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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stellar reasoning by Nencini about the bra-clasp "evidence". The traces attributable to other people must be contamination because Meredith was a nice girl. The sole trace attributable to Raffaele must be his because he's a killer.

How can one argue with such elevated judicial logic as this?
 
Bill Williams said:
Stellar reasoning by Nencini about the bra-clasp "evidence". The traces attributable to other people must be contamination because Meredith was a nice girl. The sole trace attributable to Raffaele must be his because he's a killer.

How can one argue with such elevated judicial logic as this?
Click to expand...

If DanO is serious I see his proposition of planting from jail cell dna when they lost the footprints the likely route. It explains everything. The focussed location, the multiple male profiles with Sollecito prevalence.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
I have no idea if that is Amanda or not, but I just love the way you PIPs make up excuses why it's not her and how you all jump on each others bandwagon. I said there is no reason I know of why she is going into the car park, and yes, she is carrying her purse on the wrong shoulder. But that girl does carry some resemblance to Amanda, yes, not enough to say for certain, but perhaps she has a sore right shoulder, perhaps she has a reason for going into the car park, only she knows, but it is a bit suspicious the way she is carrying that purse, the timing is about correct for where she would be at that time, and it also is a bit of a coincidence the three woman, Meredith, Amanda and this stranger then should all appear around the same location around the same time. It very well may not be her, but no more that it may be as well. I'd give it about a 50 / 50 chance.
Click to expand...

So a person that doesn't look like Amanda Knox is caught on CCTV - and out of the possible population of Perugia, it's 50/50 that it is Amanda? I'd say that it is 50/50 that it is a woman

And seeing as the police/prosecution dismissed the image in 2007, I would expect that the actual person made themselves known to the police at the time - otherwise it would have made it to court, as it is not like the prosecution have ever cared about getting the time right and it would have ended up another bit of nonsense evidence that makes no sense on it's own, but somehow helps to find them guilty by osmosis
 
Last edited:
NancyS said:
So a person that doesn't look like Amanda Knox is caught on CCTV - and out of the possible population of Perugia, it's 50/50 that it is Amanda? I'd say that it is 50/50 that it is a woman

And seeing as the police/prosecution dismissed the image in 2007, I would expect that the actual person made themselves known to the police at the time - otherwise it would have made it to court, as it is not like the prosecution have ever cared about getting the time right and it would have ended up another bit of nonsense evidence that makes no sense on it's own, but somehow helps to find them guilty by osmosis
Click to expand...

Aw, you're only jumping on the bandwagon NancyS, the way all us shallow-minded PIPs do. Well, that's what Sherlock thinks anyway.

I say it's not her because:

A it doesn't look like her
B there is evidence she was at Raf's 15 minutes earlier inviting Popovic in and
C everybody else here thinks so too and I just like agreeing a lot :D
 
anglolawyer said:
Aw, you're only jumping on the bandwagon NancyS, the way all us shallow-minded PIPs do. Well, that's what Sherlock thinks anyway.

I say it's not her because:

A it doesn't look like her
B there is evidence she was at Raf's 15 minutes earlier inviting Popovic in and
C everybody else here thinks so too and I just like agreeing a lot :D
Click to expand...
What about
D Amelie was playing and by the sound of the name it's probably a chick flick.
 
anglolawyer said:
Aw, you're only jumping on the bandwagon NancyS, the way all us shallow-minded PIPs do. Well, that's what Sherlock thinks anyway.

I say it's not her because:

A it doesn't look like her
B there is evidence she was at Raf's 15 minutes earlier inviting Popovic in and
C everybody else here thinks so too and I just like agreeing a lot :D
Click to expand...

NancyS purposefully and with malice aforethought misses Sherlock Holm's point, which was....
I have no idea if that is Amanda or not, but I just love the way you PIPs make up excuses why it's not her and how you all jump on each others bandwagon
Click to expand...
Sherlock Holmes simply "loves" the way PIP all agree.... this isn't about "evidence" this is about the PGP's....

Which is strange because if you read the rest of his/her post, he/she is half-way with the PIP, saying it's a 50/50 proposition that it is Amanda.

And then SH delivers the coup de grace... two courts have found Amanda and Raffaele guilty anyway....

So, if SH can be so kind.... does SH have an opinion on Judge Nencini's reasoning for conviction? On any of the controversial points?

Probably not. The verdict is enough. Like Nencnini found about the bra-clasp evidence, Judge Nencini finds that Raffaele is guilty because, well, because he's just so gosh darned guilty, and that's why the bra-clasp evidence points to him. The reason the other DNA-thingamajigs pointing to other people rule them out from being equally guilty, is because, well, they're just so gosh darned not guilty.

Can SH improve on that reasoning?
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
NancyS purposefully and with malice aforethought misses Sherlock Holm's point, which was....

Sherlock Holmes simply "loves" the way PIP all agree.... this isn't about "evidence" this is about the PGP's....

Which is strange because if you read the rest of his/her post, he/she is half-way with the PIP, saying it's a 50/50 proposition that it is Amanda.

And then SH delivers the coup de grace... two courts have found Amanda and Raffaele guilty anyway....

?
Click to expand...

I just can't help being such a sheep:(

However, if there is a 50% chance of it not being Amanda - and 33% of the courts found Amanda/Raffaele innocent - you would think this would point towards reasonable doubt

Bill Williams said:
Stellar reasoning by Nencini about the bra-clasp "evidence". The traces attributable to other people must be contamination because Meredith was a nice girl. The sole trace attributable to Raffaele must be his because he's a killer.
Click to expand...

So Nencini argues that it is contaminated, but then goes on to argue that this doesn't affect the evidence against Raffaele because he is guilty - and therefore the evidence against him is not due to contamination? I don't know how they are ever going to be able to fight this nonsense
 
NancyS said:
Nothing is going to make you feel more murderous than watching a chick flick about being lovely to people.
Click to expand...

The Amelie conclusion at 9 11 followed by the Naruto commencement at 9 26 suggests they were continuously at home.

I also agree that most people don't murder what the hell are we talking about?:confused:
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
I have no idea if that is Amanda or not, but I just love the way you PIPs make up excuses why it's not her and how you all jump on each others bandwagon. I said there is no reason I know of why she is going into the car park, and yes, she is carrying her purse on the wrong shoulder. But that girl does carry some resemblance to Amanda, yes, not enough to say for certain, but perhaps she has a sore right shoulder, perhaps she has a reason for going into the car park, only she knows, but it is a bit suspicious the way she is carrying that purse, the timing is about correct for where she would be at that time, and it also is a bit of a coincidence the three woman, Meredith, Amanda and this stranger then should all appear around the same location around the same time. It very well may not be her, but no more that it may be as well. I'd give it about a 50 / 50 chance.
Click to expand...

Of course, one can come to JREF and take a dim view of the thinking process of regular posters here to his or her heart's content. The problem is that, unlike any PGP site of which I am aware, there are some very serious and credentialed people here, who have no special commitment in the Knox case except to the truth. For years now, such individuals have been coming here reality-testing evidence and theories, and, in doing so, have managed to come up with takes that stand up both to science and common sense.

So, to an objective reader, this has become a kind of barrier of entry to participation, here. Come in a skeptic, but come well armed, or risk one's theories being made pretty short work.

For example, your views that AK and RS are rather abstractly "somewhat guilty" have been aired here, and so shot full of holes they resemble Swiss cheese. If possible, the notion that this recent video is either 50% Knox, or 50% not Knox, is so random and speculative - and unscientific - it is barely worth considering. Do you not see that Sherlock Holmes, "himself," demands critical thinking that holds up to substantially more solid evidence, contemplation and rigor?
 
Amanda and Raffaele are two turtles the Italians have inverted. They are lying on their backs. Who will flip them over and allow them to resume their normal lives?
 
MichaelB said:
RWVBWL, the parked car belonged to the friends of the people with the broken down car. There's no ifs or buts. They testified at the trial that the cars belonged to them. The tow truck driver didn't realize the second car was owned by the friends of the people whose car he was fixing.

The unidentified car is the one parked at 8pm and in Guede's deposition he says there was two people in it. Maybe he's lying and there was only one.....most likely Kokomani doing who knows what.
Click to expand...

This is not correct.
The friends' car ,a Citroen, was not parked at the entrance to the cottage.
Please read Carmela Occhipinti's testimony.
The breakdown occurred at 10.30 pm and it took 30 minutes for the tow truck driver to arrive. He left at 11.15 pm.

According to Guede in his deposition of 26 March 2008 there was a small white car with its headlights on parked by the cottage entrance, with 2 people in the front seats, which later moved off.
Guede also stated there was a Moroccan vagrant hanging around.

Kokomani had a dark blue '91 Golf.
 
Last edited:
Hi RW
Good to see you and thanks for posting about LMT and Oceania8 from NZ on Perugia Shock.
I remember them well.
I'm still trying to figure out that young Italian friend of Rudy's, mentioned by Oceania's son.
Too old to be Antonio Aviello who also disappeared from Perugia the next day. His brother Luciano was 39 at the time.

Kokomani's phone pinged at 8.01 pm that night.

As you say there is still the unaccounted for forensic evidence found in the cottage and the human blood downstairs as confirmed by Bongiorno.
 
Magister said:
This is not correct.
The friends' car ,a Citroen, was not parked at the entrance to the cottage.
Please read Carmela Occhipinti's testimony.
The breakdown occurred at 10.30 pm and it took 30 minutes for the tow truck driver to arrive. He left at 11.15 pm.

According to Guede in his deposition of 26 March 2008 there was a small white car with its headlights on parked by the cottage entrance, with 2 people in the front seats, which later moved off.
Guede also stated there was a Moroccan vagrant hanging around.

Kokomani had a dark blue '91 Golf.
Click to expand...

I can assure you I am absolutely correct and I have indeed read the testimony. :)

22:30-23:30 Car breaks down at the exit of the parking garage across from the cottage. Time approximate. Pasqualino Coletta (the driver) testified that nothing out of the ordinary happened during this time and heard no screams or anyone at the cottage. [33]

23:00 Mechanic comes for broken down car. Gianfranco Lombardo was called between 22.30-22.40. He left his house in Bastia and arrived within 15 to 20 minutes. In a previous verbale he had said he arrived at about 11pm. It took him 10 to 15 minutes to load up the car and document it. He finished the job at about 23:15. He noted the gate of via della Pergola was open, and there was a car parked there, probably of a dark color. Parked car belonged to friend of Pasqualino Coletta. Lombardo didn’t see any lights on in the house. He left at the latest at 23:20 and didn’t notice anybody pass by on the road or hear any screams etc.[34]

p62
http://www.amandaknox.com/wp-conten...-Coletta-Salsiccioli-Occhipint-Caccarelli.doc

p119-122
http://www.amandaknox.com/wp-conten...onacchia-Lombardo-Tavernese-Fazio-Galizia.pdf

Do you not think their lawyers would have been saying there was a mysterious unaccounted for parked car outside the cottage the night of the murder OVER AND OVER if there was one?
 
NancyS said:
I just can't help being such a sheep:(

However, if there is a 50% chance of it not being Amanda - and 33% of the courts found Amanda/Raffaele innocent - you would think this would point towards reasonable doubt



So Nencini argues that it is contaminated, but then goes on to argue that this doesn't affect the evidence against Raffaele because he is guilty - and therefore the evidence against him is not due to contamination? I don't know how they are ever going to be able to fight this nonsense
Click to expand...

The translation I read about the Bra Clasp evidence, as analyzed by Nencini, is a coarse translation - so this needs to be verified, really. The translator is having issues with Italian "techno-speak" as to necessarily relates to translating technical subjects from one language to another, where the translator is not "expert" in that field....

With these caveats, this is what Nencini says in his report about the bra-clasp:

- there is no contamination on the clasp because Conti-Vecchiotti, "do not explain where they have found the overt "evidence" of contamination."

- the court has no reason to doubt that what Professor Carla Vecchiotti found as "minor contributors" to the bra-clasp is true.

- but this is not "procedurally significant" in using exhibit 165 to find Sollecito guilty.

- since Meredith was "normal" and had a normal sex-life, it is reasonable to assume that any other DNA evidence on the clasp comes from her boyfriend.

- (Nencini literally says), "on that hook passes many hands, and Meredith's boyfriend cannot be ruled out, but Sollecito's has no business being there."

- Nancini starts calculating the odds) that it is only a 1 in 327,000 it being deposited by chance.​

So it seems to convict someone of a crime in Italy is to wave away the defence if it has not proven the vehicle of contamination.

There is NO discussion in Necini's report,as there is in the Massei report, of the four methods/routes of potential contamination that Patrizia Stefanoni herself testifies is possible under court-examination. Atleast Massei discusses it before waving it away with his hand.....

..... but Massei did not have to contend with an independent report. Nencini does, and Nencini then needs to wave away Conti-Vecchiotti, but needs to also amend Massei's report somewhat.....

..... Nencini needs to completely ignore Stefanoni's own testimony before the court of the four possible methods of contamination she admits to!

Friends.... this is the roadmap of a wrongful conviction. Nencini cannot both:

- wave away Conti-Vecchiotti because they did not show the routes of possible contamination

- while at the same time discussing Stefanoni's own admitted four routes!!!!​

So he just ignores the latter. Great job Nencini.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom