Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'll admit I came into the case with little understanding of the facts and thought it was obvious that Rudy did this alone. I made a post to that effect in the other forum and proceeded to get my head lopped off by everyone who felt the opposite and knew much more about the case, evidence, etc than I did.

I was shocked and it stopped me in my tracks, so I started to follow the case further and to this day I can't shake the nagging feeling that AK/Raf didn't do this.

Its not the type of feeling one gets standing over a roulette wheel "feeling" red or black is about to come, its the offense to my inner sensibilities when reading the PGP argument and not seeing things as they do.

There are some really smart, informed folks who just "know" they're guilty and its made me question my sanity and ability to truly look at the evidence without bias.

In order for some of the PGP's Ive discussed the case with to believe what they believe, they would have to be wrong on many issues and willfully or unwillfully blind to seeing the case in any other way but guilt.
I can't help but wonder at times if I am guilty of the very same thing. I have no dog in this fight except the truth. I don't care if she is guilty or innocent, I just want the final outcome to match the truth.

At the end of the day, I'll trust my own judgement but this case has made me back pedal and be more thorough before I make any final determinations, which I suppose is a good thing

I have found the exact same thing, but with both sides, I've said for quite a while now, if the truth ever be known, I'm sure both sides have some of it right and some of it wrong, neither side will admit the wrong, neither side believes there is an in between.

 

[DrTesla]

Ann Wise of ABC news reported on his testimony about the rock and the broken window: "By analyzing the trajectory of the rock and the projection of the glass shards, Pasquali said he could 'exclude that the glass could have been broken from the inside.'"

it's my understanding the rock is a good 10 lbs, and given the window was at least 10 feet from the release point of somebody throwing it, it doesn't make much sense that the rock was thrown from the outside.

there was also no glass in the yard below which you would expect if a rock was thrown at the window. you'd also expect the intruder to knock some of the glass off the windowsill by accident, or on purpose, b/c he was going to have to rest his knee on that windowsill to reach the latch to open the window.

it appears the window was smashed from the inside because none of the glass on the windowsill moved outside of where the external shutters would be when closed or partially closed.

 

[DrTesla]

I have found the exact same thing, but with both sides, I've said for quite a while now, if the truth ever be known, I'm sure both sides have some of it right and some of it wrong, neither side will admit the wrong, neither side believes there is an in between.

I think you are trying to force a 3rd way even though there is no evidence of that. if there was any truth that the two were there but didn't participate in the crime, they would have broken down by now and just said so. there's too much evidence that they were at the house that night so telling the truth would be to their advantage than proceeding to lie about it.

how does their DNA end up on the victim's bra clasp and the victims dna on the knife at his house if they did not have an active role in the murder?

 

[DrTesla]

Let's remind ourself that this is Tesla's reaction to "presumption of innocence" and "burden of proof".


Well it was you who pointed out that "the police are not on trial". They are the ones making accusations against the defendants, and they are expected to prove them, without any presumption in their favour.

When and if individuals in this dog's breakfast of a prosecution are put on trial for perjury, false arrest, and misuse of the powers of office, they will also be entitled to a presumption of innocence. It won't be enough to counter the substantial evidence of misconduct.

I think Mignini made the point that he's not trying to prove their guilt. He said that his questions are really geared at helping them prove their innocence. it's incorrect for them to look at him as their enemy. The prosecution's job is to look at the inconsistencies in the accused's story and ask the accused to explain them. why is that unreasonable?

You keep talking about this presumption of innocence as though there is no evidence of their guilt. that's why I used the Miss America contestant analogy. People are convicted of murders despite this presumption of innocence. Most people think OJ is guilty despite the presumption of innocence and no conviction.


the defense lawyers have said that nobody ever hit Knox at the police station. It's my understanding they never filed any kind of complaint about the police at all in both Knox's and Raffe's case. that's curious if there is proof the police behaved badly.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think you are trying to force a 3rd way even though there is no evidence of that. if there was any truth that the two were there but didn't participate in the crime, they would have broken down by now and just said so. there's too much evidence that they were at the house that night so telling the truth would be to their advantage than proceeding to lie about it.

how does their DNA end up on the victim's bra clasp and the victims dna on the knife at his house if they did not have an active role in the murder?

