Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is this the best the guilters can come up with? Lets talk about stuff that will have no effect on the trial unless you read the guilter smear campaign in the papers. I wonder how much the guilters have raised to help their million dollar pr campaign to keep Knox/Sollecito in jail.
 
LondonJohn said:
Well, this is the other interesting point here (and one of the points that led me to erroneously suggest that there was no visible blood on the tap). The Massei Report is almost pointed in not referring to blood on the tap - when it refers explicitly to blood (or dilute blood) when discussing all of the other areas in the bathroom that were swabbed.

I therefore wonder if this smear on the tap was tested with a presumptive test, but came back negative for human blood. After all, it wouldn't be the first time in this case that a negative TMB result was suppressed, would it?

(And I'd agree that the majority of the photos and the crime scene video shot under the normal lighting conditions in the bathroom don't show a visible blood smear. The photo showing the smear appears to have been taken with a strong lighting source (and/or a pushed exposure).)
Click to expand...

Yes, I was thinking along the same lines. I am currently confused as to what might be the truth behind the 'mixed blood' samples and that smear on the faucet. I just got done reading the Machine on this issue which suggests to me there must be mendacity involved here somewhere. :D

Let's see, there's Barbie, that one juror quoted after the trial, the jackal Maresca, Andrea Vogt and Garofano saying Stafanoni said the mixed DNA samples were mixed blood for some silly-ass reason, the electropherograms if I recall correctly. On the other hand Massei says it doesn't work like that twice and that Amanda was examined thoroughly in captivity and there were no signs of any wounds.

Considering the pattern of obfuscation of all of the above on this case, how are we supposed to figure out who's got it right? The way the truth behind the luminol hits was hidden, as well as the ToD obscured, suggests to me there's yet another illusion to dispel here. 'It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma' and we need to find the key.

Massei says if you find two DNA profiles in blood you cannot tell whether the blood is mixed, or just who it came from. Everyone else above disagrees with him it appears, according to The Machine. What's the truth of the matter, do you know?

The other point you thankfully brought to our attention is they're saying that because Amanda said the bathroom was clean the night before the murder that dates the blood to November first. As your picture and the video proves, it's damned deadly difficult to see that if you're not looking for it without holding a flashlight to it.
 
Last edited:
Chris C said:
Is this the best the guilters can come up with? Lets talk about stuff that will have no effect on the trial unless you read the guilter smear campaign in the papers. I wonder how much the guilters have raised to help their million dollar pr campaign to keep Knox/Sollecito in jail.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many innocentisti have written the defense team to explain the stomach contents issue, have you?
 
Kaosium said:
Yes, I was thinking along the same lines. I am currently confused as to what might be the truth behind the 'mixed blood' samples and that smear on the faucet. I just got done reading the Machine on this issue which suggests to me there must be mendacity involved here somewhere. :D

Let's see, there's Barbie, that one juror quoted after the trial, the jackal Maresca, Andrea Vogt and Garofano saying Stafanoni said the mixed DNA samples were mixed blood for some silly-ass reason, the electropherograms if I recall correctly. On the other hand Massei says it doesn't work like that twice and that Amanda was examined thoroughly in captivity and there were no signs of any wounds.

Considering the pattern of obfuscation of all of the above on this case, how are we supposed to figure out whose got it right? The way the truth behind the luminol hits was hidden, as well as the ToD obscured, suggests to me there's yet another illusion to dispel here. 'It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma' and we need to find the key.

Massei says if you find two DNA profiles in blood you cannot tell whether the blood is mixed, or just who it came from. Everyone else above disagrees with him it appears, according to The Machine. What's the truth of the matter, do you know?

The other point you thankfully brought to our attention is they're saying that because Amanda said the bathroom was clean the night before the murder that dates the blood to November first. As your picture and the video proves, it's damned deadly difficult to see that if you're not looking for it without holding a flashlight to it.
Click to expand...


I explained all this to halides1 late last year when he was confusing some book or other with what was actually presented in court.

If you ask him nicely he will give you a link.
 
Last edited:
Katody Matrass said:
Interesting developements. Mignini in his recent ramble that, according to him was recorded treacherously by Graham :D, not only changed his theory another time, but also bad-mouthed perugian cops. Frantic hunt for a scape-goat commences :)
Click to expand...


Looks like the pressure is getting to him. In contrast those two kids he persecuted took all he could dish out and showed grace under pressure. They both got run over that night in the police station and learned something from it. We will see if Mignini responds as well...

Has anyone seen what Oggi was supposed to have come out with today?
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
Katody Matrass,

I have seen no evidence that the forensic police ever did confirmatory tests for blood. I would hazard a guess (based on large number of blood stains listed in the selected DNA samples document that Charlie Wilkes compiled) that they used DNA testing as an alternative to doing so. Although I do not believe that they are alone in using DNA profiling in this manner, this case points up some difficulties in doing so. I am willing to assume provisionally that splotch on the faucet is blood.
Click to expand...

However, if the blood is on a surface that contained someone's DNA from elsewhen, that would automatically confound the results, wouldn't it? That isn't all that unlikely...
 
platonov said:
I explained all this to halides1 late last year when he was confusing some book or other with what was actually presented in court.

If you ask him nicely he will give you a link.
Click to expand...

However, as I noted, it's not just Garofano that said that, but numerous people. My question is, did Stefanoni say something silly in court and thus quoted by all those people and corrected by Massei? Or did Massei get it wrong, or try to obfuscate like he did with the breaking of the window and stomach contents?
 
DNA cannot be dated

platonov said:
I explained all this to halides1 late last year when he was confusing some book or other with what was actually presented in court.

If you ask him nicely he will give you a link.
Click to expand...
platonov,

I am not sure which citations you mean. Colonel Garofano's statements have an effect on public opinion. I believe that public opinion played and may continue to play an important role in this case; hat is why it was worth my time to rebut them. For once I agree with Dr. Stefanoni, who said that one cannot and should not conclude that mixed DNA is equivalent to mixed blood.

Both Colonel Garofano and Judge Massei attempt to put a date onto the DNA evidence, although they use different means to do so, and both are dead wrong. Massei equates a "clean" bathroom with a DNA-free bathroom; therefore any DNA found in the bathroom must have been deposited after it was declared clean. Colonel Garofano's initial error is in associating high peak heights in an egram with the presence of blood. This ignores the fact that many DNA reference profiles are generated from cheek epithelial cells because they are such a good source. Another example is Raffaele's profile on the cigarette butt, which is strong. Colonel Garofano says that blood decays fast, so the DNA (= blood) must be recent. I tried running a similar idea past Jason Gilder one time and got no traction. Given that Chapter 3 of his PhD. thesis is about how to measure decay in DNA samples, I will take his opinion on this as that of an expert.
 
Last edited:
automatic deposits

Kaosium said:
However, if the blood is on a surface that contained someone's DNA from elsewhen, that would automatically confound the results, wouldn't it? That isn't all that unlikely...
Click to expand...
Kaosium,

One reasonable explanation for the mixed DNA results is Meredith's blood falling onto biological matter containing Amanda's DNA. A long time ago I posted a link that explained some of the ways in which we deposit DNA all of the time, but I do not have it handy at the moment. It is probably in the first continuation thread. The prosecution could have run substrate controls where they sampled near the blood (or luminol-positive) areas. If these hypothetical controls experiments had never shown Amanda's DNA, then the prosecution might be on firmer ground in attaching any significance to them. I hasten to add that running substrate controls is not universally agreed up as good practice, IIUC. Please let me know if this explanation does not answer your question.
ETA
Here is one link that briefly describes some of the ways that we deposit DNA. I think I found another one some time ago, but I have yet to relocate it.
 
Last edited:
New development

From Mark Waterbury's Monster of Perugia Website:

Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Failure to Protect Amanda Knox’ Rights Decried in Letter to Obama
Seattle, WA, USA – June 8, 2011

The Friends of Amanda Knox have written to President Barack Obama expressing their concern about the failure of consular officials to protect the rights of American citizen, Amanda Knox, convicted in Perugia, Italy, of murdering her British roommate and sentenced to 26 years in prison.

The letter sent to Obama on May 16, 2011 indicates seven areas in which Italian or EU law was violated by prosecutors and police in Perugia, Italy. Yet, the letter cites repeated assertions by State Department spokespersons that it was their obligation to safeguard those same rights. It was sent by Michael Heavey, a superior court judge acting in a personal capacity only, and cosigned by Thomas Wright, founder of Friends of Amanda, Dr. Mark C. Waterbury, author of The Monster of Perugia – The Framing of Amanda Knox, and attorney Anne Bremner, spokesperson of Friends of Amanda. A pdf file of the letter can be downloaded here http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/ConsularFailureKnox.pdf .....
Click to expand...


ETA: The letter is illuminating in that it spells out which specific Italian laws were broken in the prosecution.
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
Kaosium,

One reasonable explanation for the mixed DNA results is Meredith's blood falling onto biological matter containing Amanda's DNA. A long time ago I posted a link that explained some of the ways in which we deposit DNA all of the time, but I do not have it handy at the moment. It is probably in the first continuation thread. The prosecution could have run substrate controls where they sampled near the blood (or luminol-positive) areas. If these hypothetical controls experiments had never shown Amanda's DNA, then the prosecution might be on firmer ground in attaching any significance to them. I hasten to add that running substrate controls is not universally agreed up as good practice, IIUC. Please let me know if this explanation does not answer your question.
ETA
Here is one link that briefly describes some of the ways that we deposit DNA. I think I found another one some time ago, but I have yet to relocate it.
Click to expand...


So in other words they don't have a true confirmatory test for blood. I was thinking about this which I came across during my Great Luminol Hunt:


The line between screening and identification is not always clear. For example, while examining the clothing of a suspect, a forensic biologist might visually locate a brown stain that presumptively tested positive for blood and was then DNA typed. The DNA type is found to match the victim. Knowing that the loci tested are higher primate specific, what conclusions can be drawn?

The only unqualified conclusion that can be offered is that the stain contains DNA that matches the victim. It has not been proven to be blood.

If asked “Could the results have arisen because the material tested was the blood of the victim?” then an answer of “Yes” is justified. However, it would be wrong to report that the material was human blood with a DNA type that matched the victim. The material was not subjected to confirmatory testing for blood or proven to be human in origin.
Click to expand...

Presumptive tests don't prove blood even with a DNA test, one of those vegetable, metal or other stains that can slip past both luminol and TMB might have mixed with DNA from anyone, from anytime. So if they don't do a confirmatory test in the lab, they haven't really proven for blood.

This might be the other link you were thinking of, Rose re-posted it a while back too.
 
halides1 said:
Kaosium,

One reasonable explanation for the mixed DNA results is Meredith's blood falling onto biological matter containing Amanda's DNA. A long time ago I posted a link that explained some of the ways in which we deposit DNA all of the time, but I do not have it handy at the moment. It is probably in the first continuation thread. The prosecution could have run substrate controls where they sampled near the blood (or luminol-positive) areas. If these hypothetical controls experiments had never shown Amanda's DNA, then the prosecution might be on firmer ground in attaching any significance to them. I hasten to add that running substrate controls is not universally agreed up as good practice, IIUC. Please let me know if this explanation does not answer your question.
ETA
Here is one link that briefly describes some of the ways that we deposit DNA. I think I found another one some time ago, but I have yet to relocate it.
Click to expand...

That this is even considered evidence may be a symptom of watching too many crime dramas. We have come to associate DNA traces and fingerprints with crime. As if somehow humans only leave fingerprints and DNA behind during criminal acts. Finding a person's DNA or fingerprints where they were known to live or visit doesn't prove a thing.

I have seen this same logic error in other cases. For example, a California homicide case where the suspects fingerprint was found in the victim's kitchen. Considering that the suspect lived next door and stopped by for coffee several times a week, wouldn't that be expected?
 
The "blood" drop on the faucet is meaningless. It could be blood of AK or it could be fake blood that contains AK DNA deposited there during the brushing of ones teeth. Everyone spits into the sink...perhaps AK is a poor shot. This gleeking
would contain a large volume of DNA.

I wouldn’t defend Stefanoni so quickly. She promised she could tell the difference between menstrual blood and regular blood and she also alluded that certain DNA traces could be designated as blood based on the amount of DNA present. Neither of these are backed by science.

DNA is in blood in high quantities...but that is meaningless. DNA can be present in high quantities inside the mouth as well... Geesh...Id hate to be a lisper at these Italian crime scenes. And DNA does not degrade at any predictable rate. Garofano is foolhardy
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
From Mark Waterbury's Monster of Perugia Website:




ETA: The letter is illuminating in that it spells out which specific Italian laws were broken in the prosecution.
Click to expand...

Do I dare log onto the IIP forum and see what our 'interlocutor' there has to say about clause 3? 'Required by article 141 of the CCP for any person in custody' is pretty much confirmation that despite whatever silly dodges they came up with pretending she was a 'witness' when she walked in, after 1:30 there should be a tape of everything. How they manage this if they don't have cameras in the police station interrogation rooms, or don't tape them because they can't 'afford to' is something I'd like to see Mignini have to answer.

I think he's lying, I think he's guilty! :D
 
The way this trial is going

The way I see it at this very moment,is if Amanda wins this appeal, there will be no, slander trials agaist the knox family.
If we look at the trial so far.
1 No confesstion from Amanda or Raffaele.
2 Star witnesses made fun of in court.
3 No DNA on the Knife or bra strap, experts looking very hard to find out where, a very small amount of, Merediths DNA came from.
4 Mignini, makeing a fool of himself, in front of the world press.
5 A top judge, after asking that all reports should be sent to the DNA experts, Then demand, that this info, be sent right away, That is not looking good for the Perugia police.
6 A top police officer, not turning up in court, when, said police officer was told to do so.
7 And to put the icing on top of the cake, no tape of the interrogation, no confesstion.
No confesstion, no slander charges.
:)
 
Was the mixed blood blood?

Other than the blood on the door, the light switch and the bathmat---none of which was "mixed"---the so-called blood was probably all fake vampire blood left there by Meredith as she applied it on Halloween or as she cleaned it off the next afternoon. The murderer entering the bathroom the night of the murder to clean blood from his trousers and his hands could do so using just the shower. No need to use the sink, bidet, or toilet.

And the so-called blood on that box of cotton balls? Cotton balls are recommended for adding blood to the skin. And would anyone dare dispose of the "bloody" cotton ball (which was never discovered!) by flushing it down the toilet? Or pour the bowl of fake blood into the bidet?



629px-Mixfakeblood6.png

Here is where it's done.

///
 
Last edited:
Here's the relevant article, I have no idea what the second sentence is supposed to suggest, though the first seems to say that all questioning of a person in custody in any capacity must be documented with audio or video or it is unusable. There also had to be minutes of the interview, but a transcript or copy is only prepared if requested by the parties.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article 141-bis.
Procedures for documentation of the interrogation of persons in detention.

1. 1. Any questioning of the person who is, in any capacity, in custody, and that does not take place at the hearing, must be fully documented, otherwise unusable, by means of phonograms or audiovisual work. When there is a lack of recording equipment or technical personnel, are provided with the forms of expertise, or technical advice. Interview shall also be minuted. The transcript of the reproduction is prepared only if requested by the parties.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom