Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

Mary H

Stop already

You start with the wrong premise, p, which is no doubt what LJ is getting at by asking you for a citation.

2 Amanda did not tell her mother Patrick was innocent.

And Kaosium is right. Nobody cared what Amanda OR her mother would have to say about Patrick at that time.

4 If they had, all they would have to do was listen to the taped conversation.

Do you even see that your 2nd and 4th 'lines' here contradict each other.

.

Okay, I think I am getting a sense of the gulf that is separating us. You may be interpreting Amanda's position much more loosely than LJ, Kaosium, halides1 and I are.

When Amanda told her mother that she shouldn't have accused Patrick of being at the scene of the crime because Amanda herself wasn't at the scene of the crime, we don't interpret that as Amanda telling her mother that Patrick was innocent.

Do you?

When I say that if the police cared about what Amanda was saying to her mother, they could have listened to the tape, I don't mean that if they listened to the tape, they would have heard Amanda tell her mother Patrick was innocent. I mean that if they listened to the tape, they would have heard Amanda tell her mother that she shouldn't have accused Patrick of being at the scene of the crime because Amanda herself wasn't at the scene of the crime.

In either case, the outcome of the police's actions ideally would have been the same -- they would have questioned their arrest of Patrick. However, to say that Amanda "knew" Patrick was innocent casts unfounded, unearned suspicion on Amanda.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

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.

What you have posted above is nonsense. You would know that if you understood the subject on which you are expounding.

 

[platonov]

Your premise is flawed. For one thing just because something is 'dealt with' to your satisfaction, it doesn't make it 'true.' There's lots of bad arguments back in this thread, some which went unnoticed and uncontested, but that doesn't mean any consensus was reached. The past is just prologue, and I do believe we are just at the end of the beginning understanding this affair.
One prime example is the absurdity that Amanda was not a 'suspect,' serious or not. If you are wiretapping someone, send at least a dozen cops in to work her over, and try to get her to admit through 'repressed memories' that she was at a murder scene, then she is obviously a suspect! They arrested her for this. Trying to pretend she was actually a 'witness' and taping was not required under the above conditions is the sort of ludicrous 'explanation' you would get from an institution definitely trying to hide something.

Once upon a time there was a man who had some tapes he didn't want heard. They beat down his door with lawyers and got the tapes--but there was an eighteen minute gap in the endless hours of taping. The man's secretary claimed she accidentally taped over that part while answering a phone call or something. It could be said that no one in the world believed that excuse, but that would be at least a tiny exaggeration. It's been speculated that missing eighteen minutes might have helped force out one of the most powerful men in the world at the time.

Here you have a police force trying to pretend they didn't tape an entire interrogation under the above conditions when the subject spoke Italian poorly and they were trying to get her to confess to a crime. At least three charges against her stem from this 'witness' interrogation, including one that might carry a life sentence, and you apparently think this has been 'dealt with' because they said something that cannot be true in a rational universe?

Platonov, what do you honestly believe happened in that room and why do you think there's no tape available?

On this I think you are overreaching - you are not quite there yet.

I should have capitalized Suspect* perhaps - but the point stands, once AK names PL and puts herself at the scene she is no longer merely suspected nor just an actual [by law] Suspect but now a serious Suspect (in fact once RS dropped the alibi she probably wasn't going home that night).

*You need to look into the difference in Italian law - its covered earlier in the thread and its not complicated.

On your tape anecdote I'm with HST - if you want to dig him up and give him another kicking, feel free but it wont serve any use at this stage.

.

 

[platonov]

Lines from a cornfield ?

Originally Posted by platonov

Mary H

Stop already
<snip>

Okay, I think I am getting a sense of the gulf that is separating us. You may be interpreting Amanda's position much more loosely than LJ, Kaosium, halides1 and I are.

When Amanda told her mother that she shouldn't have accused Patrick of being at the scene of the crime because Amanda herself wasn't at the scene of the crime, we don't interpret that as Amanda telling her mother that Patrick was innocent.

Do you?

When I say that if the police cared about what Amanda was saying to her mother, they could have listened to the tape, I don't mean that if they listened to the tape, they would have heard Amanda tell her mother Patrick was innocent. I mean that if they listened to the tape, they would have heard Amanda tell her mother that she shouldn't have accused Patrick of being at the scene of the crime because Amanda herself wasn't at the scene of the crime.

In either case, the outcome of the police's actions ideally would have been the same -- they would have questioned their arrest of Patrick. However, to say that Amanda "knew" Patrick was innocent casts unfounded, unearned suspicion on Amanda.

I'm tempted to reinforce my earlier response with a Joe Pesci "Didnt I just ..." quote but the mods would probably give me a holiday

.

 

[Mary_H]

I'm tempted to reinforce my earlier response with a Joe Pesci "Didnt I just ..." quote but the mods would probably give me a holiday

.

"Stop already" was followed by "Haven't you another issue to resolve before speaking for halides1?" Make up your mind. Why would you want this conversation to stop?

 

[Draca]

Amanda's lamp on desk

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

Here's a photo of the lamp. It's the taller one.

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=21&image_id=1677

 

[platonov]

"Stop already" was followed by "Haven't you another issue to resolve before speaking for halides1?" Make up your mind. Why would you want this conversation to stop?

Coz I've run out of eyes and rusty spoons.

.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

If you were to assert that the video provides evidence of circumstances where contamination might have occurred I'd stand behind you all the way. Thanks to Halides1 we can be assured that such circumstances always exist, though, so this is not particularly useful information.

Your formulation - "evidence of circumstances where contamination might have occurred" - is entirely fair.

It may be true that contamination is always possible in dealing with biological residues, but certain guidelines for handling evidence reduce the likelihood of contamination. These guidelines were not followed in the case of the bra fastener. We will never know whether the DNA test results would have been different had they picked the clasp up with a clean tweezers and dropped it into a clean bag on Nov. 3, 2007.

 

[Kaosium]

On this I think you are overreaching - you are not quite there yet.

I should have capitalized Suspect* perhaps - but the point stands, once AK names PL and puts herself at the scene she is no longer merely suspected nor just an actual [by law] Suspect but now a serious Suspect (in fact once RS dropped the alibi she probably wasn't going home that night).

*You need to look into the difference in Italian law - its covered earlier in the thread and its not complicated.

I was careless with my use of the term. She was a suspect from the moment she entered that room, with the definite intention of upgrading her to a legal Suspect as soon as they wore her down. They taped that whole interrogation to ensure they'd get any confession that might be forthcoming. They placed her at that scene--they intended to all along--and they damn well wanted proof she 'admitted' to being there. When they say they didn't tape it, they're lying. Capital 'L' lying, with deliberation and forethought.

Note, I don't think they did this for sinister reasons, and that's in part why I don't believe for a moment they 'forgot' to tape it. Under those conditions, that would be sinister. They did it because they thought she was guilty, they wanted to break her and get a real confession and truly solve this crime, that's their job.

However they blew it, and I don't know what it was, maybe the language difficulty caused them to misunderstand and they jumped the gun. Perhaps they were trying so hard to get what they wanted they overlooked the fact she wasn't confessing to anything; she was just freaking out as she no longer knew what was real because she truly believed what she was being told and had been convinced her own memories couldn't be trusted. Who knows, something made them decide that tape could never be shown, and it wasn't because they whupped her upside the head a couple times.

On your tape anecdote I'm with HST - if you want to dig him up and give him another kicking, feel free but it wont serve any use at this stage.
.

How about a little fear and loathing of the sort of corrupt institution that would tell you something as absurd as they didn't tape that session because they 'forgot?' It's been kind of a blank check for them, hasn't it? Remember your timeline, it's November 6th, 2007 and they 'solve' the crime and announce it as such, before they even have the results of the forensics:

Not one of the three people they arrested on the basis of this interrogation session would fit the actual evidence.

They pretend there is no tape of that interrogation session.

That isn't a coincidence.

I don't think until you realize the ramifications of that you'll even get to the end of the beginning.

Or hey, just give me a rational explanation for why that interrogation session tape doesn't exist. At least 12 cops, some from Rome. An all-nighter planned. A girl who speaks Italian poorly. Two people in separate rooms.

They were going for broke, they didn't 'forget' to turn on the cameras.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

PCR amplifies DNA more than a million fold

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.

Machiaveli,

Raffaele cooked at the cottage, and it is very plausible that his DNA was on a handtowel, for instance. Other commenters have mentioned Meredith's door. In addition, there is no reason to exclude the possibility of contamination in the laboratory. After the polymerase chain reaction step, the DNA is far higher in concentration than it was before. Finally, if one does not exclude evidence for which the handling technique was demonstrably bad, the forensic police have no incentive to do the job correctly.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

six loci were disputed

excuse me cutting down your full comment,

but would you share when/where you think all these people left the DNA on the bra clasp?

and has the prosecution/forensic expert accepted there are other DNA to "unidentified people" on the bra clasp?

6 loci don't match?

JREF2010,

Dr. Tagliabracci disputed Dr. Stefanoni's interpretation at six of the loci. I have commented on this extensively a few months ago.

 

[Dan O.]

Going for a moment with the thought that the interrogation sessions were recorded:

These things are not done by the interrogating officer setting up a camera in the room. The room is already wired with both hidden and visible cameras that feed to a technicians booth where the actual recordings are made. There is at least 1 low level technician that knows a recording was made and would know if his superiors were claiming that no such recording exists. If the superior already picked up the tape, does anyone expect that technician would come forward to reveal that a recording was made?

One thing that should exist is a log book that lists every recording that is started. This would be kept primarily to help keep track of the tapes and for trouble shooting such as identifying which equipment was used when a recording is found to be bad. The log book would also prevent such abuse of power as claiming that a tape doesn't exist when an interview goes bad. For this reason, such logs should be mandated and the failure to keep such logs should be considered a premeditated intent to cover up a future recording.

Do we know if ILE keeps a contemporaneous log of recording sessions?

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)

Now as for your assumption that there is no way to explain how else Sollecito's DNA could be on there. Could that not be said about the other 3 unidentified peoples DNA thats on the clasp. Or are you gonna deny there is someone elses unidentified DNA on the clasp. Which then make that profile not Sollecito's.

THERE
ARE
NO
"3 unidentified people"

There is only an opinion of an expert on loci that could be from someone who is not Sollecito. This is normal, and means nothing.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiaveli,

Raffaele cooked at the cottage, and it is very plausible that his DNA was on a handtowel, for instance. Other commenters have mentioned Meredith's door. In addition, there is no reason to exclude the possibility of contamination in the laboratory. After the polymerase chain reaction step, the DNA is far higher in concentration than it was before. Finally, if one does not exclude evidence for which the handling technique was demonstrably bad, the forensic police have no incentive to do the job correctly.

Raffaele never cooked at the cottage as far as we know, and no DNA from him was found in the cottage kitchen. And there is no reason to assume his DNA travelled from a handtowel outside the room on to the bra clasp (hand towels were collected weeks earlier, while the bra clasp was under the pillow).
There is no reason to exclude the tne possibility of contamination in laboratory in general, but ths is valid for any test, and this was a valid, repeated test: there is no reason to consider lab contamination reasonably likely. And I need a reasonably likely occurrence in order to consider the validity of the piece of evidence affected , not just a theoretically possible event.
The incentive on forensics is the actual position that you propose. But this is nothing more than a doctrine, unaccpetable in Roman Law, an inquisitorial system based on magistrates, chain of judges, investigation files and civil trials. A judge decision cannot be aimed to incentive performance of state officers, must only be focused in searching the truth independently from obstacles put by incidents or others' mistakes. Behaviours by the state or by agencies of other people, cannot condition the power of a court of law. The doctrine focused on using judgement powers in order to set a standard for authorities, other parties and parts of the state, is illegal, unconstitutional, utterly unacceptable.

 

[Withnail1969]

Raffaele never cooked at the cottage as far as we know, and no DNA from him was found in the cottage kitchen.

Surely this is wrong. Raffaelle cooked at the cottage on Nov 1st, and his DNA was found on cigarette butts in the kitchen.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

pasta, but I don't know what kind of sauce

Raffaele never cooked at the cottage as far as we know, and no DNA from him was found in the cottage kitchen. And there is no reason to assume his DNA travelled from a handtowel outside the room on to the bra clasp (hand towels were collected weeks earlier, while the bra clasp was under the pillow).
There is no reason to exclude the tne possibility of contamination in laboratory in general, but ths is valid for any test, and this was a valid, repeated test: there is no reason to consider lab contamination reasonably likely. And I need a reasonably likely occurrence in order to consider the validity of the piece of evidence affected , not just a theoretically possible event.

Machiavelli,

Raffaele cooked pasta on the afternoon of 1 November at the cottage. Katy_did proposed how the DNA might transfer from the towels to the clasp on the night of the murder. This might have been on the previous thread.

I am not sure what you mean by repeated test. The bra clasp DNA test was not repeated, but Dr. Tagliabracci said that it should have been, because the profile attributed to Raffaele was in the LCN range.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

Raffaele cooked pasta on the afternoon of 1 November at the cottage. Katy_did proposed how the DNA might transfer from the towels to the clasp on the night of the murder. This might have been on the previous thread.

I am not sure what you mean by repeated test. The bra clasp DNA test was not repeated, but Dr. Tagliabracci said that it should have been, because the profile attributed to Raffaele was in the LCN range.

So your theory is: Raffaele left a DNA trace on a towel, a towel was used on Mederith and this towel transferred Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp (meanwhile this had been cut and fell was covered by the pillow btw).

I don't know what Katy_did proposed but I don't see any reasonable theory for such a transfer.
I note 1) this theory would rule out forensic contamination; 2) Sollecito's defence didn't propose this theory, and didn't request further DNA tests on the towels; 3) a relation between the towel and the metal hooks of the bra clasp would be obviously weak: for a towel to carry and then deposit one DNA trace right on that point is simply an unlikely dynamic and a remote hypothesiys.
There were many dozens of skin cells dried, presed and adhering to the metal surface. Describe this finding in a realistic dynamic. The obvious and almost the only explanation is somebody touched the item.

 

[Justinian2]

Seriously? Is Knox not a convicted killer? Isn't Mignini convicted also. Regardless of how much you believe in Knox's innocence, at some point you have the except the fact that she is a convicted killer untill she proves her innocence. How many people have the innocence project eventually proven where innocent for crimes they where convicted of such as rape and murder. Yet up until the point where they where finally proven innocent they where still a convicted rapist or murderer.

Is Knox not a convicted killer? NO!

Knox is convicted, but not a proven killer beyond ANY DOUBT.

It is a fact that Knox is convicted of some complicity in the death of Knox.

It is NOT a fact that Knox is a killer. The prosecution has NOT proved that Knox is a killer to ANY above zero probability, let alone BEYOND ANY doubt.

If a newspaber states in a headline that Knox is a killer, then they have to do be sure of guilt BEYOND ANY doubt in order to be completely accurate and absolutely free of libel.

To extrapolate my argument: If any of the Knox family has any stress related death, then the guilters would be more guilty of being accomplices to that death than Amanda is guilty of any complicity in the death of MK.

 

[TomCH]

Is Knox not a convicted killer? NO!

Wrong.

She is convicted of murder, that makes her by definition a killer.

 

[Withnail1969]

Wrong.

She is convicted of murder, that makes her by definition a killer.

Wrong. She isn't officially guilty until her final appeal fails.