Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Katody Matrass]

The problem is, our theories will never match because we don't agree on the "facts" that you take as proven and absolute. I really don't need to hear for the umpteenth time about TOD and stomach contents and miracle ears, if I don't agree the first couple of times you say it, I won't agree now.

That's why I encourage you to present a scenario based solely on the facts established by Massei ( with eventually some additional assumptions needed to fill the gaps). I think it could be done, but a challenge lies in introducing as little and as plausible assumptions as possible.

 

[Dan O.]

As an aside, Dan O: I feel obliged to inform you that luminol (with an "o") is the chemical used to detect blood at crime scenes, and luminal (with an "a") is a brand name for the barbiturate drug Phenobarbital.

That might explain the strange looks when I placed the order

 

[Katody Matrass]

a coherent theory for guilt

I'm not going to pursue this as while I was writing it what I've been asking about since the moment I first registered to post occurred: an attempt is being made to square all factors and produce a coherent theory for guilt. Thus I'd rather follow that discussion.

I'm happy that you recognize the importance of it.

To evaluate if a scenario is more plausible then any alternatives we need to look at the big picture. Providing only pieces of "for guilt" arguments won't do unless one can construct something from them. Only then we can look if such a theory is fully consistent internally and confront it's plausibility with other ones.

It is a fact that building such a hypothesis it's not an easy task. Massei refrained from it, and provided only some assertions and conclusions.
But can they be put together into something coherent?

Lack of any fully fleshed theory could indicate inherent internal inconsistencies.

Machiavelli in his reconstruction dropped lots of Massei conclusions from the get-go. It could be that he chose the harder path of accommodating some of the innocentisti criticisms, that would be commendable. His attempt still needs refinement - there are gaps not easy to fill, but it's a good start.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

blurred image

Does Colonel Garofano give a reason why he believes the luminol was over applied? Are there other reasons why there might be loss of detail in an image?

Also, this might not be an intelligent question, but why wasn't luminol applied to Meredith's bedroom floor or to the small bathroom floor?

Christianahannah,

Colonel Garofano showed his coauthors a computer screen image of the amount of detail that can be obtained with luminol. The only other reason I can think of is the one that was mentioned here, which is that the camera was not as steady as it might have been. I don't know whether one can differentiate between the two or not.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm happy that you recognize the importance of it.

To evaluate if a scenario is more plausible then any alternatives we need to look at the big picture. Providing only pieces of "for guilt" arguments won't do unless one can construct something from them. Only then we can look if such a theory is fully consistent internally and confront it's plausibility with other ones.

It is a fact that building such a hypothesis it's not an easy task. Massei refrained from it, and provided only some assertions and conclusions.
But can they be put together into something coherent?

Lack of any fully fleshed theory could indicate inherent internal inconsistencies.

Machiavelli in his reconstruction dropped lots of Massei conclusions from the get-go. It could be that he chose the harder path of accommodating some of the innocentisti criticisms, that would be commendable. His attempt still needs refinement - there are gaps not easy to fill, but it's a good start.

This, to me, is the nub of the problem. I don't think that there is a coherent narrative of the crime which does not contain internal inconsistencies. If Meredith died at 11.30pm, this is contradicted by the autopsy stomach/duodenum/small intestine findings. And it's also contradicted by Guede's meeting with friends at around 11.30pm across town. If she died at 9.00-9.30pm, this tallies with the autopsy findings, but throws out the testimony of Curatolo and Capezzali. And Knox's/Sollecito's involvement in a 9.00-9.30pm murder is strongly challenged by the evidence placing one or both of them in Sollecito's flat at 8.40, 9.10 and 9.26pm. And if she died between 9.30 and 10.00pm, this is contradicted by Curatolo and Cappezalli (and to a great degree by the stomach contents). And if she died at 10.30-11.30pm, this is contradicted by Curatolo, Capezzali, the stomach contents and the three people in the broken down car. In fact, if she died at 11.30-11.45pm, this is still contradicted by the people in the broken-down car, since even Mignini concedes that there had to be a decent preamble to his theory of a group killing, and the car was outside the house until around 11.40pm.

If the kitchen knife was "one of" the murder weapons, it's incredibly hard to reason how that knife came to be in the murder house that night, and how/why it was replaced in Sollecito's kitchen drawer. Not to mention the fact that the involvement of the kitchen knife requires there to have been two (or more) knives held at Meredith's throat during the attack, with all the attendant (and illogical) risks of the various assailants accidentally stabbing each other during the struggle. And either Knox and Sollecito were wearing clothes and footwear during the crime which nobody can establish have gone missing, or they were naked (or near naked) and barefoot during the murder.

Then, after the murder, if Knox and Sollecito conduct a skillful and careful clean-up of the crime scene, this is contradicted by a seeming stupidity in leaving "Sollecito's" partial print on the bathmat in plain view (despite them apparently having well over 12 hours to do something about it). And they amazingly erase all footprint, fingerprint and DNA traces of themselves from Meredith's room or upon her body or clothing (with, of course, the sole exception of DNA on a metal bra hook....), yet there are absolutely no signs of a clean up whatsoever in Meredith's room (e.g. wiped down surfaces, clean areas of the floor), and they manage to leave evidence of Guede (both visible and essentially invisible) behind in the room. And Knox goes to buy or steal bleach, or buy or steal a mop head, early the next morning. Yet not only is there plenty of bleach in Sollecito's apartment, there's also no evidence whatsoever of either bleach usage or mop usage in the murder house.

And this is all before we know with any real clarity what the new computer evidence in the defence submissions purports to show.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

We are talking about footrints matching Amanda's feet on ascene where a crime occurred and where there are isolated bare footprints in diluted blood.

There is half a footprint on the bathmat in diluted blood.

There are other footprints detected with luminol which tested negative for blood. They could be blood, but nobody including you knows.

They could have been made on the night of the murder too, but nobody including you knows whether that's the case or not either.

These footprints form a system showing non-random features.
Footprints all around the house, footprints forming a trail wpuld be a random artifact. It is not likely that only part of the trail is cleaned as thye wash the floor, because usually, in a normal routine, people clean the hole floor, not pieces of floor here and there. If part of the trail was cleaned in an operation of cleaning only part of the floor, you would see footprints cleaned by half, pieces of footprint left and remains.
The artifact in question doesn't have this random features, by which we could try to link it to "old" remains of normal operations. You cannot assert that you can expect to randomly find isolated footprints of a right-foot reacting to lumiol, and overlook any need of explanation for it.

Do you have a citation for this rule, or is this something you just made up?

What properties do you believe every possible non-blood reactant has that blood does not, so that blood can leave a short trail of prints but no other substance can?

Moreover the finding shows multiple footprints in Amanda's room, and no other similar "random artifact" in other rooms in the house.

What do you conclude from this?

About the TMB test, the fact is all literature says it shall not be used as confirmatory test, nor posively neither negatively. The TMB test used in this case is indirect, it requires the collection of a liquid sample from the stain, and this operation is itself an information filter. You know that Mederith's DNA did show in some of the luminol artifacts, and was also mixed with Amanda's. Some are in places where they should not be, like Filomena's room.

In a shared household, especially one where multiple people have recently been in and our of Filomena's room, there is no basis for claiming that Amanda's DNA on Filomena's floor is evidence of anything.

How would you expect to find Amanda's and Meredith's DNA mixed on spot that reacts to luminol in someone else's room? How many odds do you think you have?

I don't know, why don't you tell us? What are the odds of finding the DNA of those two housemates mixed on a spot that reacts to luminol in someone else's room, if police have been walking around in the murder room and in Filomena's room, assuming that Amanda was not involved in the murder?

You keep acting as if finding Amanda's DNA in the house where Amanda lives proves something.

We also know that Meredith's DNA did not show up in some traces that were visible and were blood for sure. And we know that DNA test may be not that sensitive and subject to deterioration when exposed for long to bacteria and agents (we are talking about samples collected several weeks later). This is expecially true if DNA is from white cell nucleus (very fragile) instead of epithelial cells. We also know that there were blood traces that showed only Amanda's DNA, primarily the blood drop on the faucet. This is highly significant, even if it is not Meredith's DNA. Bear in mind that I'm looking for evidence of Amanda's presence on the scene of murder, not specifically for Meredith's DNA.

Arguing that the test is unreliable is worthless as a strategy, if your goal is to get to proof beyond reasonable doubt that Amanda murdered Meredith. All you can do with that strategy is to argue that we can't prove conclusively that Amanda didn't do it based on the DNA test results.

The real problem is that we have computer evidence now to support Amanda's alibi, and DNA evidence doesn't come with a time stamp. If Amanda was not there when the murder happened, then she didn't do it. If Amanda didn't do it then any DNA traces found around the house must have been there before the murder, which is perfectly possible. So almost no DNA result is going to overrule the alibi evidence in a rational person's mind.

 

[billyryan]

I often link this case to another case I followed about ten years ago the case of Louise Woodward a british girl of about twenty for the murder of baby Mattew Eapen in boston, the whole trial was shown live on sky news,Louise was convicted of first degree murder by a jury of her peers,then the human factor came into play the Brits put pressure on the yanks and the yanks blinked much to my delight and judge zoebell either at his own discresion or as a result of outside pressure reduced the verdict from one of first degree murder to one of bad judgement and released Louise with time served.

Next wednesday judge Claudio Pratillo Hellman is for the first time going to come face to face with Amanda Knox also in court will be Deanna and her two half sisters,at some stage the human factor is going to play a positive role,the good judge might just ignore the fat little bald would be(joseph stalin) sitting behind or infront or maybe on top of the new lead prosecuter and let four young girls leave court together to the aplause of the international press

 

[LondonJohn]

Does Colonel Garofano give a reason why he believes the luminol was over applied? Are there other reasons why there might be loss of detail in an image?

Also, this might not be an intelligent question, but why wasn't luminol applied to Meredith's bedroom floor or to the small bathroom floor?

There is some speculation that the small bathroom was sprayed down with phenolphthalein (phth, a presumptive test for blood), which is mainly based on the existence of a wide-scene photo of the small bathroom with extensive pink staining. If this is the case, then the process may well have been done incorrectly. It's extremely unusual to spray down a large area with phth - it's normally done in very small areas and photographed immediately, since the phth will turn pink immediately in reaction with blood (and some other substances), but it will also react with oxygen in the air fairly quickly to turn the same pink colour anyhow. Since there appear to be no police photographs of any phth testing in the bathroom - other than the wide view of the whole room stained pink - it would seem that phth testing (if administered) either wasn't applied correctly or didn't yield any usable results.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Do you get a commission on this stuff?

It's apparent that the Italian police didn't use BLUESTAR®.

So, you still haven't replied to my question:

"Can you affirm positively that the luminol prints aren't made in blood?"

What proof would suffice?

 

[Alt+F4]

So almost no DNA result is going to overrule the alibi evidence in a rational person's mind.

Nope. As far as we know the defense is going to intoduce the statements of Mario Alessi and Luciano Aviello in the appeal. Both of their statement implicate someone other than Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy as the killer.

The defense is conceding that Meredith could have been murdered by someone who left no DNA in Meredith's bedroom. Therefore, it could have been Amanda who left no DNA in the bedroom or Raffaele who left hardly any DNA.

 

[LondonJohn]

What proof would suffice?

And can you prove that there's NOT a small teapot in orbit around the Sun?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

What do you make of the inclusion of Alessi and Aviello in the defence's appeal submissions? Do you think the defence has something more concrete than just their testimony? Because - to me - if that's all they have, it seems like it might be a poor tactic, and one which might cloud some of the other stronger parts of the appeals.

 

[LondonJohn]

I often link this case to another case I followed about ten years ago the case of Louise Woodward a british girl of about twenty for the murder of baby Mattew Eapen in boston, the whole trial was shown live on sky news,Louise was convicted of first degree murder by a jury of her peers,then the human factor came into play the Brits put pressure on the yanks and the yanks blinked much to my delight and judge zoebell either at his own discresion or as a result of outside pressure reduced the verdict from one of first degree murder to one of bad judgement and released Louise with time served.

Next wednesday judge Claudio Pratillo Hellman is for the first time going to come face to face with Amanda Knox also in court will be Deanna and her two half sisters,at some stage the human factor is going to play a positive role,the good judge might just ignore the fat little bald would be(joseph stalin) sitting behind or infront or maybe on top of the new lead prosecuter and let four young girls leave court together to the aplause of the international press

Hmmm I think this is wishful thinking at best, and contrary to the proper application of justice at worst. Knox and Sollecito's convictions should be overturned if - and only if - the appeal court decides that the case against them has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I see no role for what you call "human factors". And invoking Stalin in reference to the prosecutor is both irrelevant and insulting.

The judicial panel should judge this case on the evidence, irrelevant of who's presenting the case on both sides. I don't know how the prosecution will perform in the appeal, but my feeling is that the defence is going to put on a far, far stronger performance in the appeal than in the first trial, and I believe that a disinterested judicial panel may very well find insufficient grounds to convict.

 

[MissWorld]

Hmmm...

You're Marge Simpson aren't you?

 

[Alt+F4]

Next wednesday judge Claudio Pratillo Hellman is for the first time going to come face to face with Amanda Knox also in court will be Deanna and her two half sisters,at some stage the human factor is going to play a positive role,the good judge might just ignore the fat little bald would be(joseph stalin) sitting behind or infront or maybe on top of the new lead prosecuter and let four young girls leave court together to the aplause of the international press

Could someone translate this into English please?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Doesn't the FOAK organisation brief anyone? And where are the old flashes in the pan? That showman lawyer who was involved in the Natalee Holloway case? Where's he now? Why didn't he continue with the pro-Amanda parade of famous people who walk on stage then promptly walk off? Was Paul Ciolino at the Vashon pig-out over the weekend? Who's going to replace the FBI agent when he burns out?

You must be very pleased these days, Kermit. Hardly anyone doubts the prosecution's case any more, and PMF/TJMK have established great credibility with the media and the public.

I suppose compassion and fairness are the keys to their success.

The only task that remains is to get the British gov't to censor media coverage of the appeal. Good luck with that one.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Why do you call it a pig-out?

Maybe he had a hunch I would be there. I made 3 passes at the dessert table and got lucky every time.

Here's an exclusive for JREF:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/free_amanda_knox_now.mp4

 

[platonov]

One trick is to tell 'em stories

You're Marge Simpson aren't you?

Close but no onion cigar

.

 

[Antony]

I often link this case to another case I followed about ten years ago the case of Louise Woodward a british girl of about twenty for the murder of baby Mattew Eapen in boston, the whole trial was shown live on sky news,Louise was convicted of first degree murder by a jury of her peers,then the human factor came into play the Brits put pressure on the yanks and the yanks blinked much to my delight and judge zoebell either at his own discresion or as a result of outside pressure reduced the verdict from one of first degree murder to one of bad judgement and released Louise with time served.

Next wednesday judge Claudio Pratillo Hellman is for the first time going to come face to face with Amanda Knox also in court will be Deanna and her two half sisters,at some stage the human factor is going to play a positive role,the good judge might just ignore the fat little bald would be(joseph stalin) sitting behind or infront or maybe on top of the new lead prosecuter and let four young girls leave court together to the aplause of the international press

I remember this; the verdict was second degree, not first degree murder if I remember correctly. The impression I had was the the judge disagreed with the verdict, and sentenced Woodward to a jail term that coincided with the amount of time she had been in jail for the trial.

This was also a case that appeared to be heavily influenced by media coverage in the run-up to the trial: for example, the parents were allowed to go on television and declare "there is no doubt Louise Woodward murdered our son" - so any claims that the Perugia media circus "couldn't happen in the US" need to be viewed in that context.

The other interesting thing about the trial is that the judge decided to announce his decision on the sentencing on the internet - the first time this method was used.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Nope. As far as we know the defense is going to intoduce the statements of Mario Alessi and Luciano Aviello in the appeal. Both of their statement implicate someone other than Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy as the killer.

The defense is conceding that the Meredith could have been murdered by someone who left no DNA in Meredith's bedroom.

I'm not sure that follows. As others have speculated it might be part of a legal strategy to get the court to order the semen stain tested, the intention being to prove that the semen is in fact Rudy's.

The appeals team might well have one or more rabbits left in their hat, but Rudy's story is sufficiently improbable that I would be very surprised indeed if any positive evidence of a fourth suspect turned up at this point. I could be persuaded, particularly if these new witnesses led police to (for example) a stash of bloody clothing and a murder weapon, but I think it very unlikely.

In any case, there's actually no reason at all why the appeals team shouldn't concede that it's conceivable that Meredith was murdered by someone who left no DNA in Meredith's bedroom. It's conceivable that Meredith was dressed, stabbed and then undressed again by the Easter Bunny while Rudy was on the loo taking a post-coital dump with his headphones on. Their job is just to show that the prosecution has not succeeded in showing proof beyond reasonable doubt that their clients did it.

Therefore, it could have been Amanda who left no DNA in the bedroom or Raffaele who left hardly any DNA.

Or both even, or both of them plus Oprah Winfrey, Vladimir Putin and Carrot Top. Why not? If absence of evidence is no longer evidence of anything then the sky's the limit. We can claim anyone did it, unless they have an ironclad alibi... heck, as we've just seen, we can still claim they did it even if they do have an ironclad alibi.

 

[Alt+F4]

Here's an exclusive for JREF:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/free_amanda_knox_now.mp4

Couldn't access it. Just got a big question mark.