Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Planigale]

I interpreted this as "brown"

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4347454831cf802805.jpg[/qimg]

Those certainly are not 'panties' possibly a scarf or a top.

 

[Kauffer]

1. Is there evidence of a significant source of Sollecito's contamination around the door (answer: No. You may speculate about the presence of a microscopic amount, still unproven and his DNA was absent from all floor samples).
2. How likely secondary or tertiary transfer is, from microscopic sources on a specific location?
3. Transfer where? The "room" has many locations. And many were checked.
4. How the DNA would stick on the bra clasp after departing from those imaginary spots, also require speculation and probability assessment.

Conclusion: contamination from Sollecito's DNA is an unsupported postulate.

Are you suggesting that Mr Sollecito's DNA was unlikely to have been in the apartment in the first place? Are you aware that fingerprints can be a source of DNA?

What specifically in connection with the finding of Mr Sollecito's profile on the bra clasp is inculpatory? Why is his profile inculpatory and the others not?

Earlier, you suggested that the reason why there was no evidence of Ms Knox and only this from Mr Sollecito in the room was that they ran out immediately after the stabbing? Then, having left no evidence of themselves they later came back to effect a cleanup (that according to you was not necessary). Is it on this second visit that Mr Sollecito touched the clasp? What were the circumstances? Why was he doing it?

 

[Kauffer]

Your technical concept of connection time is incorrect: ring time is counted withing the connection time. And the rest, is incorrect as well. There isn't another witness who told a comparably inconsistent story, except maybe Kokomani. But actually, I don't think he was as inconsistent as Knox.

Are you suggesting that if Person A phones B and it rings for 10 seconds before B answers and they speak for 10 seconds then on A's phone record it will show as a 20 second call?? I just want to be absolutely clear what you are saying.

 

[Dan O.]

I now believe that the initial impression of a change in foot position in the first compared to the second photo is a kind of optical illusion. If one perceives the left edge of the left foot as resting directly on the floor, then the second photo would seem to show that it had been moved. But your explanation that this is really just an effect of the angles of view and parallax seems correct to me. There is no evidence in these two pictures that the foot and leg were moved.

This is what sets us apart from the guilters. We are all susceptible to misinterpreting evidence on the first look and it is dificult to overcome the confirmation bias that makes us tend to see what we expect to see. But we can get past the initial impressions through reasoned analysis. We admit where we were wrong and accept the stronger truth.

 

[Bill Williams]

What do you mean here by "contaminate"?
In advance, I say that contamination meant as a generic concept is something with no implication.

You are incredible. This is nonsense. It's hard to believe anyone would say such garbage.

 

[Machiavelli]

(... skip weird cogitations ...)

* In court prosecutor Comodi lied in court saying that Amanda called her mother at 12.00 pm before anything had happened to cause concern. The call was actually made at 12.47 pm.

Incorrect statement (and false conclusion about lyiong). Comodi said "nothing had happened" yet, not referred to concerns but as opposed the previous answer of Knox, where Ms. Knox mentioned the confusion and the many things that were happening after the arrival of the police.

It would make no sense to accuse Comodi of lying, by the way, also because there is not that difference as for the number of things that happened between 12:00 and 12:47; very little happened within that time frame. In the "discovery" of strange clues was almost complete, knowledge about the things that would cause concern was not that different: by around 12 Knox had already discovered all those things which (she says) made her conclude that someone had entered the house and made her feel worried to the point of calling Filomena and call Sollecito. The time after that was basically wasted time. Not answering to Filomena's calls. Waiting and being uncertain whether telling Sollecito over breakfast first, then waiting another fifteen minutes after filomena's last call.

* The postal police lied about their time of arrival to give the impression Raffaele had called the caribineri after they arrived.

And the proof? Actually, what comes out is that it was Knox and Sollecito who lied about all their timings, which they changed several times, including this one. What we have is the Postal Police report which they wrote before they could know anything about the investigation. Then we have video evidence and the videos do not prove Sollecito's version at all, but even in the best event, the timings only leave room for a minor variation: calling the Carabinieri at 12:54 is still too late.

