Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

But why must be there be a specific piece of evidence of Amanda Knox that must be located inside the murder room? You ask for something that is completely unnecessary. This "locating" a piece of evidence from a specific person inside a room makes no sense. Evidence is a logical concept, it is not an object located within a small space.

What?? You want to prosecute her for murder with a burden of proof that is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and you can't find evidence of her presence in the room where the murder was committed? Evidence that is real, physical, locatable, identifiable? You may argue logically from the evidence but not without it. She must be there! Where is she?? What about Locard's exchange principle?

 

[Kaosium]

Evidence proves things wherever you find it. If you find a reliable witness who lives in Australia, it's called evidence.

The problem is that all that 'proves' is that Amanda lived there and/or was one of the ones who discovered the murder. That was already known!

Not finding her presence in the murder room is highly suggestive she wasn't in the murder room at the time and all the proof she lived there doesn't overcome that obstacle.

 

[Kaosium]

I don't know if it was Matteini but certainly the Investigating Judge was wiretapping and investigating a lot of people on this case since the early days, they included all the downstairs young man, but also people like Juve and Daniel were investigated, also the boyfriends of Filomena and Laura. A lot of people were "suspects" in this sense.

My guess is that was Matteini. Billy Ryan was right, she was up to this in her eyebrows and is definitely a forgotten villain in this case.

 

[Kaosium]

And so, where's the problem?

Can't you understand that. even in the Appeal, the calculation of the discount is still applied (calculated based on) to the theoretical, so called edittale, penalty that the defendant would have got under a regular procedure, and NOT to the term to which he was convicted at the first instance?
Do you understand that the calculation always starts from "life", and not from 30 years, because "life" is the edittale penalty, no matter if he had got 30 years on his first instance? The generic mitigation is a calculation based on the code, not on what he got in another instance of the trial.

No, I guess I can't understand it. I surrender!

 

[Machiavelli]

What evidence is there specifically of Amanda Knox's presence in Ms Kercher's room?

And if you want to play an "evidence location" game, where is evidence of Rudy Guede in the alleged "break in" room?

I suppose you assume Filomena's room is the crime scene, since if there was an actual break in and attemped burglary, the murderer must have been there.

It is also a room in which Amanda Knox did not live, it's a part of the house where she was not supposed to be, she wouldn't go in that room, exactly like Meredith's room.

So you have a crime scene (Filomena's room) that has no trace, no shoeprints or fingerprints or DNA of Rudy Guede, and should have no DNA trace of Amanda Knox, and neither of Meredith Kercher; but what's there instead? There are luminol stains that yield a mixed DNA trace, Knox + victim.
So we have the crime scene where you have Knox's DNA mixed with Meredith's DNA in the same spot. And what's in this spot? There is a substance that reacts to luminol. There are only few isolated latent luminol stains in that whole apartment. That substance is luminol reactive exactly like the substance that you have on those prints that match Knox's foot in the corridoor in the area of the house between the bathroom and Knox's room, the area around the murder room, and three of those prints are in Knox's room. The luminol substance is information that also relates to Knox and to Meredith, not just their DNA mixed in two spot on the crime scene.

 

[Kauffer]

And if you want to play an "evidence location" game, where is evidence of Rudy Guede in the alleged "break in" room?

I suppose you assume Filomena's room is the crime scene, since if there was an actual break in and attemped burglary, the murderer must have been there.

It is also a room in which Amanda Knox did not live, it's a part of the house where she was not supposed to be, she wouldn't go in that room, exactly like Meredith's room.

So you have a crime scene (Filomena's room) that has no trace, no shoeprints or fingerprints or DNA of Rudy Guede, and should have no DNA trace of Amanda Knox, and neither of Meredith Kercher; but what's there instead? There are luminol stains that yield a mixed DNA trace, Knox + victim.
So we have the crime scene where you have Knox's DNA mixed with Meredith's DNA in the same spot. And what's in this spot? There is a substance that reacts to luminol. There are only few isolated latent luminol stains in that whole apartment. That substance is luminol reactive exactly like the substance that you have on those prints that match Knox's foot in the corridoor in the area of the house between the bathroom and Knox's room, the area around the murder room, and three of those prints are in Knox's room. The luminol substance is information that also relates to Knox and to Meredith, not just their DNA mixed in two spot on the crime scene.

