Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Grinder]

I'm not a scientist but I'd be more concerned by the fact that the dna mixes were of Amanda and Meredith. Why no dna mix with Filomena or other housemates she was closer to.

Amanda and Meredith shared a bathroom where the vast majority of the mixed DNA was found.

IIRC there was one spot in Filomena's room that probably was moved there by the police while walking over the evidence.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

mixed DNA in Filomena's room

I'm not a scientist but I'd be more concerned by the fact that the dna mixes were of Amanda and Meredith. Why no dna mix with Filomena or other housemates she was closer to.

Madrigal,

Amanda and Meredith shared one bathroom, but Filomena and Laura shared the other. In Filomena's room one piece of evidence had Meredith's, Amanda's, and someone else's DNA. There are no reference samples from Laura or Filomena; therefore, it is possible that the unknown profile belongs to one of the two other flatmates. Amanda liked and looked up to Laura, from what I can gather, based on Frank Sfarzo's reporting.

 

[Grinder]

Before until you said this I had not the full convincement of how bad the Italian system of questioning witnesses/suspects really was. It seems to allow the cops to pick and chose the point of formally naming a suspect, usually after they get the goods, thereby denying a witness legal protection they should have been entitled to. What a racket.

Not really fair in that the supreme court ruled the first two statements weren't allowed.

Rose do you a copy of that ruling since Mach always says they didn't rule as described above.

I would think that the supremes may rule that Massei letting the two cases overlap wasn't legal

 

[Matthew Best]

I'm not a scientist but I'd be more concerned by the fact that the dna mixes were of Amanda and Meredith. Why no dna mix with Filomena or other housemates she was closer to.

Whose bathroom were the samples gathered from?

 

[Kestrel]

I'm not a scientist but I'd be more concerned by the fact that the dna mixes were of Amanda and Meredith. Why no dna mix with Filomena or other housemates she was closer to.

Amanda and Meredith shared the bathroom in the cottage. Do you really think that finding DNA of two women in a bidet they both use is evidence of a crime?

 

[RoseMontague]

This is about Meredith's dislikes about Amanda's charachter or behaviour in relation to common spaces; not directly concerning the fact that she was not clean.



The italian girls talk about each one by their names, it is not that they just talk in general about "both".



Complains about cleaning shifts; about tampon and about feces in toliet are reported and they are certain.
These are complains about being clean. However, who doesn't want to accept these reports will keep on in the presumptive assumption that they don't exist.

Did Meredith complain about cleaning shifts? Or was it the Italian girls? Cite for the tampon reference?

 

[Dan O.]

But no. It must be a formal suspect. It must have the legal status of a suspect. Which is given by the evidence, not by police suspicion.

The point Machiavelli is trying to make is that nothing Amanda said during her many hours of interrogations constituted evidence. The police typing these statements up with their own embellishments as a formal document still does not make it evidence. But when a witness signs a paper written in a language she barely understands, it suddenly becomes evidence. Such is the Italian idiocracy.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

I wouldn't say the headline is contradicted by the article.

Commentary: What Will Happen to Rudy Guede?

In light of Knox and Sollecito’s release, Guede now says he’s also going to ask for a retrial. The difference for Guede, however, is that he’s far less of a sympathetic case than Knox. A smalltime drug dealer and Black African immigrant, Guede's case is not the same kind of front-page tabloid fodder as Knox, a pretty, young white American woman. To many people, Guede looks like a killer, while Knox does not. That’s not to say that the Italian courts are necessarily racist, of course. But the facts are the facts: The white woman and man are free. The Black man remains in prison.
It would be better if they mentioned the evidence he left behind, the initial story he told his friend by Skype and his recent, at the time, history of second story break ins and the use of knives.

In my opinion, that article is a weak and disgusting piece which uses racism itself to inflame the readers. Check the section I have highlighted.

Disgraceful.

 

[RoseMontague]

Not really fair in that the supreme court ruled the first two statements weren't allowed.

Rose do you a copy of that ruling since Mach always says they didn't rule as described above.

I would think that the supremes may rule that Massei letting the two cases overlap wasn't legal

There were several and I have some. The first statement 1:45 could only be used against others and not Amanda (and it was used against Patrick). The second statement could not be used at all as the SC didn't buy into that spontaneous thing without a lawyer present. The memoraile could be used against both Amanda and others.

The light of those principles, the statements made by AMK at 1.45 on 6 November, 2007, of which the report was suspended and she was placed at the disposal of the judicial proceeding, emerging evidence against him, are can only be used against alios, while "spontaneous declarations" of 5.54 hours or can not be used against the suspect or against other persons accused of complicity in that crime, without the guarantees made as part of a defensive person who had already formally assumed the role of suspect.
Instead, a memorial written in English by K. and translated into Italian is fully usable, pursuant to art. 237 Code of Criminal Procedure, because it is derived from asking document, which was the spontaneous author material for defensive purposes. The provision in question provides evidence of attaching importance to document not only in itself and for its representative content, but also under the special bond that links the suspect (or defendant), so highlight the review of eligibility that the court is required to operate.

 

[madrigal]

I have read all of the forensics sections of the Massei report. The mixed DNA evidence was not inculpatory in this case[/. Some of the evidence in this case also concerned and the issues overlap for some of the items of evidence. In my opinion there were many misunderstandings of the DNA and luminol evidence in this case.

You are entitled to your opinion.

If the evidence or some of the evidence was faulty it should have been contested by the Defence in both trials. It remains uncontested.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

So were the Jamie Bulger killers.

In fact jails are jam full of wide-eyed young, naive, inexperienced...innocents.

Personally, I think that anyone who would use the Bulger killers as an example to illustrate an obviously incorrect point would either have to be seriously deluded or disingenuous to say the least.

Pathetic.

 

[smkovalinksy]

In my opinion, that article is a weak and disgusting piece which uses racism itself to inflame the readers. Check the section I have highlighted.

Disgraceful.

I thought so as well. From the title, I thought the piece would be about Guede finally being seen as the lone wolf burglar turned rapist/killer ( the desire to leave no witness.) Instead, it is about how the whites are free, and Guede's prophecy of "black man found, black man guilty" ringing true.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Dempsey was a better journalist than Nadeau in this case

Although at this time Dempsey appears to be correct in supporting not guilty, she is a horrible reporter if that's what she alleges to be.

The guy named Rizzo IIRC did good reporting and some of the national/international sources were at least balanced.

It is interesting to me that a case that had so much interest for such a long period of time didn't seem to draw first class reporters. Vogt and Nadeau were literally travelzine stringers and restaurant reviewers before the murder. Dempsey had a food blog.

Pisa, Popham, Owen, Follian and Squires at least seemed to be "real" reproters.

Grinder,

What errors did Ms. Dempsey make, in your opinion? Candace Dempsey has a degree in journalism. Does Barbie? Most of the names you cited have been shown to have written one or more things that is(are) not true. Search on their names in these threads if you like. Some of the titles of their articles were inflammatory, such as the one from Owen that I cited earlier today, although, perhaps the editor was responsible for the headline.

When Dempsey's reporting was challenged on this thread some time ago, she provided the sources for her story on the prisoners' trip from the Questura to the prison on 6 November. Did Barbie ever tell us who those dozen forensic scientists were, the ones that said one could tell that certain DNA samples came from blood solely on the basis of the electropherogram? The idea is nonsense, and knowing the names of these supposed experts would be helpful in assessing their past and future work. MOO.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

The Oracle has spoken.

Throw the Judges 400 page DNA document in the bin..its worthless.

We'll leave that to the Appeal Court, shall we?

 

[madrigal]

In my opinion, that article is a weak and disgusting piece which uses racism itself to inflame the readers. Check the section I have highlighted.

Disgraceful.

I would say questionable rather than disgraceful especially when the faulty evidence implicating Lumumba is taken into account. That could be read as blaming the black man.

