Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Ohhhhh dear. Now there's a cod-scientific exercise (which is in fact an excellent exercise in confirmation bias) going on, to try to correlate Sollecito's facial features in certain photos with the amount of sleep he may or may not have had the previous night. It is, of course, a bogus evaluation - a fact that would be confirmed by anyone with decent medical training.

Oh, by the way, where *is* that toothbrush of Amanda's???

 

[RoseMontague]

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.

On 30 July 2009 we learn the "bloody" footprints were not bloody at all. Through preliminary hearings, pre-trail, and the majority of the trial she let this inaccuracy go without correction. That shows bias, in my opinion. At the same time the defense got the famous "too low" notes with just a few months left in the trial. Raffaele's appeal outlines the defense fought for discovery every step of the way and were still denied all the data they should have gotten. How could anybody trust her? The only reason the defense even got that latest information is because during her testimony she used a number from her notes that was not in the discovery the defense was provided. She was forced to give up more information and delivered it in 300 pages of out of order and unnumbered pages. If not for that we would still not know the luminol revealed foot prints were tested for blood and all tested negative, nor would we see how many times she had to crank up that machine after writing "too low" after numerous readings came back that way.

How could you trust her after that?

 

[RoseMontague]

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.

I agree LJ. This was a legal argument and should have been a very effective one. A similar argument is outlined in the appeal. Hopefully it will get a better look by the appeal court.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

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....?

Whatever she said, the fact remains that she called Filomena to tell her something was wrong at the cottage. If she was so anxious to avoid having the door broken down, to the point where she falsely claimed it was normal for Meredith to lock her door all the time, then one must wonder why she sounded the alarm in the first place.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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

I'm not sure what argument you are making here. As far as I am following it, you are arguing that because Raffaele didn't say anything about his keys (or rather, because I have not cited any evidence showing he said something about his keys) that this is evidence that he is guilty.

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

Italian has pronouns. They do roughly the same job in Italian as they do in English. Is there more than you think we need to know?

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.

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?

I think it's possible you have gotten muddled here. You appear to be arguing that Meredith's DNA couldn't have actually gotten on to the knife by means of secondary transfer from Amanda. I don't think anybody here is arguing that it actually did.

What we're arguing is that the secondary transfer from Amanda theory could have been the best thing that Raffaele could come up with. Perhaps Raffaele should have thought about handwashing, knife washing, the lack of Amanda's DNA on the blade and whatnot but evidently either he didn't or he didn't think that they absolutely ruled out the possibility of a few picograms of random cells from Meredith remaining on the knife.

The fact that his theory sucks isn't evidence that he's a murderer. I see nothing in his story that is inconsistent with an innocent person trying to figure out how the heck Meredith's DNA could possibly have gotten on to his kitchenware, who was too naive to think of lab error or falsification as explanations.

 

[Chris C]

Here some questions that should be answered.

1. Why does the prosecution refuse to release the electronic data files.

After all, would not those files silence the defense on the dna test results. Those files show the date and time test was performed and allows for the recontruction of the dna results. The prosecution refuses to show proof that those tests where even performed. Therefore, there is no proof that the DNA results from the knife ever tested positive for Meredith's DNA. We dont even know if the results that was shown to the jury was from the knife sample or a different sample that was tested at a different date and/or time.

2. Why isn't the 3rd unidentified female a suspect from the mixed dna samples in the bathroom?

In the mixed dna samples (some of which is blood) in the bathroom that had kercher and knoxs DNA profiles, there is a 3rd unidentified females profile in those samples. The prosecution claimed that since knox's dna is in kerchers blood then knox helped in the rape/murder. Yet there is a 3rd females dna in the samples.

3. Why is Curatolo testimony so big?

His testimony in court actually gives Knox, Sollecito and Guede an alibi for not committing the murders. He claims in court to have seen them after midnight. This is part of the Knox/Sollecito appeal. However by this time the phones had already been tossed in the garden. Therefore he actually gives Knox, Sollecito and Guede an alibi because someone else would have had to toss the phones while they where on the court. He also claims to have seen a bus that night in court. Now i've heard people claim that he saw costumes and masks. I have also heard that the buses didn't run that night. I have heard that he couldn't even identify knox in court. However, none of that matters. What matters is the court only used the fact that he saw them on the court at a specific time. Yet the court refused to acknowledge the times he claimed to have seen them that would given them an alibi.

