Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[smkovalinksy]

I wonder if anyone at TJMK or PMF would accept being convicted of murder based on the DNA presented in this case -- A spec of biological material so small, even LCN testing couldn't be reliable.. and a minor trace (one of three or more male traces) found on a piece of evidence left lying on the floor for 46 days. Both items are so obviously suspect that no one in their right mind would accept them as reliable and/or verifiable.

It has always fascinated me how the guilt crowd can argue with a straight face that it doesn't matter that the bra clasp sat on the floor for 46 days because it had Raffaele's DNA on it and how else could his DNA have gotten there. But this is exactly what contamination is - transference of DNA through improper collection or testing - and it's why there are standards that must be followed to prevent it from happening. If you don't follow the standards you create the potential for contamination of the evidence and the results must be considered unreliable. It is not up to the defense to prove that contamination did happen, only that the potential existed as a result of failing to comply with documented standards. But I guess for some, the ends justify the means. They got what they wanted so, for them, it did not matter how they got it.

Right. But this is the reason that it was rejected by the independent experts, and the convictions were overturned. So it was not a wise method regarding long term gains, only short term.

 

[smkovalinksy]

12) Amanda has a neck wound and her first earring hole on one ear was torn. Amanda claimed that the neck wound was a hickey but looking at pictures of her neck make that unlikely. The earring was explained as a piercing that got infected. That also seems unlikely.

Yes, and we can see that these bits of "evidence" were not deemed important enough to address in court at any time; certainly not in the Hellmann report, nor in the Massei, I assume, though I never read it in its entirety. But I do see these things argued in "citizen journalism" from time to time. I guess Gather.com is such a site...

 

[Grinder]

Hellman offered a reason to convict on callunia I had not thought of - ie. that to him the original signed statements (memorandums #1 and #2) were signed not because she agreed with the detail, but to get the cops out of her face and stop the interrogation. Also, in ordinary circumstances it is no crime to ask for a pen and paper to write down supplementary thoughts once free of the duress - except in this case that instinct was disasteroud, producing memorandums #3 and #4.

Bill people here myself included have been saying that for four years including to you here lately. I'm thinking you don't read the posts that disagree with your opinion. Of course, she agreed to sign to stop the tag team questioning. The statements are very vague and she started to undo them within hours.

You seem unable to understand what duress is. You act like after waking up or when she stopped trembling that it would be no problem to be "normal" and do a proper job of recanting. Here's the definition of duress:
du·ress   [doo-res, dyoo-, door-is, dyoor-] Show IPA
noun
1.compulsion by threat or force; coercion; constraint.
2.Law . such constraint or coercion as will render void a contract or other legal act entered or performed under its influence.
3.forcible restraint, especially imprisonment.

My huge sirprise at this point is that this reasonsing is not made use of by PGP folk. They are busy massaging the evidence like Sollecito scrunching is toes - I mean, it's four years people, and you're not even settled on what the basic evidence is?

Let's move on.

The mat print has been attributed to Raf by the system until Hellmann finally used good sense and just looked at the evidence and could see it was much more like Rudy's print than Raf's, so they had no need to make any argument about the analysis.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill people here myself included have been saying that for four years including to you here lately. I'm thinking you don't read the posts that disagree with your opinion. Of course, she agreed to sign to stop the tag team questioning. The statements are very vague and she started to undo them within hours.

You seem unable to understand what duress is. You act like after waking up or when she stopped trembling that it would be no problem to be "normal" and do a proper job of recanting. Here's the definition of duress:
du·ress   [doo-res, dyoo-, door-is, dyoor-] Show IPA
noun
1.compulsion by threat or force; coercion; constraint.
2.Law . such constraint or coercion as will render void a contract or other legal act entered or performed under its influence.
3.forcible restraint, especially imprisonment.

The mat print has been attributed to Raf by the system until Hellmann finally used good sense and just looked at the evidence and could see it was much more like Rudy's print than Raf's, so they had no need to make any argument about the analysis.

I read your posts every word. Please don't confuse "disagreement" with "not reading".

Like many debates in the case this goes round and round. I could very easily say that no one reads my posts because they disagree.

Yet, both Massei and Hellman seem to be reading my posts and agreeing. (I cannot say it the other way around, because I had this opinion before Hellmann report was even published! He then added a reasoning to the calunnia conviction that I had not thought of - most assuredly measured debate here did not ferret out that reason either.)

The confusion I see here is the difference between criminal responsibility and moral responsibility. I apply the moral responsibility to the sentenceing, so I really have nothing left to argue with you about, because I actually DO agree with you about duress, even as you somehow divine my own intellectual merits.

Let me say it again, for the umpteenth time, lest it is others who do not read my posts - the criminal culpability is as Hellmann and Massei found. Where I differ with then, and agree with you, is that my instinct would be to apply the "duress reasoning" to sentencing.

At the end of the day, if the real lesson learned here is that we all have to speak the truth no matter that we're being beaten with a rubber hose, then we need to speak the truth. Look up what happened to Patty Hearst in the 1970s. She's now a middle aged woman well aged in wisdom, and I bet all the money in my pocket against all the money in your pocket that she would now speak the truth no matter what - or at least at the earliest opportunity post-duress.

If that's a lesson AK learns out of this she will be a better human being for it. Heck, I'd be a better human being for it. If I've learned nothing from this case, let it be that the onus put on Knox as a 20-year old also belongs to me as an old fart.

The law cannot make a distinction between me and her on the conviction part of it. But most certainly on the sentencing part. If it were me, I'd expect to get the full 8 years under Italian law for the same thing. At sentencing it would be reasonable to expect me to be able to tell all of them to go to hell.

 

[Grinder]

Bill the comment about not reading had to do with the comment you made that Hellmann saying that she may not have totally believed what she signed was a new concept for you. As I said in my last post people have been saying that all along. She actually said she did believe Patrick had done it when she signed because the police had kindly helped her remember.

It has been widely documented that people when questioned using techniques similar to those used by the ILE actually do believe what they admit to even when it is false.

It's not just this case and Amanda that keeps me responding but rather the idea that no matter what the questioner does, no matter what the circumstances one should tell the truth even if one doesn't know anymore what the truth is.

At the end of the day, if the real lesson learned here is that we all have to speak the truth no matter that we're being beaten with a rubber hose, then we need to speak the truth. Look up what happened to Patty Hearst in the 1970s. She's now a middle aged woman well aged in wisdom, and I bet all the money in my pocket against all the money in your pocket that she would now speak the truth no matter what - or at least at the earliest opportunity post-duress.

What Patty Hearst's Stockholm syndrome has to do with this I don't really know but the idea that the victim of a rubber hose beating should serve time because they didn't speak the truth soon enough for you seems, well, crazy.

It reminds me of people that want insane people to be as responsible as sane people. I've heard all too often that being mentally ill is no excuse for doing this or that - sorry don't buy that either.

 

[Antony]

I wonder if anyone at TJMK or PMF would accept being convicted of murder based on the DNA presented in this case -- A spec of biological material so small, even LCN testing couldn't be reliable.. and a minor trace (one of three or more male traces) found on a piece of evidence left lying on the floor for 46 days. Both items are so obviously suspect that no one in their right mind would accept them as reliable and/or verifiable.

It has always fascinated me how the guilt crowd can argue with a straight face that it doesn't matter that the bra clasp sat on the floor for 46 days because it had Raffaele's DNA on it and how else could his DNA have gotten there. But this is exactly what contamination is - transference of DNA through improper collection or testing - and it's why there are standards that must be followed to prevent it from happening. If you don't follow the standards you create the potential for contamination of the evidence and the results must be considered unreliable. It is not up to the defense to prove that contamination did happen, only that the potential existed as a result of failing to comply with documented standards. But I guess for some, the ends justify the means. They got what they wanted so, for them, it did not matter how they got it.

