Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

To Katody: If Rudy's diary was meant to be read by the investigators, does this hold true, insofar as Raffaele's diaries?

I believe Raffaele and Rudy were advised by their lawyers to keep diaries, with the implication that they may become public. That is why so much of their diaries are accounts of what happened (or what the writers say happened). The lawyers might have seen it as a way to bolster their clients claims at trial -- "See? He not only said it, he also wrote it! And he wrote this way back at the beginning, so it must be true. "

The lawyers also might have been motivated by the potential for using the material in the press.

There is only one faux pas in Raffaele's diary, and I doubt it occurred to his lawyers that it would gain the mileage it has.

 

[Magister]

It is not necessary for Rudy to have to confront Meredith for the front door keys in order to escape.
He can exit the way he possibly came in....through Filomena's window.
However I am still not convinced he acted alone, nor that he raped and killed Meredith.
What about his sinister Italian drug dealing friend?
Why too would Giulia Bongiorno risk wanting Alessi and Aviello as witnesses?
I think there's still more to this case.

 

[LondonJohn]

The non-dna forensic portion of the Massei report makes for very sad reading, and, not knowing anything about forensics, I did not want to read it out of respect for the victim. It was too personal and graphic. However, after all the discussion about TOD, I finally did read it.

Parsing out the portion on the use of the knife to make the only one large wound on the left of the neck strongly confirms to me that the kitchen knife could not possibly have been used, regardless of dna findings. That leads naturally to the question of contamination.

In that same portion of the Massei report that discusses non-dna forensics is also a brief discussion of contamination. Not of the knife, but of the alcohol blood level. The report reports:

(Prof Cingolani) then went on to detail the outcome of the alcohol level test . He recalled that the level of alcohol found in Perugia at the Institute of Forensic Medicine was 0.43 grams per litre; the [level] that had been [152] detected in the blood, however, at the headquarters of the expert report commissioned for the pre-*‐‑trial hearing [incidente probatorio] was 2.72 grams per litre.

On the basis of such contrasting results, a check was carried out on the alcohol percentage in other regions: in the gastric content and then in the liver. A value substantially of zero had been found in the gastric content and, he stressed, "in the gastric content the quantity of alcohol is frighteningly greater than in the blood" (page 106). In the liver too a very slight quantity had been detected, equal to 0.2, which was comparable from the pharmacokinetic point of view with the 0.43 verified by Dr. Lalli at the Institute of Forensic Medicine of Perugia, rather than with the value of 2.72.

He concluded on this point that that was no pharmacokinetic condition which could justify all three of these values, that is zero in the stomach, 2.72 in the blood and 0.2 in the liver. On the basis of these elements they had concluded that Meredith was not in a condition of alcoholic intoxication.

He could not indicate why the analysis of the blood had given a particularly high value, "close to ethylic coma," (page 108) other than in terms of a simple hypothesis: the exchange of samples; a contamination with the passage of alcohol to the sample, taking place when the exhibit was in the refrigerator. P152 –PMF version.

Does that seem likely to anyone? – the passage of alcohol to the sample, taking place when the exhibit was in the refrigerator.

Is there an implication in the sentence detected in the blood, however, at the headquarters of the expert report commissioned for the pre-trial hearing?

My cynical side says it was an amateurish attempt to match the alcohol level in the blood to a wild sex party / satanic ritual crime theory that simply could not get off the ground.

But how did it happen?

I'd prefer to put it down to simple incompetence. And this was such a whopper of incompetence that it was impossible to rationalise or explain away. Gotta love this "crack" forensics service........

 

[capealadin]

In the infamous fake interview with Kate Mansey, Raffaele was alleged to have said, "There was blood everywhere and I couldn't take it all in." That was published on the 11th. I am sure there were plenty of news reports about an extremely bloody crime scene in the first weeks after the murder. Rudy wasn't arrested until the 20th. He would have read or heard Amanda and Raffaele's false confessions and testimony before the judge by that time.

In response to a question (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6677063&postcount=21940) that was asked by Chris earlier today: According to the Micheli report, Rudy said that hearing a thump or noise downstairs was what prompted him to get up and leave the cottage. (That doesn't meant any noise actually occurred.)

Has Raffaele denied giving the interview? Denied what he said to her? Because if he hasn't, then HE says there was blood EVERYWHERE!! And, then, if there was no cleanup, where did it all go? Please give me the link, to where he refutes the interview.

 

[moodstream]

Forever?? Obviously, he intended to leave the way he came in. If he waited until Meredith went to her bedroom, there were several ways out not through Meredith.

And presumably Rudy had taken the precaution of turning the lights off, closing Filomena's door and closing her shutters to hide the broken glass etc to not arouse suspicion, just in case someone came in.

This scenario would be slightly more plausible if Meredith came home and discovered Rudy, either in the bathroom or rifling through drawers, and then a struggle ensued. Still doesn't explain the multiple attackers.

I think he presumed he was going to go out through the front door. When he got there, he found he could not. In that process, Meredith became alerted. The confrontation grew out of that. I don't think jumping back out through Filomena's window was an attractive option. I don't know about leaving via the patio as a technical possibility as opposed to 'asking' Meredith for the key, but my guess is he did not have the time to figure that all out anyway because his failed attempt to leave via the front door alerted Meredith.

 

[Chris C]

What does the time line have anything to do with * All the blood?*. How does that deflect blame on someone else? He couldn't have known at that stage, what, if any DNA, was where, and of whom.

Rudy's whole defense has been to blame someone else. So if you was to judge whether he said something was true or false. Then you have to realize anything that he says that blames someone else has a higher chance to be a lie than something that doesn't.

As an example: Your kid is blamed for hitting a car with a rock. So you ask him. Yes dad, I was there but I didn't throw the rock it was someone else. You have an admission of presence at the scene. That has a high probability of truth. Doesn't necessarily mean he was there, just means the probability that admission of presence is more likely the truth than him saying he didn't throw the rock.

In Rudy's case he doesn't only admit to his presence but gives a timeline to go with it. Now for the all that blood statement, which he uses to deflect blame, there is no evidence of that. There is only so much blood in the body and a high majority of that was on the floor with Meredith.

In retrospect lets look at Amanda's confession. During questioning she claims to be there but later retracts that statement. Everything else she says has been pretty much proven to be false.

Whats the difference between Rudy's and Amanda's confessions to presence at the scene. Rudy's was given freely without interrogation with a timeline. Amanda's was given during interrogation in which she was called a liar and told they had proof she was there. So from a neutral point of view. Whose would you be more likely to believe. The one given freely without interrogation or the one that came from an intense interrogation.

FYI Mignini chose Amanda's over Rudy's.

 

[moodstream]

I'd prefer to put it down to simple incompetence. And this was such a whopper of incompetence that it was impossible to rationalise or explain away. Gotta love this "crack" forensics service........

Yes, but how? How do you make a mistake like that? What could have happened?

 

[capealadin]

I believe Raffaele and Rudy were advised by their lawyers to keep diaries, with the implication that they may become public. That is why so much of their diaries are accounts of what happened (or what the writers say happened). The lawyers might have seen it as a way to bolster their clients claims at trial -- "See? He not only said it, he also wrote it! And he wrote this way back at the beginning, so it must be true. "

The lawyers also might have been motivated by the potential for using the material in the press.

There is only one faux pas in Raffaele's diary, and I doubt it occurred to his lawyers that it would gain the mileage it has.

Well, if Raffaele knew his diaries might become public, weren't there a lot of not very nice things said about Amanda? I will have to go back and check what Raffaele wrote, but, IIRC, they were damning to Amanda. I'll get back to you on that, by tomorrow at the latest.

