Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[bagels]

I have a bloody bath mat gag gift

And using differential geometry and Common Core I was able to rule out Raffaele. If he didn't leave this print it's common sense he didn't leave the one in the cottage.

 

[Grinder]

Seeing is believing. The bathmat footprint in Mez' blood was definitively identified as Raff's, excluding Amanda's or Rudy's.

-------quote
One of the pieces of forensic evidence found in the cottage was a bare footprint, apparently in diluted blood, on the bathmat in the small bathroom. Three samples taken from the bathmat were confirmed as Meredith's blood.[1] The footprint was measured and compared with prints taken from the right feet of Knox, Sollecito and Guede. The court examined the measurements in detail and concluded that the print was a near-perfect match for Sollecito's foot but could not have been attributed to Guede or Knox.

The correlation of the bloody footprint to the right foot of Raffaele Sollecito is extremely high in twelve separate individual measurements. In addition, there is a manifest lack of correlation to the right foot of Rudy Guede.
----ends

Source: http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Bathmat_Footprint

I expect you will no doubt come up with "rational explanation blaming Rudy" #umpty-billion trillion.

Your right it's Rudi's fault because it's his footprint. At best it is compatible with Raf but more of a match for Rudi.

 

[LondonJohn]

Vixen, every judge and prosecutor had a different theory about what happened because they were just making stuff up since their "evidence" doesn't reveal any coherent truth and is just a mess of random assertions floating in the ether detached from any reality.

Rudy Guede climbed the lower bars up into the window, Meredith came home, he raped and murdered her. The evidence against him, starting with the break-in identical to his MO, his prints and DNA around and in the body, and his actions after fleeing, are consistent with this singular coherent narrative, because it is what actually happened.

You can't process this plain and simple truth. You literally cannot comprehend it. This is why you're restarting your loop once again, this time with Raffaele's shoes being the contributor to the bloody prints, a silly piece of evidence dismissed 8 years ago.

And once again, the many fiascos of lower-court trials in the Knox/Sollecito process demonstrated with stunning clarity just how broken the Italian criminal justice system is at the start of the 21st century.

And once again, I would strongly suggest that the root of these fiascos is the rank inability of Italian judges to accept and adopt the principles of a) innocent until/unless proven guilty, b) proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and c) the prosecution having the entire burden of proof. Many (even most) criminal judges in Italy appear to still be practising their own warped, improper version of the old inquisitorial system, with barely a nod to the current legislation and required practices.

And what this means is that judges are not - as they should be - looking at a defendant in the dock and seeking to answer the only question they're required to answer: has the defendant been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, in this courtroom, to have committed the criminal act with which (s)he has been charged? If the answer to that question is "yes", then the judges should vote and direct to find for guilt; if the answer is "no", then the vote and direction should be to acquit. End of story.

Rather, judges still appear to prefer to carry on with the old, deeply discredited practices of the inquisitorial era: they appoint themselves as finders of "the truth", and attempt to construct a narrative of what really happened in the crime, then apportion roles (or not) to the people before them in the courtroom. And they more often than not (and clearly in the case of most of the Knox/Sollecito trials) work on the premise that the prosecutors' case (and version of events) is a presentation of the "best truth" of the "impartial investigators", and that therefore it should be taken as the starting point for the court's own opinion on "what really happened".

Basically, the Italian courts appear to act on the starting premise that the prosecutors have already "solved" the case and figured out what actually happened, and that the prosecutors are effectively bringing the matter to the courts for validation, rubber-stamping and sentencing. And it appears that unless the defence can conclusively prove to the court that key elements in the prosecution case are materially wrong, then the defence can more-or-less be ignored by the court.

Frequently (and as happened in a couple of courts in the Knox/Sollecito trial process), the court can take the prosecution case and can tweak it to its own desires: this is, in effect, the court saying "the prosecution has done a fine job, but as an experienced judge, I believe "the truth" is slightly different, so I substitute my own "truth" for that of the prosecution". Again, this reeks of the old, outdated, discredit idea of the court trying to present a narrative of "what really happened", and placing the defendant(s) into that narrative or not (and usually, of course, the defendant(s) play starring roles in the court's narrative of "the truth").

I think it bears repeating once again: among the root-and-branch reform that's so clearly and so desperately needed in the Italian criminal justice system, judges need to be educated and instructed that the only matter with which they must concern themselves is this: has sufficient evidence (when taken as a whole) been presented in this court to prove the defendant's - guilt beyond reasonable doubt - of the crimes with which (s)he stands charged before the court? Forget all ideas of "finding the truth", and forget any idea that the prosecution has basically already figured out broadly "what really happened" and is effectively bringing it to the court for validation.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think that Amanda used these very characteristics in her email and prison diary about Meredith.

I do not think it horrible Meredith would be described in the above terms by any and all nor do I think it horrible Amanda would have nice things said about her by any and all.

eta: I see acbytesla said the same about the descriptions.

But I would also argue - from an objective perspective - that Knox would also be inclined to be effusive about Kercher in her recollections.

Look: I am not suggesting for one moment that Kercher was not a nice, kind, pleasant young woman. But what I'm suggesting is twofold: 1) anyone (by definition) who did not know Kercher in life, who is seeking to ascribe character traits to Kercher, can only do so with reference to second-hand, indirect ex post facto statements from family, friends and other who knew her in life; and 2) those ex post facto character statements are very likely to have been - to a greater or lesser extent - exaggerated, especially in the context of how a young, promising woman met such a gruesome and premature death.

And, as others have said, it's entirely immaterial in any event whether in reality Kercher was a super-kind, super-funny, super-virtuous person, or whether she was run-of-the-mill in those respects (or even whether she was unpleasant, unkind and antisocial). Her character bears no relation to the unjust nature of her death or the search to find her killer and bring him to justice. I have no truck with anyone (and I'm looking at huge swathes of the pro-guilt commentary crew here....) who feels any sort of need to lionise Kercher as (seemingly) some sort of bizarre "need" to elevate the victim in their own minds - as if this somehow makes the crime "worse" or the killer "more reprehensible".

(Likewise, I have no truck with anyone who seeks to lionise Knox or Sollecito for the same ends: at the end of the day, Knox's (and Sollecito's) personality has little to do with - and throws little light upon - whether or not she participated in this murder (she did not). Sometimes, seemingly lovely people do horrific things, after all - and vice versa.)

So in conclusion, I think that most that anyone who didn't directly know Kercher in life can say is that "people (friends, family, etc) have stated that Kercher was kind, lovely, outgoing, generous, etc" - not that Kercher "was" all those things. And secondly, in any case, Kercher's personality traits - what they were factually, and what people have said they were in the aftermath of her murder - are immaterial to this case, and seem to be little more than a bogus appeal to emotion and/or some sort of attempt in the minds of some people to elevate Kercher to some sort of weird platform (and I suspect a psychiatrist might have very interesting things to say about that as well.....).

 

[LondonJohn]

Your right it's Rudi's fault because it's his footprint. At best it is compatible with Raf but more of a match for Rudi.

I also love the selective quotation from a deeply-flawed, deeply-partisan website (which purports to be merely an object repository of the "facts", but which is nothing of the sort), in support of her bogus (and factually incorrect) "argument". Lovely stuff!

 

[acbytesla]

Seeing is believing. The bathmat footprint in Mez' blood was definitively identified as Raff's, excluding Amanda's or Rudy's.

-------quote
One of the pieces of forensic evidence found in the cottage was a bare footprint, apparently in diluted blood, on the bathmat in the small bathroom. Three samples taken from the bathmat were confirmed as Meredith's blood.[1] The footprint was measured and compared with prints taken from the right feet of Knox, Sollecito and Guede. The court examined the measurements in detail and concluded that the print was a near-perfect match for Sollecito's foot but could not have been attributed to Guede or Knox.

The correlation of the bloody footprint to the right foot of Raffaele Sollecito is extremely high in twelve separate individual measurements. In addition, there is a manifest lack of correlation to the right foot of Rudy Guede.
----ends

Source: http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Bathmat_Footprint

I expect you will no doubt come up with "rational explanation blaming Rudy" #umpty-billion trillion.

Seriously? You trot the bath mat print out here? It is not a conclusive match to anyone. Not Raffaele, not even Rudy.and not to the billions of men who did not provide their feet as possible comparison.

It's a fuzzy blob on a very poor substrate. For all the measuremen's taken it ignores certain specific problems with the analysis. It is unlikely that blood was evenly applied to the bottom of the killers foot. There is no way to determine if the killer was applying uneven pressure which would have distorted the print on the bathmat. Lastly it was a FUZZY BATHMAT!

I've asked lots of people to blindly choose which sample print matches the bathmat. Most pick Rudy's but it's not conclusive. No one felt sure it was a match. No one.

 

[LondonJohn]

So was it a judicial truth before the Massei trial?

I love the way that practically none of the pro-guilt commentators - even the ones who pretend to be experts in jurisprudence - can see the fundamental and grotesque flaw here, whereby rulings from previous trials in which the defendants have not had proper representation can then be used in subsequent trials.

I guess it's a combination of mendacity, blinkered bias and good old-fashioned low intellect which is leading to this particular blind spot. Whatever's causing it, it's a very revealing and useful illustration of the dreadful flaws in so many pro-guilt commentators' "reasoning"....

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen, every judge and prosecutor had a different theory about what happened because they were just making stuff up since their "evidence" doesn't reveal any coherent truth and is just a mess of random assertions floating in the ether detached from any reality.

Enter the rational in the Marasca/Bruno report, as outlined in their sections 9.2/9.3. Assembling it all into a synoptic account drawn from both sides shows why it's all just a mess. Section 4 declared the history of the case through its twists and turns, and all there is.....

.... is something detached from reality.

 

[Grinder]

I believe the issue with justice in Italy has mostly to do with their cultural "DNA". They remain impacted by their primary religion and belief they as descendants of the Roman Empire have some sort of superiority.

The Stasi case would seem to show that the lower courts do not rubber stamp the prosecution's case. It would be interesting to compare the rate of conviction in Italy and elsewhere. In this case none of the judges accepted the prosecution version of things. None of them.

Much trouble for them is they must write the MR and I can see it is a very difficult task.

Also in Italy three compatibles = a match.

 

[LondonJohn]

Seriously? You trot the bath at print out here? It is not a conclusive match to anyone. Not Raffaele, not even Rudy.and not to the billions of men who did not provide their feet as possible comparison.

It's a fuzzy blob on a very poor substrate. For all the measuremen's taken it ignores certain specific problems with the analysis. It is unlikely that blood was evenly applied to the bottom of the killers foot. There is no way to determine if the killer was applying uneven pressure which would have distorted the print on the bathmat. Lastly it was a FUZZY BATHMAT!

I've asked lots of people to blindly choose which sample print matches the batmat. Most pick Rudy's but it's not conclusive. No one felt sure it was a match. No one.

Indeed.

And perhaps the most revealing and important thing to come out of the prosecution's presentation of the bathmat print evidence is just how inept and suspect-centric it was. It's a vivid illustration of just how many ludicrous and improper hoops the prosecutors and police were prepared to jump through in order to bolster their a priori conclusion that Knox and Sollecito participated in the murder and a post-crime clean up.

In addition, and in particular, it drives a rather enormous nail into the coffin of the reputations of Rinaldi and Boemia. These clowns decided they were qualified as "experts" in foot print identification - even though this area is hugely contentious in the world of forensic analysis, with most coming to the conclusion that it's a pseudoscience from which it's usually impossible to make positive identifications in any kind of specific manner.

Even a primary school student could see - correctly - that the partial print on the bathmat cannot be identified as anything more that a print deposited by an adult - probably an adult male - with a foot corresponding to a shoe size of something around 42-45 (9-11). The wicking nature of the tufted cotton fabric of the mat, the rough textured surface of the mat, the fact that the print was made in a saturated medium of very diluted blood, and the total inability to know the weight distribution and footfall of the person who deposited the print, all mean that for practical purposes the print is impossible to measure with anything other than very broad measures (and a moment is due here to laugh once again at SomeAlibi's famous crowing about "millimetre accuracy" ). And to try to compare the bathmat print at a highly-detailed level with reference prints made using an ideal medium (printer's ink) on a smooth, flat surface, with a carefully-controlled footfall and weight distribution, is ridiculous and deeply, deeply unscientific.

The print is useless for positive identification, other than to an adult person with 42-45 sized feet. It could therefore, for example, be used to exclude Knox as the depositor. But it most certainly cannot be used to exclude Guede as the depositor, and it absolutely definitively cannot be used to positively identify Sollecito as the depositor. To argue otherwise is risibly ignorant, unscientific and fundamentally flawed. End of.

 

[LondonJohn]

I believe the issue with justice in Italy has mostly to do with their cultural "DNA". They remain impacted by their primary religion and belief they as descendants of the Roman Empire have some sort of superiority.

The Stasi case would seem to show that the lower courts do not rubber stamp the prosecution's case. It would be interesting to compare the rate of conviction in Italy and elsewhere. In this case none of the judges accepted the prosecution version of things. None of them.

Much trouble for them is they must write the MR and I can see it is a very difficult task.

Also in Italy three compatibles = a match.

Well, firstly, I prefaced my whole argument by saying that it appears to often be the case that Italian criminal judges work on the underlying premise that the prosecution is "right" and "true". Clearly there are some judges - and in the Knox/Sollecito case there was one such judge in Hellmann - who are prepared to apply the law and the constitution properly: to evaluate nothing more (or less) than whether proof beyond a reasonable doubt has been presented of the defendants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes with which they have been charged.

Secondly, I'm not familiar with the specifics of the Stasi case. Was the prosecution case extremely weak? And why did the SC overrule the lower courts?

Thirdly, I agree with you on cultural DNA of the Italian judiciary. But I'd argue that in addition to the influence of religion and Roman heritage, there are two other factors that may be far more influential: 1) the role of the judiciary in Italy's comparatively-recent fascist past (and the role of the judiciary in the clumsy and awkward transitions of the state machinery away from fascism and towards those of a modern liberalised democracy); and 2) and the role of the judiciary in the fight against entrenched organised crime (not just the Mafia, but also corruption at many other levels and of many other origins) in Italy.

 

[acbytesla]

Indeed.

And perhaps the most revealing and important thing to come out of the prosecution's presentation of the bathmat print evidence is just how inept and suspect-centric it was. It's a vivid illustration of just how many ludicrous and improper hoops the prosecutors and police were prepared to jump through in order to bolster their a priori conclusion that Knox and Sollecito participated in the murder and a post-crime clean up.

In addition, and in particular, it drives a rather enormous nail into the coffin of the reputations of Rinaldi and Boemia. These clowns decided they were qualified as "experts" in foot print identification - even though this area is hugely contentious in the world of forensic analysis, with most coming to the conclusion that it's a pseudoscience from which it's usually impossible to make positive identifications in any kind of specific manner.

Even a primary school student could see - correctly - that the partial print on the bathmat cannot be identified as anything more that a print deposited by an adult - probably an adult male - with a foot corresponding to a shoe size of something around 42-45 (9-11). The wicking nature of the tufted cotton fabric of the mat, the rough textured surface of the mat, the fact that the print was made in a saturated medium of very diluted blood, and the total inability to know the weight distribution and footfall of the person who deposited the print, all mean that for practical purposes the print is impossible to measure with anything other than very broad measures (and a moment is due here to laugh once again at SomeAlibi's famous crowing about "millimetre accuracy" ). And to try to compare the bathmat print at a highly-detailed level with reference prints made using an ideal medium (printer's ink) on a smooth, flat surface, with a carefully-controlled footfall and weight distribution, is ridiculous and deeply, deeply unscientific.

The print is useless for positive identification, other than to an adult person with 42-45 sized feet. It could therefore, for example, be used to exclude Knox as the depositor. But it most certainly cannot be used to exclude Guede as the depositor, and it absolutely definitively cannot be used to positively identify Sollecito as the depositor. To argue otherwise is risibly ignorant, unscientific and fundamentally flawed. End of.

Hellmann ruled [this] Court finds the print impressed with Meredith’s blood on the mat to be of no evidentiary [indiziario] value against defendant Sollecito.

The circumstance, explained by the consultants of the Public Minister Rinaldi and Boemia themselves and quoted in the ruling, that it [the print on the mat] is useful only for negative and not for positive comparisons, the incontrovertible morphological differences with respect to the reference print taken from Sollecito, the dimensional differences asserted by Professor Vinci and those pointed out by Rinaldi and Boemia themselves, do not allow us to accept the first-level [Court’s] judgement of a probable identity between the two footprints.

 

[Bill Williams]

Hellmann ruled [this] Court finds the print impressed with Meredith’s blood on the mat to be of no evidentiary [indiziario] value against defendant Sollecito.

The circumstance, explained by the consultants of the Public Minister Rinaldi and Boemia themselves and quoted in the ruling, that it [the print on the mat] is useful only for negative and not for positive comparisons, the incontrovertible morphological differences with respect to the reference print taken from Sollecito, the dimensional differences asserted by Professor Vinci and those pointed out by Rinaldi and Boemia themselves, do not allow us to accept the first-level [Court’s] judgement of a probable identity between the two footprints.

..... and for the sake of Grinder-like precision - it's a foottrack not a footprint.

Add to this is the medium on which the track was impressed, a bathmat. It's discussed in the Massei report - which Massei ignores - that to begin saying anything forensicly about it would require it to be put onto something like paper, not the pliable surface like a towel, or terry-towel.

 

[dropzone]

You are aware that the Asics shoe was not Amanda's and was found new in a store.

Obviously. It has no wear. I figured either that or that someone had contacted the FBI, who have examples of many shoes.

What I was pointing to is that once the picture is put into a program to "flip it" it raises the question: What else may have been changed?

If done by a professional? Nothing. If done by the Italian police? This case shows many of them to be hopelessly unprofessional, so God only knows.

 

[dropzone]

Oh, and that is more likely Rudi's footprint than Raf's, based on the way there is a continuous connection between the base of the big toe to the tip. Raf's has a large gap, indicating an arch in his first proximal phalanx that doesn't allow it to lay flat. But because it is a fluffy bathmat, it is not a proper proof of anything beyond it probably being the footprint of a largish person. If all I have a choice from is Amanda, Raf, or Rudi, I don't think it's Amanda's.

 

[Mike1711]

In the Oscar Pistorius appeal the facts found remained the same. What was faulty was Judge Masipa's judgment that it was "culpable homicide". The prosecution brought the appeal. The defense tried to argue the prosecution was trying to re-examine the facts. However, it was ajudged that this was within the context of the judge erring in her reasoning as to why it was culpable homicide instead of first degree.

We get it: you studied Roman and Dutch Law of which South African Law is a mixture.

The Supreme Court in the Pistorius case didn't substitute a 'not guilty' verdict.

No they didn't substitute a "not guilty" verdict. Simply because it wasn't appealed. The appeal court only considers that which is appealed.

In the AK/RS case it was their guilt that was appealed and the appeal was quite correctly upheld.

 

[Planigale]

Vinci is paid by the defence to say whatever it is the defence wants him to say. I consider him to be a liar.

An easy get out. You can just ignore any defence evidence as it is presented by the defence. You do not even have to engage with the argument because you know it must be just lies. You know this because you know the defendants are guilty so their defence must be lies. Why bother with a trial? Once the police decide someone is guilty just bang them up - it would save a lot of public money.

I hope you never serve on a jury.

Why not actually go through Vinci's arguments and find factual errors. There are clear factual errors in the prosecution case. Present the errors in the defence so we can compare and contrast.

 

[Matthew Best]

OK, apart from an accidental parking ticket and inadvertently going over 70mph on just one occasion, on holiday in Scotland, oh, and also the M1, and also er... well, apart from minor driving things, I can honestly say I have never broken the law.

Can you?

Exactly like you I can say that, apart from all the times I broke the law, I have never broken the law.

 

[Grinder]

An easy get out. You can just ignore any defence evidence as it is presented by the defence. You do not even have to engage with the argument because you know it must be just lies. You know this because you know the defendants are guilty so their defence must be lies. Why bother with a trial? Once the police decide someone is guilty just bang them up - it would save a lot of public money.

I hope you never serve on a jury.

Why not actually go through Vinci's arguments and find factual errors. There are clear factual errors in the prosecution case. Present the errors in the defence so we can compare and contrast.

And more...not only are the defense along with their clients expected to lie, the prosecution's testimony can't be questioned because for them lying is not permitted, or apparently making a mistake.

As for Vixen being on a jury, my hope would depend on whether I wanted a guilty or innocent verdict. Guilty - Vixen: Innocent - ABV.

 

[Grinder]

While many here thought that the second trial in the Italian system was one of their better features, having a second trial de novo. What seems to be missing in their system is an appeal level where evidence allowed in the trial by the trial judge can be challenged. I won't be surprised if I don't have that exactly right but except for the ISC ruling that Amanda's spontaneous statements from 1:45 and 5:45 inadmissible, I don't remember any evidence being declared inadmissible. Hellmann said the footprint (who uses foottrack? Maybe a Canadian ) wasn't a match but he didn't throw it out. I'm not sure about the DNA but I think they left it in but not reliable. The bits of DNA of kids would not have been admitted in most countries because of the lab, the gathering and handling and before the test results would even be analyzed.