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

[Chris_Halkides]

the putative semen stain

A bit inaccurate as a summary of what I wrote, I think.

Well, OK, why don't you provide your own summary?

 

[Mary_H]

Mary, I've been reading your posts for years and have great respect for your clarity of thought. I do, however, think you have a blind spot when it comes to the fact that it's in Amanda's best interest to put her best foot forward.

I claim no "moral authority." Nothing I wrote has anything to do with morality. I wasn't "offended" by her comment. I was concerned, the same way I’d be concerned if my daughter said something that could be used against her -- though more so because my daughter isn’t facing a prison sentence and isn’t a target of hate web sites.

There is no monolithic "pulse of opinion." A great many people aren't interested enough in the case to care. There is, however, such a thing as common sense and "a take" that registers with people, even if they don't mention it. Why did Bill Maher joke about the Sawyer interview? Did he poll public perception first? No, he just knew a couple comments struck a peculiar note. Same way I knew, the LAST thing the Kerchers want right now is to visit Meredith's grave with her -- and that suggesting it comes off as insensitive. And guarantees reaction.

The Kerchers have Amanda all wrong. They were brainwashed at their most vulnerable. With proper feedback, Amanda could have used moments of, say, the Diane Sawyer interview to soften haters view of her. Instead, she said something that wigged out the Kerchers. Headlines could have read “Knox speaks fondly of her friend.” Instead, they say "Kerchers beg Knox to stay away from the grave."

It hurts her, Mary.

But let me be clear: I don't blame Amanda for ill-advised comments. She's a traumatized kid, with wa-a-ay too much to worry about. I blame her inner circle for not giving her constructive feedback. For not PROTECTING her from the howling wolves. You may think it's kindness to send a traumatized kid to interviews without critical attention to what she says and how she says it. I don't. I think it causes the poor kid unnecessary pain.

Regarding your third point: I favor truth to biting my keyboard. My analysis of the situation leads me to conclude Amanda and Raff are innocent. I'm sticking to it. My analysis of Amanda Knox -- and myself and the rest of humanity -- leads me to conclude no one's perfect. I'm sticking to that as well. Preservation of a united front in Perugia is what caused this mess in the first place -- and what perpetuates it.

Moreover, there’s a HUGE difference between critiquing Amanda’s interviews and claiming she caused the mess. I see Grinder said he’s been helping people present information for years. I have experience in that realm as well, which may be why our views are so different from yours. I see no shame, blame, or accusation of murder in wanting Knox to improve her spokesperson skills. Very few people are naturals. Very few spokespeople don’t get coached on how to present themselves – and on what NOT to say.

Thank you, Wildhorses. You make a lot of excellent points. I was reflecting on why I didn't have much energy behind my last post, and I think you have helped me figure it out:

My objection is an ideological one, and I don't need to argue ideologies with you and Grinder. My bottom line is I don't think Amanda should be speaking publicly in her own defense at all, whereas you guys are taking a more practical approach, a/k/a harm reduction.

 

[JREF2010]

.
To be clear, I think the alleged semen stain, should have been tested, and still should be tested, but not by this court IF this court has already concluded that there is insufficient evidence to find R & A guilty, which is what I believe they have done.

I think we have become very cynical because of some court decisions pre and post Hellmann and Zanetti. There is no reason to assume that the Florence magistrates suffer from the same confirmation bias and deficiencies of logic that the Perugian magistrates do. It may very well be, that to the Florence magistrate and jurors, this case against R & A is as obviously illogical and preposterous as you and I think it is.
.

very cynical of a court system that doesn't test a sperm stain from the murder scene in a rape/murder / burglary.
yes I agree.

don't we all wonder why?

 

[Mary_H]

A good read

This is an entertaining and informative essay that may ring true for many:

"As an Italian court begins hearing a fresh appeal against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito‘s first-grade convictions for Meredith Kercher’s murder, Americans might consider cultural aspects that have tainted this case from its sorry, manipulated and blunder-ridden beginnings....."

 

[RWVBWL]

What pillow stain?

Chris et al.I suggest a trip to .org for a very enlightening post on the semen stain by Yummi.

Apparently testing the stain can't be good for Raf so the court is protecting him.

Yummi can only think that the stain could be from Raf, Rudy or Giacomo. But what if it came from someone else? what if it came from Kokomani or some other member of the Albanian gang?

According to Yummi all the requests for data are because the defense is desperate and the prosecution has an open and shut case.

Btw, if I were facing this court system I'd be desperate from day one.

Evasive how? Stefanoni was asked, during open court, about the decision to use the pillow for footprint and handprint analysis and not for "pillow sperm" because there was no evidence the the stain was biological and that the real importance of the pillowcase was identifying the prints.

The prints on the pillow were identified albeit incorrectly in the case of the "smaller" print which turned out to a fold over Rudy shoeprint.

It is amazing that the PGP can't see that the shoe print could be photographed just like the luminol prints. Actually the luminol prints had a short window to photograph while the pillow prints could have been photographed until the perfect shot was taken.

It boggles the mind why in the face of the Kerchers request for a full investigation with every stone turned, the PGP continue to argue against.

Hey Grinder,
Here's that pillow case in question:





Ah, errrr, hmmmm,
as Supernaut pointed out awhile back,
that 2nd photo of Frank Sfarzo's sure looks like someone stepped in a wet pillow stain that was not from blood
and transfered it elsewhere...


Come on Italy,
test that friggin' stain already!
The Kercher's deserve an answer:
Who raped and killed their daughter?

 

[RandyN]

I wrote "former co-defendant".



The higlighted part is completely false. You are making wild claims again.



A fair and non-corrupt system follow the laws. And the law provides Guede a right to remain silent.



Hellmann cannot grant manifestly illegal procedures.



The SC actually did rule on Hellmann's motivations, on a point related to this, pointing out that it was Guede's right to remain silent.

Except that Guede gives up the right to remain silent when he has Mignini read a letter that Guede supposedly wrote. In his letter Guede implicates RS and AK. The fact that another person reads this letter for whatever excuse he wishes to make up does nothing to preserve Guedes right to remain silent. Guede has written publicly of his accusations and this writing is presented in court and therefore the accused by Guede have a right a cross examine him about his allegations...at least that is the way the law works in civilized countries...

Guede came into Hellmanns court on the premise that he would stay within the agreed upon parameters. In this case that was his chance to defend himself against his jail buddies who heard him confess to them to killing and raping Kercher all by himself. His argument was limited to discrediting the jailhouse snitches... Guede departed from that parameter when he or the prosecution presented his accusations that had nothing to do with the jail house pals...IE accusing RS and AK of murder. He has clearly given up his right to silence now. Any reasonable fair system understands the logic in that...you and yours do not.

Which is why the ECOHR finds Italian courts guilty for violations more often than any other western country.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

You guys are still at it huh? Good for you, that's why I love you guys.

QUESTION: are they going to finally open up the knife? And, are we going to finally find out who those other samples on the bra clasp are or not?

Busy Busy Busy just wanted to stop in and say hi,

d

-

 

[RandyN]

TofuFighter is right. The world may be an illusion for all we know. Rational thinking, however, is concerned with probability. I've always found it telling that much of the pro-Knox commentary on the net comes from sites like this and LessWrong, drowned out in volume though it may be by the online lynch mob that makes up the other side. So it's always disappointing when some want to reduce Knox's innocence to a question of faith.

Care to point out some examples of this "faith" used by the "pro-Knox" people?

For me personally...I happen to believe after following this case for 5 or so years that they are both not even close to being proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

If fact I am highly suspicious about every point the prosecution raises since none of it is backed by facts or evidence actually found in this case. Not least of which is no motivation, no witnesses, no evidence, no cctv, impossible TOD, no guilty time line that fits facts has ever been presented either by the prosecution or by the pro guilt people, plus impossible scientific data. This is a strong indication to me that something very troubling is going on here. Now add the crazy circumstances that seem to plague the prosecution and police and police scientist...burning up 4 computer hard drives, "forgetting" to record the interrogations, all three initial suspects are physically abused, illegally interrogated without required lawyers, and frankly jailed without even probable cause.

