Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Diocletus]

A politician who happens to have been trained as a lawyer? There's something you don't see every day.

Oh - I forgot about the Blairs, the Clintons et al.

Seriously, it's no coincidence that so many 'successful' politicians are trained lawyers.

What these 'professions' have in common is that they are essentially that of 'professional liar'.

I would tend to suspect that this guy's behaviour was not simply a result of hubris and arrogance, but that he had a very specific agenda and 'game plan'.

apologies for going OT.

Well, lawyers also may be trained professionals/experts in things like civil rights, procedure and justice. Some lawyers even practice these things. But not the lawyers in this case--they are a disgrace.

 

[Diocletus]

bri1,

Vogt wrote, "And therein lies the crux of the Amanda Knox case. There may be just enough reasonable doubt to convince a jury that, regardless of the whole truth, Knox's precise role in the murder has not been proven solidly enough for a clean conviction." I suppose I should no longer be surprised by what she and Nadeau write, but this is so very disappointing. John Maynard Keynes may or may not have actually said, "When the facts change, I change my mind -- what do you do, sir?" Whether this quote is a misattribution or not, it is a good way of looking at things.

EDT
BTW, There is someone else on trial here as well, as Ms. Vogt should be well aware.

Interesting to compare/contrast Vogt and Sfarzo. Vogt is still cluelessly flitting around about "enough reasonable doubt" and has totally missed the real story in this case. Frank gets the real story and spells it out nicely in his latest entry.

Putting aside the criminally accused, there is something else on trial here, and Vogt hasn't figured that out yet.

 

[davefoc]

Draca,

It cannot be overemphasized that DNA profiling is not even a presumptive test for blood, let alone a confirmatory one, as I have documented here on many occasions. Mixed DNA does not imply mixed blood, and a positive reaction with luminol is not that uncommon, let alone a confirmatory test for blood.

I also repeat the following challenge to Barbie, Andrea, and anyone else: Take a few drops of diluted blood from someone who does not live in your house, and put it on or near the drain plug of your bathroom sink. Ask a lab tech. to swab it and to profile the results for DNA. If this were done 10 times, I would hazard a guess that we would see more than one case in which DNA from someone besides the donor of the blood showed up.

I wonder if bolint or pilot padron might respond to this.

bolint in particular has expressed a willingness to view this case with an open mind.

What do bolint and pilot padron think of the "mixed blood" evidence? Do they find any probative value whatsoever in this "evidence"? What do they think of people that after four years are still parroting the prosecution's theory about this? How would either of them feel about staking their personal freedom on the kind of test proposed by halides1 above?

There seem to be at least three people active in this thread that are making arguments in favor of guilt. Mixed blood would be a key piece of evidence. If mixed blood of Kercher and Knox was found anywhere in the house that would be strong circumstantial evidence for the guilt of Knox. Do you think mixed blood was found? If not, do you think it was legitimate to claim that it was? Do you have some thoughts about the willingness of the prosecution to claim that evidence existed against Knox when it didn't? Do you have some thoughts about reporters who still claim that mixed blood was found if you agree that it wasn't? If you believe mixed blood was found then what is the evidence for it?

I am one that has come to believe it is very unlikely that AK or RS are guilty in anyway of this crime. One of the reasons I tend to not be moved by the existence of people that still argue for guilt is that confirmation bias can be a huge driver in some people and I find it very plausible that the prosecution has managed to create a group of people that believe in the guilt of RS and AK by a significant misrepresentation of the evidence early on when the evidence now available points strongly to innocence. For some people, once the belief of guilt had been established, almost nothing could unseat that belief including information that has cast doubt on every piece of evidence that the prosecution based the case against AK and RS on. Is it possible that the people arguing for guilt in this thread have developed exactly that kind of confirmation bias with regard to this? The failure to acknowledge evidence that is now known to be false suggests to me that confirmation bias is at least part of what is driving the people that argue for guilt around here.

 

[Grinder]

Dave one of the issues for the mixed blood theory is that Amanda had no injuries that would have produced her part of the mixed blood. Some of the advocates believe she had a nose bleed. ILE didn't say that they had discovered any evidence of that.

A bigger problem for the mixed blood argument is that one would expect to find her blood in other locations by itself. Amanda bleeding would have required some very clever selective cleanup. Often when people bleed they don't notice right away but see blood a some point and realize they have cut themselves.

The fact that Amanda and Raffaele had no wounds is significant. Rudy had wounds he said came from fighting the attacker. Three people killing someone in a violent attack with at least two sharp knives leads me to think all people would receive some cuts.

IIRC there was a small amount of Amanda's blood on the sink. She didn't know for sure where it came from but thought perhaps it came from a recent piercing. Now if this were a result of something from the murder one would think that Amanda would make sure the ear had bled so in would be an explanation. It also begs the question, why didn't they clean the sink?

 

[Diocletus]

QUESTION (asked on the hate site): "How many pieces of evidence that is 'consistent with, but not conclusive of' guilt can stack up against someone before, as a matter of common sense, it is no longer reasonable to believe they are innocent?"

ANSWER: If those "not conclusive" pieces of evidence are also consistent with innocence, then you can stack up an infinite number of them and you still have not only reasonable doubt of guilt, but also reason to believe in actual innocence.

 

[davefoc]

Dave one of the issues for the mixed blood theory is that Amanda had no injuries that would have produced her part of the mixed blood. Some of the advocates believe she had a nose bleed. ILE didn't say that they had discovered any evidence of that.

A bigger problem for the mixed blood argument is that one would expect to find her blood in other locations by itself. Amanda bleeding would have required some very clever selective cleanup. Often when people bleed they don't notice right away but see blood a some point and realize they have cut themselves.

The fact that Amanda and Raffaele had no wounds is significant. Rudy had wounds he said came from fighting the attacker. Three people killing someone in a violent attack with at least two sharp knives leads me to think all people would receive some cuts.

IIRC there was a small amount of Amanda's blood on the sink. She didn't know for sure where it came from but thought perhaps it came from a recent piercing. Now if this were a result of something from the murder one would think that Amanda would make sure the ear had bled so in would be an explanation. It also begs the question, why didn't they clean the sink?

Is there any evidence of mixed blood? I was under the impression that a swab with blood on it was found to contain Kercher's DNA and Knox's DNA but there is no evidence that any of the blood was Knox's. That Knox's DNA would be found in the house that Knox lived in is not exactly surprising. That blood from the murder victim could land where Knox's DNA was isn't too surprising/ The probative evidence would be that Knox's blood and Kercher's blood were found together, although with an absence of wounds on Knox even if mixed blood was found the possibility that the bleeding wasn't the result of a wound caused during a violent struggle.

 

[komponisto]

QUESTION (asked on the hate site): "How many pieces of evidence that is 'consistent with, but not conclusive of' guilt can stack up against someone before, as a matter of common sense, it is no longer reasonable to believe they are innocent?"

ANSWER: If those "not conclusive" pieces of evidence are also consistent with innocence, then you can stack up an infinite number of them and you still have not only reasonable doubt of guilt, but also reason to believe in actual innocence.

Exactly.

 

[js202]

Is there any evidence of mixed blood? I was under the impression that a swab with blood on it was found to contain Kercher's DNA and Knox's DNA but there is no evidence that any of the blood was Knox's. That Knox's DNA would be found in the house that Knox lived in is not exactly surprising. That blood from the murder victim could land where Knox's DNA was isn't too surprising/ The probative evidence would be that Knox's blood and Kercher's blood were found together, although with an absence of wounds on Knox even if mixed blood was found the possibility that the bleeding wasn't the result of a wound caused during a violent struggle.

I am unaware of any mixed blood, per se. Nor am I aware of any credible arguments, by the prosecution or by pro-guilt posters, of same. Conti & Vecchiotti demonstrated that the CSI's swabbing techniques were flawed, and could quite easily have picked up Amanda's DNA -- from brushing her teeth, washing her face, cleaning her pierced ear, etc. -- as they swiped Meredith's blood in the sink.

Incidentally, there is also a crime scene photo of Amanda's pillow, showing a round blood stain -- perhaps about the size of a quarter? -- that seems obviously consistent with blood from an ear piercing gone awry. Coupled with this, the small sample of Amanda's blood on the bathroom faucet makes perfect sense, and is explainable as something other than her involvement in murder. The apparently mildly infected ear piercing is the only supportable example of an open wound on Amanda Knox.

 

[davefoc]

QUESTION (asked on the hate site): "How many pieces of evidence that is 'consistent with, but not conclusive of' guilt can stack up against someone before, as a matter of common sense, it is no longer reasonable to believe they are innocent?"

ANSWER: If those "not conclusive" pieces of evidence are also consistent with innocence, then you can stack up an infinite number of them and you still have not only reasonable doubt of guilt, but also reason to believe in actual innocence.

This is a philosophical question that I've thought a bit about and I think I disagree with your conclusion. Defense attorneys routinely try to argue for something along the lines of what you suggest. The idea is that if a piece of evidence exists that strongly points to guilt, but that doesn't prove guilt then the jury should disregard that piece of evidence. A lot more people would be found innocent if juries or courts actually subscribed to this notion.

In the real world, if several lines of evidence strongly suggest guilt but none of them can stand alone as proof, juries will look at the situation and make the common sense decision that it is just wildly unlikely that several independent facts point to guilt and yet the person isn't guilty and so the jury will vote to convict. As a practical matter probably some innocent people are convicted because of this logic, but probably a whole lot less guilty people would be convicted if the standard was to throw out every piece of evidence that could not on a stand alone basis prove guilt.

However, in this case, I don't think this is an issue. There are several lines of evidence that have been presented that suggest guilt, but every one of those lines of evidence have been shown to be unreliable. And in this case there are a few lines of evidence that point to actual innocence. Most of these arguments for innocence have not been substantially challenged. On balance, the evidence in this case actually suggests strongly that RS and AK are innocent not just that there is insufficient evidence to convict them.

 

[Dan O.]

Mixed blood would be a key piece of evidence. If mixed blood of Kercher and Knox was found anywhere in the house that would be strong circumstantial evidence for the guilt of Knox.

Why and Why?


To start with, What is necessary to determine that you actually have a mixed blood sample? We have tests for blood and even specific tests for human blood. We also have tests for DNA that can determine if a sample contains a mixture of DNA from two people. But the DNA test doesn't tell you if the DNA being detected came from blood cells or something else. One way to make this determination would be to exclude the "something else". This is what substrate testing is for. If you can show that there is no DNA on the surface where the blood was found, that would help confirm that the mixed DNA in the blood sample was due to mixed blood. There is no video of anyone taking a substrate test in the cottage. There are no biological samples represented as substrate tests. In short, the "something else" cannot be excluded. Making a claim of mixed blood without substrate testing is simply bad science.

 

[komponisto]

QUESTION (asked on the hate site): "How many pieces of evidence that is 'consistent with, but not conclusive of' guilt can stack up against someone before, as a matter of common sense, it is no longer reasonable to believe they are innocent?"

ANSWER: If those "not conclusive" pieces of evidence are also consistent with innocence, then you can stack up an infinite number of them and you still have not only reasonable doubt of guilt, but also reason to believe in actual innocence.

This is a philosophical question that I've thought a bit about and I think I disagree with your conclusion. Defense attorneys routinely try to argue for something along the lines of what you suggest. The idea is that if a piece of evidence exists that strongly points to guilt, but that doesn't prove guilt then the jury should disregard that piece of evidence. A lot more people would be found innocent if juries or courts actually subscribed to this notion.

I think you missed the point here, which was: "consistent with" does not equal "strongly points to".

 

[Dan O.]

How many pieces of evidence does it take to prove a theory?

The true answer is that evidence cannot prove a theory. It can only refute the opposing theories.

Take for example the theory that all odd numbers are prime. There are an infinite number of examples that are consistent with that theory. But it only takes one counter example to prove the theory false.

 

[Dougm]

Is there any evidence of mixed blood? I was under the impression that a swab with blood on it was found to contain Kercher's DNA and Knox's DNA but there is no evidence that any of the blood was Knox's. That Knox's DNA would be found in the house that Knox lived in is not exactly surprising. That blood from the murder victim could land where Knox's DNA was isn't too surprising/ The probative evidence would be that Knox's blood and Kercher's blood were found together, although with an absence of wounds on Knox even if mixed blood was found the possibility that the bleeding wasn't the result of a wound caused during a violent struggle.

There was a small spot of Knox's blood that was separate, meaning not mixed with Meredith's DNA. That is the only part that is clearly blood.

IMO, even if it could be proven to be Knox's blood mixed with Kercher's blood (which it can't), there would have to be something else to indicate when and from what the Knox blood came from. Traces of someone's blood in their own bathroom is not proof of participation in a murder. It would have to be some unexpectedly large amount, or from some injury that is consistent with participating in the attack.

 

[Rolfe]

[....] confirmation bias can be a huge driver in some people and I find it very plausible that the prosecution has managed to create a group of people that believe in the guilt of RS and AK by a significant misrepresentation of the evidence early on when the evidence now available points strongly to innocence. For some people, once the belief of guilt had been established, almost nothing could unseat that belief including information that has cast doubt on every piece of evidence that the prosecution based the case against AK and RS on. Is it possible that the people arguing for guilt in this thread have developed exactly that kind of confirmation bias with regard to this? The failure to acknowledge evidence that is now known to be false suggests to me that confirmation bias is at least part of what is driving the people that argue for guilt around here.

I think that applies very strongly to Fulcanelli, who used to debate in this thread but was banned some time ago. He recently debated on WebSleuths, but seems not to have returned after a recent suspension. I note that he repeatedly parrots things which are simply not true, simply because they have been claimed by the prosecution.

One such point refers to the negative PCR tests for the knife. He keeps stating that these were entered into the court record at the pre-trial stage. Er, no they weren't. The proescution claimed they were, but a search failed to find any such documentation, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution were either mistaken or lying.

Another relates to the storge of the bra clasp in a plastic bag. This caused it to rust, which was not only predictable, Stefanoni herself noted that plastic bags are not suitable for storing such items in one of her court statements, so it's not as if she didn't know. However, when challenged on this, she suddenly came out with the bald statement that all was well because she'd used a "certified" plastic bag from the USA.

She didn't say what it was certified for (maybe it was certified to be watertight, or 0.4mm gauge plastic, or something like that!). She didn't name the manufacturer or give any indication where such magic plastic bags may be obtained. The fact is that there are no such magic plastic bags. US guidelines for storage of such material stipulate paper not plastic, just like everywhere else. (They also stipulate room temperature, because chilling makes the condensation problem worse and can cause it to happen even with paper bags, but Stefanoni also, incredbly, claimed her actions were OK because she had also chilled the sample!)

There is no other possible conclusion that I can see other than that Stefanoni was attempting to mislead the court, by implying some sort of specialist plastic bags that don't exist. Fulcanelli nevertheless insists that the bra clasp was stored in a specially-certified US plastic bag made for this type of storage - because Stefanoni said so, on oath, and she wouldn't lie to the court. Well I think the would, and the evidence suggests she did, though in this particular case it was more false implication than outright lying.

All we're getting is a parroting of the prosecution case, no matter how self-evidently erroneous and quite possibly mendacious. It's a bit sad, really.

Rolfe.

 

[js202]

All we're getting is a parroting of the prosecution case, no matter how self-evidently erroneous and quite possibly mendacious.

Right. It would seem to connote a complete and utter lack of skepticism, to the point of appearing child-like at times.

A Michael/Fulcanelli has made up his mind and cast his lot, and is utterly ingenuous in the face of anything Mignini, Stefanoni, etc., choose to roll down the pike. Of course, as Michael, he has a vested interest in the talking points of the forum he moderates and surely would suffer some internal personal breakdown -- tantamount to the schism between his PMF and Ganong's PMF, perhaps -- if he were ever forced to reason through the flaws in his position.

In turn, the acolytes of Michael, Ganong and Quennell seem to have willingly made themselves dupes. They take their Flavor-Aid right from the source, no questions asked.

 

[Diocletus]

One such point refers to the negative PCR tests for the knife. He keeps stating that these were entered into the court record at the pre-trial stage. Er, no they weren't. The proescution claimed they were, but a search failed to find any such documentation, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution were either mistaken or lying.

Stefanoni lied her face off on any issue having to do with knife track B and PCR tests.

At the original trial, she said that there were "a few hundred picograms" of DNA comprising the track B sample per PCR results.

The second time around, when she got caught by C&V, she said that she "forgot" that she never ran a PCR test because the PCR machine was broken. The Flourometer test that she did run said only that the quantity of DNA was "too low" . . . so the "few hundred picogram" testimony was just a totally made up lie.

Moreover, if she didn't run a PCR analysis on track B because the machine was broken, then she also wouldn't have run a negative PCR analysis . . . because the machine was broken. Therefore, she's lying about the existence of such negative runs.

Moreover, if the analysis that she was trying to validate was the Flourometer analysis, then there would have been no reason to run a negative PCR test because it's a different machine and therefore not capable of validating the Flourometer. There wasn't even any reason to run a negative test on the Flourometer because that machine had already given a negative result. So again, she's lying about the existence and relevance of any negative PCR run with respect to track B.

This Stefanoni person is a serious liar.

 

[samba]

Frank Sfarzo's back at it:
http://perugiashock.com/2011/09/20/conquered-by-this-theory/#comments

classic line "So, they are really idiots, but when the theory needs them to be geniuses they are geniuses"

 

[JREF2010]

Hellman's tactic of bringing the nutty lying prison witnesses into court is quite noteworthy.
It highlights the vulnerability of certain types of people (like all the prosecution witnesses) to tell lies and confirm crazy stories on the stand.


just like Steff.....


and Commodi....

It did, didn't it?

To realize crazy prisoners, or nutty prosecutors, or even heroin bums can make up TV Lifetime type story lines, that could take years to prove never happened.

Like this case.

 

[Rolfe]

classic line "So, they are really idiots, but when the theory needs them to be geniuses they are geniuses"

That's a feature of the Lockerbie case too, which shares a number of similarities with this one.

On the one hand, the bombers (whoever they were, as the only man convicted was never alleged to have been the actual bomber) devised an incredibly cunning plan to get an unaccompanied suitcase on to a plane at Malta, past some quite startlingly tight security checks. This probably wouldn't have been an impossible task as such, but what these guys did was to achieve that without leaving any trace after the fact of how they did it, or even that it was done at all. That part is actually impossible, quite frankly.

On the other hand, they filled the suitcase with brand new, locally-manufactured, eminently traceable clothes, bought in a very conspicuous manner in a small shop only three miles from that airport. And the man who bought the clothes (allegedly) also showed up at the airport at the time the suitcase was smuggled on to the plane, though for no particular reason anyone was ever able to discern. And the suitcase was then sent on a complicated three-plane hop through at least one other set of security checks, with a bomb timer set so early that even if it did manage not to explode on the ground, it would still almost certainly explode over land. Eminently traceable clothes and all.

Here, we're expected to believe that Knox and Sollecito are some sort of clean-up geniuses, successfully removing all trace of their own DNA, fingerprints and footprints from the scene of an extremely messy murder, while leaving that of their accomplice. Then they can't even manage to figure out a sensible story and stick to it.

Yeah, right. There's more evidence against them than there is against Megrahi for Lockerbie, but that's not saying a lot. Both stories stretch credulity way past breaking point.

Rolfe.

 

[NancyS]

Dave one of the issues for the mixed blood theory is that Amanda had no injuries that would have produced her part of the mixed blood. Some of the advocates believe she had a nose bleed. ILE didn't say that they had discovered any evidence of that.
?

If they are suggesting that Amanda had a nose bleed through Meredith trying to defend herself, there would be blood in Meredith's room. Noses will bleed following the direct impact - they won't start bleeding ten minutes later once you've left the room. A nose bleed will typically produce a large amount of blood and would have been found in abundance. I've worked in A&E and I know what a nose bleed is like.