Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
bolint said:
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. :D
Click to expand...

I recall the recent problems with the North Carolina crime lab. They felt their job was to help the prosecutor get a conviction, not to just analyze evidence and report results. Looking at ms steffi, I detect a certain leaning towards working with the prosecution rather than maintaining an impartial approach to evaluating evidence.
 
Last edited:
bolint said:
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.
Click to expand...

First of all, yes, it could explain how Raffaele's DNA could have gotten on the clasp. Second, where your proof that his DNA was so sparse. Is it the fact that the police failed to find it? Pffft.
 
bolint said:
Was not on the clasp?
So the whole video show about the dirty gloves was for entertaining the court and the gallery?
Click to expand...

I don't know if I would use the word "entertaining," although that's the way it turned out. My assumption is that the video of the clasp collection was shown by C & V primarily to illustrate the overall unprofessional aspects of the collection techniques. The video incidentally also shows that if there were any DNA on the clasp, it could have gotten there through contamination during the collection procedures.
 
Last edited:
RoseMontague said:
I recall the recent problems with the North Carolina crime lab. They felt their job was to help the prosecutor get a conviction, not to just analyze evidence and report results. Looking at ms stefi, I detect a certain leaning towards working with the prosecution rather than maintaining an impartial approach to evaluating evidence.
Click to expand...

No matter how Stefanoni wants to help the prosecutor it was the equipment that drew the graph showing Meredith's DNA on the knife.

It is wrong to try to find the error in the lab. It is doomed.
 
bolint said:
No matter how Stefanoni wants to help the prosecutor it was the equipment that drew the graph showing Meredith's DNA on the knife.

It is wrong to try to find the error in the lab. It is doomed.
Click to expand...

In the lab or in the lab workers?
 
Diocletus said:
First of all, yes, it could explain how Raffaele's DNA could have gotten on the clasp. Second, where your proof that his DNA was so sparse. Is it the fact that the police failed to find it? Pffft.
Click to expand...

How much time had Raffaele spent in the cottage during his week long acquaintance with Amanda. 15 hours?
About 50 times less than Amanda.
And still Amanda's DNA did not find it's way into the room.
So random contamination is a wrong theory.
 
bolint said:
How much time had Raffaele spent in the cottage during his week long acquaintance with Amanda. 15 hours?
About 50 times less than Amanda.
And still Amanda's DNA did not find it's way into the room.
So random contamination is a wrong theory.
Click to expand...

Then that leaves a faked report. Because there's no way Raffaele's DNA got on the bra clasp during the murder without it also getting elsewhere in the room.
 
bolint said:
How much time had Raffaele spent in the cottage during his week long acquaintance with Amanda. 15 hours?
About 50 times less than Amanda.
And still Amanda's DNA did not find it's way into the room.
So random contamination is a wrong theory.
Click to expand...

Amanda's DNA not being found in the room is a good argument for her innocence but does not work so well as an argument for Raffaele's guilt, in my opinion.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
There have been several reasonable answers that you have failed to accept. How about this; please show me what standards that Stefanoni followed. The truth is simple, Stefanoni's work fails to meet the standards of any civilized nation on earth. You can chose any country you like and Stefanoni would fail. You can cherry pick a couple of references out of Conti-Vecchiotti to try and discredit their entire report but it is silly to do so. It is time for you to see the truth. The "mountain" of evidence that you have been talking about for 3 years is gone (never existed). There is nothing left to confirm the convictions of Amanda and Raffaele. Rudy Guede killed Meredith Kercher and it is time for you and your friends to stop the madness, open your eyes, and embrace reality.

We have heard from you and your friends for years now that The United States should shut up and let the Italians take care of this, now that Italians have exposed this injustice once and for all, you attack the Italians. All you have left is Ergon's astrology and some whacky guy that thinks he can analyze statements.

You bought into all the media lies and refused to change position when the truth became clear. Instead of admitting you were wrong and walking away, you and your friends decided to spend your time attacking Amanda Knox and her followers.
Click to expand...


I never bought into the "media lies". eg "not a scintilla of evidence against them". How ironic.

I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong, so why would I walk away when it's amusing to watch you flailing about.eg your proclamation that it's all over, Stefanoni will not be allowed to rebut?

The bra clasp and knife are still on the table with everything else.



C&V haven't destroyed anything as far as I can see.
 
Mary_H said:
Then that leaves a faked report. Because there's no way Raffaele's DNA got on the bra clasp during the murder without it also getting elsewhere in the room.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be a faked report. You could simply take something picked up from Raffaele like one of the two clasp knives or the computer and run the test on a sample from one of those items.
 
Diocletus said:
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.
Click to expand...

The collection is not the lab work.

The defence's "theory":

- it was randomly contaminated
- it was contaminated duirng the collection
- it was contaminated when it was prepared for the equipment
- it was too small for the equipment
- the equipment was not cleaned properly
- the lab workers don't know how to handle the equipment
- the output was wrongly interpreted
- the lab workers produce only rersults that fit the prosecutor's theory
- all the above

Give me a break. :D
 
bolint said:
How much time had Raffaele spent in the cottage during his week long acquaintance with Amanda. 15 hours?
About 50 times less than Amanda.
And still Amanda's DNA did not find it's way into the room.
So random contamination is a wrong theory.
Click to expand...

Amusingly before Fiona beat a retreat to woo-woo land she was trying to tell us that Amanda's DNA was on the bra clasp and that this was evidence of Amanda's guilt.

Now bolint is telling us that because Amanda's DNA wasn't on the bra clasp that this is evidence of Raffaele's guilt.

I guess with a few days work someone will find a way of construing absolutely any piece of evidence as evidence Knox or Sollecito is guilty.

Both of these theories stories miss the point that it's not the job of the defence to prove that contamination did occur by such-and-such a chain of events. It's the prosecution's job to prove that contamination did not occur by any means whatsoever, and as C&V have stated contamination did definitely occur because the DNA of multiple people ended up on that clasp.

(A frequently-seen mantra of hope is in guilter circles is that juries are so stupid they can't grasp the idea of reasonable doubt, so if the defence can't prove contamination occurred by some specific chain of events the stupid jury will convict. The guilters telling this story see this as a good outcome. The factual, moral and legal failings of this mantra are too obvious to need spelling out).

As has also been pointed out before, given that Raffaele and Amanda may well turn out to have a very solid alibi for the actual time of death thanks to the computer evidence which has not yet been examined, guilters probably shouldn't argue too hard that Raffaele's DNA could not possibly have gotten on to the bra clasp by accidental contamination. Because if he has an ironclad alibi, and the DNA didn't get there by accidental contamination, that pretty much only leaves outright falsification of the evidence by Stefanoni...
 
bolint said:
The collection is not the lab work.

The defence's "theory":

- it was randomly contaminated
- it was contaminated duirng the collection
- it was contaminated when it was prepared for the equipment
- it was too small for the equipment
- the equipment was not cleaned properly
- the lab workers don't know how to handle the equipment
- the output was wrongly interpreted
- the lab workers produce only rersults that fit the prosecutor's theory
- all the above

Give me a break. :D
Click to expand...

So what is your theory as to how Raffaele's DNA got on the bra clasp? Was he helping Rudy with a sexual assault? Why? Did he participate further? Where was Amanda during all of this? Why would he help Rudy to begin with?
When did this happen? Why is no other evidence of Raffaele in the murder room? What was his motive? Did he also stab Meredith or was that just Amanda and/or Rudy? Was there a cleanup?
 
bolint said:
The collection is not the lab work.

The defence's "theory":

- it was randomly contaminated
- it was contaminated duirng the collection
- it was contaminated when it was prepared for the equipment
- it was too small for the equipment
- the equipment was not cleaned properly
- the lab workers don't know how to handle the equipment
- the output was wrongly interpreted
- the lab workers produce only rersults that fit the prosecutor's theory
- all the above

Give me a break. :D
Click to expand...

Give me a break... Stefanoni can't have done everything wrong can she? Surely it's an a priori truth of the universe that Stefanoni can only have gotten one thing wrong? Are the independent experts even allowed to say she got so many things wrong? That seems unfair. Shouldn't they have to pick one thing and only one thing? That sounds like a good rule.

Next thing they'll be saying there's more than one thing the police got wrong, or more than one thing Massei and Christiani got wrong... I mean, give me a break! One thing wrong is the rule. I just made that up but it's true and it's ominous for Knox and Sollecito. :D
 
This latest deal with the suddenly appearing negative controls makes me reconsider deliberate falsification of evidence as a very real possibility. First Comodi argues that steffi does not document normal things such as washing her hands and the negative controls was done because she said so and it is just a normal thing that is always done that she didn't document. The judge is not buying it so then she suddenly says Hey wait a minute she does document it and I have it right here and (gasp) it is already part of the evidence submitted to the court back in 2008.

LOL. The judge had a right to be suspicious and it turns out they couldn't find this in the court records and it bears barely readable code numbers that don't match the numbers of the items under discussion. So Comodi says OMG how did this get missed it needs to be admitted now. I think the judge is smelling something like phogna bologna at this point and denies the request.

This is the give me a break moment I see in the latest news on the case.
 
Last edited:
davefoc said:
:) 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?
Click to expand...

The original Cartwheels thread was started right after the conviction by a longtime JREFer dubious of their guilt. It was soon populated by PMF and hilarity ensued as those supportive of Amanda's innocence also joined, as did others becoming interested in the case who found this the best debate etherwide on the issue due to both sides being represented. It appeared to me reading through it that JREFers with some scientific background or aptitude generally were skeptical of the conviction, whereas those whose main areas of interest in this forum was politics or making fun of conspiracy theorists were skeptical of those skeptical of the verdict.

davefoc said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's what I did, and it was invaluable to my understanding of the case. Some of those at PMF have been following the case since the arrest and accumulating reams of data about it, and they translated the Massei Report. That's what you really ought to read first, it's 400 pages but it contains all the evidence and theories relevant to the decision, written by the judge himself with some help by someone named Christini or somesuch.

If not, and you wish to post on the subject, I would suggest PMF.net, it is lower traffic, but the ones there are somewhat more interested in debate.
 
Confusion to report

Charlie Wilkes has drawn my attention to Italian news reports quoting Giuseppe Novelli, the esteemed geneticist, as follows:

«Il contaminante va dimostrato, dove nasce e dove è. Il gancetto contaminato dalla polvere? Più probabile che cada un meteorite e butti giù questo tribunale»

"The contaminant needs to be demonstrated, where it comes from and where it is. The clasp contaminated by dust? It's more likely that a meteorite comes down and knocks down this courthouse."
Click to expand...

I notice that I am confused.

I had previously said that I did not expect Novelli to defend Stefanoni in court. Even though this is not a statement from testimony (no one but Conti and Vecchiotti testified yesterday, as far as I know), I think it still counts as a significant surprise with respect to that expectation.

My probability of Knox and Sollecito's guilt has just gone up by a factor of 2 (from "below 1/1000" to merely "below 1/500"). If Novelli gives testimony defending Stefanoni, it could go up by an order of magnitude, potentially reaching 1/100. My probability of Knox and Sollecito's acquittal by the Hellmann court, meanwhile, has gone down from 80% (after reading Sfarzo's latest) to 70%, where it currently sits. (As you can see, I have -- or rather had! -- slightly more respect for Novelli than I expect the court to: my odds of innocence were cut in half, but my acquittal odds were multiplied by a factor of 7/12.)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom