Amanda Knox, Innocent or Guilty?

Is Amanda Knox...

Guilty?
4
20%
Guilty?
4
20%
Innocent?
6
30%
Innocent?
6
30%
 
Total votes: 20
User avatar
Manon Seid
Posts: 224
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 2:44 pm
SL Name: Manon Seid
Role: Mostly gone building mesh
Home Stone: Isle of Sin

Re: Amanda Knox, Innocent or Guilty?

Postby Manon Seid » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:39 am

MSc Biology

Leah is right - to get an accurate outcome you need multiple tests. Sample size can easily be too small or too contaminated to get a definitive answer.

Made a DNA test on a blood sample from a mouse once... Its DNA turned out to be human with a striking resemblance to mine. :shifty:

No clue who Amanda Knox is and not really adequately interested to go research - if shes convicted i'd go with the guilty option and hope judge and jury was professional enough to do the job for me. I know i am not able to judge based on what i read on the internet anyway.
A Demon Sin - Thanks for the gift Judas
User avatar
Glaucon
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 am

Re: Amanda Knox, Innocent or Guilty?

Postby Glaucon » Thu Feb 06, 2014 5:17 am

@ Leah: I am not saying that what you claim is nonsense, and I won't claim to be an expert, but... while it might be true that you need a sample of a certain size to reliably check for DNA, I'd think that that 'reliability' would be about the chances of finding it, and finding a match. So, the smaller the sample, the greater the chance you won't. You won't become MORE likely to find and be able to analyze the DNA in sufficient detail to get a match, if the sample is small. So, if they were lucky enough to find a match of a certain probability (high) even with a sample so small that find that match became less certain, that doesn't detract from the value of that evidence, I'd say.

The ability to retest seems like a more serious problem, to me. I believe that there was one bit of evidence on which they found DNA, the first time, but which another lab could not find anything on, when they tested it again. (Not sure which). That might have been due to the small size, with everything that was there already used up for the first round of tests.

The paper bag thing... I can't judge how bad that is. But again... while it may not be good for the evidence (or not after a while, apparently), it would only work AGAINST the prosecution, right? By, potentially, making the DNA evidence harder to find because the DNA material had deteriorated? How does that really lessen the weight of the DNA evidence, if the 'violation of protocol' wasn't enough to destroy the DNA, in spite of them being 'shoddy' about it?

The only thing that I saw from these complaints about shoddy investigative work that might lead to a false implication of guilt was the fact that the people collecting evidence at the scene often didn't change gloves as often as they were supposed to. So, in theory, there was the risk of one investigator touching something with a trace of DNA from Knox, Sollecito or Guede and then picking up some other bit of evidence and smearing the DNA from the first thing onto the object they picked up.

But then again, these investigators had, I believe, not been in contact with Knox and Sollecito, prior to their investigation, and they were collecting evidence in the room with the murdered girl, not in the room of Knox. So, where and how would any DNA from Sollecito get on their fingers, if Sollecito wasn't there?

I am no expert, and I am willing to admit that there may be reasonable doubts about the validity of the DNA evidence. But, like I have said before, we didn't always have all this CSI stuff. Before DNA evidence was used in criminal courts, people still got convicted. And the other evidence seems like it would have been more than sufficient to prove that the pair was involved. We have one of them that lived there confessing she was at the scene during the crime, initially, later denying it, coming up with an alibi that turned out to be false, not able to explain her whereabouts and demonstratively telling lies, calling her mother out of the blue in the middle of the night (not having called her once in the months prior), falsely accusing someone else, sinc-switching off her phone with one of the other suspects and switching it on at the same time as well (something she never did), being seen in places where she could not have been according to her own story, changing her story several times. We have another doing something similar, coming up with a false alibi, not supporting her alibi initially. We have very clear evidence of a staged break-in through the window and no sign of a break-in through the other possible entrances. We have an object from the (supposedly locked) room of one of the suspects showing up in the room of the murder (the lamp). And we have Knox accusing Patrick Lumumba when she was first interviewed. As a witness, not as a suspect (the Italian police brought Lumumba in as their first suspect based on the accusations by Knox, so, clearly, they believed her and she could not have felt 'pressured' to make false statements at the time - unless there was something she desperately wanted to hide).

We have means (two knifes) and opportunity (Amanda lived there, could have let the others in, and given the time left unaccounted for, because of the false alibi's, opportunity for the crime and the attempt to stage a break-in). Do we have a motive?

Knox and Kercher had had a row over cleaning, recently, one witness claimed. Apparently, Knox was supposed to clean the bathroom, but kept skipping her turn, and Kercher nagged at her. They also had a row about the various boys Knox brought to the apartment. The day of the muder, Knox had been fired from her job at the bar she worked as (by the same man she went on accusing of the murder) because she was hitting on boys and flirting too much, who, apparently, was considering hiring Kercher for the job. And, possibly, another row about the rent for the apartment.

A great motive, that? Reason enough to kill someone? Hardly, for a sane person. For teaching them a lesson, perhaps? Maybe. For not intervening when the guy (Guede) your boyfriend (Sollecito) called over to buy pot of gets aggressive with her, after she starts making a scene over all these strangers and drifters in the apartment, the drugs, the rent or whatever, threatens to call the cops or whatever? Sounds more likely.

I have no idea what happened, exactly, in that apartment, that night, but I think complicity in the murder is proven, even without considering the DNA evidence. She was involved.

@ Manon: You are right. None of us is in a great position to judge. But there has been A LOT written about this case. She was found guilty by those positioned to have the most fair and informed perspective. And from what I have read, there is no reason to think they were wrong to do so.
Last edited by Glaucon on Thu Feb 06, 2014 5:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Leah
Posts: 1043
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 3:14 pm
SL Name: Liara Edring
Role: Rebel
Owner: My Internet Connection
AkA: Lailah, Lia, Liara
Location: Somewhere in Eorzea
Contact:

Re: Amanda Knox, Innocent or Guilty?

Postby Leah » Thu Feb 06, 2014 5:18 am

Manon Seid wrote:MSc Biology

Leah is right - to get an accurate outcome you need multiple tests. Sample size can easily be too small or too contaminated to get a definitive answer.

Made a DNA test on a blood sample from a mouse once... Its DNA turned out to be human with a striking resemblance to mine. :shifty:


This has totally never happened to me. Ever. :eh2:
This isn't fucking Survivor. We aren't a tribe.

If I won't put up with an in-character owner trying to control my OOC life, what makes you think I'll put up with you trying to do that?

My Store: https://marketplace.secondlife.com/stores/165499
User avatar
Leah
Posts: 1043
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 3:14 pm
SL Name: Liara Edring
Role: Rebel
Owner: My Internet Connection
AkA: Lailah, Lia, Liara
Location: Somewhere in Eorzea
Contact:

Re: Amanda Knox, Innocent or Guilty?

Postby Leah » Thu Feb 06, 2014 5:30 am

Glaucon wrote:@ Leah: I am not saying that what you claim is nonsense, and I won't claim to be an expert, but... while it might be true that you need a sample of a certain size to reliably check for DNA, I'd think that that 'reliability' would be about the chances of finding it, and finding a match. So, the smaller the sample, the greater the chance you won't. You won't become MORE likely to find and be able to analyze the DNA in sufficient detail to get a match, if the sample is small. So, if they were lucky enough to find a match of a certain probability (high) even with a sample so small that find that match became less certain, that doesn't detract from the value of that evidence, I'd say.


Then you don't really understand how DNA works in a legal setting. If there's any question as to the reliability of the match, it would essentially be thrown out in the states. The more "broad-spectrum" the match is (i.e. if they can't narrow it down to the person with a very strong degree of certainty, i.e. 1 in several million chance it's not them), the less believable the data is.

The ability to retest seems like a more serious problem, to me. I believe that there was one bit of evidence on which they found DNA, the first time, but which another lab could not find anything on, when they tested it again. (Not sure which). That might have been due to the small size, with everything that was there already used up for the first round of tests.


