Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Katody Matrass]

_______________

Kaosium,

I think you are mistaken. No witness ---"independent expert" or otherwise---contested the dimensions of the knife wounds to Meredith's neck. Those dimensions were provided by Dr. Lalli, the coroner, and accepted by all. Likewise, no one contested the dimensions of Raffaele's kitchen knife. So, clearly, if the width of the kitchen knife was too wide to match any of those wounds,...umm, well, mathematics alone would have excluded use of that knife against Meredith. (In which case we wouldn't be having this conversation.)

The knife was too wide for the smaller wounds. The large mortal wound was contested not because of the width (the cut was wide) but because of the depth - the kitchen knife is too long, unless the cut was made by plunging it halfway and then making the cut, which is unlikely. The real murder weapon was plunged to the hilt, leaving a mark of it - as some experts noticed, but the court disagreed, going with the more unusual theory.

 

[christianahannah]

LJ,

At what point was the knife put in the sterile bag it is seen in here:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_401664d54c75c2bb6b.jpg[/qimg]

I think this is a photo of the knife when it was presented in court. It is a closeup of a photo of Comodi holding the box (with the knife in it). I assume it was put in the bag after testing at the lab.

 

[Justinian2]

Amanda's DNA or fingerprints anywhere where they should have been is proof of nothing. That they are even listed of evidence is more proof of the incompetence or evil of the prosecution than any culpability of a crime by Amanda.

The prosecution team consists of public figures which should be criticized without fear of libel - unlike remarks made about Amanda or Raffaele or their families. Italy HAS violated the American rights of Amanda and her entire family.

Justinian principles are arguably more important than the law since the law should have had at their core and foundation these principles. Justinian principles & justice have been entirely avoided in this case. Violated also have been the rights inherent in the USA constitution and the constitution of the state of Washington.

I'll stop here as I don't want to (Allegory ->) ruffle all the feathers.

 

[Amazer]

Amanda's DNA or fingerprints anywhere where they should have been is proof of nothing. That they are even listed of evidence is more proof of the incompetence or evil of the prosecution than any culpability of a crime by Amanda.

The prosecution team consists of public figures which should be criticized without fear of libel - unlike remarks made about Amanda or Raffaele or their families. Italy HAS violated the American rights of Amanda and her entire family.

Justinian principles are arguably more important than the law since the law should have had at their core and foundation these principles. Justinian principles & justice have been entirely avoided in this case. Violated also have been the rights inherent in the USA constitution and the constitution of the state of Washington.

I'll stop here as I don't want to (Allegory ->) ruffle all the feathers.

How are the USA constitution, or for that matter the constitution of the state of Washington, even relevant to what is going on in Italy?

 

[Fine]

If you're curious, here's the litany of why that 'murder knife' they found in Raffaele's drawer and found a tiny smidgin of Meredith's DNA on the blade had nothing to do with the murder, even though it sounds damning at first, which is why they used it:

The DNA was LCN, past the 'too low' setting on the machine, they refused to release the EDF files, and the uncertified lab makes the risible claim it has never had any contamination. It didn't match the outline on the bed, at least one and probably two of the major wounds, and the last could have been made by anything from a box cutter to a broadsword. The 'DNA' was not blood and was curiously found right on the blade and nowhere else, but the knife was never opened so the cracks where it couldn't be cleaned could be checked for blood traces.

* * *

Can you see why I get tired of trying to remember and type all this? I will be so glad when it is gone!

_______________

Kaosium,

That's not a fair representation of the situation. As Machiavelli pointed out months ago on this forum, it's pure fiction to say that the Forensic Police are refusing to release these famous "Electronic Data Files" to the defense attorneys. In their APPEAL DOCUMENTS the defense attorneys (of both lovebirds) complain that the records provided them by the Forensic Police during the original trial, in July 2009, were "inadequate" and "inconsistent," but they never complain that the Forensic Police are in possession of certain "Electronic Data Files" which the Forensic Police refuses to release.

To the best of my knowledge, the only party refused access to certain "Electronic Data Files" is a biology teacher in Idaho, Greg Hampikian. And even his request was probably not---properly speaking--- refused by the Forensic Police. They probably just ignored it.

///

 

[Draca]

I think this is a photo of the knife when it was presented in court. It is a closeup of a photo of Comodi holding the box (with the knife in it). I assume it was put in the bag after testing at the lab.

Thank You Christianahannah

 

[Alt+F4]

Italy HAS violated the American rights of Amanda and her entire family.

She has no American rights in Italy. The United States Constitution does not apply in Italy.

 

[Kaosium]

_______________

Kaosium,

I think you are mistaken. No witness ---"independent expert" or otherwise---contested the dimensions of the knife wounds to Meredith's neck. Those dimensions were provided by Dr. Lalli, the coroner, and accepted by all. Likewise, no one contested the dimensions of Raffaele's kitchen knife. So, clearly, if the width of the kitchen knife was too wide to match any of those wounds,...umm, well, mathematics alone would have excluded use of that knife against Meredith. (In which case we wouldn't be having this conversation.)

Perhaps you were confused by an error in translation of the Massei Motivations Report (page 126), where length of knife was confounded with width of knife.
See PMF > Board Index > Projects for Meredith > Translation Error Report Thread.

///

Ah, thanks, there was a reason I didn't put that in the main paragraph. Was Dr. Lalli the one who also insisted that only one attacker was possible before he was sacked?

From Raffaele's appeal:

"The knife is not compatible with the wounds on the victim.
The defense argues that the fatal wound is not compatible with Raffaele’s large kitchen knife. The consistencies that have been noted by the prosecution are generic and would apply to any knife. It is important to identify the inconsistencies that rule out Raffaele’s kitchen knife as the murder weapon. When the knife is analyzed properly, it is shown that the knife is not consistent with any of the wounds.

The length of the fatal wound is 8cm. There is bruising at the entry point showing that the knife was pushed in all the way to the handle. The handle caused bruising at the point of entry. The blade on the kitchen knife measures 17.5cm. The other 2 wounds are too small to be considered compatible with the kitchen knife. The width of the kitchen knife is over 3cm. The width of the two wounds that were not fatal measured 1.4cm and 1.5cm.

The knife that was taken from Raffaele’s kitchen turned out not match any of the wounds. This caused the prosecution to develop the theory that more that one knife must have been used. They provided absolutely no proof to back up this claim. "

 

[LondonJohn]

Paper bags or envelopes are recommended for dry trace evidence, even when DNA maybe on them.

I don't think that standard office stationery envelopes are recommended for the storage and transportation of a knife which may have been involved in a murder. I believe that the correct way to collect and store such evidence is in a clear plastic evidence bag, which is capable of being properly sealed and tagged.

And that the "crack" team which entered Sollecito's apartment explicitly and specifically to search for - and collect - specimens and items of potential evidentiary value didn't appear to have brought proper evidence collection bags with them is, shall we say, puzzling.

 

[LondonJohn]

LJ,

At what point was the knife put in the sterile bag it is seen in here:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_401664d54c75c2bb6b.jpg[/qimg]

I can only assume that the knife must have been placed into that bag either after its examination and testing by Stefanoni, or perhaps even between its arrival in the forensics lab and its examination. Because it seems pretty clear from the Massei report that the knife arrived at the lab in the super-duper desk-diary box.

 

[LondonJohn]

Again how does this show AK is innocent.

There's a massive difference between "innocent" and "not guilty". Knox (and Sollecito) does not have to prove that she's innocent - and indeed it may be impossible for her to prove this. However, the prosecution and the court DOES have to prove that she's guilty to secure a conviction.

If they can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, she's not guilty.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

I don't think that standard office stationery envelopes are recommended for the storage and transportation of a knife which may have been involved in a murder. I believe that the correct way to collect and store such evidence is in a clear plastic evidence bag, which is capable of being properly sealed and tagged.

And that the "crack" team which entered Sollecito's apartment explicitly and specifically to search for - and collect - specimens and items of potential evidentiary value didn't appear to have brought proper evidence collection bags with them is, shall we say, puzzling.

I am convinced that every step will be re-evaluated by the independent experts and we will have all the details in their report to the appeals-court.