 

[RoseMontague]

The non-dna forensic portion of the Massei report makes for very sad reading, and, not knowing anything about forensics, I did not want to read it out of respect for the victim. It was too personal and graphic. However, after all the discussion about TOD, I finally did read it.

Parsing out the portion on the use of the knife to make the only one large wound on the left of the neck strongly confirms to me that the kitchen knife could not possibly have been used, regardless of dna findings. That leads naturally to the question of contamination.

In that same portion of the Massei report that discusses non-dna forensics is also a brief discussion of contamination. Not of the knife, but of the alcohol blood level. The report reports:

(Prof Cingolani) then went on to detail the outcome of the alcohol level test . He recalled that the level of alcohol found in Perugia at the Institute of Forensic Medicine was 0.43 grams per litre; the [level] that had been [152] detected in the blood, however, at the headquarters of the expert report commissioned for the pre-*‐‑trial hearing [incidente probatorio] was 2.72 grams per litre.

On the basis of such contrasting results, a check was carried out on the alcohol percentage in other regions: in the gastric content and then in the liver. A value substantially of zero had been found in the gastric content and, he stressed, "in the gastric content the quantity of alcohol is frighteningly greater than in the blood" (page 106). In the liver too a very slight quantity had been detected, equal to 0.2, which was comparable from the pharmacokinetic point of view with the 0.43 verified by Dr. Lalli at the Institute of Forensic Medicine of Perugia, rather than with the value of 2.72.

He concluded on this point that that was no pharmacokinetic condition which could justify all three of these values, that is zero in the stomach, 2.72 in the blood and 0.2 in the liver. On the basis of these elements they had concluded that Meredith was not in a condition of alcoholic intoxication.

He could not indicate why the analysis of the blood had given a particularly high value, "close to ethylic coma," (page 108) other than in terms of a simple hypothesis: the exchange of samples; a contamination with the passage of alcohol to the sample, taking place when the exhibit was in the refrigerator. P152 –PMF version.

Does that seem likely to anyone? – the passage of alcohol to the sample, taking place when the exhibit was in the refrigerator.

Is there an implication in the sentence detected in the blood, however, at the headquarters of the expert report commissioned for the pre-trial hearing?

My cynical side says it was an amateurish attempt to match the alcohol level in the blood to a wild sex party / satanic ritual crime theory that simply could not get off the ground.

But how did it happen?

My question on this one is why Massei has no difficulty seeing the possibility of contamination here and none at all when it comes to Amanda's and Raffaele's DNA. It appears that he is saying that there is no proof of contamination but since the results don't make sense then it must be contamination. No problemo with a "simple hypothesis" of contamination on this one. All this time I was told that if contamination was not proven then it doesn't exist, at least when it came to RS and AK.

 

[LondonJohn]

Has Raffaele denied giving the interview? Denied what he said to her? Because if he hasn't, then HE says there was blood EVERYWHERE!! And, then, if there was no cleanup, where did it all go? Please give me the link, to where he refutes the interview.

Here's Massey's umm....embellished report, which was actually published on the 4th November:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sunday-mirror/2007/11/04/italy-murder-details-emerge-98487-20058122/

Here's the full "quote", in context:

Raffaele Sollecito, 23, relived the horror of finding the body of the pretty brunette who died when her killer broke into her home and cut her throat as she lay in her bed.

"It is something I never hope to see again," he said. "There was blood everywhere and I couldn't take it all in.

So regardless of how much Massey actually spoke with Sollecito, it's absolutely clear that the "blood everywhere" phrase is referring to Meredith's room, and not to the hallway or cottage. This is further confirmed by the section further down the article, where Sollecito explicitly describes the condition of the small bathroom:

Raffaele said: "When she arrived the front door was wide open. She thought it was weird, but thought maybe someone was in the house and had left it ajar.

"But when she went into the bathroom she saw spots of blood all over the bath and sink. That's when she started getting really afraid and ran back to my place because she didn't want to go into the house alone. So I agreed to go back with her. When we walked in together, I knew straight away it was wrong. It was really eerily silent and the bathroom was speckled with blood like someone had flicked it around, just little spots."

So regardless of Sollecito's actual level of participation in this article, it's clear that there's no reference to the hallway or small bathroom having "blood everywhere".

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, but how? How do you make a mistake like that? What could have happened?

The samples could have somehow got mixed up with those of someone who did have a high BAC? Some lab ethanol was mistakenly introduced into the sample? However it happened, it's clearly grossly incompetent (and that's the most generous explanation that can be offered).

 

[shuttlt]

My question on this one is why Massei has no difficulty seeing the possibility of contamination here and none at all when it comes to Amanda's and Raffaele's DNA. It appears that he is saying that there is no proof of contamination but since the results don't make sense then it must be contamination. No problemo with a "simple hypothesis" of contamination on this one. All this time I was told that if contamination was not proven then it doesn't exist, at least when it came to RS and AK.

Presumably it is because here contamination seems to be the only explanation. This is in common with many of the cases of DNA evidence turning out to be flawed that have been posted. In the case of the knife and the bra clasp contamination is not the only explanation, even though we may possibly decide to favour it.

 

[moodstream]

My question on this one is why Massei has no difficulty seeing the possibility of contamination here and none at all when it comes to Amanda's and Raffaele's DNA. It appears that he is saying that there is no proof of contamination but since the results don't make sense then it must be contamination. No problemo with a "simple hypothesis" of contamination on this one. All this time I was told that if contamination was not proven then it doesn't exist, at least when it came to RS and AK.

I hear what you are saying. I still just cannot visualize how it can come to be that the blood sample could be 'accidentally' contaminated with alcohol?

Is it a common problem? What went wrong - assuming it was accidental.

 

[moodstream]

The samples could have somehow got mixed up with those of someone who did have a high BAC? Some lab ethanol was mistakenly introduced into the sample? However it happened, it's clearly grossly incompetent (and that's the most generous explanation that can be offered).

I would go with pretty gross on that one. Maybe unclean machines, but to test someone else's sample and complete the process all the way through to reporting it to the Preliminary Judge! I don't think any lab could be that sloppy.

 

[nopoirot]

Chris--Raffaele's powers of recollection have undergone something of a sea change. At the time he penned his early diary entries, he claimed he could no longer remember whether he and Amanda had spent the entire evening together. He did recall, however, telling the police that ". . .she [quella] had gone out to the bar where she worked, Le Chic" (Trans. Clander.) He also remembered telling the police that Amanda had persuaded him to say something not true [una cazzata]. It is to these verbal misadventures that he attributes his circumstances. I don't think the contradiction is easily glossed over.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'm fairly certain that during the interrogation of Sollecito, the police got him to admit that he couldn't be positive that Knox didn't leave while he was sleeping. Then again, was that interrogation tape of Sollecito ever turned over?

I've never grasped how this is taken to be a startling admission.

Possibly guilters don't have girlfriends or boyfriends? Even when sharing a bed with a new lover I've almost always spent a good chunk of the night sleeping, and since I've never been part of a relationship where we chained each other up or installed time locks on the doors and windows I have absolutely no proof that the women I was with didn't jump out of bed after I fell asleep and run off to murder people. I was asleep, how would I know if they did so?

I think this is just confirmation bias making any statement look bad. If Raffaele said he was asleep for part of the night and Amanda could have snuck off to murder people, that's "Raffaele dumping Amanda in it!". If he said he'd stayed awake all night staring at her and not blinking then they'd be saying "Nobody would ever do that, this is clearly a lie and only murderers lie!".

 

[shuttlt]

I would go with pretty gross on that one. Maybe unclean machines, but to test someone else's sample and complete the process all the way through to reporting it to the Preliminary Judge! I don't think any lab could be that sloppy.

