Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[ForTruth]

Did you ever get a response to your e-mail?

Well first I emailed her to contest the use of the term mixed blood and offered to back up my claim with with a perusal of the Massei report.
She then replied saying that biologists she's spoken to believe it was blood based on the height of the peaks but was interested in any sources of info I had.
I replied with what you have read.
She never replied directly - but she never has written mixed blood since then. In fact - one of her articles written after that specifically used the term mixed-dna traces. Unfortunately in that article she quoted the "I was there".
I quickly thanked for her the correcting the terminology and let her know I was irate about the quote (being worthy of mention since it is meaningless since there was never defined, but I digress).

She makes me angry - cause it's clear she is quite talented and capable of doing good reporting, but in my opinion, it appears she is doing a little face-saving of her own.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the peak height fallacy (mixed DNA is not mixed blood)

Well first I emailed her to contest the use of the term mixed blood and offered to back up my claim with with a perusal of the Massei report.
She then replied saying that biologists she's spoken to believe it was blood based on the height of the peaks but was interested in any sources of info I had.
I replied with what you have read.
She never replied directly - but she never has written mixed blood since then. In fact - one of her articles written after that specifically used the term mixed-dna traces. Unfortunately in that article she quoted the "I was there".
I quickly thanked for her the correcting the terminology and let her know I was irate about the quote (being worthy of mention since it is meaningless since there was never defined, but I digress).

She makes me angry - cause it's clear she is quite talented and capable of doing good reporting, but in my opinion, it appears she is doing a little face-saving of her own.

ForTruth,

Charlie Wilkes consulted with Greg Hampikian about this, and wrote comments here and at the IIP forum. I also wrote a comment about this subject about two months ago. BTW, you can embed links with the blue-green world tool found in the same row as the bold and highlight tools.

 

[LondonJohn]

If you're referring the the smeared stain on the faucet, Massei doesn't think that involved with the murder either, he accepts that it's from Amanda's ear-piercing:

Even Massei doesn't buy the idiots' "nosebleed" theory (which is ludicrous because it would be virtually impossible for Knox to have been hit hard enough in the nasal area to cause a nosebleed without there being some form of visual marking or bruising).

PS: With regard to Steve Moore's out-of-court (OOC) settlement, some people don't seem to understand that this settlement was accepted by the plaintiff - Moore - as an alternative to going to court. OOC settlements are almost always only offered by the defendant (here, Pepperdine) if they think they will probably lose in court. And the plaintiff alone has the decision on whether or not to accept the OOC settlement - he can choose to reject it and carry on with the court process if he feels the monetary amount is not in line with what a court would award. I therefore conclude that Moore received a very substantial monetary settlement - one which was sufficient to persuade him to discontinue court proceedings. Some people know very little about such things, it would appear.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well first I emailed her to contest the use of the term mixed blood and offered to back up my claim with with a perusal of the Massei report.
She then replied saying that biologists she's spoken to believe it was blood based on the height of the peaks but was interested in any sources of info I had.
I replied with what you have read.
She never replied directly - but she never has written mixed blood since then. In fact - one of her articles written after that specifically used the term mixed-dna traces. Unfortunately in that article she quoted the "I was there".
I quickly thanked for her the correcting the terminology and let her know I was irate about the quote (being worthy of mention since it is meaningless since there was never defined, but I digress).

She makes me angry - cause it's clear she is quite talented and capable of doing good reporting, but in my opinion, it appears she is doing a little face-saving of her own.

She - like Nadeau and Pisa - is not a staff journalist. She is no more than a freelancer. As such, her stock-in-trade is even more based upon sensationalism, volatility and controversy than that of a standard staff journo. For freelancers, the equation is extremely simple and binary: if they don't get their pieces published, they don't get paid a penny.

My view is that press coverage of this case has been severely tainted by the fact that most journos covering it intensively are freelancers. Then you can add to this the pervasive journalistic problem: in criminal cases, journos of all flavours usually prefer to get cosy with the the authorities* rather than the defendants, and you have a recipe for a biased journalistic viewpoint of this case.

I think that the above is what drove Pisa, Nadeau and Vogt in their reporting of this case up to about the end of last year. I think they all got far too close to the authorities. I also think that they all stuck their fingers in the air to test the prevailing wind, and found it blowing towards guilt. They therefore all decided to tailor their copy to that angle - adding the requisite sensationalism and controversy in order to make sure they sold their work (and therefore got paid).

I also think that all three of them will likely perform swift "reverse ferrets", and that there is indeed evidence of them already laying the groundwork for such actions. I think that by October/November, they'll all be gaily writing articles (and TV reports) criticising Mignini and Massei, and questioning how this was ever anything other than a reasonable-doubt case. I hope that a serious investigative journalist chooses to write a decent book about the case - and exposes what really happened with an objective and rational eye.

* Authority sources - police, prosecutors - are often viewed by journos as more reliable. But in addition, there are two important reasons why journos get close to them: first, journos know that they rarely get into trouble when sucking up to the authorities, since it's only the authorities themselves that have the power to get journos into trouble(!); and second, authorities - if cultivated well (and sometimes rewarded well....) - can provide journos with a wealth of inside info on multiple cases.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

permanent vs. temporary relationship

* Authority sources - police, prosecutors - are often viewed by journos as more reliable. But in addition, there are two important reasons why journos get close to them: first, journos know that they rarely get into trouble when sucking up to the authorities, since it's only the authorities themselves that have the power to get journos into trouble(!); and second, authorities - if cultivated well (and sometimes rewarded well....) - can provide journos with a wealth of inside info on multiple cases.

LondonJohn,

Just to add onto your thought, a reporter works with police and other law enforcement personnel repeatedly, whereas he or she works with a defendant once. That is one of the reasons that the early coverage of a crime is likely to be biased against the defendant.

 

[LondonJohn]

LondonJohn,

Just to add onto your thought, a reporter works with police and other law enforcement personnel repeatedly, whereas he or she works with a defendant once. That is one of the reasons that the early coverage of a crime is likely to be biased against the defendant.

Absolutely. And I alluded to this in my post:

...second, authorities - if cultivated well (and sometimes rewarded well....) - can provide journos with a wealth of inside info on multiple cases.

It's a well-known and well-documented phenomenon. And it's why good investigative journalists usually take scrupulous care not to get too close to either side in cases like this one. And they usually make a special effort to avoid getting close to the authorities. Good investigative journalists also know that the authorities are often well-practised at selective leaking and "favour/reward" relationships, and that they often know full well how to exploit their positions of power.

Unfortunately, I don't think that Nadeau, Vogt or Pisa either realise this or care about it. They care about selling stories, and not much else. And that's not necessarily a personal criticism: I'd suggest that most people with their remuneration structure would probably choose to do the same. I'd say that it's more a failure of the press system (particularly with regard to freelancers/stringers). And I think it's the main reason why the public have been so poolry served by the press in this case.

As a slight aside, I observe the media being hoodwinked (often knowingly) day in and day out, as I watch companies court favourable press in return for nice freebies and good access to senior management. In fact, the most visible corporate collapse of recent times - Enron - was a classic example of this. The media (and Wall Street analysts) were all gushing in their praise of Enron - partly because everyone was afraid to be the only naysayer, but mostly because Enron was very generous with entertainment, corporate trips and access to all those who pushed the "Enron is great" story. It was only a relatively minor journalist on Fortune (Bethany McLean) - who was not beholden to Enron - who finally realised that the Emperor had no clothes.

 

[RoseMontague]

Unfortunately, I don't think that Nadeau, Vogt or Pisa either realise this or care about it. They care about selling stories, and not much else. And that's not necessarily a personal criticism: I'd suggest that most people with their remuneration structure would probably choose to do the same. I'd say that it's more a failure of the press system (particularly with regard to freelancers/stringers). And I think it's the main reason why the public have been so poorly served by the press in this case.

Nadeau is capable of writing something that is not about selling stories. This was perhaps the one that landed her in trouble with the press police.

http://elisarusso.splinder.com/tag/barbie+nadeau

 

[LondonJohn]

A small note on the DNA source data and the alleles/stutter issue:

Here's a (admittedly over-simplistic) analogy to help people better understand what's going on here:

In the UK national lottery's main game, one has to choose 6 numbers between 1 and 49 inclusive. The odds of all your six numbers being the ones the machine picks in any given week (and thus winning the jackpot) are around 1 in 14 million.

