Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Katody Matrass]

Just a quick question to long time posters and followers of this thread... it's massive.

Of the people posting on this thread, what percentage of people would you say believe Knox is innocent?

Hard to give a number but it shifted up some time ago, since most of the pro-guilt posters withdrawn back to a dedicated pro-guilt forum.

Guilt?......

Now it's mostly several posters popping in from time to time. They're not necessarily less numerous but they post less frequently and don't engage in more in-depth discussion.

and other (was involved but not enough to prove?)

I can't think of anyone. The evidence collected and publicly available is quite rich and allows for a definite conclusion (this works both ways apparently).

Also, has anyone changed their mind since the thread started?

Several posters, especially recently.
Since the appeal started the prosecution's evidence and witnesses are not doing well - the main DNA evidence has been concluded "unreliable" by court appointed independent experts, the prosecution's superwitness contradicted himself badly and admitted to being on heroin when the crime happened etc.

 

[Justinian2]

Just a quick question to long time posters and followers of this thread... it's massive.

Of the people posting on this thread, what percentage of people would you say believe Knox is innocent? Guilt?...... and other (was involved but not enough to prove?)

Also, has anyone changed their mind since the thread started?

I haven't posted much recently but I have concluded that Amanda is 100% not guilty of the murder of Meredith.

I thought she was being framed from the start. Then, with the discovery of the double DNA knife, I reconsidered her involvement. Now that the fabricated non-evidence has been completely crushed, I could never trust the prosecution or the Italian courts to ever render a sane/fair/accurate verdict under any conditions what-so-ever.

God himself couldn't now prove Amanda guilty to me.

 

[katy_did]

The only possible area of the Kercher case where the contemporaneity of information would have any relevance is in certain areas of best-practice for DNA evidence collection relating to contamination. If the investigators could be shown to have taken all reasonable precautions to minimise contamination according to the accepted standards of that time (late 2007), then the defence would have trouble arguing contamination - even if certain procedures had become more rigorous since that time. One cannot, after all, expect investigators to observe standards that haven't even been invented yet!

But wouldn't the same principle apply here as with the DNA testing? If some collection procedures are more rigorous now to better guard against contamination, then it's our current knowledge that past procedures have to be measured against, not what the investigators may or may not have known at the time. It's not so much expecting people to observe standards that haven't been invented yet or blaming them for not meeting them, as it is assessing the actual, objective risk of contamination, which is independent of whatever standards were in place.

One example is the Sean Hoey case, in which two police officers lied and said they were wearing protective clothing during evidence collection, even though it wasn't standard practice to do so then. Obviously, the risk of contamination is what it is - higher, because they weren't wearing protective clothing - and the fact it wasn't standard practice makes no difference to that objective risk.

 

[LondonJohn]

But wouldn't the same principle apply here as with the DNA testing? If some collection procedures are more rigorous now to better guard against contamination, then it's our current knowledge that past procedures have to be measured against, not what the investigators may or may not have known at the time. It's not so much expecting people to observe standards that haven't been invented yet or blaming them for not meeting them, as it is assessing the actual, objective risk of contamination, which is independent of whatever standards were in place.

One example is the Sean Hoey case, in which two police officers lied and said they were wearing protective clothing during evidence collection, even though it wasn't standard practice to do so then. Obviously, the risk of contamination is what it is - higher, because they weren't wearing protective clothing - and the fact it wasn't standard practice makes no difference to that objective risk.

Well it's not a black-and-white issue. That's why I was somewhat equivocal in my argument. My main point was that usually a defence team can only credibly claim contamination - without proof of contamination - if the investigators have demonstrably slipped up against the standards/procedures that they should reasonably have been expected to follow/observe. I would agree that a quantum change in standards/procedures/protocols (as in your protective clothing example) is a different matter. But I was arguing more in the region of small evolutions in these areas.

And there are two issues at play here: the first one is the absolute possibility of contamination (and the procedures in place to minimise this possibility); and the second one is the competency of the investigating personnel in following the accepted practices of the time of the investigation. My argument was predicated on the second issue, but you were mainly addressing the first one. And I agree that even if the accepted standard practices of the day were scrupulously followed - but that those standards had since been shown to be inadequate - one might still be able to make a case for contamination. However, I think that still might be a hard task. In any case, it's totally moot in this case since the "crack" forensic team clearly didn't follow the accepted practices of 2007 - let alone those of 2011!

 

[Bruce Fischer]

1) Please note that my one and only post was carefully directed at the argument, and not the 'disputants' as you accuse me of in your personal 'spin' of what I argued.
Your 'spin' is probably for very obvious reasons to those of us cognizant of the MA and infractions thereof.

2) "idiots", of which I have been honored as being designated a full fledged vocal specimen of in past arguments here, rarely are concerned with 'style' or 'braveness', much less your argument's inapplicable,irrelevant and irreverent accusations toward me about same.

3) RE: "real man".... do your self implied mind reading skills include ability to determine gender of "idiots" both "full fledged" and "subset" as endlessly described when they argue guilt here and on other Boards ???

ETA : Adios Amigos, Redux

Pilot, if you happen to see your friend stint 7, ask him for proof to back up this repeated claim:

"In all fairness, I have never seen Charlie release a deliberately photo-shopped pic of evidence or a deliberately falsified biased "summary" of a document as Brucie TM has shamefully done/does so often."

I would like to see one photo that is presented on Injustice in Perugia that has been photoshopped. Thank you in advance for your time.

 

[katy_did]

Well it's not a black-and-white issue. That's why I was somewhat equivocal in my argument. My main point was that usually a defence team can only credibly claim contamination - without proof of contamination - if the investigators have demonstrably slipped up against the standards/procedures that they should reasonably have been expected to follow/observe. I would agree that a quantum change in standards/procedures/protocols (as in your protective clothing example) is a different matter. But I was arguing more in the region of small evolutions in these areas.

And there are two issues at play here: the first one is the absolute possibility of contamination (and the procedures in place to minimise this possibility); and the second one is the competency of the investigating personnel in following the accepted practices of the time of the investigation. My argument was predicated on the second issue, but you were mainly addressing the first one. And I agree that even if the accepted standard practices of the day were scrupulously followed - but that those standards had since been shown to be inadequate - one might still be able to make a case for contamination. However, I think that still might be a hard task. In any case, it's totally moot in this case since the "crack" forensic team clearly didn't follow the accepted practices of 2007 - let alone those of 2011!

Yes, that's true - but that's mainly because I think the competence or otherwise of the investigators is a side issue when it comes to the lawyers arguing contamination in court (as Stefanoni's competence - or otherwise - is a side issue!). If the defence were trying to claim contamination, then the question would only be whether the investigators had followed what we now know to be good practice: it might be that they didn't follow it because they were incompetent, or it might be because it wasn't standard at the time, but either way the actual contamination risk is the same. Likewise with Stefanoni: whether she didn't follow what we now consider to be good practice because she's incompetent, or because those standards weren't in place then, the outcome is exactly the same. It's only when the issue of blaming someone for their incompetence arises that a distinction has to be made, not when assessing the risk of contamination itself.

But yes, the investigators in this case seem to have followed standards entirely of their own making, so it is a bit of a moot point here!

 

[Katody Matrass]

Pilot, if you happen to see your friend stint 7, ask him for proof to back up this repeated claim:

"In all fairness, I have never seen Charlie release a deliberately photo-shopped pic of evidence or a deliberately falsified biased "summary" of a document as Brucie TM has shamefully done/does so often."

I would like to see one photo that is presented on Injustice in Perugia that has been photoshopped. Thank you in advance for your time.

Knowing the kind of photos on your site I can't imagine any sensible reason for anyone to photoshop them.

Frankly, the only such incident I encountered was when SomeAlibi came here with his ineptly manipulated night photos of the cottage. But then the motivation for it was as clear as it's execution clumsy.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

out of control

If indeed Dr. Stefanoni and her team did not do negative controls, that should be enough to exclude the evidence. Performing negative controls is standard practice, and examining them has sometimes turned up wrongdoing, as well as contamiantion. If they did them but did not report them, that is a distinction without a difference. MOO.

 

[RoseMontague]

Knowing the kind of photos on your site I can't imagine any sensible reason for anyone to photoshop them.

Frankly, the only such incident I encountered was when SomeAlibi came here with his ineptly manipulated night photos of the cottage. But then the motivation for it was as clear as it's execution clumsy.

I think they are talking about the bathmat print and comparisons with Rudy's and Raffaele's footprints. A lot of posters have played around with those things to try and get a better image or comparison.

 

[LondonJohn]

Knowing the kind of photos on your site I can't imagine any sensible reason for anyone to photoshop them.

Frankly, the only such incident I encountered was when SomeAlibi came here with his ineptly manipulated night photos of the cottage. But then the motivation for it was as clear as it's execution clumsy.

I'd forgotten about that particular photo manipulation (and attempted denial). Ahhhhhh the irony!

 

[RoseMontague]

BTW,
I noticed Bruce has added a photo section at IIP, a few of these I had not seen before.

 

[Justinian2]

Take the Casey Anthony case and add one Guede complete with bloody finger prints and foot prints. Add to that one body with knife wounds and Guede’s DNA. Add to that a viable alibi for Casey. Then find Casey guilty of murder and sentence her to jail for twenty six years. Then sue everybody that Casey knew including her parents lawyer and boyfriend. Then you would have the Amanda Knox case. With all the additional reasons for innocence that Amanda has over Casey and people still think she’s guilty! Incredible!

Casey’s daughter was killed by negligent homicide - at the very least - and NOBODY is in jail, let alone the whole town.

I’m not proud of the human race.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think they are talking about the bathmat print and comparisons with Rudy's and Raffaele's footprints. A lot of posters have played around with those things to try and get a better image or comparison.

And when I think about the bathmat partial print, I think about the earnestly-employed phrase "millimetre accuracy"

This bathmat print is one of the five areas of evidence that I am interested in following during the argument phase in September. The others are: time of death (specifically with reference to stomach/duodenum contents and start time of last meal); Sollecito's computer evidence; the "mixed DNA" evidence in the small bathroom; and Quintavalle's testimony.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I think they are talking about the bathmat print and comparisons with Rudy's and Raffaele's footprints. A lot of posters have played around with those things to try and get a better image or comparison.

Ah, yes! I'm quite guilty here, too

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Knowing the kind of photos on your site I can't imagine any sensible reason for anyone to photoshop them.

Frankly, the only such incident I encountered was when SomeAlibi came here with his ineptly manipulated night photos of the cottage. But then the motivation for it was as clear as it's execution clumsy.

There seems to be a desperation setting in at PMF. The accusations against me have now become beyond absurd. Readers are told that I recruit trolls to PMF and now they are claiming that I have infiltrated their PM system. I would love to see proof to any of this. I would also like to see proof that I have ever libeled anyone. Everything I put in print is backed up by facts. That cannot be said for PMF.

The Machine is simply wrong about the DNA samples collected in the hall. The mixed DNA came from a shoe print, not a bare footprint. Injustice in Perugia has it correct. If I see proof that we have it wrong I will be more than happy to correct it.

IIP has a philosophy to hide nothing (except sensitive information regarding Meredith). We know the truth is on our side.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

BTW,
I noticed Bruce has added a photo section at IIP, a few of these I had not seen before.

I created a new page for downloadable files that I will be updating again tonight with more of the forensic test results including the e-grams.

Any claims that we have ever tried to hide anything are completely false. We know the evidence clearly shows that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

 

[RoseMontague]

There seems to be a desperation setting in at PMF. The accusations against me have now become beyond absurd. Readers are told that I recruit trolls to PMF and now they are claiming that I have infiltrated their PM system. I would love to see proof to any of this. I would also like to see proof that I have ever libeled anyone. Everything I put in print is backed up by facts. That cannot be said for PMF.

The Machine is simply wrong about the DNA samples collected in the hall. The mixed DNA came from a shoe print, not a bare footprint. Injustice in Perugia has it correct. If I see proof that we have it wrong I will be more than happy to correct it.

IIP has a philosophy to hide nothing. We know the truth is on our side.

The prosecution's expert calls it a shoe print and in quoted testimony and in Amanda's appeal it is also pointed out as a shoe print. If their own expert can't tell the difference between a foot print and a shoe print then why do they have confidence in him on the bathmat print? They could just look at the photo and compare it to the bare foot print photo's and come to a reasonable conclusion. To me, it looks like a shoe print (I posted the picture and Rinaldi's comments above).

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Ah, yes! I'm quite guilty here, too

No matter how hard anyone has tried, experts and amateurs, the results are inconclusive.

 

[LondonJohn]

No mater how hard anyone has tried, experts and amateurs, the results are inconclusive.

No! No! No! You're obviously not doing it right!

The way forward is this: put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and shout "Matches Sollecito's foot with millimetre accuracy!!" over and over again.

 

[RoseMontague]

And when I think about the bathmat partial print, I think about the earnestly-employed phrase "millimetre accuracy"

This bathmat print is one of the five areas of evidence that I am interested in following during the argument phase in September. The others are: time of death (specifically with reference to stomach/duodenum contents and start time of last meal); Sollecito's computer evidence; the "mixed DNA" evidence in the small bathroom; and Quintavalle's testimony.

That's a good list, I think the computer and the bathmat print are the ones that have the best chance of additional expert review.