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

[Rolfe]

I don't believe in the six day gap. I think it's as factual as the magic American plastic that's certified for storage of samples for DNA analysis.

Rolfe.

 

[codyjuneau]

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

Hi Grinder

The police say it was a boys prank. But has anyone ever seen confirmation? Has the phone record been provided? Even Massei only says it happened 'around' 10pm. Is it possible to make a phone call these days without having a specific time recorded?

I think the police explanation is incomplete or misleading. Perhaps they provided the boys prank explanation rather than admit they did not know. Or perhaps they know something they do not want to make public.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Gap

I don't believe in the six day gap. I think it's as factual as the magic American plastic that's certified for storage of samples for DNA analysis.

Rolfe.

Rolfe,

I don't believe in it either, and I would be grateful for any help in nailing down contradictory statements made about when the knife was processed.

 

[christianahannah]

I don't believe in the six day gap. I think it's as factual as the magic American plastic that's certified for storage of samples for DNA analysis.

Rolfe.

I think the six-day gap is accurate as far as I can see from the available work files. If the work records were manipulated in any way wouldn't this have been apparent to the defense experts eventually?

I imagine that analysis/testing from other cases were on-going during the six-day gap, just not analysis/testing of evidence specimens from the Kercher case.

 

[Kaosium]

I don't believe in the six day gap. I think it's as factual as the magic American plastic that's certified for storage of samples for DNA analysis.

Rolfe.

I think it's about as likely as leprechauns myself, I'm just wondering what the method to the lie is, as I don't recall the results of the last inquiry. Off the top of my head that knife was presented as 'evidence' on the fourteenth, was reported in the papers on the fifteenth. Later on they did a 'confirmation' or somesuch, it was at some point in '08 I believe. Is that where they are pretending there might be a six day gap? Of what consequence would that be if it had been contaminated already? Was that the meaning of Hellmann's remark that it 'could have happened already' so that's why he dismissed it?

 

[Bill Williams]

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."

Substitute gender for killer/victim guilt/innocence and it's easy to see how this series of sentences makes no sense:

"I said to myself, how odd, the person in that photo looks more like a woman than a man. Shortly thereafter, I realized that the photo I had seen was of a woman and not a man. I did not deduce from this error on my part any notion of gender. 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 being male or female."

It reminds me of someone who brings up the subject of race, then has to use a series of convolutions to wind-up at a declarative statement that they are not a racist.

 

[RoseMontague]

I don't believe in the six day gap. I think it's as factual as the magic American plastic that's certified for storage of samples for DNA analysis.

Rolfe.

I know both Christiana and Komponisto went through some of the documents on the test results and I struggled through about 80% of them before deciding to take their word for it. There are some, not many, missing dates. For the rest, there is gap.

 

[christianahannah]

I think it's about as likely as leprechauns myself, I'm just wondering what the method to the lie is, as I don't recall the results of the last inquiry. Off the top of my head that knife was presented as 'evidence' on the fourteenth, was reported in the papers on the fifteenth. Later on they did a 'confirmation' or somesuch, it was at some point in '08 I believe. Is that where they are pretending there might be a six day gap? Of what consequence would that be if it had been contaminated already? Was that the meaning of Hellmann's remark that it 'could have happened already' so that's why he dismissed it?

I think it would be of consequence as far as the lab's reputation and it's practices are concerned. Contamination happening to a specimen before it is brought to a lab to be analyzed is different than being contaminated in/by the lab.

I think Hellmann was referring to the possibility of contamination before the specimen ever made it to at the lab.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I think the six-day gap is accurate as far as I can see from the available work files. If the work records were manipulated in any way wouldn't this have been apparent to the defense experts eventually?

I imagine that analysis/testing from other cases were on-going during the six-day gap, just not analysis/testing of evidence specimens from the Kercher case.

Christianahannah,

So far this is all that I have found. Massei, p. 261, “On this point, Dr. Sarah Gino also complained about the missing indications of the dates on which the various examinations were carried out, an element that – she observed – would have been useful to better evaluate the contamination hypothesis precisely from this perspective.” In other words, the defense did not have the testing dates in the trial of first instance. Do you have a link to the work files? Thanks.

 

[Draca]

Guede’s foot no longer incompatible

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.

Hi my friend CDHost! Miss you!

I saw this comment at the time you made it but the tranlation was not yet complete. I wanted to come back to it now.

Hellmann DOES NOT assert the bathmat footprint is definitely Rudy Guede's. He instead says that Rudy Guede's foot can not be ruled out as the source.


Here is from the Hellmann Report translation:

"To bring this subject to a conclusion, [this] Court finds the print impressed with Meredith’s blood on the mat to be of no evidentiary [indiziario] value against defendant Sollecito."

"Even without getting into comparisons, which are not the competence of this Court, appointed to deal only with Knox and Sollecito, it remains an open and indeed unexplored possibility that the print on the mat was impressed by Rudy Guede’s right foot.

In light of the different dimensional evaluation of the latter [print on the mat], based on the well-grounded findings of Professor Vinci, the dimensional elements of Guede’s foot are no longer incompatible with those left in Meredith’s blood on the fabric of the mat."


http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/print-on-the-mat/

Draca

 

[RoseMontague]

Christianahannah,

So far this is all that I have found. Massei, p. 261, “On this point, Dr. Sarah Gino also complained about the missing indications of the dates on which the various examinations were carried out, an element that – she observed – would have been useful to better evaluate the contamination hypothesis precisely from this perspective.” In other words, the defense did not have the testing dates in the trial of first instance. Do you have a link to the work files? Thanks.

The numbering system on the evidence and the fact that you have to use different reports to figure out which evidence is which makes it difficult. My intention was to try and put a document together showing the test results index (translated version) of each piece of evidence along with the test results page for that piece as well as the SAL for that piece. Stefanoni explained how to read the SAL's but did not provide more than an example or two as in the one attached. The actual SAL's look like the ones in the second attachment. I still hope to put something together on this but it might take awhile.

 

[Grinder]

In light of the different dimensional evaluation of the latter [print on the mat], based on the well-grounded findings of Professor Vinci, the dimensional elements of Guede’s foot are no longer incompatible with those left in Meredith’s blood on the fabric of the mat."

Why isn't Vinci criticized in same way C&V are? Did he use any US references?

Rinaldi used a grid invented by L. M. Robbins. Is Robbins an Italian?

I know in response Vinci used the dRobbins grid but how can the PGP accept Rinaldi? I know, because he's a "Doctor" and says the print excludes Rudy.

 

[Grinder]

Once again, I've seen misrepresentation of the facts and the truth. This PR rowboat effort involves the "bloody bathroom".

Ttrroonniicc, was corrected by being told the pink substance was phenolphthalein, not blood.

to which Michael replied:

Since its purpose is to indicate blood, it sort of amounts to the same thing.

while in fact as we know that's just not true because -

A presumed blood sample is first collected with a swab. A drop of phenolphthalin reagent is added to the sample, and after a few seconds, a drop of hydrogen peroxide is applied to the swab. If the swab turns pink rapidly, it is said to test presumptive positive for blood. Waiting for periods over 30 seconds will result in most swabs turning pink naturally as they oxidize on their own in the air.

This along with the recent resurfacing of the media role in the case makes me more interested than ever to put a list together of the most egregious propagated in or by the press or in some cases only in the courtroom. I'm interested in the top five of both the most flagrant false "evidence" in effect and in fact.

The bloody bathroom is my first in effect. The party being a riot might be the top misrepresentation of fact.

If someone can phrase the above more precisely, please do so.

Any votes?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Robbins and expert witnesses

Why isn't Vinci criticized in same way C&V are? Did he use any US references?

Rinaldi used a grid invented by L. M. Robbins. Is Robbins an Italian?

I know in response Vinci used the dRobbins grid but how can the PGP accept Rinaldi? I know, because he's a "Doctor" and says the print excludes Rudy.

Grinder,

Louise Robbins taught anthropology in Greensboro, North Carolina. For another article on her work, see this link. A link on expert witnesses is here.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder,

Louise Robbins taught anthropology in Greensboro, North Carolina. For another article on her work, see this link. A link on expert witnesses is here.

Halides,

But you neglected to answer my question as to why the PGP don't criticize Rinaldi for using a US created foot grid when they so disdain the work of C&V because of the references to US experts and protocols by various US law enforcement agencies. (I know it can't be answered)

In Rinaldi they have another "Doctor" that isn't and he used voodoo science to analyze the bath mat print. Even he said that the analysis only could be used for excluding, yet the PGP continue to point to the print as definitive proof Raffaele was there. This make my list somewhere.

Oh well.

 

[Bill Williams]

Once again, I've seen misrepresentation of the facts and the truth. This PR rowboat effort involves the "bloody bathroom".

to which Michael replied:


while in fact as we know that's just not true because -

A presumed blood sample is first collected with a swab. A drop of phenolphthalin reagent is added to the sample, and after a few seconds, a drop of hydrogen peroxide is applied to the swab. If the swab turns pink rapidly, it is said to test presumptive positive for blood. Waiting for periods over 30 seconds will result in most swabs turning pink naturally as they oxidize on their own in the air.

This along with the recent resurfacing of the media role in the case makes me more interested than ever to put a list together of the most egregious propagated in or by the press or in some cases only in the courtroom. I'm interested in the top five of both the most flagrant false "evidence" in effect and in fact.

The bloody bathroom is my first in effect. The party being a riot might be the top misrepresentation of fact.

If someone can phrase the above more precisely, please do so.

Any votes?

Frank Sfarzo is my hero recently for smelling out the most egregious of lampoonish-errors which were fed to the tabloid-franzied public. I'd like to see his list.

Mine is far more humble, as a relative newcomer to this.

"I was there" - must earn an honourable mention, sent to the SeattlePI by Andrea Vogt as an example of Knox's yet-another-flip-flop-confession(s) in 2009, and Vogt fails to mention that the more full sentence put the three words into the context which actually said, "I was there at Rafaeele's the whole time." But why let little things like that get in the way of a good story - esp. when you're trying to milk the myth of Knox continually changing stories to its last drop.

The outright lies told about Knox's stories themselves are the story here.

"Mixed blood" in the bathroom, is another. There was no such thing, even as Massei rendered it.

"Knox seemed to have knowledge of the crime that only the killer would have" - is the last I can muster. This was repeated as late as Oct 2011 by none other than the beacon of sober justice Ann Coulter. Oh yea, Nancy Grace too. Too bad that all the knowledge that Knox indicated in the Nov 2 to Nov 6 period was in fact, wrong - unfactual. She was up until her arrest part of the gossipy group of Italians/Brits who themselves at the time were all in shock and all said a lot of things. Some appropriate, some inappropriate. One of the roomies was never considered a suspect, even thought she joked, "Yea sure, if I'd stabbed Meredith it must have been with a piece of bread."

"Meredith hated Knox, and Knox wanted to get even" - where does one start with why this is bollocks? Even Massei didn't buy this one, as Massei said there was no motive.

It's a bit of an advantage to come to this late.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

"Knox orchestrated a rape prank where a bunch of guys in ski masks with knives terrorised her friends and threatened to rape them" was a pretty good one as well. It turned out it started with one anonymous and never-corroborated claim in the comments thread of an unrelated article, then got repeated all over the internet.

The original version didn't even mention knives or sexual assault. Those aspects of the rumour seem to have been added on by guilters to make the rumour juicier.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

But in it Nadeau parrots the myth of the Seattle-based PR "supertanker". Who the heck came up with that word?

Nadeau seems to have picked up on a term that Anne Bremner used in a different context. Bremner told an interviewer she was trying to turn the supertanker of public opinion around. That was a fair description of the problem we faced in 2008-2009, after the tabloids used lurid, factually inaccurate stories to create a presumption of guilt in the public mind.

 

[freeski]

Once again, I've seen misrepresentation of the facts and the truth. This PR rowboat effort involves the "bloody bathroom".

to which Michael replied:


while in fact as we know that's just not true because -

A presumed blood sample is first collected with a swab. A drop of phenolphthalin reagent is added to the sample, and after a few seconds, a drop of hydrogen peroxide is applied to the swab. If the swab turns pink rapidly, it is said to test presumptive positive for blood. Waiting for periods over 30 seconds will result in most swabs turning pink naturally as they oxidize on their own in the air.

This along with the recent resurfacing of the media role in the case makes me more interested than ever to put a list together of the most egregious propagated in or by the press or in some cases only in the courtroom. I'm interested in the top five of both the most flagrant false "evidence" in effect and in fact.

The bloody bathroom is my first in effect. The party being a riot might be the top misrepresentation of fact.

If someone can phrase the above more precisely, please do so.

Any votes?

The leak to the press about finding Harry Potter in German at the cottage on Dec 18, thus "destroying" Knox's alibi: she said she was reading German Harry Potter at Raffaels's. There were many press reports about this.

Of course, turns out there were two Harry Potter books in German: one at the cottage, one at Raffele's. And the kicker: the police knew this when they made the leak. Mignini was at Raffaele's on Nov 16 when the crime scene video was taken showing the book.

 

[Kaosium]

Hi, Christiana! Welcome back to posting!

I think it would be of consequence as far as the lab's reputation and it's practices are concerned. Contamination happening to a specimen before it is brought to a lab to be analyzed is different than being contaminated in/by the lab.

True enough, however in this case a significant portion of the forensics was actually collected by a team lead by Stefanoni, so the lab personnel ought to be 'implicated' regardless. This one they were using to try to deflect all claims of contamination, and it was Hellmann's comment at the end which according to Frank Sfarzo took all the wind out of Comodi's sails. I never did understand entirely what that was about, how the prosecution could ever think a 'six day gap' would do anything for certain and somehow erase all the rest of the falsifiers regarding the knife. (especially)

Of course they weren't making a whole lot of sense at the end with the sex-change bribery 'allegations' (anyone heard more about that from Bongiorno?) and whatever that one guy with the conspiracies was talking about--he lost me eventually, sometime around when he got to the 'cat lady' part.

I think Hellmann was referring to the possibility of contamination before the specimen ever made it to at the lab.

I think you're right come to think of it. For some reason they musta thought they'd 'eliminated' that possibility some other way.