Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

Innocence Project

Stilicho,

The Innocence Project sometimes surfaces in discussions about the case. Here is a quote from Greg Hampikian: “I can’t tell who is telling the truth or who is lying, but the DNA can tell,” he says. “Sometimes the Innocence Project is a bit of a misnomer. In two of the four exonerations, I developed evidence that led to the arrest of somebody new for the crime, so for some people we are the Guilty Project – and that’s an important part of what we do.”

My criticisms of flawed or inconclusive forensic DNA evidence do not mean that I reject all DNA evidence, despite what some have alleged. I agree with Dr. Hampikian’s position.

 

[quadraginta]

Dan, do you think it's possible the round handle on the outside of the door could be an actual functional handle rather than one just for pulling the door shut? In other words, that the handle is linked to the closing/locking mechanism of the door, and works in the same way as the lever handle but is a different style. So you could turn that handle to open the door and operate the latch (if it weren't jammed) and turn it the other way in order to lock the door (equivalent to lifting the door handle to lock it on the other side).

It is certainly possible that the exterior door handle could be (or could have been) operable. It isn't any sort of a standard configuration, and would require a lockset specifically designed for the purpose. (This is as opposed to locksets which are generally designed to accommodate a wide range of configurations, and require only adjustments within the lock body mechanism to implement or disable different features.) I haven't run across one such myself, but I don't claim to have encountered every sort of lockset, just a great deal of them.

The fact that the interior handle is a lever handle, and the exterior a knob isn't relevant. Both function exactly the same as far as a lock mechanism is concerned. The difference stops at the surface of the door. Both, when operable, rotate a shaft extending into the body of the lock.

My point, with which Dan_O evidently concurs, is that a lockset with a key cylinder which operates both the spring latch and deadbolt is a very common configuration. What isn't common is a door hardware design on a residential entry door which requires an occupant to be present for the configuration to function as intended.

The subject is somewhat moot, though, from my perspective. Even if the exterior door handle had been operable at one time and then failed, the fact remains that the impression I had initially gotten of a spring latch which wasn't working quite right and didn't secure the door properly is still quite different from one of a latch which is not working at all and has been intentionally disabled. The former would feel like it was operating properly, and then fail, perhaps at some later time. This is the scenario which has been so vigorously propounded by those suggesting that Guede did not notice that the door wasn't functioning properly, and up until I saw those photos I had accepted that as a possibility. The latter would feel wrong. It would be quite apparent to even a casual user.

I agree that there are no rollers on the door, and as I said in the other post, I think those grooves are for additional locks which - in the case of two of the doors on our house, anyway - are operated when you lift the handle to lock the door. But if that were the case with this door, there would need to be some way to activate those additional locks on the other side of the door too (or you wouldn't be able to lock it with the key) which is why I'm wondering about the handle.

Hope that's clear, it's a little difficult to describe!

I still haven't seen the grooves that you are referring to. The link you included in your earlier response to me did not seem to go to a photograph which showed what you intended me to see.

It may be that you are discussing "vertical deadbolts", or "flush bolts" (two different but similar things). But at this point I'm just guessing. This could take the discussion rather far afield, and without seeing some more specific pictures within the context of the Knox apt. door I can't provide any enlightenment.

 

[RoseMontague]

I was reading some of Frank's previous posts and came across one that now strikes me as being significant. It was a "non-interview" Frank did with Quintavalle. The thing that strikes me with this is that Frank also asked him two weeks after the murder if he had seen Amanda and Raffaele and he denied that. It also gives some interesting details about Quintavalle's TV interview and the strange "journalism" exhibited in this case. It also indicates that Quintavalle at one point said Raffaele had been coming to his shop for years, where in truth he had just recently moved there.

Yes, yes, yes. Why when a couple of weeks after the arrests I came to ask you if you knew any of the suspects you told me that you didn't?
Because I'm a serious person, I do my business, I work all day...
So, what happened now, you are not a serious person anymore? You don't do your business anymore?
Because I have to say what I have seen. I'll go to the trial and that's it. No interviews, nothing. Everybody called me, but I'm a serious person, I don't do these things.
Sure, just one interview, right?
You know what I tell you? That they deceived me! Because our agreement was different.
How was your agreement?
Our agreement was that my head had to be covered and my voice tempered, so I'm very pissed off now.
What else did your agreement include?
You know I like you but I got to go now, seriously, I'm busy now, seriously.
How much did they give you?
I got to go, sorry, I got to go.
Good luck Marco.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/01/appetite-for-punishment-2.html

 

[Chris_Halkides]

edits needed in a previous message

Stilicho,

The prosecution’s hypothesis is that Guede and Sollecito restrained Meredith. The presence of Guede’s DNA on Meredith’s clothing is consistent with this hypothesis. I am not sure what you mean when you say that the presence of DNA is presented as evidence against the evidence against the prosecution’s case. Neither you nor others have given an adequate explanation of why one would not expect to find DNA in the areas I have listed; instead, you keep changing the subject.

The highlighted portion should read "the hypothesis that Guede came into contact with Meredith."

The areas of Meredith's body would include her wrists and the areas around her neck where bruising was observed.

In the rest of the message I gave some of the problems with the bra clasp. I neglected to include the unnecessary amount of handling and the dirty gloves used to handle it (instead of disposable tools). If these same problems beset any other piece of evidence, and I emphatically include evidence against Guede in this regard, then that piece of evidence is similarly weakened. So let's not trot out the special-pleading argument for another time around the track, OK?

 

[LondonJohn]

Ahhh...you've got to love it when people who don't know anything about mobile phone networks write with assumed (and false) "knowledge" about mobile phone networks....

In the GSM mobile network system (at either 900 or 1800MHz), each base station (i.e. mobile mast for the sake of argument) broadcasts a unique Location Area Identity (LAI) code on a common channel. These LAI codes are "heard" by any given mobile phone. When a phone enters the coverage area of a different base station, it will therefore "hear" this base station's LAI code - in addition to the LAIs of other base stations if the phone is also within range of other base stations*. The phone is constantly listening for LAIs, whether the phone is static or in motion.

If a new LAI is heard, the cellphone will then communicate with the new base station with a short ping. The network will then assign the phone with an individual base station, dependent not only upon the relative amplitude of ping heard by the different base stations, but also upon capacity issues. Once a unique base station LAI has been assigned to the phone, the phone will store the LAI in a temporary area of its SIM memory.

In this way, if the subscriber dials a number, the SIM knows which base station to access from the stored LAI. And if someone calls the subscriber, the network knows (from the LAI) which base station to send the call (or message etc) to.

* It's usual - especially in urban areas - for a mobile phone to lie within the coverage areas of multiple base stations. This is not only because of inevitable geographic overlap in coverage areas. It's also because in urban areas, usage density is typically far higher, and each individual base station has capacity constraints. Indeed, in dense urban areas it's not uncommon for two unique base stations to be sited on exactly the same spot - for capacity reasons rather than geographic coverage reasons.

 

[JREF2010]

Also mentioned on p227 of Raffaele's appeal:

Thoughtful mentions it in the summary of RS's appeal over on PMF, too (no. 41 in the second part).

The impression I get from reading the Massei report is that the shutters would not close all the way because the wood had become warped over time. I believe she indicated she closed them to the point that the tightness of the fit prevented the shutters from swinging back open. It sounds to me like she is saying she could not close them far enough to latch them. It was probably pretty obvious that they were not closed all the way and therefore not latched.

I thought Filomena mentioned closing the outside shutters, the black shutters, but couldn't fully close them because of wood swell.
And then she was referring to the inside shutters, the white shutters, when she stated she wasn't sure about the shutter being latched, or not. She wasn't sure if both the inside shutters, the white shutters, were both even closed fully. (Micheli report?)

Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't there a latch on the white/inside shutters, at the lower of the window frame? I had always thought this was the latch she was referring to.

Maybe someone can clarify this shutter testimony confusion.

Just below the evidence tag O, is this latch I was assuming is the one.
This is for the inside shutter to be locked, and also has splintered wood and is very worn in appearance.

 

[odeed]

...

Based on the citation I gave, my contention is that if any of the three had held Meredith’s arms, each would have left his or her DNA. If the forensic police swabbed Meredith’s arms and found nothing, it is the prosecution’s scenario that is hogwash. If the forensic police did not swab her arms, then all bets are off.

