• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.

carbonjam72

Master Poster
C
Joined
Apr 24, 2014
Messages
2,324
Once again, the thread has grown lengthy, so this is a continuation from the previous thread, Part 14. As usual, the split point is arbitrary and participants are free to quote from the previous thread(s) into this one.
For further reference, see:
Part 13, Part 12, Part 11, Part 10, Part 9, Part 8, Part 7, Part 6, Part 5, Part 4, Part 3, Part 2, and Part 1.
Posted By: Agatha







MichaelB said:
CCTV camera 7 looks directly at the cottage gates and would have captured everything that happened on November 1, 2007. The images from it were made to disappear. Does anyone know where it's located?


[qimg]http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Camera-7-SantAntonio-Perugia.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

How long has this been around? Never saw that angle before. Were the defense teams aware of it, and asked for it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Vixen said:
the "wild sex" lingerie?
Click to expand...

the "wild sex" lingerie with the hippopotamus on it?
The hippo was what inspired Raf to make what I thought was a very funny joke about "wild sex" that left them both laughing.

This is the type of lie about an innocent joke being twisted by pathological haters like Vixen and the Italian media and medieval Perugians and British tabloids that makes me shutter to think that people or organizations so cruel and hateful even exist.
 
LondonJohn said:
That is a capture from the Google StreetView camera, no? Not a CCTV camera. I didn't think there was a CCTV camera capturing the sort of scene you're showing.

There was a CCTV camera right at the end of Corso Garibaldi, which would have captured Knox/Sollecito going to and fro to between Sollecito's apartment and the cottage. IIRC, the official line is that this camera wasn't working properly on 1st/2nd November. If that camera had caught Knox and Sollecito walking down towards the cottage at any time between 9pm and 10.30pm on 1st November, this would be damning evidence against the pair. Likewise if the camera had captured Knox going to and from Quintavalle's store early the next morning. If, on the other hand, Knox and Sollecito had not actually left Sollecito's apartment between 8pm and the following morning, and Knox had not visited the store early the next morning, this CCTV camera would have been able to provide very powerful evidence (in the form of the absence of images of Knox/Sollecito at these times) to support their innocence. Shame the camera "wasn't working", huh......... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Raf wrote about this in his book, IIRC, there were two CCTV camera's that they requested the video from, one of which you've listed (I think), and another en route.

Raf wrote the request was made to the judge Richicardoiiii (??? - who can keep the names straight?), and when the request was denied by the judge, Raf wrote that he gave up hope that the court process was fair.

BUt the explanation Raf gave was that by the time the poilice did go to recover the footage, it had been 'recorded over'. The sense I got was the tape had been re-used.

I'm amazed every CCTV camera in town was not immediately quarantined. I'll bet there was plenty of video of Rudy making his way to and from the murder, and zero of Amanda and Raf ever leaving the apartment.

Concerning a Vix-atious poster of late, I said up front that's no ordinary guilter. They see themselves as "the devil", and delight in causing consternation. A very special type, IUAM. I've seen it before, and its bad news.
 
analemma said:
the "wild sex" lingerie with the hippopotamus on it?
The hippo was what inspired Raf to make what I thought was a very funny joke about "wild sex" that left them both laughing.

This is the type of lie about an innocent joke being twisted by pathological haters like Vixen and the Italian media and medieval Perugians and British tabloids that makes me shutter to think that people or organizations so cruel and hateful even exist.
Click to expand...

I thought that story was made up by the Bubbles store owner, who didn't speak the English language in which Amanda and Raf were conversing, and which he claims to have overheard?

Raf's father I believe, as a result, sued the store owner for slander (?) - Defamation? Libel? W(E)TF.

Mach, calling all Machs - Italian law expertise pretense is needed...
 
carbonjam72 said:
I thought that story was made up by the Bubbles store owner, who didn't speak the English language in which Amanda and Raf were conversing, and which he claims to have overheard?

Raf's father I believe, as a result, sued the store owner for slander (?) - Defamation? Libel? W(E)TF.

Mach, calling all Machs - Italian law expertise pretense is needed...
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure that Amanda mentioned the Hippo underpants in the Dianne Sawyer interview, I seem to remember Raf saying somewhere(not sure where) about the wild sex in response, and I saw a picture of them laughing somewhere.
As I said, this is a case of the haters and BS artists turning an innocent situation into a piece of "evidence for the Italian Courts" to justify burning the American witch. I really think that Amanda became the American that the Italians wanted to witchify.
 
Davefoc

That was a stunningly brilliant (if otiose :p) review! And yes, it was Florence Nightingale the author had in mind.
 
witchify, a national sport?

analemma said:
I am pretty sure that Amanda mentioned the Hippo underpants in the Dianne Sawyer interview, I seem to remember Raf saying somewhere(not sure where) about the wild sex in response, and I saw a picture of them laughing somewhere.
As I said, this is a case of the haters and BS artists turning an innocent situation into a piece of "evidence for the Italian Courts" to justify burning the American witch. I really think that Amanda became the American that the Italians wanted to witchify.
Click to expand...

I agree with your description in the big picture regarding the Italian national sport of 'witchifying', but I hadn't heard this version of the 'wild sex' story before.

I'll bet if you review the Dianne Sawyer interview, the cow underpants are mentioned and Amanda thought it was a joke, but I don't recall Raf's comment about "wild sex".

The point I tried to make, is that the comment about "wild sex" came from the shopkeeper who claimed to have heard it. But the shopkeeper only spoke Italian, and Amanda and Rad were conversing only in English. So the "wild sex" story, coming from the shopkeeper, isn't true, its just the invention of the shopkeeper, who was in fact sued by Raf's father for making that claim.

But I'm in agreement that this idiotic meme is of a piece.

I'm waiting for Mignini's comeuppance.
 
Re the CCTV, I'm trying to find out. Someone is sending me the images of Filomena and Marco arriving on November 1 so we'll see exactly what the camera shows. You can't see Amanda arrive on November 2 because of the sun.
 
analemma said:
the "wild sex" lingerie with the hippopotamus on it?
The hippo was what inspired Raf to make what I thought was a very funny joke about "wild sex" that left them both laughing.

This is the type of lie about an innocent joke being twisted by pathological haters like Vixen and the Italian media and medieval Perugians and British tabloids that makes me shutter to think that people or organizations so cruel and hateful even exist.
Click to expand...

Good grief! I thought it was a cow! This changes everything!
 
Re the claim Luca mimed Mez having her throat cut. I would be interested to know how he mimed, "Mez [insert foulmouthed word] bled to death".

How dare the "dingbats" take offence, eh. Amanda can't help being the Ugly American :/.

Dan O. seems obsessed with the pillow stain. The theory amongst posters here is that it belongs to Rudy. However, it could equally belong to other perps at the scene.

IMV it almost certainly belonged to the perp who cut the bra with a sharp knife. Possibly a Roman Catholic with a mortal fear of sex before marriage. We know the other two perps were male and female, from their footprints, whom we can deduce were naked, from the stain on the bath mat and were probably having sex in front of their dying victim.
 
analemma said:
the "wild sex" lingerie with the hippopotamus on it?
The hippo was what inspired Raf to make what I thought was a very funny joke about "wild sex" that left them both laughing.

This is the type of lie about an innocent joke being twisted by pathological haters like Vixen and the Italian media and medieval Perugians and British tabloids that makes me shutter to think that people or organizations so cruel and hateful even exist.
Click to expand...

You don't get irony, do you? The comment was tongue in cheek, but never mind.
 
Vixen said:
Re the claim Luca mimed Mez having her throat cut. I would be interested to know how he mimed, "Mez [insert foulmouthed word] bled to death".

How dare the "dingbats" take offence, eh. Amanda can't help being the Ugly American :/.

Dan O. seems obsessed with the pillow stain. The theory amongst posters here is that it belongs to Rudy. However, it could equally belong to other perps at the scene.

IMV it almost certainly belonged to the perp who cut the bra with a sharp knife. Possibly a Roman Catholic with a mortal fear of sex before marriage. We know the other two perps were male and female, from their footprints, whom we can deduce were naked, from the stain on the bath mat and were probably having sex in front of their dying victim.
Click to expand...

1) It was torn not cut
2) There are no footprints in the room, only shoe prints belonging to Guede
3) There is no evidence of this activity taking place and no transfer evidence
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Re the claim Luca mimed Mez having her throat cut. I would be interested to know how he mimed, "Mez [insert foulmouthed word] bled to death".

snip
Click to expand...
You must be referencing the stupid Amanda here. The one who committed the murder and then blurts out information only the murderer could know. How careless! Raf must have been beside himself over getting mixed up with such a stupid moron. Didn't she also say they found the body in the closet? That must have been brilliant Amanda, diverting suspicion by seeming not to know how things went down.

Or maybe she just thought bleeding to death is what happens when you get your throat cut.
 
analemma said:
I am pretty sure that Amanda mentioned the Hippo underpants in the Dianne Sawyer interview, I seem to remember Raf saying somewhere(not sure where) about the wild sex in response, and I saw a picture of them laughing somewhere.
As I said, this is a case of the haters and BS artists turning an innocent situation into a piece of "evidence for the Italian Courts" to justify burning the American witch. I really think that Amanda became the American that the Italians wanted to witchify.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. IMV it is on the contrary; my impression is that people blindly "support" Amanda because she is American, whatever the evidence is.

They see themselves as saving the damsel in distress, when this case is about a very serious and heinous crime and nationality should be irrelevant in bringing the perpetrator/s to justice.

The idea of "let's blame it all on the Black man" as the American "supporters" seem to do, is repugnant to most Europeans. Your claim that Europeans have been on a witchhunt against "the American" is untrue and unfair.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I doubt it. IMV it is on the contrary; my impression is that people blindly "support" Amanda because she is American,whatever the evidence is.
They see themselves as saving the damsel in distress, when this case is about a very serious and heinous crime and nationality should be irrelevant in bringing the perpetrator/s to justice.

The idea of "let's blame it all on the Black man" as the American "supporters" seem to do, is repugnant to most Europeans. Your claim that Europeans have been on a witchhunt against "the American" is untrue and unfair.
Click to expand...

What evidence?
 
anglolawyer said:
You must be referencing the stupid Amanda here. The one who committed the murder and then blurts out information only the murderer could know. How careless! Raf must have been beside himself over getting mixed up with such a stupid moron. Didn't she also say they found the body in the closet? That must have been brilliant Amanda, diverting suspicion by seeming not to know how things went down.

Or maybe she just thought bleeding to death is what happens when you get your throat cut.
Click to expand...


I do not believe for a minute a policeman informed Amanda of all the details of the murder victim that enabled her to tell Mez' friends in vile graphic details how she had died, adding "I could [insert foulmouthed word] kill for a pizza!"
 
Vixen said:
I do not believe for a minute a policeman informed Amanda of all the details of the murder victim that enabled her to tell Mez' friends in vile graphic details how she had died, adding "I could [insert foulmouthed word] kill for a pizza!"
Click to expand...

What knowledge, specifically, did Amanda have that she did not get from the chatter?

The two statements you reference Amanda making together, were not in fact made together. One was verbal, the other written, at different times.
 
Kauffer said:
What knowledge, specifically, did Amanda have that she did not get from the chatter?

The two statements you reference Amanda making together, were not in fact made together. One was verbal, the other written, at different times.
Click to expand...

That makes it all right, then.

Amanda said the body was found in the closet, and sure enough, someone had returned to the scene of the crime - not Rudy - to move the body across the floor towards the inbuilt wardrobe.

I expect the plan had been to hide it in there from this repositioning.
 
anglolawyer said:
You must be referencing the stupid Amanda here. The one who committed the murder and then blurts out information only the murderer could know. How careless! Raf must have been beside himself over getting mixed up with such a stupid moron. Didn't she also say they found the body in the closet? That must have been brilliant Amanda, diverting suspicion by seeming not to know how things went down.

Or maybe she just thought bleeding to death is what happens when you get your throat cut.
Click to expand...

If the guilter boards, or what's left of them, allowed pro-innocent people to post, this poster would be there, slamming those boards just as hard in favor of innocence and knocking down all the same specious arguments he, and I do mean he, is posting here.

These arguments are not being made in good faith. Every reply elicits "a jolly", as in the phrase, 'getting your jollies'.

Wasted energy IUAM.

Very rare behavior, always maladjusted guys. Women don't do this. Think about Chelsea Hoffman. Not even she lives where this one does. It's Giant Butterfly Net time.
 
carbonjam72 said:
If the guilter boards, or what's left of them, allowed pro-innocent people to post, this poster would be there, slamming those boards just as hard in favor of innocence and knocking down all the same specious arguments he, and I do mean he, is posting here.

These arguments are not being made in good faith. Every reply elicits "a jolly", as in the phrase, 'getting your jollies'.

Wasted energy IUAM.

Very rare behavior, always maladjusted guys. Women don't do this. Think about Chelsea Hoffman. Not even she lives where this one does. It's Giant Butterfly Net time.
Click to expand...

Could be. The logic-free postings - the posts really don't contain "arguments" in the debating sense - do provide a kind of summary of the guilter view points. And IMO these brief posts are superior to many of those of, for example, Mach, who would not infrequently post really long statements that could have been nicely summarized in one or two sentences of ignorance or hatred.

Which summary is what we see in the current round of posts from Vixen, self-proclaimed Mensa member and, at one point, self-proclaimed skeptic of both sides.
 
Numbers said:
Could be. The logic-free postings - the posts really don't contain "arguments" in the debating sense - do provide a kind of summary of the guilter view points. And IMO these brief posts are superior to many of those of, for example, Mach, who would not infrequently post really long statements that could have been nicely summarized in one or two sentences of ignorance or hatred.

Which summary is what we see in the current round of posts from Vixen, self-proclaimed Mensa member and, at one point, self-proclaimed skeptic of both sides.
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing your flame with us. I am not sure this meets the standards of the forum.

Please can you stay on topic.
 
Vixen said:
That makes it all right, then.

Amanda said the body was found in the closet, and sure enough, someone had returned to the scene of the crime - not Rudy - to move the body across the floor towards the inbuilt wardrobe.

I expect the plan had been to hide it in there from this repositioning.
Click to expand...

But the body was not found in the closet, so how does Amanda's erroneous thought become evidence in your mind of her special knowledge of the crime scene?

What evidence do you have that the body was moved and repositioned? You were asked about this before.
 
Kauffer said:
But the body was not found in the closet, so how does Amanda's erroneous thought become evidence in your mind of her special knowledge of the crime scene?

What evidence do you have that the body was moved and repositioned? You were asked about this before.
Click to expand...

Kauffer, can you confirm you did not know the body was moved and repositioned?

I thought you had good knowledge of the case.
 
Vixen said:
The evidence as discovered by the Italian police and their forensic team.
Click to expand...

You mean all the DNA not connected to the crime, the conjuring tricks and the "results" presented without supporting data? You mean the traces collected on video with total disregard of forensic procedure and precautions against contamination?

If this "evidence" is so clear-cut, why do people like you need to make up irrelevant stuff about Amanda's character and alleged "inappropriate" behaviour? Why not focus on the primary evidence, if it shows what you claim to believe it shows?

Where is the CCTV footage showing the defendants leaving Raff's flat and approaching the murder scene? All we have are separate images of Meredith Kercher herself shortly after saying good night to her friend Sophie Purton, and a random woman passer-by walking the other way - both of which were fraudulently used by the investigators or the press as showing Amanda (oddly unaccompanied) arriving at the cottage. Where are the time-of-death measurements, such as body temperature taken at the time of discovery of the corpse? Where are the photographs of the area outside the window, claimed to support the alleged "staging" of the break-in? Where are the personal computers of the accused and the victim, showing their possible activity at the time of the crime, and their interactions beforehand? (Clue: they were mysteriously destroyed while in the possession of the investigating police.)

You are talking to the wrong people, Vixen. All of us are very well-informed about this so-called "evidence", and it's the reason we see the prosecution as having had no merit from the start.
Vixen said:
As set out in court.
Click to expand...

Exactly, along with the evidence from Conti and Vecchiotti which dismantled it, plus the Rome labs that made the final test on the so-called "double DNA" knife. And when the MR from the latest ISC comes out, it will be clear that it cannot be taken to support verdicts of guilty.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Kauffer, can you confirm you did not know the body was moved and repositioned?

I thought you had good knowledge of the case.
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have for the post mortem movement and repositioning of the body? This shouldn't be difficult for you to adduce since you are relying on it.
 
Kauffer said:
[/HILITE]

1) It was torn not cut2) There are no footprints in the room, only shoe prints belonging to Guede
3) There is no evidence of this activity taking place and no transfer evidence
Click to expand...

1) Rudy was capable of tearing a likely elastane mix with his bare hands?

Page 191 Massei report (Genetic investigations). Stefanoni said, re the bra:

"it had clearly been torn off, the straps were literally torn and part of the back had also been cut; there was one clear cut and therefore it appeared to have been cut (p 70 of the transcripts)."
 
Antony said:
You mean all the DNA not connected to the crime, the conjuring tricks and the "results" presented without supporting data? You mean the traces collected on video with total disregard of forensic procedure and precautions against contamination?

If this "evidence" is so clear-cut, why do people like you need to make up irrelevant stuff about Amanda's character and alleged "inappropriate" behaviour? Why not focus on the primary evidence, if it shows what you claim to believe it shows?

Where is the CCTV footage showing the defendants leaving Raff's flat and approaching the murder scene? All we have are separate images of Meredith Kercher herself shortly after saying good night to her friend Sophie Purton, and a random woman passer-by walking the other way - both of which were fraudulently used by the investigators or the press as showing Amanda (oddly unaccompanied) arriving at the cottage. Where are the time-of-death measurements, such as body temperature taken at the time of discovery of the corpse? Where are the photographs of the area outside the window, claimed to support the alleged "staging" of the break-in? Where are the personal computers of the accused and the victim, showing their possible activity at the time of the crime, and their interactions beforehand? (Clue: they were mysteriously destroyed while in the possession of the investigating police.)

You are talking to the wrong people, Vixen. All of us are very well-informed about this so-called "evidence", and it's the reason we see the prosecution as having had no merit from the start.


Exactly, along with the evidence from Conti and Vecchiotti which dismantled it, plus the Rome labs that made the final test on the so-called "double DNA" knife. And when the MR from the latest ISC comes out, it will be clear that it cannot be taken to support verdicts of guilty.
Click to expand...


It is quite acceptable to look at the whole picture. Police witnesses citing suspicious post crime behaviour is acceptable testimony in court. For example, the Scream teen killers in Idaho took a video of themselves driving away from the seen bragging, "we've just killed Cassie".

I am not sure why Amanda's strange behaviour should be excluded as evidence.

I would be interested to know why you think behavioural evidence should be out of bounds.
 
The shard of glass. It was not found in Rudy's footprint, it was found near it.

Massei surmises that, "after the simulation of the burglary and the breaking of the window, the person who did this went into Meredith's room ...[]....rather, it came to be brought in Meredith's room, into which, immediately after the breaking of the glass, was carried by whoever broke that glass."

It's all these small revisions that actually, translate into a lie.
 
Anthony said:
You mean all the DNA not connected to the crime, the conjuring tricks and the "results" presented without supporting data? You mean the traces collected on video with total disregard of forensic procedure and precautions against contamination?

If this "evidence" is so clear-cut, why do people like you need to make up irrelevant stuff about Amanda's character and alleged "inappropriate" behaviour? Why not focus on the primary evidence, if it shows what you claim to believe it shows?

Where is the CCTV footage showing the defendants leaving Raff's flat and approaching the murder scene? All we have are separate images of Meredith Kercher herself shortly after saying good night to her friend Sophie Purton, and a random woman passer-by walking the other way - both of which were fraudulently used by the investigators or the press as showing Amanda (oddly unaccompanied) arriving at the cottage. Where are the time-of-death measurements, such as body temperature taken at the time of discovery of the corpse? Where are the photographs of the area outside the window, claimed to support the alleged "staging" of the break-in? Where are the personal computers of the accused and the victim, showing their possible activity at the time of the crime, and their interactions beforehand? (Clue: they were mysteriously destroyed while in the possession of the investigating police.)

You are talking to the wrong people, Vixen. All of us are very well-informed about this so-called "evidence", and it's the reason we see the prosecution as having had no merit from the start.


Exactly, along with the evidence from Conti and Vecchiotti which dismantled it, plus the Rome labs that made the final test on the so-called "double DNA" knife. And when the MR from the latest ISC comes out, it will be clear that it cannot be taken to support verdicts of guilty.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
It is quite acceptable to look at the whole picture. Police witnesses citing suspicious post crime behaviour is acceptable testimony in court. For example, the Scream teen killers in Idaho took a video of themselves driving away from the seen bragging, "we've just killed Cassie".

I am not sure why Amanda's strange behaviour should be excluded as evidence.
I would be interested to know why you think behavioural evidence should be out of bounds.
Click to expand...
Amanda's "strange" behaviour, is just that - strange. For 7 1/2 years, though, guilters have used that as a sole indicator of "personality", and there is nothing about her behaviour that says, "murder".

Remember, seasoned investigators said they had solved this case on behavioural analysis alone. Not even John Douglas says that this can be done.

Behaviour should never be excluded. But when the hard forensics come in, and none of it point to her (or to RS) and all of it points to RG.....

Please reread Anthony's post. Where does he say it should be excluded per se?

ETA - it is also interesting to track-back on the thread between you and Anthony. You kept saying that the DNA evidence as admitted at court condemned AK and RS. You neglect to included Conti-Vecchiotti also as evidence accepted at court, and it sure looks like C&V had the final word, acc. to what ISC did on March 27, 2015. But you drop that point and wander into a discussion on the appropriateness of discussing behaviour at court - you just drop arguing anything to do with DNA/court.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It is quite acceptable to look at the whole picture. Police witnesses citing suspicious post crime behaviour is acceptable testimony in court. For example, the Scream teen killers in Idaho took a video of themselves driving away from the seen bragging, "we've just killed Cassie".

I am not sure why Amanda's strange behaviour should be excluded as evidence.

I would be interested to know why you think behavioural evidence should be out of bounds.
Click to expand...

No reason why it should - but when the primary evidence shows an entirely different story (one of a solitary burglar committing the crime on his own), the fact that you and other PGP prefer to focus on contentious interpretations of behavioural "evidence" says a lot.

In any case, none of the behavioural evidence shows anything other than 2 young people reacting with grief, confusion and anxiety to a situation they were entirely unprepared for. That's the behavioural reports that are based on fact, of course, and not malicious embellishment.
 
Vixen said:
Re the claim Luca mimed Mez having her throat cut. I would be interested to know how he mimed, "Mez [insert foulmouthed word] bled to death".

How dare the "dingbats" take offence, eh. Amanda can't help being the Ugly American :/.

Dan O. seems obsessed with the pillow stain. The theory amongst posters here is that it belongs to Rudy. However, it could equally belong to other perps at the scene.

IMV it almost certainly belonged to the perp who cut the bra with a sharp knife. Possibly a Roman Catholic with a mortal fear of sex before marriage. We know the other two perps were male and female, from their footprints, whom we can deduce were naked, from the stain on the bath mat and were probably having sex in front of their dying victim.
Click to expand...

Guilters are always free to imagine all sorts of lurid things. What guilters don't have is any evidence to support their fantasies.
 
Vixen said:
1) Rudy was capable of tearing a likely elastane mix with his bare hands?

Page 191 Massei report (Genetic investigations). Stefanoni said, re the bra:

"it had clearly been torn off, the straps were literally torn and part of the back had also been cut; there was one clear cut and therefore it appeared to have been cut (p 70 of the transcripts)."
Click to expand...



As to your question - yes! How difficult do you think it can be?

Look here:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Professor-Vinci-Bra-Analysis.pdf

Look at photo n.056 on pages 9 and 10 of the presentation. You can clearly see the condition of the clasp's attached material consistent with a tearing (and a forceful one at that) and not a cutting. On page 14, you see this material lining up with the rest of the bra. Because the clasp material has been ripped from the rest of the bra at a seam, which is strengthened, looking at the seam can give an impression of a cut. Closer inspection reveals this not to be the case.
 
Kauffer said:
As to your question - yes! How difficult do you think it can be?

Look here:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Professor-Vinci-Bra-Analysis.pdf

Look at photo n.056 on pages 9 and 10 of the presentation. You can clearly see the condition of the clasp's attached material consistent with a tearing (and a forceful one at that) and not a cutting. On page 14, you see this material lining up with the rest of the bra. Because the clasp material has been ripped from the rest of the bra at a seam, which is strengthened, looking at the seam can give an impression of a cut. Closer inspection reveals this not to be the case.
Click to expand...

As well as Dr Stefanoni, even Dr Lalli the pathologist, who each saw the bra clasp in person states of the bra, it was, "necessary to apply force and cut it off."

Elsewhere it states it was, "to the point it was clearly cut" (Stefanoni explaining the parameters of her testing).

Massei, from prima facie evidence. Unchallenged by the defense.
 
Vixen said:
It is quite acceptable to look at the whole picture. Police witnesses citing suspicious post crime behaviour is acceptable testimony in court. For example, the Scream teen killers in Idaho took a video of themselves driving away from the seen bragging, "we've just killed Cassie".

I am not sure why Amanda's strange behaviour should be excluded as evidence.

I would be interested to know why you think behavioural evidence should be out of bounds.
Click to expand...

As to your last point, it can be cited where it is meaningful, supported by scientific analysis and not policemen's hunches, and is properly distinguished as aberrant. So, not in this case. Hellmann properly rejected it.

The major problem with this case is that you can concede the validity of nearly all prosecution evidence and yet still there will be reasonable doubt as a result of the absence of any evidence of presence, at the crime scene. Yet, all the prosecution evidence is bunk.

The only thing that makes this case, technically, 99.99% recurring in favour of the defence and not 100%, is that the alibis are nullified by the joint indictment and Amanda and Raffaele's presence in Raffaele's flat cannot be absolutely determined by other means. It's very very close indeed, but the alibis are not quite 100%. But, you don't need them. There's not enough to justify an arrest.

In order to convict, you need 99.99% in favour of the prosecution - no reasonable doubt. We are way beyond reasonable doubt in this case.
 
Vixen said:
As well as Dr Stefanoni, even Dr Lalli the pathologist, who each saw the bra clasp in person states of the bra, it was, "necessary to apply force and cut it off."

Elsewhere it states it was, "to the point it was clearly cut" (Stefanoni explaining the parameters of her testing).

Massei, from prima facie evidence. Unchallenged by the defense.
Click to expand...

Look at the photographs. You are making appeals to authority. But what do you think this proves?
 
No evidence of Raf and Amanda in the murder room? Together with the shard of glass from the staged burglary room, is the bra clasp with Raf's indisputable DNA thereon - the First Instance court rejected contamination claims - and then there is the shoeprint testimony re exhibit photo 105:

"the technicians reported that it was made by the deposit of haematic substance (i.e., blood); the outer edge of the shoe is distinctly visible; nine lightly arced elements are discernable, with a width of ...[various measurements]...corresponding to the ball of the foot. The technicians hypothesised that the print had been made by the heel and the central part of the sole of a left shoe. Based on the small size of the heel and the reduced dimensions [overall], it was held to be a woman's shoe print [Massei's emphasis), of a size between 36 and 38. In any case, it is a shoe much smaller than that attributed to Rudy Hermann Guede."

So you see, there is solid scientific evidence for all three of the defendants in the murder room.

Who do you prefer to believe, the p!sspoor American media who mindlessly claim, "there is no evidence" or employees of the Italian police forensics team?

The expert witness of the above is Dr Lorenzo Rinaldi (Engineer, Principal Technical Director of the State Police, Director of the three sections composed of the Identity Division of the ERT).

Who's next to argue that Rinaldi "is as crooked, bent and corrupt as Stefanoni, Mignini, Maresca, and Italy"? Anyone?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom