• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
If he is such a bad spokesman, where is the person discrediting what he says?

One has nothing to do with the other. The person discrediting what he says was not included by CNN. It did not appear to be a debate kind of format.

As far as a spokesperson, if it were my daughter in jail, I would rather have someone who sounded more sure of himself, completely knowledgeable about the case, and not stumbling over words. Just an observation, that's all.
 
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.


So on my 1st & 2nd points I have to take your word for it.
My take is that I can still remember your selective quotation from the 'gift'

On the more important & relevant 3rd & 4th points - No response. So, did I have it right ?

OK - There we have it. Straight answers eh.

Why did you snip my Lipstadt ref ; I was trying to move upmarket as Lionel Hutz wasn't to everyones taste it seems :)

.
 
Last edited:
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?

Well it seems to me from the Garafano quote from Charlie Wilkes, is that he is agreeing that with the narrative of Knox trial testimony, and I have seen repeated elsewhere, that the DNA from Knox found in the bathroom came from blood from infected ear piercing, which she tried to clean with cotton swabs/buds on the morning when she had a shower.

Just to repeat the quote I am referring to

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."
 
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.


Yes I did and was I ever disappointed, No debate........ Barbie did not say anything bad about anyone, but what did Steve call Barbie for naming her book what she did? The True Story of Student Killer, Amanda Knox. The book was releasd after the verdit, but I suppose that is just one more thing he has no idea about.
 
One has nothing to do with the other. The person discrediting what he says was not included by CNN. It did not appear to be a debate kind of format.

As far as a spokesperson, if it were my daughter in jail, I would rather have someone who sounded more sure of himself, completely knowledgeable about the case, and not stumbling over words. Just an observation, that's all.

Yet, we see that the person that alot of guilters quote, Barbie Nadeau is pulling a U-Turn and leaning towards innocence. Newspapers not only in US, but Italy are leaning towards innocence. Are you telling me that the Knox PR campaign could afford this kinda media change or have even the media now realized that Mignini duped them also.
 
Last edited:
As far as a spokesperson, if it were my daughter in jail, I would rather have someone who sounded more sure of himself, completely knowledgeable about the case, and not stumbling over words. Just an observation, that's all.

He's not anyone's spokesperson. He just looked at the evidence and how it was collected and figured out what happened. Now he speaks out about it, and gets airtime because he has the creds. That doesn't mean he's a public speaker, and he's done better than on Anderson-Cooper. He has a problem in that his points are complex and don't fit well in brief segments like that. Here's an audio of a radio show where he gets a better chance to expand on it:

http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=577&a=22884
 
Yet, we see that the person that alot of guilters quote, Barbie Nadeau is pulling a U-Turn and leaning towards Guilt. News papers not only in US, but Italy are leaning towards guilt. Are you telling me that the Knox PR campaign could afford this kinda media change or have even the media no realized that Mignini duped them also.

huh?
 
Yes I did and was I ever disappointed, No debate........ Barbie did not say anything bad about anyone, but what did Steve call Barbie for naming her book what she did? The True Story of Student Killer, Amanda Knox. The book was releasd after the verdit, but I suppose that is just one more thing he has no idea about.

She wrote it after the trial or it was published after the trial?
She would have had to have started that book before the trial was started or right after it was started. It takes time to get a book contract, have your work edited, turn in a final work, then have it checked over again and then set a publishing date thats able to produce the book in time to reach the shelves by the release date. That book was released what 4 months after the trial?

Getting published is not as easy as you think.
Has Nadeau written a book before? If not the chances of getting a book published decrease before actually writing it. Its not impossible but first you would have to find a publisher willing to accept what you are writing. At the very minimum you would have to most likely turn in a rough manuscript and outline before getting a contract.
The other option is to write the book first and look for a publisher.
In my opinion either choice takes longer than 4 months. Which means she would have had to have a rough outline turned into her publisher before the verdict was even read.
 
Last edited:
sorry to be the bearer of bad news

So on my 1st & 2nd points I have to take your word for it.
My take is that I can still remember your selective quotation from the 'gift'

On the more important & relevant 3rd & 4th points - No response. So, did I have it right ?

