Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[christianahannah]

Rudy says he didn't see a phone. It doesn't matter if the phone wasn't operational because the only way for Rudy to know that would be to pick up the receiver. Rudy didn't pick it up. He was running away to let Meredith die.


What is on the wall in the entry way is not actually a phone. It still would have given Rudy an excellent alibi to show concern by attempting to get help. What we have here is the occupant side of an intercom system so the resident can identify who is at the door while staying secure inside. Both the outside unit and the inside phone can be seen in the photo of the entryway taken on Nov. 14.


This intercom system brings up another question. Rudy claims to have heard the doorbell when he was on the toilet. The outside unit is located behind where the folding gate is stored. The doorbell is only accessible when the gate is closed.

Is it for sure that the photo of the entryway (which you mentioned in a prior post) was taken on November 14? The photo of the newspapers, yes, because of the date on the heading, however, couldn't the other photos have been taken days before?

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by Mary_H

Have you seen the video?


That is a silly question. Looking at the evidence would be an admission of not knowing "the truth".

Which, the trailer or the main feature.

The reviews are certainly mixed. - one reviewer seems to think it was a hidden camera expose.

.

 

[christianahannah]

That video starts with the investigators suited up in the living room of the cottage. It suspiciously misses the task of checking the seals that were tampered with over a month prior.

There is a long segment where they pretend to be trying to photograph where one of the footprints was near the foot of the bed. (maybe they should have reviewed the footage of the prints being completely erased from the last visit).

When the bra clasp is rediscovered under the cord to Amanda's lamp, they first stand around pointing fingers at it as if this is the most important discovery of the case.

After picking it up and passing it around, they put it down on a clear spot on the floor and photograph it as if this new spot is where it was found.

None of the idiots involved showed they had a clue about proper procedures for documenting and preserving evidence (except the camera man that gave us this evidence).

The video is more than the collection of the bra clasp, correct? I believe this is the video Charlie said he could provide if wanted, however, I have not asked him for it.

Also, was this the video where a van was set up outside the flat with a monitor for viewing what was going on inside the cottage by all parties interested (the prosecution and defense attorneys I believe, maybe more)? If the seals were tampered with would that have been noticed by those other than the forensic technicians that day?

Do you know if the bra clasp was dropped (in the video) where it was originally photographed on November 3?

 

[platonov]

The video carries weight with me. The fact that it doesn't seem to give the court any doubt about this evidence is part of what we are discussing.

No,

Mary H was responding to my Q regarding 'heated beyond the point '

Perhaps it was a thermal imaging camera ?? the reviews dont say.

.

 

[Dan O.]

Is it for sure that the photo of the entryway (which you mentioned in a prior post) was taken on November 14? The photo of the newspapers, yes, because of the date on the heading, however, couldn't the other photos have been taken days before?

What time did Barbie Nadeau arrive in Perugia? When was the crime tape and seal placed on the cottage door? These set the earliest limits for when the photo was taken. The publication of the web page on Nov. 17 sets a bound on the latest date. The text says it was Nov. 14 and the newspaper offers confirmation. Why would Barbie launch her investigation in Perugia by posting lies on a photo blog?

 

[platonov]

What time did Barbie Nadeau arrive in Perugia? When was the crime tape and seal placed on the cottage door? These set the earliest limits for when the photo was taken. The publication of the web page on Nov. 17 sets a bound on the latest date. The text says it was Nov. 14 and the newspaper offers confirmation. Why would Barbie launch her investigation in Perugia by posting lies on a photo blog?

Like Comodi, Barbie Nadeau lies.

Something in the air in Italy, perhaps.

I thought it had already been established - C Dempsey is the only good source on this case.

.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the incentive to do the forensics correctly

Those called here “unidentified profiles” ought to be considered as unidentified DNA sequences, not as separate, unidentified individuals. Those profiles are consistent with segments of Meredith’s DNA and with Amanda’s DNA.

For the statement about the “astonishing assertion”, I consider this an important point to detail in different posts. I disagree logically on your (and others) statement about the implications expressed by the category “evidence properly obtained”. It is not true – meaning it is not a strict logical always true statement - that evidence requires to be “properly obtained”, and it is not true that improper techniques (in this case: allegedly improper techniques) necessarily determine the evidence to be invalid. It is not true, besides, that collecting technique was “improper”: and concepts like “proper” or “good” or “correct” are always relative and contextual, they depend on something like, the use, the logical conditions (“good/proper for what? At what conditions?”).

Machiavelli,

Dr. Tagliabracci noted that at locus D7S820, there are three alleles, 8, 10, and 11. Since Amanda’s profile is 9, 9 at this locus, Knox did not contribute to this locus. At locus D21S11 Dr. Tagliabracci interpreted the data as someone having the profile 29, 32.2, which is not identical with Meredith’s, Raffaele’s, or Amanda’s profile. Therefore, I do not agree with your interpretation of the DNA on the clasp.

On the more general question of evidence that has been obtained by improper techniques, I disagree strongly with your position as I understand it. It is always harder to do something the right way than to do it sloppily or carelessly. If evidence is allowed into court despite improper procedures of handling or interpretation, then there is absolutely no incentive to perform the work correctly.

 

[platonov]

Machiavelli,

Dr. Tagliabracci noted that at locus D7S820, there are three alleles, 8, 10, and 11. Since Amanda’s profile is 9, 9 at this locus, Knox did not contribute to this locus. At locus D21S11 Dr. Tagliabracci interpreted the data as someone having the profile 29, 32.2, which is not identical with Meredith’s, Raffaele’s, or Amanda’s profile. Therefore, I do not agree with your interpretation of the DNA on the clasp.

On the more general question of evidence that has been obtained by improper techniques, I disagree strongly with your position as I understand it. It is always harder to do something the right way than to do it sloppily or carelessly. If evidence is allowed into court despite the proper procedures of handling or interpretation, then there is absolutely no incentive to perform the work correctly.

The defence isn't allowed to hire their own experts. ??

Nor by this logic is there an appeal system.

You haven't thought this through , is the analysis of the actual DNA evidence to the same standard.

.

 

[LondonJohn]

Like Comodi, Barbie Nadeau lies.

Something in the air in Italy, perhaps.

I thought it had already been established - C Dempsey is the only good source on this case.

.

No. Dan O is suggesting that Nadeau DIDN'T lie, not that she did.

Perhaps sometimes people see what they want to see, rather than what's written........

 

[Dan O.]

The video is more than the collection of the bra clasp, correct? I believe this is the video Charlie said he could provide if wanted, however, I have not asked him for it.

Charlie has put a considerable amount of material up on public sites and announced it here. If it's still available he may post the link again though for bandwidth and space considerations it may have been removed.

Also, was this the video where a van was set up outside the flat with a monitor for viewing what was going on inside the cottage by all parties interested (the prosecution and defense attorneys I believe, maybe more)? If the seals were tampered with would that have been noticed by those other than the forensic technicians that day?

From my understanding, it was. However, there is no date or time stamp on this video and since it starts after everybody is inside it could have been produced anytime before Dec. 18 and played back from the tape for the benefit of those in the van.

Do you know if the bra clasp was dropped (in the video) where it was originally photographed on November 3?

The clasp was never dropped. I believe that is an artifact of the YouTube video segment. The clasp was clearly placed on the floor to photograph it.

 

[platonov]

No. Dan O is suggesting that Nadeau DIDN'T lie, not that she did.

Perhaps sometimes people see what they want to see, rather than what's written........

No you miss the point.

It runs right thru this thread:

B Nadeau BAD
C Dempsey GOOD

Can't start using her now as an unimpeachable source on this 'issue' - the details of which are sketchy. Presumably they imply a conspiracy, to do with crime scene tampering or some such.

 

[LondonJohn]

The defence isn't allowed to hire their own experts. ??

Nor by this logic is there an appeal system.

You haven't thought this through , is the analysis of the actual DNA evidence to the same standard.

.

The defence can argue all they like about the impropriety of the evidence collection. The point it, the court is the final arbiter. If the court seems not to care that the evidence was improperly collected, then there's nothing that the defence can do about it. However, it's the court's responsibility to care about matters such as these.

On a related matter, I just read that it was actually Judge Micheli who first lined up Dr Biondo to act as the "independent" consultant on Stefanoni's work - even though he was also a police employee in the Scientific Police unit, and essentially was Stefanoni's work supervisor. I had assumed that the prosecution had pulled this stunt and that the courts had demurred (for whatever reason). But to read that it was actually the court which appointed Biondo is quite disturbing.

 

[platonov]

Charlie has put a considerable amount of material up on public sites and announced it here. If it's still available he may post the link again though for bandwidth and space considerations it may have been removed.


From my understanding, it was. However, there is no date or time stamp on this video and since it starts after everybody is inside it could have been produced anytime before Dec. 18 and played back from the tape for the benefit of those in the van.

The clasp was never dropped. I believe that is an artifact of the YouTube video segment. The clasp was clearly placed on the floor to photograph it.

So the video was faked, like the moon landing footage perhaps.

Once proven this will blow the whole case wide open.

The Q is: can we handle 'the truth'

ETA Given I am supporting the official 'conspiracy' does that make me a 'gatekeeper' or a 'shill'
(or perhaps a dupe of ... no can't go OT )

.

 

[LondonJohn]

No you miss the point.

It runs right thru this thread:

B Nadeau BAD
C Dempsey GOOD

Can't start using her now as an unimpeachable source on this 'issue' - the details of which are sketchy. Presumably they imply a conspiracy, to do with crime scene tampering or some such.

I didn't miss the point. You're the only one making black-and-white value judgements on people's veracity here. Nice shoehorn in of the classic no-proper-argument word "conspiracy" again though. Well done.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

level playing field

The defence isn't allowed to hire their own experts. ??

Nor by this logic is there an appeal system.

You haven't thought this through , is the analysis of the actual DNA evidence to the same standard.

.

Platonov,

I corrected a typographical error in my message, changing "proper" to "improper." I believe that this makes my message clearer. What I am hoping is that the defense finally gets access to the .fsa files in the appeals process. Only then will the defense's experts finally have a level playing field.

 

[christianahannah]

What time did Barbie Nadeau arrive in Perugia? When was the crime tape and seal placed on the cottage door? These set the earliest limits for when the photo was taken. The publication of the web page on Nov. 17 sets a bound on the latest date. The text says it was Nov. 14 and the newspaper offers confirmation. Why would Barbie launch her investigation in Perugia by posting lies on a photo blog?

I do not know when Nadeau first arrived in Perugia to start covering the case (the linked article written by her is dated November 15).

From what I have read in the motivations the crime scene was sealed November 7 until December 18.

I agree - the publication of the blog post is November 16 and it is known that at least one of the photos was taken on November 14 but were all taken on that date? The photos are telling a story of the crime, not necessarily of November 14. Is Nadeau writing the text for the blog or Dickey (the photos appear to be attributed to Nadeau by the initials BN)?

The photos could have all been taken on November 14 or not. Do you know if the blog owner has been contacted regarding the date of the photo/s?

 

[LondonJohn]

What time did Barbie Nadeau arrive in Perugia? When was the crime tape and seal placed on the cottage door? These set the earliest limits for when the photo was taken. The publication of the web page on Nov. 17 sets a bound on the latest date. The text says it was Nov. 14 and the newspaper offers confirmation. Why would Barbie launch her investigation in Perugia by posting lies on a photo blog?

In any case, the more relevant point is that the photo clearly shows the front of the house at some time post-murder, where there is crime-scene tape across the doorway, yet the door itself is visibly open. This situation in itself MUST directly imply impropriety. That door was the only regular means of entry to the girls' cottage. So if the police had been within the cottage when the photo was taken, they would have removed the tape to unseal the door before entering. The fact that the tape is still almost all in situ points clearly to the fact that the police were absent at that point, having believed that they had sealed the only entrance to the house. Yet the front door is open. Whether this was on November 8th or November 14th is a moot point - it's indicative that the crime scene was most definitely corrupted and/or compromised at some point after the murder.

 

[platonov]

Platonov,

I corrected a typographical error in my message, changing "proper" to "improper." I believe that this makes my message clearer. What I am hoping is that the defense finally gets access to the .fsa files in the appeals process. Only then will the defense's experts finally have a level playing field.

halides1

No I presumed (correctly) by the tenor of your post you meant improper.
I don't need to mischaracterize your arguments - Its not necessary.

My response stands.

.

 

[christianahannah]

In any case, the more relevant point is that the photo clearly shows the front of the house at some time post-murder, where there is crime-scene tape across the doorway, yet the door itself is visibly open. This situation in itself MUST directly imply impropriety. That door was the only regular means of entry to the girls' cottage. So if the police had been within the cottage when the photo was taken, they would have removed the tape to unseal the door before entering. The fact that the tape is still almost all in situ points clearly to the fact that the police were absent at that point, having believed that they had sealed the only entrance to the house. Yet the front door is open. Whether this was on November 8th or November 14th is a moot point - it's indicative that the crime scene was most definitely corrupted and/or compromised at some point after the murder.

I think more information needs to be known about the photo before implying any impropriety or that the crime scene had been corrupted and/or compromised after November 7.

 

[Dan O.]

No. Dan O is suggesting that Nadeau DIDN'T lie, not that she did.

If it was a lie, it must have been a conspiracy because her editor is the one that owns the blog.


On another level, we've already had the discussion of the definition of "lie". Barbie may not even have known the true content of her photo and only used it in the set to show the concept of the scene of the crime.

Perhaps sometimes people see what they want to see, rather than what's written........

I tend to just ignore such people because they rarely provide anything that leads to a better understanding.