The maddening thing about these 2 pieces of evidence - supposedly the cherries on the top of the "mountain" of prosecution evidence - is that they don't prove anything even if genuine. The guilters always claimed there was no innocent explanation of them; but the guilty explanation was itself so unlikely as to be virtually excluded as well. There was no way that the murderer(s) would transport a knife from Raff's flat to the cottage and back again when it wasn't even the only knife used; and anyone taking part in the attack on Meredith would have no occasion to touch the metal hook of her bra clasp. That leaves contamination as the overwhelmingly likely explanation - and that's even without knowing about the irregular way they were collected, handled and tested.

But what gives them both away straight off is that they were the result of very obvious conjuring tricks by the investigating officers: "we take an ordinary knife and ... Abracadabra! It's the murder weapon!" And even more theatrically in the notorious YouTube video: "here we are 'finding' the bra clasp ... oh, let me look at it too ... you can see the DNA on it right there ... here we are photographing it next to a 'Y' marker .... Abracadabra! It's Raffaele's DNA!"

 

[CDHost]

The bathmat print was visible to the human eye and was set in diluted blood (blood/water mixture).

The guilters put so much on that print because if it belonged to Raffaele it would almost certainly have put him at the cottage on the night of the murder. Of course the print was not a match for Sollecito. In fact the print was inconclusive.

Thanks for the clarification. I see so it is a key fact in that it proves at the very least the cleanup were their theory of the print correct. That makes sense, it is an inclusive piece of evidence with probative value... I can see why they would be focused on it, when Hellman asserts it is definitely Guede's.

Oh well I guess they are right to get worked about that one. Massei did the same thing a hundred times to prove his version of events but still I don't like to see Hellman doing it. I really am starting to question the practice of how Italy handles the motivations report as forcing judges to draw conclusions from the evidence that is unwarranted.

 

[Grinder]

First off Merry Christmas to all. May this be a healing time for all those involved in this sad event.

Antony wrote:

But what gives them both away straight off is that they were the result of very obvious conjuring tricks by the investigating officers: "we take an ordinary knife and ... Abracadabra! It's the murder weapon!" And even more theatrically in the notorious YouTube video: "here we are 'finding' the bra clasp ... oh, let me look at it too ... you can see the DNA on it right there ... here we are photographing it next to a 'Y' marker .... Abracadabra! It's Raffaele's DNA!"

Generally agree with you. The video was made with defense lawyers in a van outside IIRC and the technicians were showing them what they were collecting. It's the only part of that day's video I've ever seen so perhaps they only did it for the bra clasp but that's not what has been said.

Along the same lines, Rudy's print on the mat is so clearly his and not Raf's but the PGP just won'y admit it. That fact doesn't change any of the other "mountain" of evidence and certainly not his "changing" story". Also, they hang onto the "Amanda left at 9 and came back at 1 story when it so obviously was the accounting of the night before.

The recent "maybe he scrunched up his foot theory" is a perfect example of how the PGP have "analysed" from day one. PGP approach: If the glove don't fit, then they must have gained a bunch of weight and besides Amanda had a drug dealer on speed dial. Besides her mother dresses badly and her supporters are all groupies led by a $2 million dollar PR supertanker - obviously guilty - and they are rich white trash.

Why did they pick Rudy's MO for breaking and entering for the staged burglary? Because they knew it fit him because he bragged about it or they read about it in the newspapers or who cares they just knew and they wanted him caught. Why didn't she name him or at least lead the police in his direction? Because, they didn't want him caught. Huh?

Why did they leave the blood in the bathroom? Because they needed something to get others worried about so that they could control the investigation. Okay, that makes no sense but that's what the PGP have said.

Why did they leave the bathmat with a bloody print? Because they didn't see it.

How could Amanda have showered after seeing the bloody footprint? Obviously she is lying because no one could miss seeing that print.

