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

[Grinder]

Last edited by toto; Today at 11:54 AM. Reason: punctation

punctation

ETA - I thought that was a interrogation technique of the PLE.

 

[toto]

Last edited by toto; Today at 11:54 AM. Reason: punctation

punctation

****
I quite like swearing on this board. It's quite liberating!

 

[Strozzi]

Actually, I was aware of that - but only through comments on the forum. It's staggering of course, because it reflects on her lack of objectivity and regard for proper handling, but it's not actually important as to whether or not the DNA tests have any validity - because the bra-clasp is totally compromised as evidence in any case.

More to the point is this: if it's correct that the investigator filmed scrubbing the bathroom walls and fittings with collection swabs is her, then I think that's even more damning of the lack of science in her approach.

Antony, that is Stefanoni dressed in white protective clothing swabbing the bathroom sink surface combining together Amanda's DNA (which is of course plentiful on her bathroom sink) with fine drops of Meredith's blood dripped there by Rudy when he rinsed at the sink. That is how Amanda's DNA is combined with Meredith's blood.
Stefanoni refuses to admit what she has done. She claims that there is no contamination in the collection of DNA evidence samples. As several scientists on this board have stated, Stefanoni does not understand DNA.

 

[Grinder]

Antony, that is Stefanoni dressed in white protective clothing swabbing the bathroom sink surface, combining together Amanda's DNA (which is of course plentiful on her bathroom sink) with fine drops of Meredith's blood dripped there by Rudy when he rinsed at the sink. That is how Amanda's DNA is combined with Meredith's blood.
Stefanoni refuses to admit what she has done. She claims that there is no contamination in the collection of DNA evidence samples. As several scientists on this board have stated, Stefanoni does not understand DNA.

I thought the story was that they enlisted a photographer or some untrained person to help and she was the one dragging the swab along the sink.

I don't think attacking Stefanoni in this way is very helpful. I think the CSI did a ****** job and that she is a technician not a Ph D.

The defense needs to take the foundations away from the prosecution and leave them with theories (is that right) of poop madness.

 

[Strozzi]

duplicate deleted

 

[Grinder]

Briars from PMF


I do no see where in the testimony she explains that her message to Patrick did not identify the recipient.


Knox Names Patrick : Court Testimony


GCM: So, you were the one who gave the first indication, introducing this generic pronoun "him"? This "him", did they say who it could be?

AK: It was because of the fact that they were saying that I apparently had met someone and they said this because of the message, and they were saying "Are you sure you don't remember meeting this person, because you wrote this message."

GCM: In this message, was there the name of the person it was meant for?

AK: No, it was the message I wrote to my boss. The one that said "Va bene. Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buona serata."

GCM: But it could have been a message to anyone. Could you see from the message to whom it was written?

AK: Actually, I don't know if that information is in the telephone. But I told them that I had received a message from Patrick, and they looked for it in the telephone, but they couldn't find it, but they found the one I sent to him.

---------------------

Now my phone in 2007 definitely had the name of the person I texted or received a text from attached but more importantly the police had access to the phone records and would have already known with whom she was texting that night. Recall that you said they brought them in because of phone records.

So they clearly knew who it was and led her to tell them. Do you think that is part of what they knew to be correct?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Antony, that is Stefanoni dressed in white protective clothing swabbing the bathroom sink surface, combining together Amanda's DNA (which is of course plentiful on her bathroom sink) with fine drops of Meredith's blood dripped there by Rudy when he rinsed at the sink. That is how Amanda's DNA is combined with Meredith's blood.
Stefanoni refuses to admit what she has done. She claims that there is no contamination in the collection of DNA evidence samples. As several scientists on this board have stated, Stefanoni does not understand DNA.

That was someone else in the bathroom. But Stefanoni's technique was no better. I have gone through the video and picked out the most egregious examples.

What they were doing on Nov. 2-3 was typical, unfortunately - too many people, not enough training. Even so, it's good enough to pick up the DNA of an intruder. It's certainly not good enough to make a case against people who lived there or had frequented the premises.

What they did on Dec. 19 was unusual, going back to a crime scene in which no attempt had been made to preserve evidence. Obviously it was unplanned and arose from circumstances - the Nov. 2-3 tests didn't give them what they needed. So they put on their white suits and performed for the camera and magically came up with exactly what they needed. Then they swore on a stack of bibles the crime scene had been "sealed" the whole time, and the court accepted that over what is shown in the video, as do the cultists here on the Internet.

 

[Vibio]

I guess they didn't have the budget cuts Mignini spoke of for the interrogation not being recorded.

That's not quite what Mignini said.

He did go on to talk about budget restrictions but what he said was: "But in a police station, at the very moment of the investigation it isn’t done, not with respect to Amanda or anyone else."

He also says: "It isn’t only Amanda, it’s always like that."

Taped Police interrogations are not done in Italy. I don't know the requirements in the rest of Europe but I am under the impression that in Germany (due to it's past) they are actually not allowed and are against the law.

It should also be remembered that in 2007, the year of Knox's interrogation, only a handful of US States required recorded interrogations.

It was only in the year 2003 that Illinois became the first US State to do so.

 

[Poppy1016]

That's not quite what Mignini said.

He did go on to talk about budget restrictions but what he said was: "But in a police station, at the very moment of the investigation it isn’t done, not with respect to Amanda or anyone else."

He also says: "It isn’t only Amanda, it’s always like that."

Taped Police interrogations are not done in Italy. I don't know the requirements in the rest of Europe but I am under the impression that in Germany (due to it's past) they are actually not allowed and are against the law.

It should also be remembered that in 2007, the year of Knox's interrogation, only a handful of US States required recorded interrogations.

It was only in the year 2003 that Illinois became the first US State to do so.

So if recording interrogations isn't required, then doesn't it stand to reason that nothing that occurred during the interrogation should be allowed in court?

 

[Vibio]

Re: RS call to the Police:

Briars is correct. RS lies in his book about the call to the police.

The operator does not at all "growl" at RS. The truth is the operator is quite patient.

He's trying to make sense of RS disjointed account. Putting myself in the operator's shoes, the first call, the one with Sollecito hanging up on him, almost sounds like a prank.

"Someone entered the house" "They broke a window" "they made a big mess" "there is a closed door"

The operator asks (as if asking for conformation): "A furto in abitazione eh?"

A "furto in abitazione" translates into English as a "break in". The operator does not ask if anything was taken.

RS answers "non c'è il furto... " Note: he uses the words "il furto" (theft)

So yes, that IS an odd thing to say to the operator unless you're sure nothing was taken. Althought I can understand giving RS the benefit of the doubt on that one, what makes no sense is the concern over the locked door. Knox said that Meridith always locked her door when she was away… so why is THAT the point of concern?

Sollecito says "il problema è che c'è la porta chiusa... ci sono macchie di sangue." "THE PROBLEM is that there is the locked door" "there are drops of blood"

THAT's the problem? That the door to Filomena's room is locked? It's the weekend, she's not there, she not answering her phone but that DOES happen.

If you come home and you see that a window is broken, a room has been overturned, your concern is that there has been a robbery.

I think you would logically assume that the blood was there because the intruder cut himself on the broken glass while entering.

Why even mention your roomate's locked door if she always locks it?

But Sollecito points out the locked door as THE problem. That is odd of him to do so. The whole thing DOES sound as if he knows what's really going on. It sounds like he's trying to put 2 and 2 together for the operator.

And he makes a big deal about the drops of blood. When the operator, trying to make sense of it all, logically asks if the intruder cut himself on the glass, Sollecito gets flustered (as Briar points out) and HANGS UP on the operator!

A normal answer would be "yeah maybe" or "yeah it looks like who ever it was cut himself" or "I have no idea"

But Sollecito gets flustered over a simple but apparently unexpected question and hangs up in the operators face.

Also Sollecito's voice (N.B.I speak Italian fluently): he does not sound agitated and confused over what happened, He doesn't sound like someone trying to make sense of things. I don't hear a sense of urgency. He sounds mealy-mouthed and like he's reciting things. Exactly like someone fibbing

 

[Vibio]

So if recording interrogations isn't required, then doesn't it stand to reason that nothing that occurred during the interrogation should be allowed in court?

