Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

So, it's finally the day of the start of the first appeal - although it seems very unlikely that anything significant will happen today. It's interesting to read that Sollecito's university professors may have helped with the analysis of his laptop which might prove to be very important.

Discovery Channel is heavily trailing its "Who killed Meredith Kercher?" 1-hour special which airs tomorrow at 10pm here in UK. Although the narrator of the trailer pronounces Meredith's surname as "Kersher" - I expect he'll get sent abusive emails before long....

 

[LondonJohn]

I have a feeling that in the first trial, the defence lawyers didn't fully grasp the significance of the time of death. I think they may have not seen the full value in challenging Mignini's ever-later ToD, which culminated in a unchallenged ToD (which was accepted by the court) of around 11.45pm.

And I suspect that this is why they didn't focus much on those parts of the computer evidence which they knew at the time of the first trial - the activity at 9.10pm and 9.26pm. In other words, I think they simply didn't think that evidence pertaining to this part of the evening was relevant, in the light of the prosecution's claims of an 11pm+ ToD.

And the reason that I think they may have acquiesced too easily was that they didn't realise the significance of the autopsy stomach/duodenum contents, and how they related to ToD. They should - in my view - have realised that the autopsy findings showed that Meredith most likely died before 9.30pm, and almost certainly before 10pm. And then they could have brought the computer evidence back into play, since clearly it would now be highly relevant.

And this brings me to an important point: I don't think that either Bongiorno (for Sollecito) or Dalla Vedova (for Knox) knew where to look for the most effective and impressive expert witnesses. I don't think Bongiorno had ever tried a murder before, and Dalla Vedova certainly hadn't. They were therefore almost certainly unfamiliar with the community of medical experts (national and international) - a subject with which a defence lawyer with plenty of experience of murder trials would have extensive knowledge. It's often stated (as "fact") that Knox and Sollecito got "the best defence money can buy", but I think that in the area of medical experts (and computer experts for that matter) Bongiorno and Dalla Vedova did not choose well in the first trial. And in the area of medical expertise, I feel certain that internationally-renowned pathologists could and should have been found who would have clearly stated that Meredith probably died by 9.30pm and almost certainly by 10pm.

BTW, I see that some people elsewhere are still unwilling to accept the position held by some of us here regarding Meredith's ToD without it being validated by the medical community. Well, not only HAS it been validated by medical professionals, it's also entirely consistent with all the available medical and academic literature on the subject. What I want to know is why nobody has managed to produce a medical professional or medical/academic paper which refutes our position. I can only conclude that some people have looked hard and failed to find anything.

 

[Alt+F4]

THEY PLANTED SOME

Really? Not mentioned in either appeal, not mentioned by their families, not mentioned by any of their English speaking supporters I've come accross except for you and Justianian2.

Might I ask the posters who support Amanda's innocence if they think the reason why the pair was convicted was due to planted evidence?

 

[odeed]

I agree. This is why luminol testing can be extremely useful in detecting crime-scene clean-ups. Even if blood is wiped up (assuming that no bleach is used), very dilute blood will almost always still be left. This blood is invisible to the naked eye, but shows up under luminol. Had there been a clean-up of the hallway, Meredith's room or the small bathroom, one would not expect to see identifiable footprints with luminol; instead one would expect to see wiping/smearing patterns - invisible to the naked eye - caused by the removal of visible blood with a mop or rag. In the case of a tiled floor, one would also expect luminol to expose dilute blood in the grouting between the tiles.

The apparent fact that none of the expected signs of a clean-up were revealed by the luminol testing in the girls' house isn't of course conclusive evidence that a clean-up didn't happen. But at the very least, it suggests that the clean up was extraordinarily thorough in those areas of the floor where it took place. And this is totally at odds with the general condition of the floor, the discovery of uncleaned footprints with luminol, and the bloody partial print apparently left on the bathmat. For those reasons, I think one can reasonably suppose that no clean-up of the crime scene took place in that house.

The first photo http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/fotogallery/fotogallery3634.shtml?1 shows luminol reaction in the grouting between the tiles.

The second photo http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/fotogallery/fotogallery3634.shtml?2 shows a footprint on the right (possible second print just to the left of it), with what looks like a pattern of smearing or wiping on the left of the picture.

 

[Alt+F4]

The first photo http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/fotogallery/fotogallery3634.shtml?1 shows luminol reaction in the grouting between the tiles.

The second photo http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/fotogallery/fotogallery3634.shtml?2 shows a footprint on the right (possible second print just to the left of it), with what looks like a pattern of smearing or wiping on the left of the picture.

