Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

-




-

I wish I felt as confident, and not to belittle (or downplay) either of your beliefs, but my skeptical mind won't allow me to think that way.

I do agree though that not only do the Kerchers, but Meredith also deserves better,

d

-

I understand Amy. I'm extremely skeptical...of everything and everyone. I also hate absolutes. I like leaving myself outs. That said, there are things you can and must count on. Like it being cold in the winter and warm in the summer, that the sun will rise in the morning and set in the evening. That your employees will show up for work and your vendors will accept your check.

I am almost as confident of Amanda and Raffaele's innocence as I am all of these things. If they were an investment, I would buy their stock heavily. I've done my homework and see little or no chance that my investment isn't safe. It would be like buying US Treasury bonds so it's not going to keep me up at night.

 

[Samson]

Corruption comes in many forms platonov. It is rarely a spoken agreed upon conspiracy. It is more, you go along to get along. That people know where there bread is buttered. Group instead of independent thought. Noble corruption. Frankly, I can see how they suspected Amanda and Raffaele, even to the point of arresting them. But as the evidence fell apart, the Italians had invested their own credibility and refused to consider that they were very very wrong and change course. That is the corruption in this case. Nencini, is corrupt, but he did as the Italian Supreme court ordered him to do. And his absurd motivation is dumber than Massei's...much much dumber.

acbytesla, I really can't agree that their arrest was understandable. At least some of them must have realised that once separated for interrogation, their stories would line up better if guilty, particularly what they did on the night of the murder. Then they had the absence of evidence in the phone tappings and CCTV and motive. More investigation was obviously required.
But there is a factor I have not seen discussed, which is the obvious and total impossibility for either to imagine getting away with murder. It really does not happen where there is such intrinsic closeness to the scene and the victim. Investigating stranger Rudy as soon as Amanda mentioned him at 10 32pm would have been far more sensible.

 

[acbytesla]

-


-

Some people refer to this kind of police conspiracy as the "thin blue line" and has more collaborative evidence to back it up then three virtual strangers psychologically agreeing to kill one person, which involves a probability of happening on the same scale as someone getting three royal flushes in a row, in my opinion,

d

-

I see this murder scenario as absurd, naive and illogical.

It would be one thing if Patrick was the co-conspirator..(even though that is pretty ridiculous also.) Patrick at least knew Amanda somewhat and exchanged texts with her that night and other nights and there is an electronic trail.. But there is no connection to Rudy and you can't make one. You also can't get the science on the side of guilt. The guilters CANNOT explain Meredith's state of digestion. They cannot explain why Rudy's statements match her digestion and why Raffaele's computer has him downloading Naruto at the very same moment. They can't explain why Rudy's fingerprints and shoe prints are in Meredith's blood is all over the apartment and the same is not true for Amanda or Raffaele.

No one can explain a motive for Amanda or Raffaele, but you can understand why a man that broke into the cottage might kill someone that surprised him.

There is only one piece of evidence that gives me pause and that his Raffaele's supposed DNA on the bra clasp. It is unreasonable to find his DNA in that location.

The question is, how did it get there? Did Stefanoni manufacture this evidence against Raffaele? I don't know although I think it is highly possible. But whether the evidence is the result of a deliberate action of Stefanoni's or just the result of her sloppy work we will never know. But nothing about Stefanoni's work and testimony is credible. She proved she was a liar in court on multiple occasion and her test unrepeatable, even by her. Paramount to me is her refusal to provide he work product makes her reports and testimony to be untrustworthy.
So why

 

[acbytesla]

acbytesla, I really can't agree that their arrest was understandable. At least some of them must have realised that once separated for interrogation, their stories would line up better if guilty, particularly what they did on the night of the murder. Then they had the absence of evidence in the phone tappings and CCTV and motive. More investigation was obviously required.
But there is a factor I have not seen discussed, which is the obvious and total impossibility for either to imagine getting away with murder. It really does not happen where there is such intrinsic closeness to the scene and the victim. Investigating stranger Rudy as soon as Amanda mentioned him at 10 32pm would have been far more sensible.

Samson, if those shoe prints actually matched Raffaele's shoes, I'd believe in their guilt. I'd arrest them with that evidence in a heartbeat. The problem is that they didn't examine Raffaele's shoes before they arrested them. So while I disagree with their arrests at the time that they made them. I can seriously justify arresting them with the shoeprint evidence.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Can anyone confirm or refute this article from Andrea Vogt. Article

 

[AmyStrange]

All good points ac...

-

I see this murder scenario as absurd, naive and illogical.

It would be one thing if Patrick was the co-conspirator..(even though that is pretty ridiculous also.) Patrick at least knew Amanda somewhat and exchanged texts with her that night and other nights and there is an electronic trail.. But there is no connection to Rudy and you can't make one. You also can't get the science on the side of guilt. The guilters CANNOT explain Meredith's state of digestion. They cannot explain why Rudy's statements match her digestion and why Raffaele's computer has him downloading Naruto at the very same moment. They can't explain why Rudy's fingerprints and shoe prints are in Meredith's blood is all over the apartment and the same is not true for Amanda or Raffaele.

No one can explain a motive for Amanda or Raffaele, but you can understand why a man that broke into the cottage might kill someone that surprised him.

There is only one piece of evidence that gives me pause and that his Raffaele's supposed DNA on the bra clasp. It is unreasonable to find his DNA in that location.

The question is, how did it get there? Did Stefanoni manufacture this evidence against Raffaele? I don't know although I think it is highly possible. But whether the evidence is the result of a deliberate action of Stefanoni's or just the result of her sloppy work we will never know. But nothing about Stefanoni's work and testimony is credible. She proved she was a liar in court on multiple occasion and her test unrepeatable, even by her. Paramount to me is her refusal to provide he work product makes her reports and testimony to be untrustworthy.
So why

-

Although I agree with most of what you're saying (especially with L being involved being a better probability), I personally believe Rudy killing Meredith by accident is more probable than he did it on purpose, but that's my opinion.

I also believe the probabilities are higher that Raffaele's DNA (being on the bra-clasp) was a result of contamination, but it doesn't help Steffy's credibility (at all) that she didn't supply the electric data for her work and the fact that the bra-clasp was stored incorrectly (all this helps make your case that she somehow faked the clasp evidence a little more probable).

How can anyone believe her work is even remotely credible if she didn't even know how to store a freakin' bra-clasp. Both those things just scream deception on her part,

d

-

 

[Desert Fox]

Can anyone confirm or refute this article from Andrea Vogt. Article

I do not know if the book was ghost written or not. . . .
Assuming it is however, it shows that the Italian system is corrupt in that it does whatever possible to stifle free speach

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I do not know if the book was ghost written or not. . . .
Assuming it is however, it shows that the Italian system is corrupt in that it does whatever possible to stifle free speach

I never thought writing a book before the end of the legal process was prudent, anyway I’ll leave it to the sceptics here to howl at the moon.

 

[Desert Fox]

I never thought writing a book before the end of the legal process was prudent, anyway I’ll leave it to the sceptics here to howl at the moon.

That is garbage to be blunt. . . .Jesus, this case has been going on for seven years.
Beside, do you think the West Memphis Three could have afforded their defense without the HBO documentaries. Without those documentaries, Damon Echols would have been executed for a crime he did not commit and the others would still be incarcerated with no hope of ever getting out.

 

[moije2]

-


-

Although I agree with most of what you're saying (especially with L being involved being a better probability), I personally believe Rudy killing Meredith by accident is more probable than he did it on purpose, but that's my opinion.

I also believe the probabilities are higher that Raffaele's DNA (being on the bra-clasp) was a result of contamination, but it doesn't help Steffy's credibility (at all) that she didn't supply the electric data for her work and the fact that the bra-clasp was stored incorrectly (all this helps make your case that she somehow faked the clasp evidence a little more probable).

How can anyone believe her work is even remotely credible if she didn't even know how to store a freakin' bra-clasp. Both those things just scream deception on her part,

d

-

The fact that the bra clasp was stored improperly is irrefutable evidence of incompetence, and screams tampering or destruction of evidence that almost needs to be proven otherwise, IMO. Although I haven't seen a discussion of who exactly did the physical act of that storage. Perhaps an assistant or.. ? Either way, it was in her lab. That, to my understanding, was gross incompetence at best and creates an enormous cloud over all of her work.

Please tell me what a professional - even a not-a-real doctor - would do when presented with the highest profile case that darn near anybody would see in a lifetime. Would that person exercise just a little bit of extra time to thinking about what they are doing? Let me see now, the bra clasp is arguably the most important piece of evidence gathered. Should we cross our t's and dot all of our i's so that our work can stand up to scrutiny? Or perhaps they were not accustomed to even the possibility of such scrutiny and operated with relative impunity? Or perhaps it was early in the game and she didn't realize just how much attention would be given to her work. Does anyone have an idea of when the bra clasp was placed in storage? Within days or weeks or hours? Or much longer?

 

[moije2]

That is garbage to be blunt. . . .Jesus, this case has been going on for seven years.
Beside, do you think the West Memphis Three could have afforded their defense without the HBO documentaries. Without those documentaries, Damon Echols would have been executed for a crime he did not commit and the others would still be incarcerated with no hope of ever getting out.

In my opinion it was rather stupid to publish the book (or to even reveal it) prior to the final ISC decision. She got bad advice.

On the other hand, our favorite erudite and credentialed journalist Andrea Vogt has obviously used the wrong word to describe Gumbel. Ghostwriter? Huh? It has his name on the front of the book. Nothing ghost about it. So there is only one conclusion to be drawn. She was lying by trying to create something sinister, by saying that there was an unknown force behind the book. Must be evil, non? Now why would she do that? I can only conclude that it was by teological design. After all, where was she the night of the murder?

I will now go out and howl at the moon. Much more satifsfying than asking questions but having no opinions or thought process.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

In my opinion it was rather stupid to publish the book (or to even reveal it) prior to the final ISC decision. She got bad advice.

On the other hand, our favorite erudite and credentialed journalist Andrea Vogt has obviously used the wrong word to describe Gumbel. Ghostwriter? Huh? It has his name on the front of the book. Nothing ghost about it. So there is only one conclusion to be drawn. She was lying by trying to create something sinister, by saying that there was an unknown force behind the book. Must be evil, non? Now why would she do that? I can only conclude that it was by teological design. After all, where was she the night of the murder?

I will now go out and howl at the moon. Much more satifsfying than asking questions but having no opinions or thought process.

 

[codyjuneau]

.
Chris posted some quotes from Nencini which appear to have some translation errors that I have corrected below:

From pages 223-224 of the translation:

"Now, even if [we] wished to follow the same method of argument, we would have to conclude that a police operator, having picked up Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA elsewhere without noticing, had transferred it accidentally, but by some exceedingly selective manner, only onto the tip of the little hook, but not onto the adjacent cloth too, or onto other pieces of evidence that were collected during the search carried out on 18 December 2007 in the cottage (for example, the above-mentioned sweatshirt belonging to Meredith Kercher, on which was found only Rudy Hermann Guede’s DNA), which had definitely come into contact with that same forensic police operator."

'Now, even if [we] wished to follow the prosecutor's argument, we would be required to conclude that Raffaele, having participated in Meredith's violent and bloody murder, had transferred his DNA by some exceedingly selective manner, only onto the tip of the little hook, but not onto the adjacent cloth too, or onto other pieces of evidence that were collected during the search carried out on 18 December 2007 in the cottage (for example, the above-mentioned sweatshirt belonging to Meredith Kercher, on which was found only Rudy Hermann Guede’s DNA), which would definitely have come into contact with Raffaele Sollecito if he participated in the murder.'

Page 261:

"It is enough to read the conclusions reached by Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni in her technical report, page 208, cited earlier at length, to check that the word “only” is a term arbitrarily added by the court-appointed experts, since in the report submitted by Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni there is no trace of it. Thus there is no objective documentary confirmation of that which is written on page 142 of the Conti-Vecchiotti report."

'It is enough to read the conclusions reached by Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni in her technical report, page 208, cited earlier at length, to check that the word “only” is a term added by the court-appointed experts to make it clear that the report submitted by Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni deliberately withheld mentioning other DNA traces which were found on the bra clasp.'

"This makes it reasonable to find it plausible that the girl’s boyfriend could have also left his traces on the bra hook; it is also reasonable to hold that some other one of her girlfriends could have at some point touched the bra hook and left her DNA."

'This makes it unreasonable to determine guilt by taking wild guesses as to where or how those extra DNA traces came from'

p. 262:

"Essentially, in not very technical but maybe more expressive terms, it is possible that many hands touched that bra clasp, but the one that is important at trial is that of Raffaele Sollecito..."

'Essentially, in not very technical but maybe more expressive terms, it is possible that many hands touched that bra clasp, but the only ones that are important are the ones we have not identified, since they probably indicate contamination or evidence tampering unless proven otherwise by the prosecution.'

Cody
.

 

[Desert Fox]

In my opinion it was rather stupid to publish the book (or to even reveal it) prior to the final ISC decision. She got bad advice.

On the other hand, our favorite erudite and credentialed journalist Andrea Vogt has obviously used the wrong word to describe Gumbel. Ghostwriter? Huh? It has his name on the front of the book. Nothing ghost about it. So there is only one conclusion to be drawn. She was lying by trying to create something sinister, by saying that there was an unknown force behind the book. Must be evil, non? Now why would she do that? I can only conclude that it was by teological design. After all, where was she the night of the murder?

I will now go out and howl at the moon. Much more satifsfying than asking questions but having no opinions or thought process.

She has been ground through how many cases. . . .How do you think she is trying to afford it? That seems to also be part of the BS Italian system, grind somebody through cases until they run out of money. . . .

 

[AmyStrange]

Well done...

.
Chris posted some quotes from Nencini which appear to have some translation errors that I have corrected below:

From pages 223-224 of the translation:

"Now, even if [we] wished to follow the same method of argument, we would have to conclude that a police operator, having picked up Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA elsewhere without noticing, had transferred it accidentally, but by some exceedingly selective manner, only onto the tip of the little hook, but not onto the adjacent cloth too, or onto other pieces of evidence that were collected during the search carried out on 18 December 2007 in the cottage (for example, the above-mentioned sweatshirt belonging to Meredith Kercher, on which was found only Rudy Hermann Guede’s DNA), which had definitely come into contact with that same forensic police operator."

'Now, even if [we] wished to follow the prosecutor's argument, we would be required to conclude that Raffaele, having participated in Meredith's violent and bloody murder, had transferred his DNA by some exceedingly selective manner, only onto the tip of the little hook, but not onto the adjacent cloth too, or onto other pieces of evidence that were collected during the search carried out on 18 December 2007 in the cottage (for example, the above-mentioned sweatshirt belonging to Meredith Kercher, on which was found only Rudy Hermann Guede’s DNA), which would definitely have come into contact with Raffaele Sollecito if he participated in the murder.'

Page 261:

"It is enough to read the conclusions reached by Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni in her technical report, page 208, cited earlier at length, to check that the word “only” is a term arbitrarily added by the court-appointed experts, since in the report submitted by Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni there is no trace of it. Thus there is no objective documentary confirmation of that which is written on page 142 of the Conti-Vecchiotti report."

'It is enough to read the conclusions reached by Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni in her technical report, page 208, cited earlier at length, to check that the word “only” is a term added by the court-appointed experts to make it clear that the report submitted by Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni deliberately withheld mentioning other DNA traces which were found on the bra clasp.'

"This makes it reasonable to find it plausible that the girl’s boyfriend could have also left his traces on the bra hook; it is also reasonable to hold that some other one of her girlfriends could have at some point touched the bra hook and left her DNA."

'This makes it unreasonable to determine guilt by taking wild guesses as to where or how those extra DNA traces came from'

p. 262:

"Essentially, in not very technical but maybe more expressive terms, it is possible that many hands touched that bra clasp, but the one that is important at trial is that of Raffaele Sollecito..."

'Essentially, in not very technical but maybe more expressive terms, it is possible that many hands touched that bra clasp, but the only ones that are important are the ones we have not identified, since they probably indicate contamination or evidence tampering unless proven otherwise by the prosecution.'

Cody
.

-

I like the way you think cj,

d

-

 

[moije2]

She has been ground through how many cases. . . .How do you think she is trying to afford it? That seems to also be part of the BS Italian system, grind somebody through cases until they run out of money. . . .

Yes I understand and agree. Somewhat. Of course it is easy for me to do the Monday morning quarterbacking on that. I will say, that even at the time I was biting my nails a bit because the book in a way was a bit celebratory and before it was a fait accompli. And in fact it was not. I do think the money and everyone breathing down their back about debts and the now-is-the-time to cash in so as to pay those debts may have caused them to jump the gun a bit. But again, easy for me to say.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

The fact that the bra clasp was stored improperly is irrefutable evidence of incompetence, and screams tampering or destruction of evidence that almost needs to be proven otherwise, IMO. Although I haven't seen a discussion of who exactly did the physical act of that storage. Perhaps an assistant or.. ? Either way, it was in her lab. That, to my understanding, was gross incompetence at best and creates an enormous cloud over all of her work.

Please tell me what a professional - even a not-a-real doctor - would do when presented with the highest profile case that darn near anybody would see in a lifetime. Would that person exercise just a little bit of extra time to thinking about what they are doing? Let me see now, the bra clasp is arguably the most important piece of evidence gathered. Should we cross our t's and dot all of our i's so that our work can stand up to scrutiny? Or perhaps they were not accustomed to even the possibility of such scrutiny and operated with relative impunity? Or perhaps it was early in the game and she didn't realize just how much attention would be given to her work. Does anyone have an idea of when the bra clasp was placed in storage? Within days or weeks or hours? Or much longer?

-

I would look at it this way m. What happened to the bra-clasp during storage is that it became contaminated. That, in my opinion, is also irrefutable.

Which begs the next question I have which is, how can Steffy say with any certainty that it was not contaminated, when her actions ended up contaminating the clasp so badly that it can't be retested?

The answer obviously, in my opinion, is that her knowledge of contamination is probably equal to her knowledge of how to correctly store evidence, which is pretty close to nil, and thus her certainty about contamination is just as nil or just as certain as her knowledge of how to do proper storage.

In short, anything that comes out of her mouth should be discounted as unreliable, which should have resulted in her testimony being stricken from the record, including her testimony about the knife, in my opinion.

Which leaves me with one final question, what exactly is left to prove that Raffaele and Amanda are guilty? In my opinion, there is nothing left that even begins to climb the mountain of reasonable doubt that should have been (and should still be) the final result of these trials.

d

-

 

[acbytesla]

Yes I understand and agree. Somewhat. Of course it is easy for me to do the Monday morning quarterbacking on that. I will say, that even at the time I was biting my nails a bit because the book in a way was a bit celebratory and before it was a fait accompli. And in fact it was not. I do think the money and everyone breathing down their back about debts and the now-is-the-time to cash in so as to pay those debts may have caused them to jump the gun a bit. But again, easy for me to say.

There is nothing in Amanda's book that is all that controversial and nothing that hasn't been in her testimony or what she hasn't already said about the case. Most of the book really is about the time leading up to the murder and how she dealt with being in prison awaiting the nightmare to end.

 

[NancyS]

I never thought writing a book before the end of the legal process was prudent, anyway I’ll leave it to the sceptics here to howl at the moon.

I would agree that it probably wasn't the greatest decision - however, for someone who is apparently a self proclaimed objective observer, who has no opinion on their guilt/innocence - you are terribly rude about the people using this site.

 

[moije2]

-


-

I would look at it this way m. What happened to the bra-clasp during storage is that it became contaminated. That, in my opinion, is also irrefutable.

Which begs the next question I have which is, how can Steffy say with any certainty that it was not contaminated, when her actions ended up contaminating the clasp so badly that it can't be retested?

The answer obviously, in my opinion, is that her knowledge of contamination is probably equal to her knowledge of how to correctly store evidence, which is pretty close to nil, and thus her certainty about contamination is just as nil or just as certain as her knowledge of how to do proper storage.

In short, anything that comes out of her mouth should be discounted as unreliable, which should have resulted in her testimony being stricken from the record, including her testimony about the knife, in my opinion.

Which leaves me with one final question, what exactly is left to prove that Raffaele and Amanda are guilty? In my opinion, there is nothing left that even begins to climb the mountain of reasonable doubt that should have been (and should still be) the final result of these trials.

d

-

Well said!