Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Grinder]

And maybe that would work. I just don't think spending time focusing on what Knox said/signed and why is a good idea unless you are certain to be convincing. Otherwise you've just spent time getting everybody to focus on why they found Knox suspicious and a plausible murderess in the first place.

No problem disagreeing, but my point remains that the accusation is the lynch-pin for most of the case. Without the statement her accounting of the evening remains consistent even if vague and imprecise. Remember that the English girl though sober and at a group event that was scheduled can't remember exactly when they ate. But the PG people talk about all the lies - I've asked, even here offline, but one can't get them to actually lay them out, except to say she said she was at home but admitted to be at the cottage three separate times. The issue with not remembering a morning call (the young I knew and know can sleep through anything) or exactly when and what they ate just isn't that big of a deal.

The statement must be dealt with or there is no case for innocence - I know all the mistakes of ILE etc. - for people must explain to themselves why she would accuse an innocent man.

Once again, there just isn't any strong evidence to convict them on. Everything points to an early TOD. Nothing but marginal DNA connects either to the murder room. The luminol prints don't match either of their feet. There is no blood in the prints. Rudy said Amanda wasn't there in the Skype call.

But, she accused Patrick and there is only one reason she would do that voluntarily.

The defense must show major doubt about the statement. IMO

 

[Grinder]

TJMK is well...

They don't care if AK or RS had anything to do with the murder or not. They have their list of writers - The Machine, Kermit, SA, Nicky - rarely does one have a real name.

It would seem PQ is a strange man that is trying to add value to his life through the web page.

I doubt very much that any, much less six lawyers, are signing up each week at this stage.

The tiresome "our sources" line takes value away with each mention.

 

[Rolfe]

But, she accused Patrick and there is only one reason she would do that voluntarily.

The defense must show major doubt about the statement. IMO

I suppose different things are admissible in different jurisdictions, but I can't see that confused rambling statement standing unsupported as evidence sufficient to uphold a murder conviction. That goes double once it is realised that she physically couldn't have been there at the actual time of death.

Rolfe.

 

[smkovalinksy]

TJMK is well...

They don't care if AK or RS had anything to do with the murder or not. They have their list of writers - The Machine, Kermit, SA, Nicky - rarely does one have a real name.

It would seem PQ is a strange man that is trying to add value to his life through the web page.

I doubt very much that any, much less six lawyers, are signing up each week at this stage.

The tiresome "our sources" line takes value away with each mention.

It would seem so, as I really have been extensively researching and cannot seem to find any indication that Italian commentators are declaring the defendants "cooked". I would like to see some robust analysis with detail, and reasons, but cannot find anything like what he is referring to. Frustrating.

Most of the Italian articles say things such as this one, which is amusing in the Google translation:

Amanda and Raffaele hope:
The father of the American: I have tickets to take her away


The President Hellmann Pratillo just the exposure of the two forensic guilty because he wants to urge the DNA would be on the hook of the bra Mez and that of Knox on a knife used (maybe) for the crime . But just as they have also established the experts appointed by him, which is the exact opposite: that DNA can not be attributed to anyone because it is so little that could be anyone. And this, in brighter days for the two boys accused of the crime and locked up in prison for four years, also Papa Kurt Knox just to buy plane tickets to help her daughter back home, cradled in Seattle from the Pacific. "These judges have finally realized that my daughter has nothing to do and reject the request of the prosecutor gave a clear signal, so I got tickets for the whole family to get here on the occasion of the award, leaving an open, open, for Amanda. "

http://www.ilmessaggero.it/articolo.php?id=162317&sez=HOME_INITALIA

 

[RoseMontague]

Does anyone happen to know where I could find links to Italian legal commentators who are proclaiming Knox and Sollecito are done for, as touched on in this post below???

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

Don't be confused. PQ says maybe half a dozen a week. Probably has a margin of error of about maybe close to approximately 6 or so.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Don't be confused. PQ says maybe half a dozen a week. Probably has a margin of error of about maybe close to approximately 6 or so.

