Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Justinian2]

This case is as weird as Fringe.

 

[Justinian2]

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.

People get convicted for murder with very little good evidence all over the world - even the USA.

People would rather see someone rot in jail than let an accused man go free.

People love to throw stones. Always have. Death is stimulating.

It's like a game of chess to the prosecutor. He wants to win. Doesn't care about the pieces in the chess game. It doesn't phase the prosecutor to sacrifice a piece or two.

Note to moderators: Someone = Amanda & Raffaele & similar people. Prosecutor = Magnini & similar prosecutors. People = people. The point is that frail verdicts like what happened to Amanda & Raffaele happen again and again all over the world. This is a generalization and not an attempted derailment.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

Sorry, I've heard stuff like that before and I just don't see the reasoning there. Amanda and her former boyfriend were found guilty in the first trial - now it's up to them to prove they are innocent, if they simply do nothing, then the first verdict stands - Guilty.....

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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).

For one - the footprint is Raff's and secondly, Rudy left a set of prints straight out of Meredith's room out the front door that even prove he didn't lock the door as well. He didn't stop to clean up in the bathroom, go back into Meredith's room, get bloody again and leave.....

 

[LondonJohn]

Sorry, I've heard stuff like that before and I just don't see the reasoning there. Amanda and her former boyfriend were found guilty in the first trial - now it's up to them to prove they are innocent, if they simply do nothing, then the first verdict stands - Guilty.....

No: that's not how the appeal system works in Italy. Essentially, they are getting a trial "de novo", where a new judicial panel re-examines all the evidence from the first trial, and has the right to request new testimony and/or scientific testing. As of right now, Knox and Sollecito are still considered innocent under Italian law*.

The appeal trial will have to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in exactly the same way as the first trial did. They have no requirement whatsoever to prove their innocence.

* Which leads into another widely-misunderstood area of this case: Knox and Sollecito are not currently sitting in prison because they are serving the sentences handed down in the first trial. They are in prison because they are considered flight risks and/or potential re-offenders in advance of the appeal stages of the judicial process. There's a substantial difference: in the parlance of the UK/US system, they are still essentially "on remand".

 

[Dan O.]

For one - the footprint is Raff's and secondly, Rudy left a set of prints straight out of Meredith's room out the front door that even prove he didn't lock the door as well. He didn't stop to clean up in the bathroom, go back into Meredith's room, get bloody again and leave.....

It seems like you have missed some of the recent discussion. Rudy's bare right footprint in the bathroom is part of the same series of events that created the diluted bloody right shoe prints in Meredith's room and leading out the door.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No: that's not how the appeal system works in Italy. Essentially, they are getting a trial "de novo", where a new judicial panel re-examines all the evidence from the first trial, and has the right to request new testimony and/or scientific testing. As of right now, Knox and Sollecito are still considered innocent under Italian law*.

The appeal trial will have to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in exactly the same way as the first trial did. They have no requirement whatsoever to prove their innocence.

* Which leads into another widely-misunderstood area of this case: Knox and Sollecito are not currently sitting in prison because they are serving the sentences handed down in the first trial. They are in prison because they are considered flight risks and/or potential re-offenders in advance of the appeal stages of the judicial process. There's a substantial difference: in the parlance of the UK/US system, they are still essentially "on remand".

They have already been proven guilty in the first trial - this is an appeal - I can pretty much assure you, if the defense does nothing here trying to prove Amanda & company's not guilty, they will definately be staying behind bars, for a very long time too.

Your second point is true, however, their time so far in jail will count towards their 26 and 25 year sentences, but with any luck, it will just offset the extra time hopefully the prosecution wins in their appeal.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

It seems like you have missed some of the recent discussion. Rudy's bare right footprint in the bathroom is part of the same series of events that created the diluted bloody right shoe prints in Meredith's room and leading out the door.

Discuss it all you like, that does not make it Rudy's. It's most like Raff's, but I have a feeling it might even be Amanda's and happened after she took a shower in the morning.... maybe even when she did her bunny hop and it partly elongated from that

 

[carvin2]

When was knife acquired from Raffael's apartment?

So if the murder was not planned, as Massei came to this conclusion in his report, when was the murder weapon acquired from Raffaele's apartment. The murder took place quite a distance from his apartment. This doesn't make sense. Did Massei assume a kitchen knife was always on someones possession?

 

[babycondor]

So if the murder was not planned, as Massei came to this conclusion in his report, when was the murder weapon acquired from Raffaele's apartment. The murder took place quite a distance from his apartment. This doesn't make sense. Did Massei assume a kitchen knife was always on someones possession?

The prosecution's theory was that Amanda carried the kitchen knife around in her purse for "protection."

In reality, the knife was acquired from Raffaele's apartment by the police after the murder. It is not the murder weapon. It never left Raffaele's apartment until the police collected it -- based on a hunch.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

 

[lionking]

The prosecution's theory was that Amanda carried the kitchen knife around in her purse for "protection."

In reality, the knife was acquired from Raffaele's apartment by the police after the murder. It is not the murder weapon. It never left Raffaele's apartment until the police collected it -- based on a hunch.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

What you fail to mention is that it had Amanda's DNA on it.

 

[vwgub]

The prosecution's theory was that Amanda carried the kitchen knife around in her purse for "protection."

In reality, the knife was acquired from Raffaele's apartment by the police after the murder. It is not the murder weapon. It never left Raffaele's apartment until the police collected it -- based on a hunch.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

Show me this theory.

 

[Draca]

So if the murder was not planned, as Massei came to this conclusion in his report, when was the murder weapon acquired from Raffaele's apartment. The murder took place quite a distance from his apartment. This doesn't make sense. Did Massei assume a kitchen knife was always on someones possession?

It was acquired on Nov 6th. The same day as the arrest of Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick. After they arrested Raffaele they did a search of his apt and took the knife out of the kitchen drawer.

According to LJ they collected it using a paper envelope found in his apt.

That is similar to Stefanoni securing the mop in the cottage by using wrapping paper found in the hall closet.

 

[Dan O.]

Discuss it all you like, that does not make it Rudy's. It's most like Raff's, but I have a feeling it might even be Amanda's and happened after she took a shower in the morning.... maybe even when she did her bunny hop and it partly elongated from that

The discussion has already happened. It's quite clear when you look at the evidence. The shoe prints were made of the same diluted bloody water as the footprint on the bath mat. Rudy washed the blood off his pants, toweled off his foot and put on the shoe. After returning to Meredith's room the water and blood on the paints accumulated at the cuff and started dripping on the side of his shoe.

This is what the evidence shows and seeing as you have no competing theory it seems unlikely to be unseated as the best explanation.

 

[Draca]

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 one of 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.

Really wild stuff LJ,

The level of blatant incompetence of Stefanoni and the entire forensic team never fails to amaze.

The public in general just would not believe this could be true. There is trust that the authorities involved did their job correctly. Very misplaced trust as it turns out.

 

[babycondor]

What you fail to mention is that it had Amanda's DNA on it.

The questioner didn't ask about the DNA.

But since you bring it up, yes, it was found to have Amanda's DNA on it. That's not surprising, since she was likely to have used it while preparing food in Raffaele's kitchen.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The discussion has already happened. It's quite clear when you look at the evidence. The shoe prints were made of the same diluted bloody water as the footprint on the bath mat. Rudy washed the blood off his pants, toweled off his foot and put on the shoe. After returning to Meredith's room the water and blood on the paints accumulated at the cuff and started dripping on the side of his shoe.

This is what the evidence shows and seeing as you have no competing theory it seems unlikely to be unseated as the best explanation.

Once again, you saying so does not make it so, there are 200 guys and gals over at PMF that say otherwise so by numbers, I guess your wrong. If that is your way of thinking - does not make any sense to me, at best it is inconclusive but by no means can it be decided that it is Rudy's alone.

 

[babycondor]

Show me this theory.

Massei report, p. 376:

Now, concerning how this knife could have found itself in the house at Via della Pergola when Meredith was killed, and in the custody of Amanda, the following must be observed: Amanda had with her a very large handbag, as Romanelli declared (page 51, hearing of 7 February 2009); in this handbag there could have been found a place for the knife in question. Amanda, in her various movements [about town], as for example to take herself to the le Chic pub situated in Via Alessi, could have found herself walking alone, even late into the night, on roads that could have seemed not very safe for a girl to be on at night time. It is thus possible and in fact probable, considering the relationship that Raffaele Sollecito had with knives (he never separated himself from his knife, as has been seen), that Amanda, advised and convinced by her boyfriend, that is Raffaele Sollecito, to take this knife with her, if not only to make her feel more secure, and that, if necessary, it could have served as a deterrent against possible ill-intentioned persons that, at night and on her own, she may have encountered. Furthermore, since it was a kitchen knife, Amanda, were she to be checked, would have been able to easily explain why she was carrying it.

 

[vwgub]

The questioner didn't ask about the DNA.

But since you bring it up, yes, it was found to have Amanda's DNA on it. That's not surprising, since she was likely to have used it while preparing food in Raffaele's kitchen.

Want to bet my kitchen knives don't have my DNA on it even thought I use them every day.

 

[christianahannah]

It was acquired on Nov 6th. The same day as the arrest of Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick. After they arrested Raffaele they did a search of his apt and took the knife out of the kitchen drawer.

According to LJ they collected it using a paper envelope found in his apt.

That is similar to Stefanoni securing the mop in the cottage by using wrapping paper found in the hall closet.

According to the motivations the knife was collected in a paper envelope which Finzi had with him. I assume this means he brought the envelope to the flat.

Page 106 (bolding mine):

The 31cm knife [kitchen find] was the first item touched and was "the first knife arranged on top of the other cutlery" (page 178). 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.

There is a footnote after the word "bag" with this explanation:

busta di carta is a paper envelope, of a closed type

I am not sure if this paper envelope was a proper evidence collection bag or not but I feel confident that the independent experts will delve into the beginning and ending of the collection and testing of the knife.