Fortunately for him he had a clear alibi.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

So we agree on the British papers view.

Well, we can agree on the tabloid hysteria and stoking of anti-American sentiment of you like. To be honest - since I'm taking you to task for not knowing the "other side" - I'm not that familiar with how the BBC, Time of London or even FT has covered the story. My only point in this thread is contrasting how Amanda's situation was treated in the mainstream American press (especially during the appeals process) with that of the British tabloid press.

Interesting that you don't see the positive spin in the NYT editorial though. I certainly do.

As far as my "interpretation" of that op-ed, I stand by what I wrote earlier in the context of what you were claiming was the pervasive and prevailing American attitude regarding this case. Seriously, I fail to see what the "positive spin" in it was. The "innocent angel" meme you claimed was pervasive in America is completely lacking. Merideth and her actual muderer were mentioned. Perhaps I'm missing something you gleaned from British tabloidss you could actually point out as wrong with my analysis of that op-ed rather than allude to it.

They called her an 'Innocent Angel for a start'.

No it does not. That phrase never appears in that op-ed.

No different to 'Foxy Knoxy' in my eyes.

Of course. You haven't read/seen the majority of American mainstream media coverage of the Knox case and you're reading things into that op-ed that simply aren't there.

Granted it is an editorial, but that is the general vibe I have interpreted in US publications. I'll have a google and see if I can find you more examples. Maybe you don't see it because that's the side you agree with? In which case, it would answer my initial question as 'Yes, there is a divide'.

Of course. My "bias" regarding the coverage of the Knox case in American mainstream media as opposed to British tabloid media is due to my being on "the side {I} agree with". You know what side I agree with? The facts? And the facts are AK and RS were wrongfully accused and convicted of a murder they didn't commit and were raked over the coals by the Italian justic system and the British tabloid press during the 4 years they were held in prison while the admitted and convicted killer of Merideth Kercher sat in his jail cell and laughed with schadenfruede.

I am also unfamiliar with the term 'Straw Man'?

You might want to familiarize yourself with the term.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

The US has a nationalist/jingoistic approach, its primarily about bringing their girl home and safe.

The subsection of the UK press involved would always side with the clean-living middle class girl...that is where any bias may lay..but no not in a fly the flag respect.

How many times has that pathetic Guilter mole popped up?

Clean-living middle class girl? Who? Amanda or Meredith?

Pray explain the differences.

Not that you usually answer questions from me.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

mixed DNA is not uncommon

You are entitled to your opinion.

If the evidence or some of the evidence was faulty it should have been contested by the Defence in both trials. It remains uncontested.

madrigal,

We would have to have access to the trial transcripts to see what the defense contested in their closing remarks. With respect to the question of whether Amanda's blood was mixed with Meredith's blood (Garofano's contention), Professor Dan Krane wrote, “Inferring tissue source from peak heights is just plain silly -- to the point of being absolutely outrageous. It hardly bears more comment than that, but if high peaks mean blood then what would you expect from semen which has a ten to one hundred fold higher concentration of DNA?” In these threads Charlie Wilkes quoted professor Greg Hampikian, a consultant for the defense, as saying essentially the same thing.

What do you conclude about mixed DNA at Raffaele's flat?
ETA
The defense might not have contested the mixed DNA because they did not see it as being strong evidence in the first place.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

You presume I missed it.

I doubt whether there would be so much fuss if they were so obviously innocent. As it happens I'm not convinced they're innocent at all.

Perhaps you should actually educate yourself about the case first then?

If you do that without the blinkers on, it might help you to find out the truth and realise why they were found NOT GUILTY of the murder.

 

[madrigal]

Personally, I think that anyone who would use the Bulger killers as an example to illustrate an obviously incorrect point would either have to be seriously deluded or disingenuous to say the least.

Pathetic.

Leave them out if you wish but the point remains intact.

Namely that jails are jam full of wide-eyed young, naive, inexperienced...innocents. They arent all shifty faced monsters!