Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[TomB]

[*]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.

I know this is from a couple pages back, but the highlighted part has always bothered me. Granted that the way the clasp was picked up was incorrect procedure. And obviously passing it around was grossly incorrect. But what really stands out is dropping it to the ground an photographing it again.

Why would you do that? The new photograph would not be valid evidence. Photographs of evidence are taken prior to collection to show where and how it was found. Placing the evidence on the floor and photographing it after it has been moved does not serve this function.

The only reason I can think for doing so is: "Oh crap! Did we photograph it? Put it down and we'll take a picture and we'll just act like the picture was taken before we moved it." Is there a little bit of CYA going on? Because that's what it looks like. If so, what does this say about the integrity the lab that does the analysis?

 

[lonepinealex]

I know this is from a couple pages back, but the highlighted part has always bothered me. Granted that the way the clasp was picked up was incorrect procedure. And obviously passing it around was grossly incorrect. But what really stands out is dropping it to the ground an photographing it again.

Why would you do that? The new photograph would not be valid evidence. Photographs of evidence are taken prior to collection to show where and how it was found. Placing the evidence on the floor and photographing it after it has been moved does not serve this function.

The only reason I can think for doing so is: "Oh crap! Did we photograph it? Put it down and we'll take a picture and we'll just act like the picture was taken before we moved it." Is there a little bit of CYA going on? Because that's what it looks like. If so, what does this say about the integrity the lab that does the analysis?

Cargo Cult Science. That whole video is a text book example

 

[Kauffer]

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.

I'm trying to understand how the 'meaning' of 'sub-source' level' could change based on any other factor that exists in this case. It is what it is, surely and you must accept it.

I do understand your inclination and indeed the judge's inclination to misrepresent the meaning of evidence to fit a pre-determined conception of guilt, of course. I'm just trying to explain to you that it's not acceptable.

 

[Diocletus]

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)

Very interesting. This exact issue was raised by the Committee for Prevention of Torture in its Italy report:

11. It is a well-known fact that detained persons are often reluctant to take the initiative of lodging a formal complaint about ill-treatment by law enforcement officials (or prison officers), due to fear of reprisals or other negative consequences.

This suggests to me that it is insufficient in the eyes of the Council of Europe, and a systemic Article 3 violation, for a state to have an official abuse investigative process that is triggered only by victim complaint.

Since Italy has already been booked on this charge, I know just the case to hammer the point home.

 

[Diocletus]

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.

It had to have been before the 6th, because they shut his bar down when they arrested him.

My guess is that it happened right after he was observed meeting up with Amanda on the street (and that reminds me that they must have had Amanda under physical surveillance).

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

I'm trying to understand how the 'meaning' of 'sub-source' level' could change based on any other factor that exists in this case. It is what it is, surely and you must accept it.

I do understand your inclination and indeed the judge's inclination to misrepresent the meaning of evidence to fit a pre-determined conception of guilt, of course. I'm just trying to explain to you that it's not acceptable.

Tomorrow at this time, infrequent poster here, Stilicho, might have an opportunity to make one of his drive-by posts, chortling that regardless of what anyone thinks, the Italian courts have ruled that the two are guilty.

The line in the sand is right between Machiavelli's post, and your reply, Kauffer.

There seems to be a powerful sense in Italy that somehow a judicial truth can override science. And that, indeed, therefore this judicial truth is somehow morally superior to the science it has overridden......

....... leaving science scratching its metaphorical head, because science does not regard things, particularly, morally.

On one side, they turn to the judges to determine the meaning of each single evidence finding. So when Judge Massei and Judge Nencini base their verdicts on suspect-centric findings..... then the morality is settled. It no longer matters that it is suspect-centric.....

...... guilters worldwide will be able to echo with judicial authority: "Raffaele found, Raffaele guilty."

The only hope is this: I have just discovered today that some of the people appearing on Italian TV saying that this is a travesty, are themselves former Cassazione judges. One such person was for years a guilter - and is the one who in a dramatic reversal, Italian-style, has taunted the PMs in all their power, right there in Italian TV.

It's a long shot, and I am not sure that the current crop of judicial-types in Italy really can pull back from the precipice, but it is revealing that even former Cassazione judges are going public in the way they are. Maybe they are ones who understand that even a judge cannot rule that cows can fly, and therefore make it a judicial fact, as opposed to the reality which guides the rest of us.

 

[codyjuneau]

amica-ble transfer ?

Personally I believe the most likely reason for the police finding a trace amount of DNA compatible with Raffaele on the bra clasp, is due to police tampering, or as CJ72 thinks, a happy accident at the lab.

The timing of the discovery, the obvious suspect centric focus of the forensic team by that time, the established lies of the prosecuting team by that time, the police being allowed undocumented and unsupervised access to the cottage, and Doc Stef hiding test results plus destroying the bra clasp, thereby rendering a retest impossible are very strong indicators, IMO.

However, here is another argument for innocent transfer of Raffaele's alleged DNA onto the bra clasp:

The DNA of Meredith's 'amica' found on the clasp is apparently okay with Nencini and every guilter on the face of the earth, despite it being Y-DNA. Amanda had intimate physical contact with Raffaele, lots of it, so as Meredith's 'amica', she could have transferred it.

Cody
.

 

[Bill Williams]

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)

Very interesting. This exact issue was raised by the Committee for Prevention of Torture in its Italy report:

No wonder guilters throw this back at Amanda - saying, "Well she never reported anything to the police. It is part and parcel as to why they never put things to a timeline. At the time, it probably DID look to the lawyers that Amanda would be out of jail in a few weeks - mainly because there was no evidence against her.

So the lawyers hedged their bets and lost. Now guilters can claim that Amanda never even tried.

 

[acbytesla]

Unfortunately I don't have Nina Burleigh's book, I only have a quotation from another book so I can't look up the source myself.
I also don't have the police testimonies of Juve and Spyros so I can't quote them.
But I also had independent sources which told me about the event.

However, I also think that Sollecito's and Knox's book are sufficiently eloquent in their admissions and omissions.

Sollecito clearly said Amanda wanted to spend the night with Meredith, and says she was disliked and rejected. She wanted to party with Meredith and she found herself walking home alone. The sms exchange ending witn "call me" with no answer is eloquent, and it's a fact. Knox pulls a curtain saying "thankfully Halloween was over", how can you interpret this, no matter how much sobbing there was?
Robyn Butterworth expressed an opinion that she thought next day Meredith felt guilty for not having answered Amanda's invitation (it was only Robyn's opinion).
It's clear there was a rejection on the part of Meredith. It's clearly something petty as an event, but it's also clear that Amanda was suffering that night, and she was suffering because of Meredith - because of her own loneliness she felt when she was not there, and probably jealousy - not because of other factors like social life or other sillines.

First he quotes Nina's book including the page number, now saying it came from another book. I say that too is a lie. Because if it was true he would cite that book and page number not Nina's book. He continues with his false argument with totally un-checkable sources. Now my guess is that Mach quoted a post from another guilter who deliberately made-up this falsehood and Mach just put this into his quiver of slanderous arrows against Knox. But here he goes again throwing bad money after good referencing other un-named sources. Why does he do this? What kind of psychological disorder would make someone lie after being caught in a lie? Perhaps he is guilty of murder too? Is he covering up for a vicious crime?

Now of course I don't believe that because there really is nothing that leads you there. It is too bad that he and the other guilters don't do the same for Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[NancyS]

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

Although you did also invent something called 'narcissistic rage'

It doesn't sound like you have the first idea regarding the complexity of diagnosing personality disorders - although I would again note that you are possibly displaying some narcissistic traits by imagining you have the skills to do this, even without the most basic of psychiatry training. Believing yourself to be so skilled, without extensive training, is definitely a little grandiose. You also seem to show little regard for the truth, particularly with the claim of 'Amanda sobbing' and you also seem to lack even the most basic empathy towards a terrified girl being interrogated overnight, without a lawyer and in a language she could barely speak. Overall, definitely lots of cluster B traits are displayed in your writing - although I'm definitely not deluded enough to make an official diagnosis

 

[Anode]

Does anyone know about what time in Italy the court will announce?

