Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

Putin explained he left early because he wanted to be rested before returning to work.

So this is how tyrants operate.
This is why Italian judges never work.
This is why Amanda and Raffaelele have been evaporated.

Remember Amanda suffered a spell of lawyers judges and prosecutors explaining the exigencies of family demands for skiing holidays while she STOOD IN THE DOCK.

 

[carbonjam72]

I have looked around but hadn’t found anything relating to the slander application and I know that you and others are close to the Knox family and as such may have more insight; whether you are wasting your time or not is not for me to decide or comment on.



Yes my support remains with the Kercher family and I still do not know any members of Meredith’s family. I am curious as to what the outcome will be of the 3rd level trial next spring and the status of the ECHR slander application.

Why would you think that "support for the Kerchers" includes the perpetration of a miscarriage of justice?

 

[carbonjam72]

Why?
I kill one man because he is irredeemable, or 6 million because they are irredeemable, is there a substantive difference, when neither finding is agreed upon by a jury of peers?
You treetop dwellers must debate these matters.
You have an avatar from heaven.

Mignini is not a decent person, and for what he's done just in this case, he could easily spend the rest of his life in prison, and I wouldn't call it unjust.

But he is in no way comparable to hitler, stalin, mao, or any other successful mass murdering heads of state. He's not even as bad as a mussolini.

Mignini is a low level penny ante buffoon, 'in thrall to a delirium' is how his prosecutor in his abuse of office charges referred to him, rather aptly.

In fairness, we must give the devils their due.

 

[Kaosium]

I see you've drunk in the joys of hyperbole!

​

Why?
I kill one man because he is irredeemable, or 6 million because they are irredeemable, is there a substantive difference, when neither finding is agreed upon by a jury of peers?

Several orders of magnitude I'd say.

 

[Desert Fox]

Putin explained he left early because he wanted to be rested before returning to work.

So this is how tyrants operate.
This is why Italian judges never work.
This is why Amanda and Raffaelele have been evaporated.

Remember Amanda suffered a spell of lawyers judges and prosecutors explaining the exigencies of family demands for skiing holidays while she STOOD IN THE DOCK.

I do not believe courts in most developed nations take vacations in the middle of court cases even in appeals.

 

[Desert Fox]

Mignini is not a decent person, and for what he's done just in this case, he could easily spend the rest of his life in prison, and I wouldn't call it unjust.

But he is in no way comparable to hitler, stalin, mao, or any other successful mass murdering heads of state. He's not even as bad as a mussolini.

Mignini is a low level penny ante buffoon, 'in thrall to a delirium' is how his prosecutor in his abuse of office charges referred to him, rather aptly.

In fairness, we must give the devils their due.

Although in fairness, Mussolini was a buffoon in comparison to Hitler as well. Seems to be the story of Italy, even in their $#%&ups, they seem to be buffoons to others.

 

[carbonjam72]

At issue is which is worse, doing evil which you thing is good or doing evil for evils sake even if less actual people are harmed. In this case, I don't actually agree with Samson although I do understand the argument.

These are great questions DF.

I think most people who do evil things find a way to blame their victims, including blaming them for doing things like defending themselves or pressing charges and having the perps arrested.

I think there's very few that 'do evil for evil's sake', but I have seen a them.

This case seems to draw out the worst of people, those least aware of themselves, and most ready to express their sadistic pathology, using the Kerchers as a fig leaf for their own malicious natures.

Witness the recent discussions about footprints in blood in the murder room, and the denial that one set of footprints in Meredith's blood logically implies only one person present. Instead, we are given examples of cases where there are no footprints or biological evidence at all in a murder room, whilst the poster smugly nods and says "see?". Yes, we do.

 

[Desert Fox]

These are great questions DF.

I think most people who do evil things find a way to blame their victims, including blaming them for doing things like defending themselves or pressing charges and having the perps arrested.

I think there's very few that 'do evil for evil's sake', but I have seen a them.

