• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Agree, you seem to know a fair bit about DNA, just a question, any idea what the odds might be between having one contaminated sample and four on the same piece, is it common or would the odds be a factor of four?

:boggled:

If the clasp was contaminated, all 4 traces could be the result of the same instance of contamination. It's if there was no contamination, and we have to suppose that the traces arrived on the item through direct handling by the individuals providing the DNA, that the odds against multiply. Your thinking is simply surreal.

2 further points: there's no logic in claiming that Raff's alleged DNA on the clasp is evidence of anything at all, with the other traces not being evidence. And lastly, there is publicly-available video showing the clasp being mishandled when it was collected, with one of the team holding the clasp by the metal hook with dirty gloves. Contamination is a slam-dunk conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Well here's a tidbit from Massei:

This was done and the machine was started by inserting the password ‚palmiottosollecito‛, obtained by combining the family names ‚Palmiotto‛ and ‚Sollecito‛ of the mother and father of the accused. (The laptop password was identified through intuition, being otherwise unknown to the Postal Police.)

Really they were able to guess the password.
 
That was my speculation early in the case. But it was Meredith's wash day and her laundry was in the machine and had not been moved to the rack yet.

The prosecution has created a conundrum for themselves with this bra clasp. There is no opportunity for Raffaele's DNA to have gotten on the clasp. And that it shows up on one hook along with three other male profiles is screaming to be investigated for possible tampering.

Not withstanding Anglo, the touching of the bra could have happened before the murder day or even before Meredith arose that afternoon.

Given that his is the only identified DNA one would think they would want to know the others' owners.

Sherlock says that Raf entered F's room and moved the laptop. If so, there must be evidence that he entered the room, just as there must be evidence that Rudi returned to Meredith's room. Is there any such evidence that Raf entered F's room? If not, we know who moved the laptop.
 
that is odd

Well here's a tidbit from Massei:

This was done and the machine was started by inserting the password ‚palmiottosollecito‛, obtained by combining the family names ‚Palmiotto‛ and ‚Sollecito‛ of the mother and father of the accused. (The laptop password was identified through intuition, being otherwise unknown to the Postal Police.)

Really they were able to guess the password.
Exactly when did they do this? Apparently it had to be at least 13 November (Massei, p. 299 of the pmf document).
 
Last edited:
Exactly when did they do this?

I'm sorry but I didn't see the date - here's more of the quote from Massei

Live system analysis means installing the copy/clone onto a notebook with identical hardware specifications to the Apple MacBook PRO [326] used by Sollecito. This makes it possible to reboot a computer identical to the accused’s for the purpose of inspecting the properties of the multimedia file in question to establish the period of time during which the computer user would have interacted with the file and to temporally link the start and end of the aforesaid activity.
This was done and the machine was started by inserting the password ‚palmiottosollecito‛, obtained by combining the family names ‚Palmiotto‛ and ‚Sollecito‛ of the mother and father of the accused. (The laptop password was identified through intuition, being otherwise unknown to the Postal Police.)
Operating in the described manner, it was possible to confirm that at 18:27:15, there was activity by the ‚VLC‛ application, the software used, as indicated, by the MAC OS X operating system to play multimedia files, in this case that of the film ‚Amelie.avi‛.


ETA - The computers of Knox, Sollecito, Lumumba and Meredith Kercher were examined first by the Scientific Police for fingerprints, and then, starting on 13 November 2007, five sets of technical tests were carried out by the Postal Police (cf. record of the Flying Squad, 3rd section produced at the 14 March 2009 hearing).
 
Last edited:
I tend to agree. The first video is at 3:12. I have always assumed she grabbed her computer before then. But even if she waited until they all went downstairs a few minutes later to make the grab, it would not matter. The scene recorded at 3:12 differs from the next record, which differs from the next record, which differs from the next record.


Did you remember to correct for the time difference on the video? That camera's clock was off by an hour.

ETA: Massei Page 186
"Dr. Stefanoni pointed out that the camera used for shooting was an hour ahead."
 
Last edited:
Looking for glass outside was part of the investigation.

151444c5509a2d3029.jpg
 
:boggled:

If the clasp was contaminated, all 4 traces could be the result of the same instance of contamination. It's if there was no contamination, and we have to suppose that the traces arrived on the item through direct handling by the individuals providing the DNA, that the odds against multiply. Your thinking is simply surreal.

2 further points: there's no logic in claiming that Raff's alleged DNA on the clasp is evidence of anything at all, with the other traces not being evidence. And lastly, there is publicly-available video showing the clasp being mishandled when it was collected, with one of the team holding the clasp by the metal hook with dirty gloves. Contamination is a slam-dunk conclusion.

Really, surreal, I was asking a question ?????? I don't believe I can trust your answer, sorry, next.
 
Did you remember to correct for the time difference on the video? That camera's clock was off by an hour.

ETA: Massei Page 186
"Dr. Stefanoni pointed out that the camera used for shooting was an hour ahead."

If you mean the video camera, it does not matter. If you mean time shown plus one, it still puts it earlier than the photos. If you mean time shown minus one, it is even earlier still.

If the still camera was an hour ahead, same point. It does not affect the sequence. If the still camera was an hour behind, it still comes after the video by forty minutes or so.
 
From WTBH:

“Oh my God, someone broke in!” I shouted to Raffaele, who was right behind me. In the next instant, I spotted Filomena’s laptop and digital camera sitting on the desk.

Knox, Amanda (2013-04-30). Waiting to Be Heard: A Memoir (p. 68). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

I have a hard time buying that too. I just don't see where they could have been on the desk or the bedside table, both of which were cluttered with upright, apparently undisturbed items.


You as a litigator know that peoples memories are always prefect, right?

There was a lot happening that morning and the position of one laptop was not an important fact. If Filomena's laptop was usually on her dest, Amanda would have a memory of seeing that because she walked past that door several times a day for the last couple of months. The laptop was in the room so it wasn't stollen and that is the important bit of information.
 
You as a litigator know that peoples memories are always prefect, right?

There was a lot happening that morning and the position of one laptop was not an important fact. If Filomena's laptop was usually on her dest, Amanda would have a memory of seeing that because she walked past that door several times a day for the last couple of months. The laptop was in the room so it wasn't stollen and that is the important bit of information.


Don't take that as an attack on Ms. Knox's credibility. I am just trying to establish what I can.
 
If you mean the video camera, it does not matter. If you mean time shown plus one, it still puts it earlier than the photos. If you mean time shown minus one, it is even earlier still.

If the still camera was an hour ahead, same point. It does not affect the sequence. If the still camera was an hour behind, it still comes after the video by forty minutes or so.


Yes, it's the video camera that is ahead by an hour.

Page 290
"Meredith's body, lying on the floor and in the supine position, was lifted and he could well look under it. This happened at night, just after one on November 3 as seen from the video shoot is given and the time that the camera, reported Dr. Stefanoni, however, went ahead by one hour."


There was also the Spheron camera but that came with the team from Rome at 17:00 so doesn't help for the earliest images.
 
So, you consider anyone who uses heroin daily is a junkie, that's ok, but I doubt they do. Does it have to be heroin, Amanda may have used weed everyday, that is a drug as well, was she a junkie as well.

They probably would refer to themselves as a junkie - if you want to be technical about things, he was opiate dependent. If you knew anything about drug dependence you would realise that opiate dependence is hugely more problematic than using cannabis.

Heroin is rarely used alone and is likely to be used with cannabis or alcohol. It definitely causes severe problems with attention, concentration, perception and memory - and even if you did notice something on heroin, you would be unlikely to be puzzled or curious - and would be extremely unlikely to be able to remember detailed information (6 days at the very least or up to a year later). When working in a detox unit I used to review people on admission and they would have no memory of even meeting me when I saw them again a few days later.

I would also not be surprised if a 50-something homeless man with a history of daily heroin use and likely alcohol problems, had some cognitive impairment. I would love to have seen a result of an addenbrookes cognitive assessment - I did this regularly on older opiate/alcohol dependent patients and they often had memory problems.

Opiate dependent patients are one of the most difficult groups of people to work with - mainly because they can be incredibly manipulative and dishonest and will do anything and tell any lie to feed their addiction or to allow themselves to continue taking drugs.

Cannabis is a very different drug - and although it can affect memory (possibly why Amanda and Raffaele were so rubbish on the details), it doesn't cause dependence in the same way as heroin and many people smoke it socially (or even daily) for a few years as teenagers/young adults/students with little long term problems. In rare cases it has been linked to psychosis/schizophrenia (usually in youger teenagers or very heavy cannabis smokers - but it is not linked with vioence/aggression. If there had been evidence of a party at the flat, with lots of alcohol and amphetamines and the murder happened in the early hours of the morning - a sex game gone wrong could just possibly be feasible. However, for a fairly average couple of young people with no history of violence to become knife wielding sex maniacs in about half an hour, would need far more damning evidence than the foggy recollections of an opiate dependent homeless man who obviously had some mental health problems.

Regardless of whether he was a heroin user, eye witnesses are often fairly rubbish. If he had picked them out of a line-up without seeing their pictures in the news, then maybe he would have some credibility.

Here is a link on opiate dependence - note that one of the complications is memory and cognitive impairment

http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Opioid-Abuse-and-Dependence.htm
 
Last edited:
Yes, it's the video camera that is ahead by an hour.

Page 290
"Meredith's body, lying on the floor and in the supine position, was lifted and he could well look under it. This happened at night, just after one on November 3 as seen from the video shoot is given and the time that the camera, reported Dr. Stefanoni, however, went ahead by one hour."


There was also the Spheron camera but that came with the team from Rome at 17:00 so doesn't help for the earliest images.


I am pretty sure this is the sequence:

First video sweep-- This is certainly first because there were no evidence markers
Digital Photos
Second video sweep
Spheron

But no matter how you order them, there are two and perhaps three instances of the crime scene being disturbed.
 
Last edited:
Really, surreal, I was asking a question ?????? I don't believe I can trust your answer, sorry, next.
With respect, Antony has put his finger on the matter. Either all of the DNA arrived as part of the crime, or it did not. The former is extremely unlikely; therefore, some of the DNA arrived at another time, by some means. If that is true of some of the DNA, then it could be true of all of the DNA: the DNA cannot be interrogated as to when or how it arrived.
 
Show you? It is your claim that Rudy walked out of the bedroom and to the front door leaving a trail of bloody shoe prints and could not have returned to lock that bedroom door. I analyzed those prints and posted my findings with pictures as I did it. You have repeatedly chosen to ignore my findings so I asked you to look at the prints yourself.

I know you are having difficulty with this because the prosecution got it wrong and if the defense addressed it, Massei didn't cover their side in his motivation report. Hellmann never went there because he found there was absolutely no credible evidence for Amanda or Raffaele's involvement in any crime at the cottage so there was no need to hear rebuttals to the side issues. This leaves you without an authority to fall back on so you have to analyze the evidence for yourself.

I asked you to state what you believe the evidence shows the sequence of foot steps was. Can you do that?


Damn. I typed up a long reply already to this and then lost internet connection when I went to submit. Basically, I don't believe we are talking about the same thing here, what I am saying, I'm sure your aware, Rudi's footprint leaving the door means he most likely did not lock it from that position. The footsteps got out to the front door, move around a bit but do not head back to the room even when test with luminol, fine. Now you say you have some missing prints, Grinder thinks maybe he went for a stroll outside, fine as well but either way, there is no sign of prints returning, if this were the case, why didn't the prosecution bring this up during the trial? There has to be an explanation, the door being able to lock while open, (I'm aware neither of us think this is possible), but that would be an excellent example, you wouldn't bring that up because the defense would have an excellent reply to it. I'm still not sure if you know what I'm talking about here, but let me know.
 
With respect, Antony has put his finger on the matter. Either all of the DNA arrived as part of the crime, or it did not. The former is extremely unlikely; therefore, some of the DNA arrived at another time, by some means. If that is true of some of the DNA, then it could be true of all of the DNA: the DNA cannot be interrogated as to when or how it arrived.

Yes, but my question was if it were contamination, say, did it have to happen 4 different times to the same piece, because those odds would seem astronomical, or could one contamination somehow leave 4 different profiles?
 
They probably word refer to themselves as a junkie - if you want to be technical about things, he was opiate dependent. If you knew anything about drug dependence you would realise that opiate dependence is hugely more problematic than using cannabis.

Heroin is rarely used alone and is likely to be used with cannabis or alcohol. It definitely causes severe problems with attention, concentration, perception and memory - and even if you did notice something on heroin, you would be unlikely to be puzzled or curious - and would be extremely unlikely to be able to remember detailed information (6 days at the very least or up to a year later). When working in a detox unit I used to review people on admission and they would have no memory of even meeting me when I saw them again a few days later.

I would also not be surprised if a 50-something homeless man with a history of daily heroin use and likely alcohol problems, had some cognitive impairment. I would love to have seen a result of an addenbrookes cognitive assessment - I did this regularly on older opiate/alcohol dependent patients and they often had memory problems.

Opiate dependent patients are one of the most difficult groups of people to work with - mainly because they can be incredibly manipulative and dishonest and will do anything and tell any lie to feed their addiction or to allow themselves to continue taking drugs.

Cannabis is a very different drug - and although it can affect memory (possibly why Amanda and Raffaele were so rubbish on the details), it doesn't cause dependence in the same way as heroin and many people smoke it socially (or even daily) for a few years as teenagers/young adults/students with little long term problems. In rare cases it has been linked to psychosis/schizophrenia (usually in youger teenagers or very heavy cannabis smokers - but it is not linked with vioence/aggression. If there had been evidence of a party at the flat, with lots of alcohol and amphetamines and the murder happened in the early hours of the morning - a sex game gone wrong could just possibly be feasible. However, for a fairly average couple of young people with no history of violence to become knife wielding sex maniacs in about half an hour, would need far more damning evidence than the foggy recollections of an opiate dependent homeless man who obviously had some mental health problems.

Regardless of whether he was a heroin user, eye witnesses are often fairly rubbish. If he had picked them out of a line-up without seeing their pictures in the news, then maybe he would have some credibility.

Here is a link on opiate dependence - note that one of the complications is memory and cognitive impairment

http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Opioid-Abuse-and-Dependence.htm

Be prepared for this informed post to sail right past the likes of Briars. The whole conversation is ridiculous.
 
NancyS said:
They probably word refer to themselves as a junkie - if you want to be technical about things, he was opiate dependent. If you knew anything about drug dependence you would realise that opiate dependence is hugely more problematic than using cannabis.

Heroin is rarely used alone and is likely to be used with cannabis or alcohol. It definitely causes severe problems with attention, concentration, perception and memory - and even if you did notice something on heroin, you would be unlikely to be puzzled or curious - and would be extremely unlikely to be able to remember detailed information (6 days at the very least or up to a year later). When working in a detox unit I used to review people on admission and they would have no memory of even meeting me when I saw them again a few days later.

I would also not be surprised if a 50-something homeless man with a history of daily heroin use and likely alcohol problems, had some cognitive impairment. I would love to have seen a result of an addenbrookes cognitive assessment - I did this regularly on older opiate/alcohol dependent patients and they often had memory problems.

Opiate dependent patients are one of the most difficult groups of people to work with - mainly because they can be incredibly manipulative and dishonest and will do anything and tell any lie to feed their addiction or to allow themselves to continue taking drugs.

Cannabis is a very different drug - and although it can affect memory (possibly why Amanda and Raffaele were so rubbish on the details), it doesn't cause dependence in the same way as heroin and many people smoke it socially (or even daily) for a few years as teenagers/young adults/students with little long term problems. In rare cases it has been linked to psychosis/schizophrenia (usually in youger teenagers or very heavy cannabis smokers - but it is not linked with vioence/aggression. If there had been evidence of a party at the flat, with lots of alcohol and amphetamines and the murder happened in the early hours of the morning - a sex game gone wrong could just possibly be feasible. However, for a fairly average couple of young people with no history of violence to become knife wielding sex maniacs in about half an hour, would need far more damning evidence than the foggy recollections of an opiate dependent homeless man who obviously had some mental health problems.

Regardless of whether he was a heroin user, eye witnesses are often fairly rubbish. If he had picked them out of a line-up without seeing their pictures in the news, then maybe he would have some credibility.

Here is a link on opiate dependence - note that one of the complications is memory and cognitive impairment

Be prepared for this informed post to sail right past the likes of Briars. The whole conversation is ridiculous.

The real trouble with NancyS's post is not that it is so informative. It's that it did not come with a stalkerish, paparazzi pic of Amanda and Raffaele hugging in NYC.... with the headline, "They fall into each others' arms," or, "Foxy Knoxy insults Meredith by hugging fellow accused...."

I mean, c'mon. Which sells more papers? It's not as if AK and RS have each other to lean on, and will be facing at least 2 more years of groundless accusations? Why waste an opportunity to conduct a nasty PR campiagn against AK and RS with expert addiction analysis of one of the witnesses against them?

Sometimes, AngloLawyer, I sincerely believe you purposely do not understand what this case is about.
 
Damn. I typed up a long reply already to this and then lost internet connection when I went to submit. Basically, I don't believe we are talking about the same thing here, what I am saying, I'm sure your aware, Rudi's footprint leaving the door means he most likely did not lock it from that position. The footsteps got out to the front door, move around a bit but do not head back to the room even when test with luminol, fine. Now you say you have some missing prints, Grinder thinks maybe he went for a stroll outside, fine as well but either way, there is no sign of prints returning, if this were the case, why didn't the prosecution bring this up during the trial? There has to be an explanation, the door being able to lock while open, (I'm aware neither of us think this is possible), but that would be an excellent example, you wouldn't bring that up because the defense would have an excellent reply to it. I'm still not sure if you know what I'm talking about here, but let me know.

Whereas there is no particular reason, really, to doubt that he DID lock it from that position, what the thread is all about, really, is that this sentence would be more accurate if it read:

"I'm sure your aware, Rudi's footprint leaving the door means he most likely did not lock it from that position at that particular time."

With all due respect, SH, you're locked into something on which your theory turns, which is not necessarily so to begin with.

And lest you think me too insensitive, yes, I do know what it is to lose a long post because of bad internet. That sucks big time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom