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

[Grinder]

I have always wondered what caused these footprints. Maybe someone mopped the floor with bare feet. No one will ever know. But common sense should tell anyone they have no connection to the crime. The cops were desperate to come up with something, which is why they dragged the forensic people back to the cottage six weeks after they thought they had finished their investigation.

Charlie I thought it was a possibility that someone used a cleaner in the shower and then left the prints. I also wondered why we never heard testimony as to when those floors were last cleaned by one of the housemates (obviously not Amanda ).

When the story was first reported describing footprints, I thought they would look like wet prints when gets out of a pool not the splotches they actually were.

The case has been filled with these pieces of evidence that don't match anybody but are contended to look more like Amanda or Raffaele left them than Rudi. In other words, they are already guilty. There is no way that the bloody mat print could be used to pick Raf's reference foot print out of a lineup. Even if one thinks it looks more like Raf's than Rudi it doesn't mean anything. Btw, the grid system used by the ILE expert has long been recognized as bogus.

 

[cuki777]

cuki pbs#13

Matt Jones

Remember the name.

 

[GWCarver]

Matt Jones

Remember the name.

Why?

Never mind, I found it:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R1FGH6J7LBJCBN?cdPage=16

 

[yimyammer]

You want more? I had thought maybe I typed my last luminol post!

Not necessary, I made my post before I had gotten to all the replies regarding the luminal, let me edit my comment to say:

I found the PIP's responses regarding the luminal to be informative and enlightening, thx

Let's try it this way then:

How could anyone possibly pretend that even if they were blood (low percentage chance) that they are not there because of Rudy Guede or anyone on the day of the discovery which is more than half a dozen people tromping through there right next to Rudy Guede's barely visable footprints, or after any of the booties or shoes of the more than a dozen forensic technicians tracking blood out of the murder room?

That strikes me as a fair point and I don't know anyone could say with certainty either way plus trying to interpret those blobs is a real head scratcher to me

Have you seen the videos?

They're all walking on top of those which won't be revealed until six weeks later when go back for the bra clasp.

It's been a while, but yes. The circumstances surrounding the collection and interpretation of the luminal seem at least sufficient for reasonable doubt (not withstanding the many other issues in this case)

 

[Antony]

Worth reminding everybody that there is no record or transcript of any kind of a single word that the cops put in the mouths of Amanda and Raffaele on 05-06/11/2007.

The cops claim Raffaele admitted he might have slept that evening (of the murder), they claim Amanda "accused" Lumumba of killing Meredith, etc' etc'.

Exactly, and the fact that Amanda now has a conviction confirmed based on the unsupported word of the police is a shocking indictment of the Italian judicial system.

Of course, there are people here who seem all too keen for convictions to stand solely on the word of the police. Why have trials at all?

 

[yimyammer]

I have already responded to the issue extensively in two posts upthread. I would add that the citation for the value of luminol's having a sensitivity of 1,000,000 to 100,000,000 million-fold dilution is a powerpoint presentation that does not provide any direct references to the forensic literature. The presentation does appear at a reputable site, however. 5,000,000 is the largest figure I can document for luminol, but I have also seen values for TMB that reach to 1,000,000-fold. For now, suffice it to say that there are ranges of sensitivities reported for both compounds. If the only reason that TMB gave negative results when luminol gave positives were a difference in sensitivity, then there would be exactly zero reasons to use it as a follow-up test; yet it is often used as just that. I may have more to say later.

my apologies, I wrote that before I got to any of the replies addressing the luminal...I'll try to read all the posts before I reply in the future but tend to reply as I go since its easier but results in outdated replies like the one I made

 

[yimyammer]

If the only reason that TMB gave negative results when luminol gave positives were a difference in sensitivity, then there would be exactly zero reasons to use it as a follow-up test; yet it is often used as just that. I may have more to say later.

PS...good point

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Once again, name-calling enters this. It assumes there is this entity called "FOAKer", when in fact those of us on this side of the fence are all over the map. The difference is that none of us start with one pet anomaly and then try to make all the other evidence fit around it, even if it doesn't fit.

You need to read all the posts before you make such comments, I have asked what you people prefer to be called, FOAKer stands for Friends Of Amanda Knox, if you didn't know this you should have asked. I'm aware what it sounds like, that is why I asked what you people would prefer to be called, same goes for the Guitars, I know of no other name for them as well without typing 'those who believe inn innocence or guilt'.
And for my highlighted part, I'm sorry, but FOAKERs start with she's innocent and then bend every piece of evidence to fit that theme regardless how crazy it may sound. Someone asked me to pick one piece and I pick the footprint that bothered me the most. Again, I fail to see how anyone can look at all the evidence and come to the conclusion she was not somehow involved.

You are entitled to your opinion. You actually do not need to defend it... you just need to assert it. Enough said. Just say that Rudy could not have locked the door with one foot turned 180 degrees from the lock, and that someone else must have locked that door, and that this "someone else" must have been Amanda Knox.

Sounds exactly like what I did say, I also said I realize he could have locked that door from that position, if you go back far enough, I even said I'm sure there is someone somewhere who could have locked that door with his feet while standing on his head, my point is just how very unlikely that is. I think it was Amanda, your free to speculate anyone else as well.

Just assert it. Don't get mad at people who offer counter evidence, or have experiences counter to your, or who offer counter theories by which Rudy could have locked the door either before or after that shoe print was deposited. Heck, my own experience is witnessing someone do exactly what you say is impossible, and then you try to defend your theory by piling other info on - "did that person just murder someone?"

I never get mad, I have no idea where you have come up with this, this is the internet, I've dealt with these kinds for a long time on here, I know exactly what to expect. Before the annulment, I honestly had a list of those I would not respond to, I thought this was over so I got rid of it, guess I'll be making another.

You hadn't said that it was unlikely that someone would lock a door that way after a specific set of circumstances, you've claimed (and you say your experiments showed) that no one locks doors that way. Did they all just murder someone?

I did experiments, what are you talking about, and I have never said it was impossible, just highly improbable. You don't think using a set of keys that you have no idea if they are even for that door would make it even more unlikely you don't turn around and face the door you are trying to lock?

But you have an opinion! Great! You don't need to defend it, especially against people who you obviously hold in low regard to begin with. Low enough regard that you'll name-call. It's not so much that you have this opinion, it's that you'll fight or name call someone else who doesn't! What's THAT about!?

I hold some people here in very high regard, however I do respond to the others as well, remember, I making a new list..........

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Matt Jones

Remember the name.

I read this, he believes Amanda innocent but somehow involved, smart guy.

 

[yimyammer]

I'm actually of the mind that the ILE definitely didn't make their case but I'm not absolutely sure what happened, so not PIP/FOA.

I ask you to ask yourself why Stefanoni did the test and then hid the fact that she did it. The test confirms that the substance was blood, not some other substance that reacts with the more sensitive Luminol.

It's like a PSA test for prostrate cancer. When one gets a high PSA the next step is to determine what caused it. Biopsies and other methods are used because PSA reacts to more things than just cancer.

Luminol when applied correctly reacts to many substances not just turnip juice as the PGP like to joke. Look at the booties of the ICSI and answer why their are reactions on them.

Just as an FYI, I am in no way using PIP or PGP in a derogatory manner. I use these merely so I can quickly refer to whom I am responding to or referring to without having to write it out every time. If there is another agnostic/non-offensive mnemonic I can use, please let me know and I'll make the switch in the future. "FOAKer" & "Guilter" strike me as strident so I don't use those terms.

I would love to know the exact circumstances (do trial transcripts of her testimony on the stand reveal this?) of how we know Stefoni hid the results of the TNB tests?

If true (no offense to those who already convinced, I just haven't read the source documents that support this), I find it very troubling she would make a concerted effort to hide these findings. This and things like releasing AK sex partners to the press, not allowing AK's "confession" in as evidence but running the civil trial that allowed this "confession" concurrently with the murder trial, etc cause me to look at the ILE, et al with a suspicious eye.

If I have the facts correct, I would think the case should be thrown out because of the tactics and mistakes by ILE alone. I'm not trying to argue that the US system is the standard by which all others must measure up to but it seems like there have been plenty of mistakes (deliberate or accidental) by ILE that if they had occurred in the US, a judge would have thrown out the case a long time ago.

I am trying to stay open minded but can't see a scenario where these three did this crime together (which doesn't make me right). If I understood the science of DNA, luminal, etc well enough to give what I feel is an accurate and intellectually honest rebuttal to the bra clasp and knife DNA evidence as well as whether AK/Raf called the police before or after the phone police arrived, I would be more outspoken and certain about their innocence. Since I have not done the work necessary to understand these issues in order to make these arguments, I feel more relegated to the sidelines focusing on trying to understand as much as I can from the perspective of both PIP's & PGP's

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Charlie I thought it was a possibility that someone used a cleaner in the shower and then left the prints. I also wondered why we never heard testimony as to when those floors were last cleaned by one of the housemates (obviously not Amanda ).

When the story was first reported describing footprints, I thought they would look like wet prints when gets out of a pool not the splotches they actually were.

The case has been filled with these pieces of evidence that don't match anybody but are contended to look more like Amanda or Raffaele left them than Rudi. In other words, they are already guilty. There is no way that the bloody mat print could be used to pick Raf's reference foot print out of a lineup. Even if one thinks it looks more like Raf's than Rudi it doesn't mean anything. Btw, the grid system used by the ILE expert has long been recognized as bogus.

Rinaldi's use of the "Grid of LM Robbins" represents a particular irony in this case.

Louise Robbins is one of the most egregious and thoroughly debunked charlatans ever to testify in a criminal court. She would come up with some way to match any foot, shoe or shoe print to whatever theory served her client.

Melvin Lewis, a John Marshall Law School professor who keeps track of more than 5,000 expert witnesses, dismisses Robbins' work as "complete hogwash."

"It barely rises to the dignity of nonsense," he said.

http://www.science.sjsu.edu/bio101/believe_it_or_not.htm

Did Riinaldi not know about this woman's reputation, or did he simply trust that the court would not know or care?

The attached image compares three shoe prints. On is the print left in dust on the screen door of the Nicarico residence, from which a little girl was abducted. Above, on the left, is a shoe like the one owned by Brian Dugan, who committed this crime. On the right is a shoe owned by an innocent man who the DuPage County prosecutor wanted to railroad. You can see that they're similar, except the radial lines curve downward on Dugan's shoe and on the screen door print, whereas those on Buckley's shoe curve upward.

Robbins, paid by the prosecution, explained that the radial lines of dust changed direction from the force of the kick.

Fortunately the defendant was acquitted, unlike his equally innocent co-defendants (Hernandez and Cruz) who became the subject of a controversy that raged for more than 10 years. And in that case, as with Meredith's murder, they had the guy who did it.

But, they didn't catch him until AFTER they had publicly accused Buckley, Hernandez and Cruz. So... the only thing they could so was insist that they all did it together.

 

[anglolawyer]

I read this, he believes Amanda innocent but somehow involved, smart guy.

Really? I did not get that from the link. I saw this though:

I do not think she killed anyone.

 

[Antony]

the police are not on trial for murder, or anything else. what Friends want to do is put everybody on trial but Amanda Knox.

Interesting take on the 2 sides of a court case. So when someone is on trial for murder, all and any accusations against them are to be taken at face value without scrutiny, because otherwise it is "putting the accusers on trial". Meanwhile anything they say in their defence is assumed to be false, particularly when it provides an innocent explanation for particular details placed as "evidence" against them.

Ever heard of "presumption of innocence" and "burden of proof on the prosecution", Tesla?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Really? I did not get that from the link. I saw this though:

Well, keep reading, I've read them all, even the ones he's posted over at PMF.

 

[bookworm]

Amanda's book relates that she told the cops she was having feminine issues but was not allowed to go to the ladies room. That would seem to qualify as hindering freedom of movement. Raffaele's book indicates that a cop threatened him with a severe beating if he went to see why Amanda cried out. That is surely hindering freedom of movement. More fundamentally, there is ample evidence that the two were de fact suspects before they even walked in the door to the station, as has been discussed here many times.

She was also told she wasn't allowed to leave to go and stay with her cousin in Germany.

 

[yimyammer]

Rinaldi's use of the "Grid of LM Robbins" represents a particular irony in this case.

Louise Robbins is one of the most egregious and thoroughly debunked charlatans ever to testify in a criminal court. She would come up with some way to match any foot, shoe or shoe print to whatever theory served her client.

Melvin Lewis, a John Marshall Law School professor who keeps track of more than 5,000 expert witnesses, dismisses Robbins' work as "complete hogwash."

"It barely rises to the dignity of nonsense," he said.

http://www.science.sjsu.edu/bio101/believe_it_or_not.htm

Did Riinaldi not know about this woman's reputation, or did he simply trust that the court would not know or care?

The attached image compares three shoe prints. On is the print left in dust on the screen door of the Nicarico residence, from which a little girl was abducted. Above, on the left, is a shoe like the one owned by Brian Dugan, who committed this crime. On the right is a shoe owned by an innocent man who the DuPage County prosecutor wanted to railroad. You can see that they're similar, except the radial lines curve downward on Dugan's shoe and on the screen door print, whereas those on Buckley's shoe curve upward.

Robbins, paid by the prosecution, explained that the radial lines of dust changed direction from the force of the kick.

Fortunately the defendant was acquitted, unlike his equally innocent co-defendants (Hernandez and Cruz) who became the subject of a controversy that raged for more than 10 years. And in that case, as with Meredith's murder, they had the guy who did it.

But, they didn't catch him until AFTER they had publicly accused Buckley, Hernandez and Cruz. So... the only thing they could so was insist that they all did it together.

while not relevant to this case, after reading this, I'm reminded of this lady

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, keep reading, I've read them all, even the ones he's posted over at PMF.

I'll take your word for it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a misleading and unhelpful response from Stefanoni

IIUC Stefanoni was asked in 2008 whether or not any confirmatory blood tests were done, and she said that they were not. At best, this is misleading. The Massei report stated, “With respect to the Luminol-positive traces found in Romanelli's room, in Knox's room and in the corridor, she stated that by analysing the SAL cards ‘we learn, in contradiction to what was presented in the technical report deposited by the Scientific Police, and also to what was said in Court, that not only was the Luminol test performed on these traces, but also the generic diagnosis for the presence of blood, using tetramethylbenzidine...and this test...gave a negative result on all the items of evidence from which it was possible to obtain a genetic profile…’” (pp. 256-257, English translation)

 

[Grinder]

Just as an FYI, I am in no way using PIP or PGP in a derogatory manner. I use these merely so I can quickly refer to whom I am responding to or referring to without having to write it out every time. If there is another agnostic/non-offensive mnemonic I can use, please let me know and I'll make the switch in the future. "FOAKer" & "Guilter" strike me as strident so I don't use those terms.

That's exactly why I started the use of those two expressions. Many have taken the lead and also use them. People here at the time used "guilter" and "haters" while they used FOAKers and groupies ^tm. I felt that using those term was pejorative and undermined the discussion.

I would love to know the exact circumstances (do trial transcripts of her testimony on the stand reveal this?) of how we know Stefoni hid the results of the TNB tests?

Someone else will provide the cite but she denied the test and then during cross it came out.

If true (no offense to those who already convinced, I just haven't read the source documents that support this), I find it very troubling she would make a concerted effort to hide these findings. This and things like releasing AK sex partners to the press, not allowing AK's "confession" in as evidence but running the civil trial that allowed this "confession" concurrently with the murder trial, etc cause me to look at the ILE, et al with a suspicious eye.

No kidding, makes one wonder about the system. Add in Rudi being allowed to have Mignini read his letter into the record but not be crossed.

If I have the facts correct, I would think the case should be thrown out because of the tactics and mistakes by ILE alone. I'm not trying to argue that the US system is the standard by which all others must measure up to but it seems like there have been plenty of mistakes (deliberate or accidental) by ILE that if they had occurred in the US, a judge would have thrown out the case a long time ago.

The DNA evidence on the knife and clasp should not have been allowed in but in Italy the same guy rules and then votes on guilt or innocence.

I am trying to stay open minded but can't see a scenario where these three did this crime together (which doesn't make me right). If I understood the science of DNA, luminal, etc well enough to give what I feel is an accurate and intellectually honest rebuttal to the bra clasp and knife DNA evidence as well as whether AK/Raf called the police before or after the phone police arrived, I would be more outspoken and certain about their innocence. Since I have not done the work necessary to understand these issues in order to make these arguments, I feel more relegated to the sidelines focusing on trying to understand as much as I can from the perspective of both PIP's & PGP's

As I have said many a time, they were not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They haven't proven, and they need not, that they are innocent but the case made against them doesn't hold.

 

[Bill Williams]

Once again, name-calling enters this. It assumes there is this entity called "FOAKer", when in fact those of us on this side of the fence are all over the map. The difference is that none of us start with one pet anomaly and then try to make all the other evidence fit around it, even if it doesn't fit.

You need to read all the posts before you make such comments, I have asked what you people prefer to be called, FOAKer stands for Friends Of Amanda Knox, if you didn't know this you should have asked. I'm aware what it sounds like, that is why I asked what you people would prefer to be called, same goes for the Guitars, I know of no other name for them as well without typing 'those who believe inn innocence or guilt'.
And for my highlighted part, I'm sorry, but FOAKERs start with she's innocent and then bend every piece of evidence to fit that theme regardless how crazy it may sound. Someone asked me to pick one piece and I pick the footprint that bothered me the most. Again, I fail to see how anyone can look at all the evidence and come to the conclusion she was not somehow involved.

Congratulations Sherlock. You've just undercut everything everyone, except guilters, assume about justice.

You actually DO start with the assumption that someone is innocent - and then if the evidence suggests such, and if it shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then you can call them guilty.

It is strange to see you spell it out as starkly as you do. This is the same sort of thing when with the bra clasp someone defies you to, "prove that contamination happened."

One of the basic disagreements sides have here is the presumption of innocence. Most of what I've seen here for the last few days is evidence presented by the prosecution; with the suggestion that the "prosecution is not allowed to be put on trial", meaning that the prosecution's evidence should be uncontested.

Why then bother having a trial? Why not just assume they are guilty, focus in on one piece of meaningless evidence, and form a theory of guilt around that!

Sounds good to me.