Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

I think the standard answer to the negative results part, would be to say that the court seemed happy with the information she provided. In any case, it's the second part I want to get stuck into. I'm aware of many things she's said being claimed to be a lie. Which bit do you mean and do we have transcripts of what she said?

There are - as you probably know - no trial transcripts. However, it appears that Stefanoni might have given an answer in her court testimony that certain footprints in the hallway were not tested for blood - whereas it now appears that she might actually have tested the prints for blood and that these tests came back negative.

 

[shuttlt]

There are - as you probably know - no trial transcripts.

I didn't mean to be facetious. There are sections of direct speach available from the trial. I know that 6 months ago there was nothing from Stefanoni, but I thought things might have changed.

However, it appears that Stefanoni might have given an answer in her court testimony that certain footprints in the hallway were not tested for blood - whereas it now appears that she might actually have tested the prints for blood and that these tests came back negative.

If she's found to by giving false testimony then she should be reported to whatever professional body she belongs to. Doubtless this is something that people with access to the transcripts can take up if they wish.

 

[shuttlt]

Is there some legal reason why the transcripts cannot be published. Dr Waterbury indicated to me that he had access to all the information relating to the case and, far from it being secret, I had but to go to Italy and pay a few thousand euro to have it photocopied. Charlie has been given so much, I don't see why he should be denied this, even if it is in Italian. So many questions would be answered.

 

[LondonJohn]

Is there some legal reason why the transcripts cannot be published. Dr Waterbury indicated to me that he had access to all the information relating to the case and, far from it being secret, I had but to go to Italy and pay a few thousand euro to have it photocopied. Charlie had been given so much, I don't see why he should be denied this, even if it is in Italian. So many questions would be answered.

I'm under the impression that the trial transcripts are available for inspection in person at the Perugia courthouse, but I'm not even sure whether they can be photocopied. They're certainly not available anywhere online - the direct quotes from the trial probably come from journalists who attended the trial and who contemporaneously noted down parts of what was said.

 

[shuttlt]

I'm under the impression that the trial transcripts are available for inspection in person at the Perugia courthouse, but I'm not even sure whether they can be photocopied. They're certainly not available anywhere online - the direct quotes from the trial probably come from journalists who attended the trial and who contemporaneously noted down parts of what was said.

But the defence presumably have somewhat more direct access to this information, no? I'm not laying a trap, it's just something that puzzles me and presumably there is a good answer to. So much of what we frit away our time about here would be resolved at a stroke.

 

[RWVBWL]

Re: When Raffaele met Amanda

Rafaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox met a short time before the brutal, bloody murder of Miss Meredith Kercher.
They met at a concert. A classical music concert!
Not at a Rave very popular with the young, partyin' crowd.
Not at the Domus nightclub, heck, not even at the Red Zone, were Rudy Guede's lawyer had his 50th birthdy party.
They met at a concert. Not one playing punk rock, death metal, heavy metal, rock n roll, or even gangsta' rap,
But at a concert featuring classical music, of all places.

????????
Music don't make you commit murder or not commit murder. I know plenty of plenty of people that like listening to classical music when their high. These same people listen to gangsta rap and/or death metal.

Hi Chris C,
I was just listening to the Misfits "American Psycho" an hour ago. I'm kinda pumped up, and feelin' a bit aggessive right now. I also slam in the pit sometimes when ST, Suicidal Tendencies plays, as I did too when I went with a crew to see Bad Religion. Etc, etc...

A certain type of people go to these shows, hardcore guys and gals, if you get my drift.

If Raffaele Sollecito had met Amanda Knox at say, a Suicidal Tendencies concert,
filled with the type of people with a certain attitude that you generally do not wanna **** with,
I would have been a lot more convinced that a small chance in **** actually existed that they might have played a part in the brutal, bloody stabbing death of Miss Meredith Kercher.

For it was the manner in which Miss Kercher died that is,
in my humble opinion, the actions of a person(s) filled with rage and anger.
Who is going to take a knife and then actually shove it into a friends throat? Pull it out and then do it again?
A stoned Beatles music luver? 1 whom had met her new boyfriend while listening to classical music while out on the town at a concert? Come on!

The person(s) who killed Meredith Kercher obviously listened to some type of music in their recent life before commiting this tragically brutal, horribly bloody act. I bet it wasn't classical music such as Vivaldi's "Four Seasons", nor even Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries"!
And I bet that this person(s) who did indeed shove a knife into Meredith Kercher's neck was neither Raffaele Sollecito or Amanda Knox, who just a short time earlier had met for the 1st time while attending a concert featuring classical music...

But hey, that's just my opinion regarding the not-oft discussed 1st date between Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.
And you know what Chris C? It's cool if you disagree!
Peace, RWVBWL

PS-Oh, by the way, I'm friends with some the the Venice ST boyz,
seen 'em many times, on stage, back stage, and in the pit. I have never murdered anyone, but I've been in a few good fist fights. I bet Raffaele Sollecito, from what I have read, hardly ever got in fist fights, much less a knife fight. Too mellow of a dude...
L8, RW

 

[LondonJohn]

But the defence presumably have somewhat more direct access to this information, no? I'm not laying a trap, it's just something that puzzles me and presumably there is a good answer to. So much of what we frit away our time about here would be resolved at a stroke.

I personally don't know the answer to this. I suspect that the lawyers for both sides might have to visit the courtroom to view the transcripts just like anyone else, plus of course they have their own recollections and notes from the trial itself. But maybe if the trial lawyers do get their own printed copy of the trial transcript, they might be bound by law not to share it with anyone outside those closely connected with the case. But the short answer is: I really don't know. Maybe someone else does.

 

[Dan O.]

You're lying to yourself Dan if you believe there has ever been any testimony or statements made by either of them regarding Naruto or him being up all night on his computer. Also no mention of them pushing their day trip back to the afternoon because of late sleeping. Why didn't they tell their lawyers, family and/or friends about this all night Naruto/computer thing? Ok, it's because it never happened...

....On the other hand, if it's true, and Raffaele was on the computer all night it does explain why this freak, at age 23, never had a girlfriend before. Still doesn't give Amanda an alibi.

I have stated a scenario following the known facts where Raffaele stays up using his computer (as he said he did) until he receives an SMS from his father which was sent around 11PM and then he goes to bed. They never once claim to have checked what time the events of that night occurred but tried to estimate the times to satisfy the interrogators. From the phone records we know that the SMS was not delivered until 6AM. The defense also claim that the windowServer log confirms interaction on the computer through the night. What you claim is a lie is simply explained by someone loosing track of the time.

That you have to resort to insults should tell you that you don't have a case.

Raffaele only admitted that Amanda could have slipped out while he was asleep. The evidence shows that Raffaele was awake (at least intermittently) till 6AM. Unless you provide a scenario for the murder happening after 6AM or find some other way to invalidate this scenario, Raffaele is providing Amanda with an alibi extending far beyond any time of death window ever presented.

 

[RoseMontague]

There are - as you probably know - no trial transcripts. However, it appears that Stefanoni might have given an answer in her court testimony that certain footprints in the hallway were not tested for blood - whereas it now appears that she might actually have tested the prints for blood and that these tests came back negative.

As pointed out in Amanda's appeal pg 53/54 Stefanoni was quoted as saying the knife blade "DNA" tested positive for quantification and it was on the order of a few hundred picograms. This was false testimony and it references the hearing transcripts from 2008. It was not until she was forced to turn over some of her notes in July 2009 that the truth was determined. The appeal points out that this false information was also included in the written technical report from 2008.

 

[LondonJohn]

As pointed out in Amanda's appeal pg 53/54 Stefanoni was quoted as saying the knife blade "DNA" tested positive for quantification and it was on the order of a few hundred picograms. This was false testimony and it references the hearing transcripts from 2008. It was not until she was forced to turn over some of her notes in July 2009 that the truth was determined. The appeal points out that this false information was also included in the written technical report from 2008.

This is in addition to the footprint blood tests issue, right?

 

[Kaosium]

No, the Telegraph is more akin to the New York Times or the LA Times, in terms of its journalistic integrity and type of content. The NY Post would be more analogous to something between The Sun (both the NY Post and The Sun are owned by Murdoch's NewsCorp) and the Mail/Express.

The Telegraph still has a heavy focus on serious economic and political stories (it broke the UK parliamentary expenses scandal story last year, for example), but as with all print media it has expanded its features/lifestyle sections over the past decade in response to shifting consumer demands and the rising influence of online and 24-hour broadcast media. But the NY Post it most certainly ain't.

I agree it wouldn't be much like the New York Post, but I think a better comparison would be the Wall Street Journal, without the added emphasis to financial issues. Kind of an expanded version of the WSJ's editorial pages.

ETA: That would include the 'slant' and better describe the readership. I think the Guardian would be a better comparison to the NYT, and the Washington Post akin to the Times.

BTW, when did London and Manchester get officially removed from names of their corresponding papers?

 

[RoseMontague]

This is in addition to the footprint blood tests issue, right?

Yep.

ETA: Sorry for the short reply, LJ. I was temporarily afear'd that too many words would put me in the sights of statement analysis dude who has just confounded me with an expositorium of brilliant science stuff on his analysis of Amanda's hand written statement as a guest expert over at TJMK.

 

[LondonJohn]

I agree it wouldn't be much like the New York Post, but I think a better comparison would be the Wall Street Journal, without the added emphasis to financial issues. Kind of an expanded version of the WSJ's editorial pages.

