Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Antony]

Lastly, I do agree that some people do resort to comments that verge on being xenophobic. But I think that most people who argue on here in favour of wrongful convictions are of the belief that these were individual errors of competence, pride, self-preservation or tunnel vision - errors which can be (and are being) made all over the world every day, including in the US and UK.

I think bambi may be seeing the pro-innocence side as some kind of co-ordinated campaign, and is criticising something s/he has read elsewhere on the internet blogs; his/her words "you people" seem to indicate something of this sort. There are certainly some hugely regrettable excesses posted by some "supporters" of Amanda on some websites, whose arguments don't seem to get beyond accusing the other side of "anti-Americanism".

We need to make the point that nobody is responsible for views expressed by someone else, and that arguments found at JREF, at least, have by-and-large been based on the specific facts of the case.

 

[LondonJohn]

I disagree on several points, first of all to the statement "Meredith certainly did not survive 15 minutes". The posssible dynamics of her death do not allow us to estimate the timing of her death with this precision. Even the seconds or minutes tha passed between the first and the last wound are an unknown time.

Then, you are pointing to a detail frankly of secondary value. You are just speaking about the timing that occurred between the stabbing and moving of the body. The pattern on the wardrobe side means really little. What has a logical value is the evidence this movement of the body occurred, and in addition there are indications that a movement occurred later after the stabbing. Any (only possible, imho) evidence that movements occurred also before while she was alive do not have a logical value, because they cannot exclude anything. The evidence of actions made after her death, movement and alteration of the scene later after her death are multiple and very obvious.

While a very important aspect is the lack of prints on her body, which would he impossible if her body was closely manipulated by a person after her death in the context of a sexual violence. No bloody prints or bloody smearings consistent with manipulation were found on her breast and on her body, this obviously rules out the possibility that somebody had a close sexual contact her after the stabbing.

Othr macroscpic elements contribute to the picture, like the duvet on her body. But the story would be long.

What are these "multiple and very obvious" signs that Meredith's body was moved after her death (let alone some time after her death), and/or that the scene was altered?

I remember reading very early on that the duvet placed over Meredith's body was essentially clean of blood. This was one of the things which led me originally towards belief in a clean-up by Knox and Sollecito the morning after the murder, since much of the blood on Meredith's body would have coagulated or dried by that point. But, as it turns out, the duvet was in fact heavily soaked with blood - indicating that it was most likely placed over Meredith very shortly after her death (or possibly even while she was still alive but dying).

Similarly, the removed bra was originally cited as evidence of a crime scene alteration long after Meredith's death. However, blood pattern analysis reveals that it's most likely that the bra was removed while Meredith was still (barely) alive, since there's evidence of aspirated blood both on the bra and on the skin under the removed bra.

And I also heard comment that the patterns of livor mortis in Meredith's body indicated that she had died (and lay for some time after death) in a different position to that in which she was discovered. However, what I've read about the livor mortis patterns observed at autopsy is entirely consistent with Meredith dying while laying on her back - the position in which she was found.

And if the murder room had been subject to any sort of "clean-up" later on that night or the following morning, why is there no tangible evidence of it? Where are the smear marks of cleaned up bloody fingerprints or shoe/foot prints?

 

[LondonJohn]

I think bambi may be seeing the pro-innocence side as some kind of co-ordinated campaign, and is criticising something s/he has read elsewhere on the internet blogs; his/her words "you people" seem to indicate something of this sort. There are certainly some hugely regrettable excesses posted by some "supporters" of Amanda on some websites, whose arguments don't seem to get beyond accusing the other side of "anti-Americanism".

We need to make the point that nobody is responsible for views expressed by someone else, and that arguments found at JREF, at least, have by-and-large been based on the specific facts of the case.

Exactly correct, in my opinion. To the best of my knowledge, every poster on JREF is an independent thinker, with no element of co-ordination or "strategising" (contrary to some other groups that spring to mind...). And because of that, I don't feel in any way wedded to what anyone else says in commentary about this case. I find it very interesting, for example, to hear some people suggest that I (or others who share my general views on the case) should feel ashamed/embarrassed/annoyed about the sometimes-hyperbolic outpourings of Steve Moore - as if I am in any way connected to him or represented by him. To me, this is a revealing example of a creeping "groupthink" mentality among some, coupled with a bunker mentality which appears to think that there is one homogeneous "common enemy".

 

[RoseMontague]

This is very interesting. apparently Dr. Stefanono has complained about the findings of a different consultant in another case involving the death of a British girl some 17 years ago, whose body was discovered a few months ago in a church attic. It seems as if Stefanono is saying the latest technologies for testing small amounts of DNA were not used. They want to compare any DNA they find with the one and only suspect. Any bets how this one will turn out?

http://translate.googleusercontent....le.com&usg=ALkJrhi9XUnqGA7T2mIeoCF98IBcbIF8Xg

ETA second link

http://translate.google.com/transla...=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbs=qdr:m2&prmd=o

ETA: Correction. The girl was Italian.

