Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Dan O.]

If you're referring the the smeared stain on the faucet, Massei doesn't think that involved with the murder either, he accepts that it's from Amanda's ear-piercing:

No, i'm not talking about the faucet. There are two places where a single drip of watery blood was found. One was in the bidet that started near the rim and flowed down to around the drain. The other I thought was in the sink but I may need to check again.

It the sink were used to wash bloody hands then it would either have been rinsed clean or it would look like that sink in the bloody bathroom photo (at least on the inside). The residue left after such a washing would not be a single drip so this drip has to have occurred after that washing or independently if no washing were done in the sink or bidet.

My theory is that the drip in the sink could have come from rudy's hand as he reaches across the sink to grab the towel as he is stepping out of the shower. Similarly, the drip in the bidet could come from the cuff of his pants as he props his foot up to finish toweling it off before or after putting his sock on.

Even though Rudy's foot would still be covered with enough blood to leave tracks detectable with luminol, if it were toweled dry there wouldn't be enough moisture to soak through a sock and the sock would create a barrier that prevents the blood from being transferred to the floor as Rudy returns to Meredith's room to retrieve his shoe.

Rudy probably already has Meredith's cash since he mentions Meredith screaming about it while he is on the can. The phones could have been taken and stuffed into his jacket pocket early in the encounter to prevent Meredith from phoning the police. What he needs is her keys to get out the door.

We've already discussed that Rudy could have locked the door behind him while leaving the trail of footprints. Though since there are no bloody shoe prints leaving the cottage, he could have turned around at the outer door and gone back for the keys.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Three problematic assertions

If anyone wants to see denial at its finest, I would go read Truejustice.org right now. Sooooo funny.

HumanityBlues,

There are many things wrong with the article at TJfMK, but I will focus on just one paragraph for now. FlyByNight wrote, "Dr. Stefanoni found about 4 nanograms of Sollecito’s DNA on the bra clasp, which is a substantial amount of DNA considering that research suggests that contaminated samples usually contain sub-picogram amounts of DNA, or around 1000 to 10,000 times less DNA than attributed to Sollecito on the bra clasp."

The first problem I see is the implicit claim that a DNA profiling experiment has a dynamic range of 10,000 (and can detect as little as 0.4 picograms of DNA). The largest peaks in an electropherogram are usually 1000-2000 RFU in height, so contaminant peaks should be 0.1 to 1 RFU by this reckoning, which is absurd. The second problem I see is the claim that contamination always presents itself in the form of a tiny amount of DNA. I have seen an electropherogram in the Jaidyn Leskie case, and the peaks of Ms. P. are not small. I do not agree that one can make blanket statements about how much DNA is seen in contamination events. This sort of assertion falls afoul of the fact that there are many ways in which contamination can occur, for example.

The total amount of DNA on the clasp was 1.14 nanograms, and Raffaele's putative profile was 1/6 to 1/10 of that, putting it into the ballpark of 100-200 picograms (see pages 141-143 in Raffaele's appeal). Therefore, the quoted passage is also wrong by more than an order of magnitude with respect to the amount of Raffaele's putative DNA, a third problem in the passage.

 

[Fine]

I wonder what your predictions are about the upcoming hearing.
Is divine Patrizia going to show up in court? If so, what her line of defense is going to be? Will she invent something new or just rehash everything from the first trial?

In the recent "interview" Mignini gave some hints of putting the blame on her. I think it's quite likely that she'll strike first, refusing to cover for him and his failed case any longer and simply send a medical leave notification to the court.

______________________

She won't show up if she ain't invited. Does anyone know whether Doctor Stefanoni is on the Court Calendar to appear as a witness during either of the next two scheduled hearings, July 25th and August 1st?

///

 

[LondonJohn]

______________________

She won't show up if she ain't invited. Does anyone know whether Doctor Stefanoni is on the Court Calendar to appear as a witness during either of the next two scheduled hearings, July 25th and August 1st?

///

It's inconceivable that she wouldn't have been listed for the discussion of the DNA report. She is, after all, completely central to the debate.

 

[LondonJohn]

HumanityBlues,

There are many things wrong with the article at TJfMK, but I will focus on just one paragraph for now. FlyByNight wrote, "Dr. Stefanoni found about 4 nanograms of Sollecito’s DNA on the bra clasp, which is a substantial amount of DNA considering that research suggests that contaminated samples usually contain sub-picogram amounts of DNA, or around 1000 to 10,000 times less DNA than attributed to Sollecito on the bra clasp."

The first problem I see is the implicit claim that a DNA profiling experiment has a dynamic range of 10,000 (and can detect as little as 0.4 picograms of DNA). The largest peaks in an electropherogram are usually 1000-2000 RFU in height, so contaminant peaks should be 0.1 to 1 RFU by this reckoning, which is absurd. The second problem I see is the claim that contamination always presents itself in the form of a tiny amount of DNA. I have seen an electropherogram in the Jaidyn Leskie case, and the peaks of Ms. P. are not small. I do not agree that one can make blanket statements about how much DNA is seen in contamination events. This sort of assertion falls afoul of the fact that there are many ways in which contamination can occur, for example.

The total amount of DNA on the clasp was 1.14 nanograms, and Raffaele's putative profile was 1/6 to 1/10 of that, putting it into the ballpark of 100-200 picograms (see pages 141-143 in Raffaele's appeal). Therefore, the quoted passage is also wrong by more than an order of magnitude with respect to the amount of Raffaele's putative DNA, a third problem in the passage.

The article is so riddled with inaccuracies, misrepresentations and flat-out lies that it's almost a parody in itself. Very curious behaviour, and somewhat sad to watch.

PS: Why do some people seem to have convinced themselves that Steve Moore must have only received a desultory settlement from Pepperdine? The records show that this was not a mediated case: Pepperdine tried to get the case struck out, a preliminary judge refused to do so, then Pepperdine offered Moore a settlement which (perhaps after some negotiation) he accepted. My experience is that Pepperdine would never have offered a settlement if it felt it had any realistic chance of winning a court case. It would make absolutely no sense for it to do so. Some people just seem to have their confirmation-bias-o-meter turned up beyond the machine's maximum operating limits.....

 

[Onofarar]

The article is so riddled with inaccuracies, misrepresentations and flat-out lies that it's almost a parody in itself. Very curious behaviour, and somewhat sad to watch.

PS: Why do some people seem to have convinced themselves that Steve Moore must have only received a desultory settlement from Pepperdine? The records show that this was not a mediated case: Pepperdine tried to get the case struck out, a preliminary judge refused to do so, then Pepperdine offered Moore a settlement which (perhaps after some negotiation) he accepted. My experience is that Pepperdine would never have offered a settlement if it felt it had any realistic chance of winning a court case. It would make absolutely no sense for it to do so. Some people just seem to have their confirmation-bias-o-meter turned up beyond the machine's maximum operating limits.....

A few points on the Moore case within the context of the US legal system as it operates today.
1. Large entity defendants have a very poor record of success in civil jury trials in the US, Therefore, their first move is to seek a "summary judgement" preferably "with prejudice" - at a minimum this moves the ball back to square one forcing the defendant to file a new (better defined) and narrower case. If the magic words "with prejudice" are included in the summary judgement then most often the plaintiff is done - unless he/she can show judicial error (judge misapplied the law) or prejudice.
2.) Once the summary judgment motion is denied the next step is to assess the discovery requests of the plaintiff which are usually very broad and expensive to respond too. Defendants will usually ask the judge to narrow the discovery requests.
3.) Like most large entities Pepperdine must have liability insurance to cover these situations. The insurance may provide first dollar legal defense costs but probably has a substantial deductible easily $500k or even $1 million or more. Assuming Moore made $10K per month I doubt the settlement was only $60K - 6 months wages because after the contingency fee and expenses to the lawyers Moore would just be at breakeven, Since everything we know (and I admit it is not much) the case seems to be a slam dunk for Moore the size of the settlement is probably more like 1 - 2 years salary plus an additional (substantial) amount for the damage to Moore's reputation. Thus, it was likely that the Insurance Carrier foresaw a large legal defense cost and a no win case and pressured Pepperdine to settle and may have even offerred to share the award payout to a larger extent that the policy required to sweeten the pill Pepperdine had to swallow.
4.) The fact that defendants wanted the settlement kept quiet is another indicator the amount involved was LARGE - since the insurance company would want to publicize a small settlement to discourage other cases like this and to reference as an award guideleine in a other jury cases.

 

[Kaosium]

I agree. I think Mignini is by far the most likely candidate for that NYT quote. And I also think that he might well have been given a stiff reprimand and ordered to stop talking to the media in the aftermath of his recent self-serving pronouncements.

Personally I think he got little more than a healthy serving of humiliation from those 'pronouncements' but then again that might just be me.

I tend towards the opinion that the two samples of handwriting are not written in the same hand. But I think that's actually of little consequence either way, as Guede agrees that the contents of the letter tally with his personal opinion. And in any case, the letter (in my view) has very little value to the prosecution, since Guede's version of the crime is demonstrably bogus and mendacious in many other areas.

This is something I went looking for as I vaguely remembered reading it but didn't find in a cursory search and forgot about, but is the letter he just released after Amanda and Raffaele were found guilty that basically amounted to 'I'm pissed about the whole 'lone wolf' thing?

Incidentally, I recall once reading Sun (I think) article in which it was claimed the profiles of 17 individuals or somesuch were found at the murder site, which I recall some contending meant the totality of the cottage and surrounding environment. Do you know if the defense was ever given information about other traces found in the murder room itself, would that be required under Italian law, and even if so would it be unbelievable for them not to receive that information, especially considering the context of the prosecution in this case?

As I've said before, I think that the two areas that the defence has to focus on now are the mixed DNA in the sink/bidet, and the dilute partial print on the bathmat. As I've also said, I think that both these issues can be successfully argued by the defence, but I think it's important that they realise the critical importance of rebuttal here. After all, if Hellmann's court mirrors Massei's judgements in these areas, and accepts that a) the mixed DNA was deposited at the same time (regardless of whether Knox's DNA is from her blood or not) and/or b) the partial footprint is Sollecito's, then I think guilty verdicts will ensue. But I confidently predict that the defence will successfully rebut both these areas of evidence, in ways that we've discussed here before.

I think you're right, although I suspect the bathmat footprint could actually be a winner for the defense. Just looking at it in the context of both Rudy's and Raffaele's prints serves to discredit in my mind the prosecution 'experts' trying to pretend it could be Raffaele's only. I recall initially going through the case I initially automatically assumed things ILE had 'attributed' to either Raffaele or Amanda had a great deal of validity, not being a footprint expert and assuming it was not unlike fingerprints and thus explanations for their attributed existence must be made...until I got a closer look at some of them such as these:

How on earth do they expect people to take them seriously when they make asinine 'attributions' like this? What confidence could they possibly place in any judgment made on something such as this? Their credibility took a nosedive into the drink with me just by pretending they could 'attribute' this to someone particular, and it's not like they had to 'attribute' it to anyone, as apparently there's one out there they said they couldn't so categorize! I wonder what that one actually looks like!

The bathmat print is not nearly as absurd, of course, it's just this idea that they would proclaim with certainty something so ambiguous that I suspect might hurt their credibility with some of the jurors, I know it did me. I think it looks more like Rudy's, but I can make mental adjustments for factors and see Raffaele's there, I simply can't accept it must be Raffaele's and not Rudy's without anything corroborating it.

I actually don't think Matteini's to blame for Knox's/Sollecito's incarceration between November 2007 and the first trial. I think that the prosecutors hyperbolised (to the extent of exaggerating and even inventing evidence against the pair) in order to strengthen their case in front of Matteini, and that the defence were in no position to counter-argue at that point. And in any case, I think that the nature of the crime would usually result in custodial remand in any case. So if there's any blame to be attached here, I'd look no further than Mignini, Comodi and Napoleoni.

I dunno, there's also the refusing to recuse herself in the calunnia trial that makes me wonder, as does the fact she knew they'd been presented to her without ever being allowed to see lawyers. A healthy dose of common sense, and a reading of Amanda and Raffaele's statements and a review of the 'evidence' ought to have suggested to her something as well. Where I come from judges aren't just rubber stamps, they have minds of their own and everything!

