Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

I don't know that one can infer anything from the reactions of either side (prosecution or defense). One side wants this, the other objects. One side says yes, the other says no. Such is the way of trials.

I believe the request of Conti was objected to because it was out of the scope of the appeal request. I believe if a further request is made to dismantle the knife it will be granted by Hellmann (his first inclination was to grant the request before the objection by the prosecution). I also believe that if Hellmann grants some of the requests he held in reserve there will be much arguing from both sides as to how those requests will be carried out and by whom.

I agree completely.

 

[katy_did]

I believe we can be reasonably certain in this case. This crime is easier than most to reconstruct. It took place inside a small white box with a grid marked on the floor. I have not seen any detailed reconstruction that diverges significantly from what Hendry has mapped out. Massei reached his conclusions by assigning an arbitrary meaning to isolated observations, without any effort to fit the pieces together into a whole.

I certainly agree that the crime can be reconstructed within certain limits. My point is that putting forward Hendry's reconstruction as the only plausible one is going beyond the level of certainty we can have; there is room for discussion on many of the specific points he raises, such as whether the bra was cut/torn, whether that happened before/after the injuries and whether the jacket had been removed at that point. That's not to say there's anything wrong with putting forward a more specific theory, and it's not even to say that Hendry is wrong, though I disagree with aspects of his analysis. But I think we should be cautious about putting forward one theory as the near absolute truth - after all, it's this over-interpretation of ambiguous evidence which makes Massei's arguments so flawed.

Here are pictures of the jacket, which I just uploaded:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/blue_jacket_front_view.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/blue_jacket_rear_view.jpg

Hendry's conclusion is that she was wearing it when she was attacked, and the assailant removed it before removing the rest of her clothing.

Thanks for uploading the photos. However, I see nothing in the pictures which show conclusively that the same blood stains could not have been made simply by the jacket lying in a pool of blood; after all, there's blood all over the jacket including on the back, the sleeve and the bottom of it. It's unlikely all of that blood got there because Meredith was wearing it. Nor can I see anything to show she was dragged using the jacket, although it is an interesting theory. There are no bloody fingerprints or handprints anywhere on it that I can see, which I think there would be had Guede grabbed it immediately after the wounds were made.

There also seem to be some indications that the jacket was removed before the stabbing: the lack of blood on the back of the bra which suggest it was cut prior to the injuries (the same would apply if it was torn, though I don't believe it was) and the likelihood therefore that her jacket had already been removed and the T-shirts lifted by this stage, in order that the bra strap could be cut.

If there is another theory that explains the evidence as convincingly as Hendry has done, I have yet to see it. Hendry was careful. When he concluded she was dragged, he based that on the appearance of the bloodstains on the floor. He was able to tell the difference between the streaks of blood that were deposited when she was crawling and attempting to rise in front of the wardrobe, versus the streaks between that location and the spot where her body was found. He was able to determine specific contact points between the floor and Meredith's body, and it all fit with what is visible in the photos.

The aspirated blood droplets on the bra, on her exposed breasts, and on the doors and side of the wardrobe show the sequence of events - aspirating wound inflicted in front of wardrobe, moved to side of wardrobe while still aspirating bood, on back wearing bra while still aspirating blood, on back with bra removed while still aspirating blood.

I'm sure he was careful; I'm guessing the other experts who reached their own conclusions were too.

 

[Kaosium]

The city buses are irrelevant. They stopped running at 10 pm.

I'm starting to wonder about the 'changing stories' of the police in Perugia. The 'extremely clean' knife that obviously wasn't, the chick-chat interrogation turned twelve cop eligible calunnia charge, and perhaps the disco-city-tourist buses if that checks out when I dig up that article of Frank's.

How many times did we hear of the 'changing stories' of Raffaele and Amanda?

Payback is a bitch.

 

[katy_did]

To some extent, Hendry drew his conclusions on the basis of what is most likely as opposed to what theoretically might be possible. It is possible, in theory, that the jacket could have been on the floor and somehow picked up bloodstains consistent with it being worn during the attack and used to drag the victim. It is possible, in theory, that someone with an immensely muscular forearm could have stood in front of Meredith, inserted a large kitchen knife about halfway into her neck, and made a lateral cut that perfectly imitated the kind of wound that would be made by an assailant holding her from behind and cutting with a smaller knife plunged in up to the hilt. But, each of these possibilities is less likely than a different, more likely hypothesis. And the way to test the hypotheses that seem most likely is by placing them in a narrative timeline. Does each proposed element fit into the narrative? With Hendry's analysis, it does. It's not arbitrary, or one interpretation among several that are reasonable. It is very specific. I spent hours quizzing this guy. His analysis makes sense.

I don't for one second believe Guede had any interest in helping the victim he had just fatally wounded. The towels were not wrapped around her neck. One was found next to her body, and another was found beneath her body along with a pillow. Putting a pillow under Meredith's buttocks did nothing to help her, but it may have facilitated a sexual assault.

That Guede would not have panicked after fatally injuring Meredith is simply your own opinion. To me, it seems at least as likely that he would have reacted in that way as that he would have recognized he'd just fatally wounded someone but decided to continue with the sexual assault regardless, even stopping to arrange the scene beforehand. If Amanda and Raffaele's backgrounds are relevant, then Guede's history has to be equally considered, and he had no real prior history of violence or sexual assault. In this case he entered the house as a petty thief, looking for rent money. That he would've been shocked at the sudden realization he'd probably just killed someone is hardly out of the question, IMO. As I said before, there seems no plausible explanation for the position of the towels, other than that stated by Guede. And if they had been used in an attempt to stop the bleeding, I see no reason it would be so terribly unlikely to find them blood-soaked and left next to or near her body.

As regards the pillow, this seems quite important since Massei's argument that this was used to 'facilitate the sexual assault' seems the only real evidence the sexual assault occurred after the stabbing. I found this argument a bit unconvincing from the start: it wouldn't be an easy task to lift Meredith's lower body to deliberately place the pillow there, and I can't see that it would make a manual assault so very much easier. If Guede were so carried away that he sexually assaulted her after fatally stabbing her, I think he would just have done it, not stopped to arrange the scene first.

I think that the pillow - together with the quilt and everything that had been on the bed - may have already been on the floor as a result of the struggle that happened near the bed. The knife print that was probably made shortly after the stabbing (the knife having still been bloody enough to make a recognizable print) was made on the bed sheet, not on the duvet, meaning the duvet was not on the bed at this stage. And as el buscador noted, there are multiple shoe prints on the pillow (one in the middle of it) which are quite difficult to explain if Guede picked up the pillow from the bed and placed it deliberately beneath Meredith. On the other hand, they are easy to explain if the pillow was already on the floor.

 

[Kaosium]

I don't know that one can infer anything from the reactions of either side (prosecution or defense). One side wants this, the other objects. One side says yes, the other says no. Such is the way of trials.

What I found most interesting is it was the independent experts that proposed the dismantling, not the defense, so it wasn't the case that the prosecution might just be objecting for partisan reasons. As has been noted here recently it wasn't a case of the defense proposing this, it was the prosecution objecting to what should have amounted to a search for incriminating evidence. That the defense had no objection but that the prosecution actually jumped to their feet to protest is extremely interesting.

I believe the request of Conti was objected to because it was out of the scope of the appeal request. I believe if a further request is made to dismantle the knife it will be granted by Hellmann (his first inclination was to grant the request before the objection by the prosecution). I also believe that if Hellmann grants some of the requests he held in reserve there will be much arguing from both sides as to how those requests will be carried out and by whom.

They would hardly be 'independent' experts if they were martinets of the defense team. I thought the idea was they evaluated the evidence on their own terms?

 

[RoseMontague]

You are already proved wrong. The defense is saying that the knife is not incriminating evidence and have asked for it to be reviewed. They are confident that an independent scientific review will conclude that the knife was not used in the murder. It is not the defense's job to tell the scientific experts how to do their job.

Did these experts even need to ask the court's permission to open the knife handle? The expert handling the hard drives didn't seem to have any qualms shipping the drives to three different recovery companies and finally dismantling the drive to look inside. Cracking the handle off the blade is no more destructive to the evidence than wiping the blade with a cloth to extract trace DNA.

Dan O.
Would you be willing to take a close look at the photo's of the knife? I believe the dirty claim is a product of wishful thinking and one explanation could be the shadows or the reflection of the handle off the blade of the knife near the handle. In some of the photos, the dirty part seems to match the contour of the black handle, in my opinion. You have shown some expertise with this in the past is why I am asking.

 

[katy_did]

I don't know that one can infer anything from the reactions of either side (prosecution or defense). One side wants this, the other objects. One side says yes, the other says no. Such is the way of trials.

Perhaps so, but nonetheless the defence could've objected on the same grounds as the prosecution (who did not formally object, in fact, though Maresca did; it seems that jumping out of her seat was just Comodi's initial, instinctive reaction, not the one she made with her more cautious lawyer head on). It is still odd that a request which you'd think would help the prosecution more than the defence - if the knife were the murder weapon - was happily accepted by the defence, yet protested by the prosecution.

I believe the request of Conti was objected to because it was out of the scope of the appeal request. I believe if a further request is made to dismantle the knife it will be granted by Hellmann (his first inclination was to grant the request before the objection by the prosecution). I also believe that if Hellmann grants some of the requests he held in reserve there will be much arguing from both sides as to how those requests will be carried out and by whom.

I agree with you on Hellmann, and think that he made the right decision since Maresca's objection had a solid legal basis. I'm not sure about the arguing, since there wasn't really any dispute over the carrying out of the DNA tests beyond the unexpected request from the experts, but we'll see I guess. Hellmann seems to be walking a careful line in order to be seen to be fair to both sides.

 

[christianahannah]

What I found most interesting is it was the independent experts that proposed the dismantling, not the defense, so it wasn't the case that the prosecution might just be objecting for partisan reasons. As has been noted here recently it wasn't a case of the defense proposing this, it was the prosecution objecting to what should have amounted to a search for incriminating evidence. That the defense had no objection but that the prosecution actually jumped to their feet to protest is extremely interesting.

I don't believe the independent experts are tasked with finding additional evidence but rather reviewing and re-testing (where that can be done) what was done on the knife and bra clasp. If there are additional areas they wish to venture I see it as part of the legal procedure to request this. Court procedures are in place largely to protect the rights of the accused.

They would hardly be 'independent' experts if they were martinets of the defense team. I thought the idea was they evaluated the evidence on their own terms?

They are independent in that they are neither advocates of the prosecution or the defense but appointed by the Court. As such, they have to follow procedures set by the Court (as boring and frustrating as those at times can be).

There could be reasons for objections to dismantling, or testing evidence (such as the knife or testing the stain on the pillow). Does dismantling/testing interfere with evidence already obtained (Amanda's DNA on the knife handle, Rudy's handprint on the pillow)? Or is it simply one has to have a record of everything done, a chain of events so to speak. I don't know the answer to what I have asked but there is usually a reason for why things are or aren't done in a Court proceeding.

 

[Onofarar]

Poor Lighting is out as an excuse. Toto was reading L'Expresso. And they definitely weren't transit buses. They stopped at 22:00 that night. Which leaves 'tourist buses'. At 23:00. In November. On an Italian national holiday. Picking up people who resembled disco goers but were actually tourists. Where were the tourists staying? Where were they going at that time? Why didn't they have any luggage?

I agree that any thoughtful person/judge/juror should see such "testimony" as what is it - nothing. However, in the first trial such testimony was all that was required to support the flimsy evidence and wacky theory of the crime. It was never evaluated (not really) just accepted unless too ludicrous.
So a key indicator of what we can expect the outcome to be in the appeals is how this type of "testimony" is treated by the court - i.e. Hellman this time.
BTW -I think I read somewhere regarding the tourist bus theory - something along the lines that these buses (if there were any) were coming back from a day trip to see the sights and the tourists were disembarking. Another example of the colpevoltisti logic - in the shape of a pretzel!

 

[Withnail1969]

I agree that any thoughtful person/judge/juror should see such "testimony" as what is it - nothing. However, in the first trial such testimony was all that was required to support the flimsy evidence and wacky theory of the crime. It was never evaluated (not really) just accepted unless too ludicrous.
So a key indicator of what we can expect the outcome to be in the appeals is how this type of "testimony" is treated by the court - i.e. Hellman this time.
BTW -I think I read somewhere regarding the tourist bus theory - something along the lines that these buses (if there were any) were coming back from a day trip to see the sights and the tourists were disembarking. Another example of the colpevoltisti logic - in the shape of a pretzel!

You would have thought that this large crowd of tourists milling around in the vicinity of the cottage around the time of the murder could have been useful witnesses. Surprising the police didn't make any effort to track them down or make a public appeal for their assistance...

 

[Chris_Halkides]

why make excuses for the prosecution

Halides1

Surely the context now is the appeal and the scope of whatever has been submitted by defence? Yes Dr Conti demonstrated his independence by making the request. However, my point still remains that neither defence teams or their expert consultants did and that is where the request should have come from via their appeal submissions?

Can you offer and opinion as to why none of this was raised by the defence, given it's obvious importance?

CoulsdonUK,

If you have not read the appeals, how can you say what is in them? Moreover, one can interpret the same words in different ways. Why shouldn't a request to retest the knife be taken to mean opening it up? With due respect, you sound like an apologist for the prosecution.

 

[Onofarar]

RoseMontague

Do you have an opinion as to why the defence did not raise these issues?

Is not the defences primary role to refute the prosecutions case to act in their clients best interest, to raise the element of reasonable doubt in the juries minds?

Given the above how is missing this opportunity in their clients overall best interests?

CoulsdonUK
Upthread there are numerous references to the poor performance of the defense teams - a common explanation is the lack of experience and/or ability. A quick review - CDV was Amanda's lead attorney. He was a corporate lawyer with ZERO experience as a criminal attorney - he was chosen by the family for his ability to coommunicate with them and AK since he spoke excellent English. Ghirga, Amanda's other attorney, has been refered to as a panel lawyer - whatever that means (maybe like being on a referral list if someone calls the local bar association looking for an attorney).
Raffaele's lead attorney was a highly placed parlimentarian who performed brilliantly at times but many of us question her ability to prepare due to other demands on her time and the distance from Rome to Perugia.
Are you saying that AK & RS should remain in prison because they had poor legal representation (BTW - that is a leading reason for appeals heard in the USA - inadequate defense)?
Didn't the judge order a independent review of the forensic evidence regarding the knife and the bra clasp? In evaluating Dr. HFCB's work do you not look at both what she did and did not do? And further if there is insufficent material to run another test, which all parties acknowledge, does it not make sense to dismantle the knife looking for evidence that can be tested?
And finally aren't all parties trying to get to the truth of this case - therefore leave no stone unturned.

 

[Justinian2]

I'm starting to wonder about the 'changing stories' of the police in Perugia. The 'extremely clean' knife that obviously wasn't, the chick-chat interrogation turned twelve cop eligible calunnia charge, and perhaps the disco-city-tourist buses if that checks out when I dig up that article of Frank's.

How many times did we hear of the 'changing stories' of Raffaele and Amanda?

Payback is a bitch.

Of course stories will change. That is natural. People remember more (or get dubbed in memories). People try to reconcile their memories with the recall of others. People emphasize certain points and change their emphasis.

Changing stories are a sign of honesty - according to the latest studies.

What is NOT natural is a story that does NOT change.

Lawyers try to rehearse a story or a story that their clients should use and stick to. After the lawyers talk to their clients, their stories will NOT change. That is NOT natural (but it is natural in a typical trial).

My latest theory: Stories that converge towards an asymptote are a sign of honesty whereas stories that do not converge are a sign of dishonesty.
I think my theory is a very a useful theory, if it's correct.
Anybody care to comment on my latest theory? Is it valid?

 

[Dan O.]

Dan O.
Would you be willing to take a close look at the photo's of the knife? I believe the dirty claim is a product of wishful thinking and one explanation could be the shadows or the reflection of the handle off the blade of the knife near the handle. In some of the photos, the dirty part seems to match the contour of the black handle, in my opinion. You have shown some expertise with this in the past is why I am asking.

You are not the first to ask.

On the first image I also saw the reflection of the handle. On the reverse side however I made this observation:

There is a little scum on the blade near the handle where a cleaning rag would have trouble reaching but would be easy if you tried simply by pushing a corner or folded edge of the rag into it.

What appears to be vertical scratches on the blade could be the boundary where the cleaning rag met the scum. I would guess that this area of the blade was never tested for DNA unless these are pre-testing photos.​

I also saw what appeared to be a shadow line or crack between the blade and the handle (it's difficult to say for sure given the angle of this view). If there is any opening here, blood would be sucked up into the crack by osmosis and would be practically impossible to clean out.

Thinking on the paranoid side, this would be an ideal scenario for tampering with the evidence. A trace finding is left on the blade that can be sold to a jury but offers plausible deniability as contamination if the defendant has an airtight alibi. The real evidence is planted inside the handle where it can be exposed when the knife is reexamined on appeal. The prosecutor however needs to insure that there is no alibi before the knife is fully examined or the gambit will be exposed.

 

[Justinian2]

My latest theory: Stories that converge towards an asymptote are a sign of honesty whereas stories that do not converge are a sign of dishonesty.

Amanda and Raffaele's stories converge. Therefore, their stories are likely to be true.

I think Guede's story converges too. The implication is that there is a bit of truth to what he's saying. The part about the intruder in the shadows part seems too unchanging to be true and therefore, according to theory, is likely to be rehearsed and dishonest.

Mignini is all over the universe. His stories do not converge - but they do manage a consistant conclusion supported by ever changing fact and theory. Magnini is definitely NOT telling the truth and never has.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

If you have not read the appeals, how can you say what is in them? Moreover, one can interpret the same words in different ways. Why shouldn't a request to retest the knife be taken to mean opening it up? With due respect, you sound like an apologist for the prosecution.

Halides1

I have said in further comments that if someone finds evidence or a translation of the appeal submissions that either defence teams requested that the knife should be dismantled I would accept this evidence. I have concluded that given the reactions to Dr Conti's request that the prosecution objection is a technical one along the lines I have previously stated.

I am merely providing what I believe to be a reasonable explanation, rather than being an apologist for the prosecution I am a critic of the defence teams.

 

[Dan O.]

My latest theory: Stories that converge towards an asymptote are a sign of honesty whereas stories that do not converge are a sign of dishonesty.
I think my theory is a very a useful theory, if it's correct.
Anybody care to comment on my latest theory? Is it valid?

Stories will converge. That is natural. But they won't necessarily converge on the truth.

A researcher (such as a police investigator) would want to gather the individual memories before they get muddied. Only then is it possible to confirm one witnesses memory with another. What they would not want to do is put all the witnesses into a waiting room to let them share thoughts and memories and thereby distorting the individual memories into one fuzzy group thought that combines all the inaccuracies.

The interception took place in the local environment of the police headquarters in Perugia, well prepared when they gathered on the afternoon of 2:11:07 occupants of Meredith Kercher, the boys in the apartment below the one occupied dall'uccisa, the English student of English friends engaged Perugia Erasmus project -- Massei [7]​

But we know why the police put them all together. They weren't looking for the facts to solve this case. They were applying behavior analysis to single out the guilty party quickly without all that tedious work.

 

[Justinian2]

Stories will converge. That is natural. But they won't necessarily converge on the truth.

A researcher (such as a police investigator) would want to gather the individual memories before they get muddied. Only then is it possible to confirm one witnesses memory with another. What they would not want to do is put all the witnesses into a waiting room to let them share thoughts and memories and thereby distorting the individual memories into one fuzzy group thought that combines all the inaccuracies.

The interception took place in the local environment of the police headquarters in Perugia, well prepared when they gathered on the afternoon of 2:11:07 occupants of Meredith Kercher, the boys in the apartment below the one occupied dall'uccisa, the English student of English friends engaged Perugia Erasmus project -- Massei [7]​

But we know why the police put them all together. They weren't looking for the facts to solve this case. They were applying behavior analysis to single out the guilty party quickly without all that tedious work.

My latest theory: Stories that converge towards an asymptote are a sign of honesty whereas stories that do not converge are a sign of dishonesty.

A truthful story changes a little. Details are remembered. Memories get better (if they aren't group influenced memories). Many remember more the day after a good night's sleep.

Get all the people together in a room and their stories will coalesce and probably not change. Their stories don't converge on an asymptote - they are already at the asymptote. The theory would suggest that their memories are too firm to be truthful.

Determining the truths of the participants of this crime and trial is fundamental. However, sometimes the moderators are too glib to understand that some discussion of the process and theory is necessary and is on topic and does not diverge or cause divergence.

Thanks for the hilited quote. It's nice to understand how the master brain-washers (Massei and Magnini) work.

 

[Dan O.]

A truthful story changes a little. Details are remembered. Memories get better (if they aren't group influenced memories). Many remember more the day after a good night's sleep.

You haven't looked into the case of Chuck Erickson. His story kept getting better and better. He actually pictures himself committing the murder but when the police first interviewed him he didn't even know what the victim was strangled with. The police had to coach him through every step. But the memories were vivid in his mind when he testified against his <former> friend.

Many remember more the day after a good night's sleep.

In Chuck's case the memories only came back after a good night's sleep two years after the event!


ETA: link to JREF thread discussing Chuck Erickson, Ryan Ferguson and the Heitholt murder.

 

[Justinian2]

You haven't looked into the case of Chuck Erickson. His story kept getting better and better. He actually pictures himself committing the murder but when the police first interviewed him he didn't even know what the victim was strangled with. The police had to coach him through every step. But the memories were vivid in his mind when he testified against his <former> friend.

In Chuck's case the memories only came back after a good night's sleep two years after the event!

ETA: link to JREF thread discussing Chuck Erickson, Ryan Ferguson and the Heitholt murder.

Massachusetts has largely eliminated the problem with police interrogations of the type that trapped Amanda and Raffaele.

My wife had the 'Murder Hot Line' for one twentyfour hour period. She even took it with her to the bathroom. She put it beside her bed when she slept. If someone in Massachusetts is accused of murder, they immediately call the 'Murder Hot Line'. The person that takes the call has to call lawyers from a list of qualified lawyers until a lawyer that is IMMEDIATELY available agrees to take the case. They all do because it is good for their career. The lawyer immediately goes (24-7) to the police station or jail where the accused is held.

I think the Massachusetts judicial system sucks, even though in some situations it might be the best in the world. Other judicial systems just suck more.

My theory about a truthful story asymptotically converging to the truth appears to break down with brainwashing and interrogation by confused police and/or Magnini.