Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

But it would be sufficient to disprove Planigale's argument postulating that the print shows the handle was covered with blood.

If the distance from the purported hilt mark to the tip equals the depth of the two wounds that resulted in bruising to the throat, it will be impossible to conceal this from the American public at extradition requests. They could be polled and agreement reached that this is not the outline of the knife found at Sollecito's. You are trying to fool the masses Mach, and this is an enterprise doomed to fail. History shows this time after time. Forty years is a typical exoneration time, ask Joseph Sledge, and consider the difficulty people face when

a key jailhouse informant, Herman Baker, signed an affidavit in 2013 recanting trial testimony. Baker said he lied at the 1978 trial after being promised leniency in his own drug case and he said he'd been coached by authorities on what to say.

cf. Rudy Guede and his sentence reductions.

link: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11391289

 

[Desert Fox]

If the distance from the purported hilt mark to the tip equals the depth of the two wounds that resulted in bruising to the throat, it will be impossible to conceal this from the American public at extradition requests. They could be polled and agreement reached that this is not the outline of the knife found at Sollecito's. You are trying to fool the masses Mach, and this is an enterprise doomed to fail. History shows this time after time. Forty years is a typical exoneration time, ask Joseph Sledge, and consider the difficulty people face when

a key jailhouse informant, Herman Baker, signed an affidavit in 2013 recanting trial testimony. Baker said he lied at the 1978 trial after being promised leniency in his own drug case and he said he'd been coached by authorities on what to say.

cf. Rudy Guede and his sentence reductions.

link: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11391289

How about Michael Carson's testimony with the WM3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFQzPHxsNRk

 

[Planigale]

Actually this about handle covered in blood is an innocentisti interpretation of the stain. My interpretation is very different, and doesn't have any handle print.

This was the print (sorry only low resolution allowed by forum):

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4347454c520207a87a.jpg[/qimg]

And this my interpretation, its overlapping with the blade:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4347454c520b91f08a.jpg[/qimg]

The blade is very large, it gets dirty with blood for about 12-13 cm, the handle has nothing to do with the print.



I am very perplexed by your objection to Stefanoni. It is both unfounded on point of law, as well as on grounds of facts based on the transcript of Stefanoni's 2008 testimony.

First it is not true that Stefanoni doesn't work as a forensic. In fact she was not only working as a molecular biologist in the laboratory, she was also directly involved on the evidence collection. She was at the crime scene and directed the whole sessions of evidence collection while she was there; not only she analysed items at the laboratory, in fact she also chose what items would be worth collecting and testing, based on her own assessment about the crime dynamics, as well as the order to follow for items collections.
Under many effects she acted as a crime scene manager - limited to the sessions where she was allowed - and a forensic invesigator, not only as a laboratory scientist. She did not just test fingernails swab samples for DNA, for example: she actually went to the morgue before the body was washed, observed Meredith's fingernails and took herself the swabs for each finger. She made decision about sample collections on each item based on her forensic experience.

It is obvious that she would testify about this activity of her.

But then, also as for trial papers, it does not seem correct - on grounds of facts - what you attribute to Stefanoni's testimony. What she in fact testifiied about sample A on the knife handle, was about why she chose to that particular point on the handle for DNA testing. She said that she chose that particular spot because, based on her 15-year experience as forensic, on stabbing, the murderer's DNA is found more often on that part of the handle, since a very big force is applied there in a stabbing movement. And also, based on her experience, in a superficial washing the murderer may easily "forget" to accurately wash that part of the handle, as the handle is rather big and during a one may tend to clean the other more extended areas.
So the testimony of Stefanoni was an answer about why she chose to test that particular spot of the handle.
I fail to see how this could be seen as unethical.

So Mach where is the handle? Showing a picture that does not include the handle but only part of the blade and asserting that therefore is no blood that could be attributed to the handle is ridiculous. i could show lots of photos that did not include the area of interest and say all sorts of things happened there but a photo that does not show something is not evidence of what happened elsewhere.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Officer Moroni deserves most of the blame

Take the bloody picture affair for example. One thing is to believe that it was unfair or unfortunate that Daily Mail published it without an advisory caption. Another thing is to believe that this is evidence of a conspiracy by Italian authorities. And this exactly is what the pro-Knox folks believe.

We're talking about two very different beliefs.

Machiavelli,

One of your theories (which I find plausible) is that it was released by a member of the police. If that were true, it actually proves the point that I was trying to make: the police conduct in this case (which includes withholding evidence, lying, misleading, and generally behaving unethically and unprofessionally) makes them non-credible witnesses when it comes to their word against Knox's or Sollecito's with respect to the interrogation. It was you who changed the subject from the honesty of the police into into a rant against PI commenters.

With respect to the photo my belief is that Officer Moroni probably took the photo and suspected that it would have monetary value precisely because it was so misleading. If it had been captioned properly, it would have had no interest to the public whatsoever. Therefore, Officer Moroni was willing to line his pockets using a photo that he knew could be misleading a prejudicial to the public, including the Kercher family. Trying to blame the Daily Mail for this shameful episode is not one of your better arguments.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

It doesn't. This isn't an argument. The knife was probably moved, and - this is only my personal guess - this happend when it was picked up and taken away, by those murderers who altered and "cleaned" the scene (this was a cleaning action). The edge (actually the back of the knife) was shifted when the knife was picked by slightly shifting the blade while its blade lifted vertically while still wet, this is my inference.

However, no way this makes the measurements "moot". I don't how it could. The second imprint doesn't remove the first one. There is still a clear edge that is compatible with the blade, and there are still external dots intercepted by the outline. It's still compatible.

The two theoretical positions of the edge are clear (the second not as clear as the first), but they don't contradict the picture at all.

It makes your measurements worthless because you don't know if the "front" of the knife (as you refer to it) belongs with the first imprint or the second imprint. If the killer started to set the knife down and then shifted it before fully setting it down, you should be measuring the back of the knife at the innermost points, not the outermost which you are doing.

A person started to place it there, hesitated for a split second and then fully set it down, creating the two matching edges. It is hilarious that you manage to interpret this simple act into a scenario of multiple people mulling around, cleaning up the scene by moving around a humongous butcher knife, which was so clearly not the size of the weapon used in the crime. It is a theory Peter Sellers would have been proud of.*




*According to my father - I am much too young to know who Peter Sellers was.

 

[carbonjam72]

I am talking about Planigale's argument. You are trying specious quibble, desperate attempt to make little straw men; you talk like the Renzi administration, let it go.

Could Renzi be a potential ally of Amanda and Raffaele in the event of a favorable ECHR judgement?

 

[Numbers]

-


-

Good example about the knife, but the problem with logic (like statistics and probabilities) is that it can be twisted by misusing some it's basic rules.

And, one of its basic rules is you shouldn't assume anything.

I also don't believe that all logic is infallible, It depends on how it's used.

Wasn't it Socrates that proved (with logic) that a man was a bird or something like that?

d

-

No, your statement "one of the basic rules (of logic) is you shouldn't assume anything" is mistaken.

There are basic assumptions or axioms one must begin with. The rules themselves may be assumptions, but repeated application demonstrates them to be suitable for purpose. In a scientific or forensic analysis, these assumptions are generally derived from empirical evidence.

Here is an an example from geometry. In Euclidean geometry, there are parallel lines. These lines are assumed to never meet. This is the geometry of a plain or of a flat universe. In non-Euclidean geometry, say of a sphere, all circumference lines (those are the great circles of a globe) meet. (The "parallels" or lines of latitude on a globe are not lines, in the sense that they are not the shortest distance between two points.) The assumptions of the geometries differ, and they produce different results, but they apply to different "worlds". Each has a system of mathematically logical rules and results (theorems).

Again, it is critical to understand that we must begin an analysis with "assumptions" which, for a scientific or forensic purpose, must be based on real world evidence and not speculation. The Italian courts headed by Massei and Nencini used speculation, rather than real world evidence, as the basis of their "logical" (unreasoned) flights. Much of their "logic" was circular, assuming a position of guilt and then reaching a conclusion of guilt.

ETA: One can "logically" "prove" a man is a bird if one starts with false assumptions, or twists the meaning of words. You may be familiar with the joke syllogism that "proves" my dog is SOME dog:

Some dogs have fleas.
My dog has fleas.
My dog is SOME dog.

1. The first line is meant as: ONLY "some" dogs have fleas, as though "some" were an adjective describing a class of dogs. It is false assumption with "some" used that way.
2. The conclusion changes the meaning of "some" again.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

No, your statement "one of the basic rules (of logic) is you shouldn't assume anything" is mistaken.

There are basic assumptions or axioms one must begin with. The rules themselves may be assumptions, but repeated application demonstrates them to be suitable for purpose. In a scientific or forensic analysis, these assumptions are generally derived from empirical evidence.

Here is an an example from geometry. In Euclidean geometry, there are parallel lines. These lines are assumed to never meet. This is the geometry of a plain or of a flat universe. In non-Euclidean geometry, say of a sphere, all circumference lines (those are the great circles of a globe) meet. (The "parallels" or lines of latitude on a globe are not lines, in the sense that they are not the shortest distance between two points.) The assumptions of the geometries differ, and they produce different results, but they apply to different "worlds". Each has a system of mathematically logical rules and results (theorems).

Again, it is critical to understand that we must begin an analysis with "assumptions" which, for a scientific or forensic purpose, must be based on real world evidence and not speculation. The Italian courts headed by Massei and Nencini used speculation, rather than real world evidence, as the basis of their "logical" (unreasoned) flights. Much of their "logic" was circular, assuming a position of guilt and then reaching a conclusion of guilt.

-

oh absolutely. I agree that some assumptions have to made or agreed upon first, but you can't just disregard all assumptions just because some are necessary, indisputable, or inarguable.

Faulty assumptions lead to faulty logic.

Maybe it's just me, but I see a lot of the arguements here are semantic in nature and semantics is a kind of wrongful assumption don't you think? I think from your post that you do.

Logic can't be achieved if you can't agree on the semantics (definition and context) of word use. It becomes doubly harder when you first have to translate one language into another before you can even begin to use logic, and then the semantics of word use is multiplied by two and even worse.

In my opinion of course,

d

-

 

[Machiavelli]

It makes your measurements worthless because you don't know if the "front" of the knife (as you refer to it) belongs with the first imprint or the second imprint. If the killer started to set the knife down and then shifted it before fully setting it down, you should be measuring the back of the knife at the innermost points, not the outermost which you are doing.

A person started to place it there, hesitated for a split second and then fully set it down, creating the two matching edges. It is hilarious that you manage to interpret this simple act into a scenario of multiple people mulling around, cleaning up the scene by moving around a humongous butcher knife, which was so clearly not the size of the weapon used in the crime. It is a theory Peter Sellers would have been proud of.*

*According to my father - I am much too young to know who Peter Sellers was.

The reasons you put forward to dismiss the picture are openly prejudicial: you already preliminarily believe the knife was smaller, that doesn't fit the wound and so. It's based on this that you reject the interpretation.

The argument based on your sheer analysis of the physical evidence doesn't affect the scenario at all.

First, the shifting, hesitating or and picking up. Someone may well hesitated putting down the knife or the knife may have rebounced, but also someone has certainly picked it up. The two options are actually equivalent. But the first even is merely possible, while the second is certain. Taking away the murder weapon on a second moment after it was layed down, is an action that was certainly done.

Then, your argumentation that "if" the knife was shifted in some hypothetical way the measurements become worthless, because you don't know if the edge is the first imprint or the second imprint, is clearly a moot point, and obviously so, since it is an "if" statement (thus cannot rule out compatibility). The most external edge (the one down) visible in the imprint is certainly an edge, a physical outline - I mean it is certainly so, it was certainly left by an edge of the object. Since maybe the object was shifted and may have left a second imprint, what you don't know is only how wide the blade was. But you know at least about the shape and lenght of one of its edges.

Now this information gives you the opportunity to check
1) if the large kitchen knife matches this line; indeed we wound this match is, and in a way that is, in my opinion, itself impressive; and
2) if other measurements, including other upper edges, may coincide with the blade. What happens is there are indeed some other spots and outlines that tend to coincide with the other side of the blade.

The conclusion is that the imprint is clearly a match to the kitchen knife.
Whther it could be also a match to other large knives, with rather long but thinner blades, that could have been shifted different ways, it doesn't affect the conclusion.

 

[Bill Williams]

The reasons you put forward to dismiss the picture are openly prejudicial: you already preliminarily believe the knife was smaller, that doesn't fit the wound and so. It's based on this that you reject the interpretation.

The argument based on your sheer analysis of the physical evidence doesn't affect the scenario at all.

First of all you will have to provide detail on HOW you manufactured that photo. Otherwise it is meaningless.

Then again, it is fortunate you are providing an example of how this case has been adjudicated so far.

 

[Desert Fox]

oh absolutely. I agree that some assumptions have to made or agreed upon first, but you can't just disregard all assumptions just because some are necessary, indisputable, or inarguable.

Faulty assumptions lead to faulty logic.

Maybe it's just me, but I see a lot of the arguements here are semantic in nature and semantics is a kind of wrongful assumption don't you think? Logic can't be achieved if you can't agree on the semantics (definition and context) of word use. It becomes doubly harder when you first have to translate one language into another before you can even begin to use logic, and then the semantics of word use is multiplied by two and even worse.

In my opinion of course,

d

-

Part of how scientific reasoning works is that you try to falsify your conclusions (something that is actually generally lacking in law enforcement generally). In such a case as this, you have to consider what arguments would allow one to say "Yes, I think they are guilty" if you are on the pro innocence side.

For example, if done independently, the potential semen sample being Raff's or taking apart the knife and finding Meredeth's blood would be pretty damning as well.* For me, while it would not be evidence of guilt, showing me that four people could fight in a bedroom without leaving evidence would at least knock that leg out of one of my arguments.

On the other side, the pro guilt side seems unwilling to do something similar. For example, one argument was that the knife was suppose to be definitive yet when they find that the knife does not show what they woudl like, they play games.

*Issues with independent testing not withstanding.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

One of your theories (which I find plausible) is that it was released by a member of the police. If that were true, it actually proves the point that I was trying to make: the police conduct in this case (which includes withholding evidence, lying, misleading, and generally behaving unethically and unprofessionally) makes them non-credible witnesses when it comes to their word against Knox's or Sollecito's with respect to the interrogation(...)

But this is precisely a conspiracy theory. It is formulized in a covert, implicit way, but what ou are saying is that you feel intellectually legitimized to accuse Mignini and Donnino or any other you like, to assume the existence of a conspiracy from - not even proving, but only hypothesyzing - the unprofessional behaviour of an individual.

One thing is to complain or discuss whether the usage or leakage of the picture was right or wrong. But the attempt to use it as an argument to accuse witnesses (who? Donnino? Mignini?) to plot in order to fabricate false testimonies, this is completely specious and conspiracy theory mode.

Your assumption about the hypothetical police officer picking the picture precisely because it was potentially misleading, however, is unsupported and goes against evidence, since there was a whole batch of crime scene photos that appeared to have been sold or given to Barcroft Media. This means that the alleged seller did not pick that photo alone, but rather sold a whole pack of photos all picked from the investigation file.

 

[Desert Fox]

But this is precisely a conspiracy theory. It is formulized in a covert, implicit way, but what ou are sayin is that you feel intellectually allowed assume the existence of a conspiracy from - not even proving, but only hypothesyzing - the unprofessional behaviour of an individual.

Conspiracies do exist. . .Organized crime is an example of conspiracy which we pretty much all accept exists.

Just because something may be a conspiracy does not mean that it does not exist but more like one should examine it carefully and make sure your conclusions are warranted.

They do appear to be in this case

 

[Machiavelli]

So Mach where is the handle? Showing a picture that does not include the handle but only part of the blade and asserting that therefore is no blood that could be attributed to the handle is ridiculous. i could show lots of photos that did not include the area of interest and say all sorts of things happened there but a photo that does not show something is not evidence of what happened elsewhere.

Well if you claim there is proof the victim's blood was on the handle, andy you have a picture from of the bed sheet imprint showing this, you are welcome to prove this. Maybe such photo exists, but I don't know about it.
Obviously, this photo shows a print overall no longer than 14.5 centimeters, if we had a photo of a print showing some clear continuous pattern extending up along the blade to reach the handle of our big knife, I would say you are right assuming that the victim's blood must have been on the handle.
As far as I know such print doesn't exist. This print reportedly does not extend beyond 14 centimeters.

But what about your claim about what Stefanoni said? You were making a criticism about some alleged statements that in fact she did not say; I reported what she actually said, that is at about page 16 her 2008 testimony.

 

[Machiavelli]

Part of how scientific reasoning works is that you try to falsify your conclusions (something that is actually generally lacking in law enforcement generally). In such a case as this, you have to consider what arguments would allow one to say "Yes, I think they are guilty" if you are on the pro innocence side.

For example, if done independently, the potential semen sample being Raff's or taking apart the knife and finding Meredeth's blood would be pretty damning as well.* For me, while it would not be evidence of guilt, showing me that four people could fight in a bedroom without leaving evidence would at least knock that leg out of one of my arguments.

On the other side, the pro guilt side seems unwilling to do something similar. For example, one argument was that the knife was suppose to be definitive yet when they find that the knife does not show what they woudl like, they play games.

What I think can be shown through physical evidence is that Rudy Guede did not do that alone, and any that attampt to draw a scenario where he performs all actions alone creates a number of inconsistencies.

I addresse some of the problems: autopsy report showing multiple assialants (partly explained by Nencini too), requiremet of elaborate post mortem sexual violence, inconsistency between post mortem sexual violence scenario and the stepping on the pillow, theory of pants washing conflicting with absence of dripping, absence of trace of walking to lock the door, contradiction between wearing shoes and having wet bare feet, and so on.

 

[Desert Fox]

What I think can be shown through physical evidence is that Rudy Guede did not do that alone, and any that attampt to draw a scenario where he performs all actions alone creates a number of inconsistencies.

I addresse some of the problems: autopsy report showing multiple assialants (partly explained by Nencini too), requiremet of elaborate post mortem sexual violence, inconsistency between post mortem sexual violence scenario and the stepping on the pillow, theory of pants washing conflicting with absence of dripping, absence of trace of walking to lock the door, contradiction between wearing shoes and having wet bare feet, and so on.

See here you go being dishonest in this post. . . .You know that multiple forensic experts state that the autopsy indicates that they cannot know if it was a single or multiple attackers. Only a single expert stated that one attacker could ne ruled out. . . .You are doing what is called "cherry picking."

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Part of how scientific reasoning works is that you try to falsify your conclusions (something that is actually generally lacking in law enforcement generally). In such a case as this, you have to consider what arguments would allow one to say "Yes, I think they are guilty" if you are on the pro innocence side.

For example, if done independently, the potential semen sample being Raff's or taking apart the knife and finding Meredeth's blood would be pretty damning as well.* For me, while it would not be evidence of guilt, showing me that four people could fight in a bedroom without leaving evidence would at least knock that leg out of one of my arguments.

On the other side, the pro guilt side seems unwilling to do something similar. For example, one argument was that the knife was suppose to be definitive yet when they find that the knife does not show what they woudl like, they play games.

*Issues with independent testing not withstanding.

-

I don't see the willingness to change their minds coming from the probably guilty crowd either. My concern is that they believe with a 100% certainty that Raffaele and Amanda are guilty.

I can see believing with a probability under 100%, but 100% nmeans to me that they were there when it happened, otherwise it's a speculative probability that can never be equal to 100%.

I mean, it's true that Perugia exist, even though, I've never seen it or been there, but that's not the same to me as a belief in innocence or guilt, in my opinion,

d

-

 

[christianahannah]

Well if you claim there is proof the victim's blood was on the handle, andy you have a picture from of the bed sheet imprint showing this, you are welcome to prove this. Maybe such photo exists, but I don't know about it.
Obviously, this photo shows a print overall no longer than 14.5 centimeters, if we had a photo of a print showing some clear continuous pattern extending up along the blade to reach the handle of our big knife, I would say you are right assuming that the victim's blood must have been on the handle.
As far as I know such print doesn't exist. This print reportedly does not extend beyond 14 centimeters.

But what about your claim about what Stefanoni said? You were making a criticism about some alleged statements that in fact she did not say; I reported what she actually said, that is at about page 16 her 2008 testimony.

This imprint was cut and sent for testing (sample O). I don't know how much it was cut past the actual imprint. I assume only Meredith's DNA showed up but it has been a while since I have looked at the testing results.

Has anyone matched up the swabs taken of the actual knife to the drops of blood on the sheet, mainly the swab/place on the knife which contained Meredith's DNA?

Do you know from testimony if the police thought the imprint on the sheet was that of a knife?

 

[Desert Fox]

I don't see the willingness to change their minds coming from the probably guilty crowd either. My concern is that they believe with a 100% certainty that Raffaele and Amanda are guilty.

I can see believing with a probability under 100%, but 100% nmeans to me that they were there when it happened, otherwise it's a speculative probability that can never be equal to 100%.

I mean, it's true that Perugia exist, even though, I've never seen it or been there, but that's not the same to me as a belief in innocence or guilt, in my opinion,
-

One item with me is that I believe nothing with 100% probability. Does not stop me from putting my nickel down on things however. I cannot really assign probabilities to many things and don't think it may even be useful.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

What I think can be shown through physical evidence is that Rudy Guede did not do that alone, and any that attampt to draw a scenario where he performs all actions alone creates a number of inconsistencies.

I addresse some of the problems: autopsy report showing multiple assialants (partly explained by Nencini too), requiremet of elaborate post mortem sexual violence, inconsistency between post mortem sexual violence scenario and the stepping on the pillow, theory of pants washing conflicting with absence of dripping, absence of trace of walking to lock the door, contradiction between wearing shoes and having wet bare feet, and so on.

-

Mach, does the autopsy report show bruising around Meredith's wrist, because without that, it's why I believe it is less probable there were three assailants, in my opinion,

d

-