Um, I'm not 100% sure what the chain is on the knife in question, but the first lab got a result they themselves said was unreliable, and the second labs results were argued to be unreliable because of the...storage...of the item? But I think the bigger question of the knife was actually related to the fact that they couldn't match the knife to the wounds, but insisted that it had to be the murder weapon (though it also wasn't found in the house and none of the victim's DNA was ever found on it by any lab).

The paper bag thing... I can't judge how bad that is. But again... while it may not be good for the evidence (or not after a while, apparently), it would only work AGAINST the prosecution, right? By, potentially, making the DNA evidence harder to find because the DNA material had deteriorated? How does that really lessen the weight of the DNA evidence, if the 'violation of protocol' wasn't enough to destroy the DNA, in spite of them being 'shoddy' about it?


Because if they weren't following the right protocol with the forensic evidence in one situation, there's every reason to believe that they weren't following the proper protocol in other aspects of processing and storing it. This is why the chain of evidence is so important, and in the US if evidence is mishandled it's normally thrown out (or becomes the basis for successful appeals). There's no way to tell what other things may have contaminated the evidence, and if they were so shoddy with how they stored it, there's no reason to believe they also restricted access properly, etc. It's basically, "Well, if you didn't care enough to properly take care of this stuff in this situation, why should we believe you did your jobs in the other parts of the care, processing, and storage?"

The only thing that I saw from these complaints about shoddy investigative work was the fact that the people collecting evidence at the scene often didn't change gloves as often as they were supposed to. So, in theory, there was the risk of one investigator touching something with a trace of DNA from Knox, Sollecito or Guede and then picking up some other bit of evidence and smearing the DNA from the first thing onto the object they picked up.


That's not just a fear, that's actually quite likely.

But then again, these investigators had, I believe, not been in contact with Knox and Sollecito, prior to their investigation, and they were collecting evidence in the room with the murdered girl, not in the room of Knox. So, where and how would any DNA from Sollecito get on their fingers, if Sollecito wasn't there?


Knox and Sollecito were romantically involved, and she lived in a house with Kercher. There's plenty of reason to believe that she might have been in Kercher's room, and that Sollecito, by being in the house, may have had trace DNA tracked into the room. As for how it got onto the bra strap, the problem is, that bra was sitting on the floor in the unsecured house for a month from what I read. It wouldn't be admissible in court in the US, if that is the case. And from what I understand, that's the only piece of DNA from either Knox or Sollecito that was found at all in the room. The Guede (sp?) guy that was convicted first (and who happens to be a serial rapist, btw, who had no known connection to either Knox or Sollecito) had his DNA all over the room. There was even a bloody handprint on Kercher's bed that matched his hand. Yet somehow his DNA is there and Knox's isn't? o_O And Sollecito's only shows up on a bra that was left exposed and unprotected for a month? o_O

I am no expert, and I am willing to admit that there may be reasonable doubts about the validity of the DNA evidence. But, like I have said before, we didn't always have all this CSI stuff. Before DNA evidence was used in criminal courts, people still got convicted.


And a lot of them were innocent, as was later proven through DNA testing.

And the other evidence seems like it would have been more than sufficient to prove that the pair was involved. We have one of them that lived there confessing she was at the scene during the crime, initially, later denying it, coming up with an alibi that turned out to be false, not able to explain her whereabouts and demonstratively telling lies, calling her mother out of the blue in the middle of the night (not having called her once in the months prior), falsely accusing someone else, sinc-switching off her phone with one of the other suspects and switching it on at the same time as well (something she never did), being seen in places where she could not have been according to her own story, changing her story several times. We have another doing something similar, coming up with a false alibi, not supporting her alibi initially. We have very clear evidence of a staged break-in through the window and no sign of a break-in through the other possible entrances. We have an object from the (supposedly locked) room of one of the suspects showing up in the room of the murder (the lamp). And we have Knox accusing Patrick Lumumba when she was first interviewed. As a witness, not as a suspect (the Italian police brought Lumumba in as their first suspect based on the accusations by Knox, so, clearly, they believed her and she could not have felt 'pressured' to make false statements at the time - unless there was something she desperately wanted to hide).


From everything I've read, all of Knox's statements were taking after 16+ hours of interviews with police where she was not allowed to sleep, eat, or contact an attorney (or the consulate, from what I understand). She claims that more than once she was struck by an officer when she didn't give a response they wanted. There's a huge body of evidence that shows that when under pressure like that, people will make up stories to please the people in control of them, especially if they are sleep-deprived and hungry.

We have means (two knifes) and opportunity (Amanda lived there, could have let the others in, and given the time left unaccounted for, because of the false alibi's, opportunity for the crime and the attempt to stage a break-in). Do we have a motive?

Knox and Kercher had had a row over cleaning, recently, one witness claimed. Apparently, Knox was supposed to clean the bathroom, but kept skipping her turn, and Kercher nagged at her. They also had a row about the various boys Knox brought to the apartment. The day of the muder, Knox had been fired from her job at the bar she worked as (by the same man she went on accusing of the murder) because she was hitting on boys and flirting too much, who, apparently, was considering hiring Kercher for the job. And, possibly, another row about the rent for the apartment.

A great motive, that? Reason enough to kill someone? Hardly, for a sane person. For teaching them a lesson, perhaps? Maybe. For not intervening when the guy (Guede) your boyfriend (Sollecito) called over to buy pot of gets aggressive with her, after she starts making a scene over all these strangers and drifters in the apartment, the drugs, the rent or whatever, threatens to call the cops or whatever? Sounds more likely.

I have no idea what happened, exactly, in that apartment, that night, but I think complicity in the murder is proven, even without considering the DNA evidence. She was involved.


I disagree, especially given the complete lack of DNA evidence tying her to the scene. Ms. Kercher's murder was a very, very violent and bloody affair. Yet not a single piece of Knox's DNA was found in that room, although Guede's was all over the place. I would really like an explanation from you as to how Knox could have removed her DNA and left Guede's. Because it's basically impossible under the laws of science.
This isn't fucking Survivor. We aren't a tribe.

If I won't put up with an in-character owner trying to control my OOC life, what makes you think I'll put up with you trying to do that?

My Store: https://marketplace.secondlife.com/stores/165499
User avatar
Glaucon
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 am

Re: Amanda Knox, Innocent or Guilty?

Postby Glaucon » Thu Feb 06, 2014 5:47 am

Probably because Knox wasn't doing the actual killing. If she actively contributed, it was most likely verbally, only. She probably didn't do any of the moving around of bodies and breaking of the window either. At one point, in one of her stories (version 2 out of 5, I believe) she claimed she had been there and had covered her ears to keep out the sound of Kercher screaming as she was being killed. That bit was probably true. I don't really buy the idea that she was at the center of some sort of sexual assault of Kercher, in the physical sense. With a guy like Guede there (older than the other two and someone regularly engaging in criminal activity), I'd guess that he was the guy doing the killing, probably ordering the other two about in arranging the staging of the break-in. Or, possibly, it was Sollecito that did the killing, with him calling Guede over (someone he probably bought his pot off) after the murder in a panic to help him. Seems a little less likely, but I guess that is possible too.

We don't know exactly what happened. And we do not need to know. If three people rob a store and the store-keeper ends up shot, and they run off, all three are complicit in (and thus guilty of) the murder.

Edited to add: My mistake: Rudy Guede wasn't really older than the others. He was only 20 at the time.
User avatar
Danika Stenvaag
Posts: 402
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:31 pm
SL Name: Danika Stenvaag
Caste: Panther
Role: Valkyrie Torva Chieftess
Home Stone: Valkyrie Forest
Contact:

Re: Amanda Knox, Innocent or Guilty?

