Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Matthew Best]

So in other words, you really have no idea what happened.

But we're supposed to know beyond a reasonable doubt. If we don't, that's a problem.

 

[Amazer]

But we're supposed to know beyond a reasonable doubt. If we don't, that's a problem.

Uhm.... it's nice if you are sure beyond reasonable doubt but it doesn't matter one bit if you are not.

 

[Onofarar]

So in other words, you really have no idea what happened.

And this is why so many have left or are suspending posting. If a poster doesn't take extreme care to dot every i and cross every t in their post - while not insulting anybody or going off-topic, their comment is parsed and interpreted in the most unfavorable way possible.

I will presume to speak here for Chris since he has suspended posting for now.
To paraphase Chris with some editing
The probabilities that the DNA is there due to contamination, transfer or evidence tampering are equal and from three equal possibilities he was unable to determine which is the actual event and which is a plausible (but incorrect) theory.

What he did not say but clearly implied from his post was that the probability that any of these three disparate explanations are the actual cause of the DNA being found is far greater than the explanation accepted by the court - that the DNA was there because of the involvement of AK and/or RS in the murder. Just because in someone else's view he did not make his point absolutely positively crystal clear; does not in anyway invalidate his opinion as someone knowledgeable in DNA evidence that the DNA evidence in this case is bogus with a high degree of certainty. But of course I can't prove how high this certainty is but in my view and I expect of any impartial observer's view it is high enough to establish reasonable doubt.

Frankly, dealing with this kind of nit picking that passes for argument tires and depresses me. It is like being in a campground and seeing a forest fire upwind in the distance bearing down and warning everyone in the vicinity of the fact and then have other campers contradict you and point to various and sundry trees nearby that are not in flames. Dealing with that kind of insanity makes me go "off my meds" and on a rant that serves no purpose other than to make me feel better (temporarily) while (often) hurting others feelings - it certainly does nothing to advance this thread's quest for truth.

And that will be my last contribution here for a while as well - maybe I will feel more like it after a break. We seem to be hashing over the same material again and again - maybe the independent experts DNA review report in May will bring inspiration.

 

[babycondor]

Uhm.... it's nice if you are sure beyond reasonable doubt but it doesn't matter one bit if you are not.

If he were a member of the jury, it would matter quite a lot.

 

[babycondor]

And this is why so many have left or are suspending posting.....<snip>

Frankly, dealing with this kind of nit picking that passes for argument tires and depresses me. ..... it certainly does nothing to advance this thread's quest for truth.

I agree, and you said it very well.

I suppose the nit-pickers can claim a hollow victory here...at least temporarily.

 

[Supernaut]

But we're supposed to know beyond a reasonable doubt. If we don't, that's a problem.

Uhm.... it's nice if you are sure beyond reasonable doubt but it doesn't matter one bit if you are not.

Uhm ... he was referring to the principle of "guilt beyond reasonable doubt" as a requirement for conviction in a civilised justice system, not his personal beliefs.

Just FYI.

 

[Amazer]

If he were a member of the jury, it would matter quite a lot.

But he isn't.... so it doesn't matter one bit.

 

[Matthew Best]

And this is why so many have left or are suspending posting. If a poster doesn't take extreme care to dot every i and cross every t in their post - while not insulting anybody or going off-topic, their comment is parsed and interpreted in the most unfavorable way possible.

I will presume to speak here for Chris since he has suspended posting for now.
To paraphase Chris with some editing
The probabilities that the DNA is there due to contamination, transfer or evidence tampering are equal and from three equal possibilities he was unable to determine which is the actual event and which is a plausible (but incorrect) theory.

What he did not say but clearly implied from his post was that the probability that any of these three disparate explanations are the actual cause of the DNA being found is far greater than the explanation accepted by the court - that the DNA was there because of the involvement of AK and/or RS in the murder. Just because in someone else's view he did not make his point absolutely positively crystal clear; does not in anyway invalidate his opinion as someone knowledgeable in DNA evidence that the DNA evidence in this case is bogus with a high degree of certainty. But of course I can't prove how high this certainty is but in my view and I expect of any impartial observer's view it is high enough to establish reasonable doubt.

Frankly, dealing with this kind of nit picking that passes for argument tires and depresses me. It is like being in a campground and seeing a forest fire upwind in the distance bearing down and warning everyone in the vicinity of the fact and then have other campers contradict you and point to various and sundry trees nearby that are not in flames. Dealing with that kind of insanity makes me go "off my meds" and on a rant that serves no purpose other than to make me feel better (temporarily) while (often) hurting others feelings - it certainly does nothing to advance this thread's quest for truth.

And that will be my last contribution here for a while as well - maybe I will feel more like it after a break. We seem to be hashing over the same material again and again - maybe the independent experts DNA review report in May will bring inspiration.

Good post, Onofarar. Thanks for making it.

 

[Antony]

A search for "Daily Mail" and "Amanda Knox" will turn up many of the articles published in this horrible so-called newspaper covering the arrest and imprisonment of Amanda Knox (Raffaele Sollicito gets a metion once or twice in them).

Most have comments enabled, and these comments can in turn can be 'rated' up or down, presumably with a restriction of one rating per comment per IP address.

But check them out. Every single comment will have dozens, even hundreds of positve ratings for AK/RS guilt advocates, and an equally large number of negatives for those comments which support AK and RS, or are critical of the Italian authorities (or should that be, simply, the authorities?)

Is there really such a clear cut "concensus" among those readinfg these articles and comments, or is there something a little fishy going on here?

For an example of concerted effort to skew 'polls' created onm the internet, search for "Israel" and "magaphone desktop tool".

I've seen this too; I've thought of posting and beginning my post with "a heavy red rating is a badge of honour on this site." To be fair to the DM, they have featured some articles favourable to the innocence POV - in these cases the green-rated posts have been ones along the lines of "this article is a disgrace", or attacking the author as being "ill-informed" (!)

 

[Justinian2]

I'm still trying to figure out if Massei can be sued for libel.

 

[Antony]

I'm still trying to figure out if Massei can be sued for libel.

I would be surprised. As far as I can gather, judicial rulings, no matter how crazy, take on a status of pseudo-fact. Years after their innocence was officially accepted, I have even heard broadcasters talk of "the Birmingham pub bombers" about the 6 men wrongly convicted of that crime.

The experience of injustices that I have known about is that the state will grudgingly accept that they got it wrong when forced to do so; but even when reforms are brought in, the police and judiciary responsible for blunders and deceit are never held to account. Following the collapse of the Guildford case, tried on what were clearly shown to be forced confessions, the judge ruled that action could not be taken against the police responsible because they "would not receive a fair trial".

 

[Justinian2]

I would be surprised. As far as I can gather, judicial rulings, no matter how crazy, take on a status of pseudo-fact. Years after their innocence was officially accepted, I have even heard broadcasters talk of "the Birmingham pub bombers" about the 6 men wrongly convicted of that crime.

The experience of injustices that I have known about is that the state will grudgingly accept that they got it wrong when forced to do so; but even when reforms are brought in, the police and judiciary responsible for blunders and deceit are never held to account. Following the collapse of the Guildford case, tried on what were clearly shown to be forced confessions, the judge ruled that action could not be taken against the police responsible because they "would not receive a fair trial".

The "Massei Report" contains the written findings supporting the convictions of Amanda Knox and Raffaelle Sollecito. Many members would agree that the preponderance of evidence shows that the Massei report and the tabloids were guilty of libel. However, many members have also stated that the law will not allow the people that are really guilty to be prosecuted for their crimes until the guilty verdict is vacated because, perhaps, government doesn't think that their authority, or the authority of any government in good standing, is a fallacy - no matter what the facts say.

 

[LondonJohn]

Questions:

Was one of Sollecito's pocket knives (or "vicious-hunting-knives-whose-only-purpose-is-the-killing-of-animals-and-humans" if you prefer the pejorative description) confiscated by the police?

If such a knife was confiscated, was it found to have blood on it?

If such a knife was confiscated, was it found to match the knife imprint on the bedsheet?

If such a knife was confiscated, was it found to be compatible with the smaller, thinner wounds in Meredith's neck?

If such a knife were of any evidentiary value at all, why wasn't it mentioned in media reporting of the trial?

If such a knife were of any evidentiary value at all, why wasn't it mentioned in the Massei report, other than these brief mentions of a knife seizure on page 100 and 106 of the English translation:

In the bedroom of Sollecito Raffaele was found another knife with a blade 8 centimetres long.

He recalled that in Sollecito’s bedroom they found another knife whose total length was 18cm, with an 8cm. blade.

And this brief mention of the seizure of the flick knife which Sollecito brought to the police station, on page 105 of the English translation:

She recalled that on the morning of November 6 a flick knife was confiscated from Raffaele Sollecito while at the police station

Further on in Massei (page 194, explicit reference is made to one of these knives being tested for blood, with negative results:

On the jack-knife, 4 samples were taken, with negative results where blood-derived substances had been looked for; on the fourth sample, which involved the handle, the genetic profile was found to be of Sollecito plus Knox.

After this, these knives are never mentioned again in Massei, and neither knife appears to have been assigned an exhibit number. I wonder why not...?

 

[LondonJohn]

Here's another thing: reading though Massei for references to Sollecito's pocket knives, I noticed some information regarding the collection and transportation of the kitchen knife (Exhibit 36). It appears to be a fact that the knife was placed into an ordinary paper envelope when it was collected from Sollecito's apartment - that's to say an ordinary, non-sterile paper envelope, as opposed to a proper sterile evidence collection plastic bag:

the knife was found by the Scientific Police of Perugia, then transferred to Rome inside a regular envelope (of the type used) for letters, and a cardboard box

Massei, p254

As soon as the knife was picked up he put it in a new paper bag that he had with him and then in a folder. The sealed bag with the 31 centimetre knife inside was handed over to superintendent Gubbiotti. The bag the knife was put in was new and had never been previously used; in the same [bag] there was never any other item.

Massei, p106

(Note the rather pathetic explanation that the non-sterile ordinary paper envelope into which this crucial (as it turned out) exhibit was placed had "never been previously used" - that's alright then!)


So, the knife is improperly placed in a regular non-sterile paper envelope for transportation to the police station. It's then clear from Massei that this envelope was opened inside the police station, that the knife was removed from the envelope inside the police station, and that the knife was then placed into a non-sterile cardboard box that had previously contained a desk diary (you really couldn't make it up!!):

Therefore, with those gloves, he removed the knife from the bag and put it inside a box that he sealed with scotch-tape. He specified that such box previously contained a desk diary and no other items apart from "the new desk diary offered" by a bank (page 202). This box was then sent, along with other findings, to the Scientific Police in Rome (page 203).

Massei p107


So, let's recap: The knife was placed into a non-sterile paper envelope (the type used for posting large letters) when it was collected at Sollecito's apartment. It was then removed from this non-sterile envelope at the police station, and placed into another inappropriate non-sterile container (a box which had contained a desk diary!).


Now, to top things off, we have Stefanoni justifying the collection technique and storage receptacles used for the crucially-important kitchen knife:

Still with regard to Exhibit 36......, Dr Stefanoni.... added that the circumstance for which it had been possible to attribute the specimens gathered meant that the conservation had been correct. She further specified that she received that knife, Exhibit 36, in a cardboard box and that it was delivered to the laboratory where it was photographed and analysed. It did not appear to her that the container of the knife was sterile;

Massei, p214

Stefanoni here actually appears to intimate that the "circumstance" through which the knife had been gathered meant that its improper and irregular means of storage and transportation were somehow OK.

If that's what she was intimating, then not only is this a ridiculous statement in and of itself, but it's doubly ridiculous given that the police went to Sollecito's apartment specifically to gather evidence. Why did the "crack" forensics team not have a selection of appropriate sterile evidence collection bags with them when they entered Sollecito's apartment for the search? And even if they didn't have them, they were under no immediate time pressure to seize the knife - the apartment was unoccupied and Sollecito was in custody. Why couldn't oneof the "crack" team have gone back to the station and picked up a suitable sterile evidence collection bag?

And once the initial mistake had been made (placing the knife in a regular paper envelope), why was the mistake compounded inside the police station by removing the knife from one improper receptacle, only to place it into another improper receptacle?!


This whole thing seems to reek of sheer incompetence (at best) and malpractice (at worst). I trust that the appeal will be dealing appropriately with this area of the knife evidence.

 

[billyryan]

Here's another thing: reading though Massei for references to Sollecito's pocket knives, I noticed some information regarding the collection and transportation of the kitchen knife (Exhibit 36). It appears to be a fact that the knife was placed into an ordinary paper envelope when it was collected from Sollecito's apartment - that's to say an ordinary, non-sterile paper envelope, as opposed to a proper sterile evidence collection plastic bag:


Massei, p254


Massei, p106

(Note the rather pathetic explanation that the non-sterile ordinary paper envelope into which this crucial (as it turned out) exhibit was placed had "never been previously used" - that's alright then!)


So, the knife is improperly placed in a regular non-sterile paper envelope for transportation to the police station. It's then clear from Massei that this envelope was opened inside the police station, that the knife was removed from the envelope inside the police station, and that the knife was then placed into a non-sterile cardboard box that had previously contained a desk diary (you really couldn't make it up!!):


Massei p107


So, let's recap: The knife was placed into a non-sterile paper envelope (the type used for posting large letters) when it was collected at Sollecito's apartment. It was then removed from this non-sterile envelope at the police station, and placed into another inappropriate non-sterile container (a box which had contained a desk diary!).


Now, to top things off, we have Stefanoni justifying the collection technique and storage receptacles used for the crucially-important kitchen knife:


Massei, p214

Stefanoni here actually appears to intimate that the "circumstance" through which the knife had been gathered meant that its improper and irregular means of storage and transportation were somehow OK.

If that's what she was intimating, then not only is this a ridiculous statement in and of itself, but it's doubly ridiculous given that the police went to Sollecito's apartment specifically to gather evidence. Why did the "crack" forensics team not have a selection of appropriate sterile evidence collection bags with them when they entered Sollecito's apartment for the search? And even if they didn't have them, they were under no immediate time pressure to seize the knife - the apartment was unoccupied and Sollecito was in custody. Why couldn't oneof the "crack" team have gone back to the station and picked up a suitable sterile evidence collection bag?

And once the initial mistake had been made (placing the knife in a regular paper envelope), why was the mistake compounded inside the police station by removing the knife from one improper receptacle, only to place it into another improper receptacle?!


This whole thing seems to reek of sheer incompetence (at best) and malpractice (at worst). I trust that the appeal will be dealing appropriately with this area of the knife evidence.

If you read Frank Sfarzo's blog the malpractice you post about above in relation to the knife and worse in relation to the bra clasp,is a regular part of Italian justice

How many countries with a democratically elected government allow a suspect to be held for twelve months without charge
The term, professional witness,is an accepted part of Italian justice(to me that means if you have no witness to a particular event,you pay someone to swear he witnessed it)
The glacial pace of their trials means innocent people spend 5/6 years in jail before been found innocent

All the points you make L J and the prediction you make on how the appeal should go are based on the belief that a fair trial exists in Italy,all I see is evidence to the contrary

In Egypt one of the main,but by no means only,grievance of the people is imprisonment without trial,has brought thousands of people on to the streets to protest to demand that Mubarack and his regime disband

I cannot understand why the Italian people so passively accept a system of justice that allows men like Mignini to wreck innocent lives

 

[christianahannah]

I am quoting, in part, what LondonJohn wrote:

Now, to top things off, we have Stefanoni justifying the collection technique and storage receptacles used for the crucially-important kitchen knife:

Still with regard to Exhibit 36......, Dr Stefanoni.... added that the circumstance for which it had been possible to attribute the specimens gathered meant that the conservation had been correct. She further specified that she received that knife, Exhibit 36, in a cardboard box and that it was delivered to the laboratory where it was photographed and analysed. It did not appear to her that the container of the knife was sterile;

Massei, p214

Stefanoni here actually appears to intimate that the "circumstance" through which the knife had been gathered meant that its improper and irregular means of storage and transportation were somehow OK.

If that's what she was intimating, then not only is this a ridiculous statement in and of itself, but it's doubly ridiculous given that the police went to Sollecito's apartment specifically to gather evidence. Why did the "crack" forensics team not have a selection of appropriate sterile evidence collection bags with them when they entered Sollecito's apartment for the search? And even if they didn't have them, they were under no immediate time pressure to seize the knife - the apartment was unoccupied and Sollecito was in custody. Why couldn't oneof the "crack" team have gone back to the station and picked up a suitable sterile evidence collection bag?

And once the initial mistake had been made (placing the knife in a regular paper envelope), why was the mistake compounded inside the police station by removing the knife from one improper receptacle, only to place it into another improper receptacle?!


This whole thing seems to reek of sheer incompetence (at best) and malpractice (at worst). I trust that the appeal will be dealing appropriately with this area of the knife evidence.

I am still not sure whether the bag to collect the knife was or was not a proper one (evidence collection bag). Hopefully the independent experts will review everything concerning the knife - from its collection in the flat to its testing and reading of the chart in the lab.

I think Stefanoni is referring to this concerning the correct conservation of the specimen:

Motivations page 214:

Still with regard to Exhibit 36, replying to the specific question with which she was asked to specify which elements needed to be present in order to preclude the possibility of identification of a collected biological specimen, Dr Stefanoni indicated an incorrect storage of the specimen in an environment which was not ideal, such as in warmth, or enclosed in a plastic bag where water might be present and, not being able to evaporate, it facilitates the proliferation of micro-organisms. She stressed that the consequence of a conservation carried out in an incorrect way was the deterioration of the specimen so that, when analysing it, very probably "no genetic result would be able to be obtained".

Since she was able to obtain a result(s) and the knife was not collected in conditions cited above the conservation was correct.

She also adds:

Page 214:

It did not appear to her that the container of the knife was sterile; she specified however that "not even samples [reperti] are sterile ... we
take samples from floors, from objects ... sterile is something which does not have micro-organisms; we do not have anything that is sterile, not even the gloves, the gloves are in a package" (page 241).

 

[babycondor]

deleted

 

[christianahannah]

deleted

 

[babycondor]

deleted

 

[vwgub]

If he were a member of the jury, it would matter quite a lot.

He's not