 

[Mary_H]

This is very interesting. apparently Dr. Stefanono has complained about the findings of a different consultant in another case involving the death of a British girl some 17 years ago, whose body was discovered a few months ago in a church attic. It seems as if Stefanono is saying the latest technologies for testing small amounts of DNA were not used. They want to compare any DNA they find with the one and only suspect. Any bets how this one will turn out?

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://tg24.sk

The link didn't work, Rose. LOL on the Stefanono.

 

[RoseMontague]

The link didn't work, Rose. LOL on the Stefanono.

edited and fixed and added a second link.

 

[Mary_H]

edited and fixed and added a second link.

Thanks. Is her name mentioned anywhere other than in the last paragraph?

In the second incident were handed over to the new evidence, experts at the headquarters of the Rome Racis findings for surveying operations on DNA. Erano presenti il comandante del Ris Di Parma Giampietro Lago e il maggiore Andrea Berti del Ris di Roma, ai quali l'incarico è stato conferito dal gip di Salerno Attilio Franco Orio, e Those present included the commander of the Res Giampietro Lago Di Parma and Major Andrea Berti Ris of Rome, to which the assignment was given by the investigating judge of Salerno Attilio Franco Orio, and la dottoressa Patrizia Stefanoni Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni , la consulente della Procura che aveva attaccato la perizia precedentemente affidata a Vincenzo Pascali. Advice from the attorney who had previously attacked the survey carried out by Vincenzo Pascali. Per le parti c'erano l'avvocato della famiglia Claps, Giuliana Scarpetta, e il genetista di Danilo Restivo Adriano Tagliabracci. For the parties there were the family lawyer Claps, Giuliana Scarpetta, and the geneticist Danilo Restivo Adriano Tagliaferro.

 

[RoseMontague]

Thanks. Is her name mentioned anywhere other than in the last paragraph?

Hmmmmmmm. Several other articles on this as well that mention Stefafoni. This one you quoted also mentions Tagliabracci. And seems she is complaining about the work of Pascali. Both of those sound familiar to the Kercher case.

ETA: The Pope has been cleared of this crime. Whew! That was a close one.

http://opinionatedcatholic.blogspot.com/2010/10/italian-tv-station-clears-pope-benedict.html

 

[quadraginta]

quadraginta, if you're interested, this post offers an opportunity for you to expand on your position regarding anecdotes, analogies and evidence, as mentioned in this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6490843&postcount=12892


References to Fred Zain:
http://www.truthinjustice.org/expertslie.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Zain

I was already familiar with the story of Fred Zain.

It is not clear what your point is. Perhaps you yourself would benefit from rereading the post of mine you cited. You don't seem to have grasped the fundamentals of it yet.

It doesn't matter how many examples of malfeasance or misadventure from elsewhere you can cite. No one is challenging the fact that such things can happen, or that they do happen. The problem is that these examples have absolutely no merit as evidence, much less proof, that it happened this time.

Endless litanies of instances of deplorable acts or regrettable errors serve only as an appeal to emotion. That is a rhetorical device, not any sort of deductive, inferential, or logical progression towards proof. No matter how many more of them you cite, or how often you repeat them the basic truth of this does not change.

If you really want to try and pursue such a form of persuasion then the very least you need to do is establish some sort of demonstration of how often this happens out of all criminal cases. Is it 1% of the time? 10%? 0.000001%? This might begin to make such citations germane, but even that would only be a beginning.

Otherwise all you are doing is a sort of spotlighting, singling out examples you find convenient for your position, and asserting a commonality to this instance without any support for the assertion, while ignoring a preponderance of other examples which are less useful to your argument.

If I were to present an interminable procession of cases where the accused were actually guilty and the prosecutors were innocent of any misdeeds even though the defense claimed otherwise you would disregard that as being irrelevant to this discussion, and rightfully so. The tactic is no more legitimate when it is used by the side of the discussion you have aligned yourself with.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Stefanoni's version of LCN DNA

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

Bambi,

Ordinarily when one performs low copy number (LCN) DNA, one increases the number of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) cycles from 28 to 34, one works in an ultraclean laboratory that is separate from other facilities, and one performs the analysis at least twice. Dr. Stefanoni did none of these things. Instead, she chose a lower cutoff threshold for peaks. Can you find a citation from a peer-reviewed DNA profiling paper where the work was done this way? The problem is not xenophobia (not the spelling); it is poor scientific judgment on the part of the lab doing the work. Please bear these points in mind before judging the hard work of the commenters here, who have discussed the problems in the forensics of this case in great detail.

 

[christianahannah]

This is very interesting. apparently Dr. Stefanono has complained about the findings of a different consultant in another case involving the death of a British girl some 17 years ago, whose body was discovered a few months ago in a church attic. It seems as if Stefanono is saying the latest technologies for testing small amounts of DNA were not used. They want to compare any DNA they find with the one and only suspect. Any bets how this one will turn out?

http://translate.googleusercontent....le.com&usg=ALkJrhi9XUnqGA7T2mIeoCF98IBcbIF8Xg

ETA second link

http://translate.google.com/transla...=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbs=qdr:m2&prmd=o

From reading the above links I am uncertain to which testing Stefanoni is referring, though I think it may be Y haplotype which is a more sensitive test to detect the presence of a male contributor to a sample.

