Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

I'll suggest you're missing a distinction which is quite important to have kept in mind. Which is that between direct evidence, and circumstantial evidence.

If Curatolo is the only (or considered to be the strongest) DIRECT evidence in the prosection's case, then bringing it into question significantly changes the equation.

For example, since there are reasonable alternative explanations for it, the boyfriend's dna supposedly being on the bra clasp does not necessarily put him at the crime scene AT THE TIME of the murder. Anymore than it puts the other persons' dna that was found on the clasp at the crime scene at the time of the murder.

FWIW.

Meanwhile, when you say "mixed blood", I wonder what you are referring to? I'd heard that mentioned before, but thought it has been established that this was a trumped up exaggeration.

Actually, Curatolo's testimony never was direct evidence. Direct evidence is defined as evidence which, if accepted as truthful and reliable by the court, proves the charge(s) against the defendant(s). For Curatolo's testimony to have been direct evidence, he would have had to have witnessed Knox and Sollecito actually participating in the murder of Meredith. The fact that he only ever claimed to see them near the basketball court was never proof that they were directly involved in the murder - it was therefore circumstantial evidence.

And at one time it was quite powerful circumstantial evidence: it flatly contradicted Knox's and Sollecito's accounts of their movements on that evening, and it tallied with the prosecution's (horribly flawed) time of death. However, now that Curatolo's testimony has been shown to be massively unreliable - and not simply because he's a homeless convicted heroin dealer, as many pro-guilt commentators would try to have people believe - this is all probably a moot point.

If Curatolo's testimony is thrown out by Hellmann's court (and my view is that it most definitely will be thrown out), then there's now nothing and nobody to contradict Knox's/Sollecito's version of their movements that evening. Nobody else has come forward to say they saw Knox or Sollecito walking between Sollecito's apartment and the girls' cottage - a journey which leads down a busy road and across a main square next to one of the major city gates. And if Sollecito's Mac screensaver log shows the information that the defence appeal submission alleges, then this would appear to positively place at least one of the couple in Sollecito's apartment during pretty much the whole evening/night.

 

[Antony]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean about conspiracy theory. I know most people think this has a lot to do with incompetence more than a conspiracy. You seem to think there are only two choices, either it was a conspiracy to frame the two or this idiotic theory of Massei or the prosecution. Then you've given us this principle of yours that you'll just accept whatever the court deems with a "shrug" as you've described.

So does that mean if the court acquits them in round 2 you'll just embrace whatever strawman conspiracy theory you're proposing?

Actually, I think LK has previously stated that he'll switch his view of guilt/innocence to conform with the appeal court's decision, should that change things. This was in response to CoulsdonUK basically stating the same thing. Neither of them has made it clear how that will square with their understanding of the evidence relating to the crime.

 

[Antony]

I would point out that they have had an alibi all along, it wasn't forgotten or realized, the prosecution just didn't believe it, they both claim to have been at his home together all night, what the computer records might do is prove that at least one was, and in doing so indicate that the other was as well.

It's my conviction that the only reason why the prosecution decided to write Raffaele into their script, as well, was because if they didn't then they'd have to find another way of breaking Amanda's alibi which he would provide. Note that they made Patrick Lumumba's alibi witness actually travel to Perugia, and questioned him for something like seven hours, before they decided that they'd have to let Patrick go.

Two accused people having an alibi for each other means nothing, right?

This exactly illustrates my point.

 

[spartacus]

Sometimes it is really hard to determine the truth of these things. For example are the experts "calling for maximum collaboration", as Vogt and Nadeau report or are they saying they "received maximum cooperation" as TGcom reports? To me the first makes more sense than the second because we know the judge had to fire off a fax to Stefanoni to get the first things they asked for and now that they want more it would seem natural for them to say can we get this promptly this time?

I noticed you mentioned the mixed blood. It seems to be a favorite phrase of the Machine's despite it not being adopted in the courts ruling but is mentioned in Darkness Descending. Mignini also calls it mixed blood in 3 different interviews now. There is an interesting comment on this from a DNA consultant's blog:



http://forensicdnaconsulting.wordpr...-surrounding-the-amanda-knox-case/#comment-12

The bottom line is that there are is no mixed blood, it simply isn't possible with the the testing techniques available to determine that. We have one spot of Knox blood, and the police demanded that she explain that, and she came up with the pierced ear theory, but the fact is that it doesn't matter, she had a thorough examination, there are multiple photographs of her neck, and there is no skin piercing that could create blood, only a hickey. The traces in the sink with DNA from both AK and MK are probably MK blood (from where Rudy washed up) with substrate (i.e. skin cells) DNA from Knox.

Stefanoni, Mignini, Luciano Garofano, have all talked about mixed blood at one time or another, but they are wrong, and it was never mentioned in the Massei report, beyond "there was a spot of blood with traces of AK and MK" which sounds like mixed blood, but it is not. And then another part where he says explicitly it is not possible to determine mixed blood.

 

[Antony]

Is anybody claiming that them not having a good alibi shows that they're guilty?

Actually yes. I have seen a blog comment that read "of 80 people questioned, they were the only ones who didn't have an alibi." The burden of the comment was that this was a conclusive indication of guilt.

So, in this person's world, all the police have to do to solve a crime is to go on interviewing people until they find someone who can't prove they weren't somewhere else.

 

[shuttlt]

If you understood the difference, and the significance of the difference, you would bother with it. Assuming you have an interest in the underlying truth behind any criminal charge, that is.

That isn't my primary interest in the case.

This sentence suggests you don't understand the difference, and, more crucially, the significance of it.

Perhaps you could clarify where you think I go wrong. At the moment I suspect you are mistaking us disagreeing about this case which my not understanding the fundamental nature of evidence. Perhaps I am wrong and I have missed something crucial here?

 

[shuttlt]

Actually yes. I have seen a blog comment that read "of 80 people questioned, they were the only ones who didn't have an alibi." The burden of the comment was that this was a conclusive indication of guilt.

I'm sure you are right. There is very little, crazy or otherwise, that hasn't at some time been claimed about this case. I really don't think though that it is an argument put forward by any of the long term posters. If I am wrong about that too, then they are clearly demented. Unless it's an example of a fringe view, it's surely a straw man.

So, in this person's world, all the police have to do to solve a crime is to go on interviewing people until they find someone who can't prove they weren't somewhere else.

It certainly seems like a decent starting place.

 

[shuttlt]

What kind of alibi can someone that stayed home all night easily come up with?

I think some wires have gotten crossed here. Almost certainly my fault. I have never intended to claim that, if you don't have an alibi, it is easy to come up with one. Clearly it isn't.

It would be easy if you know in advance that you are going to need one to arrange some circumstance to show you were in a location incompatible with being at the crime scene. Even after the fact, one could for instance go out dancing so as to be seen in public and lend credence to the idea that they were dancing all night. But if you are just at home and no visitors happen to stop by, too bad.

Too bad indeed. For myself I'd probably schedule a script to send some emails to give myself an alibi. One could even schedule an SMS to be sent given a modern smart phone and a bit of time.

 

[LondonJohn]

Actually yes. I have seen a blog comment that read "of 80 people questioned, they were the only ones who didn't have an alibi." The burden of the comment was that this was a conclusive indication of guilt.

So, in this person's world, all the police have to do to solve a crime is to go on interviewing people until they find someone who can't prove they weren't somewhere else.

Well, to be fair, if the police/prosecutors could be certain that the murderer(s) had to have come from among the group of "80 people" that they allegedly interviewed, and if Knox and Sollecito had been the only ones without an independently-verifiable alibi, then there might have been some justification for making them prime suspects based on this point alone.

But of course the police hadn't at that time interviewed the person who became the first (and maybe only) person convicted of the murder: Rudy Guede. Not only that, they didn't even have any idea that he should be on their radar. It wasn't until some time after they'd triumphantly announced "case closed" to the world with the three people that they "knew" were involved - Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba - safely locked away, that they matched a bloody handprint next to Meredith's body with a file print of Guede from his visa documentation. Coincidentally, Lumumba luckily (for him) produced an unimpeachable alibi at around the same time* - so the police and prosecutors seemingly decided that their best bet was just to do a straight swap of Guede for Lumumba.


* not, it should be added, thanks in any part to the Perugia police or Mignini (who curiously has repeatedly claimed to have been instrumental in exonerating Lumumba). The Swiss university professor (named Roman Mero) who had been drinking and talking with Lumumba in his bar that night was alerted by an Italian friend who had seen news of Lumumba's arrest and detention on the TV news. Mero called the Perugia police himself, and took his own initiative to get a flight to Perugia to vouch for Lumumba.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think some wires have gotten crossed here. Almost certainly my fault. I have never intended to claim that, if you don't have an alibi, it is easy to come up with one. Clearly it isn't.


