Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[treehorn]

14765, page 370
14742, page 369

Your sources are:

1. Chris Mellas (the biased/ 'hot-headed' step-father of the accused);

2. A self-employed (possibly under-employed) 'materials scientist' with no formal schooling in genetics trying to hustle a book;

3. An unnamed forensic geneticist; &

4. Yourself (biochemistry/ peptide research).

Which of the above (if any) took the stand and gave evidence during the trial?

(I might also ask: Which of the above, if any, have ANY expertise in the analysis of crime scene evidence?)

PS I am not particularly interested in discussing hearsay (especially hearsay from the accused's relatives/ amateurs/ lay people/ hustlers and PR minions). I am interested first and foremost in the evidence adduced at trial.

PPS LCN DNA evidence is also admissible in the USA. If the defense can raise legitimate issues in respect of its reliability, the manner in which testing was conducted or the legal rights of the accused vis-à-vis that testing, I'm certain we will all hear more about it as the appellate process unfolds.

That said, the convictions of Knox, Sollecito and Guede do not turn solely upon exhibit #36/ LCN DNA evidence. Far from it.

I've noted that many of the innocentisti appear to struggle mightily with the notion of CORROBORATION. Are you one of them?

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>
I don't even know. I get the impression she became officially a Suspect at 1:45 and they interrogated her until 5:45 when she signed that confession. None of this is 'hotly argued' anymore, it's deathly silence from the ones who think her guilty, who as far as I know believe she accused Patrick without coercion and the police arrested him and didn't release him until they got the note from Amanda Knox on the 22nd or so. Or, they got the note a few days later and it took that long to release him but it is still Amanda's fault and all she did is lie.

I guess it depends on your definition of interrogation. As you said, Amanda spent however many hours in the presence of police over the course of three or four days, and she did say in her e-mail and in a taped phone call that the police were applying pressure and it was stressing her out.

On the other hand, the classic heavy-duty interrogation seems to have lasted "only" up to three hours until she agreed that she had met Patrick that night. As you point out, they wouldn't need any more time than that, given her age and the circumstances. One question that remains, though, is whether Amanda understood she was no longer being questioned after the questioning stopped.

Did anyone tell her, okay, we're through with you, we don't need you to say anything else? No, they probably didn't, because she didn't lose the feeling over the next three or four hours that she had information to share and that the police would gladly accept it from her, which they (Mignini) did at 5:45. It's possible she was under the impression she was still the object of an interrogation during all that time.

Amanda testified at trial that she was waiting to go home from the questura on the morning of the 6th -- she was just hanging around waiting to get the word that she could leave. In other words, she didn't get the feeling they were done with her. Nobody told her she was free to go, maybe they told her to wait awhile for whatever, or maybe they stopped her if she asked if she could leave. At midday, they brought her a bunch of papers to sign, one of which was her arrest warrant, although she didn't know it at the time. They took her to jail shortly thereafter, much to her surprise.

Essentially, then, Amanda was a captive in the police station from 10:30 p.m. November 5th onward. Does the fact that she wasn't aware she was a captive make a difference? I don't know.

 

[treehorn]

Rudy had a minimum of ten days longer than Amanda and Raffaele had to dispose of any evidence. Even if he left everything in the garbage at his flat instead of taking it with him to Germany, it would have been long gone by the time the police were on to him.

I should have stated things more clearly: "dispose of/ wash"

 

[Kaosium]

kaosium,

The defense was severely hampered by the lack of full DNA disclosure in this case. However, the Johnson/Hampikian letter is an effective rebuttal of the proscution's case with respect to the knife and bra clasp.

Scroll down about halfway, and you will find a pdf file of this letter.

Thank you, I found that quite convincing, I think I came across it before and came to the conclusion that Bra Clasp and 'Murder Weapon' were awfully dubious pieces of 'evidence,' especially of murder. They are evidence of something though...

 

[treehorn]

treehorn,

Daniel said, "Da quel girono non ho piu' *rivisto ne' sentito Amanda, della quale peraltro non posseggo neanche il numero del cellulare, ne le altre ragazze. Ne ho avuto occasione di ritornare a Perugia a trovare**i miei amici"
*
Roughly translated, this means "From that day, I neither saw nor spoke to Amanda, whose cell phone number I didn't have, nor that of the other girls. I had no other opportunity to return to Perugia to visit my friends".*

I hope this settles the matter of Daniel's one night stand.

No:

1) "From THAT day..."?! From WHAT day? (It could be the day she left her '6 days of sex' with Raffaele to sneak in some sex with Daniel, per Nadeau's version); &

2) What is your source here? In what context is this alleged to have been said?

 

[treehorn]

Treehorn,

Here is a bit more on the question of Ms. Nadeau’s reporting for Newsweek.

Ms. Nadeau wrote, “But it is not just Knox's inconsistencies and fingerprints that Italian authorities are using to build the case against her. The judge's report includes cell phone records indicating that Knox sent a message to Lumumba earlier that evening, telling him her roommate was home and "see you later." Closed-circuit TV footage from a nearby parking garage shown on RAI television clearly shows the 20-year-old American entering the apartment the night of the murder.”

The messages Amanda sent Patrick said nothing about Meredith. Perhaps katy_did or another commenter can bring me up to speed, but the person in the footage may be Meredith, IIRC.

What "judge's report"?

This is from 2007.

Do you have a translation of that particular "judge's report"?

Perhaps the original error was in the judge's report and Nadeau was merely relaying the information. It may have been an error by the judge's clerk(s). It may even have been an error by Nadeau's assistant or editor. Who knows?!

Irrespective of its source, was this error in Nadeau's report of any real consequence?

After all, it was Knox herself who confessed that Lumumba was her accomplice in a conspiracy to 'have a bit of fun with Meredith', correct?

 

[treehorn]

treehorn,

Since your last appearance here, I quoted from Daniel's witness statement. Why don't you have a look at it, and let us know what you think?

The luminol prints in the hallway point toward Meredith's door, not away. They are a number of feet (or meters, if you prefer) from the body. Where you came up with inches is beyond me. Trying to come up with a reason why the luminol prints were negative for DNA yet were still due to blood is difficult. Trying to relate them to the crime is even tougher, but have at it, if you like.

Use metric, use Imperial, use big units, use small units, it's inescapable:

Knox's footprints were facing a corpse a very short distance away.

In that circumstance, your career as a CSI would be short lived if your first inclination was to turn to your fellow CSI's and say, "turnip juice."

Almost as short lived as your credibility in front of a jury with a 'room temperature IQ'.

The inference that the print fluoresced due to the presence of the victim's blood on Knox's feet becomes well nigh inescapable when each of the OTHER pieces of CORROBORATING evidence are considered.

Like many of the innocentisti, you appear to prefer to consider each piece of evidence in isolation from the context in which it occurs, as if all of the other inculpatory evidence no longer existed. As a juror, you're a lazy defense lawyer's dream.

 

[treehorn]

treehorn,

Daniel said, "Da quel girono non ho piu' *rivisto ne' sentito Amanda, della quale peraltro non posseggo neanche il numero del cellulare, ne le altre ragazze. Ne ho avuto occasione di ritornare a Perugia a trovare**i miei amici"

Roughly translated, this means "From that day, I neither saw nor spoke to Amanda, whose cell phone number I didn't have, nor that of the other girls. I had no other opportunity to return to Perugia to visit my friends".

I have also documented one of Newsweek's questionable editorial judgements and some of Ms. Nadeau's errors. Are you now willing to concede that you were wrong in these matters?

Halides,

From WHAT day, exactly?

This is a repeat of the question I addressed above (previous page).

There: As promised, I've considered your posts/ asked a few questions and offered my thoughts. Feel free to follow-up.

Now Lowe will actually have to answer my questions about his education instead of deflecting attention by claiming that I've dodged your posts.

BTW did you know that "Well Being" and "Social Inclusion" were hardcore sciences? Apparently "scientific literacy" is required in order to study these disciplines - just like medical school, right Lowe?

 

[shuttlt]

You bring up one of my biggest interests, the interrogation, and I found the arguments you made on another site especially helpful. This is the most important mystery of the case I believe, and I've been researching, asking and posting on it for a long time some people kid me, because I still only have a vague idea what might have happened despite all that. Where is anyone supposed to get incontestable information on this anyway, including Steve Moore? Seriously?

True, but where is he getting his information? You see on injusticeinperugia the claim about being denied food and water. I argued this at length with Bruce and he refused to change it. To me it seems like being willfully misleading, but others clearly disagree. Steve Moore repeats the claim. If he is simply uncritically taking the description of the case given by Amanda's family, Bruce, or whoever... I am deeply suspicious of what he adds to the case. Certainly he has experience that I don't have, but what do he take to be the facts of the case? If one simply took the facts as given by injusticeinperugia, certainly Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

Amanda Knox was interrogated for 8 hours. Overnight. Without food or water. In a police station. In a foreign country. In a foreign language. By a dozen different officers. Without being allowed a lawyer.
Well, from what I've been able to put together she got there sometime around 10:30 PM, the 'confession' happened at 1:45 AM or so and she officially became a Suspect and I believe Mignini was called in and she signed it at 5:45 or so. Nobody really talks about this anymore I've found, I wasn't kidding when I said I don't think it has advanced much since you stopped posting on it.

