Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

I forgot to add that Stefanoni's testimony indicated she had 5 reference samples (DNA): Rudy, Amanda, Raffaele, Meredith, and Patrick.

If I remember correctly they did get fingerprint but not footprint samples from Filomena and Laura.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

presumptive versus confirmatory

If the luminol is the most sensitive, more so than the TMB, as I seemed to get from Machiavelli's research, then it is no wonder it convinced the jury the prints were made in blood. I would likely believe it too unless shown something equally believable as to what would give the false positive. If all that was presented from the defense were substances like turnip juice etc. I wouldn't be swayed from believing the prosecution's expert that it was blood.

The one interesting thing I did read that would have convinced me was the iron or copper from water pipes. This I see as likely if the plumbing were very old and the water from the shower contained iron or copper deposits. Arguing this, along with Amanda and Raffaele possibly having showered together one evening or other would definitely have caused 'reasonable' doubt in my mind.

Danceme,

Yesterday I provided a citation for a review article by Virkler and Lednev. From that article, "Once a positive result is obtained from a presumptive bloodtest, several confirmatory tests are available to identify absolutely an unknown stain to be blood. These tests can be categorized as microscope tests, crystal tests, spectroscopic methods, immunological tests, and chromatographic methods."

Both luminol and TMB are presumptive tests. The confirmatory tests must be positive for one to conclude that a substance is blood. If a confirmatory test were not done, I would say that one cannot conclude a substance is blood. A negative result for DNA certainly does not help the case that a substance is blood.

 

[katy_did]

OK - given the lack of a response on the 'internalized false confession' Q we can finally put the issue to bed.

This mole has been well and truly whacked by the 'testimony' of no less a personage than AK herself.

Finally we are making progress on this case as regards items that can be accepted by both parties to the debate.

I think you've had little response because you haven't been specific enough about exactly which statements prove there was no coerced-internalized false confession. Here's a link to a video which contains extracts from Amanda's statements (in English). Bearing in mind that this type of confession involves the suspect coming to believe they might have committed the crime the police believe they are guilty of (due to manipulative interrogation tactics; telling the suspect they have proof they were at the scene, for example), which statements would indicate Amanda's confession doesn't fit that model?

[5:00 on video]

Amanda: The reason I thought of Patrick was because the police were yelling at me about Patrick, they told me about...they kept saying his message, you sent a message to Patrick.

Mignini: Why did you make such an accusation?

Amanda: Because I thought it could be true.

Mignini: How could it be true?

Amanda: I said that because I had imagined him. The police were telling me that we know you were at your house, we know that you left the house, someone was showing me the message that I sent on the phone, I couldn't understand why they were telling me that I was lying.

[1:25 on video]

Amanda: I was stressed, I was scared, it was after long hours in the middle of the night, I was innocent and they were telling me that I was guilty [starts crying].

Or maybe you have extra statements not listed here?

 

[katy_did]

Was Rudy questioned about the footprint and as to whether he had removed his shoes at some point? I can't see him denying it was his footprint if he freely admits to entering the bathroom for towels after coming upon Meredith bleeding profusely where he likely could have stepped in her blood. He would have said, "sure it could be mine, I went to get towels to try and save her" and "yes I had my shoes off, I was getting intimate with Meredith" which fit the story he told. I think if he denies it is his print it likely isn't. He had already admitted the bloody shoeprint was most likely his.

I don't think Rudy admitted the shoe print was his until it was proven it wasn't Raffaele's, and after a shoe box which had contained shoes matching the prints found at the scene were found at his flat. It wasn't what you'd call an eager admission...

The fact he admitted going in to the bathroom would've been enough of an explanation for the footprint, if he'd ever been accused of leaving it. He made sure to provide an explanation for it, if they tried to allocate it to him. But I can't see what advantage there'd be for him in volunteering the information it was his.

ETA: One thing I don't think anyone has yet given any kind of plausible explanation for is why Amanda and Raffaele would have left the traces in the bathroom, especially the footprint, if they were the ones to leave them all there. It's obviously very plausible that Rudy would've done so, since he'd have been in a rush to leave. But the other two would've had all night and they're even supposed to have carried out a clean-up. If I believed in their guilt, I'd have to conclude the traces were Rudy's and that they were deliberately left. No other (guilty) explanation fits, IMO.

 

[platonov]

What testimony is that? I do not see it quoted in your comments. Have you read the citations that Rose Montague provided? If so, what are your points of disagreement?

I am not sure that the following comment is germane or not. I personally find the distinction between a false confession and a false accusation to be very difficult to make. Some of the false confessions about which I have heard had both a confession part and an accusation part. This is true of the Ada, Oklahoma case and also a case that I read about in Canada and wrote about here in a comment directed to Stilicho. I believe it was also true of the Norfolk case, but I don't know the facts of that case as well as I might. Therefore, if anyone says that Amanda's statement was a not a false confession because it was a false accusation, I disagree.

I didn't quote any testimony on this issue - I asked a Q

Originally Posted by platonov

The issue of why and how PL was accused ( false confessions ?) on the night of the 5th has come up yet again and it seems to go round and round.

Was AK not later questioned by a magistrate about this in the presence of her lawyer in Nov/Dec 07' ?

What was the outcome ?? - it would surely cut to the heart of the matter !!

in a bid to progress the issue and received no answer.

If you are familiar with the case [as you appear to be] I'm happy to hear the answer.



I'm not overly interested in the distinction between a 'false confession' and a 'false accusation' - these are labels which don't add much to our understanding IMO - the veracity of, and reasons for, the statements made are what's germane, I hope we can agree.

 

[Danceme]

As far as I can see, courts do not accept a positive luminol reaction as proof that there is blood, that is usually proven through a more specific test. The fact that there is not even the victim's DNA showing up in most of these samples is also a good point that was made earlier. If this particular court accepted it as proof however, I would not be surprised. However, even Dr. Stefanoni does not make the claim that it is blood. From Amanda's appeal:

ETA bolding mine

But I think the court must have accepted that it was blood given it likely figured strongly in the guilty verdict. If courts cannot accept it then the judge would have been compelled to instruct the jury to this or disallow the evidence.

Danceme,

Both luminol and TMB are presumptive tests. The confirmatory tests must be positive for one to conclude that a substance is blood. If a confirmatory test were not done, I would say that one cannot conclude a substance is blood. A negative result for DNA certainly does not help the case that a substance is blood.

Yes, I know they are presumptive tests, however, often legal arguments are made asking the jury to use their common sense and come to their own conclusion on the strength of a given argument. The prosecution may argue that given its sensitivity to blood, 1:5,000,000 did you not post, and given there was nothing else present in the cottage likely to give a false positive since any bleach floor cleaner, the most likely culprit, would have dissipated, then a jury may feel confident presuming it was indeed blood. This is why sometimes whether you like it or not the defense has to "prove" something to counter an effective prosecutorial argument. Its all about what convinces a jury best.

 

[RoseMontague]

I think you've had little response because you haven't been specific enough about exactly which statements prove there was no coerced-internalized false confession. Here's a link to a video which contains extracts from Amanda's statements (in English). Bearing in mind that this type of confession involves the suspect coming to believe they might have committed the crime the police believe they are guilty of (due to manipulative interrogation tactics; telling the suspect they have proof they were at the scene, for example), which statements would indicate Amanda's confession doesn't fit that model?





Or maybe you have extra statements not listed here?

The statements you have listed certainly fit the model of a false confession. If you want to call it a false accusation I don't see much of a difference if any. In reality it is both, in my opinion.

 

[RoseMontague]

I didn't quote any testimony on this issue - I asked a Q

Originally Posted by platonov

The issue of why and how PL was accused ( false confessions ?) on the night of the 5th has come up yet again and it seems to go round and round.

Was AK not later questioned by a magistrate about this in the presence of her lawyer in Nov/Dec 07' ?

What was the outcome ?? - it would surely cut to the heart of the matter !!

in a bid to progress the issue and received no answer.

If you are familiar with the case [as you appear to be] I'm happy to hear the answer.



I'm not overly interested in the distinction between a 'false confession' and a 'false accusation' - these are labels which don't add much to our understanding IMO - the veracity of, and reasons for, the statements made are what's germane, I hope we can agree.

Candace gives a few quotes from Raffaele's hearing (Matteini) but I don't recall seeing Amanda's.

 

[katy_did]

But I think the court must have accepted that it was blood given it likely figured strongly in the guilty verdict. If courts cannot accept it then the judge would have been compelled to instruct the jury to this or disallow the evidence.

Massei says the luminol prints were left by someone who had washed their feet of blood but had diluted traces of blood/water still on them, and left invisible prints. He couldn't say they were left in blood and cleaned up, because the evidence doesn't fit that (the prints wouldn't have been there at all).

I originally thought they were probably made by Amanda after her shower, when she says she dried her feet on the bathmat and even used it to 'hop' back to her room. So in a sense, I agreed with Massei, in that I thought they were made in a diluted mixture of blood and water from the bathmat. The problem for Massei's argument is that I see no way to distinguish between prints that were made in the way he suggests, and prints innocently made by Amanda after her shower (especially since it's pretty likely anyone washing their feet in the bidet would probably dry them on the bathmat anyway).

The TMB issue raised in the appeal left me a bit unsure about this, though. What I'd like to know is whether it's possible to have a very strong luminol reaction on the one hand, and a negative TMB test in all seven [?] of the marks/prints on the other. Would prints left in diluted blood/water have caused such a strong luminol reaction?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin Lowe: " refer you to our previous discussion of the phenomenon of internalised false confessions. Amanda's statement was an internalised false confession,"

You may have discussed this, but I don't believe that the defence established this as afact.

Catholics believe the Pope is infallible (when he wants to be). Guilters believe that the Perugia courts are infallible. Pretty much everyone else thinks that the Pope and Perugia courts aren't infallible and hence might be right and might be wrong about any given matter.

If we think that the Pope or a Perugia court might be wrong, we look at the relevant facts and decide for ourselves.

I have seen no sound reason at all to believe that Amanda's statement was not an internalised false confession: It has several hallmarks of such, it lacks some of the hallmarks of a true confession, and the theory that Amanda faked it lacks credibility. It's the police's job to conduct the investigation in such a way as to exclude such internalised false confessions and to show that they have done so: Presenting something that looks exactly like an internalised false confession in court and then "losing" the tape of the interrogation session does not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the confession was anything other than an internalised false confession.

Kevin Lowe: "None of the clothes Rudy was wearing when he murdered Meredith were ever found"

So there is no evidence that he wore protective clothing. I very much doubt that a "drifter" as he has been described, would possess protective clothing. Was he wearing such garb at the other incidents that are often quoted?

You seem to be jumping around from topic to topic. The point is that Rudy definitely had the time and opportunity to dispose of a murder weapon and bloodied clothes, since he had days on the run to get rid of these incriminating items.

Whereas there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Amanda or Raffaele disposed of a single item of clothing, let alone a murder weapon (and the prosecution story was that three knives were used, so at least one was never found in their narrative).

Kevin Lowe: "Do we need to link youtube vidoes of fit young people climbing again?"
Videos of fit young people are not evidence proving that this method of entry was used. In any case I thought that it was accepted that there was no break-in.

Again you are jumping around. The point was just that there is nothing especially difficult about climbing in that window, and there is certainly not proof beyond reasonable doubt that nobody did so or that nobody could do so.

The fact of the matter is, that the defence were unable to prove that the "break-in" was not staged.

It's a bit difficult to prove that you could not possibly have done something, using only evidence collected by police who look very much like they were only collecting evidence they thought could incriminate Amanda and Raffaele and completely ignoring everything else, and who then hide, lose or destroy evidence that they do find that does not fit with their narrative.

That's why it's not the defence's job to prove they didn't do it. It's the prosecution's job to prove they did.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Giobbi heard Amanda scream

Platonov,

Katy_did provided a more answer to your question than I can. I would still like to know what you thought of the citations that Rose Montague provided.

I have always been struck by the fact that Dr. Giobbi testified that he heard Amanda scream (I do not think that Amanda screamed because she lost at Chutes and Ladders). I have never heard any one explain why she did so if the police were being polite and solicitous toward her.

I was also struck by Amanda's own description of the time on the 6th when she was presented with documents. She said words to the effect, "I just wanted to sign and go home." These words are very similar to those I have read in a study of people who have given false confessions in the United States. I do not have a citation handy, however.

post script

Please ignore the smiley. It was not intentional

 

[katy_did]

The statements you have listed certainly fit the model of a false confession. If you want to call it a false accusation I don't see much of a difference if any. In reality it is both, in my opinion.

Yes, I'm wondering if platonov has some other quotes, since I can't see anything in these that contradicts the theory it was a false confession (quite the opposite, in fact). As to the difference between a false accusation/confession, I agree that this is probably both of those, and also that there's little difference between them.

A coerced confession wouldn't just come out of thin air, obviously, it would depend on what the police believed the suspect was guilty of and what they were coercing her to confess. In this case (as the interrogation transcript shows), they thought Amanda was at the scene and that she knew who'd done it, but not that she was the rapist/murderer. So they got her to confess that she was at the scene and that she knew who'd done it, but not that she was the rapist/murderer. I think the false accusation/confession distinction is a totally false one in practice - in both cases, the suspect just says what the police want them to say.

 

[RoseMontague]

Massei says the luminol prints were left by someone who had washed their feet of blood but had diluted traces of blood/water still on them, and left invisible prints. He couldn't say they were left in blood and cleaned up, because the evidence doesn't fit that (the prints wouldn't have been there at all).

I originally thought they were probably made by Amanda after her shower, when she says she dried her feet on the bathmat and even used it to 'hop' back to her room. So in a sense, I agreed with Massei, in that I thought they were made in a diluted mixture of blood and water from the bathmat. The problem for Massei's argument is that I see no way to distinguish between prints that were made in the way he suggests, and prints innocently made by Amanda after her shower (especially since it's pretty likely anyone washing their feet in the bidet would probably dry them on the bathmat anyway).

The TMB issue raised in the appeal left me a bit unsure about this, though. What I'd like to know is whether it's possible to have a very strong luminol reaction on the one hand, and a negative TMB test in all seven [?] of the marks/prints on the other. Would prints left in diluted blood/water have caused such a strong luminol reaction?

Fiona at PMF had quoted a nice study on this and I will try to give you the details that I remember. If the sample was cleaned with bleach and tested with luminol, some of the TMB tests came back negative (more than half, going by memory). None of the results had all tests coming back negative on the TMB test.

 

[Danceme]

I don't think Rudy admitted the shoe print was his until it was proven it wasn't Raffaele's, and after a shoe box which had contained shoes matching the prints found at the scene were found at his flat. It wasn't what you'd call an eager admission...

I don't think he offered the information unsolicited, but I think he didn't deny it when he was actually asked about it IIRC. I think there's a difference in that and saying he didn't admit it was his until it was proven it was not Raffaele's. The latter implies a questioning and denial on his part which only changed once evidence was shown to him.

ETA: One thing I don't think anyone has yet given any kind of plausible explanation for is why Amanda and Raffaele would have left the traces in the bathroom, especially the footprint, if they were the ones to leave them all there. It's obviously very plausible that Rudy would've done so, since he'd have been in a rush to leave. But the other two would've had all night and they're even supposed to have carried out a clean-up. If I believed in their guilt, I'd have to conclude the traces were Rudy's and that they were deliberately left. No other (guilty) explanation fits, IMO.

Yes, I think its odd the footprint would have been overlooked if they did a cleanup but IIRC the bathroom floor glowed under luminol showing smears as if from cleaning (I think Machiavelli spoke of this). If the floor was indeed cleaned the mat might have been placed somewhere off the floor for a bit, perhaps forgotten about, and only replaced that morning just before the postal police arrived. That's not my theory of what likely happened (I don't have one I'm convinced of) just conjecture on one way it could have.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Also, I've had limited time to post recently because of real-life issues but I do want to refresh an issue I brought up earlier which Machiavelli and a few others didn't seem to grasp the first time around, about the proper role of logic in proving something beyond reasonable doubt.

Logicians distinguish "necessary conditions" and "sufficient conditions". If A is a necessary condition for B, but not sufficient, then A must be true before B can be true, however A can be true and B can be false.

Example: It is necessary but not sufficient that I be a man, if I am to be a bachelor. I cannot be a bachelor unless I am a man, but some men are not bachelors.

Whereas if A is sufficient to cause B but not necessary, then if A is true then B is definitely true. (But if A is false B still might be true). It is sufficient to kill someone to blow them up, but not necessary - you could also poison them or push them off a cliff. But if you do blow them up they are definitely dead.

You can also have necessary-and-sufficient conditions, in which case A is true if and only if B is true. It's necessary and sufficient to be an unmarried man to be a bachelor.

So there's your basic logic lesson for the day. Now to apply it to the Knox case.

If you want to prove beyond reasonable doubt that I am a bachelor you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that I am a man, and also prove beyond reasonable doubt that I am unmarried. You can't get away with proving that I'm a man and then saying "Look, we've got half the proof, that's good enough, I think we can assume this guy is a bachelor until he proves otherwise". By the same token you can't pull the same move just by proving I am unmarried and saying "Look, we've proven that this person is unmarried. I don't think we need to prove he's a man, I mean, really, what else could he be? A woman? Ha! He's a bachelor, until a pathologist tells me otherwise".

There are elements of the Knox case that are necessary for the Massei story to hang together. It is necessary that the break-in be staged, because otherwise the whole "drug party gone wrong" fantasy collapses and there is no remotely plausible story for how the murder happened. It is necessary that Raffaele and Amanda be physically present at the time Meredith died, as opposed to at home watching Naruto.

It is necessary that Amanda's confession be interpreted to mean that she was present and participating (whatever she actually said), and/or that Amanda's DNA on the double DNA knife handle to be interpreted to mean that she was present and participating (whatever the DNA evidence actually proves), because otherwise absolutely nothing ties Amanda to the murder scene. It is necessary that Raffaele's alleged positive DNA result on the bra clasp stand up to scrutiny, or otherwise absolutely nothing ties Raffaele to the murder scene.

If you take any of those elements out, you've immediately got reasonable doubt about the conviction. Unfortunately for guilters all of them are now out.

There are plenty of items of evidence that are neither necessary nor sufficient, and calling them into doubt doesn't directly call the verdict into doubt. If it turned out that Amanda never turned a cartwheel that wouldn't do it, or if it turned out that the luminol footprints were made the week before by spilled food. That's why those points don't really interest me from the point of view of questioning the verdict (although they are interesting case studies in the misuse of evidence and the erroneous fixing of beliefs).

 

[katy_did]

Fiona at PMF had quoted a nice study on this and I will try to give you the details that I remember. If the sample was cleaned with bleach and tested with luminol, some of the TMB tests came back negative (more than half, going by memory). None of the results had all tests coming back negative on the TMB test.

Was it this one? (since I use Firefox, it just magically appeared when I typed 'luminol' in the address bar, heh).

I suppose that a bloody footprint that had been cleaned might leave the same sort of trace as a very diluted blood/water footprint? Not sure if there would be a difference. The fact none of the prints were positive with the TMB test was what made me first doubt that they were made in blood at all, diluted or not. Surely one of them would've tested positive...

 

[RoseMontague]

Was it this one? (since I use Firefox, it just magically appeared when I typed 'luminol' in the address bar, heh).

I suppose that a bloody footprint that had been cleaned might leave the same sort of trace as a very diluted blood/water footprint? Not sure if there would be a difference. The fact none of the prints were positive with the TMB test was what made me first doubt that they were made in blood at all, diluted or not. Surely one of them would've tested positive...

You are so good it is scary. That would be the one. Tile had a negative result which was significant but DNA was still present and sufficient for amplification in 17 of the 18 samples (3 samples on 6 surfaces).

 

[Danceme]

The infamous picture of the small bathroom, all pink colored, has been said by some to be the end result of luminol spray and not indicative of where blood had been before cleaning; and it's also been said by others to be the result of testing by phenolphthalin and that it does indicate where blood had been. Which is true? Does spraying luminol leave a pink residue everywhere?

 

[RoseMontague]

I am going to post Kevad's comment about this as it sums up the problems with that study as well as the arguments for blood and/or cleanup:

Kevad said...

Very good Rose, you beat my post here with your response on JREF about luminol and TMB testing. I was just going to say that the only way possible for the Luminol test of this size and quantity in so many places to be positive and TMB ALL negative is if the barefoot print were attempted to be cleaned with bleach or a few other items. This would be very noticeable as the barefoot print would be blurred, and not well defined. These barefoot prints were fairly well defined and showed no evidence of cleaning. It was never argued by anyone. The posters are trying to raise doubt on issues clearly determined earlier, glad to see you are on top of this one. As I stated earlier, Amanda's appeal argues there was plently of material used in the tests, more so than in the bathroom which did find a positive TMB on a much smaller quantity. The problem with a judge panel or jury deciding this is blood despite NO PROOF by either side that it is, is that they are making up their own science results and becoming experts in an area the experts disagree with them. As you pointed out, it is reversing the burden of proof and totally inappropriate.

ETA: In my opinion the only print (hard to say if it is footprint or shoeprint) that remotely indicates a possible clean up is the "blob" in Filomena's room.

http://injusticeinperugia.blogspot....howComment=1287013942788#c5139795760937817381

 

[platonov]

Platonov,

Katy_did provided a more answer to your question than I can. I would still like to know what you thought of the citations that Rose Montague provided.

I have always been struck by the fact that Dr. Giobbi testified that he heard Amanda scream (I do not think that Amanda screamed because she lost at Chutes and Ladders). I have never heard any one explain why she did so if the police were being polite and solicitous toward her.

I was also struck by Amanda's own description of the time on the 6th when she was presented with documents. She said words to the effect, "I just wanted to sign and go home." These words are very similar to those I have read in a study of people who have given false confessions in the United States. I do not have a citation handy, however.

post script

Please ignore the smiley. It was not intentional

Katy_did posted a link to a piece of video that doesn't address the Q.

Rose Montague and I discoursed on 'the kindness of strangers' on which I'm happy to to report we appear to be in agreement - I see no citation that addresses what AK said on the issue in Nov/Dec 07'.

And you have failed to answer the Q.

Opinions whether from me, you, Katy_did, Kevin Lowe, Rose Montague or whoever are all very well....... I don't mean to disparage anybody's opinion ......but they don't get to the root of the issue

What did AK say when faced with this Q 6 weeks after the 'waterboarding', in the presence of her lawyer and an interpreter and after sufficient time to gather her thoughts and clear her mind. ??????

The Q stands.

I could be clever and say that the jury are entitled to draw an inference from the refusal to respond.