Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Justinian2]

Not quite sure what you're saying here.
Having lived in many shared houses over the years I know that housemates (and their partners and friends) would have all kinds of innocent reasons for touching each others' clothes.
RS being a cross dresser and borrowing or tring on MK's bra would be such an explanation, but one that extremely unlikely given the statistical rarity of cross dressing. Therefore the prosecution pointing to this as a possibility for how the DNA ended up there would be (without any independent evidence of RS's crossdressing habits) ridiculous and a jury would be right in dismissing it as an unreasonable claim.
However the claim that RS's DNA ended up on the clasp innocently through (eg) clearing or folding dry clothes would not be unreasonable or improbable occurence.

When I was fourteen, I tried on my sister's bra. That was the last time I ever did anything like that as I soon discovered that while being a fairly attractive male (when young), I made one ugly female.

In the scientific community, the way that a theory is disproved is to find ONE exception to the theory. Only one is necessary. Then it is up to the supporters of the theory to prove why their theory is still valid.

The prosecution's theory that the LCN DNA on the bra clasp meant that Raffaele participated in the murder is only a THEORY - and not a very good theory at that.

The theory that Guede's bloody palm print at the scene of the murder meant that he was there shortly after the murder, and therefore killed Meredith is very plausible. Guede was asked for an explaination of how his bloody print happened. He then gave the implausible explaination that we've all heard. A bloody print at the murder scene usually, and appropriately, results in a conviction.

However, the Bra String Theory is fraught with holes that need to be explained before anyone should believe it.

 

[shuttlt]

Not quite sure what you're saying here.

Only that it's easy to come up with a story by which DNA might conceivably get onto the clasp and that more is required than simply stating it and walking away declaring the prosecution case to be in ruins.

Having lived in many shared houses over the years I know that housemates (and their partners and friends) would have all kinds of innocent reasons for touching each others' clothes.
RS being a cross dresser and borrowing or tring on MK's bra would be such an explanation, but one that extremely unlikely given the statistical rarity of cross dressing.

I don't see that the statistical rarity would be a major problem if Amanda and Raffaele were only to claim it as a defence.

Therefore the prosecution pointing to this as a possibility for how the DNA ended up there would be (without any independent evidence of RS's crossdressing habits) ridiculous and a jury would be right in dismissing it as an unreasonable claim.

Don't you mean the defence, rather than the prosecution? Is bra swapping so common that no further evidence is needed? At least show that they had done it before, or had the same bra size, of something.

However the claim that RS's DNA ended up on the clasp innocently through (eg) clearing or folding dry clothes would not be unreasonable or improbable occurence.

If that's the explanation then let the defence offer it and the rival experts give their opinions. Do you know much about DNA forensics? Do you have evidence that it is likely that in folding laundry Raffaele would have left the material that was discovered in the quantities discovered in the location that it was discovered?

 

[christianahannah]

Re the bra, I think it might be moot to be discussing the possibility of Amanda borrowing Meredith's bra. I think the more important question is this: how on earth could Sollecito's DNA have got onto the tiny metal hook of the clasp, yet it (his DNA) apparently was not present on any of the surrounding material? After all, the surrounding material actually covers the hooks and catches while the bra is being worn, and the relatively rough texture of the cotton or nylon material would be considerably more likely to slough off sweat or skin cells from Sollecito's fingers than the tiny smooth metal hook. One can only presume that the "crack" forensics team tested the entirety of the recovered clasp, and presumably the rest of the bra as well - yet nowhere else is Sollecito's DNA found but on an extremely small hook which is virtually impossible to access without handling the surrounding material. Doesn't sound quite right to me.....

All of the bras I own, the everyday ones and the provocative ones, which fasten in the back, have a part of the two hooks which are not covered by material. This would be the rounded part at the top of the hooks. This part is exposed when both fastened and unfastened.

As to when and how Raffaele's DNA came to be on the hooks, I don't know or why his DNA is not on the material of the bra. The clasp material was swabbed (there were two tiny drops of blood on the material and this was the part swabbed) and the result was only Meredith's profile.

As far as sharing bras and underwear in general with other women, I never have. I'm not saying it has never been done among women but I think if one took a poll (away from this thread and forum) it would probably show that it is not a common practice.

 

[Justinian2]

Only that it's easy to come up with a story by which DNA might conceivably get onto the clasp and that more is required than simply stating it and walking away declaring the prosecution case to be in ruins.

I don't see that the statistical rarity would be a major problem if Amanda and Raffaele were only to claim it as a defence.

Don't you mean the defence, rather than the prosecution? Is bra swapping so common that no further evidence is needed? At least show that they had done it before, or had the same bra size, of something.

If that's the explanation then let the defence offer it and the rival experts give their opinions. Do you know much about DNA forensics? Do you have evidence that it is likely that in folding laundry Raffaele would have left the material that was discovered in the quantities discovered in the location that it was discovered?

That's not the way it works in the scientific community. All you have to do is prove that an exception is possible and the side supporting the supposition (the Bra Sting Theory) is then required to provide the explaination if they want their theory to be considered valid.

It is not necessary to show that there are MANY plausible ways that the prosecution's theory is potentially invalid. The prosecution needs more proof if they want their theory to be considered valid.

Brainwashing is the alternative to science and seems to have be the focus of the prosecution's case.

 

[colonelhall]

I still don't understand why anybody should be discussing the sharing of bras. It was done to death ages ago. The defence has never attempted to claim that there was any sharing of underwear.

Also I don't understand why anybody should think that Knox did not know Rudy. It is obvious from her own statements that she did. As I mentioned before, she was "partying" back home, when that picture of her and the boys was taken. How many there? Six?

Being a self-confessed narcotics user. I think that if smoking took place at the "party" she would be LIKELY to be involved.

There seems to be much debate as to what was LIKELY and not LIKELY. The scenarios supporting Knox's innocence seem very UNLKELY to me.

 

[bri1]

Only that it's easy to come up with a story by which DNA might conceivably get onto the clasp and that more is required than simply stating it and walking away declaring the prosecution case to be in ruins.


I don't see that the statistical rarity would be a major problem if Amanda and Raffaele were only to claim it as a defence.


Don't you mean the defence, rather than the prosecution? Is bra swapping so common that no further evidence is needed? At least show that they had done it before, or had the same bra size, of something.

If that's the explanation then let the defence offer it and the rival experts give their opinions. Do you know much about DNA forensics? Do you have evidence that it is likely that in folding laundry Raffaele would have left the material that was discovered in the quantities discovered in the location that it was discovered?

Firstly, Apologies for the 'prosecution' / 'defence' slip up. I did indeed mean defence.
So, you state that the point of your original post was to say that it's easy to come up with a story that accounts for the DNA being there. I would argue that if the only stories that can be given as an alternative to RS participating in the crime / covering up the crime are 'unlikely'- a statistically rare way for people to behave- then the onus would be on the defence to corroborate. So, if RS said 'yeah I borrowed the bra because I'm a cross dresser' then his defense would have to show that he had previous experience or interest in cross dressing.
However, if the stories that can be given as an alternative are 'likely' - statistically common way for people to behave, mundane if you will - then the onus would be on the prosecution to prove that these stories could not be true.
I do not claim to be an expert in DNA forensics. Did the Scientific Police provide an account of how it would be impossible (or at least beyond a reasonable doubt) for RS's DNA to be on the clasp through this type of contact (rather then through cutting it from MK's body)? Or, for that matter, did they explain why it would've been impossible for the DNA to have come to be on the clasp through contamination during the forensics investigation or in the following 40+ days after? If so, please point me in the right direction in regards to sources...
Thanks

 

[quadraginta]

I disagree that John is being pedantic here. Sex is a powerful thing, and relationships become much more complex and fraught when sex is involved. Familial relationships are also much more fraught than friendships- when people feel that they are connected in a more fundamental way, through blood, then the possibility of solving problems by walking away from someone and discontinuing a relationship with them becomes more remote than with a friend.

LJ was being pedantic because he leapt on the term "friend" and proceeded to weave an entire diatribe based on nothing more than the possible interpretations of that word. Interpretations which he cherry picked to make a point he could not support in general terms.

He completely disregarded the statement I made first,

"when LE is confronted with a home attack their first instincts are not to suspect a stranger, because the culprit is most often ... by a huge margin ... someone who is close to the victim."
​

but instead chose to single out one word in a later comment,

"Any competent investigator would first be looking carefully at her, the other roommates, and Meredith's close friends."
​

which was in no way intended to stand alone.

This sort of thing is intellectually dishonest.

I am quite aware of the complexities of human relationships. I've had over half a century to learn about them. I know what all the myriad possible interpretations of the word "friend" can be.

It is completely irrelevant to the point that was being made, and if LJ wasn't perfectly aware of that when he wrote his response then I have seriously overestimated his intelligence.

Somehow I have a premonition that after I post this I will be regaled with further pontifications, this time regarding the weaknesses inherent in the term "close to the victim".

I hope we can be spared that, though.

 

[Justinian2]

I still don't understand why anybody should be discussing the sharing of bras. It was done to death ages ago. The defence has never attempted to claim that there was any sharing of underwear.

Also I don't understand why anybody should think that Knox did not know Rudy. It is obvious from her own statements that she did. As I mentioned before, she was "partying" back home, when that picture of her and the boys was taken. How many there? Six?

Being a self-confessed narcotics user. I think that if smoking took place at the "party" she would be LIKELY to be involved.

There seems to be much debate as to what was LIKELY and not LIKELY. The scenarios supporting Knox's innocence seem very UNLKELY to me.

Profiling such as done by the FBI, the police, Psychiatry (DSM IV), Scientology (the Tone Scale), and marketing are sciences that are useful outside of a court. These and other general principles of whether a person's behaviour is LIKELY or UNLIKELY do not belong in a court.

However, is it likely that Guede's bloody palm print mean that he was in the room shortly after the murder? You betcha. Does being in the room of a murder during or shortly after a murder imply that he did the murder? Probably. And then he ran away. What does that mean? (Clink)

 

[shuttlt]

That's not the way it works in the scientific community.

Again with the demands for scientific standards of proof. Why not mathematical standards of proof, or logical, or the standard that suffices in pub conversations?

All you have to do is prove that an exception is possible and the side supporting the supposition (the Bra Sting Theory) is then required to provide the explaination if they want their theory to be considered valid.

Look, if you have a theory that says "it is impossible for bees to fly" all you need to do is show that it is in fact possible and the original theory is indeed blown. The prosecutions theory is not that it is physically, mathematically and in all ways impossible for the DNA to have gotten there by any other mechanism than the one they propose, hence you need to do more than show that it is possible that some other thing might be true. The prosecution aren't arguing for a universal law here. Arguments that work against universal laws aren't necessarily appropriate.

It is not necessary to show that there are MANY plausible ways that the prosecution's theory is potentially invalid.

I'm not sure who or what you are responding to here.

The prosecution needs more proof if they want their theory to be considered valid.

But they aren't proposing a new law of physics that says "all male DNA on female murder victims got there during the murder and only during the murder". Idly tossing out an alternative possibility isn't sufficent.

Brainwashing is the alternative to science.

Brainwashing? What?

 

[shuttlt]

Profiling such as done by the FBI, the police, Psychiatry (DSM IV), Scientology (the Tone Scale), and marketing are sciences that are useful outside of a court. These and other general principles of whether a person's behaviour is LIKELY or UNLIKELY do not belong in a court.

Do you agree then that it was unfair to reject my narrative of the crime on the basis that Amanda would have called the police regardless of the circumstances had her housemate been stabbed? That is afterall an argument about whether such behaviour is likely or unlikely?

I'm sorry, what about Scientology is a science?

 

[shuttlt]

Firstly, Apologies for the 'prosecution' / 'defence' slip up. I did indeed mean defence.
So, you state that the point of your original post was to say that it's easy to come up with a story that accounts for the DNA being there. I would argue that if the only stories that can be given as an alternative to RS participating in the crime / covering up the crime are 'unlikely'- a statistically rare way for people to behave- then the onus would be on the defence to corroborate. So, if RS said 'yeah I borrowed the bra because I'm a cross dresser' then his defense would have to show that he had previous experience or interest in cross dressing.

Many people here seem to regard bra swapping as more than somewhat unlikely. For myself, I suspect that Raffaele admitting to being a cross dresser would play differently with different folks. Some might choose to believe that he wouldn't admit it if it wasn't true.

However, if the stories that can be given as an alternative are 'likely' - statistically common way for people to behave, mundane if you will - then the onus would be on the prosecution to prove that these stories could not be true.

Likely? Different folks seem to have different opinions on this.

I do not claim to be an expert in DNA forensics. Did the Scientific Police provide an account of how it would be impossible (or at least beyond a reasonable doubt) for RS's DNA to be on the clasp through this type of contact (rather then through cutting it from MK's body)?

I'm turning slowly into a broken record. Why does this aspect of the case need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt?

Or, for that matter, did they explain why it would've been impossible for the DNA to have come to be on the clasp through contamination during the forensics investigation or in the following 40+ days after? If so, please point me in the right direction in regards to sources...
Thanks

Again, I don't think they would need to argue it was impossible. Perhaps somebody more familiar with section of the case could talk about what was and was not argued and by whome in court. For myself I wouldn't really feel able to answer your question without the transcripts, which none of us have.

 

[LondonJohn]

I disagree that John is being pedantic here. Sex is a powerful thing, and relationships become much more complex and fraught when sex is involved. Familial relationships are also much more fraught than friendships- when people feel that they are connected in a more fundamental way, through blood, then the possibility of solving problems by walking away from someone and discontinuing a relationship with them becomes more remote than with a friend.

Don't worry - I suspect that q has an interpersonal issue at play here, which seems to be rendering him/her incapable of assimilating my argument. And my argument, viewed objectively, has merit. Murder is an extreme act, and it requires heightened levels of emotion on behalf of the perpetrator. Sex and jealousy are the most usual motivators - since they can elicit exceptionally strong emotions of lust and/or hatred. Money and social status (the latter usually confined to young males) are also possible motivators. And complex intra-familial issues (domineering parents, perhaps, or feelings of resentment towards a young child) can be another motivator.

But, as you so rightly say, the clear solution in a case where two people simply "don't get on fantastically with each other" is to let the friendship wither, and to keep out of each other's way. And of course it's worth noting that there's not even any evidence that the Meredith and Amanda didn't get along with each other anyhow: IIRC, one of Meredith's English friends in Perugia testified that when Meredith was not spending time with her English friends, she was spending time with Amanda. The two of them went together to the classical concert where Knox met Sollecito - which was a mere six days before the murder. The plain truth of the matter is that there is nothing in the relationship between Knox and Meredith Kercher that one might be able to point to as a motivation for murder - or even for some sort of bizarre sexual humiliation that might have progressed to murder. Nothing.

 

[LondonJohn]

All of the bras I own, the everyday ones and the provocative ones, which fasten in the back, have a part of the two hooks which are not covered by material. This would be the rounded part at the top of the hooks. This part is exposed when both fastened and unfastened.

As to when and how Raffaele's DNA came to be on the hooks, I don't know or why his DNA is not on the material of the bra. The clasp material was swabbed (there were two tiny drops of blood on the material and this was the part swabbed) and the result was only Meredith's profile.

As far as sharing bras and underwear in general with other women, I never have. I'm not saying it has never been done among women but I think if one took a poll (away from this thread and forum) it would probably show that it is not a common practice.

But an adult male's finger could not access the metal part of the hooks without also having to press against the material, surely? That's my point, really. And whether we're talking about either a rough undressing in the course of a murder, or some sort of post-murder "staging" of a bra removal to simulate sexual elements (but why....?), I think it's incredibly unlikely that whoever took Meredith's bra off would be delicately and carefully manipulating the clasp. Indeed, the amount of bending of the hook suggests that the bra was manipulated in a rough and aggressive fashion. Which is even more reason why if someone's DNA was found on the tiny metal hook, it should also have been found upon the material near and around the clasp mechanism.

 

[LondonJohn]

I still don't understand why anybody should be discussing the sharing of bras. It was done to death ages ago. The defence has never attempted to claim that there was any sharing of underwear.

Personally, I don't think the bra-sharing explanation has much merit either. On top of everything else, even if Amanda DID borrow Meredith's bra at one point, I'd think it would be very unlikely that Meredith wouldn't have laundered the bra before wearing it again herself.

 

[bri1]

LJ was being pedantic because he leapt on the term "friend" and proceeded to weave an entire diatribe based on nothing more than the possible interpretations of that word. Interpretations which he cherry picked to make a point he could not support in general terms.

He completely disregarded the statement I made first,

"when LE is confronted with a home attack their first instincts are not to suspect a stranger, because the culprit is most often ... by a huge margin ... someone who is close to the victim."
​

but instead chose to single out one word in a later comment,

"Any competent investigator would first be looking carefully at her, the other roommates, and Meredith's close friends."
​

which was in no way intended to stand alone.

This sort of thing is intellectually dishonest.

I am quite aware of the complexities of human relationships. I've had over half a century to learn about them. I know what all the myriad possible interpretations of the word "friend" can be.

It is completely irrelevant to the point that was being made, and if LJ wasn't perfectly aware of that when he wrote his response then I have seriously overestimated his intelligence.

Somehow I have a premonition that after I post this I will be regaled with further pontifications, this time regarding the weaknesses inherent in the term "close to the victim".

I hope we can be spared that, though.

Well, much as I hate to 'regale' you with further pontifications......!
I thought that John was responding to your assertion: "We frequently read in these threads about Knox advocates' puzzlement that Knox would be in the sights of the ILE at all, much less at the onset. We need look no further than this for an explanation. Any competent investigator would first be looking carefully at her, the other roommates, and Meredith's close friends. " John was disagreeing with you that there was no further explanation needed. He was arguing that any competent investigator would be concentrating on people who had certain types of relationships with the victim, and assuming people with sexual or familial relationships are 'accounted for' might not naturally look at people with other types of relationship next. If that were true, then further explanation for why Knox was within LE's 'sights' so quickly is indeed required.
I don't see where the intellectual dishonesty comes in.

 

[Justinian2]

Do you agree then that it was unfair to reject my narrative of the crime on the basis that Amanda would have called the police regardless of the circumstances had her housemate been stabbed? That is afterall an argument about whether such behaviour is likely or unlikely?

Is there any scientific significance about Amanda calling the police? Not that I have seen. I would have called 911 first if I thought medical attention could have saved Meredith. Otherwise I would have called my lawyer. If I was highly hung over, I might have split.

Any significance to the order of the call? Not to my thinking. It doesn't belong in court.

I'm sorry, what about Scientology is a science?

Are any of the listed methods of profiling scientifically accurate? Is psychiatry a science? Unfortunately, these arguments are outside of the current discussion.

 

[LondonJohn]

LJ was being pedantic because he leapt on the term "friend" and proceeded to weave an entire diatribe based on nothing more than the possible interpretations of that word. Interpretations which he cherry picked to make a point he could not support in general terms.

He completely disregarded the statement I made first,

"when LE is confronted with a home attack their first instincts are not to suspect a stranger, because the culprit is most often ... by a huge margin ... someone who is close to the victim."
​

but instead chose to single out one word in a later comment,

"Any competent investigator would first be looking carefully at her, the other roommates, and Meredith's close friends."
​

which was in no way intended to stand alone.

This sort of thing is intellectually dishonest.

I am quite aware of the complexities of human relationships. I've had over half a century to learn about them. I know what all the myriad possible interpretations of the word "friend" can be.

It is completely irrelevant to the point that was being made, and if LJ wasn't perfectly aware of that when he wrote his response then I have seriously overestimated his intelligence.

Somehow I have a premonition that after I post this I will be regaled with further pontifications, this time regarding the weaknesses inherent in the term "close to the victim".

I hope we can be spared that, though.

Quite an *ahem* impassioned post, quadraginta!

If you prefer, I can substitute the phrase "person close to/known to the victim" for the word "friend" in my original post on the subject. That's fine by me. My argument still stands in its entirety with this replacement. Your decision to home in on the word "friend", and to then attack me for using that word, seems to me to be rather reminiscent of a straw-man argument, coupled with a perceived need to attack me personally. Am I wrong?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

what is a narcotic

I still don't understand why anybody should be discussing the sharing of bras. It was done to death ages ago. The defence has never attempted to claim that there was any sharing of underwear.

Also I don't understand why anybody should think that Knox did not know Rudy. It is obvious from her own statements that she did. As I mentioned before, she was "partying" back home, when that picture of her and the boys was taken. How many there? Six?

Being a self-confessed narcotics user. I think that if smoking took place at the "party" she would be LIKELY to be involved.

There seems to be much debate as to what was LIKELY and not LIKELY. The scenarios supporting Knox's innocence seem very UNLKELY to me.

colonelhall,

Does Italy classify marijuana as a narcotic or is it some other nation, such as the United States, that does so? I suggest we stick to the medical definition of the word narcotic or to the Italian legal definition. If marijuana does not fit under either category, then using "narcotic" in reference to marijuana is inappropriate.

 

[Chris C]

Women share clothes. Why not share a bra? (Raffaele's DNA would be expected on Amanda's bra or a bra that Amanda once borrowed from Meredith)

The prosecution didn't provide evidence that the bra was never borrowed. Absence of evidence is...

Knox's DNA wasn't on the bra, so the sharing of underwear is a non issue in this case.

 

[Chris C]

I still don't understand why anybody should be discussing the sharing of bras. It was done to death ages ago. The defence has never attempted to claim that there was any sharing of underwear.

Also I don't understand why anybody should think that Knox did not know Rudy. It is obvious from her own statements that she did. As I mentioned before, she was "partying" back home, when that picture of her and the boys was taken. How many there? Six?

Being a self-confessed narcotics user. I think that if smoking took place at the "party" she would be LIKELY to be involved.

There seems to be much debate as to what was LIKELY and not LIKELY. The scenarios supporting Knox's innocence seem very UNLKELY to me.

What "party" would cause her to be LIKELY involved? Was Knox attending a party the night of the murder? How many parties have you attended not KNOWING everyone that was there and when you left, you KNEW everyone?