Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[platonov]

Originally Posted by Kaosium
In any case my guess is Amanda goes back to the US even in the unlikely event of all appeals--including to the EU--failing, and odds are will be effectively a free woman the moment she steps off the plane.

How would she be out of prison and back in the U.S. even if all her appeals fail?

Something to do with a movie apparently.

Originally Posted by Kaosium

At any rate, you bring up something I was pondering when I heard (initial reports at least) that the first movie, the one with Hayden Panetierre, wouldn't even show the murder scene, it would leave that part a mystery. I think that would be especially effective, as if they stick to the facts as close as anything Hollywood can, that would more or less exonerate her in everyone's eyes anyway.

You do know that Hayden Panetierre has her own doubts as to Amanda's innocence, right?

If the movie leaves the actual murder as a mystery how would that exonerate her in "everyone's eyes."?

No, not that movie - a much bigger movie with an Oscar nod in the offing

In any case I don't think [Kaosium can probably confirm - he's the expert on this] that the cheerleader actress has editorial control - she's more what's called a 'warm prop' in the business I believe.

Indeed her opinions/'the movie ending' are a moot point as the Italian courts are unlikely to cede jurisdiction on this issue no matter how good the reviews are

.

 

[Alt+F4]

One possible place Raffaele's DNA came from in Meredith's room is on Amanda's lamp. Raffaele likely turned the lamp on or off while 'hanging out' with Amanda in her room. On Dec 18th Amanda's lamp had been moved to the desk and the cord of her lamp extended down to the floor near the rug the bra clasp was found under. Can you prove this is not reasonably possible?

Before I comment on this does someone have a link to a photograph of the lamp in question?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

who are your eyewitnesses?

Candace Dempsey is your evidence, she was not even in Italy at the time. As for her source "Elio Bertoldi, a journalist with Corriere Dell'Umbria who attended the press conference", what has the press conference got to do with the claim of the three being paraded around Perugia?

As for three cars leaving the station, that has been covered, no evidence of jubilation or going on a "parade" of Perugia.

As for the quote from the Perugian you have repeated, "that he had only seen the police behave this way once before, when a mafia leader was arrested" is taken from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...dence-Meredith-murder-case.html#ixzz16GGpTUEv which is an account of the arrest of Lumumba where the police cars "approach" the station, I posted all the articles before. Somehow this was inserted into the Dempsey story about the vehicles leaving the station and going on their tour of Perugia.

I still say that this story is false. You have had 9 days since I originally asked for evidence that the three were paraded around, more than enough time to find evidence of this, especially in a case where the media were all over this from the start. Your evidence is the word of Dempsey who was not there, and a video which shows nothing to back up the story, the fact that you think it does is probably more indicative of your bias and objectivity, rather than your claim that it was the police that showed bias and objectivity in my opinion.

odeed,

The names of the three suspects are part of the documentation with the AP footage. The police were at the house of Knox’s parents. How did these things happen, if the police did not provide the names of the suspects? With respect to the Perugian who said that the convoy was a very unusual occurrence, this is covered in Murder in Italy on page 159, quoting the Daily Mail. As for the Daily Mail article itself, it has some minor inaccuracies, such as the implication that Mr. Lumumba was interviewed all night. My suggestion that the word “approach” should have been “leave” in this story is based on several things, not the least of which are these other small errors. However, suppose for a moment that the police were “cock-a-hoop” when bringing Mr. Lumumba to the station, as opposed to leaving it. That would be equally prejudicial behavior, which was my original point.

You claim that the story of the three being taken through the old town of Perugia is false. I have Candace Dempsey’s report which says otherwise. How many times do you know who a reporter’s sources are? We do in this case because I took the time to find out. Do you have an eyewitness to the events of that day who can back up your claim? Did Ms. Dempsey lie when she said she communicated with Bertoldi and the camerman?

 

[platonov]

One possible place Raffaele's DNA came from in Meredith's room is on Amanda's lamp. Raffaele likely turned the lamp on or off while 'hanging out' with Amanda in her room. On Dec 18th Amanda's lamp had been moved to the desk and the cord of her lamp extended down to the floor near the rug the bra clasp was found under. Can you prove this is not reasonably possible?

Hold the phones (& the front page).

Is this new - have sneezing, dandruff, bra sharing, door handles, flying DNA, borrowed pillows etc been supplanted.

.

 

[Kaosium]

You do know that Hayden Panetierre has her own doubts as to Amanda's innocence, right?

If the movie leaves the actual murder as a mystery how would that exonerate her in "everyone's eyes."?

How would Hayden know at that point, having not looked into it? Let's see what she says after she's 'played the role' for a while. I myself assumed she was guilty as well before I looked into it, after all why would she have been convicted if she was not?

As for the other, it will be a challenge to portray the facts in a timeline fashion and come to the conclusion that Amanda might have been guilty. I suspect that's one reason Mignini offered 'evidence' she was a sociopath, as someone who behaved as Amanda did after the murder--to an American audience especially--will look either like an innocent caught up in a rush to judgment or an absolute nutcase. Having seen Hayden in movies and TV since she played the little girl in "Remember the Titans" I don't think she can play a sociopath, she can play 'annoying,' (to some people) but not someone absolutely deranged--that is 'Foxy Knoxy.'

I don't think Lifetime is the 'sociopath network' nor for that matter do I think they'll stick to the facts either. They will have to play up 'suspicion' as the recorded sequence of events after the murder is not very incriminating and in fact will look awfully exculpatory onscreen, beginning with the discovery of the murder.

 

[Kaosium]

How would she be out of prison and back in the U.S. even if all her appeals fail?

For the same reasons she's been imprisoned for three years and is still considered a 'flight risk.'

 

[Alt+F4]

One possible place Raffaele's DNA came from in Meredith's room is on Amanda's lamp. Raffaele likely turned the lamp on or off while 'hanging out' with Amanda in her room. On Dec 18th Amanda's lamp had been moved to the desk and the cord of her lamp extended down to the floor near the rug the bra clasp was found under. Can you prove this is not reasonably possible?

Even if he did turn the lamp on or off, though there is no evidence for this, wouldn't that put his DNA on the on/off switch, not the cord?

However, if what you are suggesting is correct than that leads to the reasonable conclusion that it was Raffelle that unpluged the lamp in Amanda's room and put it in Meredith's room. DNA coming from the lamp doesn't look good for him.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

definition of contamination

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.

Machiavelli,

In An Introduction to Forensic DNA Analysis, p. 14, Norah Rudin and Keith Inman “define contamination as the inadvertent addition of an individual’s physiological material or DNA during or after collection of the sample as evidence…A contaminated sample is one in which the material was deposited during collection, preservation, handling, or analysis.” I use the terms "evidence tampering" or evidence planting" to describe deliberately adding DNA to an item.

What Stefanoni asserted in her testimony about the difficulty of transferring DNA is flatly contradicted by the Turner case. Moreover, her poor collection technique (overhandling of the evidence, not changing gloves, etc.) is documented on the videos of the collection of evidence.

 

[platonov]

For the same reasons she's been imprisoned for three years and is still considered a 'flight risk.'

That makes little sense - you should have stuck with the movie idea.

ETA You think she will be willing [even if the Italians allow it] to transfer back as the GOVT will let her out.

.

 

[Alt+F4]

For the same reasons she's been imprisoned for three years and is still considered a 'flight risk.'

This makes no sense. She has been convicted and if her convictions stand up on appeal she will remain in prison. She will not return to the U.S. and she won't be free.

 

[Antony]

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.

Where does your information come from as to who released the video, and who removed the audio?

 

[tsig]

Hold the phones (& the front page).

Is this new - have sneezing, dandruff, bra sharing, door handles, flying DNA, borrowed pillows etc been supplanted.

.

No, it could have been any one of them so let's do this mathematically. If we assign a probability of 25% to each one of them then:

25+25+25+25 = 100% probability of contamination.


Turn her loose, Bruce.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

planting versus contamination

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.

Alt+F4,

Consider the following hypothetical situations. A technician forgets to change gloves between handling samples and transfers DNA. A technician deliberately puts biological material on his or her gloves and transfers DNA. How could one tell them apart?

The exact mechanism of contamination is sometimes known, but not always. In a previous comment you are putting a burden on the defense that is unreasonably high. Here is some background reading on contamination.

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/01/forensic-dna-contamination.html

 

[Antony]

No it is not feeble, it is a rock solid as a mountain on the evidence scale. There is no reasonable explaination for Raffaele's DNA, that's all, despite all these evesive ramblings, and that's enough. In all what you complain about there is nothing that can explain the presence of Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp. Nothing that can produce a reasonable doubt. And even if there wes a reasonable doubt, it would be still not enough to reduce a piece of evience to zero. Raffaele's DNA is on the bra clasp, there is no likely or reasonable explanation for it to be there, this is a fact, and will have a weight.

Sorry, this is nonsense. We can see the bra clasp being contaminated right in front of our eyes on the video. You are the one being evasive.

Please explain how the DNA could have come to be on the metal part of the bra clasp during the course of the murder. If you can't do that, then you can't pretend that it's evidence of anything.

 

[platonov]

Lies, Damned lies & Statistics

No, it could have been any one of them so let's do this mathematically. If we assign a probability of 25% to each one of them then:

25+25+25+25 = 100% probability of contamination.


Turn her loose, Bruce.

Did you spot that piece of statistical analysis : the more evidence adduced = the weaker the case.

It was a surprising lapse as the author is a forensic specialist .....but not so good on clocks or windows

.

 

[Alt+F4]

How would Hayden know at that point, having not looked into it? Let's see what she says after she's 'played the role' for a while. I myself assumed she was guilty as well before I looked into it, after all why would she have been convicted if she was not?

I have no idea how much she looked into it, I'm only aware of what she actually said and she's the one getting attention now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJjLTGVmwZg&feature=related

 

[Kaosium]

That makes little sense - you should have stuck with the movie idea.

ETA You think she will be willing [even if the Italians allow it] to transfer back as the GOVT will let her out.

.

This makes no sense. She has been convicted and if her convictions stand up on appeal she will remain in prison. She will not return to the U.S. and she won't be free.

I disagree. There's no reason to think she's a 'flight risk' if they think she'd be sent right back by the US.

 

[Alt+F4]

Sorry, this is nonsense. We can see the bra clasp being contaminated right in front of our eyes on the video. You are the one being evasive.

You must have Superman type vision to actually be able to see DNA with your naked eyes.

Please explain how the DNA could have come to be on the metal part of the bra clasp during the course of the murder. If you can't do that, then you can't pretend that it's evidence of anything.

Not during the course of the murder, the aftermath of the murder.

 

[Kaosium]

I have no idea how much she looked into it, I'm only aware of what she actually said and she's the one getting attention now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJjLTGVmwZg&feature=related

We shall see, I will give it time.

 

[Alt+F4]

I disagree. There's no reason to think she's a 'flight risk' if they think she'd be sent right back by the US.

There is no way in hell Amanda or her family want her sent back to the U.S. She would end up in federal prison which is much worse then where she presently is.