Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

From Rafaelle Sollecito's book, Honor Bound, p.176-177;

"I firmly believe that our trial was, among other things, a grand diversion intended to keep media attention away from Mignini's legal battle in Florence and provide him with the high-profile court victory he desperately needed to restore his reputation".

Already in the pre-trial hearing, Mignini had shown signs of hypersensitivity about his critics, in particular a handful of English-speaking investigators and reporters who had questioned his case against us early on.

He issued an explicit warning that anyone hoping he would back off the Meredith Kercher case or resign should think again. "Nobody has left their post, and nobody will", he said. "Let that be clear, in Perugia and beyond".

Just as he had in the Monster of Flroence case, Mignini used every tool at his disposal against his critics and adversaries. He spied on my family and tapped their phones. He went after Amanda not just for murder, but also for defaming Patrick Lumumba - whom she had implicated under duress and at the police's suggestion. He opened or threatened about a dozen other legal cases against his critics in Italy and beyond. He charged Amanda's parents with criminal defamation for repeating the accusation that she had been hit in the head while in custody. And he sued or threatened to sue an assortment of reporters, writers, and newspapers, either because they said negative things about him or the police directly or because they quoted others saying such things.

Mignini's volley of lawsuits had an unmistakeable chilling effect, especially on the Italian press, and played a clear role in tipping public opinion against us. We weren't the only ones mounting the fight of our lives in court, and it was difficult not to interpret this legal onslaught as part of Mignini's campaign to beat back the abuse of office charges. His approach seemed singularly vindictive. Not only did we have to sit in prison while the murder trial dragged on; it seemed he wanted to throw our friends and supporters - anyone who voiced a sympathetic opinion in public - into prison right alongside us."

Out of all this, Mignini has been judicially-cleared of any wrongdoing in the MoF case, but then again Mario Spezi has been cleared (has he not) of any wrongdoing as well.

In Oct 2011, Mignini's musing about the Hellmann acquittals was something akin to, My problems began with the Narducci case.

 

[Bill Williams]

Came across an earlier reaction to the trailer for "Face of An Angel", which made me think the film would be a piece of junk. (article published 2/7/14, by Tim Appelo, not sure where)

Posting here mostly for Bill W, who has been less skeptical of this film and the intentions of the director Winterbottom.

Here's the headline and a quote;

Amanda Knox Author (Candace Dempsey) Blasts 'Salacious' Trailer for 'Face of An Angel': "I'm Shocked".

Dempsey's views are from only the trailer, but the nature of the trailer is that it sells what the movie has to offer. These skunks knew what they were doing, and it stinks.

The trailer is deceptive. IIRC the trailer hints that there'd been "sex on a train", which is a common guilter factoid. The trailer is "bait and switch".

The film has almost the same footage of "Amanda" on the train, but puts it into the context of both Amanda AND Meredith coming to Perugia for the same excitement and adventure of being a student in a foreign land.

I don't know if it has been linked here, but there is a review from an innocence supporter, which does not like the film and sees it as exploitive of Kercher's murder (just like Barbie Latza Nadeau's silly book the film is based on, but which departs from).

But suffice it to say, that the trailer is very misleading.

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/face-of-an-angel-directed-by-michael-winterbottom-film-review/

 

[Bill Williams]

Some of my own interpretation:
Some of the Italian judges continue to act, in part, as though the inquisitorial system were still in place. They assume themselves to be extensions of the prosecution, accepting the case file and discounting the defense. Since they are "seeking the truth", they see no reason not to invent their own "truths" which others see as speculation. Thus, they have no issue with plausible guilt rather than guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The judges thinking may be: If the defendant weren't guilty in some way, why would they be in my court; guilt, not innocence is presumed in this dysfunction of the inquisitorial system. And if the CSC orders a finding of guilt, so much "truer" this guilt must be; evidence is simply to be cherry-picked to support creative speculation to produce a seemingly but falsely "reasoned" motivation report.

This.

I'm now scrambling to re-find the document done by an American Lawyer who was researching the transition from Inquisitorial to Adversarial in Italy, that got stalled somewhere along the way.....

Both Judge Massei as well as Judge Nencini have no problems with simply inventing scenarios, with no evidence at all provided in court.

A small example is the "transport of the kitchen knife by Amanda from Raffaele's."

Judge Massei says she carried this oversized knife in her purse for protection - with NO supporting evidence, not one item of testimony from a witness who saw it, or a speck of blood in her purse.

Judge Nencini feels free to invent out of whole cloth a different scenario. For him he invents that kitchen implements could have freely been exchanged between the two abodes. Again, not one witness testified that this ever happened, not one prosecutor asked a single question on this line of thought - but that did not deter Nencini at all.

And on and on.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

iron may have bonded to the tile

What is your spin on the results of a direct application of Luminol verses an indirect TMB test on a substrate like a floor tile with an old stain that left iron ions bound to the tile?

This is a very important consideration IMO.

 

[Machiavelli]

Then why did they bother to do such a useless test? Your arguments are moronic.

TMB is far less sensitive and less specific than luminol. It is indirect. Has the same array of false positives.
It is not "my argument", these are findings reported in research papers.

 

[Machiavelli]

What is your spin on the results of a direct application of Luminol verses an indirect TMB test on a substrate like a floor tile with an old stain that left iron ions bound to the tile?

I already explained - in the last page or two - what is my problem with any "old stain" theory.

 

[Desert Fox]

TMB is far less sensitive and less specific than luminol. It is indirect. Has the same array of false positives.
It is not "my argument", these are findings reported in research papers.

The elephant in the room you keep trying to ignore is all of the other substances that luminol triggers off of.

Why was there no confirmatory testing done?

 

[Machiavelli]

The elephant in the room you keep trying to ignore is all of the other substances that luminol triggers off of.

Why was there no confirmatory testing done?

The other possible substances are not so many nor plausible, and above all they also trigger TMB reaction.
And, beyond the chemical substance, there is the rest of information from the physical other features of footprints to explain (isolation finding in same context of diluted blood prints and evidence of cleanup mixed DNA etc.)

 

[Chris_Halkides]

lower limit of detection of HemaTrace

TMB is far less sensitive and less specific than luminol. It is indirect. Has the same array of false positives.
It is not "my argument", these are findings reported in research papers.

On the basis of the literature luminol could be argued to be better than other presumptive tests if you have a bunch of samples that are contaminated with lemon juice. Continuing to repeat the same old stuff without engaging the legitimate criticisms of your point of view is not persuasive. The two-stage nature of the TMB test is one such problem you have failed to address.

More importantly, you continue to ignore the lack of Meredith's DNA in most of the luminol-positive areas, as well as the lack of an antibody-based confirmatory test, such as HemaTrace. Robert Kerber wrote, "The concentration of hemoglobin molecules in red blood cells is so high (340 mg/mL, 2.3 mM) that they almost could be said to be on the verge of crystallization." (J. Chem. Education Vol. 84 No. 9 September 2007, p. 1541). One article from the Michigan State Police listed the lower limit of detection of HemaTrace as 0.05 µg/mL, and the authors gave its maximum dilution factor of blood that would still allow for its detection as 1:16,777,216. Another study provides 0.07 µg/mL as the limit of detection. The concentration of hemoglobin in whole blood is about 140 mg/mL using a value of 40% as the volume of red blood cells within whole blood. 1 milligram = 1000 µg. Therefore, this test can detect blood that has been diluted more than one millionfold. The need for a confirmatory test is not disputed among forensic scientists, but Nencini has no training in this area. Under these circumstances it is unsurprising that he said a bunch of foolish nonsense.

 

[MDDVS]

TMB is far less sensitive and less specific than luminol. It is indirect. Has the same array of false positives.
It is not "my argument", these are findings reported in research papers.

Your argument is self-defeating. I it is quite funny that you don't seem to realize it.

 

[Numbers]

This.

I'm now scrambling to re-find the document done by an American Lawyer who was researching the transition from Inquisitorial to Adversarial in Italy, that got stalled somewhere along the way.....

Both Judge Massei as well as Judge Nencini have no problems with simply inventing scenarios, with no evidence at all provided in court.

A small example is the "transport of the kitchen knife by Amanda from Raffaele's."

Judge Massei says she carried this oversized knife in her purse for protection - with NO supporting evidence, not one item of testimony from a witness who saw it, or a speck of blood in her purse.

Judge Nencini feels free to invent out of whole cloth a different scenario. For him he invents that kitchen implements could have freely been exchanged between the two abodes. Again, not one witness testified that this ever happened, not one prosecutor asked a single question on this line of thought - but that did not deter Nencini at all.

And on and on.

You may be interested in these papers:

The frustrated turn to adversarial procedures in Italy (Italian criminal procedure code of 1988), by Guilio Illuminati, Washington University Global Studies Law Review Vol. 4 Issue 3 p 567 (2005)
http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/globalstudies

THE BATTLE TO ESTABLISH AN ADVERSARIAL TRIAL SYSTEM IN ITALY, by
William T. Pizzi and Mariangela Montagna, Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 25 p 429 (2004)
https://lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/pubpdfs/pizzi/PizziMJIL.pdf

 

[Numbers]

The other possible substances are not so many nor plausible, and above all they also trigger TMB reaction.
And, beyond the chemical substance, there is the rest of information from the physical other features of footprints to explain (isolation finding in same context of diluted blood prints and evidence of cleanup mixed DNA etc.)

You never address the issue that the Forensic Police never used a blood confirmatory test - such as the antigen-antibody test - to show that the luminol "footprints" attributed to Amanda Knox were actually blood. In fact, based on Stefanoni's testimony in court, they followed up the presumptive luminol testing with presumptive TMB testing. Since the TMB did not show a reaction, they concluded, as she stated in her testimony, that these luminol stains were not blood. This is actually completely logical; what was unethical and misconduct was her failure to state clearly upfront that these luminol tests and TMB tests had both been performed and the conclusion was that the "footprints" alleged to be those of Amanda Knox were not blood.

If the Forensic Police had concluded based on both presumptive tests that those "footprints" were likely to be blood, they should have carried out a confirmatory test such as the antigen-antibody test. That they did not confirms that the alleged Amanda Knox "footprints" were not considered blood. Furthermore, Meredith's DNA was not detected in the "footprints" with perhaps one possible exception IIRC, which exception is most likely due to environmental contamination. The Forensic Police did not do, or at least did not report, substrate controls to check on the general distribution of Amanda's and Meredith's DNA on the floor, which DNA would be expected on the floor in many locations with no probative value since they certainly would have walked around the apartment barefoot.

 

[Kauffer]

Greetings from Great Britain

I am new to this forum but not to this case. Starting to look at the evidence shortly before the 2011 exonerations, I realised that the prosecution's burden was insurmountable as soon as I discovered that there was no physical evidence of Amanda Knox in Meredith Kercher's bedroom. Now, three years on we have extraordinary judicial conjecture based on a misplaced lamp and a demonstrably inept attribution of a size 37 shoe print. Admittedly, we need to add the evidence of the unfortunate boyfriend's presence in the room - the well rehearsed dragonfly theory - but all in all, the pro-guilt meal is rather nutrition less fare.

But here's a thing. Why wasn't Amanda Knox's DNA found in the murder room? It seems to me that it's astonishing good fortune for her that it wasn't. Not because she's a murderer, which she plainly isn't and not because she cleaned the crime scene, which she plainly didn't. In the 42 days that she and Meredith Kercher shared accommodation together, how many times would Ms Knox have been in the room - just hanging out, chatting, trying on clothes and for any number of myriad legitimate reasons? Would the scientists here agree with me that it should have been far more likely than not that her DNA would have been found?

Amanda Knox has been devastatingly unlucky that the circumstances of the murder have meant she has been unable, by a whisker, actually to prove her innocence, but with regard to the lack of evidence of her presence in Meredith Kercher's bedroom, she has surely been very lucky indeed.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Hey Charlie Wilkes and Bruce Fisher,
You 2 are both close to this case we discuss.

Do you have Crime Scene video from when the downstairs was 1st broken into, along with footage of ALL the rooms, such as the living room, bathrooms and bedrooms that are strangely missing from the publicly available video we do have that was filmed on Nov. 2, 2007?

It's perplexing that none of these rooms are shown,
for there wasn't any bodies lying in downstairs, right?

So why hide the viewing of the rooms that 2nd day of Nov.
and why are we only allowed to see them the next day???

Is there something downstairs that we are not supposed to see,
or is there a simple explanation, like the camera guy kooked it and forgot to bring an extra camcorder battery or video tape or SDHC or CF memory card?

Thanks for a reply,
RW

I came across an article in La Repubblica which detailed the criticisms by the U.S. of the investigation in Perugia. It specifically mentioned the kicking in of that downstairs door and how unprofessional it was. Perhaps, in light of the criticism, Italy held back much of the downstairs evidence, including video.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=6079447

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I am new to this forum but not to this case. Starting to look at the evidence shortly before the 2011 exonerations, I realised that the prosecution's burden was insurmountable as soon as I discovered that there was no physical evidence of Amanda Knox in Meredith Kercher's bedroom. Now, three years on we have extraordinary judicial conjecture based on a misplaced lamp and a demonstrably inept attribution of a size 37 shoe print. Admittedly, we need to add the evidence of the unfortunate boyfriend's presence in the room - the well rehearsed dragonfly theory - but all in all, the pro-guilt meal is rather nutrition less fare.

But here's a thing. Why wasn't Amanda Knox's DNA found in the murder room? It seems to me that it's astonishing good fortune for her that it wasn't. Not because she's a murderer, which she plainly isn't and not because she cleaned the crime scene, which she plainly didn't. In the 42 days that she and Meredith Kercher shared accommodation together, how many times would Ms Knox have been in the room - just hanging out, chatting, trying on clothes and for any number of myriad legitimate reasons? Would the scientists here agree with me that it should have been far more likely than not that her DNA would have been found?

Amanda Knox has been devastatingly unlucky that the circumstances of the murder have meant she has been unable, by a whisker, actually to prove her innocence, but with regard to the lack of evidence of her presence in Meredith Kercher's bedroom, she has surely been very lucky indeed.

Welcome to the forum!
I agree, it would be most likely to have found her DNA somewhere in Meredith's room. I also agree it is extremely fortunate it was not.

 

[Machiavelli]

You never address the issue that the Forensic Police never used a blood confirmatory test - such as the antigen-antibody test - to show that the luminol "footprints" attributed to Amanda Knox were actually blood. (...)

I think I even forget about it. In fact I am not interested at all. I think they did the antibody confirmatory test based on what Stefanoni said at the preliminary hearing, but in fact I don't know and I think it's not interesting. It's irrelevant. A confirmatory test is unnecessary in my opinion in order to assume that the luminol stains are a piece of circumstantial evidence.

 

[Desert Fox]

The other possible substances are not so many nor plausible, and above all they also trigger TMB reaction.
And, beyond the chemical substance, there is the rest of information from the physical other features of footprints to explain (isolation finding in same context of diluted blood prints and evidence of cleanup mixed DNA etc.)

the very soil contains iron oxide as I wrote previously. There are pictures of rust under the radiator. This is ignoring cleaning chemicals which can trigger luminol.

I even quoted a forensics training manual and it states that any luminol readings must be confirmed. . . .Why is the training manual wrong and you are right?

 

[Desert Fox]

I am new to this forum but not to this case. Starting to look at the evidence shortly before the 2011 exonerations, I realised that the prosecution's burden was insurmountable as soon as I discovered that there was no physical evidence of Amanda Knox in Meredith Kercher's bedroom. Now, three years on we have extraordinary judicial conjecture based on a misplaced lamp and a demonstrably inept attribution of a size 37 shoe print. Admittedly, we need to add the evidence of the unfortunate boyfriend's presence in the room - the well rehearsed dragonfly theory - but all in all, the pro-guilt meal is rather nutrition less fare.

But here's a thing. Why wasn't Amanda Knox's DNA found in the murder room? It seems to me that it's astonishing good fortune for her that it wasn't. Not because she's a murderer, which she plainly isn't and not because she cleaned the crime scene, which she plainly didn't. In the 42 days that she and Meredith Kercher shared accommodation together, how many times would Ms Knox have been in the room - just hanging out, chatting, trying on clothes and for any number of myriad legitimate reasons? Would the scientists here agree with me that it should have been far more likely than not that her DNA would have been found?

Amanda Knox has been devastatingly unlucky that the circumstances of the murder have meant she has been unable, by a whisker, actually to prove her innocence, but with regard to the lack of evidence of her presence in Meredith Kercher's bedroom, she has surely been very lucky indeed.

Greetings, always good to get posters who are not from the United States arguing for innocence. Been accused in the past of only supporting her because she is an American.

 

[MDDVS]

I think I even forget about it. In fact I am not interested at all. I think they did the antibody confirmatory test based on what Stefanoni said at the preliminary hearing, but in fact I don't know and I think it's not interesting. It's irrelevant. A confirmatory test is unnecessary in my opinion in order to assume that the luminol stains are a piece of circumstantial evidence.

Yes, aconfirmatory test is unnecessary if you want to assume that the luminol stains are a piece of circumstantial evidence.

 

[MDDVS]

Greetings, always good to get posters who are not from the United States arguing for innocence. Been accused in the past of only supporting her because she is an American.

I'm not american either. Don't forget that Rafaelle is not american either.