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

[Chris_Halkides]

in the dark about the luminol footprints

Dan O.,

I find your point about the luminol print to be very interesting indeed. Can we reject the hypothesis that the footprints were made some time after the first trip that the FP made to the cottage? If someone broke in and stayed in the cottage. before 18 December, that might explain how the print was not erased. IIRC there was at least one break-in, but it may have occurred in 2008. The other thing that bothers me about the prints is that at least one print in Amanda's room (IIRC Rep. 180) does not have a mark where her second toe should be but does have a mark that is suggestive of a shorter second toe.

 

[Bill Williams]

I feel it is about time to expose of the hypocrisy of the haters who have crawled out of the woodwork on this forum to gloat since the kangaroo verdict :-

<.... sinister deletia ....>​

* The haters attack Amanda and Raffaele for changing their stories. The fact that the prosecution kept changing motives and scenarios is never mentioned by the haters.

I do not wish to misrepresent the intent of Massei's 2010 motivations report. He did convict the pair, and his motivations report is his own attempt at a comprehensive explanation of why that conviction is right.

But it nears repeating again and again and again, that Judge Massei himself put to rest allegations made by the Mignini/Comodi prosecution... in essence ruling that specific points are unfactual.

One of these is that "Amanda kept changing her story." I suppose this is different that Massei claiming she had inconsistencies in her story, but dealing with it one at a time...

... even in the section titled, "INCONSISTENCIES AND DENIALS IN AMANDA KNOX’S TALE" on page 68 of his report, Massei writes:

The recollection by Amanda Knox of the period between the afternoon of November 1 and the morning of November 2 presents some variations [i.e. changes or fluctuations in the story].

However, one constant is the affirmation of her non-involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher: she says she left the house in Via della Pergola 7 on the afternoon of November 1 and did not return until the following morning at about 10:30 am; she also maintains that she spent the evening and night with Raffaele [68] Sollecito who, when she woke up on the morning of November 2 around 10:00 am, was still asleep in his home on Corso Garibaldi.

Both Knox and Sollecito have been exceedingly consistent in their mutual alibi. We were not there. We did not do this. Even Massei admits this.

Massei convicts on his misinterpretation of other evidence - the staged break-in, etc., not on Knox's and/or Sollecito's "continual changing of stories".

Yet that lie continues to this day, in 2014. Guilters and haters still have to debunk their own prosecution, to continue their belief in guilt and continue the hate.

Massei's motivations report is proof that guilters and haters are wise not to attempt a comprehensive timeline which explains the evidence.

 

[anglolawyer]

anglolawyer,

One possible problem with his approach is that it might be suspect-centered, perhaps depending on how it is applied. I think a great deal turns on the question of how the hypotheses he uses are generated. It would be helpful to know more about how the forensic science community views his work in this regard. Ultimately, we will have to wait and see how generally his method of mixture analysis is adopted.

An article I linked further up thread has this concerning the software:



I don't understand the software and it's pros and cons but I guess the fact that it is transparent (open source) is a good thing even though I'm not exactly sure what that entails.

anglolawyer,

It is when we are talking about a single profile. Mixture analysis has long been known to be subjective, as a fascinating study by Dror and Hampikian indicated. Link to The Economist article here.

Thanks both. Instructive. I did not know about suspect-centred bias. But am I not right in thinking there is a set of higher peaks among the mixed profiles and these are a [edit] mix match for Raf? How does bias, or even statistics, come in to interpreting that?

One thing that bothered me when I read Balding's paper was that it was heavily mathematical to the point where I could not begin to follow it. I could only get the conclusion. This is pretty dangerous isn't it? It amounts to unintelligible experts evidence that requires a jury simply to trust the expert.

 

[Dan O.]

Dan O.,

I find your point about the luminol print to be very interesting indeed. Can we reject the hypothesis that the footprints were made some time after the first trip that the FP made to the cottage? If someone broke in and stayed in the cottage. before 18 December, that might explain how the print was not erased. IIRC there was at least one break-in, but it may have occurred in 2008. The other thing that bothers me about the prints is that at least one print in Amanda's room (IIRC Rep. 180) does not have a mark where her second toe should be but does have a mark that is suggestive of a shorter second toe.