I believe you cite this study for your hypothesis?

If it is, how many of the 29 experiments found "offenders" DNA on the "victims" neck? Also does the study indicate if the offenders DNA found was identified as being a partial profile or a full profile using standard 28 cycle DNA profiling? Also was LCN DNA typing used in the study?

Can you cite any legal cases where the prosecution presented DNA evidence left by strangulation or restraint, similar to how you hypothesize in this case?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The red and the white

And since the DNA tested material amounted to only between zero and 10 cells, what would your 20% that were subjected to the blood test have amounted to? At MAXIMUM, it would be about two cells and was most probably less. And of those, which came from a sample that probably contained mixed types of cells, how high are the odds that any of the blood cells will have fallen into that catchment? And only if your exceptionally lucky and win the odds the maximum you may expect is 'one' blood cell. Of course you're never going to get a positive with a blood test.

Not sure about your math. The presence of 2 white blood cells implies the presence of many more red blood cells, inasmuch as the red cells are much more abundant.

 

[LondonJohn]

I thought Filomena mentioned closing the outside shutters, the black shutters, but couldn't fully close them because of wood swell.
And then she was referring to the inside shutters, the white shutters, when she stated she wasn't sure about the shutter being latched, or not. She wasn't sure if both the inside shutters, the white shutters, were both even closed fully. (Micheli report?)

Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't there a latch on the white/inside shutters, at the lower of the window frame? I had always thought this was the latch she was referring to.

Maybe someone can clarify this shutter testimony confusion.

Just below the evidence tag O, is this latch I was assuming is the one.
This is for the inside shutter to be locked, and also has splintered wood and is very worn in appearance.

Yes, I think you're substantively correct. This of course would mean that - at worst - any potential burglar casing the house would be able to observe Filomena's window from the outside, and see that the exterior shutters were not latched shut (and therefore capable of being re-opened from the outside).

At that point, the would-be burglar could have climbed up, using the lower window's grate as a foothold, and yanked open the exterior shutters with one hand (using the other hand to grip the window ledge). He could then have gone back to ground level, and stood back to see that the interior shutters were not closed either. Bingo!

He could then have gathered a suitable rock, and either thrown it from ground level or climbed back up (eg rock in backpack) and thrown the rock through the window from close range. Und so weiter............

And, it's worth reiterating at this point that the placement of the exterior shutters as they were found by the police is largely irrelevant - regardless of whether you accept the staging scenario or the true break-in scenario. Whoever broke the window would have been stupid not to close the exterior shutters, since to leave them open would be to expose the broken window to anyone passing by. And, of course, if that person were wearing gloves, then no prints would be left on the window, shutters, sill, wall or stone.

 

[LondonJohn]

Rose, Amanda and Raffaele will stand side by side and defend each other on appeal. They are innocent and they both know it. Please trust me on this.

They have their own attorneys. This was the same with the first trial. The appeals were written by two different defense teams. They will certainly not sound exact.

It's perfectly proper and normal for them both to have their own attorneys. I would imagine that the defence teams will have at least liaised at some point, since many of the details of the charges are of a "joint enterprise" nature.

As for "trust me on this", we will have to trust the various Italian appeal courts on this instead. If the defence teams have indeed constructed a compelling case for a reversal of the convictions (and, to me at least, it seems like they might have a chance of doing just that), then the appeal courts should do their duty accordingly.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

evidence collection

Although I think it's fair to say that - if this is the case - conclusions can most definitely be drawn with respect to the competence and professionalism of the police and forensic scientists.....

I agree with you. And the fact that several pieces of evidence besides the bra clasp were not collected until some 47 days after the crime raises further troubling questions.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Here's an.....interesting piece of analysis:

"On the fingernails I find it interesting that the picture of Meredith on her bed reclining with one of her mobile phones clearly has her with manicured nails with a noticeable tip. The judge's report says that her fingernails were extremely short and that that could be an explanation for no DNA. I'm not so sure they didn't cut her fingernails as part of the clean up. Raffaele and Amanda both knew the importance of DNA ala CSI, the pic with the bleach and cleaver and the fact of the clean up."

