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

[Chris_Halkides]

Only in Perugia

Am I correct that these bare footprints were not discovered with luminol until mid-December? If so, why are we even talking about them? Anything picked up off the floor would be worthless at that point, since there was heavy foot traffic in the apartment prior to that date.

Only in Perugia are the police allowed to take luminol and DNA evidence so late into the game, and with such complete trashing of the place in between. It is sad.

 

[Dan O.]

Am I correct that these bare footprints were not discovered with luminol until mid-December? If so, why are we even talking about them? Anything picked up off the floor would be worthless at that point, since there was heavy foot traffic in the apartment prior to that date.

We have to give them a pass in this instance because they obviously had no choice. After totally trashing the evidentiary content of the small bath by their botched attempt to use the Kastle-Meyer test, they had to order new supplies and learn how to use Luminol. It's clear that they even rushed the training and skipped the labs in order to get this done as soon as possible.

 

[Machiavelli]

You started your answer with "No." Then you go on to summarize exactly what Mignini siad, which was that Satanism can never always be ruled out.

And he then recovered a bit, by saying as you said he said. That crimes should be solved on the evidence.

The only word i do not understand in your response is the word "No." Because he, in fact, said that things like this can never be completely ruled out. (...)

Preemptively; in advance. What Mignini says revolves around the concept of in advance; deciding something before. It is about the approach, not about the subsequent decision about ruling out; it is the concept of prejudice versus judgement.

You forget this essential concept in what Mignini said, the concept of doing something prejudicially, in advance, preemptively, before or without verifying.

Because you omit this logical element, you turn the statement into something else: you replace "in advance" with "ever", so you misrepersent a reasoning abut prejudice, as if it was a reasoning about judgement saying "this can never be completely ruled out".

The disclaimer between prejudicial approach and verification, which is the logical core of Mignini's reasoning, you completely delete it, and you instead decide to describe Mignini's reasoning as if it was a statement about the impossibility of ruling out things, independently from verification, just "never", indefinitely.

 

[Diocletus]

We have to give them a pass in this instance because they obviously had no choice. After totally trashing the evidentiary content of the small bath by their botched attempt to use the Kastle-Meyer test, they had to order new supplies and learn how to use Luminol. It's clear that they even rushed the training and skipped the labs in order to get this done as soon as possible.

Is the Kastle-Meyer chemical and/or the fingerprint dust likely to give a luminol glow?

 

[Diocletus]

Preemptively; in advance. What Mignini says revolves around the concept of in advance; deciding something before. It is about the approach, not about the subsequent decision about ruling out; it is the concept of prejudice versus judgement.

You forget this essential concept in what Mignini said, the concept of doing something prejudicially, in advance, preemptively, before or without verifying.

Because you omit this logical element, you turn the statement into something else: you replace "in advance" with "ever", so you misreperestnt a reasoning abut prejudice, as if it was a reasoning about judgement saying "this can never be completely ruled out".
The disclaimer between prejudicial approach and verification, which is the logical core of Mignini's reasoning, you completely delete it, and you decide to describe Mignini's reasoning as if it was a statement about the impossibility of ruling out things, just "never", indefinitely.

So Mignini is a "do as I say, not as I do" kind of guy, huh?

 

[Dan O.]

I don't see any difference (my material came out of the English translation of the Massei report). In any case the problem is that if Stefanoni testified in 2008 in front of Judge Micheli, it would be hard to know exactly what was said. I don't recall seeing any transcripts.

Some of these transcripts have shown up but they are scattered. It would be useful to construct a trial calendar to list what was done on each day the trials were in session. This would be a good task for a mid level researcher looking to get their feet wet. The calendar can then be enhanced to include links to the testimony transcripts where found and this then becomes a resource for which transcripts have not been found that someone might use to try and hunt them down.

And don't let the size of a task get in the way of getting it started. The wiki is designed to be updated so you don't have to complete a task before putting up the information you have. Pages like the timelines probably have hundreds of edits.

 

[Diocletus]

Only in Perugia are the police allowed to take luminol and DNA evidence so late into the game, and with such complete trashing of the place in between. It is sad.

I'd really like to see Napoleoni's footprint (as long as that can be done in some way that involves me not having to look at her actual foot).

I would not be surprised if she left those footprints when she and her minions were illegally trashing the apartment on November 6-7, notwithstanding their false claim that no one went into more than one room.

 

[christianahannah]

They swiped a lot of the documents Hans and I posted on the first trial transcripts thread at IA. Personally, I am glad they are out there in public and they have even translated a few of them which was something I had tried to get a team together to do a couple of years ago. I like your wiki and it is a good resource as well. The SAL's I even split up into parts and posted here a few years back. They are hard to read and you really need the translated test results index as well as the test results document itself to figure out what sample evidence they are talking about. The quantifications are also listed on that same first trial transcript thread at IA.

