Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Withnail1969]

So you personally are a forensics expert?

If not, well that says it all.

No need to be an expert to detect obvious imbeciles at work.

 

[TomCH]

A cheap and common knife, easily replaced with Amanda's alleged shoplifting skills.

Of course, you are assuming that she knew that.

Judging from various discussions I have had on PMF regarding knives, most Americans think that it is a) large and b) special, but the reality is that the blade length is the same as that of my shortest (of three) cooking knife, and has a molded handle (i.e. it is idiotic to say 'remove the handle to look for DNA', something people on this forum often ask about). Also, it is clear that most people on PMF andr this forum have no clue about knives.

I think it most likely that they would have brought the knife back to AVOID suspicion, not to create it.

For those who think it strange that they would carry such a small knife around, I must say that when I go on a picnic, or go camping, I normally carry a much larger knife (8"/20cm blade), I've even done so on train trips up north.

As they planned to go on a picnic, I fail to see why carrying such a knife would be unusual!

 

[RoseMontague]

Is it deliberate contamination, accidential contamination, planted evidence or simply not his DNA at all? Why is it that those who believe in AK and RS's innocence can't decide on one theory?

Same thing with it comes to the large knife. Was Amanda's DNA planted on the knife, did the lab use the instruments incorrectly (....again deliberately or accidentially) or was her DNA never on the handle to begin it?

The same applies to those that believe they are guilty. Opinions vary on both sides, as has been discussed here previously. For example, you believed that Raffaele said a lot of blood and Tom and Machiavelli said spots of blood. Some feel even on the guilty side that Curatolo is credible, others not so much. Some believe the buses ran, some do not, one has smelled him and determined his credibility.

 

[RoseMontague]

As they planned to go on a picnic, I fail to see why carrying such a knife would be unusual!

And another example for you Alt+F4; this is a new theory on the knife from one on the guilty side, one that I have not seen before.

 

[Withnail1969]

Of course, you are assuming that she knew that.

Judging from various discussions I have had on PMF regarding knives, most Americans think that it is a) large and b) special, but the reality is that the blade length is the same as that of my shortest (of three) cooking knife, and has a molded handle (i.e. it is idiotic to say 'remove the handle to look for DNA', something people on this forum often ask about). Also, it is clear that most people on PMF andr this forum have no clue about knives.

I think it most likely that they would have brought the knife back to AVOID suspicion, not to create it.

For those who think it strange that they would carry such a small knife around, I must say that when I go on a picnic, or go camping, I normally carry a much larger knife (8"/20cm blade), I've even done so on train trips up north.

As they planned to go on a picnic, I fail to see why carrying such a knife would be unusual!

This was a small knife? It looks like a large kitchen knife to me. Maybe you do carry knives to go on picnics. I don't see what relevance that has to anything. Nobody was planning a picnic on the evening of Nov 1st 2007, as far as I know.

In my view, if the knife had been the murder weapon, they would have tossed it. It's inconceivable they would have just put it back in the drawer.

 

[RoseMontague]

This was a small knife? It looks like a large kitchen knife to me. Maybe you do carry knives to go on picnics. I don't see what relevance that has to anything. Nobody was planning a picnic on the evening of Nov 1st 2007, as far as I know.

In my view, if the knife had been the murder weapon, they would have tossed it. It's inconceivable they would have just put it back in the drawer.

IIRC, the length with handle was close to a foot long, not exactly what I consider to be small.

 

[Alt+F4]

The same applies to those that believe they are guilty. Opinions vary on both sides, as has been discussed here previously. For example, you believed that Raffaele said a lot of blood and Tom and Machiavelli said spots of blood. Some feel even on the guilty side that Curatolo is credible, others not so much. Some believe the buses ran, some do not, one has smelled him and determined his credibility.

Well the bus issue will probably be decided for certain in the appeal, since it appears the defense is going intoduce testimony from the bus company owners. Raffaele refused to help in the investigation so I guess we won't know for certain exactly what he said.

As for the DNA on the bra clasp why does it seem to be so hard to prove contamination? If it happened it happened either at the crime scene or at the lab. It seems unlikey it would have happened at the crime scene because where would his DNA have come from inside the apartment in the first place? If it happened at the lab, just show chain of custody when the bra clasp would have come in contact with something else that would have had his DNA on it.

Add to that RS's appeal which states that it's not his DNA on the bra clasp but if it is...it's there due to contamination.

 

[quadraginta]

Yes, as far as most of us know, most knife-killers dispose of their murder weapons after use. Of course, as a renter, Raffaele was responsible for the inventory of kitchen utensils in his apartment. He had to choose between being questioned by police or questioned by his -- gulp -- landlord.

How do we know this? Are there some statistics compiled somewhere that you could share?

I don't even know that most knives used in murders are even removed from the scene at all, much less disposed of if they are removed.

By an odd coincidence 48 Hours did a show the other night about the murder of Caren Koslow and the attempted murder of Jack Koslow. The knife used to stab them and cut their throats was left at the scene.

An even more odd coincidence. The murder was committed by two nineteen year old men at the instigation of the couple's seventeen year old daughter. One of those two was an honor student with absolutely no prior history of any sort of trouble at all.

 

[platonov]

A cheap and common knife, easily replaced with Amanda's alleged shoplifting skills. Of course it's an irrelevant scenario, because the knife was not the murder weapon. If it actually had been, they would have tossed it, and then we would be talking about what happened to Raffaele's kitchen knife.

Inadvertently Withnail has nailed it, the FOA approach to logic that is.

1. So the prosecution or court can't mention or hypothesize* the missing/unidentified [in the defence scenario, only] knife.

2. Now neither is an actual knife evidence as they would** have tossed it and if they had.....

3. See point 1... ta-da

* based on the autopsy evidence/wounds - the fact that the victim was stabbed.
** We know this because ???? a missing knife wouldn't look suspicious nor would buying a new one OR killers always do or something.

Anyway, its not the Knife so shutup - RS invented that lie because the police are liars so there.

.

 

[Alt+F4]

And another example for you Alt+F4; this is a new theory on the knife from one on the guilty side, one that I have not seen before.

Well I don't think they were going on a picnic for the simple reason that the weather was cold. Of course that's just conjecture on my part, what's going on with the DNA on the bra clasp should be a simple, scientific problem to solve. Picnic vs.no picnic is a small detail compared to DNA contamination (somewhere) vs. planted DNA.

 

[Withnail1969]

By an odd coincidence 48 Hours did a show the other night about the murder of Caren Koslow and the attempted murder of Jack Koslow. The knife used to stab them and cut their throats was left at the scene.

Leaving a knife at the scene is one thing. Carrying a blood-soaked knife through the streets of Perugia just to put it back in the drawer is another, especially after Nara's bloodcurdling scream has rung out through the whole town. What did they carry the knife in? Amanda's bag? Where is the DNA/blood evidence?

It's idiotic.

 

[RoseMontague]

Well the bus issue will probably be decided for certain in the appeal, since it appears the defense is going intoduce testimony from the bus company owners. Raffaele refused to help in the investigation so I guess we won't know for certain exactly what he said.

As for the DNA on the bra clasp why does it seem to be so hard to prove contamination? If it happened it happened either at the crime scene or at the lab. It seems unlikey it would have happened at the crime scene because where would his DNA have come from inside the apartment in the first place? If it happened at the lab, just show chain of custody when the bra clasp would have come in contact with something else that would have had his DNA on it.

Add to that RS's appeal which states that it's not his DNA on the bra clasp but if it is...it's there due to contamination.

Most (if not all) contamination is proven by those doing the testing. Unidentified DNA profiles are matched to the profiles of lab techs or evidence handlers or police at the scene. Both negative and positive controls are also used. If a negative control in the lab comes out positive for DNA then there is contamination and it is entered (or should be) into a contamination log.

If it is not reported by the lab, it does not mean the lab has never had contamination or that there was not contamination in this case. It simply means it was not reported or any unidentified profiles were even looked at to see if there was a match to an investigator, member of the forensic team, or lab tech. Stefanoni indicated in her testimony she had five profiles to work with; Meredith, Amanda, Rudy, Raffaele, and Patrick. The database she used was one that gives the odds of a certain number of alleles matching to a certain percentage of the population. No indication is given (that I could find) of a database of the people that handled the evidence or were at the crime scene. No contamination logs were provided either that I could find reference to.

Stefanoni's claim of no contamination in that lab is suspect, from what I gather on this subject. No lab is perfect and contamination can be limited but not prevented. The prevention in the field is done with the use of proper gathering techniques that halides1 points out were not followed in this case.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

In the Gregory Turner case, DNA from the victim's nails was transferred by a technician to Mr. Turner's wedding ring. The technician also transferred some of her own DNA. You appear to be basing your ideas of DNA transfer on Dr. Stefanoni's testimony, but she is not a good source of information. Also, contamination has a very specific meaning in forensic DNA work. It is the transfer of DNA after an item has been taken into custody. And contamination can take place either at the scene of the crime or in the lab. Finally, as RoseMontague correctly pointed out, it is a logical error to equate all of Raffaele's DNA in the apartment with how much DNA the investigators found there.

Contamination has no meaning legally and logically in the process of evidence assessment. And moreover, the cocept of "taken into custody" is not arbitrarily defined by bloggers, not automatically established and not established in one simplistic term like that, neither has any compelling automatic legal effect.

My sources are, obviously, not Stefanoni alone - algthough you have no ground to assert she is no good source - but simply all existing sources, all people who dealt with the crime scene, and an inference made from all findings.

 

[Alt+F4]

An even more odd coincidence. The murder was committed by two nineteen year old men at the instigation of the couple's seventeen year old daughter. One of those two was an honor student with absolutely no prior history of any sort of trouble at all.

I'm glad my kid isn't an honor student!

Maybe it's taking all those difficult classes that makes them snap:

"Honor Student Charged with Felony Theft Over Sunglass Snafu."
"From honor student to accused cop killer"
"Kansas woman accused of leaving baby in trash was once an honor student"
"Honor student on trial for robbery at gunpoint"

And those headlines were from just the first Google page.

 

[TomCH]

IIRC, the length with handle was close to a foot long, not exactly what I consider to be small.

The handle was very long, the blade only 6 or 7", total was 34cm as I recall. The handle was longer than the blade. My Henkel with 8" blade is 32.5cm, my Victorinox with 8" blade (camping knife) is slightly shorter.

My 'usual' kitchen knife has a 10" blade, and is 39cm long.

They were going on a picnic the next day (or so they claim), a knife would be a standard tool to bring. So, that's a good explanation for why Amanda had it in her bag.

 

[RoseMontague]

How do we know this? Are there some statistics compiled somewhere that you could share?

I don't even know that most knives used in murders are even removed from the scene at all, much less disposed of if they are removed.

By an odd coincidence 48 Hours did a show the other night about the murder of Caren Koslow and the attempted murder of Jack Koslow. The knife used to stab them and cut their throats was left at the scene.

An even more odd coincidence. The murder was committed by two nineteen year old men at the instigation of the couple's seventeen year old daughter. One of those two was an honor student with absolutely no prior history of any sort of trouble at all.

Good example. That case seems even more similar to the one her new cell-mate was convicted of. Were the two 19 year old men friends with each other?

 

[Dan O.]

What you are able to think is one separate issue, while facts are the video has been released to the public by the defence, and the same source who released it obviously removed the audio. The prosecution did not remove the audio from the video released by the defence. So whatever you think based on your convincements, you should request the audio directly to the source who released the video.

That post provides insight into the way you think. you decided what would be most incriminating and stated it as "fact" without any supporting evidence.

What is the chain of custody of this video and what evidence do we have to glimpse its state along the way? We know that the investigation team created this video. Do we know if the camera was set to even record audio? Where did the defense get their copy? Have any segments of this video surfaced with audio?

 

[RoseMontague]

The handle was very long, the blade only 6 or 7", total was 34cm as I recall. The handle was longer than the blade. My Henkel with 8" blade is 32.5cm, my Victorinox with 8" blade (camping knife) is slightly shorter.

My 'usual' kitchen knife has a 10" blade, and is 39cm long.

They were going on a picnic the next day (or so they claim), a knife would be a standard tool to bring. So, that's a good explanation for why Amanda had it in her bag.

Yikes, no sarcasm intended. You are obviously well informed on knives. Are those pet names for your blades or brand names? You are obviously not most people when it comes to knives, at least in my opinion. Your theory is better than the one proposed by Massei, regardless.

 

[Withnail1969]

The handle was very long, the blade only 6 or 7", total was 34cm as I recall. The handle was longer than the blade. My Henkel with 8" blade is 32.5cm, my Victorinox with 8" blade (camping knife) is slightly shorter.

My 'usual' kitchen knife has a 10" blade, and is 39cm long.

They were going on a picnic the next day (or so they claim), a knife would be a standard tool to bring. So, that's a good explanation for why Amanda had it in her bag.

Surely they would have needed the knife in the kitchen on the evening before the picnic, to prepare their dinner and presumably sandwiches etc for their picnic the following day?

Why exactly does one need a large knife on a picnic anyway?

 

[platonov]

Remember the 'moon landings'

That post provides insight into the way you think. you decided what would be most incriminating and stated it as "fact" without any supporting evidence.

What is the chain of custody of this video and what evidence do we have to glimpse its state along the way? We know that the investigation team created this video. Do we know if the camera was set to even record audio? Where did the defense get their copy? Have any segments of this video surfaced with audio?

Are we back to the faked video theory again

.