Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Yes, I can certainly see this occurring, especially with the added knowledge that according to Monica Napoleoni the first thing she did when she approached Amanda in the police station the night of the Fifth was to admonish Amanda (gently but firmly!) for not telling them she smoked hash the night of the murder. Therefore it was certainly on their minds and might have been part of the narrative they were trying to formulate.

I also suspect, like you imply here, they might have used the (mild) memory difficulties associated with hash along with the 'trauma' aspect suggested by Domino to help plant the idea her memories were affected that night. At the very least they could continually challenge if she 'remembered everything' about that night by reminding her she wasn't sure when they ate, whether they did the shower that evening, and forgetting to tell them about Patrick's call that evening. 'So you can't remember this and you say it was because of hash--what else don't you remember?!'



I agree with you that the first statement is clearer, and I suspect they might well have been trying to suggest she was confused because of the hash they smoked the night of the murder. Then the Mind of Mignini gets involved and we end up with the second statement.

Here's an interesting thing about the 1:45 statement which I suspect is a sign of just who's 'story' was getting into those statements. In the 1:45 statement it says:



Of course that wasn't true--so where did it come from? Some would say it is is evidence of Amanda 'lying,' but I doubt that because in her note she says:



When she writes it herself Patrick just tells her there's no one there so he didn't need her, however in the 1:45 statement they have it being because 'the premises were closed.' Amanda had all of one semester of Italian and her two months in Perugia at this point and could easily overlook that addition, especially in the condition she was in. According to Matteini the cops went out and procured that 'witness' statement from whatshisface the very next day, the seventh, as that would kinda be required for Patrick to be involved in the murder, obviously he couldn't be at the bar also.

It could be language difficulties too, but I suspect that line is in there because it fit their 'narrative' at this point, and just suggests to me how 'sure' they must have been Patrick was involved. His bar 'had' to be closed, since he 'obviously' was at the cottage murdering and raping Meredith. Then they went out and obtained 'evidence' of this being the case, the next day.

Or, as I've often wondered, they spoke to the 'witness' who mistakenly thought Patrick's bar was closed that night before the interrogation and it was one of the reasons they were suspicious of Patrick, then they go and get an official statement the next day. I suspect if any of those cops ever comes clean we'd find out just what they 'had' on Patrick before the interrogation with Amanda, whether it be a 'black man's hair' as reported a few days after the murder, the CCTV tapes thinking that man that might have been Rudy was Patrick, or something else that caused them to put the screws to Amanda all night long about Patrick and not even bother to ask Raffaele about the actual murder.

Kaosium

Even without the language problem, with a number of people in the room, maybe some bustle, shouting (hitting) you could get that thing about the bar being closed (which I had not noticed before - well spotted). I did not know until I read your post that the police found a witness to say the bar was closed. I would be interested to know more. I have walked past that bar on Google earth and it's pretty obvious whether it's open or not with its large windows and lighting.

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by Grinder

I agree with most all of this, but I do think actually falsely accusing someone of crime should be taken very seriously by society.

I had a circumstance where a neighbor called in a rather serious accusation that was totally false putting me in harms way (police with hands on guns coming around the house) and they wouldn't write up the false report. They also didn't even write up an incident report of the alleged crime they had been called about because there was no crime, no case, nada. The neighbor was an attorney and has been disbarred.

I'm not sure we know exactly how the defense made it's case at the appeal level. Did they just say she didn't do it? Which she did do.

What I've been saying is that at the Corte Suprema di Cassazione, the case will be made that calunnia shouldn't have been heard at the same time as the murder and the Corte Suprema di Cassazione will send it back to the trial of the first instance level if the prosecutors want to refile.

I am also not too sure what defence was run. I think it was lack of mens rea due to honest belief in the truth of what she was saying. I am making this up as I go along in assuming it can't be callunia to falsely accuse someone of a crime you honestly and reaonably believe they committed? That would operate as an unwelcome deterrent to people reporting things to the police.

What I am clear about is that it was outrageous that she should have to face the callunia charge in front of the same jury which tried her for murder, fisrt because of the obvious prejudice arising from that jury hearing inadmissible material and second, most perniciously, by tying the hands of her defence team in not wanting to go after the cops like attack dogs for fear of alienating the court on the big crime.

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

You mean the Daily Mail piece by Antonia Hoyle, the one which Frank Sfarzo keeps permanently on his blog's front page, on the left above the fold? The one that begins...

Yes, I have little names for some of the more...'memorable' pieces in this case. There's the Soulless piece, the 'Streets of Baghdad' article, the 'Clear Cut' Fox/Times piece, the Nick Pisa masterpiece 'I'm so pretty' in which Amanda's fears of being sexually abused are spun to make her sound narcissistic. There's also Barbie's triumphalist tripe on the 'PR Supertanker' which I cannot help but suspect she had some...assistance...with.

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

My guess is that until 5:30 pm, while Knox was writing her "gift", the cops were somewhere else giving it the "old college try" to beat a confession out of Lumumba. If they got one, no jury in Italy was going to complain about a black man getting 30 years for killing a Brit, when the confession came without the nicety of no lawyer and no videotape (or lost videotape).

So why is it possible to assume that Lumumba could be beaten, handcuffed and unfed for 11 hours, and Knox was not accorded the same treatment?

I do suspect they might well have treated a mature black man with less 'delicacy' than a college girl, so she got little whups and he got more, and them thinking at this point they'd 'solved' the murder and since it was 'assured' (at least at first) they were dealing with a vicious 'murderer' they would not have shown any gentility, but I certainly think the account of his treatment gives a pretty broad indication of what kind of respect they had for the rights of the people they'd tried and convicted in their minds that day.

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

That they did not show Lumumba what Knox was accusing him for 11 hours says buckets - just better to refer to "all the evidence we have against you," and let his imagination do the walking, like had happened with Knox.... they were far, far more immediate with Knox in showing that Raffaele was no longer supporting her alibi, but they still kept up with, "all the other evidence we have which we're NOT showing you."

Here they had (they thought) Knox destroying Lumumba's alibis and they wait 11 hours to show in Konx's stuff? Is that believable?

What I find even more interesting is how they tried to make it so they didn't need Amanda's statement to 'break' Patrick's alibi, they were in the process of breaking it themselves. Here's the relevant section from Matteini:

Originally Posted by Matteini Report 11/8/07--Catnip Translation

Such declarations finding confirmation, albeit indirectly, in various objective data relating to the opening of the Le Chic pub; in fact, while Lumumba at the review hearing affirmed to having opened the club in the [late] afternoon of the 1st November more or less around 17.00 – 18.00, the first receipts were issued from 22.29 onwards, nor was the investigatee [=Patrick] able to provide any logical explanation for such circumstance, not being in a position to supply precise indications of any actual clientele who might have been able to attest to his presence at the locale prior to 10.29, not being able to clearly specify precise information thereby useful for the necessary confirmations, he identified only one name, Usi, as a person who might have entered the pub around 20.00, without adding either his contact number nor other identifying elements, notwithstanding his having described him as his friend.

It must be noted, furthermore, that when this court put to the investigatee [=Patrick] said contestation, the same [=Patrick] remained silent for several moments, seeking then to justify such a “void” [in receipts] on the presupposition that the receipts were issued, not upon ordering, but when the clientele left the locale.

Even this justification does not line up insomuch as it does not explain how, from 19.00 to 22.29, there are no receipts and that these started issuing at a constant rate from 22.29 until closure.

The last confirmation of the closure of the locale before said time is found in the declarations of a regular customer, one Vulcano Gerado Pasquale, the which interviewed at sommarie informazioni [page 12] on the date 7 November 2007, referred to the fact that, on the night of the 1st November, he noticed, around 19.00, that the locale was closed, as well having noticed said circumstance much later on his return from the pizzeria.

They claim that during Patrick's interrogation he was only able to produce one name that he didn't know the surname of nor a telephone number. However, his lawyer would say this to the press a few days later, cited from the 'Clear Cut' Fox/Times piece linked above:

Originally Posted by Fox/Times 11/12/07

Police questioned a Swiss professor today who, together with other witnesses, said that he could back up Lumumba's claim that he was at his bar in Perugia on the evening of the murder. The professor, who has not been named, told police that he was at Lumumba's bar between 8 p.m. and 10 p.m.

