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

[Dan O.]

That's certainly what it looks like from the outside. The prosecution theory of this crime is that there were multiple perpetrators, so why didn't they try to find out who they were?

As has been noted many times in these threads, the stain was probably tested and it was found to be Guede's. The prosecution just decided that releasing that little tid bit didn't help their case so they didn't. Does anybody here think that the stain wouldn't have been tested if the prosecutor had the tiniest inkling that it was that of RS? Either the prosecutor knows that the stain was not that of RS because he knows RS had nothing to do with this crime or the prosecutor had it tested it and found out it wasn't that of RS so he buried the results. I don't see another significantly likely possibility

Alternatively there is Machiavelli's theory, which for some reason was not resurrected this time, that it wasn't tested because it would have disrupted the cloth folds and Machiavelli thought it was more important for evidentiary purposes not to disturb the fold pattern than test the stain for DNA? ETA: And of course dabbing cloth with a Q tip is very disruptive of cloth folds at least that seems to be Machiavelli's view here.

I think the real reason the prosecution didn't test the stain is because they are incompetent screwups that didn't see the stain until the defense pointed it out. After that they manufactured excuses to cover up for screwing up in the first place.

 

[JREF2010]

I think the real reason the prosecution didn't test the stain is because they are incompetent screwups that didn't see the stain until the defense pointed it out. After that they manufactured excuses to cover up for screwing up in the first place.

I think they did test it and didnt like what they saw and hid the truth.
Same as the interrogation recordings.

Same as Stefonani lying in court. Same as the HIV lie.....

anyone else see a pattern in Perugia?

 

[Strozzi]

Testing of pillow stains and downstairs blood

I think the real reason the prosecution didn't test the stain is because they are incompetent screwups that didn't see the stain until the defense pointed it out. After that they manufactured excuses to cover up for screwing up in the first place.

Dan O and JREF2010, one of you may be right - it might be that they are embarrased that they did not spot the stain, or it may be that it was tested and they don't want to call attention to who was there engaged in what act. In either case, they don't want to defense to know of the results of a test.

I wonder why Stefanoni did not collect and test more of the blood in the guys' flat downstairs? Was it that she just tested a number of samples which showed cat blood and did not recognize at the time that she was also turning up results for human blood? And thereafter did not want to go further to avoid being shown as incompetent in her first testing?

 

[Diocletus]

The putative semen stain does not prove nor indicate a sexual assault after stbbing.

So let me see if I have this straight:

Mixed blood/semen spot between legs of sex assault victim: doesn't prove anything.

Mixed blood/dna spot on faucet of resident's sink: proves that resident murdered roommate.

 

[andreajo]

I don't think most PIP think this way.
I, for one, think that the police and prosecution were, for a while at least, acting in good faith. I think that they genuinely believed that Amanda and Raff were guilty. I think there might have been some occasions where they broke a couple of rules (or guidelines as to best practice) because they believed that it was for the greater good (convicting the guilty for a heinous crime). I think that they were all ill-prepared for investigating a crime like this - and I think that most police forces are, as these kinds of crimes are relatively rare outside of big, violent metropolitan areas. I think that they acted on ignorance- how were they to know about false confessions and the science behind them?

There's plenty of shades of grey here, and in fact the kinds of narratives that would describe the ILE as heroes are all around us in the movies / books / tv shows. I mean, how familiar is this: renegade cop / prosecutor breaks the rules and generally does whatever it takes to solve a crime and catch a bad guy. I think it's an extremely damaging narrative (often, in TV shows, we the audience usually actually get to see the murder, so we have knowledge over and above that which the renegade cop has, which allows us to know he definitely has the right suspect. People then 'forget' that they do not have such knowledge in real life). But people are predisposed to have sympathy with it.

I think that at some point they stopped acting in good faith, and went into damage limitation / cover up mode. However, the existence of PGP such as you, Mach, who still genuinely believe in their guilt, based on this evidence, causes me to doubt this. It shows at least that it's possible to genuinely believe it.
6 years on, with all that time to look at the psychological phenomenon of false confessions, familiarise oneself with the guidelines relating to LCN DNA and forensic handling and collection, familiarise oneself with the shortcomings of witness evidence and behavioural evidence, by this point we have to conclude that what we're looking for might not be purposeful framing, but is at least WILLFUL ignorance.