Supposedly the knife and the bra clasp were also contaminated somewhere along the line as well. Perhaps there's a lot of it about.

 

[shuttlt]

I've never grasped how this is taken to be a startling admission.

I agree, but I thought this admission was during the Supreme Court thing.

Possibly guilters don't have girlfriends or boyfriends? Even when sharing a bed with a new lover I've almost always spent a good chunk of the night sleeping, and since I've never been part of a relationship where we chained each other up or installed time locks on the doors and windows I have absolutely no proof that the women I was with didn't jump out of bed after I fell asleep and run off to murder people. I was asleep, how would I know if they did so?

There's been a mini-meme recently that it's actually quite difficult to sleep with a new partner, hence the all night computer activity.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Not relevant. If the DNA was on the knife before it entered the lab it is a huge surprise if Meredith's DNA got there innocently. It really doesn't matter how many times it was amplified.


Which again begs the question how a pure uncontaminated sample of Meredith got onto it, if it is through some kind of 'Amanda walks the DNA home' scenario.

I was of course aiming at a lab contamination scenario. But considering a hypothesis that the DNA really was on the knife I'd say it's by far more probable it got there by transfer, than that it got there by stabbing and then survived a vigorous cleaning.

This kind of depends on what scenario we are talking about for contamination. He'd never been in the murder room, lots of other people had. Compared to several other people he hadn't spent much time in the flat.

Actually he was the last person that spent considerable time there. The day before he was there with Amanda while the Italian girls were away. On Nov 2 he was in every room and was trying to get into Meredith's room. Amanda also inevitably was transferring his DNA day by day. Even on Nov 2 when she came home to take a shower in the morning.

I'd place odds of a lot less than 5% on it, but even at 5% it would still be a surprise and, to me would still count as evidence. Lots of other evidence surely has a higher chance than 5% of being a random fluke and is allowed. You're not picking 5% because of statistical significance are you?

Just an arbitrary number large enough that I know I wouldn't sleep after convicting someone with such a probability of mistake.

Incidentally, no matter how little probability you would see of an "innocent" transfer, such a transfer is fully consistent with the complete lack of other incriminating traces.
And what are the chances that in a violent struggle, in which he was holding down and stabbing a victim squirting blood, he was struggling with her bra presumably to take sexual advantage of her and he left only one trace of incomlete DNA of LCN ammount? And of all the possible places where he could have left abundant DNA, footprints, hairs, fingerprints his single trace of DNA landed on a hook of a bra clasp? I would expect his DNA on the bra straps, on victim's body where he held her, even inside her body. At least some of his footprints on the floor.
Rudy left plenty of prints all over that room - on the pillow, on the floor. He left DNA on victim's clothing and in her body. He left other traces also.
I would just expect something adequate.



BTW Again all of our chance considerations disregard the non-zero probability that the DNA was simply planted.

 

[Mary_H]

Has Raffaele denied giving the interview? Denied what he said to her? Because if he hasn't, then HE says there was blood EVERYWHERE!! And, then, if there was no cleanup, where did it all go? Please give me the link, to where he refutes the interview.

The notoriously silent Raffaele has never denied giving the interview, as far as I know. I am not aware of anyone ever asking him about the interview, at least not in a public forum.

I have concluded that the interview is fake because the author attributes the breaking down of Meredith's bedroom door to Raffaele and goes from there. However, it was Filomena's boyfriend, Luca Altieri, who broke down the door. Raffaele was not even nearby and did not see any blood.

Not only was Raffaele too shy and withdrawn to give an interview with a British tabloid journalist in the days immediately following the murder, but it is safe to assume he had been advised by the police not to interact with the press, as Amanda had been. I'm not sure how much English he spoke, either.

It would also be ridiculous for him to claim breaking down the door when there were so many witnesses and press reports to the contrary.