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

[Diocletus]

Nope. Sorry, but if you are going to simply write that he "testified that nothing out of the ordinary happened during this time and heard no screams or anyone at the cottage."

Then one should at least point out that he also testified that: he stayed mostly in the car. The car windows were shut. He was in the car with his wife and kid. The car was broken down in the middle of the street. And that he was so concerned about the situation they were in that he took no notice of anything else that was happening around him.

Saying simply that he testified that nothing out of the ordinary happened during this time and heard no screams or anyone at the cottage and leaving it at that, is quite disingenuous.

I think his car windows were double-glazed. Which, in Italian, means that sound passes through them without resistance. In fact, they probably amplify sound.

 

[NancyS]

Your belief in the fairness of the Italian trial process in this case, seems inconsistent with any traditional notion of fairness.

I'm always amazed that people think it is fair to use DNA and forensic evidence that has been widely disputed and discredited, to send people to prison for almost 30-years. Even if you believe they are guilty, a fair trial would need to acquit them based on the poor standard of evidence collection and analysis that fails to meet the standards required to be scientifically and legally valid. You would expect people that believe in guilt to be incredibly angry at the sloppy standards of evidence collection, as that helped to free Amanda/Raffaele - instead they are full of praise and offer increasingly ludicrous and anti-science arguments to justify the poor practice and multiple mistakes.

 

[js202]

Also, look at the fact that Amanda testified about being struck in an illegal unrecorded interrogation, and was charged for slander.

The responsibility for investigating the charge fell to Commodi, a prosecutor in the same case the testimony was given.

If you can't see the direct conflict of interest, and recognize the real criminal jeopardy, including jail time, of simply defending oneself against manifestly illegal conduct by the authorities, then there's not much point in arguing it here.

It's not a fair system when the defense is hamstrung by draconian penalties for raising legitimate issues of defense. And it's a head scratcher that anyone would ask the question, 'gee, why didn't defense raise the same arguments' that can be made outside an environment of thuggery and intimidation.

It's not just "inquisitorial", it is the medieval inquisition in the 21st century, and they have found another 'witch'.

Well expressed, on the whole.

 

[carbonjam72]

neither DNA, nor footprints.

I'm always amazed that people think it is fair to use DNA and forensic evidence that has been widely disputed and discredited, to send people to prison for almost 30-years. Even if you believe they are guilty, a fair trial would need to acquit them based on the poor standard of evidence collection and analysis that fails to meet the standards required to be scientifically and legally valid. You would expect people that believe in guilt to be incredibly angry at the sloppy standards of evidence collection, as that helped to free Amanda/Raffaele - instead they are full of praise and offer increasingly ludicrous and anti-science arguments to justify the poor practice and multiple mistakes.

Even more remarkable for me, and indicative of actual innocence, is the lack of any other footprints apart from Guede. One might argue they committed the crime and not left any DNA. Not likely, given the nature of the crime, and the quantities of DNA and other evidence left by Guede, but at least arguable.

But how did they fail to leave any footprints on a blood soaked floor in such a tiny room? They might not have had to touch the walls or items like Meredith's purse, as Guede actually did. But how did they avoid the law of gravity and leave no traces on the floor?
All of this evidence taken together doesn't merely fail to meet the burden of 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'. Rather it is affirmative proof of innocence of the physical act of this murder, in that room.

There is no evidence they were even there at the cottage that night, nor that they ever left Raf's apartment. There is no case against them, and never has been. But I suppose I'm preaching to the choir.

 

[NancyS]

Even more remarkable for me, and indicative of actual innocence, is the lack of any other footprints apart from Guede. One might argue they committed the crime and not left any DNA. Not likely, given the nature of the crime, and the quantities of DNA and other evidence left by Guede, but at least arguable.

But how did they fail to leave any footprints on a blood soaked floor in such a tiny room? They might not have had to touch the walls or items like Meredith's purse, as Guede actually did. But how did they avoid the law of gravity and leave no traces on the floor?
All of this evidence taken together doesn't merely fail to meet the burden of 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'. Rather it is affirmative proof of innocence of the physical act of this murder, in that room.

There is no evidence they were even there at the cottage that night, nor that they ever left Raf's apartment. There is no case against them, and never has been. But I suppose I'm preaching to the choir.

It's even more ridiculous as the prosecution argue that they must have stepped in blood with bare feet so that they could make the luminol footprints.

And also no blood on the clothes they had been seen wearing earlier that day - and no blood transferred to any of their other possessions or to Raffaele's flat. If you have any experience of working with blood, you would know this is not possible without one mother of a clean-up

 

[Desert Fox]

It's even more ridiculous as the prosecution argue that they must have stepped in blood with bare feet so that they could make the luminol footprints.

