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

[RandyN]

I think I'm correct in asserting that there is a huge difference between turning up at the funeral/burial and paying a private visit to a grave site, in terms of criminal psychology.

I believe psychologists/psychiatrists would suggest that a psychopathic perpetrator might well attend (or try to attend) the funeral/interment of his victim for reasons related to power and control - in this case, feeling power over having elicited grief in the mourners and control over the final journey of the body of the victim. And that, indeed, is why investigators do - as you rightly say - often watch out for any out-of-place people at funerals/burials (or any particularly striking behaviour at the funeral/burial by any of the potential suspects).

I believe that neither of these control/power traits is applicable to paying a private visit to a grave site. I don't therefore think that one can even suggest any inferences related to Sollecito's guilt/innocence from his apparent visit to Meredith's grave.

Actually neither do I but I still think it was stupid. Just as I think trying to get Kerchers permission to visit is stupid. I cant imagine either has a real desire to actually visit the grave of someone they knew for a few weeks. This could be just me though since I don't do graves...in fact I think they are a needless waste of valuable real estate. Which is why I have a directive...burn me up and flush if you cant think of a better idea... If you want to remember me...go to the orchard I funded with the money saved on funeral expenses...I am still working on details of a beer tree...pick a beer and enjoy it and smile that you knew a crazy guy like me...a great guy who says stupid things all the time...but still a great guy.

 

[yimyammer]

Here's what I think is an interesting and instructive little exercise in rational examination versus confirmation-bias-led instances of "seeing what you want to see".

This is the badge of the Missouri State Highway Patrol Forensic Laboratory:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/40237527988d9b3987.jpg[/qimg]

Now, imagine you are trying to identify the images shown at 6 O'Clock and 9 O'Clock around the central scales of justice. They are somewhat blurred and indistinct in many reproductions, it's true. So what could those images be of?

If you are trying to mock and belittle the Missouri State Highway Patrol Forensic Laboratory (perhaps, for example, because their manual was cited as a reference by Conti and Vecchiotti...), and if you are also prepared to put aside proper examination and rational logic, you might seem very disposed to imagine that these images are of comic incongruities - after all, that would mock and belittle the Missouri State Highway Forensics Laboratory all the more, wouldn't it.

So you might decide that the image at 6 O'Clock was a dead hedgehog, or a toupee, or a camera covered in iron filings. And you might decide that the 9 O'Clock image was a French cockerel, or a Chinese pictograph, or a kangaroo leapfrogging a park bench. And then you might chuckle to yourself that you had been both "clever" and "amusing", and had succeeded in mocking the Missouri State Highway Patrol Forensics Laboratory through your need to find mock-worthy images on their badge.

But suppose instead that you looked at the images, and wondered what they might be, and applied unbiased common sense to the problem. You might, for example, guess that such a laboratory might have images or symbols related to its work. So is the image at 6 O'Clock a fingerprint? Yes, it could well be. And what about the image at 9 O'Clock? Well, a closer examination reveals - to the unjaundiced eye - that it is almost certainly a microscope. And that makes sense, doesn't it?

You might even try to locate a clearer image of the badge, in order to confirm your educated guesses. You might use Google images and find this within seconds:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4023752798db8d1afe.jpg[/qimg]

Yes: as suspected, it's a fingerprint and a microscope. Just as you might expect to find on the badge of a forensics laboratory, in fact.....

What is it about the Missouri State Highway Patrol Forensic Laboratory that makes it a go to source for forensics in this case? Seems like the FBI would have something considered more credible (not that this isn't credible)

 

[Strozzi]

But it's not the same fingerprint. While the one on ebay is an artists representation of a fingerprint, the official insignia is in fact a real partial fingerprint and appears to change over the years looking through their publications.

Word just in . . . Stefanoni says it is Raffaele's fingerprint.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

forensic labs and recreational drugs

OK fine, I already had the microscope....the fingerprint was tricky. BUT...what do you think about the weed? How does that fits in exactly? If this was the badge of Stefanonis lab then fine...they are all on weed.

The weed symbol may mean that they do drug/alcohol analyses of various kinds.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a multitude of manuals

What is it about the Missouri State Highway Patrol Forensic Laboratory that makes it a go to source for forensics in this case? Seems like the FBI would have something considered more credible (not that this isn't credible)

There were several state forensics manuals quoted IIRC. I believe that they included Michigan and North Carolina.

 

[Dan O.]

In another case, the wheels of justice turn slowly but alas they turned.

