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

[Charlie Wilkes]

Do you have access to the original photos?.

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/nov_2_and_3_edited.zip
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/dec_18.zip

These files are a little over 300mb altogether (135mb/175mb).

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I don't like publicly posting links to the photo archives. It encourages ghouls.

But I'm sick of this crap about the "taunting phase" and Amanda and Raffaele having sex next to a dead body. Maybe if people look at these pictures they will see what really happened. It is bad enough all by itself. Nobody needs to embellish it with rape porn fantasies.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Amanda's letters to her lawyers

You mean little details like where you were and what you were doing the night your roommate was killed?

Here is a link to her first and second letter to her lawyers from 9 November. The complete text of her second memorilale is in her book, and portions have appeared in several places already.

 

[yimyammer]

In one colossal blunder, the postal police managed to toast 3 out of 4 hard drives they were supposed to be protecting. The 4 drives were from Raffaele's MacBook pro, Raffaele's sisters computer which he wasn't using at the time, Amanda's Toshiba laptop and Meredit's MacBook laptop. Of the 4 drives, only the drive from Raffaele's MacBook pro survived unscathed. Hte other three drives were toasted but the first recovery service was able to recover the content of Meredith's computer by swapping the logic card. Amanda's hard drive went through 3 different recovery services which probably resulted in making the problem worse because of the way that particular drive stores the geometry data on the logic card. The defense offered to pay to have that drive sent to the manufacturer where it would have the best chance for recovery. The prosecution objected and the court refused to allow it. I am not aware of any recovery effort for Raffaele's second hard drive.

I have seen it reported that a laptop was taken from Rudy and also toasted but question this as Rudy was last known to have a stollen laptop which he supposedly returned.

And there is also a report that Filomena who managed to remove her laptop from the cottage after the murder discovery was told to bring it to the police station the next day. And when she did they returned it toasted.

I can't confirm these last two but the first event with the 4 drives is well documented with hearing transcripts and expert reports.

If accurate, I can only lol.

So the defense and prosecution both have a copy of Raf's drive that can be analyzed by both parties independently to this day? If so, this seems like the most important drive to have salvaged the data from, correct?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

only by magical thinking

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

Using what cleaning fluid on earth? Elizabeth Johnson and Greg Hampikian thought that this was very unlikely and said so in their open letter of November 2009. Moreover, if the DNA came from another cell type, how is it possible that the cells were not lysed, due to osmotic shock and/or the action of detergent? If the knife had been carefully cleaned, there wouldn't be starch on it.

 

[yimyammer]

ignore

 

[Grinder]

It is without question that we don't know how many times Rudi entered and left Meredith's room. The start of this discussion involved the locking of Meredith's door with the left foot at a 90 degree angle to the door. That angle has been demonstrated to be closer to 45 - 60 but still what many would consider to be an odd position for locking the door.

Whether the blood wore off going outside or walking around the kitchen, at some point the shoe would not leave a trail even using Luminol. Dan O, I do you know if there were any Luminol prints of Rudi'd left shoe - I'm sure you've discussed it and I apologize in advance for asking.

The important point for me is that it can not be inferred from the shoe print outside her door that someone else (only Amanda of course) could have locked the door. Since both sides say that no DNA must be left behind (apologies to Locard), the PGP in the case of Amanda in MK's room and the PIP in case of Rudi in Filomena's, it is clear that some other accomplice of Rudi could have been there and done the door locking.

There is no way that the locked door and the shoe print can be used as evidence against Amanda.

 

[DrTesla]

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.

bri,

good post,

although I disagree with your assertion that source of authority arguments are good ones and that its is normal for somebody not involved with the trial or on the jury to spend hours and hours looking at crime scene photos, or to visit the accused in prison. as bit of an amateur psychologist myself, this reeks of a man suffering from the white knight syndrome and wanting to save the damsel in distress because only he can see she's really a good person.

but it is nice to see somebody go to bat for their friend even when they know their friend is wrong.

I think that i'm pretty intelligent myself....I have a degree in mechanical engineering and they don't usually hand those out to fools. if you want to make this some kind of pissing content then let's do that.

i'd rather people just talk about the evidence and leave their occupations out of it.

 

[Briars]

Using what cleaning fluid on earth? Elizabeth Johnson and Greg Hampikian thought that this was very unlikely and said so in their open letter of November 2009. Moreover, if the DNA came from another cell type, how is it possible that the cells were not lysed, due to osmotic shock and/or the action of detergent? If the knife had been carefully cleaned, there wouldn't be starch on it.

Well it wasn't that clean was it there was DNA left in a scratched area. The knife could have had cornstarch from the gloves or they could have sliced some bread post murder.

 

[Briars]

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.

Glad you used the word potential. Sweaty hands and certain conditions can facilitate but not guarantee transfer Pressure can but not always pick up DNA. It was found on the clasp," her clothing" .Struggling and climbing in a window yielded nothing , nor did heaving a 9 1b rock or washing in the bathroom .

 

[Grinder]

Nice interview

 

[Chris_Halkides]

An ordinary kitchen knife, not the murder weapon.

Well it wasn't that clean was it there was DNA left in a scratched area. The knife could have had cornstarch from the gloves or they could have sliced some bread post murder.

If they were guilty and used the knife after the murder, the abrasion against the bread would tend to remove both blood and DNA. IIRC the starch was near the entry point of the blade into the handle. That is not where I would grab the knife, even with a gloved hand. Unless one knows that the gloves they used had starch, claiming that the starch came from the gloves is speculative. Given the problems in working in the low template region of DNA forensics, there is no reason to conclude that Meredith's DNA was ever in physical contact with the knife. Most importantly, you have not answered how it is possible to avoid lysing cells when you clean a knife. Osmotic shock can break open cells, and detergents tend to dissolve cell membranes, which are made out of lipids.

 

[Bill Williams]

Using what cleaning fluid on earth? Elizabeth Johnson and Greg Hampikian thought that this was very unlikely and said so in their open letter of November 2009. Moreover, if the DNA came from another cell type, how is it possible that the cells were not lysed, due to osmotic shock and/or the action of detergent? If the knife had been carefully cleaned, there wouldn't be starch on it.

Well it wasn't that clean was it there was DNA left in a scratched area. The knife could have had cornstarch from the gloves or they could have sliced some bread post murder.

.... in other words you are now arguing for the knife as worthless as evidence. Please be careful what you say.

Then again this "could have had" rescues the argument. There are potentially millions of things which "could have happened." What is interesting in this case is what did happen.

What happened in this case? Patrizia Stefanoni said she found a bit of Meredith's non-blood DNA in a crevice in a knife, a crevice she can no longer find. And being that she claimed it as non-blood DNA, and blood is more likely to survive a bleaching than DNA itself, what is the significance of finding non-blood DNA to begin with?

And then when the Conti-Vecchiotti report comes out, the non-blood DNA is perhaps rye-grain.

What does this knife have to do with the murder again? Exactly how many knives, out of all the knives Sollecito owned, and all the knives in the cottage and back at the apartment... how many knives were actually examined? Ans. Just this one.

And Mignini had three separate reasons why Amanda and Raffaele purposely brought this knife to the cottage.

1) to engage in a preplanned satanic rite
2) to engage in a sex-game
3) to intimidate Meredith because Meredith did not like Amanda​

When Mignini's assumed motive of the satanic rite fell apart, he didn't bother bringing it into the 1st trial. He then varied between the sex-game, and then the quite separate motive of intimidating Meredith.

What did Judge Mignini find out at trial? Remember, Massei is the convicting judge.

Judge Massei rejected the satanic rite, rejected the sex game gone wrong, and finally rejected the theory that Amanda and Raffaele purposely brought the knife to intimidate Meredith. In fact, Judge Massei found nothing out of the ordinary, really, in Meredith's and Amanda's relationship.... so much so that Judge Massei said that Amanda did not purposely bring the knife.

That's right. Judge Massei said that Amanda carried that knife only for her own protection. Acc. to yet another of the ever changing guilt theories, Judge Massei said that the knife was at the cottage by chance, and that Amanda and Raffaele made a momentary and unfortunate "choice for evil".

That's four separate motives, each one ludicrous, except that as the convicting Judge, Judge Massei had to first discount Mignini's ever changing motives to finally conclude that AK and RS had no motive. And then Massei had to invent a method by which that knife innocently got to the cottage given that Massei found no motive or preplanning. And Massei invented this "Amanda carried it for protection" without anyone ever presenting any evidence at the 1st trial that this was in fact what happened. He simply invented it.

So here there is a knife, with no motive to be used at the cottage, no realistic mechanism by which it could have got there (most certainly no one ever testified or even hinted that Amanda carried it for protection), and no blood-DNA, and perhaps none of Meredith's biological material in it, in a crevice which Stefanoni said was once there but is not there now.

What is there to doubt about this knife being the murder weapon? I guess it could have been used to cut rye bread post murder.... otherwise, how does one explain the rye grain which Stefanoni said was non-blood DNA?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

As far as we know, since there is no interrogation tape, the interviewers let up on Amanda just as soon as she implicated Patrick. Don't you think that's strange? I mean, after all the work it took to get that out of her, don't you think they would want to know the entire story, step by step? How and when did Amanda and Patrick make their plan? What did Patrick say to Meredith when they got there? Did Meredith willingly go into the bedroom with Patrick, or did she ask Amanda what was going on?

Hi Mary, isn't that exactly what the police are supposed to do, once the witness becomes a suspect, stop all questioning and allow the suspect to vat an attorney. Isn't that the reason the first two declarations we not admissible, seems to me the police did exactly what they are suppose to do.......

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA transfer in domestic violence cases

Glad you used the word potential. Sweaty hands and certain conditions can facilitate but not guarantee transfer Pressure can but not always pick up DNA. It was found on the clasp," her clothing" .Struggling and climbing in a window yielded nothing , nor did heaving a 9 1b rock or washing in the bathroom .

We don't know where the forensic police sampled; therefore, drawing conclusions about the lack of DNA in Filomena's room, for example, is fraught with difficulty. However, it is well known that DNA transfers occurs in simulated strangulation studies, which are presumably less violent than an actual domestic violence event. The lack of DNA of anyone other than Rudy on Meredith clothes (or Meredith's wrists if they swabbed there), is a big problem for any theory in which Raffaele or Amanda restrained her. Reference: Wiegand P, Kleiber M: DNA typing of epithelial cells after strangulation. International Journal of Legal Medicine 110(4):181-3, 1997.

 

[Grinder]

Well it wasn't that clean was it there was DNA left in a scratched area. The knife could have had cornstarch from the gloves or they could have sliced some bread post murder.

Have the PG sites produced the opinions of any real DNA experts? PMF's expert was a receptionist at a beauty saloon or some such thing. I think her name was Nicky and she was interviewed by Vogt.

When Hellmann appointed the independent experts, I was concerned because they were too close to the ILE. I was hoping for a European selection outside of Italy.

The defense side did have real DNA experts write a letter saying the science was flawed.

The experts are actual PHDs in the field not just a technician like Stefanoni.

Why do you choose to believe her over them?

I totally agree about the starch. Of course that means that Amanda's DNA means absolutely nothing, unless the bread cut itself.

The original stories had the police looking for a pen-knife or even a screwdriver. The knife definitely didn't match most of the wounds.

 

[DrTesla]

Have the PG sites produced the opinions of any real DNA experts? PMF's expert was a receptionist at a beauty saloon or some such thing. I think her name was Nicky and she was interviewed by Vogt.

When Hellmann appointed the independent experts, I was concerned because they were too close to the ILE. I was hoping for a European selection outside of Italy.

The defense side did have real DNA experts write a letter saying the science was flawed.

The experts are actual PHDs in the field not just a technician like Stefanoni.

Why do you choose to believe her over them?

I totally agree about the starch. Of course that means that Amanda's DNA means absolutely nothing, unless the bread cut itself.

The original stories had the police looking for a pen-knife or even a screwdriver. The knife definitely didn't match most of the wounds.

how could Stefoni get a match for human DNA if it was just starch. if she got a match for Knox and/or the victim, it wasn't starch.

 

[DrTesla]

bill Williams,

can you provide a quote of Mignini talking about a Satanic rite? He specifically addressed this in an interview with CNN that I've seen posted on here that he did not ever say it was about a Satanic rite. why would he lie about one of his motive theories if it was at one point his motive theory?

can you point me to the page of Massei where he rejects the Satanic rite theory b/c pretty sure he never talks about that.

 

[Grinder]

Hi Mary, isn't that exactly what the police are supposed to do, once the witness becomes a suspect, stop all questioning and allow the suspect to vat an attorney. Isn't that the reason the first two declarations we not admissible, seems to me the police did exactly what they are suppose to do.......

The 5:45 interrogation absolutely needed to be taped. Mignini himself said, among other things, that they didn't tape because of budget concerns, yet later produced a !80,000 Euro animated video.

There certainly isn't a law against taping a witness or person with knowledge.

They didn't tape Patrick either.

When the oft repeated pulling of her alibi occurred how could she not fit the definition of a suspect.

 

[DrTesla]

The 5:45 interrogation absolutely needed to be taped. Mignini himself said, among other things, that they didn't tape because of budget concerns, yet later produced a !80,000 Euro animated video.

There certainly isn't a law against taping a witness or person with knowledge.

They didn't tape Patrick either.

When the oft repeated pulling of her alibi occurred how could she not fit the definition of a suspect.

Mignini said it should be taped as it is beneficial for all involved but it is not a legal requirement for it to be taped if the person is a witness. you are conflating two very different things.

they did make a mistake in not making her a suspect immediately after the boyfriend broke her alibi but that undermines your theory that they were trying to pin the murder on her because it is clear they didn't really think she was the killer but just covering something up.