Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[cuki777]

Hi Grinder

It's unlikely to be literally about the few hundred euros but leaving the toothpaste top off doesnt literally cause the divorce. You doubt the break-in so that points to RG being let in by someone with a key - and only one resident was around that night. Drugs drugs drugs - its quite a connection between HK RG AK and RS and when drugs are involved no motive required. What is PLE? I've sussed ILE. What happened to poor Meredith certainly would put great fear in any other witnesses. IMO a more skilful investigation would have brought out the full story years ago - none of the antagonists are master criminals.

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by cuki777

Hi Grinder

It's unlikely to be literally about the few hundred euros but leaving the toothpaste top off doesnt literally cause the divorce. You doubt the break-in so that points to RG being let in by someone with a key - and only one resident was around that night. Drugs drugs drugs - its quite a connection between HK RG AK and RS and when drugs are involved no motive required. What is PLE? I've sussed ILE. What happened to poor Meredith certainly would put great fear in any other witnesses. IMO a more skilful investigation would have brought out the full story years ago - none of the antagonists are master criminals.

There is no drug connection or evidence of any drug connection between AK and RS and these two.

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

However she eventually ended up running the test with '20 microliters' and it's never documented why she ran it with a lower volume than specified in the kit nor just what exactly was in the '20 μl' tube she put into the machine, that is: what ratio reagent to sample. Normally it's 3:2, 15 μl reagent, 10 μl sample, so if she made the total volume 20 μl, did she proportionally reduce the reagent, did she leave it at 15 μl and only use 5 μl of sample? Did she use less sample than 10 μl? What in the hell did she do? This was questioned in court, note that Massei doesn't bother giving the answer! I wonder if Stefanoni ever gave one?

This is her answer:

Quote:

RISPOSTA – Sì, bassa quantità di DNA estratto, io ho provato… normalmente, diciamo, il DNA estratto se è una buona estrazione, diciamo una buona quantità di DNA consente di fare anche più analisi sullo stesso campione, quindi posso ripetere magari il processo di PCR anche due, tre, dieci volte, nei tamponi salivari magari si può ripetere tantissime volte perché il DNA è molto abbondante, in questo caso invece il volume di estrazione, che è stato di 50 microlitri, è stato praticamente utilizzato totalmente per condurre questa analisi appunto del DNA, quindi questa amplificazione, perché diciamo amplificazione ripetuta su un quantitativo così esiguo di DNA avrebbe sicuramente causato la non produzione del dato sia del primo tentativo e sia nel secondo tentativo, cioè se io avessi suddiviso a metà la quantità di questo DNA per permettermi eventualmente successivamente di ripetere l’analisi sicuramente io non avrei ottenuto nessun risultato perché al di sotto di un certo quantitativo di DNA la PCR non funziona, non riesce ad amplificare, quindi non si può amplificare un solo allele praticamente, una sola copia di DNA, i nostri sistemi hanno comunque un limite, quindi non hanno una… come dire una risoluzione infinita, hanno comunque un limite quantitativo al di sotto del quale non si può andare per appunto ottenere un profilo genetico, siccome ogni amplificazione mi butta via il materiale che io uso, non lo posso riutilizzare allora io ho tentato un’unica soluzione, quindi analizzare tutto quello che c’avevo, che era comunque esiguo, ed ho ottenuto questo risultato.
DOMANDA – Ma lei dall’estratto che aveva definito di volume pari a 20 – 22 microlitri…
RISPOSTA – Inizialmente di 50 poi l’ho concentrato.
DOMANDA – Poi l’estratto è stato concentrato in 10 microlitri.
RISPOSTA – Sì, sì, successivamente che è appunto il valore diciamo finale, il valore massimo di volume che occorre utilizzare nella mix di reazione, la PCR usa dei volumi prestabiliti di reattivi, tra questi c’è il volume prestabilito di DNA, non può essere al di sopra dei 10 microlitri, un microlitri è un milionesimo di litro, quindi 10 microlitri sono la quantità massima che io posso mettere all’interno della mix per avere l’amplificazione, quindi è stato concentrato, è stata tolta acqua.
DOMANDA – Lei non ha ritenuto in quel momento di dover dividere in due parti in modo da poter ripeterlo?
RISPOSTA – L’ho appena detto. No, non ho ritenuto perché sicuramente non avrei avuto nulla né la prima volta, né la seconda volta perché…
DOMANDA – Però non è uno dei requisiti sostanziali che abbiamo detto prima la ripetibilità del test per essere sicuri del test stesso?
RISPOSTA – No, il termine però era diverso, non era diciamo conditio sine qua non, cioè era…
DOMANDA – Ripetibilità del test come elemento di garanzia.
RISPOSTA – Esatto, era consigliato per essere appunto più fiduciosi nel proprio dato che questo possa essere ripetuto, ma l’analisi se è condotta comunque con tutti i suoi controlli, di controllo positivo, negativo, cioè della bontà del risultato analitico avuto in relazione ai controlli effettuati sulla reazione stessa per me è comunque affidabile, perché altrimenti io qualunque traccia la dovrei analizzare due volte, noi non analizziamo nessuna traccia due volte, a meno che non abbiamo delle esigenze di migliorare magari un locus, un picco, una cosa, altrimenti un’amplificazione viene fatta per tutte le analisi sennò…
PRESIDENTE – Viene fatta su di una?
RISPOSTA – Allora la PCR viene fatta una sola volta in genere per tutte le tracce, anche se abbiamo un chilo di DNA per dire, perché economicamente non è possibile, dal punto di vista diciamo economico sia di tempi che proprio economico di soldi, di impegno economico, non avrebbe nessun senso ripeterla due volte, l’analisi è affidabile quando è condotta secondo i criteri diciamo stabiliti dalla ditta produttrice del kit e dalla buona norma di laboratorio, diciamo di un laboratorio di genetica.
DOMANDA – Allora io le chiedo nel caso di un elemento classificabile come esiguo, cioè il low copy number, non ci sono delle iscrizioni particolari che in questo caso proprio perché l’ammontare è così poco bisogna per forza ripeterlo per avere una maggiore garanzia? Secondo lei in un caso di questo tipo non sarebbe stato necessario ripeterlo?
RISPOSTA – Se avessi avuto un’altra aliquotina come questa l’avrei fatta sicuramente, cioè è un cane che si morde la coda, è troppo esiguo, lo devo analizzare per forza una sola volta per tentare di avere un risultato, non lo posso suddividere perché altrimenti sicuramente al 100% non avrei il risultato, quindi… cioè non si esce da questo… cioè non si esce. Sono d’accordo con lei che sarebbe stato auspicabile ripeterla questa analisi.
DOMANDA – Anche la concentrazione è raccomandata dal protocollo internazionale nel caso del low copy number, cioè di un’ipotesi di ammontare estremamente esiguo?
RISPOSTA – Concentrazione di che?
DOMANDA – Lei ha concentrato in 10 microlitri ciò che era 20 – 22 microlitri per poi fare l’amplificazione.
RISPOSTA – L’amplificazione, certo.
DOMANDA – Allora le chiedo è questa concentrazione una pratica standard quando si tratta di ammontare esiguo, low copy number?
RISPOSTA – Sì, perché io devo appunto introdurre tutto il mio campione per intero, quindi io concentro per avere la massima possibilità di utilizzare… perché io non posso utilizzare oltre i 10 microlitri, questo è il mio limite, me lo impone il kit, io per avere questi 10 microlitri li devo far rientrare in quel volume, cioè se fossi partita da 100 microlitri io avrei dovuto portare il campione in 10, non accade nulla di concentrare il campione o meno al DNA stesso perché noi non utilizziamo un… cioè non utilizziamo una miscela di sali in cui è disciolto il DNA, mi spiego, normalmente il DNA quando viene estratto può avere due destini, diciamo, uno viene disciolto, per così dire, in acqua, come il nostro caso, quindi noi abbiamo una molecola di DNA che permane disciolta in acqua distillata, sterile, okay? L’altra possibilità è che questo DNA possa essere conservato,

[halides1]

Originally Posted by Grinder

[1]In her gift note, Amanda, herself, admits that her inability to give a consistent full accounting of her and Raf's activities is a problem for her and the police. Combine that with phone records that didn't line up precisely with their accounts, the early confusion over when police arrived and when they were called and the lack of computer activity, it is reasonable that they were targets.
[2]There is no evidence of innocence. They don't need to have proof of innocence and I firmly believe the ILE came up short of beyond a reasonable doubt.
[3] There were odd behaviors, at the police station, at the cottage, at the store etc. Do those activities mean they killed Meredith? No. Did those activities add to the police's suspicions? Yes. What activities were made up? What were the distortions?
[4] Why would they do those things if they didn't believe they were guilty? They did want the public to believe they had the right culprits because they believed they had the right culprits. How did the ILE know what the missing man, Rudy, would say when apprehended? Remember, they had Patrick and let him go when he alibied. Had he not, do you think they would have released him because they didn't have any "genuine" evidence? If Rudy's prints had been cleaned, do you think Patrick would have been released without an alibi?

(numbering mine)
1. The police destroyed some meta-data and did not look at Raffaele's screensaver log file.
2. There is no way that Meredith died at 11:30-11:45 PM. Combine a realistic TOD with the screensaver log files, or even the file opened at 9:26 or so, and the effect is exculpatory. This seems to put one of them in the clear at least.
3. The accounts of odd behaviors at the station come from ILE and from the English friends. The many falsehoods told by ILE make their statements highly suspect, and (based on Follain's book) I have my doubts about how accurately the English women have portrayed things.
4. Patrick had an alibi for about a week before ILE let him go.

[halides1]

Originally Posted by cuki777

Hi Grinder

It's unlikely to be literally about the few hundred euros but leaving the toothpaste top off doesnt literally cause the divorce. You doubt the break-in so that points to RG being let in by someone with a key - and only one resident was around that night. Drugs drugs drugs - its quite a connection between HK RG AK and RS and when drugs are involved no motive required. What is PLE? I've sussed ILE. What happened to poor Meredith certainly would put great fear in any other witnesses. IMO a more skilful investigation would have brought out the full story years ago - none of the antagonists are master criminals.

cuki777,

Amanda and Raffaele were tested for drugs when they were arrested, and nothing has ever emerged to indicate that they tested positive. I am aware of no evidence of drug use other than of marijuana. Amanda's bank account was healthy. Stories about drugs are like stories about Amanda and Raffaele meeting up with Rudy--pure conjecture without a scintilla of evidence.

The rock was thrown from the outside, as Pasquali demonstrated. Additional evidence for a real break in are Reps. 198 and 199. I think Rudy entered through the window, but ChrisC put forward the theory that he jimmied the lock on the front door, and I am OK with that theory as well.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by cuki777

STRANGE BEHAVIOUR #1

Once you get to a state of mind that you need to break down a door, you persevere until that door is broken down. You batter it you hammer it you stop a passing motorist you call the police. Its one of those life and death situations. The door was broken down by someone else of similar stature in a few seconds.

Yet, they had not quite got to that point, not everyone at least.

Outside of Meredith's room, it was not clear if this was a crime scene or not. If you want to hang that lack of certainty on to Raffaele and Amanda, you're also going to have to hang it on to the Postal Police as well - and I'm not sure you want to implicate the Postal Police in the larger crime.

Whoever the crowd was that was milling around once the postal police got there, once Filomena and her men-friends got there, it was not entirely clear what they were looking at. For everyone who wonders how Knox could take a shower at that scene by herself - well, the Postal Police refused to break down Meredith's door all together. Raffaele's half-hearted attempt matches the postal inspectors for a sense of urgency.

The disagreement about whether or not Meredith was in the habit of locking her door is similar, but it also had the added confusion that Knox (as the only non-fluent Italian speaker at the scene) probably did not express herself accurately - and everyone has been using 20/20 hindsight to see the disagreement she had with Filomena about the locked door as something sinister.

Fact is, this item marked, "Strange behaviour #1" is not all that strange considering the ambiguity of the scene before them, pre-body-discovery. So ambiguous that the ranking police officers at the scene - the posties - themselves refused to kick in the door, lest the room's occupant return saying, "What the hell did you just do to my door!"

That this did not happen is the true tragedy here - but that was not knowable until someone actually DID break it in - the rest is 20.20 hindsight, as is marking Raffaele's half-hearted attempt as strange.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by cuki777

Hi Grinder

It's unlikely to be literally about the few hundred euros but leaving the toothpaste top off doesnt literally cause the divorce. You doubt the break-in so that points to RG being let in by someone with a key - and only one resident was around that night. Drugs drugs drugs - its quite a connection between HK RG AK and RS and when drugs are involved no motive required. What is PLE? I've sussed ILE. What happened to poor Meredith certainly would put great fear in any other witnesses. IMO a more skilful investigation would have brought out the full story years ago - none of the antagonists are master criminals.

The second person with a key was Filomena, and she was around, but she also had the wisdom to lawyer up. There is also the other investigative line that the police pursed vigourously, and that is that Meredith let her killer in herself, not knowing the mayhem to come. In fact, the reason the police asked to see Knox's phone at 11 pm on Nov 5th is that they were STILL trying to ferret out leads... Knox was continually asked about the men Meredith may have met, who may have come over to the cottage that night, invited or othewise.

The "staged break-in" in my mind became locked into the cops' thinking, not because there was any particular hard evidence suggesting that what was before them was staged, but it was mainly because they wer econvinced that Meredith was killed by someone who got in either by a key (available only from either Knox or Romanelli), or was lent a key by Meredith herself or that Meredith led the killer in unwittingly.

To suggest that on Nov 2nd that Knox was the ONLY one under suspicion, is just not right. I don't think the police are THAT incompetent, and I think they did some pretty dumb things. In fact, I do believe the police (and disagree with other innocenters on this very point) that when Knox went into the interrogation room at 11 pm on Nov 5th, she actually was only "a person informed of the facts", rather than a suspect.

Yes, they thought Knox could lead them to the killer, and the first thing they did that night was to go through her phone contacts one by one.

When Lumumba`s number came up with the text `See you Later` things got way ahead of the police way too quickly - and it was not just their misunderstanding of the American idiom, See You Later.

I agree, a skillful investigation would have released Knox and Sollecito when Guede was discovered.... because there was then, and there was never in the next four years, anything at all that pointed to Knox or Sollecito. No motive, no DNA, no nothing. Even the odd behaviour in those early hours served to make Knox seem clueless to the police as to what she may have unwittingly, and a few smacks on the head was supposed to be the light encouragement.

Still - what they got with Lumumba was the exact opposite of what happened, they got out of Knox nothing about how the crime went down, including her own confused imaginings solicited by the cops, which put her confusedly at the scene.

A skillful investigation it was not. Racing out to arrest Lumumba with what they beat out of Knox was exactly what was wrong with this whole thing

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

This is her answer:

Hmm, my google translation of that does not seem to have the answer to the question why she used a sample of 20 microliters rather than the required 25. On the other hand, it does confirm that she rejects the idea of repeating tests on the same sample, even if she has a kilo of DNA, because of the, umm ..expense (they blew the budget on the animation).

See this bit:

Originally Posted by Stefanoni

So PCR is normally done only once for all tracks, even if we have a kilo of DNA to say, because it is not economically possible, from the point of view of both economic times that we say exactly cheap money, commitment cheap, it would not make sense to repeat it twice, the analysis is reliable when it is conducted according to the criteria established by the manufacturer say the kit and good practice laboratory, say a genetics laboratory.

But we come back to my questions to Kaosium. She only had 10 microliters after concentration of the 50 microliters she ended up with after quantification by the Qubit fluorometer and she explains that this only allowed for one electrophoretic run. Therefore, she cannot have performed a run on or before 14 Nov 2007 (when the cops announced the knife breakthrough to the world) and another in Sep 2008.

Originally Posted by Stefanoni cross-exam.

Q. - But you extract what he called a volume equal to 20 to 22 microliters ...
ANSWER - First of 50 then I concentrated.
Q. - Then the extract was concentrated in 10 microliters.
ANSWER - Yes, yes, then that is precisely the value of the final say, the maximum volume that should be used in the reaction mix, PCR using predetermined volumes of reagents, among them is the desired volume of DNA, can not be in excess of 10 microliters, a microliter is one millionth of a liter, then 10 microliters is the maximum amount that I can put into the mix for the amplification, then was concentrated, water was removed.
Q. - You did not think in that moment of having to split into two parts so you can repeat it?
ANSWER - I just said. No, because I thought surely I would not have anything either first or second time because ...
Q. - But not one of substantive requirements that we mentioned earlier, the repeatability of the test to be sure the test itself?
ANSWER - No, the term was different, however, did not say conditio sine qua non, that was ...
Q. - Repeatability of the test as a guarantee.
ANSWER - Yes, it was suggested that they may become more confident in their own as this can be repeated, but if the analysis is conducted, however, with all its controls, positive controls, negative, ie the goodness of the analytical result was in relation to checks carried out on the reaction itself is still reliable for me, otherwise I should analyze any trace the two times we did not analyze any traces twice, unless they have needs improving maybe a locus, a peak, one thing, otherwise amplification is done for all analyzes or else ...

The last highlighted part may be referring to her procedure generally rather than to the knife blade sample.

Another question for Kaosium

Re: the striation which disappeared. Let's assume just for the sake of argument that was simply a lie and also that there was no granule of starch mistaken for a striation. Lies are important when you find one because they make you ask not only: why lie but also why that lie?

I offer my explanation to speed the process but in the execration you will improve or correct it.

There needs to be an explanation for the sampling the knife blade in the particular area it was sampled. It cannot be random because then you would have to sample the blade, both sides, by dividing it into a grid on an extremely small scale and conducting thousands (OK maybe only hundred or maybe only several dozen, but still a lot of work when the cops only handed you the thing a few days ago and want to go to press with an announcement basically right now).

So she has to anticipate the question: 'why did you select that particular part of the blade?' and that means inventing some peculiarity which explains her choice.

[cuki777]

Hi

The only thing we agree on is that RS' attempt was 'half-hearted'

[cuki777]

Hi again Bill

So we agree on 'odd behavior'

'confused imaginings' - I just don't agree with that interpretation

'smacks on the head' 'beat out of AK' I don't think her defence evenagree with you

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by halides1

(numbering mine)
1. The police destroyed some meta-data and did not look at Raffaele's screensaver log file.
2. There is no way that Meredith died at 11:30-11:45 PM. Combine a realistic TOD with the screensaver log files, or even the file opened at 9:26 or so, and the effect is exculpatory. This seems to put one of them in the clear at least.
3. The accounts of odd behaviors at the station come from ILE and from the English friends. The many falsehoods told by ILE make their statements highly suspect, and (based on Follain's book) I have my doubts about how accurately the English women have portrayed things.
4. Patrick had an alibi for about a week before ILE let him go.

Thanks for the numbering.

1. Still the prosecutors believed there was no activity as they are dependent on their people at that time.

2. I agree with your TOD assessment.

3. Never a fan of the English girls but even the family argued that her cartwheels were yoga stretches. Before there is an avalanche of replies, I don't think whatever she did in the police station makes her guilty but I understand that it brought extra attention to her. That's what we are talking about at this time. Was it reasonable that the PLE (Perugian Law Inforcement) were suspicious of A & R. I say yes.

4. Yes but so what.

[cuki777]

Hi Rose

'Connection' is a bit of a vague term and I'm quite a lazy poster but I think the following is established:

AK had 'drug dealer' on her phone
RS' father was angry that he'd broken his word to stop smoking pot
HK was a drug dealer
RG was a drug dealer
AK and RS claimed they had smoked pot enough to wipe out pretty much all memory of the vital hours
HK's phone 'pinged' at very near the crime scene cottage on the evening of the murder
AK lived at the cottage
RS visited the cottage
RG left evidence of himself at the cottage on the night of murder
RG accused AK and RS of the murder
HK told police he saw all three at the cottage on eve of murder
AK had met RG once or twice

that's all I can be bothered to list for now
i'm not coming from court of law perspective but from exploring the Involvementer stance

so I'll give you 'no drug connection established in court of law' but the truth is generally something else again and I don't think it has come out in this case yet. It would be very good for Meredith's family if it did.

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

The second person with a key was Filomena, and she was around, but she also had the wisdom to lawyer up. There is also the other investigative line that the police pursed vigourously, and that is that Meredith let her killer in herself, not knowing the mayhem to come. In fact, the reason the police asked to see Knox's phone at 11 pm on Nov 5th is that they were STILL trying to ferret out leads... Knox was continually asked about the men Meredith may have met, who may have come over to the cottage that night, invited or othewise.

Filomena was also smart enough to have a consistent and corroborated alibi, not be the first at the scene, not babble about a door being locked (I believe that it was a language confusion) etc.

Please pray-tell how do we know what and how often the police were asking vis-a- vis men in Meredith's life. By the interrogation night Amanda was much more than just a person with information, she was suspect in all ways except the formal definition used by ILE. They should have given her an attorney and taped the entire - that's why it's not calunnia IMO.

They didn't "know" exactly what had happened but they were sure Amanda was involved.

Quote:

The "staged break-in" in my mind became locked into the cops' thinking, not because there was any particular hard evidence suggesting that what was before them was staged, but it was mainly because they wer econvinced that Meredith was killed by someone who got in either by a key (available only from either Knox or Romanelli), or was lent a key by Meredith herself or that Meredith led the killer in unwittingly.

They reasonably thought it was staged because it looked staged. Could Rudy have entered through the window? Probably but really a reasonable cop would look at the height of the window, the lack of missing items and other aspects (how they saw the glass) and think this doesn't look like a normal way of entry.

Quote:

To suggest that on Nov 2nd that Knox was the ONLY one under suspicion, is just not right. I don't think the police are THAT incompetent, and I think they did some pretty dumb things. In fact, I do believe the police (and disagree with other innocenters on this very point) that when Knox went into the interrogation room at 11 pm on Nov 5th, she actually was only "a person informed of the facts", rather than a suspect.

No one has said she was the only suspect. Yes, you've made that argument in relationship to her being guilty of calunnia. I disagree. She was a suspect and the police and Mignini have made that clear.

[

[anglolawyer]

Trying and failing to answer my own question re: the date of electrophoresis on sample 36B I find this:

Originally Posted by conti-vechiotti report p.76 English translation

[74] Since the electrophoretic graphs, produced both in CD-ROM and e-mail format, do not differ from each other in any significant way (c.f. peak heights), for ease of exposition our comments here relate to the electrophoretic runs dated Sept. 23 2008, 10:35 AM and Sept. 25 2008, 01:17 PM, but are equally intended to apply to the electropherograms dated May 11 2011, 04:48 PM and May 11 2011, 04:36 PM.
From an examination of Electrophoretic Run 1, dated “Sept. 23 2008, 10:35 AM, it must be noted that: 1) this graph shows peaks which are clearly below the 50 RFU threshold (it is emphasized that 50 RFU is the threshold recommended by the kit manual, and it is not advised to go below this point); b) the alleles are imbalanced in that the ratio between many peaks is <0.60 (Gill P. et al., 2006).

Plainly, I am not understanding something basic here. There is no way electrophoresis can have been delayed until Sep 2008. Stefanoni's RTIGF report was produced in June 2008 and the knife blade DNA was announced to the world on or about 14 Nov 2007.

Yet I read this:

Originally Posted by conti-vechiotti report p.70 English translation

On 29 April, the electropherograms relating to the two electrophoretic runs of the amplified DNA from sample B were sent to us on CD-ROM, on which the allele peak heights are indicated (electropherograms dated respectively Run 1: Sept. 23 2008, 10:35 AM; Run 2: Sept. 25 2008, 01:17 PM).

I confess I am completely baffled. Doesn't such a run entail actually squeezing the sample through the tubes? I mean a real sample, mixed with reagents and everything? Or, once you've done it can you thereafter perform virtual 'runs' which don't actually involve anything out here in the real world.

[cuki777]

Originally Posted by Antony

In a controversy like this where there are 2 diametrically-opposite sides arguing the case, the temptation is to conclude that the truth is somewhere in the middle. It ain't necessarily so; here, if one side is right then the other is 100% wrong.

The thing is, pro-innocence certainty is backed up by the evidence, while pro-guilt certainty is backed up just by a belief that the police are inherently to be trusted.


What "strange behaviour"? There were a great many stories of allegedly strange behaviour by Amanda and Raff at the time of the murder and in the days following, but they turn out to be either distortions of the truth, or completely made up - or else completely innocent cases of young people reacting in grief and confusion, unprepared as they were to being caught up in a tragedy.

The truth is a lot simpler: the police and prosecution knew they didn't have any genuine evidence to implicate the 2 of them, so they issued a torrent of false or twisted reports of "strange behaviour" on their part, so as to make the public believe they had got the right culprits.

"if one side is right then the other is 100% wrong." as far as the charge of murder goes I agree with you as far as INVOLVEMENT goes I disagree.

"pro-innocence is backed up by the evidence" well, it's backed up by what you see as a reasonable interpretation of the evidence. e.g RS' dna on bra clasp; all seem to agree it's there but the possibility/probability of it being there by contamination depends on your view - the defence did not prove contamination.

"pro-guilt certainty is backed up just by a belief that the police are inherently to be trusted." that's far too simplistic a description of the pro-guilt position as a two minute glance at many of the debating points will show

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by cuki777

Hi Rose

'Connection' is a bit of a vague term and I'm quite a lazy poster but I think the following is established:

AK had 'drug dealer' on her phone
RS' father was angry that he'd broken his word to stop smoking pot
HK was a drug dealer
RG was a drug dealer
AK and RS claimed they had smoked pot enough to wipe out pretty much all memory of the vital hours
HK's phone 'pinged' at very near the crime scene cottage on the evening of the murder
AK lived at the cottage
RS visited the cottage
RG left evidence of himself at the cottage on the night of murder
RG accused AK and RS of the murder
HK told police he saw all three at the cottage on eve of murder
AK had met RG once or twice

that's all I can be bothered to list for now
i'm not coming from court of law perspective but from exploring the Involvementer stance

so I'll give you 'no drug connection established in court of law' but the truth is generally something else again and I don't think it has come out in this case yet. It would be very good for Meredith's family if it did.

You have, indeed, identified yourself as a lazy poster.

Your listing of "facts" demonstrates that self-admission in spades.

It's hard to know where to begin - suffice it to say that the police NEVER identified a lead based on the drug use in the cottage - drug use by ALL the girls and ALL the boys, heck, Meredith was watering the weed downstairs while the boys were away!

No one other than the cops is privvy to the leads as they developed, but any "drug connection" was definitely one never followed by the cops - and when they went through Knox's phone beginning at 11 pm on Nov 5th, they obviously were not looking for that connection. I for one doubt at all Knox had a drug dealer in her phone, but the point is, even if there was one, the cops didn't race out and arrest this phantom person, they raced out and arrested Lumumba.

Finally, Rudy Guede specifically said that Knox had nothing to do with the "event" at Meredith's place that night - he said it to a friend while Rudy was still in Germany. The only time he said Knox and Sollecito had anything to do with it was when he was plea bargaining a 30 year sentence down to 16 years.

Rudy's story kept changing. Knox's story only changed once, and then when outside of the presure cooker of interrogation, her story reverted to what she'd always said for the previous 84 hours, "I was with Raffaele, alone at his place." That never wavered in 4 years and NOTHING has been advanced that challenges it.... not DNA, not homeless person's alleged sightings of them. All of that has proven bogus.

So - what is the post about? This was not about drugs, this was not about sex, this was not about Satanic rituals. This second guessing motive some day has to stop. Apart from the fact they didn't do the horrible crime, there actually is not a motive for them to do it. Many have been advanced. All are pure speculation.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by cuki777

Hi again Bill

So we agree on 'odd behavior'

'confused imaginings' - I just don't agree with that interpretation

'smacks on the head' 'beat out of AK' I don't think her defence evenagree with you

Odd behaviour - I'm not sure we agree. Knox's behaviour was odd to Italians, and downright disrespectful to some English girls. But it also assumes that there is only one way to mourn - my family mourns with large dollops of black hunour, which I do know is offensive to others.

The point about odd behaviour, it is exactly that - odd. It says as much about the observer as the person doing it. It also contributes nothing to understand the horrible murder.

Confused imaginings - please read up on the Reid Technique of interrogation which some cops are trained in. The trouble with Knox's acount of the interogation is that it descibes the Reid Technique to a 'T', and there's no way she could have known about it beforehand. The reason why the Reid Technique is banned in some jurisdictions when applied to younger people is that it tends to produce 'false confessions' based on a young person's confused imaginings, esp. if they think they're starting off trying to be helpful. Remind you of anyone?

Smacks on the head - I go with Hellmann on the nature of the interrogation. Heck, the five cops left, out of the eight who accused Knox of lying about the smacks, didn't bother to show up in court today to bring their case against Edda and Curt - that's how confident the cops are that their own account will pass scrutiny in a courtroom.

[Skind]

"that's far too simplistic a description of the pro-guilt position as a two minute glance at many of the debating points will show "

I would have to admit, I've seen incredibly few pro-guilt people demonstrate any form of doubt over the intentions or competance of any member of any of the prosecution or police experts, yet have seen neverending guilter discussions over the expertise of the defence and independant experts.

I don't think there's any substance to support calling Anthony's contention 'simplistic', it appears to be rather spot on.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Grinder

Filomena was also smart enough to have a consistent and corroborated alibi, not be the first at the scene, not babble about a door being locked (I believe that it was a language confusion) etc.

While agreeing with the timeline you imply, I completely disagree that this was "planned" on either Filomena's or Amanda's part. Neither Filomena nor Knox chose to be or not to be first on the scene... if accident had put Filomena first, then she very well could have spent four years in jail clearing herself - for none other than allegedly faking a break in in her own room, then seemingly controling the interpretation of what it was.... none of what you describe above was part of a "strategy" for either of them.

Originally Posted by Grinder

Please pray-tell how do we know what and how often the police were asking vis-a- vis men in Meredith's life.

Dempsey describes how all the girls were questioned about that - Knox even once in the early hours awkwardly lied about the men Meredith had had over, as well as Meredith's drug use. Everyone, Knox included, wanted to portray Meredith in the best light. Read Dempsey on this matter... for Dempsey it is clear that the girls (Amanda included) were asked extensively about the men Meredith knew.

Originally Posted by Grinder

By the interrogation night Amanda was much more than just a person with information, she was suspect in all ways except the formal definition used by ILE. They should have given her an attorney and taped the entire - that's why it's not calunnia IMO.

I strongly disagree, in fact there is nothing that suggests that when Ficarra came out at 11 pm on the 5th, that Knox was anything other than someone who probably did hold a key to unlocking this case (literally!) or had a name that even Knox might not know is connected. In my view some unknown subject was the suspect, and the police made a complete rush to judgment in fingering Lumumba based on Amanda's confusions to come. I believe that the second memorandum shows how the police were caught off guard when they induced the imaginings from a foreign student - not the least of which leaving room for either including or excluding Raffaele by writing for Knox, "I cannot remember if Raffaele was involved or not." That one sentence alone shows how tenuous the police's theory was at that particular moment in time, the very moment they were rushing off to arrest Lumumba with little, to no evidence against HIM.

Originally Posted by Grinder

They didn't "know" exactly what had happened but they were sure Amanda was involved.

This sounds like what Barbie Nadeau has presently cycled back to. Nadeau sometimes sounds like a Freind of Amanda.... she is certain Knox "knows something," but Nadeau is not quite sure what. This also sounds suspiciously like the position the cops were in at 11 pm on Nov 5th. like everyone cycling back to the last known point in time when things HADN'T gone off the rails completely.

Originally Posted by Grinder

They reasonably thought it was staged because it looked staged. Could Rudy have entered through the window? Probably but really a reasonable cop would look at the height of the window, the lack of missing items and other aspects (how they saw the glass) and think this doesn't look like a normal way of entry.

Apologies - this part is bollocks. The cops had a shortage of leads, and one of the leads that developed was the one around trailing the keyholders - meaning Filomena and Knox. And this was because the keyholders would be important IF the break-in had been staged. It's an investigative line, no more, no less. It took on alleged "factuality" only when the case got closed - but closed around Knox, Sollecito AND Lumumba, none of whom had the facility to do a break-in themselves.

Once Rudy was on the scene, the staged break-in should have returned to what it began as - only a hypothesis meaning that we should be following key holders...... with Guede on the scene, no need for that invesitgative line - and Knox and Sollecito should have been released.

Because Occam's Razor took a beating as a result - why would ANYONE need to fale a break-in with Rudy there? You then get all these convoluted theories of Guede himself faking it, or Knox and Sollecito violating rule #1 of perps three or four times - ie. DON'T RETURN TO THE CRIME SCENE AND GET THE HELL OUT OF THE COUNTRY. Lessee, who do we know who did that?

Thinks about all the machinations that go into explaining how Knox and Sollecito were supposed to have faked a break-in - Rudy's M.O. - without pissing off Rudy! That dog don't hunt.

Originally Posted by Grinder

No one has said she was the only suspect. Yes, you've made that argument in relationship to her being guilty of calunnia. I disagree. She was a suspect and the police and Mignini have made that clear.

Mignini has done nothing but muddy the water in that vein. His CNN interview is self-contradictory, and is a virtual admission that he himself broke the law at the interrogation. It is proof for me that at the time, he never intended to really prosecute Knox, and Sollecito even less so.

It's once everyone had some sleep and returned to the scenario they'd created - the cops, I mean - that they, then, had a choice. "Lumumba? Really?" Or when Rudy was on the scene, "Knox and Sollecito? Really?" They then chose to use what they had to do what at the time it was not designed for - prosecute Knox and Sollecito.

The reason why I reject a pre-Rudy frame-up by the police, is because they simply would have done it better. The pre-Rudy evidence, memorandums included and tacit admissions from Mignini that he himself broke the law, for me prove that they were making this up as they went along, and that they got caught in their own trap themselves when Knox confusedly placed herself at the scene. It's not just that they did not know how to write up the SMS text message (which was patently misconstrued and the 1st memorandum didn't even get the wording right), it's that the only function (at the time) of those memoradums was to have something to show Lumumba, in the hopes they could entice a false confession out of him.

That's the sum total of it.

[Antony]

Originally Posted by cuki777

"if one side is right then the other is 100% wrong." as far as the charge of murder goes I agree with you as far as INVOLVEMENT goes I disagree.

There was no "involvement". Every credible indicator is that Raff and Amanda were at his flat from around 8pm on Nov 1 until 10am on Nov 2.

Quote:

"pro-innocence is backed up by the evidence" well, it's backed up by what you see as a reasonable interpretation of the evidence. e.g RS' dna on bra clasp; all seem to agree it's there

Err ... nope. Conti and Vecchiotti, when they finally received Stefanoni's data, identified her "method" of reading the DNA as one of selecting whatever peaks suited her desired conclusion, and ignoring the ones that didn't. That's why Carla Vecchiotti said that the judge's and her own DNA could be "found" on the sample.

Quote:

but the possibility/probability of it being there by contamination depends on your view - the defence did not prove contamination.

Err ... come again? In which jurisdiction is it for the defence to prove anything? The prosecution has to prove that contamination was excluded - if they can't do that then their "evidence" is completely compromised. In this case, indeed, the item was exposed to contamination at numerous stages of the process - there is video of the clasp being collected, and the investigators handling it, with dirty gloves, by the very metal hook that supposedly yielded the DNA evidence.

Quote:

"pro-guilt certainty is backed up just by a belief that the police are inherently to be trusted." that's far too simplistic a description of the pro-guilt position as a two minute glance at many of the debating points will show

Unspecified "debating points" don't change the judgement. The antics of the investigators were so grotesque that nothing they said or did could be taken at face value - except by those who are ready to believe it as an article of faith.

[cuki777]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

You have, indeed, identified yourself as a lazy poster.

Your listing of "facts" demonstrates that self-admission in spades.

It's hard to know where to begin - suffice it to say that the police NEVER identified a lead based on the drug use in the cottage - drug use by ALL the girls and ALL the boys, heck, Meredith was watering the weed downstairs while the boys were away!

No one other than the cops is privvy to the leads as they developed, but any "drug connection" was definitely one never followed by the cops - and when they went through Knox's phone beginning at 11 pm on Nov 5th, they obviously were not looking for that connection. I for one doubt at all Knox had a drug dealer in her phone, but the point is, even if there was one, the cops didn't race out and arrest this phantom person, they raced out and arrested Lumumba.

Finally, Rudy Guede specifically said that Knox had nothing to do with the "event" at Meredith's place that night - he said it to a friend while Rudy was still in Germany. The only time he said Knox and Sollecito had anything to do with it was when he was plea bargaining a 30 year sentence down to 16 years.

Rudy's story kept changing. Knox's story only changed once, and then when outside of the presure cooker of interrogation, her story reverted to what she'd always said for the previous 84 hours, "I was with Raffaele, alone at his place." That never wavered in 4 years and NOTHING has been advanced that challenges it.... not DNA, not homeless person's alleged sightings of them. All of that has proven bogus.

So - what is the post about? This was not about drugs, this was not about sex, this was not about Satanic rituals. This second guessing motive some day has to stop. Apart from the fact they didn't do the horrible crime, there actually is not a motive for them to do it. Many have been advanced. All are pure speculation.

Plenty of verbals Bill but you dont actually dispute any of my list

[cuki777]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Odd behaviour - I'm not sure we agree. Knox's behaviour was odd to Italians, and downright disrespectful to some English girls. But it also assumes that there is only one way to mourn - my family mourns with large dollops of black hunour, which I do know is offensive to others.

The point about odd behaviour, it is exactly that - odd. It says as much about the observer as the person doing it. It also contributes nothing to understand the horrible murder.

Confused imaginings - please read up on the Reid Technique of interrogation which some cops are trained in. The trouble with Knox's acount of the interogation is that it descibes the Reid Technique to a 'T', and there's no way she could have known about it beforehand. The reason why the Reid Technique is banned in some jurisdictions when applied to younger people is that it tends to produce 'false confessions' based on a young person's confused imaginings, esp. if they think they're starting off trying to be helpful. Remind you of anyone?

Smacks on the head - I go with Hellmann on the nature of the interrogation. Heck, the five cops left, out of the eight who accused Knox of lying about the smacks, didn't bother to show up in court today to bring their case against Edda and Curt - that's how confident the cops are that their own account will pass scrutiny in a courtroom.

Hi Bill

Help a lazy poster out - I've got Hellman 'significant psychological pressure' - did I miss smacks and beatings? Ta

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by cuki777

Plenty of verbals Bill but you dont actually dispute any of my list

You mean other than the fact that Rudy cleared Knox in his first communication from Germany? You mean other than that the cops at 11 pm on Nov 5 were only looking for men friends of Meredith's on Knox's phone, not drug dealers? You mean other than that Rudy's story changed as a result of a plea bargain? You mean other than that I dusputed your motive (ie. a drug deal gone wrong) along with all the other ever changing motives ever advanced, with NO evidence at all to support them?

I guess you're right. Other than those, I did not dispute any of your points.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by cuki777

Hi Bill

Help a lazy poster out - I've got Hellman 'significant psychological pressure' - did I miss smacks and beatings? Ta

I apologize - I did not quote you in context. The full sentence you had was:

Originally Posted by cuki777

'smacks on the head' 'beat out of AK' I don't think her defence evenagree with you

Her defense DOES agree - and Hellmann does to a point. Hellmann is comfortable with "significant psychological pressure", which he mentions to draw his own conclusion that convicting her on calunnia is not the same as an admission of guilt on the big ticket items.

As for the "smacks and beatings", Even Mignini confessed in court that perhaps she could have been hit by accident, at leastg according to one news account. Also, if today is any indication, none of the 5 remaining cops of the 8 who originally brought suit against Curt and Edda risked coming to court on these very same allegations.

They were "too busy" to save their own professional reputations.

As of today, smacks and beatings begin to look pretty good, and perhaps the orignal defense team remained quiet about it because they, too, did not want to risk calunnia for bringing the subject up.

[Dan O.]

Originally Posted by cuki777

Hi

The only thing we agree on is that RS' attempt was 'half-hearted'

I think you also agreed that calling in the police was a viable alternative to breaking down the door. Once you consider calling in the police you consider that it would be better not to disturbed the evidence before the police arrive.

[Skind]

Originally Posted by Antony

Err ... come again? In which jurisdiction is it for the defence to prove anything? The prosecution has to prove that contamination was excluded - if they can't do that then their "evidence" is completely compromised. In this case, indeed, the item was exposed to contamination at numerous stages of the process - there is video of the clasp being collected, and the investigators handling it, with dirty gloves, by the very metal hook that supposedly yielded the DNA evidence.

More to the point - the poorer the handling of the object, the less likely it is to prove where the contam came from.

It could be prior to retrieval, but we don't know because it went missing for weeks, thus we don't know what could have happened to it.

It could be during retirieval, but we don't know because the police claimed to be using clean gloves when they clearly weren't, so it's conceivable they could have inadvertantly transferred material.

It could be during bagging, as it's conceivable that they could also have reused containers, but we don't know as the police were so incompetant that they were using containers they should have known to avoid.

It could be during processing, as it's conceivable the Stefanoni could have mismanaged the lab, but we won't know and she's unlikely to realise either.

It could be during testing itself, but we won't know as she won't/can't provide the control results or didn't do them, assuming she didn't subvert the process.

In short, in cases of mishandling and misrecording, it's harder to prove the specifics of contam when the chances of contam go up, as the data you'd need to do so is precisely the data that is missing.

I'm reminded of the Barry Bulsara case where it took a long long time to prove contam partly because the police failed to record the presence of firearms officers at the arrest and thus an innocent way for BB to acquire such a tiny piece of firearms residue.

[codyjuneau]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

There needs to be an explanation for the sampling the knife blade in the particular area it was sampled. It cannot be random because then you would have to sample the blade, both sides, by dividing it into a grid on an extremely small scale and conducting thousands (OK maybe only hundred or maybe only several dozen, but still a lot of work when the cops only handed you the thing a few days ago and want to go to press with an announcement basically right now).

So she has to anticipate the question: 'why did you select that particular part of the blade?' and that means inventing some peculiarity which explains her choice.

I have a question. As I understand it, the pseudo Doctor sampled a few spots and got too low readings. And in the one particular spot she ignored the too low readings and allegedly found Meredith's DNA in a sample too small to allow a repeat of the test.

If she really believed she had found the murder weapon I assume she would then systematically test every square cm of the knife. Did she do that?

[Antony]

Originally Posted by cuki777

Plenty of verbals Bill but you dont actually dispute any of my list

I won't go along with Bill calling you a "lazy poster" but to almost all of your list no response is needed other than "so what?" Why do you think someone doubting the Massei verdict is going to be impressed by such meaningless fluff as "AK (allegedly) had a drug dealer's number on her phone"? It's this kind of non-evidence that discredits the whole anti-Knox argument and shows you for what you are.

As for disputing any of your points, there are only 2 worth comment. Bill already pointed out that Guede changed his story from "Knox and Sollecito weren't there" to "they killed Meredith" after it became clear that the Perugia prosecution were determined to blame them instead of him. It doesn't have any credibility.

The other point is that AK and RS (allegedly) said that they couldn't remember anything about the night of the murder because of pot-smoking. I think that's a complete distortion: from what I understand, pot was only one factor that meant they were confused about what time they did what; the main reason for the confusion was police manipulation during their interrogations.

[cuki777]

Originally Posted by Antony

There was no "involvement". Every credible indicator is that Raff and Amanda were at his flat from around 8pm on Nov 1 until 10am on Nov 2.


Err ... nope. Conti and Vecchiotti, when they finally received Stefanoni's data, identified her "method" of reading the DNA as one of selecting whatever peaks suited her desired conclusion, and ignoring the ones that didn't. That's why Carla Vecchiotti said that the judge's and her own DNA could be "found" on the sample.


Err ... come again? In which jurisdiction is it for the defence to prove anything? The prosecution has to prove that contamination was excluded - if they can't do that then their "evidence" is completely compromised. In this case, indeed, the item was exposed to contamination at numerous stages of the process - there is video of the clasp being collected, and the investigators handling it, with dirty gloves, by the very metal hook that supposedly yielded the DNA evidence.


Unspecified "debating points" don't change the judgement. The antics of the investigators were so grotesque that nothing they said or did could be taken at face value - except by those who are ready to believe it as an article of faith.

If I lend a drunken idiot my car and they run someone over I wasn't there but I sure was involved. 'Every credible indicator' I've read both arguments on this and don't agree with your conclusion.

Why work so hard to prove contamination if the DNA is demonstrably not there in the first place?

The pro guilt people base a good deal of their argument on the words and behaviour of AK and RS themselves - nothing to do with having to trust the police.

[Skind]

Originally Posted by cuki777

If I lend a drunken idiot my car and they run someone over I wasn't there but I sure was involved.

In which case, the comparison here would be a drunken idiot taking their own car and running you flatmate over.

Quote:

Why work so hard to prove contamination if the DNA is demonstrably not there in the first place?

Because you need to explain why it looks like it's there but actually isn't. Saying 'it's not there' when the police expert says 'it is there' won't cut it as an arguement.

Quote:

The pro guilt people base a good deal of their argument on the words and behaviour of AK and RS themselves - nothing to do with having to trust the police.

And who do they get their accounts from? A lot of the accounts are from the police, or from post-accusation sources that we know had been speaking to the prosecution (otherwise, there's no way for Mignini et al. to know beforehand what they were going to say in court, as Mignini et al indicated they did).

The 'cartwheels' episode is an excellent case in hand, as is the 'repeated' lying, the 'histrionic' crying when with Giobbi, being told off at the police station, the initial leaking of her prison diaries, her supposed behaviour when questioned, La Mossa, the pizza episode.........the 'bloody' footprints, the DNA, the shoeprints, the leaked 'bloodbath' bathroom pictures....

All of which require trusting the police as to whether the episode even happened, much less were reliably interpreted.

Not to mention the police lying about not going into the room (and thus there being no way for Knox to have gathered the intimate detail that only the murderer would know), only for the police to be shown up in court by two witnesses who were on the scene.

[cuki777]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

You mean other than the fact that Rudy cleared Knox in his first communication from Germany? You mean other than that the cops at 11 pm on Nov 5 were only looking for men friends of Meredith's on Knox's phone, not drug dealers? You mean other than that Rudy's story changed as a result of a plea bargain? You mean other than that I dusputed your motive (ie. a drug deal gone wrong) along with all the other ever changing motives ever advanced, with NO evidence at all to support them?

I guess you're right. Other than those, I did not dispute any of your points.

Ok here's the list again - I produced it, in my usual lazy way (correction to Antony; Bill didnt call me a lazy poster its what I call myself). I produced it in answet to Rose M saying there is no drug connection between these four (Antony says so what to my list which is fair enough as far as what has been proved in court but I'm exploring the truth beyond the court case)

AK had 'drug dealer' on her phone BILL SAYS MAYBE SHE DID BUT SO WHAT
RS' father was angry that he'd broken his word to stop smoking pot NOT DISPUTED BY BILL
HK was a drug dealer NOT DISPUTED BY BILL
RG was a drug dealer NOT DISPUTED BY BILL
AK and RS claimed they had smoked pot enough to wipe out pretty much all memory of the vital hours UP FOR GRABS ANT BLAMES POLICE NOT POT
HK's phone 'pinged' at very near the crime scene cottage on the evening of the murder NOT DISPUTED BY BILL
AK lived at the cottage OBVIOUS
RS visited the cottage OBVIOUS
RG left evidence of himself at the cottage on the night of murder NOT DISPUTED BY BILL
RG accused AK and RS of the murder BILL SAYS HE CHANGED HIS TUNE - TRUE BUT I'M JUST STATING STUFF NOT SAYING WHETHER RG IS RIGHT OR WRONG - IT STILL CONNECTS THEM
HK told police he saw all three at the cottage on eve of murder NOT DISPUTED BY BILL
AK had met RG once or twice NOT DISPUTED BY BILL

it feels like debating with a politician who is determined to make their points whatever you actually present them with

[Katody Matrass]

Hi cuki777,

I've read your list but I'm not seeing what exactly it is you're trying to prove or support with it. It's all misty and vague.
Can you be more specific? Put forth a hypothesis, say what you're basing it on, then we can have (hopefully) a fact based discussion.

[cuki777]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

I think you also agreed that calling in the police was a viable alternative to breaking down the door. Once you consider calling in the police you consider that it would be better not to disturbed the evidence before the police arrive.

Hi thanks for reply - I meant calling the police as part of the 'we must get this door open now' event. I think the police were called significantly later and not part of this event

[Katody Matrass]

Originally Posted by cuki777

STRANGE BEHAVIOUR #1

Once you get to a state of mind that you need to break down a door, you persevere until that door is broken down.

