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

[NancyS]

Got a question for our DNA statisticians here. Let us assume that the DNA on the knife was not planted and assume that it did not get there from the lab. Ignore the fact that the knife shape does not fit as well.

There is a small possibility that Amanda either carried a few cells of Meredeth on herself or that Amanda wore some of Meredeth's clothing. At the tiny threshold of the sample, can that said to be that unlikely?

I'm definitely not a DNA statistician, but as a young student living in various flatshares, I was always swapping clothes or wearing borrowing a jumper because it was cold - it must be fairly likely that you would find Meredith's DNA on an item of Amanda's clothing

 

[NancyS]

I keep being struck by what he quoted. . . .By his own motivations report, you can just eliminate Amanda and Raffaele and the story is pretty much the same.

It reminds me a little bit of the book Life of Pi, without the God metaphor - you have the Guede story that is easily believable but a bit dull and then you have the ridiculous and unbelievable Amanda version, which is by far the more exciting story and it seems that many people can't let go of the Amanda narrative, even though it is clearly nonsense

 

[Desert Fox]

I think you are parsing this too much. Sometimes people put phones on vibrate. Sometimes they turn them off. Sometimes they leave them in another room. Some phones (I'm sure we'll get a lecture on how Italian phones are different ) don't ring when on a charger.

Fair enough. . . .Just exploring ideas if nothing else

I'm definitely not a DNA statistician, but as a young student living in various flatshares, I was always swapping clothes or wearing borrowing a jumper because it was cold - it must be fairly likely that you would find Meredith's DNA on an item of Amanda's clothing

Kind of what I thought. I have a feeling that we need to be a lot more careful how we interpret DNA evidence as our samples get smaller.

 

[Bill Williams]

I keep being struck by what he quoted. . . .By his own motivations report, you can just eliminate Amanda and Raffaele and the story is pretty much the same.
Somebody needs to sit down Italian judges in general and explain parsimony to them.

By itself though, the interview does not eliminate her as the murderer. If there was physical evidence of Amanda was all over the murder scene and she had injuries, I would consider it most likely that she was involved in the murder.

Got a question for our DNA statisticians here. Let us assume that the DNA on the knife was not planted and assume that it did not get there from the lab. Ignore the fact that the knife shape does not fit as well.

There is a small possibility that Amanda either carried a few cells of Meredeth on herself or that Amanda wore some of Meredeth's clothing. At the tiny threshold of the sample, can that said to be that unlikely?

That's the deal, isn't it.

Reasonable doubt screams off every page of the Massei report, even as he uses it to condemn Amanda and Raffaele. I mean, what does this have to do with Raffaele? At least Amanda had a key to the front door!

But remove it all - Massei's reasoning about multiple attackers is mainly, although not exclusively, that he's found them guilty, so that all the experts who say that (in theory) you really cannot rule out a single attacker....

Massei has, as you point out, offered the very road map Rudy could very well have done this alone - and this is in a report condemning RS and AK!!!!!

Massei says you cannot really rule out the climb in through the window, it's just that for Massei, he doubts that someone would go up twice to that window. Where Massei got "two times", I do not know... the Channel 5 documentary showing the climb made it a no brainer that at worst, it took two... without the seemingly impossible 11 metre height, that is a non sequitor, once you see the climber actually do it. (Massei's assumptions betray that he'd never actually seen a demonstration, it was all his own internal mind-game....)

But look at what Massei says about that....

Admitting that the climber decided to bet, in a sense, on the presence of both of these "favourable" - in fact, indispensable - conditions, the climber would then have had to climb up once, from underneath the window of Romanelli's room, in order to open the shutters; then he would have had to get the large rock, and having selected the point where he wanted to break the window, to throw it (it seems impossible to accept that he actually made the climb while carrying the large rock, and threw it against the window at the risk of being hit by glass falling from the pane thus shattered).

He would then have to have returned underneath Romanelli's window for the second climb, and through the broken glass, open the window (balanced on his knees or feet on the outside part of the windowsill) otherwise he would not have been able to pass his arm through the hole in the glass made by the stone) and reach up to the latch that fastened the window casements, necessarily latched since otherwise, if the casements had not been latched, it would not have been necessary to throw a rock at all, but just to open the shutters and climb inside.

