Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[shuttlt]

A good example of how to do it right is the Annie Le murder at Yale. The cops "knew" who did it from day one because the guy had to swipe a card every time he entered a given room, and it documented an unusual pattern of activity. They were getting complaints that they weren't being open enough, the public needs to know if a murderer is running loose, etc. It's easy to yield to that pressure. But they didn't. They watched the guy so he couldn't flee or commit any further crimes, and they waited until they had the forensic results. Then they arrested him and made the announcement.

Had they arrested him at an early stage he would still have been just as guilty. Also, presumably if they felt they had to interrogate him to progress the inquiry then they would have behaved differently.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Are we dealing with a case where the cops targeted the wrong people?

Yes. 1 already proven, 2 others still disputed, but on the way to exoneration

But, finding a case that is like this case, assuming Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, doesn't tell you much in and of itself about the likelihood of Amanda and Raffaele being innocent. Perhaps this case is actually much more like a case where the cops zero in on the right guy/girl etc.

You don't have to assume they are innocent. The similarities are still valid.
It is an objective fact there was a false confession and a false accusation. It is objective fact a true killer was traced while the initially arrested were in custody without valid evidence. It's a fact that additional searches were ordered to get some evidence that would keep them in jail. Theory that they did it together was pushed despite no evidence of any connection between them and Rudy Guede.

Finally that theory hangs on so many assumptions, doubtful evidence, leaps of faith and inprobabilities that it makes it hardly competitive against the simple and common scenario in which Guede did it alone and incompetent cops made a mistake. Such scenario is much more coherent, comprehensive and explains everything much better.

 

[shuttlt]

Yes. 1 already proven, 2 others still disputed, but on the way to exoneration

You don't have to assume they are innocent. The similarities are still valid.
It is an objective fact there was a false confession and a false accusation.

When I left I don't think it was the done thing for pro-innocence people to call it a confession. Endless posts were dedicated to arguing the point mainly I think on the grounds that it was couched in dreamlike language and shouldn't be seen as having, or having been intended to have, any basis in real events. Some things at least have changed. If we ignore the parts about them being innocent/guilty then I am happy to agree that there are similarities.

It is objective fact a true killer was traced while the initially arrested were in custody without valid evidence. It's a fact that additional searches were ordered to get some evidence that would keep them in jail. Theory that they did it together was pushed despite no evidence of any connection between them and Rudy Guede.

I'm probably quibbling, but it isn't true to say that there was no connection. The connection was just minor.

Finally that theory hangs on so many assumptions, doubtful evidence, leaps of faith and inprobabilities that it makes it hardly competitive against the simple and common scenario in which Guede did it alone and incompetent cops made a mistake. Such scenario is much more coherent, comprehensive and explains everything much better.

Clearly that is disputed.

 

[Withnail1969]

When I left I don't think it was the done thing for pro-innocence people to call it a confession. Endless posts were dedicated to arguing the point mainly I think on the grounds that it was couched in dreamlike language and shouldn't be seen as having, or having been intended to have, any basis in real events. Some things at least have changed. If we ignore the parts about them being innocent/guilty then I am happy to agree that there are similarities.


I'm probably quibbling, but it isn't true to say that there was no connection. The connection was just minor.


Clearly that is disputed.

If you actually try reading the extremely bizarre 'Massei report' you may find yourself starting to think something is wrong with the case against Amanda and Raff. That's certainly the journey myself and others here have been on.

 

[shuttlt]

If you actually try reading the extremely bizarre 'Massei report' you may find yourself starting to think something is wrong with the case against Amanda and Raff. That's certainly the journey myself and others here have been on.

It's a long old document. I don't know when I'll have the time. I take it it's a "read the whole thing" kind of a deal, rather than take a look at p.137 paragraph 4 and become convinced of her innocence?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

contamination statistics

I don't have statistics, but it is more than 0.6 percent. I have read about lots of cases where the cops had unidentified DNA or fingerprints that they thought were relevant, but eventually were matched to a paramedic or someone who had visited the crime scene before the crime took place. Usually they don't regard these incidents as forensic blunders so much as random events.

I have posted one classic example - Donnah Winger's DNA found on Roger Harrington's clothing. How did it get there if Mark Winger ambushed and shot Harrington after he had already killed his wife? Who knows? It just did.

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/winger_case_fluke_dna.gif

Charlie,

I agree. The problems in determining an exact frequency are lack of uniformity in defining contamination and even in recording contamination events. I also think that the lack of frequent glove changes with respect to the Rome lab makes them more prone to contamination than a lab where gloves are changed in between handling one piece of evidence and the next.

 

[Withnail1969]

It's a long old document. I don't know when I'll have the time. I take it it's a "read the whole thing" kind of a deal, rather than take a look at p.137 paragraph 4 and become convinced of her innocence?

Well I'll give you an example of Massei's reasoning.

Audiometric tests to establish whether Nara Cappezalli could have heard the scream and sounds of people running on leaves which she claimed to hear 300 metres away through her closed double glazed windows were denied by the court, because why would she just make it up?

 

[shuttlt]

Well I'll give you an example of Massei's reasoning.

Audiometric tests to establish whether Nara Cappezalli could have heard the scream and sounds of people running on leaves which she claimed to hear 300 metres away through her closed double glazed windows were denied by the court, because why would she just make it up?

Her windows were double glazed? I vaguely recall Kermit criticising some of the testing because Nara's windows weren't double glazed and the tested windows were. Apologies to Kermit if my memory is playing up.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

dreaming

:
When I left I don't think it was the done thing for pro-innocence people to call it a confession. Endless posts were dedicated to arguing the point mainly I think on the grounds that it was couched in dreamlike language and shouldn't be seen as having, or having been intended to have, any basis in real events. Some things at least have changed. If we ignore the parts about them being innocent/guilty then I am happy to agree that there are similarities.

shuttit,

Some in the pro-innocence camp call it a false confession/accusation (myself); others (ChrisC) do not. We have documented several cases of false confessions/accusations in which the person described a dream to law enforcement that eventually became a false confession, or in which the person was asked to imagine what might have happened. However, all pro-innocence commenters are agreed that Amanda never said that she took part in a murder, nor did she place Raffaele at the scene.

 

[Withnail1969]

Her windows were double glazed? I vaguely recall Kermit criticising some of the testing because Nara's windows weren't double glazed and the tested windows were. Apologies to Kermit if my memory is playing up.

Yes they are double glazed. Regardless of that, what do you think of the reasoning? Does that sound like a sensible reason not to conduct audiometric testing?

edit to add - what 'tested windows'? Audiometric tests were refused by the court.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Massei on the bra clasp

It's a long old document. I don't know when I'll have the time. I take it it's a "read the whole thing" kind of a deal, rather than take a look at p.137 paragraph 4 and become convinced of her innocence?

shuttit,

You could start with Judge Massei's discussion of the bra clasp, including Dr. Tagliabracci's testimony. Judge Massei's reasoning for accepting Dr. Stefanoni's interpretation of the DNA profile on the clasp violates a fundamental principle of forensic genetics, as Mr. Sollecito's appeal makes clear. BTW you may want to revise your dust calculations. Mr. Sollecito's (disputed) profile is only around 100-200 picograms of material, not 1.4 ng. I am not saying that dust is a particularly likely reason for the profile, but some of what was written about dust and DNA last spring was misleading.

 

[Withnail1969]

it's interesting that rather than actually answer my question as to whether it was reasonable for the court to refuse audiometric testing on the basis that Nara Cappezalli would not tell a lie, ShuttIt opted instead to promulgate 2 pieces of misinformation:

1) Nara's window was single glazed. (It isn't and I've never heard anyone claim it was except ShuttIt).

2) That audiometric tests had occurred (vague reference to Kermit talking about tests). No tests occurred, permission was refused by the court. Again, I have never heard this claim anywhere else.

When asked again as to whether it was reasonable for the court to refuse permission for audiometric tests, he strangely goes silent. I think ShuttIt has nailed his colours pretty firmly to the mast.

edit to add - a quick scan of Kermit's posts reveals he has never discussed either Nara's window being single glazed or any audiometric testing being carried out.

 

[TomCH]

ShuttIt opted instead to promulgate 2 pieces of misinformation:

1) Nara's window was single glazed. (It isn't and I've never heard anyone claim it was except ShuttIt).

Do you have evidence to support that?

My windows are single glazed, even though most (if not all) of my neighbors in the same building have double.

 

[shuttlt]

Yes they are double glazed. Regardless of that, what do you think of the reasoning? Does that sound like a sensible reason not to conduct audiometric testing?

edit to add - what 'tested windows'? Audiometric tests were refused by the court.

I'd have to read this bit of the judgement. I'll try and do that at least soon.

Was this part of all that 11th hour activity when, most of the way through the trial, there were a bunch of
requests for more information and more tests and to throw out the case because the information was vital to the defence? This was never my focus, but at the time I assumed it had all been thrown out, as much as anything because the issue was raised so late in the day.

As to "tested windows", there was an American documentery (involving a retired detective I think) made by some folks associated with the pro-Amanda camp. Some clips are available on YouTube. They used a different appartment in the same building because Nara told them where to go. That appartment definately did have double glazing.

 

[shuttlt]

shuttit,

You could start with Judge Massei's discussion of the bra clasp, including Dr. Tagliabracci's testimony. Judge Massei's reasoning for accepting Dr. Stefanoni's interpretation of the DNA profile on the clasp violates a fundamental principle of forensic genetics, as Mr. Sollecito's appeal makes clear. BTW you may want to revise your dust calculations. Mr. Sollecito's (disputed) profile is only around 100-200 picograms of material, not 1.4 ng. I am not saying that dust is a particularly likely reason for the profile, but some of what was written about dust and DNA last spring was misleading.

Thanks Halides, the maths was all done on the back of a fag packet, so I'm not that surprise.

 

[Withnail1969]

I'd have to read this bit of the judgement. I'll try and do that at least soon.

