Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Bruce Fischer]

I agree as well. Talking in absolute terms is what turned me off about Steve Moore's early articles. I ran into the same mindset in the Duke case. Many claimed it was impossible that these Lacrosse players could do such a thing as what they were accused of. It was the evidence that showed them to be innocent, not the unusual nature of the crime.

There is a difference between it being extremely unlikely and impossible.

There is a big difference between talking about the case on JREF and fighting for Amanda and Raffaele's freedom on TV. The general public doesn't care about every little detail that has been discussed over and over again here. Absolutes work very well in sound bites. We knew Amanda and Raffaele were innocent. Having that knowledge led us to do everything possible to get them out of prison. Of course people here love to debate so they will say that the Anti-Knox crowd was firm in their beliefs so they were just doing everything they could to prove their point also. If you look at the big picture you will see that their tactics were much different. We had the truth on our side and real expert opinion. They had one scientist but in the end he no longer supported their position. Now they are just left with Ergon's alignment of the stars.

The public listened to Steve Moore because he is an expert with many years of experience. He spent his life putting bad guys in prison. Now he was on TV telling the world that Amanda and Raffaele were innocent. This strategy helped to free Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[smkovalinksy]

On the topic of statement analysis, while i don't subscribe to the notion it is an accepted tool for ascertaining the truth, I think we all do it to a certain degree, or at least something someone says will inevitably evoke a response based on our own way of interpreting other people's behavior or words, refined throughout our lifetime and informed by our experiences with other's deceit or truthfulness. It's human nature in a way but it doesn't prove anything one way or another as I'm sure all of us have times where we've been wrong just as often as we've been right.
In the quote above for example, I immediately wonder why Amanda would even imagine Meredith would have experienced regret, regret for what? Why regret? And what would she have to come to any peace about? This is a really weird statement when you think about it although i'm in no way attempting to analyze it. I just think it's weird, from my own perspective only. Others may think it's perfectly normal to imagine a girl being murdered having the time or presence of mind for experiencing regret for something or other. If I try to imagine Meredith's final moments my imagination can only come up with extreme terror and enormous panic, with not much time for anything else. If I were her friend or roommate I would have nightmares thinking about what she went through and wake up in a cold sweat myself. I would hardly imagine this extending to something she felt regret over or needed to make peace with. But that's just me. I have always thought Amanda was a bit strange, or at least as quirky as she's been often described, and the above example simply illustrates to me the vast difference in thinking between her and me. Those words jumped out at me as "what a weird thing to say" but I couldn't ever go so far as to conclude it meant anything ominous although I'm sure Seamus might. ,

I agree. Also, I believe gut instinct on the part of the investigators/prosecution is directly responsible for many wrongful convictions. Mignini was definitely a case in point.

I agree with you. On the highlighted part of above, I will say this:

I also find it weird, and I also would not take it as having the extreme meanings statement analytical persons would . How it strikes me, about "regret" or "making peace":

These are typical and stereotypical things we hear about people on death beds. Will they make peace with their life? Will your grandfather voice regrets about unfinished business on his death bed? Of course these are "end of life" issues which usually apply to elder deaths, or deaths after a long and protracted illness.

To me, Amanda was at a loss for words, and so she pulled out the time-honored old truisms (whether she was speaking or writing) : That the person might try to make peace ; or have some regrets. The thing is, this to me is less an indication of a guilty person than one who is socially awkward. It reminds me of an old family friend, who is very socially awkward and always has been. She will blather out some truism, trying to fit in to a conversation. Like if a teenager in the family is having a medical problem with asthma and allergies, she will say, "Well, at that age, everything is the peer group" even though severe allergies have nothing to do with this. I think Amanda would do the same. I think it is clear that there is a bit of "oddness" to Amanda, as you note; many have noticed it, and it seems truly pervasive: but we know it is no crime and very unjustly got her noticed by police.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Toys in the hood

Here's Draca's post on it including a translation and links. Re-reading it reminded me of this, something that came up during the Conti-Vecchiotti report when Stefanoni 'noted' their disuse of a fume hood. She even had that wrong it appears!

Kaosium,

I may not be following you here. A fume hood is under negative (relative to atmospheric) pressure, to remove vapors that are harmful. Air in a laboratory moves toward the hood, and this would seem to increase the possibility of contamination from the items in the lab to the PCR thermal cycler. On the other hand, positive pressure hoods would keep contaminants away from whatever is in them. Positive pressure hoods are used in LCN DNA work done under certain guidelines.
Cultural aside: Boys in the hood was a film by John Singleton.

 

[Grinder]

COLINE COVINGTON does have some standing and claims on her page, I have no reason to doubt, Coline is former Chair of the British Psychoanalytic Council. She is a Training Analyst of the Society of Analytical Psychology, of the British Association of Psychotherapists, and of the London Centre for Psychotherapy. She is former Editor of the Journal of Analytical Psychology.

She seems to have a doctorate in Sociology from LSE which unfairly was always a punch line in the Yes, Minister! series.

Her professional work is to advise CEOs on how to handle the stresses of work. I must say we shouldn't hold it against her that she looks like Ann Coulter.

http://www.freemind.co.uk/

What I find fascinating about Pilot and PQ's citing her is the obvious lack of understanding of the details of the case. She clearly wasn't in court or even closely followed the case. Since a high school journalist was nearly given the plank for saying Amanda was only planning on spending 4 months in Perugia one must wonder how the mistakes of the lovely Coline wouldn't have precluded using her work.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/amanda-knox-free/18041/signs-suggest-amanda-knox-psychopath

A few snippets from her article linked by TJMK:
"After inviting Knox, a Jesuit-educated student, to live with her and two other English students in their cottage, Meredith Kercher soon began having reservations about Knox, particularly about her bringing "strange men" to the house."

"Much has been made of the fact that Knox was caught giggling and seen performing a cartwheel during her first visit to the police station following the discovery of her housemate's brutal murder."

"A short story, entitled, Baby Brother, written by Knox when she was at the University of Washington in Seattle, also prompted suspicion. In the story, Knox writes about a young woman, drugged and raped by another young woman, and describes the victim's pain in lurid detail."

That should be enough.

How can anyone even begin to care what this woman thinks about this case when she obviously doesn't know squat about the case?

 

[smkovalinksy]

COLINE COVINGTON does have some standing and claims on her page, I have no reason to doubt, Coline is former Chair of the British Psychoanalytic Council. She is a Training Analyst of the Society of Analytical Psychology, of the British Association of Psychotherapists, and of the London Centre for Psychotherapy. She is former Editor of the Journal of Analytical Psychology.

She seems to have a doctorate in Sociology from LSE which unfairly was always a punch line in the Yes, Minister! series.

Her professional work is to advise CEOs on how to handle the stresses of work. I must say we shouldn't hold it against her that she looks like Ann Coulter.

http://www.freemind.co.uk/

What I find fascinating about Pilot and PQ's citing her is the obvious lack of understanding of the details of the case. She clearly wasn't in court or even closely followed the case. Since a high school journalist was nearly given the plank for saying Amanda was only planning on spending 4 months in Perugia one must wonder how the mistakes of the lovely Coline wouldn't have precluded using her work.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/amanda-knox-free/18041/signs-suggest-amanda-knox-psychopath

A few snippets from her article linked by TJMK:
"After inviting Knox, a Jesuit-educated student, to live with her and two other English students in their cottage, Meredith Kercher soon began having reservations about Knox, particularly about her bringing "strange men" to the house."

"Much has been made of the fact that Knox was caught giggling and seen performing a cartwheel during her first visit to the police station following the discovery of her housemate's brutal murder."

"A short story, entitled, Baby Brother, written by Knox when she was at the University of Washington in Seattle, also prompted suspicion. In the story, Knox writes about a young woman, drugged and raped by another young woman, and describes the victim's pain in lurid detail."

That should be enough.

How can anyone even begin to care what this woman thinks about this case when she obviously doesn't know squat about the case?

They can't, nor should they.

 

[Kaosium]

On the topic of statement analysis, while i don't subscribe to the notion it is an accepted tool for ascertaining the truth, I think we all do it to a certain degree, or at least something someone says will inevitably evoke a response based on our own way of interpreting other people's behavior or words, refined throughout our lifetime and informed by our experiences with other's deceit or truthfulness. It's human nature in a way but it doesn't prove anything one way or another as I'm sure all of us have times where we've been wrong just as often as we've been right.

In the quote above for example, I immediately wonder why Amanda would even imagine Meredith would have experienced regret, regret for what? Why regret? And what would she have to come to any peace about? This is a really weird statement when you think about it although i'm in no way attempting to analyze it. I just think it's weird, from my own perspective only. Others may think it's perfectly normal to imagine a girl being murdered having the time or presence of mind for experiencing regret for something or other. If I try to imagine Meredith's final moments my imagination can only come up with extreme terror and enormous panic, with not much time for anything else. If I were her friend or roommate I would have nightmares thinking about what she went through and wake up in a cold sweat myself. I would hardly imagine this extending to something she felt regret over or needed to make peace with. But that's just me.

I have always thought Amanda was a bit strange, or at least as quirky as she's been often described, and the above example simply illustrates to me the vast difference in thinking between her and me. Those words jumped out at me as "what a weird thing to say" but I couldn't ever go so far as to conclude it meant anything ominous although I'm sure Seamus might.

Actually I understand implicitly what Amanda probably meant there, it's one of the reasons I don't spend much time in the murder room on the re-creation of the crime, my mind automatically goes there, and I'd rather it didn't. Except with the analysis of the forensic evidence of the murder room by Ron Hendry and others, not available to Amanda at the time, I have to put Rudy Guede on top of her at that moment which makes her final thoughts (in my imagination) even more macabre. I can't help but wonder what it might have been like, to try to imagine just what would go through someone's mind at a moment like that, which is why I like to spend as little time thinking about that particular instant as I can, despite my avid interest in other facets of the case.