And also no blood on the clothes they had been seen wearing earlier that day - and no blood transferred to any of their other possessions or to Raffaele's flat. If you have any experience of working with blood, you would know this is not possible without one mother of a clean-up

And how are you going to do that clean up while leaving Rudi's blood stained prints.

Was Amanda wearing the same clothes at her cottage which she wore the day before going to Raffael's apt?

 

[acbytesla]

What did the US State Department (you know, the ones who followed and monitored the trial from the beginning) have to say about whether or not Knox had a fair trial?

This is of course much more of a political question than it is a judicial question.

 

[Magister]

I'm not sure I'd believe a single word that Rudy has to say.

I was replying to MichaelB about which car was mentioned in Guede's deposition.....not on its believability.

 

[Vibio]

I asked you two general questions (not specifically about this case but possibly applicable to this case)

"not specifically about this case but possibly applicable to this case"




Fascinating question. Uh...let me go out on the terrace and have a smoke. I'll be back in 15 minutes.





-----

 

[NancyS]

And how are you going to do that clean up while leaving Rudi's blood stained prints.

Was Amanda wearing the same clothes at her cottage which she wore the day before going to Raffael's apt?

As far as I'm aware, the clothes she had been wearing earlier that day were found weeks later lying on her bed - and no blood was on them. So I guess you would need to factor in a change of clothing and subsequent disposal of bloody clothing, into an already ridiculous timeline. Or you can argue that they were naked and yet still failed to leave any DNA or other trace of themselves in Meredith's room.

Perhaps as well as inventing the magic DNA Hoover, Amanda has also invented the ultimate Stain Devil, which must surely beat my Mum's advice to use vinegar on blood stains. Or was this found at the scene http://www.vanish.co.uk/stain-solver/other/blood - she can't have used the infamous bleach on clothing or other fabrics as that would have caused damage.

I've previously worked in A&E and getting blood of clothes is not easy

 

[yimyammer]

I DON'T THINK it looks like Amanda except maybe the hair and we don't really see enough of it other than to say it is remotely similar. I can't really make out the face and I don't think anyone else can either. The problem with this kind of image is how much can be distorted by light, camera angle, resizing the image and not maintaining aspect ratio, etc..etc. etc. I think you MAY be right about the fact that this person is heavier then the athletic Amanda Knox at twenty. But this person is wearing a sizable outer coat and you can stretch or widen that image very easily so what does that tell us? NOTHING.

I think it kind of looks like Amanda but like too much of the "evidence" in this case, its too open for interpretation and not clear & precise enough to get past reasonable doubt in my humble opinion

 

[acbytesla]

Even more remarkable for me, and indicative of actual innocence, is the lack of any other footprints apart from Guede. One might argue they committed the crime and not left any DNA. Not likely, given the nature of the crime, and the quantities of DNA and other evidence left by Guede, but at least arguable.

But how did they fail to leave any footprints on a blood soaked floor in such a tiny room? They might not have had to touch the walls or items like Meredith's purse, as Guede actually did. But how did they avoid the law of gravity and leave no traces on the floor?

This is where we are in total agreement. This is also why I think Rudy is alone. You don't need a PHD in Genetics to understand the shoe/footprints in that room. This is where it is should be ***** obvious to any one above a blooming moron.

It really tells the whole tale. Not a single obvious shoe print or footprint in Meredith's blood in that room other than from Meredith or Rudy. No swirls from any kind of cleanup. This is the number one reason that Nencini is a moron or he has corrupted himself to give the SC what it wanted. A guilty verdict.

 

[Bill Williams]

What did the US State Department (you know, the ones who followed and monitored the trial from the beginning) have to say about whether or not Knox had a fair trial?

Fascinating question. Uh...let me go out on the terrace and have a smoke. I'll be back in 15 minutes.

 

[Bill Williams]

Right, Bill Williams. That's what I thought.

This reply says nothing. I have no idea what you're referring to. This is trollish posting.

 

[acbytesla]

I think it kind of looks like Amanda but like too much of the "evidence" in this case, its too open for interpretation and not clear & precise enough to get past reasonable doubt in my humble opinion

I'm on the opposite side of the scale. Other than the general height and maybe the color of the hair, I don't think there is a distinguishable facial feature that anyone can actually see. It's NOT obviously different than Amanda and that is the best that anyone can say. It really could be almost any one.

 

[Skind]

Nope. Sorry, but if you are going to simply write that he "testified that nothing out of the ordinary happened during this time and heard no screams or anyone at the cottage."

Then one should at least point out that he also testified that: he stayed mostly in the car. The car windows were shut. He was in the car with his wife and kid. The car was broken down in the middle of the street. And that he was so concerned about the situation they were in that he took no notice of anything else that was happening around him.

Saying simply that he testified that nothing out of the ordinary happened during this time and heard no screams or anyone at the cottage and leaving it at that, is quite disingenuous.

Then he should have his licence taken away and be banned from driving on medical fitness grounds. That's an absurdly dangerous level of hyper-focus you allege (without any reference to his testimony indicating such), certainly well beyond what you'd expect from a mentally normal and functional adult.

Any reasonable person would expect a stuck driver awaiting a rescue truck to be well aware of outside their vehicle, especially at night, especially with their wife and child in the car. You would expect them to be actively scanning their environment and be making a concious deliberate effort to be aware of any potentially troublesome individuals approaching or odd sounds.

Not so of a sleepy older woman who has just woken up for a piss.

Your contention is in contrast to the expected behaviour of any medically normal person in the same situation. Unless he was concentrating being on the phone, you'd expect any person in that situation to be actively aware, not less aware.

 

[Vibio]

This reply says nothing. I have no idea what you're referring to. This is trollish posting.

i.e.: despite your 500 or so posts about the Nencini report (or at least it seems like 500 or so) you haven't even read it.

And as far as the "not specifically about this case but possibly applicable to this case" question goes: that's the response the question deserves.

 

[acbytesla]

Then he should have his licence taken away and be banned from driving on medical fitness grounds. That's an absurdly dangerous level of hyper-focus you allege (without any reference to his testimony indicating such), certainly well beyond what you'd expect from a mentally normal and functional adult.

Any reasonable person would expect a stuck driver awaiting a rescue truck to be well aware of outside their vehicle, especially at night, especially with their wife and child in the car. You would expect them to be actively scanning their environment and be making a concious deliberate effort to be aware of any potentially troublesome individuals approaching or odd sounds.

Not so of a sleepy older woman who has just woken up for a piss.

Your contention is in contrast to the expected behaviour of any medically normal person in the same situation. Unless he was concentrating being on the phone, you'd expect any person in that situation to be actively aware, not less aware.

You're being dishonest with yourself. When did they interview these people? Two days after the incident? A week? Two weeks? If you could give more than a general description of that time, I'd be thoroughly amazed. Unless something actually sticks out as very unusual, you are not likely to remember much detail at all.

 

[NancyS]

You're being dishonest with yourself. When did they interview these people? Two days after the incident? A week? Two weeks? If you could give more than a general description of that time, I'd be thoroughly amazed. Unless something actually sticks out as very unusual, you are not likely to remember much detail at all.

You're likely to remember if the lights are on and there is shouting about money, followed by the most horrible scream in the world ever, followed by more than one person running out of the house - otherwise I agree with what you're saying

 

[carbonjam72]

Change of Clothes - HUMAN DNA downstairs

As far as I'm aware, the clothes she had been wearing earlier that day were found weeks later lying on her bed - and no blood was on them. So I guess you would need to factor in a change of clothing and subsequent disposal of bloody clothing, into an already ridiculous timeline. Or you can argue that they were naked and yet still failed to leave any DNA or other trace of themselves in Meredith's room.

Perhaps as well as inventing the magic DNA Hoover, Amanda has also invented the ultimate Stain Devil, which must surely beat my Mum's advice to use vinegar on blood stains. Or was this found at the scene http://www.vanish.co.uk/stain-solver/other/blood - she can't have used the infamous bleach on clothing or other fabrics as that would have caused damage.

I've previously worked in A&E and getting blood of clothes is not easy

This goes to the importance of Stefanoni finding human DNA profile downstairs in blood, but not sharing the results with the defense and instead falsely claiming it's only "cat's blood".

Rudy could have used the keys from Meredith to get in downstairs without breaking in, and grab a change of clothes. They had found a trail of blood drops from the upstairs to the downstairs, and that's why they had Zugarini kick in the downstairs door to get in, on the first or second day of investigation.

I believe the defense asked the guys downstairs about this, if any clothes were missing, but can't find the translated testimony to double check.

And of course the lack of blood on Amanda and Raf's clothes is another point of confirmation they had nothing to do with this crime.

I really don't even think the arguments for innocence are interesting anymore because its so obvious and incontestable by now. The real question is, what the hell were Mignini et als thinking when they focused on Amanda and RAf, and when did they think it?