Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
anglolawyer said:
I have a theory, a real one. My theory is that you can't investigate a complicated crime scene like this one unless you have a theory. A theory that guides what you take an interest in and what not. It might be provisional. In fact, it should be provisional.

.........................

Whoever emptied the wardrobe and tossed everything on the bed in a great mass (after taking the mattress to the kitchen) and removed the doors and propped them against the wall - had a theory. What the heck was it? What was the theory that relegated the clothes she was wearing to the laundry basket and the handbag from which things were stolen to the jumbled pile of stuff on the bed?

Whoever ignored the lamp, not giving it an identifying marker or photographing it properly or fingerprinting or otherwise testing it likewise had a theory. Whoever (OK, we know who) applied luminol to the hallway but not in the victim's room had a theory too. Shouldn't there have been traces in the room leading to the door?

Maybe her theory was: any old random crap will do as I am told they know who did it and am being leaned on to come up with something, just like before when my theory led me to test just two knives but not bother with any of those in the flat itself or at Lumumba's place. But there has to be one.
Click to expand...
It is clear that the PLE for reasons good or bad (my bet is bad) ruled out at the scene on Nov 2 a break-in through Filomena's window. Other than a cursory look, and collection of anecdotes (Battistelli: "This is no burglary.") they didn't see fit to investigate the break-in through that window. Not really. Heck, even an anonymous guilt lobbier named Kermit in 2011 had to put together what he said was the definitive reason why the break-in never happened.... one would naturally guess that the PLE had done this in 2007....

Maybe there is forensic reason not to, but maybe all that needed to happen was for Napoleoni to go up to one of the younger lookie-loos at the scene, and say: "Kid, go over there and see if you can get up to that window."

That would have saved Channel 5 the bother six years later.

That this was not done, is this indication early on that investigative lines were being ignored/fixated upon as early as Nov 2?
 
Last edited:
a hypothesis that just doesn't wash

tsig said:
Let's see, Amanda used turnip juice to cover her bloody tracks. Or maybe there were killer turnips that came thru the window and did the dirty deed.

Whatever, turnips loom large in the innocence bag.
Click to expand...
To the best of my knowledge, no PI-commenter has ever said that the foot tracks were made in turnip juice. The fact that the PG-commenter keeps putting words into the mouths of PI-commenters is one of many pieces of evidence of the deep intellectual dishonesty of the PG-commentariat. The PI-commenters have provided many problems with the hypothesis that the tracks were made in blood just within the last few days of this thread, and the PG-commenters run away from honest debate like scared children in a Halloween Haunted House.
 
Kauffer said:
This is Clive Stafford-Smith talking about the concept of 'reasonable doubt'. Have a look and listen and then come back to us and let us know whether you'd like to revise anything you've said today.

When I am certain my client is innocent
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_mQ1HaZxhk

Once again I remind you that Dershowitz does not believe Ms Knox is guilty.
Click to expand...

I wondered about that. I had seen him on CNN or some such thing, and he seemed to be commenting on why he thought AMERICANS thought of her as innocent. He went on about the things Supercal mentions.

However, he did not discuss evidence or his own thoughts on the merits of the case.

Darn you Kauffer - now I'm going to look for that one CNN thing....
 
Chris_Halkides said:
To the best of my knowledge, no PI-commenter has ever said that the foot tracks were made in turnip juice. The fact that the PG-commenter keeps putting words into the mouths of PI-commenters is one of many pieces of evidence of the deep intellectual dishonesty of the PG-commentariat. The PI-commenters have provided many problems with the hypothesis that the tracks were made in blood just within the last few days of this thread, and the PG-commenters run away from honest debate like scared children in a Halloween Haunted House.
Click to expand...

Hilited what passes for honest debate.
 
tsig said:
Hilited what passes for honest debate.
Click to expand...
tsig,

Here are some of the questions that the PG-commenters have ignored or glossed over in the last few days alone:
Why is Meredith's DNA absent from the majority of the luminol-positive areas?
Why was no confirmatory test done?
Why did the luminol-positive areas test negative by TMB?
Why do some jurisdictions not even allow luminol evidence into the courtroom without supporting information, while others allow it in but acknowledge that luminol is only presumptive?
What evidence rules out iron, manganese, or other transition metal ions as the source of the luminol reactivity?
What errors did Virkler and Lednev make in their conclusion?
Who made Rep. 180? If it is Amanda's track, then why doesn't the second toe match? If it is not Amanda's track, then what reason is there to suppose that the substance in question is blood?
Why are there only right feet? When and how were the tracks made?

I don't doubt that there are other questions. Let the honest debate begin.
 
A further note...
My own strong interest in this case only began with the publicity in January, 2014, following the Nencini court (the new 2nd level trial) conviction of AK and RS. Since both had been acquitted on the same evidence by the 1st 2nd level trial, and AK was in the US, the question of her 5th amendment rights v. extradition was prominent. Supposed legal experts pronounced opposing views on this in the media.

I began some research on US extradition law. I looked into what the case was all about.

I heard Dershowitz's comments and tried to understand his view. After additional reading I concluded he had not fully and clearly expressed all that was known about the evidence and its total lack of reliability. Some effort is required to follow the issues with the DNA evidence.
 
Bill Williams said:
I wondered about that. I had seen him on CNN or some such thing, and he seemed to be commenting on why he thought AMERICANS thought of her as innocent. He went on about the things Supercal mentions.

However, he did not discuss evidence or his own thoughts on the merits of the case.

Darn you Kauffer - now I'm going to look for that one CNN thing....
Click to expand...

"The truth is it's a very close case. There's a lot of evidence of guilt, there's some evidence of innocence. On balance, it's more likely than not that she did, but there's not enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/alan-dershowitz-amanda-knox-murder-trial/2014/01/31/id/550244/
 
Dershowitz is a fence-sitter, as talking heads for hire who love publicity tend to be. He's the US version of Piers "Morgan" Moron and his "Amanda knows more than she's telling us" line. Hedging their bets.
 
Numbers said:
A further note...
My own strong interest in this case only began with the publicity in January, 2014, following the Nencini court (the new 2nd level trial) conviction of AK and RS. Since both had been acquitted on the same evidence by the 1st 2nd level trial, and AK was in the US, the question of her 5th amendment rights v. extradition was prominent. Supposed legal experts pronounced opposing views on this in the media.

I began some research on US extradition law. I looked into what the case was all about.

I heard Dershowitz's comments and tried to understand his view. After additional reading I concluded he had not fully and clearly expressed all that was known about the evidence and its total lack of reliability. Some effort is required to follow the issues with the DNA evidence.
Click to expand...

Dershowitz was trying to sell a book and this was topic of the moment. He hadn't done his homework and made some embarrassing remarks.

Interesting what you say about 5th amendment rights; it is a complex question in this case. For me, it's Ms Knox's 6th amendment rights that have been so egregiously trampled. You could almost have written the 6th amendment as a response to her treatment. It fits so well.
 
Kauffer said:
Dershowitz was trying to sell a book and this was topic of the moment. He hadn't done his homework and made some embarrassing remarks.

Interesting what you say about 5th amendment rights; it is a complex question in this case. For me, it's Ms Knox's 6th amendment rights that have been so egregiously trampled. You could almost have written the 6th amendment as a response to her treatment. It fits so well.
Click to expand...

Yes, on the 6th and the 5th. But she did not have those rights in Italy; she had rights granted by the Italian Constitution and the ECHR (Convention and case-law). It is those rights which so far have been egregiously violated.

A question for extradition, then, is whether someone should be extradited if the requesting country's process was a violation of fundamental rights in that country.

Another question for extradition is whether someone whose actual innocence can be strongly argued may be extradited, since the US may only arrest a person on "probable cause."

ETA: 4th amendment, certainly on the 2nd Q, probably also the 1st Q
 
Last edited:
I have been reading Nencini. I am at the part where he lists the numerous defence requests for further enquiry and testing and dismisses them all. I found this interesting:

With regard to the request for a reexamination of Exhibit 165B and the performance of a new genetic test, the impossibility of repeating this action, [29] even if considered necessary for the purpose of the decision, can be derived from the observation that the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia had already made this request of the court-appointed experts, who reported to the Court that it was not possible to perform another such examination because of the poor preservation of the Exhibit (see page 87 of the sentence of the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia); and this was done, however, without the Defense consultants making any objection. So, unless one has to consider the legal experts appointed by the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia and the consultants of the parties as being incompetent professionals for neglecting genetic traces useful for the further examinations requested of them by the Judge - and this would then cast doubt on the reliability of every scientific statement made by them in the trial – this Court must conclude that it is objectively impossible to repeat the examination because a piece of evidence is not properly conserved and the material necessary for performing the examination cannot be extracted;
Click to expand...
That's an illuminating dichotomy, is it not? What happens when it's applied to Stefanoni? Should one not also disregard entirely the evidence of the incompetent professional who destroyed the evidence in the first place?
 
Chris_Halkides said:
It is even more incongruous when one recalls that the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission was the first of its kind in the US. Supercal, a word to the wise: Don't be dismissive of UNC-Chapel Hill while chatting with Mr. Stafford-Smith.
Click to expand...

That is after all the university where one of the premier experts in New Testament studies teaches.
 
anglolawyer said:
That's an illuminating dichotomy, is it not? What happens when it's applied to Stefanoni? Should one not also disregard entirely the evidence of the incompetent professional who destroyed the evidence in the first place?
Click to expand...


Everything I've read where the judges have responded to defence requests seem to amount to, "well that sounds like a lot of work".
 
anglolawyer said:
I have been reading Nencini. I am at the part where he lists the numerous defence requests for further enquiry and testing and dismisses them all. I found this interesting:


That's an illuminating dichotomy, is it not? What happens when it's applied to Stefanoni? Should one not also disregard entirely the evidence of the incompetent professional who destroyed the evidence in the first place?
Click to expand...

Is he saying that it's the defense consultants' fault that Stefanoni destroyed the clasp because the defense consultants failed to object to her destruction of the clasp? LOL.
 
Diocletus said:
Is he saying that it's the defense consultants' fault that Stefanoni destroyed the clasp because the defense consultants failed to object to her destruction of the clasp? LOL.
Click to expand...

Apparently someone must be held accountable.
 
lonepinealex said:
Everything I've read where the judges have responded to defence requests seem to amount to, "well that sounds like a lot of work".
Click to expand...
It's worth reading the list of rejections and their reasons.

Diocletus said:
Is he saying that it's the defense consultants' fault that Stefanoni destroyed the clasp because the defense consultants failed to object to her destruction of the clasp? LOL.
Click to expand...
He seems to be being very arch (does that compute in American?).

Oh sure, of course you can have a new test on something the so-called 'independent' so-called 'experts' missed, so long as we all agree that the result is to brand them as incompetent so as to render everything they said worthless! Not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom