Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

I hope to remind you, that Amanda , HERSELF, told her mother, that *she cannot tell a lie* that SHE WAS THERE!! At what point do we cherry pick what is the truth? Let's do a count : How many people have to be involved in this subterfuge? THE POLICE, RAFFAELE< THE PROSECTION< THE LAB< THE WITNESSES<.......Everyone, in fact, EXCEPT THE ACCUSED.....oh, and the JURY...Amanda is GUILTY.. move on..and find a way to help her get out in a couple of years...... so many people trying so hard to find a reason for her being innocent..are falling by the wayside...

capealadin, when Amanda said she "was there," she was saying she was at Raffaele's apartment. We can bet again, if you want.

If you believe there has ever been a case in human history of someone being wrongfully accused, tried and convicted, then you have to admit that it involved the cooperation -- voluntary or involuntary -- of a number of players in the drama. That is not the same as a conspiracy.

Here is what the Innocence Project says:

Here you will find further information about seven of the most common causes of wrongful convictions:

* Eyewitness Misidentification
* Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science
* False Confessions / Admissions
* Government Misconduct
* Informants or Snitches
* Bad Lawyering

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/

On another page, they state, "To date, 259 people in the United States have been exonerated by DNA testing, including 17 who served time on death row. These people served an average of 13 years in prison before exoneration and release."

And those are just the ones released on the basis of DNA evidence. There are literally dozens of other exonerations of U.S. prisoners listed at Northwestern University's "Center for Wrongful Convictions" website.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/exonerations/usIndex.html

What has happened to Amanda and Raffaele has happened to hundreds, if not thousands, of other people.

 

[Chris C]

"I am confused. The pro-guilt people generally assert that Raffaele stopped covering for Amanda."
I thought that he refused to testify.

"Although I do not believe that he stopped giving her an alibi myself"
So he continued to give an alibi, but in secret?

"If he is not covering for her, and he has an alibi, then he is innocent."

It has clearly been established that they were telling lies, hence no alibi has been established and they are guilty.

I was beginning to feel that Knox had a good chance, what with all the new evidence, provided by Philosopher Ken, and that. However, with statements like this, my advice would be to follow Ralph's example and shut up!

Like its been said before. The only thing that I'm aware of that Sollecito admitted, was he couldn't be sure if Knox left in the middle of the night while he was sleeping. The guilters use this to say he stopped giving her an alibi because he admitted to not staying awake to make sure Amanda didn't wake up and leave. Since he got stoned and passed out, he was technically only able to give her an alibi up till the point where he lost consciousness. Though he did say she was there when he fell asleep and when he woke up.

Basicly Sollecito was held to a higher standard when it comes to verifying a persons alibi. He wasn't allowed to give Knox an alibi past the point where he fell asleep.

 

[Antony]

(msg #8285, p208)
The concept of "guilty" has here the meaning of who can be assigned the legal responsability of something.

Says it all about guilter thinking about the case. I can just imagine the police thinking at the time of the arrests: "There's no need to look for the truth - all we need to do is assign legal responsibility to the people who called us to the crime scene."

Which rather neatly sums up their approach to the investigation.

 

[loverofzion]

capealadin, when Amanda said she "was there," she was saying she was at Raffaele's apartment. We can bet again, if you want.

If you believe there has ever been a case in human history of someone being wrongfully accused, tried and convicted, then you have to admit that it involved the cooperation -- voluntary or involuntary -- of a number of players in the drama. That is not the same as a conspiracy.

Here is what the Innocence Project says:

Here you will find further information about seven of the most common causes of wrongful convictions:

* Eyewitness Misidentification
* Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science
* False Confessions / Admissions
* Government Misconduct
* Informants or Snitches
* Bad Lawyering

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/

On another page, they state, "To date, 259 people in the United States have been exonerated by DNA testing, including 17 who served time on death row. These people served an average of 13 years in prison before exoneration and release."

And those are just the ones released on the basis of DNA evidence. There are literally dozens of other exonerations of U.S. prisoners listed at Northwestern University's "Center for Wrongful Convictions" website.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/exonerations/usIndex.html

What has happened to Amanda and Raffaele has happened to hundreds, if not thousands, of other people.

Mary,
Let me spell this out very s-l-o-w-l-y for you:
When Amanda told her mother she cannot tell a lie and WAS THERE she was referring to the murder scene at the cottage.

Any attempt to claim otherwise this is just plain nonsensical.

