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

[davefoc]

[Most of the post is above]

I think Stefanoni looked at that result from the bra clasp and saw RS there because she was ordered to do that. How can we explain the other three men she ignored on there? She didn't find those guys BTW...the IE found those other guys. Hummmmmmmm not too tough actually.

It sounds like you are arguing that I have underestimated the possibility of Stefanoni forging the results. I well might have. I tend to agree with your assessment of the situation with regard to Stefanoni but Machiavelli has disputed bits of it. I think I tend to trust most people perhaps to an unjustified degree and that might be a reason why I would underestimate the chances that Stefanoni would have committed fraud. Certainly there have been people in her kind of position in the US that have tampered with evidence, sometimes very often.

I also thought that the equivocal nature of the finding pointed to a lack of intentional fraud. Wouldn't somebody trying to forge a result have done something that produced something that would be more straightforward to interpret? Why only put the DNA in this unlikely place? Why not use something for contaminating the evidence that would have been more likely to not have had the DNA from other men on it? Maybe the answer is that she did the best she could with what she had available. She used something of Sollecito's to contaminate the evidence and didn't expect it would be contaminated with the DNA of several others.

As to your point about the other three men whose DNA showed up being more evidence of contamination than I thought: Perhaps so, Chris Halkides didn't think much of my ideas there and I am sure he knows vastly more about DNA evidence and this case in general than I do and I will tend to defer to you and him on this. Perhaps I underestimated the significance that the DNA of three other men was found on the clasp as an indicator of contamination.

What does IE stand for?

 

[Mary_H]

I had an interesting exchange with someone on Amanda's blog. I explained how it's possible to reconstruct what happened from the physical evidence at the crime scene and the nature of Meredith's injuries. She didn't dispute that. Instead she challenged the premise that a burglar would behave that way, noting that most burglars don't and Guede never had done anything similar before.

There's really no way to perturb the mind that subordinates fact to intuition. They believe what they believe, and it ain't gonna change.

I would like to read that exchange, Charlie. Could you provide a link? Thanks.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I would like to read that exchange, Charlie. Could you provide a link? Thanks.

http://www.amandaknox.com/2014/01/14/housekeeping/#comments

It's way down in the feed... my response to "Giselle."

 

[Samson]

OK I can agree with most of your points here...except that

Lets take out RS and just deal with the other three men found on the bra clasp first OK? Lets do that and then we will come back to RS and if he is or is not found there.

So does that change anything about your ideas or the likelihood of the order of logical explainations?

What gives you the confidence about Stefanoni? Perhaps since no one has made a case or done much of an investigation of her besides C and V it may seem like she is competent but perhaps unlucky. Is that what you think?

Because I think there are a series of facts revealed over the years and mostly from statements Stefanoni made in or acted out in open court that indicate certainly incompetence but more likely corruption. I think she was forced to act on the orders of her boss Biondo but that hardly forgives that huge number of irregular and suspicious lab activities from her own hand and mouth that points to guilt of corrupt activity beyond a reasonable doubt. Why even the reason for the return to the crime scene on Dec 18th is never explained nor does the dopy defense seem to probe this seeming unusual and unnecessary return. Not that I recall anyway.

Stefanoni lies in court about quantification in the detention hearing. If she had told the truth that that sample 36b was tested for blood and found to be negative, tested as something not human, and was of a size too small to test then could that be important especially in the case against Knox?

At that point they contended they had RS dead nuts because of his shoe prints...they had nothing on Knox at all...unless you wish to consider something even the ISC refused to allow into court because it was illegally obtained. The non confession confession.

Stefanoni lies during the trial when she infers the luminol samples are from blood and yet fails to mention that the TMB testing was preformed and all tests showed a negative result. A real scientist does not play games with the facts like this...if she truly thought these prints were still from blood but only diluted then she is qualified and understands certainly all (there are many) the easy and available tests to confirm blood. This is not new science...it is simple and able to be proved to the highest degree of certainty. But she not only does not confirm but she even failed to reveal the truth about TMB testing. Sara Gino had to pick that out of the data. This is not the way honest scientists do things.

Nor do honest courts and prosecutors ignore the dangers of using severally conflict of interested consultants like Biondo who sat beside Mignini for most of the trial. This strikes me as especially odd. As a reminder Biondo is the manager of the lab that Stefanoni works for. And...

During the first trial the defense asked for a DNA review and received one...yes indeed Mr Biondo himself confirmed that Stefanoni's work was sound and up to standards and therefore safe. And Massei not only accepted that conclusion without batting an eye but then refused further requests for a more independent review. This alone is enough to prove that Italian courts and the police scientific labs are unsafe for making any conclusions except proof that someone needs some brush up on how to lie without coming off as complete idiots courses.

We could talk about Stefanonis refusal to turn over data asked for by the independent experts and required the judge to twice email her and order her to comply and it remains unclear if she ever fully complied. What is clear is that whatever the IE got, that they only received it a day before they were due to report their conclusions to the court...instead they had to go in front of the court and ask for a extension since they just got the data...or most of what they needed anyway. Later the IE were both thanked by a visit each from two car loads of Perugia goon squad...errr police officers...what could that be all about? That story is also found somewhere on Perugia Shock IIRC ( btw Did Randy get eaten by a shark)

A real court would have tossed Stefanoni and Comodi into jail for failing to comply, and twice attempting to introduce false or incorrect control data information into the case file. Who gets caught doing that and gets away with it? Fake documents found in the days case files and nothing??? Well questions and a break to find the real documents but when they failed guess what???They simply tried again later to introduce faked documents...faked? Harsh perhaps...incorrectly dated data with numbers that matched nothing and could not have come out of the machines which should produce such information easily and unaltered. That would be inside the EDF's that no one needs to see except for Stefanoni apparenty.

If the Italian Justice system allows itself to be ignored, lied to and tricked and after catching the actors red handed they then fail to take action to stop the mockery of the court then the court must be deemed a laughable joke only. Who can take anything they do seriously?

If you wish to take one small irregularity and give it a possible innocent mistake judgement call then fine...but the whole of the circumstantial evidence against the police and prosecutor seems undeniable. The decision in March of the ISC indicates something other than rational due process going on there.

I think Stefanoni looked at that result from the bra clasp and saw RS there because she was ordered to do that. How can we explain the other three men she ignored on there? She didn't find those guys BTW...the IE found those other guys. Hummmmmmmm not too tough actually.

Real life precedent gives me comfort when giving gravitas to theories.
Twenty year old works three jobs to study abroad, then finds dream accommodation, but soon murders flatmate over hygiene issue, no precedent.
However, police aid prosecution by planting evidence, vis Sollecito on bra clasp. This wiil probably always remain conjecture, but a precedent that I grew up with is this, and I quote from Jimmy Wale's actual wikipedia, in the case of Arthur Allan Thomas.

"A Royal Commission of Inquiry was established, headed by retired New South Wales Justice Robert Taylor. This declared Thomas to have been wrongfully charged and convicted, and found that among other improprieties, police had planted a .22 rifle cartridge case in the garden of the house where the murders were committed. The case was found four months and ten days after the area had already been subjected to one of the most intensive police searches ever undertaken. The cartridge case was said to have come from a rifle belonging to Thomas. However, the police tested only 64 rifles in an area where this weapon was common and found that two – including the one belonging to Thomas – could have fired the cartridge case found in the garden. This was the link to the deaths of the Crewes although it was later admitted that the case was "clean" and uncorroded when found. As such, the condition of the case was inconsistent with having lain in the garden, exposed to weather and dirt for more than four months."

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I meant it, (I'm guessing here as to what you think I meant), but that doesn't mean it isn't complete BS.

I have a theory that skeptics substitute a belief in the importance of truth for religious beliefs. For a good part of my life I was sort of a jerk when I thought I was right whether the issue mattered or not. Eventually, I came to see my belief that truth mattered as unfounded in most cases. I just believed it. Now, except for posting in this forum, I try to restrain my attempts to be a zealous idiot for truth.

The problem I see, that affects us all, is that people tend to infer truth or falsehood based on their assessment of the messenger rather than whether the message checks out. In particular, people are way too trusting of authorities.

 

[NancyS]

Let me put it this way:
I think it is unlikely that the DNA got there during the course of the murder.
I think it is unlikely that the DNA got there through an innocent transfer prior to the murder.
I think it is unlikely that the DNA got there through contamination during the recovery and storage process.
I think it is unlikely that the DNA got there through contamination during the testing process.
I think it is unlikely that an error was made during the testing or analysis process and the DNA that was tested didn't have the alleles found to be there.
I think it is unlikely that the DNA test results were accurate but the DNA was not Sollecito's
I think it is unlikely that Stefanoni intentionally falsified her results.

If I made estimates for all the possibilities listed above and added them up the sum would be less than one. Yet the sum must be one unless there is some possibility that I haven't considered. Something appears to be wrong with my ideas about this but I'm not sure what it is.

ETA: I thought I'd order the list from most likely to least likely. Of course, since the probability estimates are based on my admittedly not well informed view of all this it isn't worth much.

