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

[Bill Williams]

If you are ready to confess your relationships with Candace, Frank and FOA please send me a PM. But this time only to confess.

You seem to have a strange interest in reporters. Vogt, Barbie, Frank and blooger CD.

The difference is that Machiavelli is tiptoeing around the issue of Andrea Vogt saying that C&V is in front of the Nencini court.....

And my interest on "crime novelists" is no secret. Besides, I've confessed already and the confessor eventually told me to shut up and go home!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

how to dispose of a knife

I would have thoroughly cleaned the knife at the flat, put in my large handbag, and then thrown it into a storm drain so that one of those big Perugian rainstorms (the kind that make the ground all muddy so that tracks show up around the cottage) could sully it. Then I would buy another knife on my trip to Gubbio. Or I would ask my co-conspirator, Guede, how he intended to dispose of his knife and do something similar. Seriously, I see some problems with disposing of the knife, but I still think disposal is the better of the two options. More to the point, a thorough cleaning would not leave Amanda's DNA on the blade (or starch, for that matter). MOO.

 

[Grinder]

Has anyone even made that argument? Or have they made the argument that two formerly sane people would never put a kitchen knife in a cloth bag, walk or run a mile with it, kill their friend and then bring the knife back and cut bread with it?

Yes. Go back and read the back and forth. Ask Tesla. They have also put it in their context of what could have happened which is confirmation bias.

If you don't include the bag, you get a stronger argument, but Massei said the knife went in the bag, so it should be allowed in the "what if" scenario. The bag weakens your argument because it increases the possibility of planning versus rage, but the lack of immediacy in the timing does that anyway, so -- I will drop the bag.

Nothing Massei wrote impacts my argument except facts, not speculation.

Suggesting the probability of the knife movement is part of what destroys the credibility of the prosecution's case. Just as you and I recognize that there are more sensible ways to get into a house than climbing in a second story window, most rational minds recognize there are more sensible ways to cut someone's throat than with a knife retrieved from a remote location.

That line of thinking would free a huge number of guilty people.


Instead, you have to look at it with a logic that allows for the simultaneous occurrence of all the necessary conditions that would enable them to do it.

1.) They would have to be out of their minds.
2.) They would have to travel a mile with the plan in mind, and succeed in carrying out the plan.
3.) They would have to bring the knife back to the kitchen instead of disposing of it, wash it until it was shiny, then place it on top of all the other knives in the drawer and leave it there for four days while police investigated the murder.

Which stars would have to be aligned to create such a possibility?[/QUOTE]

Sorry Mary but I see no exceptional star alignment, not withstanding the "exactly" coming from Bill and Tesla.

Out of minds, check. They would make to the cottage and kill, check. They would bring the knife back, clean it and put it where it belonged, check.

As I said earlier Chris commented he hadn't thought of hard it would be to dispose of the knife and other evidence. Hello, the phones were found.

Some here think just soap and water would clean DNA. I would also use bleach.

Oh yeah, Tesla do you have the cite for the bleach being unopened?

 

[Grinder]

I would have thoroughly cleaned the knife at the flat, put in my large handbag, and then thrown it into a storm drain so that one of those big Perugian rainstorms (the kind that make the ground all muddy so that tracks show up around the cottage) could sully it. Then I would buy another knife on my trip to Gubbio. Or I would ask my co-conspirator, Guede, how he intended to dispose of his knife and do something similar. Seriously, I see some problems with disposing of the knife, but I still think disposal is the better of the two options. More to the point, a thorough cleaning would not leave Amanda's DNA on the blade (or starch, for that matter). MOO.

Well there didn't seem to any of Raf's DNA on it. Weird, no?

They would have used the knife on the third and fourth and maybe the fifth.

As we all know the rain at the end of October was not a downpour yet it would take a downpour to leave the ground wet and the dirt would be on the muddy side not dusty.

The best approach is control and not leave the finding of the not properly cleaned knife to chance. Clean. Replace.

 

[Bill Williams]

So what? The RIS may attach what they want in their report, we can speculate why they attach something or not something else: because we are in 2013, because they have only one DNA test to perform, because it's up to them to include what they want in their report. And so?

The "so what" is that the RIS Carabinieri did it the proper way, the Florence prosecution (unlike Comodi) did not conspire with the RIS Carabinieri to suppress evidence, and Judge Nencini, unlike judges Massei and Hellmann, were not caught in the precarious position of having either to "out" criminal behaviour of the prosecution, or to ignore it and push on to their own conclusions.....