Police questioned him for seven hours, but said that they had found his confirmation of Lumumba's alibi unconvincing. He was able to confirm that he had been at Lumumba's bar on the evening of the murder, but could not swear the bar owner had been present throughout. Giuseppe Sereni, Lumunba's lawyer, said he would produce 20 other witnesses to back up his client's alibi.

Maybe it would have been better had his lawyer been at the interrogation!

So...is it possible the police/prosecutor lied (by omission at least) when presenting this to Matteini? That they left out the fact there were indeed plenty of people the police might have been able to go to in order to confirm Patrick's alibi that they did not? That 'Clear Cut' piece is date November 12th, assuming the latest news in it was from the Eleventh that's just three days later Patrick has people flying in from Switzerland and twenty people lined up by his lawyer to alibi him, yet on the Eighth here before Matteini it appears Patrick has no hope of an alibi and the till receipts damn him. Notice how they include a pregnant pause as a 'revealing' moment like they did when Amanda named Patrick, when in fact it was utterly meaningless and it's not uncommon for people to run a tab in bars and pay as they leave.

Incidentally, also from Matteini and an example of what they tried to do with whether the bar was 'closed' or she just didn't have to go in because there were no customers there that I posted on earlier. Naturally it's used as 'evidence' against Patrick's, and Amanda is given the benefit of the doubt because as you noted, at this moment to police Patrick is the real instigator, that wouldn't become Amanda until Rudy's capture:

Originally Posted by Matteini Report 11/8/07--Catnip Translation

And as regards the relevance of the text of the message that the investigatee [=Patrick] had sent around 20.30 to Amanda, there are discordances between what was referred to by the ragazza and what was affirmed by the aforesaid [=Patrick]; in fact, while the ragazza spoke of a message by which she was advised that the locale would have remained shut and therefore she would not have needed to go to work, Patrick makes reference to having written to her that for that night there was no need of her attendance owing to so few customers.

This may appear to be a circumstance of little value when in reality it is not, being of itself a substantial difference between the two messages; it is probable that Patrick had had the intention, effectively, of not opening the locale thinking that he might be able to spend the night with Meredith, and then, seeing how events unfolded, considered it opportune to open the pub to create an apposite alibi for himself.

For what reason Amanda would have needed to lie about the why of her not having to go to work, the closure of the locale or the presence of few patrons, there is nothing known, nor are there logical reasons for it, while a motivation much more consistent is to be found as regards the investigatee [=Patrick], the which, with the opening of the locale, created for himself an alibi for the evening.

Of course it's a circumstance of little value! Yet they still 'hypothesize' that it must be 'evidence' of his guilt because he decided to 'create an alibi.' They'll do the same thing to Amanda when it's her turn, but right now it must be Patrick 'creating an alibi' instead of simply a mis-communication because of Amanda's admitted state of mind at the time or language difficulties. Frankly I think the police are the ones that made the mistake in the Statement and then tried to 'hypothesize' it into evidence against him, that wouldn't be the last time in this case!

Reading through Matteini now is very enlightening as to their methods...

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Maybe this time they were going to be patient, and beat some spontaneity out of Lumumba - because remember, spontaneity is what they did not have with Knox.....

They sure tried to pretend they did! Not only with the second statement, but the story of Zugarini, Napoleoni and Ficarra included them being so surprised when Amanda just broke out and accused Patrick out of the blue when they were just chatting about her phone, obviously they couldn't be expected to tape that.

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

..... nor now that I think of it, what they thought (at the time) they needed from Knox. Knox, at 5:30 pm Nov 6, was still no more than a witness/accessory, not a full perp (although under the law the same as a perp, but that was for later.)

Yet, with Lumumba arrested as a perp/suspect, I still think it's better if Lumumba can also just be seen as spontaneously needing to talk... just like they did with Knox....

We cannot get too hung up on Knox's two memorandums of Nov 5/6 because the police/Mignini then thought (by using them against Lumumba) they were simply after bigger game - and those two memorandums would go in the shredder anyway.

That Lumumba endured his beating was the first shot in saving his bacon.... an iron-clad alibi two-weeks later, and Guede coming on the scene certainly helped (!) too.

But we all have to work this out better.... on Nov 5/6, they weren't REALLY after Knox as the numero uno principal. The dominones seemed to be falling perfectly - get Sollecito to buckle, so as to get Knox to buckle, so as to get Lumumba to buckle.

Lumumba did not buckle.

The re-mythologization of this with Guede involved, required more than black man in, black man out.

All of a sudden, Knox must know MORE than she's telling us, because she was the last to buckle, but she buckled the wrong way. (I can just hear this as Barbie Nadeau's point! "What would Knox have told us if instead of winding things up at 5:30 am with Knox and chasing after Lumumba, what would Knox have told us if they'd just continued to buckle her?")

For me, it is no coincidence that this is the important question for some to this day.


Right now, I think they may be more important than either Raffaele's or Knox's missing tapes.

With Lumumba they hit (literally!) a brick wall. He endured the Italian version of The Full Monty. In his case, ignorance WAS bliss.... there simply was nothing to beat out of him, although they certainly gave it a go. Lumumba, knowing Italy, was in no mood to be helpful to police, as Knox tried to be. They even saved their pièce de résistance against him for last, Knox's memorandums.....

.... which also raises interesting questions.....

Mignini at the time when he got them from Knox didn't care if they would survive judicial review: at 5:30 am they used them to go charging out after Lumumba, to get HIM to break.

That Mignini (or whoever) showed them last to Lumumba showed perhaps what Mignini thought of them - worthless, really, as everyone these days seems to think. Their worth was the same as the crap they got from Raffaele; they were never meant to be used against Raffaele, but to apply leverage to Knox, and similarly, Knox's stuff was meant to be used (not at first against Knox per se) but as leverage against Lumumba.

That's why BOTH 1:45 am and 5:45 am memorandums were saved. As leverage against the next guy down the line.

It's only when the next guy down the line, in the heat of declaring case closed, himself dropped out as a suspect, that they NEEDED the memorandums to say something else - this time against Knox, the last to buckle.

Knox, as the last domino to fall, had to be upgraded into perp numero uno. Even Guede was only along for the ride.

Unless this re-mythologization can be sold to a court, then the whole house of cards falls like watching dominoes fall in reverse.... it sold the first time.

Under Hellmann, it seemed less likely.

I suspect you're right about all of this, and I cannot help but suspect that some of the demonization of Amanda was to try and 'explain' how they could possibly have been 'fooled' by her. She was such a consummate actress and coy seductress she could turn men into willing slaves! It was so 'easy' to see how the chivalrous Perugian police officers went out and captured the man who she named without even thinking! In the abstract it's plausible, in the circumstances of that interrogation with Raffaele just sitting in a room by himself, it's absurd.

I definitely think you're on to something regarding the statements. They were all designed, from Raffaele onward, to be used as leverage against someone else, and as they'd all be officially 'witness' statements, they didn't have to abide by any of the rules or restrictions or anything, they didn't even have to make sense. Raffaele's doesn't make sense, (especially with Amanda's or his previous statements to the Postals) neither do either of Amanda's in the context of the crime. Whatever happens they will all be evidence against someone else thus 'admissible' under the far more lenient rules for witness statements.

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by Draca

Or Raffaele's?

Actually on this I don't think there was any requirement (or really any reason)for it to be taped, though it's odd that their fetish for taping didn't extend to this session when it did the other witness statements. Raffaele was with them only twenty-five minutes and the statement itself isn't really accusatory at all.

However to this day I still have heard very little about what happened to Raffaele between 10:40 PM on the night of the fifth and 5:45 AM on the sixth. Has there been any mention of what might have occurred during those hours that wasn't available before their release?

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by halides1

Kaosium,

I am not certain that everything was released, but I tend to think that it was not. First, here is a comment from a practicing forensic scientist about discovery: "Typical DNA discovery in the U.S. includes the analyst’s hand written notes, sketches, photographs, instrument printouts, and raw electronic data from capillary electrophoresis. For instrumental procedures, there are absolutely printouts with dates, times, sample names, etc. There are often handwritten notes complementing and summarizing instrumental printouts."

