Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Rolfe]

It's not so much the handling of the bra clasp as the apparent foreknowledge that this was a crucial item in the context of the shoe-print having been excluded as Raffaele's. Unless of course they went back and collected a bunch of extra items and maybe some more swabs, and this just happened to be the one that came up trumps? That would make better sense.

The same thing applies to the knife, only more so. If you're looking for the murder weapon, why choose only one knife to test, and from Raffaele's drawer? Were the girls' own kitchen knives tested? Did any of these fit the imprint of the knife on the bed sheet? Why pick only one knife of Raffaele's anyway, and put all your eggs in that basket? I could see it if it seemed to fit the imprint, but it didn't.

If I suspected that the murder weapon was still in Raffaele's flat, I'd be testing everything with a blade in there. I gather there were other knives in that drawer, and other non-cooking knives as well. Carrying off a single knife on "investigator's intuition" is completely bonkers.

It may be that we're simply looking at a bunch if disorganised, cack-handed idiots who think they're God's gift to forensics bumbling around aimlessly. Then not-a-doctor Stefanoni cranks up the sensitivity as required. Maybe the reason it doesn't make a lick of sense is that there was no plot to frame anyone, and the whole thing was just multiple, serial and repeated muddle.

Rolfe.

 

[RoseMontague]

So there are two clues from the phone records pointing to a later death: phone activity is too late for a murder who would need to stay in tha house for an hour. Moreover the 23:00 mms was deleted; but the only person who may be interested in deleting mms after arrival is the owner of the phone, why should a murderer look at an incoming mms and delete it?

I think you are ignoring the appeal argument on this piece of evidence, which seems clear to me:

However, it should be pointed out that this is not the only GPRS connection detected since there was another one on 2 November 2007 at 20:30:04.
Since on this occasion the murder had already happened and the phone was in the custody of the police, it can be stated that this cannot have been anything other than the receipt of an MMS message.
Nor was there any trace of this message in the memory of the cell phone, or rather, in the results of the analysis of the memory of Meredith’s Sony Ericsson K700i phone carried out by the postal police. Therefore, just as there was no evidence of the presence of the MMS message of 2.11.07 at 20:30:04, although it was certainly there, in the same way it cannot be excluded that the message of 1.11.07 at 22:13:29 is still in the memory, or that no trace remains of messages received but not saved. This would exclude a manual interaction with the aim of deleting the message hypothesized in the grounds for the decision11.
To this it should be added that the examination of Meredith’s English cell phone, the Sony Ericsson K700i, was incomplete, the postal police experts not having available the necessary instruments to acquire the ‘physical memory’ (therefore complete), but limited only to data accessible through the acquisition of the ‘logical memory’, that is, only a subset of the elements made available by the analysis software.

Moreover, Raf and Amanda have no real alibi later than 20:40. Computer activity consists in sporadic touching once every several tens of minutes, by an unknown user. We have no information to locate both defendants away from the murder scene for any period.

It seems you are acknowledging the validity of the defense arguments on the computers? That is interesting.

But the fact is, the break in is staged. Too many objective findings show that. It is not true that the break in resembles a true break in, nor by Rudy nor by others.

My main objection to the staged break in theory is the prosecution presented no proof that the window could have been broken the way it was described in Massei, with the resulting glass pattern. Neither have I seen any testimony from Filomena as to the state of the items on the floor when she left that morning. To me, most of it looks like she left the room in a mess. Maybe you can point to the testimony on the exact position of items that were not where she left them. Other than the clothes at the foot of the bed/wardrobe and the computer, I don't see her testimony on this. My opinion is she left in a hurry and she left the room in a mess.

 

[RoseMontague]

Ergon's Chinese medicine diagnosis based on a picture of Amanda's tongue:

Speaking of her mouth, with Chinese medicine her tongue tells us she definitely abuses alcohol and/or drugs. Kidney deficiency, swollen tongue, shiny, no coating, water retention around the tongue. It stays for a while until her body detoxifies, which may not be possible since she also appears to have digestive problems. This would be another indice of a learning disorder.

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe.

 

[Kaosium]

This is confusing me a bit.

The circumstances of the collection of the bra clasp from Meredith's room are bizarre. All that handling and pointing and putting it back on the floor to photograph and so on - weeks after the murder? What's that all about?