I wonder who wrote that incisive and cogent piece of analysis? This piece of analysis which seems to seriously suggest that the killer(s) cut Meredith's fingernails after killing her, to remove any evidence from under her fingernails. Too much Agatha Christie?

It is a perfect example of how people think when the media and public authorities have hijacked their cognitive faculties.

http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&File_Id=5136

 

[LondonJohn]

Not sure about your math. The presence of 2 white blood cells implies the presence of many more red blood cells, inasmuch as the red cells are much more abundant.

The ratio of red blood cells to white blood cells in healthy blood is in the order of 800:1. Isn't a knowledge of science a wonderful thing

 

[Oliebol]

Yes, I think you're substantively correct. This of course would mean that - at worst - any potential burglar casing the house would be able to observe Filomena's window from the outside, and see that the exterior shutters were not latched shut (and therefore capable of being re-opened from the outside).

At that point, the would-be burglar could have climbed up, using the lower window's grate as a foothold, and yanked open the exterior shutters with one hand (using the other hand to grip the window ledge). He could then have gone back to ground level, and stood back to see that the interior shutters were not closed either. Bingo!

He could then have gathered a suitable rock, and either thrown it from ground level or climbed back up (eg rock in backpack) and thrown the rock through the window from close range. Und so weiter............

And, it's worth reiterating at this point that the placement of the exterior shutters as they were found by the police is largely irrelevant - regardless of whether you accept the staging scenario or the true break-in scenario. Whoever broke the window would have been stupid not to close the exterior shutters, since to leave them open would be to expose the broken window to anyone passing by. And, of course, if that person were wearing gloves, then no prints would be left on the window, shutters, sill, wall or stone.

thank you for the explanation!

but what does it mean now? does the 00.10 ping mean the phone 'arrived' in this particular area at that time or could the phone have been lying around there for let's say two hours as well?

and where was the phone at 22.13?

 

[Danceme]

Yes, I think you're substantively correct. This of course would mean that - at worst - any potential burglar casing the house would be able to observe Filomena's window from the outside, and see that the exterior shutters were not latched shut (and therefore capable of being re-opened from the outside).

At that point, the would-be burglar could have climbed up, using the lower window's grate as a foothold, and yanked open the exterior shutters with one hand (using the other hand to grip the window ledge). He could then have gone back to ground level, and stood back to see that the interior shutters were not closed either. Bingo!

He could then have gathered a suitable rock, and either thrown it from ground level or climbed back up (eg rock in backpack) and thrown the rock through the window from close range. Und so weiter............

And, it's worth reiterating at this point that the placement of the exterior shutters as they were found by the police is largely irrelevant - regardless of whether you accept the staging scenario or the true break-in scenario. Whoever broke the window would have been stupid not to close the exterior shutters, since to leave them open would be to expose the broken window to anyone passing by. And, of course, if that person were wearing gloves, then no prints would be left on the window, shutters, sill, wall or stone.

Filomena's shutters were capable of being closed til almost perfectly joined. This is apparent from a number of photos on the internet, such as this one

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/02qx6t86Eu4Zq/610x.jpg

or this one,

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/library/MezHouseGreat.JPG

At night, in the dark, it's doubtful this window would be the one selected IMO, especially if an intruder had to do multiple climbs to access the house through it. Especially not Rudy! He had been to the house a number of times, knew it's layout and would have selected the window above the balcony, the exact same type of window above a balcony he selected if it was indeed him who broke into the lawyer's office. Anything else sounds like utter nonsense and grasping at straws. Why would he not select the easier window above the balcony as he was used to doing?

 

[LondonJohn]

thank you for the explanation!

but what does it mean now? does the 00.10 ping mean the phone 'arrived' in this particular area at that time or could the phone have been lying around there for let's say two hours as well?

and where was the phone at 22.13?

Slightly incongruous follow-up question! But in answer to it, the phone would be emitting a constant stream of pings (the space between which is dependent upon the specific network operator's protocols), in order to show nearby base stations that it is in the vicinity and still switched on. The base stations constantly send out LAI codes which in turn are picked up and stored by the phone's SIM.

So if the phone pinged nearby base stations at 00.10, this doesn't necessarily mean that it had only recently arrived in that location. Without a decent history of pings and LAI code recognition, it's near impossible to chart movement of the phone - only "snapshots" of its general location.

From the sounds of things (the LAI code analysis reported elsewhere), at 22.13 the phone might possibly have been en route between the murder house and the place where the phones were eventually ditched. But again, only a fuller analysis of pings and LAI codes during this whole time period would establish with greater certainty how the phone was moved around.

The relevant Italian mobile network operators (wind, and also any other of the mobile networks with whom Meredith's UK phone had roaming arrangements) should have had a lot of these data points in the days and weeks following the murder. Whether these data still exist today is another matter. Did the police request and analyse the data in a timely fashion after the crime? I don't know.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

At night, in the dark, it's doubtful this window would be the one selected IMO, especially if an intruder had to do multiple climbs to access the house through it. Especially not Rudy! He had been to the house a number of times, knew it's layout and would have selected the window above the balcony, the exact same type of window above a balcony he selected if it was indeed him who broke into the lawyer's office. Anything else sounds like utter nonsense and grasping at straws. Why would he not select the easier window above the balcony as he was used to doing?

Why then wouldn't Amanda and Raffaele select the easier window for their staging, if it was so obvious?

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way:

I happen to know a bit about mobile phone network protocols, particularly in the area of GSM (the global 2/2.5G standard outside the USA and Japan/Korea). But to me it's a clear indication of the lack of basic analytical skills that many people couldn't figure out for themselves - with no specific knowledge of the subject - that mobile phone handests have to periodically emit identifier pings.

For example, say I was standing in the centre of Perugia, and I turned on my mobile phone. Say I was a Wind (Italian mobile phone network/operator) customer.

So, a base station in the centre of Perugia would register my phone being switched on, and my phone would register that base station as the one through which I could now make and receive calls.

Say a friend of mine in Milan called me at that moment, to invite me to come to Milan that same day. The network would know which particular base station (out of the thousands of Wind base stations in its entire Italian network) to route this call to, and the Perugia central base station would send the call to me.

So, suppose that now I jumped in my car, and began the long drive to Milan. I kept my phone turned on all the time. Suppose that I drove as far as Florence, and decided to stop to stretch my legs.

Suppose now that my friend called me again, to see how my journey was going. How would the network now know which base station to send this call to, unless my phone had identified itself to each of the various base stations along the route? And how could it identify itself without sending out an identifier ping? There has to be a two-way communication between the phone and the various base stations in order for the network to know where the handset is located.

It doesn't take a knowledge of mobile network protocols to figure this out. It just takes a small amount of basic reasoning, coupled with some small experience of using mobile phones while travelling. The fact that discussions were taking place within this logic vacuum is perhaps of interest........

 

[LondonJohn]

Filomena's shutters were capable of being closed til almost perfectly joined. This is apparent from a number of photos on the internet, such as this one

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/02qx6t86Eu4Zq/610x.jpg

or this one,

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/library/MezHouseGreat.JPG

At night, in the dark, it's doubtful this window would be the one selected IMO, especially if an intruder had to do multiple climbs to access the house through it. Especially not Rudy! He had been to the house a number of times, knew it's layout and would have selected the window above the balcony, the exact same type of window above a balcony he selected if it was indeed him who broke into the lawyer's office. Anything else sounds like utter nonsense and grasping at straws. Why would he not select the easier window above the balcony as he was used to doing?

You can make that deduction from these photographs, with those contrast levels and at those distances? You must have extraordinary eyesight!

 

[Dan O.]

Filomena's shutters were capable of being closed til almost perfectly joined. This is apparent from a number of photos on the internet, such as this one

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/02qx6t86Eu4Zq/610x.jpg

or this one,

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/library/MezHouseGreat.JPG

The police needed to seal the crime scene and did not need to open the shutters again in the morning. If you find a photo from the inside, I believe you will see that the latch on those shutters has been wired closed.




At night, in the dark, it's doubtful this window would be the one selected IMO, especially if an intruder had to do multiple climbs to access the house through it. Especially not Rudy! He had been to the house a number of times, knew it's layout and would have selected the window above the balcony, the exact same type of window above a balcony he selected if it was indeed him who broke into the lawyer's office. Anything else sounds like utter nonsense and grasping at straws. Why would he not select the easier window above the balcony as he was used to doing?[/QUOTE]