I think you see things as strange simply because your assumption is false here. How can you know that was the state of mind in play?

The actions are self explanatory and suggest rather a "let's try if we can force the door without damaging it" state of mind.

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by cuki777

so I'll give you 'no drug connection established in court of law' but the truth is generally something else again and I don't think it has come out in this case yet. It would be very good for Meredith's family if it did.

Many thanks for confirming there is no "drug connection" between AK RS and those two.

The truth is that Meredith's family has vigorously supported a corrupt prosecution and railroad job of two innocent people for over 4 years. Sad, really.

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

There needs to be an explanation for the sampling the knife blade in the particular area it was sampled. It cannot be random because then you would have to sample the blade, both sides, by dividing it into a grid on an extremely small scale and conducting thousands (OK maybe only hundred or maybe only several dozen, but still a lot of work when the cops only handed you the thing a few days ago and want to go to press with an announcement basically right now).

So she has to anticipate the question: 'why did you select that particular part of the blade?' and that means inventing some peculiarity which explains her choice.

Her questioning on this in court is rather interesting as well. She admits not using a microscope to see it, says they tried to photograph it and it could not be seen because of the reflection of the light, agreed that the defense expert would not be able to see it from close range without intense light and at a certain angle. C&V did find some rather obvious scratches however and had no problem getting photo's. Which leads me to question when exactly those scratches occurred.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by codyjuneau

I have a question. As I understand it, the pseudo Doctor sampled a few spots and got too low readings. And in the one particular spot she ignored the too low readings and allegedly found Meredith's DNA in a sample too small to allow a repeat of the test.

If she really believed she had found the murder weapon I assume she would then systematically test every square cm of the knife. Did she do that?

That's an extremely interesting point, which hadn't occurred to me. Of course a normal forensic scientist would have tried to find more material that would give a more clear cut result, if she really thought she had found the murder weapon.

I was listening to an interview of the lead forensic scientist in the re-examination of the evidence in the Stephen Lawrence murder. She said they found something significant on a particular jacket, and took the decision to examine every square inch of the garment under the microscope, a very time-consuming exercise. That was how they found the microscopic traces of blood that had dried around the fibres of the jacket, showing it had been on the jacket when it was fresh.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I just want to know how it's possible for this murder to have unfolded in such a way that Knox and Sollecito were involved, leaving Meredith with her entire pizza meal still in her stomach and none of it in her duodenum.

Rolfe.

[Antony]

Originally Posted by cuki777

If I lend a drunken idiot my car and they run someone over I wasn't there but I sure was involved. 'Every credible indicator' I've read both arguments on this and don't agree with your conclusion.

"I don't agree" is no argument. If your reasons for for disagreeing are your earlier list of points, then I think that's pretty lame. There is nothing that Amanda and Raff did that is in any way analogous to lending a car to a drunk.

Quote:

Why work so hard to prove contamination if the DNA is demonstrably not there in the first place?

Again, there is no obligation on the supporters of innocence to "prove" contamination - especially (as Skind points out above) since nobody can say what happened to the bra-clasp between the time of the crime and testing, because the evidence handling failed all the norms of probity.

The point is that the bra-clasp was exposed to contamination at multiple points in the process and the testing of it was faulty. There is nothing that can be concluded at all about the meaning of this piece of "evidence".

Quote:

The pro guilt people base a good deal of their argument on the words and behaviour of AK and RS themselves - nothing to do with having to trust the police.

This misses the point that the alleged words and behaviour that you refer to, were either attributed to AK and RS in the police account of the interrogation, or were the result of manipulation by the police. There is nothing that Amanda or Raff said or did, independently reported, that implicates them in any way whatsoever.

Instead of endlessly raking over Amanda and Raff's alleged "strange behaviour", why don't you start looking at the known misconduct of the police and prosecution, which ranges from simple incompetence, through falsification of evidence to outright intimidation of the defendants, their supporters, and even court-appointed scientists?

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by cuki777

If I lend a drunken idiot my car and they run someone over I wasn't there but I sure was involved. 'Every credible indicator' I've read both arguments on this and don't agree with your conclusion.

Apologies if I am overreacting, but this is beginning to feel like one of those whack-a-mole conversations which plague this debate. I am not sure what this refers to or what the point being made is. Please enlarge on the point, becuase I am missing something and going back over the thread is not revealing anything. I am not sure what comparison you are making....

Originally Posted by cuki777

Why work so hard to prove contamination if the DNA is demonstrably not there in the first place?

First of all, any overachievers on this board who are doing this are doing it for their own interest only. I have read about half-a-dozen cases where DNA plays a role and really do not understand the subject. So even as I am not one who has participated in this "proving contamination" thread, it is of interest to me because now I understand tons more about what groups like the Innocence Project are saying when they claim contamination.

Then again, point repeated, it really is not up to the defense or anyone supporting Knox and Sollecito to prove contamination. It is up to the prosecution and those who still vilify them unjustly to prove that contamination did not happen. It is the reason why protocols are in place - collection protocols and analytic protocols. One film of the collection laughable as to its depiction of how hamhanded the collectors were. It shows a virtual "How to", when you're purposely trying to contaminate samples. And whereas I am in no position to judge, really, the continuing conversation by experts which show how the analytical/interpretive side of the DNA process was fumbled IS interesting - unless I am reading it wrong, people who know of what they speak say that the police analysts are either incompetent or they actually forged the forensic record.

So their "overachievement" may be for some other purpose than paranoia that Knox and Sollecito might actually be guilty. It is exactly the opposite. It is that they are perhaps building a case that the forensic people surrounding the Perugia ILE should be charged with a crime. You may have missed that point.

Originally Posted by cuki777

The pro guilt people base a good deal of their argument on the words and behaviour of AK and RS themselves - nothing to do with having to trust the police.

Exactly - in other words they have nothing of substance except for the playground-bully instinct to pick on someone odd.

When I first delved into this case, I was mainly looking at the TJMK site. I actually bought the claim that one of the odd things Knox was supposedly not to have done was cry - one poster claimed that the first time Knox actually cried was when she was caught up in the `naming Lumumba`interrogation on the wee hours of the 6th.

Then I read other guilter reports about how Knox had indeed cried - once when taken back to the cottage and shown knives, knives in her former kitchen drawer. In fact she almost passed out. True to form, this particular guilter saw that as a sign of her guilt. The better explanation is that she was face to face with the horrible death of a friend and the police were asking her to identify something that could have been the means of the grisly and unspeakable crime.

Too many people against Knox want to have it both ways. When she doesn`t cry, she`s cold and callous. When she does cry she`s manipulative.

Yup, sounds like typical school-yard bullying to me. Add to this that three cultures are involved, Italian, English, and American, and the subject of appropriate behaviours for dealing with death come to the fore - all three cultures seem odd to the other two in the way its handled.

Unless you`re still one claiming that doing yoga in a police station is a sure sign of guilt. This "odd behaviour" stuff is indicative of nothing other than an urge to persecute someone for being different. Happens on the internet and on school playgrounds all the time.