Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Charlie Wilkes]

A little from the Chamberlain (Dingo) case that I'm amusing myself with recently:

From the High Court of Australia appeal verdict:


Interesting similarity, with the weakness of positive evidence of AK and RS guilt much effort of Massei goes to disproving the lone wolf theory.

From the Morling Report:


The difference here is that hardly any evidence disproves the lone wolf scenario, and Massei tried only to make it appear less probable. And he failed - the scenario of Rudy alone breaking and killing Meredith fits the evidence much better without mental gymnastics manifested in the Motivation.


There are many interesting similarities in there - the media frenzy, outburst of witch hunt mentality, speculations about satanic rituals, lack of motive, nonsensical scenario of crime, controversial forensics etc.

In addition there was a mountain of forensic evidence:

- The baby's stretchsuit was found, turned inside-out. How could a dingo have done that?

- A stuffed stretchsuit like the baby's was dragged through the area where the baby had been snatched. The test stretchsuit ended up with charcoal on it, consistent with wildfires in the area - but there was no charcoal on the actual stretchsuit worn by the baby.

- Captive dingos were given a stretchsuit stuffed with meat. The type of damage they caused was completely different from what was done to the actual stretchsuit.

- The pattern of bloodstains on the stretchsuit indicated that the baby had been held upright while it bled to death.

- A forensic expert testified that damage to the stretchsuit was done by scissors, not by dingo teeth.

- He also testified that an examination of the stretchsuit under a UV light revealed a human hand print, too small to be man's but too large to be that of an infant.

- Another forensic expert testified that she found "foetal blood" on a pair of scissors taken from the Chamberlains' car.

- Lindy sent a blood-stained track suit, which she had been wearing when the baby disappeared, to the cleaners.

- Lindy's husband, Michael, admitted at the inquest that he had cleaned blood out of his car after the baby's disappearance.

- Police testified that they found blood inside the car.

 

[katy_did]

And yet, the dingo did it...

From the link Katody posted earlier:

"The scientist shouldn't become too adventurous, too competitive. The trouble is, we're all so human. I've never seen a case more governed by human frailties."

--Dr. Tony Jones, government pathologist in the Chamberlain trial

 

[Katody Matrass]

The fact is that this woman has been unanimously convicted of murder in a trial that lasted some months. There has been a 400 plus page sentencing report published.

Isn't it funny, a convicted murderer prosecuted by a convicted criminal

Whilst I do not deny people's right to challenge the verdict, I do believe that television should not allow them unfettered access to the airwaves. If they are to make a challenge, then they should be examined rigourously. This is just not happening.

Yes, only people precisely preselected for proper thoughts should be allowed. Otherwise Italian Court's judgment could be skewed by the media coverage. Wait, do you think Italian Court's judgment is susceptible to US media coverage? I find your disrespect for Italians and their judiciary appalling!

As a viewer, why should I accept the murderer's mother's view of events? Why should I accept the view of an armchair sleuth like Steve Moore? Just because he says that "some people believe that the police tampered with the evidence" doesn't make it true.It is just his opinion and he is someone with absolutely no connection to the case.

100% agree. No one should be coerced to accept anyone's view presented in media. Do you feel coerced?

 

[Machiavelli]

With all due respect sir, you seem to be talking about the same investigators who could not even correctly count the number of rings on Raffaele Sollecito's shoes that they took from him on the night of Nov. 5th/6th, (which then helped to keep him incarcerated) to then compare it to the shoeprints left at the murder scene!

Considered as a whole breed, indeed I am. I am talking of those kind of shallow, clumsy and careless bunch of police corps that some people are accusing of coordinating a secret, sophisticate conspiracy.

 

[colonelhall]

Katody Matrass - I think that you have missed my points. I suspect, deliberately.

 

[Trigood]

Hello Trigood,
do you think the DNA evidence is enough to be certain about their guilt, without any preconditions?

Hello Katody,

I don't understand what you mean by "without any preconditions"? I feel that is a waffly phrase that you will subsequently use to mean whatever you wish.

However, if you had asked, do I think the DNA evidence is enough to be certain about their guilt, without any absolute contradictions in terms of incontrovertible alibis? Then the answer is "yes."

Assuming, of course, that the DNA analysis was carried out carefully and correctly by a respected lab and technicians, which it was.

I also put heavy weight on their lack of real alibis, witness testimony that contradicts their supposed (stated) alibis, the staged break-in, and Meredith's locked door.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I don't understand what you mean by "without any preconditions"? I feel that is a waffly phrase that you will subsequently use to mean whatever you wish.

I meant just some other evidence or postulates that must be true. Nothing sinister

However, if you had asked, do I htink the DNA evidence is enough to be certain about their guilt, without any absolute contradictions in terms of incontrovertible alibis? Then the answer is "yes."

Assuming, of course, that the DNA analysis was carried out carefully and correctly by a respected lab and technicians, which it was.

I also put heavy weight on their lack of alibi, witness testimony that contradicts their supposed (stated) alibis, the staged break-in, and Meredith's locked door.

about the preconditions, I see you answered yourself.

I understand that the DNA is sufficient under conditions:

it was tested carefully and correctly,
by a respected lab and technicians (a bit unclear what you mean by that),
there is no incontrovertible alibi.​

So let's take for example Amanda's DNA. Do you think there is a possibility that it was deposited not during the crime but in some other circumstances?

 

[Machiavelli]

Alternatively, it could be that ceaseless, hysterical media coverage and their suggestability allowed Migini and his cronies to coach them into fashioning their testimonies out of thin air, exactly as he has known to have done previously with exactly the same kind of "witnesses" in his pursuit of conviction-at-any-cost.

Your comment looks quite like a heap of cheap xenophobic prejiudices. I think you are able to understand that such approach and such arguments would never help any cause.
I have to point out that what you write of Mignini is false. You should prove it, give sources or retract you statement. He never coached witnesses, was never found guilty of that, and never accused of that. This is a false stetement.

 

[Trigood]

Hi Trigood,

I'm obviously not Kevin_Lowe but maybe in answer to your "why must it be the very end" is because that is where contents were also found in the autopsy. As far as I've read nothing was found in any other locations in Meredith's digestive system except the stomach and the bottom of the intestines. But I could be wrong and look forward to any corrections you might want to post.

Hi El B.

Believe me, not being Kevin_Lowe is not pertinent. All are welcome in this thread.

That is one question I did not understand why LexRex asked, I agree with you about that. Except... except.. if the ligations were not formed properly, who is to say that the contents of her small intestine did not "slip" down to the end?

I am not a pathologist, and, I expect, neither is K-Lo. However, he has chosen to characterize how food left behind in a dead person's small intestine behaves. I find that very curious, don't you?

I still believe (and have as much evidence for it as K-Lo, I believe) that the pizza was fully digested and in the province of the small intestine (at whichever part or end) when the poor victim died. She then ate dessert, and that was what was found in her stomach after she expired about 2 hours later.

The small intestine is not an area of speciality for me, but neither is it for Mr. K-Lo, I believe.

By the way, I have found articles in the "actual" scientific literature that put t-lag as low as 30 minutes and as high as 60 minutes, whereas London John's article said 80 minutes. I wonder why the variance? Perhaps t-lag has not been determined as "set in stone" for all situations and people at all times, as seemingly claimed by some on this forum? I have also found "actual scientific" articles that show that men's and women's digestive systems are very different in t-lag. I wonder if pathologists take this into consideration, or do they merely read up a few (select) articles that support their viewpoint before deciding on TOD?

But since the main issue seems to be the presence or absence of chyme in the duodenum and the "upper" small intestine, I believe the issues of ligations and how the autopsy was carried out are paramount. Since we mostly have dueling legal documents on those two issues, we really can't say much of "scientific" value, can we?

 

[Katody Matrass]

In addition there was a mountain of forensic evidence:

- The baby's stretchsuit was found, turned inside-out. How could a dingo have done that?

- A stuffed stretchsuit like the baby's was dragged through the area where the baby had been snatched. The test stretchsuit ended up with charcoal on it, consistent with wildfires in the area - but there was no charcoal on the actual stretchsuit worn by the baby.

- Captive dingos were given a stretchsuit stuffed with meat. The type of damage they caused was completely different from what was done to the actual stretchsuit.

- The pattern of bloodstains on the stretchsuit indicated that the baby had been held upright while it bled to death.

- A forensic expert testified that damage to the stretchsuit was done by scissors, not by dingo teeth.

- He also testified that an examination of the stretchsuit under a UV light revealed a human hand print, too small to be man's but too large to be that of an infant.

- Another forensic expert testified that she found "foetal blood" on a pair of scissors taken from the Chamberlains' car.

- Lindy sent a blood-stained track suit, which she had been wearing when the baby disappeared, to the cleaners.

- Lindy's husband, Michael, admitted at the inquest that he had cleaned blood out of his car after the baby's disappearance.

- Police testified that they found blood inside the car.

There were a lot more strange coincidences and "impossibles" than in Perugia.
Another similarity is that Lindy's behavior was scrutinized. She was acting strangely, didn't show grief properly, showed no remorse, looked straight into the camera etc.
All the errors Amanda repeated.

 

[Trigood]

I meant just some other evidence or postulates that must be true. Nothing sinister



about the preconditions, I see you answered yourself.

I understand that the DNA is sufficient under conditions:

it was tested carefully and correctly,
by a respected lab and technicians (a bit unclear what you mean by that),
there is no incontrovertible alibi.​

So let's take for example Amanda's DNA. Do you think there is a possibility that it was deposited not during the crime but in some other circumstances?

Not in this case.

Found in conjunction with Meredith's DNA in splotches of blood in the bathroom (three times).

Found in conjunction with Meredith's DNA in luminol-revealed footprints (twice, two distinct footprints, one of which was in Filomena's room), meters from Meredith's dead body and the blood-bath there.

Found furthermore in other luminol-revealed footprints without Meredith's blood, footprints that matched Amanda's foot size.

Found on a knife with Meredith's DNA on the blade.

Nope, those four circumstances do not allow for ALL to be "accidents"... especially the knife.

And, you've neglected the staged crime-scene, the locked door (why would anyone except Amanda need to lock it?), her lack of alibi, her accusing an innocent man, and her knowing that Meredith screamed and was stabbed to death, before the police even knew or reported those things.

It all holds together so well, that I tire of proclaiming it over and over. Sigh.

Gotta run. More later.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I still believe (and have as much evidence for it as K-Lo, I believe) that the pizza was fully digested and in the province of the small intestine (at whichever part or end) when the poor victim died. She then ate dessert, and that was what was found in her stomach after she expired about 2 hours later.

A desert consisting of cheese and plant fibers? Hmm..

 

[Draca]

"Would you have it that the increasing pro-Amanda media coverage constitutes a suppression of the truth? Do you imagine that David Marriott has the power to persuade journalists and broadcasters of lies?"

Yes!

The fact is that this woman has been unanimously convicted of murder in a trial that lasted some months. There has been a 400 plus page sentencing report published.

In spite of this, most television shows appear to approach each new story from the point of view that she has been unjustly convicted and is deserving of our sympathy.

Whilst I do not deny people's right to challenge the verdict, I do believe that television should not allow them unfettered access to the airwaves. If they are to make a challenge, then they should be examined rigourously. This is just not happening.

As a viewer, why should I accept the murderer's mother's view of events? Why should I accept the view of an armchair sleuth like Steve Moore? Just because he says that "some people believe that the police tampered with the evidence" doesn't make it true.It is just his opinion and he is someone with absolutely no connection to the case.

If a television show invited one of the moderators of TJFMK to say that they were convinced of Knox's guilt and that many people agree with them, MaryH would be outraged. I, for one, would have some sympathy for her, unless someone like Steve Moore was invited to challenge her.

Marriott is not paid for nothing!

I think the opposite. There has not been nearly enough hard press coverage on the problems with this conviction, which are abundant. Steve Moore has a credentialed opinion of value but stands alone in the media attention that is given to the Amanda Knox case. Most of the articles are about the up coming movies, how she cut her hair and that she will participate in a Christmas play. The British press often refers to her as the killer or murderess even though the doubts about the conviction are well known. There are innocent people sitting in jail and the press has cowered from any real investigation on this case. Most articles treat Amanda like she is similar to Lindsay Lohan and have not covered the real hardship this innocent person is going through. Where is the in depth coverage ?

The Italians seem to not be able to do investigative exposes because of the fear of slander. Even Frank Sfarzo in his last Blog entry mentions having to step on egg shells. An investigative expose is exactly what needs to happen. The lid needs to blown off of which officials were involved in the wrongful conviction of Amanda and Raffaele and how they did it.

The slander trial is coming up and the deck is stacked against Amanda Knox. This should be a huge story about the right to defend ones self against the police. It should also question why Giobbi heard her scream that night if she wasn't being slapped and why if it is the police who failed to tape the interrogation, they still have the right to sue her since that very tape would have been her evidence against them.

 

[act1roson]

I personally feel Steve Moore is speaking to people not very familiar with the case as his target audience trying to drum up support for Amanda among those who have heard she was found guilty but are not aware of some of the problematic issues involved.

If you are interested in more of the details read the Massei report followed by the 2 appeals so you can hear from both sides of the debate. Candace's book has more details than Barbie's but either will do as an overview. I read the entire discussion here after I joined and would not suggest that as a fun read, even longer now.

ETA,
I found reading the posts at PerugiaShock enjoyable, if you want to start from the beginning that is a good one to go with.

RoseMontague - I've read Nadeau's and Dempsey's books along with "The Monster of Florence", when I could stay awake I read the Motivation enough to determine it was full of speculation, I've read tons of Perugia Shock and Dempsey's blog, etc.

I believe Steve Moore's points should bring those of you extremely knowledgeable back to the evidence in the murder room.

If you look at what Frank Sfarzo said on video possibly 2 years ago he said the same things as Moore is now.

Can someone give me a "guilter" point of view of the murder room that doesn't include the clean up (that wasn't proven in court), the contested bra clasp or double-DNA knife? Just an analysis of the actual crime as it appears in the photos of the murder room taking into account the lack of evidence pointing to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

But why nonsense? They found a book in Amanda's room and some detective presented her the finding as evidence. This makes sense. Obviously they had a video of Sollecito's house, but doesn't mean that the video would be checked by the police to search for exculpatory evidence.

Should they not check out her story, and determine if she is telling the truth, before telling the media that she is lying?

 

[act1roson]

Originally Posted by act1roson

What I would like to know, to be clear, is where this forum discussed this issue originally, the murder room crime scene, and how there is no fingerprints, footprints, hair samples, or DNA of Amanda Knox? And, why wouldn't a forum such as this discuss this for pages, unless it has more interest in arguing the details of Amanda Knox's non-related private life on Nov 1-2 instead of her guilt or innocence?

act1roson,

The prosecution alleges that the three defendants restrained and strangled Ms. Kercher. Yet no one has reported finding Knox's or Sollecito's DNA on her neck or arms. Indeed, the only DNA from either one is alleged to be Sollecito's on the highly disputed bra clasp. Guede's DNA was found on her sleeve. I stop well short of saying that this is proof of innocence for AK and RS, but I do believe it requires some reasonable explanation. In other words, I am in broad agreement with Mr. Moore.

Thank you, Halides.

Not only was there no DNA, other foot/shoe prints in blood in the murder room, fingerprints besides Guede's, no hair; none of Miss Knox's clothes or shoes were reported missing (indicating disposal of bloody items); there was only one set of bloody shoe prints trailing out the front door which were indicating Guede's, with no evidence of a clean up of other foot/shoe prints of more than one person leaving the room. (There was no clean up - that was never proven in court.) Also, no DNA transfer of anything to Raffaele's apartment.

I am struggling to find how and when the suspicion of Miss Knox became overwhelming to the investigators to declare in Italian newspaper La Repubblica November 10, 2007 "The investigating judge Claudia Matteini is categorical: the evidence gathered by prosecutor Giuliano Mignini leave no room for doubt. Patrick Diya Lumumba, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are the killers of Meredith Kercher..."

It is obvious that on November 10, 2007, the DNA evidence had not been processed (due to the indictment of Lumumba in the press), yet 3 people had their names trashed.

Based on the evidence they had that Nov 10, thousands of innocent Perugians could have also been brought up on this murder charge if they had not used their computers, cell phones, or had rock solid alibis, etc. during night time hours when the typical person was sleeping. (Correction: computer hard drives wouldn't have mattered - they would have been fried at the lab.)

I doubt we'd be here if a waitress down the street had garnered the attention of Giobbi. They could have plucked one of her kitchen knives and gotten the same results, and from what I see of the interpretation of the bra clasp with the unidentified DNA of several people, said waitress could have magically been tied to it also.

And this forum continues to discuss where Amanda Knox was when she received her message from Lumumba telling her work was slow and she wasn't needed, as if that could help anyone understand the crime better.

 

[RoseMontague]

Found in conjunction with Meredith's DNA in luminol-revealed footprints (twice, two distinct footprints, one of which was in Filomena's room), meters from Meredith's dead body and the blood-bath there.

I don't recall a "distinct footprint" in Filomena's room, more like a blob, could be a shoeprint or a footprint, or maybe the elephant strayed in from the living room, hard to say really. "Meters from Meredith's body"? I could say that Rome is meters from Perugia, what is your point? Amanda lived there as did Meredith. Do you think that neither of them had ever been in Filomena's room before that night?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Not in this case.

Found in conjunction with Meredith's DNA in splotches of blood in the bathroom (three times).

Found in conjunction with Meredith's DNA in luminol-revealed footprints (twice, two distinct footprints, one of which was in Filomena's room), meters from Meredith's dead body and the blood-bath there.

Found furthermore in other luminol-revealed footprints without Meredith's blood, footprints that matched Amanda's foot size.

So you mean that there is zero probability that Amanda's DNA landed in that areas not during crime but some other time. How do you estimate that probability?

Found on a knife with Meredith's DNA on the blade.

Nope, those four circumstances do not allow for ALL to be "accidents"... especially the knife.

You mean you can't see Amanda's DNA getting onto the knife handle in an innocent way? I can think of a few quite probable ways.

And, you've neglected the staged crime-scene, the locked door (why would anyone except Amanda need to lock it?), her lack of alibi, her accusing an innocent man, and her knowing that Meredith screamed and was stabbed to death, before the police even knew or reported those things.

I didn't neglect it, I thought you stated DNA is sufficient. Do we also need to prove that Amanda staged the crime-scene and locked the door to find her guilty?

It all holds together so well, that I tire of proclaiming it over and over. Sigh.

Gotta run. More later.

Maybe it holds maybe not, but lone wolf scenario holds together and fits the evidence much better. See you later

 

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by act1roson
I am struggling to find how and when the suspicion of Miss Knox became overwhelming to the investigators to declare in Italian newspaper La Repubblica November 10, 2007 "The investigating judge Claudia Matteini is categorical: the evidence gathered by prosecutor Giuliano Mignini leave no room for doubt. Patrick Diya Lumumba, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are the killers of Meredith Kercher..."

That is an excellent point that you make and if you read Matteini you can gat a spooky feeling that similar reasoning would follow in subsequent judges reports:

Referring finally to the position of Diya Lumumba’s statements of November 6 Knox Amanda is very important, since they attest to the presence within Meredith’s bedroom at the time of his murder when the same cry.
Such statements are confirmed, albeit indirectly, in some objective data regarding just the opening hours of the pub Le Chic, because while Lumumba at the hearing of validation claimed to have opened the space of one afternoon in November at approximately 17:00 to 18:00, the first tax receipts are being carried out from 22:29 hours nor the suspect and reused to give any logical explanation to this fact, not being able stao provide precise information on possible customers who could confirm his presence at the time before 22:29 hours, could hardly qualify as a precise indication therefore useful for the necessary evidence to have identified with the person who uses only one name would entered her room at 20.00 without adding or his telephone number or other identifying elements, although it has called a friend.
There is more to note that when this court addressed the suspect that dispute, the same remained some minutes in silence and then sought to justify this “vacuum” They come on the assumption that the receipts issued but not when ordering when the customer leaves the premises.
Even this justification does not hold because it does not explain why from 18.00 to 22:29 There are no receipts and these begin to be constant with frequency from 22:29 hours until closure.
Further substantiated the closure of the premises before that time is found in the statements one of the regulars, this volcano Gerardo Pasquale, who heard a summary information On 7.11.2007, reported that the evening on November had noticed at around 19.00 that restaurant was closed as well as he could see that fact even later to return the pizzeria.
Also as regards the text of the message that the suspect sent to the 20.30 to Amanda there are discrepancies between what is reported by the girl and what the predicted; Indeed while the girl spoke of a message which was that the local sights would remained closed and therefore should not have to go to work, Patrick say they have written that evening there was no need of its few customers collaborative absence.
This may seem like a fact of little importance when in reality it is not absence a substantial difference between the two messages, it is likely that Patrick had intended actually not to open the room thinking that you can spend the night with Meritith, then, since the evolution of facts, has seen fit to open the pub for specially established an alibi.

 

[Katody Matrass]

One more detail, that came to me when I remembered the swabbing videos.

Assuming, of course, that the DNA analysis was carried out carefully and correctly by a respected lab and technicians, which it was.

Do we need to assume that the DNA was properly collected too?