Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Anode]

Thank you. You have expressed my thoughts more succinctly and clearly than I could for myself.

I agree, nice post Carbonjam.

 

[Kauffer]

I already answered to this, under n.2, pointing out your straw man. It's actually not me who is arrogant and tries to instruct the judges about what they should decide, telling them what is just and reasonable to do in their job of evidence assessment.
I think it's you the one stating that judges must follow a rule of never accepting that a luminol stain is blood unless they have a confirmatory test.
You are basically dictating the rules to judges saying they should be bound within the limits of certainity of chemical science, obey to veiwpoints of chemists and not try to find out things other ways.
I am not saying that luminol reaction must always be "game over"; but on the other hand, what I am saying is that sometimes it might be. Sometimes a finding provides a piece of information that can be used without being itself complete. Like on a situation like this, where you have to cross the chemical result with a mass of information and peculiarities that you cannot explain away easily through alternative dynamic and substance.

Of course judges are bound by science. Everyone is bound by science. A judge cannot make up new rules stating that science says one thing whereas scientists say it says something else. The judge isn't even being tasked with adjudicating a dispute on the subject. There is no dispute other than that the entire scientific community disagrees with him.

The luminol hits are not evidence of blood because the TMB test was negative and there is no further confirmatory test result proving the existence of blood. This is what the scientific method is and there is no alternative view about it amongst the relevant scientific experts in the field. There is not one forensic scientist in Italy let alone anywhere else who has supported the contention that there is blood.

There is no dispute within the scientific community about what evidence is required to be presented in order for the presence of blood to be confirmed.

The forensic scientist engaged by the prosecution confirmed in testimony that there was no blood.

But the manner in which the luminol evidence found itself in court in the first place is clear and utterly scandalous. Either the prosecution did not know of the negative TMB results or, they did know about them and knew also that no mention would be made of them in Stefanoni's report. The prosecution could not possibly have gone to court arguing for blood if their own witness was going to contradict them!

Once Stefanoni told the court that the luminol samples were not blood, then that was the end of the matter, or at least should have been. The prosecution's case for blood had collapsed.

When the luminol samples were collected, Ms Knox was in detention and had not been charged. There was considerable pressure to find evidence against her and bloody footprints would have represented compelling evidence. We can be sure that if Stefanoni felt there was the slightest chance she could confirm blood then she would have done so. Therefore she either did perform confirmatory tests and found them to be negative for blood or else realised that the TMB negative results meant there was no point in proceeding any further with testing.

That the luminol samples have been a part of this case for all but a small proportion of the case's duration and that the current prevailing court's opinion is that they support a guilty verdict against Ms Knox, is a miscarriage of justice in itself.

 

[Bill Williams]

Thank you. You have expressed my thoughts more succinctly and clearly than I could for myself.

I agree, nice post Carbonjam.

Agreed. It very succinctly destroys the pro-guilt lobby's continual refrain of "all the other evidence," or, "the whole cottage is the crime scene."

Those refrains in this case are code for:

- we really cannot explain why there's no forensics pointing to AK or RS in the murder room
- so let's divert attention to the other areas of the cottage (where ANY presence of Amanda, particularly, is not incriminating anyway.​

That Machiavelli has perfected the art of "with a wave of the hand," simply saying that Carbonjam's analysis is illogical and not worthy of response.....

.... is all one really needs to hear.

My own introduction to this in the late summer of 2011 was when the press was conceding that the DNA evidence had, in effect, fallen apart. There was no double-DNA knife, and the bra-clasp DNA evidence was hopelessly compromised. So said the press that I read back then.

Seeking the other side of the story I went to TJMK. That pro-guilt website was all but conceding then that the DNA-evidence had, in fact, collapsed, because the plan of attack back then was, "but there's all the other evidence."

This thread here on ISF/old-JREF has for the last few weeks simply been a cycle-through "all the other evidence," which itself all collapses under scrutiny.

But no matter - the prominent pro-guilt lobby posters simply reboot, and re-argue as if nothing had happened. Chris Halkides has his refutation on a hotkey, because his points never get refuted - the original "all the other evidence" simply gets repeated. Kaosium, Kauffer, Charlie_Wilkes and LondonJohn tear apart "all the other evidence", but no matter.... wait a few Continuations.... and the "all the other evidence" simply gets repeated as if CH, K, Kau, CW and LJ had not said anything.

So it goes.

Thanks, Carbonjam, for being succinct and pithy about the problem the pro-guilt lobby faces.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Napoleoni, Squarta, Zugarini and Gubbiotti have been put under investigation for abuse of office with the charge of having performed unauthorized investigation, that is investigation for personal purposes. I point out that nobody has been convicted, not even indicted yet. The abusive investigation appears to be related to some intent of collecting sensitive information about a psychologist with relation to a child custody battle. The "child" was actually a teenager who happened to have a terrible relationship with his father.

A prosecutor requested the suspension of Napoleoni and Zugarini, while the Investigation Judge suspended only her friend Zugarini but said there was not serious evidence about Napoleoni. However, Napoleoni was moved to another function.Evidence of involvements of Gubbiotti and Squarta appeared as marginal, they were not sanctioned as far as I recall, I don't know if they are still suspected of something. Now, while I'm not in a position of drawing conclusions about who among them is guilty of something, what I think is this case seems obviously unrelated with a conspiracy theory scenario. You can't buld a conspiracy theory based on evidence of personal family raws. Napoleoni may have a motive to commit a crime clearly related to her sphere of personal interest, and her friends might cover up for her, as it happens for everyone. But a conspiracy to frame an innocent would require some other solid motive with some actual personal interest into play, a much stronger organization, a wider partecipation, technical capabilities, and once put in play this conspiracy would employ a consistent logic: manufactured evidence would be mae of gross and crushing pieces.
As for having a "less then stellar" records, I want to recall that multiple members of the Sollecito family were investigated too, and were found to be plotting with politicians and other subjects not exactly ina a nice way.

But this still misses my point. Perhaps I am not explaining my point clearly. What I am stating is with all of the charges and investigations and whatnot you have listed above, you do not feel any of that reflects upon the character, the habitual truthfulness of any of those people. Yet with Knox and Sollecito, a noise ticket, sex on a train, some pornographic material or manga material all have underlying meaning about their respective characters. Every event in their lives has some hidden meaning about their personalities and how they were destined to murder, yet blemishes on the activities of the prosecutors and judges and investigators can all be hand waved away, because well, just because.

 

[anglolawyer]

Just to play devil's advocate, she could have left her gloves on. Her DNA could be on the handle from cooking at Raf's place and Meredith's could be on due to the murder. In other words:

1) Use knife in crime with gloves on.
2) Clean knife thoroughly except for the DNA in the groove. (?!)
3) Use knife to cook at Raf's place with gloves off (I don't know if they cooked after the crime and before they were incarcerated.)

This scenario would make it very, very unlikely that any of Meredith's DNA would be left on the blade.

And of course the biggest point is: in the unlikely event this is what happened, then you can't infer that she struck the fatal cut. It could have been anyone because if she indeed wore gloves, then her DNA was deposited on the handle somewhere other than the murder scene.

Now we're right back to: The easiest explanation of the knife DNA is contamination and the use of LCN DNA techniques in a lab not equipped for it.

I think you are overlooking that the handle DNA actually shows how she held the knife when stabbing the victim.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Napoleoni, Squarta, Zugarini and Gubbiotti have been put under investigation for abuse of office with the charge of having performed unauthorized investigation, that is investigation for personal purposes. I point out that nobody has been convicted, not even indicted yet. The abusive investigation appears to be related to some intent of collecting sensitive information about a psychologist with relation to a child custody battle. The "child" was actually a teenager who happened to have a terrible relationship with his father.

Even here you are making excuses for the behavior; you are adding a clause as to why it really wasn't all that bad. Do you see? Yet when someone does the same thing with something relating to Sollecito or Knox, you have some in-depth reasoning why there cannot be any alternate explanation and that it can only be attributed to absolute dishonest criminality.

Maybe it is an Italian thing -- we saw it with the old social worker guy who molested the young girl. It was mitigated because she showed him affection, or some sort of rationalization. But why can you not "mitigate" for the defendants? (and I do not mean in a legal manner.)

 

[carbonjam72]

Thank you. You have expressed my thoughts more succinctly and clearly than I could for myself.

Thanks for saying, but somehow I doubt that.

 

[Kauffer]

THE RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE IN THE MURDER ROOM - The central issue in dispute.

Just want to say I think I'm noticing the major split between the guilters, and objective commenters on the site, and in general on the web.

The major split seems to be over the relevance of the fact that Rudy Guede left his footprints in blood, along with other biological evidence in the room where he killed Meredith Kercher.

Recognizing that a clean-up in that murder room is impossible, yet unable to otherwise explain the absence of Amanda and Raf in that room, the prosecution (and guilters) reach for 'similar sounding' arguments -

For Example:

1. The crime scene was staged - i.e., the staged break-in. Because if the cottage is at it appears to be, a common crime scene, then there is no reason to implicate Amanda and Raf, so there has to be "staging" of some kind to create the appearance of innocence for Amanda and Raf.

2. There was a clean-up - i.e. outside the murder room, because a selective DNA/fingerprint clean-up is obviously impossible, and the single set of footsteps in Meredith's blood demonstrates there was obviously no clean-up in the murder room.

3. The foot prints revealed by luminol are in blood - because otherwise, the absence of Amanda and Raf's footprints in blood is inconsistent with their presence at the time of the murder.

4. The crime scene includes the whole cottage - because there is no evidence of Amanda and Raf's involvement in the murder room while at the same time there is plentiful evidence of Rudy Guede's presence, and Guede admits to being there.

By refusing to accept the logical conclusion that no evidence of Amanda and Raf in the room where Meredith was killed, necessitates the conclusion that they weren't there, the prosecution (and guilters) are then left to concoct fake evidence, and dispute authentic scientists and genuine expert opinion, and seek to replace reliable information with pseudo science and plainly dubious conjecture.

All of this combines with a simple unwavering refusal to accept the plain meaning of known facts.

Hence Mach thinks all of the above 4 reasons, and claims the contrary is so irrational that it cannot even be considered or discussed.

As long as the conversation is directed away from the murder room, the guilters and prosecution can talk all day. BUt once we focus on the condition of the murder room, there really is no case, and never has been.

You are quite right. Your last paragraph is very perceptive.

 

[Numbers]

THE RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE IN THE MURDER ROOM - The central issue in dispute.

Just want to say I think I'm noticing the major split between the guilters, and objective commenters on the site, and in general on the web.

The major split seems to be over the relevance of the fact that Rudy Guede left his footprints in blood, along with other biological evidence in the room where he killed Meredith Kercher.

Recognizing that a clean-up in that murder room is impossible, yet unable to otherwise explain the absence of Amanda and Raf in that room, the prosecution (and guilters) reach for 'similar sounding' arguments -

For Example:

1. The crime scene was staged - i.e., the staged break-in. Because if the cottage is at it appears to be, a common crime scene, then there is no reason to implicate Amanda and Raf, so there has to be "staging" of some kind to create the appearance of innocence for Amanda and Raf.

2. There was a clean-up - i.e. outside the murder room, because a selective DNA/fingerprint clean-up is obviously impossible, and the single set of footsteps in Meredith's blood demonstrates there was obviously no clean-up in the murder room.

3. The foot prints revealed by luminol are in blood - because otherwise, the absence of Amanda and Raf's footprints in blood is inconsistent with their presence at the time of the murder.

4. The crime scene includes the whole cottage - because there is no evidence of Amanda and Raf's involvement in the murder room while at the same time there is plentiful evidence of Rudy Guede's presence, and Guede admits to being there.

By refusing to accept the logical conclusion that no evidence of Amanda and Raf in the room where Meredith was killed, necessitates the conclusion that they weren't there, the prosecution (and guilters) are then left to concoct fake evidence, and dispute authentic scientists and genuine expert opinion, and seek to replace reliable information with pseudo science and plainly dubious conjecture.

All of this combines with a simple unwavering refusal to accept the plain meaning of known facts.

Hence Mach thinks all of the above 4 reasons, and claims the contrary is so irrational that it cannot even be considered or discussed.

As long as the conversation is directed away from the murder room, the guilters and prosecution can talk all day. BUt once we focus on the condition of the murder room, there really is no case, and never has been.

This post is explains the prosecution's case succinctly. And the guilters simply slavishly follow the prosecution case with no additional contributions except, in many cases, a fierce hatred of the innocent.

Adding a bit to your item #4, the rest of the cottage has non-probative signs of Amanda and Raf. She lived there, and he was her guest.

 

[carbonjam72]

This post is explains the prosecution's case succinctly. And the guilters simply slavishly follow the prosecution case with no additional contributions except, in many cases, a fierce hatred of the innocent.

Adding a bit to your item #4, the rest of the cottage has non-probative signs of Amanda and Raf. She lived there, and he was her guest.

Completely agree. And I would add that even if there had been evidence of Amanda or Raf in Meredith's room, it still wouldn't be probative, unless it could be shown to be present at the time of the assault.

Because Amanda Lived there and Raf was a legitimate visitor, a latent footprint in luminol doesn't prove anything, not when there are pools of fresh blood all over the floor, and blood spray on the walls. A latent fingerprint isn't necessarily incriminating, unless it were made in blood, etc.

But really, once we start from the central fact of Meredith's blood, and only Rudy's footprints, no other scenario is reasonable to consider without some overwhelming indication it's a least possible. None such scenario nor evidence exists, nor can it - they weren't there. That's the truth.

 

[Desert Fox]

Much is about the reversal of the burden of proof. . . .It is not that the prosecution needs to prove guilt but that the defense needs to (with their hands tied behind their backs as well) prove absolutely innocence.

For example, it is not enough to come up with plausible explanations as far as contamination for the DNA. The defense has to somehow prove exactly how the contamination occurred.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the difference in the amount of evidence

The Knoxians claim that it's IMPOSSIBLE for Knox to have been in the room where the murder took place because in the areas tested there was none of her DNA, no fingerprints, no footprints. So, it's IMPOSSIBLE for her to have been there.

Well no, it's not impossible and the Latko trial is another example. 20 stab wounds... 2 throats slit: yet no DNA, no fingerprints, no footprints where found.

Vibio,

Briefly this misstates the position of some PI posters; however, I am grateful for the opportunity to air differences of opinion in a civil manner. One, I am uncomfortable with saying "impossible" in this instance, but I am perfectly fine saying "very unlikely." Two, the problem is not just the lack of evidence of Ms. Knox or Mr. Sollecito in the room. It is this lack coupled with the presence of so much evidence against Mr. Guede. This is extremely problematic by itself, but it gets worse when coupled with a scenario that assigns the primary role in the killing to Ms. Knox. To take two examples, where are her bloodstained clothes, and why would she not have cut her hands (as I believe Guede did)?

 

[Bill Williams]

Vibio,

Briefly this misstates the position of some PI posters; however, I am grateful for the opportunity to air differences of opinion in a civil manner. One, I am uncomfortable with saying "impossible" in this instance, but I am perfectly fine saying "very unlikely." Two, the problem is not just the lack of evidence of Ms. Knox or Mr. Sollecito in the room. It is this lack coupled with the presence of so much evidence against Mr. Guede. This is extremely problematic by itself, but it gets worse when coupled with a scenario that assigns the primary role in the killing to Ms. Knox. To take two examples, where are her bloodstained clothes, and why would she not have cut her hands (as I believe Guede did)?

Judge Nencini believes he can assign Knox the chief role in this killing simply on the basis of Samples 36A and 35I. The claim is that the manner in which the knife was used can be discerned by those two samples' placement.

One needs to return to the chain of possession of that knife, as claimed by the prosecution. The reason why it was chosen (apparently at random, or on an unbelievable hunch!) was because it appeared too clean. Stefanoni had to invent striations on the blade as a way for ANY sample to survive a cleaning.

Which leads to Machiavelli's claim that the striation can be seen in present photographs, despite Stefanoni's own admission that these alleged striations were not visible in photographs for various, invented reasons.

Remember - as the DNA evidence was falling apart in the summer of 2011, with NO evidence placing Amanda in the murder room, even Mignini changed his views - Amanda must have been outside in the hall directing Guede and Sollecito in the murder.

Add to this what you say above - Amanda's clothes lay on her bed in the next room, uncollected for weeks, with NO forensics on them to point to Amanda having been involved....

.... and she has no wounds. It's bizarre that Machiavelli can ignore all this with the wave of a hand, but what's even more tragic is that the Italian courts can too.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You can get suspicious as much as you want, but I won't explain things to a person who falsely asserts that Stefanoni does not have a PhD flying in the face of the evidence.

Just to be clear, are you asserting that Stefanoni has a PhD, or are you asserting that Stefanoni had a PhD at the time of her work on the Kercher case?

Also you seem to be running away from my earlier points. Can you explain how the underqualified laboratory technician Stefanoni managed to run a contamination-free lab without the proper equipment, while experienced professionals at the head of their field with state-of-the-art laboratories have never managed to do so?

 

[Kauffer]

Repeated post deleted

 

[Kauffer]

Patrizia Stefanoni

"We followed the guidelines of the ENFSI, theirs (Conti and Vechiotti report) is just a collage of different international opinions,"

"I am angry about the false statements in this report and ready to come to court to highlight the past record of these experts......"I am also looking into taking legal action against them. What international DNA protocols are they talking about? The Italian police is a member of the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI), while they are not."

Patrizia Stefanoni

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/24/amanda-knox-dna-appeal-threat

I post this - no doubt it has been posted before - in order to elicit opinion on the specifics of Stefanoni's claims with regard to ENSFI in relation to "international DNA protocols", to define the latter and in order to ascertain whether indeed there is any merit to her view that the CandV report "is just a collage of different international opinions". Did she, in fact, follow the guidelines of ENFSI? What is the evidence for and against her claim?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

"We followed the guidelines of the ENFSI, theirs (Conti and Vechiotti report) is just a collage of different international opinions,"

"I am angry about the false statements in this report and ready to come to court to highlight the past record of these experts......"I am also looking into taking legal action against them. What international DNA protocols are they talking about? The Italian police is a member of the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI), while they are not."

Patrizia Stefanoni

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/24/amanda-knox-dna-appeal-threat

I post this - no doubt it has been posted before - in order to elicit opinion on the specifics of Stefanoni's claims with regard to ENSFI in relation to "international DNA protocols", to define the latter and in order to ascertain whether indeed there is any merit to her view that the CandV report "is just a collage of different international opinions". Did she, in fact, follow the guidelines of ENFSI? What is the evidence for and against her claim?

If her work had been sound, she could explain her procedures and make her data available to other scientists, so they could evaluate it.

But she is not in a position to do that. Hence she resorted to legal threats, no doubt figuring she could sleep with the judge as per usual.

 

[Desert Fox]

If her work had been sound, she could explain her procedures and make her data available to other scientists, so they could evaluate it.

But she is not in a position to do that. Hence she resorted to legal threats, no doubt figuring she could sleep with the judge as per usual.

That is strong accusation. . . .Is there any evidence supporting that?

 

[Bill Williams]

"We followed the guidelines of the ENFSI, theirs (Conti and Vechiotti report) is just a collage of different international opinions,"

"I am angry about the false statements in this report and ready to come to court to highlight the past record of these experts......"I am also looking into taking legal action against them. What international DNA protocols are they talking about? The Italian police is a member of the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI), while they are not."

Patrizia Stefanoni

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/24/amanda-knox-dna-appeal-threat

I post this - no doubt it has been posted before - in order to elicit opinion on the specifics of Stefanoni's claims with regard to ENSFI in relation to "international DNA protocols", to define the latter and in order to ascertain whether indeed there is any merit to her view that the CandV report "is just a collage of different international opinions". Did she, in fact, follow the guidelines of ENFSI? What is the evidence for and against her claim?

Did Stefanoni ever sue? One presumes that if she did, she'd be required to produce her data for THAT suit which she would have initiated.... so if not, no wonder she didn't sue.

In any event, I have memory of reading this, or a newspiece quite similar as an introduction to the whole thing. Before this it just seemed like DNA is DNA is DNA, and if they had DNA against them, then it was game over.

Turns out, acc. to this, it was no such thing.

The report claims Stefanoni ignored international DNA protocols, made basic errors and gave evidence in court that was not backed up by her laboratory work, rendering the knife and bra strap worthless as evidence. But Stefanoni has vowed to fight back during three hearings devoted to the DNA reviews.​

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

That is strong accusation. . . .Is there any evidence supporting that?

Nah... I used the osmotic method.