Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

meaningless metric

A
The completely normal behavior would have been the belief that Meredith did not come that night. Didn't she have a new boyfriend? British friends in Perugia?
SNIP
Then let's not forget all of Amanda's grief and outreach to Meredith's family. Oh that's right, there was none. Amanda was so worried about what had happened to Meredith up until the second the door was broken down. After that she didn't give a damn. She wanted to make sure the police found the body....on her terms.

Meredith's boyfriend was out of town that weekend. Amanda broke down crying during a ride in a care with Filomena, IIRC. She also cried when she saw the knives at her own apartment. It is false to claim that she showed no grief, but if we are going to judge people by how many tears they shed, then some of Meredith's British friends will also come up short by this meaningless metric.

 

[Alt+F4]

Piecing together the bits that we know, Amanda is in a near panic trying to find Meredith

Why was she in a near panic? Right after the door was broken down by Filomena's friend Amanda didn't even bother to look in the room. After that she never once mentioned missing Meredith or their "friendship" or having any concern for the grief of Meredith's family in any of her police interviews, the e-mail to everyone back home or in her prison diary.

...she finally turns to the person she always relies on and phones her mom. While waiting for the phone to be answered (this is a quarter to 5 in the morning in the Seattle) she is able to calm down and prepares to appraise her mother on the situation.

Amanda's phone calls to her mother have no bearing on her guilty or innocence, in my opinion.

Meanwhile, Raffaele continues the attempt to access Meredith's room first by peering through the keyhole and finally by trying to break down the door by force.

Wow, what a hero.

88 seconds later, Amanda receives the instructions from her mom and relays them to Raffaele: "Call the police". Raffaele immediately breaks off the attack on the door and calls his sister...

You really want to call his "effort" at the door an "attack"? I'm a middle-aged woman and if I even suspected for a minute that someone I cared about was maybe injured behind a locked door I would throw a chair against it or anything else heavy I could handle. Wouldn't you?

 

[Alt+F4]

I don't know, has he? If he hasn't would it be evidence of something?

I know who has keys to my home. I know you do too Kevin, why wouldn't RS?

By that argument I can't say with certainty that he was talking about the murder at all as opposed to discussing a recipe for pumpkin soup. However I'm pretty certain that the subject of a sentence is a concept that survives translation, thus I'm pretty certain that the sentence the guilters get hung up about employs an ambiguous pronoun as its subject.

What makes you pretty certain that the subject of that sentence is a concept that survives translation when you yourself don't speak Italian?

I didn't think I had to, but possibly I haven't fully absorbed the implications of my time at PMF in terms of what needs to be explained at a level that might normally seem patronising.

I have never posted at PMF so I'm not sure what you are saying.

If you have dirt on your hand, do I need to explain how you might leave dirt on something you touch without leaving your DNA on it?

If I, like most other people, had dirt on my hands I would wash them before starting to cook dinner. Any evidence that Amanda cooked dinner with dirty hands? Logic says she washed her hands first.

Especially if the knife is subsequently cleaned so that only a few picograms of dirt are left, which might explain the absence of any DNA you could have left with the dirt when the dirt is later tested for?

Your theory implies that RS and AK were tidy enough to clean the knife after using it for cooking but not tidy enough to wash their hand before cooking. Not likely.

As for the picograms of dirt you mention might still be on the knife, why would AK's DNA be absent from it?

 

[Alt+F4]

Amanda broke down crying during a ride in a care with Filomena, IIRC. She also cried when she saw the knives at her own apartment.

Link(s) please? Thanks in advance.

 

[Dan O.]

You really want to call his "effort" at the door an "attack"? I'm a middle-aged woman and if I even suspected for a minute that someone I cared about was maybe injured behind a locked door I would throw a chair against it or anything else heavy I could handle. Wouldn't you?

Yes, I believe you would continue to attack that door even after you had been told that you should call the police.

Remember, it was Amanda that was living with Meredith for 2 months. Raffaele barely knew her. If Amanda says they should call the police, he has no reason to continue trying to open the door. Amanda was told by her mother that she should call the police. Should she have ignored her mothers advice? I'm sure the guilters would have a field day if it were discovered that the defendants were advised to call the police and they proceeded to break down the door anyway.



The rest of your post has been ignored because it didn't address the current topic under discussion.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

You really want to call his "effort" at the door an "attack"? I'm a middle-aged woman and if I even suspected for a minute that someone I cared about was maybe injured behind a locked door I would throw a chair against it or anything else heavy I could handle. Wouldn't you?

Raffaele hoped the latch would slip, but it didn't, so he stopped when he heard wood start to splinter. The police weren't willing to break down the door either, until Filomena said she would take responsibility for the damage.

 

[Dan O.]

In fact, the evidence we have is that the investigators were treating this area as a break room and not part of the crime scene. They are tromping around in the grass, smoking cigarettes and yapping on a cell phone in this area, not recording and preserving evidence.

November 3rd

This is a clip from the video apparently taken by the crappy camera packed with the Spheron-VR imaging system. Charlie said it was okay to publish the whole video but JREF can't host videos so this is what you get.

 

[LondonJohn]

A very important point about Knox's text interaction with Lumumba:

Many people (including, it seems, the prosecution and possibly the judicial panel) seem convinced that there is a massive inconsistency in Knox's testimony about the interchange of text messages with Lumumba on the night of the murder. They allege that Knox's testimony is at odds with certain known facts (e.g. the position of Knox's cellphone, the time of messages, etc.). I have just realised that there is a crucial factor that seems to have been overlooked, and it's this:

There was a time lag between the text message being received by Knox's phone and her actually reading it.

See, when discussing phone-related evidence, it's natural to assume that the electronic timings of activity correspond exactly to the actual communication. This is always the case with voice conversations - since they are two-way synchronous interactions in real time. But a text message is completely different.

The 20.18 timing of Lumumba's text message to Knox (the one telling her not to bother coming to work that night) was indeed sent via the network to Knox's handset at 20.18, and the base station location almost certainly means that Knox's handset was outside Sollecito's apartment when it received that message.

Now, some people seize upon this, and say that since Knox "claimed" she was inside Sollecito's apartment when she received that message, she must be lying. And, IIRC correctly, there was also a great deal made of the fact that Knox's text reply to Lumumba (the famous "see you later" text) was sent at around 20.45 (approx - I can't remember the exact time offhand), yet Knox had said that she replied to Lumumba directly after receiving his text. Further lies allegedly - since there's an approx half-hour gap between the two texts.

HOWEVER......... I believe this all hinges on the interpretation of the word "received", in relation to the text messages. The prosecution clearly believes that "received" correlates exactly with the time the message was actually sent. But I contend that "received" as Knox defines it in her statements is the time that she actually discovered and read the text. Very different indeed.

Sollecito has already stated that he and Knox were out and about until around some time between 20.00 and 20.30, buying ingredients for their dinner. This is entirely consistent with Knox's handset being sent the Lumumba text message at 20.18, from a base station which covered areas outside Sollecito's apartment. Now, here's the important part: I contend that Knox did not notice the incoming text message had arrived until after she had returned to Sollecito's apartment.

Anyone who owns and uses a mobile phone can immediately see the compelling logic to this. If Knox's handset were in her bag, or even in her pocket, it's entirely possible that she would not have registered the "incoming text" alert - especially if they were in a noisy street or shop at the time. The message would then have just sat on her handset, unread, until she chanced upon it once she and Sollecito had returned to his apartment.

Here's Knox's own testimony on the matter:

"I think, I don't know if we hadn't yet started to watch the movie or we had only just started to watch the movie, and then I realised that there was a message."

Note the use of the word "realised". She doesn't say "...and then I got a message" or "...and then a text from Patrick arrived". Her language quite clearly implies that that there was a message already sitting on her phone, which she noticed for the first time at that point. This would then tie in with her claim that she replied to the text message (with her "see you later" text) almost immediately after reading Lumumba's text.

