Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[snook1]

Anyone know where I can find a downloadable documentary titled "The Trials Of Amanda Knox" ?

It aired in the UK last year.

Edit - nevermind, I found it.

 

[LondonJohn]

Let me put it this way: how do we know Patrick Lumumba was not involved?

Perhaps no one else noticed, but when Mignini moved the ToD back to 11:30 in his closing statement to account for Curatolo's rambling, (and Massei pushed it further to 11:40) Patrick Lumumba lost his alibi, which was only good through 11:00 PM. There's no evidence he was at the cottage, but there's those two other 'profiles' on the y-halotype, how do we know it wasn't his? There's zero evidence Amanda was in the murder room, and nothing of Raffaele even in the cottage outside that curious clasp and the cigarette butt, it's hardly 'inconceivable' (by those rules!) Patrick could have managed much the same feat.

We know he's a 'liar,' both about his history as a relative to a Congolese politician (or prince?) and about the case as well. The 'soulless' Daily Mail article includes untrue information about Amanda as well as his actions in relation to her. Also--much like Amanda--he claims the cops weren't nice to him at all when they interrogated him, there's no cupcakes and tea in his account in that same Mail piece, there's beatings off camera and denials of his rights. Why is he 'lying' about the cops?

There's even an 'accusation' against him from someone the police have 'proven' in court was there! Mignini himself has said he still believes part of the statements Amanda signed were 'true'--why not this part as well? He sure seems interested in the results of the trial, is he 'managing' it like some think Amanda did the crime scene?

He has about as much proven contact with Rudy Guede as Amanda does, and less than Raffaele, plus it is easier to infer he might have more that has not become public, as he was a considered a leader in the African community in Perugia and someone who would go to people in trouble and try to help and someone people could go to. Rudy had all sorts of trouble, especially being essentially disowned by his foster family and on the verge of being evicted.

Even if you assume a more rational time of death, he could still have been 'involved,' as his alibi begins at 9:00 PM, and he's not far from the cottage anyway, and the Swiss guy might have been off by fifteen minutes or so, giving him enough time to stab Meredith, then race back to Le Chic and open it up for business. As a matter of fact, with the discrediting of Curatolo, there's now more evidence that he was in the vicinity of the cottage than there is Raffaele and Amanda due to the SIM card data, it was his alibi that made his 'story' of changing it when he went to work accepted--according to the Massei ToD he doesn't have an alibi anymore!

On November 8th, the cops produced a litany of crap before Judge Matteini that Patrick, Amanda and Raffaele had raped and murdered Meredith Kercher. Nothing they presented turned out to be true or verifiable about any of the suspects, and they let Patrick go on the 20th when they captured Rudy on the basis of the alibi given to him through eleven PM. At that time they had gotten the knife on Amanda and thought that Raffaele's shoes produced Rudy's bloody shoeprints. Both of those items have now been conclusively dis-proven as 'evidence'

Everything produced afterward reeks of the cops just taking anything they could possibly find and twisting it so it casts 'suspicion' upon Raffaele and Amanda, and all of it upon further inspection turns out to have been either utterly disingenuous, discredited, or a more plausible explanation is completely innocent or irrelevant. You can do that with just about anything or anyone. If that sort of 'evidence' is all one can assemble, then I have to say Raffaele and Amanda have been more or less vetted far better than anyone else involved in this case. I think one could put together a better circumstantial case against a number of police and Mignini than I've seen against Raffaele and Amanda.

Of course, you're aware that certain commentators on this case (those who have a particular blinkered agenda) will now start to put it about that you're suggesting that Lumumba was involved in Meredith's death

 

[komponisto]

The 6 days

I haven't seen much discussion here about Comodi's claim that the knife was tested six days after the last test related to the case, and it does arouse my curiosity.

First of all, since we don't (yet?) have a transcript of the hearing, I don't know exactly what was claimed. Were there no tests in the laboratory at all for six days, or just no tests related to the case, or just no tests of samples specifically containing Meredith's DNA? Press reports are of course contradictory and ambiguous as usual.

Secondly, I don't know how long these tests actually take. (Maybe halides1 knows something here.) For all I know, maybe no tests were performed six days before the knife was tested, but on that day a number of Kercher-related items were tested before the knife. This level of mendacity would hardly be beyond "turnip juice" Comodi, especially given that she was apparently prepared to submit bogus documents to the court regarding negative controls. After all, if there really were an actual delay of six days between the previous test and the knife (and not merely between testing sessions, say) why wouldn't we have heard about this "fact" before? Why wouldn't Stefanoni have emphasized it all along? Why wouldn't Conti and Vecchiotti have noticed?

Instead, what we find is Stefanoni saying this, quoted on p.102 of the Conti-Vecchiotti report:

"...the knife was analyzed...in the course of these 50 samples attributed to the victim, some were prior to the analysis of the knife, of course, and others subsequent, so in these 50 I don't know if the knife was, I don't know now, a fourth, a third of the way through this flux of analyses, however in any case even if the knife had been analyzed at the end of these 50, 60 traces, however many there were, this doesn't prejudice the goodness of the data, because each trace gets analyzed in an individual manner, it's absolutely impossible to mix one trace with another, also because the Kercher case is one of many cases that we deal with in the laboratory and that we dealt with contemporaneously, it's not as if the whole Scientific Police stopped to deal with the Kercher case..."

You would think, that if the six-day delay were accurate, she would have insisted on it in this passage, wouldn't you?

Finally, of course, if Comodi's claim is really correct, there are other possibilities: contamination at the scene, malfeasance, or erroneous reading of the profile (not ruled out by C and V). Not to mention simply material left around in the lab (that would presumably be a breach of procedure, but we already know Stefanoni doesn't respect the latter).

 

[LondonJohn]

Anyone know where I can find a downloadable documentary titled "The Trials Of Amanda Knox" ?

It aired in the UK last year.

Edit - nevermind, I found it.

Did you find a version that's viewable in the UK? Because as far as I was concerned, co-producers Channel 4 had (for some inexplicable reason) made the programme unavailable to viewers with UK IP addresses.

 

[LondonJohn]

I haven't seen much discussion here about Comodi's claim that the knife was tested six days after the last test related to the case, and it does arouse my curiosity.

First of all, since we don't (yet?) have a transcript of the hearing, I don't know exactly what was claimed. Were there no tests in the laboratory at all for six days, or just no tests related to the case, or just no tests of samples specifically containing Meredith's DNA? Press reports are of course contradictory and ambiguous as usual.

Secondly, I don't know how long these tests actually take. (Maybe halides1 knows something here.) For all I know, maybe no tests were performed six days before the knife was tested, but on that day a number of Kercher-related items were tested before the knife. This level of mendacity would hardly be beyond "turnip juice" Comodi, especially given that she was apparently prepared to submit bogus documents to the court regarding negative controls. After all, if there really were an actual delay of six days between the previous test and the knife (and not merely between testing sessions, say) why wouldn't we have heard about this "fact" before? Why wouldn't Stefanoni have emphasized it all along? Why wouldn't Conti and Vecchiotti have noticed?

Instead, what we find is Stefanoni saying this, quoted on p.102 of the Conti-Vecchiotti report:



You would think, that if the six-day delay were accurate, she would have insisted on it in this passage, wouldn't you?

Finally, of course, if Comodi's claim is really correct, there are other possibilities: contamination at the scene, malfeasance, or erroneous reading of the profile (not ruled out by C and V). Not to mention simply material left around int he lab (that would presumably be a breach of procedure, but we already know Stefanoni doesn't respect the latter).

Whisper it quietly, but at this stage I'm not sure I believe the "6-day" "12-day" claims are worth the paper they're not written on. Put it this way, I believe those claims about as much as I believe the "We lodged the negative control charts with the courts some months ago, honest!" claim.....

 

[Diocletus]

I haven't seen much discussion here about Comodi's claim that the knife was tested six days after the last test related to the case, and it does arouse my curiosity.

First of all, since we don't (yet?) have a transcript of the hearing, I don't know exactly what was claimed. Were there no tests in the laboratory at all for six days, or just no tests related to the case, or just no tests of samples specifically containing Meredith's DNA? Press reports are of course contradictory and ambiguous as usual.

Secondly, I don't know how long these tests actually take. (Maybe halides1 knows something here.) For all I know, maybe no tests were performed six days before the knife was tested, but on that day a number of Kercher-related items were tested before the knife. This level of mendacity would hardly be beyond "turnip juice" Comodi, especially given that she was apparently prepared to submit bogus documents to the court regarding negative controls. After all, if there really were an actual delay of six days between the previous test and the knife (and not merely between testing sessions, say) why wouldn't we have heard about this "fact" before? Why wouldn't Stefanoni have emphasized it all along? Why wouldn't Conti and Vecchiotti have noticed?

