Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

contrary voices

Two voices of reason at PMF. First thoughtful and now Greggy have spoken out about Stefi's errors. The rest seem in denial.

Isn't Greggy the DNA go to person at PMF?

RoseMontague,

Yes he is. However, he has also made some remarks about the amount of DNA transferred during contamination with which I do not agree. More generally, I would say that blaming this 100% on Stefanoni is probably wrong, and I agree with Greggy on this point. I suspect that she was put in a difficult position when Dr. Giobbi and the police force acted when they did and said that the case was closed. Who would want to gainsay them?

 

[Katody Matrass]

I've been reading recently the Massei summary of defence expert opinions on the DNA from the first trial. It is striking that exactly all of the concerns raised by them are now confirmed by the court appointed experts.
E.g. what prof. Tagliabracci had pointed out: the suspect-centric DNA interpretation, the missed and unassigned alleles, no cytological analysis of the samples, lack of repeated testing, missing SAL documentation in multiple cases and most importantly improper collection methodology of the bra clasp and other samples.
When the independent experts finally received the data they additionally found that there are more then one male donors of the Y chromosome DNA on the bra clasp.

The new experts not only confirmed what the defence had been saying back then, but they in effect strongly rejected Massei reasoning in which he handwaves away all the defence's objections.

I can't imagine Stefanoni justifying her actions in some other way then she did in the first trial. This time her situation is going to be much worse, though. The criticisms are confirmed by independent, court appointed party. There are also some new issues - the fact that items were retested and neither DNA nor any human cells at all were detected, the deterioration due to improper storage of the bra clasp and the additional unidentified DNA profiles on it that confirm the contamination.

It's unimaginable that Hellmann would come to the same conclusions as Massei about the DNA in the light of this developments.

 

[Onofarar]

Wow, just Wow.

This is ominous for the accuracy of other predictions by The Machine.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I'd like to thank komponisto once again for the ongoing DNA report translation.


A side question:
I remember RoseMontague posted the new Mignini interview. Is there any effort from the PMF people to translate it? They were quick to translate the CNN interview before..

 

[lane99]

..."some even get defensive about the results that they know in their hearts are shaky, another human reaction....

Getting defensive about conclusions that you know in your heart are shaky? Well, if that doesn't describe perfectly the average cultie at the Per-woo-woo Files website, I don't know what would.

So it's more than a little ironic that this quote was made by someone at that very website. Someone, apparently, still grasping for contrivances to plug the ever increasing number of leaks on their Ship of Hate.

For pete's sake, let it sink already.

 

[Katody Matrass]

It's quite comical how Massei defends Stefanoni against objections.

In case of suspect-oriented interpretation he pulls the "Nara defence":
It's not possible to think of any reason why would Patrizia have had any bias according to Massei.

What about "caso chiuso" and two kids in jail awaiting for any evidence to justify their place there?

 

[LondonJohn]

I'd like to thank komponisto once again for the ongoing DNA report translation.


A side question:
I remember RoseMontague posted the new Mignini interview. Is there any effort from the PMF people to translate it? They were quick to translate the CNN interview before..

In the spirit of Mr Machine, I too shall make some predictions. I predict that Stefanoni will get spit-roasted in Hellmann's court at the end of the month (if she chooses to appear in person, that is). I further predict that the entire crime scene investigation personnel and their supervising officers will also be unable to defend themselves against the heavy criticism levelled at them in the DNA report. I predict that the court will accept the report's findings more-or-less in their entirety. And I predict that Knox and Sollecito will be acquitted by Hellmann's court in October or November. Let's see how accurate my predictions turn out to be.....

 

[LondonJohn]

Getting defensive about conclusions that you know in your heart are shaky? Well, if that doesn't describe perfectly the average cultie at the Per-woo-woo Files website, I don't know what would.

So it's more than a little ironic that this quote was made by someone at that very website. Someone, apparently, still grasping for contrivances to plug the ever increasing number of leaks on their Ship of Hate.

For pete's sake, let it sink already.

Pete's got his own sinking ship to worry about

 

[RoseMontague]

I'd like to thank komponisto once again for the ongoing DNA report translation.


A side question:
I remember RoseMontague posted the new Mignini interview. Is there any effort from the PMF people to translate it? They were quick to translate the CNN interview before..

I think that they probably realize they made a mistake on the CNN interview translation. This one makes Mignini look even worse. He admits the expert report will discredit the DNA results even before the report was released, he is critical of the local cops, blames Stefanoni for the delay in taking the rectal temp blunder, and introduces an Amanda not in the murder room theory.

They are translating the expert report at the SB PMF, evidently without Nikki judging by the recent comments at the Michael PMF. I like the way Komponisto is doing his as it lets you read more of the report as he translates it. I don't even know if most of the PMF crew is even aware the Graham/Mignini interview has been posted.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's quite comical how Massei defends Stefanoni against objections.

In case of suspect-oriented interpretation he pulls the "Nara defence":
It's not possible to think of any reason why would Patrizia have had any bias according to Massei.

What about "caso chiuso" and two kids in jail awaiting for any evidence to justify their place there?

Unfortunately, this sort of reactionary, defensive reasoning is very common in judiciary and law enforcement across the world. In some ways, it's easy to see why: these institutions are usually under constant attack - not only by defendants and their legal advisers, but also often by media and public opinion. It's a natural reaction to close the wagons in such circumstances - and in most instances this is the appropriate response. After all, most criticism of police/judiciary is without merit. But some of the criticism has real merit, and that's where problems can occur.

The second thing is that police and judiciary both essentially base their credibility and viability on "being right". If the public does not have confidence that these bodies are not accurate, reliable, truthful, robust and well-organised, their function can be seriously impaired as a result. So there's also a natural tendency for police/judiciary to want to dismiss any accusations of incompetence/malpractice/dishonesty/organisation failures - much more so than there would be in many other institutions.

And the last thing is that often these are closed communities that fraternise with each other, and which depend on each other for work, praise, and sometimes even jobs. People are very often loath to publicly harm another person (or group of people) whom they have a vested interest in cultivating and protecting. Add into this an unhealthy dose of "we're all in this together, and must join forces against a common enemy", and...... "there may be trouble ahead......"

 

[PhantomWolf]

The second thing is that police and judiciary both essentially base their credibility and viability on "being right". If the public does not have confidence that these bodies are not accurate, reliable, truthful, robust and well-organised, their function can be seriously impaired as a result. So there's also a natural tendency for police/judiciary to want to dismiss any accusations of incompetence/malpractice/dishonesty/organisation failures - much more so than there would be in many other institutions.

I quite agree, there have been cases here where the police have blatantly gotten it wrong for all to see, and yet have stubbornly stood by and claimed they were right, despite all evidence to the contary. The reason seems to be exactly as you say, they believe that they have to be seen as right all the time or the public will lose confidence in them. Strangely, for me, it works exactly the other way about. I have more confidence in people who when they make a mistake own up to it and fix it than I do for those that stubbornly cling to their first obviously incorrect answer come hell or high water.

 

[Mairanse]

Is there a reason that Hellmann requested the independent review of only the bra clasp and knife? The footprint evidence against RS and AK also places them at the crime and appears to be as controversial.

 

[theRealBob]

RoseMontague,

Yes he is. However, he has also made some remarks about the amount of DNA transferred during contamination with which I do not agree. More generally, I would say that blaming this 100% on Stefanoni is probably wrong, and I agree with Greggy on this point. I suspect that she was put in a difficult position when Dr. Giobbi and the police force acted when they did and said that the case was closed. Who would want to gainsay them?

Some posters have said they'll let her fall under the busd.

I expect every element of the prosecution to assist her to the utmost degree...

She's in a nasty place and being lead into it probably has some small share of the blame

 

[theRealBob]

In the spirit of Mr Machine, I too shall make some predictions. I predict that Stefanoni will get spit-roasted in Hellmann's court at the end of the month (if she chooses to appear in person, that is). I further predict that the entire crime scene investigation personnel and their supervising officers will also be unable to defend themselves against the heavy criticism levelled at them in the DNA report. I predict that the court will accept the report's findings more-or-less in their entirety. And I predict that Knox and Sollecito will be acquitted by Hellmann's court in October or November. Let's see how accurate my predictions turn out to be.....

I think the independent DNA report's problems alone will guarantee a consequence of aquittal.

In spite of that really great mountain of other evdence...............

 

[Kaosium]

Is there a reason that Hellmann requested the independent review of only the bra clasp and knife? The footprint evidence against RS and AK also places them at the crime and appears to be as controversial.

The (luminol) footprints didn't really need a review, just proper interpretation. The ones attributed to Amanda weren't compared to anyone else, tested negative for blood with TMB, were never subjected to a confirmatory test, and outside one, tested negative for DNA as well. The lack of control samples probably explains the latter, it would hardly be unusual were Meredith's DNA to be found on the floor where Meredith lived, and control samples from the same area of the floor outside the footprints would reveal that. The bare (luminol) footprints 'attributed' to Raffaele are even more absurd, as if they can 'match' that to a person definitively, they can 'match' my avatar to a footprint as well.

Being as Stefanoni attempted to hide the TMB and DNA negatives from the court as well as the lack of a confirmatory test and tried to pretend they were still blood comes across in a...different...light once her malfeasance with the bra clasp and the knife is exposed. None of these items actually place anyone at the scene of the crime, being as they're not blood they're probably one of the 250 other common household items that can be picked up with Luminol. They could have happened at anytime, for any reason, note that there was something like fourteen luminol hits in Raffaele's bathroom that had nothing to do with the murder either. If you spray down your bathroom with luminol you migt just get some flashes, it doesn't mean you were involved in a murder though. That's the importance of the TMB verifying result (failed) the DNA test (failed) and the confirmatory test to prove for human blood. (not done--or not reported/discovered)

The only footprint of any consequence is the one left on the bathmat, and you can look at it yourself. Considering the only source of that much blood was the murder room, and there's absolutely nothing of Raffaele there, and plenty evidence of Rudy, and to many it looks more like Rudy Guede's footprint, it seems logical to draw the conclusion that print was probably made by Rudy Guede.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

presumptive versus confirmatory blood tests

A new entry at View from Wilmington discusses blood tests.

 

[Mary_H]

Is there a reason that Hellmann requested the independent review of only the bra clasp and knife? The footprint evidence against RS and AK also places them at the crime and appears to be as controversial.

The defense requested the independent review of the bra clasp and knife at the first trial, but their request was denied by Massei. They requested it again at the second (appeals) trial, and their request was granted by the new judge. The knife and the bra clasp were the only two pieces of evidence that had even the slightest bit of potential forensic or scientific value in incriminating the defendants -- in other words, they were the prosecution's "strongest" evidence.

 

[theRealBob]

The bathmat footprint has been argued over by many different experts.
They've never solved it or come up with something really believable either way. Therefore it's just a blob of blood on a bathmat, which while obviously a part of the crime scene, is too indistinct to be genuinely used against either individual.

Unlike other pieces of evidence, like Rudy's DNA on Meredith's handbag showing us the affluent college kids are the thieves, it doesn't really prove anything against anyone in particular.

 

[Fine]

Why wasn't Amanda charged for this crime too?

In response to a question from Mignini, the Pubblico Ministero, Amanda said this to the court on June 13, 2009:

__________________________________
AK: Well, first I started to cry. And all the policemen, together, started
saying to me, you have to tell us why, what happened? They wanted all these
details that I couldn't tell them, because in the end, what happened was
this: when I said the name of "Patrick", I suddenly started imagining a kind
of scene, but always using this idea: images that didn't agree, that maybe
could give some kind of explanation of the situation. I saw Patrick's face,
then Piazza Grimana, then my house, then something green that they told me
might be the sofa. Then, following this, they wanted details, they wanted
to know everything I had done. But I didn't know how to say. So they started
talking to me, saying, "Okay, so you went out of the house, okay, fine, so
you met Patrick, where did you meet Patrick?" I don't know, maybe in Piazza
Grimana, maybe near it. Because I had this image of Piazza Grimana. "Okay,
fine, so you went with him to your house. Okay, fine. How did you open the
door?" Well, with my key. "So you opened the house". Okay, yes. "And what
did you do then?" I don't know. "But was she already there?" I don't know.
"Did she arrive or was she already there?" Okay. "Who was there with you?"
I don't know. "Was it just Patrick, or was Raffaele there too?" I don't know.
It was the same when the pubblico ministero came, because he asked me:"Excuse me, I don't understand. Did you hear the sound of a scream?" No.
"But how could you not have heard the scream?". I don't know, maybe my
ears were covered. I kept on and on saying I don't know, maybe, imagining..
(Translation by Thoughtful, on the PMF site, Audio Tape #3)
____________________________________


At the time Mignini, the Pubblico Ministero, was introduced to Amanda at the police station, we know that Amanda had been made a suspect and, therefore, could no longer be questioned by the cops or by Mignini. It would have been illegal to ask her questions and Mignini has said that he asked her no questions, in accordance with the law. So Amanda in her trial testimony had---in effect---called Mignini a criminal! Why has Mignini permitted this vicious---and criminal--- slander to go unpunished?

///

 

[Mary_H]

Why wasn't Amanda charged for this crime too?

In response to a question from Mignini, the Pubblico Ministero, Amanda said this to the court on June 13, 2009:

__________________________________
AK: Well, first I started to cry. And all the policemen, together, started
saying to me, you have to tell us why, what happened? They wanted all these
details that I couldn't tell them, because in the end, what happened was
this: when I said the name of "Patrick", I suddenly started imagining a kind
of scene, but always using this idea: images that didn't agree, that maybe
could give some kind of explanation of the situation. I saw Patrick's face,
then Piazza Grimana, then my house, then something green that they told me
might be the sofa. Then, following this, they wanted details, they wanted
to know everything I had done. But I didn't know how to say. So they started
talking to me, saying, "Okay, so you went out of the house, okay, fine, so
you met Patrick, where did you meet Patrick?" I don't know, maybe in Piazza
Grimana, maybe near it. Because I had this image of Piazza Grimana. "Okay,
fine, so you went with him to your house. Okay, fine. How did you open the
door?" Well, with my key. "So you opened the house". Okay, yes. "And what
did you do then?" I don't know. "But was she already there?" I don't know.
"Did she arrive or was she already there?" Okay. "Who was there with you?"
I don't know. "Was it just Patrick, or was Raffaele there too?" I don't know.
It was the same when the pubblico ministero came, because he asked me:"Excuse me, I don't understand. Did you hear the sound of a scream?" No.
"But how could you not have heard the scream?". I don't know, maybe my
ears were covered. I kept on and on saying I don't know, maybe, imagining..
(Translation by Thoughtful, on the PMF site, Audio Tape #3)
____________________________________


At the time Mignini, the Pubblico Ministero, was introduced to Amanda at the police station, we know that Amanda had been made a suspect and, therefore, could no longer be questioned by the cops or by Mignini. It would have been illegal to ask her questions and Mignini has said that he asked her no questions, in accordance with the law. So Amanda in her trial testimony had---in effect---called Mignini a criminal! Why has Mignini permitted this vicious---and criminal--- slander to go unpunished?

///

Although Mignini has stated that he did not interview Amanda once she became a suspect, all the lawyers in the courtroom acted like it was common knowledge that she had been interviewed by Mignini for the second statement, or at least that he had been present.

When the Supreme Court ruled both of Amanda's statements inadmissible, they essentially were agreeing that Mignini and the police broke the law. For Mignini to sue her would just draw attention to that. Otherwise, both the Supreme Court and the lawyers seem to be okay with just letting it go.