 

[yimyammer]

Just to stir the pot that appeared to have stopped boiling, it looks like Amanda was under the impression she was accused of being a satanic murderer according to a letter she wrote to Rafael from prison one year into her sentence.

'I honestly ask myself how come people can even look themselves in the mirror after pointing their fingers at us, calling us satanic murders [sic], when really the truth is in plain sight: THEY HAVE NOTHING – only their own twisted imaginations.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...llecito-seen-prison-letter.html#ixzz2jpcOg4lp

Given she was at the proceedings and privy to everything that was said or introduced as evidence, I wonder where she got this impression?

 

[smkovalinksy]

In another case, the wheels of justice turn slowly but alas they turned.

Yes - he fought and suffered for 10 years, but it looks like the courts came back strongly in his favor. Sometimes patience is needed in cases such as these.

 

[RandyN]

I know Charlie, but it bothers me that Grinder or anyone takes this tack of dismissing the negative TMB test. The fact is that scientists including Stefanoni (I guess I'm using this term loosely today) respect the TMB test and that is why they perform it.

If Stefanoni thought for any reason that the TMB produced a false negative it would be incumbent upon her to do the necessary testing to make that conclusion.

Instead, Stefanoni proved herself to be a shill and a whore. She sold herself and her integrity as a scientist. Grinder makes me angry because he is playing games. He is allowing the prosecution the right to argue that it is blood with highly doubtful evidence. I expect that from Machiavelli, I don't expect it from Grinder.

Forget Grinder...I am reading the opinion piece of the Italian dude who forgot to credit himself, while acknowledging Rose and Clive's...help ? Anyway he seems to indicate the the ISC has all but ruled...maybe even ruled, that nothing except blood interacts with luminol ...at least according to his interpretation of their motivation report.

This SC made some incredibly foolish and baseless findings that certainly can never be the final word of any real judicial system. In fact they make Massei look like a down right genius...comparatively.

They followed Galati straight into hell. All the wrong things he appealed are confirmed almost verbatim by the ISC.

For me the TOD matter is most troubling. No one appears to have raised any part of the digestive science that we have down pat here. Instead the ISC took the crazy 4 PM til 7AM wildly speculated range and cut it down the middle and got 11 - 11:30 pm for TOD. I understand it is possible for this to become the facts as did RG "murder with accessories" ruling by the same idiots.

I see an inescapable view of a complete disconnect from facts and logic that almost compels the Florence courts to make findings based on the fact seeking expedition undertaken by the ISC. Which would be forgivable if they even got things fairly close...but just like the TOD conclusion...they get almost everything wrong. And no one seems able to do anything about that.

Does the defense now have to fight against these mistaken facts also since the case must be run under their (ISC) noses once more? I doubt they will be too willing to accept that they are also apparently idiots who cant get simple facts correct.

They have an apparent and clear bias against anything the appeal court found...in fact they seem quite willing to ignore the fact the C and V are abundantly more qualified than stinkin Stefanoni. And they also get the whole 36I thing wrong. They think V alone decided to not test sample 36I ignoring completely the fact that the defense and prosecution experts all attended and agreed that testing was pointless.

Their motivation calls 36I critical to the determination. I suppose tomorrow we will learn if they meant critical or meant critical unless it is not MK DNA.

I smell a giant continuation of this Italian farce.

 

[yimyammer]

In another case, the wheels of justice turn slowly but alas they turned.

I'm not intimately familiar with all the details of that case beyond what I've seen on 20-20, but this strikes me as a good decision based on what I currently know.

That's a damn strange case and I'm not convinced his friend committed the crime either.

What a tragedy if true

 

[Dan O.]

All of the evidence in the Ferguson case is covered in that thread. Please post your comments there.

 

[RandyN]

No, Thank you

LJ of course there is less probability it was blood as a result of the negative TMB test and Stefanoni should have volunteered that from the beginning.
One reason that I have stood firm on this is that I believe that it is possible that the prints were from some very dilute blood left long before the murder. Some tenant could have a cut foot that she washed in the bidet and then walked to her room. The cut being on the top of the foot so no worry about walking on it.

I'm not saying that's a for sure but a possible.

Actually, Stefanoni has said in court that a negative TMB test indicates no blood. I am certain you will ask for a cite and I did just read this in the last few days so I should be able to track that one down...I have recently read the SC motivation translation and the article by the Italian friend of Rose and Clive who wrote an opinion piece on the SC motivation, so I suspect I read that somewhere inside one of these...probably the latter.

 

[acbytesla]

Forget Grinder...I am reading the opinion piece of the Italian dude who forgot to credit himself, while acknowledging Rose and Clive's...help ? Anyway he seems to indicate the the ISC has all but ruled...maybe even ruled, that nothing except blood interacts with luminol ...at least according to his interpretation of their motivation report.

This SC made some incredibly foolish and baseless findings that certainly can never be the final word of any real judicial system. In fact they make Massei look like a down right genius...comparatively.

They followed Galati straight into hell. All the wrong things he appealed are confirmed almost verbatim by the ISC.

For me the TOD matter is most troubling. No one appears to have raised any part of the digestive science that we have down pat here. Instead the ISC took the crazy 4 PM til 7AM wildly speculated range and cut it down the middle and got 11 - 11:30 pm for TOD. I understand it is possible for this to become the facts as did RG "murder with accessories" ruling by the same idiots.

I see an inescapable view of a complete disconnect from facts and logic that almost compels the Florence courts to make findings based on the fact seeking expedition undertaken by the ISC. Which would be forgivable if they even got things fairly close...but just like the TOD conclusion...they get almost everything wrong. And no one seems able to do anything about that.

Does the defense now have to fight against these mistaken facts also since the case must be run under their (ISC) noses once more? I doubt they will be too willing to accept that they are also apparently idiots who cant get simple facts correct.

They have an apparent and clear bias against anything the appeal court found...in fact they seem quite willing to ignore the fact the C and V are abundantly more qualified than stinkin Stefanoni. And they also get the whole 36I thing wrong. They think V alone decided to not test sample 36I ignoring completely the fact that the defense and prosecution experts all attended and agreed that testing was pointless.

Their motivation calls 36I critical to the determination. I suppose tomorrow we will learn if they meant critical or meant critical unless it is not MK DNA.

I smell a giant continuation of this Italian farce.

It's hard to disagree with your assessment of the ISC's ruling and I'm afraid that all of this might be true. You are right, this is a farce of major proportions.

I can also see this case going on for another 4 more years...easily...and that might be the good news I'm afraid. Worse would be Nencini rubber stamping the ISC's bizarre ruling and the ISC confirming that ruling.

The ISC's decision is downright absurd. MORONIC might be a better description. There are only a couple of points in their ruling that make even the smallest amount of sense. I can understand the asking that 36I be reviewed...well I can understand it a little. I can't actually understand that any tests on that specific knife ever being tested.

Still, I'm hoping that the Florence court has a mind of its own and will do the right thing. Then the ISC will be faced with overruling a second acquittal.


Time will tell.

 

[Mary_H]

I agree with you and I'm glad you said it. It was pitiful to watch. This clown was pitching arguments like "it was a sex crime so therefore Amanda's sex life is relevant." And people were responding in detail, giving him exactly what he wanted. Naturally he teed up more of the same drivel, sat back, and enjoyed the show.

It reminds me of Lucy yanking away the football so Charlie Brown lands on his ass. After the hundredth time, who is to blame?

Yeah, glad that's over. And now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

11:00 - Hasps vs. clasps: A look at the many differences
12:00 - Thrown rock trajectories: Igneous, sedimentary, metamorphic
01:00 - Measuring non-existent DNA: Will the cows ever come home?

Caffeine packets available at the back of the room.

 

[acbytesla]

For me, the question is; Is all of this the result of fraud based upon overzealous scientific police and prosecution? Or is it just a mistake? I have gone back and forth between these possibilities. But I've come to the conclusion that at least one and probably at least two people with these institutions felt the need to to falsify some of the evidence.

 

[davefoc]

For me, the question is; Is all of this the result of fraud based upon overzealous scientific police and prosecution? Or is it just a mistake? I have gone back and forth between these possibilities. But I've come to the conclusion that at least one and probably at least two people with these institutions felt the need to to falsify some of the evidence.

I have mused about this along these lines also without a satisfying conclusion. It seems that if the general assessment of the situation is correct in this thread then it is hard to get past the notion that some place in the system there is a willful attempt to allow the conviction of two innocent people.

Although a great deal of what has gone on can be explained by the normal application of confirmation bias and self interest bias in the human decision making process. The behavior of Stefanoni and Mignini is well within the range of problematic behaviors by forensic scientists and prosecutors in the US and I have never come to a decision about the role that cynical corruption plays versus the role that failed critical thinking plays in the cases that I have thought about. Based on the judgment of people in this thread it seems that Stefanoni has lied. But even if she has, did she do so because she believed in what to her was the greater good, convicting two people that she believed committed a heinous murder or did she lie just to cover up her own malfeasance? I don't know the answer.

I think it should be noted here that I do not believe Machiavelli concedes that Stefanoni has lied at all and I have gotten confused a bit on what the evidence is for that. If she presented her conclusion that the footprints contained blood without acknowledging the TMB results then it would be clear that she lied from my perspective, but if the TMB results were buried in documents that had been supplied to the defense before she testified the situation becomes a bit muddy in my opinion.

There is the issue of the two problematic DNA results. All the possibilities put forth so far to explain these results seem unlikely to me, but one of them must be true and one of those possibilities is intentional misconduct by Stefanoni.

And there is the Supreme Court decision. If the situation is as most of us see it, the the Supreme court members have a poor ability to analyze data, they are corrupt or their group bias has rendered them incapable of clear thought on this case. None of these possibilities seem likely to me, but one or more of them must be correct if the general consensus in this thread about this case is correct.

 

[LondonJohn]

OK boys and girls... Having been recently to STL, I can imagine that there might be some that would resent being the vehicle for otherwise innocent humor. Maybe they do have their share of toothless wonders but not sure how different that is for many areas of the world, or the US for that matter. Having also been to Seattle a couple times recently, I can say that those two cities did not seem a lot different. Lots of very civilized and open minded people, and the farther out you travel the more less sophisticated people you find. Don't know if they eat collards there - or in STL either. Of course your humor was about Missouri, so I guess we should be comparing states. Don't they have white supremacists up there in WA? So there you go. Not only should the I-talians be offended by referencing a redneck state's forensic manual, but it is reasonable to assume that Seattle people must be racist and ergo AK blamed the black man...

In case anyone took offence, I was being satirical in my reference to fried squirrel and collard greens, and my crass approximation of a Missouri accent! I was satirising those who are attempting to mock the Missouri State Highway Patrol Forensics Laboratory - since I strongly suspect that some of that mocking may be based on a prejudice that Missouri is a "backward" Southern state which therefore can have no expertise in matters of advanced science.

Personally, I LOVE southern US food and culture (discounting the small minority of casual racists, and the even smaller majority of active racists that still persist). I have a quirky passion for proper barbecue* - an art of cooking that is virtually unknown and widely understood here in UK, although mercifully a handful of proper barbecue restaurants have opened in London over the past several years. I vacillate between preferring Missouri/Kansas-style BBQ, Texas BBQ and Carolinas BBQ (although I've never actually visited the Carolinas, so that's definitely on my list). I have a couple of friends/colleagues in Houston who are disciples of BBQ, and who constantly evangalise to me why Texas BBQ is God's chosen BBQ


*i.e. low-temperature (90-100C) smoke cooking over coals and/or wood in an enclosed chamber

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, nothing interesting coming out of the Florence courtroom as yet: the Carabinieri RIS scientists are detailing their methodology.

As an amusing aside, "professional reporter" (!) Barbie Nadeau has mistakenly tweeted that the Carabinieri were examining sample 36H, rather than then correct 36I. It's much better reporting if you get the basic facts right, Barbie

 

[LondonJohn]

A tweet from Nadeau, which - if accurate - is manna from heaven to the defence:

Barbie Latza Nadeau ‏@BLNadeau 18m

RIS: essential in DNA testing to double test samples to validate results

Of course, one of the many reasons why C&V (and a whole host of other DNA experts) consider Stefanoni's results from 36B unreliable and inadmissible is that she only single-tested for Meredith's DNA, and it's now impossible to even attempt to replicate her results. It's absolutely mandatory (as I and others have pointed out before) when working with low-template quantities to at least double-test, since the massive amplification processes involved generate the possibility of misleading amplification of noise and other artifacts.

What we now appear to have is the Carabinieri experts explicitly confirming this fact in front of the appeal judges. If that's the case, then Bongiorno will be missing a simple open goal if she doesn't refer back to this confirmation very prominently in her closing arguments.

 

[LondonJohn]

And it appears that - as hoped - Bongiorno is now homing in on the problems with 36B, with (I'm guessing) an aim of having the Carabinieri experts tell the court just how bad Stefanoni's working practices were, and why the Meredith sample should therefore be considered unreliable and inadmissible:

Barbie Latza Nadeau ‏@BLNadeau 4m

Bongiorno asks RIS expert specifics of amplification of sample with an eye to trace with #meredithkercher DNA that was amplified many times