Instead, what we find is Stefanoni saying this, quoted on p.102 of the Conti-Vecchiotti report:



You would think, that if the six-day delay were accurate, she would have insisted on it in this passage, wouldn't you?

Finally, of course, if Comodi's claim is really correct, there are other possibilities: contamination at the scene, malfeasance, or erroneous reading of the profile (not ruled out by C and V). Not to mention simply material left around in the lab (that would presumably be a breach of procedure, but we already know Stefanoni doesn't respect the latter).

I'm not sure that the alleged testing delay for the clasp would matter anyway. First, the other profiles tell us that there IS contamination. Second, the crime scene video tells us that the contamination could easily have occurred at the scene. No one cares when this contaminated evidence was tested, except maybe Stefanoni, who could exonerate HER lab (vis a vis the fieldwork) by using the evidence of delay.

It doesn't matter for the knife, either. There is rye starch on the knife. It was not washed of blood. Again, if Stefanoni can show that the contamination did not occur at the lab, then she exonerates only herself at the expense of the either (i) careless or (ii) dishonest police.

Finally, I find it ironic that Stefanoni is trying to exonerate her lab using this "delay" issue. Stefanoni was supposed to have run negative controls, and she either failed to do the test or tender the paperwork showing the test. Having failed here, she is now trying to rule out lab contamination by referencing a "delay" that is not any kind of proper control, but rather, an accident. That's no way to run the railroad.

I'm sure the cops will be pissed if they ever figure out that Stefanoni is saying that the contamination must be from the crime scene. That said, there is clearly a full-court press on to preserve the "perfect" reputation of the Italian forensics labs. I'm sure it would be big trouble if all of the defendants in their 35,000 (or whatever) cases started looking under the all the meteors, I mean rocks.

 

[snook1]

Did you find a version that's viewable in the UK? Because as far as I was concerned, co-producers Channel 4 had (for some inexplicable reason) made the programme unavailable to viewers with UK IP addresses.

No, I searched for a downloadable file and found it on a torrent site. I'm downloading it right now.

The viewable version is on YouTube somewhere.

I had many issues with the Lifetime documentary and in the end, I didn't see it. I can't watch it from Europe, as most of the viewable files are on US servers. I tried to download it via torrent site, but the file that I downloaded didn't work at all. No sound, no picture.

As far as I know, the documentary will be added to the DVD Amanda Knox Murder On Trial In Italy that will be relased sometime soon in the UK, so I guess it will be the only way for me to see it.

EDIT:
Here's the YouTube version:The Trials Of Amanda Knox
part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8lccObjh1U

The rest of it is there as well.

 

[Antony]

I was wondering how many here think AK and RS are totally innocent, as opposed to not guilty by reasonable doubt. At first I thought them to be guilty. As the case progressed, I changed my belief to not guilty by reasonable doubt. I am now on the verge of believing in their total innocence.

I only started taking an interest in the case at the time of the verdict. That was when I thought, "this doesn't sound right - but perhaps there's evidence I don't know about." The first sign I had that the police had got it wrong is that they arrested the 2 people who called them to the scene in the first place; the second was the all-night interrogation session which Knox was subjected to, with no safeguards for her rights.

After that I would have needed some fairly strong evidence to take anything seriously that the guilters were saying on the online blogs, and the frustrating thing was - behind the utter certainty they were expressing, there was never anything of substance. So there was never a time that I saw this case as anything other than a clear-as-day injustice.

As for "total innocence" or not, I don't buy into the the idea that they brought their troubles on themselves by trying to hide things or not being truthful - they did all they could to help the police in the days following the murder, and naively trusted them to treat them fairly. That was their only stupidity.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, I searched for a downloadable file and found it on a torrent site. I'm downloading it right now.

The viewable version is on YouTube somewhere.

I had many issues with the Lifetime documentary and in the end, I didn't see it. I can't watch it from Europe, as most of the viewable files are on US servers. I tried to download it via torrent site, but the file that I downloaded didn't work at all. No sound, no picture.

As far as I know, the documentary will be added to the DVD Amanda Knox Murder On Trial In Italy that will be relased sometime soon in the UK, so I guess it will be the only way for me to see it.

EDIT:
Here's the YouTube version:The Trials Of Amanda Knox
part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8lccObjh1U

The rest of it is there as well.