OK - There we have it. Straight answers eh.

Why did you snip my Lipstadt ref ; I was trying to move upmarket as Lionel Hutz wasn't to everyone taste it seems :)

.

No, you have it wrong.
 
I have that exact same problem sometimes! :D

yeah, amazingly I passed English Composition 101, though getting stoned before class did create a few rather interesting works. Of course that was nearly 20 years ago and back then we still used typewriters that required you to space twice.
 
Last edited:
She wrote it after the trial or it was published after the trial?
She would have had to have started that book before the trial was started or right after it was started. It takes time to get a book contract, have your work edited, turn in a final work, then have it checked over again. That book was released what 4 months after the trial?

Getting published is not as easy as you think.
Has Nadeau written a book before? If not the chances of getting a book published decrease before actually writing it. Its not impossible but first you would have to find a publisher willing to accept what you are writing. At the very minimum you would have to most likely turn in a rough manuscript and outline before getting a contract.
The other option is to write the book first and look for a publisher.
In my opinion either choice takes longer than 4 months. Which means she would have had to have a rough outline turned into her publisher before the verdict was even read.



I think you have this all wrong - she works for the publisher who asked her to write the book, and I believe it was all done after the trial. Steve Moore called her YELLOW for naming the book as she did - not called for at all.
 
I think you have this all wrong - she works for the publisher who asked her to write the book, and I believe it was all done after the trial. Steve Moore called her YELLOW for naming the book as she did - not called for at all.

You Think or You Know? I feel 4 months is a rather hard number to achieve. From start to finish. Its 224 pages. Which is not a large book. However, its still a lot a publisher has to receive and review in advance of the release day. If she was writing a childrens book, maybe IMO she could do that in 4 months. Dont get me wrong, I feel Murder in Italy was also started before the verdict, which if I remember correctly is longer than Nadeau's book. I know Bruce Fisher is supposedly releasing a book soon, around a year after the trial. I'm betting he was having a hard time trying to get a release date during the start of the appeals. Though I'm pretty sure his wont be at a bookstore. Atleast not yet.
 
Last edited:
I think you have this all wrong - she works for the publisher who asked her to write the book, and I believe it was all done after the trial. Steve Moore called her YELLOW for naming the book as she did - not called for at all.

He called her a "yellow journalist," and I know enough about the facts and evidence in this case to agree with him.
 
He called her a "yellow journalist," and I know enough about the facts and evidence in this case to agree with him.

Honestly, I had never heard of the term until today. After looking it up, the shoe fits. Regardless though, Nadeau appears to be clearly moving towards the pro innocence side and it makes me wonder whether she will have a snappy comeback.
 
Last edited:
It seems most of Italy has a similar Sabrina is guilty assumption. I see a lot of similarities with the early feelings about Amanda and I have a lot of doubt about the evidence against her. I guess we will see what happens next in this one.

Initially, the cops were happy to accept Michele's confession, but when they started examining the evidence, there were too many things that didn't fit with his confession. That Sabrina did it and he covered it up fits the evidence.
 
The guilters seem to have finally accepted that Curatolo did not, in fact, see any large white disco buses on the night of Nov 1st 2007 for the very good reason that they were not there.

Apparently, however, hallucinating large white buses doesn't affect his credibility as a witness. Riiiight.
 
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.

But Garofano gets the primary cause of death wrong as well. He claims she "bled to death" - which implies that she died from blood loss and resultant shock. However, the autopsy clearly showed that she died owing to blood asphyxiation: the combination of aspirated blood filling her lungs and the obstruction to her airways from the neck wounds meant that she could not get enough oxygen, and she essentially died from choking and/or drowning in her own blood.

If this guy was indeed one of Italy's most senior forensic scientists*, and has had the benefit of three years' study on the case, then I genuinely worry for the state of this profession in Italy. And one of the few interesting things from last night's Discovery programme was Mignini defending the forensics team by claiming that they were pretty much the best available in Italy.....

* Or, as the Sun crassly put it in order for its typical readership base to comprehend: "If there was a CSI series set in Italy, it would be based on the work of this man".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom