Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Katody Matrass]

The court rejected Vinci's measurement because - if he took a measurement on the same picture - apparently he did so just in the picture as it is, without taking in account perspective, he didn't do any perspective correction in order to havethe points of reference shifted to a corrected position before taking his measurements.
This is why his measurement was rejected. The method was considered deceptive.

Thank you for your considerate answer Machiavelli!

I compared your exegesis with the relevant, but unfortunately short and cryptic paragraph of The Massei. Unless the PMF translation is completely wrong, and the original differs substantially from it, I think you would agree that what you wrote is much more of a guesswork than direct paraphrase of Massei.

Actually Massei wrote something that is in contradiction to your understanding. Massei clearly implied, that Vinci based his analysis on some of Rinaldi's incorrect data:

[Vinci] concluded as though the uncorrected data from the previous [Rinaldi's] report remained valid and unmodified.

Why is this absurd? Let's see:

What was this uncorrected data? Rinaldi made an error when measuring a tile on a picture taken at angle.
But wasn't it Vinci who pointed out Rinaldi's error? Vinci made his own measurement, and got the correct result independently from Rinaldi. Moreover, he conducted the perspective correction not by some unspecified Photoshop tinkering like Rinaldi, but using a sophisticated specialized software.

Massei rejects Vinci's findings on completely illogical grounds. He is very brief doing so. It resembles other problematic parts of the Motivation - when accepting against logic Quintavalle's testimony he skips over the problem with a similar swift and wide leap of absurd faith .

 

[platonov]

In her own words

I have caught....in the wind....a reprise of the nonsense about Knox and her mother being at fault for not contacting the police - either via the prison (Knox) or *ahem* via hotel receptionists (her mother) - to let them know that Lumumba was in fact innocent.

Unfortunately, those who blithely make this criticism completely fail to understand one rather important thing: if Knox had nothing to do with the crime, then how could she possibly know whether Lumumba had had anything to do with it or not? It's not as if she was actually with Lumumba during the time surrounding the murder. And even though she knew from the texts exchange that he was working in Le Chic that night, they all took place before 9pm, so she couldn't possibly know whether he'd left his bar for an hour or so, during which time he'd committed the murder.

I believe that the police told her that they "knew" Lumumba was involved, and that they also "knew" that Knox had met up with him that night (remember De Felice's unintentionally-revealing comment in the press conference?). It's therefore completely reasonable to think that Knox might have thought that the police had some concrete evidence against Lumumba, which they weren't sharing with her. It's therefore also reasonable that Knox might have concluded that the police were wrong about her involvement in the murder, but that they might be right about Lumumba's involvement.

When you throw into the mix the strong suggestion that the police (and the interpreter!) managed to convince Knox that she'd forced herself to forget the trauma of that night (which they told her was not uncommon in such circumstances), she would undoubtedly have still been extremely confused in her own mind as to what was real and what was imagined. She was therefore in no position whatsoever to tell the police that Lumumba had nothing to do with the murder - since not only could she not be sure about his non-involvement if she hadn't been involved herself, but she also clearly doubted her own mind over the whole issue of what actually happened.

It must be a very slow moving wind *

Your argument/post [blithely or otherwise] completely fails to understand one rather important thing - this issue was dealt with in the trial while AK was on the stand, she was questioned directly about it by Lumumba's lawyer.

She failed to adequately deal with the issue i.e. How she could tell her mother on the 10th that PL was innocent but fail to tell the cops or magistrates between then and the 30th (or indeed previously but the court didn't focus on this).
IIRC her lawyer Ghirga had to interrupt continuously while she kept reverting back to her 'gift' and not trusting ILE and Massei decided to move on.

Again why can't AK be allowed to speak for herself on these 'troubling' issues. The court listened to her, they prefer to hear from the defendants 1st hand. [Perhaps thats why she is in prison today]

* AK's testimony on this was 18 mths ago.

 

[quadraginta]

Really?

Exaggerate much?

If you were to assert that the video provides evidence of circumstances where contamination might have occurred I'd stand behind you all the way. Thanks to Halides1 we can be assured that such circumstances always exist, though, so this is not particularly useful information.

You seem to be claiming that you can actually see DNA being transferred from one surface to another in that video. I'm afraid that I have to view this claim with a bit more skepticism.


One way could have been by Sollecito grabbing hold of it. Exactly when that may have happened is a different question.

How would Sollecito (or anyone, for that matter) be able to grab the hook of the clasp while the bra was still being worn. The hooks are covered by material. All the evidence suggests that whoever removed the bra tried to simply pull it apart by grabbing the material either side of the clasp area. The bending of the hook supports this. And, as Charlie has mentioned, it may well be that the material near the clasp actually tore free, rather than being cut free. If so, this lends even more weight to the theory that someone pulled very hard on the rear material near to the shoulder straps (making the hook bend), but that the material ripped before the hooks failed.

Anyhow, regardless of whether the bra tore apart or was cut apart, there's no reason why anyone would have been placing their fingers onto the hooks themselves. If they had indeed bothered to lift up the flap of material to expose the hooks, they would have seen how the hooks engaged, and would have removed the bra in the conventional way - by pushing the two sides together to disengage the hooks. The very fact that the bra was instead either ripped or cut open strongly indicates that whoever removed it never got as far as examining the hooks.

My response to Antony's post primarily addressed his assertion that it was possible to actually see DNA contamination occurring in the video, as opposed to arguably inadequate technique. You do not seem to be offering any comment on the idea that DNA can be seen being transferred from one surface to another in that video.

Do you think you can see DNA being transferred in the video?

He also asked for a way for DNA to have been transferred to the bra clasp during the course of the crime, intimating that no such mechanism could exist. I offered one way in which it "could" have happened. Your own use of qualifiers suggests that although you personally consider it an unlikely scenario (argument from incredulity) you are unwilling to discount the possibility entirely, which is no more than I did.

So what is your point?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Contamination has no meaning legally and logically in the process of evidence assessment. And moreover, the cocept of "taken into custody" is not arbitrarily defined by bloggers, not automatically established and not established in one simplistic term like that, neither has any compelling automatic legal effect.

My sources are, obviously, not Stefanoni alone - algthough you have no ground to assert she is no good source - but simply all existing sources, all people who dealt with the crime scene, and an inference made from all findings.

There is no actual argumentative content in this post.

You merely make some totally unsubstantiated and purely semantic claims which are not even clearly relevant, and then make a totally unsubstantiated claim to personal authority based upon unstated and uncited "sources"

 

[Katody Matrass]

Of course there was controversy. Criminal trials are by design adversarial. The prosecution presents their case, the defense presents their case, the jury deliberates the evidence and renders a verdict. In what criminal prosecution hasn't there been controversy?

Apparently you don't understand what the controversy is in this case. It's strange considering you post in this thread for quite a long time. Either you are very forgetful or you're not interested in a honest exchange of thoughts.

I have. I don't agree with all of Massei opinions/rational but it's not my opinion that matters.

You disagree with the court findings, not opinions. Your reconstruction assumes court made error as to ToD and wrongly accepted Curatolo's and Nara's testimony. Your reconstruction is so far also inconsistent with objective facts like phone and computer records.
It could be still refined though

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Is it deliberate contamination, accidential contamination, planted evidence or simply not his DNA at all? Why is it that those who believe in AK and RS's innocence can't decide on one theory?

If there are multiple problems with a given piece of evidence, and multiple ways in which it could be justifiably discarded as evidence, that just means that it's a really terrible piece of evidence.

Otherwise police could make anything evidence simply by making sure they always screw up their evidence procedures in at least two ways, instead of just one. "We wiped this on our backsides, then we rolled it around on the ground, then we took it away on the quiet and did things with it before returning it to its bag, and then we misrepresented the meaning of the DNA test in court... so it must be right! After all, the defence can't decide on a single way we screwed it up!".

Same thing with it comes to the large knife. Was Amanda's DNA planted on the knife, did the lab use the instruments incorrectly (....again deliberately or accidentially) or was her DNA never on the handle to begin it?

When did anyone ever claim that the finding of Amanda's DNA on the knife was dodgy? Cite please.

As for the DNA on the bra clasp why does it seem to be so hard to prove contamination? If it happened it happened either at the crime scene or at the lab. It seems unlikey it would have happened at the crime scene because where would his DNA have come from inside the apartment in the first place? If it happened at the lab, just show chain of custody when the bra clasp would have come in contact with something else that would have had his DNA on it.

It works the other way around. It's the prosecution's job to show that the evidence was handled impeccably. It's not the defence's job to prove exactly how the lab screwed it up, especially if there are multiple points at which they could have screwed it up that we know about.

Add to that RS's appeal which states that it's not his DNA on the bra clasp but if it is...it's there due to contamination.

Is there some sort of rule in Italian jurisprudence that says you are only allowed to attack one screw-up per item of evidence, or is this something you just made up now?

 

[Kaosium]

It must be a very slow moving wind *

Your argument/post [blithely or otherwise] completely fails to understand one rather important thing - this issue was dealt with in the trial while AK was on the stand, she was questioned directly about it by Lumumba's lawyer.

She failed to adequately deal with the issue i.e. How she could tell her mother on the 10th that PL was innocent but fail to tell the cops or magistrates between then and the 30th.
IIRC her lawyer Ghirga had to interrupt continuously while she kept reverting back to her 'gift' and not trusting ILE and Massei decided to move on.

Again why cant AK be allowed to speak for herself on these 'troubling' issues. The court listened to her, again they prefer to hear from the defendants 1st hand. [Perhaps thats why she is in prison today]

* AK testimony on this was 18 mths ago.

Who could honestly believe that the Perugian police would care in the slightest what she said about it anyway?

 

[platonov]

Who could honestly believe that the Perugian police would care in the slightest what she said about it anyway?

That might work for you but not for the court or indeed AK - they cared enough to arrest PL.
If you are ever in court and use that excuse you will catch a very severe cold.

.

 

[LondonJohn]

My response to Antony's post primarily addressed his assertion that it was possible to actually see DNA contamination occurring in the video, as opposed to arguably inadequate technique. You do not seem to be offering any comment on the idea that DNA can be seen being transferred from one surface to another in that video.

Do you think you can see DNA being transferred in the video?

He also asked for a way for DNA to have been transferred to the bra clasp during the course of the crime, intimating that no such mechanism could exist. I offered one way in which it "could" have happened. Your own use of qualifiers suggests that although you personally consider it an unlikely scenario (argument from incredulity) you are unwilling to discount the possibility entirely, which is no more than I did.

So what is your point?

I would have thought it was obvious that I was responding to the last line of your post, when you speculated about how and when Sollecito might have deposited his DNA onto the bra clasp through primary contact. But you're very astute to notice that I indeed offered no comment on whether I could actually see DNA being transferred to the hook on the bra clasp while it was being handled.

Since you asked me now, though, I'd say firstly that you're being facetious in claiming that Antony was referring to being able to see the actual double-helix strands of DNA themselves passing between gloved and bra clasp. And, that having been said, I'd broadly agree with Antony that the amount of direct contact with the metal parts of the bra clasp (including, unbelievably, rubbing at one point....) means that anything that was subsequently discovered on that metal hook cannot fail to be viewed with anything other than suspicion about its evidential value.

By the way, if Sollecito's fingers really did make contact with the tiny metal hook on the clasp, this would clearly imply that he'd handled the bra in other areas while trying to either access the clasp mechanism or trying to pull the strap apart. Maybe you can help explain why Sollecito's DNA wasn't therefore found on any other part of the bra or the clasp area. Would you suggest that the forensics team were negligent in not finding it? Or would you suggest that Sollecito managed to deposit DNA on a smooth metal clasp but not on the rough (and far more receptive-to-DNA) material of the bra?

 

[Machiavelli]

There is no actual argumentative content in this post.

You merely make some totally unsubstantiated and purely semantic claims which are not even clearly relevant, and then make a totally unsubstantiated claim to personal authority based upon unstated and uncited "sources"

Personal authority and appeals to sources are absent in my post, so you are wrong on this point.
The argument put by Chris is indeed purely semantic, and deserves a purely semantic definition as response.

The relevant fact about Sollecito's DNA is there is no explanation about why Sollecito's DNA was on the bra clasp. Those who give a reasoned explanations are those who claim it was planted. Ths agument itself is consistent, it is a logically substantiated reason, but it is unsupported, in conflict with reality, and will be always defeated.

But questioning whether "there was contamination or not" is, in the first instance, a concealed appeal to authority (logically it is just a kind of reverse appeal to authority, an appeal to a doctrine about concepts of authority, trust and burden*), merely the proposed point consists in just a semantic lable, to be used as a tool in an argument.

(*note by the way, also that "contamination" itself is defined by Halides not just as a fact, but on the concept of "custody", which is a principle in the scope of philosophy of law, related to concepts like "responsability", "possess", "consequence" etc., so a legal and doctrine-related word)

 

[LondonJohn]

It must be a very slow moving wind *

Your argument/post [blithely or otherwise] completely fails to understand one rather important thing - this issue was dealt with in the trial while AK was on the stand, she was questioned directly about it by Lumumba's lawyer.

She failed to adequately deal with the issue i.e. How she could tell her mother on the 10th that PL was innocent but fail to tell the cops or magistrates between then and the 30th (or indeed previously but the court didn't focus on this).
IIRC her lawyer Ghirga had to interrupt continuously while she kept reverting back to her 'gift' and not trusting ILE and Massei decided to move on.

Again why can't AK be allowed to speak for herself on these 'troubling' issues. The court listened to her, they prefer to hear from the defendants 1st hand. [Perhaps thats why she is in prison today]

* AK's testimony on this was 18 mths ago.

What exactly did Knox tell her mother in the bugged prison conversation of 10th November about Lumumba's innocence? I'd be grateful if you could remind me, since you refer to it directly.

 

[Katody Matrass]

And WHY was Amanda's lamp in Meredith's room? Only reason I can imagine is to help with the cleanup!

How about Meredith borrowed it before Halloween to make interestingly lighted photos of her costume or because she needed more light when applying her vampire make up.

That's two explanations, other are possible.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

You seem to be claiming that you can actually see DNA being transferred from one surface to another in that video. I'm afraid that I have to view this claim with a bit more skepticism

Clutching at straws. You don't have to be able to see the DNA in order to know that the sample is almost inevitably being contaminated in these shots. Along with uncertain physical contamination comes certainty of contamination of its status as meaningful evidence.

<snip>

There is no clutching. I see you are backing away from your original assertion, and now you are now instead making the claim that because some sort of contamination might have occurred then a certain, very specific contamination must have occurred.

The one does not follow from the other.

Judging from the relative paucity of identifiable DNA samples which were actually recovered from the apartment I'd have to think that the investigators could feasibly handle any number of objects in there without necessarily contaminating a particular sample.

Why are you so insistent on defending your position of near certainty, which is untenable? I said in my original post that I supported claims of possible contamination.

 

[katy_did]

Actually Massei wrote something that is in contradiction to your understanding. Massei clearly implied, that Vinci based his analysis on some of Rinaldi's incorrect data:

Why is this absurd? Let's see:

What was this uncorrected data? Rinaldi made an error when measuring a tile on a picture taken at angle.
But wasn't it Vinci who pointed out Rinaldi's error? Vinci made his own measurement, and got the correct result independently from Rinaldi. Moreover, he conducted the perspective correction not by some unspecified Photoshop tinkering like Rinaldi, but using a sophisticated specialized software.

Massei rejects Vinci's findings on completely illogical grounds. He is very brief doing so. It resembles other problematic parts of the Motivation - when accepting against logic Quintavalle's testimony he skips over the problem with a similar swift and wide leap of absurd faith .

I was just reading through the two Rinaldi reports, and I think they must have been written before the police were aware that the photo of the tile they were using was distorted, as they give the height measurement of the tile as 169mm. The photo of the luminol print is very obviously a lot shorter than Raffaele's foot, and even 127mm is pretty generous - they must've measured right to the end of the smudged luminol glow, not to where the big toe appears to end.

And yet, even though they believed the length of the print to be just 127mm, they still attributed it to Sollecito! The way they did it is just to leave that measurement off the diagram, and only included the ones that fit (a vertical measurement of 189mm which is 193mm on Sollecito's foot, and another vertical measurement of 65mm which is 66mm on his foot. And that creates its own problems, since surely those measurements would have no longer matched after the elongation of the print?). I think the defence actually do mention this in the appeals - that the police attributed a print to Sollecito of only 127mm - but I hadn't quite realized the significance of it, and exactly why the defence were complaining.

The police believed the print to be nearly 2cm shorter than Raffaele's foot, and yet they still wrote a report stating an opinion of "probable identity" between that print and Raffaele's right foot. That's nuts.

 

[Chris C]

Withnail told me to say that we've all seen what happened. The Keystone Kops trashed the place then played pass the parcel with the 'evidence'.

No amount of verbosity from 'Machiavelli' is going to change those basic facts.

Keystone Cops or the Reno 911 Cops?

 

[Mary_H]

It must be a very slow moving wind *

Your argument/post [blithely or otherwise] completely fails to understand one rather important thing - this issue was dealt with in the trial while AK was on the stand, she was questioned directly about it by Lumumba's lawyer.

She failed to adequately deal with the issue i.e. How she could tell her mother on the 10th that PL was innocent but fail to tell the cops or magistrates between then and the 30th (or indeed previously but the court didn't focus on this).
IIRC her lawyer Ghirga had to interrupt continuously while she kept reverting back to her 'gift' and not trusting ILE and Massei decided to move on.

Again why can't AK be allowed to speak for herself on these 'troubling' issues. The court listened to her, they prefer to hear from the defendants 1st hand. [Perhaps thats why she is in prison today]

* AK's testimony on this was 18 mths ago.

You start with the wrong premise, p, which is no doubt what LJ is getting at by asking you for a citation.

Amanda did not tell her mother Patrick was innocent.

And Kaosium is right. Nobody cared what Amanda OR her mother would have to say about Patrick at that time.

If they had, all they would have to do was listen to the taped conversation.

 

[Katody Matrass]

The relevant fact about Sollecito's DNA is there is no explanation about why Sollecito's DNA was on the bra clasp. Those who give a reasoned explanations are those who claim it was planted. Ths agument itself is consistent, it is a logically substantiated reason, but it is unsupported, in conflict with reality, and will be always defeated.

You chose the easier argument and forgot about the other possibility.

It is possible and in fact probable that the DNA was transferred either during the 18 Dec investigators revisit or during the trashing of the room at some unspecified time earlier.
e.g. there was Raffaele's DNA in other parts of the house, it was tracked into the room and the bra clasp was trampled or kicked around with contaminated shoes.

 

[Chris C]

Uhhhhh, Mary, may I observe...

Unlike USA trials, Judge Massei 'cared enough' to spend 3 months writing 427 pages to tell you and the rest of the world precisely how and why the Jurors unanimously concluded that 'they did it'.

Fully cognizant of how much of the current 'arguing' here has been reduced to only 'innocenters' offering 'atta boys' to each other, never the less, your argument above is unusually not only inaccurate and disrespectful, but absolutely illogical.

Thats because he had to say she was guilty for 427 pages in hopes that if someone read the entire report they might believe it.

 

[Kaosium]

That might work for you but not for the court or indeed AK - they cared enough to arrest PL.
If you are ever in court and use that excuse you will catch a very severe cold.

.

The police arrested Lumumba, after telling Amanda they had 'hard evidence' of him being at the murder scene. They aren't about to release him on her say-so either. Twenty year-old girls don't really manipulate the arrests and releases of murder suspects, especially when that information comes from being interrogated by a minimum of twelve police officers wanting to get her 'repressed memories' of the murder.

The police bear the responsibility of the arrest of Patrick Lumumba and the delay of his release, long after numerous witnesses corroborated his alibi. The scapegoating of Amanda over this is yet another strike against the Perugian police and belies the credulity of the people who believed it.

 

[platonov]

Where's the gratitude

What exactly did Knox tell her mother in the bugged prison conversation of 10th November about Lumumba's innocence? I'd be grateful if you could remind me, since you refer to it directly.

Cite

I have already reminded you of how her own testimony completely contradicts your post -where's the gratitude ??


Why don't you correct your post in light of her testimony and you may be able to figure it out in the process - or do you not accept even AK's own word on the fact that it happened.

You guys really are more skeptical of her than Perugia PD were.
.