Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Wasn't Filomena at a birthday party? with many more than just her boyfriend to vouch for her whereabouts?



There was no other DNA of Raffaele found in the cottage except for the cigarette butt taken in the first round of collections. Secondary transfer at the scene on December 18th is therefore unlikely. Contamination at the lab seems also unlikely if this butt was processed many weeks before. Seems we are left with deliberate planting of evidence, which personally I don't believe happened.
Here's a thought though. What about those luminol footprints attributed to Raffaele? could someone step on one with their booties, step on the clasp, transferring the minutest amount of his DNA, and voila!
Just trying to help your theory.

Remember, though, that just because Sollecito's DNA was only found by the forensics team in one place in the cottage (the cigarette butt), that doesn't automatically mean that this was the only DNA of his that was actually present in the cottage. One could only draw that inference if the police had tested every square inch of every single surface and object in the cottage. They didn't.

It's not impossible, for example, that Sollecito's DNA was on a part of the outer face of Meredith's bedroom door that hadn't been swabbed, and that a member of the forensics team touched that part of the door before the bizarre fingertip examination of the bra clasp took place.

 

[LondonJohn]

No. Do you think the Massei Report is wrong on this point? Why?



So Filomena's alibi isn't just backed up by her boyfriend, her other friends were with her too. Now it's not clear how long Filomena and her boyfriend were with their friends but it's incorrect to say she has the same alibi as Amanda...who btw, has no alibi.

You seem to be missing the point somewhat. Nobody here (as far as I know) thinks - or is in any way asserting - that Filomena had anything whatsoever to do with Meredith's death. The point here is that if one looks at facets of any particular person's behaviour, one can get overly "creative" in linking aspects of that behaviour to indicators of guilt. For example, if Knox had "lawyered up" on 2nd November, then some people would have been saying that she did so because she clearly had something to hide, yet if Filomena did so, it's simply because she was wise.

BTW, where in the Massei report are the full transcripts of Filomena's witness interviews? I can't find them: am I missing something?

 

[shuttlt]

Remember, though, that just because Sollecito's DNA was only found by the forensics team in one place in the cottage (the cigarette butt), that doesn't automatically mean that this was the only DNA of his that was actually present in the cottage. One could only draw that inference if the police had tested every square inch of every single surface and object in the cottage. They didn't.

It's not impossible, for example, that Sollecito's DNA was on a part of the outer face of Meredith's bedroom door that hadn't been swabbed, and that a member of the forensics team touched that part of the door before the bizarre fingertip examination of the bra clasp took place.

Or was on parts of Kerchers body/clothing that weren't swabbed.

If we're being pedantic, presumably we can all agree that at some level, in some locations within the cottage his DNA was certainly present.

 

[LondonJohn]

Or was on parts of Kerchers body/clothing that weren't swabbed.

If we're being pedantic, presumably we can all agree that at some level, in some locations within the cottage his DNA was certainly present.

Well yes, you're right of course. Although Meredith's body and most of her clothing (with the baffling and thoroughly unprofessional exception of her jacket and shoes) were removed from the scene long before the return visit of the forensics team in mid-December (the need for which, of course, was in itself unnecessary and unprofessional).

And of course, as you were subtly pointing out, if Sollecito's DNA were on Meredith's body or the clothes she was wearing when she was killed, then that would in itself be evidence of Sollecito's culpability (and transfer would no longer be the important issue). But that's a somewhat circular argument. The question to be answered is whether Sollecito's DNA could have found its way onto that bra clasp without Sollecito having been involved in the murder. If there's no possible (and reasonable) affirmative answer to that question, then things look bad for Sollecito - assuming, of course, that it can be shown that his DNA is indeed present on the bra clasp in the first place.

 

[Alt+F4]

You seem to be missing the point somewhat. Nobody here (as far as I know) thinks - or is in any way asserting - that Filomena had anything whatsoever to do with Meredith's death. The point here is that if one looks at facets of any particular person's behaviour, one can get overly "creative" in linking aspects of that behaviour to indicators of guilt. For example, if Knox had "lawyered up" on 2nd November, then some people would have been saying that she did so because she clearly had something to hide, yet if Filomena did so, it's simply because she was wise.

Ah, "behaviors"....Is that a code word for lying to the police, changing your story and accusing an innocent person of murder?

BTW, where in the Massei report are the full transcripts of Filomena's witness interviews? I can't find them: am I missing something?

