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

[LondonJohn]

Halides1

Am I missing something, if sample 36B is confirmed as Amanda’s DNA how does this change anything?

Isn’t the pivotal DNA issue how will the court deal with the independent report findings (V & C) from the annulled appeal?

Do you mean sample 36I? 36I was the sample that has just been tested by the Carabinieri, and which tested positive for Knox's DNA (albeit in ultra-low-template quantities).

36B was a sample taken by Stefanoni upon which she alleges she found minute quantities of Meredith's DNA. Vecchiotti also took a "mirror" sample 36B from the identical spot on the knife to Stefanoni's sample, but was unable to find any DNA there at all - let alone Meredith's DNA.

 

[acbytesla]

dELETE

 

[yimyammer]

It seems logical to me to ban sockpuppets automatically. After all, if an individual has previously been banned for (presumably) multiple serious infringements of the rules (or perhaps one massive one...), then a reappearance of that same individual under a sockpuppet alias is nothing more than a flouting of that ban.

Other than that, I fully agree with those who say that provided a person has something to say about the case - and provided they aren't here for the clear primary purpose of baiting and insulting other posters here - then they should be welcomed to the debate. As I think I've said before, I think it's both healthy and intellectually stimulating to have your beliefs and arguments challenged. After all, if you can't refute or rebut challenges to your beliefs with clarity or precision, then it's probably time to reassess your beliefs!

Well said amigo, I really like the way you express yourself

 

[yimyammer]

Did we already talk about how stupid it was for RS to visit MK grave? I suppose...I hate having to work...anyhoo...

I also think it was stupid for AK to express the desire to visit.

Dont these dopes understand that detectives often record grave sites and funerals because the killers often attend? These kids are not getting smarter IMHO. Saying and doing stupid stuff is not advised at this time.

They really are both clueless sometimes.

SMH, I guess their PR department didn't get the memo.

I don't know if it was the language gap or what but Raf didn't come across as the brightest bulb in his online Q & A and I found his answers sorely lacking

 

[LondonJohn]

Here's what I think is an interesting and instructive little exercise in rational examination versus confirmation-bias-led instances of "seeing what you want to see".

This is the badge of the Missouri State Highway Patrol Forensic Laboratory:



Now, imagine you are trying to identify the images shown at 6 O'Clock and 9 O'Clock around the central scales of justice. They are somewhat blurred and indistinct in many reproductions, it's true. So what could those images be of?

If you are trying to mock and belittle the Missouri State Highway Patrol Forensic Laboratory (perhaps, for example, because their manual was cited as a reference by Conti and Vecchiotti...), and if you are also prepared to put aside proper examination and rational logic, you might seem very disposed to imagine that these images are of comic incongruities - after all, that would mock and belittle the Missouri State Highway Forensics Laboratory all the more, wouldn't it.

So you might decide that the image at 6 O'Clock was a dead hedgehog, or a toupee, or a camera covered in iron filings. And you might decide that the 9 O'Clock image was a French cockerel, or a Chinese pictograph, or a kangaroo leapfrogging a park bench. And then you might chuckle to yourself that you had been both "clever" and "amusing", and had succeeded in mocking the Missouri State Highway Patrol Forensics Laboratory through your need to find mock-worthy images on their badge.

But suppose instead that you looked at the images, and wondered what they might be, and applied unbiased common sense to the problem. You might, for example, guess that such a laboratory might have images or symbols related to its work. So is the image at 6 O'Clock a fingerprint? Yes, it could well be. And what about the image at 9 O'Clock? Well, a closer examination reveals - to the unjaundiced eye - that it is almost certainly a microscope. And that makes sense, doesn't it?

You might even try to locate a clearer image of the badge, in order to confirm your educated guesses. You might use Google images and find this within seconds:



Yes: as suspected, it's a fingerprint and a microscope. Just as you might expect to find on the badge of a forensics laboratory, in fact.....