 

[Diocletus]

No wonder guilters throw this back at Amanda - saying, "Well she never reported anything to the police. It is part and parcel as to why they never put things to a timeline. At the time, it probably DID look to the lawyers that Amanda would be out of jail in a few weeks - mainly because there was no evidence against her.

So the lawyers hedged their bets and lost. Now guilters can claim that Amanda never even tried.

The authorities have proved that any complaint by Knox would have been futile: 1) the courts never ruled on her claim that she was struck, and 2) the prosecution charged her with an additional crime for making the allegations and have sued her.

It would take some serious chutzpah for Italy to argue that Knox is SOL on any Art. 3 claim because she didn't make a "querala". Moreover, such an argument would not excuse the failure to apply Art. 3's absolute exclusionary rule.

 

[Bill Williams]

However, I also think that Sollecito's and Knox's book are sufficiently eloquent in their admissions and omissions.

Sollecito clearly said Amanda wanted to spend the night with Meredith, and says she was disliked and rejected. She wanted to party with Meredith and she found herself walking home alone. The sms exchange ending witn "call me" with no answer is eloquent, and it's a fact. Knox pulls a curtain saying "thankfully Halloween was over", how can you interpret this, no matter how much sobbing there was?

First he quotes Nina's book including the page number, now saying it came from another book. I say that too is a lie. Because if it was true he would cite that book and page number not Nina's book. He continues with his false argument with totally un-checkable sources. Now my guess is that Mach quoted a post from another guilter who deliberately made-up this falsehood and Mach just put this into his quiver of slanderous arrows against Knox. But here he goes again throwing bad money after good referencing other un-named sources. Why does he do this? What kind of psychological disorder would make someone lie after being caught in a lie? Perhaps he is guilty of murder too? Is he covering up for a vicious crime?

Now of course I don't believe that because there really is nothing that leads you there. It is too bad that he and the other guilters don't do the same for Amanda and Raffaele.

Machiavelli says: "She wanted to party with Meredith and she found herself walking home alone." This is what Machiavelli claims from Raffaele's book.

Raffaele details that when it did not work out with Meredith, Amanda had ended up drinking with the Greek friend, Spiros. It seems on Halloween night, there was no shortage of people to be with, given that everyone said that Halloween was a big night in Perugia among the students.

However, how many lies is Machiavelli up to now? Raffaele specifically says that Amanda did not walk home alone. Raffaele went to Perugia's main piazza at 1 am to pick up Amanda and walk her home, and Amanda was there with Spiros.

My bet is that this is when Curatolo saw them..... but I'm not sure I'd believe anything Curatolo said. Perhaps more than Machiavelli, though.

 

[Bill Williams]

Although you did also invent something called 'narcissistic rage'

It doesn't sound like you have the first idea regarding the complexity of diagnosing personality disorders - although I would again note that you are possibly displaying some narcissistic traits by imagining you have the skills to do this, even without the most basic of psychiatry training. Believing yourself to be so skilled, without extensive training, is definitely a little grandiose. You also seem to show little regard for the truth, particularly with the claim of 'Amanda sobbing' and you also seem to lack even the most basic empathy towards a terrified girl being interrogated overnight, without a lawyer and in a language she could barely speak. Overall, definitely lots of cluster B traits are displayed in your writing - although I'm definitely not deluded enough to make an official diagnosis

From Cluster B personality disorders:

Narcissistic personality disorder (DSM-IV code 301.81): a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy.

Since I have not seen a picture of Machiavelli and have not checked his eyes (like he did in court when he diagnosed Amanda from afar), I will refrain from diagnosing him. But the three traits listed on Wikipedia are...... shall we say......

 

[Desert Fox]

The authorities have proved that any complaint by Knox would have been futile: 1) the courts never ruled on her claim that she was struck, and 2) the prosecution charged her with an additional crime for making the allegations and have sued her.

It would take some serious chutzpah for Italy to argue that Knox is SOL on any Art. 3 claim because she didn't make a "querala". Moreover, such an argument would not excuse the failure to apply Art. 3's absolute exclusionary rule.

I have seen cases in both Mississippi and California where the prosecution has tried to make very similar argument. The one in Mississippi is still ongoing.

