Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

-

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,

The closest alleged case is the Norfolk Four and almost everybody with a few brain cells things they are innocent. I have been scouring for a case where something like what is alleged actually occurred and have been unable to find anything.

There have been some pretty sick conspiracies to rape and murder others but they always seem to have known each other for some time.

If Amanda got into a fight with Meredeth and killed in in the fight and Raff tried to help her cover for it, that would be slightly plausible. The crime scene though does not seem to support that however.

 

[Desert Fox]

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.

Err, if you don't get the DNA from the resident of the room, don't you think they are doing something wrong?

 

[anglolawyer]

Mach - can you remind me which witness testified that the lamp was already in the room when the door was broken open (clue: there isn't one) and tell me the results of the tests conducted on the lamp for prints (e.g. on the plug) and DNA (hint: there were no tests)? Thanks in advance. Amazing how this item of 'undoubted significance' (Nencini) was dealt with by the muppets who prosecute and try serious criminal cases in Italy. Massei totally ignored it and Nencini treated its presence as a fact without any evidence. Weird.

Numbers, you have not grasped Massei's solution to the glass breaking. Using his method you do get the embedded glass in the inner white shutter but you don't get the right glass pattern (which I now see Platonov deals with by pretending it's not the insuperable obstacle it is having claimed yesterday to have addressed it long ago).

 

[MichaelB]

The testimony of Andrea Berti & Filippo Barni is quite revealing. Nencini admitted what we all knew: he doesn't know anything about DNA.

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Berti-Barni-Testimony.pdf

starting bottom of page 22.

PRESIDENTE: Allora ne ho io due velocissime a conclusione. Mi è parso di capire, ma con tutti i limiti della mia totale ignoranza in materia, da questo campione che voi avete rilevato, quindi da questa quantità, avete estratto due quantità per procedere a due distinte analisi. Lei ha detto giustamente prima che, essendo una quantità, un materiale, se ne potevano... due, tre, cinque, fino a che... si poteva parcellizzare fino a che era parcellizzabile. Allora la domanda è questa: perché avete scelto due, e non tre, quattro, cinque? Esiste un quantitativo minimo che garantisce maggiormente il risultato, oppure la scelta è arbitraria? Non so se sono stato chiaro nella domanda.

"I think I've understood, but with all the limits of my total ignorance of the subject"

 

[codyjuneau]

.
So as I understand it, Mignini's hypothesis, was that the exterior shutters were closed and the rock was thrown through the window from the inside. The obvious problems with this explanation are that:

a) the exterior shutters would not latch so they would certainly be blown open by the rock, which would send huge shards of glass outside, which is ironic considering the prosecution used the anecdotal evidence of no glass outside to imply a staged break in.

b) it did not explain how the wooden chip was removed from the inside of the interior shutter, or how the glass fragment got embedded in it.

c) it does not explain the actual distribution of the glass

Massei apparently saw the logical flaw in these arguments, so he invented his own hypothesis with its own problems, but only after the trial was over so that the defense could not point them out.

The most obvious problem with Massei's hypothesis is explaining the correct distribution of glass that would have occurred. And it appears that neither Platanov nor Machi will address this issue.

I am sure that Platanov will politely correct me if I am wrong.

Cody
.

 

[Planigale]

OK before too much more confusion is generated let’s address this post.
We will ignore for a moment the ‘backsplash’ issue – let’s pretend* that reality is on holiday.

Given that the prosecution argument has the window broken from within the room while the outer shutters are closed
And the defence that it was broken from outside with the outer shutters obviously open........
How does more glass end up in the garden when the shutters are closed?
In your own time

Or is it time to come clean and admit your understanding of the prosecution argument was that the rock was thrown out through the window into the garden?

Or would you prefer to talk about glass distribution inside the room

*Not much of a stretch in this thread.

1) can you reference the PROSECUTION saying this. (Not a judge)
2) is the outer shutter solid or slatted?
3) In what direction do the slats slant?
4) Were any fragments of broken glass found in the slats of the outer shutter?
5) If the window was broken from the inside with the outer shutter closed where would the fragments of glass that hit the shutter be directed?
6) Was the outer shutter open or closed when the police came on the crime scene?
7) Where would glass fragments trapped on the slats fall when the shutter was opened?

The forensic evidence proves that the outer shutter can not have been closed and the window broken from the inside.

At least Mach's theory that Knox and Sollecito staged the crime scene went outside smashed the window by throwing a stone from outside and then scattered fits the evidence better. Since in this scenario they left the door open may be they hoped someone would hear the smashed window call the police who would discover the crime. Whilst they were tucked up in bed.

The problem with Mach's theory is the stacked glass on the sill and the removed glass from the frame.

 

[Planigale]

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..."

Yes. My understanding is the prosecution only ever claimed the window was broken from the inside. The prosecution never specified any details this was 'left' to the judge. This meant there was never really a prosecution hypothesis for the defence to refute.

 

[Planigale]

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.

Since they did not take a reference sample from Filomena we will never know. (Actually they could still do so, so please read never as meaning very unlikely).

 

[tsig]

I told a former policeman (whose job it had been to secure crime scenes) about the long delay and the moving-around of things prior to the collection on 18 December. He said, "Contaminated, contaminated."

Well. I guess that settles that, anonymous policemen are always the final authority in any case.

 

[MDDVS]

The data that is evidence of staging is 14 points that I listed a few pages ago.
But something you maybe don't understand, is that it's not enough to pick up points in isolation and say "this maybe has an innocent explanation". It's not enough to make an argument. You don't get rid of circumstantial evidence that way, those are nor arguments.

You don't have to pick the points in isolation. There is a single innocent scenario that explains all of them.

This doesn't mean that you are allowed to present points that are actually false. So these will be obviously singled out. In other words, lies and falsities may not be used to strengten other pieces of evidence.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

There is also the fact that it appears no "contamination" nor DNA from Rudy Guede was found on spots Filomena's room.

Tell me, do they have gloves in Italy?

Are professional burglars in Italy known on occasion to wear gloves?

If such a professional burglar wore gloves while searching a room, how much of their DNA would you expect to find?

 

[Dan O.]

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

If you cannot be honest about what evidence exists then there is no reason for anyone to pay attention to what you say. We have discussed the writting on the wall and the doctors analysis of it. Have you got anything to add that we don't already know?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The importantce of being prompt

Well. I guess that settles that, anonymous policemen are always the final authority in any case.

The American Bar Association’s standards for collecting evidence reads in part, “Standard 2.1 Collecting DNA evidence from a crime scene or other location

(a) Whenever a serious crime appears to have been committed and there is reason to believe that DNA evidence relevant to the crime may be present at the crime scene or other location, that evidence should be collected promptly.”

The reason for being prompt is to minimize the chances of contamination. As one set of guidelines reads: “The most important aspect of evidence collection and preservation is protecting the crime scene from the time the first officer or responder arrives until the last piece of evidence has been noted and collected without being contaminated.” Maybe you would be so good as to find someone who said it was perfectly acceptable to collect evidence long after the apartment was tossed. I would like to remind you that the bra clasp was in a different place and was dirtier.

 

[Samson]

In regard to the rock, the broken window, and the glass.

The authorities must establish that a staging occurred, if an impartial court is to find that to be a "fact" in a fair adversarial trial. The establishment of this prosecution theory must be based on clear and credible evidence, for example, the distribution of glass, fracture patterns in the glass, an explanation of the trajectory of the rock, accounting for glass partially embedded in the wooded frame around the window, and so on.

The ECHR will view this theory, whether originating in detail from the prosecution or the domestic court, as one element of the arbitrary reasoning of the Italian courts if this case reaches them. And arbitrary reasoning is an indication of an unfair trial, a violation of Convention Article 6.

This is the fragment that becomes the elephant in the room.
Massei was not required to explain the absurd velocity to achieve this.
His theory required a staging at midnight, yet the explosive force needed to embed that shard, at a location remote from the shutter frame damage will never be reconciled with the logic endemic in the fear of discovery of a murder

In simple terms, Kerry should be persuaded by many logical pathways, including this one, that beauty should not be reclaimed by the beast.

Nice video posted on PMF today. (thank you)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1422411861&v=vzku0aCRUK0&x-yt-cl=84924572

 

[Samson]

The American Bar Association’s standards for collecting evidence reads in part, “Standard 2.1 Collecting DNA evidence from a crime scene or other location

(a) Whenever a serious crime appears to have been committed and there is reason to believe that DNA evidence relevant to the crime may be present at the crime scene or other location, that evidence should be collected promptly.”

The reason for being prompt is to minimize the chances of contamination. As one set of guidelines reads: “The most important aspect of evidence collection and preservation is protecting the crime scene from the time the first officer or responder arrives until the last piece of evidence has been noted and collected without being contaminated.” Maybe you would be so good as to find someone who said it was perfectly acceptable to collect evidence long after the apartment was tossed. I would like to remind you that the bra clasp was in a different place and was dirtier.

What is most concerning is that it was deemed sufficient to convict.
Raffaele was detained as a sex offender, so the item was crucial to maintain that status.
After much reflection, I suggest that accidental contamination knife plus accidental contamination bra clasp is statistically impossible, in attempting to reconcile this case.

Only one can be accidental.

This conclusion is steeped in the notion that Raffaele had nothing to do with any crime.

 

[Numbers]

Mach - can you remind me which witness testified that the lamp was already in the room when the door was broken open (clue: there isn't one) and tell me the results of the tests conducted on the lamp for prints (e.g. on the plug) and DNA (hint: there were no tests)? Thanks in advance. Amazing how this item of 'undoubted significance' (Nencini) was dealt with by the muppets who prosecute and try serious criminal cases in Italy. Massei totally ignored it and Nencini treated its presence as a fact without any evidence. Weird.

Numbers, you have not grasped Massei's solution to the glass breaking. Using his method you do get the embedded glass in the inner white shutter but you don't get the right glass pattern (which I now see Platonov deals with by pretending it's not the insuperable obstacle it is having claimed yesterday to have addressed it long ago).

{Highlighting added to quote.}

I'm not so sure of that. The details of how the inner shutter moves during the complex events of the rock colliding with the glass pane, continuing to move forward at some velocity, and then hitting the shutter, which will move when hit (how firmly/rigidly is it held in place?). The glass shards are also moving forward at some velocity different from that of the rock, and may also hit the shutter (depending on the exact timing and velocity of all the objects), but under the Massei hypothesis, will there be enough force at impact for a glass shard to embed? And is the position of the embedded shard consistent with the Massei hypothesis?

I agree that the distribution of the glass shards around the room may be easier to analyze.

 

[anglolawyer]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

I'm not so sure of that. The details of how the inner shutter moves during the complex events of the rock colliding with the glass pane, continuing to move forward at some velocity, and then hitting the shutter, which will move when hit (how firmly/rigidly is it held in place?). The glass shards are also moving forward at some velocity different from that of the rock, and may also hit the shutter (depending on the exact timing and velocity of all the objects), but under the Massei hypothesis, will there be enough force at impact for a glass shard to embed? And is the position of the embedded shard consistent with the Massei hypothesis?

I agree that the distribution of the glass shards around the room may be easier to analyze.

Oh, I see what you were getting at. Well, I have no clue about such things and would suggest empirical tests which ought to be pretty easy to conduct.

I am disappointed (but not surprised) by the evasion and cowardice yesterday from the often patronising Platonov and the mischievous Machiavelli. Platonov plainly does not understand the significance of the glass distribution so pretends it's not a problem, which is ridiculous, while Machiavelli seriously considers the possibility that the window was broken from outside by someone standing inside. That would mean (I presume) opening the right hand window and the outer shutters reaching out with rock in hand and then throwing it in through the left hand window. To further the impersonation of an external throw the stager would have had to then pick some shards out of the frame (as Guede did) to simulate someone on the outside needing to reach inside to unlatch the window so as to climb in. Seems fanciful at best, like many guilter explanations of things that always have a much simpler explanation (Guede did it).

 

[Numbers]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

I'm not so sure of that. The details of how the inner shutter moves during the complex events of the rock colliding with the glass pane, continuing to move forward at some velocity, and then hitting the shutter, which will move when hit (how firmly/rigidly is it held in place?). The glass shards are also moving forward at some velocity different from that of the rock, and may also hit the shutter (depending on the exact timing and velocity of all the objects), but under the Massei hypothesis, will there be enough force at impact for a glass shard to embed? And is the position of the embedded shard consistent with the Massei hypothesis?

I agree that the distribution of the glass shards around the room may be easier to analyze.

Oh, I see what you were getting at. Well, I have no clue about such things and would suggest empirical tests which ought to be pretty easy to conduct.

I am disappointed (but not surprised) by the evasion and cowardice yesterday from the often patronising Platonov and the mischievous Machiavelli. Platonov plainly does not understand the significance of the glass distribution so pretends it's not a problem, which is ridiculous, while Machiavelli seriously considers the possibility that the window was broken from outside by someone standing inside. That would mean (I presume) opening the right hand window and the outer shutters reaching out with rock in hand and then throwing it in through the left hand window. To further the impersonation of an external throw the stager would have had to then pick some shards out of the frame (as Guede did) to simulate someone on the outside needing to reach inside to unlatch the window so as to climb in. Seems fanciful at best, like many guilter explanations of things that always have a much simpler explanation (Guede did it).

Is the presentation of an argument about evidence given by the judge, which was not given by the prosecution during the trial, as part of the reasoning to convict a defendant, consistent with the role of the judge in providing an impartial, third-party tribunal? Can an argument that the defense did not get to consider and rebut be used to convict? Here is Article 111 of the Italian Constitution, in part (clause numbering and emphasis added):

Art. 111
1) Jurisdiction is implemented through due process regulated by law.
2) All court trials are conducted with adversary proceedings and the parties are entitled to equal conditions before an impartial judge in third party position.
3) The law provides for the reasonable duration of trials.
4) In criminal law trials, the law provides that the alleged offender shall be promptly informed confidentially of the nature and reasons for the charges that are brought and shall have adequate time and conditions to prepare a defence.
5) The defendant shall have the right to cross-examine or to have cross-examined before a judge the persons making accusations and to summon and examine persons for the defence in the same conditions as the prosecution, as well as the right to produce all other evidence in favour of the defence.

ETA: For an inside thrower, with arm extended or leaning out the window, to break the other window by throwing the rock - the throw would most likely not get the velocity required to get the glass scatter distribution or the embedded shard. Could a person actually be able to do a decent wind-up to throw without falling out the window?

ETA2: The guilters often move to the fuzzy empirically unreliable evidence, or claims thereof, while ignoring the massive violations of fairness in the trials. ECHR will not so much evaluate reliability of evidence itself, but how objectively unreliable evidence was used unfairly to convict.

 

[carbonjam72]

carbonjam72,

A protein such as hemoglobin has a three-dimensional shape (its conformation) that can change with time--the protein is said to denature (to lose its native function). Extremes of temperature and pH are two conditions that can denature proteins. Denaturetion could easily cause a confirmatory test to fail: the antibody may bind only to the native conformation but not to the denatured one

Suppose that both tests were long after the crime. The TMB test may not be as dependent on whether or not denaturation has occurred. I did some reading once that suggested that the heme group of hemoglobin (iron plus an organic molecule) was all that was needed for at least some and maybe all of the presumptive tests to work. My hypothesis is that old blood will remain positive by presumptive tests longer than it will remain positive by confirmatory tests, because proteins can denature by more mechanisms than there are mechanisms that can destroy heme. However, one would have to test my hypothesis empirically to see whether or not it was correct. BTW, one of the reasons that Joy Kuhl's antibody-based tests for hemoglobin F were so hard to believe is that her tests were done 13 months after Azaria Chamberlain's death.

However, my recollection is that the date of the TMB test was much earlier than the date of the confirmatory test, but someone would have to check this to be certain. If the TMB test had been performed much earlier (perhaps months) than the confirmatory test, then there could be a different explanation for why the confirmatory test was negative but the TMB test was positive. Bottom line: I am not saying that Rep. 199 was blood. I am saying that if they failed to perform all tests in a timely manner, then it is poor quality work.

Thanks for this info. So basically, Stef could have cooked the sample, leaving it next to a heat radiator, or frozen it by leaving it nearby an open window in the winter. She could have periodically tested it until she finally came up with a negative result, and then shared only that one.

There's a whole host of fraudulent yet plausibly deniable games Stef could play if she really wanted to. What's clear though, is that she didn't do her job right, and the result was a significant aid to the prosecution against Knox and Sollecito by suppressing what would likely have been highly exculpatory evidence that the break-in was not staged, was committed by Guede, and that Guede's other stories are therefore disproven.

I wonder if even that evidence of Guede's blood and hair on the window sill of Filomena's broken window would have been enough to dissuade Mignini from charging Amanda and Raf with this murder?

I actually doubt it, Mignini wanted them in, and how he did it is just a matter of excuses of convenience. There were no "mistakes" here, this was all deliberate, imo.

 

[Numbers]

Oh, I see what you were getting at. Well, I have no clue about such things and would suggest empirical tests which ought to be pretty easy to conduct.

....

Did the prosecution present any empirical tests or analyses (such as finite element computer modeling) to support its hypothesis regarding the window break-in? Did Judge Massei present any such tests or analyses?

If not, from an engineering POV, there was no objective support for the hypothesis by either prosecution or judge. And doesn't the burden of proof rest on the prosecution? In a fair trial, in accordance with the Convention, that is.