Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Malkmus]

________________

Malkmus, Permit me to clarify the issue here. The issue is NOT whether one can purchase or own pepper spray in the City of Seattle. The issue is whether one can carry on one's person such a weapon. As you know, the laws make a similar distinction concerning other weapons such as knives and guns.

Fine, I'm not sure what your point is in all this since you clearly are shifting the goal posts. Your first claim was that Amanda probably never owned any pepper spray or if she did it would have been illegal. Now that it's been proven not to be illegal to own, you're saying the issue is whether it's legal to "carry" pepper spray. Did you ignore the ordinance above?

RCW 9.91.160
Personal protection spray devices.

(1) It is unlawful for a person under eighteen years old, unless the person is at least fourteen years old and has the permission of a parent or guardian to do so, to purchase or possess a personal protection spray device. A violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.

**** (2) No town, city, county, special purpose district, quasi-municipal corporation or other unit of government may prohibit a person eighteen years old or older, or a person fourteen years old or older who has the permission of a parent or guardian to do so, from purchasing or possessing a personal protection spray device or from using such a device in a manner consistent with the authorized use of force under RCW 9A.16.020. No town, city, county, special purpose district, quasi-municipal corporation, or other unit of government may prohibit a person eighteen years old or older from delivering a personal protection spray device to a person authorized to possess such a device.

You keep making these assertions without any basis. What's the point? Seems like an attempt at obfuscation, and it's not working.

And Chris Mellas' comment that he purchased such a weapon for Amanda---and she carried it--- is a double edged sword. He says she carried pepper spray on her key ring while she resided in Perugia. Suppose that's true, for the purpose of the discussion. One might therefore conclude that she didn't need to carry a knife for protection. But one could also conclude that she was in fear for her safety, and so would have been all the more disposed to carry a knife, too, for protection.

This is rather ridiculous. You've now come full circle. You have no proof or reason to show that Amanda didn't carry pepper spray, so now you're using the notion that she may have carried it to show that she probably would carried a knife instead, because you see no difference between carrying the two? If we're back to that, perhaps you should address instead the reaons I listed for why she most likely would not have carried a knife around in her purse.

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, I'm seeing it mentioned "as fact" that Knox (and probably also Sollecito) were regular cocaine users. I have never seen any evidence, testimony or statements in this area. Does anyone have any information that might either corroborate or counter this fairly extreme claim?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

And Chris Mellas' comment that he purchased such a weapon for Amanda---and she carried it--- is a double edged sword. He says she carried pepper spray on her key ring while she resided in Perugia. Suppose that's true, for the purpose of the discussion. One might therefore conclude that she didn't need to carry a knife for protection. But one could also conclude that she was in fear for her safety, and so would have been all the more disposed to carry a knife, too, for protection.

Sure. If one requires no proof, one may conclude almost anything. The knife is too big to have made some of the wounds, therefore one can conclude that two knifes were used. The knife was a kitchen utensil, but one can conclude that Amanda carried it in her purse to ward off attackers, and so it was on hand for her to plunge into Meredith's neck while helping Rudy commit rape. And why would Amanda help Rudy commit rape? Because she was quite obviously a criminal psychopath, as evidenced by the fact that she got a ticket for hosting a loud party in Seattle.

 

[Dan O.]

________________

Malkmus, Permit me to clarify the issue here. The issue is NOT whether one can purchase or own pepper spray in the City of Seattle. The issue is whether one can carry on one's person such a weapon. As you know, the laws make a similar distinction concerning other weapons such as knives and guns.

You really should learn to do your homework before posting. It so happens that a keychain pepper spray is specifically not classified as a weapon in Italy and can be freely traded and carried.

And Chris Mellas' comment that he purchased such a weapon for Amanda---and she carried it--- is a double edged sword. He says she carried pepper spray on her key ring while she resided in Perugia. Suppose that's true, for the purpose of the discussion. One might therefore conclude that she didn't need to carry a knife for protection. But one could also conclude that she was in fear for her safety, and so would have been all the more disposed to carry a knife, too, for protection.

Another "damned if she did, damned if she didn't". You have shown no evidence either way. This is no more than another distraction from someone that just believes Amanda is guilty. I doubt it will be the last.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Amanda's MySpace photograph interpreted

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Seriously one of the funniest passages I've ever read....ever....ever. I mean really? REALLY?! Man that is good stuff.

Seriously. Do not hesitate to show us more nuggets like that.

Hoooooo man.

HumanityBlues,

Here is another nugget. In Darkness Descending the authors (pp. 200-201) describe a photo of Amanda Knox, “Arty modeling photos on her MySpace site showed Amanda posing in a tasteful but darkly provocative way…She wore an all-black skin-tight outfit, her clingy top slightly see-through, defining her bosom ambiguously under the dark material. Whether she was braless…was flirtatiously questionable…the cuffs of her boot-cuts riding up slightly to reveal the black leather straps over bare ankles. Her hair was drawn back fiercely, a few loose tousles left deliberately and fetchingly falling behind her right ear. On the internet, Amanda became a sex object.”

It is worth recalling that Darkness Descending is written from a strongly pro-guilt perspective.

 

[HumanityBlues]

________________

Malkmus, Permit me to clarify the issue here. The issue is NOT whether one can purchase or own pepper spray in the City of Seattle. The issue is whether one can carry on one's person such a weapon. As you know, the laws make a similar distinction concerning other weapons such as knives and guns.

And Chris Mellas' comment that he purchased such a weapon for Amanda---and she carried it--- is a double edged sword. He says she carried pepper spray on her key ring while she resided in Perugia. Suppose that's true, for the purpose of the discussion. One might therefore conclude that she didn't need to carry a knife for protection. But one could also conclude that she was in fear for her safety, and so would have been all the more disposed to carry a knife, too, for protection.

///

Enough with the fake nuance. You made a statement about a law, and you were dead wrong. Seriously, what are you hoping to gain from this? You lost. Give it up.

 

[RWVBWL]

________________

Malkmus, Permit me to clarify the issue here. The issue is NOT whether one can purchase or own pepper spray in the City of Seattle. The issue is whether one can carry on one's person such a weapon. As you know, the laws make a similar distinction concerning other weapons such as knives and guns.

And Chris Mellas' comment that he purchased such a weapon for Amanda---and she carried it--- is a double edged sword. He says she carried pepper spray on her key ring while she resided in Perugia. Suppose that's true, for the purpose of the discussion. One might therefore conclude that she didn't need to carry a knife for protection. But one could also conclude that she was in fear for her safety, and so would have been all the more disposed to carry a knife, too, for protection.

///

Greetings Fine and other JREF members too,
After I read your recent post, Fine,
I wondered about Meredith Kercher's concern for her own safety.

If Amanda Knox was carrying a big ol' kitchen knife around town for "protection" as the prosecution has thought, and she was also possibly in possesion of pepper spray too, (since she might possibly had been in fear for her safety), wouldn't Miss Kercher been doing something similiar too?

I ask this of you since I recall reading on page 41 of author Candace Dempsey's book "Murder in Italy" how there were not 1, but 2 instances in the week prior to Miss Kercher's murder that the cottage residents and/or their friends had seen someone possibly lurking in the garden. Meredith herself told Giacomo that she had been frightened when she saw a shadow in the garden. On both occasions, the guys had searched the grounds but found nothing.

Keeping this in mind, I bet that Miss Kercher, after heading home from hanging out at her girlfriends apartment, would have entered her pad quickly that night and then closed and locked her front door immediately after arriving home. As she was planning to spend the night alone in her apartment, and knowing the guys downstairs were gone also, I would think that she might have been just a bit nervous and I wonder if she too might have had some form of protection on her or handy in her apartment even? Wouldn't you?
But I have never heard of this mentioned.
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

PS-In a way, I am a little confused. For if Miss Kercher had mentioned that she thought she saw someone in the garden area just a few nights previous to her death, wouldn't she have been on her guard? Especially if she was going to be alone at home that night? I wonder if she mentioned any of this to the other English gals?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

By the way, I'm seeing it mentioned "as fact" that Knox (and probably also Sollecito) were regular cocaine users. I have never seen any evidence, testimony or statements in this area. Does anyone have any information that might either corroborate or counter this fairly extreme claim?

This was thoroughly covered in the trial. What came out of the testimony was that Amanda, Meredith, Laura and Filomena were all casual users of cannabis. No one has ever produced any evidence that Amanda's drug use went beyond cannabis and occasional social drinking. Raffaele had experimented with cocaine in the past, but at the time he met Amanda, he was not using any drug except cannabis.

 

[LondonJohn]

A word about the ERASMUS programme:

ERASMUS is not some exclusive exchange programme for the high-flying leaders-of-tomorrow - as some people seem to believe. It is a politically-motivated scheme designed to promote and further the idea of European Union. Around 200,000 students across Europe participate in it each year: hardly a small or exclusive group.

Many higher education courses (including Meredith's "European Studies" course at Leeds Uni) seem specifically designed with ERASMUS in mind. I would be amazed if every single student on Meredith's course didn't undertake an ERASMUS exchange (unless they specifically opted out). Furthermore, Leeds Uni is not a prestigious UK institution, and "European Studies" is not a prestigious academic discipline. I am only making these points to put Meredith's academic credentials into the correct context, and to correct those who think that getting accepted onto ERASMUS somehow denoted a special brilliance. It does not.

Oh, and to the best of my knowledge, Knox was studying in Perugia under the auspices of the University of Washington's International Programs and Exchanges department. I believe that she could earn credits in Perugia towards her UW course. That certainly qualifies under the definition of "exchange student" in my books.

 

[LondonJohn]

This was thoroughly covered in the trial. What came out of the testimony was that Amanda, Meredith, Laura and Filomena were all casual users of cannabis. No one has ever produced any evidence that Amanda's drug use went beyond cannabis and occasional social drinking. Raffaele had experimented with cocaine in the past, but at the time he met Amanda, he was not using any drug except cannabis.

Thank you. I thought this was the case. I wonder where some people obtained the "evidence" of cocaine abuse (this "evidence" alleges that according to some of Knox's friends/acquaintances in Perugia, Knox and Sollecito were well-known as "coke-heads")? And I wonder why some people are seeking to major on this element at this time?

The cocaine reference seems to me to have a dual purpose in some people's minds: firstly, Knox/Sollecito's use of a psychotropic stimulant such as cocaine would provide a far better explanation for any participation in a group sex game/murder scenario - in a way that even heavy use of marijuana never could do. And secondly, the implication is that - since a cocaine habit can get very expensive - Knox had an additional motive: money worries.

That last issue of money is another classic example of how some people can twist the available facts to fit their thesis. Even though it's pretty well-known that Knox had at least $4,000 (and possibly up to $6,000) in funds at the time of the murder, some people manage to present this as evidence of money worries! This most definitely illustrates a lack of intellectual/analytical rigour, coupled with a jaundiced view of the case, in my opinion.

 

[Kestrel]

Thank you. I thought this was the case. I wonder where some people obtained the "evidence" of cocaine abuse (this "evidence" alleges that according to some of Knox's friends/acquaintances in Perugia, Knox and Sollecito were well-known as "coke-heads")? And I wonder why some people are seeking to major on this element at this time?

Those same people didn't seem to mind witnesses against Amanda being connected with cocaine.

La Republica, 15 Feb 2009 had this interesting comment:

Meanwhile, however, there 's another twist: the' day before yesterday the police arrested after caught with eight grams of cocaine Hekuran Kokomani, the 'Albanian' s considered a Supertest accusation against Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

some comments on low copy number DNA forensics

These paragraphs are from a New Zealand Herald article on low copy number (LCN) DNA.
“The bogey is contamination. The very sensitivity of the technique which enables it to extract a DNA profile from the tiniest sample also makes it extremely vulnerable to contamination. Stringent measures are needed to minimise that risk.
The ESR has spent $1 million building special anti-contamination areas at its premises in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. Protocols are being developed for crime scenes where the LCN technique is used and for the handling of samples from collection through to courtroom.
LCN crime scenes will be divided into cold, warm and hot zones hot being the crime zone. Clothes are put on and discarded at each zone to minimise the risk of contamination.
We live in a ‘soup’ of DNA, explains ESR forensic programme manager Keith Bedford. ‘If I were to shed dandruff, massive amounts of dna could fall ... hair could carry DNA. The way I am speaking at the moment, we could probably detect DNA on this pad in front of me.’”

 

[Kestrel]

On pages 392-394 of the Judges Report, the rather odd theory is presented that Amanda and Raffaele participated in the murder due to the evil effects of smoking hashish and reading sexually explicit comic books.

Is there anyone here willing to defend this theory?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Willingham case and witness testimony

On pages 392-394 of the Judges Report, the rather odd theory is presented that Amanda and Raffaele participated in the murder due to the evil effects of smoking hashish and reading sexually explicit comic books.

Is there anyone here willing to defend this theory?

Kestrel,

I am surprised at you. Don't you know you are supposed to wait for a translation of the judge's report from a competing discussion board before formulating an opinion (J/K).

Here is something that might interest you. It is a passage from David Grann's article on the Cameron Todd Willingham arson case:

The witnesses’ testimony also grew more damning after authorities had concluded, in the beginning of January, 1992, that Willingham was likely guilty of murder. In Diane Barbee’s initial statement to authorities, she had portrayed Willingham as “hysterical,” and described the front of the house exploding. But on January 4th, after arson investigators began suspecting Willingham of murder, Barbee suggested that he could have gone back inside to rescue his children, for at the outset she had seen only “smoke coming from out of the front of the house”—smoke that was not “real thick.”

An even starker shift occurred with Father Monaghan’s testimony. In his first statement, he had depicted Willingham as a devastated father who had to be repeatedly restrained from risking his life. Yet, as investigators were preparing to arrest Willingham, he concluded that Willingham had been too emotional (“He seemed to have the type of distress that a woman who had given birth would have upon seeing her children die”); and he expressed a “gut feeling” that Willingham had “something to do with the setting of the fire.”

Dozens of studies have shown that witnesses’ memories of events often change when they are supplied with new contextual information. Itiel Dror, a cognitive psychologist who has done extensive research on eyewitness and expert testimony in criminal investigations, told me, “The mind is not a passive machine. Once you believe in something—once you expect something—it changes the way you perceive information and the way your memory recalls it.”
[end quote]

 

[Malkmus]

These paragraphs are from a New Zealand Herald article on low copy number (LCN) DNA.
“The bogey is contamination. The very sensitivity of the technique which enables it to extract a DNA profile from the tiniest sample also makes it extremely vulnerable to contamination. Stringent measures are needed to minimise that risk.
The ESR has spent $1 million building special anti-contamination areas at its premises in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. Protocols are being developed for crime scenes where the LCN technique is used and for the handling of samples from collection through to courtroom.
LCN crime scenes will be divided into cold, warm and hot zones hot being the crime zone. Clothes are put on and discarded at each zone to minimise the risk of contamination.
We live in a ‘soup’ of DNA, explains ESR forensic programme manager Keith Bedford. ‘If I were to shed dandruff, massive amounts of dna could fall ... hair could carry DNA. The way I am speaking at the moment, we could probably detect DNA on this pad in front of me.’”

I saw a program the other night detailing the murder of Melissa Mooney who was killed when someone broke into her house and raped and strangled her. For years her ex-husband was the main suspect, due mainly to two pieces of evidence: Witness testimony that consisted of friends and family that she was afraid of him and an off-color joke he had made to co-workers that he would be better at target practice if her face was on the target. The other piece was DNA evidence. The DNA evidence was incriminating because it was found at her house which he had never been to. I believe it was a hair. It wasn't until much later, when the investigation was re-opened, that LE were able to determine the real killer was a neighbor with a history of violence towards women and whose DNA also matched a sample collected in the victim's house. They were able to determine that the hair had probably travelled on their child's clothing from the ex-husband back to Melissa's house. Interestingly, they dropped the ex as a suspect and did not try to incorporate him in a mutual rape and murder plot with the neighbor, despite evidence placing him at the crime scene and despite witness testimony that painted him as someone who wanted to see his wife dead.

 

[lane99]

To the best of my knowledge ILE did not collect reference samples from Laura or Filomena. let alone the men downstairs.

If that's true, then the prosecution argument that finding a few examples of Knox's and Kercher's DNA mixed together is somehow damning is even weaker than I thought.

I suspect the investigators would have been able to find instances of Miss Kercher's DNA mixed with the other roommates' DNA, if they had bothered to look.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Thank you. I thought this was the case. I wonder where some people obtained the "evidence" of cocaine abuse (this "evidence" alleges that according to some of Knox's friends/acquaintances in Perugia, Knox and Sollecito were well-known as "coke-heads")? And I wonder why some people are seeking to major on this element at this time?

The cocaine reference seems to me to have a dual purpose in some people's minds: firstly, Knox/Sollecito's use of a psychotropic stimulant such as cocaine would provide a far better explanation for any participation in a group sex game/murder scenario - in a way that even heavy use of marijuana never could do. And secondly, the implication is that - since a cocaine habit can get very expensive - Knox had an additional motive: money worries.

That last issue of money is another classic example of how some people can twist the available facts to fit their thesis. Even though it's pretty well-known that Knox had at least $4,000 (and possibly up to $6,000) in funds at the time of the murder, some people manage to present this as evidence of money worries! This most definitely illustrates a lack of intellectual/analytical rigour, coupled with a jaundiced view of the case, in my opinion.

Amanda's housemates were grilled about this on the stand. They did not say anything to indicate that Amanda used any drug other than cannabis. Also, she did indeed have more than $4,000 in her checking account at the time of her arrest. She also had deposited money with her family that was available any time she needed it. She was financially covered for a year abroad.

I don't know what your source is, but it is pure, malicious slander.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

If that's true, then the prosecution argument that finding a few examples of Knox's and Kercher's DNA mixed together is somehow damning is even weaker than I thought.

I suspect the investigators would have been able to find instances of Miss Kercher's DNA mixed with the other roommates' DNA, if they had bothered to look.

They got a number of luminol reactions in Raffaele's apartment, including two that showed his DNA mixed with Amanda's DNA. No one has ever attached any significance to these results.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

police pressure and false accusations

Stilicho,

The subject of false accusations versus false convictions comes up every so often in this thread. The case of Canadian David Milgaard may be familiar to you. He was imprisoned because police pressured someone into making a false accusation.

Canadian Donald Marshall Jr was falsely convicted because of police tunnel vision and coerced statements. “Mr. Marshall’s wrongful conviction occurred because of police and prosecutorial misconduct, the incompetence of his defence counsel, perjured testimony, jury bias and judicial error. It took 12 years for his wrongful conviction to be overturned and a total of nearly 20 years to exonerate him because, as the Royal Commission of Inquiry found: ‘The criminal justice system failed Donald Marshall, Jr. at virtually every turn, from his arrest and wrongful conviction in 1971 up to – and even beyond – his acquittal by the Court of Appeal in 1983.’”
http://www.danielnpaul.com/DonaldMarshallJr.-1971.html

 

[LondonJohn]

Amanda's housemates were grilled about this on the stand. They did not say anything to indicate that Amanda used any drug other than cannabis. Also, she did indeed have more than $4,000 in her checking account at the time of her arrest. She also had deposited money with her family that was available any time she needed it. She was financially covered for a year abroad.

I don't know what your source is, but it is pure, malicious slander.

Suffice it to say that the "source" for this malicious claim is someone who represents "True Justice". How ironic.