Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[CoulsdonUK]

Your total evasion is noted.


Wa are talking about incompetence not conspiracy. Do you even have a rudimentary understanding of the evidence in this case?

Here is a portion of the crime scene video index for November 3rd that I pieced together from the publicly available sources:

2007-11-03

00:19:26 .. 00:19:32 - Mark on floor SexLiesMurder#Part 4 8:05
00:20:05 .. 00:20:11 - Footprint evidence at #3 TG 01-04-2008 1:54, DateLine Trial#Part 3 3:46
00:20:10 .. 00:20:10 - Shoe print closeup SexLiesMurder#Part 4 8:16
00:20:40 .. 00:21:08 - Collecting biological evidence at #3 TG 01-04-2008 02:00
00:26:57 .. 00:27:02 - Collecting sample at #2 DateLine Police 1:20
00:27:07 .. 00:27:09 - Closing sample vile, holding tweezers DateLine Trial#Part 3 3:48
01:07:42 .. 01:07:44 - Collecting blood at "J" DateLine Trial#Part 4 2:37
01:06:25 .. 01:06:26 - Debris at "J" DateLine Trial#Part 1 0:00
01:17:04 .. 01:17:02 - Meredith's room, bedside lamp, table 48Hours Nightmare#Part 2 03:20
01:17:12 .. 01:17:14 - Top of bed DateLine Trial#Part 4 2:39
01:22:23 .. 01:22:31 - Collecting Bra Frank SFarzo 2:48
01:22:26 .. 01:22:32 - Collecting Bra SexLiesMurder#Part 1 1:41, 48Hours Nightmare#Part 4 3:33
01:22:27 .. 01:22:28 - Collecting Bra TG 01-04-2008 1:21
01:22:29 .. 01:22:30 - DateLine Trial#Part 2 6:21
01:22:30 .. 01:22:41 - Collecting bra SexLiesMurder#Part 4 9:02, DateLine Trial#Part 4 02:42
01:23:43 .. 01:23:48 - Left foot (another angle) DateLine Trial#Part 3 1:59
01:23:51 .. 01:23:56 - Collecting underwear SexLiesMurder#Part 1 1:35, 48Hours Nightmare#Part 4 3:41
01:23:56 .. 01:24:01 - Stuffing underwear into bag DateLine Trial#Part 3 3:52
01:46:18 .. 01:46:18 - Meredith body exposed TG 01-04-2008 0:54
01:52:42 .. 01:52:42 - Knife wound on Meredith's neck TG 01-04-2008 0:51
02:02:18 .. 02:02:24 - putting blood stained towel? in plastic evidence bag TG 01-04-2008 0:55
02:24:09 .. 02:24:12 - Debris on floor? SexLiesMurder#Part 4 9:15
02:24:41 .. 02:24:47 - Bra clasp on floor SexLiesMurder#Part 4 9:22, DateLine Trial#Part 3 0:18, DateLine Trial#Part 4 2:45
02:24:41 .. 02:24:50 - ... 48Hours Nightmare#Part 4 3:46
12:45:30 .. 12:45:32 - Collecting blood sample 176 from wall behind Meredith's bed (3 stills)[7]
12:58:05 .. 12:58:11 - Collecting sample at "M" inside closet in Meredith's room DateLine Police 1:29
13:00:05 .. 13:00:09 - Collecting sample at "K" DateLine Police 1:25
​

I am content to leave the amateur analysis to those with the finest of fine tooth combs. I prefer to wait for the outcome of the geneticist report to the appeal court and discuss that, after all they are re-examining the results and supporting documentation. By the way, please read post #4440 when you get a chance.

 

[Dan O.]

Seriously, I believe the media can and should be used by Police during investigation, such as the Washington snipers to flush out suspects. However, I do believe that the press can go too far and end up being a hindrance or an obstacle to an investigation or justice. You may agree that sensationalist tabloid media did a lot of harm to Amanda, which was wrong as was televising the murder victim being examined. That's my opinion either way.

SERIOUSLY!

How did releasing the photo of the bathroom painted pink by the investigators help the investigation? How did the press releases of known lies like the Harry Potter book help the investigation? How did turning over Amanda's prison diary to the tabloid press the day it was stolen from her prison cell help the investigation?


Do you even know when this "examination" of Meredith's body took place?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Seriously, I believe the media can and should be used by Police during investigation, such as the Washington snipers to flush out suspects. However, I do believe that the press can go too far and end up being a hindrance or an obstacle to an investigation or justice. You may agree that sensationalist tabloid media did a lot of harm to Amanda, which was wrong as was televising the murder victim being examined. That's my opinion either way.

