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

[Kevin_Lowe]

Bill Williams,

Frank Sfarzo wrote of Amanda Knox in 2009, "“If she smiles it's wrong, if she cries it's wrong, if she moves it's wrong, if she's still it's wrong, if she watches it's wrong, if she doesn't watch it's wrong."

See also Knox to be trained in how not to look shifty.

 

[christianahannah]

Hmmmm - do you think Filomena arranged a robbery? For the rent money? Remember how odd her behavior was when Amanda called her? Hmmmmmm

I haven't found any information that a robbery was arranged by anyone. Perhaps someone else has that information?

I think the significance of both Amanda's and Filomena's testimony (along with any corroborating bank records) was that money had been withdrawn by Meredith and was unaccounted for (either as prepayment of November rent and/or was not found amongst Meredith's possessions). Of course, this is assuming that the bank records actually contain what has been reported in articles and that testimony from Amanda and Filomena is correct.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Officer I saw the whole thing

The Nation has a nice discussion of the problem of eyewitness testimony, along with a discussion of a recent, disappointing U.S. Supreme Court decision (Perry v. New Hampshire) that bears on the matter of how lineups are conducted.

 

[Dan O.]

I cannot find Frank's early blogs... can you point to them.

When Google pulled the plug on Frank's blog at the behest of Mignini, I snagged a copy of the entire set out of Google's own cache. Since I was only grabbing these for myself, assuming that Frank would have his own backup, I chose a format that was easy for me to handle and didn't think of redistributing the work. If you have a Mac or Safari for windows theses archive files can be viewed directly. Otherwise, there are tools available to extract the archived content. The next hurdle is how to transfer several hundred megabytes of this data.

 

[christianahannah]

The article link below (from today) tells of the possibility/desire of Amanda in returning to Italy to testify on behalf of her parents in their defamation case.

The court will reconvene on March 30 with testimony of five police as witnesses. It has not been determined the date of when (or if) Amanda will testify.

http://www.agi.it/in-primo-piano/no...processo_genitori_knox_amanda_forse_in_italia

There are more articles, many covering the same ground, however, there may be additional information not covered in the article above.

http://news.google.it/news/story?pz...J4zNr-AtC74BsMvpldYgCRxIgn4M&cf=all&scoring=d

 

[Bill Williams]

When Google pulled the plug on Frank's blog at the behest of Mignini, I snagged a copy of the entire set out of Google's own cache. Since I was only grabbing these for myself, assuming that Frank would have his own backup, I chose a format that was easy for me to handle and didn't think of redistributing the work. If you have a Mac or Safari for windows theses archive files can be viewed directly. Otherwise, there are tools available to extract the archived content. The next hurdle is how to transfer several hundred megabytes of this data.

Out of all the sordid subplots that can occupy someone for a lifetime, the sublpot of Google & Wikipedia's handling of the Kercher murder trial(s) could occupy a modern communications' class for a few decades.

It is stunning to think that Mignini's clutches managed to divert Wikipedia or Google.... even if done by those who were convinced by Mignini's scenerio of what happened, ie. that what we were dealing with was a peculiar Umbrain Evil, which just happened to get off a plane from Seattle.

It's like the first time a Roman Catholic discovers their priest might actually be a human being, with flaws and feelings, and just might get something wrong once in a while. Some Roman Catholics as adults can still feel the sting of the parental-slap on the back of their head for making a comment at dinner suggesting that the priest might be fallable.

No one is suggesting that Mignini willfully altered Google or Wikipedia. But what is it about this case that would cause those two titanic institutions of the Internet to go ga-ga? It's like the Pope quashing Galileo! How does one do that?

But still, Dan. O., if you can put Frank's early stuff into a format that us unwashed-non-Mac types can handle, I for one would be forever in your debt. I am trying to figure out how otheriwse intelligent people like Nadeau, Vogt, and Ganong can themselves go ga-ga over this.

I guess if Google and Wikipedia can, it's not much of a criticism to accuse some stringer-journalists and a a relatively obscure Seattle translator of the same.

 

[codyjuneau]

Bombs, Phones and Automobiles

I would like to post a very brief description of a possible explanation for the bomb threat phone call, the dark car in the driveway and the broken down car opposite the driveway. I recently posted a more detailed version of this theory in the member's section of IIP (Bombs, Phones and Automobiles). I would like to get comments from JREF members.

In brief:

I am going to use the term murderer here but there are portions of this scenario where the murderer may have had an assistant or accomplice in the actions.

• The murderer either broke into the cottage or conned Meredith into letting him into the cottage,
• A confrontation occurred and the murderer stabbed Meredith, panicked and ran away.
• When the murderer collected his thoughts he decided to return to the cottage to try and clean up all evidence of the crime. This would include removing Meredith's body by wrapping it in the duvet.
• The murderer borrowed/rented/stole the dark car with old license plates from someone (Kokomani?).
• The murderer made an anonymous bomb threat phone call to a local residence (with a stolen cell/SIM?) as a precaution to keep the police occupied elsewhere (he may have used this trick before)
• The murderer then parked in the cottage driveway blocking the entrance and entered the house.
• The murderer inspected the scene with Amanda and Meredith's spot lights aimed low and at the walls to subdue the light.
• The murderer very soon after arrival found Meredith's cell phones and accidentally or purposefully to imply Meredith was still alive at that time of night made a couple of aborted calls
• The murderer started a clean up with towels.
• The murderer started to maneuver Meredith's body onto the duvet using the pillow to slide and elevate her and was in the process of wrapping her in the duvet when ...
• .... the Alfred Hitchock moment and the key to all the confusion caused by a partial clean up ... :
• There was a commotion outside.
• The murderer peaked out Filomena's window and saw a car stopped opposite the cottage driveway with people milling around (the broken down car).
• The murderer panicked - he may have thought the people were coming to visit the cottage and were blocked by the car he had parked in the entrance of the cottage driveway.
• The murderer quickly locked Meredith's bedroom door and sneaked out of the cottage.
• The murderer then hung around watching at the plaza until the broken down car was towed away (Rudy and/or Kokomani?)
• The murderer decided to cut his losses, abandon the clean-up and remove the dark car with old license plates while he still could.
• The murderer drove by the residence where the bomb threat phone call had been placed.
• He noticed all quiet so he chucked Meredith's phone cells in the yard in the vain hope it would imply Meredith was murdered after the police left.
• He went dancing to establish an alibi for as much of the night as he could.

As I said above, the murderer may have had an assistant or accomplice in some of the actions.

The bottom line:

There was a plan to remove Meredith's body and clean up all the blood and signs of a confrontation at the cottage. The plan was aborted when the one true coincidence occurred - the car breaking down opposite the cottage driveway.

We know there was a dark car with old license plates parked in the driveway all the time the broken down car was there. There has to be a reason it was there.

The bomb threat phone call explanation is not critical to this theory but it fits the timeline. I think the police account may be deliberately incomplete.

The sexual assault could have occurred in the initial attack or during the return to the cottage before the car broke down opposite the driveway. Or it could have been staged so that it would look like a rape/murder at the location they planned on dumping the body (maybe even in Lana's garden after the police left since that would almost certainly imply the rape/murder happened very late in the evening).

Thoughts?

 

[el buscador]

Frank has a new post up.

http://perugiashock.com/

 

[katy_did]

But still, Dan. O., if you can put Frank's early stuff into a format that us unwashed-non-Mac types can handle, I for one would be forever in your debt. I am trying to figure out how otheriwse intelligent people like Nadeau, Vogt, and Ganong can themselves go ga-ga over this.

You can view most of the early blog entries through the Wayback Machine: once you get into an archived page, just click on the link to the blog archives in the sidebar menu (I didn't realize you could do this at first and thought you could only view the page you were on. Doh. In fact, the whole site as it existed at that point is archived).

 

[Kestrel]

No one is suggesting that Mignini willfully altered Google or Wikipedia. But what is it about this case that would cause those two titanic institutions of the Internet to go ga-ga? It's like the Pope quashing Galileo! How does one do that?

In the case of Google, it was done with a legal threat. Rather than fight on behalf of an obscure blogger, Google shut down the blog as the court requested.

The success of the pro guilt people on Wikipedia is a bit more complicated. Part of the problem is the Wikipedia definition of a "reliable source". Newspapers are generally considered reliable sources, but in this case even the London Times articles were full of speculation and rumor reported as fact. Most of the early books published on the case had the same problem.

Another factor is the culture of Wikipedia administrators. They spend a lot of time cleaning up and dealing with vandals, conspiracy theorists, religious zealots and others trying to alter articles for some cause. They tend to treat any new editor on a controversial article as a vandal, especially when asked to confirm the judgement of another administrator.

Wikipedia's official policy is to be supportive of new editors. Treat them as a valuable resource. Help them learn the rules and how to become better editors. Even in a clear case of vandalism, the first warning should be very gently worded. But when a editor startes out editing or discussing a controversial article, this policy is often ignored.

This made it easy for pro guilt editors and admins to game the system. The techniques used to protect articles on vaccination against anti-vaxers were used against anyone who believed Amanda Knox was innocent. The misbehavior of pro guilt editors was routinely ignored while the behavior of anyone who was pro innocence was put under the microscope.

It only changed when Jimbo Wales got personally involved in the article.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

looking shifty

See also Knox to be trained in how not to look shifty.

That is an interesting photograph and article ("Knox to be trained in how not to look shifty"). Here is a link to an article with a photo of Collin Finnerty, also looking a little shifty. If you compare this photo to other photos that were taken on the same day, you will find one or two in which his facial expression is more neutral. The article that used this photo was one of the more biased of the many articles that appeared about the Duke lacrosse case, and I think that there is a connection: the reporter or editor chose a photograph that would encourage the viewer to think he was guilty.

I sometimes catch myself drawing unwarranted conclusions about people on the basis of their looks. However, I am not in favor of anybody (including myself) doing this generally, and I think it is manipulative when journalists try to influence our thinking subconsciously by selecting photographs that have certain characteristics.
EDT
I think that both photographs encourage the reader/viewer to make the same mistake: equating the photographic point of view with his or her own eyes. We probably assume that people who look away from us are being deceptive.

 

[Bill Williams]

You can view most of the early blog entries through the Wayback Machine: once you get into an archived page, just click on the link to the blog archives in the sidebar menu (I didn't realize you could do this at first and thought you could only view the page you were on. Doh. In fact, the whole site as it existed at that point is archived).

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Wow. Reading Frank's first posting, the one where he ridicules Sollecito's letter to the media, is telling. By the time Dec 18 is rolling around, Frank seems to be the only one asking questions... like, sending a team of 100 down into the forest belyond the cottage would cost less than a DNA test, and how a knife was found by one of the "smilers".

Wow. Just wow.

 

[Kaosium]

Frank has a new post up.

http://perugiashock.com/

Awesome post--all should read! I find this especially interesting and will be waiting for the continuation:

They did as much as possible to prove Amanda’s version true. And they did it just with me, that I have to tell you guys this whole story!

I hate talking about myself but, what can I do? They pulled me in, they came to look for me.

They wanted to create a case even against me in exactly the same way, with the fake statements, the fake witnesses, the fake “scientific proofs”, with exactly the same character assassination.
They organized a real military action against me, they plotted the attack for more than a year. I couldn’t believe it until I saw who was the prosecutor investigating me since 2009, And, surprise, it was He.

I would have paid a fortune to understand this case. Well, they decided to explain it to me directly, so as to make everything perfectly clear. Everything undoubted.
What can I say? Thank you.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

contamination redux

When commenting on the Gary Leiterman conviction, Dr. Theodore Kessis wrote, “It must be noted however that contamination errors have been documented where no direct processing link between sample and contaminant have been established, raising the specter that a source of contamination can linger in a laboratory for some time.” I would bear this in mind when assessing the putative impossibility of contamination when there is a six-day gap between the time when some evidence was processed and when the knife DNA was said to be processed.

Dr. Donald Riley wrote about DNA profiling based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology, "When contamination occurs there is rarely any way to confirm how it happened...In PCR's history, contamination has often led to false results, and erroneous actions have been taken based on those results."
(all highlighting mine)

http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html

 

[Dan O.]

You can view most of the early blog entries through the Wayback Machine: once you get into an archived page, just click on the link to the blog archives in the sidebar menu (I didn't realize you could do this at first and thought you could only view the page you were on. Doh. In fact, the whole site as it existed at that point is archived).

The later articles may not appear on the archives yet. From their FAQ:

Why are there no recent archives in the Wayback Machine?

It generally takes 6 months or more (up to 24 months) for pages to appear in the Wayback Machine after they are collected, because of delays in transferring material to long-term storage and indexing, or the requirements of our collection partners.​

The "Perugia Shock" page on the wiki is an index to all of Frank's old articles which I thought I posted here some time back. The links are to googles cache which has long since been depleted but they could be easily munged to point to the wayback archives instead.

 

[anglolawyer]

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Wow. Reading Frank's first posting, the one where he ridicules Sollecito's letter to the media, is telling. By the time Dec 18 is rolling around, Frank seems to be the only one asking questions... like, sending a team of 100 down into the forest belyond the cottage would cost less than a DNA test, and how a knife was found by one of the "smilers".

Wow. Just wow.

Me too. Thanks a million.

 

[Grinder]

from P** Peg says she told Nina "The first photo I saw out of the corner of my eye was one of the ones showing Knox looking as if she had been (in Nina's words) "smoking hash for a week straight", and the nearest sub-heading mentioned the victim Meredith Kercher. I said to myself, how odd, the person in that photo looks more like a killer than a victim. Shortly thereafter, I realized that the photo I had seen was of the suspect and not the victim. I did not deduce from this error on my part any notion of guilt. All I deduced was that the person in that and other photos taken on the same day looked seriously out of it. I don't think that is a very earth-shattering conclusion, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with guilt or innocence."

Amanda looked like a killer but that has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

The fact that Nina mentioned that a blogger decided Amanda was guilty from looking at a picture is now being called a stretch and it is being suggested that Peg file a lawsuit.

Does anybody believe Nina could be sued for her remark but people on the web, after Amanda was found not guilty, can call Amanda a murderer and not be sued?

Peg has done much to make a name for herself by exploiting the murder of Meredith. Why would she give an interview that the reporter couldn't use at all? Why would the reporter bother?

 

[Grinder]

The murderer made an anonymous bomb threat phone call to a local residence (with a stolen cell/SIM?) as a precaution to keep the police occupied elsewhere (he may have used this trick before)

IIRC the police traced the call to some kids that were playing a prank.

 

[Bill Williams]

Out of all the non sequitors PGP believe in, the business about the success of the Mamand-PR campaign is the most "non" of the sequitors.

It is surprising the similarity of language used by people liek Ganong, Vogt, and Nadeau use to describe this. I've just read one of Nadeau's Feb 2009 pieces, which (other than the headline) is not half-bad.

But in it Nadeau parrots the myth of the Seattle-based PR "supertanker". Who the heck came up with that word? It certainly SOUNDS conspiratorial! It is surprising that this myth developed as early as it did. Nadeau said, "An aggressive PR machine out of Seattle that runs under the moniker “Friends of Amanda” speaks out quickly and authoritatively in Knox’s defense, effectively discouraging US media from digging deeper into this mysterious crime."

Really? Seriously? The land of Dan Rather, Geraldo Riviera, Nancy Grace, and Bill O'Reilly, not to mention every up-and-comer-who's-one-scoop-away-from-anchoring-a-national-newscast is going to be humbled by a Seattle based PR firm? Really? Connie Chung, Barbara Walters, Scott Pelley and Katie Couric are going to be shaking in their boots when Marriott stares them down? Really?

 

[Kaosium]

When commenting on the Gary Leiterman conviction, Dr. Theodore Kessis wrote, “It must be noted however that contamination errors have been documented where no direct processing link between sample and contaminant have been established, raising the specter that a source of contamination can linger in a laboratory for some time.” I would bear this in mind when assessing the putative impossibility of contamination when there is a six-day gap between the time when some evidence was processed and when the knife DNA was said to be processed.

Dr. Donald Riley wrote about DNA profiling based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology, "When contamination occurs there is rarely any way to confirm how it happened...In PCR's history, contamination has often led to false results, and erroneous actions have been taken based on those results."
(all highlighting mine)

http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html

That reminds me of something. The last time this came up there was an effort to determine whether they could be telling the truth about this 'six-day gap.' As I recall, the knife results were 'produced' circa the fourteenth or fifteenth initially, thus that must not have been what they were talking about. Those same results were 'confirmed' in '08, which led to Mignini and Maresca slug-hugging each other, which might be where that 'six day gap' came from.

Or waitaminnit, was the 'six day gap' in reference solely to the bra clasp? That wouldn't make much sense either, as it was taken with all the rest that they'd find of Rudy there, it would be extremely odd that there'd be a 'six day gap' there.