Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

How did Ms. Formica know the person she saw was a "North African"? How does one distinguish a North African from a person from Southern Africa? How did she know he wasn't an African-American or a native born Italian?

Oh dear. The ethnic classification "North African" is very different from that applied to people from Sub-Saharan Africa. It's not a geographical throw-away differentiator. I can assume confidently that you've never been to Northern Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia or Libya. North African facial features and skin tone are very different indeed from Sub-Saharan African features and skin tone. I suggest that you do some basic research.

But, in any case, this raises the whole thorny issue of eyewitness testimony. It's been shown over and over again that eyewitnesses can be incredibly inaccurate in their recall of events, especially when those events seemed mundane and unimportant at the time. The only time that eyewitness testimony can be truly significant is when the witness positively IDs the perpetrator via a properly-administered identification parade.

 

[LondonJohn]

The best explanation for the evidence Rudy left in the toilet is that he was in the bathroom when Meredith arrived home shortly after 9 PM. The problem for the prosecution is that Amanda and Raffaele were still watching a movie at that time, so Rudy had to have let himself into the cottage.

There is something else odd about the prosecution testimony about time of death. They say death occurred at 11 PM with an error of only a half hour each way. The problem is that the methods they used to determine the time of death are not precise enough to for only a one hour window.

And those super-competent police did not do a rectal reading for body temperature at the scene (i.e. before the body was removed), and much less (to my knowledge) did they take ambient temperatures in the room. These readings could have provided a fairly accurate time of death, considering that they could have been done by around 15.00 on the 2nd November - i.e. within 18 hours or so of death.

 

[christianahannah]

I know Thoughtful translated Amanda's testimony, but I don't think she translated Filomena or Laura's testimony. I did a quick search for articles on Laura's testimony and found this one: apparently Laura mentioned the mark to police 10 months later, and described it as a 'vertical scratch'. She agreed it was the same one as seen in the police pictures. I don't think Filomena mentioned it at all...?

I was also trying to remember if Massei mentions it; I don't recall anything about it, though it's been a while since I read the report. If not, then the jury obviously accepted it was a sucking contusion rather than a knife wound.

I agree that Alexandra Formica is one of the (few!) reliable witnesses in the case, though as you say, not particularly helpful to either side. I'd add the people who found the phones, and the group outside the house in the broken down car (the fact they saw and heard nothing out of the ordinary and there's no mention of olive throwing knife wielding double-glazing shattering screams is reassuring!).

As for editing posts, that's a bit tricky with the thread on moderation. If your post gets approved quickly enough you should be able to edit straight away, but if it takes a while the 'edit' option stops being available. If/when the thread stops being moderated it's easy enough to edit it immediately after posting.

Concerning Laura's testimony and the scratch - seems as if the media has two versions of what her testimony was in reference to the time frame of her mentioning the scratch (maybe by November it is meant November 2008?).

This is an example of why court transcripts will always be more desirable than media reports. Perhaps Charlie Wilkes could provide court transcripts of testimony that is in dispute by the various media.

But giving evidence yesterday, Ms Mezzetti testified that she had noticed a new and unexplained scratch on Ms Knox's neck the day after the murder, though she only mentioned it to police during her seventh interrogation.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...after-kercher-murder-says-friend-1622481.html

and

Laura Mezzetti, an Italian who shared an apartment with Kercher and defendant Amanda Knox, told the court she saw the scratch on Knox's neck, below her chin, the following day at the police station where they were waiting to be questioned but said she didn't point it out at the time because she thought investigators would notice themselves.

"I noticed it because it was known that Meredith had been killed by a wound to her neck," Mezzetti told the court. "I was afraid that Amanda, too, might have been wounded, I was worried and I looked at it really intensely."

***

Mezzetti said she observed Knox's scratch from a few yards away. She described the wound as "vertical, less than 1-centimeter (0.4 inches) thick," red in color and gestured that it was under her chin.

***

Mezzetti said she did not see any scratch when she saw Knox on Oct. 31, 2007, during breakfast at the apartment, and that she did not see Knox again until two days later at the police station. She said the scratch was different from a love bite, which would be "purple and more round."

Mezzetti told police about the scratch in November, after failing to mention it in several previous interrogations. She said she thought everybody else would have noticed it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-02-14-knox-italy_N.htm

 

[Supernaut]

‘blurring’ of roles in Italian law enforcement ....