 

[Chris C]

Kestrel said: "The interior shutter of the window in this case was damaged. Glass fibers imbedded in the damaged wood show us that the rock hit the window and then the interior shutter. The pattern of glass on the window sill shows us that the window itself was closed when it was broken. Combining these two facts, we know the window was broken by a rock thrown from outside the room."

This is exactly right. The evidence clearly shows that the rock was thrown form outside the room. This is not complicated. Any small pieces of glass that fell to the ground would have blended in with the yellow leaves that blanketed the ground. It would have been very small particles of glass. The investigators never photographed the ground. They have provided no proof showing that glass particles did not fall to the ground. A large majority of the glass including all of the larger pieces would have gone the direction of the rock, toward the room.

quadraginta suggested that someone could have broken the window by putting their arm outside the open side of the window and hitting the closed window with the rock. This is not a logical scenario because the glass is seen on the floor as far as Filomena's nightstand. If the glass was broken as suggested by quadraginta, no glass would have been scattered on the floor. It all would have remained on the ledge or have fallen to the ground.

The evidence clearly shows that the window was broken from outside the room.

Bruce I don't know if anyone has explained this. So i'll give it a try.
The debris field inside the room is consistant with the window being closed. There is glass all the way to the night stand. I'm not even sure the interior shutters where all the way closed looking at all the glass. If that window was open, there would have been no glass over by the nightstand.
Plus if you was staging a break in, why would you walk outside and get a rock and come back inside to break the window. Would you not just break it from outside since you already there.

 

[bucketoftea]

There is little to no evidence that Amanda and Raffaele lied. There is even less evidence that they sustained a pattern of evasion, inconsistency and willful deception. You are welcome to provide citations to support your argument, but I doubt you'll find anything convincing, much less damning.

On the other hand, there is a lot of evidence that the police lied many times, and that the consequences of their lies were seriously harmful to the defendants. Is it the lying that bothers you or is this about who does it?

I'm astonished that Mary and others continue to claim that AK and RS didn't lie. Pricking Meredith at his apartment when she was never even there?
I'm panicked about the locked door....no, I'm not?
I just had a shower but I smell terrible?
I can't remember calling my mother in the early hours "before anything happened"?
Patrick is bad he killed Meredith?

Lets see your lying police evidence.

 

[LondonJohn]

Re. Judge Michael Heavey:

What exactly has he been charged with by the Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct? As far as I can see, he's been charged with "having used court time, materials and employees to draw up letters" - i.e. the letters which he sent to Mignini and Massei. Has he actually been charged with abuse of office, or acting in any way outside his remit? Would I be correct in thinking that the charges focus on his having used official court stationery and public resources to write and send these letters, rather than the fact that he wrote and sent these letters at all? Would it therefore be correct to think that if he had sent these letters - exactly as written and identifying himself as he did - on private paper and from his own home, there would have been no charges?

Incidentally, is it worth bringing up again here that Prosecutor Mignini stands convicted of criminal charges related to abuse of office, which carry a 16-month custodial sentence and a life ban from public office?

 

[Alt+F4]

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.

John, you need to learn more about the law. Breaking down a door because someone thinks there is an injured person behind it would not constitute criminal damage.

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.

Again, what is your expertise in Italian law enforcement? Please provide a link stating that the Postal Police are not trained to investigate burglaries.

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.

You're darn right it's pejorative and the question remains, "what is wrong with him?". He can barely read or speak in his native Italian, he can't bust down a door another young man his own age could do and those who disregard his prison diary ramblings seem to put him in a state of constant confusion. Does he have some sort of mental defect that would prevent him from the obvious conclusion that if there is no key their is no other avenue to exhaust except to break down the door?

 

[Alt+F4]

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.

I take it you consider Candace Dempsey an expert on the case?

 

[Alt+F4]

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

Ok, but you would think that Amanda's defense team would have brought it up if she did.

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

I don't have time this morning to re-read the diary but as for the email back home, it's you that are simply wrong (unless we are talking about different emails, the one I'm referring to starts with, "This is an email for everyone, because id like to get it all out and not have to repeat myself a hundred times".)

In that email Amanda never once expresses any grief for Meredith or her family or ever saying she misses her. She does however mention that the food in the police station vending machine made her sick and that it sucks that she has to pay next months rent on the apartment. She ends her selfish, cover story by stating that she has to get "first things first though" and figure out how to get her important papers out of the apartment.

 

[LondonJohn]

I've posted some stuff previously (quite some time ago) written by the European Criminal Bar Association about how the criminal justice process works in Italy. People might be rather interested to read the following page from their website:

http://www.ecba-eaw.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=981&Itemid=31

This section deals with access to legal representation. The most interesting part - followed by a VERY interesting example, is as follows (my emphasis):

"The suspect has a right to immediate legal assistance. If the police, however, do not want the suspect to be assisted, they simply do not allow him to call his lawyer or they question him as a witness, since witnesses do not have the right to have legal assistance during questioning. A distinction, however, must be made between the investigation by the police on the one hand and the investigation by prosecutors in subsequent stages of the proceedings on the other.

The police tend to restrict the right to legal assistance, especially in the first stages of the proceedings, in order to get as much information as possible from the suspect.
A public prosecutor would never explicitly dare to do that. Very often, however, lawyers are silenced and not allowed to speak during an interview of the suspect before a public prosecutor.

An example of questioning the suspect as a witness can be found in the following murder case.
The suspect entered the police station as a witness at 15:00h. He got out at 7:00h the following day charged as a suspect and arrested and brought to jail. According to the written record of the interrogation he made a confession at about 5:00h after having been visited by a doctor and having been given two psychotropic drugs (Didergot and Aurorix). The lawyer was only called so that he could be given the written record of the interrogation. The written record, however, turned out to be fundamentally different from what was actually said and recorded on tape. The suspect never actually said that he had killed the victim and simply but incoherently answered in a confused way the questions of the public prosecutor. Notwithstanding the fact that the suspect at trial withdrew his confession, he was sentenced to 21 years mainly on the ground of the confession."

Interesting, isn't it?

 

[Alt+F4]

An example of questioning the suspect as a witness can be found in the following murder case.
The suspect entered the police station as a witness at 15:00h. He got out at 7:00h the following day charged as a suspect and arrested and brought to jail. According to the written record of the interrogation he made a confession at about 5:00h after having been visited by a doctor and having been given two psychotropic drugs (Didergot and Aurorix). The lawyer was only called so that he could be given the written record of the interrogation. The written record, however, turned out to be fundamentally different from what was actually said and recorded on tape. The suspect never actually said that he had killed the victim and simply but incoherently answered in a confused way the questions of the public prosecutor. Notwithstanding the fact that the suspect at trial withdrew his confession, he was sentenced to 21 years mainly on the ground of the confession."

Interesting, isn't it?

Interesting indeed. Being incoherent and confused during police questioning as a result of being drugged makes sense. Since it appears that neither AK and RS were drugged by the authorities perhaps their inchoherence and confusion was caused by their own drug usage.

 

[Kevinfay]

That is a really good question. While all (Amanda Sympathy Society) members will all have the same answer, No, she was at RS's, Guilters answers will differ widely, I myself am not even sure if she was in the house when the final blow was struck, or if she was right there in the room delivering the final blow. While I do believe there was a lot of truth in her Nov 6th statements, the truth is usually far worse than the guilty are ready to admit, I’d bet there is also a lot of truth in Rudy's story as well, but it is also far worse than he is admitting.

Got to agree with this. Apart from the six reasons I gave above for doubting that Knox entered Meredith's bedroom and stabbed her, I notice that Barbie Nadeau, the journalist who interviewed jury members after the verdict, said that their attitude was that knox was still guilty even if she was present in the cottage and didn't stab Meredith.

I think this will be the only thing that will change in the upcoming appeals. Knox will get her wish .. not to branded as a killer.

The defense may well cast futher doubt on the testimony of some witnesses, but I think that the jury gave them little weight anyway. The core of the case ... changing versions of what happened on the night of 1st Nov and the physical evidence of an attempted cleanup and staging mean that little else will change on appeal.

If knox is found not to have been in the bedroom, I think it will have a very positive effect on her ability to return to society and lead a useful life when her sentence is served.

The sad thing is that Mignini is convinced that he was only minutes away from getting the truth from her. Unfortunately, her lawyer threatened to walk off the case if she changed versions again. Coming clean then would have meant a much reduced sentence, she may have even got off completely with the false accusation against Patrick, if she could explain that she was scared of Guede.

