Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

100-200 picrograms, not 1.4 nanograms

DNA Sample Sizes

After reading many of the posts here about DNA on the bra clasp and knife, I wanted to get a feel for just how much material (DNA) was on the items. I have read that the amount of material tested on the bra clasp that was attributed to RS is 1.4 nanograms and the amount attributable to MK on the knife was 10 picograms. So, to get an idea of much that is, I did an internet search on the size of a couple of items with which we are somewhat familiar. It turns out that the average size of a grain of pollen is about 247 nanograms, which is 166 times greater than RS’s material and nearly 25000 times greater than the MK material. I also found out that weight of a normal water droplet in Cyrus cloud is 62 nanograms, which is 44 times greater than RS’s material and nearly 6000 times greater than the MK material. I would venture to say that these sample sizes are beyond the unaided visual capabilities of humans. Considering these sample sizes, I think it would take extreme care to prevent contamination, especially outside the lab environment. Hope this helps folks to get a feel for what the investigators are dealing with.

Daydreamer,

According to Raffaele's appeal, the total amount of DNA on the clasp is 1.14 nanograms, and the amount tentatively attributed to Raffaele is in the range of 100-200 picograms, dependending on how one does the estimate.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Samples 89 and 96

Yes, or through intimate contact.



Because sex is messy, involving saliva, sperm, vaginal secretion, sweat etc.

What is your explanation for samples 89 and 96?

 

[daydreamer]

Daydreamer,

According to Raffaele's appeal, the total amount of DNA on the clasp is 1.14 nanograms, and the amount tentatively attributed to Raffaele is in the range of 100-200 picograms, dependending on how one does the estimate.

Dang, that's not much "stuff".

That sample was on the hook, IIRC. Does anyone know if they tested the "eye" that connected to it. Seems if he touched the hook, he would have to have touched the eye.

 

[colonelhall]

Rose: "My opinion is that she gave the cops exactly what they were repeatedly asking for, she "buckled" under the constant pressure and they jumped on it. The case was solved."

So your opinion is that the cops told her to write this? Do you have any proof of this, at all?

What was the pressure that they applied? Was she lead to believe that evidence put her at the scene of the crime?

I guess that there are many others who have different opinions. It is a pity for her that the jury has to go by the evidence as presented.

And the cartwheels? Have we thwacked that mole, yet?

 

[RoseMontague]

Rose: "My opinion is that she gave the cops exactly what they were repeatedly asking for, she "buckled" under the constant pressure and they jumped on it. The case was solved."

So your opinion is that the cops told her to write this? Do you have any proof of this, at all?

What was the pressure that they applied? Was she lead to believe that evidence put her at the scene of the crime?

I guess that there are many others who have different opinions. It is a pity for her that the jury has to go by the evidence as presented.

And the cartwheels? Have we thwacked that mole, yet?

It seems pretty obvious that they were trying to make a connection to her text message to Patrick and their misunderstanding of the meaning of it. Some have suggested they were also pushing for a suspect that was a black man, but I don't see any evidence of that, personally. What is clear form the statements of Giobbi and the taping of all her phone calls that they considered her more than just a witness and at the very least had a strong suspicion of her involvement.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

If the case was solved at that point why did the police and prosecutors bother interviewing witnesses, obtaining cell phone records, searching for DNA, blood, murder weapons, photographing the scene, etc.?

They were on a desperate quest for anything they could use to support their claim. They didn't bother to investigate whose blood was on the tissues in the driveway outside the cottage. They didn't try to figure out whose DNA was on the cigarette butts in the ashtray. All they cared about was finding evidence against Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

comments on the interrogation

Rose: "My opinion is that she gave the cops exactly what they were repeatedly asking for, she "buckled" under the constant pressure and they jumped on it. The case was solved."

So your opinion is that the cops told her to write this? Do you have any proof of this, at all?

What was the pressure that they applied? Was she lead to believe that evidence put her at the scene of the crime?

I guess that there are many others who have different opinions. It is a pity for her that the jury has to go by the evidence as presented.

And the cartwheels? Have we thwacked that mole, yet?

