The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[Bill Williams]

Very interesting article on the lamp. I had always assumed that the lamp was found at the time the door was broken down. I agree that Mignini would have verified in court that none of the police had brought it from Amanda's room and would have asked Battistelli, et al, if it was there when the door was broken down. Am I correct that no one ever testified to that?

Mignini could have concluded with each witness with the same question, "Did you, or did you see anyone take that lamp into the murder room?" If he got negative answers from all witnesses he would have had at least some basis for saying Knox had done it.

But he waited for the crime-video cartoon, to slip the inference into the court's collective mind having led no evidence about it.

On it's iwn what does this mean? Is it endemic of the case in total as brought by Mignini?

 

[Bill Williams]

One of the best summaries of this case you'll ever read, from an author I've never heard of.

https://hardthinking.com/2016/09/29/amanda-knox-and-the-morons/

It's a bit on the conspiracy side, even as an innocence author, but it is a decent summary in a relatively small package.

 

[Bill Williams]

One of the best summaries of this case you'll ever read, from an author I've never heard of.

https://hardthinking.com/2016/09/29/amanda-knox-and-the-morons/

It's a bit on the conspiracy side, even as an innocence author, but it is a decent summary in a relatively small package.

Whoever this author is, it was a hoot to read him summarizing Mignini's brilliant investigative logic, which tbe author says proves only Mignini's utter incompetence....

Raffaele says the night before the murder, Knox was out. The night before could be the night of. Therefore, Knox did it. Knox texted L the night of the murder. Therefore, L did it. Knox admitted L did it. Therefore, we were right about L. But wait! L was serving drinks. Forensics say G did it. G is black. L is black. Therefore, Knox did it.

 

[Numbers]

Here's a statement of case law from the ECHR reiterating the principles of Salduz v. Turkey and Dayanan v. Turkey. In this particular case, the ECHR judged that the accused person, a lawyer, had signed a valid waiver, but without such a valid waiver, a lawyer must as a rule be present from the first interrogation of a suspect and available from the beginning of police custody or detention.

"76. .... In a number of its judgments the Court, being mindful of the vulnerable position of a suspect vis-à-vis the investigative authorities, has emphasised the paramount importance of access to a lawyer before the first questioning as a means to counter the power imbalance between the parties (see, among other authorities, Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, §§ 50-55 and 58, 27 November 2008 and Leonid Lazarenko v. Ukraine, no. 22313/04, §§ 48‑52, 28 October 2010). It has noted, in particular, that the rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction (see Salduz, cited above, § 55). Likewise, the very fact of restricting access of a detained suspect to a lawyer may prejudice the rights of the defence even where no incriminating statements were obtained as a result (see e.g. Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03, §§ 32-33, 13 October 2009). On the other hand, neither the letter nor the spirit of Article 6 of the Convention prevents a person from waiving of his own free will, either expressly or tacitly, the entitlement to the guarantees of a fair trial, as long as a waiver of the right is given in an unequivocal manner and was attended by minimum safeguards commensurate to its importance (see Salduz, cited above, § 59)."

Source: PASKAL v. UKRAINE 24652/04 15/09/2011

 

[acbytesla]

One of the best summaries of this case you'll ever read, from an author I've never heard of.

https://hardthinking.com/2016/09/29/amanda-knox-and-the-morons/

It's a bit on the conspiracy side, even as an innocence author, but it is a decent summary in a relatively small package.

Great article. I especially like the title. It's the description I've been using. These a-holes were morons and continue to be so. Which leads me to the question and that is why do people aspire to be stupid?

 

[Bill Williams]

Great article. I especially like the title. It's the description I've been using. These a-holes were morons and continue to be so. Which leads me to the question and that is why do people aspire to be stupid?

There are some who say that the forensic trip back to the cottage 46 days later, was a trip to frame Raffaele. Personally, I don't know what to think about that - but given that Exhibit 165 was the sum total of the prosecution case against him, you could be forgiven for thinking so.

But as framers, they would have been the most incompetent framers in the history of putting innocent people in prison. They even filmed themselves blowing the frame....