Nahh - it's blocked to UK users. I'll look for the torrent instead.

 

[Kaosium]

Of course, you're aware that certain commentators on this case (those who have a particular blinkered agenda) will now start to put it about that you're suggesting that Lumumba was involved in Meredith's death

I wanna know what Mignini's 'alibi' is for that night! Not 'cuz I really think he's anything but a vengeful kook, but so I can put together one for him and get myself a calunnia charge!

 

[benno]

I wonder how AK and RS will live their lives after they are released. I would have to have personal protection at all times. Will RS stay in Italy? Will AK stay home and continue her education?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Question:

If we presume for the sake of argument that the transfer of Raffaele's DNA occurred by the evidence collectors not changing gloves, touching the door knob and then placing said unchanged gloves on Meredith's bra clasp (a plausible scenario), how would those arguing guilt suggest one actually prove that?

It's really a rhetorical question obviously (unless I'm missing something). But I think the question enunciates the reason you must exclude evidence when proper procedures aren't followed, as is blatantly obvious in this case. The defense doesn't have the luxury of going to a video tape and pointing out Raffaele's DNA on the door handle. It's not exactly going to show up in a photograph.

Is there a person here arguing for guilt that thinks not changing gloves or violating other easily established protocols should have no consequences in terms of admissibility? When exactly is evidence actually compromised?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I was wondering how many here think AK and RS are totally innocent, as opposed to not guilty by reasonable doubt. At first I thought them to be guilty. As the case progressed, I changed my belief to not guilty by reasonable doubt. I am now on the verge of believing in their total innocence.

I'm verging on belief in total innocence on the basis that their alibi for the most probable time of death is strong: Meredith was probably thoroughly dead by 21:26 and at least one of them was still at home pushing buttons on the computer at that time.

If it was a disorganised, unpremeditated crime (something independent experts like Steve Moore and the prosecution both agree on) then they can't have pre-arranged a computer alibi, and hence independent evidence they were at home all night closes the case.

If the promised screensaver logs close off the entire 21:00-6:00 overnight period I'll accept that as sufficient proof of factual innocence that I'd shove the probability of them being involved down to the same kind of likelihood as me winning the lotto, or telepathy being real.

Currently the prosecution case is in a very bad way. It's an incredibly unlikely claim, since murders of the kind proposed just don't happen (of they do they have happened only once in criminal history), and in addition it's contradicted by the hard facts of Raffaele's hard drive and Meredith's duodenum. Extraordinary claims which actively clash with scientifically verified facts are about as unlikely as any claims get.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The diametrically-opposed interpretations of Saturday's events between here and the PMF are a fascinating sociological study.

Rolfe.

I think we're seeing what happens when you get a bunch of people who mostly just don't understand science or rationality at all, fixing their beliefs based instead on wishful thinking, confirmation bias and groupthink. It's the witch-hunt mentality, still alive and well on-line in 2011.

 

[Kaosium]

I haven't seen much discussion here about Comodi's claim that the knife was tested six days after the last test related to the case, and it does arouse my curiosity.

First of all, since we don't (yet?) have a transcript of the hearing, I don't know exactly what was claimed. Were there no tests in the laboratory at all for six days, or just no tests related to the case, or just no tests of samples specifically containing Meredith's DNA? Press reports are of course contradictory and ambiguous as usual.

Secondly, I don't know how long these tests actually take. (Maybe halides1 knows something here.) For all I know, maybe no tests were performed six days before the knife was tested, but on that day a number of Kercher-related items were tested before the knife. This level of mendacity would hardly be beyond "turnip juice" Comodi, especially given that she was apparently prepared to submit bogus documents to the court regarding negative controls. After all, if there really were an actual delay of six days between the previous test and the knife (and not merely between testing sessions, say) why wouldn't we have heard about this "fact" before? Why wouldn't Stefanoni have emphasized it all along? Why wouldn't Conti and Vecchiotti have noticed?

Instead, what we find is Stefanoni saying this, quoted on p.102 of the Conti-Vecchiotti report:



You would think, that if the six-day delay were accurate, she would have insisted on it in this passage, wouldn't you?

Finally, of course, if Comodi's claim is really correct, there are other possibilities: contamination at the scene, malfeasance, or erroneous reading of the profile (not ruled out by C and V). Not to mention simply material left around in the lab (that would presumably be a breach of procedure, but we already know Stefanoni doesn't respect the latter).

Was that six day claim in reference to the knife or the clasp? Off the top of my head, the knife DNA was 'discovered' around November 15th. Maybe it was the forteenth, perhaps the sixteenth, but I'm virtually certain it was after the twelfth (because of the Times/Fox piece I've posted a dozen times) and before the 20th, because I recall thinking they had that as 'evidence' when they let Patrick go when I looked into it. Ha! I just looked it up and it looks like I was almost right, I recalled the day of the article and not the day it would have happened in Perugia.

At any rate, if it was the 14th, that would mean between the eighth, when they didn't have any forensic evidence at all before Matteini, they didn't test a damn thing until they they did the knife. It must have been their first day of testing they did that incredibly unlikely item? That doesn't make sense, and you wouldn't think they'd want to suggest what that might imply...

 

[Poppy1016]

Hi Kevin
The more I followed the case, the less I believed in guilt. Now I don't know why they are still in prison. Do you know if the defense has requested house arrest? The defense seemed weak in the first trial. Their lawyers should be aggressively advocating for them in my opinion. The prosecution is aggressive in trying to save face, but they have been exposed and this trial should not drag on until October.

 

[Rolfe]

I think Hellman (or however he spells it) thinks Stefanoni is lying about the negative controls. I also think, therefore, that he might not necessarily accept the assurances about the elapsed time between the tests at face value. I think he noticed Stefanoni's foot-dragging as regards providing the requested raw data, and has perhaps been suspicious from the get-go.

Are the defence team any good? I mean, if the Zeist court still brought in a guilty verdict after Giaka was thrown out as a lying scumbag making stuff up to order on the instructions of the CIA and DoJ, to get US citizenship (quite a prize for a Libyan) and entry into the US witness protection programme, anything's possible.

Rolfe.

 

[pilot padron]

Works both ways and lets parse 'easily established'

I think we're seeing what happens when you get a bunch of people who mostly just don't understand science or rationality at all, fixing their beliefs based instead on wishful thinking, confirmation bias and groupthink. It's the witch-hunt mentality, still alive and well on-line in 2011.

Mr Lowe, may I argue that if you simply change the words "witch hunt" to "cheerleader" your argument applies equally if not more so to many of the 58,385+ 'arguments' here.

And also from just above ....

Question:
Is there a person here arguing for guilt that thinks not changing gloves or violating other easily established protocols should have no consequences in terms of admissibility? When exactly is evidence actually compromised?

May I argue that that when Academics from a University in Rome Italy have to resort to scouring Missouri State Highway Patrol Handbooks to get the Protocol 'spin' they desire, this stretches the definition and applicability of "easily established" protocols to previously unsurpassed levels of absurdity.
"***"

 

[HumanityBlues]

Mr Lowe, may I argue that if you simply change the words "witch hunt" to "cheerleader" your argument applies equally if not more so to many of the 50,385+ 'arguments' here.

And also from just above ....
"Is there a person here arguing for guilt that thinks not changing gloves or violating other easily established protocols should have no consequences in terms of admissibility?"

May I argue that that when Academics from a University in Rome Italy have to resort to scouring Missouri State Highway Patrol Handbooks to get the Protocol 'spin' they desire, this stretches the definition and applicability of "easily established" protocols to previously unsurpassed levels of absurdity.
"***"

By all means, cite any source, just one, that says you don't need to change gloves when collecting evidence. Good luck with that.

By the way, are you saying the Missouri State Highway Patrol Handbook has it wrong? Simple yes or no.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Maundy Gregory's blog

Question:

If we presume for the sake of argument that the transfer of Raffaele's DNA occurred by the evidence collectors not changing gloves, touching the door knob and then placing said unchanged gloves on Meredith's bra clasp (a plausible scenario), how would those arguing guilt suggest one actually prove that?

It's really a rhetorical question obviously (unless I'm missing something). But I think the question enunciates the reason you must exclude evidence when proper procedures aren't followed, as is blatantly obvious in this case. The defense doesn't have the luxury of going to a video tape and pointing out Raffaele's DNA on the door handle. It's not exactly going to show up in a photograph.

Is there a person here arguing for guilt that thinks not changing gloves or violating other easily established protocols should have no consequences in terms of admissibility? When exactly is evidence actually compromised?

HumanityBlues,

I am having a conversation with Maundy that closely follows your question at his blog. Maundy's position seems to be intermediate between "contamination must be proved" and "if you don't follow guidelines, the evidence is out." The latter is my position.