Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Ammonitida]

This is not hard to belive. And if there were not so many holes in the statements of the two youngsters and if Amanda wouldnt have made up the story of Lumumba (or maybe the police did I dont know) the case would have gone in that way leaveing the youngsters out.

It is hard to believe that police (this is Italy not China) would just let somebody rot in prison with no suspicion at all.

And why did the knife contained Merediths DNA on the blade? That knife may have very well belonged to the kitchen at the murder scene and later taken away by the murder.

How did the bra clasp became contaminated if the murder scene was seald by the police on the 2nd of November and nobody got in the house later. As much as I know DNA can be transfered to the bra clasp if at some point came in contact with Raf cloathing but Raffaele didnt live in the apartment with Meredith and Amanda. So how it became contaminated with Raf DNA?

It was never proven that Meredith's DNA was on the blade. The independent experts stated that the supposed DNA was unreliable (something to do with the peaks being so small). A better question would be, how come that knife was excluded as the weapon that caused the stab wounds to Meredith's neck? How come it doesn't match the bloody knife imprint left at the crime scene?

As for the DNA on the clasp, notes Vecchiotti's remarks;

“After examining just the first 4 markers (over 17) of the Y chromosome, there were already new alleles for forming at least 8 profiles”

“There were so many alleles that even my own profile was a match in 9 markers!” (over 16).

“Your own profile, President, could likely be found in that DNA”

The genetic material of at least 8 people was found on that clasp, strongly suggesting contamination occurred. And 8 people didn't live at the cottage either.

 

[Ammonitida]

It is hard to believe that people are coming here asking questions that have been answered time and time again over the last few years, but there you are. Strange things happen, I guess.

The widely publicized acquittal has sparked a lot of new interest.

 

[bolint]

It is hard to believe that police (this is Italy not China) would just let somebody rot in prison with no suspicion at all.

There was police suspicion, it is not disputed by anyone.

And why did the knife contained Merediths DNA on the blade? That knife may have very well belonged to the kitchen at the murder scene and later taken away by the murder.

Filomena ad Laura were asked about the knife and they said that it had not been in the cottage.

And Raffaele got acquainted with Amanda on Oct 25 night.
So the knife either
- was never in the cottage
- was taken there (not necessarily on ther murder night) and brought back to Raffaele's place
- was Amanda's knife not known to Flomena and Laura
- Filomena and Laura are wrong.

Anyway, Raffaele claims that it belonged to his flat when he moved in.
I don't know if the landlord was asked about it (should have been).
Raffaele says he had never used it, only Amanda used it for cutting onions.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Bolint, it's my position that it's hard, even when you're not having a smoke, to remember the minutae of what you did and exactly when during a time period which seems very normal to you at the time.
No matter what Raffaelle remembers about whether his phone was switched off/ on silent / on, it's my position that it doesn't matter.
If it was on, and Raffaelle remembered correctly, it has no implications for guilt, and it's perfectly and reasonably explained because blips in coverage happen all the time. Most of the time, the signal in my bedroom is fine, then one day, I receive a text 5 hrs late. However, if that day my movements happen to be under intense scrutiny, that fact becomes viewed as suspicious, even though it happens all the time...
If it was off, and Raffaelle remembered incorrectly, this also carries no implication of guilt, as it's perfectly reasonable that Raffaelle's recollection was just an error (a stoned error?), and it's also reasonable that he switched his phone off so that he could enjoy a private evening with his girlfriend.

As for your question about the probability of this dual occurrence (RS 'happening' not to receive a text until 7 hrs after it was sent, and that this 'happened' to occur on the night Meredith was murdered) - I think this ignores the problem of multiple endpoints. Whereas the odds of a particular coincidence, specified in advance, in other words a single outcome or endpoint in a specified window of time, may be very low, the odds of any coincidence or a set of coincidences which could include any number of outcomes or endpoints in a vague or not at all defined window of time, none of which are specified in advance, could be pretty high.
In other words, to know how much of a coincidence this is, we'd have to have data which told us exactly how unusual this is generally.

Quite frankly, it is an abjectly miserable and wretched guilter 'argument'. I find it a contemptible viewpoint which has been explained and clarified several times over the past four years. I cannot believe that anyone has the audacity to suggest otherwise, other than either being completely ignorant of all the responses given by various contributors or simply wanting to propose yet another mendacious and laughable slant on something which is actually completely innocuous and innocent.

 

[Teddy2007]

Then it is still operating.

Probablity is 1/100 or 1/1000?

If the network is operating then delivery is immediate, unless the phone is inaccessible. There were no problems with the network that night so it is only the accessibility of the phone that counts.

I can't believe people use the turned off phones as some sort of evidence that they committed murder. To me, that claim demonstrates how the perversed guilter mindset works. And no, the probability is not 1/100 or 1/1000. As I live in Italy, I know this to be true - where I live the Vodafone signal frequently disappears in the night time, for reasons I don't understand, and I live in the countryside. If you walk around any town that has thick and high walls, I'm sure you'll find there are spots all over the place where the signal varies over the course of the day. This happens to my phone as I drive around Rome all the time.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

I'm thinking that Amanda has a cause of action against both Patrick and his lawyer for what they said about her.

Didn't the court find her not guilty of being a witch?

Once a witch, always a witch.

The stakes were quite high, to be fair.

 

[JREF2010]

Maybe Kokomani drove Rudy and ? to the cottage to steal the rent money and other stuff and Meredith came home.

I still have questions about this, in your mentioning Rudy and another.(Kokomani? he had a dark colored Golf someone stated)

It seems to make more sense a burglary gone wrong. Rudy being recognized by Meredith.

The other option of many guilters is the drug deal gone bad.
The drug deal gone bad, seems to fail for me, because the cell phones were left at Raffaeles or turned off.

Kids and cellphones today rarely, leave home without them, and the odds of both them leaving the cell phones at the apartment off, to go do a drug deal is just beyond weak. imo.

I have fictionalized if the driver wasnt the one bumping into Alessandra Formicas friend too. This person was fleeing, imo. As I read the translation the one fleeing really was moving fast and was a very noticeable bump into her boyfriend.

Another coincidence this bump happened durign the crime time?
Another coincidence the car was in the driveway?

And would Curatolo use the newspaper accused kids, to help cover for his co-working drug dealers?

All the evidence we know of is Rudy in Merediths room. So thats maybe as good as it gets for the Kerchers to understand what happened, theres no more evidence.

..unless Rudy tells the truth.

but I wonder, is it Rudy Lone Wolf or Rudy and his friend?

 

[Antony]

No, it is that it did have Raffaele's DNA, but there are so many possible ways it got there,

It's my understanding that even this isn't correct. The bra clasp was so contaminated that there were any number of allele peaks on the graph. Stefanoni simply selected the ones that corresponded to Raffaele's DNA, and ignored the ones that didn't, so as to claim a partial match with him. That is why Carla Vecchiotti commented that her own DNA and Judge Hellmann's could have been "found" by the same approach.

It was all pseudo-science, as so much of the prosecution's forensic case.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Well, maybe she'll be kinda forgotten about and no one will be saying she tried to immediately 'cash in.' Then we get the movie! Who else plans on being there to nitpick the details to death with me?

Incidentally, I didn't see the press conference, does anyone have a link?

LOL, no they'll be saying she's not doing interviews because the little witch has something to hide instead. Totally there to nitpick the movie details.

Pass the popcorn.

Actually, we had better not turn off our mobiles.

 

[Dougm]

It's my understanding that even this isn't correct. The bra clasp was so contaminated that there were any number of allele peaks on the graph. Stefanoni simply selected the ones that corresponded to Raffaele's DNA, and ignored the ones that didn't, so as to claim a partial match with him. That is why Carla Vecchiotti commented that her own DNA and Judge Hellmann's could have been "found" by the same approach.

It was all pseudo-science, as so much of the prosecution's forensic case.

Probably a better way for me to have stated this is that there is no way to tell who's DNA is on there. I believe the testimony was that it could be Raffaele's, it could be Hellmann's and it probably could be you or I.

It certainly isn't "proof" of anything.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

I am at a loss to understand why anybody is so interested in the minutiae of what two people did one evening several years ago, when it's already been proved in court that what they didn't do was murder someone. Now that's out of the way, what does it matter?

It's something I've noted too.

The guilters seem to be regressing in some quarters and going back over all the trivial little things, which have already been covered at length.

'She said this, he said that, she didn't do this, he didn't do that' etc etc.

I attribute some of it to their 'clutching at straws' but I think it is also partially down to trying to excuse their stance and trying to justify it, sometimes in a quite macabre way.

 

[Ammonitida]

It's something I've noted too.

The guilters seem to be regressing in some quarters and going back over all the trivial little things, which have already been covered at length.

'She said this, he said that, she didn't do this, he didn't do that' etc etc.

I attribute some of it to their 'clutching at straws' but I think it is also partially down to trying to excuse their stance and trying to justify it, sometimes in a quite macabre way.

I personally like the funny argument regarding the conflicting stories Raff and Amanda gave about seeing the feces in the toilet. That was the funniest guilter argument I have ever seen.

 

[Dougm]

It's something I've noted too.

The guilters seem to be regressing in some quarters and going back over all the trivial little things, which have already been covered at length.

'She said this, he said that, she didn't do this, he didn't do that' etc etc.

I attribute some of it to their 'clutching at straws' but I think it is also partially down to trying to excuse their stance and trying to justify it, sometimes in a quite macabre way.

Part of it is that irrelevent minutiae has always been at the core of the guilter's case. When any pro-innocence person would say, there is no evidence they were there, the standard reply has always gone back to the cell phones being turned off, or that Amanda and Raff did not agree on what they did each moment that night. Or of course, Amanda's statements that named Lumumba.

There is simply no evidence they were at the murder scene that night, period. They can't counter that, so they go to the other irrelevent stuff.

 

[Dougm]

I personally like the funny argument regarding the conflicting stories Raff and Amanda gave about seeing the feces in the toilet. That was the funniest guilter argument I have ever seen.

That would have been a good argument for the lawyers! Since they saw the sh**, you must acquit!!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Guy Fawkes

Frankly I find it repellent that he thinks those vague and confused statements with that note qualifying them forevermore later in the day that netted him two while weeks in jail is anything compared to what he did to Amanda afterward. He helped the smear campaign for four years, in court and out, lying and saying outrageous things about her in hopes of netting her a lifetime in jail, and he did all that on purpose in order to hurt her.

Kaosium,

Patrick Lumumba also spoke falsely about being the nephew of Patrice Lumumba, according to a relative of the latter. He does not have much credibility with me, and I have pretty much lost sympathy for him as well. Good poem about the 5th of November, BTW.

 

[Draca]

I'm thinking that Amanda has a cause of action against both Patrick and his lawyer for what they said about her.

Didn't the court find her not guilty of being a witch?

That's awesome. Hellmann: verdict is NOT A WITCH.

haha.
Pacelli shocked a lot of people with his diatribe against Amanda. She-devil?
Geez.

Also odd - Mignini stood by his man Toto at the same time Comodi tried to change ToD to before 10:00 p.m. These people are honestly just outrageous and completely whacked.

 

[Dan O.]

Did not Raffaele say that?
(I agree, that it is uncomfortable )

I've asked you before to back up how Raffaele's supposed statements are evidenced. Have you ever responded? All you have are words written by the Italian police and these words are demonstrably false. There is no confirmation of the facts that the Italian police want to believe but there is confirmation of the previous account that both Amanda and Raffaele were presenting before the interrogations.

Raffaele was called in for questioning on November 5th after Kate Mansey published an account that confused Raffaele's movements on the 31st with the 1st. The interrogation on the 5th embellishes on that article and so appears to be more what the police wanted to hear than what Raffaele was saying. I suspect that interrogation was pretty much along the lines of the police saying "Isn't it true that you blah blah blah..." and Raffaele answering "whatever".

 

[Ammonitida]

Kaosium,

Patrick Lumumba also spoke falsely about being the nephew of Patrice Lumumba, according to a relative of the latter. He does not have much credibility with me, and I have pretty much lost sympathy for him as well. Good poem about the 5th of November, BTW.

Has he ever explained why his comments to the daily mail conflict with his current account?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no blood on the knife

This is not hard to belive. And if there were not so many holes in the statements of the two youngsters and if Amanda wouldnt have made up the story of Lumumba (or maybe the police did I dont know) the case would have gone in that way leaveing the youngsters out.

It is hard to believe that police (this is Italy not China) would just let somebody rot in prison with no suspicion at all.

And why did the knife contained Merediths DNA on the blade? That knife may have very well belonged to the kitchen at the murder scene and later taken away by the murder.

How did the bra clasp became contaminated if the murder scene was seald by the police on the 2nd of November and nobody got in the house later. As much as I know DNA can be transfered to the bra clasp if at some point came in contact with Raf cloathing but Raffaele didnt live in the apartment with Meredith and Amanda. So how it became contaminated with Raf DNA?

Whisky1981,

There were only a few cells worth of DNA that gave rise to the profile from the knife. When one works with such tiny amounts of DNA, contamination is a much bigger problem, unless the forensic investigators raise their game, in terms of taking anticontamination measures. I think that secondary transfer, contamination, and evidence tampering are all possibilities with respect to the clasp. When several people handle an object, especially when they change gloves as often as the church changes popes, the chances of contamination are that much greater. The clasp was moved by unknown means between 2 November and 18 December, so the notion that the crime scene was sealed does not bear up under close examination.

The knife was at Raffaele's flat. There was no blood on the knife. I reread a portion of the Conti-Vecchiotti report (translated into English) recently, and it seems as if both a TMB test and a confirmatory test were negative. That was a surprise to me, in that I either did not know or had forgotten that a confirmatory test had been done.

 

[CDHost]

The slander charge will be appealed won't it?

If I were in her shoes I'd move to let the verdict stand. If the verdict stands then she's done her time and she can freely travel. If she appeals the verdict and wins it gets kicked down to lower courts and they can move again on the murder.

Patrick's claims aren't huge, he did a few weeks.