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

[Grinder]

This is all very depressing. I knew the report was coming but it is still a shock.

I have nothing constructive to add that hasn't already been said by others.

I have an irrational dislike of Stefanoni.

proudfootz,

Proper LCN DNA refers to a particular set of conditions for testing, not the least o which are special decontamination procedures performed in a dedicated facility with positive pressure hoods, among other features. What Stefanoni did was not LCN but her own variation of low template DNA work, using a protocol that has never appeared in the literature. Her lab was not even certified for standard profiling, let alone LCN work. The lack of negative controls and the refusal to release raw data under these circumstances are all the more reprehensible. I suggest reading some of the posts on low template DNA forensics within this thread so that you can catch up.

So they were there between 9.30 and 10.00 p.m. and then out and about again after that. THis means Toto only saw them in the gaps when he was not reading his paper, but never saw them leave or return (covered in blood?) to the Piazza where they remained waiting for the break down truck to leave and then went back between 11.30 and midnight when I guess Amanda screamed so our it was heard across the street through closed windows by more than one person (one of whom then heard running footsteps … whose were those?). That scream must have freaked poor Raffaele. Geez! What a nut job she was! I guess they must have run away because the involuntary scream made them afraid someone had heard. Then they slunk back for the clean up.

LOL does anyone actually believe this crap? Oh yes, they do. That's the problem isn't it?

I wonder where they got rid of their clothes?

Curatolo arrived at exactly 9:27 and noticed the kids at the other end of the plaza and observed them having an animated conversation. We can assume that it took at least a little time for him to observe this and he clearly indicated they were there every time he looked up.

 

[anglolawyer]

Curatolo arrived at exactly 9:27 and noticed the kids at the other end of the plaza and observed them having an animated conversation. We can assume that it took at least a little time for him to observe this and he clearly indicated they were there every time he looked up.

To which there seem to be two answers:

A he only saw them in gaps between reading, leaving them free to do things like, er … murder someone, or

B under the rules of Italian jurisprudence we can take the fact he saw them and select one of the implications (that they were not at home when they said they were) while rejecting the other one (that they cannot have committed the crime).

What I don't get about B is how come Galati was urging on the ISC Curatolo's 'extraordinary accuracy' and why the ISc was blown away by the fact he came to court not once, oh no, but twice and successfully identified them each time! So if he's an unimpeachable witness how come half of what he says gets thrown out.

What if the defence had called him? Could they say disregard the bit where he says they left home but take into account the part where he placed them in the piazza? What is the principle at work here?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Air handling and pressure in LCN and other demanding applications

Laboratories are constructed in a way to minimize the possibility of contamination due to air flow. In the article Setting Up a PCR Laboratory.” Theodore E. Mifflin discussed how the design of the laboratory can minimize the chances of contamination: “Air handling. For extremely high-performance PCR laboratories that will be involved with detecting very-low-prevalence DNA or RNA molecules (e.g., infectious disease agents in clinical samples), additional measures may be necessary to prevent contamination from the air being recirculated between the pre- and post-PCR laboratories. In this case, the air handlers need to be separate and the air pressure individually adjusted in each laboratory. In the pre-PCR laboratory, there should be a slight positive pressure compared to the air in the connecting hallway. The post-PCR laboratory, in contrast, should be at slightly reduced pressure to pull air in from the outside and thereby prevent escape of amplicons from the completed PCR samples being analyzed inside the lab (Fig. 2). Finally, the air handlers for the pre- and post-PCR laboratories need to be connected to separate air ducts, and each must lead to a separate location for exhaust.” Dr. Mifflin’s main focus is pathology, but his points about low levels of DNA are germane to low template DNA forensics in that both situations use PCR to amplify very small quantities of DNA.

Mark Waterbury quoted the description given by the Forensic Science Service (FSS) in his second article on real versus ersatz LCN testing: "The FSS LCN test requires an ultra-clean laboratory and so is more expensive and less widely offered than the standard test.... The site of this bespoke laboratory is remote from other DNA Units, operates stringent entry requirements, is fitted with positive air pressure and specialist lighting and chemical treatments to minimize DNA contamination." link

 

[Mary_H]

Court explains why they followed the evidence instead of fantasies during the trial and appeal of convicted murderer Amanda Knox: http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/29/world/europe/italy-amanda-knox/index.html

Sorry, CTers.

What evidence? Every single scenario, suggestion and speculation made by any of the courts has been based on fantasies. It can't be any other way, because none of these jokers was there, all three of the defendants deny the crime happened the way the judges want it to have happened, and the judges automatically disregard any evidence that contradicts the images in their creepy, dirty little minds.

Here is Massei on the multiple attackers theory:

The consultants and forensic scientists have asserted that from the point of view of forensic science, it cannot be ruled out that the author of the injuries could have been a single attacker, because the bruises and the wounds from a pointed and cutting weapon are not in themselves incompatible with the action of a single person.

He then goes on to explain why their opinions don't count, and the rest of the non-forensic-scientist-consultant judges follow suit.

You're opposed to conspiracies but you don't mind judges who agree to throw out science and convict even if it means changing the accusations with each ensuing trial. It may not have been a conspiracy in the beginning, but it sure is starting to look like one.

 

[Bill Williams]

When Barbie Latza Nadeau writes in CNN that part of the reason for the |Florence conviction was "multiple attackers" she gets it half-wrong...

In the more than 300-page document, the court said that a third person convicted in the murder, Rudy Guede, did not act alone, and cited the nature of the victim's wounds.

Judge Nencini also called this a "procedural fact", meaning that regardless of the "nature of the victims wounds", this was a fact given to him by some other court which he was bound to accept.

Jude Massei's motivations report looks like pure genius in comparison. Massei is honest enough to report that all but one of the experts he relied upon accepted that a single attacker was eminently possible and consistent with the evidence, incl. the nature of the wounds.

For Massei, the compelling issue for multiple attackers was his assertion that Knox and Sollecito had returned later to the cottage to disturb the crime scene; therefore there were by definition "multiple attackers".

Remember Mignini? Anyone remember him? His response to Knox's DNA not found in the murder room was to say she was directing the attack from out in the hall.

You see, as these factoids crumble, Italian jurist do retreat in the face of the obvious.

But Nencini's hands were tied by "procedural facts".

 

[Diocletus]

To which there seem to be two answers:

A he only saw them in gaps between reading, leaving them free to do things like, er … murder someone, or

B under the rules of Italian jurisprudence we can take the fact he saw them and select one of the implications (that they were not at home when they said they were) while rejecting the other one (that they cannot have committed the crime).

What I don't get about B is how come Galati was urging on the ISC Curatolo's 'extraordinary accuracy' and why the ISc was blown away by the fact he came to court not once, oh no, but twice and successfully identified them each time! So if he's an unimpeachable witness how come half of what he says gets thrown out.

What if the defence had called him? Could they say disregard the bit where he says they left home but take into account the part where he placed them in the piazza? What is the principle at work here?

I love how Nencini can parse out the accurate/inaccurate parts of Curatalo's testimony, even though Nencini never laid eyes on Curatalo.

There are numerous ECtHR cases saying that it is a violation for a court to make factual findings in support of a conviction on the basis of the testimony from a witness who never testified before the convicting court. This is complicated by the fact that Hellman actually did hear from Curatalo, and concluded that he was a drug-addled bum.

 

[carbonjam72]

So they were there between 9.30 and 10.00 p.m. and then out and about again after that. THis means Toto only saw them in the gaps when he was not reading his paper, but never saw them leave or return (covered in blood?) to the Piazza where they remained waiting for the break down truck to leave and then went back between 11.30 and midnight when I guess Amanda screamed so our it was heard across the street through closed windows by more than one person (one of whom then heard running footsteps … whose were those?). That scream must have freaked poor Raffaele. Geez! What a nut job she was! I guess they must have run away because the involuntary scream made them afraid someone had heard. Then they slunk back for the clean up.

LOL does anyone actually believe this crap? Oh yes, they do. That's the problem isn't it?

I wonder where they got rid of their clothes?

Well since they didn't all do it, the question is where did Rudy get rid of his clothes? If it was he, that was spotted rushing past a couple on the stairs across from the cottage, wouldn't they have noticed his blood soaked clothes had he still been in them?

Ergo back to the downstairs apartment, and the "cat blood", which nonetheless returned 5 human DNA profiles on blood samples tested, when the results only return for humans, and specifically not cats.

I've been trying to find testimony from the guys downstairs, that I thought I saw translated early on somewhere, where they were being asked by defense if they noticed any clothes missing. I couldn't understand the thrust of the question when I read it, but I get it now.

Did Rudy go downstairs after killing Meredith, use the keys he got from her to enter the downstairs apartment, and get a change of clothes? It would rather suggest that if Rudy alone had entered the downstairs apartment, then perhaps the break-in was real after all.

 

[proudfootz]

Match? Any sharp knife could have made that wound.

Oh, really?

Better tell law enforcement around the world - they often seem to match knives to wounds. They've been doing it wrong all those years.

 

[proudfootz]

. Aw, you're no fun at all! Why not speculate? Where's the harm? I bet you've thought about it. Nencini speculated and so did Mignini, Crini, Matteini, Massei and Micheli. It's allowed so go for it. Give us all a laugh.

Too busy laughing at all the CT stuff regularly posted here.

Bill's question is a good one and your answer is a pathetic cop out. There are many more where that one came from and they are all perfectly valid and in need of answers. Why (never mind how) did they meticulously clean up in the bedroom but leave Raf's bloody footprint splat on the bathmat? Why was she buying cleaning products when they already had some? Why did they frame Rudy? Why did they, particularly she, stick around helping the cops? Why didn't they consult lawyers? Why did they hang around in the Piazza (btw. do we have a TOD in Nencini?)? Why were they so relaxed about the clean up they were still at it when the posties showed up? And on and on and on.

Gish called: he wants his gallop back.

The Italian judges, whom you worship, speculate all the time.

I worship them? Do tell - I'm fascinated by your claims of psychic powers.

When will Randi pay you your million dollars?

Unless the perpetrators confess, we may never know why they did what they did.

Last week it was a sex game gone wrong, this week it's about the money and next week it will be the crap again. One of many objections to the knife is that it makes no sense she would have taken it with her. Please offer a plausible reason why she might have done that.

The most plausible reason for the stabbing victim's DNA being found on the blade of a knife and the accused's DNA being found on the handle would seem to be that this is one of the knives used in the murder.

Occam, anyone?

Anticipating an unco-operative reply I'll tell you what you think. She was really wound up about the rent money which she had stolen. She thought Meredith would be pissed about it so she thought 'I'll show the bitch', took up the kitchen knife and marched over with Raf in tow. They bumped into Rudy on the way and invited him along. As luck would have it, Rudy separately had his reasons for wanting to attack Meredith. Then they went in, argued about the money and slaughtered her. How am I doing?

That's much more plausible than the whole government of Italy cooking up some conspiracy to frame a sociopathic girl for no reason at all.

 

[carbonjam72]

Who stole the mattress? Why?

Now I am going to get in trouble with both you AND Grinder on this. Regardless of a third break-in through the kitchen window or the porch, the cite I remember specifically says that Filomena's window was the route for pranksters wanting to do a spoof-satanic rite in that cottage.

The accompanying pic to the story I saw had a piece of plywood nailed over Filomena's window, and id'ed it as the route of the pranksters.

Me, I blame the Mafia concept of Omertà for this not getting out. The good denizens of Perugia are under the jackboot of Mignini in an enforced silence! (Don't say I never learned from Machiavelli!)

At the risk of seeming overly conspiratorial, I'd like to float the idea that the police stoled the mattress. For the purpose of preventing any additional forensics perhaps, or, to add to point number two...bolstering the impression of satanic cults.

The faked satanic rituals, were actually faked, faked satanic rituals, performed by the police to leave the impression that there really are satanic cults active in this case. (That's right, a 'double faked' ritual. Just like Dr Narducci's body was taken, and then replaced back again, in the now infamous 'double swap', done by the cult to embarrass Dr Mignini!)

Thus supporting not only Mignini's satanic sexual ritual claims in this case, but Mignini's tying himself into the Monster of Florence case as well over satanic cults. In the MOF case, according to Mignini's theory (not a joke), the cult used the female body parts from the Monsters victims as 'fetish objects in black masses'. And, as the psychic medium Carlizzi warned Miginini by email within a day or two of the murder, that the kercher murder was all about the sacrifice of female blood relating to a halloween ritual, its logical that the cult would want the mattress (symbolic of the bloody murder and sex) for their diabolical black masses.

Thinking the public would believe this, it's logical the police and Mignini had motive, opportunity, and means to steal the mattress, and leave fake, faked satanic rituals, to both embarrass themselves publicly, throwing off suspicion from themselves for having done this, yet also supporting the belief that satanic cults are indeed active in Perugia.

Can I be an Italian judge?

 

[kwill]

The most plausible reason for the stabbing victim's DNA being found on the blade of a knife and the accused's DNA being found on the handle would seem to be that this is one of the knives used in the murder.

The victim's DNA was not found on the blade of the knife.
The victim's DNA was not found on the blade of the knife.
The victim's DNA was not found on the blade of the knife.

You're never going to make progress in understanding the case if you don't master that basic fact.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

there is a difference between compatible and matching

Oh, really?

Better tell law enforcement around the world - they often seem to match knives to wounds. They've been doing it wrong all those years.

With all due respect, you are not being specific enough in your thinking or writing. The two smaller wounds were different, and one of them has bruising from the hilt of the knife. IIUC from the depth of this would, one can estimate the length of the blade. That is why the big kitchen knife is incompatible with the smaller wounds. The largest wound was a slash wound. Please cite some evidence which shows that the kitchen knife matches this wound or withdraw your claim.

 

[anglolawyer]

snipped badinage

That's much more plausible than the whole government of Italy cooking up some conspiracy to frame a sociopathic girl for no reason at all.

Minus the gratuitous 'sociopathic' slur, given the choice, I go for the whole Italian government thing. In fact, it's just a tiny bit less grandiose than that but it is a conspiracy all the same, as even The Central Scrutiniser now accepts.

 

[codyjuneau]

Court explains why they followed the evidence instead of fantasies during the trial and appeal of convicted murderer Amanda Knox: http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/29/world/europe/italy-amanda-knox/index.html

Sorry, CTers.

.
CS, you post a lot on JREF and I gather you consider yourself a skeptic. I only post on this topic but I also consider myself a sceptic, and generally reject 'conspiracy theories', although I prefer the phrase 'theories unsupported by evidence' (TUBEs ?).

So I am genuinely curious what your definition of a conspiracy theory is, and why you believe people who think the evidence in this case does not support a conviction of Raffaele and Amanda fit your definition?

Serious question. I am not trying to be a smart ass (not this time at least).
.

 

[Supercalifragilistic]

The victim's DNA was not found on the blade of the knife.
The victim's DNA was not found on the blade of the knife.
The victim's DNA was not found on the blade of the knife.

You're never going to make progress in understanding the case if you don't master that basic fact.

I think you need to read the Nencini report.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm too busy with work and travel to focus much over the past week or so, and I've only skimmed through the Nencini motivation and the discussion about it here. But.....

My quick reading of the Nencini "reasoning" speaks to something that I (and, IIRC, others here) discussed some while ago: Nencini's court was unequivocally guided by the prior verdict (with Supreme Court ratification) that Guede had committed the murder "with others". It appears abundantly clear to me that this was the starting point for Nencini's court's reasoning, and was taken as unchallenged (and unchallengeable) fact. Nencini's court therefore felt that all it had to decide was this: if these others were not Knox and Sollecito, then who could they have been?

