Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

It is no surprise to find DNA of residents of a household in a room (in the house) and because they are found in the same sample do not demonstrate that they were laid down at the same time (see “DNA profiling of trace DNA recovered from bedding,” Forensic Science International, Volume 159, Issue 1, 25 May 2006, Pages 21-26)

And the police could have tracked in Meredith's blood, as they were video taped standing in wet puddles of blood, then traipsing through the house without changing their little blue booties.

The police are as likely to have tracked that sample in as anything.

But focus on the murder room. What biological presence is left there? Only Rudy, who had no business being there, nor on and in Meredith.

But that doesn't bother Mach, because Amanda and Raf immediately ran out of the room, after participating in a violent bloody murder. Meanwhile, Rudy calmly sat on the bed, rested his wet knife there, and ran his fingers on the wall because he felt like leaving some graffiti.

And then, just one set of foot prints in Meredith's blood. But Mach reads that as indicating more than one attacker. Why? Just because.

It's like watching a split screen on TV: one side is what the evidence shows Guede did; and the other shows guilter fantasies of what Amanda and Raf must have done to avoid the evidence that shows what they didn't do.

 

[Numbers]

Arbitrary [definition in law] {Emphasis added.}

Irrational; capricious.

The term arbitrary describes a course of action or a decision that is not based on reason or judgment but on personal will or discretion without regard to rules or standards.

An arbitrary decision is one made without regard for the facts and circumstances presented, and it connotes a disregard of the evidence.

In many instances, the term implies an element of bad faith, and it may be used synonymously with tyrannical or despotic.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Arbitrary

 

[Desert Fox]

The convictions are plagued with double standards. Judge Massei wrote that one of the reasons for not testing the putative semen stain found under the victim, was that she had a normal sex life and that DNA could not be time-stamped.

How about the people who got into the house between the first investigation and the second (December) police investigation of the household?

 

[Dougm]

Nope Mach. Its not even that advanced.
I think the problem is that they believed the prosecution argument was that the rock was thrown out through the window into the garden.
One of the summaries on some FOA site had that version IIRC and they never read or couldn't understand the treatment of this issue in Massei so went with the FOA nonsense.

Go figure.

Once the issue is explained they retreat into the realms of 'glass distribution' within the room.

ps Actually if I'm wrong and you are right that's even worse - maybe its both.

I have no idea who you would be referring to that argues that the prosecution theory was that the rock was thrown through the window outside. Maybe an occasional person would be confused on that, likely because the prosecution's real theory makes so little sense that people would likely not believe they actually proposed it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Mignini's idea is even murkier than Massei's

Ann Wise wrote, "The prosecution presented witnesses and evidence that suggest the window was broken from the inside." She went on to say, "By analyzing the trajectory of the rock and the projection of the glass shards, Pasquali said he could 'exclude that the glass could have been broken from the inside.'" Massei, p. 51 is consistent with Ann Wise's account.

Massei's own conjecture is on p. 52: "Indeed, if one supposes that the stone was thrown from the inside with the shutters pulled closed (as they must have been according to statements cited above), but with the casement holding the pane somewhat open, with the inner shutter behind it, then here is a situation analogous to that of throwing the stone from the outside..."

 

[Numbers]

Ann Wise wrote, "The prosecution presented witnesses and evidence that suggest the window was broken from the inside." She went on to say, "By analyzing the trajectory of the rock and the projection of the glass shards, Pasquali said he could 'exclude that the glass could have been broken from the inside.'" Massei, p. 51 is consistent with Ann Wise's account.

Massei's own conjecture is on p. 52: "Indeed, if one supposes that the stone was thrown from the inside with the shutters pulled closed (as they must have been according to statements cited above), but with the casement holding the pane somewhat open, with the inner shutter behind it, then here is a situation analogous to that of throwing the stone from the outside..."

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Without evidence of a distribution of glass shards that supports this hypothesis, and with the evidence of an embedded glass fragment in the wooden casement frame, it is absurd and arbitrary.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

From what I now know, I wouldn't personally have used that window, and I would have to see the house myself before saying that definitively, but I do wonder, why would a stager think that was the perfect place to stage a break-in and not a burglar?