I certainly understand how it might come off as weird and perhaps even Amanda unsympathetic as a result. I've wondered if her thinking about this might have lead to her comment to one of the English girls regarding Meredith bleeding to death, which in the movie was rather subdued and introspective, which I guess is probably an incorrect 'take' on that moment, as I kinda suspect it was rather snappish in nature, in part because it was remembered so well and brought up as 'evidence' against her.

However it becomes more understandable to me if she'd actually contemplated at that point what Meredith's final moments were like (minus Rudy Guede for this part) without knowing the fate of her sick mother, knowing she was going to die and that quite likely no force on earth could stop it, though perhaps even hoping against hope that someone might find her in her last moments and get her to a hospital, or that they might be on their way as Rudy called them when he left. What did she, or anyone else in a similar situation think in a moment like that? Does the pain and terror subside, do the chemicals the brain releases in those moments bring peace, or does one spend one's last moments 'raging against the dying of the light' in utter futility?

Yuck, I'd rather not think about it.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Actually I understand implicitly what Amanda probably meant there, it's one of the reasons I don't spend much time in the murder room on the re-creation of the crime, my mind automatically goes there, and I'd rather it didn't. Except with the analysis of the forensic evidence of the murder room by Ron Hendry and others, not available to Amanda at the time, I have to put Rudy Guede on top of her at that moment which makes her final thoughts (in my imagination) even more macabre. I can't help but wonder what it might have been like, to try to imagine just what would go through someone's mind at a moment like that, which is why I like to spend as little time thinking about that particular instant as I can, despite my avid interest in other facets of the case.

I certainly understand how it might come off as weird and perhaps even Amanda unsympathetic as a result. I've wondered if her thinking about this might have lead to her comment to one of the English girls regarding Meredith bleeding to death, which in the movie was rather subdued and introspective, which I guess is probably an incorrect 'take' on that moment, as I kinda suspect it was rather snappish in nature, in part because it was remembered so well and brought up as 'evidence' against her.

However it becomes more understandable to me if she'd actually contemplated at that point what Meredith's final moments were like (minus Rudy Guede for this part) without knowing the fate of her sick mother, knowing she was going to die and that quite likely no force on earth could stop it, though perhaps even hoping against hope that someone might find her in her last moments and get her to a hospital, or that they might be on their way as Rudy called them when he left. What did she, or anyone else in a similar situation think in a moment like that? Does the pain and terror subside, do the chemicals the brain releases in those moments bring peace, or does one spend one's last moments 'raging against the dying of the light' in utter futility?

Yuck, I'd rather not think about it.

It is truly awful to think about, especially with a young person under violent circumstances. According to binary mind theorists such as Anthony Peake, the brain would be flooded with dopamine, dimethyltriptamine, and other chemicals which would cause a feeling of dissociation, peace, calm, objectivity, etc.

Scientist Susan Blackmore believes these chemicals account for Near Death Experiences, and the sensation of being outside and above one's body.

Due to Meredith's trauma, she likely saw the events from the ceiling, and felt she was looking down on them. This is not spiritual but neuroscientific information.

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium,

I may not be following you here. A fume hood is under negative (relative to atmospheric) pressure, to remove vapors that are harmful. Air in a laboratory moves toward the hood, and this would seem to increase the possibility of contamination from the items in the lab to the PCR thermal cycler. On the other hand, positive pressure hoods would keep contaminants away from whatever is in them. Positive pressure hoods are used in LCN DNA work done under certain guidelines.
Cultural aside: Boys in the hood was a film by John Singleton.

I was pointing out that it appeared that Stefanoni didn't seem to understand this, that a vacuum created by a fume hood would increase the possibilities of contamination for the reason you detailed. As Dr Waterbury notes¹ in that link, those positive pressure hoods are required for LCN/LT work but unavailable to Stefanoni. She apparently thought the negative-pressure fume hood was required instead--perhaps the worst place to put it--which was noticed by that anonymous whistle-blower, and that fact lends credence to his letter, unsigned or not.


¹

Stefanoni’s procedure, in sharp contrast to these requirements, was performed in an ordinary DNA analysis laboratory with other DNA units present. An ultra-clean laboratory, positive air pressure systems, and photo and chemical DNA sterilization are vital techniques to avoid contamination of samples within the laboratory. None of these facilities and procedures appears to have existed for Stefanoni’s test. That makes four more technique deficiencies.

 

[LondonJohn]

They can't, nor should they.

In fact, regardless of how much detail Covington did or didn't know about the case, it would still be a gross ethical violation for her to be making these sorts of diagnoses - however tentative - under the aegis of her professional qualifications. Ethically-aware psychiatrists/psychologists understand that before even attempting to attach these sorts of specific psychiatric labels to an individual, it is mandatory to subject that individual to a number of specially-designed tests and 1-to-1 interviews. It's clinically impossible and thoroughly inappropriate to even attempt diagnoses of this sort based on nothing more than remote observation of a snippet of the subject's behaviour, gleaned from TV reports and newspaper articles.