SERIOUSLY!

How did releasing the photo of the bathroom painted pink by the investigators help the investigation? How did the press releases of known lies like the Harry Potter book help the investigation? How did turning over Amanda's prison diary to the tabloid press the day it was stolen from her prison cell help the investigation?

Perhaps you missed my comment I’ve highlighted this time in my original post. There are sections of the media that have been irresponsible this applies to those convicted and also the murder victim.

Do you even know when this "examination" of Meredith's body took place?

No I don’t know, not sure the relevance of the question.

 

[Dan O.]

I am content to leave the amateur analysis to those with the finest of fine tooth combs. I prefer to wait for the outcome of the geneticist report to the appeal court and discuss that, after all they are re-examining the results and supporting documentation. By the way, please read post #4440 when you get a chance.

You are obviously content to allow those with anointed powers to make any ruling they wish and you will happily and unquestioningly abide by those rulings. But why do you even expect a report? Wouldn't a simple decree be just as good or even better?

You choose for yourself to remain ignorant. Whereas, I choose to learn what I need to know to solve the problem. Experts have knowledge and experience to help them more quickly analyze a problem. But that knowledge is not locked in a tomb and where the knowledge is derived from the physical laws it can be recreated by anybody willing to experiment.

 

[Dan O.]

Do you even know when this "examination" of Meredith's body took place?

No I don’t know, not sure the relevance of the question.

Go back a few pages. There was a YouTube link of the broadcast in question. If you view that video, you will see the scenes of Meredith's wounds and her full naked body. In those scenes you will see the date and time stamp showing exactly when those shots were taken (+/- 1 hour because the idiot videographer forgot to change the camera time for the DST change).

If you aren't familiar with the evidence, how can you know the relevance of anything?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

You are obviously content to allow those with anointed powers to make any ruling they wish and you will happily and unquestioningly abide by those rulings. But why do you even expect a report? Wouldn't a simple decree be just as good or even better?

I do not subscribe to the view that murder cases should or indeed can be prosecuted via the internet without access to the evidence, yes I do believe in sovereign democratic institutions like the judiciary not because I always agree with their decisions, but because I do not see any better alternatives.

You choose for yourself to remain ignorant. Whereas, I choose to learn what I need to know to solve the problem.

Your personal observations of me to one side; are you an experienced Italian police officer, are you a forensic scientist or maybe a geneticist with experience of working in Italy? Have you had direct access to the evidence in question?

Experts have knowledge and experience to help them more quickly analyze a problem.

They also have what I believe most posters don’t have which is direct access to evidence, supporting documentation etc, not to mention the necessary equipment.

But that knowledge is not locked in a tomb and where the knowledge is derived from the physical laws it can be recreated by anybody willing to experiment.

Experimenting in itself is not proof of any theory, unless it is corroborated usually by national or international bodies or other experts in a particular field.

I have no issue with you and others discussing the minutiae of Meredith’s bra clasp and your subsequent theories.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Go back a few pages. There was a YouTube link of the broadcast in question. If you view that video, you will see the scenes of Meredith's wounds and her full naked body. In those scenes you will see the date and time stamp showing exactly when those shots were taken (+/- 1 hour because the idiot videographer forgot to change the camera time for the DST change).

If you aren't familiar with the evidence, how can you know the relevance of anything?

I have not been arguing about evidence! I raised points about the Sollecito family’s involvement in supplying the video to a television station of Meredith’s body being examined. May I suggest that you re-read my posts.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I don't need a weatherman to tell me which way the wind is blowing

I am content to leave the amateur analysis to those with the finest of fine tooth combs. I prefer to wait for the outcome of the geneticist report to the appeal court and discuss that, after all they are re-examining the results and supporting documentation. By the way, please read post #4440 when you get a chance.

CoulsdonUK,

Here is a page with a link ("Knox murder trial evidence 'flawed,' say DNA experts") to the open letter coauthored by Professor Greg Hampikian and Dr. Elizabeth Johnson and signed by seven other forensic geneticists. Some of the problems with the initial DNA analysis are apparent with the electropherogram they included. Do you also lump this letter in with the amateur analysis? Why or why not?

One can also examine a series of photographs that document a failure to change gloves over several minutes and several evidence samples. On page 38 of John Butler's textbook "Forensic DNA Typing," he wrote, "Use clean latex gloves for collecting each item of evidence. Gloves should be changed between handling of different items of evidence."

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Halides1
Thank you. May I refer to my previous comment which may have crossed with your post.

I have not been arguing about evidence! I raised points about the Sollecito family’s involvement in supplying the video to a television station of Meredith’s body being examined. May I suggest that you re-read my posts. ]

 

[Chris_Halkides]

three separate issues

Halides1
Thank you. May I refer to my previous comment which may have crossed with your post.

CoulsdonUK,

There are several issues here that probably need to be disentangled. First, Dan O. and I obviously feel that we have sufficient knowledge to discuss some aspects of the evidence. My previous post was not intended solely as an answer to you; it was directed at anyone who tries to put the supposed expertise of ILE above outside criticism. Perhaps you feel that such discussion is not worth your time, but I would urge you not to say so in a way that sweepingly belittles the efforts of those here, some of whom have a certain level of expert knowledge, even if we are not professional forensic scientists. I am certain that this was not your intention.

Second, your example of the Washington sniper is well taken. However, that refers to a situation in which a criminal is on the loose. My belief is that once someone has been arrested, law enforcement should say the minimal amount to keep the public informed. More than this begins to prejudice the public against the arrestee and potentially compromises his or her right to a fair trial. By this standard ILE failed abjectly, and Dan O.’s example of the pink bathroom photo is an apt illustration. Whatever ILE did to make it pink was not clearly introduced at the trial, save for a passing mention in the Massei report, as Christianahannah discussed recently. Yet it clearly had and continues to have an effect on the general public.

Third, I am sympathetic to your point that releasing photos or videos of the deceased should not be done without a good reason, for fear of causing the Kercher family pain. I do not know the thinking behind the Sollecito family’s decision with respect to the video in question. However, I do know that the family had to counter misinformation with respect to some of the shoeprints. For months after the crime Raffaele’s Nike shoes were thought to be responsible, but the Sollecito family (with the help of one expert witness) showed that Rudi’s Nike shoes, which had a different tread pattern, were responsible for the prints. In short, the Sollecito family is not without credibility in the area of investigation.

 

[Alt+F4]

Third, I am sympathetic to your point that releasing photos or videos of the deceased should not be done without a good reason, for fear of causing the Kercher family pain. I do not know the thinking behind the Sollecito family’s decision with respect to the video in question. However, I do know that the family had to counter misinformation with respect to some of the shoeprints.

Showing photos and video of Meredith's dead body has NOTHING to do with the shoeprints.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I was making a general point

Showing photos and video of Meredith's dead body has NOTHING to do with the shoeprints.

Alt+F4,

I agree, but my point was more generally that there are sometimes legitimate reasons for the family of the accused to go public with information.

 

[lane99]

...are you an experienced Italian police officer, are you a forensic scientist or maybe a geneticist with experience of working in Italy?...

This is a question that, as I understand it, would not have been asked of the jurors on the case. How do you feel about that?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Halides1

There are several issues here that probably need to be disentangled. First, Dan O. and I obviously feel that we have sufficient knowledge to discuss some aspects of the evidence. My previous post was not intended solely as an answer to you; it was directed at anyone who tries to put the supposed expertise of ILE above outside criticism. Perhaps you feel that such discussion is not worth your time, but I would urge you not to say so in a way that sweepingly belittles the efforts of those here, some of whom have a certain level of expert knowledge, even if we are not professional forensic scientists. I am certain that this was not your intention.

Please read my responses in post #4447, I made no direct reference to Dan O. I do not see any comments I made that belittle’s anyone’s view, I wrote as I always try to do in general terms. Far from belittle anyone I was defending myself to unnecessary personal attacks because I dare to have a different view, for example,

You choose for yourself to remain ignorant.

Second, your example of the Washington sniper is well taken. However, that refers to a situation in which a criminal is on the loose. My belief is that once someone has been arrested, law enforcement should say the minimal amount to keep the public informed. More than this begins to prejudice the public against the arrestee and potentially compromises his or her right to a fair trial. By this standard ILE failed abjectly, and Dan O.’s example of the pink bathroom photo is an apt illustration. Whatever ILE did to make it pink was not clearly introduced at the trial, save for a passing mention in the Massei report, as Christianahannah discussed recently. Yet it clearly had and continues to have an effect on the general public.

Please read post #4444 where I accept that sections of the media have been irresponsible to Amanda and Raffaele but also Meredith, I believe this addresses your second point.

Third, I am sympathetic to your point that releasing photos or videos of the deceased should not be done without a good reason, for fear of causing the Kercher family pain. I do not know the thinking behind the Sollecito family’s decision with respect to the video in question. However, I do know that the family had to counter misinformation with respect to some of the shoeprints. For months after the crime Raffaele’s Nike shoes were thought to be responsible, but the Sollecito family (with the help of one expert witness) showed that Rudi’s Nike shoes, which had a different tread pattern, were responsible for the prints. In short, the Sollecito family is not without credibility in the area of investigation.

I still do not understand how showing Meredith being examined could have had any impact on Raffaele alleged innocence at that time, as I have said if the video in question related directly to evidence involving Raffaele that at least would make sense, this was and still is my original point of discussion.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

This is a question that, as I understand it, would not have been asked of the jurors on the case. How do you feel about that?

Well there are six lay judges and two professional judges one of which presides over the case, therefore, I assume the lay judges are given guidance by the professional judges.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

hash, Italian-style

Well there are six lay judges and two professional judges one of which presides over the case, therefore, I assume the lay judges are given guidance by the professional judges.

CoulsdonUK,

I wonder whether or not land99's point was that the judges (lay or professional) are not experts in DNA profiling or other aspects of forensics. If so, then I heartily agree. As I have discussed at length previously, the Massei report made a hash of a fundamental principle in forensic genetics. Although such an error is understandable, one hopes that the appeal process will correct it.

Earlier you wrote, "I am content to leave the amateur analysis to those with the finest of fine tooth combs." Perhaps you should explain more fully what you mean. (bolding mine).

 

[Dan O.]

I still do not understand how showing Meredith being examined could have had any impact on Raffaele alleged innocence at that time, as I have said if the video in question related directly to evidence involving Raffaele that at least would make sense, this was and still is my original point of discussion.

You still haven't got a clue what the issue is. I pointed you to the video that contains the scene in question which has date and time stamps that precisely identify the scene of this examination.

I have totally demolished your entire case and you don't even know it. Maybe it's time that you start trying to understand the evidence. Yes, the video in question is directly related to evidence involving Raffaele as I have already shown. Why is it that you still don't know this?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I am not suggesting the Italian justice system is perfect, I am not aware of any that are, I merely explained the composition of an Italian jury and the role I believe professional judges have during deliberations, not saying it’s right or wrong.

Earlier you wrote, "I am content to leave the amateur analysis to those with the finest of fine tooth combs." Perhaps you should explain more fully what you mean. (bolding mine).

I wonder (to myself) whether given the appeal court dates published so far and a trial that in real terms lasted 6 to 8 weeks whether there will be sufficient time to go into the level of detail that some people discuss, time will tell which is why I generally keep my own counsel.

I believe amateur analysis is self explanatory, a scene of crime officer, a pathologist, a forensic scientist and a geneticist for example those who have been trained and have experience would generally be regarded as professionals. In addition, those that have access to the evidence and the necessary equipment to test said evidence. This in itself does not mean mistakes are not made, but I would rather the diagnosis of a doctor over internet self diagnosis.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I have totally demolished your entire case and you don't even know it.

What was my case?

 

[christianahannah]

CoulsdonUK,

I wonder whether or not land99's point was that the judges (lay or professional) are not experts in DNA profiling or other aspects of forensics. If so, then I heartily agree. As I have discussed at length previously, the Massei report made a hash of a fundamental principle in forensic genetics. Although such an error is understandable, one hopes that the appeal process will correct it.

Earlier you wrote, "I am content to leave the amateur analysis to those with the finest of fine tooth combs." Perhaps you should explain more fully what you mean. (bolding mine).

I am going to answer several things in this post from some of the previous posts. When I try to quote multiple posts I always mess up and end up deleting what I have written, so forgive me for taking the lazy way out.

I don't think that Massei made a hash of a fundamental principle in forensic genetics. I think it was a hypothesis of how DNA was termed substantial evidence with regards to the number of matching loci (at one time 5 were cconsidered substantial, etc.). I do not believe Massei was stating you could have a result of a loci that did not match a defendant's DNA profile and that evidence still be considered against the defendant.

As to the passing mention of the pink bathroom in the motivations, I do not know if more was mentioned concerning this color/test during the trial. There may have been more testimony which might clear up any questions regarding it.

The jurors have an advantage over those who were not present during the trial in that they were able to hear both sides presented which included all expert analysis/testimony, review documents, evaluate the demeanor of everyone testifying, ask questions of those testifying (I believe the two professional judges were able to do so, I am not so sure of the lay judges), etc. That is an advantage that those who were not in the courtroom have.