You're like Dalla Vedova: stop putting your words in people's mouth. If you want to report what Vogt sayts, then quote her words, link the source.
Don't try to parse and twist.
If you want to claim something else, like about content of trial files or Nencinis words or the RIS report, then again, quote the direct source.

You given me the most gracious compliment I've received in a long while.... comparing me with an Italian lawyer of ethics! Drat - now I have to say something nice about you!

Vogt's comments are clear and in the public record. The fact that YOU are not countering by posting her comments which refute what she's obviously said, say all I need to hear.

For instance, look what you did with the Satanic rite claim and Barbie Nadeau. You ended up calling Nadeau an "approximate reporter".

Look what you did with Andrea Vogt's unretracted reporting of "I was there"? You eventually got around to saying that the reason why Andrea did not need to retract was because Knox and her mother were, in your view, speaking in "Mafia code".

The truth is this - Vogt now believes that C&V is before the Nencini court. I'm just trying to spare you the embarrassment of having to come up with an excuse for her saying it, like that it is now Vogt "speaking in Mafia code," or that Vogt is now an "approximate reporter."

I think this is the first time I have not seen you provide documentation to protect Vogt's reputation. I find that curious, that's all. You see, the real issue is not Vogt at all... the real issue is your posting here at JREF.

You see... ultimately it's not about what Vogt says... my interest is what you say about her... that's all.

For that I do not need to quote outside sources. You are doing just fine yourself. You see, the issue is what YOU say about Vogt... which is precious little when she's been caught in a lie.... which is precious little when she says something that undercuts everything you've typed here since rejoining this thread many weeks ago.

Remember that? You rejoined the thread the same day that someone privately e-mailed Vogt crticizing her? You jumped in here to defend Vogt.

My point..... I just find it interesting that you, Machiavelli, right here, right now, are not defending Vogt any more.

That is my sole point and I believe I've achieved the objective simply by what you are posting on the matter, for all to read.

 

[Caper]

Ok.... Point of order. The people here arguing Knox's innocents are great. You bring up some great stuff. BUT... sometimes I feel I need a phd to understand it. I really think a low budget documentary needs to be made to help dumb it down a bit for the masses... Even some instructional YouTube videos.

 

[Diocletus]

So what? The RIS may attach what they want in their report, we can speculate why they attach something or not something else: because we are in 2013, because they have only one DNA test to perform, because it's up to them to include what they want in their report.

Good point. It is 2013. Since the trial started in 2007, and it's now 2013, it's about time for the criminals who are suppressing the control and other lab data to turn it over, and it's not too late for them to do so, since the trial is still going on.

How do the Italians expect anyone to take seriously their judicial procedures, when the prosecution is allowed to get away with suppressing potentially exculpatory lab data? Particularly when allowing the prosecution to engage in such misconduct results in a violation of Italy's "equality of arms" obligations under the ECHR.

 

[acbytesla]

Actually I've never said that and it is just another straw man of yours. C&V did say something like that why not harp on that?

As I pointed out a little while back this started when I said in response to Anthony, I believe, that saying the taking of the knife from the flat and returning it to the flat was so improbable that it was evidence they didn't do the crime and I disagreed. (paraphrased)

You are so incapable of turning off what you are sure of that you can't free your mind to consider things without prejudging the situation. Most here see that in and of itself the movement needed for the knife does not absolve the kids. If they were crazed enough to do the crime, the knife movement would not be questioned.

Now you have stated that even if Meredith's blood had been found you still wouldn't consider the knife.

No, I never said that. You are taking me out of context. I said I would have hard time believing it even then, BUT I WOULD HAVE TO.

Everything is not possible in the sense you try to use the expression, but crazed killers taking a knife, any knife, with them and returning it doesn't come close to the line of impossible.

Sorry if you think I'm putting words in your mouth. A "crazed killer" might do anything, ie; the Manson family. But you have seen plenty of Amanda and Raffaele In interview after interview and while you may not like Amanda...(and that's ok) does either of them appear remotely "crazed"?

What I see from those arguing that Amanda and Raffaele were guilty is this contradictory and totally selective nonsense that they were "diabolocal geniuses" and naive idiots, that they were meticulous cleaners and sloppy and forgetful.