How does it work in the US in States where it is not required?

 

[Poppy1016]

Re: RS call to the Police:

Briars is correct. RS lies in his book about the call to the police.

The operator does not at all "growl" at RS. The truth is the operator is quite patient.

He's trying to make sense of RS disjointed account. Putting myself in the operator's shoes, the first call, the one with Sollecito hanging up on him, almost sounds like a prank.

"Someone entered the house" "They broke a window" "they made a big mess" "there is a closed door"

The operator asks (as if asking for conformation): "A furto in abitazione eh?"

A "furto in abitazione" translates into English as a "break in". The operator does not ask if anything was taken.

RS answers "non c'è il furto... " Note: he uses the words "il furto" (theft)

So yes, that IS an odd thing to say to the operator unless you're sure nothing was taken. Althought I can understand giving RS the benefit of the doubt on that one, what makes no sense is the concern over the locked door. Knox said that Meridith always locked her door when she was away… so why is THAT the point of concern?

Sollecito says "il problema è che c'è la porta chiusa... ci sono macchie di sangue." "THE PROBLEM is that there is the locked door" "there are drops of blood"

THAT's the problem? That the door to Filomena's room is locked? It's the weekend, she's not there, she not answering her phone but that DOES happen.

If you come home and you see that a window is broken, a room has been overturned, your concern is that there has been a robbery.

I think you would logically assume that the blood was there because the intruder cut himself on the broken glass while entering.

Why even mention your roomate's locked door if she always locks it?

But Sollecito points out the locked door as THE problem. That is odd of him to do so. The whole thing DOES sound as if he knows what's really going on. It sounds like he's trying to put 2 and 2 together for the operator.

And he makes a big deal about the drops of blood. When the operator, trying to make sense of it all, logically asks if the intruder cut himself on the glass, Sollecito gets flustered (as Briar points out) and HANGS UP on the operator!

A normal answer would be "yeah maybe" or "yeah it looks like who ever it was cut himself" or "I have no idea"

But Sollecito gets flustered over a simple but apparently unexpected question and hangs up in the operators face.

Also Sollecito's voice (N.B.I speak Italian fluently): he does not sound agitated and confused over what happened, He doesn't sound like someone trying to make sense of things. I don't hear a sense of urgency. He sounds mealy-mouthed and like he's reciting things. Exactly like someone fibbing

Odd remarks are not evidence of guilt . Where is there any REAL evidence of guilt?

 

[toto]

Re: RS call to the Police:

Briars is correct. RS lies in his book about the call to the police.

The operator does not at all "growl" at RS. The truth is the operator is quite patient.

He's trying to make sense of RS disjointed account. Putting myself in the operator's shoes, the first call, the one with Sollecito hanging up on him, almost sounds like a prank.

"Someone entered the house" "They broke a window" "they made a big mess" "there is a closed door"

The operator asks (as if asking for conformation): "A furto in abitazione eh?"

[highlight]A "furto in abitazione" translates into English as a "break in". The operator does not ask if anything was taken.[/highlight]

RS answers "non c'è il furto... " Note: he uses the words "il furto" (theft)

So yes, that IS an odd thing to say to the operator unless you're sure nothing was taken. Althought I can understand giving RS the benefit of the doubt on that one, what makes no sense is the concern over the locked door. Knox said that Meridith always locked her door when she was away… so why is THAT the point of concern?

Sollecito says "il problema è che c'è la porta chiusa... ci sono macchie di sangue." "THE PROBLEM is that there is the locked door" "there are drops of blood"

THAT's the problem? That the door to Filomena's room is locked? It's the weekend, she's not there, she not answering her phone but that DOES happen.

If you come home and you see that a window is broken, a room has been overturned, your concern is that there has been a robbery.

I think you would logically assume that the blood was there because the intruder cut himself on the broken glass while entering.

Why even mention your roomate's locked door if she always locks it?

But Sollecito points out the locked door as THE problem. That is odd of him to do so. The whole thing DOES sound as if he knows what's really going on. It sounds like he's trying to put 2 and 2 together for the operator.

And he makes a big deal about the drops of blood. When the operator, trying to make sense of it all, logically asks if the intruder cut himself on the glass, Sollecito gets flustered (as Briar points out) and HANGS UP on the operator!

A normal answer would be "yeah maybe" or "yeah it looks like who ever it was cut himself" or "I have no idea"

But Sollecito gets flustered over a simple but apparently unexpected question and hangs up in the operators face.

Also Sollecito's voice (N.B.I speak Italian fluently): he does not sound agitated and confused over what happened, He doesn't sound like someone trying to make sense of things. I don't hear a sense of urgency. He sounds mealy-mouthed and like he's reciting things. Exactly like someone fibbing

It translates as a burglary according to google translate which is a break in and theft of contents.

 

[Vibio]

Odd remarks are not evidence of guilt . Where is there any REAL evidence of guilt?

You're right Poppy, he doesn't say to the operator "I killed Meridith".

It usually doesn't work that way.

But when you put this together with so many things...

Soooo many things: In his diary he says that Filomena's door was wide open when they got back to the cottage. In his book he says it was ajar. Either way it was open. Not closed shut.

Yet we're supposed to believe that Knox would have not have further opened that door to see if any one was home. Oh c'mon.

 

[acbytesla]

That was someone else in the bathroom. But Stefanoni's technique was no better. I have gone through the video and picked out the most egregious examples.

What they were doing on Nov. 2-3 was typical, unfortunately - too many people, not enough training. Even so, it's good enough to pick up the DNA of an intruder. It's certainly not good enough to make a case against people who lived there or had frequented the premises.

What they did on Dec. 19 was unusual, going back to a crime scene in which no attempt had been made to preserve evidence. Obviously it was unplanned and arose from circumstances - the Nov. 2-3 tests didn't give them what they needed. So they put on their white suits and performed for the camera and magically came up with exactly what they needed. Then they swore on a stack of bibles the crime scene had been "sealed" the whole time, and the court accepted that over what is shown in the video, as do the cultists here on the Internet.

I've never understood why and how they could leave evidence like the bra clasp and sweatshirt etc in the cottage That seems beyond stupid. Isn't it standard practice to get it all in one trip or an extended trip where you have to go back the next day and the day after. This 40 day wait seems bizarre

 

[Rolfe]

So how did Amanda kill Meredith in such a way that her dead body still had all of her early evening meal in her stomach and none in her duodenum?

Rolfe.

 

[Poppy1016]

You're right Poppy, he doesn't say to the operator "I killed Meridith".

It usually doesn't work that way.

But when you put this together with so many things...

Soooo many things: In his diary he says that Filomena's door was wide open when they got back to the cottage. In his book he says it was ajar. Either way it was open. Not closed shut.

Yet we're supposed to believe that Knox would have not have further opened that door to see if any one was home. Oh c'mon.

Where is the evidence in the physical evidence showing they participated in the murder? There is none. Only evidence of Rudy. He , and he alone left evidence proving he was the murderer.

 

[Vibio]

It translates as a burglary according to google translate which is a break in and theft of contents.

No Toto. You're wrong.

Burlary is a legal term:

Burglary (also called breaking and entering[1] and sometimes housebreaking)[2] is a crime, the essence of which is illegal entry into a building for the purposes of committing an offence. Usually that offence will be theft, but most jurisdictions specify others which fall within the ambit of burglary. To engage in the act of burglary is to burgle (in British English) or to burglarize (in American English).[3]

There is a difference between a burglary and theft. And the term "Furto in abitazione" DOES not mean theft.

If you can read Italian go "furto in Abitazione" in Wikipedia.

 

[Bill Williams]

Re: RS call to the Police:

Briars is correct. RS lies in his book about the call to the police.

The operator does not at all "growl" at RS. The truth is the operator is quite patient.

He's trying to make sense of RS disjointed account. Putting myself in the operator's shoes, the first call, the one with Sollecito hanging up on him, almost sounds like a prank.

"Someone entered the house" "They broke a window" "they made a big mess" "there is a closed door"

The operator asks (as if asking for conformation): "A furto in abitazione eh?"

A "furto in abitazione" translates into English as a "break in". The operator does not ask if anything was taken.

RS answers "non c'è il furto... " Note: he uses the words "il furto" (theft)

So yes, that IS an odd thing to say to the operator unless you're sure nothing was taken. Althought I can understand giving RS the benefit of the doubt on that one, what makes no sense is the concern over the locked door. Knox said that Meridith always locked her door when she was away… so why is THAT the point of concern?

Sollecito says "il problema è che c'è la porta chiusa... ci sono macchie di sangue." "THE PROBLEM is that there is the locked door" "there are drops of blood"

THAT's the problem? That the door to Filomena's room is locked? It's the weekend, she's not there, she not answering her phone but that DOES happen.

If you come home and you see that a window is broken, a room has been overturned, your concern is that there has been a robbery.

I think you would logically assume that the blood was there because the intruder cut himself on the broken glass while entering.

Why even mention your roomate's locked door if she always locks it?

But Sollecito points out the locked door as THE problem. That is odd of him to do so. The whole thing DOES sound as if he knows what's really going on. It sounds like he's trying to put 2 and 2 together for the operator.

And he makes a big deal about the drops of blood. When the operator, trying to make sense of it all, logically asks if the intruder cut himself on the glass, Sollecito gets flustered (as Briar points out) and HANGS UP on the operator!

A normal answer would be "yeah maybe" or "yeah it looks like who ever it was cut himself" or "I have no idea"

But Sollecito gets flustered over a simple but apparently unexpected question and hangs up in the operators face.

Also Sollecito's voice (N.B.I speak Italian fluently): he does not sound agitated and confused over what happened, He doesn't sound like someone trying to make sense of things. I don't hear a sense of urgency. He sounds mealy-mouthed and like he's reciting things. Exactly like someone fibbing

What this post convinces me of is confirmation bias. A better explanation for Sollecito's behaviour and frustration is that he is, in effect, acting as a translator between Knox and the 112 operator.

Nice try anyway.

 

[kwill]

That's not quite what Mignini said.

He did go on to talk about budget restrictions but what he said was: "But in a police station, at the very moment of the investigation it isn’t done, not with respect to Amanda or anyone else."

He also says: "It isn’t only Amanda, it’s always like that."

Taped Police interrogations are not done in Italy.

He lied many times during that interview, and gave misleading statements in many others. This was just one of them.

CNN: Why wasn’t there any video or transcript of those hours?

Mignini: But in a police station, at the very moment of the investigation it isn’t done, not with respect to Amanda or anyone else. Also because, I can tell you, today, even then, but today in particular, we have budget problems, budget problems that are not insignificant, which do not allow us to transcribe.

. . .

It isn’t only Amanda, it’s always like that. But I wanted to say that I agree with him that it’s fundamental, only there’s a problem, especially when the witnesses are so numerous, and in fact just recording, I mean recording the sound, isn’t enough according to me.

What on earth is he trying to sell here? The question is, why wasn't there any video or transcript of those hours.

First he claims that "at the very moment of investigation" it isn't done . . . but weren't they taping both Amanda and Raffaele for a couple of days before this illegal interrogation?

When did this key "very moment of investigation" happen? Also, what is the referent for "it"? What exactly "isn't done?" He's just said that he taped the English girls' interviews . . . so now he wants us to know that the police don't tape interviews, and he brings up the budget himself.

If, as you're saying, there is no requirement to tape witnesses or suspects ever, then why does Mignini not simply say so and leave it at that?

I'll tell you why. Because while it's not a requirement, it's also not prohibited. The police clearly could have chosen to tape those interrogations. That's the point of adding on the budget comments . . . he's suggesting that they chose not to tape because the transcribing process would have been too costly (which is laughable). And then he goes on to say that he really likes video better than transcribed audio anyway, which has no relevance whatsoever to the question that was asked.

I think they did record both Amanda and Raffaele's interrogations. I also think somebody destroyed those tapes.