Postby Danika Stenvaag » Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:56 pm

What I was saying was DNA evidence collected at a crime scene by investigators is normally put into paper bags or envelopes, not plastic. Plastic bags retain moisture, which can damage DNA. Direct sunlight and warmer conditions can also damage DNA. That's why paper should be used at the crime scene.

Leah says the opposite:

Leah wrote:It's actually very important for the integrity of DNA evidence that items be placed in plastic bags, not paper ones.



Leah blasted me and presented herself as a forensic expert.

I did a random google search and found all kinds of articles that back up what I'm saying. Here's one for example:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2011/0726/Amanda-Knox-appeal-gets-support-with-DNA-analysis-VIDEO

Part of that article said this:

One of the two experts, Stefano Conti, cited dozens of cases of forensic police entering the crime scene or coming into contacts with objects there not wearing protective equipment such as masks or hair caps. He said that while evidence should be wrapped in paper or kept in a paper bags, police often used plastic bags, heightening the risk of contamination.


So the experts are saying the opposite of what Leah said, they used plastic when they should have used paper bags. DNA molecules are contained in all cells and it doesn't take much more than a few cells to identify a suspect. I'm not saying the evidence wasn't tainted. Maybe they used dirty gloves at the scene. And I'm not talking about what went on during analysis of the evidence. Leah went on a tirade and of course I'm blonde and stupid.

This is what I first said: http://goreanforums.net/viewtopic.php?f=107&t=8360&start=20#p195891

As for Amanda Knox, she's intelligent, she's a cool customer, and watching her talk, all my female instincts also tell me she's lying about something. I admit, it's harder to tell when someone has sociopathic tendencies, but I usually can still tell. Hanging out with my friends, I usually know when someone is holding back or telling a lie and I find out later I was right about my feelings. I can't say it's scientific, but the OP is about opinion, innocent or guilty... I'm not saying Amanda Knox did any killing. I'm saying she's holding something back, hiding something, covering up. I know it. She's caught up in this.
Image
What is hidden in snow, is revealed at thaw. ~ Viking proverb

http://www.valkyriepanthers.com
User avatar
Leah
Posts: 1043
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 3:14 pm
SL Name: Liara Edring
Role: Rebel
Owner: My Internet Connection
AkA: Lailah, Lia, Liara
Location: Somewhere in Eorzea
Contact:

Re: Amanda Knox, Innocent or Guilty?

Postby Leah » Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:15 pm

Danika Stenvaag wrote:What I was saying was DNA evidence collected at a crime scene by investigators is normally put into paper bags or envelopes, not plastic. Plastic bags retain moisture, which can damage DNA. Direct sunlight and warmer conditions can also damage DNA. That's why paper should be used at the crime scene.


I said that because my understanding is that the objection was to the evidence being stored in paper bags. Which is normally isn't (or if it's in paper bags, it's also placed in plastic). Additionally, as I said, certain types of physical evidence are placed in plastic from the start - or even solutions of liquid, depending on the type of physical evidence.

Leah blasted me and presented herself as a forensic expert.


I didn't blast you. You presented yourself as a forensic expert. :lol:

I did a random google search and found all kinds of articles that back up what I'm saying. Here's one for example:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2011/0726/Amanda-Knox-appeal-gets-support-with-DNA-analysis-VIDEO

Part of that article said this:

One of the two experts, Stefano Conti, cited dozens of cases of forensic police entering the crime scene or coming into contacts with objects there not wearing protective equipment such as masks or hair caps. He said that while evidence should be wrapped in paper or kept in a paper bags, police often used plastic bags, heightening the risk of contamination.


Again, it depends on the type of evidence, but it's more disturbing to me that they had no protective equipment on, and that they were not changing their gloves when they should have been.

Stains are the main type of forensic evidence you want to have completely air-dried and put into paper. But that's not the only forensic evidence you would find at a site like this. Even then, you would still store them for transport in some kind of plastic material - bags, vials, slides, etc.

So the experts are saying the opposite of what Leah said, they used plastic when they should have used paper bags.


Depending on what they were gathering, yeah, they should have used paper bags instead of plastic. But the article doesn't go into detail on what was what (probably due to it being a court case, or the reporter not recording that part of the testimony).

DNA molecules are contained in all cells and it doesn't take much more than a few cells to identify a suspect.


Which is true, but as I and Manon pointed out to you, samples can absolutely be too small to get an accurate match. Tests are normally done multiple times to ensure accuracy, and a sample can be so small or have so little DNA that there just isn't enough for an accurate battery of tests. That's why they were saying the sample was too small to be accurately tested - because even though you can identify the DNA from one cell, that doesn't mean that you'll get a usable string of DNA from a forensic sample.

I'm not saying the evidence wasn't tainted. Maybe they used dirty gloves at the scene. And I'm not talking about what went on during analysis of the evidence.


So when you said no sample is "too small" to get an accurate DNA match, you were just talking about DNA matching at the scene? o_O

Leah went on a tirade and of course I'm blonde and stupid.


No, you're just kind of a bitch. You were the one who decided to get shitty about the whole thing, call me names and put me down. If I responded in kind, it's your own fucking fault. :wave: And quit the pity party. "Oh woe is me, people think I'm stupid." If you want people to stop thinking you're an idiot, stop acting like one.

As for Amanda Knox, she's intelligent, she's a cool customer, and watching her talk, all my female instincts also tell me she's lying about something. I admit, it's harder to tell when someone has sociopathic tendencies, but I usually can still tell. Hanging out with my friends, I usually know when someone is holding back or telling a lie and I find out later I was right about my feelings. I can't say it's scientific, but the OP is about opinion, innocent or guilty... I'm not saying Amanda Knox did any killing. I'm saying she's holding something back, hiding something, covering up. I know it. She's caught up in this.


Unless you're psychic or a trained psychologist, you're full of shit. You don't know a fucking thing.
This isn't fucking Survivor. We aren't a tribe.

If I won't put up with an in-character owner trying to control my OOC life, what makes you think I'll put up with you trying to do that?

My Store: https://marketplace.secondlife.com/stores/165499
User avatar
DarbyDollinger
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:43 am
SL Name: Darby Dollinger
Caste: Slaver
Home Stone: Amongst the ruins of Salernum.
Location: Port Kar

Re: Amanda Knox, Innocent or Guilty?

Postby DarbyDollinger » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:01 pm

I'd generally be wary of the legal system of a country that elected Silvio Berlusconi.
User avatar
Leah
Posts: 1043
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 3:14 pm
SL Name: Liara Edring
Role: Rebel
Owner: My Internet Connection
AkA: Lailah, Lia, Liara
Location: Somewhere in Eorzea
Contact:

Re: Amanda Knox, Innocent or Guilty?

Postby Leah » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:48 pm

DarbyDollinger wrote:I'd generally be wary of the legal system of a country that elected Silvio Berlusconi.


Or a legal system that prosecutes and convicts scientists for, I shit you not, failing to adequately predict an earthquake.

:|

They were convicted of manslaughter. :|

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ist-trial/
This isn't fucking Survivor. We aren't a tribe.

If I won't put up with an in-character owner trying to control my OOC life, what makes you think I'll put up with you trying to do that?

My Store: https://marketplace.secondlife.com/stores/165499
User avatar
TreatRothschild
Posts: 969
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:11 pm
SL Name: I'm Treat Dammit!
Role: Magistrate and Love Cthulhu
Home Stone: Hesius
Location: NJ

Re: Amanda Knox, Innocent or Guilty?

Postby TreatRothschild » Thu Feb 06, 2014 5:04 pm

Leah wrote:
DarbyDollinger wrote:I'd generally be wary of the legal system of a country that elected Silvio Berlusconi.


Or a legal system that prosecutes and convicts scientists for, I shit you not, failing to adequately predict an earthquake.

:|

They were convicted of manslaughter. :|

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ist-trial/

Exactly this. This is a rational Justice System?
Let me give you some advice bastard. Never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you.

Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron