Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Bob001]

Jury instructions, character and ambiguity...

It sounds like a lot of the discussion here is based on differing ideas about what Knox may have said or done or should have said or done, or ambiguous circumstantial evidence. This may a useful guide: These are the model instructions that U.S. federal judges use to draft their own instructions to juries (every court and circuit is slightly different; this one is searchable).

Of particular note (my emphasis):
Section 2.18
"[Defendant] presented evidence to show that [he/she] enjoys a reputation for honesty, truthfulness and integrity in [his/her] community. Such evidence may indicate to you that it is improbable that a person of such character would commit the crime charged, and, therefore, cause you to have a reasonable doubt as to [his/her] guilt. You should consider any evidence of [defendant]’s good character along with all the other evidence in the case and give it such weight as you believe it deserves. If, when considered with all the other evidence presented during this trial, the evidence of [defendant]’s good character creates a reasonable doubt in your mind as to [his/her] guilt, you should find [him/her] not guilty."

Section 3.02 (note 4)
"...Of course, a defendant is never to be convicted on suspicion or conjecture. If, for example, you view the evidence in the case as reasonably permitting either of two conclusions—one that a defendant is guilty as charged, the other that the defendant is not guilty— you will find the defendant not guilty.

It is not sufficient for the Government to establish a probability, though a strong one, that a fact charged is more likely to be true than not true. That is not enough to meet the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, there are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty, and in criminal cases the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt..."

http://federalcriminaljuryinstructi...rcuit_Criminal_Instructions_2008_Revision.pdf

I wonder whether Italian juries get similar instructions?
.

 

[Mr.D]

Most news reports I have read say that his DNA was found on and in Ms. Kercher, without specifying where. I have been interpreting "in" to include the vaginal area and probably elsewhere, but I am not sure about the exact location of the "on" DNA.

Without knowing more about where Guede's DNA was found on Kercher and how it was collected, about all that can be concluded from this perspective about multiple attackers is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[stilicho]

And I'm also bemused as to why Sollecito wouldn't have already turned on Knox, if it were true that she was involved in the crime and he wasn't (except for covering for her and doing the "clean up").

We don't know much about why none of them have told the truth. There is a strong likelihood (explained on TJMK) that the deals have been made among the lawyers and the hangers-on and not by the three accused. This also explains why Raffaele took no opportunity to issue a "spontaneous" declaration, during the trial, that Amanda was with him the entire night. He had several opportunities to do this yet he didn't.

When is the translated Massei report going to be published? I'm getting very restless now - it's impossible to understand anything about this case without it. I seem to recall a post from someone called "Michael" on another forum from mid-April in which he said that it was going to be ready within a week. I wonder what's happened in the meantime?

No promise was made by anyone. I issue you the same challenge as I've issued others. Call a translation service and ask them for an estimate (time and cost) to translate a 400-page legal and technical paper. The answer will surprise you and the volunteers at PMF are unpaid and work full-time at their real jobs.

Character assessments sch as these are typically only useful at the sentencing stage. Justice demands that a person's character and/or previous convictions should generally not be used for or against him/her in a trial.

The sentencing was mild considering the brutality and callousness of the crime. The court knew they left Meredith to die after grievously wounding her. The fact they took Meredith's cell phones and locked her door to prevent any possibility of saving her was also taken into account. They tampered with the crimescene to confuse the investigation. Added to this, of course, is the fact that none of them have recanted any of their lies or demonstrated the slightest bit of remorse.

======================

@BobtheDonkey: Except that Guede doesn't have a history of violence either. He had the same criminal record as Raffaele and Amanda - none.

Yeah, but Rudy's a low-life. I read it on the interwebs and I assure you that it has absolutely nothing to do with his ethnicity.

 

[christianahannah]

The gloves are significant (although it's quite hard for the defence to prove a negative). What's potentially far more significant though is what's irrefutably caught on video camera: numerous instances of swabs being used to smear together numerous areas while collecting evidence. And no amount of "handwaving" (a popular word in certain quarters) will make that go away.

Couldn't the defense attorneys have asked Stefanoni in court about her collection methods and changing of gloves (and other associates helping her with the collection of evidence)? She would be obligated to tell the truth wouldn't she?

Likewise, can't Stefanoni have been questioned about the swabbing techniques she used in the collection of evidence, and how and what she swabbed and whether it followed appropriate protocol?

Do court transcripts show she was asked these questions and what were her answers?

 

[christianahannah]

Mr.D,

Most news reports I have read say that his DNA was found on and in Ms. Kercher, without specifying where. I have been interpreting "in" to include the vaginal area and probably elsewhere, but I am not sure about the exact location of the "on" DNA.

Wasn't Guede's DNA on articles of Meredith's clothing (I think her bra and sweatshirt, though I am not sure)? Maybe that is what is meant by "on?"

In murder investigations is the whole body swabbed for DNA evidence?

 

[christianahannah]

I have examined several hours of video, and no one ever changes gloves. If they did so, it was off-camera. Here is a pair of gloves captured in a photo of the kitchen taken on December 18, 2007:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/kitchen_dec_18_07_closeup_of_gloves.jpg

You can see that the fingers are covered with grime.

Here is a sequence of frames captured from police video, showing Stefanoni's procedure for swabbing a sample:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/stefanoni_swabbing.jpg

In the first frame, she is scrubbing the blood spot with the tip of the swab pointed to the right. In the middle frame, the tip of the swab has been folded back so it points to the left. In the final frame, her thumb bears down on the blood spot on the swab.

I have had the opportunity to review this material with a DNA expert, who confirms the obvious fact that the procedures displayed in this video are highly likely to cause transfer of DNA between samples.

Now, what are the practical implications of this poor procedure? I think it is the most plausible explanation for the screwy results shown in Samples 176 and 177, which were swabs of the floor in Filomena's room, collected on December 18, after investigators used their luminol. They got the footprint images that we have all seen. They also got a reaction in Filomena's room, which was not a shape but rather a diffuse glow in a general area. Sample 176 clearly showed Meredith's DNA with faint markers corresponding to Amanda's profile. Sample 177 clearly showed the DNA of both Meredith and Amanda. Both samples also showed other markers as well, probably those of Filomena, for whom they did not bother to collect a reference DNA sample.

How are we to explain this result? I think the most likely answer is that luminol was applied at the very end of the investigation on December 18, and the material on Samples 176 and 177 was from the fingertips of gloves that had handled other samples containing the DNA of Meredith and Amanda.

Thank you for your opinion Charlie. I will have to think on this. It would be helpful to view the full video of evidence collection from the bathroom without jumps in time.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Fair point. One difference is that Guede's DNA was apparently found on and in the victim, and Guede fled the country as soon as he could catch a train. Nothing would have prevented Knox from catching a plane home before she was arrested, but she tried to cooperate with the police without hiring a lawyer. There also seems to be substantial evidence that Guede was known to the cops as a drug dealer, and he had been arrested at least once for breaking and entering, theft and carrying a knife. His fingerprints on file from that arrest helped the police to identify him. Not having a record of criminal convictions doesn't quite mean than Guede, Knox and Sollecito shared similar histories. And their backgrounds are so different that it's hard to believe Knox, Sollecito and Guede would have trusted one another enough to participate in a deadly crime together, when any one of them could have saved himself by turning on the other two.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...245/Amanda-Knox-trial-Rudy-Guede-profile.html

There's reason to believe Amanda was known to the Seattle Police. And Amanda's DNA was found mixed with Meredith's, both in Filomena's room and in the bathroom. Raffaele's DNA was found in Meredith's room on the clasp of the bra the victim was wearing when she was assaulted/murdered.

Rudy fleeing did not cause quite the same commotion that Amanda fleeing would have caused. If Amanda were to have flown the country, it would have immediately implicated her and undone her efforts to hide her involvement. Not exactly apples to apples comparison.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

hyoid bone

Without knowing more about where Guede's DNA was found on Kercher and how it was collected, about all that can be concluded from this perspective about multiple attackers is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It is what wasn't found that is critical here. No evidence was presented that Knox or Sollecito deposited DNA on Ms. Kercher. However, Ms. Kercher's hyoid bone was broken, implying strangulation. This is why I find it so unlikely that they restrained her. As for Guede, I agree that it would be helpful to know exactly where on Ms. Kercher's body ILE looked and where they found DNA.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

It is what wasn't found that is critical here. No evidence was presented that Knox or Sollecito deposited DNA on Ms. Kercher. However, Ms. Kercher's hyoid bone was broken, implying strangulation. This is why I find it so unlikely that they restrained her. As for Guede, I agree that it would be helpful to know exactly where on Ms. Kercher's body ILE looked and where they found DNA.

Funny how that absence of evidence bit only works in your favor.

You claim that absence of DNA evidence of Guede in Filomena's room doesn't mean he wasn't there...but then the absence of evidence of Amanda/Raffaele on Meredith's body means they didn't touch her.

Go figure.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Mr.D,

Most news reports I have read say that his DNA was found on and in Ms. Kercher, without specifying where. I have been interpreting "in" to include the vaginal area and probably elsewhere, but I am not sure about the exact location of the "on" DNA.

Guede's DNA showed up in four samples from the murder room: a vaginal swab, on her bra, on the sleeve of her sweatshirt, and on her purse.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

The much larger question is why she would accuse anyone. (No, I don't accept the coercion theory.) My own "pet theory" is that sometime on the 5th of November she and Raffaele had decided to change their alibi. And that new version would include Amanda leaving Raffaele's flat the night of the murder. This is exactly what Raffaele then told the cops on November 5th and exactly what Amanda on November 5th told the cops too. A coincidence??? (Remember that the new version, according to Raffaele in his diary, was invented by Amanda.) This wasn't Raffaele "throwing Amanda under the bus." The lovebirds were acting in concert. So I guess they weren't happy with their earlier alibi, since the cops seemed skeptical. And maybe they feared that evidence would directly tie Amanda, maybe both lovebirds, to the murder scene (which of course happened). So I suppose this was a wise choice---given the later discovered evidence---but there was no plausible murderer named in the revised version.

This is pure speculation, and even as speculation it makes no sense. None of the evidence supposedly placing them at the crime scene was known at that point. Guilty or innocent, they had no reason to deviate from their initial account.

Moreover, what they told police is not what the police told the public. Raffaele (apparently) said Amanda went out on her own, and Amanda signed a statement in which she vaguely remembered meeting Patrick and being at the cottage when he killed Meredith. She said nothing about Raffaele being there.

But what the police told the public and the media was that all three were there, wanting Meredith to participate in group sex, and they killed her when she refused.

How did they figure all that out from the statements made by Amanda and Raffaele, and the evidence available to them at that time? These Perugian officers are either the most brilliantly intuitive detectives of all time, or else they are incompetent buffoons. There's no third way.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no true scotsman

Funny how that absence of evidence bit only works in your favor.

You claim that absence of DNA evidence of Guede in Filomena's room doesn't mean he wasn't there...but then the absence of evidence of Amanda/Raffaele on Meredith's body means they didn't touch her.

Go figure.

BobTheDonkey,

I have never made a claim about Guede’s being or not being in Filomena’s room*. Yet you put those words into my mouth and try to change the subject. Go figure.

*I do believe he threw the rock from outside, however, on the basis of the testimony of the ballistics expert.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Funny how that absence of evidence bit only works in your favor.

You claim that absence of DNA evidence of Guede in Filomena's room doesn't mean he wasn't there...but then the absence of evidence of Amanda/Raffaele on Meredith's body means they didn't touch her.

Go figure.

Nobody claims that a violent struggle took place in Filomena's room, and only a half a dozen samples were taken there versus several dozen from Meredith's room.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

BobTheDonkey,

I have never made a claim about Guede’s being or not being in Filomena’s room. Yet you put those words into my mouth and try to change the subject. Go figure.

I am not changing the subject. The subject was, and remains, the lack of evidence of Guede's presence vs the lack of evidence of Amanda and Raffaele's presence.

Thanks to Charlie, we now can continue this discussion. Guede's DNA was not found directly on the body, only on the vaginal swab. Given your reasoning, he did not strangle Meredith as his DNA was not found on her neck. Whoops.

Do you believe Guede broke in through Filomena's window?

 

[Amazer]

Fulcanelli is wrong. Amanda's lawyers state this information in the appeal. I believe Amanda's lawyers.

That doesn't surprise me (that you believe Amanda's lawyers), but I asked for evidence.

 

[Bob001]

There's reason to believe Amanda was known to the Seattle Police. And Amanda's DNA was found mixed with Meredith's, both in Filomena's room and in the bathroom. Raffaele's DNA was found in Meredith's room on the clasp of the bra the victim was wearing when she was assaulted/murdered.

Rudy fleeing did not cause quite the same commotion that Amanda fleeing would have caused. If Amanda were to have flown the country, it would have immediately implicated her and undone her efforts to hide her involvement. Not exactly apples to apples comparison.

I dunno. Her roommate was murdered in the apartment they shared. It might not have been seen as unreasonable for her to say, "I'm so scared, it could have been me, I'm going home right now." It also might not have been seen as unreasonable if her parents had insisted that she get on the next plane home for her own safety and their own peace of mind. And if the police developed real evidence against her, the Italian authorities could have made a request for extradition, which would have been reviewed by an American court applying American rules. But they wouldn't have been able to say "Hey, come back, we want to talk to you."

And it sounds like there is substantial dispute about where DNA and other biological material was found, how it was collected and whether it was contaminated by mishandling.

As an aside, I'm surprised that I haven't seen any accounts of any involvement by the American embassy. Did they play any role in any of this? If I were traveling abroad and the local police wanted to question me about a murder of someone I knew (or wanted to take me to the station for any reason at all) I would certainly call the embassy for advice. I recognize that the embassy can't do a lot, but they can at least tell you about local laws and practices, they can recommend an experienced local lawyer who speaks English, and they can visit a person in jail to be sure he's not being mistreated. Did Knox ever call the embassy? Did her parents? Did the embassy do anything for Knox, either before she was arrested or afterward?

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

It sounds like a lot of the discussion here is based on differing ideas about what Knox may have said or done or should have said or done, or ambiguous circumstantial evidence. This may a useful guide: These are the model instructions that U.S. federal judges use to draft their own instructions to juries (every court and circuit is slightly different; this one is searchable).

Of particular note (my emphasis):
Section 2.18
"[Defendant] presented evidence to show that [he/she] enjoys a reputation for honesty, truthfulness and integrity in [his/her] community. Such evidence may indicate to you that it is improbable that a person of such character would commit the crime charged, and, therefore, cause you to have a reasonable doubt as to [his/her] guilt. You should consider any evidence of [defendant]’s good character along with all the other evidence in the case and give it such weight as you believe it deserves. If, when considered with all the other evidence presented during this trial, the evidence of [defendant]’s good character creates a reasonable doubt in your mind as to [his/her] guilt, you should find [him/her] not guilty."

Section 3.02 (note 4)
"...Of course, a defendant is never to be convicted on suspicion or conjecture. If, for example, you view the evidence in the case as reasonably permitting either of two conclusions—one that a defendant is guilty as charged, the other that the defendant is not guilty— you will find the defendant not guilty.

It is not sufficient for the Government to establish a probability, though a strong one, that a fact charged is more likely to be true than not true. That is not enough to meet the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, there are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty, and in criminal cases the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt..."

http://federalcriminaljuryinstructi...rcuit_Criminal_Instructions_2008_Revision.pdf

I wonder whether Italian juries get similar instructions?
.

Italy has no Jury, it is a paneel of judges. But you must not go so far, look at the Scott-Peterson-case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson
In later press appearances, members of the jury stated that they felt that Peterson's demeanor—specifically, his lack of emotion, and the phone calls to Amber Frey in the days following Laci's disappearance—indicated that he was guilty. They based their verdict on "hundreds of small 'puzzle pieces' of circumstantial evidence that came out during the trial, from the location of Laci Peterson's body to the myriad of lies her husband told after her disappearance."

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

I wonder whether Italian juries get similar instructions?
.

I think, whatever system they have, you must live with it.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

But Knox and Sollecito apparently have no histories of violence or even of any criminal behavior except smoking marijuana.

I've heard that Knox actually did have a criminal misdemeanor conviction on her record.

There is nothing in their backgrounds that hints that they could impulsively commit a brutal murder with a knife. And even if you believe that one of them could somehow have suddenly gone off the deep end, is it really plausible that both would flip out at the same moment and afterward neither would feel enough remorse, shame or fear of the consequences to turn the other one in? And what would they have in common with Rudy Guede? Do they have a history of hanging out with lowlifes, or even just this particular lowlife? It seems to be undisputed that Knox and Sollecito spent the evening before the murder smoking dope. When has marijuana ever impelled somebody to commit a violent crime? Believing the prosecution's theory requires believing that three people who barely knew each other decided to engage in some bizarre sexual activity that led to a thrill-killing. I ask again, how often does that happen?

I've posted this before: a 50 year-old man with no criminal history who was a described by a neighbor as a "very nice man" murdered 2 people.
http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_15109213

It is impossible for all crimes to be committed by people who have previously committed crimes. That should be obvious.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

This is pure speculation, and even as speculation it makes no sense. None of the evidence supposedly placing them at the crime scene was known at that point. Guilty or innocent, they had no reason to deviate from their initial account.

Wasn't the original accout RS's story about he, himself kicking the door down and findinging Meredith. And, that they spent the night at a bithday party of a friend of his?

[/QUOTE]Moreover, what they told police is not what the police told the public. Raffaele (apparently) said Amanda went out on her own, and Amanda signed a statement in which she vaguely remembered meeting Patrick and being at the cottage when he killed Meredith. She said nothing about Raffaele being there.[/QUOTE]

Actually, she said she couldn't remember if he was there or not - suprise, suprise.

[/QUOTE]How did they figure all that out from the statements made by Amanda and Raffaele, and the evidence available to them at that time? These Perugian officers are either the most brilliantly intuitive detectives of all time, or else they are incompetent buffoons. There's no third way.[/QUOTE]

Well, they must be the most brilliantly intuitive detectives of all time, because they rightfully got their man and their lady.