I've been lurking on a few sites for a few weeks trying to understand the murder and trial as objectively as possible. I think I have the beginning of a basic grasp of things. Recently the good folks at PMF and TJMK (yes, I believe there are a lot of good folks "over there") have been gushing about a new book by John Follain. I don't have a copy (the only book I've got is BLN's, though I've read a lot of the English Massei Report and LOTS of posts.)
I'd recommend reading "Murder in Italy" by Candace Dempsey as well, it's easily found in most bookstores. There's also "The Monster of Perugia by Dr. Mark Waterbury and "Injustice in Perugia" by Bruce Fisher which can be found at Amazon as well. Barbara Nadeau and John Follain, unfortunately for their analysis and reputations, gave too much credence to prosecution claims and didn't notice the pattern of mistakes, distortions and at times, provable outright lies. Others could see more clearly and thus their judgment was not so impaired, and being as they saw the acquittal coming long before those like Nadeau and Follain who're still somewhat confused, that's pretty suggestive of whose perceptions were more accurate at the outset.
Peter Quennell posted an article by John Follain a couple of weeks ago and it's been bugging me. JF says Meredith suffered "43 knife wounds and bruises" but someone at PMF said recently that particular (deliberating) misleading description was cleared up a long time ago. But there it is again for the October 9 Sunday Times readership.
Yes, that's correct, Follain either hasn't figured this out or he thinks it more salacious if he tries to pretend there was far more violence done than there actually was.
Overall the article tries to appear even-handed but he keeps slipping. I decided to mark up some of his article as if I were a hypothetical editor looking for something a little more "fair and balanced." [Okay, very hypothetical.]
You did a fine job! I'd have given him a break on where exactly Rudy's DNA was found regarding the purse as it seems like a meaningless detail to me, but there's one way he was obscenely misleading in my view: that Amanda tried to 'frame' Lumumba. Signing two confused
statements in a foreign language she barely read at that point which come off like opium dreams that she then repudiates with a written statement the same day making it quite clear she's not sure because of what they did to her, and then the next day makes it perfectly clear she couldn't know, cannot constitute an attempt to 'frame' by any reasonable interpretation of the word. Implicate might even be too strong, if you think on it what's notable about the arrest of Patrick is the police response to those two statements, not so much what she signed. Keep in mind what they produced before
Matteini two days later bore little resemblance to any of that nor was it based on any evidence as the
Polizia Scientifica weren't even close to finishing the forensics. Mignini literally made it all up out of whole cloth. That's a huge clue as to what went wrong here, when the police make hasty arrests on evidence that turns out to be mistaken or coincidental and then the forensics show no trace of any of the ones arrested that suggests something.
This is what I have, using Peter Q's headline, skipping Peter's intro and commenting on some of the first half of the article:
Anyone care to comment? Did I leave out anything significant or get anything wrong? I frankly haven't gotten to the bottom of the computer hard drives/forensic analysis.
Others can offer a more detailed analysis, though I'd point out not all four hard drives were actually fried, it was only three and the most important one, Raffaele's sister's that he was using that night, just had all the data after the 9:26 opening of the Naruto file erased.
I'd also have to add that the 'two knife theory' is just that: a theory. It's also indicative of the mindset of the prosecution, when they find that the knife they pulled out of Raffaele's drawer which tested negative for blood and couldn't have made some of the wounds they just pretend there must have been two knives instead of eliminating the possibility of the knife being involved. Less than 10 pg of DNA with no biological material identifiable does not suggest it's the only residue left of making a death wound, it suggests secondary transfer, contamination or fraud. This was
known long before the
Conti-Vecchiotti confirmed it officially in an Italian Court, it's simply basic forensic science, and as you can see
here Stefanoni didn't even attempt to abide by the restrictions of LCN/LT DNA as set forth by the
promoters of this new use of DNA analysis.
That's basically because DNA is used to
identify people from biological materials, like if you find some blood you can run a test and find out (almost) exactly who it is, rather than relying on far less identifying characteristics like blood type. The same goes for saliva, or anything else like semen etc. When they find just 'DNA' it quite likely might have come from the lab itself doing the testing which is why you need all those strictures in those links.
Here's one that explains some of the dangers of basic polymerase chain reaction (PCR) DNA analysis, with low template or low copy number (LT/LCN--*really* small amounts) those dangers are manifestly increased, which as it stands is why both Britain and the US are quite skeptical of its value in court, these are
not 'technicality' fears, with LCN/LT you're basically
looking for contamination level DNA which would be otherwise ignored employing standard DNA analysis.
At any rate he also fails to note that every single forensic expert (prosecution too!) testified that one attacker was also compatible with the crime scene and the wounds. As noted by Massei himself:
Massei PMF 368 said:
The consultants and forensic scientists have asserted that from the point of view of forensic science, it cannot be ruled out that the author of the injuries could have been a single attacker, because the bruises and the wounds from a pointed and cutting weapon are not in themselves incompatible with the action of a single person. With regard to this, it is nevertheless observed that the contribution of each discipline is specifically in the domain of the specific competence of that discipline, and in fact the consultants and forensic experts concentrated their attention on the aspects specifically belonging to forensic science: time of death, cause of death, elements indicating sexual violence, the injuries present on the body of the victim, and the causes and descriptions of these.
The answer given above concerning the possibility of their being inflicted by the action of a single person or by more than one was given in relation to these specific duties and questions, which belong precisely to the domain of forensic science, and the meaning of this answer was thus that there are no scientific elements arising directly from forensic science which could rule out the injuries having been caused by the action of a single person.
The whole case boggles my mind. I'm not sure the truth can ever be known. Emotionally rigged reporting doesn't help. The only thing I find certain is that a lot of people are absolutely certain of their p.o.v. Hence, "Rashomon."
The truth is more or less known, many people had it figured out long before the verdict, it's not that difficult once you realize the prosecutor and police are corrupt and incompetent, and Mignini a wee bit touched. They came up with cock-a-mamie stories that don't bear scrutiny, and the constant here in your 'Rashomon' is science; it doesn't work any differently in Umbria than it does anywhere else. If the police have to rely on destroyed computer data to even get Raffaele and Amanda at the scene with a single digit percent chance you know it's damn unlikely they were involved. Even if they put in that Naruto file and ran like hell to stab Meredith for no discernible reason and left no trace of their presence, do you really think they were only caught because the police made a hasty arrest unsupported by real evidence?
Or is it more likely they made a mistake based on coincidences and errors and managed to convince themselves they were brilliant and refused to admit they were wrong when it turned out the fantastical theory that captured the headlines was unsupported by real evidence? The Rashomon was created on one side by an objective look at the facts and on the other by a police and prosecution desperate to find a way to pretend they were still right and went looking for anything they could twist to support the idea Amanda and Raffaele must still have been involved. Then you have their admirers online who've more or less done the same thing and just don't want to face the fact they might have made a horrible mistake.
That's why none of the sites promoting guilt can allow any dissenting opinion, while anyone who thinks them innocent can make the case anywhere. Plus, they kinda went beyond the bounds of propriety during the course of the debate and pissed a lot of people off!