 

[smkovalinksy]

Did we already talk about how stupid it was for RS to visit MK grave? I suppose...I hate having to work...anyhoo...

I also think it was stupid for AK to express the desire to visit.

Dont these dopes understand that detectives often record grave sites and funerals because the killers often attend? These kids are not getting smarter IMHO. Saying and doing stupid stuff is not advised at this time.

They really are both clueless sometimes.

Had the exact same thought but didn't want to say anything. I have even seen on those Lifetime movies there is always the classic scene where the person off by themselves at the funeral/gravesite is put on surveillance by the chief investigator. Knox and Sollecito should have maintained a quiet and respectful reserve; this did make them look suspect.

 

[LondonJohn]

Had the exact same thought but didn't want to say anything. I have even seen on those Lifetime movies there is always the classic scene where the person off by themselves at the funeral/gravesite is put on surveillance by the chief investigator. Knox and Sollecito should have maintained a quiet and respectful reserve; this did make them look suspect.

I think I'm correct in asserting that there is a huge difference between turning up at the funeral/burial and paying a private visit to a grave site, in terms of criminal psychology.

I believe psychologists/psychiatrists would suggest that a psychopathic perpetrator might well attend (or try to attend) the funeral/interment of his victim for reasons related to power and control - in this case, feeling power over having elicited grief in the mourners and control over the final journey of the body of the victim. And that, indeed, is why investigators do - as you rightly say - often watch out for any out-of-place people at funerals/burials (or any particularly striking behaviour at the funeral/burial by any of the potential suspects).

I believe that neither of these control/power traits is applicable to paying a private visit to a grave site. I don't therefore think that one can even suggest any inferences related to Sollecito's guilt/innocence from his apparent visit to Meredith's grave.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I think I'm correct in asserting that there is a huge difference between turning up at the funeral/burial and paying a private visit to a grave site, in terms of criminal psychology.

I believe psychologists/psychiatrists would suggest that a psychopathic perpetrator might well attend (or try to attend) the funeral/interment of his victim for reasons related to power and control - in this case, feeling power over having elicited grief in the mourners and control over the final journey of the body of the victim. And that, indeed, is why investigators do - as you rightly say - often watch out for any out-of-place people at funerals/burials (or any particularly striking behaviour at the funeral/burial by any of the potential suspects).

I believe that neither of these control/power traits is applicable to paying a private visit to a grave site. I don't therefore think that one can even suggest any inferences related to Sollecito's guilt/innocence from his apparent visit to Meredith's grave.

Yes, I do see what you mean; there is indeed a distinction. I think what did not sound good Re Sollectio were the headlines about the "secret" visit to the grave (sounds disturbing) but of course these rags like to sensationalize all, and did Sollecito no favors.

 

[acbytesla]

Here's what I think is an interesting and instructive little exercise in rational examination versus confirmation-bias-led instances of "seeing what you want to see".

This is the badge of the Missouri State Highway Patrol Forensic Laboratory:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/40237527988d9b3987.jpg[/qimg]

Now, imagine you are trying to identify the images shown at 6 O'Clock and 9 O'Clock around the central scales of justice. They are somewhat blurred and indistinct in many reproductions, it's true. So what could those images be of?

If you are trying to mock and belittle the Missouri State Highway Patrol Forensic Laboratory (perhaps, for example, because their manual was cited as a reference by Conti and Vecchiotti...), and if you are also prepared to put aside proper examination and rational logic, you might seem very disposed to imagine that these images are of comic incongruities - after all, that would mock and belittle the Missouri State Highway Forensics Laboratory all the more, wouldn't it.

So you might decide that the image at 6 O'Clock was a dead hedgehog, or a toupee, or a camera covered in iron filings. And you might decide that the 9 O'Clock image was a French cockerel, or a Chinese pictograph, or a kangaroo leapfrogging a park bench. And then you might chuckle to yourself that you had been both "clever" and "amusing", and had succeeded in mocking the Missouri State Highway Patrol Forensics Laboratory through your need to find mock-worthy images on their badge.

