Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case
- Thread starter Chris_Halkides
- Start date
- Status
christianahannah
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2010
- Messages
- 1,426
Well my comments were for this case in particular, not general. And while I could be wrong, I don't think there is an underlying coverup, conspiracy, etc. There are other dynamics which may have occurred to have the outcome of this case as it has been to the present.
As to your second paragraph I am still viewing documents and transcripts, along with arguments to see what conclusion I draw along with the conclusions of others (from both sides). While I don't always understand what I read/research I do try to do my own homework and then compare with the homework of others.
RWVBWL
Master Poster
The knives...
Hi everyone,
I recalled that JREF member Malkmus helped me before with info about re-posting photo's,
so I dug up his info, let's see if I can do this right finally!
Just click the photo, here is a cropped close-up of the handle that has sparked my curiousity:
Allow me to share a quick personal story. Being the eldest of the kids in my family, I had more than my fair share of household chores to do, washing the dishes was 1 of them too. So I can see a person, after rinsing the silverware, putting the forks and spoons and the spatula facing upwards to dry, while I would point any knife downward. Hence my question, is that a knife hiding behind the blue handled utensils? Speaking of which, what are those blue handled utensils?
Hi RoseMontague,
Curious more about that photograph you had recently posted, I went digging at InjusticeinPerugia.com and found this photograph also, all of the knives found at the girls cottage!:
Aha!
There's that knife handle as you and I thought.
So that was a knife in the silverware strainer drying off. But have a look at all of the other knives that are pictured as belonging to the girls cottage. I wondered what those blue handle were, they were more sharp knives. I also wonder of something else.
Of all the knives pictured above from the girls cottage, surely 1 of those knives would have much better fit the wounds inflicted upon Meredith when she was brutally stabbed to her death. Didn't Rudy Guede have a knife in his possesion that was stolen from the kitchen when he was busted in that nursery school in Milan with a womens gold watch also among his possesions? Wouldn't it make sense that he used one of those cottage kitchen knives to stab Meredith Kercher too? Might he have washed it off very, very well afterwards and replaced it, say when he was in the kitchen and also had a drink of OJ from the frig?
Hi Grinder,
The 2nd photograph that I linked from IIP states that these were knives from the cottage that investigators neglected to test for DNA! What the heck?!?
Meredith's DNA wouldn't have proven anything, but finding Rudy Guede's would have! But then again, that would not have fit the prosecutions tunnel-vision theory.
I'm gonna try and look at this from a different perspective.
IIRC, Amanda and Raff are supposed to have done an immaculant clean-up, one that removed all traces of their presence from Meredith's beroom. But they forgot the visible blood drops in the bathroom, and I guess they didn't want to simply throw away that bathmat with the bloody footprint on it because, hey, maybe Filomena or the house owner might have noticed it missing. If they were so stupid and worried to have thought and done this, why wouldn't they have just washed off any of the cottage's kitchen knives after using it in an un-premeditated murder and put it back to dry, so Filomena or the house owner wouldn't also notice a knife missing? I ask this since it's been said elsewhere that Raff didn't want to gget rid of that huuuge kitchen knife, even though it was supposedly used in a bloody murder, simply because he was worried that his housecleaner or the house owner might have noticed the knife missing...
After looking at these knives pictured above, I wonder why <Dr. Stefanoni did not even test any of the cottage kitchen knives for DNA? Why not test at least 1 knife that most closely fit the bloody outline found on Meredith's mattress sheet? And re-test, re-test, re-test, and re-test it if the results were Too Low, Too Low, Too Low? Why not open up the handle and see if there was any blood residue to be found inside?
I guess this wa not done because the knives that were found in the girls cottage did not fit into the prosecutions theory of Meredith's murder being a pre-meditated act. But was it even premeditated?
I recall reading in B. Nadeau's book 'Angel Face', see pages 158-161,
about a video, with sexy avatars of Amanda, Raff, Meredith and Rudy, that was shown at the end of the 1st trial which helped to convict Amanda and Raff of murder. It shows them meeting up with Rudy Guede to buy drugs at the girls cottage,(*) and afterwards a fight broke out. But in this visualization, Amanda runs to the girls kitchen to grab another knife, and afterwards plunges the knife into Meredith's neck.
