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

[RWVBWL]

Amanda! Get OFF the computer, you are supposed to be doing a clean-up!

Hi all,
I still find things about the brutal murder of Meredith Kercher that are weird,
here's another 1:

From The Old Perugia Shock:
What did Amanda Knox tell us? That after finding that strange situation at home, after the shower taken with Meredith dead in the house, she went back to Raffaele's place, where he was having a breakfast?
And indeed at around noon, Raffaele's computer does have some activity: someone goes online.
<snip>
Let's see who was surfing the web that day.
At 12:20 someone opens Gmail and sends 1 or 2 mails. Can it be Amanda?

To clarify our doubts let's see next action.

At 12:22:16 someone opens the website facebook.com/david.johnsrud.
I'm not sure it was Raffaele. Probably it was Amanda, still in touch with her ex-boyfriend DJ, who was in that moment spending his year abroad in China.


Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20101015....blogspot.com/2009/09/amanda-raffaele-dj.html

_________________________________________________________________


Shouldn't Amanda still have been trying to finish that clean-up job at the murder scene, ya know, get rid of those blood drops in the sink, toss out that bathmat, steal her own money, flush the bra clasp down the toilet...

Why the heck is she checkin' out DJ's Facebook instead?




PS-To The Lurkers,
There is a ton of interesting tidbits in The Old Perugia Shock,
that, thanks to RandyN, I saved+linked above!
Just click on any year or month on the right hand side,
about 1/3 down...

 

[yimyammer]

Well no actually we do know exactly how they handled all the evidence...one can review for example the collection of the blood covered outer jacket worn by Meredith as she was being killed. First it is odd that this was not taken in the first go round but on Dec 18th we watch it first picked up...then tossed into or on the clothes hamper and ignored and then later someone returns and actually turns the sleeves right side out since they were inside out (evidence of how that item was removed as in over the head and pulled off the arms) absolutely stunning and wrong. No production number for the van people...same lack of interest in the bloody shoes and socks...the purse was rotated as if a model on a cat walk was displaying it. But

The most interesting thing that I learned today was that RS claimed Napolini was in the room with the CSI team...(I haven't read all his book yet) on the 18th. WTH was she doing there? I can think of no reason for her presence just like there was no reason for her in court every day during the first trial. Her presence is highly suspect especially in light of her being caught last year for evidence tampering in another case.

She had access to everything necessary. I guarantee RS DNA is/was on his toothbrush. And in his sink and on his cigarette butts and it is correct that she almost failed to do the job. Same with the knife.

Those who collected it were also at the cottage the same day...the chain of custody was broken by some officer who opened the envelope and placed it in a box. He claims to have put on new gloves...but what else may have been on his desk prior to doing that? MK jeans? Who knows...it wasn't a laboratory and I am quite certain he did not swab down the desk top before and after placing items on it.

This is not hard to figure out...its just that the Italians make so much noise...nonsense noise designed to cover up the absurdity of the lack of evidence...kinda of like the lawyer faced with a tough case and little evidence to help his client...they say the more desk pounding the more likely the guy is guilty...only now it is the prosecutors pounding the desks...because they have nothing...never did in fact.

Perhaps I should have clarified, the video struck me as odd how the forensic team seemed to be making a production of the discovery of the bra clasp and it seemed like they were making an unusual show out of finding it.

Knowing the defense team was watching live makes it less odd to me since they apparently had an audience to whom they were showing the clasp.

 

[Kaosium]

I'm with whomever said the defense attorneys suck. If this kind of information was available to them and they didn't seize the opportunity to show the scene had been compromised, they should be the ones in jail (hyperbole cuz I'm pissed, not really)

That's...ummm...not how it works in Perugia. In Perugia they can claim they've evidence of the accused walking around in the victim's blood, and when it's discovered they failed to turn over the TMB blood test negatives they just say 'oh, now we mean diluted blood, that's the ticket' and there's no sanction, they don't even withdraw the claim, they just keep on going without missing a beat. Do you think they'd care about a technicality like a non-secure crime scene when they went back to get more 'evidence' when it turned out everything they had on one defendant was false or mistaken? They were up against a diabolical witch!

Look at her, if they didn't have Thug and Thugette ready to pounce she might have waved her arms and cast as spell on them or something and turned them into newts, which might be even nastier than they already are. They don't let witches get off on technicalities like that in Perugia!

​

 

[yimyammer]

Does the fact that the "sealed" door on Nov 14th is wide open bother you at all?

yes, but I couldn't see that in the photo clearly

I would still like to know if the iron gate was locked so that no one could enter the house even if they were able to reach through the bars and get the door open. I wouldn't find it hard to believe that a bunch of kids could have decided to go there and break the seal but if the gate kept them from entering then the risk of contamination seems much more limited.

I'm guessing these are the types of arguments the PGP/prosecution might try to use to counter claims of contamination and feel this evidence would be stronger if we could come up with better photos and as many other details as possible so that arguing against contamination can't be bolstered or room for doubt about whether the seal was broken & the cottage entered can't be created.

 

[Dan O.]

Thx guys, its yet another thing in this case that can be disputed because I don't have enough info to make a definitive case. I'm not saying you guys are wrong, I just cant get the image clear enough to say for sure that door is open.

Even if it were a plane as day image, someone could still claim that you are imagining seeing the door open. You need to remove the subjective element. Using a program that allows yu to adjust the image and add annotations, make adjustments until you think you are seeing something and sketch in what you think you see where you see it. Using a photo that shows what is actually behind the door, build a 3-D model of the entryway including the visible objects. Then map your annotated photo onto the 3-D model. If your annotations line up with real objects, you have a magical gift to see through closed doors in photos and should immediately apply for Randi's million.

Sounds like Barbie has some info on this & I wish she had clarified it somewhere because if the door was open, then it seems pretty obvious someone went inside unless the iron gate over the could not be opened (someone could have reached through the holes in the grate and opened the door but never been able to get past the gate).

It's possible that she doesn't even know. It's also possible that she caught the perp inside and used that to extort greater access to the prosecutors office thus launching her debut as a crime journalist.

The Massei court was pretty definitive with their opinion the cottage was not disturbed so I wonder what made them so certain. Was the photo on the 14th brought up in some way?

The court only has the word of the police that unsealed the cottage. The police may have an incentive to coverup any anomalies. Reduction of paperwork would be one consideration.

Man this case frustrates me because so many things are like this in that interpretation is open enough to teeter either way based on how one views the case. The door appears open to me but I can hear someone with the opposite view calling me an idiot before it rolls off my tongue. I'd love to get more info on this to draw a firm, defendable conclusion.

As far as I know, nobody has asked Barbie about the photo.

 

[Bill Williams]

I have no clue if they will win the appeal's trial. However, everyone here needs to know that if a knife is stuck in someone's neck, then there is either blood-DNA left on the knife, or the knife is cleaned completely.

Those who claim that THIS knife is the murder weapon need to explain to an FBI DNA expert why non-blood DNA is what remains? Until one can do that, they cannot claim that this is the murder weapon.

They also have to explain why there is no forensic evidence of Knox in that room, as even the convicting judge, Judge Massei, conceded. And, no, the knife does not count, because that is in contention.... the reasoning would be very circular.

The baffling thing to guilt-proponents is that there is NO forensic profile of Amanda Knox in the room, apart from the knife which was not in the room to begin with. People like John Douglas simply laugh at the suggestion.... that is not the way crime works, he says. It doesn't become true just because someone alleges it.

Do you have a cite for this conclusion?

See below where I ask you to decide for yourself if Massei's citation is consistent. I'm sure a guilter would not agree with what I am putting together.

After a chat with Kaosium, I think I am slowly beginning to understand the DNA analysis... esp. the wrong rationales that Massei makes in his motivations report. He basically dusts off the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" rationale, but strangely in his conclusion does not name "blood" being there after assuring the reader that Stefanoni's testimony was correct - the reason it wasn't found was because the sample size was "too low".

Before getting to a citation for what you ask, it is a stunning read. Massei says that there could be no contamination which resulted in speciman 36B (the alleged Meredith material in the non-existant groove in the blade), because.....

- In the present case, none of any of this emerged, however, and Dr. Stefanoni’s testimony rules out that any laboratory contamination could have occurred.

In fact, none of the parties in a position to participate in the analytic activities (which took place pursuant to Article 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as has been said) ended up putting forward any specific objections to the equipment, methods, or fitness of the machinery.

However, Massei DID deny a defence request for an independent DNA review. So it sounds like Massei's decision is twofold - one, that there is a law (Article 360) in which the defence can complain and they did not so don't try to get around the law by asking for an independent review, and besides, Stefanoni herself testified that contamination did not happen.

But back to your request for a citation.

On page 284 Massei discusses the hypothesis advanced by Professor Tagliabracci, where Meredith's DNA could have got on the knife at some other time other than the murder night. Massei rejects this hypothesis... but in doing so only refers to the trace as simply "DNA", not "blood DNA". Indeed, Massei doesn't dismiss Tagliabracci's hypothesis on the basis of "blood" being found, but on the basis that there is no record of that knife EVER being at the cottage or anywhere near Meredith.

(Don't let the other Massei hypothesis that Amanda carried that knife for protection stop you here. If Amanda did, then it increased the chances of it coming in contact with Meredith!)

But to continue on the point that Massei found that the DNA on the knife-blade was non-blood DNA......

Massei puts it this way, by saying ineffect that not finding blood on the blade does not in itself rule out that blood once had been on the blade.

Regarding the remarks against the reliability of the results provided by the analyses of Exhibit 36 trace B, this Court holds that the following should be observed:

........... The negative result of the test performed to determine the haematological nature of the material of specimen B does not per se exclude the haematological nature of the specimen. Dr. Stefanoni, [when] questioned on this specific aspect, noted that since any DNA that might be present on the trace in question was certainly of a very small quantity, a minimal quantity was used to determine whether the trace was of a haematological nature or not: consequently the outcome of test, [which was] negative for blood, did not necessarily signify the non-haematological nature of the trace, as it might have been derived from too small a quantity of material to have allowed a positive result, even if that substance had been [310] blood.

This is the reasoning Massei applies..... absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

Still, after a long section in which Massei argues against contamination, where Massei says Stefanoni would not lie about seeing scratches, and where DNA-material might survive a cleaning if in a scratch, and finally where Massei refers to a secret taping of Amanda Knox from Nov 17 (where Knox says to her parents, "I am worried about that knife"), the conclusion that Massei comes to makes no mention of any certainty that there is blood-DNA on the knife.

Massei simply concludes:

On the basis of the foregoing, it should therefore be affirmed that the analysis of trace 36B, which detected the presence DNA attributable to Meredith, appears to be completely reliable.

Is this a finding that Massei concluded that there was blood-DNA found? Or non-blood-DNA? You decide.

 

[RandyN]

Perhaps I should have clarified, the video struck me as odd how the forensic team seemed to be making a production of the discovery of the bra clasp and it seemed like they were making an unusual show out of finding it.

Knowing the defense team was watching live makes it less odd to me since they apparently had an audience to whom they were showing the clasp.

Well I agree they had an audience but if you watch the whole tape it is notable that other items like the blood covered outer jacket, shoes, and socks and purse got no production number like this tiny insignificant bra clasp. We know now this is significant for them but how could they know it then? Perhaps it is nothing...but it looks like something. Napolini being there looks like something.

Somewhere (ROSE?) there is a better pic of the open door on Nov 14th...
And yes the lawyers were indubitably rotten IMHO. During the first trial I swear they were dogging it just to be assured of the further work for the appeal.

Neither had experience in murder trials and one was a local yolkel...nice men but far out of their depth and it was obvious. RS big name gal was actually a deterrent in the case...she had a baby in the middle of the trial and only came to court one day a week at most. Useless.

Meanwhile Mignini is pulling smoke and mirror tricks right and left...every day. He got the mornings when the jury was awake...and the defense got the hot afternoons when everybody was asleep...

And Massei...look at just his conclusions about the cottage seal. It is at least altered. And I think you are exactly correct...the additional tape was added by someone...but not by the departing CSI team on Dec 18...they left after dark.

I cant imagine what the defense lawyers were thinking. I don't recall if they even mentioned this in the appeal documents. Hellmann rightfully concluded that no matter, contamination was likely at any point since there were multiple DNA traces on the clasp (some say 3 some say four) The expert concluded she could read the egram and find the judge or even herself there as well. That's a pretty strong statement.

 

[RandyN]

That's...ummm...not how it works in Perugia. In Perugia they can claim they've evidence of the accused walking around in the victim's blood, and when it's discovered they failed to turn over the TMB blood test negatives they just say 'oh, now we mean diluted blood, that's the ticket' and there's no sanction, they don't even withdraw the claim, they just keep on going without missing a beat. Do you think they'd care about a technicality like a non-secure crime scene when they went back to get more 'evidence' when it turned out everything they had on one defendant was false or mistaken? They were up against a diabolical witch!

Look at her, if they didn't have Thug and Thugette ready to pounce she might have waved her arms and cast as spell on them or something and turned them into newts, which might be even nastier than they already are. They don't let witches get off on technicalities like that in Perugia!

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4396451a03fd234901.jpg[/qimg]​

He only posted this picture because its the famous nip shot. Cold day in Perugia apparently.

 

[Kaosium]

yes, but I couldn't see that in the photo clearly

I would still like to know if the iron gate was locked so that no one could enter the house even if they were able to reach through the bars and get the door open. I wouldn't find it hard to believe that a bunch of kids could have decided to go there and break the seal but if the gate kept them from entering then the risk of contamination seems much more limited.

I'm guessing these are the types of arguments the PGP/prosecution might try to use to counter claims of contamination and feel this evidence would be stronger if we could come up with better photos and as many other details as possible so that arguing against contamination can't be bolstered or room for doubt about whether the seal was broken & the cottage entered can't be created.

Here, is this better? I can't see a damn thing on the original either, but I found a program called 'Microsoft Office Picture Manager' and I played with the buttons (don't ask, I dunno!) and now it's pretty clear the door is wide open and I can see shapes inside, and most certainly not the orange door, the edge of which is on the right side. Look at the bottom to begin with, it becomes pretty clear. I think I may see a phone as well, but I don't know enough of the program to be sure.

​

 

[Kaosium]

He only posted this picture because its the famous nip shot. Cold day in Perugia apparently.

All witches have girl-parts Randy, that's what makes that one more diabolical!

Actually I was looking for that one where she's looking at Rudy crossly when he's testifying, the one Pilot found so menacing, but I couldn't in a cursory attempt and this one had her with a smirk with Thug and Thugette ready to pounce and I wasn't going to spend all day on it.

 

[RandyN]

See below where I ask you to decide for yourself if Massei's citation is consistent. I'm sure a guilter would not agree with what I am putting together.

After a chat with Kaosium, I think I am slowly beginning to understand the DNA analysis... esp. the wrong rationales that Massei makes in his motivations report. He basically dusts off the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" rationale, but strangely in his conclusion does not name "blood" being there after assuring the reader that Stefanoni's testimony was correct - the reason it wasn't found was because the sample size was "too low".

Before getting to a citation for what you ask, it is a stunning read. Massei says that there could be no contamination which resulted in speciman 36B (the alleged Meredith material in the non-existant groove in the blade), because.....



However, Massei DID deny a defence request for an independent DNA review. So it sounds like Massei's decision is twofold - one, that there is a law (Article 360) in which the defence can complain and they did not so don't try to get around the law by asking for an independent review, and besides, Stefanoni herself testified that contamination did not happen.

But back to your request for a citation.

On page 284 Massei discusses the hypothesis advanced by Professor Tagliabracci, where Meredith's DNA could have got on the knife at some other time other than the murder night. Massei rejects this hypothesis... but in doing so only refers to the trace as simply "DNA", not "blood DNA". Indeed, Massei doesn't dismiss Tagliabracci's hypothesis on the basis of "blood" being found, but on the basis that there is no record of that knife EVER being at the cottage or anywhere near Meredith.

(Don't let the other Massei hypothesis that Amanda carried that knife for protection stop you here. If Amanda did, then it increased the chances of it coming in contact with Meredith!)

But to continue on the point that Massei found that the DNA on the knife-blade was non-blood DNA......

Massei puts it this way, by saying ineffect that not finding blood on the blade does not in itself rule out that blood once had been on the blade.



This is the reasoning Massei applies..... absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

Still, after a long section in which Massei argues against contamination, where Massei says Stefanoni would not lie about seeing scratches, and where DNA-material might survive a cleaning if in a scratch, and finally where Massei refers to a secret taping of Amanda Knox from Nov 17 (where Knox says to her parents, "I am worried about that knife"), the conclusion that Massei comes to makes no mention of any certainty that there is blood-DNA on the knife.

Massei simply concludes:



Is this a finding that Massei concluded that there was blood-DNA found? Or non-blood-DNA? You decide.

The Article 360 thing I believe refers to the right of all parties to attend the testing of samples...and if you don't go and don't complain then you cant do it later.

This would incorrect for a number of reasons...and in this case Stefanoni failed to give adequate prior notification...she calls at 5 PM from Rome and says hey I'm testing this tomorrow at 8 AM be there or be square...but

But even if that was not the case...but it is ....no matter attending the testing to watch a machine run is no guarantee that she is pulling some trick or that one could id any irregularity...it is invisible DNA after all. Thats why

Thats why the machine tracks everything with something called Electronic Data Files. Runs, dates, times, controls everything. And there is no logical reason to keep these files secret. Unless..

Unless you have something to hide...which we know Stefanoni certainly does...since she was caught lying in the preliminary hearing (I forgot my notebook and forgot the size of the one critical sample...) And the courts and lawyers dont jump all over that? Opps the dog ate my notebook? BS

Its BS because it happens over and over...luminol...oh I forgot we also used TMB...she didnt remember until Sara Gino caught it. BS

BS because she claims to never have had a contamination...and now we understand why...if you fail to run controls then you will never discover contamination's. And Im pretty sure Stefanoni and the prosecution has so far failed to prove they ran controls of any sort but especially for 36B

Finally absence of evidence is not and can never be evidence of absence...that's just a misquoted fallacy. But

But the prosecution must prove its case of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I think they can prove MK is dead...and RG was there that night. Beyond that there is no proof of anything...Toto says they were in the park...odd that no cctv picked up anyone going or coming there. Knox bought bleach at 7:45...cctv catches Quintinvale arriving at his store around 8...cctv fails to catch Knox though...and that is somehow not evidence of absence??

Massei has to be the dumbest judge on earth...its one thing to be stupid but to write a document like the trial motivation proves it beyond a shadow of doubt....that Massei is actually stupid.

 

[codyjuneau]

It is likely the shutters were open as Filomena was in such a rush to leave that she had Raf and Amanda wrap the gift. Why would one close the shutters on a window that was too high for entry?

Hi Grinder. I am pages behind and losing ground each day.

But I am curious, would the wrapping paper for that gift, be the same wrapping paper that the police used to gift wrap the mop handle, before they took the mop into Meredith's bedroom?

 

[anglolawyer]

How many guys were there at the school?

My source has referred me to this:

At the hearing of June 27, 2009, the witness Maria Antonietta Salvadori Del Prato Titone testified that on the morning of October 27, 2007, a Saturday, as she entered the nursery school at via Plinio 16, Milan, of which she was the principal, she noticed coming out of her office a person whom she didn'ʹt know, later identified as Rudy Guede. There were no signs of a breakÂ*‑in. There was some money missing from the money box, but just small change. Rudy Guede had a backpack inside which was a computer. Called at once, the police made him open the backpack, in which they found a 40cm kitchen knife. She recalled that there were other objects in the backpack: a bunch of keys, a small gold woman'ʹs watch, and a tiny hammer of the type found in buses to smash windows. The police told her that the computer had been stolen from a law office in Perugia. The witness stated that she was with her six year old son, with a smith [fabbro] who was there to do some work, and with a rep[resentative].

 

[Antony]

Perhaps I should have clarified, the video struck me as odd how the forensic team seemed to be making a production of the discovery of the bra clasp and it seemed like they were making an unusual show out of finding it.

Knowing the defense team was watching live makes it less odd to me since they apparently had an audience to whom they were showing the clasp.

Less odd, but still a conjuring trick. They clearly know the clasp would be made to be significant when it was taken to Stefanoni's lab.

 

[Kaosium]

Is this a finding that Massei concluded that there was blood-DNA found? Or non-blood-DNA? You decide.

He has to summarize that arguments for and and against the idea of the knife being the murder weapon, and make his best case that it was, which is handicapped by the very real fact it doesn't match the wounds and tested negative for blood. Relying on things like the quote that Amanda was worried about the knife reveals that, what innocent suspect wouldn't be worried if they heard the police found their DNA on a knife where they claim the victim's DNA was also?

His argument here (for blood) is not unlike how he points out in the bathroom that a person washing up might not leave traces, relying upon, as you divined, that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' Acknowledging that works to the advantage of Amanda in that case. However it's also not much in the way of positive evidence either! There's literally none of that outside the trace found that he concludes 'appears to be completely reliable.'

Of course it wasn't, it was junk science DNA analysis.

 

[cuki777]

cuki pbs#15

http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-amanda-knox-guilty

 

[Grinder]

Why would C and V call Hellmann about the two loads of thugs then? And why would Hellmann explain to not give the DVD since a copy was already in the case file inside the Perugia Court House?

Do you have a reputable cite?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

damaged drives

In her book Amanda related that a newspaper story in November of 2007 said that she and/or Raffaele were responsible for the damaged drives. Can anyone provide a link to the story itself. It is difficult to believe that attributing the damage to them was an honest mistake on the part of the police.

 

[Grinder]

Hi Grinder. I am pages behind and losing ground each day.

But I am curious, would the wrapping paper for that gift, be the same wrapping paper that the police used to gift wrap the mop handle, before they took the mop into Meredith's bedroom?

It's easy to catch up, just ship most everyone but mine .

I certainly don't know about the wrapping paper but a decent assumption. I don't think they found anything on the mop so it is only an example of the sloppy work conducted.

 

[Grinder]

Amanda related that a newspaper story in November of 2007 said that she and/or Raffaele were responsible for the damaged drives. Can anyone provide a link to the story itself. It is difficult to believe that attributing the damage to them was an honest mistake on the part of the police.

I don't remember that unless it came from the other side. There was a time that Michael postulated that Meredith was held hostage for hours to account for the phone activity and the TOD/Curatolo times. He even had her in the boys' apartment IIRC.

Maybe there is a Power Point.