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

[acbytesla]

Dave clearly you do not not what you are talking about here and should apologize. The dispatcher had been polite , had not memtionedn

I certainly don't get why he needs to apologize. If you read the transcript it's clear that while the dispatcher may not have been rude, he/she certainly was pushy, which is actually understandable. Call it gruff, call it short, the dispatcher was being exactly what he/she was supposed to be. A caller looking for help is often emotional, even if it doesn't show and that clouds the conversation. The dispatcher on the other hand is "dispassionate and unemotional" trying to determine the nature of the emergency.

I can see how this looks different depending on perspective. Why can't you? Is your thinking so clouded by confirmation bias and a need to be right that you don't pick up on this?

 

[andreajo]

There are four possibilities for how the judges see this. Early judges accepted the thrust of Mignini's claims because of their assumption that he must have solved the murder even if he got some of it wrong. They gave deference to his authority rather than applied critical thinking. Other judges may have been so ignorant of science as to not comprehend DNA evidence contamination. Yet others (Hellman) saw it for the travesty it is, rejected it, and found the defendants innocent of the murder.

What we will see with the current trial's judges is whether or not they have personal integrity or are more concerned with protecting the reputation and scientific myth of the often corrupt police and Italian legal system. If it is the latter, the judges will not want to rock the boat and they will buck the case forwards where it is likely to ultimately end in front the European Court of Human Rights.

Lab science students will study this case - especially the videos and commentary on Dr. Stefanoni's questionable collection and lab methods - to learn what not to do. This case will be the subject of many graduate theses in the coming decades.

I was re-reading the Hellmann report. There is a lot of emphasis in the closing section on the requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict. This requirement is framed as a change in Italian law. The report reads as though this change in law may not yet be fully practiced by Italian jurists. The weighing of probabilities in this case has been very eccentrically done in some of the court proceedings as well as in the accompanying public discussion. Possible becomes probable, which quickly slides into 'proof'.

 

[Diocletus]

The sample on the blade that was tested showed NO DNA. If a sample containing NO DNA is put through analysis and comes up with a low level of MK DNA that proves laboratory contamination.

Technically, I think that we would have to say that the quantification results were negative, which leaves the possibility that there was some amount of DNA less than the limits of the Qubit Flourometer sensitivity. The lowest QF reading that I have found is 60 picograms per microliter, which I believe implies 3 nanograms in the corresponding 50 microliter sample.

The fact that no duplicate sample exists is odd. Stefanoni appeared to think she had a significant amount of DNA so there would appear to be no good grounds for not splitting the sample.

What is very odd is that there is a second electrophoresis for 36b. When was it run, and why were the defense experts not present for the re-run? What sample was used: did she only run half of her 36b amplification in the first electrophoresis? Why don't the two electrophoresis results--both of the same amplification--match?

In terms of DNA replication considering the number of replication cycles halving the amount of DNA being run really makes no difference to your outcome.

We know that she was running real time PCR quantification at 50 cycles, which is abnormal. But, there are no records showing how she was running the STR amplifications. There are no records showing how many cycles of amplification she was running in the STR process for any sample, much less 36b. These would be some of the most important records in the case, and I find it very odd that no STR amplification records have been produced.

 

[Grinder]

Isn't that the homeless heroin addict saying that Amanda and Raffaele spent all the time between 9:30 pm and midnight on the night of the murder sitting on the low wall of the basketball court?

Here's the truth: Amanda and Raffaele never left his flat that night. Rudy had already killed Meredith by 9:30 pm. The heroin addict has -- absurdly -- given them an alternate alibi, which they don't need. If the guilters insist that he's reliable, they must also conclude that Amanda and Raffaele are definitely innocent.

QUESTION - two of them were always there continuously ?
ANSWER - Yes, until before midnight

Thank you. Finally someone sees that if Curatolo is to be believed and used he has them there from 9:30 to almost midnight.

If one wants to believe Curatolo, the only "evidence" that breaks their alibi, then one needs to fit the murder into a time frame that is nearly to completely impossible. It would have to be before 9:30 or after midnight.

I prefer that the PGP be forced at this point to get rid of Curatolo themselves.

I don't read Italian, I use what's left of my French to guess at what Google translate spits out by re-arranging the words so they make sense. Success varies in that endeavor.

Curatolo and his testimony doesn't get any better if employed as an 'alibi.' He's utterly absurd. He knew nothing about what happened that night in the cottage and I'm gobsmacked at the credulity of those who think he did.

Of course his testimony is ridiculous but I like hoisting them on their own petard.

ETA - It is crucial that the defense insists that his original testimony be reinstated and Massei's use of disco bus schedules be exposed. His moving the end time to just after 11 because the buses would have been gone by then and he said he saw them when he left.

Btw, Briars he knew he saw the disco buses in the same way that he knew that it was the night before the police went to the cottage. He reconstructed what he thought he should have observed or remembered.

 

[JREF2010]

Antony, are you aware that the investigator holding the bra clasp the longest, turning it over in her dirty-gloved hands, and then appearing to stroke the hook area of the bra clasp with her dirty-gloved finger is the lead forensic police scientist Dr. Stefanoni herself. Yes, that's her. The crack scientist who understands DNA and contamination. The one who collects evidence, smears evidence, stores it inappropriately, uses inadequate instrumentation that cannot handle LCN evidence to prepare and examine LCN evidence, and deliberately misinterprets data so as to be able to claim that it matches whoever she wants it to match - victim or defendant.

I didnt know that Strozzi, the lead Stefonani herself...interesting.

I guess titles and job positions can be very misleading, when I was younger and more naive, I often used to assume people in higher positions were intelligent and knowledgeable, to get promoted to that position.
Now much older, I have seen many of the promoted are ignorant, corruptible, and dishonest. The Perugia police dept. seems well stocked with the latter.

The police here, or a portion of the department, interrogated my son and his friends similar to this case. It was almost impossible to believe until I heard it and knew the people involved personally. One police with a ski mask on screaming and threatening with fear, the other "good" cop trying to help them....its so much like this interrogation, its obviously a trained and manipulated performance/procedure of the police.
They all gave up false information and signed crap to get out of the interrogation. Luckily, they were all released.(and minors).

To this day the police nor the school officials have notified any of us before or after. It is as it didn't happen, not a trace....only the 4 boys who were interrogated, have the experience.

Is it corrupt? Are police officials abusing their power? Probably so. They have a tough job no doubt, but getting bad information and performing their duties poorly doesn't help anything, imo.

 

[LondonJohn]

I didnt know that Strozzi, the lead Stefonani herself...interesting.

I guess titles and job positions can be very misleading, when I was younger and more naive, I often used to assume people in higher positions were intelligent and knowledgeable, to get promoted to that position.
Now much older, I have seen many of the promoted are ignorant, corruptible, and dishonest. The Perugia police dept. seems well stocked with the latter.

The police here, or a portion of the department, interrogated my son and his friends similar to this case. It was almost impossible to believe until I heard it and knew the people involved personally. One police with a ski mask on screaming and threatening with fear, the other "good" cop trying to help them....its so much like this interrogation, its obviously a trained and manipulated performance/procedure of the police.
They all gave up false information and signed crap to get out of the interrogation. Luckily, they were all released.(and minors).

To this day the police nor the school officials have notified any of us before or after. It is as it didn't happen, not a trace....only the 4 boys who were interrogated, have the experience.

Is it corrupt? Are police officials abusing their power? Probably so. They have a tough job no doubt, but getting bad information and performing their duties poorly doesn't help anything, imo.

I believe that the root problem is this: there are many within the police who truly believe that the ends justify the means. In other words, they might readily accept that things such as the Reid technique, bullying in interrogations or overt threats are "extreme" acts, but that if they result in getting the "bad guys" convicted, then all's well and good.

The problem, of course, is that these sorts of interrogation techniques, while they may indeed have some effectiveness against bona fide criminals, also have an alarmingly high tendency to get innocent people to say incriminating things. And this in itself renders such techniques not only unethical (and unlawful in most jurisdictions), but also essentially worthless as a means of gathering evidence. After all, how can one judge whether the person "buckling" (copyright: Perugia Police Chief de Felice) is a real criminal telling you the truth, or an innocent person reacting adversely to the extreme techniques?

But the problem remains (in my opinion) that many within police forces around the world - and especially in, shall we say, less-enlightened jurisdictions - honestly believe that extreme interrogation techniques are a valuable and entirely valid tool. On top of that, of course, there is a very small minority (in my opinion) of police who believe they have the right to commit more extreme misconduct - either in order to "get" a suspect whom they truly believe to be the culprit, or sometimes (and even worse) in order to manipulate charging/conviction rates. And there's an even smaller minority within the police who are intrinsically corrupt and mendacious, many of whom also positively enjoy inflicting psychological and/or physical abuse upon people in custody.

Fortunately, in the UK the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) has effectively codified acceptable police behaviour, and has delineated exactly what can and cannot be considered reliable interview-gathered evidence. As a result, police malpractice in this area is now extremely low, and on those rare occasions where there is potential malpractice, the courts will use PACE to negate it. If only such codification or legislation existed in the Italian criminal justice system.......

 

[LondonJohn]

I cannot recall where but I read there were 4 in the room including Amanda and Donnino .One of the 4 was male who even held Amanda's hand when she cried. This is according to Donnino. Now that I write this I realize the number 4 was probably in Donnino's detailed testimony under oath which is available to read.

Do you remember the part in Donnino's "detailed testimony under oath" where she explicitly recounts going far beyond her official role as an interpreter who has no credentials for enforcing the law? Do you remember the part where Donnino recounts "helping" Knox "remember" the traumatic events of Meredith's murder at Lumumba's hand? Do you remember how Donnino testified under oath that she told Knox a story about how she (Donnino) had broken her ankle badly once, and that the trauma of the event has caused her to "forget all memory" of the accident?

Do you think Donnino was lying or giving an accurate version of her role in Knox's interrogation in this "detailed testimony under oath"? If you think she was lying, why do you think that (and what would make you believe anything else she testified to)? If you think she was telling the truth, what do you think it says about a) her role in the interrogation, and b) the likelihood that Knox was being "helped" to "remember" being in the cottage while Lumumba killed Meredith?

Thanks in advance

 

[Briars]

Don't apologize, Dave.

I had started to post then thought why bother and didn't realize the partial comment had been sent. Dave my only point that you failed to understand was in the recording Sollecito's call starts of by saying someone broke in the a window and left mess and there is a closed door. The dispatcher then writes down the location and name of a resident , Knox, and cell phone number. Then the dispatcher returns to Sollecito's reason for calling the police or what he assumes.So he says ,someone broke the window, entered and there was a theft. A statement or question in response to the call. RS IMMEDIATELY says,"no there was no theft". So just to be as clear as I possibly can be the no theft remark by Sollecito was not given after any remark about the intruder being cut nor was the dispatcher impatient as he claims in his book.The lie or dishonesty was how RS rewrote the timing when he said there was no theft. It was at the beginning PRIOR, well before , the dispatcher casually said so the intruder cut himself of the glass. The passage in the book is dishonest because RS is trying to say it was the cop's fault by being impatient and fixating on the intruder being cut that made him say there was no theft. Creative writing because he knows the no theft remark was a big mistake. Dave I used caps not to be rude but to make sure those two words show where Honor Bound is not accurate and foolishly tries to place blame. The calls are recorded and transcribed so there is no excuse not to see at what point he says there is no theft and what led to that.

 

[Kaosium]

Of course his testimony is ridiculous but I like hoisting them on their own petard.

I gathered that, and others beat me to it anyway. I was pursuing a different line of argument regarding how I evaluate the reliability of witnesses. Even if you give him the benefit of the doubt for several factors that would disqualify him in the eyes of many, it doesn't even sound like he's talking about the right day!

ETA - It is crucial that the defense insists that his original testimony be reinstated and Massei's use of disco bus schedules be exposed. His moving the end time to just after 11 because the buses would have been gone by then and he said he saw them when he left.

I'm not sure I understand, Curatolo himself said he didn't leave to go sleep on his comfy park bench until ten minutes after the last bus left:

Curatolo, questioned in the hearing of 3.28.2009 (in the trial [istruttoria dibattimentale] of the lower court), reported having have seen the current defendants lingering there [soffermarsi] engaged in deep discussion, between 9:30 pm, when he arrived in Piazza Grimana, and “before midnight”, when, once the buses had left (about ten minutes later), that took the people [giovani] to the discotheques, he also left to go and sleep in the park.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

some problems with the bra clasp

Thanks in advance you are not the machine! Obviously the clasp should have been collected on the first day but was missed. It was stored in plastic and rusted with the moisture too bad. However it remained under the mat in the sealed room for the 47 days. The kicking around dust particle contamination bs does not work. It was clear good sized sample of RS second only to the clear sample of the victim. His sample is the one to be explained not the partial ones that could have been transferred from her hand. The SC said the path of contamination needs to be shown.

There is no honest explanation for storing the clasp in the presence of extraction buffer, and it made it impossible to retest it. The clasp had been moved between the time it was first seen and the time when it was collected; therefore, I don't know what you mean by sealed. DNA can be found on examination gloves (link previously provided).

 

[Dan O.]

Briars, how was the dispatcher sure that there was a theft BEFORE Raffaele mentioned anything about thefts or stuff missing? Did the dispatcher have inside information? If so, where did he get it?


ETA: You say "However it remained under the mat in the sealed room for the 47 days." Yet earlier you said:

A plausible source for the DNA , Mach said the room was open so guess the door handle is out,...

Are you now saying that Mach was lying?

 

[Strozzi]

I believe that the root problem is this: there are many within the police who truly believe that the ends justify the means. In other words, they might readily accept that things such as the Reid technique, bullying in interrogations or overt threats are "extreme" acts, but that if they result in getting the "bad guys" convicted, then all's well and good.

The problem, of course, is that these sorts of interrogation techniques, while they may indeed have some effectiveness against bona fide criminals, also have an alarmingly high tendency to get innocent people to say incriminating things. And this in itself renders such techniques not only unethical (and unlawful in most jurisdictions), but also essentially worthless as a means of gathering evidence. After all, how can one judge whether the person "buckling" (copyright: Perugia Police Chief de Felice) is a real criminal telling you the truth, or an innocent person reacting adversely to the extreme techniques?

But the problem remains (in my opinion) that many within police forces around the world - and especially in, shall we say, less-enlightened jurisdictions - honestly believe that extreme interrogation techniques are a valuable and entirely valid tool. On top of that, of course, there is a very small minority (in my opinion) of police who believe they have the right to commit more extreme misconduct - either in order to "get" a suspect whom they truly believe to be the culprit, or sometimes (and even worse) in order to manipulate charging/conviction rates. And there's an even smaller minority within the police who are intrinsically corrupt and mendacious, many of whom also positively enjoy inflicting psychological and/or physical abuse upon people in custody.

Fortunately, in the UK the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) has effectively codified acceptable police behaviour, and has delineated exactly what can and cannot be considered reliable interview-gathered evidence. As a result, police malpractice in this area is now extremely low, and on those rare occasions where there is potential malpractice, the courts will use PACE to negate it. If only such codification or legislation existed in the Italian criminal justice system.......

The problem is not just with verbal communication - whether police question someone in a way to get a statement to align (conform) with what the police believe occurred or need/want to have occurred in a certain way to support a certain end.

The problem of police bias or malfeasiance also concerns physical evidence. What evidence is collected and what is not collected. And how that evidence is handled and analyzed. And in the worst cases, deliberate modification or planting of evidence.

In this case there are so many bad examples of evidence collection, evidence omission, evidence mishandling, biased analysis, concealing supporting documentation, use of inappropriate equipment not designed to measure what is being measured, et al. The police have very little credibility, in my eyes.

 

[Poppy1016]

Thanks in advance you are not the machine! Obviously the clasp should have been collected on the first day but was missed. It was stored in plastic and rusted with the moisture too bad. However it remained under the mat in the sealed room for the 47 days. The kicking around dust particle contamination bs does not work. It was clear good sized sample of RS second only to the clear sample of the victim. His sample is the one to be explained not the partial ones that could have been transferred from her hand. The SC said the path of contamination needs to be shown.

This is your answer? Seriously?

 

[Poppy1016]

Next Briars, could you describe to us what you think would be the proper way to search for a murder weapon. Then describe what you think would be the proper way to handle a knife you have collected. Finally, How would you test a piece of evidence when your machine kept reading too low.

Thanks for avoiding this question.

 

[Poppy1016]

Are you aware that the clasp moved across the room durin the 47 days from when it was first seen? How did this occur in a "sealed" room?

Thanks for not answering the questions. It tells me a lot.

 

[Strozzi]

I am certain that when the Perugia police and Prosecutor Mignini went to the house to begin investigating the crime they were all shocked by the senseless murder of the victim, Meredith Kerscher, and by the grisly nature of the crime scene. As I wrote earlier, for most of the responding officials it could not have been easy for them as they gingerly stepped through the bloody scene.

But I cannot excuse them for failing to objectively examine the crime scene physical evidence.

Mignini said he wishes he did not delay the medical examiner from taking the victim's body temperature. I commend him for saying this. But there is very little else that Mignini has said or done that is honorable.

Stefanoni's processing of crime scene evidence is such a travesty against good scientific procedures.

 

[kwill]

I believe that the root problem is this: there are many within the police who truly believe that the ends justify the means. In other words, they might readily accept that things such as the Reid technique, bullying in interrogations or overt threats are "extreme" acts, but that if they result in getting the "bad guys" convicted, then all's well and good.

The problem, of course, is that these sorts of interrogation techniques, while they may indeed have some effectiveness against bona fide criminals, also have an alarmingly high tendency to get innocent people to say incriminating things.

The problem is not just with verbal communication - whether police question someone in a way to get a statement to align (conform) with what the police believe occurred or need/want to have occurred in a certain way to support a certain end.

There was a terrific radio program about false confessions on the USA program called This American Life recently. Highly recommend.

One part is about an officer who created a false confession without even knowing he was doing so . . . convicted an innocent young woman on the strength of it and much later had to face what he'd done. He trains police in how NOT to do this now, using his own screw up as a case study.

 

[Bill Williams]

There was a terrific radio program about false confessions on the USA program called This American Life recently. Highly recommend.

One part is about an officer who created a false confession without even knowing he was doing so . . . convicted an innocent young woman on the strength of it and much later had to face what he'd done. He trains police in how NOT to do this now, using his own screw up as a case study.

Although mostly a silly superficial crime TV show, Criminal Minds highlighted this in an episode. They depict interrogators well on the program, have obviously done their homework. Even the heroes of the show turn into rhetorical bullies when interrogating, quite accurately showing how they simply allow no talk in the room about innocence. It's the Reid Technique.....

But one episode they managed to crack a particularly intransigent perp. After hours of verbal warfare, the guy finally cracked. He confessed to everything, which of course was the sole goal of the exercise.

The BAU agent then leaned forward, unlocked the cuffs and said, "you're free to go."

The perp asked why he'd be released after a flipping confession!

BAU Agent: "Because ever since the Central Park Five, we've been trained to spot false confessions. "

I have this in DVD for Machiavelli.

 

[JREF2010]

Stefanoni's processing of crime scene evidence is such a travesty against good scientific procedures.

It's always amazing how one person's poor skills and approach can effect so much more.

I don't know much about DNA and the crime scene, but I understand tools and machines that measure nano, pico sized samples. The tools are only as good as the person running them. Controls help with the credibility. Crini is stating the controls were submitted now, as I understood some post.
This control sample issue was such a hot topic it's amazing they could have been submitted without any notice.

Or is this another one of those toss the false info out there, as the prosecution tends to do, and then only if caught it becomes a mistake (intentional mistake, or not, we'll never know). Like the blood testing on the knife, Stefonani said wasn't done, then it was found out it was done. There was another issue Stefonani said the sample size was larger than it was to the judge, but it was found out later she was "mistaken" about that too.

Can a person be mistaken repeatedly and be credible at all?
And when does Stefonani become another Rudy, labeled a liar and of no use to the trial?

It's a paradigm shift, when someone like Stefonani is studied. She brings a tainted view of DNA and Labs into question, a piece of proof that DNA Labs can provide false information......... or does she get away with only "mistaken" information from the witness stand.

 

[Strozzi]

Thanks for not answering the questions. It tells me a lot.

The following is from press reporting of the Hellman trial:
"Stefanoni said: ''The clasp was found upright after six weeks, yes it had moved but it was found still facing upwards, it had not been kicked or overturned.''

At this point Knox's lawyer Luciano Ghirga shouted out how she could know for sure - but judge Claudio Pratillo Hellman asked him to keep quiet and not interrupt.

Stefanoni added: ''Nothing was brought into that crime scene from outside, everything was instead taken out so there is no risk of contamination at all in my view.''