CONCERNING A 'RADIUS OF GUILT'
Originally Posted by Machiavelli
But this would be still nonsense. It is not enough. DOn't you realize it?
Rudy Guede was not convicted because "he was in the room at the time of the murder". As a piece of information, that was one causal step that brought to his conviction, but it would not be sufficient to find him guilty.
Rudy Gude was convicted because he lied.
He failed to proviede a plausible innocent explanation for his presence in the room at the time of the murder. This is why he was convicted, not because of just his presence.
The presence in the murder room at the time of the murder itself would not sufficient, and on the other hand, it would be not neccessary. You don't need to present on the place of a murder in order to be guilty. It is sufficient if your conscious behaviour is element in the chain of causes. Then, on the other hand, even if there was massive evidence of Knox and Sollecito in the murder room, by your definition since Knox was "living there", given that Knox's traces could be easilly justified and given that mostly evidence cannot be dated, it would be extremely difficult to connect their traces with a specific time.
However, there are luminol prints which can be attributed to blood by any reasonable person and this is NOT disproven at all by any scientific test, contrarly from what you assert. And there is also a bra clasp and a print on a bathmat that is in diluted blood. Those prints are related to the time of murder and to Knox and Sollecito: there is a precise connection between their physical evidence and the time of the murder.
Moreover, there is no way a "right" time for Meredith's DNA to be on Sollecito's kitchen knife, and also the physical evidence of a staged burglary is clearly related to the events of the murder and also logically linked to Knox.
But there isn't any contradictiom: the scientific literature is simply on my side. I have already pointed to Tobe et al. and Webb et al. and other sources which you have already seen. Nothing should be added to this. Either you see those findings, or you refuse to see them.
The bast state of our knowledge says the things that are written in the sources that I have quoted, and that some people here seem to try to desperately deny.
Oh yes a "suggestion"!
It was not Mignini! It was a suggestion!
Don't you realize how ridiculous your claims sound, in the face of reality?
Look these are the facts: Paolo Canessa and Alessandro Crini thought the evidence set agaisnt Calamandrei was sufficient, and asked him to be found guilty and sentenced to life.
Giuliano Mignini thought the evidence would be found insufficient by a judge, and asked the preliminary judge to drop the charge on ground of insuffficience of evidence.
These are the facts.
Then, the idea that Carlizzi was a confident to Mignini before 2005, and then he decided to distrust her and to arrest her only later, well, it should be obvious to anyone how your attempt of rationalizations flies in the face of any attempt to believe something consistent.
I stay full of surprise before the degree of nonsens to which you seem ready to to take your rationalization scenario, in order to avoid dissonance with the assumption that you "belive Spezi/Preston".
Certainlly Carlizzi was among the first witnesses who presented themselves to "talk" about the Narducci case since 2004, this is in the line of Carzzi's character. But then, as I quoted newspapers where Mignini points out that Carlizzi is one of those witnesses who like to "talk while knowing nothing", you should have derives some logical conclusion. Mignini openly discredited any information that ever came from Carlizzi, including the information that she gave the very beginning. He said it was a mass of lies, in the bast scenario a mass of raving from a mental mythomaniac.
So Mignini discredited all Carlizzi's testimonies including the early one. all what she told, from the beginning: how can you put this information together with Spezi's claim that Mignini had built a case on his belief of Carlizzi's testimony? How can you put together his public claim that he believed Carlizzi was a crazy liar, with a theory about him bringing into court a theory developed from Carlizzi?
But Mignini was stainelss on this! You really don't understand anything about procedure. You seem to mistake Mignini for a "prosecutor" within the USA system, in which the prosecution decides whether to bring a case into court or not. But the Italian system is completely different! It is not the prosecutior who brings cases into courts: it is the Investigation Judge. The job of the prosecution is not discretional: he needs to bring all his investigation before the examination of a preliminary judge. Whenever he opens an investigation file, some judge will have to decide about it. What you are saying is complete nonsense.
CJ72:
Thanks for responding Mach, and you certainly have given plenty to ponder. I'll have to get back with more on everyone's favorite psychic, Madam Carlizzi, a bit later.
For now though consider the highlights.
1. So a person does not need to be proven to be present at the location of a crime, in order to be convicted in Italy. Ok, is there a radius of guilt?. So that if you're within say a half-mile, you could be swept up and convicted based on whatever?
The problem Mach, is that to believe Amanda and Raf are guilty in THIS CASE, you must literally depart reality. I'm not saying this as a figure of speech, I mean it literally. The argument that IN OTHER MURDER CASES, a conviction can occur because of evidence not found in the murder room, IS TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT EVIDENCE OF THE KILLER'S IDENTITY WAS FOUND IN THIS CASE..
There is evidence of only Rudy Guede in the room where Meredith was killed, in her own blood. AND, Rudy's DNA IS INCRIMINATING, BECAUSE RUDY GUEDE HAS NO LEGITIMATE REASON FOR BEING IN THEIR HOME, AND HAS A HISTORY OF BURGLARy, BRANDISHING KNIVES, KNIFE FIGHTS, HARASSING WOMEN, AND BLACK OUT FUGUE STATES, AND LYING.
Amanda and Raf are not in the same position in this case as Rudy, WHOM THEY DID NOT KNOW, AND WITH WHOM THEY HAD NO PRIOR CONTACT.
2. You mention with some apparent frustration, the difficulty of ascribing physical evidence of Amanda and/or Raf, as evidence of their participation in the murder, if such indications cannot be accurately dated to the time of the murder. THIS IS TRUE. Even if such traces were found in the murder room, if they can not be linked to the time of the murder, they can not be held to be conclusive of their presence at the time of the murder, BECAUSE AMANDA AND RAF HAD A LEGITIMATE RIGHT TO BE IN THEIR OWN HOME AND LEAVE THEIR OWN BIOLOGICAL TRACES ANYWHERE. The exception being obviously, if their DNA turned up somewhere incriminating, LIKE INSIDE MEREDITH, or if there footprints or fingerprints were PRINTED IN MEREDITH'S BLOOD, AS WERE RUDY GUEDE'S BIOLOGICAL SAMPLES.
This is the reality Mach. You may not like it, because it conflicts with your having an easy pathway to reasoning a guilty verdict, but no reasonable person will believe it, BECAUSE IT IS AN OBVIOUS LOGICAL FLAW IN YOUR REASONING.
3. Your continuing to insist that you have cited scientific literature that contradicts common knowledge, IS DIVERSIONARY BANTER INTENDED BY A CHARLATAN TO GULL THE CREDULOUS. WE ARE NOT YOUR SIMPLETONS. This type of fake pseudo science may pass for reasoning in Italy's tabloids, and god knows nothing is too low, dishonest or vile to be worthy of headlines in the UK tabloids, BUT NO ONE WITH ANY SENSE BELIEVES YOU HAVE REFUTED WELLL SETTLED FORENSIC SCIENCE: NEGATIVE TMB CONFIRMATORY TEST = NO BLOOD. NOT IF IT COMES FROM MACH, NENCINI, MASSEI, OR THE ISC. IT IS NO MORE CONVINCING THAN A PMF MOD"S CLAIM TO HAVE "DEBUNKED" DR PETER GILL. IT IS THE WORK AND PROVINCE OF CHARLATANS.
Mach, I'm exhausted. Long story short, you have to take THIS CASE, on its own merits. THERE IS evidence of the murderer IN THE MURDER ROOM AND BOTH IN AND ON THE VICTIM. Just one murderer, Rudy Guede. Not Amanda or Raf or anyone else.
ALL OF YOUR OTHER EFFORTS TO INCRIMINATE THE PAIR, IS TO TRY TO EQUATE THEIR POSITION TO THAT OF RUDY GUEDE, AND THAT IS A GRATUITOUSLY FALSE EQUIVALENCE.
You have participated in falsely accusing two innocent people, cheered at their unjust false imprisonment, and continue to advocate in furtherance of a miscarriage of justice.
For your own peace of mind, conscience, personal reputation, and ability to sleep at night or walk the streets with any sense of pride and self respect: take a moment and think.
In my opinion this is the trouble with the pro-guilt lobby.... the complete inability to properly assess things, and when trapped, to level ad hominem at the messenger.