If it is this testing which Stefanoni is referring to I would have no fault with its usage. It would either rule out the suspect completely or give confirmation that he could be the contributor.

I believe it was Professor Tagliabracci who stated at Raffaele's and Amanda's trial that the Y haplotype could only be used to exclude, not to confirm. Is Professor Tagliabracci used mainly in a capacity as a consultant for defense suspects or does he also consult for the prosecution?

 

[RoseMontague]

From reading the above links I am uncertain to which testing Stefanoni is referring, though I think it may be Y haplotype which is a more sensitive test to detect the presence of a male contributor to a sample.

If it is this testing which Stefanoni is referring to I would have no fault with its usage. It would either rule out the suspect completely or give confirmation that he could be the contributor.

I believe it was Professor Tagliabracci who stated at Raffaele's and Amanda's trial that the Y haplotype could only be used to exclude, not to confirm. Is Professor Tagliabracci used mainly in a capacity as a consultant for defense suspects or does he also consult for the prosecution?

It does appear he is consulting for the prosecution on this one. It would have to be more than the Y halotype test she is referring to. They have gone back to retrieve more evidence. I am curious if this will be a case where LCN DNA is used again and how it is handled this time.

I also think this is the same Pascali who did some work for Raffaele's team (and quit) and was also the prosecution expert on this one that Stefanoni is critical of this time around. I wonder how all these experts get along with each other?

 

[christianahannah]

It does appear he is consulting for the prosecution on this one. It would have to be more than the Y halotype test she is referring to. They have gone back to retrieve more evidence. I am curious if this will be a case where LCN DNA is used again and how it is handled this time.

I think it may be Pascali who is working with the prosecution, not Tagliabracci. From the last paragraph it appears Tagliabracci is working with the family but I am not sure if that is the victim's family or the suspect's family. And Pascali was the consultant for Sollecito who was replaced, correct?

ETA: I see you added have some of the same information I did. I am still not certain of Tagliabracci and of the test being referred to in the first link.

 

[Machiavelli]

I agree. Since there is no other legitimate evidence against Raffaele, and a great deal of evidence that he was arrested without cause, why spend so much time speculating on whether that is his footprint?

A new concept of "legitimte evidence" suddenly appears.
The scene shows planety other evidence against the two of them, and they provided pkenty of evidence themselves.

 

[Machiavelli]

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?

Actually Garofano said the DNA results were reliable and the lab techniques were excellent. Garofano expresses approval for the forensic job, an anyway he brings even more arguments to the guilt opinion.
Garofano asked why the knife was not disassembled, but the knife blade is molded in the handle and cannot be disassembled.

 

[RoseMontague]

I think it may be Pascali who is working with the prosecution, not Tagliabracci. From the last paragraph it appears Tagliabracci is working with the family but I am not sure if that is the victim's family or the suspect's family. And Pascali was the consultant for Sollecito who was replaced, correct?

ETA: I see you added have some of the same information I did. I am still not certain of Tagliabracci and of the test being referred to in the first link.

I will keep checking on this one, I think this could have some relevant connections to DNA testing. On the Sarah Scazzi murder case this comment I found interesting:

The thing is serious: there are several investigations on the TV appearances and recordings of the interrogations of stealing secrets. It can make a list: Misseri of lawyers have been called by the bar to get clarification on their TV appearances and possible compensation received, the order of journalists Puglia is preparing to make a serious reflection on the compensation data for the interviews, rumor, in fact, that Sabrina had paid for her appearances on various radio, a consultant for a law firm was caught trying to sell reporters photographs of the garage for Misseri 8,000 EUR has been opened an investigation to find out who gave the recordings and transcripts of interrogations, which were absolutely secret to the reporters. Who knows what else will happen in this story.

It makes me wonder if the witnesses were paid by journalists in the Knox case.

http://translate.google.com/transla...10/sarah-scazzi-ora-anche-cosima-misseri.html

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

The time of death between 9 and 10:30 is acceptable for me and this window doesn't interfer with my conclusion on guilt.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

dissasembling does not have to be pretty

Actually Garofano said the DNA results were reliable and the lab techniques were excellent. Garofano expresses approval for the forensic job, an anyway he brings even more arguments to the guilt opinion.
Garofano asked why the knife was not disassembled, but the knife blade is molded in the handle and cannot be disassembled.

Why couldn't the knife handle simply be broken away from the blade and each piece be checked?

 

[Chris C]

The time of death between 9 and 10:30 is acceptable for me and this window doesn't interfer with my conclusion on guilt.

Well why didn't Mignini use the coroners ToD. Between that and Rudy saying Meredith died around 10pm you have a confirmed ToD. The only explanation is they have a valid alibi.

 

[RoseMontague]

The time of death between 9 and 10:30 is acceptable for me and this window doesn't interfer with my conclusion on guilt.

There was human interaction on the computer at 9:10PM so the earliest they would get over there and the scene to play out almost immediately would be around 9:30, so it gives you a whole 1 hour window and of course, the park bench gentleman now gives them an alibi for this time.