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

[bookworm]

one gets the strong sense that the Silent Majority, the lurkers on this form who never or rarely comment, have started to turn on Knox and Raffe, and justice is on the horizon. we must stay the course.

LOL - don't bet too much on that.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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..

Actually, you look at the evidence first, and look to who might fit into what that evidence shows you. You definitely do not have to bent that evidence to fit your version, nor do you have to discredit almost everyone who had anything to do with this case in order for you version of innocence to unfold.

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.".

I heard somewhere in this trial that unless contamination can be proven, then it does not exist. If you think about it, contamination is always a possibility, there for DNA should always be thrown out of court, but it isn't.

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..

Is not all evidence presented by the prosecution, it is the defense's job to disprove that evidence. That it what a trial is......

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.

Because you have to look at all the evidence as a whole, not individually, separately, that shoe print outside Meredith's door doesn't mean much, neither does that broken window, the way Amanda acted throughout t the investigation or even the cartwheel, and so forth, but when you take them all together, they do start to have meaning. FOAKERs look at these things, one by one, Guitars tend to look more at the whole picture.
I'll ask once again, if people here do not like being call a Foaker or a Guilter, then please tell me what you would accept, I have asked before, myself, I really don't care, I'm half of each I suppose.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

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

I would say it is relevant. It's a lot easier to spot a fraud if you have seen it in a hundred cases. Reporters who listened to Rinaldi's testimony in 2009 were impressed. He talked about "millimeter by millimeter accuracy" in his analysis of the bathmat and showed all kinds of measurements through which he purported to "exclude" Guede as the source while implicating Raffaele.

It was complete nonsense.

Common sense ought to tell anyone that it is impossible to measure a bloodstain on a pile rug with "millimeter by millimeter accuracy." And Rinaldi's presentation contained a glaring error of fact - an incorrect measurement, without which his argument falls apart.

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/footprint_measurements.html

But nobody noticed. It was pure showmanship. I've seen it many times. These consultants show up with a slick powerpoint, they pitch a cargo-cult methodology couched in scientific jargon, and everyone assumes they are real scientists. But they're not, any more than the people selling patent medicine in the 19th Century were real doctors. Forensic consulting ca. 2013 is at the same level as medicine was then. But you only learn that if you start to look at large numbers of cases and see how utterly preposterous these people are. "Dog scent evidence" is one of the worst areas of abuse, along with forensic podiatry, bite mark evidence, etc.

Check this out:

http://video.pbs.org/video/2223977258/

They got an intern with no qualifications to take a simple, open-book test and become a certified forensic examiner. It's a perfect vehicle for police detectives or academics who are tired of laboring in obscurity for not much money. They can make much more money, much more easily, by renting their "expertise" to whatever lawyer needs it to prop up a weak case. And the courts do nothing to stop it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

negative control runs and other forensic release

I heard somewhere in this trial that unless contamination can be proven, then it does not exist. If you think about it, contamination is always a possibility, there for DNA should always be thrown out of court, but it isn't.

That quote came from a prosecution witness, or perhaps someone within ILE who was not called as a witness whose name escapes me. Dr. Novelli may have said something similar. I don't believe that this is the consensus view. To the best of my knowledge, no one showed how contamination occurred in the Jaidyn Leskie case, but everyone accepts that it did. Sometimes a lengthy investigation into the facts of a contamination event of a case happens after the person was released, as was true for Farah Jamah and the Vincent Report. Asking someone to prove contamination is a little like asking what was the precise instant when a person was infected with a cold virus.

It would be difficult for the defense to adequately raise this line of objection given the beyond-paltry data release. The prosecution could do a much, much better job of documenting what it did by providing machine logs and a contamination log file. At minimum it is surely not asking too much for the prosecution to cough up electronic data files for the negative control runs.

 

[cuki777]

cuki pbs #14

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

"The scream at 23.00 was AK seeing the body for the first time."

 

[Grinder]

I heard somewhere in this trial that unless contamination can be proven, then it does not exist. If you think about it, contamination is always a possibility, there for DNA should always be thrown out of court, but it isn't.

That's not how it works. Their are protocols that need to be followed that minimize the chances of contamination. Those protocol from gathering, to transportation, to testing and to storage were not followed.

Is not all evidence presented by the prosecution, it is the defense's job to disprove that evidence. That it what a trial is......

The prosecution must make a reasonable case that proves beyond a reasonable doubt. They didn't. If the case had been heard here or elsewhere the tainted evidence wouldn't have been let in. There would have a been a motion for summary judgment that would have been granted.

Because you have to look at all the evidence as a whole, not individually, separately, that shoe print outside Meredith's door doesn't mean much, neither does that broken window, the way Amanda acted throughout t the investigation or even the cartwheel, and so forth, but when you take them all together, they do start to have meaning. FOAKERs look at these things, one by one, Guitars tend to look more at the whole picture.
I'll ask once again, if people here do not like being call a Foaker or a Guilter, then please tell me what you would accept, I have asked before, myself, I really don't care, I'm half of each I suppose.

PGP, the term I prefer to "guilters", take things that aren't definitive evidence and throw them into the pile. The print on the mat may be similar to Raf's but it is also similar to Rudi and probably hundreds of Perugian men. A fingerprint must match a person to count as evidence, it can't just be possible. The footprint blobs tested negative for blood and don't match Amanda.

PGP put their faith and trust in a heroin addict, high at the time, with dealing charges pending and a odd history of testifying in trials as the only person to "break" their alibi.

PGP deny Rudi broke in because no DNA in Filomena's room but have no problem with no DNA of Amanda in the murder room after a violent murder.

The PGP have no problem with key witnesses telling the police they saw nothing and then coming forward months later and saying " oh yeah, I remember I saw..." after being coaxed to come forward by a cub reporter.

In terms of lists of things how about the mistakes the ILE made. The collection and storage of evidence. Did you know they put some evidence in the freezer of the cottage? They bagged a mop in gift paper found in the house. They stored the bra clasp in an "American" plastic bag that caused it to rust and therefore useless for retesting. Stefanoni used tolerances beyond her equipment when no defense witness was present and didn't have enough material for a retest. All three of the computers had their hard drives fried. The coroner wasn't allowed to do a temperature reading for hours. The stain on the pillow was missed by the ILE and then the court refused to test it.

All of the above needs no conspiracy just good incompetence.

For FOA I prefer PIP.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

"The scream at 23.00 was AK seeing the body for the first time."

Yes, I wrote that, until that time, Amanda had no idea Meredith was being murdered or raped, I believe up till then, she thought it was just an assault. She could possibly have saved Meredith's life, maybe not.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Because you have to look at all the evidence as a whole, not individually, separately, that shoe print outside Meredith's door doesn't mean much, neither does that broken window, the way Amanda acted throughout t the investigation or even the cartwheel, and so forth, but when you take them all together, they do start to have meaning. FOAKERs look at these things, one by one, Guitars tend to look more at the whole picture.

Nonsense. I have spent hours piecing the evidence into a big picture that makes sense.

Guede smashed a window and broke in. He was in the place when Meredith got home, as indicated by the toilet he didn't flush.

He attacked her in her room, holding her from behind with a knife held in his right hand, as indicated by her wounds, the bruises on her face, and the bloodstain patterns.

He cut her throat when she was on her knees in front of her closet. He was behind and on top of her, as indicated by the bloodstain patterns and by the nature of her throat wound.

He dragged her into the middle of the room and ripped her bra off while she was still breathing, again as shown by the bloodstain patterns.

He put a pillow under her buttocks, used towels to mop up the floor, removed her pants and raped her, as shown by the crime scene photos, hand print evidence, and DNA evidence.

He cleaned up in the bathroom and left the bloodstains found there.

He went back to her room, took her money, phones and keys, covered her with a quilt, and bolted the premises after locking her door - all shown by what was found at the crime scene.

He was somewhere else at 10:13 as indicated by the fact that her phone connected with a different tower than the one serving the cottage.

That is the big picture, as reconstructed by me and by any number of experts who have studied the crime scene. It's obvious. It is what really happened.

Your approach, in contrast, is to undermine the obvious narrative by drawing rigid conclusions from a few tiny details. The shoe prints supposedly show that someone else locked Meredith's door. The details of the break-in somehow prove it was staged. Blah blah blah. This is how the truthers try to "prove" the US gov't used explosive to demolish the WTC. It is the working method of a crank.

 

[Grinder]

"The scream at 23.00 was AK seeing the body for the first time."

But alas the tow truck driver hooking up the car just outside the cottage didn't hear it.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No problem, PIP and PGP it is, I imagine the G stands for Guilty and the I for innocent, what do the 2P's stand for. Presumed and People maybe?

 

[Antony]

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'.

How about "evidence-based commentators"?

And for my highlighted part, I'm sorry, but FOAKERs start with she's innocent

I'm sure people who knew Amanda personally (by definition, "friends of Amanda Knox") when she was first accused started with the assumption that she was, and is, innocent. The fact is, though, that large numbers of people from all over the world, who have no connection with her, have been attracted to the case because the "evidence" trumpeted by the prosecution does not pass muster. That's our starting point, not any partisan rallying. The longer it goes on that the accusations don't stand up, the more convinced we are that the prosecution has no merit whatsoever.

and then bend every piece of evidence to fit that theme regardless how crazy it may sound.

Come again? That's exactly what we see in the accusations against her (and Raffaele), and adds to our reasons for viewing them as agenda-driven, and not evidence-driven.

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.

Well, I can only think that you see the "evidence" through a particular filter. I see the "evidence" and I see nothing with any credibility.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

But alas the tow truck driver hooking up the car just outside the cottage didn't hear it.

So, what time was that screamed heard then, I was under the impression it was between 11:00 and 11:30 but she really wasn't sure. Tow truck was there till about 11:15 I believe, Amanda and Raff were in the court waiting for Rudi and the broken down car to leave, Toto is not entirely sure exactly when they left other than it was before he himself left, he didn't see them go, just noticed they were no longer there when he left.

 

[cuki777]

cuki pbs*15

But alas the tow truck driver hooking up the car just outside the cottage didn't hear it.

"I didn’t notice anyone coming or going during the eight or 10 minutes it took me to load the broken-down car onto my tow truck.”

 

[cuki777]

cuki pbs*16

View from the basketball court

 

[yimyammer]

Check this out:

http://video.pbs.org/video/2223977258/

They got an intern with no qualifications to take a simple, open-book test and become a certified forensic examiner. It's a perfect vehicle for police detectives or academics who are tired of laboring in obscurity for not much money. They can make much more money, much more easily, by renting their "expertise" to whatever lawyer needs it to prop up a weak case. And the courts do nothing to stop it.

I'm watching the video now (good stuff) and they're going over the cognitive bias that people who do fingerprint analysis bring to the process. To demonstrate, they gave the same prints previously identified as a match by an examiner back to the same examiner but changed the facts of the case and in over half of the cases, they overturned their own findings...pretty scary

I suggested at another board that for the sake of separation of duties and to prevent collusion/fraud (and I will now add cognitive bias) that there should be two independent forensic teams:

One should do the collection and assign control numbers to the case and individual pieces of evidence.

The second team who never visits the site, doesn't know who collected the evidence, doesn't know the facts of the case or to whom any of the evidence relates to does the analysis. Then they could input the findings into a computer that could do the matching based on the control numbers and thereby greatly reducing the chance of collusion, fraud or cognitive bias.

Everyone seemed to think that was unnecessary and would drive up costs too high, be impractical, etc. I'm sure there are other cons as well but I'm not so sure it would be more inefficient and it may be worth the extra cost to ensure the integrity of the final product.

Perhaps my limited knowledge of forensics and DNA analysis is overlooking something obvious that would make this impossible

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

How about "evidence-based commentators"?.

Too long - but I will go with PIP/PGP

I'm sure people who knew Amanda personally (by definition, "friends of Amanda Knox") when she was first accused started with the assumption that she was, and is, innocent. The fact is, though, that large numbers of people from all over the world, who have no connection with her, have been attracted to the case because the "evidence" trumpeted by the prosecution does not pass muster. That's our starting point, not any partisan rallying. The longer it goes on that the accusations don't stand up, the more convinced we are that the prosecution has no merit whatsoever..[/QUOTE]

Actually, now that I think about it, that isn't true either because, almost every PIP or PGP I've talked to has said they started out believing the opposite, looked into the evidence and changed their mind, I myself even fall into that.
Depends also if you judging it against them being guilty of the murder, or just somewhat involved...

Well, I can only think that you see the "evidence" through a particular filter. I see the "evidence" and I see nothing with any credibility.

Of course we see the same evidence differently, that is why we disagree on her involvement.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

View from the basketball court

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_52219513dffed7674e.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_52219513e0004515bb.jpg[/qimg]

Boy, you don't write much but I can guess where it's leading. I'm aware you can't see the cottage but you can see the gate, the broken down car was across from the gate and Rudi like left the same way.

 

[yimyammer]

That quote came from a prosecution witness, or perhaps someone within ILE who was not called as a witness whose name escapes me. Dr. Novelli may have said something similar. I don't believe that this is the consensus view. To the best of my knowledge, no one showed how contamination occurred in the Jaidyn Leskie case, but everyone accepts that it did. Sometimes a lengthy investigation into the facts of a contamination event of a case happens after the person was released, as was true for Farah Jamah and the Vincent Report. Asking someone to prove contamination is a little like asking what was the precise instant when a person was infected with a cold virus.

It would be difficult for the defense to adequately raise this line of objection given the beyond-paltry data release. The prosecution could do a much, much better job of documenting what it did by providing machine logs and a contamination log file. At minimum it is surely not asking too much for the prosecution to cough up electronic data files for the negative control runs.

Is it common for forensics examiners to refuse to release these data logs? Could someone point to many examples where this occurs and thereby justify her actions?

I have a huge problem with this and I cant think of one good reason why a forensics examiner would fight to hide information in this regard.

 

[Grinder]

No problem, PIP and PGP it is, I imagine the G stands for Guilty and the I for innocent, what do the 2P's stand for. Presumed and People maybe?

Pro guilt people - Pro innocent people. But presumed is just fine.

I have thought that it could be changed from PGP to PSP - pro schadenfreude people

 

[RandyN]

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




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




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)

This was actually a key point in the first trial and the Prosecutor Comodi rather than use facts used innuendo...It went like this...

The prosecution claimed these luminol footprints came from blood ...even though Stefanoni was caught lying about further testing of these areas for blood. Sara Gino a defense expert caught the fact that Stefanoni tested the samples for blood using TMB and that she just failed to reveal that all the samples tested negative for blood.

The defense tried to explain other substances that could cause luminol to react...rust, bleach, fruit or vegetable juices.

This is how Comodi summed that up to the jury..."blood or turnip juice...you decide". Fact-less and intellectually dishonest. But this was the whole prosecution case...a series of fact-less statements backed by no evidence at all.