 

[loverofzion]

Like its been said before. The only thing that I'm aware of that Sollecito admitted, was he couldn't be sure if Knox left in the middle of the night while he was sleeping. The guilters use this to say he stopped giving her an alibi because he admitted to not staying awake to make sure Amanda didn't wake up and leave. Since he got stoned and passed out, he was technically only able to give her an alibi up till the point where he lost consciousness. Though he did say she was there when he fell asleep and when he woke up.

Basicly Sollecito was held to a higher standard when it comes to verifying a persons alibi. He wasn't allowed to give Knox an alibi past the point where he fell asleep.

He actually said under questioning that first night was that he couldn't be sure if amanda hadn't gne out between 9 PM and 1 AM.

 

[loverofzion]

Says it all about guilter thinking about the case. I can just imagine the police thinking at the time of the arrests: "There's no need to look for the truth - all we need to do is assign legal responsibility to the people who called us to the crime scene."

Which rather neatly sums up their approach to the investigation.

Now why would the police spontaneously think NOT to look for the truth?
Where do you get this a priori assumption that this is their modus operandi?

 

[Mary_H]

Mary,
Let me spell this out very s-l-o-w-l-y for you:
When Amanda told her mother she cannot tell a lie and WAS THERE she was referring to the murder scene at the cottage.

Any attempt to claim otherwise this is just plain nonsensical.

Number of times the phrase, "I was there" appears in the motivations report = 0

What makes Mellas more optimistic are recent courtroom developments.

In one, Knox's statement "I was there," made in a taped telephone conversation to her parents and referring to being with Sollecito, has been clarified.

Police had translated the statement from English to Italian to mean Knox was at the murder scene that night, Mellas said. Defense attorneys brought in another translator who listened to the tape and said the reference was simply to Knox being at Sollecito's.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008227144_knox04m.html?syndication=rss

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility.

 

[Fine]

But this is exactly Massei's argument, as halides [post # 8251] quoted: he says that even if we were to accept that six of the loci don't match, there are still twelve that do, and that's good enough! And he justifies this by quoting Tagliabracci's statement that they used to make genetic matches with only six loci, before the more advanced testing kits were available - completely missing the point that whether you're testing with six loci or sixteen, all of them have to match.
I would agree that Massei believes Stefanoni's claim that all the loci match, rather than Tagliabracci's assertion that six of them don't. But the point is that the reasoning he uses to justify this belief is complete and utter unscientific garbage. And in turn, this means his reason for believing Stefanoni over Tagliabracci is nothing short of an act of faith - his faulty reasoning allows him to avoid the messy task of explaining why he believes one expert over the other...

________________

I think you are confused about this katy_did, and that is why you think Massei's logic is "garbage." There is nothing wrong with Massei's logic here. Massei never recognized---even for the purpose of discussion---that those six loci "don't match," as you understand what it is not to match. He was only willing to recognize---for the purpose of discussion--- that it hasn't been confirmed that the loci match. But in that case, it would not have been confirmed whether the loci match or not match. That's why those loci are called "disputed" loci.

This is what Machiavelli was trying to say in discussing the lottery ticket mis-analogy. In order for the lottery ticket example to be genuinely parallel to the Raffaele DNA case, some of the numerals on the lottery ticket would have to be missing or obscured in some manner. NOT a case in which some of the numerals on the lottery ticket "don't match" the numerals in the winning number, but a case in which it can't be confirmed whether those "disputed" numerals match, or don't match.

And understood in this way, Massei is right in thinking that more than six loci used in a test is preferable to using only six.....even if some loci remain disputed.

///

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

After the knifing Guede sees he is covered in blood. He sits down on the bed, lays the knife on the bed, takes off his shoes, goes into the small bathroom, takes off his socks to wash off his pants leg, steps on the bathmat with a wet foot covered in diluted blood, puts his socks back on, returns to the bedroom, puts his shoes back on and walks out.

How's that?

And I'm not even on your side! (And, as I've said from the beginning, I'm not on the other side either. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of it all.)

That's close but not quite accurate. The stain on the mat appears to have been made with diluted blood, or bloody water, and bloodstains with a similar diluted appearance were found in the basin of the bidet. Guede probably removed his shoe in the bathroom, perhaps because water ran into it when he was rinsing his pant leg under the bidet.

After he cleaned up, he returned to her room, removed the quilt from the bed and spread it over her body, and then sat on the edge of the bed while he went through her purse. He left a bloody knife outline on the bedsheet, and he left the purse on the bed. He also tossed a receipt from a movie theater on top of the quilt. Before leaving the room and locking the door behind him, he stepped in some blood, so he left a trail of shoe prints starting at the foot of her bed and running down the corridor toward the exit, with each successive step becoming more faint. The pattern suggests that he paused for a moment in the kitchen area and adjusted his stance, perhaps while putting on a jacket or putting something in his pocket.

Massei's wooden-headed reasoning reflects the assumption (without explicitly stating the point) that the bathmat print was made by stepping in blood in Meredith's room, tracking it into the bathroom, and then cleaning all the footprints leading from the blood source to the mat. There are a number of problems with this premise. First, the print would not be so evenly stained if it had been made after taking several steps across a tile floor. Second, the cleaning operation would have had to be very throrough, as no prints leading to the mat were detected with luminol, but it would also have had to be limited and precise, as a luminol footprint was detected along that path, but the toes were pointed toward Meredith's door and the prosecution attributed this print to Amanda. Moreover, a couple of Guede's visible shoe prints were in this same general area. So, to accept the court's theory, you have to assume that Sollecito stepped in blood in Meredith's room, tracked it onto the mat, and then either he or Amanda conducted a cleaning operation that was both precise and thorough, but left his print on the mat in plain sight.

 

[bucketoftea]

But how did Guede manage to leave a footprint that was shown to match Raffaele's by mm accurate measurements and not his own foot? How is that done? How did he leave Amanda's DNA in the bloody traces?

 

[Chris C]

But how did Guede manage to leave a footprint that was shown to match Raffaele's by mm accurate measurements and not his own foot? How is that done? How did he leave Amanda's DNA in the bloody traces?

I love going to the greyhound park. It makes for a nice relaxing day. However, I feel like the greyhound sometimes when posting on these forums. I'm running in circles.

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/footprint_measurements.html

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-03.html

Didn't the footprint expert for the prosecution use the work of Louise Robbins to claim it was Sollecito's foot. If you dont know who Louise Robbins is you will find this next link interesting.

http://www.science.sjsu.edu/bio101/believe_it_or_not.htm

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not testifying is not an indicator of guilt

"I am confused. The pro-guilt people generally assert that Raffaele stopped covering for Amanda."
I thought that he refused to testify.

"Although I do not believe that he stopped giving her an alibi myself"
So he continued to give an alibi, but in secret?

"If he is not covering for her, and he has an alibi, then he is innocent."

It has clearly been established that they were telling lies, hence no alibi has been established and they are guilty.

I was beginning to feel that Knox had a good chance, what with all the new evidence, provided by Philosopher Ken, and that. However, with statements like this, my advice would be to follow Ralph's example and shut up!

colonelhall,

My previous comment to Machiavelli pointed out that the two arguments he put forth were incongruous. He replied with the implausible notion that Raffaele would help out in the (nonexistent) coverup.

Raffaele supported Amanda's alibi in front of Judge Matteini, and this stands as his last word on the subject in court because he has did not testify in his own defense. BTW in some jurisdictions, the prosecutor is not even allowed to mention such a decision, nor is the the judge allowed to instruct the jury that not testifying is a sign of guilt.

I have never observed your giving us so much as a single citation, but please give us something that documents what lies you are talking about. That subject has already been discussed here, and what we determined was that ILE did most of the lying. Please try to keep up.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

luminol dilates images when improperly applied

But how did Guede manage to leave a footprint that was shown to match Raffaele's by mm accurate measurements and not his own foot? How is that done? How did he leave Amanda's DNA in the bloody traces?

First, Colonel Garofano noted that the luminol had been applied too heavily and so dilated the images. Second, he also noted the lack of a complete set of reference footprints. Third, the print was not blood and Raffaele was a visitor in the house, so what does the print even matter? How is it related to the crime?

Meredith's blood probably landed on Amanda's biological matter deposited at some earlier time. One cannot say when DNA was deposited from its mere presence. If you can rule out the scenario above, please explain how. On the other hand, Rudy was never even an invited guest into the apartment, and therefore, his DNA has no business being there.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Amanda and Le Chic

I hope to remind you, that Amanda , HERSELF, told her mother, that *she cannot tell a lie* that SHE WAS THERE!! At what point do we cherry pick what is the truth? Let's do a count : How many people have to be involved in this subterfuge? THE POLICE, RAFFAELE< THE PROSECTION< THE LAB< THE WITNESSES<.......Everyone, in fact, EXCEPT THE ACCUSED.....oh, and the JURY...Amanda is GUILTY.. move on..and find a way to help her get out in a couple of years...... so many people trying so hard to find a reason for her being innocent..are falling by the wayside...

Capealadin,

Was it you who tried to assert that Patrick fired Amanda? Was it you that then claimed that Patrick only demoted Amanda? Allow me to point out that the only story that talked about Patrick demoting Amanda was the same one with the title, "I fired foxy knoxy..." In other words, the article contradicted itself. Patrick testified on the stand that he did not fire Amanda. What is your evidence to say otherwise?

 

[LondonJohn]

I love going to the greyhound park. It makes for a nice relaxing day. However, I feel like the greyhound sometimes when posting on these forums. I'm running in circles.

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/footprint_measurements.html

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-03.html

Didn't the footprint expert for the prosecution use the work of Louise Robbins to claim it was Sollecito's foot. If you dont know who Louise Robbins is you will find this next link interesting.

http://www.science.sjsu.edu/bio101/believe_it_or_not.htm

Whenever I see terms like "millimetre accuracy" applied to the work of Rinaldi, it makes me smile wryly, as I immediately think of his inability to even count the number of concentric circles in the sole print of an athletics shoe, let alone measure them with "millimetre accuracy".....

 

[LondonJohn]

Capealadin,

Was it you who tried to assert that Patrick fired Amanda? Was it you that then claimed that Patrick only demoted Amanda? Allow me to point out that the only story that talked about Patrick demoting Amanda was the same one with the title, "I fired foxy knoxy..." In other words, the article contradicted itself. Patrick testified on the stand that he did not fire Amanda. What is your evidence to say otherwise?

And when Lumumba gave that interview, he was clearly exhibiting extreme anger towards Knox for her role in his incarceration. Add to that the fact that as he gave the interview he was well aware that Knox was herself sitting in a Perugia prison accused of the murder, and he had pretty much a carte blanche to "revise history" in relation to whether he'd fired her or even "demoted" her. She was, after all, a demon in most people's eyes by this time.

(Oh and by the way, I don't think that Lumumba's statements in the same Daily Mail article about his police treatment - or, more accurately, abuse - were false or exaggerated. They were very specific allegations of serious unlawful conduct by the police, and Lumumba seemingly had no reason to bear a grudge against the Perugia police - quite the contrary, in fact, as he seemed to blame Knox entirely for his arrest and detention, and in addition he would know he needed to foster a good relationship with the authorities to enable the smooth running of his bar business.)

 

[LondonJohn]

So what is it you are saying, Amanda lies, .... we know that. Tell you what, I plan, not this year but maybe next, or the one after, going to Italy, and Purgia, I'll walk it and get back to you.

You'll be walking for a very long time if you're planning to go to Purgia.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Whenever I see terms like "millimetre accuracy" applied to the work of Rinaldi, it makes me smile wryly, as I immediately think of his inability to even count the number of concentric circles in the sole print of an athletics shoe, let alone measure them with "millimetre accuracy".....

When I last saw the luminol traces photos, they looked quite blurry and shaken to me. I bet the photos were taken with long exposure and without a camera stand.

IIRC Rinaldi had to enhance and correct for perspective the blurry and wobbly pics, before he applied his sub-millimeter* precision measurements.

*) Some of his measurements were written in millimeters with one decimal place. Strictly speaking it doesn't say anything about a measurement error, and I don't think Rinaldi presented any discussion of measurement errors or confidence intervals.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Yes, both.

The concept of "guilty" has here the meaning of who can be assigned the legal responsability of something.

Says it all about guilter thinking about the case. I can just imagine the police thinking at the time of the arrests: "There's no need to look for the truth - all we need to do is assign legal responsibility to the people who called us to the crime scene."

Which rather neatly sums up their approach to the investigation.

Great catch Antony It's really a very precise summary of the investigation and the court proceedings. I think it will be a beautiful specimen in my little gallery.

 

[Dan O.]

When I last saw the luminol traces photos, they looked quite blurry and shaken to me. I bet the photos were taken with long exposure and without a camera stand.

Very long exposures are necessary to record luminal reactions so a stand is necessary. There was a discussion of the camera stand used but I don't recall what was said. The stand is visible in some of the later crime scene videos. The lack of a remote shutter release could account for some of the shakiness.