Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

"I can't really compete with the likes of Kevin Lowe in bringing hard facts to the discussion,"

Who can? That's why it will be a tragedy for Mandy if Philosopher Ken is not part of her defence team at the appeal.

colonelhall, weren't you going to itemize some lies you accused the defendants of, at halides' and my request?

 

[colonelhall]

"colonelhall, weren't you going to itemize some lies you accused the defendants of, at halides' and my request?"

Nope!

(They've all been well documented)

 

[Justinian2]

I've been talking about the hidden mind which contains hidden biases.
I've been thinking back about some of the posts and WOW! Many are prejudiced and biased against Americans in many ways!

1.) Italian justice systems are better than American justice systems.
2.) Italian courts never get anything wrong.
3.) Italian police never do anything wrong.
4.) American posters are always the stupid ones that can't understand that authority is always right.
5.) American posters are always the ones spewing forth venomous remarks.
6.) Amanda is evil because she's American.

Don't think that I'm totally out to lunch here. I may be out on a limb, but I'm not totally wrong. New Scientific studies have shown that the majority group always has an unseen bias toward the minority group unless that particular type of bias is taboo.

I'm trying to make the bias towards Amanda taboo. She, after all, was a minority in Italy. The majority always has a tendency to think that the minority is more evil.

American's are blindsided because we think that all Europeans think we're awesome! (maybe that's a type of bias/superiority complex)

I've referenced data in "The Hidden Brain" which in turn references tests (some on-line) done by Harvard and other prestige universities.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The electronic data files

The subject of the electronic data files (.fsa) files comes up from time to time here and on the previous thread. In the previous thread some posters (BobTheDonkey) thought that the defense had a right to obtain them, and others (Fiona) thought that the prosecution should only release what the law stipulated, without specifying whether the electronic data files (or machine logs) was included. Some of the posters doubted that the files had not been released. Someone used the canard that since the defense did not attend the testing, they have no right to such files. The electronic data files allow the electropherograms to be constructed anew and reanalyzed by experts.

First, the release of the data files is so standard that a form to make the request is available at some websites, as I have previously documented. As forensic DNA expert and bioinformatics textbook author Dan Krane said about the Knox/Sollecito case, “The biggest concern that I personally have regarding this case is the refusal of the prosecution to provide the defense with a copy of the electronic data that underlies the DNA test results -- that is virtually unheard of world- wide today and it would be especially important to review that data in a case such as this which seems to involve such low level samples.”

The notion that the defense gave up the right to these files by not attending the testing is pernicious nonsense, promulgated by those who should know better (having been told repeated why they were wrong). I have addressed this before, and will only give two arguments this time. Professors Adriano Tagliabracci and Gregory Hampikian did not become involved with this case until long after the testing was done, so how could they possibly be able to attend. More fundamentally, the .fsa files are needed to reanalyze the data; merely watching someone do the testing is completely useless as a substitute. Moreover, given that Dr. Tagliabracci disputed six the interpretation of six loci, the need for experts to actually see the raw data, not someone’s interpretation of the data, should be obvious.

The citations I have repeatedly given about Dr. Hampikian’s visit to Ireland in March/April of this year make it clear that the files he requested were not given to him. The open letter makes it clear that they were not given to Dr. Johnson, either. Raffaele's appeal document also indicates that Dr. Pascali asked for files and was refused. How anyone can oppose the principle of discovery with respect to this case is beyond comprehension.

 

[LondonJohn]

The subject of the electronic data files (.fsa) files comes up from time to time here and on the previous thread. In the previous thread some posters (BobTheDonkey) thought that the defense had a right to obtain them, and others (Fiona) thought that the prosecution should only release what the law stipulated, without specifying whether the electronic data files (or machine logs) was included. Some of the posters doubted that the files had not been released. Someone used the canard that since the defense did not attend the testing, they have no right to such files. The electronic data files allow the electropherograms to be constructed anew and reanalyzed by experts.

First, the release of the data files is so standard that a form to make the request is available at some websites, as I have previously documented. As forensic DNA expert and bioinformatics textbook author Dan Krane said about the Knox/Sollecito case, “The biggest concern that I personally have regarding this case is the refusal of the prosecution to provide the defense with a copy of the electronic data that underlies the DNA test results -- that is virtually unheard of world- wide today and it would be especially important to review that data in a case such as this which seems to involve such low level samples.”

The notion that the defense gave up the right to these files by not attending the testing is pernicious nonsense, promulgated by those who should know better (having been told repeated why they were wrong). I have addressed this before, and will only give two arguments this time. Professors Adriano Tagliabracci and Gregory Hampikian did not become involved with this case until long after the testing was done, so how could they possibly be able to attend. More fundamentally, the .fsa files are needed to reanalyze the data; merely watching someone do the testing is completely useless as a substitute. Moreover, given that Dr. Tagliabracci disputed six the interpretation of six loci, the need for experts to actually see the raw data, not someone’s interpretation of the data, should be obvious.

The citations I have repeatedly given about Dr. Hampikian’s visit to Ireland in March/April of this year make it clear that the files he requested were not given to him. The open letter makes it clear that they were not given to Dr. Johnson, either. Raffaele's appeal document also indicates that Dr. Pascali asked for files and was refused. How anyone can oppose the principle of discovery with respect to this case is beyond comprehension.

I couldn't agree more.

And this fits with a general theme which I believe is very likely to be true of the first trial (and the pre-trial): even though it's not fashionable to say it, I think that both defence teams might have erred significantly in their selection and usage of medical/scientific experts.

I know there's a general view in some quarters that Knox and Sollecito had a combined "dream team" of criminal defence lawyers, but I think this is very far indeed from the truth. Neither of the lead attorneys had current experience of leading large, complex criminal cases. Bongiorno was serving as an Italian MP, and treated her legal practice as a sideline, and Dalla Vedova had absolutely zero experience in the criminal arena.

I don't think that either Dalla Vedova or Bongiorno (or their respective legal teams) were properly prepared to argue much of the scientific and medical evidence in this case. I think they may have egregiously harmed their clients in this respect. Clearly (in my view) they could - and should - have contested much of the DNA evidence much more vigorously, with much more forceful witness and documentary evidence. Likewise with much of the other forensic evidence, and of course the stomach/duodenum evidence.

So, for the sake of justice, I hope that these issues will receive a proper defence in the upcoming appeals. I hope that the court gives the defence the latitude to correct any past shortcomings, and that the evidence is properly scrutinised in a way that may have been absent in the first trial.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Massei didn't get it

I couldn't agree more.

And this fits with a general theme which I believe is very likely to be true of the first trial (and the pre-trial): even though it's not fashionable to say it, I think that both defence teams might have erred significantly in their selection and usage of medical/scientific experts.

I know there's a general view in some quarters that Knox and Sollecito had a combined "dream team" of criminal defence lawyers, but I think this is very far indeed from the truth. Neither of the lead attorneys had current experience of leading large, complex criminal cases. Bongiorno was serving as an Italian MP, and treated her legal practice as a sideline, and Dalla Vedova had absolutely zero experience in the criminal arena.

I don't think that either Dalla Vedova or Bongiorno (or their respective legal teams) were properly prepared to argue much of the scientific and medical evidence in this case. I think they may have egregiously harmed their clients in this respect. Clearly (in my view) they could - and should - have contested much of the DNA evidence much more vigorously, with much more forceful witness and documentary evidence. Likewise with much of the other forensic evidence, and of course the stomach/duodenum evidence.

So, for the sake of justice, I hope that these issues will receive a proper defence in the upcoming appeals. I hope that the court gives the defence the latitude to correct any past shortcomings, and that the evidence is properly scrutinised in a way that may have been absent in the first trial.

LondonJohn,

And yet what does it say about Massei's understanding of the issues that he failed to force the prosecution to turn over the electronic data files? The defense asked repeatly, as I have discussed and documented. Given the low level of DNA involved in both the clasp and the kitchen knife, Massei should not have tolerated the obstructionist attitude shown by Comodi and others.

 

[Antony]

(msg #8461)
"colonelhall, weren't you going to itemize some lies you accused the defendants of, at halides' and my request?"

Nope!

(They've all been well documented)

Too true they have. They're all either attributed to Amanda and Raffaele by the Perugia police, or were as a result of manipulation of them by the police, or are a misrepresentation of what they have actually said. There are no independently reported cases of either of them "lying" or changing their stories of their own accord.

So, for example, if the police give an uncorroborated account of their early interviews with Amanda in which their suspicions were supposedly aroused because she allegedly changed her alibi repeatedly, then why should we believe the police?

This is the police force who tried to falsify the time they arrived at the cottage to conceal the fact that Raffaele called them in; who said that Amanda's coerced naming of Lumumba was "an admission of facts we knew to be correct"; and who destroyed evidence on computers belonging to Amanda, Raffaele and Meredith - among numerous other instances of bad faith.

We now also hear that 4 out of 12 officers involved in the all-night interrogation of Amanda, can no longer bring themselves to testify that she wasn't mistreated. This is indeed an interesting development.

 

[LondonJohn]

LondonJohn,

And yet what does it say about Massei's understanding of the issues that he failed to force the prosecution to turn over the electronic data files? The defense asked repeatly, as I have discussed and documented. Given the low level of DNA involved in both the clasp and the kitchen knife, Massei should not have tolerated the obstructionist attitude shown by Comodi and others.

It does indeed seem to be a baffling judgement. But then again, this is the same judge who "reasoned" that Nara must definitely have heard the "death scream", because he's sure that she wouldn't possibly say she had heard it unless she actually had heard it......

 

[capealadin]

Come ON, Mary.!! The operative words here are : THE DEFENSE brough in THEIR translator. Of course, an agent for the defense is going to interpret it intheir client's favour. Amanda prefaced her conversation by saying " I cannot lie, I was there". There would have been NO reason to even bring that up, like that. Raff was her boyfriend. Presumeably, Edda knew her daughter wasn't a virgin, and that it was normal for her daughter to spend nights with Raff.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

secret evidence

I do not have nor have seen. I read it in a report from a source at least as trusted as Frank.

So you are in effect citing secret evidence. I am sure you understand why that is not convincing. BTW, Frank is the reporter, Vinci the expert. There has been some confusion about that concept in the past. Are you claiming that Dr. Vinci said something other than what Frank reported? Can you discuss the big toe and the second toe evidence, as I requested?

 

[christianahannah]

LondonJohn,

And yet what does it say about Massei's understanding of the issues that he failed to force the prosecution to turn over the electronic data files? The defense asked repeatly, as I have discussed and documented. Given the low level of DNA involved in both the clasp and the kitchen knife, Massei should not have tolerated the obstructionist attitude shown by Comodi and others.

I am unclear of what the electronic data files are termed as far as its Italian reference. Is this referring to the work status report (SAL) or some other technical report?

 

[Mary_H]

Come ON, Mary.!! The operative words here are : THE DEFENSE brough in THEIR translator. Of course, an agent for the defense is going to interpret it intheir client's favour. Amanda prefaced her conversation by saying " I cannot lie, I was there". There would have been NO reason to even bring that up, like that. Raff was her boyfriend. Presumeably, Edda knew her daughter wasn't a virgin, and that it was normal for her daughter to spend nights with Raff.

Oh, then you DO want to bet, capealadin? Did you read the documentation I provided for loverofzion?

The trial is over. The judge did not accept that when Amanda said, "I was there," she was referring to being at her place, not Raffaele's. He allowed the defense translator's version as the correct one.

 

[Tricky]

Folks, this thread is in serious danger of going to "moderated" status again. To prevent this you must remember to discuss the topic, not the other members. Stop with the little snide remarks. I've just sent a number of posts to AAH, some of which were not that bad, but had just enough venom that they would have not passed muster in a moderated thread.

Now I'm guessing you don't want to see this happen, and I sure as heck know I don't, so why don't you make all of our lives a little easier and cut out the bickering. Okay?

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[capealadin]

Yes, I do think the Court cut Amanda quite a bit of slack. So much so, that the prosecutor is appealing to add on more time. Even so, that comment logically means the cottage. We can agree to disagree, and let people decide for themselves. If I believed that Amanda was innocent, I would be trouble by a lot of things, IMHO.

 

[capealadin]

Halides, could you please show me where Patrick DENIED demoting Amanda? Thanks..

 

[loverofzion]

First Rudy has a toe that is longer than his big toe. Which means he wears shoes a little larger to compensate for the fit.

Foot size and height dont necessarily go hand in hand, so to speak.
As an example, I'm 5'11 1/2". My shoe size is 13. My youngest brother(19) is 5' 11" and wears a size 9 1/2. My best friend is 6'3" and wears a size 10. My youngest son(13) who is 6' 1" wears a size 9. My oldest son(16) 5' 11" wears a size 11. Now i'm sure my youngest sons feet will probably get bigger. However you can see that height doesn't necessarily mean bigger feet.

Believe it or not, I've actually started wearing my boots when I'm at the football game with my youngest. I hate looking shorter than him. Gets me an extra 1 1/2" to my height.

Sollecito wore a 42, Rudy a 46.

 

[Fine]

You were quoting the defence team's argument there of course, who clearly do believe that Massei was arguing that as long as the majority of the loci are not disputed, this is good enough. I do agree with them, however, though I think I see the point you're trying to make. It seems to me that what Massei is saying is: the majority of loci were not disputed; the number which were not disputed is greater than the number which were disputed, and greater than the number of six loci, with which older versions of the test determined whether profiles matched or not; since the number of undisputed loci is greater than six, and greater than the number that were disputed, the result can overall be considered 'fully reliable'.
What your interpretation seems to be is: Massei is stating that 10/16 undisputed loci is better than 4/6 undisputed loci (for instance) - i.e. you believe he is arguing for the merits of DNA testing kits using 16 loci, rather than 6. That seems a pretty dubious suggestion, since I can't see what that has to do with whether the profile is Raffaele's.

Is that what you're saying - that Massei's argument here is that even if some of the loci remain disputed, "more than six loci used in a test is preferable to using only six"? Why on earth would he suddenly start talking about the merits of newer versions of the DNA testing kit, since it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Raffaele's DNA matches in this particular instance? If that is what you're saying, you're right that I'm a little confused by it...

____________________

Well, katy_did, here's how Massei concludes his examination of the DNA results for the bra clasp:


"Consequently, the match between Raffaele Sollecito’s Y-haplotype and the Y-haplotype found on trace 165B leads us to conclude that the biological trace found on the hooks of the bra that Meredith was wearing when she was killed, was left by Raffaele Sollecito. This conclusion becomes even more evident, strengthened and further confirmed by the recognized match between the genetic profile of Sollecito and that yielded from the trace, a match which, for a considerable number of loci and as we have seen, turns out to be uncontested." (MOTIVATIONS Report, English Translation, page 299, on PMF Site.)


You ask why Massei mentions the former test of using only six loci? (Page 297 of the English Translation.) Well, since ten loci in the present test were uncontested positive matches to Raffaele, I think he's saying that had the former test been used---and six of those ten loci had been used in performing the test---Raffaele would have been identified as a perfect match. Period.
So long as Massei doesn't recognize---and he never does---that there is a mis-match at any of the loci, his argument seems perfectly logical to me.

///

 

[Dan O.]

Come ON, Mary.!! The operative words here are : THE DEFENSE brough in THEIR translator. Of course, an agent for the defense is going to interpret it intheir client's favour. Amanda prefaced her conversation by saying " I cannot lie, I was there". There would have been NO reason to even bring that up, like that. Raff was her boyfriend. Presumeably, Edda knew her daughter wasn't a virgin, and that it was normal for her daughter to spend nights with Raff.

Why are you fixated on this statement? You asked the same question back in April and were answered then.

Amanda was asked during her testimony what she meant by the statement "I was there." and she stated very clearly that what she meant was she was at Raffaele's apartment. In her email home, Amanda says that she spent the night at Raffaele's place. In her prison diary she says "I WASN'T AT HOME". Amanda has be entirely consistent in stating where she was except for that overnight interrogation in which the police knew they were on shaky ground because they insured that there is no evidence of what actually took place. Why do you think she would suddenly reverse her position while being covertly recorded when her own mother interrogates her in a prison cell?

A more important question that should be asked is why was Amanda's mother interrogating her. Hadn't either of them talked to a lawyer yet?

 

[loverofzion]

Several reasons: it's much easier, and safer, for police to investigate someone with a random connection to the murder scene than to do proper detective work that might lead to them to tangling with the real culprit - who might well be a desperate, and dangerous individual. Regrettably, police have little incentive to establish the truth in cases like this - their incentives are simply to get the jury to convict the person (or people) they put in the dock.

The fact that police attention focussed on the 2 people who called them to the scene (let's not repeat the tale based on their falsified arrival time) is the first indication that this was a stitch-up.

As for their "modus operandi", this is no "a priori assumption" on my part. Apart from their strategy of targeting their investigation against their 2 primary witnesses, they appear to have taken a decision to treat the break-in as allegedly faked without even having investigated it; there are the circumstances and nature of the overnight interrogation of Amanda that led to her coerced statement; their evidence-free arrest of Raffaele; their reckless treatment of Patrick Lumumba; their retrospective manufacture of "evidence" to support public statements made in the first days of the investigation - the list goes on and on.

Every part of this case is covered with flashing red lights, and it's frustrating for me that there should be people trying to shore it up as some kind of ideological crusade.

There are just so many misstatements of the truth in your paragraph above that I cannot even begin to take them apart one by one.
Suffice to say I disagree with your analysis of police conduct; I disagree that the pair were innocent and I disagree that the pair were convicted based on a conspiracy by the police, the court, the prosecutors, the jurors, AND the press.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Why are you fixated on this statement? You asked the same question back in April and were answered then.

Amanda was asked during her testimony what she meant by the statement "I was there." and she stated very clearly that what she meant was she was at Raffaele's apartment.

Perhaps this has been discussed before but I do not recall it being discussed, at least not in the last several months. If she did, in fact, stay at Raffaele's all night as she claimed, why did she not know about the call from his father in the morning?