Too bad indeed. For myself I'd probably schedule a script to send some emails to give myself an alibi. One could even schedule an SMS to be sent given a modern smart phone and a bit of time.

Indeed. I think (hope!) I understand the nuances of your posts. I think that maybe some others might have misinterpreted the subtleties of your arguments.

As you've said earlier, if Sollecito had been cunning enough to have written code to emulate activity on his screensaver log, then it's inconceivable that this attempted deception wouldn't have formed a major plank of his defence in the first trial. My personal view is that both Knox and Sollecito were tired and stoned, and truly have only a hazy recollection of their precise activities on that night (except for the overarching knowledge that they were both at Sollecito's apartment from around 6.30pm on the 1st until around 10am on the 2nd).

I will say this, though: if Sollecito's appeal document is accurate in this area, I do find it very remiss of the defence teams to have not obtained this information in advance of the first trial. Granted, the prosecution played fast and loose with the time of death throughout the trial (thus changing the times when Sollecito and Knox needed to account for their whereabouts), but I would still have thought that a decent computer software engineer should have been able to produce this apparently-critical information regarding the screensaver log fairly quickly. Regrettably, it's another black mark against the defence's performance in the first trial, in my opinion.

 

[yeti101]

Well, to be fair, if the police/prosecutors could be certain that the murderer(s) had to have come from among the group of "80 people" that they allegedly interviewed, and if Knox and Sollecito had been the only ones without an independently-verifiable alibi, then there might have been some justification for making them prime suspects based on this point alone.

But of course the police hadn't at that time interviewed the person who became the first (and maybe only) person convicted of the murder: Rudy Guede. Not only that, they didn't even have any idea that he should be on their radar. It wasn't until some time after they'd triumphantly announced "case closed" to the world with the three people that they "knew" were involved - Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba - safely locked away, that they matched a bloody handprint next to Meredith's body with a file print of Guede from his visa documentation. Coincidentally, Lumumba luckily (for him) produced an unimpeachable alibi at around the same time* - so the police and prosecutors seemingly decided that their best bet was just to do a straight swap of Guede for Lumumba.

does this not show the police willing to take on board evidence and correct themselves. If the computer or forensics could exonerate RS/AK why wouldn't they act in the same way as with the evidence against PL

 

[shuttlt]

does this not show the police willing to take on board evidence and correct themselves. If the computer or forensics could exonerate RS/AK why wouldn't they act in the same way as with the evidence against PL

It would be more embarrassing though, no? What with all the hard disk problems quite a bit of water had already passed under the bridge by the time they would have had access to this information.

 

[LondonJohn]

The bottom line is that there are is no mixed blood, it simply isn't possible with the the testing techniques available to determine that. We have one spot of Knox blood, and the police demanded that she explain that, and she came up with the pierced ear theory, but the fact is that it doesn't matter, she had a thorough examination, there are multiple photographs of her neck, and there is no skin piercing that could create blood, only a hickey. The traces in the sink with DNA from both AK and MK are probably MK blood (from where Rudy washed up) with substrate (i.e. skin cells) DNA from Knox.

Stefanoni, Mignini, Luciano Garofano, have all talked about mixed blood at one time or another, but they are wrong, and it was never mentioned in the Massei report, beyond "there was a spot of blood with traces of AK and MK" which sounds like mixed blood, but it is not. And then another part where he says explicitly it is not possible to determine mixed blood.

This is an important point. Knox had no fresh wounds on her on the morning of November 2nd. She had a love bite (hickey) on her neck, but this clearly hadn't broken the skin as per the photographs of Knox outside the cottage*. Knox herself says that she had had trouble with ear piercings earlier in the week, but there were clearly no fresh injuries on her ears in the photos taken of her outside the cottage on the afternoon of the 2nd.

Some have argued that Knox might have had a nose bleed due to a blow inflicted during the murder struggle. But if that were the case, Knox would almost certainly have been showing visible bruising on her nose, or a black eye. Of course, she had neither.

The DNA from Knox - as you rightly say - could have come from either general bathroom use (brushing teeth, for example, sloughs off a lot of skin cell DNA from the gums), or possibly from Knox's earlier ear piercing problems. One thing is pretty certain: the way that the "crack" forensics team went about collecting this bathroom evidence gave every opportunity for smearing together Meredith's blood DNA deposited on the night of the 1st with Knox's DNA deposited some time earlier. I recommend that anyone who hasn't watched the video of this evidence collection should do so, in order to see how not to do it.....

One other thing regarding this issue: the police had found a bloody murder scene where there had very possibly been some sort of struggle between Meredith and her attacker(s). It's basic police work to therefore be on the special lookout for any injuries or bruises that look fresh that are present upon anyone with any connection to the murder. And Mignini places great ex-post facto stock upon this mark on Knox's kneck, yet it went totally unnoticed by the various police officers that she was standing in front of with an uncovered neck the afternoon after the murder. Nonsense.

* and this of course gives the lie to Mignini's hopeless argument in the CNN interview that Knox's "neck wound" was somehow not on show to anyone in the days following the murder (and although he doesn't say so explicitly, it's not hard to figure that he's implying that Knox deliberately hid the mark from view). Heck, there are dozens of photographs and loads of video of Knox standing in front of a large group of police officers with the mark in plain view!

 

[RoseMontague]

* and this of course gives the lie to Mignini's hopeless argument in the CNN interview that Knox's "neck wound" was somehow not on show to anyone in the days following the murder (and although he doesn't say so explicitly, it's not hard to figure that he's implying that Knox deliberately hid the mark from view). Heck, there are dozens of photographs and loads of video of Knox standing in front of a large group of police officers with the mark in plain view!

I just don't understand how several posters at PMF seemed to think that Mignini was just casually mentioning this in response to a question and was in no way implying guilt by this mark or implying that Amanda was hiding the mark. Some of the things I highlighted in my posts that were said by Mignini must be embarrassing to those on the side of guilt.

 

[spartacus]

This is an important point. Knox had no fresh wounds on her on the morning of November 2nd. She had a love bite (hickey) on her neck, but this clearly hadn't broken the skin as per the photographs of Knox outside the cottage*. Knox herself says that she had had trouble with ear piercings earlier in the week, but there were clearly no fresh injuries on her ears in the photos taken of her outside the cottage on the afternoon of the 2nd.

Some have argued that Knox might have had a nose bleed due to a blow inflicted during the murder struggle. But if that were the case, Knox would almost certainly have been showing visible bruising on her nose, or a black eye. Of course, she had neither.

The DNA from Knox - as you rightly say - could have come from either general bathroom use (brushing teeth, for example, sloughs off a lot of skin cell DNA from the gums), or possibly from Knox's earlier ear piercing problems. One thing is pretty certain: the way that the "crack" forensics team went about collecting this bathroom evidence gave every opportunity for smearing together Meredith's blood DNA deposited on the night of the 1st with Knox's DNA deposited some time earlier. I recommend that anyone who hasn't watched the video of this evidence collection should do so, in order to see how not to do it.....

One other thing regarding this issue: the police had found a bloody murder scene where there had very possibly been some sort of struggle between Meredith and her attacker(s). It's basic police work to therefore be on the special lookout for any injuries or bruises that look fresh that are present upon anyone with any connection to the murder. And Mignini places great ex-post facto stock upon this mark on Knox's kneck, yet it went totally unnoticed by the various police officers that she was standing in front of with an uncovered neck the afternoon after the murder. Nonsense.

* and this of course gives the lie to Mignini's hopeless argument in the CNN interview that Knox's "neck wound" was somehow not on show to anyone in the days following the murder (and although he doesn't say so explicitly, it's not hard to figure that he's implying that Knox deliberately hid the mark from view). Heck, there are dozens of photographs and loads of video of Knox standing in front of a large group of police officers with the mark in plain view!

We have the other flat mate Laura Mezzzoli to thank for this red herring about the "scratch" on the neck. Funny I asked a well known guilter a long time ago about why there weren't more bruises or wounds and didn't get a clear answer.

This photo proves that there was no skin break.

 

[spartacus]

 

[shuttlt]

We have the other flat mate Laura Mezzzoli to thank for this red herring about the "scratch" on the neck. Funny I asked a well known guilter a long time ago about why there weren't more bruises or wounds and didn't get a clear answer.

Why would we necessarily expect many bruises or wounds?

 

[RoseMontague]

Why would we necessarily expect many bruises or wounds?

I wouldn't expect her to have any because she wasn't there.

 

[shuttlt]

I wouldn't expect her to have any because she wasn't there.

cute, but seriously.... if she was involved, why does she have to have sustained signifant injuries?

 

[RoseMontague]

cute, but seriously.... if she was involved, why does she have to have sustained signifant injuries?

I don't take it as a given, simply because all Guede had was a cut on the finger.
What I find ridiculous is Mignini's efforts to make this mark on her neck into an injury indicating guilt and imply that she was covering it up so investigators would not see it.