Time and time again the PG community wants to take the discussion out of Meredith Kercher's bedroom. Of course it does! I understand that. We even get dragged outside in the cold to Curatalo's bench. These PG arguments are well rehearsed and have been dealt with. I want to stay in the room. Because if you cannot place Amanda Knox in the room, committing the murder with all that blood spatter and all that violence then you have nothing. You want to argue that there are minute traces of blood in latent prints in the hall? Fine. Then you should have no trouble finding prints in the bloodbath in the bedroom. But if not that, then something.

 

[Machiavelli]

What?? You want to prosecute her for murder with a burden of proof that is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and you can't find evidence of her presence in the room where the murder was committed? Evidence that is real, physical, locatable, identifiable? You may argue logically from the evidence but not without it. She must be there! Where is she?? What about Locard's exchange principle?

But absolutely not. You don't need to find a physical object located in the murder room that relate to the murderer. Well, actually you have also a physical object related to Knox, you have her lamp inside the room, but it's not necessary to have certain physical things located somewhere specifically in order to derive precise and certain information.

The autopsy report, for example, is unequivocably physical evidence and something related to the physical place where the murder was committed, whoever caused the wounds was on the crime scene.
The autopsy report, when crossed with the DNA information and blood stain pattern, unequivocally points to deduce there were multiple perpetrators.
So there is unequivocal physical evidence that multiple people took part to the crime, not just Guede alone. There isn't a specific shoeprint that you can match to these people (albeit there are several unknown shoeprints), there aren't many instances of DNA profiles that can be tracked to specific suspects (there are four DNA profiles that can be matched to Guede, but one of them is a merely compatible a Y-haplotype and others are minuscule and incomplete, smaller than the knife blade DNA, and there is one that can be matched to Sollecito, it is has a complete two profile sets autosomic + Y chromosome), the total amount of DNA found is very small, yet the murderers must have done a lot of things in that room.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...) Because if you cannot place Amanda Knox in the room, committing the murder with all that blood spatter and all that violence then you have nothing. (...)

This is complete BS. It is so irrational that doesn't deserve a comment.

 

[Wattson]

But why must be there be a specific piece of evidence of Amanda Knox that must be located inside the murder room? You ask for something that is completely unnecessary. This "locating" a piece of evidence from a specific person inside a room makes no sense. Evidence is a logical concept, it is not an object located within a small space.

I'm speechless. This is why I would not waste 8 seconds of my life arguing with you. It's blatantly obvious to me that you have an agenda and it has nothing to do with the truth.

 

[Desert Fox]

But absolutely not. You don't need to find a physical object located in the murder room that relate to the murderer. Well, actually you have also a physical object related to Knox, you have her lamp inside the room, but it's not necessary to have certain physical things located somewhere specifically in order to derive precise and certain information.

The autopsy report, for example, is unequivocably physical evidence and something related to the physical place where the murder was committed, whoever caused the wounds was on the crime scene.
The autopsy report, when crossed with the DNA information and blood stain pattern, unequivocally points to deduce there were multiple perpetrators.
So there is unequivocal physical evidence that multiple people took part to the crime, not just Guede alone. There isn't a specific shoeprint that you can match to these people (albeit there are several unknown shoeprints), there aren't many instances of DNA profiles that can be tracked to specific suspects (there are four DNA profiles that can be matched to Guede, but one of them is a merely compatible a Y-haplotype and others are minuscule and incomplete, smaller than the knife blade DNA, and there is one that can be matched to Sollecito, it is has a complete two profile sets autosomic + Y chromosome), the total amount of DNA found is very small, yet the murderers must have done a lot of things in that room.

Can you repeat more stuff that has been refuted in a single post?

 

[Kaosium]

And if you want to play an "evidence location" game, where is evidence of Rudy Guede in the alleged "break in" room?

Inside Meredith, on her clothes, purse, pillow and all over the floor. Oh, wait, that's the murder room. Nevermind.

I suppose you assume Filomena's room is the crime scene, since if there was an actual break in and attemped burglary, the murderer must have been there.

