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

[anglolawyer]

Pardon the interruption, but why do we care if Meredith had any alcohol that evening? I don't see the relevance.

Just asking...

Whether she ate or drank something after she got home is relevant to time of death and generally to the reconstruction of what might have happened.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Rudi may have cut himself

Here is the picture of Rudy's hand. I believe this is the one taken by the German police when he was arrested November 20 on a Frankfurt-bound train near Mainz after a conductor found him without a ticket.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t189/zed0101/RudyCutHand.jpg

Dan,

I don't have a strong opinion on this. However, I recall Steve Moore's saying that it was common for inexperienced knife users to cut themselves when stabbing someone else.

 

[Antony]

There are cases where women kill their roommates, and there are cases where a group of adolescents kill someone they know for no reason. But the perps in those cases are always - 100 percent of the time - seriously disturbed people with a history of hostile, aggressive behavior. That may not be apparent to everyone who meets them, but it is apparent to those who know them well.

The people who know Amanda well agree that she is not disturbed or hostile, she has never been physically aggressive toward anyone under any circumstances, and there is no way she ever would be.

But, a cult group has tuned that information out completely because it is not what they want to hear. Instead, they have pieced together a caricature from tabloid stories, statements by people who knew Amanda casually for a few weeks before her arrest (none of which involve aggressive or criminal allegations), and anonymous rumors on the Internet. They elaborate this caricature on their cult website, telling each other that it is the real Amanda, and the Amanda known to her family and close friends is fictional.

Is that "woo"? Yeah, it is.

Of course, they will also disparage the view that "Amanda is too nice to have done this" on the grounds that it's not evidence that a court would ever accept. This misses the point that if someone is accused of something out of character, then there needs to be very solid evidence to support the accusations.

The truth is that the guilt faction know that there really is no genuine evidence in the case, so they try to invent a fictional, crazed, violent, deceitful Amanda in order to make the accusations more credible.

 

[Dan O.]

What kind of knife could rudy have been wielding? We know the general shape from the outline on the bed. There were signs of bruising from impact of the hilt under the major wound on Meredith's neck. Did the print on the bed show a hilt? Is there anything else we could know about this knife?

How would Rudy have been holding the knife in order to create the cut on his finger? Why was the middle finger cut and not the others that would have contacted the blade first if the knife was slipping through his hand?

If Rudy created this cut to simulate the fight, why did he choose that location?

 

[smkovalinksy]

There are cases where women kill their roommates, and there are cases where a group of adolescents kill someone they know for no reason. But the perps in those cases are always - 100 percent of the time - seriously disturbed people with a history of hostile, aggressive behavior. That may not be apparent to everyone who meets them, but it is apparent to those who know them well.

The people who know Amanda well agree that she is not disturbed or hostile, she has never been physically aggressive toward anyone under any circumstances, and there is no way she ever would be.

But, a cult group has tuned that information out completely because it is not what they want to hear. Instead, they have pieced together a caricature from tabloid stories, statements by people who knew Amanda casually for a few weeks before her arrest (none of which involve aggressive or criminal allegations), and anonymous rumors on the Internet. They elaborate this caricature on their cult website, telling each other that it is the real Amanda, and the Amanda known to her family and close friends is fictional.

Is that "woo"? Yeah, it is.

Yes. I agree. They have a psychological theory, and it is more important to them than any evidence. They are jealously guarding it as a sacred truth, and have identified with the victim to a strange degree, considering she is a stranger to them.

In the few cases I am familiar with, in which females stabbed other females, these were desperate people, and far more lonely and troubled than Amanda ever was. In both the Harvard and Protti cases, the girls were really very, very disturbed, and without friends or boyfriends.

Knox really had not even known Meredith long enough to develop any intense rivalry, and they were not fighting over a man or anything of import.

 

[Grinder]

The cuts Rudy had couldn't have deep enough to still be visible and leave blood behing at the murder scene.

Alcohol: It id interesting that both the PGP and the PIP wish to ignore the blood alcohol findings. Meredith did drink and there is nothing wrong with that, The alcohol in her system would have made the digestion time make even more sense for a 10PM TOD as it would have slowed it down.

The idea that she was so drunk 19 hours before her death is absurd. Literature suggest that one burns about one drink per hour, which would mean that she would had about 20 unprocessed drinks in her system when she returned home at 5AM. That would be impossible.

Had she drank before going to the girls she would have had about 5 unprocessed drinks and the girls wouldn't have let her walk home at all much less alone.

She could have had a bottle or flask with her for some nips of the tail of the dog or she could have had a drink or two when she got home. No alcohol in the stomach isn't of much concern since it processes through the wall so fast and can dissipate after death.

Where is the wine? Well it could have been any alcohol but it was reported that tehre was a broken shard of glass in her room and early reports had the weapon as a pen knife or shard of glass.

 

[LondonJohn]

There are cases where women kill their roommates, and there are cases where a group of adolescents kill someone they know for no reason. But the perps in those cases are always - 100 percent of the time - seriously disturbed people with a history of hostile, aggressive behavior. That may not be apparent to everyone who meets them, but it is apparent to those who know them well.

The people who know Amanda well agree that she is not disturbed or hostile, she has never been physically aggressive toward anyone under any circumstances, and there is no way she ever would be.

But, a cult group has tuned that information out completely because it is not what they want to hear. Instead, they have pieced together a caricature from tabloid stories, statements by people who knew Amanda casually for a few weeks before her arrest (none of which involve aggressive or criminal allegations), and anonymous rumors on the Internet. They elaborate this caricature on their cult website, telling each other that it is the real Amanda, and the Amanda known to her family and close friends is fictional.

Is that "woo"? Yeah, it is.

I agree with everything you say here. Nonetheless, it cannot be taken as inalienable truth that a person with Knox's known character and background (or, for that matter, Sollecito's) could never participate in a crime like the murder of Meredith Kercher. Therefore, it can't really be evidence of any real value in terms of either a judicial process or a truth-finding process.

What is important and critical, however, is the actual evidence (or, more accurately, lack of evidence, or fundamentally flawed and discredited evidence) that might connect Knox (or Sollecito) to this murder. The truth is that there is no credible evidence tying either person to the crime, and that evidence which possibly might tie them to the crime is very feasibly and reasonably explainable in ways which do not point to Knox's/Sollecito's participation. Furthermore, all the available evidence strongly tends to support the proposition that Guede alone broke into the cottage and confronted/assaulted/killed Meredith (important for any truth-searching exercise, but relatively unimportant when assessing the judicial guilt of Knox/Sollecito).

I think that once one has looked at the totality of the evidence and realised that there's quite clearly no way that either Knox or Sollecito should be found guilty of the murder (and that almost certainly neither of them had anything to do with the crime whatsoever), then one can add in the observation regarding prior character. However, it's well worth remembering that even if Meredith had been murdered just after Knox had been released from prison for the violent assault of a former roommate, and/or if Knox had a stated deep dislike of Meredith, there still would have been zero grounds for believing that Knox had anything to do with the murder of Meredith (everything else being equal).

PS: I see that the new challenge is for pro-acquittal individuals to prove Knox's (and Sollecito's) innocence! I don't think that some people still quite comprehend the asymmetry of a criminal charge - an asymmetry, incidentally, that is just as robust and correct ethically as it is judicially.As an example: if I accuse you of stealing my iPod, it's not (and should never be) up to you to "prove" to me that you didn't steal it. It's up to me to prove that you did steal it. Otherwise I should withdraw my accusation and you should be assumed not to have stolen it. Not too hard to understand, in my opinion.

 

[LondonJohn]

As the Cassation appeals are due to be filed in Rome by February 15 2012, I guess we will have to wait to see if Mignini himself will file, and what it will entail....

Mignini can't file. Only the Attorney General can file. The interesting part will be whether the highest prosecuting authorities will be able to take a sufficiently detached overview of the case to realise that the rank-and-file prosecutors made a long series of massive screw-ups in this case, and that appealing to the Supreme Court will only serve to add to that list (and likely earn a condemnation by the Supreme Court judges for a vexatious appeal).

 

[Bob001]

... if I accuse you of stealing my iPod, it's not (and should never be) up to you to "prove" to me that you didn't steal it. It's up to me to prove that you did steal it....

Just an observation: It goes way beyond "should." In many cases it would be impossible for someone to "prove" his innocence of a false accusation. How could you prove that you were home alone at the time a crime was committed in your city, maybe even in your neighborhood? Even if your family was with you and vouched for you, they could be lying to protect you. Suppose the crime occurred at some place -- a store, a bar, a community center -- that you have visited? It might be possible to find your DNA and fingerprints at the crime scene. Suppose the witness saw the criminal fleeing in dark blue jacket -- and you have a dark blue jacket in your closet! Or maybe your jacket is black, not blue, but the cops say "Close enough." Suppose the victim was stabbed with a knife--and you have knives in your kitchen! And if they don't show any blood or DNA, that could only mean that you scrubbed them carefully to conceal your crime! Etc., etc. And God help you if you were actually acquainted with the victim. Anyone who demands that anyone "prove" they are innocent hasn't thought about it for more than 2 seconds. Under those circumstances anybody could land in jail anytime.

 

[Dougm]

Mignini can't file. Only the Attorney General can file. The interesting part will be whether the highest prosecuting authorities will be able to take a sufficiently detached overview of the case to realise that the rank-and-file prosecutors made a long series of massive screw-ups in this case, and that appealing to the Supreme Court will only serve to add to that list (and likely earn a condemnation by the Supreme Court judges for a vexatious appeal).

Even if they are able to take a sufficiently detached overview of the case, it will be interesting to see what decision they make. In their position, is it better to not appeal, and deal with the anger and criticism from those who feel that the appeal was wrong (even if many of these are ignorant about facts)? Or is it better to kick it along to the SC, and let them make the decision, even if they think it is bound to fail?

Given the history of most prosecution teams worldwide, I expect them to appeal. Just guessing they would rather let someone else decide.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Mignini can't file. Only the Attorney General can file. The interesting part will be whether the highest prosecuting authorities will be able to take a sufficiently detached overview of the case to realise that the rank-and-file prosecutors made a long series of massive screw-ups in this case, and that appealing to the Supreme Court will only serve to add to that list (and likely earn a condemnation by the Supreme Court judges for a vexatious appeal).

Do they have the power to turn the appeal away? Is that what your last sentence implies- Or must it be followed through on?

 

[Dougm]

Just an observation: It goes way beyond "should." In many cases it would be impossible for someone to "prove" his innocence of a false accusation. How could you prove that you were home alone at the time a crime was committed in your city, maybe even in your neighborhood? Even if your family was with you and vouched for you, they could be lying to protect you. Suppose the crime occurred at some place -- a store, a bar, a community center -- that you have visited? It might be possible to find your DNA and fingerprints at the crime scene. Suppose the witness saw the criminal fleeing in dark blue jacket -- and you have a dark blue jacket in your closet! Or maybe your jacket is black, not blue, but the cops say "Close enough." Suppose the victim was stabbed with a knife--and you have knives in your kitchen! And if they don't show any blood or DNA, that could only mean that you scrubbed them carefully to conceal your crime! Etc., etc. And God help you if you were actually acquainted with the victim. Anyone who demands that anyone "prove" they are innocent hasn't thought about it for more than 2 seconds. Under those circumstances anybody could land in jail anytime.

An accurate observation. Also a nice summary of what Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito faced.

 

[Bill Williams]

Just having read the Hellmann-Zanetti report on the "Traces of Blood in the Small Bathroom," I sincerely hope that PGP never, ever again raise the issue of mixed-DNA (Knox and Kercher) in the very bathroom they shared.

Footage of (the method of collection employed on the sink and the bidet) was shown in Court: Officer Brocci is clearly seen to run the same swab of blotting paper again and again several times, with a dragging motion, from the rim of the sink down to the drain and back, and on both sides [of the sink]. The same procedure for the bidet, where the swab – presumably a different one – is used to accurately clean the drain area.

And because of the obviousness that two people who shared a bathroom would leave copious amounts of DNA in the very bathroom they reqularly used.......

In such a situation, evidence collection by means of repeatedly rubbing from rim to drain and back, on both sides with the same swab of blotting paper, is, contrary to what Dr. Stefanoni claimed, manifestly the least appropriate way to obtain a reassuring result. Surely in this manner all of the DNA present on the path was collected, creating a mixture that probably did not exist originally.

How can one conclude anything BUT..............

Thus it seems totally irrelevant, for purposes of a decision unfavorable to Knox, that her DNA was found mixed with the victim’s DNA on the bathroom fixtures.

Why anyone with an ounce of sense would at this point raise the "mixed bathroom DNA" as some coup-de-grace" against the innocence argument, as if this "boy did I ever shut you up" claim has an ounce of credibility, is one of those, "Wow, just wow," things.

And if that is not enough Hellmann throws this in as his own coup-de-grace that would need further headscratching by anyone remotely interested in pursuing Knox's or Sollecito's guilt.....

Hellmann-Zanetti]According to the first-level Court, the two defendants, stained with Meredith’s blood, are supposed to have gone into the adjacent small bathroom and washed themselves there (it will be remembered that according to the first judges the footprint on the mat had been left by Sollecito’s right foot).

But if it had been so, one cannot explain why the smallest genetic trace of Sollecito was not found in the small bathroom, despite the fact that the scrubbing due to the cleansing should involve the loss of flaking cells (as we read again in the ruling).

Other than this, they're probably guilty. That's the logic out there. Remember, this is part of the line PGP use when admitting that the bra-clasp and kitchen knife DNA against Knox and Sollecito can be thrown out, the line is, "Yes, but what about all the other compelling evidence?"

You mean like the mixed-DNA in the bathroom? One day they will be putting on Free-Amanda T-Shirts themselves.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I agree with everything you say here. Nonetheless, it cannot be taken as inalienable truth that a person with Knox's known character and background (or, for that matter, Sollecito's) could never participate in a crime like the murder of Meredith Kercher. Therefore, it can't really be evidence of any real value in terms of either a judicial process or a truth-finding process.

I agree, good character is not a defense, at least not in and of itself. But that's not my point. The problem here is the summary rejection of the best available information about what Amanda is really like, and the fevered quest for anecdotal scraps to prop up a fabrication tailored to a set of beliefs. If that's not the hallmark of a cult, I don't know what is.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Here's the video clip of the samples being collected in the bathroom:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/bathroom_sample_collection.mp4

 

[MitNagel]

PS: I see that the new challenge is for pro-acquittal individuals to prove Knox's (and Sollecito's) innocence! I don't think that some people still quite comprehend the asymmetry of a criminal charge - an asymmetry, incidentally, that is just as robust and correct ethically as it is judicially.

If defendants had to prove their innocence then theoretically hundreds of people could be charged and convicted for the same crime.

 

[codyjuneau]

Cody

I will reply more fully to your post above hereafter but may I ask why you posit a confrontation in the kitchen at all? It's just that this is a popular view (Frank Sfarzo shares it but many others too) and, because of that, I suspect I have missed something.

Just quickly on one point, I think the blotch of blood almost directly under the wall handprint was made at the beginning of the attack, when Rudy made one of the smaller wounds to the throat. I think Meredith put her hand to her throat defensively and then transferred blood to the wall (it's her hand print imho). The struggle then moved diagonally across the room continuing to escalate.

If you are right that the handprint blood has not been analysed that is pretty amazing because you can see the scientific police sample it both on 03/11/2007 and extensively again on 18/12/2007 in the videos.

On the 'trigger' point, you might read Nina Burleigh on Rudy. He seems to have been quite strange before launching out on new paths.

Re: Why the confrontation in the kitchen:

I did not know that Frank shared the view of a confrontation in the kitchen. I really respect Frank's opinions so I will check it out. Does he also believe Meredith tried to defend herself with a kitchen knife?

IF and I repeat IF Meredith did grab a knife to defend herself then most likely she got a knife from the kitchen. Of course there is nothing to preclude her grabbing a kitchen knife and running into the bedroom with it and Rudy chasing after her. But it does not feel right to me. The brutality of the murder indicates to me that Rudy murdered Meredith in an act of temporary insanity, not in an opportunistic cold blooded attack. However I have not read Nina Burleigh's account of Rudy so I might be over estimating his character.

I also feel very strongly that Meredith did NOT just go to her room, lie down on her bed and stay there when she got home.

Years ago I shared a house with three other people. Each of us had our own bedroom. We used our bedrooms to keep our stuff in, to change in, and to sleep in. We did not live in the bedrooms. If I or others came home with some stuff we would drop it in our bedroom and return to the living area where we could get food, beer, coffee, watch TV, have a conversation, relax on the couch, read the newspaper, etc.

We know Meredith's books and purse etc were in her room. And we think we know she had ate a bit of mushroom. We also know that she had left laundry in the washing machine before going to visit her English friends. For all these reasons it seem logical to me that she dropped her things in her room and returned to the living area, maybe stopping briefly in the kitchen but ultimately going to the laundry room to remove her laundry. By the way, for those new to the case there are two bathrooms in the cottage. The bathroom Rudy took a dump in is different than the one where his footprint was found on the bathmat. The ONLY way in or out of the bathroom Rudy was taking a dump in is through the laundry room. And the only way out of the laundry room is into the kitchen. I think it is very likely that Meredith discovered Rudy when she went to the laundry room. And because the laundry room exits to the kitchen if Meredith wanted to arm herself for defense the kitchen knives are an obvious choice that are also very close at hand.

So back to your question about why the confrontation in the kitchen. I think something unintended happened which triggered Rudy's rage. And I think the most likely place for that to have happened is when Rudy and Meredith initially encountered each other at close quarters. Before either could properly evaluate what to do, one or both of them miscalculated their actions and Meredith cut Rudy's hand. Then Meredith ran to her bedroom and Rudy ran after her in a rage.

I am not locked into this theory. I like to propose alternate theories if I think they are logically possible. However I do favor this one. I've proposed other theories also including a few on the bomb threat phone call, the dark car in the cottage driveway, and the broken down car opposite the driveway -- all occurring remarkably within an hour or two of the murder and also remarkably (to me) seldom discussed or considered important. Soon I expect to propose another theory encompassing all three.

Re: The finger streaks in blood on the wall:

If you go to this link http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/PDF-Files.html and then open the 'Selected DNA Results' link the resulting PDF file has the DNA results for the various blood stains. There is a section for Dec 18.

Rep 164 refers to the blood on the wall by the bed. It states:

'Blood from wall of bedroom. Not tested because of negative preliminary (quantification) result.'

Fine from IIP added this information (Thank you Fine, I trust you don't mind me posting this):

Cody,

It means the sample rotted, due to improper storage in an air-tight plastic vial. The negative preliminary result means no detectable human DNA remained. (Any surviving DNA would be only bacterial.) As seen in the December 18 crime scene video, ample blood had been collected from this spot, using a knife, and so would have yielded positive results had the sample been stored in a professional manner. A textbook example of forensic incompetence but perhaps a blessing in disguise. Not knowing where else in the cottage Doctor Stefanoni had used that knife.......had this sample been properly stored and yielded positive results that might have been another instance of finding Meredith's and Amanda's mixed blood.

Oh, and ---as seen in the video---just to make sure the sample would grow a healthy bacterial colony Stefanoni also added water.

 

[LondonJohn]

Here's the video clip of the samples being collected in the bathroom:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/bathroom_sample_collection.mp4

As soon as any of us with any sort of rational, objective mind saw that video (I think I first saw it in late 2010), three things were immediately blatantly obvious:

1) The method of collection was manifestly ridiculous and unscientific, and was indefensible in any court (although unbelievably Stefanoni and Comodi tried to claim it was perfectly normal and acceptable!);

2) This ridiculous method of collection automatically meant that it became impossible to state that the dilute blood streaks in the sink or bidet ever contained "mixed DNA";

3) The DNA evidence gathered from the sink and bidet was therefore totally useless and inadmissible in any attempt to link Knox to the murder.

At this point, it's also probably worth repeating that the person who so inexpertly botched the DNA collection in the sink and Bidet (Brocci) was also the appointed police photographer! These truly were the Keystone Cops on the case. I'll be extremely disappointed (for the sake of criminal justice in Italy) if there isn't a serious inquiry into the way the police (detectives, crime scene investigators and forensic "scientists") acted in this case. There were simply too many egregious errors, breaches of protocol, incorrect deductions and elements of confirmation bias made by the various police departments here.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Character may not be destiny

I agree with everything you say here. Nonetheless, it cannot be taken as inalienable truth that a person with Knox's known character and background (or, for that matter, Sollecito's) could never participate in a crime like the murder of Meredith Kercher. Therefore, it can't really be evidence of any real value in terms of either a judicial process or a truth-finding process.

LondonJohn,

Do ordinary people sometimes do awful things? Do bad things happen to good people? I agree that evidence of good character would not trump indisputable evidence of wrongdoing. However, it is evidence of a sort, nevertheless. Character may not be destiny, but it helps to establish the odds. MOO.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

citations on postmortem alcohol determination

deleted; double post.