But suppose instead that you looked at the images, and wondered what they might be, and applied unbiased common sense to the problem. You might, for example, guess that such a laboratory might have images or symbols related to its work. So is the image at 6 O'Clock a fingerprint? Yes, it could well be. And what about the image at 9 O'Clock? Well, a closer examination reveals - to the unjaundiced eye - that it is almost certainly a microscope. And that makes sense, doesn't it?

You might even try to locate a clearer image of the badge, in order to confirm your educated guesses. You might use Google images and find this within seconds:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4023752798db8d1afe.jpg[/qimg]

Yes: as suspected, it's a fingerprint and a microscope. Just as you might expect to find on the badge of a forensics laboratory, in fact.....

I was too busy looking at the image at 3 oclock. Is that a Marijuana leaf or a corn stalk?

 

[RoseMontague]

I was too busy looking at the image at 3 oclock. Is that a Marijuana leaf or a corn stalk?

It's a squirrel done been runned over.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's a squirrel done been runned over.

Uhhhh, we gunna fry that squrl up real good and serve it with some collard greens. That's how we roll down here at the Missouri State Highway Forensics La-bor-a-tor-eh.........

 

[Dan O.]

Yes: as suspected, it's a fingerprint and a microscope. Just as you might expect to find on the badge of a forensics laboratory, in fact.....

But it's not the same fingerprint. While the one on ebay is an artists representation of a fingerprint, the official insignia is in fact a real partial fingerprint and appears to change over the years looking through their publications. My guess is that this is in fact the print from the second toe of the left foot of the departments assistant director.

 

[acbytesla]

Uhhhh, we gunna fry that squrl up real good and serve it with some collard greens. That's how we roll down here at the Missouri State Highway Forensics La-bor-a-tor-eh.........

Not a bad dinner at all. A big red squirrel is might fine eating. I'm not a big fan of the collard greens but with nice hollandaise sauce, they might be just fine.

 

[moije2]

Not a bad dinner at all. A big red squirrel is might fine eating. I'm not a big fan of the collard greens but with nice hollandaise sauce, they might be just fine.

OK boys and girls... Having been recently to STL, I can imagine that there might be some that would resent being the vehicle for otherwise innocent humor. Maybe they do have their share of toothless wonders but not sure how different that is for many areas of the world, or the US for that matter. Having also been to Seattle a couple times recently, I can say that those two cities did not seem a lot different. Lots of very civilized and open minded people, and the farther out you travel the more less sophisticated people you find. Don't know if they eat collards there - or in STL either. Of course your humor was about Missouri, so I guess we should be comparing states. Don't they have white supremacists up there in WA? So there you go. Not only should the I-talians be offended by referencing a redneck state's forensic manual, but it is reasonable to assume that Seattle people must be racist and ergo AK blamed the black man...

 

[acbytesla]

OK boys and girls... Having been recently to STL, I can imagine that there might be some that would resent being the vehicle for otherwise innocent humor. Maybe they do have their share of toothless wonders but not sure how different that is for many areas of the world, or the US for that matter. Having also been to Seattle a couple times recently, I can say that those two cities did not seem a lot different. Lots of very civilized and open minded people, and the farther out you travel the more less sophisticated people you find. Don't know if they eat collards there - or in STL either. Of course your humor was about Missouri, so I guess we should be comparing states. Don't they have white supremacists up there in WA? So there you go. Not only should the I-talians be offended by referencing a redneck state's forensic manual, but it is reasonable to assume that Seattle people must be racist and ergo AK blamed the black man...

I'm from Iowa, just North of Miz zur ah, although I have lived in the Seattle area most of my life. I can flat out tell you, that some people definitely hunt and eat squirrel and collard greens there. I have had both. It is a local delicacy. There is nuthin strange or racist about it. It's like saying they eat snails in France or crickets in Mexico. You are welcome to make fun of the amount of KOFFY we drink in my adopted state here.