Maybe none of this is proof of innocence...but it is all proof of doubt...a great deal of doubt. No blind faith involved actually...rather most here have studied the evidence closely and found the the case to be anywhere from lacking to an outright insane corrupt sham. The scientific data is a joke and proof of that can be found in the fact that full discovery of this data is still being withheld from the defense. Now why could that be? What does the scientific data wish to hide if it is refused to be freely handed over for review? Once again...not proof of anything but something that is grossly incorrect and unjust in the process. Add the Italian poor record by its courts according to the European Court of Human Rights and it all adds up to innocent because the prosecution has failed miserably to prove its case...heck they change the case every time they run it thru another court...last time round the original Prosecutor Mignini claimed that he though Knox controlled the murder from the hallway even though he presented no evidence of this at all. They are speculating when they should presenting factual evidence that meets the bard rules...in this case the only thing that is beyond a reasonable doubt is that Miss Kercher is in fact dead!

 

[RWVBWL]

Irrelevant to the case? A Useless Complication?

About that possible semen stain I posted photo's of above:
From a website that supposedly is Placing Meredith First,
A poster named Yummi wrote this:

1. I think that whose semen it is, it is actually irrelevant to the case against Sollecito and Knox. Its irrelevance is actually a key point to the decision, in my opinion. If the stain is Guede's, that would certainly not be exculpatory to the other two, as long as there is evidence against them. If it's Sollecito, that would just convict him; but he is already convicted; he is appealing, and the previous judge thought the evidence was sufficient, the prosecution must be sure about their case with no need of further searches, while from an exculpatory or defence point of view relevance must be discussed within in the existing evidence or within what discredits them.
And if the stain is a third person's, that would be a useless complication. If it's not semen, it's a waste of time.
A search on the stain is basically useless to the case for whoever is looking for exculpatory evidence, if it's Guede's it's irrelevant, if it's Sollecito it's unnecessary, or it should be tested only if judges or prosecutors feel not confident about the evidence. Moreover, a secondary point: we also need to bear in mind that his is the Knox-Sollecito trial, not a trial against Rudy Guede, and must not become a trial of Rudy Guede; this means that you should not investigate something if you consider it just most likely to be evidence against Guede or if it would tend to turn the trial into a trial against Guede (the likely defence purpose).
I agree with you that the stain seems relevant from a human point of view. I would like to have it tested to better understand what happened, you say it is hard to understand why a putative semen stain in a fatal sexual-assault case should not be tested and this is true from the point of view of our feeling. But on a purely logical level, we can reckon how the stain is inherently irrelevant to the decision.
I don't know if the Kercher family preferred to oppose the search for sensitivity reasons, I am agnostic about this, only say that this doesn't change the irrelevance which is intrinsic.
<snip>

If you wanna read more, here's the link:
http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/vi...id=683fe4d16b96a981a9e6ce52892f021d&start=400


Irrelevant to the case? A Useless Complication?

 

[JREF2010]

from Massei-report:
He (Giacomo Silenzi) recalled that that evening, after they had been to the Red Zone, he had slept with Meredith in his room; Amanda, who had met a person by the name of Daniel, had spent the night with him on the upper floor, in her room, according to what Daniel told him.

Every piece I can find is that Giacomo said he slept with Meredith in his room.
The note I posted earlier was from the Mail online interview with Giacomo.
He didn't say we had sex in both rooms, he didn't say we had sex in Merediths room, both times in the court and the interview it was "his room". By Giacomo and Daniel say this.


So what if the stain isn't Giacomo, who would it be?

Rudy or Rudys accomplice, maybe?

Or Im wrong again...and Giacomo and Meredith had sex in her room and for some reason never mentioned it.

Let me guess why Migninni didn't want it tested! Budget cuts!

 

[Mary_H]

About that possible semen stain I posted photo's of above:
From a website that supposedly is Placing Meredith First,
A poster named Yummi wrote this:
<snip>
I agree with you that the stain seems relevant from a human point of view. I would like to have it tested to better understand what happened, you say it is hard to understand why a putative semen stain in a fatal sexual-assault case should not be tested and this is true from the point of view of our feeling. But on a purely logical level, we can reckon how the stain is inherently irrelevant to the decision.I don't know if the Kercher family preferred to oppose the search for sensitivity reasons, I am agnostic about this, only say that this doesn't change the irrelevance which is intrinsic.
<snip>

If you wanna read more, here's the link:
http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/vi...id=683fe4d16b96a981a9e6ce52892f021d&start=400


Irrelevant to the case? A Useless Complication?

This is truly remarkable.

