Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

I'm quite sure that Steffi made this claim in the Massei trial.

I've heard Comodi make the claim - so that's straight from Mignini's office.

 

[Numbers]

Another of Stefanoni's absurdities

From Massei - Regarding the analyses carried out on this knife, she (Steffi) showed, in the following terms, the reason why it was decided to sample at points A and B: point B was found on the striation on the face of the blade; point A coincided with the part of the blade which has the knurl [codetta], and this is a sort of rise which stops the hand from sliding when a person grasps the knife and strikes a blow.

A scientific article was recently withdrawn by the journal Science in part because the authors could not (or would not) supply the original data.

Forensic investigations likewise should not be accepted unless all the original data is made available to the defense. Such full disclosure did not occur in this case.

Stefanoni's claim, as quoted, firstly does not explicitly state that only striking a blow would produce contact at that point (which I am interpreting as the finger or hand guard on the handle).

Contact with the finger/hand guard may result from slicing bread, fruits, or vegetables. It is not probative. This claim by Stefanoni is another absurdity.

 

[Strozzi]

I believe you are correct, that Sefanoni made this claim at the Massei trial. But I cannot find any indication from Massei (esp. in his motivations report) that he bought it.

There have been many insane claims throughout these 7 1/2 years of wrongfully prosecuting RS and AK. The claim that one can tell how a knife was held and what it was used for from a single, small sample of DNA has to be right up there.

The whole business of a selective clean-up of the crime scene, that removes two of three forensic footprints - all the while, while those same expert-cleaners miss the faucet and the bathmat has to be the #1 insane claim of the prosecution. Add to this the forensic absence of evidence of a clean, other than the absence of evidence. No swirls detected with luminol, no smell of bleach....
That not one, but two courts convicted partly on that basis speaks volumes of those two courts.

Clearly, Amanda and Raffaele are very, very good cleaners. . And to think that they did it in the nude, no less. If it were I, I would be sweating but they apparently have enough willpower not to perspire as it would have left DNA evidence.

 

[Bill Williams]

Really? Christ, I thought Nencini had invented it from whole cloth. But Massei ignored this claim? I don't remember reading it in Massei, but it's been a few years since I read his motivation.

From Massei - Regarding the analyses carried out on this knife, she (Steffi) showed, in the following terms, the reason why it was decided to sample at points A and B: point B was found on the striation on the face of the blade; point A coincided with the part of the blade which has the knurl [codetta], and this is a sort of rise which stops the hand from sliding when a person grasps the knife and strikes a blow.

You may be on to something, Grinder, but for some reason when I read that - way back when - I thought Massei was summarizing what Stefanoni believed, not what he believed.

 

[Bill Williams]

A scientific article was recently withdrawn by the journal Science in part because the authors could not (or would not) supply the original data.

Forensic investigations likewise should not be accepted unless all the original data is made available to the defense. Such full disclosure did not occur in this case.
Stefanoni's claim, as quoted, firstly does not explicitly state that only striking a blow would produce contact at that point (which I am interpreting as the finger or hand guard on the handle).

Contact with the finger/hand guard may result from slicing bread, fruits, or vegetables. It is not probative. This claim by Stefanoni is another absurdity.

And, of course, this is the compelling issue with ALL of Stefanoni's work. The problem, then, is situated in those courts which allowed Stefanoni to get away with this.

 

[Grinder]

I believe you are correct, that Sefanoni made this claim at the Massei trial. But I cannot find any indication from Massei (esp. in his motivations report) that he bought it.

Read above - I found it. The "live" reporting had her saying that the spot where AK's DNA was found indicated she was holding it as a weapon.

 

[Dan O.]

Really? Christ, I thought Nencini had invented it from whole cloth. But Massei ignored this claim? I don't remember reading it in Massei, but it's been a few years since I read his motivation.

This was first brought to our attention on December 14, 2009 in the original cartwheel thread [Post 1121] where a former poster we shall call "full of celery" claimed:

Amanda's DNA on the handle in a position that showed she held it in a grip for a stabbing motion and not cutting action, it's matching the fatal wound).​

 

[Grinder]

You may be on to something, Grinder, but for some reason when I read that - way back when - I thought Massei was summarizing what Stefanoni believed, not what he believed.

Yes it is what Steffi believed.

 

[Bill Williams]

You may be on to something, Grinder, but for some reason when I read that - way back when - I thought Massei was summarizing what Stefanoni believed, not what he believed.

Yes it is what Steffi believed.

Ok, whew! Given that the case is, essentially, over with exonerations I rare go back to Massei anyway. Good to know that my memory is intact, at least on this point.

 

[Bill Williams]

Read above - I found it. The "live" reporting had her saying that the spot where AK's DNA was found indicated she was holding it as a weapon.

This shows the limitations of the "live" reporting. There's no way, really, the first-draft-of-history reporters could put that claim into a context, that later commentators could.

 

[Grinder]

This was first brought to our attention on December 14, 2009 in the original cartwheel thread [Post 1121] where a former poster we shall call "full of celery" claimed:

Amanda's DNA on the handle in a position that showed she held it in a grip for a stabbing motion and not cutting action, it's matching the fatal wound).​

It was in news reports before that.

 

[Grinder]

This shows the limitations of the "live" reporting. There's no way, really, the first-draft-of-history reporters could put that claim into a context, that later commentators could.

Bill it was totally obvious at the time. I remember well the report from the courtroom or pre leak when Steffi said she could tell from the position of the DNA it had been left while using it as a weapon. We knew it was an absurd claim at the time. Well before details of her lab work and lack of transparency became clear.

At the time battling with Michael over the oddity that no Raf DNA was found on his own knife, which to me indicated it had been cleaned at some point and Amanda's DNA put there later. Cleaned in the sense of washed normally.

 

[Grinder]

Alleged Murder Weapon in Amanda Knox Trial Shown in Court
PERUGIA, Italy, Sept. 19, 2009
By ANN WISE

She was a good reporter and didn't write a fiction book!

A panel of three forensic experts appointed in February 2008 by a previous judge involved in the investigation were called to testify on Saturday about their findings regarding the time and cause of death, and sexual assault.

Forensic expert Mariano Cingolani, who had focused on the cause of death, told the court today that kitchen knife in question was "not absolutely incompatible" with the wounds in the victim's neck, but said that it would have been difficult for one of the smaller of the three cuts to have been made by a knife with a 6½-inch blade such as evidence item 36, the kitchen knife.

But, "considering the dynamic nature of events," Cingolani said his team felt it could not completely exclude the knife as the murder weapon. He added that "many other knives are much more compatible with that wound than that knife."
----------------------------------------------
The third expert of the day, Anna Aprile, was asked to explain whether it could be established if Kercher was raped before being killed. Aprile told the judge and jury that Kercher "had sexual activity close to the time of death" based on the autopsy results, but that she could not say whether that activity was consensual or not.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill it was totally obvious at the time. I remember well the report from the courtroom or pre leak when Steffi said she could tell from the position of the DNA it had been left while using it as a weapon. We knew it was an absurd claim at the time. Well before details of her lab work and lack of transparency became clear.

At the time battling with Michael over the oddity that no Raf DNA was found on his own knife, which to me indicated it had been cleaned at some point and Amanda's DNA put there later. Cleaned in the sense of washed normally.

It's refreshing to hear that it was obvious at the time. However, not obvious to all!

My view is what led to the entrenched views of "the guilters" was that they were hearing directly from the courtroom all these claims, and they did not react with "obviousness" as you did. If Stefanoni said it, they believed it, and that settled it (for them).

Indeed, that is one of the problems with the first-draft-of-history. This first-draft was devoid of the defence case, by necessity because the defence at that time didn't know if they even needed to present a case.

Reading through early reports of guilters, it was clear they developed their confirmation biases early and firmly. I'm relieved for some the obviousness of the spurious prosecution claims was evident - yet, the guilters very well could have declared "victory" in that Massei, in fact, convicted them in 2009. For the guilters, that was simply one more reason to discount the clearer heads, apparently like yours back then.

 

[Bill Williams]

Alleged Murder Weapon in Amanda Knox Trial Shown in Court
PERUGIA, Italy, Sept. 19, 2009
By ANN WISE

She was a good reporter and didn't write a fiction book!

A panel of three forensic experts appointed in February 2008 by a previous judge involved in the investigation were called to testify on Saturday about their findings regarding the time and cause of death, and sexual assault.

Forensic expert Mariano Cingolani, who had focused on the cause of death, told the court today that kitchen knife in question was "not absolutely incompatible" with the wounds in the victim's neck, but said that it would have been difficult for one of the smaller of the three cuts to have been made by a knife with a 6½-inch blade such as evidence item 36, the kitchen knife.

But, "considering the dynamic nature of events," Cingolani said his team felt it could not completely exclude the knife as the murder weapon. He added that "many other knives are much more compatible with that wound than that knife."
----------------------------------------------
The third expert of the day, Anna Aprile, was asked to explain whether it could be established if Kercher was raped before being killed. Aprile told the judge and jury that Kercher "had sexual activity close to the time of death" based on the autopsy results, but that she could not say whether that activity was consensual or not.

This is a case in point of the difference between contemporaneous reporting, and what the court "heard".

It's not that Ann Wise is wrong - but Massei has a very detailed account of what he "heard" from the likes of Cingolani (p. 149ff of his motivations) and Aprile (p. 155ff).

For me, this is a perfect example of why hearing it live from Ann Wise, True Crime Author or not, is no substitute for reading the later, more detailed account that shows what the finder-of-fact, Massei, found compelling.

 

[Dougm]

I agree, in general. However, I think the key profiling point is less about Guede fitting the profile, and more about Amanda and Raff NOT fitting the profile.

Sorry, gang, this was about an old topic, and I thought I was quoting the source material.

Never mind.

 

[Mary_H]

I hope no-one minds me following up on this line of discussion?

Hypothetically, if Nencini had not completely jumped the shark with his insane claim that the position of Amanda's DNA on the knife proved exactly how she held it and used it to stab Meredith, would the ISC have had a tougher job throwing this case out?

Did Nencini put the nail in the prosecution's coffin, making it impossible for any self-respecting judge to endorse his bonkers motivation report?

Even a non-scientist can see that the location of DNA on a knife handle can't tell you much, if anything, about how it was used.

Along with your follow-up, I would like to stay focused on my question to Vixen, who claimed that several judges believed Amanda wielded the knife.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10678207&postcount=213

So far on this page we have learned that Stefanoni and Comodi both believed it, and we know Mignini believed it, but none of them is a judge. I would like to know specifically whether any judges other than Nencini openly stated they believed Amanda wielded the knife. Since Vixen made the claim, Vixen should provide citations.

 

[Bill Williams]

I hope no-one minds me following up on this line of discussion?

Hypothetically, if Nencini had not completely jumped the shark with his insane claim that the position of Amanda's DNA on the knife proved exactly how she held it and used it to stab Meredith, would the ISC have had a tougher job throwing this case out?

Did Nencini put the nail in the prosecution's coffin, making it impossible for any self-respecting judge to endorse his bonkers motivation report?

Even a non-scientist can see that the location of DNA on a knife handle can't tell you much, if anything, about how it was used.

Along with your follow-up, I would like to stay focused on my question to Vixen, who claimed that several judges believed Amanda wielded the knife.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10678207&postcount=213

So far on this page we have learned that Stefanoni and Comodi both believed it, and we know Mignini believed it, but none of them is a judge. I would like to know specifically whether any judges other than Nencini openly stated they believed Amanda wielded the knife. Since Vixen made the claim, Vixen should provide citations.

A very cursory scanning of Massei, and word searches on probable words, indicates that Massei was completely silent on who he thought delivered the fatal knife wound.

I once compiled a list of things that Mignini believed that Massei "rejected", in the sense that Massei did not think those things factual, or at least factual-enough to use to explain Massei's-own theory of the crime.

I should probably add "who delivered the fatal blow" to that list. Stefanoni believed it, Comodi believed it, and Mignini believed it, as you say.

I can imagine Massei at his desk composing the motivations report in early-2010 getting stuck on this point. "Would anyone in their right mind take a single sample of someone's DNA, then locate that on the handle of a knife, and find that credible evidence of that person delivering the fatal blow?"

It's clear that at least on this point, Massei was in his right mind, and Nencini was not. Massei heard the evidence at his trial, and Nencini did not.

 

[lonepinealex]

Along with your follow-up, I would like to stay focused on my question to Vixen, who claimed that several judges believed Amanda wielded the knife.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10678207&postcount=213

So far on this page we have learned that Stefanoni and Comodi both believed it, and we know Mignini believed it, but none of them is a judge. I would like to know specifically whether any judges other than Nencini openly stated they believed Amanda wielded the knife. Since Vixen made the claim, Vixen should provide citations.

Does the thread have to pause until she does?

 

[Mary_H]

Does the thread have to pause until she does?

Absolutely not. It's just that quite often a claim is made and then the discussion goes far afield and the claim is forgotten, or worse, false claims are believed, even set in stone.

The discussion stays more focused when claims are supported. If they cannot be supported, they can be discarded. This is how we have gotten rid of a lot of false information over the years.