Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

Not every newspaper story is accurate

I have asked MrsColumbo if she can assist in this matter - I don't see how I can be any plainer.

Platonov,

From Frank’s blog on 18 December, “Amanda's lawyer Luciano Ghirga has denied everything that was published yesterday about Amanda's interrogation. I said "we don't know too much" but, as always, newspapers knew everything. Yesterday the interrogation was just finished and they were already describing it in details, what she said, the way she was crying, when she refused to answer... Everything as if they were present to it... What to say? Keep on buying newspapers...”

(emphasis added)

I respectfully suggest that the newspaper story you quoted is not accurate.

 

[Kaosium]

You are welcome but you seem to have missed the (my) point.
Evidence (Facts) then conclusions is the way to go, not the reverse.


I wouldn't trust any 1 site/source on any subject for all the 'facts'.

Indeed I agree, and I have surveyed various sites. However I couldn't help but note that with some group polarization has taken over with a vengeance and the quality of their analysis deteriorated as a result.

 

[christianahannah]

At Sollecito's apartment, they got luminol reactions on the bathroom floor, the bedroom floor, the kitchen floor, and three door handles. They took 14 samples from these areas for DNA testing:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/selected_dna_results.pdf

Charlie do you happen to have the official forensic data of the selected dna results pdf? I am assuming the pdf was composed by you and is not the official record. Also, do you have the complete list of the collected samples (228) from which 460 specimens were taken and analyzed?

Thank you for what you have been willing to share thus far.

 

[daydreamer]

For me, the window is a problem. Not so much evidence of a break-in inside the room but it is the outside. I just do not see someone climbing up there, especially not as a first choice of entry points.

I think that entry through Filomena's window would present no problem to Rudy at all. I created scaled drawings of the cottage and Rudy to determine if it was feasible. By standing on the top rung of the lower window grate, Rudy could open the shutters, see through the window, and reach the window latch after breaking the window. The window sill would be a few inches below his arm pits and all he would need to push off with his right foot and pull himself up and through the window. This is the same maneuver we all use to get out of a swimming pool. I have a much more detailed explanation with the scaled drawings in pdf but the drawings and document are too large to post here. If anyone is interested in seeing it, send me a PM and will try to send it to you.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

More on the Kastle-Meyer test

Phenolphthalein is also used in he Kastle-Meyer test. This presumptive test for blood also utilizes the pseudperoxidase activity of hemoglobin, as do the TMB and luminol tests. What I am not sure of is exactly why it was used in the bathroom. Does anyone have a good citation?

In this presumptive test for blood, phenolphthalein is first reduced to phenolphthalin. When two molecules of hydrogen peroxide react, they form a molecule of water and a molecule of oxygen. Hemoglobin catalyzes (speeds up) this reaction; this is what people mean by the pseudoperoxidase activity of hemoglobin. The KM test is done under basic conditions. Therefore, when the oxygen oxidizes phenolphathalin back to phenolphthalein, the latter compound turns pink.

This discussion is intended only as background information to help understand what the police did or did not do. Did the police simply spray the bathroom with phenolphthalein? If so, they might have just been detecting an alkaline environment, as Kevin_Lowe suggested.

 

[platonov]

Platonov,

From Frank’s blog on 18 December, “Amanda's lawyer Luciano Ghirga has denied everything that was published yesterday about Amanda's interrogation. I said "we don't know too much" but, as always, newspapers knew everything. Yesterday the interrogation was just finished and they were already describing it in details, what she said, the way she was crying, when she refused to answer... Everything as if they were present to it... What to say? Keep on buying newspapers...”

(emphasis added)

I respectfully suggest that the newspaper story you quoted is not accurate.

Halides1

You appear to have the quotes mixed up - what you quoted from me was a humorous reference to the Q not being understood.

What I said was ....

MrsColumbo

Thanks for the translation - I look forward to the rest.
One could be churlish and complain that is not AK's own words but if the description posted is even close to accurate it would certainly explain why the Q has not been answered on this board by the Innocentisti.

I couldn't agree more on the general principle (as my post quoted above by Kaosium shows I hope) -- caution should be applied to all secondary sources including 'Franks blog' and especially the lawyer for the accused who could hardly be termed a disinterested source.

Which is why I asked many posts ago for what AK had to say on the matter in Dec 07' and we are no closer to an answer.

If I may be permitted a tenuous comparison perhaps the jury viewed AK's meandering and obfuscation in the same way as I (and perhaps others) are viewing these exchanges ??

 

[Katody Matrass]

MrsColumbo

Thanks for the translation - I look forward to the rest.
One could be churlish and complain that is not AK's own words but if the description posted is even close to accurate it would certainly explain why the Q has not been answered on this board by the Innocentisti.

If I understand correctly we for now have only "Y" provided and we must wait for the translation of "X" and "Z" into simple declarative sentences , than further discussion will be possible.

 

[platonov]

A literary aside - as I introduced Edward Lear to this another verse of his comes to mind which may sum up what appears to have happened in Dec 07'

He has ears, and two eyes, and ten fingers,
Leastways if you reckon two thumbs;
Long ago he was one of the singers,
But now he is one of the dumbs.

It may be slightly OT but hopefully a shared interest in literature may help engender civility between posters with opposing views.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I think that entry through Filomena's window would present no problem to Rudy at all. I created scaled drawings of the cottage and Rudy to determine if it was feasible. By standing on the top rung of the lower window grate, Rudy could open the shutters, see through the window, and reach the window latch after breaking the window. The window sill would be a few inches below his arm pits and all he would need to push off with his right foot and pull himself up and through the window. This is the same maneuver we all use to get out of a swimming pool. I have a much more detailed explanation with the scaled drawings in pdf but the drawings and document are too large to post here. If anyone is interested in seeing it, send me a PM and will try to send it to you.

Exactly, the idea that it's somehow impossible could only hatch in the echochamber nest of the "plausible bunch".

 

[piktor]

If I may be permitted a tenuous comparison perhaps the jury viewed AK's meandering and obfuscation in the same way as I (and perhaps others) are viewing these exchanges ??

The pro-innocence side will have none of that.

The investigators were wrong, the prosecution was wrong, the defense was wrong, the judges were wrong.

Two defendants were either "under pressure", "beaten", "being themselves", coming down from a pot trip, whatever.

This whole exercise has been a project from hell for two defendants.

Nobody here was in Perugia to see, hear and investigate first hand. Nonetheless, over there, everyone directly involved was wrong, the Italian judiciary, Italian scientific police, Italian expert witnesses, Italian defense lawyers, everybody was wrong and two defendants whose credibility is completely shot by their own obfuscations are absolutely innocent.

So the google sez.

 

[LondonJohn]

The pro-innocence side will have none of that.

The investigators were wrong, the prosecution was wrong, the defense was wrong, the judges were wrong.

Two defendants were either "under pressure", "beaten", "being themselves", coming down from a pot trip, whatever.

This whole exercise has been a project from hell for two defendants.

Nobody here was in Perugia to see, hear and investigate first hand. Nonetheless, over there, everyone directly involved was wrong, the Italian judiciary, Italian scientific police, Italian expert witnesses, Italian defense lawyers, everybody was wrong and two defendants whose credibility is completely shot by their own obfuscations are absolutely innocent.

So the google sez.

Let's see what the appeal courts say, shall we?

 

[LondonJohn]

Halides1

You appear to have the quotes mixed up - what you quoted from me was a humorous reference to the Q not being understood.

What I said was ....

MrsColumbo

Thanks for the translation - I look forward to the rest.
One could be churlish and complain that is not AK's own words but if the description posted is even close to accurate it would certainly explain why the Q has not been answered on this board by the Innocentisti.

I couldn't agree more on the general principle (as my post quoted above by Kaosium shows I hope) -- caution should be applied to all secondary sources including 'Franks blog' and especially the lawyer for the accused who could hardly be termed a disinterested source.

Which is why I asked many posts ago for what AK had to say on the matter in Dec 07' and we are no closer to an answer.

If I may be permitted a tenuous comparison perhaps the jury viewed AK's meandering and obfuscation in the same way as I (and perhaps others) are viewing these exchanges ??

But where is your "first-hand" knowledge of what Knox might or might not have said in the December 07 interrogations by Mignini? I wasn't aware that direct transcripts of these interrogations were in the public domain.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

let us move the discussion forward

OK ......at this stage an old fashioned jury would be measuring your client up for a rope or a box.

What C Dempsey* or you or me or London John or others have opined on this issue...is not relevant.

What did AK have to say - the question could hardly be simpler.

* in deference to the literary allusions of other posters Lear comes to mind ......'he reads but cannot speak Spanish'..... in this case your authority appears to neither read nor speak Italian nor to have been present at the hearings.

As regards cards I have asked a simple question ( often enough to fall foul of the mods for spamming) but to no avail.
If we were playing cards we would be arguing over the price of shirt and shoes at this stage.

Platonov,

Ms. Dempsey does read and speak Italian, so your claim is nonsense. What did Amanda Knox say, and what is your source?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Charlie do you happen to have the official forensic data of the selected dna results pdf? I am assuming the pdf was composed by you and is not the official record. Also, do you have the complete list of the collected samples (228) from which 460 specimens were taken and analyzed?

Thank you for what you have been willing to share thus far.

This information is spread across several large, multi-page .tif files, i.e., faxes sent to a computer rather than another fax machine. The e-grams are separate, not indexed and not organized in the same way as the document describing the results, and certain colored lines did not survive the faxing. I have separate Word docs with color e-grams for the most important samples, except the filters on the software that generated those e-grams was set to filter out noise and weak markers, so they're not as good.

It's a mess. At some point I might upload it all, but for now, you will just have to trust that I have pored over it and done my utmost to be accurate. But make sure you have the current version of the pdf, because I did make a mistake in an earlier draft, attributing Sample 177 to Amanda's room when it was from Filomena's room.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think that entry through Filomena's window would present no problem to Rudy at all. I created scaled drawings of the cottage and Rudy to determine if it was feasible. By standing on the top rung of the lower window grate, Rudy could open the shutters, see through the window, and reach the window latch after breaking the window. The window sill would be a few inches below his arm pits and all he would need to push off with his right foot and pull himself up and through the window. This is the same maneuver we all use to get out of a swimming pool. I have a much more detailed explanation with the scaled drawings in pdf but the drawings and document are too large to post here. If anyone is interested in seeing it, send me a PM and will try to send it to you.

Interesting work. I think that many people on here believe that it was entirely possible for a person of Guede's build and athleticism to have entered through Filomena's window. I suspect that some people who believe the climb to be impossible are misled by the small size of the lower window below Filomena's (the one with the grating), and assume that the distances involved are considerably greater than they actually are.

Judge Micheli certainly seemed to be of the opinion that any reasonably fit person could have climbed up to Filomena's window. And it was actually a logical choice of entry window for a burglar. The windows directly alongside the road were far more visible to passing traffic from both directions (and also, I believe, had metal grates over them), while the balcony windows on the opposite side of the house afforded no opportunity for easy escape if there was someone inside the house. Plus, Filomena's testimony strongly suggests that the exterior shutters to her window were at least partially open that evening, giving any potential burglar a good reason to choose that particular window.

 

[colonelhall]

London John: "Let's see what the appeal courts say, shall we?"

Excellent! At last someone is talking sense. Does that mean we can all shut up now?

( I take it that we DO all agree that Amanda Knox was NOT convicted because of the cartwheels. though )

 

[piktor]

Let's see what the appeal courts say, shall we?

By all means.

Keep in mind Guede's guilty verdict was readily upheld by the Appeals Court.

Appeal judges for Guede used as reference the same investigation, the same scientific results, the same crime scene evidence, same expert opinion and forensic results that the other two defendants will be using. There were no two parallel investigations. One investigation that has been corroborated again and again and again.

There can be the possibility that the appeals court will dismiss the state's investigation, but why were they found guilty in the first place?

There are many little arrows pointing in one direction but it is the defendants themselves that confirm guilt through evident "misstatements", again and again and again.

Sounds like something is rotten in Perugia, or not.

 

[el buscador]

Hi Piktor, do you know what time of death was used to convict rudy? I've read in several places that it wasn't the same as the TOD for the Amanda/Raffael trial but I've not seen it posted anywhere. Thanks in advance.

 

[LondonJohn]

By all means.

Keep in mind Guede's guilty verdict was readily upheld by the Appeals Court.

Appeal judges for Guede used as reference the same investigation, the same scientific results, the same crime scene evidence, same expert opinion and forensic results that the other two defendants will be using. There were no two parallel investigations. One investigation that has been corroborated again and again and again.

There can be the possibility that the appeals court will dismiss the state's investigation, but why were they found guilty in the first place?

There are many little arrows pointing in one direction but it is the defendants themselves that confirm guilt through evident "misstatements", again and again and again.

Sounds like something is rotten in Perugia, or not.

Well, we'll see. I admire your levels of certainty. Especially interesting is your assertion that the defendants "confirm guilt through evident "misstatements", again and again and again". I'd be very interested indeed to understand how the words spoken by Knox and Sollecito served to "confirm their guilt".

And we'll also see if the investigation that was apparently "corroborated again and again and again" is corroborated further by an independent group of judges.......

 

[Chris_Halkides]

By all means.

Keep in mind Guede's guilty verdict was readily upheld by the Appeals Court.

Appeal judges for Guede used as reference the same investigation, the same scientific results, the same crime scene evidence, same expert opinion and forensic results that the other two defendants will be using. There were no two parallel investigations. One investigation that has been corroborated again and again and again.

There can be the possibility that the appeals court will dismiss the state's investigation, but why were they found guilty in the first place?

There are many little arrows pointing in one direction but it is the defendants themselves that confirm guilt through evident "misstatements", again and again and again.

Sounds like something is rotten in Perugia, or not.

Piktor,

Your answer does not address the fact that the forensic evidence made Guede a suspect, but it was analyzed after Sollecito and Knox were in custody. I cannot force any person to pay attention to the problem of investigator bias, but there is no good reason for me to ignore it.

The electronic data files and other DNA forensic files were not released to the defense. Why should anyone draw a conclusion about the verdict when the defense did not have an adequate opportunity to challenge the evidence?