Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fine]

More on the Dumb and Dumber Trashed a Crime Scene series:

It continues to amaze this strange desire by the cops to move things from one place to another, adjust, shift, put somewhere else. For what purpose?

Note that they were wearing hazmat suits where the footwear could not be changed. They went from Amanda's room to Meredith's room in the same footwear. They certainly could have brought Raffaele's DNA into the room.

Note also the uncollected blood stain on Amanda's pillow. You would think they would have collected it earlier in case it was related to the murder....


Amanda's Room Dec 18
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...01286599.45660.106344459390034&type=1&theater

Finally getting around to collecting blood stain on Amanda's Pillow - Dec 18.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...01286599.45660.106344459390034&type=1&theater

* * *

________________________

Looks like that sneaky Amanda planted a drop of her own blood on her pillow to make it look like she had an infected ear piercing.

///

 

[LondonJohn]

More on the Dumb and Dumber Trashed a Crime Scene series:

It continues to amaze this strange desire by the cops to move things from one place to another, adjust, shift, put somewhere else. For what purpose?

Note that they were wearing hazmat suits where the footwear could not be changed. They went from Amanda's room to Meredith's room in the same footwear. They certainly could have brought Raffaele's DNA into the room.

The "crack" forensics team were wearing a heath robinson combination of hazmat suits and overshoes:



But the video clearly shows that these overshoes were not changed when individuals walked from one room to another. This fact, in and of itself, renders all forensic evidence found on the floor of every part of the cottage virtually useless.

In addition, the scene of crime officers should not have been wearing hazmat suits. These suits are primarily designed to protect the wearer from environmental hazards - but at a crime scene the primary concern should be to protect the environment from contamination by the wearer, and to minimise the chances of the wearer tracking evidence from one place to another. In the UK, SOCO's typically wear sterile non-shred paper suits which fulfill both criteria far better than the waterproofed fabric of hazmat suits

Note also the uncollected blood stain on Amanda's pillow. You would think they would have collected it earlier in case it was related to the murder....


Amanda's Room Dec 18
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...01286599.45660.106344459390034&type=1&theater

Finally getting around to collecting blood stain on Amanda's Pillow - Dec 18.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...01286599.45660.106344459390034&type=1&theater

Compared to Nov 2nd
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...01286599.45660.106344459390034&type=1&theater

WHAT is up with the constant posing things on the FLOOR. Where did they learn in their 4 month training program that the floor is as clean as a lab table?
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...01286599.45660.106344459390034&type=1&theater

I agree with all your observations here, particularly regarding this utterly bizarre practice - and one which is patently contrary to the most basic rules of forensic crime scene analysis - of placing items back onto the floor of the crime scene to tag and photograph them.

 

[LondonJohn]

________________________

[qimg]http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/206007_255635284460950_106344459390034_908081_1200208_n.jpg[/qimg]

Looks like that sneaky Amanda planted a drop of her own blood on her pillow to make it look like she had an infected ear piercing.

///

Indeed! Note also that the blood spot is on the pillow itself, rather than on a pillowcase. I would strongly suspect that Knox would have had a pillowcase on her pillow - what I therefore think most likely is that this blood spot seeped through the pillow case to the pillow below. It's therefore possible that the police didn't notice any blood at first, if Knox had changed the pillow case after the bleeding - as would be a natural thing to do - and placed a clean pillow case on top of the pillow with the residual stain.

 

[Mary_H]

Indeed! Note also that the blood spot is on the pillow itself, rather than on a pillowcase. I would strongly suspect that Knox would have had a pillowcase on her pillow - what I therefore think most likely is that this blood spot seeped through the pillow case to the pillow below. It's therefore possible that the police didn't notice any blood at first, if Knox had changed the pillow case after the bleeding - as would be a natural thing to do - and placed a clean pillow case on top of the pillow with the residual stain.

In what other first-world country do the forensics teams not collect the entire pillow?

 

[LondonJohn]

He makes mention of both legal grounds for the appeal as well as merit. If it was the SC appeal it would just be on the legal grounds if I am understanding things properly. This suggests to me that it is the first appeal.

I stand corrected (said the man in the orthopedic shoe*...... badummmm-TISHHHH! I'm here all week, etc, etc).

It appears that Mignini does indeed have both stages of appeal still open to him. This article tallies with Mignini's own comment on the blog he "stumbled across", stating that the Florence Appeal Court will hold the first appeal trial starting on 22nd November this year:

It will be the appeals court in Florence on 22 November to decide on the matter.

http://www.zoo2000.it/trasimeno/news.php?readmore=47

It seems pretty clear that the timing of this appeal is linked to the completion of the first appeal of Knox and Sollecito. The last three months of this year could be very interesting in terms of Mignini's reputation and career.

* Not my joke, regrettably, but one shamelessly stolen from UK comedy masterpiece "I'm Alan Partridge"

 

[LondonJohn]

In what other first-world country do the forensics teams not collect the entire pillow?

Oh I'm not excusing their actions - merely trying to examine some sort of explanation as to why they might have missed it first time round. As you say, they should have been removing all bedding to check for evidence. After all, it doesn't take a master criminal to remove (and potentially dispose of) any bedding or loose covers that have blood or other incriminating evidence on them*. Heck, murderers are known to remove whole fitted carpets if their victim has spilled blood on them.

* Not that I'm suggesting for a moment that the blood on Knox's pillow was incriminating to Knox in any way (it's very likely to be from her poor effort at piercing her own ear some days previously) - I'm merely suggesting that crime scene investigators should be thinking in terms of culprits taking steps to hide incriminating evidence.

 

[Mary_H]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
It doesn't take a legal genius to see that those seeking damages have a strong vested interest in seeing those on trial criminally convicted - regardless of whether such a criminal conviction is warranted or justifiable - since a criminal conviction will guarantee the award of civil damages.

Should the above happen, what would follow?

A second appeal, government intervention or all out public outcry?

What could be done to counteract the situation?

We hope the decision of guilt will be reversed at the end of the appeal trial and the innocent defendants are released, so that no further appeals, outcries or interventions on their behalf will be necessary.

Ideally, a lot could be done on behalf of the Kerchers, if they or their lawyers have the energy to pursue it. If, as it appears, Rudy Guede should not have been out on the streets, the Kerchers should sue the police, although this may not be culturally acceptable.

In the litigation-happy United States, the Kerchers might have a strong case for negligence against the prosecutors, experts and judges from the first trial, too, for unnecessarily adding two years to the time they will have had to wait for the closure a trial is supposed to provide. I have a feeling, though, that Italians are probably not big on suing professionals for negligence.

 

[LondonJohn]

We hope the decision of guilt will be reversed at the end of the appeal trial and the innocent defendants are released, so that no further appeals, outcries or interventions on their behalf will be necessary.

Ideally, a lot could be done on behalf of the Kerchers, if they or their lawyers have the energy to pursue it. If, as it appears, Rudy Guede should not have been out on the streets, the Kerchers should sue the police, although this may not be culturally acceptable.

In the litigation-happy United States, the Kerchers might have a strong case for negligence against the prosecutors, experts and judges from the first trial, too, for unnecessarily adding two years to the time they will have had to wait for the closure a trial is supposed to provide. I have a feeling, though, that Italians are probably not big on suing professionals for negligence.

It's worth noting that if Knox and Sollecito are acquitted by Hellmann's appeal court, the prosecutors could still lodge an appeal with the Supreme Court, if they could make a case for misapplication of the law in the appeal trial. The prosecutors cannot appeal to the Supreme Court on any findings of fact.

But Knox and Sollecito would definitely be released immediately upon acquittal, pending such an appeal, and would remain free even if the Supreme Court did decide that there had been breaches of the application of law in Hellmann's court. If that happened, the Supreme Court would refer the case back to the Appeal Court of Assizes (i.e. the equivalent of Hellmann's court) for a retrial at the first appeal level. But I think that Knox and Sollecito would remain free while such a trial took place, and would only be taken back into custody if there were guilty verdicts in a retrial.

 

[Rolfe]

I didn't start this sniping and detest it. It's pathetic.

Why not discuss the evidence, then? What do you think of the arguments relating to the time of death?

Rolfe.

 

[lionking]

Why not discuss the evidence, then? What do you think of the arguments relating to the time of death?

Rolfe.

The time of death is contested. Let's see what the appeal makes of it. What I don't accept, as I have said many times, is a massive conspiracy of police, forensic scientists, prosecutors and possibly judges necessary for the innocentisti narrative to pan out.

 

[Paninaro]

So why was someone referring to a member of another forum? I refer to you as Matthew Best. Is it too hard to ask for people on this forum to refer to members by the names they use here? If not, why not?

Please, this discussion is really, really Off Topic. I know you didn't start it, but you're continuing it. Don't you have any comments on the actual case?

If some more people still believing in guilt would argue here, like bolint does, it would be a better discussion. I'm sure there are some valid points for guilt being made on PMF, but they don't allow free speech and different opinions there, which kills all possible debate about the case. I don't appreciate very much the snide remarks about the abscent people of PMF being made here, but they could certainly come here to defend their positions on the guilt of Knox and Sollecito themselves if they wanted to.

So what about the conclusions of the Conti-Vecchiotti report? To what extent can you still use the DNA on the two items as evidence against Knox and Sollecito? In my opinion the court is not going give the items any weight at all as proof against the defendants after the independent report.

I suppose apart from reasonable doubt you could still argue that at least Sollicitos DNA still definitely is on the bra clasp and that even if contamination could have accured and thus make it useless as evidence, the explanation that it got there by Sollecito touching it is still a lot more likely, yes, even very much more likely explanation, than contamination or transfer.

The question in this last paragraph is really for everyone. As skeptic observers of the case, isn't it just wishful thinking to reason otherwise? Solid evidence is one thing and the police slipping up due to malice or incompetence is one thing, but if Stefanoni isn't lying about everything, doesn't honesty require us to acknowledge this? The trial aside, what is the main reason to say that it's more likely that Sollecito's DNA on the clasp is due to contamination, transfer or planted evidence than the fact that he really touched it either before or after the murder of Meredith Kercher?

Any thoughts?

 

[LondonJohn]

The time of death is contested. Let's see what the appeal makes of it. What I don't accept, as I have said many times, is a massive conspiracy of police, forensic scientists, prosecutors and possibly judges necessary for the innocentisti narrative to pan out.

Just explain again how and why this "massive conspiracy" of your invention is "necessary" to support a belief that Knox and Sollecito should be acquitted?

 

[Diocletus]

In the litigation-happy United States, the Kerchers might have a strong case for negligence against the prosecutors, experts and judges from the first trial, too, for unnecessarily adding two years to the time they will have had to wait for the closure a trial is supposed to provide. I have a feeling, though, that Italians are probably not big on suing professionals for negligence.

I used to buy that the US was litigation-happy. Then I saw the amount of litigation spawned by this case. This is unheard of in the US.

No doubt in my mind that this case would be long over in the US. I think the prosecutor, some police, and the crime lab tech. would have been tossed out on their keesters ala the Duke Lacrosse case. There could still be civil litigation going on against the PD and the people mentioned above, but nothing like the actions that have been filed in this case.

 

[Paninaro]

The time of death is contested. Let's see what the appeal makes of it. What I don't accept, as I have said many times, is a massive conspiracy of police, forensic scientists, prosecutors and possibly judges necessary for the innocentisti narrative to pan out.

How? The explanations of Rolfe, London John and others on this issue seems very convincing to me. I haven´t seen anything refuting their line of reasoning on TOD anywhere.

 

[Antony]

The "crack" forensics team were wearing a heath robinson combination of hazmat suits and overshoes:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_402374e43a03fed124.jpg[/qimg]

But the video clearly shows that these overshoes were not changed when individuals walked from one room to another. This fact, in and of itself, renders all forensic evidence found on the floor of every part of the cottage virtually useless.

In addition, the scene of crime officers should not have been wearing hazmat suits. These suits are primarily designed to protect the wearer from environmental hazards - but at a crime scene the primary concern should be to protect the environment from contamination by the wearer, and to minimise the chances of the wearer tracking evidence from one place to another. In the UK, SOCO's typically wear sterile non-shred paper suits which fulfill both criteria far better than the waterproofed fabric of hazmat suits

The team - including the "internationally renknowned" Stefanoni, obviously had either never had any suitable training or were ignoring their training. The extraordinary thing is: they filmed themselves doing it! Why didn't they just "forget" to do the filming?

I agree with all your observations here, particularly regarding this utterly bizarre practice - and one which is patently contrary to the most basic rules of forensic crime scene analysis - of placing items back onto the floor of the crime scene to tag and photograph them.

Was this a "practice" of theirs? They did it in the bra-clasp video, but are you implying there were other instances?

I've never read any of the guidelines, but even I would know that the photo would only have any meaning if the item was undisturbed. I would also know that you don't scrub surfaces with a collection swab, you don't use the same swab to collect more than one sample, and you don't rummage through the items you're investigating.

 

[lionking]

Just explain again how and why this "massive conspiracy" of your invention is "necessary" to support a belief that Knox and Sollecito should be acquitted?

How many police etc know the "truth" and have either lied about it or ignored it? I have read many times that if these people simply told the truth, AK and RS would not have been convicted. How wide was this conspiracy and why has it lasted so long?

 

[Diocletus]

The time of death is contested. Let's see what the appeal makes of it. What I don't accept, as I have said many times, is a massive conspiracy of police, forensic scientists, prosecutors and possibly judges necessary for the innocentisti narrative to pan out.

Well, we could all just shut up and wait to see what the appeal makes of every issue. But what fun is that.

So, how do YOU think TOD should come out?

Here's my view: 11:30 makes no sense whatsoever. Given the broken down car, TOD gets adjusted back to a range of 9:00 to 10:00, where it is neatly bookended by the mobile phone activity. If he wants to drill down into additional facts (no clothes changing/shoe removal, no emptying the washer, disrupted call to mom with no re-call, and empty duodendum), then Hellman ends up in the very early part of this range.

What do you think?

 

[lionking]

How? The explanations of Rolfe, London John and others on this issue seems very convincing to me. I haven´t seen anything refuting their line of reasoning on TOD anywhere.

The court did. This finding hasn't been overturned. Let's see how the appeal goes.

 

[Mary_H]

I used to buy that the US was litigation-happy. Then I saw the amount of litigation spawned by this case. This is unheard of in the US.

Well, yeah, in the US nobody is ever sued for calunnia.

What I meant was that civil litigation against authorities and entities like cities and states is very common in the US. I doubt it is as common in italy, but I could be wrong. Judging from Patrick's case, it seems they have a system built in for compensating victims of police errors, but there is a monetary formula with a cap. Suing beyond that may not be allowed.

No doubt in my mind that this case would be long over in the US. I think the prosecutor, some police, and the crime lab tech. would have been tossed out on their keesters ala the Duke Lacrosse case. There could still be civil litigation going on against the PD and the people mentioned above, but nothing like the actions that have been filed in this case.

There was not enough evidence to bring this case to trial in the US. We do hope that Amanda, Raffaele and possibly the Kerchers will be able to sue and receive compensation from all the parties who harmed them. I wonder how many years it will take...

 

[Rolfe]

The time of death is contested. Let's see what the appeal makes of it. What I don't accept, as I have said many times, is a massive conspiracy of police, forensic scientists, prosecutors and possibly judges necessary for the innocentisti narrative to pan out.

This just seems like "argument from authority" by another name. No matter how compelling the arguments made by those who believe the case for guilt doesn't stack up, you just give the whole lot a body-swerve and refuse even to consider them, on the grounds that some other people came to a different conclusion, and you think that would have been a "conspiracy" if they were wrong, so you can't contemplate that they might be wrong.

News flash. Wrongful convictions happen all the time. There are many, many examples of such convictions finally being overturned on the second or even third appeal. (I think it took about six separate court hearings before Sion Jenkins got justice.)

Usually, examination of the circumstances of the initial railroading reveals groupthink and confirmation bias as the main explanation for the investigators and then the prosecution going singlemindedly after the wrong person. I don't see where this case is any different quite frankly.

Rolfe.