Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

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.

Fascinating interview with Nadeau linked from that link after second de novo trial.
I recommend it

Here is the hard science behind the conviction for staging the break in by a diligent reporter, Nadeau on top of her game.

BARBIE LATZA NADEAU: When the original judges/jury toured the crime scene they spent a lot of time standing below that window, two stories high, and I always thought they wondered just how someone could break in there when there were so many windows easier to access. In my post-verdict interviews in the first trial, there was an overwhelming sense that breakin was staged.
I have been asking if anyone has any detail on expert witnesses for the prosecution on that conviction, and reading this suggests there are none, but I could be wrong.

 

[Dan O.]

...

I have been asking if anyone has any detail on expert witnesses for the prosecution on that conviction, and reading this suggests there are none, but I could be wrong.

The place to find this would be in the index to the trial testimony.

 

[Desert Fox]

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 .

I often think the word "staging" should be read to mean that the evidence points to a conclusion they don't like so just blame it on staging.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

I really do not know if Barbie Latza Nadeau is now in favour of innocence. All I know is that Wonterbottom's company bought the rights to Barbie's book, as a template for looking into the student-culture of Perguia....

.... but Barbie herself (played as Simone, Kate Beckinsale) plays her as a bit of a slut, and simply one of the tabloid mob out to monetize this tragedy.

Someone should ask Frank Sfarzo where Nadeau stands now. Probably on a pile of money right now!

 

[anglolawyer]

I often think the word "staging" should be read to mean that the evidence points to a conclusion they don't like so just blame it on staging.

There is another case, American, quite similar to this one, in which they convicted a husband for raping and brutally murdering his own wife, with whom he was reasonably happily cohabiting. In fact, it emerged the killer was some random intruder whose van was spotted some way behind the house but, while the finger was pointed at the husband, everything in the house that suggested an outsider was interpreted as staging not least by those infernal blood spatter experts who seem to be at the heart of more than their fair share of miscarriages of justice.

Another case, with which I am slightly more familiar, is Darlie Routier. She is supposed to have stabbed her two small sons to death, then cut her own throat and staged the scene to look like an intruder did it. She's on death row. Crazy case. Wonder what Charlie makes of that one.

 

[carbonjam72]

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...

So let's get this straight: the only "expert" to claim the crime could not have been committed by one person, was the expert for the civil parties, who have a direct financial interest in a conviction? Great. Score another one for the Banana Republic named Italy.

So the civil parties hired a bogus expert, and opposed testing evidence that could help the defense, and the civil parties hope to profit from a conviction.

Ok, I'll go on record: Running civil cases along side criminal cases, before lay jurors too unsophisticated to keep multiple plots in their little pointy heads, is inherently an unfair trial practice that should be fully recognized as unfair by ECHR.

Without the civil parties in the criminal case, the "confessions" would never have been heard, and there would be ZERO expert opinion saying ONLY multiple perps could explain the injuries (so reasonable doubt would have to attach that only one person MIGHT HAVE done it), other exculpatory evidence MIGHT HAVE BEEN TESTED, and the vicious stream of negative press and commentary by that vile vulture Maresca would have been neutered.

The participation of the civil parties guaranteed an unfair trial process, given the participation of lay morons who need only graduate middle school, or high school on appeal (and not even with a respectable class rank!!!).

What a country. Confiscate their euro-membership card right now, this banana republic badly needs a time out.

 

[Numbers]

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 .

Of course, the staging was fictitious, an invention of the police and prosecutor.

The window was certainly broken by a rock thrown with considerable force from the outside.

It should be pointed out that because of the physics of a rock thrown through a glass-pane window, the glass shards must continue in the general direction of the rock's motion. The same phenomenon can be seen, for example, on a pool table, at the start of a game when the triangle of balls is "broken" by the cue ball. The underlying principle is called "conservation of momentum".

The concept is that the rock has a mass and a velocity; the velocity is directed into the room. Contact between the rock and the glass pane transfers energy to the glass from the rock, breaking the glass and forcing pieces of it to move generally in the same direction the rock was moving when it hit the pane. The rock is somewhat slowed down by the collision, of course. Overall, ignoring friction and any other non-conservative forces, the mass of the rock multiplied by the new velocity of the rock added (as vectors) to the masses of all the glass fragments, each fragment mass multiplied by its new velocity, will equal the mass of the rock multiplied by its original velocity (the speed and direction at the time of impact).

Apologies if I haven't explained this bit of Physics 101 clearly enough. An important point is that velocity includes both the speed of a moving object and its direction, and conservation of momentum means the vector sum of directions must remain unchanged before and after the collision (the breaking of the glass pane by the rock).

The point is, the police and prosecution maintaining that there should be glass outside if the rock was thrown from outside does not make physical sense. Even if the inner shutters were closed and loosely latched, the momentum of the rock thrown from outside would force them open and the glass fragments would be slowed down but still fall inside near the window or on the window casement.

The police and prosecution chose to ignore physics in order to pursue the wrongful prosecution of Amanda and Raffaele.

The adoption of reasoning contrary to well-known and fully accepted principles of science must be considered as a significant indication of the arbitrary nature of the Italian courts' reasonings in this case.

 

[Numbers]

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 .

Of course, the staging of the crime scene claimed by the police and prosecutor was fictitious, an invention of the police and prosecutor.

The window was certainly broken by a rock thrown with considerable force from the outside.

It should be pointed out that because of the physics of a rock thrown through a glass-pane window, the glass shards must continue in the general direction of the rock's motion. The same phenomenon can be seen, for example, on a pool table, at the start of a game when the triangle of balls is "broken" by the cue ball. The underlying principle is called "conservation of momentum".

The concept is that the rock has a mass and a velocity; the velocity is directed into the room. Contact between the rock and the glass pane transfers energy to the glass from the rock, breaking the glass and forcing pieces of it to move generally in the same direction the rock was moving when it hit the pane. The rock is somewhat slowed down by the collision, of course. Overall, ignoring friction and any other non-conservative forces, the mass of the rock multiplied by the new velocity of the rock added (as vectors) to the masses of all the glass fragments, each fragment mass multiplied by its new velocity, will equal the mass of the rock multiplied by its original velocity (the speed and direction at the time of impact).

Apologies if I haven't explained this bit of Physics 101 clearly enough. The major point is that velocity of a moving object consists of its speed and its direction of motion. In conservation of momentum, after a collision, the sum of speed and the vector sum of directions of motion must be equal to the respective sums before collision. In this case, the collision is the breaking of the glass pane by the rock.

The point is, the police and prosecution maintaining that there should be glass outside if the rock was thrown from outside does not make physical sense. Even if the inner shutters were closed and loosely latched, the momentum of the rock thrown from outside would force them open and the glass fragments would be slowed down but still fall inside near the window or on the window casement.

The police and prosecution chose to ignore physics in order to pursue the wrongful prosecution of Amanda and Raffaele.

The adoption of reasoning contrary to well-known and fully accepted principles of science must be considered as a significant indication of the arbitrary nature of the Italian courts' reasoning and judgments in this case.

 

[LondonJohn]

I really do not know if Barbie Latza Nadeau is now in favour of innocence. All I know is that Wonterbottom's company bought the rights to Barbie's book, as a template for looking into the student-culture of Perguia....

.... but Barbie herself (played as Simone, Kate Beckinsale) plays her as a bit of a slut, and simply one of the tabloid mob out to monetize this tragedy.

Someone should ask Frank Sfarzo where Nadeau stands now. Probably on a pile of money right now!

I would doubt that. The book rights would not have been bought for all that much of a flat fee - I suspect the deal would have been structured very much towards the back end (i.e. share of gross), in which case the fragrant Ms Nadeau would not have got much since the movie totally tanked and (I strongly suspect) was a large loss-maker. In addition, Nadeau didn't actually write the adapted screenplay.

So it probably ranks up there alongside her pieces for the moribund Newsweek and dying-on-its feet Daily Beast, plus her hastily cobbled-together book itself (which, don't forget, was published through the DB's own somewhat-vanity publishing department rather than an established imprint), which will have sold only a fraction of (for example) Knox's book.

It's still shocking, by the way, to read some of the choicer excepts of Nadeau's yellow, biassed "journalism" repeated recently in this thread. I guess when some people sup with the devil, they don't even bother to use a long spoon.........

 

[LondonJohn]

Fascinating interview with Nadeau linked from that link after second de novo trial.
I recommend it

Here is the hard science behind the conviction for staging the break in by a diligent reporter, Nadeau on top of her game.

BARBIE LATZA NADEAU: When the original judges/jury toured the crime scene they spent a lot of time standing below that window, two stories high, and I always thought they wondered just how someone could break in there when there were so many windows easier to access. In my post-verdict interviews in the first trial, there was an overwhelming sense that breakin was staged.
I have been asking if anyone has any detail on expert witnesses for the prosecution on that conviction, and reading this suggests there are none, but I could be wrong.

But the problem is that if the judges and popular judges in the Massei trial actually did come to conclude that the break-in had to have been staged, then that would have weighed extremely heavily in their overall consideration and verdict. Because if it were staged, then (they would have gone on to erroneously conclude), why would Guede - a semi-pro burgler and b&e'er - have staged a scene that pointed towards his own MO? And after that, who else would have had the means and opportunity to stage the break-in? Well, only Knox (and, by extension, Sollecito).

This, in my view, is one of the many areas that the defence lawyers failed to adequately deal with in the Massei trial - and once they'd messed it up in the Massei trial, it became automatically much. much harder to sort it out on appeal. They should have easily been able to demonstrate in court exactly why a) the physical evidence is in fact entirely consistent with a real break-in (including a justified roasting of the police for not properly analysing the ground beneath the window); b) this window was in fact an entirely logical point of ingress for someone like Guede (all the downstairs windows were covered with iron grates, the balcony windows and french doors were double-glazed and securely locked, and thus much much harder to break in through, and the climb to Filomena's window was in fact extremely easy for a young, athletic male); c) Guede's known movements fit well with the supposition that he cased the house at around 7.30pm, went away, then came back at 8.30pm, saw the entire house in total darkness and no noise, broke in and entered through Filomena's window, and was therefore already inside the cottage when Kercher returned* at around 9pm.


* And since it's entirely logical that Guede would have closed the external shutters of the broken window behind him once he was inside - since by doing so he would be able to conceal the broken window from anyone walking past or approaching the cottage - this would also explain why Kercher wouldn't had seen anything amiss when she returned at 9pm.

 

[Desert Fox]

So let's get this straight: the only "expert" to claim the crime could not have been committed by one person, was the expert for the civil parties, who have a direct financial interest in a conviction? Great. Score another one for the Banana Republic named Italy.

So the civil parties hired a bogus expert, and opposed testing evidence that could help the defense, and the civil parties hope to profit from a conviction.
Ok, I'll go on record: Running civil cases along side criminal cases, before lay jurors too unsophisticated to keep multiple plots in their little pointy heads, is inherently an unfair trial practice that should be fully recognized as unfair by ECHR.
Without the civil parties in the criminal case, the "confessions" would never have been heard, and there would be ZERO expert opinion saying ONLY multiple perps could explain the injuries (so reasonable doubt would have to attach that only one person MIGHT HAVE done it), other exculpatory evidence MIGHT HAVE BEEN TESTED, and the vicious stream of negative press and commentary by that vile vulture Maresca would have been neutered.

The participation of the civil parties guaranteed an unfair trial process, given the participation of lay morons who need only graduate middle school, or high school on appeal (and not even with a respectable class rank!!!).

What a country. Confiscate their euro-membership card right now, this banana republic badly needs a time out.

I don't think it is wise for even a trained judge to look at the two issues (civil and criminal) in one case.

It does not even make much sense to put them together. You cannot use the excuse of expense because civil trials should be footed by those prosecuting the case, not the legal system.

Besides, the zoo this case is had cost Italy far more than just separating the cases. Even if it was a solid case with solid physical evidence, this is a crime involving international politics. You have both America and Britain involved. It behooves you to make sure that the case is done properly.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

mixed blood fallacy courtesty of Ms. Nadeau

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.

Barbie said, "There are mixed genetic traces in spots of blood in which Amanda's traces are higher than Meredith's. That implies mixed blood according to the dozens of forensics experts I've interviewed about this. Who have you interviewed?" Ms. Nadeau, I interviewed Dan Krane and Igor Lednev. Whom did you interview again? BTW Colonel Garofano made that claim by strong implication in Darkness Descending, but it's a claim that makes no sense and has no support from the scientific community.

 

[LondonJohn]

Barbie said, "There are mixed genetic traces in spots of blood in which Amanda's traces are higher than Meredith's. That implies mixed blood according to the dozens of forensics experts I've interviewed about this. Who have you interviewed?" Ms. Nadeau, I interviewed Dan Krane and Igor Lednev. Whom did you interview again?

Yep, for "dozens of forensic experts I've interviewed about this", read "handful of prosecution experts supplied to me by that lovely (and very helpful!) Dr Mignini, who've been carefully pre-selected by him to say the "right" thing"


And I like how you've thrown in a grammatical correction there for good measure

 

[Desert Fox]

Barbie said, "There are mixed genetic traces in spots of blood in which Amanda's traces are higher than Meredith's. That implies mixed blood according to the dozens of forensics experts I've interviewed about this. Who have you interviewed?" Ms. Nadeau, I interviewed Dan Krane and Igor Lednev. Whom did you interview again? Colonel Garofano made that claim by strong implication in Darkness Descending, but he is not an expert in DNA forensics IMO.

Dr Phil and Dr Oz

 

[Kaosium]

Barbie said, "There are mixed genetic traces in spots of blood in which Amanda's traces are higher than Meredith's. That implies mixed blood according to the dozens of forensics experts I've interviewed about this. Who have you interviewed?" Ms. Nadeau, I interviewed Dan Krane and Igor Lednev. Whom did you interview again?

I'd be willing to bet that her 'dozens of forensic experts' amounts to little more than Garafano plus 'Nikki' of PMF showing her a paper which indicates that blood has more DNA than most biological substances. What she failed to realize is that the amount of each biological material contributing to the sample is the single largest factor and if you have a barely visible dollop of blood on a swab and then smear it all over someone's sink where they spit regularly you may end up with far more saliva (and possibly other materials) than blood thus the relative height of the peaks does nothing to indicate the material source of the DNA.

 

[platonov]

Bill, it seems we are in agreement! Something terrible must be about to happen.

However w.r.t both LJ and Kauffer discovering that RS’s Nov 5/6th betrayal of Amanda was IRRELEVANT catching up is hardly applicable.
It seem Kauffer is 3 or 4 years behind ‘the curve’ (no pun intended) in this matter.
I will accept Numbers knowledge of the case is certainly on a par with Kaosiums.

But you are forgetting someone. Supernaut

While you have all identified the vast scope of the conspiracy, only he was brave enough to name those responsible.
To be fair in an Amanda centered universe such paranoia probably makes sense.

It's hard to respond to strawman arguments other than to point it out.

You keep using this word Bill – apparently you are unaware of its meaning.

Are you denying that first LJ and later Kauffer both declared It’s Irrelevant when they finally understood the reality of RS’s Nov5/6 disavowal of AK.

Now you may think this is a minor point. However I find it interesting for 2 reasons.
Firstly it highlights the Amanda centred nature of the cartwheel world. Tens of thousands of words on the ‘waterboarding’ of Britney and not a care for poor Raffy. Barely a mention of why this betrayal happened bar denial then avoidance or mumbling about calendars.

Secondly it might provide an indication of future developments after Cassation rules in March.
We have seen recently that RS tried to legally split his defence from AK in the Nencini trial & there was the press conference fiasco.
If/when RS is jailed and facing 25yrs with all appeals exhausted while AK is fighting extradition it might get interesting.

Who knows what strange things the Puglian might say.
I suspect that even one or two of the groupies have figured this out.

[Note I am specifically avoiding the ECHR confabulations – But Amanda being given a big bag of money & made Queen of Italy would hardly improve the mood in his cell]

 

[Bill Williams]

I really do not know if Barbie Latza Nadeau is now in favour of innocence. All I know is that Wonterbottom's company bought the rights to Barbie's book, as a template for looking into the student-culture of Perguia....

.... but Barbie herself (played as Simone, Kate Beckinsale) plays her as a bit of a slut, and simply one of the tabloid mob out to monetize this tragedy.

Someone should ask Frank Sfarzo where Nadeau stands now. Probably on a pile of money right now!

I would doubt that. The book rights would not have been bought for all that much of a flat fee - I suspect the deal would have been structured very much towards the back end (i.e. share of gross), in which case the fragrant Ms Nadeau would not have got much since the movie totally tanked and (I strongly suspect) was a large loss-maker. In addition, Nadeau didn't actually write the adapted screenplay.

So it probably ranks up there alongside her pieces for the moribund Newsweek and dying-on-its feet Daily Beast, plus her hastily cobbled-together book itself (which, don't forget, was published through the DB's own somewhat-vanity publishing department rather than an established imprint), which will have sold only a fraction of (for example) Knox's book.

It's still shocking, by the way, to read some of the choicer excepts of Nadeau's yellow, biassed "journalism" repeated recently in this thread. I guess when some people sup with the devil, they don't even bother to use a long spoon.........

I dunno. It is set for release in June 2015. How big a release, who knows?

What's telling is the way the screenplay played out. A fresh pair of eyes on the whole mess, and Winterbottom and Paul Viragh decide early on a couple of subplots:

1) The tabloid hacks (including Nadeau) completely booted the reporting, in favour of the tabloid headline
2) Frank Sfarzo is the only one of the early reporters/bloggers who had any clue what was going on with the investigation
3) Knox (and Sollecito) are portrayed as cold fish, but at the end of the day are probably innocent.
4) fictional filmmaker Thomas (Daniel Brühl) finds that the Nadeau's of the world are just slutty and drug infested as the claims they make about the Perugian students
5) The ONLY way to discover the student-backdrop of Perugia was for Thomas to be led through it by an actual exchange student (Melanie, played by Cara Delevingne), who like Meredith and Amanda, came to the university town for foreigners ready to sow a few wild oats.​

Winterbottom and Viragh would have had a very good laugh at Machiavelli's posturing in the past few threads; Machiavelli manufacturing evidence, and playing around with concepts of "strongly suspected" to prove.... well, to prove nothing, really, but to demonstrate a compatibility with a looney theory.

Enter Winterbottom's Frank Sfarzo character. Paraphrase: "You think that Knox and Sollecito are guilty because you are stupid and do not read my blog!" Also, when Thomas asks (Frank) to explain how the police/prosecution could have got this prosecution so wrong, (Frank) rolls his eyes as says: "That's because they are stupid." Viragh as a screenwriter doesn't try to clutter the concept with anything other that that observation.

So whether or not Nadeau made a truckload of money, she DID get to eat overpriced salads in Rome with Kate Beckinsale.

As to whether or not The Face of an Angel is a bomb, if it had not been for Beckinsale and/or Delevingne's dress, it would have got no attention at all in Toronto in September-last at TIFF.

Still, there were 900 Winterbottomophiles in the theatre who gave it warm applause, and during the Q&A two-thirds of the questions were erudite about how certain scenes of this film compared with his over all filmography.

And Delevingne had that dress on!

 

[Desert Fox]

I'd be willing to bet that her 'dozens of forensic experts' amounts to little more than Garafano plus 'Nikki' of PMF showing her a paper which indicates that blood has more DNA than most biological substances. What she failed to realize is that the amount of each biological material contributing to the sample is the single largest factor and if you have a barely visible dollop of blood on a swab and then smear it all over someone's sink where they spit regularly you may end up with far more saliva (and possibly other materials) than blood thus the relative height of the peaks does nothing to indicate the material source of the DNA.

If you look at the sink picture with the blood on the faucet, there are little white patches as well. They could be soap residue but they could also be oops from spiting out toothpaste. I have trouble believing that they are not rich in DNA from the mouth.

 

[Methos]

BTW Colonel Garofano made that claim by strong implication in Darkness Descending, but it's a claim that makes no sense and has no support from the scientific community.

This one?

I saw on the film the way they collected the sample in the washbasin. The fact that the sample was collected by wiping both the edge and the plughole is dangerous. You're likely to find all sorts of stuff in the plughole. However, here is the electropherogram and you can see that the RFU value is very high, so the sample is undoubtedly blood, which is the body fluid that provides the greatest ammount of DNA. In some cases you see higher peaks of Amanda's DNA than Meredith's. Amanda has been bleeding.

 

[Numbers]

If you look at the sink picture with the blood on the faucet, there are little white patches as well. They could be soap residue but they could also be oops from spiting out toothpaste. I have trouble believing that they are not rich in DNA from the mouth.

Interesting point.
Even if they are soap residue, they may be splatter from hand-washing and have trapped some epithelial cells.