If it's true that Rudy used a similar method of entry before, then it adds weight to the arguement that's what Rudy did there also.

It's also interesting that someone who thinks Raffaele and Amanda are probably guilty (and don't think they are a victim of confirmation bias), also thinks no evidence of Rudy in the break-in room helps to prove that Rudy didn't commit that crime, but no evidence of Amanda in Meredith's room doesn't help to prove Amanda didn't commit that crime.

How exactly does that make sense?

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

DELETEd as a duplicate.

That's what happens every time I use the "quick reply" poster at the bottom of this page. If I told my therapist this, he'd probably just tell me to stop using it. Problem solved.

Stupid therapist,

d

-

 

[MichaelB]

Francesco Pasquali is being translated and should be finished in the next week or two.

 

[Anode]

-

From what I now know, I wouldn't personally have used that window, and I would have to see the house myself before saying that definitively, but I do wonder, why would a stager think that was the perfect place to stage a break-in and not a burglar?

If it's true that Rudy used a similar method of entry before, then it adds weight to the arguement that's what Rudy did there also.

It's also interesting that someone who thinks Raffaele and Amanda are probably guilty (and don't think they are a victim of confirmation bias), also thinks no evidence of Rudy in the break-in room helps to prove that Rudy didn't commit that crime, but no evidence of Amanda in Meredith's room doesn't help to prove Amanda didn't commit that crime.

How exactly does that make sense?

d

-

It doesn't make sense.

 

[Machiavelli]

It is no surprise to find DNA of residents of a household in a room (in the house) and because they are found in the same sample do not demonstrate that they were laid down at the same time (see “DNA profiling of trace DNA recovered from bedding,” Forensic Science International, Volume 159, Issue 1, 25 May 2006, Pages 21-26)

I'm afraid it's quite surprising, inside Filomena's room. And those are not just residents: they are found in one place mixed on the same spots, and the spots are luminol positive.

There is also the fact that it appears no "contamination" nor DNA from Rudy Guede was found on spots Filomena's room.
Not even Filomena's DNA as far as I know.

 

[Numbers]

-

From what I now know, I wouldn't personally have used that window, and I would have to see the house myself before saying that definitively, but I do wonder, why would a stager think that was the perfect place to stage a break-in and not a burglar?

If it's true that Rudy used a similar method of entry before, then it adds weight to the arguement that's what Rudy did there also.

It's also interesting that someone who thinks Raffaele and Amanda are probably guilty (and don't think they are a victim of confirmation bias), also thinks no evidence of Rudy in the break-in room helps to prove that Rudy didn't commit that crime, but no evidence of Amanda in Meredith's room doesn't help to prove Amanda didn't commit that crime.

How exactly does that make sense?

d

-

Here's a question that's on the speculative side.

Do you think a burglar who planned on breaking a window would wear gloves - perhaps work gloves - to clear away any dangerous glass fragments or sharp edged-pieces during entry?

And would it then make sense to remove the gloves once inside, because police wouldn't bother to check for finger prints in a burglary, and it would be easier to search for stuff? Or to make yourself at home, if that's the burglar's MO?

 

[MichaelB]

I'm afraid it's quite surprising, inside Filomena's room. And those are not just residents: they are found in one place mixed on the same spots, and the spots are luminol positive.

There is also the fact that it appears no "contamination" nor DNA from Rudy Guede was found on spots Filomena's room.
Not even Filomena's DNA as far as I know.

Yeah because they only collected and tested 5 samples from the whole room. But you know that.

 

[Machiavelli]

And the police could have tracked in Meredith's blood, as they were video taped standing in wet puddles of blood, then traipsing through the house without changing their little blue booties.

The police are as likely to have tracked that sample in as anything.

But focus on the murder room. What biological presence is left there? Only Rudy, who had no business being there, nor on and in Meredith.

Neither had Amanda's lamp, nor Sollecito's DNA on the clasp nor his footprint in bloody water on the bathmat.

But that doesn't bother Mach, because Amanda and Raf immediately ran out of the room, after participating in a violent bloody murder. Meanwhile, Rudy calmly sat on the bed, rested his wet knife there, and ran his fingers on the wall because he felt like leaving some graffiti.

There isn't evidence that the blood on the wall was left by Rudy Guede.

And then, just one set of foot prints in Meredith's blood. But Mach reads that as indicating more than one attacker. Why? Just because.

There are clearly two sets of footprints.
One is made of shoeprints, in full blood, in a trail and walks from the room straight out towards the exit.
The other is made of isolated bare footprints, in diluted blood, not in a trail but and only in one part of the house from the bathroom towards Knox's room, and it's from two individuals.

It's clearly two sets, it's an ordinate series of dycothomies.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

-

From what I now know, I wouldn't personally have used that window, and I would have to see the house myself before saying that definitively, but I do wonder, why would a stager think that was the perfect place to stage a break-in and not a burglar?

If it's true that Rudy used a similar method of entry before, then it adds weight to the arguement that's what Rudy did there also.

It's also interesting that someone who thinks Raffaele and Amanda are probably guilty (and don't think they are a victim of confirmation bias), also thinks no evidence of Rudy in the break-in room helps to prove that Rudy didn't commit that crime, but no evidence of Amanda in Meredith's room doesn't help to prove Amanda didn't commit that crime.

How exactly does that make sense?

d

-

It doesn't make sense.

-

Thank you. Sometimes I think I'm going crazy. I see these little details that don't make sense to me and things need to make sense... it's a kind of compulsion with me,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Here's a question that's on the speculative side.

Do you think a burglar who planned on breaking a window would wear gloves - perhaps work gloves - to clear away any dangerous glass fragments or sharp edged-pieces during entry?

And would it then make sense to remove the gloves once inside, because police wouldn't bother to check for finger prints in a burglary, and it would be easier to search for stuff? Or to make yourself at home, if that's the burglar's MO?

-

I only broke two windows, and i didn't use gloves.

My thing was houses and not apartment buildings and you'd be surprised how many of those houses don't have alarm systems.

A lot.

Plus, apartment buildings are a whole different kettle of headaches I never wanted to deal with. You don't know who's home or not with apartyments. Houses, you can usually tell or if it's late enough, some burglars don't care. Getting in, and getting out, I think houses are easier, and they usually have more stuff.

I can't speak for other burglars, most of the ones I knew did it for crack, all I can do is speak for myself.

I do research into the psychology of serial killers, and when I think of a burglar, I think of Richard Ramirez. He was the exception, and not the rule with most burglars I think (I hope), but his technique for entering was a little like the one I used, and possibly others also. Read the Philip Carlo book, "The Night Stalker." It's chock full of pointers,

d

-

 

[Numbers]

-




-

Thank you. Sometimes I think I'm going crazy. I see these little details that don't make sense to me and things need to make sense... it's a kind of compulsion with me,

d

-

And here I thought your question was rhetorical.

No, it doesn't make sense.

IIUC, since the police knew it was a staged break-in in Filomena's room, they didn't collect much evidence. Some of what they did collect they lost. Then the lack of evidence of an intruder* showed that it was a staged break-in. This way of thinking made sense to the police and prosecutor in Perugia, Italy, but doesn't make sense elsewhere.

* In the room itself. The police "knew", early on, that there had been an intruder in Meredith's bedroom who had (helped?) kill her. They believed it was Patrick Lumumba. They interrogated Amanda so that she told them it was Patrick Lumumba. Then the story got really interesting: Patrick Lumumba had a solid alibi (and he had left no trace in the murder room or cottage). Rudy Guede had left his DNA in the murder room and in Meredith, and bloody shoe prints. From Germany, Rudy Guede talked to a friend about being in the cottage with Meredith that night. So....but we all know the rest of the story, so far.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

And here I thought your question was rhetorical.

No, it doesn't make sense.

IIUC, since the police knew it was a staged break-in in Filomena's room, they didn't collect much evidence. Some of what they did collect they lost. Then the lack of evidence of an intruder* showed that it was a staged break-in. This way of thinking made sense to the police and prosecutor in Perugia, Italy, but doesn't make sense elsewhere.

* In the room itself. The police "knew", early on, that there had been an intruder in Meredith's bedroom who had (helped?) kill her. They believed it was Patrick Lumumba. They interrogated Amanda so that she told them it was Patrick Lumumba. Then the story got really interesting: Patrick Lumumba had a solid alibi (and he had left no trace in the murder room or cottage). Rudy Guede had left his DNA in the murder room and in Meredith, and bloody shoe prints. From Germany, Rudy Guede talked to a friend about being in the cottage with Meredith that night. So....but we all know the rest of the story, so far.

-

I don't know what to think about the staged break-in, all I know for sure is how I felt about doing something like that.

I wish the cops had collected more evidence for why they considered it staged.

I read Follain's book and he writes how Mignini had a gut feeling that no one would break-in that way when he first saw the break-in spot from the outside, and then didn't collect and/ or photograph any convincing evidence to prove it.

I'm sorry, but that's shoddy police work. Even if Raffaele and Amanda are guilty, it's still shoddy police work,

d

-

 

[Kauffer]

Italy is not compliant

The CP is compatible with the Italian Constitution and with the EC Convention.......Snip

This is why I know you are not a lawyer.

Decisions 348 and 349 of the Constitutional court relay a permanent instruction to all Italian judges either to:

A) interpret the CP compliantly with the convention or, if this is not possible...
B) refer the particular law to the Constitutional Court which has the authority (and has exercised it) to strike down the law for its lack of conformity to the constitution and/or to the convention, which has constitutional status.

There are numerous instances of recently adjudged unconstitutional law in Italy. In particular, the right of victims of unfair trials to be given new trials (Dorigo v Italy), previously denied in Italian law has been asserted, as has the right of those illegally convicted in absentia. (Cat Berro v Italy).

It is not possible to say that Italian law is either constitutionally or convention compliant - it is certainly not wholly so; it is, however possible to say that there are established mechanisms (all be it imperfect ones that continue to evolve) to address the problem of non compliant law.

However, a related problem in Italy lies with the judges who have extensive de facto discretion, implied by the instruction to interpret law in a convention compliant manner, to do exactly the opposite.

The most important point in relation to these matters is that when the ECHR now supports applicants' claims of violation of human rights under Article 6, then both sentence and conviction will be set aside in anticipation of a trial de novo without the inclusion of evidence admitted into the the original trial or trials as a result of either a misinterpretation of Italian law or the application of unconstitutional law. (See amongst others, CSC decision 2800 in Dorigo).

In the calunnia case, it may well emerge within Italy that the law permitting prosecutors and investigatory judges to deny access to counsel for between two and five days, will be explicitly declared unconstitutional other than in very clearly defined narrow exceptional situations in order to bring Italy into line with Salduz and post Salduz case law in relation to pre trial matters of unfairnesses.

In Italy, it appears nobody understands that Article 6 of the convention also relates to events that occur long before anyone walks into a courtroom.

 

[AmyStrange]

Wow! That's a scary thought...

-

One of my biggest problems with this case is the three-person attacker theory. I'd be more inclined to believe it if they weren't three virtual strangers.

Three virtual strangers deciding to psychologically agree to kill a fourth is mind-boggling, because just think about that for a minute. What the probably guilty crowd wants me to believe is two woman got into a fight and two random men (you could have picked them at random off a plane or bus) who are there, see the whole thing, and then decide to help this one specific woman kill the other and keep that secret for years.

I just can't wrap my mind around the idea that this is psychologically probable. Are there enough of these kind of people out there (who would help a virtual stranger kill another at the drop of a hat) that it would tip the odds in favor of making this probable?

Wow! That's a scary thought,

d

-
ETA: to be perfectly honest, if it was just Raffaele and Amanda, I believe that would be more probable, but when you throw Rudy in, that's when you've stirred the pot up so much, you can't tell what shade of grey you've actually cooked up.

-