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

[Strozzi]

Yes, but is this not the same Stefanoni who gift-wrapped the mop? And stored the crime scene evidence in the house freezer. And, etc.

At a minimum, Stefanoni knowingly contributed to constructing a pitifully flimsy case against two innocents, based on trumped-up, poorly collected and possibly falsified evidence. She would need to be profoundly stupid, just for starters, not to know what she was doing.

I'll grant you that she was goose-stepping to her superiors' orders, but that makes her no less guilty of gross moral turpitude.

I wrote a comment this morning stating my belief that Stefanoni falsified testing and test interpretations of the material alleged to be Meredith's DNA on the knife blade and later planted Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp. So you see, I bring a critical eye to this. But I want to say I do not agree with the comment above that Stefanoni "knowingly contributed to constructing a pitiful flimsy case against two innocents". I believe Stefanoni believed Knox and Sollicito were guilty, and the evidence she was fabricating was against two guilty people . She was just helping frame two guilty people. There is a difference between framing two innocent people and framing what she believes to be two guilty people.

Which brings me to the next question: What does Stefanoni now believe? Does she now believe the defendants against whom she falsified evidence are innocent or does she still believe they are guilty?

 

[codyjuneau]

I don't have much detail about this, but if you think it's relevant to the case, what is your theory as to how it fits in?

That is ultimately the way I decide on this stuff. I think I'm pretty good, because I more or less know the well-worn paths of crime. The Meredith Kercher crime scene does not look like the final act of an elaborate plot. It looks like one screwed-up hombre, acting on impulse with no master plan, who smashed his way in and killed a girl. I need a clear story, that adds up and has solid factual support, to convince me otherwise.

I follow quite a few cases. Here's one: housewife missing, leaves behind five kids. Husband says she went to the store to rent a video. But the security camera doesn't show her arriving at the store.

Instead, her car is found abandoned in a parking lot, 12 miles away.

Husband's alibi for time frame of disappearance: "I went hunting in another state, but when I got there, I suddenly realized hunting season doesn't open for another week."

Good thing she turned up alive, eh?

.
Yes, a good thing she turned up alive, but don't leave us hanging Charlie, why was the housewife missing?

I have a few hypotheses on the bomb threat call, some quite benign, some not. They are all moot if the phone call is a 'kid's prank', which should be easy to verify by requesting the telephone record of the call.

As long as the phone call is accepted as a boy's prank, it has little impact on the prosecution's and Massei's theorized Time Of Death. But what if the caller was actually unknown, and the police initially and lazily presumed a boy's prank, which they were reluctant to admit to later on, much like their original Lumumba, Raf, Amanda presumption. If the caller was in fact unknown, then it becomes possible the call was connected to the murder, which of course implies a much earlier Time Of Death than the prosecuting team's estimates.

So even this simple possibility, would have a major impact and be well worth the minimal effort required to request the telephone record. I suspect the ease of obtaining that telephone record will reflect the accuracy of the prosecuting team's explanation, much like the DNA data records, so stonewalling should be countered with persistence, IMO.
.

 

[Wildhorses]

Try this one: http://amanda-knox.wikispaces.com/

That's a WONDERFUL blog. Nicely organized.

Gosh, maybe now I can delete a few of my 2500 case-related bookmarks.

The homepage is driving me crazy, however. Is that a photo of Knox and Sollecito? I can't decide.

Who else would be on the homepage?
But it doesn't look like them...
But it kinda does????

 

[acbytesla]

I wrote a comment this morning stating my belief that Stefanoni falsified testing and test interpretations of the material alleged to be Meredith's DNA on the knife blade and later planted Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp. So you see, I bring a critical eye to this. But I want to say I do not agree with the comment above that Stefanoni "knowingly contributed to constructing a pitiful flimsy case against two innocents". I believe Stefanoni believed Knox and Sollicito were guilty, and the evidence she was fabricating was against two guilty people . She was just helping frame two guilty people. There is a difference between framing two innocent people and framing two guilty people.

