Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

The date on the photograph says it was taken on the 16th. Why they didn't take the photograph until ten days after they seized the knife, I don't know. I do see they left a knife with a serrated edge on the right.

There were only two big knifes in Raffaele's apartment, as can be read in the the house owner inventory. I think they can only be the kitchen knife and the bread knife, since they are the only big knifes.

 

[Danceme]

This seems reasonable to me.

I still think the stain should have been tested, and should be tested, just on general principles. However it would surprise me if it did turn out to be Rudy's semen.

I think it should be tested too but what I'm not clear on is if there is any chance it won't be. If the appeals are asking for the test, can it be refused?

 

[quadraginta]

I think it should be tested too but what I'm not clear on is if there is any chance it won't be. If the appeals are asking for the test, can it be refused?

How often has the defense asked to have this stain tested, so far?

 

[Danceme]

How often has the defense asked to have this stain tested, so far?

Good question! Are the appeals actually asking for the test?

 

[Malkmus]

One thing the police didn't create is the amount of evidence that Amanda added herself with her declarations after the interrogation: the hand written paper, the interrogation of Dec 18., pre-trial statement, the court testimony.

Perhaps you could name one or two pieces of evidence Amanda "added herself" from the incidents you listed above, as I don't really know what you could be referring to here.

 

[pilot padron]

For halides1 reference his question addressed to me in post #10379

1) My statements did not insinuate that I had any insights about Ms Nadeau's conversations with other reporters.
Nor can I agree the chatting you cite constitutes a distraction or amelioration of her admirable attendance, which was simply far superior to Dempsey's.
She does mention in line with interactions/conversations with other reporters that she and some other reporters had their access to the Knox Family severely restricted.

1A). Although you opine that it does not look to you that she " used trial transcripts", page x of Angel Face Foreword states quite explicitly that she "read the entire ten thousand page 'legal dossier' in Italian
1A1) Since the trial transcripts were always cited as ten thousand page I considered the term dossier and transcript as used here to be synonymous.
If that is in error, your usual impeccable accuracy still will remain unblemished, and I will resurrect my crow au gratin
1A2) All I have read about Dempsey casts doubt on her ability to ever undertake a ten-thousand page Italian document without assistance of Ms Alagna.

2) Bottom line, my personal due diligence suggests that Ms Nadeau is my preferred source for authenticity and non-novel type presentation of factual matter about case.

3) Disclaimers:
3A Not to be interpreted as canonization of, nor infallibility for Nadeau
3B Some errors detected and opinions deemed questionable in my reading (twice) of Angel Face.

 

[Machiavelli]

Perhaps you could name one or two pieces of evidence Amanda "added herself" from the incidents you listed above, as I don't really know what you could be referring to here.

The four "incidents" listed above are pieces of evidence. They are the source of the incriminating value of Amanda's false accusation, they are the reason why the 01:45 interrogation and the 05:45 statement are evidence of guilt.
The above listed pieces of evidence also produce further contradictions with Amanda's early recollection of facts.

 

[Draca]

Semen stain test requested in RS appeal

Good question! Are the appeals actually asking for the test?

From IIP:

"Evidence on Pillowcase

There is a possible semen stain that was found on the pillow under Meredith's body. The defense is requesting that testing be done on this stain. It was originally stated by the court that the stain could not be dated because Meredith was sexually active so there was no reason to test it. Forensics expert Francesco Vinci found this same substance smeared in one of Rudy's shoe prints on the pillow. This proves this substance was wet at the time of the murder so it must have been deposited on the pillow at that time. This discovery was made using Crimescope. Why wasn't this substance tested to begin with? The investigators were presented with a murder with sexual assault and they neglected to test a substance that appears to be semen. If this substance tests positive for semen and it is attributed to Rudy, the entire theory made by the prosecution would be further proven false. The photo below shows the substance on the pillow smeared in one of Rudy's shoe prints.


The defense is asking for further investigation of Mario Joseph Alessi. Alessi is a prison inmate that claims to have had confidential conversations with Rudy Guede. During these conversations, Guede allegedly discusses sexual acts that could be attributed to the stains left on the pillow. The defense argues that Alessi’s statements contain details of the crime that only Guede would have known. These details confirm that these discussions actually took place. In light of this testimony, it is imperative that further testing be done on the substance found on the pillow."


http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/appeal4.html

 

[Malkmus]

The four "incidents" listed above are pieces of evidence. They are the source of the incriminating value of Amanda's false accusation, they are the reason why the 01:45 interrogation and the 05:45 statement are evidence of guilt.
The above listed pieces of evidence also produce further contradictions with Amanda's early recollection of facts.

Machiavelli, the four "pieces of evidence" you refer to do nothing to corroborate her false confession or the accusation that she was absent from Raf's apartment that night. The only incriminating "statements" from her that we have were the ones that weren't even allowed during the trial (and aren't part of your list of four anyhow). Her written statement only casts doubt on her "confession" and in no way reinforces it, and in subsequent interrogation/testimony she maintained her position that she was at raf's apartment. Your assertion that she made statements after the night of the 5th that helped LE prove her guilt is a bit vague and meaningless without specific examples.

 

[pilot padron]

I don't know where the 9 am - 10pm part comes from, but the wind speed was listed, about 7 mph.

So, give me a break. It was about 50f. She was not running down the street in a scarf over her mouth and wool hat pulled down to her eyes - in order to look inconspicuous!

Could we per chance resolve and forever banish this mole if we use our eyes and common sense (and "give everyone a break"):

1) EYES: Widely viewed pictures (and even You Tube) of Amanda and Raffie snogging outside the murder scene show her obviously less than perspiring from OAT (Outside Air Temp).
Since Raffie has given her his winter style hooded military like gray jacket to wear, and he himself has scarf tightly around his neck.

1A) Pictures and You tube shot within hours *after* of Conad store visit

1B)Cottage is within reasonable distance to the Conad store, so no orographic induced OAT variation possible

1C) OAT normally is *colder* hours earlier than would be expected to exist during snogging time pictured with heavy coat on.

2) COMMON SENSE: Regardless of OAT charts, graphs and assorted Google assisted statistics to disprove same...Amanda was still cold enough to request relatively heavy coat hours *after* conad visit

 

[Malkmus]

Could we per chance resolve and forever banish this mole if we use our eyes and common sense (and "give everyone a break"):

1) EYES: Widely viewed pictures (and even You Tube) of Amanda and Raffie snogging outside the murder scene show her obviously less than perspiring from OAT (Outside Air Temp).
Since Raffie has given her his winter style hooded military like gray jacket to wear, and he himself has scarf tightly around his neck.

1A) Pictures and You tube shot within hours *after* of Conad store visit

1B)Cottage is within reasonable distance to the Conad store, so no orographic induced OAT variation possible

1C) OAT normally is *colder* hours earlier than would be expected to exist during snogging time pictured with heavy coat on.

2) COMMON SENSE: Regardless of OAT charts, graphs and assorted Google assisted statistics to disprove same...Amanda was still cold enough to request relatively heavy coat hours *after* conad visit

I have to agree that Amanda wearing a scarf and hat are not implausible items of clothing to have worn that morning (although I do think it would seriously inhibit one's ability to identify her positively).

I think it's distracting, though, from the real reasons that Quintavalle is a bad witness: The contradicting testimony, the fact that he came forward at the urging of a journalist (the other witness we know of that came forward due to a journalist was the one who took a bribe to do so), and his statement in court "I'm not absolutely sure that can be her".

 

[Mary_H]

Let's say it like this: one of the main thesis of some people has been that the police created evidence on Amanda.
A couple of things should be added: Amanda and Raffaele created evidence before the interrogation when they gave their accounts of facts, riddled with inconsistencies, lacking logic and credibility.

No, these should not be added, because they cannot be supported by any evidence. Where are the records of what Amanda and Raffaele said before their interrogations?

Then, if we could imagine the police created evidence against them during the interrogation, after they identified them as suspects by their suspicious and not credible recollection of facts,

Again -- records of that?

we could as well imagine the police created evidence on Rudy after having detected his presence through a fingerprint. They could have "fabricated" the the Y-type DNA "found" in Meredith's vagina for example.

They could have, but the evidence from the lab had already gone to Rome and they wouldn't know who would or wouldn't be incriminated by it until they got the results. There was no need to manipulate evidence until after it became clear, from the lab results, that only one man was responsible for the murder. The prosecutor's strategy was not in place yet; he hadn't yet formulated a plan about how to find evidence on the innocent detainees.

One thing the police didn't create is the amount of evidence that Amanda added herself with her declarations after the interrogation: the hand written paper, the interrogation of Dec 18., pre-trial statement, the court testimony.

They absolutely did create it, by virtue of the fact that the interrogation, the false accusation and the arrests were the subject matter of her writings and declarations. Nothing that happened during or after the interrogations was uninfluenced by the police, and it all should be scrutinized very carefully from that point of view. There is no evidence whatsoever of Amanda and Raffaele's involvement in the crime other than what was manipulated and invented by the police, the prosecutors and the judges.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>2) Food and/or travel blogger are not inherently derogatory terms in my mind.

2A My post as I re-read is not derogatory in use of the term.
2B Use by the non innocent persuasion people in the world as derogatory is beyond my sphere of influence.

If this is true, then I apologize for projecting that accusation onto you.

3) The URL you quote is little more than a self written, self aggrandizement collection of "see how good I am" stuff.
Many specific points there have been at best questioned, and at worst proven innaccurate and overly boastful by TJMK.
(cited cognizant of expected outcry, but certainly comparable to widespread use of injustice dot org here as cite)

To me it looks like a typical autobiographical summary of her experience and education -- a curriculum vitae. It can't really be counted as boastful for someone to reflect that they have accomplished a lot, if it's simply the facts.

4) Main Point of my Post was that I submit that Nadeau particularly is more qualified to write about the case than Dempsey and subsequently a more credible citation.

4A Unlike Dempsey's spotty trial attendance record, Nadeau attended every session cite: see above Angel Face.
5B) Unlike Dempsey, Nadeau speaks very fluent Italian, did not require services of Interpreter, surrogate trial attendee, and assistant writer.
cite: see Alagna suggestions above.

The language and the attendance arguments have never made sense to me. We have all read books in school originally written by authors in other languages, followed by lengthy discussions of the subject matter. It would never occur to anyone to claim that you can't understand the facts of a French or Russian novel if you don't speak French or Russian.

Frank Sfarzo also attended all the trial sessions, didn't he? Yet he disagrees with Barbie. In fact, there were always two sides represented at every session of the trial at all times, so obviously attending the sessions doesn't ensure one will think one way or another about the evidence.

More important is that it doesn't matter if a person is fluent in ten languages and sits in the courtroom all day long, if they don't know how to analyze or argue. Barbie Nadeau almost always fails to cite sources for her information, misleading her readers by offering her opinion as fact. I don't think she even believes Amanda and Raffaele are guilty -- I think her entire approach is tabloidesque, to attract readers.

From what little I have read of Candace's blog and book, it appeared to me she was always trying to present a more balanced picture than Barbie; she cites her sources; and her arguments are logical and incisive.

 

[christianahannah]

How often has the defense asked to have this stain tested, so far?

From the motivations concerning the stain:

Pages 21-22:

At the hearing of December 4 the Defence for Sollecito concluded the rebuttals, submitting a memorandum evidencing that on the site of the inspection of May 25, 2009, on the pillowcase of the pillow found in the victim’s room some stains had been found with the 'crimescope‛ that could have been spermatic in nature and that these had not been the object of any genetic analysis. In relation to this contention, various questions were raised as to the necessity of testing relative to these stains.

The verdict was handed down the next day, December 5, 2009. Whether the defense brought up the request for testing between May 25, 2009 to December 3, 2009 (prior to the December 4 memorandum) I do not know.

Stefanoni testified to the reason the stain was not tested in the motivations.

Page 219:

She stated that the pillow was found half under the pelvis of the body. Analysis was not done on the pillow because it was considered more useful to use it for print analysis, whether of shoeprints or handprints.

I believe it was the handprint on the pillowcase which was tracked to Rudy Guede. The shoeprint was not given a specific opinion by the court.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

With reference to ChristianahHannah's additional information:

I'm moving back towards neutrality on the topic of whether it's likely to be Rudy's sperm. If it was found on a pillow half-under her pelvis after she had been sexually assaulted, it should definitely be examined.

I don't know why he would lie in his initial statement about something easily checked, but people have done stranger things.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

forensic bias

But my response wasn't to a claim of investigator bias, but to contamination and the point still stands. If Amanda's and Raffaele's evidence was all contaminated, why wasn't Rudy's also?

You've also yet to prove investigator bias. Moreover, the basis of your claim isn't fully correct in any case. A large amount of Rudy's evidence wasn't processed until after his arrest...it took them over three months to process all the forensic evidence from the case.

I also fail to see why just because they had Amanda in custody, that means evidence collected or examined would be done with bias. And as far as I'm aware, Dr Stefanoni hadn't even met Amanda or Raffaele. She didn't care whether they were innocent or guilty. Her sole job was to analyse the data.

I also can't see 'how' bias can come into play. It's either Amanda's DNA on the knife handle and Meredith's DNA on the blade, or it isn't. Even the defence don't dispute it isn't. It's either Raffaele's DNA on the clasp or it isn't. The footprints are either a match fro Amanda, Raffaele and Rduy or they are not. It's either Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood or it isn't...and so on.

Fulcanelli,

With respect to contamination, there are several factors to consider. First, I have long pointed out that contamination can be sporadic, which (among other things) makes negative controls less useful than they would be otherwise. Second, I have not seen the electropherograms with Rudy’s profile. If they contain the same problems as are in Meredith’s profile on the knife and Raffaele’s presumed profile on the bra clasp, then the caveats I have raised about these two items carry over to the other samples. Third, the evidence against Guede is fundamentally between Guede and his lawyers versus ILE. If they did not dispute the data, I cannot offer a different opinion without more data. Fourth, contamination is not the same thing as secondary transfer, as I made clear to Stilicho many months ago on the previous thread. I am not sure that the bra clasp, for example, was contaminated; both secondary transfer and evidence tampering exist as possibilities.

With respect to showing investigator bias, please see my previous comments on evidence item 164. Dr. Stefanoni stopped testing on this sample, yet she continued with the knife. Do you have a better explanation than investigator bias?

Investigator bias can come into plays in many areas of forensics, as the citations I have previously given (Koppl's "CSI for Real," for example) demonstrate. One is in the use or misuse of a suspect’s reference profile to interpret an evidentiary sample, as Dan Krane and colleagues discussed (Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2008;53(4):1006-7). The interpretation of mixed DNA samples is also not completely objective. I have given citations on this subject within the last couple of months, and the disagreement between Dr. Stefanoni and the more conservative Dr. Tagliabracci as discussed in the Massei report illustrates this problem nicely. One way in which bias can come in is to diminish the importance of real peaks because they do not fit Raffaele’s profile, as Dr. Tagliabracci implied that Dr. Stefanoni did (see my comment last week or so).

The DNA testing started as early as November 9, 2007. Although it may have been completed after other forensic testing was, that does not alter the fundamental principle that forensics of various hues showed that Guede was in Meredith’s room and elsewhere when he had no business being there. By the time of the initial DNA testing, the police had declared the case to be closed and paraded the suspects through the old town of Perugia. The police, PM Mignini, and Dr. Giobbi had all put down their markers with respect to Amanda and Raffaele. In addition, it is incorrect to say that Dr. Stefanoni’s sole job was to analyze the data. She also took part in collecting the data. She asked for and received special permission to do so, a departure from normal policy (IIRC, Darkness Descending mentions this).

When the investigators fail to collect footprint references from Laura and Filomena and then want me to believe that Amanda made them, I call bias. The lack of obtaining reference DNA from them is almost equally mystifying.

Bias also comes into play in other ways, such as how one interprets the data, as much as anything. It may have led Stefanoni and others to impart a significance to the mixed DNA samples that simply is nonexistant. It has to be among the most unsurprising results of all time that Amanda’s DNA was found in her sink. I would have been a little surprised it if had not. If someone still wishes to claim that the mixed DNA samples mean anything, I would ask them to interpret the significance of samples 93 and 95, which are mixed samples of Raffaele and Amanda, from Raffaele’s flat.

 

[odeed]

...
If someone still wishes to claim that the mixed DNA samples mean anything, I would ask them to interpret the significance of samples 93 and 95, which are mixed samples of Raffaele and Amanda, from Raffaele’s flat.

They were having sex at Sollecito's flat. Also IIRC* neither of the mixed samples tested positive for blood.

* I have lost track of the evidence in the case, so I may be wrong.

 

[quadraginta]

From the motivations concerning the stain:

The verdict was handed down the next day, December 5, 2009. Whether the defense brought up the request for testing between May 25, 2009 to December 3, 2009 (prior to the December 4 memorandum) I do not know.

Stefanoni testified to the reason the stain was not tested in the motivations.

I believe it was the handprint on the pillowcase which was tracked to Rudy Guede. The shoeprint was not given a specific opinion by the court.

So what we have on the record suggests that the defense team knew about this stain for nearly half a year, at least, and there is no evidence that they considered it to be of any importance at all until they offered their summary statement the day before the verdict was rendered?

I wonder why they had such a sudden change of heart about its significance.

 

[quadraginta]

With reference to ChristianahHannah's additional information:

I'm moving back towards neutrality on the topic of whether it's likely to be Rudy's sperm. If it was found on a pillow half-under her pelvis after she had been sexually assaulted, it should definitely be examined.

I don't know why he would lie in his initial statement about something easily checked, but people have done stranger things.

Yes. Lying and claiming to be present at the scene of a murder, and then reiterating that lie in writing without any provocation is an example that comes to mind.

 

[HumanityBlues]

So what we have on the record suggests that the defense team knew about this stain for nearly half a year, at least, and there is no evidence that they considered it to be of any importance at all until they offered their summary statement the day before the verdict was rendered?

I wonder why they had such a sudden change of heart about its significance.

Gotta love your implicit inference that that somehow vindicates the police for not testing it. Or do you want to argue that the maybe semen stain should have been tested, but it's fishy that the defense asked for it so late? That I could understand I suppose. The alternative argument (if defense asked late, police are blameless for incompetence line of logic) makes no sense.