Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
I did make it and thanks to you and others for the thoughtful summaries.

Let me ask this: Were there ever any JREF regular posters that advocated for guilt and what is their view now? Was it mostly JREF regulars arguing for innocence and newer participants arguing for guilt?

Right now, almost everything I have been reading about the case including this thread has been in the favor of Knox. I feel like I might be forming an opinion without knowing enough about what the pro-guilt crowd has to say. I might check out the link above to the site with pro-guilt participants.

There were JREF regulars arguing for guilt from the beginning of the thread. Some of them are still posting elsewhere on JREF, after leaving this discussion. I am one of several pro-innocence advocates who signed up for JREF specifically to participate discussions of this subject matter.

There are a few people still here who did not start out on the pro-innocence side of the argument, but have changed their minds. I will let them speak for themselves.

By all means, please check out the guilters. Just don't make a comment, or they'll ban you quicker than you can say "censorship."

Yes, I was leaning for guilt when I first came here although my initial opinion was more along the lines of what Bolint has stated his opinion is now (involvement vs direct participation). The sides were pretty equally divided and the discussion was contentious.

Here is a link to links about the case:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6784493&postcount=1715

Some of these are no longer active and some have changed. Perugia shock is now

http://perugiashock.com/

There are a few new ones related to the case:

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22927&page=301
http://maundygregory.wordpress.com/
http://www.injusticeinperugiaforum....blic-discussion-forum-2-8-2011-t747-5100.html
http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/
http://thewhatfactor.wordpress.com/
http://gmancasefile.blogspot.com/2011_06_01_archive.html
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.187378801286599.45660.106344459390034
http://boards.insessiontrials.com/s...Judge-Approves-Another-Look-See-at-DNA/page25
http://eclectchap.blogspot.com/
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/police_crime_scene_composite.jpg
http://translate.googleusercontent....le.com&usg=ALkJrhjs7gGa_lvgH9sNZn_ybclC0kczPA
http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com/

For a good summaries of the innocent position I recommend these posts:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6810625&postcount=2690
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6514592&postcount=13499
http://www.injusticeinperugiaforum.org/post7818.html#p7818
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6000922&postcount=1083

Here is one from the standpoint of guilt:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6059640&postcount=2413

The Massei report itself is over 400 pages but there is a summary you can find on TJMK. The appeals are about 200 pages each but you can find a summary at IIP. IIP and PMF both have a good selection of docs (as well as my docstoc page).

PMF has split up since that original list of links, it is now both .org and .net

Have fun.

 

[Katody Matrass]

This comment about negative controls illustates a good point. "If sample B underwent concentration procedures, it is important that appropriate negative controls were also concentrated to demonstrate that the procedure did not introduce contamination." link here.

Thanks for the link! It's an excellent explanation, the summary for the first part (knife trace) is telling:

In summary, there are a few possible scenarios to consider:

-Based on the confusion with regards to the quantitation, potential questions emerge about the authenticity of the analysis.

-Is the DNA profile even reportable according to the laboratory’s guidelines, and….are such guidelines supported by appropriate validation studies?

-The DNA is actually a contaminant and was not present on the knife.

-The DNA was actually present on the knife. It clearly cannot be associated with blood. At the level that the DNA was detected, there are numerous possibilities for how the DNA may have gotten on the knife via innocent transfer.

It is certainly safe to say that the result is in no way consistent with blood from Meredith Kercher being present on the knife.​

 

[Caper]

Good that you point this out in light of the questions regarding why people find this topic so interesting.

The problem with Strange Dave is he only had a basic understanding of the facts and was unable to effectively counter some of the arguments presented by the pro-guilt side.

I would love to see a debate between Peggy or The Machine and Kaosium or Komponisto or any of the regulars here, I believe Rolfe has offered a venue for that in the past. Unfortunately some of the news people and reporters just don't know the details of the case very well and posters from both sides delight in pointing out some of the glaring errors made.

Peggy seemed reasonable on the phone. I wonder if someone with more cents could have a debate with her over the issue. I would love to see some of the people on here debate one of the pro guilt side.

 

[bolint]

BTW bolint, while you're around - you wrote before about Amanda carrying a knife in "North Europe". Do you have a reference for that? Cause she vigorously denied anything like it in her testimony.

I read your answer, I know that she denied it, though the interval was not specifically asked and that "never" may not actually mean an absolute never.

I'm in difficulty now as I can't provide the source immediately.
The day before I wrote the original post I had run into an old press report from the first weeks of the case that quoted Amanda saying what I wrote.
And I also remembered that I had read it long before.
Unfortunately I did not save it now as I thought that I have got it anyway, now however I cannot find it neither in my files nor on the Google.
But it will come sooner or later.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I read your answer, I know that she denied it, though the interval was not specifically asked and that "never" may not actually mean an absolute never.

I'm in difficulty now as I can't provide the source immediately.
The day before I wrote the original post I had run into an old press report from the first weeks of the case that quoted Amanda saying what I wrote.
And I also remembered that I had read it long before.
Unfortunately I did not save it now as I thought that I have got it anyway, now however I cannot find it neither in my files nor on the Google.
But it will come sooner or later.

Thanks! You are aware that it didn't come up in the trial (despite the fact that mignini brought up other tabloid smear) and it's not part of the motivation?

 

[bolint]

You don't have to do that. Reasonable doubt is enough. The experts have told the court there is no way to tell when and how that DNA got there because of the bad science and sloppy techniques. You then look at those items to see if they make sense in terms of the other evidence. As Frank points out in his last article, neither of them make any sense at all.

General contamination theories will not yield reasonable doubt.
You have to prove that the lab was sloppy and used bad science.
And that does not seem to have happened yesterday.

 

[Mary_H]

Peggy seemed reasonable on the phone. I wonder if someone with more cents could have a debate with her over the issue. I would love to see some of the people on here debate one of the pro guilt side.

So would we. Or, more accurately, we have. They lost and ran away.

 

[RoseMontague]

In response to the question if the bra clasp and knife are gone, what's left, The Machine posted this (somewhat ominous) response:

Knox and Sollecito weren't convicted solely on the knife and bra clasp evidence. The following evidence is also key: the mixed blood samples, Sollecito’s bloody footprint on the blue bathmat, the Luminol footprints, the three traces of Meredith’s blood in Knox’s room, the mobile phone and computer records that provide irrefutable proof that Knox and Sollecito lied, Knox’s telephone calls and conversations with Filomena and the postal police on 2 November 2007, Knox’s false and malicious accusation against Diya Lumumba which she didn’t retract the whole time he was in prison, the staged break-in, the testimony of Nara Capezzali and Marco Qunitavalle and the testimony of numerous forensic experts who testified that more than one person killed Meredith.

Some thoughts:
1. Mixed blood. This is not proven and can't be proven and is not accepted by Massei.

2. Bathmat print. Looks to me to be Rudy's but there is really no way to tell with certainty who that print belongs to.

3. Luminol prints. Tested negative for blood with TMB and most do not even contain Meredith's DNA.

4. Mobile phone and computer records. These argue more for innocence than guilt, imo.

5. False Accusation. There is much discussion on this. I beleive it was coerced.

6. The miracle ear lady and Mr. Memory. The first who cares and the second is a lying liar, pants on fire and this has been amply demonstrated on numerous occasions. Interesting that the dope dealing druggie homeless park bench bum is now missing from the Machine List.

 

[bolint]

Thanks! You are aware that it didn't come up in the trial (despite the fact that mignini brought up other tabloid smear) and it's not part of the motivation?

Yes, I know. Let it be the court's problem.
But we are interested in the truth, aren't we.
In "my court" there is no exclusion, inadmission, etc.
Everything is evaluated on its own merit.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>

6. The miracle ear lady and Mr. Memory. The first who cares and the second is a lying liar, pants on fire and this has been amply demonstrated on numerous occasions. Interesting that the dope dealing druggie homeless park bench bum is now missing from the Machine List.

But he had such gentle eyes........!

 

[RoseMontague]

General contamination theories will not yield reasonable doubt.
You have to prove that the lab was sloppy and used bad science.
And that does not seem to have happened yesterday.

And/or the crime scene and evidence was completely and unprofessionally managed and handled and the evidence collected with ample opportunities for contamination.

I do think the bad science has been amply demonstrated as well.

 

[Diocletus]

You have to prove that the lab was sloppy and used bad science.
And that does not seem to have happened yesterday.

The more specific argument for contamination seems to be in the field collection procedures, which were undeniably horrendous.

On the other hand, there is also a very good argument that Stefanoni in her lab engaged in very bad science and misinterpreted the results of what she had.

Either and both of these arguments create reasonable doubt.

ETA: If the reporting about the refusal to admit the newly-produced negative control documentation is correct, then what I say above is what Hellmann thinks, too.

 

[RoseMontague]

Yes, I know. Let it be the court's problem.
But we are interested in the truth, aren't we.
In "my court" there is no exclusion, inadmission, etc.
Everything is evaluated on its own merit.

Hard for me to evaluate something I have never seen. You may use it for your own opinion but trying to use it in a debate is pretty much pointless, imo.

 

[bolint]

And/or the crime scene and evidence was completely and unprofessionally managed and handled and the evidence collected with ample opportunities for contamination.

I do think the bad science has been amply demonstrated as well.

Clearly, the bra clasp was collected late and it had been moved and probably touched before. But all these do not explain how Raffaele's sparse DNA in the cottage got onto it.

 

[Mary_H]

Clearly, the bra clasp was collected late and it had been moved and probably touched before. But all these do not explain how Raffaele's sparse DNA in the cottage got onto it.

Raffaele's DNA did not get onto the bra clasp. If the lab provided a report with Raffaele's DNA on it, it was from a source other than the bra clasp. Not only did C & V say there is no DNA on the bra clasp, but it is impossible to get DNA on the hooks of a bra clasp without also getting it on the cloth.

Claiming contamination is a nice way of letting Steffi Patti and the lab save face. It is the alternative to saying, "We know you trumped up those results, now cut your losses and get out while you still can."

Correction: Patti Steffi (credit to Rose)

 

[bolint]

On the other hand, there is also a very good argument that Stefanoni in her lab engaged in very bad science and misinterpreted the results of what she had..

The contamination argument sounds like Ben Johnson's explanation when he was caught doping: "Someone put it into my bottle".
And of course almost all other athletes caught come up with similar stories.
Just recall Floyd Landis.
His lawyers also wanted to demolish the lab.

 

[Diocletus]

Good that you point this out in light of the questions regarding why people find this topic so interesting.

The problem with Strange Dave is he only had a basic understanding of the facts and was unable to effectively counter some of the arguments presented by the pro-guilt side.

I would love to see a debate between Peggy or The Machine and Kaosium or Komponisto or any of the regulars here, I believe Rolfe has offered a venue for that in the past. Unfortunately some of the news people and reporters just don't know the details of the case very well and posters from both sides delight in pointing out some of the glaring errors made.

Peggy seems to have lost some of her fire of late. I think that her "sources" have already told her that the jig is up.

Peter, on the other hand, seems to be headed in the opposite direction and I think is going right off the deep end.

 

[bolint]

Raffaele's DNA did not get onto the bra clasp. If the lab provided a report with Raffaele's DNA on it, it was from a source other than the bra clasp. Not only did C & V say there is no DNA on the bra clasp, but it is impossible to get DNA on the hooks of a bra clasp without also getting it on the cloth.

Was not on the clasp?
So the whole video show about the dirty gloves was for entertaining the court and the gallery?

 

[RoseMontague]

Clearly, the bra clasp was collected late and it had been moved and probably touched before. But all these do not explain how Raffaele's sparse DNA in the cottage got onto it.

You have given the explanation. The fact that his DNA could be found nowhere else in a room where a violent struggle, assault, and murder took place actually argues for contamination. There is no way to know how sparse Raffaele's DNA was in areas of the apartment that were not tested. It could be absolutely abundant in certain areas.

 

[Diocletus]

The contamination argument sounds like Ben Johnson's explanation when he was caught doping: "Someone put it into my bottle".
And of course almost all other athletes caught come up with similar stories.
Just recall Floyd Landis.
His lawyers also wanted to demolish the lab.

I don't understand what you're saying. I said the best argument for contamination was the field work. If Floyd Landis had pictures of the lab techs handling his sample with those gloves, then he would still have his trophy.