Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Actually, it's "Gubbio". Giobbi occupies a different time and place in this sorry saga.

Amanda returning to the cottage to shower and change her clothes and the planned trip to Gubbio are not mutually exclusive possibilities.

What evidence are you able to cite with regard to the washing machine story?

It has also emerged that when postal police arived at the cottage the next morning to investigate two mobile phones found in a nearby garden and found Ms Kercher’s body after breaking down her bedroom door, they also found Ms Kercher’s clothes in the washing machine. Reports said the police heard the washing machine spinning to the end of its cycle as they arrived at the cottage at 1235. They also found that the cottage - apart from Ms Kercher’s bedroom and the shared bathroom - had been “thoroughly cleaned with bleach”.

TIMES 25.11.2007 Richard Owen

 

[Kauffer]

.


8.40pm: Amanda Knox is seen leaving Raffaele Sollecito's home by a Polish student

8.43pm: CCTV shows Knox walking towards the cottage that she lived in with Kercher

9pm: Kercher leaves Purton's house after finishing the DVD, saying she is tired and going home to bed


---
A CCTV camera at the parking area above the cottage recorded the image of a female figure in a light coloured skirt, said to be Ms Knox (who owned such a skirt, now being analysed), entering the driveway of the cottage at 8.43pm. If the image is that of Ms Knox, and if the timing of Ms Kercher’s movements is correct, Ms Knox would have been inside the cottage for about half an hour by the time Ms Kercher arrived. It is not yet clear whether the surveillance cameras captured the image of any other figures arriving at the cottage.

TIMES 12.11.2007

Hold on. The time stamp for the "Amanda" figure is 8:53, meaning it was really 9:03 and so after Kercher, if I have my facts right. But the figure is walking in the opposite direction to the cottage through the car park. Interestingly, the report you quote exemplifies the error of interpretation of the CCTV time stamp and is therefore out by 20 minutes. Kercher's time stamp is two minutes earlier than the "Amanda" figure.

There is no 8:40 witness for Amanda leaving Raffaele's flat. Popovich sees Amanda at the doorway. She had come down to answer the door to her. Popovich did not see Amanda leave.

Kercher was not at Purton's house. She had walked back with Purton from another house and split up with her before she reached the cottage. The next entry in the timeline is the 8:56 phone call Kercher made to her mother, which Purton did not witness, so we know they had split up by then.

So. You are 3 for 3. Wrong on each.

However, you do correctly state Purton's testimony. Kercher was tired and wanted to go to bed. If she was not killed soon after arriving home, then the fact she was attacked in her outdoor clothes is highly problematic.

She should have been in her Jim Jams.

 

[Vixen]

All wrong. I won't waste your time or mine asking for citations.

TIMES 12.11.2007

 

[Vixen]

Hold on. The time stamp for the "Amanda" figure is 8:53, meaning it was really 9:03 and so after Kercher, if I have my facts right. But the figure is walking in the opposite direction to the cottage through the car park.

There is no 8:40 witness for Amanda leaving Raffaele's flat. Popovich sees Amanda at the doorway. She had come down to answer the door to her. Popovich did not see Amanda leave.

Kercher was not at Purton's house. She had walked back with Purton from another house and split up with her before she reached the cottage. The next entry in the timeline is the 8:56 phone call Kercher made to her mother, which Purton did not witness, so we know they had split up by then.

So. You are 3 for 3. Wrong on each.

However, you do correctly state Purton's testimony. Kercher was tired and wanted to go to bed. If she was not killed soon after arriving home, then the fact she was attacked in her outdoor clothes is highly problematic.

She should have been in her Jim Jams.

It was not my quote, it was a direct quote from the TIMES 12.11.2007.

AIUI when Raf had the 8:42 call from Dad, Amanda was not at his side.

IIRC telephone records picked up Patrick's ping about not coming in, circa 8:45 near the cottage.

Incidentally, no matter how tired you are, if you are under threat or in danger, you stay alert and vigilant. 9:00 is hardly that late.

 

[Kauffer]

It has also emerged that when postal police arived at the cottage the next morning to investigate two mobile phones found in a nearby garden and found Ms Kercher’s body after breaking down her bedroom door, they also found Ms Kercher’s clothes in the washing machine. Reports said the police heard the washing machine spinning to the end of its cycle as they arrived at the cottage at 1235. They also found that the cottage - apart from Ms Kercher’s bedroom and the shared bathroom - had been “thoroughly cleaned with bleach”.

TIMES 25.11.2007 Richard Owen

Ok, so just Richard's article. That's the best evidence you have? What about testimony? I'm trying to help you to get to the truth here.

What reports is Richard referring to do you think with regard to the washing machine?

 

[Numbers]

Chris - this from ABC -

A DNA expert found fault with the prosecutor's evidence in the Amanda Knox trial in what has become an ongoing theme for the defense trying to free the 22-year-old American exchange student on trial for murdering her British roommate.

In testifying for Knox, expert Sarah Gino, who has appeared in court before, called out the prosecution for providing amplified DNA samples with the dates missing.

These dates are important, Gino said, "because they would tell us what samples were tested together on the same day, which might indicate if some of them could have been contaminated."
She also said dating the procedure for each sample was important to ensure that the amplification did not happen twice by mistake. She called the amplification of DNA the "key moment" in DNA analysis.
Gino was one of the last two witnesses during the seven-month trial, which has seen more than 100 witnesses for 42 hearings in what has become known in Italy as the "trial of the century." The case will now move onto the next phase of the trial.​

It makes no sense to me that Gino would be needing the dates if Raf's expert was there and even more he should have witnessed the number of amplifications.
ETA - Sollecito's lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, addressed the court for 20 minutes arguing that the defense was not provided with crucial details of Sollecito's DNA allegedly found on Kercher's bra hook until July 30. The rights of the defense were damaged, she said, when "documents regarding the quantity of biological material on the bra hook and documents regarding the procedure used to attain DNA results were not made available to the defense."

Carlo Dalla Vedova, one of the attorneys representing Knox, asked for the trial to be annulled and indictments against the defendants be thrown out, or at least for all of the testimony by the prosecution's DNA expert to be thrown out.

{Highlighting and bolding added to quote.}

Grinder,
The highlighted bolded statement does not follow from the methods of testing.

The tests can be performed, in the physical sense, whether or not the defense consultants are there. Only by supplying the full raw data (in particular, including the dates and times) can the defense be somewhat confident that the results presented were run when the defense consultants were present (assuming they were in the lab at a particular date and time). The DNA tests were run over a number of days, and some were obtained before Amanda and Raffaele had lawyers (lawyers for the suspects/accused were only allowed as of Nov. 8, 2007, at the arrest hearing), and before the lawyers could obtain expert consultants.

Stefanoni was physically free to run DNA tests at any day and time, and her refusal to supply the raw data including initially the day and time for the tests meant that the defense could not know whether or not those particular tests had been witnessed. (Assuming that the defense consultants witnessed any such tests.) Finally, the EDF (electronic copies of the original raw data) are the actual best evidence in DNA profiling and merely observing the performance of the test (which involves the testing of DNA material not at all observable to the naked eye) may not reveal artifacts or manipulations that took place either before or during the test.

 

[Grinder]

It took her about twenty minutes to walk the distance, so she arrived at around 8:40 pm, again finding Amanda, who opened the door and let her know that Raffaele was in the bathroom

From Massei - no mention of AK leaving

 

[Vixen]

It was not my quote, it was a direct quote from the TIMES 12.11.2007.

AIUI when Raf had the 8:42 call from Dad, Amanda was not at his side.

IIRC telephone records picked up Patrick's ping about not coming in, circa 8:45 near the cottage.

Incidentally, no matter how tired you are, if you are under threat or in danger, you stay alert and vigilant. 9:00 is hardly that late.

...Let's do a logical deduction from the facts, backed up by CCTV, telephone records, and testimony of the friend who walked part way with Mez.

Amanda home at cottage circa 8:45- 8:50.

Mez arrives home circa 9:07.

Amanda home before Mez.

Mez murdered, Amanda not.

How does that affect the hypothesis:

Rudy was a lone perpetrator who broke in through the window to burgle, and killed Mez who interrupted him.

 

[anglolawyer]

TIMES 12.11.2007

Just like I said. All wrong. At one time the press were saying the burglar got in through Meredith's window. You're giving way too much weight to the press reports. They should be handled with care, like Guede's statements. Not utterly useless but not reliable either.

Btw. that bleach story of Ricgard Owen's is where I came in. Not in 2007 when he wrote it (and I read it) but 2011 when they were acquitted and I went on a minor quest to find out how they had talked their way out of buying bleach the morning after. Turned out it was just a big

LIE​

 

[anglolawyer]

...Let's do a logical deduction from the facts, backed up by CCTV, telephone records, and testimony of the friend who walked part way with Mez.

Amanda home at cottage circa 8:45- 8:50.
Mez arrives home circa 9:07.

Amanda home before Mez.

Mez murdered, Amanda not.

How does that affect the hypothesis:

Rudy was a lone perpetrator who broke in through the window to burgle, and killed Mez who interrupted him.

Case closed. You win. If you can prove Amanda was there between 8.45 and 9.00 p.m. on the 1st that is. Go for it and when you succeed I promise to change my mind and campaign for a new investigation of this horrific crime.

 

[Grinder]

{Highlighting and bolding added to quote.}

Grinder,
The highlighted bolded statement does not follow from the methods of testing.

The tests can be performed, in the physical sense, whether or not the defense consultants are there. Only by supplying the full raw data (in particular, including the dates and times) can the defense be somewhat confident that the results presented were run when the defense consultants were present (assuming they were in the lab at a particular date and time). The DNA tests were run over a number of days, and some were obtained before Amanda and Raffaele had lawyers (lawyers for the suspects/accused were only allowed as of Nov. 8, 2007, at the arrest hearing), and before the lawyers could obtain expert consultants.

Stefanoni was physically free to run DNA tests at any day and time, and her refusal to supply the raw data including initially the day and time for the tests meant that the defense could not know whether or not those particular tests had been witnessed. (Assuming that the defense consultants witnessed any such tests.) Finally, the EDF (electronic copies of the original raw data) are the actual best evidence in DNA profiling and merely observing the performance of the test (which involves the testing of DNA material not at all observable to the naked eye) may not reveal artifacts or manipulations that took place either before or during the test.

Yes Numbers we've been schooled here for years on the files etc., but the "witness" expert should have seen the number of amplifications. It raises the question what do the experts witness? Why be there if it doesn't give the answers to Gino's questions?

The question at hand is were any defense experts present and your reply doesn't shed any light on that.

 

[Numbers]

Just like I said. All wrong. At one time the press were saying the burglar got in through Meredith's window. You're giving way too much weight to the press reports. They should be handled with care, like Guede's statements. Not utterly useless but not reliable either.

Btw. that bleach story of Ricgard Owen's is where I came in. Not in 2007 when he wrote it (and I read it) but 2011 when they were acquitted and went on a minor quest to find out how they had talked their way out of buying bleach the morning after. Turned out it was just a big

LIE​

The lies spread by the prosecution and police for the media go to the violation of the presumption of innocence by the Italian authorities. This effort to incriminate the defendants through false information fed to the media is what the ECHR has described in other cases as a "virulent press campaign". One question is whether or not Knox and Sollecito may still be considered victims (in terms of violation of their Convention rights) of this campaign, perhaps under Article 8 (right to privacy). The defamation continuing to the current day by, for example, internet posters, may be evidence of that victimization. If there were such a claim lodged against Italy by Knox or Sollecitio to the ECHR, and ECHR judged in their favor, Italy would need to acknowledge the violation and provide just satisfaction.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yes Numbers we've been schooled here for years on the files etc., but the "witness" expert should have seen the number of amplifications. It raises the question what do the experts witness? Why be there if it doesn't give the answers to Gino's questions?

The question at hand is were any defense experts present and your reply doesn't shed any light on that.

Darkness Descending (purports to) describe(s) the gasps of amazement when Stefanoni produced the magical knife-blade profile. A useful place to look for comparative purposes is the C-V report because the mechanics of notification and attendance at testing sessions are set out there in some detail.

IMO, unless a defence expert were looking over her shoulder at every phase of the operation and was also in control of access to and egress from the lab 24/7 there is little value in the fact that s/he was present when the rabbit was produced from the hat.

 

[Kauffer]

It was not my quote, it was a direct quote from the TIMES 12.11.2007.

AIUI when Raf had the 8:42 call from Dad, Amanda was not at his side.

IIRC telephone records picked up Patrick's ping about not coming in, circa 8:45 near the cottage.

Incidentally, no matter how tired you are, if you are under threat or in danger, you stay alert and vigilant. 9:00 is hardly that late.

What are you trying to do with the Times articles then? Are you offering them as factual proof or are you offering them for some other reason? These early press reports reflect multiple errors proved by reference to real evidence.

You stated that the Polish witness saw Amanda leaving at 8:40. This is demonstrably untrue. It is also not true that telephone pings place Amanda in the vicinity of the cottage at 8:45. I don't think these claims were in the reports anyway unless you can show me. I think these are your inventions.

Please acknowledge the error about the "Polish" witness.

What we are now seeing from you with these invented facts is an explanation for the reason why pro guilters run away from timelines. They do not fit with a pro guilt interpretation of the crime.

Your approach is novel. You just make stuff up. (Well, maybe not that novel).

 

[Kauffer]

...Let's do a logical deduction from the facts, backed up by CCTV, telephone records, and testimony of the friend who walked part way with Mez.

Amanda home at cottage circa 8:45- 8:50.

Mez arrives home circa 9:07.

Amanda home before Mez.

Mez murdered, Amanda not.

How does that affect the hypothesis:

Rudy was a lone perpetrator who broke in through the window to burgle, and killed Mez who interrupted him.

There are no facts supporting Amanda being at the cottage between 8:45 and 8:50 or at any other time that evening. You've been citing non existent evidence in previous posts to arrive at an erroneous conclusion. You have Amanda sprinting to the cottage immediately after meeting Popovich! It's a fantasy.

A young woman running through the busy streets of Perugia on the night of the murder is something there would have been multiple witnesses for, it seems to me.

 

[Methos]

My understanding is that this is why his palm print was on file being he had to register as a non-citizen at the Questura.

Take a look here (pages 3-5).

 

[Grinder]

Darkness Descending (purports to) describe(s) the gasps of amazement when Stefanoni produced the magical knife-blade profile. A useful place to look for comparative purposes is the C-V report because the mechanics of notification and attendance at testing sessions are set out there in some detail.

IMO, unless a defence expert were looking over her shoulder at every phase of the operation and was also in control of access to and egress from the lab 24/7 there is little value in the fact that s/he was present when the rabbit was produced from the hat.

Have the link handy?

Why spend the money to have the expert there at all?

 

[Numbers]

Yes Numbers we've been schooled here for years on the files etc., but the "witness" expert should have seen the number of amplifications. It raises the question what do the experts witness? Why be there if it doesn't give the answers to Gino's questions?

The question at hand is were any defense experts present and your reply doesn't shed any light on that.

Darkness Descending (purports to) describe(s) the gasps of amazement when Stefanoni produced the magical knife-blade profile. A useful place to look for comparative purposes is the C-V report because the mechanics of notification and attendance at testing sessions are set out there in some detail.

IMO, unless a defence expert were looking over her shoulder at every phase of the operation and was also in control of access to and egress from the lab 24/7 there is little value in the fact that s/he was present when the rabbit was produced from the hat.

Grinder,
You are assuming that the lab is totally honest. There were indeed undocumented "retests" stated by have been discovered in the DNA data presented, based upon the numbering and dating of various samples. It would be a presumption to assume that these alleged retests were indeed observed by the defense consultants.

Your implicit assumption that the dates needn't be supplied by Stefanoni's lab because the defense should merely assume the tests were done when the defense consultants were present is not correct. That is a different issue than whether the defense consultants were indeed present in that lab on any particular day and any particular time. And indeed, I have no independent information on that last question. But it is also something of a "red herring" introduced by the peculiarities of Italian procedural law. There is no reason for defense experts to be present when DNA or other tests are done if they are adequately and honestly documented according to standard procedures, and when all the test and procedure information as documented in raw data is provided to the defense.

 

[anglolawyer]

Have the link handy?

Why spend the money to have the expert there at all?

Grinder

Here is an example of what I mean. I'll put it in a spoiler as it's a bit long:

Retesting of the items [Le operazioni peritali] began on February 09, 2011, at 11:15 am, at the Forensic Genetics Laboratory of the Section of Forensic Medicine of Sapienza University of Rome, 336 Viale Regina Elena.

On that date, the following consultants for the parties were present:

-Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, consultant for the Prosecutor’s Office [Procura Generale];
-Prof. Giuseppe Novelli, consultant for the Prosecutor’s Office;
-Dr. Emiliano Giardina, consultant for the Prosecutor’s Office;
-Prof. Francesca Torricelli, consultant for the civil plaintiff [i.e. the victim’s family];
-Prof. Adriano Tagliabracci, consultant for Raffaele Sollecito;
-Dr. Valerio Onofri, consultant for Raffaele Sollecito;
-Prof. Carlo Torre, consultant for Amanda M. Knox;
-Dr. Sarah Gino, consultant for Amanda M. Knox;
-Dr. Walter Patumi, consultant for Amanda M. Knox.

In the memorandum drafted at this session, it was noted “that the items labeled Item 36 and Item 165/b were transferred according to regulation on 2/8/2011, as ordered by His Honor Presiding Judge Hellmann, and as attested in the transfer memordandum dated 2/8/2011. It is recorded that at the moment of transfer, both items were regularly sealed in a single envelope (in involucro singolo), and in particular Item 36, no. 00015662 [was] locked in a carton [scatola di cartone] by means of a red-colored safety seal with the number 0000179, and Item 165/b no. 00012877 was contained in a tube with a red-colored top, as also revealed by the visual documentation [documentazione iconografica] by both the appointed experts and the Assigned Officer [Agente Scelto] of the State Police (Ugo Arcuri)”.

In the memorandum, the consultents for the parties expressed their requests in writing. These are reported below:

1. Dr. Sarah Gino: “Quantification with Real Time”;
2. Prof. Tagliabracci and Dr. Onofri: “If material is available, request that the experts repeat the DNA test on any extract from Item 165B in the possession of the Scientific Police”;
3. Dr. Stefanoni, Prof. Novelli, Dr. Giardina, Prof. Torricelli: “utilize the most sensitive techniques in a parallel and in a manner comparable to those used in the previous experiment”;
4. Dr. Gino, Prof. Torre: “Request that upon opening the items, any traces (streaks etc.) present on the knife be compared with photographic images from the initial investigation (inspection, laboratory tests, etc.)”;
5. Prof Tagliabracci: “concur”;
6. Dr. Onofri: “concur”
7. Prof. Novelli, Dr. Giardina: “No statement on the matter”;
8. Prof. Torricelli: “No statement in reference to knife item”;
9. Dr. Stefanoni: “No statement regarding the viewing of the items”.

The appointed experts, taking note of the matters raised by the parties, communicate to the latter that they will be reconvened according to law for testing. 12:30 pm, Rome, 2/9/2011″.

Like I say, it's an example only. The report is replete with detailed descriptions of testing, who was present, what they said/requested etc

 

[Grinder]

Grinder,
You are assuming that the lab is totally honest. There were indeed undocumented "retests" stated by have been discovered in the DNA data presented, based upon the numbering and dating of various samples. It would be a presumption to assume that these alleged retests were indeed observed by the defense consultants.

Your implicit assumption that the dates needn't be supplied by Stefanoni's lab because the defense should merely assume the tests were done when the defense consultants were present is not correct. That is a different issue than whether the defense consultants were indeed present in that lab on any particular day and any particular time. And indeed, I have no independent information on that last question. But it is also something of a "red herring" introduced by the peculiarities of Italian procedural law. There is no reason for defense experts to be present when DNA or other tests are done if they are adequately and honestly documented according to standard procedures, and when all the test and procedure information as documented in raw data is provided to the defense.

Numbers you misunderstand what I'm saying.

The only question is what you have no information about. Was a defense expert present when the knife was tested producing the Meredith DNA on the blade?

That is it. Over and out.