Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[ElsieEthrington]

Bra Clasp Detials?

Forgive my unfamiliarity with the details of the prosecution’s evidence, but I’d like to know exactly what they mean when they say that RS’s DNA was found on MK’s “bra clasp”.

I hope the non-sewers among you can understand my jargon below, which I will enclose in quotes for better understanding.

If one orients the insides of a bra’s cups to one’s own chest, the “bra clasp” is a two-part item, consisting of the “hooks” located on the right hand end of the garment, and the sets of “eyes” on the end held by the left hand.

A bra is traditionally fastened by having the right hand actively place the hooks in the eyes being passively held by the left.

Unfastening is also a right handed activity when done by the wearer, but a left handed activity when performed by a partner, much to many a novice’s consternation .

I understand that the “clasp” with the DNA was a fragment of the bra due to the tearing or cutting of bra's back. Was the fragment the hook end, or the eye end, or an intact, fastened “bra back”?

Was RS’s DNA found on the fabric of the bra, on metal parts, or on both fabric and metal? If metal, was it “hook” or “eye”?

TIA if you can help out on this.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Ah yes, sorry, 227mm. (I'm tired). About the length of the print, I played around with the 29.8mm measurement in Photoshop, and when I added it to the 189mm measurement it came to just beyond where I'd measure the big toe to (where the toe appears to curve round, rather than the narrower extended part of it, which looks to me like a smudge). So for me the print looked like less than 220mm (erm, quickly re-checks calculation in view of tiredness ), but perhaps we were just measuring to different points.

Very good point about the blur of the photo.

I'm still very puzzled too about how reducing the height of the tile can somehow increase the size of the footprint, and by nearly 2cm at that. It makes no sense...

I remembered there was some blur in that photo, but I just measured it for the first time. It shocked me that it is much more significant then I thought. 1,5 cm - 2 cm more could change a lot.
It is shocking Rinaldi didn't consider it at all, too.

 

[Machiavelli]

So there is nothing more then in the translation. Massei's absurd assumption that Vinci based his work on Rinaldi's findings is really there.
(..)

I think you twist a bit the words. The report says "come se fossero attuali e immodificati i dati della precedente relazione".

It does not write the work of Vinci is based on the findings of Rinaldi.
It says, Vinci did something (described, objected, deduced, we don't know what) in his testimony, as if the data from the previous Rinaldi's report were the current ones in discussion, and as if they had not been modified meanwhile.

 

[LondonJohn]

No I claimed this issue was dealt with during the trial and your post was completely wrong on this point - this argument you have not responded to.

So we shall take it you have no rebuttal, but dont want to admit the error or accept the correction.



But to the point iself ............



....................

Thank you for finally providing a cite - though why you messed around about providing it is bemusing. Buy maybe you could now point me towards my "error" - where did I ever say that Knox hadn't said those things? i just wanted evidence to back up what you'd said.

And it doesn't detract one bit from what I said in my original post on the matter: Knox couldn't possibly know whether Lumumba had been involved in the crime or not if she herself had a) not been involved, and b) not know of Lumumba's whereabouts over the period during which the crime was committed. She was in no position to say that he was unequivocally innocent. And her evidence makes it perfectly clear that she was deeply mistrustful of the police by this stage, so it's entirely reasonable for her to have assumed that if the only thing keeping the police interested in Lumumba had been her accusation of him, that she could recant everything (the accusation, plus her confession of meeting with Lumumba and being in the house at the time of the murder) in a subsequent court appearance if necessary.

 

[Mary_H]

You made an assertion, that most knife murderers dispose of the murder weapon, in defense of a position you were espousing.

It is not pedantry to question that assertion.

You offered the suggestion that this is some sort of common knowledge. It is not common to me, so I asked if you had some support for such a claim.

This is not pedantry.

If you are choosing, now, to rephrase your position to, "I (Mary_H) believe that most knife murderers dispose of their weapon." then I would have to ask,

"Why do you believe that?"

I am quite honestly curious. I have no idea if there is even any data accumulated on the subject, but nothing in my informal knowledge of the subject of violent crimes has given me any reason to suspect it to be the case.