 

[yimyammer]

It's all about the forum rules. The mods don't give people a special pass just because they're Knox guilters and we don't want to stoop to the level of PMF. He was banned because he broke forum rules.

Banned posters aren't allowed to come back with new names. No matter who they are. It's not really up to anyone on this thread what happens to him.

Rolfe.

Ah, fair enuff

 

[Chris_Halkides]

independence should be valued

Halides1

Am I missing something, if sample 36B is confirmed as Amanda’s DNA how does this change anything?

Isn’t the pivotal DNA issue how will the court deal with the independent report findings (V & C) from the annulled appeal?

CoulsdonUK,

The finding of additional DNA on the knife blade is more evidence that it was not cleaned particularly well. It weakens the contention that this knife had anything to do with the murder. That having been said I have seen commenters twist themselves into pretzels to make it incriminating. I think that the defense should make the case that the independent experts (Conti and Vecchiotti) should be given a little bit of extra weight over either the prosecution's or the defense's experts.

 

[yimyammer]

Once upon a midnight dreary, yimyammer pondered, weak and weary,...

right on cue.....

 

[moodstream]

Do you mean sample 36I? 36I was the sample that has just been tested by the Carabinieri, and which tested positive for Knox's DNA (albeit in ultra-low-template quantities).

36B was a sample taken by Stefanoni upon which she alleges she found minute quantities of Meredith's DNA. Vecchiotti also took a "mirror" sample 36B from the identical spot on the knife to Stefanoni's sample, but was unable to find any DNA there at all - let alone Meredith's DNA.

Without pertaining specifically to this case, but in general, how likely is it that a mirror sample will come up empty when the first sample contains DNA?

btw - I am not expecting you to know the answer ( then again, I am not expecting you not to know the answer either).

 

[RandyN]

Here's what I think is an interesting and instructive little exercise in rational examination versus confirmation-bias-led instances of "seeing what you want to see".

This is the badge of the Missouri State Highway Patrol Forensic Laboratory:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/40237527988d9b3987.jpg[/qimg]

Now, imagine you are trying to identify the images shown at 6 O'Clock and 9 O'Clock around the central scales of justice. They are somewhat blurred and indistinct in many reproductions, it's true. So what could those images be of?

If you are trying to mock and belittle the Missouri State Highway Patrol Forensic Laboratory (perhaps, for example, because their manual was cited as a reference by Conti and Vecchiotti...), and if you are also prepared to put aside proper examination and rational logic, you might seem very disposed to imagine that these images are of comic incongruities - after all, that would mock and belittle the Missouri State Highway Forensics Laboratory all the more, wouldn't it.

So you might decide that the image at 6 O'Clock was a dead hedgehog, or a toupee, or a camera covered in iron filings. And you might decide that the 9 O'Clock image was a French cockerel, or a Chinese pictograph, or a kangaroo leapfrogging a park bench. And then you might chuckle to yourself that you had been both "clever" and "amusing", and had succeeded in mocking the Missouri State Highway Patrol Forensics Laboratory through your need to find mock-worthy images on their badge.

But suppose instead that you looked at the images, and wondered what they might be, and applied unbiased common sense to the problem. You might, for example, guess that such a laboratory might have images or symbols related to its work. So is the image at 6 O'Clock a fingerprint? Yes, it could well be. And what about the image at 9 O'Clock? Well, a closer examination reveals - to the unjaundiced eye - that it is almost certainly a microscope. And that makes sense, doesn't it?

You might even try to locate a clearer image of the badge, in order to confirm your educated guesses. You might use Google images and find this within seconds:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4023752798db8d1afe.jpg[/qimg]

Yes: as suspected, it's a fingerprint and a microscope. Just as you might expect to find on the badge of a forensics laboratory, in fact.....

OK fine, I already had the microscope....the fingerprint was tricky. BUT...what do you think about the weed? How does that fits in exactly? If this was the badge of Stefanonis lab then fine...they are all on weed.