The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

[Chris_Halkides]

an introduction to presumptive and confirmatory testing

There is a new entry about presumptive and confirmatory testing in the forensic sciences up. It's an introduction to some of the issues in this general area, and the Knox/Sollecito case is mentioned. The Forensics Forum is organized by Professor Brandon Garrett (U. Virginia), author of the book Convicting the Innocent.

 

[TruthCalls]

Then the obvious explanation isn't that 'Mez must have been murdered as soon as she turned the corner' (she didn't get home until circa 9:05).

If she was apprehended, it would have been Amanda and Rudy lying in wait for her.

CCTV shows someone, presumed to be Meredith, approaching the cottage at 20:41. Since the CCTV system was proven to be 10-12 minutes slow, the physical evidence indicates Meredith arrived home sometime between 20:51 and 20:53. This coincides perfectly with Meredith calling her mother shortly after she gets inside and locks the door, at 20:56, only to have the call get disconnected when Guede attacks her. This is further supported by the fact that the initial assault happened while she was still wearing the jacket she walked home in.

Conversely, you once again resort to lying, presumption and speculation;

(1) That she's walking home with a cell phone pressed to her ear but not connected to anything.

(2) That Meredith couldn't have called her mother that evening because she had spoken to her mother earlier in the day.

(3) That she arrives home at 21:05 when the physical evidence says otherwise (not only the CCTV, but they left Amy and Robyn's place at 20:45 (estimated by Sophie in her testimony) and it's less than a 15 minute walk). Your "circa 9:05" claim is pure nonsense, supported by absolutely nothing.

(4) That Amanda is lying in wait for Meredith even though Amanda had no idea when - or if - Meredith would be returning home that evening.

(5) That Popovic spoke with Amanda at Raffaele's apartment at about the time Meredith and Sophie are leaving Amy and Robyn's place, that Amelie didn't end until 21:10 - and yet you claim Amanda was lying in wait for her at the cottage before 21:00.

(6) Lying in wait means to hide in preparation to surprise attack someone. But you've often said this was not premeditated, that it was an argument that escalated. So which is it? Oh wait, I know... you are about to redefine what "lying in wait" means.

So once again we have a situation where you close your eyes to evidence, you make things up, you completely abandon any effort at critical thought and as a result you jump to yet another baseless conclusion. Perfect.

 

[Welshman]

I was making a fair comment on what was overheard by an attorney in Italy in the presence of witnesses. It is a simple alleged incidence. Nobody knows for sure he was bribed: it is reasonable speculation, given the egregiousness and most irregular reasoning of the Hellman court, which as you know was eviscarated and excoriated by the supreme court in the harshest of terms, never before seen in Italian legal history.

It is an established legal fact that Amanda is a liar, who lied to obstruct justice ( a young woman was brutally murdered, here, and here's Amanda and Raff making fun of the cops) .

The most recent ruling, issued by Florence, 22 January 2017, underlines Amanda's perfidity and perversity:



Florence 22 January 2017
Presiding Judge
Dr. Silvia Martuscelli
Reporting Judge
Dr. Paola MASI
Filed with Registry [the clerk of court] 10 February 2017
Antonio Bossa
Clerk

We see in this post the usual hypocrisy of the PGP. Vixen attacks Amanda for lying but her post contains a made up story about an attorney overhearing that Hellman had been bribed and Vixen slavishly defends Chieffi who wrote a report riddled with falsehoods. In the same posts Vixen attacks Amanda for lying. We can always rely on the PGP to show staggering levels of hypocrisy.

 

[Stacyhs]

CCTV shows someone, presumed to be Meredith, approaching the cottage at 20:41. Since the CCTV system was proven to be 10-12 minutes slow, the physical evidence indicates Meredith arrived home sometime between 20:51 and 20:53. This coincides perfectly with Meredith calling her mother shortly after she gets inside and locks the door, at 20:56, only to have the call get disconnected when Guede attacks her. This is further supported by the fact that the initial assault happened while she was still wearing the jacket she walked home in.

Conversely, you once again resort to lying, presumption and speculation;

(1) That she's walking home with a cell phone pressed to her ear but not connected to anything.

(2) That Meredith couldn't have called her mother that evening because she had spoken to her mother earlier in the day.

(3) That she arrives home at 21:05 when the physical evidence says otherwise (not only the CCTV, but they left Amy and Robyn's place at 20:45 (estimated by Sophie in her testimony) and it's less than a 15 minute walk). Your "circa 9:05" claim is pure nonsense, supported by absolutely nothing.

(4) That Amanda is lying in wait for Meredith even though Amanda had no idea when - or if - Meredith would be returning home that evening.

(5) That Popovic spoke with Amanda at Raffaele's apartment at about the time Meredith and Sophie are leaving Amy and Robyn's place, that Amelie didn't end until 21:10 - and yet you claim Amanda was lying in wait for her at the cottage before 21:00.

(6) Lying in wait means to hide in preparation to surprise attack someone. But you've often said this was not premeditated, that it was an argument that escalated. So which is it? Oh wait, I know... you are about to redefine what "lying in wait" means.

So once again we have a situation where you close your eyes to evidence, you make things up, you completely abandon any effort at critical thought and as a result you jump to yet another baseless conclusion. Perfect.

There you go again confusing the issue with facts! Darn you!

Sophie Purton, who left at the same time as Meredith about 8:45, said that she was home just before 9:00 as she wanted to watch a TV program that started then. It was only a short walk from where the girls parted at a street intersection to Meredith's cottage. So Meredith was home before 9:05.

 

[acbytesla]

CCTV shows someone, presumed to be Meredith, approaching the cottage at 20:41. Since the CCTV system was proven to be 10-12 minutes slow, the physical evidence indicates Meredith arrived home sometime between 20:51 and 20:53. This coincides perfectly with Meredith calling her mother shortly after she gets inside and locks the door, at 20:56, only to have the call get disconnected when Guede attacks her. This is further supported by the fact that the initial assault happened while she was still wearing the jacket she walked home in.

Conversely, you once again resort to lying, presumption and speculation;

(1) That she's walking home with a cell phone pressed to her ear but not connected to anything.

(2) That Meredith couldn't have called her mother that evening because she had spoken to her mother earlier in the day.

(3) That she arrives home at 21:05 when the physical evidence says otherwise (not only the CCTV, but they left Amy and Robyn's place at 20:45 (estimated by Sophie in her testimony) and it's less than a 15 minute walk). Your "circa 9:05" claim is pure nonsense, supported by absolutely nothing.

(4) That Amanda is lying in wait for Meredith even though Amanda had no idea when - or if - Meredith would be returning home that evening.

(5) That Popovic spoke with Amanda at Raffaele's apartment at about the time Meredith and Sophie are leaving Amy and Robyn's place, that Amelie didn't end until 21:10 - and yet you claim Amanda was lying in wait for her at the cottage before 21:00.

(6) Lying in wait means to hide in preparation to surprise attack someone. But you've often said this was not premeditated, that it was an argument that escalated. So which is it? Oh wait, I know... you are about to redefine what "lying in wait" means.

So once again we have a situation where you close your eyes to evidence, you make things up, you completely abandon any effort at critical thought and as a result you jump to yet another baseless conclusion. Perfect.

She is grasping at straws. What I find amazing and amusing is how she is willing to suggest that a possibility and often an impossibility to be what actually happened. Instead of couching the idea as something that could have happened, it becomes part of her narrative. I give her points in that she weaves complete stories full of detail. Never mind they are houses without foundations. She'll include points that have been debunked many times. Often I accept some of them as true because while I know this case very well I forget some details after time.

I'm use to dealing with people that actually care about what's true and while they or I might have a different understanding to what that might be, once the actual truth of a point is resolved, it isn't revisited as if it wasn't.

 

[Numbers]

There is a new entry about presumptive and confirmatory testing in the forensic sciences up. It's an introduction to some of the issues in this general area, and the Knox/Sollecito case is mentioned. The Forensics Forum is organized by Professor Brandon Garrett (U. Virginia), author of the book Convicting the Innocent.

Chris, thank you for providing this* very informative and well-written explanation of the role of presumptive and confirmatory testing in forensics.

*https://forensicsforum.net/2017/03/...onfirmatory-testing-in-the-forensic-sciences/

Among the blog's valuable reminders are: 1) that a presumptive test can be considered a screening test, 2) the definitions of sensitivity and specificity, 3) pointing out that sensitivity should not be confused with the limit of detection (which, I suggest, in some fields may be called "resolution"), and 4) without the confirmatory test, one simply does not know whether or not a postive presumptive test is an indication of the presence of the substance to be detected, such as blood or semen.

Here is an excerpt from the blog article:

A positive result from a presumptive test for blood indicates the possibility that blood is present. A positive result from a confirmatory test allows one to conclude that blood is present. The Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case illustrated the problem of relying upon one positive presumptive test for blood (luminol) while ignoring negative results from another presumptive test, tetramethylbenzidine. The Gregory Taylor case illustrated the situation that arises when a presumptive test for blood is positive, the confirmatory test is negative, and the laboratory chooses to obfuscate. In the Lindy and Michael Chamberlain case, negative results from a presumptive test were ignored, and positive results were claimed to indicate that blood was present. Furthermore some positive results from the presumptive test came from an inaccessible location in the Chamberlain’s car, a result that should have caused the forensic workers to reassess their conclusions but did not. Based upon these cases, one might imagine that the limitations of presumptive testing for blood are well understood. However not every laboratory performs confirmatory testing for blood; instead, some move straight into DNA profiling, as noted by Castro and Coyle.

 

[Vixen]

CCTV shows someone, presumed to be Meredith, approaching the cottage at 20:41. Since the CCTV system was proven to be 10-12 minutes slow, the physical evidence indicates Meredith arrived home sometime between 20:51 and 20:53. This coincides perfectly with Meredith calling her mother shortly after she gets inside and locks the door, at 20:56, only to have the call get disconnected when Guede attacks her. This is further supported by the fact that the initial assault happened while she was still wearing the jacket she walked home in.

Conversely, you once again resort to lying, presumption and speculation;

(1) That she's walking home with a cell phone pressed to her ear but not connected to anything.

(2) That Meredith couldn't have called her mother that evening because she had spoken to her mother earlier in the day.

(3) That she arrives home at 21:05 when the physical evidence says otherwise (not only the CCTV, but they left Amy and Robyn's place at 20:45 (estimated by Sophie in her testimony) and it's less than a 15 minute walk). Your "circa 9:05" claim is pure nonsense, supported by absolutely nothing.

(4) That Amanda is lying in wait for Meredith even though Amanda had no idea when - or if - Meredith would be returning home that evening.

(5) That Popovic spoke with Amanda at Raffaele's apartment at about the time Meredith and Sophie are leaving Amy and Robyn's place, that Amelie didn't end until 21:10 - and yet you claim Amanda was lying in wait for her at the cottage before 21:00.

(6) Lying in wait means to hide in preparation to surprise attack someone. But you've often said this was not premeditated, that it was an argument that escalated. So which is it? Oh wait, I know... you are about to redefine what "lying in wait" means.

So once again we have a situation where you close your eyes to evidence, you make things up, you completely abandon any effort at critical thought and as a result you jump to yet another baseless conclusion. Perfect.

It has always been my opinion that it was premeditated.

Note the pages ripped out of Amanda's diary, the phones switched off before 9:00; grabbing a kitchen knife on way out (cf Rachel Wade), the sheer brutality.

As the pair were charged with aggravated murder, which automatically means life, there was no requirement for the police or prosecutor, to construct a case for premeditation (as they might have had to in the USA).

Kokomani said he saw the three of them smashed out of their heads crouched behind the bins awaiting their 'friend'. He was pinged in the area, I think there is a grain of truth in his claim.

The Amélie film crashed at 9:10 - there is no requirement for one to be sitting in front of it watching it.

Phone switched back on 6:00 - Raff and midday Amanda, whereupon her first call was to Mez.

Look up Costas / Protti, De Nardo, Erin Caffey- the murder archives are littered with teenage girls armed with sharp weapons who set off specifically to kill.

Personally, I am sceptical that a row would lead to the type of torture Mez was subjected to. It was someone obtaining sadistic and vindictive pleasure out of it. Taking both of Mez' phones and locking the door, is the height of wickedness.

 

[Vixen]

We see in this post the usual hypocrisy of the PGP. Vixen attacks Amanda for lying but her post contains a made up story about an attorney overhearing that Hellman had been bribed and Vixen slavishly defends Chieffi who wrote a report riddled with falsehoods. In the same posts Vixen attacks Amanda for lying. We can always rely on the PGP to show staggering levels of hypocrisy.

Chieffi was 'riddled with falsehoods' was it? Citation of the report in which he was castigated, please.

 

[Planigale]

No. You tell me the evidence to support the claim that Kercher had one phone in her jeans pocket and one phone in her bag when she was confronted and attacked. While you're at it, tell me how anyone outside of Kercher and the person who took the phones could ever even know where the two phones were at the time when Kercher was confronted and attacked*.

You can't? Oh right, I thought that would be the case. So you'll withdraw the claim, I'm assuming?


* Nobody outside of Kercher and the person who took the phones will ever, ever know where those two phones were at the time they were taken. Perhaps Kercher had placed both phones on her bedside table just after she came into the cottage and went into her room. We'll never know. Perhaps Kercher had one phone in her hand and one in her jeans pocket when she was attacked. We'll never know. Perhaps she had one phone in either pocket of her jeans. We'll never know. Perhaps she had both phones in her bag. We'll never know. Perhaps she had placed both phones on her desk intending to plug them in to charge. We'll never know. The point is.... it's absolutely, categorically impossible to state that Kercher had one phone in her jeans pocket and the other phone in her bag at the moment when she was confronted. Impossible.

The only person who would know the location of the phones is the murderer. Vixen knows the location of the phones.
Logically therefore...

 

[Numbers]

The only person who would know the location of the phones is the murderer. Vixen knows the location of the phones.
Logically therefore...

Planigale, while you may be correct according to old-fashioned logic, your post may be unfair to Vixen, who has stated in her post #2027 of this Continuation 24 that:

"I perceive the world differently than most as I have a higher consciousness."

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Planigale, while you may be correct according to old-fashioned logic, your post may be unfair to Vixen, who has stated in her post #2027 of this Continuation 24 that:

"I perceive the world differently than most as I have a higher consciousness."

hahaha shut up she didn't say that.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Planigale, while you may be correct according to old-fashioned logic, your post may be unfair to Vixen, who has stated in her post #2027 of this Continuation 24 that:

"I perceive the world differently than most as I have a higher consciousness."

hahaha shut up she didn't say that.

Holy crap she did say that. Well that clears up this whole Vixen thing lol.

 

[Bill Williams]

So once again we have a situation where you close your eyes to evidence, you make things up, you completely abandon any effort at critical thought and as a result you jump to yet another baseless conclusion. Perfect.

It has always been my opinion that it was premeditated.

We see in this post the usual hypocrisy of the PGP. Vixen attacks Amanda for lying but her post contains a made up story about an attorney overhearing that Hellman had been bribed and Vixen slavishly defends Chieffi who wrote a report riddled with falsehoods. In the same posts Vixen attacks Amanda for lying. We can always rely on the PGP to show staggering levels of hypocrisy.

