Continuation Part Nine: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

So what's you breakthrough moment?

The bleach receipts lie. I am sure I would have become pro-innocence sooner than I did had I actually taken the trouble to look at the case closely but I didn't do that until after the Hellman verdict when I showed up at IIP asking 'what about the bleach?' only to find it had been a lie. One of many as it would turn out (for me).

 

[Bill Williams]

The bleach receipts lie. I am sure I would have become pro-innocence sooner than I did had I actually taken the trouble to look at the case closely but I didn't do that until after the Hellman verdict when I showed up at IIP asking 'what about the bleach?' only to find it had been a lie. One of many as it would turn out (for me).

You're on the wrong track again, anglolawyer.

Ergon is the moderator of PMF.NET, and a former moderator, Michael, has that bleach receipt. If Ergon is really God as he claims, wouldn't he want to put things right once he got the keys to the "I care about Meredith more than you," website?

Do I have to remind you of everything?

 

[anglolawyer]

You're on the wrong track again, anglolawyer.

Ergon is the moderator of PMF.NET, and a former moderator, Michael, has that bleach receipt. If Ergon is really God as he claims, wouldn't he want to put things right once he got the keys to the "I care about Meredith more than you," website?

Do I have to remind you of everything?

Michael's dog ate the receipts, I thought. He recently outed himself as a liar about those receipts as Ergon Briars can doubtless confirm when he she returns.

 

[Bill Williams]

Michael's dog ate the receipts, I thought. He recently outed himself as a liar about those receipts as Ergon Briars can doubtless confirm when he she returns.

Cynical much? Michael actually sent a copy of the bleach receipts.....

..... turned out that the receipt he had was for pizza, and he just didn't notice.

Briars does not like me using the term "sluttification". He/she obviously has no copy of the OED, the full version, not that stupid four-volume set.

 

[kwill]

So what's your breakthrough moment?

I didn't have an opinion & didn't follow the minutiae at all . . . until I listened to WTBH. I went to amazon to write a review & that's where I discovered for the first time the species known here as the PGP.

On that book page they were ugly in every possible way. Dismissive. Vicious. Sarcastic. Just horrible people, swarming like so many hornets. It was the PGP themselves, in other words, who created the breakthrough moment for me. There was obviously something going on that had nothing to do with this random murder.

I did my homework, read here and at IIP and in the source documents (Massei! My god, what madness!) and -- when I could stand it -- at one of their sites. I read all the other books, like a grad student doing a seminar with the assignment of creating a comprehensive literature survey. I spoke with a family friend of Curt Knox who lives close to me, in Seattle.

The breakthrough wasn't about whether Rudy did the crime alone, because it took zero time to figure that out, thanks to all of you. The necessary information was all organized by the time I first looked at it. The breakthrough was about how this case had become a thing for the PGP that is in some sense unrelated to the crime itself.

 

[carbonjam72]

A tale of two Stefs...

Carbonjam72,

The fact that the bra clasp was stored in a way that made its decay very likely is one of the more troubling aspects of the case (the PG commentariat has been very nearly silent on this point). Some time ago I viewed some of the footage of the collection of various pieces of evidence. They do a bit of playing to the camera for other things like Meredith's jacket, but not as much of a production as they make of finding the clasp. Raffaele's profile on the bra clasp was in the low template range. I grant that it is all very troubling.

Chris, Thanks for getting back to me.

I guess we're choosing between two explanations for Raf's DNA appearing on the bra clasp. The first is Dr Gill's suggestions of innocent transfer from Raf, to the door handle, to the forensic tech's glove, to the bra clasp. The second, is that Stef is intentionally inducing/interpreting a false outcome in the lab.

While the first is plausible, and may well be true. Even so, it would not eliminate the possibility that the second is also true.

If the bra clasp's destruction can not be explained through incompetence, then the question of bad faith has to be raised. Just as a failure to do a follow up TMB test on the footprints revealed by luminol would require extreme incompetence to be true, it turned out that Stef was not that incompetent - that she had done the follow up TMB tests, the results were negative, and she concealed those findings and intentionally misled the court.

Dr Gill's conjecture allows for the possibility of an innocent accidental contamination, committed in good faith, on the part of Stef and her team.

The second option does not allow good faith on Stef's part in achieving her finding of Raf's DNA on the bra clasp.

As a scientist, there's a presumption that science is actually being practiced. Observing Stef's behavior in failing to preserve the bra-clasp, hiding DNA profiles and suppressing data, concealing exculpatory confirmatory blood tests, etc, has credulity and professional courtesy been strained past the breaking point?

At the risk of being boorish, may I ask which explanation is in your view more likely: Stef honestly evaluated a contaminated bra clasp and "found" only Raf's DNA; or, Stef's evaluation of the bra clasp wasn't honest? (or both?).

 

[carbonjam72]

The video is very interesting. The 'production' consist of much more than just the picking up and dropping part. First, there is the rummaging through the stuff on the bed, then a retreat to the kitchen to view crime scene pics on the laptop (as if no one remembered the clasp was last seen on the floor) then they return and there is a studied search all around where the clasp actually is. It's looks to me like they are pretending it's hard to find, like kids. One guy looks behind the laundry basket in the corner. Of course, you would surely look there rather than under the mat that is on the floor where the clasp was last seen. And then, as you say, there is the eureka moment when they find it, somehow already knowing its tremendous significance.

How did the clasp get under the mat anyway? Somebody had to have picked up the mat and put it down again on top of the clasp. Having moved the clasp several feet across the room. Why would anybody do that? But then, we know they tossed crucial items of evidence around like morons. They didn't even cover that up so it's not really a stretch to imagine some dolt kicking the thing around on the floor (any substrate tests on that floor btw?) despite the floor being known to be a prime source of crime scene contamination.

Say, did the posties shake hands with Raf when they arrived? I don't think anybody ever asked that. Not that it's that important. The destruction of the clasp as evidence says it all.

I've come to the conclusion that Italian are bad liars, which speaks well of them actually.

And its a good question, but why would the forensics team shake hands with Raf? He was just one of many students/civilians on the scene, and not yet a suspect nor had any formal role in the investigation. It could have happened, but it seems like an odd detail if it did.

 

[anglolawyer]

I've come to the conclusion that Italian are bad liars, which speaks well of them actually.

And its a good question, but why would the forensics team shake hands with Raf? He was just one of many students/civilians on the scene, and not yet a suspect nor had any formal role in the investigation. It could have happened, but it seems like an odd detail if it did.

By the posties I meant Marzi and Batistelli, the two postal police first on the scene. Speaking of Marzi reminds me that he testified (Massei) that Raffaele told him they had already called the carabinieri when the posties arrived. I mention it because Nencini (and BBC) has revived the claim that the posties were already there when Raf called the fuzz.

 

[Desert Fox]

Chris, Thanks for getting back to me.

I guess we're choosing between two explanations for Raf's DNA appearing on the bra clasp. The first is Dr Gill's suggestions of innocent transfer from Raf, to the door handle, to the forensic tech's glove, to the bra clasp. The second, is that Stef is intentionally inducing/interpreting a false outcome in the lab.

While the first is plausible, and may well be true. Even so, it would not eliminate the possibility that the second is also true.

If the bra clasp's destruction can not be explained through incompetence, then the question of bad faith has to be raised. Just as a failure to do a follow up TMB test on the footprints revealed by luminol would require extreme incompetence to be true, it turned out that Stef was not that incompetent - that she had done the follow up TMB tests, the results were negative, and she concealed those findings and intentionally misled the court.

Dr Gill's conjecture allows for the possibility of an innocent accidental contamination, committed in good faith, on the part of Stef and her team.

The second option does not allow good faith on Stef's part in achieving her finding of Raf's DNA on the bra clasp.

As a scientist, there's a presumption that science is actually being practiced. Observing Stef's behavior in failing to preserve the bra-clasp, hiding DNA profiles and suppressing data, concealing exculpatory confirmatory blood tests, etc, has credulity and professional courtesy been strained past the breaking point?

At the risk of being boorish, may I ask which explanation is in your view more likely: Stef honestly evaluated a contaminated bra clasp and "found" only Raf's DNA; or, Stef's evaluation of the bra clasp wasn't honest? (or both?).

I do not know which it is myself. . . .Could be either one.
Not a super conspiracy even if she is cooking the evidence.
Now, for good politics it is best to argue the innocent explanations mainly because otherwise you may find yourself on trial for slander.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

So what's your breakthrough moment?

Thought she was probably guilty based on a highly biased initial source of information, but the case seemed incredibly weird. Noticed the posters on the pro-guilt side would attack anyone who disagreed like rabid dogs. And not with logical rebuttals, but personal insults. Which is usually a sign of emotional problems; and the lack of cogent arguments a sign of intellectual dishonesty and bias.

So I started to look a bit deeper at each piece of "damning evidence". Each time I looked carefully, I found the strength of the evidence exaggerated (i.e. there were plausible innocent explanations) or outright fabricated. Once I got through 5-10 of these claims (from the "mountain of evidence") I started posting rebuttals to the pro-guilt posters with questions. Once I got only extreme anger in response from a mob of lunatics, I knew what was going on.

Then I saw the C&V report addressing the overall quality of forensic work in this case, the gastric emptying with time of death arguments, and found out that there was literally no physical evidence of Amanda in the murder room. Realized later the pro-guilt community was organizing an anti-Amanda and Raffaele propaganda campaign, and the accusations of a pro-innocence PR campaign were psychological projection (hiring a professional PR firm to handle media requests is qualitatively different than orchestrating a vast internet campaign of disinformation, even if they both fall under the umbrella of "public relations"). Then I realized they were all nuts, in some way shape or form, and have the same type of cognitive problems as (other) conspiracy theorists. It would be hilarious if they weren't trying to systematically destroy two people's lives. I have no problems with 9/11 truthers and moon landing denialists, because their form of crazy generally doesn't hurt anyone.

 

[Dan O.]

Is it true that Nencini actually makes the argument that RS called the carabinieri after the postal police arrived.

A problem with the way these motivations reports are written is that large sections are simply pasted in from the prosecution or defense arguments. It's difficult sometimes to see what parts the court believe or finds factual.

 

[carbonjam72]

By the posties I meant Marzi and Batistelli, the two postal police first on the scene. Speaking of Marzi reminds me that he testified (Massei) that Raffaele told him they had already called the carabinieri when the posties arrived. I mention it because Nencini (and BBC) has revived the claim that the posties were already there when Raf called the fuzz.

I'd forgot about the postals, so that would make more sense.

I didn't know Marzi had testified before Massei about Raf saying they had already called the carabineri, but I thought Massei had accepted raf made the call before the postals had arrived, and reasonably demonstrated it was so.

The Italian judges can be reasonable when they want to. I still say they are bad liars, easily spotted.

 

[xinonix]

That semen stain found in Meredith's bed probably was tested, and they found that it came from Meredith's boy friend. This information is not relevent to the murder investigation so they decided to save Meredith some embarrassment by telling a little white lie and saying they didn't test it. Hey when you have as many lies in your case as that one did, I guess one more doesn't matter.

 

[Strozzi]

.

I have pondered similar theories Strozzi, but why did the judges not demand the stain be tested? Are the judges also in on these cover ups, even Hellmann? Apparently the defense are not privy to the ruse.

Cody
.

I conclude that Italian judges consciously protect and shield Italy's scientific police and prosecution from true public exposure. Otherwise verdicts in thousands of cases that were decided on police validation of forensic evidence against defendants or brazenly false prosecution theories would be revealed to be outright false. So judges give deference to the police and prosecution on what evidence to look at and what not to scrutinize. As long as the prosecution is not bringing the semen stain into the case as evidence against Raffaele or (most interesting ) Amanda, the court defers to the prosecution's demand that it NOT be analyzed.

It is the same reason none of the judges wanted to look into the possible assault by police of Amanda. The attitude seems to be "Don't go there - It might reveal that bad things did happen in the interrogation".

I recall that a senior police officer who was testifying in support of how Stefanoni operates her lab cautioned the judges in one of the trials not to expose the scientific police.

 

[Bill Williams]

I conclude that Italian judges consciously protect and shield Italy's scientific police and prosecution from true public exposure. Otherwise verdicts in thousands of cases that were decided on police validation of forensic evidence against defendants or brazenly false prosecution theories would be revealed to be outright false. So judges give deference to the police and prosecution on what evidence to look at and what not to scrutinize. As long as the prosecution is not bringing the semen stain into the case as evidence against Raffaele or (most interesting ) Amanda, the court defers to the prosecution's demand that it NOT be analyzed.

It is the same reason none of the judges wanted to look into the possible assault by police of Amanda. The attitude seems to be "Don't go there - It might reveal that bad things did happen in the interrogation".

I recall that a senior police officer who was testifying in support of how Stefanoni operates her lab cautioned the judges in one of the trials not to expose the scientific police.

I wouldn't have believed you except that Cassazione wrote this in their motivations, when they reversed Hellmann's acquittals.....

12. - Genetic Investigations -

Also well founded is further criticism raised by the public plaintiff,
according to which the signs of the experts were passively incorporated, as
to the mere inadequacy of the investigations carried out by the Scientific
Police, who were not renewed, the experts having considered inadequate
the two samples in question ( 36 and 165 B) for the detection of the genetic
profile and due to the fact that it could not be ruled out that the result was
derived "from contamination phenomena occurring at any stage of
sampling and/or handling and/or analytical processes made” . From p. 75
p. 82 the Court adopted the arguments developed in the assesment that,
indeed, had been the subject of severe disagreement with both Prof. Novelli
that Prof. Torricelli, consultants of the Procurator General and the civil
parties, whose authoritative voices were completely neglected. Prof.
Novelli had agreed that there are protocols and recommendations, but
added that first of all the operator had to contribute his common sense (ud.
6.9.2011, p. Transcription 59.), otherwise it put in question all the DNA analysis done from 1986 onwards.​

 

[Bill Williams]

Realized later the pro-guilt community was organizing an anti-Amanda and Raffaele propaganda campaign, and the accusations of a pro-innocence PR campaign were psychological projection (hiring a professional PR firm to handle media requests is qualitatively different than orchestrating a vast internet campaign of disinformation, even if they both fall under the umbrella of "public relations"). Then I realized they were all nuts, in some way shape or form, and have the same type of cognitive problems as (other) conspiracy theorists. It would be hilarious if they weren't trying to systematically destroy two people's lives. I have no problems with 9/11 truthers and moon landing denialists, because their form of crazy generally doesn't hurt anyone.

This.

 

[acbytesla]

So what's your breakthrough moment?

I'm not sure I'd say this was my breakthrough moment. But this was definitely the moment I thought something stinks in Denmark.

When I heard that it was the result of a Satanic ritual. I said 'say what'?? A twenty year old University of Washington and Seattle Prep student was engaging in a sacrificial Satanic ritual in Italy with a boy she met a week earlier? That's a bunch of bull.

And as much as I thought that was bs, the idea that it was the result of a sex game gone awry actually turned up my bs meter.

This whole thing is a logical cluster ...well you know the rest.

 

[Desert Fox]

The Satanic Ritual argument I think was made me look at the whole case with my first assumption being that she is probably innocent. . . .Did not know anything about Raff then.

 

[NancyS]

NancyS

I have a couple of questions for you.

Q1 say someone presented themselves at A & E having been in a fight in which they had bitten their tongue so much that it bled. After cleaning them up, in what condition would you normally expect the tongue to be? Pretty much normal, swollen, painful etc (and if the last for how long?)

Q2 similar question but this time the person presents with a bloody nose. Would you normally expect to see any swelling or bruising or scratches, or just a normal-looking, undamaged nose.

I used the word 'normal' where highlighted because I am not asking what you would inevitably or invariably expect but just what most such cases would likely throw up.

TIA

Anglo

I don't think I ever saw anyone with a bitten tongue - and you might not see much within a couple of days as the tongue heals fairly well and quickly. However, if hit hard enough to make you bite your tongue, you would be more likely to have bruised/swollen lip.

It's also difficult to say much about nose injuries - some people will need a fairly significant impact to cause a nose bleed, whereas others can have a nose bleed from as little as a large sneeze. However, if there was a significant impact, you're most likely to get some swelling/bruising.

However, with both injuries the bleeding would be on immediate impact and any blood would most likely be found in the location the fight took place.

I think most people I saw in A&E following fights, had usually done more damage to their hands. Often because they were too drunk to hit straight and accidentally gave the nearest wall a flying punch

 

[Diocletus]

It is the same reason none of the judges wanted to look into the possible assault by police of Amanda. The attitude seems to be "Don't go there - It might reveal that bad things did happen in the interrogation".

I recall that a senior police officer who was testifying in support of how Stefanoni operates her lab cautioned the judges in one of the trials not to expose the scientific police.

That's exactly what's going on: they've circled the wagons. What amazes me is that it appears to be socially acceptable and even required to do so. Witness judges bending over backwards right and left to cook the process. Using prohibited evidence, taking no action against rampant spoliation, denying simple disclosure requests from the defense, crediting uncreditable witnesses, etc., etc., etc.