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

[acbytesla]

Are you understanding that Candace is claiming, as of two weeks ago, that MEREDITH"S DNA was found to be starch. The DNA on the knife was the key piece of evidence in the whole trial. If the independent experts had looked at the sample and determined that it was STARCH that would have been HUGE. What they did say was that the analysis was questionable and that the protocols needed weren't followed therefore contamination couldn't be ruled out. Do see you the night and day difference between that and declaring it was starch?

Starch on the knife is meaningless as I stated before as it could have been left on the knife on the 5th of Nov.

Literally, you are correct, but the essence of what Candace was communicating is that when the experts examined the knife, did not find Meredith's DNA bit instead only found starch granules. Candace's salient and integral point is that they DIDN'T FIND Meredith's DNA. That is what matters. The starch is meaningless other than as "color" for the article.

 

[Dan O.]

I wonder who was going to bring cat burglar into it

I suppose you believe that Rudy just happened to buy both a laptop and cell phone at the train station in Milan that were stollen the week before from a lawyers office in Perugia where Rudy just came from.

I'm sure used some Photoshop analytics and can tell me but I can see the sliver after the shutters are closed on the video and since with the shutters jammed and not completely closed I know there would be less sill to grab.

Only one shutter wouldn't close and even on that one the full protrusion of the sill is available on the hinge side.

I would guess that Rudy would have had an inch or inch and half if the shutters were closed as F described.

And why wouldn't that be enough?

 

[acbytesla]

Welcome Sampson

Hardly the central plank. I say that reasonable doubt can't be challenged. I say that they didn't need to prove their innocence and that proving that would be nearly impossible without a verifiable alibi.

They BOTH had an alibi, the very same one that Filomena and her boyfriend had. And if the Scientific police weren't so damn incompetent, there very well may have been computer evidence that also confirms it.

 

[Katody Matrass]

You can believe anything you choose, but I didn't see any extra unique rock climbing skills by the climber. I'll concede it might have taken Rudy 20 or 30 seconds to accomplish the same thing. The only thing we really don't know is how strong Rudy's hands are as that is the real key differentiator that we can never know. I have a close friend who is rock climber and his hands and fingers are incredibly strong. But with Rudy's build and athleticism, I ABSOLUTELY don't believe that it would be difficult.

The technique demonstrated in the video fragment Grinder refuses to watch doesn't require any special strength. In fact it is equivalent of getting out of a pool without a ladder.

Guede was not a novice. We don't really know how many second story burglaries he did. It is safe to assume he did more than we know about. He was a wall climbing second story burglar in his spare time the same as the guy in the video is a rock climber in his spare time.

I believe the guy knows what he's talking about when he says what he did is easy for non-expert and the grating is not required. I see zero reasons to take Grinder's opinion above his.

 

[LondonJohn]

Snook - I too would like to see a credible source of what will part of this appeal. I would like to see Mach comment or an Italian publication detailing the law.

Does the defense enter what they want into the record? Does the assessment by Hellmann about Curatolo remain or will this court play the video of his testimony if they had the funds to make one?

Is this and was the last appeal a true trial de novo?

*Sigh*

All the evidence and testimony from Hellmann, Massei, and pre-trial will be automatically entered into the record of the new trial.

There is a crucial distinction to be made between evidence/testimony, argument, and verdict/motivation.

In this instance, all evidence/testimony is admitted, as is the verdict/motivation from Massei and the pre-trial judgements.

The Hellmann VERDICT/MOTIVATION does not now stand, and is not admitted into this new appeal trial.

In the specific case of Curatolo (as a useful example), Curatolo's appearances and testimony before both Massei and Hellmann are admitted into the new appeal trial. Massei's assessment of Curatolo is admitted (as it forms part of the overall Massei verdict/motivation). Hellmann's assessment of Curatolo is not admitted.

Therefore, if we assume for one moment that there will be no further argument about Curatolo in the new appeal (there probably WILL be argument about him, but for the sake of this argument...), the new appeal judges should follow this sort of process when judging Curatolo's testimony:

"Well, we have 1) Curatolo in the Massei trial saying he definitely saw them on the night of the murder; 2) Massei judging that he believes Curatolo is credible and reliable, and that his testimony therefore carries weight; 3) Curatolo giving a bizarre and mentally-unstable performance in Hellmann's court and admitting to hard drug use around the crucial days surrounding the murder; 4) knowledge of Curatolo's conviction for drug dealing, that apparently wasn't available to Massei; 5) knowledge that Curatolo's testimony is rendered doubtful by the knowledge that there were no disco buses running on the night of the murder.

