Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

First of all, it is not true that Battistelli was exposed as a liar.
In fact I said that I had no position about Battistelli. I don't know which witness is correct, and I don't know if the error was a lie.
This is quite different from stating that Battistelli was exposed as a liar.
But the point is that, indeed, it is absolutely not the same thing. There is a very big difference between a testimony with one contradiction (conflicts with another testimony) on one point, and a testimony which is a complete load of crap such as Knox's or Kokomani's.
There is a difference between having one point of contradiction, and a pattern of contradictions in which there is no element consistent with another.
There is also a slight difference between a lie told by a suspect, or by someone who could not be involved in the murder.

Then you do not know if Battistelli contaminated the crime scene. Thank you for this admission.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is exactly what I am saying. Or better this is what the experts told me (I am no expert).

Then "the experts" are idiots. Or you are a liar.

As I've stated before, I'm virtually certain that the phone records used in the trials are the billing records, which are the easiest records to obtain. In fact I think it's hugely difficult to obtain network management records in this sort of format.

And if they are the billing records, then beyond a shadow of a doubt they only show connected calls and the duration of those connections. In other words, they only show where an actual connection has been made (as opposed to a ring tone) and the duration of the call after that connection has been made.

Analysis of the phone records used in this case strongly suggest that these are indeed billing records (not only looking at the critical calls/texts on 1/2/ Nov, but also other calls/texts). And therefore it's almost certainly utterly wrong to state that the timings shown are from the moment the called phone starts to indicate an incoming call. Rather, it's almost certainly true that the timings shown are only post-connection timings, and they therefore do not include the times when the called phone was ringing (in this case, this is specifically relevant in the case of calls to Kercher's UK phone which was switched on - this phone would ring and ring several times before auto-diverting to voicemail, and it's only this post-divert timing that would be shown in the billing records).

In fact, one need only consider the way in which Kercher's UK phone was discovered to reinforce the understanding that we're looking at billing records here. Recall that this phone was discovered only because it started emitting a ringtone from one of Knox's call attempts. The family that found it indicated in their statements that it was ringing for a fair time - enough time to allow them to locate the phone in the undergrowth and see Knox's ID on the screen. Yet a call of this duration at this time is not shown on Knox's phone records. Why not? Because the ring time was not included in the records! Rather, this has to have been the 12:11:54 call made by Knox to Kercher's UK phone and timed at 4 seconds.

There can be no other interpretation than that the 4 seconds cannot possibly refer to the time that Kercher's phone was ringing, since this clearly would not have been sufficient time for the Lana family to hear the ring tone, locate the phone, retrieve the phone, and look to see that it was Knox calling. Instead, the 4 seconds MUST refer to the connected time of that call. In other words, Knox called the phone, waited for it to ring and ring (probably for up to 20 seconds) - during which time the phone was heard, located and retrieved - then the phone auto-diverted to voicemail, which Knox listened to for 4 seconds before terminating the call.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

transfer of DNA by secondary and further transfer

Goray M, van Oorschot RA., "The complexities of DNA transfer during a social setting."
Abstract
When questions relating to how a touch DNA sample from a specific individual got to where it was sampled from, one has limited data available to provide an assessment on the likelihood of specific transfer events within a proposed scenario. This data is mainly related to the impact of some key variables affecting transfer that are derived from structured experiments. Here we consider the effects of unstructured social interactions on the transfer of touch DNA. Unscripted social exchanges of three individuals having a drink together while sitting at a table were video recorded and DNA samples were collected and profiled from all relevant items touched during each sitting. Attempts were made to analyze when and how DNA was transferred from one object to another. The analyses demonstrate that simple minor everyday interactions involving only a few items in some instances lead to detectable DNA being transferred among individuals and objects without them having contacted each other through secondary and further transfer. Transfer was also observed to be bi-directional. Furthermore, DNA of unknown source on hands or objects can be transferred and interfere with the interpretation of profiles generated from targeted touched surfaces. This study provides further insight into the transfer of DNA that may be useful when considering the likelihood of alternate scenarios of how a DNA sample got to where it was found.

 

[LondonJohn]

Goray M, van Oorschot RA., "The complexities of DNA transfer during a social setting."
Abstract
When questions relating to how a touch DNA sample from a specific individual got to where it was sampled from, one has limited data available to provide an assessment on the likelihood of specific transfer events within a proposed scenario. This data is mainly related to the impact of some key variables affecting transfer that are derived from structured experiments. Here we consider the effects of unstructured social interactions on the transfer of touch DNA. Unscripted social exchanges of three individuals having a drink together while sitting at a table were video recorded and DNA samples were collected and profiled from all relevant items touched during each sitting. Attempts were made to analyze when and how DNA was transferred from one object to another. The analyses demonstrate that simple minor everyday interactions involving only a few items in some instances lead to detectable DNA being transferred among individuals and objects without them having contacted each other through secondary and further transfer. Transfer was also observed to be bi-directional. Furthermore, DNA of unknown source on hands or objects can be transferred and interfere with the interpretation of profiles generated from targeted touched surfaces. This study provides further insight into the transfer of DNA that may be useful when considering the likelihood of alternate scenarios of how a DNA sample got to where it was found.

One of the important words here is "detectable". In the past, tertiary and quaternary DNA transfer was deemed impossible only because DNA deposited in this way was always at too low a quantity to be detectable by the equipment of the time. Therefore if certain DNA was found on an item, it was logical to state that this DNA must have found its way there by either primary or secondary transfer, since otherwise it would have been undetectable.

However, modern equipment and testing protocols have enabled the detection of minuscule amounts of DNA. And this is precisely why, at these ultra-low levels, tertiary+ transfer is now on the agenda. As this study and others show conclusively, if one finds very low quantities of DNA, it's feasible to suppose that they might have been deposited through tertiary+ transfer.

(NB: Sollecito's alleged DNA on the bra clasp hook was at low template levels. It was categorically not "abundant"........)

 

[Dan O.]

The Postal Police are the real police.
They didn't call the homicide squad immediately, that's true. They found the body, first.

They did nothing but stand around and act stupid for 30+ minutes according to your timeline. Is that what you call real police?

 

[Desert Fox]

They did nothing but stand around and act stupid for 30+ minutes according to your timeline. Is that what you call real police?

I had something like that happen when I called the Virginia Beach police because of a problem

 

[Dan O.]

Dan O. has examined and oriented these prints and produced a diagram, which perhaps he can post again.

These are in my album on this forum so anybody should be able to locate and reprint them.

BTW: I like the gallery at IA much better than the individual albums here.


ETA: this is another example where we show we are willing to change our opinions when faced with compelling evidence. Prior to producing this image, I was strongly supporting the idea that Rudy had locked the door behind himself as he exited while leaving the trail of bloody foot prints behind. This image which I produced by aligning the bloody prints on the floor to an instance of the stain superimposed on the shoe template shows the precise position and orientation of the shoe while making each tract. This evidence contradicted two presumptions that I had made about the prints: the prints at 5B and 5C are facing into the room and not facing the door where a key could be tried in the lock while in the room where there is light. And, the print outside the door has the heal much closer to the door making it unlikely that Rudy was locking the door behind him at that instant. Dispute this evidence contradicting the lone wolf theory that I held, I published the findings and accepted that I was wrong. Remember, at this time it was also commonly presumed that the tracts showed Rudy's bloody feet walking out the door, so this finding was a major upset for the whole Lone Wolf theory.

 

[Samson]

Incorrect statement (and false conclusion about lyiong). Comodi said "nothing had happened" yet, not referred to concerns but as opposed the previous answer of Knox, where Ms. Knox mentioned the confusion and the many things that were happening after the arrival of the police.

It would make no sense to accuse Comodi of lying, by the way, also because there is not that difference as for the number of things that happened between 12:00 and 12:47; very little happened within that time frame. In the "discovery" of strange clues was almost complete, knowledge about the things that would cause concern was not that different: by around 12 Knox had already discovered all those things which (she says) made her conclude that someone had entered the house and made her feel worried to the point of calling Filomena and call Sollecito. The time after that was basically wasted time. Not answering to Filomena's calls. Waiting and being uncertain whether telling Sollecito over breakfast first, then waiting another fifteen minutes after filomena's last call.



And the proof? Actually, what comes out is that it was Knox and Sollecito who lied about all their timings, which they changed several times, including this one. What we have is the Postal Police report which they wrote before they could know anything about the investigation. Then we have video evidence and the videos do not prove Sollecito's version at all, but even in the best event, the timings only leave room for a minor variation: calling the Carabinieri at 12:54 is still too late.


False.
It's an inocentisti myth. An invention of the knoxophiles.

The picture of the red coloured bathroom was simply never published in Italy.
It was published only by a British tabloid, which bought it from a press agancy together with a batch of tens of photos from the crime scene. The decision to publish the photos was by a British tabloid, presumably for lucrative reason (sell morbid stories), the prosecution or police had nothing to do with it. Neither it is reasonable to assume that the police and prosecution could have any interest in publishing the photo, also considering that in fact in Italy the photo was not published.

This has been completely disproved by mathematician guilter Leila Schnepps.

 

[Dan O.]

The picture of the red coloured bathroom was simply never published in Italy.
It was published only by a British tabloid, which bought it from a press agancy together with a batch of tens of photos from the crime scene. The decision to publish the photos was by a British tabloid, presumably for lucrative reason (sell morbid stories), the prosecution or police had nothing to do with it. Neither it is reasonable to assume that the police and prosecution could have any interest in publishing the photo, also considering that in fact in Italy the photo was not published.

Who is camera boy and his side kick?

 

[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.

It seems completely irrelevant to me.

I know it does - it is irrelevant to you. That is because you refuse to put the events of Nov 5/6 in the interrogation room on to a timeline.

In fact, you refuse to put anything on to a timeline. When one does put events on to such a timeline, it becomes apparent that not only was it Ficarra who "brought Lumumba into the room," it was Ficarra and/or Napoleoni with the help of the mediator Anna Donnino, who began taking this case off the rails - ending up in a wrongful conviction.

The pro-guilt lobby wants us to believe that devoid of context, that Amanda Knox wandered into the Questura to make a "spontaneous declaration" about Patrik Lumumba. This "spontaneous declaration", as the pro-guilt lobby wnats folk to believe, was an awkward attempt by Knox to divert the investigation from.......

....... herself? Raffaele?

No. Divert it from Rudy Guede. The pro-guilt lobby, as well as Florence convicting Judge Nencini, would have us believe that Raffaele and Amanda went to all the trouble to stage a crime scene in the manner in which (even Nencini admits) is in the style of previous break=ins by Rudy Guede.

And she then "spontaneously" blames Lumumba.

Enter the police, and their reasoning that, "Knox told us a pack of lies until she buckled and told us what we already knew."

The pack of lies, according to the police, is the story both Raffaele and Amanda have always told - they were at Raffaele's all night.

This turns out to be the truth. That is, unless you can demonstrate that it was Amanda who pointed towards Patrick Lumumba.... the answer to the question which you believe is, "completely irrelevant to me," is this:

Amanda never once thought about Patrick Lumumba until Ficarra asked to see her mobile, and started checking through it to see who Amanda might have been in contact with. Lo and behold, they run across the "See you later" SMS message from Amanda, back to Lumumba because of his request, also sent by SMS, not to come into work that night.

The question is - did Amanda take the initiative to point this out to Ficarra, or did Ficarra see it for herself and say, "what is this? Who is this from?"

Perhaps we should check the mandatory videotape of this interrogation. Oh wait.

That, my friend, was what brought Lumumba into the room. And all the questioning from that point on was to get Amanda to "confess" to the cops story that Lumumba had something to do with this. Indeed, it is best described by what was authored for her.... the 1:45 am memorandum... this is the cops' working theory at 1:45 am on Nov 6, 2007:

"Last Thursday, November 1, a day on which I normally work, while I was at the house of my boyfriend
Raffaele, at around 8:30 pm, I received a message on my cellular phone from Patrik, who told me that
the premises would remain closed that evening, because there were no customers, and thus I would not
need to go to work.

"I responded to the message by telling him that we would see each other at once; I then left the house,
telling my boyfriend that I had to go to work.​

The highlighted part is not what the SMS message says. The highlighted part was the culmination of Ficarra's misunderstanding of English idiom, and Anna Donnino's decision to be a mediator, rather than a translator.

Proof of this?

Look how the same issue is covered at the 5:45 am memorandum, now that Mignini himself is in control.... ah, er, acting as if only a notary.

"I wish to spontaneously report what happened because this case has deeply disturbed me and I am
very afraid of Patrick, the African owner if the pub called 'Le Chic' on Via Alessi where I occasionally
work. I met him on the evening of the first of November, after having sent him a message replying to his,
with the words 'see you' ['ci vediamo', lit. "we'll see each other"].​

The SMS message is rendered as back to the original, but the meaning is kept. It is still a misunderstanding of the English idiom. Amanda, for her part, is still convinced that the cops, and Mignini, are using her imaginings to solve this crime.

But at issue is this - who brought Lumumba into the room? If you put it to a timeline the answer can only be: Ficarra. She's the one who made a big deal of the SMS message, confused by its timing.

A few hits on the head later - gets Amanda to "remember" what even in these memorandums she's saying she remembers "confusedly", if at all.

 

[Machiavelli]

I know it does - it is irrelevant to you. That is because you refuse to put the events of Nov 5/6 in the interrogation room on to a timeline.

In fact, you refuse to put anything on to a timeline. When one does put events on to such a timeline, it becomes apparent that not only was it Ficarra who "brought Lumumba into the room," it was Ficarra and/or Napoleoni with the help of the mediator Anna Donnino, who began taking this case off the rails - ending up in a wrongful conviction.

The pro-guilt lobby wants us to believe that devoid of context, that Amanda Knox wandered into the Questura to make a "spontaneous declaration" about Patrik Lumumba. This "spontaneous declaration", as the pro-guilt lobby wnats folk to believe, was an awkward attempt by Knox to divert the investigation from.......

....... herself? Raffaele?

No. Divert it from Rudy Guede. The pro-guilt lobby, as well as Florence convicting Judge Nencini, would have us believe that Raffaele and Amanda went to all the trouble to stage a crime scene in the manner in which (even Nencini admits) is in the style of previous break=ins by Rudy Guede.

And she then "spontaneously" blames Lumumba.

Enter the police, and their reasoning that, "Knox told us a pack of lies until she buckled and told us what we already knew."

The pack of lies, according to the police, is the story both Raffaele and Amanda have always told - they were at Raffaele's all night.

This turns out to be the truth. That is, unless you can demonstrate that it was Amanda who pointed towards Patrick Lumumba.... the answer to the question which you believe is, "completely irrelevant to me," is this:

Amanda never once thought about Patrick Lumumba until Ficarra asked to see her mobile, and started checking through it to see who Amanda might have been in contact with. Lo and behold, they run across the "See you later" SMS message from Amanda, back to Lumumba because of his request, also sent by SMS, not to come into work that night.

The question is - did Amanda take the initiative to point this out to Ficarra, or did Ficarra see it for herself and say, "what is this? Who is this from?"

It was obviously a police officer (we assume Ficarra) who pointed out the SMS message to her, and told her something on the line "we know you are lying". "Look, it looks like you met with this person that night". "are you covering up for someone?".
It os obvious, insofar as it is obvious that it was the police initiative to investigate into Meredith Kercher's murder, not Knox's initiative.
But this is completely irrelevant.
This does not justify nor explain a iota about Knox's voluntary decision of placing repeated false testimonies placing evidence against Patrick Lumumba.
But also, we should not sweep this under the carpet, Knox did place evidence against Raffaele Sollecito too (remember the "blood on hands" memory).
The reason why Knox did so, is obvious in the context, to anyone who wantst to see it.

 

[Desert Fox]

I found an interesting case with many similarities
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbzlLadbMDQ#t=27

 

[Machiavelli]

Who is camera boy and his side kick?

I've already said I think the man is (probably) Domenico Giacinto Profazio.
And also I have said that who took the picture has absolutely no importance (it was obviously some officer); it was obviously the police who took the picture, but it was obviously not the police who published it in a British tabloid, so the claim that the police "lied" or mislead public information about the red bathroom is completely stupid and void.

 

[Bill Williams]

It was obviously a police officer (we assume Ficarra) who pointed out the SMS message to her, and told her something on the line "we know you are lying". "Look, it looks like you met with this person that night". "are you covering up for someone?".
It os obvious, insofar as it is obvious that it was the police initiative to investigate into Meredith Kercher's murder, not Knox's initiative.
But this is completely irrelevant. This does not justify nor explain a iota about Knox's voluntary decision of placing repeated false testimonies placing evidence against Patrick Lumumba.
But also, we should not sweep this under the carpet, Knox did place evidence against Raffaele Sollecito too (remember the "blood on hands" memory).
The reason why Knox did so, is obvious in the context, to anyone who wantst to see it.

I thank you for at least addressing it.

Whereas it is difficult to believe you are serious in "connecting the dots" the way you do, at least you have admitted that it was Ficarra who "brought Lumumba into the room," and unlike some others in the pro-guilt lobby, it is obvious you do not believe she came voluntarily to the Questura with the intent of blaming Lumumba.

It is my view that Knox made no such voluntary admissions. This is a classic "false confession", although it is not really a confession. It is Knox confusedly acceding to a story that the PLE were feeding her. She was simply in no position to confirm or deny anything to dowith the murder. (That you see the point as irrelevant is your choice, but it is hard to believe you actually do.)

The deciding point for me is that this was not simply, "Knox placing evidence against Lumumba". It is the height of irresponsibility for the PLE to have rushed out and arrested Lumumba, accused him, interrogated him without videotaping or transcribing.....

All on the confused memory of a foreigner who barely spoke the language.

Acc. to John Follain, Marco Chiacchiera is beginning to look like the only police officer who could tell what was going on - by advising Mignini and Napoleoni to release all three of them and continue to monitor them.

It is unbelievable, really, that the PLE arrested Lumumba on the information they had.

Unless they had other information they were using to justify the comment, "Knox buckled and told us what we already knew."

 

[Machiavelli]

BTW: I like the gallery at IA much better than the individual albums here.


ETA: this is another example where we show we are willing to change our opinions when faced with compelling evidence. Prior to producing this image, I was strongly supporting the idea that Rudy had locked the door behind himself as he exited while leaving the trail of bloody foot prints behind. This image which I produced by aligning the bloody prints on the floor to an instance of the stain superimposed on the shoe template shows the precise position and orientation of the shoe while making each tract. This evidence contradicted two presumptions that I had made about the prints: the prints at 5B and 5C are facing into the room and not facing the door where a key could be tried in the lock while in the room where there is light. And, the print outside the door has the heal much closer to the door making it unlikely that Rudy was locking the door behind him at that instant. Dispute this evidence contradicting the lone wolf theory that I held, I published the findings and accepted that I was wrong. Remember, at this time it was also commonly presumed that the tracts showed Rudy's bloody feet walking out the door, so this finding was a major upset for the whole Lone Wolf theory.

However, I dispute the orientation of 5B in this rendering. I am going by memory, but I have some strong doubts that the print 5B is pointing toward the right as in this picture: as for what I remember that one seemed mostly a heel's print, and I used to consider the shoeprint it as pointing towards the left (from the viewpoint of watcher; thus in "alignement" with the prints going out).

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
The deciding point for me is that this was not simply, "Knox placing evidence against Lumumba". It is the height of irresponsibility for the PLE to have rushed out and arrested Lumumba, accused him, interrogated him without videotaping or transcribing.....

All on the confused memory of a foreigner who barely spoke the language.

But her memories did not seem that confused to Mignini when she released her spontaneous statement.
She dis not seem confused also as described by Anna Donnino's testimony.

Actually, what happened to Lumumba is irrelevant to the point, but it is also not true that the police "interrogated him" or that they "accused" him: he was declared a formal suspect (thus "accused") before that, by a decree of the Public Minister on 8am of Nov 6., and then by an order of the Investigation Judge on Nov. 8., while instead no police interrogation of Lumumba was ever submitted to the judge, so nobody collected interrogation evidence against him prior to his judge appearence; the police spoke with him in prison, but nobody interrogated him; in fact he was interrogated by the judge, but only later.

It is unbelievable, really, that the PLE arrested Lumumba on the information they had.

It is not unbeliavable, but the point is that this is an attempt to steer the discussion off-topic. The police might instead have gone to Lumumba's house and killed him right away on racist grounds, like the NY police likes to do with black suspects, and still this wouldn't change a iota about what Knox has done and about her responsabilities.

Unless they had other information they were using to justify the comment, "Knox buckled and told us what we already knew."

Not, the problem with this "quoted" statement (again) is that it is a hoax, it is false news. The police didn't say that. It's one of the usual knoxophile myths, it's a bit like the "Satanic ritual" hoax. If you think you know what you are talking about, then quote a report of their wording or a video about the press conference.

 

[Machiavelli]

They did nothing but stand around and act stupid for 30+ minutes according to your timeline. Is that what you call real police?

Yes it's basically what I call real police. In fact, this is what they are, not how I call them.

 

[Dan O.]

I've already said I think the man is (probably) Domenico Giacinto Profazio.
And also I have said that who took the picture has absolutely no importance (it was obviously some officer); it was obviously the police who took the picture, but it was obviously not the police who published it in a British tabloid, so the claim that the police "lied" or mislead public information about the red bathroom is completely stupid and void.

Just like it was obviously not Amanda's parents that published the article in a British Tabloid that brought the slander charge against them.

So, how did a photo taken by the police durring an official investigation not get entered into the case file and also find its way to the British tabloid if the police had no hand in it?

And, how many other crime scene photos are these police withholding from the defense?

 

[Machiavelli]

Goray M, van Oorschot RA., "The complexities of DNA transfer during a social setting."
Abstract
When questions relating to how a touch DNA sample from a specific individual got to where it was sampled from, one has limited data available to provide an assessment on the likelihood of specific transfer events within a proposed scenario. This data is mainly related to the impact of some key variables affecting transfer that are derived from structured experiments. Here we consider the effects of unstructured social interactions on the transfer of touch DNA. Unscripted social exchanges of three individuals having a drink together while sitting at a table were video recorded and DNA samples were collected and profiled from all relevant items touched during each sitting. Attempts were made to analyze when and how DNA was transferred from one object to another. The analyses demonstrate that simple minor everyday interactions involving only a few items in some instances lead to detectable DNA being transferred among individuals and objects without them having contacted each other through secondary and further transfer. Transfer was also observed to be bi-directional. Furthermore, DNA of unknown source on hands or objects can be transferred and interfere with the interpretation of profiles generated from targeted touched surfaces. This study provides further insight into the transfer of DNA that may be useful when considering the likelihood of alternate scenarios of how a DNA sample got to where it was found.

In other words, if it was proven that there was a source of Sollecito's DNA on a specific small surface (like the handle), and if was proven that an interaction with a specific body part occurred (that a certain fingertip touched the handle repeatedly) and that the same fingertip also touched the metal part of the bra clasp, better if repeatedly or in an intense contact, then we would have a very small (albeit reasonably existing) chance to have a tertiary DNA transfer.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

These are in my album on this forum so anybody should be able to locate and reprint them.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=7840[/qimg]

BTW: I like the gallery at IA much better than the individual albums here.


ETA: this is another example where we show we are willing to change our opinions when faced with compelling evidence. Prior to producing this image, I was strongly supporting the idea that Rudy had locked the door behind himself as he exited while leaving the trail of bloody foot prints behind. This image which I produced by aligning the bloody prints on the floor to an instance of the stain superimposed on the shoe template shows the precise position and orientation of the shoe while making each tract. This evidence contradicted two presumptions that I had made about the prints: the prints at 5B and 5C are facing into the room and not facing the door where a key could be tried in the lock while in the room where there is light. And, the print outside the door has the heal much closer to the door making it unlikely that Rudy was locking the door behind him at that instant. Dispute this evidence contradicting the lone wolf theory that I held, I published the findings and accepted that I was wrong. Remember, at this time it was also commonly presumed that the tracts showed Rudy's bloody feet walking out the door, so this finding was a major upset for the whole Lone Wolf theory.

Thanks for posting that in the thread.

You analysis simply implies that Guede tracked blood out into the corridor before he locked the door and fled the crime scene.

It's only an upset if you follow the guilter principle of crime scene analysis, i.e., Guede must memorialize his every move with physical evidence, or else it means Amanda/Raffaele did it, in which case the need for physical evidence is waived entirely.