Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chris C said:
Oh ok, so what you really meant was unless you speak Italian your opinion or observations have no weight on this forum.
I understand now, only Italian Speaking JREF members can post here.
Which also means anything I've read in english instead of italian has no weight either and can't be posted here.
Anyone that wasn't in the courtroom can't post here.
Anyone that wasn't tossed out of the courtroom can't post here.
Anyone that doesn't have exact translations can't post here.
Matter of fact if Kevin Lowe doesn't speak italian, wasn't in court and then tossed out and have translations this whole thread should be erased.

Now I understand your reasoning.

Or are you saying only I need all the above credentials to post here?
Click to expand...

Actually, I (just another monoglot) was hoping you had access to information that has been hard to come by.
 
Mah, Chris C. It was translated into ENGLISH.......

What can you mean? There are many people who have read the Massei Report. In Italian and English.

Of course, with your brilliance, you understand all. I have faith in you. If all else fails, well, ther is always GOOGLE!
 
Fine said:
On the eve of the APPEAL trial, I'll provide an argument that doesn't even show up in the APPEAL document for Amanda Knox.

There's reason to believe that the jury in the first trial had a false opinion about a matter of major significance. Mixed blood supposedly found at the cottage.

As a matter of fact, there was no mixed blood found. Yes, Amanda's DNA was found in samples of Meredith's blood. And a drop of Amanda's blood was found on the faucet to the bathroom sink. But there was no sample found which was shown to contain the blood of both.

In the Massei MOTIVATIONS report--- published three months after the verdict--- there's no mention of mixed blood. And yet, when the jury convicted Amanda in December, it appears that the jury believed mixed blood had been discovered. Permit me to quote from Barbie:

"The defense's biggest mistake, according to interviews with jurors after the trial, was doing nothing to refute the mixed-blood evidence beyond noting that it is common to find mingled DNA when two people live in the same house. The jurors needed more than that. 'To have mixed blood, you have to both be bleeding,' one of them remarked to me after the verdict.' " (Angel Face, pages 152)

If the jurors---or some of the jurors--- really did believe that mixed blood had been found, and if---as Barbie illustrates---the jurors considered this to be of considerable significance, and if I were one of the defense team, I'd be interviewing those jurors. The best witnesses for Amanda during her second trial may prove to be the jurors who convicted her during her first trial.

///
Click to expand...

Is it not true that AK's DNA was found in a drop of MK's blood, in Filomena's private bedroom?

That finding alone resolves the "paradox" you've cobbled together, no?
 
treehorn said:
Mary, this is the second time that you've conflated 'racism' with 'elitism' (for lack of a better word) and subsequently characterized my views on Indian medical science as being based upon "race" rather than academic renown/ prestige/ R&D funding/ scientific leadership/ university endowments/ etc..

I take the gravest possible exception to your unfounded and inappropriate accusation. If you had any manners, you'd apologize.
Click to expand...


Sorry.
 
Fine said:
On the eve of the APPEAL trial, I'll provide an argument that doesn't even show up in the APPEAL document for Amanda Knox.

There's reason to believe that the jury in the first trial had a false opinion about a matter of major significance. Mixed blood supposedly found at the cottage.

As a matter of fact, there was no mixed blood found. Yes, Amanda's DNA was found in samples of Meredith's blood. And a drop of Amanda's blood was found on the faucet to the bathroom sink. But there was no sample found which was shown to contain the blood of both.

In the Massei MOTIVATIONS report--- published three months after the verdict--- there's no mention of mixed blood. And yet, when the jury convicted Amanda in December, it appears that the jury believed mixed blood had been discovered. Permit me to quote from Barbie:

"The defense's biggest mistake, according to interviews with jurors after the trial, was doing nothing to refute the mixed-blood evidence beyond noting that it is common to find mingled DNA when two people live in the same house. The jurors needed more than that. 'To have mixed blood, you have to both be bleeding,' one of them remarked to me after the verdict.' " (Angel Face, pages 152)

If the jurors---or some of the jurors--- really did believe that mixed blood had been found, and if---as Barbie illustrates---the jurors considered this to be of considerable significance, and if I were one of the defense team, I'd be interviewing those jurors. The best witnesses for Amanda during her second trial may prove to be the jurors who convicted her during her first trial.

///
Click to expand...

Oddly if I remember correctly, the mixed dna in the bathroom is brought up in Sollecito's appeal. However, please don't ask me if I was sitting beside Sollecito's attorney to verify this.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Might I ask the posters who support Amanda's innocence if they think the reason why the pair was convicted was due to planted evidence?
Click to expand...

Barring an improbable admission from within the ranks of the ILE, the answer to this question is likely to remain firmly in the realm of speculation. A more productive line of discussion might involve what we know of the circumstances in which evidence tampering could have occurred.