No one knows for sure if there was evidence of Rudy Guede in that room, except of course the broken window which required a fairly athletic person to climb. There's another reason I'd like a look at that raw data besides contamination and that's to look at the ~50 RFU level on samples taken from that room.

It is also a room in which Amanda Knox did not live, it's a part of the house where she was not supposed to be, she wouldn't go in that room, exactly like Meredith's room.

She might have, she lived there. She also was at the discovery and went into that room upon her return to the cottage from Raffaele's. Her DNA could also have been transported there by any number of people who were walking around that cottage which includes Raffaele, Filomena, the two guys who were with her, the Postales and of course the dozen or so forensic technicians who were going from room to room and hall to room without changing their booties. There's no logical connection between the window and that stain either, the latter is just as you walk in the door.

So you have a crime scene (Filomena's room) that has no trace, no shoeprints or fingerprints or DNA of Rudy Guede, and should have no DNA trace of Amanda Knox, and neither of Meredith Kercher; but what's there instead? There are luminol stains that yield a mixed DNA trace, Knox + victim.

From a completely trashed crime scene which has no evidential value regardless. There's no way of pretending those traces came from the murder or afterward and no reason to think there was a struggle in that room that would have increased the probability traces would be left.

So we have the crime scene where you have Knox's DNA mixed with Meredith's DNA in the same spot. And what's in this spot? There is a substance that reacts to luminol. There are only few isolated latent luminol stains in that whole apartment. That substance is luminol reactive exactly like the substance that you have on those prints that match Knox's foot in the corridoor in the area of the house between the bathroom and Knox's room, the area around the murder room, and three of those prints are in Knox's room. The luminol substance is information that also relates to Knox and to Meredith, not just their DNA mixed in two spot on the crime scene.

You have a grossly contaminated scene on the other side of the house from the murder room with no connection between the two. Here's a reminder of how the Polizia Scientifica trashed that place and tore it apart when they were done with the only forensic investigation with any merit whatsoever. It is laughable to pretend that scene has any forensic integrity left to it.

Peter Gill's book is just the start, this 'investigation' will go down as an example for posterity of how not to do forensic work, the DNA guys just got published first. Do not be terribly surprised if a few years from now they're showing these pictures at Quantico complete with a laugh track.

 

[griffinmill]

What Mach does here is heroic. I cannot imagine anyone wasting time fighting with 15 people who have perfected a gymnastics of the facts, but he does it, and I'm grateful to read it.

 

[acbytesla]

Evidence proves things wherever you find it. If you find a reliable witness who lives in Australia, it's called evidence.

Meaningless crap is not evidence.

 

[Dan O.]

Do you have a cite for Napoleone testimony about Guede?

Napoleone's testimony is in the transcript for 2009-01-28. I found this bit or interest:

Answer - Well, it was found Certainly the DNA of Rudy Guede That was in the pillow under the victim in the paper toilet with feces in the bathroom and in the vaginal swab but I do not know if it was in any case they call chromosome DNA y I'm not a biologist, I can not report on this.​

ETA: Napoleone's testimony here says it is a continuation from the previous day 2009-02-27. But the transcript for that date only has Profazio and Chiacchiera... Begining at 9:45 am and ending with the president declaring suspension to 9am the next day.

 

[anglolawyer]

Without warrant? If there is an order or an authorization from an investigating judge, the law enforcement indeed can enter private houses under cover, wiretap conversations, violate privacy of mail.
Actually, the penal code even acknowledges that the police may be authorized by an investigating judge to commit crimes. By an order or authorization of the Investigating Judge the Judicial Police may do illegal things like sell drugs, disseminate pedo-pornography, falsify documents and so on, within boundaries of security, if deemed useful for investigations.
A prosecution order is not enough, there must be an authorization from Investigating Judge. The Investigating Judge is the office that has these power, Matteini and Micheli are investigating judges.

So, was there an authorisation on this occasion? If the answer is affirmative other questions will follow.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Machiavelli reported that she did ask for the EDFs

griffinmill,

You wrote, "So do you not question that Bongiorno didn't ask for them [the EDFs] in front of Nencini?" Perhaps you missed message #78, which quotes a comment from Mach back in continuation thread 6. Mach assures us that she did ask for them

 

[anglolawyer]

But absolutely not. You don't need to find a physical object located in the murder room that relate to the murderer. Well, actually you have also a physical object related to Knox, you have her lamp inside the room, but it's not necessary to have certain physical things located somewhere specifically in order to derive precise and certain information.

snip

No you don't.

 

[Machiavelli]

So, was there an authorisation on this occasion? If the answer is affirmative other questions will follow.

I never checked, never investigated the issue. I don't know. I only presume that, if there was a cover entry to place bugs, there must have been an authorization. I would see it as something normal. I would need evidence in order to state it was illegal.

 

[carbonjam72]

Originally Posted by carbonjam72
(...)
The question I raised with you Mach, is that if all three participated in a gang-style type sexual assault and murder as you believe, then why IN THE ROOM WHERE THE SEXUAL ASSAULT AND MURDER OCCURRED, is there only one set of footprints? (...)

No. There are still several other shoeprints inside the murder room. Besides the disputed shoeprints on the pillowcase, there is a number of other shoeprints, some of small size, which belong to shoes that were not found inside the apartment.

Quote: CJ72:
This question is the heart of the matter. I don't see any alternative but to conclude that no one else was present at the violent crime in that small bloody room, involved in a life and death struggle on that well saturated blood soaked floor.

MACH: This reasoning makes no sense. There is actually only one shoeprint clearly attributable to Guede in the murder room, at least there is no trail of prints that belong to Guede.
The only shoeprints in blood attributable to Guede are only one trail, almost all outside the murder room, and just walking away going straight out of the house.
But the murderer or murderers must have done tens or dozens or maybe hundreds of steps inside the murder room. Where are they? Simply, the fact is most of the time people do not leave shoeprints or footprints. Not even murderers. Especially not murderers who attempt to carefully alter and clean up parts of the scene.

Quote: CJ72:
Be honest Mach, you know Amanda and Raf are innocent. You too smart a guy not to know it.

MACH: Don't be ridiculous.

MACH, The issue is not latent footprints inside the room where Meredith was killed, but the presence of footprints made in Meredith's blood in Meredith's room, as they must have been made at the same time that Meredith's throat was slashed during her violent murder.
There is only one set of footprints in blood in the room where Meredith was killed. That is the relevant point.

In addition, Raf's defense team found evidence of semen stains in one of those same footprints, and also a fragment of glass in the footprints - supporting the claim that the break-in occurred before the murder - as jusge Hellman flawlessly reasoned.

Without going off on irrelevant side-trackings, the absence of more than one set of footprints - in blood - in Meredith's room, estanlishes there was only one person there making footprints while Meredith's blood was wet. In other words, just one killer. Rudy Guede has admitted the footprints are his. There's no one else left. Rudy Guede killed Meredith Kercher all by himself.

I have hilighted, italicized, bolded, and underlined your last paragraph, because it is, as we say here in the US, the whole ball of wax. You assume there were multiple attackers, and then ask where are their footprints. Rather than observing there is only one set of footprints, and therefore concluding there is only one murderer. Your reasoning is plainly circular, biased, and irrational on this point.
As to the autopsy, if I recall correctly, 6 out of 7 experts testified in court that the injuries were consistent with a single attacker. So again, go back to the evidence: one set of footprints in blood in the room where Meredith was killed - only one murderer. There is no other rational conclusion.

It is sheer madness to steal the lives of two innocent young people just to avoid admitting that Mignini, the police, the judges, the tabloids, the honestly misled, and the deranged guilter cranks, have simply all made a mistake. What you and so many others have done, and continue to do, to two innocent people, contrary to all reason, is shameful and appalling.

 

[carbonjam72]

Napoleone's testimony is in the transcript for 2009-01-28. I found this bit or interest:

Answer - Well, it was found Certainly the DNA of Rudy Guede That was in the pillow under the victim in the paper toilet with feces in the bathroom and in the vaginal swab but I do not know if it was in any case they call chromosome DNA y I'm not a biologist, I can not report on this.​

Thanks DANO, much appreciated. But I am certain Napoleone states that Guede was familiar to the police from burglaries in Perugia before the Kercher murder. I'll try to dig it out, but would be great if someone knows what I'm referring to and has it handy-