ETA: That would include the 'slant' and better describe the readership. I think the Guardian would be a better comparison to the NYT, and the Washington Post akin to the Times.

BTW, when did London and Manchester get officially removed from names of their corresponding papers?

The Times was always just The Times - never The London Times. But many international commentators refer to it as "The London Times" (or sometimes "The Times of London")*, chiefly to avoid confusion with the NY Times - which is often referred to in shorthand as "The Times". The Manchester Guardian dropped the "Manchester" part in the early 1960s, I believe - at around the time that it moved its offices from Manchester to London (where it's been based ever since).

The Guardian has traditionally had the most left-wing bent of all the "quality" dailies, while conversely The Telegraph has a reputation of being right-wing and somewhat reactionary. However, over the past decade or so it's safe to say that both titles have shifted far more into the middle ground - although The Guardian's still left-of-centre and The Telegraph's still right-of-centre.

* Similar to the way in which The Open Golf Championship is often referred to by commentators (even by many in the UK) as The British Open.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yep.

ETA: Sorry for the short reply, LJ. I was temporarily afear'd that too many words would put me in the sights of statement analysis dude who has just confounded me with an expositorium of brilliant science stuff on his analysis of Amanda's hand written statement as a guest expert over at TJMK.

It IS good stuff isn't it?! I wonder how that bloke would perform in a controlled test where confirmation bias can't play a role? I'm thinking perhaps of side-by-side analysis of two statements - one of which was written by someone who was later proven to be guilty of a serious crime (with overwhelmingly strong evidence of guilt), and the other of which was written by someone who was subsequently proven to be totally innocent (via a cast-iron alibi, perhaps, or if the true perpetrator was found).

It's just a hunch, but I'm guessing that our statement analysis fellow wouldn't do all that well at telling the guilty apart from the innocent......

 

[RWVBWL]

Could be. What could possibly be the motivation for Raffaele's attorney to call them lovebirds? How does this help the defense? They knew each other for six days before the murder and it appears that they had a language barrier.

In addition, calling them lovebirds doesn't exactly fit in with the defense's attempt now to have Raffaele on the computer the entire night. You have an attractive, probably naked women in your bed and you'd rather watch Japanese animation?

Gosh Alt-F4,
Give a guy a break!
I bet those 6 days were the best it had ever been for the guy! Then he got locked up.
The guy was probably doin' it anywhere and anyhow! Good for him!
After 6 days, I bet the guy was runnin' low, probably almost empty, shootin' blanks, if you get my drift!
Sometimes the lil' guy needs a liitle break to, you know, re-charge the batteries, Alt-F4...

From what I have read, mind you it was in Barbie Nadeau's book "Angel Face", Amanda had went home to shower the morning of Nov. 1, the day before Meredith was found dead and afterwards, all fresh and clean, Raffaele had his way with her, again. Raffaele was makin' up for lost time!

I wonder if he did so after Amanda came back after showering on the morning of the 2nd? For didn't a police officer say that Amanda smelled like sex? And her hair did not look, IMO, like it had been blow dried, but just a little disheveled.
A few questions for the crew:
I know that after showering, Amanda returned to Raffaele's wth the mop and they cleaned the floor again. That tells me that Amanda must not have been very concerned yet about what she saw when she showered, since she then helped clean Raffaele's kitchen floor instead of, you know, calling the cops in a foreign country about some strangeness going on at her shared apartment.
When Amanda left to shower, did Raffaele blaze? I know many a smoker does so when they wake up.
When Amanda came back, did she or they both blaze then too? They were supposed to leave on a fun road trip that day, so I would think that they might have.
IIRC, they had breakfast together and that was when Amanda told Raffaele of the strange disturbances at her apartment? If so, what did they eat? Cereal or did they cook again?
When did they eat, before cleaning the floor or afterwards?
Had they packed a day bag yet? Did they have Raffaele's car packed up already for the day trip?
Hmmm, questions, questions, questions....
RWVBWL

PS-This murder case has always had sex being a large part of its mystery and intrigue. I'm sure that this has helped to sell a few newspapers and magazines too. I had heard the term sex sells, but never really understood its true meaning. Being a longtime surfer, 1 that uses and has even sold Sexwax, the best for your stick, for many, many years, I had to ask Mr. Zog how he came up with the name. I eagerly awaited his reply, wonderin'. He just simply said, Randy, sex sells!

PSS-Speakin' of sex, and freaks, Alt-F4,
my younger brother, whose packin', didn't get lucky with the ladies until he almost turned 21!
Boy, did he ever get teased! But the freak has made up for that, hahaha!
I'm glad that you Alt-F4 got the chance to get hitched. Some surfers gal friends of mine did too...
Peace, RW

 

[Chris C]

Hi Shuttlt and Keven Lowe,
The problem I have regarding Dr. Patrizia Stefinoni and the lab's work is that she collected some of that evidence herself.
And did not seem to change her gloves as she worked hard collecting evidence.
And then, in what I would think is a conflict of interest, she tested, I believe, some of the same evidence she collected(???)
She was not forthcoming with any negative results and apparently lied about certain testing in her court testimony.