"We must look at all these things together, and come to our own reasoned decision as to a) whether Curatolo is a reliable and credible witness, and b) whether Curatolo accurately remembers the events from the night of the murder. If our answer to both these questions is "yes", then Curatolo's evidence is good, but if the answer is "no", then we should discount or completely disregard Curatolo's testimony (depending on how unreliable/incredible we consider him to be)."

 

[LondonJohn]

Literally, you are correct, but the essence of what Candace was communicating is that when the experts examined the knife, did not find Meredith's DNA bit instead only found starch granules. Candace's salient and integral point is that they DIDN'T FIND Meredith's DNA. That is what matters. The starch is meaningless other than as "color" for the article.

Exactly - Vecchiotti found no human DNA at the exact spot on the knife where Stefanoni claims to have found Meredith's DNA. Instead, Vecchiotti found only starch molecules.

However... as I said before, I do think that Dempsey has - consciously or unconsciously - misled readers to think that this automatically equates to the false equivalence that "what Stefanoni thought was Meredith's DNA was in fact only starch".

 

[Kestrel]

They BOTH had an alibi, the very same one that Filomena and her boyfriend had. And if the Scientific police weren't so damn incompetent, there very well may have been computer evidence that also confirms it.

There still is computer evidence that confirms Amanda and Raffaele's alibi. The screensaver logs for Raffaele's MacBook Pro show the computer was being used all through the night.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

rye

Grinder,

I believe that Candace took the word rye out. There may never have been Meredith's DNA physically on the knife. I would have worded it differently, but I still feel that this conversation is a waste of time, relative to other things we could be discussing.

 

[acbytesla]

*Sigh*

All the evidence and testimony from Hellmann, Massei, and pre-trial will be automatically entered into the record of the new trial.

There is a crucial distinction to be made between evidence/testimony, argument, and verdict/motivation.

In this instance, all evidence/testimony is admitted, as is the verdict/motivation from Massei and the pre-trial judgements.

The Hellmann VERDICT/MOTIVATION does not now stand, and is not admitted into this new appeal trial.

This make sense LJ and what I too would imagine that you are right as to what is and isn't considered.

While the ISC threw out the verdict, are you sure that they threw out all aspects of the motivation? The Hellmann jurors opinions is not even considered by the new court??

 

[Grinder]

Therefore, what Vecchiotti was saying was as follows: "I tested the knife in exactly the same place as Stefanoni alleges she found Meredith's DNA, and I found no human DNA at that spot but instead I only found starch."

Vecchiotti is NOT saying: "I retested Stefanoni's original 36I swab, and found no human DNA but instead only starch".

With all that in mind, let's revisit what Dempsey wrote:

Now, this is correct in as much as Vecchiotti swabbed at exactly the same spot - this small speck on the blade - and found no human DNA but only starch. But it doesn't technically mean automatically that Stefanoni's original 36I swab also must have contained no human DNA but only starch.

No I right and Dempsey is wrong. Neither the independent experts or the defense experts ever said that the material Stefanoni tested and attributed to Meredith was starch. NO ONE EVER SAID THE MEREDITH DNA ON THE KNIFE WAS STARCH, PERIOD. It not only doesn't technically or automatically (whatever that means) mean it was starch it doesn't in any way say that. C&V say that it can't be judged to be there from a non-contaminated source.

What you are saying is that if they had found DNA on a bra clasp and when testing it again they found only cotton that now the DNA was proven to be cotton.

So, as I say, Dempsey is somewhat imprecise in her writing, and has implied a false conclusion in my opinion (that Stefanoni definitely couldn't have found Meredith's DNA on that spot on the knife, since it was actually only starch). But she IS partially correct.

Nope. Had Stefanoni found the material in the crevice, extracted it, tested it, found DNA and had all of the protocols been followed then someone retesting it later only finding starch would in no way mean that the DNA was now judged to be starch.

Was the DNA of Meredith found by Stefanoni found to be starch by C&V? No, period. Stefanoni herself said there was no more genetic material on the knife (she seemingly missed AK's) so C&V not finding more on the MK spot meant nothing.

I guess she could have been less precise by saying it turned out to be Uranium 238

(Incidentally, Vechiotti could - and perhaps should - have avoided much confusion by giving her swabs slightly different labels. For example, her swab from that speck on the knife could have been labelled 36I(V), so as to distinguish it as the swab Vecchiotti took as opposed to the original 36I swab that Stefanoni took from the same location.)

Yes they should have. Maybe they should have them uncontaminated samples .

LJ your effort is appreciated.

Had she said that the independent experts could only find starch on the knife that would have been imprecise and misleading given that the issue was that the police could only find the tiny amount they destroyed in testing. Saying it was determined to be starch was a lie. Everyone that followed the case knows the sample was so small it was used up in the one test she conducted after the "too low" "too low" readings. from the machine.

If you wish to say that someone that wrote a book on the subject can be allowed to be confused on this issue, to be it. I don't but it and even less so after Randy said he had told her.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>If by "legitimate" you are hypothesizing real, compelling evidence that linked this kitchen knife to the murder, my reaction would be the same as if National Geographic found a tribe of bigfoots in the North Cascades. It would rock my world. But so far, today is just another Sunday.<snip>

Isn't the plural bigfeet?

If Rudy's DNA was found on the knife from the sample found by C&V it would have been damning as Vogt stated, not withstanding your issues with bigfoot.

He said bigfoots.

How do you know when she formed her opinion and when FOA was formed? Curt went to Marriott within days. Candace was pitching her book by Feb 2008. Given she was a lowly blogger in Seattle with limited Italian skills what do you think she sold Penguin?

I thought we had already explained to you that Charlie is a member of FOA. Also, the announcement of their formation was in the paper.

You can see when Candace formed her opinion simply by looking at her blog. Penguin probably bought her book because she had done a lot of investigation, amassed a lot of research, and written quite a bit about the case by the time she was working on the book.

You can twist it all you want but the DNA sample of Meredith was never found to be starch. It is a significant error or propaganda statement. The fact that there was starch on a bread knife means less than nothing. The knife could have been cleaned completely and then used to cut something starched based.

This is all news to me. There were dozens of reports that starch was found on the knife by C & V. And yes, the whole point is that starch on a knife does not spell murder.

<snip>Although I don't think the "I was there" statement is what the PGP think it means, clearly that is not as obviously wrong as Candace saying the DNA was starch.

You must be joking here.

I am starting to wonder whether Candace spurned you in high school or something. Did you grow up in Spokane?

 

[Grinder]

They BOTH had an alibi, the very same one that Filomena and her boyfriend had. And if the Scientific police weren't so damn incompetent, there very well may have been computer evidence that also confirms it.

They do not have a verifiable alibi. Are you sure that Filomena didn't have a better alibi? Are you sure their party didn't last late enough to be an alibi or that neighbors saw them at their apartment?

I would love to see the computers analyzed.

 

[Grinder]

You can see when Candace formed her opinion simply by looking at her blog. Penguin probably bought her book because she had done a lot of investigation, amassed a lot of research, and written quite a bit about the case by the time she was working on her book.

I think it was her access to the family and FOA.

This is all news to me. There were dozens of reports that starch was found on the knife by C & V. And yes, the whole point is that starch on a knife does not spell murder.

Dear me Mary. Candace didn't say starch was found. She said the DNA was found to be starch and that's a lie.

I am starting to wonder whether Candace spurned you in high school or something. Did you grow up in Spokane?

I don't know whether to be more insulted by being accused of growing up in Spokealoo or the other. As Amanda would say Ewwww.

 

[LondonJohn]

Grinder: you seem to be saying that Dempsey was arguing that what Stefanoni claimed was Meredith's DNA actually turned out to be starch.

She is NOT arguing this.

Let's revist (again............) what she actually wrote:

In the last trial, a speck the police claimed was the victim’s DNA turned out to be starch.

Dempsey is arguing here that the SPECK ON THE KNIFE turned out to be starch. She is wrong and imprecise to argue that the police claimed that the speck was Meredith's DNA, but that's a different, adjacent argument.

I think, perhaps, that the word "speck" is a massive point of ambiguity here. Did Stefanoni collect her original 36I swab FROM the "speck" (with the "speck" remaining visible on the knife after swabbing), or did her swab 36I CONTAIN the "speck" itself?

If the former, then I'd argue that Dempsey is merely being imprecise and - intentionally or unintentionally - misleading in her writing. If the latter, then I'd agree that Dempsey is flat-out intending to deceive (well, either that or she is flat-out ignorant on the issue).

 

[Mary_H]

I think it was her access to the family and FOA.

I don't know.

Dear me Mary. Candace didn't say starch was found. She said the DNA was found to be starch and that's a lie.

Okay, sorry, my bad. I wasn't following the conversation very closely, I admit. I assume her exact quote is around here somewhere? ETA: I see it above in John's post.

I don't know whether to be more insulted by being accused of growing up in Spokealoo or the other. As Amanda would say Ewwww.

Last time I heard "Spokealoo" I fell off my dinosaur.

 

[acbytesla]

They do not have a verifiable alibi. Are you sure that Filomena didn't have a better alibi? Are you sure their party didn't last late enough to be an alibi or that neighbors saw them at their apartment?

I would love to see the computers analyzed.

Well it would have been a verifiable alibi if crazy Perugian police hadn't conveniently accused both of them, neither of which of course had any kind of motive. They very well might have had a verifiable motive, if the cops hadn't wiped out a movie time stamp or destroyed 4 hard drives.

 

[Grinder]

We have nothing like this appeal process in our system. Here if a trial verdict is overturned by the appeal level a new trial is usually ordered. The new trial is a genuine trial de novo and nothing remains from the first trial.

While LJ's explanation sounds right, I would still like an Italian legal expert's opinion.

Is Curatolo's testimony automatically part of it? I too would think so. Would the implied assessment by Hellmann in dismissing him be part of the file?

What makes sense here doesn't necessarily play out in Italy. I bet I could find a quote from a certain someone that said that the ISC could only rule on legal procedure and not interpretations. Not how it worked out.

 

[LondonJohn]

Incidentally, amidst all this to-and-fro on the "speck" and Dempsey's claims, an extremely important factor is brought into sharp relief:

One of the internationally-agreed mandatory safeguards when working with low-template DNA is that all tests MUST be repeated (and thus must be repeatABLE) in order to compare at least two different tests for allele stutter/dropout and relative peak heights. This is critical because at these ultra-low quantities there is so much background noise relative to the sensitivity of measuring instruments, and because the amplification process can cause erratic amplification of noise.

Stefanoni (surprise, surprise) chose to base her conclusions on the interpretation of only ONE test of 36I - a test to which she hasn't even yet supplied the raw data or negative controls. This in itself renders the conclusion invalid according to international protocols. And of course this is before one even stops to consider all of the other areas of grotesque malpractice and ineptitude employed by Stefanoni and her inglorious cohorts.

Low-template DNA work is so hyper-sensitive that it is ONLY ever admissible in criminal cases when every mandatory protocol and process has been adhered to. That's why the protocols and processes have been developed. Without strict adherence to each and every one of them, low-template work is unreliable and inadmissible. It's almost laughable (if it wasn't so serious) to observe just how many of these protocols Stefanoni omitted to follow.

 

[yimyammer]

Snook - I too would like to see a credible source of what will part of this appeal. I would like to see Mach comment or an Italian publication detailing the law.

Does the defense enter what they want into the record? Does the assessment by Hellmann about Curatolo remain or will this court play the video of his testimony if they had the funds to make one?

Is this and was the last appeal a true trial de novo?

Me too, the PGP (who has been proven correct in quite a few issues) at the other forum thread I used to follow is adamant the C&V report is basically null and void.

He's prone to hyperbole so I don't know what the truth is.

 

[Mary_H]

Incidentally, amidst all this to-and-fro on the "speck" and Dempsey's claims, an extremely important factor is brought into sharp relief:

One of the internationally-agreed mandatory safeguards when working with low-template DNA is that all tests MUST be repeated (and thus must be repeatABLE) in order to compare at least two different tests for allele stutter/dropout and relative peak heights. This is critical because at these ultra-low quantities there is so much background noise relative to the sensitivity of measuring instruments, and because the amplification process can cause erratic amplification of noise.

Stefanoni (surprise, surprise) chose to base her conclusions on the interpretation of only ONE test of 36I - a test to which she hasn't even yet supplied the raw data or negative controls. This in itself renders the conclusion invalid according to international protocols. And of course this is before one even stops to consider all of the other areas of grotesque malpractice and ineptitude employed by Stefanoni and her inglorious cohorts.

Low-template DNA work is so hyper-sensitive that it is ONLY ever admissible in criminal cases when every mandatory protocol and process has been adhered to. That's why the protocols and processes have been developed. Without strict adherence to each and every one of them, low-template work is unreliable and inadmissible. It's almost laughable (if it wasn't so serious) to observe just how many of these protocols Stefanoni omitted to follow.

Thank you for this nice summary, LJ.