Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kaosium]

This stuck me. . . . . Granted, I had been thinking along these lines before but I want to get it out.

Did the defense ever present the blunt case. I think it is one which could be presented without suggesting the cops cooking the evidence and just avoid the issue of police incompetence.

The blunt case is to simply argue that Rudy Guede committed the crime alone. While still rare, single perpetrator stranger sexual assaults and murder are common enough that they are well recorded.

On the other side, the idea of a couple involving a virtual stranger in their sexual fetishes is unknown. Even couples that have been convicted of sexual assault and killing, have any of them invited what amounts to almost a complete stranger to be involved in their actions. Been cases where they involve people they have known for a while.

Yes, the defense argued that Rudy Guede did it alone, his lawyer Valter Biscotti asked for a separate trial very early on as he realized that was the likely strategy.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

unbaking a cake

Is it true that, in a move reminiscent of halides1's call to retry RG after Cassation overturned the acquittal, the wife of the author of this piece has called for ......

platonov,

This is a gross misrepresentation, but that is entirely consistent with your other comments. One, although I wished for Guede to receive a longer sentence, I did not seriously suggest that he be retried (the principle of double jeopardy is one that I would not violate). Do you think that a sentence that is likely to be twelve years (assuming a reduction for good behavior) is just? Two, a wrongful conviction is as easy to undo as it is to unbake a cake. The tanks may symbolize any justice system; they are notoriously reluctant to admit errors.

 

[Desert Fox]

platonov,

This is a gross misrepresentation, but that is entirely consistent with your other comments. One, although I wished for Guede to receive a longer sentence, I did not seriously suggest that he be retried (the principle of double jeopardy is one that I would not violate). Do you think that a sentence that is likely to be twelve years (assuming a reduction for good behavior) is just? Two, a wrongful conviction is as easy to undo as it is to unbake a cake. The tanks may symbolize any justice system; they are notoriously reluctant to admit errors.

I hope they keep an eagle eye on him because I would argue that I am afraid that he will do it again.

 

[carbonjam72]

Rudy, tell the truth?

This would focus his mind. He might assist the Kercher family in their search for the truth if this execution could be avoided. He might be offered a deal, a lifetime sinecure teaching young women the art of basketball playing if he told a truth that tied the evidence into a satisfying whole.

Samson, I'm generally in agreement with your posts, this one might be a bit too far.

The choice to cooperate and avoid a given death sentence is about as coercive as can be. Who wouldn't "confess", to anything, under such circumstances?

Rudy Guede has proven himself to be a liar, it's the only thing about him that is reliable. He spins stories to extricate himself from his troubles, and he's not very good at it.

Unfortunately, relying on Guede for insight isn't workable, unless Rudy has something to gain, and his info is independently verifiable and new.

For example, what did he do with the knife? What did he do with his bloody clothes and the sneakers that made the footprints in blood?

Where did he spend Meredith's money? (Perhaps DNA residue is available in the cash registers, or on the bills if they can be traced. (The bills might have blood stains on them).

There'a lots of things Rudy could help with, if he wanted to, but why should he now? Would he get hit with calumnia charges if he admitted to lying previously? Seems like the incentives for Rudy are to keep his mouth shut and let his lawyer do the talking.

Good line of inquiry though, 'how to get Rudy to talk?'. (As someone else has suggested), you may someone may just need to cozy up to the Rud-ster at a bar, pour some drinks in him, and get him yapping on tape. You know he wants to get out "his side" of it.

 

[acbytesla]

Samson, I'm generally in agreement with your posts, this one might be a bit too far.

The choice to cooperate and avoid a given death sentence is about as coercive as can be. Who wouldn't "confess", to anything, under such circumstances?

Rudy Guede has proven himself to be a liar, it's the only thing about him that is reliable. He spins stories to extricate himself from his troubles, and he's not very good at it.

Unfortunately, relying on Guede for insight isn't workable, unless Rudy has something to gain, and his info is independently verifiable and new.

For example, what did he do with the knife? What did he do with his bloody clothes and the sneakers that made the footprints in blood?

Where did he spend Meredith's money? (Perhaps DNA residue is available in the cash registers, or on the bills if they can be traced. (The bills might have blood stains on them).

There'a lots of things Rudy could help with, if he wanted to, but why should he now? Would he get hit with calumnia charges if he admitted to lying previously? Seems like the incentives for Rudy are to keep his mouth shut and let his lawyer do the talking.

Good line of inquiry though, 'how to get Rudy to talk?'. (As someone else has suggested), you may someone may just need to cozy up to the Rud-ster at a bar, pour some drinks in him, and get him yapping on tape. You know he wants to get out "his side" of it.

I don't mean to gang up on Samson, but I agree with CJ. By pretty much everyone, Rudy has been deemed as not credible. Let's be truthful, I doubt Rudy could say anything that would convince me that Amanda and Raffaele were complicit in this crime. If Rudy came forward and said that Amanda and Raffaele were 100 percent innocent, do you think the guilters would allow themselves to think that Rudy wasn't lying again?

I don't see how anything Rudy would say today that people would find believable.

 

[Anode]

I don't mean to gang up on Samson, but I agree with CJ. By pretty much everyone, Rudy has been deemed as not credible. Let's be truthful, I doubt Rudy could say anything that would convince me that Amanda and Raffaele were complicit in this crime. If Rudy came forward and said that Amanda and Raffaele were 100 percent innocent, do you think the guilters would allow themselves to think that Rudy wasn't lying again?

I don't see how anything Rudy would say today that people would find believable.

I would believe him "iff" he disclosed where the knife and bloody clothes were hidden and they were still in tact and they showed only traces of him. But I realize there's little chance of him doing that and probably even less of a chance that the items still exist and are still viable.

 

[Desert Fox]

I don't mean to gang up on Samson, but I agree with CJ. By pretty much everyone, Rudy has been deemed as not credible. Let's be truthful, I doubt Rudy could say anything that would convince me that Amanda and Raffaele were complicit in this crime. If Rudy came forward and said that Amanda and Raffaele were 100 percent innocent, do you think the guilters would allow themselves to think that Rudy wasn't lying again?
I don't see how anything Rudy would say today that people would find believable.

Omar Ballard admitted to raping and murdering Michelle Moore-Bosko alone yet people still think Derek Tice, Danial Williams, Joseph J. Dick Jr. and Eric C. Wilson are guilty. As such, I would say that it is a certainty that Guede admitting he was the only one involved would sway few on the pro-guilt side.

 

[js202]

Omar Ballard admitted to raping and murdering Michelle Moore-Bosko alone yet people still think Derek Tice, Danial Williams, Joseph J. Dick Jr. and Eric C. Wilson are guilty. As such, I would say that it is a certainty that Guede admitting he was the only one involved would sway few on the pro-guilt side.

Concur. The fool and jackal Ergon has said this precisely. His take is that if Guede ever admits to being the sole perpetrator of the crime, it would simply be evidence that he had been paid off to do so by the Knoxes and/or Sollecitos. As a leader of one of the PMFs, one can be certain the troops would fall in line, not unlike Jim Jones' flock at Guyana.

 

[carbonjam72]

I would believe him "iff" he disclosed where the knife and bloody clothes were hidden and they were still in tact and they showed only traces of him. But I realize there's little chance of him doing that and probably even less of a chance that the items still exist and are still viable.

Clothes & sneakers can be tossed in a trash bin, and not attract notice. A knife is riskier. The knife could have been tossed right after the crime to get it off his person, and still be waiting to be found (the police never looked?).

However, if anyone does go looking for the knife, and finds something in the ballpark (compatible that is), DON't TOUCH IT!. Don't breathe on it. Don't even go near it without rubber gloves and a zip lock bag or some sterile container to seal it in.

Or you might find yourself accused as a member of a satanic cult, facing murder charges in Perugia.

 

[Desert Fox]

Concur. The fool and jackal Ergon has said this precisely. His take is that if Guede ever admits to being the sole perpetrator of the crime, it would simply be evidence that he had been paid off to do so by the Knoxes and/or Sollecitos. As a leader of one of the PMFs, one can be certain the troops would fall in line, not unlike Jim Jones' flock at Guyana.

As times goes on, likely opinions will shift. Seem that with a number of issues. Unless we are just completely blind, there really is no good evidence of AK/RS guilt. As time goes on, more an more people will just shake their head. Seen this with other issues such as opinions within the US as far as gay marriage. I believe the dominant psoition on the West Memphis Three is also that they are innocent.
There may be a tipping point where the pro guilt side just collapses.

 

[js202]

As times goes on, likely opinions will shift. Seem that with a number of issues. Unless we are just completely blind, there really is no good evidence of AK/RS guilt. As time goes on, more an more people will just shake their head. Seen this with other issues such as opinions within the US as far as gay marriage. I believe the dominant psoition on the West Memphis Three is also that they are innocent.
There may be a tipping point where the pro guilt side just collapses.

Yes, but I think that, in addition to the merely irrational takes like those of the dead-enders in the Duke Lacrosse, Norfolk Four and West Memphis Three cases, there is an additional cocktail of anti-Americanism - especially amongst a certain cadre of barking-mad English - and lockstep, cult-like behavior, enforced by the various anti-Knox hate sites, which may set this instance apart. I am fully expecting there to be die hard guilters in the Amanda Knox case, equivalent to those WWII Japanese soldiers one has read about, decades later still hunkered down on some uncharted Pacific Atoll, bayonet sharpened, eager to die for Hirohito.

 

[acbytesla]

I would believe him "iff" he disclosed where the knife and bloody clothes were hidden and they were still in tact and they showed only traces of him. But I realize there's little chance of him doing that and probably even less of a chance that the items still exist and are still viable.

I agree with all of this. Now if Rudy's clothes had DNA from Amanda and Raffaele, I would be forced to believe that Amanda and Raffaele were involved. That said, I don't think the guilters would believe that Amanda and Raffaele weren't involved if these clothes and knives didn't include A&R's DNA just as they don't find the absence of Amanda's DNA in that bedroom as compelling.

They would say things like the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

 

[Desert Fox]

Yes, but I think that, in addition to the merely irrational takes like those of the dead-enders in the Duke Lacrosse, Norfolk Four and West Memphis Three cases, there is an additional cocktail of anti-Americanism - especially amongst a certain cadre of barking-mad English - and lockstep, cult-like behavior, enforced by the various anti-Knox hate sites, which may set this instance apart. I am fully expecting there to be die hard guilters in the Amanda Knox case, equivalent to those WWII Japanese soldiers one has read about, decades later still hunkered down on some uncharted Pacific Atoll, bayonet sharpened, eager to die for Hirohito.

There are plenty who will argue that the Norfolk Four and West Memphis Three are guilt. Bet you could find those who believe Duke Lacrosse team is guilty as well.

 

[JREF2010]

Um, I think you are confusing the 'cranking up' of the knife with the bra clasp.

You are not the first to make this mistake – after all there are 2 items !
Kaosium and many others have fallen into the same pit of confusion.

Here's an idea – Perhaps the Cartwheel DNA class could skip the next lesson.
Have a rest period or Take the class outdoors and pick flowers or something.

nah, in Stefoni's class she just teaches corruption and lying. The Guiltard's gobble it up and goosestep, singing Heil Migninni.

the contradiction Stefoni makes is her inconsistency of either discounting anything below 150 RFU or accepting everything. But Stephony's way is to cherry pick and lie about it all.

Sometimes she uses below 50 RFU, other times she ignores peaks because they arent 150RFU.

The Guiltards don't see a problem with any of this of course.

 

[Desert Fox]

nah, in Stefoni's class she just teaches corruption and lying. The Guiltard's gobble it up and goosestep, singing Heil Migninni.

the contradiction Stefoni makes is her inconsistency of either discounting anything below 150 RFU or accepting everything. But Stephony's way is to cherry pick and lie about it all.

Sometimes she uses below 50 RFU, other times she ignores peaks because they arent 150RFU.

The Guiltards don't see a problem with any of this of course.

Does anybody know how strong the Lukis Anderson DNA signature is?
Likely give a ballpark of what a secondary transfer might be.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Lukis Anderson and the pulse oximeter

Does anybody know how strong the Lukis Anderson DNA signature is?
Likely give a ballpark of what a secondary transfer might be.

Desert Fox,

Why do you ask? One should not try to infer the mode of DNA deposition by the intensity of the signal. This is a clear case of contamination. Although there are some plausible routes of contamination, it is merely informed speculation IMO. See this link and the associated comments section. As far as I know, no one swabbed the pulse oximeter (why would they have done so at the time?); therefore, I don't believe that this route was demonstrated.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

A PG book on the Duke lacrosse case

There are plenty who will argue that the Norfolk Four and West Memphis Three are guilt. Bet you could find those who believe Duke Lacrosse team is guilty as well.

Desert Fox,

Regrettably this is true, and it has been helped by the publication of a high-profile, and very inaccurate book on the DL case, The Price of Silence. Fortunately, KC Johnson did a series of posts at Durham in Wonderland about this book and the interviews with its author, William Cohan.

 

[Samson]

I don't mean to gang up on Samson, but I agree with CJ. By pretty much everyone, Rudy has been deemed as not credible. Let's be truthful, I doubt Rudy could say anything that would convince me that Amanda and Raffaele were complicit in this crime. If Rudy came forward and said that Amanda and Raffaele were 100 percent innocent, do you think the guilters would allow themselves to think that Rudy wasn't lying again?

I don't see how anything Rudy would say today that people would find believable.

I think you all forget Rudy Guede accused Amanda and Raffaele of murder, as a first hand witness. Previously he had accused a brown haired man as a first hand witness. We are still waiting for a case where this is possible without the accuser being cross examined in court by both the prosecution and the defence. In these circumstances the credibility of the witness, and the consistency of his story are examined by a jury. Of course he would be deemed not credible in spades as he would be tripped up in a thousand ways. But a mild quantum of humour was intended in the post.
I would add to the execution avoidance condition he must satisfy a panel from JREF and IIP he is telling it like it was.

 

[anglolawyer]

I thought I would add my six penn'orth since this is my wheelhouse ©

But this is just false. And this is not a jury based adversarial system in which the evidence can be preemptively selected by a judge. The duty of the prosecution is not at all to bring findings that have an absolute certain or certified meaning, it is instead to just bring facts that are meaningful on a probabilistic level. You can well reach a certain conclusion without any "smoking gun" and with not a single element that is absolutely certain. There is no need of absolute certainty thresholds or certifications whatsoever for evidence in a trial.

Nomenclature please! Prosecutors do not 'bring findings'. The court makes those. The prosecution calls evidence to prove the charge having judged it sufficient for the job. 'Certainty' is for philosophers.

Italy allegedly has an adversarial system, but clearly it isn't fully accepted. The issue is more with the "jury" system. Here and elsewhere where the judge MUST rule on evidence before the "deciders" enter the juror room. Here the judge eliminates evidence that just being presented would impact the deciders even if the defense were to be able to attack it. An example would be DNA that wasn't handled to accepted protocol standards. This has nothing to do with any gun smoking or not.

Hmm. I am not sure badly handled DNA evidence would be inadmissible in a common law trial. It would just be lousy evidence.

Things that don't rise to accepted levels are not facts. It is a fact that Stef claimed she found the DNA but her methods and the handling of the items leaves that claim short of a fact.

Which the jury decides. The judge might first decide whether an expert's credentials were sufficient to allow them to give opinion evidence (sidebar: most witnesses may only prove facts known to them while experts may opine) and whether the particular field was one that was recognised as having experts in it (DNA forensics - check, blood spatter - check, dowsing - maybe not).

In the Italian system the judge does decide what will be presented to the other judges in court. Massei decided that Cristian T wouldn't be allowed to testify. Not every "fact" a prosecutor wants to present MUST be allowed. Certainly the court didn't allow many defense requests.

I thought it was Micheli who rejected Tramontano. That was at a preliminary hearing whose purpose was to decide whether there was a case to answer, a decision influenced by some very serious lies for which somebody belongs in jail. In an English court it would not be possible to stop the defence calling Tramontano at trial nor, within reason, anybody else.

LJ linked an interesting ECHR case over at IIP recently. The facts were that a guy was accused with his mistress of murdering his wife. Something like that anyway. His defence was that he was on his lunch break standing in a queue at the land registry at the time of the crime. He remembered a detail - the guy in front of him, of whom he gave a description, had had to return to get a document stamped having forgotten about it before. Get this - they identified the guy in the queue but the accused's request that he be called was denied!

Did I mention this was an Italian case? . The upshot was the poor bastard was convicted and duly appealed to the ECHR. While that was going through the system, Italy thought better of this interesting approach to fairness and re-tried the case with the land registry guy as a witness and, who would believe it, his evidence stood up in every detail, including the little bald patch the defendant remembered. This did not stop the nutters arguing he had sent someone else to stand in the queue, an idea that was too crazy even for Cassazione to swallow.

Italy.

Mach - why not just revert to trial by ordeal? It's cheaper, quicker and equally just.

But you can't be serious calling tho a "connection with MK". Tertiary transfer from having breathed the air inside a house (not the room). What are the records in science of a transfer under these condition? What are the odds? It' ridiculous. You could start talking of probability approaching the area of reasonable probability if Gubbiotti was wearing a jacket completely splashed with Meredith's blood. Btw Gubbiotti did not leave his alleged contaminating MK's DNA on any other item he handled from Sollecito's apartment; actually not even his own DNA is found on the knife, nor that of other forensics, not even on any other item collects in Sollecito's apartment.

How do you know?

Breathing the air, please. Exactly what did the policeman that placed the knife in the calendar box do at the cottage? What did the cop that spied the knife do at the cottage? The amount of alleged DNA on the knife clearly could get there by secondary, tertiary or even through more transfers. Do you think DNA just vaporizes after a secondary transfer?

You should not worry about paths of contamination. The DNA evidence doesn't get to first base . It's only in Italy (see above) where this macabre pantomime plays out.

But, first you don't even have evidence of RS's DNA on the door, in what amount was it there? Did Sollecito lick extensively the surface? There is no evidence of a source of any massive or anyway statistically significant size.
Then, who would this "someone" be? Did anyone pick up the clasp? How did Sollecito's DNA from a dry trace stick on the metal? And nowhere else? What are the odds for this transfer? Whereas the operator did not manage to leave not even his own profile on any item, not even on the floor?
And the knife, with 6 days of interval during which 105 samples were analyzed by the same machine and no MK trace found (this is the Novelli report)?
Amanda's secondary transfer, an isolated trace on a blade? Why not on the handle then? Why not on the things Knox touched most frequently? And after all, why should Knox come into contact with a large source of Meredith's DNA? And even if that was the case, would any better forensic technique change anything to this matter?

All utter crap, repeatedly debunked here and by C-V. Can we have the dates of the knife amplifications (ooh - and the associated negative controls too) please? Without them there is no basis for the 6 day claim (Diocletus's wheelhouse).

Suppose, just as a thought experiment, that the cops or Stefanoni did tamper with the DNA evidence. In such a case it would be futile looking for possible paths of contamination since ex hypothesi there wouldn't be one. According to Mach, that's the end of the road. Guilty.

Are you suggesting that Raf was part of this violent murder and left no DNA in the cottage at all? Obviously the ICSI didn't find it, but does that mean it wasn't there? Did they check the door? Whose DNA was on the door knob? Did they find any DNA from the PP?

Yes, I think he is.

And has any non "defense-siding" expert found anything to the contrary? Any non Vecchiotti- related expert?

Conti.

Gill. Since all the experts except those directly associated with the prosecution went against Stef, I guess you would say they were "defense siding".

Why not give all, as in everything, of the lab files and all related information including collection videos to an independent expert from some non-involved country and see what they come up with? Please don't answer with some legal gobbledygook.

I will answer for Mach and Italy. There are a number of reasons, namely:

1 such a request is without precedent
2 it is also impertinent and insulting
3 it may very well necessitate a charge of slander if persisted in
4 the request is too late
5 alternatively, the request is too early as we have not yet got to the point where we can lawfully destroy the material - we agree to disclosure subsequent to destruction
6 the court file is too bulky already
7 the request has been complied with
8 compliance with the request (notwithstanding 7 above) would reveal the fraudulent nature of the material, rendering valueless a lot of hard work.

 

[Desert Fox]

Desert Fox,

Why do you ask? One should not try to infer the mode of DNA deposition by the intensity of the signal. This is a clear case of contamination. Although there are some plausible routes of contamination, it is merely informed speculation IMO. See this link and the associated comments section. As far as I know, no one swabbed the pulse oximeter (why would they have done so at the time?); therefore, I don't believe that this route was demonstrated.

The language of discounting below 150 RFU and 50 RFU is used in the post I responded to. I believe you have also stated that Raff's DNA was trace on the bra clasp so just trying to judge the relative nature of these things.
How that I am making some sense?