Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

But her memories did not seem that confused to Mignini when she released her spontaneous statement.
She dis not seem confused also as described by Anna Donnino's testimony.

I am glad you are admitting that Mignini controlled the interpretation of whether or not Knox was confused. Donnino actually DID think that Knox was confused - to the point of not remembering, therefore Donnino decided to become a mediator and tell Knox the story of how trauma can sometimes lead to forgetfulness. Donnino confirms that Knox initially had no memory of what the police was telling her was true - that Lumumba was involved.

How exactly did Mignini know that Knox was confused? Did he ask her? Mignini said he could tell, without asking her, that she was afraid of Patrick, that she was relieved of a burden, and that she wanted to continue with her "spontaneous statements", all by not asking her a single question. How did Mignini know ANY of this?

Mignini gave away his intent with what he did say he said: that he would act as if only a notary if she wanted to continue. Right there, right then Knox needed a lawyer. By at least the spirit of the law, if not the letter.

Actually, what happened to Lumumba is irrelevant to the point, but it is also not true that the police "interrogated him" or that they "accused" him: he was declared a formal suspect (thus "accused") before that, by a decree of the Public Minister on 8am of Nov 6., and then by an order of the Investigation Judge on Nov. 8., while instead no police interrogation of Lumumba was ever submitted to the judge, so nobody collected interrogation evidence against him prior to his judge appearence; the police spoke with him in prison, but nobody interrogated him; in fact he was interrogated by the judge, but only later.

Keep saying that - that what happened to Lumumba is irrelevant. They went out and arrested him, and Knox did not accomplish that, far from it. At least one policeman thought that the confused memories of a foreigner was insufficient to arrest Lumumba.

What we really need is to see the transcript/videotape/audiotape of Knox's confession to clear all this up. Oh wait.

is not unbeliavable, but the point is that this is an attempt to steer the discussion off-topic. The police might instead have gone to Lumumba's house and killed him right away on racist grounds, like the NY police likes to do with black suspects, and still this wouldn't change a iota about what Knox has done and about her responsabilities.

LOL - you are the champion of strawman arguments. All in the same paragraph where you say that I attempted to steer the discussion off topic. LOL.

Not, the problem with this "quoted" statement (again) is that it is a hoax, it is false news. The police didn't say that. It's one of the usual knoxophile myths, it's a bit like the "Satanic ritual" hoax. If you think you know what you are talking about, then quote a report of their wording or a video about the press conference.

I guess you need to talk to both Mr. Kercher and to Barbie Nadeau (maybe even to Manuela Comodi) about the Satanic rite "hoax". They seem to be believe in it - that Mignini once advanced it!

 

[Bill Williams]

In other words, if it was proven that there was a source of Sollecito's DNA on a specific small surface (like the handle), and if was proven that an interaction with a specific body part occurred (that a certain fingertip touched the handle repeatedly) and that the same fingertip also touched the metal part of the bra clasp, better if repeatedly or in an intense contact, then we would have a very small (albeit reasonably existing) chance to have a tertiary DNA transfer.

How can this be proven when the forensics people admitted to not even testing for DNA on the outer handle?

All the police need to do, then, to prove their case is test only a minority of things. However, I am glad you are now conceding that the only area that matters as a crime scene is Meredith's bedroom - that was the rationale for police not testing the outside doorknob. LOL!

 

[Machiavelli]

Just like it was obviously not Amanda's parents that published the article in a British Tabloid that brought the slander charge against them.

It's completely different. There is no link between criminal defamation by the Knoxs and your alleged case. When you speak publicly, you are willingly publishing information yourself and thus responsible of what you say and liable of criminal defamation.
But the police didn't publish anything. It's not just that it is not proven that they published the photo: it would be simply contrary to common sense and to the obvious real world to assume that they could decide to publish a picture on a British tabloid or even decide the way in which it's published, or even that they would have a practical interest in doing so (nobody in Italy would read it).

So, how did a photo taken by the police durring an official investigation not get entered into the case file and also find its way to the British tabloid if the police had no hand in it?

