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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dan O. said:
What I haven't seen is a skeptical site with an unbiased presentation of all of the OJ evidence and with rational discussion. At the time, the primary sites presenting the data were the equivalent of TJMK with the message that it was in memory of Nicole and the same sort of frenologists comming out of the woodwork.

Rudy's non celebrity status may be an advantage for him. He will be mostly forgotten as a side note while the attention remains focused on Amanda and the other guy.
Click to expand...

OJ is innocent. It was Jason.
 
Strozzi said:
DanO Quote:
Rudy's non celebrity status may be an advantage for him. He will be mostly forgotten as a side note while the attention remains focused on Amanda and the other guy. (end quote)

Rudy is not a celebrity the way OJ is, but Rudy will be recognized everywhere he goes in Italy. He will not live an anonymous life. Furthermore, he will be subjected to sustained efforts by others to get him to talk and record him. The interesting thing is that the PLE have a real interest in rehabilitating him so that he lives a straight life going forwards and doesn't talk to journalists, unless they are the right kind of journalists.

Just imagine how hungry Andrea Vogt would be to befriend and interview Rudy. Do you think she might make a business deal with Rudy's attorney or some other kind of deal with Mignini to get first crack at Rudy? Once she does get access to Rudy, do you think Andrea Vogt can be controlled to report Rudy's story "just the right way"? That will be interesting to see. Is their "honor among thieves"?
Click to expand...
It appears I have been placed on the “naughty step” (oh joy); nonetheless predicting that neither you nor anyone else will respond to this post I’ll make the following observation.

Guede will keep his head down until he has is freedom secured roughly about the time everything from an Italian perspective goes horribly wrong for Raffaele and Amanda. He will profess is innocence whilst ignoring any evidence of his very obvious involvement in Meredith Kercher’s murder and point the finger at others without naming anyone, of course (although 6 years of media interest, he’ll try and cherry pick what he can from the case), for sure he’ll try and bury Raffaele and Amanda. The global media (feigning public interest) will sell their Mothers, beloved sibling’s, body parts and even editorial reputation (irony) to ensure they get the global exclusive from Guede (cha ching), of course will blow any money and end up back in prison just like OJ.
 
If he does do something wrong soon after her gets out, will that relieve heat from Amanda and Raffaele?
 
Last edited:
Planigale said:
FWIW RG was not charged or convicted of sexual assault of MK despite evidence of sexual contact (I do not know if the family were agreeable to this); AK and RS were charged with sexual assault (although there is zero evidence of sexual contact) the family seem agreeable to this. Whilst I cannot reference family views this is clearly the prosecution view and the family seem supportive of the prosecution approach in general.
Click to expand...

A good time for Maresca to speak up would have been when Mignini started to refer to Guede as 'poor, poor, Rudy' in Amanda and Raffaele's trial.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
But that's my point. What upside potential was there for Knox in wearing that t-shirt? I would argue that there was none - that instead, there was only downside potential (or, at best, it would have no effect at all). And if that is correct, then there is only one rational decision to make: don't wear the t-shirt.

To me, these arguments that "Knox should have felt free to express herself, to wear what she wanted to wear" (and so on) cut absolutely no ice whatsoever. As I said before, if society worked in this way, nobody would mind if I turned up to a business dinner with senior business figures and politicians wearing jeans and a Metallica t-shirt. But they WOULD mind. And courts - and media watchers, and most of the public - mind if they see people on trial for murder turning up to court in t-shirts with massive slogans such as "All you need is love" plastered on them. There's simply no getting away from this. It's a fact. An inalienable and undeniable fact.

And that's why Knox should not have worn that t-shirt - and, given that she did wear it, why Dalla Vedova should have insisted that she did not enter the courtroom wearing it, and should have sent an assistant out to get some suitable replacement clothing. This should be beyond debate, in my opinion.
Click to expand...


You totally miss the point. No one argues that a better choice for dress or mannerisms or more adult presentations may have been in order although it is ridiculous given what we understand about this prosecution that even the thought of this would have mattered one whit.

The outrage of the people and press should have and still should be about an overwhelming amount of odd occurrences from police and prosecutor and the courts. It's ridiculous that after 6 years we discuss attire as something even bordering on relevant meanwhile failing to lay out the case for a provable wrongful prosecution and what exactly might still motivate that at this late point.

Or do you think Italy has a reasonable case still? Please feel free to lay out the circumstances that allow this farce to continue 6 years on.
 
It can also be looked at going the other way as well. . . .
By her own book, she seems to have been completely stressed out and who would not be.
Might have helped her hold onto herself in a minor way.
I know that I have sometimes worn clothes to make myself feel better.
When I went to court (and it was just traffic), I think I did wear my favorite T-Shirt just under a dress shirt.
 
Planigale said:
The problem is there seem to be a lot of mistakes in this case. Unlike others I do not think there was a conspiracy. Incompetence maybe. E.g. Arresting and charging Patrik on the basis of the late night distraught ramblings of a traumatised witness. (Why was his bar kept closed for so long?) Getting the timing on the video camera to be fast rather than slow. Damaging the hard drives. Misidentifying the bloody shoe print as matching the trainer of RS when it was definitely NOT a match (surely incompetence?), but was a match to trainer of RG, failing to collect the bra fastener at the first investigation of the crime scene. Failing to follow proper procedure in collecting samples. Failing to store the bra fastener correctly such that it could be retested. Failing to present the results of all tests done (both positive and negative for blood). Failing to take an early liver temperature. Failing to do a proper quantification of DNA as per in house SOP. Getting the quantity of DNA wrong.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy vs corruption of a group.

I too, don't think there was a spoken conspiracy. But that doesn't mean a group of people weren't corrupted by a culture of saving the face of the group.

Keep in mind, that there was a dozen Perugian officers that stood or sat in front of countless cameras and microphones declaring to the world that they had solved the case and these two kids did it.

It's embarrasing as hell to be so publicly wrong. They all tied themselves to a mistake, one that none of them had the courage to admit. If they weren't infected by confirmation bias before the press converence, they were after. And it's group confirmation bias. Which means that you are not only protecting your own face but the individuals of the group and the group itself. A deadly combination.

Do I think that Mignini told Stefanoni to plant the bra clasp? Hell no. Do I think Mignini told Stefanoni to find the evidence that would convict these two murderers? Very possible.

Maybe Stefanoni did it totally on her own. She wouldn't be the first tech who stepped over the line.

Stefanoni flat out stinks. She either planted and/or forged evidence or she was incompetent and is covering up her incompetence.

But the simple fact is that the group as a whole is just as bad as the worst of it's members. They are the Keystone cops and they think that sweeping their incompetence under the rug and railroading Amanda and Raffaele will hide it or diminish it.
 
CoulsdonUK said:
It appears I have been placed on the “naughty step” (oh joy); nonetheless predicting that neither you nor anyone else will respond to this post I’ll make the following observation.

Guede will keep his head down until he has is freedom secured roughly about the time everything from an Italian perspective goes horribly wrong for Raffaele and Amanda. He will profess is innocence whilst ignoring any evidence of his very obvious involvement in Meredith Kercher’s murder and point the finger at others without naming anyone, of course (although 6 years of media interest, he’ll try and cherry pick what he can from the case), for sure he’ll try and bury Raffaele and Amanda. The global media (feigning public interest) will sell their Mothers, beloved sibling’s, body parts and even editorial reputation (irony) to ensure they get the global exclusive from Guede (cha ching), of course will blow any money and end up back in prison just like OJ.
Click to expand...

You may very well be right Coulsdon. I have no faith in the Italian judiciary, less in the media and even less in Rudy. Rudy will profess his innocence forever, but at the same time try and implicate Amanda and Raffaele.

I wish he would have the courage to admit the entire truth, but I really don't think anyone will believe him regardless of what he says. If for example, Rudy now says that It was him and him alone, the PGP will jump on him saying he is a liar and is just covering up for Amanda and Raffaele. Nobody, believes him now, they aren't going to believe him just because he's free.

(As for the media, you just know that some tabloid will pay him for his story...they'll try and hide it though...figure someone will pass him cash.)
 
There are some really sad defense attorneys out there. . . .Often not pursuing leads that would quickly exonerate their client.
With one of the Norfolk Four, one of the sailors was aboard his ship when the crime occurred. This case, did not investigate the dog angle properly or argue it.

I actually found something similar in the traffic court case I was in last year. My argument was that the accident happened due to poor road conditions. I spoke to an attorney who wanted to negotiate with the police officer.

As it was, the police officer had no witnesses to the accident due to not summoning those involved. As such, the judge dismissed all charges without me needing to even arguing my case.

A rare case where I was likely better off without having an attorney.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
One key difference between OJ and Amanda is that OJ was acquitted. No one has any reason to argue that the case against OJ was flawed; the jury already said so. But as a guide to the case, there is this:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/simpson/simpson.htm
Click to expand...


How does the content of that site distinguish itself as any more reliable than say the guilter's wiki on the Knox case? Note that I am not arguing the case but the presentation of the information. If you haven't already taken a side on a case and are not intimately familiar with the evidence, how can you determine if the information on a given site is reliable?
 
Strozzi said:
DanO Quote:
Rudy's non celebrity status may be an advantage for him. He will be mostly forgotten as a side note while the attention remains focused on Amanda and the other guy. (end quote)

Rudy is not a celebrity the way OJ is, but Rudy will be recognized everywhere he goes in Italy. He will not live an anonymous life. Furthermore, he will be subjected to sustained efforts by others to get him to talk and record him. The interesting thing is that the PLE have a real interest in rehabilitating him so that he lives a straight life going forwards and doesn't talk to journalists, unless they are the right kind of journalists.

Just imagine how hungry Andrea Vogt would be to befriend and interview Rudy. Do you think she might make a business deal with Rudy's attorney or some other kind of deal with Mignini to get first crack at Rudy? Once she does get access to Rudy, do you think Andrea Vogt can be controlled to report Rudy's story "just the right way"? That will be interesting to see. Is their "honor among thieves"?
Click to expand...

In view of how the media have ignored Rudy, would the media be interested in hearing side of the story?
 
Welshman said:
In view of how the media have ignored Rudy, would the media be interested in hearing side of the story?
Click to expand...

I think the more people hear about Rudy Guede, and especially the evidence against him, the better it is for Raffaele and Amanda. Last year sometime Lionking visited Italy and spoke with people about the case. I recall he said something to the effect of he was talking with someone who thought Amanda was definitely guilty and claimed to follow the case but had somehow merged Rudy Guede with Patrick Lumumba and thought Guede was only in prison because of Amanda's accusation. I think Lionking said he tried to inform the guy he was wrong but the guy was adamant in his ignorance.

Then Lionking was pounced upon, I thought that unfortunate as a report of his journey and the lack of understanding of the case in Italy was interesting and informative.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Balding's view of DNA contamination and the Leiterman case

The BBC recently had an article on DNA contamination that quoted two academics who have weighed in on this case, Greg Hampikian and David Dr. Balding said, "'Every crime sample that was ever collected was contaminated. Even in the most pristine conditions in a laboratory, you cannot have a DNA-free environment,' he says.

"The point is you have to allow for that to do a correct evaluation of the evidence; all of that kind of contamination just isn't a problem, as it's not going to match. The only contamination that matters is something that would have got the suspect's DNA.'"

I agree that environmental DNA exists and can be a problem. Yet there are several major problems with this position. The first is that not every electropherogram has an equal number of unassigned peaks. The second is that DNA cannot be interrogated. One cannot tell just by looking at the peaks which ones do or do not come from environmental DNA. Dr. Jason Gilder wrote to me several years ago, “One of the standard axioms of DNA typing is, the presence of a DNA profile says nothing about the time frame or the circumstances under which DNA was transferred to that item. Contamination falls into is one such instance of an issue that cannot be identified by the electropherogram alone (unless you are dealing with a control sample or other known profile).”

