Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

How very dare you

I do - I like to think I helped sort out the interminable 'internalized false confession' argument among other things.- but the inability to get straight answers on that issue led me to question the wisdom of the exercise as a whole.

In any case most issues [and they are reasonably straightforward ] have been previously addressed at length by other posters but to no avail.
I am merely stress testing the some of the innocentsi 'arguments' and providing advice and overview. Where's the gratitude

As to the 9.05 or 9.30 ToD - these arguments have received (several times) all the treatment (and more) necessary to dispose of them.

They are in fact, under the circumstances of this debate , quite completely ....unpersuasive.

.

Ermm you have a strange method of "stress testing" arguments. Normally, that involves putting up some sort of counter-argument, or at least questioning elements of the argument with counterfactual examples. But never mind...

Would you be able to point me to the places where the 9.30 ToD theories have been "disposed of"? I honestly can't remember a single positive argument which refutes the medical view that a moderate meal will always start to leave the stomach (and pass into the duodenum) within 3.5 hours of ingestion in well over 99.95% of all cases. I seriously would be very grateful if you could point me to hard medical data which goes against this thinking.

 

[Chris C]

Thank you Odeed for posting the links...

I agree Alt-F4,
That photograph of the foot is disturbing...
As I looked thru the other photographs, especially the bathroom ones, I thought to myself once again,
"Well, Meredith's blood that is there doesn't make me think that she was brutally murdered, as it seemingly DID NOT do for Postal Police Officers Michele Battistelli+Fabio Marzi."

And then I also wondered of something else,
something that I have never seen before in any photographs of the bathroom from that day that Meredith was discovered brutally murdered.
Where is that PINK Vibrator?
http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/fotogallery/fotogallery3634.shtml?9
http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/fotogallery/fotogallery3634.shtml?10

Hmmm...
RWVBWL

The Flying Squad questioned the Pink Vibrator, but it quickly lawyered up. So they ruled it out as a suspect.

 

[Chris C]

I agree, that is not justification for attacking AK or RS or their families.

However, the fact that they have been convicted in a court of law for being sex offenders and murderers does, in fact, justify attacking AK and RS. After all, I don't see anyone complaining about RG being attacked for exactly the same crimes!

And while I can understand a parent trying to protect their child, even if they have committed a heinous crime, there are limits how much hype one can take.

On that same note, then Mignini should allowed to be attacked as being a corrupt prosecutor.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

"Secret" evidence?!

Try: "Unknown" evidence. We simply do not know what was, and what was not, adduced in this regard. And you know it.

I prefer the term "secret evidence" since it emphasises the total unreality of assuming that knock-down evidence for the guilter case exists but Massei forgot to mention it in his report, the police and prosecutors forgot to mention it to the media and the journalists present forgot to record it at the time.

This is a very old, very silly and very tired guilter trope. It's time you put it to bed. Absence of evidence is not evidence of the presence of super-duper conclusive double secret evidence.

FWIW, I was trying to get the discussion to progress in accord with YOUR rule that we stick to"evidence-based arguments." (A rule which I endorse!)

Have you had a change of heart about the importance of this rule? (I hope not!)

PS Why have you been dodging my questions since early October? December is almost upon us!

My answer hasn't changed. I do not believe you have ever engaged in this discussion in good faith, nor do I believe you are doing so now, which is why I do not believe that engaging with you on topics of your choosing is a worthwhile use of this thread. If my belief on that topic changes, perhaps because you answered Halides1's questions among others, I'll let you know.

 

[Mary_H]

Well, the Discovery Channel programme was incredibly curious. It could essentially have been made a year ago. It has zero editorial stance or opinion on the case. And the narrator pronounces Sollecito's name as "soll-eh-SHITT-oh"

Still, at least the first Ashes test starts in an hour

Steve Moore meets Barbie Nadeau tonight on Anderson Cooper, CNN.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

what is wrong with Garofano's interpretation

I have absolutely no idea.

That's what's known in my world as a straight answer.

But a few comments \ questions.
How accurate is the quote and [what's the full context] from Darkness Descending.
How accurate were the authors of DD in getting across Garofano point*. - I see he is also credited.
Was this point entered into evidence in court - ie what's the relevance.

I could [but wont] do some googleing to find an 'answer' but I would need to be very confident before I would call Garfano or Hampikian an idiot.
However the 'honesty' or emphasis of experts when off the stand [and sometimes even when on] may be a different matter.

I also fail to see how your comment in that post about dating DNA is relevant - it seems strawmanish.

*On this point I find complex issues are often simplified and distorted in the media and popular works.

.

platonov,

PM Mignini listed the mixed DNA as one of the three strongest pieces of biological evidence in this case. Fine’s comment to the effect that the jury thought that Amanda’s DNA came from Amanda’s blood explains why. The prosecution has to argue that Amanda’s DNA was deposited at the same time as Meredith’s DNA, or it is meaningless. Whether or not it is important for the prosecution to establish that Amanda’s DNA arose from Amanda’s blood is an open question; I think it would be extremely helpful to their case. For all of these reasons, it is worth understanding what is wrong with Colonel Garofano’s interpretation. The quote that Charlie provided is correct.

First, it is easy to draw wrong inferences from peak heights in electropherograms. How much DNA is recovered depends upon too many factors to conclude that a particular sample arose from one tissue type or another (or that primary versus secondary transfer is responsible for its deposit). Second, the rate of decay of DNA depends upon many factors; therefore, a blanket statement to the effect that a particular sample must be recent is dubious. Colonel Garofano’s interpretation runs afoul of two basic rules of interpreting DNA evidence.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

You're suggesting collusion between everyone involved in the prosecutor's office, the postal police, and the scientific police. All these people are willing to risk their carreers just because a cop made an incorrect statement. This makes no sense.

I've yet to hear a coherent argument as to why AK and RS were convicted when we are constantly being told there was no evidence. The leading contenders are:
1. planted evidence
2. corrupt cops
3. corrupt prosecutors
4. corrupt jury
5. incompetent jury
6. anti-Americanism
7. post-fascist brainwashing
8. poor investigative techniques

I have yet to hear a coherent argument as to why Kelly Michaels was convicted. And yet she was, through the collusion of police, prosecutors, social workers, and many other people who had no obvious motive to frame an innocent person.

I have yet to hear a coherent argument as to why more than 20 innocent people in Wenatchee, WA, were sent to prison, again through the collusion of many people and with the support of the entire community.

I have yet to hear a coherent argument as to why authorities in Illinois expended massive resources to prosecute two innocent people for the murder of Jeanine Nicarico, long after they knew who the real killer was. But they did.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

TV interviews, etc.

Want justice, hire some good lawyers, and stop trying to influence the courts via the media, especially that of another country (i.e. the US). Italian courts REALLY don't care about what people in the US think!

(Nor do they care what people on Internet forums think)

That's why they brought the knife to court in a box marked "EVIDENCE - HANDLE WITH CARE" in English.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Steve Moore meets Barbie Nadeau tonight on Anderson Cooper, CNN.

Thanks, I'll watch that, it's on here in another 20 minutes. Barbie destroyed Anne on the radio quite a while ago, I don't think Moore is even 1/2 as informed as Anne was, why did he agree to this - He'll probally get killed...

 

[Mary_H]

Thanks, I'll watch that, it's on here in another 20 minutes. Barbie destroyed Anne on the radio quite a while ago, I don't think Moore is even 1/2 as informed as Anne was, why did he agree to this - He'll probally get killed...

I get very nervous watching people debate, so I never watch them, but I will probably make an exception in this case. No doubt there will be at least two different views afterward about which side was stronger.

 

[odeed]

platonov,

PM Mignini listed the mixed DNA as one of the three strongest pieces of biological evidence in this case. Fine’s comment to the effect that the jury thought that Amanda’s DNA came from Amanda’s blood explains why. The prosecution has to argue that Amanda’s DNA was deposited at the same time as Meredith’s DNA, or it is meaningless. Whether or not it is important for the prosecution to establish that Amanda’s blood arose from Amanda’s DNA is an open question; I think it would be extremely helpful to their case. For all of these reasons, it is worth understanding what is wrong with Colonel Garofano’s interpretation. The quote that Charlie provided is correct.

First, it is easy to draw wrong inferences from peak heights in electropherograms. How much DNA is recovered depends upon too many factors to conclude that a particular sample arose from one tissue type or another (or that primary versus secondary transfer is responsible for its deposit). Second, the rate of decay of DNA depends upon many factors; therefore, a blanket statement to the effect that a particular sample must be recent is dubious. Colonel Garofano’s interpretation run afoul of two basic rules of interpreting DNA evidence.

From what I remember from the motivations, one reason for the mixed DNA (Knox/Kercher) in at least the bathroom was due to attempted scrubbing of blood from hands and/or feet, and not from Knox blood from ear piercing.

I think it was Knox or her defense which put forward that blood from her ear piercing was responsible for her DNA on the basin and cotton bud, in which case the electropherogram RFU levels should have been greater than the cigarette, or is Charlie Wilkes saying that saliva contains more DNA than blood?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I don't know if the criminal allegations against Garofano have any substance, but I do know the man is a liar and a forensic fraud.

