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

[Bill Williams]

Has it occurred to anyone that the true purpose of the proceedings is to keep this thread alive forever?

I'm already grooming my successor... handsome, witty, provocative, insightful... and quite certain that Judge Massei found as factual that the two accused had no psychopathology.

Perhaps you should be training a ScotsLawyer....

 

[Strozzi]

. . .
If I were a guilter I would just argue that one threw the rock from outside and the other then closed the outer shutter. I would still have the minor problem that shards appear to have been picked out of the frame, which they would need to have been rather imaginative to conceive, but so what? The only point I'd lose is the supposed difficulty of tossing that humongous rock from the outside, but that really is a lemon anyway.

Briars?

How could frightened and stressed-out murderers be so cleaver as to do all that imagined above, when the experienced police detectives can't even think to collect broken glass to examine it for fingerprints or determine from the cracked edges if the glass was impacted from outside or inside the room?

 

[Strozzi]

I skimmed his article too many sloppy mistakes. interrogated for hours before she confessed no DNA on the knife ,DNA all over in dust blah blah a little late in the case to not see glaring errors

Briars, I think you are the type of person Snowden referred to in his article. Understand it.

 

[davefoc]

In defense of Briars, the article claims in effect that there is no DNA evidence against RS/AK. This is not strictly true and as such I think his criticism was warranted. The article was in the rant genre, and as such perfect attention to facts is never expected, at least by people that agree with the rant. People that disagree with the rant are not so forgiving and look for the imperfections to create a reason to ignore the conclusion of the rant.

The bottom line here is that the rant genre is useful for entertaining the folks that agree with the rant but it is not an effective form of prose for changing the minds of the people that disagree with the rant.

 

[Poppy1016]

.
Found them Kaosium. They were in those zip files that Charlie uploaded a while back (dsc_0078.jpg, dsc_0076.jpg, dsc_0105.jpg). Click the thumbnails to get the highest resolution version that JREF would allow me to upload. The ones in the zip file are the best.

The leaf on the floor:

The leaf is between the bag and the waste paper basket. The clearest view is in the second photo, just under the blue of the chair.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5276152e1c438f402f.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5276152e1c4f505149.jpg[/qimg]

The leaf on the window sill:

This picture shows the leaf on the right side of the window sill.

Besides the leaf, there are a couple of other interesting things in this picture.

One is that the strip of wood that the window normally closes over, has no glass on it. If Massei's version of breaking the window was correct, then I would expect that strip of wood to have broken glass on it just like the wood on either side of the strip. My interpretation is that the window was closed when the rock went through it. The original photo shows this best.

The other interesting thing is that the crumbly stuff under the latch mechanism looks like it may have been jarred loose from the latch hole when the latch was sprung open by the rock hitting the inside shutter. The original photo shows this best.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5276152e1c44c615d3.jpg[/qimg]
.

Hmmm. I wonder how or when that leaf could have blown into the room.

 

[davefoc]

Hmmm. I wonder how or when that leaf could have blown into the room.

They became dislodged from the bottom of RS's shoe after he had gone outside to retrieve the rock that he used to break the window from inside the apartment?

 

[RandyN]

I'm making a judgment here about the leaves by the photo same as you. it was reported that the vegetation was undisturbed and no glass was outside , nor was debris on the wall. I'll also make a judgement you see the writing on the wall hence your unwillingness to have a civil debate. Thats understandable .

OK fine...so Guede used a large rock to bust out that window and the reason was to alarm and wake up any sleeping residents inside the cottage. And so he steps off into the gloom and darkness of the back yard and meanwhile poor Miss Kercher is walking down the driveway...or perhaps. Guede breaks out the window and as he finally comes out to enact his entry... just then MK approaches. Guede the consummate liar and story teller concocts a story involving a kabob and an urgent need to use the bathroom and so he rushed down to his friend Giacomo place but alas they are gone.