With this oin mind, I ask once again, how come none of those kitchen knives from the girls cottage were tested for DNA? Because it didn't fit the current flavor of the month prosecution theory?
I wonder...
RW
(*),
Amanda gets a phone message, she doesn't have to work that night. Cool. In that video visualization, Amanda arranges to have Rudy come over to her own house later on. He does so at 11:20pm. But I wonder why? Amanda's been stayin' at Raff's pad every night for the last week. Before Meredith was killed, Amanda had already taken out a bunch of $$$ to pay her rent, so she had cash. If she was really into drugs, why didn't she and Raff just head out and pick some up themselves? Or just give Rudy the address to Raffaele's apartment anyways? Didn't Rudy live pretty close to Raff anyways? Some things still just do not jive...
Hi everyone,
I recalled that JREF member Malkmus helped me before with info about re-posting photo's,
so I dug up his info, let's see if I can do this right finally!
Just click the photo, here is a cropped close-up of the handle that has sparked my curiousity:
Allow me to share a quick personal story. Being the eldest of the kids in my family, I had more than my fair share of household chores to do, washing the dishes was 1 of them too. So I can see a person, after rinsing the silverware, putting the forks and spoons and the spatula facing upwards to dry, while I would point any knife downward. Hence my question, is that a knife hiding behind the blue handled utensils? Speaking of which, what are those blue handled utensils?
Hi RoseMontague,
Curious more about that photograph you had recently posted, I went digging at InjusticeinPerugia.com and found this photograph also, all of the knives found at the girls cottage!:
Aha!
There's that knife handle as you and I thought.
So that was a knife in the silverware strainer drying off. But have a look at all of the other knives that are pictured as belonging to the girls cottage. I wondered what those blue handle were, they were more sharp knives. I also wonder of something else.
Of all the knives pictured above from the girls cottage, surely 1 of those knives would have much better fit the wounds inflicted upon Meredith when she was brutally stabbed to her death. Didn't Rudy Guede have a knife in his possesion that was stolen from the kitchen when he was busted in that nursery school in Milan with a womens gold watch also among his possesions? Wouldn't it make sense that he used one of those cottage kitchen knives to stab Meredith Kercher too? Might he have washed it off very, very well afterwards and replaced it, say when he was in the kitchen and also had a drink of OJ from the frig?
Hi Grinder,
The 2nd photograph that I linked from IIP states that these were knives from the cottage that investigators neglected to test for DNA! What the heck?!?
Meredith's DNA wouldn't have proven anything, but finding Rudy Guede's would have! But then again, that would not have fit the prosecutions tunnel-vision theory.
I'm gonna try and look at this from a different perspective.
IIRC, Amanda and Raff are supposed to have done an immaculant clean-up, one that removed all traces of their presence from Meredith's beroom. But they forgot the visible blood drops in the bathroom, and I guess they didn't want to simply throw away that bathmat with the bloody footprint on it because, hey, maybe Filomena or the house owner might have noticed it missing. If they were so stupid and worried to have thought and done this, why wouldn't they have just washed off any of the cottage's kitchen knives after using it in an un-premeditated murder and put it back to dry, so Filomena or the house owner wouldn't also notice a knife missing? I ask this since it's been said elsewhere that Raff didn't want to gget rid of that huuuge kitchen knife, even though it was supposedly used in a bloody murder, simply because he was worried that his housecleaner or the house owner might have noticed the knife missing...
After looking at these knives pictured above, I wonder why <Dr. Stefanoni did not even test any of the cottage kitchen knives for DNA? Why not test at least 1 knife that most closely fit the bloody outline found on Meredith's mattress sheet? And re-test, re-test, re-test, and re-test it if the results were Too Low, Too Low, Too Low? Why not open up the handle and see if there was any blood residue to be found inside?
I guess this wa not done because the knives that were found in the girls cottage did not fit into the prosecutions theory of Meredith's murder being a pre-meditated act. But was it even premeditated?