This scenario appears totally unlikely, given the effort involved (going twice underneath the window, going up to throw the stone, scaling the wall twice) and taking into account the uncertainty of success (having to count on the two favourable circumstances indicated above), with a repetition of movements and behaviours, all of which could easily be seen by anyone who happened to be passing by on the street or actually coming into the house.

Given that everyone has now seen how completely doable the climb is, it seems that every one of Massei's counter assumings shows two things:

1) he's completely overthinking the climb
2) he's obviously not, himself, seen a recreation of the action.​

How he found RS and AK guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on this charge is beyond me.

And with it being obvious that Rudy very well could have, and probably DID, get in that way... why does one need AK or RS to be involved in this?

 

[Desert Fox]

It reminds me a little bit of the book Life of Pi, without the God metaphor - you have the Guede story that is easily believable but a bit dull and then you have the ridiculous and unbelievable Amanda version, which is by far the more exciting story and it seems that many people can't let go of the Amanda narrative, even though it is clearly nonsense

Lets be honest here, a large part of why I reject God is due to parsimony

That Amanda and Raffaele are involved is not just nonsense but it is just incoherent.

I also argue that you could make as shocking and as horrid a crime out of just Guede as involving others. Might also have gotten him consider a menace and not due to be released this year.

 

[Grinder]

Lets be honest here, a large part of why I reject God is due to parsimony

Please, could you tell me how you are using parsimony?

What has always baffled me is that the PGP won't drop Curatolo and Nara. While the lack of much evidence remains a major issue if death was around 9:45 - 10 which the state of digestion doesn't make highly unlikely (meal started at 6:15 and Meredith didn't start immediately) as she was either drinking or coming off a whale of night's drinking and 2 to 4 hours does include the above time frame.

While I still don't believe a case BRD can be made, at least the pieces are closer to fitting. While I think the DNA would have been thrown out here and should have been thrown out there, it is still in play for the PGP. If one believes the DNA and the false accusation of Patrick, there is a case, not a good one, not one with sufficient weight as I have been saying for years . (Inside joke if he picks it up).

I wonder how the PGP at PMF et al. will handle the earlier TOD from this court?

 

[Desert Fox]

Please, could you tell me how you are using parsimony?

Parsimony is about making the fewest amount of assumptions.
In this case, we have everything we need in Rudy committing the crime.
We don't need anybody else involved in the actual crime for it to occur.
You are putting people into the crime that simply do not need to be there.

If we had actual evidence of them involved, might would be different.

Edit: My argument is mostly based on the crime scene. I think it is impossible for them to be involved in the rape and murder and not leave physical evidence. I acannot 100% say that they were not in the house but again, why do you need them there.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I' like to see some detailed assessments of the motives of Mignini, Commodi, Napoleoni, Stefanini, Giobi, Michelin, Massei, et al.

-

Me too,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

I don't disagree with you Strozzi...

-

AmyStrange, your scenario above looks like you're trying to rationalize something and you've got the most convoluted scenario. The only thing you left out is that the pizza crust lacked the proper amount of yeast and that the oven temperature was not accurate. Now we should be triple-guessing whether Filomena and Marco did come by after all or Laura's handyman friend snuck in. Perhaps Sophie meet up with Rudy at Merediths?


A lot on her mind??? You don't think that the "look" you refer to could be because she was upset that her friend/housemate was just murdered?


AmyStrange, there is a better explanation why Amanda's confession is strange. It is called the "Reid technique". You may forget or do not account that it took her interrogators a long-time to get Amanda to stop saying the truth - that she wasn't at her cottage. The police worked on her for at least an hour and maybe more before Donnino arrived to try to get her to change her statement of facts because it did not support their theory that she must have been somehow involved (remember, they were tracking her and that suspicious African bar owner). Amanda was still saying the truth - that she wasn't at the cottage - an hour into the interrogation. Strong girl! - she held to the truth in spite of police shouting, accusations of "liar", threats to put her in prison for 30 years so she will never see her family again, and two hits from behind when Donnino finally arrived. It took Donnino to convince Knox that she was there but was just traumatized and did not remember it in order to induce Amanda to imagine fleeting visions. And even that only came in response to very specific questions such as "why did you not hear her scream" (answer: "because I would have convered my ears").

Mind-manipulating interrogation techniques explain her confession/ accusation/ statement better than anything else.

-

Although I think my theory is possible, I also don't believe it is highly probable, but that doesn't make it impossible,

d

-

 

[Chris_Halkides]

smaller samples are easier to transfer

Got a question for our DNA statisticians here. Let us assume that the DNA on the knife was not planted and assume that it did not get there from the lab. Ignore the fact that the knife shape does not fit as well.

There is a small possibility that Amanda either carried a few cells of Meredeth on herself or that Amanda wore some of Meredeth's clothing. At the tiny threshold of the sample, can that said to be that unlikely?

Desert Fox,

Sara Gino testified for the defense in the trial of the first instance, and some of what she had to say is pertinent to this issue. From the Massei report (p. 258, English translation): “She reaffirmed that [the risk of] contamination exists, and emphasised that in minimal quantities of DNA there is not necessarily a greater risk of contamination but it was easier to notice the effects of the contamination and be misled (‘...It's not that the risk of contamination is greater; but it is easier to see the contamination...’ page 92).” In response to a question on this subject, Professor Dan Krane responded, “There is absolutely no question but that contamination is a much greater problem in LCN cases than conventional DNA testing. The reasons that it is a greater problem are both because it is easier to detect contaminants ([Sara] Gino's point) and because it is easier to transfer (and to transfer without knowing) smaller amounts of DNA than larger amounts of DNA.” link

 

[sunmaster14]

Given that everyone has now seen how completely doable the climb is, it seems that every one of Massei's counter assumings shows two things:

1) he's completely overthinking the climb
2) he's obviously not, himself, seen a recreation of the action.​

How he found RS and AK guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on this charge is beyond me.

And with it being obvious that Rudy very well could have, and probably DID, get in that way... why does one need AK or RS to be involved in this?

Using Massei logic, we can also make an argument that the entry through the window was not staged:

{But the fact that this was in fact not a simulation, a staging, can be deduced from further circumstances. For the staging to look credible, certainly the stagers would have picked a point of entry which made obvious sense. And a window, 3.5 meters off the ground, does not make obvious sense. Certainly the stagers, if we suppose they had existed, would worry that the police might quickly determine that entry through a 2nd story window was physically impossible. It would have made far better sense to smash the front door lock with the same rock, or perhaps to scrape a sharp metal object (as an unfolded paper clip) into the keyhole to make it look as if it had been picked. The physical evidence in Filomena's room also militates against a staging. The distribution of glass shards (which extended meters from the window) would have required meticulous placement of glass after the window was broken from inside with the rock, which not only would have been tedious, but also would have risked injury. Such an injury would have been difficult to explain and could have easily led to blood and DNA evidence being left behind to prove the staging. Furthermore, it is illogical that a putative stager would not think to distribute the glass first, and ransack the room afterwards. Only a moron would invert the natural temporal flow.}

 

[sunmaster14]

Edit: My argument is mostly based on the crime scene. I think it is impossible for them to be involved in the rape and murder and not leave physical evidence. I acannot 100% say that they were not in the house but again, why do you need them there.

We don't know for sure that AK and RS didn't leave DNA in Meredith's room (except for the highly dubious bra clasp hook). We only know that the forensic police didn't find any. Given the demonstrated incompetence of the forensic police, I would not use the word impossible.

That being said, I am stunned that the police didn't keep going back and trying different samples until they found some of AK's DNA in Meredith's room. I guess when they found RS's on the bra clasp, they felt that was enough to get a conviction (and they would have been right!).

 

[Desert Fox]

We don't know for sure that AK and RS didn't leave DNA in Meredith's room (except for the highly dubious bra clasp hook). We only know that the forensic police didn't find any. Given the demonstrated incompetence of the forensic police, I would not use the word impossible.

That being said, I am stunned that the police didn't keep going back and trying different samples until they found some of AK's DNA in Meredith's room. I guess when they found RS's on the bra clasp, they felt that was enough to get a conviction (and they would have been right!).

I actually mean more than a low level of DNA from Amanda which would be totally consistent with her living in the house.

