Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Danceme]

No seriously, I dont see a footprint. So what is it.

They're definitely footprints with an area of glow on the floor around them as well. Perhaps if you rotate them 180 degrees you will see them.

 

[Chris C]

They're definitely footprints with an area of glow on the floor around them as well. Perhaps if you rotate them 180 degrees you will see them.

Footprints?
Here I'll circle all the possible footprints.

Matter of fact, I'll do yall a favor using photoshop 9. I'll clean up the picture for ya.

How many big toes do you see?

I count 4 maybe 5

 

[Chris_Halkides]

No and no

I'm not looking for anything further - my point is clear as regards Garofano.

As for the knife - what ?
What is the defence claim - that it wasn't RS's knife ... well duh.
Is that all they claim .... you brought it up.

.

No, you still have it wrong. And you still have not answered all of my questions.

post script
The Daily Mail Online wrote, "They have also seized on the trial judge’s inclusion of a mystery second knife in his ruling which he said was the one which inflicted the fatal wounds on Miss Kercher."

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Any advance on "Amanda and Raffaele went to Amanda's place for an unknown reason, at an unknown time, while somehow still leaving traces on Raffaele's computer of use all night, then took Rudy's side in an argument with Meredith, even after Rudy cut her throat from behind in accidental self-defence and then molested her as she died, and that's how it happened?".

Or any better story?

Because it's looking to me as if there's still not a single coherent story that explains the facts as we now know them and has Amanda and Raffaele being involved in Meredith's murder.

I'm sure Machiavelli for one was saying a moment ago that there are multiple coherent theories that do the job. So why has nobody posted any of them?

 

[Chris C]

I'm sure Machiavelli for one was saying a moment ago that there are multiple coherent theories that do the job. So why has nobody posted any of them?

Haven't you figured it out yet? Apostle Rudy couldn't have done this by himself. Its inconceivable that Meredith was raped and killed by a lone attacker, when there is a girl living in that apartment that had pre-marital sex with multiple guys. She's a spawn of Satan and must be struck down. He needs a reminder of how much a puttana she is. To him, Knox is the Whore of Babylon and she lies with the beast that has seven heads and ten horns.

 

[katy_did]

Vinci’s measurement has one first macroscopic problem: it doesn’t tackle Rinaldi’s measurement.
Vinci chose a different picture, daylight, so with no print visible on it, then (maybe?) he used “points of reference” in order to deduce the measurements of print.
Unfortunately none of us has seen the picture, and none of us can do a check on those points of reference.

I think that both defence and prosecution used a daylight photo to get the measurements of the tile, and Vinci used the same 'points of reference' for the footprint as the Scientific Police did, but the daylight photo he used was different to that of the Scientific Police (though Massei didn't seem to know that). The Scientific Police apparently used the daylight photo 'finding 5' to get the measurements of the tile, while the footprints are 'finding 2' (see Massei). This from Sollecito's appeal:

Dr. Rinaldi and Chief Insp. Boemia used an image (taken in light, by ERT colleagues) with a metric reference and depicting the tile on which, at a different point, the footprint was highlighted.

The intent was to first obtain the measurements of the tile on which the footprint was made, and subsequently to obtain proportionally those of the footprint.

However, the measurements obtained by the two technicians could not be considered exact, since the photograph, in contrast to the recommendations of the scientific community, was not shot perpendicularly.
[...]
Prof. Vinci used a photograph that, as well as containing the metric reference, was shot perpendicularly, only then proceeding to the dimensional calculations [...]

The consultant first obtained the exact dimensions of the tile on which the footprint was made (p. 78 report):

a) longest side equal to 337.76142mm;
b) shortest side equal to 163.80602mm;
and, subsequently, carried out the calculations.

Using the same marker points as the scientific police, Prof. Vinci in this way had available all the exact measurements of the footprint in question (p. 80 report), different measurements from those obtained by the scientific police on the basis of erroneous parameters.

Massei notes the 'perspective correction' carried out on the photo of the tile, which gave the Scientific Police different measurements to those used by Vinci:

Photographic finding 5 thus allowed the floor-tile to be measured: the first measurement obtained was 169.3 mm (height) x 336 mm (base) which a further study carried out in view of the hearing on 09.05.09 (summarized in the report on ‚perspective correction‛) resulted in a re-evaluation of the height of the floor-tile, which was reduced to 162mm.

But Vinci didn’t follow the accusation path to show where the reasoning was wrong, didn’t say “Rinaldi is wrong making this inference because...”. Peripheral topics were addressed like inaccuracies were sought in Rinaldi process, but not the argument: goes around it, so the measurement by the prosecution expert is in fact unchallenged.

But how could anyone address the measurements made by Rinaldi in his 'perspective correction' of the photograph which altered the footprint measurements by nearly 2cm, when he apparently gave no explanation for how those calculations were carried out? Given the problems the Scientific Police had in carrying out their calculations, all the messing around with trying get the accurate measurements of the tile, there would have to be a pretty major risk of error in their final measurements of the footprints. Surely it's just Vinci's job to carry out his own measurements as accurately as possible, in a more correct way than the Scientific Police did. And Massei gives no valid reason for rejecting Vinci's measurements and accepting those of the Scientific Police - surely it should be his job to evaluate each side's arguments, not Vinci's?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

However, could you please explain to us how the 3 unidentified persons dna on the bra clasp means nothing?
Also how does having the unidentified person dna on the clasp disprove that the clasp is contaminated?
Also, surely they found the 3 unidentifed peoples dna on her skin where the clasp was touching her back or on the part the clasp hooked to. Because that dna would have had to been there before Sollecito touched it. If it wasn't there before he touched the clasp, then it was deposited there by contamination that or they where part of the murder also. Of course it would sure be nice to rule contamination out. All you would have to do is get dna from everyone that was ever invited in that apartment.

Sollecito's markers are stronger than the unidentified markers, so it's misleading to suggest that three other people left distinct profiles. It is more accurate to say this was a dirty sample with the DNA of multiple people in miniscule quantities, but a strong profile for Meredith and a weaker but still distinct profile for Sollecito. However, the intensity of the markers attributable to Sollecito varies enough to admit the possibility that the e-gram may actually show a composite of partial profiles.

What is more important, in my opinion, is that this sample was taken from a metal hook that had been pulled almost straight by someone who ripped the garment apart with brute force. No realistic scenario for doing so would involve touching this hook. Moreover, two people held the clasp by squeezing the straightened hook between their thumb and forefinger. Guidelines for handling DNA evidence specifically admonish investigators to avoid doing this. We cannot prove that Sollecito's DNA got there because of contamination, but because of the way the item was handled, the possibility of contamination can never be ruled out. And without that single DNA trace, there is no physical evidence against Knox or Sollecito in the room where Meredith was killed.

 

[Machiavelli]

But how could anyone address the measurements made by Rinaldi in his 'perspective correction' of the photograph which altered the footprint measurements by nearly 2cm, when he apparently gave no explanation for how those calculations were carried out? Given the problems the Scientific Police had in carrying out their calculations, all the messing around with trying get the accurate measurements of the tile, there would have to be a pretty major risk of error in their final measurements of the footprints. Surely it's just Vinci's job to carry out his own measurements as accurately as possible, in a more correct way than the Scientific Police did. And Massei gives no valid reason for rejecting Vinci's measurements and accepting those of the Scientific Police - surely it should be his job to evaluate each side's arguments, not Vinci's?

But the challnge consists in building an argument which shall be confrontable to the accusation. Vinci could have performed also a measurement on the same picture used by Rinaldi, and he didn't do that. Even if it is a simple operation, compared to his method. He could have said, I examined this picture and these are my results. They are accurate, in contrast with yours, for these reasons.
But this part is missing in Vinci's report. And this lack determines an immediately apparent weakness in his argument.

 

[Machiavelli]

What if they dont match? If its not matched to someone meredith knows, then you have 3 more suspects. There are 3 unidentified profiles on that bra clasp. (...)

Nobody ever found "three unidentified profiles". This is a defense myth, the online supporters seems to cling to.

There is only an opinion of Tagliabracci who said in some of the peaks there could be more than one person, up to three contributors.

In some of the peaks there could be three contributors is not the same thing as three unidentified profiles were found.

There isn't such thing as three profiles extracted from the clasp.

 

[Dan O.]

But the challnge consists in building an argument which shall be confrontable to the accusation. Vinci could have performed also a measurement on the same picture used by Rinaldi, and he didn't do that. Even if it is a simple operation, compared to his method. He could have said, I examined this picture and these are my results. They are accurate, in contrast with yours, for these reasons.
But this part is missing in Vinci's report. And this lack determines an immediately apparent weakness in his argument.

Vinci measured a tile using a photo that didn't have an off axis perspective which eliminated the error of Rinaldi. Are you saying that because he measured a different tile, Vinci's measurement didn't challenge Rinaldi's?

If that is the view of the court, all of the footprint measurements should be thrown out.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

method of analysis

Nobody ever found "three unidentified profiles". This is a defense myth, the online supporters seems to cling to.

There is only an opinion of Tagliabracci who said in some of the peaks there could be more than one person, up to three contributors.

In some of the peaks there could be three contributors is not the same thing as three unidentified profiles were found.

There isn't such thing as three profiles extracted from the clasp.

Machiavell,

My recollection of the Massei report is that in at least one locus, there is an allele that is higher in RFU than the allele matching Sollecito's profile, possibly more than one locus. Dr. Tagliabracci criticized Dr. Stefanoni's method of interpreting the DNA mixture for ignoring this sort of peak, and rightly so, IMO. Some posters here seem to think that analysts are supposed to lay the reference profile on top of the evidence profile and look for a match, but that approach has been criticized.

 

[RoseMontague]

But the challnge consists in building an argument which shall be confrontable to the accusation. Vinci could have performed also a measurement on the same picture used by Rinaldi, and he didn't do that. Even if it is a simple operation, compared to his method. He could have said, I examined this picture and these are my results. They are accurate, in contrast with yours, for these reasons.
But this part is missing in Vinci's report. And this lack determines an immediately apparent weakness in his argument.

I am not sure I understand your point. If Vinci did the measurements correctly and came up with different numbers it would follow that Rinaldi's was not done correctly. You can't expect someone to guess where the other made an error especially if Rinaldi can't even clearly explain how he got to a final number to begin with. The courts error in thinking Vinci made a similar error from the get go as did Rinaldi is the even bigger error in my opinion. On what basis did they just assume this? And this determines an immediately apparent weakness in the court's conclusions regarding this evidence.

 

[Katody Matrass]

But the challnge consists in building an argument which shall be confrontable to the accusation. Vinci could have performed also a measurement on the same picture used by Rinaldi, and he didn't do that. Even if it is a simple operation, compared to his method. He could have said, I examined this picture and these are my results. They are accurate, in contrast with yours, for these reasons.
But this part is missing in Vinci's report. And this lack determines an immediately apparent weakness in his argument.

Hi, Machiavelli

I think presenting correct measurements to counter Rinaldi's erroneous ones is a good enough counter argument. Vinci's methodology is fully documented. The fact that the court rejected it on nonsensical grounds is indisputable. Rinaldi couldn't explain his methodology at all.

Rinaldi was off in his initial measurements of the tile by 7 mm. Vinci was correct from the beginning about it, again. So Rinaldi had to correct his 7 mm too long error.
I cannot understand how finding that the reference he used was in fact 7 mm shorter than he thought could have resulted in lengthening of the print he measured by that reference from 227 mm to 244 mm ?

Rinaldi apparently was unable to explain it, too.

Do you understand it? Can you help?




PS. Your post with the measurements is very intreresting and I'll try to address fully later in the evening ( for now I can only say that the millimeter measurements in your drawing are a bit misleading, because they don't correspond to anything objective and the tile sizes are definitely not 50 mm nor 60 mm, choosing pixels as a relative unit would be better )

 

[Fuji]

If someone says it didn't come from Amanda's ear, then they need to explain where it did come from - presumably the person would like to imply that Amanda was injured in some kind of fight - perhaps scratched by Meredith.

Trouble is there was no evidence either on Amanda or Meredith's body that this occurred.

A rather obvious possible source of blood from a fighting injury that would not leave any external indicators on Knox's body would be a nosebleed. Another reasonable possibility would be a bitten tongue or cheek.

 

[Alt+F4]

Has she ever done a bad movie?

Yeah. "Postcards From The Edge". Awful.

 

[Chris C]

Nobody ever found "three unidentified profiles". This is a defense myth, the online supporters seems to cling to.

There is only an opinion of Tagliabracci who said in some of the peaks there could be more than one person, up to three contributors.

In some of the peaks there could be three contributors is not the same thing as three unidentified profiles were found.

There isn't such thing as three profiles extracted from the clasp.

So your saying that only Meredith's and Sollecito's profile were on the clasp.

Because you are avoiding the contamination portion of the argument like the plague. What if there are profiles other than Meredith's or Sollecito's on that clasp. Will it change your mind?

So whats it going to be? If there are more than 2 profiles, the clasp is contaminated or someone else also touched it.

Its either or. Either its contaminated or someone else touched that clasp that night.

Or maybe you have a better explanation on how someone elses DNA got on the bra clasp without touching it or the clasp being contaminated.

 

[Dan O.]

PS. Your post with the measurements is very intreresting and I'll try to address fully later in the evening ( for now I can only say that the millimeter measurements in your drawing are a bit misleading, because they don't correspond to anything objective and the tile sizes are definitely not 50 mm nor 60 mm, choosing pixels as a relative unit would be better )

He said something about using a Photoshop ruler so these would be unscaled measurements on the image. But there should be a geometrical progression in those distances. The numbers given don't appear to be correct at first glance. From a photo of a grid and a single reference length in the same plane it is possible to reconstruct the geometry including the height of the camera. I'll be playing more with that when I get back to my computer.

 

[Alt+F4]

Any advance on "Amanda and Raffaele went to Amanda's place for an unknown reason...

This has already been explained to you. They went to her apartment so she could get a change of clothes for the next mornings planned trip to Gubbio.

...at an unknown time...

I'd say between 8:30 and 9:00.

..., while somehow still leaving traces on Raffaele's computer of use all night...

This haven't been proven, it's just something mentioned in the appeal. Neither Raffaele or Amanda ever stated that he was using the computer "all night". Even it is proven that the computer had human use during the night it in no way, shape or form provides an alibi for Amanda. Face it, she doesn't have one.

...then took Rudy's side in an argument with Meredith, even after Rudy cut her throat from behind in accidental self-defence and then molested her as she died, and that's how it happened?

You don't know that Rudy cut her thoat then molested her. Now you just making stuff up.

Or any better story?

Best "story" I've heard is Rudy cleaning his foot in the bidet. What a joke.

 

[Withnail1969]

A rather obvious possible source of blood from a fighting injury that would not leave any external indicators on Knox's body would be a nosebleed. Another reasonable possibility would be a bitten tongue or cheek.

How does one get either a nosebleed or a bitten tongue or cheek without some sign of violence having taken place? If Amanda was bleeding during a fight with Meredith why is there none of Amanda's blood on or near Meredith's body?

 

[Alt+F4]

Isn't it incredibly telling that Knox has no long-term friends willing to show themselves or speak for her character? This must of course indicate that anyone who's known Knox for more than a couple of years has either grown to dislike her, or would at least be unwilling to say anything positive about her. Oh, and all these people have been "threatened" not to talk about Knox. Pfft what a psychopath she is

Oh....wait....what's that? A girl named Brett Lither has flown out to Perugia to support Amanda and speak up on her behalf. And what's that you also say? Miss Lither has been a friend of Knox's since they were both about 9 or 10 years old?

Yikes, and I thought that trying intoduce the testimony of the baby killer and the mobster was bad. Now Amanda's defense is so pathetic that they have to haul out, after three years, a friend she had from the third grade? Really, this is what they have to resort to?