Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Mach has effectively conceded that Amanda and Raf are entitled to a verdict of 'not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'.

When Mach argues that no trace of Amanda need be found in the room where meredith was killed in order to convict, he is effectively conceding that under a rational standard of proof, literally nothing exists to support a conviction against Amanda nor against Raf.

It's only by changing the standards of logic, by declaring like Nencini, that 'any traces of Amanda in her own home are referable to the murder', that a hypothetical 'guilty verdict' can be "justified".

It can't, and Mach knows it. That's why he gets so snippy when you press him on the issue. Mach is experiencing 'cognitive dissonance', and his angry defensive irrational retorts are an expression of this inner torment.

He can't let go of his assumption of guilt, yet every measure of fairness, logic, reason, and established procedures and protections, results inevitably in a finding of actual innocence.

Mach can't handle the truth. So instead, we get, 'multiple side-trackings of breath-taking dimensions'.

I am not defensive, and I am not angry.

However I feel the utmost contempt for the most slogan-like oldest arguments of the FOAs, such as: "no trace in the murder room means innocent".

I will not answer to such irrational crap; it's offensive to intelligence, anyway

I can't help those who decide to think that way; when one decides to be irrational, it's their right to be so but I am not interested in discussion with them.

I can also assure to you that no one here ever pressed me on any issue. No one will ever get near putting me into difficulty.

The "no trace of Sollecito and Knox found in the murder room means innocence" is not an issue, it's a fraudulent slogan, something just false on multiple levels.

PS: Nencini never declared that "any traces of Amanda in her own home are referable to the murder". It is instead the FOAs who declare that "no trace of Amanda outside the murder room can be referable to the murder".

 

[Numbers]

Right, but I still don't get any connection with what we have been discussing.

anglo,
I will attempt to construct a murder mystery to meet your idea of combining small pieces of evidence, each of low(?) probative value.

1. Man buys $250k life insurance policy on wife
2. 1 year later she dies in her sleep, seemingly of a heart attack
3. Police investigate, partly because she is about 35 and item (1)
4. Autopsy detects small conc. of sedative, not harmful in her blood
5. Man's computer shows look up of potassium chloride 2 weeks prior to wife's death
6. Police find that man bought syringes from a drug store

Is this outline the kind of scenario you had in mind?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

so little evidence, so much time to develop a narrative

My explanation is blood.

Human or animal? What is your evidence?

No one was killed in Raffaele's flat, and no on alleges a clean up there.

 

[Diocletus]

PS: Nencini never declared that "any traces of Amanda in her own home are referable to the murder". It is instead the FOAs who declare that "no trace of Amanda outside the murder room can be referable to the murder".

Personally, I like "no trace of TMB in the forensics report is referable to fraud."

 

[Diocletus]

However I feel the utmost contempt for the most slogan-like oldest arguments of the FOAs, such as: "no trace in the murder room means innocent".

Yes, we know, instead it means that there was a clean up. And, there had to be a clean up, because everyone knows that otherwise their traces would be there.

 

[Magister]

Downstairs

Hi RW
Good to read your interesting posts.

It is clear to me that someone with a key went into the downstairs apartment
that night.

The metal gate by the entrance door was not I believe used by the boys.

Living room/Kitchen area -
Blood on lightswitch
The material on the floor with the pole looks like cloth rather than plastic so possibly was the full length curtain at the door which was dislodged when the policewoman kicked in the glass.
Several items of cloth material on the floor including a blue pillowcase?/shorts and plastic carrier bags on top of the cooker as you noted.

Giacomo's room -
Door broken down
Glass on the floor from the broken front door? and some thin red/blood lines on the floor.
The intruder Guede? must have kicked down the door into this room.

Stefano's room -
Bloodstains on the mattress and duvet
The bedsheet and duvet cover missing. Stefano probably stripped his bed before leaving for the weekend and left the duvet at the top end of the mattress.

Evidence now of human blood downstairs.
I too wonder what Kokomani was doing.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am not defensive, and I am not angry.

However I feel the utmost contempt for the most slogan-like oldest arguments of the FOAs, such as: "no trace in the murder room means innocent".

I will not answer to such irrational crap; it's offensive to intelligence, anyway

No one has said what is highlighted. No one says that, "no trace in the murder room means innocent". I would challenge you to point to where anyone has said that. Once again you promote a strawman argument.

What "no trace in the murder room," means is that to prove someone guilty of a knifing-crime, one needs to account for WHY Amanda and Raffaele can come out of that room with virtually no forensics pointing to them in that room.

Indeed, this is what the 1st prosecutor tried to do, precisely when he had to concede there is no trace of Amanda in that room. He started inventing things.... "Perhaps she was out in the hallway directing the other two."

Machiavelli - you show an astounding lack of understanding of this case - but you make up for understanding with a profound, somewhat Herculean effort to be part of the Pro-guilt lobby.

There's you and there is Harry Rag. No one else (really) ventures much past the confines of the hate sites, where no opposition is allowed.

ETA - and as Diocletus has observed, one must then venture into the realm of claiming a clean-up. Not even Judge Massei postulated a clean-up in the murder room.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is also of note that this is the firs time in a long while that Machiavelli has responded to something Bill Williams has posted here.

Which is also a de facto admission that Machiavellis is going to give a wide berth to his former claim of conspiracy within the Perugian Court of Appeal....

.... namely that he (or one of them at least) believes that De Nunzio, the Court of Appeal president, conspired criminally with Hellmann to pervert justice in Italy.

I am bumping this up, because once again Machiavelli is posting here and picking and choosing what he will address.

It is fascinating reading Machiavelli's posts. Machiavelli is very careful with his words - things are always phrased with great possibility for rhetorical retreats if need be. The strawman argument affords the greatest leeway when one posts with potential rhetorical retreats in mind.

But this is one issue in which a rhetorical retreat is not possible. Therefore he does not respond.

 

[carbonjam72]

My explanation is bozo the clown.

Which one? That was a franchise scenario, there are truly many. many bozo's.

And don't you dare make fun of Mach's clown shoes and red puff ball stick on nose!

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I am not defensive, and I am not angry.

However I feel the utmost contempt for the most slogan-like oldest arguments of the FOAs, such as: "no trace in the murder room means innocent".

I will not answer to such irrational crap; it's offensive to intelligence, anyway

I can't help those who decide to think that way; when one decides to be irrational, it's their right to be so but I am not interested in discussion with them.

I can also assure to you that no one here ever pressed me on any issue. No one will ever get near putting me into difficulty.

The "no trace of Sollecito and Knox found in the murder room means innocence" is not an issue, it's a fraudulent slogan, something just false on multiple levels.

PS: Nencini never declared that "any traces of Amanda in her own home are referable to the murder". It is instead the FOAs who declare that "no trace of Amanda outside the murder room can be referable to the murder".

Could you take us through your theory as to how the luminol footprints were produced? There are some new people in this discussion, and I assume you'll agree that it's better for them to get it from you, in your words, than from me.

 

[Diocletus]

Which one? That was a franchise scenario, there are truly many. many bozo's.

The Italian one.

 

[anglolawyer]

anglo,
I will attempt to construct a murder mystery to meet your idea of combining small pieces of evidence, each of low(?) probative value.

1. Man buys $250k life insurance policy on wife
2. 1 year later she dies in her sleep, seemingly of a heart attack
3. Police investigate, partly because she is about 35 and item (1)
4. Autopsy detects small conc. of sedative, not harmful in her blood
5. Man's computer shows look up of potassium chloride 2 weeks prior to wife's death
6. Police find that man bought syringes from a drug store

Is this outline the kind of scenario you had in mind?

Does she have any puncture marks? Seriously. This is what I would ask if I were a DA (I would love to be a DA). Give me the dope on potassium chloride. Is he a chemist? Does he have debts? An expensive drug or gambling habit? Or a mistress?

 

[carbonjam72]

I am not defensive, and I am not angry.

However I feel the utmost contempt for the most slogan-like oldest arguments of the FOAs, such as: "no trace in the murder room means innocent".

I will not answer to such irrational crap; it's offensive to intelligence, anyway I can't help those who decide to think that way; when one decides to be irrational, it's their right to be so but I am not interested in discussion with them.

I can also assure to you that no one here ever pressed me on any issue. No one will ever get near putting me into difficulty.

The "no trace of Sollecito and Knox found in the murder room means innocence" is not an issue, it's a fraudulent slogan, something just false on multiple levels.

PS: Nencini never declared that "any traces of Amanda in her own home are referable to the murder". It is instead the FOAs who declare that "no trace of Amanda outside the murder room can be referable to the murder".

The problem Mach, is that Rudy Guede has many traces of him in the room where Meredtih was killed. He left his footprints in her blood, fingerprints, palm prints, and so on. His DNA even in her body.

And as you yourself have posted, something like, "there were other people involved in the killing, where are all their footprints?". We can get your exact quote, but I think you know which one I mean.

So with all this evidence of Rudy Guede, why wouldn't we expect there to also be evidence of anyone else who was there at the same time?

The logical argument we try to make, is that the reason there is no trace of anyone but Rudy Guede in Meredith's blood, is because no one else was there.

Its seems pretty obvious no clean-up in the murder room at least is possible, and certainly no clean-up of DNA - leaving only Rudy's DNA behind. I'm sure you agree that's impossible.

Rudy's skype call to his friend confirms that Amanda wasn't involved.

There's no reason to assume or think or hypothesize Amanda and Raf were involved, other than the fact that they were arrested as suspects, and the prosecution accused them.

Your skills in argument are truly impressive. But you're theory, the theory that Amanda and Raf or anyone else, helped Rudy Guede kill Meredith Kercher, has been squarely disproven.

All that's left, is the criminal arrogance of the prosecutors, police and judges who refuse to admit they made a mistake. It's sad, and its an embarrassment for the wonderful country of Italy. The madman Giuliano Mignini must be brought into criminal court, and made to answer for his crimes in this case. Mignini must go to jail, for what he did to Amanda and Raf. Only then will justice be served.

Hopefully, the ECHR will find in Amanda's favor before the end of the year, and demolish the underlying evidence used against her and Raf, such that the court of cassation has no choice but to recognize they are innocent, exonerate them fully, and beg their forgiveness, as they damn well should.

But I understand if you think I'm irrational, and prefer not to respond. I don't get offended by these discussions.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is a good example of muddled thinking. A luminol-positive result means that peroxidase activity is present. It could come from blood, from peroxidase enzymes, from metal ions, or from other things. It does not point one way or the other on its own. In a 2005 article James O. Pex wrote, "Luminol does not positively identify blood. This procedure requires a confirmatory test before blood is identified. Although luminol may be more sensitive than the confirmatory tests, this does not alleviate the need for confirmation. In the absence of confirmation, it cannot be stated that blood is present." I would like to add that with the availability of HemaTrace, the lower limit of detection is so low as to alleviate any concern.

In the present case, the lack of Meredith's DNA in the majority of the luminol-positive areas along with the negative TMB results point away from the conclusion that blood is present. (...)

No it does not. A presumptive test can only point in direction of something, not away from something. Luminol points in direction of something, whereas TMB - since litarature did find that TMB is less sensitive and less specific, less efficnent since indirect and reacts to the same false positives, despite all vain efforts to deny all it on this forum - when yields a negative rsult on a positive luminol trace this only points in the direction of a high dilution of that 'something'.

It does not point toward 'something that is not blood.

This, for various reasons, among them the fact that a "something that is not blood" which reacts to luminol and not with TMB, has not been discovered by science yet.
It doesn't exist, in the known world.

It it exists, please tell us, what this something with is. Tell us more about this alleged substance that reacts to luminol and has TMB-negative property.

 

[anglolawyer]

No it does not. A presumptive test can only point in direction of something, not away from something. Luminol points in direction of something, whereas TMB - since litarature did find that TMB is less sensitive and less specific, less efficnent since indirect and reacts to the same false positives, despite all vain efforts to deny all it on this forum - when yields a negative rsult on a positive luminol trace this only points in the direction of a high dilution of that 'something'.

It does not point toward 'something that is not blood.

This, for various reasons, among them the fact that a "something that is not blood" which reacts to luminol and not with TMB, has not been discovered by science yet.
It doesn't exist, in the known world.

It it exists, please tell us, what this something with is. Tell us more about this alleged substance that reacts to luminol and has TMB-negative property.

You tell us why Stefanoni lied about it and why Nencini doesn't mention TMB. A word about lack of confirmatory testing would help too.

 

[Machiavelli]

The problem Mach, is that Rudy Guede has many traces of him in the room where Meredtih was killed. He left his footprints in her blood, fingerprints, palm prints, and so on. His DNA even in her body.

And as you yourself have posted, something like, "there were other people involved in the killing, where are all their footprints?". We can get your exact quote, but I think you know which one I mean.

So with all this evidence of Rudy Guede, why wouldn't we expect there to also be evidence of anyone else who was there at the same time?

But this is completely stupid, and btw also based on a glaring false premise. The scene is full of bare footprints, some are in luminol but a couple of them are in diluted blood, and they can't be pinned on Rudy Guede. They are in fact inconsistent with the traces of Rudy Guede. There is a lamp belonging to Amanda Knox in Meredith's room where it shouldn't be and there is no good innocent explanation for that, there is Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp, its amount in the same magnitude to that found of Rudy Guede, there is a print that matches the kitchen knife in the murder room and Meredith's DNA was found on a knife inside Sollecito's apartment. There is no trace of Guede in rooms which are part of the crime scene, because the crime was committed there too not just in Meredith's room, and there are unjusified traces of Knox and Sollecito in those areas (Solelcito's footprint in blood, Knox's DNA mixed with Meredith's DNA in luminol spots in Filomena's room, and unjustified Knox blood in the context of Meredith's blood traces). There is abundant physical traces, there is simply no possible justification to ask for "more Knox and Sollecito" in one specific room. It's stupid and profoundly dishonest. You have absolutely no justification for expecting anything.
It's stupid also itself because utterly prejudicial, with respect to the physical description of the crime. The physical event of sexual violence and killing, in fact, is unknown. In principle, we don't know who touched the victim and who did what. This is not something that we can know in advanc, we are not supposed to put this cart before the oaxes. Let's go back to the time of their arrest and say, for example, that the story told by Knox's in her spontaneous declaration contains some truth. Let's say that she was actually there but just watching or in the next room covering her ears. Judge Micheli was absolutely confortable with the possibility of such a scenario. She woudln't need to actually "touch" the victim physically. But legally, this would make no difference: she would bear full responsability in the same degree. The bigger amount of some physical evidence from Rudy Guede merely indicates that he had a certain role, that his behaviours and movements had a certain style, that his role in the violence was more "physical" in some aspects.
But this bears no implication as for the guilt or innocence or others. The specific kind of traces left may be related to roles, personal features of the individual action, the "style" followed by that particular perpetrator, they have no direct relation with guilt or innocence.

 

[Machiavelli]

You tell us why Stefanoni lied about it and why Nencini doesn't mention TMB. A word about lack of confirmatory testing would help too.

I have already told you: you have no evidence Stefanoni lied.

You only have evidence Vecchiotti lied.

And as I also said already, TMB is irrelevant, not only in the merit of the finding itself but also as a topic of discussion within the Florence appeal trial; I also answered already to why Nencini doesn't talk about TMB: just because it is one of the many points - almost all points of evidence agaisnt the defendants - which he does not deal with, since no judge mentions everything. And I do not see any reason why I should consider a question "why Nencini doesn't talk..." as having a resemblance of defensive argument.

 

[Machiavelli]

Could you take us through your theory as to how the luminol footprints were produced? There are some new people in this discussion, and I assume you'll agree that it's better for them to get it from you, in your words, than from me.

Yes, but first I will have to write a couple of posts in response to other theories about Guede-rinsing-trousers scenario.

 

[Machiavelli]

Italy's human rights record is miserable. It's one of the principal reasons why we need the ECHR and the various rapporteurs.

Don't be a liar. Now acknowledge Italy's human rights records at the ECHR is just similar to several Western European states. If Italy's record is miserable, than Switzerland's or Austra's records are miserable too.

 

[Diocletus]

Don't be a liar. Now acknowledge Italy's human rights records at the ECHR is just similar to several Western European states. If Italy's record is miserable, than Switzerland's or Austra's records are miserable too.

Who's going to change the judges' diapers if Amanda Knox's application is accepted? And why is it taking so long???