Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Grinder,
Nice to read your recent posts, I'm glad you're participating...
Thanks for the kind words, I did shed another tear today while at the beach, when a random memory visualized in my wandering mind...

As far as what you mentioned above about betrayal,
I just can not understand how come Raffaele has not turned on Rudy and betrayed their 1 day friendship...

As far as the staged break-in goes,
I can not seem to understand why Amanda nor Raffaele, after breaking Filomena's bedroom window with that 8.8lb rock and IIRC, stacking some of the broken glass shards to the side of the window sill, then did not even hide and discard or steal anything, like the laptop computer or any of her jewelry, just to further the ruse, and hopefully fool the cops...

I mean, who stages a break-in and doesn't steal anything?
 
I know you have a lot of experience with the police, J2, so I respect your opinion (I respect your opinion, anyway).

I continue to believe that it is dangerous to say the victim of a betrayal has made a mistake. It is very difficult for most people to think of "mistake" without also thinking of "moral defect or flaw." If the reversal is "inevitable," then it is outside the control and therefore the thoughts or behavior of the victim.

On the other hand, I admit we usually say it pretty casually and ironically. In the common vernacular, it doesn't really entail criticism of the victim, e.g., "Julius Caesar's big mistake was trusting his best friend."

By the way, I found this Wikipedia page on betrayal to have some interesting ideas that may be applicable to this case, e.g., "Betrayal at any stage of the socio-developmental cycle results in extreme biopsychosocial distress far beyond the event itself. It disrupts the person’s established mental model by which he or she views, understands, and responds to his or her environment and life events, destabilizes the co-occurring psychological contracts by which one trusts, and negates important aspects of viable strategies by which the person copes with life events."

You said: "I continue to believe that it is dangerous to say the victim of a betrayal has made a mistake."

I can understand that. However, it is also beneficial not to think of the future as hopeless. If there is some thing that we can learn that will prevent the same thing from happening again, that is good; it reassures us and makes us less fearful of the future. I have found myself in similar circumstances a few times in life. I didn't bungle as badly the second time around.From Wikipedia:

Hensley (2009c) argues betrayal trauma is far more injurious than physical and other traumas in that it destabilizes the mental model, schemas, and psychological contracts the victim has established to see, understand, and respond to life events, leading to extreme biopsychosocial distress. It violates the victim's understanding of rules, roles, relationships, respect, morals, ethics, and values, which are the core tenents of the psychological contract. Return to equilibrium requires the individual to redefine one or more of these tenents.

Betrayal leaves us conflicted. We are left confused by the relationship and similar relationships. I have been conflicted about government and the law for years.
 
Last edited:
RWVBWL - good point on the theft angle and since they had no trouble disposing of the bloody shoes and clothing getting rid of the jewelry or laptop would have been easy.

I would think that the majority of staged break ins would be from inside theft jobs, not rape murders.

I still think it is a mistake for the defense to spend time on the break in. They should concentrate on the more primary "evidence". The knife, the bra and Curatolo have been compromised at a minimum. They need to go after the Chief's statement, Quintavalle, Nara (not in a vicious way but question the accuracy possibility) and the bath mat. The latter should be presented with twenty sample footprints from Perugians and ask the court to link the print to one of the samples.
 
Hi RWVBWL,
I've been reading your posts and must say I like your style. I too would like to extend my condolences on the loss of your friend.
 
Hi Grinder,
Nice to read your recent posts, I'm glad you're participating...
Thanks for the kind words, I did shed another tear today while at the beach, when a random memory visualized in my wandering mind...

As far as what you mentioned above about betrayal,
I just can not understand how come Raffaele has not turned on Rudy and betrayed their 1 day friendship...

As far as the staged break-in goes,
I can not seem to understand why Amanda nor Raffaele, after breaking Filomena's bedroom window with that 8.8lb rock and IIRC, stacking some of the broken glass shards to the side of the window sill, then did not even hide and discard or steal anything, like the laptop computer or any of her jewelry, just to further the ruse, and hopefully fool the cops...

I mean, who stages a break-in and doesn't steal anything?


More importantly, who stages a break-in only to inform the police that nothing was stolen (before they even arrived at the scene).
 
"It is true that, according to what was asserted and explained, it is not possible with a mixed trace specimen that tested positive for human blood to determine which of the trace’s contributors the blood belongs to."

In other words, the "mixed blood" is yet another bogus piece of "evidence" invoked by Pilot Padron to support his position of guilt for Amanda (the other falsehood was his statement that drops of Meredith's blood was found in Amanda's room). His reasons for guilt gets even smaller.
 
______________________

Halides,

The so-called "mixed blood" in the bathroom was probably not blood either.
The only blood test Stefanoni used on that pink stuff was the TMB test. (A color reaction test.) Vegetable peroxidases, found in ketchup, are known to cause false positives in that test. Ketchup is a common ingredient to fake blood, the kind of "blood" known to be dripping from Meredith's chin on October 31st and November 1st.

See: Blood

///

I've never read that perspective, or possibility, before.
Not even in the media? And makes sense she was thoroughly washing this Halloween blood off her face, before going to see Sophie and friends.
 
JREF2010,

Some months ago (perhaps as long ago as January) I wrote a response to Colonel Garofano's claim that one can tell blood by the height of the peaks on a DNA electropherogram. One only has to look at DNA that did not come from blood and to note that the peaks are sometimes quite high, in order understand that his claim is fallacious. But I would like to say that (at least with respect to Filomena's room), we do not even know if the substance is blood or not. There was a luminol-positive area and it had mixed DNA. However luminol-positive areas with DNA were tested with TMB and were negative. Moreover, there was no confirmatory blood test done. If the jury believed that there was mixed blood, then the jury thought something that was erroneous, and maybe the defense needs to address this more carefully in their arguments.

I haven't really found that specific article yet. I read several and noted it was mentioned detecting blood is an evolving science. Presumptive & Confirmatory testing... not a scientist so excuse the misunderstanding.
This seems an open topic for Lawyers to stretch the truth though.
What was Commodi's big line "what turnip juice everywhere?" or something, she is known for, like the incorrect first call, or the shoe size comment in relate to penus size. Commodi is of this ilk, trying to be likeable to the layjudges, and in Perugia probably very comfortable and confident.

But I find it ironic it was mentioned in the articles, " Some argue that TOD cannot be accurately determined by stomach contents alone, "
and yet, the same people probably accept a little 63yr old ladies hearing of footsteps on leaves, in a driveway 70 meters away through double pane glass.

Hellman may not be so open, to the pressures and ways of the "local Perugia courthouse club" , and he definitely isn't allowing them to ridicule his appointed experts. But that doesnt mean Stefanoni wont file charges as she threatened against C&V.

It is noticed the pro-guilters have moved on to the luminol prints, and mixed blood traces though, and not defending the holy grail (kitchen knife)....but it will be Commodi on stage, not the invisible prosecutor.
 
Last edited:
I haven't really found that specific article yet. I read several and noted it was mentioned detecting blood is an evolving science. Presumptive & Confirmatory testing... not a scientist so excuse the misunderstanding.
This seems an open topic for Lawyers to stretch the truth though.
What was Commodi's big line "what turnip juice everywhere?" or something, she is known for, like the incorrect first call, or the shoe size comment in relate to penus size. Commodi is of this ilk, trying to be likeable to the layjudges, and in Perugia probably very comfortable and confident.

I think Hellmann has Comodis number down pat now. He caught her trying to slip the false DNA neutral control data into the trial at the last hearing. She wont get away with the turnip juice line again... What she has accomplished is to focus the two professional judges attention to her tactics and to make them aware that they need to watch her closely because she has been "less than forthcoming". I think that means they see her pants on fire...

But I find it ironic it was mentioned in the articles, " Some argue that TOD cannot be accurately determined by stomach contents alone, "
and yet, the same people probably accept a little 63yr old ladies hearing of footsteps on leaves, in a driveway 70 meters away through double pane glass.

Dont forget the part where Nara forgets to look at a clock or to wake up her daughter after this life altering moment when she hears a scream.

Hellman may not be so open, to the pressures and ways of the "local Perugia courthouse club" , and he definitely isn't allowing them to ridicule his appointed experts. But that doesnt mean Stefanoni wont file charges as she threatened against C&V.

I actually hope Stefanoni is dumb enough to file charges and I hope Mignini signs the papers...somehow I think Ms. Stefanoni will do nothing. In fact I expect she will be lucky to walk away free after her next cross-exam.

It is noticed the pro-guilters have moved on to the luminol prints, and mixed blood traces though, and not defending the holy grail (kitchen knife)....but it will be Commodi on stage, not the invisible prosecutor.

Yes...I see the Pro guilt wackos talking about luminol prints but they leave out the part where they all tested negative for blood. And so far only Garafano (who is retired from the police) has been dumb enough to publically state he can tell if a substance is blood by looking at the egams. Even Massei wasnt that dumb ...and he was pretty dumb...but not that dumb.

I like to see the defense petition for expert review of the luminol prints and the mixed traces and scientific review of the "staged" break-in. Might just as well throw in a review request of the bathmat print too. Not that any of these are necessary at this point but it would shut up the many who wish to see the Jesus in the toast.
 
Someone at .org called Peggy - Ms Panong and told her she's hot for a 50 year old. What did Peggy do? She banned him!

It seems that she can't handle a compliment.:D
 
DNA and blood

I haven't really found that specific article yet. I read several and noted it was mentioned detecting blood is an evolving science. Presumptive & Confirmatory testing... not a scientist so excuse the misunderstanding.

Here is a link to my comment about the size of peaks in DNA electropherograms. Kaosium's post yesterday has a link to an article which has electropherograms from blood and saliva, along with a table that collects the data. Here is a discussion of presumptive versus confirmatory blood testing. Sometimes I think that Ms. Comodi is too smart to believe her own bologna.
 
does blood decay quickly?

Watching that video reveals how they did the collecting, they swabbed not delicately and with precision, but covering (relatively) wide swaths of the sink. Amanda brushed her teeth in this sink, saliva shows up just as well as blood does as is shown here by looking at table 1 and noting the min-max-mean-median for blood compared to a saliva spot, there's no way to be sure one is not the other scientifically due to the ranges involved, regardless of any difference in mean or median. Table 2 shows how the peak height ratios will be almost exactly the same. Dr. Greg Hampkian is right, (of course) there's no way to tell, just like you can tell from the cigarette butt which is also highly likely to be saliva.
Kaosium,

Thank you especially for the link to this reference: Park et al., J. Forensic Sci, March 2008, Vol. 53, No. 2. Besides the Table you pointed out, Figure 4 is also interesting. Note that they have DNA from a two-year old blood spot, as well as a fresh blood spot and saliva. According to Colonel Garofano in DD, Amanda's DNA in one of the mixed samples must be blood that is recent, because "blood decays fast." I have never heard that claim from anyone else, and I do not see support for it in this figure.
 
confirmatory blood testing

I haven't really found that specific article yet. I read several and noted it was mentioned detecting blood is an evolving science. Presumptive & Confirmatory testing... not a scientist so excuse the misunderstanding.
JREF2010,

To my way of thinking, a positive result with a presumptive test for blood means that there is a good chance that a substance is blood. However, confirmatory testing uses things like antibodies that are very selective for biomolecules found in blood and are less prone to false positives. A similar set of tests can be done on semen for example. On the other hand, DNA testing individualizes the person who donated the biomass that was deposited, whatever it was.
 
Last edited:
I like to see the defense petition for expert review of the luminol prints and the mixed traces and scientific review of the "staged" break-in. Might just as well throw in a review request of the bathmat print too. .

I agree. Because without doing so it opens the door for the same prosecutor's, from the last trial, to parade this information. The knife and bra clasp not so easy this time.
 
I like to see the defense petition for expert review of the luminol prints and the mixed traces and scientific review of the "staged" break-in. Might just as well throw in a review request of the bathmat print too.

But they already did, didn't they? Wouldn't asking for review now be too late? The calendar that Hellmann recently presented includes further discussion of C&V report and closing arguments next, right?
 
I agree. Because without doing so it opens the door for the same prosecutor's, from the last trial, to parade this information. The knife and bra clasp not so easy this time.

They will parade it anyway.
The part of C&V testimony about crime scene blunders is very important here, because it casts doubt not only on the blade and clasp evidence, but also on the "mixed DNA" and DNA from luminol traces. The way C&V presented it with visuals had huge impact on the court. It literally cannot be unseen.

What is interesting is whether the prosecution is going to push another, modified crime scenario. Mignini seemed to hint that they are already prepared to drop the knife in those interviews he gave.
I wonder what ToD are they going to argue this time.
What's certain is that ******** with graphologists or other psychics "sensing evil personality", "luciferina", "now we'll make you have sex", etc. that Mignini pushed last time won't wash with Hellmann, who is already apparently fed up with Mignini and Comodi.
 
Let's stage a break in, and not steal anything...

Hi Grinder,
<snip>
As far as the staged break-in goes,
I can not seem to understand why Amanda nor Raffaele, after breaking Filomena's bedroom window with that 8.8lb rock and IIRC, stacking some of the broken glass shards to the side of the window sill, then did not even hide and discard or steal anything, like the laptop computer or any of her jewelry, just to further the ruse, and hopefully fool the cops...

I mean, who stages a break-in and doesn't steal anything?


More importantly, who stages a break-in only to inform the police that nothing was stolen before they even arrived at the scene).


RWVBWL - good point on the theft angle and since they had no trouble disposing of the bloody shoes and clothing getting rid of the jewelry or laptop would have been easy.

I would think that the majority of staged break ins would be from inside theft jobs, not rape murders.<snip>

Hi Grinder, Ammonitida, and others,
I've been wondering a bit about the break-in.
Why stage a break in anyways?
What good is it gonna do?

Why not just leave the front door wide open?
That way, the cops would just think that someone accosted Meredith when she arrived home and followed her into her apartment.

Allow me to try and visualize a staged break-in scenerio:
So let's see, say Raffaele went outside and got that rock. It's not a nice smooth, round rock such as the type I see near certain rocky beaches where creeks enter the ocean. It's jaggedy and did crumble after it was used. He brought it in the apartment without it leaving any crumbling trace of it when he came in. He broke the window. He smashed the rock into the wood of the shutter to make it look like it was thrown from outside. To make it appear that someone climbed in thru the now broken 2nd floor window, he then stacked some of the glass on the side of the window sill, and though stoned and/or wasted enough to commit rape+murder with a new friend of an hour or so, did not even cut himself in the process, unlike that clumsy new friend of his. He dropped that rock into a bag, toppling it. He must have then bent down and ripped the bag, for I doubt that the bag would have ripped from just having a rock dropped a foot or 2 above it. He then decides to toss Filomena's clothes around near the window.

Raffaele does all of this, but then strangely he does not take and hide nor steal anything to throw the cops off his trail, that yes, the someone did break in and murdered Meredith. The break-in was real.

Gosh, it would have been so easy, after snagging some items, to then discard, as Grinder mentioned, some pieces of jewelry, or a digital camera, or a laptop, as Raff must have done with his bloody shoes and clothing. Heck, Raffaele could have easily tossed the goods on the side of the road as he must have done with those cell phones of Meredith's. He stole her keys and her credit cards and cash didn't he? He must have discarded those keys and credit cards somewhere. For we know that Amanda deposited Mez's cash into her own bank account shortly after the murder. Right...

So as I drink a cold cervza, a Pacifico on a summer afternoon, I'll ponder a very simple thing once again:
Why didn't he steal anything from Filomena's bedroom after taking all of that time to think about and then actually set up the staged break-in?

And then afterwards, before the clean-up was even finished,
Raffaele, as Ammonitida notes above, who went to the trouble of staging a break-in, then decides to the call the police and tell them that nothing was stolen, before the cops even arrived at the scene?
RAFFAELE SOLLECITO, PHONE CALL (Translation):
Hello, good morning, someone has broken into the house through the window. They didn’t take anything but a door is locked…. There are bloodstains. One of the flatmates is missing, we tried to call her but no one answered.

Translation quote link:
http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/transcript/id/601316/n/Justice-on-Trial


Something just doesn't jive, in my humble opinion...
See ya,
RW
 
Last edited:
They will parade it anyway.
The part of C&V testimony about crime scene blunders is very important here, because it casts doubt not only on the blade and clasp evidence, but also on the "mixed DNA" and DNA from luminol traces. The way C&V presented it with visuals had huge impact on the court. It literally cannot be unseen.

What is interesting is whether the prosecution is going to push another, modified crime scenario. Mignini seemed to hint that they are already prepared to drop the knife in those interviews he gave.
I wonder what ToD are they going to argue this time.
What's certain is that ******** with graphologists or other psychics "sensing evil personality", "luciferina", "now we'll make you have sex", etc. that Mignini pushed last time won't wash with Hellmann, who is already apparently fed up with Mignini and Comodi.

So will they switch to Rudys story? Raffaele swapped out for the knife/Amanda, then Amanda in the kitchen ears covered, then Rudy jamming on the toilet?

Who would stoop so low as to use Rudys Date Alibi and the Savior from theToilet ?

So I'm clueless, whats the status of the Interrogation Documents in this trial? Can the prosecution drag that out, and resume where it all started, the Interrogation at the Questra?
 
So as I drink a cold cervza, a Pacifico on a summer afternoon, I'll ponder a very simple thing once again:
Why didn't he steal anything from Filomena's bedroom after taking all of that time to think about and then actually set up the staged break-in?

And then afterwards, before the clean-up was even finished,
Raffaele, as Ammonitida notes above, who went to the trouble of staging a break-in, then decides to the call the police and tell them that nothing was stolen, before the cops even arrived at the scene?


Translation quote link:
http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/transcript/id/601316/n/Justice-on-Trial


Something just doesn't jive, in my humble opinion...
See ya,
RW

Countering what the prosecution suggests is a way to test the logic of the accusation....and see if it jives.
I thought the same when the claims of a clean up are made.

So I wondered...while I drank my Guiness Extra Stout...

Who would clean up their traces in the hallway and all over, a sleepless night as Massei claimed, and getting bleach from stores, and mops...etc..???

then when the police arrive, Amanda immediately walks them to the bathroom and says "see here are tiny specs on the cotton swabs and here's a tiny bit in the sink." ...

Doesn't jive at all....

>>Marzi in fact testified that the two young people told him ‚they were awaiting the arrival of the Carabinieri because there had been a burglary inside the house‛ (page 122, hearing of February 6, 2009). While Marzi was accompanied by Amanda to see the traces of blood in the smaller bathroom (page 123, hearing of February 6, 2009),
 
Last edited:
But they already did, didn't they? Wouldn't asking for review now be too late? The calendar that Hellmann recently presented includes further discussion of C&V report and closing arguments next, right?

As I recall Hellman left it open if he wanted to do more requests from the defense.

Maybe two reasons he didn't review the other mixed traces, luminol,bathmat ..-

a) he accepts the previous courts findings

b) he felt without the knife and bra clasp, the rest in the bathroom and floors elsewhere aren't important.

I'll guess "B".
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom