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

[Desert Fox]

Why do they have it out for these two innocent kids?

Why did Virginia prosecutors go after the Norfolk Four?
Why did Lincoln County prosecutors go after Russ Faria?
In both cases, the evidence of innocence is overwhelming.

 

[Dan O.]

The problem from my perspective Michael is this. On Raffaele's print, I'm sure he was made to stand with his feet flat with an even pressure so that a perfect print could be made. When I look at the fuzzy bathmat print, I have no idea how covered with blood the bottom of his feet were whether or not even pressure was applied. Also for example in the second picture, Professor Vinci draws circles where the the smaller toes were yet I don't actually see the prints of those toes on the bathmat.

I can see Vinci's argument and it very well may be correct. That said, I still believe that the bathmat is too fuzzy to be conclusive about the ID of that print. That said, I don't believe that Raffaele made that print, because I cannot see how Raffaele was even there that night.

Look at how the two prints are being compared. The prints have been aligned to the same orientation and adjusted to the same scale. A reference line has been drawn across the bottom of the ball of the foot and the height of this reference has been aligned across the two photos. Fuzzy doesn't account for the significant differences between the heights of all of the toes between the two photos.

For completeness, I would like to see the same comparison done between Rudy's reference print and the bathmat print.

 

[anglolawyer]

Look at how the two prints are being compared. The prints have been aligned to the same orientation and adjusted to the same scale. A reference line has been drawn across the bottom of the ball of the foot and the height of this reference has been aligned across the two photos. Fuzzy doesn't account for the significant differences between the heights of all of the toes between the two photos.

For completeness, I would like to see the same comparison done between Rudy's reference print and the bathmat print.

Beg pardon? Has that comparison not been made? My enquiry is genuine.

 

[Desert Fox]

Beg pardon? Has that comparison not been made? My enquiry is genuine.

At least in part seems to have been done here
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-03.html

 

[anglolawyer]

At least in part seems to have been done here
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-03.html

Thanks DF.

 

[Samson]

Charlie made a nice summary photo that presents the full 360x360 view for most rooms in the cottage pulled from the Spheron imagery. It's probably the only view of the celling in most areas. This should be available in the folds of IA. It's quite usefull for seeing what the photographers didn't think was important.

Popper just posted this

DNA that was never contested by anybody like the big patch of blood of AK on the tap

It seems certain that this is the same idea I had.

I see no point in pretending the other sites are irrelevant. It is an inescapable truth that they describe what the prosecutorial Kercher family believe, and they will continue to drive the incarceration of Raffaele and so on.

I wish it was a logical path, but everyone now knows that there is fundamentalism to combat.

 

[analemma]

It is like the Koran, can only be understood in its original tongue.
As well, infidels are not able to understand it

It can only be understood by those who speak Osmotic Italian Judicial Framology

 

[analemma]

????? Huh? There is no obsession with Rudy except that the fact is that Rudy killed Meredith alone and there is no evidence that he had any help at all.

You're right, Rudy didn't stab her with two different knives and there is no evidence that two knives were used. Also 5 out of 6 experts testified to the fact that it could have been a single assailant. So please stop lying. It's not becoming.

Multiple Attackers is part of the Judicial Framing.
This conclusion is based ENTIRELY upon the stupid and myopic assumption by Italian Judges that because the wounds are on both sides of the neck of the victim there MUST BE two attackers with two knives because a single attacker facing the victim would have to switch the knife from hand to hand to stab her in both sides of the neck.
There is no doubt that Meredith was on her knees with Rudy Guede standing astride her with his left hand under her chin violently pulling her head up and back towards him to expose her neck to upward striking right hand knife thrusts, first to the right side, which she blocked with her hands, and then pulling her closer and reaching across to make the killing thrust to the now unprotected left side of the neck.
This scenario is supported by the bruises to the bottom of her chin, wounds to her hands, the knife wounds on the fingers of Guede that stabbed her, the location of first blood stray from the kneeling victim on the closet, her bloody handprint on the outside bottom of the closet, his bloody handprint on the closet door, the blood on the floor near the closet wall spreading away from the closet as she was pulled to the room center, rolled over and stripped, etc.
IMHO, the failure ro describe accurately how Rudy killed her as a single attacker, and the strength of the evidence supporting it, is a great media failure to present honest information.
The Italian Courts and guilters have used this single/multiple attacker mumbo jumbo terms to prevent a public discussion of the real powerful evidence that supports this scenario.

 

[Desert Fox]

While I am pretty sure he is innocent, the case of Russ Faria at least follows the common "Husband did it" theme

The "Common" explanation of rape and murder is a single attacker. Multiple attackers, while not unknown, is an anomaly.

We have something really strange here though even more bizarre than just multiple attackers if the prosecutors (and most of the judges) are to be believed.

 

[Samson]

While I am pretty sure he is innocent, the case of Russ Faria at least follows the common "Husband did it" theme

The "Common" explanation of rape and murder is a single attacker. Multiple attackers, while not unknown, is an anomaly.

We have something really strange here though even more bizarre than just multiple attackers if the prosecutors (and most of the judges) are to be believed.

DF this Russ Faria has a good alibi, and a viable alternative perpetrator. The problem is it is still a woman knifing a woman if he is innocent, as there is unlikely a third prospect.

 

[anglolawyer]

Bathmat print

I looked at Vinci with Grinder's Law in mind (the Law says: in Italy, three compatibles = a match. At first I wondered whether Grinder was serious but, realising he was, I then had to consider whether he might be right ). Is the print 'compatible' with Raf's? Verdict: unsure leaning over towards not.

 

[Desert Fox]

DF this Russ Faria has a good alibi, and a viable alternative perpetrator. The problem is it is still a woman knifing a woman if he is innocent, as there is unlikely a third prospect.

There is a difference that I am seeing that I don't think I am making clear
Assume no evidence at all:
AK/RS, Norfolk Four, and West Memphis three all make little sense from the beginning. The detectives should not have even started down that road without some damn solid evidence.
Russ Faria makes sense in the beginning. The spotlight is almost always on the Husband. The detectives should have dropped the case once there was a solid alibi.

If Amanda, by herself, had a fight over a boyfriend, it would be a believable as an initial idea. Might not hold up to evidence though.

 

[Samson]

There is a difference that I am seeing that I don't think I am making clear
Assume no evidence at all:
AK/RS, Norfolk Four, and West Memphis three all make little sense from the beginning. The detectives should not have even started down that road without some damn solid evidence.
Russ Faria makes sense in the beginning. The spotlight is almost always on the Husband. The detectives should have dropped the case once there was a solid alibi.

If Amanda, by herself, had a fight over a boyfriend, it would be a believable as an initial idea. Might not hold up to evidence though.

I agree, in fact the most interesting ideas can be from a "Sherlock eyes view". I read and reread the stories. He would have gazed at that window from the car park, puffing his pipe. He would contemplate the divot in the hardwood and the deeply embedded glass shard that required maximum velocity from the 9 pound rock, and envisaged precisely what Ron Hendry did, the dispersion of glass inside, and what was surely the cause. He would have wondered how the shard could move faster than the shutter, and imagined an explosive force that made the glass move way faster than the shutter, LIKE A BULLET. He would have discounted any notion of creating this explosive kinetic effect WHILE THEY WERE PLOTTING TO CONCEAL A MURDER.
Hikertom posted elsewhere today something I was unaware of,

Mignini admitted in court that "if the break in had not been staged the two defendants would have to be innocent."

To me this is a bombshell, only because I was unaware that it had been so starkly stated. I have no citation myself, but it probably exists,.

 

[Vibio]

At least in part seems to have been done here
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-03.html

The page at the link above is so totally Knoxian it's hilarious.

The utter pretentiousness of it:

"Lorenzo Rinaldi is the director of the print identity department of the Italian Police The myth about the size of Rudy's foot is largely the result of the report that Lorenzo Rinaldi presented in court. Proper inspection of the bathmat clearly shows..."

Uh...proper inspection according to whom? A few internet posters with no training in the subject looking over internet photographs?

The defense was clobbered on this subject by two experts in their field: Rinaldi and Pietro Boemia. And the judge and jury came to their conclusions.

A more complete picture of the testimony:

About Boemia: "Dactyloscopist with 30 years' experience. Has identified between 5,000 and 10,000 individuals using footprints."

But we're supposed to put our faith in anonymous internet posters who don't know their footprint from Shinola.

"Boemia also identified the bathmat print as belonging to Raffaele Sollecito. Bongiorno asked about the missing heel, and Boemia explained that you could use other characteristics." (explained in a chart presentation)

"At one point while being cross-examined by Bongiorno, Boemia responded with the comment that metatarsal profile was a perfect match to Sollecito."

"Bongiorno asked about the distortion from the footprint being made by depositing a substance on a soft surface. Boemia explained that because the quantity of blood was small that was not an issue. Bongiorno also asked about possible distortion standing on one foot would cause. Boemia explained that again, because of the quantity of blood, it would have no impact."

"Asked by Judge Massei how many people were present Boemia said that there were definitely three sets of different feet so there were at least three people in the cottage when the murder happened".

And that's just for starters. Then there's Rinaldi's testimony. I don't believe it is available in English.... I've read it in Italian. Of course none of you have. These men of course examined the actual mat and it should also be noted that their technical report features 56 photographs. Let me repeat that: 56.

Why does the link that "DesertFox" posted make no reference to any of this?

 

[Samson]

The page at the link above is so totally Knoxian it's hilarious.

The utter pretentiousness of it:

"Lorenzo Rinaldi is the director of the print identity department of the Italian Police The myth about the size of Rudy's foot is largely the result of the report that Lorenzo Rinaldi presented in court. Proper inspection of the bathmat clearly shows..."

