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

[Grinder]

Yes, of course. He's going to be given leave from jail to appear on TV to falsely accuse the defendants in an ongoing, unsequestered trial, so that Rudy can build his case for parole release in May, and the prosecution of Knox and Sollecito will have the benefit of an accusation against the defendants against which they will be unable to defend themselves via confrontation and cross-examination. What a complete joke this system is.

If Rudy goes on TV and tells lies about what happened it will be good for the kids. Can you just see him trying to explain his Skype call?

Why did he cover for them when he knew they had left his evidence while cleaning up theirs?

Did he break into Christians place and the lawyers? Will he still claim he bought the commuter in Milan and paid 50 Euro for the location of a place to break in for a night's sleep?

Where did he meet Amanda that night? How did his DNA get into Meredith? Why didn't he call the police?

Let the Italian speakers here emulate PMF/TJMK and start tweeting questions for the host.

 

[Bill Williams]

It seems to me that the (apparent) use by La Stampa - and re-use by Vogt - of the term "near" is an attempt to suggest that this misleading mention of physical proximity somehow implies something more: that perhaps Knox's DNA and Meredith's (alleged) DNA were not only deposited "near" each other, but at the same time.....

It's at this point that Judge Massei's own reasoning about the non-testing of the presumed semen-stain on the pillow should bite the whole prosecution case on the butt.

This is the one place where Massei applies the reasoning, "Finding DNA is not the same thing as being able to time-stamp when it was deposited."

To those of us who devour the Massei report, it is both stunning and appalling that he can apply that reasoning to the presumed-semen stain, and NOT apply it to the other DNA finds. For Massei, the only reason to find DNA of Amanda Knox (in the cottage in which she resided) was if it was left during the murder on Nov 1.

Physical proximity of DNA means nothing. Why guilters cannot get this through their heads is staggering.....

 

[Diocletus]

It seems to me that the (apparent) use by La Stampa - and re-use by Vogt - of the term "near" is an attempt to suggest that this misleading mention of physical proximity somehow implies something more: that perhaps Knox's DNA and Meredith's (alleged) DNA were not only deposited "near" each other, but at the same time.....

So, they're suggesting that Knox stabbed herself, too? Dumb and dumber.

 

[LondonJohn]

Machiavelli, I do not doubt you for a second, that the Italian system is "like that", as you say.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph, you are describing the very mechanics of the railroad job. In this, the sixth anniversary of the horrible events, the night of the death of the first victim here... I am sitting here stunned that you would just lay it out without comment.

On another matter. Il Messaggero is just reporting that the Ris folks are reporting to the court that the knife in question was probably only ever used in cooking, and is not the murder weapon.
http://www.ilmessaggero.it/mobile/iphone/articolo.php?id=347918&sez=PRIMOPIANO#_articolo

I think that was a conclusion inferred by the writer of the article, rather than a conclusion of the Carabinieri RIS themselves.

Remember that the Carabinieri were only given an extremely narrow and precise remit: to examine the swab 36I taken by Vecchiotti, and to report back whose (if anyone's) DNA they could find on it. As far as I am aware, the Carabinieri were not tasked with doing anything beyond that, such as looking at entirety of the knife examination evidence, or giving an opinion on the likelihood of that knife having been used in the murder.

For those opinions, we go back to the C/V report. Remember, again, that the C/V conclusions still stand in their entirety - they are merely supplemented by the new Carabinieri finding regarding 36I. It's now up to the new appeal court whether or not it accepts (in part or in whole) the findings of C/V and the Carabinieri.

I strongly hope that the defence teams have got their ducks in a row regarding their argument that the C/V report (plus the new supplementary information from the Carabinieri test on 36I) show conclusively that a) the knife should not and cannot be linked to the murder of Meredith Kercher, and b) the forensic work of Stefanoni (from the crime scene work all the way through to the DNA interpretation) was so incompetent and riddled with malpractice as to taint all the forensic results in this case. Because that's the truth of the matter.

 

[Diocletus]

If Rudy goes on TV and tells lies about what happened it will be good for the kids. Can you just see him trying to explain his Skype call?

Why did he cover for them when he knew they had left his evidence while cleaning up theirs?

Did he break into Christians place and the lawyers? Will he still claim he bought the commuter in Milan and paid 50 Euro for the location of a place to break in for a night's sleep?

Where did he meet Amanda that night? How did his DNA get into Meredith? Why didn't he call the police?

Let the Italian speakers here emulate PMF/TJMK and start tweeting questions for the host.

I don't think that he's going to be asked, or in any event allowed to answer, those questions.

He's going to talk about how the "other people" made him do it and then ran away knowing that he'd be unfairly convicted because he's a just poor black guy. Then he's going to talk about how much he's learned and how he wants to get on with his life and be a teacher. Yada yada.

 

[LondonJohn]

So, they're suggesting that Knox stabbed herself, too? Dumb and dumber.

Well not necessarily. I think it's nothing more than a "nudge nudge, wink wink", no-smoke-without-fire attempt to plant a link in readers' minds between a) the physical proximity of Knox's and Meredith's DNA and b) a causal relationship between the two.

 

[Kaosium]

Meanwhile....

Vogt tweeted the following this afternoon:




So it appears that the early leaks were exactly correct: only Knox's DNA was found on the 36I swab examined by the Carabinieri, albeit only at extraordinarily low-template levels. This is obviously not probative evidence against Knox, since she was known to have handled the knife in entirely innocent circumstances at Sollecito's apartment, plus her DNA had already been clearly identified on the knife handle (again, entirely compatible with her innocent use of the knife).

So what are we left with? Well, the big elephant in the room is the alleged finding of Meredith's DNA at spot 36B on the knife blade. Now, if this were robust, reliable, credible evidence, then of course it's fair to say that it would be fairly strong evidence against both Knox and Sollecito.

Unfortunately (for the prosecution), the linking of Meredith's DNA to the knife blade cannot - and will not - stand up as either robust, reliable or credible. That's because several absolutely fundamental criteria were either not met or ridden roughshod over: a) the knife itself was collected, handled and transported in ways that manifestly failed to take reasonable precautions against contamination; b) the knife was tested for low-template DNA in a lab which dismally failed to follow pretty much every single mandatory protocol for working at these hyper-sensitive low-template levels; c) the test which allegedly discovered Meredith's DNA was not repeated, and is not now repeatable (again, breaching a fundamental tenet of working at these low-template levels).

Incidentally, Vogt should know better - even if La Stampa apparently does not - that this new discovery of Knox's DNA (at super-low-template levels, remember) is in no reasonable sense "near" to where Meredith's DNA was allegedly found. The alleged Meredith DNA location was at 36B - half way along the blade of the knife, near to the cutting edge - while the new Knox sample came from the swab taken by Vecchiotti at 36I - right down at the joint between the blade and the handle. The two spots are not, in any reasonable interpretation of the word, "near" to each other, in the context of the knife as a whole.

It seems to me that the (apparent) use by La Stampa - and re-use by Vogt - of the term "near" is an attempt to suggest that this misleading mention of physical proximity somehow implies something more: that perhaps Knox's DNA and Meredith's (alleged) DNA were not only deposited "near" each other, but at the same time.....

Good post LJ, I was thinking the same thing when I read that 36I was near to 36B.

 

[acbytesla]

This whole issue about not fully investigating the computer evidence is astonishing. The police screwed up the computers; the computer data is corroboration for the alibi; the courts therefore should make every effort, and give the defendants every allowance, to recover the data and the have it considered. IMO, this is where Hellmann really screwed up, because he could have used the computer data to give himself double coverage against a reversal.

In my opinion, the whole computer issues is one of the huge and not comprehensible judicial screw ups in this case. I think these are the biggies:

1. Not fully examining the computer/alibi evidence
2. Not testing the semen stain
3. Deciding that the results of Guede's fast track trial should have any effect at all in Knox/Sollecito's trial
4. Failure to assure full disclosure of the DNA data

With this list, I think that we can safely consign the Italian judiciary to this category of "experts" who really just suck at what they do. Maybe the good ones have left the country . . . or retired in disgust.

They have a huge problem in Italy. So called experts rarely have any expertise. Widespread cronyism has replaced experience and credentials. I'd bet money for example that the $200,000 cartoon that Mignini paid for really constituted about $10 thousand max in animation costs. The rest was kickbacks and graft.

 

[Grinder]

I don't think that he's going to be asked, or in any event allowed to answer, those questions.

He's going to talk about how the "other people" made him do it and then ran away knowing that he'd be unfairly convicted because he's a just poor black guy. Then he's going to talk about how much he's learned and how he wants to get on with his life and be a teacher. Yada yada.

Who would stop him from answering?

I just don't think his performance will be convincing.

Why did't you testify in court if you are telling the truth?

 

[Diocletus]

Who would stop him from answering?

His lawyer.

Why did't you testify in court if you are telling the truth?

Answer: My lawyer told me not to.

 

[Antony]

There isn't a ROFL emoticon.....

Why do you scoff? If Amanda had been treated correctly during her all-night interrogation, there would be a complete video and audio record of it to substantiate the cops' claims of chamomile tea and all that. Since there is no recording - at least not available to the courts - it's clear that the cops are hiding it.

The only reason they would hide it is because it would show that Amanda's account of ill-treatment is correct.

 

[moodstream]

You can bet that if Rudy was going to say something favourable to the defence, that he'd have shown up dead in the prison yard a log time ago...

