Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

For starters; just read what over two dozen independent judges wrote, the last of which consumed 427 pages explaining a unanimous guilty verdict.

I have, the interrogation isn't in there, neither did I find any proof of guilt. If I were to hazard a guess, if one were to go back and read through this thread and the last, I'd say Massei was quoted many times more by innocentisti than it was covapolesti. It's truly the gift that keeps on giving for the Good Guys.

1) I know what your *opinion* is of the above 'starters' to be, so spare me that.

2 )I also know enough not to waste mine nor any reader's time with the required Epistle length rebuttal which is then greeted here with little more than a chorus of confirmation bias cheers or argument from authority absurdities.

It wouldn't be a waste of time, or for readers, if the argument could be made and defended. People don't jeer about 'confirmation bias' and 'argument from authority' if you don't employ them, and if they erroneously do so anyway it's your point and they look silly. However with the bra clasp and 'murder weapon' slipping down the banks of the Tiber to their eventual final resting place in its muck at the bottom, the absolute unwillingness of so many to even engage the last main argument for guilt of any kind, the fact ILE garnered a 'confession' which led to the arrest of Raffaele and Amanda, pretty much sums it up for the guilt argument, doesn't it?

3) With that in mind, may I again a la Mr Halides "leave it to others"?

Someone brought up Kitty Genovese recently elsewhere, and your comment brings to mind something known as the 'bystander effect.'

 

[pilot padron]

Kaosium, great form!
pilot, apart from the satirical parts ( sweet ) Kaosium raises valid questions. There's no need to get all grumpy about it. It's really interesting what's your idea of the interrogation night.

I surmise that 'grumpiness' is perceived through individual eyes with preconceived convictions.

It was neither intended nor now conceded.

My point is simply (again) that each and every of the questions that you perceive as valid, in my eyes are perceived as having been repeatedly rebutted,refuted and rehashed... ad nauseam over a 50,000+ commentary.

Most have been deemed so insignificant and invalid that Judge Hellman did not even grant them the honor of inclusion in initial Appeal admissibility

I perceive little benefit to Kaosium or the Board from me proffering the yet another additional exemplification (50,001) that you seek, and therefore will not do so.

PS: My intentionally lighthearted spoof of the "Interrogation" that you 'appreciate' was gleaned from compiling snippets of parts of the descriptions used initially by Moore and then by many, many others prone to exaggerated talking point mega overstatements, used in feeble defense of the unanimously convicted murderess

 

[Chris C]

"Surely I realize" no such thing

If you sincerely believe, and your level of familiarity with facts of this case is indicated by your dogmatic admission that you are blissfully unaware of the *myriad* of declarations, discussions expositions and exemplifications, points and counterpoints about Mr Curatolo as a witness.... which started when he was first announced as part of the Appeal...*months ago*, I use this as strong justification for the validity of my above point, and not to uselessly engage further here.

Thats alot of words just to say you believe Curatolo's make believe story. Yet you don't dispute the rest of what I posted. Neither have you argued, that what the prosecution has done, is less inappropriate than Knox's supposed cartwheel. So apparently you agree that the prosecution has acted inappropriate. Thanks for agreeing with me for the most part.

 

[Kaosium]

I surmise that 'grumpiness' is perceived through individual eyes with preconceived convictions.

It was neither intended nor now conceded.

My point is simply (again) that each and every of the questions that you perceive as valid, in my eyes are perceived as having been repeatedly rebutted,refuted and rehashed... ad nauseam over a 50,000+ commentary.

Most have been deemed so insignificant and invalid that Judge Hellman did not even grant them the honor of inclusion in initial Appeal admissibility

I perceive little benefit to Kaosium or the Board from me proffering the yet another additional exemplification (50,001) that you seek, and therefore will not do so.

PS: My intentionally lighthearted spoof of the "Interrogation" that you 'appreciate' was gleaned from compiling snippets of parts of the descriptions used initially by Moore and then by many, many others prone to exaggerated talking point mega overstatements, used in feeble defense of the unanimously convicted murderess

Awww...geez, is that what you meant about Stefanoni and the bit about the 'Italians in general?' You were kidding? Perhaps satirizing Steve Moore or someone else hammering her and Italians? The bit about the 'Giobbi cite' was in reference to defending some of Amanda's statements?

::::WHOOSH!:::::

Sorry, that flew right over my head. You've an apt avatar and screen-name, Pilot!

 

[pilot padron]

Thats alot of words just to say you believe Curatolo's make believe story. Yet you don't dispute the rest of what I posted. Neither have you argued, that what the prosecution has done, is less inappropriate than Knox's supposed cartwheel. So apparently you agree that the prosecution has acted inappropriate. Thanks for agreeing with me for the most part.

If that is your *opinion* of how you personally *perceive* and *interpret* through *agenda influenced* consequently *impaired eyes* what I previously posted, I am now even more certain that my decision to demure further comment was indeed well reasoned and justified as well as unquestionably correct.

 

[pilot padron]

I thought that she swiveled her hips to fit her foot into the plastic boot that she was wearing to avoid contamination.

I with alacrity yield that point about boot construction to you, if you are certain such was in fact the case.

FWIW, however, those throw-away booties I have personally seen in other instances of similar colors were indeed paper, and easily slipped on.

I do not in any way however yield nor give any 'iota' (thanks, Curt and Steve) of credence whatsoever to your opinion (spin?) that the sole purpose of the swivel was to facilitate putting on a sanitary shoe covering.

However, I with similar alacrity commend you for probably the most imaginative (yet far fetched) justification of any of Amanda's quirkiness that I have seen to date.

 

[Chris C]

If that is your *opinion* of how you personally *perceive* and *interpret* through *agenda influenced* consequently *impaired eyes* what I previously posted, I am now even more certain that my decision to demure further comment was indeed well reasoned and justified as well as unquestionably correct.

strawman

Your the one that used inappropriate. If your defense is to pretend everything the prosecution did will go away, then that thought process is an utter failure. I just pointed out that the prosecution acted inappropriate and you used the "/ignore post defense" aka patented "Ostrich Maneuver™ defense".

 

[Kaosium]

I thought that she swiveled her hips to fit her foot into the plastic boot that she was wearing to avoid contamination.

In which case we now know what so frightened and confused poor Giobbi: The Polizia Scientifica are unfamiliar with this concept. They wear the booties because they think they look 'neato' and they like the way the hips of the female officers wiggle when they get into them.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the wonderful world of DNA

As usual, your post is well reasoned, well researched, well documented, and causes me to re-think (but not necessarily revise) some of the points I made.

Initially, please accept that my comments about vertical gardening that you previously graciously 'noted' are intended to be light hearted, and not to be a denial that you and 'the gardener' are admittedly more technically trained than I in many of these areas.

Having said that and returning to my 'common sense' approach, may I address your salient points.

1) You previously answered a post of mine by only informing me that the term 'examine' was more encompassing than I inferred.
My reply to your attack on my assumption of 'accreditation' and 'commonly accepted' would be a mirror of what you told me in that post.
(imitation is indeed highest form of flattery)

2) I deliberately avoided stating whether my small 'batch' (common sense terminology) of dna was from handle or blade for precisely the reason you now use as rebuttal, and for that reason attach little significance to your reply.

3) 'Where' on the knife that was sampled is merely an extension of my (2) above

4) With all due respect, and admittedly again from 'authority', at this stage of available disclosures, I would not think the '*flying* dna' explanation is worthy of discussion here

5) How can something possibly ever be done *twice* if only enough raw data is in existence for only *once* ? (common sense)

6)Again, admittedly from authority, I accept that there was a strong bleach odor as well as abrasion (terminology weakness acknowledged) marks indicating cleaning, and I plead insufficient familiarity to address resultant LDN pattern

In summary:

1) Yours, as well as the gardener's, technical expertise exceeds any common sense approach for terminology, etcccc.

But I personally feel that the technical experts that are now involved (to definitely include Dr Stefanoni) are the real 'experts' with the *real first hand* exposure.
And to whom I will grant highest credibility in technical disclosures and final determinations after May 21.

2) Possibly my strongest, (and my final) *common sense* approach is that the person closest to knowledge about where this extremely over analyzed murder weapon had been...and what was present on its blade and handle ....deemed necessary to disclose........

Raffie's *spontaneous* voluntary, unsolicited absolutely absurd well documented and "not water boarded from 1500+ hours of interrogation" nor 'forced to imagine' statement, about "pricking Meredith" while cooking after he found out knife was being tested says more to me than all of the above vertical gardening musings about dna

PS:*spontaneous* statements terminology is deliberate and not to indicate 'in Court', but to remind you of yet unanswered questions (2=several ??) which you also chide others (of the opposite persuasions) of so frequently yet seem to have overlooked yourself ??

pilot padron,
1) The Rome lab was not accredited at the time of the tests in question. If you are using this word in some other way, please explain what it is.

2&3) If we are not restricting the discussion to the blade (but are including the handle), then there is even less justification for what Andrea Vogt wrote. She spoke of Meredith's DNA, whereas it is Amanda's DNA that was thought to be on the handle.

4) Sarah Gino said that DNA does not have wings but it flies, and she is an expert. Unless you have greater authority in the matter, I suggest that you pay attention and attempt to understand her words.

5) You are asking the wrong question. If DNA is in the low template number range, it is accepted practice to test it at least twice. If one cannot do so because there is not enough sample, there is no point in testing it once, as far as I am concerned.

6) The officer testified to smelling bleach, IIRC, but his testimony is undermined by the words of Sollecito's maid, who indicated that she did not use bleach and by the fact that the amount of bleach in his flat was constant in time. If the knife were actually cleaned with bleach, the odds of finding DNA there are strictly zero. Besides the Biotechniques article I mentioned, there is also a Promega Corp technical bulletin on how to avoid contamination, which also dicusses how effective bleach is.

And finally, several of us have written extensive rebuttals to your comments and have given citations to back up some of our claims. I would urge you to do likewise, in so far as you are able, with respect to the list that Chris C so helpfully provided.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Well, you don't have to worry about me. You have found perhaps the only one interested in the travesty inflicted upon Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito who doesn't give a damn about the legendary 'cartwheels.' In fact I was admonished not long ago by Quadringita for not knowing enough of the sordid details of the 'cartwheel' and the alleged 'cover-up' of the same. <snip>

Eh? How's that again?

I didn't even know there was a "cover up" about the cartwheel silliness, so it would have been difficult for me to have "admonished" you about it. Nor do I recall offering any admonishments on the topic in general.

Please be kind enough to provide citations and links to refresh my memory.

TIA.

(ETA: If you have trouble mastering the proper spelling of my user name perhaps you should cut and paste instead.)

 

[pilot padron]

pilot padron,
1) The Rome lab was not accredited at the time of the tests in question. If you are using this word in some other way, please explain what it is.

2&3) If we are not restricting the discussion to the blade (but are including the handle), then there is even less justification for what Andrea Vogt wrote. She spoke of Meredith's DNA, whereas it is Amanda's DNA that was thought to be on the handle.

4) Sarah Gino said that DNA does not have wings but it flies, and she is an expert. Unless you have greater authority in the matter, I suggest that you pay attention and attempt to understand her words.

5) You are asking the wrong question. If DNA is in the low template number range, it is accepted practice to test it at least twice. If one cannot do so because there is not enough sample, there is no point in testing it once, as far as I am concerned.

6) The officer testified to smelling bleach, IIRC, but his testimony is undermined by the words of Sollecito's maid, who indicated that she did not use bleach and by the fact that the amount of bleach in his flat was constant in time. If the knife were actually cleaned with bleach, the odds of finding DNA there are strictly zero. Besides the Biotechniques article I mentioned, there is also a Promega Corp technical bulletin on how to avoid contamination, which also dicusses how effective bleach is.

And finally, several of us have written extensive rebuttals to your comments and have given citations to back up some of our claims. I would urge you to do likewise, in so far as you are able, with respect to the list that Chris C so helpfully provided.

From a cursory review of my previous posts, one can easily recognize that I have laid out clearly and fully my position why the list 'so helpfully provided' will not be addressed further by me.
Should you choose to conclude that that position implies inability to reply or a concession in any way , you are sorely mistaken, but entitled to your opinion.

Similarly, I laid out common sense conceptions of my dna thoughts; deliberately allowing that they were in no way on the same technical level as youself and the Vertical Gardener.
Therefore, I accept the technical expertise you display, but choose not to allow it to supercede nor distract me from the ever so superior, soon to be released Independent Experts Report to the Court.
Again, drawing me down that road 'ain't gonna fly' either (no pun)

Finally when you toss such raw admonitions and unsolicited advice to me such as this:

Sarah Gino[/URL] said that DNA does not have wings but it flies, and she is an expert. Unless you have greater authority in the matter, I suggest that you pay attention and attempt to understand her words.

May I respectfully substitute Dr Stefanoni's name for the unknown by me, but heralded by you, Ms Gino, and suggest with applicable level of respect that ....unless *you* have greater authority, ....I suggest that *you* pay attention and try to understand *her* words............

 

[piktor]

Why keep it? I've lived in a lot of rental apartments, and even if this detailed an inventory exists, the idea that before you move in you (and a representative of the landlord) go through it to check the inventory against actual contents this closely is unrealistic.
If the police got a copy of the inventory from RS' landlord, to check for 'missing' knives, RS could have very easily, and believably, argued that there was no such knife when he moved in. The fact that he signed an inventory document means almost nothing.

The problem for Sollecito would be the adding up of little arrows pointing in one direction.

Also, Sollecito was a knife collector. You can never underestimate the subconscious value a lost knife would be to him. Everybody would know about this, the police would surely would use it against him, his dad would find out, etc.

 

[Kaosium]

Eh? How's that again?

I didn't even know there was a "cover up" about the cartwheel silliness, so it would have been difficult for me to have "admonished" you about it. Nor do I recall offering any admonishments on the topic in general.

Please be kind enough to provide citations and links to refresh my memory.

TIA.

(ETA: If you have trouble mastering the proper spelling of my user name perhaps you should cut and paste instead.)

Forum Community thread on this subject, about six weeks back. You snorted at me with barely concealed incredulity if I recall correctly. The 'cover-up' part was a joke.

If you'd have been around posting on this page I damn well would have copied and pasted your user name, I just can't get that right, and for some reason thought it was not 'drag' but had misspelled it that way last time. No insult was intended, but it appears some was taken, my apologies.

 

[Kaosium]

May I respectfully substitute Dr Stefanoni's name for the unknown by me, but heralded by you, Ms Gino, and suggest with applicable level of respect that ....unless *you* have greater authority, ....I suggest that *you* pay attention and try to understand *her* words............

Speaking of her, how is mea culpa actually pronounced?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

miraculous transformation

From a cursory review of my previous posts, one can easily recognize that I have laid out clearly and fully my position why the list 'so helpfully provided' will not be addressed further by me.
Should you choose to conclude that that position implies inability to reply or a concession in any way , you are sorely mistaken, but entitled to your opinion.
SNIP
May I respectfully substitute Dr Stefanoni's name for the unknown by me, but heralded by you, Ms Gino, and suggest with applicable level of respect that ....unless *you* have greater authority, ....I suggest that *you* pay attention and try to understand *her* words............

pilot padron,

It is Dr. Gino, and she was one of the expert witnesses for the defense. Are you new to this case? Are you sure it is not Mrs. Stefanoni, as opposed to Dr. Stefanoni? I certainly have paid attention Dr./Mrs. Stefanoni's point of view, and what I found out was that her views on how often one should change gloves was roundly contradicted by John Butler, the author of the most comprehensive textbook available on DNA profiling. She also misrepresented whether or not a TMB test had been run on certain samples and failed to apprise the defense of just how little of Raffaele's DNA was found on the clasp. That would be the same clasp that she or her coworkers stored in a liquids jar in such a way as the clasp became rusted and rotted. As for the rest of my comments, you are perhaps taking the better course not to answer them, unless your skills in research have undergone a miraculous transformation since our discussion of Raffaele's spontaneous statements. Given your ignorance of who Sarah Gino is, I think such a transformation is unlikely.

 

[pilot padron]

Uncharacteristic and incorrect

pilot padron,

It is Dr. Gino, and she was one of the expert witnesses for the defense. Are you new to this case? Are you sure it is not Mrs. Stefanoni, as opposed to Dr. Stefanoni? I certainly have paid attention Dr./Mrs. Stefanoni's point of view, and what I found out was that her views on how often one should change gloves was roundly contradicted by John Butler, the author of the most comprehensive textbook available on DNA profiling. She also misrepresented whether or not a TMB test had been run on certain samples and failed to apprise the defense of just how little of Raffaele's DNA was found on the clasp. That would be the same clasp that she or her coworkers stored in a liquids jar in such a way as the clasp became rusted and rotted. As for the rest of my comments, you are perhaps taking the better course not to answer them, unless your skills in research have undergone a miraculous transformation since our discussion of Raffaele's spontaneous statements. Given your ignorance of who Sarah Gino is, I think such a transformation is unlikely.

1) My seemingly insignificant repeat of *your* lack of the 'Dr' academic title for Gino apparently struck a raw academic nerve with you, another of like genre.
The emphasis and implications that you allocate to the same is simply much, much more emphasis than rationally warranted by those of us not overly enamoured with professorial protocol.

2) That along with:
2a) the uncharacteristically aggressive tenor of the rest your reply
2b your equally uncharacteristic 'attack-mode' emphasis,elaboration, and unnecessary attempt to embarrass by resurrecting the previously graciously conceded (ever so important) contest as to whether 2 or 4 instances should be deigned as "several"
2c the scant probability of me being blessed in the foreseeable future with anything approaching your desired 'miraculous' transformation
2d your obviously rhetorical and well known to you as incorrect slur about being 'new' to the case. (which is also uncharacteristic)
2e your equally well known rhetorical incorrect slur about Dr/Mrs Stefanoni
2f your illogical insinuation that we need a self heralded textbook author to enlighten us, the unwashed masses, concerning the common sense criteria of glove longevity

3)The above convinces me yet again that my now *thrice announced* decision not to personally additionally belabor these 'talked to death' here points was indeed correct.

Incidentally in addition to being completely old hat, these tired talking points that you personally opine yet once again (possibly solely to entrap/embarrass ?) as ever so crucial, in the overall case are grains of sand on a seashore of such numerical oft regurgitated challenges (from both sides) that do not merit any more consideration than I have already devoted to them for you today.

End of story, and based on the 'shock value' to me of mentioned and listed uncharacteristic tenor of parts of above argument, the end of my participation here for a while

 

[Chris_Halkides]

2f your illogical insinuation that we need a self heralded textbook author to enlighten us, the unwashed masses, concerning the common sense criteria of glove longevity

pilot padron,

You misunderstand the point about gloves. How long they last is not the issue. It is their potential for carrying over biological traces from one sample to the next that is at issue. Dr. Stefanoni's own words as reported in the Massei motivations document are a cause for concern (again, three cheers for the translators).

 

[quadraginta]

Forum Community thread on this subject, about six weeks back. You snorted at me with barely concealed incredulity if I recall correctly. The 'cover-up' part was a joke.

This post?

You got it right on the second try. "Incredulity" is not a synonym for "admonishment", however. More like "surprise" and "disbelief".

You are conveniently forgetting the post of platonov's which prompted that exchange. (The one where you edited out his reference to the original OP of these threads when you quoted his post in your response to him.)

My surprise was a reaction to the admission that you had embarked on such a fervent career as an authority in these threads without ever having so much as glanced at their very inception here, one which quite straightforwardly asserted that Knox's mere demeanor in the police station was the primary reason for her conviction.

I remain somewhat "incredulous" that your knowledge regarding the discussion here was so sorely lacking about this fundamental element. Or at least very surprised.

If you'd have been around posting on this page I damn well would have copied and pasted your user name, I just can't get that right, and for some reason thought it was not 'drag' but had misspelled it that way last time. No insult was intended, but it appears some was taken, my apologies.

I'll have to take your word for it. Keep trying. It isn't that difficult to spell correctly if you want to.

 

[Justinian2]

In the interest of maintaining the factual evidence based ideals many here vocally champion, (especially advantageous when ridiculing/responding to their opponents), and in the interest of avoiding the even more prevalent *over* statements to promote innocence that pop up here very frequently, please consider:

1) Exactly two (2) of the four panelists are 'authors' of books.

2) Since I was previously severely taken to task here over meaning of 'several', may I respectfully suggest your use of 'all' is therefore an inaccurate and misleading exaggeration.
Many more than two have presented cases for innocence

3) Additionally, except in your (now somewhat questionable) opinion...neither would qualify for the adjective 'famous' that you generously but erroneously bestow on them.
(despite their own endless exaggerated aggressive self aggrandizing endeavors)

3) How 'big' the Forum becomes is also very subjective since many FOAKer Groupies considered the latest Fundraiser, Bowling for Dollars 'Big' and others described it as a few diehards taking advantage of free bowling shoe rental as long as they did not attempt to 'donate' with a *traceable* check.

4) Most 'Forums', particularly at Jesuit Institutes of higher learning, generate interest and truly educate by having with Panelists from both sides of subjects discussed, and not by having little more than a Hometown Cheer leading Pep Rally Love-in for Panelists with tightly monitored PR Firm sanctioned and scripted Questioners.

The people on other side are the police, the judges, the prosecutors, the rags, the sleazy 'witnesses' and the sleazy 'forensic' scientist(s). Not only have they had their say, but they have forced their opinions on all of us. They have incarcerated the innocent. They have cost the families of the innocent millions of dollars in legal fees and four years of heartache. They don't have to be correct or truthful to achieve their objective, which is inflicting pain and injury on those that are the targets of their hostility.

The other side has proved nothing, but has been wrong time after time.

Let's say you were right about #1. I really don't care as the answer will not really resolve any issue. Just because a person doesn't cross all his t's and dot all his i's doesn’t make him incorrect. In fact, some of the worst penmanship I've seen has belonged to people of enormous IQ.

The argument isn't about the number of facts. Facts are like real estate property. What matters in real estate and with facts is location, location, location (the three L's of real estate)

 

[Dan O.]

A few weeks ago I was doing some research on this case and I must have fallen asleep. I have this strange memory of coming across a conference notice where the world renowned expert on forensic DNA, Doctor Patrizia Stefanoni, was giving a lecture on new groundbreaking procedures that can pull a full DNA profile using the standard kit when the quantity of DNA is too low even for LCN.