Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

It was epithial (_sp?) cells they found. These can be identified as typical of skin cells shed from fingers. It's possible it was another part of Rudy's anatomy there, but I expect the penis was ruled out as it's a different type of skin (???)

When you say it was Rudy's semen - if that is what the substance is - you don't know it's his: it could be one of several persons. The stain might even be old.

All you say in your second para may be true. The point is that such speculation should not be necessary. In a case of sexual assault you run the presumed semen stain and add the results to evidence in the case.

The objection from the Italian authorities was that you could not time stamp the stain even it was semen and it would have diverted the investigation if it belonged to someone other than the suspects. Well, two things. Firstly, if they can understand that a biological sample lacks a time stamp in and of itself, they should have applied this knowledge to other samples. Secondly, anyone's profile showing up from the stain is interpretable, yet the location of it indicated that it was probably deposited at the time of the murder. Where you have two male suspects and a sex crime, you jolly well run it. That it wasn't run or the results declared is evidence of the suspect centred approach - let nothing be allowed to divert us from the conclusions we have reached.

 

[Kauffer]

Kauffer

The part of Vixen's argument I don't get is that it was the defences fault that the semen stain was not tested.

As I recall, Raff and Amanda didn't have a "defence" until their first court appearance.

In the time leading up to the court case there was no defence team to ask for certain items to be tested. By the time the pair had a defence team any items that hadn't been collected and stored correctly were essentially worthless as evidence. They had been moved around the murder scene, handled or trodden on, and mixed with other items, i.e. Meredith's bloody clothes in the wash basket.

Yet the defence was asked to prove contamination!

What confidence could any of the defence team have in the investigators? They couldn't even count the rings on the sole of a shoe.

Yes you are quite right. Before arrests or declared suspects there is no defence. Yet later it seems, that early approach to evidence handling hamstrings the defence. It's unconscionable. It actually causes a reasonable observer to wonder whether the evidence gathered is being trimmed and shaped to fit a scenario and everything that does not is hidden.

 

[Matthew Best]

Why is it so hard for wrongfully convicted women to get justice?

 

[RWVBWL]

Yes, I agree.

One set of footprints in wet blood, which Rudy admits are his. And Rudy also stepped in a semen glob while it was wet, on a pillow placed under the victim to elevate her hips for better viewing.

These two facts alone allow us to conclude that the semen is Rudy's, imo.

For this semen to belong to someone else, that hypothetical male would have to have been shooting his gobbies from the hallway, and with quite good aim.

There is no good reason for the police not to have tested this semen stain. As Dr Peter Gill said in that radio interview; "I find that quite fantastic".

Also, let's note Stefanoni's failure to get a DNA reading off of the blood stain on Filomena's window. That's likely Rudy too, and also suppressed, let's face it.

I believe that those gobbies are Rudy's.
But if the stain is not, and it isn't Giacomo's,
I'll betcha that they most definitely are not [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele Sollecito[/SIZE]'s gobbies!

 

[analemma]

I believe that those gobbies are Rudy's.
But if the stain is not, and it isn't Giacomo's,
I'll betcha that they most definitely are not [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele Sollecito[/SIZE]'s gobbies!

Perhaps it is one of the "others that the ISC has fabricates"
Of course it is from Rudy: How could it be anyone else?
And I think the police tested it and knew: Why else would the police and the victims lawyer and rudy lawyer all oppose testing it?
The police, etc, they all knew and took vixens tack: It does not matter, and like all of the other evidence that failed to prove the police theory, it was suppressed.

.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes you are quite right. Before arrests or declared suspects there is no defence. Yet later it seems, that early approach to evidence handling hamstrings the defence. It's unconscionable. It actually causes a reasonable observer to wonder whether the evidence gathered is being trimmed and shaped to fit a scenario and everything that does not is hidden.

IIUC about Italian criminal procedure, the prosecution does not need to share anything with the defence until a formal charge is laid, and they have up to a year to lay the charge. (Sometimes they don't share things even after that, but that's another issue.)

In the meantime, the prosecution gets to fly trial balloons; leaking certain factoids and then legally (apparently) secretly recording/listening in to the defendants' reactions. The hours and hours of innocent material gets chucked - but one wrong move, one wrong word, one wrong speculation made unaware to the recording, and that, too, becomes evidence.

It's what is meant by the "evidence" against AK and RS being almost entirely "judicially generated".

 

[Ken Dine]

The idea that the police wouldn't test a purported semen stain underneath a stripped naked murdered woman because "it can't be dated" is so crazy bonkers I wonder if we are on the same planet. And yet here we are.

Actually, if it had been tested right away, the semen stain could have been dated to an extent by checking its moisture content.

 

[davefoc]

Does anybody remember what Machiavelli said about the reason that the stain wasn't tested? It was a very strange notion as I recall, but now I'm wondering what his source for the idea was. The can't date the stain came first from Micheli I think. My sense of it, is that Mignini told him he wasn't going to provide that information and he just told Micheli to put a BS explanation into his report.

It is stunning that the prosecution was allowed to get away with something like this. It strongly suggests that the judge and the prosecutor were colluding.

 

[Desert Fox]

Does anybody remember what Machiavelli said about the reason that the stain wasn't tested? It was a very strange notion as I recall, but now I'm wondering what his source for the idea was. The can't date the stain came first from Micheli I think. My sense of it, is that Mignini told him he wasn't going to provide that information and he just told Micheli to put a BS explanation into his report.

It is stunning that the prosecution was allowed to get away with something like this. It strongly suggests that the judge and the prosecutor were colluding.

Would be far from the first time

 

[Bill Williams]

Does anybody remember what Machiavelli said about the reason that the stain wasn't tested? It was a very strange notion as I recall, but now I'm wondering what his source for the idea was. The can't date the stain came first from Micheli I think. My sense of it, is that Mignini told him he wasn't going to provide that information and he just told Micheli to put a BS explanation into his report.

It is stunning that the prosecution was allowed to get away with something like this. It strongly suggests that the judge and the prosecutor were colluding.

Clearly, that stain is radioactive to the prosecution.

Massei was clear.... in his 2010 motivations report he said that Meredith had had an active sex life, and the stain could be anyone's, most likely her then-current boyfriend. The compelling issue for Massei was that "DNA cannot be dated" as to when it was deposited at the scene. Ergo, it was irrelevant to this case.

When one reads reasoning like that, one can only .

One suspects the fix was in when Massei goes on to use Knox's DNA in the bathroom and cottage she lived in to convict her; because, presumably, Knox's DNA presence could only have been a result of her participation in the murder. The term "double standard" is about the most tame assessment one can make.....

..... when one views this reasoning "osmotically".......

Remember Machiavelli's tortured logic about how the only evidence that a judge can use in cases like this is the evidence which is "real"? I think that's how it went, it's just hard to duplicate the tortured logic.....

Well, the one way to keep an item of evidence unreal, therefore not-to-be-included in the osmotic-circumstantial evaluation, is not to test it......

Or worse. Test it then bury it.

 

[davefoc]

Why is it so hard for wrongfully convicted women to get justice?

This goes to something I've thought when the discussion of whether something like the AK/RS case could have happened in the US.

Probably, nothing quite like the AK/RS conviction would have happened in the US but the case is very unusual and probably something it hasn't happened in Italy either.

But similar things in the case have happened in the US and probably continue to happen. Prosecutors have relentlessly hounded demonstrably innocent people, forensic scientists have come to strongly identify with the prosecution and have produced falsified evidence and the press has actively promoted the guilt of innocent people.

The example you give of a case involves the use of bogus arson investigation analysis. Bogus arson analysis was used to convict hundreds of people and probably was used in a case where the convicted individual was executed. The fact is that forensic scientists in the US have done stuff worse than Stefanoni ever did.

There are some aspects of the case that point to problems in the Italian justice system, IMO, for which there are better safe guards in the US that might have prevented a case like the one against AK/RS from happening in the US. But the US system is not without its problems and if one compares the Italian system and the US system in total without focusing on a few problems that surfaced in this case, perhaps the US system doesn't look that great.

 

[Kauffer]

IIUC about Italian criminal procedure, the prosecution does not need to share anything with the defence until a formal charge is laid, and they have up to a year to lay the charge. (Sometimes they don't share things even after that, but that's another issue.)

In the meantime, the prosecution gets to fly trial balloons; leaking certain factoids and then legally (apparently) secretly recording/listening in to the defendants' reactions. The hours and hours of innocent material gets chucked - but one wrong move, one wrong word, one wrong speculation made unaware to the recording, and that, too, becomes evidence.

It's what is meant by the "evidence" against AK and RS being almost entirely "judicially generated".

Yes, for sure Bill. It's such an inquisitional system. Settle on your suspect and then do what you need to do to find the proofs. In other words, the reverse of what should happen. The dice are loaded against you and the prosecutor cannot change his mind when the evidence doesn't fit or else he will lose face.

 

[analemma]

Clearly, that stain is radioactive to the prosecution.

Massei was clear.... in his 2010 motivations report he said that Meredith had had an active sex life, and the stain could be anyone's, most likely her then-current boyfriend. The compelling issue for Massei was that "DNA cannot be dated" as to when it was deposited at the scene. Ergo, it was irrelevant to this case.

When one reads reasoning like that, one can only .

It should be clear to everyone that Massei is either a dim-wit AHole or an active participant in the frame up.
If the DNA form the stain was belonged to Rudy, or anyone else who had no permission to be in the victims room, it would be far from irrelevant.
I wonder if people like Massei are affected when they realize that everyone knows that they are part of a corrupt criminal conspiracy to frame two innocents to protect the reputation of Italian Justice.
Do you think they never realize what their actions clearly represent?
What kind of people are they?

 

[codyjuneau]

It should be clear to everyone that Massei is either a dim-wit AHole or an active participant in the frame up.
If the DNA form the stain was belonged to Rudy, or anyone else who had no permission to be in the victims room, it would be far from irrelevant.
I wonder if people like Massei are affected when they realize that everyone knows that they are part of a corrupt criminal conspiracy to frame two innocents to protect the reputation of Italian Justice.
Do you think they never realize what their actions clearly represent?
What kind of people are they?

.
Machiavellian.

Cody
.

 

[Dougm]

It should be clear to everyone that Massei is either a dim-wit AHole or an active participant in the frame up.
If the DNA form the stain was belonged to Rudy, or anyone else who had no permission to be in the victims room, it would be far from irrelevant.
I wonder if people like Massei are affected when they realize that everyone knows that they are part of a corrupt criminal conspiracy to frame two innocents to protect the reputation of Italian Justice.
Do you think they never realize what their actions clearly represent?
What kind of people are they?

Since when is any piece of evidence irrelevant when they haven't even tested it to show what it is, and who it came from?

Also, in a case where there the concept of "multiple attackers" has been such a key point for the prosecution, how could they miss an opportunity to test a piece of evidence that might prove that there were multiple attackers? From a prosecution standpoint, having it come back as Raffaele's or some other male that was not expected to be there, would prove their case that someone other than Rudy was there and helped kill Meredith!!

Only a prosecution that does not want to know the truth would fight the introduction of that semen stain evidence.

 

[Anode]

Yes, I agree.

One set of footprints in wet blood, which Rudy admits are his. And Rudy also stepped in a semen glob while it was wet, on a pillow placed under the victim to elevate her hips for better viewing.

These two facts alone allow us to conclude that the semen is Rudy's, imo.

For this semen to belong to someone else, that hypothetical male would have to have been shooting his gobbies from the hallway, and with quite good aim.

There is no good reason for the police not to have tested this semen stain. As Dr Peter Gill said in that radio interview; "I find that quite fantastic".

Also, let's note Stefanoni's failure to get a DNA reading off of the blood stain on Filomena's window. That's likely Rudy too, and also suppressed, let's face it.

Yes, she can produce a profile from a microscopic (sub-microscopic?) sample on a knife but on a visible blood stain, that if Rudi's, would prove a break in and not a staging, she comes up blank. Hmm....

 

[Planigale]

It was epithial (_sp?) cells they found. These can be identified as typical of skin cells shed from fingers. It's possible it was another part of Rudy's anatomy there, but I expect the penis was ruled out as it's a different type of skin (???)

When you say it was Rudy's semen - if that is what the substance is - you don't know it's his: it could be one of several persons. The stain might even be old.

Epithelial. The epithelium covers the body, from an anatomic / geometric PoV the body is a taurus so the gut is lined with epithelium (mucosal), as is the bladder (transitional), as are the airways (ciliated columnar). What you mean by skin is stratified squamous epithelium. The DNA typing does not tell you the source. So saying it is epithelial includes a source from spitting, coughing, peeing or touch. There are chemical tests that could identify saliva or semen, microscopy could identify the type of epithelial cells, or the presence of sperm or blood cells.

Steff tends to be lazy and just attribute any unknown source of DNA as being epithelial. This meant to imply that it must be touch in origin as opposed to being cells shed from a sneeze for instance.

 

[davefoc]

Epithelial. The epithelium covers the body, from an anatomic / geometric PoV the body is a taurus so the gut is lined with epithelium (mucosal), as is the bladder (transitional), as are the airways (ciliated columnar). What you mean by skin is stratified squamous epithelium. The DNA typing does not tell you the source. So saying it is epithelial includes a source from spitting, coughing, peeing or touch. There are chemical tests that could identify saliva or semen, microscopy could identify the type of epithelial cells, or the presence of sperm or blood cells.

Steff tends to be lazy and just attribute any unknown source of DNA as being epithelial. This meant to imply that it must be touch in origin as opposed to being cells shed from a sneeze for instance.

Thanks for the informative post Panigale. I especially liked the description of the human body shape as a big doughnut. In my case that description is more accurate than I would like it to be.

Did Stefanoni identify epthelial cells via a microscope or did she just make the assumption that all sources of DNA that weren't identified as sperm or blood were epithelial cells? And even if epithelial cells were identified it is not possible to know that the biological source was skin because epithelial cells exist internally as well as in the skin?

 

[zotz]

Clearly, that stain is radioactive to the prosecution.

Massei was clear.... in his 2010 motivations report he said that Meredith had had an active sex life, and the stain could be anyone's, most likely her then-current boyfriend. The compelling issue for Massei was that "DNA cannot be dated" as to when it was deposited at the scene. Ergo, it was irrelevant to this case.

When one reads reasoning like that, one can only .

One suspects the fix was in when Massei goes on to use Knox's DNA in the bathroom and cottage she lived in to convict her; because, presumably, Knox's DNA presence could only have been a result of her participation in the murder. The term "double standard" is about the most tame assessment one can make.....

..... when one views this reasoning "osmotically".......

Remember Machiavelli's tortured logic about how the only evidence that a judge can use in cases like this is the evidence which is "real"? I think that's how it went, it's just hard to duplicate the tortured logic.....

Well, the one way to keep an item of evidence unreal, therefore not-to-be-included in the osmotic-circumstantial evaluation, is not to test it......

Or worse. Test it then bury it.

Why are the judges afraid of the evidence? Their reasoning is clearly bogus. It has to be a case of group-think bias. The judges and prosecutors are all companions. They lunch together, go to parties together. It is like a club. Their main concern is getting a consensus opinion. It is clear that Knox/Sollecito were convicted in the minds of the magistrates long before the Massei trial. The trial is just a formality. So when there is conflicting evidence it is the job of the judge to make it go away. What other reason could there be for not testing semen in a sex murder?

To dismiss this kind of evidence is by itself evidence of judicial corruption. Massei, Mignini, Comodi, and Stefanoni all should be investigated for obstruction of justice. But it could never happen because the courts are not independent, a fatal flaw in the system. This case is much bigger than simply the lives of Knox and Sollecito because it exposes so many structural flaws in the judicial system.

 

[RWVBWL]

Thanks for the informative post Panigale. I especially liked the description of the human body shape as a big doughnut. In my case that description is more accurate than I would like it to be.

Did Stefanoni identify epthelial cells via a microscope or did she just make the assumption that all sources of DNA that weren't identified as sperm or blood were epithelial cells? And even if epithelial cells were identified it is not possible to know that the biological source was skin because epithelial cells exist internally as well as in the skin?

Some info might be here, Davefoc:

Link:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/failed-sexual-assault-investigation/