I haven't seen these photos before, thanks for the link. One is disturbing (the foot) but I don't believe most have been seen in the English speaking mass media before.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Really? Not mentioned in either appeal, not mentioned by their families, not mentioned by any of their English speaking supporters I've come accross except for you and Justianian2.

Might I ask the posters who support Amanda's innocence if they think the reason why the pair was convicted was due to planted evidence?

That's a bit of a trick question. It would require time travel and mind-reading to know what convinced the judges to convict, and what they ignored or saw as less relevant.

It's also impossible to tell if any evidence was planted for certain.

All you can say is that the circumstances surrounding some evidence raises certain suspicions. For example Stefanoni making a highly unusual trip in person to the crime scene weeks after the initial forensic examination, when the prosecution had nailed its colours to the mast but then discovered itself critically lacking evidence to back up its theory, and miraculously discovering just the piece of evidence the prosecution needed when she analysed her finds back at her lab, is the sort of event that makes one raise one's eyebrows.

It could have been simple contamination, from a lab which is so sloppy about proper precautions that it doesn't even keep a log of contamination events. However it's just so convenient for the prosecution and fits so poorly with any plausible theory of the crime (Why would someone be pulling on the bra hooks, when the bra was cut off with a knife?) that it does make me suspicious, especially given some of Stefanoni's incredibly ignorant or blatantly mendacious statements about the interpretation of DNA evidence which lead me to suspect that she puts getting a conviction ahead of professional integrity.

We know nothing for certain, however, and a sufficiently idiotic judicial panel might have convicted Raffaele even without the bra hook "evidence", purely on the basis of the footprint "evidence" or just because they could hardly convict Amanda without convicting him as well.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Really? Not mentioned in either appeal, not mentioned by their families, not mentioned by any of their English speaking supporters I've come accross except for you and Justianian2.

Might I ask the posters who support Amanda's innocence if they think the reason why the pair was convicted was due to planted evidence?

I think it's possible the bra fastener was tampered with. If so, it would probably have been done quietly by one individual who told no one. But it could just as easily be a fluke.

Other than that, they don't have good evidence, so it's hard to argue that they planted any.

I do think their carelessness in handling swabs accounts for the traces of Amanda and Meredith allegedly found on the floor of Filomena's room, but it wasn't intentional.

 

[platonov]

Lionel Hutz & Nick Riviera in the case of the 'bad court thingy'

A I have a feeling that in the first trial, the defence lawyers didn't fully grasp the significance of the time of death. I think they may have not seen the full value in challenging Mignini's ever-later ToD, which culminated in a unchallenged ToD (which was accepted by the court) of around 11.45pm.

B And I suspect that this is why they didn't focus much on those parts of the computer evidence which they knew at the time of the first trial - the activity at 9.10pm and 9.26pm. In other words, I think they simply didn't think that evidence pertaining to this part of the evening was relevant, in the light of the prosecution's claims of an 11pm+ ToD.

C And the reason that I think they may have acquiesced too easily was that they didn't realise the significance of the autopsy stomach/duodenum contents, and how they related to ToD. They should - in my view - have realised that the autopsy findings showed that Meredith most likely died before 9.30pm, and almost certainly before 10pm. And then they could have brought the computer evidence back into play, since clearly it would now be highly relevant.

D And this brings me to an important point: I don't think that either Bongiorno (for Sollecito) or Dalla Vedova (for Knox) knew where to look for the most effective and impressive expert witnesses. I don't think Bongiorno had ever tried a murder before, and Dalla Vedova certainly hadn't. They were therefore almost certainly unfamiliar with the community of medical experts (national and international) - a subject with which a defence lawyer with plenty of experience of murder trials would have extensive knowledge. It's often stated (as "fact") that Knox and Sollecito got "the best defence money can buy", but I think that in the area of medical experts (and computer experts for that matter) Bongiorno and Dalla Vedova did not choose well in the first trial. And in the area of medical expertise, I feel certain that internationally-renowned pathologists could and should have been found who would have clearly stated that Meredith probably died by 9.30pm and almost certainly by 10pm.

BTW, I see that some people elsewhere are still unwilling to accept the position held by some of us here regarding Meredith's ToD without it being validated by the medical community. Well, not only HAS it been validated by medical professionals, it's also entirely consistent with all the available medical and academic literature on the subject. What I want to know is why nobody has managed to produce a medical professional or medical/academic paper which refutes our position. I can only conclude that some people have looked hard and failed to find anything.

So the defense lawyers ....

A didn't fully grasp the significance of the time of death - Naturally, what possible relevance could it have ?

B didn't focus much on a possible computer alibi - Indeed, why would lawyers be concerned with an aibi ?

C See A - the main forensic ToD evidence is of no importance obviously given point A.

D didn't know [or didn't know who to ask] where they might find expert witnesses for one of the best publicized trials in county in recent years - Being both dumb & blind, poorly funded and not speaking the local language !

And after putting forward the above arguments you are curious why your amateur ToD findings arrived at without access to the autopsy data are not being challenged by detailed arguments from medical professionals.
The Lancet must be pressed for space - I can think of no other reasons !

But on this point ; As it happens your ToD findings [early & precise ! ] have been challenged & dismissed without ceremony on this site by mere laymen.

It was not difficult as they are on a par with ..

- the bathroom hokey-cokey theory ( recently updated & improved to allow for the existence of showers )
- Kevin Lowes broken window perplexity
- the recent piece of statistical analysis which showed that the more evidence is adduced the weaker the case is.
- etc
- etc etc etc

PS I'll need those shoes before Thursday.

.

 

[Chris C]

The first photo http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/fotogallery/fotogallery3634.shtml?1 shows luminol reaction in the grouting between the tiles.

The second photo http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/fotogallery/fotogallery3634.shtml?2 shows a footprint on the right (possible second print just to the left of it), with what looks like a pattern of smearing or wiping on the left of the picture.

Why wasn't the grout removed then? Could it be for the same reason the knife wasn't taken apart?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

many possibilities but little data

Really? Not mentioned in either appeal, not mentioned by their families, not mentioned by any of their English speaking supporters I've come accross except for you and Justianian2.

Might I ask the posters who support Amanda's innocence if they think the reason why the pair was convicted was due to planted evidence?

Alt+F4,

I think that the scientific police acted strangely when they collected the bra clasp. However, it is very difficult to prove that tampering occurred. I still think that contamination or secondary transfer suffices to explain the bra clasp and Meredith's profile on the knife.

 

[Mary_H]

So the defense lawyers ....

A didn't fully grasp the significance of the time of death - Naturally, what possible relevance could it have ?

B didn't focus much on a possible computer alibi - Indeed, why would lawyers be concerned with an aibi ?

C See A - the main forensic ToD evidence is of no importance obviously given point A.

D didn't know [or didn't know who to ask] where they might find expert witnesses for one of the best publicized trials in county in recent years - Being both dumb & blind, poorly funded and not speaking the local language !

And after putting forward the above arguments you are curious why your amateur ToD findings arrived at without access to the autopsy data are not being challenged by detailed arguments from medical professionals.
The Lancet must be pressed for space - I can think of no other reasons !

But on this point ; As it happens your ToD findings [early & precise ! ] have been challenged & dismissed without ceremony on this site by mere laymen.

It was not difficult as they are on a par with ..

- the bathroom hokey-cokey theory ( recently updated & improved to allow for the existence of showers )
- Kevin Lowes broken window perplexity
- the recent piece of statistical analysis which showed that the more evidence is adduced the weaker the case is.
- etc
- etc etc etc

PS I'll need those shoes before Thursday.

.

Given the Italian three-trial system and the news/entertainment value of this case, it was unlikely that the defendants would have been acquitted at the first trial regardless of the prosecution's claims or the defense's rebuttals. It's somewhat pointless to try to analyze the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of defense arguments when the prosecution's case was utterly ridiculous, unfounded and shouldn't even have made it into a courtroom.

It's amazing how strongly a cultural assumption such as "It simply isn't done" can affect people's minds. If it simply isn't done that accused murderers in Italy are acquitted at the conclusions of their first trials, then it simply isn't done.

That was the big surprise for Amanda and Raffaele's supporters last December. We had to adjust. Hopefully, by this time, the Perugian judges have adjusted to the fact that science is more valid than politics, and that much more of the world is watching.

 

[Mary_H]

Really? Not mentioned in either appeal, not mentioned by their families, not mentioned by any of their English speaking supporters I've come accross except for you and Justianian2.

Might I ask the posters who support Amanda's innocence if they think the reason why the pair was convicted was due to planted evidence?

I have stated that I believe evidence was planted. My sense of it, though, is more along the lines of paperwork having been faked, by getting results for the suspects' DNA and claiming that DNA was found wherever. That would be more efficient than actually placing the suspect's DNA on an object and then testing the object.

I don't believe the pair were convicted due to planted evidence. I believe they were convicted because the jury panel favored the prosecution's case before they went into the courtroom and had no plans to change their minds.

 

[platonov]

Further adjustment is required

Given the Italian three-trial system and the news/entertainment value of this case, it was unlikely that the defendants would have been acquitted at the first trial regardless of the prosecution's claims or the defense's rebuttals. It's somewhat pointless to try to analyze the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of defense arguments when the prosecution's case was utterly ridiculous, unfounded and shouldn't even have made it into a courtroom.

It's amazing how strongly a cultural assumption such as "It simply isn't done" can affect people's minds. If it simply isn't done that accused murderers in Italy are acquitted at the conclusions of their first trials, then it simply isn't done.

That was the big surprise for Amanda and Raffaele's supporters last December. We had to adjust. Hopefully, by this time, the Perugian judges have adjusted to the fact that science is more valid than politics, and that much more of the world is watching.

Your theory that all murder trials in Italy produce a guilty verdict in the 'court of first instance' due to the nature of the system is highly original.

Nevertheless I don't like walking barefoot, much like one of the suspects in this case, so the 'before Thursday' ruling stands.

.

 

[Mary_H]

Several different things I didn't understand from that post:

1. Why is a drawing Amanda did in prison labeled as "Exhibit no 2", Frank is making it seem like this drawing was presented as evidence.

Maybe he is saying it has been used as evidence against Amanda in the media, and media evidence has been as effective as courtroom evidence.

2. Why is he saying that the search for truth in a criminal case is a philosophical problem?

Maybe he is being ironic, offering the prosecution's point of view, which seems in large part to disdain scientific proof.

3. Frank states that, "Patrizia Stefanoni, scientific icon of the case, became the most hated figure for all Amanda’s supporters". Where has anyone ever said she was "hated"? Those who think Amanda is innocent have said that she is wrong, but hated? No, that's just a lie.

I'm not sure a lot of supporters waste time hating anybody, but some of us certainly hate what Mignini, Stefanoni and others have done and what they seem to stand for.

4. What does this mean?
Is Frank saying he has proof that evidence was planted?

He is asking.

 

[Mary_H]

Your theory that all murder trials in Italy produce a guilty verdict in the 'court of first instance' due to the nature of the system is highly original.

Not really.

Nevertheless I don't like walking barefoot, much like one of the suspects in this case, so the 'before Thursday' ruling stands.

.

I am sure this comment and your previous one, "PS I'll need those shoes before Thursday," have some meaning to you, but they are lost on me.

 

[treehorn]

Now THAT is what I call comic timing.

Yes. Almost as funny as your sudden abandonment of "evidence-based argument" in respect of the ease of displacement of alimentary matter within the human intestine during autopsy, "doctor."

You've been dodging me since early October - why?

 

[Onofarar]

Actually, it is unknown when the substance was deposited, which is why (they say) it wasn't tested.

Actually it is probable that the stain was deposited the night of the crime. Remember, MK was the clean freak (at least relative to AK) and she had just started a load of laundry that afternoon or early evening. Do you think she would not include in her laundry a stained pillowcase? If she was doing a load of "coloreds" and not "whites" then at the least she would remove the stained linen and replace it. Thus an inference can be made that the stain occurred after the laundry was started. When was it made that night? - The most probable time would be during Meredith's fight for her life (or thereafter if a sick sexual act/assault was made on Meredith while she lay dying).

Testing the stain would of course eliminate much of the speculation here and elsewhere. Why would a court "searching for the truth" not require a test of the stain?

 

[treehorn]

...
The Lancet must be pressed for space - I can think of no other reasons !

Haven't you heard? India is the new hotbed of world-class medical research: The Indian Journal of Pharmacology is "The New NEJM."

 

[Chris C]

I have stated that I believe evidence was planted. My sense of it, though, is more along the lines of paperwork having been faked, by getting results for the suspects' DNA and claiming that DNA was found wherever. That would be more efficient than actually placing the suspect's DNA on an object and then testing the object.

I don't believe the pair were convicted due to planted evidence. I believe they were convicted because the jury panel favored the prosecution's case before they went into the courtroom and had no plans to change their minds.

You will never know if evidence was planted, using paperwork, unless they release the data tapes.

 

[Chris C]

Yes. Almost as funny as your sudden abandonment of "evidence-based argument" in respect of the ease of displacement of alimentary matter within the human intestine during autopsy, "doctor."

You've been dodging me since early October - why?

the small intestine is 18 to 21 feet long. There was no evidence presented at trial that the coroner worked the food down the small intestines. There was no evidence presented at trial that the food that was found in the small intestines was in the incorrect part of the small intestines. That could be easily determined by analyzing what was found in the intestines.