Uh...proper inspection according to whom? A few internet posters with no training in the subject looking over internet photographs?

The defense was clobbered on this subject by two experts in their field: Rinaldi and Pietro Boemia. And the judge and jury came to their conclusions.

A more complete picture of the testimony:

About Boemia: "Dactyloscopist with 30 years' experience. Has identified between 5,000 and 10,000 individuals using footprints."

But we're supposed to put our faith in anonymous internet posters who don't know their footprint from Shinola.

"Boemia also identified the bathmat print as belonging to Raffaele Sollecito. Bongiorno asked about the missing heel, and Boemia explained that you could use other characteristics."

"At one point while being cross-examined by Bongiorno, Boemia responded with the comment that metatarsal profile was a perfect match to Sollecito."

"Bongiorno asked about the distortion from the footprint being made by depositing a substance on a soft surface. Boemia explained that because the quantity of blood was small that was not an issue. Bongiorno also asked about possible distortion standing on one foot would cause. Boemia explained that again, because of the quantity of blood, it would have no impact."

"Asked by Judge Massei how many people were present Boemia said that there were definitely three sets of different feet so there were at least three people in the cottage when the murder happened".

And that's just for starters. Then there's Rinaldi's testimony. I don't believe it is available in English.... I've read it in Italian. Of course none of you have. It should also be noted that their technical report features 56 photographs. Let me repeat that: 56.

Why does the link that "DesertFox" posted make no reference to any of this?

Vibio, I admit to being ill informed on footprint evidence. However I am certain that after the murder, and before the murder, there were innumerable candidates to be accountable for footprint traces from multiple forensic sources, blood, no blood, and so on. You must be very sure of your forensic micro date stamped information to send the kids back to jail.

 

[Bill Williams]

The page at the link above is so totally Knoxian it's hilarious.

What does this mean?

 

[Vibio]

You must be very sure of your forensic micro date stamped information to send the kids back to jail.

Remember that two courts came to the same conclusion. You can also read Hellman to see how he basically waves all of this away and you can also read why his court on this and other subjects was called into question and thrown out.

 

[Vibio]

What does this mean?

Knoxian? Knoxian = Amandite

 

[Bill Williams]

Someone here asked that the thread talk about Nencini's report.

Well, I take this from Luca Cheli's analysis of Nencini. It is the curious confirmation bias that Nencini has in his report. It relates to the DNA analysis in general at the upstairs of the cottage, where it never really occurs to Nencini that anything found outside of Meredith's bedroom relating to Amanda Knox....

.... might easily have been deposited where it was found because Knox had lived there for a number of weeks before this horrible crime. The "logic" Nencini uses is that, in fact, no DNA of Knox's pre-existing the date of the crime was found.

It's at that point that one really needs to dust off the 2010 Massei motivations report, where Massei justifies the non-testing of the presumed semen stain under the victim's hips, because such DNA testing cannot be time-stamped.

Here is Cheli in full, including his translation of the relevant part of Nencini's report:

(Nencini) admits that many substances react with luminol besides blood, but then affirms that since in the particular context of the crime scene there had been a murder with copious loss of blood, a judge has to think it is blood because being other substances would be an abstraction not anchored to the trial data.

He also surmises that “the circumstance that it has been possible to extract a genetic profile from the traces detected with the luminol technique, places them unequivocally in the realm of biological traces, in which human DNA is present, hence at least with the exclusion of other distracting substances”. (page 187-188)

It sounds very reasonable, even if just some and not all of the luminol-enhanced traces showed a genetic profile, but it completely ignores that said DNA could have been pre-existent, since Knox and Kercher had lived together in that restricted area for weeks.

Interestingly Nencini, as we saw before, found strange that no trace of Knox unrelated to the crime had been found in a place where she had lived for weeks. He could, and indeed with presumption of innocence in mind he should, have reasoned the other way around: the investigation had indeed found a good number of Knox’s traces unrelated to the murder, like those detected by luminol.

A more scientific answer could have been found with an extensive substrate analysis, that is an extensive sampling of the house in order to ascertain the frequency of the presence of Knox and Kercher DNA and of their mixing. It was not done.

But indeed Nencini’s previous assertion about the significance of luminol in a bloody murder crime scene would have been quite sensible, had it not been for a “small” detail: not even one of those traces was positive to the TMB test.

So there we have it. Judicial logic takes precedence over science in the Nencini report.

The fact that there is a crime scene means blood. Therefore even the luminol-positive findings must be blood (judicially speaking) even when the science suggests, and heavily implies, it is not.

More later. Cheli identifies some themes which Nencini begins to develop, but then lets hang and drops, not completing the point.

 

[Bill Williams]

Knoxian? Knoxian = Amandite

You will have to say more. This sounds ad hominem, but it's hard to be sure. It sounds like playground stuff where you make fun of someone's name because - well, bullies find that sort of thing fun.