Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[TruthCalls]

Haven't you read any of the folowups to your posts? The prosecution is being stupid to claim the only opportunity for Raffaele's DNA to get on that clasp was during the murder.

1. Unless meredith never washes her bras, this bra had been in the wash and there is a possibility of DNA transfer in the wash.
2. The washed bra is laid out on the drying rack to dry. This rack is in the hall right outside Amanda's room. Raffaele could have touched the clasp while passing the rack on the way to Amanda's room or the small bathroom.
3. Meredith must handle this bra prior to getting dressed the morning of the first. If she were for instance to run a fingernail under the clasp to clear lint, DNA she picked up under her nails could be transferred to the clasp.
4. The opportunity to transfer DNA to the clasp hooks durring the murder is limited. While the clasp is fastened, the hooks point inward towards Meredith's back. The clasp was not cut off by Raffaele's knife as the prosecution claims with zero backing evidence, it was removed when the stitching tore out. Pulling out and down on the band behind Meredith's right shoulder will cause the shoulder strap and clasp to unstitch exactly as seen and also cause the deformation of the one hook while leaving the othe intact. Rudy Guede's DNA was found on the right band of the bra giving strong indication that it was Rudy who ripped Meredith's bra off. The clasp would fall to the floor untouched.
5. Some might try to argue that Raffaele could have stepped on the clasp with his bare foot. Apart from the fact that there is no indication that Raffaele was in the murder room with bare feet or otherwise, the photographs show that the clasp was not stepped on until after it was first discovered on November 3. The photos from the subsequent recovery on December 18 show that one of the hooks has been collapsed whereas it was still open on November 3.
6. Prior to the morning of November 14 there was an unrecorded access to the cottage. This is evidenced by a photo taken by Barbie Nadeu and collaborated by a statement to the press on the 12th that the police would be using Luminol in the cottage the next day.
7. The clasp is recovered on December 18, found under a rug a meter away from where it was last seen. The clasp could have picked up DNA from the dust on the floor or objects it was rubbing against like the cord to Amanda's lamp.
8. The investigators do not pick up the clasp with sterile disposable tweezers and immediately place it in the evidence bag. Stefanoni picks up the clasp with obviously soiled gloves, transferes it from hand to hand and passes it around the group before it is put back on the floor, rephotographed, picked up again and then put in the bag with several staged photos of the process.
9. And finally, laboratory contamination of samples is not unheard of.

The evidence we have of multiple contributors to that profile found only on the hooks of the clasp suggests a secondary transfer event like number 3.


ETA, Left one out: [3.5] Around noon on November 1, Raffaele is cooking pasta in the kitchen of the cottage when Meredith comes through to put something in or take something out of the washer. In the kitchen she could have engaged Raffaele in a friendly duel, snapping him on the shoulder with her flail while he turns and touches her hand with the tip of his sword.

I would add to this the fact that Stefanoni actually rubs one of the metal clasps with her finger after picking it up, though I am not sure if that is the clasp where the DNA was found. Also, I find it very interesting that the hall facing door handle to Meredith's room was never tested for DNA because 'the crime happened on the other side of the door'. People enter rooms, they touch door handles. Raffaele tried to get into the room and likely left plenty of DNA on the handle. It is not a stretch to conclude Stefanoni got Raffaele's DNA on her glove coming into the room and then transferred it when she rubbed the clasp. This can not be proven, but the failure to test the handle and the rubbing of the clasp with dirty gloves are fact, and both represent gross violations of proper crime scene procedures.

 

[TruthCalls]

8. A police officer plants a device to listen in on a conversation between Raffaele and Amanda at the station. This was 3 or 4 November IIRC.

The title of your post was "this one has always bugged me". Deliberate pun?

Don't they routinely bug witnesses in Italy?

 

[carbonjam72]

For some reason I expect an odd order to come out.

How does the "system" save face, from this embarrassing farce, yet set them free and be done with the bad publicity and global and public embarrassment for being a Goofball Court, full of dishonest politics?
I can understand their position. If you start letting people go then the system seems vulnerable to be wrong, which stirs more protesting and more people being let go and more lawsuits for damages of ruining lives, and a mini-revolution occurs.

If they drop Raffaele and keep on at Amanda.... they can appease the Hate-Mongers, maintain some local public positive tv worship and while keeping the farce going with some foreigner still being charged, as a nod to the corrupt cops and politics of face saving.