...... The blurring of roles was one of the striking aspects of this case. From the beginning, with the public announcement from the police chief Edgardo Giobbi that he didn't need evidence to know that Amanda was guilty, the police set out to fix the evidence around their initial conclusion. The prosecutor Giuliano Mignini was allowed effectively to direct the "investigation".

The Kercher family's lawyer, Francesco Maresca, behaved as if he were a de facto assistant-prosecutor during AK’s and RS’s trial.

It was as if he was being allowed to prosecute the ‘damages’ case against AK and RS (a civil action) concurrently with the murder trial (a criminal one).

To me, this is as strange an aspect of the proceedings as anything else (which is saying something).

If a trial such as this had taken place in the UK (or, I daresay, any number of countries with similar justice systems), the role of the Kerchers' legal representation would have been a passive, advisory one. If they were to publically and stridently align themselves with the prosecution the way Maresca did they would be crucified by the court and ‘out of the loop’ in very short order.

The impression one gets is that the Italian legal system is so un-evolved and shambolic that it barely makes any distinction between criminal and civil law.

(Note also Mignini’s ability to make such promiscuous use of ‘defamation’ laws)

 

[Alt+F4]

In one way it's a clever double bind: You present RS with evidence which is incredibly difficult to explain if he's innocent

Nope. It's incredibly easy to explain if he's innocent. The police were wrong (or incompetent). All RS had to say is that it is 100% impossible for MK's DNA to be on that knife, or say nothing about it at all. The end.

Then when he tries to come up with an explanation of this "evidence", you declare him guilty because his explanation sucks.

His explanation does suck...and it's a lie.

I suppose I should thank you for posting that, since it confirms exactly what I said.

My posting the English translation of the diary entry in question confirms nothing regarding how only MK's DNA, but not AK's, stuck to the knife blade. Of course, no explaination as to why MK's DNA that was supposedly on AK's hand didn't stick to the knife handle, which had AK's DNA on it, but not MK's. Maybe MK had "magical DNA" that only sticks to knife blades, but not knife handles.

As for the translation, we all understand that Google Translate, Babblefish and the other online translators don't do a 100% accurate job of translating text. With that said, if you do use these utilities to translate an Italian news story or blog post you will get a translation that is understandable and makes sense as to the point(s) the writer is making. Using the same utilities with RS's diary translates into almost gibberish, as if he were barely literate in his native language. Considering the fact that he was a college student, I believe there is more going on here with this than we know.

Here is the paragraph in Italian:

Sono convinto che non può aver ammazzato Meredith per poi ritornare a casa. Il fatto che c’è del Dna di Meredith sul coltello da cucina è perché una volta mentre cucinavamo insieme, io, spostandomi in casa maneggiando il coltello, l’ho punta sulla mano, e subito dopo le ho chiesto scusa ma lei non si era fatta niente. Quindi l’unica vera spiegazione a quel coltello da cucina è questa.

Linky: http://qn.quotidiano.net/cronaca/2007/12/08/53233-amanda_meredith.shtml

 

[Alt+F4]

The best explanation for the evidence Rudy left in the toilet is that he was in the bathroom when Meredith arrived home shortly after 9 PM. The problem for the prosecution is that Amanda and Raffaele were still watching a movie at that time, so Rudy had to have let himself into the cottage.

No evidence that Amanda and Raffaele were watching a movie at that time. Only evidence that a movie was playing at that time.

There is something else odd about the prosecution testimony about time of death. They say death occurred at 11 PM with an error of only a half hour each way. The problem is that the methods they used to determine the time of death are not precise enough to for only a one hour window.

Everyone, I think, would agree that the murder took place sometime between 9:15 and midnight. Does the exact time have any significance in the case?

 

[JREF2010]

the car in the driveway and an earlier time of death

The best explanation for the evidence Rudy left in the toilet is that he was in the bathroom when Meredith arrived home shortly after 9 PM. The problem for the prosecution is that Amanda and Raffaele were still watching a movie at that time, so Rudy had to have let himself into the cottage.

There is something else odd about the prosecution testimony about time of death. They say death occurred at 11 PM with an error of only a half hour each way. The problem is that the methods they used to determine the time of death are not precise enough to for only a one hour window.

I agree on the earlier time too. Even more so after reading the Knox Appeal, specifically the Tow Truck driver, Lambrotti.

22:30 to 23:40 timeframe is covered with a credible witness of the tow truck driver. (Sorry Nara and Mignini and Kokomani) No screaming, no people running through the driveway, no waving knifes in the air by the dumpster.

But Lambrotti's time, could be injected into yet another scenario.

applying the tow truck time into a "guilty" perspective-

1- Rudy's toilet-tale (very fast murder, they arrive, fast murder, they flee by 21:25pm)
2- Curatolo story #2 or #3..has Amanda and Raffaelle in front of him from 21:30 to Midnight.(waiting for the tow truck group to leave)
3- Rudy fled 22:00-22:30 (just before the broken down car arrives at 22:30ish)
4- and finally, Curatolo says Amanda and Raffaele leave (near Midnight) which is after the Tow truck drove off at 23:40.
5- this would leave an entire moonlight to sunrise, to clean. Or even for a murderer to return after dancing, a dancer that couldn't go home and sleep well.
6- is it possible Raffaele drove, but was cleaned up before getting in the car.

Alternate endings.........

7)- maybe it was a sleepless night of cleaning blood and staging..re-grouping at Raffaaeles, plotting a intense pile of lies and deception...Rudy and Curatolo are the truth

7)or maybe the two were just waking up innocently from a late night of youthful utopia and turning back on their phones for the world to interrupt them again, Amanda going to the cottage to shower as usual, Raffaele sleeping late until Papa Sollecito checks in as usual....the sun was shining, it was a holiday morning for two innocent lovebirds....Rudy and Curatolo are liars

its one or the other for #7, right?


---------------------------------------------------------------------

So it seems to me any proof, at 21:30 would ruin Rudy and Curatolo's timelines. They both place them there at 21:15 (Rudy on the toilet) to 21:30pm (Curatolo smoking something).

Raffaele does have a human interaction on his pc at 21:10 and at 00:58. (per Perugia Shock site) but I imagine this is all in the Appeals.

Still the Guilter in me can say, it only takes 5minutes or so , driving in his dark colored car, or walking to arrive at the cottage. So a after 21:30 "click" would convince me anyway.

A real problem for this case and finding th truth, is the critical pc activity evidence, unfortunately, is the police/experts might have possibly, accidentally, or incompetently, or intentionally, erased some activity time stamps by reloading and pressing keys on Raffaeles computer....while Raffaele was in jail. (per some articles. Sept 27,2009 Perugia Shock)

These computer squad experts seem to really muck things up, don't they?
Was it the same Experts who shocked 3 other hard drives, making the mistake not once, but three times!!!
the same mistake!! wow?

Did they get excellence awards too?

?

 

[LondonJohn]

In one way it's a clever double bind: You present RS with evidence which is incredibly difficult to explain if he's innocent (but which is easily explained by police incompetence or misconduct). Then when he tries to come up with an explanation of this "evidence", you declare him guilty because his explanation sucks.

However it's only clever if you are trying to jack up reasons to believe RS is guilty. If you're trying to get to the truth, it's very stupid indeed. The reason that the DNA result is evidence in the first place is that it's not easily explainable.


I suppose I should thank you for posting that, since it confirms exactly what I said. However since you're taking an antagonistic stance I'm puzzled as to what your intent was in posting it.

Exactly. What appears to have happened is that Sollecito was told by the police that Meredith's DNA was found on his kitchen knife, and this proved with absolute certainty that the Knife had been in direct contact with Meredith.

If one takes the position that Sollecito was not culpable, then one can quickly see how this would cause a huge internal conflict (i.e. "how can Meredith's DNA possibly have got onto my knife blade?"). He was minded to accept the police's absolute certainty, so in his mind there had to be some sort of explanation - however bizarre and unlikely.

I believe that the explanation that he wrote down was just this: the only way he could possibly think of whereby Meredith's DNA might have ended up on his kitchen knife. Of course, he should never have been writing this sort of stuff down at all, and it's ended up being used against him.

This to me is far more indicative of Sollecito's naivete and deference to authority figures than it is of his culpability. It's much the same as when Sollecito naively agreed with the police that he could not say with certainty that Knox remained in his apartment for the entire night of the 1st/2nd November, since he himself was asleep for many hours. This was then twisted by the police (and by the media and certain forum posters) into a much more direct assertion by Sollecito that Knox might well have left his apartment during the night.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Seeing as some people seem to be feigning strange self-righteous anger today (over a case in which they know neither the victim, any of the victim's family, any of the (currently) convicted parties, any of the lawyers, any of the jurors, or anyone actually connected with the case in any way), I thought I'd jump on the bandwagon:

Oooohhhhhh, I'm really really annoyed and angry about people's refusal to accept that all the shoeprints made on the pillow were from a Nike Outbreak 2 tennis shoe - as worn by Rudy Guede on the night of the murder. They were not from any shoes owned by Amanda Knox, and nor were they from Sollecito's Air Force 1 trainers.

And quite how it's possible to compare the bloody prints on the pillowcase with a photograph of Guede's sole without utilising some sort of photo editing software to superimpose one over the other is quite beyond my comprehension. Should it be similarly unacceptable for an electronic microphone to be used in a courtroom to amplify and record the words spoken, for fear that the intervention of an electronic device might willfully distort and change the words? Or perhaps photocopiers should be banned in the courts process, for fear that the copy might contain different text from the original?

The attempts to overlook the evidence when it comes to the shoe prints in Meredith's room is very telling. This behavior shows that there is no search for truth. The evidence is very clear.

Every single shoe print belonged to Rudy Guede. When proof is shown, it is written off, and said to be not that important.

It was said that the shoe prints in the murder room had no bearing on the verdict. If that is the case then why has misinformation regarding the shoe prints been posted on the internet thousands of times?

 

[LondonJohn]

No evidence that Amanda and Raffaele were watching a movie at that time. Only evidence that a movie was playing at that time.



Everyone, I think, would agree that the murder took place sometime between 9:15 and midnight. Does the exact time have any significance in the case?

Well, apart from the fact that the prosecution's case is pretty much blown out of the water if Meredith was killed between 21.00 and 21.30..........no, the time is of no significance whatsoever

 

[katy_did]

I am also not sure of the exact biological details (I am still working on my BA in science), however, would it not seem if you eat something a bit later that could be considered a new start of the meal?

My understanding from reading the report and the appeals is that the experts took 18.30 as a starting point, both because the digestion process starts at the first mouthful of food, and because of the fact the stomach hadn't yet begun to empty. So all the stomach contents (including pizza etc) were still present, and the duodenum was empty.

I would guess that for something you eat later to be considered a new start of the meal, the stomach would need to have finished digesting the first 'meal', and that doesn't seem to have been the case here. Massei disputes other things about the estimate of time of death based on stomach contents, but I don't recall him ever saying they should've measured it from the apple crumble.

 

[LondonJohn]

The Kercher family's lawyer, Francesco Maresca, behaved as if he were a de facto assistant-prosecutor during AK’s and RS’s trial.

It was as if he was being allowed to prosecute the ‘damages’ case against AK and RS (a civil action) concurrently with the murder trial (a criminal one).

To me, this is as strange an aspect of the proceedings as anything else (which is saying something).

If a trial such as this had taken place in the UK (or, I daresay, any number of countries with similar justice systems), the role of the Kerchers' legal representation would have been a passive, advisory one. If they were to publically and stridently align themselves with the prosecution the way Maresca did they would be crucified by the court and ‘out of the loop’ in very short order.

The impression one gets is that the Italian legal system is so un-evolved and shambolic that it barely makes any distinction between criminal and civil law.

(Note also Mignini’s ability to make such promiscuous use of ‘defamation’ laws)

I would hesitate to call the Italian justice system unevolved and shambolic. But there do seem to have been a number of judicial decisions in this particular case which may bear closer scrutiny. One of them is certainly the involvement of Maresca. Another is around the trial venue (I presume that the defence attempted unsuccessfully to have the trial moved to a different jurisdiction, for fear of judge/jury contamination). And another is the baffling (and, to my mind, prejudicial) decision to allow the Lumumba criminal slander trial to run concurrent with the main trial. Yet another would be the lack of judge's recusal for the appeal. And I'm still struggling to get my head around how a judicial panel can reject large chunks of the prosecution's narrative, then substitute one of its own in order to arrive at a guilty verdict. Vairrrr interesting.

 

[LondonJohn]

The attempts to overlook the evidence when it comes to the shoe prints in Meredith's room is very telling. This behavior shows that there is no search for truth. The evidence is very clear.

Every single shoe print belonged to Rudy Guede. When proof is shown, it is written off, and said to be not that important.

It was said that the shoe prints in the murder room had no bearing on the verdict. If that is the case then why has misinformation regarding the shoe prints been posted on the internet thousands of times?

I totally agree that the reaction to the shoeprint evidence tells us as much (or more) about those on each side of the argument as it does about the argument itself.

Of course it's true that the absence of Knox's shoeprint in the murder room only slightly chips away at the probative evidence presented by the prosecution. What actually astonishes me is how the police "experts" managed to mess up so much of the shoeprint evidence interpretation. They made two serious errors (one of which was fortunately identified before the trial by a total non-expert), both of which call the overall competence of the investigation - from the top down - into question. Why, for example, didn't either Giobbi or Mignini take one look at the shoeprint interpretations made by their own investigators, and quickly recognise that they were, to coin a phrase, "pants"*. Heck, they all knew what Guede's tennis shoes looked like, and what all of Sollecito's shoes looked like. It really wasn't difficult.

* A UK-specific (I think) word meaning "bad", "dreadful", "nonsense"

 

[Chris_Halkides]

pretrial imprisonment

Here is a link to an essay that argues that Amanda Knox’s pretrial imprisonment was unjust.

 

[katy_did]

Exactly. What appears to have happened is that Sollecito was told by the police that Meredith's DNA was found on his kitchen knife, and this proved with absolute certainty that the Knife had been in direct contact with Meredith.

If one takes the position that Sollecito was not culpable, then one can quickly see how this would cause a huge internal conflict (i.e. "how can Meredith's DNA possibly have got onto my knife blade?"). He was minded to accept the police's absolute certainty, so in his mind there had to be some sort of explanation - however bizarre and unlikely.

I was trying to narrow down exactly what it is about Sollecito's statement that's seen by some as evidence of guilt, and I think it's the theory that he said what he did because he knew there was DNA on the knife, because he knew it was used to kill Meredith. In other words, it's the fact he 'knew' the DNA was there that's the key issue.

But the problem there is that, as you point out, he also 'knew' the DNA was there simply because the scientific police said it was. He had no reason to think they were lying, and certainly no scientific knowledge to be able to dispute it. So his certainty that the DNA was there isn't necessarily due to him knowing the knife was used to kill someone, it could just as easily be due to his misplaced trust in the police. More than that, he also knew he'd spent time in the cottage when Meredith was there, and that Amanda lived with Meredith. It isn't as if it was DNA from someone he'd never met and a house he'd never been in. From his perspective, it was possible the DNA was there, and it's understandable therefore that he'd search for a way to explain it.

I'm inclined to think that Sollecito's story about touching Meredith (or Amanda) with the knife is a mingled recollection of various facts he knew and memories he had (though it could also have been a deliberate lie*). A couple of days before he wrote it, his lawyer told him that he shouldn't worry about the knife, because Amanda may have taken it over to the cottage at some point to cook with. Raffaele had also cooked several times at the cottage with Amanda, including the day of the murder whilst Meredith was there; they were cooking lunch and he says he asked her if she wanted any food (she said she'd 'already eaten'). So what he writes may have been based on something that actually happened, and him assuming in hindsight he must have been using that knife (after all, there was DNA on it, wasn't there?).

* Which would not, of course, necessarily make him guilty, since innocent people can sometimes try and lie their way out of trouble too, especially when faced with supposedly damning evidence (though I'm more inclined to the above theory in Raffaele's case):

Another important finding in this study relates to the importance of deception by innocent defendants. Innocent defendants do sometimes resort to deception (e.g. lying about an alibi) in order to strengthen their case. The detection of such deception may be very damaging to the case, as Borchard points out: 'Proof that an alibi or collateral testimony offered by the accused was false was extremely prejudicial, if not fatal, in several cases (Gudjonsson 1999: 208)

Irrespective of whether people are guilty or innocent of the crime of which they are accused, they may deliberately lie or misrepresent the facts as a way of improving their chances of acquittal (Gudjonsson: 303)

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Rudy studying law?

I found the discussion below from a commenter elsewhere. This is the first time I have heard that Rudy was studying law. Does anyone know whether this is true? How can he be studying law if he has not been to college.

“Sort of orphaned in a manner of speaking; half-abandoned; preferred playing video games instead of doing real stuff, like hard work; eating kebabs instead of lots of healthy food; scrounging off of his mates; looking for company; a passion for basketball; a good mover, so dancing is up his alley; a bit of a ladies' man (in his own estimation; and he's bettering himself while in prison, studying law and things. So, your typical youngster, in other words.”

 

[43degreesNorth]

Why do you support Raffaele when Amanda is the one in her prison diary writing about him lying about her?
" I also want to know why he lied about me. Is he still lying? What will happen to me if he keeps it up?"

Why didn't he testify in court on her behalf? Why didn't he write to her to apologize for lying?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Nope. It's incredibly easy to explain if he's innocent. The police were wrong (or incompetent). All RS had to say is that it is 100% impossible for MK's DNA to be on that knife, or say nothing about it at all. The end.

But it's not 100% impossible, seeing as Meredith lived in the same physical universe as his knife and there was some traffic back and forth between Meredith's house and his house. It's just ridiculously unlikely, as is his explanation.

His explanation does suck...and it's a lie.

You do not know that for a fact. We all know you do not know that for a fact. However if it makes you feel good to preach the faith, and proclaim with absolute certainty that you know he lied, I guess you can do that. It might even help up sort out the evidence-based posters from the faith-based posters.

My posting the English translation of the diary entry in question confirms nothing regarding how only MK's DNA, but not AK's, stuck to the knife blade. Of course, no explaination as to why MK's DNA that was supposedly on AK's hand didn't stick to the knife handle, which had AK's DNA on it, but not MK's. Maybe MK had "magical DNA" that only sticks to knife blades, but not knife handles.

As for the translation, we all understand that Google Translate, Babblefish and the other online translators don't do a 100% accurate job of translating text. With that said, if you do use these utilities to translate an Italian news story or blog post you will get a translation that is understandable and makes sense as to the point(s) the writer is making. Using the same utilities with RS's diary translates into almost gibberish, as if he were barely literate in his native language. Considering the fact that he was a college student, I believe there is more going on here with this than we know.

I've marked literally thousands of university student essays in my time. I wish it were true that mangled language like Raffaele's was incredibly unusual and proof that the writer was a murderer - then we could just lock them up and I wouldn't have to read the things they write. Unfortunately you do get a certain percentage like that.

 

[Alt+F4]

The ethnic classification "North African" is very different from that applied to people from Sub-Saharan Africa. It's not a geographical throw-away differentiator. I can assume confidently that you've never been to Northern Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia or Libya. North African facial features and skin tone are very different indeed from Sub-Saharan African features and skin tone. I suggest that you do some basic research.

You are right John, I have never been to North Africa. Has Ms. Formica? Since I haven't been to North Africa I would not even attempt to say that a black man that I saw for maybe a minute was from North Africa.

What evidence do you have that Ms. Formica could distinguish the ethnic classification of any person of African descent? I suggest you do some basic research on that.

 

[quadraginta]

I agree that these heroic efforts of egalitarian altruism are truly outstanding. They will, in addition, clearly give this group the moral high ground in the discussion of the case. And it's certainly not as if we can discuss the case intelligently without knowing what the judicial panel thought about the evidence, is it?

"Heroic", "altruistic", "outstanding", or not they seem to be the only ones who have publicly undertaken the effort at all. I don't understand the point in constantly taking them to task for their rate of progress. Even more-so since the parties who seem to be most inclined to do that have already decided in advance to dismiss the product out of hand.

I've have absolutely no clue what "moral high ground" you are referring to.

It is quite obvious that there is no impediment to discussing the case in the absence of a comprehensive translation of the report. The nearly 20K posts on this board alone are certainly evidence of that. On that aspect we agree.

The quality of that discussion is more problematic, but unrelated to the status of the translation effort.

By the way, any luck with those Corbin locks where the key mechanism controls both the deadbolt and the spring latch?

I've already made it quite clear that I am not inclined to further your education on locksets beyond the effort I have put forth. That effort has obviously fallen on deaf ears. Whether the deafness is willful or not I have no idea, but I am quite comfortable with the attempt I have made, one which is based on significant, 'hands-on', professional experience regarding the subject. (Not to mention Dan O's contributions to the topic.) If you are in need of continuing edification you will have to devote your own resources to the endeavor. (Self-study hint: It will require more than a cursory review of the catalog web pages of a big-box DIY store, or even the discovery of a single Corbin catalog.)