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

[Desert Fox]

That's an unusually revealing quote from Rag. Has Nonsencini had the dramatic effect of bringing the two sides closer together (i.e. bringing them closer to us - since they are wrong)? As I already said, Nencini makes it impossible for the guilters to maintain their slavish belief in the infallibility of Italian judges (Hellman, obviously a Mason and corrupt, apart). They can see what we can - he is human and capable of error, indeed grotesque error. And if he is such then there can be no rule preventing Massei, Micheli, Matteini and the Supremes from being wrong too. Oh dear.

Plus, he has made jarring findings about Rudy being a pro burglar. Uh oh. Try wriggling out of that. LOL.

Might be an interesting tactic that when those who are pro guilt argue "two courts found them guilty", bringing up that they have troublem themselves with Nencini's motivations.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

dodging the issue

This is the most recent PMF contribution

I think Halkides is mostly right that the reason the images are blurred has to do with technical issues as well as the fact that the floor had been walked on extensively. It takes a lot of skill to do luminol well. This was a mediocre job. Too much luminol. Too long an exposure time on the camera. Garofano said as much. Still it's good enough to say that prints compatible with Knox and Sollecito are present, and taken in context with the bloody bathmat and other evidence that's pretty incriminating.

My view is that these contributions are valid ideas to be critically analysed right here.

Given the dilation and the lack of detail (both of which may be due to the overapplication of luminol), there is no way to assign the prints to any one person (I would equally resist attributing a print to Guede, for example). Bill's Merecedes/Dodge Dart is a good analogy IMO. I would also like to remind everyone that some jurisdictions do not even allow luminol evidence into the courtroom without additional tests. Others allow in but only if the jury is apprised that luminol is a presuptive test only. Comodi's comments about turnip juice are highly misleading, and she deserves to be called on them.

 

[Bill Williams]

That's an unusually revealing quote from Rag. Has Nonsencini had the dramatic effect of bringing the two sides closer together (i.e. bringing them closer to us - since they are wrong)? As I already said, Nencini makes it impossible for the guilters to maintain their slavish belief in the infallibility of Italian judges (Hellman, obviously a Mason and corrupt, apart). They can see what we can - he is human and capable of error, indeed grotesque error. And if he is such then there can be no rule preventing Massei, Micheli, Matteini and the Supremes from being wrong too. Oh dear.

Plus, he has made jarring findings about Rudy being a pro burglar. Uh oh. Try wriggling out of that. LOL.

This is my conspiracy theory. It's based on the claim that the only reason Machiavelli posts is in the defense of Mignini....

Machiavelli's last post here was his assessment of Nencini. He said that Nencini's motivations report was an improvement on Massei's 2010 motivations report, which I took to mean that Machiavelli thinks Nencini's wisom is simply more precise and detailed.

Unfortunately, Machiavelli has not stuck around to defend that nonsense - perhaps because he's actually read and appreciated what "amica" means in the context of the snippet from Nencini below.

​

Remember when I used to say that the best way to believe the Massei 2010 report was not to read it?

I now need to amend that. Because regardless of whether or not Massei believed Stefanoni "just because", or denied to motion to have an independent DNA review "just because", at least guilters were left with the guilty verdict at the end of the day which they could lord over everyone.

No one did an actual climb to Filomena's window until Channel 5 showed how easy it was - but back in 2010, Massei just declared it wouldn't have been done, so there it (judicially speaking) sat.

Nencini has pushed Machiavelli away - but then again, Mignini is no longer in judicial trouble himself, so Machiavelli can slap himself on the back for a job well done and go back to his first love - theatre.

Nencini also, as you say, is pushing people like Harry Rag away. I never thought it possible.

This tragic murder has been horrible for the Kerchers. For 6 1/2 years. For the Italian judiciary from Borsini onwards, it has been about no evidence, some compatibilities, some judicial facts based on thin air, and two guilty verdicts and a quashed acquittal.

And the best way to believe the guilty verdicts is to hum loudly when someone brings up Nencini, and say "oh look squirrel" when they bring up Massei. But then pound away at, "Well, they've been found guilty twice - and no one has shown a conspiracy to do that."

And challenge you to prove innocence. That will be Harry Rag's next stopover in his backpeddling..... oh wait, the Italian Supreme Court beat him to it....

 

[Desert Fox]

Given the dilation and the lack of detail (both of which may be due to the overapplication of luminol), there is no way to assign the prints to any one person (I would equally resist attributing a print to Guede, for example). Bill's Merecedes/Dodge Dart is a good analogy IMO. I would also like to remind everyone that some jurisdictions do not even allow luminol evidence into the courtroom without additional tests. Others allow in but only if the jury is apprised that luminol is a presuptive test only. Comodi's comments about turnip juice are highly misleading, and she deserves to be called on them.

There was a floormat in a case where it was explained as being pickled beats juice. Talk about a strange case, read about the Devon Guzman murder.

 

[Grinder]

That's an unusually revealing quote from Rag. Has Nonsencini had the dramatic effect of bringing the two sides closer together (i.e. bringing them closer to us - since they are wrong)? As I already said, Nencini makes it impossible for the guilters to maintain their slavish belief in the infallibility of Italian judges (Hellman, obviously a Mason and corrupt, apart). They can see what we can - he is human and capable of error, indeed grotesque error. And if he is such then there can be no rule preventing Massei, Micheli, Matteini and the Supremes from being wrong too. Oh dear.

Plus, he has made jarring findings about Rudy being a pro burglar. Uh oh. Try wriggling out of that. LOL.

Just another example of the weak thinking of the Italian judiciary since it has been proven that he was a fence.

 

[Bill Williams]

That's an unusually revealing quote from Rag. Has Nonsencini had the dramatic effect of bringing the two sides closer together (i.e. bringing them closer to us - since they are wrong)? As I already said, Nencini makes it impossible for the guilters to maintain their slavish belief in the infallibility of Italian judges (Hellman, obviously a Mason and corrupt, apart). They can see what we can - he is human and capable of error, indeed grotesque error. And if he is such then there can be no rule preventing Massei, Micheli, Matteini and the Supremes from being wrong too. Oh dear.

Plus, he has made jarring findings about Rudy being a pro burglar. Uh oh. Try wriggling out of that. LOL.

Ok - if you think Harry Rag is going to have trouble, and if my own conspriacy theory about Machiavelli explains why he no longer (needs to) post here....

..... imagine the task facing Edward McCall and his fake wiki?

How much of the Nencini report will Eddie Mac incorporate, esp. since the #2 guilter in the land (Machiavelli) has shown it to be a better refinement of Massei's theory(ies)?

Consider the issue of Rudy as either the squeaky clean kid, vs. Nencini calling him a pro burglar.

Consider the issue of Massei implying that Raffaele called the Carabinieiri well before the arrival of the postal police, with Nencini implying that Raffaele slipped away as Meredith's door was being broken down to call 112!?

There's a million of these.

Eddie Mac, if you are reading this.... my bet is that Nencini doesn't even make it to your fake wiki, and that's after Machiavelli calling Nencini a refinement to and improvement over Massei.

 

[anglolawyer]

Just another example of the weak thinking of the Italian judiciary since it has been proven that he was a fence.

The only fence around here is the one you're always sitting on! Har har de har.

We should enumerate a list of inadvertent pro-guilt admissions that have unintended consequences for their general position, personal integrity etc:

• Guede was a pro-burglar (Nencini)
• They were already 'strongly suspected' when they came to the questura (Mach - that one's a personal favourite)
• There may be no bleach receipts (Michael of dot net proving he is a liar)
• Nencini is an ipiot (everybody on both sides)
• TMB tests were done and were negative etc etc
  

There must be more.

 

[Bill Williams]

The only fence around here is the one you're always sitting on! Har har de har.

We should enumerate a list of inadvertent pro-guilt admissions that have unintended consequences for their general position, personal integrity etc:

• Guede was a pro-burglar (Nencini)
• They were already 'strongly suspected' when they came to the questura (Mach - that one's a personal favourite)
• There may be no bleach receipts (Michael of dot net proving he is a liar)
• Nencini is an ipiot (everybody on both sides)
• TMB tests were done and were negative etc etc
  

There must be more.

That is worse than being a simple idiot....?

 

[acbytesla]

This is my conspiracy theory. It's based on the claim that the only reason Machiavelli posts is in the defense of Mignini....

Machiavelli's last post here was his assessment of Nencini. He said that Nencini's motivations report was an improvement on Massei's 2010 motivations report, which I took to mean that Machiavelli thinks Nencini's wisom is simply more precise and detailed.

Unfortunately, Machiavelli has not stuck around to defend that nonsense - perhaps because he's actually read and appreciated what "amica" means in the context of the snippet from Nencini below.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_539715385f07c3dedc.jpg[/qimg]​

Remember when I used to say that the best way to believe the Massei 2010 report was not to read it?

I now need to amend that. Because regardless of whether or not Massei believed Stefanoni "just because", or denied to motion to have an independent DNA review "just because", at least guilters were left with the guilty verdict at the end of the day which they could lord over everyone.

No one did an actual climb to Filomena's window until Channel 5 showed how easy it was - but back in 2010, Massei just declared it wouldn't have been done, so there it (judicially speaking) sat.

Nencini has pushed Machiavelli away - but then again, Mignini is no longer in judicial trouble himself, so Machiavelli can slap himself on the back for a job well done and go back to his first love - theatre.

Nencini also, as you say, is pushing people like Harry Rag away. I never thought it possible.

This tragic murder has been horrible for the Kerchers. For 6 1/2 years. For the Italian judiciary from Borsini onwards, it has been about no evidence, some compatibilities, some judicial facts based on thin air, and two guilty verdicts and a quashed acquittal.

And the best way to believe the guilty verdicts is to hum loudly when someone brings up Nencini, and say "oh look squirrel" when they bring up Massei. But then pound away at, "Well, they've been found guilty twice - and no one has shown a conspiracy to do that."

And challenge you to prove innocence. That will be Harry Rag's next stopover in his backpeddling..... oh wait, the Italian Supreme Court beat him to it....

I don't think anything bothers me more than the flipping of the burden of proof to the defendants.
Prove that they were at Raffaele's.
They don't have an alibi.
A motive is not necessary.
A timeline is unimportant.
Rudy "could' have known Amanda and Raffaele despite the lack of evidence.
Amanda could have been working as a prostitute for Rudy.
The bathmat print is "compatible".
The negative TMB test could be a false negative.
The luminol prints are "compatible" with Amanda's feet.
The digestion evidence is irrelevant. We have this old lady who didn't even look at her clock who came forward 6 months after the murder.

 

[Grinder]

The only fence around here is the one you're always sitting on! Har har de har.

Better than the petard you find yourself on...

 

[acbytesla]

Just another example of the weak thinking of the Italian judiciary since it has been proven that he was a fence.

You really want to open up that can of worms??

 

[xinonix]

You have to understand that the Italian Justice system was remade by Mussolini and his friends so that it could be used as a tool for removing trouble makers from their society.
If you do things just right you can convict an Italian even if you have no proof he did what he was accused of.
e.g. There was no proof that Amanda killed anyone, but they needed another suspect for Mignini's multiple attacker theory to work.
She was one of two people in town who had a key to
Meredith's apartment. This would enable her and Rudy to sneak in and do a sneak attack. This made her the most likely 2nd suspect.
You add that to the broken window and say that this must be a staged break in, so you have Amanda doing a fake crime scene to make it look like someone broke in, and she did this make people think it wasn't her, even though she was the only one with a key.
The jury actually bought this.

 

[Grinder]

I don't think anything bothers me more than the flipping of the burden of proof to the defendants.
Prove that they were at Raffaele's. - Of course they need to prove it if it's their alibi.
They don't have an alibi. - They don't have a provable alibi
A motive is not necessary. - It isn't.
A timeline is unimportant. - Sure it is
Rudy "could' have known Amanda and Raffaele despite the lack of evidence. - He did know Amanda, not well but he knew her
Amanda could have been working as a prostitute for Rudy. - why bring this up?
The bathmat print is "compatible". - it is compatible with millions of men
The negative TMB test could be a false negative. - it could be
The luminol prints are "compatible" with Amanda's feet. - sure they are but not a match
The digestion evidence is irrelevant. - it just isn't definitive. People that want it to be have death before 9:30 whether she ate at 5:30, 6, 6:30, 7 or 7:30 - while I do believe that it makes 11:30 impossible I don't agree that it makes 9:45 or 9:55 impossible.

We have this old lady who didn't even look at her clock who came forward 6 months after the murder. - all the "witnesses" are worthless.

Whether Rudi was a fence or burglar makes no difference as to the kids' guilt.

 

[acbytesla]

Just another example of the weak thinking of the Italian judiciary since it has been proven that he was a fence.

Since when has it been proven that he was a fence Grinder?
Is there a single ruling where a judge has ruled him a fence?
Does Rudy ever say that he was a fence?
Is there any evidence anywhere that he was actively buying and selling stolen goods?
Even if you believe Rudy when he says he bought the laptop at the train station, it appears as if he is not selling it but using it, in fact putting his own picture on the desktop. (btw, A smart detective could easily prove or disprove whether or not it was even possible for Rudy to have bought the laptop in Milan instead of Perugia, by checking the date when Rudy's image was copied to that laptop.)

In a way Grinder your contention that Rudy is a fence has less going for it than Rudy having a date with Meredith the night of the murder. At least Rudy says he had a date. There is nothing that says he is a fence other than your leap of logic that because he had multiple computers in his apartment he must be a fence.

 

[Grinder]

You have to understand that the Italian Justice system was remade by Mussolini and his friends so that it could be used as a tool for removing trouble makers from their society.
If you do things just right you can convict an Italian even if you have no proof he did what he was accused of.
e.g. There was no proof that Amanda killed anyone, but they needed another suspect for Mignini's multiple attacker theory to work.
She was one of two people in town who had a key to
Meredith's apartment. This would enable her and Rudy to sneak in and do a sneak attack. This made her the most likely 2nd suspect.
You add that to the broken window and say that this must be a staged break in, so you have Amanda doing a fake crime scene to make it look like someone broke in, and she did this make people think it wasn't her, even though she was the only one with a key.
The jury actually bought this.

How popular do you think Mussolini was? I blame the people and culture for allowing this to continue until today. Do you think that Germany has the same problems today that Italy has?

We really don't know how many people had keys. Former tenants? Boyfriends? Maintenance people? Landlord?

The legal system was updated in the 80's but it is the people and the culture that keep this weird approach to justice going.

 

[Grinder]

Since when has it been proven that he was a fence Grinder?
Is there a single ruling where a judge has ruled him a fence?

I have repeated it here many times. He had stolen goods but was never caught, charged or in any way proven to be a burglar.

Why I the world would I care what a judge ruled? Since Nonsecini said he was a burglar, that is just more proof that he wasn't.

Does Rudy ever say that he was a fence?

No but he denies stealing from the lawyers. Very odd behavior if he did steal. Did he ever admit being a murderer or rapist?

Is there any evidence anywhere that he was actively buying and selling stolen goods?

Yes.

Even if you believe Rudy when he says he bought the laptop at the train station, it appears as if he is not selling it but using it, in fact putting his own picture on the desktop. (btw, A smart detective could easily prove or disprove whether or not it was even possible for Rudy to have bought the laptop in Milan instead of Perugia, by checking the date when Rudy's image was copied to that laptop.)

I worry about you Tesla. I don't believe nor have I ever believed that he was fronted the loot in Milan. He took it from Perugia to Milan to sell it along with the other stuff he had already unloaded. Why do you think he had the other items? Why did he have the gold watch? Do you think he used it to tell time? Nope it was for sale.

I have written this numerous times. Please don't bring up this straw man again. I never in any way have contended he acquired the loot in Milan, got it?

In a way Grinder your contention that Rudy is a fence has less going for it than Rudy having a date with Meredith the night of the murder. At least Rudy says he had a date. There is nothing that says he is a fence other than your leap of logic that because he had multiple computers in his apartment he must be a fence.

 

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I don't think anything bothers me more than the flipping of the burden of proof to the defendants.
Prove that they were at Raffaele's. - Of course they need to prove it if it's their alibi.
They don't have an alibi. - They don't have a provable alibi In fact they do have a provable alibi until 9:36PM 9:26 for the Naruto download plus the ten minutes to reach the cottage. (minimum)
A motive is not necessary. - It isn't. But it sure helps.A timeline is unimportant. - Sure it is But they never can provide one that fits with the evidence
He did know Amanda, not well but he knew her But their meeting that night was totally accidental. That there is no proof that other than being "introduced to Rudy and taking his drink order...nothing"
The bathmat print is "compatible". - it is compatible with millions of men Exactly, but this suggestion is that the print belongs to Raffaele when it could have belonged to anyone.
The negative TMB test could be a false negative. - it could be. It could be and pigs could fly out of my arse as well. The suggestion is scientifically is unsound without proof that it was.
The luminol prints are "compatible" with Amanda's feet. - sure they are but not a match or a match to anyone. Or so definitive that the could actually exclude anyone. The digestion evidence is irrelevant. - it just isn't definitive. People that want it to be have death before 9:30 whether she ate at 5:30, 6, 6:30, 7 or 7:30 - while I do believe that it makes 11:30 impossible I don't agree that it makes 9:45 or 9:55 impossible. Maybe, but even a 9:45 or 9:55 time of death doesn't make sense because 20 or 30 minutes earlier they were at Raffaele's flat. This would mean a 10 minute to 20 minute delta between the earliest time they arrived and the time of death.
We have this old lady who didn't even look at her clock who came forward 6 months after the murder. - all the "witnesses" are worthless. Agreed, with the exception of Popovich..but then of course she is a defense witness.

Whether Rudi was a fence or burglar makes no difference as to the kids' guilt.

Rudy being an actual burglar definitely enforces the idea that break in was not staged, but real, so it does make a difference.

 

[acbytesla]

I have repeated it here many times. He had stolen goods but was never caught, charged or in any way proven to be a burglar.

So you admit there is no proof that he was a fence?

Why I the world would I care what a judge ruled? Since Nonsecini said he was a burglar, that is just more proof that he wasn't.

I'm not sure I go that far..but I do agree what Nonsencini says is irrelevant.

No but he denies stealing from the lawyers. Very odd behavior if he did steal. Did he ever admit being a murderer or rapist?

You can't think that is odd. My point is that besides your leap of logic there is nothing that leads to him being a fence. At least your contention that he had a date with Meredith has something going for it

Is there any evidence anywhere that he was actively buying and selling stolen goods?

Yes.
You have to do better than that. You know there isn't.

I worry about you Tesla. I don't believe nor have I ever believed that he was fronted the loot in Milan. He took it from Perugia to Milan to sell it along with the other stuff he had already unloaded. Why do you think he had the other items? Why did he have the gold watch? Do you think he used it to tell time? Nope it was for sale.

I have written this numerous times. Please don't bring up this straw man again. I never in any way have contended he acquired the loot in Milan, got it?

My point wasn't that you didn't agree that he got it in Perugia, just that we would be able to prove the earliest time he took possession of the laptop. Would you still think he was a fence if the time stamp on that image was the day after the burglary?

 

[Anode]

Should we be hearing about the submittal to the ISC of an Appeal to the Conviction about now?
I thought that someone said that the ISC appeal had to be submitted within 45 days of the Motivation.
Analemma

Yes, that is how I understand it. 45 days puts us at June 15, which is just 4 days from now. Assuming the clock started at May 1.

 

[carbonjam72]

Big Brother's Big Brother.

Since DNA machines generate data and incompetent or corrupt lab techs can misplace or destroy sets of data for fraudulent purposes, suppose all such machines used by crime (not medical) labs be required/designed to simultaneously store/back-up their data through the cloud to the manufacturer's backup facility. Then, if certain data goes missing it can be obtained from an off-site facility not under the control of a police lab.

Great idea. Would solve a lot of problems.