 

[Numbers]

Another ECHR case of interest (excerpt from the press release; the judgment is in French):

Sîrghi v. Romania (no. 19181/09)*
The applicant, Marinică Sîrghi, is a Romanian national who was born in 1973 and lives in
Verbania (Italy).
The case concerned the fact that Mr Sîrghi had not been assisted by a lawyer when he had made his initial statements at the police station in the context of criminal proceedings against him, and his allegation that he had not been informed of the charges against him. While driving a tractor on the public highway during the night of 8 July 2006 Mr Sîrghi was stopped by police officers in order to undergo a breathalyser test. As Mr Sîrghi attempted to flee, the police officers immobilised him and took him to Arad County Hospital, where he was breathalysed. A police report was drawn up on 9 July 2006 in the presence of Mr Sîrghi and two witnesses; the applicant refused to sign the report. He also made a handwritten statement, which was added to the file, in which he said that he had been driving the tractor to a car wash, had drunk one beer and did not have a valid driving licence. On 9 August 2006 the public prosecutor’s office opened criminal proceedings against Mr Sîrghi for theft and for driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and without a driving licence. {He later claimed his statement was given under duress and maintained someone else was driving the tractor, and he was a passenger.} .... In a judgment of 31 January 2008 Mr Sîrghi was found guilty and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. He appealed against the judgment, claiming in particular that his defence rights had been breached because he had not been informed of the charges against him and had not been assisted by a lawyer when he gave a statement at the beginning of the investigation. {His appeal was dismissed in final judgment.}

Relying in particular on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial/right to be informed promptly of the accusation/right to the assistance of a lawyer), Mr Sîrghi complained that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair, notably alleging that he had not been informed of the possibility of being assisted by a lawyer.

{ECHR judgment:} Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c)

Here is the conclusion of the ECHR judgment, Google translated into English, condensed for clarity and with inline citations deleted:

"50. In the present case, the Court considers that the fact that it was impossible for the applicant to be informed of his rights of defense and of the right to be assisted by a lawyer and {the law requiring the suspect to be cautioned was apparently not enforced (?)}.

52. .... {T}he Court is of the opinion that the Court of Appeal did not examine the merits of the applicant's complaint and thus failed to remedy the consequences resulting from the non-assistance of the applicant by a lawyer during his interrogation by the police.... In addition, the Court notes that both the court of first instance and the Arad County Court relied on the applicant's two statements in support of his conviction .... {T}he Court of Appeal in Timişoara .... did not examine the merits of the applicant's complaint alleging the absence of a lawyer at the time of his statements.

53. Accordingly, the Court considers that the fact that the applicant could not be assisted by a lawyer during his interrogation by the police irreparably affected his rights of defense. It therefore concludes that there has been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention."

____
Analysis: The ECHR found that the applicant's defense rights under the Convention had been violated, including the right to be informed of defense rights and the right to a lawyer during interrogation. The judgment relied only on the actions and lack of actions of the State authorities, and not on whether or not the applicant was guilty or not guilty of the criminal charges against him. This is consistent with the ECHR not having the role of a court of appeal; its role is to judge whether or not the respondent State violated the Convention rights of the applicant, and, if they have been, to indicate means for redress. In this case, it appears that the respondent State, Romania, agreed that the possibility of a retrial (reopening of proceedings) would be part of the redress if the ECHR found a violation:

"56. The Government observed that the applicant had not proved that he had suffered pecuniary damage and had objected to the payment of a sum in that respect. As regards non-pecuniary damage, it considered that the finding of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention taken together with the possibility of obtaining the reopening of the domestic proceedings constituted sufficient compensation for that damage. Moreover, it is of the opinion that the sum claimed by the applicant is excessive in relation to the case-law of the Court in this matter."

 

[stargazer0519]

Great article. I especially like the title. It's the description I've been using. These a-holes were morons and continue to be so. Which leads me to the question and that is why do people aspire to be stupid?

Maybe we like stupid people because sometimes they are the fastest at running and they are sometimes the most accurate at shooting.

We want people who are good runners and good marksmen to become police officers.

Maybe there should be a difference between an officer on the beat and a detective.

In a small police station, in a small town, or at a small college, you could have police officers who serve multiple roles. Perhaps someone whose job it mostly is to issue parking tickets to students who parked in faculty or visitor spots...perhaps they are not the best people to investigate serious felonies?

 

[Vixen]

One of the best summaries of this case you'll ever read, from an author I've never heard of.

https://hardthinking.com/2016/09/29/amanda-knox-and-the-morons/

It's a bit on the conspiracy side, even as an innocence author, but it is a decent summary in a relatively small package.

You believe any old ****, then.

 

[Vixen]

There are some who say that the forensic trip back to the cottage 46 days later, was a trip to frame Raffaele. Personally, I don't know what to think about that - but given that Exhibit 165 was the sum total of the prosecution case against him, you could be forgiven for thinking so.

But as framers, they would have been the most incompetent framers in the history of putting innocent people in prison. They even filmed themselves blowing the frame....

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397154cd64bdf2e8d.jpg[/qimg]

That really is paranoia at its height.

Think about it rationally. Raff was NOT American, he was NOT a slut, he was NOT working class, he was NOT an Ivorian, he was NOT Congolese.


Now why would the police decide to plant Raff's DNA on the bra-clasp, and how did they manage it?

Please get a grip on reality.

 

[acbytesla]

You believe any old ****, then.

No, Vixen, that isn't the problem with Bill. That is exactly the problem with the prosecutor's and those who believe in guilt.

We don't believe that just because Rudy and Patrick are relatively the same skin color you can interchange them.

We don't believe that 3 people that barely or had never met got together without any
electronic transmissions.

We don't believe that these strangers quickly developed a homicidal rage for a 4th stranger.

We don't believe it was a Satanic ritual.

We don't believe it was an sex orgy that morphed into a murder.

We don't believe that one killer can leave a dozen shoeprints in blood while there are no others.

We don't believe a huge cooking knife was transported to the cottage and back.

Sorry, it's the PGP that seem to believe any wild story.

 

[Bill Williams]

That really is paranoia at its height.

Think about it rationally. Raff was NOT American, he was NOT a slut, he was NOT working class, he was NOT an Ivorian, he was NOT Congolese.


Now why would the police decide to plant Raff's DNA on the bra-clasp, and how did they manage it?

Please get a grip on reality.

Once Raffaele's Nikes's were ruled out, once his flik-knife was ruled out and once he refused to turn on Knox, they had to get something.

They knew this case could not last long simply by repeating the word "slut" in the hopes the Nick Pisa's of the world could grab headlines.

That it lasted 7 1/2 years was bad enough.

The strange thing is that even 2 years after the final and definitive exonerations, there are still some who believe that chucking the word "slut" into a sentence will compensate for there being no evidence either of them had been involved.

That's what had been wrong in the first few years. It turned out that even in Italy that will get you some headlines, but ultimately not farther than that.

Great post though. It proves a lot of what Thor Klamet is on about.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

That really is paranoia at its height.

Think about it rationally. Raff was NOT American, he was NOT a slut, he was NOT working class, he was NOT an Ivorian, he was NOT Congolese.


Now why would the police decide to plant Raff's DNA on the bra-clasp, and how did they manage it?

Please get a grip on reality.

Hi Vixen,
I don't think anyone is saying the police "planted" Raff's DNA on the bra clasp.

What Bill (and others) are saying is that the sole purpose of the trip to the cottage 46 days later was an attempt to FIND new evidence implicating Raff. And (hopefully) Amanda. Because they had zero evidence Raff was involved on their first go around, yet they needed evidence to implicate him because he was Amanda's alibi. Does that not seem a bit backwards to you? Why not just prosecute the guy they had tons of evidence on already from their first sweeping of the cottage -- Rudy Guede? Do you think it may be because they were a bit biased in their search for the killer, they beat a "confession" out of Amanda, and now they were a bit desperate to find evidence to prosecute her, and now Raffaele (since he gave her an alibi)?

Related question: why do you think they found zero evidence of Raffaele in their first go around? Do you think it's possible it is because he wasn't actually involved in a Samhain murder ritual with the local burglar/drifter (that he didn't know), oh... and that American girl he knew for like 5 days? And perhaps Rudy did it alone -- by breaking into the cottage through a second floor window, running into Meredith when she arrived home, and murdered her when things escalated? Since..... that's what the evidence overwhelmingly points towards?

Just some things to think about.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Oh and as to why the DNA was on the bra clasp in the first place:

Poor collection procedures as proven by video taken of the evidence collection of the crime scene. Investigators didn't change gloves, didn't care about DNA transfer, and we have a picture of an investigator touching the clasp with dirty gloves (proving the gloves were not changed before touching the clasp; which leads to contamination).

Since Raffaele had been to the cottage multiple times, and even tried to break down that very door the day Meredith's body was discovered, we know his DNA was at the scene and this presence of his DNA was unlinked to the murder. Combine that with poor collection procedures that I described above led to transfer of his DNA to the bra clasp.

In fact, we have proof the clasp was contaminated -- the clasp had Meredith's DNA on it, Raffaele's, AND two other unknown individuals unrelated to the murder.

So think about this logically -- either a) this is PROOF these two other unknown individuals were involved in the murder as well. So Meredith was killed by Rudy, Amanda, Raffaele, and two other people we haven't heard of yet. or b) all of the science we have previously linked to you in this thread is accurate, and "DNA transfer" can happen. So you have to be careful with evidence collection, and this is WHY there are protocols for evidence collection (these protocols aren't just arbitrary and completely useless in practice. They are in place to prevent things like innocent DNA transfer.) And if the science is accurate (it likely is, since it's all been well established, peer reviewed, empirically proven, etc. over the course of decades.) AND we have video and photographic PROOF the evidence collection procedure was faulty, we therefore know the bra clasp was contaminated and had DNA of individuals not involved in the murder.

Thus the bra clasp does not implicate Raffaele -- the same way it doesn't implicate the two other unknown individuals that have their DNA on the clasp.

Does that make sense?

 

[Bill Williams]

Hi Vixen,
I don't think anyone is saying the police "planted" Raff's DNA on the bra clasp.

There are many people who believe that this is exactly what the police did. Planted evidence incriminatibe Raffaele.

Sticking with **evidence** though, that would mean that the cops also planted evidence against three other unidentified men. Why would they have done that, esp. if at the end of the day they were neither interested that this potentially implicated three others, nor that it then was heavily suggestive of contamination?

Best not to pursue either of those two possibilities, because as even convicting Judge Nencini wrote, the point was that Raffaele's DNA had been found.

Ok, everyone, and a one, and a two...... suspect centric!

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Bill,
OK, fair enough, I have heard people suggest the DNA was "planted".

Maybe it was. But I prefer the simpler explanation since there were 2 other unknown contributors to the DNA mixture on the clasp. We know the evidence collection procedure was faulty (see: video of the collection and pictures of dirty gloves), and we know DNA transfer is a real phenomena (see: tons of papers and interviews/presentations/talks by leading forensic scientists and geneticists), so the simpler explanation was that the police didn't collect the evidence properly and thus caused innocent DNA transfer.

We don't need to invent a nefarious motive of intentional planting because the simpler explanation (collection protocol failure) explains the evidence just as well.

The other possibility is of course 5 people killed Meredith in that tiny bedroom. And the pagan murder ritual was even more elaborate than previously thought! Where are these other two people and why haven't the police searched for them? (Probably because everyone knows it wasn't a 5 way pagan murder ritual among 5 people who never met. And the innocent DNA transfer explanation is by far the most likely.)

 

[acbytesla]

Bill,
OK, fair enough, I have heard people suggest the DNA was "planted".

Maybe it was. But I prefer the simpler explanation since there were 2 other unknown contributors to the DNA mixture on the clasp. We know the evidence collection procedure was faulty (see: video of the collection and pictures of dirty gloves), and we know DNA transfer is a real phenomena (see: tons of papers and interviews/presentations/talks by leading forensic scientists and geneticists), so the simpler explanation was that the police didn't collect the evidence properly and thus caused innocent DNA transfer.

We don't need to invent a nefarious motive of intentional planting because the simpler explanation (collection protocol failure) explains the evidence just as well.

The other possibility is of course 5 people killed Meredith in that tiny bedroom. And the pagan murder ritual was even more elaborate than previously thought! Where are these other two people and why haven't the police searched for them? (Probably because everyone knows it wasn't a 5 way pagan murder ritual among 5 people who never met. And the innocent DNA transfer explanation is by far the most likely.)

I DON'T think THEY planted DNA or any evidence. That would suggest a conspiracy. But if you don't think they were out to get Raffaele and Amanda at this point you're naive. They had talked themselves into this crazy idea that Amanda and Raffaele were responsible and their case was crumbling. Like an aphorism they had repeated over and over again they now believed it. (Say enough 'Our Fathers and 'Hail Marys' and you start to believe in the invisible and mythical)

And while I don't believe in conspiracy, I do believe that noble cause corruption is far more prevalent then anyone would like to admit. All it takes is 1 person who believes in the cause more than the process. People rationalize all sorts of actions.

 

[bagels]

That really is paranoia at its height.

Think about it rationally. Raff was NOT American, he was NOT a slut, he was NOT working class, he was NOT an Ivorian, he was NOT Congolese.


Now why would the police decide to plant Raff's DNA on the bra-clasp, and how did they manage it?

Please get a grip on reality.

Reminder: you believe the mafia operating at the highest levels of Italian society with the highest court in Rome in their pocket, including all the local appellate courts throughout Italy and the officials in charge of then, maneuvered to free some psycho killer twerp of some no-name doctor, for no reason.

 

[Stacyhs]

I do NOT believe the police planted any evidence. I DO believe the bra was contaminated for the very logical and scientifically sound reasons NotEvenWrong posted. It is manifestly illogical to believe that Raffaele, in the process of ripping/cutting off the bra, would have left his DNA ONLY on that one tiny hook. He would have had to tightly grip the bra in a much larger area in order to then cut or pull it apart.
As Prof. Peter Gill said:

Professor Gill says:

'For the record, it's extremely concerning for the bra clasp not to be collected until 46 days after the stabbing and it's my understanding that it was then in a different position. And my other concern is that they didn't change their gloves in between handling evidential items.

'It's known that Sollecito had used the door handle to get into the apartment. But, if investigators had touched the door handle, then the bra clasp, they'd be transferring his DNA, unless you were very, very careful.

Raffaele also touched the outside bedroom door and its handle when he tried to open it. The incompetent SP failed to even test that outside door handle. Gill also states that the gloves worn by the SP are an excellent source of DNA transfer contamination in contradiction to what some PGP have claimed.

 

[Stacyhs]

Regarding the claim that Amanda's epithelial cells were the source of her DNA when she "washed her hands of Meredith's blood", Gill states:

'Simply because DNA is identical in every type of cell, same in skin, blood, semen etc, you can't distinguish which particular body fluid or tissue it came from,'

This is why neither the court nor Vixen could provide any evidence that Amanda washed her hands of Meredith's blood.

Regarding Vixen's claim that Amanda's DNA was found on the bra and Pacelli walked off the case due to it, the PGP oft quoted David Balding's computer program disagrees:

Forensic scientists can now construct a partial DNA profile from just a few cells, says David Balding at University College London. However, natural contamination from DNA in the environment, together with the fact that it is impossible to build a complete genetic profile from so few cells, means that interpreting LTDNA evidence is challenging. Consequently, court cases where it plays a central role – such as the trial of Amanda Knox for the murder of Meredith Kercher – often become controversial.

That largely reflects a lack of proper statistical techniques to handle the data, Balding says. His software is a step towards improving that.

It compares a full DNA profile of a suspect with an incomplete DNA profile found at a crime scene. By incorporating factors such as the natural decay of a DNA sample, or the presence of DNA from another person entirely, the software can provide a probability score that a suspect was at the crime scene. Using the software on a sample from a bra clasp found near Kercher’s body suggests it is very unlikely that the item carries Knox’s DNA. Italy’s supreme court ruled in June that Knox and her then-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, acquitted in 2011, should be retried for the murder

(New Scientist)