Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Dan O.]

Just responding here, but others have commented on this issue of the bra clasp DNA showing Sollecito partial profile.

There are essentially two branches of possible routes of contamination that I'm seeing.

First is the door handle, via latex gloves, to the bra clasp by the forensic police. Consistent with the mix of 2-4 extra male profiles on the clasp, and argued as being highly credible by Dr Peter Gill.

Second possibility is more of Stef's magic in the lab. And am I wrong, or hasn't Diocletus and others pointed out that there are fairly clear indications from the lab results that there were problems in particular with the bra clasp (and knife blade) runs.

I see a third possibility. Meredith herself could have inadvertently collected DNA from several friends under her fingernails while partying Halloween night and the morning after when Raffaele joined Amanda at the cottage for lunch. This collection could transfer to the clasp when she checks the bra to be warn for the dinner party. A shower with soap and shampoo would remove the evidence from her nails.

But I vote for Stef rigging the results, rather than it just being the police got lucky in finding Raf's transfer of DNA from latex gloves, in quantities of what 4-5 skin cells?

Don't be so quick to count out luck before counting how many chances they had to get lucky. If Raffaele's DNA were not found on the bra clasp, how many other analized locations could have been viewed as incriminating if a trace of his DNA were found there? It could have been anything from inside the room: the panties, the pillow, the stains on the bed, the blood on the walls even the glass on the nightstand. It is miraculous even that Raffaele's DNA didn't show up as trace contamination in any of these other samples.


One of the things you will see done at proper DNA labs is an internal audit to determine the levels and likleyhood of contamination events. This is done by analizing the EDFs for all cases processed by the lab and looking for cross contamination between cases. It is this internal audit process that tells the lab what minimum RFU level they can trust to be real.

 

[Desert Fox]

The one thing I will disagree with you, Desert Fox, is that it is not moving the goal post in Machiavelli's direction. The "I don't know" position about multiple assailants is supposed to be evaluated that way.

It's the issue of Knox's and Sollecito's participation which is a BARD sort of thing.

Of the 9 experts who gave evidence to the Massei court, 8 said that a single-attacker could not be ruled out (based on the evidence in front of them). IIRC only one of those said that a single attacker was the most likely scenario.

Hellmann's reasoning was the correct reasoning, though. His court was not there to rule on the multiple attacker scenario per se - it was to rule on whether or not AK and/or RS were those extra people. Once he had decided they were not, then it is not up to his court to further rule about the multiple attacker scenario per se. That's up to some other court when other people (other than Rudy Guede) are charged with the crime.

This is where I think the Italian Supreme Court particularly erred in it's reevaluation of Hellmann's decision. On page 6 of the March 2013 Cassation motivations report, Chieffi discusses the issue of multiple attackers per se....

​

In the three places where Chieffi discusses this, even Cassazione does not link this issue to Knox and/or Sollecito directly. So why is it even in a decision regarding them?

I am curious with these experts, are they not only ruling based of Meredeth's body. I suspect that a crime scene expert would rule that there was only one assailant in the bedroom.

Multiple attackers is a bit of an issue - if it can be shown that it was most likely one individual, you cannot then argue that Amanda and Raff are involved. You are technically correct however.

If you note, I did not ask Machiavellian to address a single vs multiple attackers but specifically that Amanda and Raff are involved.

 

[Desert Fox]

If, hypothetically, Meredith was having a severe blood loss in that moment, that delay would have meant the difference between life and death.

Maybe about a year and a half ago, I drove by a corner near my local Walmart. There was a person laying in the grass in the open. Numerous people were just driving by him. How do you know he was not dead.

Now, I pulled over and called Chesapeake Police Non-Emergency. They asked me to check on him and he was non responsive. Police did come by but how many people just drove by.

In this case, how does one know that Meredeth did not find a guy to shack up with for a couple of days? I have had friends disappear for a day or two because of that. This was mostly before the days of everybody having cell phones but I will bet that they would not have answered their cell phones if it happened today.

 

[Desert Fox]

Don't be so quick to count out luck before counting how many chances they had to get lucky. If Raffaele's DNA were not found on the bra clasp, how many other analized locations could have been viewed as incriminating if a trace of his DNA were found there? It could have been anything from inside the room: the panties, the pillow, the stains on the bed, the blood on the walls even the glass on the nightstand. It is miraculous even that Raffaele's DNA didn't show up as trace contamination in any of these other samples.

Even the knife with contamination from Meredeth could have come from outside the lab. A couple of cells from Meredeth could have stuck on Amanda's sweater and fell off on the knife and contaminated it.

 

[Machiavelli]

Who ever said that someone tried to break down the door before the police arrived?

Amanda Knox, for example (in her book):

“I can try to kick it down” Raffaele offered.
“Try it!”
He rammed the door with his shoulder, hard. Nothing. He kicked next to the handle. It didn’t budge.

Sollecito made a halfhearted half admission to that in his own book:

I made a halfhearted attempt to kick it open but wasn’t sure it was the right thing to do

Then, actually also Massei reports that and attempt had been already done and reports that the door was already cracked:

Raffaele aveva provato a sfondare la porta con un calcio ponendo cosi in essere un comportarnento che contraddiceva la normalità della porta chiusa affermata da Amanda; stranamente, non aveva insistito nel tentativo di sfondare la porta la quale aveva riportato solo una scalfittura e, malgrado che non fosse capace di opporre una valida resistenza ad una maggiore ed effettiva determinazione – come risulta dal fatto che Altieri Luca, di lì a poco, sarebbe riuscito a forzarla con un calcio ed una spallata - non aveva provato ancora a forzare la porta.

 

[Desert Fox]

Who ever said that someone tried to break down the door before the police arrived?

Amanda Knox, for example (in her book):

“I can try to kick it down” Raffaele offered.
“Try it!”
He rammed the door with his shoulder, hard. Nothing. He kicked next to the handle. It didn’t budge.

Sollecito made a halfhearted half admission to that in his own book:

I made a halfhearted attempt to kick it open but wasn’t sure it was the right thing to do

Then, actually also Massei reports that and attempt had been already done and reports that the door was already cracked:

Raffaele aveva provato a sfondare la porta con un calcio ponendo cosi in essere un comportarnento che contraddiceva la normalità della porta chiusa affermata da Amanda; stranamente, non aveva insistito nel tentativo di sfondare la porta la quale aveva riportato solo una scalfittura e, malgrado che non fosse capace di opporre una valida resistenza ad una maggiore ed effettiva determinazione – come risulta dal fatto che Altieri Luca, di lì a poco, sarebbe riuscito a forzarla con un calcio ed una spallata - non aveva provato ancora a forzare la porta.

Congratulations, you may have shown them as being indecisive . . . .

 

[Machiavelli]

Maybe about a year and a half ago, I drove by a corner near my local Walmart. There was a person laying in the grass in the open. Numerous people were just driving by him. How do you know he was not dead.

Now, I pulled over and called Chesapeake Police Non-Emergency. They asked me to check on him and he was non responsive. Police did come by but how many people just drove by.

Those people would be liable of a criminal charge in Italy.

Anyway we know tha Knox had come to the conclusion that someone had entered the flat and was aware that Meredith may have been in danger. We also know that she told Filomena they would call the police immediately.

 

[Machiavelli]

Congratulations, you may have shown hem as being indecisive . . . .

They are not telling about their indecision. They are telling a non believeable and inconsistent story. Knox reports Sollecito failed to break down the door. Let's say "liars"...

 

[Bill Williams]

But it is not true.
First, I note that you implicitly admit tha Knox was not worried.
But the fact is, Filomena and Amanda were the only ones among the present ones who actually lived there, and could be the only ones who were aware that the locked door was unusual.
Filomena was also the one who knew most about the "strange" things in the house since Knox had told her.
But then, also Luca Altieri and Marco Zaroli, and the postal police officers, became concerned too, that means they asked, in order to understand, whether the locked door was an usual element or not; or anyway they were told (by Knox) that it may have been usual, and they felt reassured by Knox's words.

There is nothing here to cherry pick.
The plain and simple truth is that Knox was just inconsistent.
Knox was not concerned and was reasssuring to those who didn't know about Meredith's habits.
This is inconsistent both with factual reality and with Knox's claims to have been in "panic", as ell as with Sollecito's attempt to break down the door (in addition to the several other aspects of intrinsic inconsistence within their acounts: Sollecito who "fails" to break down the door etc.).

Cherry-picking is all that you are doing.

They wouldn't even have been discussing this with the Postal Police unless both Raffaele and Amanda had alerted the P.P. that something was amiss inside.

This is where your confirmation bias betrays you. Badly. No one would be there at all unless Knox was worried enough to delay her trip with Raffaele and alert everyone on the planet that something was miss at the cottage.

What the evidence shows is that AK and RS were in enough of a panic to request help - as well as a second and third pair of eyes on what they were seeing (outside of Meredith's room), but no so much in a panic so as to destroy Meredith's door.

Once again, this is concurred with by the P.P. who themselves were just as perplexed as anyone as to what the scene meant.

To repeat, even Filomena was not panicked, really, until she put 2 + 2 together as to what it meant for Meredith to be without her mobiles. And even then Filomena could not convince others that her panic was justified - had to order her friends to break down the door.

You are so myopicly obsessed with the slightest of inconsistencies of AK to be blind to the scenario which was.

 

[Machiavelli]

The disclaimer was that this was a charge to a jury in California. What it prevents is what I believe is steering you wrongly here.

If there are 10 bits of evidence presented at trial, and each one of them (for sake of argument) is only 10% probative, with a 90% chance of otherwise pointing to an innocent explanation......

..... each one of them ....

But if it's the other way around: 90% chance of being probative, and only 10% of being innocent, the defendants are definitely toast (even if there are only three pieces of circumstantial evidence of this type).

If there are six or seven pieces of evidence each of which has only 50% chance of being probative, then the defendant is toast too.

And if the scenarios above occurr, actually also the possible 10% probative pieces will become part of the picture.

You seem to be saying that those 10 things can still be held on to as, in total, an indication of guilt.

No, I am saying that the intrinsic value of each piece of evidence is quite diferent from what you think.

 

[Bill Williams]

If, hypothetically, Meredith was having a severe blood loss in that moment, that delay would have meant the difference between life and death.

Once again, you demonstrate your confirmation bias.

You believe Battistelli, for instance, when he says he did not go into Meredith's room upon the grisly discovery. This is despite the witness of Filomena's boyfriend who said Battistelli actually DID go in to check who was under the duvet.

Yet you believe Battistelli when he said he did not contaminate the crime scene in that way. All this despite, "hypothetically, Meredith was having a severe blood loss in that moment, that delay would have meant the difference between life and death."

 

[Bill Williams]

But if it's the other way around: 90% chance of being probative, and only 10% of being innocent, the defendants are definitely toast (even if there are only three pieces of circumstantial evidence of this type).

If there are six or seven pieces of evidence each of which has only 50% chance of being probative, then the defendant is toast too.

And if the scenarios above occurr, actually also the possible 10% probative pieces will become part of the picture.



No, I am saying that the intrinsic value of each piece of evidence is quite diferent from what you think.

However, I am grateful that you concur that my hypothetical example would render each of those 10 things non-indicative of guilt.

 

[Bill Williams]

Perhaps you now feel comfortable, Machiavelli, expressing an opinion as to who drew the first attention to the "See you later" SMS text from Lumumba, at Knox's Nov 5/6 interrogation.

 

[LondonJohn]

Maybe about a year and a half ago, I drove by a corner near my local Walmart. There was a person laying in the grass in the open. Numerous people were just driving by him. How do you know he was not dead.

Now, I pulled over and called Chesapeake Police Non-Emergency. They asked me to check on him and he was non responsive. Police did come by but how many people just drove by.

In this case, how does one know that Meredeth did not find a guy to shack up with for a couple of days? I have had friends disappear for a day or two because of that. This was mostly before the days of everybody having cell phones but I will bet that they would not have answered their cell phones if it happened today.

Quite.

Machiavelli - and most other poor-thinking pro-guilt commentators - are making the fundamental mistake of being "wise after the event". We all know that in fact Kercher was lying dead behind that door. The mistake is to think that people in Knox's and Sollecito's position at around 12.30pm on 2nd November 2007 should have thought that this was even a reasonable possibility.

As you say, at around 12.30pm on 2/11/07 (or 11/2/07 if you're that way inclined...) there were myriad possible explanations for Kercher's failure to answer her phone (coupled with the strange visible state of the cottage). Murders - or even fatal/near-fatal accidents or medical events - are so massively rare for a fit student-age woman that it would actually be irrational to the point of hysteria to think that this is what might have happened to Kercher.

All the evidence, plus a dispassionate look at the situation without any reliance on hindsight, leads inexorably to the supposition that at 12.30 on 2/11/07 Knox and Sollecito had no reason to be much more than concerned about Kercher, since her behaviour was out of character and the house was in a strange state. That would explain why they made a non-frantic effort to force the door, before giving up when it became obvious that there would be significant damage before the door would yield.

Of course, once the Postal Police arrived with Kercher's phones, saying that the phones had been found thrown onto a random woman's lawn on the edge of town, the situation naturally changed dramatically. Here, for the first time, was proof positive that Kercher had in some way been personally involved in something very unusual and very sinister. And therefore, for the first time, there was a very real - and very rational - reason to think that Kercher may have come to some harm.

 

[Machiavelli]

Cherry-picking is all that you are doing.

They wouldn't even have been discussing this with the Postal Police unless both Raffaele and Amanda had alerted the P.P. that something was amiss inside.

You are drifting away and away from your own point. And this last comment is plain ludicrous. Knox had talked on the phone with Filomena several times, and Filomena was already on her way home. The Postal Police just happened to be witnesses to Knox's nonchalance about the locked door. It would have been pointless and completely contradictory for Knox to be silent about the (staged) burglary with the Police, given that Filomena was coming.

This is where your confirmation bias betrays you. Badly. No one would be there at all unless Knox was worried enough to delay her trip with Raffaele and alert everyone on the planet that something was miss at the cottage.

Alert everyone? But if there is no proof that they even called the Carabinieri before the Postal was already there. They called the police at 12:54 and Knox reports she had taken a shower at 10:45.
To delay her trip? But she woke up at 10:30 and she went to another apartment to shower for no reason, then when she became "worried", instead of telling Sollecito, she waited until they had finished breakfast. And she had also lied with Filomena about her being at home while in fact she was already at Raffaele's flat...
What are you smoking, Bill?

What the evidence shows is that AK and RS were in enough of a panic to request help - as well as a second and third pair of eyes on what they were seeing (outside of Meredith's room), but no so much in a panic so as to destroy Meredith's door.

But they did not request help. They delayed the request of help for hours.
They only tell a story about having been in a panic.
Recall how Knox and Sollecito describe their rush and agitation when they entered the apartment to seek if anything was missing...

To repeat, even Filomena was not panicked, really, until she put 2 + 2 together as to what it meant for Meredith to be without her mobiles.

Filomena didn't know Meredith was without her mobiles. She only knew she didn't answer. In fact, Filomena became panicked when she knew what Knox had been knowing for a while.

And even then Filomena could not convince others that her panic was justified - had to order her friends to break down the door.

Filomena ordered her friends because her friends believed her.
The police had two contradictory versions before them: Knox's story and Filomena's one. It's obvious that they didn't have enough information as for who was telling the truth.
But Filomena's friends knew Filomena was telling the truth.

 

[Machiavelli]

Perhaps you now feel comfortable, Machiavelli, expressing an opinion as to who drew the first attention to the "See you later" SMS text from Lumumba, at Knox's Nov 5/6 interrogation.

It seems completely irrelevant to me.

 

[Dan O.]

They are not telling about their indecision. They are telling a non believeable and inconsistent story. Knox reports Sollecito failed to break down the door. Let's say "liars"...

Your claims are the only lies here Machiavelli. The only evidence of Raffaele trying to open that door is Amanda and Raffaele's own statements and you are using that to call them liars. That you don't recognize your own bias is quite telling.

 

[Machiavelli]

Once again, you demonstrate your confirmation bias.

You believe Battistelli, for instance, when he says he did not go into Meredith's room upon the grisly discovery. This is despite the witness of Filomena's boyfriend who said Battistelli actually DID go in to check who was under the duvet.

Who told you I believe Battistelli?
I don't know which version is correct.

Yet you believe Battistelli when he said he did not contaminate the crime scene in that way. All this despite, "hypothetically, Meredith was having a severe blood loss in that moment, that delay would have meant the difference between life and death."

I absolutely never expressed a position of certainty on Battistelli's actions.
But yes, this has nothing to do with Knox's delay calling the police.

 

[Machiavelli]

Your claims are the only lies here Machiavelli. The only evidence of Raffaele trying to open that door is Amanda and Raffaele's own statements and you are using that to call them liars. That you don't recognize your own bias is quite telling.

This happens when you tell things that are not credible, intrinsically inconsistent, ambiguous or changing.

 

[Desert Fox]

Those people would be liable of a criminal charge in Italy.

Anyway we know tha Knox had come to the conclusion that someone had entered the flat and was aware that Meredith may have been in danger. We also know that she told Filomena they would call the police immediately.

I have read studies which indicate that people will often not respond in such situation, it seems to be a human thing not an American. Even if such things are in the books, I suspect that hey are not enforced except selectively.

All suggestions are that the postal police themselves were extremely reluctant to respond. They should have been charged with a crime by the way you are arguing.