This same scientist also wrote, "In 2011, Conti and Vecchiotti were provided with data on a CD-ROM that included an electropherogram with labeled peaks. They noted that the electropherogram had an overall weaker result than the one that was included with the original DNA testing report. They proceeded to analyze the newly obtained electropherogram with regards to stutter. It is not clear how or if the discrepancy between the data received in 2011 and the original 2008 report data was resolved in reading the Conti-Vecchiotti report...The bottom line question is whether Stefanoni ignored these alleles out of ‘convenience’, or if they were not reported according to laboratory interpretation guidelines developed from thorough internal validation studies. Only a critical review of the electronic data, protocols, analyst notes, and internal validation studies of the laboratory can truly answer this."

If the data on the CD ROM mentioned above were just an electronic version of the final electropherogram, then that is not raw data, as everyone understands the term.

Thank you! I hadn't read that site in a while. One thing it does seem to indicate is the data for original electropherogram was not amongst the data received by the independents. I wonder why that was? He mentions:

Originally Posted by Mehul B Anjaria

One plausible potential explanation for the RFU differences between the electropherograms received by Conti and Vecchiottii in 2011 and the electropherogram from June 2008 is that they represent different injection times of the same sample.

That might be why they differ, but why wasn't the original data included? That's what convicted Raffaele and Amanda.

[Didaktylos]

Originally Posted by Grinder

...
What I've been saying is that at the Corte Suprema di Cassazione, the case will be made that calunnia shouldn't have been heard at the same time as the murder and the Corte Suprema di Cassazione will send it back to the trial of the first instance level if the prosecutors want to refile.

I'm not sure if Cassazione can send it right back to First Instance; but if it does happen that way I suspect the Prosecutor's Office will refile, but then proceed so slowly that the matter dies of Statute of Limitations expiry.

[freeski]

Originally Posted by Grinder

I agree with most all of this, but I do think actually falsely accusing someone of crime should be taken very seriously by society.

I had a circumstance where a neighbor called in a rather serious accusation that was totally false putting me in harms way (police with hands on guns coming around the house) and they wouldn't write up the false report. They also didn't even write up an incident report of the alleged crime they had been called about because there was no crime, no case, nada. The neighbor was an attorney and has been disbarred.

I'm not sure we know exactly how the defense made it's case at the appeal level. Did they just say she didn't do it? Which she did do.

What I've been saying is that at the Corte Suprema di Cassazione, the case will be made that calunnia shouldn't have been heard at the same time as the murder and the Corte Suprema di Cassazione will send it back to the trial of the first instance level if the prosecutors want to refile.

In general you are correct. It is a serious matter. It all depends on the circumstances under which the accusation was made. e.g. would your neighbour deserve three years in prison, maybe one year, a fine? Was a disbarment appropriate? It all depends what he did and why. Amanda Knox was clearly terrified and disoriented. It is under those circumstances that I believe the punishment is ludicrous. And if the cops had made a few simple checks they could have mitigated most of the damage.

Like a lot of laws in Italy, this one probably has good reason to exist. But like all laws, it's a very blunt instrument and it seems to me to have been totally misused in this case. Similar to the one that allowed Mignini to keep Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba in solitary and away from lawyers till the initial hearing with Matteini. That one was designed to stop mafiosi types from harassing witnesses and damaging evidence. In this case that was utterly unwarranted. It's what happens when there are no checks and balances in your judicial system. The PM is king and can do more or less whatever he likes. And he does.

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by freeski

In general you are correct. It is a serious matter. It all depends on the circumstances under which the accusation was made. e.g. would your neighbour deserve three years in prison, maybe one year, a fine? Was a disbarment appropriate? It all depends what he did and why. Amanda Knox was clearly terrified and disoriented. It is under those circumstances that I believe the punishment is ludicrous. And if the cops had made a few simple checks they could have mitigated most of the damage.

Like a lot of laws in Italy, this one probably has good reason to exist. But like all laws, it's a very blunt instrument and it seems to me to have been totally misused in this case. Similar to the one that allowed Mignini to keep Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba in solitary and away from lawyers till the initial hearing with Matteini. That one was designed to stop mafiosi types from harassing witnesses and damaging evidence. In this case that was utterly unwarranted. It's what happens when there are no checks and balances in your judicial system. The PM is king and can do more or less whatever he likes. And he does.

Agreed. My neighbor should have been given life. My accusation turned out to be the first in a long list of false accusations that actually resulted in a trial (unanimous not guilty), two people charged with assault, charges being dropped, but only after they hired attorneys and several other attempts at having people charged.

She was disbarred for other issues as well, including lying in court when suing contractors that had worked on her house. She made a business of getting work for free.

I have always thought the interrogation was bogus and the police not Amanda should have charged. If Amanda had just come out and accused Patrick because she was guilty, then a 5 year tack-on would be fine. If she named Patrick to end an unpleasant questioning session having no reason to name him, that too would be serious and would deserve several years because of seriousness of the charge to Patrick. In this case, no charge at all. She obviously didn't know he was innocent.

Calunnia as described by Wiki:

Calunnia (Italian pronunciation: [kaˈlunnja]), meaning "calumny", is a criminal offence under Article 368 of the Italian Penal Code (Codice Penale), which states:
Anyone who with a denunciation, complaint, demand or request, even anonymously or under a false name, directs a judicial authority or other authority that has an obligation to report, to blame someone for a crime who he knows is innocent, that is he fabricates evidence against someone, shall be punished with imprisonment from two to six years. The penalty shall be increased if the accused blames someone of a crime for which the law prescribes a penalty of imprisonment exceeding a maximum of ten years, or another more serious penalty. The imprisonment shall be from four to twelve years if the act results in a prison sentence exceeding five years, from six to twenty years if the act results in a life sentence.[1][2]
The mens rea of calunnia requires awareness and a willingness to blame someone of a crime that the accused knows is innocent.[3]
Calunnia should be distinguished from criminal slander (ingiuria) and criminal libel (diffamazione) which relate to offences against personal honour in the Italian Penal Code.[4]

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

This is not a game. This is not some internet intrigue, like FarmVille or some such thing. This involves real people. Sometime I think some fail to appreciate the difference when they post their libel, like taking a stick to a beehive - and then complaining when they get stung.

I thought about this some more and wanted to comment that my complaints about alluded to knowing about things from some unnamed source seems like a game to me. Clearly what you write about the certainty of the recordings coming out is not in any way libel but it might raise hopes or fears for real people.

[RandyN]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Little bit.

However the basis of it, Patrick going to a lawyer almost immediately when getting out of prison to charge Amanda with calunnia in accordance with the strategy of Mignini and friends is hardly 'conspiratorial.' Then shortly thereafter going to the tabloids and accepting 70k Euros from the Daily Mail for the infamous 'soulless' piece suggests that somehow during his time in prison Patrick became absolutely convinced Amanda was an evil incarnate and deserving of all the lies and exaggerations he suggested in that piece.

So how did that happen? Patrick liked Amanda just fine before the night of the fifth, the second statement includes him wanting to meet up with her that very day. However he found himself in prison for two weeks, and we know what pressure was put on Amanda to 'confess,' does anyone really think they were gentler with Patrick? They told Amanda in her interrogation that Raffaele said she went out that night and asked him to lie for her, a gross distortion of what he actually said, and of course that they had 'hard evidence' of her being at the scene the night of the murder. Does anyone really suppose they were more honest with Patrick than they were Amanda? I'm guessing they didn't say 'we've got these two statements that read like an opium dream from the silly girl whose rights and person we abused all night that 'confusedly' say she now 'remembers' you murdered Meredith.' I'm thinking they might have exaggerated just a little bit.

As Mignini must have realized before they released him that Patrick was probably not involved, it offered an opportunity to increase the amount of 'evidence' against Amanda, which they were having difficulty accumulating in the weeks after the murder, legitimate evidence that is, not the dozen or more lies and mistakes they fed to the press. Some people cannot get past that she 'accused an innocent man!' and it becomes prima facie 'evidence' of her guilt regardless if the statements were not admissible. The police themselves were facing a dilemma as well, they'd made a huge splash garnering the attention of international media with their 'solving' of Meredith's murder and the bizarre theory they proposed, and I myself strongly suspect they had managed to convince themselves she must be guilty, thus turning Patrick from what might have been a huge embarrassment to them into a valuable asset in the case against Amanda was a huge potential 'victory' grasped from the jaws of defeat.