To tell the truth, the bra clasp I have no real answer for, while I do not even remotely believe in contamination, regardless of the time before it was collected the only other answer for me is that Raff ripped the bra off, not during the murder because I don't believe he was there, so why he did that later, I don't know, perhaps he's sicker than we thought.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think you are trying to force a 3rd way even though there is no evidence of that. if there was any truth that the two were there but didn't participate in the crime, they would have broken down by now and just said so. there's too much evidence that they were at the house that night so telling the truth would be to their advantage than proceeding to lie about it.

how does their DNA end up on the victim's bra clasp and the victims dna on the knife at his house if they did not have an active role in the murder?

Finally, some common ground. Except my own criticism of this 3rd way is that there is NO evidence of Knox or Sollecito at the cottage that night. Put aside the bra-clasp evidence for a minute; otherwise there is NO evidence of either of the two students there at all.

The issue about the bra-clasp is that there are many potential candidates for the Y-allele found on the bra-clasp; and the way in which it was found in Meredith's room - after Meredith's mattress had been dragged out of her room - all but destroyed any claim to being found within the protocols deemed acceptable.

I think the reason why SH needs this 3rd way is because he reluctantly accepts that there is nothing in Meredith's room at all linking the students directly to the crime. Indeed, given the horrid nature of the crime, and the full forensic footprint of Rudy Guede there - what one would expect from a perp - the absence of the other two pretty well seals the conclusion.

You can quote all you want from the guilt sites, but there are people like Saul Kassim and John Douglas out there who see it differently. I suppose those folks are going to be sullied as FOAKer's too.

For the life of me, I am not sure why anyone needs to argue for a 3rd way... so at least there's something we agree upon.

 

[Supernaut]

Let's remind ourself that this is Tesla's reaction to "presumption of innocence" and "burden of proof".


Well it was you who pointed out that "the police are not on trial". They are the ones making accusations against the defendants, and they are expected to prove them, without any presumption in their favour.

When and if individuals in this dog's breakfast of a prosecution are put on trial for perjury, false arrest, and misuse of the powers of office, they will also be entitled to a presumption of innocence. It won't be enough to counter the substantial evidence of misconduct.

I've never got around to letting you know how much I've enjoyed reading your posts, Monsieur Antony.

So I'm doing it now.

 

[Bill Williams]

To tell the truth, the bra clasp I have no real answer for, while I do not even remotely believe in contamination, regardless of the time before it was collected the only other answer for me is that Raff ripped the bra off, not during the murder because I don't believe he was there, so why he did that later, I don't know, perhaps he's sicker than we thought.

This is not for you SH, this is for the lurker here. The lurker should know that even the convicting Judge, Judge Massei, found as factual that both Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had no psychopathology about them. They were normal kids.

I say this because of posts that include phrases like, "perhaps he is sicker than we thought". Well, I guess people are allowed to have opinions.... it's just that people who read this should know that after being incarcerated for 4 years and under observation, the Italian courts concluded that there was nothing "sick" about them at all. Indeed, all Judge Massei would say in convicting them in 2009 was, "they made a choice for evil," that's all.

My opinion about these comments alluding to non-existent "psychopathology" is that these folk are stuck in 2008 when all the information which was out there was dominated by the prosecution's ever changing theories. This was fueled by the tabloid frenzy that couldn't wait for the latest lurid detail to be leaked.

As far as I am concerned, these folk are stuck arguing the case as it was argued 5 years ago - they seem to love the lurid details, which have proved to be non-existent. (Even to the convicting court!)

 

[Bill Williams]

I think Mignini made the point that he's not trying to prove their guilt. He said that his questions are really geared at helping them prove their innocence. it's incorrect for them to look at him as their enemy. The prosecution's job is to look at the inconsistencies in the accused's story and ask the accused to explain them. why is that unreasonable?

