Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Briars]

I already said up thread that Meredith was moved and Rudy's DNA on the band shows that it is Rudy that moves her. Once the bra breaks, the clasp is left behind to be covered by the pillow and Meredith's naked body which Rudy proceeds to rape (or do you contend that it wasn't rape because Meredith didn't say NO!)

I always maintained that the manual assault with his hand happened before the fatal attack, during the group taunting and holding period. There were bruises but no blood in that region.

 

[Briars]

Since that knife wasn't used in the murder being as it didn't match the wounds, tested negative for blood, and DNA test was invalid, what does it matter except to wonder if they're that stupid or if it was a really mindless attempt at fraud?

Washing of blood can leave leave only dna behind. Or maybe it was just flesh that Sollecito managed with his 'prick'.

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium

On the assumption that the two 'confessions' were not the product of coercion, their content does seem to be incriminating in conjunction with other things the cops (thought they) knew. Amanda, knowing there had been a killing committed by Patrick, had gone to the apartment the following morning and spent some time there - doing what? Well, staging the burglary for one thing, since it cannot have been real and obviously not calmly taking a shower. Then she had spent the next several days lying about it.

The implication of the statements are she was so confused, perhaps from the hash, and there's nothing about the break-in, she didn't 'witness' that, nor remember any of this the next day, she woke up in bed with Raffaele.

If your point is that the content of the confessions gave them nothing on her, then I disagree. In combination with everything else it gave them plenty.

They're not confessions, Anglo. A lawyer would have had to have been there for that. It's a 'witness' statement and a 'spontaneous' statement.

My point actually is they look like fools arresting Patrick over this, and what I was getting at was farther down in my post.

 

[bri1]

you don't think that it is starting to get a little weird for you? considering that what you think about this isn't going to change the outcome as you are not involved with the trial or on the jury......

Let me see if I have this right, Tesla. Charlie is weird for spending a lot of time researching this case?
The other day, you accused me of using an argument from authority, because I challenged your statements about logic by saying that I'm a philosopher.
I'd like to address those points now.
The first thing to say, of course anyone can articulate any opinion whever they want, including on this forum. But that doesn't mean that said opinion is informed, and therefore worth listening to.
What Charlie does is a lot less weird than what you do. Charlie researches so intently, because he is trying to understand and then articulate the truth of this case. You, on the other hand, haven't even read this whole thread, you make all kinds of factual, grammatical and logical errors in your posts, and yet when clearly intelligent, knowledgeable people point these out, you ignore them. You're posting how many times a day, even though you clearly haven't done any proper research on the case?
You accused me of using "the worse [sic] sort of debate trick", an argument from authority, but actually arguments from authority play an important role in life and an important structural role in debate.
Firstly, I mentioned my professional qualification because I have years of experience analysing people's logical skills and argumentation skills at a top UK uni. Your evaluation that you are "slicing and dicing" arguments here are way off the mark.
Secondly, arguments from authority are very useful in life- if I have to have surgery, then, because I am not a surgeon, I have to take what the surgeon says more or less at face value. Imagine if, to be able to have surgery, we had to understand the medical principles and evidence well enough to be able to follow every piece of the surgeon's rationale. I'd be dead. A lot of other people would be too.
Thirdly, arguments from authority help us define the epistemic burdens of people participating in debate. If I, with my expertise in Philosophy, am arguing with someone with no expertise, and they say 'Plato said X', and I say 'No, Plato said Y, not X', what should happen next? Because I've borne my epistemic burden by becoming an expert, my adversary should consider the possibility that they are wrong, and the burden is on them to go off and do the research to show they are right.
If I felt confident that Plato said Y and not X, and my adversary refused to go away and do further research, and instead just stubbornly maintained that they were right, then I'd a) dismiss them as ignorant and b) know that I'd won the argument!
You're going up against many intelligent people on this board, who have carried their epistemic burden, researched the case at length, tried to keep an open mind, and be led by the science and evidence, and have come to certain conclusions. And instead of doing more research, trying to work out why so many people have strenuously disagreed with you, you just plow on ahead anyway.
When I joined this forum, I read the whole of this thread before I made a single comment. Why? Because the epistemic burden was on me to undestand the contours of the debate, what progress had been made, and what the skills and knowledge of the other posters was. I read all the english-language media about the case. And I read all the books about the case that I could get my hands on. Finally I researched the psychology of false 'confession' (or accusation).
You obviously haven't done the same. Therefore anyone who has can legitimately use an argument from authority with you, and dismiss your opinions of this case as uninformed and ignorant of the facts and scientific context of the case.
I've noticed that while posters have been trying to engage with you, you seem unable to respond relevantly to their arguments. I really think you need to hone your writing, researching, argumentation / debating skills before posting in public about any subject, let alone one where there are peoples' freedom at stake.
Please don't read this as a personal attack. It isn't. I'm just offering you the perspective of someone who is qualified and trained to moderate academic debate on your contributions here. I will be more than happy to debate the case with you when you've researched this case, and learnt some more sophisticated critical thinking skills.

 

[Antony]

Kaosium

On the assumption that the two 'confessions' were not the product of coercion, their content does seem to be incriminating in conjunction with other things the cops (thought they) knew. Amanda, knowing there had been a killing committed by Patrick, had gone to the apartment the following morning and spent some time there - doing what? Well, staging the burglary for one thing, since it cannot have been real and obviously not calmly taking a shower. Then she had spent the next several days lying about it.

If your point is that the content of the confessions gave them nothing on her, then I disagree. In combination with everything else it gave them plenty.

That's a fair point - but they also arrested Raffaele without even any of the bogus evidence against him that they later scraped together. What could be used as a pretext for this?

 

[NancyS]

I'm still not clear how any of the DNA can be considered valid, regardless of whether the testing was poor and inappropriate.

Surely there are many possibilities for DNA transfer between housemates and people living in close proximity. For example , I wouldn't have thought it particularly unlikely for my DNA to be found on an item of clothing of my boyfriend's flatmate, even if I hadn't personally touched the item - and this would not be in any way conclusive evidence of an affair?

If Amanda was having sex with Raffaele and then returning to her own home to shower or change, it must have been possible to transfer some of his DNA to the shared bathroom and potentially to Meredith's clothing. If Raffaele had said goodbye to Meredith by kissing her cheek (as you would do in Italy) is it possible for DNA in the saliva to be transferred to her clothing? As Amanda was sharing a bathroom is it also possible to transfer some of Meredith's DNA to Raffaele's home?

I'm not saying this is what happened, just that there are numerous possible innocent scenarios

 

[Kaosium]

Washing of blood can leave leave only dna behind.

How does that work?

Or maybe it was just flesh that Sollecito managed with his 'prick'.

What makes you think there was ever any DNA on the knife?

 

[Kaosium]

Well, that's not enough to back the assertion you made. Yes the appeal advances a contention but the evidence on which it's based is unknown. I hope you're right about it because the point can be fully developed in Florence but I don't think it refutes Sherlock's theory as matters stand. I agree with the rest of your critique though.

It was objected to because it filed too late, the addendum wasn't announced until October of 2011. Had Hellmann allowed it Mignini would have grounds for appeal.

...Oh...wait! But he didn't know that then.

 

[Dan O.]

I always maintained that the manual assault with his hand happened before the fatal attack, during the group taunting and holding period. There were bruises but no blood in that region.

What evidence do you have to support this group taunting and holding period? Holding implies physical contact, especially with the hands and therefore the potential for DNA transfer. Where is this DNA? The only foreign DNA on Meredith or her clothing was Rudy's.

 

[bri1]

I'm still not clear how any of the DNA can be considered valid, regardless of whether the testing was poor and inappropriate.

Surely there are many possibilities for DNA transfer between housemates and people living in close proximity. For example , I wouldn't have thought it particularly unlikely for my DNA to be found on an item of clothing of my boyfriend's flatmate, even if I hadn't personally touched the item - and this would not be in any way conclusive evidence of an affair?

If Amanda was having sex with Raffaele and then returning to her own home to shower or change, it must have been possible to transfer some of his DNA to the shared bathroom and potentially to Meredith's clothing. If Raffaele had said goodbye to Meredith by kissing her cheek (as you would do in Italy) is it possible for DNA in the saliva to be transferred to her clothing? As Amanda was sharing a bathroom is it also possible to transfer some of Meredith's DNA to Raffaele's home?

I'm not saying this is what happened, just that there are numerous possible innocent scenarios

Absolutely, Nancy. One of the ridiculous elements' of the prosecution's case was that Amanda had told police that when she'd left the cottage the previous day, the bathroom was clean. Therefore any DNA found in there was 'dated' to after the murder. Stupid. It's obvious that no-one (outside a forensics team) would use the word clean in that way.
It's also obvious, as you quite rightly point out, that there is almost no scenario where Amanda's DNA (and to a lesser extent Raffaelle's) could be suspicious, because of the fact that they were at the cottage a lot and we would expect their DNA to show up. (Can any sensible people suggest anywhere (apart from inside Meredith's body) where Amanda or Raff's DNA shouldn't be found unless they were guilty?)
Guilters often crow about Rudy's situation. We would not expect Rudy's DNA to show up anywhere in that cottage, because he had no legitimate reason to be there, and secondary transfer was unlikely (unlike in Raff's case).

 

[Kaosium]

I always maintained that the manual assault with his hand happened before the fatal attack, during the group taunting and holding period. There were bruises but no blood in that region.

"Group taunting and holding?"

Are you talking about the same case we are?

 

[anglolawyer]

The implication of the statements are she was so confused, perhaps from the hash, and there's nothing about the break-in, she didn't 'witness' that, nor remember any of this the next day, she woke up in bed with Raffaele.

I don't follow. The fact is there was a smashed window and with Amanda's self-incriminating account the cops had to conclude the burglary was faked. It is a further fact that she had spent the previous three days denying all knowledge and failing to make mention of Patrick. Therefore, as soon as she came forth with the admission that she had been there and knew that Patrick was the killer it was entirely reasonable that she become a suspect. I emphasise, I say all this on the assumption the confessions, statements or admissions were freely made.

They're not confessions, Anglo. A lawyer would have had to have been there for that. It's a 'witness' statement and a 'spontaneous' statement.

I put 'confession' in quotes in my post. They are statements that contain admissions.

My point actually is they look like fools arresting Patrick over this, and what I was getting at was farther down in my post.

Again, I disagree, on the said assumption. They (thought they) had a wealth of material on Patrick. Amanda placing him at the scene was the final piece in the jigsaw. Correct or not, they thought the exchange of texts meant something (I am pretty sure they did not know the content), that his phone was pinged near the apartment, that he called her at the questura on the night of 02 Nov (true) and they surreptitiously met on the morning of 05 Nov to evade surveillance. They also had Pasquale to contradict his claim the bar was open although, admittedly, they did not dig him up until 07 Nov. That seems plenty to justify preventive detention while enquiries were pursued further.

What I am suggesting is that your cynicism is only justified on the basis that the admissions were not voluntary, not because of their content. Neither the cops nor the judge were required to accept their content on an all-or-nothing basis. She admitted she was there when the killing took place. They could legitimately accept that as true (why else make such an admission) but reject her attempt to diminish her role. That is exactly what Guede did after all.

If you were making some other point I am sorry but I didn't get it.

 

[yimyammer]

Hi yimyammer. I am way behind in the conversation but this is actually interesting.

As I understand it, there was NOT multiple male DNA on the bra strap. There was only multiple male DNA found on that little severed clasp that the police claim they lost for six weeks. The one they videotaped themselves re-finding, passing around with dirty gloves, putting back on the floor, picking up again, and finally bagging.

So I would ask, what reasonable explanation, would account for that little severed clasp, having the DNA of four male contributors, but none of those four male contributors, being found on the actual bra, tested six week earlier?

That was a typo on my part, I should have typed "clasp" not "strap"

I guess it would depend if DNA is completely washed away in a washing machine. If so, then you would assume the DNA was picked up while the clasp was on the floor or I guess the bra might not have been washed in a while.

In my experience with removing bra straps, I can tell you I wasn't interested in the rest of the Bra, only undoing the clasp, so you wouldn't find my DNA all over the bra. Perhaps on the strap near the clasp but no where else. I can say the clasp didn't always come apart right away so having to work in that area of the bra, one would think DNA would be more likely to concentrate there.

It gets back to the science of DNA transfer which I was starting to attempt to learn about at the other forum but trying to keep up with all the back and forth on this issue was too time consuming. So I quit reading the literature on secondary and tertiary DNA transfer, the C&V report, etc. As a result, its left me woefully deficient in my understanding of the DNA science issues as it relates to this case

 

[yimyammer]

I don't know either, yimyammer, but I bet some of our lawyers do.

The thing about all the evidence you cite is that it was all, um, uncovered(?)...er...developed(?)...er...created(?) after the suspects were in police custody. To me, the question has never been about having enough evidence to convict, but about having enough evidence even to suspect.

I think the interpretation of her behavior is what kicked off the suspension and it appears ILE decided they were certain of her guilt based on their read of her behavior. Didn't I read one of the ILE say something to the effect he could tell she was guilty by looking at her or something similar?

I don't have a problem with becoming suspicious with someone based on their behavior and then deciding to investigate to see if evidence supports that suspicion.

I do have a problem with (after developing suspicion) looking at everything related to that individual through the prism of guilt. That's what it seems like ILE did in this case.

 

[Dan O.]

I put 'confession' in quotes in my post. They are statements that contain admissions.

Did Amanda admit: " Last Thursday 1st November, day on which I usually work, while I was in the apartment of my boyfriend Raffaele, at about 20.30 I received a message from Patrick on my mobile, telling me that that evening the pub would remain closed because there were no people, therefore I didn’t have to go to work. I replied to the message saying that we would meet immediately"?

The highlighted words are not Amanda's. They are the words of the police theory. But they wrote up the statement and had Amanda sign it as if she just sat down and said those words.

She became a suspect as soon as she uttered whatever incriminating statements the cops thought they heard. As a suspect, she should never have been forced to sign such a statement without legal representation. A lawyer would have reviewed the statement with Amanda and had the errors corrected before she signed.

 

[js202]

Let me see if I have this right, Tesla. Charlie is weird for spending a lot of time researching this case?
The other day, you accused me of using an argument from authority, because I challenged your statements about logic by saying that I'm a philosopher.
I'd like to address those points now.
The first thing to say, of course anyone can articulate any opinion whever they want, including on this forum. But that doesn't mean that said opinion is informed, and therefore worth listening to.
What Charlie does is a lot less weird than what you do. Charlie researches so intently, because he is trying to understand and then articulate the truth of this case. You, on the other hand, haven't even read this whole thread, you make all kinds of factual, grammatical and logical errors in your posts, and yet when clearly intelligent, knowledgeable people point these out, you ignore them. You're posting how many times a day, even though you clearly haven't done any proper research on the case?
You accused me of using "the worse [sic] sort of debate trick", an argument from authority, but actually arguments from authority play an important role in life and an important structural role in debate.
Firstly, I mentioned my professional qualification because I have years of experience analysing people's logical skills and argumentation skills at a top UK uni. Your evaluation that you are "slicing and dicing" arguments here are way off the mark.
Secondly, arguments from authority are very useful in life- if I have to have surgery, then, because I am not a surgeon, I have to take what the surgeon says more or less at face value. Imagine if, to be able to have surgery, we had to understand the medical principles and evidence well enough to be able to follow every piece of the surgeon's rationale. I'd be dead. A lot of other people would be too.
Thirdly, arguments from authority help us define the epistemic burdens of people participating in debate. If I, with my expertise in Philosophy, am arguing with someone with no expertise, and they say 'Plato said X', and I say 'No, Plato said Y, not X', what should happen next? Because I've borne my epistemic burden by becoming an expert, my adversary should consider the possibility that they are wrong, and the burden is on them to go off and do the research to show they are right.
If I felt confident that Plato said Y and not X, and my adversary refused to go away and do further research, and instead just stubbornly maintained that they were right, then I'd a) dismiss them as ignorant and b) know that I'd won the argument!
You're going up against many intelligent people on this board, who have carried their epistemic burden, researched the case at length, tried to keep an open mind, and be led by the science and evidence, and have come to certain conclusions. And instead of doing more research, trying to work out why so many people have strenuously disagreed with you, you just plow on ahead anyway.
When I joined this forum, I read the whole of this thread before I made a single comment. Why? Because the epistemic burden was on me to undestand the contours of the debate, what progress had been made, and what the skills and knowledge of the other posters was. I read all the english-language media about the case. And I read all the books about the case that I could get my hands on. Finally I researched the psychology of false 'confession' (or accusation).
You obviously haven't done the same. Therefore anyone who has can legitimately use an argument from authority with you, and dismiss your opinions of this case as uninformed and ignorant of the facts and scientific context of the case.
I've noticed that while posters have been trying to engage with you, you seem unable to respond relevantly to their arguments. I really think you need to hone your writing, researching, argumentation / debating skills before posting in public about any subject, let alone one where there are peoples' freedom at stake.
Please don't read this as a personal attack. It isn't. I'm just offering you the perspective of someone who is qualified and trained to moderate academic debate on your contributions here. I will be more than happy to debate the case with you when you've researched this case, and learnt some more sophisticated critical thinking skills.

Absolutely terrific post. Kudos.

 

[yimyammer]

Here is the prosecutor's explanation of why there is no tape, given in an interview with CNN in 2011. Note that he admits having taped many witnesses, just not Amanda and Raffaele, suspects in the crime of the century.

Notice how he also says "it isn't done" and "we have budget problems" and that to him, it isn't enough just to get the voice recording, they also must have video. And the dog ate his homework, and his papers flew off the top of his car and his fish died and he had to do his Christmas shopping.

12’51’’ CNN: Why wasn’t there any video or transcript of those hours?
13’00’’ Mignini: Look, that’s, I was at the police station, and all the…let’s say…when I made investigations in my own office, I taped them. I taped them, we have an apparatus for that, and I transcribed them. For example, there’s the interrogation of the English girls, Meredith’s friends,it was all taped. The interrogations of Amanda in prison were taped, and then transcribed, and we have the transcripts of… But in a police station, at the very moment of the investigation it isn’t done, not with respect to Amanda or anyone else. Also because, I can tell you, today, even then, but today in particular, we have budget problems, budget problems that are not insignificant, which do not allow us to transcribe. Video is very important…I completely agree with you that videotaping is extremely important, we should be able to have a video recording of every statement [verbale di assunzione di informazioni] made Because what is said is very important, but it’s maybe even more important how it is said, the non-verbal language. Because from the non-verbal language you can [missing words].
15’14’’ Mignini: It isn’t only Amanda, it’s always like that. But I wanted to say that I agree with him that it’s fundamental, only there’s a problem, especially when the witnesses are so numerous, and in fact just recording, I mean recording the sound, isn’t enough according to me.
15’38’’ CNN: It doesn’t cost much, he says.
15’40’’ Mignini: Well we have significant budget problems, that’s what it is.

http://amada-knox-data.wikispaces.com/Mignini-CNN-interview

IIRC, hasn't it been asserted repeatedly that ILE doesn't video tape witnesses thus there was no tape of Amanda's because she started as just a witness in the mind of LE?

Yet, Mignini clearly says he video taped "the english girls and Meredith's friends".

But they were witnesses, so I guess I can throw that assertion out the window?

 

[anglolawyer]

It was objected to because it filed too late, the addendum wasn't announced until October of 2011. Had Hellmann allowed it Mignini would have grounds for appeal.

...Oh...wait! But he didn't know that then.

I am out of the loop on this late filing but it sounds interesting. Why would such a big point be filed late? Dan quoted Perugia Shock reporting first instance trial evidence on the point so it wasn't new. Like I said before, there's nothing about Naruto in either book. Try searching for it.

 

[anglolawyer]

Did Amanda admit: " Last Thursday 1st November, day on which I usually work, while I was in the apartment of my boyfriend Raffaele, at about 20.30 I received a message from Patrick on my mobile, telling me that that evening the pub would remain closed because there were no people, therefore I didn’t have to go to work. I replied to the message saying that we would meet immediately"?

The highlighted words are not Amanda's. They are the words of the police theory. But they wrote up the statement and had Amanda sign it as if she just sat down and said those words.

She became a suspect as soon as she uttered whatever incriminating statements the cops thought they heard. As a suspect, she should never have been forced to sign such a statement without legal representation. A lawyer would have reviewed the statement with Amanda and had the errors corrected before she signed.

Yes Dan. I know and I agree. I was taking issue with what I understood to be Kaosium's contention (as I understood it) that, even at face value, the statements gave the cops little on which to base Patrick's arrest. Police make arrests on the basis of as much or less all the time. Charging is something else and we need to keep in mind in Italy you can spend a long time in custody without being charged. This is not possible where I hail from, nor you I bet. Here it's a couple of days or so.

 

[Grinder]

First of all, I'm not conceding the footprint is Rudi's to begin with, and secondly, I would find it far more likely he used the washroom first, then went back into the bedroom to go thru the purse, stepped in blood with his left foot and left. Why in the world would he leave the building completely, then decided to come back, you may as well just say he locked Meredith's door in the almost impossible angle but not entirely impossible, go with that, it's far more likely.

It's Rudi's. He left in a panic and when he reached the outdoors he realized he needed a plan and needed to clean up (as he himself reported using a sweatshirt to hide his pants) so he returned after a short time. His shoe no longer left blood at this point. It is almost certainly what happened.