Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[JREF2010]

The GP people have always pushed the idea that contamination needs to be proven or at least demonstrated in some positive way.

I always found that ludicrous, because they them self don't do this in their accusations.

Who held the rock for instance?

And as far as proving contamination as a very possible truth, the video for the forensic team proves this more than words ever could.

 

[Draca]

Well........ I just watched the SBS (Australian public service broadcaster) current affairs magazine "Dateline" segment on the case:

http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/watch/id/601316/n/Justice-on-Trial

Of course the report has many of the usual inaccuracies, but what I found extremely interesting was the "round table" interview with the three main "journalists" covering the case - Pisa, ClouseauNadeau and Vogt - and CBS producer Sabina Castelfranco. To me, it utterly exposed the ignorance, poor judgement and pliability of the three "journalists". Here are some prime examples:

Pisa: "If you're getting some information from a primary source - like a police officer, like a prosecutor - you've got to take it at face value, you've got to believe what you're being told". Ever heard of investigative journalism and scepticism, Nick?

Clouseau: "You think: well, we're in a university town, with a lot of drugs, and a lot of co-eds, having a lot of sex..... why not?!" Why not what, Barbie? Why not brutally murder your housemate in a sex game gone wrong? You idiot.

Vogt: "She (Knox) was a girl who was deeply out of context in Italy". What does that even mean?!

Vogt (getting agitated and defensive now): "Most(??) of the jurors and judges who have looked at this case are convinced that Raffaele and Rudy and Amanda were all present; they don't know how it went down, they don't know exactly who put the knife in or what, but the confessions and all of the evidence put together has convinced multiple judges and jurors that the three were involved." Does that sound like a safe conviction to you, Andrea? Or does it sound like you appealing to authority to try to defend your increasingly indefensible position on Knox's/Sollecito's guilt?

Pisa: "In a UK court, that trial would not have taken place, because the evidence was not... I don't think was concrete enough to convict her (Knox)." So you're basically saying that in your opinion Knox should be acquitted, Nick? How long have you had that view? I don't recall that being the tone of your reporting in 2009, Nick.

Clouseau: "The question is: is this a clean conviction, is this a good conviction? No. No matter whether you think she's (Knox) innocent or guilty, was this a clean conviction? No." So you're also now saying essentially that Knox should be acquitted are you, Barbie? Cos that's what you're implying here. Seems like you too (like Pisa) have belatedly realised the truth about this case, and are reverse-ferreting like crazy. Maybe you'd like to read some of your own articles from 2008-2010 and compare them to your current opinion. That would be interesting, wouldn't it?

Vogt (now clearly backed into a corner by Castelfranco in particular and being very defensive indeed): "I err I feel that...still not been properly explained why there are mixed traces of DNA of Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher in four different spots in the house... mixed blood...." (Interrupted by Castelfranco saying "What are you talking about?!"). Well now you're just being stupid, Andrea. Have you seen the crime scene video featuring the photographer (of all people) smearing large areas of the sink surface when collecting these "mixed DNA samples"? And are you really not aware that there is no proof whatsoever that the samples contained mixed blood, as opposed to Meredith's blood plus Knox's DNA from other sources (e.g. sloughed inner cheek/gum cells from normal toothbrushing)? You're an idiot, Vogt. A real idiot.

Clouseau: "I live in a house with three people (my two sons and my husband); I guarantee you I have never mixed blood with any of them anywhere in the house; I don't bleed where they bleed; we never bleed at the same time." Same goes for you, Barbie. You don't understand the evidence in this case. And you're also an idiot.

Clouseau: "If she (Knox) would have had an adequate and able defence, she'd be home right now...... she had a defence that did not defend her in the way that she needed to be defended" So you're saying again that in your opinion Knox should be acquitted, and that (in your view) it was only an incompetent defence team that got her wrongly found guilty in the first trial. Let's look once again at all those articles you wrote in 2008-2010, Barbie. You hypocritical, ignorant idiot.


To me, it's extraordinary to watch this inept, self-contradictory, ignorant, low-quality display by the three "journalists" who are supposed to be at the forefront of bringing this case to the English-speaking world. They are incompetent hacks who are clearly incapable of understanding the critical nuances of this case, and who have quite clearly been manipulated by Mignini and others. Only now are Nadeau and Pisa understanding this, although Vogt still seems to be living in some dreamland of personal denial and inability to realise just how stunningly wrong she called this case.

The only sane journalists in the piece seem to be Castelfranco (who obviously knows that Knox and Sollecito should be acquitted) and Bob Graham, who makes the following incisive - and perhaps prescient - comment on the journalistic coverage of the case:

Graham: "I think we the media - collectively - have failed to ask a lot of questions."

Question: "Can you blame the media for reporting on information they're given by the police or prosecutors though?"

Graham: "Without question. If they report it without question... if they report it when some of the things they have been told are as extraordinary as they have been in this case..... there are people amongst the journalistic corps here who've got an awful lot to answer for. Will they ever be held to account? Probably not."

Says it all, really...

Brilliant LJ, Thanks for the awesome post.

So much bad reporting on this case for so long. Barbie, Andrea and Nick - The Three Horses of the Apocalypse. It helps explain why Amanda and Raffaele were ever convicted. A modern day media witch hunt. Freelance writers searching for their fame and fortune instead of the truth. It's disappointing that the real story has so much depth to it that hasn't surfaced completely. I'm glad the CV report has brought lots of real information forward. Bob Graham really nailed the failure of journalists in regards to this case.

LJ, I will join you in saying Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau are 'hypocritical, ignorant idiots." Nick Pisa I have mixed thoughts on because he seems to have realized he was wrong many months ago. His writing on the case reflects that.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

copper, cobalt or iron

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?

Dancme,

It is possible that it is blood from the crime scene. However, I think it is more likely that some substance or substances have metal ions such as copper, cobalt, or iron that is causing the reaction. It is just my speculation.

 

[RandyN]

Dancme,

It is possible that it is blood from the crime scene. However, I think it is more likely that some substance or substances have metal ions such as copper, cobalt, or iron that is causing the reaction. It is just my speculation.

Or it might just be turnip juice...you decide.

 

[Dougm]

Hello!

This may have been answered before, but how do you watch the dateline program with Nick, Barbie, et al, if outside Austrailia? It is blocked for me.


Thanks.

 

[Fine]

Quote:
BARBIE NADEAU: "I have to say, I live in a house with 3 people, my two sons and my husband, I guarantee you I have no mixed blood with any of them, anywhere in my house. I don't bleed where they bleed, we don't bleed at the same time. There would never be my mixed blood, their blood and my blood anywhere ever."
______________________

Just what we needed to know, Barbie. Thanks for sharing. No mixed blood in Barbie's house. Never. And, I suppose, no mixed sperm or mixed spinal fluid either. After one final glass of wine... Barbie might have guaranteed to us that she doesn't have a male harem she parades, bare-naked, through the streets of Perugia and in her house sex games never go wrong.

///

 

[RandyN]

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.

I watched NOVA on PBS last night. They were studying DNA from the bones of Neanderthals to see if they are related to Homosapiens.
The answer seems to be yes. Its been just a bit past six days since the last Neanderthal roamed the earth.

This 6 day, 12 day argument never made sense to me. I see no reason that a 6 day or 12 day pause would undo sloppy collection. And although we have no video of actual lab practice by Stefanoni… I see no reason to believe that her actual lab procedures were any better than her field collection protocol. Did we ever get to see her labs written SOP’s or any sort of written lab procedures manual? I cant recall one.

Im guessing the same careless attention to detail was present in the lab as that we were allowed to view and as was demonstrated by her and her “crack” team.

 

[JREF2010]

Hello!

This may have been answered before, but how do you watch the dateline program with Nick, Barbie, et al, if outside Austrailia? It is blocked for me.


Thanks.

thats odd it was working the other day. now its geo blocked?

 

[RandyN]

Thats really interesting, I'd never seen that before.

Scuff marks on the cottage walls.... after all this time?

I recall Judge Micheli never scoffed at the burglary theory.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=23382


Yes ...and he must have ignored this one too...which I call brick dust shoe prints




And he probably missed this one too...I got creative and named this one Brick dust 2




Anyone still believing in the staged break-in simply is not looking at the known facts and evidence in the case.

BTW these photos are from Ron Hendrys analysis of the real break-in. For anyone who hasnt seen it yet its over at IIP . He makes a quite good case for an actual break-in and he does so without the scuff marked wall photo linked above.

 

[Dan O.]

Sorry, I don't follow. Do you believe Rudy did or did not get in a fight as soon as he left the bathroom? (Again, that's what I get for not following the discussions about Rudy.)

Yes, I believe Rudy spun a tale of innocence around the facts of evidence he knows he left behind. Verifiable facts can be deduced from the story that Rudy told and if these facts are falsified it would highlight Rudy's story as a lie. If significant evidence turned up that Rudy had not accounted for it would also lead to question the truthfulness of Rudy's statement. It would therefore be in Rudy's best interest to not lie about those things that can be verified.

 

[Mary_H]

Yes, I believe Rudy spun a tale of innocence around the facts of evidence he knows he left behind. Verifiable facts can be deduced from the story that Rudy told and if these facts are falsified it would highlight Rudy's story as a lie. If significant evidence turned up that Rudy had not accounted for it would also lead to question the truthfulness of Rudy's statement. It would therefore be in Rudy's best interest to not lie about those things that can be verified.

But you wrote, "Breaking the window and then walking into the cottage with Meredith doesn't fully explain why Meredith's keys are missing or the dynamics of Rudy exiting the bathroom and immediately getting into a fight."

There isn't any evidence of Rudy exiting the bathroom and immediately getting in a fight, is there?

 

[Mary_H]

Brilliant LJ, Thanks for the awesome post.

So much bad reporting on this case for so long. Barbie, Andrea and Nick - The Three Horses of the Apocalypse. <snips>

The Three Horses' Asses....

 

[Bruce Fischer]

WOW!

Peggy Ganong posted a book review for Nina Burleigh’s book. She wrote this with regard to Amanda's family: "While I believe that Amanda Knox was rightly convicted for her role in Meredith Kercher’s death, and though I have been critical of her family’s decision to hire a PR firm that has attempted to manipulate public opinion, I certainly think they are entitled to a little more respect and empathy than this."

I agree 100% that Amanda's family deserved much more respect than Nina gave them but I am left completely baffled by Peggy's comment. Does she read her own website? She thinks Amanda's family deserves respect and empathy! Really?

 

[Dan O.]

But you wrote, "Breaking the window and then walking into the cottage with Meredith doesn't fully explain why Meredith's keys are missing or the dynamics of Rudy exiting the bathroom and immediately getting into a fight."

There isn't any evidence of Rudy exiting the bathroom and immediately getting in a fight, is there?

From Rudy's diary and other statements he says he left the bathroom and went down the hall without zipping up his pants. When he got into an altercation with the stranger he fell backwards because his pants had fallen down. The only evidence we can be sure of here is that Rudy says he stopped his fall by grabbing the laundry rack and that he also grabbed a chair to defend himself with. Rudy leaves open the possibility that he also left a half moon impression in the hall which would confirm the story of the pants being down and also tie the timing to leaving the bathroom.

 

[Mary_H]

Peggy Ganong posted a book review for Nina Burleigh’s book. She wrote this with regard to Amanda's family: "While I believe that Amanda Knox was rightly convicted for her role in Meredith Kercher’s death, and though I have been critical of her family’s decision to hire a PR firm that has attempted to manipulate public opinion, I certainly think they are entitled to a little more respect and empathy than this."

I agree 100% that Amanda's family deserved much more respect than Nina gave them but I am left completely baffled by Peggy's comment. Does she read her own website? She thinks Amanda's family deserves respect and empathy! Really?

That's hilarious, Bruce. Where was this review posted?

I'm glad all of the abuse was documented, before PMF goes the way of MissRepresented.

 

[Mary_H]

From Rudy's diary and other statements he says he left the bathroom and went down the hall without zipping up his pants. When he got into an altercation with the stranger he fell backwards because his pants had fallen down. The only evidence we can be sure of here is that Rudy says he stopped his fall by grabbing the laundry rack and that he also grabbed a chair to defend himself with. Rudy leaves open the possibility that he also left a half moon impression in the hall which would confirm the story of the pants being down and also tie the timing to leaving the bathroom.

I know none of this happened, but it's actually more believable if Rudy went in the house with Meredith than if he went in through the bedroom window, and you're saying Rudy wants to be believable. So walking in the house with Meredith would explain it. When I say he may have broken the window before he went in, I mean before Meredith got home.

 

[Kaosium]

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...

I came across this blog at some time while I was looking into it before I posted, and I didn't pay it much mind. She was no longer posting on the case and I just figured her information was out of date, and just snickered at the idea that she bought into the whole 'PR Campaign' conspiracy, and based her 'analysis' on an obvious tabloid-initiated smear. It's even funnier now that I find out she works in media analysis. I actually thought she had some nice insights on some subjects, notably whether Rudy Guede could have been affected by PTSD, but just rolled my eyes at a lot of it, much like I did the other 'psychologists' who got caught up in the defamation firestorm, plus there was reason enough to suspect she might just be a poseur, the post on 'Eyes for Lies' was something of a hint. I certainly understand why that pisses Spartacus and others off.

I didn't get a chance to finish what I was doing as the blog was taken down, thus this must be based on incomplete information, and perhaps there's a facet here that I entirely missed, but I kinda got the impression she was getting hustled, mainly by Fast_Pete and The Machine. For one thing it appeared to me almost all of the information she was relying on came from TJMK, as did her 'theories' of the media campaign. From her first post, cunningly entitled 'True Justice For Meredith Kercher:'

The whole world will be watching. Forums will come alive with the details of the alleged 10,000 page dossier of evidence and the whole world may finally know what really happened to Meredith Kercher. The fantastic website True Justice for Meredith Kercher (link in the side bar) has been the most up to date, factually correct useful source of information about any crime investigation that I have ever come across. I have found the posts riveting, relevant, insightful and above all respectful. Most journalists could do a lot worse that use it as there absolute grounding on the case and maybe they could learn how to ensure they remained impartial at all times whilst ensuring the memory of this beautiful young woman and her family is honoured with respect and dignity.

It looks to me like she got taken in by a kooky website, bought into the fantasy body and soul, and then being a psychology student called herself a 'psychologist' and then The Machine and Fast Pete took advantage of that. It wasn't her as much promoting herself as one, rather not correcting other's mistakes--she might have been flattered they made it, she's just a girl, who was blogging on a case, she walked away from it almost two years ago. However...

Interesting thing I found: Her blog was originally on Wordpress and is still there, in this incarnation there's nothing about her being a psychologist unless I missed it. Then she upgrades to 'filter out' trolls after receiving several private 'complaints' about a perfectly nice poster name 'shust' who is getting piled on something fierce and she has 450 comments in two weeks. Interestingly enough, Fast Pete remembers this upgrade well, two years later (post of Thu May 12, 2011 7:40 pm) and then she gets the new blog which was since taken down and where the idea developed that she was a psychologist and Fast Pete apparently started noting her number of hits, noting what fun she was to chat with by e-mail....

Interestingly enough, her last post on TJMK includes this little tidbit:

On my companion website to TJMK on the psychological dimensions of the case, Miss Represented, there is some interesting discussion in the Comments on the arguments for charming psychopathia now being presented.

I wonder considering the abrupt departure, after noting she was a 'companion' website and had been 'established' as an 'authority' that wasn't entirely her own doing, whether all the 'oddballs' were necessarily those who disagreed with her on the case...

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Peggy Ganong posted a book review for Nina Burleigh’s book. She wrote this with regard to Amanda's family: "While I believe that Amanda Knox was rightly convicted for her role in Meredith Kercher’s death, and though I have been critical of her family’s decision to hire a PR firm that has attempted to manipulate public opinion, I certainly think they are entitled to a little more respect and empathy than this."

I agree 100% that Amanda's family deserved much more respect than Nina gave them but I am left completely baffled by Peggy's comment. Does she read her own website? She thinks Amanda's family deserves respect and empathy! Really?

There's a u-turn in that ferret all right.

 

[Kaosium]

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.

CD Host--that was ugly.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

That's hilarious, Bruce. Where was this review posted?

I'm glad all of the abuse was documented, before PMF goes the way of MissRepresented.

Peggy posted the review on her Skeptical Bystander blog and TJMK, the website that Peggy has claimed not to be partnered with. Once again, really??