Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Diocletus]

She didn't know him as a drug dealer, she just happened to meet him coming into town, on a train or something. Perugia, Italy is known as 'The Disneyland of Drugs.' It wasn't actually the guy she knew who was the real dealer, he was just a contact for the one who was.

Kevin Bacon!

 

[anglolawyer]

No fingerprints, no DNA of his found at the murder scene. And again: he did not hang around to clean-up: he fled the scene (the murder victim called 911 while he was being murdered.)

And gloves? Perhaps. Who knows....

--

Evidently not you.

 

[Machiavelli]

These are important points about lack of dna. This brings proof to the table that exhaustive attempts were made, and these attempts failed, to link them to the bedroom.
And the photographs you posted yesterday prove the bra clasp was stood on before becoming evidence. Standing on a metal hook may just be a good way for secondary transfer of dna to occur via pressure application.

It is false that Rudy Guede's DNA showed up all over the crime scene, and it is false that showed up during the initial phase of the investigation.
(I'm sure you will soon forget about all points like this one where I prove the Knox supporters wrong).
Guede had only 4 instances of DNA in the murder room.
But only two of them showed up during the "initial phase of the investigation", while one of them was just a Y haplotype (the X profile was missing; so it's compatible rather than identifying with certainty). Thus, only one DNA instance could be matched with "scientific" certainty to Rudy Guede in the murder room at the beginning of the investigation.
But this was not " all over the scene"; since the scene includes the small bathroom and Filomena's room: those are parts of the scene where it is Knox's and Meredith's DNA mixed together that shows up, and no Guede instance nor others DNA was found there.

 

[Diocletus]

It is false that Rudy Guede's DNA showed up all over the crime scene, and it is false that showed up during the initial phase of the investigation.
(I'm sure you will soon forget about all points like this one where I prove the Knox supporters wrong).
Guede had only 4 instances of DNA in the murder room. Only two of them shows up in the " initial phase of the investigation", but one of them was just a Y haplotype (the X profile was missing; so it's compatible rather than identifying with certain). Thus, only one DNA instance could be matched with "scientific" certainty to Rudy Guede in the murder room at the beginning of the investigation.
But this was not " all over the scene"; since the scene includes the small bathroom and Filomena's room: those are parts of the scene where it is Knox's and Meredith's DNA mixed together that shows up, and no Guede instance nor others DNA was found there.

Don't forget about the Rudy poop dna!

 

[Numbers]

Yes they were, from the first link:

If the Court finds that there has been a violation, it may award you “just satisfaction”, a sum of money in compensation for certain forms of damage. The Court may also require the State concerned
to refund the expenses you have incurred in presenting your case.
If the Court finds that there has been no violation, you will not
have to pay any additional costs (such as those incurred by the
respondent State)

And

The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national courts; it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise their decisions."
The Court will not intercede directly on your behalf with
the authority you are complaining about. In exceptional
circumstances the Court may, however, grant interim measures.
As a matter of practice it only does so where there is a serious
risk of physical harm to the applicant.
"
The Court will not help you find or pay a lawyer to draw up your
application.
"
The Court cannot give you any information on legal provisions
in force in the State against which your complaints are directed

Seems as though money is the best you can get form the court.

I am happy that you had time to look at some of the links and have posted some of the information about the ECtHR. Perhaps, though, I should give you some more information about the role of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, and the respondent state, in the process that occurs after a judgment of a violation of rights by the ECtHR. This may counter your perhaps preliminary opinion (highlighted and bolded above).

Following the ECtHR finding a violation of rights by a respondent state, it typically awards just satisfaction (usually a rather small amount of money) and legal costs to the applicant. It is the responsibility of the respondent state to pay the just satisfaction and the legal costs.

Sometimes - relatively rarely - the ECtHR will put into writing in its judgment its views on the individual measures and/or general measures which the respondent state must fulfill to redress the violation. However, it is current practice for the state itself to draw up an action plan to redress the violation, which plan is negotiated with the Committee of Ministers, who then oversee the plan's enforcement. It does seem a complex and potentially time-consuming procedure, but the action plans may involve, for example, conducting retrials without the violations or quashing verdicts and changing criminal records, and possibly changing laws and even a state's constitution. Sometimes additional compensation must be paid by the state to the victim (applicant), depending on the state's laws.

Here are some excerpts from the CoM CoE website:
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution/Presentation/Pres_Exec_en.asp

Supervision of the execution of judgments and decisions
of the European Court of Human Rights

Member states have undertaken to comply with final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) finding violations of the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention), as well as with Court decisions taking note of friendly settlements (see Articles 46 and 39.4 of the Convention).

The adoption of the necessary execution measures is supervised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, made up of representatives of the governments of the 47 member states, assisted by the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the Court (Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law).

The states have a legal obligation to remedy the violations found but enjoy a margin of appreciation as regards the means to be used. The measures to be taken are, in principle, identified by the state concerned, under supervision of the Committee of Ministers. The Court can assist the execution process, in particular through the pilot-judgment procedure (used in case of major structural problems).

Measures to be taken may relate to the individual applicant or be of a general nature.

Individual measures
Execution measures must first put an end to the violation and remedy, as far as possible, its negative consequences for the applicant.

This implies the payment of any sum awarded by the Court as just satisfaction or agreed between the parties in a friendly settlement. Default interest is due in case of late payment.

When mere monetary compensation cannot adequately erase the consequences of a violation, the Committee of Ministers makes sure that the authorities take any other individual measures which may be required to remedy the violation. The judgments themselves contain on occasion additional recommendations.

General measures
Execution of judgments also requires general measures to prevent violations similar to those found by the Court (whether through changes of legislation, case law or through other kinds of measures). Ensuring the effectiveness of domestic remedies is an important concern.

Where domestic authorities give direct effect to the Court's judgments and jurisprudence, publication and dissemination of the judgments, where necessary translated and commented, is frequently sufficient to achieve necessary changes and to ensure effective domestic remedies.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is false that Rudy Guede's DNA showed up all over the crime scene, and it is false that showed up during the initial phase of the investigation.
(I'm sure you will soon forget about all points like this one where I prove the Knox supporters wrong).
Guede had only 4 instances of DNA in the murder room. Only two of them shows up in the " initial phase of the investigation", but one of them was just a Y haplotype (the X profile was missing; so it's compatible rather than identifying with certain). Thus, only one DNA instance could be matched with "scientific" certainty to Rudy Guede in the murder room at the beginning of the investigation.
But this was not " all over the scene"; since the scene includes the small bathroom and Filomena's room: those are parts of the scene where it is Knox's and Meredith's DNA mixed together that shows up, and no Guede instance nor others DNA was found there.

Don't forget about the Rudy poop dna!

What is truly astounding is the way the pro-guilt lobby needs to minimize Rudy Guede's involvement, as well as his forensic presence.

Granted, Machiavelli's point is a small one - he's contenting the "all over the crime scene" remark. Strangely, by his own admission, regardless of the forensics, Rudy Guede admits to being "all over the crime scene". He admits to being in both bathrooms and he admits to being in Meredith's room. He most certainly transits the hallway.

And which window was it he said he leaned out of in his claim to see Amanda leaving?

However, this is how disingenuous Machiavelli's argumentative style is. What I wish is that he would truly regard this crime with the proper osmosis.... ah, er, organic reasoning.

Rudy IS all over the crime scene, by his own admission.

 

[Diocletus]

It is false that Rudy Guede's DNA showed up all over the crime scene, and it is false that showed up during the initial phase of the investigation.
(I'm sure you will soon forget about all points like this one where I prove the Knox supporters wrong).
Guede had only 4 instances of DNA in the murder room.
But only two of them showed up during the "initial phase of the investigation", while one of them was just a Y haplotype (the X profile was missing; so it's compatible rather than identifying with certainty). Thus, only one DNA instance could be matched with "scientific" certainty to Rudy Guede in the murder room at the beginning of the investigation.
But this was not " all over the scene"; since the scene includes the small bathroom and Filomena's room: those are parts of the scene where it is Knox's and Meredith's DNA mixed together that shows up, and no Guede instance nor others DNA was found there.

They sure as he'll knew the the Y haplotype didn't match Sollecito or lumumba.

 

[Samson]

Yes, and it should be remembered that the bra clasp was not the only thing collected from the scene the second time around, thus they had a number of chances to get a 'hit' from contamination thus the bra clasp find wasn't quite as fortuitous as it's sometimes assumed.



No one knows how it got to-and-fro, and being stepped on is certainly a possibility. I've also wondered if it was swept up by something to end up in that pile of trash that wasn't there when the murder occurred.

I took that before photo, hook at about 15 degree angle, and after, hook pressed flat to have only being stood on as an explanation, given its time at the scene was always on the floor. Are there other possibilities? If it was stood on, it makes a great soundbite to suggest contamination.

ETA, the bra clasp neatly added the sexual assault to the murder, both of which are reasons to detain, hence why it is an ideal item to "find".

 

[Dan O.]

Here is a trivia question for the guilter types: when did this Federico character suposedly get Amanda's phone number?

 

[Machiavelli]

What is truly astounding is the way the pro-guilt lobby needs to minimize Rudy Guede's involvement, as well as his forensic presence.

Granted, Machiavelli's point is a small one - he's contenting the "all over the crime scene" remark. Strangely, by his own admission, regardless of the forensics, Rudy Guede admits to being "all over the crime scene". He admits to being in both bathrooms and he admits to being in Meredith's room. He most certainly transits the hallway.

And which window was it he said he leaned out of in his claim to see Amanda leaving?

However, this is how disingenuous Machiavelli's argumentative style is. What I wish is that he would truly regard this crime with the proper osmosis.... ah, er, organic reasoning.

Rudy IS all over the crime scene, by his own admission.

Also Meredith's DNA is on the kitchen knife blade and on the cleaning rags, according to Sollecito's admission, then. If admissions is the probative method, it's game over for Knox and Sollecito.

Btw, I am was not only contending over the area of finding of Guede's DNA (where I am right and Kaosium was wrong, despite your self-defeating attempt to shift the goalpost), I was also disputing the "initial phase of investigation."

 

[Samson]

Also Meredith's DNA is on the kitchen knife blade and on the cleaning rags, according to Sollecito's admission, then. If admissions is the probative method, it's game over for Knox and Sollecito.

Btw, I am was not only contending over the area of finding of Guede's DNA (where I am right and Kaosium was wrong, despite your self-defeating attempt to shift the goalpost), I was also disputing the "initial phase of investigation."

Amanda and Raffaele's statements are characterised not only by what they know themselves to be true, but also instances where they are told things the prosecution seems sure of, and seeking an explanation that fits becomes strategically advisable. Raffaele explaining Meredith's "dna" is in the latter category.

 

[Kaosium]

Also Meredith's DNA is on the kitchen knife blade and on the cleaning rags, according to Sollecito's admission, then. If admissions is the probative method, it's game over for Knox and Sollecito.

Raffaele speculated in his diary after being told the knife hadn't been used in the murder and gave the only possible explanation he could think of--which didn't amount to anything being as it was Amanda's DNA on the handle, not Raffaele's. Rudy Guede admitted to his friend, police and prosecutor he was there for certain.

Btw, I am was not only contending over the area of finding of Guede's DNA (where I am right and Kaosium was wrong, despite your self-defeating attempt to shift the goalpost), I was also disputing the "initial phase of investigation."

As I pointed out, Guede's DNA had no business being in the flat at all, any transfer there was still incriminating, regardless of when it was found.

 

[Desert Fox]

She didn't know him as a drug dealer, she just happened to meet him coming into town, on a train or something. Perugia, Italy is known as 'The Disneyland of Drugs.' It wasn't actually the guy she knew who was the real dealer, he was just a contact for the one who was.

You need to find a source other than $cientology? Narconon is a front for $cientology.

 

[Kaosium]

I took that before photo, hook at about 15 degree angle, and after, hook pressed flat to have only being stood on as an explanation, given its time at the scene was always on the floor. Are there other possibilities? If it was stood on, it makes a great soundbite to suggest contamination.

It being stepped on is the likeliest explanation in my view as well.

ETA, the bra clasp neatly added the sexual assault to the murder, both of which are reasons to detain, hence why it is an ideal item to "find".

That's what Frank Sfarzo thought too. However the purse and her sweatshirt, not to mention the towels, would have worked out just as well.

 

[Kaosium]

You need to find a source other than $cientology? Narconon is a front for $cientology.

Really?

Here's something from the Guardian then:

Giacomo Silenzi, the downstairs neighbour Kercher was dating, had a collection of marijuana plants, while the car park across the street from the house Kercher and Knox shared was a favourite hang-out for dealers.

Perugia may boast stunning views across the Umbrian hills and a world-class jazz festival held in frescoed palazzi, but it also has the highest number of overdose deaths per capita in Italy, as addicts move to be where the wholesalers are. North African dealers lurk on corners in the city centre and Nigerians control the suburbs, all under the watchful eye of the Calabrian 'Ndrangheta mafia.

A spokeswoman for the University of Foreigners said students were invited to films and poetry readings to help them integrate, but added: "We don't talk to them about drugs."​

It makes you wonder just how Perugia, Italy became the wholesale drug capital of Italy. It's not on the coast or the border, it's kind of up on the hills between Rome and Florence, out of the way. I wonder why the drug wholesalers picked that particular location and why nothing was ever done about it....

 

[Desert Fox]

Really?

Here's something from the Guardian then:

Giacomo Silenzi, the downstairs neighbour Kercher was dating, had a collection of marijuana plants, while the car park across the street from the house Kercher and Knox shared was a favourite hang-out for dealers.

Perugia may boast stunning views across the Umbrian hills and a world-class jazz festival held in frescoed palazzi, but it also has the highest number of overdose deaths per capita in Italy, as addicts move to be where the wholesalers are. North African dealers lurk on corners in the city centre and Nigerians control the suburbs, all under the watchful eye of the Calabrian 'Ndrangheta mafia.

A spokeswoman for the University of Foreigners said students were invited to films and poetry readings to help them integrate, but added: "We don't talk to them about drugs."​

It makes you wonder just how Perugia, Italy became the wholesale drug capital of Italy. It's not on the coast or the border, it's kind of up on the hills between Rome and Florence, out of the way. I wonder why the drug wholesalers picked that particular location and why nothing was ever done about it....

Thanks for the alternate source
As far as Narconon and Scientology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narconon#Narconon_and_Scientology

It is interesting however how Perugia is now withering away. I bet the 2008 students were already enrolled before the murder case.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Luminol response, Part A

Because they were too diluted, had a too prolonged exposure to light (as it happened with blood traces in the murder room too), the swabs were not always taken exactly from where the prints were, because the floor had been washed with detergent and because the amount of DNA collected by swabs anyway was minimal.
However, Meredith's DNA was recovered from 3 of the 9 visible luminol stains.

Point 1. There is no evidence to support any of your conjectures. It is Nenciniesque in its lack of factual basis. Even if true, your conjectures only point out how incompetent the FP were. They let DNA degrade and/or they failed to swab up enough to obtain profiles. You might have been on safer ground to argue that the overapplication of luminol caused degradation of the DNA, inasmuch as some literature exists to support this idea. Finally, both your explanation and overapplication fail to explain why only Ms. Knox’s DNA was found in some of the prints.

observation i) It is not clear what the adjective "true" means in this statement.
ii) there is actually no evidence that blood tests were not done
iii) the question is irrelevant.

Point 2. A true confirmatory test uses antibodies to detect substances that are unique to primate blood. It is remarkable that you still do not understand this point. If confirmatory tests were done but not reported, they might as well have not been done (and this would also be more evidence of withholding of data). Your position, that a confirmatory test can only confirm and not disprove the existence of blood, leads to the conclusion that once there is a positive luminol reaction, the substance must be blood and there is no further test, is wildly at odds with forensic chemistry as it is practiced today. It is also empirically wrong (as Sarah Gino’s testimony pointed out), and some substances exist which react with luminol but not other presumptive blood tests. Draino is one, and it is likely that Comet Cleanser is another (it produces bleach when hydrated). All you have shown is that in the presence of lemon juice, TMB will not work.

If every positive presumptive test were treated as certainly being from human blood, it would lead to many false convictions. This line of thinking is essentially how Gregory Taylor was convicted. As Charlie Wilkes pointed out, his case may be only the tip of the iceberg. It is also a contributing factor in the Lindy Chamberlain case.

i) here there is just a false statement; that the practical limits of detection are "similar" is contradicted by experimental studies, such as: Todd et alt; Webb et alt; and other publications recently quoted on this forum. It is not true that the thresholds are similar; there is literature that found results contrary to that.
ii) in reality TMB in practical use is less sensitive than luminol and indirect, leading to a difference of factor in the magnitude of 10(2)
iii) TMB is also less specific than luminol
iii) TMB reacts to the same substances that is to the same false positives; no known, plausible substance exists that has the power to react with luminol and not with TMB

Point 3. There are ranges of lower limits of detection reported for both compounds. Webb, Creamer, and Quickenden (2006) reported that luminol has a lower limit of detection of 1 part in 5,000,000 and hemastix (one variant of TMB) has a lower limit of detection of 1 part in 1,000,000. Therefore, your claim is that all the locations fell into a tiny window between the lower limits of detection of TMB and luminol. How likely is that, really?

