The True Crime Weblog Message Board

According to Frank's summary of a document filed by Knox's legal team:

Amanda Knox's team was even quicker, and today filed a request for her release. It was 22 pages, and included all the arguments you might expect.
The most important obviously concern the data that has emerged after Court of Freedom's ruling, which fell outside the scope of the Supreme Court review. They include: the knife that doesn't match all the wounds, the sweatshirt that has been found, the hard disk of her computer that was taken apart, the DNA on the blade that has not been proven to be Meredith's.

The DNA on the knife was pretty important evidence, wasn't it?

I wonder if this changes anyone's opinion with regard to the credibility of the people heading up this murder investigation.

Or are most of you clinging to the hope that this court filing is just another round of PR hype and the DNA on the knife will pan out after all?

Charlie

Charlie,
Would you have any ideas as to what this means? Do you think the DNA was never actual evidence? I thought the law enforcement officials in Italy have confirmed that the knife in evidence was the murder weapon. Were they lying and if so, why would they do that?

It appears highly unlikely that they would go out on a limb and make erroneous statements like that so this calls in to question as to whether or not the DNA and/or knife were ever considered evidence or just leaked that way.

I suppose that the knife having not matched all the wounds would be the pre-cursor for the idea of more than one murder weapon.

I wonder what they mean by the hard disk of her computer was taken apart. At first I thought I misread that but it doesn't say it was taken out of the computer it says it was taken apart. Why would they need to take a computer hard disk apart? What are they thinking and doing over there? If they took the hard disk apart they would most certain cause some damage. I guess this is what they meant when they said it had not been intentionally damaged.
This is amazing!

Rodney wrote:Charlie,
Would you have any ideas as to what this means? Do you think the DNA was never actual evidence? I thought the law enforcement officials in Italy have confirmed that the knife in evidence was the murder weapon. Were they lying and if so, why would they do that?

It appears highly unlikely that they would go out on a limb and make erroneous statements like that so this calls in to question as to whether or not the DNA and/or knife were ever considered evidence or just leaked that way.

Unlikely or not, the investigators, if not the courts as well, have put themselves way out on a limb.

But my understanding is that the DNA on the knife was never admitted as evidence by the court. According to Chris Mellas, court-appointed DNA analyst(s) have concluded that it is of no value. It seems to be a fable the investigators fed to the press and the public, along with the "missing" sweatshirt, which was found in the cottage as soon as anyone bothered to look for it, the security camera, which was pointed the wrong way, and a number of other red herrings.

Rodney wrote:I suppose that the knife having not matched all the wounds would be the pre-cursor for the idea of more than one murder weapon.

I wonder what they mean by the hard disk of her computer was taken apart. At first I thought I misread that but it doesn't say it was taken out of the computer it says it was taken apart. Why would they need to take a computer hard disk apart? What are they thinking and doing over there? If they took the hard disk apart they would most certain cause some damage. I guess this is what they meant when they said it had not been intentionally damaged.
This is amazing!

Frank's wording doesn't make clear whether the computer was taken apart or the hard drive itself. But they apparently handed the computers over to someone who was incompetent.

Charlie

Charlie Wilkes wrote:...are most of you clinging to the hope that this court filing is just another round of PR hype and the DNA on the knife will pan out after all?

Charlie: You really take yourself way too seriously. Do you actually make a living in this business, or is this something you do in between porn-site visits on the Eastsound Library public access computers.

Charlie Wilkes wrote:According to Frank's summary of a document filed by Knox's legal team:

Amanda Knox's team was even quicker, and today filed a request for her release. It was 22 pages, and included all the arguments you might expect.
The most important obviously concern the data that has emerged after Court of Freedom's ruling, which fell outside the scope of the Supreme Court review. They include: the knife that doesn't match all the wounds, the sweatshirt that has been found, the hard disk of her computer that was taken apart, the DNA on the blade that has not been proven to be Meredith's.

The DNA on the knife was pretty important evidence, wasn't it?

I wonder if this changes anyone's opinion with regard to the credibility of the people heading up this murder investigation.

Or are most of you clinging to the hope that this court filing is just another round of PR hype and the DNA on the knife will pan out after all?

Charlie

There's a big difference between "has not been proven to be Meredith's" and "has been proven not to be Meredith's", though.

Maybe I'm missing something, but that particular part of the defense team's file doesn't look like it's saying anything new - just that they continue to challenge the DNA evidence, which hasn't had its day in court yet. I think the "found" sweatshirt is more relevant, because the Court previously made an issue of that point when refusing to release Amanda. So it makes sense to say, "Okay, now it's been found - so now what?"

I'm not sure why you're convinced that the police have been thoroughly incompetent, either. Another way to look at the sweatshirt evidence would be to say that the Cassazione mentioned it as a reason for denying Amanda's release, so the police went and looked for it, and they found it. Similarly, Rudy Guede was tracked down and arrested by the police you're accusing of gross incompetence - it was also the same police who checked out Patrick Lumumba's alibi, even going so far as to fly in a professor from Switzerland to speak on his behalf.

You seem to have the idea that these incompetent policemen stumbled across the answers you agree with quite by accident, even as they wrongheadedly cling to beliefs that you've brilliantly been able to identify as misguided.

Maybe you're right about all this, but I can see why you're having difficulty persuading others to think the same way.

FinnMacCool wrote:There's a big difference between "has not been proven to be Meredith's" and "has been proven not to be Meredith's", though.

There's no difference in terms of how useful this knife is as evidence. You can rationalize and temporize all you want, but the facts are clear. The authorities were very specific in describing the DNA evidence on this knife. They said Knox's DNA was on the handle and the victim's DNA was on the blade. They described it as a significant piece of physical evidence linking Knox and Sollecito to the murder.

Now it turns out the authorities lied to the public. Why do you suppose they did that, if they are good cops who only care about truth and justice?

Charlie

Charlie Wilkes wrote:It seems to be a fable the investigators fed to the press and the public, along with the "missing" sweatshirt, which was found in the cottage as soon as anyone bothered to look for it, the security camera, which was pointed the wrong way, and a number of other red herrings.

Charlie

A shirt couldn't be accounted for (perhaps like her computer password, Amanda refused to talk about it). It could potentially be useful for the investigation. ILE look for it. They find it. They take it in. They are analysing it. It may be useful or it may not be.

It sounds like normal police work to me.

References to clothing are quite normal in this investigation, it seems:

A blue, bloodied sweatshirt was found at Raffaele's place
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... her215.xml

Rudy in his diary described picking up a sweatshirt on his way out of the house: "I left the house in shock. I was outside, but didn’t know where to go, seeing still all that blood. It was all so red. I thought of going home. I had wet trousers and tried to cover it with the sweatshirt."

Regarding Amanda's sweatshirt found in the cottage inspection of 14 March, it may be of interest to understand under what circumstances it was left, and in what condition it was found. Following Amanda's alibi (version 1), it would have to have been left on the morning of Nov. 2, when she went back to have a shower. Shower or no shower, was the sweatshirt freshly washed? Were there any stains on it? Was it folded and stored in her closet?

Is it possible that she didn't wear it back to the cottage on the morning of Nov.2, nor that it was taken in a bag of wash on Nov. 2, but rather that she took it off and left it there at some point during the course of the night?

Finn MacCool said:

I'm not sure why you're convinced that the police have been thoroughly incompetent, either. Another way to look at the sweatshirt evidence would be to say that the Cassazione mentioned it as a reason for denying Amanda's release, so the police went and looked for it, and they found it. Similarly, Rudy Guede was tracked down and arrested by the police you're accusing of gross incompetence - it was also the same police who checked out Patrick Lumumba's alibi, even going so far as to fly in a professor from Switzerland to speak on his behalf.

I think one of the problems with this investigation Finn is that there have been so many different police and investigative departments involved with the case. There is the Polizia Postale , the ILE, the Serious Crime Squad and the Polizia Scientifica to name a few. The arm of the police that tracked and traced Guede is different to the ones involved in other aspects of the crime. Mignini is the man in charge of all this, to many it looks like he has not exhibited the kind of control he should have. While some departments may have worked well in their particular areas of expertise, others appear to be sorely lacking.

The sweatshirt example is just one of many that seems absolutely incredulous. This was another piece of supposedly absolute evidence against AK, it was touted from very early on as being a highly damning piece of evidence against her. Of course she was there, her sweatshirt she was seen wearing that day is missing, she got rid of it to try and conceal her involvement. Mignini seems very happy for these sort of stories to circulate, anything that garnered him public support no matter how inaccurate seems okay in his books. But then, lo and behold, there it was, months later, in the cottage, where it had been all along. All those detectives and scientific experts trawling through the house for weeks, and they miss it ! The bra clasp is another example of the incompetency that seems to have dogged this case on so many levels.

I found it very telling that Mignini went to so much trouble to fly in Lumumba's key witness in from Switzerland. Surely the onus is on Lumumba's lawyers to be working their butts off to get their client out, finding and putting forward their client's witnesses in order to gain his freedom. There is an alternative reading to why the prosecution oddly did this on his behalf. ILE/Mignini had a black person's hair from Meredith's hand (before getting the scientific results on it) and saw the the txts between PL and AK on her phone. They then made an incorrect deduction about his involvement and coerced AK into implicating Lumumba. Once they got the DNA results back and realised it was Guede they were looking for and that they had made a mistake, they went to a great deal of trouble to fly in his key witness. so they could justifiably free him, saving face at the same time. Once again, it appears Mignini is very happy for AK to continue to take the rap over something she may very well not be responsible for.

"There is an alternative reading to why the prosecution oddly did this on his behalf. ILE/Mignini had a black person's hair from Meredith's hand."

No official source has released this information. It shouldn't even be considered as serious until it is presented as evidence.

And there is no factual basis for claiming that the prosecution's move (to bring the witness back from Switzerland) was either odd or darkly motivated, as is suggested here. How do we know that the prosecution would not have done the same for any other suspect (if they had witnesses)? The basic premise, i.e., that the prosecution wishes only to save face, has been contested by people close to the scene in Perugia. Indeed, even yesterday. Sometimes I think people project their own ego into the actions and motives of others. In the case of Lumumba, I don't have the exact number, but I believe more than 20 people came forward to attest to his whereabouts. He hardly needed the Swiss witness.

As for the sweatshirt, Kermit is right to say that we have no idea what its status is. The defense team's reading is that the sweatshirt is no longer evidence because it is no longer missing. All we know at this point is that it has been recovered and was taken for further examination. Again, it may be exculpatory and it may not be. It is hard to say at this point. Frank wrote on his blog that it was good news for Amanda, and when I asked him he agreed that it could be bad news if it happened to contain evidence of bleaching or trace elements. We don't know this yet. To be perfectly clear, I am making no particular claims with regard to this sweatshirt. I'm just saying that it is premature to discard it. Like most of what is available, we can say if it is discarded as evidence of anything, then....

skeptical bystander wrote:I am making no particular claims with regard to this sweatshirt. I'm just saying that it is premature to discard it. Like most of what is available, we can say if it is discarded as evidence of anything, then....

You folks want to talk about the sweatshirt, but this thread is about the knife. Why do you suppose the authorities lied to the public by telling them they found a knife in Sollecito's apartment with the victim's DNA on the blade?

Does this blatant lie in any way affect your opinion as to the credbility of those leading this investigation?

Charlie

Charlie Wilkes wrote:

FinnMacCool wrote:There's a big difference between "has not been proven to be Meredith's" and "has been proven not to be Meredith's", though.

There's no difference in terms of how useful this knife is as evidence. You can rationalize and temporize all you want, but the facts are clear. The authorities were very specific in describing the DNA evidence on this knife. They said Knox's DNA was on the handle and the victim's DNA was on the blade. They described it as a significant piece of physical evidence linking Knox and Sollecito to the murder.

Now it turns out the authorities lied to the public. Why do you suppose they did that, if they are good cops who only care about truth and justice?

Charlie

I'm not aware of "the authorities" telling the public anything at all about DNA on the knife. I'm aware of the prosecution presenting that evidence to the judge, and I'm aware of the defense contesting it, and I'm aware of the defense making a filing a claim that the DNA hasn't been proven to be Meredith's.

I'm not sure why you think I'm temporizing, either. I don't have any view about guilt or innocence in this case; I can see a lot of possible scenarios, and I'm very interested to find out what the evidence will turn out to be. I'd agree with you that the DNA would be a persuasive piece of evidence if it's ruled in, and it will be a real boost for the defense of Sollecito and Knox if and when it's ruled out. But so far - at least based on what you've quoted - it hasn't been.

I understand that you think the police have been both incompetent and corrupt, and that Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with the crime, and I'm happy to accept that as one of many possibilities that may or may not turn out to be true.

But I can see why you don't have much luck persuading people to agree with you.

"Why do you suppose the authorities lied to the public by telling them they found a knife in Sollecito's apartment with the victim's DNA on the blade?

Does this blatant lie in any way affect your opinion as to the credbility of those leading this investigation?"

Charlie,
I'm not sure this is a lie. And in mentioning the sweatshirt, I was responding to something in a post in this thread. There was no ulterior motive.

I agree with Finn. There are mutliple possible scenarios. None of which has persuaded me so far.

Oceania8 wrote:There is an alternative reading to why the prosecution oddly did this on his behalf. ILE/Mignini had a black person's hair from Meredith's hand (before getting the scientific results on it) and saw the the txts between PL and AK on her phone. They then made an incorrect deduction about his involvement and coerced AK into implicating Lumumba. Once they got the DNA results back and realised it was Guede they were looking for and that they had made a mistake, they went to a great deal of trouble to fly in his key witness. so they could justifiably free him, saving face at the same time. Once again, it appears Mignini is very happy for AK to continue to take the rap over something she may very well not be responsible for.

Hmm, okay, Oceania, I can get that alternative reading. But I remember the incident with the Swiss lecturer very well, and it didn't seem that way to me at the time - on the contrary, the police seemed keen to rule out his evidence because he hadn't arrived at Le Chic directly, but had stopped off for a pizza. This would have left him away from Lumumba for a period of time that might have been important at the time, but no longer seems so.

I can see that there's a coherent case to be made for an incompetent and/or corrupt police service making a pig's ear of the case from start to finish, although I personally find it a bit far-fetched. But I'm pretty sure that a case for the defense of Knox and Sollecito can be made (and indeed will be made in court) that doesn't depend quite so heavily on a big conspiracy theory centering on the machinations of Giuliano Mignini.

A lawyer for Knox, Luciano Ghirga, said on Friday that his client had given "three versions and ... it is difficult to evaluate which one is true."
He also said he had warned Knox against making unfounded accusations.

"We told her that it would be worse than assassination to accuse an innocent person. We explained to her what slander means in Italy and we'll see," Ghirga said.
Lumumba's lawyer focus on second autopsy, new witness

Lumumba's lawyers, meanwhile, tried to reverse the course of Kercher's homeward-bound body on Sunday with a last-minute request for a second autopsy, the Times newspaper of London reported. Lumumba wants the coroner to determine the exact time of her death, claiming he has an alibi for the later hours of the night of her death. The time of Kercher's death had only been estimated to have been between 8:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. The request was not granted and Kercher's body was flown to Heathrow Airport.

With no exact time of death available, Lumumba's team is said to be focusing on a new witness, a Swiss professor who they claim was in Lumumba's Le Chic bar from around 8 p.m. onwards. The witness is en route to Perugia from Zurich to speak to investigators,prosecutor Giuliano Mignini said.


The above is posted on the KOMO website; KOMO is a local Seattle station and an affiliate of ABC. It dates from November 20, 2007. The emphases are mine.

It was clamed above that the prosecution went out of its way to bring the Swiss witness back and that this is somehow odd. From reading this, one gets the impression that Lumumba's defense attorneys were the ones who brought this witness to the attention of the prosecution for the purpose of clearing their client. Wouldn't the prosecution be lacking in due diligence had it not questioned this witness? If we imagine for a second that the suspect is not Lumumba but one of the other three, and the prosecution failed somehow to follow up on this lead, would that not be a sign of dereliction of duty?

The problem with attributing sinister motives to the prosecutor with respect to Lumumba is that it is hard to see under what conditions this claim would be falsifiable (i.e., what would it take to prove that his motive was purely one of professional diligence and not the desire to save face?).

FinnMacCool wrote:I can see that there's a coherent case to be made for an incompetent and/or corrupt police service making a pig's ear of the case from start to finish, although I personally find it a bit far-fetched. But I'm pretty sure that a case for the defense of Knox and Sollecito can be made (and indeed will be made in court) that doesn't depend quite so heavily on a big conspiracy theory centering on the machinations of Giuliano Mignini.

The opinions of many regarding Mignini's less than stellar handling of this investigation is only opinion arrived at by observation at this stage. You are talking about a conspiracy theory that involves 'start to finish', I am saying certain aspects of it, as seen by the fact they tracked and traced Guede relatively quickly and effectively. These concerns come not from a few random posters on blogs but from well informed people as well, as per the Channel 4 documentary for example. We are not alone in our observations.

Of course the defence teams will be tackling the evidence and witnesses as presented, it will not be a trial about Mignini's performance. However, like his last big controversial case, maybe he will also eventually have charges to answer for over this, as yet we don't know the answer to that. The possibility cannot be ruled out. The defence teams have much more important issues to deal with at this stage of the game. If there are any abuse of power issues these will be dealt with at a much later date.

Probably using the same reasoning behind AK's lawyers decision to have her testimony where she implicated Lumumba overthrown over a legal technicality rather than because of police brutality. They will choose the most efficient and effective legal way to achieve their goals at this stage. They will deal with side issues later.

Sorry if this is getting off track from the knife as per the sub heading, but that's one of the many frustrating aspects of this clunky forum. The 'live theatre' aspect is very much gone and the ability to let discussion take it's own natural flow also dissipated.

Skeptical Bystander wrote:

It was clamed above that the prosecution went out of its way to bring the Swiss witness back and that this is somehow odd. From reading this, one gets the impression that Lumumba's defense attorneys were the ones who brought this witness to the attention of the prosecution for the purpose of clearing their client. Wouldn't the prosecution be lacking in due diligence had it not questioned this witness? If we imagine for a second that the suspect is not Lumumba but one of the other three, and the prosecution failed somehow to follow up on this lead, would that not be a sign of dereliction of duty?

The problem with attributing sinister motives to the prosecutor with respect to Lumumba is that it is hard to see under what conditions this claim would be falsifiable (i.e., what would it take to prove that his motive was purely one of professional diligence and not the desire to save face?).

Finn first mentioned that the Prosecution went to a lot of trouble to fly the Swiss Professor back, that was my understanding of the situation as well. You quote another article that presents it in a different way. It's the same old problem we have with this case. So many different articles all reporting the same news yet saying different things and that's an inescapable fact we are all stuck with.

Because so much of what Mignini has said and done is questionable, what it would take to prove his motive was purely professional would be a trial by jury where it all comes out in the open. All the evidence, all the DNA results, all the transcripts, all laid out bare for all parties to see. Stop with the ambiguity, and letting false reports stay floating around in the public domain fueling all the rampant speculation. A trial where the defence have an opportunity to present their whole complete side of the story and not caught up in some continuous 3 step process that keeps defaulting back to Step 1 if they want to appeal anything. All of which frustratingly prolongs the time their client is incarcerated without charges, and very possibly unjustly.

Until then I guess I will continue to see things my way and you will contiue to see things in yours.


C'mon Mignini what are your charges ? who did what ? motive ? proof ? You've had over 6 months to analyse it, or are you still trying to figure it all out ? Maybe you're just simply enjoying the crazy power you are currently entitled to ? Maybe if you wait long enough and have enough face to face's, your star witness Mr Guede can embellish his ever evolving story that most recently implicates AK and RS to include detailed accounts of physical attributes the other two possess to make his story that much more rock solid and believable.

FinnMacCool wrote:[
I'm not aware of "the authorities" telling the public anything at all about DNA on the knife.

From the Times Online, November 16 last year:

Traces of DNA belonging to Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher were found on a knife at the flat of Raffaele Sollecito, Ms. Knox's boyfriend and co-accused in Ms Kercher's murder.

Investigators said that the kitchen knife had traces of the two women's DNA on its 8-inch (20cm) blade. Ms Kercher's was on the tip, and Ms Knox's close to the handle. (...)

The discovery of the DNA traces was confirmed by Giacinto Profazio, head of the flying squad in Perugia, who described them as a significant development.

Charlie

"Because so much of what Mignini has said and done is questionable, what it would take to prove his motive was purely professional would be a trial by jury where it all comes out in the open. All the evidence, all the DNA results, all the transcripts, all laid out bare for all parties to see. Stop with the ambiguity, and letting false reports stay floating around in the public domain fueling all the rampant speculation. A trial where the defence have an opportunity to present their whole complete side of the story and not caught up in some continuous 3 step process that keeps defaulting back to Step 1 if they want to appeal anything. All of which frustratingly prolongs the time their client is incarcerated without charges, and very possibly unjustly."

There you go again, begging the question.
Seriously, I think you should go to Italy, run for public office, gain power and change the legal system to suit your standards.

Please stop posting here and go to the main thread as I requested earlier today. You'll make things much easier for everyone.
Thanks.
SB (Moderator)

"You folks want to talk about the sweatshirt, but this thread is about the knife. Why do you suppose the authorities lied to the public by telling them they found a knife in Sollecito's apartment with the victim's DNA on the blade? "

Charlie, this thread is a distraction from the main board. And please don't tell me what I can and can't address in it. Let's just close it and go back to the main topic, as I requested earlier.
Thanks,
SB (Moderator)

Oceania8 wrote:
The opinions of many regarding Mignini's less than stellar handling of this investigation is only opinion arrived at by observation at this stage. You are talking about a conspiracy theory that involves 'start to finish', I am saying certain aspects of it, as seen by the fact they tracked and traced Guede relatively quickly and effectively. These concerns come not from a few random posters on blogs but from well informed people as well, as per the Channel 4 documentary for example. We are not alone in our observations.

Of course the defence teams will be tackling the evidence and witnesses as presented, it will not be a trial about Mignini's performance. However, like his last big controversial case, maybe he will also eventually have charges to answer for over this, as yet we don't know the answer to that. The possibility cannot be ruled out. The defence teams have much more important issues to deal with at this stage of the game. If there are any abuse of power issues these will be dealt with at a much later date.

Probably using the same reasoning behind AK's lawyers decision to have her testimony where she implicated Lumumba overthrown over a legal technicality rather than because of police brutality. They will choose the most efficient and effective legal way to achieve their goals at this stage. They will deal with side issues later.

Sorry if this is getting off track from the knife as per the sub heading, but that's one of the many frustrating aspects of this clunky forum. The 'live theatre' aspect is very much gone and the ability to let discussion take it's own natural flow also dissipated.

Since the possible abuse of power is far down the road, then it is premature to focus on it now.
It is true that the Knox camp has made much of the supposed incompetence of ILE and Mignini. I suppose they are being manipulated by people with a different agenda, or perhaps they think this is the only way to discredit the case. If I have understood him, Finn is just saying that there is no reason they can't make a strong defensive case without bringing this in.

As for this forum being clunky, it is made more so by people creating separate topics for items that should be discussed in the main forum. So please stop posting here and go to the main discussion (Continue discussion here).

I don't want to stifle creativity or the flow of discussion, but creating new topics messes things up. Charlie, please don't do this any more. If you want to start one, clear it with me. This is not a power thing. It is for the sake of the board and in response to observations from many people who post regularly about the unwieldy number of topics.
Thanks

Skeptical Bystander (Moderator)

[font=Comic Sans MS]For the purpose of keeping the board simple and tidy I am now locking this thread. Should anyone feel they need to continue to discuss this topic, please do so in the 'Continue discussion here as of May 29, 2008' thread:

http://truecrimeweblog.freeforums.org/c ... 8-t33.html

If you feel it essential this topic be unlocked, please contact a Moderator via PM.

Michael (Moderator)[/font]