So, imagine that one week the machine selects the following numbers: 7, 12, 27, 29, 34, 41. Imagine that you have a lottery ticket in front of you. Imagine that written on that lottery ticket are not six numbers, but eighteen numbers. Next, imagine that (even though this is clearly impossible in the real world of lottery tickets), these 18 numbers may be "false" numbers, or may be the combination of as many as three different tickets.

So, you see that there are 18 numbers on the ticket in front of you. They are 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 20, 23, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 41, 43.

Now you look back at the newspaper, which has printed the winning numbers for this week (7, 12, 27, 29, 34, 41). You now decide that 4, 5, 10, 14, 15, 16, 20, 23, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 43 are actually "false" numbers, and that 7, 12, 27, 29, 34, 41 are "real" numbers" - and you don't explain how you distinguish between "real" and "false" numbers. You call the lottery operator, and excitedly tell them that you have a winning ticket.

Only, of course you don't - unless you can show definitively that there is very good reasoning for distinguishing between the "real" and "false" numbers on the ticket.

What's more, if some or all of the "false" numbers are now added back in, you can't even say that if the ticket is a mixture of three different tickets, one of these tickets must be the winning ticket (7, 12, 27, 29, 34, 41). For example, the "7" might have been part of a different group of six numbers (for example including 30 and 43). So you can't even say that the winning ticket was a contributor to the overall ticket in front of you.

And this - in a very simplified analogy - is the issue with the DNA on the bra clasp. Stefanoni has arbitrarily chosen which peaks to classify as alleles, and which to dismiss as stutter/noise - and there appears to be no scientific rationale behind her selection methodology. And - surprise, surprise - the peaks she chooses to count as alleles all correspond to the "winning ticket" of Sollecito's alleles.

And the analogy extends further: if we re-admit some or all of the other peaks on the graph, then we are left with the conclusion that Sollecito's y-haplotype might be present, but equally the peaks ascribed to him might also match with other peaks in some other individual's profile.

(PS: I realise that this is far from a perfect analogy, but still think that it has validity in helping to explain the problems with Stefanoni's interpretation of the bra clasp DNA)

 

[LondonJohn]

Nadeau is capable of writing something that is not about selling stories. This was perhaps the one that landed her in trouble with the press police.

http://elisarusso.splinder.com/tag/barbie+nadeau

You think that juicy stories featuring Berlusconi and allegations that he's perpetuating the sexist attitude to women in Italy are not potential sellers?!

Note that juicy stories and true stories are not necessarily mutually exclusive of each other. But if journalists like Nadeau are forced to choose between one or the other, "juicy" wins every time.*

* I'm not suggesting here that Nadeau (or others of her ilk) ever knowingly prints lies. I'm suggesting that she has a strong incentive to write provocative, sensationalist pieces over dull-but-worthy articles. And she also has a strong incentive to turn out lots of pieces, rather than spend more time to produce deeper, more analytical stuff.

 

[Fine]

How does one leave a single drip of watery blood behind after washing their hands that are covered in blood? The act of washing would leave blood smeared in the whole basin of the sink and that basin would need to be rinsed out. At this point, there is no visible blood present on the hands or in the sink so what is the source of the drip?

______________________

Dan,

The handles controlling water supply on the sink had no noticeable blood. So it looks like the person using the sink had blood-free hands. But if that person had blood-free hands ...why use the sink? Hmmm. Or did Amanda---being Amanda!--- first wash her hands in the bidet, then stick her foot in the sink?

Do you suppose the so-called blood dripped off of Meredith's chin, or came from the cotton bud used to apply her vampire blood?

Leaving aside the blood found on the door, the light switch, and the bathmat---which was clearly Meredith's blood and left by the murderer---the only uncontaminated "blood" found in the bathroom, in my opinion, was the drop of "blood" found on the toilet drain pipe, Sample #141. (See: HERE.) That drop of "blood" was farthest removed from residual DNA left by Amanda and
Meredith during their customary use of the bathroom. The result? No DNA of any kind found in that drop of "blood." Pure, unadulterated, vampire blood?

Meredith was in her bathroom on two occasions trying to remove the vampire blood from her face. Once, on the morning of November 1st when she first returned to the cottage from partying. But that first cleaning attempt wasn't altogether successful. When Amanda saw her, shortly after noon on that day, Amanda noticed the vampire blood "still dripping from her chin" and at that time Meredith complained that she'd already tried to clean her face of the vampire blood. When Meredith entered her bathroom on that afternoon there was still vampire blood to be cleaned off her face. (See Amanda's Trial Testimony.)

So if you include the night of Halloween when Meredith applied her vampire blood, that's three occasions on which Meredith was dripping "blood" in her bathroom. If the Scientific Police failed to find fake blood in the bathroom,....you gotta' wonder why not?

///

 

[Fine]

That's exactly the way I read it, and I think he actually does work to refute the theory that they're mixed blood through noting that Amanda had no wounds and had been thoroughly examined in custody, as well as pointing out all the unmixed samples were solely Meredith's. He definitely dates them to the crime, notably because of Amanda's statement that the bathroom was clean when she left:

Originally Posted by Massei 278 PMF
"Instead, the defendants’ teams maintained that these traces and the outcome of the analyses with reference to the mixed sample traces were irrelevant. In this regard, starting from the scientific data which emerged, according to which DNA analysis does not permit the age of the sample/trace to be determined, nor, in the case of a sample/trace indicating the presence of several biological profiles, can it be established whether their apposition-formation was contemporaneous or not, it was affirmed that, since it concerned a bathroom which was used both by Meredith and by Amanda, the presence of mixed traces seemed to be a completely normal circumstance, and had no significance. All the more so since the samples had been taken using the same blotting paper which had been used for various parts of the bidet and the sink.

The Court, however, believes that the presence of the biological trace specimens that were found is of great importance. First, it should be recalled that Amanda Knox, in the course of her own examination (questioning), declared that when she left the house on Via della Pergola on the afternoon of November 1st, the bathroom was clean."

___________________

Judging from Amanda's trial testimony, she wasn't the last person to use the bathroom on the afternoon of November 1st. Meredith was. And Meredith had entered the bathroom with her chin "dripping with blood."

///

 

[RoseMontague]

I ran across this quote from Amanda's lawyer about the different versions of her statements. It seems to me to be quite different from the other one quoted (quite often). I wonder which one is the correct version?

"Stiamo valutando le carte. Ci sembra che la gravità del fatto e la complessità di 6 dichiarazioni incrociate meritino ulteriori approfondimenti", ha detto dal canto suo l'avvocato Luciano Ghirga, parlando anche a nome del collega Carlo Della Vedova, insieme difensori della studentessa americana Amanda Knox, coinquilina di Meredith e tra gli accusati - insieme al suo fidanzato, Raffaele Sollecito, ea Patrick Diya Lumumba - dell'omicidio.

http://www.vivicentro.org/archivio/caso-meredith-perugia-agg-to-continuo-vt5088.html

 

[Katody Matrass]

I ran across this quote from Amanda's lawyer about the different versions of her statements. It seems to me to be quite different from the other one quoted (quite often). I wonder which one is the correct version?



http://www.vivicentro.org/archivio/caso-meredith-perugia-agg-to-continuo-vt5088.html

This is very interesting. There are many quotations from Ghirga and he clearly says that Amanda recanted her testimony from the overnight interrogation.

Looks like the notorious unfortunate Ghirga's statement is not there. Although the one you quoted seems connected to it. I wonder if by "6 crossed statements" he means what was said by Amanda, Patrick and Raffaele? Or is it 6 statements of Amanda from the consecutive interrogations?

 

[Dan O.]

This is very interesting. There are many quotations from Ghirga and he clearly says that Amanda recanted her testimony from the overnight interrogation.

Looks like the notorious unfortunate Ghirga's statement is not there. Although the one you seems connected to it. I wonder if by "6 crossed statements" he means what was said by Amanda, Patrick and Raffaele? Or is it 6 statements of Amanda from the consecutive interrogations?

