Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

This is probably want you read?

p23

Q: Listen when you had identified him from the palm prints of the hand did you then do some checks to see who he was, not just where he lived, but if he worked, if he had a criminal record, checks of this type?
A: Obviously we went to his house to search it once he had been identified, therefore of course we identified him and we did other checks, all of it to see if he had… He didn’t have a criminal record, but run-ins with the law, in other words he had been investigated without arrest for other offenses.
Q: For what?
A: For theft I believe, burglary, things of that nature.

He didn’t have a criminal record, but run-ins with the law, in other words he had been investigated without arrest for other offenses.
Q: For what?
A: For theft I believe, burglary, things of that nature.
It is not credible that the Kercher family hold Amanda responsible. They should be charged alongside Mignini and Maresca with obstruction of justice.

 

[Samson]

Teina Pora will be exonerated in the next two days for a murder he did not commit. There was no dna or forensic evidence linking him to the crime. He made a false statement linking himself to the murder scene, persuaded that he could receive a cash reward that would assist him supporting a newborn child. A year later a serial rapist was convicted for the crime. He always acted alone.

Rudy Guede always acted alone.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

This is complete and utter nonsense.

In fact, the autopsy report is entirely consistent with a sole assailant. The wounds are entirely compatible with being inflicted by (and in reality were logically inflicted by) just one knife - a short, narrow-bladed knife. A knife of exactly the type of profile that was found imprinted in Kercher's blood on the bed sheet......

The DNA on Sollecito's knife and the bra clasp are entirely unreliable and should therefore be totally discounted. I have no idea what is meant by the "blood stain pattern", and how on Earth this could possibly point to an "unequivocal deduction" of multiple attackers.

The truth about the matter is this: the prosecutors decided - seemingly on the basis of their own whims/prejudices and their a priori theory of the crime - that things would necessarily have looked very different had Guede been the sole attacker. They decided that if Guede had been the sole attacker, Kercher would necessarily have fought hard against him, and would therefore have had defensive wounds on hands/arms/etc. They also decided that Kercher "must" have been totally restrained (at least by both arms) at the time of the stabbings, meaning that at least one other person had to have been present to do the restraining when the stabbings occurred. And lastly, of course, they decided that Sollecito's kitchen knife was used, but knew that this knife couldn't have caused one of the wounds, so they necessarily decided that there were at least two knives used - ergo at least two attackers.

All of this is utterly bogus and improper "reasoning". It's based on nothing more than baseless conjecture, prejudice and confirmation bias. Historical hard evidence shows that it's entirely possible for a single menacing attacker, who is stronger than the victim and armed with a deadly weapon, to force the victim into a state of passive compliance. This matter has been discussed and dealt with here several times before.

So, in fact, the autopsy evidence and all the other credible evidence is wholly compatible with Guede, as the sole attacker, threatening Kercher into compliance (possibly using the well-worn technique along the lines of "if you struggle or shout, I will kill you with this sharp knife, but if you do what I say and keep quiet, I won't hurt you"), such that things ended up with her on all fours and Guede behind/on top of her with his knife held to her throat with one hand. Then, at some point and for some reason (I believe it was when Guede initiated a sexual assault), Kercher struggled and probably screamed out, precipitating the knife wounds (which were all made with the same single knife - Guede's knife).

 

[Diocletus]

How do you know she didn't? There's no transcripts for her closing arguments.

All of this is covered in the 2010 and 2014 appeal documents btw.

As a matter of fact, I do recall the suppressed evidence being raised by the Sollecito defense to nencini. It wasn't bongoiorno, though, it was the other lawyer, I think from Bari.

 

[lonepinealex]

From an Italian journalist...


" AMANDA AND RAFFAELE, SEVEN YEARS OF INJUSTICE

The 2nd November 2007 was a clear bright day like today. Amanda Knox was twenty years old and was happy, while she crossed Piazza Grimana square and arrived at via della Pergola, in Perugia. She had left her new boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, sleeping in bed in the small apartment on Corso Garibaldi and was returning to the little isolated villa that she shared with her friends Meredith, Filomena and Laura. The young American girl from Seattle, in Italy for just a little more than one month, didn’t know that from that moment she would soon enter into a dark tunnel of horror, made up of blood, absurd accusations, bogus evidence, violence, psychological pressure, deception, mass media lynching, years of imprisonment, conviction, acquittal and then conviction again. She didn’t imagine that the poor, oblivious Raffaele was about to end up with her in that deadly grip.

