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

[Kaosium]

You're new here aren't you.


ETA:



Where were you when I covered this? Rudy went to H.

*cringe*

Guilty as charged Dan-O, I know you've posted on it, I know I've read it but I cannot really remember what you showed. I think it was that there was indeed evidence he turned around, but I cannot make the argument if I don't know for sure and can't support it. Thus I included both possibilities.

Apologies.

 

[Mary_H]

Just a mo. Raffaele and Amanda lost their appeal in an Italian court; their final appeal will be heard by the Italian Supreme Court; so what do you believe the respective opinions of English language based discussions web sites have had on the passage of a court case in Italy and in Italian?

It's hard to say for sure, Coulsdon, but we have evidence that media coverage has had some effect. For example, we have these comments from Judge Nencini from last week:

Twelve hours of closed session, why so long?
".....And then, I must be honest, the media overexposure of this case, that did not help. Jurors returned home and were bombarded by information. And when we saw each other, they wanted to know: "President, but on TV they said in another way. How did it really?" So my logic was: let's take the time you need, we have to come out with a clear conscience. So it was."

At the end of the second trial, we had Mignini saying,

"The trial must be held here, in this courtroom. This lobbying, this mediatic and political circus, this heavy interference, forget all of it!"

In other coverage:

[Mignini] bemoaned how the case grew into such a media spectacle and urged the jury not to be pressured by the global attention this case now commands. “We are in the republic of Italy,” he said. “Don’t give in to pressure from beyond our country.”
Mignini’s coprosecutor, Giancarlo Costagliola, urged the jury not to take notice of the media circus. “The press coverage has been so obsessive that everyone feels like the parents of Amanda Knox,” he said....

So we see there has been concern in Italy at least since 2009 about whether outside opinions will affect attitudes in the courtroom.

It would be best to be able to collect and measure the data, but I don't think anyone here would say there have not been apparent trends in the media coverage, and an overall increase in the amount of coverage over time. Today I saw Amanda on the cover of People Magazine for at least the second time. That would not have come close to happening in the first three years of the case.

There is no denying that among the people discussing and covering the case, a system of information and beliefs has gradually developed and traveled around the globe. It's just like anything considered newsworthy -- over time, more and more people become aware of it. It is inescapable that Italian judges will be exposed to the ideas. Your question is whether the judges will allow the ideas to change their minds regardless of Italian law.

The recent judges have shown us that they are not as familiar with the details of the case as many non-judges who have been studying it more carefully for six years. Therefore, the judges' decision about the case are springing from sources other than knowledge, such as emotions and political stances. Given this weakness, trying to influence them via the internet and in the media has certainly been worth a try.

ETA: PGP obviously agree, judging from their current maniacal campaign to contact as many journalists as possible via Twitter.

 

[acbytesla]

Isn't it a bit of a stretch to suggest that Sollecito's DNA was on the door handle of Meredith's door (which incidentally did not contain any evidence), that DNA was transferred to a glove, and that DNA was then transferred to Meredith's clasp? If secondary transfer is very unlikely, what would this be?

One, why is it a stretch to suggest that Sollecito's DNA was on the door handle? We know that he along with others tried to enter Meredith's bedroom the next day. Maybe the transfer from the door explains the DNA of 4 men on that bra clasp? Or do you honestly believe that 4 men were involved in the rape and murder of Meredith? Were talking microsopic amounts of DNA that cannot be confirmed by ANYONE. So small in fact that secondary transfer is always a majore concern.

The luminol-positive footprints....outside of Meredith's bedroom are meaningless? What other plausible explanation could there be? If I recall correctly... two of those ...outside of the bedroom...were indeed found to be a mix of MK and AK DNA.

It seems to defy logic they were made by anything other than blood when right on the other side of
Meredith's door ...there were vast amounts of it.

Two, Luminol is a substance that reacts to many substances. Blood is just one of them. Standard protocol for testing for blood is to test with luminol and another presumptive test such as TMB and then to perform a confirmatory test.

What we know is that Stefanoni, performed a second presumptive test TMB and then after the NEGATIVE TMB test did not perform a confirmatory test. Why would she do this if after a NEGATIVE result she actually believed the Negative result was false?

What you have HotNostril is essentially a worthless testing procedure that would be rejected in the US, Canada, the UK and most of the world.

I think the right conclusion given that the case needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it would morally and legally wrong to conclude that the Luminol reacted to blood given the NEGATIVE TMB test and lack of confirmatory test result.

But, lets say for argument sake. That the Luminol was the result of blood transfer from the bottom of Amanda's feet. SO? We know that Rudy tracked Meredith's blood in the hallway as well as in the shower. We KNOW that Amanda the next day took a shower. Clearly this shows that Amanda may have tracked Meredith's blood the next day when she took her shower.