Was this part of all that 11th hour activity when, most of the way through the trial, there were a bunch of
requests for more information and more tests and to throw out the case because the information was vital to the defence? This was never my focus, but at the time I assumed it had all been thrown out, as much as anything because the issue was raised so late in the day.

As to "tested windows", there was an American documentery (involving a retired detective I think) made by some folks associated with the pro-Amanda camp. Some clips are available on YouTube. They used a different appartment in the same building because Nara told them where to go. That appartment definately did have double glazing.

Massei Report, page 21, PerugiaMurderFile translation:

an expert audiometric test was sought, to be undertaken to establish whether the witness Nara Capezzali, on the premise of the presence in her dwelling of double-glazed windows, was able to hear the noises and the screams of which she had given an account in her deposition; an expert report on the computers of the accused was requested, the memories of which were found to have been damaged at the time of the analysis of the supports carried out by the Postal Police, such that the hard drives could not be duplicated/cloned for subsequent examination.
The Court disallowed all the requests, on the grounds that the additional expert reports requested did not appear necessary, since the very ample dialectic contribution from the expert witnesses of the private parties offered sufficient material to take a position without additional expertise.

Audiometric tests were refused by the court. I don't know how much simpler i can make it. I also notice that you are dodging the question as to whether it was reasonable to refuse permission for the tests.

 

[shuttlt]

Massei Report, page 21, PerugiaMurderFile translation:



Audiometric tests were refused by the court. I don't know how much simpler i can make it. I also notice that you are dodging the question as to whether it was reasonable to refuse permission for the tests.

While you were typing tha, I was reading the report and wrote the following:

Yes they are double glazed. Regardless of that, what do you think of the reasoning? Does that sound like a sensible reason not to conduct audiometric testing?

edit to add - what 'tested windows'? Audiometric tests were refused by the court.

I'd have to read this bit of the judgement. I've skimmed it, and will reply shortly. My recollection though is that these were 11th hour requests.

As to "tested windows", there was an American documentery (involving a retired detective I think) made by some folks associated with the pro-Amanda camp. Some clips are available on YouTube. I'll deg them out if you like. They used a different appartment in the same building because Nara told them where to go. That appartment definately did have double glazing. A lot of the demands from commentators at the time for audiometric testing seemed to be basing their information on this.

The quote in the Massei report seems to be "on the premise of the presence in her dwelling of double-glazed windows". This to me seems to be a somewhat unusual phrasing. All it makes clear is that the request pre-supposed that the windows were double glazed without asserting one way or the other whether this is indeed the case. I agree that it would be odd if her windows turned out not to be double glazed, but then this was an 11th hour request and what did the defence have to lose.

Do you know what the origin is of the "her window was double glazed" claim? Massei is quoting the defence.

 

[Withnail1969]

While you were typing tha, I was reading the report and wrote the following:


I'd have to read this bit of the judgement. I've skimmed it, and will reply shortly. My recollection though is that these were 11th hour requests.

As to "tested windows", there was an American documentery (involving a retired detective I think) made by some folks associated with the pro-Amanda camp. Some clips are available on YouTube. I'll deg them out if you like. They used a different appartment in the same building because Nara told them where to go. That appartment definately did have double glazing. A lot of the demands from commentators at the time for audiometric testing seemed to be basing their information on this.

The quote in the Massei report seems to be "on the premise of the presence in her dwelling of double-glazed windows". This to me seems to be a somewhat unusual phrasing. All it makes clear is that the request pre-supposed that the windows were double glazed without asserting one way or the other whether this is indeed the case. I agree that it would be odd if her windows turned out not to be double glazed, but then this was an 11th hour request and what did the defence have to lose.

Do you know what the origin is of the "her window was double glazed" claim? Massei is quoting the defence.

I quoted the exact passage from the judgement for you. Massei states the windows are double glazed, and this is disputed by nobody including Nara Cappezalli herself. If you doubt this basic fact, then you doubt the entire Massei report.

You claim the request for testing was an 11th hour request. I do not accept that without a citation. Please provide one.

I couldn't care less about documentaries you may or may not have watched on daytime TV where some kind of audio testing may or may not have occurred. Totally irrelevant. Now please answer my question as to whether it was reasonable for the court to refuse permission for audiometric tests. I think this is the third time i have asked you this question.

 

[Dan O.]

Do you know what the origin is of the "her window was double glazed" claim? Massei is quoting the defence.

Probably from Nara herself in a pre-trial hearing:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/05/meredith-kercher-murder-trial

Capezzali testified at the pre-trial hearing that, after the scream, she heard the sounds of at least two people running in different directions. The judge, Paolo Micheli, found her a "particularly credible" witness. But Capezzali's house has double glazing.​

 

[Withnail1969]

Transcript of Mignini's cross-examination of Nara Cappezalli:-


PM Mignini: "But you were looking out over / watching?" [I get the impression he's asking if she was leaning over the balcony or stuck her head out the window]
Witness: "No because I have plants, but I could see through the window pane which doesn't have ... shutters or anything but is only glass, double paned, but only glass. Then I could hear running on the iron stairway ... "