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

[Grinder]

One of the most infuriating things for any scientist reading about this case is the dreadful parody of science carried out by the Italian Police. The poor standards of securing the site, preserving the evidence, delaying the measurement of liver temperature, poor and inadequate investigation e.g. no fibre analysis. I think if this had occurred in the UK there would have been a national scandal there would have been call in parliament for 'something must be done'. I think this is in its way more important than the fate of an individual. I can not understand why Italy is not having an inquiry into the quality of forensic science.

Absolutely.

Naively when I first read about this I thought that those who thought Amanda Knox guilty would agree the investigation was inadequate, since clearly better evidence would favour conviction if she was guilty. The absolute denial that the investigation was faulty made me realise that these people had an irrational conviction (pun intended) in Ms. Knox's guilt. It seems to me the desire is to have the fewest facts to allow the greatest latitude for fantasy

This has been one of the most amazing aspects for me as well. Not only that obvious mistakes were made but that they used Mignini with his correctly or incorrectly portrayed involvement in MOF case.

They opposed any independent experts. They never could see how pathetic the PLE performed. Burning hard drives, letting evidence mold, putting Meredith's blood in a vessel that they later said wasn't sterile. Storing evidence in the cottage's freezer. "Finding" the only piece of DNA against Raf 47 days after it was videoed and after non-CSI cops had tossed the place.

Even to this day they see no problems and think there is no reason to test the pillow stain.

I have been baffled by their total inability to admit that the PLE did a horrid job.

The problem with the argument about the faked burglary is to paraphrase Asimov any sufficiently sophisticated fake is indistinguishable from reality. Whether the stone is thrown from inside or outside it could still be 'faked', clothes scattered before or after glass breaking could still be a fake. That is why it must be incumbent on the prosecution not merely to assert but to prove that the break in was a sham. But almost no investigation was done. So there is no evidence.

They would have to prove one or both of the kids staged it, not just that it was staged. Had the PLE not been so incompetent the mixed DNA and Meredith's blood in F's room would have been much more powerful.

So I find the whole thing depressing. Those of you who have had the enthusiasm and determination to have argued for justice for Knox and Solecito over the years have my admiration. The fact that this has dragged on for so long is a tragedy. The pursuit of AK and RS having convicted Guede seems inexplicable to me. I just cannot conceive how this happened. Still as we are on JREF I guess we all accept that thinking rationally is not natural for humans, and needs hard work.

I just hope this is over soon allowing people to look forward and not be trapped in this nightmare.

It is hard to imagine the Italians admitting their incompetence. After all they still make cars

 

[acbytesla]

A large cooking knife that doesn't match any of the wounds in Meredith unless you lie about the pathologists report. A knife that doesn't match the imprint in the victims blood found in the murder room. A knife that has no legitimate means of being transported to and from the scene. If this were a murder-mystery the author would be rightfully lynched by his fans.

It's hard to believe that this knife was ever seized, let alone tested for DNA or played a role in this trial. But this is the third time that samples from this knife was tested. Only three knives were ever tested. Raffaele's pair of flick knives which makes sense and this cooking knife, which doesn't.

 

[Mary_H]

With respect, Mary_H, by the time they dragged Raffaele back to his apartment and grabbed the knife from his kitchen, I think they knew Raffaele's Nike's were no match for the shoe print in Meredith's room. The PLE may have been exhausted and may have been in a rush to judgement, but they can count.

Raffaele surrendered his Nikes early - and it does not take THAT long to count rings. In fact, I suspect that the line about Raffaele in the 5:45 am memorandum s reflective of the fact his Nikes had not panned out, and that they'd better do something to scare him.<snip>

They may be able to count, but they didn't count. Or if they did, it didn't stop them from proceeding with the shoes. A relative of Raffaele's brought the shoe-ring issue to the attention of the lawyers weeks after the arrest. Directly after that, the prosecution went "looking for" the bra clasp.

According to page 64, the police took Raffaele to his apartment during the interrogation (on the 5th-6th) -- he writes, "I was still shoeless and still in handcuffs when they made me get out and walk down Corso Garibaldi to my front door." That is when they grabbed the kitchen knife.

By that time, they had not done forensics on either the flick knife or the shoes. So you do bring up an excellent point in questioning why the kitchen knife was seized in the first place, since they were counting on the flick knife being the murder weapon.

 

[Grinder]

It's stunning to read through the earliest press reports about the presumed knife.... no mention at all of the kitchen knife, really.

It's one thing what the press reports.... but I still maintain that the cops knew the Nikes were not Raffaele probably within minutes of him surrendering his at interrogation. The 5:45 am memorandum keeps is suspected role in this in limbo. Byt the time they drag Raffaele back to his apartment, it was now time to show him what they were intending - cooperation or they'd throw the whole shooting match at him.

Then, surprise, they later find Amanda's touch DNA on the handle. Stefanoni reports that the speck on the blade is so small that it can only tolerate one test - so she chooses the test to find out the speck's owner; necessitating the destruction of the speck forever as to what it was.

It turned out, Stefanoni alleged, to be Meredith's. Meredith's "what" is the question, but blood can be ruled out.

But reading through Dan O.'s summary.... the cops eventually drop Raffaele's flick knife, and drop his Nikes. Was there ANYTHING early on which did not collapse?

The DNA of Amanda wasn't touch. I'm surprised you haven't meowed at yet

The cops didn't drop the Nikes until Raf's family proved they didn't match. I think you must be trying to pull a funny saying that the PLE figured out the shoe prints within minutes that is a hoot. The PLE .

Bill I've referred you to the early reports 50 times. You really should try to go day by day and read all you can find.

The "accusation" remains key. That has never been refuted and was why Hellmann's ruling was so flawed. Even you couldn't be convinced by almost everyone here and at IIP that it was a bad ruling. The Italians still believe officially that she did it voluntarily. That piece of evidence has never changed to answer your question above.

Their alibi has never been as sound as it could have been. Even their books don't do a great job. (I've read enough to have an opinion)

The blood in the bathroom remains. To them the staged break-in remains. And of course "I was there" remains.

 

[Mary_H]

Had they actually matched Raff's shoes to the shoe prints at this point Mary?

DNA matches in so many people's minds is game over. As for the knives in the cottage, Amanda's DNA on any of them is not suspicious, just as Amanda's DNA pretty much throughout her own home is not really suspicious. Having a knife from Raffaele's and the victims DNA is really incriminating even if the knife is beyond absurd from a murder taken place blocks away.

Just to reply to your post, ac, even though I have said it in my post to Bill -- no, they had not matched Raf's shoes by the time they took him to get the knife. They had not done the forensics on the flick knife, either, so why they went for a kitchen knife is really odd, as Grinder has pointed out. Maybe it was a threat. I can't imagine what they were thinking.

 

[Grinder]

They may be able to count, but they didn't count. Or if they did, it didn't stop them from proceeding with the shoes. A relative of Raffaele's brought the shoe-ring issue to the attention of the lawyers weeks after the arrest. Directly after that, the prosecution went "looking for" the bra clasp.

According to page 64, the police took Raffaele to his apartment during the interrogation (on the 5th-6th) -- he writes, "I was still shoeless and still in handcuffs when they made me get out and walk down Corso Garibaldi to my front door." That is when they grabbed the kitchen knife.

By that time, they had not done forensics on either the flick knife or the shoes. So you do bring up an excellent point in questioning why the kitchen knife was seized in the first place, since they were counting on the flick knife being the murder weapon.

I'm sure someone will correct me but I still see no reason another of his tactical knives wasn't taken or a smaller kitchen knife. I don't have the inventory of the flat's knives but it would seem likely there would be one more the size the police were originally looking for.

Does anybody know why they took Raf along?

 

[Grinder]

Although we shouldn't allow it, perhaps the cop actually thought the knife looked clean and had read the purloined letter as a child.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>So I find the whole thing depressing. Those of you who have had the enthusiasm and determination to have argued for justice for Knox and Solecito over the years have my admiration. The fact that this has dragged on for so long is a tragedy. The pursuit of AK and RS having convicted Guede seems inexplicable to me. I just cannot conceive how this happened. Still as we are on JREF I guess we all accept that thinking rationally is not natural for humans, and needs hard work.

I just hope this is over soon allowing people to look forward and not be trapped in this nightmare.

This is a nice post, Planigale; I hope you stick around.

Trying to conceive of how it happened will drive you crazy; so will trying to figure out the mental processes of the deniers.

Laws and legal systems are supposed to be created and improved over time specifically in order to deal with the failings of, and to safeguard against, the weaknesses of human emotion and personality. That approach has not been effective in this case. At the very beginning of the case, people would sometimes point out how much Italians are influenced by their love of opera and drama. We brushed it off at the time because it seemed unrealistic to judge them on that basis. Maybe we were wrong?

 

[Mary_H]

I'm sure someone will correct me but I still see no reason another of his tactical knives wasn't taken or a smaller kitchen knife. I don't have the inventory of the flat's knives but it would seem likely there would be one more the size the police were originally looking for.

Does anybody know why they took Raf along?

No, it's really odd. I agree with you that another knife would have been more sensible. It looks as if they were not planning to use the big knife for framing at the time they chose it. Until Raf's book, I had thought they went for the big knife after the flick knife failed forensics.

 

[RandyN]

Really??? Well you may be right, but who faked the DNA? Not the cop who collected it. He was just part of the threat. The person who faked it was someone else entirely. He wouldn't have had knowledge of that part. From his perspective, they just hit the LOTTO.


I can understand that. But Volturno wasn't involved and I don't think it was a conspiracy just a couple of people who believed in Amanda's guilt and each acted on their own. This is far more likely than them colluding to obtain a conviction. If their is any real collusion, it involves Stefanoni and maybe one other person.

Of course they would lie to them while questioning but faking evidence is on another plane.[/QUOTE]
There is only one person I think actually did fake evidence. Whether or not she discussed with anyone is a question I have.[/QUOTE]


Hummm.who could that be? I wonder. Could it be the person and her crew who last year was discovered to be altering evidence in a different case? A case involving Chief homicide detective Monica Napoleone? This case involved several others including officers also involved the AK,RS case. The door kicker is one other...dont recall her name at the moment may be Lorena I think. Anyway this case would seem to indicate a propensity to alter things not as a grand conspiracy but more like a corrupt division...a mafia like police mini section where they by their own actions seem to make abuse of office something that comes as second nature.

 

[Mary_H]

One of the most infuriating things for any scientist reading about this case is the dreadful parody of science carried out by the Italian Police. The poor standards of securing the site, preserving the evidence, delaying the measurement of liver temperature, poor and inadequate investigation e.g. no fibre analysis. I think if this had occurred in the UK there would have been a national scandal there would have been call in parliament for 'something must be done'. I think this is in its way more important than the fate of an individual. I can not understand why Italy is not having an inquiry into the quality of forensic science.

Naively when I first read about this I thought that those who thought Amanda Knox guilty would agree the investigation was inadequate, since clearly better evidence would favour conviction if she was guilty. The absolute denial that the investigation was faulty made me realise that these people had an irrational conviction (pun intended) in Ms. Knox's guilt. It seems to me the desire is to have the fewest facts to allow the greatest latitude for fantasy.<snip>

I agree with you on this and believe it is one of the most obvious reasons this case would not have made it as far as the courtroom in any other Western country. We have questioned why there was no further questioning of Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick about the precise circumstances under which the crime was committed, such as how they did the clean-up, where they disposed of their clothing, how they staged the burglary, how they planned everything -- all the details that are necessary in a complete investigation.

Machiavelli has said the interrogations had to be stopped once the defendants became suspects, but that does not explain why they were not asked these questions after they were under arrest and had lawyers. Even the courtroom testimony focuses on the interrogations, and essentially says nothing about how and why the crime was committed. Can you imagine that in a British or US court?

Mignini and his perverted pals had a pretty good vision of the naked ladies lusting after each other but they didn't have scenarios for much else.

 

[Machiavelli]

Nope. It came from an Italian speaking source that was present in court, but nothing on record.

And of course, it all comes down to how Nencini's court decides to analyze the evidence as a whole. They have Massei, Hellmann, the SC, and the evidence observed in their court.

If C&V is not proven false then Nencini's court should respect the results. These were court appointed experts. This would rightly eliminate the knife as the murder weapon.

The murder weapon was never found. It's that simple.

C&V are completely discredited.

The actual effect (and maybe, purpose) of this DNA test, is to discredit them further. To better show how liars they are.

But they are already discredited, and above all, they contributed no additional information to the previous findings. They brought information which was already known, and they made exactly the same arguments that had been already done by the defence experts.