It seems there has been a lot of swiping and sharing of documents crossing both guilt and innocence parties. And it is probably fair to say there are many more documents out there.

The SALs aren't so difficult to read but I agree you do need the other documentation to tie it all together. Also use the Italian test results document first to complement with the SALs and then use the English translated test results index.

I would like to see the original Italian transcripts along with the English translated transcripts. Maybe those will become available later?

 

[christianahannah]

Only in Perugia are the police allowed to take luminol and DNA evidence so late into the game, and with such complete trashing of the place in between. It is sad.

There should be in a written form or testimony or document giving a reason for why the luminol and DNA evidence was done and taken approximately six weeks later after the first investigation of the cottage. And hopefully this would include how the acquiring of this evidence at a later date would or would not affect its reliability (former precedence, scientific literature, etc.).

 

[christianahannah]

I used the information you kindly provided and found the PDF instantly. What upsets me is that this information remains scattered.

I don't sit upon a throne as many of the authors and web hosts do. Very early after I joined this discussion I create a shared wiki repository so we could all have access to the best index of the case data anywhere. I've routinely demonstrated the power of the wiki by retrieving requested trivia on the case. But the wiki is falling behind with so few contributors. I keep finding there are documents that are missing. But guess who has them; TrueJustice has them, PerugiaMurderFiles has them. But these sites were mostly inconsequential. But I find more and more that TheMurderOfMeredithKercher is building a substantial collection of the original documents where they are fully indexed and searchable along side their pro guilt articles. The truth is being squeezed out by the propaganda.

Is your wiki able to be viewed publicly as is The Murder Of Meredith Kercher wiki?

 

[Grinder]

Nope. Good tile installation includes sealing of the grout. This would clean up as easily as the tile itself. BTW blood is not all that hard to clean up especially from solid surfaces...simply flushing with volumes of cold water is usually sufficient...hot water not so much.

No grout I've ever seen and this would be installed by Italian workers

 

[Diocletus]

It seems there has been a lot of swiping and sharing of documents crossing both guilt and innocence parties. And it is probably fair to say there are many more documents out there.

The SALs aren't so difficult to read but I agree you do need the other documentation to tie it all together. Also use the Italian test results document first to complement with the SALs and then use the English translated test results index.

I would like to see the original Italian transcripts along with the English translated transcripts. Maybe those will become available later?

While we're talking about SALs, can someone please explain to me why samples that were subjected to extraction in the same extraction plate would be listed in the SAL as having different dates for "Extraction Date No. 1"? E.g., Extraction plate no. 260 has samples that bear "Extraction Date No. 1" of both 11/5 and 11/6. Similarly, Extraction plate no. 261 has samples that bear "Extraction Date No. 1" of both 11/13 and 11/14. Obviously, an extraction plate can be run only once, so this discrepancy seems peculiar.

 

[RoseMontague]

It seems there has been a lot of swiping and sharing of documents crossing both guilt and innocence parties. And it is probably fair to say there are many more documents out there.

The SALs aren't so difficult to read but I agree you do need the other documentation to tie it all together. Also use the Italian test results document first to complement with the SALs and then use the English translated test results index.

I would like to see the original Italian transcripts along with the English translated transcripts. Maybe those will become available later?

You caught on to how to read the SALs much faster than me.

I am always happy to see new documents and I am always looking, asking, or begging for more. Dan is correct in that it is a daunting task just organizing the things and determining what you have and what you don't. One thing I would love to see is the photo file referred to in the test results index where they give both the page numbers for the photo file as well as the page numbers for the test results. I believe there are many we have not seen. Every time I think that it is pointless to keep looking and asking for documents, something new will turn up. And every time I see one of these things, I learn something new about the case.

There are also reports as well as the transcripts we don't have. Dr Vinci indicated to me that he had filed much more than the report we have available for example. (Sigh) I am glad you have such a strong interest in the documents as well as Dan, Hans, and some others. In this case especially, you can't rely on the news reports. Those are all over the place as far as the full story or even the basic facts are concerned.

 

[lane99]

On the thread-mill

I don't think there's much that hasn't been said, and said repeatedly, here. So I'm assuming this video has been mentioned before. But it's new to me, and I find interesting this cop's comment about his experience with Italian investigations.

From what he's seen, it's business as usual for police in Italy to rough up their interview subjects. At least I believe that's a reasonable interpretation of what he meant when he said they get "physical".

For example, I suppose, slapping you a couple times to help you see more clearly what the investigators want to hear.
.
.

 

[codyjuneau]

.....
So yes, the current discussion is surreal. It's as if folk think this case is solved on these technical details..... but since when does anyone mask a crime scene, like Charles Wilkes says, by leaving the body there and the very implements of the alleged clean-up there?

Rudy in a panic tried to to what is alleged Raffaele and Amanda succeeded in doing.... he tried to "clean up" and very quickly saw the futility and got the hell out of there and fled to Germany......

.
In my opinion a clean up by Rudy would not have been futile.

The key is to realize that Rudy's intent would not be to make it appear that nothing had happened, but rather to make it very difficult for the police to find traces of Rudy.

So for example, he could use the towels to wipe an area close to the bed, drag the duvet onto the floor in that area, drag Meredith and the pillow over and onto the duvet (her body was partially on it), throw in all the items he remembered touching, wrap up the duvet bundle and secure it with extension cords or twine.

Finally, before removing the duvet bundle, he could do a final check to wipe any locations he remembered touching.

This strategy would have entailed more short term risk, but the long term risk of him being identified would have been greatly reduced. In fact, I doubt he would have been identified.

Perhaps he intended to return later to finish the job, but was discouraged by the sight of a car in the driveway, another opposite the driveway, and a tow truck.
.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Vogt's freedom of information request

Andrea Vogt is at it again. {quote} "Shouldn’t a state and federally funded university be required to release records related to such a high-profile international case? Not according to them. Boise State University General Counsel Kevin D. Satterlee cited this as one of the reasons to deny my public records request to review the case:

“The product of Dr. Hampikian’s work on Ms. Knox’s defense constitutes unpublished information that is not readily ascertainable and has been the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its private nature. Such information is of potential economic value and is thus recognized as a trade secret under Idaho Code 9-340(D)1.” {end quote}

Now if only Andrea were as determined to protect the interests of Italian taxpayers, who coughed up $180,000 for a cartoon. Let me see, do a scientific experiment, and Vogt is up in arms. Make a worthless, inaccurate cartoon, and no comment. Makes sense to me.
EDT
Vogt wrote, "But if Northwest lawmakers are really serious about digging into the details of the Knox case, they should also be asking hard questions about the use of U.S. public taxpayer resources for her defense." If Vogt were really serious about digging into this case, she would look into the lack of discovery. She has only had five years to do so. If Italy has the equivalent of a freedom of information law, maybe she could finally get those EDFs.

 

[Diocletus]

Andrea Vogt is at it again. {quote} "Shouldn’t a state and federally funded university be required to release records related to such a high-profile international case? Not according to them. Boise State University General Counsel Kevin D. Satterlee cited this as one of the reasons to deny my public records request to review the case:

“The product of Dr. Hampikian’s work on Ms. Knox’s defense constitutes unpublished information that is not readily ascertainable and has been the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its private nature. Such information is of potential economic value and is thus recognized as a trade secret under Idaho Code 9-340(D)1.” {end quote}

Now if only Andrea were as determined to protect the interests of Italian taxpayers, who coughed up $180,000 for a cartoon. Let me see, do a scientific experiment, and Vogt is up in arms. Make a worthless, inaccurate cartoon, and no comment. Makes sense to me.
EDT
Vogt wrote, "But if Northwest lawmakers are really serious about digging into the details of the Knox case, they should also be asking hard questions about the use of U.S. public taxpayer resources for her defense." If Vogt were really serious about digging into this case, she would look into the lack of discovery. She has only had five years to do so. If Italy has the equivalent of a freedom of information law, maybe she could finally get those EDFs.

But at the end of the day, how ironic would it be if the US system requires greater disclosure to a freelance journalist than the Italian system requires to the actual defendant in a criminal case.

 

[Dan O.]

Is your wiki able to be viewed publicly as is The Murder Of Meredith Kercher wiki?

My wiki is on borrowed hosting so access is limited to editors. I'd have no problem getting my own hosting and opening it up if there were sufficient contributors and editors to keep it looking snazzy. On the other hand, existing web pages are sufficient for most of the public's needs. I might just want to keep this as a private resource where the price of admission is that you have to contribute.

 

[Bill Williams]

Andrea Vogt now wants to "out" the Idaho Innocence Project. More later. Please, Machiavelli, tell us what you know about Vogt's vendetta against Amanda Knox? This is getting silly.

 

[Bill Williams]

Preemptively; in advance. What Mignini says revolves around the concept of in advance; deciding something before. It is about the approach, not about the subsequent decision about ruling out; it is the concept of prejudice versus judgement.

You forget this essential concept in what Mignini said, the concept of doing something prejudicially, in advance, preemptively, before or without verifying.

Because you omit this logical element, you turn the statement into something else: you replace "in advance" with "ever", so you misrepersent a reasoning abut prejudice, as if it was a reasoning about judgement saying "this can never be completely ruled out".

The disclaimer between prejudicial approach and verification, which is the logical core of Mignini's reasoning, you completely delete it, and you instead decide to describe Mignini's reasoning as if it was a statement about the impossibility of ruling out things, independently from verification, just "never", indefinitely.

Does anyone understand what Machiavelli is talking about, much less what it has to do with what Mignini said?