Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

YSTR limitations

What I meant to say was, somebody please save me from looking this up, but are they only talking about Raffaele's Y-chromosome haplotype being possibly on that bra catch?

How many distinct y-chromosome haplotypes are there anyway? Is this any better than saying there was type A-positive blood at the scene and the suspect is A-positive?

Rolfe.

Rolfe,

This is only an interim answer, but it seems to me that there are two contributors to the DNA in the present analysis of the Y chromosome. One of them could be Raffaele, and one is an unidentified individual. One problem with YSTR DNA profiling is that one cannot calculate a random match probability the way one does for autosomal DNA profiling. It is not as discriminating, in other words. I will let you know as I learn more.

 

[LondonJohn]

Rolfe, I would have thought the time of death would warrant inclusion in the appeal long before a handful of utterly unconvincing prison inmates contradicting each other at every pass with their testimony.

You are another who clearly does not understand the meaning of the term "appeal trial" in this case. And you also don't seem to understand the difference between defence (or prosecution) requests for additional evidence/testimony (which are made at the very beginning of the appeal trial process, and which the presiding judge allows or rejects based on whether he thinks the additional evidence/testimony will add to the understanding of the case) and the fact that all the evidence/testimony will be argued in the argument phase of the appeal trial - which has yet to start.

 

[Mary_H]

That's really a minor point but I hoped some progress had been made.
But just to be clear you are back to the 'shouldn't have been arrested on Nov 6th' argument.
OK. Bassoons it is then.

I was more interested in the fact that you are both still sticking to the CT that the cops had PL in their sights, forced AK to name him and thus they and the translator perjured themselves on the stand.

That's a CT with absolutely no evidence to back it up no matter how you slice it. Nor has it been even remotely hinted by AK's lawyers or anybody in the real world.

Still upset that I edit, as opposed to using the preview pane, my posts for spacing typos etc. Given all the claims of incomprehensibility I thought you would be happy either way

Without evidence, Amanda's lawyers would be subject to calunnia charges for making those accusations. The police took care of the evidence when they withheld the interrogation tapes.

The best they could do was have the Supreme Court throw out the coerced confessions. Her attorney, Carlo dalla Vedova, also objected strongly in court when the statements were used anyway.

Those seem like more than remote hints to me.

We are not subject to calunnia charges, so we can speculate, based on many facts and excellent reasons that have been argued here in the past, that it is likely the police had Lumumba in their sights before they interrogated Amanda.

 

[LondonJohn]

What I meant to say was, somebody please save me from looking this up, but are they only talking about Raffaele's Y-chromosome haplotype being possibly on that bra catch?

How many distinct y-chromosome haplotypes are there anyway? Is this any better than saying there was type A-positive blood at the scene and the suspect is A-positive?

Rolfe.

The short answer is that y-haplotypes only identify particular ethnic groups. So, in that regard, they're not that dissimilar in identification accuracy terms to blood typing (although they are one or two orders of magnitude more accurate). There are some 35 main y-haplogroups, and around 200 or so subgroups underneath those groups.

As halides has also said in reply to your question, it's uncertain as to how specific the y-halogroup typing is in any case, and also (as he says) it's not really possible to calculate match probabilities from YSTR typing.

The really short lay conclusion is that some of the DNA on the bra clasp might be Sollecito's, but that there's not enough to say that it's definitely his (with any reasonable degree of accuracy necessary to constitute criminal proof). But, regardless of what's actually on the bra clasp, the conditions of its abandonment, handling, collection, storage and testing pretty much nullify anything found on it because of the significant possibility of contamination. And this is reinforced by the demonstrable presence of other y-haplogroup donors, as well as unidentified female partial profiles, on the clasp. There's virtually no way that this other DNA could have got onto the clasp other than through contamination at some stage, so even if it were somehow proven that Sollecito's DNA is present (which is not now the case), it would be inadmissible as evidence owing to the contamination issue.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yes of course, I think your post says more about you than your view of the Kercher’s.

I find it fascinating myself the way that the guilters' pathological need to believe in Amanda Knox's guilt distorts every other belief they hold.

To buttress the belief in Knox's guilt they transform Knox herself from a mostly ordinary and clearly well-liked young woman into a psychopathic, sociopathic, ADHD, autistic, manipulative criminal genius and total idiot.

Meanwhile they transform Meredith Kercher herself from a mostly ordinary young woman whose boyfriend grew pot into the last great hope for world peace cut down before her prime by a jealous rival, and her sadly uninformed father with an enormous pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case into a factual authority.

They're all just people. Don't put any of them on a pedestal, and don't make stupid **** up to villify any of them. They're just ordinary people in an extraordinary situation born of police incompetence and corruption.

 

[LondonJohn]

Without evidence, Amanda's lawyers would be subject to calunnia charges for making those accusations. The police took care of the evidence when they withheld the interrogation tapes.

The best they could do was have the Supreme Court throw out the coerced confessions. Her attorney, Carlo dalla Vedova, also objected strongly in court when the statements were used anyway.

Those seem like more than remote hints to me.

We are not subject to calunnia charges, so we can speculate, based on many facts and excellent reasons that have been argued here in the past, that it is likely the police had Lumumba in their sights before they interrogated Amanda.

Oh but we ARE subject to calunnia charges, Mary! Mignini has very long tentacles! He (and his people) are scouring boards like this, with writs at the ready. Be afraid, be very afraid! Quennell says this is the case, so it must be true!

But to go back to reality: it seems pretty obvious to me that as and when this fiasco is properly resolved in the Autumn (sorry, Fall!), the charges against Knox's parents and Knox herself will almost certainly be withdrawn. I have a funny feeling, however, that prosecutors will still doggedly pursue the proceedings against Sollecito's family and the Telenorba executives.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

parents' reactions

I haven't read his articles, however I think articles by the families of murder victims in cases where the judicial process is not yet over (or is in serious doubt) are often counter-productive. Naturally, any parent wants to let the world know what a lovely person their deceased child was. However, such publicity all to often turns into a hate-fest against the assumed perpetrator. That then turns very quickly into an equally impassioned hate-fest against anyone who suggests that the hate-figure might in fact not have committed the crime.

I see it time and time again on TV, when an accused person is acquitted. Faces twisted with hate, screaming that they and their loved one have been denied justice. Where is the justice for anyone in convicting an innocent person? A wrong has been done, of that there is no question. But it's far too easy to let a desire to see the perpetrator pay transform into a desire to see someone pay, and damn the facts.

Rolfe,

In the majority of cases of wrongful conviction that I can easily think of (Norfolk four and Eric Volz in Nicaragua), once the parents of the deceased believe that the wrongfully convicted person is guilty, they don't let go of that belief. The only partial exception I can think of is the West Memphis Three in which at least one of the parents (possibly more) has indicated support for a new trial. I think that Mr. Kercher's hatred of Ms. Knox comes from a genuine belief in her guilt. If money were the driving force, he might be demonizing Mr. Sollecito more than her. MOO.

 

[Justinian2]

It's government versus the rest of us.
Government employees and those who get their $$ from government look to people in government and try to make them entirely right.
The rest of us use facts and logic.

Amanda represents the people of the world.
Mignini, Massei, the police represent government.

Some of the guilters are part of the government crowd.
They have a strong bias towards government self righteousness.

Sorry. This is my own personal bias.

It's just that whenever I find I have a disagreement with a person, I later find out that person has a $$ tie to government. Any government will do. They aren't idiots, they just are prejudiced.

My predjudice is that government is like a beast (the beast??)

 

[Chris_Halkides]

let us hope that authority does not always win

Some of the guilters are part of the government crowd.
They have a strong bias towards government self righteousness.

Justinian2,

I think that some of the pro-guilt crowd consists of authoritarians.

 

[RoseMontague]

I don't think Meredith's parents serve the cause of justice by championing a perversion of justice in putting two innocents in jail. I can understand supporting a prosecution only to the point where it becomes obvious that these two might not be guilty. I believe we have passed that point where a reasonable person that is familiar with the evidence would have reasonable doubt and I believe it would be inexcusable to pay a lawyer to actively support the prosecution without being familiar with the evidence. What the Kercher's are doing at this point in the case is wrong, in my opinion.

 

[RoseMontague]

One thing Massei relies on in the staging of the break in argument is that there was proof that Amanda and Raffaele were there and Amanda had the keys to let Rudy in. The primary proof would be Curatolo watching them watch the cottage and the bra clasp and knife blade DNA. These three things no longer being reliable also damages the argument about the staged break in. It is a house of cards and things are starting to collapse.

 

[Danceme]

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed breaches of rules 0 & 12.

Rolfe,

In the majority of cases of wrongful conviction that I can easily think of (Norfolk four and Eric Volz in Nicaragua), once the parents of the deceased believe that the wrongfully convicted person is guilty, they don't let go of that belief. The only partial exception I can think of is the West Memphis Three in which at least one of the parents (possibly more) has indicated support for a new trial. I think that Mr. Kercher's hatred of Ms. Knox comes from a genuine belief in her guilt. If money were the driving force, he might be demonizing Mr. Sollecito more than her. MOO.

That's a very good point halides.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

That's a very good point halides.

I disagree myself. Raffaele and Amanda will hang together if Amanda hangs, and so it costs the Maresca/Kercher team nothing to focus on Amanda's guilt, and so far she's had far more legs as a media fetish than Raffaele. In addition, if one of their major goals is indeed to seize Raffaele's assets then villifying Amanda instead gives them plausible deniability.

If I'm smart enough to figure that out I'm sure Maresca is too.

 

[komponisto]

This I find odd, especially as I have seen it written that 1 of the founding moderators on 1 of the PMF websites, brags that she was a state debate champion! And if I recall correctly, she has even posted here before at JREF. Come on Skeptical Bystander, there's a good debate goin' on here, especially since the Appeals Trials are under way.

Why don'tcha come on over and debate, champ?

This is a powerful argument against debating for sport -- confirming suspicions that it is corrosive to rationality.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I don't think Meredith's parents serve the cause of justice by championing a perversion of justice in putting two innocents in jail. I can understand supporting a prosecution only to the point where it becomes obvious that these two might not be guilty. I believe we have passed that point where a reasonable person that is familiar with the evidence would have reasonable doubt and I believe it would be inexcusable to pay a lawyer to actively support the prosecution without being familiar with the evidence. What the Kercher's are doing at this point in the case is wrong, in my opinion.

When the prosecution brought in their lame witnesses about the sex change payment for testimony thing, or whatever on earth it was, Maresca said it sounded credible. When does it start to become a joke?

 

[komponisto]

I think that Mr. Kercher's hatred of Ms. Knox comes from a genuine belief in her guilt. If money were the driving force, he might be demonizing Mr. Sollecito more than her. MOO.

I disagree myself. Raffaele and Amanda will hang together if Amanda hangs, and so it costs the Maresca/Kercher team nothing to focus on Amanda's guilt, and so far she's had far more legs as a media fetish than Raffaele. In addition, if one of their major goals is indeed to seize Raffaele's assets then villifying Amanda instead gives them plausible deniability.

If I'm smart enough to figure that out I'm sure Maresca is too.

These positions are reconcilable: it's possible that monetary considerations may be affecting Mr. Kercher's judgement, so that he may not be actually being dishonest, just irrational.

As for Maresca, he strikes me as that type of lawyer who doesn't even think in terms of truth or falsity, but in terms of cases to win. (Cf. my comment above about sport-debating, which tends to foster this kind of mentality.)

 

[Kaosium]

The distinction between 'word salad' and non sequitur is often a subtle one.

Too subtle for me in this instance.

Is that your way of saying 'I'm busted!'

Seriously, Platonov, hasn't it occurred to you by now that the only source that actually knows anything about the case that still thinks them guilty, is not only fanatical about that belief far past what the evidence could possibly suggest, but invents absurd conspiracy theories trying to 'connect' the vast multitudes of disparate people who disagree?

For example, wouldn't it make more sense that anyone who 'associates' with the FOA are people who think them more or less correct and their cause just?

Isn't that how it actually works for just about every other organization?

 

[Kaosium]

??????????????

Like all good CT's it can be amended as necessary without changing the overall effect.

That's exactly what he said Platonov, read his post again!

That's what Mignini did, when faced with the virtual certainty of Patrick Lumumba's innocence and Rudy Guede's traces, he just 'amended his conspiracy theory without changing the overall effect.'

Except one thing, instead of Patrick being the ringleader, it became that sultry minx Amanda instead, who wantonly manipulated all the men around her, including the police at the interrogation to serve her interests.

I mean it had to be something like that, otherwise how could you explain one girl barely out of her teens 'accomplishing' the arrest of Patrick in the face of twelve cops, signing only those two absurd statements that don't actually include the murder or any details of the crime? All they really get about that is Patrick went into a room with Meredith when she was in a timeless void, and then the police making a big display of themselves and insisting they had the 'facts they knew to be correct.'

Real cops during interrogations ask all these impertinent questions about the crime, and they don't just go away when they get told silly stuff, and they sure as hell don't go arresting people on the basis of what appears to be an opium dream. There has to be another explanation, they sure as hell wouldn't want anyone thinking they put that poor girl in that state, so it all had to be part of her duplicitous plot!

 

[Kaosium]

In what way are you dealing with Maresca?

How do you feel about Maresca representing the cops who think this is worthy of prosecution? What in that article do you believe they have the right to possibly jail Amanda's parents for?

 

[Diastole]

Interesting I wonder if the local economy in Perugia is allegedly suffering because students\tourists are avoiding it because of the brutal murder of Meredith Kercher or because of the judicial process that followed, I tend to conclude it is the former.

Objectively, Meredith Kercher should have been safer on the streets of that old hilltop town than she was on those of Leeds or London. But what parent, contemplating their childs travel, could ignore the sad fact that Meredith was murdered on the first night she spent alone in her Perugian apartment? The narrow, cobbled streets, so alluring in the postcards, now give a cavernous and threatening impression.

Knox and Sollecito will be exonerated. No sensible and uninvested person thinks otherwise now. The charge against them was preposterous and no vaild evidence of guilt was presented. John Kercher wakes daily to the dull, unending ache in that empty place where his daughter's future ought to have resided. His advocate, Maresca, might still do him good service were he to find the courage to admit to having misconceived the case. His acumen, and the trust which he has earned from Kercher, might give him the credibility to present a convincing and reassuring case for the true justice of the acquittals. Sadly, it seems more likely that Maresca's final gift to the Kerchers will be the lasting bitterness which springs from an unfounded belief in justice denied.