They made up wild assumptions (like the lack of negative controls, or the lack of environmental tests) deliberatly chosing to not verify any of their claims, they lied in court about the picograms amount, they were unable to offer reasons for their contamination theory except that "everything is possible", they quoted the Missouri State patrol manual instead of academic papers, and Bruce Budowle (who was hired as a defence expert by Ted Simons), their assessments were belied by Novelli, and they failed to fulfill the task they were ordered.
Moreover, theit issues with "intellectual honesty" are so obvious that they were pointed out even by the Supreme Court; and also, they were appointed by Pratillo Hellmann and Zanetti (alone this sayis it all; those judges are "nullified" and totally discredited). Last, their reputation was already dreadful.

 

[acbytesla]

The "accusation" remains key. That has never been refuted and was why Hellmann's ruling was so flawed. Even you couldn't be convinced by almost everyone here and at IIP that it was a bad ruling. The Italians still believe officially that she did it voluntarily. That piece of evidence has never changed to answer your question above.

I don't think Hellmann's ruling was flawed except in regards to the Callunial. I did think Hellman made some mistakes in the way the trial was conducted. But I wonder if this is just Monday Morning quarterbacking since the ISC essentially slapped it down. Their reasoning for their decision is bizarre.

Their alibi has never been as sound as it could have been. Even their books don't do a great job. (I've read enough to have an opinion)

And you never fail to share it. but then again, we all have an opinion. Their alibi is the exact same alibi as Filomena and her boyfriend.

The blood in the bathroom remains. To them the staged break-in remains. And of course "I was there" remains.

People can read between the lines things that AREN'T THERE. Which of course is exactly the problem with this case. Seeing things that aren't there.

 

[Machiavelli]

I agree with you on this and believe it is one of the most obvious reasons this case would not have made it as far as the courtroom in any other Western country. We have questioned why there was no further questioning of Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick about the precise circumstances under which the crime was committed, such as how they did the clean-up, where they disposed of their clothing, how they staged the burglary, how they planned everything -- all the details that are necessary in a complete investigation.

Machiavelli has said the interrogations had to be stopped once the defendants became suspects, but that does not explain why they were not asked these questions after they were under arrest and had lawyers. Even the courtroom testimony focuses on the interrogations, and essentially says nothing about how and why the crime was committed. Can you imagine that in a British or US court?

Mignini and his perverted pals had a pretty good vision of the naked ladies lusting after each other but they didn't have scenarios for much else.

Amanda Knox was interrogated on Dec. 18. At first, she answered questions for a while, offering her "version" (similar to the previous stories: mop, shower etc.). But when the questions came close to the topic of why she accused Patrick, the interrogation was interrupted by her lawyers and she invoked her right to remain silent.
(The last answer she managed to give before her lawyers interrupted her was "I accused him because it could be true").

Raffaele Sollecito requested to be questioned, he was scheduled for December, but when he was summoned, he involed his right to remain silent and refused the questioning.

 

[Bill Williams]

C&V are completely discredited.

The actual effect (and maybe, purpose) of this DNA test, is to discredit them further. To better show how liars they are.

But they are already discredited, and above all, they contributed no additional information to the previous findings. They brought information which was already known, and they made exactly the same arguments that had been already done by the defence experts.

They made up wild assumptions (like the lack of negative controls, or the lack of environmental tests) deliberatly chosing to not verify any of their claims, they lied in court about the picograms amount, they were unable to offer reasons for their contamination theory except that "everything is possible", they quoted the Missouri State patrol manual instead of academic papers, and Bruce Budowle (who was hired as a defence expert by Ted Simons), their assessments were belied by Novelli, and they failed to fulfill the task they were ordered.
Moreover, theit issues with "intellectual honesty" are so obvious that they were pointed out even by the Supreme Court; and also, they were appointed by Pratillo Hellmann and Zanetti (alone this sayis it all; those judges are "nullified" and totally discredited). Last, their reputation was already dreadful.

Welcome back, Machiavelli!

Point of fact is that it was not Hellmann and Zanetti which were nullified, it was an acquital they made which was nullified.

Point of fact that it is until Nencini rules, that all the evidence is still in play... Nencini has total discretion. It could be as you say, it could be otherwise.

Once again, you are simply advancing the claims that tend to get Mignini off the hook.

This is what Andrea Vogt would do.

But, welcome back. I thought you wouldn't come back when the DNA tests supported the defence.

 

[Bill Williams]

Amanda Knox was interrogated on Dec. 18. At first, she answered questions for a while, offering her "version" (similar to the previous stories: mop, shower etc.). But when the questions came close to the topic of why she accused Patrick, the interrogation was interrupted by her lawyers and she invoked her right to remain silent.
(The last answer she managed to give before her lawyers interrupted her was "I accused him because it could be true").

Raffaele Sollecito requested to be questioned, he was scheduled for December, but when he was summoned, he involed his right to remain silent and refused the questioning.

As a point of fact, the PLE had been suggesting to Knox at interrogation Nov 5/6 that it could be true, and could she imagine for a minute that it was true, what she would have heard if it was true..... thanks for sustaining the case favourable to knox on this point. I knew you'd come around.

 

[Bill Williams]

The DNA of Amanda wasn't touch. I'm surprised you haven't meowed at yet

The cops didn't drop the Nikes until Raf's family proved they didn't match. I think you must be trying to pull a funny saying that the PLE figured out the shoe prints within minutes that is a hoot. The PLE .

Bill I've referred you to the early reports 50 times. You really should try to go day by day and read all you can find.

The "accusation" remains key. That has never been refuted and was why Hellmann's ruling was so flawed. Even you couldn't be convinced by almost everyone here and at IIP that it was a bad ruling. The Italians still believe officially that she did it voluntarily. That piece of evidence has never changed to answer your question above.

Their alibi has never been as sound as it could have been. Even their books don't do a great job. (I've read enough to have an opinion)

The blood in the bathroom remains. To them the staged break-in remains. And of course "I was there" remains.

Whatever.

 

[Mary_H]

Amanda Knox was interrogated on Dec. 18. At first, she answered questions for a while, offering her "version" (similar to the previous stories: mop, shower etc.). But when the questions came close to the topic of why she accused Patrick, the interrogation was interrupted by her lawyers and she invoked her right to remain silent.
(The last answer she managed to give before her lawyers interrupted her was "I accused him because it could be true").

Sounds like Massei.

Raffaele Sollecito requested to be questioned, he was scheduled for December, but when he was summoned, he involed his right to remain silent and refused the questioning.

Why were they not questioned in the courtroom?

And why were the prosecutors not required to describe anything about the crime beyond what they thought happened at the scene?

ETA: The bottom line is, why was there such a lack of curiosity about getting the big picture of what happened?

 

[acbytesla]

I'm sure someone will correct me but I still see no reason another of his tactical knives wasn't taken or a smaller kitchen knife. I don't have the inventory of the flat's knives but it would seem likely there would be one more the size the police were originally looking for.

Does anybody know why they took Raf along?

How many knives did Raff have? I've read that he had this huge collection of knives in some posts by guilters, but I really don't know if that is true. I do know that he had two flick knives and both of them were tested for DNA.

 

[RandyN]

No, it's really odd. I agree with you that another knife would have been more sensible. It looks as if they were not planning to use the big knife for framing at the time they chose it. Until Raf's book, I had thought they went for the big knife after the flick knife failed forensics.

I agree with this assessment. I have little doubt as to why they took Raffaele along...(was he arrested yet?) It may have been a result of his status at that point? But I doubt this was something they actually worried about despite the supposed all great and powerful Mignini keeping his hand on the pulse of the law.

I think they clearly intended to "convince" RS that they would do anything to keep him tied up in jail unless he turned over just as Lumumba would later do after a little pressure. (as if starving a mans family is little)

The meetings discussed in the book Darkness Descending would seem like...well, beyond the whole completely inappropriateness of CSI being involved in planing the prosecutions case as well as the finger print guy and host of other cast mates...a perfect place for a decision to say open a knife (from its crime sealed bag) and place a LCN trace on it. A maybe or maybe not trace rather than a more easily planted drop of blood or what ever. This leaves the official escape route of contamination as a viable method of deniability. Opps it was all a mistake you understand. Not something viewed by the whole group...but maybe an answer to a stated wish perhaps.

There seems to be a pattern or repeating theme in the hundreds of crazy accusations brought in this prosecution. Burned hard drives...it happens. Missing recordings...it happens. Forgot to call lawyers...sorry. Forgot to call American Embassy...sorry X 2. You are HIV +...oh I feel embarrassed...sorry. 30 sub-related cases filed against every Tom, Dick, or Harry by this prosecutor...well the world is full of haters. Etc... Ad infinitum.............