Let's go through the article in the Sun, starting with this description of Meredith's body:

"Her bra was found ripped off, but when the blood spray from her slashed throat was analysed, it showed it
sprayed in a very neat V shape across her cleavage.

"It was not on the whole of her breasts, as it would have been if she was naked."

This is a lie. The "neat V shape" is a complete fabrication. Aspirated blood droplets were found on Meredith's breasts. The killer began to disrobe her while she was still gasping for breath.

Garofano then says, "Blood spurts over the attackers, which is why the wall is clean, but then Meredith slumps to her knees."

The clothes Amanda was seen wearing on November 1 were found on her bed, and they were tested for blood with negative results. So we are left to wonder if and why she put on special clothing, never recovered, to commit this murder.

Garofano then introduces some factual information:

"We see blood spray across the white cupboard at kneeling height, where Meredith is breathing out the blood that
has welled up in her lungs.

"A little to the left you will notice a pool of blood. Meredith was probably lying down by this point and
bleeding heavily."She was then moved and continued to cough blood, which has sprayed on to the outside of the wardrobe and
on to her chest.

"Meredith bled to death in a lot of pain. The attack was very quick and happened in a small area. The rest of
the room is not disturbed. Her bedside table has a glass of water untouched and a letter perched. If the fight
had been prolonged these things would have moved."

This is exactly correct. The attack was very quick. But it leads Garofano to an arbitrary conclusion:

"That is why the idea of rape is far-fetched. Rape would have taken a long time and Meredith could have put
up a fight. There is also too little DNA evidence to suggest she had been raped."

She couldn't put up a fight if she was slipping into unconsciousness from blood loss and suffocation.

Garofano moves on to the denouement, which all but exonerates Guede:

Garofano says: "Guede said he was sitting on the toilet when he heard the attack. There is evidence he was in
the loo.

"Someone at some point attempts to stem the bleeding from Meredith's neck with a wedge of white towels.

"Guede claims this was him and there is no reason to doubt that. But Guede then helped make the scene look
like a break-in and rape."

Indeed, Guede was most accommodating in this regard. Let's review the physical evidence against Guede found inside the murder room:

- Bloody fingerprints on Meredith's pillow
- Bloody shoe prints on the floor
- DNA inside Meredith's vagina
- DNA on the sleeve of Meredith's sweatshirt
- DNA on Meredith's bra
- DNA on Meredith's purse

Against that, we have Sollecito's DNA on the metal hook of the bra fastener, and absolutely no physical trace of Amanda Knox. And yet this "expert" asserts that they are the primary culprits in this vicious murder, whereas Guede played only a subordinate role.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

many factors go into determining the intensity of peaks

From what I remember from the motivations, one reason for the mixed DNA (Knox/Kercher) in at least the bathroom was due to attempted scrubbing of blood from hands and/or feet, and not from Knox blood from ear piercing.

I think it was Knox or her defense which put forward that blood from her ear piercing was responsible for her DNA on the basin and cotton bud, in which case the electropherogram RFU levels should have been greater than the cigarette, or is Charlie Wilkes saying that saliva contains more DNA than blood?

What Greg Hampikian is saying is that one cannot say that DNA arose from blood just because the peaks are strong. If one stops and thinks about it, this should not even require his expert opinion. Unless one quantifies the amount of biological material being collected and ensures that no inhibitors of PCR are present, how can one possibly draw the conclusions that Colonel Garofano draws?

 

[platonov]

Context, accuracy & relevance ?

platonov,

PM Mignini listed the mixed DNA as one of the three strongest pieces of biological evidence in this case. Fine’s comment to the effect that the jury thought that Amanda’s DNA came from Amanda’s blood explains why. The prosecution has to argue that Amanda’s DNA was deposited at the same time as Meredith’s DNA, or it is meaningless. Whether or not it is important for the prosecution to establish that Amanda’s blood arose from Amanda’s DNA is an open question; I think it would be extremely helpful to their case. For all of these reasons, it is worth understanding what is wrong with Colonel Garofano’s interpretation. The quote that Charlie provided is correct.

First, it is easy to draw wrong inferences from peak heights in electropherograms. How much DNA is recovered depends upon too many factors to conclude that a particular sample arose from one tissue type or another (or that primary versus secondary transfer is responsible for its deposit). Second, the rate of decay of DNA depends upon many factors; therefore, a blanket statement to the effect that a particular sample must be recent is dubious. Colonel Garofano’s interpretation runs afoul of two basic rules of interpreting DNA evidence.