At this point, the "Italian inquisitorial legacy disease" seems to have reared its ugly head as well. In this instance (as in Massei), it appears to have manifested itself in the court choosing to believe the police, prosecutors and prosecution expert witnesses almost by rote as figures of unimpeachable objectivity and neutrality (while at the same time marking down the defence and defence experts on credibility terms on account of a partisan bias!).

Put these two factors together, and it was virtually inevitable that the Nencini court would find for guilt. There is, however, absolutely no doubt in my mind that the adverse (and hugely unlawful) impact of the Guede verdict upon the Knox/Sollecito trial process will be an extremely strong point of application to the ECHR. I also think that an examination of the Nencini motivation will provide additional evidence to the ECHR that Knox and Sollecito were not given a fair trial on account of an obvious court bias towards the prosecution.

So, over to Strasbourg. In the meantime, it will be marginally interesting to see what the Italian Supreme Court has to say about this motivations document. I suspect they will sign off on it without batting an eyelid, if precedent is anything to go by. And then there's Knox's extradition (I pity Sollecito's position). I believe that this motivations document - together with the likelihood of a pending ECHR application - means that the US won't agree to the extradition of Knox (assuming it's requested by Italy).

Look: all countries' criminal justice systems have flaws - both with specific cases and institutionally/structurally. And it's fundamentally impossible to have a "perfect" system of criminal justice (i.e. one in which the factually-guilty are always convicted and the factually-innocent are always acquitted). But the various courts in Italy, up to and including the Supreme Court, have shown themselves to be unfit for purpose in the Knox/Sollecito trials. They have become a laughing stock on an international stage (although I am certain that Knox and Sollecito and their families and friends are not laughing). Furthermore, this is no good for the victim and her relatives/friends. It's a black comedy in which there are no winners.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh and by the way: there appear to be a number of significant errors in the Nencini Report (probably the most serious of which is the false assertion that Sollecito's DNA was found on the kitchen knife). Now, I realise that all (or at least most) of these are almost certainly mistakes within the document rather than errors of judgement/factfinding by the court itself, but nonetheless this report is a legal document.

In my line of work, if a legal document is submitted, it had better be right. It doesn't cut much ice to claim "Oh yeah, we meant to say that the price we are going to pay to acquire your business is £1 billion, rather than the £1 million we mistakenly put in the purchase documentation." I suspect that the court bodies in the Knox/Sollecito case will afford Nencini's court considerably more latitude in correcting its own documentation mistakes. But regardless of that, it's indicative of shocking ineptitude and sloppiness from an appeal court judging a murder case.

But I'm afraid it's in line with what we've come to expect from the broken Italian criminal justice system......

 

[kwill]

I think you need to read the Nencini report.

I would, but it's apparently written with crayons and finger paint.

The victim's DNA was not found on the blade of the knife.
The victim's DNA was not found on the blade of the knife.
The victim's DNA was not found on the blade of the knife.

That's essential information.

 

[Diocletus]

The Phones

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but could somebody let me know why on earth they didn't test Meredith's phones for DNA? Weren't Knox and Sollecito convicted of stealing them? Wouldn't it be kind of important to try to discover who last handled them?

 

[js202]

I think you need to read the Nencini report.

Are you aware that the knife was retested under Nencini, and that - wonder of wonders! - Stefanoni's results finding Meredith Kercher's DNA on the blade of the knife could not be duplicated? This is both in concurrent reporting of the trial, and the court documents.

Could this be the first time in the modern era when a key piece of evidence was disproven and should have been subtracted from the equation, and yet the judge chose to convict?

It take a special kind of gullible fool to follow such "reasoning", and, rather than believe the documented scientific results, fall back on the sophistry of a judge who was bent on convicting, come what may.