Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Solange305]

Amanda's bag is understood to be the means of knife transport in Massei. None of the things you mention would form an effective sheath for the knife as they are all vulnerable to holing themselves.

What are you talking about???? You arent making any sense? Why would it certainly make a hole unless someone was stabbing whatever it was wrapped in?

I'm guessing Amanda's bag wasn't tested for Meredith's DNA or blood at all. If Stefanoni can detect DNA on a thoroughly scrubbed knife at the molecular level, she would have found it on Amanda's bag.

WHAT?????? Why would it be on the bag if there was barely any left on the knife, and it was in a crack or scratch? And did the dna seep through whatever if was being wrapped in? Or I guess it fell through the hole it automatically made, like you said about? come on...

..........................

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Mary, I know you sympathize alot with Amanda, I understand that. I cant tell by your comments, and I don't have a problem with it. But I don't understand how anyone can display "spontaneous joy" as you call it, after your so called friend is murdered and you are being accused of it. Its not a game. Even a 20 year old should understand that. Like I said, the seriousness of the murder and accusation that we saw from Amanda yesterday should have come 3 years ago. Someone else said, she could have just been an uncaring selfish young woman who didn't really care much for Meredith and was enjoying the attention, it is not proof of murder. But if that was the case, she didn't do herself any favors, that's for sure.

How long do you think that a 20 year old girl "should" keep a strict poker face after a murder?

After how long is it psychologically possible or acceptable in your view for a 20 year old girl to express joy without necessarily being guilty of that murder? What is your basis for this view?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

knife cleaning

Kevin_Lowe,

I agree what you have written about the DNA profile on page 504. From the citation that Malkmus gave on page 496, here is some text:

Monday, 5 November 2007 -- Ominous words:"It is not excluded that in the next few hours one of the many persons interviewed in recent days might be converted into a suspect." Tuesday, 6 November 2007 -- Three persons arrested as suspects. Meredith's family speaks in Perugia
Wednesday, 7 November 2007 -- Background profiles on the three suspects: AK, RS, PL
Thursday, 8 November 2007 -- The suspects are questioned by Matteini. Their lawyers are on TV
Friday, 9 November 2007 -- Matteini publishes her initial report regarding discovery of crime, initial evidence, contradictory alibis, etc.
Saturday, 10 November 2007 -- Dr. Sollecito initiates his TV career, criticising Amanda
Sunday, 11 November 2007 -- Meredith's body returns to England
Monday, 12 November 2007 -- Different, interesting news on all channels
Tuesday, 13 November 2007 -- The Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba families visit Capanne prison. Some make statements to the press
Wednesday, 14 November 2007 -- Forensic police inspect Patrick's pub and they return to Raffaele's flat
Thursday, 15 November 2007 -- Bleached knife found at Raffaele's flat has Amanda's and victim's DNA
highlighting added

Note that bleach is mentioned fairly early on with respect to the knife. I think it is nonsensical to imagine that DNA would withstand bleach, especially if a little bit of bleach were left behind. However, people who say that it was Meredith’s tissue from the murder are making a claim that cleaning the knife will remove blood more easily than muscle or skin cells. I know of no reason to accept this idea. It is magic cleaning fluid, as far as I am concerned.

The point that Malkmus brought up is shown by the first highlighting.

 

[Solange305]

I'm most comfortable staying in the realm of what I can prove, or which I can say with a high degree of confidence is reasonable.

In this case, I do find the statements of the prosecution experts as cited in the Massei report curious. It does look to me very much like they were trying to find some way of supporting a predetermined prosecution conclusion rather than stating the facts as such: I find Professor Ronchi's claim that ligatures were not made in the autopsy particularly concerning since the information we have is that ligatures were indeed used, and I find equally concerning his discussion of irrelevant measures of time until gastric emptying which make no sense in a case where the victim's stomach was not empty.

Professor Cingolani's claim that stomach contents evidence with regard to the time of death can vary by up to twelve hours is simply ridiculous as it is presented in the Massei report - t(lag) does not and never has varied by twelve hours. That is like claiming human height varies by ten metres. I charitably assume that Massei took him out of context or misunderstood him because otherwise his statement is absurd.

However I just can't say for sure why these statements appear as they do in the Massei report. I can say with confidence they do not match the facts in the literature, but the why of it is beyond my ken.

Dr Lalli pegged the time of death as 21:30 to 22:30, which is not quite the same as the range LondonJohn has calculated for us but it not far off, and rules out the Massei time of death unequivocally.

Thank you. I am really looking forward to hear what they say in the appeals about this issue, it certainly seems like the best strategy to prove there is too much reasonable doubt. My problem is this is all like chinese to me, I understand the concept you describe, but if I try to read those scientific papers on my own, I may as well be reading a foreign language.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

with Filomena's friend

Mary, I know you sympathize alot with Amanda, I understand that. I cant tell by your comments, and I don't have a problem with it. But I don't understand how anyone can display "spontaneous joy" as you call it, after your so called friend is murdered and you are being accused of it. Its not a game. Even a 20 year old should understand that. Like I said, the seriousness of the murder and accusation that we saw from Amanda yesterday should have come 3 years ago. Someone else said, she could have just been an uncaring selfish young woman who didn't really care much for Meredith and was enjoying the attention, it is not proof of murder. But if that was the case, she didn't do herself any favors, that's for sure.

Solange305,

She cried in the car with Paola, IIRC. Sometimes I wonder whether had Amanda cried in public (instead of in private), this whole mess would have still happened.

 

[Withnail1969]

What are you talking about???? You arent making any sense? Why would it certainly make a hole unless someone was stabbing whatever it was wrapped in?

The knife itself would not be properly restrained by these feeble makeshift measures and could still make a hole in Amanda's bag, particularly while running.

WHAT?????? Why would it be on the bag if there was barely any left on the knife, and it was in a crack or scratch? And did the dna seep through whatever if was being wrapped in? Or I guess it fell through the hole it automatically made, like you said about? come on...

Because if Stefanoni can find 10 flesh cells without any blood on a murder weapon which has been cleaned, she can find anything anywhere.

 

[Solange305]

No. They were out of the house for significant periods, and were not around when it was just Amanda and Meredith at home. We are talking about a very short period before Meredith's murder. There was no 'norm'.

Withnail, with all due respect, do you even believe the points you are arguing? Just let it go

 

[Solange305]

The test used for blood was substantially more sensitive than the test for DNA. I'm sure Halides1 can fill you in on the technical details but my understanding was that this is chiefly because most (red) blood cells do not contain DNA, so that it is easier to detect blood than to detect the DNA in blood. As I said, I will defer to Halides1 if this understanding of the science involved is incorrect.

From this we can conclude that whatever it was Stefanoni was testing, it was not blood nor was it some mixture of blood and other tissue, because such a mixture would have tested positive for blood.

We can also conclude that the material tested had not survived a cleaning with bleach as some have theorised, as picograms of material are simply not going to survive immersion in a bleach solution.

The explanation that seems most likely to me is that the police claim to have smelled bleach in Sollecito's apartment was an ill-considered verbal, that Stefanoni was testing random grot on the blade which had nothing to do with the murder, and that the positive result for Amanda's DNA was a result (inadvertent or deliberate) of cross-contamination with something else in the lab that day that held Meredith's DNA.

Ok, I am totally out of my realm here, so I may be wrong, but why does there need to blood for that to be Meredith's dna on the blade"? I thought dna gets on the knife handle (like from Amanda) by holding it really hard. Could Meredith;s dna have gotten on the blade from them holding it against her neck or other part of her body hard enough, but not necessarily hard enough to bleed? Just like Amanda's dna was on the handle, but she didn't bleed.

 

[platonov]

Solange305,

She cried in the car with Paola, IIRC. Sometimes I wonder whether had Amanda cried in public (instead of in private), this whole mess would have still happened.

So you think tears (public emoting) would have washed away all the evidence.
That seems to part of the new defence strategy - they will need more than that however.
As I keep pointing out, to no avail, its not X factor.
Its not her 'honour' thats the issue, its her liberty.

 

[Dan O.]

Oh, it's much worse then that. The interrogation WAS stopped and she was made a formal suspect. They were done with her for the night. Not content with that she then insisted on being heard again, to make a voluntary statement. It was in that second statement she went into detail...describing how she had met Patrick at the basketball court, how they had gone to the cottage together because he 'wanted' Meredith and they wanted to have some fun, how he then went into Meredith's room while she stood in the kitchen covering her ears as he raped and murdered Meredith.

It appears that the Italian interpretation of a command to stop is to press on to the climax then type up the statement and have the suspect sign it. By "done with her" I presume you are referring to the point where they left her curled up in a fetal position in a chair trying to get some sleep while they ran off immediately to arrest this dangerous criminal Patrick.

But wait, they didn't run off right then did they!? They bring in Mignini first to continue the interrogation (I use the term "interrogation" for the process where questions are asked to solicit responses though the Italians seem to prefer the alternate term "voluntary statement") and type up a second statement which they also have Amanda sign.

Then what happened to those statements? The Italian supreme court ruled that neither statement could be used against Amanda because of some clerical foul-up where Amanda wasn't informed of her status as a suspect and provided an attorney as required under Italian law.

 

[Solange305]

Yes, I agree. The question of whether Amanda should apologize to Patrick hinges on whether we hold the makers of coerced confessions responsible for those confessions, IMO. The demand that she should have apologized bothers me because it suggests that she (and by implication, anyone else who makes a coerced confession which implicates another person) is at least partly responsible for those coerced statements. To me, that seems a dangerous road to go down. And as you say, it also tends take the focus from any manipulative and dishonest police tactics which led to the confession in the first place.

I think it's about showing empathy and caring. If someone's loved one dies, you usually say "im so sorry", and you are in no way implying that you did something wrong. I know in her case she says she should have been stronger, etc., and I think she is trying to portray the sentiment that even though it wasn't her intention to accuse him, she is sorry that she was a part of it.

I know Ive said it a billion times, but her nonchalant, carefree behavior at trial was off-putting. You think about the fact that a young woman was dead, a man was in jail for two weeks through no fault of his own, and two supposedly innocent people are on trial for the murder, it doesn't get more serious than that. Although I don't think it made a difference in the verdict, I think it made a difference in public opinion. And if she is supposedly innocent and wants to put pressure on the justice system to right it's wrong, she will need the public on her side.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

good evidence

So you think tears (public emoting) would have washed away all the evidence.
That seems to part of the new defence strategy - they will need more than that however.
As I keep pointing out, to no avail, its not X factor.

platonov,

You could fit all of good evidence of this case into the navel of a gnat, and you would still have room for three caraway seeds and PM Mignini's heart. Who needs evidence when we have Dr. Giobbi's keen understanding of La Mossa?

 

[Solange305]

If Amanda had been snorting good cocaine the previous night she would not have smelled anything as her nostrils would have been blocked with blood and congealed snot.

Alternatively she might just have had a cold, or the poo had done all the stinking it was going to do already.

Everything always looks bad for Amanda until you realise that literally anything she does is going to be wrong for some people.

But she didn't it, never once mentioned a cold or stuffed up nose. Don't you think she would have mentioned this? Enough with this making up excuses for them that even they didn't use. It doesn't work that way, it's ridiculous.

 

[Withnail1969]

Solange305,

She cried in the car with Paola, IIRC. Sometimes I wonder whether had Amanda cried in public (instead of in private), this whole mess would have still happened.

Much like the Roman culture they inherited, Italians, hypocritically, place great emphasis on the public display of emotion as opposed to any genuine feeling.

As a person of Anglo/Germanic culture, Amanda naturally had a different outlook where it's unacceptable to cry or display any emotion in public.

 

[katy_did]

I think it's about showing empathy and caring. If someone's loved one dies, you usually say "im so sorry", and you are in no way implying that you did something wrong. I know in her case she says she should have been stronger, etc., and I think she is trying to portray the sentiment that even though it wasn't her intention to accuse him, she is sorry that she was a part of it.

I know Ive said it a billion times, but her nonchalant, carefree behavior at trial was off-putting. You think about the fact that a young woman was dead, a man was in jail for two weeks through no fault of his own, and two supposedly innocent people are on trial for the murder, it doesn't get more serious than that. Although I don't think it made a difference in the verdict, I think it made a difference in public opinion. And if she is supposedly innocent and wants to put pressure on the justice system to right it's wrong, she will need the public on her side.

In Patrick's case, the demand was for her to apologize, rather than just to say that she was sorry about what had happened to him. I think that does suggest that she should be held at least partly responsible. My argument is that if she's innocent, the police should be held responsible for a confession which (in that case) was obviously coerced, and that calls for Amanda to apologize lay the responsibility at her feet, rather than where it should be - with the police who thought they could determine guilt from behavioural clues in the absence of any evidence.

I think your second paragraph rather suggests that platonov may be wrong, and that the whole thing is a little bit X Factor (wear the right clothes, cry at the right time, smile when appropriate, get the public on-side, etc etc...).

 

[platonov]

platonov,

You could fit all of good evidence of this case into the navel of a gnat, and you would still have room for three caraway seeds and PM Mignini's heart. Who needs evidence when we have Dr. Giobbi's keen understanding of La Mossa?

I'm pretty sure gnats dont have navels, that's a different 'class' of creatures entirely

The prosecution did, which the court accepted (mostly) and I'm fairly sure, unlike some here, that's what convicted them. I am convinced the defence teams see it that way too and are working to overturn that evidence in the appeal.

 

[LondonJohn]

Kevin_Lowe,

I agree what you have written about the DNA profile on page 504. From the citation that Malkmus gave on page 496, here is some text:

Monday, 5 November 2007 -- Ominous words:"It is not excluded that in the next few hours one of the many persons interviewed in recent days might be converted into a suspect." Tuesday, 6 November 2007 -- Three persons arrested as suspects. Meredith's family speaks in Perugia
Wednesday, 7 November 2007 -- Background profiles on the three suspects: AK, RS, PL
Thursday, 8 November 2007 -- The suspects are questioned by Matteini. Their lawyers are on TV
Friday, 9 November 2007 -- Matteini publishes her initial report regarding discovery of crime, initial evidence, contradictory alibis, etc.
Saturday, 10 November 2007 -- Dr. Sollecito initiates his TV career, criticising Amanda
Sunday, 11 November 2007 -- Meredith's body returns to England
Monday, 12 November 2007 -- Different, interesting news on all channels
Tuesday, 13 November 2007 -- The Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba families visit Capanne prison. Some make statements to the press
Wednesday, 14 November 2007 -- Forensic police inspect Patrick's pub and they return to Raffaele's flat
Thursday, 15 November 2007 -- Bleached knife found at Raffaele's flat has Amanda's and victim's DNA
highlighting added

Note that bleach is mentioned fairly early on with respect to the knife. I think it is nonsensical to imagine that DNA would withstand bleach, especially if a little bit of bleach were left behind. However, people who say that it was Meredith’s tissue from the murder are making a claim that cleaning the knife will remove blood more easily than muscle or skin cells. I know of no reason to accept this idea. It is magic cleaning fluid, as far as I am concerned.

The point that Malkmus brought up is shown by the first highlighting.

The strangest thing is the police entering Sollecito's apartment on the 15th and noting the "strong smell of bleach" as something indicative of foul play. When one stops to consider that Sollecito and Knox had been in custody since the evening of the 5th - almost 10 days earlier - it doesn't take a genius to conclude that any "smell of bleach" that might have been present in the apartment on the 15th had nothing whatsoever to do with Sollecito or Knox.

In fact, isn't there some pretty strong evidence that this "strong smell of bleach" was instead from the disinfectant that Sollecito's cleaner had used to clean the floor? If the kitchen knife were still smelling strongly of bleach 10 days after Sollecito or Knox had access to it, then it must have essentially been doused in neat bleach 10 days (or more) previously. And that would have obliterated anything on the knife.

The obvious suggestion is that the knife wasn't actually cleaned with bleach. It was used and cleaned in the normal way - using washing-up disinfectant. Knox's DNA was on the handle because she was the last person to handle the knife - perhaps while putting it away in the drawer after it had been washed. And Meredith's miniscule amount o DNA on the blade was the result of contamination in the laboratory (or maybe something more sinister).

By the way, aren't captains supposed to remain with their sinking ships - either until they are the last person to be rescued or they go down with their ship? Has nobody seen any films about the RMS Titanic?? Things have changed in the 21st century, obviously.......

 

[Solange305]

How long do you think that a 20 year old girl "should" keep a strict poker face after a murder?

After how long is it psychologically possible or acceptable in your view for a 20 year old girl to express joy without necessarily being guilty of that murder? What is your basis for this view?

Well, first of all, not the same day, doing cartwheels and laughing while everyone else is crying. Again, not in itself proof of murder, but we have testimony from others that it bothered them, and I can see why.

Also, it's not only how long, but when. You are only in court a certain amount of time, and during this time the focus is on the murder of an innocent woman and your guilt or innocence. You can't even be serious during those times? Again, not proof of guilt in my eyes, but she didn't do herself any favors with the public. You have to realize it is not just PMFers or guilters who found the behavior odd, many in the public did as well from what I've read. But again, please understand, I wouldn't expect a court of law to hold it against her, but Im not surprised the court of public opinion did.

 

[Solange305]

Much like the Roman culture they inherited, Italians, hypocritically, place great emphasis on the public display of emotion as opposed to any genuine feeling.

As a person of Anglo/Germanic culture, Amanda naturally had a different outlook where it's unacceptable to cry or display any emotion in public.

Sigh... she is American. What does that have to do with anything? Im an american, and I would be upset if my friend was murdered, in public and private. One thing is not showing any emotion, another is laughing, cartwheeling, giggling, making faces.

 

[Solange305]

In Patrick's case, the demand was for her to apologize, rather than just to say that she was sorry about what had happened to him. I think that does suggest that she should be held at least partly responsible. My argument is that if she's innocent, the police should be held responsible for a confession which (in that case) was obviously coerced, and that calls for Amanda to apologize lay the responsibility at her feet, rather than where it should be - with the police who thought they could determine guilt from behavioural clues in the absence of any evidence.

Well, obviously the people calling for her to apologize do not believe it was coerced, and believe she is guilty. So although I know you don't agree, it fits with their opinion. And she did choose to apologize on her own, so I think she or her lawyers felt it was appropriate, and I agree, even if it were true that the police coerced her, it is just about showing empathy and caring for what others went through.

I think your second paragraph rather suggests that platonov may be wrong, and that the whole thing is a little bit X Factor (wear the right clothes, cry at the right time, smile when appropriate, get the public on-side, etc etc...).

So do you think that lawyers shouldn't tell their clients to wear suits to court, cut their hair, shave, say as little as possible, etc.? All trials are now x-factor, if that's what you believe.

\...........................