If a person of authority lied in court and was caught in that lie,
1, such as I, might wonder of this:
What else might that person have lied about or done to further their case in this particular instance?
It also begs the question:
Has this person done this before in other criminal trials?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

PS-Something I find interesting is watching very intelligent pro-guilt supporters apparently have the wool pulled over the their eyes as they seem to overlook this fact I noted above when they discuss any chance of contamination or falsification possibilities.

Though I do agree stefanoni lied in court and her testing is suspect at best. I dont think you can actually say she was caught in a lie. If i remember correctly they didn't find evidence of her lie until after she gave testimony. So I dont think she was ever questioned about her misleading statements in court. Though I'm willing to bet, it will be brought up in the appeals.

 

[treehorn]

Hope you're all enjoying the Holiday Season - I used a little of my time off to check out the PBS Frontline piece on the 'Norfolk Four' (per Halides' suggestion).

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-confessions/interviews/

I was amazed. Astounded.

Truly.

I've been giving it a lot of thought ever since.

What are the 'relevant differences' w/r/t the Kercher case?

What are the 'relevant similarities' w/r/t the Kercher case?

Like most law students, I studied a number of wrongful conviction cases in 1L Crim - I even went so far as to take an upper year/ optional course on the subject in 2L. However, our casebooks and related lectures didn't devote much attention to the matter of 'false confessions' in particular.

Anything I've read on 'internalized false confessions' indicated that they occurred primarily in 2 kinds/classes of subjects: 1) the mentally defective; & 2) extreme introverts.

Alas, terms of this kind were just words on a page - we were not able to watch, say, video recordings of the subjects in question - so I've never been precisely clear on what level of functioning would meet the test for defective/deficient/disabled.

I'm now trying to assess whether the Navy men in question can be reasonably assigned to either of the two categories/ classes.

In particular, I'm inclined to suspect that Joe Dick (whose confessions arguably did the most damage) may be a fit for the mentally defective category. Indeed, he has been described as follows:

"... although he was not specifically diagnosed, Joe struggled with learning and developmental disabilities that hampered his intellectual and social development..."


See:
http://www.norfolkfour.com/index.php?/norfolk/people_page/joseph_jesse_dick_jr/

I'm also inclined to suspect that Joe may be a fit for the 'extreme introvert' category as well.

Nevertheless, Joe did not, IMHO, seem to be functioning at a level so low that he would easily confess to a crime he did not commit.

All of this has me wondering how broadly defined the categories/classes ought to be, and whether Knox or Sollecito can be said to fall within those classes.

 

[treehorn]

It looks like you can be added to the list of people who don't understand what "circumstantial evidence" means. I'd wager that well over 95% of criminal cases which ever reach trial are based entirely on circumstantial evidence. After all, if there's good direct evidence against the defendant, it's pretty much a slam-dunk for the prosecution and we might as well all move on to sentencing. As a reminder, circumstantial evidence includes ALL fingerprint, DNA, blood, fibre, hair, clothing and other physical evidence, together with all witness evidence which is not witness to the crime actually in progress. If someone was murdered, and my blood was found all over the person's body, and a knife covered in a mixture of my blood and the victim's blood was found in my hand as I ran away from the scene of the murder, all this would still constitute circumstantial evidence of my guilt. Very strong circumstantial evidence of my guilt, to be sure, but circumstantial nonetheless. Direct evidence (the only other type than circumstantial evidence) is explicitly limited to full and robust confessions, testimony from eyewitnesses who saw the crime being committed, and video/photographic (and sometimes audio) recordings of the crime in progress. Everything else is circumstantial. Everything else.

Interesting that you decided to enlighten "Quadraginta" yet said nothing to "Poppy1016", who wrote (post #23308):

"To me, circumstantial evidence becomes weak with the lack of physical evidence."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Derek Tice

To all,

Derek Tice, one of the Norfolk Four, had an IQ that was greater than 148, according to the book, The Wrong Guys. The notion that only mentally retarded people falsely confess does not appear to be true.

p.s. See page 45 in the document linked above.
"Indeed, the published data indicate that most false confessions are given by mentally normal, not insane or cognitively impaired, adults (Drizin & Leo, 2004; Leo & Ofshe, 1998; Kassin & Gudjonsson, 2004; Davis & O’Donohue, 2004)."

 

[treehorn]

It is routine for lawyers to advise their clients to answer that they don't remember, as opposed to trying to guess at a precise answer.

But not as opposed to telling the truth about what you can remember.

(Unless the lawyer in question is looking to get disbarred for assisting his/her client to perpetrate a fraud upon the court.)