That's the problem Hot Nostril. While you may feel that Amanda is guilty or suspicious, our judicial system requires that there may not be any reasonable doubt. Frankly, I can't see how you are anyone can look at the evidence and believe that it rises any where near that level.

 

[Desert Fox]

Ah, OK, as per my edit I figured it out and looked for a thread, finding only a short dead one from 2009. Is there another thread?

It is in the politics section that is members only

 

[Desert Fox]

Desert Fox,

You have a marvelous gift for understatement. It's late, and I will probably miss a few. Being denied a lawyer until minutes before going before Matteini, applying precautionary detention as opposed to less stringent methods, being held in solitary before even being bound for trial, having the police release information prior to the trial (and false information at that), allowing one of Amanda's statements to be heard by the jury because it was part of the other trial, hiding the TMB results, not releasing the electronic data files, allowing Guede to appear at the first appeal while someone else read "his" letter, failing to allow the defense their requests in the second appeal trial, the CSC in effect demanding a conviction, ...I'm sure I missed a few.

Has that ever been successful argued with an extradition hearing in a US court. . .That is the issue?

 

[Kaosium]

Has that ever been successful argued with an extradition hearing in a US court. . .That is the issue?

Here's an interesting read on extradition, especially from point five on. Italy has been denied extradition a few times lately by the US, some think it not impossible that irritated some in the judiciary in Italy and to the detriment of Amanda Knox.

 

[Desert Fox]

Here's an interesting read on extradition, especially from point five on. Italy has been denied extradition a few times lately by the US, some think it not impossible that irritated some in the judiciary in Italy and to the detriment of Amanda Knox.

That is an interesting argument if I am understanding you. . .
Argue that it is really a political "crime"
Basically punishing the US for the Cavalese cable car disaster and the accidental killing of Nicola Calipari

Several other arguments based on that document which argue for not extradition. Somebody needs to get that to Ms Knox's US lawyers if they have not already.

 

[JREF2010]

It's been shredded over and over again. I wonder if anyone can be bothered to do it yet again.

Makes me wonder if this isn't what a "new" juror or puppet-judge could be like.

They get the 5 minute drive through version, then they vote in the secret deliberation room....of course, wanting to appease the president Nencini.

 

[Kaosium]

That is an interesting argument if I am understanding you. . .
Argue that it is really a political "crime"
Basically punishing the US for the Cavalese cable car disaster and the accidental killing of Nicola Calipari

It wouldn't be the first one I'd advance. I'm also pointing out Italy does get denied extradition, this isn't going to be unprecedented. That document contains a number of reasons they might be, and having manifest evidence of an unfair trial is a better reason to deny extradition than someone might get treated unfairly if they are extradited.

 

[NancyS]

I don't believe proving the fact they are both monumental liars isn't psychological crap.

There was evidence of a clean up, and staging, in my opinion. The entire room and every speck wasn't tested. It never is. There is more than enough to convict.

One small spot of DNA on the clasp is enough. It puts him in Meredith's bedroom. His bloody foot imprint puts him in that bedroom and the bathroom.

How did AK and RS get blood on their feet?

TOD can't be pinpointed by digestion, at best, it's merely a window.

On the day of the murder, Meredith Kercher got up late, had a shower and then joined Amanda and Raffale whilst they ate lunch. She was wearing a dressing gown and sat and spoke to Raffaele/Amanda before going to get dressed for the day. How can it be incriminating if a tiny amount of DNA is found on her clothes as they had just spent time together - the first item of clothing she would put on after spending time with Raffaele is her bra - perhaps he kissed her goodbye as Italians do and left his DNA on her cheek, perhaps they touched the same thing in the kitchen? Even without the signs of obvious contamination, there is enough possibility for innocent transfer that I would not be happy convicting anyone based on this!

 

[RoseMontague]

No need to limit ourselves to the handle IMO. Raffaele's prints were on the door, probably because he tried to open it just as Amanda described. Secondary transfer and even tertiary transfer are documented in the DNA forensic literature (again, you can find some discussion of this phenomenon at my blog). It defies the consensus wisdom of the forensic science community to call them blood. They have divided up blood tests into presumptive tests, such as luminol, and confirmatory tests, which use antibodies to show definitely that something is or is not human blood. In some jurisdictions luminol evidence is not even allowed into the courtroom without additional support. It is up to the prosecution to perform confirmatory tests (which are amazing sensitive these days), not to shift the burden of proof to the defense, by saying what else could they be. If it were blood, why did the TMB not react, and why was Meredith's DNA not found in all of them?

There has been much confusion about the luminol footprints vs. a luminol shoe print in the hall. An unidentified shoe print did have mixed DNA but the footprints did not. IIRC both Massei and Hellmann described this incorrectly.

The mixed DNA Luminol print in the hallway near Filomena's door is a shoe print, not a foot print. Both Massei and Hellman incorrectly call it a footprint.

Both Vinci's report and Stefanoni's testimony confirm it is a shoe print. You can also tell by the photo it is an unidentified shoe print not consistent with the patterns of the tennis shoes found, it is rather a smooth surface, like a dress shoe or one of the footies worn by the bunnies wandering around the cottage.

Vinci is unable to match this shoe print with any of the reference shoes he has. Not enough emphasis has been placed on this in my opinion. It makes me wish there was a picture of the "blob" found in Filomena's room. Common sense would suggest it is a good possibility that it was made by the same person.

 

[anglolawyer]

Here's an interesting read on extradition, especially from point five on. Italy has been denied extradition a few times lately by the US, some think it not impossible that irritated some in the judiciary in Italy and to the detriment of Amanda Knox.

That is a generally encouraging document. I spotted this in para. 4 though:



Note the words in brackets, which are expressed as an alternative to having to show probable cause. I wonder what defences to extradition there are? We have right now an extradition battle between South Africa and UK citizen Shrien Dewani, wanted for 'the honeymoon murder' of his wife Anni. Unlike Amanda, he has not been convicted but our treaty with SA does not require them to make out any case at all. Consequently his defence has been thrown back on a bunch of grounds for resisting extradition such as abuse of process and (un)fitness to plead. These defences to extradition do not address the (highly suspect) merits of the case at all which is what he, and Amanda in her case, would want. But is it possible?

 

[anglolawyer]

On the day of the murder, Meredith Kercher got up late, had a shower and then joined Amanda and Raffale whilst they ate lunch. She was wearing a dressing gown and sat and spoke to Raffaele/Amanda before going to get dressed for the day. How can it be incriminating if a tiny amount of DNA is found on her clothes as they had just spent time together - the first item of clothing she would put on after spending time with Raffaele is her bra - perhaps he kissed her goodbye as Italians do and left his DNA on her cheek, perhaps they touched the same thing in the kitchen? Even without the signs of obvious contamination, there is enough possibility for innocent transfer that I would not be happy convicting anyone based on this!

Ha Nancy! I am wondering whether you have this recent story in mind:

A thief who kissed the owner of a Paris jewellery shop he was robbing was arrested with the help of the DNA he left on her face, a French newspaper has reported.

Last April, two masked men tied the jeweller up in her apartment, poured what they said was petrol over her head and threatened to ignite it if she did not tell them codes for the alarm in her shop, Le Parisien said.

One of the thieves then headed to the store, stealing cash and jewels.

The other stood guard over the 56-year-old jeweller, identified by the paper only as Anne. Before releasing her, he kissed her on the cheek.

Police extracted DNA from the kiss and it later led them to a man who was detained in the south of France on suspicion of another crime.

The man, 20, has said he was just a lookout and that he kissed the jeweller to "allay her trauma".

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think they are both guilty.

The devil is in the details and theirs NEVER match up.

...

That's for starters....their stories stink. They're liars. They are guilty. IMO.

Others have explained in detail why most of these concerns turn out to be based on misconceptions.

If we are going to use logic to try to figure out what happened, we should take those sorts of concerns into account but you should also have a bit of a think about some important points of the pro-innocence case. Specifically, that it's pretty much impossible to make a narrative that fits together logically where Knox and Sollecito actually had anything to do with the crime.

Meredith Kercher was almost certainly home by 21:05 and dead by 21:15, but a witness puts Raffaele and Amanda at Raffaele's place at 20:40 and Raffaele's laptop (which was seized by police) proves that he was messing with his computer at 21:10 and watching a Naruto cartoon at 21:26. That's a very narrow window for them to decide for some totally unknown reason to leave their nice warm love-nest and head to Amanda's house, then for some totally unknown reason meet Rudy Guede who Raffaele didn't know at all and Amanda didn't share a language with and hatch a murder plot, team up to kill Meredith, and then go home to watch cartoons. Then keep the whole thing secret for years despite the fact that they didn't even know Rudy, and Amanda and Raffaele had a relationship which was only a few days long.

There's also the pesky problem that Rudy Guede left his DNA all over and inside Meredith's body, and his bloody handprint at the scene of the crime, yet Amanda and Raffaele left no trace of their role in the murder. Unless they murdered Meredith with mind bullets that's pretty hard to explain.

Plus they must have used magic powers to get from Raffaele's place to Amanda's and back without encountering any witnesses or being caught on any security cameras.

Add it all together and you end up with a scenario where it's conceivable Knox and Sollecito did it, if they had luck verging on the supernatural and decided to commit murder completely out of the blue for no damned reason. The problem is, every single human being within walking distance of the murder site could also conceivably have done it if they had luck verging on the supernatural and decided to commit murder completely out of the blue for no damned reason. The evidence utterly fails to pick out Knox and Sollecito as the people who did it beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I think they are both guilty.

The devil is in the details and theirs NEVER match up.

Few things that I can not reconcile.

AK footprints in blood ...and it was blood...prove she staged that burglary and proves to me she brought Meredith's blood into that bathroom.

I am just going to address this for now, as I am running late and must be somewhere shortly.

Read Stefanoni's testimony. She repeatedly states there are other things which can cause Luminol to glow. And the footprints were not blood, because they tested negative during the confirmatory testing.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

extradition question asked but not answered yet

Has that ever been successful argued with an extradition hearing in a US court. . .That is the issue?

Desert Fox,

Sorry, I must have misunderstood your question. I put the question of fair trial/extradition to a law professor with experience in these matters, but I have not yet heard back from him.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

It's hard to say for sure, Coulsdon, but we have evidence that media coverage has had some effect. For example, we have these comments from Judge Nencini from last week:



At the end of the second trial, we had Mignini saying,



In other coverage:



So we see there has been concern in Italy at least since 2009 about whether outside opinions will affect attitudes in the courtroom.

It would be best to be able to collect and measure the data, but I don't think anyone here would say there have not been apparent trends in the media coverage, and an overall increase in the amount of coverage over time. Today I saw Amanda on the cover of People Magazine for at least the second time. That would not have come close to happening in the first three years of the case.

There is no denying that among the people discussing and covering the case, a system of information and beliefs has gradually developed and traveled around the globe. It's just like anything considered newsworthy -- over time, more and more people become aware of it. It is inescapable that Italian judges will be exposed to the ideas. Your question is whether the judges will allow the ideas to change their minds regardless of Italian law.

The recent judges have shown us that they are not as familiar with the details of the case as many non-judges who have been studying it more carefully for six years. Therefore, the judges' decision about the case are springing from sources other than knowledge, such as emotions and political stances. Given this weakness, trying to influence them via the internet and in the media has certainly been worth a try.

ETA: PGP obviously agree, judging from their current maniacal campaign to contact as many journalists as possible via Twitter.

Well it’s not that hard to gauge. The Florence appeal court confirmed Raffaele and Amanda’s convictions; Raffaele is currently in Italy his travel documents have been taken away, whilst the take here and on American news channels is one of whether Amanda will be extradited, no one really believes the Italian Supreme Court will not confirm the Florence appeal verdict. Also I doubt anyone in Italy really believes America will extradite Amanda.

Those connected to case are fully aware of shall I say the non-Italian negative comments about this case. However, I believe the criticism has had the effect on those institutions involved of closing ranks. Indeed, the largely foreign vilification of Mignini has resulted in the annulling of all charges related to MOF case and his promotion, this for me is a clear indication of what the Italian judiciary think of foreign criticism of Mignini.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well it’s not that hard to gauge. The Florence appeal court confirmed Raffaele and Amanda’s convictions; Raffaele is currently in Italy his travel documents have been taken away, whilst the take here and on American news channels is one of whether Amanda will be extradited, no one really believes the Italian Supreme Court will not confirm the Florence appeal verdict. Also I doubt anyone in Italy really believes America will extradite Amanda.

Those connected to case are fully aware of shall I say the non-Italian negative comments about this case. However, I believe the criticism has had the effect on those institutions involved of closing ranks. Indeed, the largely foreign vilification of Mignini has resulted in the annulling of all charges related to MOF case and his promotion, this for me is a clear indication of what the Italian judiciary think of foreign criticism of Mignini.

Careful Coulsdon. You're in danger of coming off the fence and actually saying something.

 

[Caper]

I clicked on Hot Nostril's profile and looked at past posts... I did this to see if he came here just to discuss this case. Does not look like it. Makes me believe he might be interested in actual skepticism...... I would like to see the back and forth continue.

 

[Machiavelli]

I have provided this forum with the proof that this is NOT what Mignini said, at least he said the opposite to Drew Griffin.

This is where your style betrays you. You merely make the assertion. I've already come to grips with this. It is called "Machiavelli lying."

Rather than merely assert I am wrong, you may wish to provide some actual "evidence". Why do I feel yet another assertion by you in our future?

What you have provided is evidence that you fail to understand a logical phrase. "Amanda decided to release a statement" has exactly the same meaning of what Mignini said to Drew Griffin.
But you are unable to read statements without twisting them.