Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[js202]

I am not certain that I fully understand the allusion, but that case is certainly bizarre.
Here I study with fascination the dark side, hoping to uncover how it could be winning. I would like to know who with skin in the game truly believes, and belief is all that can be attributed, because knowledge certainly can not, that these kids are guilty
Micheli
Massei
Mignini
Galati
Crini
Nencini
Maresca
the Kercher five.

And Popper, that fluent English writer who correctly from Italy forecasts the twists and turns.
Now he says

The only judicial hearings he may ever have in the future are (a) a possible review of conviction if new evidence proved he is definitely innocent (give it 0.0001% chance)

This is one chance in a million!
Yet I see not one chance in a quadrillion that the converse is true, they were involved.
Would he bet his life? I definitely would bet mine.

Seek out Annie Moore's last letter with regard to her time as an acolyte of Jim Jones in Guyana. In her screed, you will find a kind of dead-ender anger, against all reason and rationality, not dissimilar to the tone and content, in miniature, of what you quote from Jackson.

My interpretation is that it is a dark or aberrant tendency of the human psyche to attach onto an irrational belief or set of beliefs, and have such beliefs compounded and affirmed by the bunker mentality of the PMF and TJMK groups. Paradoxically, disagreement from figures like Gill, Douglas, Moore, etc., creates a demon against which they may rail, thus powerfully reaffirming their belief system. I am quite serious in my interpretation that these individuals are cult material: gullible and apparently supine to authority, inclined to stubbornly hew to group orthodoxy, inclined to outrage at anyone who disagrees, etc.

 

[acbytesla]

The problem is whilst objectively it is impossible she could have heard a scream originating from within the room, that she was uncertain about the time and day, and reported the scream long after the events; huge weight has been given to it. More weight is given to the scream in determining time of death than the more certain post mortem findings, telephone data and circumstantial issues such as state of clothing. The eye witness statement of Guede is ignored. Stronger data are ignored because of the need of the prosecution to shift time of death later. Then to compound the silliness the impossible scream is then used to say that Knox reported a scream in her first statement and she would only have known there was a scream if she was there. Leaving aside that if one was being asked to imagine a terrible crime a scream is something that might be imagined as happening, we do not know if there was a scream.

The nature of the Italian legal system is that it appears to give greater weight to witness evidence than objective evidence despite the well known issues with eye witness reliability. Curatolo seems never to have been asked to identify Knox or Sollecito in any sort of line up just the ever reliable 'are those people you see in the dock the guilty ones?'. Does anyone really believe that one could reliably identify a couple you do not know seen at a distance in the twilight months ago? I certainly could not.

It's a huge problem. And dumb. Not only does Nara admit not looking at a clock and she just guesses, she absolutely couldn't have heard what she said she heard. How can that be given much weight? While I'm not fond of calling the old lady a liar, I think we can unequivocally say that her statement is false and offers zero value in helping determining the time of death.

In contrast digestive rates fit a mathematical pattern and there really is little reason to believe that Meredith died later than 10 PM and more likely it was very close to 9 PM. How this is not "game over" given the confirmation from Rudy saying it was 9:20 to 9:30 and the Naruto download flabbergasts me.

Eyewitnesses, excuse the expression, "suck". Under the best of circumstances they are unreliable but these Perugian witnesses are simply not credible and there are facts that severely impeach them beyond normal every day run of the mill witnesses.

 

[Grinder]

The problem is whilst objectively it is impossible she could have heard a scream originating from within the room, that she was uncertain about the time and day, and reported the scream long after the events; huge weight has been given to it. More weight is given to the scream in determining time of death than the more certain post mortem findings, telephone data and circumstantial issues such as state of clothing. The eye witness statement of Guede is ignored. Stronger data are ignored because of the need of the prosecution to shift time of death later. Then to compound the silliness the impossible scream is then used to say that Knox reported a scream in her first statement and she would only have known there was a scream if she was there. Leaving aside that if one was being asked to imagine a terrible crime a scream is something that might be imagined as happening, we do not know if there was a scream.

The nature of the Italian legal system is that it appears to give greater weight to witness evidence than objective evidence despite the well known issues with eye witness reliability. Curatolo seems never to have been asked to identify Knox or Sollecito in any sort of line up just the ever reliable 'are those people you see in the dock the guilty ones?'. Does anyone really believe that one could reliably identify a couple you do not know seen at a distance in the twilight months ago? I certainly could not.

But, but the police questioned her until she buckled and told them what they knew to be correct and part of that was the scream.

Of course none of the witnesses actually witnessed the crime or any activity that came close to connecting anyone to crime with the exception of the couple having a black man bump into them.

Curatolo should have had a "lineup" in the plaza after dark and from 50 meters away. At 9:30 in November it is no longer twilight.

Nara's testimony is totally worthless no matter whether she could hear a scream from the cottage or not. While I have disputed the exact latest TOD based on digestion, clearly if Lalli was correct and there was no digestion then TOD couldn't be at 11 pm and we know the prosecution case has them in the plaza until nearly midnight. Remember Massei changed Curatolo's testimony in order to have the disco buses there when he left, but there were no buses, so the time goes back to near midnight.

The video of the December search was done so the defense outside in a van could observe as well as keeping the record. Interesting that videoing a search is more valuable than videoing a confession. Anyway, I don't find the demonstration of finding the bra clasp was just theater but rather something they did for the defense team watching. Though it is a very dicey piece of evidence, I don't see the show and drop etc. that odd considering the circumstances. Obviously everyone understands that part of the victims clothing torn (or cut) during the murder is a very important piece of evidence even if it should have been bagged back in Nov.

 

[Desert Fox]

The video of the December search was done so the defense outside in a van could observe as well as keeping the record. Interesting that videoing a search is more valuable than videoing a confession. Anyway, I don't find the demonstration of finding the bra clasp was just theater but rather something they did for the defense team watching. Though it is a very dicey piece of evidence, I don't see the show and drop etc. that odd considering the circumstances. Obviously everyone understands that part of the victims clothing torn (or cut) during the murder is a very important piece of evidence even if it should have been bagged back in Nov.

The trouble is that their handling made it useless for trace evidence of any kind.
Being that it drifted around, the location is useless as well.

 

[Strozzi]

The trouble is that their handling made it useless for trace evidence of any kind.
Being that it drifted around, the location is useless as well.

Does the video show Stefanoni or one of her white-suited assistants locating the bra clasp under a rug?

I recall an earlier comment made here many months ago that the actual retrieval of the clasp was not videoed - that it took place off camera. Who located it? Who handed it to Stefanoni?

 

[Desert Fox]

It all seems rather unclear as to whether Gill actually made this explicit assertion or whether it was a misinterpretation by the BBC reporter. Either way, it's largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, since it was always represented (misrepresented in this instance) as only one of several ways in which the knife could have been contaminated.

As all objective scientific minds know, the knife was handled, collected, transported, examined and tested in conditions which were in massive and repeated breach of accepted protocols. Even if it had been a DNA-rich item, the methods used would have been highly suspect. But since the item only yielded ultra-low-template levels of DNA, the grossly negligent way (to take the most charitable explanation....) that the knife was handled renders it hugely unreliable as a source of DNA evidence. In addition of course, the way in which the tests were conducted upon the alleged Kercher sample in particular add an additional layer of unreliability. In short, there is no way whatsoever that the presence of Kercher's DNA on that knife can be accepted as reliable or credible. It simply should not be - and should never have been - accepted by the courts in these trials.

If there was considerable hum blood on the knife, perhaps if it were taken apart, and it matched Meredeth, that would be something. Of course, I would still raise my hand (figuratively) and ask, "Why does the blade not match the wounds and have all this blood?"

 

[Grinder]

The trouble is that their handling made it useless for trace evidence of any kind.
Being that it drifted around, the location is useless as well.

It depends on what you mean by handling. The fact that it had been an unsecured room in terms of CSI work and had migrated around the floor severely reduced its probative value. The dropping on the video and the handling of it didn't reduce the value much at all. But my main point was that the video wasn't just made for the prosecution rather for the observers including the defense people. While far be it for me to reduce the clownish aspects of the PLE or the ILE in this example it wasn't exactly as is often described by the PIP.

Had the ICSI done more controls (not sure how many they did) and the bra clasp showed only MK's and RS' DNA it wouldn't be useless certainly not in Italy where ALL evidence is presented and the judges decide how valuable it is.

 

[RWVBWL]

Here is Meredith's bloodied bra:

Here is Dr. Stefanoni reaching downward to pick it up:

Don't you think this should have been collected with new, clean sterile tweezers?


Here is Dr. Stefanoni holding Meredith's bra in her hand:

I learned something new,
very early this morning when I re-read and shared a few links to old Perugia Shock in my previous post up above:

She also advertised herself: she revealed she trains herself by buying profile-reading exercises and she always gets an A.

Perhaps she’s a bit approximate on the crime scene, where she’s lost if the fridge isn’t working, where she cancels footprints completely, where she spreads blood around, where she rubs swabs with her hands, where she agitates underwear in the air, where she puts samples in plastic bags…. That’s not really her fault, since probably nobody taught her how to move around a crime scene. But she’s great at pure DNAing. Trust me, she should have remained at the university.

Dr. Stefanoni always gets an "A" when she trains herself by reading exercises.
Hmmmm.

Has not Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni ever read of using new sterile gloves
and a new, sterile pair of tweezers to collect evidence?

Here's a little more from FS reporting from the courtroom:

Stefano Conti showed the movements inside the house, from the video of November 2. He pointed out that while the biologists were collecting the evidence, any sort of non scientific people –in a sweater, in a coat– were walking around, passing from room to room. People who looked not to really have a function, a purpose, a discipline.

Conti was particularly struck by one person who was using his foot to indicate something beside the body. Or by another person who at one point said ‘it’s all absurd… disorganization beyond belief’ (and if they say that…). Or by the notorious opening of the door downstairs with kicks, ending up with the explosion of the glass.

The forensic people, then: suits half opened; evidence grabbed with the hands, even when they had tweezers in their other hand; gloves not changed; up to three stains (even if close to each other) collected with one buffer; evidence stored into plastic bags; blood traces completely removed; gloves and shoe covers not changed; a garment shacked in the air by Stefanoni. For December 18, then, even the re-appearing piece of bra, the main evidence, was collected with dirty gloves.

He was very clear: first he recalled the guidelines, then he showed the way they acted. Result: for Stefano Conti, everything that shouldn’t have been done, was done. And this is just what happened under the cameras. Imagine what happened when nobody was filming…

What sloppy workmanship Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni showed
when she collected the bra clasp some 46 days later,
while wearing dirty gloves and not using tweezers:

I'd give her an "F" for her work,
how would you grade her?

 

[Desert Fox]

Does the video show Stefanoni or one of her white-suited assistants locating the bra clasp under a rug?

I recall an earlier comment made here many months ago that the actual retrieval of the clasp was not videoed - that it took place off camera. Who located it? Who handed it to Stefanoni?

Will all of the screw up, certainly possible. I do not recall watching video of an actual retrieval although believe I remember video of them laying it down and photographing it in that manner which is a "no no" right there.

 

[Desert Fox]

It depends on what you mean by handling. The fact that it had been an unsecured room in terms of CSI work and had migrated around the floor severely reduced its probative value. The dropping on the video and the handling of it didn't reduce the value much at all. But my main point was that the video wasn't just made for the prosecution rather for the observers including the defense people. While far be it for me to reduce the clownish aspects of the PLE or the ILE in this example it wasn't exactly as is often described by the PIP.
Had the ICSI done more controls (not sure how many they did) and the bra clasp showed only MK's and RS' DNA it wouldn't be useless certainly not in Italy where ALL evidence is presented and the judges decide how valuable it is.

I don't see that actually. . . What I have read in regards to the bra clasp seem to match. When all is said and done, the value is minimal at best when using any rational consideration. If anything, it should be best for the defense giving evidence on just how competent the police are.

 

[acbytesla]

But, but the police questioned her until she buckled and told them what they knew to be correct and part of that was the scream.

Of course none of the witnesses actually witnessed the crime or any activity that came close to connecting anyone to crime with the exception of the couple having a black man bump into them.

Curatolo should have had a "lineup" in the plaza after dark and from 50 meters away. At 9:30 in November it is no longer twilight.

Nara's testimony is totally worthless no matter whether she could hear a scream from the cottage or not. While I have disputed the exact latest TOD based on digestion, clearly if Lalli was correct and there was no digestion then TOD couldn't be at 11 pm and we know the prosecution case has them in the plaza until nearly midnight. Remember Massei changed Curatolo's testimony in order to have the disco buses there when he left, but there were no buses, so the time goes back to near midnight.

The video of the December search was done so the defense outside in a van could observe as well as keeping the record. Interesting that videoing a search is more valuable than videoing a confession. Anyway, I don't find the demonstration of finding the bra clasp was just theater but rather something they did for the defense team watching. Though it is a very dicey piece of evidence, I don't see the show and drop etc. that odd considering the circumstances. Obviously everyone understands that part of the victims clothing torn (or cut) during the murder is a very important piece of evidence even if it should have been bagged back in Nov.

I really don't get you Grinder. You find what Raffaele said about Rudy as odd, but not that totally bizarre show they put on collecting the bra clasp? Did they do that with every item? Pass it around between multiple people like a joint at a Grateful Dead Concert and then laying it on the floor?

Yes it was theater. But that is why it is odd. They collected 400+ samples of evidence Grinder. What makes this one so special that they felt the need to put on a Broadway production? Had they made such a performance with every piece of evidence, your point might be valid, but they didn't.

 

[RWVBWL]

I don't see that actually. . . What I have read in regards to the bra clasp seem to match. When all is said and done, the value is minimal at best when using any rational consideration. If anything, it should be best for the defense giving evidence on just how competent the police are.

Hi Desert Fox,
The defense in this case we discuss walked a very fine line in my humble opinion,
here, read of an incident involving a threat, you might say, from a member of the PM Mignini's team,
which occurred in Judge Hellmann's Appeal Court:

For the bra clasp, the fact that Raffaele’s profile was found after his arrest really looks like having influenced the reading, because with all those alleles (and now we know that they were so many) you could really pick the ones you liked.

When Tagliabracci tried to explain the concept, Comodi warned him “you may regret what you are saying.” Obviously Tagliabracci meant that Stefanoni unconsciously proceeded with a suspect-centric way, but in Comodi’s world you can’t say that. It’s a crime.

She intimidated him with a possible charge. Exactly like she and Mignini did with Amanda, when she was just trying to defend herself, and she got sued for slander.

Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110925...1/09/06/approaching-the-contamination-moment/

The hardball tactics of the PM Mignini and/or friends are also noted when
some Perugia cops headed outta town and took a road trip to Rome
to visit Conti+Vecchiotti after Court had ended the day before...
http://web.archive.org/web/20110924.../conti-and-vecchiotti-the-police-at-the-door/

 

[Desert Fox]

I really don't get you Grinder. You find what Raffaele said about Rudy as odd, but not that totally bizarre show they put on collecting the bra clasp? Did they do that with every item? Pass it around between multiple people like a joint at a Grateful Dead Concert and then laying it on the floor?

Yes it was theater. But that is why it is odd. They collected 400+ samples of evidence Grinder. What makes this one so special that they felt the need to put on a Broadway production? Had they made such a performance with every piece of evidence, your point might be valid, but they didn't.

Has anybody ever described in story form how the evidence collection should have been done? I have read some stuff in training manuals but love to have it actually laid out completely.

My understanding is I think they would have taken Meredeth's body and then started painstakingly from the entrance of the room and picked up everything of value instead of the random collection they seem to have more or less done.

 

[Desert Fox]

Hi Desert Fox,
The defense in this case we discuss walked a very fine line in my humble opinion,
here, read of an incident involving a threat, you might say, from a member of the PM Mignini's team,
which occurred in Judge Hellmann's Appeal Court:

Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110925...1/09/06/approaching-the-contamination-moment/

The hardball tactics of the PM Mignini and/or friends are also noted when
some Perugia cops headed outta town and took a road trip to Rome
to visit Conti+Vecchiotti after Court had ended the day before...
http://web.archive.org/web/20110924.../conti-and-vecchiotti-the-police-at-the-door/

That ability for prosecutors to sue for slander is an anchor around the defenses neck. That is something that really needs to get introduced in European Court of Appeals because I cannot see ever having a fair trial based on that. I think the US would also be best to rip up any extradition agreements based on that.

"Yes, Italy, if you want to keep our next Charles Ng who flees to Italy because of that, have fun."

 

[acbytesla]

Has anybody ever described in story form how the evidence collection should have been done? I have read some stuff in training manuals but love to have it actually laid out completely.

My understanding is I think they would have taken Meredeth's body and then started painstakingly from the entrance of the room and picked up everything of value instead of the random collection they seem to have more or less done.

Well to start with DF, they needed to get all the collection done at one time and not wait 46 days. Second, they needed to act professionally. Third, they shouldn't plant evidence.

 

[Grinder]

I don't see that actually. . . What I have read in regards to the bra clasp seem to match. When all is said and done, the value is minimal at best when using any rational consideration. If anything, it should be best for the defense giving evidence on just how competent the police are.

I was addressing the repeated contention that the video was just theater and that the way they showed the clasp has nefarious meaning. If as I understand it the defense was watching from the van it doesn't have the same meaning as if it was done without them watching. There may have been audio that I'm not aware of.

I really don't get you Grinder. You find what Raffaele said about Rudy as odd, but not that totally bizarre show they put on collecting the bra clasp? Did they do that with every item? Pass it around between multiple people like a joint at a Grateful Dead Concert and then laying it on the floor?

Do you accept that this was done with the defense watching from a van outside? While I've repeatedly stated the lack of protocol makes the evidence unacceptable I don't see the similarity with a GD concert. Raf's comment is most definitely odd, so what? "Grinder doesn't know me and has never even seen me therefore how could he have seen me with Bertha" is odd if the truth is that you never were with Bertha. You would say that "Grinder is lying because I was never with Bertha".

The fact is because of PMF sleuth work you have been outed and you were with Bertha and therefore I could have seen and recognized you

Yes it was theater. But that is why it is odd. They collected 400+ samples of evidence Grinder. What makes this one so special that they felt the need to put on a Broadway production? Had they made such a performance with every piece of evidence, your point might be valid, but they didn't.

Tesla read slowly, they knew the clasp was missing, they were revisiting the cottage to collect it and other missed items, the defense was part of this visit because the kids were held and had lawyers, the CSI people were playing to the cameras so the defense experts could see and therefore it wasn't theater done by the CSI on their own.

Once again the clasp was obviously very important and that was known in advance as they had it on video from the initial collection visits.

ETA - I'm sure the best CSI people return to crime scenes and in some cases more than 46 days later.

 

[Grinder]

Now this may new here. It was new to me and I don't remember seeing it here. If this has been vetted, I apologize in advance.

22 U.S. Code § 1732 - Release of citizens imprisoned by foreign governments


Current through Pub. L. 113-142, except 128. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

Whenever it is made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons of such imprisonment; and if it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, the President shall use such means, not amounting to acts of war and not otherwise prohibited by law, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate the release; and all the facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be communicated by the President to Congress.

 

[Desert Fox]

Well to start with DF, they needed to get all the collection done at one time and not wait 46 days. Second, they needed to act professionally. Third, they shouldn't plant evidence.

I thought I saw in one of the pictures one of those fancy laser systems which allows you to make a full recording where everything is. I have read nothing about them actually using it however.

I am trying to avoid the argument of 'planting evidence" because it almost never looks good. It is possible in this case, do not get me wrong. It is a tactical decision on my part to avoid it.

I think an argument can be made that they were far from professional.

 

[anglolawyer]

Now this may new here. It was new to me and I don't remember seeing it here. If this has been vetted, I apologize in advance.

22 U.S. Code § 1732 - Release of citizens imprisoned by foreign governments


Current through Pub. L. 113-142, except 128. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

Whenever it is made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons of such imprisonment; and if it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, the President shall use such means, not amounting to acts of war and not otherwise prohibited by law, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate the release; and all the facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be communicated by the President to Congress.

Can we have the long form of those citations?

 

[Desert Fox]

I was addressing the repeated contention that the video was just theater and that the way they showed the clasp has nefarious meaning. If as I understand it the defense was watching from the van it doesn't have the same meaning as if it was done without them watching. There may have been audio that I'm not aware of.

They seem to have gone to the crime scene to pick up one item of evidence and made a big show out of it. They then could not follow proper crime scene procedures. . ..That is not a show?

ETA - I'm sure the best CSI people return to crime scenes and in some cases more than 46 days later.

Maybe to see if there is something about the lay of the crime scene.
Collecting evidence at that point is close to useless however