Which brings me to the next question: What does Stefanoni now believe? Does she now believe the defendants against whom she falsified evidence are innocent or does she still believe they are guilty?

I have no idea what Stefanoni believes today. I would say that you are probably right in your assessment that Stefanoni believed them to be guilty when she did all this. (That is the only reason I can see someone doing what she did)

 

[Wildhorses]

I wrote a comment this morning stating my belief that Stefanoni falsified testing and test interpretations of the material alleged to be Meredith's DNA on the knife blade and later planted Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp. So you see, I bring a critical eye to this. But I want to say I do not agree with the comment above that Stefanoni "knowingly contributed to constructing a pitiful flimsy case against two innocents". I believe Stefanoni believed Knox and Sollicito were guilty, and the evidence she was fabricating was against two guilty people . She was just helping frame two guilty people. There is a difference between framing two innocent people and framing two guilty people.
Which brings me to the next question: What does Stefanoni now believe? Does she now believe the defendants against whom she falsified evidence are innocent or does she still believe they are guilty?

A difference in what? No, there is no difference. Fudging data is a violation of scientific ethics. The end does not justify the means -- or make an ethics violation less of a moral transgression.

I imagine Stefanoni remains convinced that AK and RS are guilty. I further imagine she's never really studied the facts of the case -- or made an effort to distinguish fact from fiction + feeling.

If that last sentence sounds arrogant, all I can say is that IS my view of guilters. Their judgements are colored by belief in things that simply did not happen-- and/or by strong feelings about issues that have no bearing on guilt or innocence.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

.
Yes, a good thing she turned up alive, but don't leave us hanging Charlie, why was the housewife missing?

I have a few hypotheses on the bomb threat call, some quite benign, some not. They are all moot if the phone call is a 'kid's prank', which should be easy to verify by requesting the telephone record of the call.

As long as the phone call is accepted as a boy's prank, it has little impact on the prosecution's and Massei's theorized Time Of Death. But what if the caller was actually unknown, and the police initially and lazily presumed a boy's prank, which they were reluctant to admit to later on, much like their original Lumumba, Raf, Amanda presumption. If the caller was in fact unknown, then it becomes possible the call was connected to the murder, which of course implies a much earlier Time Of Death than the prosecuting team's estimates.

So even this simple possibility, would have a major impact and be well worth the minimal effort required to request the telephone record. I suspect the ease of obtaining that telephone record will reflect the accuracy of the prosecuting team's explanation, much like the DNA data records, so stonewalling should be countered with persistence, IMO.
.

The housewife and her husband were hopelessly in debt. She had some kind of crisis where she bolted and ended up with relatives.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/missing-ge...uleiman-hiding-husband-abed/story?id=13374419

If the prank call was related to the murder, it would change everything. But you didn't answer my question. How do you think it might be related? Suggest a hypothetical scenario that links the prank call to the murder.

 

[codyjuneau]

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.

.
Who's Mary?


.

 

[Dan O.]

Well, she gave her phone number to a drug dealer for a reason, I suppose. They also exchanged phone rings the day prior to the murder and the following day.

That is an old meme that is often repeated. Is there evidence to back it up such as more phone records? Or is it just more crap.

 

[codyjuneau]

The housewife and her husband were hopelessly in debt. She had some kind of crisis where she bolted and ended up with relatives.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/missing-ge...uleiman-hiding-husband-abed/story?id=13374419

If the prank call was related to the murder, it would change everything. But you didn't answer my question. How do you think it might be related? Suggest a hypothetical scenario that links the prank call to the murder.

.
I will post my hypotheses if it turns out the call was not a boy's prank.
.

 

[acbytesla]

That is an old meme that is often repeated. Is there evidence to back it up such as more phone records? Or is it just more crap.

It is quite interesting how Machiavelli is willing to post pretty much every unsubstantiated and usually false slander of Amanda and at the same time come to defend and deny pretty much proven facts about Mignini and Stefanoni..


Makes you go hmmmmmm.

 

[Dan O.]

If the prank call was related to the murder, it would change everything. But you didn't answer my question. How do you think it might be related? Suggest a hypothetical scenario that links the prank call to the murder.

.
I will post my hypotheses if it turns out the call was not a boy's prank.
.

I already posted mine.

 

[codyjuneau]

Simple. Just show the video. It makes people laugh.

.
That made me laugh. What you said that is. Well, both actually.
.

 

[Planigale]

I wrote a comment this morning stating my belief that Stefanoni falsified testing and test interpretations of the material alleged to be Meredith's DNA on the knife blade and later planted Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp. So you see, I bring a critical eye to this. But I want to say I do not agree with the comment above that Stefanoni "knowingly contributed to constructing a pitiful flimsy case against two innocents". I believe Stefanoni believed Knox and Sollicito were guilty, and the evidence she was fabricating was against two guilty people . She was just helping frame two guilty people. There is a difference between framing two innocent people and framing what she believes to be two guilty people.

Which brings me to the next question: What does Stefanoni now believe? Does she now believe the defendants against whom she falsified evidence are innocent or does she still believe they are guilty?

I agree, I think that she got caught up with providing the evidence needed, to prove the guilt of people she had been told the police knew were guilty. She lost appropriate disinterest.

I previusly raised the question about her training in forensic science. All this reinforces that she may not be a trained forensic scientist. She seems not to keep the scrupulous records required. She does not appear to know how to handle evidence appropriately, viz wrapping paper and mop, poor storage of bra clasp. I suspect going to a crime scene was not part of her job description. It was commented that the initial crime scene investigation was done better than the second when Stefanoni was leading? it.

I suspect that she was a lab geek, got the offer of a field trip and then found herself out of her depth. She did not have the correct sample bags enough gloves and tweezers, the correct record forms. She lost her independence, got caught up with the police myth and tried to wing it.

 

[Planigale]

One of the things that got me angry about this is the sexist view of many posters. Women have sex, get over it. As has been said she seems no different from most college students. In my personal experience, women going off abroad on sandwich years take advantage of a certain anonymity.

I look at the comments about AK sex life, and I think swap this for a guy would anyone have said this? Secondly so what? Actually all this proves is she was singularly vanilla. At first opportunity she settled down with a sweet guy.

One of the reasons that there may be few women is that we find these discussions offensive.

I think the lack of action by Italian authorities to appropriately investigate issues raised by this case is scandalous. The false HIV test and leaking of sexual history should be investigated. False negative tests with HIV are incredibly rare, so this must have been a lie. The normal process is a screening test is done on the first blood test, this does have a rate of false negatives, if the first test is positive a second test would be performed on the same blood sample that is highly specific. Only if both tests were positive would a presumptive positive report be reported and a second blood test requested, (catches mislabelled samples). In the UK the doctor / nurse involved would almost certainly have been struck off.

 

[Mary_H]

I already posted mine.

Interesting, Dan. My main concern about dismissing the phone call as a coincidence is that there was some information (or misinformation) from the early days that got set in stone just because it was very early and nobody knew how much corruption and/or incompetence was going to be revealed in the long run. One example is the report about Meredith clutching African hair in her hand. Why was it reported at all if there wasn't something to it?

There was the meme about Mignini being dragged out of bed to come into the Questura, the meme about Edda Mellas never telling anybody that Amanda had retracted her accusation of Patrick -- all kinds of "facts" that were accepted but turned out to be false.

 

[Mary_H]

.
Who's Mary?


.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh geez, this thread is already up to how many hundreds of thousands of posts, and now you're going to lay this opportunity out there?


FWIW, I think many times there is a disconnect once the page flips over to a new page. I have found most people do not go back very far to read what has transpired. I have actually become frustrated and snippy in other threads because someone will come along and chime in without having read what was just discussed on the prior page or so. I'm not saying that is what happened here, just that it is a potentially similar situation I have witnessed on this forum.

Yes, and the other thing is that if you only visit the thread at certain discrete times (rather than continuous monitoring), you tend to (well, I do anyhow) follow a train of discussion on a particular subject down to the bottom to see how that discussion has evolved in your absence, then scroll back up to the last relevant post and add your own opinion (if you have one) to that post.

This method avoids the possibility of jumping in to respond to the original post, only to find that someone has already made the same point further down the thread - and indeed that prior response may have itself moved the discussion off further, so answering the initial post might actually be a retrograde step.

In my case, therefore, it's entirely likely that I often fail to respond directly to the post of the person who made the initial - and often very persuasive and thought-provoking - post. I apologise in advance and in hindsight for that!

 

[LondonJohn]

Thank you, LJ. Apology accepted.

Acceptance of apology appreciated

 

[LondonJohn]

Why would they use sirens? They received a call from an older person that she had received a call warning of a bomb in the toilet. It boggles the mind that they responded at all, much less with sirens blaring late at night.

What do they do when someone suggests that the person he called should go catch his refrigerator if it was running?

I guess I can see why local police forces might be trained to give any potential bomb threat - no matter how trivial - a serious and immediate response. After all, in the tiny possibility that such a threat turned out to be genuine, how would it look in hindsight if the police had moseyed on down to the address in their own sweet time, laughing all the while about the idea of a bomb in a toilet, and the bomb had detonated killing the woman and collapsing the house?

In my teens. my parents were based in the hotbed of near-east Asia, and I used to fly out there for school and uni holidays.On more than one occasion flying out of UK, there was some student joker who would make a crass and clumsy joke to the check-in staff about carrying a bomb in their luggage, and laugh with their friends about the "hilarity" of their little joke. They were not laughing for much longer as they were hauled out of the queue for two hours of interrogation (missing their flight in the process), forensic pulling-apart of their luggage, and an extremely intimate body search.

I suspect that the authorities knew with near-certainty that this was nothing more than student japes. But they simply couldn't afford to take the chance, given the potential ramifications of getting it wrong. Of course in these sorts of instances, there was also an element of punishment of the jokester, as well as a form of deterrent to others witnessing the incident.

But I believe that a significant part of the reasoning behind the dramatic response to these sorts of "threats" was that they simply couldn't afford to entertain the possibility of a situation where someone had told them he had a bomb, they had laughed at it and said "Oh yes, good joke, be on your way", and that person had subsequently detonated a bomb on board.

 

[LondonJohn]

I actually don't know of a lot of those cases. What I've often heard is that the person was quiet and kept to himself. Ted Bundy comes to mind as one who seemed more social, but all his "great guy" accolades came from people he worked with and not those who knew him better. (A woman who lived with Ted Bundy actually turned his name in to the Seattle police when he was murdering women here. They ignored her. I met her years ago at a party, believe it or not.)

My point is that after six years and not a single person close to either Amanda or Raffaele raising their hand to say they always knew something was off, you can have a much higher level of certainty that nothing was off. This is not bringing bias into a convo, it's looking at the big picture.

Did you tell her you'd hurt your arm and needed some help getting a bulky item into your car?

(Is that in too bad taste?! Anyone?!)

But yes, people - especially those with personality disorders - can be extremely adept at putting on different "masks" in different situations and with different people. We all do this to some degree: we would, I suspect, act and behave markedly differently around a) the CEO of the company we work for; b) our parents; c) our closest friends on a night out.

The more extreme psychopaths can even deceive their husbands/wives/lovers, even when those partners are intelligent, curious people. For example (and I don't know the case well enough to be sure), I don't think that Dennis Rader's (BTK's) wife ever had any idea about his criminal alter ego.