Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[griffinmill]

I don't remember all the cartoons I've seen. Looney Tunes certainly were among them.

Just so I'm clear. Both were questioned intensely about their alibis. Both remembered watching Amelie in their statements. Both didn't remember watcing Naruto immediately after Amelie in those same statements.

This doesn't strike you as odd?

 

[MichaelB]

You do realize that neither AK nor RS mentioned Naruto in their alibi during the first trial, right? They both mentioned Amelie, but both somehow forgot Naruto. Does that seem like an innocent oversight to you? Just two stoned kids who remrembered one movie, but not another?

In the November 7 Memoriale #2 she talks about him telling her about Sailor Moon (a Japanese comic cartoon) after dinner. Low and behold a Japanese comic cartoon is a file that's been opened on the computer around that time before she knew anything about computer forensics. That's one hellva coincidence don't you think? Wouldn't they have had their stories straight on this if they were capable of cleaning and staging a crime scene, even the corpse according to some weirdos?

It's entirely plausible he had just opened the cartoon but didn't watch it because he started talking to her.

 

[griffinmill]

In the November 7 Memoriale #2 she talks about him telling her about Sailor Moon (a Japanese comic cartoon) after dinner. Low and behold a Japanese comic cartoon is a file that's been opened on the computer before she knew anything about computer forensics. That's one hellva coincidence don't you think? Wouldn't they have had their stories straight on this if they were capable of cleaning and staging a crime scene, even the corpse according to some weirdos?

It's entirely plausible he had just opened the cartoon but didn't watch it because he started talking to her.

Yet neither AK nor RS' attorneys bring that up in the first trial. And apparently AK and RS didn't tell them when it would have helped their alibis so much.

 

[acbytesla]

Just so I'm clear. Both were questioned intensely about their alibis. Both remembered watching Amelie in their statements. Both didn't remember watcing Naruto immediately after Amelie in those same statements.

This doesn't strike you as odd?

Do you dispute the download? The fact is the download took place.

 

[MichaelB]

Yet neither AK nor RS' attorneys bring that up in the first trial. And apparently AK and RS didn't tell them when it would have helped their alibis so much.

It was part of the third trial and the prosecution acknowledged the cartoon was opened. End of story.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yet neither AK nor RS' attorneys bring that up in the first trial. And apparently AK and RS didn't tell them when it would have helped their alibis so much.

I have some news for you. AK and RS's defence wasn't the best it could have been, unfortunately.

As a matter of fact it took quite a while before those of us here at the JREF forums pieced together the fact that if you nailed down the timeline it turned out that AK and RS couldn't be the killers.

That was pretty much the turning point in discussion of the case here, in fact. The pro-guilt side have just been completely unable to develop a theory of the crime that makes any sense and fits the known timeline. Every time they try they either have to leave out an important piece of hard evidence to make their theory work, or they end up with a nonsensical story.

I think Mignini was actually ahead of the curve here in one sense, in that he was smart enough to realise that AK and RS couldn't be guilty unless the murder took place at 23:45. That's why he whipped that time of death out of his sleeve at the end of the first trial. However for whatever reason (stupidity, insanity, dishonesty, corruption, moral bankruptcy, take your pick) he went ahead with the prosecution even though AK and RS couldn't be guilty unless the murder happened at 23:45, and the murder could not have happened any later than 21:30.

 

[Kauffer]

Proof

Castro and Coyle wrote, "A blood presumptive test should never be taken as a final measure, and should always be followed by confirmatory testing at the forensic science laboratory before making the statement in court that a sample is human blood." The HemaTrace test has a better lower limit of detection than luminol does.

Machiavelli's argument is astonishing. He says that a confirmatory positive test for blood is proof of blood but that if it's negative, this is not proof of the absence of blood and that therefore there is still reliable evidence of blood. And we don't even have a confirmatory test. Machiavelli maintains that such a test cannot in any case provide proof of absence.

This is ultimately a casual reversal of the burden of proof and it's entirely invalid. It is earth shatteringly bizarre that the testimony of the key prosecution expert witness - the chief forensic investigator - is that the luminol hits are not blood and yet the Nencini court permits itself to conclude that they are blood.

Machiavelli is two tests short of evidence of blood - the field TMB test and the confirmatory laboratory test. He is also short of ANY expert opinion that would support the contention that there is blood. Remember, even Stefanoni says it is not blood.

Luminol positive/TMB negative results would not go before a British jury - I don't believe they would go before an American jury, other than by the choice of defence counsel as exonerating evidence. A prosecutor does not want this before the court - except in Italy.

The burden here is for Machiavelli to show:

1) A case history where these results were accepted by a court as evidence of blood.
2) An expert testimony or at least conclusive experimental data demonstrating that following a TMB negative test, it is safe not to proceed to confirmatory testing, ignore the TMB result and proffer as evidence of blood a positive luminol test conducted prior to the TMB test.

Machiavelli will not be able to accomplish either and cannot be allowed to prevail with a fatuous argument, which relies on imposing an empty philosophical trick whereby the innocent must demonstrate their innocence by proving a negative when he maintains that it is impossible to prove a negative, whatever you do.

Pick a card, he is saying - whichever card you pick cannot help you. If we could go back in time, do the analysis again and in it's entirety, it's not going to help you. You cannot escape. Whatever you do, I can still say it's blood.

 

[anglolawyer]

The second computer expert reports by Sollecito's consultants was submitted to the Hellmann-Zanetti court, and it was the Hellmann court who rejected it. Ground for rejection is that it was submitted to the Appeals' court too late. At the Appeals' court submissions the parties were given a term of a number of weeks if they wanted to deposit the further evidence. Sollecito's submission was late and the document could not be admitted. This was the Hellmann's court ruling.

That's a shame. Still, it wasn't too late for Nencini or does too late in one trial mean something can never be introduced in a later one? Oh wait, that would rule out testing 36I, the crucial test that told us exactly how Amanda held the knife as she plunged it in. I will check to see how Nencini dealt with the computer report, aside from grudgingly accepting that it furnished an alibi until 'around 9.20 p.m.'.

That's a curious lack of precision for a judge btw. The precise time is highly relevant because the infallible Curatolo gave an improbably precise time for his arrival in the piazza - 9.28 or 9.29. Even if we are believing him and doubting them, we should at least do so accurately according to the evidence. Did he say the phone signal was received around 10.10 or that she called her mother around 8.50?

Mach, could you ask around and find out who signed the secret warrant to enter Raf's place on the night of the 5th, and what information was provided to the authorising magistrate to obtain it? Did you mention Matteini?

I wonder whether they fished around in the kitchen drawer. Maybe they told the judge they were looking for the murder weapon or bloody clothes. There will have been some form of application as I assume Italy does not allow random home invasions. This info should have been made available already IMO.

 

[Kauffer]

Tampering

You are as ignorant as the judges when it comes to this computer stuff. I just tried an experiment. Using shell commands, I created a file, I copied that file to another file and I displayed the content of the second file. Doing all of that from the command line or equivalently a script, the filessytem metadata (created, modified, accessed times) tracked the activity like one would expect. But the Spotlight metadata that includes "Last opened" was not created. Only by opening the file in a way that suggests that the user is intending to interact with that file will the Last Opened metadata be created or updated.

Dan, what do you make of the defence experts' claim that Mr Sollecito's MacBook was tampered with after it was seized as evidence?

 

[Planigale]

That's a shame. Still, it wasn't too late for Nencini or does too late in one trial mean something can never be introduced in a later one? Oh wait, that would rule out testing 36I, the crucial test that told us exactly how Amanda held the knife as she plunged it in. I will check to see how Nencini dealt with the computer report, aside from grudgingly accepting that it furnished an alibi until 'around 9.20 p.m.'.

That's a curious lack of precision for a judge btw. The precise time is highly relevant because the infallible Curatolo gave an improbably precise time for his arrival in the piazza - 9.28 or 9.29. Even if we are believing him and doubting them, we should at least do so accurately according to the evidence. Did he say the phone signal was received around 10.10 or that she called her mother around 8.50?

Mach, could you ask around and find out who signed the secret warrant to enter Raf's place on the night of the 5th, and what information was provided to the authorising magistrate to obtain it? Did you mention Matteini?

I wonder whether they fished around in the kitchen drawer. Maybe they told the judge they were looking for the murder weapon or bloody clothes. There will have been some form of application as I assume Italy does not allow random home invasions. This info should have been made available already IMO.

This is an important issue, if there was an entry prior to the official search and recovery of the knife it is essential that it is known who was there and what they did. In the UK officers from the scene of a crime are not allowed to search the house of a suspect of arrest the suspect before they may transfer trace evidence from the scene to a suspect. If there was an entry to Sollecito's flat and they were police who had been at the crime scene they may have transferred MK DNA to the knife. (I mean accidentally not deliberately).

 

[anglolawyer]

This is an important issue, if there was an entry prior to the official search and recovery of the knife it is essential that it is known who was there and what they did. In the UK officers from the scene of a crime are not allowed to search the house of a suspect of arrest the suspect before they may transfer trace evidence from the scene to a suspect. If there was an entry to Sollecito's flat and they were police who had been at the crime scene they may have transferred MK DNA to the knife. (I mean accidentally not deliberately).

We know they got Amanda to scratch around in the kitchen drawer at her apartment. That was a bit weird, wasn't it?

Another thing we would like to know is the date of the application to the judge. Was it the 5th? Or the 4th or the 3rd? Did they tell the judge it was urgent because Edda was coming over? Odd that they are allowed to keep such a thing a secret.

 

[Annella]

Machiavelli said:

You can read a laconinc comment by Mignini "Those who don't know are talking, those who know are silent".

Pity Migs didn't take heed of his own advice before letting his Police mates loose on the streets of Perugia honking car horns and declaring case closed. And THAT was on the day they arrested Amanda and Raffaele! Dont need no 'In The First 48' in the one horse town of Perugia it seems.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

The burden here is for Machiavelli to show:

1) A case history where these results were accepted by a court as evidence of blood.
2) An expert testimony or at least conclusive experimental data demonstrating that following a TMB negative test, it is safe not to proceed to confirmatory testing, ignore the TMB result and proffer as evidence of blood a positive luminol test conducted prior to the TMB test.

Machiavelli will not be able to accomplish either and cannot be allowed to prevail with a fatuous argument, which relies on imposing an empty philosophical trick whereby the innocent must demonstrate their innocence by proving a negative when he maintains that it is impossible to prove a negative, whatever you do.

He could easily deliver on your first challenge, but only by citing cases that have been discredited. I think Chris Halkides has discussed the Gregory Taylor case in this thread. Taylor's exoneration led to a comprehensive review of the North Carolina crime lab. Excerpt:

Out of 15,419 lab files screened and examined this review identified 230 Laboratory cases in which laboratory reports similar to the Taylor cases were present. In 40 of these cases no suspect was charged. Out of a total of 269 individuals ultimately charged in the remaining 190 cases, 80 are still serving sentences (four are on death row), three were executed and five died in prison. In phase two of this review the 230 cases identified in phase one were reviewed in detail and divided into four categories. These cases have in common that that they contain lab reports that mention positive presumptive test results but omit the results other more sensitive tests. These include:

1. Cases that mention that the presence of blood is not conclusive but fail to report that a confirmatory test was conducted and with negative results;

2. Cases with lab files that contain reports that fail to mention of one or more negative or inconclusive confirmatory test(s) and are thus incomplete;

3. Cases that contain misleading reports that stated that no further tests were conducted when, in fact, one or more confirmatory tests were conducted with negative or inconclusive results;

4. Cases in which the Laboratory test results were overstated or lab notes contradict the reported result.

http://www.ncdoj.gov/getattachment/...7/Independent-Review-of-SBI-Forensic-LAB.aspx

Stefanoni is a scabrous old whore who knows every trick in the book. Number one is give the customer what he wants, no matter how disgusting or degrading. She put out, big time. But she's not the first.

 

[Dan O.]

Dan, what do you make of the defence experts' claim that Mr Sollecito's MacBook was tampered with after it was seized as evidence?

The Italian postal police demonstrate an incompetence that makes the Keystone Cops look good. Tampering has an implication that they know what they are doing. I don't think we have evidence that can take us there.

 

[Kauffer]

Blood evidence

He could easily deliver on your first challenge, but only by citing cases that have been discredited. I think Chris Halkides has discussed the Gregory Taylor case in this thread. Taylor's exoneration led to a comprehensive review of the North Carolina crime lab. Excerpt:

Out of 15,419 lab files screened and examined this review identified 230 Laboratory cases in which laboratory reports similar to the Taylor cases were present. In 40 of these cases no suspect was charged. Out of a total of 269 individuals ultimately charged in the remaining 190 cases, 80 are still serving sentences (four are on death row), three were executed and five died in prison. In phase two of this review the 230 cases identified in phase one were reviewed in detail and divided into four categories. These cases have in common that that they contain lab reports that mention positive presumptive test results but omit the results other more sensitive tests. These include:

1. Cases that mention that the presence of blood is not conclusive but fail to report that a confirmatory test was conducted and with negative results;

2. Cases with lab files that contain reports that fail to mention of one or more negative or inconclusive confirmatory test(s) and are thus incomplete;

3. Cases that contain misleading reports that stated that no further tests were conducted when, in fact, one or more confirmatory tests were conducted with negative or inconclusive results;

4. Cases in which the Laboratory test results were overstated or lab notes contradict the reported result.

http://www.ncdoj.gov/getattachment/...7/Independent-Review-of-SBI-Forensic-LAB.aspx

Stefanoni is a scabrous old whore who knows every trick in the book. Number one is give the customer what he wants, no matter how disgusting or degrading. She put out, big time. But she's not the first.

Well quite. He would need to cite a case where the court knew it was positive luminol, negative TMB (or some other recognised negative second presumptive field test) and no confirmatory lab test. These are the conditions - both of my challenge and the circumstances in the Kercher case. He's just got to do better than stating that you can't prove a negative, whatever you do.

 

[anglolawyer]

Naruto

Starting at p.107 of the PMF translation of Nencini there is a section called:

4 The calunnia - the false (sic) alibi

It is introduced in an alarmingly prejudicial way:

'Thus far in piecing together the events of the night of 1-2 November 2007, an overview of the circumstantial evidence leads us to the conclusion that Meredith Kercher was attacked in the house on Via della Pergola by three people: Rudy Hermann Guede, Amanda Marie Knox, and Raffaele Sollecito. They fatally wounded her with one or more knives (whether it was one or more will be addressed in the later section dedicated to the most probable reconstruction of the dynamics of the murder). Given this assertion, the next logical step is to test the veracity of the statements made by the defendants and whether, on the basis of these [93] statements, it could reasonably be argued that either or both of them was somewhere other than at the scene of the murder. That is, whether either or both defendants have provided an alibi that has subsequently been proved credible or, at least, which survives scrutiny as such.'

Whatever. Before fast-forwarding to the bit about the Mac Book pro, I should mention that the word 'naruto' nowhere appears in the motivation. The discussion starts on p.160. Nencini records the testimony of the posties as having been given on 14 Mar '08 and of defence experts Giglio and Ambrosio on 26 Sep '09. And that's it. The expert whose report we are now considering is professor Alfredo Milani. The date of his report is not included in the translation nor has he seen fit to say when he conducted his examination of the lap top, both bloody infuriating omissions. His name does turn not up in Nencini either and there is no reference to his two main points: that Naruto was downloaded or activated or something at 9.26 and there was human interaction between 10.04 and 10.17 p.m on 5th Nov.

But Nencini does indirectly refer to the report in saying Raffaele was good until approximately 9.20 (trying to find that reference if anyone knows the page). I know Mach says judges don't have to set out all their reasons for finding this or that fact but I disagree. I think they do. So, it's a bit of a mystery to me whether this latest report played any part in the ruling and, if so, what?

Nencini records (p.38) the fate of an application Sollecito made on 30 Sep 2013 at the outset of the Florence remand:

4) With regard to the request for a technical examination of the MacBook-Pro owned and used by the defendant Raffaele Sollecito, the Court observes that the technical assessment has already been carried out under direct and cross-examination by all parties, such that in the trial proceedings there is a broad and articulated critical contribution of the technical consultant of the Defense, material that allows this Court to offer a full judgment of the relevance of the circumstantial evidence of the use of the aforementioned computer by the defendant, without any need to reopen the investigation;

So it looks as though the Milani report was not admitted but that Nencini may have glanced at it at some point and said 'so what, it makes no difference anyway'.

 

[carbonjam72]

He could easily deliver on your first challenge, but only by citing cases that have been discredited. I think Chris Halkides has discussed the Gregory Taylor case in this thread. Taylor's exoneration led to a comprehensive review of the North Carolina crime lab. Excerpt:

Out of 15,419 lab files screened and examined this review identified 230 Laboratory cases in which laboratory reports similar to the Taylor cases were present. In 40 of these cases no suspect was charged. Out of a total of 269 individuals ultimately charged in the remaining 190 cases, 80 are still serving sentences (four are on death row), three were executed and five died in prison. In phase two of this review the 230 cases identified in phase one were reviewed in detail and divided into four categories. These cases have in common that that they contain lab reports that mention positive presumptive test results but omit the results other more sensitive tests. These include:

1. Cases that mention that the presence of blood is not conclusive but fail to report that a confirmatory test was conducted and with negative results;

2. Cases with lab files that contain reports that fail to mention of one or more negative or inconclusive confirmatory test(s) and are thus incomplete;

3. Cases that contain misleading reports that stated that no further tests were conducted when, in fact, one or more confirmatory tests were conducted with negative or inconclusive results;

4. Cases in which the Laboratory test results were overstated or lab notes contradict the reported result.

http://www.ncdoj.gov/getattachment/...7/Independent-Review-of-SBI-Forensic-LAB.aspx

Stefanoni is a scabrous old whore who knows every trick in the book. Number one is give the customer what he wants, no matter how disgusting or degrading. She put out, big time. But she's not the first.

Literally?

 

[carbonjam72]

Starting at p.107 of the PMF translation of Nencini there is a section called:

4 The calunnia - the false (sic) alibi

It is introduced in an alarmingly prejudicial way:
'Thus far in piecing together the events of the night of 1-2 November 2007, an overview of the circumstantial evidence leads us to the conclusion that Meredith Kercher was attacked in the house on Via della Pergola by three people: Rudy Hermann Guede, Amanda Marie Knox, and Raffaele Sollecito. They fatally wounded her with one or more knives (whether it was one or more will be addressed in the later section dedicated to the most probable reconstruction of the dynamics of the murder). Given this assertion, the next logical step is to test the veracity of the statements made by the defendants and whether, on the basis of these [93] statements, it could reasonably be argued that either or both of them was somewhere other than at the scene of the murder. That is, whether either or both defendants have provided an alibi that has subsequently been proved credible or, at least, which survives scrutiny as such.'

Whatever. Before fast-forwarding to the bit about the Mac Book pro, I should mention that the word 'naruto' nowhere appears in the motivation. The discussion starts on p.160. Nencini records the testimony of the posties as having been given on 14 Mar '08 and of defence experts Giglio and Ambrosio on 26 Sep '09. And that's it. The expert whose report we are now considering is professor Alfredo Milani. The date of his report is not included in the translation nor has he seen fit to say when he conducted his examination of the lap top, both bloody infuriating omissions. His name does turn not up in Nencini either and there is no reference to his two main points: that Naruto was downloaded or activated or something at 9.26 and there was human interaction between 10.04 and 10.17 p.m on 5th Nov.

But Nencini does indirectly refer to the report in saying Raffaele was good until approximately 9.20 (trying to find that reference if anyone knows the page). I know Mach says judges don't have to set out all their reasons for finding this or that fact but I disagree. I think they do. So, it's a bit of a mystery to me whether this latest report played any part in the ruling and, if so, what?

Nencini records (p.38) the fate of an application Sollecito made on 30 Sep 2013 at the outset of the Florence remand:

4) With regard to the request for a technical examination of the MacBook-Pro owned and used by the defendant Raffaele Sollecito, the Court observes that the technical assessment has already been carried out under direct and cross-examination by all parties, such that in the trial proceedings there is a broad and articulated critical contribution of the technical consultant of the Defense, material that allows this Court to offer a full judgment of the relevance of the circumstantial evidence of the use of the aforementioned computer by the defendant, without any need to reopen the investigation;

So it looks as though the Milani report was not admitted but that Nencini may have glanced at it at some point and said 'so what, it makes no difference anyway'.

But we also have to keep in mind that Nencini begins his opinion by reminding the reader that he is construing events within the context of judicial truths, found by the ISC in the remand, and in Rudy's final determination - that Rudy killed Meredith along with others, and that the break-in was staged - and also that Knox is guilty of Calumnia, no?

If those elements are accepted as given "judicial truths", then surely Judge Nencini was being quite fair and even handed in his approach to the case on the merits.

 

[anglolawyer]

But we also have to keep in mind that Nencini begins his opinion by reminding the reader that he is construing events within the context of judicial truths, found by the ISC in the remand, and in Rudy's final determination - that Rudy killed Meredith along with others, and that the break-in was staged - and also that Knox is guilty of Calumnia, no?

If those elements are accepted as given, then surely Judge Nencini was being quite fair and even handed in his approach to the case on the merits.

Oh sure. I understand, but I still think the use of language is a bit strange. Why bother looking at the alibi at all if you have already found as a fact they were involved in the murder?

I did not follow all this as closely as I should have but it really is surprising in retrospect that anybody had any hopes for what would come out of Nencini. In essence, the ISC told him to find them guilty somehow and he obeyed. That's how it seems.

There is a bit where he announces a totally irrelevant gotcha that destroys their credibility utterly. It's the finding that Amanda was out and about when she got Patrick's 20:18 'don't come to work' message. [Aside to Dan - is it accepted that the cell tower evidence establishes this supposed fact?]. What that has to do with anything I have no idea because Nencini doesn't explain its significance, in the same way he doesn't explain why the lamp is undoubtedly important. It just means they lied about an irrelevant detail and are therefore guilty as charged.

 

[Desert Fox]

But we also have to keep in mind that Nencini begins his opinion by reminding the reader that he is construing events within the context of judicial truths, found by the ISC in the remand, and in Rudy's final determination - that Rudy killed Meredith along with others, and that the break-in was staged - and also that Knox is guilty of Calumnia, no?

If those elements are accepted as given "judicial truths", then surely Judge Nencini was being quite fair and even handed in his approach to the case on the merits.

If Nencini was honest, he would tell the ISC (in writing) that he cannot take the case because they told him what verdict he has to find.