Wouldn't Amanda's defense be entitled to all of the statements Amanda made to the police? That would be the witness statements she signed on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th plus the two interrogations overnight on the 5th/6th and the "gift" later on the 6th.

But this interview would not have taken place before the suspects were brought before the pubblico ministero. Did Amanda make another statement then as Raffaele did? That would bring the number of statements that the police have from Amanda to 7. Is the prosecution already playing their game of withholding evidence from the defense?
BTW, have all of these statements surfaced yet?

 

[Fine]

This is very interesting. There are many quotations from Ghirga and he clearly says that Amanda recanted her testimony from the overnight interrogation.

Looks like the notorious unfortunate Ghirga's statement is not there. Although the one you quoted seems connected to it. I wonder if by "6 crossed statements" he means what was said by Amanda, Patrick and Raffaele? Or is it 6 statements of Amanda from the consecutive interrogations?

____________________

Katody Matrass,

Ghirga was referring to the statements Amanda made on the 6th.

///

 

[Katody Matrass]

____________________

Katody Matrass,

Ghirga was referring to the statements Amanda made on the 6th.

///

Thaks, that makes sense!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

unconfirmed

I see that some commenters on other boards are discussing the issue of presumptive versus confirmatory testing. They may have missed the following quote from Dr. Kelly Virkler and Dr. Igor Lednev, coauthors of a 2009 review article on forensic body fluid analysis in the journal Forensic Science International. With reference to this case they wrote, “So, there was either no blood and the luminol was wrong, or there was blood and the TMB had interference and the luminol damaged the DNA. We think it is more likely that there was no blood, and that the luminol was reacting with something else, possibly plant matter from the bottom of the shoes causing the footprints (the intensity of the luminol reaction might give some more insight). The prosecution should have used much more convincing evidence to prove the presence of blood.”

I am unaware of any positive TMB results in this case. Any negative TMB results incline me toward the evidence items in question not being blood, but the whole TMB issue is secondary to the lack of confirmatory tests. Comodi asked for common sense in interpreting the luminol footprints. Common sense suggests that the forensic police should have done confirmatory testing of any luminol-positive area.

 

[Mary_H]

Wouldn't Amanda's defense be entitled to all of the statements Amanda made to the police? That would be the witness statements she signed on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th plus the two interrogations overnight on the 5th/6th and the "gift" later on the 6th.

But this interview would not have taken place before the suspects were brought before the pubblico ministero. Did Amanda make another statement then as Raffaele did? That would bring the number of statements that the police have from Amanda to 7. Is the prosecution already playing their game of withholding evidence from the defense?
BTW, have all of these statements surfaced yet?

These statements would go a long way toward addressing the claims that Amanda changed her stories and/or lied before her interrogation. No doubt they made their way to the circular file, along with the interrogation tapes.

 

[Dan O.]

I asked about this before but don't recall getting an answer. Has anyone attempted to determine the Luminol intensity from the original images? For that mater, are the original images even available of is this another case of the manipulated data being good enough for the defense?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Dr. Lednev's credentials

From a link in my previous comment, "Associate Professor of Chemistry Igor Lednev was recently selected as an advisory member to the White House Subcommittee on Forensic Science's (SoFS) Inter-agency Working Group on Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation. Spurred by a National Academy of Sciences report which found a convoluted forensic science system in need of revision, Lednev is among a select group of scientists and policymakers who have been tasked with shaping the course of research in the field for the next 15-20 years.
Lednev is joined on the working group by colleagues from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), National Science Foundation (NSF), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), scientists from some of the top Universities, and high-level practitioners of forensic science from across the nation. Their task is to plot the long-term trajectory of forensic science by identifying and prioritizing current and future research, and bridging the gap between discovery and implementation."
(highlighting mine)

Dr. Lednev is manifestly a productive member of the forensic chemistry community, having published many papers in his field. The appointment noted above is further evidence of the esteem in which he is held. When he and his former student Dr. Virkler say that there probably was not blood in the evidence items discussed, it is worth paying heed, IMO. As for Ms. Comodi's call for common sense from the jury, I agree that common sense is what was needed and failed to materialize in the trial of first instance. One cannot turn three right feet into any sort of trail or make any meaningful relationship between them and the crime.