The third problem is that his argument leads to some odd conclusions. It seems as if the suspect must be identified before the DNA is analyzed. Only that way would we know which is the suspect's DNA and which is not. But where does that leave us when we don't know who the suspects are when we do the analysis? Does that mean that all of the DNA we find must be from the environment? A second problem situation is when a suspect is incarcerated and then a DNA test is run and points to another person. Does Balding's position imply that the other person's DNA must be environmental because the other person was not a suspect at the time? That would eliminate the possibility of a DNA-based exoneration.

Let us assume that the given piece of evidence has a mixture of two people's DNA (Mr. A and Mr. B). And let us assume that the one of them (A) was already a suspect and that the other one (B) can be excluded as a suspect on some grounds. Balding's position could be taken to mean that the DNA evidence has now strengthened the case against the suspect, Mr.A. What this ignores is the fact that both individuals DNA ended up on the item. If Mr. B's DNA came there by means other than the commission of a crime, how does one know that Mr. A's did not arrive by an equivalent route? This is not a purely hypothetical question:

Let us consider the Jane Mixer murder, originally thought to be the work of a serial killer. Gary Leiterman's DNA was found when some items of evidence were tested many years later. Let us grant that Leiterman should now be a suspect, even though it is unclear from Balding's position that we should. John Ruelas's DNA was also found, yet he was only four years old at the time and living in a different city from Ms. Mixer; therefore, he was not a suspect. Should we ignore Ruelas's DNA and just conclude that Leiterman did it? That would be absurd, yet it would seem to follow from Dr. Balding's argument.

EDT
Another problem with Dr. Balding's argument is that it is unclear what his interpretation of finding a second person's DNA on an item, when the second person is a forensic technician (presumably not a suspect). The Gregory Turner case is one example: "Finally, Crown are reminded that DNA testing results are valuable only when they are accurate. In 2001, Gregory Turner was acquitted in Newfoundland of the first degree murder of a 56-year-old woman. The only substantial evidence against the accused was DNA found on the accused’s wedding ring. On the ring, DNA from another contributor, believed to be an accomplice, was also found. Determination and diligence by defence counsel ultimately uncovered that the second DNA profile belonged to a lab technician who had been working on the victim’s fingernail clippings which were stored in close proximity to the wedding ring, raising a strong possibility of primary and secondary DNA transfer and contamination."
 
Last edited:
Dan O. said:
How does the content of that site distinguish itself as any more reliable than say the guilter's wiki on the Knox case? Note that I am not arguing the case but the presentation of the information. If you haven't already taken a side on a case and are not intimately familiar with the evidence, how can you determine if the information on a given site is reliable?
Click to expand...

I don't get what you're asking. How can you equate the two cases? For starters, most of what happened to Amanda wouldn't have been possible in an American courtroom. And OJ was acquitted. A jury decided that the prosecution didn't make its case. But nobody (other than his lawyers at trial) seriously claimed that the state falsified or manufactured evidence, or that it ignored other possible suspects. There is no Rudy Guede in the OJ trial, but there is a documented history of OJ assaulting and threatening to kill his ex-wife. Another jury found OJ guilty of wrongful death in a civil suit.

There is no web site claiming that OJ is innocent because nobody thinks he is. But the links provided are produced by a university law school as part of a series of commentaries on notorious trials, starting with Socrates. It is heavily footnoted. It even includes a transcript of OJ's own statement to the police and partial trial transcripts. I'm not sure what you think "the other side" might be.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/ftrials.htm
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/simpson.htm
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Simpsonaccount.htm
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/OJSstmnt.html
 
Last edited:
contamination: it can't happen here

More on the Jaidyn Leskie case:

"CHERYL HALL: Jeremy Gans is an expert on the use of DNA evidence. When the police launched the national DNA database last year, he predicted contamination would be a major problem. It had already occurred in 2003 when police found DNA from the victim of a rape case on the clothing of 20 month old murder victim, Jayden Leskie. But the head of the Police Forensic Laboratory John Scheffer wasn't convinced when Stateline talked to him last year that contamination was the cause.

JOHN SCHEFFER, DIRECTOR, POLICE FORENSIC LABORATORY: I don't think that we'll ever know definitively as to what actually happened. Certainly, contamination could be an event. However, in looking at the data and when it was - when the work was performed, it was performed on separate days, often by separate people in separate work areas."

Here is a little on the Russell Gesah case: "The contamination occured in 1999 when clothing containing the DNA of Gesah - from an unrelated offence - was examined on the same day that clothing from the Tapp murder case was examined."

It is difficult to nail down an exact route of contamination in either case. And in one of these examples, the contaminating DNA must have persisted for at least two days.
 
Last edited:
RandyN said:
You totally miss the point. No one argues that a better choice for dress or mannerisms or more adult presentations may have been in order although it is ridiculous given what we understand about this prosecution that even the thought of this would have mattered one whit.

The outrage of the people and press should have and still should be about an overwhelming amount of odd occurrences from police and prosecutor and the courts.
Click to expand...

Yes, and this is the point that you (and others) have missed. By wearing the shirt during a court hearing, Amanda gave the press something to focus on so they had another excuse not to focus on the irregularities in the case.
It's ridiculous that after 6 years we discuss attire as something even bordering on relevant meanwhile failing to lay out the case for a provable wrongful prosecution and what exactly might still motivate that at this late point.
Click to expand...

Of course Amanda's shirt didn't have any effect on the Massei verdict, which was as pre-decided as the Nencini verdict has been - but it was still a mistake on her part.
Or do you think Italy has a reasonable case still? Please feel free to lay out the circumstances that allow this farce to continue 6 years on.
Click to expand...

I don't know what LJ's answer to this question is, but there are obviously no legitimate circumstances. The irony is that by clinging to this baseless prosecution in the teeth of world opinion, the Italians may have opened a Pandora's box which could lead to wholesale judicial reform. We can dream.
 
Desert Fox said:
If he does do something wrong soon after her gets out, will that relieve heat from Amanda and Raffaele?
Click to expand...

No, it won't take the heat off the others but Rudy will be pursued. I think foremost the PLE will want to control him - to be sure he does not do or say anything that will undue their version of the crime.

Last thing they want is Rudy, sober and having found Christ, saying "I did it. It was me alone. I climbed in the window, found myself trapped when Meredith came home, confronted her for the key, she screamed, I freaked out and killed her, and then, God forgive me, left my DNA in her private parts and my sperm on the pillow - and I never understood why the cops never checked it for my semen but when Mignini questioned me he told me not to worry about it as long as I kept my mouth shut".
 
Last edited:
Strozzi said:
Last thing they want is Rudy, sober and having found Christ, saying "I did it. It was me alone. I climbed in the window, found myself trapped when Meredith came home, confronted her for the key, she screamed, I freaked out and killed her, and then, God forgive me, left my DNA in her private parts and my sperm on the pillow - and I never understood why the cops never checked it for my semen but when Mignini questioned me he told me not to worry about it as long as I kept my mouth shut".
Click to expand...

I wouldn't argue that too far
The guys at Reasonable Doubt talk about this
People who are religious will find reasons to rationalize their crimes and will still find ways to blame others. Can see his thoughts being that it is her fault for being there and that she was asking for it.
 
Peter Hamkin case; need for full discovery

"In 2003, Italian DNA evidence implicated an English bartender, Peter Hamkin, in the murder of Annalisa Vincenti, who had been killed in Tuscany the summer before. Based on that evidence, Hamkin was arrested in Liverpool, even though he had never been to Italy and had dozens of witnesses attesting to his whereabouts in England when the crime occurred...Despite the wealth of contradictory human and documentary evidence, the DNA test prevailed — until a second DNA test cleared Hamkin before his extradition hearing began."

One wonders whether the supposedly infallible Rome lab was where the work was done. This passage from the same article is also pertinent to the present case:

"And what about defence lawyers? 'Defence attorneys must make sure they get the whole DNA file during disclosure,” says Dr. Waye. “Moreover, they need to get the help of qualified DNA experts to go over these tests, to look for flaws and shortcomings.'"
(bolding mine)
EDT
It is unclear who actually made the error, the Italian authorities or Interpol.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom