Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Thanks for the info, Alt+4. I stand corrected.

But not from the MAT, by definition.

 

[Mary_H]

The maths may still be there, but reading comprehension appears to have disappeared...

Don't fall for it, Alt+4. LondonJohn ain't from around these parts.

 

[Machiavelli]

I agree. Good evidence collection doesn't stop at Italy's border and neither does good science. They are either good or bad, regardless of what country you are in or if you know the judges and lawyers. Stephanoni even indicated she didn't feel it was always necessary to change gloves unless she touched something wet. I really doubt that is a good technique in Italy or anywhere else. Stephanoni invented an untested an unproven procedure for LCN DNA testing that can't even be replicated because the one and only sample is gone. I really doubt that this is an accepted procedure in Italian labs or any other country, for that matter. They picked up the bra clasp and dropped it back on the floor where two of them had just stepped on with their little booties that were put on before they entered the room dragging who knows whom's DNA with them (Perhaps the origin of the extra unidentified profiles or even Raffaele's). And this is after the evidence had stayed on the floor for 46 days somehow moving around from it's original location to an are of other items that came from who knows where). Is that a good technique in Italy or anywhere else?

This is a drop in your posting level in my opinion.
Besides the fact that the statement "Stefanoni invented an untested an unproven procedure for LCN DNA testing" is definitly questionable, the question is not if it is a "good technique", the only question is if evidence was found. Evidence was certainly found, where "evidence" stands for the Italian word indizio. The presence of this evidence, Sollecito's DNA on a metal hook, is quite difficult to explain on the basis of the alleged contamination caused by alleged flaws in the technique.

 

[Mary_H]

This is a drop in your posting level in my opinion.
Besides the fact that the statement "Stefanoni invented an untested an unproven procedure for LCN DNA testing" is definitly questionable, the question is not if it is a "good technique", the only question is if evidence was found. Evidence was certainly found, where "evidence" stands for the Italian word indizio. The presence of this evidence, Sollecito's DNA on a metal hook, is quite difficult to explain on the basis of the alleged contamination caused by alleged flaws in the technique.

Hypothetically, from your point of view, if it is discovered eventually that the evidence was planted or the records were falsified, would you continue to hold that, "the question is not if it is a "good technique", the only question is if evidence was found?"

 

[Malkmus]

You are deluded if you think reality doesn't exist and doesn't matter just outside the "standards" claimed by a person who has not even taken part as an expert in the trial. By the way there are even some others who gave an opposite opinion, like Luciano Garofano (former director of the Ris). If you want to believe the evidence is "not reliable" on your own standards you have the freedom to do so. The Italian justice system will never follow your argumentation.

Garofano criticized the LCN DNA evidence as well as the examination of the double DNA knife. Really, has there been anyone outside the prosecution and judges who hasn't described the forensic evidence in this case as questionable?

 

[bambi]

I agree. Good evidence collection doesn't stop at Italy's border and neither does good science. They are either good or bad, regardless of what country you are in or if you know the judges and lawyers. Stephanoni even indicated she didn't feel it was always necessary to change gloves unless she touched something wet. I really doubt that is a good technique in Italy or anywhere else. Stephanoni invented an untested an unproven procedure for LCN DNA testing that can't even be replicated because the one and only sample is gone. I really doubt that this is an accepted procedure in Italian labs or any other country, for that matter. They picked up the bra clasp and dropped it back on the floor where two of them had just stepped on with their little booties that were put on before they entered the room dragging who knows whom's DNA with them (Perhaps the origin of the extra unidentified profiles or even Raffaele's). And this is after the evidence had stayed on the floor for 46 days somehow moving around from it's original location to an are of other items that came from who knows where). Is that a good technique in Italy or anywhere else?

First time poster, hi everyone.
First , it's Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni.Please check your spelling.
Second, she hasn't "invented " any procedure. She just changed the sequencer machine settings. Someone may see it as bad lab practice, others may think it is a novel approach to forensic DNA sequencing. Scientific breaks are often the result of non-standard procedures employed by scientists following a hunch feeling.

I think the investigation is somehow flawed, and Amanda and Raffale could be innocent, but you people are showing a remarkable degree of ignorance of the case, and a high level of xenophoby that surely isn't helping their case

 

[Dan O.]

I have never met them personally (except Lorenzo Rinaldi an I said). But I know who they are, in a sense that maybe you won't understand, and I know the people surrounding them as the social environment of various of these parties. I also know of their mentality, their praxis, the actual meaning of their actions and words. Why are you asking? What would you like to know?

I think I understand. You are close enough that you feel an obligation to defend them yet not so close that you could get access to any as yet unpublished case data. But if you do happen to get a chance to speak with any of the principles involved, could you possibley find out what's up with the cottage door being open on November 14, 2007.

 

[Mary_H]

First time poster, hi everyone.
First , it's Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni.Please check your spelling.
Second, she hasn't "invented " any procedure. She just changed the sequencer machine settings. Someone may see it as bad lab practice, others may think it is a novel approach to forensic DNA sequencing. Scientific breaks are often the result of non-standard procedures employed by scientists following a hunch feeling.

I think the investigation is somehow flawed, and Amanda and Raffale could be innocent, but you people are showing a remarkable degree of ignorance of the case, and a high level of xenophoby that surely isn't helping their case

Wow, bambi -- that's some first post.

I don't usually get into the DNA discussions, but I know enough to know that someone who characterizes what Stefanoni did as a "novel approach" that followed a "hunch feeling" and which might potentially lead to a "scientific break" is in no position to call other people remarkably ignorant.

By the way, it's xenophobia. Please check your spelling.

 

[Malkmus]

This is a drop in your posting level in my opinion.
Besides the fact that the statement "Stefanoni invented an untested an unproven procedure for LCN DNA testing" is definitly questionable, the question is not if it is a "good technique", the only question is if evidence was found. Evidence was certainly found, where "evidence" stands for the Italian word indizio. The presence of this evidence, Sollecito's DNA on a metal hook, is quite difficult to explain on the basis of the alleged contamination caused by alleged flaws in the technique.

Machiavelli, your last few points make some rather broad generalizations of how one can or should analyze the findings of this case. In regards to Steve Moore, you appear to state that no one outside the people directly involved in the trial are qualified to judge the findings and, secondly, the evidence against the two is not questionable simply for the fact that it is evidence. Huh? These two ideas basically boil down to an appeal to authority: We can't question the trial because we weren't there and despite a laundry list of dubious facts surrounding the evidence, we have to take it at face value. Pretty much everything a skeptic shouldn't do.

 

[bambi]

Wow, bambi -- that's some first post.

I don't usually get into the DNA discussions, but I know enough to know that someone who characterizes what Stefanoni did as a "novel approach" that followed a "hunch feeling" and which might potentially lead to a "scientific break" is in no position to call other people remarkably ignorant.

By the way, it's xenophobia. Please check your spelling.

Oh sorry about misspelling xenophobia, but I don't think it's relevant though, while I would expect someone like you, who's so competent about the case, would at least be able to spell the names of the relevant players correctly And about your choice of not getting into the DNA discussion, I understand you have good reasons to do so.

 

[Danceme]

You've been posting in these threads for quite a while. I find it hard to believe that you you have overlooked entirely the veritable blizzard of examples, mostly from the U.S., which have been offered to demonstrate that these sorts of cases often do and have made it into court here.

<snip>

Do you really think that the Italian press could ever hope to equal our sort of obsessive scrutiny and saturation? I don't think they could even afford it if they wanted to. The American appetite for gruesome and salacious gossip is the match of any culture in the world, and we're willing to pay to assuage that hunger. The wealthiest society in the world putting its money where its mind is. What hope could little, bitty Italy have of surpassing that?

That was an excellent post Quadraginta. You have an enormous amount of common sense.

The police know when someone is actually guilty of the crime and not just confessing to a crime they didn't do.

They do in Italy too

 

[Mary_H]

Oh sorry about misspelling xenophobia, but I don't think it's relevant though, while I would expect someone like you, who's so competent about the case, would at least be able to spell the names of the relevant players correctly And about your choice of not getting into the DNA discussion, I understand you have good reasons to do so.

Absolutely. Fortunately there are plenty of people here who know more about it than I do.

 

[Malkmus]

you people are showing a remarkable degree of ignorance of the case

Welcome to the thread, Bambi. Perhaps you could elaborate on your above point. It might help move the discussion along a bit better than just calling us all ignorant without claiming why.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Otherwise you may explain what is the contradiction in these photos in your opinion: as long as I don't know what you are objecting it's difficult for me to understand what you mean.

The post to which I refer was #7352, back on page 184. It contains a number of errors, but what I noticed at the time was this:

He did not move her right after the stabbing, because the body remained near the closet for some time and was moved only after at least 10-15 minutes as the coddling of the blood stains shows.

This is flatly contradicted by the crime scene photos. Meredith was moved from the spot where her throat was cut, in front of the wardrobe, to the spot where she was found, with her head adjacent to the left side panel of the wardrobe, while she was still alive (albeit barely alive) and gasping for breath. Experts have determined that because the same aspirated blood spatter that appears on the wardrobe doors also appears on the side panel.

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/wardrobe_side_panel.jpg

Also, the volume of blood found at that location shows that her heart was still beating, causing blood to actively flow from her wounds. People don't bleed like that after they are dead. And Meredith most certainly did not survive for 15 minutes after she received that enormous slashing wound to her throat.

You have bought into a ridiculous fable because you don't have the facts particular to this case, and you lack even the most basic knowledge of criminal investigations in general. Certainly you are not in a position to critique Steve Moore.

 

[quadraginta]

Each state has different laws. The Federal laws are also different.

No, in the USA information about each case is NOT published. Lots of people, for some idiotic reason, actually confess to crimes they didn't do. But all the police have to do is ask them something about the crime they couldn't have read in the newspapers. Sometimes mis-information is deliberately published. If they don't know the answers, they are told to go home. The police know when someone is actually guilty of the crime and not just confessing to a crime they didn't do.

I am unable to decipher any significant connection between the post of mine which you chose to quote and the statement you made following it. Was there supposed to be some sort of a relationship?

If so, you might need to rephrase yours in a more intelligible fashion.

Your post is worded in a way which suggests that you were disputing something you think I said. You are aware that I was concurring with a comment LJ made about the propriety of media coverage of ongoing criminal trials, aren't you?

 

[moodstream]

My ratio 90-10 is subjective. What makes it 90-10 is my arbitrary choice, because a ratio 90-10 is merely a figure that I assume as cautional value. In fact looking at my pictures I feel certain more like 99% and beyond, but I cannot "prove" it definitely so I decide to set a 10% doubt as a cautional value in favour of the defendants.

You accept that your conclusions regarding the footprint are subjective, even arbitrary. The ratios don’t concern me, but the lack of a system of proof does. You could call it 51%/49%, or whatever you wish. My underlying concern is that you “feel certain”.

Not that this is a problem. That’s the way almost everyone on this board interprets the footprint, I think. Its just that because I cannot get past merely having a feeling or inclination about whose footprint I am looking at, I cannot use it to establish guilt. To me, it looks a lot like Guede’s, but I have not established an objective standard that eliminates Sollecito, so I cannot rule him out. As you yourself point out, you cannot rule out other possibilities either, e.g. Guede.

The name of the person who left that footprint cannot be determined only by studying the footprint. Do you agree?

I would go further and question if you cannot derive a conclusion from examining the footprint, how do you are arrive at your ‘feeling of certainty’? How do you avoid simply seeing what you wish? I certainly give you more credit than that, but you have to admit, reading into to the picture what you will is dangerously tempting.

The picture of the footprint may have limited evidentiary value, but may prove quite illuminating if considered within the set of pictures offered here http://theinkblot.com/, don’t you agree?

 

[moodstream]

.... I am not accusing Amanda of having used a knife to kill somebody. I am accusing Amanda of being responsible in the death of Meredith Kercher. Maybe she was not in the room when the final blow was given, maybe she was not bearing a knife.

Did the earth move? Are you saying the knife evidence might be bs?

 

[Chris C]

Moreover, I am not accusing Amanda of having used a knife to kill somebody. I am accusing Amanda of being responsible in the death of Meredith Kercher. Maybe she was not in the room when the final blow was given, maybe she was not bearing a knife.

So whats your opinion on the matter with a ToD based between 9 and 1030. At what time of death would you stop believing knox had anything to do with the crime.

 

[Chris C]

Oh sorry about misspelling xenophobia, but I don't think it's relevant though, while I would expect someone like you, who's so competent about the case, would at least be able to spell the names of the relevant players correctly And about your choice of not getting into the DNA discussion, I understand you have good reasons to do so.

Well apparently its relevant enough for you to correct someone elses spelling but when they correct yours its not relevant. Also whats Stefanoni a doctor of?

 

[Kaosium]

Hypothetically, from your point of view, if it is discovered eventually that the evidence was planted or the records were falsified, would you continue to hold that, "the question is not if it is a "good technique", the only question is if evidence was found?"

The problem I had squaring the whole story of the bra clasp and the knife with reality is wondering to myself if he's going to go to that extreme to get actual physical evidence of Amanda and Raffaele (kinda) at the murder site, why not just actually plant some? Go back and just drop some hairs on a carpet near where the body was found and order one last 'check?'

He manufactured evidence in my opinion, but he did it in plain sight under the glare of scrutiny and no one really seemed to care overmuch....

Is there any other 'first world' country where the courts would allow that, or that the press wouldn't throw a fit?