• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Charlie Wilkes said:
Have you seen this?

http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/DNA Transfer Studies memo.pdf
Click to expand...


You mean the memo that only clearly references secondary transfer when it states:

With respect to secondary transfer, peaks above background (15-20 RFU) from the second individual were not detected for most STR amplifications. On occasions minor peaks (below 75 RFU from the second individual were observed.
However in these instances, allelic dropout was routine. The complete secondary profile was never detected, even if the data were analyzed in the 50/75 RFU range.
Click to expand...


Interestingly...the memo includes a study involving the testing of single cells where it was found:

We amplified DNA in 91% cells, containing a full DNA profile in 50% and an acceptable profile (four or more STRs) in (64% of these cells).

These results show great promise and could be applied, for example, to smudged fingerprints, single flakes of dandruff, single sperm in multiple rape cases, and small samples left on weapons or vehicles.
Click to expand...

So, Charlie, I think this memo does not state what I think you think it does. This memo actually rather proves that Raffaele needed direct transfer to the clasp for his DNA profile to have been found in the strength it was found. The memo also includes reference to a study showing the viability of DNA profiles from single cells.

In other words: Charlie, this memo shows you're wrong about secondary transfer of Raffaele's DNA to the clasp. This memo also shows Halides1 is very probably wrong when he claims that the knife DNA doesn't match Meredith's DNA (or that there wasn't enough DNA material for a match...or that the results aren't a match...I'm not quite sure what he's claiming this week).
 
BobTheDonkey said:
By "real evidence" I can only assume you mean "ignore any evidence to the contrary" because that is exactly what is required.
Click to expand...

That's not what I mean. By real evidence, I mean evidence that can linked to the crime with reasonable certainty. DNA results may or may not be linked to the crime. Luminol results may or may not be linked. But one can be reasonably certain that a bloody hand print next to the victim's body and a trail of bloody shoe prints leading from the victim's room are linked to the crime.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
That's not what I mean. By real evidence, I mean evidence that can linked to the crime with reasonable certainty. DNA results may or may not be linked to the crime. Luminol results may or may not be linked. But one can be reasonably certain that a bloody hand print next to the victim's body and a trail of bloody shoe prints leading from the victim's room are linked to the crime.
Click to expand...

What about DNA mixed with the victim's blood? Can that be reasonably attributed to the crime? Or is that off-limits?

What about DNA in the victims room, on an article of clothing that was worn by the victim while she was being murdered? Especially when the DNA profile matches that of an individual who claims to have never been in the room?

What about a footprint set in the victim's blood in the bathroom?
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
That's not what I mean. By real evidence, I mean evidence that can linked to the crime with reasonable certainty. DNA results may or may not be linked to the crime. Luminol results may or may not be linked. But one can be reasonably certain that a bloody hand print next to the victim's body and a trail of bloody shoe prints leading from the victim's room are linked to the crime.
Click to expand...

You're simply stating that if all the evidence against AK and RS were rejected by the courts then they would be released. I agree with you. If all the evidence against RG were rejected then he would be released too.

You've described the dream scenario of every defence lawyer--to have all the evidence rejected.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
So, Charlie, I think this memo does not state what I think you think it does. This memo actually rather proves that Raffaele needed direct transfer to the clasp for his DNA profile to have been found in the strength it was found. The memo also includes reference to a study showing the viability of DNA profiles from single cells.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that you may be misreading the summary. Yes the lab can get a DNA profile from one cell. The problem is determining how the cell, or cells, got there. This research was done because transfer and contamination have become a point of controversy in a number of well-known cases. Donnah Winger's DNA was found on Roger Harrington's shirt, and it shouldn't have been there according to the prosecution's theory. Mark Winger's lawyer did his utmost to turn that DNA into an entire case. But the jury convicted Winger. They realized that the prosecutor's case made sense and was supported by evidence, and the DNA results were a fluke, possibly caused by mishandling at the crime scene.

Here's a scan from Invitation to a Murder, a book about the Winger/Harrington case by Gail Abbott Zimmerman:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/winger_case_fluke_dna.gif

Here's another interesting story from the annals of true crime:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1888126,00.html

Here's something about the infamous Leskie case in Australia:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/21/1069027328463.html

You have admonished me about confirmation bias. I would admonish you to avoid the fallacy of assuming that only one explanation is possible for a specific DNA test result, especially one that is anomalous. The experience of real-world criminal investigations shows that this is not the case.
 
Bob the Donkey writes:

What about DNA mixed with the victim's blood? Can that be reasonably attributed to the crime? Or is that off-limits?

No, it cannot be reasonably attributed to the crime. Remember that they found Amanda's DNA mixed with Raffaele's DNA at his place. It's substrate DNA. All it means it they were there at some point.

What about DNA in the victims room, on an article of clothing that was worn by the victim while she was being murdered? Especially when the DNA profile matches that of an individual who claims to have never been in the room?

See my comment re Leskie, Winger, etc.

What about a footprint set in the victim's blood in the bathroom?

That is unmistakably linked to the crime. The question is who made the footprint.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
I would suggest that you may be misreading the summary. Yes the lab can get a DNA profile from one cell. The problem is determining how the cell, or cells, got there. This research was done because transfer and contamination have become a point of controversy in a number of well-known cases. Donnah Winger's DNA was found on Roger Harrington's shirt, and it shouldn't have been there according to the prosecution's theory. Mark Winger's lawyer did his utmost to turn that DNA into an entire case. But the jury convicted Winger. They realized that the prosecutor's case made sense and was supported by evidence, and the DNA results were a fluke, possibly caused by mishandling at the crime scene.

Here's a scan from Invitation to a Murder, a book about the Winger/Harrington case by Gail Abbott Zimmerman:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/winger_case_fluke_dna.gif

Here's another interesting story from the annals of true crime:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1888126,00.html

Here's something about the infamous Leskie case in Australia:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/21/1069027328463.html

You have admonished me about confirmation bias. I would admonish you to avoid the fallacy of assuming that only one explanation is possible for a specific DNA test result, especially one that is anomalous. The experience of real-world criminal investigations shows that this is not the case.
Click to expand...

So back to the "Knife is Contaminated" claim. Can you back that up, or are you just pissing in the wind again?

Look, we've been over this time and again on this thread. There is absolutely no reliable source of contamination for the clasp and/or knife. None. The closest you can come up with is "contamination in the lab". And that's ignoring that the equipment used to test the knife had never been used before. And ignoring (ironically enough) that there was a 46 day lag between when the cigarette and other sources of Raffaele's DNA were collected and when the clasp was collected.

Continuing to make the same claim over and over does nothing to add to the validity of said claim unless you can provide a valid reason to believe contamination occurred in the lab. And "because Raffaele and Amanda are innocent" is not a valid reason to believe this - that's just begging the question.
 
christianahannah said:
Mary could you point me in the proper direction where Amanda shared this with her attorney who then gave that information to the proper authorities? Was it during her trial testimony?
Click to expand...

I would imagine the best place to look for a record of that would be in the papers the attorneys filed with the court, and I wouldn't know where to find those. There are many news reports from many sources, though, during the first week after the crime, that feature Amanda's mother telling news reporters (or someone) that Amanda was not at the crime scene and that she regretted having accused Patrick. Here is one from November 11th that shows that Amanda's attorney, Luciano Ghirga, also was aware of Amanda 's feelings about what she had told the police:

"....Edda Mellas, the mother of Ms Knox, said yesterday that she was convinced of her innocence and would stay in Italy "as long as it takes" to prove it.

"Mrs Mellas, a schoolteacher, said after seeing her daughter at the prison outside Perugia that "she told me she was not even there, where that poor girl Meredith was killed." She said Ms Knox had reverted to her first version of events, maintaining that she spent the entire night of the murder at the flat of Raffaele Sollecito, her Italian boyfriend, who is the third suspect in the case. Ms Knox has now changed her story at least three times.

"When first questioned on November 2 she told police she stayed all night with Mr Sollecito, but was called in again for questioning on November 6 after police intercepted a phone call in which she told Mr Sollecito "I cant keep this up any more". She then "crumbled", telling police first that she had a "confused" memory of "Patrick killing Meredith"....

"...Mrs Mellas however said her daughter told her that "in accusing Patrick I did something really stupid. I told the truth in my first interrogation. That night Raffaele and I did not move from his flat"....

"....Luciano Ghirga, Ms Knox's lawyer, said her reversion to the "I was not even there" defence was "something she said in confidence to her mother". There is speculation however that it will form the basis of an appeal against the decision last Friday by Claudia Matteini, the investigating judge, to remand all three suspects in custody for up to a year pending charges....."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2851266.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

I suppose one could argue that Ghirga, for some bizarre and unlikely reason, might not have informed the police and prosecutor of his client's position, but it is doubtful the police and the prosecutor were not reading the papers.

(BTW, it is interesting to see in the early reports how vociferously Patrick Lumumba's attorneys were defending his innocence, even though their protests were falling on deaf ears.)
 
Last edited:
MaryH did you even bother to read the court testimony? Knox wrote to her lawyer on the 9th and he got the letter on the 12th. It is in the transcript of her testimony and it has been referred to in this thread several times and certainly since you got here. It really does not help your case to avoid such important sources of information: we don't have anything like enough information but you are making up stories as if we have none at all
 
Fiona said:
MaryH did you even bother to read the court testimony? Knox wrote to her lawyer on the 9th and he got the letter on the 12th. It is in the transcript of her testimony and it has been referred to in this thread several times and certainly since you got here. It really does not help your case to avoid such important sources of information: we don't have anything like enough information but you are making up stories as if we have none at all
Click to expand...

I don't see that I am making up any stories, Fiona. Yes, I know you have said before that Amanda wrote to her lawyer on the 9th and he got it on the 12th, but I just quoted a newspaper article that says Ghirga knew Amanda's position on the 10th. stilicho said Amanda had representation even earlier than that. Do you really think it is possible that Ghirga didn't know that Amanda denied being at the crime scene until the 12th? She wouldn't have told him that the minute she met him?

Regardless of when he knew it, the newspapers printed it by the latest on the 11th, and probably before. In addition to the fact that the police and the prosecution were extremely cozy with the media, there is also that little inconvenient fact that Amanda herself had already told the police she was extremely confused about what she had said during the interrogation.

It is very clear there is no basis for pinning Patrick's two-week stay in jail on Amanda, or that she didn't do anything to express she had been wrong about accusing him.
 
Mary_H said:
I don't see that I am making up any stories, Fiona. Yes, I know you have said before that Amanda wrote to her lawyer on the 9th and he got it on the 12th, but I just quoted a newspaper article that says Ghirga knew Amanda's position on the 10th. stilicho said Amanda had representation even earlier than that. Do you really think it is possible that Ghirga didn't know that Amanda denied being at the crime scene until the 12th? She wouldn't have told him that the minute she met him?

Regardless of when he knew it, the newspapers printed it by the latest on the 11th, and probably before. In addition to the fact that the police and the prosecution were extremely cozy with the media, there is also that little inconvenient fact that Amanda herself had already told the police she was extremely confused about what she had said during the interrogation.

It is very clear there is no basis for pinning Patrick's two-week stay in jail on Amanda, or that she didn't do anything to express she had been wrong about accusing him.
Click to expand...
There is a notable difference between:

"I'm confused about what I said before"

and

"I lied. Patrick had nothing to do with it. I was at Raffaele's flat all night."


Regardless, the Police had what amounted to an eye-witness and subsequently a suspect. Until the alibi of the suspect could be verified, the Police were right to hold Patrick. If the Police had released Patrick after Amanda claimed she was confused about what had actually happened, you would use that as ammunition against the Police (incompetence). So, in other words, Patrick would never have been arrested if not for Amanda's accusation. Period. She is, therefore, completely at fault for Patrick's stay in jail. No amount of apologetics can remove the fault from Amanda.
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
I don't see that I am making up any stories, Fiona. Yes, I know you have said before that Amanda wrote to her lawyer on the 9th and he got it on the 12th, but I just quoted a newspaper article that says Ghirga knew Amanda's position on the 10th. stilicho said Amanda had representation even earlier than that. Do you really think it is possible that Ghirga didn't know that Amanda denied being at the crime scene until the 12th? She wouldn't have told him that the minute she met him?

Regardless of when he knew it, the newspapers printed it by the latest on the 11th, and probably before. In addition to the fact that the police and the prosecution were extremely cozy with the media, there is also that little inconvenient fact that Amanda herself had already told the police she was extremely confused about what she had said during the interrogation.

It is very clear there is no basis for pinning Patrick's two-week stay in jail on Amanda, or that she didn't do anything to express she had been wrong about accusing him.
Click to expand...

Would that be Mary H relying on a NEWSPAPER for her information? I couldn't resist, I had to point it out ;)
 
Mary_H said:
I don't see that I am making up any stories, Fiona. Yes, I know you have said before that Amanda wrote to her lawyer on the 9th and he got it on the 12th, but I just quoted a newspaper article that says Ghirga knew Amanda's position on the 10th. stilicho said Amanda had representation even earlier than that. Do you really think it is possible that Ghirga didn't know that Amanda denied being at the crime scene until the 12th? She wouldn't have told him that the minute she met him?

Regardless of when he knew it, the newspapers printed it by the latest on the 11th, and probably before. In addition to the fact that the police and the prosecution were extremely cozy with the media, there is also that little inconvenient fact that Amanda herself had already told the police she was extremely confused about what she had said during the interrogation.

It is very clear there is no basis for pinning Patrick's two-week stay in jail on Amanda, or that she didn't do anything to express she had been wrong about accusing him.
Click to expand...


The thing is Mary, the people that really mattered weren't formally told, the police and prosecutor. And also, it's rather suspicious that Amanda seemed to only change her story when visited by her mother.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
They chose this course because they are factually innocent. They could have admitted to being there and covering for Rudy when he went berzerk, and gotten a more lenient sentence. Or they could have blamed each other. But the simple fact of the matter is they were not involved at all. They were together at Raffaele's apartment all night long.
Click to expand...

Where's your evidence for this Charlie? One single shred of evidence they were at Raffaele's apartment together all evening...do you have any?
 
Mary_H said:
What is the evidence they weren't?
Click to expand...

I can't believe you just asked me for evidence they weren't. Have you and I been following different cases? Or, are you just being obtuse again?

But that's not the point I was making with my question (whether they were or weren't). My point is, is how could Charlie Wilkes possibly know they were at Raffaele's apartment all evening? He asserts it as fact, an absolute. I do not understand how someone can do that when not only is there no proof that they were, there's not a single shred of evidence to suggest they were. It's one thing to say 'I believe' they were there all evening, as a point of faith, but quite another to assert something as fact which is not supported by any evidence...and that's before even getting to all the evidence that shows they weren't.
 
Fulcanelli said:
I can't believe you just asked me for evidence they weren't. Have you and I been following different cases? Or, are you just being obtuse again?

But that's not the point I was making with my question (whether they were or weren't). My point is, is how could Charlie Wilkes possibly know they were at Raffaele's apartment all evening? He asserts it as fact, an absolute. I do not understand how someone can do that when not only is there no proof that they were, there's not a single shred of evidence to suggest they were. It's one thing to say 'I believe' they were there all evening, as a point of faith, but quite another to assert something as fact which is not supported by any evidence...and that's before even getting to all the evidence that shows they weren't.
Click to expand...

How is the evidence that they weren't there any more factual than the evidence they were there? It's just a matter of taking the word of a bunch of kooky eye witnesses whose stories don't agree with one another versus taking the word of Amanda and Raffaele.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom