Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Yet as has been repeatedly pointed out, the cooking theory is not a runner for this purpose, and Knox stands convicted of transporting a knife.
1. Was it to cook with?
2. Was it for a premeditated act of violence?
3. Was it for self defence?

This is a multi choice question, and there may be options I have not considered.

(...)

There is not enough information to answer. But just note that it is not true that transporting a knife would imply premeditation of a serious crime, albeit this couldn't be ruled out completely.

 

[Kauffer]

Raff chooses option 1.

From his diary:

"... Amanda could have taken it and carried it from my house to her house since the girls didnʹt have a knife like that one "

And

"The fact that there is Meredithʹs DNA on the kitchen knife is because on one occasion, while we were cooking together..."

This is one of the most extraordinary aspects of the discussion of this case. The Knife has the victim's DNA - really? The knife was transported - really? Then, later, merely speculating innocently and privately about how both these thîngs could possibly be true becomes itself in the minds of some people, proof that they are true and, therefore, connected to the murder.

And how marvellously incompatible so many elements of guilt are in this case. The crime scene is cleaned up they say to frame Guede, but it's Lumumba who is later framed, they say. But also, the crime scene is cleaned up to hide evidence of themselves, but the bath mat remains in place and the murder weapon, which doesn't fit the wounds goes back in the drawer.

But it all fits into place in your minds, doesn't it, Migninians? No doubts at all, no doubt.

 

[Dan O.]

I think it's important here to differentiate between fingerprints and palm prints. For fingerprint matching, a high level of resolution detail is required, in order to identify and compare the loops and whorls. But for palm print matching, one is looking not at this fine level of detail, but rather at the creases and lines in the palm. If you look at your own palm, you'll easily see the pattern of lines on the palm (think palm reading!), but you won't be able to see the detail of your own fingerprint.

Take a look at this photograph. It's of a hand print lifted off nylon fabric:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4023754929fc343b15.jpg[/qimg]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110131073141.htm

While this print was lifted using a new technique (developed in 2011), you can easily see how sufficient detail of palm line patterns is left on woven fabric. Note also how it appears extremely hard to see fingerprint detail on this image - that's why it's always been deemed near-impossible to life usable fingerprints off woven fabric (though this new technique claims to make it possible in some cases).

And that's why I think it's plausible that the police were able to lift a usable palm print from that woven cotton pillow case, and that there was sufficient detail of the lines and creases of the palm to enable a match to be made to Guede. There's a very significant difference between the resolution/detail required for a palm print match than that required for a fingerprint match.

I repeat:
1. The state of the art in 2007 was to use friction ridges on the palm and not the crease lines when running an automated (ie computer) search.
2. If they could run an automated search off the print lifted from the pillow, why did it take 2 weeks to find a match?

 

[Desert Fox]

I repeat:
1. The state of the art in 2007 was to use friction ridges on the palm and not the crease lines when running an automated (ie computer) search.
2. If they could run an automated search off the print lifted from the pillow, why did it take 2 weeks to find a match?

There was some automated fingerprint matching in 2004 because that it when Brandon Mayfield was arrested due to a partial fingerprint.

 

[Dan O.]

There was some automated fingerprint matching in 2004 because that it when Brandon Mayfield was arrested due to a partial fingerprint.

I continue to repeat. Automated fingerprint matching based on the friction ridges has been around for a long time. Automated palmprint matching based on the same friction ridges has also been available prior to 2007. I have even linked to references showing that Italy had a palm print registery prior to 2007. But the development of automated matching based on the lower resolution detail of the crease lines is a development implemented after 2007. This is all evidenced in the links provided in my previous posts.

 

[Diocletus]

The Italian courts do recognize the rights of suspects before being declared indagato/indagata. The code prevents from using their declarations too.

Everyone notice this rather interesting shift in position by Machiavelli?

As you will recall, previously, he was insistent--for years--that in Italy it was impossible for any procedural rights to attach prior to a person being formally declared indagata by the magistrate. But now, it appears that he recognizes that "suspects" indeed have rights prior to the magistrate's formal declaration.

Someone has been doing some legal research.

This change in position rivals Machiavelli's recent concession that the lab records show contamination, and his comical attempt to explain away the contamination as just some spare alleles that were floating around the lab.

 

[Desert Fox]

I continue to repeat. Automated fingerprint matching based on the friction ridges has been around for a long time. Automated palmprint matching based on the same friction ridges has also been available prior to 2007. I have even linked to references showing that Italy had a palm print registery prior to 2007. But the development of automated matching based on the lower resolution detail of the crease lines is a development implemented after 2007. This is all evidenced in the links provided in my previous posts.

Sorry, I misunderstood when skim reading. My understanding is also that he was not fingerprinted until arrested in Milan. Could they have not yet put his prints in the system as well?

 

[carbonjam72]

Hi Carbonjam72,
From what I remember, Skep is the mod of PMF.org, her name is Peggy Ganong, she lives in Seattle I think. The funny thing is that she, Candace Dempsey, and I think Mike of PMF.net were all friends in debate right after the murder happened. They used to discuss the case in depth on Steve Huff's old True Crime weblog site. Heck, I seem to recall that Peggy G. even used to help translate for Frank Sfarzo's Perugia Shock when it had a pro-guilt slant. It was only after FS and CD started to believe that Amanda and Raff were not involved in Miss Kercher's murder that their relationship soured. Then the relationship between Peggy and Mike at PMF further soured, so they split up into 2 PMF's. Dr Lila is 1 of the PGP folks, like Machiavelli is, but she is public with her work and real name...


Oceania had a son studying in Perugia. She and her son are from New Zealand. If you can find any of her early posts, they are informative, Rudy apparently hung out with the New Zealand guys, he said in his March 26, 2008 Interogation, (his 2nd with ILE) that he'd been to their house. I've read a few times that Oceania's son told his Mom of a bro of Rudy's that was scary or dangerous. Maybe someday I'll look in some places where I might get lucky and find a few of these old posts of hers...

I wonder what the link is between Meredith Kercher and the New Zealand football boyz? Rudy Guede?

It would be interesting to read of their testimony to the police.
Why were they even called in to be questioned?

It would also be really good to read of Rudy Guede's 1st Italian Interrogation,
the one that lasted for 7 hours with PM Mignini and Judge Claudia Matteini on Dec. 7, 2007.
See ya, RW

Thanks RBWL, I'm missing a lot of the earlier stuff. So is Peggy G also the 'troll who lives under the bridge'? ( meaning the supposedly homeless person running one of the hate sites?

The behind the scenes drama if the guilders is fascinating in itself.

 

[LondonJohn]

I repeat:
1. The state of the art in 2007 was to use friction ridges on the palm and not the crease lines when running an automated (ie computer) search.
2. If they could run an automated search off the print lifted from the pillow, why did it take 2 weeks to find a match?

I think you're wrong. Palm print matching has long used flexion crease line comparison as well as friction ridge comparison. Obviously, good friction ridge comparison is a higher-quality tool, since multiple points of similarity can be identified, thus greatly increasing the reliability of the match. But it still is (and was in 2007) eminently possible to run computerised comparisons - and discover matches - using flexion crease analysis alone.

Here's a paper from 2008 that discusses the techniques in more detail:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110131073141.htm


Regarding your second point, you might be overestimating the speed, efficiency and dedication of the "crack" forensics team at work on this case. It could very well be that even though they had the pillow case in their custody, it took several days for anyone to even lift a print, and even then it might have sat there in the lab for a few more days before being run through the system for comparison and identification.

 

[LondonJohn]

Sorry, I misunderstood when skim reading. My understanding is also that he was not fingerprinted until arrested in Milan. Could they have not yet put his prints in the system as well?

No, he was fingerprinted (and presumably also palm printed) as part of his immigration record. His prints would have been on file - and presumably also within Italy's computerised print database - well prior to the Milan incident.

 

[LondonJohn]

Everyone notice this rather interesting shift in position by Machiavelli?

As you will recall, previously, he was insistent--for years--that in Italy it was impossible for any procedural rights to attach prior to a person being formally declared indagata by the magistrate. But now, it appears that he recognizes that "suspects" indeed have rights prior to the magistrate's formal declaration.

Someone has been doing some legal research.

This change in position rivals Machiavelli's recent concession that the lab records show contamination, and his comical attempt to explain away the contamination as just some spare alleles that were floating around the lab.

I must observe that Machiavelli's methodology (in common with so many pro-guilt commentators) is striking similar - and similarly flawed - to that displayed by the moronic police who investigated this crime: start with a conclusion (here, that Knox and Sollecito participated in the murder), then do anything possible to support that conclusion (while of course seeking to attack anything which contradicts or discredits that conclusion). Only when backed into a corner does such a person feel forced to concede any ground - but even then a new rationalisation is constructed which remains compatible with the a priori conclusion.

It's interesting to suggest that the Perugia police and PM did exactly this when they were finally forced to rule out Lumumba (an iron-clad alibi), while at the same time hard evidence of Guede's direct involvement was coming to light. The police/PM were able to cover their idiocy and malpractice in how they treated Lumumba with a ready-made rationalisation: "Oh, well we only suspected Lumumba because the evil fox Knox accused him, and anyhow our overarching theory of the crime remains intact - just substitute Guede for Lumumba!"

 

[Wannaknow]

Why?
They had killed someone and the body was inside if they were staging.
Without a sensible answer to that, it is safe to limit the discussion to a rock being thrown from outside before a corpse was inside, or a quiet staging from inside.

A staging from the inside may have been a loud as a staging/throwing of the rock from the outside. Furthermore, the killer(s) would have to fetch the rock from the outside in any case.



Greetings

 

[Bill Williams]

Yet as has been repeatedly pointed out, the cooking theory is not a runner for this purpose, and Knox stands convicted of transporting a knife.
1. Was it to cook with?
2. Was it for a premeditated act of violence?
3. Was it for self defence?

This is a multi choice question, and there may be options I have not considered.

(...)

There is not enough information to answer. But just note that it is not true that transporting a knife would imply premeditation of a serious crime, albeit this couldn't be ruled out completely.

That is perhaps the only answer a person from the pro-guilt lobby can make. Transporting the knife is not, in an of itself, an indication of premeditation.

Strangely enough, neither of the convicting judges gave this as an answer.

Additionally, making reference to turning off their cell phones is more black and white. Mignini advanced it as an indication of premeditation. Both convicting judges found no premeditation.

Therefore, turning off the phones had to have some other meaning - and AK and RS said it was to guarantee privacy for the evening/night of Nov 1/2, because they'd both just been freed from commitments.

So without premeditation, the act of turning off their phones tends to support their alibi. Yet, paradoxically, the pro-guilt lobby continues to use the turning of the mobiles as part of "all the other evidence".

 

[Bill Williams]

PM Mignini said it was a sign of premeditation. All the courts disagreed with him.

Mignini did not push a charge of premeditation.

Sigh.

Yet again, Machiavelli simply asserts this.

Taking this in a bit of a differing direction, does Machiavelli (as Yummi, when posting on the hate sites) correct the many looney posters there when they offer wild theories which involve premeditation? I've never seen it.

 

[Dan O.]

I think you're wrong. Palm print matching has long used flexion crease line comparison as well as friction ridge comparison. Obviously, good friction ridge comparison is a higher-quality tool, since multiple points of similarity can be identified, thus greatly increasing the reliability of the match. But it still is (and was in 2007) eminently possible to run computerised comparisons - and discover matches - using flexion crease analysis alone.

Here's a paper from 2008 that discusses the techniques in more detail:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110131073141.htm


Regarding your second point, you might be overestimating the speed, efficiency and dedication of the "crack" forensics team at work on this case. It could very well be that even though they had the pillow case in their custody, it took several days for anyone to even lift a print, and even then it might have sat there in the lab for a few more days before being run through the system for comparison and identification.

If you are going to play that way then I will trump your speculation and quote from someone that was in the court room following the trial:

Perugia-shock February 27, 2009

The scientific police finds a palm print on the pillow, not visible at naked eye, and after having checked the database send them the a name. Rudy HermanGuede.​

Perugia-shock april 23, 2009

In the police database there are 9 millions record cards with fingerprints and only 1 million with hand-prints too. Thanks to Rudy's usual bad luck, they had taken his palm too.
On the pillow there were 4 bloody signs of fingers/palm. The palm one was readable and, inserted in the data base, resulted Rudy's record card.​

Perugia-shock May 8, 2009

Today we came to know something more about the results in respect to Rudi. First of all only the palm print on the pillow is certainly attributable to him. The other ones, which we heard at last hearing, were just probable, so we finally have to consider 1 single print to him.
And then it was revealed something that surprised even the prosecutors. When they inserted the palm print in the database no match came out. Indeed not only Rudi didn't have any criminal record, as we knew, but even when he was stopped in Milan his fingerprints weren't taken.

They got to Rudy only after a while, when the Perugia police sent to Rome the record cards of possible suspected people. Among those cards there was Rudi's one but not for criminal reasons. His finger and palm prints were recorded only because of the law on immigration.​

 

[Machiavelli]

Everyone notice this rather interesting shift in position by Machiavelli?

As you will recall, previously, he was insistent--for years--that in Italy it was impossible for any procedural rights to attach prior to a person being formally declared indagata by the magistrate. But now, it appears that he recognizes that "suspects" indeed have rights prior to the magistrate's formal declaration.

Someone has been doing some legal research.

This change in position rivals Machiavelli's recent concession that the lab records show contamination, and his comical attempt to explain away the contamination as just some spare alleles that were floating around the lab.

I never changed my position.

But it seems people still don't understand it.

Then, I beg your pardon but I never engaged in any "comical" explanation. In fact what you may recall is that I simply quoted a disproval if your theory from Vecchiotti's report.

 

[Machiavelli]

Sigh.

Yet again, Machiavelli simply asserts this.

Taking this in a bit of a differing direction, does Machiavelli (as Yummi, when posting on the hate sites) correct the many looney posters there when they offer wild theories which involve premeditation? I've never seen it.

It's an objective fact that Mignini prosecuted a charge of non premeditated murder. I wouldn't think someone could have doubts on this.

 

[Machiavelli]

That is perhaps the only answer a person from the pro-guilt lobby can make. Transporting the knife is not, in an of itself, an indication of premeditation.

Strangely enough, neither of the convicting judges gave this as an answer.

Additionally, making reference to turning off their cell phones is more black and white. Mignini advanced it as an indication of premeditation. Both convicting judges found no premeditation.

(...).

Absolutely not. Mignini never pushed an aggravating charge of premeditation.
I mean there is no premeditation of murder, certainly no evidence if it.
This doesn't rule out for sure that premeditation of some illegal action didn't occur. But there is no specific evidence of it.

 

[anglolawyer]

Absolutely not. Mignini never pushed an aggravating charge of premeditation.
I mean there is no premeditation of murder, certainly no evidence if it.
This doesn't rule out for sure that premeditation of some illegal action didn't occur. But there is no specific evidence of it.

Yes there is, albeit it is complete crap:

• they took his kitchen knife with them and lied about it (you are very big on lies, Mach)
• they hung about in Piazza Grimana for hours staring in the direction of the cottage, obviously premeditating something
• they turned off their phones for a nefarious purpose, as explained to Matteini by … Da Dah! Mignini!
• there was simmering resentment on Amanda's part due to whatever crap we are making up this week: pooh in the toilet, jealousy about boyfriends, criticism of her bringing home random men etc

Why Mignini didn't run with all this beats me. Looks pretty watertight. I am surprised you are so reticent, Mach.

 

[Kauffer]

I never changed my position.

But it seems people still don't understand it.

You stated that in Italian law, suspects have rights before they become "indagato" and that statements they make cannot be used against them. Is that it? Perhaps you can clarify your position.