I recall reading in B. Nadeau's book 'Angel Face', see pages 158-161,
about a video, with sexy avatars of Amanda, Raff, Meredith and Rudy, that was shown at the end of the 1st trial which helped to convict Amanda and Raff of murder. It shows them meeting up with Rudy Guede to buy drugs at the girls cottage,(*) and afterwards a fight broke out. But in this visualization, Amanda runs to the girls kitchen to grab another knife, and afterwards plunges the knife into Meredith's neck.
With this oin mind, I ask once again, how come none of those kitchen knives from the girls cottage were tested for DNA? Because it didn't fit the current flavor of the month prosecution theory?
I wonder...
RW
(*),
Amanda gets a phone message, she doesn't have to work that night. Cool. In that video visualization, Amanda arranges to have Rudy come over to her own house later on. He does so at 11:20pm. But I wonder why? Amanda's been stayin' at Raff's pad every night for the last week. Before Meredith was killed, Amanda had already taken out a bunch of $$$ to pay her rent, so she had cash. If she was really into drugs, why didn't she and Raff just head out and pick some up themselves? Or just give Rudy the address to Raffaele's apartment anyways? Didn't Rudy live pretty close to Raff anyways? Some things still just do not jive...
Last edited:
shutlt: What is frustrating to this newbe is that you say you are not convinced about the knife yet you want answers and make speculative requests such as why MK's DNA is on the knife blade that indicate otherwise. I'm sure you read the C&K report but you seem to have skipped over some sections. I'll summarize:
1. The alleged "DNA" on the knife blade was never quantified by Ms. Stefi. C&K inferred the possible quantity as less than .08 ng/ul because that was the amount that got a reading on the handle. By the way, 0 ng/ul is an amount less than .08 ng/ul.
2. The material that provided the alleged DNA was not not blood and not shown to be human or animal.
3. The material was only amplified once and only two electrophoretic runs were completed.
"...The following question is reported on pages 21-22 of the GUP questioning: “…the testing of a trace of this sort should be repeated several times to be considered reliable?” The Technical Consultant replies: “In theory yes”. To the question, “How many times did you do it?” she responds: “In this case only once”. Q: “Just once, and therefore in theory why ought it to be considered more reliable if it is done several times?” A: “Because reproducibility of the result is, let’s say, a good standard in any scientific experiment quite apart from forensic genetics, obviously to be considered valid a result must be repeatable”.
In fact, the Technical Consultant did not repeat the amplification of the extract but performed two electrophoretic runs of the same amplification. From a comparison of the two separate runs, the existence of peak imbalance and inversion is immediately obvious, to the point where in some cases there is allele loss or the presence of an additional peak (c.f. electrophoretic graphs, runs 1-2, Sept. 2008)..."
My point is that it is useless to talk about contamination when there is no reliable (reproducible) evidence that there is any human DNA, including MK's, on the knife blade. It is just as probable that Ms. Stephi amplified a sample of starch and then missread the spurious noise trace as human DNA. Confirmation bias is real and can lead normal people to do amazing things.
She then failed to confirm her "results" with further amplifications. Confirming your results is not just "in theory" a good idea, its a bedrock standard of science including forensic science. Absent a reproducible result there is no evidence that MK's DNA or anybody else's DNA was found on the knife blade.
So why are you still asking others to show how something happened when there is no reliable proof that the event took place? Prove with reliable evidence that MK's DNA is on the knife blade and then we can discuss probable contamination paths.
RoseMontague
Published Author
Wow, just Wow! That's enough knives to start a small war with.
Steve Moore mentioned this in one of his posts. It doesn't make sense. Unless they had already decided who the killer was going to be.
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
1000-2000 RFUs is what they typically aim for in producing profiles. The ones on the knife were in the range of about 20-50 RFUs. Noise range...and I think Dan-O might have just answered my question! That's why we never saw the EDFs, she could have fished out Meredith's and erased the others, so it would show up like that.
Personally I don't think it was ever on the knife. It was in the lab or in the machine; everything else, especially it being the only residue at all of bloody murder, was far less likely. After all, how did it get Meredith's DNA on it sitting in Raffaele's drawer all night?
It doesn't usually matter, no one goes looking for profiles in the 20-50 range ever and if you stick to a reasonable standard of 100-150 as the minimum they'd never be considered.
I don't think I'm asking people to prove or show anything. I was curious about the reasons for the knife being thrown out as they seemed on the whole to be reasons that had been around for a long while, admittedly now with more authority. Then there were some specific claims that I thought were too strong.
When I'm here I start to think they're innocent. When I read PMF I start to think the opposite.
Diocletus
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
Novelli apparently testified that he reviewed "hundreds" of tests that Stef's lab generated during the alleged "6 days" and there was no Meredith contamination.
Question:
If the tests he was looking at had 1000-2000 RFU peaks, how the heck would he be able to drill down and distinguish whether there were "Meredith" peaks there in the 20-50 RFU range. Wouldn't those 20-50 RFU peaks be basically invisible, as noise, as against a 1000-2000 RFU peak?
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
RWVBWL
Master Poster
They...
Hi RoseMontague,
I totaly agree, and I am now of the belief that they,
whomever they may be, did whatever needed to be done to confirm that yes, Amanda was the killer of Meredith Kercher.
Except that it's pretty easy to see that they did not do that good of a job.
You can fool some of the people some of the time...
See ya, RW
Hi RoseMontague,
I totaly agree, and I am now of the belief that they,
whomever they may be, did whatever needed to be done to confirm that yes, Amanda was the killer of Meredith Kercher.
Except that it's pretty easy to see that they did not do that good of a job.
You can fool some of the people some of the time...
See ya, RW
moodstream
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2010
- Messages
- 417
christianahannah, you have so much more education on this topic than I do that I want to direct this question to you.
You believe there is no underlying coverup. However, when I read about Stefanoni's testing of the knife in the Conti-Vecchiotti Report, I am left wondering.
Here are the factors that led me to question if a coverup is a possiblity:
1) no test for blood was done for the sample on the handle of the Knife - trace A, yet a test for blood was done before DNA sampling of trace B.
This strikes me as highly illogical. If you don't know what the sample contains, you would apply the same methodology to both samples. How could she already know Trace A would not contain blood? Given that trace B was by Stefanoni's admission extremely small, isn't it odd that she would choose this trace to check for blood, but not the larger sample A?
2) Conveniently, testing Trace B for blood made the test unrepeatable and thereby uncontestable.
3) The miracle of Trace A = Knox, and it's immediate successor Trace B = Kercher, but no other trace of Kercher is found on the knife.
4) The lack of reports of controls, although Stefanoni produces controls for other tests, showing she does run them, for other tests.
5) After fighting the release of documentation in the first trial, the documentation shows that both Trace B and Trace C produce the same result in the quantifier - too low. Trace B is picked for further testing despite this.
6) On Nov 15th, after finding Kercher's DNA on the knife, the knife is not immediately resampled and thoroughly examined for more evidence. ( don't you find that odd?).
7) The knife is never thoroughly examined prior to C&V. C&V find organic material on the knife completely missed by the first examination, leading me to question how exactly the first examination proceeded. After all, Stefanoni said she chose the location of Trace B because of a scratch she saw, so she must have handled the knife and made decisions about what to do - why didn't she find the starch?
8) No one else can see the scratch.
9) Stefanoni lied in court about her methods. Telling deliberate and obvious lies about the type of amplification and the amount of material used.
I guess that's the list for now. Maybe I can think of more later. Still, that is a pretty good list I think, and it certainly has me wondering about the authenticity of Stefanoni's testing of the knife.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Diocletus
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
Don't forget:
1) One of the two "too low" traces (i.e., the Kercher one) was analyzed, the other was not . . . because it was "too low"
2) We have never seen, and apparently Stef has never produced, authentic, contemporaneous records of the 11/15/07 machine runs
3) Stef for some unexplained reason performed two machine runs on trace B, although we are not aware of her performing two separate runs on any other samples. The two runs are different.
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,589
Diocletus,
If he had the electronic data files, he could zoom in on small peaks. If he had paper copies, it would be very difficult to see such small peaks, IMO. I don't know whether or not he had access to the EDFs.
Diocletus
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
That's what I thought.
So, he's either:
1) telling a whopper, or
2) he got instant access to hundreds of EDF's from other cases, notwithstanding the fact that Stef refused for 3 years to turn over the EDF's for this case and this evidence to the defense.
What a scam.
PS: Wonder how many of those "hundreds" of tests were reported as positive on the basis of LCN results. I think we know the answer is 0.
HumanityBlues
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 1,741
Zeb is totally wrong.
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
Nobody knows exactly how Meredith's DNA came to be found when that trace from the knife was analyzed. This result matched what the prosecution was looking for so they presented it to the court instead of burying it.
One of the arguments is that lab contamination cannot be excluded, the probability cannot even be measured because the lab has not been forthcoming with the raw data.
Another argument is that contamination during handling cannot be excluded. The testimony of Stefano Gubbiotti insisting that he used new gloves to handle the knife is indication that he was exposing the knife to elements from the crime scene from where he had just returned.
So which is it: accidental contamination in the lab; accidental (or deliberate) contamination by Gubbiotti or did Armando Finzi set out that day with the intent of bringing back the evidence they needed to put the known criminals away?
One thing to note: Nice pictures of the knives from Amanda and Meredith's cottage, and of course it would have made more sense for one of those to have been used in the murder (although I suspect it was a knife Rudy carried with him).
However, this is not new news -- remember the big deal Mignini made about how Amanda freaked out and cried when they showed her the knife drawer in the cottage with knives in it?
Did they really not test any of these knives, or did they just not find anything, so we never heard about them? If they did not test them, it really points more and more toward them trying to create a case where there was none, instead of properly investigating.
However, this is not new news -- remember the big deal Mignini made about how Amanda freaked out and cried when they showed her the knife drawer in the cottage with knives in it?
Did they really not test any of these knives, or did they just not find anything, so we never heard about them? If they did not test them, it really points more and more toward them trying to create a case where there was none, instead of properly investigating.
AmyStrange
Philosopher
-
Shuttlt,
I know what you mean. While I am reading over there, I start thinking the same way. I get paranoid and start worrying that Hellmann will advocate for a guilty verdict.
But since I am influenced more by critical thinking than biased criticism, what makes me reject those sites is because 1) after watching the bra clasp video and gift-wrapped mop video, how can anyone not at least consider the possibility of contamination. To argue that contamination is virtually impossible is evidence of extreme bias, and 2) because over here folks like us are allowed to question the pro-innocence stance and Vice versa.
But, you can't do that at either of those other two sites which is further proof (that creates a higher probability) that extreme bias does indeed exist over there and this strongly mitigates anything they post or support.
Over here, we have to defend our post and over there they don't.
It makes me wonder why exactly they don't want anyone to question what they believe if they really are looking for real justice? Any true justice system should allow for both sides to be heard, at the least.
But all the above is just my opinion,
Dave
Last edited:
I don't want to judge for anyone else, but I think the reason that this opinion changing can happen is because it is easy to get caught in the "weeds" when reading the comments on any of these websites. For example, even in the court hearings right now, everyone is all wrapped up in the DNA report from C&V, as if that is the whole case. So if Stefanoni is right, maybe they are guilty? But that is just one small part of a case that never made much sense anyway. While true that if C&V had confirmed that Meredith's DNA was on the knife, and that it was from her blood, that would have been very bad for AK and RS, what they did was basically agree that the knife should never have been considered evidence of anything in the first place. This can follow with the other evidence -- for each piece, there are alternative explanations that are far more plausible than the conclusion that they prove guilt in the murder.
So they start with an implausible story, and try to prove it with things like:
* Knife (should not be evidence, per C&V)
* Clasp (ditto)
* Curotolo (on heroine, confused on details)
* Nara (was vague to begin with, did not know the time, and never saw anything)
* Quintiville (told two different stories, and is contradicted by others)
* Luminol that cannot be proven to be blood (and "footprints" that don't match anyone)
* Mixed DNA (which proves zero)
To "prove" a theory that two people did something that is extraordinarily illogical for them to do, the proof better be pretty convincing, or there is clearly doubt it happened. The only thing the guilters are left with is "but she lied". This has been addressed on thousands of posts, but if that is all they have left as evidence, it is clearly not proof of any involvement in a killing. Period.
- Status