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

[katy_did]

Here is the issue from my perspective katy. I'd say it would be fine for people to say that they walked though the Piazza that night and never noticed Amanda and Raffaele. But unless something specific drew your attention to a couple in the Piazza, would you really have noticed them? So they could have been there and just not noticed them.

This is one of the big reasons I don't believe Curatolo. (there are others) There is no reason for him to notice and identify either of these two people. He doesn't know either one. They never spoke to him. So these two people are likely to be anyone not someone specific that any one would remember. Just some couple.

If you're talking one person not noticing the couple, sure. But if it's 15, 20, 30, 40 people who crossed the piazza that night and no one saw them? That's evidence in favour of the defence for sure.

The main point is the impact it would have in court. The defence could've called witness after witness to testify that they were in the piazza at the same time as Curatolo and they didn't see the couple he says were there all night. It would just cast more doubt on his claim to have seen them.

 

[stilicho]

If you're talking one person not noticing the couple, sure. But if it's 15, 20, 30, 40 people who crossed the piazza that night and no one saw them? That's evidence in favour of the defence for sure.

The main point is the impact it would have in court. The defence could've called witness after witness to testify that they were in the piazza at the same time as Curatolo and they didn't see the couple he says were there all night. It would just cast more doubt on his claim to have seen them.

Exactly. Jim and his pals have been sitting on this explosive evidence for over six full years and left it to the Sollecitos to get it printed in some ridiculous tabloid.

The road above the cottage is busy around that time of night and nobody saw someone noisily shattering a window before dangling himself from a precarious perch. Everyone, including Introna--a defence expert--placed the murder after 22:00. Even Raffaele and Amanda placed the murder at that time, inadvertently, by inventing fake phone calls and mysterious dinners complete with blood-spattered fish.

Why do you think Bongiorno called up tow truck drivers and disco managers instead of the people who were filmed witnessing Guede's break-in?

 

[Samson]

Exactly. Jim and his pals have been sitting on this explosive evidence for over six full years and left it to the Sollecitos to get it printed in some ridiculous tabloid.

The road above the cottage is busy around that time of night and nobody saw someone noisily shattering a window before dangling himself from a precarious perch. Everyone, including Introna--a defence expert--placed the murder after 22:00. Even Raffaele and Amanda placed the murder at that time, inadvertently, by inventing fake phone calls and mysterious dinners complete with blood-spattered fish.

Why do you think Bongiorno called up tow truck drivers and disco managers instead of the people who were filmed witnessing Guede's break-in?

Machiavelli for his purposes says the road is quiet, but more importantly, there is no line of sight to the window.
Fundamental to your crime thesis is a staging of a break in. Stilicho, can you account for the high velocity required by the rock throw to drive the glass shard into the hard wood shutter?
I have been asking this question for two years without an answer.

 

[Strozzi]

Hmm, I have been thinking about this a bit, trying to figure out what's wrong with Strozzi's idea. If an American citizen buys an American-made car in Italy and has a crash caused by a design defect, can't they sue in the States? There is probably a statutory product liability as well as contract and tort liability and the product liability case should be triable in the states. What if a US citizen is mown down by a defective American car while on holiday in Italy? Product liability? Tort?

By analogy, if the DNA sequencer or amplifier or whatever is knowingly sold for use in forensic labs and has a design defect such that it is liable, even if well maintained and used in accordance with the manual, to give false results that could lead to a wrongful conviction, why can't there be liability as above?

A lawsuit for product liability against the 4 parties I mention does not have to result in a judgement for Amanda to be successful. The suit itself accomplishes several important things.

Filing a suit for a massive amount of monetary damages (the hypothetical $100 million) brings massive media attention, shows that false lab results may be an issue, and that Amanda is not going to take it any more and is going on the offensive and fighting back. Americans love a hero fighting back against wrong.

It forces the four parties to have to respond in a US court. The Italian police lab and Stefanoni will have to appoint an attorney to represent them and cause him to file or appear in the US court to claim the court lacks jurisdiction. It their US attorney claims in US court that the Italian police lab enjoys some kind of sovereign immunity, that will alienate Americans as our police departments enjoy no immunity from prosecution or liability for wrongdoing. (Proper claim should be lack of jurisdiction not because of sovereign immunity as a foreign government organization but based on a territorial issue that court lacks jurisdiction because police organization in outside the US). The court will undoubtedly sever the Italian police lab and Stefanoni from the case. But that will be a major headline and subject of discussion in the media. Win for Amanda.

The manufacturer of the machine and test kits will have to defend themselves. They will claim while we make the machine or test kit and provide instructions on it's proper use, we are not responsible for misuse. in this phase I envision Amanda's attorney shoving their machine's test results under the manufacturer's noses on the witness stand and demanding to know if these results show correct use or misuse. The manufacturers scientists will have to insist it is misuse. That the printout shows contamination. That is a win for Amanda and creates more media coverage.

Amanda's attorneys will demand to know if the manufacturer knew of the Amanda Knox case. Of course their personnel know of it, follow the case to some extent because it involves DNA analysis, probably knew (emails?) that their machine is the one used in the lab, and that they are aware of issues raised in the case (reported in the US media) concerning questionable results which they, as experts on the machine, should have realized/known may have involved misuse of their machine.

Knox's attorney can ask them how they responded when some of their staff realized that their machine might have been misused in the Knox case or in other cases in general. What are the manufacturers going to respond? "We do nothing." That paints them in a bad light. More media coverage. Another win for Knox.

Evidence discovery in such a suit may include information on how lab customers are trained in the proper maintenance and use of the manufacturer's machines and test kits, and that could open the door to questions on how this particular lab's staff were trained or not trained. May show failures. Possible win for Knox.

What licenses or requirements do you, the manufacturer, or your European sales agents or instructors have in place with the police lab? Are you revoking those licenses? Now that you know that your machine may have been improperly used in analyzing DNA in the Knox and Soloecito case, are you notifying the lab, the Italian court, or the injured parties?

These are just some of the issues that can be brought to light in a product liability suit by Knox.

 

[Samson]

A lawsuit for product liability against the 4 parties I mention does not have to result in a judgement for Amanda to be successful. The suit itself accomplishes several important things.

Filing a suit for a massive amount of monetary damages (the hypothetical $100 million) brings massive media attention, shows that false lab results may be an issue, and that Amanda is not going to take it any more and is going on the offensive and fighting back. Americans love a hero fighting back against wrong.

It forces the four parties to have to respond in a US court. The Italian police lab and Stefanoni will have to appoint an attorney to represent them and cause him to file or appear in the US court to claim the court lacks jurisdiction. It their US attorney claims in US court that the Italian police lab enjoys some kind of sovereign immunity, that will alienate Americans as our police departments enjoy no immunity from prosecution or liability for wrongdoing. (Proper claim should be lack of jurisdiction not because of sovereign immunity as a foreign government organization but based on a territorial issue that court lacks jurisdiction because police organization in outside the US). The court will undoubtedly sever the Italian police lab and Stefanoni from the case. But that will be a major headline and subject of discussion in the media. Win for Amanda.

The manufacturer of the machine and test kits will have to defend themselves. They will claim while we make the machine or test kit and provide instructions on it's proper use, we are not responsible for misuse. in this phase I envision Amanda's attorney shoving their machine's test results under the manufacturer's noses on the witness stand and demanding to know if these results show correct use or misuse. The manufacturers scientists will have to insist it is misuse. That the printout shows contamination. That is a win for Amanda and creates more media coverage.

Amanda's attorneys will demand to know if the manufacturer knew of the Amanda Knox case. Of course their personnel know of it, follow the case to some extent because it involves DNA analysis, probably knew (emails?) that their machine is the one used in the lab, and that they are aware of issues raised in the case (reported in the US media) concerning questionable results which they, as experts on the machine, should have realized/known may have involved misuse of their machine.

Knox's attorney can ask them how they responded when some of their staff realized that their machine might have been misused in the Knox case or in other cases in general. What are the manufacturers going to respond? "We do nothing." That paints them in a bad light. More media coverage. Another win for Knox.

Evidence discovery in such a suit may include information on how lab customers are trained in the proper maintenance and use of the manufacturer's machines and test kits, and that could open the door to questions on how this particular lab's staff were trained or not trained. May show failures. Possible win for Knox.

These are just some of the issues that can be brought to light in a product liability suit by Knox.

Strozzi, there is one thing I do not understand. The proof of innocence here is totally unique and unqualified. Why is there not one American who will publicly or privately bankroll these issues?

 

[Strozzi]

Strozzi, there is one thing I do not understand. The proof of innocence here is totally unique and unqualified. Why is there not one American who will bank roll these issues?

I am frankly surprised that among the people who passionately follow this case there does not appear to be one person of extreme wealth to throw a few million dollars into a legal defense fund.

I would think that a product liability attorney or law firm could make a big name for himself in bringing this suit. Think of the media exposure when he is interviewed by the news media or is on TV explaining the case and the injustice, with Amanda sitting by his side. And suppose he wins financial damages!

Wouldn't an attorney or law firm specializing in medical device product liability have the right knowledge and skill set for this case?

 

[Samson]

I am frankly surprised that among the people who passionately follow this case there does not appear to be one person of extreme wealth to throw a few million dollars into a legal defense fund.

I would think that a product liability attorney or law firm could make a big name for himself in bringing this suit. Think of the media exposure when he is interviewed by the news media or is on TV explaining the case and the injustice, with Amanda sitting by his side. And suppose he wins financial damages!

Wouldn't an attorney or law firm specializing in medical device product liability have the right knowledge and skill set for this case?

I believe that the tipping point is close, with the proviso that the early adopters must have thought this for six long years.

 

[Bill Williams]

Exactly. Jim and his pals have been sitting on this explosive evidence for over six full years and left it to the Sollecitos to get it printed in some ridiculous tabloid.

Regardless, what is it that the garage videos prove? It's not certain that it is "The Sollecitos" releasing them, but the best news possible for Amanda Knox would be if that lone woman was proven to be her - she's going away from the cottage, not even returning to Raffaele's, at the time when Rudy is breaking in. This, then, is her alibi. But then again, it isn't Knox.

The road above the cottage is busy around that time of night and nobody saw someone noisily shattering a window before dangling himself from a precarious perch.

As the Channel 5 documentary shows, the climb in through Filomena's window was doable, and very quick. It also afforded something that the balcony on the other side of the cottage (upstairs) did not have - cover. If one of those passersby in the garage video had reversed themselves to go investigate the breaking of glass, then all the perp at the sill of Filomena's window had to do was jump down into the dark of the lower car-park.

Everyone, including Introna--a defence expert--placed the murder after 22:00. Even Raffaele and Amanda placed the murder at that time, inadvertently, by inventing fake phone calls and mysterious dinners complete with blood-spattered fish.

This one is hogwash. No doubt the product of years of back and forths' in an echo chamber where people get banned for not engaging in rhetorical excess. How on earth does their activities back at Raffaele's place the murder at 10 pm? Stomach emptying alone means that the whole scenario is at the extreme right side of the Bell Curve by 9:30 pm?

The confirmation bias is this - first, let's assume they were involved. Then! we can see how their fish-dinner back at Raffaele's establishes a time of death!!!! Wow. Nobel prize stuff.

Why do you think Bongiorno called up tow truck drivers and disco managers instead of the people who were filmed witnessing Guede's break-in?

I think this is why it is better to have these statements appear on JREF, with it's built-in skepticism, rather than at PMF with the guilter-echochamber in full gear. So it's now "people witnessing the break-in". This is how factoid gets built upon factoid gets built upon factoid, which raises "begging the questions" to a higher artform.

 

[Strozzi]

Ct is the nth cycle at which the machine detects a critical mass of DNA in the reaction.

That said, the definition of Ct isn't that important to understand. All you need to know is that the calibration of this run is way different than the calibration of the other runs, and that isn't supposed to happen and it means that something is screwed up in the functioning of the machine.

Given the purpose of this machine (analysis of DNA as evidence in a criminal investigation), I contend that whenever something is screwed up in the functioning of the machine, the machine should flag it. The printout should contain cautionary warning that something is not right. Lack of that warning capability is a manufacturer's product design defect.

 

[Bill Williams]

No one likes you. Sorry.

I used to like you. Then I realized I was mistaken. What you should really worry about is that I think Grinder likes you. That should cause you worry.

 

[Strozzi]

Bill Williams responding to Stilicho:

. . . I think this is why it is better to have these statements appear on JREF, with it's built-in skepticism, rather than at PMF with the guilter-echochamber in full gear. So it's now people "witnessing a break-in". This is how factoid gets built upon factoid gets built upon factoid, which raises "begging the questions" to a higher artform.

Stilicho, nobody witnessed a break-in. If they had, people would have come forward the next day. To think that they wouldn't have come forward is to just show contempt for the many good people of Perugia (who have the misfortune to live in a city with incompetent police, a sadistic presecutor, and crony judges).

What they witnessed were two dogs mating or a drunk or drugged man passed out on the ground. I'm glad that Curatolo was able to get to his feet, get up the staircase, resume his customary position on the park bench, and then stay awake reading for two hours to witness Perugia's Crime of the Century!

Doesn't it make you wonder how much Mignini's case rests on testimony from unreliable witnesses. And now Stilicho thinks all these good people saw something and the next day didn't put 2 plus 2 together and come forward. Sheesh . . .

 

[katy_did]

Exactly. Jim and his pals have been sitting on this explosive evidence for over six full years and left it to the Sollecitos to get it printed in some ridiculous tabloid.

The road above the cottage is busy around that time of night and nobody saw someone noisily shattering a window before dangling himself from a precarious perch. Everyone, including Introna--a defence expert--placed the murder after 22:00. Even Raffaele and Amanda placed the murder at that time, inadvertently, by inventing fake phone calls and mysterious dinners complete with blood-spattered fish.

Why do you think Bongiorno called up tow truck drivers and disco managers instead of the people who were filmed witnessing Guede's break-in?

What do you think of Quintavalle's evidence? Here's a man who claims to have seen one of the alleged murderers in his shop hanging around the bleach aisle in the very early morning after the murder. Yet not only did he consider this information so unimportant that it wasn't worth going to the police to give a statement, he didn't even think it was worth telling the police about it when they came to him and specifically asked him about the occasions when he'd seen Knox and Sollecito in the shop!

In contrast, what the people in the car park may have heard (not seen - they couldn't have seen Filomena's window from their position) is the noise of glass being smashed at a time prior to the murder taking place. Even if someone did hear it, it's easy to see why they might not have associated it with a crime which according to all the early news reports happened hours later.

Mind you, I doubt the people shown turning around in the video heard anything relevant. But I also don't think the fact no one came forward to volunteer the information they'd heard glass breaking is relevant either. For all we know one of the people caught on video did hear that and simply didn't think it was connected to the crime, since it happened before Meredith even arrived home. All of those people should certainly have been questioned at the time, anyway. If Quintavalle can think what he supposedly saw was so unimportant, I'm quite sure someone hearing breaking glass (in a student/druggie area where broken beer bottles are doubtless pretty common) might have dismissed it as insignificant.

I've read Introna's testimony and I don't think you're right about what he says. From memory he presents the absolute least favourable scenario from a defence point of view and says if we assume that Meredith was stressed and that this stress delayed digestion, the very latest you can place TOD is 10:30. I'll have to reread it as I last read it some time ago, but I'm pretty certain he doesn't think time of death was after 10; in the interview he gave outside the court he said 9:30-10 IIRC.

 

[Dan O.]

The Italian people know their police. All of those people in Perugia filmed entering the car park on the evening of November 1, 2007 between 9 and 10 pm know that they were across the street at the time of this infamous murder. Yet none of them have come forward to give a statement to the police. That says a lot.

 

[Dan O.]

I am frankly surprised that among the people who passionately follow this case there does not appear to be one person of extreme wealth to throw a few million dollars into a legal defense fund.

I would think that a product liability attorney or law firm could make a big name for himself in bringing this suit. Think of the media exposure when he is interviewed by the news media or is on TV explaining the case and the injustice, with Amanda sitting by his side. And suppose he wins financial damages!

Wouldn't an attorney or law firm specializing in medical device product liability have the right knowledge and skill set for this case?

The jurisdictional issue is a problem for getting huge cash awards back. The more likely outcome would be barring the company from delivering its product into the region where there are insufficient safeguards to insure their will be no harm caused by its improper use.

 

[Desert Fox]

Exactly. Jim and his pals have been sitting on this explosive evidence for over six full years and left it to the Sollecitos to get it printed in some ridiculous tabloid.

The road above the cottage is busy around that time of night and nobody saw someone noisily shattering a window before dangling himself from a precarious perch. Everyone, including Introna--a defence expert--placed the murder after 22:00. Even Raffaele and Amanda placed the murder at that time, inadvertently, by inventing fake phone calls and mysterious dinners complete with blood-spattered fish.

Why do you think Bongiorno called up tow truck drivers and disco managers instead of the people who were filmed witnessing Guede's break-in?

Where do you guys come up with these far fetched ideas?
You are on a skeptic board. Apply just a little bit of parsimony?

 

[codyjuneau]

Given the purpose of this machine (analysis of DNA as evidence in a criminal investigation), I contend that whenever something is screwed up in the functioning of the machine, the machine should flag it. The printout should contain cautionary warning that something is not right. Lack of that warning capability is a manufacturer's product design defect.

.
I suppose another law suit could be aimed at the manufacturer of the read only device the Perugian Police used to clone hard drives in a forensically safe way. You know, the one that allowed the police to destroy one hard drive after another without apparently being aware they were doing so.

Cody
.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm going to throw a monkey wrench into what Diocletus has said are problems with Batch 5. Diocletus says that there is 5 times as much DNA in these samples as there is supposed to be. That doesn't seem right to me. These are "positive samples of DNA" . correct? The are being put in a machine that is supposed to "grow" the DNA in each well by the temperature rising and falling cycles...correct? So wouldn't we expect the DNA to in fact do just that...increase in amount? If they were negative control samples, we would expect the DNA not to increase...but positive control samples should show growth?

Or do I just not understand this? Someone??

 

[Strozzi]

The jurisdictional issue is a problem for getting huge cash awards back. The more likely outcome would be barring the company from delivering its product into the region where there are insufficient safeguards to insure their will be no harm caused by its improper use.

My thoughts in advocating a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer of the DNA machine is:
1) to show the world that Amanda is done being a passive victim and is now going on the offensive against anyone involved in harming her,
2) to bring the false/corrupt DNA interpretation into the headlines and glare of TV news. Have her lawyer explain the case and bogus DNA results on the talk shows, with Amanda sitting by his side. Blast the manufacturer and executives by name, demand the hypothetical $100 million claim, and witness the manufacturer's stock sell off in the stock market.
3) to put the machine manufacturer's scientists on the witness stand and force them to defend their machine by making them examine their machine' print out and declare that the data shows Stefanoni misused their machine (incompetence or framing) and that the results and conclusions are bogus.
4) force the manufacturer to admit that their staff have followed the case enough to know that their machine may have been misused, and that they chose to remain silent rather than to notify the police lab, Stefanoni, the court, the prosecutor, and the defendants that it has come to their attention that their machine may have been misused and that the results or interpretation of results are scientifically unreliable.
5). Force revocation of any license granted the police lab, or remedial correction to ensure the machine is properly used.

Financial compensation to Amanda and Raffaele for the harm done them is very important, but secondary to all the above.

 

[Desert Fox]

My thoughts in advocating a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer of the DNA machine is:
1) to show the world that Amanda is done being a passive victim and is now going on the offensive against anyone invokved in harming her,
2) to bring the false/corrupt DNA interpretation into the headlines an glare of TV news
3) to put the machine manufacturer's scientists on the witness stand and force them to defend their machine by making them examine their machine' print out and declare that the data shows Stefanoni misused their machine (incompetence or framing) and that the results and conclusions are bogus.
4) force the manufacturer to admit that their staff have followed the case enough to know that their machine may have been misused, and that they chose to remain silent rather than to notify the police lab, Stefanoni, the court, the prosecutor, and the defendants that it has come to their attention that their machine may have been misused and that the results or interpretation of results are scientifically unreliable.
5). Force revocation of any license granted the police lab, or remedial correction to ensure the machine is properly used.

Financial compensation to Amanda and Raffaele for the harm done them is important, but secondary to all the above.

You can start with the soft approach. . . .
Write a letter to the manufacture wanting a clearly written response on the misuse of the machine. In the letter however have the language which indicates that there will be a lawsuit if not followed up on.
Couple this with a international condemnation of Stefanoni by forensic scientists and I think both the European Court of Appeals will be swayed to take the case and the US is far less likely to extradite Amanda.

 

[Strozzi]

You can start with the soft approach. . . .
Write a letter to the manufacture wanting a clearly written response on the misuse of the machine. In the letter however have the language which indicates that there will be a lawsuit if not followed up on.
Couple this with a international condemnation of Stefanoni by forensic scientists and I think both the European Court of Appeals will be swayed to take the case and the US is far less likely to extradite Amanda.

Why the soft approach? I want a headline on the evening news saying "Amanda Knox filed suit tioday in U.S court against the American manufacturer and Italian police for negligence in generating bogus DNA results used to falsely convict her for the murder of her British roommate. Knox's suit seeks $100 million damages from the parties involved."