This case seems to draw out the worst of people, those least aware of themselves, and most ready to express their sadistic pathology, using the Kerchers as a fig leaf for their own malicious natures.

Witness the recent discussions about footprints in blood in the murder room, and the denial that one set of footprints in Meredith's blood logically implies only one person present. Instead, we are given examples of cases where there are no footprints or biological evidence at all in a murder room, whilst the poster smugly nods and says "see?". Yes, we do.

If you go back through old newspapers on the Web, you get similar comments against the Norfolk Four to what you get against Amanda and Raff. From what I understand, although I have not delved deeply, you have the same situation with the West Memphis Three as well.

I suspect that the next high profile case we have, even when the defendants are most likely innocent, we will have the same thing.

The funny thing is that I don't get this kind of visceral hate. Even pretty horrible people, I more believe in just getting them away from others where they cannot destroy more lives.

 

[carbonjam72]

If you go back through old newspapers on the Web, you get similar comments against the Norfolk Four to what you get against Amanda and Raff. From what I understand, although I have not delved deeply, you have the same situation with the West Memphis Three as well.

I suspect that the next high profile case we have, even when the defendants are most likely innocent, we will have the same thing.

The funny thing is that I don't get this kind of visceral hate. Even pretty horrible people, I more believe in just getting them away from others where they cannot destroy more lives.

Pretty much agree. But again, I don't agree people who display these behaviors are normal, regular people. They appear to be broken in some way. and many seem to have difficulty with lawful behavior, and skirting the boundaries of fraud.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

The Knoxians claim that it's IMPOSSIBLE for Knox to have been in the room where the murder took place because in the areas tested there was none of her DNA, no fingerprints, no footprints. So, it's IMPOSSIBLE for her to have been there.

Well no, it's not impossible and the Latko trial is another example. 20 stab wounds... 2 throats slit: yet no DNA, no fingerprints, no footprints where found.

Vibio,
This is an honest line of thought and series of questions for you. I'm hoping we can find some sort of agreement here.

In general, I agree with you that the lack of fingerprints and DNA of Knox and Sollecito at the crime scene does not prove they were not there. For example, not to venture too far off into hypothetical movie plot lines, but an experienced hitman who really knows what he's doing can probably kill someone and manage to not leave a trace of his involvement most of the time, by wearing certain clothes, gloves, and with a deep knowledge of what needs to be done to minimize leaving evidence. And by killing the person quickly and efficiently so there's zero struggle. So it's not physically impossible to not leave evidence of the killer behind during a murder, it's just really really hard and requires a lot of thought and planning.

I hope you agree there was no clean up afterwards, correct? Because with a cleanup, Guede's DNA, handprint, and shoeprint would have been removed as well. This means that in order for Knox/Sollecito to not leave a trace, they either would have to not have been physically involved in the murder, or they would have had to be extremely meticulous and careful to not leave a trace of themselves behind. And worn gloves.

So you mention they may have been wearing gloves since it was a cold November night. (Side note: the average high temperature in Perugia is actually 62 deg F with a low of 46 deg F in early November. 17C high and 8C low. Not actually that cold and certainly not glove wearing weather for me. Gloves would actually be uncomfortable.) This is purely speculative but I'll give it to you that they had gloves on that night. Do you agree that generally when people arrive to their destination, they will, at the very least, remove their winter gloves and probably their coat as well? It would be incredibly unusual to leave winter gloves on (when the temperature is in the 50's outside, especially) when you get inside.

This means that what actually had to happen for them to not leave a trace of DNA is that they were wearing gloves, kept them on after arriving home before the fatal argument, and have been extremely meticulous and aware of what they were doing during the murder. And they brought a chef's knife over to the apartment for some incredibly strange reason. This means it almost certainly had to be pre-meditated for your gloves wearing (and chef's knife carrying) hypothesis to be correct. And they had to be incredibly good and aware to not leave evidence behind. Like professional hitman level good. If they were this good and thinking this far in advance, why did they invite Rudy to come, who they didn't even know? Wouldn't people who are borderline professional killers think he would seriously screw things up? AND leave a witness? (Why didn't he mention Raffaele and Amanda in his call to his friend?) Have you ever, in your life, heard of a situation where two people who were this ruthless (some would say they would have had to be professional) would recruit a random unknown to help? And why would two borderline professionals choose a kitchen knife, of all things? Why would Raffaele be involved at all, rent money or not?

Do you agree that for this to have any value as a hypothesis whatsoever, that all of the judeges had to be wrong about the motive? This wasn't a random act of violence that got out of control, or a momentary choice for evil, or a marijuana fueled murder rage. It HAD to be premeditated. And if it was premeditated, why randomly recruit Rudy on the way (beforehand, there would be no way to know they'd even see him!), and why a chef's knife of all things?

If they were this careful to not leave any evidence behind, what the heck is with the bra clasp? They had gloves on! There's no way Raffaele could have deposited his DNA. And what of the other two unknown profiles? Do you agree that, even if they had participated in this group murder, that the bra clasp still had to be due to contamination? Either Raf had gloves on or he didn't. If he did, no DNA anywhere (meaning contaminated clasp). If he did not, then DNA everywhere, like Rudy. Which means he either was not there at all, or he was, wore gloves, and the clasp was still contaminated (no evidential value).

This means that we actually have a premeditated murder and all the judges had to be wrong. The scientific explanations of gastric emptying and time of death have to be wrong. The bra clasp had to be contaminated, since we have ruthless killers, borderline professionals, that know how to kill someone and not leave evidence behind. The knife does not make much sense either -- why a chef's knife and why did it not match the bloody imprint at the crime scene? Weird choice for professionals. Why recruit Rudy out of the blue? Weird choice for professionals. Why did they voluntarily talk to police afterwards to help if they were ruthless killers? Weird choice for professionals. Why did Rudy not mention Amanda and Raffaele in his Skype call since it would be clear they were trying to set up him if this far-fetched scenario actually happened? Weird choice for Rudy. Also weird that he would choose to join in a group murder even though he had no problem with Meredith. Raffaele too! No problems with Meredith, yet he wants to randomly kill her?

I hope you see some holes and implausibilities with your theory. Compare this hypothesis to another one: Amanda and Raffaele were at Raffaele's apartment watching Amelie when the murder occurred. This matches the scientific measurement of time of death according to Meredith's last meal and normal gastric emptying. No crazy theories required regarding pre-meditation, professional killers, randomly recruiting Rudy, randomly bringing a chef's knife. None of that. Just Rudy killing Meredith by himself, since she came home while he was trying to rob the cottage. Bra clasp due to contamination (it had to be due to contamination either way as we discussed above) and no crazy chef's knife scenario (all the independent and non-prosecution experts that have looked at the chef's knife evidence say it is unreliable, the LCN result was contamination, and it certainly wasn't used to kill Meredith).

Why do you favor the explanation with all of the implausibilities, after thinking it through? Isn't it much simpler to think Amanda and Raffaele weren't cold blooded hitmen, and Rudy killed Meredith by himself, since that is what actually matches the known facts and evidence?

Honestly curious what your thoughts are on this, and how you deal with the unusual circumstances required to create such a scenario.

 

[griffinmill]

It's got primate written all over it, and that narrows down the list of candidates considerably.

Which one is the primate?

 

[Dan O.]

The ones that just come in here and make drive by posts are simple trolls that aren't going to advance the discussion. I may challenge them once or twice to support their claims with actual evidence but they eventually end up in my ignore list. The remaining guilters aren't so shallow but there is still a limit to the depth of their arguments beyond which they dare not go. Rather than exploring new territory, they rotate to another topic or reboot and dump the "all the other evidence" spiel.

I had envisioned the solution long ago when I was in college before there was such a thing as online discussion boards. The solution is simply a tree of knowledge. The tree forces the discussion to branch out to seek answers for the unanswered questions. Without the tree the discussion goes round and round like a beatle harvesting a dung ball. It may look sophisticated on the surface but throughout it is nothing but crap.

When I first joined this thread I started such a tree. I invited posters on both sides who showed a desire to seek the truth to join and contribute. Many did join but few contributed. While I often get praised for the collection of facts I have accumulated, apparently nobody sees the value in contributing to that collection.

I see a tree of arguments as a way to break the cycle of Guilters shifting to the next argument when countered. The shallow guilters will still shift but the tree provides a cut and paste response and offers a place to document their repetition for which they can be cited for spamming.

 

[jhunter1163]

Do not personalize your arguments and remain civil and polite.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[Bill Williams]

Now member here Stilicho posts this on PMF dot ORG, rather than here.

Secondly, in their pursuit of justice for the "wrongly accused", neither of them have ever publicly stated that they thought Guede was innocent or that Patrick may well have been guilty. Apart from AK's original statements, she has never wavered in her absolute faith in the Italian law enforcement, forensic laboratories, or justice system in releasing Patrick and imprisoning Guede. This has always bothered me about her fans but I actually did not expect her to place such extraordinary faith in a system and process that also convicted her of Meredith's murder
These people mimic Nencini who is planning to relieve Raffaele Sollecito of his life while
Nencini Stephanie Maresca Mignini Lyle John junior Mignini Stephanonie Napoleone, Commodi, Follain, Nadeau, Voght, plan to rear children grand children, and great grand children.

I do not "get" this. When in prison, AK had no choice but to say nice things about "the system". I mean, they can slap her at interrogation with no consequence.

However, has Stilicho not read AK's book? Mignini is a madman!

Is Stilicho making a point that's being missed here?

 

[NotEvenWrong]

I do not "get" this. When in prison, AK had no choice but to say nice things about "the system". I mean, they can slap her at interrogation with no consequence.

However, has Stilicho not read AK's book? Mignini is a madman!

Is Stilicho making a point that's being missed here?

If I were completely and provably innocent of a crime, and the scenario the prosecution was putting forward was completely preposterous, I would have faith in "the system" as well that it would find the truth. Hard to know how corrupt and/or incompetent a system is until they show first hand how corrupt and incompetent they are.

And, as you said, if Amanda badmouths the system while in prison it's not hard to imagine what would happen to her. Badmouthing the system publicly while being put on trial for murder by the system? I mean really? Stilicho seems a tad naive, to put it mildly.

 

[js202]

Stilicho seems a tad naive, to put it mildly.

Knowing this individual's posting history, I suspect willfully disingenuous is a better description. The PMFs display many of the characteristics of a cult, and some utterly preposterous nonsense gets conjectured there daily as the drones find new ways to buzz the site dogma.

 

[anglolawyer]

I like your long post above, NotEvenWrong, and would just add to its absurdity that we know Amanda took her gloves off when she used the knife as her DNA is on the handle.

 

[carbonjam72]

THE RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE IN THE MURDER ROOM - The central issue in dispute.

Just want to say I think I'm noticing the major split between the guilters, and objective commenters on the site, and in general on the web.

The major split seems to be over the relevance of the fact that Rudy Guede left his footprints in blood, along with other biological evidence in the room where he killed Meredith Kercher.

Recognizing that a clean-up in that murder room is impossible, yet unable to otherwise explain the absence of Amanda and Raf in that room, the prosecution (and guilters) reach for 'similar sounding' arguments -

For Example:

1. The crime scene was staged - i.e., the staged break-in. Because if the cottage is at it appears to be, a common crime scene, then there is no reason to implicate Amanda and Raf, so there has to be "staging" of some kind to create the appearance of innocence for Amanda and Raf.

2. There was a clean-up - i.e. outside the murder room, because a selective DNA/fingerprint clean-up is obviously impossible, and the single set of footsteps in Meredith's blood demonstrates there was obviously no clean-up in the murder room.

3. The foot prints revealed by luminol are in blood - because otherwise, the absence of Amanda and Raf's footprints in blood is inconsistent with their presence at the time of the murder.

4. The crime scene includes the whole cottage - because there is no evidence of Amanda and Raf's involvement in the murder room while at the same time there is plentiful evidence of Rudy Guede's presence, and Guede admits to being there.

By refusing to accept the logical conclusion that no evidence of Amanda and Raf in the room where Meredith was killed, necessitates the conclusion that they weren't there, the prosecution (and guilters) are then left to concoct fake evidence, and dispute authentic scientists and genuine expert opinion, and seek to replace reliable information with pseudo science and plainly dubious conjecture.

All of this combines with a simple unwavering refusal to accept the plain meaning of known facts.

Hence Mach thinks all of the above 4 reasons, and claims the contrary is so irrational that it cannot even be considered or discussed.

As long as the conversation is directed away from the murder room, the guilters and prosecution can talk all day. BUt once we focus on the condition of the murder room, there really is no case, and never has been.

 

[Anode]

I like your long post above, NotEvenWrong, and would just add to its absurdity that we know Amanda took her gloves off when she used the knife as her DNA is on the handle.

Just to play devil's advocate, she could have left her gloves on. Her DNA could be on the handle from cooking at Raf's place and Meredith's could be on due to the murder. In other words:

1) Use knife in crime with gloves on.
2) Clean knife thoroughly except for the DNA in the groove. (?!)
3) Use knife to cook at Raf's place with gloves off (I don't know if they cooked after the crime and before they were incarcerated.)

This scenario would make it very, very unlikely that any of Meredith's DNA would be left on the blade.

And of course the biggest point is: in the unlikely event this is what happened, then you can't infer that she struck the fatal cut. It could have been anyone because if she indeed wore gloves, then her DNA was deposited on the handle somewhere other than the murder scene.

Now we're right back to: The easiest explanation of the knife DNA is contamination and the use of LCN DNA techniques in a lab not equipped for it.

 

[Planigale]

THE RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE IN THE MURDER ROOM - The central issue in dispute.

Just want to say I think I'm noticing the major split between the guilters, and objective commenters on the site, and in general on the web.

The major split seems to be over the relevance of the fact that Rudy Guede left his footprints in blood, along with other biological evidence in the room where he killed Meredith Kercher.

Recognizing that a clean-up in that murder room is impossible, yet unable to otherwise explain the absence of Amanda and Raf in that room, the prosecution (and guilters) reach for 'similar sounding' arguments -

For Example:

1. The crime scene was staged - i.e., the staged break-in. Because if the cottage is at it appears to be, a common crime scene, then there is no reason to implicate Amanda and Raf, so there has to be "staging" of some kind to create the appearance of innocence for Amanda and Raf.

2. There was a clean-up - i.e. outside the murder room, because a selective DNA/fingerprint clean-up is obviously impossible, and the single set of footsteps in Meredith's blood demonstrates there was obviously no clean-up in the murder room.

3. The foot prints revealed by luminol are in blood - because otherwise, the absence of Amanda and Raf's footprints in blood is inconsistent with their presence at the time of the murder.

4. The crime scene includes the whole cottage - because there is no evidence of Amanda and Raf's involvement in the murder room while at the same time there is plentiful evidence of Rudy Guede's presence, and Guede admits to being there.

By refusing to accept the logical conclusion that no evidence of Amanda and Raf in the room where Meredith was killed, necessitates the conclusion that they weren't there, the prosecution (and guilters) are then left to concoct fake evidence, and dispute authentic scientists and genuine expert opinion, and seek to replace reliable information with pseudo science and plainly dubious conjecture.

All of this combines with a simple unwavering refusal to accept the plain meaning of known facts.

Hence Mach thinks all of the above 4 reasons, and claims the contrary is so irrational that it cannot even be considered or discussed.

As long as the conversation is directed away from the murder room, the guilters and prosecution can talk all day. BUt once we focus on the condition of the murder room, there really is no case, and never has been.

Thank you. You have expressed my thoughts more succinctly and clearly than I could for myself.