* The prosecution released a photo a of bloody bathroom without telling the bathroom had been sprayed with a chemical and this was not how the bathroom would appear to the naked eye.

False.
It's an inocentisti myth. An invention of the knoxophiles.

The picture of the red coloured bathroom was simply never published in Italy.
It was published only by a British tabloid, which bought it from a press agancy together with a batch of tens of photos from the crime scene. The decision to publish the photos was by a British tabloid, presumably for lucrative reason (sell morbid stories), the prosecution or police had nothing to do with it. Neither it is reasonable to assume that the police and prosecution could have any interest in publishing the photo, also considering that in fact in Italy the photo was not published.

 

[Machiavelli]

Are you suggesting that if Person A phones B and it rings for 10 seconds before B answers and they speak for 10 seconds then on A's phone record it will show as a 20 second call?? I just want to be absolutely clear what you are saying.

This is exactly what I am saying. Or better this is what the experts told me (I am no expert).

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Those certainly are not 'panties' possibly a scarf or a top.

No, those are her panties, and they do look brown in that photo.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

The shoeprints - which are all documented - are not Guede's and are not even in blood. They belong to at less two different kind of shoes. One is possibly an All-Star shoe and one belongs to maybe a Marrell shoe.

What on earth are you talking about? Which shoeprints? Where?

Perhaps he's referring to shoe prints hidden in a secret evidence file that only he and the prosecutor are allowed to see.

I'm attaching a photo of the shoe prints I know about, which are shown in the crime scene photos at the foot of Meredith's bed. Nobody, including Guede, disputes that they were made with Guede's Nike sneakers and Meredith's blood.

ETA: He might be talking about dusty shoe prints that were found on several items of printed material, which are shown in Rinaldi's report. Maybe Amanda/Raffaele slid around on post cards instead of towels when they were staging the crime scene, eh?

 

[Machiavelli]

Are you suggesting that Mr Sollecito's DNA was unlikely to have been in the apartment in the first place? Are you aware that fingerprints can be a source of DNA?

But the metal hook of the bra clasp is not "the apartment".
It's this concept that seems a bit overlooked in the innocentisti's mind.
If you want to maintain the following theory: that Sollecito's DNA was likely to stick on the bra clasp, because it was everywhere in the apartment, then you have a premise, from which your conclusion derives. that is: that Sollecito's DNA was everywhere in the apartment (I prresume, you mean on the floor inside the apartment). In order to reach the conclusion, you need to prove the premise.
Here, not only you don't have a proof of the premise. What you have, is evidence of a fact contrary to that: of the 400+ samples taken from the room, none of them was a potential contamination source from Sollecito's DNA. Of the 25+ samples taken from the floor, none yielded Sollecito's DNA.
So where is the evidence of the existence of this big source of Sollecito's DNA that would make contamination become likely?
Was there a splatter of Sollecito's blood somewhere?
In a fingerprint what you can find at best is picograms of DNA, an extremely small number of lively skin cells. It's something microscopic, extremely difficult to transfer. What are the chances of a tertiary transfer of this kind to occur? The probability for this DNA to travel around encounter the bra clasp (nothing else) and stick on it, is about zero.

Earlier, you suggested that the reason why there was no evidence of Ms Knox and only this from Mr Sollecito in the room was that they ran out immediately after the stabbing? Then, having left no evidence of themselves they later came back to effect a cleanup (that according to you was not necessary).

No it was not necessary, but the first problem was that Meredith was still alive. She did not die immediately after the stabbing. They didn't know if she was dead. And didn't know what to do if she was still alive. The second thing is that they could not go much around the city anyway, because maybe they had bloody hands or anyway they were partly dirty with blood. Third thing, they had left the murder weapon on the bed sheet, and the murder weapon had Knox's DNA and fingerprints and belonged to Sollecito's apartment. Fourth thing, they were doing something in the apartment below. I don't know what, but they used it. Fourth, they decided to lock the door in the hope of delaying discovery and steer the investigation away from them. Fifth: anyway they had to stage a burglary, this would be absolutely necessary, therefore they must come back to the scene.

