Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[analemma]

Have you watched the drinking video?

Grinder,
DO you have a link to the "drinking video"?
I have never seen it.
Thanks

 

[christianahannah]

If Raffaele had left his footprint on the bathmat, the following questions are raised :-

1) In the section on the bathmat on AmandaKnoxcase.com, there is a transcript of a phone converstion when Raffaele mentions the footprint on the bathmat when calling the police. Why would Raffaele do this if he had left his footprint on the mat?

2) Why did Raffaele not get rid of the bathmat if he had left his footprint on it?

3) If Raffaele had left the footprint, why did his defense team ask experts to examine the mat and disprove Raffaele had left the footprint. Surely Raffaele would worry experts would not be able to disprove he had left his print on the mat.

4) As has been mentioned on this forum, it is difficult to establish who the print belonged to due to how the print was made. If the prosecution had a mountain of solid evidence and a strong case, why did the prosecution have to resort to using inconclusive evidence to argue their case?

5) If the prosecution could establish with 100% certaintity the print was made by Raffaele, the prosecution would have had damming slam dunk evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. If the bathmat provided strong evidence, why did the prosecution have to resort to lying, supressing evidence, using evidence with no credibility, smear tactics etc if they had such conclusive evidence at their disposal.

Does Raffaele say there is a footprint in blood on the bathmat or does he say bloodstains in general?

Prints and hair and such are peculiar in their ability to be a 100 percent match. Many times I think all that can be said for certain is that the print is more comparable to one than another person.

No matter the evidence put before you and how strong you think it may or may not be I think most in a defensive position would put on the strongest counter attack (not sure this is the word to convey what I mean) they can afford.

 

[Grinder]

If Raffaele had left his footprint on the bathmat, the following questions are raised :-

1) In the section on the bathmat on AmandaKnoxcase.com, there is a transcript of a phone converstion when Raffaele mentions the footprint on the bathmat when calling the police. Why would Raffaele do this if he had left his footprint on the mat?

He doesn't mention a footprint in the call he only says: Police:
Sollecito: The blood stains are in the bathroom.

It has always been my impression that he was referring to the faucet and sink. Regardless it remains a legitimate question of why they left the blood in the bathroom. Now, I could believe someone would look at the watery blob on the mat and not worry about a match and there is none, but they knew enough about DNA to get rid of all they left in the murder room and should have at a minimum thrown it into the shower or washing machine.

3) If Raffaele had left the footprint, why did his defense team ask experts to examine the mat and disprove Raffaele had left the footprint. Surely Raffaele would worry experts would not be able to disprove he had left his print on the mat.

Since the prosecution said it was Raf's he sort of had to counter it.

4) As has been mentioned on this forum, it is difficult to establish who the print belonged to due to how the print was made. If the prosecution had a mountain of solid evidence and a strong case, why did the prosecution have to resort to using inconclusive evidence to argue their case?

From the PG perspective their unbiased expert said it matched.

5) If the prosecution could establish with 100% certaintity the print was made by Raffaele, the prosecution would have had damming slam dunk evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. If the bathmat provided strong evidence, why did the prosecution have to resort to lying, supressing evidence, using evidence with no credibility, smear tactics etc if they had such conclusive evidence at their disposal.

I would guess that no prosecutor would rely on one piece of circumstantial evidence in any case.

 

[Mike1711]

Hellmann!? We fought over Hellmann?? Disagreed, maybe, but fought? C'mon - I would have remembered!

You're going to make me look this up aren't you! In situ applies more to the bra-clasp issue..... the police photographed it in one place, then 46 days later retrieved it from another place.

Your definition could include the shelf in the store the mat was bought from.

Ah...... the good old days!

"In situ" in the context of this crime is the way it was discovered at the time of this crime. Otherwise you could just as well go back to the "Big Bang".

 

[LondonJohn]

I would guess that no prosecutor would rely on one piece of circumstantial evidence in any case.

???

Many, many rape & murder trials, for example, have been prosecuted (with extremely high proportions of safe convictions) on a single piece of circumstantial evidence: the semen DNA of the perp on or in the victim.

And in this case, I totally agree that had it been possible to positively match the bathmat partial print to Sollecito with a high degree of certainty, this single piece of circumstantial evidence could very well have been enough to convict Sollecito in and of itself (and probably Knox too). The prosecution could have offered other supporting circumstantial evidence, but the proven presence of Sollecito's partial foot print in a very dilute mix of Kercher's blood on a bathmat in the cottage bathroom - when Sollecito was claiming to have never even removed his shoes at any time when he was in the cottage after the murder - would have been totally devastating to his defence, and to a large degree to the defence of Knox as well (since their defences were so co-dependent in this respect). Furthermore, the fact that the print was in dilute blood would automatically point to some sort of post-crime washing-up activity.

Of course the truth is that the print cannot be positively matched to Sollecito any more or less than it can be matched to any adult in the world with feet sized in a broad range of around 42-45 (9-11). It most certainly cannot be excluded as a possible match to Guede, and since all the other reliable, credible evidence points to Guede acting alone, I think it's reasonable to suppose that it was indeed Guede who deposited this print.

Lastly (and I've said this many times before), if that bathmat print really HAD been reliably and credibly able to be matched to Sollecito, then I would without doubt argue that a) this should be sufficient on its own to safely convict Sollecito, and very probably to safely convict Knox as well, and b) I would readily switch to a belief that Sollecito (and probably also Knox) participated in the murder.

 

[Bill Williams]

"In situ" in the context of this crime is the way it was discovered at the time of this crime. Otherwise you could just as well go back to the "Big Bang".

As long as when you define "the time of the crime" as the "time of the discovery of the crime," then I agree with you.

It begins when someone in authority says, "Everyone out, this is a crime scene."

 

[Bill Williams]

Lastly (and I've said this many times before), if that bathmat print really HAD been reliably and credibly able to be matched to Sollecito, then I would without doubt argue that a) this should be sufficient on its own to safely convict Sollecito, and very probably to safely convict Knox as well, and b) I would readily switch to a belief that Sollecito (and probably also Knox) participated in the murder.

Me too. The trouble with sticking to evidence-based reasoning, is that one has to use evidence based reasoning.

 

[Grinder]

Many, many rape & murder trials, for example, have been prosecuted (with extremely high proportions of safe convictions) on a single piece of circumstantial evidence: the semen DNA of the perp on or in the victim.

the context was why didn't Mignini try the case on the mat alone - no prosecutor would try a case on one piece of evidence unless that is all they have and that would be a very rare case indeed. even the hypothetical you suggest. but of course a footprint could never be as precise as DNA.

 

[sept79]

.
.
.
Of course the truth is that the (bathmat) print cannot be positively matched to Sollecito any more or less than it can be matched to any adult in the world with feet sized in a broad range of around 42-45 (9-11). It most certainly cannot be excluded as a possible match to Guede, and since all the other reliable, credible evidence points to Guede acting alone, I think it's reasonable to suppose that it was indeed Guede who deposited this print.
.
.
.

Question: Should the bathmat print be arguable in court or should a pretrial hearing have determined its match-ability to Guede/Sollecito?

 

[Grinder]

"In situ" in the context of this crime is the way it was discovered at the time of this crime. Otherwise you could just as well go back to the "Big Bang".

Well since the point revolved around the mat and how it was found relating to the missing heel print, it wasn't found in situ or IOW how it was left. Since it had been moved by Amanda any analysis of how it was found by the police is worthless vis-a-vis the missing heel print. Stress on missing.

 

[Grinder]

Me too. The trouble with sticking to evidence-based reasoning, is that one has to use evidence based reasoning.

If it were Raf's print beyond any reasonable doubt, I would not suspect Amanda only Raf. His DNA found on the bra in the murder room, the knife used to kill was his, he was the one that had oddest behavior including stating that nothing was stolen, mixing up dates, worried about the knife and what Rudi would say, pulling their alibi, and not being able to break down the flimsy door.

But since isn't a match or even close...

 

[Grinder]

Question: Should the bathmat print be arguable in court or should a pretrial hearing have determined its match-ability to Guede/Sollecito?

Well this seems to be at the heart of much of the issue with Italian justice. There seems to be very limited ability for the defense to challenge anything they want to use and the second level court doesn't seemingly normally throw out evidence.

The judge being part of the jury also makes it odd because even if thrown out he's seen it. The judge in the NY trial that admitted LCN for the first time did his DD and the lab had to show it could do the job. In Italy they just seem to skip that step.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well since the point revolved around the mat and how it was found relating to the missing heel print, it wasn't found in situ or IOW how it was left. Since it had been moved by Amanda any analysis of how it was found by the police is worthless vis-a-vis the missing heel print. Stress on missing.

Amanda inadvertently moving it IS part of the crime-scene, in a manner very different than the bra-clasp being moved on the floor. This reasoning includes Filomena being allowed to rummage around her room, before the other door had been broken down. A competent investigator would be very reluctant to draw any inference from the condition of that room, ince it was determined that it had been tampered with, albeit it innocently.

But alas, the point is your second to last sentence. Once a competent investigator had discovered that the mat, in situ, was not in the place it had been during the murder, it becomes worthless as evidence.

 

[Grinder]

Note how the bath mat has an irregular surface partly flock and partly smooth. The heal is not on the absorbent surface of the mat, it is off the edge. The pictures of the mat in situ show the presence of the heal on the adjacent tile. So first error in your assumptions; the heal print is present and was not removed.

I don't see the heel print and IIRC it Dan O that had a theory that it wasn't the bidet used but the shower and whoever it was turned the mat to show how a step would have been taken from the shower. If there were a heel print on the tile that wouldn't work.

So while the pictures should be of the mat as found and in that sense in situ if Dan O was right and if AK was telling the truth it had been moved so wasn't in its original position.

 

[Numbers]

For those interested in ECHR case-law applicable to Amanda's ECHR case regarding her conviction for calunnia, there is a post on IIP Forum regarding the following case:

ECHR case of interest: SOBKO v. UKRAINE 15102/10 17/12/2015

See paragraphs 51 - 62.

Violation of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3c (on account of the initial restriction on the applicant’s right to legal defence).

Sobko was accused of and convicted of murdering his stepson. His initial confession, given allegedly voluntarily as a witness, when he had no lawyer, and which he did not renounce until about 4 months had passed after he had a lawyer, contributed to his conviction. There was other evidence suggesting his guilt.

Sobko was allegedly a witness, according to the Ukrainian authorities, when he confessed. The ECHR, considering the de facto situation, judged that he was a suspect under interrogation and entitled to a lawyer.

See:

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3162

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22]}

 

[Vixen]

Not really since there is no credible evidence linking Rudy to Raffaele and/or Amanda. At best you can say is that Rudy had "met" Amanda and that is all. There is no proof of any kind that he had ever met Raffaele. EVER Rudy was seen by CCTV cameras twice outside the cottage that night and neither Amanda were recorded by any CCTV camera that evening. And finally there were no phone calls, texts or emails ever between Rudy and Raff or Amanda. Rudy Skypes Giacomo and says Amanda wasn't there. Frankly, I find all this very convincing.

You can speculate that there was more between Rudy and Amanda or Raffaele, but you don't have a shred of evidence to back it up.

Eyewitness Kokomani made a statement the police he encountered them the evening before, all together, all smashed.

Police verified he was where he said he was. Kokomani even claimed to have taken a pic on his mobile, which was too dark for anyone to identofy, so he deleted it (so he says).

Sure, he sabotaged his court testimony. He claimed he was offered €100K to change his story - with menaces, judging by his heavy disguise in the witness box - a remarkably similar claim made by star defence witness, mafioso jailbird Aviello.

 

[Vixen]

Are you saying that Amanda's DNA was in her bathroom? Shocking! Shocking I tell you.

Btw, do you usually dry off after a shower with Q-tips?

Mignini did say that Amanda's mixed DNA with Mez', and the fact Amanda's blood was on the faucet/tap, was what convinced him of her presence and involvement.

There is no innocent explanation, as the "very astute" Amanda realised, having to make up stories about her ear lobes bleeding.

 

[Vixen]

Because Guede rinsed out the shower well once he'd stepped out of it (and Knox showered in the same shower the next morning, further removing any possible vestige of Guede), and there were no other places where he might potentially have shed his DNA anyhow. Next.





Because Knox used that small bathroom every day for her ablutions, and because Knox had bled from her earlier badly-performed ear piercings. And the droplet/smear of Knox's blood on the tap was easy to miss, especially in a small, low-lit bathroom (after all, if Knox really had participated in the murder and had deposited the blood at that time, it's rather compelling to think that she would have sought to "clean up" that blood too, dontcha think? And exactly the same reasons why she might have missed it in any hypothetical post-murder clean up are the very same reasons why she might have missed it when her ear dropped some blood after the piercings). Next.





You're not demonstrating much evidence of this within this thread, unfortunately. Next.




That's because you don't understand the actual PROPER science behind this matter. The proper science tells us that you simply cannot measure the dimensions of a print made in a saturated medium on a thickly-tufted bathmat whose fibres and textures wick and distort the imprint in all sorts of ways, with absolutely no knowledge of how much weight was or was not placed onto that foot at the time of the deposit, then compare those measurements with reference prints made on a flat, hard paper surface using printer's ink and a standard weight-bearing footfall. Get it now? Next.






This anecdote is both utterly irrelevant and totally non-applicable to the matter under discussion. Astonishing that you felt its inclusion might possibly have added anything to the debate. Next.





So just how did "we adjust for it", Vixen? I'd be fascinated to know exactly how these (mythical) adjustments were made. What "adjustments" did Rinaldi, Boemia, SomeAlibi or you make to take account of the texture, material, movable tufting, saturation spread and footfall characteristics which all will have played a significant role in shaping the partial print on the bathmat? What's that you say? NO ADJUSTMENTS??! Really?! Next.





This is entirely bogus pseudoscience on the one hand, and a really dreadfully improper case of suspect-centric analysis on the other hand. What Rinaldi and Boemia claim to be there in terms of Sollecito's toe characteristic simply is NOT THERE. It's a simple case of people seeing what they want (need?) to see.

And I'll say again, if the bathmat print really DID show Sollecito's unusual toe shape (from his reference print) with sufficient reliability and accuracy as to enable a positive match, then Sollecito (and probably also Knox) would have been convicted. And I (and many others) would switch to a belief in their guilt. But the reason they are ACQUITTED - and why I and many others contend that there's zero reliable, credible evidence of their participation and that they almost certainly played no role in Kercher's murder - is that in fact it's impossible to match any aspect of the bathmat partial print to Sollecito's reference print. Next.





Where do I assert "the footprint is a positive match to Guede"? Because you appear to be still tragically unable to understand the distinction (and the cause/effect correlation). What I ACTUALLY assert is this: 1) It's impossible to positively match the print to Sollecito OR Guede; 2) It's impossible to exclude the print from Sollecito or Guede; 3) all the other evidence points towards (and is totally compatible with) Guede as sole perpetrator, and not one single credible, reliable piece of evidence points towards Sollecito's participation; 4) therefore, IMO it's reasonable to suggest that the footprint belongs to Guede.

So, in other words, I'm not asserting that the print is Guede's because the print can be positively matched to Guede - but rather I'm asserting that since Guede cannot be excluded as the source of the print, and since all the other evidence points strongly to Guede as sole perpetrator, it's therefore reasonable to posit that the print belongs to Guede. Can you see how the logic - applied properly - works here? Next.





A more pertinent question is why you (and many others) seem to have some weird need to believe that most/all pro-acquittal/pro-innocence commentators actually believe Knox and Sollecito to be guilty, but that we choose for some reason to promote an argument for their acquittal/innocence despite that belief. Oh, and the print is not incompatible with Guede. That's rather important in the circumstances. Next. Oh... there is no next. For now.

We are being asked to make a leap of faith and suspend credulity that LondonJohn sitting in his armchair on ISF knows better than experienced police forensic footprint analysts who have studied thousands of cases.

We are being asked - nay, ordered! - to believe not only are Italian police all corrupt through and through, especially Napoleoni, the prosecutors, especially Mignini, judges (except the ignominously annulled Hellmann) and forensic guys, especially Stefanoni, but police scientists Drs Rinaldi and Boemia, too.

According to LondonJohn, Boemia and Rinaldi faked the footprint analyses because they had a soft spot for Rudy and were out to "get the kids".

<fx Brummie accent*> Yes, mate!

*For our American friends, a Brummie accent is renowned in England for conveying the full range of scepticism in its tone, from scorn and derision to amusement and jeer.

 

[Vixen]

You still have no grasp of the machinations and constraints of the Supreme Court in this case, do you? Probably because you're gulping down the KoolAid from certain other strident (and ignorant/vindictive) pro-guilt commentators.

And in addition, you also appear to have no grasp of the utterly improper paradox that presented itself in Guede's trial process (where this incorrect idea of multiple perps got nailed down as judicial "fact"), where both the prosecution and defence had a strong vested interest in the courts ruling that there were multiple people present at the murder.

And on top of that, you appear to have either ignored or failed to understand the testimony of the many pathologists and medical experts, who testified - virtually unanimously - that everything (types of injuries, pattern of injuries, crime scene, etc) made it impossible to conclude whether one or more assailants was involved.

This is where you again fall into logical fallacy. An opinion of not ruling out one attacker alone does not rule out an opinion of "there was probably more than one attacker".

 

[Mike1711]

As long as when you define "the time of the crime" as the "time of the discovery of the crime," then I agree with you.

It begins when someone in authority says, "Everyone out, this is a crime scene."

Yes agree.