But for me, the guiltards evidence against Amanda is even weaker than Raffaeles.

The knife evidence is weaker than the bra clasp, imo.
No blood=Not cleaned = tested, tested and retested = Nothing.
DNA RFU below low..

There is no blurry bloody footprint blob mat... against Amanda.

No DNA in Merediths room.
She lived in the apartment so her DNA and anything else would not be alarming if found in the toilet,sink, floor, or kitchen.

All the other fiction scenarios the Guiltards vomited become even more of a bad joke, with only vindictive obsession towards her surviving.Maresca seems to be the last standing Loyalist to the Guiltard party.
I was reading Hellmans transcripts...
They had a chance to break Rudy, in Hellmans court, to try to get some truth out of him, but Maresca objected, and objected and objected a few more times on Rudys behalf. So strange to imagine Maresca defending the man who raped and murdered Meredith, and yet he supposedly is counseling the Kerchers? And more bizarre is, shortly after Marescas protecting Rudys silence in court, John Kercher was publicly asking Rudy to talk?

Old Maresca is a slippery snake....I await surprises from him too, not just the SC.

Yes John Kercher wants an innocent life and blames Amanda for surviving, and Yes, it's all about stealing Raf's inheritance.

 

[carbonjam72]

I just don't see how the ISC is going to reconcile Amanda and Raff's case with Rudy's. It seems impossible now. God knows what will happen tomorrow.

Uh, please don't mention God. One of the guiltards claims to be.

 

[Bill Williams]

Haven't you read any of the folowups to your posts? The prosecution is being stupid to claim the only opportunity for Raffaele's DNA to get on that clasp was during the murder.

I would add to this the fact that Stefanoni actually rubs one of the metal clasps with her finger after picking it up, though I am not sure if that is the clasp where the DNA was found. Also, I find it very interesting that the hall facing door handle to Meredith's room was never tested for DNA because 'the crime happened on the other side of the door'. People enter rooms, they touch door handles. Raffaele tried to get into the room and likely left plenty of DNA on the handle. It is not a stretch to conclude Stefanoni got Raffaele's DNA on her glove coming into the room and then transferred it when she rubbed the clasp. This can not be proven, but the failure to test the handle and the rubbing of the clasp with dirty gloves are fact, and both represent gross violations of proper crime scene procedures.

As Dan O. suggests, this is a classic suspect-centred investigation. The main difference, if not the ONLY difference of any importance, in the way Massei/Nencini handle the whole DNA stuff, vs. Hellmann, is that Massei/Nencini offer up a suspect-centric conviction.

In short, Massei/Nencini reduce the whole issue to: "Raffaele found, Raffaele guilty." Judge Massei's motivations report at least deals with the issue of the charge against Stefanoni as doing a suspect-centric DNA analysis, but read Massei. (I have the page references upthread.)

Massei raises the issue of the suspect-centric nature of the analysis and then wanders away from it without really dealing with it. Nencini simply hand-waves away the issue saying that the whole point of Sample 165B is that Raffaele is there. He shows a complete disinterest (and incompetence) by hand-waving away the other three possible identities, even assigning them to Meredith's boyfriend and two "amicas" (!) with NO reason to speculate like that.

If Cassazione confirms tomorrow, it won't just be a disaster for two innocents. It will establish as judicial-truth that suspect-centric convictions are safe.

 

[Machiavelli]

So does this mean it is far more effective to make wild accusations about the psychological makeup of the defendant without any professional or circumstantial evidence to back it up? Nothing to prove the accusations are false, all one needs to do is be a good used car salesman and tada, you have a foothill for your mountain.

These last few pages are truly bizarre. And to think, you, Mach, are looked upon as an expert in the prosecution of this case by your PG brethren. Wow...

But Mignini didn't really make any case based on the personality of Amanda Knox. On the other hand judges Micheli, Matteini and Ricciarelli did draw some psychological profiles of the two defendants. Those are the only judges who actully pointed out psychological features and dynamics.
Then prosecution and courts became progressively less interested in psychological aspects.
I don't think there was nothing wrong on the part of Mignini in pointing out that Knox had an intent of revenge and humiliation of Meredith, it's just unavoidable for the prosecution and judges to express their own ideas about the dynamic of the crime. This doesn't equate to an in-depth psychological analysis of personalities and motives. Anyway Mignini is not a psychologist and I won't take his opinion as a psychological analysis about the true and deep reasons of behaviours.

