Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

Massei and the mixed DNA

I have already answered - prior to your post. How's that for timeliness !

I think you owe me some answers first in any case.

.

It took me quite a while to type out the passage from DD, all while I was making sauce for the gander.

I am still waiting for your replies, and I have already answered your quetions, unless I missed something. Also, RoseMontague raised a very key point above, one which emphasizes one of mine, that the previous jury overinterpreted the evidence, as the next one might also do. Amanda's appeal noted that Massei's report did not constrain itself to the evidence with respect to the putative second knife; something broadly analogous seems to have occurred here. Massei overinterpreting the evidence? You can knock me over with a feather.

 

[platonov]

LOL. So they ignore their own expert saying they can't determine the date or if it was deposited the same time or even what part of it is the blood of whom; the court is going to just assume the opposite of these things because they think the other evidence (evidence in which they have made similar assumptions) provides a good convincement that it must be so because Amanda must have done it.

LOL indeed - you might want to read the full report, for starters, to achieve a fuller understanding.

Context is important.

ETA Re - Quote from Mignini: See previous posts & Massei for what the court actually heard & accepted.

.

 

[platonov]

On .. 'No, you have it wrong '

It took me quite a while to type out the passage from DD, all while I was making sauce for the gander.

I am still waiting for your replies, and I have already answered your quetions, unless I missed something. Also, RoseMontague raised a very key point above, one which emphasizes one of mine, that the previous jury overinterpreted the evidence, as the next one might also do. Amanda's appeal noted that Massei's report did not constrain itself to the evidence with respect to the putative second knife; something broadly analogous seems to have occurred here. Massei overinterpreting the evidence? You can knock me over with a feather.

OK - I will reply on DD (again) later.

But first where did I get it wrong on points 3 & 4 ?

.

 

[RoseMontague]

LOL indeed - you might want to read the full report, for starters, to achieve a fuller understanding.

Context is important.

.

I have read the report and I conclude the same as halides1. Evidently, so does Mignini as he considers it one of the three most damning pieces of evidence and even refers to it as "mixed blood". I don't think Mignini would put it at that level in an interview after the court decision without believing the court felt the same way.

ETA: Re your ETA, the court makes a lot of conclusions not consistant with the evidence presented. That is what the defense is claiming as well.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the interview with the juror

OK - I will reply on DD (again) later.

But first where did I get it wrong on points 3 & 4 ?

.

platonov,

When you first raised your four points, I wrote, "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." Your response implied that I did not answer point three. My reply indicated that I had, but I also expanded upon it a little.

Your previous response on DD suggested that Garofano was oversimplified. I showed that it was a direct quote and gave the longer version. I would also be grateful to hear your take on Barbie Nadeau's interview with a juror, the one to which Fine alluded.

post script
May I gently remind you that neither of us has the power to compel a rapid response (or even a response at all) from the other? That is one great advantage over discussing the case here, as opposed to elsewhere.

 

[Machiavelli]

Thanks for pointing it out, odeed!

Interestingly, the first photo has the grouting quite visible, while the print is not smeared at all. The other photo has the prints slightly smeared (and the photo is moved), but the grouting hardly reacts. Looks like there was not much fluid to begin with, but rather a bit of smearing of some moist on the floor.

Another noticeable thing in the second photo:
The print on the right is the one attributed by Rinaldi to Sollecito, while the other one was not analyzed apparently. But they are roughly of the same size.
You can barely see in the photo the outline of tiles, but two longer sides can be seen. Distance between them is just 16 cm (the shorter side of a tile). Do you really think those traces are 24,5 cm long? I think Rinaldi definitely got it wrong and Vinci is right with his measurement of 215 mm.

By measuring the apparent seizes in this picture, with no correction, I found those prints to be respectively 253 mm and 227mm long.

 

[Withnail1969]

By measuring the apparent seizes in this picture, with no correction, I found those prints to be respectively 253 mm and 227mm long.

I hope this doesn't mean you're going to inflict on us another wave of MS Paint pictures of footprints with thick pink lines on which you are 100% certain are Raffaele's.