I thought perhaps you might actually be in possession of some support for your assertion.

That is not pedantry. It is curiosity.

If this subject matter is of interest to you, quadraginta, the Internet should have the statistics you seek. Research would probably lead you to some colorful pictures of JA Henckels, Sabatier and Spyderco knives, too.

My life experience tells me that most knife murderers dispose of their weapons after using them to commit murder. To humor you, I asked three men I know and they also believe most knife murderers dispose of their weapons after using them to commit murder. Two of them said, "Oh yeah, you gotta get rid of it," and two of them said, "You throw it in the river."

Why would someone who used a knife to kill someone keep that knife on their person or in their home where it could be found by authorities?

 

[Mary_H]

Was RS’s DNA found on the fabric of the bra, on metal parts, or on both fabric and metal? If metal, was it “hook” or “eye”?

TIA if you can help out on this.

On the metal hook.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

Did you see Raffaele's DNA in the video?
Did you see it on gloves? Or did you see gloves touching substances containing Raffaele's DNA?
You didn't see anything like that. And the only thing that requires to be explained is why a DNA profile of Raffaele is on the item. If you don't have any reasonable innocent explanation, this is evidence.
DNA cannot be on metal objects?

 

[platonov]

Thank you for finally providing a cite - though why you messed around about providing it is bemusing. Buy maybe you could now point me towards my "error" - where did I ever say that Knox hadn't said those things? i just wanted evidence to back up what you'd said.

And it doesn't detract one bit from what I said in my original post on the matter: Knox couldn't possibly know whether Lumumba had been involved in the crime or not if she herself had a) not been involved, and b) not know of Lumumba's whereabouts over the period during which the crime was committed. She was in no position to say that he was unequivocally innocent. And her evidence makes it perfectly clear that she was deeply mistrustful of the police by this stage, so it's entirely reasonable for her to have assumed that if the only thing keeping the police interested in Lumumba had been her accusation of him, that she could recant everything (the accusation, plus her confession of meeting with Lumumba and being in the house at the time of the murder) in a subsequent court appearance if necessary.

Thats funny.
You are admitting to not being familiar with the most basic parts of the case and AK's own words in court even after posting tens of thousands of words on this thread or else .......... what ?

This is completely false and directly contradicted by what I have just posted of AK's direct testimony.

Have I to keep posting it ?

ETA Although assuming your logic in a) is correct - she has just admitted to being guilty by her statements in court.
Congrats, you are now a 'guilter'

.

 

[Kaosium]

No I firstly claimed this issue was dealt with during the trial and your post was completely wrong on this point - this argument you have not responded to.

AK: Well, it's true that after several days in prison, I did come to realize that what I had imagined was nothing but imagination, not a confusion of reality. So I realized that he wasn't guilty of these things, and I felt really really bad that he had been arrested.
<...>
AK: Well, yes. I knew he was in prison uniquely because of my words. At first I didn't know this. I thought the police somehow knew whether he was guilty or not. Since I didn't know, I was confused. But in the following days I realized that he was in prison only because of what I had said, and I felt guilty.

You know, it's telling the girl barely out of her teens feels responsible for something outside her power, yet the more mature people occupying positions of trust in Perugia hide behind her skirts.

Now, if on the tenth the police already know Amanda doesn't think that was real, and they know she told her mother that Patrick was innocent, and numerous people have already stepped forward to proffer an alibi for Patrick, why did it take until the twenty-something for the police to release Patrick?

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

To transfer biologic matter from an individual, moving it to a location A to another location B you must have this biologic matter (and you must have a location A, a source that you handled during the process of collecting).
There is no evidence of this source, nor clue of this source in the apartment which the operators should have touched in the process, and no indication this handling of any external source A occurred.
There not even any evidence nor indication that biological matter from Raffaele could be available there nearby for the forensics to transfer it.

 

[Mary_H]

No I firstly claimed this issue was dealt with during the trial and your post was completely wrong on this point - this argument you have not responded to.

So we shall take it you have no rebuttal, but dont want to admit the error or accept the correction.

But to the main point iself ............

Quote:
CP: Okay, let's talk about your conversation on November 10 with your mother.
AK: Yes.
CP: Did you ever tell your mother, in English, that you felt horrible because Patrick was in prison because of your fault?
AK: Yes, so many times.
CP: Did you say it on November 10?
AK: I don't remember the dates, but I talked about it with my mother, yes.
CP: So if you were perfectly aware that Patrick was in prison by your fault, that he was innocent, why didn't you tell the penitentiary police?
AK: Well, it's true that after several days in prison, I did come to realize that what I had imagined was nothing but imagination, not a confusion of reality. So I realized that he wasn't guilty of these things, and I felt really really bad that he had been arrested.
CP: Why didn't you tell the penitentiary police?

At this stage LG interrupts
....................

Quote:
GCM: Excuse me, avvocato. To just return to this question. The defense is expressing his perplexity and we also feel it. You are saying: "I didn't know if Patrick was innocent or not." This is on the 6th and the 7th. But on the 10th, you essentially say that he's innocent. So what the defense lawyer is asking is, what happened in between to make you change your mind?To change your conviction about the role of Patrick? It's this.

AK: Well, yes. I knew he was in prison uniquely because of my words. At first I didn't know this. I thought the police somehow knew whether he was guilty or not. Since I didn't know, I was confused. But in the following days I realized that he was in prison only because of what I had said, and I felt guilty.

Well, at least now I understand what you meant by your claim that we are more skeptical of Amanda than the police were.

There are two major points to consider. First, this citation (which I greatly appreciate, by the way) does not represent the essential thrust of Amanda's testimony. The whole truth, which includes all court testimony along with the statements made on the day of her arrest, is that she tried many times before the conversation with her mother to let the police know that she doubted her testimony against Patrick. Once she had accused Patrick, the police stopped listening (as if they were ever listening).

The second point is that Amanda was mistaken during this testimony -- Patrick was not in prison as a result of her words and it was not her fault in any way. Also, there was no way she could ever know for sure whether Patrick was guilty or innocent of the crime, so saying she knew he was innocent (if she actually ever did that) was mistaken thinking.

In this testimony, Amanda is expressing the self-blame that is common to victims of crime, abuse and depression.

 

[Mary_H]

Did you see Raffaele's DNA in the video?
Did you see it on gloves? Or did you see gloves touching substances containing Raffaele's DNA?
You didn't see anything like that. And the only thing that requires to be explained is why a DNA profile of Raffaele is on the item. If you don't have any reasonable innocent explanation, this is evidence.
DNA cannot be on metal objects?

Stefanoni is the one who implied you have to be able to see a substance containing DNA in order to detect it. That's why she claimed to have found Meredith's DNA in a tiny notch or depression of the knife -- because the flat blade itself had no visible substances on it.

 

[Kaosium]

Thats funny.

This is completely false and directly contradicted by what I have just posted of AK's direct testimony.

Have I to keep posting it ?

ETA Although assuming your logic in a) is correct - she has just admitted to being guilty by her statements in court.
Congrats, you are now a 'guilter'

.

Do you see your logical error here?

Amanda is not infallible, in fact we know she got played by the Perugian police once, and obviously here she has been again.

Now why would the Perugian police, who obviously considered Amanda guilty but won't admit to it, have released Patrick on Amanda's word?

That would mean accepting that the 'repressed memories' were not real, right? They can't do that at this point, can they?

 

[platonov]

Well, at least now I understand what you meant by your claim that we are more skeptical of Amanda than the police were.

There are two major points to consider. First, this citation (which I greatly appreciate, by the way) does not represent the essential thrust of Amanda's testimony. The whole truth, which includes all court testimony along with the statements made on the day of her arrest, is that she tried many times before the conversation with her mother to let the police know that she doubted her testimony against Patrick. Once she had accused Patrick, the police stopped listening (as if they were ever listening).

The second point is that Amanda was mistaken during this testimony -- Patrick was not in prison as a result of her words and it was not her fault in any way. Also, there was no way she could ever know for sure whether Patrick was guilty or innocent of the crime, so saying she knew he was innocent (if she actually ever did that) was mistaken thinking.

In this testimony, Amanda is expressing the self-blame that is common to victims of crime, abuse and depression.

Very good Mary H

If only you were in court to explain what AK really means - but, as I keep pointing out, in the real world courts, cops etc want to hear directly from the witness. Your translations or interpretations are neither required nor admitted.

Is this what 'post feminism' means - are (young) women not allowed to speak for themselves any more. Must they be chaperoned and spoken for at all times.

How can you tell - by your own admission her testimony is unknown to you ?

.

 

[Mary_H]

Very good Mary H.

If only you were in court to explain what AK really means - but, as I keep pointing out, in the real world courts, cops etc want to hear directly from the witness - your translations or interpretations are neither required nor admitted.

Is this what 'post feminism' means - are women not allowed to speak for themselves any more. Must they be chaperoned and spoken for at all times.

.

Surely you are not suggesting that your incomplete, out-of-context excerpts of Amanda's trial testimony allow her to speak for herself?

 

[Katody Matrass]

I think you twist a bit the words. The report says "come se fossero attuali e immodificati i dati della precedente relazione".

It does not write the work of Vinci is based on the findings of Rinaldi.
It says, Vinci did something (described, objected, deduced, we don't know what) in his testimony, as if the data from the previous Rinaldi's report were the current ones in discussion, and as if they had not been modified meanwhile.

You omitted the verb "conclude" this time, why?

​

Si tratta del momento in cui il Prof. Vinci conclude come se fossero attuali e immodificati i dati della precedente relazione.

There is an implied connection between what Vinci concluded and whether Rinaldi made errors in his report or not. It is absurd because Vinci's work is not based on Rinaldi's numerous attempts. No matter how many errors Rinaldi made it is not a reasonable ground to dismiss Vinci's findings. It would be complete nonsense. Thats all and that's what the appeal says.

As for the perspective correction. It is clear that Rinaldi had to do it twice, because both the picture he used to measure the tile and the luminol photo are slanted.

Since Vinci had correct tile sizes, he had to do perspective correction on the luminol photo, which is clearly taken from angle. He performed it using Image-Pro Plus software. It is obvious that his methodology was not questioned by the prosecution - Massei wouldn't miss a chance to describe such an event in detail. Instead he chose to write a vague nonsensical paragraph from which you deduced your opinion.

 

[platonov]

Do you see your logical error here?

Amanda is not infallible, in fact we know she got played by the Perugian police once, and obviously here she has been again.

Now why would the Perugian police, who obviously considered Amanda guilty but won't admit to it, have released Patrick on Amanda's word?

That would mean accepting that the 'repressed memories' were not real, right? They can't do that at this point, can they?

You are pointing out logical errors to me

You seem to have misinterpreted the point of this exchange & the timing of the court testimony [18 mths after PL was released]

.

 

[Kaosium]

Very good Mary H

If only you were in court to explain what AK really means - but, as I keep pointing out, in the real world courts, cops etc want to hear directly from the witness. Your translations or interpretations are neither required nor admitted.

Is this what 'post feminism' means - are (young) women not allowed to speak for themselves any more. Must they be chaperoned and spoken for at all times.

How can you tell - by your own admission her testimony is unknown to you ?

.

Platonov, when are you going to realize that the collateral damage of scoring this point was to admit the cops lied about it and even got Amanda to believe it?

Now, let's go back to the interrogation...

 

[platonov]

Surely you are not suggesting that your incomplete, out-of-context excerpts of Amanda's trial testimony allow her to speak for herself?

I am suggesting, among other things, you read the last line [a later edit] of that post.

How can you tell - by your own admission her testimony is unknown to you ?


.

 

[Kaosium]

You are pointing out logical errors to me

You seem to have misinterpreted the point of this exchange & the timing of the court testimony [18 mths after PL was released]

.

Not exactly, I saw the minefield you were walking into and tried to warn you actually.

I 'get' that Amanda blames herself, even a year and a half later, I think that speaks well of her actually. I also think the fact the Perugian police would "rather lose the war than admit to the mistake" speaks especially poorly of them.


Now that you've just firebombed the Perugian police station, start picking up the body parts you've strewn about.