Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Justinian2]

You seem to be talking around the point. The police destroyed the relevant evidence on Raffaele's computer that, if it was intact, would have confirmed or falsified their alibi, before cloning it.

Now how do you think Amanda and Raffaele knew that the police were going to do that? Because presumably you think they were lying about watching Naruto and Stardust, because if they were telling the truth the whole Massei narrative falls apart and into the dustbin. But if they were lying, it would have been trivial for the police to prove this... if only they hadn't destroyed that evidence after they had established what Raffaele and Amanda's alibi was.

Using Naruto and Stardust for their alibi only makes sense if they were telling the truth, and knew that the data on Raffaele's hard drive would back them up.

pg 21of the Massei report:

an expert report on the computers of the accused was requested, the memories of which were found to have been damaged at the time of the analysis of the supports carried out by the Postal Police, such that the hard drives could not be duplicated/cloned for subsequent examination.

pg 299 of the Massei report:

As far as the accused Raffaele Sollecito goes, the Postal Police technical examination was carried out only on his MacBook PRO Apple laptop. Insofar as his other PC, an ASUS L300D, as well as Amanda Knox's Toshiba serial number 7541811OK and Meredith Kercher's G4 iBook sustained damage, it was impossible to retrieve data from their respective hard drives.

RS had two computers. Are you saying BOTH were damaged? The Massei report says that ONE computer escaped damage.

This case is starting to look like willful destruction/fabrication of the evidence rather than just mere incompetence.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the lack of DNA

I said somebody restrained Meredith (maybe Rudy).
Can you find his DNA on Meredith's face, where he allegedly pressed a hand with force leaving a series of bruises and lesions? Is the absence of DNA in that region an evidence he didn't do it?

You look for Raffaele and Amanda's DNA. On the bra clasp?

Machiavelli,

Please support your claim that Amanda's DNA was found on the clasp. Raffaele's appeal disputes the clasp as evidence, as you well know.

DNA transfer in both actual and simulated strangulation is known. If only Rudy's DNA were found, it might mean that only Rudy restrained her. I would not take the absence of DNA to mean that no one else restrained her with certainty. However, its presence would be a strong indicator of that person having restrained her.

 

[LondonJohn]

The judicial decision wa that there was NO reason to disbelieve the witness who heard a blood curdling scream that she says she will never forget.

It is some people's view that the judicial decision was simplistic and wrong.

 

[LondonJohn]

pg 21of the Massei report:



pg 299 of the Massei report:




RS had two computers. Are you saying BOTH were damaged? The Massei report says that ONE computer escaped damage.

This case is starting to look like willful destruction/fabrication of the evidence rather than just mere incompetence.

There's no getting around the fact that this whole area is incredibly strange, and reflects terribly badly upon the "crack" postal police, whichever explanation one chooses to believe.

Oh, and as an aside, there is a huge and important difference between attacking an argument and attacking the person who's making the argument. Just sayin'

 

[Mary_H]

Chris, unbelievable, simply unbelievable! Please back up these ludicrous claims because to me, you simply have zero understanding of a judge's role.

Not another one
You just can't make this stuff up......wait, you and Chris just did!!

Not much of an argument, Danceme. Neither is colonelhall's, "You guys crack me up!...What planet are you on ChrisC?"

At least we're giving the matter some thought. The most effective way to back up these claims would be to look at statistics of how often in Perugian courts the judges agree with the prosecutor's case, combined with deep knowledge of the culture of the magistrates' community. Obviously those sources of information aren't available to us, so we're going on what we have observed so far.

On this particular topic of conversation, what we're offering is primarily conjecture and opinion. To add substance to the discussion, you and colonelhall might want to give some reasons for why you disagree with us.

 

[Chris C]

ChricC :"Maybe English is a Second Language for you or you failed to read the entire exchange.
So I'll give this to you in Captain Dummy Talk."

Do you really need to be so offensive? Your arguments really hold no water, with me and I have absolutely zero respect for your debating style. I stand by what I say and that remarks regarding the jury coming to a conclusion based upon fear of losing their jobs are laughable.

You find what offensive? Me questioning whether you can read or whether you didn't bother to read. You even went so far as to tell me my statements are ridiculous and then ask me what planet I was on. Yet you find my response to your comment offensive?
My arguments holds no water. Thats your opinion. However, it is a fact that Italy has one of the highest rates of overturning convictions in the world. So apparently the judges are not doing their jobs in the trial. Instead they are allowing defendents to be convicted that they know will get overturned on appeal.

 

[Danceme]

Not much of an argument, Danceme. Neither is colonelhall's, "You guys crack me up!...What planet are you on ChrisC?"

At least we're giving the matter some thought. The most effective way to back up these claims would be to look at statistics of how often in Perugian courts the judges agree with the prosecutor's case, combined with deep knowledge of the culture of the magistrates' community. Obviously those sources of information aren't available to us, so we're going on what we have observed so far.

On this particular topic of conversation, what we're offering is primarily conjecture and opinion. To add substance to the discussion, you and colonelhall might want to give some reasons for why you disagree with us.

Coming from a family containing a judge in its ranks as well as having a partner who will likely be one some day as well as having his and his peers character and powers of considered reason to draw upon, my "conjecture and opinion" is that you and Chris are blowing nothing but smoke. Why don't you offer any substance to back up your claims of complete lack of independent thought by these judges as well as their fear of losing their jobs if they ever go against what you perceive as the dominant public opinion. I'm quite happy with my "conjecture and opinion" in any case based on my personal association with judges and lawyers and choose not to entertain your conspiracy theories.
Judges and juries do get it wrong, yes, but it's not for the reasons you and Chris offer. Put your faith in the appeals process, not conspiracy theories.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

bruises

The DNA tests on her person were limited to vaginal and rectal swabs (Rep. 12 and Rep 13), samples taken from underneath her fingernails (Rep. 15 and Rep. 16), and one swab of the large neck wound (Rep. 21), the last of which became the reference sample for her genetic profile. What was initially thought to be a hair specimen taken from her body near her external genitalia (Rep. 14) was not tested for DNA because a microscopic examination revealed that it was spun wool.

The only DNA found in any of these samples, besides Meredith's was Guede's y haplotype in the vaginal swab.

Charlie,

i realize that not every bruise was necessarily made by human contact. However, if the forensics team failed to swab a bruised or reddened area, they missed an opportunity. If the did swab and found DNA from individual X but not Y, it is inculpatory of X and exculpatory of Y. It is just one type of evidence, however, and should not be overinterpreted.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

change of venue

The police in Perugia put on an impromptu parade of three people on November 6th, the morning of the arrests. Given this prejudicial event and subsequent publicity, I think that a change in venue would have been an appropriate response (I am making a philosophical argument, rather than one based on the specifics of Italian law). Changes of venue are sometimes contemplated when pretrial publicity has been massive, for example the Duke lacrosse case.

 

[Chris C]

Coming from a family containing a judge in its ranks as well as having a partner who will likely be one some day as well as having his and his peers character and powers of considered reason to draw upon, my "conjecture and opinion" is that you and Chris are blowing nothing but smoke. Why don't you offer any substance to back up your claims of complete lack of independent thought by these judges as well as their fear of losing their jobs if they ever go against what you perceive as the dominant public opinion. I'm quite happy with my "conjecture and opinion" in any case based on my personal association with judges and lawyers and choose not to entertain your conspiracy theories.
Judges and juries do get it wrong, yes, but it's not for the reasons you and Chris offer. Put your faith in the appeals process, not conspiracy theories.

First Italy is different than USA. So if you want to talk about USA judicial politics that wont be a problem. Though I will be watching football all day.
1 judge in your family? I come from a monster sized family. 17 aunts and uncles. I have one Judge and one PD amongst my Uncles and atleast 2 lawyers amongst my 60+ first cousins. I know all to well about side deals and the politics inside the judicial system. America however is a little stronger when it comes to burdon of proof. Italy doesn't have a strong burdon of proof in the first trial. Which is why they have such a high overturn rate on their convictions.

 

[Machiavelli]

Please support your claim that Amanda's DNA was found on the clasp. Raffaele's appeal disputes the clasp as evidence, as you well know.

The various defence arguments are well known (also extra-judicial advocates are bringing different arguments), and the accusation's are well known. For those who accept the accusation findings, the basis of their reasoning will be in accord with them.
The claims about Amanda's DNA are also well known, and they are not entirely extra-judicial. I know for example of Vinci's first report and colonel Garofalo's opinion.

DNA transfer in both actual and simulated strangulation is known. If only Rudy's DNA were found, it might mean that only Rudy restrained her. I would not take the absence of DNA to mean that no one else restrained her with certainty. However, its presence would be a strong indicator of that person having restrained her.

However the state of findings is that there is no such DNA on areas that underwent his grip, so this strong indiication is missing. As you would not take the absence of DNA to mean the certainity that no one restrained her, neither do I, not for what pertains to the attempted strangulation nor for the restraint.
Amanda's DNA would be anyway extremely difficult to spot on Meredith's body, given the absence of Y-haplotype marker (copuled with the lower sensitiveness of main autosomic test).
Moreover, I am absolutely not going to state for cartain that Amanda restrained her. Maybe Guede alone restrained her, and somebody else carried on an aggression with the knife (without contact) or grabbed her mouth, or her hair (as the autopsy also shows). This doesn't change the basic picture of a two assailants scenario.

 

[LondonJohn]

The police in Perugia put on an impromptu parade of three people on November 6th, the morning of the arrests. Given this prejudicial event and subsequent publicity, I think that a change in venue would have been an appropriate response (I am making a philosophical argument, rather than one based on the specifics of Italian law). Changes of venue are sometimes contemplated when pretrial publicity has been massive, for example the Duke lacrosse case.

Coming from a country where a case, its accused parties and its victims cannot by law be even discussed in the media once charges are brought up until a verdict is reached (apart from factual reporting of the trial), I find it very hard to understand how justice is well-served by allowing the media to go to town on defendants in high-profile trials long before - and during - any actual trial.

There are many imperfections in the British justice system, but I happen to think that our sub-judice reporting restrictions are a big aid to justice. Jurors (and, for that matter, professional judges) may believe that they are immune to being swayed by sensationalist reporting of defendants' backgrounds and previous behaviours (or crimes), but I (along with UK justice legislators, clearly) believe that people can be unduly influenced by what they read in newspapers or see on TV about someone they are subsequently asked to judge.

In this particular case, not only were the defendants paraded through the town in a hail of police sirens, the police announced at various times that the case was solved and they had caught the killers. And the media reporting on all three defendants - but Knox in particular - was incredibly provocative and highly sensationalised. To me, it has to have had some sort of impact - unfortunately unmeasurable - on the outcome of the first trial.

 

[Machiavelli]

So you've just heard someone being killed within a few metres of you, and you just finish your cup of cocoa and tuck yourself into bed, dropping off to sleep because after all it's not your problem if some woman has been murdered?

Are you going on for long making up this rubbish?

 

[LondonJohn]

Are you going on for long making up this rubbish?

Why is it "rubbish"? If Nara subsequently testified that the scream she heard was blood-curdling, and that it kept her awake at night many months after the 1st November, why did she not do anything about it on the actual night she says she heard it?

The scream she describes was not the type of scream that a woman might make if she fell over, or even if she was robbed on the street. She explicitly describes the scream as being "not a normal scream, but a scream of death" (quoted in Mail on Sunday article). It's next to impossible to reconcile her description of the scream she says she heard with her actions and behaviour in the immediate aftermath of hearing it, don't you think?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the clasp and other forensic matters

The various defence arguments are well known (also extra-judicial advocates are bringing different arguments), and the accusation's are well known. For those who accept the accusation findings, the basis of their reasoning will be in accord with them.
The claims about Amanda's DNA are also well known, and they are not entirely extra-judicial. I know for example of Vinci's first report and colonel Garofalo's opinion.




However the state of findings is that there is no such DNA on areas that underwent his grip, so this strong indiication is missing. As you would not take the absence of DNA to mean the certainity that no one restrained her, neither do I, not for what pertains to the attempted strangulation nor for the restraint.
Amanda's DNA would be anyway extremely difficult to spot on Meredith's body, given the absence of Y-haplotype marker (copuled with the lower sensitiveness of main autosomic test).

Machiavelli,

There are a number of problems with your assertions. First, Colonel Garofano’s comments are surely extrajudicial in the sense that he was not called as a witness, so I don’t know what you mean when you bring him up. Second, some commenters have asserted that the DNA from unknown individuals on the clasp came from secondary transfer from Laura or Filomena. Whatever the merits of that argument (which I have previously discussed), it would apply to Amanda as well: If one argues that secondary transfer occurred from Laura and Filomena, there is no reason at all to exclude the same occurrence from Amanda. Third, any discussion of the identities of the individuals who deposited DNA on the clasp should be considered tentative at this point for two reasons. (1) The DNA likely falls into the LCN level and should be tested at least twice. (2) The defense experts never received the electronic data files or other information pertaining to how the tests were done.

 

[Danceme]

First Italy is different than USA. So if you want to talk about USA judicial politics that wont be a problem. Though I will be watching football all day.
1 judge in your family? I come from a monster sized family. 17 aunts and uncles. I have one Judge and one PD amongst my Uncles and atleast 2 lawyers amongst my 60+ first cousins. I know all to well about side deals and the politics inside the judicial system. America however is a little stronger when it comes to burdon of proof. Italy doesn't have a strong burdon of proof in the first trial. Which is why they have such a high overturn rate on their convictions.

Chris, just for the record, I'm Canadian, not American.

 

[tsig]

Allow me to clarify your apparent misunderstanding.

I am perfectly comfortable with people pointing to replicated studies in the peer-reviewed literature as evidence that a given expert, on either side, got something wrong. If anything I very dearly wish that pro-guilt posters here would do so more often, or indeed ever.

My point is that it would be hugely hypocritical for someone to assert that you needed to be a pathologist before you are entitled to state what is in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, but then defend or support the collection of pro-guilt non-pathologists, non-DNA experts, non-forensic-professionals and non-logicians who "presumptuously" make claims about pathology, DNA, forensics or logic.

How many brands of poison did you put in that well.

non-forensic-professionals and non-logicians who "presumptuously" make claims about pathology, DNA, forensics or logic

 

[tsig]

But you have to remember, those people aren't pathologists.

You aren't a pathologist either.

 

[LondonJohn]

You aren't a pathologist either.

I have a feeling Kevin_Lowe was employing a device known as sarcasm.

 

[tsig]

I have a feeling Kevin_Lowe was employing a device known as sarcasm.

On further reading you're right.