Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Dan O.]

You have to watch the full length video to see where they eventually wrap the mop head in a large evidence bag before taking it out of the cottage.

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi Dano.,
Thanks for the info.
But why didn't she do so when she 1st wrapped the handle? And why did she use wrapping paper of all things. I would have thought that since Doctor Stefanoni needed special permission to even work this case we discuss, she would have all the tools she needed to collect evidence. Wrapping paper? Come on...

I agree with what LondonJohn wrote above,
I still can't find a satisfactory explanation as to why Stefanoni was even anywhere near the cottage in Perugia in early November,.
Can you?

 

[RandyN]

It would be laughable if it didn't have such potentially-serious ramifications. And it raises further questions about just who was doing the forensics collection in that cottage in the crucial hours and days after the murder, and why.

"I still can't find a satisfactory explanation as to why Stefanoni was even anywhere near the cottage in Perugia in early November, far less why she was actually participating in evidence collection."


This may have something to do with that. Renato Biondo who is Stefanoni's boss was the prosecutors (Mignini and co) consultant.




"She's a forensic analyst who works in a laboratory in Rome. Her first contact with the evidence should have been when she was sent it for testing. The evidence at the cottage should have been collected and evaluated by specifically-trained scene of crime police, whose sole job is to investigate crime scenes and discover, identify and collect forensic evidence."


It gets far worse than simply collecting and then analyzing the same collected material.

Stefanoni was also part of the prosecutorial meetings that put the case together. For example, in a meeting with Mignini, Giobbi, Intini, Giunta and where Stefanoni leads...she opens the meeting with this line..."Well, we all understand that the break-in was staged." Next she explains that "the victim was undressed after she died."

Moving on, Stefanoni began to choreograph Merediths last moments.

These meetings indicate that far from even trying to indicate a impartial and fair analysis...this shows Stefanoni up to her neck in the prosecutors case. She leads the meeting for *O%&#* sake.

"There's simply no way that properly-trained personnel would have been wrapping that mop handle (which might have been extremely important evidence in the case, let's not forget) using wrapping paper found in a cupboard in the crime scene house!"


Lets not forget that she failed to wrap the "business end" of the mop. And carried it in its pretty wrapping paper into the murder room. Im not positive but I think a time check might show this to have occurred before the bra clasp collection. In any case the wrapping of the mop is truly a precious moment in DNA collection ala Rome Scientific. And she claims in court to NEVER have had a contamination!


"But we can add this to the long (and growing) list of the cack-handed way in which important forensic evidence has been mishandled in this case. How about the kitchen knife, which was inexplicably transferred from an envelope into a desk diary box which happened to be lying around in a policeman's office in Perugia? Or the towel which was not dried out properly, and which subsequently was destroyed as evidence by mould? Or the bra clasp, which was stored in a sealed airtight container and which consequently rusted and festered such that it's now useless as evidence?

If I were a cynic, I might suggest that the police were (and are) actually trying to degrade or destroy important evidence in this case. But I'm not a cynic, of course "

Stefanoni is the author of such gems as "the mixed blood DNA", "the bloody luminol footprints", "AK, RS both DNA on bra clasp", "The 3 person attack",...all issues suggested by the lab analyst Stefanoni.

If I were a cynic I might think that all evidence not degraded or destroyed as per above, was subjected to a strong bias against the defendants. And further these little side slander issues are the fairy dust that makes it all a tale such as to boggle the imagination.

 

[Chris C]

You have to watch the full length video to see where they eventually wrap the mop head in a large evidence bag before taking it out of the cottage.

You dont have to watch the whole video. The moment they took the mop head unwrapped into the murder room the mops credibility became zero. Why couldn't they wrap the mop with a large evidence bag where they found it, like they are suppose to do. However, like i said before, its a good thing the mop didn't end up with blood on it.

 

[snook1]

You have to watch the full length video to see where they eventually wrap the mop head in a large evidence bag before taking it out of the cottage.

Actually, the footage that I've seen, is enough for me. I don't have to see anything more. Just seeing the mop's head being handled by Stefanoni who walks into the murder room like nothing ever happend... I mean, do they actually know that they shot themselves in the knee by shooting the video(s)?

And wrapping the mop's head just before going out of the cottage - that's hilarious. What's the reason to do that? I can't think of one, when they didn't do it on the murder scene.

It's funny also how PMF didn't even mention the mop incident. Obviously it's not in their interest. The same goes for all the other things that proove AK and RS's innocence.

They're still stuck on Frank, Doug Preston, Spezi...Lame.

 

[Fuji]

Fuji,

I would like to know your impression about Stefanoni's failure to turn over the files and your impression of Frank's blog being shut down.

I am touched by your tribute to my writings elsewhere as evinced by your header. It's good to know I have "fans". FWIW, I don't think you're a parasite.

To be honest, I don't have much of an impression at all about Stefanoni's alleged reluctance to relinquish certain documents or files to the the independent experts. I suppose on one level, I agree with you that all requested data should be turned over, and I think Judge Hellman will see that this eventually happens. I have no idea why Stefanoni may be dragging her feet in this regard, and I would prefer not to speculate about her reasons. However, that said, for me personally, the single strongest aspect of the incriminatory evidence is the staged break-in. If the knife, clasp, and mixed DNA traces were all excluded, I would still find the pair guilty. I have no idea how Judge Hellman feels in this regard; for him, the DNA traces may be the strongest evidence, or he might think about it as I do, or (most likely) he thinks somewhere between these two extremes. As I have said before, we shall find out in a few weeks months. I remain personally confident that the pair's convictions will stand, although there may be a reduction of sentence.

As to Frank's blog, I am honestly confused by the events surrounding that. However, if he did indeed break Italian law then I have no problem with him being brought to court. I should also add that, as you might expect, I do not hold him in the same regard as do most of the commentators on your side.

 

[Fuji]

When a real attempt to silence someone occurs right before their eyes, the anti-Knox groups mock that person and say good riddance, for the simple fact that they disagree with his message. What a bunch of hypocrites.

I speak only for myself, but as a member of what you would describe as "anti-Knox groups", I would only support censure of "Frank's" blog if he did in fact violate Italian law. Suppression of opinion, however, is not something that I would personally stand for.

For instance, I have no problem with the continued existence of your execrable website, merely because you are in diametric opposition to my viewpoint on the case. However, were you to post libellous content that defamed my person, then I would oppose you with all the legal tools at my disposal.

 

[Fuji]

As a wider point, isn't it interesting how pro-guilt commentators are homing in en masse on the whole Sfarzo/CPJ/Perugia Shock issues? None of them seems to talk about the actual case any more (you remember, the criminal convictions of Knox and Sollecito for the murder of Meredith Kercher) and the ongoing appeal. An analytical mind might be able to hazard a guess as to why that shift in emphasis might have happened.....

Perhaps that might be because most of those confident of the guilt of Knox and Sollecito have already, long ago, reached their own conclusions regarding the evidence, and as the status quo (at present) supports their viewpoint they feel no need to dwell on the minutiae of the case, unlike those seeking acquittals for the pair. Consequently, the subjects of discissions are quite frequently those individuals who seek to overturn the convictions, particularly when their actions are seen as especially noteworthy or egregious.

Once the appeal verdict is announced, I am quite certain that "guilter" discussion will once again be focused around details of the case itself.

 

[Fuji]

I find it both arrogant and ignorant that people are 1) demanding that the corroborating information be shown to the general public; 2) claiming that we - the public - have some sort of "right" to see all this information; and 3) concluding that if it's not shown, this implies (or even demonstrates) that Sfarzo and/or the CPJ are liars.

Likewise, I find it both arrogant and ignorant that people are 1) demanding that the Perugian authorities show evidence of the condition of the ground underneath Filomena's window; 2) claiming that they - those opposed to the convictions of Knox and Sollecito - have some sort of "right" to see all this evidence; and 3) concluding that if it's not shown, this implies (or even demonstrates) that the Perugian authorities are liars.

 

[Fuji]

But again, there's a big difference between something like the infamous "45 minutes" claim and this situation. The "45 minutes" claim was clearly always an intelligence opinion, and it was disclosed by a government that was desperately keen to garner public support for an invasion of Iraq. And it was never a black-and-white issue.

By contrast, there are reports in both media outlets and the CPJ that Sfarzo was told by email that Google had closed down Perugia Shock in response to a court order obtained by Mignini in Florence, alleging defamation. Now, if this is materially untrue, then either Sfarzo lied to the media and to CPJ (and they didn't bother checking the story), or both the media and the CPJ decided to invent the information.

Plus, as I've said before, what's the motivation for Sfarzo and/or media/CPJ to tell such a black-and-white lie? Why would they go into such detail, rather than just demurring to an anodyne statement along the lines of "The site had to be taken down, but no more details are available owing to legal restraints"? After all, if it does turn out (it won't) that this was all some fiendish subterfuge, and that Sfarzo engineered it all in cahoots with dark orces in the media and CPJ, then all the parties involved will lose large amounts of credibility when the lies are exposed.

I believe that the word you are looking for here is "forces". Unless you are positing some kind of intervention by Gary Gygax and his sinister legions. Or by some killer whales. Or some Andalusian villagers. I can't be sure.

(No need to thank me for this correction. I know you're a stickler for spelling.)

 

[PhantomWolf]

Likewise, I find it both arrogant and ignorant that people are 1) demanding that the Perugian authorities show evidence of the condition of the ground underneath Filomena's window; 2) claiming that they - those opposed to the convictions of Knox and Sollecito - have some sort of "right" to see all this evidence; and 3) concluding that if it's not shown, this implies (or even demonstrates) that the Perugian authorities are liars.

I would point out that there is a difference in that a court order sent to Google, or an email from Google are not part of the public record, evidence in a murder trial, unless supressed, is, and considering that photos of the crime scene and body haven't been supressed, the only reason for there to be no photos of the area under Filomena's window would seem to be that they simply don't exist. That would indicate rather shoddy police work, as if evidence of that wasn't already in abundance.

However, that said, for me personally, the single strongest aspect of the incriminatory evidence is the staged break-in.

I've been hoping that someone that has a good handle in the evidence would explain to me why they believe what they do.

Can you point to the "incriminatory evidence" you think proves a staged break in? Can you also show what evidence proves that the break in was staged by Amanda and Rafaelle? Finally, though I understand it's a little strange, but could you show that those that did the staging did the murder.

 

[LondonJohn]

Likewise, I find it both arrogant and ignorant that people are 1) demanding that the Perugian authorities show evidence of the condition of the ground underneath Filomena's window; 2) claiming that they - those opposed to the convictions of Knox and Sollecito - have some sort of "right" to see all this evidence; and 3) concluding that if it's not shown, this implies (or even demonstrates) that the Perugian authorities are liars.

I realise that you think that mirroring my post is somehow pithy or amusing, but you couldn't be more wrong about comparing the two situations. You see, nobody's demanding that the Perugian authorities show the general public this evidence per se, but rather that the Perugian authorities show the evidence to the court as part of their prosecution of Knox and Sollecito. It is not the general public that has the right to see this evidence, but it is Knox's and Sollecito's right to see it, and for it to be presented in open court.

You see, there was already a trial in the case of Knox and Sollecito (but maybe you didn't realise that). There has not yet been anything approaching a trial involving Frank Sfarzo (or perhaps you didn't realise that either). And in a trial, evidence is supposed to be introduced to support claims. The public can gain knowledge of this evidence through court reporting, and - in the case of Italian criminal justice - through the sentencing report of the lead judge.

In the instance you've selected (the condition of the ground below the window), it's obvious from court reporting and the sentencing report that the Perugia authorities didn't produce any decent evidence to support their claim that there was no glass whatsoever on the ground. Their claim in this regard is therefore baseless and of no value whatsoever - it's nothing more than empty conjecture.

But full marks for trying. Unfortunately your argument had no merit or quality, but there's always another time. Good luck with that

 

[LondonJohn]

I believe that the word you are looking for here is "forces". Unless you are positing some kind of intervention by Gary Gygax and his sinister legions. Or by some killer whales. Or some Andalusian villagers. I can't be sure.

(No need to thank me for this correction. I know you're a stickler for spelling.)

Oh dear. How pathetic (in the proper sense of the word). Did you think that expanding upon a clearly-accidental one-letter typo in one post of mine was a) worth doing; b) clever; and/or c) of any interest to anyone whatsoever (given that anyone could see that it was a purely accidental missed letter)?

Oh, and the appeal judge's surname is spelled "Hellmann", just as a reminder. I'm quite sure that your repeated spelling of his name as "Hellman" is not an accidental typo.

I guess there's no accounting for taste or style though is there, Fiji?

 

[LondonJohn]

Perhaps that might be because most of those confident of the guilt of Knox and Sollecito have already, long ago, reached their own conclusions regarding the evidence, and as the status quo (at present) supports their viewpoint they feel no need to dwell on the minutiae of the case, unlike those seeking acquittals for the pair. Consequently, the subjects of discissions are quite frequently those individuals who seek to overturn the convictions, particularly when their actions are seen as especially noteworthy or egregious.

Once the appeal verdict is announced, I am quite certain that "guilter" discussion will once again be focused around details of the case itself.

I'm sure it will. Something like "Jeez, how did a combination of groupthink and basic poor reasoning skills lead us into our herd-like braying belief in Knox's/Sollecito's guilt for all that time? How could we have been so individually and collectively wrong?"

 

[LondonJohn]

I would point out that there is a difference in that a court order sent to Google, or an email from Google are not part of the public record, evidence in a murder trial, unless supressed, is, and considering that photos of the crime scene and body haven't been supressed, the only reason for there to be no photos of the area under Filomena's window would seem to be that they simply don't exist. That would indicate rather shoddy police work, as if evidence of that wasn't already in abundance.

What you said....

I've been hoping that someone that has a good handle in the evidence would explain to me why they believe what they do.

Can you point to the "incriminatory evidence" you think proves a staged break in? Can you also show what evidence proves that the break in was staged by Amanda and Rafaelle? Finally, though I understand it's a little strange, but could you show that those that did the staging did the murder.

Many of us would like to see the same. My view is that there is no evidence to actively support any theory of a staged break-in. In fact, there is somewhat more evidence to suggest that the break-in was real. The police/prosecution evidence on the condition of the ground below Filomena's window is laughably poor and imprecise, and the reasoning around the condition of the wall (the court somehow accepted that the wall would have lots of marks on it if a person had actually scaled it, and that a nail in the wall would have had to have been dislodged) and the distribution of glass (the court accepted that if a rock had been thrown from the outside, large pieces of glass would have fallen back onto the ground below the window) is equally risible and incorrect.

And of course the other "argument" for staging is that nothing was taken from Filomena's room (the "argument" being that a burglar breaking in would definitely steal any objects of value from Filomena's room, so the fact that nothing was taken means that there was no real burglar, therefore there was no real break-in). Needless to say, it doesn't take a PhD in criminology to explain why someone breaking in might not have ended up taking valuables from Filomena's room.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Pascali was refused files in 2008

I am touched by your tribute to my writings elsewhere as evinced by your header. It's good to know I have "fans". FWIW, I don't think you're a parasite.

To be honest, I don't have much of an impression at all about Stefanoni's alleged reluctance to relinquish certain documents or files to the the independent experts. I suppose on one level, I agree with you that all requested data should be turned over, and I think Judge Hellman will see that this eventually happens. I have no idea why Stefanoni may be dragging her feet in this regard, and I would prefer not to speculate about her reasons. However, that said, for me personally, the single strongest aspect of the incriminatory evidence is the staged break-in. If the knife, clasp, and mixed DNA traces were all excluded, I would still find the pair guilty. I have no idea how Judge Hellman feels in this regard; for him, the DNA traces may be the strongest evidence, or he might think about it as I do, or (most likely) he thinks somewhere between these two extremes. As I have said before, we shall find out in a few weeks months. I remain personally confident that the pair's convictions will stand, although there may be a reduction of sentence.

Fuji,

Thank you for your kind words. For some the DNA evidence is a key pillar in the case. However, even if it were not (and even if I were convinced of their guilt), I would still advocate for complete release. It is ultimately an issue of fairness. What I find striking on Dr. Stefanoni's note to Judge Hellmann is how similar some of it is to the language used in the refusal to let Dr. Pascali examine the files mentioned in Raffaele's appeal. But perhaps even more startling is that the information being requested is not already part of the (10,000 page?) case file.

EDT
I would second PhantomWolf's call for an accounting of the break-in. The only thing I would add is that the defense put forth a reconstruction of the breaking of the window. To the best of my knowledge, Massei's version of how the window was broken is pure speculation, unencumbered by experimental data. I see no reason to accept the Massei hypothesis until and unless someone breaks a window and shows consistency with the spray of glass into the room. I would like to know your reasons for accepting it, if in fact you do.

 

[LondonJohn]

Just as an NB: Perugia isn't a little hilly town in backwater Italy. It's a city of around 170,000 inhabitants, and it's the capital city of Umbria - one of the 20 regions of Italy. It also houses the regional headquarters of the State Police, and is the judicial centre of the region of Umbria. It has two universities, a cathedral, an abbey and a basilica.

 

[LondonJohn]

Fuji,

Thank you for your kind words. For some the DNA evidence is a key pillar in the case. However, even if it were not (and even if I were convinced of their guilt), I would still advocate for complete release. It is ultimately an issue of fairness. What I find striking on Dr. Stefanoni's note to Judge Hellmann is how similar some of it is to the language used in the refusal to let Dr. Pascali examine the files mentioned in Raffaele's appeal. But perhaps even more startling is that the information being requested is not already part of the (10,000 page?) case file.

But isn't it funny (in the "peculiar" sense) how so many pro-guilt commentators seemed to spend most of 2009 and 2010 arguing that the DNA evidence was hugely important and massively damning for Knox and Sollecito (who can forget the "abundant amounts" nonsense or the frequent misunderstandings over the difference between red and white blood cells?).

Yet now, in mid-2011, most of those very same commentators are suggesting that the DNA evidence was never an important strand of the case against Knox/Sollecito anyhow. We also saw a similar shift around the testimony of the fine upstanding Sr Curatolo. Now, someone far more analytical and intelligent than I might be able to make a guess as to why these viewpoint shifts took place. I suspect that a psychiatrist or sociologist might be able to supply a good answer.

 

[LondonJohn]

Perhaps that might be because most of those confident of the guilt of Knox and Sollecito have already, long ago, reached their own conclusions regarding the evidence, and as the status quo (at present) supports their viewpoint they feel no need to dwell on the minutiae of the case, unlike those seeking acquittals for the pair. Consequently, the subjects of discissions are quite frequently those individuals who seek to overturn the convictions, particularly when their actions are seen as especially noteworthy or egregious.

Once the appeal verdict is announced, I am quite certain that "guilter" discussion will once again be focused around details of the case itself.

I forgot to mention: you have a very curious definition of the term "status quo". Do you not think that the recalling of Curatolo to the witness stand by the appeal court has....ahem..... disrupted the status quo even a teeny weeny bit? Or that the information apparently coming out about the independent review of the DNA evidence on the knife and bra clasp is worth commenting upon? Or how about the latest allegations that Hellmann is chasing Stefanoni to release the DNA source data files that most of us on the "wrongful conviction" side have been arguing for a very long time were unjustly denied to the defence (and that most of the pro-guilt crew were arguing - from ignorance - were irrelevant and unnecessary)?

Do all these recent developments in the case have no impact whatsoever on the established viewpoint of pro-guilt commentators? Are you suggesting that pro-guilt commentators are sticking their heads in the proverbial sand, and pretending either that these new developments aren't happening, or that these developments will have no impact upon the safety of the convictions?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

updates on Perugia-Shock and Dr. Hampikian

Candace Dempsey has more on Mignini and Perugia-Shock.

"Hampikian, a forensic DNA expert and professor of biology and criminal justice, played a key role in the analysis of DNA that is at the center of the appeal." The story from which this quote arises also mentions an upcoming segment on ABC's 20/20.