Chieffi was 'riddled with falsehoods' was it? Citation of the report in which he was castigated, please.

Vixen doesn't even bother with consistency.

In response to TruthCalls's claim that Vixen simply abandons evidence, Vixen's response is to state a "belief".

Then when Welshman states his own belief that Chieffi is "riddled with falsehoods, Vixen wants to see a report in which Chieffi is castigated.

Well, Vixen can start with herself. She has just "castigated" ALL the judges, none of whom saw this as a premeditated crime. Not the Massei, Not the Hellmann, not the Chieffi ISC panel, not the Nencini court, and not the Marasca/Bruno ISC panel saw this as a premeditated crime. None of them.

Why would Vixen want to castigate each and every one of the courts for missing this?

 

[Vixen]

Vixen doesn't even bother with consistency.

In response to TruthCalls's claim that Vixen simply abandons evidence, Vixen's response is to state a "belief".

Then when Welshman states his own belief that Chieffi is "riddled with falsehoods, Vixen wants to see a report in which Chieffi is castigated.

Well, Vixen can start with herself. She has just "castigated" ALL the judges, none of whom saw this as a premeditated crime. Not the Massei, Not the Hellmann, not the Chieffi ISC panel, not the Nencini court, and not the Marasca/Bruno ISC panel saw this as a premeditated crime. None of them.

Why would Vixen want to castigate each and every one of the courts for missing this?

TruthCalls erroneously claims that I alternate between 'escalated row' and 'premeditation'. I have never been of the opinion it was an escalated row. A row between housemates IMV (I know this is a minority view) might lead to a cat fight, with much crockery smashing, slamming doors, yelling, hair-pulling, kicking and scratching, but a prolonged cat-and-mouse torture with two knives, numerous flick marks on victim's hands face and chin, a knife plunged in upwards, with a sawing motion, three times, and an elaborate staging afterwards - it reeks of vengeance, envy and resentment by the perpetrator (who from the staging, we can surmise, lives there). Hell hath no fury like...?

As Micheli astutely points out, if the aim was rape by Rudy then he would have finished the rape off. Even Marasca remarks it had the hallmarks of a serial killer, not a chance burglar.

As for castigation, Hellmann was humiliatingly, for him, publicly and roundly trashed by Cheiffi and pensioned off without ceremony.

 

[abaddon]

It is not. All my numbers have the country code.

Mine don't. Nor is there any requirement for that.

 

[Vixen]

Planigale, while you may be correct according to old-fashioned logic, your post may be unfair to Vixen, who has stated in her post #2027 of this Continuation 24 that:

"I perceive the world differently than most as I have a higher consciousness."

Why are we not surprised Numbers once again has taken words out of context?

No mention of acbytesla's ridiculous comments that it was referring to.

 

[Vixen]

Mine don't. Nor is there any requirement for that.

There is no requirement. However, if you travel or ring abroad frequently you would do the same.

Mez rang her parents frequently.

 

[acbytesla]

acbytesla, you raise interesting questions. In the US, certainly undocumented ("illegal") immigrants are subject to deportation after serving a sentence after a criminal conviction ("irregular" first-time entry itself being actionable as a civil, not criminal, matter) and the federal government pursues this without prompting. It's interesting that in Italy, an acquitted co-accused can raise the issue of deporting the convicted accused who is not an Italian citizen through a notice to the police.

I agree, I even think it's bizarre But then again a lot of things about the Justice system are hard to reconcile.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

There is no requirement. However, if you travel or ring abroad frequently you would do the same.

Mez rang her parents frequently.

In the U.S., on my cell phone carrier, you do not have to dial the country code when calling your home country when on an international plan.

Of course, Meredith's may have been different. But you don't know that and are making up fantasies in your head again. Because that's how your "higher consciousness" works lolol.

 

[Vixen]

The only person who would know the location of the phones is the murderer. Vixen knows the location of the phones.
Logically therefore...

Et tu, brute?