But actually, no, you can't tell any specific individual or power had a "hand in it", given that investigation files can so often be accessed by so many parties; but also what does it mean "police" and what does it mean "to have a hand in it"? This is no sophistry: it is quite clear that there is a mole who sold a comprehensive load of crime scene photos to a press agency for money; but you would need to seek out a single individual, in order to pin responsabilities. And it is not granted that those responsabilities would actually exist: what if the person was, let's say, Carlo Pacelli? It's not forbidden for a lawyer, as well as for many other officers or professionals, to give confidential material to third persons. Then what if these third persons decided to sell them?
But even if it was a police officer, or a clerk officer, who sold them directly, that wouldn't change anything. Does this have implications?
While, on the legal point of view, strictly speaking, giving crime scene photos to somebody is not a criminal offence. It may be a professional misconduct, but only if the person is an officer who has the duty of secrecy. It's not a crime anyway, and it's not criminal defamation. And it's not even an action with a defamatory intent in a broader sense. Giving picture to a third person may be ok with professional ethics too, and it might be a third person's responsability to release them if they are legally barred.
The publishing of a photo, and publishing it with a wrong caption, on the part of a British tabloid may be a defamatory or damaging action, but you could never blame "the police" for that.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

However, I dispute the orientation of 5B in this rendering. I am going by memory, but I have some strong doubts that the print 5B is pointing toward the right as in this picture: as for what I remember that one seemed mostly a heel's print, and I used to consider the shoeprint it as pointing towards the left (from the viewpoint of watcher; thus in "alignement" with the prints going out).

You don't have to work from memory, because I just posted a photo with a top-down view of the shoe prints. Dan has it exactly right.

 

[Machiavelli]

How can this be proven when the forensics people admitted to not even testing for DNA on the outer handle?

And the defence didn't test it neither. (recall, they asked to have several items tested, for example the rock; but they didn't request to tst the outer handle).
They can't prove it.
But changes little. Even if they could prove it, the probability of a tertiary transfer would appear still too small. This also because, as it comes out, there are no other instances of tertiary transfer of Sollecito's DNA in any other part of the crime scene.

 

[Machiavelli]

You don't have to work from memory, because I just posted a photo with a top-down view of the shoe prints. Dan has it exactly right.

This is the photo I recall. As for my understanding, this is a heel; and the foot points left (watcher's view)
but maybe the letter in the rendering picture is wrong.



Edited to correct: I watched again the rendering picture, now I realize I had read incorrectly the letter on Dan's picture: it was not the "B" print, in fact I was talking about print 5C.

 

[Bill Williams]

And the defence didn't test it neither. (recall, they asked to have several items tested, for example the rock; but they didn't request to tst the outer handle).
They can't prove it.
But changes little. Even if they could prove it, the probability of a tertiary transfer would appear still too small. This also because, as it comes out, there are no other instances of tertiary transfer of Sollecito's DNA in any other part of the crime scene.

One of these days even you will admit that proof belongs to the prosecutor, not the defence.

Every time you change the terms like this it is clear even you, at heart, don't believe the prosecution's case.

 

[Desert Fox]

How can this be proven when the forensics people admitted to not even testing for DNA on the outer handle?

All the police need to do, then, to prove their case is test only a minority of things. However, I am glad you are now conceding that the only area that matters as a crime scene is Meredith's bedroom - that was the rationale for police not testing the outside doorknob. LOL!

Related to this, I have specific questions for Machiavellian
Anybody who argues for guilt can answer though. . . .

First:
Raffaele Sollecito was in the cottage several times, correct? In addition, he interacted with Meredeth Kercher several times in a non hostile manner? Is there any disagreement about these items?

Second:
Based on question one, is there the possibility of DNA from Raffaele Sollecito getting transferred to Meredeth Kercher either through direct contact (handshake) or indirect (handling the same object)?

Third:
Based on question one and question two, how can you rule out Raffaele Sollecito's DNA getting on Meredeth Kercher's bra clasp trhough innocent means?

 

[Machiavelli]

I am glad you are admitting that Mignini controlled the interpretation of whether or not Knox was confused.

But I am not admitting to any "control" at all. Anna Donnino was there as well as other witnesses.

Donnino actually DID think that Knox was confused - to the point of not remembering, therefore Donnino decided to become a mediator and tell Knox the story of how trauma can sometimes lead to forgetfulness.

But what Donnino says is that Knox did not want to talk. As a mediator, she suggested that maybe Knox could have "removed" the traumatic experience: this is "mediation" since it means give Knox an opportunity and a safe justification for "forgetting" and thus for possibly change her story, so allow her to remember something new safely, without being implicitly accused of being a liar or presented as a liar.
This is called mediation, it's diplomacy, it's work of removal of psycological defence obstacles, and it's routine.
But in fact, this does not equate to describing Knox as confused.

Donnino confirms that Knox initially had no memory of what the police was telling her was true - that Lumumba was involved.

Donnino confirms that Knox initially said so.

But she also confirmed that Knox appeared as if she wanted to talk and suddenly she performed what appeared an emotional "let out" of her testimony; the first testimony appeared just a sketched and confused accusation, but also in the context of an overwhelming emotional load that Knox attributed to the "memory" (she said Patrick wanted to have sex with Meredith and they wanted to have fun, she shouted "Patrick is bad" and she covered her ears with her hands).
In fact, this happend few minutes after Napoleoni had entered the room and informed Knox that Sollecito was no longer supporting her alibi.
The interrogation was stopped before 01:45 so basically immediately at her admission. It had lasted only about 2.5 hours.
And then, in the following hours, Knox didn't appear that confused about Lumumba's involvement: she added details, like being in the kitchen, the scream, her covering her ears, etc.

How exactly did Mignini know that Knox was confused? Did he ask her? Mignini said he could tell, without asking her, that she was afraid of Patrick,

No no, it's Knox who said she was afraid of Patrick.
If Mignini said that in Italian, he would have said that in grammatically correct italian. But Knox's statement has grammar errors, she uses a quantification adjective as if it was an adverb, an error that English speakers do. That statement could only be pronounced in Italian by Amanda Knox and by no one else.

that she was relieved of a burden,

That she appeared as if releaved of a burden, not that she "was" (nobody can tell what she "was", what we can tell now is about how she was acting). That's how the witnesses (and Mignini too) perceived her.

and that she wanted to continue with her "spontaneous statements", all by not asking her a single question. How did Mignini know ANY of this?

Well, let's insert a bit of timeline: actually, when Mignini arrived at the Questura it was later than 2am, Knox had already finished her questioning and the questioning was over.
What happens is that Mignini is briefed about the two new versions (Knox's interrogation and Sollecito's developing one); after a while he visited the room where Knox was being cuddled by a Roman SCO officer after she had been given a chamomille tee.
He went there while also Anna Donnino and officers were there.
He informed her that he might be going to consider her a suspect, albeit they didn't decide for which harge yet; he informed her about her rights and about the need to appoint a defendant, and a series of legal stuff. Then he informed her that even if they could not interrogate her, if she wanted she could help the investigation anyway by releasing information to a magistrate (Mignini).
Knox said she wanted to talk, and she told her story (Anna Donnino translated the parts of her speech where she was speaking in English, and was present through the whole statement).

Mignini gave away his intent with what he did say he said: that he would act as if only a notary if she wanted to continue. Right there, right then Knox needed a lawyer. By at least the spirit of the law, if not the letter.

Actually, the letter of the law says exactly the opposite. Paragraphs 5 and 7 (in particular the latter) of art. 350 cpp say that the interest of going forward with the investigation may prevail over the defence rights, and a person under investigation may release statements also while in a condition of diminished defence protection, without defence lawyer or when those statements would be non usable in a trial.

However, still this is another topic. The problem with those statements is not about that they are in the spirit of the law, or rather usable or not; the problem is that they contain a calunnia. They are a false testimony. It's something new, not something for which Knox was being investigated.

Keep saying that - that what happened to Lumumba is irrelevant. They went out and arrested him, and Knox did not accomplish that, far from it. At least one policeman thought that the confused memories of a foreigner was insufficient to arrest Lumumba.

Yes, it's irrelevant, meaning that it cannot have a logical implication with what Knox was saying.

What we really need is to see the transcript/videotape/audiotape of Knox's confession to clear all this up. Oh wait.

But there is not even a dispute on facts: Defence and Prosecution were not even in disagreement about what happened, everything is clear. There is no dramatic discrepance between the first descriptions of the interrogation and statement on the part of Knox defence and the police.

I guess you need to talk to both Mr. Kercher and to Barbie Nadeau (maybe even to Manuela Comodi) about the Satanic rite "hoax". They seem to be believe in it - that Mignini once advanced it!

You guess wrongly: I seek out original sources, the original trial papers and transcripts, and they speak by themselves.

PS: I point out that not only you are unable to quote Mr. Kercher, you are also incapable of finding a source about the alleged (and false) quote from De Felice's press conference.

 

[Machiavelli]

One of these days even you will admit that proof belongs to the prosecutor, not the defence.

Every time you change the terms like this it is clear even you, at heart, don't believe the prosecution's case.

The proof of alleged tertiary transfer? Oh no, that is a defence argument. That one belongs to the defence.
You can drem that it may be enough for the defence to call "tertiary transfer" just on the ground that in given hypothetical conditions that would be not impossible, but it doesn't work like that.

 

[Desert Fox]

The proof of alleged tertiary transfer? Oh no, that is a defence argument. That one belongs to the defence.
You can drem that it may be enough for the defence to call "tertiary transfer" just on the ground that in given hypothetical conditions that would be not impossible, but it doesn't work like that.

So if I can show a case of transfer similar to what the pro innocence side argues, you will stop arguing dna evidence in the case showing guilt?

 

[Bill Williams]

And the defence didn't test it neither. (recall, they asked to have several items tested, for example the rock; but they didn't request to tst the outer handle).
They can't prove it.
But changes little. Even if they could prove it, the probability of a tertiary transfer would appear still too small. This also because, as it comes out, there are no other instances of tertiary transfer of Sollecito's DNA in any other part of the crime scene.

The mindnumbingly laughable thing about the constant rhetorical escape route you use, "the defence didn't...." is that you would not accept anything they found, anyways.

You believe that everyone who has found them innocent to be a criminal. You think Hellmann is a criminal. You think Wladimiro De Nunzio is a criminal. Most assuredly you think that Conti and Vecchiotti are criminals.

You believe this is a Masonic conspiracy to begin with.... why not just say that, instead of saying, "the defence didn't ask for it to be tested, either"? If they did, and found exculpatory forensics, you'd call them criminals, too.

 

[Desert Fox]

And the defence didn't test it neither. (recall, they asked to have several items tested, for example the rock; but they didn't request to tst the outer handle).
They can't prove it.
But changes little. Even if they could prove it, the probability of a tertiary transfer would appear still too small. This also because, as it comes out, there are no other instances of tertiary transfer of Sollecito's DNA in any other part of the crime scene.

The mindnumbingly laughable thing about the constant rhetorical escape route you use, "the defence didn't...." is that you would not accept anything they found, anyways.

You believe that everyone who has found them innocent to be a criminal. You think Hellmann is a criminal. You think Wladimiro De Nunzio is a criminal. Most assuredly you think that Conti and Vecchiotti are criminals.

You believe this is a Masonic conspiracy to begin with.... why not just say that, instead of saying, "the defence didn't ask for it to be tested, either"? If they did, and found exculpatory forensics, you'd call them criminals, too.

Just checking. . . .We are referring to the door handle to Meredeth's bedroom? I am sure that the entire Mormon Tabernacle Choir has handled that door handle by now . . . .

 

[Bill Williams]

The proof of alleged tertiary transfer? Oh no, that is a defence argument. That one belongs to the defence.
You can drem that it may be enough for the defence to call "tertiary transfer" just on the ground that in given hypothetical conditions that would be not impossible, but it doesn't work like that.

In every jurisdiction but Italy, apparently. If five partial DNA indicators were found on a piece of evidence, it would be up to the prosecution to show why four of them were not there as a result of contamination, rather than the defence to show why they were.

Please remember - Judge Nencini ordered no tests and is in possession of no evidence that shows that the bra-clasp has DNA of Meredith's boyfriend or two of her "amicas" on it. None. Nada. Niente.

Yet that does not stop him from concluding that three are there by innocent-transfer, with no knowledge at all as to how they got there. Please note, he is arguing (with no evidence) innocent transfer. So the standard in Italy seems to be as long as transfer can be shown to be innocent, it counts. If it is shown to be excuplatory, the finders are criminals.

And there you are, turning the tables about the door handle. All of a sudden the defence would have to prove tertiary transfer.

This case is the very definition of double standard and wrongful conviction - your posts prove it.

 

[Bill Williams]

But what Donnino says is that Knox did not want to talk. As a mediator, she suggested that maybe Knox could have "removed" the traumatic experience: this is "mediation" since it means give Knox an opportunity and a safe justification for "forgetting" and thus for possibly change her story, so allow her to remember something new safely, without being implicitly accused of being a liar or presented as a liar.
This is called mediation, it's diplomacy, it's work of removal of psycological defence obstacles, and it's routine.
But in fact, this does not equate to describing Knox as confused.

This is incredible, Machiavelli. You are admitting that Knox did not have a translator. Translators are not there to "soften up" the suspect.

Keep typing, Machiavelli, keep typing. Knox needed an unbiased translator that night, not someone imposing her agenda onto someone who could not speak the language.

This post is a keeper, Machiavelli. You are providing the rationale for the wrongful conviction and the place Donnino occupies in it.

 

[Bill Williams]

No no, it's Knox who said she was afraid of Patrick.If Mignini said that in Italian, he would have said that in grammatically correct italian. But Knox's statement has grammar errors, she uses a quantification adjective as if it was an adverb, an error that English speakers do. That statement could only be pronounced in Italian by Amanda Knox and by no one else.

That she appeared as if releaved of a burden, not that she "was" (nobody can tell what she "was", what we can tell now is about how she was acting). That's how the witnesses (and Mignini too) perceived her.

The highlighted part is not what Mignini said. Mignini tells Drew Griffin of CNN (the very interview you translated) that he perceived that she was afraid of Patrick.

You and Giuliano need to compare your stories better.

 

[Bill Williams]

You guess wrongly: I seek out original sources, the original trial papers and transcripts, and they speak by themselves.

PS: I point out that not only you are unable to quote Mr. Kercher, you are also incapable of finding a source about the alleged (and false) quote from De Felice's press conference.

Using your standards of proof, you would need to prove they didn't say what they said.

 

[RWVBWL]

Greetings ya'll!
I've got a few minutes before I gotta split somewhere, so checking in, I read that most now think that any apparent movement of Miss Kercher's body by ILE in those 2 pics I found on the Web were just optical illusions.

When I found + kept looking at these 2 photographs,
I wondered where her upraised left arm was,
for it was photographed holding a possible blonde hair.
But I'm still not sure of where it is, for shouldn't it be pointing skyward,
and be much higher than the rest of her? Of course it should be.

Ok, so check out a few arrows that I added to these photo's.

Is that her left upraised arm up to the right of #7?
How come her right side -(the left side of the photo) looks higher near the bloody towel?
Note 1 piece of paper on her duvet, what is it?
Note the point of the duvet near the grout tile line.
Note the location of her letters to home.

This photo shows now 2 pieces of paper on her duvet.
In the 1st pic, it only shows 1. What happened to it?
Where is it and what was on the other piece of paper?
Her left upraised arm should be somewhere up near #7, where is it?
The bottom middle arrow shows a grout line coming halfway across the tile, but above, it is no where to be seen, her calf is touching the long vertical line and her toes look closer to the bottom grout line beneath them.
And note the location of the point on the duvet to the right of her foot, where's the grout lines?

This close-up photo shows her letters home after having been moved.

Optical illusions?

Someone removed a piece of paper from her duvet. What was it?
Someone moved her letters, + I feel that someone seems to have moved her body just a little bit. Look at the arrows again +again. And where is her upraised left arm and hand that holds the blonde hair that early newspaper reports state ILE was going to test? And what is making the right side of her, (the left side of the pic #1, stand upwards so high near that bloody towel?

If I had more time maybe I could dig up some more odd, optical illusions in these 2 pics.
You guys+gals go for it. What do you see?
Gotta go,
see ya, RW


PS - Machiavelli,
those do look brown in your photo.
But in the Crime Scene video, they look like black lace underwear.
heck, even Barbie Nadeau says they are lacy black underwear, on page 47, in "Angel Face".
Can we gonna agree that they are black, finally?

 

[Dan O.]

This is the photo I recall. As for my understanding, this is a heel; and the foot points left (watcher's view)
but maybe the letter in the rendering picture is wrong.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_434745483bd60d4573.jpg[/qimg]

Edited to correct: I watched again the rendering picture, now I realize I had read incorrectly the letter on Dan's picture: it was not the "B" print, in fact I was talking about print 5C.

This is the brilliance with the way the Machiavelli mind works. To him, 5C is a heal print and facing towards the door in line with the next print in the line which is 5A. Each piece taken on it's own is a logica and consistent piece of the picture he wants to believe. And when he looks at 5A he will see that this too aligns perfectly with the shoe and the concentric circles on the sole. But is it a heal like 5C? That would make 5A face into the room. Hey Machiavelli, where are you going with this? You have Rudy turning in circles!

 

[Numbers]

Greetings ya'll!
I've got a few minutes before I gotta split somewhere, so checking in, I read that most now think that any apparent movement of Miss Kercher's body by ILE in those 2 pics I found on the Web were just optical illusions.

When I found this photographs,
I wondered where her upraised left arm was,
for it was photographed holding a possible blonde hair.
But I'm still not sure of where it is, for shouldn't it be pointing skyward,
and be much higher than the rest of her? Of course it should be.

Ok, so check out a few arrows that I added to these photo's.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9320[/qimg]


Is that her left upraised arm up to the right of #7?
How come her right side -(the left side of the photo) looks higher near the bloody towel?
Note 1 piece of paper on her duvet, what is it?
Note the point of the duvet near the grout tile line.
Note the location of her letters to home.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9321[/qimg]

This photo shows now 2 pieces of paper on her duvet.
In the 1st pic, it only shows 1. What happened to it?
Where is it and what was on the other piece of paper?
Her left upraised arm should be somewhere up near #7, where is it?
The bottom middle arrow shows a grout line coming halfway across the tile, but above, it is no where to be seen, her calf is touching the long vertical line and her toes look closer to the bottom grout line beneath them.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9319[/qimg]

This photo shows her letters home after having been moved.

Optical illusions?

Someone removed a piece of paper from her duvet. What was it?
Someone moved her letters, + I feel that someone seems to have moved her body just a little bit. Look at the arrows again +again. And where is her upraised left arm and hand that holds the blonde hair that early newspaper reports state ILE was going to test? And what is making the right side of her, (the left side of the pic #1, stand upwards so high near that bloody towel?

If I had more time maybe I could dig up some more odd, optical illusions in these 2 pics.
You guys+gals go for it. What do you see?
Gotta go,
see ya, RW


PS - Machiavelli,
those do look brown in your photo.
But in the Crime Scene video, they look like black lace underwear.
heck, even Barbie Nadeau says they are lacy black underwear, on page 47, in "Angel Face".
Can we gonna agree that they are black, finally?

1.a) The letters/envelopes were certainly moved. That's not an optical illusion.
1.b) The purse was moved and that's no optical illusion.

2. I suspect the raised area of the duvet on Meredith's right may be due to her knee. Her right leg was bent at the knee in the silhouette on MMK.

3. Was a piece of paper taken away or was one added? The original is still there, I think, and in the same place on the duvet.

4. The left foot is angled upwards some (20 or 30 degrees?) and I think what is happening is that in the top photo (shot from the doorway?) it looks like the left edge of her left foot is touching the floor, and therefore her toes go past the long grout line. But that is an illusion of parallax, I think. Her toes don't go that far, but because of the angle of the foot, they seem to. The 2nd photo may give a more realistic view of the foot.

5. And I could be wrong either way. If there were a photo looking straight down at the foot, its position would be more clear.

What's interesting is that instead of taking photos systematically of the crime scene room and then searching her purse and the letters and so on, the police may have taken a photo or two, searched the purse and moved it, taken another photo, started messing with the letters, etc. Also, when they were done, they piled many of her clothes in a laundry sack (?) or somesuch, including her jacket which turned out to have Guede's DNA on the sleeves.

What a way to treat evidence. Of course, they may know that they'll always be able to get their suspect(s) the traditional way - by coercing a confession from some vulnerable person.