Going from memory, I think 10:30 is closer to when she and Raffaele arrived at the police station. She sat there studying for long enough that she got stiff and had to do cartwheels. Also, there was a break between the session ending at 1:45am and the one ending at 5:45am. I'm not sure that the exact timings are so very important though, except for the sake of preventing scope creep.

I'm with you, tentatively I tend to think the forty-some hours must be the time she spent in police presence, starting with the arrival of the postal police. That she was being interviewed and then interrogated for a total of fourteen hours, culminated with the November 5th/6th event, which ended early on the latter day. That just seems to make sense, it's not really sourced. I just have problems with the idea of 40+ hours of active interrogation, I can't see what could possibly take that long to interview or break a twenty year-old girl. I suspect everything before the night of the fifth was just interviews for information, not any active interrogation.

I agree completely.

Here's the problem. Against that we have cold hard silence and a claim that there was nothing taped at all. I simply cannot believe you could interrogate a girl who spoke Italian poorly and get a 'confession' out of her and not have it taped. I can't believe you'd call her in that late at night with at least 12 cops, the number initially supposed to be part of the calunnia charge--four apparently dropped out though since--and not tape that interrogation. So what we have to go on is basically what she wrote and testified to, but it's not her fault that's the only record we have of this event.

I've never seen proof of the 12 cops. I think Bruce indicated that there were 12 names on the document she signed at 1:45am, but he wouldn't even show me a redacted copy of it. Are we sure there were 12 police in the interrogation, that always seemed a little difficult for me to visualize. As to the lack of recording, that does seem to be one of the facts of the case. As I've said umpteen times, it's only significant if interrogations that the police don't expect to be admissible are normally taped in Italy.

I don't understand what you mean about her 'claiming' not to have a lawyer, isn't that why the Supreme Court threw out the 'confession?' I thought that was settled long before I even knew Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito's name.

I probably meant claiming that she was "illegally" denied a lawyer. Bruce took inadmissible to be equivalent to "illegal" and again, we argued this at length. Also, the "declaration" at 5:45 was supposedly requested by her, so at this point no lawyer was denied, or at least it can't be said to be an agreed fact.

What he adds in my view is more information, and the fact he actually knows something intimately about investigations and forensics. What he says about the crime scene makes sense to me. That's not an open crime site, it's a fishbowl and if Raffaele or Amanda were there some sign should have been there, I can't see how there wouldn't be.

Perhaps. I don't dispute that he has long experience of police work, but in the stuff I've read from him I don't believe he can support most of what he says.

As far as the interrogation, he worked violent crimes unit and anti-terrorism, I kinda have a feeling he might have been a part of interrogating some very dangerous people. I suspect that colored his impression of what happened in that room on November 5th/6th. I'd really rather believe that's the case, but the absolute stonewalling on the part of the police and the dubious evidence they collected is not particularly comforting. Nor is the idea that they actually might have set up an interrogation under those terms and then not taped it, and then started cuffing her. I don't think they really physically harmed her, or intended to, I think something else entirely happened, but I tell you the idea they didn't tape it is something potentially ominous in my view.

Again, is it normal practice to tape these things?

Man, the discussion has just gone through a time tunnel to last April.

I don't even know. I get the impression she became officially a Suspect at 1:45 and they interrogated her until 5:45 when she signed that confession. None of this is 'hotly argued' anymore, it's deathly silence from the ones who think her guilty, who as far as I know believe she accused Patrick without coercion and the police arrested him and didn't release him until they got the note from Amanda Knox on the 22nd or so. Or, they got the note a few days later and it took that long to release him but it is still Amanda's fault and all she did is lie.

Surely he was released because his alibi held up rather than because of any action of Amanda's. At the risk of exposing my failing memory, what note on the 22nd? I take it you've read the available material that she wrote/signed that night? Could you clarify, as this strikes me as an error.

As for coercion, I'm sure we can agree that she was under a heck of a lot of pressure, regardless of any additional actions of the police to make things worse.

I've never been able to move beyond the oddness of what she wrote and the attempts at an explanation that doesn't involve Amanda being less than honest don't convince me. Equally, she could be innocent and less than honest.

 

[Justinian2]

About the previous post: It was interesting to me. However would the jury pay attention to a such a dialogue?

There is probably a way to re-enact the night of the interrogation that would get the message across without making the jury comatose.

There are limits to what can be shown to the court, but a good reenactment could help. Trouble is, in Italy, it could get the prosecution prosecuted for slander.

Seems like the defense can be sued for slander, but the prosecution cannot. Is this correct?

---------

Page 275 of “Murder in Italy”

The prosecution used a trashy cartoon in their summary to the jury. Seems like the use of that cartoon would have, by itself, gotten the case thrown out of court.

It probably wouldn't help to have a cartoon where Amanda was cast as snow white who was with prince charming on the night of the murder while an evil villian breaks into the apartment and kills snow white's cherished friend.

Fake documentaries probably wouldn't be good either, but I wouldn't put it past the prosecution; the defense should be prepared for this.

Real documentaries probably work best.

 

[treehorn]

The prosecution used a trashy cartoon in their summary to the jury. Seems like the use of that cartoon would have, by itself, gotten the case thrown out of court.

In the USA there are many companies that do NOTHING BUT produce video/ 3D recreations for use in legal proceedings.

It would be an understatement to say it's "commonplace."

Funny how the same people leaping at any opportunity to suggest the Italian system is "backward" are the first to ridicule the prosecution's use of video recreation technology.

 

[Katody Matrass]

This case is possible.

Thank you!

In this scenario, the miracle consists in not leaving any shoeprint on the soil below. Not bringing any soil inside. Not bringing any trace of grass inside.

I am not able to step in my garden without carrying soil back inside. The soild below that window was very soft, required a slight climbing on a slope. Stepping there without leaving traces is not what I would expect.

I guess we arrived at the point of this topic, where it boils down to personal experiences. I understand your concerns, however I don't share them. I too have a garden and walking on the grass on a dry day doesn't result in tracking any dirt or grass on my shoes. Look at the photo:
http://injusticeinperugia.org/hendry19.jpg
there is no bare soil or dirt under the window. The ground is covered with rich vegetation and yellow leaves. On a dry day - and Nov 1 was dry - you'll not get your shoes dirty from it.
Also, if you look at the hi-res photo of the climbing lawyer, you'll notice that his shoes are not stained in any way, nor does he leave any soil on the grating bars.

Your argument hangs also on another assumption, namely that ILE would notice and record the traces if there were any. I don't think it is certain. We saw examples of traces that were left untested - the piece of glass from Meredith's room, the powdery tracks next to Filomena's window. There are no records, photos or documentation of any search of the ground under the window or the wall itself. We have only some testimony.
I personally prefer the solid records of any investigative activity.

 

[TomCH]

Breaking the window in that position doesn't explain the pattern of glass in the room, or the pattern of glass on the window sill that indicates that window was closed when it was broken broken.



Certainly. In fact the window is shown open in some of the photos I have posted here on JREF. The problem is that breaking the window in an open position would result in glass falling in a different pattern than observed.

Hold the rock in your hand, leave the window closed (the rock can break only one of them) as well as the internal shutter, and smash it.

The glass pattern will be the same is if it had been tossed from outside.

 

[Justinian2]

Page 275 of “Murder in Italy”

The prosecution showed a twenty-five –minute video re-imagining of the crime, using cartoon characters as stand-ins for the three suspects (the three pigs, prosecutor Comodi called them) with the suspects’ real faces stuck on the bodies. The video showed Rudy, Raffaele, and Amanda arriving together at the cottage, pictured them teasing and taunting Meredith with the kitchen knife, and ended in a sea of red, when Amanda struck the final blow. Most disturbingly, the film used real crime scene footage and graphic images of Meredith’s body to tell the tale, even though reporters had previously been forced to leave the courtroom whenever such images were introduced into court.​

My point, made previously, is that the defense should also make use of cartoons, although with more class than those made by the prosecution. It seems to be the level of the Jury to respond favorably to cartoons. It should be assumed that the jurists have the minds of children.

In the USA there are many companies that do NOTHING BUT produce video/ 3D recreations for use in legal proceedings.

It would be an understatement to say it's "commonplace."

Funny how the same people leaping at any opportunity to suggest the Italian system is "backward" are the first to ridicule the prosecution's use of video recreation technology.

I know little of Italy except what I've seen in this case.

Having just visited Peru, I know that country is both 1st world and 3rd world. Peru is rich and educated in places and very poor in other places. The same is true of the United States, except that the scope and degree of poverty is less. I would assume that the same is true of Italy.

But a video of the "Three Little Pigs"? That may be high tech, but it is also legally condoned slander.

 

[shuttlt]

But a video of the "Three Little Pigs"? That may be high tech, but it is also legally condoned slander.

I don't think it was implied that they were portrayed as three little pigs in the video, if they were - . "Cartoon" covers a lot of ground. Are there any pictures?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Daniel's witness statement

I'm not ducking you, I'm trying to make partner and raise a family.

Moreover, as I stated to you previously, I'm not impressed by your effort to refute the work of a career journalist at Newsweek with nothing more than a post citing an unnamed JREF poster who claims to have had access to trial transcripts that undermine Nadeau's assertions.

That's a waste of my time.

I'll look up these posts of yours later tonight, but if they're along the same lines as your previous efforts, I don't think we're going to have much to talk about.

I'm not interested in 'spin', and I'm not the least bit interested in anything the relatives of the accused (or their PR people) have to say on the courthouse steps. (You wouldn't be either if you'd spent so much as a day of your life representing criminal accused.)

I'm interested in what was adduced in the courtroom. Nothing less.

treehorn,

If you have time to write as many comments as you did yesterday, you have time to examine what I have written in response to your earlier comments. You will find that your description above is inaccurate. I have no idea what you mean when you talk about an unnamed JREF poster.I will make one thing easier for you. For the third and last time, here is Daniel's witness statement:

Daniel said, "Da quel girono non ho piu' *rivisto ne' sentito Amanda, della quale peraltro non posseggo neanche il numero del cellulare, ne le altre ragazze. Ne ho avuto occasione di ritornare a Perugia a trovare**i miei amici"
*
Roughly translated, this means "From that day, I neither saw nor spoke to Amanda, whose cell phone number I didn't have, nor that of the other girls. I had no other opportunity to return to Perugia to visit my friends".*

Ms. Nadeau has indirectly acknowledged one of her errors when she changed her account of Amanda's purchase of underwear from when she wrote one of her articles to when she wrote her book. Another discrepancy in her reporting is the fact that only she heard Raffaele's stepmother yell an obscenity after the verdict was read; everyone else heard a word that roughly means "strength," IIRC. I have documented others for your edification.

If you do not reply but instead give more excuses, then it is that much more evidence that you are not here in good faith to discuss this case, and I won't bother with anything else you say. I suggest others do likewise, to avoid wasting their time.

 

[TomCH]

Now, if Amanda and Rafaele are 'innocent' until the final appeal fails, the some is true of Rudy, no?

In fact, while there is evidence of his presence AFTER the murder, is there any evidence to show he actually did it?

None that I see.

So I guess he, too, is innocent!

 

[treehorn]

But a video of the "Three Little Pigs"? That may be high tech, but it is also legally condoned slander.

Shall we dispense with rule of law altogether? Return to a state of nature? "...[D]o you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no claim

What does that have to do with my post?

I made no claim that my questions have to do with this particular post. It has to do with something you brought up a long time ago. In any event you rarely answer questions under any circumstances, so what does it matter?

 

[treehorn]

treehorn,

If you have time to write as many comments as you did yesterday, you have time to examine what I have written in response to your earlier comments. You will find that your description above is inaccurate. I have no idea what you mean when you talk about an unnamed JREF poster.I will make one thing easier for you. For the third and last time, here is Daniel's witness statement:

Daniel said, "Da quel girono non ho piu' *rivisto ne' sentito Amanda, della quale peraltro non posseggo neanche il numero del cellulare, ne le altre ragazze. Ne ho avuto occasione di ritornare a Perugia a trovare**i miei amici"
*
Roughly translated, this means "From that day, I neither saw nor spoke to Amanda, whose cell phone number I didn't have, nor that of the other girls. I had no other opportunity to return to Perugia to visit my friends".*

Ms. Nadeau has indirectly acknowledged one of her errors when she changed her account of Amanda's purchase of underwear from when she wrote one of her articles to when she wrote her book. Another discrepancy in her reporting is the fact that only she heard Raffaele's stepmother yell an obscenity after the verdict was read; everyone else heard a word that roughly means "strength," IIRC. I have documented others for your edification.

If you do not reply but instead give more excuses, then it is that much more evidence that you are not here in good faith to discuss this case, and I won't bother with anything else you say. I suggest others do likewise, to avoid wasting their time.

Again: WHAT DAY?

And: What is the SOURCE here?

What is this a translation of? Who did the translation? Where can I find it?

As for the rest:

1) WHAT error about Knox's underwear purchase?

2) Are you seriously alleging that Sollecito's step mom could not possibly have sworn within earshot of Nadeau on the ground that another reporter did not also hear it?!