Continuation Part Nine: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Dan O.]

Serious question. . . .Assume that this forum dies, where would people here recommend I go to look at this case?

Google can give you plenty of sites where you can look at this case. What will be difficult is finding another neutrally moderated site for discussion where all voices are treated equally.

 

[bolint]

Bolint, currently being discussed on sites are the transcripts of Amanda's texts.

On the 3rd November, after the murder and before her arrest, she sent a text which said

'what kind of burgler' would not steal anything (and says) the window entry point is wierd.

Can you explain why she sent this specific text?

I don't see such text in what is available for me.
I see six texts of hers on Nov 3, none of them is the above.
Where do you take it from?

 

[Samson]

I don't see such text in what is available for me.
I see six texts of hers on Nov 3, none of them is the above.
Where do you take it from?

I read it on PMF org

I've just read some of the text messages. She wrote in an incredibly matter of fact way about the fact Meredith was murdered. She also HAD to comment that she was the one who 'told' the Police......attention seeking and untrue. The writing style is just ICE COLD.


Other good stuff too. She says 'we' about attending the memorial in which she did not.

She also mentions 'what kind of burgler' would not steal anything and says the window entry point is wierd.

This text must be between the 2nd and the 5th.

 

[Vibio]

Wrong. I tweeted the video of Curatolo on 3rd August and Machiavelli and I had a 'conversation' about how we each interpreted what we saw in that video. Mach stated that Curatolo's diction was much better than that of Raffaele.
Always good to get your facts right Sal Vibio.

My mistake. I was only aware of Mach's comparison between Guede and Sollecito. And about that, Mach is correct. Guede speaks a better Italian than Sollecito.

I don't agree with Mach that Sollecito is worse than Curatolo in that video from 2011, but Raff often have does a slurred almost incomprehensible speech. And when I hear someone talking the way he does, I think, "that's a drunk or a druggie".

For an example of what I'm talking about (and what Mach is probably referring to), see the video below of this pre-interview. Raff comes on at 0:47. Have a listen. (and believe me, I've heard him even worse than he is here)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0vxqKn03zM

 

[bolint]

Do you still accept the bra clasp and knife as legitimate evidence after watching the video?

If you mean the Jim Clemente video, I saw the CSI videos long time ago, so I know how the clasp was found and collected. But it's a long shot to prove that Raffaele's DNA got on it during the collection.
I don't believe in random contamination. It is very unlikely.
I also reject intentional contamination and lab contamination.
So I think the DNA was on the clasp when the door was broken down.

Anyway, the bra clasp is a problem for me, too, because I don't think that Raffaele was there at the time of the murder.


As for the knife, what I miss first is a clear establishment of the fact that the knife belonged to his house. From the landlord, for example. I don't remember anything like that.
The knife could, indeed, be contaminated at the police, beacuse in the HQ it was handled by a detective who had participated in the search of the cottage the same day.

But regardless of the clasp and knife, I still think them involved, Raffaele in a lesser degree.

 

[bolint]

I read it on PMF org

I've just read some of the text messages. She wrote in an incredibly matter of fact way about the fact Meredith was murdered. She also HAD to comment that she was the one who 'told' the Police......attention seeking and untrue. The writing style is just ICE COLD.


Other good stuff too. She says 'we' about attending the memorial in which she did not.

She also mentions 'what kind of burgler' would not steal anything and says the window entry point is wierd.

This text must be between the 2nd and the 5th.

The PMF excerpt is not even a direct quote and seemingly is not among the texts anytime.

Let's return to this when it is firmly determined that such text does indeed exist.

 

[Samson]

The PMF excerpt is not even a direct quote and seemingly is not among the texts anytime.

Let's return to this when it is firmly determined that such text does indeed exist.

That seems fair, it seems authentic by the spelling mistakes ,and that it is on PMF, yet proves she did not stage the burglary if she wrote it. I am not good at discovering this stuff, I just try to interpret.

 

[Machiavelli]

Wrong. I tweeted the video of Curatolo on 3rd August and Machiavelli and I had a 'conversation' about how we each interpreted what we saw in that video. Mach stated that Curatolo's diction was much better than that of Raffaele.
Always good to get your facts right Sal Vibio.

I was refering to the command of Italian language expressed by 23 year old Sollecito, at the time of the murder. And I was not talking specifically about diction. I was talking above all about syntax and grammar.
The poor expression abilities in Italian language on the part of young Sollecito are obvious not just from his talking but from his writings from the time of murder. Sollecito has also a frequent odd choice of words.
Sollecito has improved his oral expression through time (and was also coached), yet he is still less effective and less clear than the average person.

Who would consider these statements as expressed in good Italian?

Mess between main coordinate and subordinate phrases:

Non gli posso nemmeno dare colpa, data la mia coglionaggine, Per il fatto che fumo cannabis dimentico persino quello che ho mangiato e anche perché mi porto dietro un coltello per segnare i tavoli e gli alberi e lo porto talmente spesso che me lo porto anche in questura.

Poor expression and inappropriate use of gerundio, incoherent and ugly use of tenses:

successivamente mi sono incontrato con Amanda. Ho passato la giornata con lei cenando e poi lei è andata in centro dipingendosi la faccia da gattina. Io sono uscito successivamente dipingendomi la faccia facendo una figura astratta. Ho fatto una passeggiata in centro e dopo mi sono incontrato nuovamente con Amanda. Da lì siamo tornati a casa subito e abbiamo passato la notte a guardare un film.
La mattina ci siamo alzati intorno alle 10-11 e io volevo dormire ancora, così Amanda è andata a casa sua dicendo che mi avrebbe aspettato per pranzare. Io l’ho raggiunta intorno alle 14 e lì c’era anche Meredith, quella povera ragazza, che aveva detto che aveva già mangiato. Quindi ho preparato il pranzo per entrambi, lei si è messa a suonare la chitarra e intanto Meredith si preparava per uscire.

Tenses: trapassato prossimo to indicate subsequent action instead of previous:

Mi ricordo che era giovedì, quindi Amanda doveva andare al pub dove lavora di solito, ma non mi ricordo quanto tempo si è assentata e ricordo che successivamente mi aveva detto che il pub era chiuso (ho dei forti dubbi riguardo al fatto che si sia assentata).

Tenses: imperfetto indicativo dependng from relative pronoun in subjunctive statement:

Non mi ricordo come era vestita il giorno 1, ma sono certo che lei si fosse cambiata e che aveva messo la gonna bianca e le sue solite scarpe nere da trekking.

Statements like these one:

Dopo che ho pulito per terra e forse ho fatto colazione intorno alle 11,30-12 mi sono cambiato e siamo usciti.

Incoherent verb structure (detto/fatto):

Gli investigatori mi hanno chiesto se lei mi aveva detto di riferire qualcosa ma (purtroppo. dico adesso) non è così: tutto quello che ho detto l’ho fatto di mia spontanea volontà.

Unclear time sequence, poor use of tenses:

Tornando indietro ho pensato di accedere alla camera di Meredith dalla finestra e cercavo dove fosse; dopo ho scoperto che l’unico accesso alla finestra aveva un’altezza improponibile e così ci ho ripensato. Intanto Amanda stava cercando di accedere alla finestra scavalcando la ringhiera e io l’ho fermata, siccome lei fa climbing voleva provare a fare qualcosa che secondo me è assurdo.

Inaproppriate choice of both words and chaotic tenses:

Intanto gironzolavo per la casa e consigliavo ad Amanda di chiamare le amiche, Filomena, Laura, Meredith. Così lei, dopo che lo fece, mi disse che Laura era a Viterbo, Filomena era con il ragazzo e sarebbe arrivata più tardi e infine Meredith non rispondeva.

I won't go on, the statements picked above were just to the purpose of making examples.

A point to make though is that the whole topic is a diversion on something irrelevant. In fact, for example criminologist Francesco Bruno is certainly more slurring thant Curatolo, yet he is higly educated; on the other hand, the whole question of whether Curatolo is smart or well educated or whether he expresses himself appropriately should be irrelevant: these are not arguments. A witness is not required to show abilities or education. It's not something that makes a witness become unreliable or unable to testify. Even a 5yo can be a reliable witness. A concept like "insufficient mental faculties" with the potntial to hamper the reliability of a testimony is something totally different.

 

[Desert Fox]

If you mean the Jim Clemente video, I saw the CSI videos long time ago, so I know how the clasp was found and collected. But it's a long shot to prove that Raffaele's DNA got on it during the collection.
I don't believe in random contamination. It is very unlikely.
I also reject intentional contamination and lab contamination.
So I think the DNA was on the clasp when the door was broken down.

Anyway, the bra clasp is a problem for me, too, because I don't think that Raffaele was there at the time of the murder.


As for the knife, what I miss first is a clear establishment of the fact that the knife belonged to his house. From the landlord, for example. I don't remember anything like that.
The knife could, indeed, be contaminated at the police, beacuse in the HQ it was handled by a detective who had participated in the search of the cottage the same day.

But regardless of the clasp and knife, I still think them involved, Raffaele in a lesser degree.

I don't remember you as a poster.

What would it take for you to be convinced that secondary transfer is both possible and probable? Would you, for example, accept papers from reputable experts in the field of both secondary transfer and lab contamination? How about cases where that specifically occurred?

Now, I something think here might be a conspiracy by the police but I am not sure and waver back and forth. There however does not have to be however.

I think lab contamination is the simplest explanation for the knife. Even then however, there had been physical contact (not sexual) between Amanda and Meredeth. A few skin cells can easily cling. If it was blood, might be different issue but it was not blood.

On the Bra Clasp, my understanding is that careful examination indicates that the DNA was Raffaele's. Not going to argue that issue. You state that you watched the video and/or similar ones. Do you have any disagreement that Raffaele's DNA would have likely been on the door handle from trying to force the door? The investigations first touched the door handle and then then bra clasp. Do not see what is flawed with that logic.

 

[Skind]

the whole question of whether Curatolo is smart or well educated or whether he expresses himself appropriately should be irrelevant: these are not arguments.

The reasons why this logic is functionally false with no bearing on actual reality is entirely obvious.

In the world of mental healthcare and therapy, this is known as 'presentation', the particulars and peculiarities of which can be indicative of inebriation, addiction, cognitive disorders, neurological disorders, personality disorders and the like.

That a person may have been functionally impaired due to illness or inebriation at the time of witnessing or the time of testimony is most certainly an argument that can be taken in any reasonable court system. In fact, you may be barred from testifying if you show up inebriated. Witnesses (and often suspects too) can be barred from being questioned if they are under the influence of any substance, which can include some prescription medications.

You may certainly look at someones mumbling and confused presentation and argue that they are therefore confused about the events.

A witness is not required to show abilities or education. It's not something that makes a witness become unreliable or unable to testify.

True (sort of) but the defence can most certainly point to the disparity between the witnesses actual abilities and the abilities required for the witnesses story to be true. Example: a witness claiming to have clearly seen the suspects at a distance, at night, can most certainly be challenged if it turns out they have reduced night vision that would make such a thing an incredibly slim possibility.

A concept like "insufficient mental faculties" with the potntial to hamper the reliability of a testimony is something totally different.

No it's not. It may be under some obscure Italian Code, but the reliability of the witness is the reliability of the witness, regardless of whether the origin is in cognitive disfunction or outright lying. You're conflating reliability as a witness to any global fact (very few people with cognitive deficeits are totally unreliable) with reliability as a witness to a declared fact. The court is only there to determine reliability as a witness to a declared fact - a global deficeit may be used to argue unreliability but is not a special sacred magical form of unreliability.

 

[Desert Fox]

<Dr Patrizia Stefanoni was in charge of the crime scene. She completely botched overseeing the collection of evidence. She was a slob herself and the video of her gift wrapping a mop, as well as her storing bloody evidence in the cottage freezer is direct evidence that she didn't only botch it, she didn't even know she was doing everything wrong! How are they going to criticize the obvious incompetence and sloppy job she did in the cottage and then turn around and declare her lab work pristine? They can not, and they know that. They cling to her knife lab work and can not afford to lose that evidence by admitting what they can see with their own eyes. To do so would be to admit the knife and bra clasp were contamination at best. It is a blatant case of uber selective confirmation bias. They hold a completely unethical and dishonest view of the case.

Let us assume for argument sake that the bra clasp and knife really have Raff's and Meredeth's DNA because AK/RS committed the crime, the problem is that it cannot be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." Contamination is a credible argument for both. As such, you need to acquit even if you think they are guilty. The prosecution needs to prove quit.

 

[Machiavelli]

The reasons why this logic is functionally false with no bearing on actual reality is entirely obvious.

In the world of mental healthcare and therapy, this is known as 'presentation', the particulars and peculiarities of which can be indicative of inebriation, addiction, cognitive disorders, neurological disorders, personality disorders and the like.

That a person may have been functionally impaired due to illness or inebriation at the time of witnessing or the time of testimony is most certainly an argument that can be taken in any reasonable court system. (...)

This is your imagination. Curatolo did not appear "inebriated"; in order to be reliable a witness is not required to show any particular health condition, capability, intelligence or education. In common life any person has a "right" to speak the way Curatolo speaks without being considered mentally impaired (and btw, even mentally deficient witnesses can testify).
If a theory is advanced about a witness being impaired to the point of being barred from testimony, this is something that should be proven, and the burden is on those who advance the theory. The witness does not need to pass a "smart-looking" test. And a judge does not "take as an argument" an unproven speculation. If an expert exam is requested (like, by the defence) and the witness is examined and ruled unreliable due to mental issues, that would be an argument; on the other hand, your guesses are based on zero evidence.

 

[Samson]

We can not make the accused a liar because of the disturbance of the scene by the police.

Roux sums up in defence of Pistorius. Hmm. I just typed that verbatim.

 

[Supercalifragilistic]

Let us assume for argument sake that the bra clasp and knife really have Raff's and Meredeth's DNA because AK/RS committed the crime, the problem is that it cannot be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." Contamination is a credible argument for both. As such, you need to acquit even if you think they are guilty. The prosecution needs to prove quit.

What unadulterated Elephant droppings.

Contamination will always be a "credible" argument, and the defence will always try to use it when all else fails. That's precisely why courts demand that it must rigorously be shown to have occurred (and the Knox/Sollecito defence teams failed in this). Obviously if it merely took a claim of contamination to rule out DNA evidence then the value of DNA in forensics would thenceforth be totally nullified.

Guilty as charged I'm afraid.

 

[Samson]

What unadulterated Elephant droppings.

Contamination will always be a "credible" argument, and the defence will always try to use it when all else fails. That's precisely why courts demand that it must rigorously be shown to have occurred (and the Knox/Sollecito defence teams failed in this). Obviously if it merely took a claim of contamination to rule out DNA evidence then the value of DNA in forensics would thenceforth be totally nullified.

Guilty as charged I'm afraid.

You highlighted your own Achilles heel. What a shame. The video rigorously showed contamination. Have you seen it?

 

[Desert Fox]

What unadulterated Elephant droppings.

Contamination will always be a "credible" argument, and the defence will always try to use it when all else fails. That's precisely why courts demand that it must rigorously be shown to have occurred (and the Knox/Sollecito defence teams failed in this). Obviously if it merely took a claim of contamination to rule out DNA evidence then the value of DNA in forensics would thenceforth be totally nullified.

Guilty as charged I'm afraid.

You are reversing the burden of proof on an adversarial system.
The problem actually is that Italy is trying to play a game where they straddle the line while pretending to be an adversarial system while using inquisitorial logic.

In an adversarial system, it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt. Maybe not 100% but such that a reasonable person looking at the evidence and say "they are almost certainly guilty." It should not be "Maybe, possible if I squint my eyes, they are guilty."

If the DNA evidence was not on the "trace" level (being generous because trace actually does not argue just how small a sample it is) and there were not plausible reasons why it would be there, you might have a much better argument. If there were bloody prints from AK/RS in the crime scene, you would have a strong case. If the probable semen sample came up as RS, you would have a strong case.

 

[LondonJohn]

What unadulterated Elephant droppings.

Contamination will always be a "credible" argument, and the defence will always try to use it when all else fails. That's precisely why courts demand that it must rigorously be shown to have occurred (and the Knox/Sollecito defence teams failed in this). Obviously if it merely took a claim of contamination to rule out DNA evidence then the value of DNA in forensics would thenceforth be totally nullified.

Guilty as charged I'm afraid.

I think the smell is coming from a different direction......

There is a blindingly-obvious reason why courts are duty bound to ensure that physical evidence is handled/collected/stored/tested in accordance with generally-agreed protocols. Once of the necessary consequences is that those handling the physical evidence (usually the police) take all reasonable steps to minimise the chance of contamination or corruption of the evidence.

If all reasonable steps are indeed taken, the the courts should rightfully take the view that the evidence should be accepted as reliable and uncontaminated unless it can be proven that it was contaminated (evidence of contamination, route and time of contamination).

But suppose that all reasonable steps to minimise contamination are not taken. Suppose that in fact the physical evidence is treated by the police in a way that is in flagrant breach of accepted protocols and safeguards (a big hello to not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni!). How should the courts now choose to view this evidence? The answer is that the court should start with a diminished view of the reliability of this evidence, and if it can be shown that there's a reasonable probability of contamination (with reasonable evidence of contamination upon the evidence itself, together with a reasonable and credible route and time of contamination) then the court should consider this evidence unreliable.

 

[Supercalifragilistic]

You highlighted your own Achilles heel. What a shame. The video rigorously showed contamination. Have you seen it?

Clearly the court didn't think it showed that at all rigorously.

I repeat, guilty as charged.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

three erroneous ideas about DNA contamination debunked

What unadulterated Elephant droppings.

Contamination will always be a "credible" argument, and the defence will always try to use it when all else fails. That's precisely why courts demand that it must rigorously be shown to have occurred (and the Knox/Sollecito defence teams failed in this). Obviously if it merely took a claim of contamination to rule out DNA evidence then the value of DNA in forensics would thenceforth be totally nullified.

Guilty as charged I'm afraid.

Supercalifragilistic,

One, the police failed to follow guidelines (such as changing one's gloves) that are in textbooks, police manuals, and forensic company guidelines. The knife was examined in a laboratory that was not designed especially for the purpose of doing low template work, unlike the situation in England or New Zealand. The defense and independent experts (now including Dr. Peter Gill) isn't simply saying that there might be contamination; they are saying that the police failed to guard against it in ways that are obvious. Even if one thinks that the pair are guilty, bad technique will convict innocent persons eventually. It is only a matter of time.

Two, the notion that a route of contamination must be proved is apparently Dr. Novelli's invention, and it is an idea that is specifically rejected elsewhere (see Judge Vincent's report on the Farah Jama case). I am only aware of one case in which the route of contamination was known with a high degree of certainty (it took place in England). Again as Dr. Gill has pointed out in his book, proving a specific route of contamination is difficult at best. That is another reason why the "contamination must be proved" argument is completely wrong.

Three, the bra clasp egrams are available for anyone to see. There is no reference profile for Giacomo; therefore, anyone who says that his DNA is present is engaging in pure conjecture. I looked at locus DYS390 again yesterday. Guede is at 21 repeats, but the two largest additional peaks are at 23 and 24 repeats, and both are above 50 RFU in height. In other words, Guede is not a contributor at this DNA location in the Y chromosomal results. Even if the other one were Giacomo (and there is no reason to conclude that it was), it still leaves a minimum of one unknown male. How many men contributed to the YSTR egram depends on ones choice of threshold for peak heights. The presence of DNA that is unrelated to the crime is Van Oorshot's definition of contamination.

Four, how is the defense supposed to prove contamination when the prosecution still refuses to release the electronic data files and also fails to produce egrams of some of the data. The electronic data files are the best way to view the negative controls, for example. Therefore, your entire argument makes no sense on multiple grounds.
EDT
It is interesting to contemplate the idea that a route or mechanism of contamination must be proved. Does it apply to the clasp (where the contamination is evident in the result)? Does it apply when the negative controls show DNA but no route is obvious? Does it apply when the defendant has an unimpeachable alibi?

 

[Supercalifragilistic]

I think the smell is coming from a different direction......

There is a blindingly-obvious reason why courts are duty bound to ensure that physical evidence is handled/collected/stored/tested in accordance with generally-agreed protocols. Once of the necessary consequences is that those handling the physical evidence (usually the police) take all reasonable steps to minimise the chance of contamination or corruption of the evidence.

If all reasonable steps are indeed taken, the the courts should rightfully take the view that the evidence should be accepted as reliable and uncontaminated unless it can be proven that it was contaminated (evidence of contamination, route and time of contamination).

But suppose that all reasonable steps to minimise contamination are not taken. Suppose that in fact the physical evidence is treated by the police in a way that is in flagrant breach of accepted protocols and safeguards (a big hello to not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni!). How should the courts now choose to view this evidence? The answer is that the court should start with a diminished view of the reliability of this evidence, and if it can be shown that there's a reasonable probability of contamination (with reasonable evidence of contamination upon the evidence itself, together with a reasonable and credible route and time of contamination) then the court should consider this evidence unreliable.

That's a lot of "shoulds" in one post. Maybe you should go over to Italy immediately , get on your high horse and tell them about it. I can imagine their reaction.

In the meantime and in the real world contamination has not been shown to have occurred to the satisfaction of the Italian courts. Period.

The two little god-awful creeps are going down, and not a moment too soon.