Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

unimpeachable alibis

Halides, I knew you would bring that up, especially when I posted about police and prosecutors usually not railroading rich well-connected people, and it's a fair point you make. However, if I'm not mistaken, they were not found guilty by a judge or jury. In this case, that is another factor that you would have to convince me of, that the judge and jury are naive or corrupt enough themselves to be led by these corrupt prosecutors and cops.

I have heard the argument that they are technically not guilty yet, but still, they were found guilty in some sense, although not finalized, and they are still in prison after three years.

Solange,

The case never came to trial. The case was reinvestigated by the office of the state's attorney general. The attorney general declared the three players to be innocent. One major difference with the present case is that two of the three young men (Seligman and Finnerty) were able to establish unimpeachable alibis for the time in question. If this were not so and the case had gone to a jury, I cannot be certain what would have happened.

Yet there are still a small number of people out there who believe that Nifong is an honest guy who was treated unfairly. A greater number (I suspect on the basis of my experience) believe that "something happened in that bathroom." I bring this up to point out that Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito would have much to cope with, even if they were released tomorrow.

The general answer to your final comment is that we know from experience that false convictions do occur and that it often takes years and sometimes decades for the cases to be resolved correctly.

 

[Solange305]

How exactly did professional witness Curatolo come to be lying or mistaken?

Well, according to some posters here, it's perfectly normal for witnesses to get mixed up on details. For example, Curatolo being mistaken about buses being there that night means he is lying about everything, but Raffaele and Amanda having conflicting accounts about Filomena's door is ok because witnesses are often honestly mistaken about such details. That is one of the examples of special pleading Ive seen here. Im not saying every argument towards innocence is special pleading, it's not. But it is thrown in here and there, and maybe both sides are guilty of it, I think we should all try do less of it.

 

[shuttlt]

Let's not forget what else makes the knife dna evidence more powerful: Raffaele lying in his prison diary to explain Meredith's dna. I don't think it's 100 percent proof of anything, but its another layer of suspicion that does not look good.

Not even close to 100% proof, but as you say, stupid and bad PR.

 

[quadraginta]

Funny, I'm sure this one has been asked and answered several times.

The evidence against Rudy was found before he was identified as a suspect, there's plenty of it putting him right in the murder room, and so far as I am aware no serious doubt has been cast on any of it.

It would be a very good trick to draw Rudy's fingerprint on the wall in Meredith's blood, or for that matter to insert his DNA in her vagina before he was caught, and based on their incompetence at everything else somehow I don't think the Perugia police possess superhuman skills in those areas.

<snip>

But ... but ...but ...

All the witnesses to all of these things are the selfsame conspirators who teamed up to railroad Knox and Sollecito. Why is their reputation suddenly so sterling when it is useful to support what you want it to?

You have no one's word but theirs that there was a fingerprint found at all.

Between the autonomous DNA zooming around the apartment, the bumbling investigators smearing every conceivable surface against every other conceivable surface, and the subservient lab minions working at Mignini's diabolical command they could have found anyone's DNA they wanted to anywhere they wanted to, and announced it whenever they felt like it.


At least, that's the impression I've gotten.

 

[Withnail1969]

Let's not forget what else makes the knife dna evidence more powerful: Raffaele lying in his prison diary to explain Meredith's dna. I don't think it's 100 percent proof of anything, but its another layer of suspicion that does not look good.

Nothing makes it 'powerful'. No blood was detected on the knife - How on Earth do you get DNA without blood on the alleged murder weapon of a stabbing victim? Why did the killers transport the knife back to Raffaeles? How did the alleged DNA survive the alleged bleaching? I hardly think the killers would have just given it a quick wipe then popped it back in the drawer.

If I were them, I would have disposed of the knife and say I broke it opening a can or something, and that's what they would have done in the bizarrely unlikely scenario that the knife was the murder weapon.

 

[Withnail1969]

Well, according to some posters here, it's perfectly normal for witnesses to get mixed up on details. For example, Curatolo being mistaken about buses being there that night means he is lying about everything, but Raffaele and Amanda having conflicting accounts about Filomena's door is ok because witnesses are often honestly mistaken about such details.

Has it occurred to anyone that with a broken window in Filomena's room, a breeze could have easily caused Filomena's room door to swing open while Amanda was back at Raffaele's?

 

[Solange305]

Nothing makes it 'powerful'. No blood was detected on the knife - How on Earth do you get DNA without blood on the alleged murder weapon of a stabbing victim? Why did the killers transport the knife back to Raffaeles? How did the alleged DNA survive the alleged bleaching? I hardly think the killers would have just given it a quick wipe then popped it back in the drawer.

If I were them, I would have disposed of the knife and say I broke it opening a can or something, and that's what they would have done in the bizarrely unlikely scenario that the knife was the murder weapon.

You're doing a lot of assuming there. If they cleaned it and assumed they cleaned it well, would it not be smarter to put it back, since it belongs to the landlord and she would tell the cops a knife is missing? I don't think they are master criminals, and I think it's pointless to think in retrospect what you would have done, and assumed that in the heat of the moment they would have done the same.

Shutit, Im surprised a bit at what you said. You think it's just stupid and bad PR? Like I said, I don;t think its 100 percent proof of guilt, but I think it's a bit more serious that you seem to think it is. Maybe it's just me, but it seems really suspicious.

 

[Withnail1969]

You're doing a lot of assuming there. If they cleaned it and assumed they cleaned it well, would it not be smarter to put it back, since it belongs to the landlord and she would tell the cops a knife is missing? I don't think they are master criminals, and I think it's pointless to think in retrospect what you would have done, and assumed that in the heat of the moment they would have done the same.
.

No organic trace will survive a thorough bleaching. The DNA molecules instantly decompose when the bleach hits them. Stefanoni was just generating white noise on her machine which she cherry picked to vaguely look like Meredith's profile. If and when the electronic logs are released, this will be proven.

 

[shuttlt]

Nothing makes it 'powerful'. No blood was detected on the knife - How on Earth do you get DNA without blood on the alleged murder weapon of a stabbing victim?

Blood contains little in the way of DNA. The idea is that the DNA is from flesh stuck in a crevice in the knife. The limits of detection are different for blood and DNA. Then there is the question of the sensitivity of the tests and the size of the sample for each test. There is no test for "no blood" afterall.

Why did the killers transport the knife back to Raffaeles?

Maybe they were stupid. Maybe they weren't thinking. Maybe they were thinking too much and worried that it would be missed (there was a lot of discussion about it being on the inventory of the apartment at one time). Maybe they thought they could wash it and it would be fine. Maybe they thought they couldn't throw it away with all that DNA on in case it was found and so had to take it somewhere to wash it.

How did the alleged DNA survive the alleged bleaching?

Depends how you bleach it. What was the dilution? Was it submerged, if so, for how long? This has been discussed at length.

I hardly think the killers would have just given it a quick wipe then popped it back in the drawer.

True, but bleach still takes time to destroy the DNA inside the cell.

If I were them, I would have disposed of the knife and say I broke it opening a can or something, and that's what they would have done in the bizarrely unlikely scenario that the knife was the murder weapon.

Personally, I wouldn't have lied about the knife from prison. There are a lot of things that Amanda and Raffaele definitely did that I wouldn't have done. That I wouldn't do it isn't proof that they didn't and that we don't think we would do those things safely sitting in front of our computers isn't proof that, in the most pressured situation of our lives, we wouldn't be just as stupid.

 

[shuttlt]

Has it occurred to anyone that with a broken window in Filomena's room, a breeze could have easily caused Filomena's room door to swing open while Amanda was back at Raffaele's?

Could be. It depends on the door, I guess.

 

[Withnail1969]

Blood contains little in the way of DNA. The idea is that the DNA is from flesh stuck in a crevice in the knife. The limits of detection are different for blood and DNA. Then there is the question of the sensitivity of the tests and the size of the sample for each test. There is no test for "no blood" afterall.

flesh stuck in a crevice of the knife with no trace of blood? Has this ever actually happened before in the history of murders?

True, but bleach still takes time to destroy the DNA inside the cell.

No it doesn't, the effect happens as soon as the bleach hits the DNA. A 10 percent solution of bleach is sufficient to destroy DNA.

 

[shuttlt]

....Lindy Chamberlain...

Charlie,

If it's been pointed out to you and Chris once, it's been pointed out a thousand times. It was realized in all of these cases that the original theory of the murder was wrong (or there was planted evidence or whatever), when it was proved that the original theory of the murder was wrong. When it is proved that Amanda and Raffaele can't have done it, just as in all those cases, it will be proved that an injustice has been done.

What do we do? Release everybody who might be the victim of a miscarriage of justice in case at some time in the future evidence comes along that proves it. All you are doing over and over is proving that miscarriages of justice happen. Nobody has ever disputed it. Why do you keep posting this?

 

[Alt+F4]

But, point by point, the evidence was shown to be flawed. Most people now realize that Lindy Chamberlain did not kill her child.

That's not what happened at all. Chamberlain was exonerated when new evidence was found. She was in prison when the babies missing clothing was found in a dingo lair. It was that smoking gun that proved her innocence.

 

[quadraginta]

No organic trace will survive a thorough bleaching.

What evidence do you have of a "thorough" bleaching?

The DNA molecules instantly decompose when the bleach hits them.

I'd be interested to see Halides1's professional opinion of this assertion.

Stefanoni was just generating white noise on her machine which she cherry picked to vaguely look like Meredith's profile. If and when the electronic logs are released, this will be proven.

This one, too.

 

[JREF2010]

Let's not forget what else makes the knife dna evidence more powerful: Raffaele lying in his prison diary to explain Meredith's dna. I don't think it's 100 percent proof of anything, but its another layer of suspicion that does not look good.

Will the silent Raffaele speak this time?

 

[shuttlt]

flesh stuck in a crevice of the knife with no trace of blood? Has this ever actually happened before in the history of murders?

I don't know. LCN DNA is new(ish) and is used in sufficiently few cases that there would probably be no cases available to us on the internet either way.

No it doesn't, the effect happens as soon as the bleach hits the DNA. A 10 percent solution of bleach is sufficient to destroy DNA.

How quickly? Do the cells have to be one layer of cells thick, or will touching my finger in bleach destroy all the DNA in my body? What strength of bleach did she use, if indeed it was bleach?

 

[Withnail1969]

What evidence do you have of a "thorough" bleaching?

None, because the knife was not the murder weapon and therefore was not bleached. However, in their usual childishly naive fashion, as though speaking to an audience of simpletons, the Perugia police claimed to notice 'a strong smell of bleach' at Raffaele's apartment. As though they wouldn't have just opened a window.

 

[Kaosium]

Some of it is from the court testimony. There are also loads of interviews with her family and supporters talking about the cartwheel and why she did it. Some of it contradicts other versions. It all agrees though that she did some homework, did some kind of exercise and talked to the police in an informal kind of a way in the waiting room.

So the cartwheel was the same day as the interrogation? I got the impression that was previous in the week when she was being interviewed.

Sure, but this is to be expected in any interrogation, no?

Oh, yes. I think you might, but I don't think some people understand just what can happen to a persons state of mind under interrogation. Think of how upset you've seen people get just by being insulted over the internet, what mere words on a computer screen can do, and how 'threats' are received in the ether. Then it happens in real life with someone screaming at them and threatening them, then alternately consoling them and building up trust, especially if they're agitated to begin with. Someone's mind can really get messed up, especially if they were under a great deal of stress to begin with.

Twelve "interrogators", what did these people do? Also, I have no idea what staffing levels are like in the police station in Perugia during a high profile murder enquiry.

How big is Perugia, something like 100k? At any rate these are all on the Calunnia charge, or could have and still might join it, so this is one definite fact that can't be dismissed.

Sorry, I don't understand.

She was told by a judge right before trial one day that she would receive no considerations for staying and not leaving for the US because she was deliberately taken into custody before her mother got there.

It was supposed to be proof of the hordes of people pressed into her interrogation room.

Thirty definitely qualifies as a horde! Too large of one for an interrogation unless it's common practice in Perugia to conduct them in gymnasiums.

If twelve were in that room the moment she was cuffed that would have heightened agitation as well.

This is kind of predicated on the assumption that Amanda is innocent and the police are incompetent/corrupt, isn't it?

There has to be some good reason that confession was thrown out. I don't think it was premeditated for it to work out that way, though it did turn out well for the prosecution oddly enough.

It was an interpreter. The family claimed it wasn't for a long time, but it turned out it was. If you really dout it, I'll dig out a name. A seach on PMF for "interpreter" should do it.

I looked for it but all I could find were posts. I'm afraid I see a group in the risky shift stage of group polarization and that the quality of the analysis deteriorated significantly. Kinda paranoid now, it wasn't quite like that five months ago when I first read there.

It was still a police officer involved in the interrogation, right? Not merely a translator?

I've never heard this claim before.

Maybe I have it wrong then, there were two statements then? One at 1:45 and another at 5:45? What was the difference between them then, and has there ever been any report of what they actually said? That's something I never came across, I guess it must have been settled a long time before I started reading about it.

 

[Withnail1969]

How quickly? Do the cells have to be one layer of cells thick, or will touching my finger in bleach destroy all the DNA in my body? What strength of bleach did she use, if indeed it was bleach?

Within minutes. We're talking about traces here, not an entire finger. one part of bleach in 10 parts of water would do it. Obviously neat bleach straight from the bottle would be what any sensible murderer would use.

 

[Solange305]

Charlie,

If it's been pointed out to you and Chris once, it's been pointed out a thousand times. It was realized in all of these cases that the original theory of the murder was wrong (or there was planted evidence or whatever), when it was proved that the original theory of the murder was wrong. When it is proved that Amanda and Raffaele can't have done it, just as in all those cases, it will be proved that an injustice has been done.

What do we do? Release everybody who might be the victim of a miscarriage of justice in case at some time in the future evidence comes along that proves it. All you are doing over and over is proving that miscarriages of justice happen. Nobody has ever disputed it. Why do you keep posting this?

Although I agree with you that this evidence by anecdote isn't very convincing, in Charlie's defense, I think he was posting that because of me saying that it is hard to believe that mistakes like this could happen. I don't think he would have posted that if I hadn't said that, so I personally give him a pass on that.

In reponse to that post Charlie, I will have to look into that case, because I would like to see how the heck they found all that suspicious evidence but then it turned out she was innocent. I know next to nothing about that case, so I'd like to reserve commenting on it for now.