 

[Machiavelli]

I would add to this the fact that Stefanoni actually rubs one of the metal clasps with her finger after picking it up, though I am not sure if that is the clasp where the DNA was found. Also, I find it very interesting that the hall facing door handle to Meredith's room was never tested for DNA because 'the crime happened on the other side of the door'. People enter rooms, they touch door handles. Raffaele tried to get into the room and likely left plenty of DNA on the handle. It is not a stretch to conclude Stefanoni got Raffaele's DNA on her glove coming into the room and then transferred it when she rubbed the clasp. This can not be proven, but the failure to test the handle and the rubbing of the clasp with dirty gloves are fact, and both represent gross violations of proper crime scene procedures.

The door had been already disassembled by other police forces, prior to the Dec. 17. visit of Stefanoni's team. It was no longer in place.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

mental agility

The title of your post was "this one has always bugged me". Deliberate pun?

Don't they routinely bug witnesses in Italy?

Yes, I couldn't resist. I don't see how anyone could argue that someone is still only a witness (not a suspect) when they are being surreptitiously recorded, but some people are...agile...in their thinking. This incident is written about in several books on the case.

 

[Machiavelli]

It would appear from Stefano Buratti's evidence that it could have been as early as the 3rd.

Buratti doesn't say that.

 

[js202]

You say to-may-to...

Yes, I couldn't resist. I don't see how anyone could argue that someone is still only a witness (not a suspect) when they are being surreptitiously recorded, but some people are...agile...in their thinking. This incident is written about in several books on the case.

"Agile" is surely the politest way to describe the thinking in question, which is to your courtesy's credit. But with charm and courtesy always strange bedfellows to this discussion, "facile" may be closer to the bullseye.

 

[Machiavelli]

ericparossien,

Peter Gill describes framework or hierarchy of levels (Misleading DNA Evidence, p. 19) at which DNA evidence can be evaluated:
1. The sub-source level refers to the strength of evidence of the DNA profile itself.
2. The source level is an evaluation of the strength of the DNA profile if it can be associated with a particular body fluid, such as semen or blood
3. The activity level associates the DNA with the crime itself, e.g. sexual assault.

The DNA evidence related to the knife and clasp are both clearly in the sub-source category. They cannot be linked to any particular tissue. BTW this is one problem with low template DNA that does not go away with better DNA profiling kits.

Don't you forget a little detail, among the assessment levels?
The judges.
It's the judges who will determine the meaning of each single evidence finding, based on its relationship with the context of the other evidence. Not the experts.

 

[js202]

Drs. Mignini and Machiavelli, LMHC

But Mignini didn't really make any case based on the personality of Amanda Knox. On the other hand judges Micheli, Matteini and Ricciarelli did draw some psychological profiles of the two defendants. Those are the only judges who actully pointed out psychological features and dynamics.
Then prosecution and courts became progressively less interested in psychological aspects.
I don't think there was nothing wrong on the part of Mignini in pointing out that Knox had an intent of revenge and humiliation of Meredith, it's just unavoidable for the prosecution and judges to express their own ideas about the dynamic of the crime. This doesn't equate to an in-depth psychological analysis of personalities and motives. Anyway Mignini is not a psychologist and I won't take his opinion as a psychological analysis about the true and deep reasons of behaviours.

And you are a psychologist in the same way that ericparoissien is an expert in genetics.

In fact, to an unbiased, skeptical person, the notion that a subject with no history of psychological aberration or instability - whose similar study abroad program in Japan passed without incident - could, over the course of six or seven weeks, internally nurture a murderous rage, is preposterous. There is nothing in Amanda Knox's history to imply such a tendency, nor is there any account whatsoever from parties on the scene that she was exhibiting signs of such animus towards Meredith Kercher.

 

[js202]

Don't you forget a little detail, among the assessment levels?
The judges.
It's the judges who will determine the meaning of each single evidence finding, based on its relationship with the context of the other evidence. Not the experts.

Yes, the Mad Hatter made similar determinations.

 

[Machiavelli]

Typical of you to say you have inside information that the rest of us can't debate. Like others from your side who claim to be the mesiah .... Well who can argue with GOD. The official spokeswoman from your group (Barbie Nadue) did this as well claiming things that were false (bleach receipts) then blaming sources inside the police department.

What Barbie Nadeau does it's her business. The pro-Knox crowd are in no position to criticize her, because all what they did for years is basically to make unsupported defamatory claims against every kind of subject, from prosecutors to witnesses, experts, officers, supreme court included.
You dare to complain that someone else makes claims?

Now what Barbie say is her business and I don't know and don't care what she said, but as for bleach receipts you should know the Italian media did not release any false story, information reported as from "police sources" was correct.

(...) As to Robyns opinion.... How does she know what Amanda felt ? Any decent judge would have instructed her to say what she knows to be fact and not what she thinks. Knox's lawyer should have objected perhaps.

Witnesses may be asked about what they thought at the time, or what idea they have about some topic. Robyn was very polite and warned the court, before talking about that point, that she didn't know if she was allowed to express an opinion.

 

[Machiavelli]

And you are a psychologist in the same way that ericparoissien is an expert in genetics.

In fact, to an unbiased, skeptical person, the notion that a subject with no history of psychological aberration or instability - whose similar study abroad program in Japan passed without incident - could, over the course of six or seven weeks, internally nurture a murderous rage, is preposterous. There is nothing in Amanda Knox's history to imply such a tendency, nor is there any account whatsoever from parties on the scene that she was exhibiting signs of such animus towards Meredith Kercher.

Actually I said Knox suffered from a narcissistic personality disorder, not that she suffred from a "murderous tendency".

 

[js202]

Actually I said Knox suffered from a narcissistic personality disorder, not that she suffred from a "murderous tendency".

And those of us who have followed your meanderings over the course of several years are in a far better position to expostulate on what may be your "disorder." But this would be against board rules.

 

[lonepinealex]

What's the point in arguing with Mach over this? It's clear why he has to tie himself in knots finding "evidence" of Amanda's narcissism and sexual deviancy - because the murder obviously had a sexual element. Meredith was naked and Guede raped her.

To put Amanda at the scene as the main perpetrator you either have to make her a crazed sexual deviant or argue (as some guilter factions do) that Amanda and Raff staged the scene after Guede had left to make it look like a sexual assault and frame him. And then, in a diabolical twist, not name Guede as a possible suspect during their interrogations.

Man, it's tough being a guilter - they have to come up with such complicated scenarios!

 

[acbytesla]

Actually I said Knox suffered from a narcissistic personality disorder, not that she suffred from a "murderous tendency".

How the hell do you make that conclusion when you know nothing about Amanda Knox except from second hand nonsense? With all respect I can't fathom how anyone with an ounce of personal and intellectual integrity would make that kind of judgment. Seriously, a true intellect admits what he doesn't know and refrains from coming to conclusions without the necessary data. Especially when those judgements can damage others.

 

[Sonia]

On the subject of police hitting Amanda during interrogation

Note that the Committee for Prevention of Torture has written up Italy for failing to investigate allegations of abuse. The discussion corresponds exactly to what happened to Knox:

While searching through Burleigh's book yesterday (fruitlessly) for any evidence of Machiavelli's bizarre claims about Amanda's feelings on Halloween, I came across this passage which explains that Amanda's own defense lawyers talked American embassy officials and Amanda out of filing a complaint against the police for physical abuse:

"The U.S. Embassy also sent an attaché to interview Amanda in jail and ascertain that she was not being abused, but that was all the aid it could offer. Every year about three thousand American exchange students are arrested abroad, and the State Department rarely rushes in. American supporters of Amanda have asked why the U.S. Embassy didn’t get more involved in her case. After all, the girl was alleging police brutality in the first days after her arrest. Edda recalled that the American officials discussed the possibility of filing a complaint about the police brutality charge, but Italian defense lawyers overruled that. “She’ll be out of jail in a few weeks, why piss off the police?” was the logic." (Kindle page 225)

 

[Kauffer]

Buratti doesn't say that.

And I didn't say he did. It's not clear. And it's interesting isn't it why we don't have time specific accurate records for when the tapping and bugging started and who was involved? But if Lumumba was being tapped or eavesdropped before the 5th, that's game over - it would be impossible to maintain that the police and the prosecutor simply listened to Ms Knox un burdening herself during her interrogation.

According to official versions, Lumumba only emerged as a suspect when his name came up in Ms Knox's interrogation and the cops rushed out to roust him from his bed, assault him, imprison him and deny him a lawyer. I don't believe that's true. Their strategy was to get Ms Knox to name him.

From the evening of 5th November, maybe a day or day and a half before, there are three suspects left and they did not include Guede. The cops were not investigating the crime as a burglary gone wrong - they never were.