Thanks.
I am hoping with the headline "The father of the American: "I have tickets to take her away" that this will not be a replay of 2009, when he also had "tickets to take her away." I am hoping Hellman and the judges will really review all, and see that the truth is a reversal, complete and total, of the prior verdict....Time will soon tell. Of course this part of the piece linked above is also worrisome:

Dad of Dad, to Raffaele Sollecito, Francis says: "My son is also confident and I now count the days by the end of the ordeal." At this point it is full-sentence. Obviously the hope of the defenses of acquittal for insufficient evidence. But, at least judging by the skill of the experts appointed by the Court, the evidence seems more like going to "the strangeness of Sollecito to the crime," as pointed out by his lawyer Giulia Bongiorno. Exclusion, then, that Amanda could not touch. So? Judgement of two separate defendants? It is possible, too. Not to exclude, then, a different assessment of extenuating circumstances: the first instance have been treated as aggravating, to the review of the sentence could instead be considered prevailing. You can then get a reduced sentence? Without a hand accounts, from 26 and 25 could fall below 19, with the possible sentence that is very close to 16 years inflicted on Rudy Guede.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Novelli and the knife

Rolfe,

I don't know whether Novelli had the electronic data files or not. If he did, he could have reviewed all of the electropherograms for evidence of contamination, but if he did not, then his opinion is not worth much. If he did have the EDFs, he had more than the defense had during the trial of the first instance, and that fact by itself is outrageous.

I need to review Conti and Vecchiotti one more time before I attempt to rephrase their conclusions. However, I am of the opinion that Stefanoni did at least two things differently with respect to the knife versus all other profiles of which I am aware. She concentrated the sample twofold and she accepted peaks that were as small as 11 RFU, with the majority being below 40 RFU. If all samples were treated identically, there could easily be extra peaks observed.

There is one caveat. Many of the evidence items had Meredith's profile (and for the sake of argument, I accept those profiles as originating from the item in question). However, if a contamination event involving Meredith's DNA happened to one of those samples in addition to the legitimate DNA, it would be essentially invisible, i.e., it would go unnoticed because the contaminant DNA would simply fall in the same places on the electropherogram as the legitimate DNA.

 

[AmyStrange]

How could she?

I don't think establishing blame for the 1:45am statement is necessary. Her actions on that day strike some people as odd. Doubtless there are all kinds of explanations. It's a gamble of course, but I've always thought she'd be better off saying "I panicked and said something that I knew wasn't true". Even if the truth is more complicated than that. It pulls the rug out of all the pro-guilt analysis of her behavior. I just don't think shifting what ever blame there may be for having said what she said is worth the the long explanation that goes with it.

-

Shuttlt,

if she was innocent and not at the crime scene while Meredith was being murdered, how could she say that she said something that she knew wasn't true? For all she knew (since she wasn't involved in the murder), the police were right and Patrick was involved.

The only way she could know this for sure was if she really was there during the murders. Please consider this in evaluating her recant,

Dave

ETA: of course, if you mean that she should have said wasn't true was that she was in the other room and Patrick and Meredith went into her bedroom and she heard her scream, then I agree with you, but her recant pretty much alludes to this and I also agree that she should have been more succinct, but unless you have been in her situation before, than it's way too easy to say this or that in foresight. It's obvious to me that she is book smart but not street smart...

 

[davefoc]

I've been following shuttlt's musing for awhile now, and I'd like to express my appreciation for his efforts.

I have tried to form an opinion about all this, but I am lazy and developing an understanding of the facts well enough to form my own independent opinion has been beyond the effort I have been willing to expend.

Despite this, I have formed a strong opinion that RS and AK are innocent. Not just that there was insufficient evidence to convict them, I believe that it is almost provable that they are innocent. But I am afraid that some combination of group bias and confirmation bias is driving my conclusions. The fact is I tend to identify with regular JREF posters and I tend to respect their analysis so if a majority of JREF posters who I respect think RS and AK are innocent and they manage to put together a few words that indicate what their thinking is I am predisposed to accept their thinking. shuttlt doesn't seem to be as susceptible to that kind of thing as I am, so my congratulations to shuttlt on his ability to maintain his objectivity.

But I am having a hard time seeing what facts shuttlt is relying on to support his views. It seems like the DNA evidence has been shown to have no probative value as to their guilt, the time of death argument seems to be very strong evidence of their innocence, the witnesses against them have been shown to have been unreliable and probably wrong. And of course the nature of the crime proposed, especially for two people that had just recently met and for two people who had not a hint of anything like this in their past seems wildly unlikely.

Against this there is a "confession" and the fact that the Italian authorities brought this prosecution and presumably they have a more detailed understanding of the facts than any of us can have and they went forward with the prosecution.

However, the "confession" is hardly a confession by my standards. I think it is exactly the kind of thing I might have said, especially when I was younger, given hours of police interrogation and my willingness to consider odd possibilities in my effort to reconcile what seemed like irreconcilable facts.

And information is now available that there are issues with the Italian authorities, particularly the prosecutor and the lead forensic investigator. Apparently the prosecutor has a history of prosecuting people based on weird theories and it was this prosecutor that included in his summation evidence from graphologists about the defendants personality. This is also the prosecutor that has been convicted of illegally using the powers of his office to harass an individual and is facing the possibility of serving jail time for his crime.

So what is left here to continue to support a view that RS and AK are not innocent? All I see is the fact that Italian authorities judged their was enough evidence to prosecute them and a conviction that has been pretty well shown to have been based on now completely discredited evidence. The fact is that prosecutor's do prosecute people that are completely innocent even when the evidence does not support the guilt of the defendants and that appears to be what is happening in this case to me.

 

[Rolfe]

if she was innocent and not at the crime scene while Meredith was being murdered, how could she say that she said something that she knew wasn't true? For all she knew (since she wasn't involved in the murder), the police were right and Patrick was involved.

The only way she could know this for sure was if she really was there during the murders. Please consider this in evaluating her recant,

She said something she knew wasn't true. That something being that she was in the cottage when Meredith was murdered, simple as that.

Rolfe.

 

[AmyStrange]

Absolutely correct...

She said something she knew wasn't true. That something being that she was in the cottage when Meredith was murdered, simple as that.

Rolfe.

-

Rolfe,

and I acknowledge that in my ETA to my original post. Sometimes I think of these things AFTER I have posted. I reread and reread before posting, but for some strange reason, I never acquire full objectivity until after I have hit the "submit" button.

That is just so weird of me, but I have no real explanation that I can post here,

Dave

 

[Rolfe]

I don't know whether Novelli had the electronic data files or not. If he did, he could have reviewed all of the electropherograms for evidence of contamination, but if he did not, then his opinion is not worth much. If he did have the EDFs, he had more than the defense had during the trial of the first instance, and that fact by itself is outrageous.

My thoughts exactly. I wonder why the defence didn't go ape?

Were the paper traces entered into evidence at the original trial? If all he's done is look at these, then it's meaningless. The scale of the y-axis simply wouldn't show peaks of the height found on the knife. If he has had the electronic files and so has had the opportunity to expand the y-axis and look for peaks of that height, then this is something that should have been scrutinised in detail in court, with the defence given the opportunity to check his working.

What is going on in this court?

There is one caveat. Many of the evidence items had Meredith's profile (and for the sake of argument, I accept those profiles as originating from the item in question). However, if a contamination event involving Meredith's DNA happened to one of those samples in addition to the legitimate DNA, it would be essentially invisible, i.e., it would go unnoticed because the contaminant DNA would simply fall in the same places on the electropherogram as the legitimate DNA.

That also was my thought. The only items of evidence that would be any use in this respect would be those which were said to have none of Meredith's DNA on them. Under the circumstances, how many would that have been?

Any samples from different cases analysed before the knife might have been important in this respect, but I'm unclear whether Novelli was given access to such data. If he was, that's even more evidence the defence has not been allowed to see. In a similar vein, Stefanoni has never been asked to show evidence that her statement about nothing having been analysed from the Kercher case for x days before the knife was assayed is true.

Surely the prosecution isn't allowed to introduce such blatant assertions at this stage in the process, and expect the court to accept them as true, without the defence having the opportunity to consider, examine and challenge them?

This is all extremely strange.

Rolfe.

 

[NancyS]

Hello, this is my first post here but I wanted to know if anyone had similar thoughts about the DNA evidence? I've always been confused at how any of the DNA evidence can actually be considered 'evidence' as they all spent time and extremely close contact together? Even without considering the reliability of the DNA, there must have been so many ways to transfer Raffaele's DNA to a bra strap or Meredith's DNA to Raffaele's house and even possibily to the knife. These people lived together, used the same bathroom, maybe swapped clothes or toiletries. I keep thinking of Raffaele, Amanda and Meredith all kissing each other goodbye at lunchtime (which is how you would say goodbye in Italy) - Meredith then touches her cheek and then adjust her bra. Amanda and Raffaele then go back to his flat covered in Meredith's DNA.

And I agree with what people are saying above about the confession, which if you read the transcript, wasn't really a confession at all - however, I think Amanda had probably been fairly convinced by the police that Patrick was probably involved. The fact that when she broke, she didn't start pointing at Rudy Guede has always made me think she was most likely innocent.

 

[AmyStrange]

Well said...

I've been following shuttlt's musing for awhile now, and I'd like to express my appreciation for his efforts.

I have tried to form an opinion about all this, but I am lazy and developing an understanding of the facts well enough to form my own independent opinion has been beyond the effort I have been willing to expend.

Despite this, I have formed a strong opinion that RS and AK are innocent. Not just that there was insufficient evidence to convict them, I believe that it is almost provable that they are innocent. But I am afraid that some combination of group bias and confirmation bias is driving my conclusions. The fact is I tend to identify with regular JREF posters and I tend to respect their analysis so if a majority of JREF posters who I respect think RS and AK are innocent and they manage to put together a few words that indicate what their thinking is I am predisposed to accept their thinking. shuttlt doesn't seem to be as susceptible to that kind of thing as I am, so my congratulations to shuttlt on his ability to maintain his objectivity.

But I am having a hard time seeing what facts shuttlt is relying on to support his views. It seems like the DNA evidence has been shown to have no probative value as to their guilt, the time of death argument seems to be very strong evidence of their innocence, the witnesses against them have been shown to have been unreliable and probably wrong. And of course the nature of the crime proposed, especially for two people that had just recently met and for two people who had not a hint of anything like this in their past seems wildly unlikely.

Against this there is a "confession" and the fact that the Italian authorities brought this prosecution and presumably they have a more detailed understanding of the facts than any of us can have and they went forward with the prosecution.

However, the "confession" is hardly a confession by my standards. I think it is exactly the kind of thing I might have said, especially when I was younger, given hours of police interrogation and my willingness to consider odd possibilities in my effort to reconcile what seemed like irreconcilable facts.

And information is now available that there are issues with the Italian authorities, particularly the prosecutor and the lead forensic investigator. Apparently the prosecutor has a history of prosecuting people based on weird theories and it was this prosecutor that included in his summation evidence from graphologists about the defendants personality. This is also the prosecutor that has been convicted of illegally using the powers of his office to harass an individual and is facing the possibility of serving jail time for his crime.

So what is left here to continue to support a view that RS and AK are not innocent? All I see is the fact that Italian authorities judged their was enough evidence to prosecute them and a conviction that has been pretty well shown to have been based on now completely discredited evidence. The fact is that prosecutor's do prosecute people that are completely innocent even when the evidence does not support the guilt of the defendants and that appears to be what is happening in this case to me.

-

Davefoc,

that some of Shuttlt's and many pro-guilter's arguements (not saying Shuttlt is a pro-guilter) have merit, but it is just strange that many of the pro-guilters (aside from Shuttlt who I don't think really is pro-guilt per se) aren't even willing to return the favor and even consider the possibility that a lot of what you posted is even a possibility. That's what makes me wonder about their ability to critically access what they believe. It's more like a religious faith-based belief than a belief based on logic and critical reasoning.

Shuttlt at least brings interesting questions and arguements to the table that I consider valid and worth thinking about and discussing. Pilot does that sometimes also,

Dave

 

[Rolfe]

Does anyone happen to know where I could find links to Italian legal commentators who are proclaiming Knox and Sollecito are done for, as touched on in this post below???

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

I had a look at that, and I think the writer is delusional. Considering this is someone who has studied the case in detail, he seems strangely ignorant of matters I've picked up on merely from reading informed posts elsewhere.

He seems to cling to the Supreme Court findings in Guede's case like a drowning man. He apparently seriously believes that Hellman is bound to convict because the Supreme Court found in that case that Guede acted with two other (unnamed) people, and that since no other two people have been fingered as being involved, that's all that needs to be said.

Of course this would be outrageous, if it were true. It would mean that people could in effect be convicted of murder by a tribunal at which they were not represented.

It's quite clear from reading informed posts, however, that Hellman is under no obligation to pay the slightest bit of attention to what the Supreme Court decided in a separate case. And indeed, the previous court that convicted Knox and Sollecito contradicted these findings in significant respects. If the Supreme Court thinks there were two other people involved, that's its problem. Hellman is perfectly at liberty to decide there's no compelling evidence that these were the two people in question, or even to agree that there were two other people at all.

So really, I wouldn't take anything that blogger says too seriously.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Welcome to the forum, NancyS!

I don't think significant quantities of DNA transfer quite so easily, but nevertheless you make a valid point.

Rolfe.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I had a look at that, and I think the writer is delusional. Considering this is someone who has studied the case in detail, he seems strangely ignorant of matters I've picked up on merely from reading informed posts elsewhere.

He seems to cling to the Supreme Court findings in Guede's case like a drowning man. He apparently seriously believes that Hellman is bound to convict because the Supreme Court found in that case that Guede acted with two other (unnamed) people, and that since no other two people have been fingered as being involved, that's all that needs to be said.

Of course this would be outrageous, if it were true. It would mean that people could in effect be convicted of murder by a tribunal at which they were not represented.

It's quite clear from reading informed posts, however, that Hellman is under no obligation to pay the slightest bit of attention to what the Supreme Court decided in a separate case. And indeed, the previous court that convicted Knox and Sollecito contradicted these findings in significant respects. If the Supreme Court thinks there were two other people involved, that's its problem. Hellman is perfectly at liberty to decide there's no compelling evidence that these were the two people in question, or even to agree that there were two other people at all.

So really, I wouldn't take anything that blogger says too seriously.

Rolfe.

Thanks very much. LondonJohn has said the same in relation to another TJMK post; I am getting a clear pic of PQ's perspective and motivation, but I think I just keep worrying that something over in Italy is not coming across in the mainstream media here. Just trying to make sure all is as good as it seems for the defendants as the case winds up....I do hope Hellman and the judges will really deliberate with a fresh perspective, unfettered by Massei or any of what went before.

 

[AmyStrange]

Welcome...

Hello, this is my first post here but I wanted to know if anyone had similar thoughts about the DNA evidence? I've always been confused at how any of the DNA evidence can actually be considered 'evidence' as they all spent time and extremely close contact together? Even without considering the reliability of the DNA, there must have been so many ways to transfer Raffaele's DNA to a bra strap or Meredith's DNA to Raffaele's house and even possibily to the knife. These people lived together, used the same bathroom, maybe swapped clothes or toiletries. I keep thinking of Raffaele, Amanda and Meredith all kissing each other goodbye at lunchtime (which is how you would say goodbye in Italy) - Meredith then touches her cheek and then adjust her bra. Amanda and Raffaele then go back to his flat covered in Meredith's DNA.

And I agree with what people are saying above about the confession, which if you read the transcript, wasn't really a confession at all - however, I think Amanda had probably been fairly convinced by the police that Patrick was probably involved. The fact that when she broke, she didn't start pointing at Rudy Guede has always made me think she was most likely innocent.

Nancy,

and I never thought of it the way you did, but it definitely is a real possibility (touching cheeks, brushing your hair away, and then adjusting the strap and all that) and people do these things subconsciously of which they really aren't consciously aware, and not many people think of those things afterwards.

The confession just reads weird like you noticed and with the almost immediate arrest of Patrick without an investigation afterwards and the press conference the next day stating that they kept at Amanda until she confessed to what they knew to be the truth is compelling evidence to the possibility that she was (physically or psychologically) beaten until she said what they wanted her to say,

Dave

 

[Dougm]

Hello, this is my first post here but I wanted to know if anyone had similar thoughts about the DNA evidence? I've always been confused at how any of the DNA evidence can actually be considered 'evidence' as they all spent time and extremely close contact together? Even without considering the reliability of the DNA, there must have been so many ways to transfer Raffaele's DNA to a bra strap or Meredith's DNA to Raffaele's house and even possibily to the knife. These people lived together, used the same bathroom, maybe swapped clothes or toiletries. I keep thinking of Raffaele, Amanda and Meredith all kissing each other goodbye at lunchtime (which is how you would say goodbye in Italy) - Meredith then touches her cheek and then adjust her bra. Amanda and Raffaele then go back to his flat covered in Meredith's DNA.

And I agree with what people are saying above about the confession, which if you read the transcript, wasn't really a confession at all - however, I think Amanda had probably been fairly convinced by the police that Patrick was probably involved. The fact that when she broke, she didn't start pointing at Rudy Guede has always made me think she was most likely innocent.

I think you make some very good points. And they tie back to the key of this, or any other case -- the evidence needs to make sense and fit into a logical narrative, not just be random. So one small finding of DNA by itself, not backed by other logical evidence, should not convict someone. I agree that any DNA of Amanda or Raff in that cottage is not out of place, although we cannot say the same about Guede. I think that is why the police made such a big deal about the knife, even though the findings were created in a dubious way, because Meredith had never been to Raff's place. But it is still possible her DNA made it over there, although less likely.

I also think you have a good point about Amanda's "confession". If she was involved, why did she tell a story that makes no sense, and does not fit any of the evidence? Why did she not say Rudy did it all? That would have been the thing to do if she was involved, but wanted to deflect attention from herself. Or, if she is really this calculating liar/killer, blame it on Raff and Rudy! "They made me go over there, and I was cowering in the kitchen while they did this terrible crime!" I know Raff was her boyfriend, but she knew him less than two weeks, if she was really what the prosecutors and guilters say she is, she could have easily turned on him as well.

 

[Dougm]

I had a look at that, and I think the writer is delusional. Considering this is someone who has studied the case in detail, he seems strangely ignorant of matters I've picked up on merely from reading informed posts elsewhere.

He seems to cling to the Supreme Court findings in Guede's case like a drowning man. He apparently seriously believes that Hellman is bound to convict because the Supreme Court found in that case that Guede acted with two other (unnamed) people, and that since no other two people have been fingered as being involved, that's all that needs to be said.

Of course this would be outrageous, if it were true. It would mean that people could in effect be convicted of murder by a tribunal at which they were not represented.It's quite clear from reading informed posts, however, that Hellman is under no obligation to pay the slightest bit of attention to what the Supreme Court decided in a separate case. And indeed, the previous court that convicted Knox and Sollecito contradicted these findings in significant respects. If the Supreme Court thinks there were two other people involved, that's its problem. Hellman is perfectly at liberty to decide there's no compelling evidence that these were the two people in question, or even to agree that there were two other people at all.

So really, I wouldn't take anything that blogger says too seriously.

Rolfe.

Rolfe --

The part of your excellent post that I highlighted above is what the PGers can't seem to get. That was Guede's trial, and Amanda and Raff were not even represented there. Are they saying Italy would convict people in a trial they had no representation at?