The recounting by the mass media of the court proceedings for the murder of poor Meredith Kercher and the convictions of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is an embarrassment for Italian justice and is a black page for the Italian and English newspapers. Rarely in a civilized country has one seen so many errors, so much bullying, abuse, so many lies communicated to the media and published without a minimum of critical corroboration. Two normal kids were depicted as despicable people, condemned in the media, trapped by inexistent evidence and thrown in prison for four years like murderers. Only a courageous verdict delivered in 2011 by Judge Hellmann allowed the two unfortunates to leave prison, but their ordeal was not over. With a new, paradoxical decision, in which they unduly entered into the merits of the case, the Supreme Court annulled the acquittal in 2013. And indeed it ordered a new conviction, challenging all logic, which was promptly provided by the Assize Court of Appeal of Florence in January of this year.

In the meantime, the real, sole murderer of Meredith, Rudy Guede, saw his conviction reduced from thirty to only sixteen years of imprisonment, thanks to his accusations against Amanda Knox, the real victim of this abhorrent witch hunt. And thanks to his opportunistic legal choices, he could leave prison already this year.

Italy has one last chance to close with dignity this small despicable story. The Supreme Court will decide next March 25th. The outlook is not at all good, it’s useless to hide it. It’s clear that the truth about Meredith Kercher’s death is of very little importance. Everyone knows that it was only Rudy Guede that murdered her. All that counts is the reputation of the lousy investigators and many journalists, who abandoned their duty towards critique and truth to obtain a few miserable and slanderous scoops. But above all else, at this point there is a whole system at stake, that has chosen to protect itself and the careers of police, judges and journalists. If they continue to ignore the awful error made, convicting Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for a murder which they are not responsible for, the system will perhaps save itself, but the life of two innocents will be sacrificed. If they will have the courage to admit the error, perhaps it will be necessary to apologize, but we will have shown, despite everything, to still be a civilized country."

Do you have a link to this?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Nencini's fecklessness

Not sure what to make of your link. What is known, absolutely, is that Bongiorno didn't raise the issues of EDF's or "raw data" in front of Nencini during her final address to the court.

If the defense, as this website contends, believed such crucial exonerating evidence was being withheld, I would imagine her final statement would rail against that injustice. Instead, she doesn't mention it even one time.

griffinmill,

Machiavelli wrote, "She explained the defence may need them because "they may allow us to prove the contamination process" (one among their 15 requests).
Nencini rejected, agreeing with PG Crini that they appear to be useles for the purpose of proving the contamination process."

Whether she asked for them during the trial or during the closing remarks is not finally the point. The defense did not have them in 2013, almost six years after the crime, despite the fact that experts who were willing to consult for the defense wanted to see them (as I documented again here less than a week ago). Nencini's refusal shows the he either knows nothing or wants to know nothing about DNA profiling: the EDFs would contain the negative controls in their most useful state. More generally arguments of the form, "If x is so important, why didn't the defense do y," are a type of argument from personal incredulity and are singularly unconvincing and thus par for the course for the PG commenters.

EDT
Diocletus,

But did the lawyer from Bari raise the point at the very end of his closing remarks? Otherwise, it couldn't have been very important.

 

[Machiavelli]

What is incredible here, Machiavelli, is that you've just acquitted both Amanda and Rudy.

The real difference is that Judge Nencini says that the condition of Filomena's room matched Rudy's known M.O. So you are picking and choosing what you wish to believe from Judge Nencini.

And you are pressing the reset button on the issue of luminol, a presumptive test.

You also de facto admit that there is not evidence of Amanda in that room.

I am so glad you continue to post.

I am not picking anything from judge Nencini. I pick things directly from the evidence findings and such pieces are "picked" only because another poster decided to "pick" the absence of many bloody footprints in another room and to elevate that to a proof with a superior value. I am showing the identical physical finding can be picked from the crime scene against Knox.
If physical and DNA findings are determinant in the nursed room, then they are equally determinant in Filimena's room and should be given simulation weigh against Knox: her mixed DNA with the victim's on latent blood spots.

Of course, it's not me who is resetting, it's the pro-Knoxes who are resetting on the luminol evidence, as if they don't realize that I have just defeated them in the last week on this topic, they just forget that they were left with no arguments. Someone even made an embarrassing blunder attempting to make analogues with Galilei. Luminol stains set a powerful piece of circumstantial evidence, nobody is able to disprove this.

Also nobody is able to disprove that the main bathmat print matches Sollecito and not Guede.

Btw, Nencini (who is not my main source anyway) actually explained that the physical evidence is that the break in was a staging, would be not credible as point of entry and so on, and it would be inconsistent to attribute it to Rudy.

