Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[katy_did]

No, I think Livingonaprayer was referring to Fulcanelli (aka Michael) when she said "he doesn't get it". And anyhow, Rolfe is a she

Incidentally, Fulcanelli/Michael has now managed to clock up an impressive 250-odd posts on that forum in the space of 48 hours! I feel certain that stint7 will be on his case forthwith, eh pilot?! And Fulcamichael still appears to be ignorant of the sensitivity and specificity of the TMB presumptive test for blood (as well as the actual meaning of the term "presumptive"). I suggest he gains a little scientific knowledge before he embarrasses himself even further. The TMB test has a high sensitivity; this means that it has a very low proportion of false negatives. So if a TMB test comes back negative, that means there is almost certainly no blood present.

I did notice one of the Mods (or maybe it was just another member) tactfully mentioning the 'multiquote' button.

 

[Grinder]

Probably the wrong place to ask but I've had one post moved to AAH and back and then back again to AAH (I think) - can someone explain this or tell me where to ask?

Thanks

ETA: I guess it was returned to this thread - never mind

 

[JREF2010]

So in other words they pretty much decided the camera had to be right and made that his 'memory.' Or at least that's what it looks like, and makes sense actually. I don't know what I'm thinking I read about something written down at the time, I can't find it in Massei either. Perhaps it was someone speculating in the archives somewhere that the 12:30 time was from a written record.

I recall reading that too, some log book, written record, he wrote it down in.

 

[LivingonaPrayer]

If you're trying to debase Rolfe, then you must be a guilter. Guilters slam us as we slam the prosecution. That is the guilter MO.

If that's the best argument you have, then you've run out of ammunition. You're shooting blanks.

Quite the opposite I was agreeing with Rolfe and directing that comment to Fulcanelli (aka Michael)

 

[Paninaro]

I doubt Battistelli had any idea how important that time would turn out to be.

He knows now, he stated it (in court?) without hesitating and I suppose he has not corrected his wrongdoing. Massei knows at well, but does nothing, he only states that Knox and Sollecito haven't lied about this, but doesn't draw the reasonable conclusion: That the trustworthy ones on what happened when the postal police and Filomena et al arrived are not the Police, but Knox and Sollecito.

The misrepresentation of facts/lies are done by the Police on the scene. Their testimony should be deemed relatively worthless.

 

[HumanityBlues]

This just showed up in my email alerts: http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/14/s...nda-knox-murder-case-may-lead-to-her-release/

 

[katy_did]

He knows now, he stated it (in court?) without hesitating and I suppose he has not corrected his wrongdoing. Massei knows at well, but does nothing, he only states that Knox and Sollecito haven't lied about this, but doesn't draw the reasonable conclusion: That the trustworthy ones on what happened when the postal police and Filomena et al arrived are not the Police, but Knox and Sollecito.

The misrepresentation of facts/lies are done by the Police on the scene. Their testimony should be deemed relatively worthless.

Yes, agreed. I'm inclined to think Battistelli told a few white lies, not thinking they would be of huge significance, then found himself caught in them and chose to keep on lying, knowing what he said was being used as part of the evidence to keep two people in jail. Probably he thought they were guilty anyway and that the ends justified the means. Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was just mistaken about his arrival time, he can't possibly have been certain about it, yet he still let it be used as evidence without ever saying "I'm not 100% certain", "I may have been wrong", etc. And I can't believe anyone wouldn't have gone into the bedroom to check on the victim, even without Luca's evidence that Battistelli understandably did just that.

I agree too that this makes his testimony near worthless, and also has to raise the question of what else he may have lied about. The Sean Hoey case is an interesting comparison: two of the police officers in that case were shown to have lied about wearing protective clothing at the crime scene, and the judge certainly isn't scared to criticize them. I can't imagine anyone will be similarly harsh about any of the police lies or misrepresentations in this case.

The explanation as to how their untruths came to be told and the deliberate attempts, as I am satisfied they were, to conceal what the Defence not unfairly characterised as the “beefing up” of the initial statement of Ms Cooper are deeply disquieting. I am left in the position that I do not know what if anything I can believe of the evidence of these two and I am satisfied that, had photographs not been available to gainsay their lies, they would have persisted in seeking to and very possibly have succeeded in convincing me that, being at that time (somewhat unusually if the evidence of others is correct) alive to the possibility of DNA contamination, they were wearing suitable protective clothing to obviate such a risk. Such was my disquiet at their evidence and that of others connected with this matter that upon its completion I had transcripts of the evidence on this issue sent to the Police Ombudsman. The effect of this, as I find deliberate and calculated deception in which others concerned in the investigation and preparation of this case for trial beyond these two witnesses may also have played a part, is to make it impossible for me to accept any of the evidence of either witness since I have no means of knowing whether they may have told lies about other aspects of the case that were not capable of being exposed as such.

 

[charlatan]

This just showed up in my email alerts: ...

It has become clear that several key pieces of evidence were mishandled, or allowed to languish in various places in and around the crime scene for weeks, or ignored altogether. Were these issues thoroughly vetted during the first trial? If not, why not?

 

[LondonJohn]

It has become clear that several key pieces of evidence were mishandled, or allowed to languish in various places in and around the crime scene for weeks, or ignored altogether. Were these issues thoroughly vetted during the first trial? If not, why not?

No, they weren't properly brought out in the first trial. This is another of the areas where, in my opinion, the defence teams underperformed. While I realise the argument that they were up against the powerful combination of a malevolent Mignini and a credulous and illogical Massei, I still think that far more could have been done in a lot of different areas.

The Adidas jacket has been known about for a very long time. The defence teams would have known about it well before the Massei trial, and we've been discussing it on here for well over a year now. In particular, Draca has gone into a lot of depth on the jacket issue over the past couple of months.

In a wider context, it has long been abundantly clear to anyone with an open mind that the crime scene was dreadfully poorly handled by the "crack" police and forensics team. I think that a good lawyer could refute most of the prosecution physical evidence purely based on a commentated run-through of the crime-scene video.

I sincerely hope that the defence teams have got their ducks in a row for closing arguments - on this and all of the other important issues that need to be addressed. I suspect that they have, and I suspect that a major reason for a far more effective defence performance in the appeal trial is the behind-the-scenes consulting advice of Ted Simon and others.

 

[Draca]

This just showed up in my email alerts: http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/14/s...nda-knox-murder-case-may-lead-to-her-release/

"Walter Patumi, a forensic expert hired by Knox’s defense team, told Oggi that while an Italian squad of “scientific police” were supposed to be investigating the crime scene, this key piece of evidence sat at the bottom of a basket of dirty laundry and was only identified after much of the crime scene evidence had already been moved.“

It's interesting how OGGI is taking information that has been known for a long time and reworking it as a 'SHOCKING STORY'. The same with the recent news buzz about the bra clasp being passed around and dropped on the floor. That was not new, it was even shown in the first trial but now it is suddenly new and shocking. It really goes to show how poorly investigative journalism was done in this case. This could have been a shocking story years ago. I'm glad they are doing it now though! These things deserve to have public light shined on them. It is absolutely outrageous that Meredith jacket was not immediately bagged as evidence the first day.

 

[Matthew Best]

The Sean Hoey case is an interesting comparison: two of the police officers in that case were shown to have lied about wearing protective clothing at the crime scene, and the judge certainly isn't scared to criticize them. I can't imagine anyone will be similarly harsh about any of the police lies or misrepresentations in this case.

There's an interesting passage in that judgment that some here may find relevant to the case under discussion:

The Defence submit, correctly in my judgment, that it is for the prosecution to establish the integrity and freedom from possible contamination of each item throughout the entirety of the period between seizure and any examination relied upon. They contend, and I accept the contention, that the court must be satisfied by the prosecution witnesses and supporting documents that all dealings with each relevant exhibit have been satisfactorily accounted for from the moment of its seizure until the moment when any evidential sample relied upon by the prosecution is taken from it and that by a method and in conditions that are shown to have been reliable. ...Only if all these requirements have been satisfactorily vouched can a tribunal have confidence in the reliability of any forensic findings said to have been derived from any examination of the item.

 

[LondonJohn]

There's an interesting passage in that judgment that some here may find relevant to the case under discussion:

This is the salient point. I would, however, modify the remarks slightly to argue that the responsibility of the prosecution only goes so far as to show that all reasonable steps have been taken to minimise the chance of contamination. I don't think the prosecution should ever be called upon to prove that exhibits cannot possibly have been subjected to any contamination. Having said that though, it's true to say that if correct protocols and procedures are followed from the moment of identification of a given sample right through to the interpretation of any forensic tests on that sample, the chances of contamination at any point of that entire process are minutely low.

So if the correct procedures and protocols are followed, courts have the right to rule out the possibility of contamination to all intents and purposes - unless the defence can prove how and when contamination occurred. In other words, if correct protocols/procedures have been followed, courts will correctly refuse any general defence claims of contamination without absolute proof that contamination actually occurred.

But the corollary of this is that if correct procedures/protocols aren't followed, the prosecutors lose the right to any blanket claims of non-contamination. And the defence no longer have to prove contamination in order to raise it as a feasible possibility. What's more, the worse the breaches of protocol/procedure, the stronger the defence argument that contamination may have occurred. In this particular case, of course, the breaches of protocol and procedure were so numerous and so egregious that the defece are almost certain to succeed with a contamination argument in the appeal.

 

[Draca]

No, they weren't properly brought out in the first trial. This is another of the areas where, in my opinion, the defence teams underperformed. While I realise the argument that they were up against the powerful combination of a malevolent Mignini and a credulous and illogical Massei, I still think that far more could have been done in a lot of different areas.

The Adidas jacket has been known about for a very long time. The defence teams would have known about it well before the Massei trial, and we've been discussing it on here for well over a year now. In particular, Draca has gone into a lot of depth on the jacket issue over the past couple of months.

In a wider context, it has long been abundantly clear to anyone with an open mind that the crime scene was dreadfully poorly handled by the "crack" police and forensics team. I think that a good lawyer could refute most of the prosecution physical evidence purely based on a commentated run-through of the crime-scene video.

I sincerely hope that the defence teams have got their ducks in a row for closing arguments - on this and all of the other important issues that need to be addressed. I suspect that they have, and I suspect that a major reason for a far more effective defence performance in the appeal trial is the behind-the-scenes consulting advice of Ted Simon and others.

LJ,

I completely agree! The 'crack' police and forensic team did an absolutely abysmal job. If the defense didn't even bring this up at the last trial it was a mistake. It galls me reading the Massei report and how they explain how it wasn't their fault the bra clasp was left behind. It was so small, there was so much activity. It doesn't explain how the blue jacket, socks with blood on the cuffs, shoes with one still tied, purse with blood near the zipper and tote bag near Meredith that she used that night were also NOT collected. It is for this reason I refuse to accept the words forgot or mistake in regards to the bra clasp or the other pieces of evidence left behind. They made a CHOICE to leave them there. There is no other explanation. The 'crack' team basically showed that they could not care less about the victim or her family.

 

[Draca]

There's an interesting passage in that judgment that some here may find relevant to the case under discussion:

Matthew,

Great passage, thanks for sharing that.

 

[Justinian2]

Quite the opposite I was agreeing with Rolfe and directing that comment to Fulcanelli (aka Michael)

Roger that!

Sorry. Glad we cleared that up.

I'm looking hopefully towards the day when Amanda goes free. Wish I could buy you all some champaign! We should have a big party to celebrate.

We should rent a cage where we all pay money for a ball to throw at a target which would drop someone acting as a PMFer or Mignini into the frigid water.

Lionking, what are you doing in early October? Want to make some easy money?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

This just showed up in my email alerts: http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/14/s...nda-knox-murder-case-may-lead-to-her-release/

Nice.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Nice.

I don't understand the significance of the lost item of clothing, except to further demonstrate the incompetence of the investigating police, nor why it would make any sense for them to have planted it.

 

[Draca]

I don't understand the significance of the lost item of clothing, except to further demonstrate the incompetence of the investigating police, nor why it would make any sense for them to have planted it.

Kevin,

It's a further demonstration of incompetence. I don't see any other significance.
It's a particularly strong example though.

Draca

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I don't understand the significance of the lost item of clothing, except to further demonstrate the incompetence of the investigating police, nor why it would make any sense for them to have planted it.

I only replied to HumanityBlues so I could see my new signature. haha. It's a recent quote from Ganong. It's priceless.

 

[RandyN]

Yes, I mentioned that obliquely as well, I knew that incompetent clown had screwed up the times of his report, I just didn't realize it was that much. At any rate that would be just additional confirmation or even a reason to check that camera if they hadn't in the first place which I gotta think would have been an obvious move.

I do kinda wish they'd have hammered home the point where he claims he saw blood and a foot sticking out from beneath the covering but he didn't bother to see if the foot was attached to the girl they were looking for and might need medical attention. He just used his Perugian police 'intuitive' powers to divine that murder was the only possibility?



Unfortunately from Raffaele basically all that's available about his interrogation is that he was 'psychologically tortured.' However I think they did mention it to Amanda, that's their 'hard evidence.' They wouldn't have to tell her the exact nature of it, but I think it more likely than not that's what it was. I'm also aware they could have just invented that as an interrogation tactic, but I think since there was something available they might think was hard evidence they'd be more likely to say that.



At the main discussion thread at IIP there's a poster named 'Rixx' or some such who archived the totality of Perugia Shock..amongst other sites in later posts. I haven't actually checked it, but I thought he said it was the whole thing, though I've wondered why it didn't get transferred over to his new Wordpress blog. Maybe that would have taken up too much room, I dunno.

Indeed Rixx over at IIP has it all. She also has PMF and TJMK I beleive. I think I made her angry about her last post...she haas been silent for a while. Im prety sure I misunderstood her posting of Steffi Kerchers letter...which was quite early compared to actual release. Anyway...Rixx has tons of data.