In short, Covington has abandoned her professional integrity in search of personal publicity. The correct response by her to any media request for a clinical opinion on Amanda Knox would be something like "I'm sorry, I can't offer any kind of diagnosis on Knox: it's impossible to do so with the severely limited information available to me". Instead, Covington chose to offer a cod-diagnosis, presumably because she wanted to see her name and opinions in print, and because she has a business to promote. Dreadful, and deeply improper.

 

[LondonJohn]

I was pointing out that it appeared that Stefanoni didn't seem to understand this, that a vacuum created by a fume hood would increase the possibilities of contamination for the reason you detailed. As Dr Waterbury notes¹ in that link, those positive pressure hoods are required for LCN/LT work but unavailable to Stefanoni. She apparently thought the negative-pressure fume hood was required instead--perhaps the worst place to put it--which was noticed by that anonymous whistle-blower, and that fact lends credence to his letter, unsigned or not.


¹

And this is central to all that is wrong about not-a-doctor Stefanoni and her laboratory. Not only was that laboratory manifestly not equipped to conduct low-template DNA analysis, but apparently Stefanoni didn't even know why that was a problem.

Many of the most idiotic pro-guilt commentators (chiefly those who have never stepped into a laboratory and who have no scientific training whatsoever) like to make the grotesquely-incorrect assertion that if LCN DNA analysis was ruled inadmissible here, then it should logically render all LCN DNA work ever done anywhere in the world open to high suspicion. And they then go on to make the reverse illogical assertion: LCN DNA has been accepted as accurate in many other criminal cases around the world, ergo it should not be rendered inadmissible in the Knox/Sollecito case.

Of course, the above "argument" is as specious as it is ignorant. The crucial point is that low-template DNA work cannot be regarded as accurate/admissible unless very specific and detailed protocols/procedures are followed in order to virtually eliminate the risk of lab contamination. This risk is manageable for ordinary PCR DNA work without these specific protocols/procedures, because the relatively high amounts of DNA being analysed mean that any low-level contamination is highly unlikely to corrupt the analysis. However, when only tiny amounts of DNA are being analysed, even a few rogue strands of contaminant DNA can dramatically corrupt the analysis.

And that, of course, is why things like UV equipment sterilisation, total physical separation of low-template lab areas from other DNA lab areas, and positive pressure ventilation of the workspace are absolutely mandatory when working with low template amounts of DNA. The apparent ignorance that not-a-doctor Stefanoni has in this regard is a searing indictment of her professional knowledge and expertise. And it's even more incredible when one realises that even if she had not known all this at the time of the 2007/2008 DNA work, there's simply no excuse for her not to know it by 2011.

 

[Grinder]

I would like to find out what people think the motivations will look like.

I think it is clear that Hellmann will say that there is no evidence of a staged break in.

I think he will say that Curatolo and Quintavalle offer no testimony of value. The former because of the contradictions (disco buses and first police interviews), the delay in coming forward, and his admitted drug use at the time of the murder. The latter because of his first interview conflicting with his final testimony and the other employee's contradicting account.

Nara's testimony can be believed as the best truth she can remember, but really, even if she heard a scream and heard people running, it really doesn't go to naming the perpetrators. Her precision on the time being lacking and dubious ability to hear precisely what she reported also diminishes the value of her account. Hellmann may well also say that the time she thinks doesn't really fit with all the TOD evidence.

All three of the above witnesses were first discovered by the media after giving different accounts to the police. I would think that the first two should be charged with calunnia.

The footprint on the mat will be judged to be compatible with hundreds or thousands of feet in Perugia. The luminol prints will be judged to be from an indeterminate substance and the prints vague and not a match to Amanda. Hellmann may point out that not getting reference prints from the other girls was a major mistake.

The mixed DNA and Meredith's blood will be shown to be normal in a shared bedroom, particularly the way Stefanoni collected the samples.

I can't think of any other direct circumstantial evidence right now.

How do others think Hellmann will write the motivations?

 

[smkovalinksy]

I would like to find out what people think the motivations will look like.

I think it is clear that Hellmann will say that there is no evidence of a staged break in.

I think he will say that Curatolo and Quintavalle offer no testimony of value. The former because of the contradictions (disco buses and first police interviews), the delay in coming forward, and his admitted drug use at the time of the murder. The latter because of his first interview conflicting with his final testimony and the other employee's contradicting account.

Nara's testimony can be believed as the best truth she can remember, but really, even if she heard a scream and heard people running, it really doesn't go to naming the perpetrators. Her precision on the time being lacking and dubious ability to hear precisely what she reported also diminishes the value of her account. Hellmann may well also say that the time she thinks doesn't really fit with all the TOD evidence.

All three of the above witnesses were first discovered by the media after giving different accounts to the police. I would think that the first two should be charged with calunnia.

The footprint on the mat will be judged to be compatible with hundreds or thousands of feet in Perugia. The luminol prints will be judged to be from an indeterminate substance and the prints vague and not a match to Amanda. Hellmann may point out that not getting reference prints from the other girls was a major mistake.

The mixed DNA and Meredith's blood will be shown to be normal in a shared bedroom, particularly the way Stefanoni collected the samples.

I can't think of any other direct circumstantial evidence right now.

How do others think Hellmann will write the motivations?

I think Hellmann will be highly critical of the logic employed by Massei, and counter it vigorously , item by item. I think he will support the idea of Guede as lone burglar. He will likely opine that the assault and knifing were unplanned and escalated rapidly upon encountering MK, and that Guede was a disorganized offender. He will point out that Guede fled to Germany, as others stayed and dealt with the aftermath, and who then could doubt that the responsibility is Guede's, and Guede's alone?
ETA: I expect Hellmann's report to be so meticulous and robust, that the Supreme Court will uphold it.

 

[LondonJohn]

I wouldn't be eager to defend the people you cite either, but if you make an argument using them to bolster your point, you are not just a messenger. You have to defend them or come up with something better.

But for you, let me address this directly to them, instead of you. Patrick, you are a money grubbing lying liar. Dr. Covington, you are an arrogant, unprofessional, unethical quack.

In Lumumba's case, I find it impossible to conclude anything other than that he's been "got to" by Perugia's police and/or prosecutors, and that he's been goaded by greed and his lawyer into continuing his vehement attack on Knox. I can't find any other reason to explain why he made such a detailed and serious set of allegations in the Mail article concerning his treatment during his arrest and interrogation, yet rather than suing the Mail for misquoting or misrepresenting him (and I rather suspect he would have found the money and the reputation correction rather useful) he did no more than make a mealy-mouthed retraction of the allegations.

After all, either Lumumba did say these things to the Mail reporter or he didn't (and I'm in little doubt that he did say them); and if he did say them, they were either true or they weren't. If he said those things and he lied, then why did the police simply allow him to "retract them", rather than prosecuting him for calunnia and taking concurrent civil action? If he didn't say them (and therefore the Mail made the quotes up), then why didn't Lumumba - and the Perugia police for that matter - sue the Mail?

In short, the only explanation that makes sense is that Lumumba really did say these things, and that they reflected the truth of his ordeal at the hands of the "crack" Perugia police on 6th/7th November 2007. And if that's the case, then the fact that the police/prosecutors have not sought to charge Lumumba with criminal slander (and Machiavelli would be the first to tell us all that prosecutors have an obligation to bring Lumumba to court if they suspect that a criminal offence has been committed) is curious in the extreme.

And, in turn, the only explanation that makes any sense is that the police really did say and do these things to Lumumba (and during his arrest in particular, it's highly likely that there were multiple witnesses - including Lumumba's wife - to the alleged racial and physical abuse that Lumumba said took place during his arrest). And therefore the only explanation that makes sense is that the police/prosecutors called Lumumba in and told him that they could make his life hard or easy, depending on his level of cooperation. I strongly suspect that Lumumba was running his bar in an irregular manner (as probably many (or perhaps most) Italian bars of that sort are run), and that the police/prosecutors therefore knew they had something to "barter" with.

I think that Lumumba and the police came to an uneasy truce. I think Lumumba agreed to "retract" the allegations he'd made in the Mail interview, and not to repeat them to other media outlets, in return for the police being relatively benevolent to him in other ways. I strongly suspect that the police deliberately kept his bar closed for months after the murder - under the patently ludicrous pretext that it was a potential "crime scene" - as a form of insurance and muscle-flexing to keep Lumumba quiet until well into 2008.

I think that Lumumba therefore has no other potential target in his sights but Knox herself. I think that he has therefore channelled all his righteous anger concerning his treatment in November 2007 towards Knox. He also, of course, knows that Knox is his only likely source of financial restitution at this point. I doubt that Lumumba could bring any civil action against the police now - even if he wanted to - and I suspect that both he and the police are very well aware of this factor. It's therefore in his narrow self interest to demonise Knox and demand monetary compensation - it's all he has left now to cling to.

In my opinion, the "Lumumba factor" is a sad and exceptionally unfortunate aspect of this whole sorry case. I think that Lumumba himself is probably far from blameless for the situation that has evolved since November 2007. But I strongly suspect that the chief culprits are senior figures in the Perugia police and/or Prosecutors' Office, who have likely squeezed the unfortunate and pliable Lumumba to suit their own selfish ends.

 

[LondonJohn]

I would like to find out what people think the motivations will look like.

I think it is clear that Hellmann will say that there is no evidence of a staged break in.

I think he will say that Curatolo and Quintavalle offer no testimony of value. The former because of the contradictions (disco buses and first police interviews), the delay in coming forward, and his admitted drug use at the time of the murder. The latter because of his first interview conflicting with his final testimony and the other employee's contradicting account.

Nara's testimony can be believed as the best truth she can remember, but really, even if she heard a scream and heard people running, it really doesn't go to naming the perpetrators. Her precision on the time being lacking and dubious ability to hear precisely what she reported also diminishes the value of her account. Hellmann may well also say that the time she thinks doesn't really fit with all the TOD evidence.

All three of the above witnesses were first discovered by the media after giving different accounts to the police. I would think that the first two should be charged with calunnia.