So, in summary, my theory of the text message timings is follows:

20.00-20.30: Knox and Sollecito are away from his apartment, buying food for dinner.
20.18: Lumumba's text is sent to Knox's handset, but she doesn't notice its arrival or read it.
c20.30: Knox and Sollecito arrive back at Sollecito's apartment, and set up the movie to watch.
c.20.40: Knox checks her mobile phone, and realises that she's received a message from Lumumba. She reads the message, and composes a reply ("see you later" etc)
c.20.45: Knox's reply text message is sent to Lumumba's handset.

This time line is important (in my view), in that it matches the known facts with Knox's own testimony. To me, the big mistake made by the prosecution here is to equate the timing of the electronic transfer of a text message with the timing of it actually being read by the recipient. Let's hope that Mignini and/or Massei don't experience tachycardia (note spelling) if and when they realise their mistake.......

 

[LondonJohn]

Like Amanda, I'm an American and when sharing an apartment with another person, even if you are not sharing the same bedroom, the term used is roommates.

Fair enough.

The police had no reason to believe anything bad had happened behind that door based on the what they observed in the apartment. If they were not worried about wrong-doing in Meredith's room why were AK and RS?

The postal police did believe something was amiss. There was unexplained blood in the bathroom next to Meredith's room, there was a broken window in Filomena's room, Meredith's door was locked, and she was not answering her mobile phones. The available testimony indicates that they were unwilling to take responsibility to any damage to Meredith's door, but they sanctioned Filomena's boyfriend to break it down. Where do you get the idea that the postal police were "not worried"? If they were not worried, they would have advised that breaking the door down was not only unwarranted, it probably would constitute criminal damage

Could you please present evidence on how the Italian Postal Police are trained in police procedures versus how the Carabinieri are? Do you know how many Postal Police were once part of the Carbinieri and vice vesa? What is your expertise in law enforcement?

The Postal Police are empowered to investigate crimes related to abuse of the post and communications systems. I wouldn't be surprised if they are also invested with general police powers of arrest and basic first-responder investigation. However, in this instance, the Postal Police were confronted with a situation which was totally outside their remit. What's more, there was no apparent imminent threat - all the indications were that a crime might have been committed, but that nobody was in clear and present danger. They should, at that point, have called in the relevant police department before charging all over the crime scene.

By the way, I'm not talking about the Carabinieri. You clearly don't understand that the Carabinieri is a separate police force - in a similar way that the FBI is a separate force from state police in the USA. The Perugia Police had their own flying squad (nothing to do with the Carabinieri) who should have been called in before the door was even broken down.

And how on Earth is your question about how many Postal Police were once part of the Carabinieri relevant in any case - even if I had been referring to the Carabinieri (which I wasn't). Incidentally, though, the answer to your question is probably about the same amount as the number of people who were once neurosurgeons who went on to become ward nurses.

Yes, he called the Carabinieri. It was almost noon, they knew that Filomena and/or Laura could come back at any time and they wanted to control the situation.

Straw man. Your original point was that they had "no choice" but to let the Postal Police in. This clearly implies that they might have not wanted the police to see inside the house, but were essentially forced to do so through circumstances. I then pointed out that they had called the Carabinieri to request their presence before the Postal Police even turned up. This isn't indicative of a reluctance to let police officers inside the house.

Again, what's wrong with him? Another young man, around his own age broke down the door without being injured. Why couldn't he, considering how "concerned" Amanda was about Meredith?

What do you mean "what's wrong with him"? This is pejorative and partisan language, and doesn't advance the debate. I contend that he wasn't willing to physically damage the door until and unless every other avenue had been exhausted. the only reason that the door was broken down eventually was that the Postal Police officers had essentially authorised such an action.

Bruce is. He is 100% sure that AK and RS are innocent of the murder of MK.

Straw man. Of course some people have certainty in their own beliefs. That's different from other people sharing that person's certainty, which is what we were discussing. I imagine that Massei thinks he's 100% correct in his interpretation of the case. It doesn't mean that he necessarily is 100% correct, though - which is the position that some people have tried to promote.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Paola, not Filomena

Link(s) please? Thanks in advance.

AltF4,

All page numbers are from Murder in Italy, by Candace Dempsey. Amanda cried on the day of discovery of the body, in front of Luca and Raffaele (pp. 77-78). She cried in front of Colantone, an interpreter (p. 123) on 4 November. She cried in the car with Paola Grande, Filomena’s friend (p. 273). She cried in front of Filomena at the Questura (p. 274, which also gives some other instances). While reading these passages, I was struck by a number of instances where someone besides Amanda behaved inappropriately or made a bad joke after Meredith’s death, presumably to relieve tension.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Thanks to everyone who responded with improvements to my response to The Machine's list: it's greatly appreciated and substantially beneficial.

Did Raffaele talk on two separate occasions about accidentally pricking Meredith? I am aware of only the one diary reference.

I'm also only aware of one diary entry, now you mention it.

Maybe The Machine or one of the other PMF regulars will find it in themselves to help us out on this point.

I agree with your answer, Kevin, but I want to take it a bit further. I continue to be puzzled by how The Machine and many others seem to feel it is simply enough to say Amanda and Raffaele lied, without bothering to identify the "lies." The claim that, "well, they lied repeatedly" ends up being the bottom line for so many people's arguments, the last-ditch effort after each piece of proposed "evidence" has been demolished

I haven't recently explored the site where you (presumably) found these questions, so I will have to ask -- did anyone there ask The Machine to specify or describe the lies he claims occurred? I don't see one claim that can be documented, or if it can, which actually constitutes an intention to deceive, as you pointed out.

How to put this... nobody did so that I saw, and PMF isn't the sort of forum where you are welcome if you ask such questions, or where you can expect a civilised response to such questions.

I agree that for The Machine's list to have any real validity on those points it needs to cite exactly what Amanda or Raffaele said (and how we know they said it), what evidence contradicts their statement, and how that contradiction is evidence of guilt.

Maybe The Machine or one of the other PMF regulars will find it in themselves to help us out on this point, too.

Just to pick up on a couple of your responses:

With regard to Sollecito's now-infamous "knife-prick" explanation, I personally think that he may have been referring to Meredith rather than Amanda. But, either way, I think that's moot, because what he was clearly doing here (in my view) was grasping for any possible way to reconcile what he thought the police knew with certainty about the knife having drawn blood (or at the very least skin cells) from Meredith. He should never have been speculating on paper in this wild sort of way in the first place, of course. But, to me, the fact that he did so, when placed in the correct context, is in no way indicative of his culpability. Rather, to me, it's indicative of his general naivety, his unquestioning attitude to authority, and a possible failure in control by his legal team.

I'm happy to agree to disagree about what he most likely meant, because as you say it doesn't matter that much.

And I think your response to the "Meredith always locked her door" issue might be over-generous to the postal police. If I recall correctly, the only person who reported overhearing Knox allegedly saying this was Luca (the friend of Filomena's boyfriend). By my recollection, neither of the postal police officers say that they heard Knox say anything of the sort. Which is strange, because I believe that inquiries about the locked status of the door were instigated by the police, so one would imagine that any replies to such an inquiry would be primarily directed towards the police officers.

Thank you for the correction, it is greatly appreciated.

 

[Kestrel]

Why was she in a near panic? Right after the door was broken down by Filomena's friend Amanda didn't even bother to look in the room. After that she never once mentioned missing Meredith or their "friendship" or having any concern for the grief of Meredith's family in any of her police interviews, the e-mail to everyone back home or in her prison diary.

Without a complete transcript or recording of Amanda's police interviews, how can you be so certain that Amanda never once mentioned missing Meredith?

As for the prison diary and the email back home, you are simply wrong.

 

[LondonJohn]

Right. Time to address the issue of what Sollecito argued in the Supreme Court, regarding the link between him and Knox. It seems that this issue has gone over the heads of many people (including, apparently, "lawyers"), who may just be guilty of viewing this particular issue through a somewhat clouded lens.

Firstly, what Sollecito argued was this: The courts should not use any evidence against Knox as automatic evidence against Sollecito, since the courts should not automatically assume that they acted in concert, nor that they were together all night.

This is a perfectly valid legal assumption. For all Sollecito knew, Knox might have slipped out of his apartment in the middle of the night, murdered Meredith, cleaned herself up, come back to Sollecito's flat, and slid back into bed beside him. He had already judged this as a highly improbable scenario, but he could not be 100% certain. Nor could anybody in his position be certain.

What he was, in effect, arguing is this: "I state that I wasn't there, and was not involved in the murder. And regardless of the fact that I think Amanda was most likely with me all night, I cannot 100% be sure that she was, since I was asleep for part of the night. Therefore, if you (the courts) find evidence placing Amanda at the murder scene, you can't automatically assume that I too was at the murder scene. You must, instead, find independent evidence placing me personally at the murder scene before you have the right to place me in custody."

This interpretation of his argument before the Supreme Court does not in any way imply that Sollecito is now claiming that Knox actually did leave him in the middle of the night to murder Meredith. Rather, it's simply making the very valid legal point that if the courts have incriminating evidence against Knox, then this evidence should not automatically be used against Sollecito. Another way of looking at it is that Sollecito is essentially saying: "If you have very strong evidence pointing to Amanda's involvement in the murder, then I must assume that she has deceived me and that she did indeed slip out of the house while I was sleeping to commit the murder - but I was not involved".

Note that whichever way you look at it, Sollecito's argument is entirely predicated upon the police/prosecutors presenting good evidence of Knox's involvement. At the time these arguments went before the Supreme Court, there was no evidence pointing specifically at Sollecito, other than the incompetently mis-attributed shoeprint. Even the kitchen knife wasn't strong evidence against Sollecito personally. To my mind, Sollecito was perfectly entitled to examine the possibility that Knox had deceived him. But his argument before the Supreme Court does not logically imply that he believes Knox to be guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

confirmation bias

No.

I can't even provide a reason why I should be suspicious.

In the absence of more persuasive evidence (or any actual evidence at all) that she is duplicitous, or incompetent, or both, I am left with the presumption that she is a respected professional. Since I have no experience in the field of forensic DNA, I am also left with little alternative but to cede to her judgment in such particulars.

Innuendo and vague references to psychology studies are not sufficient cause to impugn her professionalism, unless that condemnation is taken as a given and one is only in search of some sort of nebulous support for it.

Quandraginta,

You were one of the earliest posters on this thread. You know that Stefanoni claimed that dead skin cells don’t contain DNA. You have seen the links to the videos showing her with the same crease in her gloves, implying that she did not change them frequently. You know that she claimed (depending on which news source reported her testimony correctly) either that the position of the DNA on the handle or the blade of the kitchen knife showed that it was used for stabbing, not for cutting (the only time I have heard of anyone making such a claim). You have been told of her nonexistent publication record. None of these issues constitutes “innuendo.” In essence, you claim ignorance of these reasons to be skeptical of the quality of her work now. Very well, it puts the onus on you to go back and reread the relevant portions of the threads.

But even someone who knew nothing of these matters might be bothered by her actions with respect to the knife versus the blood stain on the wall, number 164. The blood stain apparently failed to give enough DNA, and so Stefanoni did not attempt to obtain a DNA profile. However, the knife tested negative for blood and tested “too low” in DNA quantification, yet Stefanoni attempted to obtain a profile anyway. Her choice to test the knife looks like confirmation bias to me, and your answer is no more substantive than BobTheDonkey’s, “I trust Stefanoni.” If one of you can find an independent expert who supports Stefanoni’s decisions or the quality of her work, I would be very interested in hearing his or her reasons.

 

[LondonJohn]

Quick two questions:

1) Can someone remind me again why the court apparently came to accept that Knox was carrying around a 9-inch kitchen knife in her handbag (purse), when it rejected the prosecution's theory that the murder was pre-meditated?

2) Just how extensively did the police forensically examine Meredith's handbag (purse)? As far as I can see, only two samples were taken from the entire handbag (under Rep. 166 in the police's list). And what exactly did those two samples show? Was Meredith's actual blood found within these samples, or just her DNA? The published results for Rep. 166 ambiguously state the following: "2 samples, both matched victim, Trace A
match for Guede."

With regard to question 2 above, it's my proposition that Guede might have killed Meredith, then gone to the small bathroom to clean up, then returned to Meredith's room to retrieve her keys, and to take money, credit cards and phones. It's therefore my contention that he either had none of Meredith's blood on his hands by that time, or perhaps diluted traces of her blood (after Guede washed his hands). So it would be interesting to know exactly what was found on Meredith's handbag, and why the police seemingly only took two samples from the entire bag - inside and out.

 

[LondonJohn]

I wonder how a UK barrister* would have cross-examined Amanda Knox (or Raffaele Sollecito) if the trial had been held in an English courtroom?

* And I do mean a barrister, as opposed to - say - a junior solicitor or solicitor's clerk, neither of whom would of course ever be allowed to address a UK court.

 

[LondonJohn]

Quandraginta,

You were one of the earliest posters on this thread. You know that Stefanoni claimed that dead skin cells don’t contain DNA. You have seen the links to the videos showing her with the same crease in her gloves, implying that she did not change them frequently. You know that she claimed (depending on which news source reported her testimony correctly) either that the position of the DNA on the handle or the blade of the kitchen knife showed that it was used for stabbing, not for cutting (the only time I have heard of anyone making such a claim). You have been told of her nonexistent publication record. None of these issues constitutes “innuendo.” In essence, you claim ignorance of these reasons to be skeptical of the quality of her work now. Very well, it puts the onus on you to go back and reread the relevant portions of the threads.

But even someone who knew nothing of these matters might be bothered by her actions with respect to the knife versus the blood stain on the wall, number 164. The blood stain apparently failed to give enough DNA, and so Stefanoni did not attempt to obtain a DNA profile. However, the knife tested negative for blood and tested “too low” in DNA quantification, yet Stefanoni attempted to obtain a profile anyway. Her choice to test the knife looks like confirmation bias to me, and your answer is no more substantive than BobTheDonkey’s, “I trust Stefanoni.” If one of you can find an independent expert who supports Stefanoni’s decisions or the quality of her work, I would be very interested in hearing his or her reasons.

I suspect that Stefanoni's professional credibility might take quite some battering during the appeal. Just a hunch.

 

[LondonJohn]

Ahhh I see that Knox has gone miraculously from telling the police about Meredith's locked door and her habit of locking it (and being viewed in a guilty light for saying this), to not mentioning to the police about Meredith's locked door (and......being viewed in a guilty light for not saying this!). Which is it, and why are both contrary versions of the "truth" indicative of her guilt....?

 

[quadraginta]

Ahhh I see that Knox has gone miraculously from telling the police about Meredith's locked door and her habit of locking it (and being viewed in a guilty light for saying this), to not mentioning to the police about Meredith's locked door (and......being viewed in a guilty light for not saying this!). Which is it, and why are both contrary versions of the "truth" indicative of her guilt....?

I missed that post. Can you point it out, please?

 

[LondonJohn]

Over on PMF, I see that it's been seriously proposed that it's incredibly difficult (head-spinningly so, apparently) to contemplate the possibility of Guede's transition from a) burglar/thief/fence, to b) murderer with sexual overtones.

And this is a more head-spinning transition to contemplate than that from a) university students with one minor public order warning between them, to b) murderers with sexual overtones? Really?

I'm not following the logic here, I'm afraid. Someone murdered Meredith Kercher with sexual overtones, and if most people were being asked which of the three candidates stretched credulity the least in order to believe in them as the culprit, given their prior known history, I'm pretty sure that most people would pick Guede.

Oh, and "purse" in this instance translates into UK English as "handbag". I thought everybody knew that by now.