Performance art? This was another thing difficult to believe. Especially since I knew it was a high profile case in Italy, and also covered extensively by the British press and received enough attention here I figured someone would have noticed this and freaked. Instead Andrea Vogt asked PMF and was told contamination claims were 'groundless.' Additionally the collection video itself was part of the Telenorbo broadcast which resulted in criminal charges on the Sollecitos, meaning people had to have seen it in Italy. I guess we know now why Garofano, whose incisive analysis of the case is especially amusing now, had to recently admit Italy's forensic science standards were pretty much prehistoric.

Oh, and I came across this and can't help but point out another dupe was suckered by PMF, guy even wrote a book! Check this out:

Bloggers were another first. Surprisingly, many sites dedicated to the case were high-quality and pointed to the future of how crime reporting might be done.

Well, judging from the content of the book he wasn't talking about FOA, and IIP wasn't around, and we can kinda figure from the storyline where he was getting his information from....

I especially like this bit from Michael:

And, astonishingly, Rudy Guede is looking like the straightest talker of the lot. His "I-was-on-the-toilet-when-it happened" alibi is increasingly credible, not least because of his lawyers' expert investigation into the witnesses.

They need to learn to stay away from the kooky websites!

I understand that this seems to have been related to the discrediting of the shoeprint evidence leaving no concrete evidence of Raffaele's presence in the murder room. So it looks as if the cops went back to get more material in the hope of finding some of his DNA. But why the big fuss about that single item? Why put all your faith in that little scrap of fabric, when his DNA wasn't on the rest of the bra? As some have noted, it looks as if they know something is there.

It does, doesn't it? Which is really bizarre as the bra was torn off and the clasp likely not handled. What masters of crime scene analysis they were to have divined that even so there would still be an attacker's DNA on it! Why they didn't make this earth-shattering breakthrough 46 days previously when they apparently just left it there and let the rats play tiddly-winks with it can certainly be excused now!

But that makes little sense. If the cops intended to plant Raffaele's DNA on the clasp, wouldn't they have been better advised to have handled it as little as possible when collecting it? Show it being picked up with tweezers and put in a proper paper envelope, maybe?

That's boring! It's so much more fun to get into bunny suits and fondle it freely for the cameras! Look ma, all hands!

There's apparently a concept known as 'fake stupid' which supposedly amounts to pretending you're so incompetent you can't be corrupt. They got me first time around, thus I came onto the board trying to argue a scenario that they all just made mistakes, their lies were just press errors and it was all one big misunderstanding. Mea culpa.

And if they intended to frame Raffaele (or both of them) by planting evidence, they did a very poor job of it. His y-haplotype was said to be there, but his somatotype was just an exercise in picking peaks from a mish-mash of low-level contamination. As somebody said, why didn't they just frame them?

That was me, and part of it I think I figured out. I didn't realize just how low the evidential standards were in Italy with a compliant judge. Therefore Mignini and Stefanoni probably never figured their work would be challenged, and Biondi just signed off on it, as that's the way it goes, they didn't pay for all that kindling and kerosene for nothing! So just like the rest of their 'evidence,' it looks thick and juicy from the outside, (Raffaele's DNA on the victim's bra!) but really it's a crap sandwich like all the rest. However they figure they just say it's DNA and thus must mean Raffaele was in there whacking away and the defense whimpers and whines--but who listens to them?

It's all such a muddle I can't honestly figure out what was going on. I wonder if they thought they'd managed to get Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp somehow, but actually blew it?
Rolfe.

Incompetently corrupt? I'd say that's likely the most probable scenario. They might well have contaminated it in the process of trying to adhere something of Raffaele's there. How they ever thought they could explain three males on that tiny clasp to begin with is a mystery as well, which is probably why Stefanoni pretended they weren't there. That's likely Raffaele's DNA, but I find it so funny that they made such a big production about it they couldn't get a real DNA profile so they went with the y-halotype and messed that up too and had to cheat!

Another possibility is they wanted it ambiguous so if the computer records were restored or something and gave Raffaele an ironclad alibi they wouldn't have inconvenient evidence of slight of hand. Perhaps they also wanted it to put a little pressure on Raffaele. Early in the case there were indications that they wanted to cut a deal with him to testify that he thought Amanda left, he decided to stand and deliver instead. If so something like this would be awfully convenient as they could say it didn't get 'confirmed' or somesuch. I suspect it's likely something similar happened with the knife: they actually thought the both of them would capitulate, accept their guilt, and take their punishment.

Frankly I don't think they were that competent, but who knows.

Or they could have made a big deal about finding it because it was something important from the victim's clothing and in the process of collecting it they contaminated it, or it was some sort of secondary transfer from before the murder. The least likely scenario was always that it was the only trace of Raffaele or Amanda found in the murder room. After all, what the hell was it?

I do like this bit here, a charming product of the calunnia laws:

In the first place, it must be stressed that it is not possible to discern any reason for which Dr. Stefanoni would have had any bias in favour of or against those under investigation and, on the basis of such bias, would have offered false interpretations and readings.

Nothing found at the murder site of either defendant and they miraculously come up with this, shows all the above in court, and he insists it's impossible she might have a bias to help out the prosecution. Now that's fake stupid!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

forensic misadventures and forensic fraud

It's not so much the handling of the bra clasp as the apparent foreknowledge that this was a crucial item in the context of the shoe-print having been excluded as Raffaele's. Unless of course they went back and collected a bunch of extra items and maybe some more swabs, and this just happened to be the one that came up trumps? That would make better sense.

The same thing applies to the knife, only more so. If you're looking for the murder weapon, why choose only one knife to test, and from Raffaele's drawer? Were the girls' own kitchen knives tested? Did any of these fit the imprint of the knife on the bed sheet? Why pick only one knife of Raffaele's anyway, and put all your eggs in that basket? I could see it if it seemed to fit the imprint, but it didn't.

If I suspected that the murder weapon was still in Raffaele's flat, I'd be testing everything with a blade in there. I gather there were other knives in that drawer, and other non-cooking knives as well. Carrying off a single knife on "investigator's intuition" is completely bonkers.

It may be that we're simply looking at a bunch if disorganised, cack-handed idiots who think they're God's gift to forensics bumbling around aimlessly. Then not-a-doctor Stefanoni cranks up the sensitivity as required. Maybe the reason it doesn't make a lick of sense is that there was no plot to frame anyone, and the whole thing was just multiple, serial and repeated muddle.

Rolfe.

Rolfe,

Raffaele's kitchen knife did not fit the bloody outline of the knife (as you say), nor did it match one or probably two of the wounds. The murder weapon went in to the hilt and caused bruising. Some pro-guilt commenters argued that there were no other non-serrated knives in Raffaele's kitchen drawer, on the basis of a photograph. My eyes are not so keen, but even accepting this as a given, I would have taken other utensils in the drawer as a substrate control. I do not think any of the girls' knives were tested, and Steve Moore commented on that.

The police collected other evidence on 18 December. That is when they applied luminol, for example. I think that every piece of evidence on that day should be discounted, on the basis that they had already arrested AK, RS, and RG. It is almost inevitable that some investigator bias would come into play. I would not rule out secondary transfer for how Raffaele's DNA got onto the clasp.

Also, if there were evidence-tampering in this case, it is worth pointing out two things. One, forensic fraud happens everywhere. Two, if a forensic scientist or technician thinks you are guilty, they can apply your DNA to an item of evidence and make you guilty, because juries generally have a high regard for DNA. And in the U.S. there is sometimes communication forth and back between the investigator and the forensic personnel, giving the latter some indication of who the police think is guilty.

 

[Machiavelli]

I think you are ignoring the appeal argument on this piece of evidence, which seems clear to me:

Quote:
However, it should be pointed out that this is not the only GPRS connection detected since there was another one on 2 November 2007 at 20:30:04.
Since on this occasion the murder had already happened and the phone was in the custody of the police, it can be stated that this cannot have been anything other than the receipt of an MMS message.
Nor was there any trace of this message in the memory of the cell phone, or rather, in the results of the analysis of the memory of Meredith’s Sony Ericsson K700i phone carried out by the postal police. Therefore, just as there was no evidence of the presence of the MMS message of 2.11.07 at 20:30:04, although it was certainly there, in the same way it cannot be excluded that the message of 1.11.07 at 22:13:29 is still in the memory, or that no trace remains of messages received but not saved. This would exclude a manual interaction with the aim of deleting the message hypothesized in the grounds for the decision11.
To this it should be added that the examination of Meredith’s English cell phone, the Sony Ericsson K700i, was incomplete, the postal police experts not having available the necessary instruments to acquire the ‘physical memory’ (therefore complete), but limited only to data accessible through the acquisition of the ‘logical memory’, that is, only a subset of the elements made available by the analysis software.[/I]

No, I do not ignore, I consider it not valid and misleading. The physical memory is not what has to be searched: it is the logical memory what has to be considered.
When you delete a message, this is removed by the logical memory and can be retained in the physical memory. So if you want to look what has come into the phone you have to look at the physical memory, but if you want to understand what could have been deleted you have to look at the logical memory, which is immediately accessible. We are not interested in knowing what is actually in the physical memory: what is important to infer human interaction it its deletion from the logical memory.
The incomplete analysis of the item could be an issue to better ascertain the proof, but it is not a defensive argument.

It seems you are acknowledging the validity of the defense arguments on the computers? That is interesting.

No, not the whole defensive thesis. There are data from the computer records which are objective, and in my opinion they do not constitute an alibi and are no prove of continuous activity. The locations of possible human interaction are actualy very few.

My main objection to the staged break in theory is the prosecution presented no proof that the window could have been broken the way it was described in Massei, with the resulting glass pattern. Neither have I seen any testimony from Filomena as to the state of the items on the floor when she left that morning. To me, most of it looks like she left the room in a mess. Maybe you can point to the testimony on the exact position of items that were not where she left them. Other than the clothes at the foot of the bed/wardrobe and the computer, I don't see her testimony on this. My opinion is she left in a hurry and she left the room in a mess.

In my opinion, the way in which the glass was broken (from the outside or the inside) is the less important thing to determine staging. Obviously if you prove a breaking from the inside then you would prove a staging, but you can stage throwing from the outside and this element of proof is actually unnecessary. Evidence of staging does not depend on this.

 

[snook1]

.
But the fact is, the break in is staged. Too many objective findings show that. It is not true that the break in resembles a true break in, nor by Rudy nor by others.
It could be that two people diferent than AK and RS took place to the rape and murder, but if theu did they were not burglars and they did not enter through that window.
And sorry, but I don't consider as likely a missing of ladder marks.

How can you be so sure about it? A real judge in this latest appeal, said that the crime of staging a break in, didn't happen.

There's no pictures that show glass on top of the clothes. Is that correct?
Is it just a coincidence that Guede broke in some nursery via a window?
Could you please, point out one most convincing thing that the break in was staged?

I can reply you with what I believe is the most convincing thing that this was, in fact, a real break in.

For me: Guede's history of breaking in and entering through a window, the broken glass landed very deep inside the room, which can suggest that the rock was thrown from outside, the room - for me - wasn't really ransacked, it was messy with few things that were thrown out; it's easy to assume that glass may have been on top of the clothes that were already on the floor, still there's no pictures showing this, also little pieces of broken glass were found in Meredith's room and I missed the part when Massei tried (did he ?) to explain where these little pieces came from. Plus, if Knox and Sollecito were high or drunk they wouldn't even think of staging a break in and if they did, they would most definitely leave their clear traces in Filomena's room. I refuse to believe that first time killers would take a nap after the murder, just to be sober, and then return to the crime scene to alternate it. It's impossible. I refuse to believe Knox and Sollecito would be smart enough to do such things, thinking everything through, cleaning up their traces, taking away the phones, throwing out keys, disposing their clothes right after they KILLED FOR THE FIRST TIME in their lives. Yeah, right. Not to mention they would have to do it after smoking lots of marijuana. It's just not adding up and it's more than obvious for everyone that actually is willing to look at this case without prejudice.

 

[RoseMontague]

Latest Scazzi poll results. This despite the overwhelming evidence presented by the coroner that it must have been Sabrina what did the strangulation:

The medical examiner - "The lesions found on the victim's neck are also compatible with the action of a female person, not particularly graceful." The force used to strangle Sarah Scazzi would therefore "compatible with that of a woman if not particularly thin" are the words of Louis Road coroner who performed the autopsy on the body of fifteen.

http://translate.googleusercontent.....shtml&usg=ALkJrhhAi1KTFzfZbe3D4cejIJo_f9KxWg

 

[snook1]

Daily Mail has yet another set of pictures of Amanda out and about.
She looks tired, I think. It must be overwhelming for her.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049941/Another-day-freedom-Amanda-Knox.html

 

[Didaktylos]

Daily Mail has yet another set of pictures of Amanda out and about.
She looks tired, I think. It must be overwhelming for her.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049941/Another-day-freedom-Amanda-Knox.html

I expect that PTSD will be beginning to kick in, too.

 

[RoseMontague]

No, I do not ignore, I consider it not valid and misleading. The physical memory is not what has to be searched: it is the logical memory what has to be considered.
When you delete a message, this is removed by the logical memory and can be retained in the physical memory. So if you want to look what has come into the phone you have to look at the physical memory, but if you want to understand what could have been deleted you have to look at the logical memory, which is immediately accessible. We are not interested in knowing what is actually in the physical memory: what is important to infer human interaction it its deletion from the logical memory.
The incomplete analysis of the item could be an issue to better ascertain the proof, but it is not a defensive argument.

So did the cops delete the one the next day?

No, not the whole defensive thesis. There are data from the computer records which are objective, and in my opinion they do not constitute an alibi and are no prove of continuous activity. The locations of possible human interaction are actualy very few.

Could you list the locations of possible interaction for us since there are only a few of them?

In my opinion, the way in which the glass was broken (from the outside or the inside) is the less important thing to determine staging. Obviously if you prove a breaking from the inside then you would prove a staging, but you can stage throwing from the outside and this element of proof is actually unnecessary. Evidence of staging does not depend on this.

What does it depend on then? If it is the glass on clothes thing, I did ask you about that already.

 

[Machiavelli]

So did the cops delete the one the next day?

Is that a joke?
Who ever testified of deleting a message?

Could you list the locations of possible interaction for us since there are only a few of them?

But they are all known, and I don't remember the minutes of each interaction by memory; I think you've red them several times, why do you want to make me work?

What does it depend on then? If it is the glass on clothes thing, I did ask you about that already.

I see a system of at least 10-12 reasons, some very compelling, to establish there was no break in. I'll write a post about the topic.

 

[RoseMontague]

Is that a joke?
Who ever testified of deleting a message?

It is listed in the appeal quote I provided above. Same thing happened when the cops had the phone and a MMS was received.

But they are all known, and I don't remember the minutes of each interaction by memory; I think you've red them several times, why do you want to make me work?

Why not, I am feeling rather blue.

I see a system of at least 10-12 reasons, some very compelling, to establish there was no break in. I'll write a post about the topic.

Can't wait.

 

[Grinder]

Mach,

If a heroin addict/dealer had come along one year after and said he remembers seeing Raffaele and Amanda through the windows of the flat at 10 pm, would you give any credibility to that testimony? Would the fact that he had been asked by the police the week of murder if he'd seen anything and he'd replied no, impact your opinion?

None of your key witnesses came forward immediately. Do people fear being charged with calunnia if they give accounts that may turn out to be inaccurate?

It would be refreshing if PG people would admit that Curatolo, Nara, Quintavalle and other evidence is very questionable but they still believe in guilt because of A, B, and C.

I don't recall you specifically answering the question of whether someone not considered to date could have been the murderer. Could someone with Koko and Rudy have been the killer and didn't leave and evidence in the murder as GP people believe Raffaele did?

 

[JREF2010]

A fairly detailed interview with Carlo Dalla Vedova:

http://www.sbpost.ie/agenda/trial-and-error-59052.html?mid=505

thanks, thats one of the best articles I've read since the acquittal.
Jan 3rd

Mignini has already said he is confident the Court of Cassation, Italy’s highest appeals tribunal, ‘‘will deliver justice’’, although this court is only able to review evidence, and observers believe it’s unlikely Knox would ever be extradited from the US now.

Evidence review, I assume means the potatoe starch on the knife, the bra clasp with ignored peaks, and the disorganized lab work?

its all about a desperate prosecutor trying to save face now.

 

[NoahFence]

Daily Mail has yet another set of pictures of Amanda out and about.
She looks tired, I think. It must be overwhelming for her.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049941/Another-day-freedom-Amanda-Knox.html

Yea, the high profile nature of the case has nothing whatsoever to do with her hotness.

Nothing at all.



What a waste of time.

 

[daydreamer]

WORLD EXCLUSIVE: AMANDA KNOX COCAINE DEAL SCANDAL!


http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/world-exclusive-amanda-knox-cocaine-deal-scandal

 

[RoseMontague]

WORLD EXCLUSIVE: AMANDA KNOX COCAINE DEAL SCANDAL!


http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/world-exclusive-amanda-knox-cocaine-deal-scandal

Slightly misleading headline, why am I not surprised?

 

[Rolfe]

thanks, thats one of the best articles I've read since the acquittal.
Jan 3rd

Mignini has already said he is confident the Court of Cassation, Italy’s highest appeals tribunal, ‘‘will deliver justice’’, although this court is only able to review evidence, and observers believe it’s unlikely Knox would ever be extradited from the US now.

Evidence review, I assume means the potatoe starch on the knife, the bra clasp with ignored peaks, and the disorganized lab work?

its all about a desperate prosecutor trying to save face now.

I think that must be wrong. From what I've learned from others here, the Supreme Court is not able to review evidence, and can only rule on whether the legal process has been corectly followed.

Rolfe.