DNA got there through contamination during the testing process.
DNA got there through contamination during the recovery and storage process.
Error was made during the testing or analysis process and the DNA that was tested didn't have the alleles found to be there.
Stefanoni intentionally falsified her results.
DNA got there through an innocent transfer prior to the murder.
DNA test results were accurate but the DNA was not Sollecito's
DNA got there during the course of the murder.

Thanks for that post, it's very interesting. I've always thought that with students living in close proximity, with shared bathroom, laundry area and communal area - the possibility of innocent transfer of DNA must create reasonable doubt. On the day of the murder, Meredith showered and then spent time with Raffaele and Amanda whilst wearing her dressing gown and prior to getting dressed - anything she touched that Raffaele touched could have been passed to her bra - did he greet her with an Italian cheek kiss before she dressed? There are so many possibilities.

I also find it strange that people find it hard to understand that two stoned young people would be unable to give an hour by hour description of their night with any great accuracy. Immediately after the murder it probably didn't occur to say much more than they were at home and they probably didn't consider the importance of trying to remember the minutiae of the evening. As the days passed and their memories naturally became more clouded, it was never going to be possible to remember the details and they would be very easily confused.

My mother calls me regularly, if you asked me if she called me two evenings ago I wouldn't be able to remember. I would probably be able to give a reasonably accurate description of last night as didn't drink any wine, but thinking back to the night before, I would be incredibly confused. Add cannabis into the mix and you'll have even more confusion about times as that is the nature of cannabis. Memory is incredibly inaccurate and it is obvious that they had spent no time discussing the evening in an attempt to ensure their recollections exactly matched - it's bizarre to consider that they were involved and yet hadn't discussed exactly what they should say to the police

 

[Antony]

Before answering let me just make note of the fact that Charlie Wilkes most likely explanation with regard to the source of the DNA on the knife was the same as mine. I am still reveling a bit in my new found sense of self ascribed credibility on this issue as a result.



Because the amount of non-Sollecito DNA lying around was vastly greater than the amount of Sollecito DNA lying around so the possibility that Sollecito's DNA ended up on the bra hook by random unintentional contamination instead of somebody's DNA that had lived in the bedroom or visited the bedroom or had lived in the house strikes me as very unlikely.

The point is that the standard of proof for inculpatory evidence (not exculpatory) in a court case is "beyond reasonable doubt". It is entirely plausible (for example) that Sollecito had visited the flat while Meredith's bra was drying on the clothes rack, it had fallen off and he had picked it up just to put it back.

Now, that might be considered "unlikely", but unlikely things do happen. It has to be excluded by his accusers in order for the DNA reading to be worth anything.

I meant the item I listed on contamination to include both intentional and unintentional contamination. If I'd been the guy in charge of wiping the piece of the bra with Sollecito DNA I would have fired me. Really, you wipe the DNA on the hook, but no place else? What an idiot. It could have happened but I think the Italian police would have picked somebody a little smarter for the job.

ETA: I completely agreed with everything else you posted that I didn't quote.

Fair enough, deliberate planting doesn't indicate the actual source of the contamination, but it greatly increases the likelihood of (deliberate) contamination, so it needs to be considered.

Another consideration is the question of whether Stefanoni simply misrepresented the readings in order to claim Raff's DNA. C&V testified that the nature of the data was such that almost anybody could be claimed to be a DNA contributor - hence the soundbite that Hellman's DNA could be identified using her methods.

 

[NancyS]

Another consideration is the question of whether Stefanoni simply misrepresented the readings in order to claim Raff's DNA. C&V testified that the nature of the data was such that almost anybody could be claimed to be a DNA contributor - hence the soundbite that Hellman's DNA could be identified using her methods.

I wish I had a better understanding of this - it is very unclear to me whether his DNA was verified as being there or was only interpreted as possibly being there

 

[Mary_H]

http://www.amandaknox.com/2014/01/14/housekeeping/#comments

It's way down in the feed... my response to "Giselle."

Thank you. I don't agree with her in general but I do think questions remain about why Rudy would attack rather than run away.

 

[NancyS]

Thank you. I don't agree with her in general but I do think questions remain about why Rudy would attack rather than run away.

I think if you're in an enclosed space with a knife, things can easily escalate and get out of hand - the intention may have been to threaten and keep quiet, but instead he lost control. Most violent crimes are caused because the perpetrator is unable to control their emotions and behaviour at times of great stress. Guede's background would fit this picture

 

[katy_did]

He was not sulking. He was making a point about unfair indiscriminate moderation.... a point with which I 110 % agree.

And look everything is perfect now. Good job my man...very good. BTW loved the Christmas Tree.

I didn't say he wasn't sulking for entirely noble reasons; I'd expect nothing less from Anglo.

 

[katy_did]

I always enjoy that perspective. Did the defense bring this up?
5 days away, I hope the Judges are familiar with all the DNA information and have read more than the Daily Mail about this case.

Certainly Raffaele's defence did so during the last hearing: the lawyer substituting for Bongiorno (I think it was) said that either we have to imagine that Amanda, Raffaele, Rudy, Meredith, and three other men were in the bedroom that night; or that Meredith had relations with three other men besides Giacomo, each of whom only touched the hook of the bra. LOL. Or, of course, it was environmental contamination.

It must have been discussed in detail by the main lawyers as well I would think; can't imagine they'd have left discussion of all that to the very end.

 

[katy_did]

I think if you're in an enclosed space with a knife, things can easily escalate and get out of hand - the intention may have been to threaten and keep quiet, but instead he lost control. Most violent crimes are caused because the perpetrator is unable to control their emotions and behaviour at times of great stress. Guede's background would fit this picture

I think certainly once he was in the bedroom itself, an escalation to assault and murder is plausible, even if, as you say, that wasn't his initial intention. It's harder to understand why he didn't just leave without being discovered once he realized someone had come home, so if that's the point Mary was making I agree with her (also I don't think those types of conclusions are purely intuitive, as Charlie indicated; past behaviour certainly isn't irrelevant in crimes like this, whether it be Amanda and Raffaele we're talking about or Guede. But I didn't read the discussion he linked to so maybe I'm misunderstanding his point).

My guess on why he ended up attacking Meredith would be something to do with the keys: either Guede couldn't get out because Meredith took the keys with her; or if she left them in the lock, she may have heard Guede fiddling with the keys trying to get out and assumed it was one of the other girls trying to get in, so came out to open the door, and the confrontation went on from there.

 

[NancyS]

I think certainly once he was in the bedroom itself, an escalation to assault and murder is plausible, even if, as you say, that wasn't his initial intention. It's harder to understand why he didn't just leave without being discovered once he realized someone had come home, so if that's the point Mary was making I agree with her (also I don't think those types of conclusions are purely intuitive, as Charlie indicated; past behaviour certainly isn't irrelevant in crimes like this, whether it be Amanda and Raffaele we're talking about or Guede. But I didn't read the discussion he linked to so maybe I'm misunderstanding his point).

My guess on why he ended up attacking Meredith would be something to do with the keys: either Guede couldn't get out because Meredith took the keys with her; or if she left them in the lock, she may have heard Guede fiddling with the keys trying to get out and assumed it was one of the other girls trying to get in, so came out to open the door, and the confrontation went on from there.

My guess would be that he was seen by Meredith - it's a small flat with narrow corridors and he could have been anywhere in the flat when Meredith got home

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Thank you. I don't agree with her in general but I do think questions remain about why Rudy would attack rather than run away.

I agree, but we won't ever resolve those questions unless he says something. Whatever his thinking may have been, the evidence shows he did attack her, and it shows how he went about it. Giselle is saying, in effect, that she doesn't think he would do that, so something else must have happened that involved multiple people.

It's a clash between two methods of thinking, and the difference is fundamental to PIP vs. PGP. My approach in analyzing this murder was to focus on the indisputably relevant facts and work with trained people to construct a specific scenario. However strange and senseless that scenario may seem, it fits the facts, it is similar to many other crimes I have followed, so I accept it.

She is relying on intuition and character assessments to form an opinion as to what must have happened. Instead of trying to explain the facts of the crime scene, she cherry-picks a few details to prop up her murky insinuation. I noticed she picked up on Micheli's canard about the absence of blood droplets on Meredith's exposed breasts. It's completely false, but it suits the belief that the sexual elements of the murder were somehow staged much later.

 

[Mary_H]

I agree, but we won't ever resolve those questions unless he says something. Whatever his thinking may have been, the evidence shows he did attack her, and it shows how he went about it. Giselle is saying, in effect, that she doesn't think he would do that, so something else must have happened that involved multiple people.

It's a clash between two methods of thinking, and the difference is fundamental to PIP vs. PGP. My approach in analyzing this murder was to focus on the indisputably relevant facts and work with trained people to construct a specific scenario. However strange and senseless that scenario may seem, it fits the facts, it is similar to many other crimes I have followed, so I accept it.

She is relying on intuition and character assessments to form an opinion as to what must have happened. Instead of trying to explain the facts of the crime scene, she cherry-picks a few details to prop up her murky insinuation. I noticed she picked up on Micheli's canard about the absence of blood droplets on Meredith's exposed breasts. It's completely false, but it suits the belief that the sexual elements of the murder were somehow staged much later.

No, we will never resolve the questions about Rudy unless he truthfully explains what happened. That's why I have always steered clear of the whole Rudy debate; I'm not big on speculation about things I can't know.

The part of Gisele's claims that I was interested in is where she expresses doubt that Rudy would just run into Meredith's room and attack her, when he was supposedly there to burgle. I, too, find the suggestion questionable and, as Katy says, it's not just based on intuition.

I think people forget there is no evidence that Rudy, per se, was in Filomena's room, and there is no evidence that Rudy was, say, sitting on the toilet when Meredith walked in the front door, even though these are real possibilities and help us understand the way the crime may have happened.

The main thing is that Rudy singlehandedly murdered Meredith in her room, and there is plenty of evidence to support that. There is no evidence of Amanda or Raffaele, and no evidence of multiple attackers. The rest, though, is still speculation.

 

[Antony]

It sounds like you are arguing that I have underestimated the possibility of Stefanoni forging the results. I well might have. I tend to agree with your assessment of the situation with regard to Stefanoni but Machiavelli has disputed bits of it. I think I tend to trust most people perhaps to an unjustified degree and that might be a reason why I would underestimate the chances that Stefanoni would have committed fraud. Certainly there have been people in her kind of position in the US that have tampered with evidence, sometimes very often.

I also thought that the equivocal nature of the finding pointed to a lack of intentional fraud. Wouldn't somebody trying to forge a result have done something that produced something that would be more straightforward to interpret? Why only put the DNA in this unlikely place? Why not use something for contaminating the evidence that would have been more likely to not have had the DNA from other men on it? Maybe the answer is that she did the best she could with what she had available. She used something of Sollecito's to contaminate the evidence and didn't expect it would be contaminated with the DNA of several others.

One of my reactions when I found out the comical nature of the prosecution's case was that not only were the investigators incompetent at producing meaningful results, they were even incompetent at fitting-up the evidence.

But they don't even have to be clever about it. Clearly, they put together this case without ever expecting it to be subjected to scrutiny. And the behaviour of most of the judges (Hellman excepted) that they have faced has borne out their confidence.

As to your point about the other three men whose DNA showed up being more evidence of contamination than I thought: Perhaps so, Chris Halkides didn't think much of my ideas there and I am sure he knows vastly more about DNA evidence and this case in general than I do and I will tend to defer to you and him on this. Perhaps I underestimated the significance that the DNA of three other men was found on the clasp as an indicator of contamination.

What does IE stand for?

"Independent experts", in the context of Randy_N's post.

 

[anglolawyer]

I didn't say he wasn't sulking for entirely noble reasons; I'd expect nothing less from Anglo.

Katy - are we getting a report from you soon?

 

[RoseMontague]

Katy - are we getting a report from you soon?

Yes, we need an update on what Katy did.

 

[andreajo]

I agree, but we won't ever resolve those questions unless he says something. Whatever his thinking may have been, the evidence shows he did attack her, and it shows how he went about it. Giselle is saying, in effect, that she doesn't think he would do that, so something else must have happened that involved multiple people.

It's a clash between two methods of thinking, and the difference is fundamental to PIP vs. PGP. My approach in analyzing this murder was to focus on the indisputably relevant facts and work with trained people to construct a specific scenario. However strange and senseless that scenario may seem, it fits the facts, it is similar to many other crimes I have followed, so I accept it.

She is relying on intuition and character assessments to form an opinion as to what must have happened. Instead of trying to explain the facts of the crime scene, she cherry-picks a few details to prop up her murky insinuation. I noticed she picked up on Micheli's canard about the absence of blood droplets on Meredith's exposed breasts. It's completely false, but it suits the belief that the sexual elements of the murder were somehow staged much later.

Just reading through the comment thread, there is another way of thinking that emerges, which is that a person with no training who did not attend the autopsy and who has not seen the autopsy results should be able to read about the wounds and make a more reliable judgment than the many experts who have published opinions inside and outside the court case. As far as I have read, it is not possible with certainty to determine the number of attackers solely from the wounds. You can create scenarios that fit the wounds, but without the surrounding evidence, which Giselle would rather not talk about, they are just possibilities.

There is another thread of conversation running through the Giselle comments where some poster is arguing for the bloody luminol footprints. Science-like talk is being produced about the relative sensitivity of luminol and TMB, which ignores every opinion offered by credentialed scientists working in the field.

I am not saying that the armchair Googler should blindly defer to the authority of experts, but we should be realistic about our own limitations of training and experience, and of our distance from the case.