Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Dan O.]

Well for one because Rafi's father had called much earlier in the evening while RAFI WAS WASHING THE DISHES AFTER HAVING EATEN DINNER.
So for one the pair was lying when hey tried to date the dinner to say 11 PM.

What relevance does the time that a witness was having dinner far from the scene of the crime have to do with investigation of the crime itself? Was Amanda being questioned as a suspect ON NOVEMBER 2?

 

[Dan O.]

<already answered>

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Pretty soon that too will be something the guilters and the FOAKer's will not be able to argue about, we'll let the courts decide this very issue for us, next month I believe. Then again, I suppose the courts didn't really deciede the last issue for us either, they did, just one side fails to go along with it.

Considering that if you pet theory is correct the Perugia justice system blew it completely, I don't think this statement is even close to correct.

There are Massei cultists who cling to the faith that Massei was perfectly correct on every point (despite his leaps of illogic), but they are the only ones who can consistently complain that "just one side fails to go along with it".

Since there are multiple competing guilter conspiracy theories, of which yours and Alt+F4's are but two, all of which require the court system to have gotten the right result for completely the wrong reasons, I don't think you or any other non-Massei guilters should be acting as if the decisions of the courts should determine our views.

 

[Chris C]

Nobody called her a murderer because she had sex with a strange man on a train; this is you being disingenuous..
But this coupled wih other examples of Ms. Knox's high jinks lead the inquiring mind to wonder about her risk taking behaviors, or perhaps her irresponsible thrill seeking.

It's just one more factor in figuring out how the chick operated.

So women that have sex with men is a risk taking behavior that leads to murder?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

electronic data files; bra clasp DNA

Actually they were on the second visit. They weren't on the first as there was no defence then. Of course Meredith's legal experts were independent! The information that was not given was shown to be irrelevant (and yes, the experts for Meredith got to see that too). That's why that information is not normally given, it isn't important.



Well that's hardly surprising is it?




In this case one doesn't need to be able to tell the difference. It is not outlandish to accept that a few fragments of DNA of the women with which Meredith LIVED got on the clasp. How do you think things work in the real world...you imagine all evidence only has the DNA of the victim and the murderer on it, like it spent it's whole life before in an isolation bubble and that if there's a trace of anything else it should be thrown out? Unless you can demonstrate those DNA fractions arrived on the clasp 'after' the murder rather then some time before, you have no argument for contamination. Can you?

Fulcanelli,

I am not sure which evidence you mean when you talk about certain evidence having been shown to be irrelevant. The electronic data files that the defense repeatedly requested are not irrelevant. If they were, then why do defense teams typically ask for them? They can be used to reanalyze the data, an especially important feature when the DNA is mixed, and therefore open to more than one legitimate interpretation, as Dr. Peter Gill pointed out. They can also be used to look for evidence of contamination or fraud. As Dr. Dan Krane said, the release of the files the international norm.

For anyone wishing to follow the story of their non-release, go here, and the embedded links will lead to a discussion of their importance. Dr. Pasquali was refused access to the files he requested, as discussed in Sollecito’s appeal. Dr. Hampikian and others associated with the Knox defense team were also denied access. If anyone doubts that Dr. Hampikian is part of the defense team, go to the photo section of Perugia Murder File and look at the photos of Dr. Hampikian and Chris Mellas. A “Michael” at another site claimed that Chris Mellas is not the defense team. Perhaps a friend of this “Michael” should explain who it is that put the defense team together.

Even if I accepted your notion (contrary to forensic literature) that the amount of DNA indicates its method of deposit, there would still be problems with your belief. If Raffaele’s DNA is less abundant than Meredith’s then why do you conclude it arrived via primary transfer? It is not that much more abundant than the DNA of the three unidentified individuals, so why do you concluded that it arrived by a different mechanism than these other profiles?

Moreover, your conjecture that the other DNA belongs to the flatmates has no factual basis. No reference samples of Laura and Filomena were reported. Finally you are reversing the burden of proof with respect to the DNA on the clasp. It is up to the prosecution to explain how three individuals’ DNA arrived on the clasp and Sollecito’s did not. They have failed completely to do so.

 

[Malkmus]

Found an Italian article dated November 6 with some interesting tidbits from Arturo De Felice which I hadn't read before. There's some rough Google translating going on, but the point is clear on most of it.

http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/Sole...72-11dc-bade-00000e251029&DocRulesView=Libero

"There's bitterness over the death of a young girl - said Arturo De Felice - who came to Perugia to study and here he met his death. But there is also satisfaction for the work done in these hours by men of the police. We felt the weight of responsibility towards the citizens who wanted a definite answer and they wanted it now. " The detentions were carried out from 4 last night. Has not yet been found, however, the murder weapon."

and:

It seems that one of the three arrested is collapsed during the interrogation. The head of the cabinet has repeatedly thanked the interpreters suggesting that it is the Zairean.

This last highlighted piece is most interesting, though a better translation if anyone could volunteer it would be helpful. To be clear, "Zairean" refers to Patrick, so I'm wondering why the police is "thanking" the translators for "suggesting" him (if that's at all what is being implied). Here is the original text:

Il capo della mobile ha più volte ringraziato gli interpreti lasciando intendere che si tratti dello zairese.

 

[Fine]

That Raffaele was washing dishes is not proof they had already had dinner.
Bachelors sometimes have to wash dishes before a meal because they didn't do it after the previous meal.

_____________-


In her trial testimony Amanda says explicitly that the drain pipe leaked while Raffaele was washing dishes, washing the dishes used for serving dinner the night of November 1st, 2007:

"LG [Ghirga, Amanda's attorney]: Yes. And did you eat dinner?

AK [Amanda]: Yes. But it was very late when we ate.

LG: Fish?

AK: Yes. Fish and a salad.

LG: And then something happened to the faucet of the sink?

AK: Yes. While Raffaele was washing the dishes, water was coming out from underneath. He looked down, turned off the water and then looked underneath
and the pipe underneath "got loose" [in English, the lawyer translates
"broke" (si e rotto), the interpreter translates "slowed down" (si e rallentato)]
and water was coming out.

GCM [Massei, Judge]: Can you say what time this was?

AK: Um, around, um, we ate around 9:30 or 10, and then after we had eaten and he was washing the dishes, well, ...."



///

 

[Mary_H]

Actual exchange between Fulcanelli and halides1:

#5702 - Fulcanelli: "Raffaele's DNA on the clasp was a complete profile and indicates primary transfer. The other traces were mere trace fragments of DNA. They indicate secondary transfer and were of females, as one would expect on an item of a girl's clothing who lived in a house with other girls and shared washing and dryng facilities."
#5709 - halides1: "Sollecito’s putative DNA was far less abundant than Meredith’s on the clasp. Moreover, your statements about DNA traces arriving from secondary transfer are simply wrong. One cannot tell primary transfer from secondary transfer from the amount of DNA or the completeness of a profile, as I documented in the previous thread."
#5712 - Fulcanelli: "In this case one doesn't need to be able to tell the difference."

Welcome back, Fulcanelli!

I don't know about the rest of you, but when I look at the video of the forensics investigators "finding" the bra clasp, I wonder how there was any DNA left on that sucker to test. After allegedly plucking it from the pile of debris into which it had been swept, the officers touch every surface of it repeatedly, turn it over and over and over in their hands, hand it back and forth to one another in dirty gloves, put it down on the floor, flash camera strobes and shine hot lights on it for long periods of time -- they might as well have stuck a fork in it and roasted it over a campfire. Then they extra-carefully place it in a little plastic bag -- you know, so it won't get contaminated?

Raffaele's DNA is so easy to disturb that he and Amanda managed to clean up every single, last, itty-bitty trace of him from elsewhere in the house. The microscopic speck on the bra clasp, though -- man, that was one tenacious strand of deoxyribonucleic acid!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMaTI0SiuLw

 

[Mary_H]

As indicated in my reply to Antony, there is a central epistemological problem with attempting to objectively ascertain the contents of another's subjective consciousness. I agreed with MaryH that intellect, experience, and specific knowledge are the only tools by which one can even attempt to do so. My conclusions regarding AK & RS are based on them as such.

I actually had not used the interrogation of 5-6 November as evidence of Knox's lying. I did this because it is irrelevant for the case of establishing Knox's legal guilt, as it was not entered into evidence at her trial, as you are no doubt aware.

In the same reply to MaryH, I make reference to another instance which I take as evidence of Konx's mendacity, that being her account of the time which she and Sollecito ate dinner on 1 November.

It might be helpful for us to define our terms. As you suggest in this and other posts, we can judge only subjectively whether a witness is being truthful when she claims to be unable to recall or remember events. On the other hand, lies or attempts to deceive can be recognized objectively as being at odds with the facts.

I want to respond to a related comment you made in another post:

(#5754) "The line of reasoning is that lying to authorities investigating a murder is viewed as highly suspicious behavior by said authorities. This would seem to be a very basic principle of criminal investigation."

This is not an effective argument for Amanda's guilt, nor for her arrest. There is no evidence that Amanda lied or attempted to deceive the police in any way during the period before the interrogations. Therefore, there was nothing in her speech that was inconsistent enough to raise the suspicions of investigating authorities. Any knowledge of inconsistencies came after the arrests.

 

[Chris C]

Raffaele's DNA on the clasp was a complete profile and indicates primary transfer.

If it was a complete profile the defense wouldn't be arguing that its only a partial profile.

 

[loverofzion]

What relevance does the time that a witness was having dinner far from the scene of the crime have to do with investigation of the crime itself? Was Amanda being questioned as a suspect ON NOVEMBER 2?

It helps put the time into perspective; their alibi was that they wre having dinner at 10 or even later 11; if thid is disproved so is their alibib for where they were at the time of the murder.
All the details for what the pair were doing that evening are hazy and vague in their accounts...Raffaelo couldn't remember if they had made love or not; prety soon he capitulated and wasn't sure even if AK had been there all night at all!
And Amanda was not sure if she had been at the scene of the crime holding her ears when Meredith screamed (now how did she know about tht scream?) or was possibly in bed with loverboy all night!

So you see a fundamental recording of the facts of their activities at the time of the murder ARE indeed illuminating.

Sorry if that is hard for you to understand.

 

[loverofzion]

If it was a complete profile the defense wouldn't be arguing that its only a partial profile.

And yes she became a suspect at 1:45 AM that morning with her signing of her confession.
Til then she was just a witness.

 

[loverofzion]

If it was a complete profile the defense wouldn't be arguing that its only a partial profile.

Now does everything the defense argues be inscribed as Truth?
Or could they simply be grasping at straws...

 

[loverofzion]

It might be helpful for us to define our terms. As you suggest in this and other posts, we can judge only subjectively whether a witness is being truthful when she claims to be unable to recall or remember events. On the other hand, lies or attempts to deceive can be recognized objectively as being at odds with the facts.

I want to respond to a related comment you made in another post:




This is not an effective argument for Amanda's guilt, nor for her arrest. There is no evidence that Amanda lied or attempted to deceive the police in any way during the period before the interrogations. Therefore, there was nothing in her speech that was inconsistent enough to raise the suspicions of investigating authorities. Any knowledge of inconsistencies came after the arrests.

ACtually Mary H once again you are living in your hermetic wishful fantasies.

Their alibis contradicted each other for God's sakes.
That is when the police became officially suspicious (probably even before that).
Raf threw her under the bus very quickly that night; said he wasn't sure if Amanda hadn't gone out between 9 PM and 1!
Between the two of them they came up with 6 differing alibis.

And that is why Mary they became suspects.

 

[Chris C]

And yes she became a suspect at 1:45 AM that morning with her signing of her confession.
Til then she was just a witness.

Out of curiousity what language was that document in? Actually wouldn't she have been a suspect the moment she said she was there. Not after she signed the document.

 

[loverofzion]

Actual exchange between Fulcanelli and halides1:




Welcome back, Fulcanelli!

I don't know about the rest of you, but when I look at the video of the forensics investigators "finding" the bra clasp, I wonder how there was any DNA left on that sucker to test. After allegedly plucking it from the pile of debris into which it had been swept, the officers touch every surface of it repeatedly, turn it over and over and over in their hands, hand it back and forth to one another in dirty gloves, put it down on the floor, flash camera strobes and shine hot lights on it for long periods of time -- they might as well have stuck a fork in it and roasted it over a campfire. Then they extra-carefully place it in a little plastic bag -- you know, so it won't get contaminated?

Raffaele's DNA is so easy to disturb that he and Amanda managed to clean up every single, last, itty-bitty trace of him from elsewhere in the house. The microscopic speck on the bra clasp, though -- man, that was one tenacious strand of deoxyribonucleic acid!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMaTI0SiuLw

My guess is you haven't studied the subject of DNA very well.
It remains constant on that bra clasp; there were no dirty gloves; standards were scrupulously adhered to; you are again imagining what you would like in order to fit with your fantasies of the martyred convict.
DNA has been known to convict people many YEARS after its discovery.

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Rule 12 removed.

 

[Chris C]

My guess is you haven't studied the subject of DNA very well.
It remains constant on that bra clasp;

You might want to edit your posts, since some of the comments you are making are close to personal attacks. However, the video recording of the handling of the bra clasp shows dirty gloves.

 

[loverofzion]

So women that have sex with men is a risk taking behavior that leads to murder?

You are twisting my words again.
Women who have sex with strangers on trains are considered risk takers and thrill seekers.
That is just one aspect of AK's personality; there are many many more indicators of her personality that would be required to complete the personality profile of a murderer or a sociopath, both of which she is suspected of being.

 

[Chris C]

You are twisting my words again.
Women who have sex with strangers on trains are considered risk takers and thrill seekers.
That is just one aspect of AK's personality; there are many many more indicators of her personality that would be required to complete the personality profile of a murderer or a sociopath, both of which she is suspected of being.

Sorry, it dont add up. Sex on a train has nothing to do with being a sociopath or murderer. Did the guy she supposedly slept with go out and kill someone? Heck my sister is bi-polar, crazy, addicted to meth, has even tried to stab someone. Are you telling me because she slept with a stranger, thats the real reason she is nuts?

 

[loverofzion]

The document ws in English.
She came volunatrily to the Questura with Raffaelo. At first she was questioned as a wintess; at 1:45 AM with her confession she became a suspect.