2nd things first : most of your final paragraph seems on the face of it fine, I would imagine that its not even that simple to put it very mildly.

But for the rest and the 1st para :

I don't necessarily accept that CW' s quote is correct - even if it is, it is stripped of all context (creationists come to mind).

Secondly the DD authors explication of Garofanos point may not be completely accurate or indeed [more importantly] your take on this.

Third - Garofano didn't testify in this case ?? - so what's the relevance.

Fourth - Fines comment is merely that, an opinion - Does Massei state that co-mingling of blood was what the jury 'found' ??

Your argument that it would be helpful for the prosecution is obviously correct but see point the fourth.
[I take it you have accidently transposed 'Amanda's blood' with 'Amanda's DNA' - honest debate doesn't require deliberate misunderstanding even when the argument contains a simple 'text' error such as this]

In conclusion - my already short answer cold be summed up as a reiteration of the stock response by one of the historians in the Lipstadt trial who, when being cross examined by Irving, refused to guess [or take Irving at his word] and repeatedly stated 'I would need to see the document'.

PS Have you actually directly answered any of the Q's from my previous post ?

.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I get very nervous watching people debate, so I never watch them, but I will probably make an exception in this case. No doubt there will be at least two different views afterward about which side was stronger.

It's not on here, Anderson Cooper is just talking about airport security Is it on where you are? Maybe I'll get it later

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

From what I remember from the motivations, one reason for the mixed DNA (Knox/Kercher) in at least the bathroom was due to attempted scrubbing of blood from hands and/or feet, and not from Knox blood from ear piercing.

I think it was Knox or her defense which put forward that blood from her ear piercing was responsible for her DNA on the basin and cotton bud, in which case the electropherogram RFU levels should have been greater than the cigarette, or is Charlie Wilkes saying that saliva contains more DNA than blood?

I'm repeating Greg Hampikian's statement that the e-gram won't tell you if a sample contains blood or some other kind of cellular material. I'm also pointing to an example from this investigation that supports that statement.

A tiny streak of Amanda's blood was found on the faucet in the bathroom. It wasn't mixed with Meredith's DNA, and Amanda says it was from her pierced ear. But three mixed DNA samples were found in the bathroom, including the sink and the bidet. The position of the defense is that Amanda used the bathroom, so her DNA might be present on any given sample and it proves nothing.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

blood and DNA

SNIP

I don't necessarily accept that CW' s quote is correct - even if it is, it is stripped of all context (creationists come to mind).

Secondly the DD authors simplification of Garofanos point may not be completely accurate or indeed [more importantly] your take on this.

Third - Garofano didn't testify in this case ?? - so what's the relevance.

Fourth - Fines comment is merely that, an opinion - Does Massei state that co-mingling of blood was what the jury 'found' ??

Your argument that it would be helpful for the prosecution is obviously correct but see point the fourth. [I take it you have accidently transposed 'Amanda's blood' with 'Amanda's DNA' - honest debate doesn't require deliberate misunderstanding even when the argument contains a simple 'text' error such as this]

platonov,

You are correct on my transposition of DNA and blood, and I edited my post accordingly. I checked what Charlie wrote against my copy of DD, and I saw no difference. I would not have written what I did, if I had not checked this. As to context, why don't you quote the rest of the passage and say what you think? Your second point is frankly weak; Garofano is a coauthor and should be able to express himself ably in this circumstance. My take on it is helped by twenty seven years of experience in the field of biochemistry. On what is your take based? Your third point is no better. Garofano is described as a DNA expert in a recent UK news article. A person reading this article wouid naturally tend to believe that Colonel Garofano knows of what he speaks. Your fourth point will have to wait until another time.

 

[Mary_H]

It's not on here, Anderson Cooper is just talking about airport security Is it on where you are? Maybe I'll get it later

Did you get it? It was on at 7:30. Not a debate, after all -- first, a brief interview with Barbie, and then a brief interview with Steve. Barbie didn't say anything bad about Amanda.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Did you get it? It was on at 7:30. Not a debate, after all -- first, a brief interview with Barbie, and then a brief interview with Steve. Barbie didn't say anything bad about Amanda.

It was on more towards the end of the hour. I have to say, I have never heard Steve Moore speak before and I am not so impressed. He seemed nervous and unsure of himself. It seemed as though he was trying to remember specific talking points. Why can't they find a better spokesman?

 

[Chris C]

It was on more towards the end of the hour. I have to say, I have never heard Steve Moore speak before and I am not so impressed. He seemed nervous and unsure of himself. It seemed as though he was trying to remember specific talking points. Why can't they find a better spokesman?

If he is such a bad spokesman, where is the person discrediting what he says?