Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Sonia]

Is there ANY notice in Italy that the motivations report due June 25 is even late?

The whole issue seems to have fallen off the edge of the earth - except for us loonies here! Why would anyone want to expend an iota of energy arguing the corruption of Vecchiotti, when no one is particularly defending Stefanoni?

Well, there's Machiavelli, so not no one.

I wouldn't expect anything to get done until September now that August is upon us. So many people in Italy (and other countries in Western Europe) take the entire month off.

 

[RWVBWL]

Dear Vixen,
By any chance can you help convince me that a real clean-up
happened inside of Miss Kercher's bedroom or even her flat?

I mean, come on,
what else was Foxy Knoxy's lamp used for?

Heck,
any knowledgeable person knows that cleaned up blood would look like this:

after Dr. Stefanoni + The Italian Polizia Scientifica would have tested the Crime Scene,
right?


Show me some pix,
Vixen
of The Clean-Up!

 

[RWVBWL]

Dear Vixen,
Some of us innocentisti
believe that Rudy had a bit of a shower after he raped and murdered Miss Kercher.

You know this, as do I.

So where are the photo's like this:

which show the blood of Miss Kercher in her shower?

Surly there was some Meredith's blood in the shower, somewhere,
if you believe that [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE] washed his foot in there and then stepped on the bathmat, right?

Drops of her blood must have splattered somewhere.

Why have we not ever seen a photo or a photograph showing Meredith's blood,
clean-up + smeared or as droplets, from inside her shower?

Surly it is not because "poor Rudy's" DNA was found inside of the shower
along with traces of Meredith's blood and the prosecution did not wanna point this out in court, right?

 

[RWVBWL]

This was Miss Kercher's bathroom:


I am wondering
why this photo was publicly released?



Was it to deflect any attention on whatever any tests results of the shower
would have looked like, where Rudy Guede washed up,
or [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE] supposedly did?

1 of them left a bloodied footprint outline on the bathmat.

Where's the pics from inside the shower after it was tested for Miss Kercher's blood?

 

[acbytesla]

Well RW, there is not much to say tonight. Personally I'm tired of debating with people who won't even agree that fire burns and water is wet. I was amazed that Mach called me a liar when I said that the defense and CV requested the raw data. But what was much more surprising was that he stuck it's guns after people cited the court testimony. Mach reminds me of Vizzini in The Princess Bride where he kept saying "inconceivable".

You keep using that word. I don't think itmeans what he thinks it does.

 

[Kauffer]

What? They've just reported a burglary and Amanda hasn't spotted her dirty great lamp was gone? In court, she was squirming and wriggling about admitting the lamp on the floor of Mez' room was hers. Conveniently wiped clean of all fingerprints.

Um....no. The first time Amanda went to the flat, she didn't discover the burglary. Over her two visits, before the body was discovered, her lamp may well have been still inside her room. That would be true if the CSIs later took the lamp for an alternative light source. Even if they didn't, there is no reason to think it it strange that she did not notice it missing. It was daytime and she wouldn't have needed to use it.

But the over arching point to make is that the lamp is a complete red herring. It has no possible connection with the crime. It is inconceivable that someone would go down on their hands and knees sloshing around in blood to look for evidence to clean. There is no evidence itself that anyone did this - you certainly cannot point to any - and no evidence that a cleaning took place.

There is no evidence that the lamp was wiped clean of fingerprints.

 

[bagels]

How does your brain get to a point where it makes sense to you to think there's a reason to wipe your own fingerprints from your own lamp?

 

[Diocletus]

Actually the government was pretty ambivalent. I'd argue that the revolutionary socialist state was far more conservative in that it could not accept the loyalist state to the north. As late as 1815 it needed to launch aggressive warfare in support of its underlying philosophy. I suspect that it was a surprise that the francophone, anglophone and native american peoples unified in rejection of their radical theories.

Lol. I think that was all just a ruse so the farmers could get away from their wives and have a big ol party on Bourbon St.

 

[Diocletus]

How does your brain get to a point where it makes sense to you to think there's a reason to wipe your own fingerprints from your own lamp?

Would you do that before or after you placed it in a murder scene?

