Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Danceme]

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

It's an obvious window to choose to flick a rock through, either from the low wall or the ground below, when you have no actual intention of scaling the wall and actually climbing through the window but I don't see it as the obvious choice when the intention is to climb in from the outside. The window over the balcony would be harder to throw a rock through because they have to aim up and over but it's much easier to climb up the balcony and go through if you are an actual intruder and that is the intention.
For me the window choice depends on who was doing it and why, the stagers who just needed a broken window, or an actual intruder who needed an easy access point.

 

[Danceme]

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

Yes. And it's no more extraordinary than the deductions you constantly make.

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.

Dan O, I can believe that scenario. Do you have a photo of the wired shutters?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Rutty strangulation study

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?

Odeed,

The simulated strangulation experiment was done with periods between the force and the sampling were 1, 5, 10, 15, 30 and 60 min, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 24 and 48 h and 3, 4, 5, and 10 days. When they used SGMplus, they observed a full profile of the offender 7 out of 29 times. When they used LCN all 17 experiments yielded offender profiles, with the majority being partial profiles. I’ll look into your other questions and let you know if I find out anything.

 

[stilicho]

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.

You're asking why there is no DNA evidence in places you would expect it to be. That is called special pleading. The fact is that both Raffaele and Rudy left detectable DNA in places consistent with the prosecution narrative. No alternate narrative has been supplied and supported in court to explain how this came to be.

In brief the problems with the bra clasp as evidence include that it was collected in a different location than where it was when the crime was discovered, that it was collected after he was very publicly arrested, that there are as many as three additional DNA profiles in addition to Meredith’s and Raffaele’s, that Raffaele’s profile is in the LCN range according to his appeal, and that his DNA is not on the bra itself (his lawyers made this argument in a preliminary hearing). There may be one additional problem, which I am looking into. If these problems were nonexistent, the clasp would be a much stronger piece of evidence against him.

The DNA evidence places Raffaele in Meredith's room. It is rock-solid evidence and will not be rejected on appeal. You should read up more on the Innocence Project. It relies heavily on DNA forensics to establish the truth and so did the authorities in this case.

I can provide you with a link to their site if you haven't read it.

The notion that the (supposed) lack of an alibi affirms the conclusion that the lone-wolf scenario should be rejected strikes me as being illogical. The lone wolf scenario stands or falls on its own.

Where were Raffaele and Amanda during the time of Meredith's murder? Evidence?

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.

Of course you don't reject all DNA evidence. You pick and choose what you like and what you don't like. This is--as we've indicated to you before--the m.o. of an amateur sleuth driven by thoughts of conspiracies.

I agree with Hampikian against you on this one. I read roughly three dozen of their cases and practically all of them encourage the advancement and deployment of DNA forensics to put criminals behind bars. They've been very successful, too.

They observe that there is ordinarily an alternate suspect in the cases--someone overlooked during the initial investigation. So who is that individual in the case of Meredith's murder? Filomena? Who is the suspect that the Perugia police overlooked in their zeal to falsely accuse Amanda, Raffaele, Rudy and Patrick?

Oh wait, they didn't falsely accuse Patrick. That was Amanda.

 

[Mr.D]

I stand corrected, Mr. D. I should have said "I believe," not "we know."

<snip>

Many of the indignities that were inflicted on Amanda and Raffaele were, to my mind, unethical, but not necessarily illegal.

Your objections to my post are legitimate. I need more information about this topic; some of my understanding of it may be from undocumented sources.

'Sokay. I'm just glad that part is all cleared up.

I honestly think there is some common ground that can be reached here between the "two sides" wherein a more rational debate can be held and some progress made.


ETA: I had a long bit in the middle here speculating on the false-positive HIV test, but it needs more work - there's a piece that's missing.

Also, if you agree with me in principle, what would your observations about the topic be?

What I agree with you with is that IF Knox was subjected to an unjust or malicious investigation, then the whole mess is just indefensible. What I haven't seen yet is anything enough to convince me of such.

 

[Mr.D]

I haven't yet seen any comments or observations regarding my post (from earlier today) about how HIV tests are actually conducted, and how false positives are astonishingly rare if a) the double test (ELISA and Western Blot) is properly conducted and b) the person being tested is not from a high-risk group. I welcome all comments and criticisms!

I'm still behind, but I did see your post, and yes the combination of tests is pretty definitive and that's one of the problems with this whole false-positive mess.

IF Knox was told she tested positive for HIV after the Western Blot test, then why was yet another test run which turned out negative?

On the other hand, if as Mary_H has theorized, the false-positive was part of some sort of psychological game being played on Knox, what was the objective? She was already under arrest, in part due to the "false" confession" involving Lumumba, so it doesn't appear to be a very useful tactic.

 

[Mr.D]

It's far better to actually look at a large and hopefully representative sample of cases, and when we do that it turns out that Amanda is the sort of person likely to give a false statement under pressure, that the conditions she was under were the kind likely to elicit a false statement, and that her statement is far more consistent with a false statement than with a true confession.

Sorry if I missed it, but I'm not yet caught up, but can you either point out where in the thread this has been demonstrated or back this claim up somehow?

 

[43degreesNorth]

Does the AK appeal mention anything in a plan B or plan C about the possibility of serving her time in the States?

 

[Oliebol]

Slightly incongruous follow-up question!

oh sorry! It was actually your post #3225 that I was trying to quote. Very sorry!

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.

Interesting. Thank you!

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

It's an obvious window to choose to flick a rock through, either from the low wall or the ground below, when you have no actual intention of scaling the wall and actually climbing through the window but I don't see it as the obvious choice when the intention is to climb in from the outside. The window over the balcony would be harder to throw a rock through because they have to aim up and over but it's much easier to climb up the balcony and go through if you are an actual intruder and that is the intention.
For me the window choice depends on who was doing it and why, the stagers who just needed a broken window, or an actual intruder who needed an easy access point.

I follow your reasoning, but it is rooted in conjecture rather than evidence, and it becomes improbable when one steps back to look at the overall theory of which it is a part. If Amanda and Raffaele were concerned about being suspects, the obvious course of action would be to stay away from the place and let someone else find the body. And the even more obvious course of action would be to avoid collaborating with Guede on a homicide for which they had no motive.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's an obvious window to choose to flick a rock through, either from the low wall or the ground below, when you have no actual intention of scaling the wall and actually climbing through the window but I don't see it as the obvious choice when the intention is to climb in from the outside. The window over the balcony would be harder to throw a rock through because they have to aim up and over but it's much easier to climb up the balcony and go through if you are an actual intruder and that is the intention.
For me the window choice depends on who was doing it and why, the stagers who just needed a broken window, or an actual intruder who needed an easy access point.

Huh? Why would anyone staging a burglary need to throw the rock from ground level? Why would the stager (AK or RS) not just get a rock, walk out onto the balcony from inside the house, then lob the rock through the window from there? Simples!

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes. And it's no more extraordinary than the deductions you constantly make.



Dan O, I can believe that scenario. Do you have a photo of the wired shutters?

Which deductions of mine are you referring to here?

 

[LondonJohn]

The images that Charlie provided (here) make it abundantly clear how this door was intended to function and how it was "modified". In its normal operation, there is a double key deadbolt on the bottom and a spring latch on the top. When the door is simply closed, the spring latch is pushed in by the edge of the strike plate then the spring pushes it back into the hole in the strike plate securing the door closed. The lever handle on the inside will retract the spring bolt to open the door but there is no corresponding handle on the outside so the only way to retract the spring bolt from outside would be with the key. (using a credit card or flick knife would be easier)

The downside of this configuration is that when the tenant goes to take out the trash wearing only a bath robe and slippers, if the door should close behind them they will be locked out. It was probably such a situation that led to the modification.

By jamming the spring bolt in the retracted position, it will no longer operate to hold the door closed. This resolves the problem of getting locked out of ones home in their bath robe but leads to the condition that amanda describes where if the door wasn't locked with a key it would blow open in the wind.

The key operates the deadbolt from either inside or out. It's possible for the lockset to be configured to link the lever handle on the inside to the deadbolt for either locking and/or unlocking the door but this is apparently not the case here.


BTW Kate, the rollers were a deduction based on the earlier outside image and the description of the door operation. There are no rollers visible on this door (though the rollers would be a good suggestion for the current tenants if they don't want the door blowing open in the slightest breeze when it isn't locked with a key).

I think "Dan O" (along with others) is wrong here. His assertion is that the key mechanism is somehow linked to the spring latch bolt, so that the door could be opened from the outside without the key, even if the spring latch were operating as intended.

But an analysis of the types of exterior door locks available for sale shows none which link the lever-handle-operated spring latch to the key mechanism. In fact, the descriptions explicitly point out the separation of the two mechanisms. Here's an example from the UK's biggest DIY superstore website (note the "additional information" section for the explicit separation of the deadbolt and the latch):

http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/bq/nav.jsp?action=detail&fh_secondid=9276755&fh_view_size=10&fh_start_index=70&fh_eds=%3f&fh_location=%2f%2fcatalog01%2fen_GB%2fcategories%3C{9372016}%2fcategories%3C{9372049}%2fcategories%3C{9372273}%2fcategories%3C{9392102}%2fspecificationsProductType%3ddoor_locks&fh_refview=lister&ts=1278326148027&isSearch=false

And not one of the combined latch/deadbolt sets on the B&Q website appears to allow the latch to be operated using the key.

So, this tends to support my opinion that the door furniture in the cottage was incorrectly selected and/or installed. And that there was then no option but to disable the spring latch, otherwise it would be impossible under any circumstances to open the door from the outside, without someone on the inside opening the latch using the lever handle.

However, if someone can post a link to a combination lockset which allows for the latch to be operated via the same key which operates the deadbolt, I'll be all ears (or eyes).

 

[LondonJohn]

Here's a thing:

The prosecution must have concluded that Knox and Sollecito disposed of their clothes and shoes after the murder. This must be the case, since none of Knox or Sollecito's clothes or shoes recovered by the police showed any sign of blood smear/splatter (which would have happened with a near certainty if Knox and Sollecito had been active participants in the murder*. And neither (I believe) did any of their clothes or shoes show any sign of being cleaned since 1st November. Ergo: the clothes and shoes were disposed of - presumably in a municipal skip/dumpster, or something like that.

But if the clothes and shoes were disposed of, why not the murder knife as well? If Knox and Sollecito were aware enough of the potentially incriminating nature of their clothing and footwear, why on earth would they allow the actual knife used as a murder weapon to remain in Sollecito's kitchen drawer? What would be the downside of getting rid of the knife in a similar way to the clothes/shoes? Would the knife have even been registered as missing by anyone other than Sollecito? And, in addition, the prosecution seem to be alleging that the "other" murder knife also belonged to Sollecito, but that he disposed of this knife. Why would he dispose of one knife and not the other?

Suggestions and comments gratefully received. Muchas gracias

* This is not to suggest that their clothes would have been drenched in blood (a common misconception in regard to bloody stabbings). However, anyone that close to a violent stabbing would have had to get at least traces of Meredith's blood onto their clothes and/or shoes.

 

[RoseMontague]

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.

It is just more confusion; are there more than 2 latches involved with the entire assembly? It would seem to me that if none of them were closed and latched, the burglar would not need a rock. They would simply push the windows open.

 

[RoseMontague]

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.

I see that thoughtful is exploring this as well at PMF. It is interesting that this would fit in with the earlier time of death as argued in Raffaele's appeal. It would also render two of the witness testimonies basically useless. On second look, the whole prosecution case pretty much falls apart.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

It is just more confusion; are there more than 2 latches involved with the entire assembly? It would seem to me that if none of them were closed and latched, the burglar would not need a rock. They would simply push the windows open.

Too bad that this burglar just blindly threw that rock instead of checking the window - just a little push with one hand and - Bingo! - open is that window!

But to be serious: he climbes the wall (let alone how) - he opens the shutters -
and he does not examine the window (latch, how to open and so on..)
just use that (much too large) rock - risking noise of splintering glass, risking cutting himself with glass)???
Must have been a bloody noob.
And finally,
what do you think would this burglar had in mind for his was out (think of carrying the theft)

 

[RoseMontague]

I have some questions about the cell phone ping discussion. I have read several places that most cell phone companies do not keep a record of "ping" history (each new ping overwrites the last). The reason for this is that most cell phones do ping every X number of minutes (say 5 to 10) and logging this information for every phone would require use of precious data storage capacity. Some comments I have seen indicate that some phone companies only store a limited amount of ping history. The comments on this at PMF seem to indicate that this data is stored when the cell tower location changes. I then wonder if it is overwritten again when it changes again?
In the case of the phone in question and the shortly after midnight ping, which situation would apply? I see more of a call and msg history listed in both the Massei report and appeal documents. Is there a ping history listed or is it just one ping?

 

[Kestrel]

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

Both of these photos were taken after the scene was investigated. You are assuming that the police who sealed the crime scene didn't fix the shutters so they could be properly closed. Or as Dan suggested, wire them closed. It's also probable that they would have boarded up the broken window.

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?

Rudy had been to the cottage before and visited the boys who lived in the downstairs apartment. I have heard nothing to indicate he was ever in the apartment upstairs before the night of the murder. We know he was there on the night of the murder because of the bloody handprint he left in the victims blood.

If Rudy was considering burglary of the cottage, he would have noticed the defective shutter as a potential entry point. The window above the balcony didn't have that problem. They shutter could be properly latched meaning that a burglar would have to tear open the shutter as well as break the window. The nearest streetlight is on that side of the cottage and lights up the balcony. The window that was broken is in the shadows at night.

 

[LondonJohn]

It is just more confusion; are there more than 2 latches involved with the entire assembly? It would seem to me that if none of them were closed and latched, the burglar would not need a rock. They would simply push the windows open.

I think there are three latches in total: one set for the exterior shutters (which nobody debates were latched, rather - at best - pushed shut by friction alone); one set for the interior shutters (which appear from testimony to have been open at least partially); and one set for the window itself (which was latched, which is why a burglar would need to break the glass in order to reach inside and unlatch the window).