Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[JREF2010]

Kaosium,

This whole comment is spot-on, though I might be a tad more sympathetic to Patrick than you are. I think he channeled his anger in the wrong direction, perhaps because he could not understand the dynamics of a false confession, and to change his mind now would bring about too much cognitive dissonance.

Patrick was an innocent bystander, no doubt. He paid for being there, as I believe Amanda and Raffaele have paid for being there in this mess.

All because Rudy is scum.

Interrogations....I would bet 9 out of 10 people I know have never been through an interrogation or had a family member go through one.

I agree totally, had I not had personal family go through a bizarre interrogation type situation, no one would convince me this crap goes on.

but to people, like Steve Moore, interrogations are a trained subject, very common.... around throughout history. Changing in procedures too, changing in methods.

Its another reason I find Ann Coulter's weak article, ignorant. But she wants that type response, the stir them up by making ignorant statements. Like the trailertrash Jerry Springer show really, thats where she belongs....its the same media play.
imo.

 

[moodstream]

Fine. This is part of the case where I am a guilter.


Kaosium,

This is beyond silly. Nobody but pro-innocence posters ever talks about her being asked to assert that Patrick definately wasn't involved when she supposedly couldn't possibly know. It would make no sense for her to do so whether she's guilty or innocent. I think what people who support guilt feel is that Amanda was hedging. She retracted her statement just enough that, should evidence come to light to clear Patrick, she could say "well, I told you I thought what I said might well be false", but not enough that should no such evidence come to light that she could firm up on her certainty and remember more details if it was convenient to do so.

Personally I like the explanation that she didn't feel able to say "what I told you was total nonsense", but said as much she dared. Later it felt like too much of a risk to say more.

I got to admit I am not following the last paragraph. As near as I can tell though, you are adamantly asserting Knox's innocence with your argument.

You say should no such evidence come to light ... she could firm up on her certainty and remember more details if it was convenient to do so -realizing of course that had Knox been at the cottage that night she would have certainty that Lumumba was not present. Therefore she knew that no more evidence was going to be forthcoming. It's not like there would be a question about it. In fact, she could feel close to certain that evidence pointing to Guede soon would be found. That is, soon the police are going to find something that completely contradicts her story, and Knox knows this as she tells her story, if she is guilty.


I have a hard time believing Knox, if guilty, would intentionally manipulate the interrogators into this dead end cul-de-sac when Guede is so ripe to take the fall. That is one altruistic murderess, you'll have to give her that anyway.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Patrick was an innocent bystander, no doubt. He paid for being there, as I believe Amanda and Raffaele have paid for being there in this mess.

All because Rudy is scum.

Interrogations....I would bet 9 out of 10 people I know have never been through an interrogation or had a family member go through one.

I agree totally, had I not had personal family go through a bizarre interrogation type situation, no one would convince me this crap goes on.

but to people, like Steve Moore, interrogations are a trained subject, very common.... around throughout history. Changing in procedures too, changing in methods.

Its another reason I find Ann Coulter's weak article, ignorant. But she wants that type response, the stir them up by making ignorant statements. Like the trailertrash Jerry Springer show really, thats where she belongs....its the same media play.
imo.

I agree wholly; Coulter , for all her education and wealth, is no different than the Jerry Springer show in her vulgar attempts to stir up hatred. She is despicable, and the piece was vile. No decent person would take her seriously.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

magical cleaning versus contamination

I'm still not clear on the scope of the question. Purely restricting things to the knife, the most likely way of getting the DNA on it, in my view, is by coming into contact with the owner of the DNA. Of course the question isn't restricted to just the knife and how likely or unlikely you think it is that the knife was involved in the murder is crucially important. I have no answer to give you on the wider question.

shuttlt,

In general I would agree with you. The problem is the same as it has always been, namely the lack of blood (forcing one to invoke magical cleaning). Here is a discussion that bears on the question of one type of contamination involving secondary transfer. Cynthia Sewell wrote, "Using four 'suspects' from a BSU dean’s office, Hampikian research associate Mike Davis and volunteer researcher Laura Wendel conducted an experiment. Davis donned a lab coat and gloves and collected a used soda can from an employee. Without changing gloves, he went to another room to collect a brand-new knife. Then he changed gloves and lab coat and repeated the process with each of the other employees. In one case, the knife tested positive for the employee’s DNA, even though she had never seen the knife or been in the same room as the knife. 'That is what I think happened in the case of (Knox’s) knife,' Hampikian said. 'Transfer does occur.'"

 

[Dan O.]

I'm still not clear on the scope of the question. Purely restricting things to the knife, the most likely way of getting the DNA on it, in my view, is by coming into contact with the owner of the DNA.

And the easiest way for a murderer to eliminate that evidence is to dispose of the knife where it is unlikely to ever be found before the blade rusts off. Failing that, the second choice is to thoroughly clean the knife in bleach.

Given that Raffaele had 2 containers of bleach available to him and 4 days in which to clean up, there is no way he would have kept the murder weapon in his apartment without cleaning it.