 

[Machiavelli]

I am not picking anything from judge Nencini. I pick things directly from the evidence findings and such pieces are "picked" only because another poster decided to "pick" the absence of many bloody footprints in another room and to elevate that to a proof with a superior value. I am showing the identical physical finding can be picked from the crime scene against Knox.
If physical and DNA findings are determinant in the nursed room, then they are equally determinant in Filimena's room and should be given simulation weigh against Knox: her mixed DNA with the victim's on latent blood spots.

Of course, it's not me who is resetting, it's the pro-Knoxes who are resetting on the luminol evidence, as if they don't realize that I have just defeated them in the last week on this topic, they just forget that they were left with no arguments. Someone even made an embarrassing blunder attempting to make analogues with Galilei. Luminol stains set a powerful piece of circumstantial evidence, nobody is able to disprove this.

Also nobody is able to disprove that the main bathmat print matches Sollecito and not Guede.

Btw, Nencini (who is not my main source anyway) actually explained that the physical evidence indicates clearly that the break in was a staging, would be not credible as point of entry and so on, and it would be inconsistent to attribute it to Rudy. (I can see even more physical evidence of break in than what Nencini lists).

 

[anglolawyer]

I am not picking anything from judge Nencini. I pick things directly from the evidence findings and such pieces are "picked" only because another poster decided to "pick" the absence of many bloody footprints in another room and to elevate that to a proof with a superior value. I am showing the identical physical finding can be picked from the crime scene against Knox.
If physical and DNA findings are determinant in the nursed room, then they are equally determinant in Filimena's room and should be given simulation weigh against Knox: her mixed DNA with the victim's on latent blood spots.

Of course, it's not me who is resetting, it's the pro-Knoxes who are resetting on the luminol evidence, as if they don't realize that I have just defeated them in the last week on this topic, they just forget that they were left with no arguments. Someone even made an embarrassing blunder attempting to make analogues with Galilei. Luminol stains set a powerful piece of circumstantial evidence, nobody is able to disprove this.

Also nobody is able to disprove that the main bathmat print matches Sollecito and not Guede.

Btw, Nencini (who is not my main source anyway) actually explained that the physical evidence indicates clearly that the break in was a staging, would be not credible as point of entry and so on, and it would be inconsistent to attribute it to Rudy. (I can see even more physical evidence of break in than what Nencini lists).

do you have the expression 'off your rocker' in Italy? Seriously Mach, this is delusional. Get help.

 

[MDDVS]

We're all waiting for the proof (confirmatory test) that the luminol hits are blood.

 

[js202]

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.

Heroic?! Like John F. Kennedy and PT-109? Heroic like Churchill and Londoners holding fast during the London blitz? My God, this is lunacy.

 

[carbonjam72]

This might be what you read?

p23

Q: Listen when you had identified him from the palm prints of the hand did you then do some checks to see who he was, not just where he lived, but if he worked, if he had a criminal record, checks of this type?
A: Obviously we went to his house to search it once he had been identified, therefore of course we identified him and we did other checks, all of it to see if he had… He didn’t have a criminal record, but run-ins with the law, in other words he had been investigated without arrest for other offenses.
Q: For what?
A: For theft I believe, burglary, things of that nature.

Yup, I think that's it. Thanks for fishing it out.

 

[Diocletus]

griffinmill,

Machiavelli wrote, "She explained the defence may need them because "they may allow us to prove the contamination process" (one among their 15 requests).
Nencini rejected, agreeing with PG Crini that they appear to be useles for the purpose of proving the contamination process."

Whether she asked for them during the trial or during the closing remarks is not finally the point. The defense did not have them in 2013, almost six years after the crime, despite the fact that experts who were willing to consult for the defense wanted to see them (as I documented again here less than a week ago). Nencini's refusal shows the he either knows nothing or wants to know nothing about DNA profiling: the EDFs would contain the negative controls in their most useful state. More generally arguments of the form, "If x is so important, why didn't the defense do y," are a type of argument from personal incredulity and are singularly unconvincing and thus par for the course for the PG commenters.

EDT
Diocletus,

But did the lawyer from Bari raise the point at the very end of his closing remarks? Otherwise, it couldn't have been very important.

My recollection is that he raised them during closing remarks, which would mean that they were also raised in the preliminary proceedings before Nencini. Your quote from Machiavelli seems to confirm this.

I suspect that your initial point is correct, which is that Nencini has no clue what an EDF is. It appears that Crini doesn't, either, or else he is a liar--you decide.

 

[Diocletus]

Btw, Nencini (who is not my main source anyway) actually explained that the physical evidence indicates clearly that the break in was a staging, would be not credible as point of entry and so on, and it would be inconsistent to attribute it to Rudy. (I can see even more physical evidence of break in than what Nencini lists).

Sorry, but need a better source than that compromised scumbag's post hoc rationalization for the supreme court's directed verdict.

 

[carbonjam72]

Her testimoni reads like she is only familiar with Rudy's prior exploits from what was gathered after the fact.


Did you miss this part from my last post?

Answer - Well, it was found Certainly the DNA of Rudy Guede That was in the pillow under the victim​

What DNA sample from the pillow could she be referring to?

I missed the statement about the DNA on the pillow. And wow.

 

[Diocletus]

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.

How many of those people were having their residence bugged on November 5?

 

[Kauffer]

I am not picking anything from judge Nencini. I pick things directly from the evidence findings and such pieces are "picked" only because another poster decided to "pick" the absence of many bloody footprints in another room and to elevate that to a proof with a superior value. I am showing the identical physical finding can be picked from the crime scene against Knox.
If physical and DNA findings are determinant in the nursed room, then they are equally determinant in Filimena's room and should be given simulation weigh against Knox: her mixed DNA with the victim's on latent blood spots.

Of course, it's not me who is resetting, it's the pro-Knoxes who are resetting on the luminol evidence, as if they don't realize that I have just defeated them in the last week on this topic, they just forget that they were left with no arguments. Someone even made an embarrassing blunder attempting to make analogues with Galilei. Luminol stains set a powerful piece of circumstantial evidence, nobody is able to disprove this.

Also nobody is able to disprove that the main bathmat print matches Sollecito and not Guede.

Btw, Nencini (who is not my main source anyway) actually explained that the physical evidence indicates clearly that the break in was a staging, would be not credible as point of entry and so on, and it would be inconsistent to attribute it to Rudy. (I can see even more physical evidence of break in than what Nencini lists).

The luminol evidence of blood is superseded by the TMB negative tests and the (for you) perplexing lack of DNA in some of the hits. As for the bath mat track, it's just not good evidence per se. But the size of Mr Sollecito's big toe rules him out. In Ms Romanelli's room, it is the ignored evidence of a break-in that is telling. No real, common law jurisdiction jury is going to be conned by an Italian prosecutor's or your fanciful nonsense in the light of good science and proper discovery.

 

[Numbers]

My recollection is that he raised them during closing remarks, which would mean that they were also raised in the preliminary proceedings before Nencini. Your quote from Machiavelli seems to confirm this.

I suspect that your initial point is correct, which is that Nencini has no clue what an EDF is. It appears that Crini doesn't, either, or else he is a liar--you decide.

What the EDFs are is most likely not the issue to them. At a minimum, they know it is something that if revealed will favor the defense and ultimately destroy the prosecution case. Therefore, from their point of view, irrelevant to the case and not to be introduced into evidence.

 

[platonov]

(Upstairs) Cat got your tongue ?

griffinmill,

Machiavelli wrote, "She explained the defence may need them because "they may allow us to prove the contamination process" (one among their 15 requests).
Nencini rejected, agreeing with PG Crini that they appear to be useles for the purpose of proving the contamination process."

Whether she asked for them during the trial or during the closing remarks is not finally the point. The defense did not have them in 2013, almost six years after the crime, despite the fact that experts who were willing to consult for the defense wanted to see them (as I documented again here less than a week ago). Nencini's refusal shows the he either knows nothing or wants to know nothing about DNA profiling: the EDFs would contain the negative controls in their most useful state. More generally arguments of the form, "If x is so important, why didn't the defense do y," are a type of argument from personal incredulity and are singularly unconvincing and thus par for the course for the PG commenters.

EDT
Diocletus,

But did the lawyer from Bari raise the point at the very end of his closing remarks? Otherwise, it couldn't have been very important.

It might make a difference in the White House

Remember your letter writing campaign to Obama during the 1st [Hellmann] appeal – how will it look if the defence at that stage had never asked for these All-Important EDF’s.
Green ink or no it may make the ‘Leave Britney alone’ crusade appear dubious to put it mildly.

Your ‘proofs’ are all very well but why not ask Charlie Wilkes to respond with the first hand information he claims to possess.

Why the reticence CW ?

 

[Diocletus]

do you have the expression 'off your rocker' in Italy? Seriously Mach, this is delusional. Get help.

Reminds me of Baghdad Bob.