Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

Out of curiosity, what do you do when the experts don't agree?

In scientific issues, I try to tell at least in part that there are different positions and try to outline them. If I go against the majority scientific / scholarly opinion, which I do on some issues, I will state that my position does not fit with the mainstream position. I will then try to explain with some detail why my position is different.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Several things are wrong. One of them, for example, is the presence in the room of several light items that appears unaffected and untouched, like a glass of water, letter, postcard, items on the table, a foulard, purse and lamp, a bed in order. Those kind of objects indicate that nobody was slammed there.

But that's just an example.

-

It's also an indication that there weren't four people in the room struggling.
-

He was actually stabbed on two sides, in different locations in the room, but she also suffered a sexual violence, and someone forced a hand on her face, to prevent her from screaming, and grabbed her right wrist. But also, this person threatened her frontally pointing a knife at her face (where she had a small cut). She also had bruises on her back from pressure on the floor. There is simply no coherent scenario of all this, with no defence wounds on her hands, no blood drops patterns around showing movement, and a single assailant with only two hands.

-

All those are also indicative of (and consistent with) an attack from behind by a single attacker, especially the marks on her back which could have been made while kneeling on her while she was on the floor and having her hair pulled back to make it easier to thrust the knife in,

d

-

 

[Numbers]

I have a question -
Machiavellian argued that the destruction of the bras clasp was both on purpose and required by Italian law. If so, why wasn't the knife and all all physical evidence also destroyed?

There was no more "inculpatory evidence" (of course, it was really lab contamination) on the knife. Therefore, no need to store it improperly.

The bra clasp was different. There might actually had been some DNA on it, so it had to be stored improperly so no one could ever challenge Steffi's findings by doing a rerun.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli - when you photoshopped that picture of the knife, manufacturing evidence from thin air:

Did you even blush?

 

[Kauffer]

Several things are wrong. One of them, for example, is the presence in the room of several light items that appears unaffected and untouched, like a glass of water, letter, postcard, items on the table, a foulard, purse and lamp, a bed in order. Those kind of objects indicate that nobody was slammed there.
But that's just an example.
He was actually stabbed on two sides, in different locations in the room, but she also suffered a sexual violence, and someone forced a hand on her face, to prevent her from screaming, and grabbed her right wrist. But also, this person threatened her frontally pointing a knife at her face (where she had a small cut). She also had bruises on her back from pressure on the floor. There is simply no coherent scenario of all this, with no defence wounds on her hands, no blood drops patterns around showing movement, and a single assailant with only two hands.

I thought your point was that Ms Kercher was quickly stabbed by Ms Knox and she and Mr Sollecito ran out the room before there was a chance to leave any evidence of themselves. But this partial scenario has them pursuing Ms Kercher in different locations in the room - actually moving around the room, grabbing her and threatening her before killing her.

This problem of the absence of evidence in the room keeps coming back to haunt you. There is simply no coherent scenario you can come up with to account for this. Your position is increasingly foolish - from post to post.

We have ample, significant, time stamped evidence for a single attacker - Guede, entirely consistent with autopsy findings and an absence of evidence to support any multiple attacker scenario.

But here's my challenge to you - find one, bona fide CSI independent of this case, who's prepared to put his or her name to it, who'll argue a scenario from the evidence, that states Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito were in the room when Ms Kercher was murdered.

Find one who'll put them just at the cottage, if you can't do that.

A year's supply of pasta if you're successful; the dunce's corner if you're not.

 

[Kauffer]

Amanda Knox is currently charged and convicted of sexual violence and murder, not of "stabbing to death". I tell you this independently from the rest of your other fallacies.
You heve multiple fallacies in your argument. The first, it is false that there is no physical evidence of Knox. The second, it is false that you need to find physical evidence of Knox in order to place her in the murder room (absence of findings is not a finding of absence). The third, it is false that you need to place Knox inside the room n order to find her guilty of murder (guilt means responsability, does not mean a physical action or presence).
A fourth, but not the last one, is that it looks like you are not willing to acknowledge several other physical findings, among them the physical evidence that Meredith was murdered by multiple assailants, and that this is something that - to any "good" guilter - is an independently established finding.

What? You don't think Ms Knox stabbed Ms Kercher???? She didn't stab her to death??? She's not guilty of the "physical action" of murder? She wasn't present in the bedroom??

Is that what you are arguing?

 

[anglolawyer]

What? You don't think Ms Knox stabbed Ms Kercher???? She didn't stab her to death??? She's not guilty of the "physical action" of murder? She wasn't present in the bedroom??

Is that what you are arguing?

It is today. Tomorrow, it will be that her DNA on the handle and in 36I (shame on those wretched incompetents, Conti and Vechiotti) proves not just that she wielded it but how she was holding it. That plus the imprint really makes me wonder why we bother talking about anything else.

 

[Samson]

What? You don't think Ms Knox stabbed Ms Kercher???? She didn't stab her to death??? She's not guilty of the "physical action" of murder? She wasn't present in the bedroom??

Is that what you are arguing?

Nencini states Knox plunged the knife.
Machiavelli states that the judge assembles all expert witness testimony to declare the facts, and that no individual expert can be relied on.
The judge is the best qualified, so Machiavelli runs with the horses and hunts with the hounds, when removing Knox from the room. (As Mignini does too from time to time).
It is all a gross afront to everyone's intelligence.

 

[Planigale]

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.

Well the photo you showed clearly shows the blood on the handle, but of a smaller knife than the one from Sollecito's flat.

 

[Samson]

Well the photo you showed clearly shows the blood on the handle, but of a smaller knife than the one from Sollecito's flat.

Yes indeed, returning to that photo, not only does it show a formidably clear square stain where the handle should meet the blade, but that stain recedes in just such an irregular pattern one would expect with the tilt of the knife resting on a surface.
This post of Machiavellis with the photo is as fine an example of wilfull distortion of evidence to suit a theory as there can be. But this one is graphic.
Terminal for the prosecution, no one but Machiavelli and Ergon will ever believe that blood stain is residual from Raffaele's kitchen knife. Interestingly this in no way changes the logical possibility of the two knife theory, where the kitchen knife was not laid on the sheet after the slaughter.

 

[Planigale]

No, really, this is an important point. Some coroners expressed the opinion that they couldn't rule out a single assailant; but they also said that they could not state for sure there was sexual violance. Yet we know sexual violence is certain.Those medical experts actually said they thought a single assailaint could have been possible, but with a condition: if there was a situation of violence that subsequently escalated.

Some of those experts (such as Introna) presented their own scenario, which happens to be just unrealistic.

But in fact conclusions are not drawn by medical experts, they are drawn by judges, and there's a reason for that.

The experts - besides the fact that some are from defence parties - consider only part of the evidence, and their findings need to be crossed with other findings and experts about other topics. DNA findings for example must enter into the equation, as well the blood splatter experts (Camana), and also detectives' assessment about the physical evidence in the room, the victim movements, where the clothes were found, pillows, etc. ans also cross it with witnesses (Capezzali, Monacchia) etc.

Nencini does provide some illuminating part of the reasoning, elaborating on some of the details. He focuses on the lack of defensive wounds on her hands and lack of DNA under nails, but there are also other elements.

In fact I believe the autopsy and related finding showing multiple assailants is very strong evidence, and I do believe there is no room for a single perpetrator scenario.

Actually one cannot 'know' in a scientific sense that there was sexual violence - whatever that is. Unfortunately there is except in the most extreme circumstances little to differentiate voluntary from involuntary sexual intercourse on examination of the living or the dead. I am also slightly anxious about all this post mortem sex talk, what we can say is there is some evidence of bruising this is probably not post mortem, but could be peri mortem. This implies some sort of penetration (it says nothing about with what or by whom). Ageing of bruising is difficult, I remember that sections were taken of the bruise, but the exact results I do not recall, but they should be able to say whether these were more than a few hours old. What we do know is Guede's DNA was present but no semen was identified. Guede I think claims there was oral sex with consent, others claim it was forced digital penetration. The judgement about consent is ultimately legal and not scientific. A judgement can only be made on the sexual aggravation element applied to the murder once a judgement is made on consent to sex issue.

FWIW my view is it was Rape by Guede, I thinking was a failing by the Italian legal system to not explicitly charge Guede with rape in addition to murder. I still find it bizarre that Guede was not explicitly convicted of rape, but that Knox and Sollecito were explicitly convicted of sexual assault.

 

[codyjuneau]

-


-

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

-

.
I think just about every avid guilter who follows this case, despite their BS, is 100% certain in their gut, that Raffaele and Amanda are innocent.

Why? Because none of them demand the putative semen stain found on the pillow between the legs of, and underneath Meredith's naked body be tested. NONE of them.

In fact, just like the prosecuting team, they do mental gymnastics to justify why it was not and should not be tested. And why? Because they KNOW it is not Raffaele's.

In their gut, they KNOW it!

Cody
.

 

[Planigale]

It is an important aspect that plays a determinant role and also has to do with the pro defendants propaganda. The fact that evidence is "formed" through an adversarial debate, that it is an "event" and a logical elaboration rather than a physical item, is something that belongs to the principles of every system.

This argument emerged as key topic during Stefanoni's testimony in 2008.
The topic was even addressed by the media in Italy during the early days of the investigation. When the incidente probatorio is applied on some evidence during the investigation, normally this means there is not going to be anything scientific debate about that item at the trial. Stefanoni technically doesn't bring scientific evidence to be discussed, but her testimony about an incidente probatorio.

But the wider principle is that evidence discussion is opened and closed formally, and points arguments and discussions are supposed to be set and made during that window. After that, it is not that discussion can't be re-opened on a item, bit the re-opening of a debate on some evidence needs to be motivated by the party who wants di do it and they need to bring very convincing reasons to do so.

The concept of best evidence is in fact relative, in that it depends on the defence requests.

The observers at an incidente probatorio may observe, but they can also document, make videos, record, put observations in the record, rise objections or demand procedures to be applied or tests to be made. The defence may also object in principle to the incidente probatorio taking place, demand that a judge take part to it and so.

Sorry I missed this.

I do wonder if the defence were initially some what apathetic with regards to the forensic testing. This was just a routine procedure and they just stood around and were not sufficiently challenging. I suspect it was business as usual.clearly they did not choose to video the procedures or make challenges at the time. I think that with modern complex tests this is hard to do. I think in the Italian system they should agree a program of work. Clearly their right to demand tests is limited as we know some tests were not done despite defence requests, because e.g. the putative semen stain was not found by the prosecution.

I suspect it was only when a the work was reviewed by non-Italian forensic specialists that concerns were raised and this then had to be re-introduced.

Mach does have a point that if the defence failed to make a challenge at the appropriate time then they cannot forever be going back to established 'facts' in the case. This is not unique to Italy, if your lawyers fail to raise a point then it can be difficult to use this as grounds for appeal in the US system.

 

[Desert Fox]

Copied from Injustice Anywhere

Hans wrote:The "countless" forensic experts.
This is from Barbie Nadeau's Newsweek/Daily Beast article The Italian Job

One of the most complicated aspects of Kercher's tragic death is how the murder itself played out. The prosecution believes that Knox, Sollecito, and Guede taunted Kercher in a sex game that quickly escalated to violence and ended in murder. Countless forensic experts, including those who performed the autopsies on Kercher's body, have testified that more than one person killed her based on the size and location of her injuries and the fact that she didn't fight back—no hair or skin was found under her fingernails.

Doing a little copy/paste here:
Let's see, what Judge Massei has to say on this matter: :clue:

Dr. Lalli (Massei pg 116) wrote:He excluded, finally, that the biological data alone could indicate the presence and action of several people against the victim.

Dr. Liviero, consultant appointed by the Public Minister (Massei pg 119) wrote:As for the dynamic of the homicide, with particular reference to whether the action was performed by one or more persons, Dr. Liviero ruled out the existence of scientific elements that would allow us to formulate a response to this question.

Professor Bacci, consultant appointed by the Public Prosecutor (Massei pg 122) wrote:He indicated that the biological data did not allow for a determination of whether the injuries were caused by one person or by several people, claiming they were compatible with both possibilities

Professor Norelli, consultant for the civil party, (Massei pg 127) wrote:All this led to the conclusion that one single person could not have carried out all the harmful actions which had occurred in this case.

Professor Introna, consultant for Raffaele Sollecito (Massei pg 137) wrote:He also stated that the action was that of a single attacker.

Professor Torre, consultant for Amanda Knox (Massei pg 145) wrote:He maintained that " in any case there is nothing there which could lead me to think that there was more than one attacker"

Prof Cingolani, expert appointed by the judge (GIP) (Massei pg 153) wrote:He was unable to provide an explanation for such a disproportion, which he held to be compatible with the presence of more than one person, but also with the action of a sole person who acts in a progressive manner

So it's:
4 for "can't say"
2 for "one assailant"
1 for "more than one assailant" (and that one was the "consultant for the civil party")
So it's only one oft the experts, who definitely said, that Meredith was killed by more than one person. Of course 1 count('s)less, than 2 or 4...

 

[anglolawyer]

Copied from Injustice Anywhere

Hans wrote:The "countless" forensic experts.
This is from Barbie Nadeau's Newsweek/Daily Beast article The Italian Job

One of the most complicated aspects of Kercher's tragic death is how the murder itself played out. The prosecution believes that Knox, Sollecito, and Guede taunted Kercher in a sex game that quickly escalated to violence and ended in murder. Countless forensic experts, including those who performed the autopsies on Kercher's body, have testified that more than one person killed her based on the size and location of her injuries and the fact that she didn't fight back—no hair or skin was found under her fingernails.

Doing a little copy/paste here:
Let's see, what Judge Massei has to say on this matter: :clue:

Dr. Lalli (Massei pg 116) wrote:He excluded, finally, that the biological data alone could indicate the presence and action of several people against the victim.

Dr. Liviero, consultant appointed by the Public Minister (Massei pg 119) wrote:As for the dynamic of the homicide, with particular reference to whether the action was performed by one or more persons, Dr. Liviero ruled out the existence of scientific elements that would allow us to formulate a response to this question.

Professor Bacci, consultant appointed by the Public Prosecutor (Massei pg 122) wrote:He indicated that the biological data did not allow for a determination of whether the injuries were caused by one person or by several people, claiming they were compatible with both possibilities

Professor Norelli, consultant for the civil party, (Massei pg 127) wrote:All this led to the conclusion that one single person could not have carried out all the harmful actions which had occurred in this case.

Professor Introna, consultant for Raffaele Sollecito (Massei pg 137) wrote:He also stated that the action was that of a single attacker.

Professor Torre, consultant for Amanda Knox (Massei pg 145) wrote:He maintained that " in any case there is nothing there which could lead me to think that there was more than one attacker"

Prof Cingolani, expert appointed by the judge (GIP) (Massei pg 153) wrote:He was unable to provide an explanation for such a disproportion, which he held to be compatible with the presence of more than one person, but also with the action of a sole person who acts in a progressive manner

So it's:
4 for "can't say"
2 for "one assailant"
1 for "more than one assailant" (and that one was the "consultant for the civil party")
So it's only one oft the experts, who definitely said, that Meredith was killed by more than one person. Of course 1 count('s)less, than 2 or 4...

THis is my recollection too. Massei founds his conclusion of multiple attackers on other things, like the obvious staging of the scene to make it look exactly like only one person did it .

 

[Samson]

Copied from Injustice Anywhere

Hans wrote:The "countless" forensic experts.
This is from Barbie Nadeau's Newsweek/Daily Beast article The Italian Job

One of the most complicated aspects of Kercher's tragic death is how the murder itself played out. The prosecution believes that Knox, Sollecito, and Guede taunted Kercher in a sex game that quickly escalated to violence and ended in murder. Countless forensic experts, including those who performed the autopsies on Kercher's body, have testified that more than one person killed her based on the size and location of her injuries and the fact that she didn't fight back—no hair or skin was found under her fingernails.

Doing a little copy/paste here:
Let's see, what Judge Massei has to say on this matter: :clue:

Dr. Lalli (Massei pg 116) wrote:He excluded, finally, that the biological data alone could indicate the presence and action of several people against the victim.

Dr. Liviero, consultant appointed by the Public Minister (Massei pg 119) wrote:As for the dynamic of the homicide, with particular reference to whether the action was performed by one or more persons, Dr. Liviero ruled out the existence of scientific elements that would allow us to formulate a response to this question.

Professor Bacci, consultant appointed by the Public Prosecutor (Massei pg 122) wrote:He indicated that the biological data did not allow for a determination of whether the injuries were caused by one person or by several people, claiming they were compatible with both possibilities

Professor Norelli, consultant for the civil party, (Massei pg 127) wrote:All this led to the conclusion that one single person could not have carried out all the harmful actions which had occurred in this case.

Professor Introna, consultant for Raffaele Sollecito (Massei pg 137) wrote:He also stated that the action was that of a single attacker.

Professor Torre, consultant for Amanda Knox (Massei pg 145) wrote:He maintained that " in any case there is nothing there which could lead me to think that there was more than one attacker"

Prof Cingolani, expert appointed by the judge (GIP) (Massei pg 153) wrote:He was unable to provide an explanation for such a disproportion, which he held to be compatible with the presence of more than one person, but also with the action of a sole person who acts in a progressive manner

So it's:
4 for "can't say"
2 for "one assailant"
1 for "more than one assailant" (and that one was the "consultant for the civil party")
So it's only one oft the experts, who definitely said, that Meredith was killed by more than one person. Of course 1 count('s)less, than 2 or 4...

Nice post DF

So... Barbie Nadeau says

Countless forensic experts, including those who performed the autopsies on Kercher's body, have testified that more than one person killed her

And...John Kercher says in August 2008

We will seek 16 million euros from any party convicted of Meredith's murder.
(citation available if pressed)

How odd that there are not countless, but countable (one) expert to require multiple killers.
How odd that John Kercher engaged this one expert.
Did he really have no faith that Rudy's adoptive family would obediently cough the sixteen milion euros?
No, but that urologist looks more family orientated, more close to the action, and so it oddly transpires He is still supporting his son.

ETA, if Bill is correct about Winterbottom, Nadeau will be rebirthing as an innocenti. The difficult we can do right now, the impossible may take a little while.

 

[Diocletus]

I doubt it the Italian Judiciary is as obsessed with this case as this thread"s participants are.

That's too bad. It's their damn job.

 

[Diocletus]

This is absolutely false. Prof. Potenza was there, he drew a report about the tests he witnessed and he was recorded at the incidents probatorio papers. He could have shot a video if he wanted, or have submitted any kind of observation. A Magistrate was present during the tests.

I'll believe this when you explain the following:

1. Why was profile 36b generated on a plate called 365bis, and what happened to plate 365 (not bis)?

2. Why are 90% of the profiles from plate 365bis missing?

3. Why was real time quantification supposedly abandoned in favor of the QF?

4. Where are the records of RT run nos. 545-548, which correspond to the period of time in which Stefanoni claims she was using the QF?

5. Why does Potenza's report never mention the Qubit Flourometer?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

how discovery may or may not work in Italy

Sorry I missed this.

I do wonder if the defence were initially some what apathetic with regards to the forensic testing. This was just a routine procedure and they just stood around and were not sufficiently challenging. I suspect it was business as usual.clearly they did not choose to video the procedures or make challenges at the time. I think that with modern complex tests this is hard to do. I think in the Italian system they should agree a program of work. Clearly their right to demand tests is limited as we know some tests were not done despite defence requests, because e.g. the putative semen stain was not found by the prosecution.

I suspect it was only when a the work was reviewed by non-Italian forensic specialists that concerns were raised and this then had to be re-introduced.

Mach does have a point that if the defence failed to make a challenge at the appropriate time then they cannot forever be going back to established 'facts' in the case. This is not unique to Italy, if your lawyers fail to raise a point then it can be difficult to use this as grounds for appeal in the US system.

Planigale,

Has Machiavelli backed up the claim that you quoted with a citation of a particular statute? IIRC Chris Mellas wrote a comment to Frank Sfarzo's blog, in which he said that with respect to the testing on one date, they were given only a few hours notice, and it is about 2 hours just to travel from Perugia to Rome. Professor Potenza was an observer, and he raised objections: "...both have been subjected to DNA analysis that gave amplification products of extremely weak intensity and considerably below the minimum recommended by the recommendations of the GEFI (Italian Group Pathologists Forensic); furthermore, the results obtained have not been consistently reproduced in the other amplifications since for the same samples were obtained amplifications with buoyancy allelic differences for some loci."

In Professor Dan Krane's opinion, observing the testing is almost worthless, but having the electronic data files is critical to a complete case review. I would add that it would be more important to observe Stefanoni doing the analysis, as opposed to the testing.

We also know that in 2008 Professor Pascali was denied his request for electropherograms that just had the peak heights on them, let alone actual raw data. The analogy that you are trying to draw doesn't work for me. If a lawyer fails to raise an issue during the trial, that is one thing, but we are talking about pretrial discovery. In addition, if a lawyer does a very poor job, his or her client may appear on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. We also know that Machiavelli's whole argument is dubious; Professor Novelli was apparently able to get what he wanted just by saying "pretty please."

BTW, I found that I did not remember Professor Potenza's second report, especially with respect to the DNA found at Rudy Guede's apartment. For example, "148) 3 samples of presumed blood substance carried out on a towel found in the bathroom: DNA analysis have provided a profile attributed to Rudy Guede." Sounds like someone was bleeding in his apartment.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Ms. Nadeau's supertanker full of experts

Copied from Injustice Anywhere

Hans wrote:The "countless" forensic experts.
This is from Barbie Nadeau's Newsweek/Daily Beast article The Italian Job

One of the most complicated aspects of Kercher's tragic death is how the murder itself played out. The prosecution believes that Knox, Sollecito, and Guede taunted Kercher in a sex game that quickly escalated to violence and ended in murder. Countless forensic experts, including those who performed the autopsies on Kercher's body, have testified that more than one person killed her based on the size and location of her injuries and the fact that she didn't fight back—no hair or skin was found under her fingernails.

These must have been the same army of experts with whom Ms. Nadeau also consulted with reference to mixed DNA, as I discussed back in Continuation 4. I'll begin to believe her claims when she names these experts, and we can see exactly what they said. I am not holding my breath waiting.