Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Interesting that the doubts about the "theories and forensics" apply only sofar as amanda and raf are concerned.
Never are any doubts expressed about the forensics when they pertain to Rudy Guede.

Guede's handprint was found in Meredith's blood in Meredith's room. It was found before the police even suspected Guede, let alone had any discussions with him. This evidence is 100% cast-iron solid evidence that Guede was in Meredith's room at or after the time of her death. Handprints can't appear by contamination, and the only other possibility would be a hugely complicated police framing job - in which the police either pulled Guede's prints off their records or broke into his apartment and found some latent prints there, then constructed a 3-dimensional facsimile of Guede's hand, put some of Meredith's blood on it, and made a fake Guede handprint with it.

Quite obviously, this possibility is ludicrous. Therefore the handprint in and of itself proves that Guede was there at or shortly after the murder. Guede knows this; his lawyer knows this. And this is why he's had to come up with this cockamamie story along the lines of "oh yeah, I WAS there, sure, but I had nothing to do with the murder, honest, yeah, I just stumbled upon things, and tried to help poor Meredith after the real murderers had fled the scene etc etc etc".

Oh, and his haplotype DNA evidence found inside Meredith's genital area is....erm....a bit of a problem for him also. It too was found long before his arrest. It led to him making the ridiculous and offensive claim that he and Meredith had consensual sexual relations earlier that evening - something which Meredith's English friends testified would be completely out of character and virtually impossible to believe.

I have no idea about the quality if the other forensic evidence against Guede. I suspect that some of the evidence gathered in the December "sweep" of the house could be rigorously contested if need be. But I'm afraid that the handprint evidence, coupled with the DNA inside Meredith - together with Guede's half-cocked attempted explanations for both those pieces of evidence - would almost certainly be enough to convict him of murder all by themselves.

Oh, did I also mention that he was out dancing and partying a few hours after the murder? Or that he fled town and went to Germany within 48 hours of the murder?

 

[shuttlt]

Guede's handprint was found in Meredith's blood in Meredith's room. It was found before the police even suspected Guede, let alone had any discussions with him. This evidence is 100% cast-iron solid evidence that Guede was in Meredith's room at or after the time of her death. Handprints can't appear by contamination, and the only other possibility would be a hugely complicated police framing job - in which the police either pulled Guede's prints off their records or broke into his apartment and found some latent prints there, then constructed a 3-dimensional facsimile of Guede's hand, put some of Meredith's blood on it, and made a fake Guede handprint with it.

People seem quite happy to believe in conspiracies involving the police, the prosecutor and the lab against Amanda and Raffaele. The police supposedly collected the bra clasp and the knife because they needed the evidence and knowing what would be on it afterall.

Quite obviously, this possibility is ludicrous. Therefore the handprint in and of itself proves that Guede was there at or shortly after the murder. Guede knows this; his lawyer knows this. And this is why he's had to come up with this cockamamie story along the lines of "oh yeah, I WAS there, sure, but I had nothing to do with the murder, honest, yeah etc etc etc".

Oh, and his haplotype DNA evidence found inside Meredith's genital area is....erm....a bit of a problem for him also. It too was found long before his arrest. It led to him making the ridiculous and offensive claim that he and Meredith had consensual sexual relations earlier that evening - something which Meredith's English friends testified would be completely out of character and virtually impossible to believe.

But again, if the police had always intended to frame Guede... perhaps that was there plan, but Mignini wanted to frame Amanda and hence where we now find ourselves.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's my understanding that Michael on PMF has been banned from here, so posting his words from elsewhere may well be a breach of the rules, LJ.

Well, Fulcanelli's been banned from here. But Michael from PMF continues to insist that he is not Fulcanelli from JREF. Are you accusing him of a charade?

 

[Mary_H]

___________________________

Umm, Mary, smoking cigarettes "like chimneys" makes no sense at all. Amanda was citing the multiple attractive features of her new found residence. As a non-smoker Amanda would not have found her flatmates smoking tobacco "like chimneys" appealing at all. Instead, disgusting.

And she could have touched multiple items before touching the knife, and still have had Meredith's DNA on her fingers.

///

She did find it disgusting, not appealing. She was being funny/ironic:

"im in love. i meet her roommate molly. the house has a kitchen, 2 bathrooms, and four bathrooms. not to mention a washing maschine, and internet access. not to mention, she owns two guitars and wants to play with me. not to mention the view is amazing. not to mention i have a terrace that looks over the perugian city/countryside. not to mention she wants me to teach erh yoga. not to mention they both smoke like chimneys."

It's a joke; that's why it's written the way it is.

P.S. To smoke like a chimney means to smoke constantly, one cigarette after another.

 

[Mary_H]

Well, Fulcanelli's been banned from here. But Michael from PMF continues to insist that he is not Fulcanelli from JREF. Are you accusing him of a charade?

Oops! Agatha!

 

[Kaosium]

I would suggest that that was not her intention. Lies that get you off the hook with your mother, or with your teacher may not work so good with the police.

What do you think she would have been 'lying' about? In other words, do you think she was actually physically involved in committing the murder?

 

[shuttlt]

What do you think she would have been 'lying' about? In other words, do you think she was actually physically involved in committing the murder?

Could be. I don't know. She could be an innocent nut as well. I'm sure there are other possibilities.

 

[Kaosium]

It's a pity for her that she didn't. There might afterall have been some hope that the other housemates would confirm that the knife had come from the appartment where the murder took place.

Yeah, you'd think someone would have mentioned this by now, especially poor Raffaele who would know for sure!

I can't see a scenario where there is Meredith's DNA on the teaspoons and so on on the drawer. We keep talking about this, and I'm not sure that anyone has ever shown that it is standard procedure to take random objects along with whatever item of interest is taken into custody.

They're called something to the effect of 'control samples.'

 

[Mary_H]

I can't see a scenario where there is Meredith's DNA on the teaspoons and so on on the drawer. We keep talking about this, and I'm not sure that anyone has ever shown that it is standard procedure to take random objects along with whatever item of interest is taken into custody.

It is. Only it is not just random objects that are collected -- it's everything from the scene. Yes, it would have been ridiculous to take Raffaele's whole kitchen, but that's because there was no evidence Raffaele's kitchen was involved in the murder.

 

[shuttlt]

They're called something to the effect of 'control samples.'

That may very well be what they are called, but are they collected as a matter of routine? If the police pick up a knife from under a park bench, say... do they pick up some random beer cans, or any other litter they can find to act as a control?

 

[Kaosium]

___________________________

Umm, Mary, smoking cigarettes "like chimneys" makes no sense at all.

///

This is an American idiom, as I recall you're from the UK and may not be familiar with it.

You can't chain smoke pot, you'd fall asleep!

 

[shuttlt]

It is. Only it is not just random objects that are collected -- it's everything from the scene. Yes, it would have been ridiculous to take Raffaele's whole kitchen, but that's because there was no evidence Raffaele's kitchen was involved in the murder.

But it isn't really gathering control samples if you only take things that you expect to find something on, is it? If you want to use control samples to rule out contamination you would take things that you don't expect to find anything on, and in the event that you find something you can conclude contamination of some sort.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

suspicious

It was all planted by the cops. It's already been shown that they are corrupt evidence planters. Reasonable doubt?

shuttlt,

The police withheld data from the defense. RoseMontague and others have recently pointed out that they misrepresented the amount of DNA on the knife and the fact that the TMB test came back negative for some of the luminol-positive evidence samples. They made a big show of collecting the clasp, passing it around like a joint at a Pink Floyd concert (thanks to another commenter for that image), before they knew the results of the test. DNA testing on sample 164, blood on Meredith’s wall, was discontinued after a negative preliminary quantification result. The knife tested negative for blood and gave reading of “too low” in its quantification result, yet Dr. Stefanoni continued the DNA test. Why was the knife treated differently from sample 164?

All of these issues sound suspicious to me, raising questions of bias and fairness, at the very least. Moreover, it is easy to add to the list (the Stardust file and the damaged drives, for example). However, you have not commented in depth on the majority of these matters. Why not?

 

[Mary_H]

Could be. I don't know. She could be an innocent nut as well. I'm sure there are other possibilities.

It's a good thing that what a person could be or could do is not as important as the evidence against him or her. If you raise an objection every time someone says the evidence shows that Amanda is innocent, you are showing bias toward guilt.

 

[Mary_H]

But it isn't really gathering control samples if you only take things that you expect to find something on, is it? If you want to use control samples to rule out contamination you would take things that you don't expect to find anything on, and in the event that you find something you can conclude contamination of some sort.

You take everything that is in the environment of the crime. If you want to frame someone with a knife, though, you should at least take the objects that are in the environment of the knife.

 

[Kaosium]

People seem quite happy to believe in conspiracies involving the police, the prosecutor and the lab against Amanda and Raffaele. The police supposedly collected the bra clasp and the knife because they needed the evidence and knowing what would be on it afterall.

'Never ascribe to conspiracy that which can be explained by sheer incompetence.'

Stonewalling, CYA and scapegoating aren't conspiracy, they're what happens when institutions screw up bigtime but think they can still lie their way out of it with perhaps a little slight of hand.

But again, if the police had always intended to frame Guede... perhaps that was there plan, but Mignini wanted to frame Amanda and hence where we now find ourselves.

Nah, no real frame-up, in fact I think Mignini actually believes Amanda was guilty. Most of the cops probably do too, even the ones who might have played with the evidence a little, so as not to 'confuse' the jury.

 

[LondonJohn]

People seem quite happy to believe in conspiracies involving the police, the prosecutor and the lab against Amanda and Raffaele. The police supposedly collected the bra clasp and the knife because they needed the evidence and knowing what would be on it afterall.


But again, if the police had always intended to frame Guede... perhaps that was there plan, but Mignini wanted to frame Amanda and hence where we now find ourselves.

Some people also believe in conspiracies about the JFK assassination, the Moon landings and 9/11. I don't. And I don't believe there was a conspiracy here either. I believe that mistakes were made as a result of confirmation bias and generalised incompetence.

I don't think there was an effort to "frame" Knox or Sollecito. I do, however, believe that the police and prosecutors felt under enormous pressure to justify their early triumphalism at having "solved the crime" on 6th November, and that this led them to assess the evidence in a biased and leading manner. Just one indication of this was the way the knife was tested - Stefanoni was told whose DNA profile to look for (which goes against all the tenets of good, independent laboratory testing procedures), and she kept going until she found it.

Here's a question: how do you think that the police came to have Guede's handprint in Meredith's blood, in Meredith's room, by around 15th November 2007?

 

[shuttlt]

shuttlt,

The police withheld data from the defense. RoseMontague and others have recently pointed out that they misrepresented the amount of DNA on the knife and the fact that the TMB test came back negative for some of the luminol-positive evidence samples. They made a big show of collecting the clasp, passing it around like a joint at a Pink Floyd concert (thanks to another commenter for that image), before they knew the results of the test. DNA testing on sample 164, blood on Meredith’s wall, was discontinued after a negative preliminary quantification result. The knife tested negative for blood and gave reading of “too low” in its quantification result, yet Dr. Stefanoni continued the DNA test. Why was the knife treated differently from sample 164?

All of these issues sound suspicious to me, raising questions of bias and fairness, at the very least. Moreover, it is easy to add to the list (the Stardust file and the damaged drives, for example). However, you have not commented in depth on the majority of these matters. Why not?

I comment on what interests me, and what strikes me as most wrong interests me most, on the whole. I think your posts, particularly where they are purely factual, are amongst the best on the forum, hence I don't comment often. Probably for that reason I haven't built up enough knowledge on this stuff to give you a run for your money.

In so far as the information available on the internet goes, I think your case about the DNA is pretty well argued. I'm genuinely curious to see how it plays in court. Perhaps there is stuff we don't know, or stuff that we are misinformed about that will make a difference.

Having said that, if you mean to argue that the police, Mignini, the lab did these things deliberately, then I don't see how we can rule out them having done the same, or worse to Guede.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is an American idiom, as a I recall you're from the UK and may not be familiar with it.

You can't chain smoke pot, you'd fall asleep!

No - people in the UK "smoke like chimneys" too! Although thankfully not nearly as much as they used to

 

[LondonJohn]

Knox and Sollecito are "dangerous monsters" now, according to Harry Rag! I do hope he gains a sense of peace and perspective in the New Year. He certainly needs to.