Colonelhall,

IIRC, Amanda was told that there was evidence that put her at the scene. I suspect that the police knew about her meeting Patrick earlier that day, and that this put Patrick into their minds. The first statement that Amanda signed contained an error in time (meeting Patrick at 8:30) that Amanda might not have made herself (MOO). Douglas Preston offered the opinion that it was written in a style of Italian police jargon that would have not been Amanda's way of expressing herself. Amanda was reported in Murder in Italy as saying that the police would say something, she would say it did not happen, and the police would say, that's OK, let's write it down, anyway.

The cartwheels were the subject of vigorous debate among myself, Fiona, and Fulcanelli in the previous thread. No consensus was ever reached on two key points. Did she only stretch or did she actually do cartwheels? Did she do everything on her own volition, or was she asked by an officer to demonstrate her flexibility. I did not buy their arguments, and they did not buy mine.

My position is based on the fact that Amanda's testimony clearly says that someone commented on her flexibility. Therefore, I think she probably stretched or something because she was tired and wanted to get a bit more energized. Then an officer commented that she was flexible and probably asked her to demonstrate some move or yoga pose or other. I surmise that the officer was attempting to gain Amanda's trust by engaging in light conversation. Again, MOO.

 

[Machiavelli]

I appreciate your answer, but your arguments can hardly overcome the negative results of blood and DNA tests. I think you have embraced what you want to believe, even though the forensic evidence is strongly - decisively in fact - against it.

I think "my" aguments (in fact not mine, but are forensic arguments of the case) are overwhelming superior to a TMB test, which is, as for the literature available that we can easilly check, not at all decisive in the asessment on blood test, not for excluding purpose nor for confirmation purposes.
TMB test is less sensitive than luminol and can literature about its non-excluding value can be easilly reported.
On the othr hand, the various arguments are crushing. Not only for their power and their number, also for their being together in a system, by which each elment gets further reinforced by some others.

 

[Machiavelli]

Maybe Amanda's lawyers never knew there was anybody out here in blogland who was making such a claim.

Okay, so from here on out, we all agree that the only evidence for the claim that Amanda demanded to make a voluntary statement following her 1:45 a.m. interrogation, which required the presence of Giuliano Mignini and which ended at 5:45 a.m., is the word of two biased guilters, Fulcanelli and Machiavelli, neither of whom can provide any documentation for the claim.

In other words, there is no evidence that Amanda asked to make an additional voluntary statement following her 1:45 a.m. interrogation.

No, Mary H. The defence documents define 05:45 as spontaneous statement, those documents you didn't read. You hae all your documentation, but you don't read it. They are also defined as spontaneous declaration everywhere, in all documents form the earliest, and their nature of such has never been even questioned nor formally addressed by the defence.
Moreover: Amanda herself in her pre-trial spontaneous statement told her version of this story and said "they asked me to make a declaration" and she tried to justify her building up of her narrative. She did't say "I was questioned all night", she said "they asked me to make a declaration".
This position of her defence never changed: nobody ever lamented an interrogation took place after 01:45. Nobody: non existent argument to the defence.

 

[Machiavelli]

I didn't make the claim. In the trial testimony of Amanda Knox, lawyers for both sides ask Amanda several times about the "5:45 interrogation."

And, why do you chose to "believe" and re-propose the wording of lawyers when they mistake in court, instead of the words from to trial files?
Is your choice casual?

 

[RoseMontague]

I think "my" aguments (in fact not mine, but are forensic arguments of the case) are overwhelming superior to a TMB test, which is, as for the literature available that we can easilly check, not at all decisive in the asessment on blood test, not for excluding purpose nor for confirmation purposes.
TMB test is less sensitive than luminol and can literature about its non-excluding value can be easilly reported.
On the othr hand, the various arguments are crushing. Not only for their power and their number, also for their being together in a system, by which each elment gets further reinforced by some others.

I don't think a big pile (some would say mountain) of bad arguments is any better than a little one. Just my opinion.

 

[RoseMontague]

No, Mary H. The defence documents define 05:45 as spontaneous statement, those documents you didn't read. You hae all your documentation, but you don't read it. They are also defined as spontaneous declaration everywhere, in all documents form the earliest, and their nature of such has never been even questioned nor formally addressed by the defence.
Moreover: Amanda herself in her pre-trial spontaneous statement told her version of this story and said "they asked me to make a declaration" and she tried to justify her building up of her narrative. She did't say "I was questioned all night", she said "they asked me to make a declaration".
This position of her defence never changed: nobody ever lamented an interrogation took place after 01:45. Nobody: non existent argument to the defence.

I believe Mary and some others are watching GWTW at the present time. This is from Amanda's appeal:

The Court must determine whether there is a conflict between (i) cited the Court of No Cassation 990/08 of 1 April 2008 and (ii) the order made in court in On June 12, 2009 (document against No. 3) that the statements amesso Spontaneous made by Knox on 11/06/2007 only 5.45 hours of the crime sub.
F) (slander) the plaintiffs Lumumba.
At the hearing on 27 November 2009 the defender of civil party in Lumumba
presentation of its findings, has shown in open court, the Court
two slides with the full transcript of the text documents and SIT 1.45
spontaneous statements by 5:45 the night between 5 and 6 November 2007
indicated as key documents <<I need to show the summary information of 1:45 and 5:45>> (see page. 14 transcription Minutes November 27, 2009) that are displayed on the slide with screen provided to the Court. All those present have seen and read the text of documents stated <<inutilizzabili>> by the same court <<but that may be used only for that offense>> (Chapter F - Slander).The Court should have separate processes with the charges, B, C, D and E from part by ATRA and F for that exam. Instead, maintaining the same process for all the charges allowed de facto use of these
Court documents in the same compliments or decision of the SC had
declared "unsuitable" for the charges, B, C, D, E, which is of
greater emphasis on offense provided.

I am not a lawyer but showing a slide of both statements to the court pretty much covers the "de facto" use thingy.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The Dreams of Ada and the Nightmare in Perugia

I see similarities in the records of many false confessions. This is a selection of quotes from the Stanford Law Review study that I posted links to yesterday.

Rose,

Good post. I would add Tommy Ward's name to the list of people who gave dream confessions. He seems to have actually had a dream, and the police twisted it all around. He was also told he flunked a polygraph. This is discussed in Chapter 5 of The Innocent Man, by John Grisham. The Dreams of Ada no doubt has a much more detailed account. I posted some information about the Ward/Fontenot case in the previous thread.

 

[Katody Matrass]

On the othr hand, the various arguments are crushing. Not only for their power and their number, also for their being together in a system, by which each elment gets further reinforced by some others.

All of the forensic evidence against the two is contested and in fact for all of it there is a probable innocent explanation. None of that evidence removes the reasonable doubt.
It's true that with some strain one can construct a narrative out of it that will at first glance look not impossible. But it's also a fact that the evidence allows a much simpler and much probable narrative of Rudy being the single killer. Intellectual honesty and Ockham's razor directs us to choose the latter.

Massei worked very hard in the motivation to undermine that straightforward and reasonable narrative but he failed. The sole existence of such a probable alternative theory in light of the lack of decisive evidence against AK and RS provides reasonable doubt in their guilt.

 

[colonelhall]

halides1: "My position is based on the fact that Amanda's testimony clearly says that someone commented on her flexibility. Therefore, I think she probably stretched or something because she was tired and wanted to get a bit more energized....."

So you don't believe she did cartwheels. Fine! So do we all agree that she wasn't convicted because of cartwheels? My computer bookmark has this thread down as being about cartwheels. I must have missed something. No wonder there has been all this digestion stuff for days on end!

Just tell me that she wasn't convicted on cartwheels and then I'll be a happy man.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a presumptive test cannot be made into a conclusive one by fiat

I think "my" aguments (in fact not mine, but are forensic arguments of the case) are overwhelming superior to a TMB test, which is, as for the literature available that we can easilly check, not at all decisive in the asessment on blood test, not for excluding purpose nor for confirmation purposes.
TMB test is less sensitive than luminol and can literature about its non-excluding value can be easilly reported.
On the othr hand, the various arguments are crushing. Not only for their power and their number, also for their being together in a system, by which each elment gets further reinforced by some others.

Machiavelli,

TMB is only slightly less sensitive than luminol; therefore, a positive luminol result would have had to come at the lower end its detection limit. Moreover, you have not addressed why the DNA results should be negative. Luminol does not prevent one from collecting a DNA profile, as I have previously documented. One cannot turn a presumptive test for blood into a conclusive one without positive evidence from another test.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Rose, I think that I can agree with you on most of these points, but why place herself at the scene of the crime?

I think that it is sweet of you to think that she was only trying to be helpful, but nailing Patrick? That was hardly helpful.

It's a mystery!

Hi colonelhall,

Rose and I posted some papers that could help you with your questions. It would be great to hear your opinion after you skim through.

 

[katy_did]

No, Mary H. The defence documents define 05:45 as spontaneous statement, those documents you didn't read. You hae all your documentation, but you don't read it. They are also defined as spontaneous declaration everywhere, in all documents form the earliest, and their nature of such has never been even questioned nor formally addressed by the defence.
Moreover: Amanda herself in her pre-trial spontaneous statement told her version of this story and said "they asked me to make a declaration" and she tried to justify her building up of her narrative. She did't say "I was questioned all night", she said "they asked me to make a declaration".
This position of her defence never changed: nobody ever lamented an interrogation took place after 01:45. Nobody: non existent argument to the defence.

My view on the difference between the 01:45 statement and the 05:45 statement is that the distinction is primarily a legal one, as Fulcanelli noted: they couldn't continue to question Amanda as a witness, since she was then a suspect, a status which I believe requires access to a lawyer and a videotape of the interrogation. But it makes a great deal of sense that Mignini would want to question her himself - preferably before she'd had a chance to speak to a lawyer. A way around the problem would be to ask her to make voluntary declarations, something which could be done without a lawyer (though not used against the suspect).

I think the distinction here is a very tricky one, because clearly, in the course of obtaining this statement, the prosecutor and police (and even the interpreter) would be asking her questions. It seems to me that it's very difficult to make a distinction between questions asked in the course of an 'interrogation', and questions asked in the course of obtaining a 'voluntary statement' (particularly when one forgets to record the non-interrogation). Perhaps one way is to keep referring back to the statement; the interrogation has a purpose. Nonetheless, as many people would understand it, this is still an 'interrogation'. Not in a legal sense, no - they weren't allowed to formally interrogate her - but I'd suggest the line is very difficult to draw. And as Fulcanelli again notes, Amanda herself does not appear to have been fully aware of the legal difference; presumably, there was not a lot of difference in practice.

So sure, the prosecutor and police managed to get around the fact they couldn't legally interrogate Amanda without a lawyer, by asking her to make 'voluntary statements'. But I suspect the process whereby the statement was obtained involved a series of questions and answers which wasn't substantially different from the previous interrogation. In other words, it was a bit of a legal loophole (closed by the Supreme Court, after the horse had bolted. That's probably a mixed metaphor).

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Originally Posted by Mary_H:

…The reviews on Amazon were part of a campaign and are stacked.

Now Amazon joins the conspiracy!

I am sure that anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows full well that Mary was not referring to Amazon but, rather, to the people that left the reviews referred to by the O.P. I must state that I am sometimes reminded of a fellow employee at a previous workplace who used to jump to conclusions and then send e-mails to all and sundry proclaiming his findings...until someone pointed out to him he was on the wrong track again.

People from my 'neck of the woods' may be familiar with the expression ''not the brightest button in the box''

 

[katy_did]

Hence why, when the police concluded the questioning and Amanda then demanded to be heard as she wished to make a statement, Mignini had to be dragged out of his bed for only he or another judge could hear her.

Interesting. Both Macchiavelli and I appear to have read the same statement from Amanda in which she refers to being "asked" to make further declarations, which doesn't quite support your version of her "demanding" to make a statement and poor Mignini being dragged from his warm bed to hear it. It seems the only source for your dramatic scenario is the fact it was called a "voluntary statement". Incidentally, this was Amanda's account of that statement from her testimony:

AK: The declarations were taken against my will. And so, everything that I said, was said in confusion and under pressure, and, because they were suggested by the public minister.

I do have to wonder whether she was fully aware of her legal rights at this point.