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

[LondonJohn]

I think that's right -- the son heard one phone ringing when Amanda was calling Meredith. The mother was already on her way to the station with the other phone.

The Italian phone was turned off. It was the first one found, because it was lying in plain sight in Sig.ra Lana's front garden, and was found by one of her children as soon as they went outside.

The English one was left on. It was the second one found,because it was lying hidden in shrubbery at the edge of the front garden. It was found because it rang - almost certainly an incoming call from Knox - and thus alerted the house's occupants (who were outside at the time) to its presence.

 

[acbytesla]

The Italian phone was turned off. It was the first one found, because it was lying in plain sight in Sig.ra Lana's front garden, and was found by one of her children as soon as they went outside.

The English one was left on. It was the second one found,because it was lying hidden in shrubbery at the edge of the front garden. It was found because it rang - almost certainly an incoming call from Knox - and thus alerted the house's occupants (who were outside at the time) to its presence.

So the answer obviously is that they would have found the phones regardless.

 

[LondonJohn]

In fairness, she did post the actual letter explaining all the reasons why her request was turned down.

Surrogate issues like this are a good way for the guilters to keep the outrage simmering. They had a good run with Frank the uncongenial house guest. Now they can dwell on this for awhile. As you say, nobody else cares.

Yes, she did link to the letter itself. But in my opinion, her article itself was a clear and blatant attempt to mislead the reader by explicitly suggesting that the "trade secrets" reason was the only (or, in the most generous possible interpretation, the most important) reason for BSU's rejection of her request.

And in my opinion it's undeniably true that Vogt then continues to set up a strawman by refuting the "trade secrets" reason in isolation, and implying that if only she'd appealed, she'd probably have won and forced the FOI release.

And of course the overarching sentiment she wants to convey is that BSU was inventing bogus - and appealable - reasons to refuse her request, making BSU "co-conspirators" in all this by using unreasonable methods to deny the intrepid Vogt the information she requested.

 

[Planigale]

I would support the view that it is irrelevant whether Stefanoni has a PhD or not. I suspect she does not have a PhD equivalent. One would expect at least one first author publication from one's thesis. I suspect she was a research assistant / technician. These people are usually the most technically competent, and it would not be surprising she went from doing PCR in a research lab to a forensic lab. What is more concerning is she seems to have no formal training in forensic science. In particular there is a big difference between being the genomic geek in the lab, and being a SOCO / CSI. Does anyone know if she had any appropriate training?

 

[Dan O.]

Have you read any of the current tweets? One has to do with Raffaele's visit to Meredith's grave. One tweeter said something akin to, "I would not be surprised if he buried a note with her saying, 'Ha ha, we got away with murder'." Suddenly that becomes the fire for all sorts of vulgar comments against Raffaele which suggest that, afterall, he'd gone only to be disrespectful.

This is a lovely one. If Raffaele left on note buried in Meredith's grave it would be as good as a confession if anyone were smart enough to retrieve it before it completely deteriorated. Fortunately for the guilty, none of the guilters have thought of that.

 

[LondonJohn]

So the answer obviously is that they would have found the phones regardless.

As it happens, yes. But if the person who threw the phones away (i.e. Guede) had thrown them only twenty yards further to the left or right, it's possible that they might never have been found at all (especially if the UK phone's battery had run flat before the police had had a chance to ping its location with the help of the mobile network operators).

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

So the answer obviously is that they would have found the phones regardless.

Sure, but they may have reported it to the police more promptly, and the police may have acted on it with more alacrity, because it followed the bomb threat.

This is a reasonable assumption. It's possible that without the bomb threat, the Postals would have tossed the phones in a locker and would never have shown up at the crime scene.

So... that could mean that someone knew about the murder and the disposal of the phones, and wanted to make sure the phones would be discovered and the police would investigate, so they called in a bomb threat that mentioned cell phones.

That is an interesting idea. I don't think it's true, however.

 

[Bill Williams]

I wouldn't be too hard on her. She's a simpleton.

Also, her reporting has zero impact on the world. She's shouting into the wind and no one is listening. I'd be surprised if she's even making any money off of her stories at this point--may explain her professed lack of interest in the case.

Hey, watch out. I think she may be Mach's squeeze.

Tennessee Williams. The Glass Menagerie. Either that or the close of most of the old Lone Ranger radio programs in the 1930s.

Five points to anyone who can spot the reference of what I'm thinking right now.... Pics at 11.

 

[LondonJohn]

Sure, but they may have reported it to the police more promptly, and the police may have acted on it with more alacrity, because it followed the bomb threat.

This is a reasonable assumption. It's possible that without the bomb threat, the Postals would have tossed the phones in a locker and would never have shown up at the crime scene.

So... that could mean that someone knew about the murder and the disposal of the phones, and wanted to make sure the phones would be discovered and the police would investigate, so they called in a bomb threat that mentioned cell phones.

That is an interesting idea. I don't think it's true, however.

Did the bomb threat mention cellphones? I had thought it was only a quick call (almost certainly containing stifled laughter) telling Sig.ra Lana that there was a bomb in her toilet.

Of course, even that specificity of "threat" would be enough to put a gentle old lady on edge at best and terrified at worst. And I'd be sure that the police would never treat any bomb threat trivially - even if it bore all the hallmarks of a student prank. So it would be fair to say that everyone was probably being more vigilant and wary in the aftermath of the threat, and that - even if the phones might have been found anyhow - they might not otherwise have been conveyed to the police station so quickly.

If the bomb threat hadn't been made the previous night, I can easily see a situation where Sig.ra Lana and her family might even have waited until the end of the long holiday weekend to deliver the handsets to the police.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well, she definitely has an agenda -- to make Hampikian look bad and, by extension, the defense.

"... it seemed relevant that an American university might be withholding potentially pertinent information."

What information? The only thing pertinent would be that they know that the defendants are guilty but they refuse to reveal it. If they have that information, why doesn't the prosecution?

It is telling that Vogt has to go so far FROM the defence to make the defence look bad. If you can't make the defence look bad, go find someone who once mentored them in law school, and then dig up something on that mentor....

What Vogt is missing in connecting these dots is that now the RIS Carabinieri has a report recognized by the Nencini court, making what Hampikian look like an early oracle at Delphi.

It;s like discovering that Mickey Mantle had a drinking problem when he played for the 1960s Yankees, and using that as a reason why the Yankees in 2013 didn't win the World Series.

 

[LondonJohn]

Tennessee Williams. The Glass Menagerie. Either that or the close of most of the old Lone Ranger radio programs in the 1930s.

Five points to anyone who can spot the reference of what I'm thinking right now.... Pics at 11.

Hmmmm.... all I can think about is unicorns and Hi-ho Silver!

 

[Bill Williams]

Tennessee Williams. The Glass Menagerie. Either that or the close of most of the old Lone Ranger radio programs in the 1930s.

Five points to anyone who can spot the reference of what I'm thinking right now.... Pics at 11.

Hmmmm.... all I can think about is unicorns and Hi-ho Silver!

Methinks Machiavelli 2 knows. I'm too much of a gentleman to openly gloat.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I would support the view that it is irrelevant whether Stefanoni has a PhD or not. I suspect she does not have a PhD equivalent. One would expect at least one first author publication from one's thesis. I suspect she was a research assistant / technician. These people are usually the most technically competent, and it would not be surprising she went from doing PCR in a research lab to a forensic lab. What is more concerning is she seems to have no formal training in forensic science. In particular there is a big difference between being the genomic geek in the lab, and being a SOCO / CSI. Does anyone know if she had any appropriate training?

You got it. She was a tech, perfectly competent but in an environment where competence is not rewarded whereas giving the cops what they need is rewarded. She was paid to be quick and dirty, so she was, and her work didn't hold up when it was examined.

She played a role in this debacle, and she went along with it all the way, but it's not primarily her fault at all.

 

[RandyN]

I concur. At a minimum, the clasp collection - with the video, and the presentation to the camera as if Stefanoni were Vanna White, unveiling the next prize on Wheel of Fortune - is an absurd piece of grandstanding. The amateurism and blatant chicanery are breathtaking.

In fairness I think Stefanoni was trapped in a web led by Mignini and his main DNA consultant Renato Biondo. You may remember Biondo as Stefanoni's boss. The person who reviewed Stefanonis work in the first trial and surprisingly found it scientifically safe and sound.

The more we see in this whole affair it seems to be more about corruption and less about incompetence. No other conclusion can be reasonably made.

 

[LondonJohn]

You got it. She was a tech, perfectly competent but in an environment where competence is not rewarded whereas giving the cops what they need is rewarded. She was paid to be quick and dirty, so she was, and her work didn't hold up when it was examined.

She played a role in this debacle, and she went along with it all the way, but it's not primarily her fault at all.

I think you're perhaps being a little to generous to Stefanoni. In my opinion, she had -and has - certain ethical and professional responsibilities to uphold in her role as a state forensic scientist. These include rigorous adherence to strict scientific protocols and processes; diligence, care and thoroughness in her work; objectivity and precision in her measurements; and total openness, honesty and disclosure in her professional communications with others (including investigators, courts and professional colleagues/peers).

I believe Stefanoni fell very significantly short on pretty much every one of these responsibilities in the Kercher investigation. I therefore believe that she played her own role in this debacle,and deserves to be held accountable accordingly.

 

[Mary_H]

So, I wrote this:

<snip>Yes, [the phones] would have been found, because they were found by family members walking in the yard, which presumably would have happened bomb threat or not.

acbytesla responded, but then he wrote this:

So the answer obviously is that they would have found the phones regardless.

In response to acbytesla (not me), LJ wrote this:

As it happens, yes.<snip>

Also in response to acbytesla (not me), CW wrote this:

Sure, but they may have reported it to the police more promptly, and the police may have acted on it with more alacrity, because it followed the bomb threat.<snip>

I am trying not to be paranoid here, but this sort of thing happens often enough that it is really getting on my nerves. I have already been public about my posts being invisible at least once.

This board has become dominated by men. The subject matter addressed most often are engineering-oriented topics (not in the particular case of the phones). It's not that I think women are not capable of engineering-oriented thinking, but we are all aware of research showing basic general differences between men's and women's brains.

There are lots of women engineers, scientists and business people (look at Rolfe and Ampulla of Vater), but over time, this board has lost the input of women posters and, as I said, is dominated by topics men are more interested in discussing. I often wonder whether this is eventually inevitable in any internet group comprising both sexes.

The irony of this, to me, is that the essential questions of the case are social, and revolve around the oppression of women by members of a male-dominated society. That could be a topic of discussion, too, but it rarely is. When Meredith was lying in a pool of blood and Amanda was sitting in prison for four years, do you think they really cared about the ******* lock on the bedroom door?

I get that to many posters, settling the questions of evidence seems like the key to winning the case. But it isn't. It's just more rewarding for you to think about than the social and personality issues are. If your ideas never make it to the defense, they are simply intellectual exercises.

Here is an emotional exercise for you, instead. You came to this case, presumably, because you wanted to defend a woman (or two, if you include Meredith). If you care about women, then realize the tendency in our society is for them to be relegated to second-class status, and try not to participate in that.

 

[acbytesla]

So, I wrote this:



acbytesla responded, but then he wrote this:



In response to acbytesla (not me), LJ wrote this:



Also in response to acbytesla (not me), CW wrote this:



I am trying not to be paranoid here, but this sort of thing happens often enough that it is really getting on my nerves. I have already been public about my posts being invisible at least once.

This board has become dominated by men. The subject matter addressed most often are engineering-oriented topics (not in the particular case of the phones). It's not that I think women are not capable of engineering-oriented thinking, but we are all aware of research showing basic general differences between men's and women's brains.

There are lots of women engineers, scientists and business people (look at Rolfe and Ampulla of Vater), but over time, this board has lost the input of women posters and, as I said, is dominated by topics men are more interested in discussing. I often wonder whether this is eventually inevitable in any internet group comprising both sexes.

The irony of this, to me, is that the essential questions of the case are social, and revolve around the oppression of women by members of a male-dominated society. That could be a topic of discussion, too, but it rarely is. When Meredith was lying in a pool of blood and Amanda was sitting in prison for four years, do you think they really cared about the ******* lock on the bedroom door?

I get that to many posters, settling the questions of evidence seems like the key to winning the case. But it isn't. It's just more rewarding for you to think about than the social and personality issues are. If your ideas never make it to the defense, they are simply intellectual exercises.

Here is an emotional exercise for you, instead. You came to this case, presumably, because you wanted to defend a woman (or two, if you include Meredith). If you care about women, then realize the tendency in our society is for them to be relegated to second-class status, and try not to participate in that.

Huh??? I'm a strong believe Mary, that a thinker is a thinker. There have been many great women scientists throughout the ages and many were NOT given their due. For example, Lise Meitner a woman who surely deserved to win the Nobel Prize for her work on nuclear fission. Her collaborator Otto Hahn was awarded the prize while Meitner was ignored, yet in many ways, her contribution was far greater. Another woman who was snubbed and never given her due was Rosalind Franklin for the discovery of DNA.

I don't think the men posting here are demonstrating sexism and I think it is unfair to say so.

 

[smkovalinksy]

So, I wrote this:



acbytesla responded, but then he wrote this:



In response to acbytesla (not me), LJ wrote this:



Also in response to acbytesla (not me), CW wrote this:



I am trying not to be paranoid here, but this sort of thing happens often enough that it is really getting on my nerves. I have already been public about my posts being invisible at least once.

This board has become dominated by men. The subject matter addressed most often are engineering-oriented topics (not in the particular case of the phones). It's not that I think women are not capable of engineering-oriented thinking, but we are all aware of research showing basic general differences between men's and women's brains.

There are lots of women engineers, scientists and business people (look at Rolfe and Ampulla of Vater), but over time, this board has lost the input of women posters and, as I said, is dominated by topics men are more interested in discussing. I often wonder whether this is eventually inevitable in any internet group comprising both sexes.

The irony of this, to me, is that the essential questions of the case are social, and revolve around the oppression of women by members of a male-dominated society. That could be a topic of discussion, too, but it rarely is. When Meredith was lying in a pool of blood and Amanda was sitting in prison for four years, do you think they really cared about the ******* lock on the bedroom door?

I get that to many posters, settling the questions of evidence seems like the key to winning the case. But it isn't. It's just more rewarding for you to think about than the social and personality issues are. If your ideas never make it to the defense, they are simply intellectual exercises.

Here is an emotional exercise for you, instead. You came to this case, presumably, because you wanted to defend a woman (or two, if you include Meredith). If you care about women, then realize the tendency in our society is for them to be relegated to second-class status, and try not to participate in that.

Odd that you should mention all of this, as I get the same feeling on many true crime discussion forums; here and elsewhere - but I had not seen it as a case of men v women, but of those who are interested in technical and forensic details v those who have a more intuitive, psychological, broader and more socio-cultural purview. hmmmmm......

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Massei may have misunderstood what the pathologists were saying

I think most people would want to get rid of the knife - as most people (apart from the Pro-Rudy lot at PMF) must be aware that you can match the knife to the wounds. If you were really mad enough to keep it, I would of expected some obsessive cleaning and boiling it in water etc. etc.

Can I ask a question about the time of death evidence - I checked back through my old medical and physiology books and it seems fairly basic undergraduate science that food will pass from within the stomach to the duodenum within 2-4 hours (with 4 being the very limit). How wasis thepresented in court - did the pathologist give his best estimate for the time of death or am I missing something?

IMO Either Massei himself did not have a clear idea that the time at which the stomach begins to empty is earlier than the time that it finishes emptying into the duodenum, or he wished to obfuscate. Doug Bremner made that point here. This analysis of Massei's stomach problems is also good. The author wrote, "My guess is that Massei seriously mis-understood or mis-represented what Lalli said." I don't think that the defense was as much as fault as Massei was for allowing Mignini to change the TOD in his closing remarks. Under those circumstances, the defense may have been caught flat footed. On the other hand, the defense needed to do better in the appeal documents, and it is my understanding that they presented the matter more clearly.

 

[LondonJohn]

I can say with absolute unqualified certainty that I am totally gender-neutral when it comes to anything related to this (or any other) debate. That would apply in this thread to everything including: respect of posters' opinions/arguments; acknowledgement of posters' opinions/arguments; disagreements with, or challenges to, posters' opinions/arguments; engaging in dialogue with posters; exchanging banter (on-topic or off-topic) with posters.

In "real life" I work with, alongside, and for, many women - whom I view in exactly the same way as the men I work with/alongside/for. Outside of hard physical labour, I'm firmly of the view that there's no difference in the abilities of men and women - although I'd objectively judge that there are a few non-physical tasks that women tend to be better at (on average) and a few others that men tend (on average) to be better at.

If you feel you've been slighted, overlooked, patronised or ignored, Mary, I would like to bear my share of the apology for giving you that impression. I can promise you, however, that your impression does not match my actual intention or underlying point of view. I hope we can sort it out among ourselves, and be more careful in future not to convey the wrong impression - even if unintentionally. Sorry.