Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

If this is the case, then it would back up his story about Knox being out from 9:00 until 1:00. He had excused his previous story thus:

"In my previous statement I told a load of rubbish because Amanda had convinced me of her version of the facts and I didn’t think about the inconsistencies."

He has never changed this story.

Wasn't the previous statement he is referring to as rubbish the one where he said Amanda was out?

 

[Chris C]

Chris C perhaps you implying that Solecito is as nutty as you believe Curatolo to be.

If this is the case, then it would back up his story about Knox being out from 9:00 until 1:00. He had excused his previous story thus:

"In my previous statement I told a load of rubbish because Amanda had convinced me of her version of the facts and I didn’t think about the inconsistencies."
He has never changed this story.

There ya go, compare my statement to the highlighted statement where you mentioned Knox's inconsistencies.

 

[RoseMontague]

First Magistrate’ hearing in front of Matteini (8 November 2007), p. 210, Darkness Descending.

“Judge Matteini said, ‘There are several points, Mr. Sollecito, that differ between your version of today and your version of events as related on the evening of 5 November just three days ago. Can you explain whether you were with Amanda Knox that evening or not?’
Now it was make-or-break time. Matteini had posed the million-dollar question. The one Mignini had been waiting for.
His pay-off was unexpected, effectively an explosive retraction of his initial confession.
Raffaele said, ‘I’m sorry I told you that crap about not being with Amanda. We were together that evening.’
…But now on the key point of the night in question, he was sticking to her like glue again. Backing her up… ‘I can confirm that I spent the night with Amanda Knox.’”

A Murder in Italy, page 198

“Then the judge asked the Italian student what he did remember, prompting a long, dull discussion about the broken pipe under the sink, which he had showed Amanda, discussing with her the probable cause of the leak, a perennial problem in that flat. He also remembered eating dinner with her, watching a movie, working on his computer, getting tired, and going to sleep. Yes of course they slept together. He just couldn’t remember what time they did each action, because he’d been stoned, in a holiday mood, and not punching a time clock.”

 

[LondonJohn]

Poor Harry still seems to have problems understanding that the issue around LCN is NOT based purely on whether LCN DNA is or is not by definition reliable to use in trial evidence. The issue is also crucially whether the LCN analysis is carried out under the extremely strict protocols that are required when dealing with such miniscule traces of DNA.

Stefanoni's testing procedures fell a very long way short of meeting the accepted procedural/protocol safeguards for working with LCN-range DNA. Therefore her results are not acceptable. This has nothing to do with the admissibility of LCN DNA testing per se. It has everything to do with the strict conditions that are mandatory before LCN DNA evidence can even consider being reliable enough to use - the conditions which Stefanoni signally failed to observe.

 

[LondonJohn]

First Magistrate’ hearing in front of Matteini (8 November 2007), p. 210, Darkness Descending.



A Murder in Italy, page 198

Ah, it's all too easy to read what one wants to read into Sollecito's "cavolo" statement - if one's already convinced of his and Knox's guilt, that is.

 

[colonelhall]

Rose: "Wasn't the previous statement he is referring to as rubbish the one where he said Amanda was out?"

I don't think so.

As far as I can see, his final statement is the one where he said:

"Amanda and I went into town at around 6pm, but I don’t remember what we did. We stayed there until around 8.30 or 9pm.

At 9pm I went home alone and Amanda said that she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends. We said goodbye. I went home, I rolled myself a spliff and made some dinner.”

 

[RoseMontague]

Ah, it's all too easy to read what one wants to read into Sollecito's "cavolo" statement - if one's already convinced of his and Knox's guilt, that is.

It bothers me that the rubbish story is presented as the one where he is with Amanda all night when it is perfectly clear that it is the story that Amanda was out that is rubbish. It is also not correct when the claim is made that he has never backtracked on the Amanda was out story.

Raffaele makes it clear both before and after his 5 November statement that he was with Amanda all night.

 

[RoseMontague]

Rose: "Wasn't the previous statement he is referring to as rubbish the one where he said Amanda was out?"

I don't think so.

As far as I can see, his final statement is the one where he said:

"Amanda and I went into town at around 6pm, but I don’t remember what we did. We stayed there until around 8.30 or 9pm.

At 9pm I went home alone and Amanda said that she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends. We said goodbye. I went home, I rolled myself a spliff and made some dinner.”

What was the date of this final statement?

 

[LondonJohn]

It bothers me that the rubbish story is presented as the one where he is with Amanda all night when it is perfectly clear that it is the story that Amanda was out that is rubbish. It is also not correct when the claim is made that he has never backtracked on the Amanda was out story.

Raffaele makes it clear both before and after his 5 November statement that he was with Amanda all night.

You and I and every rational, objective observer can see that this is exactly the correct interpretation of the "cavolo" remark. Maybe a surfeit of emotional intelligence can make some people see things that aren't there though.....

 

[LondonJohn]

Here are two excerpts from Sollecito's prison diary, written on 8th November 2007:

I remember that I surfed the Internet for a bit, maybe I watched a
film and then that you had called me at the house or that anyhow you
sent me a goodnight message. I remember that was Thursday, therefore
Amanda had to go to the pub where she usually works, but I don't
remember how much time she was absent and remember that subsequently
she had said to me that the pub was closed (I have strong doubts
regarding the fact that she was absent). I am straining myself to
remember other details but they are all confused. Another thing of
which I can be sure is that Amanda slept with me that night.

Today the court questioned me and said that I gave three different
statements, but the only difference that I find is that I said that
Amanda brought me to say crap in the second version, and that was to
go out at the bar where she worked, Le Chic. But I do not remember
exactly whether she went out or less to go to the pub and as a
consequence I do not remember how long she was absent.

 

[RoseMontague]

Here are two excerpts from Sollecito's prison diary, written on 8th November 2007:

Yes,
That is consistent with the quotes from the first Magistrate's hearing that I quoted above, the appearance in court he is referring to in his diary from earlier the same day.

 

[TomCH]

She realizes she is in the grip of a system that does not care about the truth.

On the contrary, she is in the grip of a system that ONLY cares about the truth, and not some BS from the American spin doctors!

 

[TomCH]

PMF describes this picture as cunning and manipulative. I would describe it as courageous. How do you feel about this one?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_383964d11dd61a21ee.jpg[/qimg]

Evil incarnate?

 

[colonelhall]

I apologise, if I have displayed a surfeit of emotional intelligence here. I am amazed that at this stage, people like myself remain confused about Solecito's final statement.

In my defence, I can only say that the fact that he appeared to give Amanda up with one of his statements, is pretty damning. Why did he do this?

There is also the question of his diary of 17th November, where talks of Knox going out to the pub, but that it was closed.

He still seems to be very confused about the events,though. The way he tells it, he must have smoked some heavy stuff that night!

I also note that he talks about cleaning up and possibly having breakfast, during which time Knox seems to have mentioned blood, faeces and open doors.

Seriously, how can you possibly believe anything that this pair have to say?

Arguing for months, possibly years about DNA, homeless people, luminol etc. is very well, but surely, these two would hardly convince any court of their innocence with stuff like this.

 

[Justinian2]

Yes it was on JREF and not PMF, wasn't it?

Well, the poll still proves that the majority is good at reproduction.

I was wondering what makes me far more cynical about the typical 'good guy' &
'bad guy' portrayals in 'Love thy Policeman' movies. Does it make a difference that I probably only watch one quarter of the cops & robbers movies that the average American does? Does it make a difference that I hate shows like "Blue Blood" and "CSI" because I find them to be bigoted and prejudiced? Which comes first, the prejudice or the movies that build the prejudice & stereotype?

Unlike the majority, I quickly decided that Amanda was innocent. Anyway I've found myself, for the first time, on the side of the super police (FBI) like Steve Moore.

 

[RoseMontague]

Evil incarnate?

LOL,
Thanks for your opinion, TomCH, I welcome any and all opinions on this. It is certainly a question that is subjective.

 

[colonelhall]

Here are two excerpts from Sollecito's prison diary, written on 8th November 2007:

Thanks for this L.J. Pretty damning stuff!

Am I reading this right? Amanda had told him to lie about them being together. He then retracted the lie, but he is not sure of it is a lie or not.

Any jury in the world ......

 

[christianahannah]

from: Amanda Knox's appeal rests on jailhouse letters, challenges to DNA evidence By ANDREA VOGT 12/06/2010

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/431257_knox06.html?source=mypi

The amount of Kercher's DNA found on the blade was such a trace amount it registered with a "too low" reading when analyzed.

A top geneticist at one of Europe's top forensic labs at the University of Salzburg confirmed in an interview with seattlepi.com that it is possible to amplify such a small amount of DNA, as Stefanoni did, until DNA can be identified.

But the expert added that it would not be allowable unless the result could be reproduced, something police biologist Stefanoni said under cross-examination could not be done.

The Salzburg geneticist, who does forensic testing for police agencies in neighboring Austria, said that in the university's certified lab (which has the highest certification available in Germany and Austria) different operators are required to handle suspect and victim DNA and that the various phases of DNA analysis happen in different labs along a "one-way street" to avoid the possibility of contamination.

Such protocols were not in place in Rome. In fact, Italy is noted for being behind on international forensic standards. For example, it is one of the last (and only) European countries to have not yet become part of the Prum convention, which sets basic guidelines for sharing of DNA data and other security information.

Yes, from the same article is this sentence:

No police labs in Italy had certification at the time since no national standards existed.

According to the motivations the Rome lab was in the process of certification during the time of the case. In applying and achieving the certification the lab did not have to modify any procedures they were currently doing.

Pages 198-199:

She knew what the certification of quality assurance ISO 9001 was, and she specified that they had been waiting for over a year for said certification for which they had carried out the necessary procedures. She specified that, contrary to the ISO 9001 quality assurance certification which pertains to the procedures to follow in order to guarantee good execution of the analyses, the ISO 17025 certification is pertains to the technical laboratory verifications and also the instruments and the equipment that are used for the analyses.

She added that they were in the process of requesting this certification as well. She explained that in order to be able to obtain said certifications ‚one needs to put in writing things, that, maybe, are already being done, however, certainly, it’s necessary to put it in writing because there is an external certification agency which must be informed‛(page 106). She explained that the procedures adopted and that yielded the results presented, were the ones that were implemented by all genetic forensic laboratories that dealt with this type of analysis.

Page 220:

With respect to the certification ISO 17025, she stated that it was not mandatory, but was done on a voluntary basis, meaning that any laboratory, any [232] institute, even private, can request it from the certification board, so as to be able to state that one’s laboratory works to quality standards.

The Scientific Police had asked for this certification. She added that when the analyses under discussion were performed, there was no public agency which possessed this certification. The Scientific Police and the RACIS (now the RIS) of the Carabinieri were the first to request it.

She explained that in order to obtain the certification, they were not in the process of modifying, nor needed to modify, anything in their methods of analysis, or in their facilities, machines or anything else. They only had to document certain things. In fact, she explained, "in reality, this type of certification certifies that all the instruments and all the steps and phases of the work have been done with instruments, machines, diagnostic kits and analytical kits which are in their turn certified; thus, in practice, it is a certification that everything in use which could be certified has been, but it does not actually change anything" (page 71).

And page 253:

The Public Prosecutor then produced a copy of the ISO 9001 2008 certificate issued to the Scientific Police Service, valid as of July 21, 2009.

Like you I am curious about the transport and packaging of the knife once it reached the police station and on to the lab. It doesn't seem right to take it out of the evidence bag and put it in a box and send it on. Was it double bagged? This needs to be clarified because I cannot think it is proper procedure to unbag evidence before it arrives at a lab.

 

[RoseMontague]

I apologise, if I have displayed a surfeit of emotional intelligence here. I am amazed that at this stage, people like myself remain confused about Solecito's final statement.

In my defence, I can only say that the fact that he appeared to give Amanda up with one of his statements, is pretty damning. Why did he do this?

There is also the question of his diary of 17th November, where talks of Knox going out to the pub, but that it was closed.

He still seems to be very confused about the events,though. The way he tells it, he must have smoked some heavy stuff that night!

I also note that he talks about cleaning up and possibly having breakfast, during which time Knox seems to have mentioned blood, faeces and open doors.

Seriously, how can you possibly believe anything that this pair have to say?

Arguing for months, possibly years about DNA, homeless people, luminol etc. is very well, but surely, these two would hardly convince any court of their innocence with stuff like this.

It's a good point. The problem comes with lying to police. You get caught in a lie and then you have to justify the lie with another and so on. Raffaele did the correct thing to admit his was a load of rubbish and also to remain silent after that, in my opinion. It was already "proven" that either his 5 November statement was wrong or the statements before and the one after are wrong.
I believe Amanda tried to explain her false accusation overly much. Again, same issues once the statement contradicting her earlier statements were made. Neither could change the fact that they were now shown to have given false information. Those judging the veracity of their statements now have a choice of believing either or, the cat is already out of the bag and the moving finger has already writ. The hard part now becomes of why they made false statements and which ones are the false ones.

 

[RoseMontague]

Thanks for this L.J. Pretty damning stuff!

Am I reading this right? Amanda had told him to lie about them being together. He then retracted the lie, but he is not sure of it is a lie or not.

Any jury in the world ......

And the big question is why would Amanda tell him to lie and discredit her own alibi? Or is Raffaele just blaming Amanda for his lie to begin with?