 

[platonov]

I'm having the pasta - hold the gander, It needs more sauce anyway.

platonov,

When you first raised your four points, I wrote, "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." Your response implied that I did not answer point three. My reply indicated that I had, but I also expanded upon it a little.

Your previous response on DD suggested that Garofano was oversimplified. I showed that it was a direct quote and gave the longer version. I would also be grateful to hear your take on Barbie Nadeau's interview with a juror, the one to which Fine alluded.

post script
May I gently remind you that neither of us has the power to compel a rapid response (or even a response at all) from the other? That is one great advantage over discussing the case here, as opposed to elsewhere.

platonov wrote

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' ??

So The answers are ........

No he didn't.
&
No he didn't.

which was what I implied/stated.

On Garofano I also questioned context & accuracy which has been partly answered.
And yes this is a very short simplified quote - you may believe his DNA analysis can be dealt with on the basis of this quote, I don't think so.
Garofano' s opinion as presented may be accurate or not but his plughole reservation deals with only 1 of the 3 samples in any case.
You partly accept this but are unhappy with his mixed blood argument - fine.
Naturally you [& the defence] claim another innocent reason for the other 2 samples.

As to Nadeau :So a juror reportedly went for the stronger case, mixed blood, as being possible.
Even taken at face value - what of it ?
AK did bleed in the bathroom during/after the murder.

ETA Re elsewhere ; I had a quick look at the PMF forum which bothers some here so much.
It was worthwhile - I see even the Cat has had enough of S Moore already, obviously these (admittedly supercilious) creatures have something to teach humans.

.

 

[katy_did]

I'm curious about this. How did Vinci get his perpendicular photograph? Was he there with his camera when the luminol was sprayed as well? I thought the only photographs that existed of the luminol images were those of ILE. Or are you saying there exists photographs taken perpendicularly by ILE but these were not used by Rinaldi, who instead chose to work from photos with more oblique angles?

I was just re-reading the sections of the appeal and the Massei report which deal with the luminol prints to try and figure out the answers to your questions here.

It sounds like the original problem was that the Scientific Police photographed the luminol prints without using fluorescent rulers, so they couldn't tell how big the prints were. To get around the problem both the Scientific Police and the defence expert Prof. Vinci used a photograph shot in daylight which contained a metric reference in order to get the length and width of the tile, and then combined the points of reference of the footprint with the measurements of the tile to find the measurements of the print.

The Scientific Police and Vinci used different photos to get the measurements of the tile. The photo used by the Scientific Police was distorted because it wasn't taken perpendicularly, and so they had to apply this 'perspective correction' to the photograph of the tile in order to get rid of the distortion, and then adjusted the measurement of the footprint (from an original measurement of 227mm to 244mm). The photograph used by Vinci was not distorted, according to the defence, but taken perpendicularly to the ground, and so he had no need to adjust the measurements he obtained in the same way as the prosecution experts did. However, Massei assumed that Vinci's measurements needed to be corrected in the same way as those of the Scientific Police.

I'm not 100% sure, because it's all a bit confusing, but I think it's the photo of the tile that was distorted rather than the photo of the footprints (if this is the case, then Machiavelli's measurement of the print attributed to Sollecito as 227mm in length would presumably stand as is, depending of course on the accuracy of the measurement and the way he obtained it).

 

[ElsieEthrington]

The story became the subject of a movie starring Meryl Streep. Now, more than 20 years after Lindy Chamberlain was released, Australians accept that prosecuting her was a tragic mistake.

But look at all the evidence they had.

The Knox case resembles the Chamberlain case to the extent it amazes me that history is repeating itself. The media circus painted Lindy as a cold calculating murderess and liar.

The simplest explanation, that a dingo carried the baby away in its mouth, was so disbelieved that a popular pub game at the time was to fill a bucket with beer so that it weighed the approximate weight of an infant, then see who could hold the bucket's handle in his mouth and carry it the longest distance.

I highly recommend the Meryl Streep movie, A Cry in the Dark. The last line, delivered by Sam Neill: "I don't think a lot of people realise how important innocence is to innocent people."

 

[RoseMontague]

I was just re-reading the sections of the appeal and the Massei report which deal with the luminol prints to try and figure out the answers to your questions here.

It sounds like the original problem was that the Scientific Police photographed the luminol prints without using fluorescent rulers, so they couldn't tell how big the prints were. To get around the problem both the Scientific Police and the defence expert Prof. Vinci used a photograph shot in daylight which contained a metric reference in order to get the length and width of the tile, and then combined the points of reference of the footprint with the measurements of the tile to find the measurements of the print.

The Scientific Police and Vinci used different photos to get the measurements of the tile. The photo used by the Scientific Police was distorted because it wasn't taken perpendicularly, and so they had to apply this 'perspective correction' to the photograph of the tile in order to get rid of the distortion, and then adjusted the measurement of the footprint (from an original measurement of 227mm to 244mm). The photograph used by Vinci was not distorted, according to the defence, but taken perpendicularly to the ground, and so he had no need to adjust the measurements he obtained in the same way as the prosecution experts did. However, Massei assumed that Vinci's measurements needed to be corrected in the same way as those of the Scientific Police.

I'm not 100% sure, because it's all a bit confusing, but I think it's the photo of the tile that was distorted rather than the photo of the footprints (if this is the case, then Machiavelli's measurement of the print attributed to Sollecito as 227mm in length would presumably stand as is, depending of course on the accuracy of the measurement and the way he obtained it).

That makes sense to me. The problem that is more subjective for me is the starting and ending point of the measurements, sometimes it is purely guesswork with some of these blobs, at least from what I have seen in the past.

 

[RoseMontague]

The Knox case resembles the Chamberlain case to the extent it amazes me that history is repeating itself. The media circus painted Lindy as a cold calculating murderess and liar.

The simplest explanation, that a dingo carried the baby away in its mouth, was so disbelieved that a popular pub game at the time was to fill a bucket with beer so that it weighed the approximate weight of an infant, then see who could hold the bucket's handle in his mouth and carry it the longest distance.

I highly recommend the Meryl Streep movie, A Cry in the Dark. The last line, delivered by Sam Neill: "I don't think a lot of people realise how important innocence is to innocent people."

Has she ever done a bad movie? We will be watching Mama Mia in a few hours, our family decided that would be a good Thanksgiving tradition to start after last years viewing. I have no idea what this movie has to do with Thanksgiving, but it is a joy to see my family agree on something. LOL.

 

[katy_did]

That makes sense to me. The problem that is more subjective for me is the starting and ending point of the measurements, sometimes it is purely guesswork with some of these blobs, at least from what I have seen in the past.

Agreed, you can pretty much pick whatever starting and ending point you want to fit whatever measurement you want to get. To make it even more complicated the prints are blurry and look as if the person who made them may have been dragging their foot along the floor a bit (especially with the bigger corridor footprint, which looks like two footprints one on top of the other). It's all pretty arbitrary, no matter who's doing the measuring!

 

[katy_did]

The Knox case resembles the Chamberlain case to the extent it amazes me that history is repeating itself. The media circus painted Lindy as a cold calculating murderess and liar.

The simplest explanation, that a dingo carried the baby away in its mouth, was so disbelieved that a popular pub game at the time was to fill a bucket with beer so that it weighed the approximate weight of an infant, then see who could hold the bucket's handle in his mouth and carry it the longest distance.

I highly recommend the Meryl Streep movie, A Cry in the Dark. The last line, delivered by Sam Neill: "I don't think a lot of people realise how important innocence is to innocent people."

I agree, both about the movie recommendation and the similarities between the two cases. Other common features are the absolute lack of any motive and a totally implausible scenario as to how the crime was supposed to have happened (i.e. in the middle of a holiday BBQ with friends, she went to check on the kids who were sleeping in a tent nearby, killed the baby with nail scissors, stashed the body in a camera bag, then ran back to tell the others the baby had disappeared. All in the space of a few minutes, and for no reason at all).

Her autobiography, Through My Eyes, is definitely worth reading too. I remember checking it out of the library when I was about 15 after seeing 'A Cry in the Dark' - the film stays pretty close to the facts of what happened, based on her account in the book.

What looks like the whole movie is available in bits here, if you don't mind watching on YouTube!

 

[Machiavelli]

I hope this doesn't mean you're going to inflict on us another wave of MS Paint pictures of footprints with thick pink lines on which you are 100% certain are Raffaele's.

Don't start lying again. I never used "thick pink lines".
And I never used pink to outline print attributed to Raffaele.

 

[katy_did]

Has she ever done a bad movie? We will be watching Mama Mia in a few hours, our family decided that would be a good Thanksgiving tradition to start after last years viewing. I have no idea what this movie has to do with Thanksgiving, but it is a joy to see my family agree on something. LOL.

Yeah, she's brilliant. A friend lent me "Angels in America", and after I'd watched the first part of it he asked me if Meryl Streep had appeared in the film yet. I said no. Of course she had, seeing as she's in the very first scene, but she's so amazing in it that I had no idea. It wasn't till the closing credits that I finally figured it out.

(and oh look, here it is. Is there nothing you can't watch in bits and with Dutch(?) subtitles on YouTube?).

 

[platonov]

No weapon = No crime ?

It took me quite a while to type out the passage from DD, all while I was making sauce for the gander.

I am still waiting for your replies, and I have already answered your quetions, unless I missed something. Also, RoseMontague raised a very key point above, one which emphasizes one of mine, that the previous jury overinterpreted the evidence, as the next one might also do. Amanda's appeal noted that Massei's report did not constrain itself to the evidence with respect to the putative second knife; something broadly analogous seems to have occurred here. Massei overinterpreting the evidence? You can knock me over with a feather.

You are straying from the [somewhat irrelevant and under-documented] topic you yourself introduced but this deserves a short response.

So the victim was stabbed. Agreed.

Now you/they claim the kitchen knife wasn't used in any case but because the other [or in this scenario only] knife wasn't recovered/identified therefore something something...........

By this logic a suspect in a knife murder could never be convicted if the weapon wasn't recovered.

If the defence are using this in the appeal things must be desperate.

PS A goose feather presumably - If Garofano is the gander then Moore is the goose, yea


.

 

[Katody Matrass]

By measuring the apparent seizes in this picture, with no correction, I found those prints to be respectively 253 mm and 227mm long.

Hi, Machiavelli!

If you include the ridiculously elongated toe of the larger print ( on the left) I can imagine you measured it to be 25 cm.
But I can't see how Rinaldi managed to measure the smaller print on the right (attributed to Raffaele) as 24,5 cm, even if he started with his subjective measure of the tile width (17 cm) instead of Vinci's correct one (16 cm).
Your measurement of 23 cm is already very generous.


(the image of both prints again)

 

[Chris C]

You seem to be forgetting that in the appeal the defense is going to introduce testimony that someone could have murdered Meredith and leave as little physical evidence as Raffaele and Amanda did.

Could you quote the part of their appeal that states that?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

mixed DNA

So The answers are ........

No he didn't.
&
No he didn't.

which was what I implied/stated.

On Garofano I also questioned context & accuracy which has been partly answered.
And yes this is a very short simplified quote - you may believe his DNA analysis can be dealt with on the basis of this quote, I don't think so.
Garofano' s opinion as presented may be accurate or not but his plughole reservation deals with only 1 of the 3 samples in any case.
You partly accept this but are unhappy with his mixed blood argument - fine.
Naturally you [& the defence] claim another innocent reason for the other 2 samples.

As to Nadeau :So a juror reportedly went for the stronger case, mixed blood, as being possible.
Even taken at face value - what of it ?
AK did bleed in the bathroom during/after the murder.

SNIP
.

platonov,

I answered your (rhetorical?) question when I compared the role that Garofano has played in this case to the role played by Steve Moore.

The juror did not go for the stronger case; he or she went for the weaker one. There is simply no reason to believe that Amanda's DNA came from her blood, nor is there any reason to believe it was even in the same spot as Meredith's. Perhaps you could take us through your reasoning to the effect that Amanda bled during/after the murder.