You keep talking about this presumption of innocence as though there is no evidence of their guilt. that's why I used the Miss America contestant analogy. People are convicted of murders despite this presumption of innocence. Most people think OJ is guilty despite the presumption of innocence and no conviction.


the defense lawyers have said that nobody ever hit Knox at the police station. It's my understanding they never filed any kind of complaint about the police at all in both Knox's and Raffe's case. that's curious if there is proof the police behaved badly.

The only proof there could be that the police behaved badly would be the videotape and the lawyer they were required to get for Knox, esp. after the 1:45 am Nov 6 memorandum was signed. The ones who behaved illegally that night were the cops, by Mignini's own implication... he quoted the law, then proceeded to disobey it himself!

What is strange is that despite illegally continuing, - the legal thing to do would have been to videotape everything - someone still makes it Amanda's job to prove her own innocence. The ONLY bverified instance of wrongdoing that night was on behalf of the cops, we were compelled by law - the very law Mignini told Drew Griffin he himself quoted to the cops at 1:45 am - to videotape and provide a lawyer. It was not optional.

And it would be good to quote from some other source than guilter websites... places like the Idaho innocence project, or John Douglas when it comes to expert opinions. Me, I love it when the guilter websites try to assail John Douglas's credentials.

 

[Supernaut]

I have found the exact same thing, but with both sides, I've said for quite a while now, if the truth ever be known, I'm sure both sides have some of it right and some of it wrong, neither side will admit the wrong, neither side believes there is an in between.

Is all the preceding blather supposed to sound "philosophical", or something?

If the truth ever be known (you're a poet and you don't know it).

...some of it right and some of it wrong...

Listen, buddy; the truth isn't a "matter of opinion".

Least of all some idiot's.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The sensitivities of confirmatory testing for blood

The National Forensic Science Technology Center wrote, "The line between screening and identification is not always clear. For example, while examining the clothing of a suspect, a forensic biologist might visually locate a brown stain that presumptively tested positive for blood and was then DNA typed. The DNA type is found to match the victim. Knowing that the loci tested are higher primate specific, what conclusions can be drawn?
The only unqualified conclusion that can be offered is that the stain contains DNA that matches the victim. It has not been proven to be blood.
If asked “Could the results have arisen because the material tested was the blood of the victim?” then an answer of “Yes” is justified. However, it would be wrong to report that the material was human blood with a DNA type that matched the victim. The material was not subjected to confirmatory testing for blood or proven to be human in origin."

This issue is the elephant in the room for the prosecution's conjectures about luminol. Without a true confirmatory test, the luminol-positive material cannot be said to be blood. I would also like to comment on the sensitivities of confirmatory tests for blood. The authors of one study, Hurley IP et al., Forensic Science International 190 (2009) 91–97, wrote, "Positive results for human IgG were obtained with both formats. The simple direct immunodot assay was able to detect an IgG concentration of 0.1 mg/mL, while the detection limit for the sandwich immunodot assay was 0.01 mg/mL compared with the control (no IgG)...Tokiwa et al. demonstrated a detection limit of 0.022 microgram/mL using an anti-HbA0 ELISA, compared to the limit of 0.01 microgram/mL IgG detected by the present study." Hb A₀ is the main form of hemoglobin in the body. Whole blood is about 55% serum and 45% red blood cells (RBCs), although there is some variation. Hemoglobin (Hb) is found in RBCs and immunoglobulin G (IgG) is found in serum. The following calculations of the sensitivities of confirmatory blood tests attempt to normalize to whole blood.

"The concentration of hemoglobin molecules in red blood cells is so high (340 mg_mL, 2.3 mM) that they almost could be said to be on the verge of crystallization." Robert C. Kerber, J. Chem. Education Vol. 84 No. 9 September 2007, 1541. Therefore, the concentration of Hb is 150 mg/mL in whole blood. 150 mg/mL divided by 2.2 x 10^-5 mg/mL = 7 x 10⁶. This is the approximate dilution factor for detection of blood by a confirmatory test for hemoglobin. Smith et al., Principles of Biochemistry, Mammalian Biochemistry, seventh edition (McGraw Hill), indicate that the average concentration of IgG is 12 mg/mL in plasma, therefore 6.6 mg/mL in whole blood. This estimate suggests that the test for IgG would detect blood up to a factor of 6.6 x 10⁵. There are other confirmatory tests as well, such as HemaTrace. One article from the Michigan State Police listed its sensitivity as 0.05 µg/mL, and the authors gave its maximum dilution factor of blood that would still allow for its detection as 1:16777216. Another study provides 0.07 µg/mL as the limit of detection.

The values above might be too optimistic by a factor of ten, and yet still they would indicate that confirmatory tests for blood are quite sensitive. One possible problem is that eventually these proteins might denature (lose their biological activity--which implies a change in their three-dimensional shape or other alteration), which could keep the protein from reacting in these experiments. That is why the several-month delay in testing Rep. 199 using a confirmatory test was so unfortunate.

 

[DrTesla]

Finally, some common ground. Except my own criticism of this 3rd way is that there is NO evidence of Knox or Sollecito at the cottage that night. Put aside the bra-clasp evidence for a minute; otherwise there is NO evidence of either of the two students there at all.

The issue about the bra-clasp is that there are many potential candidates for the Y-allele found on the bra-clasp; and the way in which it was found in Meredith's room - after Meredith's mattress had been dragged out of her room - all but destroyed any claim to being found within the protocols deemed acceptable.

I think the reason why SH needs this 3rd way is because he reluctantly accepts that there is nothing in Meredith's room at all linking the students directly to the crime. Indeed, given the horrid nature of the crime, and the full forensic footprint of Rudy Guede there - what one would expect from a perp - the absence of the other two pretty well seals the conclusion.

You can quote all you want from the guilt sites, but there are people like Saul Kassim and John Douglas out there who see it differently. I suppose those folks are going to be sullied as FOAKer's too.

For the life of me, I am not sure why anyone needs to argue for a 3rd way... so at least there's something we agree upon.

most of my quoting comes from the deathofmeredithkertcher.com website, which usually isn't included with TJKM/PMJ on here as a Guilter site, maybe b/c the guy doesn't seem to be cult like in following the case like people at those sites. it seems like one guy (one hero) flying on his own, much like me. His website is real simple and he lays out the core evidence in a real concise way that engineers appreciate, and he does a real good job on the physical/forensic evidence that I have not seen matched anywhere else. I do enjoy TJKM and they are real good on documenting the conflicting statements and the cell phone record evidence which helps make the comprehensive case for Knox's guilt. the website would be much better if they didn't choose to alienate conservatives with their liberal politics but maybe that is something you have to accept given the fact most people interested in this case are based in Knox's hometown of Seattle, and in the UK. there's just not widespread interest in Knox across America, most people know very little about her yet you see people make judgements about the American people as though we are foaming at the mouth in support of Knox despite understanding all the evidence against her. reality is there hasn't been much reporting on Knox at all and most of it is pro-Knox that looks like it came straight from Doug Preston's books/articles/interviews about it. I think this shows that our media really loves our writers and doesn't think them capable of lying about anything.

I think some of the statement analysis that they do of Knox and other people comes across as mind reading though which is always dangerous to try b/c personality can affect how people express themselves verbally as much as any attempt to be evasive or deceive. that Yummi guy tried do that on me at the other guilt site b/c he thought I was a secret agent for Knox, which is obviously real dumb. his basis for that is I use non-committal words like seems and probably a lot but that's just how I roll and trust me it annoys the wife. I had to expose Yummi as an idiot and a bubblegum psychologist which isn't something you want to do b/c the Daily Kos liberal babe who runs the website is ultra natationalistic about Italy despite not living there, and Yummi is Italian and thus just superior to some American like me, as she sees it. She'll through the States under the bus in a skinny minute though. She suffers from a form of reverse nationalism that most liberals have, that is, every other country is awesome with no flaws, but AMerica sucks.

