited to heating up pasta and pizza and eating out. In my single days I could go months at a time without doing any cooking that would have needed a knife.

Well, Amanda described Raffaele as having blood on his hands from cooking fish, which meant he gutted it. Although, that probably happened another night.

In Italy they don't 'heat up' pizzas, they make them No Italian would be seen dead slinging a supermarket pizza in an oven. Food is a religion in Italy.

 

[Alt+F4]

Was the bra clasp handled properly by investigators?

Nope, but that isn't evidence of contamination. Is RS's defense team claiming contamination occured during the handling and collection of the clasp? If that is their theory have they tried to match the unknown DNA on the clasp to the investigators who handled the clasp?

RS's defense team would serve their client better if they could decide if the contamination they claim occured during the crime, during the collection of evidence or at the lab.

 

[stilicho]

Was the bra clasp handled properly by investigators? I am interested in everyone's opinion on this.

I have a better idea. Why don't you list the evidence against the three convicted killers that you accept as valid and, below it, the evidence you dispute?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Yes. This is why they retain the crime sealed. So they can store the evidence there and return to it as needed to pick up more evidence for testing. They also went back at later times and got other evidence, such as the Vaseline and hairdryer. They went to Raffaele's and got more evidence at later times as well.There is no rule that says all potential evidence must be removed from the crime scene immediately. They take the evidence that is most promising first, then they return at later times for other things as and when the investigation reveals them to be of importance. That is how they do things in Italy.

It is not done that way in the US as the police have about 2 - 3 days max with the crime scene before it has to be returned to the owner.

Every time you explain this is sounds even more ridiculous. The investigators collected the bra properly. They had to have noticed that part of the bra was missing. They neglected to collect it. They were completely negligent in not collecting the clasp.

The clasp ended up with DNA on it that was nowhere to be found on the rest of the bra.

Proper handling would have eliminated those questions.

You think it is completely fine to just leave it on the floor!

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I have a better idea. Why don't you list the evidence against the three convicted killers that you accept as valid and, below it, the evidence you dispute?

It's a simple question. Answer it.

Was the bra clasp handled properly by investigators?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Nope, but that isn't evidence of contamination. Is RS's defense team claiming contamination occured during the handling and collection of the clasp? If that is their theory have they tried to match the unknown DNA on the clasp to the investigators who handled the clasp?

RS's defense team would serve their client better if they could decide if the contamination they claim occured during the crime, during the collection of evidence or at the lab.

The clasp was completely mishandled and should have never been admissible as evidence.

The bra was collected properly. They must have noticed that part of the bra was missing. It was apparent that the missing part was cut off of the bra. This would make the clasp a very vital piece of evidence.

The clasp was retrieved 47 days later. It was found to have DNA on it that was nowhere to be found on the bra itself.

Proper handling could have answered some of those questions.

Instead, they left it on the floor. There is simply no defense for this negligence.

 

[lector]

What do words mean?

Exactly right. Amanda knew of Rudy but they were not friends.

Originally Posted by Kermit
.
"Knew of" sounds a little distant. I think we can settle on "was an acquaintance of". That doesn't imply friendship, but goes beyond recognising a person on the other side of the main plaza.

After all, they did smoke marijuana together in a small group of friends in the small boys' apartment downstairs.

no, we can not settle on "was an acquaintance of"

She couldn't even remember his name.

I know that this little issue is hours old, but it highlights something I've observed more frequently in recent days on this thread: that words don't always mean the same thing to everyone here. This is not helping whatever honest attempts to communicate are being made.

In this instance, given Amanda's testimony that she had been introduced to Rudy, "knew of" is not a phrase that I would ever use to describe their relationship. It's simply insufficient.

"An acquaintance" might imply a bit too much familiarity, but it's way more appropriate than "knew of."

Also, I see no relationship between "acquaintance" and remembering someone's name. I have scores of acquaintances whose names I've never known or forgotten.

In any event, are we at least agreed that we can say "met him at a party" and leave it at that?

 

[lector]

Sure, that's the ticket. She was walking around town with a big kitchen knife in case she ran into an olive-throwing Albanian.

Just wanted to tip my hat to Charlie for that line. Well done.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Every time you explain this is sounds even more ridiculous. The investigators collected the bra properly. They had to have noticed that part of the bra was missing. They neglected to collect it. They were completely negligent in not collecting the clasp.

The clasp ended up with DNA on it that was nowhere to be found on the rest of the bra.

Proper handling would have eliminated those questions.

You think it is completely fine to just leave it on the floor!

Why, what's the rush, the crime scene is sealed?

 

[Fulcanelli]

The clasp was completely mishandled and should have never been admissible as evidence.

The bra was collected properly. They must have noticed that part of the bra was missing. It was apparent that the missing part was cut off of the bra. This would make the clasp a very vital piece of evidence.

The clasp was retrieved 47 days later. It was found to have DNA on it that was nowhere to be found on the bra itself.

Proper handling could have answered some of those questions.

Instead, they left it on the floor. There is simply no defense for this negligence.

I didn't know you were a professional forensics expert Bruce.

It would have been retrieved far quicker were it not for the defence delaying agreeing on a date for when the team could go back to the cottage.

 

[Jungle Jim]

acquaintance - a person whom one knows but who is not a particularly close friend.

know - to be acquainted or familiar with
(source: Mirriam-Webster Dictionary)

It would seem that these two words when used in context with Amanda and Rudy mean the same thing.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Why, what's the rush, the crime scene is sealed?

"what's the rush"

There is no response for such a statement. Is that honestly how you feel? A horrible murder occurred. The investigators had a job to do and they failed.

 

[stilicho]

They had to have noticed that part of the bra was missing.

Why would they have had to notice this? What is it in your vast police investigative experience that would lead you to believe that all evidence is collected from a crime scene immediately?

Was the bra clasp handled properly by investigators?

It appears to have been handled in accordance with the procedures that I have read. However, some of the links provided by halides1 suggest there are other ways of handling evidence.

The clasp was retrieved 47 days later. It was found to have DNA on it that was nowhere to be found on the bra itself.

Always with the "47 days" meme. What is so magical about the number 47? Would is have made a difference if the evidence was collected 47 minutes after the crimescene was sealed? 47 hours? 47 weeks?

You may want to take up your case regarding the inadmissibility of the bra clasp with halides1. On his site, he clearly accepts that it should be admitted as evidence and that all DNA sources should be identified. In part this is because he believes one of the other DNA sources might be the real killer:

"[It] is difficult to see why the three individuals who deposited DNA on the clasp should not be considered potential suspects."

(Source: http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/01/meredith-kerchers-bra-clasp.html )

It is not difficult for most of us to understand why the DNA of those three individuals were not challenged by the defence teams. They were female and one of them was almost certainly Amanda. He states as much in the comments section.

I wonder if he suspects Filomena was the real killer.

 

[Fulcanelli]

"what's the rush"

There is no response for such a statement. Is that honestly how you feel? A horrible murder occurred. The investigators had a job to do and they failed.

They couldn't examine everything right away at the lab anyway, there was a backlog and therefore a queue for everything to be tested...it took them about 3 months to get through and test everything from the cottage, Rudy's, Patrick's and Raffaele's. While the clasp was being tested other important items were being tested. How were they to know the clasp would turn out to be one of the most important pieces of evidence in the case? They only know the importance of something once it was tested. If nothing had been found on the clasp, you wouldn't be whinging about it right now and it could well have turned out that way, that nothing was found. Something was found, but such knowledge is great in hindsight.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

reference samples?

Nope, but that isn't evidence of contamination. Is RS's defense team claiming contamination occured during the handling and collection of the clasp? If that is their theory have they tried to match the unknown DNA on the clasp to the investigators who handled the clasp?

RS's defense team would serve their client better if they could decide if the contamination they claim occured during the crime, during the collection of evidence or at the lab.

The peaks in question are pretty small when the electropherogram print-out is scaled for Meredith's peaks (as is the case for the one I have seen). Without the .fsa files, it would be more challenging to do anything with peaks than with these files. I am not sure how you think that the defense could procure the reference samples of the investigators.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Why would they have had to notice this? What is it in your vast police investigative experience that would lead you to believe that all evidence is collected from a crime scene immediately?



It appears to have been handled in accordance with the procedures that I have read. However, some of the links provided by halides1 suggest there are other ways of handling evidence.



Always with the "47 days" meme. What is so magical about the number 47? Would is have made a difference if the evidence was collected 47 minutes after the crimescene was sealed? 47 hours? 47 weeks?

You may want to take up your case regarding the inadmissibility of the bra clasp with halides1. On his site, he clearly accepts that it should be admitted as evidence and that all DNA sources should be identified. In part this is because he believes one of the other DNA sources might be the real killer:

"[It] is difficult to see why the three individuals who deposited DNA on the clasp should not be considered potential suspects."

(Source: http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/01/meredith-kerchers-bra-clasp.html )

It is not difficult for most of us to understand why the DNA of those three individuals were not challenged by the defence teams. They were female and one of them was almost certainly Amanda. He states as much in the comments section.

I wonder if he suspects Filomena was the real killer.

stilicho wrote: "Why would they have had to notice this?"

Are you kidding me? They were investigating the violent attack. The clasp was cut from the bra!

One simple look at the bra would have told them that. A piece of clothing cut off of the victim's body is vital evidence.

They screwed up. There is no other explanation.

 

[quadraginta]

Yes. This is why they retain the crime sealed. So they can store the evidence there and return to it as needed to pick up more evidence for testing. They also went back at later times and got other evidence, such as the Vaseline and hairdryer. They went to Raffaele's and got more evidence at later times as well.There is no rule that says all potential evidence must be removed from the crime scene immediately. They take the evidence that is most promising first, then they return at later times for other things as and when the investigation reveals them to be of importance. That is how they do things in Italy.

It is not done that way in the US as the police have about 2 - 3 days max with the crime scene before it has to be returned to the owner.

LE in the U.S. would probably have trouble locking down a crime scene for a year, but they certainly have no difficulty keeping things for more than 2 or three days. They have to defend their control over any length of time, and the longer they want the more persuasive that defense needs to be, but I don't know of any particular hard and fast time limit they are confronted with. Weeks are certainly common. Months are not unheard of. Others' interests in the space will pertain, and will gain in merit and urgency as time passes.

It wouldn't take long for a landlord in the U.S. to start bitching about lost income. How did the landlord of that apartment recoup a year's worth of lost rent?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

They couldn't examine everything right away at the lab anyway, there was a backlog and therefore a queue for everything to be tested...it took them about 3 months to get through and test everything from the cottage, Rudy's, Patrick's and Raffaele's. While the clasp was being tested other important items were being tested. How were they to know the clasp would turn out to be one of the most important pieces of evidence in the case? They only know the importance of something once it was tested. If nothing had been found on the clasp, you wouldn't be whinging about it right now and it could well have turned out that way, that nothing was found. Something was found, but such knowledge is great in hindsight.

The bra was cut off of the victim's body during a violent attack. Any piece of clothing cut off of the victim is vital evidence.

You wrote: "How were they to know the clasp would turn out to be one of the most important pieces of evidence in the case?"

They were investigating a violent murder. Everything should have been collected and properly stored. Especially a piece of clothing that was cut off of the victim.

The clasp has DNA on it that is nowhere to be found anywhere else on the bra.

Keep telling me that storing evidence in the cottage was the proper way to do things. The more you say it, the more ridiculous it sounds.

Imagine this conversation at the crime scene;

Hey guys, I have the bra here and I also have the clasp. What should I do?

Well let me see, store the bra in an evidence collection bag and we will bring that with us.

Throw that clasp back on the floor. We will come back and get it in 6 weeks.

Really? Are you sure?

Oh yeah, that's how we do it here in Italy.

 

[Alt+F4]

They screwed up. There is no other explanation.

Saying that they "screwed up" is kinda vague and not very scientific. How exactly did their "screw up" contaminate the bra clasp?

 

[quadraginta]

The peaks in question are pretty small when the electropherogram print-out is scaled for Meredith's peaks (as is the case for the one I have seen). Without the .fsa files, it would be more challenging to do anything with peaks than with these files. I am not sure how you think that the defense could procure the reference samples of the investigators.

Maybe they could ask for them. Did they?