Page 66 of 536 FirstFirst ... 165662636465666768697076116166 ... LastLast
Results 976 to 990 of 8026

Thread: Amanda Knox gets 26 Years

  1. #976

    Default

    Whadaya mean him?

  2. #977

    Default

    My apologies to Ms. Chimp? I am sure he/she is a fine upstanding Chimp either way.

  3. #978

    Default

    Not him. Me.

    If the wife reads this, we'll have to open another murder thread.

  4. #979

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fabrizio View Post
    I got point 1, but point 2? The Massei report says (among other things): "...traces that test positive for human blood and attributed to Meredith and Amanda." (post 961)

    Plus Vogt, Nadeau, Wise reporting from the courtroom. Plus Drew Griffin who just interviewed Mignini.

    Inconsistent? Idiotic? fine. But I can only gather from all of that, that the report does say mixed blood.
    This is all semantics, and I don't blame you Fabrizio for being taken in by this language trick that Massei has employed.

    What Massei is saying is that there are biological "traces" and (i) theses traces test positive for human blood, and (ii) by DNA analysis these traces can be attributed to Meredith and Amanda.

    The usage of the term "mixed blood" by Mignini and Massei and some of those writers you mention is unfortunate and very prejudicial to the defendants, because it suggests that we have findings of Amanda + Meredith blood lying around. That sounds bad (although makes no sense given the fact that Amanda had no bleeding wound). It would be much more accurate to say that we have Meredith's blood with an admixture of Amanda's DNA, but that's not very sexy given the fact that that's exactly what we would expect to find if Meredith's blood were deposited in the bathroom that Amanda used.

    Mignini's interview on CNN suggests to me that this misleading "mixed blood" thing is his fallback argument if all of the evidence now being considered by Hellmann falls apart. That tells me that Mignini is realizing that he has serious issues. In the end, I don't think that mixed blood will be a big deal, because I think that Hellmann will easily see right through this issue, if he ever needs to get to it.

  5. #980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dougm View Post
    Well, the photos would have been taken when she was arrested, which would have been 5 days after the murder.

    Here is one on the day after the murder: http://truejustice.org/ee/images/per...page5/5004.pdf
    Yes, ttrroonic on PMF (in the link I posted) said that it was most probably taken on the 6th of November.

    It's healed but still visible. Doesn't really look like a hickey to me as AK herself claimed on stand. I see an elongated red scratch and two small red spots on either side of it. As if she had herself been pricked with a knife tip. I have no idea if this scratch would have bled. Probably not. Nosebleed or an earring ripped off could maybe explain her blood on the crime scene. Or a small wound in her hands. Hand wounds always bleed profusely.

    I was reading Will Savive's book today and he claims that the police didn't know about the scratch as they were interested to hear from Stefano Bonnassi in September 2008 that Laura had seen this scratch and mentioned it to him. That's a weird statement considering that the police had taken that photo of her neck. Can't locate the page number now as the book doesn't have an index. BTW this book is riddled with small errors, just noticed today that the writer has mixed up AK's and RS's toes as he claims that Knox's second toe was longer than the big toe and didnít fit some crime scene print.

  6. #981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dougm View Post
    The point is not if Massei says it is mixed blood, or if Nadaeu or Vogt or whoever say it is. The point is that, given that it was mixed, it is not possible to tell.
    AFAIK the DNA peaks of Amanda Knox are higher than Meredithís in some of the samples and that tells to both Stefanoni and Garofano who independently of each other assessed the electropherograms that itís Amanda Knoxís blood DNA and not from skin, saliva etc.

    Btw, dougm, Garofano was not Stefanoniís boss as you claimed yesterday. He was carabinieri while Stefanoni was connected with the other group of police that happened to be on the scene first due to the recovery of the mobile phones. And Garofano is not the writer of Darkness Descending. He was only commissioned to evaluate the evidence for the two other writers so his name is included on the book cover.