It would be a stretch for me to say I am worried about the fate of a murdering scumbag like Rudy Guede, but my prediction is that after he is released next year he won't live very long. He is too big a risk to the case against Knox for the Perugian police to let him walk around freely.

 

[moodstream]

So let's see.

Amanda Knox doesn't have courage = Cowardly Lion

Andrea Vogt doesn't have a brain = Scarecrow

Who's the Tin Man (needs a heart)?

"Too Many Tin Men" - great title for a movie about what really happened to Knox + Sollecito.

 

[Diocletus]

It would be a stretch for me to say I am worried about the fate of a murdering scumbag like Rudy Guede, but my prediction is that after he is released next year he won't live very long. He is too big a risk to the case against Knox for the Perugian police to let him walk around freely.

I think he'll fall back into drugs, petty crime, and then eventually rape again.

Maybe the London bookies will give odds on recidivism.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'll say one thing for Andrea Vogt, who's the last remaining shill for the original prosection.

She has mastered the art of saying suspicious-like things, and still tries to call herself a journalist presumably without blushing.

Whereas the reporting of La Stampa made no mention of it, Andrea reports that there is something suspicious about this new trace of Amanda's being found "near" the alleged Meredith trace.

This factoid promises to keep guilters howling for months. I'll leave it to the DNA gurus here to explain the non significance of "near" in relation to this, even if true.

But it sure enflames the tabloid mind, don't it!!!

 

[Diocletus]

Believe me or not, it's like that. It is inconcievable that evidence is prevented from entering the court because deemed "prejudicial".

There are two different concepts here:

1. What is "evidence", and

2. In what situations is the probative value of evidence so outweighed by potential prejudice, that the evidence should be inadmissible.

I don't think that Italian courts have a clue in the world about either of these concepts.

 

[Diocletus]

I'll say one thing for Andrea Vogt, who's the last remaining shill for the original prosection.

She has mastered the art of saying suspicious-like things, and still tries to call herself a journalist presumably without blushing.

Whereas the reporting of La Stampa made no mention of it, Andrea reports that there is something suspicious about this new trace of Amanda's being found "near" the alleged Meredith trace.

This factoid promises to keep guilters howling for months. I'll leave it to the DNA gurus here to explain the non significance of "near" in relation to this, even if true.

But it sure enflames the tabloid mind, don't it!!!

I guess that in the grand scheme of things, Andrea's mouth is "near" her anal sphincter. FWIW.

 

[acbytesla]

I'll say one thing for Andrea Vogt, who's the last remaining shill for the original prosection.

She has mastered the art of saying suspicious-like things, and still tries to call herself a journalist presumably without blushing.

Whereas the reporting of La Stampa made no mention of it, Andrea reports that there is something suspicious about this new trace of Amanda's being found "near" the alleged Meredith trace.

This factoid promises to keep guilters howling for months. I'll leave it to the DNA gurus here to explain the non significance of "near" in relation to this, even if true.

But it sure enflames the tabloid mind, don't it!!!

As bad as she is, I think Chelsea Hoffman might be worse. I've never seen anything like her. Ever try and engage Chelsea? She always has these "dramatic" headlines and alludes to Amanda's guilt. But she NEVER prints any substance to her articles.

 

[billyryan]

The big game in town now is the Rudy interview,I have never seen it happen at this side of the Atlantic where a convicted murderer rapist like Rudy Guede was interviewed,while they were serving their sentence in jail.I know that it happens in the US.I think what he says in an interview will not affect the appeal,he could only do that by entering the witness stand,I know he can be used to once again poison Italian public opinion against Amanda and Raffaele.Would Rudy have any contact with his lawyers at this stage,is he getting any advice as to what is his best interest,stating now that Amanda and Raffaele were present when Meredith Ketcher was murdered,how does it help him

 

[LondonJohn]

I'll say one thing for Andrea Vogt, who's the last remaining shill for the original prosection.

She has mastered the art of saying suspicious-like things, and still tries to call herself a journalist presumably without blushing.

Whereas the reporting of La Stampa made no mention of it, Andrea reports that there is something suspicious about this new trace of Amanda's being found "near" the alleged Meredith trace.

This factoid promises to keep guilters howling for months. I'll leave it to the DNA gurus here to explain the non significance of "near" in relation to this, even if true.

But it sure enflames the tabloid mind, don't it!!!

No, the La Stampa article does say that the newly-found Knox DNA was near where Meredith's DNA was found:

anche un’altra attribuita con forti contestazioni alla vittima, proprio in prossimità della traccia analizzata adesso dal Ris.

also another attributed with strong objections to the victim, just near to the sample now analyzed by the RIS.

But Vogt should have known better than to repeat this inaccuracy - with all its attendant nudge-nudge implications. And not only did she repeat it, she put it front and centre in her short tweet. You fail, Andrea....