 

[carbonjam72]

Would you do that before or after you placed it in a murder scene?

The "CLEAN-UP" motif, as exemplified by the lamp, bleach receipts, smell of bleach in Raf's apartment, only one of Amanda's fingerprints found in her own house, are all designed to explain away that there is no evidence against Amanda & Raf, but only against Rudy Guede.

The fact that its scientifically impossible to perform a selective clean-up of DNA, a selective clean-up of fingerprints, and a selective clean-up of fottprints and other tacks made in Meredith's wet blood doesn't seem to have given pause to this idiotic "theory".

It shows not only that Mignini and the police are truly imbeciles, but that they are presenting their case to other imbeciles; judges, lay judges, cops, prosecutors, newspapers, and citizens in Italy and around the world dumb enough to believe it.

My guess though, is more likely, people just haven't thought it through. They don't realize how impossible the argument is, they just hear "clean-up" and go no further. A little confidence in the "authorities", a little fascination with a fresh faced young girl slandered in the media, and presto: modern day witch hunt.

What I'm seeing more and more, is how not unique this case truly is.

 

[acbytesla]

Don't you wonder if any of the detectives involved in this case KNOW that they screwed the pooch? That at least to themselves they KNOW that Raffaele and Amanda had nothing to do with it? That maybe a few of them regret what they did to these young people? That maybe some of them pushed a little for the case to be dropped. Some early on and others over time?

How many are secretly embarrassed? Or are they all like Machiavelli? So invested in their own nonsense that they are willing to explain it through these bizarre and incomprehensible illogical machinations? I have to believe that there are a few.

Some, clearly are like the guy who needs a shower. They can't smell their own odor.
But you have to believe some KNOW they stink.

 

[Ken Dine]

Do you agree the DNA found on the sweater is also therefore suspect, for the same reasons?

Yes, I know Meredith's sweater was collected late, had been moved in the room, had its sleeves turned, and was ultimately stuffed in a hamper with other personal items. I would rule DNA on it potentially contaminated and of no value as DNA evidence.

Rudi has of course acknowledged being in Meredith's flat with her, although there is disagreement as to the true nature of the interaction he had with her. According to his version, he and Mez engaged in consensual non-intercourse sexual activity. So I don't need to know if Rudi deposited his DNA on her sweater In order to prove that he was with her and in very close touching.

The sweater has no probative value or importance as evidence against Rudi. Finding his DNA on the sweater would not itself tell me of his innocence or guilt in the murder. It would tell me about the scientific police's management of forensic evidence collection.

Given the collection (46 days late) and handling of her sweater, I agree that Meredith's sweater is likewise "suspect" evidence DNA-wise.

The most important evidentiary aspect of Meredith's sweater (that she had worn home that night), is that judging from all the dried blood around its collar, Meredith was wearing her jacket/sweater when her throat was slashed.
Meredith was also still wearing her bra.

Since Meredith never had a chance to change out of her street clothes (or remove her wet clothing from the washing machine), obviously Meredith was attacked shortly after returning home around 9:00 pm, and Raffaele & Amanda had a good alibi that they were still at Raffaele's apartment as late as 9:23 pm (and possibly later).

The CCTV security cams didn't catch Amanda & Raffaele out and about that night, but the CCTVs did capture Guede, several times!

Once the facts eventually filtered out, any sane person would necessarily have switched to the innocent side. How these hardcore 'Guilters' can persist in their guilt fantasies at this late date is amazing?

Hopefully, some of these 'Guilters' will eventually be studied to understand how they tick. Likely, 'Guilters' are mostly harmless as long as they never serve on a jury.

 

[Ken Dine]

Serious question here for the pro innocence side:
I was listening to Generation Why and them sometimes don't seem to hit on all cylinders and they argue that Amanda's story keeps changing.
How many stories do you actually see her giving?

I see really only two

1. "I was with Raff all night at his place."
2. After a long interrogation, "I was kind of sort of at the cottage with Patrick."
She basically goes back to "1" once her head clears.

This is how 'Guilters' count Amanda's changing stories (at least THREE (3) versions):

1. "I was with Raff all night at his place."

2. After a long interrogation, "I was kind of sort of at the cottage with Patrick."

3. "I was with Raff all night at his place."

It must be the New Math?

 

[Bill Williams]

How does your brain get to a point where it makes sense to you to think there's a reason to wipe your own fingerprints from your own lamp?

The way guilters treat the lamp is the signature of confirmation bias. Someone asked, "why didn't Amanda report the lamp missing, if it was not her who put it in Meredith's room?" Well, if Battistelli grabbed Amanda's lamp to get some illumination into Meredith's room, then Amanda would not have noticed i gone from her room....

But yours is an equally good question. The use of the weasel word, "wiped" suggests that there is proof that once Amanda's fingerprints WERE on the lap, but there is further proof that now none existed, that the lamp is clean of prints altogether.

Where's the forensic report which says, "The lamp was dusted for prints, but none were found"? Or did the guilter simply make this up on the spot? Yeah, like that ever happens!

But - what, exactly, was the lamp for - in a guilt narrative? Oh wait, they don't have one.

 

[Grinder]

You still haven't answered my question why Amanda did not report the lamp missing.

Did I miss your answer to the question whether a knife used to murder someone turned up with no blood yet had the victim's DNA on it?

Also explain how a visible striation could hold a piece of a person so small it only weighed at most a few hundred pico grams. It must have been wedged in there so actually bigger than the striation. What is the smallest sized thing visible to the naked eye? Waaaay bigger than the alleged DNA.

Did the bleach a Raf's destroy DNA?

If she was involved why wouldn't she mention the lamp? More likely she didn't notice as it's not like her favorite fur blanket was missing. If she had mentioned the lamp you'd say the only way she noticed was because she used it to selectively clean and locked it in the room and threw away the keys where no one ever found them.

Where do you think they disposed of their clothes, shoes and cleaning supplies?

 

[Grinder]

I would add to your top four:

#5 – to be probative, the need to know exactly which type of body cells left the DNA traces (skin, blood, sperm, etc?) being analyzed with ultra sensitive LCN methods.

#6 – mixed DNA samples, which even when using regular amounts of DNA can make the analysis more difficult (and more subjective) to interpret correctly.

DNA labs need regular testing, and to be meaningful, they shouldn't know when they're being fed DNA from a known source(s) rather than from an actual case, and in that way they'll be more diligent every time they analyze DNA since it could be a performance test they'll be scored on.

I didn't make that up –– currently in America they are discussing doing exactly that to give more assurance for DNA evidence in court. Seems like a good idea to me.

DNA needs a fresh look for use in trials as you mention. I really think that the results if not the testing needs to be evaluated by third party labs with no knowledge of what case they are working on.

There is no way that an independent expert group would accept the knife DNA or the clasp DNA. No court should allow them to go to the decision makers. In this case a separate court should have reviewed the forensics and the confessions and not allowed the Massei court to see them, but of course in Italy the shoeshine boy has the info the morning after.

 

[Kauffer]

DNA needs a fresh look for use in trials as you mention. I really think that the results if not the testing needs to be evaluated by third party labs with no knowledge of what case they are working on.

There is no way that an independent expert group would accept the knife DNA or the clasp DNA. No court should allow them to go to the decision makers. In this case a separate court should have reviewed the forensics and the confessions and not allowed the Massei court to see them, but of course in Italy the shoeshine boy has the info the morning after.

I wonder if the answer isn't some open source facility whereby each DNA case has its data and product available online with access by the forensic community - a widespread peer review. Not absolutely clear how this could be done effectively, but if it could be so arranged, there would be an opportunity to pick up errors.

 

[Grinder]

I wonder if the answer isn't some open source facility whereby each DNA case has its data and product available online with access by the forensic community - a widespread peer review. Not absolutely clear how this could be done effectively, but if it could be so arranged, there would be an opportunity to pick up errors.

As always I upfront claim no expertise in the science. I can see the issues with all types of DNA and see that a judge or jury will have a very hard time truly understanding the nuances and that to a large extent the "performer" among the experts will sway the jury.

If the raw data was sent to an independent lab in plain paper bag, then the profiles produced would be without any preconceived bias. Other aspects could be reviewed such as the collection and transportation protocols followed or not followed. In most cases if not all samples would be available for second and third tests by the independent lab. That lab would make it's findings available in writing and the prosecution and defense experts could still make their own cases.

I doubt any independent lab would have okay'ed the knife or the clasp (not hasp) DNA and the profile of MK might well have had fewer matches of alleles.

 

[RWVBWL]

The same defence who failed to explain Massei why they thought raw data were necessary, and why they couldn't ask for them before.
<snip>

What are you talkin' about, Machiavelli?
Didn't you go to Court for this session?

From Old Perugia Shock:
Saturday, July 18, 2009
The Day of Rebellion for Knox and Sollecito Teams

'CANCEL THAT BODY OF EVIDENCE'
As trial adjourns for summer break

But pitfalls are hidden in the debate, even when nobody puts them there, even when just the chance provides them. And by chance Stefanoni, speaking through prosecutor Comodi, made a faux pas. A little faux pas, but which could decide the case.

The problem in discussion was indeed that according to Tagliabracci the DNA on the bra clasp was not enough to have a reliable test. And Stefanoni suggested Comodi to say that instead it was the perfect quantity, being 1.4 nanograms. An ideal quantity. But that revealed a problem: why nobody else knew that measure?


Mrs Stefanoni has been kind of secretive in this trial, when she was done with the tests she just provided the mere results. The defense had to ask additional data. And the charts arrived. But still more data were missing. But the defense didn't really manage to put their finger on the problem in court --a problem we've always been dealing here, when we were reasoning that we don't know how that chart was created. Or that the compulsory presence of the parties was only formally respected, and we have to trust Stefanoni when she tells us that the result is genuine. What if she's wrong?

But DNA is a complicated matter. Defense attorneys may have problems in explaining what else one may need after results and charts. And a judge may have problems in understanding the issue. Especially if he's one of those intellectual persons, one of those sensitive, honest gentlemen fascinated by poetry and religion, rather than impassioned by the alleles versus stutters dilemma.

Luckily the chance today provided an example of that what else: 1.4, the quantity of DNA on the bra. That number wasn't written on any document, Stefanoni just said it in court. Actually it was not the first time but today the defenses suddenly realized the significance of this information.

While Mrs Comodi was busy with her, by now, usual escape for smoking, the defenses, with the power that little number gave them, explained the judge that the wonderlab didn't provide all information about the tests, and this affects the rights of the defendant. A principle that a man of law can't ignore.

The time for the rebellion was mature. Bongiorno, immediately followed by Dalla Vedova, filed to Massei the request of immediate suspension of the trial until all missing data --quantities, registries, rough copies-- were produced, with the understanding that they will probably request that this evidence be declared invalid. The judge accepted the request. It's really true that smoking is dangerous.


Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20101015182343/http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009_07_01_archive.html

 

[acbytesla]

As always I upfront claim no expertise in the science. I can see the issues with all types of DNA and see that a judge or jury will have a very hard time truly understanding the nuances and that to a large extent the "performer" among the experts will sway the jury.

If the raw data was sent to an independent lab in plain paper bag, then the profiles produced would be without any preconceived bias. Other aspects could be reviewed such as the collection and transportation protocols followed or not followed. In most cases if not all samples would be available for second and third tests by the independent lab. That lab would make it's findings available in writing and the prosecution and defense experts could still make their own cases.

I doubt any independent lab would have okay'ed the knife or the clasp (not hasp) DNA and the profile of MK might well have had fewer matches of alleles.

The use of DNA evidence has always frightened me to a degree. It seems to be very persuasive with juries, but you know that for the most part these individuals don't really understand it. What the do understand is the statistical probabilities put before them. Millions to one, etc.

I'm a big believer in science. But I don't accept it as infallible. Too many accepted scientific concepts have been revised over the years.

What bothers me is the potential for abuse by the state. The police found your DNA at a murder scene. They have nothing else but this is enough to put you in prison for life. Something that can't be seen even by the most powerful optical microscope can destroy your life. But they don't seem to need even that. A tech can gin up the results and that's enough.

This is why controls is so important. It's also why I believe that everything needs to be done in a double blind methodology so it can't be influenced unfairly.