Some serial killers are known to take trophies of their victims often giving prosecutors the ammunition to convict them.

You and I see this different. Definitely, "a crazed killer" might do anything. But that hasn't been Amanda and Raffale at all. "Crazed killers" wouldn't have stuck around, discovered the body and helped the police for day after day after day.

 

[acbytesla]

Ok.... Point of order. The people here arguing Knox's innocents are great. You bring up some great stuff. BUT... sometimes I feel I need a phd to understand it. I really think a low budget documentary needs to be made to help dumb it down a bit for the masses... Even some instructional YouTube videos.

Trust us Caper, most of us have been there. Especially the DNA stuff. It can go over your head in a heartbeat. But if you Google enough of the terms and read enough, you can get a handle on it. It will only take you maybe a year...

No only kidding. you can get a handle on it...it took me a year..but I'm a slow learner.

 

[Diocletus]

Ok.... Point of order. The people here arguing Knox's innocents are great. You bring up some great stuff. BUT... sometimes I feel I need a phd to understand it.

I hope you don't need a PhD to follow this thread. If that's the case, then it would be over the head of even Patrizia Stefanoni. Well, except for the Patrizia Stefanoni who is a physician--I assume that she has the necessary credentials.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm wondering if anyone has a list of equipment that Stefanoni used. I'd like to see if I can pull up manuals on the equipment she used. I have stuff for the Qubit.

I'm wondering what else is used and what the machine data that is created with each test.

 

[Diocletus]

I'm wondering if anyone has a list of equipment that Stefanoni used. I'd like to see if I can pull up manuals on the equipment she used. I have stuff for the Qubit.

I'm wondering what else is used and what the machine data that is created with each test.

It's identified in the C&V report.

From memory:

Extraction was Qiagen Biorobot

RT-qPCR was via Applied Biosystems 7700, running Sequence Detection Systems 1.7 in Single Reporter mode.

Concentration via SpeedVac

STR was ABI ___

Electrophoresis was via Applied Biosystems 3130, running Genemapper 3.2.1

 

[acbytesla]

It's identified in the C&V report.

From memory:

Extraction was Qiagen Biorobot

RT-qPCR was via Applied Biosystems 7700, running Sequence Detection Systems 1.7 in Single Reporter mode.

Concentration via SpeedVac

STR was ABI ___

Electrophoresis was via Applied Biosystems 3130, running Genemapper 3.2.1

Thank you. Caper's suggestion about the Youtube video would be excellent. The only problem of course, is that you would need access to a lab with all this equipment. And I don't know anyone with this in their basement?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The CSC has no clue about controls or contamination

The fact is that Vechiotti was caught cheating. That's all. I undertand that you don't want to admit it but it's manifest in Vecchiotti's questioning, and there is no need for me to explain again why. The combination of all what Vecchiotti said and asked, and its context, speaks for itself. The Supreme Court called C&V "superficial" for failing to verify the existence negative control files, but they were generous.

Here is what the court said: "...in sampling, especially in a context in which laboratory contamination -which is the kind of contamination more demonstrable and most frequent -was mathematically excluded,in a context in which negative controls were made by Dr. Stefanoni, checks that had been stated too superficially to be missing by the experts, simply because they were not attached to the report." IMO if they were not attached to the report, then they were in the wrong place. Moreover, the court does not say where they are. If they had ever been released to the defense, then the defense consultants would have known about it. This is one place among many in which the CSC is wrong.

In brief, the notion that a six-day gap in testing is sufficient to exclude contamination is flat-out wrong. katy_did mentioned a paper in which the contaminant had hung around for months, and I have indicated that one-day and two-day gaps are documented in known cases of contamination. Professor Krane has clearly said it is insufficient. The claim that there was even a six-day gap is looking more and more dubious to me. Furthermore, the argument does not address the fact that Amanda or Gubbiotti might have transferred the DNA to the knife prior to its collection. There is also the problem of sporadic contamination. The CSC needs to get its facts straight on the science of DNA testing, or it will continue to embarrass itself. And I am being generous.

 

[Diocletus]

Here is what the court said: "...in sampling, especially in a context in which laboratory contamination -which is the kind of contamination more demonstrable and most frequent -was mathematically excluded,in a context in which negative controls were made by Dr. Stefanoni, checks that had been stated too superficially to be missing by the experts, simply because they were not attached to the report." IMO if they were not attached to the report, then they were in the wrong place. Moreover, the court does not say where they are. If they had ever been released to the defense, then the defense consultants would have known about it. This is one place among many in which the CSC is wrong.

As far as I can tell, C&V assumed that there were no controls, not only because they weren't attached to the report, but also because they are nowhere to be found as a consequence of being suppressed by the prosecution. And that's all that C&V could have done--what else are they supposed to do . . . assume that records that the prosecution is suppressing are all in order and helpful to the prosecution?

A shocking failure of professionalism and ethics. This supreme court is a real clown show--I'm betting that the judges didn't even go to law school.

 

[Bill Williams]

The only think I will ot talk about, is reasoning based on Bill Williams' interpretation of other people's positions.



She also said that the Police never attached control data.



So what? The RIS may attach what they want in their report, we can speculate why they attach something or not something else: because we are in 2013, because they have only one DNA test to perform, because it's up to them to include what they want in their report. And so?



You're like Dalla Vedova: stop putting your words in people's mouth. If you want to report what Vogt sayts, then quote her words, link the source.
Don't try to parse and twist.
If you want to claim something else, like about content of trial files or Nencinis words or the RIS report, then again, quote the direct source.

My goal is to see what YOU say about it. You choose not to say anything, either to confirm or deny.

Truth is that you've called Nadeau an approximate reporter in similar circumstances. That you refuse comment about Vogt, even to deny it, says all I need to hear.

 

[Poppy1016]

My goal is to see what YOU say about it. You choose not to say anything, either to confirm or deny.

Truth is that you've called Nadeau an approximate reporter in similar circumstances. That you refuse comment about Vogt, even to deny it, says all I need to hear.

I have to say Bill, you and LJ are certainly tenacious when it comes to getting a point across. I tend to agree with all these points.

 

[codyjuneau]

I experience this a lot with the alternative medicine mob. People recover from illness all the time of course, and it's not that uncommon for them to recover more quickly than expected, or even for someone to recover from something they weren't expected to recover from. People also use homoeopathy and other alternative medicines quite often. Nevertheless when the two come together, "how can you say that was a coincidence??!!"

There are two quite stunning coincidences in the Lockerbie evidence, which combine to produce an extraordinarily convincing red herring. I have a great deal of sympathy for the investigators who discovered this, then became convinced it had to be significant. The trouble is, there is irrefutable evidence (which they missed) pointing elsewhere. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, even when the irrefutable evidence is presented, people still turn to the coincidence and say, "but what about that?"
Exactly as you say. The way our brains are wired makes it extremely difficult to recognise an apparently significant coincidence for what it is - simply a coincidence. I think rather a lot of miscarriages of justice can be traced to that one.

Rolfe.

.
I agree with what you are saying Rolfe. However I don't think we should assume rare events are coincidences merely because coincidences are known to happen. Part of the reason humans have developed this trait of questioning rare events is because sometimes they are the result of a cause/effect that is important for our survival as a species if we can figure out the association.

In this case the police have given an explanation that implies an extraordinarily unlikely coincidence. These are the same police that have hidden evidence, and demonstrated incompetence and dishonesty throughout the investigation and trial.

The irrefutable evidence required to determine whether or not the bomb threat phone call was a coincidence is easily available. All that is required is the phone record for that phone call. What could be easier to obtain? Has anyone, other than the prosecuting team seen that phone call record? Has anyone asked for it? Does anyone other than the prosecuting team know the exact time the phone call was made? Has anyone seen the police log regarding the investigation? When did the police arrive, when did they leave?

Even if the call was a coincidence, the times of the call, the police arrival, length of stay, results of their investigation could still be significant to the investigation of Meredith's murder.

Is anybody even curious?

Charlie, do you know the answer to any of these questions?

My own, very strong opinion is that it was NOT a kid's prank, but show me irrefutable proof (the phone record) and I will change my opinion.
.

 

[Dan O.]

Thank you. Caper's suggestion about the Youtube video would be excellent. The only problem of course, is that you would need access to a lab with all this equipment. And I don't know anyone with this in their basement?

I could rig the mandatory Jacobs Ladder for the background.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Ok.... Point of order. The people here arguing Knox's innocents are great. You bring up some great stuff. BUT... sometimes I feel I need a phd to understand it. I really think a low budget documentary needs to be made to help dumb it down a bit for the masses... Even some instructional YouTube videos.

We've been talking to Shane Carruth about just such a project.