Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Dan O.]

...
Did someone yank down the shower curtain to ah,
maybe wrap up Miss Kercher's body and dispose of it somewhere else?

If they did that they are very good.

We've had discussions here about staging the breakin but that is child's play compared to staging a bloody murder scene. These guys are world class pros. You have to get everything perfect the first time, there is no do-over with blood. We have blood splatters and sprays, even arterial spurts. Pooling blood, swirles where things were moved, streaks where the body was dragged. And through it all the bloody shoe prints and even a bloody palm pring right in the center under the body.

With that level of expert detail, why is there any trace left downstairs?

 

[carbonjam72]

If they did that they are very good.

We've had discussions here about staging the breakin but that is child's play compared to staging a bloody murder scene. These guys are world class pros. You have to get everything perfect the first time, there is no do-over with blood. We have blood splatters and sprays, even arterial spurts. Pooling blood, swirles where things were moved, streaks where the body was dragged. And through it all the bloody shoe prints and even a bloody palm pring right in the center under the body.

With that level of expert detail, why is there any trace left downstairs?

I'm pretty sure I'm misunderstanding your comment. I was under the impression you believe Guede did not go downstairs, and believe Stef's claim that the blood downstairs and trail outside from/or to the upstairs is all cat's blood?

Why couldn't Guede have yanked the shower curtain down with body disposal in mind, and have panicked and thought better of going back upstairs? Or changed his mind and gone back up to look for money or other reasons? Or left the bag on the stove hoping for a delayed fire occurring after he had left?

I think RBW's pics and observations here are great, and worth exploring a bit. Just not sure what you're saying here.

 

[toto]

There are issues of scholarship, and how they should be attributed to the Italian authorities.
PMF are promoting an exchange of this sort to bolster their case.
But this is ridiculous.
In fact it is somehow condemnatory of the prosecution.
Mignini is being revered for this illumination of what is obvious to a guilter, yet risible to an innocenti,


"Knox: They were telling me “why did you send this message to Patrick, this message to Patrick!”

Interpreter: Because they were always insisting about this message to Patrick and because…

PM Mignini: Well because there’s the message so [it’s] the message but it’s just that, it’s not that there was an attitude, I mean it’s not like there was any reference to a message according to what emerges from the statements. In fact there was a message that you… since there had been an exchange of messages right before the time of the murder between you and this person it’s normal that the police would want to know why, what this message meant, this… therefore it’s not something… why did you threw yourself in this kind of… ? While you had, you had the possibility to…?"

With that said, I join others in noting that I found this series particularly interesting and helpful. Thank you, Yummi, Catnip, and Kristeva

The word count for the entire "Patrick" exchange until the moment Amanda says she no longer wishes to continue with the interrogation, including the names of the participants as written in the transcript is 2,819. This is quite an intense question and answer session, albeit instigated by Amanda herself in a bid to "set the record straight", and I honestly don't see how any fair minded person might not have at least some doubt about Amanda's guilt reading it. I suspect even more doubt would creep in if we were to actually hear it. I think the broad strokes of criticism Amanda has in her book about this interrogation are well founded by reading the whole thing.

 

[Diocletus]

OK, I guess the idea is that Rudy downstairs blows his entire story which would make him useless in convicting A and R by falsifying his account and prematurely revealing him as the professional burglar we were allowed to know about only 7 years later. That's a good enough underlying theory I guess. But there are problems when you drill down, such as nobody complaining about a lost pair of trousers, excess activity for such an operation, the problem of transferring blood downstairs without leaving a similar pattern upstairs (from the only blood source to the door) etc

Remember, the downstairs scene was abandoned at a time when Lumumba was the third man, not Rudy.

There is no need for the upstairs blood to match downstairs. Downstairs, we have drips of blood probably from Rudy's hand and dilute blood that would be a function of his wash up. As for not finding things, like missing trousers, etc, that's just like not finding glass on the ground outside. Who says the looked for it or looked for it properly.

Also, the boys downstairs were malleable witnesses because of the pot. They probably also told Rudy that they would be away.

 

[Samson]

Simon Wiesenthal should find the man who said this

I knew that Sollecito would try to escape before Judge Nencini announced the verdicts and contacted individuals in the media to let them know. It was completely predictable. I've been informed that he is in a bad way psychologically and I won't be surprised if he tries to leave the country again. He knows that he's going back to the slammer. I'm looking forward to sipping a glass of champers in London to celebrate his return to Capanne prison.

 

[Diocletus]

There is an outside blood drop,
found and video'd on Nov. 3, 2007 on the bathroom window sill,
near the bottom of the stairs, similar to those inside the bathroom also,
which I now have to post, it is not watered-down, as you can see:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9210[/qimg]

The blood drop is outside, but was it created by someone/thing that was outside the window? Or could it perhaps have been created by a person reaching outside to close the window?

One other note about the drips on the bedding: it seems to me that the normal way to sample these spots for forensic testing is to cut them out and take the cut outs to the lab (like they did with the knife). Why are the sheets, comforter and sofa all intact, then?

A little luminol downstairs would have been a good idea.

 

[anglolawyer]

Anglo, my point is Jar is calling these people on false statements, hence the Grinder allusion.

Jar and thoughtful are the egnimas to me from PMF.

I was taking issue with this which implies guilty knowledge on her part:

Firstly, it is Amanda Marie Knox who, on the evening of 6 November 2007, indicated a sexual motive for the murder of Meredith Kercher. At this time, no autopsy results were available to the investigators, only an external examination of the body.

JAR is an idiot not an enigma. It is not possible to be a regular poster on those sites without being one. He is the one who hypothesised in a ridiculous article greeted with drooling acclaim that she ate an identical meal when she got home to the one she had just finished with her friends. I am serious when I say these people are mentally deranged.

 

[Samson]

I was taking issue with this which implies guilty knowledge on her part:

Firstly, it is Amanda Marie Knox who, on the evening of 6 November 2007, indicated a sexual motive for the murder of Meredith Kercher. At this time, no autopsy results were available to the investigators, only an external examination of the body.

JAR is an idiot not an enigma. It is not possible to be a regular poster on those sites without being one. He is the one who hypothesised in a ridiculous article greeted with drooling acclaim that she ate an identical meal when she got home to the one she had just finished with her friends. I am serious when I say these people are mentally deranged.

They are winning so by definition must be taken seriously though. Objective assessment of mental derangement is pointless. I don't know weho else does, but I spend 15 minutes a day reading 5 websites (probably more)
Only these two call their people on facts.

 

[NancyS]

JAR is an idiot not an enigma. It is not possible to be a regular poster on those sites without being one. He is the one who hypothesised in a ridiculous article greeted with drooling acclaim that she ate an identical meal when she got home to the one she had just finished with her friends. I am serious when I say these people are mentally deranged.

This article in the guardian today reminded me of some of the most mentally deranged posters

http://www.theguardian.com/books/20...author-confronts-her-number-one-online-critic

 

[anglolawyer]

They are winning so by definition must be taken seriously though. Objective assessment of mental derangement is pointless. I don't know weho else does, but I spend 15 minutes a day reading 5 websites (probably more)
Only these two call their people on facts.

This is self-evidently a ridiculous statement. If you are taking the nutters at PMF seriously you have taken a wrong turn somewhere.

 

[Samson]

This is self-evidently a ridiculous statement. If you are taking the nutters at PMF seriously you have taken a wrong turn somewhere.

Probably but they are winning hands down, and Raffaele is a hunted man, terrified I am sure as the slavering hounds wish. I know I would be for any kids. This is essentially beyond a parlour game unfortunately, but hey, why not be light hearted? Anglo, I have no skin in the game, but would do anything practical to derail the train.

 

[NancyS]

I remember reading a murder novelist who stated that if she wrote a story similar to what the prosecution and judges claim occurred in this case, the readers would nt believe it. Just too crazy and far fetched. Murder novels often do involved far fetched cases and when an author says it is too far fetched, that should make one think.

Exactly, it is the most ridiculous narrative. Although, it's not even a proper narrative, it's mostly just saying words like 'sex, druggie, group, sex-game, girl-on-girl' etc. etc., in order to create such a dramatically murky picture, that nobody bothers to look at the evidence

 

[anglolawyer]

Probably but they are winning hands down, and Raffaele is a hunted man, terrified I am sure as the slavering hounds wish. I know I would be for any kids. This is essentially beyond a parlour game unfortunately, but hey, why not be light hearted? Anglo, I have no skin in the game, but would do anything practical to derail the train.

There are people who think they really are in a war with these fruitcakes, in the 'twitter sphere' and what not. They have made the grave mistake of taking them seriously, which reinforces the guilters delusion about themselves that they should be taken seriously. The fact that none of them is capable of reasonably debating the case, for example here, ought to cause a rational person to reflect about their beliefs, but it seems the attractions of belonging to a like-minded community coupled with whatever personality flaws attracted them to their safe and hermetically sealed little world in the first place carry more weight.

Jar is a gibbering idiot, as his pompous and ridiculous essays show, and Thoughtful, while undoubtedly bright, seems to suffer from an inability to reason without reliance on dubious axioms whose correctness she refuses to examine (e.g. that Stefanoni would never fabricate anything). This enabled her to discuss 36C solely in terms of the probability that a match for the victim would be achieved by chance.

 

[NancyS]

Evidence? It's all here http://goo.gl/8l0iHW. You won't read it though, because it comes from dem "corrupt" and "medieval eye-talians".

So if it is so good, discuss the evidence? Or is that too boring, without adding all the extra Basic Instinct style nonsense

And I'm from the UK and think corruption and incompetence can happen anywhere

 

[acbytesla]

So if it is so good, discuss the evidence? Or is that too boring, without adding all the extra Basic Instinct style nonsense

And I'm from the UK and think corruption and incompetence can happen anywhere

test...weird. My last post in reply to Supercal was sent to oblivion. Not sure why.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Nencini thumbed his nose at good forensics

Supercalifragilistic,

Here is a passage from Nencini: "The presence of mixed Kercher-Knox traces on the cotton-bud box, on the bidet, and on the washbasin leads to the conclusion that it was Amanda Knox who washed her hands and feet, both stained with the blood of Meredith Kercher and, in so doing, by rubbing [her hands and feet], losing epithelial cells that were useful for DNA extraction...it should not be forgotten that the loss of biological substances useful for the extraction of DNA is not a phenomenon that normally happens often and with regularity in the areas that a given person frequents (the argument is obviously different on objects in common usage and on clothing, since both of these come into direct contact with the epidermis). For the loss of biological material that is useful for DNA extraction, there must be a considerable rubbing action that leaves behind biologically significant traces. [If we are to] follow the defense hypothesis, therefore, Amanda Knox would have had to deposit her own DNA in precisely the three different spots where subsequently the drops of Meredith Kercher’s blood fell as a consequence of the [act of] washing with water:" p. 208

This is a breathtakingly ignorant passage. Amanda washed her hands and feet many times whether or not she committed murder. How could one distinguish DNA shed from those times from a time when she hypothetically washed Meredith's blood away? The idea that only vigorous rubbing is needed to deposit DNA probably originated from Stefanoni's testimony, and it is just plain wrong. It is an axiom of DNA profiling that the existence of DNA does not provide information on the time or manner of its deposition. Meakin and Jamieson wrote a review article to address some of these issues.

"The published work to date establishes:
a) The possibility, but not the probability, of DNA transfer.
b) It is not possible to use the amount of DNA recovered from a surface to assess whether the DNA was deposited there by a single touch or by regular use.
c) It is not possible to use the amount of DNA recovered from an item of interest to inform whether the DNA was deposited by direct contact or indirect transfer.
d) There is no strong correlation between a full or partial profile and the amount of DNA template (at sub-optimal amounts of DNA)
e) The quality of a DNA profile cannot be used to establish whether the DNA recovered came from the last handler.
f) The number of factors, and the relative effect of those factors, involved in the transfer of DNA is unknown.
g) The initial amount of DNA deposited, and any activity likely to reduce the number of cells or DNA-containing material from donor surfaces (e.g. hand), and the time since those activities, is a key factor in determining the amount of DNA recovered."

Another problem with Nencini's interpretation is that he has no idea what the source of Amanda's DNA was. It could have been any tissue or fluid that has DNA, yet Nencini is implying that it came from material dislodged while cleaning one's hands or feet. In addition,the collection methods of the FP were so sloppy that they might have produced mixed DNA in one of two ways. One is that they did things like drop swabs and fail to change gloves. Two is that they collected over too wide an area in some cases. Even Garofano criticized the collection of data from the bidet (he said that the should not have sampled the drain plug). In addition, Nencini should learn what a substrate control is. If the FP had taken some substrate controls and found them to be negative, his argument might actually hold some validity, but they did not. This whole argument is warmed-over Massei. Obviously, it is impossible to draw a distinction among the many times Amanda used the sink and bidet and to say that on one single occasion, she deposited DNA.

 

[acbytesla]

Good post Chris. But I've got a feeling that Supercal was sent to the Jets (like Percy Harvin) for some infraction. I see that his posts have disappeared.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Nencini's powers of reasoning are poor

Good post Chris. But I've got a feeling that Supercal was sent to the Jets (like Percy Harvin) for some infraction. I see that his posts have disappeared.

There are some new posts in Abandon All Hope that came from this thread. When a thread gets cleaned out and the posts sent to AAH, some good posts get tossed, as well as ones in which there is off-topic stuff or general bickering.

I wish that people who use Nencini as a club would stick around to defend his actual reasoning, and I use that word loosely.

 

[Supercalifragilistic]

Good post Chris. But I've got a feeling that Supercal was sent to the Jets (like Percy Harvin) for some infraction. I see that his posts have disappeared.

A lot of posts have totally disappeared - not just mine, though mine were of course the best.

Who is/are " the Jets (like Percy Harvin)"? Sorry, I don't come here often - is this a band, or something everyone should be aware of, internationally?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Dr. Gill's classification of DNA evidence

Supercalifragilistic,

Peter Gill describes framework or hierarchy of levels (p. 19) at which DNA evidence can be evaluated:
1. The sub-source level refers to the strength of evidence of the DNA profile itself.
2. The source level is an evaluation of the strength of the DNA profile if it can be associated with a particular body fluid, such as semen or blood
3. The activity level associates the DNA with the crime itself, e.g. sexual assault.
4. The highest level deals with the ultimate issue of guilt/innocence.

Professor Gill’s book gives examples of cases in which a forensic scientist attempted to claim a higher level for the evidence than was warranted, based upon principles of forensics and probability. In chapter 5, he uses some examples from this case (Stefanoni's claim that the knife was used for stabbing) to illustrate some of these concepts. In the passage I quoted just now Nencini is jumping from data at level 1 (DNA at the sub-source level) to an inference at level 3 (washing after the murder), completely unaware that he cannot even get to level 2 on the basis of the evidence in front of him.