I can't see any other outcome to this sad affair.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

trial testimony

I take it you consider Candace Dempsey an expert on the case?

AltF4,

It is you who first made unsupported claims about Amanda’s behavior. I spent some time obtaining exact page numbers to correct your misimpression. If you don’t think hightly of Ms. Dempsey’s book as a source, I suggest you read other accounts of the trial testimony, which is the basis for most of what I said. Once you verify what she wrote, perhaps your opinions will change. I will look forward to hearing what you find out.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

lying

I'm astonished that Mary and others continue to claim that AK and RS didn't lie.
SNIP
I can't remember calling my mother in the early hours "before anything happened"?
Patrick is bad he killed Meredith?

Lets see your lying police evidence.

Bucketoftee,

You are a day late and a dollar short. Comodi’s question to Amanda was in error, as Charlie helpfully pointed out.

The police lied when they claimed that Amanda was not summoned on 5 November. Dr. Giobbi’s testimony made it clear that he wanted to interrogate both of them, as discussed at Perugia-Shock. Dr. Giobbi was there that evening, and arguments to the effect that the police did not do as he asked (by interrogating them in separate rooms) are risible. This was discussed in the previous thread here. Apparently the police did not tell Amanda that she was expected that evening, but that is not the same thing as not summoning her.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Mignini's impression

The sad thing is that Mignini is convinced that he was only minutes away from getting the truth from her. Unfortunately, her lawyer threatened to walk off the case if she changed versions again. Coming clean then would have meant a much reduced sentence, she may have even got off completely with the false accusation against Patrick, if she could explain that she was scared of Guede.

I can't see any other outcome to this sad affair.

Kevinfay,

I have seen this same claim from Skepical Bystander at PMF, and it was also unsourced. Maybe you can rectify this glaring omission from one of the most prolific commenters on the Kercher case.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Colantone's testimony

I take it you consider Candace Dempsey an expert on the case?

Alt+F4,

I’ll even get you started by citing a report from ABC. “Another interpreter, Ada Colantone, described Knox's behavior two days later when she and the two Italian women who also shared the Perugia apartment were taken back to confirm that the knives found in the kitchen belonged there. Knox ‘started shaking,’ recounted Colantone. ‘She was shaking so hard that the coroner went over to her. She was visibly upset, and made to lie down on the couch.’ She said Knox also began crying.”

 

[Alt+F4]

AltF4,

It is you who first made unsupported claims about Amanda’s behavior. I spent some time obtaining exact page numbers to correct your misimpression. If you don’t think hightly of Ms. Dempsey’s book as a source, I suggest you read other accounts of the trial testimony, which is the basis for most of what I said. Once you verify what she wrote, perhaps your opinions will change. I will look forward to hearing what you find out.

My claims are not unsupported. In her email to friends back home and in her prison diary Amanda expressed little grief for Meredith and zero sympathy for what her family was going through. As I mentioned before, she was bummed she had to pay rent on the apartment for another month.

I'm not saying that her lack of grief means she is guilty but it does show that she and Meredith were not very good friends. Amanda's supporters should stop spreading the untruth that they were.

As for Ms. Dempsey's book, I have only read excerpts that have been available on the Internet. Her own description of the book, "This is Eat, Pray, Love gone horribly wrong. Under the Tuscan Sun on the dark side", you must admit are silly and misleading.

With that said, might I ask, are the passages you mentioned in your previous post footnoted or were they based on actual interviews she did? Did she quote or paraphrase?

If you choose to use this book as a source then can I assume that you agree with Ms. Dempsey's translation of RS's phone call to the Carabinieri? She states that he told the Carabinieri:

RS: You can see the signs. There are also stains of blood in the bathroom. They didn't take anything. The problem is the door is locked ... There is a lot of blood.

In my opinion this is very incriminating. Everyone at the crime scene agreed that there was not a lot of blood visible. RS knew there was a lot of blood....behind the locked door.

Bruce believes that Ms. Dempsey got the translation wrong. Could be, but then she could also have made mistakes regarding Amanda's behavior.







RS: You can see the signs. There are also stains of blood in the bathroom. They didn't take anything. The problem is the door is locked ... There is a lot of blood.