Murder weapon or innocent kitchen utensil doesn't matter. The only way for Meredith's DNA to have been on that knife when it was tested (outside of "unlikely" contamination) is for the police to have planted it there.

What was Gubbiotti looking at the knife for?

 

[shuttlt]

I got to admit I am not following the last paragraph. As near as I can tell though, you are adamantly asserting Knox's innocence with your argument.

Clearly I am not explaining myself well.

You say should no such evidence come to light ... she could firm up on her certainty and remember more details if it was convenient to do so -realizing of course that had Knox been at the cottage that night she would have certainty that Lumumba was not present.

Yes.

Therefore she knew that no more evidence was going to be forthcoming.

You think Knox wasn't involved yet enough evidence against her appeared to get us to where we are now. I was thinking of his alibi though. Had that evidence not appeared things might have gone differently. His changing mobiles might have looked like evidence and who knows what else might have been found.

It's not like there would be a question about it. In fact, she could feel close to certain that evidence pointing to Guede soon would be found. That is, soon the police are going to find something that completely contradicts her story, and Knox knows this as she tells her story, if she is guilty.

Who knows how certain she might have been that he would be identified and caught? If she thought it likely he would be caught who knows how bad she thought that might be for her? Really though I think the problem here is insisting that her thought processes be rational and well thought through. Lots of her actions were certainly highly pressurized and spur of the moment. When she did have time to think she'd still have been under intense pressure and stuck with the consequences of her earlier statements.

I have a hard time believing Knox, if guilty, would intentionally manipulate the interrogators into this dead end cul-de-sac when Guede is so ripe to take the fall. That is one altruistic murderess, you'll have to give her that anyway.

I don't think altruism enters into it.

 

[shuttlt]

And the easiest way for a murderer to eliminate that evidence is to dispose of the knife where it is unlikely to ever be found before the blade rusts off. Failing that, the second choice is to thoroughly clean the knife in bleach.

Given that Raffaele had 2 containers of bleach available to him and 4 days in which to clean up, there is no way he would have kept the murder weapon in his apartment without cleaning it.

Murder weapon or innocent kitchen utensil doesn't matter. The only way for Meredith's DNA to have been on that knife when it was tested (outside of "unlikely" contamination) is for the police to have planted it there.

Criminals are just as capable of being stupid, boneheaded, lazy and careless as the police. Perhaps they weren't as aware as we now are of the properties of bleach at particlar dilutions and did an inadiquate job. Anyway, you've already widened the question beyond the point where I explicitly limited my answer.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

odd odds

Then why isn't the knife hopelessly contaminated with Raffaele's DNA? Surely there are degrees of unlikely?

shuttlt,

I don't think that the odds of contamination from the environment are very well known. That is the impression that the 2010 van Oorshot review article left with me, anyway. Yes, I agree that there are degrees of unlikely. It is unlikely that airborne contamination occurred. It is unlikely that Gubbiotti transferred Meredith's DNA by accident or intention. It is win-the-lottery twice unlikely that one can clean a knife to make it free of blood, but leave starch and DNA behind. MOO.

 

[shuttlt]

halides1,

I'm aware that such transfer can happen, but it does seem like a rather artificial example. If we suppose Amanda was wearing gloves when she touched Meredith, or something belonging to her, and then the same gloves when she touched the knife, then I suppose it's meaningful. It again seems rather unlucky though. I mean, Hampikian was testing in exactly the place where he was hoping to find secondary contamination. How unlucky would Amanda be if they happened to test on just the place where incriminating secondary transfer had occurred?

The one thing that I will say to support this is that while doing the washing up is one of the more likely places to wear gloves. If somehow she managed to find a way to get Meredith's DNA onto the washing up gloves, then it could have happened that way.

It could happen, but human error somewhere seems a lot more likely to me.

 

[Rolfe]

I think the damn knife test was subjected to artefactual contamination in a lab which contained a lot of Meredith's DNA. And I think the argument that other vulnerable samples didn't demonstrate similar contamination, is spurious.

Rolfe.

 

[shuttlt]

It is win-the-lottery twice unlikely that one can clean a knife to make it free of blood, but leave starch and DNA behind. MOO.

You have research to back this up? I know there are a bunch of quotes from professionals in the field saying "in my experience this doesn't/wouldn't happen", but translating that into odds of the order of 1,960,000,000,000 to 1, seems like a considerable overstatement. For myself I wouldn't be at all comfortable going beyond 1,000 to 1 on that evidence.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Gubbiotti

halides1,

I'm aware that such transfer can happen, but it does seem like a rather artificial example. If we suppose Amanda was wearing gloves when she touched Meredith, or something belonging to her, and then the same gloves when she touched the knife, then I suppose it's meaningful. It again seems rather unlucky though. I mean, Hampikian was testing in exactly the place where he was hoping to find secondary contamination. How unlucky would Amanda be if they happened to test on just the place where incriminating secondary transfer had occurred?

The one thing that I will say to support this is that while doing the washing up is one of the more likely places to wear gloves. If somehow she managed to find a way to get Meredith's DNA onto the washing up gloves, then it could have happened that way.

It could happen, but human error somewhere seems a lot more likely to me.

shuttlt,

Ms. Stefanoni tested the knife in many spots, not just one. You may or may not be aware that Officer Gubbioti was at the girls' flat just prior to being the second person to have possession of the knife. I think that this experiment may have been intended to approximate this event, or possibly it was intended to approximate the bra clasp. I agree with Rolfe, and I have recently chronicled some additional contamination events on my blog.

 

[RoseMontague]

I think the damn knife test was subjected to artefactual contamination in a lab which contained a lot of Meredith's DNA. And I think the argument that other vulnerable samples didn't demonstrate similar contamination, is spurious.

Rolfe.

The knife being cleaned and <Dr Steffi managing to find something anyway makes her out to be the superstar. They could not escape from <Dr Steffi's renowned and internationally recognized brilliance. Plus if the case fell apart, she could say, beats me, must have been contamination.

 

[AmyStrange]

You have research to back this up? I know there are a bunch of quotes from professionals in the field saying "in my experience this doesn't/wouldn't happen", but translating that into odds of the order of 1,960,000,000,000 to 1, seems like a considerable overstatement. For myself I wouldn't be at all comfortable going beyond 1,000 to 1 on that evidence.

-

Do you have research to back up your claim? Come on Shuttlt, you're not being fair. You can't prove one negative is unlikely by introducing another negative is more likely,

Dave

 

[shuttlt]

shuttlt,

Ms. Stefanoni tested the knife in many spots, not just one.

I am aware of that. It makes little difference to me thinking.

You may or may not be aware that Officer Gubbioti was at the girls' flat just prior to being the second person to have possession of the knife. I think that this experiment may have been intended to approximate this event, or possibly it was intended to approximate the bra clasp. I agree with Rolfe, and I have recently chronicled some additional contamination events on my blog.

OK. All the previous discussions I've had about secondary transfer had been in the context of Amanda. I prefer the Gubbioti theory. Is the idea that he was so foolish as to wear the same gloves in both locations?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The waiting is the hardest part

You have research to back this up? I know there are a bunch of quotes from professionals in the field saying "in my experience this doesn't/wouldn't happen", but translating that into odds of the order of 1,960,000,000,000 to 1, seems like a considerable overstatement. For myself I wouldn't be at all comfortable going beyond 1,000 to 1 on that evidence.

shuttlt,

Where do your 1 in 1000 odds come from? Have you ever broken human erythrocytes using just osmotic shock? I have, and it is quite easy. In fact, it is difficult not to do so. How do you explain that the supposed DNA-containing cells on the knife would not break open? If they did, why would the DNA persist on the knife blade? If a knife were cleaned with bleach, as the police implied, then I'll take 1 in 1000 odds any day of the week. 10% bleach is specifically mentioned in the Conti-Vecchiotti report, BTW.

I am still waiting to hear from you how DNA can remain on the knife without magical cleaning fluid. I have been waiting for someone to answer this in a sensible way since December of 2009.

 

[shuttlt]

-

Do you have research to back up your claim? Come on Shuttlt, you're not being fair. You can't prove one negative is unlikely by introducing another negative is more likely,

Dave

What claim am I making? Halides asserted that it is win the lottery twice unlikely. I asserted that I personally find it hard to believe the odds are worse that 1,000 to 1 against. I can back the assertion that this is my own personal opinion with as much survey data as you would like me to provide. If Halides's view is based on no more than his own personal hunch then that's fine by me.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

why should I bother to change gloves when it won't matter?

I am aware of that. It makes little difference to me thinking.


OK. All the previous discussions I've had about secondary transfer had been in the context of Amanda. I prefer the Gubbioti theory. Is the idea that he was so foolish as to wear the same gloves in both locations?

shuttlt,

In a previous message you had said, "How unlucky would Amanda be if they happened to test on just the place where incriminating secondary transfer had occurred?" My point is that the more locations on the knife you test, the weaker this objection becomes. Have you read what Ms. Stefanoni said about glove changing frequency as reported in the Massei report? It is vastly at odds with the consensus view.

 

[Poppy1016]

Shuttit, if you wish to maintain your debating rights at the guilt sites, I would advise you to refef to Stephony as Dr. Stephony in the future.

 

[AmyStrange]

What claim am I making? Halides asserted that it is win the lottery twice unlikely. I asserted that I personally find it hard to believe the odds are worse that 1,000 to 1 against. I can back the assertion that this is my own personal opinion with as much survey data as you would like me to provide. If Halides's view is based on no more than his own personal hunch then that's fine by me.

-

That it's more likely 1,000 to 1, than 2 trillion to 1. You can't fairly ask for research to back up his opinion and then unfairly offer your own opinion as more likely with no research to back it either.

You should not have asked for research to back one opinion without offering the research to back your own, that's my point and also just my opinion,

Dave