I would hardly be surprised if Mignini had a little 'sit down' with Patrick before he was released, including his explaining his 'option' of filing the calunnia charge. In fact he might even have been required to as part of his duties as Public Minister. Then despite what the Supreme Court says about the statements, he will have another trial that could be used to establish her 'character' for the press and courts, he might even have known he could convince Massei to allow that trial to be heard at the same time before the same jury as the murder charge.

That's not 'conspiracy' though (except by the most pedantic definition) it's strategy.

What was the date of the Daily Mail article? Never mind I looked it up 25 Nov 2007.

I dont think Lumumba had a choice or option about the calunnia charge. Some where I remember Mignini stating he automatically had to file this charge. I remember an interview he gave 1st 48 Hours piece maybe...where he talks about it.

That is a repeating theme though as he seems to pick and choose exactly who he is going to file, what I call a "sub-case" against. I remember cases filed against two lawyers one each of RS and AK. then there is the calunnia against Knox and also the slander of police against Knox. Then we have the slander against Knox parents for something from an interview they gave from their living room in USA to a Brit reporter (Follian) for publication in some Brit rag I assume. On the last, its interesting and notable that Mignini filed no charges against the reporter or the publisher of this so called slander...which causes one to speculate at the criteria Mignini uses to "keep score"...just saying.

And just to confirm that Mignini has no ethical problems quashing a free press he then proceeds to bring charges against several reporters and newspapers that report unfavorable stories against his case or that somehow show him in a less than favorable light. All this as he himself faces his own charges for many of what can only be described as "the same crime" being abuse of office and of the court with illegal wire taps...so it is being extremely fair to call Migninis behavior only suspect and not an outright criminal activity. An activity taken by a court officer that is so abusive and offensive so as to diminish Knox calunnia (if true) to the level of an parking ticket in comparison.

No these things dont require a conspiracy at all. These sub-cases are the result of one mans abuse of office. They are defined and exposed by their very nature and number. If it was just one or two sub-cases that worked against the defendants...well it happens. But when a full review would be done then Italy may have to acknowledge that they have a a problem in Perugia. The problem seems to be that Italy does not seem at all concerned to even look.

Hopefully AK and RS will bring their own charges against Italy and also with the European Court Of Human Rights and they will force the Italians to look at what went on here. There can be no doubt that this prosecution was brought without proper evidence and that measures were taken by the prosecutor to bend the law at every single phase in order to secure a conviction. Whats the problem you say?

The Prosecutor in Italy has a duty to the defendant as it relates to evidence and it is clear in this case that Mignini failed that duty not once or twice but consistently and the proof of that could fill volumes if one considers the sheer number of "strange" (common) evidence issues...burned hard drives, no interrogation tape (X 3 persons), no lawyers provided (X 3 persons), Sloppy crime scene investigation, no body temp taken and in fact the body was never weighed and yet somehow the prosecutor came up with and used several different TOD guesses.

The family of RS is charged with leaking case information by the prosecutor and yet his office and or the police can only be the explanation of an almost constant flow of negative information against the defendants...who gave out the pink bathroom photo for example or Knox prison diary? Who "passed out the crime scene photos like business cards" per Barbie Neadeau?

Did Mignini have a little talk with Lumumba? Who can doubt it? What else can explain the continued closure of Lumumbas bar long after he was declared innocent? Only the leader of the investigation can claim this is a crime scene still. Why? Did Lumumba need a lesson? It would appear from his interview with the DM that he was beaten by police, questioned for over 11 hours...no breaks, no food, no water...all his own words...and yet today we hear none of that. What happened? Why did the prosecutor not file slander charges against Lumumba for his DM story? After all saying the police beat you and called you a dirty black must be worse then what Amanda said...just a few hits..."I understand they had a job to do". SLANDER! And not just you but your loud mouth parents too! Who can doubt the motives of this man after so many strange consistencies? Yes an oxymoron...perfect.

Mignini is a one man assault on Italys justice system. Who can doubt that this mans actions need a close examination? I cant imagine given all the wrong that happened in the case that this man wont be called to answer for so many strange things. Things that could only happen by his hand. This is a crime against Italy, against the Kerchers, against AK and RS and against all those charged in the more than 2 dozen sub-cases related to just this case. How is it possible? The public can look at all these things. Will they? Will someone explain why it is wrong for the prosecutor to hire the boss of the Scientific Lab as a prosecution consultant? Why this clear and certain conflict of interest is unfair in what should be a fair trial. Perhaps they will never get it. Italy has the worst record of Human Rights violations by its courts and right up there near the top is the number of violations of the right to a fair trial.

So can there be any doubt that Italy could ever extradite Knox or any American for that matter given this dismal record with the European Court of Human Rights? I doubt it. These courts operate just like the mafias they try to punish...perhaps they have fought with them for so long that they have become just like them. This case appears to show that to be true.

[Grinder]

Randy, nice review of Mignini's calunnia and slander work. I've wondered after watching their work on the appeal how much of this was Comodi work. As much as I focused on Mignini at the beginning, I now think it was much more than just him.

As I've been asking for years, where is the recording of Lumumba? Why wasn't he afforded a lawyer from the beginning? Why didn't they just bring him as a person of interest since he knew Meredith?

It is telling that he wasn't charged for the DM interview and the parents are charged with the Follian interview. I hope the supertanker will get a special on CBS (Marriott controls them you know) that deals only with these odd charges made against people not involved in the crime directly. Boy, if that show hit the TV people in the US would totally outraged.

[Dougm]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

That's going a little far, in a way which confuses what may have been happening.

The first statement contains quite a clear narrative of:

- getting the call from Patrick,

- agreeing to meet him at once,

- lying to Raffaele that she was going to work (which causes me to think that at 1.45 Raffaele was not in their sights)

- feeling confused having smoked a joint ... (and I don't know this, obviously, but I can easily see how it might have worked: Amanda says she is struggling to recall the things they say she should be able to remember so, hey! 'Maybe you took some drugs, we've all done it, so what? but it can affect the memory and make you confused, shall we write that down? Yes? OK, now proceed') and

- meeting at Piazza Grimana and then:

'I do not recall whether Meredith was there or arrived afterward. I struggle to remember those moments, but Patrik had sex with Meredith, with whom he was infatuated, but I do not recall whether Meredith had been threatened beforehand. I recall confusedly that he killed her.'

This is where she gets vague but the story is pretty clear up to here. Trouble is, it's entirely the cops' own story. They are clear. They don't know yet though whether Meredith was raped nor what time she got home, so these two points are not allowed to collapse into certainty as it would undermine the value of the confession if either turned out to be total bull.

I'll drop this point, because not only do I think your side is reasonable (that Amanda was clear about Lumumba, but not about Raffaele), but because it really doesn't matter when it comes to the end result of the case.

My point of view (that she was not clear about Lumumba either) is based on two things: 1) The statement starts out with something that is clearly written by the cops and she can't possibly agree with (that replying "see you later" means that she agreed to meet him at once) This puts the entire statement in question to me; 2) The use of the word "confusedly" in describing the murder.

However, the statement itself, if we just judge what it says, and not what we think it really means, is fairly clear about Lumumba.

[Antony]

Originally Posted by RandyN

Mignini is a one man assault on Italys justice system. Who can doubt that this mans actions need a close examination? I cant imagine given all the wrong that happened in the case that this man wont be called to answer for so many strange things. Things that could only happen by his hand. This is a crime against Italy, against the Kerchers, against AK and RS and against all those charged in the more than 2 dozen sub-cases related to just this case. How is it possible? The public can look at all these things. Will they? Will someone explain why it is wrong for the prosecutor to hire the boss of the Scientific Lab as a prosecution consultant? Why this clear and certain conflict of interest is unfair in what should be a fair trial. Perhaps they will never get it. Italy has the worst record of Human Rights violations by its courts and right up there near the top is the number of violations of the right to a fair trial.

One of the frustrations of this debate is the number of people who will defend and justify this behaviour in the online discussions. By any objective standard there are big, big questions about the way in which the prosecution was allowed to do more or less what they liked, ranging from withholding vital evidence, leaking false and misrepresented information, through the use of legal powers to intimidate defendants, their families and lawyers, journalists, and the court-appointed scientific experts.

[Grinder]

It seems the Italian system of motivations is fraught with problems. The judges make their decision and then must rationalize it. They don't prepare the motivations in advance of the verdict but rather write up a report to rationalize their verdict. Massei was filled with assumptions and probalities that he used to rationalize his court's verdict. I see the same issues with Hellmann.

I find it interesting that the PGP can't see that both motivations reports need leaps of faith to make them work. Not only that but both judges just plainly got some things wrong. Rudy didn't lose his shoe (Hellmann) and no one cleaned up missing footprints (Massei).

For the PGP if no DNA is found in the footprints and the TMB test is negative that means nothing, stuff happens. On the other hand when Amanda's DNA is found in the bathroom this is proof she was there on the murder night.

I continue to wonder why the PGP don't drop bogus things from their narrative such as the testimony of Curatolo, Nara, and Quintavalle. They should also drop "footprints" that don't match Amanda and tested negative (TMB) for blood and Meredith's DNA.

There really is very little solid evidence but adding all the extremely dubious "evidence" doesn't help their case much at all. It fact it makes them look desperate.

The mixed DNA in Filomena's room is significant. The break-in is suspicious. The alibis of the kids were definitely weak. Unfortunately for those that wish for the guilt of the kids the ILE did a horrible job and make a reasonable conviction impossible.

Last point, members here that no longer post but lurk should avail themselves of named experts such as Halides instead of taking opinions from their closed circulatory system anonymous posters.

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by Antony

One of the frustrations of this debate is the number of people who will defend and justify this behaviour in the online discussions. By any objective standard there are big, big questions about the way in which the prosecution was allowed to do more or less what they liked, ranging from withholding vital evidence, leaking false and misrepresented information, through the use of legal powers to intimidate defendants, their families and lawyers, journalists, and the court-appointed scientific experts.

Which is why, ultimately, the drama must be played out in a court room, where what you say matters, not an internet forum, where it doesn't. But it has to be a proper court in which reason is everything. I do not beleve Italy is so far gone that it cannot furnish such a court.

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by Grinder

It seems the Italian system of motivations is fraught with problems. The judges make their decision and then must rationalize it. They don't prepare the motivations in advance of the verdict but rather write up a report to rationalize their verdict. Massei was filled with assumptions and probalities that he used to rationalize his court's verdict. I see the same issues with Hellmann.

I find it interesting that the PGP can't see that both motivations reports need leaps of faith to make them work. Not only that but both judges just plainly got some things wrong. Rudy didn't lose his shoe (Hellmann) and no one cleaned up missing footprints (Massei).

For the PGP if no DNA is found in the footprints and the TMB test is negative that means nothing, stuff happens. On the other hand when Amanda's DNA is found in the bathroom this is proof she was there on the murder night.

I continue to wonder why the PGP don't drop bogus things from their narrative such as the testimony of Curatolo, Nara, and Quintavalle. They should also drop "footprints" that don't match Amanda and tested negative (TMB) for blood and Meredith's DNA.

There really is very little solid evidence but adding all the extremely dubious "evidence" doesn't help their case much at all. It fact it makes them look desperate.

The mixed DNA in Filomena's room is significant. The break-in is suspicious. The alibis of the kids were definitely weak. Unfortunately for those that wish for the guilt of the kids the ILE did a horrible job and make a reasonable conviction impossible.

Last point, members here that no longer post but lurk should avail themselves of named experts such as Halides instead of taking opinions from their closed circulatory system anonymous posters.

Agree with your last sentence if you are saying that a degree of deference is due to those whose professional lives have equipped them to grasp annoyingly complicated scientific questions. I find it hard to resist the urge to over-simplify such questions and appreciate the baleful presence of the likes of Halides.

Still, there is no need to cede too much ground to the geeks. We still have Stefanoni's crack team of domestic swabbers and her show-stopping mop-wrapping act to give us readily comprehensible things to laugh at amid the murk.

[RandyN]

Originally Posted by Antony View Post
One of the frustrations of this debate is the number of people who will defend and justify this behaviour in the online discussions. By any objective standard there are big, big questions about the way in which the prosecution was allowed to do more or less what they liked, ranging from withholding vital evidence, leaking false and misrepresented information, through the use of legal powers to intimidate defendants, their families and lawyers, journalists, and the court-appointed scientific experts.


I guess I tend to ignore the prosecution abuse in the appeal case because in the end Hellmann got it right but the abuse certainly continued in that phase. When these things happened and came out in public it always puzzled me why the court seemed to condone what would certainly be cause of sanction in most courts...at least those that put on a show of being concerned about rule of law.

Here we have in the appeal phase the court disallowing most defense requests for review. That was even described as the "day of no". Hellmann refused all but a very few defense requests. There was the DNA, Toto, the Disco owners, and the inmates I believe. Back then the PGP were calling Hellmann a genius and the prosecution acted as if things would be as per Massei. Even when Hellmann called for an independent expert review of the dna there was no outcry or protests of the ruling or even an objection of C and V....not yet anyway.

But then the strange prosecution interferences started shortly after they heard from Stefanoni I expect. Im certain it was her who alerted the prosecution about the tenor of the expert investigation. The experts wanted the electronic data files. Something any legit scientific lab should be more than happy to hand over. They wanted notes and control data sheets, in short they wanted it all. And as we now understand the reason why, this data was something Stefanoni did not wish to share.

And so Stefanoni decided to ignore the experts request but they persisted and she continued to stonewall. Finally Hellmann was notified and personally emailed Stefanoni to turn over all files. To which she sent a reply to Hellamnn that basically said NO! No one had ever requested these files before and there was no reason that the experts needed these files. So no. Hellmann after a bit of political wording that allowed a better definition of what files exactly these experts wanted emailed Stefanoni back that now it was his expectation for her to cooperate fully with the expert requests and to do so sooner rather than later. She turned over the files one day before the expert review was due by the court. This required the experts to go into court and request a delay since they did not have time to investigate these files.

I suppose the prosecution never expected any of this to matter to the case at all since they had been given this almost total free reign by every court before Hellmanns but I cant help wondering what Hellmann really thought when Stefanoni had to be told twice by the judge.

And so this should have ended any issues about the independent experts or their report... one would think that Stefanoni and the prosecution did their best but that now even the judge was alert and so they ought to just play it straight. But we later find out that was not to be the case at all. They were far from done in trying to influence this important data.

Who could ever imagine that the prosecution (who else would order this?) would send two car loads of Perugia police to Rome to shake down the experts? But we come to find out this is exactly what happened. Each squad car of police went to the separate work places of each expert and what? In the end their claim was to retrieve a CD or DVD but as was explained to them (they already knew) this DVD was on file in the court house back there in Perugia. So shocked and worried about the meaning of this visit by police the experts felt the need to notify Hellmann himself and to request advice about what they should do.

Who does these things and gets away with it? You couldn't make this stuff up and have it be believable and yet these are actual real events. No dispute. Still no complaints about favoritism of the defense by the prosecution..no mention of how some supertanker was leading the case. What did they think? No one would ever notice any of this? And yet Hellmann remains silent...he tells the experts to turn over the DVD that is already at the Perugia court house and the case continues on.

Now I cant speculate how they do things in Italy. Perhaps they can overlook these issues as somehow unrelated to the requirements of a fair trial. To me these seem like tactics of a thug...perhaps a mafia family...but a prosecutor and apparently some police? How do get away with it?

Finally we have Comodi give a statement to Nick Pisa that the judges in this appeal case are against the prosecution and so it is lost. The guilty will go free she claims. Later, she comes back into court and threatens a defense witness while hes giving testimony alluding to charges that can be brought... "Are you sure you want to day that?"

Comodi also tries twice to get false control data sheets entered into the court record...the first attempt is thwarted by a regular juror who notices that the dates dont match as they review the days files...Comodi brushes this off by saying no matter this data is already in the file. So Hellmann orders a recess and gives her an hour to produce this data...she fails. Her second attempt also fails after an excuse that this time she found the file in a garage...and she insists that Hellmann must enter it. Finally Hellmann acts like a normal judge anywhere else in the civilized world and he gets angry and tells her the truth of the matter. No control data sheet at this point can prove that contamination did not happen before the samples ever made it to the lab.

Hellmann had drawn the line in the sand...stop playing games and start showing some evidence. The house of cards was finally starting to topple. The truth was that way back in the prelim in front of Claudia (Migninis good friend) there was never evidence. Only imagined evidence...a shoe print that never matched RS size and sole pattern, the forced confused police written "statement" of AK. A black man who had the bad luck to approach AK the morning of the 5th of Nov 2007 that suddenly put him on the radar of the police. How satisfying it must have been for them to discover a text message between the two on the same night of the murder... "See you later".



Anglolawyer says,

"Which is why, ultimately, the drama must be played out in a court room, where what you say matters, not an internet forum, where it doesn't. But it has to be a proper court in which reason is everything. I do not beleve Italy is so far gone that it cannot furnish such a court."

Until Hellmann, I was beginning to have my doubts if any Italian court bothered with details such as facts or evidence etc...I disagree that he got things as wrong as Massei did. Although, I suppose any motivation report may get a few details wrong such as a conclusion about if Guede had a shoe on or off. He rarely if ever asked us "to imagine if you will" or "it can be speculated" or "it seems likely" that we find as repeating mantras in the Massei report. A legal document that begs to be examined just by its contradictions and wording. Certainly law schools will use this as an example of how not to do it.

Funny thing I just heard....Massei was recently promoted by the Italian justice system. Maybe they should rename it...The Italian Injustice system. No system is perfect and each has its own flaws...but when yours has no system of checks and balances how can there ever be improvement?

[HumanityBlues]

Originally Posted by Grinder

It seems the Italian system of motivations is fraught with problems. The judges make their decision and then must rationalize it. They don't prepare the motivations in advance of the verdict but rather write up a report to rationalize their verdict. Massei was filled with assumptions and probalities that he used to rationalize his court's verdict. I see the same issues with Hellmann.

I find it interesting that the PGP can't see that both motivations reports need leaps of faith to make them work. Not only that but both judges just plainly got some things wrong. Rudy didn't lose his shoe (Hellmann) and no one cleaned up missing footprints (Massei).

For the PGP if no DNA is found in the footprints and the TMB test is negative that means nothing, stuff happens. On the other hand when Amanda's DNA is found in the bathroom this is proof she was there on the murder night.

I continue to wonder why the PGP don't drop bogus things from their narrative such as the testimony of Curatolo, Nara, and Quintavalle. They should also drop "footprints" that don't match Amanda and tested negative (TMB) for blood and Meredith's DNA.

There really is very little solid evidence but adding all the extremely dubious "evidence" doesn't help their case much at all. It fact it makes them look desperate.

The mixed DNA in Filomena's room is significant. The break-in is suspicious. The alibis of the kids were definitely weak. Unfortunately for those that wish for the guilt of the kids the ILE did a horrible job and make a reasonable conviction impossible.

Last point, members here that no longer post but lurk should avail themselves of named experts such as Halides instead of taking opinions from their closed circulatory system anonymous posters.

The mixed DNA in Filomena's room is not significant.

[Antony]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

Which is why, ultimately, the drama must be played out in a court room, where what you say matters, not an internet forum, where it doesn't.

While that's true, it's still the case that views on the internet are an indication of the public appetite to challenge officialdom in cases like these.

Quote:

But it has to be a proper court in which reason is everything. I do not beleve Italy is so far gone that it cannot furnish such a court.

From what I know of miscarriages of justice, the signs are not good IMO. Certainly in the UK, there was a judicial closing of ranks in the Birmingham and Guildford cases, and the reforms did not include calling to account any of the police and judges responsible for the scandal. In the Guildford case, when it became clear that the police had deliberately falsified evidence, a judge ruled that they could not be proceeded against because "they would not receive a fair trial".

Seriously (and in full awareness of the irony), how could Mignini receive a fair trial for his antics in this case?

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by HumanityBlues

The mixed DNA in Filomena's room is not significant.

Perhaps you expand a touch on your POV. While the mixed DNA in the bathroom and Amanda's DNA on the knife handle are not evidence of anything, the spot (not a footprint) in Filomena's room does need some sort of reason for being there. Could the police or CSI have tracked the substance in there? I would say that's possible but why only that one spot?

The "bloody" footprints besides not matching either A or R don't seem to be blood at all. Why people would think that a negative TMB test means nothing, but believe that the severely diluted blood would light up with Luminol in such a way that Stefanoni had no doubt it was blood yet have no problem saying it was too diluted for the TMB. The fact that the boots of the CSI guy was glowing strangely hasn't caused the others to make jokes that they must have been drinking turnip juice.

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by Antony

While that's true, it's still the case that views on the internet are an indication of the public appetite to challenge officialdom in cases like these.

I just meant that our lives, liberty and property are not at stake here. Not sure we are demonstrating an appetite to challenge officialdom by posting on this forum. I wonder whether there any Italy-based forums about this case and whether they divide between PIPs and PGPs. Given Mignini's itchy trigger finger it would take balls to be posting on the former.

Originally Posted by Antony

From what I know of miscarriages of justice, the signs are not good IMO. Certainly in the UK, there was a judicial closing of ranks in the Birmingham and Guildford cases, and the reforms did not include calling to account any of the police and judges responsible for the scandal. In the Guildford case, when it became clear that the police had deliberately falsified evidence, a judge ruled that they could not be proceeded against because "they would not receive a fair trial".

Seriously (and in full awareness of the irony), how could Mignini receive a fair trial for his antics in this case?

I doubt he will receive any trial at all but it sure would be great to see.

[HumanityBlues]

Originally Posted by Grinder

Perhaps you expand a touch on your POV. While the mixed DNA in the bathroom and Amanda's DNA on the knife handle are not evidence of anything, the spot (not a footprint) in Filomena's room does need some sort of reason for being there. Could the police or CSI have tracked the substance in there? I would say that's possible but why only that one spot?

The "bloody" footprints besides not matching either A or R don't seem to be blood at all. Why people would think that a negative TMB test means nothing, but believe that the severely diluted blood would light up with Luminol in such a way that Stefanoni had no doubt it was blood yet have no problem saying it was too diluted for the TMB. The fact that the boots of the CSI guy was glowing strangely hasn't caused the others to make jokes that they must have been drinking turnip juice.

You should rather explain why its significant in the first place. The reasons for its insignificance have been discussed ad-nauseum for literally years on this thread---and the reason for such insignificance is really quite simple.

[Antony]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

I do not beleve Italy is so far gone that it cannot furnish such a court.

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

I doubt he will receive any trial at all but it sure would be great to see.

While both these observations of yours have their merits, they don't quite seem to be following the same theme.

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by HumanityBlues

You should rather explain why its significant in the first place. The reasons for its insignificance have been discussed ad-nauseum for literally years on this thread---and the reason for such insignificance is really quite simple.

Whereas Amanda's DNA is easily explained in the bathroom, the hallway, and in her room it is not as easy to explain why it would be in the middle of Filomena's room and especially so since Meredith's was also found in the same spot.

Pardon going over some issue that's been covered before as I'm sure you have never done so for quite some time.

[HumanityBlues]

Originally Posted by Grinder

Whereas Amanda's DNA is easily explained in the bathroom, the hallway, and in her room it is not as easy to explain why it would be in the middle of Filomena's room and especially so since Meredith's was also found in the same spot.

Pardon going over some issue that's been covered before as I'm sure you have never done so for quite some time.

That's the problem with your analysis. It is easy to explain how Amanda's DNA would be mixed with Meredith's in the same spot "in the middle" of Filomena's room. From a forensic perspective, Amanda's DNA in Filomena's room, mixed with Meredith, is completely benign. There is a plethora of logical explanations for the reason why.

You mock guilters for their positions on things and then fall into the same trap as they do over really simple things. The above is a great example.

It's not a matter of you bringing up old issues that have or haven't been covered. It's that you assert things using assumptions that don't have actual foundations----which, yes, have happened to have been discussed ad-nauseum.

[Grinder]

There has been allegations that the dark or black older car parked in the driveway of the cottage may have belonged to Koko. Some of the PGP insist it was a car of friends of the people that had the broken down car. Nick Pisa wrote in October of 2008:

The witness, a mechanic called Gianfranco Lombardi, had been called out to recover a broken down vehicle near the cottage in which the Leeds University student was found stabbed to death on the night of November 1.
While loading the vehicle onto his truck, Lombardi noticed a "dark car" parked in the sloping driveway which leads down to the cottage, on Perugia's Via della Pergola, a winding lane with sweeping views of the Umbrian countryside.
Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian IT graduate who along with Guede and American student Amanda Knox is accused of murdering Miss Kercher, owned a black car at the time of the murder.
But a prosecution witness, an Albanian immigrant named Hekuran Kokomani, who says he saw the three accused outside the cottage on the night of the murder, also drove a dark coloured car.

One would think that if it were friends of the car owners, it would have been known by a year later.

Does anyone have access to the testimony of broken-down car people. As best I can tell it's not mentioned in Massei, which would be another oversight by him.

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by Antony

While both these observations of yours have their merits, they don't quite seem to be following the same theme.

You're right, sorry. As it's in the realms of speculation about the future I won't try to stitch together what I was saying. We can see how things pan out when they do.

[Charlie Wilkes]

Originally Posted by Grinder

Perhaps you expand a touch on your POV. While the mixed DNA in the bathroom and Amanda's DNA on the knife handle are not evidence of anything, the spot (not a footprint) in Filomena's room does need some sort of reason for being there. Could the police or CSI have tracked the substance in there? I would say that's possible but why only that one spot?

No one has devised a plausible scenario linking these findings to the crime. People have tried to suggest that Amanda somehow tracked Meredith's blood into Filomena's room in connection with her supposed staging of the break-in, and then cleaned it up, but not thoroughly enough to avoid leaving her own DNA as well as Meredith's. That scenario lacks credibility to begin with, and it is fatally undermined by the lack of intermediate traces between Meredith's room and Filomena's room.

But, the traces are hard to explain as an ordinary result of people sharing a residence, so they are useful for those who want to suggest a murky, complex scenario in which the details are unknowable.

I think the most likely answer is that the traces came from contamination on the gloves of whoever handled the swabs, which seems especially likely as the luminol tests were done at the end of the Dec. 18 investigation, after it was dark. The video from Dec. 18 doesn't show any of these samples being gathered, but here is a clip that shows a sample being swabbed on Nov. 3:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/foren..._swab_11-3.avi

Notice how she scrubs the bloodstain on the wall, reverses the tip of the swab, and then bears down on the spot of blood with her thumb. If investigators used a similar procedure on Dec. 18 (and there's no reason to think otherwise, given the clownish handling of the bra fastener and other evidence) they could easily have transferred DNA onto the swabs used to collect samples from the floor of Filomena's room.

My apologies for a somewhat large .avi file, created for use by the media.

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by HumanityBlues

That's the problem with your analysis. It is easy to explain how Amanda's DNA would be mixed with Meredith's in the same spot "in the middle" of Filomena's room. From a forensic perspective, Amanda's DNA in Filomena's room, mixed with Meredith, is completely benign. There is a plethora of logical explanations for the reason why.

You mock guilters for their positions on things and then fall into the same trap as they do over really simple things. The above is a great example.

It's not a matter of you bringing up old issues that have or haven't been covered. It's that you assert things using assumptions that don't have actual foundations----which, yes, have happened to have been discussed ad-nauseum.

So you can't give an answer. Please what assumption has no foundation?

Rather than attack ad-nauseum why don't you just explain how the mixed DNA got into Filomena's room?

[HumanityBlues]

Originally Posted by Grinder

So you can't give an answer. Please what assumption has no foundation?

Rather than attack ad-nauseum why don't you just explain how the mixed DNA got into Filomena's room?

No one is attacking you ad-nauseum. I'm not attacking you at all. The fallacy is that it needs to be explained at all given the fact that they lived in the same house. It's utterly insignificant. Pretending that it is something that needs to be explained is a false assumption.

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

No one has devised a plausible scenario linking these findings to the crime. People have tried to suggest that Amanda somehow tracked Meredith's blood into Filomena's room in connection with her supposed staging of the break-in, and then cleaned it up, but not thoroughly enough to avoid leaving her own DNA as well as Meredith's. That scenario lacks credibility to begin with, and it is fatally undermined by the lack of intermediate traces between Meredith's room and Filomena's room.

But, the traces are hard to explain as an ordinary result of people sharing a residence, so they are useful for those who want to suggest a murky, complex scenario in which the details are unknowable.

I think the most likely answer is that the traces came from contamination on the gloves of whoever handled the swabs, which seems especially likely as the luminol tests were done at the end of the Dec. 18 investigation, after it was dark. The video from Dec. 18 doesn't show any of these samples being gathered, but here is a clip that shows a sample being swabbed on Nov. 3:

I don't think it is fatally undermined by the lack of traces. I'd say a likely way the spot was deposited was by one of the CSI people or the police stepping on a trace and then stepping in the room and leaving the spot, but that has the same intermediate problem. Whether it is popular or not I continue to think that that this piece of forensics is the most troubling for PIP.

There is no doubt that the gathering techniques of the CSI stretch the meaning of technique. They did a horrible job in every aspect of collection of evidence.

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by HumanityBlues

No one is attacking you ad-nauseum. I'm not attacking you at all. The fallacy is that it needs to be explained at all given the fact that they lived in the same house. It's utterly insignificant. Pretending that it is something that needs to be explained is a false assumption.

I don't believe that a spot that has Meredith's and Amanda's DNA in Filomena's room is utterly insignificant because they all lived in the same house. If Amanda's DNA was found everywhere in the house as well as Meredith's maybe then, but Amanda's wasn't found in Meredith's room. If you believe that the Filomena spot means nothing then how do explain that no DNA of Amanda was found in Meredith's room, someone she was closer to?

As CW said the collection was done badly, that's an explanation but just saying that Amanda's DNA found anywhere in the house mixed with Meredith's has no significance does feed into the PG argument that then DNA can't be used in any circumstance where someone frequented the crime previously. Clearly it is different for people that live somewhere and people that have never been there but some explanations are necessary.

[Dan O.]

Originally Posted by Grinder

There is no doubt that the gathering techniques of the CSI stretch the meaning of technique. They did a horrible job in every aspect of collection of evidence.

But they did prove that it is possible to do a selective cleanup. Haven't you noticed that there aren't any luminol photos of where the stains they collected used to be.

[Katody Matrass]

Originally Posted by Grinder

I don't think it is fatally undermined by the lack of traces. I'd say a likely way the spot was deposited was by one of the CSI people or the police stepping on a trace and then stepping in the room and leaving the spot, but that has the same intermediate problem.

You're making an assumption that the DNA trace is related to the luminol return found. I don't see a reason to assume it.

We don't have any control sample of luminol negative spots from all over the floor to know even approximately how common was the DNA on the floor in general.

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by Katody Matrass

You're making an assumption that the DNA trace is related to the luminol return found. I don't see a reason to assume it.

We don't have any control sample of luminol negative spots from all over the floor to know even approximately how common was the DNA on the floor in general.

There is the impression that the ICSI didn't do controls anywhere. Did C&V comment on this issue outside their comments on the lack of controls inside the lab?

Look, I totally think they should have been found not guilty and lean heavily towards the kids not being guilty of having anything to do with committing the murder, but I still can think that certain pieces of evidence are the most problematic.

In a sense there were some controls done. They checked the Luminol footprints for DNA and found little to none. They did check much in the murder room and found little DNA besides Meredith and some of Rudy. I don't know that any information has been disseminated about all the DNA found in various places in the cottage.

Didn't Halides just post something about not knowing how much DNA is to be found anywhere in a house?

[Katody Matrass]

Originally Posted by Grinder

There is the impression that the ICSI didn't do controls anywhere. Did C&V comment on this issue outside their comments on the lack of controls inside the lab?

Yes, they mentioned it (lack of it) in the context of the environmental contamination of the bra-clasp. Of course they weren't tasked with evaluating the result we're talking about.

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by Grinder

I don't believe that a spot that has Meredith's and Amanda's DNA in Filomena's room is utterly insignificant because they all lived in the same house.

If you don't think Meredith and Amanda's DNA could have gotten there innocuously in the two months they lived together, what makes you think it would happen in mere moment in time the night of the murder? What about there being DNA in a spot in an entirely different room suggests evidence of murder to you? If they'd found the same behind the refrigerator would it necessarily imply somehow that was evidence of murder?

All that DNA in that room together implies is that at sometime in the two months they lived together their DNA got there together somehow, it might not even have happened at the same time, in fact I suspect it probably didn't. I think Randy N probably nailed it on this one: it was a stain of some stickiness that attracted dirt and dust which eventually included DNA of both of them. Whatever it was that made the stain, perhaps fruit juice, lit up the luminol which caused them to test for DNA.

Originally Posted by Grinder

] If Amanda's DNA was found everywhere in the house as well as Meredith's maybe then, but Amanda's wasn't found in Meredith's room. If you believe that the Filomena spot means nothing then how do explain that no DNA of Amanda was found in Meredith's room, someone she was closer to?

There wasn't any of Amanda's DNA in the places they tested, and thinking about it now that's a damn good thing. If they'd have tested the entire room they probably would have found Amanda's DNA, but they didn't test the whole room, they tested things that they thought involved in the murder and there was reason to think so. Meridith's body, Meridith's clothes, where they found blood on the purse, etc. Finding Amanda's DNA in the corner or under the bed would be utterly meaningless.

What makes you think DNA from an unidentified source being mixed in another room without any trail of evidence leading there (at all) is evidence of murder? Where does that assumption come from outside the corrupt prosecution and the rabbit-hole?

Which is basically why Hellmann dismissed it with far less words:

Originally Posted by Hellmann Report

Another important circumstance remains unexplained as well: only two traces contain a Meredith – Amanda mixed profile, Exhibit 176 [recte 177] in Romanelli’s room and Exhibit 183 in the corridor. The others can be attributed to Amanda alone, and Exhibit 176, left in Romanelli’s room, even to Meredith alone. If the first-level Court’s explanation were plausible, they should all contain a mixed profile, or, at least, that of only Meredith as well.

With a little common sense, however, it is useful to remember that the girls lived together in that house, that they were all friends, and who knows how many times they went up and down barefoot in the various rooms, as often young people do, leaving their traces here and there, even superimposing them by chance, probably on bleach, but without excluding some other possibilities, such as a stain of fruit juice or of vegetable stock.

Indeed – as already recalled above – Dr. Stefanoni (pp. 221 and 228) has acknowledged that it is not possible to date the moment when DNA is released, nor to establish the chronological order in which multiple traces were left, even one above the other.

Originally Posted by Grinder

As CW said the collection was done badly, that's an explanation but just saying that Amanda's DNA found anywhere in the house mixed with Meredith's has no significance does feed into the PG argument that then DNA can't be used in any circumstance where someone frequented the crime previously. Clearly it is different for people that live somewhere and people that have never been there but some explanations are necessary.

Not quite, though close. DNA is an identifier, one finds a substance that is logically connected to the murder such as blood, or skin under the fingernails, or hair in the hand or saliva on the body or semen etc. and then uses DNA testing to find out who it belongs to. Dr. Greg Hampikian did a TV special on this I cannot seem to find right now that explains it nicely and perhaps someone else can recall where it is. When you're dealing with DNA you have to 'hypothesize' the source of it does fall into that category, which you can see suggested here:

Originally Posted by Forensic Sci Int 5/25/06 Petricevic et al

Trace DNA is often detected on handled items and worn clothing examined in forensic laboratories. In this study, the potential transfer of trace DNA to bedding by normal contact, when an individual sleeps in a bed, is examined. Volunteers slept one night on a new, lower bed sheet in their own bed and one night in a bed foreign to them. Samples from the sheets were collected and analysed by DNA profiling. The results indicate that the DNA profile of an individual can be obtained from bedding after one night of sleeping in a bed. The DNA profile of the owner of the bed could also be detected in the foreign bed experiments. Since mixed DNA profiles can be obtained from trace DNA on bedding, caution should be exercised when drawing conclusions from DNA profiling results obtained from such samples. This transfer may have important repercussions in sexual assault investigations.

Do you see what that means? Even finding trace DNA elements in a bed doesn't mean anything more than someone might have slept there once, so if they'd found Meredith's boyfriend's DNA in the bed it would be potentially meaningless as evidence of murder as long as it was just trace DNA. It doesn't prove anything, just like the DNA in the stain in Filomena's room doesn't mean anything as evidence of murder.

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

All that DNA in that room together implies is that at sometime in the two months they lived together their DNA got there together somehow, it might not even have happened at the same time, in fact I suspect it probably didn't. I think Randy N probably nailed it on this one: it was a stain of some stickiness that attracted dirt and dust which eventually included DNA of both of them. Whatever it was that made the stain, perhaps fruit juice, lit up the luminol which caused them to test for DNA.

I suspect you are correct here. The fact is that the Luminol traces in Filomena's room were not treated as footprints or shoeprints and pictures of the Luminol reactions on these two traces have not been presented. It is a good theory that this substance is the result of a spill rather than a print.

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

If you don't think Meredith and Amanda's DNA could have gotten there innocuously in the two months they lived together, what makes you think it would happen in mere moment in time the night of the murder? What about there being DNA in a spot in an entirely different room suggests evidence of murder to you? If they'd found the same behind the refrigerator would it necessarily imply somehow that was evidence of murder?

All that DNA in that room together implies is that at sometime in the two months they lived together their DNA got there together somehow, it might not even have happened at the same time, in fact I suspect it probably didn't. I think Randy N probably nailed it on this one: it was a stain of some stickiness that attracted dirt and dust which eventually included DNA of both of them. Whatever it was that made the stain, perhaps fruit juice, lit up the luminol which caused them to test for DNA.

The DNA doesn't in any way tie directly to the murder but rather, if anything, it ties Amanda to being in Filomena's room and with bad luck having in the same spot Meredith's DNA and not anybody else's. Btw, fruit juice doesn't light up with Luminol. I have asked Halides if the apricot juice Rudy had mentioned drinking could have been the source for any of the Luminol hits. He replied that no, the juice would have to contain iron or some such substance.

Since the room that it was found in also was the room where the break-in occurred or was staged the finding of the mixed DNA sample does have more significance than the mixed DNA in the bathroom or hall outside the rooms of A & M.

On the other hand the fact that the lamp from Amanda's room was found in Meredith's room means nothing since anyone needing light would have taken the lamp from the room next door. The fact that their was no DNA or prints on the lamp would make one think that whoever left it in the room had planned it that way or they would have moved it back. A & R wouldn't have worried about having their DNA or prints on a lamp from Amanda's room.

The refrigerator question is silly.

Quote:

There wasn't any of Amanda's DNA in the places they tested, and thinking about it now that's a damn good thing. If they'd have tested the entire room they probably would have found Amanda's DNA, but they didn't test the whole room, they tested things that they thought involved in the murder and there was reason to think so. Meridith's body, Meridith's clothes, where they found blood on the purse, etc. Finding Amanda's DNA in the corner or under the bed would be utterly meaningless.

Yes in the corner or under the bed would have little to no meaning regarding this case. It is very significant that no DNA was found in Meredith's room. Do you have a list of all the things they tested?

Quote:

What makes you think DNA from an unidentified source being mixed in another room without any trail of evidence leading there (at all) is evidence of murder? Where does that assumption come from outside the corrupt prosecution and the rabbit-hole?

Do you see what that means? Even finding trace DNA elements in a bed doesn't mean anything more than someone might have slept there once, so if they'd found Meredith's boyfriend's DNA in the bed it would be potentially meaningless as evidence of murder as long as it was just trace DNA. It doesn't prove anything, just like the DNA in the stain in Filomena's room doesn't mean anything as evidence of murder.

It means that someone was in the bed. Of course, I'd expect to find DNA of someone if they spent a night in a bed. Finding the DNA of someone with a solid alibi would mean nothing. If Amanda's DNA was found in abundant quantities in Meredith's room it would not necessarily be tied to the murder but it wouldn't be helpful for the defense.

We all know that DNA isn't time dated but it still has probative value in many cases. Why do most want the "semen" stain tested?

[Dan O.]

Originally Posted by Grinder

We all know that DNA isn't time dated but it still has probative value in many cases. Why do most want the "semen" stain tested?

If the purported semen stain was tested and found to be semen with a DNA match to Raffaele, it would be extremely damaging to their case for innocence. It is therefore noteworthy that the defense were asking that the stain should be tested.

If the prosecution's case were correct, they would have little to loose by testing the stain. If it is not semen, it means nothing. If it belongs to Meredith's boyfriend, it means nothing. however, if it belongs to Rudy, it highlights the fact that Rudy has not been truthful. Does the prosecution believe that Rudy has been truthful?