Bill said the lesson is to always tell the truth no matter if you've beaten with a rubber hose etc. - I'd say the lesson is don't write anything on your own, notes, diaries, etc., and ask for a lawyer immediately and then shut up.

The fact that musings of Raffaele in this diary are main fare for PGP is proof.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill the comment about not reading had to do with the comment you made that Hellmann saying that she may not have totally believed what she signed was a new concept for you. As I said in my last post people have been saying that all along. She actually said she did believe Patrick had done it when she signed because the police had kindly helped her remember.

It has been widely documented that people when questioned using techniques similar to those used by the ILE actually do believe what they admit to even when it is false.

No argument from on on any of this. What I was saying was that reading Hellmann, it was the first time the coin dropped for me - that the legal issue is not AK's age, or her demeanor, or her admitedly fragile nature, nor whether or not she actually believed it true what she was signing - Hellmann's nuance is that the intent of the signing was to get the police to back off and end the interrogation - with real harm resulting to Lumumba. Whether this particular nuance has been covered before, I have no idea, and if you want to hit me over the head with "we've covered that at length before" go to it.

It's not just this case and Amanda that keeps me responding but rather the idea that no matter what the questioner does, no matter what the circumstances one should tell the truth even if one doesn't know anymore what the truth is.

This is a point you are going to have to take up with both Massei and Hellmann's panels. The base idea of the law is that we are to tell the truth as we see it. If someone genuinely does not know what the truth is anymore, they have to say that! Once again, the real difference between you and me is that everything you say, I apply to sentencing, meaning that to me the sentice should be as light as possible, if not suspended all together.

I probably won't post again, just because you've probably read my posts before which have said this ad infinitum. It also has the effect of me not really being able to argue with you about "duress", because at base I agree with you; I just apply it differently.

It would be helpful in this conversation if you were to address the isse of where it should be applied, AND NOT the issue of duress itself, or Knox's tender and inexperienced years at the time.

Let me repeat. I agree with you. I apply it differently, as do Hellmann and Massei, who did not sentence the full 6 to 8 years they should have.

What Patty Hearst's Stockholm syndrome has to do with this I don't really know but the idea that the victim of a rubber hose beating should serve time because they didn't speak the truth soon enough for you seems, well, crazy.

Patty Hearst has everything to do with it. She was kidnapped. She was put into a situation of duress not of her making, worse than interrogation. I for one am serious when I say that her real crime was one of being young and naive. But one point she commited another crime which was prosecutable under California law. She was sentenced to a rather long term of jail for it, and it took a presidential pardon to get her out - which is, to my mind, a just use of a presidential pardon. See? I think these things apply at sentencing! This situation may seem crazy to you, but the duress that Patty Hearst suffered was, in my opinion, light years above the duress in the interrogation. Apologies for saying that, that's just the way I look at it.

It reminds me of people that want insane people to be as responsible as sane people. I've heard all too often that being mentally ill is no excuse for doing this or that - sorry don't buy that either.

It doesn't remind me of that at all. The law is fully capable of diverting cases involving an accused having reduced capacity.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill said the lesson is to always tell the truth no matter if you've beaten with a rubber hose etc. - I'd say the lesson is don't write anything on your own, notes, diaries, etc., and ask for a lawyer immediately and then shut up.

The fact that musings of Raffaele in this diary are main fare for PGP is proof.

Agreed. 100%. It is no crime to be one who needs to collect their thoughts on paper. However, after enduring a grueling interrogation - with no lawyer and no recordings and with a future court ready to rule the interrogation illegal because of it, it is legally fatal to give in to one's natural inclinations on this.

Me? I'm a talker. I know what it is to believe so much in my innocence that I'll try to engage my inquisitor in dialogue. I mean, it is fully logical to me, and I can talk with the best of them.

And a good lawyer would tell me to STFU. I'd say, "No no no, I just need to explain to them, ...... ", the lawyer would repeat, STFU.