Can I please use your bathroom???

No leaves, no mud, no grass but still a broken window and a dead girl with RG traces all over and inside her. Not only DNA but fingerprints, shoe prints, palm prints, and reported semen stains on the pillow found under the dead girls hips.

Now normally I would attribute that stain to an emptying bladder which is possible at or after death...but I find the smear and then dried shoe print in that stain to be meaningful. Urine has little tendency to smear and or stamp an imprint. Semen...yes this seems more likely...sputum? Sure...possible. What do you think this is? And why do you think the prosecution and Maresca objected to the testing of it?

They did object you know. Meanwhile, the defense agreed to the testing. The defense who had everything to lose...agreed meanwhile the prosecution and Maresca who had nothing (apparently) to lose were the objectors. Why does that seem so very illogical? Maybe because it is?

BTW...the fight started when ...as RG used the bathroom that MK foolishly allowed him to do... well it was a friend of her BF after all. She meanwhile stumbled upon the broken window in Filomenas room and put two and two together and rather than run... she foolishly asked Guede what he knew about this broken window. Possible? No...Probable.

That writing on the wall you mention. Is that the same wall we cant see leaves on? Or is that a "hopefully found guilty wall" from inside your head? Where are the uncivil debates you mention? Care to provide some examples?

I see some edgy language now that Anglo has returned...no surprise there.

 

[codyjuneau]

Codyjuneau, you are very perceptive to point out what you did and to recognize that fallen glass fragments which fell directly down on the outside of the window would have landed on or tilted against the window's external lower trim when the window was in it's normal shut position. When the burglar unlatched the window through the hole he made in the glass and then pushed the window open (it swung inside), any glass fragments on or tilted against the lower external trim could have fallen onto the portion of the windowsill that had been covered by the trim when the window was shut.

Cody, please look again at the closeup photo of the open window and enlarge the image as best you can. I looked at the photo enlarged 400% and see a metal object resting on the exterior portion of the window sill. It is immediately to the left of the card with the 0 number (or O letter). The metal object has a flat side and is curved. Can you tell what it is? Is it broken from the window latch? Why would it be in that location? Does it indicate anything about the position (shut or open?) of the window when it was struck by the rock?

.
It looks to me like some kind of stop for the outer shutters. It seems to have left some round grooves on the sill so it may rotate, either on purpose or because it is loose. Dan, do you know what it is?
.

 

[Kaosium]

In defense of Briars, the article claims in effect that there is no DNA evidence against RS/AK. This is not strictly true

What do you consider DNA evidence of murder against Raffaele and/or Amanda?

Relative to trace B (blade of the knife) we find that the technical analyses performed are not reliable for the following reasons:

(...)

Relative to Item 165B (bra clasps), we find that the technical analysis is not reliable for the following reasons:

(emphasis retained)

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

You explained it perfectly. Different points work for different people. The one that does it for me and which no one on the other side ever addresses is the fine glass spray into the room, the smaller pieces over towards the door. How do you get that if you throw the rock against the outer face of the opened window?

Briars?

If I were a guilter I would just argue that one threw the rock from outside and the other then closed the outer shutter. I would still have the minor problem that shards appear to have been picked out of the frame, which they would need to have been rather imaginative to conceive, but so what? The only point I'd lose is the supposed difficulty of tossing that humongous rock from the outside, but that really is a lemon anyway.

Kevin Lowe addressed that. They can't face up to the obvious, because if they do they are describing something that could just as easily be real as staged. Hence they have to misinterpret a couple of small details, while ignoring more important details like the spray of glass fragments, to make the case that the staging was done in a screwy way.

 

[davefoc]

...

They did object you know. Meanwhile, the defense agreed to the testing. The defense who had everything to lose...agreed meanwhile the prosecution and Maresca who had nothing (apparently) to lose were the objectors. Why does that seem so very illogical? Maybe because it is?

...

I am stating the from memory so my apologies to Machiavelli if I am wrong. As I recall Machiavelli did not agree that the prosecution objected to testing the stain. Machiavelli said that it was the judge that prevented the testing of the stain. Initially Machiavelli said the stain wasn't tested because the police didn't want to mess up the folds on the pillow case but he seems to have abandoned that claim. Now I think Machiavelli's claim is that the stain wasn't tested initially (I don't think he has an explanation for that right now) but after it was noticed the prosecution and the defense wanted it tested but the judge didn't think it was probative so he didn't order the stain tested.

 

[RandyN]

In defense of Briars, the article claims in effect that there is no DNA evidence against RS/AK. This is not strictly true and as such I think his criticism was warranted. The article was in the rant genre, and as such perfect attention to facts is never expected, at least by people that agree with the rant. People that disagree with the rant are not so forgiving and look for the imperfections to create a reason to ignore the conclusion of the rant.

The bottom line here is that the rant genre is useful for entertaining the folks that agree with the rant but it is not an effective form of prose for changing the minds of the people that disagree with the rant.

Concur.

The author should not have used "no DNA evidence". He should have explained what exactly was found and why those two (one for each innocent defendant) are highly suspicious and unlikely traces that came into the case and why they are both scientifically bogus by using the independent expert conclusions as well as citing a few articles about DNA collection, storage, quantification, and testing standards that were totally ignored in these two samples. (phew) Oh and finish off with the prosecution failing to provide full discovery especially on the quantification and testing of these two particular samples including the missing control data.

That would have changed his rant into a factual report.

Honestly though I think he gives the Italians too much credit for creating simple mistakes and in fact this is more about a rot in the legal process and perhaps even the culture in Italy. Not like this case is all that close or even mysterious.

 

[codyjuneau]

You explained it perfectly. Different points work for different people. The one that does it for me and which no one on the other side ever addresses is the fine glass spray into the room, the smaller pieces over towards the door. How do you get that if you throw the rock against the outer face of the opened window?

Briars?

If I were a guilter I would just argue that one threw the rock from outside and the other then closed the outer shutter. I would still have the minor problem that shards appear to have been picked out of the frame, which they would need to have been rather imaginative to conceive, but so what? The only point I'd lose is the supposed difficulty of tossing that humongous rock from the outside, but that really is a lemon anyway.

Briars?

.
Thanks anglo, and I am glad to see you back posting on JREF!

If I were a guilter, I'd be embarrassed to have to post trivial arguments all the time.
.

 

[davefoc]

What do you consider DNA evidence of murder against Raffaele and/or Amanda?

I assumed that somebody would object to my claim because the DNA evidence has been discredited. The problem is that while there is evidence that the evidence was not collected or tested properly and as such it might be excluded as evidence against an individual in many jurisdictions it has not been proved that the DNA of Kercher was not on the knife or that the DNA of Sollecito was not on the bra clasp.

My personal opinion is that it is very unlikely that Kercher's DNA was on the knife when it was removed from the drawer in Sollecito's kitchen drawer for all the reasons given in this thread. I also think that Sollecito was not involved in the murder of Kercher and that whatever the reason that Sollecito's DNA was detected on the bra clasp it was not that he happened to grab hold of Kercher's bra hook while he was managing to not leave any other trace of himself in the bedroom where the crime was committed while the crime was being committed. So I'm fine with somebody saying there is no DNA evidence against RS & AK. From my perspective there isn't.

But I think it should be acknowledged that there are people that don't agree with davefoc and that they are technically correct when they claim that DNA evidence that has not been categorically shown to be false has been presented against RS & AK.

 

[RandyN]

I am stating the from memory so my apologies to Machiavelli if I am wrong. As I recall Machiavelli did not agree that the prosecution objected to testing the stain. Machiavelli said that it was the judge that prevented the testing of the stain. Initially Machiavelli said the stain wasn't tested because the police didn't want to mess up the folds on the pillow case but he seems to have abandoned that claim. Now I think Machiavelli's claim is that the stain wasn't tested initially (I don't think he has an explanation for that right now) but after it was noticed the prosecution and the defense wanted it tested but the judge didn't think it was probative so he didn't order the stain tested.

Yes well Yummi/Mach will argue anything...in fact he will argue one thing one day and then later argue something quite different but about the same point. Lots of words and little logical substance.

I don't care about what judges allowed or disallowed. If I was great at searches I would search in Perugia Shock (Randy?) and it is there IIRC where Frank describes this unusual set of objections on the subject. Mignini and Maresca object meanwhile the defense agree to the question about testing this stain. Sure the judge disallowed it but would he have if the prosecution did not object? Hard to know.

Frank found it odd enough to write a story about it. He was in court every day. Yummi has only recently been making appearances AFAIK. In Yummis defense Frank is a terrible house guest from the stories I hear. But he always seemed to be a reliable reporter though. Much less bias than Yummi/Mach. Frank thought they were guilty then decided otherwise. Frank defended Stefanoni for ages...Mignini too and also Nara...but then he finally saw the impossible logic in what the facts were conclusively showing.

 

[davefoc]

Concur.

The author should not have used "no DNA evidence". He should have explained what exactly was found and why those two (one for each innocent defendant) are highly suspicious and unlikely traces came into the case and why they are both scientifically bogus by using the independent expert conclusions as well as citing a few articles about DNA collection, storage, quantification, and testing standards that were totally ignored in these two samples. (phew) Oh and finish off with the prosecution failing to provide full discovery especially on the quantification and testing of these two particular samples including the missing control data.

That would have changed his rant into a factual report.

Honestly though I think he gives the Italians too much credit for creating simple mistakes and in fact this is more about a rot in the legal process and perhaps even the culture in Italy. Not like this case is all that close or even mysterious.

Wow, I had a little moment there. I wasn't prepared for somebody to completely agree with me. Thanks.

 

[Wildhorses]

I am stating the from memory so my apologies to Machiavelli if I am wrong. As I recall Machiavelli did not agree that the prosecution objected to testing the stain. Machiavelli said that it was the judge that prevented the testing of the stain. Initially Machiavelli said the stain wasn't tested because the police didn't want to mess up the folds on the pillow case but he seems to have abandoned that claim. Now I think Machiavelli's claim is that the stain wasn't tested initially (I don't think he has an explanation for that right now) but after it was noticed the prosecution and the defense wanted it tested but the judge didn't think it was probative so he didn't order the stain tested.

Massei decided not to test the stain because "DNA doesn't have a time stamp." He said there'd be no way to know if the stain had been deposited the night of the murder.

Well... it's not hard to critique his decision. And evidence suggests it was deposited that night. (The stain is smeared, I think.)

I, personally, suspect Massei made that decision out of respect for Meredith's family. I suspect he initially thought the case was clear-cut, no more evidence was needed, so why open the door to discussion of Meredith's sex life.

I could be wrong, of course. It's the only semi-valid excuse I can come up.

 

[Kaosium]

I assumed that somebody would object to my claim because the DNA evidence has been discredited. The problem is that while there has been evidence that the evidence was not collected or tested properly and as such it might be excluded as evidence against an individual in many jurisdictions it has not been proved that the DNA of Kercher was not on the knife or that the DNA of Sollecito was not on the bra clasp.

That's not how it works though, it's the responsibility of the lab to prove that the DNA was on the knife and the bra clasp when the murder happened.

My personal opinion is that it is very unlikely that Kercher's DNA was on the knife when it was removed from the drawer in Sollecito's kitchen drawer for all the reasons given in this thread. I also think that Sollecito was not involved in the murder of Kercher and that whatever the reason that Sollecito's DNA was detected on the bra clasp it was not that he happened to grab hold of Kercher's bra hook while he was managing to not leave any other trace of himself in the bedroom where the crime was committed while the crime was being committed. So I'm fine with somebody saying there is no DNA evidence against RS & AK. From my perspective there isn't.

But I think it should be acknowledged that there are people that don't agree with davefoc and that they are technically correct when the claim that DNA evidence that has not been categorically shown to be false has been presented against RS & AK.

If you are going to use science in the courtroom wouldn't it be best to use standards that are in keeping with that science? If it is unreliable scientifically then it is inherently scientifically invalid.

Now there is reliable DNA evidence in this case, just not those two items.

 

[davefoc]

Yes well Yummi/Mach will argue anything...in fact he will argue one thing one day and then later argue something quite different but about the same point. Lots of words and little logical substance.

For me there are two Machiavelli's:
1. Thoughtful, amazing command of English and the subtle meaning of English words for somebody whose first language is not English, amazingly detailed knowledge of this case and substantial areas of knowledge outside this case.
2. Routine partisan with an untamed confirmation bias that leads to comedic arguments and a relentless resistance to admitting anything that doesn't further his agenda.

I haven't been scientific enough about the development of my opinions about this to try to determine if there are actually two posters as some of suggested or maybe it is my own opinions that lead me to form a flawed view. i.e. Machiavelli seems brilliant when he makes arguments I agree with or arguments that seem to involve the application of a nuanced view of the case and Machiavelli seems non-brilliant when he hammers away on what looks like nonsense to me.

I don't care about what judges allowed or disallowed. If I was great at searches I would search in Perugia Shock (Randy?) and it is there IIRC where Frank describes this unusual set of objections on the subject. Mignini and Maresca object meanwhile the defense agree to the question about testing this stain. Sure the judge disallowed it but would he have if the prosecution did not object? Hard to know.

Frank found it odd enough to write a story about it. He was in court every day. Yummi has only recently been making appearances AFAIK. In Yummis defense Frank is a terrible house guest from the stories I hear. But he always seemed to be a reliable reporter though. Much less bias than Yummi/Mach. Frank thought they were guilty then decided otherwise. Frank defended Stefanoni for ages...Mignini too and also Nara...but then he finally saw the impossible logic in what the facts were conclusively showing.

I might try to find the story. In the end of the discussion here, I formed the view that Machiavelli didn't know why the stain wasn't tested and nobody else did that was participating in this thread. It seems so strange that it is hard to believe that the details presented in this thread can be exactly right about it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Massei decided not to test the stain because "DNA doesn't have a time stamp." He said there'd be no way to know if the stain had been deposited the night of the murder.

Well... it's not hard to critique his decision. And evidence suggests it was deposited that night. (The stain is smeared, I think.)

I, personally, suspect Massei made that decision out of respect for Meredith's family. I suspect he initially thought the case was clear-cut, no more evidence was needed, so why open the door to discussion of Meredith's sex life.
I could be wrong, of course. It's the only semi-valid excuse I can come up.

I think that is perhaps the best and most fair summary of Massei's decision on the matter. IMO it was a completely wrongheaded decision he made, but you've nailed his rationale.

In Italy sometimes it seems that it is impossible for someone to write something, without assuming some underlying, "this is what it REALLY means." That's why it is so frustrating to deal with Machiavelli... it's not so much that he'll say one thing one day, and the opposite the next....

... as he says one thing one day, and then we it's repeated back to him (usually with a disproof!) he'll go on some longwinded treatise on why something which is straightforward is not so straightforward.

Still, it's a bit of a jaw-dropper to read Massei's finding that the stain need not be tested. This is while at the same time completely ignoring the very same reasoning of why Amanda's biological material is in the very cottage in which she resided, and especially in the very bathroom which was hers - shared with Meredith.

But still, in some measure of fairness to Massei, he perhaps did not think it necessary to test it for the reasons you mention. He felt safe that he'd convicted them without it....