I do think Knox and Raffe would have been much better off admitting that they were at the house that night and saying they didn't kill her, even if they did, b/c that is much harder to prove although not really b/c of the DNA on the victim's bra clasp and DNA on the knife at his house. that's really what you guys need to focus on proving was contamination or planting of evidence by Dr Stef....getting down in the weeds on footprint patterns, etc is useless if you have DNA evidence in most incriminating spots possible, it's hard to believe there could be innocent contamination in both of these pieces of evidence that were found in two different locations and different people handled them at their respective locations. really, you have to talk about lab contamination but as I pointed out it was 6 days b/t testing the bra clasp and then knife and since it was a lab with active testing they went through the cleanup procedures for contamination numerous times in 6 days time so just not believable there was victim contamination 6 days later when they tested the knife.

 

[DrTesla]

The only proof there could be that the police behaved badly would be the videotape and the lawyer they were required to get for Knox, esp. after the 1:45 am Nov 6 memorandum was signed. The ones who behaved illegally that night were the cops, by Mignini's own implication... he quoted the law, then proceeded to disobey it himself!

What is strange is that despite illegally continuing, - the legal thing to do would have been to videotape everything - someone still makes it Amanda's job to prove her own innocence. The ONLY bverified instance of wrongdoing that night was on behalf of the cops, we were compelled by law - the very law Mignini told Drew Griffin he himself quoted to the cops at 1:45 am - to videotape and provide a lawyer. It was not optional.

And it would be good to quote from some other source than guilter websites... places like the Idaho innocence project, or John Douglas when it comes to expert opinions. Me, I love it when the guilter websites try to assail John Douglas's credentials.

lol you guys crack me up, you always steer it back to an appeal to authority argument, a professional expert pissing contest.

As I have said, I don' tthink true professionals have passionate opinions about a case that they are no way involved in. they have no contact with the accused and the other witnesses. they don't have direct contact with the evidence. there is a lot that they don't know but they don't admit to, and a lot that they think they know that they most likely do not.

it's one thing for us to promote innocene or guilt on here but we are people just talking about something that interests us b/c there are entertaining aspects to this case especially the star of the show AManda Knox.

It's another for a so called professional to be asserting with a confidence that Knox is guilty, or innocent, from so far away from Italy and no responsonablity to get it right.

therefore, I dismiis MOore and all these other people who are constantly paraded as People We Must Listen To. they are no different from any of us, just people with an opinion but no involvement with the case. if they want to get on here and talk to me about their opionions, I'm all ears. I'm nothing if not open minded.

 

[Supernaut]

<snip for redundancy>

So, abuser of Nikola Tesla's good name;

Who do you choose to believe, and why?

As I type, I have "Rage Against the Machine" assaulting my tympanic membranes via my Senn HD580's.

"Know Your Enemy".

 

[Supernaut]

DrTesla; 425 (four-hundred and twenty-five) posts in the 10 (ten) days since he deigned to bless the JREF forums with his presence.

Thanks for your even-handed enforcement of the "membership agreement", "moderators".

Geezus, what a joke.

 

[DrTesla]

So, abuser of Nikola Tesla's good name;

Who do you choose to believe, and why?

As I type, I have "Rage Against the Machine" assaulting my tympanic membranes via my Senn HD580's.

"Know Your Enemy".

In the end I believe Mignini, Massei, Micheli, Dr Stef. Nancy Grace, although always wildly wrong about being the accused being found guilty, see her predictions for Michael Jackson in 2005 that were utterly wrong, tends to be right about the case for guilt or innocence, and Ann Coulter, as well, have both pointed to the accused as guilty. the esteemed liberal law profession at Harvard, Alan Dervdifohehfef (sic) also believe she is guilty (he also believes Trayvon Martin was killed in self defense by Zimmerman and that takes balls if you are a liberal b/c they generally always side with the black by reflex almost) I think he thought OJ Simpson was innocent so we have to put an asterisk by him but hell we all get something big wrong least once, right. except me. LOL

Mostly I believe in myself and my ability to discern who knows what they are talking about and who doesn't. that's what they pay engineers more for than any specific technical knowledge.

 

[DrTesla]

DrTesla; 425 (four-hundred and twenty-five) posts in the 10 (ten) days since he deigned to bless the JREF forums with his presence.

Thanks for your even-handed enforcement of the "membership agreement", "moderators".

Geezus, what a joke.

is there a rule about number of posts? like a rationing thing, a quota?

as long as I'm interacting with people on the forum and not soapboxing the majority of the time, I don't see why it is a big deal.

i'm obviously needed here in terms of providing some balance to the debate but maybe some here enjoy a circle jerk but Fischer's site is set up for that already so why not be open to this being something different? It's good to have choices in the buffet of life.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Finally, some common ground. Except my own criticism of this 3rd way is that there is NO evidence of Knox or Sollecito at the cottage that night. Put aside the bra-clasp evidence for a minute; otherwise there is NO evidence of either of the two students there at all..

No evidence you want to admit to, there is an eye witness account, there is no alibi, there is Knox's own statement she was there, there is Raff saying she left from 9 to 1, the worse time to be missing, there is also the fact she smoke a joint an loses all memory and her boyfriend too, it goes on and on.

The issue about the bra-clasp is that there are many potential candidates for the Y-allele found on the bra-clasp; and the way in which it was found in Meredith's room - after Meredith's mattress had been dragged out of her room - all but destroyed any claim to being found within the protocols deemed acceptable..

Is that because Raff's DNA was there is such great abundance from being there for a couple of hours.

I think the reason why SH needs this 3rd way is because he reluctantly accepts that there is nothing in Meredith's room at all linking the students directly to the crime. Indeed, given the horrid nature of the crime, and the full forensic footprint of Rudy Guede there - what one would expect from a perp - the absence of the other two pretty well seals the conclusion..

Not exactly, PIP's like to say Rudi's DNA was everywhere and in abundance, this is not true at all, I believe his DNA was found in 4 places and not in great amounts either, Amanda and Raff's DNA may well have been in that room as well, it just wasn't found. I don't believe they were there during the murder, but I don't rule it out entirely.

For the life of me, I am not sure why anyone needs to argue for a 3rd way... so at least there's something we agree upon.

Yes, you both agree that there is only one way. The third way is slowly becoming more popular, every so often I hear some come out with something similar.

 

[Supernaut]

In the end I believe Mignini, Massei, Micheli, Dr Stef. Nancy Grace, although always wildly wrong about being the accused being found guilty, see her predictions for Michael Jackson in 2005 that were utterly wrong, tends to be right about the case for guilt or innocence, and Ann Coulter, as well, have both pointed to the accused as guilty. the esteemed liberal law profession at Harvard, Alan Dervdifohehfef (sic) also believe she is guilty (he also believes Trayvon Martin was killed in self defense by Zimmerman and that takes balls if you are a liberal b/c they generally always side with the black by reflex almost) I think he thought OJ Simpson was innocent so we have to put an asterisk by him but hell we all get something big wrong least once, right. except me. LOL

Mostly I believe in myself and my ability to discern who knows what they are talking about and who doesn't. that's what they pay engineers more for than any specific technical knowledge.

Name-drop, name-drop, name-drop, name-drop - ad nauseum.

We've all got teh interwebs, matey.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Thanks for dropping in

One problem with this DNA profile is the appearance of two extra peaks in locus D3S1358, both of which have a height of about 15-20 RFUs. They have fifteen and sixteen repeats, respectively, and neither of which is part of Meredith’s profile, which has fourteen and eighteen repeats at this locus. These two peaks about about as large as the smallest of the peaks interpreted to be part of Meredith’s profile, yet they were not called in the electropherogram I viewed. This is one more example of bias IMO.