I think Mignini probably just inserted himself into the appeals process through force of personality. But I also think you may have a point that Costagliola might be perfectly happy to use Mignini as a buffer if (and now when) it all goes wrong for the prosecutors in the appeal. My opinion of Mignini is that he is a control freak and a bully, who now knows that he's caught in a spiral - largely of his own doing - that will probably culminate in the premature curtailment of his career in the judiciary. I therefore think that he's becoming a loose cannon, and that he has the potential to damage many others on his way down. I think that quite a few people around Perugia might be more than a little afraid of being hit by the flailing desperation of a drowning man.

Like a dying lion or a falling empire, he can still do a lot of damage before he expires. Do you think that simply being put out to pasture will be his only punishment? I'd like to think he might have new charges brought against him for all the misery he has caused for others with his 'investigations' fetish. However unlike the Monster of Florence case he didn't go after powerful people in Italy, but pretty much those overseas and the helpless in this case, so perhaps he will get away with it.

 

[Katody Matrass]

The total amount of DNA on the clasp was 1.14 nanograms, and Raffaele's putative profile was 1/6 to 1/10 of that, putting it into the ballpark of 100-200 picograms (see pages 141-143 in Raffaele's appeal). Therefore, the quoted passage is also wrong by more than an order of magnitude with respect to the amount of Raffaele's putative DNA, a third problem in the passage.

In fact the independent experts read from Stefanoni's SAL that she got 5,75 ng of DNA in 50 μl of extract according to quantification. She used 10 μl of it for the autosomal STR - if I'm not mistaken that puts all the minor contributors to the sample in the LCN range, just like the defense experts argued in the first trial.

Anyway that's very far from what the article says. Where did they got the 4 ng figure is beyond me. I don't expect them to correct that one or the rest of their inaccuracies, either. Those obsessed individuals prove time after time that spreading lies and misinformation is their idea of honoring poor Meredith's memory.

 

[Katody Matrass]

How on earth do they expect people to take them seriously when they make asinine 'attributions' like this? What confidence could they possibly place in any judgment made on something such as this? Their credibility took a nosedive into the drink with me just by pretending they could 'attribute' this to someone particular, and it's not like they had to 'attribute' it to anyone, as apparently there's one out there they said they couldn't so categorize! I wonder what that one actually looks like!

You don't have to look far. It's the one on the left of your second photo. Intriguing, isn't it?

 

[Kaosium]

I wonder what your predictions are about the upcoming hearing.
Is divine Patrizia going to show up in court? If so, what her line of defense is going to be? Will she invent something new or just rehash everything from the first trial?

In the recent "interview" Mignini gave some hints of putting the blame on her. I think it's quite likely that she'll strike first, refusing to cover for him and his failed case any longer and simply send a medical leave notification to the court.

I wonder about this too, I found this little gem in the ongoing translation that reminded me she was present for the tests of the independent experts:

Dr. Stefanoni notes that the Real Time PCR reaction was prepared on the counter without using a fume hood to guarantee the absence of contamination

Look at her! Little Miss Goody Two-Shoes, hyper-vigilant about possible contamination! How did this fail to be included in the recent smear against the independent experts currently in vogue at TJMK? I could do more with this than virtually everything contained in that article, and that's definitely damning with faint praise. Or praising with absolute damnation--something like that.

 

[Katody Matrass]

look at her! Little Miss Goody Two-Shoes, hyper-vigilant about possible contamination! How did this fail to be included in the recent smear against the independent experts currently in vogue at TJMK? I could do more with this than virtually everything contained in that article, and that's definitely damning with faint praise. Or praising with absolute damnation--something like that.

And why would she suddenly worry about fume hoods, isn't it that "DNA doesn't fly" according to the prosecution and guilters?

 

[Kaosium]

Yes, that was quite amusing to see how a website dedicated to discussion of the case can only stand to hear someone with a different point of view once a week!

He has a point though, which is why I stopped posting there without directive last time, it takes over the board and that wasn't my purpose in being there either. I was hoping the volume there would pick up so the discussion wouldn't be all about the 'invading' innocentisti. I never got to actually talk about what I wanted, I was hoping to answer a few questions/make a couple points and move on to clear up things that are just peripheral to the case that shouldn't cause much disruption. Oh, well.

(I also noticed that the person who called Rose a c-word was admonished for swearing but not for wishing death on another poster. Nice forum they have there.)

The 'hookah smoking caterpillar.'

I hope Rose wasn't too upset about it, I don't take that sort of thing seriously myself as it says a lot more about who says it than who it's directed at.

 

[Kaosium]

If anyone wants to see denial at its finest, I would go read Truejustice.org right now. Sooooo funny.

I saw this in 'development' and already said my peace. Hell, I almost logged on and--politely--tried to give them some better ideas, fully aware I'd probably have had to recycle my modem if ever I wanted to read there again, the idiocy was so painful to endure.

However, at this point, if they're going to adopt this direction, who cares what they think?

 

[Kaosium]

You don't have to look far. It's the one on the left of your second photo. Intriguing, isn't it?

Thank you, Katody! I was half-tempted to go looking for it.

However...how is that one any more 'distinguishable' than the one on the right? That's supposed to be Raffaele's shoeprint? Footprint? I suppose they must have played with their picture programs like you do, but does it ever get even reasonable?

 

[Kaosium]

And why would she suddenly worry about fume hoods, isn't it that "DNA doesn't fly" according to the prosecution and guilters?

Because she knows Daddy is coming home and there's going to be a spanking?

I wonder if she will bring this up in her defense on the 25th? 'They didn't use a fume hood! I caught them! How can they lecture me on contamination! I'm a veteran of a thousand polymerase wars! These academics know nothing about being in a lab!'

 

[Kaosium]

Look at her! Little Miss Goody Two-Shoes, hyper-vigilant about possible contamination! How did this fail to be included in the recent smear against the independent experts currently in vogue at TJMK? I could do more with this than virtually everything contained in that article, and that's definitely damning with faint praise. Or praising with absolute damnation--something like that.

I stand corrected, this was indeed included in the article, which wasn't quite as bad upon a second reading:

But, as evidenced in the expert report itself, Dr. Stefanoni is well-versed in the appropriate methods for dealing with these concerns, since she is quoted as already having admonished the court experts Vecchioti and Conti for not making use of a fume hood to ensure the absence of contamination as they conducted their retests on the evidence.

I don't think much of anything there will be argued in court though, they would be walking into ambushes like they were looking for the shadow of death....

 

[Fine]

For those following the peripheral legal skirmishes, Vanessa (Raffaele's sister) has an attorney, Giorgio Carta. Vanessa is suing the Carabinieri for wrongly firing her in April, 2009, while her brother was being tried for murder. She and her attorney were on television last week telling their story. HERE

Vanessa Sollecito. Yet another victim?

///

 

[komponisto]

I stand corrected, this was indeed included in the article, which wasn't quite as bad upon a second reading:

But, as evidenced in the expert report itself, Dr. Stefanoni is well-versed in the appropriate methods for dealing with these concerns, since she is quoted as already having admonished the court experts Vecchioti and Conti for not making use of a fume hood to ensure the absence of contamination as they conducted their retests on the evidence.

Actually, you hardly need much correction at all; for, unlike TJMK, you gave the correct explanation for Stefanoni's "admonition":

Because she knows Daddy is coming home and there's going to be a spanking?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

You Americans need to shut up and let the Italians handle this! No wait, not those Italians!

 

[RoseMontague]

He has a point though, which is why I stopped posting there without directive last time, it takes over the board and that wasn't my purpose in being there either. I was hoping the volume there would pick up so the discussion wouldn't be all about the 'invading' innocentisti. I never got to actually talk about what I wanted, I was hoping to answer a few questions/make a couple points and move on to clear up things that are just peripheral to the case that shouldn't cause much disruption. Oh, well.



The 'hookah smoking caterpillar.'

I hope Rose wasn't too upset about it, I don't take that sort of thing seriously myself as it says a lot more about who says it than who it's directed at.

It was an interesting discussion revolving around some of the other things that after the expert report may have more importance than before. The bathmat and Luminol prints, phone and computer evidence. I was surprised that Stint seem more interested in the terrible, horrible thing I said about Mr. Kercher whining over the cold shoulder from Amanda's parents.

There are some there that still want to discuss the case and others that don't want to see a genuine debate happen. The discussion here at JREF is now lacking input from those on the side of guilt, at IIP you have one stubborn poster and wiredny that's about all you have as well. At the SB PMF you have just a couple posters that will question some of the others but none that argue from the side of innocence.

I like a good discussion with both sides involved. If anybody knows a place where that is happening, let me know.