 

[Bill Williams]

1. Is there evidence of a significant source of Sollecito's contamination around the door (answer: No. You may speculate about the presence of a microscopic amount, still unproven and his DNA was absent from all floor samples).2. How likely secondary or tertiary transfer is, from microscopic sources on a specific location?
3. Transfer where? The "room" has many locations. And many were checked.
4. How the DNA would stick on the bra clasp after departing from those imaginary spots, also require speculation and probability assessment.

Conclusion: contamination from Sollecito's DNA is an unsupported postulate.

Are you suggesting that Mr Sollecito's DNA was unlikely to have been in the apartment in the first place? Are you aware that fingerprints can be a source of DNA?

What specifically in connection with the finding of Mr Sollecito's profile on the bra clasp is inculpatory? Why is his profile inculpatory and the others not?

Earlier, you suggested that the reason why there was no evidence of Ms Knox and only this from Mr Sollecito in the room was that they ran out immediately after the stabbing? Then, having left no evidence of themselves they later came back to effect a cleanup (that according to you was not necessary). Is it on this second visit that Mr Sollecito touched the clasp? What were the circumstances? Why was he doing it?

This is where Machiavelli goes into overdrive in his confirmation bias, and as a major participant in the Pro-guilt PR lobby.

The reality is that the investigators were asked why they did not test the outside doorhandle of Meredith's door, as they had done the inside doorhandle. The answer was that the crime had been committed in Meredith's room, so why test outside.

Machiavelli is using the forensic choice not to test, to say: "Is there evidence of a significant source of Sollecito's contamination around the door (answer: No. You may speculate about the presence of a microscopic amount, still unproven and his DNA was absent from all floor samples)."

This is part and parcel of the attempt (mainly successful, I might add) to construct a false case against AK and RS.

 

[Machiavelli]

Perhaps he's referring to shoe prints hidden in a secret evidence file that only he and the prosecutor are allowed to see.

I'm attaching a photo of the shoe prints I know about, which are shown in the crime scene photos at the foot of Meredith's bed. Nobody, including Guede, disputes that they were made with Guede's Nike sneakers and Meredith's blood.

Yes, I have seen there are those three shoeprints overall, almost certainly all attributable to Guede, but they are all between the body and the door, they are all "walking out".

You mentioned the existence of footprints that belonged to Rudy allegedly located around the body, at the side of it, showing that Guede was performing activities like pulling the duvet over the body and walking around.
But this is false. Those three prints are towards the exit, one before and the other next to the attributed print, they are part of this trail going out.
But the traces from the alleged struggle with the post-mortem sexual abuse and stepping on the floor in the context of the stepping five times on the pillow?

Also, btw, look at the location of these footprints, and imagine where you would need to locate the body in order to leave some space for stepping on it. How much space would you have? Where was the body? (maybe you would need to do something like a tetris game between the body's legs?).

 

[Dan O.]

What? But why don't you stop to climb on these absurd pretexts. These are very mean objections. Raffaele Sollecito was with Knox: they should have called the police immediately. Any adult person of any language should have called the police immediately. It is obvious that it is those who are on the place, who see the broken window etc, who shall to call the police. Why should be Filomena to take over Knox's duty, and refer to the police about hearsay from another person? Come on try to be objective.

Your stupid argument is totally destroyed by the objective fact that the postal police on the scene themselves with even more information than Amanda and Raffaele had did not think it important to call the real police immediately.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is where Machiavelli goes into overdrive in his confirmation bias, and as a major participant in the Pro-guilt PR lobby.

The reality is that the investigators were asked why they did not test the outside doorhandle of Meredith's door, as they had done the inside doorhandle. The answer was that the crime had been committed in Meredith's room, so why test outside.

(...)

I don't know what you are paraphrasing, but what the forensics said about the handle is irrelevant.
Moreover, the defence had their experts and they had the faculty of doing further tests if they wanted (the defence tested the rock for DNA, that one was tested on the defence request, for example: they could have requested to test the handle if they wanted to).
But in fact even inding Sollecito's DNA on the handle would have been irrelevant. The only point that matters is that contamination of the bra clasp metal hook from that source is not a reasonable scenario. And there is actually no evidence that anything at all was contaminated from that source.

 

[Bill Williams]

So then you hold it as possible that Battistelli could have inadvertently contaminated the crime scene by walking into Meredith's room? Right over the area were moments before Raffaele had been trying to open the door.

What do you mean here by "contaminate"?
In advance, I say that contamination meant as a generic concept is something with no implication.

I asked if you believed Battistelli's in his contention that he did not go into Meredith's room upon the discovery of her body.

This was in the context of you impugning that if Kn and Sollecito were aware that something might have happened to Meredith, it was irresponsible for them NOT to knock down the door - she could have, you speculated, potentially been revivable.

Yet, when Battistelli is exposed as liar on this point by Filomena's boyfriend... it is exactly the point you tried to make about AK and RS which, in fact, applies to him. Meredith could have, hypothetically, been in her last gasps under the duvet and potentially revivable.

The issue is more than, "contamination meant as a generic concept". The very reason he would lie about going in is so that no one could claim he'd contaminated the scene.... after walking (without protective booties or any precautions) over the very space Raffaele had moments before been rough with the door.

You see, the issue is this. Forty-sex days later, when they had nothing against Raffaele, they go back to find a bra-clasp. A bra-clasp that is in a differing position than it was photographed in on Nov 2. There had been obvious other activity, unknown activity, in that room.

At the very least, the scene was not forensicly secure, and Battistelli's entry on Nov 2, which he denies, is the first of perhaps many such entries which compromised the scene.

And after all this, what do we have? A bro-clasp with Meredith's DNA on it, and partial DNA, one from a group of men from which Raffaele cannot be excluded, and Y-haplotypes from at least three other men - two of whom Nencini in 2014 postulates might have been Meredith's "amica".

What is it about that clasp which does not scream contamination?

The only thing about the clasp which does not scream contamination is the pro-guilt lobby like yourself; you know that by accepting that Battistelli lied about going to see if Meredith was deceased.... at the very least he (or whoever told him to lie) was aware of the contamination issue.

It shows wilfulness from someone on the pro-guilt side of things to frame AK and RS, in the case of the bra-clasp it would be to frame RS.

After all..... unless they convict Raffaele, they cannot convict Amanda. That's the math.

And it begins with Battistelli's lie.

 

[Machiavelli]

Your stupid argument is totally destroyed by the objective fact that the postal police on the scene themselves with even more information than Amanda and Raffaele had did not think it important to call the real police immediately.

The Postal Police are the real police.
They didn't call the homicide squad immediately, that's true. They found the body, first.

 

[Planigale]

You are drifting away and away from your own point. And this last comment is plain ludicrous. Knox had talked on the phone with Filomena several times, and Filomena was already on her way home. The Postal Police just happened to be witnesses to Knox's nonchalance about the locked door. It would have been pointless and completely contradictory for Knox to be silent about the (staged) burglary with the Police, given that Filomena was coming.



Alert everyone? But if there is no proof that they even called the Carabinieri before the Postal was already there. They called the police at 12:54 and Knox reports she had taken a shower at 10:45.
To delay her trip? But she woke up at 10:30 and she went to another apartment to shower for no reason, then when she became "worried", instead of telling Sollecito, she waited until they had finished breakfast. And she had also lied with Filomena about her being at home while in fact she was already at Raffaele's flat...
What are you smoking, Bill?



But they did not request help. They delayed the request of help for hours.
They only tell a story about having been in a panic.
Recall how Knox and Sollecito describe their rush and agitation when they entered the apartment to seek if anything was missing...



Filomena didn't know Meredith was without her mobiles. She only knew she didn't answer. In fact, Filomena became panicked when she knew what Knox had been knowing for a while.



Filomena ordered her friends because her friends believed her.
The police had two contradictory versions before them: Knox's story and Filomena's one. It's obvious that they didn't have enough information as for who was telling the truth.
But Filomena's friends knew Filomena was telling the truth.

There is no proof that Knox and Sollecito did not call the carabinieri prior to the arrival of the postal police just an unsubstantiated allegation. There is considerable evidence they did call prior to the arrival of the postal police. There are two conclusions one can definitely draw - the postal police were incompetent because they failed to document the time of their arrival. The second is that this is a fatuous argument because Filomena had been called and I suspect Knox expected the native Italiant to communicate with the police about the break in to HER room.

The one thing is that is certain is that Mach must be male. Going back to wash in your own flat after a dirty night out with the boyfriend is normal behaviour. You need your own hair care products, you shower before putting on clean underwear. The problem with trying to allege that Knox told lies to Filomeno is that Knox spoke poor Italian and Filomeno worse English. Trying to make subtle grammatical interpretations about whether Knox was at Sollecito's or on the way to Sollecito's is foolish.

 

[Machiavelli]

I asked if you believed Battistelli's in his contention that he did not go into Meredith's room upon the discovery of her body.

This was in the context of you impugning that if Kn and Sollecito were aware that something might have happened to Meredith, it was irresponsible for them NOT to knock down the door - she could have, you speculated, potentially been revivable.

Yet, when Battistelli is exposed as liar on this point by Filomena's boyfriend... it is exactly the point you tried to make about AK and RS which, in fact, applies to him. Meredith could have, hypothetically, been in her last gasps under the duvet and potentially revivable. (...)

First of all, it is not true that Battistelli was exposed as a liar.
In fact I said that I had no position about Battistelli. I don't know which witness is correct, and I don't know if the error was a lie.
This is quite different from stating that Battistelli was exposed as a liar.
But the point is that, indeed, it is absolutely not the same thing. There is a very big difference between a testimony with one contradiction (conflicts with another testimony) on one point, and a testimony which is a complete load of crap such as Knox's or Kokomani's.
There is a difference between having one point of contradiction, and a pattern of contradictions in which there is no element consistent with another.
There is also a slight difference between a lie told by a suspect, or by someone who could not be involved in the murder.

 

[Dan O.]

Are you suggesting that if Person A phones B and it rings for 10 seconds before B answers and they speak for 10 seconds then on A's phone record it will show as a 20 second call?? I just want to be absolutely clear what you are saying.

Machiavelli is as usual trying to confuse the issue. Your cellular provider typically charges for air time from send to end. So in your example above, person A would see a bill for the entire 20 seconds. That is in fact reasonable because person A is using air time for those first 10 seconds to listen to the ringing.

But person B is not using air time for until she answers so would only be charged for the last 10 seconds.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Yes, I have seen there are those three shoeprints overall, almost certainly all attributable to Guede, but they are all between the body and the door, they are all "walking out".

You mentioned the existence of footprints that belonged to Rudy allegedly located around the body, at the side of it, showing that Guede was performing activities like pulling the duvet over the body and walking around.
But this is false. Those three prints are towards the exit, one before and the other next to the attributed print, they are part of this trail going out.

Dan O. has examined and oriented these prints and produced a diagram, which perhaps he can post again.

But the traces from the alleged struggle with the post-mortem sexual abuse and stepping on the floor in the context of the stepping five times on the pillow?

Also, btw, look at the location of these footprints, and imagine where you would need to locate the body in order to leave some space for stepping on it. How much space would you have? Where was the body? (maybe you would need to do something like a tetris game between the body's legs?).


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4347454837f09c72d8.jpg[/qimg]

No one can explain every move Guede made at the crime scene. Vinci's crimescope examination showed unmistakably that the prints on the pillow were all made by Guede's Nike sneakers. That's the important point.