The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[TruthCalls]

I don't remember giving that advice! If I implied that I immediately recant!

Sorry, when you wrote; "Perhaps it is time for all of us (save for the calunnia) to simply move on since at the end M/B actually did acquit." I took it to mean move onto other cases/discussions.

Regardless, I think my time would be far better used working out the numerous issues in my short game than explaining to Vixen for the umpteenth time why Luminol alone does not prove the presence of blood from a specific person, especially when the DNA for that person is not found in the trace.

 

[Stacyhs]

Planigale makes an excellent point regarding the lack of DNA from either Guede or Sollecito in the blood samples taken from the bidet and the lack of any DNA but Kercher's on the light switch.

For me, the insurmountable barriers to the "Knox washed her hands of Kercher's blood" conclusion by Massei is that it flies in the face of scientific facts:

1. The DNA source was not, and cannot be, scientifically identified as epithelial cells. The source is just as likely to have been saliva.

2. Even IF they are epithelial cells, it was not, and cannot be, determined when those cells were deposited. The two events could well have been at two different and unrelated times.

3. The manner in which the samples were collected, as seen on the police video, was highly conducive to mixing the samples at that time.

 

[bagels]

Planigale makes an excellent point regarding the lack of DNA from either Guede or Sollecito in the blood samples taken from the bidet and the lack of any DNA but Kercher's on the light switch.

For me, the insurmountable barriers to the "Knox washed her hands of Kercher's blood" conclusion by Massei is that it flies in the face of scientific facts:

1. The DNA source was not, and cannot be, scientifically identified as epithelial cells. The source is just as likely to have been saliva.

2. Even IF they are epithelial cells, it was not, and cannot be, determined when those cells were deposited. The two events could well have been at two different and unrelated times.

3. The manner in which the samples were collected, as seen on the police video, was highly conducive to mixing the samples at that time.

I think this over complicates it.

If you go up to any normal human being on the planet and say "the police swabbed a girls sink she used every day and that morning and found her DNA in that sink, and said that was somehow incriminating" their reaction will be "that's stupid."

Like that's all there is to that particular piece of "evidence." We don't need to crack open a single science book or even spend more than a few neurons thinking about it.

 

[Stacyhs]

I think this over complicates it.

If you go up to any normal human being on the planet and say "the police swabbed a girls sink she used every day and that morning and found her DNA in that sink, and said that was somehow incriminating" their reaction will be "that's stupid."

Like that's all there is to that particular piece of "evidence." We don't need to crack open a single science book or even spend more than a few neurons thinking about it.

Well, yes...you would think so. But for the PGP, confirmation bias wins over science.

 

[Bill Williams]

Sorry, when you wrote; "Perhaps it is time for all of us (save for the calunnia) to simply move on since at the end M/B actually did acquit." I took it to mean move onto other cases/discussions.

In true Vixenesque fashion, I completely deny writing that, despite what the record shows. See - I've learned from following this thread!!!!

Regardless, I think my time would be far better used working out the numerous issues in my short game than explaining to Vixen for the umpteenth time why Luminol alone does not prove the presence of blood from a specific person, especially when the DNA for that person is not found in the trace.

As well as.... when M/B refer to the "elegant/eloquent" proof that Knox had sloughed blood from her hands, and one actually traces back to where that proof lies, one runs into the Massei Motivations report which says about it....

There is none. For Judge Massei, writing in 2010, it is an inference - one of his "probables". After summarizing the actual issues in relation to finding Knox's DNA in her own bathroom (after assuring us that the bathroom had been clean!) Massei says:

In this regard, starting from the scientific data which emerged, according to which DNA analysis does not permit the age of the sample/trace to be determined, nor, in the case of a sample/trace indicating the presence of several biological profiles, can it be established whether their apposition-formation was contemporaneous or not, it was affirmed that, since it concerned a bathroom which was used both by Meredith and by Amanda, the presence of mixed traces seemed to be a completely normal circumstance, and had no significance. All the more so since the samples had been taken using the same blotting paper which had been used for various parts of the bidet and the sink.

The Court, however, believes that the presence of the biological trace specimens that were found is of great importance.​

Massei gets it right, then in his concluding sentence, simply says he believes it is of great importance to the crime regardless..... because if he had not there'd be nothing to convict with.

 

[bagels]

Massei gets it right, then in his concluding sentence, simply says he believes it is of great importance to the crime regardless..... because if he had not there'd be nothing to convict with.

The Massei reports borders between schizophrenic and self aware. It's very different from the no holds barred Nencini report where he's just like "the postal police arrived before the 112 call because computer timestamps on videos and phone logs are a devils trick."

 

[Stacyhs]

An example of why when I read Massei's summing up of the case and verdict against Knox and Sollecito it convinced me this was a miscarriage of justice.

The Court, however, believes that the presence of the biological trace specimens that were found is of great importance.

First, it should be recalled that Amanda Knox, in the course of her own examination (questioning), declared that when she left the house on Via della Pergola on the afternoon of November 1st, the bathroom was clean.

Massei seems to think that Knox's view of the bathroom being clean (and remember there was testimony that Knox was not good at cleaning) is equivalent to laboratory levels of cleanliness. That DNA present in the bathroom could not be attributable to events prior to the crime because the bathroom had been cleaned.

Just because Amanda says it was clean does not mean the couple small drops of her blood on the faucet were not there. It simply means she did not see them. What Massei also fails to take into account is the illogicality of Knox not only not cleaning the blood (including hers) from the sink/faucet, but actually pointing it out to the police. This proves she knew it was there before the police arrived.

 

[bagels]

Well, yes...you would think so. But for the PGP, confirmation bias wins over science.

The PGP have been utterly uninterested in talking the evidence for some time now, ever since their various prosecution talking points were destroyed one by one by like ~2011 or so.

That's why Vixen hides behind appealing to the neanderthal level Italian court reasoning, and Mach rambles on endlessly about contradictions in M&B.

The case for the PGP boils down to them "just knowing" that Knox is guilty. It's just obvious to them. They are completely oblivious to the actual killer flailing his arms around like a mad man screaming from the rooftops "it was me, look, I did it, I killed her." That's what's so interesting about this case to me. The don't even realize the challenge Rudy presents to the prosecution. They aren't even aware enough to view him as a problem.

In AA the first step is admitting you have a problem. They aren't at step one yet and never will get there. In 20 years Mach will probably be going "Any day now, Hellmann will be arrested." If I'm still posting in this thread then please kill me. Preferably with two separate knives exactly opposite in size that somehow magically leave identical wound profiles.

 

[TruthCalls]

Planigale makes an excellent point regarding the lack of DNA from either Guede or Sollecito in the blood samples taken from the bidet and the lack of any DNA but Kercher's on the light switch.

For me, the insurmountable barriers to the "Knox washed her hands of Kercher's blood" conclusion by Massei is that it flies in the face of scientific facts:

1. The DNA source was not, and cannot be, scientifically identified as epithelial cells. The source is just as likely to have been saliva.

2. Even IF they are epithelial cells, it was not, and cannot be, determined when those cells were deposited. The two events could well have been at two different and unrelated times.

3. The manner in which the samples were collected, as seen on the police video, was highly conducive to mixing the samples at that time.

Also to consider; the only evidence of someone having blood on their hands is Guede (the palm print) and since he did not deposit blood on the front door as he was leaving we can assume he washed blood from his hands. So once again the evidence leads to a logical conclusion but Massei & Nencini, already having decided Amanda was involved, ignored the evidence.

I'm still working so can't be working on my short game...

 

[Vixen]

It is a tragedy that the PIP were not there to represent Amanda and Raff in court.

 

[Stacyhs]

It is a tragedy that the PIP were not there to represent Amanda and Raff in court.

I doubt Massei or Nencini would have listened to logic and science any more then even if we had. Perhaps if they had in the first place, they would not have had their verdicts overturned. As Marasca/Bruno pointed out, they should never have convicted in the first place.

 

[bagels]

It is a tragedy that the PIP were not there to represent Amanda and Raff in court.

It was taken care of

 

[Stacyhs]

It was taken care of

[qimg]https://68.media.tumblr.com/d48c6f6a2a67775b07012267577b0a84/tumblr_nmpcilgxX11sl555zo1_500.gif[/qimg]

Bwwwwaaaahaaahaaaa!!!

 

[LondonJohn]

I doubt Massei or Nencini would have listened to logic and science any more then even if we had. Perhaps if they had in the first place, they would not have had their verdicts overturned.

Probably true. Though I do maintain a firm belief that Knox and Sollecito were extremely inadequately represented in both those trials - most especially the Massei trial. The evidence of Curatolo and Quintavalle could and should have been categorically shown to be utterly unreliable*, the forensic "evidence" could and should have likewise been shown to be utterly unreliable, and the time of death evidence could and should have been far more strongly supported (it's still the case - just as it was in 2009 - that the contents and locations of Kercher's stomach/intestinal contents, coupled with a fairly accurate understanding of when she ate her last meal, ENTIRELY rules out a ToD any later than 11pm, and makes it statistically extremely likely that the ToD was some time between 9pm and 10pm (at the very latest)).


* Often via incredibly simple means - for example, a simple set of phone calls to all of the large out-of-town discos/clubs could have definitively established that not one of them was open on the evening/night of 1st November 2007, but that they had all been open the previous evening/night (31st October, when they all held big Halloween-themed events); and therefore, none of the white unmarked buses which were hired by the out-of-town clubs to transport customers to/from their clubs from Piazza Grimana were operating on the evening/night of the murder; and therefore Curatolo could immediately be shown to be categorically unreliable on account of his linkage of the presence of these buses in Piazza Grimana (and the presence of hoards of young people in costumes) with the evening/night of the murder. Whatever Curatolo thought/said he saw (including the "shifty" presence of Knox and Sollecito over a period of a few hours) could ONLY have been related to the evening/night of 31st October - the night before Kercher's murder.

 

[TruthCalls]

Probably true. Though I do maintain a firm belief that Knox and Sollecito were extremely inadequately represented in both those trials - most especially the Massei trial. The evidence of Curatolo and Quintavalle could and should have been categorically shown to be utterly unreliable*, the forensic "evidence" could and should have likewise been shown to be utterly unreliable, and the time of death evidence could and should have been far more strongly supported (it's still the case - just as it was in 2009 - that the contents and locations of Kercher's stomach/intestinal contents, coupled with a fairly accurate understanding of when she ate her last meal, ENTIRELY rules out a ToD any later than 11pm, and makes it statistically extremely likely that the ToD was some time between 9pm and 10pm (at the very latest)).


* Often via incredibly simple means - for example, a simple set of phone calls to all of the large out-of-town discos/clubs could have definitively established that not one of them was open on the evening/night of 1st November 2007, but that they had all been open the previous evening/night (31st October, when they all held big Halloween-themed events); and therefore, none of the white unmarked buses which were hired by the out-of-town clubs to transport customers to/from their clubs from Piazza Grimana were operating on the evening/night of the murder; and therefore Curatolo could immediately be shown to be categorically unreliable on account of his linkage of the presence of these buses in Piazza Grimana (and the presence of hoards of young people in costumes) with the evening/night of the murder. Whatever Curatolo thought/said he saw (including the "shifty" presence of Knox and Sollecito over a period of a few hours) could ONLY have been related to the evening/night of 31st October - the night before Kercher's murder.

Except I still don't think it would matter. If you read Massei he concludes that Curatolo's memory was faulty regarding the night he saw Amanda and Raffaele. He concludes that seeing the Scientific Police the day after seeing Amanda and Raffaele was a correct recollection, the buses and the costumes were not. He essentially chose to ignore the contradiction, dismiss the buses and costumes and just use the half of Curatolo's testimony that fit his conclusion. Likewise he clearly spells out the problems with the Luminol traces but nonetheless concludes that with so much of Meredith's blood nearby the traces had to be made with her blood.

It's entirely possible that the facts could have been more forcefully presented, but let's be honest... no matter how succinctly you argue the science that proves it impossible to conclude Amanda washed Meredith's blood from her hands you will NEVER get Vixen to understand and she will ALWAYS claim it to be true. Vixen appears to have fashioned herself in the mold of Massei and Nencini.

 

[Stacyhs]

Probably true. Though I do maintain a firm belief that Knox and Sollecito were extremely inadequately represented in both those trials - most especially the Massei trial. The evidence of Curatolo and Quintavalle could and should have been categorically shown to be utterly unreliable*, the forensic "evidence" could and should have likewise been shown to be utterly unreliable, and the time of death evidence could and should have been far more strongly supported (it's still the case - just as it was in 2009 - that the contents and locations of Kercher's stomach/intestinal contents, coupled with a fairly accurate understanding of when she ate her last meal, ENTIRELY rules out a ToD any later than 11pm, and makes it statistically extremely likely that the ToD was some time between 9pm and 10pm (at the very latest)).


* Often via incredibly simple means - for example, a simple set of phone calls to all of the large out-of-town discos/clubs could have definitively established that not one of them was open on the evening/night of 1st November 2007, but that they had all been open the previous evening/night (31st October, when they all held big Halloween-themed events); and therefore, none of the white unmarked buses which were hired by the out-of-town clubs to transport customers to/from their clubs from Piazza Grimana were operating on the evening/night of the murder; and therefore Curatolo could immediately be shown to be categorically unreliable on account of his linkage of the presence of these buses in Piazza Grimana (and the presence of hoards of young people in costumes) with the evening/night of the murder. Whatever Curatolo thought/said he saw (including the "shifty" presence of Knox and Sollecito over a period of a few hours) could ONLY have been related to the evening/night of 31st October - the night before Kercher's murder.

I don't believe Curatolo ever saw Amanda or Raffaele, even on Halloween night. Raffaele didn't go out at all the evening of Oct 31 until about 1:00 AM when Amanda called and asked him to come accompany her home. They met in the main piazza, Piazza IV Novembre, and went home. Witnesses saw Amanda out by herself, not with Sollecito. Curatolo claims he saw them during the evening at about 9:30 in Piazza Grimana. It's my opinion that Curatolo made the whole thing up or was simply confused (to put it nicely) due to his physical and mental state. The fact that this was his fourth time being a witness for the police certainly undermines his credibility.

 

[Bill Williams]

Probably true. Though I do maintain a firm belief that Knox and Sollecito were extremely inadequately represented in both those trials - most especially the Massei trial.

This reminds me of what Barbie Nadeau told CNN the night of the 2009 conviction - available on YouTube for anyone wanting to see it.

Barbie always behaved herself on CNN (and was a tabloid-hack, let's sex-up this narrative Pisa-like writer on The Daily Beast) - on being asked why the pair had been convicted, her response to CNN (from memory, so apologies if I'm mangling it).....

"The case against them was weak, but their defences were weaker. The defences were not very well coordinated - this could very well be overturned at appeal." (This was said on the night of the 2009 conviction.)

When asked what that meant, "overturned at appeal", she'd told CNN what few of us knew back then about the Italian process.....

She explained that the appeal was essentially a second evidentiary trial, in essence a "do over". That was her appraisal in late 2009, and her words came true in Oct 2011.

ETA - Nadeau had said in late 2009 to Anderson Cooper, "The defence did not do a very good job in knocking down the prosecution's case."

 

[whoanellie]

It is a tragedy that the PIP were not there to represent Amanda and Raff in court.

True, but it turned out OK in the end.

 

[TruthCalls]

I don't believe Curatolo ever saw Amanda or Raffaele, even on Halloween night. Raffaele didn't go out at all the evening of Oct 31 until about 1:00 AM when Amanda called and asked him to come accompany her home. They met in the main piazza, Piazza IV Novembre, and went home. Witnesses saw Amanda out by herself, not with Sollecito. Curatolo claims he saw them during the evening at about 9:30 in Piazza Grimana. It's my opinion that Curatolo made the whole thing up or was simply confused (to put it nicely) due to his physical and mental state. The fact that this was his fourth time being a witness for the police certainly undermines his credibility.

I need to correct myself; Massei mentions the disco buses and costumes but completely ignores the obvious contradiction. Perhaps the defense attorney's failed to drive home this point but Massei doesn't seem to care.

Conversely, Nencini pays a great deal of attention to it but he relies on the argument made by Cheffi - namely that on 31 Oct Amanda and Raffaele were in two different locations, therefore this part of Curatolo's recollection can't be correct and is subsequently ignored. Apparently 'mistaken identity' never crossed their minds. Curatolo is adamant about the buses, the people in costume and mentions several times the ruckus because it was a holiday. There is no reason to not conclude, therefore, that Curatolo sees a man and woman on 31 Oct and thinks it's Amanda and Raffaele when it's not. A year later he thinks this event took place the night before he sees the Scientific Police but in fact he's forgotten there was a day in between these two events. This is absolutely the most obvious, logical explanation for Curatolo's testimony.

There is overwhelming evidence that eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable. Apparently Massei, Cheffi and Nencini all felt that it was impossible that an old heroin addict, late at night, from a distance could have mistaken two people for Amanda and Raffaele. It's like the thought never crossed their minds that Curatolo could be wrong. Incredible.

 

[bagels]

I don't believe Curatolo ever saw Amanda or Raffaele, even on Halloween night. Raffaele didn't go out at all the evening of Oct 31 until about 1:00 AM when Amanda called and asked him to come accompany her home. They met in the main piazza, Piazza IV Novembre, and went home. Witnesses saw Amanda out by herself, not with Sollecito. Curatolo claims he saw them during the evening at about 9:30 in Piazza Grimana. It's my opinion that Curatolo made the whole thing up or was simply confused (to put it nicely) due to his physical and mental state. The fact that this was his fourth time being a witness for the police certainly undermines his credibility.

Curatolo was interviewed by the police right after the murder. He told them he saw and knew nothing. It was funny because he just kind of volunteered this during his testimony and Mignini quickly glossed over it trying to get him back on topic.

This is particularly relevant because Curatolo later claims he found the young woman chatting "seriously" with her boyfriend so unusual and striking that it remained notable to him. Yet when the police interviewed him 12 hours later about a young woman butchered that very night, he didn't know a thing. It kills his testimony but the Italians don't care because the trials were a sham and the PGP don't care because they don't understand how evidence works or what it means.