Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[christianahannah]

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/39843262/Mignini-part-1-doc

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/39845170/Mignin-Motivation-part-2_2_

Rose, that was very nice you took the time to convert the pdf file to a word document. Thank you.

 

[christianahannah]

I have many, many friends, young, and old, who luv smoking out. Many do that as soon as they wake up-(heck, even though my parents were hippies back in the 60's, and I've even grown pot, I haven't gotten stoned myself since abouta year ago. Gimmee a cold 1 or shotta Jack!).
I sometimes wonder if Amanda or Raffaele got stoned again after getting up and outta bed. As the evening before, Halloween was a late nightout, I can see the young lovers sleeping in a bit the next night, waking up and smoking a bowl before starting to get ready for their trip. If so, as things were going down, that must have been a heavy experience.

I also wonder if they were both still smoking after the first day's discovery and questioning. I can easliy see someone who burns a lot doing that to unwind after the stress of dealing with the murder of Amanda's housemate, and the questioning by the police.
Just another thought...
RWVBWL

I had wondered whether Amanda or Raffaele smoked the evening of November 5 before Raffaele was called in to be questioned by the police. Since most of their prior interviews had taken place late afternoon I don't think they would have expected to be called in for questioning at 10 p.m. thus allowing themselves to "unwind." Couldn't that cause confused memories while being interrogated?

 

[RWVBWL]

I had wondered whether Amanda or Raffaele smoked the evening of November 5 before Raffaele was called in to be questioned by the police. Since most of their prior interviews had taken place late afternoon I don't think they would have expected to be called in for questioning at 10 p.m. thus allowing themselves to "unwind." Couldn't that cause confused memories while being interrogated?

Hi christianahannah,
I agree with your post. I too had wondered of this.
My gut feeling is that, especially being young, they were probably still smoking as a way to deal with the stress. And if Amanda or Raffaele was stoned or even coming down off a high, and then interrogated that night, wow! That would be harsh, to say the least. Cops yelling at you, telling you your lying, and that your partner is not covering your alibi anymore. What the heck's going on?!? In my opinion, while in that frame of mind, getting a little "help to remember" would have been terrifying for a naive young person who had just wanted to help the police capture a murderer...
RWVBWL

ps-thank you again to RoseMontague for the email copy.

 

[Fine]

Perhaps, but doesn't that argument apply equally to someone who tracks blood around? Shouldn't the luminol traces form a trail, like Guede's shoe prints?
Meredith's DNA was not found in any of the bare footprints revealed with luminol in the corridor. Why not? If luminol destroys DNA, why was DNA found in some of the luminol prints/stains, and why would the authorities (who are supposed to know about this) test only for DNA instead of performing a second test to confirm the presence of blood?

_______________-
Charlie,

Well, the luminol-revealed bare footprints wouldn't form a "trail" if some had been fully removed, or, cleaned up. The absence of the bloody heelprint---which would be the natural extension of the bloody bathmat footprint--- on the bathroom floor shows that there had been a clean up in THAT room prior to the arrival of the cops. (Yes, there are contrived scenarios that explain the absence of the bloody heelprint on the floor, but those scenarios are just that....contrived.) Or maybe when the lovebirds were leaving their bloody footprints there was some debris on the floor, such as clothing or paper, that they stepped on, and so they left an incomplete "trail."

You contrast the organized trail left by Rudy with the disorganized lovebirds' prints (later revealed with Luminol). But who knows just how much time had elapsed since the time of the murder (or the first drawing of blood) and Rudy leaving the cottage? Perhaps enough time had elapsed for the lovebirds to have cleaned up---in an incomplete fashion--- their own bloody footprints (and perhaps the debris on the floor too), before Rudy then left his own trail down the hallway.

I'm curious. If it wasn't blood then just what was that "mystery substance" and where did it come from? If from a spill, why no trace of the spill itself, only bare footprints tacking the stuff around? And if impure water from the shower, again, why no such prints near the shower?

We know that prior to the locking of Meredith's door there was a plentiful supply of a substance famous for glowing when sprayed with Luminol.

///

 

[Chris_Halkides]

identity of the prints is unclear

_______________-
Charlie,

You contrast the organized trail left by Rudy with the disorganized lovebirds' prints (later revealed with Luminol).

///

Without reference prints from Laura and Filomena and given the way in which the luminol was applied (according to Colonel Garofano in Darkness Descending, it tended to dilute the print), one might be well advised not to draw strong conclusions about whose prints are in the hallway.

halides1

 

[christianahannah]

is not especially fast.

http://www.powellfab.com/Technical_Information/tools/sodiumhypo_decomp.asp

So it is possible that any images picked up by luminol six weeks into investigating a crime scene could be due to a bleach reaction?

Another question to anyone, do bare feet prints show up better than shoe prints? And do different floor surfaces show prints better than others, i.e. wood, tile, etc.

 

[Dan O.]

I'm curious. If it wasn't blood then just what was that "mystery substance" and where did it come from? If from a spill, why no trace of the spill itself, only bare footprints tacking the stuff around? And if impure water from the shower, again, why no such prints near the shower?

We know from the photographs that a substance other than Luminal was used in the bathroom to detect the biological traces there. (see: Kastle-Meyer test^WP)

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

_______________-
Charlie,

Well, the luminol-revealed bare footprints wouldn't form a "trail" if some had been fully removed, or, cleaned up. The absence of the bloody heelprint---which would be the natural extension of the bloody bathmat footprint--- on the bathroom floor shows that there had been a clean up in THAT room prior to the arrival of the cops. (Yes, there are contrived scenarios that explain the absence of the bloody heelprint on the floor, but those scenarios are just that....contrived.) Or maybe when the lovebirds were leaving their bloody footprints there was some debris on the floor, such as clothing or paper, that they stepped on, and so they left an incomplete "trail."

You contrast the organized trail left by Rudy with the disorganized lovebirds' prints (later revealed with Luminol). But who knows just how much time had elapsed since the time of the murder (or the first drawing of blood) and Rudy leaving the cottage? Perhaps enough time had elapsed for the lovebirds to have cleaned up---in an incomplete fashion--- their own bloody footprints (and perhaps the debris on the floor too), before Rudy then left his own trail down the hallway.

I'm curious. If it wasn't blood then just what was that "mystery substance" and where did it come from? If from a spill, why no trace of the spill itself, only bare footprints tacking the stuff around? And if impure water from the shower, again, why no such prints near the shower?

We know that prior to the locking of Meredith's door there was a plentiful supply of a substance famous for glowing when sprayed with Luminol.

///

I don't see any evidence connecting these prints to the murder. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, was any evidence of a cleanup presented during the trial. Do you really think Amanda and Raffaele cleaned the corridor in such a way that they left Rudy's shoe prints?

I would be interested to see images of the luminol reactions from Sollecito's apartment. There were a lot of them, but the documentation I have gives no shape descriptions for any of them. Nobody has tried to link them to foul play or say they were made with blood.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

_______________-
Charlie,

Well, the luminol-revealed bare footprints wouldn't form a "trail" if some had been fully removed, or, cleaned up. The absence of the bloody heelprint---which would be the natural extension of the bloody bathmat footprint--- on the bathroom floor shows that there had been a clean up in THAT room prior to the arrival of the cops. (Yes, there are contrived scenarios that explain the absence of the bloody heelprint on the floor, but those scenarios are just that....contrived.)

If you are looking for guilt beyond reasonable doubt, then you can't simply dismiss alternative explanations as "contrived".

Given that we don't know the substance that the luminol showed was blood in the first place, you can't say anything about the likelihood or otherwise of a given luminol footprint being evidence of blood being cleaned up.

I'm curious. If it wasn't blood then just what was that "mystery substance" and where did it come from? If from a spill, why no trace of the spill itself, only bare footprints tacking the stuff around? And if impure water from the shower, again, why no such prints near the shower?

We'll never know. Given that the "mystery substance" could have been tracked in at any time, and could have been a wide variety of different substances, all we can say is that the test result is meaningless.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

If you are looking for guilt beyond reasonable doubt, then you can't simply dismiss alternative explanations as "contrived".

Actually, that's exactly what "reasonable" means in the "reasonable doubt".

Contrived tends to assert that the scenario is less than reasonable, or in this instance, less reasonable than a different scenario.


Anyway, you want to assert that it was other substances that were revealed with the luminol, so be it. How did the substance(s) arrive on the feet of those who made the footprints?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Actually, that's exactly what "reasonable" means in the "reasonable doubt".

Contrived tends to assert that the scenario is less than reasonable, or in this instance, less reasonable than a different scenario.

I think you misunderstand the intent (if not always the application) of reasonable doubt. If a reasonable person can believe that the "contrived" explanation is possible, there's reasonable doubt.

The mere fact that you think unspecified "contrived" scenarios are less reasonable than your preferred scenarios does not get you to proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Anyway, you want to assert that it was other substances that were revealed with the luminol, so be it. How did the substance(s) arrive on the feet of those who made the footprints?

I invite you to reread the post you are replying to. I'll even help you out by reposting the relevant portion:

We'll never know. Given that the "mystery substance" could have been tracked in at any time, and could have been a wide variety of different substances, all we can say is that the test result is meaningless.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I think you misunderstand the intent (if not always the application) of reasonable doubt. If a reasonable person can believe that the "contrived" explanation is possible, there's reasonable doubt.

The mere fact that you think unspecified "contrived" scenarios are less reasonable than your preferred scenarios does not get you to proof beyond reasonable doubt.



I invite you to reread the post you are replying to. I'll even help you out by reposting the relevant portion:

We'll never know. Given that the "mystery substance" could have been tracked in at any time, and could have been a wide variety of different substances, all we can say is that the test result is meaningless.

There is no evidence it was tracked in. Just as there is no evidence that Raffaele's DNA was tracked into Meredith's bedroom and thus onto the clasp.

Therefore, I ask again: How did this other substance arrive on the feet to be left as footprints?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

There is no evidence it was tracked in.

Nor any evidence that it was not. The test tells us nothing.

Just as there is no evidence that Raffaele's DNA was tracked into Meredith's bedroom and thus onto the clasp.

If Raffaele was in the house any length of time then he shed skin cells which would have been lying around the house, and those cells could easily have been tracked anywhere in the house. That tiny amounts of Raffaele's DNA could have been in that room for entirely innocent reasons is a given.

There is no evidence that his DNA got on to the clasp because he touched it, nor any evidence that his DNA got on to the clasp because it was lying on the floor with dust containing his DNA, nor any evidence that his DNA appeared to be on the clasp because of a false positive. Given the opportunities for contamination that test also tells us nothing - a reasonable person can believe it possible either that his DNA was on the clasp for innocent reasons or that the test was a false positive.

Therefore, I ask again: How did this other substance arrive on the feet to be left as footprints?

I will repeat myself a third time. We'll never know. Given that the "mystery substance" could have been tracked in at any time, and could have been a wide variety of different substances, all we can say is that the test result is meaningless.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Nor any evidence that it was not. The test tells us nothing.

I will repeat myself a third time. We'll never know. Given that the "mystery substance" could have been tracked in at any time, and could have been a wide variety of different substances, all we can say is that the test result is meaningless.

Then I must repeat myself again: where did the substance come from? Simply claiming that there could have been another substance that was stepped in is insufficient to prompt reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt requires a plausibe scenario. To date, there has been no alternate plausible scenario as there is no evidence that turnip juice was in the cottage, nor spilled on the floor anywhere. Are you suggesting that people stepped in feces and tracked them all over the floor? Where are the tracks from the substance being tracked into the cottage from outside? Perhaps you could explain why there are no tracks from where a spill occurred to where the footprints were found?

Rather, the closest/largest/only source of iron upon which anyone could have trod was indeed blood from Meredith. It is only logical, therefore, to believe that the luminol did indeed reveal blood stains - when all other possibilities are removed, what remains, however unlikely (or one wishes it to be not the case), is the truth.

If Raffaele was in the house any length of time then he shed skin cells which would have been lying around the house, and those cells could easily have been tracked anywhere in the house. That tiny amounts of Raffaele's DNA could have been in that room for entirely innocent reasons is a given.

There is no evidence that his DNA got on to the clasp because he touched it, nor any evidence that his DNA got on to the clasp because it was lying on the floor with dust containing his DNA, nor any evidence that his DNA appeared to be on the clasp because of a false positive. Given the opportunities for contamination that test also tells us nothing - a reasonable person can believe it possible either that his DNA was on the clasp for innocent reasons or that the test was a false positive.

Would you mind finding a study where tertiary DNA transfer is determined to be plausible? Halides1 has been unable to do so. Of course, this assumption of yours would require the release of just about any person convicted due to DNA evidence. If contamination can occur so easily as the Defense would have us believe, then what good is DNA evidence at all?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Then I must repeat myself again: where did the substance come from? Simply claiming that there could have been another substance that was stepped in is insufficient to prompt reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt requires a plausibe scenario.

No. This is a philosophical error on your part.

If I find an empty milk carton on the street I can have reasonable doubt regarding the claim that the milk carton was put there by the people two doors down, without having any one specific alternative hypothesis in mind.

Maybe it fell out of someone's bin a street away and it got blown to where it is now by the wind. Maybe it was dropped from a passing car. Maybe the people who live in the nearest house tossed it out their front door. I have no idea, and I need have no idea to have reasonable doubt about any single hypothesis.

To date, there has been no alternate plausible scenario as there is no evidence that turnip juice was in the cottage, nor spilled on the floor anywhere. Are you suggesting that people stepped in feces and tracked them all over the floor? Where are the tracks from the substance being tracked into the cottage from outside? Perhaps you could explain why there are no tracks from where a spill occurred to where the footprints were found?

Rather, the closest/largest/only source of iron upon which anyone could have trod was indeed blood from Meredith. It is only logical, therefore, to believe that the luminol did indeed reveal blood stains - when all other possibilities are removed, what remains, however unlikely (or one wishes it to be not the case), is the truth.

Once again this is a philosophical error. You have not removed all other possibilities, you've just made an argument from incredulity.

Lack of positive evidence of turnip juice, household cleaning products or anything else is not evidence of absence, let alone conclusive evidence of absence.

Would you mind finding a study where tertiary DNA transfer is determined to be plausible? Halides1 has been unable to do so. Of course, this assumption of yours would require the release of just about any person convicted due to DNA evidence. If contamination can occur so easily as the Defense would have us believe, then what good is DNA evidence at all?

An excellent question, albeit a very basic one. I'm glad you asked, because otherwise I wouldn't have known that you didn't know.

DNA evidence has enormous value as evidence if it can place someone at the scene of a crime where their DNA could not normally be. If I break into a stranger's home and murder them and leave DNA behind, that DNA is excellent evidence that I committed the crime. There is no reason for my DNA to be in a total stranger's home, and nobody but me could have put it there (barring some kind of deliberate attempt to frame me, I suppose).

Whereas if my girlfriend turns up murdered and they find my DNA on her person and in her bedroom, it would prove absolutely nothing one way or the other. There's a perfectly reasonable explanation for my DNA being found there even if I didn't do it.

There's a perfectly reasonable explanation for how a tiny speck of Raffaele's DNA could get on an object which was lying around on the floor of a house where he spent a lot of time. Therefore the positive DNA result tells us nothing. If they'd tested any other random object that had been lying around on the floor of that house it's equally plausible that they could have gotten a positive result.

 

[HumanityBlues]

No. This is a philosophical error on your part.

If I find an empty milk carton on the street I can have reasonable doubt regarding the claim that the milk carton was put there by the people two doors down, without having any one specific alternative hypothesis in mind.

Maybe it fell out of someone's bin a street away and it got blown to where it is now by the wind. Maybe it was dropped from a passing car. Maybe the people who live in the nearest house tossed it out their front door. I have no idea, and I need have no idea to have reasonable doubt about any single hypothesis.



Once again this is a philosophical error. You have not removed all other possibilities, you've just made an argument from incredulity.

Lack of positive evidence of turnip juice, household cleaning products or anything else is not evidence of absence, let alone conclusive evidence of absence.



An excellent question, albeit a very basic one. I'm glad you asked, because otherwise I wouldn't have known that you didn't know.

DNA evidence has enormous value as evidence if it can place someone at the scene of a crime where their DNA could not normally be. If I break into a stranger's home and murder them and leave DNA behind, that DNA is excellent evidence that I committed the crime. There is no reason for my DNA to be in a total stranger's home, and nobody but me could have put it there (barring some kind of deliberate attempt to frame me, I suppose).

Whereas if my girlfriend turns up murdered and they find my DNA on her person and in her bedroom, it would prove absolutely nothing one way or the other. There's a perfectly reasonable explanation for my DNA being found there even if I didn't do it.

There's a perfectly reasonable explanation for how a tiny speck of Raffaele's DNA could get on an object which was lying around on the floor of a house where he spent a lot of time. Therefore the positive DNA result tells us nothing. If they'd tested any other random object that had been lying around on the floor of that house it's equally plausible that they could have gotten a positive result.

Kevin, what you're doing is promoting rational thought, skepticism, and basic logic---along with principles that start from the presumption of innocence, not working backwards from guilt. You will find that such things are highly frowned upon on this thread. Shame on you.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

No. This is a philosophical error on your part.

If I find an empty milk carton on the street I can have reasonable doubt regarding the claim that the milk carton was put there by the people two doors down, without having any one specific alternative hypothesis in mind.

Maybe it fell out of someone's bin a street away and it got blown to where it is now by the wind. Maybe it was dropped from a passing car. Maybe the people who live in the nearest house tossed it out their front door. I have no idea, and I need have no idea to have reasonable doubt about any single hypothesis.

Those are all plausible hypotheses. What is plausible about turnip juice or feces being on the bottom of their feet when there is no trace of how that juice or fecal matter was contacted by the bottom of their feet? That is what makes it unreasonable.

Once again this is a philosophical error. You have not removed all other possibilities, you've just made an argument from incredulity.

Lack of positive evidence of turnip juice, household cleaning products or anything else is not evidence of absence, let alone conclusive evidence of absence.

So show where that spill of turnip juice is, or the fecal matter they stepped in, or a trail leading from outside to where the prints are found. It is unreasonable to suspect that these two stepped in fecal matter and tracked it around the house (the footprints don't show this), it is unreasonable to suspect that there was a turnip juice spill on the floor that was stepped in and tracked around the house. This is even more true when it is revealed that of all the people who tracked dirt, mud, whatever through the house that morning, no one else left footprints. Thus, it is unreasonable to make the assumption that we cannot know what these footprints were made of. The only source of iron that could have been on their feet was Meredith's blood, especially given the bloody footprint on the bathmat that resembles Raffaele's foot. There is no plausible reason to suspect these results show anything other than Meredith's blood.

An excellent question, albeit a very basic one. I'm glad you asked, because otherwise I wouldn't have known that you didn't know.

This is not a "basic question". This is a genuine "show me the study" request. As of yet, no one has proven that tertiary or quaternary transfer is detectable.

DNA evidence has enormous value as evidence if it can place someone at the scene of a crime where their DNA could not normally be. If I break into a stranger's home and murder them and leave DNA behind, that DNA is excellent evidence that I committed the crime. There is no reason for my DNA to be in a total stranger's home, and nobody but me could have put it there (barring some kind of deliberate attempt to frame me, I suppose).

So if Raffaele's DNA is to be expected in the cottage, why out of all the swabs was it only found in Meredith's room? While I agree that absence of evidence doesn't mean absence, Raffaele's DNA is conspicuously missing for someone who was in the cottage - except in a room where he claims to have never set foot, and just so happens to have been found on the bra clasp the victim was wearing. That is terribly inconvenient for this young man if indeed it is contamination. Again, it is unreasonable to assume that contamination occurred simply because the Defense cries out that it has.

Whereas if my girlfriend turns up murdered and they find my DNA on her person and in her bedroom, it would prove absolutely nothing one way or the other. There's a perfectly reasonable explanation for my DNA being found there even if I didn't do it.

There is no reason for Raffaele's DNA to have been in Meredith's room.

There's a perfectly reasonable explanation for how a tiny speck of Raffaele's DNA could get on an object which was lying around on the floor of a house where he spent a lot of time. Therefore the positive DNA result tells us nothing. If they'd tested any other random object that had been lying around on the floor of that house it's equally plausible that they could have gotten a positive result.

They did test all kinds of other places on the floor of the cottage, nary a spec of Raffaele's DNA was found except on a cigarette butt in the kitchen.

How did Raffaele's DNA arrive in Meredith's room if he was never there, short of tertiary transfer? To believe this was a case of contamination, we must believe that Raffaele managed to leave his DNA only in those places in the cottage that not only weren't tested, but none of the places where he left his DNA were contacted in any way except for where the clasp lay (or the gloves that picked it up touched). That's unreasonable to assume.

 

[Mary_H]

There is no reason for Raffaele's DNA to have been in Meredith's room. They did test all kinds of other places on the floor of the cottage, nary a spec of Raffaele's DNA was found except on a cigarette butt in the kitchen.

How did Raffaele's DNA arrive in Meredith's room if he was never there, short of tertiary transfer? To believe this was a case of contamination, we must believe that Raffaele managed to leave his DNA only in those places in the cottage that not only weren't tested, but none of the places where he left his DNA were contacted in any way except for where the clasp lay (or the gloves that picked it up touched). That's unreasonable to assume.

I agree, there is no reason for Raffaele's DNA to be in Meredith's room. There is an infinitesimal likelihood that the investigators could go to Meredith's room six weeks after the crime, remove three items, and find that one of the items holds the only other speck of Raffaele to be found in the cottage.

The odds that the DNA came from another source in the lab are considerably higher.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I agree, there is no reason for Raffaele's DNA to be in Meredith's room. There is an infinitesimal likelihood that the investigators could go to Meredith's room six weeks after the crime, remove three items, and find that one of the items holds the only other speck of Raffaele to be found in the cottage.

The odds that the DNA came from another source in the lab are considerably higher.

No, Mary, they're not. As I've explained before, to believe that the clasp was tested at the same time as any of the other items that contained Raffaele's DNA (what, the cigarette butt or the reference cheek swab) means concluding that the lab waited until the clasp was collected to test all the other materials. In other words, we must believe that the lab was so backed up that there were still items with Raffaele's DNA still being tested and yet they were able to test the clasp immediately, or we must believe that the lab waited to test everything with Raffaele's DNA till the end, etc.

It's unlikely that contamination of the clasp happened in the lab. There is, again, no plausible route for the contamination.

 

[Mary_H]

No, Mary, they're not. As I've explained before, to believe that the clasp was tested at the same time as any of the other items that contained Raffaele's DNA (what, the cigarette butt or the reference cheek swab) means concluding that the lab waited until the clasp was collected to test all the other materials. In other words, we must believe that the lab was so backed up that there were still items with Raffaele's DNA still being tested and yet they were able to test the clasp immediately, or we must believe that the lab waited to test everything with Raffaele's DNA till the end, etc.

It's unlikely that contamination of the clasp happened in the lab. There is, again, no plausible route for the contamination.

Corruption is extremely plausible. Faked lab results are common. I'm not saying it was contaminated by one of the previous DNA samples the lab already had. I'm saying Stefanoni or her pals took some test results from some of Raffaele's DNA, and said it was found on the bra clasp. Pretty simple, really.