 

[Antony]

Jeremy Bamber

This is another disturbing case which might interest forum members:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/10/jeremy-bamber-innocent-of-murder-appeal

A tragedy in very different circumstances, but with some similarities: the police accused someone close at hand at the time of the crime, when there was already a straightforward explanation to hand. And Bamber was accused of fixing the crime scene by placing the murder/suicide gun in his dead sister's hand.

And another creepy parallel: Jeremy Bamber was a similar age to Raffaele Sollecito when he was locked up, and has already served the same number of years as Raffaele's (and Amanda's) sentence.

 

[odeed]

I don't think that standard office stationery envelopes are recommended for the storage and transportation of a knife which may have been involved in a murder. I believe that the correct way to collect and store such evidence is in a clear plastic evidence bag, which is capable of being properly sealed and tagged.

No, the recommendation is to place dry evidence in an envelope or paper bag.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/handbook-of-forensic-services-pdf Pages 47+
"Air-dry the cloth or swab and pack in clean paper or an envelope with sealed corners. Do not use plastic containers."

http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/nij/bc000614.txt
"Put evidence into new paper bags or envelopes, not into plastic bags. Do not use staples."

https://www.orchidcellmark.com/forensicdna/evidencecollection.html
"Bloodstains, semen stains, and other types of stains must be thoroughly air-dried and packaged in sealed paper envelopes or paper bags."

And that the "crack" team which entered Sollecito's apartment explicitly and specifically to search for - and collect - specimens and items of potential evidentiary value didn't appear to have brought proper evidence collection bags with them is, shall we say, puzzling.

Not puzzling when you consider that the evidence (the knife in this case) is not sterile in the first place, and sealing it a plastic bag may also trap moisture, bacteria+water+organic material is not good for the evidence, especially when it may be several days before it is processed at the lab.

The "crack" team (as you put it) did everything which was recommended.

 

[snook1]

So, The Machine, a member of pro guilt boards, just said that "there is no evidence of Guede in a bathroom". He's having this little discussion with another member of the boards, but let's get back to the statement :

"there is no evidence of Rudy Guede in the bathroom" - so, basically, what he's saying is that there is a chance that Amanda Knox killed Meredith Kercher in a tiny room along with two other people (that makes them four in one small room) and left no traces of herself in that room, but there's no chance that Guede came into the bathroom alone, washed himself etc without leaving any traces of him. That's silly.

After all, we know that the footpring is Guede's, so he in fact did leave a trace (and still it's much more than the traces of Amanda and Raffaele in the room).

 

[Justinian2]

Again how does this show AK is innocent.

There are only two reasons that you and I wouldn't be considered guilty.

1) The alibi.
2) Absence of evidence.

The alibi is easier for you and I since we were far, far away. There is absence of evidence that would place us in Perguia. There is no plane ticket and no witnesses.

The absence of evidence would be that we left no bloody fingerprints at the scene. Nor did we have witnesses seeing us do the crime, a motive, or a smoking gun.

There is no way we can PROVE that Amanda did not kill except that:

1) Meredith was already dead.
2) Amanda had a valid alibi.
3) Amanda had absence of motive.
4) Amanda had absence of the murder weapon.
5) Amanda had absence of a witness.
6) Amanda had absence of evidence of a consiracy.

The prosecution weakened the alibi by indicting both Amanda and Raffaele. Now they couldn't be each other's alibi.

1) The prosecution attempted to show that Meredith was not already dead by fudging the time of death and claiming a conspiracy to murder with Guede.
2) The prosecution attempted to show that Amanda did not have a valid alibi by destroying the hard drive on her computer and rafaele's too and altering the Tod.
3) The prosecution attempted to show that Amanda had a motive by showing that Amanda had written a poem about rape and Raffaele had read a BDSM comic book.
4) The prosecution attempted to show that Amanda had a possible murder weapon by removing a knife from Raffaele's drawer and claiming that it had Meredith's DNA on it.
5) The prosecution attempted to show that Amanda had been witnessed at the crime by hiring a professional witness/drug dealer/homeless person.
6) The prosecution attempted to show that Amanda was part of a consiracy by having people say that she had met Guede once and that Guede said he liked Amanda.

Proving that the prosecution team includes liars and/or inept people is really the only way to absolutely prove that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent - beyond what the defense has already shown.

You and I would be in the same situation as Amanda and Raffaele were a body found in our homes in Perugia.

People love to throw stones. They always have.

 

[snook1]

There are only two reasons that you and I wouldn't be considered guilty.

1) The alibi.
2) Absence of evidence.

The alibi is easier for you and I since we were far, far away. There is absence of evidence that would place us in Perguia. There is no plane ticket and no witnesses.

The absence of evidence would be that we left no bloody fingerprints at the scene. Nor did we have witnesses seeing us do the crime, a motive, or a smoking gun.

There is no way we can PROVE that Amanda did not kill except that:

1) Meredith was already dead.
2) Amanda had a valid alibi.
3) Amanda had absence of motive.
4) Amanda had absence of the murder weapon.
5) Amanda had absence of a witness.
6) Amanda had absence of evidence of a consiracy.

The prosecution weakened the alibi by indicting both Amanda and Raffaele. Now they couldn't be each other's alibi.

1) The prosecution attempted to show that Meredith was not already dead by fudging the time of death and claiming a conspiracy to murder with Guede.
2) The prosecution attempted to show that Amanda did not have a valid alibi by destroying the hard drive on her computer and rafaele's too and altering the Tod.
3) The prosecution attempted to show that Amanda had a motive by showing that Amanda had written a poem about rape and Raffaele had read a BDSM comic book.
4) The prosecution attempted to show that Amanda had a possible murder weapon by removing a knife from Raffaele's drawer and claiming that it had Meredith's DNA on it.
5) The prosecution attempted to show that Amanda had been witnessed at the crime by hiring a professional witness/drug dealer/homeless person.
6) The prosecution attempted to show that Amanda was part of a consiracy by having people say that she had met Guede once and that Guede said he liked Amanda.

Proving that the prosecution team includes liars and/or inept people is really the only way to absolutely prove that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent - beyond what the defense has already shown.

You and I would be in the same situation as Amanda and Raffaele were a body found in our homes in Perugia.

People love to throw stones. They always have.

Thanks for that.
This case is such a mess. The prosecution failed miserably. I can't believe there was a trial and that two innocent people went to prison.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Again how does this show AK is innocent.

I think it is obvious to anyone that has followed this case that it would be beneficial to the defense if the court agreed that Raffaele's kitchen knife was not involved in the murder. Are we all in agreement on this?

 

[Magister]

This is another disturbing case which might interest forum members:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/10/jeremy-bamber-innocent-of-murder-appeal

A tragedy in very different circumstances, but with some similarities: the police accused someone close at hand at the time of the crime, when there was already a straightforward explanation to hand. And Bamber was accused of fixing the crime scene by placing the murder/suicide gun in his dead sister's hand.

And another creepy parallel: Jeremy Bamber was a similar age to Raffaele Sollecito when he was locked up, and has already served the same number of years as Raffaele's (and Amanda's) sentence.

This is an extremely troubling case.
I followed the trial in 1986.
A very good synopsis here.....
http://www.jeremybamber.com/?q=case-synopsis_Jeremy_is_.innocent

 

[Antony]

So, clearly, if the width of the kitchen knife was too wide to match any of those wounds,...umm, well, mathematics alone would have excluded use of that knife against Meredith. (In which case we wouldn't be having this conversation.)

Why would we not be having the conversation? The Massei report is littered with ignored science and inverted logic, contrived to rationalise the pre-decided conclusion.

In order to believe this knife was the murder weapon, you have to believe that Amanda or Raffaele transported it from his flat to the cottage (for no plausible reason), swapped knives in the middle of committing the murder, then disposed of the smaller knife but transported the larger one back to the flat before cleaning it up in a manner that removed all traces of blood but left Meredith's and Amanda's DNA on it. You also have to believe that the police were led to it by pure guesswork, in spite of no traces of this knife being found at the scene.

A little matter of "mathematics" is not an issue when you have reasoning of this nature. This case was not tried on the evidence.