Do you have evidence that the Massei Report is incorrect in regard to Filomena's statements even if they are not included in full?

 

[Danceme]

Remember, though, that just because Sollecito's DNA was only found by the forensics team in one place in the cottage (the cigarette butt), that doesn't automatically mean that this was the only DNA of his that was actually present in the cottage. One could only draw that inference if the police had tested every square inch of every single surface and object in the cottage. They didn't.

It's not impossible, for example, that Sollecito's DNA was on a part of the outer face of Meredith's bedroom door that hadn't been swabbed, and that a member of the forensics team touched that part of the door before the bizarre fingertip examination of the bra clasp took place.

The door to Meredith's room is one item I will not believe was not subject to exhaustive testing. There was blood on the handle and side of the door and if Raffaele's DNA were anywhere on that door it would have been found.

 

[katy_did]

OK. In that case, do I have you right that you believe it would have been standard practice to gather other items (spoons etc) from the drawer that Raffaele's kitchen knife was removed from? I don't mean to bang on about this, in fact I'd forgotten the discussion until you brought it up, but people keep discounting the knife in part because such controls were not done. As discussed I've seen no citations indicating this is how the police normally behave anywhere, just Steve Moore saying that in a different location they should have gathered up every knife.

Whether it's standard practice in general, I don't know, but it seems to me that it should certainly have occurred in this case, because of the traffic between the two houses, and because both Amanda and Raffaele had contact with the victim. It might be less important if the suspect was a stranger who had no business being in the house anyway. IMO this is the problem with so much of the forensic evidence in this case: when they swabbed the bathroom, for example, they didn't take any control samples to take into account the fact that Amanda used the bathroom every day.

I've read often that the 'pro-innocent' posters look at the evidence in isolation rather than as part of an overall framework, but IMO that isn't the case: the important thing is that there are two possible scenarios in which the evidence can be viewed, the first being that they took part in the murder, and the second that they were frequent and recent visitors to the cottage, and in Amanda's case that she lived there. If the evidence can be explained by the second scenario, it makes no sense to assume instead that the first occurred. Taking control samples from the bathroom or testing other objects from Raffaele's flat might have helped link the forensic results to the murder, as opposed to them simply being a result of everyday life (though it wouldn't, of course, have ruled out lab contamination in the case of the knife).

 

[LondonJohn]

Ah, "behaviors"....Is that a code word for lying to the police, changing your story and accusing an innocent person of murder?



Do you have evidence that the Massei Report is incorrect in regard to Filomena's statements even if they are not included in full?

Ummmmmm no: it was you who asserted that Filomena had not contradicted herself or changed any elements of her story in her police interviews. Correct me if I'm wrong, but where in the Massei report does it say anything like "...Miss Romanelli was interviewed several times by the Perugia Flying Squad, and never once did she alter elements of her story or contradict herself in any way"?

Because unless the report says that, or unless you have access to the actual transcriptions of Filomena's interviews, there's simply no way you can say that Filomena never contradicted herself or changed any elements of her story. After all, even completely innocent people with nothing to hide can sometimes make honest mistakes in their recollection which they subsequently correct, especially under the unusual pressure of a police interview.

 

[Kaosium]

There was no other DNA of Raffaele found in the cottage except for the cigarette butt taken in the first round of collections. Secondary transfer at the scene on December 18th is therefore unlikely. Contamination at the lab seems also unlikely if this butt was processed many weeks before. Seems we are left with deliberate planting of evidence, which personally I don't believe happened.
Here's a thought though. What about those luminol footprints attributed to Raffaele? could someone step on one with their booties, step on the clasp, transferring the minutest amount of his DNA, and voila!
Just trying to help your theory.

The lab contained DNA from Raffaele taken elsewhere, they did sweep down his place, they also took samples from him obviously. Raffaele's DNA is in that lab, and that's how contamination takes place, one sample leaks to another with improper handling, and let us just say the scientific police did nothing to assure us they employ proper handling procedures. They even made a tape and showed us all!

As for the room, the one area they swept extensively was the murder site, naturally. Being as anything found in and around the body or containing residue of the struggle was likely tied to the murder. That they couldn't find anything of Raffaele's DNA there, where they were looking very hard and which would seem to definitely have to be there if Raffaele was involved in the struggle, implies that whatever was found on the bra clasp didn't happen there.

Now they didn't sweep down the rats, or the dust in the corners, or most of the things that might have come in contact with the bra clasp while it was mysteriously migrating to and fro, thus unlike the murder site we don't know if there was any DNA of Raffaele's there unconnected to the actual murder outside that cigarette butt, which they did check. Therefore being as Raffaele had been to the cottage on a few occasions, it's probable there was something else of his that could have also come in contact with collectors and their filthy gloves, or have somehow attached itself to the bra clasp yet failed to adhere itself to the fabric next to it which is another indication that Raffaele's DNA didn't get there because he was fumbling with the bra clasp before he or Rudy cut it off.

I am unaware of any luminol footprints attributed to Raffaele.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Minor point, but aren't people who believe Knox and Sollecito innocent at least as much of a self-selected group as those who think them guilty? What's to say it's not you whose eyes are too blinded by confirmation bias and group-think to see the truth?

I'm sure we are a self-selecting group, almost certainly an irregular mixture of anti-authoritarians, irrational sympathisers with a pretty girl in trouble, and rational and scientific thinkers capable of analyzing a complex problem.

As to whether we're blinded by bias and group-think, I'm not sure that's not the case in the same kind of way that I'm not sure that I am not Descartes being deceived by an evil demon into thinking that I'm an Australian in 2011. For that matter I'm not sure I am not in the Matrix.

However as I may have said earlier I originally entered into this discussion because I noticed that the pro-guilt arguments being put forward were simply irrational. At that point I had no previous biases whatsoever with regard to Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, Rudy Guede, Meredith Kercher, Giuliano Mignini or any of the other members of the cast we all now know. I just recognised that the forms of the arguments being put forward by one side of the debate were consistently fallacious, and in large part they still are.

That's not a matter of opinion reasonable people can differ about. Fallacious arguments are fallacious.

Then it became manifestly clear that most of the facts the pro-guilt posters at that time were putting forward were factually false as well. That's not something reasonable people can differ about either. There were no bleach receipts, Nara never heard Meredith's death scream, Curatolo didn't see Amanda and Raffaele on the night of the murder, Meredith's wounds could have been inflicted by one person using one knife, there was no evidence of staging and no evidence of a clean-up, the bloody footprint on the bathmat wasn't any more like Sollecitos than Guede's, the luminol footprints had no evident connection to the crime at all and so on and on.

Again these aren't things that rational people can disagree about. These were core pro-guilt claims, repeated often, that turned out to be pure hogwash.

I'm 99.9...9% sure that the Massei narrative and the currently popular pro-guilt attempts at a narrative are pure garbage. That's not something I think there is any but the very remotest possibility that I could be mistaken about - false facts are false and fallacious arguments are fallacious.

I'm at least 99% sure that Amanda and Raffaele had nothing to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher, and I don't think I can possibly be mistaken that this is the rational view to take. There's some extraordinarily unlikely scenarios possible where one of the two stays at home playing on the computer while the other goes out an inexplicably commits a completely uncharacteristic murder with someone they barely know or do not know at all, then the other one inexplicably covers for them for three years, but it's only marginally more likely than alternative scenarios like "Meredith was killed by a team of three magic ninjas while Guede was on the bog" or "homeopathy works and homeopaths killed Meredith with a homeopathic solution of kitchen knife on a sugar pill hidden in a mushroom".

 

[Justinian2]

Misunderstandings with the lies

Is it worse to tell a lie to defend yourself from being framed by the prosecution and the police or is it worse to tell the lie that helps frame an innocent person and put them in jail for years?

Or what about the untruth that stems from confusion. Is that bad?

We all tell lies. When is a lie benign and when is it not benign?

Lie to me.

 

[Alt+F4]

Well yes, you're right of course. Although Meredith's body and most of her clothing (with the baffling and thoroughly unprofessional exception of her jacket and shoes) were removed from the scene long before the return visit of the forensics team in mid-December (the need for which, of course, was in itself unnecessary and unprofessional).

It was the defense that requested the return visit.

During the second search, on the suggestion of the defence’s technical consultant Professor Saverio Potenza, the large rock and two fragments found on the floor of the room were tested, but they yielded negative results.

It was also during this second visit the cigarette butts were found with Raffaelle's DNA on them, which certainly boosted the defense's claim that his DNA in the apartment could be there by innocent means.

So why was it unnecessary and unprofessional? Why do you think you know more about this than Professor Potenza? Do you have professional knowledge in this area, or are you like Kevin, a Professor of Googleology?

 

[LondonJohn]

The door to Meredith's room is one item I will not believe was not subject to exhaustive testing. There was blood on the handle and side of the door and if Raffaele's DNA were anywhere on that door it would have been found.

You think the entire surface of the outside face of Meredith's bedroom door was swabbed and tested for DNA? By the same "crack" forensics experts who, by all accounts, didn't even test Meredith's neck and wrists for DNA, despite there being evidence that she was restrained by the wrists and held in a choke grip around her neck? Good luck with that one......

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin, there is no judicial system in the world that takes an unsubstantiated claim made by a lawyer and regards it is evidence. There is no proven evidence of anything on Raffaele's computer.

Perhaps you would like to live in a world where courts and juries are not necessary, just believe without question what the defense and prosecution says. In addition, your continued belief that "lawyers don't lie" is quite naive.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

And you base this on....
1. Your personal expertise as a forensic scientist?
2. Years of working with Dr. Stefanoni on many cases?
or...
3. Stuff you read on the Internet?

Such hubris!

By all means if you think you can defend Stefanoni's bogus claims which have been amply discussed here already, primarily by Halides1, you should step up and do so.

If you can't do so then you should seriously rethink your views about Stefanoni's expertise and/or honesty. That's what rational people do when they encounter new and relevant information.

 

[Alt+F4]

Ummmmmm no: it was you who asserted that Filomena had not contradicted herself or changed any elements of her story in her police interviews. Correct me if I'm wrong, but where in the Massei report does it say anything like "...Miss Romanelli was interviewed several times by the Perugia Flying Squad, and never once did she alter elements of her story or contradict herself in any way"?

Because unless the report says that, or unless you have access to the actual transcriptions of Filomena's interviews, there's simply no way you can say that Filomena never contradicted herself or changed any elements of her story. After all, even completely innocent people with nothing to hide can sometimes make honest mistakes in their recollection which they subsequently correct, especially under the unusual pressure of a police interview.

So there is no evidence that Filomena ever changed her story. Got it.

 

[LondonJohn]

It was the defense that requested the return visit.



It was during this second visit the cigarette butts were found with Raffaelle's DNA on them, which certainly boosted the defense's claim that his DNA in the apartment could be their by innocent means.

So why was it unnecessary and unprofessional? Why do you think you know more about this than Professor Potenza? Do you have professional knowledge in this area, or are you like Kevin, a Professor of Googleology?

Ahh and so the personal insults continue. You just can't help yourselves, can you?

The forensics team should have identified and collected ALL the relevant forensic evidence from the girls' cottage between 2nd and 5th November. That's just obvious. Even the Luminol testing could and should have been done on about 5th November, as one of the last tests to be carried out.

In addition, you've laughably misinterpreted the quote you supplied:

During the second search, on the suggestion of the defence’s technical consultant Professor Saverio Potenza, the large rock and two fragments found on the floor of the room were tested, but they yielded negative results.

The suggestion from Prof Potenza was for the police to test the rock and the rock fragments for DNA. The suggestion wasn't for the police to do a second search. You should instead be asking yourself why the defence had to suggest that the police test a rock which must have been handled (either by the person who broke in, or by Knox and/or Sollecito during the alleged staging of the break-in), when such a test should have been a blindingly obvious thing to do. And, BTW, the fact that the tests on the rock came back negative suggests that whoever handled the rock might have been wearing gloves. Logical for a burglar, perhaps less logical for a stager?

 

[LondonJohn]

So there is no evidence that Filomena ever changed her story. Got it.

May I suggest that your logic and deductive reasoning are faulty in this matter?

 

[Kaosium]

So there is no evidence that Filomena ever changed her story. Got it.

Did Amanda actually change her story, or was it changed for her by aggressive interrogators insisting she was lying and demanding she produce 'repressed memories' that matched 'the facts as they knew them?'

 

[RoseMontague]

Do you have evidence that the Massei Report is incorrect in regard to Filomena's statements even if they are not included in full?

Yes I have pointed this out before, both in regard to her statements on the shutters and the conversation she had with Amanda. Also in her statement about the glass on top of the clothes. I used the words cherry picking and disingenuous rather than "incorrect". In any case, I don't believe Massei is correct in his use of her statements as he uses only certain portions of them to make incorrect conclusions, in my opinion.

 

[RoseMontague]

It was the defense that requested the return visit.

I believe your previous claim on this was that the defense delayed the return and you were still looking for a cite for this one?