This is twisted information from rules of jury-based jurisdictions that you apparently wish to transplant (after twisting it) in other systems. This oblique point has no content, it is irrelevant. Those kinds of reference do not answer to the points that circumstantial evidence needs to be answered if you want to challenge it.

Point 4. Your answer fails to address the question. Let me quote again what one judge said. “Thus, although I would admit the evidence in relation to the blood stains which are confirmed to be blood by scientific analysis and which produce relevant DNA profiles, I would not admit the evidence in relation to the luminol positive areas where there is no confirmatory testing.”

It's completely irrelevant and out of context. We are not talking about confirmatory tests here, we are not talking neither about "confirming" nor about just a substance. We are talking about pieces of circumstantial evidence.

Point 5. Your answer is another non-answer. It disguises the fact that your position is basically that once a luminol-positive area is encountered, it is certainly blood and game over. In effect you are saying that the judges who think otherwise are fools. That is an arrogant, possibly Chauvinistic attitude.

 

[Kaosium]

Thanks for the alternate source
As far as Narconon and Scientology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narconon#Narconon_and_Scientology

It is interesting however how Perugia is now withering away. I bet the 2008 students were already enrolled before the murder case.

Have you seen anything recently regarding the deterioration of Perugia? I read something a while back that had some rather alarming statistics, it said that many more students were now Chinese and one had OD'd which had led to less of those as well.

I rather think being the drug capitol of Italy and these deaths reflects rather poorly on the competency--and integrity--of their police force. I suspect my "The Wire" analogy may be more apt than I originally thought.

 

[Bill Williams]

What is truly astounding is the way the pro-guilt lobby needs to minimize Rudy Guede's involvement, as well as his forensic presence.

Granted, Machiavelli's point is a small one - he's contenting the "all over the crime scene" remark. Strangely, by his own admission, regardless of the forensics, Rudy Guede admits to being "all over the crime scene". He admits to being in both bathrooms and he admits to being in Meredith's room. He most certainly transits the hallway.

And which window was it he said he leaned out of in his claim to see Amanda leaving?

However, this is how disingenuous Machiavelli's argumentative style is. What I wish is that he would truly regard this crime with the proper osmosis.... ah, er, organic reasoning.

Rudy IS all over the crime scene, by his own admission.

Also Meredith's DNA is on the kitchen knife blade and on the cleaning rags, according to Sollecito's admission, then. If admissions is the probative method, it's game over for Knox and Sollecito.

Btw, I am was not only contending over the area of finding of Guede's DNA (where I am right and Kaosium was wrong, despite your self-defeating attempt to shift the goalpost), I was also disputing the "initial phase of investigation."

This is where the English idiom, "shifting the goalpost" may not be understandable to you.

The issue was, "Why is Rudy Guede's forensics all over the crime scene, when Amanda's and Raffaele's forensics are missing from the murder room?"

Let's keep the goalposts squarely there.

You took issue with this, trying to minimize the DNA-presence of Rudy.... implying that Rudy cannot be found "all over the crime scene."

Another poster reminded you of his pooh in the other toilet.

And I reminded you that Rudy himself admitted to being "all over the crime scene", the only one to admit to being in both bathrooms, the hallway connecting the three bedrooms, as well as admitting to being in the murderroom.

Against this, you pretty much ignored Rudy's own admissions.

You also made mention of the ktichen knife and Meredith's DNA - once again, to remind you, this was allegedly found in a non-existent striation on that knife blade, a striation no one else can see and which Stefanoni herself said could not be photographed. (Yet you say you've seen it in a photograph.)

Folks - this is the pro-guilt lobby at work. Ignore, shift, minimize, divert.

 

[moije2]

Also Meredith's DNA is on the kitchen knife blade and on the cleaning rags, according to Sollecito's admission, then. If admissions is the probative method, it's game over for Knox and Sollecito.

Btw, I am was not only contending over the area of finding of Guede's DNA (where I am right and Kaosium was wrong, despite your self-defeating attempt to shift the goalpost), I was also disputing the "initial phase of investigation."

This one takes the cake. The quality of such comments are bringing the level of discussion on this board to a new low. Please do better. 3000 some posts and you let that one slip out.