Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

And how does one absolutely determine "guilt" or "innocence"? You seem to have a Newtonian concept that "guilt" or "innocence" is a property that can be somehow absolutely determined with certainty.

A person is either really guilty of a crime or they are innocent. In some cases they may be guilty of less than charged but guilty of something but for any specific crime they either did it or they didn't. This has nothing to do with presumption of innocence or BARD.

It could be the case that the police or others decide that they want to pin the crime on a specific person but there is no evidence to their knowledge. They manufacture evidence that makes him look guilty. Did they frame him? Well it would depend on whether he actually did the crime or not. It is possible and in fact happens that people that the framer thinks is innocent but did it therefore no framing. The exact same act but not the same word to describe.

If a person shoots a gun off that goes through the wall is he guilty of murder, manslaughter or illegal discharge? Well it depends on intent and outcome. Same act but not the same word to describe.

If a batter hits a fly ball with less than two outs and a man on third if he scores it's a sacrifice fly, if the runner doesn't attempt home or is thrown out it is a fly out with the last one being a double play. Same act but different words to describe. When the ball is in the air the word to correctly describe the play isn't known.

{quote]If a person has committed a crime, but states that he is innocent and was falsely made to appear guilty by the actions of others, he will claim to have been "framed". Determining whether or not he was indeed "framed" would require a process to determine whether or not he was actually guilty (using a standard such as BARD - ill-defined though that may be).[/quote]

That would not be correct. BARD has nothing to do with it. He was framed if evidence was falsified against him or exculpatory evidence hidden AND he was innocent. If evidence was falsified but he was actually guilty he was no framed but should be freed if the false evidence was needed but he would still be guilty of the crime.

In current practice, this requires a legally-recognized court judgment; all other statements of guilt or innocence would be opinion, whether or not accurate. The court judgment itself may or may not be accurate, but it is the legally accepted one, and of course, under certain circumstances may be reversed, even by executive pardon (in the US).

Is there a crime called framing? The court decision only determines if the framing worked. Guilty or innocent has nothing to do with the judicial system in terms of framing.

 

[Grinder]

Thanks for posting this Michael. Seems like both Grinder and me need to reexamine our position about this break in based on this.

The only things I noticed was it wasn't locksmiths, she didn't think he had slept and Nina fabricated the pounds of pasta and spinach. Obviously her suspicion that her English employee might have been in cahoots with Rudi because he like English and Swedish girls is even too lame for you.

 

[Strozzi]

Seemed quite on target to me. I have been wrong on more than one occasion. Unlike some, I am more interested in the truth than being right all the time. I am relying on memory here, of documents I have not looked at in a couple of years. You are right that it is another of those things that even if it were true, it means next to nothing in terms of guilt or innocence. The fact that Vixen and evidently others feel differently is telling.

My next question, after asking if the alleged hair was collected and then lost or just photographed but never collected, is how was the material determined to be (human) hair and not fiber (or feline hair). What test was done on it?

Of course, if no test was done then I must conclude that it is unknown matter, possibly fiber or feline since we know Meredith was to take care of a cat that day.

 

[acbytesla]

The only things I noticed was it wasn't locksmiths, she didn't think he had slept and Nina fabricated the pounds of pasta and spinach. Obviously her suspicion that her English employee might have been in cahoots with Rudi because he like English and Swedish girls is even too lame for you.

Hmmm, I noticed a few things. That the nursery really wasn't that difficult to break into. That she didn't believe his story that he slept there because his story about where he slept in the cottage would have been too uncomfortable. That she definitely saw a small ladies gold watch in his possession. That the food wasn't spread around. That the event when that took place was the earlier occasion.

This testimony just reinforces my belief that this was an attempted burglary and definitely not someone just looking for shelter for the night.

 

[Matthew Best]

Here's a quote from Nick's book (I got the quote from one of the comments on Amazon, I didn't buy the book myself):

"Meredith’s rage has turned to misery. She begins to cry, and Amanda, both enervated by her victory and alarmed, begins taunting Meredith."

I don't think the poor guy even knows what "enervated" means!

 

[LashL]

...

It seems to me that there is no point in getting hung up on the definition of the word "framed" or the word "framing" when discussing the genuine problem of police and/or prosecution manufacturing evidence. The important bit is that police and prosecutors do sometimes manufacture evidence in an effort to obtain a conviction, and that seems to be the issue here.

At the point when the police and/or prosecution manufacture evidence to try to obtain a conviction, the accused is presumed innocent, is quite possibly factually innocent, and is certainly not known to be guilty, so it seems reasonable to use the terminology of "framed" or "framing" in relation to manufactured evidence.

That said, I can appreciate the semantic quibble as well, but I just don't see any purpose in getting sidetracked with such a semantic quibble. So, perhaps the interested parties can agree to refer to it as manufactured evidence rather than "framing" if that would help to progress the discussion instead of bogging it down in silly semantic sidetracks.

Just a suggestion.

 

[Numbers]

A person is either really guilty of a crime or they are innocent. In some cases they may be guilty of less than charged but guilty of something but for any specific crime they either did it or they didn't. This has nothing to do with presumption of innocence or BARD.
....

The part of your quote I show here illustrates what I call your Newtonian approach. By that, I mean by analogy to Newtonian physics, where there is an assumption (which is now known to be not the best or most correct way to view the universe in terms of completeness and consistency*) that there are "absolute" reference fixed frames to judge distance, motion, and time.

While abstractly a person may be guilty or innocent of crime "C", there is no way for other humans (except possibly that person, and any direct witnesses to the crime) to have certainty of such guilt or innocence. Thus, "framing" of a crime, whether or not defined as a crime, must itself be established by evidence of two kinds: 1) evidence as to whether the person is guilty or not; 2) evidence as to whether or not others have falsely made that person appear guilty.

In applying the above concept to the Knox-Sollecito case, it is absolutely clear to reasonable persons that Knox and Sollecito are innocent, and this was evident at all phases of the case. I call your attention to the fraudulent misrepresentations in the Nov. 6 arrest warrant prepared by Mignini to show that there was no evidence of guilt at that point.

With respect to the question of whether there was framing by the police and prosecution, there is no question that such framing began no later than with the interrogations of Nov. 5/6. This misconduct by police and prosecutor must be called framing, since Knox, Sollecito, and of course Lumumba were all innocent of the crime of murdering/raping Meredith Kercher. It does not matter to the definition of "framing" whether or not the police or prosecutor suspected, rationally or irrationally, any or all of those individuals.

* The Newtonian methods produce acceptable practical results in many common applications. However, the Newtonian view has been replaced by the relativistic view that the speed of light is constant, and distance, motion, and time are then necessarily related.

 

[Dan O.]

My next question, after asking if the alleged hair was collected and then lost or just photographed but never collected, is how was the material determined to be (human) hair and not fiber (or feline hair). What test was done on it?

Of course, if no test was done then I must conclude that it is unknown matter, possibly fiber or feline since we know Meredith was to take care of a cat that day.

I still want to know where and when that supposed hair was discovered. When Vixen first brought this up I checked the crime scene photos of the purse. There was no long hare across the purse on the bed. But more critical is that the purse was not collected at that time. The purse was kicked around the room for 6 weeks and then on December 18 moved to the bare slats of the bed to be photographed by the marker "X". Even if there was a blond hair on that purse, it wasn't evedence by the time the purse got to the lab.

But, was it a hair or a hare? Perhaps 6 foot and half a foot tall.

 

[Numbers]

It seems to me that there is no point in getting hung up on the definition of the word "framed" or the word "framing" when discussing the genuine problem of police and/or prosecution manufacturing evidence. The important bit is that police and prosecutors do sometimes manufacture evidence in an effort to obtain a conviction, and that seems to be the issue here.

At the point when the police and/or prosecution manufacture evidence to try to obtain a conviction, the accused is presumed innocent, is quite possibly factually innocent, and is certainly not known to be guilty, so it seems reasonable to use the terminology of "framed" or "framing" in relation to manufactured evidence.

That said, I can appreciate the semantic quibble as well, but I just don't see any purpose in getting sidetracked with such a semantic quibble. So, perhaps the interested parties can agree to refer to it as manufactured evidence rather than "framing" if that would help to progress the discussion instead of bogging it down in silly semantic sidetracks.

Just a suggestion.

I thank you for your suggestion.

I had joined ISF some months ago, when there was an earlier endless quibble about the meaning of "framing", in part to point out that the apparent dilemma could be avoided by the use of the phrase "official misconduct" for the Knox-Sollecito case. However, not everyone was accepting of that.

I believe some of us wish to argue trivia, and while seeming to demand precision of others, do not hesitate to engage, perhaps unknowingly, in circular reasoning. That reasoning is that if the police suspect someone, that person cannot be "framed". As you have pointed out, suspects are presumed innocent and the police view is simply an opinion, not a demonstrated fact.

 

[acbytesla]

I thank you for your suggestion.

I had joined ISF some months ago, when there was an earlier endless quibble about the meaning of "framing", in part to point out that the apparent dilemma could be avoided by the use of the phrase "official misconduct" for the Knox-Sollecito case. However, not everyone was accepting of that.

I believe some of us wish to argue trivia, and while seeming to demand precision of others, do not hesitate to engage, perhaps unknowingly, in circular reasoning. That reasoning is that if the police suspect someone, that person cannot be "framed". As you have pointed out, suspects are presumed innocent and the police view is simply an opinion, not a demonstrated fact.

Frankly I'm sick of the discussion about whether corruption in the prosecution of defendants may only be called "framing" when the defendant is actually innocent. I find it both sophomoric and pedantic. It makes me want to scream!

 

[davefoc]

Frankly I'm sick of the discussion about whether corruption in the prosecution of defendants may only be called "framing" when the defendant is actually innocent. I find it both sophomoric and pedantic. It makes me want to scream!

I can relate. The trick is to take part and then they're sort of fun. The problem is I know how done with the subject I am myself that I don't want to inflict my merriment at taking part in a silly semantic argument on others. Which means I suppose I'll just sit in and bear it. It won't last forever.

Is a prairie dog a squirrel? Obviously not, it's a dog. And even if it's not a dog by some sciency definition it's still clearly not a squirrel because it's too big.

See I thought that was funny. Obviously the key is to not just be an observer of pointless semantic arguments because then they are silly and annoying.

 

[Strozzi]

It seems to me that there is no point in getting hung up on the definition of the word "framed" or the word "framing" when discussing the genuine problem of police and/or prosecution manufacturing evidence. The important bit is that police and prosecutors do sometimes manufacture evidence in an effort to obtain a conviction, and that seems to be the issue here.

At the point when the police and/or prosecution manufacture evidence to try to obtain a conviction, the accused is presumed innocent, is quite possibly factually innocent, and is certainly not known to be guilty, so it seems reasonable to use the terminology of "framed" or "framing" in relation to manufactured evidence.

That said, I can appreciate the semantic quibble as well, but I just don't see any purpose in getting sidetracked with such a semantic quibble. So, perhaps the interested parties can agree to refer to it as manufactured evidence rather than "framing" if that would help to progress the discussion instead of bogging it down in silly semantic sidetracks.

Just a suggestion.

LaskL, I appreciate your effort to frame the word better but to me, a native speaker of American English, the verb "frame" is much more than manufacturing evidence. It can mean to try to secure a conviction by deliberately failing to collect, concealing, or destroying exculpatory evidence.

In my colloquial use of the language, police and prosecutors can frame an individual they believe is innocent.

Failing to fully collect or analyze or disclose all the evidence downstairs was an effort by Stefanoni to limit the court's knowledge of the full extent of Rudi's activities on the property, in order to inflate attention on Amanda and Raffaele and minimize Rudi's role to a secondary role. That is framing, in my view and in my use of the term.

Stefanoni's deliberate destruction of the bra clasp was, in my view, a deliberate effort to prevent others from examining it further. I call that framing.

 

[Planigale]

My next question, after asking if the alleged hair was collected and then lost or just photographed but never collected, is how was the material determined to be (human) hair and not fiber (or feline hair). What test was done on it?

Of course, if no test was done then I must conclude that it is unknown matter, possibly fiber or feline since we know Meredith was to take care of a cat that day.

This discussion is based on a fallacy. That you can determine hair colour from an individual hair. This is a notoriously difficult problem. It is not easy to identify the colour of an individual hair, relating this to the colour of a persons hair is not possible. This is before considering that e.g. Kercher's hair was dyed; she certainly had highlights.

Read for instance


The color(s) of human hair—Forensic hair analysis with SpectraCube®
Birngruber, Christoph et al.
Forensic Science International , Volume 185 , Issue 1 , e19 - e23

"Human hair is among the most common kind of evidence secured at crime scenes. Although DNA analysis through STR-typing is possible in principle, it is not very promising for telogenic hair or single hairs. For the mixed traces frequently found in practice, composed of different hair from an unknown number of individuals, mtDNA sequencing of each individual hair seems to be the only possible, even if technically elaborate, solution.

If it were possible to pool all hair belonging to an individual prior to DNA analysis, then this effort could not only be reduced, but the number of hair for an STR-approach could also be increased.

Although it is possible to examine hair microscopically, this method must be considered unsuitable for pooling, since the results depend strongly on examiner experience, and the hair cannot always be correctly attributed to an individual.

The goal of this study was to develop an objective non-DNA-contaminative pooling method for hair. To this end, the efficacy of spectral imaging as a method of obtaining information—beyond that obtained from a purely microscopic and morphological approach—for the identification of individuals was investigated.

Three hairs each from 25 test persons (female: 18; male: 7) were examined with a SpectraCube®-System and a light microscope. Six spectra were calculated for each hair, and the hairs from each individual were not only compared to each other, but also to those of the other individuals.

From a forensic vantage, the examination showed, in particular, that individuals, whose hair could not be distinguished on the basis of morphology, could also not be accurately distinguished with the SpectraCube®. The intra-individual differences were, in part, greater than the inter-individual differences. Altogether, the study shows that a person's hair color, as perceived, is composed of many naturally different, individual colors".

One of the characteristics that one can identify from hair (related to the cross sectional shape) is ethnicity, negroid hair is distinct in shape from caucasoid hair. What I think is interesting is all the references to black hairs I have seen merely say black and do not document it being negroid. Black hair is I think common in those in persons of Italian nationality.

It is worth looking here
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/for...5/index.htm/standards/2005_04_standards02.htm
for the large number of characteristics that should be documented to conclude similarity between hair samples. Just using colour with no comparison is forensically useless.

It is also worth emphasising that the hairs could have been examined for mitochondrial DNA, and in the absence of a hair bulb containing nuclear DNA this would have been the correct process, but Stefanoni did not have access to this methodology and did not forward the samples to a lab that could have done so probably for budgetary reasons.

 

[Mary_H]

I still want to know where and when that supposed hair was discovered. When Vixen first brought this up I checked the crime scene photos of the purse. There was no long hare across the purse on the bed. But more critical is that the purse was not collected at that time. The purse was kicked around the room for 6 weeks and then on December 18 moved to the bare slats of the bed to be photographed by the marker "X". Even if there was a blond hair on that purse, it wasn't evedence by the time the purse got to the lab.

But, was it a hair or a hare? Perhaps 6 foot and half a foot tall.

"Six feet three and a half inches. Now let's stick to the facts."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042546/quotes

 

[RWVBWL]

It wasn't tested so it could be anyone's. My comment was on the color of the hair by the photograph, my guess is that it is not blonde. IIRC, Stefanoni only mentioned this in a private conversation, according to someone at one or both of the PMF's and lamented that it had been lost and never tested. There is no proof that she even said this from what I remember.

Greetings,
I remember reading of this hair in Angel Face.


I will assume that B. Nadeau directly quotes Dr. Stefanoni talking about this hair,
and another blonde one found upon examination of Miss Kercher's vagina while her corpse was lying naked in her bedroom.

Here,
from page 47 of Angel Face:
An examination of her vagina revealed a hair that the police removed and put in a plastic bag.
"It's blonde", Stefanoni said, directing the collecting officer to note that the hair was not Meredith's.

From page 48+49:
Meredith's left arm was bent, and her blood smeared hand was suspend-ed in the air near her face. The tip of her long, thin index finger was soaked in blood as if she had touched her neck. But Meredith's right hand showed not even a drop of blood except for tiny cuts on the palm of her hand - it had not been near her face or neck when she was stabbed, but the detectives determined that she had extended it in self defense. The twin bruises and identical pressure points on the insides of her elbows were consistent with her arms being held back.

"It's blonde",
the scientific police officer said as he pulled a long hair from Meredith's blood-soaked hand.

* * *

This was also when they discussed the length of her fingernails and bagged her hands for testing...

There were 2 apparent Blonde hairs retrieved.
WERE BOTH LOST?!?

Dr. Steffy was probably talking as the crime scene was video'd,
like she did when asking her assistant Alessa to test the probable seminal fluid on Nov. 3rd,
in the crime scene video that has English subtitles which surfaced last year, remember?

I wonder what else we never heard the investigators talk about?
Weird that some of the crime scene video was shown in Court, with the sound off:
(Questions about the professionalism of forensic officers in the case have emerged after they were heard joking on a crime scene video about taking cocaine to stay awake.

The tape was shown to the court during the appeal and at the original trial but with no audio – until it was played on Italian TV.)


Doesn't Nadeau speak Italian?
She writes that she viewed roughly 10 hours of crime scene video,
so she saw and heard a lot more than publicly viewable.
This is where I believe Nadeau gets her direct quotes from.

She even quotes Dr. Stefanoni as saying "Mamma mia"
when the police lifted Meredith's head to measure the knife wound in her neck...

 

[MichaelB]

RWVBWL the problem is Barbie is a pathological liar and nothing she says should be taken seriously. She made it all up.

 

[RoseMontague]

This discussion is based on a fallacy. That you can determine hair colour from an individual hair. This is a notoriously difficult problem. It is not easy to identify the colour of an individual hair, relating this to the colour of a persons hair is not possible. This is before considering that e.g. Kercher's hair was dyed; she certainly had highlights.

Read for instance


The color(s) of human hair—Forensic hair analysis with SpectraCube®
Birngruber, Christoph et al.
Forensic Science International , Volume 185 , Issue 1 , e19 - e23

"Human hair is among the most common kind of evidence secured at crime scenes. Although DNA analysis through STR-typing is possible in principle, it is not very promising for telogenic hair or single hairs. For the mixed traces frequently found in practice, composed of different hair from an unknown number of individuals, mtDNA sequencing of each individual hair seems to be the only possible, even if technically elaborate, solution.

If it were possible to pool all hair belonging to an individual prior to DNA analysis, then this effort could not only be reduced, but the number of hair for an STR-approach could also be increased.

Although it is possible to examine hair microscopically, this method must be considered unsuitable for pooling, since the results depend strongly on examiner experience, and the hair cannot always be correctly attributed to an individual.

The goal of this study was to develop an objective non-DNA-contaminative pooling method for hair. To this end, the efficacy of spectral imaging as a method of obtaining information—beyond that obtained from a purely microscopic and morphological approach—for the identification of individuals was investigated.

Three hairs each from 25 test persons (female: 18; male: 7) were examined with a SpectraCube®-System and a light microscope. Six spectra were calculated for each hair, and the hairs from each individual were not only compared to each other, but also to those of the other individuals.

From a forensic vantage, the examination showed, in particular, that individuals, whose hair could not be distinguished on the basis of morphology, could also not be accurately distinguished with the SpectraCube®. The intra-individual differences were, in part, greater than the inter-individual differences. Altogether, the study shows that a person's hair color, as perceived, is composed of many naturally different, individual colors".

One of the characteristics that one can identify from hair (related to the cross sectional shape) is ethnicity, negroid hair is distinct in shape from caucasoid hair. What I think is interesting is all the references to black hairs I have seen merely say black and do not document it being negroid. Black hair is I think common in those in persons of Italian nationality.

It is worth looking here
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/for...5/index.htm/standards/2005_04_standards02.htm
for the large number of characteristics that should be documented to conclude similarity between hair samples. Just using colour with no comparison is forensically useless.

It is also worth emphasising that the hairs could have been examined for mitochondrial DNA, and in the absence of a hair bulb containing nuclear DNA this would have been the correct process, but Stefanoni did not have access to this methodology and did not forward the samples to a lab that could have done so probably for budgetary reasons.

Yep. It can be very difficult to determine hair color from a single hair even under a scope, much less from a poor quality photograph.

 

[RoseMontague]

Greetings,
I remember reading of this hair in Angel Face.
[qimg]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/280x200q90/443/07yz.jpg[/qimg]

I will assume that B. Nadeau directly quotes Dr. Stefanoni talking about this hair,
and another blonde one found upon examination of Miss Kercher's vagina while her corpse was lying naked in her bedroom.

Here,
from page 47 of Angel Face:
An examination of her vagina revealed a hair that the police removed and put in a plastic bag.
"It's blonde", Stefanoni said, directing the collecting officer to note that the hair was not Meredith's.

From page 48+49:
Meredith's left arm was bent, and her blood smeared hand was suspend-ed in the air near her face. The tip of her long, thin index finger was soaked in blood as if she had touched her neck. But Meredith's right hand showed not even a drop of blood except for tiny cuts on the palm of her hand - it had not been near her face or neck when she was stabbed, but the detectives determined that she had extended it in self defense. The twin bruises and identical pressure points on the insides of her elbows were consistent with her arms being held back.

"It's blonde",
the scientific police officer said as he pulled a long hair from Meredith's blood-soaked hand.

* * *

This was also when they discussed the length of her fingernails and bagged her hands for testing...

There were 2 apparent Blonde hairs retrieved.
WERE BOTH LOST?!?

Dr. Steffy was probably talking as the crime scene was video'd,
like she did when asking her assistant Alessa to test the probable seminal fluid on Nov. 3rd,
in the crime scene video that has English subtitles which surfaced last year, remember?

I wonder what else we never heard the investigators talk about?
Weird that some of the crime scene video was shown in Court, with the sound off:
(Questions about the professionalism of forensic officers in the case have emerged after they were heard joking on a crime scene video about taking cocaine to stay awake.

The tape was shown to the court during the appeal and at the original trial but with no audio – until it was played on Italian TV.)


Doesn't Nadeau speak Italian?
She writes that she viewed roughly 10 hours of crime scene video,
so she saw and heard a lot more than publicly viewable.
This is where I believe Nadeau gets her direct quotes from.

She even quotes Dr. Stefanoni as saying "Mamma mia"
when the police lifted Meredith's head to measure the knife wound in her neck...

Thanks. That is one of the pictures I remember, I believe there is a second one as well. Where the light hits it, it appears to be of a light color but not where the light does not fall directly on it. It can be very difficult to determine hair color from a single strand of hair, depending on a lot of factors.

 

[RoseMontague]

RWVBWL the problem is Barbie is a pathological liar and nothing she says should be taken seriously. She made it all up.

She also claimed bleach receipts, IIRC.

 

[davefoc]

Greetings,
I remember reading of this hair in Angel Face.
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/280x200q90/443/07yz.jpg

...

I couldn't figure out quite what was in the image. I see two fingers extending into the image from the top and I see what looks like a piece of hair curled up a bit beneath the fingers. Is this supposed to be the photo of Kercher gripping a hair? I don't see that at all. Although the photo doesn't show the hand well enough to know, it doesn't look like it is in a gripping position. Is it even possible that Kercher's hand could have gripped something after she was dead?

No, the hair found gripped in Mez' hand was a long blond one. There is a photo in police archives, but the hair itself was lost.