I was in Perugia over the summer, and spoke in depth with someone who's followed the case closely, and written articles for the local media about the case. Although this man has a scientific background, when I asked him if he had read Saul Kassin's work on false confessions, he indicated that he had not. He therefore remained convinced that Amanda is a liar. When you are aware that there are scientific facts that have a bearing on your beliefs, and you choose to ignore it completely, you are not acting rationally. This is clearly a state of willful ignorance. When PGPs read the psychological evidence but dismiss it for no good reason, or argue that it is not descriptive of Amanda's interrogation for no good reason, this is also not good enough either. It amounts to a refusal to engage with the reasoning process.

Whether one precludes the reasoning process altogether by purposefully remaining ignorant of the facts, or refuses to follow evidence through to it's natural conclusions, this is enough for bad faith, and shows a failing which is at once intellectual and moral.

This is a thoughtful analysis which rings true for me for the most part. I wonder about the willfulness of the self-delusion, since self-delusion seems to be a pretty natural human state.

The book that got me interested in false convictions is: Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts by Carol Tavris & Elliot Aronson.

The premise is that it is psychologically difficult to admit to being mistaken, particularly when a person who perceives themselves as a decent human being causes harm to another through their error. Admitting the error creates too much cognitive dissonance, so the mind works hard to justify the original belief and its related actions, even if evidence is clearly pointing in a different direction.

The book refers extensively to Leon Festinger's work, When Prophecy Fails, where a Doomsday cult is infiltrated by psychologists to find out how believers will adjust their ideas when the spaceship does not arrive at the appointed time. I believe that Festinger is the originator of the concept of cognitive dissonance.

The authors give several examples of false convictions where those involved in the original investigations & prosecutions continue to believe in their correctness regardless of the objective evidence to the contrary.

 

[Diocletus]

The "police" is not a unitary block, and while the set of individuals involved does allow a degree of chaos - too many diferent various police officers, overlapping task, fuzzy boundaries - to me this just appears to belong to the ordinary Italian "anarchic" chaos component on all aspects of everyday life (traffic, schedules, everything that is organized) and I see nothing strange in it.

Of course the police aren't a unitary block. Each official is just covering for what he/she screwed up. Unfortunately, almost every one of them screwed something up.

This isn't a real "conspiracy" in the sense that they all got together and planned out how to wrongfully convict two people. It's more like a confederacy of dunces.

This kind of anarchy might be fine for cooking pasta, but it's no way to run the railroad. Or the justice system.

 

[Diocletus]

The pillowcase was not sent to the biological laboratory. The pillowcase was instead sent to the fingerprint analysis section. As far as I recall the police report says nothing about a putative semen stain, as if they didn't notice it.

So someone decides whether to send evidence to the fingerprint lab or the DNA lab, and if it goes to one lab then analysis in the other lab is precluded? Is this a joke?

 

[Diocletus]

Their requested the test only at the end of the Massei trial - while those requests (richieste istruttorie) are to be done at the opening - they lodged the request when the evidence entering phase was over, and by that time Sollecito's position was desperate and a test of the stain would have been irrelevant.

This is another laughable aspect of this Italian system. They have trials that last for a decade, yet won't open the evidentiary record to admit important evidence.

 

[Diocletus]

I wonder why Stefanoni did not collect and test more of the blood in the guys' flat downstairs? Was it that she just tested a number of samples which showed cat blood and did not recognize at the time that she was also turning up results for human blood? And thereafter did not want to go further to avoid being shown as incompetent in her first testing?

Although the SAL states that the "cat's blood" samples are TMB-positive and species specific for "cat," as far as I know, the actual, contemporaneous records of the blood testing have never been disclosed.

On the other hand, we can see from the Real Time records that numerous "cat's blood" samples quantified positive for human DNA, and at least five of these samples were subjected to electrophoresis and the ensuing egrams have been suppressed.

PS: Let's ask ourselves this: If Stefanoni had done a species test showing "cat" before sending the sample to quantification for human DNA, then why is it that every "cat" sample was, in fact, quantified (and some were human-DNA positive)? Conversely, if she did the species test after quantifying for human DNA, then what is to be made of the fact that some of the "cat" samples had quantified positive for human DNA?

 

[Bill Williams]

Their requested the test only at the end of the Massei trial - while those requests (richieste istruttorie) are to be done at the opening - they lodged the request when the evidence entering phase was over, and by that time Sollecito's position was desperate and a test of the stain would have been irrelevant.

This is another laughable aspect of this Italian system. They have trials that last for a decade, yet won't open the evidentiary record to admit important evidence.

Machiavelli fails to mention WHY Sollecito's position was desperate. One of the reasons why it was desperate was because they would not do even the most basic testing on evidence, which would have perhaps lent more credence to his actual innocence. Like the hard-drive of his they trashed...

Like the bathmat footprint that wasn't his, yet still today, six years later, some say is a match for him when it is unmatchable to anyone, really... and closer to Rudy...

After 6 years, though, why let thta stop the vilification of innocents. The Kerchers themselves write a letter to the Nencini court asking for all the evidence to be analyzed, and not only does Nencini not do that - the Kercher's own lawyer utters not one sound of complaint at his closing.

Folks - I give you the guilters.

 

[Bill Williams]

So someone decides whether to send evidence to the fingerprint lab or the DNA lab, and if it goes to one lab then analysis in the other lab is precluded? Is this a joke?

Just like it was too expensive for Mignini to tape the interrogations, while taping 10,000 other phone calls and conversations, it must have been prohibitive to FedEx or UPS the samples to two places.....

 

[Bill Williams]

So let me see if I have this straight:

Mixed blood/semen spot between legs of sex assault victim: doesn't prove anything.

Mixed blood/dna spot on faucet of resident's sink: proves that resident murdered roommate.

Platonov has not been back... so let me add:

No forensic evidence at the crime scene pointing to Knox or Sollectio is waved away....

But if Knox puts a solitary link to the fund raising site for the victim's family, then this is proof she's the killer.

Works for me.

 

[billyryan]

Yes I understand that you - as well as probably the great majority of American followers of the case - were ready to belive Knox and Sollecito were guilty.
One of the the problem is - and you give clue about that in your post - the sources where you got your information from.

Now, another further problem in your reasonin, to me, it is the apparent totally adversarial setting. You see two sides: one must be "the good guys", and the other is bad or wrong.
This is fundamentally false from my point of view.
The suspects are guilty not because the police are good or bad - they are neither good nor bad to me, I see them as rather neutral. They are guilty because the police nore anyone else could fabricate that set of evidence, nor it is reasonable to assume that anyone fabricated any part of it.
The most obvious piece of evidence to me was Knox and Sollecito's lies, the repeated false accusation including Knox's memoriales, the autopsy report, the luminol footprints, the bathmat print, the staged burglary. I can't see how any "bad" police officer could fabricate this kind of things.
I also consider Capezzali and Monacchia obviously credible, Filomena and Anna Donnino credible as well.
I consider also Stefanoni and Mignini obviously credible - I also see DNA findings as credible under any logical point of view - and as a polar opposite of the assessmnt of others, I do appreciate very much Mignini and Stefanoni's work on this case.
The "police" is not a unitary block, and while the set of individuals involved does allow a degree of chaos - too many diferent various police officers, overlapping task, fuzzy boundaries - to me this just appears to belong to the ordinary Italian "anarchic" chaos component on all aspects of everyday life (traffic, schedules, everything that is organized) and I see nothing strange in it.

What was it about Frank Sfarzo,Machiavelli that made you run in blind panic from the courtroom too frightened to return,was it the mohican haircut,I admit Frank is a pretty impressive guy,like the great Nelson Mandela who stood up to the apartheid thugs who ran his country, Frank stands up at great personal cost, to an even more cynical bunch of thugs,as the ECHR records prove,the Italian criminal justice system when you compare that to your pathetic grovelling to those in power at the moment and their shameless abuse of it,once you realised he identified you, you fled home to mammy.has John rag been in contact over the last few days to discuss your mutual problems


There are many here who fear, as you hope that the Florence court will convict the innocent,but I think they are wrong,I watched a program today about the Italian fiat car company,how proud the Italian government are of having kept its production line in Italy,the future of the company now depends on selling a new model into the US market,Powerful people in the US know the terrible abuse this whole Salem witch trial is,and likewise in Italy, and I don't believe Italy will make the economic mistake that the Japs did militarily at Pearl Harbour of awakening a sleeping giant,I think someone will make a phonecall to Florence in the final few days,lets face it Machiavelli if those making the decision in Florence prove to be as cowardly as you when you looked into the whites of Frank's eyes,it won't take much pressure to get them to acquit the innocent

 

[Bill Williams]

Frank Sfarzo has another article, Our Lady of Osmosis, about the Knox's defence team's closing...

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/amanda-knox-and-her-lawyers-demolish-the-accusations-part-2/

OUR LADY OF THE OSMOSIS

“And this Cassation sentence, that tells the court how to convict! … To make an osmosis… What is this osmosis that Mrs Caprioglio wants? Taking from one indication of guilt what’s missing from the other indication of guilt so that it becomes valid?!!…. The Supreme Court even managed to say that you should consider that letter sent by Rudy to a TV program! It was not even written by him. He had never accused Amanda and Raffaele before; in the Skype conversation he even told his friend ‘Amanda doesn’t have anything to do with it!’”

“And the prosecutor today says that it’s not possible they got it wrong. Of course they got it wrong! It has been a huge miscarriage of justice!…..Amanda didn’t escape, she stayed, and on the Monday returned to school, even if Dorothy was insisting on having her in Germany. And why did she go to the police station that evening? Not because she wanted to report Patrick, but because her stepfather Chris had opened her eyes: ‘Be careful, the murderer is still around. Maybe he meant to get you.’” She certainly didn’t want to be left alone in the street at night.

“They were deceived by the SMS, and 36 cops, they were all over this girl. Even the interpreter was not an interpreter but acting as a psychic. They lost their minds because of the media pressure; they were afraid of the critics. It was the group who created and consolidated the error, as Professor Caltagirone explained.” (Positivist scientist Cesare Lombroso had indeed discovered that a group doesn’t copy the qualities of each member, as it was believed at the time out of Spencer’s lesson, rather it distorts them, eventually multiplying the negative outcome).

My only quibble with this is that Donnino was probably acting as a mediator, neither psychic nor translator.... Knox needed a translator that night, and a lawyer to tell her not to sign anything in a language she did not understand.

 

[Grinder]

Dean's list... She has not used antagonized correctly. And subjugated. But I have to disagree with your "savvy" comment. I think her letter to the court for example was very well written in thought and style. You may disagree.

I do disagree. Hopefully her Italian letter had better word usage.

I can say that she seems very mature for her age - unfortunately. And I say that because she has had to grow up much faster than many due to her special circumstances. Certainly much more mature than most of that age.

She's 26+ years old. I don't know how you judge her maturity or others but I see nothing that would indicate she is very mature. The videos of her in "natural" setting have her a giggly her but difficult to judge based on those reports.

And with regard to her misuse of words, I agree that it is surprising that someone didn't proof read for her and correct those. In light of her public position, you could argue that it is important for her to make no such mistakes. But you see the problem of course. If her emailed letter was perfect - pick your style - others would be criticizing her for not authoring her own work. As I have seen stated to some degree with her book.

Well I think using the correct word for what she is trying to convoy wouldn't have made it look as if it were ghost written. Remember she is billed as a dean's list creative writer.

What prompts me to pop up from the bleachers is, again, this oft repeated meme about her savvyness or maturity. Bunk I say. Savvy compared to what? In my book she owes no apologies. She had her youth stolen from her, and people want to criticize her for in fact being youthful. Not cool in my book.

Well i didn't say she owed anybody anything. It is my impression that she isn't as savvy as she thinks she is.

Her demeanor is stilted? And can be seen as a cover for guilt? Please. That is a no win situation and you know that. Nothing she does will be interpreted in her favor. That is the history of this case.

Look, I'm not saying it is a cover for guilt but she doesn't come off sincere and forthcoming to more than just the PGP people from schadenfreude.om and net. Personally, I think she is what she is and that hurt from day one.

For what it's worth, I happen to agree with your statement . She doesnt present herself the way I think she should either (she's not me). When I see her I realize she's just an ordinary person trying to be on camera what she's not. (comfortable)That's a lawyer, a rebel, Erin Brockavich (sure thats spelled wrong) type .
Ive had a camera in my face with a reporter asking questions and can testify that my brain turned to Jello. It would be even more difficult if my freedom depended on it and I knew people would twist every thing I said around. I'm in favor of the you tube video but with lawyers to anwer the tough questions. Edda seems like a good candidate too. JMO

I would still like a well made video with experts and lawyers and segments from Ch. 5. Amanda could make the statement that since she had no involvement in whatever happened that night she knows no more than the rest of the world as to what happened. She should say that it shouldn't be her job to prove innocence but it appears necessary and here is my case for innocence and turn it over to the video "host".

Who would that be Grinder? You? Who among us always says and does the right thing? And who among us could be perceived as saying the right thing by a group of people who are viewing every word and phrase through a lens of cynicism? Frankly, I'm in total disagreement with you. I don't think those without an opinion are viewing as you say Amanda's "stilted style" as a cover for guilt.

I'm saying that she isn't helping herself among those that are not enthralled by her or have decided that she was "railroaded" and is innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt.

As to whether I could advise her in a way that might improve her message, yes perhaps I could do that.

Amanda has been put in that position where she cannot win with the guilters. She is castigated for not reaching out to the Kerchers, and then when she makes any attempt it is viewed as self serving.

Okay you are now changing the subject. You address me and my position and then make an argument against something I didn't mention. Commonly called a straw man argument.

I'm reminded of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. While almost everyone looks back at that event today as a positive, I can assure you that the KKK and others in South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama and the rest of the Deep South viewed it very negatively.

Yes the analogy is just about perfect.

While I expect the guilters to view any action by Amanda negatively, I refuse to accept their premise. Why do you look for a way to jump on their train of crazy thought and attempt to give it credibility?

Yes it is critical that all people that believe the case wasn't made against her must tow the line and not express seeing any faults in the kids.

She's definitely not the superficially charming and confident "psychopath" that many people want to believe she is. Amanda mostly seems quite awkward, although always thinking very carefully how to say things, which is completely normal as whatever she says will be analysed and criticised. She's going to be damned by some, whatever she does or says. If you look at all the horrendous names she has been called, she's doing amazingly well to be saying anything in public, I'm not sure that I could cope with the very public shaming and humiliation she has gone through

And does that mean one (me) shouldn't express shortcomings perceived? I fully understand being on camera and the difficulties she could have doing interviews, but I was addressing other more controlled communication.

I was also pointing out that the writing she does seems to filled with dramatic attempts and the usage of words beyond her knowledge. The fact that she seems to be writing a screenplay with every word she utters or writes.
"Don't put the mask of the assassin me" or "All You Need Is Love" were statements made by her that come to mind.

You've just hit upon something that I have had a continuing argument with Grinder about. Amanda doesn't come off "polished" on tv. But that doesn't mean bad. I was on the debate and speech team in high school, took drama, been a Rotarian as well as spent 30 years in sales. I work on being polished in speaking situations. It's always been a part of my job.

Did I say she didn't come off polished? No. I would suggest she be less polished and more down to earth.

But most people lose something being polished, and that is an appearance of sincerity. Amanda being a suspect in a murder trial will always be viewed "suspiciously" by many. There is no way of getting around that. So she can come off as polished and "slick" or not so polished and appear uncomfortable, which some ...don't mean to name names...(Grinder) as possibly covering something up.

Well Tesla there you go again. Please direct me to where I said that I thought she was covering up. Please direct me to where I called her "slick".

It's a classic no win PR situation.

No PR man would ever say that there was no win. Maybe a computer repairman might say that.

That is why although I think maybe she should be more practiced and polished, I'm not so confident that others view her through my perspective. So just maybe, developing polish in these circumstances might not aid Amanda in her present circumstance.

Huh???

Tesla did you look with disfavor on the little boy that uttered the words "the emperor has no clothes" ?

I think that Amanda's public persona should be managed or managed differently. She should express herself simply and clearly. She doesn't need to think that much about answers but rather just keep telling the truth and not "the best truth" she can up with. She should be told and drilled to stop with her flair for the dramatic and her attempts to use those big words.

* At least one word above was intentionally misused for affect

 

[Diocletus]

Well I think using the correct word for what she is trying to convoy

Everyone makes a mistake now and then.

 

[Grinder]

I, for one, think that the police and prosecution were, for a while at least, acting in good faith. I think that they genuinely believed that Amanda and Raff were guilty. I think there might have been some occasions where they broke a couple of rules (or guidelines as to best practice) because they believed that it was for the greater good (convicting the guilty for a heinous crime). I think that they were all ill-prepared for investigating a crime like this - and I think that most police forces are, as these kinds of crimes are relatively rare outside of big, violent metropolitan areas. I think that they acted on ignorance- how were they to know about false confessions and the science behind them?

Well said. I do think that they used techniques that did illicit false statements and they should have known they were "buckling her". I have always thought that the statements of the 5th and 6th most be shown to be bogus. Mach here will not deal with the Chief's statement about her saying what they knew to be correct. He did try once and said Ficarro said she some things we knew to be correct. Even that is barely true. Amanda's statement was almost totally in error.

There's plenty of shades of grey here, and in fact the kinds of narratives that would describe the ILE as heroes are all around us in the movies / books / tv shows. I mean, how familiar is this: renegade cop / prosecutor breaks the rules and generally does whatever it takes to solve a crime and catch a bad guy. I think it's an extremely damaging narrative (often, in TV shows, we the audience usually actually get to see the murder, so we have knowledge over and above that which the renegade cop has, which allows us to know he definitely has the right suspect. People then 'forget' that they do not have such knowledge in real life). But people are predisposed to have sympathy with it.

Once again well put. I do believe that the kids didn't help themselves with their decorum. Before someone (Tesla) says I'm saying that makes them guilty, it doesn't, but attracted justifiable attention. Another "no clothes" aspect is that PIP refuse to admit what even Amanda admits.

I think that at some point they stopped acting in good faith, and went into damage limitation / cover up mode. However, the existence of PGP such as you, Mach, who still genuinely believe in their guilt, based on this evidence, causes me to doubt this. It shows at least that it's possible to genuinely believe it.

And it's possible that maybe someone rubbed the bra clasp against something that contained Raf's DNA but why not better DNA and unmixed?

If one believes Curatolo, Nara and Quintavalle and the DNA on the knife and the bra, I can understand someone believing in guilt.

6 years on, with all that time to look at the psychological phenomenon of false confessions, familiarise oneself with the guidelines relating to LCN DNA and forensic handling and collection, familiarise oneself with the shortcomings of witness evidence and behavioural evidence, by this point we have to conclude that what we're looking for might not be purposeful framing, but is at least WILLFUL ignorance.

And cultural differences. Lying in Italy is a crime and it seems that what people say is accepted with less skepticism. Not only don't they think people are lying if they are convincing but they think it would be an insult to test them. Asking Filomena if she really closed the shutters as she was in a hurry is an insult. Questioning Curatolo's memory because of life style is an insult.

Whether one precludes the reasoning process altogether by purposefully remaining ignorant of the facts, or refuses to follow evidence through to it's natural conclusions, this is enough for bad faith, and shows a failing which is at once intellectual and moral.

What is telling is reasonable doubt may be in the law but in the practice.

 

[Grinder]

Everyone makes a mistake now and then.

* At least one word above was intentionally misused for affect

And one in that very sentence!

 

[Samson]

Just like it was too expensive for Mignini to tape the interrogations, while taping 10,000 other phone calls and conversations, it must have been prohibitive to FedEx or UPS the samples to two places.....

Does anyone know how many if any recorded calls and conversations between A and R between the 1st and 5th were made where they didn't slip Rudy's name in? Are there transcripts?
Assuming innocence, these would be of great interest to the defence, (useless to the prosecution), but I have not heard them mentioned.

 

[Diocletus]

* At least one word above was intentionally misused for affect

And one in that very sentence!

Oh, I see. You thought people were going to read that far down. Carry on.