Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Regardless, it's clear the article you cited just made the same "mistake" Bob did.

This just demonstrates the importance of going to a primary source (the diary) instead of taking the word of a second-hand source, even if it's a mainstream newspaper's site.



Even the Daily Mail, probably the most notoriously terrible of the major UK newspapers, managed to include the fact that nobody including Raffaele ever claimed before or since that Meredith had ever been in his house.

No, Bob's interpretation makes no sense at all.

Raffaele used an ambiguous pronoun when he shouldn't have, and that's all there is to this talking point.

This whole issue of what RS may ACTUALLY have said is new to me. I have always sort-of assumed that he explicitly referred to Meredith as the person who he says he must have pricked with the knife - since that's what seems to have passed into received wisdom. It appears that he might have been a great deal more ambiguous than that.

It's very interesting that the Daily Mail chose to interpret things in a way that was very detrimental to RS. In fact, the newspaper even directly attributes a damaging English-translated quote to him which seems to be at odds with the other translations of his diary:

"He wrote: "The fact there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife is because once when we were all cooking together I accidentally pricked her hand. I apologised immediately and she said it was not a problem.""

Did Raffaele actually write the Italian equivalent of this exact phrase quoted from the Mail article? Because if he did, then it WOULD appear that he was referring to pricking Meredith. But the other translation would seem to me to be at worst ambiguous (from RS's point of view), and at best indicative of him saying that he pricked Amanda (and that somehow Amanda had got Meredith's DNA on her, which then transferred to the knife).

I wouldn't be surprised if the Mail has either accidentally or willfully mis-translated (or simply embellished) RS's diary entry, in order to validate its own agenda. And of course the fact that RS has taken no legal action against the Mail (to my knowledge) is in no way indicative of the quote being accurate, since a) he justifiably has other things to concern himself with at this point, and b) critically, he doesn't have a reputation to protect at the moment.

Does anyone have the relevant part of RS's diary in the original Italian? If so, I'm happy to have another crack at an objective translation, to try to clarify this further. Incidentally, this whole episode involving RS's prison diary is yet another illustration of why suspects should NOT write or say ANYTHING related to the case before or during trial (other than on the stand, if that's deemed appropriate by the defence team), except in confidence to their lawyers.

As a sort-of footnote: is it known how RS's prison diary came to be placed in the public domain so early? That Mail article, for example, is from 9th December 2007. Did RS's lawyers or family give it to the media, or did the police (or prosecutors) give it to the media?

 

[Agatha]

The relevant sentence in Italian is in post 1517, LJ.

 

[LondonJohn]

Bob,

I think we have to keep in mind that Raffaele's style of writing is somewhat unconventional. At least, that's what I've been hearing.

Keeping that in mind, I'm open to the possibility that perhaps the sentences are just poorly constructed and that Raffaele did mean Amanda instead of Meredith.

It does make me wonder about Raffaele's mental capabilities though, if the sentence should be read as Kevin suggests it should.

I'd agree, and I think this is a fair way to look at the quote. As that translation stands, it COULD mean either thing, and in some ways it appears that he's referring to AK as the person in question - since the overarching subject under discussion was AK.

But either way, the very fact that he appears to have been writing in such a loose, ambiguous style YET AGAIN screams the question: what the heck was he doing writing this sort of stuff down in the first place?! I refer back to an earlier point I made on this thread: in my view, his lawyers should have gagged him immediately and unconditionally. And obviously the same should have applied to AK. So this smacks as much to me of lax defence counsel as it does of the defendants' personal stupidity in writing and saying these things.

 

[LondonJohn]

Interpreting the "her" as Amanda requires that Raffaelle is claiming some method whereby cutting Amanda's hand transfers Meredith's (and only Meredith's) DNA to the knife blade. But he doesn't even attempt to explain this method.

Interpreting the "her" as Meredith requires no such complicated method of transfer.

What was it about not multiplying entities unnecessarily?

But if one were to accept that he might be searching for some reason - ANY reason - why Meredith's DNA could have ended up on his kitchen knife, then it makes more sense that he might be positing extremely unlikely scenarios as the "only way he could think of".

In this respect, it could potentially be viewed as similar to something AK wrote when she was wondering aloud how on earth it could have been possible for RS to commit the crime: she went on to describe a near-impossible scenario as the "only way she could think of", only to dismiss it herself immediately as outside the bounds of possibility. But that piece of "thinking aloud" came back to haunt her too....

Of course, if RS WAS also merely thinking aloud, and trying hard (too hard) to imagine a reason why Meredith's DNA might "innocently" have got onto his kitchen knife, his lawyer should have almost literally been tearing the pen out of his hand. These are points for his counsel to argue in trial, and not for him to speculate about - using poor/ambiguous language at that - in a diary which is subsequently released to the media.

 

[LondonJohn]

It might also be who's doing the translation. Here's the passage in question in the original Italian.



It's practically gibberish in the Google translation. Anyone have a better translation?

Ahhhh - I'd asked if anyone had the original Italian quote from the diary before I'd got down to this post, so thanks for reposting it.

The reason it's gibberish in the google translation is because it's pretty much gibberish in Italian, as far as I can tell! If he seriously wrote these words in this order in his diary, then it's a bit of a shocker for the lad!

But, I'll have my own stab at a translation, for what it's worth. I think he writes (with presumed missing words, or my own extrapolations, in brackets):

"The reason why Meredith's DNA is on the kitchen knife is because once, while we were cooking together, I came into the house holding the knife up, (and) I (put) the tip on her hand, and I apologized at once, but she did not mind. So this is the only real explanation for the kitchen knife being this way."

I believe that my translation is not a world away from what RS was intending in this passage. It still casts no real light on whether he was referring to Meredith or Amanda as the person who he touched with the tip of the knife. Note, however, that he doesn't anywhere mention "pricking" or, in fact, anything that implies drawing blood. He merely says that the tip of the knife came into contact with "her" hand ("l’ho punta sulla mano").

I suppose that one area of my translation that might lend more credence to the opinion that he was referring here to Meredith, rather than Amanda, is the part where he describes where the incident occurred. It's true to say that his Italian at this point is pretty terrible, BUT he seems to be referring to "coming into the house holding the knife up". One might argue that he'd be unlikely to come into his own house holding his own kitchen knife (implying that his knife had previously been removed from his house), whereas it makes more sense if he was talking about entering the girls' house - especially since the front door opened more-or-less directly into the kitchen/lounge room. And additionally, if he was referring to his own house, I think he would have likely said "my house" ("mia casa") rather than "into (the) house" ("in casa").

Of course, even if he WAS referring to an incident that happened (or might have happened) at the girls' house rather than his own, he could still be describing a scenario where the knife touched Amanda. But the other thing with regard to this interpretation is whether RS ever DID participate in cooking at the girls' house. I believe that there's some evidence that he didn't. Although wasn't there a suggestion that he and AK actually cooked at the girls' house (mushrooms?) on the very night of the murder? If that HAD happened, could it therefore be possible that the "tip of the knife" incident he's grasping at might have occurred on 1st November? I welcome comments, feedback, and correction where appropriate!

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I'd have no problem even if the data was released to those 9 scientists. I don't think they could be reliably considered independent after that letter anyhow.

This talk about independent opinions is heavily exaggerated. Why would these scientists risk their entire careers for Amanda Knox?

Do you honestly think that the experts working for the prosecution were independent?

 

[LondonJohn]

This talk about independent opinions is heavily exaggerated. Why would these scientists risk their entire careers for Amanda Knox?

Do you honestly think that the experts working for the prosecution were independent?

But it's still important to know that Amazer would have "no problem" with these scientists being given access to the data. I'm sure the scientists in question will welcome this ruling

 

[LondonJohn]

Good point. How could Amanda's DNA not be on the knife tip if she was pricked with it?

Nowhere does Raffaele write (in the original Italian) that anyone was "pricked". He writes "l’ho punta sulla mano", which directly translates to "I (put) the tip (of the knife) on her hand". It doesn't imply any breaking of the skin or drawing of blood - others (including the Daily Mail) have erroneously placed that interpretation on what he wrote.

Of course, this still possibly begs the question of why AK's skin cell DNA wouldn't have been on the tip of the knife, even if it had merely touched her skin. It's easy to see (I'd argue) that the probability of Meredith touching AK's hand, then the knife tip touching exactly the same spot of AK's hand and removing Meredith's DNA - but none of AK's own DNA - is almost impossible. And it's another reason why I'd lean towards the view that RS was referring to Meredith as the girl whom he touched with the knife. The question to be asked, in that case, is: could such a scenario ever have occurred (i.e. did RS ever cook in the presence of Meredith, using his own kitchen knife?)

 

[Agatha]

The question to be asked, in that case, is: could such a scenario ever have occurred (i.e. did RS ever cook in the presence of Meredith, using his own kitchen knife?)

Not as far as I can ascertain, it seems to be agreed that Meredith had never visited RS's flat.

 

[LondonJohn]

Not as far as I can ascertain, it seems to be agreed that Meredith had never visited RS's flat.

I too believe this to be fairly well established. But I think it's possibly more important to establish whether RS had ever engaged in cooking activities at the girls' flat (especially in the light of my interpretation of what he wrote).

I believe (but am far from sure) that the other girls in the flat could not recall any prior incidents where RS had come over to help cook in the girls' flat. But what still intrigues me is this: could AK, RS and Meredith possibly have been in the girls' flat's kitchen/diner/lounge kitchen together using RS's kitchen knife while the other girls were out? And, furthermore, could such a scenario have happened on the actual day of the murder? In my opinion, if the answer to both these questions is definitively "no", then it's hard to explain what RS wrote.

 

[Mary_H]

I too believe this to be fairly well established. But I think it's possibly more important to establish whether RS had ever engaged in cooking activities at the girls' flat (especially in the light of my interpretation of what he wrote).

I believe (but am far from sure) that the other girls in the flat could not recall any prior incidents where RS had come over to help cook in the girls' flat. But what still intrigues me is this: could AK, RS and Meredith possibly have been in the girls' flat's kitchen/diner/lounge kitchen together using RS's kitchen knife while the other girls were out. And, furthermore, could such a scenario have happened on the actual day of the murder? In my opinion, if the answer to both these questions is definitively "no", then it's hard to explain what RS wrote.

I look at what Raffaele wrote not as evidence that he was lying, but rather as evidence that he really struggled to make sense of what the police had told him. Obviously, it was not in his nature at that time to question the police, even in the face of impossibilities.

Here is Raffaele from November 20th, after Rudy had been apprehended:

"There is the cook of the mess that is black and asked me kindly because I have not yet been released. [Beh il motivo è semplice: ci sono impronte mie per la casa e quindi da questa storia possono uscire sempre colpi di scena: non li sopporto!] Well the reason is that there are footprints on my home and then from this story may leave more plot twists not stand them! [Come quello del Dna di Meredith sul coltello da cucina di casa mia.] As one of Meredith's DNA on the knife from the kitchen of my house."

This was two days after he was first informed about the knife (when he made the infamous remark). He is still trying to get it straight in his mind how such a thing could have happened. It doesn't even occur to him that the information about the knife could be wrong.

 

[Mary_H]

Considering that Meredith is the female in the passage we're referring to, it was not an ambiguous pronoun. It was, in fact, decidedly unambiguously indicating that Raffaele intended the passage to read that the prickee was Meredith. Where does he claim that Amanda was the middle between Meredith and his knife? He doesn't. He makes the claim that the only explanation for Meredith's DNA on the blade is because he pricked her hand with the knife.

This is like elementary grammar school here, sheesh.

Word of the Day: "prickee"

 

[LondonJohn]

I look at what Raffaele wrote not as evidence that he was lying, but rather as evidence that he really struggled to make sense of what the police had told him. Obviously, it was not in his nature at that time to question the police, even in the face of impossibilities.

Here is Raffaele from November 20th, after Rudy had been apprehended:

"There is the cook of the mess that is black and asked me kindly because I have not yet been released. [Beh il motivo è semplice: ci sono impronte mie per la casa e quindi da questa storia possono uscire sempre colpi di scena: non li sopporto!] Well the reason is that there are footprints on my home and then from this story may leave more plot twists not stand them! [Come quello del Dna di Meredith sul coltello da cucina di casa mia.] As one of Meredith's DNA on the knife from the kitchen of my house."

This was two days after he was first informed about the knife (when he made the infamous remark). He is still trying to get it straight in his mind how such a thing could have happened. It doesn't even occur to him that the information about the knife could be wrong.

Ah yes - my position regarding why RS might have made that statement doesn't by any means lead to a conclusion that he was lying. I merely argue that it may be hard (relatively) to explain.

I do believe, like you, that a plausible* explanation for his writings about the kitchen knife is that he might have been fighting an internal battle of contradiction, trying to reconcile what the police told him with great certainty and authority (that Meredith's DNA had been found on the knife blade, and that he was involved in her murder), and what he knew to be true (that he hadn't been involved in killing Meredith, let alone used the knife to kill her**).

This internal contradiction might have led him on various increasingly-desperate searches to try to figure out how Meredith's DNA might conceivably have got onto his knife. And he might have ended up convincing himself (to some degree at least) that the "knife-touching-Meredith-while-cooking" scenario was JUST possible - even if to a vanishingly small degree. It might be the ONLY thing he could think of to reconcile the conflict in his head.

Additionally (whether he's recounting something that actually happened, or whether it's a confused attempt to resolve an internal conflict, or whether it's an out-and-out lie), quite why he chose to commit this to paper, and quite why his lawyer didn't tear it up and burn it if/when he got the chance, are things I simply cannot understand.

* Note that I'm not passing any judgement here on the empirical probability of this explanation, merely its plausibility.

** Obviously, in order to try to examine why RS might have written these things if he was innocent, it is necessary to construct a scenario where he knew he was not involved in the murder

 

[LondonJohn]

Word of the Day: "prickee"

Although, for the sake of accuracy in translation, I'd suggest a modification to "knife-tip-touching-hand-ee"

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the prosecution and the electronic data files

I in principle agree that there's no good reason why the defense shouldn't have identical access to the raw data like the prosecution has. They should have access to that data.

On what grounds was the release of the raw data denied? Was it due to some particular Italian laws or was there another reason given?

Amazer,

I am not sure what the prosecution said to the defense. However, Bob Graham quoted Ms. Comodi as saying something like, "They have everything they need," or words to that effect. It is not clear to me whether Italian law is settled on the point of whether it is mandatory or not to turn over the electronic data files. I prefer the principle of "open discovery," in which the prosecution turns over everything to the defense. With respect to these files, all the prosecution would need to do is to copy the data onto a CD ROM.

halides1

 

[Mary_H]

:d

although, for the sake of accuracy in translation, i'd suggest a modification to "knife-tip-touching-hand-ee"

lol!

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Interpreting the "her" as Amanda requires that Raffaelle is claiming some method whereby cutting Amanda's hand transfers Meredith's (and only Meredith's) DNA to the knife blade. But he doesn't even attempt to explain this method.

Interpreting the "her" as Meredith requires no such complicated method of transfer.

What was it about not multiplying entities unnecessarily?

Assume for a minute Rudy did it by himself, and then put yourself in Raffaele's position at the time of writing. He's just received news that Meredith's DNA was found on the blade of his kitchen knife, of all possible places, and of course he doesn't know that the amount of DNA on the knife was minuscule and that the more sensitive test for blood showed that whatever was on the blade was almost certainly not Meredith's blood. He thinks the DNA test was conducted properly and constituted sound evidence.

So he's trying to think of any conceivable way DNA from Meredith could have made it to his knife. If he didn't kill Meredith it's a hell of a puzzle for him, which could quite legitimately throw him for a loop. What could the vector possibly be if it was not Amanda, one way or another? Then he remembers he did touch Amanda's hand with the knife accidentally, and Amanda's hand could easily have touched Meredith at some point, and he thinks maybe he's figured out how the DNA got there.

It makes sense if he's innocent but he believed the DNA result had to be real. What vector could carry DNA from Meredith to his knife if not Amanda?

Of course he could be evil and just pretending to be innocent and trying to make sense of a spurious lab result. Or he could be stupid and attempting to make up a story out of whole cloth about Meredith visiting which neither he nor anyone else has repeated before or since... but that second one does not seem to me the simplest explanation.

 

[Amazer]

This talk about independent opinions is heavily exaggerated. Why would these scientists risk their entire careers for Amanda Knox?

The same reasoning is applied just as easily to those scientists who are working with/for the prosecution. Why would they risk their careers?

Do you honestly think that the experts working for the prosecution were independent?

In this particular case, no I would no longer classify them as independent.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The same reasoning is applied just as easily to those scientists who are working with/for the prosecution. Why would they risk their careers?

The claim that anyone is risking their careers seems overblown to me, but maybe I missed to some evidence.

That said, generating the results that prosecutors want to see could well be a good career move for a police forensics officer, not a bad one, barring scenarios where they actively falsify evidence and get caught red-handed.

 

[Amazer]

Amazer,

I am not sure what the prosecution said to the defense. However, Bob Graham quoted Ms. Comodi as saying something like, "They have everything they need," or words to that effect.

That strikes me as a rather odd reply to a formal request for release of data. There is something missing here.

It is not clear to me whether Italian law is settled on the point of whether it is mandatory or not to turn over the electronic data files.

Agreed

I prefer the principle of "open discovery," in which the prosecution turns over everything to the defense. With respect to these files, all the prosecution would need to do is to copy the data onto a CD ROM.

I really can't disagree with you here either.