Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

A post by pomp57 on IIP. This is ported over to remind posters here of how this investigation initially got so far off the rails, so as to become a veritable referendum on the party of the PMs.

Giuliano Mignini’s pre-trial closing arguments:

Transcript – page 46

“And it must be higlighted that, in any case, for individuals morbidly attracted by mingling sex and violence, it is far from being unlikely the connection of such a project with the Halloween tradition, because, if it is true that the night between October 31 and November 1st had passed (and Meredith had spent it with her fellow countrywomen), it is as much true that, at about 9 pm on November 1st and for the following three hours, it was still All Saints’ Day and that what had not been done on the night of the eve of All Saints’ Day [i.e. Halloween's night] could be realized on the night between the latter and the Day of the Deads.”
let's not forget the initial motivation of the crime to be committed by Perugia Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini
and page 49

“Moreover the three, and particularly Sollecito, were, all of them, addicted to the erotic-homicidal “cultural” suggestions we have talked about and that night was still All Saints’ Day, the catholic “heir” to Samhain, the celtic New Year’s Day, with all the implications having their focus on the eve of the celebration, that is on the night between October 31 and November 1st.”

 

[Diocletus]

What silliness - the court must assess the value of each piece of evidence before it is permitted to form part of the corpus. This is what your own law says! This is one of the main reasons why Italian justice has become a laughing stock. You can't actually apply your own articles nor accord defendants their constitutional protections.

In fact, however, they do this. They assess each piece of "evidence" to make sure it can be used in some way to support their preconceived disposition of the case.

 

[Bill Williams]

All the evidence used to detain was replaced with completely different evidence to convict. That is why a few people choose to go through all the evidence with a fine tooth comb, and conclude item by item that there is an alternative explanation to the prosecution's or an innocent explanation. Some people are uneasy that the bra clasp evidence was discovered fortuitously when Raffaele was about to be released because his shoe prints were disqualified from the scene of the crime.
You will be dead before a second person confesses to the murder of Meredith Kercher.
R.I.P. Griffinmill.

First, the highlighted part is not true, since nobody presented alternative explanations that were plausible for findings such as the luminol print, consistent explanation for the lone perpetrator scenario or the autopsy report, or supported or consistent explanations for Knox's false testimony and calunnia, etc.

Second, what you don't seem to understand is that this does not exculpate the defendants. Finding alternative explanations "item by item" is insufficient argumentation an it is precisely what the Supreme Court censured as manifestly illogical: this will never work and will never be accepted in jurisprudence as a legitimate reasoning. Evidence needs to be dealt with altogether, not it's by item, and mere possibility is not an argument. You can't just present a list of possible explanations.

No one? For the lone perpetrator scenario?

Seriously..... no one?

(Professor Introna) also stated that the action was that of a single attacker. Firstly, he stated this by
taking into consideration the size of the room in which the entire episode took place
and the presence of furniture in the room. He stated that the free space was very
small, so that "there was no possibility for three attackers to have accomplished the
homicide together" with the girl in the position where her body was subsequently
found (page 52 of the transcripts).

(Professor Torre) maintained that "in any case there is nothing there which could lead me to think
that there was more than one attacker" (page 43).

 

[Kauffer]

Application of law

In fact, however, they do this. They assess each piece of "evidence" to make sure it can be used in some way to support their preconceived disposition of the case.

Yes they did. But they had no business doing so. The luminol hits are particularly pertinent. After Stefanoni admitted they were not blood, the evidence ceased to have any relevance to the case and should have been thrown out. For Commodi, after Stefanoni's testimony, to say and to be allowed to say "blood or fruit juice - you decide" was wholly unacceptable.

 

[carbonjam72]

Yes they did. But they had no business doing so. The luminol hits are particularly pertinent. After Stefanoni admitted they were not blood, the evidence ceased to have any relevance to the case and should have been thrown out. For Commodi, after Stefanoni's testimony, to say and to be allowed to say "blood or fruit juice - you decide" was wholly unacceptable.

I've made this comment before, and I just feel like repeating.

I think its a mistake to try to follow the convicting court's reasonings, whether Michele, Massei, ISC, or Nencini.

Their arguments are not meant to build a rational case based on evidence.

Rather, they are thinly disguised excuses to travel to a pre-determined destination.

The astounding part, is how calmly Italian citizens are expected to occupy themselves in prison for a while, even a life sentence, all for the convenience of the judiciary and their members.

We are watching the failed relic of a fascist society contorting in its death throes. The availability of information on the web makes the sustaining of these judicial farces increasingly difficult, and at some point the damn must burst.

The Italian judiciary, at least in its current form, will be washed clean away in the deluge of reform.

Product idea (please nobody steal this): An internet company that provides justice systems and trials, and generally protects human rights, for countries that are systemically challenged by corruption, basic education and the most minimal organizational skills - not mentioning any names.

 

[Machiavelli]

You are confusing two points.

You asserted that Ricciarelli had before him the 'evidence' of the luminol hits and the bra clasp. As I pointed out to you and indeed as Professor Halkides also pointed out to you, this hearing took place some eighteen days before the revisit of the Perugians to Via Pergola and thus before this 'evidence' was available. So we proved that you made a false assertion. Do you accept this now?

Secondly, I referred you to both Mr Sollecito's book and Follain's book with regard to Ricciarelli's Spider man claim. Both have the same citation. It is not a mere assertion

No. The luminol evidence was collected on Dec. 18. whereas Ricciarelli's decision was issued on Dec. 21. I may be wrong on this dates, and I pointed out that this was my memory.
But I have said rather clearly that the important new pieces of circumstantial evidence for Ricciarelli were the autopsy report, the knife and Knox's calunnia, as well as the old ones such as the multiple lies and false and changing alibies and the physical evidence of staging. The luminol prints and the bra clasp entered the evidence set by the time of Ricciarelli's judgement, and also the Rinaldi report subsequently did. What matters is that evidence kept on piling up, before, but also during and subsequently to Ricciarelli's examination. Also the phone records were available by that time. The computer report maybe was not issued yet, but would be a further piece of evidence to be put in the file too.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

It Ain't Necessarily So.

See the Patrick Latko trial for murder (which has been posted here before):

"The defense began its closings, claiming that the evidence in the fatal stabbing of Ryan, 29, and Diana, 64, in Hammonton on Nov. 3, 2011 did not directly implicate Latko, 33, in the deaths."

"But while no DNA found matched Latko’s, Shill argued the circumstantial evidence links him to the deaths of the mother and son in their South Madison Avenue home. But not a drop of blood was found on Latko or his belongings, argued public defender Kevin Moses."

“So there were 20 stab wounds, two slit throats....so whoever did this would've been a bloody mess,” Moses said to the jury."

Evidence did definitely eventually link Latko to the murders but in the house there was none of his fingerprints, no DNA, and no footprints of him. He struggled with 2 people, slit two throats but there was NO physical evidence found of him being in that house.

Vibio,
There is video evidence of Latko changing clothes. That is why there was no blood on him or his belongings. And they found the murder knife in Latko's possession with the victim's blood on it (note: not a random knife from a kitchen drawer with no blood on it and starch from cooking). They found Latko's phone in the victim's home after the murder. There is a 911 call from the victim saying PATRICK DID IT (paraphrased) in the middle of the attack. And Patrick Latko removed the floor mats from the car -- in other words, he cleaned up.

We have no idea what the state of the crime scene was. We don't know what they did or did not test for his DNA. We know Patrick cleaned up. If he was cleaning up, he probably removed all known traces of himself from the crime scene, and with a bit of luck thrown in the investigators didn't find his DNA.

In contrast, we have Rudy's DNA on Meredith, on her purse, and inside her. There was no cleanup to remove DNA. We know this because, if there was, Rudy's DNA would have been removed as well. Therefore we know Amanda and Raffaele were not at the crime scene when the murder occurred.

There was absolutely no reliable evidence at all that Amanda and Raffaele participated in Meredith's murder. There was hordes of evidence of a lone attacker, Rudy. There was exculpatory evidence of Amanda and Raffaele because they could not have been at the cottage at the time of Meredith's death. In other words, they clearly didn't do it.

There were multiple pieces of reliable evidence against Patrick Latko. Including the victim saying it was Patrick attacking him in the middle of the 911 call.

Does this clear up the differences between the two cases for you?

 

[Dan O.]

No. The luminol evidence was collected on Dec. 18. whereas Ricciarelli's decision was issued on Dec. 21. I may be wrong on this dates, and I pointed out that this was my memory.

Is it too much to ask you to check your facts before you make allegations? The date November 30, 2007 is the one that most prominently comes up in relation to Ricciarelli and Meredith Kercher. That was the date of the judgment of the three judge panel he led. The Motivations report was released a few days later on December 5. The hearings were several days earlier.

 

[Vibio]

Re: post 1605

Sorry, but not even a good try.

....in other words, he cleaned up.

We are talking about in the house. There was no clean-up there. He murdered and fled.

We know Patrick cleaned up. If he was cleaning up, he probably removed all known traces of himself from the crime scene,

No....let me repeat: there was no cleanup at the crime scene.

There were multiple pieces of reliable evidence against Patrick Latko. Including the victim saying it was Patrick attacking him in the middle of the 911 call.

That has nothing to do with the point of my post. And I specifically wrote: "Evidence did definitely eventually link Latko to the murders but in the house there was none of his fingerprints, no DNA, and no footprints of him. He struggled with 2 people, slit two throats but there was NO physical evidence found of him being in that house."

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Re: post 1605

Sorry, but not even a good try.



We are talking about in the house. There was no clean-up there. He murdered and fled.




No....let me repeat: there was no cleanup at the crime scene.

Vibio,
How, exactly, do you know this? I have read almost every source I could find about the case. The state of the crime scene was never mentioned. How do you know he wasn't wearing gloves, for instance? It's not because you're randomly fabricating facts to support your conclusion in advance, is it? Because that's what literally every single pro-guilt poster I have ever come across does.

Is it because you're hopelessly biased and can't consider the possibility Amanda did not actually randomly manipulate a boyfriend of a week and a guy she didn't know to murder her roommate over $300? Or was it a pagan sexy orgy gone horribly wrong? Good thing she brought that chef's knife for protection!

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Responding to your edit.

That has nothing to do with the point of my post. And I specifically wrote: "Evidence did definitely eventually link Latko to the murders but in the house there was none of his fingerprints, no DNA, and no footprints of him. He struggled with 2 people, slit two throats but there was NO physical evidence found of him being in that house."

Uh, his phone was there. Nice try though.

And there are these things called gloves. Fingerprints and DNA cannot pass through gloves by osmosis (irony!). Let me guess, you know he wasn't wearing them because if he was, then your conclusion is completely invalid. And you know your conclusion isn't invalid, because Amanda is a she-devil witch murderess. That's the reasoning, correct?

 

[kwill]

Yes, everyone is squealing with delight on your other little board.

Are they really? That would explain why Mach seem so certain that what he writes is rational and compelling.

Note to Mach: It's really not. What you've been writing here is hogwash. The people who are so proud of your work are, to use the technical term, loony.

 

[Machiavelli]

Are they really? That would explain why Mach seem so certain that what he writes is rational and compelling.

Note to Mach: It's really not. What you've been writing here is hogwash. The people who are so proud of your work are, to use the technical term, loony.

Nobody is able to put together a response with a pale resemblance of consistency to my points. This is the fact. Delusional rants and scream of conspiracies, I see a lot of them.

 

[Machiavelli]

So you agree: John the lover is not necessarily John Smith the dope dealer?
You did not reply to that question. Interesting.
You must be the only person in the world who does not think that Rudy changed his testimony.
Are you actually asserting that Rudy did not change his testimony?
(•••).

On what day did he change his testimony, how did his testimony change, what advantage he got from it, and who allegedly gave it to him?
Try a consistency exercise.

 

[Vibio]

Uh, his phone was there. Nice try though.

Can you read? Let me repeat it for the THIRD time: ""Evidence did definitely eventually link Latko to the murders but in the house there was none of his fingerprints, no DNA, and no footprints of him."

And that's the point: he slit 2 throats... 20 stab wounds and left not biological evidence.

And there are these things called gloves.

Indeed there are. He may have been wearing them. We don't know. And on a cold November night in Perugia they my have come in handy too.

 

[MDDVS]

Nobody is able to put together a response with a pale resemblance of consistency to my points. This is the fact. Delusional rants and scream of conspiracies, I see a lot of them.

You mean, conspiracies envolving freemasonry and bribes to Italaian judges?

 

[Machiavelli]

So you agree: John the lover is not necessarily John Smith the dope dealer?
You did not reply to that question. Interesting.
(...).

Federico Martini, a resident of Rome, is a drug dealer who used to have phone contacts with Knox and was a member of a dealers ring working in Perugia, and unless Knox proves otherwise, he is the same Federico who had sexual contacts with her.

 

[Vibio]

Why would a foreign student, new in town, who supposedly didn't speak Italian all that well have phone contacts with a drug dealer?

 

[Machiavelli]

What does it matter anyway if by going through Amanda's phone records they found the number of someone that knew a drug dealer and sometimes worked with him? This is Perugia, the armpit of Italy, and is awash with drugs, especially amongst the students. Knowing someone that is connected to a drug dealer is hardly uncommon for students there. For instance Meredith Kercher herself was sleeping with and aiding a drug dealer, helping cultivate the plants in fact. Completely unconnected to any of these are (at least) two of the 'witnesses' that the prosecution presented in court, Curatolo and Kokomani, both of whom were 'drug dealers' if you want to think of it that way.

This is false. You have no evidence to accuse Giacomo Silenzi of being a drug dealer. He has no criminal record, did not commit any offence and did not earn money from drug traffic. To cultivate plants is not a crime and is not dealing. You should be more careful she talking about people with no criminal records.
If it's normal for Knox to hang around with drug dealers working in the surrounding area, then it would be normal for her to hang around with Rudy Guede.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Can you read? Let me repeat it for the THIRD time: ""Evidence did definitely eventually link Latko to the murders but in the house there was none of his fingerprints, no DNA, and no footprints of him."

Yeah, I can read. You are, not surprisingly, providing a snippet of the statement that I quoted, leaving out the full context. The kind of thing a dishonest troll would do (not saying you are one; maybe it was an honest mistake!). I bolded it in my previous reply, but I'll do it again for you:

That has nothing to do with the point of my post. And I specifically wrote: "Evidence did definitely eventually link Latko to the murders but in the house there was none of his fingerprints, no DNA, and no footprints of him. He struggled with 2 people, slit two throats but there was NO physical evidence found of him being in that house."

A phone is a physical object. Thus it is physical evidence. Unless you're talking about some ethereal, intangible phone that was somehow "found" at the crime scene, you are completely, incontrovertibly wrong.

Now if you actually meant to say "no DNA, and no fingerprints" sure. But then you should have NOT said "NO [in caps, no less!] physical evidence"

And that's the point: he slit 2 throats... 20 stab wounds and left not biological evidence.

Probably because he cleaned up or was wearing gloves. You didn't provide your source showing there was no clean up. I wonder why that is?

Indeed there are. He may have been wearing them. We don't know. And on a cold November night in Perugia they my have come in handy too.

Indeed! So it doesn't necessarily prove Amanda and Raffaele weren't there. After all, Amanda may have manipulated Raffaele and Rudy to gang rape and murder Meredith over $300 (that conniving she-devil!), but made sure Raffaele left his gloves on but Rudy took his off. Since she made Rudy out to be the fall guy and that's how she rolls. But Raffaele, being under the bedazzled spell of his American sex goddess, forgot to leave them on at the moment he ripped off the bra clasp! (That's what you believe, right? It wasn't contaminated so Raffaele had to remove his gloves?) But then he realized his mistake and quickly put his gloves back on! But forgot the bra clasp and left it there for investigators to find! Or something! What the ****! (Yes, I know this doesn't make any sense. Just trying to help you out here to construct some type of scenario since your side has repeatedly refused to do so.)

So, since it doesn't prove they weren't there, I guess we better look at all the other evidence. Oh wait.

Back to the drawing board, right Vibio?

Oh, and how about that source showing there was no cleanup in the Latko case? Still trying to dig it up, I'm hoping?