Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[christianahannah]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the information provided on Miss R. was not already public (Twitter, Linkdin), whereas the "investigation" carried out against Bruce Fisher involved digging up personal details that were not already public knowledge. Ironically, the results of PMF's investigation revealed BF to be exactly who he always said he was - just a normal guy.

Well I don't know the particulars about either "investigation." Both have (or had) a website, one goes by an assumed name while the other by their real name, and both have written things which the other side may question.

I guess I wonder why it took almost 2 years to post this information on Misrepresented if it was so readily available. Is it only in the present that she has become controversial?

 

[Malkmus]

Right- Mr. Fisher never misrepresented himself; the same cannot be said for Ms. Represented. Fisher wrote a very clear book which stated his case excellently; for that, PMF will never, ever forgive him. The suspicion was in the eye of the beholders, and in their hearts, as a vice.

There was a public search done to determine her qualifications; we know nothing of Ms. R's private life, and have no need or desire to know such.

So you are right on both counts.

Hi, SMK

Yes, I see a clear distinction, and wonder why after years of PMF insinuating all sorts of fraudulent behavior against posters, bloggers, experts, and journalists who believe the pair are innocent, the moment it's repeated (legitimately) against real frauds, people get up in arms.

Honestly, it's actually kind of funny that in the 15 or 20 attempts by PMF to "out" various people on the innocent side as being someone else, I can't think of one incident where their instincts/investigations turned out to be correct.

 

[Malkmus]

Well I don't know the particulars about either "investigation." Both have (or had) a website, one goes by an assumed name while the other by their real name, and both have written things which the other side may question.

I guess I wonder why it took almost 2 years to post this information on Misrepresented if it was so readily available. Is it only in the present that she has become controversial?

Well, the "particulars" are that one person claimed to be something she wasn't in order to bolster her opinion, and the truth has come out. While the other was supposedly working under a false name for monetary reasons - which turned out to be untrue. Turns out Bruce Fisher is... Bruce Fisher.

As for why it took so long... does it make a difference? Somebody finally decided to take a look after a long time... I guess that's in contrast to PMF who immediately make inquiries into posters' personal lives as soon as they show up. Maybe that's why it seems strange.

 

[Danceme]

Hi Danceme,

I know you asked Rose ...hope you don’t mind if I chime in...

Snip

PS...Michele now changes his story again and admits that he did it.

Thanks Randy, that's very helpful, great summary. I wish I could follow it in English, a very interesting case for sure!

Danceme,

With respect to this photo of a luminol-positive area in the hallway, what substance is causing the luminol reactions on the boot and rulers?

I believe I pointed this out too a number of posts back. I don't know what caused it, what are your thoughts on it?

 

[christianahannah]

Well, the "particulars" are that one person claimed to be something she wasn't in order to bolster her opinion, and the truth has come out. While the other was supposedly working under a false name for monetary reasons - which turned out to be untrue. Turns out Bruce Fisher is... Bruce Fisher.

As for why it took so long... does it make a difference? Somebody finally decided to take a look after a long time... I guess that's in contrast to PMF who immediately make inquiries into posters' personal lives as soon as they show up. Maybe that's why it seems strange.

No, it seems strange because on this forum there wasn't even an ongoing discussion about Misrepresented. The information came out of nowhere with a title consisting of signs of her being a psychopath.

My opinion as to why it took so long is that her blog really wasn't all that influential (though one poster here said it shaped their opinion of the case in the beginning), however, some on the side for innocence, for whatever reason, want to mirror the negative things some on the side of guilt do.

 

[Malkmus]

No, it seems strange because on this forum there wasn't even an ongoing discussion about Misrepresented. The information came out of nowhere with a title consisting of signs of her being a psychopath.

My opinion as to why it took so long is that her blog really wasn't all that influential (though one poster here said it shaped their opinion of the case in the beginning), however, some on the side for innocence, for whatever reason, want to mirror the negative things some on the side of guilt do.

Well there was discussion of her as recently as a month ago.

Beyond that, it appears her viewpoints have been taken seriously due to her supposed credentials (infrequently here, and more so at pro-guilt sites), so if you can't see the importance of that then I don't know what else to say.

Basically I've seen a lot of irrational, mean-spirited attempts at outing all sorts of people, mainly perpetuated by one website - all of which have turned out to be fruitless. This is different, and I see a clear difference.

 

[Draca]

Miss Represented aka Ellie Davies-Hoare/Ewing took down her blog

Miss Represented aka Ellie Davies-Hoare/Ewing left this note after removing her lying, fraudulent blog misrepresenting herself as a psychologist:

"These blog posts have been moved permanently into archive folders.
I’m done with the case.
I will not have people harassing me at my place of work.
The outcome of this case no longer concerns me but the behaviour of those involved does. I felt like posting a copy of my psychology degree certificate on this site but what anonymous bloggers think of my education, Twitter, LinkedIn etc. isn’t really my problem.
I’m sure this will seem like a victory…
Enjoy."

http://missrepresented.net/blog/


The right thing to say would have been "I was wrong. I'm sorry." An apology is especially due to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, but also to anyone who read her deceitful blog.

Miss Represented would have only been an undergrad in 2009. She may have gone on to get her psychology degree but that also does not make her a psychologist, which would take several more years of postgraduate education.

She likely removed her blog because she doesn't want her work to know she was unethically posing as a psychologist. Who would. She wouldn't want her co-workers to read her unscrupulous and dishonest blog. If she was employed in the psychology field it could cause real troubles.

It's sad that she doesn't look at her own behavior. She was wrong and should state that.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Hi, SMK

Yes, I see a clear distinction, and wonder why after years of PMF insinuating all sorts of fraudulent behavior against posters, bloggers, experts, and journalists who believe the pair are innocent, the moment it's repeated (legitimately) against real frauds, people get up in arms.

Honestly, it's actually kind of funny that in the 15 or 20 attempts by PMF to "out" various people on the innocent side as being someone else, I can't think of one incident where their instincts/investigations turned out to be correct.

You are so correct. I was on the receiving end of that for my simply writing a positive book review for Fisher. They said money and sex were at the core - ha, I wish! In general I do not like ad hominem attacks, but sometimes the hominem is exactly what needs attacking

 

[smkovalinksy]

Miss Represented aka Ellie Davies-Hoare/Ewing left this note after removing her lying, fraudulent blog misrepresenting herself as a psychologist:

"These blog posts have been moved permanently into archive folders.
I’m done with the case.
I will not have people harassing me at my place of work.
The outcome of this case no longer concerns me but the behaviour of those involved does. I felt like posting a copy of my psychology degree certificate on this site but what anonymous bloggers think of my education, Twitter, LinkedIn etc. isn’t really my problem.
I’m sure this will seem like a victory…
Enjoy."

The right thing to say would have been "I was wrong. I'm sorry." An apology is especially due to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, but also to anyone who read her deceitful blog.

Miss Represented would have only been an undergrad in 2009. She may have gone on to get her psychology degree but that also does not make her a psychologist, which would take several more years of postgraduate education.

She likely removed her blog because she doesn't want her work to know she was unethically posing as a psychologist. Who would. She wouldn't want her co-workers to read her unscrupulous and dishonest blog. If she was employed in the psychology field it could cause real troubles.

It's sad that she doesn't look at her own behavior. She was wrong and should state that.

The worst of it is, at the time of her best posts, she was an advanced student of psychology, an excellent critique essayist, and a truly brilliant writer. That alone gave her some weight. It is the PMF people, and their desire to everywhere fly the flag of credentials, and blast a loud trumpet before them, while seeking to degrade and humiliate others, which caused her a problem. They decided to elevate her, she was intimidated and let it stand, and now the axe falls on her,---- after all, she had not claimed much for herself, but allowed others to do so for her - and it is obvious who those others were, and what their motives were...... in the end, it is really her association with them which provoked this. As the old adage goes, "Lie down with dogs, and you will get up with fleas". I think Ms R will ultimately examine in what manner PMF is the cause of her present state of affairs, and become enlightened psychologically.

ETA: It was brought to my attention, that the provided links do in fact reveal that Ms R herself also made such claims regarding herself. Public opinion being what it is in this case in Perugia, credentials stated are indeed open to scrutiny--- In any case, it is best to understate rather than overstate oneself within public discourse. Particularly presumptuous and obnoxious is the claim to know that Amanda always longed to be in the center of a knife-wielding attack....

 

[Chris_Halkides]

mixed DNA in bedding

RWVBWL,

From the abstract of an article (DNA profiling of trace DNA recovered from bedding Forensic Forensic Science International, Volume 159, Issue 1, 25 May 2006, Pages 21-26) on DNA profiling: "The results indicate that the DNA profile of an individual can be obtained from bedding after one night of sleeping in a bed. The DNA profile of the owner of the bed could also be detected in the foreign bed experiments. Since mixed DNA profiles can be obtained from trace DNA on bedding, caution should be exercised when drawing conclusions from DNA profiling results obtained from such samples."

This is a good example of mixed DNA that was not deposited simultaneously. With respect to Ms. Nadeau, I would like to issue a challenge. She should let someone swab her house, especially her bathroom, for DNA testing. Let's see how many mixed DNA profiles are generated.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

No I don't want to take back what I have written because it was not meant to be insulting. I believe there are those on both sides of the case which do more harm than good.

My words concerning the side show have to do with the actions of those on both sides of this case who feel it is their duty to uncover and expose to the public the private lives of those who may wish to remain anonymous. This blogger isn't the only person this has happened to. Bruce Fisher also had this happen to him and I think it is awful for someone's personal information to be made public if they wish it not to be.

I mostly agree with you, but I think it's fair to expose Miss R. because she exaggerated her credentials.

With regard to anonymity, I am willing to respect it, but people who choose to remain anonymous do so at the expense of some credibility, if they post extensively in a strident or militant tone. Anonymity can be construed as unwillingness to take responsibility for one's words. That is why I eventually outed myself as Jim Lovering. I want everyone to realize I am proud to support Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[christianahannah]

I mostly agree with you, but I think it's fair to expose Miss R. because she exaggerated her credentials.

With regard to anonymity, I am willing to respect it, but people who choose to remain anonymous do so at the expense of some credibility, if they post extensively in a strident or militant tone. Anonymity can be construed as unwillingness to take responsibility for one's words. That is why I eventually outed myself as Jim Lovering. I want everyone to realize I am proud to support Amanda and Raffaele.

Fair or not Charlie, this was a combined effort to expose someone (and I won't give links, however, anyone can follow a trail if they so desire) and it really had nothing to do with the discussion on this forum (even if some minute discussion took place a month ago). And now reading posts upthread, one of the main reasons is because of their association with PMF? Really?

I have always respected you Charlie/Jim. You make your position known and have mostly (if not always) been very kind towards Meredith's family and friends.

I will disagree with you somewhat on anonymity - it isn't always about not owning one's words - it can be about the fear of the reaction of those who disagree with your words.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Fair or not Charlie, this was a combined effort to expose someone (and I won't give links, however, anyone can follow a trail if they so desire) and it really had nothing to do with the discussion on this forum (even if some minute discussion took place a month ago). And now reading posts upthread, one of the main reasons is because of their association with PMF? Really?

I have always respected you Charlie/Jim. You make your position known and have mostly (if not always) been very kind towards Meredith's family and friends.

I will disagree with you somewhat on anonymity - it isn't always about not owning one's words - it can be about the fear of the reaction of those who disagree with your words.

I am responsible for that opinion (bolded above), and that was my own conclusion. Also, I believe I may have misspoken even in that, for Quenell is from TJFMK site, not PMF---in any case, I don't think anyone else agrees with me on that. I alone made the association....and it was not a good one, as I can see now that it is in fact a case of claiming to be a psychologist while working in an entirely different field....such claims, when false, will come to light, and for good reason, too, when involved with a public discussion of justice involving young persons...

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the latest from Maundy Gregory

Maundy wrote, "Most significantly, lead prosecutor Manuela Comodi was able to get Carla Vecchiotti to agree that the amount of time that had passed between the testing of the knife and clasp samples and any prior testing related to the Kercher case had been sufficient so that it was unrealistic that any potentially contaminating DNA might have still been present in the lab."

Did Dr. Vecchiotti agree that the time was too long? Is it certain that there was such a gap at all? The persistence of DNA in a laboratory has not been measured, to the best of my knowledge. However, we know it can persist for years, depending on environmental conditions.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I'm actually quite sceptical about veracity of Comodi's assertions. IIRC Steffi testified that the knife was tested in the middle of a batch of multiple items.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Maundry wrote: "Most significantly, lead prosecutor Manuela Comodi was able to get Carla Vecchiotti to agree that the amount of time that had passed between the testing of the knife and clasp samples and any prior testing related to the Kercher case had been sufficient so that it was unrealistic that any potentially contaminating DNA might have still been present in the lab."

Did Dr. Vecchiotti agree that the time was too long? Is it certain that there was such a gap at all? The persistence of DNA in a laboratory has not been measured, to the best of my knowledge. However, we know it can persist for years, depending on environmental conditions.

I do not take Maundry's word as gospel, as he is often wrong in the details. I think this is such a case; also, his assertions in the post that Knox has slipped into obscurity, and that the staged crime scene is a huge bonus for the prosecution, and will stand....

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Maundy wrote, "Most significantly, lead prosecutor Manuela Comodi was able to get Carla Vecchiotti to agree that the amount of time that had passed between the testing of the knife and clasp samples and any prior testing related to the Kercher case had been sufficient so that it was unrealistic that any potentially contaminating DNA might have still been present in the lab."

Did Dr. Vecchiotti agree that the time was too long? Is it certain that there was such a gap at all? The persistence of DNA in a laboratory has not been measured, to the best of my knowledge. However, we know it can persist for years, depending on environmental conditions.

It would be useful to have the transcript. Maundy has embraced this supposed caveat with dogmatic fervor. But its plausibility hinges on ignorance of the subject, I.e. contamination in crime labs.

 

[JREF2010]

It would be useful to have the transcript. Maundy has embraced this supposed caveat with dogmatic fervor. But its plausibility hinges on ignorance of the subject, I.e. contamination in crime labs.

But the contamination still could have occurred before...as Frank wrote, hearing Hellman state.

Letting a tool sit idle is incorrect in assuming the capillary tubes will clean themself.

Think of a straw to a soda drink. If there is contamination in the straw, whether it sits a week or a month it is still in the straw.
A weak technical argument, imo, especially when your in a nano or pico detection range.

Where are the control data?
Controls, every run, every test, Controls positive and Controls negative... its very simple.

Generalistic view-
A negative control goes in "0" and comes out "0"
A positive control goes in 9876.0034 and should come out 9876.0034.

It shows the tool is clean (negative) and the tool is calibrated (positive)

I've seen that guilter statement before, its really not much to jump up and down about.

And Hellman told Commodi & Stefanoni its too late for the data now, on the blurry incorrect coded doc,.....

the contamination could have happened before the tool/lab.

Thats my take on it.

 

[Grinder]

The GP people have always pushed the idea that contamination needs to be proven or at least demonstrated in some positive way. It is obvious to everyone else that protocol is there precisely to eliminate the possibility of contamination either accidental or planted (chain of custody). The lack of controls between the first week of November and the December collection of the bra is for that reason problematic. I doubt that the Perugians had 24/7 watchmen on the cottage for 2 months and if they did evidently not all entries were recorded.

If the bra was one of 5 or 10 pieces showing Raf's presence, it wouldn't be a big deal but the clasp is the only actual match - no fingerprints, no footprints that match, no DNA.

Will the defense be allowed to question the experts? I would think they would and that they could cast even more doubts on the entire process.

 

[Mary_H]

The worst of it is, at the time of her best posts, she was an advanced student of psychology, an excellent critique essayist, and a truly brilliant writer. That alone gave her some weight. It is the PMF people, and their desire to everywhere fly the flag of credentials, and blast a loud trumpet before them, while seeking to degrade and humiliate others, which caused her a problem. They decided to elevate her, she was intimidated and let it stand, and now the axe falls on her,---- after all, she had not claimed much for herself, but allowed others to do so for her - and it is obvious who those others were, and what their motives were...... in the end, it is really her association with them which provoked this. As the old adage goes, "Lie down with dogs, and you will get up with fleas". I think Ms R will ultimately examine in what manner PMF is the cause of her present state of affairs, and become enlightened psychologically.

ETA: It was brought to my attention, that the provided links do in fact reveal that Ms R herself also made such claims regarding herself. Public opinion being what it is in this case in Perugia, credentials stated are indeed open to scrutiny--- In any case, it is best to understate rather than overstate oneself within public discourse. Particularly presumptuous and obnoxious is the claim to know that Amanda always longed to be in the center of a knife-wielding attack....

I'm sorry, smkovalinsky, I simply cannot sit here and let someone call MissRepresented a brilliant writer twice on one page.

The first time I read her garbage I did not know whether to laugh or cry. It was as painful as reading TJMK -- in fact, there have been times when I thought Quennell was responsible for writing both blogs. I read MR only a couple more times before swearing off for good. The last thing this discussion has ever needed is yet another high school-level faux-Freudian analysis of Amanda competing with her mother for her stepfather's love. Good lord.

I agree with Malkmus -- Nutty McNutterson took her blog down out of embarrassment. I now concede she can't be a Quennell alter ego -- he is not nearly so thin-skinned. I still don't know what her credentials are, if any, but, as we have seen over and over, a lot of people with advanced degrees are fools. I don't take issue with her diplomas -- what she should be embarrassed about is the fact that she was wrong about 10,000 times more often than she was right.

Even more at issue for me is the fact that in the process of being a rank amateur at psychology, MR completely and totally invaded Amanda's family's privacy to an unholy degree -- in other words, she put herself in a place where she did not belong. That she has closed her blog down out of fear for an invasion of her own privacy is ironic, if not poetic justice.