The footprint on the mat will be judged to be compatible with hundreds or thousands of feet in Perugia. The luminol prints will be judged to be from an indeterminate substance and the prints vague and not a match to Amanda. Hellmann may point out that not getting reference prints from the other girls was a major mistake.

The mixed DNA and Meredith's blood will be shown to be normal in a shared bedroom, particularly the way Stefanoni collected the samples.

I can't think of any other direct circumstantial evidence right now.

How do others think Hellmann will write the motivations?

I largely agree with everything you wrote here about what Hellmann is likely to put in his motivations report. Since the murder/sexual assault/staging/theft acquittals will be on a 530.1 basis, I think that Hellmann will address every piece of prosecution evidence (or non-evidence) related to these charges, and will explain why his court has concluded that none of them tends to point to the guilt of Knox and/or Sollecito.

He will obviously write that the DNA evidence "against" Knox and Sollecito is fundamentally flawed (for a variety of very serious reasons) and is therefore inadmissible.

He will write that Curatolo, Quintavalle, Capezzali and Monacchia are unreliable as witnesses.

He will write that the time of death is likely to have been well before 10pm, according to all the available evidence (the autopsy stomach contents, the failure of Meredith to phone her mother again after the aborted 8.56pm call, the curious phone activity on Meredith's UK phone around 10pm, the likely position of Meredith's UK phone when the MMS message was incoming at 10.13pm, the state of dress of Meredith at the time of her death, the timing given by Guede in his Skype call).

He will then write that this ToD, when put against the known location and computer activity relating to Knox and Sollecito, and the known presence of the people in the broken-down car, means that it would be very unlikely indeed for Knox and/or Sollecito to have been present in the cottage at the time of the murder.

He will state that Meredith's neck wounds were very likely caused by one knife, the imprint of which was left on Meredith's sheet. I think he will also state that it is entirely possible that the murder was committed by one person working alone. Note, however, that he does not necessarily have to mention Guede in this respect: his court's only job was to judge Knox and Sollecito.

He will write that the bathmat print cannot be attributable to Sollecito with any degree of accuracy, and that it is also a potential match to Guede. In addition, he will write that the lone print is not in itself evidence of a clean-up of other prints in the vicinity - he will state that the print was likely made by the subject stepping in dilute blood/water in the bathroom, rather than by the subject stepping barefoot into Meredith's undiluted blood around her body (thus negating the theory that there "ought to" be other bloody prints in between the bedroom and the bathroom).

He will write that the blood evidence in the bathroom is entirely consistent with Knox depositing a small drop of blood from her ear-piercing exercise onto the top edge of the tap (faucet) some time before the murder, and that the mixed DNA in the sink is entirely consistent with Knox's normal ablution DNA (e.g. gum/cheek cells from toothbrushing residue) being swabbed up along with Meredith's dilute blood. He will reference the shockingly unprofessional and improper "smearing" collection of these samples that is clearly shown in the crime scene video.

He will state that the state of Filomena's room is in fact entirely consistent with a real break-in. He will criticise investigators for failing to conduct a professional analysis of the ground below the window, and for failing to secure the condition of the inside of the room (to the extent that Filomena herself rummaged through the clothing, and took various items out of the room, even after the discovery of the murder).

There are, of course, many other pieces of evidence and testimony that Hellmann will address in his report, but these are probably the main ones relating to the murder/theft/staging acquittals. It will be extremely interesting to see what he writes regarding the Lumumba slander verdict.

As a slight aside, bear in mind that Curatolo and Quintavalle will not be charged with calunnia. Their testimony - bogus and unreliable as it was - never constituted a direct accusation of criminal conduct against Knox or Sollecito. Curatolo merely said that he saw Knox/Sollecito in the square/basketball court that night, and Quintavalle merely said that he saw Knox in his shop at 7.45am the following morning. While both men's testimony strongly supported the original prosecution case - and, importantly, it directly contradicted Knox's/Sollecito's version of events - neither man directly accused Knox or Sollecito of murder (or any other crime). Therefore calunnia charges can never apply here, regardless of the fact that both men will be totally discredited by Hellmann's report.

And lastly, as another aside, writing "direct circumstantial evidence" is a contradiction in terms: evidence is by definition either direct or circumstantial. In this case, in fact, there is zero direct evidence. Everything is/was circumstantial. And it's important to note here that it's fallacious to assert that a wholly-circumstantial case is by definition a weak case: nearly every single case that comes to trial is either mostly or wholly circumstantial. The point is that there is weak circumstantial evidence and strong circumstantial evidence. It so happens that all the circumstantial evidence in this case was weak - much of it risibly weak. A strong circumstantial case will almost always result in convictions. A weak circumstantial case should usually result in acquittals. That's one reason why the Massei verdict was so dreadful, and it's exactly why Hellmann's court's verdict is entirely correct in regard to the murder/sex/staging/theft charges.

 

[Kaosium]

And this is central to all that is wrong about not-a-doctor Stefanoni and her laboratory. Not only was that laboratory manifestly not equipped to conduct low-template DNA analysis, but apparently Stefanoni didn't even know why that was a problem.

Heh, no doubt she had the doctrine promoted by the dogma that 'DNA doesn't fly' to reassure her, which does beg the question why she thought the fume hood necessary during re-testing, to the extent she'd make a point of noting it for the record. That ought to have been an awkward moment!

Many of the most idiotic pro-guilt commentators (chiefly those who have never stepped into a laboratory and who have no scientific training whatsoever) like to make the grotesquely-incorrect assertion that if LCN DNA analysis was ruled inadmissible here, then it should logically render all LCN DNA work ever done anywhere in the world open to high suspicion. And they then go on to make the reverse illogical assertion: LCN DNA has been accepted as accurate in many other criminal cases around the world, ergo it should not be rendered inadmissible in the Knox/Sollecito case.

I'd say it's like any other science, you have to do it right or you won't get the proper results, and the issue with LCN/LT is that it's very easy to do it wrong, and Stefanoni was very good at doing it wrong.

Of course, the above "argument" is as specious as it is ignorant. The crucial point is that low-template DNA work cannot be regarded as accurate/admissible unless very specific and detailed protocols/procedures are followed in order to virtually eliminate the risk of lab contamination. This risk is manageable for ordinary PCR DNA work without these specific protocols/procedures, because the relatively high amounts of DNA being analysed mean that any low-level contamination is highly unlikely to corrupt the analysis. However, when only tiny amounts of DNA are being analysed, even a few rogue strands of contaminant DNA can dramatically corrupt the analysis.

Yeah, when they're looking for contamination level DNA, contamination itself tends to stand out more! Most of the time it can be easily ignored, as oftentimes with contamination the level will be so low it wouldn't even be taken into account, mere morass from the stochastic sea.

Even with all their sloppy procedures and techniques, from either lack of equipment or training due to budget cuts or simply no incentive to do it right, if they'd simply have 'thrown out' or never 'discovered' the DNA on the bra clasp or the knife no one would ever have (seriously) mentioned it, which is probably why Rudy Guede's lawyer, a celebrity-seeker himself of sorts going by his current association with the Scazzi case as well, never even contested the DNA evidence against Rudy Guede.

And that, of course, is why things like UV equipment sterilisation, total physical separation of low-template lab areas from other DNA lab areas, and positive pressure ventilation of the workspace are absolutely mandatory when working with low template amounts of DNA. The apparent ignorance that not-a-doctor Stefanoni has in this regard is a searing indictment of her professional knowledge and expertise. And it's even more incredible when one realises that even if she had not known all this at the time of the 2007/2008 DNA work, there's simply no excuse for her not to know it by 2011.

The apparent disinterest on her part (or Novelli's for that matter) regarding scientific integrity in a high profile case like this is rather frightening when I think on it. Apparently going from the rumblings elsewhere here the strategy is to go after Vecchiotti's reputation; it would be nice if there was some fallout detrimental to Stefanoni and Novelli as a result of this instead.

 

[LondonJohn]

On the topic of statement analysis, while i don't subscribe to the notion it is an accepted tool for ascertaining the truth, I think we all do it to a certain degree, or at least something someone says will inevitably evoke a response based on our own way of interpreting other people's behavior or words, refined throughout our lifetime and informed by our experiences with other's deceit or truthfulness. It's human nature in a way but it doesn't prove anything one way or another as I'm sure all of us have times where we've been wrong just as often as we've been right.
In the quote above for example, I immediately wonder why Amanda would even imagine Meredith would have experienced regret, regret for what? Why regret? And what would she have to come to any peace about? This is a really weird statement when you think about it although i'm in no way attempting to analyze it. I just think it's weird, from my own perspective only. Others may think it's perfectly normal to imagine a girl being murdered having the time or presence of mind for experiencing regret for something or other. If I try to imagine Meredith's final moments my imagination can only come up with extreme terror and enormous panic, with not much time for anything else. If I were her friend or roommate I would have nightmares thinking about what she went through and wake up in a cold sweat myself. I would hardly imagine this extending to something she felt regret over or needed to make peace with. But that's just me.
I have always thought Amanda was a bit strange, or at least as quirky as she's been often described, and the above example simply illustrates to me the vast difference in thinking between her and me. Those words jumped out at me as "what a weird thing to say" but I couldn't ever go so far as to conclude it meant anything ominous although I'm sure Seamus might.
,


I agree. Also, I believe gut instinct on the part of the investigators/prosecution is directly responsible for many wrongful convictions. Mignini was definitely a case in point.

Much depends on the breadth of the definition of "statement analysis". If one defines the term as a general indicator of culpability, and as a mere tool to help police narrow down a suspect pool, then I think it has potential validity. It's very well-known that criminals (or, indeed, any miscreant) can give certain "tells" in interviews, which can indeed be very helpful in either elimination of any given individual or an increased focus on that individual. But it must be stressed very strongly that this form of "statement analysis" should not be used as probative evidence in itself. Authorities will still need other solid evidence to bring charges and prove guilt - this form of "statement analysis" should be strictly limited to assisting in the identification or elimination of potential suspects, and not as any proof of guilt.

However, the other definition of "statement analysis" - the one employed by our friend Seamus - is demonstrably pseudoscientific bunk. There is no credible evidence that one can infer an individual's underlying psychology and/or criminality from these sorts of sub-Freudian interpretations of language. Furthermore, it's subject to all sorts of confirmation bias and suspect-centric focus, and has been comprehensively rubbished by law enforcement agencies, courts and psychologists/psychiatrists throughout the world. It's arrant nonsense, which hides beneath a veneer of "sciencey" rhetoric and jargon.

 

[davefoc]

I wonder if you have found common ground with Machiavelli on much of the above LJ. Of course, Machiavelli will think that the reason that Hellman's motivation report will include those things is because Hellman is corrupt and possibly because he is part of a conspiracy to free RS/AK and screw over the noble Mignini, but I think that Machiavelli's predictions about the Hellman court's motivation report might be similar to yours.

 

[Antony]

I think Hellmann will be highly critical of the logic employed by Massei, and counter it vigorously , item by item. I think he will support the idea of Guede as lone burglar. He will likely opine that the assault and knifing were unplanned and escalated rapidly upon encountering MK, and that Guede was a disorganized offender. He will point out that Guede fled to Germany, as others stayed and dealt with the aftermath, and who then could doubt that the responsibility is Guede's, and Guede's alone?
ETA: I expect Hellmann's report to be so meticulous and robust, that the Supreme Court will uphold it.

He will also have to rationalise the "guilty" verdict against Amanda on the calunnia charge. I agree as far as the acquittals go, but it's certainly my hope that Amanda's lawyers will challenge the calunnia conviction, on the grounds that the only evidence for it is her signature on 2 documents that were typed for her in a language she was not familiar with, and were ruled inadmissible in the murder trial. In addition, they had to make the murder charge their priority, and were therefore not able adequately to focus on the calunnia.

We have seen some pro-guilt posters claim that the SC is not at liberty to strike out the calunnia conviction without ordering a re-trial on all counts, but this has the ring of desperation on their part, for me. Is there any basis for this view (LJ)?

 

[LondonJohn]

I wonder if you have found common ground with Machiavelli on much of the above LJ. Of course, Machiavelli will think that the reason that Hellman's motivation report will include those things is because Hellman is corrupt and possibly because he is part of a conspiracy to free RS/AK and screw over the noble Mignini, but I think that Machiavelli's predictions about the Hellman court's motivation report might be similar to yours.

Ah, well, that's a second-order issue: in other words, it's not about what conclusions will Hellmann's court come to, but why Hellmann's court has come to those conclusions.

And of course some idiots will argue that Hellmann's court has corrupt or otherwise nefarious reasons for coming to certain conclusions. As an example, let's take a single piece of evidence that Hellmann is likely to discuss in his report: the bath mat partial foot print. Hellmann is inevitably going to say in his report that the print does not point to the guilt of Sollecito. He will also almost certainly say that the reason why this is not evidence of Sollecito's guilt is that the prosecution could not show conclusively why this print should be a) excluded as Guede's, and b) positively attributed to Sollecito. He will also likely say that the mechanism for the depositing of this print does not in itself point to a clean-up of other similar prints leading from Meredith's room to the bath mat.

Now, you and I - and, in my opinion, every logical, objective, informed observer - would say that the reason why Hellmann's court reached this conclusion regarding the bath mat print is that the court correctly decided that Rinaldi's analysis was bogus and incorrect, and that the court used its own common sense and experience to judge that a) the print could indeed belong to Guede, b) it can in no way be positively linked to Sollecito, and c) there do not have to have been other similar prints leading up to this one. Some other people - perhaps those with an agenda to pursue, or an over-investment in a particular position, or perhaps by virtue of sheer ignorance or stupidity - might try to argue that Hellmann's court was corrupted and had a subjective agenda to acquit, and that therefore the court had to find a bogus way to disregard the bath mat partial print in order to support the case for acquittal.

But, as I've said before, there are many people who continue to argue that homeopathy has a direct pharmacological impact on the human body, or that the Moon landings were faked by the US Government. At the end of the day, all you can do is comprehensively refute the "arguments" of such people, using logic and reason. But if they continue to hold their demonstrably incorrect beliefs, all you can really do is laugh at them, and ultimately ignore them.

 

[smkovalinksy]

He will also have to rationalise the "guilty" verdict against Amanda on the calunnia charge. I agree as far as the acquittals go, but it's certainly my hope that Amanda's lawyers will challenge the calunnia conviction, on the grounds that the only evidence for it is her signature on 2 documents that were typed for her in a language she was not familiar with, and were ruled inadmissible in the murder trial. In addition, they had to make the murder charge their priority, and were therefore not able adequately to focus on the calunnia.

We have seen some pro-guilt posters claim that the SC is not at liberty to strike out the calunnia conviction without ordering a re-trial on all counts, but this doesn't has the ring of desperation on their part, for me. Is there any basis for this view (LJ)?

I wonder this, too; and hope LJ can answer.