    It doesn't matter if Massei says it is, because there are multiple conclusions that Massei makes that are not based on what the experts said, or are based on the prosecution expert, but were disagreed with by both defense experts and some others that did not testify in the case. Just saying that Massei says it, or Nadaeu says it -- I can give you others who disagree who have more background in DNA analysis than any of them.
    They disagree about the interpretations of the electropherograms concerning the loo evidence? So what are they saying about it then? That she lived there and no worries, there are tonnes of her DNA all over the place because of that? The defence expertsí job is to disagree with the prosecution experts, so on that basis alone I tend to find them unreliable. I suppose thatís why the judge had his own experts as well. And they agreed with prosecution experts about the DNA evidence.

    But I agree with you about the judgesí report: it can, of course, contain erroneous conclusions. Though I think that professional judges are more prone to get it right than, for example, American juries that consist of only lay judges with no knowledge of law. I think this is shown by the enormous numbers of wrongful convictions you have in the US and the need to have innocence projects to free those wrongfully connected.

    It was clearly Meredith's blood, because they found her blood both with and without Knox's DNA. And that blood was collected by wiping the sink, bidet, other bathroom surfaces with long strokes, wiping everything together. Check out this video of the evidence collection in the bathroom: http://truejustice.org/ee/images/per...page5/5004.pdf

    Particularly notice at 3:26 and 3:34 on the video, where the police investigator takes the pad they are using to collect the blood samples, wipes one surface, then moves it to another surface and wipes the same pad over a different area. It is obvious that by collecting the evidence in this way, any DNA that was in the bathroom sink, toliet, bidet, etc. before, during, or after the crime would be mixed with the blood of the victim they are collecting. There is no dispute that Knox washed up, brushed her teeth, and every other thing that people use their bathroom for, every day. She did it the morning after the killing.
    Yes, you seem to have a point there. Iíve wondered about some of the DNA wiping methods. Also Garofano had some concerns. But he also found that most of it was done properly.

    But now that you pointed out that Knox showered there, or says she did, on the morning of the 2nd Nov, I realise one thing that Iíve always wondered: the reason why she had to go to the house in the morning after the murder. As you probably realise, I consider her involvement in the crime proven, so it has puzzled me why didnít they just stick to Gubbio and so far away from the crime scene as possible. I believe she went there to be able to say in case her DNA was found that of course, she lived there and had just showered, brushed her teeth, and so on, of course her DNA would be there.

    So finding her DNA in the bathroom does not prove anything related to the murder. Even if it is blood, there is no way to know when it was put there, and there are lots of logical explanations of why Knox's DNA would be there.
    The forensic experts disagree with you. Both Stefanoni and Garofano (and judge appointed experts too) think her involvement is proven. I donít always like PMF, the Amanda Knox hatesite aspect of it puts me often off it, but itís a good source of information like TJMK, and there are some posters whose opinions I value. Greggy is one of them and he had this to say about the toilet and other blood spot DNA evidence in response to Machineís question:

    ĒAs you requested, my scientific opinions on the comments you posted from Luciano Garofano's work:

    Since we are talking about women, yes, I would agree blood is the best source of DNA but I don't know how one can tell the difference between fresh dried blood DNA and not-so-fresh dried blood DNA as he states. Maybe he is talking about looking for oxidized nucleotides? Misses Kercher and Knox only lived together for a short amount of time. Without DNAases, bleach, UV exposure, or some other denaturant present, the DNA in both samples should be intact and fine for PCR analysis even if there were deposited the day each started living together or the night of the murder. I think the key points you have to consider about the putative mixed blood DNA samples involve biostatistics and amount. If you found one instance of trace amounts of mixed DNA, it is possible that this result was a coincidence since they were roommates. In this murder case, however, there were multiple examples of mixed blood DNA, and the amounts of mixed DNA found are well above the amount usually seen in "contaminated" samples. An elegant control would have been to have included DNA probe analysis that would identify Miss Kercher's other two roommates alongside Miss Knox's DNA probe analysis. There is every bit of a statistical chance that the samples would be positive for all three roommate DNAs if the results were all pure chance. Those negative controls would have shut the Defense DNA experts up for good.

    I suggest that the multiple samples of mixed blood DNA belonging to Misses Kercher and Knox are some of the strongest pieces of evidence in this case. It implies that an altercation occurred between the two that progressed throughout the apartment given the multiple locations of mixed blood DNA samples. I am surprised that Miss Knox did not have more wounds on her the next day. This case would have been quickly solved if she had. Concerning the observation that only 10 peaks belonging to Miss Knox was found out of 16, that result is far more than enough for a statistical match. It sounds like RS and her were very busy during the clean-up of the crime scene, with Miss Knox's lamp being found at the clean-up scene an especially damming piece of evidence. Now if you told me there were DNA peaks found that didn't belong to Miss Knox, then I would have an issue with the evidence.

    The DNA evidence clearly establishes Miss Knox's guilt in the murder. I will overlook Dr. Stef's lab for not being ISO-certified because it appears that, except for the double DNA knife evidence, that her lab group closely followed the instructions of the ABI 16-plex PCR assay kit, which has been validated and widely used by forensic scientists across the planet. In my opinion, she should have saved the double DNA knife evidence for an exciting poster abstract at a conference and a research paper. But that is just an opinion, the Italian Scientific Experts may accept the evidence fully, which is fine with me, too. Scientists like to disagree on interpretations and hone their wits and reasoning. It's nothing personal, just a glass bead game.Ē

    About the knife Greggy said this earlier, and I suppose I have to agree with him then because heís a scientist and Iím not:

    Ē The 40-day extension is telling in its length. I suggest that they are bringing in more experts to look at the results and the protocols used.
    As a fellow scientist, I suggest that they are having the same issues with their interpretations of the double-DNA knife evidence as I have had.


    From the perspective of PCR probe peak results, Miss Kercher's DNA is clearly on the knife.
    From the perspective of how the results were obtained, the PCR methodology used was unvalidated and the traces of Miss Kercher's DNA are so tiny, it is more in the range of contamination than a solid result. Moreover, Dr. Stef used a modified version of the controversial Low Copy Number PCR protocol, which makes her results doubly controversial, and validation studies for the LCN protocol may not apply to the modified LCN protocol that she used.


    I suggest that the scientific team will ultimately issue an equivocal answer about the knife DNA evidence. Experienced scientists tend to play it safe.
    Something like: "The DNA results clearly show Miss Kercher's DNA on the knife that also contains Miss Knox's DNA, but the method used to detect Miss Kercher's DNA needs more study and confirmation before it should be used in court although the Kercher DNA results may be perfectly valid and correct."


    Essentially, a bone for both the Prosecution and Defense Teams, for a piece of evidence that was a dog from the start.Ē


    There seems to be a disconnect in this argument. To say that Massei says XYZ in response to people who's basic line of argument is that Massei is wrong is not a logical response. The point of the disagreement is that the court made incorrect conclusions. I can see why it is valid to quote Massei to try to confirm what evidence was presented in court, but to say as counter to an argument that the verdict was wrong that the court said X -- not a logical counter.

    I realize that what you are trying to prove above is that the statements in Italian mean "mixed blood", but ultimately, who cares what they mean? The point is weather it can be proven to be mixed blood, and even if it is, what relevence does it have to proving guilt? For it to be relevent, the court would have to have a logical narrative about how they know the DNA/blood of Knox was deposited at the same time as the victim's blood (they don't), and a logical narrative about why Knox was bleeding at the time of the murder (they don't).


    Yes they do. There was some kind of fight. Knox hurt herself in the fight or when staging the break in. Knox dated the blood evidence herself when testifying on stand that there was no blood in the bathroom the previous day.

  7. #982

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UnionCityBlue View Post
    It's healed but still visible.
    Healed from what, a puncture wound?

    Calling it a scratch is sort of a halfway term for what it has to be to bleed - an open wound. Technically, a scratch is an open wound.

    You get blood from incisions, lacerations, penetration wounds. The skin is opened, and develops a scab in the healing process. It doesn't heal in 5 days.

    Doesn't really look like a hickey to me as AK herself claimed on stand.
    Doesn't matter if it wasn't a hickey. Damage under the skin could be a hematoma, contusion. It doesn't bleed. A hickey is just one type.

    This photo can't be corroborating evidence.

  8. #983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UnionCityBlue View Post
    There was some kind of fight. Knox hurt herself in the fight or when staging the break in. Knox dated the blood evidence herself when testifying on stand that there was no blood in the bathroom the previous day.
    Same problem as above. What does "hurt herself" mean? Did she cut her hand while breaking the window glass? If so, where's the wound?

  9. #984
    Forum Veteran MidtownGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    East Midtown
    Posts
    6,832

    Default

    The defence expertsí job is to disagree with the prosecution experts, so on that basis alone I tend to find them unreliable.
    what?

    lol. does that work in reverse too?
    Last edited by MidtownGuy; May 14th, 2011 at 06:32 PM.

  10. #985

    Default

    Moderator note:

    For no apparent reason, the forum antispam software filtered out 2 UnionCityBlue posts, 980 and 981. Such a post remains unviewable to members until a moderator either deletes it or approves it.

    These posts are always visible to moderators, so I quoted and responded to them before I noticed the "moderated post" icon.

    The two posts have been restored.

  11. #986

    Default

    Who is "Greggy?" If he's a scientist, can we have his real full name, and some credentials?

    Or is he a User Name on a blog?

    "According to our legal expert, Dr ZippyTheChimp of Harvard Law School."

  12. #987
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    A google search for greggy + "Amanda Knox" yields 5,000 results.

    He's described as "a guilt believing person" and "anonymous DNA expert"

  13. #988

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UnionCityBlue View Post
    (responding to my post that there is no connection to the murder specifically from Knox's DNA being mixed with Kercher's blood).



    Yes they do. There was some kind of fight. Knox hurt herself in the fight or when staging the break in. Knox dated the blood evidence herself when testifying on stand that there was no blood in the bathroom the previous day.
    I was OK with your post, if only because you took a reasonable tone, until we hit this part. How does it follow that Knox dated the DNA by saying there was no blood the previous day? 1) The single blood stain found that was Knox's, that was not mixed, could have easily been not seen by her the previous day, since it was small -- it could have been there for a week, for all we, or she knows. 2) The bathroom was not cleansed of all Knox DNA the day before -- some of it, as one of your quotes you posted states, could have been deposited the day Knox moved in, for all science can prove on it.

    And the idea that Knox came back to the cottage instead of going to Gubbio because she had to come up with a story to explain why her DNA was there makes no sense to me at all. If I killed someone in my own home, and was trying to get away with it, AND was planning to go on a drive out of town with my significant other, why in the world would I come back to the scene? That is completely illogical.

  14. #989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    Who is "Greggy?" If he's a scientist, can we have his real full name, and some credentials?

    Or is he a User Name on a blog?

    "According to our legal expert, Dr ZippyTheChimp of Harvard Law School."
    It's a user name on a blog and pro-guilt forum, where the users go on for days criticizing people who support Knox's innocence for posting under user names that are not their actual name.

  15. #990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UnionCityBlue View Post
    I was reading Will Savive's book today and he claims that the police didn't know about the scratch as they were interested to hear from Stefano Bonnassi in September 2008 that Laura had seen this scratch and mentioned it to him. That's a weird statement considering that the police had taken that photo of her neck. Can't locate the page number now as the book doesn't have an index. BTW this book is riddled with small errors, just noticed today that the writer has mixed up AK's and RS's toes as he claims that Knox's second toe was longer than the big toe and didn’t fit some crime scene print.
    Yes, a bit of a mystery to me why this book is the new celebrated source from the pro-guilt faction. A mistake ridden book from a person with dubious credientials is not where I would put my stake in the ground, but there is a lot of that going around with this case.

Similar Threads

  1. London's Congestion Charge Two Years On
    By ablarc in forum News and Politics
    Replies: 192
    Last Post: October 2nd, 2008, 11:43 AM
  2. New Years Eve in Time Square
    By clasione in forum Social Club
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: January 3rd, 2005, 07:18 PM
  3. Airtrain Newark, two years and still growing
    By STT757 in forum New York Metro
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 27th, 2003, 11:17 PM
  4. Almost 2 years later, the events of 9.11.01 still hurt
    By Qtrainat1251 in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 10th, 2003, 11:34 PM
  5. Where to live? - Possibly moving to NYC in a few years...
    By Jonny in forum Moving to New York
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: May 21st, 2003, 12:48 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software