Have you looked at any pictures or blue prints of the room. It is pretty small. If there were four people in the room, they would almost be tripping over each other. There would be likely be bloody fingerprints and footprints from Amanda and Raffaele, not just Rudy.

This is a reason why I would like a staged scene created. I think it would show clearly that four people fighting would be a bad comedy in that room.
The Norfolk Four is a very situation, the mechanics of the incident just fall apart.

 

[LondonJohn]

Using Massei logic, we can also make an argument that the entry through the window was not staged:

{But the fact that this was in fact not a simulation, a staging, can be deduced from further circumstances. For the staging to look credible, certainly the stagers would have picked a point of entry which made obvious sense. And a window, 3.5 meters off the ground, does not make obvious sense. Certainly the stagers, if we suppose they had existed, would worry that the police might quickly determine that entry through a 2nd story window was physically impossible. It would have made far better sense to smash the front door lock with the same rock, or perhaps to scrape a sharp metal object (as an unfolded paper clip) into the keyhole to make it look as if it had been picked. The physical evidence in Filomena's room also militates against a staging. The distribution of glass shards (which extended meters from the window) would have required meticulous placement of glass after the window was broken from inside with the rock, which not only would have been tedious, but also would have risked injury. Such an injury would have been difficult to explain and could have easily led to blood and DNA evidence being left behind to prove the staging. Furthermore, it is illogical that a putative stager would not think to distribute the glass first, and ransack the room afterwards. Only a moron would invert the natural temporal flow.}

Exactly. The very same argument that is made for this being an improbable location/technique for a real break-in can also be used for it being an improbable location/technique to stage a break-in!

The truth is that Filomena's window was a perfectly logical and perfectly feasible site for a break-in. Yes it had its disadvantages, but then so did every other potential means of ingress. Ad it had some distinct advantages - the most obvious of which being that it was the closest window to the exit routes from the cottage. But of course even if this window had been an improbable choice of entry for a burglar, all that really matters is that it was at the very least a feasible point of entry (we should never assume that every burglar always chooses the "best" point of entry).

I also happen to have significant reasons to believe that Filomena's window might actually have been the only feasible means of gaining entry into the entire cottage (without the need for special equipment or significant time/effort). All the downstairs windows were grated/barred - so we can rule them out. All the upstairs windows that were accessible from ground level were also barred. Of the remaining windows, Knox's and Meredith's were far too high above ground level to make entry easy.

And then we come to the balcony window and door (the "obvious" choice according to certain pro-guilt commentators). Well, firstly, one has to consider that this window and door were at least as visible from the road and nearby buildings as Filomena's window. Then one has to consider that they were on the "wrong" side of the building as far as an easy escape was concerned: the escape route would necessitate running all the way round the outside of the cottage, including the narrow passage adjacent to Laura's window and that of the large bathroom.

But aside from all those considerations, I think that the far more important consideration is that the door and window on the balcony were of modern, double-glazed design and build. This would make them much more difficult to open - whether by forcing the frame or breaking the glass - than Filomena's window, which was of a very old timber frame casement design, with thin single glazing that broke readily with moderate blunt force. It's my belief that in order to enter the flat via the balcony window or door would have required specialised tools and techniques: either a tool to break through double-glazed panes, or a heavy jemmy to force the frame, or a drill to drill out the lock.

I think it's actually very possible that Guede might even have tested the balcony door/window prior to opting for Filomena's window. He took care to state that he had "wandered" around the cottage, and I think this is an attempt to obfuscate his recce work. I think he might have shimmied up onto the balcony, but then realised he couldn't get in through either the door or the window with his limited tools and skills.

As a footnote, I wonder whether the "crack" police (you know, the same ones who even failed to secure the front door of the cottage for several days) maybe left the small window on the balcony (the window in the kitchen area) either unlocked or even ajar. If so, that would obviously explain the fact that this window was used for subsequent break-ins by others while the cottage lay empty as a "sealed crime scene"(!).

 

[sunmaster14]

Exactly. The very same argument that is made for this being an improbable location/technique for a real break-in can also be used for it being an improbable location/technique to stage a break-in!

I should add that staging a break-in by breaking a window after the murder was risky in that breaking glass has a distinctive sound which tends to raise alarm in people. It could have easily attracted attention to the crime scene before AK and RS had time to make their escape.

From Guede's perspective, however, the sound of breaking glass is an advantage. He waits and if there is a response, he leaves by his planned escape route (as you pointed out, Filomena's side of the cottage is the best place to exit). If there is no response, he can be confident that nobody is home and that there are no witnesses.

 

[AmyStrange]

This is not just a theoretical concept...

-

I should add that staging a break-in by breaking a window after the murder was risky in that breaking glass has a distinctive sound which tends to raise alarm in people. It could have easily attracted attention to the crime scene before AK and RS had time to make their escape.

From Guede's perspective, however, the sound of breaking glass is an advantage. He waits and if there is a response, he leaves by his planned escape route (as you pointed out, Filomena's side of the cottage is the best place to exit). If there is no response, he can be confident that nobody is home and that there are no witnesses.

-

This is the exact same technique I used in my younger days as a criminal,

d

-

 

[GWCarver]

I should add that staging a break-in by breaking a window after the murder was risky in that breaking glass has a distinctive sound which tends to raise alarm in people. It could have easily attracted attention to the crime scene before AK and RS had time to make their escape.

From Guede's perspective, however, the sound of breaking glass is an advantage. He waits and if there is a response, he leaves by his planned escape route (as you pointed out, Filomena's side of the cottage is the best place to exit). If there is no response, he can be confident that nobody is home and that there are no witnesses.

Yes, and Guede had to be more careful than usual because at least six of the people who lived there could identify him. (I don't know about Filomena and Laura.) He couldn't afford to be seen, so it would have been imperative for him to be able to hide in a place from which he could both monitor the window to see if anyone responded to the rock and exit unseen in case they did.

 

[sunmaster14]

I actually mean more than a low level of DNA from Amanda which would be totally consistent with her living in the house.

Have you looked at any pictures or blue prints of the room. It is pretty small. If there were four people in the room, they would almost be tripping over each other. There would be likely be bloody fingerprints and footprints from Amanda and Raffaele, not just Rudy.

Oh, I completely agree. I was just pointing out that the incompetence of the forensic police was the limiting factor here. Assuming that Meredith was attacked by three people in that small room, the probability that the forensic police failed to find DNA evidence from the extra two people because they accidentally destroyed it dominates the probability that it didn't actually exist at all.

A thought experiment I usually engage in when considering what I initially believe to be an improbable event is to assume that it actually happens and then figure out the most likely way it would have happened. Sometimes when you do this, you find that the improbable event might not actually be so improbable (cf Space Shuttle Challenger exploding due to O-ring freezing). I'm not saying that's the case here, though.

 

[Grinder]

We don't know for sure that AK and RS didn't leave DNA in Meredith's room (except for the highly dubious bra clasp hook). We only know that the forensic police didn't find any. Given the demonstrated incompetence of the forensic police, I would not use the word impossible.

That being said, I am stunned that the police didn't keep going back and trying different samples until they found some of AK's DNA in Meredith's room. I guess when they found RS's on the bra clasp, they felt that was enough to get a conviction (and they would have been right!).

And the above makes it hard to believe that they were planting evidence. It would have been so easy to "find" a lttle blood at Raf's. Since by the time they had search warrants, they knew they had nothing. Why not plant it then?

 

[Dan O.]

That would be odd. Search warrants are mostly sought without notice. Why would this trigger the involvement of a lawyer? Also, both Patrick (with or without a lawyer) and the cops should have wanted the content of his SMS to be verified. Matteini was disbelieving because of the discrepancy in their versions. It's a no brainer, isn't it, that the SIM/spare phone would surface.

IOW I have an explanation for the cops' lack of interest (they already knew what the message said). I can't see why this isn't a strong forensic point, if it holds up under scrutiny of the transcripts.

In Itialy I thought the rules changed once there is a formal suspect. The attorneys had to be notified whenever any tests were to be performed and given the opportunity to witness the test. Take the December 18 visit to the cottage for example. The attorneys were given notice and the van was setup so they could watch through the CCTV. If this isn't a legal requirement then it makes the whole bra clasp discovery even more suspect.