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

[Chris_Halkides]

Peter Gill and Alec Jeffreys

Wow! Impressive! Do you know whether either defence teams quoted or used anything you listed in the 1st level trial or the Florence appeal?

I am not sure what you mean. I provided a list of publications to show that Professor Gill is an active researcher in his field. The same is true of some of the defense consultants, and it is true of the independent experts. Peter Gill collaborated with Sir Alec Jeffreys in the early days of DNA forensics:
Gill P, Jeffreys AJ, Werrett DJ., Forensic application of DNA 'fingerprints'. Nature. 1985 Dec 12-18;318(6046):577-9.

 

[Bill Williams]

I do. That my contribution doesn't meet your expectations is of no consequence.

Well it may be of no consequence to you. But all of us are going to be judged by lurkers and other posters.

Sooner or later everyone has to do something other than a faux neutral POV, which masks a guilter opinion.

Everything printed here has SOME consequence.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

publication record

I didn't peruse the list but my quick scan had them all after the trial date.

Grinder,

That is because PubMed returned 7 pages of up to 20 references per page. I chose 10 of the most recent ones, partially out of convenience and partially to show that he is still very active. Professor Gill has been publishing in this field since 1985.

 

[LondonJohn]

I am not sure what you mean. I provided a list of publications to show that Professor Gill is an active researcher in his field. The same is true of some of the defense consultants, and it is true of the independent experts. Peter Gill collaborated with Sir Alec Jeffreys in the early days of DNA forensics:
Nature. 1985 Dec 12-18;318(6046):577-9.
Forensic application of DNA 'fingerprints'.
Gill P, Jeffreys AJ, Werrett DJ.

Call me over-cynical here, but I suspect that the innocent-sounding question might have actually been a means of implying the following:

"Your credibility is being assessed by whether these things - which you think are important and relevant - were actually used in the trial: if they were not used (which I think they weren't), then there's every chance you're spouting partisan rubbish".


I've seen exactly the same "innocent question" approach employed by certain commentators who most definitely have an agenda and ulterior motives, notably in regard to the issue of stomach/duodenum contents and ToD: "Gosh, if it were truly so convincing, then surely it must have been a cornerstone of the defence case! What's that? It wasn't?! Maybe it's not so convincing as you thought it was, eh?!"


I shouldn't have to point out that this sort of "logic" is flawed and totally un-sceptical. It's an unfortunate thing that I feel I ought to point it out, though..........

 

[Suffolk Skeptic]

Hi. Quick question

When Amanda had the shower in the morning, she shuffled across using the bathroom mat. Are we all in agreement that this was the same mat that had the bloodied footprint on? Or was it another mat?

 

[katy_did]

Hi. Quick question

When Amanda had the shower in the morning, she shuffled across using the bathroom mat. Are we all in agreement that this was the same mat that had the bloodied footprint on? Or was it another mat?

No, it was the bloodied one. I've always thought that the most likely explanation for the luminol prints (in fact I can't really see how she could've avoided leaving prints after stepping on the bloody mat).

 

[Bill Williams]

CoulsdonUK - one of the conclusions Vogt's BBC3 documentary wishes one to draw is that Rudy Guede is a victim here. His very first statement about Amanda Knox was that she had nothing to do with the crime.

Then after being in custody/prison he's maintained silence. Appropriately so since his own rights need protection.

But BBC3 left the viewer with the completely baseless notion that Amanda fingered Rudy for the crime. Oddly enough, the claim is that she first did this by spontaneously naming Lumumba!!!!!

The case against AK and RS has always been this sort of bait and switch of allegation against them as more became known.

My question to you - in what way does the BBC3 thing agree with what Crini presented in Florence? Vogt's documentary is the debunked Mignini case... many éléments of it debunked even by Judge Massei.

Did you listen to BBC4 where known experts debunked the DNA that BBC3's unknown experts like?

 

[Dan O.]

And as a coda to the point above, it's ridiculous that at least some of the courts - and plenty of pro-guilt commentators - choose to misrepresent the Guede shoeprint evidence in the hallway. It's very illuminating to see pro-guilt commentators state (incorrectly) that Guede left bloody shoeprints leading straight out of the front door. And for them then to draw the incorrect inference (from this incorrect "evidence") that this means that Guede must have left the cottage directly after the murder.

I still cannot decide whether these errors are due to ignorance, or a deliberate attempt to deceive, or a bit of both. After all, the truth is very different. Guede in fact left a very feint* trace of left shoe prints leading away from Meredith's room, down the hallway, towards the front door. They did not lead to the front door. In fact, they faded to nothing well before the front door, and in fact at the point where they totally faded out, they were clustering together implying that Guede had in fact stopped at that point.

So, in fact, the evidence actually tends to suggest that Guede walked from Meredith's room at some point, then stopped before reaching the front door. A reasonable explanation for such an action is that Guede might have realised/remembered that he couldn't open the front door without a key.

You should get your facts straight on this. Here are the tracks F, I, Y and H in their proper order indicated by the fading of the print. F, I and Y are headed towards the door and in fact, Y is close enough to at least see the lock requiring a key if not actually try to open the door. Print H is multiple imprints in front of the couch always facing away from the door.

The prints G and J are not part of this series. They form a separate trail with the same stride as the first but an unidentified part of the shoe.

 

[Briars]

You know we have been discussing some new information about phone use and and other activities but it seems you and other PGP need to revert to behavior, debunked evidence or innuendo.

The footprints don't MATCH either Raf or Amanda. The substance that made them was not determined to be blood. The pattern of the prints doesn't fit with the crime as there are missing prints and no clean up. It would be welcome if you would provide the reference prints of all the women that lived in the cottage for the last year or two as I believe the substance was a very dilute blood from some earlier time, hence the luminol 'positive' and the TMB 'negative'.

Also if you believe the shoe print is hers where are the other shoe prints? Where are the shoes? What make of shoe were they?

If they told her she no longer had an alibi she would know that Raf was lying because they were together. Why would she make up a story giving him an alibi?

Btw, it has been repeated here numerous times but innocent people do confess to crimes and/or put the blame on others. 25% of the innocent projects successful reversals involve cases where a confession was key evidence.

Old footprints in blood? Really? Spots of old blood perhaps from old tenants but whole prints a possibility?? What are the odds of old bloody prints or feet immersed in some rare substance like horseradish ? Do luminol whole prints turn up often in crime scenes? Do cops just say bloody soles from two individuals is common? . Yes they appear to be coming out of the bloody bedroom but then again we cannot rule out some rare juice. The bath mat was used to wipe there was blood on the underside. The towels could have been used to wipe other prints in the room. Do not accuse me of innuendo when you buy the bathmat scoot and the footprints outside the door..

 

[anglolawyer]

Old footprints in blood? Really? Spots of old blood perhaps from old tenants but whole prints a possibility?? What are the odds of old bloody prints or feet immersed in some rare substance like horseradish ? Do luminol whole prints turn up often in crime scenes? Do cops just say bloody soles from two individuals is common? . Yes they appear to be coming out of the bloody bedroom but then again we cannot rule out some rare juice. The bath mat was used to wipe there was blood on the underside. The towels could have been used to wipe other prints in the room. Do not accuse me of innuendo when you buy the bathmat scoot and the footprints outside the door..

And the negative TMB tests? And Stefanoni's oft quoted evidence that a negative TMB means we can be sure it's not blood? And Stefanoni's failure to disclose the negative TMB test results? Please deal with the issue completely Briars.

Not. Blood.

 

[Suffolk Skeptic]

No, it was the bloodied one. I've always thought that the most likely explanation for the luminol prints (in fact I can't really see how she could've avoided leaving prints after stepping on the bloody mat).

thanks. I've just checked her trial evidence again and yes she says she used it. Should have done that first really but thanks again.

 

[Matthew Best]

Old footprints in blood? Really? Spots of old blood perhaps from old tenants but whole prints a possibility?? What are the odds of old bloody prints or feet immersed in some rare substance like horseradish ? Do luminol whole prints turn up often in crime scenes? Do cops just say bloody soles from two individuals is common? . Yes they appear to be coming out of the bloody bedroom but then again we cannot rule out some rare juice. The bath mat was used to wipe there was blood on the underside. The towels could have been used to wipe other prints in the room. Do not accuse me of innuendo when you buy the bathmat scoot and the footprints outside the door..

Once again in English, please?

 

[Grinder]

The evidence certainly doesn't show whether Guede turned round and returned to Meredith's room. But it most assuredly doesn't show that he didn't do so. In fact, when set against the other evidence, a reasonable proposition is that Guede did indeed turn round and return to Meredith's room (remember that the blood traces on his shoe had completely transferred away by this point, so he necessarily would have left no bloody shoe prints pointing back towards Meredith's room).

It could be that he walked out noticed the blood on his pants and returned to wash off the pants and left the bloody print on the bathmat. This would explain one of the PGP gotchas. How did the depositor of the print not leave a trail without the infamous cleanup.

If the U.S. system allowed three different levels of judgment, in each of which the defendant was presumed innocent, it's very likely there would be people who were convicted in the first trial only to be acquitted in the second, as happened in this case. It's only the fact that the second trial never takes place in the U.S. system which means that this arbitrariness is never exposed. Instead, we pretend the first jury decision is virtually infallible. It's almost as if protecting the authority of the system is more important than the actual guilt or innocence of the defendant.

Not only that, but because there is no motivations report the US system isn't open to the criticism of the detail.

 

[LondonJohn]

You should get your facts straight on this. Here are the tracks F, I, Y and H in their proper order indicated by the fading of the print. F, I and Y are headed towards the door and in fact, Y is close enough to at least see the lock requiring a key if not actually try to open the door. Print H is multiple imprints in front of the couch always facing away from the door.

The prints G and J are not part of this series. They form a separate trail with the same stride as the first but an unidentified part of the shoe.

Thanks for the additional information and images. But doesn't it all essentially correspond with what I was saying? I slightly simplified the situation for sure, but that was purely in order to highlight the important messages of my post: that a) the Guede shoe prints did not lead "out of" the front door, that b) in fact, they tended to indicate that Guede stopped short of the door on this occasion, and c) the fact that the prints faded out to nothing mean that nobody can tell whether or not Guede returned back to Meredith's room after this journey towards the front door (and that the "pausing" evidence suggests that he might indeed have turned back).

 

[toto]

I regret and wished they showed a few more British shows in the US. I was always a big fan of Monty Python, A Fish called Wanda and many other British movies. I love John Oliver, the British ex pat who has been a regular on Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show". I'm always interested in cross cultural appeal. What is popular here in the States that you never pick up on over there and vice versa. I made the comment to Anglo about "Catch 22, explaining the meaning of the term..not that I didn't think he knew ..just that I'm never sure if something who's origin is American, actually crosses the great cultural divide..(The Atlantic Ocean) and is popular in the UK.

For example, We celebrate the 4th of July over here. I've heard it's not celebrated over there. I mean, what's up with that? I always think of the classics as Shakespeare, Kipling, Yeats, Shelley, Browning. Not sure if you Brits might actually look down your noses at American literature. That while Heller, Hemingway, Twain Steinbeck and Edgar Allen Poe are considered classics in the US. That just maybe, the Brits might see prose written by these Yanks as naturally inferior and not really in the native tongue. Basically, I wonder if you think they are hacks and not right for proper human consumption?

I think it is a shame, speaking as a Brit, that most British people do not know about Stephen Colbert or his brilliant programme which I have to watch through various ways. But generally we are very lucky with what we get from the U.S. I have not read much U.S literature but that's my fault, but I have seen most of the classic movies such as "Of Mice and Men" which is the one book loads of students in the UK study at school, along with "The Crucible".

 

[RoseMontague]

Once again in English, please?

I think he said the bathmat was used to wipe. Ingenious way to clean up a crime scene. I am not seeing bathmat size streaks that would indicate such a cleanup but whatever.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder,

That is because PubMed returned 7 pages of up to 20 references per page. I chose 10 of the most recent ones, partially out of convenience and partially to show that he is still very active. Professor Gill has been publishing in this field since 1985.

I thought Coulsdon asked if any of the pubs you listed were used in the first trial.

Wow! Impressive! Do you know whether either defence teams quoted or used anything you listed in the 1st level trial or the Florence appeal?
​

 

[Strozzi]

I actually, I have gone and figured. This is my theory. The Perugia cops basically solve all their cases with confessions and admissions made by people they can put the squeeze on. Forensics are a pain in the ass and usually come up all confusing and complicated. So those aren't really the main focus and are dealt with by 'finding' stuff and 'losing' other stuff more or less as a matter of routine. They employ someone like Stefanoni in the same way that the police here employ medics of less than the highest calibre for treating those detained in the cells.

That's it.

Anglolawyer, I think you are very correct on this. Forensic evidence is messy. It is easier to grab suspects and get a confession - especially when you have several and can make one turn on the other.

Meredith's two phones were thrown over a wall into a garden. The police had looked for a knife also in the first several days after the crime. They did not find it, but the officers involved knew finding a knife was a priority.

When several police took Raffaele to his flat at 1 or 2 am on Nov 6, while Amanda was being worked on in another interrogation room, one of the police, Finzi, knew finding a knife was important. In searching Raffaele's flat he twice commented aloud that the place smelled "clean" (it was later determined that bleach was not used). Finzi opened a kitchen drawer, saw a large carving knife, picked it up (later citing "police intuition" and that it "looked clean"), and asked his fellow police officer "How's this knife?" He was told "Yes, yes, it's great." and Finzi bags the knife.

Several hours later, when the 10 police raid Patrick's to arrest him, they already have a knife from Raffaele's. Their priority is not to search Patrick's flat but to rush him out the door to the Questura to interrogate him Perugia-style. They already have Amanda and Raffaele locked up, plus Raffaele's shoes, plus the carving knife from Raffaele's. Somebody's going to confess. Why linger at Patrick's when what they wanted to do was put him in the car caravan and speed him triumphantly back to interrogation.

 

[Diocletus]

I think it is a shame, speaking as a Brit, that most British people do not know about Stephen Colbert or his brilliant programme which I have to watch through various ways. But generally we are very lucky with what we get from the U.S. I have not read much U.S literature but that's my fault, but I have seen most of the classic movies such as "Of Mice and Men" which is the one book loads of students in the UK study at school, along with "The Crucible".

"The Crucible"? Complete work of fiction. Could never happen.

 

[Matthew Best]

I still cannot decide whether these errors are due to ignorance, or a deliberate attempt to deceive, or a bit of both. After all, the truth is very different. Guede in fact left a very feint* trace of left shoe prints leading away from Meredith's room, down the hallway, towards the front door. They did not lead to the front door. In fact, they faded to nothing well before the front door, and in fact at the point where they totally faded out, they were clustering together implying that Guede had in fact stopped at that point.

* So feint, in fact, that the "crack" forensics team led by the magnificent Ms Stefanoni entirely failed to spot them for several hours after they started at the crime scene, during which time they repeatedly walked all over them repeatedly. More outstanding world-class work there, Patrizia! Have a medal

Faint, not feint, John.