Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Dougm]

Perhaps the folks on PMF are wrong about everything, but on PMF they couldn't have a nice discussion about what ever nerdy detail of the case or nuance of translation they fancied if it was opened up. It would turn into a brawl.

What leads you to this conclusion? From the moment I started reading to learn about the case, I noticed that IIP allows people that are pro-guilt to discuss the case (of course, they get some vigorous arguments from the posters there), and PMF, when anyone dares disagree with the standard line there, first trashes the person personally, then bans them. Why can they not have a civilized discussion of the evidence? I am in favor of banning people who make personal attacks, but why ban anyone who disagrees?

IIP, as far as I know, has never banned anyone, and there are occasional pro-guilt posters that come over there and argue. It doesn't turn into a "brawl".

 

[Kaosium]

Fiona was certainly the first link that I am aware of to PMF. I don't think that that is a terrible thing in itself. FOA has been actively involved in the thread as well over the years. Does that mean that there isnt an independant pro-innocence faction? I'm sure Fiona would say much the same thing about you guys and Injustice In Perugia.

No, it was the other one. The point was the guilt argument on this thread was imported from PMF and TJMK, outside the first few days there was never much discussion about the Amanda Knox thread without that influence. What became 'established' in the Cartwheels thread was PMF-2, not anything but.

It's perfectly possible that you have "won", but lets wait to find out for sure. Maybe you've misjudged the judge and he's just as corrupt/stupid as the last one.

Shuttlt, whatever Hellmann and his court decide, Amanda and Raffaele will not have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The last decision was incorrect as well. Pi doesn't equal three because some lawyers decide it does.

Do you support the "she broke down after 57 hours of interrogation in which she was denied food, water, sleep and toilet breaks" claim? For me it was Bruce's refusal to consider changing what I considered to be the most willfully misleading statements on his site that convinced me of a lot of things as well.

What I think the evidence suggests is from the arrival of the postal police ~1 PM November second to 5:45 AM November 6th 2007 Amanda was with the police ~53 hours of that ~89 hours, at the cottage, at Raffaele's and at the Questura. In other words most of her waking hours, and she wasn't sleeping well, as per her e-mail on the forth. It could be 57, that's just not the way I remember calculating it and frankly 53 is enough to make the point.

Of those hours, a minimum of 40 were at the police station (think it's 40.5 actually) where she was available for observation and basically living most her day. This has significance for those who think her stretching or doing yoga exercises, or even being comforted by her new boyfriend is really all that 'disturbing.'

Of those hours at the police station, 14-17 were spent in active interviews or outright interrogations, that started to get aggressive on the forth which led to her e-mail being sent ~3:30 AM on the fifth.

The night of the fifth, she and Raffaele arrived at the Questura at 10:15, at 10:40 Raffaele's statement had been signed. Amanda was on the phone with Filomena which I think started at 10:29 and ended at 10:39 when she cut her off as police arrived to have their little 'chat.' From this point forward I highly doubt she was free to leave, as Raffaele had 'dropped' her alibi, suggesting she had been 'lying' all week to them. At this point she didn't get food, water, or was allowed to go to the bathroom until the statement was signed at 1:45 AM.

At this point I think she was given a little break and crap from the vending machine. Around 3:00 AM they started in on her again, this time with Mignini definitely present despite his lie about it to Linda Byron I believe, (I think he confirms he was there in that CNN interview) and again she was denied everything above until 5:45 AM when the second statement was signed and they let her curl up in a corner while they arrested Patrick and interrogated him and she woke up and would start her note.

Point being, from the moment she was approached at 10:40 she ought to have been considered a suspect being as her movements were definitely restricted (do you think she could waltz right out of there once Raffaele 'dropped' her alibi?) and given a lawyer, and once he arrived the cameras had to be on as per section 141-bis of the Italian code. I don't find any of Mignini's lies regarding the cameras, 'too busy' 'forgot' 'no money in the budget' compelling. I figure they thought they could get away with it and obviously wanted to break her under witness conditions so they just cheated a little. After 1:45 however, they were definitely in violation of the law, and to this day have gotten away with it.

Being as twelve police officers were eligible for the calunnia charge initially (only eight filed though) I think Amanda's description of 5-10 officers at a time is accurate, and a damn piss-poor way to run an interrogation and likely lead to a pack mentality without fresh minds to offer new perspectives. I don't think that girl stood a chance, and if you peruse this link from a law enforcement site on false confessions, how to identify them and how to avoid them, you'll get an idea of what happened to her as you'll see they broke every rule in the book. You'll note they're not willing to admit to the concept of an internalized false confession as anything but a hypothesis, mainly because it's an older book, but what it appears happened to Amanda is a milder form easily covered within the parameters of false memory syndrome (which they're quite accepting of you'll note) which is the basis for an internalized false confession.

This is a conservative estimate, she might only have been given a short break before they went after her again.

Personally I think that to argue against the majority on this topic you have to put up with so much rudeness and agression that after a while many people stopped bothering. I'm very glad about what happened to PerugiaShock for that reason, I've never been on a more unpleasant forum full of unmoderated anonymous *********. Injustice In Perugia is certainly better, but I did not enjoy posting there. I'm perfectly well aware that pro-guilt posters can be rude as well.

They're just words on a computer screen to me, they draw no blood, no ether 'flame' ever burned anyone. Having said that, I will say I've seen more cordial discussions about the Middle East--as in all of them! I think you should perhaps consider what happened to Perugia Shock from another perspective, as yet another indication of the abuses of power of Mignini, that being the ninth person reporting on the case to be investigated/charged in the course of this case, some of them listed here and others here.

[Incidentally, I don't mean to imply that I am being given a desperately hard line at the moment. Its not even about going against the majority. Back when things were more evenly divided here things were aggressive as hell.]

Indeed they were, have you reconsidered the arguments made then in light of subsequent developments in the case? That will go a long way towards explaining why there aren't as many arguing guilt left. It's not because of rude words on a computer screen.

Perhaps the folks on PMF are wrong about everything, but on PMF they couldn't have a nice discussion about what ever nerdy detail of the case or nuance of translation they fancied if it was opened up. It would turn into a brawl.

Perhaps the etherwide smears of people just trying to help someone, including just posters on this forum, the outright disinformation, the e-mail bombings of employers and the cyclical hate orgies were a bad idea then?

Did I accept the smear of Preston wholesale? He is the single source fo a good part of the bad things that are said about Mignini and by his own admission the two of them have history. If you happen to know of another case where Mignini's history for trying to pin fantastical murder scenarios on people is evidenced, let me know. Otherwise, I think saying he has a history of it is an overstatement.

What happened in the Monster of Florence case goes way beyond what was done to Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi! You really didn't look into that very closely, or kept up much, have you? It was a total of about 24 people, he's up to about the same in this case now too, I lost count actually. However I'm betting the two that actually deserve one, Aviello and Comodi will go unserved until someone else does it, hopefully when he's safely decorating a meathook.

As for your Google search. I see some links to articles giving the most limited information, based on I know not what sources, that he was convicted at his first trial of corruption and I see another article saying that he denies it. Is there more that you wanted me to see?

I wanted you--and others--to actually research the topic and see just how disingenuous that post you and others so celebrated was, and how outright dishonest that source material it derived from is. Perhaps an unwillingness to do things like this is why Bruce Fisher didn't take your arguments as seriously as you hoped?

I can not view this now, but I will take a look tomorrow. Didn't that transcript get slagged off on PMF is a pretty poor job?

They have been so divorced from reality for so long that's probably a compliment, as in they're deliberately producing disinformation. The events since 2009 on a number of issues ought to suggest their analysis was faulty, and at this point literally delusional. An inability to evaluate sources on the basis of rationality can lead to eternal confusion if that's their goal...

 

[moodstream]

Really though I think the problem here is insisting that her thought processes be rational and well thought through. Lots of her actions were certainly highly pressurized and spur of the moment. When she did have time to think she'd still have been under intense pressure and stuck with the consequences of her earlier statements.

In your version, ‘her thought processes were neither rational nor well thought through. Her actions were highly pressurized and spur of the moment. When she did have time to think she was still under intense pressure.’

Yes, it’s the Gumby Knox: a character that can be stretched into any shape as needed. Nov 1 she is brazen and fearless, viciously slashing her friend for a thrill. The dominate to her will-less boyfriend, leading him into hideous crime. Next day, she is cold calculating, director of the staged break in, the clean-up, and calm as she leads the cover up to the police.

Ah, but on the sixth that Knox won’t do. Now she is terrified, panic stricken - a brainless mess jumping at straws. Demand a lawyer and shut up? No way, not this stupid pushover twit.

Fictional characters will behave anyway you want.

Even still, yours has problems.

First, if guilty, she is making up a lie that she knows is a lie yet nevertheless puts herself at the murder scene.

And that is problem #2: Whatever happened in the interrogation room, the path of panic appeared the better choice – which forces the question, better than what?

Your version and Knox’s version fundamentally agree. Knox reacted to the conditions of her interrogation. In neither version does it matter how harsh the interrogation may seem to an outside party, because in both versions the result comes from Knox’s failure to withstand the interrogation she received.

But these harsh interrogation conditions of yours, so intense that they panicked Knox into this impossible and easily controverted tale that tied her to the crime, are the very same conditions that could convince a naïve and innocent Knox that her own memories were faulty, and that the tale the police made up for her (that Lumumba was the real culprit, that they needed her help, and why couldn’t she just remember what they already knew to be true, [loud thwap to the back of the head] Knox was already at the cottage) was the reality.

Thus Knox’s version is at least as credible as yours. Therefore, you should believe her version to the extent you believe your own. Plus, her version does not require a complete change in personality to be true.

 

[Fine]

..

____________________

Dan,

Ever wonder why the heck Amanda would be signing a DECLARATION at 15:30 (3:30 pm) on November 2nd, the day the murder was discovered? I know Mignini in court said she did so and that it was the only DECLARATION she signed that day. But wouldn't you expect her to have signed a DECLARATION after her interrogation, which---acording to Amanda's email---ran six hours straight from about 15:00 (3:00 pm) til about 21:00 (9:00 pm) on November 2nd? Was Mignini wrong? Was the PMF translation of the court testimony wrong?

///

 

[komponisto]

Nobody but pro-innocence posters ever talks about her being asked to assert that Patrick definately wasn't involved when she supposedly couldn't possibly know.

What on Earth do you mean? Guilters use this talking point all the time! The Machine for example has on numerous occasions made statements like "Knox never retracted her false and malicious accusation against Diya Lumumba the whole time he was in prison".

I think what people who support guilt feel is that Amanda was hedging. She retracted her statement just enough that, should evidence come to light to clear Patrick, she could say "well, I told you I thought what I said might well be false", but not enough that should no such evidence come to light that she could firm up on her certainty and remember more details if it was convenient to do so.

But there is no reason to believe such an interpretation unless you are already suspicious of Amanda.

I don't think that whether or not the police would have immediately released [Lumumba] is really the issue.

Of course it's the issue: if there was no chance that the police would have released Lumumba, then it would have been futile for Knox to have proclaimed his innocence in whatever way guilters apparently expect her to have done.

 

[Rhea]

You know, I feel particularly sorry for Raffaele Sollecito over all this.

The murder victim wasn't his flatmate. He'd only known Amanda for a few weeks (and I've read that she was his first real girlfriend, this for an Italian man already in his twenties). In spite of the cannabis, he said very little that was really stupid - getting confused between two consecutive evenings, but not launching into "the best truth I can remember" or dreamily imagining someone else killing Meredith while he was nearby.

And he gets sucked into this, purely because he was courting Amanda at the time. And I suspect like everywhere, men's prisons in Italy are quite a lot more unpleasant than women's.

Poor guy.

Rolfe.

Yes, but Raffaele was the first one to "break" during police interrogation, he signed a statement saying Amanda left his flat from 9 to 1 am. Then they used that to pressure Amanda and back her into a corner, they told her Raffaele stopped covering for her which confused her even more and made it consequently easier to "break" her …

 

[RandyN]

Is courtroom evidence immune from calumny charges?

Rolfe.

No not at all. In fact Amanda is charged (but never investigated) for saying in court that she was struck. While this does not exactly fit the definition calumny there is the case to made against one of Amandas lawyers who is charged.

Yes its hard to believe and makes no sense…but its Italian court here…at least Italian court per Prosecutor Mignini. So far.

 

[shuttlt]

In your version, ‘her thought processes were neither rational nor well thought through. Her actions were highly pressurized and spur of the moment. When she did have time to think she was still under intense pressure.’

Yes, it’s the Gumby Knox: a character that can be stretched into any shape as needed. Nov 1 she is brazen and fearless, viciously slashing her friend for a thrill. The dominate to her will-less boyfriend, leading him into hideous crime. Next day, she is cold calculating, director of the staged break in, the clean-up, and calm as she leads the cover up to the police.

Ah, but on the sixth that Knox won’t do. Now she is terrified, panic stricken - a brainless mess jumping at straws. Demand a lawyer and shut up? No way, not this stupid pushover twit.

Fictional characters will behave anyway you want.

I don't believe any great change in personality is required. People act and behave differently under different situations.

First, if guilty, she is making up a lie that she knows is a lie yet nevertheless puts herself at the murder scene.

And that is problem #2: Whatever happened in the interrogation room, the path of panic appeared the better choice – which forces the question, better than what?

This has been answered a bunch of times by guilters in the past. The theory is that she didn't perceive that how bad it would go for her to place herself at the scene as a poor frightened observer. Presumably that could seem better than the cops believing she was at the scene as an active participant.

Your version and Knox’s version fundamentally agree. Knox reacted to the conditions of her interrogation. In neither version does it matter how harsh the interrogation may seem to an outside party, because in both versions the result comes from Knox’s failure to withstand the interrogation she received.

Agreed.

But these harsh interrogation conditions of yours, so intense that they panicked Knox into this impossible and easily controverted tale that tied her to the crime, are the very same conditions that could convince a naïve and innocent Knox that her own memories were faulty, and that the tale the police made up for her (that Lumumba was the real culprit, that they needed her help, and why couldn’t she just remember what they already knew to be true, [loud thwap to the back of the head] Knox was already at the cottage) was the reality.

I disagree.

Thus Knox’s version is at least as credible as yours. Therefore, you should believe her version to the extent you believe your own. Plus, her version does not require a complete change in personality to be true.

No.

 

[AmyStrange]

Wait a minute...

Yes, but Raffaele was the first one to "break" during police interrogation, he signed a statement saying Amanda left his flat from 9 to 1 am. Then they used that to pressure Amanda and back her into a corner, they told her Raffaele stopped covering for her which confused her even more and made it consequently easier to "break" her …

Did he flat out say that she left the apartment, or did he just concede that if he was asleep he couldn't possible know absolutely that she hadn't left?

Then, the police spun this as Raffaele saying that she had left the apartment,

Dave

 

[davefoc]

Former FBI agent Steve Moore's response to Ann Coulter Knox piece:

http://networkedblogs.com/mRsLr

This was a very well written, very persuasive piece. I don't know that it can do much to undo the effects of the Coulter piece which probably has a much wider distribution, but perhaps it helped a little.

I have a feeling that the fact she made this argument, and turned out to be wrong, will haunt her in the future. People are not guilty or innocent based on a perception of the party affiliation of their supporters or detractors. Just dumb.

I doubt it. I don't understand people that become caught up in this hyper partisan view of the world but I don't see many of them haunted by their views or even capable of changing their views. They have a belief in a world that I don't think exists. In their world almost everything is political and everything that is in the group they associate with is good and everything that is in the group that they view as the enemy of their group is evil. And the strength of the evidence that would lead them to believe they were wrong about anything or at least to admit that they were wrong about anything may not be achievable for most real world issues.

 

[komponisto]

After a somewhat longer than usual interval, Rolf Nelson has made his latest replies in our debate on Less Wrong.

What is surprising to me is that despite putting up resistance to the argument from stomach contents, he doesn't seem to think time of death actually matters much in the first place: he is approximately just as confident ("maybe a little less") of Knox and Sollecito's guilt even under the assumption that Kercher was killed before 21:30. (Evidently he considers the computer alibi near-worthless, due to Raffaele's being a computer engineer.)

My interpretation of his position is that he has an very high level of confidence in the DNA results, which seem to be the primary driver of his belief in guilt.

 

[AmyStrange]

This has been answered a bunch of times by guilters in the past. The theory is that she didn't perceive that how bad it would go for her to place herself at the scene as a poor frightened observer. Presumably that could seem better than the cops believing she was at the scene as an active participant.

Or she just went along with them so the (physical and/ or psychological) beatings would stop which is what she said in court.

This is almost a universal component of all false confessions.

Plus, no matter how I look at it or try to spin it or how any one else tries to spin it, the "confession" (accusation) is just too plain weird in the way it's written, and then what the police did (and didn't do) after they got it just doesn't jive with the police explanation that they didn't believe Patrick was involved and thus didn't tell Amanda who to point the finger at, but that's just me,

Dave

 

[komponisto]

But these harsh interrogation conditions of yours, so intense that they panicked Knox into this impossible and easily controverted tale that tied her to the crime, are the very same conditions that could convince a naïve and innocent Knox that her own memories were faulty, and that the tale the police made up for her (that Lumumba was the real culprit, that they needed her help, and why couldn’t she just remember what they already knew to be true, [loud thwap to the back of the head] Knox was already at the cottage) was the reality.

I disagree.

Thus Knox’s version is at least as credible as yours. Therefore, you should believe her version to the extent you believe your own. Plus, her version does not require a complete change in personality to be true.

No.

Merely contradicting the other person isn't useful. How about explaining why you believe what you believe? Why is your interpretation preferable to moodstream's?

 

[RandyN]

Oh yes, I was just trying to establish whether there was proof that Raffaele's DNA was even on the clasp in the first place, rather than simply sufficient mixed alleles to pick out enough of his to call it a profile. Katody Matrass has pointed out that the y-haplotype findings are a reasonable assumption for his DNA actually being there.




That too. I was struck by the starch issue as I saw it discussed even before the C&V report came out. If there was no detectable blood on the knife, then the detection of Meredith's DNA (assuming it must have originated from blood) must be artefactual.

The fact that (apparently) kitchen knives in the cottage were not tested, and no other knives in Raffaele's flat were tested, but somehow the investigators were mysteriously drawn to this single knife even though it didn't match either the bloodstained imprint or the wounds, and hit the jackpot - oh, come on!

I was simply trying to address the issue of the actual finding of a complete profile of Meredith, by Stefanoni. If this was the only item that was tested at LCN quantities, then stating that other items were not so contaminated is meaningless. You'd have to know that they didn't show Meredith's profile at LCN levels, and I don't believe that evidence has been presented.

I appreciate that the prosecution expert did say that he'd examined additional tests and there was no sign of contamination by Meredith's DNA. I find this outrageous, and I'm not quite sure why the defence didn't go ballistic. It implied that he had had access to evidence which was not available to the defence and not presented in court. For his statement to be acceptable, the court would have had to have seen all these other tests, and the defence given the opportunity to see if they really did show what the prosecution claimed. This is actually amazing. Did it really happen?

Rolfe.

I am no longer behind on this thread but I find these bits too juicy to ignore.

I bolded your statement above. Yes it really happened....this same "expert" also said to the court that contamination by dust was less likely than the room being struck by a meteorite.

The defense didn’t go ballistic because they are out of their league and most likely didn’t realize how important this "little lie" by the prosecution expert was. RS main lawyer was not even in court. AK lawyers are out of their depth. Id be surprised if Zanetti (the assistant judge) didn’t question this though. He has been questioning the prosecution when it becomes clear that they are making stuff up and somehow the defense isn’t questioning it.

Other random tid bits...

All those knives...did you know that under AK bed was a full set of knives not shown in these photos. Also knives never tested by Stefanoni. Yes, under her bed.

The bra clasp DNA is also Low copy number.

There will be computer activity shown past 9:26.

The judge will consider any statements ruled inadmissible by the Supreme Court to actually be inadmissible. He will find Massei was incorrect to allow these statements into court. To even discuss the matter will likely be grounds for the Supreme Court to overturn any conviction. Not that I think that will be necessary.

The prosecution will go first...the defense will answer based on this...speculation about refuting the interrogation or any other factor such as TOD can all come into play if the prosecution raises the issue. And even if they do not it can be argued that Mignini is nuts to proclaim a TOD of 11:30 and then even crazier for Massei to argue that it was even later...yep he did that.

Mignini fired the original pathologist...not because he forgot to weigh the body and not because he talked to the press (that's his official excuse) but Mignini fired Lalli because he would not go along with the crazy assertions such as TOD and multiple assailants that Mignini needed.

Who makes up false stories about HIV?

Who tests a knife from a random drawer and then finds the DNA in one place and that is the place tested for blood...but no other places? That is the sample listed as too low along with other test spots from the knife that also gave results of too low...but somehow magic occurs and B is solely tested anyway...but no concentrated controls...and no you don’t get to see the electronic data files.

Dan O is right...they needed this knife and so they got it. Just like they needed to go back on Dec 18th to get something...anything that had RS stamp on it. And such celebration at finding this tiny clasp that should have meant nothing to them at all...why? Why no celebration over the blue, blood soaked hoodie with turned inside out sleeves? Or the red sneakers known to the last worn by Meredith? Or her bloody socks or blood soaked boots… Only this grand display... almost a clown act with this tiny object.

And then there was…. computer hard drives burned up, no interrogation tape, known phone taps, known police tails, AK meeting PL outside her school and being approached by him, See you later SMS, PL tale of beating at the hands of police in the news, Police closing PL bar for months after he is released...I guess they fixed that "dirty black". Phone police lie about arrival time, Comodi slanders the court and the judge, Mignini arrests 20 in Monster of Florence case (not from Doug Preston) Mignini is found guilty for abuse of office. (not from DP) Mignini files dozens of collateral cases related to the Kercher murder...the lawyers, the families, the reporters, the papers, Google...yes even Google and Google blinks...cowards! What’s left? Amandas recent interview that never happened. Ann Coulter shows us her balls. And there is still not one reliable piece of proof AK and RS were involved in any way. And so they talk about what must have been a rather nipy day in court. So sad.
So many times we are asked to suspend belief in reality, logic, fact. Believe that AK is seen on the car park video. That Nara heard 3 run, that AK bought bleach ...even though there is two full bottles already at RS...Toto saw them from 9 PM til midnight in 8 out of 9 stories...finally changing the time to 11:30 PM in the 9th version. All this must pass muster with Hellmann...I don’t think so.

 

[Antony]

I agree with your starting point, and I have always wondered if RS and AK had gone away for the weekend, and Guede had been caught, if there ever would have been any suspicion whatsoever that they were in any way involved....I also think Amanda is fortunate that her parents and family have been so loving and supportive. I am sure if I had been in her situation, my family would have told me that they trusted Mignini, and were sure I did it....

We can only speculate, but given what we know about the way the investigation progressed at the beginning, if it hadn't been AK and RS (and Patrick Lumumba), it would have been one or more of Meredith's other friends. The police had reasons for rushing to judgement about the case, and those reasons would still have existed in AK and RS's absence. Is it reasonable to think that they wouldn't already have pointed the finger at someone before the real evidence was analysed, and indicated Rudy Guede?

Let's see: the Postal Police would have arrived at the cottage and found the door open; what would they have then done? In the event, the police focussed their suspicion on the very people who were "helping" them with information about Meredith, so her boyfriend and the boys in the flat downstairs had a lucky escape.

 

[Arthur Wilson]

It stands up. Honestly, it's a no-brainer. How the prosecution managed to obfuscate the issue as they did at the first trial is a mystery to me. Unless Meredith carried her uneaten pizza back to the cottage with her, microwaved it, and ate it after she got home, she was dead by 9.30.

Add that to the absence of any evidence that she lived beyond that time, and the evidence (the missing phone call) that she had come to harm before about 10.00 pm, and the extraordinarily tenuous nature of the forensic evidence linking Knox and Sollecito to the crime, and I really can't see any reasonable doubt as regards innocence.

The talking points of the guilters seem all to have been refuted. There's no proof at all that the break-in was staged in the first place, and certainly no proof that Knox and Sollecito staged it. Finding the DNA of both Meredith and Amanda in the bathroom they shared is quite unremarkable. I saw someone posting the other day about their "freshly mixed blood" being in the bathroom but as far as I can see this is nonsense. Someone is also going on and on about Amanda having confirmed "with her own lips" that her blood wasn't present on her tap the previous day. All she seems to have said is that the bathroom was clean the previous day. That smear of blood is small enough not to be noticed, and in any case, small enough that it would still be enough to regard the bathroom as "clean" to certain values of the word, if the rest of the room was in reasonable condition.

That footprint could belong to any one of scores of men. I don't see why it can't be Rudy Guede's, myself. But even if it isn't Rudy's, that doesn't prove it's Raffaele's if there's nothing else to incriminate him. It's not a fingerprint, for goodness sake. (I think it's Rudy's - I picked the one that turned out to be Rudy's from the blind-testing poll thread.)

The so-called bloody footprints in the hall seem to be nothing of the sort - just amorphous luminol blobs. Several pathology experts gave their view that the circumstances of Meredith's death were compatible with a single attacker. I don't rate Amanda's idiotic behaviour and statements at all. There's too much precedent for people saying and doing extraordinarily stupid things when questioned about serious crime to put any weight on that at all.

Have I missed anything?

Basically, moving the time of death later than about 9.30 requires an extraordinary suspension of the laws of physiology. Even discussing it is special pleading at its most blatant. It would only be legitimate to have that discussion if there were extremely compelling evidence that Meredith must have been killed by someone who could not have reached the cottage until later. There is simply no such evidence. Nothing but speculation and argument from incredulity.

Rolfe.

You are right it's impossible, but people generally form their opinions going by feelings and impressions and tribal identity comes into it. And there are bad people who really know that an argument is unassailable but still oppose it for personal gain-for example to make money writing a book. They are just like Kirk Douglas in that movie Ace in the Hole.
To my my mind, the likes of John Follain and Barbie-what's her name are worse than that character Chuck Tatum. Tatum thought Leo would be alright and that the story would have a happy ending. The Coulters and Follains are much worse than Chuck. They really don't care if they make their dough thanks to two innocent kids going to jail for life. They can't be guilty because good science says that they can't be. But you know that some crummy prosecution lawyer will still go for it even if he knows that.

 

[shuttlt]

What on Earth do you mean? Guilters use this talking point all the time! The Machine for example has on numerous occasions made statements like "Knox never retracted her false and malicious accusation against Diya Lumumba the whole time he was in prison".

I would be stunned if he means that she should have insisted she knew for a fact he wasn't involved. That would make no sense. If that is what he means he is clearly wrong. Have you got a different quote from him, because what you suggest seems like the least likely interpretation to me.

I have asked for clarification of what is meant by this on PMF.

But there is no reason to believe such an interpretation unless you are already suspicious of Amanda.

There is no reason to believe a lot of things in the case unless you also believe something else. If we have to interpret the evidence against Amanda without any sense of suspicion against her, or allow any sense of suspicion derived from one bit of evidence to creep into our thinking about another bit of evidence, then you may well be right.

Of course it's the issue: if there was no chance that the police would have released Lumumba, then it would have been futile for Knox to have proclaimed his innocence in whatever way guilters apparently expect her to have done.

Again, I don't think anybody is asking her to say that she knew for a fact that he was innocent. Second, just because it can have no positive effect doesn't mean that you shouldn't tell the truth. In any case, what reason would she have for not unambiguously saying that her statement untrue (within the boring and obvious limits that her claiming to not have been there imply), given that it would have no impact either way?

 

[Kaosium]

And only one produced the Meredith profile.

This massively supports the "contaminated in the laboratory" theory. If there is DNA of Meredith's in the lab, then the chance of it happening to contaminate the only sample from the knife seems like a big coincidence. But the more samples you test, the better the chance that one of them will pick up a low level contamination.

Suppose the contamination was only affecting one sample in ten. And it was such a low level you'd need LCN techniques to see it. And of course if a sample which really had Meredith's DNA on it was affected, it would be impossible to tell.

In this context, pointing out that other samples tested didn't show Meredith contamination is almost irrelevant. You'd need to be looking at samples that didn't have her DNA on them in the first place, and then you'd have to crank the sensitivity right up as was done with the knife, and then you're only going to see it in 10% of the samples.

No wonder Novelli couldn't immediately lay his hand on another example....

Rolfe.

Here's some more information on the DNA 'evidence' I see a lot of your questions were addressed, but there's some stuff that seldom comes up because Bunnies and Kittens know better.

It's been noted recently that the independent experts were unable to replicate the tests on the DNA, the knife sample having been 'consumed in testing,' and the bra clasp 'consumed in storage' (i.e. it rotted) however that because even more interesting as I was reminded of this recently:

she was asked to specify which elements needed to be present in order to preclude the possibility of identification of a collected biological specimen, Dr Stefanoni indicated an incorrect storage of the specimen in an environment which was not ideal, such as in warmth, or enclosed in a plastic bag where water might be present and, not being able to evaporate, it facilitates the proliferation of micro-organisms. She stressed that the consequence of a conservation carried out in an incorrect way was the deterioration of the specimen so that, when analysing it, very probably ‚no genetic result would be able to be obtained‛. She added that the circumstance for which it had been possible to attribute the specimens gathered meant that the conservation had been correct.

Lo and behold when the independent experts went to re-test the bra clasp and reproduce her results they found:

The item to be examined was observed by us to be locked inside a transparent tube with a red top, contained in turn in small sealed bag [bustina sigillata], of transparent plastic, of the State Police.

We emphasize, moreover, that — as shown photographically — multiple components of dark-red color were present, scattered throughout the inside of the tube, both at the bottom and near the closing top.

There were two clasps, both lacking grommets [senza l'occhiello di tenuta della controparte], with extended parts of red-brownish color, others of reddish color; whiteish elements were also partially in evidence.

One of the clasps was recognizable in its original form, with the characteristic square upon which the corresponding round-edged hook is sewn; the other no longer had any kind of shape, as it was so completely deformed as to have been inserted into the first [clasp], with which it was partially fused due to the presence of rust; separation of the two elements would involve the fragmentation of certain rusted components.
(emphasis mine)

The good <Dr. Stefanoni sure followed her instructions to make sure no one ever tested that clasp again! The unfortunate happenings just follow her around, nothing ever goes right, unless she needs to fish a perfect profile out of the stochastic sea with the wrong kit and and a lab not suited for it, then everything is precise!

There's other miracles she's performed that amaze and delight, such as that fortuitous finding of the victim's 'DNA' on the knife, it was hidden away just perfectly in a scratch said she, one her eagle eyes duly noted:

She specified that trace B had been taken from a point on the face of the blade; she added that no biological trace was visible to the naked eye. However [she added that+ ‚under considerable lighting, a series of streaks were visible to the naked eye. These streaks ran parallel to the upper part of the blade, therefore, more or less, they were parallel to this side [of the blade] and towards the point they went downward and, therefore, they followed the shape of the point. These streaks, anomalies in the metal, were visible to the naked eye under intense lighting‛ (page 95 of the transcript). Still in regard to the visibility of these streaks, she specified that they were "visible under good lighting by changing the angle at which the light hit the blade, since obviously the blade reflects light and thus creates shadows, making imperfections visible".(page 96 of the transcripts).
(...)
The other samples yielded negative results, except the one taken from the blade, from the‚ scratches and streaks visible under good lighting, by changing the angle of the lighting with regards to the blade‛ that yielded the genetic profile of the victim

Sometimes little scratches seek the spotlight:

She reaffirmed that on the blade of knife Exhibit 36 a striation was visible but ‚placing the exhibit under a source of illumination < like the conventional sort that has a Reprovit, which is the instrument we use for photography; it was possible to observe it only by placing it under a strong spotlight and by changing the angle at which the light hit the blade, it was only in this way that these striations became visible to the naked eye < photos were attempted but it was too reflective < only white spots of light came out‛

Such a shy little scratch it even declined to be photographed, but she tried! She made sure everyone knew just how shy it was so they'd whisper around it and not spook the fine frightened fissure:

As for the scratch on the surface of the blade of the knife Exhibit 36, she reaffirmed that if it was not particularly well illuminated, the scratch could not be seen (page 47).

It was so very important not to spook the little scratch, and to flatter it with lofty names like 'striations.' This would also be the second time it was noted just how clean this knife was, it was referred to as 'extremely clean' by the collector beforehand.

The knife, Exhibit 36, appeared very clean, with nothing visible to the naked eye. She had decided to collect material from within the striations, because they were the only data for orienting a sampling of a blade that, to the eye, showed no biological trace which, however, where it was present, "would have been inside these scratches" (page 81). The other samples taken from the blade of the knife were collected in a random manner, so to speak, since there was nothing to assist in deciding to take a sample from one spot rather than from another.

However, sometimes when you call them striations they get uppity, and just *poof* disappear!

Returning to the trace found on the blade of the knife (Exhibit 36), Dr. Stefanoni subsequently specified that with respect to the striations, nothing was visible to the naked eye nor under illumination, and there was nothing in terms of biological material. Consequently, when she had carried out the test before sampling and before carrying out the DNA extraction, she first performed a test to find out whether or not the prospective biological sample might be blood. However, she did not pass the swab belonging to the diagnostic kit along the entire striation, because she was aware that there was a concrete possibility that in doing so "I could have wiped away...the whole of whatever small amount was there, and that could have been used for DNA analysis".

She was so careful! But now the scratch is not a striation or anything, it's just a fond memory of Stefanoni, a testament to her brilliance and dedication to the scratch-striation sub-genre. However there's defense experts that want to see this scratch turned striation subsumed selflessly in shadow. Prepare to repel boarders! This scratch on this 'extremely clean' or 'very clean' knife explained everything so neatly, how this tiny slip of DNA could escape the horrors of osmotic shock and the other horrid things that might happen were bleach to have found it's way into that scratch-striation safehouse. At least Stefanoni thought so at one point, until it was needed in court and dastardly defense experts wished to examine it, now the scratch is no more. What a considerate crevice, it slips away silently when irksome guests arrive to test its superior safeguarding powers:

With reference, instead, to sample B taken from the blade of that same knife, she advanced various critical observations. First of all, she pointed out that it was not entirely clear where that sample was taken from, and, since it concerned a specimen not visible to the naked eye, it would have been helpful to use a stereo microscope, which would also have allowed an appreciation of the colour of the specimen, and permitted an evaluation, if only presumptive, of the nature of the specimen itself. She also deplored that was no adequate test to establish the nature of the sample in question had been carried out, Dr. Stefanoni having limited herself to a presumptive test with ‚benzidine‛, which gave a negative result. And not having even a description of this material available, Dr. Gino added, we ‚know absolutely nothing; we don’t even know if there was really biological material where the scratches are‛

How rude! Does she really think there could have been nothing in the stilletto's sanctuary? Has not Stefanoni regaled all and sundry throughout the court process of the weapon's wondrous wealth? A cornucopia of collected criminality in that Crassian cache? Has she not learned that tiny treasure is no more? Has she no manners to speak so of the nearly departed?

More crudity awaits! The troublesome Dr. Taglibracci, whom Comodi recently subdued with reminders of what can happen to curious consultants, has even moxie beyond his weight class as he notes:

With reference to the knife, it was recalled that it was described as being clean, and that‚ there was nothing visible macroscopically, nor were investigations carried out that could have been done to verify if there were exfoliating epithelial cells (=flaking skin cells), which there probably would have been‛

He reminds us for the third time how clean this knife is, and wonders why Stefanoni didn't look for such barbaric things such as biological materials. All he did was complain all day anyway. Philistine!

Perhaps at this moment it's necessary to remind everyone of the illustrious intuitive skills which netted this extraordinary evidence:

The knife was taken by Inspector Finzi, who testified that he had clean, new gloves and that, having opened the drawer where the tableware was kept, the first thing he saw was a large knife that was extremely clean. There were other knives in the drawer, but he took [only] this one, which became Exhibit 36.

There were other knives he could have chosen, but this one wasspecial, he used his superior skills to surmise this was the knife for us! However, as we've said, <Dr. Stefanoni has already divined that the shy striation has slipped away, thus there's no need to look for it any more. Obviously, since she saw it so many times it certainly has been established, has it not? That it can't be seen now is of no concern. It is readily apparent what happened. It saved the DNA, and cells that were never looked for, until it had to be handed over to someone else to see, and then the good <Doctor noticed it had gone missing. What more proof could you need? Here let us show how the court-appointed expert before the trial verified for us that it was gone, vindication!

It was thus maintained that the blade did not show any visible sign of the claimed scratches, and not even Professor Cingolani (the expert witness nominated by the GIP [preliminary hearing judge] for the incidente probatorio [taking of evidence at pre-trial stage], during which, in the course of the discussion, the knife, Exhibit 36, having been made available at the request of the defence teams, was shown) has declared that he noticed such scratches.

Why the way Massei brutalized that poor paragraph you'd think he was trying to hide that the good court official didn't see the superb striations, when <Dr. Stefanoni noticed first, and exclaimed it tout le monde! Now, Massei sees the brilliant logic in this all, and makes sure that we all know how extremely clean and the importance of being earnest in educating us all on the majesty of <Dr. Stefanoni's achievement:

Even the point in which Dr. Stefanoni declared that she had found the substance which, when tested, furnished Meredith’s biological profile, presents its own consistency and logic with the result obtained. This was taken from the side of the knife blade where there were scratches, such that, in the tiny little grooves that these scratches must have formed, biological material might have remained, resistant – u unlike that which would have been present on the rest of the blade – to cleaning which, although it appeared to have left the knife extremely clean (as has been affirmed), might not have been able to remove the biological material that ended up in these very tiny grooves, where it remained.

Obviously! Now look at the certainty in which he can justify his findings, despite the fact the dastardly defense is dubious of the existence of the DNA defenders den, and we remember of course the court expert who was already shown that the scratches had disappeared when Stefanoni just noticed it herself:

With respect to the existence of these scratches the defence and their consultants had voiced doubts and perplexity; moreover, Professor Cingolani, the expert witness appointed by the GIP [judge of the preliminary hearing] for the incidente probatorio [pre-trial taking of evidence], who was shown the knife, Exhibit 36, during this hearing, it having been made [313] available at the express request of the defence, declared that he had not seen such scratches In this regard, however, Dr. Stefanoni’s statements should be recalled on the manner of observing the knife (under good lighting and moving the blade so that it was thoroughly illuminated) and it should be noted that it does not appear that the others have examined the blade of the knife in the same way and with the same or similar lighting. It must therefore be stated that Dr. Stefanoni, in reporting that she had seen these scratches and had taken sample B from these very scratches, has not stated a falsehood.

There you have it! No one looked at the scratches the exact same way under the exact same illumination as Stefanoni did, this certainly the scratches existed even if she can't find them now, and no one else ever saw them. They saved that DNA didn't they? Thus they must have existed. That's just how it works with these sly slippery scratches sometimes! What are you, a skeptic?

 

[shuttlt]

Or she just went along with them so the (physical and/ or psychological) beatings would stop which is what she said in court.

In which case she lied and knew she way lying and then made up a bunch of "best truth I can remember" lies to explain the original lie. Certainly there may well be reasons for her to have done so. They may be perfectly good reasons that we may feel sympathetically disposed to.

Plus, no matter how I look at it or try to spin it or how any one else tries to spin it, the "confession" (accusation) is just too plain weird in the way it's written, and then what the police did (and didn't do) after they got it just doesn't jive with the police explanation that they didn't believe Patrick was involved and thus didn't tell Amanda who to point the finger at, but that's just me,

What she they have done after she accussed him?

 

[Antony]

Kaosium,

This whole comment is spot-on, though I might be a tad more sympathetic to Patrick than you are. I think he channeled his anger in the wrong direction, perhaps because he could not understand the dynamics of a false confession, and to change his mind now would bring about too much cognitive dissonance.

After the Daily Mail article, we can be fairly sure that Patrick was physically and verbally abused on the day of his arrest, and if he had been thinking rationally, he would have realised that Amanda must have been subjected to something of the same treatment. But as you say, he didn't have any knowledge of false confessions, and in addition, he (maybe subconsciously) knew that it was a bad idea to take sides against the police in any argument of facts.

It's highly-significant that in spite of the horrendous treatment described in his DM article, he disowned the account for whatever reason, once he had a chance to "reflect" on his situation.