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

[Desert Fox]

Statistically using your numbers the british girls killed her. A precise time of meal commencement is not known. Raf's expert uses 6:30 and CD says she started after the other girls. None of the times are solid. Read their testimony.

Any better evidence implicating Amanda and Raffaele than them actually?

 

[Desert Fox]

"Additionally, forensics found a trace of male DNA on the handle of the knife, along with Claire’s, but concluded it was not sufficient to investigate further."

What a face palm statement

I wonder if one of the Italian police policies is to simply close a case as fast as possible, doesn't matter how.

 

[anglolawyer]

Anglo also offered in response to my questions;



You're saying the framing began on Nov 6th at the latest. I agree there are clear signs of framing on the 6th. For one, the prosecution deliberately lied when they said there was a clean-up at the cottage. Having seen footprints revealed by Luminol, they must have known it was impossible there was a clean-up, or the footprints would have been expurgated in a cloud of bleach. Stefanoni also testified at the first trial that she had not run blood tests to confirm the foot prints were made in blood, but it came out in the Hellman appeal that she had run the blood tests on the footprints, and they came out negative for blood. So they lied about the evidence, and knew they were lying, on Nov 6th at the press conference.

Also on Nov 6th, And Chris Halkides can speak more authoritatively on this point, is the selection of the knife, at random from Raf's kitchen drawer. The officer pulls the big shiny knife out and says 'is this ok', and the senior officer says, "that will do", according to Raf's Book.

From reading Dr Mark Waterbury, "Monster of Perugia; The Framing of Amanda Knox", offers this statement regarding the finding of Kercher's DNA on the knife from Raf's kitchen, (at pg 101):

If I read the analysis of Dr Waterbury correctly, Stefanoni was able to accomplish a match by blowing up the noise in the results at the bottom of the data graphs, not from additional DNA amplification. In this way, having Meredith profile to work off of, she can match background noise to Meredith's DNA and create the appearance of "finding a match".

Selection of the knife and non-selection of any knife (AFAWK) from Patrick is mainly why I infer fraud from the 6th at the latest. Denying their rights to advice also counts but in a different way. I am not sure I agree with the rest of the above.

Stefanoni's procedure, if I understand it correctly, is specifically designed to generate a fraudulent false positive match, solely to support a conviction. In other words, frame a defendant. When the appeals court experts say something to the effect, it is not supported by scientifically valid analysis, that's a Italian speak for fraud, no? It's more than just scientifically unsupported, its deliberately rigged to achieve a falsely incriminating finding.

I agree C-V strongly hint at impropriety but the method by which Stefanoni got her result and what exactly it was a result of remain mysterious. There is enought to justify grave concern that she fabricated her results.

That's why any knife that the cop pulls from Raf's kitchen draw "will do". Because they can find the same match on any knife, or for that matter, any object at all. Even a negative control, no? The last act necessary to achieving this fraud, is to refuse to turn over the underlying data that shows how the results were achieved.

Yes, the electronic data must be provided.

Now Anglo, return to your mention that the police brought Amanda and the two room mates back to the cottage, was it Nov 3rd or 4th? They wanted Amanda to stick her hand in a drawer of unused/rarely used kitchen utensils, and she brakes down crying. The incident is described in Amanda's book, a first hand account. She broke down when requested she put her hand in the draw.

If she had reached into the drawer and touched any knife, wouldn't we expect that had Stefanoni tested that knife, 'it would also do'? If Amanda had put her hand in that draw, they wouldn't have had to grab the knife from Raf's apt, they have had the one Amanda touched and achieved the same result; Amanda's DNA on the handle, Meredith's DNA on the blade.

This is an interesting point I had not considered, that the cops were trying to get her to put prints or DNA on a knife so they could use it to frame her. Looking at WTBH she says she reached in and pushed the cutlery around. She seems to have thought she was expected to 'pick out what might have been used to slash Metedith's throat'. Now this is very weird. If the drawer contained the murder weapon, surely the last thing the police would do, if acting properly, would be to get her to contaminate evidence by rooting around in the drawer.

I have previously wondered about the part of this scene where they sent her to her room to see if anything was missing. She says she forgot to check if her rent money was still in the drawer. I have always thought the cops were up to something with that stunt but without knowing what. This kitchen drawer thing really is even stranger. Well spotted! But you need to re-read the book methinks.

Have you ever had a gut feeling of fear and terror in a dangerous situation? Your mind doesn't necessarily follow what's happening, but your gut takes over and tells you something important is happening. May I suggest Amanda's breaking down and crying when asked to put her hand in that drawer, is just that kind of parallel semi-conscious gut reaction to the police trying to frame her.

Dunno about that.

Snip

Putting aside what counts for proof in a court room, I'm asserting this consistently fraudulent methodology by Stefanoni, in combination with the police trying to get Amanda to touch a drawer of potentially "compatible" murder weapons, establishes the police intent to frame Amanda when they brought her to the cottage on Nov 3rd or 4th.

I confess I find this a very interesting idea.

ANGLO; - You offer the absence of prosecution notes (I get facetious), as a reason to doubt the interrogations were pre-planned from day one. In Amanda's book, Ficarra is quoted on I believe Nov 2nd or 3rd, making an odd statement that the Public MInister will have something to say in a few days. Put that aside.

This is not my position.

I believe its in the book, "Rudy Guede; The Forgotten Suspect", John Douglas, Steve Moore, Judge Heavey, possibly, specifically descrbe the text book process for breaking defendants. It appears to have been followed to the letter in this case, from DAY 1. You simply state the process wasn't planned. That is pure conjecture. In the absence of other evidence, that might mean a push. I'm going to hate myself for saying this, but in the presence of additional evidence affirmatively showing the presence of framing, we must conclude, osmotically, that it is more likely consistent with framing from day 1, then an accidental resemblance to text book "softening up" in a pre-planned interrogation from Day 1.

Not sure who you are addressing here but again, it's not my position. The interrogations were planned. They were suspects.

Last point Anglo; I'll leave you with a quote from CodyJuneau, who just nails the issue as to whether they might have imagined the climb up to the second story was possible, given the presence of metal grating underneath, (unlike the police, we have access to various videos demonstrating how easy such a grate assisted climb is for an athletic person, as Guede certainly was). (As to whether the police knew or suspected it might actually be Guede, no explanation has yet been offered regarding his release by the Milan police, or the failure of the Perugians to prosecute him for burglary in a case where they knew he was in possession of stolen property from that robbery, five days befor the Kercher killing):

I do not buy the theory the cops knew straight away it was Rudi.

 

[Dan O.]

That's funny: cats act just like drunk people. They also act like a dripping-wet article of clothing that is being carried by someone.

One of the first lessons you learn in forensic blood splatter analysis is to identify the height that a blood drop originated. These drips were from a low height.

What drunk article of clothing are you talking about and why did it go through the grate on the bathroom window?

With Meredith's other keys that Rudy took and then threw away?

Your position is unsupported and contradicted by sworn testimony.

 

[kwill]

This is an interesting point I had not considered, that the cops were trying to get her to put prints or DNA on a knife so they could use it to frame her. Looking at WTBH she says she reached in and pushed the cutlery around. She seems to have thought she was expected to 'pick out what might have been used to slash Metedith's throat'. Now this is very weird. If the drawer contained the murder weapon, surely the last thing the police would do, if acting properly, would be to get her to contaminate evidence by rooting around in the drawer.

Seriously.

I have previously wondered about the part of this scene where they sent her to her room to see if anything was missing. She says she forgot to check if her rent money was still in the drawer. I have always thought the cops were up to something with that stunt but without knowing what. This kitchen drawer thing really is even stranger.

Marginally related to this discussion and the suggestion that Amanda was having some kind of "gut feeling of fear and terror in a dangerous situation" after being asked to examine those knives: quick chapter from a book called The Gift of Fear; a woman endures a rape and then saves her own life by intuitively picking up on the rapist's intentions. It's one of the creepiest- and most hopeful- things I've ever read.

 

[anglolawyer]

Seriously.



Marginally related to this discussion and the suggestion that Amanda was having some kind of "gut feeling of fear and terror in a dangerous situation" after being asked to examine those knives: quick chapter from a book called The Gift of Fear; a woman endures a rape and then saves her own life by intuitively picking up on the rapist's intentions. It's one of the creepiest- and most hopeful- things I've ever read.

Not sure about the gut feeling thing, but who knows?

Back to the money in the drawer. Amanda forgot to look for it to check it was there. The cops must have noticed that and wondered why she failed to make this obvious check. What baffles me is why this did not come up in cross examination at her trial. It's surely a good point that, knowing the burglary was fake she knew her money was safe without checking. So why not put it to her? It's at least as good as the lamp and the glass on top of clothes and both of those were advanced one way or another.

And the rooting around among the knives is beyond bizarre. Did they want her to actually pick up a knife to get her prints on it then use that knife to frame her? Why does she write suggesting she was expected to pluck out the murder weapon? How could an innocent Amanda possibly know which knife was used. But she doesn't write of the police asking her to check for missing knives. Also, it was the little-used drawer she was asked to go through. Why that one?

Did Filomena and Laura have a chance to check through the knife drawer or was it only Amanda who went through this ritual?

Intriguing.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

And since you know nothing about your own justice system you might want to look over this.

And note especially the Hugues de la Plaza case.

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-suicides-might-murders.php

Hughes was murdered - have you seen the crime scene photographs?

I sure would like Italy to pack up all the evidence and send it over here.

 

[Diocletus]

And the rooting around among the knives is beyond bizarre. Did they want her to actually pick up a knife to get her prints on it then use that knife to frame her? Why does she write suggesting she was expected to pluck out the murder weapon? How could an innocent Amanda possibly know which knife was used. But she doesn't write of the police asking her to check for missing knives. Also, it was the little-used drawer she was asked to go through. Why that one?

Did Filomena and Laura have a chance to check through the knife drawer or was it only Amanda who went through this ritual?

Intriguing.

Interesting you mention that. It think that such a set-up would work something like this: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-142515.

“... the (police) officers present in cellar (no.10) forced [the applicant] to touch the packages in order to confirm whether they [contained] compacted [material]. [The applicant] refused to comply with the officers’ order to touch the packages and due to the mass of people pushing each other (поради настаната мешаница и турканица), he was again taken to the police station. The same method of treating [the applicant] continued in the police station, where he was forced to touch the packages in order to obtain his fingerprint [on them]

 

[Chris_Halkides]

magical thinking with respect to cleaning a knife

From reading Dr Mark Waterbury, "Monster of Perugia; The Framing of Amanda Knox", offers this statement regarding the finding of Kercher's DNA on the knife from Raf's kitchen, (at pg 101):

If I read the analysis of Dr Waterbury correctly, Stefanoni was able to accomplish a match by blowing up the noise in the results at the bottom of the data graphs, not from additional DNA amplification. In this way, having Meredith profile to work off of, she can match background noise to Meredith's DNA and create the appearance of "finding a match".

Stefanoni's procedure, if I understand it correctly, is specifically designed to generate a fraudulent false positive match, solely to support a conviction. In other words, frame a defendant. When the appeals court experts say something to the effect, it is not supported by scientifically valid analysis, that's a Italian speak for fraud, no? It's more than just scientifically unsupported, its deliberately rigged to achieve a falsely incriminating finding.

Profile 36B is clearly Meredith's profile, but it should be tossed as evidence for many reasons. For me the biggest problem is that there is no way to clean a knife of blood but not DNA. On top of that, if you clean a knife of blood, you should also remove starch.

 

[Diocletus]

One of the first lessons you learn in forensic blood splatter analysis is to identify the height that a blood drop originated. These drips were from a low height.

I don't agree, and I'm not sure that we know how dilute blood would behave anyway.

What drunk article of clothing are you talking about and why did it go through the grate on the bathroom window?

I don't know. A towel, a sweatshirt, pants, etc. I've never seen any picture that convinces me that the blood dripper went through the window.

Your position is unsupported and contradicted by sworn testimony.

There is testimony that Meredith's copy of Giacomo's key was recovered?

 

[anglolawyer]

I don't agree, and I'm not sure that we know how dilute blood would behave anyway.




I don't know. A towel, a sweatshirt, pants, etc. I've never seen any picture that convinces me that the blood dripper went through the window.




There is testimony that Meredith's copy of Giacomo's key was recovered?

The blood spots on the steps going down to the flat below are empty circles. I assume they are paw prints even they look nothing like what a would expect a cats print in blood to look like.

 

[carbonjam72]

magical thinking with respect to cleaning a knife
Originally Posted by carbonjam72
From reading Dr Mark Waterbury, "Monster of Perugia; The Framing of Amanda Knox", offers this statement regarding the finding of Kercher's DNA on the knife from Raf's kitchen, (at pg 101):

If I read the analysis of Dr Waterbury correctly, Stefanoni was able to accomplish a match by blowing up the noise in the results at the bottom of the data graphs, not from additional DNA amplification. In this way, having Meredith profile to work off of, she can match background noise to Meredith's DNA and create the appearance of "finding a match".

Stefanoni's procedure, if I understand it correctly, is specifically designed to generate a fraudulent false positive match, solely to support a conviction. In other words, frame a defendant. When the appeals court experts say something to the effect, it is not supported by scientifically valid analysis, that's a Italian speak for fraud, no? It's more than just scientifically unsupported, its deliberately rigged to achieve a falsely incriminating finding.
Profile 36B is clearly Meredith's profile, but it should be tossed as evidence for many reasons. For me the biggest problem is that there is no way to clean a knife of blood but not DNA. On top of that, if you clean a knife of blood, you should also remove starch.

Profile 36B is clearly Meredith's profile, but it should be tossed as evidence for many reasons. For me the biggest problem is that there is no way to clean a knife of blood but not DNA. On top of that, if you clean a knife of blood, you should also remove starch.

Hi Chris, Did I misread Dr Waterbury then? I thought I remembered that Stefanoni was working off of the DNA profiles she was trying to match to, and that was one of the reasons given for saying her method was unsound (not sure if that was in C-V).

Also, I think I had heard that she had stored the bra clasp in a manner that allowed it to rust, but that it had been stored in the fridge at the cottage, that would have had the DNA of all the 4 house mates. (If the clasp is untestable, isn't that better than having it retested and aid the defense?).

I'm trying to get to the way Stefanoni cheats the analysis, or rather whether she does. Using the DNA target profile is one way, no? Does she know there will be DNA residue in the machine if its tested close enough in time, and that's why she's confident blowing up the noise will produce a match? Waterbury was pretty strident that she was using a wholly invented method she just created on the fly, and refused to share how she got her results.

I guess you're the right person to ask on this. Is Stefanoni just incompetent, and really lucky in getting answers that please her bosses? Or is there a method to her madness, that makes pleasing her bosses inevitable.

Instead of telling us why something should be thrown out, can you show us what's going on here. Are these results accidental and lucky, or is she somehow gaming the lab results in a way that only an expert can catch?

 

[Dan O.]

I don't agree, and I'm not sure that we know how dilute blood would behave anyway.

We have blood and water, we can experiment. Dilute the blood, set it in a chair and ask it to behave.

I don't know. A towel, a sweatshirt, pants, etc. I've never seen any picture that convinces me that the blood dripper went through the window.

If you choose not to be convinced, that's your problem. I'll let others decide if you are being rational.

There is testimony that Meredith's copy of Giacomo's key was recovered?

There is testimony that a key to the downstairs apartment was found. I don't recall any mention of paternity testing.

 

[Samson]

Can you quote witness testimony as to when Meredith ate and what she ate?



Sure but there is no "latest GE time" for this type of meal. IIRC 200 minutes was the outlier time for one of those test meals. If she actually started eating at 6:30 that would make 9:50 the outlier time.

CD reported that the girls said she didn't feel well and ate later.

Pretty sure it was one outlier at 200, one at 170, which would give 9 20. The problem is the debate, which indicates 9 pm is unusually late fuels the anarchy of unreliability of gastric evidence for TOD, when the opposite should be the case. Early on I concluded that it would be statistically unusual to have eaten before 7 30 to be alive at 9, and Kaosium pointed out this was not helpful to the defence to move the meal commencement beyond the latest number given, which was 7 by Introna I think.
My contention is that the most understandable narrative for media and public is to fix the TOD and be flexible about the meal rather than the other way round. If you fix the TOD (or stress onset) at 9 you have proved your break in. Then you have Hendry's photographs all laid out neatly, and people start studying, and discover the staged break in is a myth. There is no need for a conspiracy or framing, just stupidity, which everyone understands.

There is a huge opportunity to have a media blitz predicated on "new" information IF Nencini produces a motivation report. I hope they have multiple scenarios to deliver, like pre written obituaries, to ridicule any motivation.

 

[Diocletus]

The blood spots on the steps going down to the flat below are empty circles. I assume they are paw prints even they look nothing like what a would expect a cats print in blood to look like.

Really? I don't normally assume that something is what I don't expect it to look like. But that's just me.

 

[Diocletus]

We have blood and water, we can experiment. Dilute the blood, set it in a chair and ask it to behave.

I had in mind the dripping of dilute blood onto concrete and then coming back the next day to see what it looks like. Unfortunately, I don't have any blood handy. But, I have a strong suspicion that the blood would wick away from the center of the drop. Maybe like this example of a skeletonized blood drop: http://forensics4fiction.com/2011/06/28/skeletonization-an-artifact-of-blood-drying/

If you choose not to be convinced, that's your problem. I'll let others decide if you are being rational.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=30348&d=1393398461[/qimg]

The drip on the window looks different from what was on the steps. Anyway, who's to say that Rudy didn't push the window open to see if anyone was inside, and drip some blood off of his cut hand.

There is testimony that a key to the downstairs apartment was found. I don't recall any mention of paternity testing.

I would have to see more.

 

[anglolawyer]

Really? I don't normally assume that something is what I don't expect it to look like. But that's just me.

Well, it could be someone painted a series of little circles on the steps, in blood, at about the distance apart of a cat's paws, or it could be a cat.

 

[Magister]

Human blood found downstairs.
An earlier post on this...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9759065&postcount=2254

 

[Diocletus]

Well, it could be someone painted a series of little circles on the steps, in blood, at about the distance apart of a cat's paws, or it could be a cat.

Or maybe none of those things.

 

[Diocletus]