Machiavelli, in terms of logic, how does the investigation team decide where to stop when it comes to collecting and testing evidence? How is it more "feeling" and less logical to look at blood samples than to look at semen samples in a fatal sexual assault case? If there had been no blood, would it then be logical to test the stain in order to better understand what happened?

The question is, why would any forensic investigator leave any stone unturned?

 

[Antony]

This is what the rest of circumstantial evidence against Knox and Sollecito is for. The bra claps is one of the pieces. The whole set of pieces of evidence proves how it got "contaminated".

Brazen nonsense. The so-called "evidence" presented by the prosecution is a pile of unconnected details, with no coherent narrative joining them. Even if the highly-compromised assertions were genuine, they would in no way add up to a case with any merit.

 

[Wildhorses]

What is most ridiculous about the semen stain, amongst all the ridiculousness, is that if the SC wants the sex-game-gone-awry theory checked out, you'd think a SEMEN stain would be the place to start.

But, of course, it wasn't a sex game...

I'm fairly sure there was a very early Perugia Shock piece on the semen stain. IIRC, it said neither side wanted the stain tested. I can't remember Frank's explanation: I don't think it made sense to me at the time. It's possible the piece was in Italian.

 

[NancyS]

Mary, I've been reading your posts for years and have great respect for your clarity of thought. I do, however, think you have a blind spot when it comes to the fact that it's in Amanda's best interest to put her best foot forward.

I claim no "moral authority." Nothing I wrote has anything to do with morality. I wasn't "offended" by her comment. I was concerned, the same way I’d be concerned if my daughter said something that could be used against her -- though more so because my daughter isn’t facing a prison sentence and isn’t a target of hate web sites.

There is no monolithic "pulse of opinion." A great many people aren't interested enough in the case to care. There is, however, such a thing as common sense and "a take" that registers with people, even if they don't mention it. Why did Bill Maher joke about the Sawyer interview? Did he poll public perception first? No, he just knew a couple comments struck a peculiar note. Same way I knew, the LAST thing the Kerchers want right now is to visit Meredith's grave with her -- and that suggesting it comes off as insensitive. And guarantees reaction.

The Kerchers have Amanda all wrong. They were brainwashed at their most vulnerable. With proper feedback, Amanda could have used moments of, say, the Diane Sawyer interview to soften haters view of her. Instead, she said something that wigged out the Kerchers. Headlines could have read “Knox speaks fondly of her friend.” Instead, they say "Kerchers beg Knox to stay away from the grave."

It hurts her, Mary.

But let me be clear: I don't blame Amanda for ill-advised comments. She's a traumatized kid, with wa-a-ay too much to worry about. I blame her inner circle for not giving her constructive feedback. For not PROTECTING her from the howling wolves. You may think it's kindness to send a traumatized kid to interviews without critical attention to what she says and how she says it. I don't. I think it causes the poor kid unnecessary pain.

Regarding your third point: I favor truth to biting my keyboard. My analysis of the situation leads me to conclude Amanda and Raff are innocent. I'm sticking to it. My analysis of Amanda Knox -- and myself and the rest of humanity -- leads me to conclude no one's perfect. I'm sticking to that as well. Preservation of a united front in Perugia is what caused this mess in the first place -- and what perpetuates it.

Moreover, there’s a HUGE difference between critiquing Amanda’s interviews and claiming she caused the mess. I see Grinder said he’s been helping people present information for years. I have experience in that realm as well, which may be why our views are so different from yours. I see no shame, blame, or accusation of murder in wanting Knox to improve her spokesperson skills. Very few people are naturals. Very few spokespeople don’t get coached on how to present themselves – and on what NOT to say.

I've seen a few interviews in the UK and it is really hard for Amanda to come across well as she is questioned as if she must be guilty. I thought she spoke well in the Daybreak interview - and it was the interviewer that brought up visiting the grave and Amanda did point out that at present it wasn't appropriate as the Kercher's believe she is guilty.

You could tell how angry she was about being asked to take a lie detector test - and she tried to explain that this was totally inappropriate as there is no evidence, but that she would be willing to do anything to prove her innocence. I did wish that she had answered "yes, I will take a lie detector test, providing that the police and the prosecution will do the same"

She's damned whatever she does or says though and it will be picked apart by the media and Internet - perhaps she needs someone else with her, to help her finish questions when the emotion gets too much. She would also benefit from a good eyebrow shape and a few softening highlights, which shows how ridiculous this all is and how the case is more about the character assassination of a young woman than any evidence

 

[bri1]

This is what the rest of circumstantial evidence against Knox and Sollecito is for. The bra claps is one of the pieces. The whole set of pieces of evidence proves how it got "contaminated".

But, given that there is NO circumstantial evidence that can be considered because none of it meet the requirements set out by Article 192, this is a bogus argument.
Given that Raff had legitimate access to the cottage, it then becomes extremely important that any DNA / forensics work is done according to scientifically recognised standards. This was not done, as evidenced by the crime scene videos (and as pointed out by the INDEPENDENT experts in the C&V report). If the Supreme Court were directing the Florence court to hold that the defense needs to prove contamination then the whole appeal is Florence is based on a flawed understanding of the principles of forensic techniques and their treatment within justice systems.

 

[Onofarar]

"'We need a key step forward on the DNA evidence... We want the truth,' Knox's lawyer Luciano Ghirga told the retrial's presiding judge Alessandro Nencini." link

I am not sure whether he is talking about the same thing as Ms. Bongiorno, or not. She asked for expert testimony on selective DNA removal is possible.

Glad to see from linked article that RS is living in the Dominican Republic where I doubt Italy will be able to extradite him from if guilty.

 

[NancyS]

But, given that there is NO circumstantial evidence that can be considered because none of it meet the requirements set out by Article 192, this is a bogus argument.
Given that Raff had legitimate access to the cottage, it then becomes extremely important that any DNA / forensics work is done according to scientifically recognised standards. This was not done, as evidenced by the crime scene videos (and as pointed out by the INDEPENDENT experts in the C&V report). If the Supreme Court were directing the Florence court to hold that the defense needs to prove contamination then the whole appeal is Florence is based on a flawed understanding of the principles of forensic techniques and their treatment within justice systems.

It's crazy that this is even being debated - Raffaele and Meredith spent time together during the day of the murder, there are so many ways for DNA to have been innocently transferred in tiny amounts. However, the idea that a naked Amanda and Raffaele, not leaving any other DNA during a violent sex game within cramp conditions, is incredibly hard to believe

 

[platonov]

The protocols of those behind the the plot against Britney

They are doing exactly what the ISC told them to. You will not see the relative positions of the three or their roles in the murder until the Motivation is written.

I am convinced the fix is in. I don't agree with LJ or katy on this one. I think the strategy of Amanda's team will now be almost all PR and political pressure. Raffaele is in a tough spot and at this point it really doesn't matter what his team does or says.

Who is behind this fix – the ‘dark’ forces referred to by Supernaut, Mary H, Kevin Lowe and others?

 

[Onofarar]

I'm 100% certain they are not guilty beyond all reasonable doubt - and that is what should matter - anything else is a miscarriage of justice

Agreed 100%

 

[Machiavelli]

But, given that there is NO circumstantial evidence that can be considered because none of it meet the requirements set out by Article 192, this is a bogus argument.
Given that Raff had legitimate access to the cottage, it then becomes extremely important that any DNA / forensics work is done according to scientifically recognised standards. This was not done, as evidenced by the crime scene videos (and as pointed out by the INDEPENDENT experts in the C&V report). If the Supreme Court were directing the Florence court to hold that the defense needs to prove contamination then the whole appeal is Florence is based on a flawed understanding of the principles of forensic techniques and their treatment within justice systems.

Art. 192 does not set any pre-requirement of a standard on pieces of circumstantial evidence in order to have them considered.
Moreover, the set of circumstantial evidence in this case exists and it is solid.

The caps on "independent" should be removed as well as the word itself: Vecchiotti and Conti were a judge-appointed expert, not an "independent" expert; and the judges who apointed them are now considered illegitimate and non-credible.
Moreover there is even a reference by the SC about "intellectual honesty" of the appointed experts. It's quite a strong remark, because the Supreme Court would never mention "intellectual honesty" unless they thought that the experts were manifestly dishonest, it means they thought the fact the experts were dishonest is something visible prima facie, it does not require fact finding by a judicial organ to spot that.

In fact, Vecchiotti and Conti are discredited beyond repair (I guess they will even be investigated together with Hellmann soon or later).