The biggest mistakes truly innocent people make are the mistakes made early on, before they're aware of the legal peril they are in.

No it is not a crime to be young and naive. That's got nothing to do with this. It IS a mistake to start talking. That's exactly what the Reid Technique of interrogation is designed to do. Leaad you exactly where you do not want to go.

And for innocent people, it has the potential to lead you to places you didn't know existed.

 

[Grinder]

Just read Yummi's translation of the Hellmann section on TOD and was informed for the first time that Monacchia, Dramis, and Quintavalle were all discovered a year after the murder by the same trainee journalist.

Wow, just wow.

Hellman's analysis seems totally sound but I'm curious why no mention of the stomach contents is there.

He correctly assembles the hard evidence of phone records and destroys the Massei assumption that Meredith went home to study and early sleep but instead played with her phone for over an hour and didn't try her mother again.

He has her dying before 10:15 at the latest, which is consistent with Rudy's time and the stomach contents.

He does a nice job of undermining Nara et al. without being nasty.

 

[snook1]

Yummi is Maresca? Is that true?

 

[smkovalinksy]

Just read Yummi's translation of the Hellmann section on TOD and was informed for the first time that Monacchia, Dramis, and Quintavalle were all discovered a year after the murder by the same trainee journalist.

Wow, just wow.

Hellman's analysis seems totally sound but I'm curious why no mention of the stomach contents is there.

He correctly assembles the hard evidence of phone records and destroys the Massei assumption that Meredith went home to study and early sleep but instead played with her phone for over an hour and didn't try her mother again.

He has her dying before 10:15 at the latest, which is consistent with Rudy's time and the stomach contents.

He does a nice job of undermining Nara et al. without being nasty.

I think it is important that Hellmann mentions that the victim had expressed her intent of going to bed early, yet was fully dressed when the attack occurred, which places the attack earlier and is less ambiguous than the reported scream. It is odd that stomach contents are not gone into, unless he feels they are unreliable- in any case as you note they are corroborated by the other things he delves into.

 

[Kaosium]

Just read Yummi's translation of the Hellmann section on TOD and was informed for the first time that Monacchia, Dramis, and Quintavalle were all discovered a year after the murder by the same trainee journalist.

Wow, just wow.

Hellman's analysis seems totally sound but I'm curious why no mention of the stomach contents is there.

This is where the 'truth' decided in court can be different than the 'truth' of what really happened. Remember that quote from after the trial? Here's a good example. The Motivations must rely on objective data as much as it can, and for the first trial the doctors who testified suggested a outside range of 3-4 hours between them. At the time they testified, the defense had no idea that Mignini would push back the ToD more than an hour in order to incorporate Curatolo's fanciful testimony, and the ToD of Rudy's trial of 10:30 was within that outside range, thus the defense didn't place special importance on having doctors especially versed in gastrointestinal functions testify.

If they had, they'd have been able to determine that 3, and especially 4 hours as the prosecution experts testified, would have been extraordinarily rare for a young woman in Meredith's condition with nothing more than a glass of beer or so in her system that might have retarded contents from the stomach entering the duodenum. Lalli, the original coroner, was the closest with his estimate of 2-3 hours, four hours for a girl Meredith's age in her health and under the conditions of consumption and digestion watching a movie then a walk home is basically impossible. At three hours you've basically hit the bottom of the sloping Gaussian curve, anything much beyond that is highly improbable.

However, as a result the 'datum' from the Massei Court has 3-4 hours, which with an averaging of the time the meal started of 6:15, fits with the outside number for a ToD not after 10:15 as they put it due to that curious phone call. Thus even though it's (much) more probable Meredith died at shortly after 9:00 PM, it's still within the outside range of the numbers in court established by the prosecution that the defense didn't think to exploit until the prosecution went to fantasyland in their closing arguments.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

muddied waters

Hellman's analysis seems totally sound but I'm curious why no mention of the stomach contents is there.

Grinder,

I seem to recall someone summarizing Hellman's view on this, and that Hellman did not find a clear time of death from the biological evidence. I seem to recall that Massei muddied the waters a bit, and maybe Hellman did not see through the murk.

 

[Dougm]

<snip>
Me? I'm a talker. I know what it is to believe so much in my innocence that I'll try to engage my inquisitor in dialogue. I mean, it is fully logical to me, and I can talk with the best of them.

And a good lawyer would tell me to STFU. I'd say, "No no no, I just need to explain to them, ...... ", the lawyer would repeat, STFU.

<snip>

This makes me curious. Do you think that, if the situation you describe above actually happened to you, that you should be convicted of a crime?

 

[smkovalinksy]

Was just reading this quote from Mignini, the day after Hellmann's acquittal of Knox and Sollecito. Seeing as Hellmann's motivation report came out on Dec. 16, I wonder if he will soon file the appeal. I wonder also if he is still as fired-up in his stance, or if time has diminished this aspect.

Mignini seems not to understand Zanetti's hyperbolic doubt, to clear the way for a fresh perspective. I find his view of Zanetti's words strangely naive. As though Hellmann and Zanetti were obliged to use the prosecution as their jumping off point. Not exactly the foundation for an appeal.

In any case , they have to the end of January, but am interested to know if there is any news yet in this regard. I feel with Italy's horrendous economic problems the reopening of this seems stale and dated. Perhaps not, but that is the general feeling I get.

Mr Mignini said: 'Massive mistakes were made by the experts and by the panel of judges at the appeal - this is only the second stage.
'We are going to take this to the third and final level at the Supreme Court in Rome.

'The court found her guilty of slander - so why find her guilty of slander? Why did she commit the slander?
'She said that to save herself from the murder charge. She named Patrick Lumumba to save herself and Sollecito simply followed her. Wherever she goes, he goes.'

Mr Mignini also suggested that Knox's appeal should have been stopped at the very beginning because of a comment made by an assistant judge, Massimo Zanetti.
Judge Zanetti told the court at the start of the trial:'The only thing we know for certain is that Meredith Kercher was murdered.
Mr Mignini said: 'The judge should have pulled his assistant by the ears and said ''Hey you don’t do that''. In my opinion it shows he was not impartial.
'At that point he should not have taken part in the appeal - this is a very serious error. You don’t say things like that.

'Then another thing that also troubles us is that we saw the experts speak twice with the defence lawyers - that is not correct.
'That is why they were so hostile towards us in the trial - they should have been impartial but instead were hostile to the prosecution.'


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...o-Mignini-appeal-acquittal.html#ixzz1hfXxKfF2

 

[Grinder]

I forgot to add Curatolo to the list of witnesses "found" by the journalism trainee. Or was he found by another journalist?

How many witnesses found by the police and how many found by journalists and other media types.

If you're reading Mach is it common for the media to find most of the important witnesses after a year?

 

[Bill Williams]

This makes me curious. Do you think that, if the situation you describe above actually happened to you, that you should be convicted of a crime?

Probably. On lesser things, like a traffic ticket I once tried to talk the officer out of, I was unsiccessfull. What to me was brilliant logic to the cop was proof of something I did not think, and to this day do not think, I was actually saying. These things notoriously go off the rails - best intentions apparently don't count.

 

[Grinder]

once again someone is posting the foot prints and I just can't see how Raffaele's foot could have left the print. The second toe is either Rudy's or it came from a drip off the toe. The print on the mat appears so dark between the big toe and the foot where Raffaele's either wouldn't leave anything or it would be lighter than the toe and the foot but it isn't.

First the arched area between toe and foot would need to be made wet and then it would it would have to transfer to the mat. Both could happen but how could that space be so dark? The area would pick up less of the liquid and transfer even less because the weight there would be less.

As Hellman says, the toe would need to be upside down to leave a mark with the greatest width at the top, if that dot is part of Raf's toe.