Why was the kitchen knife removed from its evidence collection envelope prior to being boxed for shipment to Rome? What information induced Dr. Stefanoni to proceed with PCR amplification of the sample from the blade, when quantitation of the sample was apparently negative for detectable DNA? How was the bra clasp moved from the position in which it was originally found, to that from which it was eventually recovered?
 
Ah, Chris C: I must apologize: here I was, thinking you sounded a little apologetic.

No, of course, you don't have to be Italian speaking to post here.

Just a LITTLE common sense is helpful, however. Treehorn, Platanov, Michiavelli et al, will help pave the way.

Put on your listening ears, TRY and follow the general gist of things, and all will be well.

Keeping the faith, fingers crossed, a couple of Hail Mary's ( Hi, Hon) and, never giving up hope :)
 
Chis C: Please don't provide a link. I want to read what YOU make of it!! With your brilliance and all.

Morning, Mary. I know you will welcome me back:) Riight.......Riight?????:)
 
capealadin said:
Ah, Chris C: I must apologize: here I was, thinking you sounded a little apologetic.

No, of course, you don't have to be Italian speaking to post here.

Just a LITTLE common sense is helpful, however. Treehorn, Platanov, Michiavelli et al, will help pave the way.

Put on your listening ears, TRY and follow the general gist of things, and all will be well.

Keeping the faith, fingers crossed, a couple of Hail Mary's ( Hi, Hon) and, never giving up hope :)
Click to expand...

Well when someones response to attacking your statement was to ask if you was in the courtroom. What other response are you suppose to give.

How am i suppose to give evidence of something that didn't happen?
I was under the impression that the prosecutions KEY witness that supposedly debunked Dr. Lalli's autopsy didn't even bother to watch the video recording of it.
 
Fine said:
On the eve of the APPEAL trial, I'll provide an argument that doesn't even show up in the APPEAL document for Amanda Knox.

There's reason to believe that the jury in the first trial had a false opinion about a matter of major significance. Mixed blood supposedly found at the cottage.

As a matter of fact, there was no mixed blood found. Yes, Amanda's DNA was found in samples of Meredith's blood. And a drop of Amanda's blood was found on the faucet to the bathroom sink. But there was no sample found which was shown to contain the blood of both.

In the Massei MOTIVATIONS report--- published three months after the verdict--- there's no mention of mixed blood. And yet, when the jury convicted Amanda in December, it appears that the jury believed mixed blood had been discovered. Permit me to quote from Barbie:

"The defense's biggest mistake, according to interviews with jurors after the trial, was doing nothing to refute the mixed-blood evidence beyond noting that it is common to find mingled DNA when two people live in the same house. The jurors needed more than that. 'To have mixed blood, you have to both be bleeding,' one of them remarked to me after the verdict.' " (Angel Face, pages 152)

If the jurors---or some of the jurors--- really did believe that mixed blood had been found, and if---as Barbie illustrates---the jurors considered this to be of considerable significance, and if I were one of the defense team, I'd be interviewing those jurors. The best witnesses for Amanda during her second trial may prove to be the jurors who convicted her during her first trial.

///
Click to expand...

It's interesting that you raise this point, given the current article about the conclusions reached by Luciano Garofano, who apparently is Italy's top forensic expert. He thinks Amanda and Raffaele killed Meredith and Guede's role was to help them make it look like a rape.

With regard to the mixed blood, Garofano expressed an opinion in Darkness Descending, as follows:

P. 371 "However, here is the electropherogram and you can see that the RFU value is very high, so the sample is undoubtedly blood, which is the body fluid that provides the greatest amount of DNA. In some cases you see higher peaks of Amanda's DNA than Meredith's. Amanda has been bleeding. Nor is it old blood, as the defence might say, because blood decays fast."

I asked Greg Hampikian if this is a scientifically valid conclusion, and Hampikian told me it is not. I noticed, in looking through egrams from this particular case, that a number of them place Garofano's claim in doubt. One example is the cigarette butt with Amanda and Raffaele's DNA, which I assume did not come from blood but left peaks as high as the mixed DNA sample on the box of cotton:

egrams_compared.gif
 
Last edited:
capealadin said:
Chis C: Please don't provide a link. I want to read what YOU make of it!! With your brilliance and all.

Morning, Mary. I know you will welcome me back:) Riight.......Riight?????:)
Click to expand...

Maybe you should share your brilliance with us. I only speak, captain dummy talk, so it may take me awhile to understand what your trying to say.
 
treehorn said:
Is it not true that AK's DNA was found in a drop of MK's blood, in Filomena's private bedroom?

That finding alone resolves the "paradox" you've cobbled together, no?
Click to expand...

The finding (Sample 177) was from an area on the floor that reacted with luminol rather than a visible trace of blood. It was subjected to a TMB blood test with a negative result.
 
Mary: C'mon, Hon. I KNOW you can do better than *sorry*.!!!!!!!

La, you're bigger than that. Am I wrong? Tell you what........If Amanda is proved Innocent...I will rejoice with you, admit I was wrong, and do everything in my power to to right a terrible injustice. i mean it.

I will give you my e-mail, do fundraisers ( a little bit better than the last one, sorry :(
and work tirelessly..I absolutely hate injustice. Please count on me, should that happen. ( I have, OCCASIONALLY, been wrong before). Once, maybe...........
 
ElsieEthrington said:
Hello, folks. I've been lurking in this forum since I read the English translation of the Massei report back in August. A true crime buff, I've been absorbed with the story since I saw a headline about it in La Repubblica during a trip to Italy in the fall of 2008.

I'm a news junkie, too, but have little patience for "Dateline" style TV journalism. Perhaps that's why my first exposure to it happened in Italy close to a year after it happened. When I came back to the states I caught up. I'm fascinated by the Rashomon-like version differences presented in Washington state based news sites vs. UK tabloids. I've read Barbie's and Candace's books and found similar discrepancies.

My big question, on the eve of the appeal, is about drug tests. The Massei report seems to indicate that AK and RS were not subject to any blood, urine, or hair tests. Evidence of consumption of meth, coke, LSD, or PCP may have helped the prosecution's case, given that there are precedents that using these substances can lead to violent crime. Were any drug tests, even for cannabis, conducted? Given that the accused admitted to toking, did law enforcement just take their word for it?

Law enforcement accepting their admittance of drug use, without drug testing, seems lax to me, given that AK and RS lied about the break in and the clean up. They could be lying about cannabis to conceal use of much harder drugs that lead to the murder.
Click to expand...


Why, good evening, Sister Bertrille. How blessed we are to have you join us.

I see that a couple of other posters have already reminded you that there is no evidence that either a break-in or a clean-up took place and that, therefore, it is not appropriate to claim that Amanda and Raffaele lied about them. Sounds like they might not have the most up-to-date news sources in your convent.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that ILE were lax in any of their procedures, but I haven't heard anything about any drug testing. Amanda and Raffaele didn't show any symptoms of being drugged, so it is likely no one's suspicions were raised about that.

Mainly, though, the prosecutors weren't concerned about motives for the crime at the time of the arrests. For Mignini, it was enough that the crime involved four people and sex. To him, that was cause for murder.

Don't forget to say a prayer for Amanda and Raffaele, as they head to their appeal in the morning.
 
capealadin said:
Mary: C'mon, Hon. I KNOW you can do better than *sorry*.!!!!!!!

La, you're bigger than that. Am I wrong? Tell you what........If Amanda is proved Innocent...I will rejoice with you, admit I was wrong, and do everything in my power to to right a terrible injustice. i mean it.

I will give you my e-mail, do fundraisers ( a little bit better than the last one, sorry :(
and work tirelessly..I absolutely hate injustice. Please count on me, should that happen. ( I have, OCCASIONALLY, been wrong before). Once, maybe...........
Click to expand...

Now that is funny. Do you honestly think either of them will need fundraisers if found innocent?
 
Chris C: This is Captain Dummy Talk:

I. Know. it. will. take. a. while.

However, I am an impatient sort. I do NOT suffer fools gladly.

Sorry :(
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
Sorry.
Click to expand...

Accepted. You know, I think you're alright, Mary. (Even if you're just being sarcastic here.)

I hope you'll start to take it easy on me - I'm really not "agenda-driven" and I'm far from a "know it all" about the case.

I'm really just here to see what I can learn - I believe there are one or two interesting ideas being explored here and I just want to see where they lead.
 
capealadin said:
Mary: C'mon, Hon. I KNOW you can do better than *sorry*.!!!!!!!

La, you're bigger than that. Am I wrong? Tell you what........If Amanda is proved Innocent...I will rejoice with you, admit I was wrong, and do everything in my power to to right a terrible injustice. i mean it.

I will give you my e-mail, do fundraisers ( a little bit better than the last one, sorry :(
and work tirelessly..I absolutely hate injustice. Please count on me, should that happen. ( I have, OCCASIONALLY, been wrong before). Once, maybe...........
Click to expand...


Hello, capealadin; always a pleasure!

I believe you do hate injustice. It is going to be hard for some of your crew to admit they have been wrong, but maybe not for you; that would be great.

Hopefully, continued fundraisers will not be necessary. Book rights should pay the bills. Let's keep our fingers crossed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom