Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Dan O.]

Raffaele's diary:
"We look around [facciamo un giro] the house and Amanda is terrified and jumps on me because she tells me that the faeces were no longer in the toilet since presumably before, when she was taking a shower, she had seen that there were faeces in the bathroom and nobody had flushed the toilet. I have a look and leaning over I see the reflection of the water and, not seeing any faeces, I believe what Amanda had told [diceva] me."


No way that someone who had ever had a look at that toilet would speak about the "reflection of the water and not seeing any faeces".

I don't see how this is not a lie.
He clearly has never seen it.

[IMGL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=4096[/IMGL]

You tell me, can you see the reflection of the water? Do you see the crap?

I don't believe what is written here as being from Raffaele's diary is the whole story. We need a better analysis of the translation from the Italian if we are to take it as a literal statement. Is Raffaele quoting what he remembers Amanda saying to him "I believe what Amanda had told me."? He is not saying that he has confirmed what Amanda said because he looked for himself but only that he "believes" her.

 

[komponisto]

Yes, the outer door handle is the best candidate.
But as I understand it was touched by many others after Raffaele.

...some of whom may even have touched the clasp.

 

[bolint]

My point was the guilt-vote is not all based on science, which we all know.

Surely not.
I think that Hellmann's court will not use the knife or the bra clasp evidence, so the weight of the non-science based evidence will be higher in the decision whatever it will be.

 

[bolint]

You tell me, can you see the reflection of the water? Do you see the crap?

I don't believe what is written here as being from Raffaele's diary is the whole story. We need a better analysis of the translation from the Italian if we are to take it as a literal statement. Is Raffaele quoting what he remembers Amanda saying to him "I believe what Amanda had told me."? He is not saying that he has confirmed what Amanda said because he looked for himself but only that he "believes" her.

That is a clean photo.
You can see the dirty photo either at PMF or at IIP in their galleries.

The text was from the new, correct translation of the diary, by Clander, who is Italian.

Here are the immortal words of Raffaele in the original:

Facciamo un giro in casa e Amanda si spaventa e mi salta addosso perché mi dice che nel cesso la cacca non c’era più in quanto presumibilmente prima, quando era a farsi la doccia, aveva visto che nel bagno c’era una cacca e nessuno aveva tirato l’acqua. Io mi affaccio e intravedo il riflesso dell’acqua sporgendomi e non vedendo la cacca do per buono quello che mi diceva Amanda

.

 

[bolint]

...some of whom may even have touched the clasp.

I mean that his DNA was wiped off long before police went in on Nov 6.

 

[bolint]

Let's compare two DNA transfers:

Raffaele's DNA goes allegedly easily from the door handle to the clasp.
One would think that Amanda's use of the hairdryer would result in her DNA being transferred on it.
However no DNA was found on it.
(I don't dare to imagine that she did not use it in the first place)

 

[bolint]

Computer evidence

A significant part of the Sollecito appeal was around the computer activity of Raffaele that night, although nothing specific new data have been found by the expert.

Did Hellmann dismiss it?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

We can go back to the beginning, guilt was applied to the two,before there was any lab work done. This is the most disturbing, in how the two were perceived guilty by Edgardo Giobbi.
I liked what Antony stated, two ways to a crime, 1) evidence leads to the criminal, or 2) find the criminal and build a case against them.
#2 was used in this case of Amanda and Raffaele while # 1 was used for Rudy in the evidence came first.


Here's an example of a current PMF list for #3- aka. other evidence:

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.

Look at how many of these are from the "non- science" type beliefs.

1) the mobile phone and computer records that provide irrefutable proof that Knox and Sollecito lied

2) Knox’s telephone calls and conversations with Filomena and the postal police on 2 November 2007

3) the staged break-in,

4) the testimony of Nara Capezzali and Marco Qunitavalle



The science/forensic type:

1) the mixed blood samples,

2) Sollecito’s bloody footprint on the blue bathmat,

3) the Luminol footprints,
4) the three traces of Meredith’s blood in Knox’s room,
5) the testimony of numerous forensic experts who testified that more than one person killed Meredith


My point was the guilt-vote is not all based on science, which we all know.
This list is 50% science & 50% non -sense (joke).

The Machine considers anything that was detected with luminol to be Meredith's blood. This line of thinking certainly falls into the nonsense category.

Of course every word from The Machine is accepted without question all while attacking court appointed Italian independent experts.

 

[Draca]

Suppose you were to contaminate it in the cottage.
What would you have done?

Bolint,

What I would like to ask you is why do you think they purposefully left the bra clasp in the cottage instead of collecting it as evidence? Why did that make that choice?

 

[Draca]

At this point, I don't even have any confidence that the people she identified were actually deceased. Some of those poor folks might have just been sleeping.

I find this statement pretty scary:

Piero Angeloni - Police Chief:

"My department adheres to all the recognised international protocols and carries out more than 25,000 crime-scene investigations every year. Never has anyone questioned our methods before in such a way.

All my staff are highly professional and are taught by experts over a four-month course, and they have a yearly audit. We use state-of-the-art equipment and techniques.

The staff are all highly qualified, with degrees. This is a very competent organisation."


Sounds like it is about time somebody said something.

There is also Stefanoni's statement that there has never been a case of contamination in her lab.

 

[bolint]

What I would like to ask you is why do you think they purposefully leave the bra clasp in the cottage instead of collecting it as evidence? Why did that make that choice?

I don't think they purposefully left it there knowing that it was a part of the bra.
It was a big fault on their part.
Even if they did not realise then that it was a part of the bra it was so close to the body that it surely would have deserved a plastic bag of its own.
Also, when they found it again later they should have simply put it into the bag without examining it with the gloves.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

how much DNA gets transferred is not a simple matter

I mean that his DNA was wiped off long before police went in on Nov 6.

bolint,

There are good shedders and bad shedders, and how recently one washed his or her hands also plays a role in how much DNA gets transferred. There was a study (possibly Ladd et al., from circa 2001) that indicated that the last person to handle a polypropylene tube did not necessarily contribute the most DNA. However, let me paraphrase what Dr. Riley said about contamination, that it is unlikely that one can prove the route of contamination. Just to clarify one point, transfer of DNA from the knob or door itself (where his fingerprints were found) would only constitute contamination if a police officer were responsible. If a hypothetical burglar did it, it would be secondary transfer.

 

[Poppy1016]

Don't you mean it deserved a Paper bag of it's own?

 

[bolint]

JREF2010,

Raffaele's description in front of Matteini of the night of 1 November tallies with Amanda's with respect to what they did but not when they did it. He talked a good deal about the broken water pipe. Neither he nor Amanda ever claimed amnesia, although that claim is popular in some quarters.

Hmm... Hmm...

After the Micheli verdict (from Damiano's blog, translation of Raffaele's answers to questions by the newspaper Il Messaggero)

Q: And about that night…
R: "I’ve already said everything I had to say, there isn’t anything to add. That’s the truth and I will defend it again in court. My lawyers have explained many things to me and I have as much faith in justice as I have fear. I feel guilty about just one thing; I smoked so many joints that I can’t remember that night with any precision.’"

 

[Justinian2]

We can go back to the beginning, guilt was applied to the two,before there was any lab work done. This is the most disturbing, in how the two were perceived guilty by Edgardo Giobbi.
I liked what Antony stated, two ways to a crime, 1) evidence leads to the criminal, or 2) find the criminal and build a case against them.
#2 was used in this case of Amanda and Raffaele while # 1 was used for Rudy in the evidence came first.


Here's an example of a current PMF list for #3- aka. other evidence:

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.

Look at how many of these are from the "non- science" type beliefs.

1) the mobile phone and computer records that provide irrefutable proof that Knox and Sollecito lied

2) Knox’s telephone calls and conversations with Filomena and the postal police on 2 November 2007

3) the staged break-in,

4) the testimony of Nara Capezzali and Marco Qunitavalle



The science/forensic type:

1) the mixed blood samples,

2) Sollecito’s bloody footprint on the blue bathmat,
3) the Luminol footprints,

4) the three traces of Meredith’s blood in Knox’s room,

5) the testimony of numerous forensic experts who testified that more than one person killed Meredith


My point was the guilt-vote is not all based on science, which we all know.
This list is 50% science & 50% non -sense (joke).

With Guede's DNA and crap in the nearby toilet, why should we think it's other than Guede's footprint?

Furthermore, measurements and arguments indicate this is Guede's footprint. This has been debated at length.

 

[bolint]

Just to clarify one point, transfer of DNA from the knob or door itself (where his fingerprints were found) would only constitute contamination if a police officer were responsible. If a hypothetical burglar did it, it would be secondary transfer.

Thank you, I'll try to use that terminology.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

contradictory NY Post article

What would one expect from a Murdoch paper, maybe they where let down due to the fact they could not hack into Amanda phone voice mails
Just saying

zeb,

Some reporters did steal Amanda's letters home. With respect to the Post article, it is contradictory. It claims that women who are less than pretty get quickly convicted, but then says that Amanda's chances are improving as her looks fade. It is also an insult to the Italian system of justice to argue that it is being influenced accordingly. It is a disgusting article in so many ways.

 

[Draca]

I don't think they purposefully left it there knowing that it was a part of the bra.
It was a big fault on their part.
Even if they did not realise then that it was a part of the bra it was so close to the body that it surely would have deserved a plastic bag of its own.
Also, when they found it again later they should have simply put it into the bag without examining it with the gloves.

Bolint,

I disagree with your assessment. The bra clasp was originally video taped underneath the pillow MK was lying on top of. They saw it, they video taped it and they chose NOT to collect it as evidence.

If it was only the bra clasp that this happened to I could consider the possiblity that it was simply lost in the commotion. However, they also did not collect several other pieces that should have been obvious to anyone was prime evidence.

If you haven't seen that list before: MK blue adidas jacket that had been removed from her during the stuggle with the sleeves inside out, her socks with blood on the cuffs likely placed there when removed, her shoes with the lace of one still tied, the purse with blood near the zipper, the tote bag on the floor the killer may have looked through and the bra clasp.

It is not possible they forgot to collect these items. They chose not to.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Novel(li) defense (not to be confused with the Nimzowitsche defense)

Novelli isn't actually defending Stefanoni's results or methods in this quote. Environment contamination by dust was just one of the possibilities highlighted by C&V, based on a fairly new (2008) research paper. It's understandable he's either not familiar or disagrees with it.

komponisto,

Most of Novelli's papers concern medical genetics, rather than forensics, and the forensics papers deal with single nucleotide polymorphisms, not short tandem repeats, the bread and butter of most forensic work. Nevertheless, he should know that contamination in PCR can come from a variety of sources. Pointing at dust is a little like crying "turnip juice." It's a good sound bite, but it is most unhelpful to the debate.

 

[Dan O.]

That is a clean photo.

Amazing, that's what Amanda thought about the toilet when she looked in from the door.

That was a photo taken by the Spheron camera at about eye height from in front of the sink. Here is another Spheron photo taken at about the same time from the same location only a little higher...

Now, you can go back and read what Massei (page [185]) had to say about the use of the Spheron cammera or if you trust the PMF translation:

"Before carrying out any technical activity, she pointed out that every area of the house had been filmed with the Spheron a device that allows filming as if it were a sort of video camera which rotates on itself. In this way, the state of every room was "frozen", so that it would be possible to see the positions and the scene as it was at the beginning. "​