Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[BobTheDonkey]

You keep missing the point. Amanda and Raffaele had already been interviewed at least three times, if not more. You say Raffaele dropped Amanda's alibi on the 5th, as if he did it spontaneously -- but he did it as a result of the interrogation. That is not a "sound reason," especially because he probably did it because the police lied to him about Amanda during his interrogation.

After he talked to the police, he said he had not thought "about the inconsistencies." What were the inconsistencies? What did the police tell him about Amanda that was inconsistent with the story the two of them had been telling during the previous three days?

How about if I change the question to: why did the police interrogate Raffaele, and what did they tell him about Amanda?

Do you really not think it is important that the Perugian police may have arrested Amanda and Raffaele for no good reason, with no evidence? Are you not even curious about that possibility?

So, then we're back to Police should only be allowed one interview, and they should be limited in what they're allowed to ask. Heaven forbid that by asking the same questions over and over they might find some inconsistencies in the responses.

 

[RWVBWL]

Here's something from the spheron data that nobody has mentioned...

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/sign_on_amandas_door.jpg

Hi Charlie,
Thanks for the photograph of the sign on Amanda Knox's door.
I had wondered what it was when I read of it the other day.
To me, it just re-inforces my opinion of Amanda as a happy young gal, simply far away from home enjoying her time in Perugia with new friends as she studied and worked while in college...
RWVBWL

 

[Mary_H]

My take on this as its bugged me from the beginning in that two people who have an alibi suddenly turn on each other, is that either the police lied to them about each of them not backing their alibi or the police had evidence..which I think may have been the CCTV from the parking lot, that to them placed Amanda not in Raffaele's apartment when she said she was, therefore "Raffaele we have evidence Amanda was not with you, what do you say about that?"

Now you can argue either way what a guilty vs innocent person would do with that being presented to them, but it does give one pause on what you thought had gone on that night. Guilty or innocent you have to rethink your position and you are effectively tripped up.

Interesting point.

 

[Dan O.]

Amazer writes:

I'm sure you understand that I'm not going to just take your word for it. Please provide a link to this video.

I can do this. But should I do it? I want more input from this group.

Is this the broadcast video that shows the exposed body? It's been on YouTube for a couple of years and only has 35K hits.

You shouldn't post the link in this thread since the forum here is intended for all audiences. I don't see a problem passing the link privately to mature adults.

Quadraginta writes:

When did they do the Spheron-VR survey?

I'm not sure. The program loads a splash screen for the case file that says November 4, 2007, but the notation beneath the images says they were last updated on 11/12/2007.

You might check if any of the individual files have appropriate dates.

The Massei Report appears to state that the Spheron data was collected prior to any technical activities. However, samples had to be collected from the path before Meredith's body could be moved to avoid cross contamination. But the Spheron image from Meredith's room was taken after the body was removed.

 

[Mary_H]

This article makes some of the same mistakes that have occurred since the beginning of this nightmare.

They continue to mention nothing about the actual history of Guede. We can only wait for someone to print it. That is for a future discussion,

From the article;

“It’s impossible that Meredith’s DNA is on the knife”, says Amanda, “because she’s never been to Raffaele’s apartment. So unless Raffaele decided to get up after I fell asleep, grabbed said knife, went over to my house, used it to kill Meredith, came home, cleaned the blood off, rubbed my fingerprints all over it, put it away, tucked himself back into bed, and then pretended really well over the next few days, well, I just highly doubt all of that”.

Doesn’t all this sound like a reciprocal veiled accusation? Why would two people accused of murder, with exactly the same fate, write down their doubts about the innocence of their presumed accomplice? Why doesn’t Amanda mention Patrick or Rudy at all in her diary?

Amanda wasn't accusing Raffaele. Her statement doesn't sound like a "reciprocal veiled" accusation at all.

She was saying how ridiculous the whole scenario would have had to be for the evidence to be on the knife. Twisting the meaning of her words if just another case of poor journalism.

I read the article and I, too, found that it sucked, for a variety of reasons. However, I don't want to get sent to the principal's office again with all the people who discussed PMF here last night, by now discussing tjmk.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Dan O. writes:

The Massei Report appears to state that the Spheron data was collected prior to any technical activities. However, samples had to be collected from the path before Meredith's body could be moved to avoid cross contamination. But the Spheron image from Meredith's room was taken after the body was removed.

No, the body was present when the spheron images of her room were taken.

 

[RWVBWL]

Christianahannah writes:

Can you be more specific?

Sure. I posted this a couple of days ago when the subject of the mixed DNA from Filomena's room came up in the discussion:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/sample_176.html

Someone objected that the dirty gloves and the sample collecting shown in the pictures don't pertain specifically to sample 176. That is true, but I don't have any photos or video showing that particular sample being collected. I therefore provided what information I do have, to make the point that investigators did not use forensically sound procedures at this crime scene. The video shows a number of samples being collected. In almost every case, one can evaluate what is shown on camera relative to published guidelines for collecting DNA evidence and see that the investigators were being sloppy.

Once more, thanks Charlie for the photographs.
If my sister or brother was in jail, facing 10/20/30 years or more for a murderous crime that they told me they did not commit, I would be soooo mad that the police officers investigating the murder were not changing gloves each and every time or using clean tweezers each and every time that ANY evidence was collected, bagged, and tagged!
Gosh, even I, a surfer from the streets, can see how that would potentially be a cause of contamination! I find some of the "prove it is contamination' posts here a little hard to swallow after I just saw these images. You gotta be kidding me if you post that that could not be a cause of contamination!

I wonder what someone like Fulcanelli, or anyone with a child would say if it was his/her child that was convicted by evidence that was collected from a police officer using those dirty gloves...
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Once more, thanks Charlie for the photographs.
If my sister or brother was in jail, facing 10/20/30 years or more for a murderous crime that they told me they did not commit, I would be soooo mad that the police officers investigating the murder were not changing gloves each and every time or using clean tweezers each and every time that ANY evidence was collected, bagged, and tagged!
Gosh, even I, a surfer from the streets, can see how that would potentially be a cause of contamination! I find some of the "prove it is contamination' posts here a little hard to swallow after I just saw these images. You gotta be kidding me if you post that that could not be a cause of contamination!

I wonder what someone like Fulcanelli, or anyone with a child would say if it was his/her child that was convicted using those dirty gloves...
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

So, if there were only two pieces of evidence/swabs from the cottage that contained Raffaele's DNA, how did the contamination occur? The cigarette butt in the kitchen somehow contaminated the floor in the bedroom where the clasp lay, managing to contaminate only the clasp and nothing else? And not just to contaminate it, but to do so leaving a signature higher than any profile other than Meredith's, including the investigators and the other roommates?

That's where the "show me the contamination scenario" bit comes from.

 

[Danceme]

The pictures of Meredith's door are very interesting, thanks for posting them Charlie. They provide excellent resolution when zoomed in. It seems to me the door must have been closed at some point during the attack and someone with a bloody hand pressed the lever and grabbed the edge to pull it open. No blood on the outside lever makes me think it was closed and locked by someone else entirely or sometime after the first person had already washed their hands. The blood was quite dry so I don't think it could have been completely eliminated by people trying the door the next morning. It's too bad no fingerprints were found on the inside handle. Did luminol detect blood on the outside handle?

I'm also for you posting the link to any evidence you have including the video. It may decrease speculation and increase discussion of actual facts.

 

[Dan O.]

Why would they speculate that she was sleeping on the floor? The obvious speculation would be that she wasn't home. There was zero reason to believe any harm had come to her, yet Raffaele said she was missing.

Are you that totally incapable of putting the facts together?

• The view through the keyhole would reveal the bed with the covers stripped. It's possible that Meredith's purse would be seen on the bed.
  
• Meredith is not answering her phones or returning the calls.
  
• The state of the cottage with the door open, drops of blood, unflushed stool, broken window.

How do you come up with "zero reason"?

 

[Dan O.]

Dan O. writes:

The Massei Report appears to state that the Spheron data was collected prior to any technical activities. However, samples had to be collected from the path before Meredith's body could be moved to avoid cross contamination. But the Spheron image from Meredith's room was taken after the body was removed.

No, the body was present when the spheron images of her room were taken.

Thanks, I may be confusing some still images with Spheron images.

If the Massei Report is correct then the Spheron imagery must have started on the 2nd because the video shows them collecting evidence in the first hour of the 3rd (+ or - the hour that the video time is off). The Spheron camera probably came with the team from Rome so it would have been after 17:00 on the 2nd.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I read the article and I, too, found that it sucked, for a variety of reasons. However, I don't want to get sent to the principal's office again with all the people who discussed PMF here last night, by now discussing tjmk.

Yes, I thought it was interesting that those posts were removed. That's okay. It is also very interesting that that certain individuals stand together at all costs. My posts that were removed pertained to the safety of children. I guess I have different priorities.

 

[RWVBWL]

So, if there were only two pieces of evidence/swabs from the cottage that contained Raffaele's DNA, how did the contamination occur? The cigarette butt in the kitchen somehow contaminated the floor in the bedroom where the clasp lay, managing to contaminate only the clasp and nothing else? And not just to contaminate it, but to do so leaving a signature higher than any profile other than Meredith's, including the investigators and the other roommates?

That's where the "show me the contamination scenario" bit comes from.

Good question Bob.
After watching the "pro's", opps, I mean the Polizia Scientifica, collect and pass around the bra clasp, and then looking at the photographs that Charlie Wilkes provided of a pair of gloves that another "pro", opps, I mean police officer used in the collection of evidence, I would bet you a cold beer, a shot of Jack Daniels, heck even a coffee if you are a "friend of Bill's" that the contamination that you ask of probably occurred due to the work habits of another "pro" while doing testing in the lab...

But hey, I can not prove that, it is just my opinion after viewing the "professionals" at work. What does your opinion say? Did they do a great job?

Anyways Bob, would you want your brother or son, sister or daughter to have to stand trial for a murderous crime that they told you that they did not commit, to be judged by the evidence that was collected using techniques that were employed by the
"professional" work habits of those that were shown in the 2 examples? Honestly?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[Amazer]

Are you that totally incapable of putting the facts together?

• The view through the keyhole would reveal the bed with the covers stripped. It's possible that Meredith's purse would be seen on the bed.
  
• Meredith is not answering her phones or returning the calls.
  
• The state of the cottage with the door open, drops of blood, unflushed stool, broken window.

How do you come up with "zero reason"?

It still doesn't follow that she would be sleeping on the floor. Further, Raffaele and Amanda wouldn't have known that the phones are no longer with Meredith. They would have assumed they were still with Meredith. The logical assumption would have been that Meredith is not home (yet).

I don't have a problem with the Raffaele saying that she's missing. That is a pretty reasonable assumption.

If the claim was indeed made that she might be sleeping on the floor on the ohter hand, that is a rather strange and illogical conclusion to reach.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Good question Bob.
After watching the "pro's", opps, I mean the Polizia Scientifica, collect and pass around the bra clasp, and then looking at the photographs that Charlie Wilkes provided of a pair of gloves that another "pro", opps, I mean police officer used in the collection of evidence, I would bet you a cold beer, a shot of Jack Daniels, heck even a coffee if you are a "friend of Bill's" that the contamination that you ask of probably occurred due to the work habits of another "pro" while doing testing in the lab...

But hey, I can not prove that, it is just my opinion after viewing the "professionals" at work. What does your opinion say? Did they do a great job?

Anyways Bob, would you want your brother or son, sister or daughter to have to stand trial for a murderous crime that they told you that they did not commit, to be judged by the evidence that was collected using techniques that were employed by the
"professional" work habits of those that were shown in the 2 examples? Honestly?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

And, again, a deflection around the actual question. The question was not "could contamination have occurred", nor was it "were proper procedures strictly followed". Rather, the question was: "from where did the contamination come".

So, I will ask again:

Where did Raffaele's DNA come from that none of the other swabs from the room returned his profile. None of the swabs from the hallway. None of the swabs from the bathroom. Nothing except for a cigarette butt in the kitchen (that was collected many days prior) contained a sample of Raffaele's DNA. What was his DNA doing in the bedroom and how did it get there to contaminate the clasp?

 

[Mary_H]

And, again, a deflection around the actual question. The question was not "could contamination have occurred", nor was it "were proper procedures strictly followed". Rather, the question was: "from where did the contamination come".

So, I will ask again:

Where did Raffaele's DNA come from that none of the other swabs from the room returned his profile. None of the swabs from the hallway. None of the swabs from the bathroom. Nothing except for a cigarette butt in the kitchen (that was collected many days prior) contained a sample of Raffaele's DNA. What was his DNA doing in the bedroom and how did it get there to contaminate the clasp?

Well, that's easy. Someone in the lab got some of Raffaele's DNA from his apartment or from the prison and put it on the bra clasp. Or they just put it in the machine and said it was from the bra clasp.

When the investigators went over to the cottage 47 days later to fetch the bra clasp, did they pick up anything else while they were there?

There are plenty of example of labs in the United States faking results in favor of the prosecution. I'm sure the situation is the same in other countries.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Well, that's easy. Someone in the lab got some of Raffaele's DNA from his apartment or from the prison and put it on the bra clasp. Or they just put it in the machine and said it was from the bra clasp.

When the investigators went over to the cottage 47 days later to fetch the bra clasp, did they pick up anything else while they were there?

There are plenty of example of labs in the United States faking results in favor of the prosecution. I'm sure the situation is the same in other countries.

So, more unfounded assertions. Right on.

 

[Mary_H]

So, more unfounded assertions. Right on.

Yeah, pretty much.

I bet if we did a statistical analysis, though, we would find that the likelihood the results were faked is much higher than the likelihood that the bra clasp contained Raffaele's DNA, given that his DNA was not found elsewhere at the scene.

 

[RWVBWL]

And, again, a deflection around the actual question. The question was not "could contamination have occurred", nor was it "were proper procedures strictly followed". Rather, the question was: "from where did the contamination come".

So, I will ask again:

Where did Raffaele's DNA come from that none of the other swabs from the room returned his profile. None of the swabs from the hallway. None of the swabs from the bathroom. Nothing except for a cigarette butt in the kitchen (that was collected many days prior) contained a sample of Raffaele's DNA. What was his DNA doing in the bedroom and how did it get there to contaminate the clasp?

Hi again, Bob.
What are you talking about, deflection?
I specifically said that I thought the contamination that you asked about occurred in the lab...
I prefaced my answer to you so that you might understand why I might have been skeptical about the "professional" ability of some of the police officers involved, in this particular case, to collect the evidence without chance of contamination.

As I believe that Raffaele was not in Miss Kercher's room that morning when others were witness to the murder scene, I do not believe that the bra was contaminated there, since Raffaele is not, in my opinion, involved in Miss Kercher's murder. But once again, that is just my opinion, which obviously differs from yours...

So if the bra clasp was not contaminated there, where so was it done?
Maybe at the evidence collection area by some unscrupulous cop? Remember when I recently wrote of a L.A. cop named Raffaele Perez who was planting evidence here in Los Angeles. Could that be the case here also? Possibly, but of course you will call it specualtion. Unless or until it is proven true, such as it was fortunately done with disgraced LAPD officer Perez...

If the bra clasp was not contaminated while in the custody of the police, maybe it was while being tested at the lab? Once more, speculation on my part, but as I said earlier Bob, I have no way to prove it, except that I find the earlier evidence collection to to have been done with mighty shody work habits.
Contamination could have happened at the lab too, for I believe that I have read before that someone had pointed out that Ms./Mrs. Stefanoni forgot to changes gloves at least once? Might contamination have occurred with a lab worker who forgets to change gloves? I would bet you so. Which, once more, seems like mighty shody work habits. And I bet there are many different ways that contamination could, and does, sometimes happen at labs around the world, including the U.S.A. More speculation, once again, on my part.
But feel free to correct me if you feel I am wrong Bob.

Lastly, will you please answer my question put forth to you? A simple YES or NO will do.
Would you want your Father, brother or son, Mother, sister or daughter to have to stand trial for a murderous crime that they told you that they did not commit, and be judged by the evidence that was collected using techniques that were employed by the "professional" work habits of those that were shown in the 2 examples? Honestly?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Mary H writes:

I bet if we did a statistical analysis, though, we would find that the likelihood the results were faked is much higher than the likelihood that the bra clasp contained Raffaele's DNA, given that his DNA was not found elsewhere at the scene.

It could easily be a random fluke. It's quite true that the cigarette butt was the only other item they tested that showed Raffaele's DNA, but they didn't test every object, doorknob, and surface in the apartment. Two of Raffaele's fingerprints were found on the outside of Meredith's door. Could his DNA have been on the door, or the doorknob, as well? Sure. Why not? And why couldn't it have been transferred from that surface to the bra fastener, given that the fastener was handled extensively by two people before it was bagged as evidence?

The burden of proof ought to be on the prosecution. They should have to prove that contamination is not a realistic possibility, and that this DNA match can only be explained by Raffaele's involvement in the crime. Given the fact that they have no other clear physical evidence against Raffaele, and no trace of Amanda was found in the room where Meredith was killed, this single DNA match falls far short of any reasonable standard of proof.

They know that, too. That is why they tried to argue that the shoe prints at the crime scene matched Raffaele's sneakers. That is why they have been so adamant in trying to match the print on the bathmat to Raffaele, and trying to assign both an identity and criminal significance to murky, random footprints revealed with luminol. That is why they struggled to make the improbable argument that Raffaele slipped away and called the emergency number after the police were already there. Even Barbie Nadeau has acknowledged that the prosecution's case is weak. They don't have strong evidence. So they have compensated by coming up with lots of weak evidence that doesn't really prove anything, but can be presented as possibly incriminating.