Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

I think "presumptive blood test" is a fine appellation. It accurately describes how luminol is used at crime scenes, when it is used properly, i.e. to develop meaningful evidence.

Here is a case where it was used properly:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/two-wiv...cious-accidents-was-it-coincidence-or-murder/

Investigators got a luminol result that they presumed was blood because its location and appearance fit with a scenario in which their suspect bludgeoned his wife, loaded her into a car, and then staged an accident to make it look like that was what killed her.

Having found these latent stains, they took their swabs back to the lab. Sure enough - the substance was confirmed to be blood, and in fact it was confirmed to be the victim's blood.

Contrast with the Meredith Kercher investigation, where the presumptive test did not check out in the lab, and the traces themselves do not fit with any plausible theory of the crime - to the point where "Machiavelli" is explaining them by saying Amanda/Raffaele slid around the crime scene on bathmats after committing the murder.

I kid you not. I have been pestering him to elaborate, but he knows better than to take that challenge.

The problem is not that the nomenclature is wrong. The problem is that the guilt faction interprets "presumptive" to mean "definitive" or "conclusive." I don't know what can be done about that.

With all due respect, C.W., they are making the mistake of believing that because it's a more sensitive test somehow means it is no longer a presumptive test.

This is the basis of their argument that luminol is more sensitive than the confirmatory tests. Somehow it changes the nature of the test as presumptive into something else - into something that positively I.D.'s the substance.......

....... they think that making it a better presumptive test somehow transforms it into a confirmatory one.

 

[Samson]

Assuming Vibiio's translation is accurate, I tend to agree with Vibiio's interpretation. Mignini does not appear to be conceding that Amanda was not in the murder room, only that if that were proposed theoretically, Amanda could still be have taken part in the murder, and therefore be guilty, by directing affairs from outside the room. But in Mignini's opinion, Amanda was in the room, according to the evidence as he perceives it, according to Mignini himself.

Sadly, Vibio won't share what evidence Mignini believes he's perceiving that would permit that conclusion. We could try to make guesses, but it wouldn't really be fair.

I have been looking for a transcription of this interview for some time, so this is a great find for me. Guess I'll have to resort to google translate for some help. BUt it is astonishing how much nuance can be added or lost in these types of translation exercises.

Without meaning to jump the gun, because Vibio's view I think must be taken in only very cautiously, but it seems like the 'pro-Amanda' journalists may have pushed the envelop further than Mignini's statements genuinely allow.

HOWEVER, that doesn't mean, As ABCTesla pointed out, that Mignini or anyone else actually has any evidence that would permit a reasonable conclusion that Amanda or Raf were present at, or had anything to do with the murder.

Vibio, I had asked you 4 questions (last post on the previous page), just do me a favor and answer the last: Do you think it's possible, however unlikely, that Amanda and Raf never left raf's apartment on the night in question (Nov 1, 2007)?

Ok, one more: Is there any evidence that causes you to believe that Amanda was not the murderer? And does this mean you disagree with Nencini finding that Amanda struck the fatal blow?

If Amanda, contrary to Nencini, was not the murderer, is it also at least possible, she wasn't there at all?

CJ72 the point remains that Mignini is compelled by the science of the evidence to create this theoretical construct. If he had one hair follicle carted in by a bathroom towell or a hairbrush or any vehicle. we would not be having this discussion. Raffaele is toast because of the planted bra clasp evidence, and no prosecutorial party feels any need to discuss his presence in the murder room.

ETA I am now reflecting on prosecutorial motivation.
Q and A.
Q. Why did they not do a better job of planting?
A. The job on Raffaele was goldilocks, just right, take dna from his cell, and rub the hook. Only one conspirator, carefully chosen.
Q. Why not plant evidence of Amanda?
A. They had the kitchen knife, and no footprints to lose.

 

[JREF2010]

I have uploaded "Sex, Lies and the Murder of Meredith Kercher" (in two parts) to my Google Drive.

Here are the links:

Part 1

Part 2

The program is one of several that shows clips from the dog-and-pony show surrounding the arrests on Nov. 6, 2007.

There was a Italian news article mentioned it to, but it disappeared...like Toto did.

 

[Samson]

Footprints lost.
Crisis.
How do we solve this without losing face?

All conspiracy theories are wrong is a favoured axiom.

I believe this is probably a case where a mini conspiracy was used to avoid huge loss of face.

 

[MichaelB]

This is worth having a look at.

Professor Vinci's report about the luminol prints. http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/professor-vinci-luminol-print-analysis/

 

[anglolawyer]

I'm not trying to be difficult... I am busy and this is the last thing on my mind.

I don't know exactly what quote you are refereing to. The only exact quote I can see in English is from ace reporter Candace Dempsey. She reports that Mignini said the following:

"Amanda might theoretically have instigated the murder while even staying in the other room”

And she leaves it at that.

What Mignini actually says in the British tabloid interview is this:

"…teorecamente il delitto Arnanda poteva averlo anche istigato, teoricamente, stando.. . se lei mi dice non.. . non si trova.. . il delitto uno potrebbe averlo fatto anche stando nell'altra stanza, eh.. . cioè Sollecito,. , Sollecito è Raffaele. Cioè, teoricamente, cioè, io le dico questo: secondo me lei era lì, e lo dimostra... "

In English:

"...theoretically, Amanda could have instigated the crime…theoretically… being …if you tell me there is no…the crime, one could have carried it out even while in the other room, huh ... that is Sollecito ... Sollecito is Raffaele. That is theoretically that is. I'm telling you this: in my opinion she was there and it shows."

That's what he says and the short disjointed discussion about it begins and ends there. The full interview is at least 50 pages however.

Ace reporter Candace Dempsey then goes on say this in her article:

"But there’s a “time bomb waiting to explode” in the courtroom. All of a sudden Mignini has doubts. In an interview with Bob Graham in the SUN tabloid, he admits he can’t place Amanda in the murder room. Maybe, he says, she wasn’t there. Maybe she “instigated” the brutal slashing off-screen."

All lies.

There was no "“time bomb waiting to explode in the courtroom" about this. It wasn't even mentioned.

Mignini has absolutely no doubts that Amanda was there.

He does not "admit he can’t place Amanda in the murder room."

Thanks Vibio. I thought this might be what Mignini meant too. As a lawyer, he knows you can be fully liable for murder without doing any stabbing yourself. In English law, mere presence and encouragement are enough. So Amanda would be guilty if she stood at the door and egged them on. Is this what you think happened, or something like this?

 

[anglolawyer]

This is worth having a look at.

Professor Vinci's report about the luminol prints. http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/professor-vinci-luminol-print-analysis/

Good grief. Was Rinaldi a moron or what?

 

[anglolawyer]

I think "presumptive blood test" is a fine appellation. It accurately describes how luminol is used at crime scenes, when it is used properly, i.e. to develop meaningful evidence.

Here is a case where it was used properly:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/two-wiv...cious-accidents-was-it-coincidence-or-murder/

Investigators got a luminol result that they presumed was blood because its location and appearance fit with a scenario in which their suspect bludgeoned his wife, loaded her into a car, and then staged an accident to make it look like that was what killed her.

Having found these latent stains, they took their swabs back to the lab. Sure enough - the substance was confirmed to be blood, and in fact it was confirmed to be the victim's blood.

Contrast with the Meredith Kercher investigation, where the presumptive test did not check out in the lab, and the traces themselves do not fit with any plausible theory of the crime - to the point where "Machiavelli" is explaining them by saying Amanda/Raffaele slid around the crime scene on bathmats after committing the murder.

I kid you not. I have been pestering him to elaborate, but he knows better than to take that challenge.

The problem is not that the nomenclature is wrong. The problem is that the guilt faction interprets "presumptive" to mean "definitive" or "conclusive." I don't know what can be done about that.

Simple. You take it to a judge. Oh wait.

 

[Diocletus]

As I expected. The whole world knows what you think is true, but Italy doesn't.

Additionally, Italy also ignored the fact that every other nation in the world accepts that luminol without confirmatory testing is worthless.

Yet AK/RS attorneys vaguely argued this obvious fact, and the global scientific community has been largely silent in watching it unfold.

No need to do much arguing when the other side's own expert said that if it's TMB negative, then it's not blood.

And look, I don't know if every other nation in the world considers luminol testing to be insufficient to prove blood if contradicted by negative TMB and dna, but show us the case that supports any claim to the contrary. Where in the world has this ever been rationalized? Even stefanoni seems to have understood the implications of the negative TMB.

 

[Samson]

Requested Range Not Satisfiable

This is all we get from Injustice Anywhere website now, for days.

I kind of like that word satisfiable because it's new.

 

[Kauffer]

Testing

As I expected. The whole world knows what you think is true, but Italy doesn't.

Additionally, Italy also ignored the fact that every other nation in the world accepts that luminol without confirmatory testing is worthless.

Yet AK/RS attorneys vaguely argued this obvious fact, and the global scientific community has been largely silent in watching it unfold.

What strange posts you make.

These are the facts:

1) There are no footprints in blood belonging to Ms Knox in Ms Kercher's room.
2) Not one scientist, whether they have worked for a defence team or not, agrees that it is safe to ascribe blood evidence to positive luminol reactions without confirmation.
3) The universally accepted methodology is to test with luminol at a crime scene and if positive to follow up with a second presumptive test. If this is negative, the case for blood ceases to exist - you cannot present blood evidence to a court.
4) You may present blood evidence only upon positive confirmatory laboratory test.
5) Nencini concluded that there was blood without any rational basis and ignored the TMB test - he did not even try to explain the negative result.

In this case, the pro guilt position is that the prosecution's lack of corroborative testing, following a second, negative presumptive test permits them to argue for blood. This argument, as far as I am aware has NEVER been made in a court of law anywhere before or since, though there are cases where negative subsequent testing has been hidden from courts - as happened in this case before Sarah Gino uncovered the truth.

What a dastardly thing to do - not test for blood, hide a negative presumptive test and ask a jury to make a decision about the presence of blood - a scientific question - without giving them the data.

 

[carbonjam72]

As I expected. The whole world knows what you think is true, but Italy doesn't.
Additionally, Italy also ignored the fact that every other nation in the world accepts that luminol without confirmatory testing is worthless.

Yet AK/RS attorneys vaguely argued this obvious fact, and the global scientific community has been largely silent in watching it unfold.

This is an exaggeration, to lump all of Italy in with these particular judge's opinions.

Judge Hellman, also Italian, thoroughly dismantled the prosecution's case, and reached a verdict, based on solid reasoning, that can pass muster in any rational jurisdiction, or for any rational reader.

The best way to understand why so many people disagree with the claim that Amanda and Raf had anything to do with Ms Kercher's murder by Rudy Guede, is to just read Hellman's acquittal. It's only 130 pages, and it is a magnificent piece of work (apart from the calumnia conviction, which Hellman himself now regrets.)

The problem is GrifM, you believe the convicting judges were honest and fair, when its clear from their trial proceedings and motivation reports that they were anything but.

A rigged game, isn't the same thing as a game of chance. An unfair trial, isn't the same thing as a fair one.

 

[carbonjam72]

CJ72 the point remains that Mignini is compelled by the science of the evidence to create this theoretical construct. If he had one hair follicle carted in by a bathroom towell or a hairbrush or any vehicle. we would not be having this discussion. Raffaele is toast because of the planted bra clasp evidence, and no prosecutorial party feels any need to discuss his presence in the murder room.

ETA I am now reflecting on prosecutorial motivation.
Q and A.
Q. Why did they not do a better job of planting?
A. The job on Raffaele was goldilocks, just right, take dna from his cell, and rub the hook. Only one conspirator, carefully chosen.
Q. Why not plant evidence of Amanda?
A. They had the kitchen knife, and no footprints to lose.

Well S, afraid I disagree. First, this doesn't appear to be Mignini's construct, but rather what was put to him by the reporter Graham.

The fact that Graham is right, is another matter. The idea that Mignini should be bound by logic and reason is, well, 'the world as it should be', rather than 'the Mignini that we have in reality'.

What Mignini says about his case, doesn't change the fact that he has no case.

I also do not believe the DNA on the bra clasp of Raf was "planted" on to the clasp. Because Raf's DNA sample was only a trace, mixed with other traces, and a highly ambiguous result.

The scenario you propose is in theory possible, but is also impractical, unreliable and therefore unpalatable as a theory, imo.

I believe the bra clasp DNA test result was from contamination in the lab - possibly deliberate sample contamination, or possibly achieved by fudging the interpretive methodology, and concealing the underlying data to hide the 'magic trick', as it were, or a combination thereof.

So I think we agree in big lines. But I'm a bit fussy on details. I want to know what happened, how they did it, the choices people made, and how they account for themselves.

 

[Kauffer]

Hoisted by his own petard

(Oh boy...this is nuts...it's like they're doing a rendition of "Who's on first?")

Your analogy is quite wrong. There is no mis understanding here. We are using the updated freer translation of Mignini's words, which you provided. Let's remind ourselves what Mignini said, according to you:

"Even if you are saying there is no evidence of Knox in the murder room she could have instigated it and been in another room while the crime happened. But I don't believe that. I'm telling you she was there and there is proof of it."

Once again, the proof of Ms Knox being in Ms Kercher's room cannot be inferred from any evidence of her presence outside the room - Mignini's only possible argument. Similarly there is no evidence outside Ms Kercher's room that permits a conclusion that Ms Knox was inside the cottage at the time of the murder. There are plausible, alternative explanations.

You have been, despite being challenged to do so, unable to offer any reconstruction of the murder in Ms Kercher's room that accounts for the lack of physical evidence of two alleged assailants compared to the substantial physical evidence left by a known, confirmed assailant.

That's embarrassing for you. You will have noticed that your hero, the Machiavelli character has disappeared from the board since Diocletus demonstrated that his denials with regard to the hiding of evidence by the prosecution were erroneous. Presumably he will come back eventually and pretend it never happened.

But I remain hopeful that you do have the ability to consider the evidence in this case fairly, factually and objectively.

So, please, I ask you again - explain the absence of evidence in the murder room. Why much for Guede - nothing for Ms Knox? How?

 

[NotEvenWrong]

griffinmill,
The core basis of every single one of your posts is that it is utterly impossible for the Italian courts to be wrong, and all of the forensic scientists who happen to be on the opposite side of the Italian courts have no idea what they are talking about with respect to forensic science (because they all are "defense experts", yes?).

Is that what you are arguing? Because that is what it looks like you are arguing.

Edit -- By "Italian courts" I should have specified the ones presided over by Massei and Nencini. Not Hellman. It's certainly not all the Italian courts that are on the opposite side of forensic science. Nor all the ones that presided over the Knox and Sollecito trials. Just two of them. The two that happen to be infallible. Right, griffinmill?

 

[Vibio]

Edited by LashL: 

Edited to remove breaches of Rule 12 and Rule 0.

Once again, the proof of Ms Knox being in Ms Kercher's room cannot be inferred from any evidence of her presence outside the room - Mignini's only possible argument. Similarly there is no evidence outside Ms Kercher's room that permits a conclusion that Ms Knox was inside the cottage at the time of the murder.

According to you. Fine I have no problem with that. Believe what you want.

The issue has been discussed over and over and over and over again. There is the Nencini Report. Mach has written about the issue very well here. By now everyone can draw their own conclusions.

You have been, despite being challenged to do so, unable to offer any reconstruction of the murder in Ms Kercher's room that accounts for the lack of physical evidence of two alleged assailants compared to the substantial physical evidence left by a known, confirmed assailant.

I don't know how many points of the room were tested. I do know that one of the places tested did find Raff's DNA.... and I (unlike you) believe the conclusions about those findings.

And yes, Guede left traces but certainly I can't (nor can any of you) conclude that this would automatically mean that there must be traces found for K&S as well. I don't know if there are similar cases.

Futhermore: I have not seen the prosecution's video reconstruction of the murder. I know nothing about forensics, and if the dynamics of the murder could allow one to not leave traces in the murder room. I also posted about a recent bloody murder where no biological traces or even footprints were found ...although, there too, they were probably left but not found.

I don't rule out Nencini, but my own personal theory has always been that while the prosecution got the right people, I've always felt Knox (as she confessed) was indeed in the kitchen as Kercher was stabbed. I do not believe it was a forced confession. And I do believe Guede was not alone in the murder room.

But after going through as much of this trial as I have, the evidence, the explanations on both sides .... from the moment Knox leaves the apartment to go fetch a mop....the one thing that remains truly unbelievable for me, is that Knox and Sollecito were not at the cottage that evening.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

I don't rule out Nencini, but my own personal theory has always been that while the prosecution got the right people, I've always felt Knox (as she confessed) was indeed in the kitchen as Kercher was stabbed. I do not believe it was a forced confession.

Why do you believe it was not a forced confession? And if you believe Knox was in the kitchen, a separate room from where Meredith was killed, how do you believe she is guilty of murder?

And I do believe Guede was not alone in the murder room.

Why? Is it the bra clasp? Do you believe there were 5 people in the murder room (Meredith, Rudy, Raffaele, plus the two other unknown contributors to the bra clasp)? Why not just one murderer plus contamination since forensic protocols weren't followed, which increases the risk of contamination?

But after going through as much of this trial as I have, the evidence, the explanations on both sides .... from the moment Knox leaves the apartment to go fetch a mop....the one thing that remains truly unbelievable for me, is that Knox and Sollecito were not at the cottage that evening.

IIRC, you bring up the mop a lot. You do realize it was proven there was a leak requiring a mop at Raffaele's apartment, right? It seems like you are dredging up all the information possible that "proves" Amanda and Raffaele participated in a gang rape/murder, and ignoring all possible plausible innocent explanations for the potentially infinite number of things you can possibly find. Then you are also completely ignoring all evidence of innocence -- like the information on Raffaele's computer combined with Meredith's time of death calculated by rate of gastric emptying. Is that what you're doing? Because that is an absolutely horrendous and biased way of evaluating evidence.

 

[Bill Williams]

Processo Mez? Potevo farlo, ma non mi pento di aver scelto i Minori
The Mez Trial? I could have done it, but do not regret choosing the juveniles (division)

Remember the conspiracy theory from the pro-guilt PR lobby that Wladimir De Nunzio, President of the Court of Appeal of Perugia, purposely in a "Machiavellian move" replaced a competent judge with Judge Hellmann? Remember how it was claimed that one knew the amount in Euros that it took to bribe Judge Hellmann?

Well, Sergio Matteini Chiari, apparently chose to head the juvenile section of the Perugian court, instead of taking the appeals' trial for the Kercher murder in 2009. And get this: Like Hellmann, he is a civil judge.

http://www.giornaledellumbria.it/article/article174142.html

We are talking about the crime, she was listed as president of the Assize Court of Appeals for the process KnoxSollecito.
Then came the appointment to the Juvenile Court. Sorry?
"I can not hide that I would have liked to preside, and I might have as to the appointment came in Minori
Following the appointment to the Court of Assizes and then I could preside as applied. However, I think it was
better to accept the assignment to minors, because I hope I have done good. "

This is from July of this year, as found in Giornale dell Umbira.

 

[Kauffer]

As the song goes...

<SNIP>

According to you. Fine I have no problem with that. Believe what you want.

The issue has been discussed over and over and over and over again. There is the Nencini Report. Mach has written about the issue very well here. By now everyone can draw their own conclusions.



I don't know how many points of the room were tested. I do know that one of the places tested did find Raff's DNA.... and I (unlike you) believe the conclusions about those findings.

Futhermore: I have not seen the prosecution's video reconstruction of the murder. I know nothing about forensics and if in the dynamics of the murder could allow one to not leave traces in the murder room. I also posted about a recent bloody murder where no biological traces or even footprints were found ...although, there too, they were probably left but not found.

On top of all of this my own personal theory has always been that the prosecution got the right people but I've always felt Knox was indeed in the kitchen as Kercher was stabbed. I do not believe it was a forced confession.

One thing however that is truly far-fetched, it is that Knox and Sollecito were not at the cottage that evening.

Feelings - nothing more than feelings..."I've always FELT (my caps) that Knox was indeed in the kitchen as Kercher was stabbed". Who needs evidence or a reconstruction based on that evidence, when we have your feelings to guide us and you have them to guide you?

What words have I put in your mouth? Or Mignini? I've used your translation.

You say you know nothing about forensics - well, not sure how you can have any informed opinions about this case without some rudimentary knowledge of what conclusions science informs us we can come to from certain kinds of evidence. It is clear you have been taught numerous lessons by good scientists here but have chosen not to allow the knowledge to bed in. It's a shame.

But it is interesting that you refer to the possibility that there were incriminating samples in Ms Kercher's room, which were not found. Mignini speculated similarly, did he not? Of course it is possible, but the point of course is that we would have expected to see a similar weight of evidence for Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito as Guede and that really could not have been missed could it? Presumably you would agree, in any case, that we should not convict someone based on the mere possibility that some evidence might exist and which, if it had been found, could have been interpreted in an inculpatory manner.

It is not immediately clear what evidence you rely on to place Ms Knox or Mr Sollecito at the cottage; it is not immediately clear what evidence you rely on to support the convictions per se. I have no idea why you should think me dishonest. Indeed, an honest approach to debate here that would see you citing evidence points in support of argument is largely absent from all of your contributions. What, indeed, is the nature of idiocy?

 

[NotEvenWrong]

But it is interesting that you refer to the possibility that there were incriminating samples in Ms Kercher's room, which were not found. Mignini speculated similarly, did he not?

I always love this about the pro-guilt PR lobby. Yeah, there was no reliable evidence of Knox and Sollecito in the murder room, but there MAY HAVE BEEN and the police just didn't find it. And since we feel she is guilty, it must have actually been there. Every last one of them thinks this way. It's atrocious.

Honestly, can ONE of you pro-guilt people read about circular reasoning and assuming your conclusion? Just please, at least skim some material on formal logic.