 

[Numbers]

Although you did also invent something called 'narcissistic rage'

It doesn't sound like you have the first idea regarding the complexity of diagnosing personality disorders - although I would again note that you are possibly displaying some narcissistic traits by imagining you have the skills to do this, even without the most basic of psychiatry training. Believing yourself to be so skilled, without extensive training, is definitely a little grandiose. You also seem to show little regard for the truth, particularly with the claim of 'Amanda sobbing' and you also seem to lack even the most basic empathy towards a terrified girl being interrogated overnight, without a lawyer and in a language she could barely speak. Overall, definitely lots of cluster B traits are displayed in your writing - although I'm definitely not deluded enough to make an official diagnosis

One should not mistake the cultural traits of Italian guilters for a psychological disorder...or wait...maybe a cultural trait can be a psychological disorder...it's found among some of the Italian judiciary as well.

 

[GreyFox]

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.



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.

Well I would agree that you shouldn't make false claims. Like saying someones crazy based off another persons gossip/opinion. Especially when that person states it's only an opinion.

 

[carbonjam72]

Although you did also invent something called 'narcissistic rage'

It doesn't sound like you have the first idea regarding the complexity of diagnosing personality disorders - although I would again note that you are possibly displaying some narcissistic traits by imagining you have the skills to do this, even without the most basic of psychiatry training. Believing yourself to be so skilled, without extensive training, is definitely a little grandiose. You also seem to show little regard for the truth, particularly with the claim of 'Amanda sobbing' and you also seem to lack even the most basic empathy towards a terrified girl being interrogated overnight, without a lawyer and in a language she could barely speak. Overall, definitely lots of cluster B traits are displayed in your writing - although I'm definitely not deluded enough to make an official diagnosis

This does not do justice to Mach's range of self declared expertise. He has contradicted experts in many fields, and purports to show them the error of their ways.

 

[Dougm]

Machiavelli's posts about Amanda Knox's personality are completely out of line, and without factual basis. They are not supported by anyone who knows her, or anyone who has ever met her. Just because a few college girls found some of her behavior annoying does not make her anything out of the ordinary, nor does it indicate she is mean or angry. Those who know her well have testified she is one of the kindest people they have ever met.

Taking some random incidents where she was interacting with various other college students, all of which are completely normal occurrences in college life, and trying to twist them into some bizarre scenario where she is somehow full of rage and some sort of sexual lust/revenge feelings says WAY more about the individual posting this garbage than it ever will about Amanda Knox.

I can personally vouch for the fact that Amanda Knox is nothing like the person he is trying to invent. His version is a completely fabricated fantasy.

 

[Numbers]

Accusations of contamination are anyway veiled accusations of planting evidence; Avv. Giulia Bongiorno or any other defence lawyer can't risk to lose their career, in France, in the States, in Italy, with a full frontal clash with the judges. A good lawyer's career is based on her courteous relationship with the judges. (A very good lawyer dines with the judges)
So yes, a good lawyer would say "evidence by contamination" as the worst possible thing to say in a world where professionals respect each other and where she knows her client did it.
Now, planted evidence of that magnitude, i imagine would be possible in the 3rd Reich, a puppet trial to frame a communist. That is a context where the author(s) of the conspiracy knows he holds each individual along the chain of command, by the balls, for ten years at least. Obviously, Italy, where RS can go on TV and insult judges repeatedly on years, doesn't qualify as dictatorship.

Your statements are far off the mark and have no scientific basis. Contamination is a common occurrence and efforts must be made by forensic specialists to guard against it. Contamination is not a veiled reference to intentional fraud.

You continue to make statements without citations to either scientific publications or your own experimental work. Such statements have no credibility.

John Butler, in his text Advanced topics in Forensic DNA Typing: Methodology, Academic Press (c) 2012, says this about contamination:

Modern DNA testing methods are very sensitive and can be capable of generating DNA profiles from as little as a single cell. It is imperative that every precaution is taken to collect samples carefully with appropriate personal protective equipment. While a sample may be collected properly from a crime scene, there may be other opportunities for contamination either at the crime scene before the evidence was collected, while the evidentiary item (e.g., a gun) is being handled by examiners in other forensic disciplines - such as fingerprint or firearms examiners - as part of routine casework, or while the sample is being processed in the DNA lab.