There were no breakins before the December visit. All of the windows had been sealed and one of the police officers testified that he was the only one with a key. I do wonder how that officer knew he held the only key. Had they changed the locks? There is also the event of November 14 where the door that must be unlocked with a key was discovered wide open and the seal on that door had been pealed down and had to be retaped. Yet there was nothing about it mentioned in any official documents that we've seen.

The invisible bare footprints being laid down subsequent to the November 2/3 investigation (and scrubbing) is indeed a possibility but if that is the case it could not have been accidental. Before the 6th/7th there was an officer guarding the cottage or there was an active police presence. After that the cottage was sealed until the December visit. Someone entering between those dates would need a key which implies an insider.

 

[christianahannah]

...One thing that bothered me when I read Balding's paper was that it was heavily mathematical to the point where I could not begin to follow it. I could only get the conclusion. This is pretty dangerous isn't it? It amounts to unintelligible experts evidence that requires a jury simply to trust the expert.

I think Balding realizes that danger thus the last sentence in the article:

The next step is to present the software's results in an intuitive manner that courts can understand, says Balding.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ot-on-crime-scene-bra-clasp.html#.UwjcMn-9KSN

How this will be done and how long it will take I don't know.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

sequential unmasking and suspect-centered analyses

In the autosomal (regular) profile, Meredith is the dominant contributor, and Sollecito's profile is about 1/8 as strong. In the Y-chromosomal (YSTR) profile, Sollecito is the dominant contributor. The issue of suspect-centered bias is complex, and good reading is not as plentiful as one might wish (one hopes that the third part of Butler's revised textbook will cover this issue). This article is as good a place to begin as any. The authors mention other articles (references 3-6), but at least some of these articles look to be too early to be about DNA profiling.

One problem with Stefanoni's analysis of the autosomal profile is that her assignment of one or more inconvenient peaks to stutter at the +1 position relative to a main peak, instead of or in addition to stutter at the -1 position (where it almost always occurs). That suggests to me that she had prior knowledge of Sollecito's profile and was trying to shoehorn the results into a model in which only Meredith and Raffaele were contributors. In other words by assigning peaks at the +1 position to stutter, it effectively puts the peak into a category of artifacts to be ignored.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

luminol prints

The invisible bare footprints being laid down subsequent to the November 2/3 investigation (and scrubbing) is indeed a possibility but if that is the case it could not have been accidental. Before the 6th/7th there was an officer guarding the cottage or there was an active police presence. After that the cottage was sealed until the December visit. Someone entering between those dates would need a key which implies an insider.

Thanks; I now believe that my hypothesis with respect to the time of the prints is unlikely.

 

[anglolawyer]

In the autosomal (regular) profile, Meredith is the dominant contributor, and Sollecito's profile is about 1/8 as strong. In the Y-chromosomal (YSTR) profile, Sollecito is the dominant contributor. The issue of suspect-centered bias is complex, and good reading is not as plentiful as one might wish (one hopes that the third part of Butler's revised textbook will cover this issue). This article is as good a place to begin as any. The authors mention other articles (references 3-6), but at least some of these articles look to be too early to be about DNA profiling.

One problem with Stefanoni's analysis of the autosomal profile is that her assignment of one or more inconvenient peaks to stutter at the +1 position relative to a main peak, instead of or in addition to stutter at the -1 position (where it almost always occurs). That suggests to me that she had prior knowledge of Sollecito's profile and was trying to shoehorn the results into a model in which only Meredith and Raffaele were contributors. In other words by assigning peaks at the +1 position to stutter, it effectively puts the peak into a category of artifacts to be ignored.

This is why I have steered clear of the bra clasp DNA. Fortunately, a bunch of other, more comprehensible reasons for rejecting this evidence exist which make understanding the science deeply inessential. Still, I thought Stef had presented an edited version of the egram which did not even show some of these inconvenient peaks, then C-V came along and got access to enough material to put them back in the picture but that, even so, the strong YSTR peaks were still a match for Raf.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The clasp should have been rejected as evidence

This is why I have steered clear of the bra clasp DNA. Fortunately, a bunch of other, more comprehensible reasons for rejecting this evidence exist which make understanding the science deeply inessential. But I thought Stef had presented an edited version of the egram which did not even show some of these inconvenient peaks, then C-V came along and got access to enough material to put them back in the picture but that, even so, the strong YSTR peaks were still a match for Raf.

anglolawyer,

Better egrams became available in 2011.

I would reject the clasp as evidence on the basis that
a) The clasp was collected late, and the crime scene was not sealed.
b) The clasp was collected with improper technique.
c) There are more male contributors to the clasp than there can reasonably be assailants. DNA studies of clothing have shown that it can have DNA from the wearer, the wearer's immediate family, and others.

In addition the bra was more likely to have been torn than cut IIUC. I don't know of any reason to predict that someone would have touched it during the attack. With respect to points a) and b), if one does not toss evidence that doesn't meet certain standards, the FP have no incentive to meet those standards in the future. No PG commenter has addressed this problem, to the best of my knowledge.

 

[Welshman]

I know, I know, the prosecution's case has been thoroughly debunked.

On the internet.

And this is an example of the "experts" they rely on:

"Ron Hendry is a retired Forensic Engineer (aka Accident Reconstructionist) with 28 years of experience at evaluating and reconstructing serious to fatal incidents based on the physical evidence. Mr. Hendry is a degreed Mechanical Engineer who held a Professional Engineering License during his consulting career. His body of work was primarily with regard civil litigation matters. However, his work has required him to interact extensively with police and review their reports, interview witnesses, review autopsy reports, and review statements and depositions of witnesses and experts. Ron has extensive experience in evaluating incidents from scene photos and witness testimony in cases where the physical evidence was no longer around. In several instances, Ron has evaluated injuries of those involved to ascertain how they occurred."

LOL.[/QUOTE

As Vibbio thinks Ron Hendry is an idiot, is he going to write a detailed rebuttal of Ron Hendry's articles on the Injustice in Perugia website.

 

[Matthew Best]

As Vibbio thinks Ron Hendry is an idiot, is he going to write a detailed rebuttal of Ron Hendry's articles on the Injustice in Perugia website.

No.

 

[Bill Williams]

I know, I know, the prosecution's case has been thoroughly debunked.

On the internet.

And this is an example of the "experts" they rely on:

"Ron Hendry is a retired Forensic Engineer (aka Accident Reconstructionist) with 28 years of experience at evaluating and reconstructing serious to fatal incidents based on the physical evidence. Mr. Hendry is a degreed Mechanical Engineer who held a Professional Engineering License during his consulting career. His body of work was primarily with regard civil litigation matters. However, his work has required him to interact extensively with police and review their reports, interview witnesses, review autopsy reports, and review statements and depositions of witnesses and experts. Ron has extensive experience in evaluating incidents from scene photos and witness testimony in cases where the physical evidence was no longer around. In several instances, Ron has evaluated injuries of those involved to ascertain how they occurred."

LOL.

As Vibbio thinks Ron Hendry is an idiot, is he going to write a detailed rebuttal of Ron Hendry's articles on the Injustice in Perugia website.

It's the "LOL" that he ends his argument with which proves Vibio's soundness....

Ok, ok, no it's not. The above is called "ad hominem", I think... because there are so many logical fallacies in that one post it's hard to separate them all. One fallacy is that Vibio puts"experts" in quotes, airquotes..., and then provides the very citation which establishes Hendry as a bona fide expert!!!!! Can Vibio not read?

Point is, Ron Hendry could very well be an idiot. However, what's that got to do with 28 years of experience of reconstructing probably causes of injuries? Ron Hendry could be the most boring dolt you've ever sat beside at a family wedding, but what's that got to do with Vibio giving him an "LOL" over Hendry's experience at how injuries occur?

This is why it would be good to have the "Denialism" post upthread, pinned for easy reference.

Either that or Vibio him/herself could try putting a timeline together, a comprehensive one which explains why Knox and Sollecito are guilty.

I think it's because it cannot be done.

 

[GWCarver]

Some news reports now have Quintavalle remembering, 6 years later, that he'd seen Rudy and Raffaele together.

Do you have a link to any of these reports? It does sound pretty scary, with the way "evidence on demand" appears to work in Perugia.

 

[anglolawyer]

Is Briars going to reply to any of the points aimed at her crime theory? I give her credit for offering one but several posters pointed out some glaring problems with it. Why post here if you aren't going to defend what you say?

 

[Briars]

Is Briars going to reply to any of the points aimed at her crime theory? I give her credit for offering one but several posters pointed out some glaring problems with it. Why post here if you aren't going to defend what you say?

But I have already. You have the time so look for posts answering Grinder about Nara and whether she should have checked her clock.The time she used the loo may have been sooner not the usual 2 hour wait. Look for posts about Curatolo and how he assumed they never left because he was reading In fact they simply left and returned .Pretty sure it's all been discussed , more then once in fact.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

probably not blood

But I have already. You have the time so look for posts answering Grinder about Nara and whether she should have checked her clock.The time she used the loo may have been sooner not the usual 2 hour wait. Look for posts about Curatolo and how he assumed they never left because he was reading In fact they simply left and returned .Pretty sure it's all been discussed , more then once in fact.

Briars,

Several of us have rebutted your claims to the effect that the luminol footprints were either made in blood or in turnip juice. How do you respond?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

damaged due to incompetence?

I would reject the clasp as evidence on the basis that
a) The clasp was collected late, and the crime scene was not sealed.
b) The clasp was collected with improper technique.
c) There are more male contributors to the clasp than there can reasonably be assailants. DNA studies of clothing have shown that it can have DNA from the wearer, the wearer's immediate family, and others.

and
d) The clasp was damaged in a way that was preventable and thus unavailable for retesting.

 

[platonov]

It might catch the attention

No weird yes but not that weird. Doug Bremner is shrink/ film maker big supporter of sis and Amanda. He was the guy with the pirate patch holding up the misspelt sign Amanda e Raf sono innocenti. He also posted a tweet saying the Kerchers were like the Nazis this week.

So he is not Harry Rag* - I think the jury is still out on that one.

But lets say he is being serious - then its still completely bizarre.
OK his tweet or whatever does not get much exposure in the US at large but ... when the powers that be come to decide on extradition lets say ( the groupie hope one imagines ) how is this kind of nonsense going to look.

If he is connected directly to the FOA / Knox and not just some anonymous internet 'person' it casts a certain light on all the foaker claims.

And apart from this not resonating with the base as I tactfully put it [ respect for Jews, foreigners & minorities is hardly a rallying cry for this demographic] there is a potential pitfall.

It might catch the attention of persons interested in the holocaust and the use/abuse thereof and attract some ire. [Dershowitz for e.g. has been known to address this issue]. Not the kind of attention the 'railroaded by nasty foreigners' campaign would necessarily benefit from to put it mildly.

On a different point - was it not the Italians he was attacking ? Surely he didn't actually compare the Kerchers to Nazis ???



* Rag not Rug .. not sure why I got this in my head - word association with my previous post perhaps.

 

[platonov]

Yes.

By platonov's ludicrous (and, frankly, offensive) metric, anyone campaigning for (say) Charles Manson to be denied parole is an anti-white racist. Because Manson is, ya see, white.

Truly fabulous critical thinking and open-mindedness from platonov here. Randi - and Socrates - would be proud indeed.

More incomprehension I see ......

It had nothing to do with parole - the issue was

Do you really want to revisit the 'lets put the incarcerated black guy on trial again' issue - your response to Cassation overturning the H/Z acquittal of the white kids.
It went on for several pages last time - I thought it was finished when you opposed stiffer sentences for convicted killers in Italy (unless you could personally rewrite the Italian penal code w.r.t 2 particular white convicts)

Better to let sleeping dogs lie. No

Now to more important matters.....

 

[Grinder]

But I have already. You have the time so look for posts answering Grinder about Nara and whether she should have checked her clock.The time she used the loo may have been sooner not the usual 2 hour wait. Look for posts about Curatolo and how he assumed they never left because he was reading In fact they simply left and returned .Pretty sure it's all been discussed , more then once in fact.

What I said was that it is very hard to believe that she wouldn't notice the time after hearing the most horrible scream of her life, so upsetting that she needed to make tea to calm down. It isn't the case that she awoke and went to pee and returned to bed and just before falling asleep heard the scream. Even in that case it seems that she would note the time as she had to pee because of medicine and my experience is that people taking diuretics pay attention to these things to avoid accidents etc.

In this case she sat and waited for water to boil, waited for the tea to steep, drank the tea and then returned to bed. Once again it wasn't that she should have noted the time, it's hard to believe that if she is telling the truth about all of this that she didn't note the time for several reasons.

Her testimony is worthless as many have pointed out but the PGP are desperate to keep her as viable because of the multiple attacker aspect. She had the days mixed up. she had no idea what time it occurred. Not withstanding dogs in valleys, it has been demonstrated more than once that she couldn't have heard what she said she heard.

It is not credible that someone would hear the described scream and people running from the source of that scream and that person would call the police immediately or at least tell the police the next day after finding out about the murder.


'