Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

Didn't he? Here's a translation of his testimony.

ANSWER – the suspects by then so from day 2, starting from day 2 to follow developments of the investigative activity gradually wiretaps became authorized.

QUESTION – So Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito.

ANSWER-Yes, then let’s talk about the first interceptions, no?

QUESTION – I am not asking you in chronological order, then Rudy Guede, Lumumba?

ANSWER – Yes, Romanelli, Mezzetti.

QUESTION – Then even friends?

ANSWER – Yes.

The what?

Maybe it was just a slip of the tongue, not what he really meant to say. . . .Of course the same understanding is not being given to Amanda with "See you later."

 

[acbytesla]

Buratti doesn't state that Lumumba's phone was bugged before Nov 5th.
Thus, attributing this to Buratti's words is a false claim.
The rest is supposition and speculation, which may be or be not correct, but doesn't change the fact that the 'innocentisti' made a false claim, and all they should do is admit their claim is false.
They may have their opinions and guesses,but the first step should be keep opinions separate from facts.

So...was Lumumba's phone BUGGED OR NOT? It makes little sense for it to be bugged after he was arrested and you are saying that he wasn't bugged before it. So which is it?

 

[Numbers]

I have very limited skills here but isn't "indagato" simply the singular of "indagati"? Or is one male and the other female?

Yes, "indagto" is singular, male of "indagti" as a noun meaning "suspected persons". Apparently "indagta" is the female suspect.

However, this word can be used as a verb, meaning "to investigate".

In English, "suspect" can also be either a verb or a noun.

"I suspect languages may be complicated." (v)
"The suspect was arrested on the morning of November 6."

 

[AmyStrange]

-

You can perfectly see there are facts cited, not just perceptions. Literature findings are facts. You may draw different inferences from them, but we are talking about facts and inferences not about perceptions.
Measurements on bathmat: those exist, they are facts. They may be wrong, but you would need to show what the correct ones are. While instead the assumption that measurements are unreliable is an ex post consideration. First you have data. Then you say : "these data don't matter, it's impossible to measure a fuzzy mat..." etc. Yet, those data exist, the consideration comes subsequently. I bet the data wouldn't appear so unreliable to many pro-Knoxes if they matched Guede.
Luminol prints: there is actually no probable innocent alternative. Given that an alternative would consist in indicating what something is, not what is not. "it is not blood" is not an alternative, "not blood" is not a substance. This is not the only problem: there is also no indication about what event may have caused the prints, and why the analogy with the prints in diluted blood on the bathmat. And the "lack of confirmation" of blood, no DNA on some prints, may be equated to lack of DNA from Guede in the bathroom where he supposedly washed his hands, while having cuts on his finger. Doesn't this "point away" from Guede I you follow the same logic?

-

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on first two parts, but what does "ex post consideration" mean to you?

I do share your concern with no DNA of Guede in the bathroom. I will give you that. You would think there would be. What is your explanation, or anyone else?

d

-

 

[Numbers]

Yes, "indagto" is singular, male of "indagti" as a noun meaning "suspected persons". Apparently "indagta" is the female suspect.

However, this word can be used as a verb, meaning "to investigate".

In English, "suspect" can also be either a verb or a noun.

"I suspect languages may be complicated." (v)
"The suspect was arrested on the morning of November 6."

See: http://www.wordreference.com/enit/under investigation

(wordreference is Vibio's citation for translation)

"under investigation" = "indagato"

from Google translate:

"person under investigation" = "indagato"

 

[Kauffer]

Yes, "indagto" is singular, male of "indagti" as a noun meaning "suspected persons". Apparently "indagta" is the female suspect.

However, this word can be used as a verb, meaning "to investigate".

In English, "suspect" can also be either a verb or a noun.

"I suspect languages may be complicated." (v)
"The suspect was arrested on the morning of November 6."

Well it is "Gli indagati.." So it's "the", an article, so it must be followed by a noun. So it's "suspects" or "investigated". It's the same thing. The wiretapper definitely thinks they are all suspects.

 

[Numbers]

See: http://www.wordreference.com/enit/under investigation

(wordreference is Vibio's citation for translation)

"under investigation" = "indagato"

from Google translate:

"person under investigation" = "indagato"

My conclusion:

Amanda's text to Patrick is legitimately translated back to English as:

"See you later. Have a good evening." Other translations are BS. IMO.

And the intentional mistranslation was necessary to arrest her and send her to prison for as long as the corrupt Italian judicial system would allow. Raffaele had to be framed because he was her alibi.
It's all that simple.

 

[Kauffer]

-


-

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on first two parts, but what does "ex post consideration" mean to you?

I do share your concern with no DNA of Guede in the bathroom. I will give you that. You would think there would be. What is your explanation, or anyone else?

d

-

1) it went down the drain
2) he wrapped his hands
3) they found it and hid it
4) its being there or not does not make the case against him any stronger or weaker
5) it's really not very concerning in the scheme of things

 

[AmyStrange]

-

1) it went down the drain
2) he wrapped his hands
3) they found it and hid it
4) its being there or not does not make the case against him any stronger or weaker
5) it's really not very concerning in the scheme of things

-

All of those probably innocent arguements are also equally possible, but what I think Mach is alluding to (correct me if I'm wrong Mach) is the fact that just because there is no DNA of Amanda in Meredith's room doesn't mean she wasn't there.

It's an interesting allusion,

d

-

 

[Kauffer]

My conclusion:

Amanda's text to Patrick is legitimately translated back to English as:

"See you later. Have a good evening." Other translations are BS. IMO.

And the intentional mistranslation was necessary to arrest her and send her to prison for as long as the corrupt Italian judicial system would allow. Raffaele had to be framed because he was her alibi.
It's all that simple.

Yep. Your last paragraph is the viper. But Mignini misstated even the original Italian in the arrest warrant, which is inexcusable and did not represent Ms Knox's explanation for meaning.

Parents of children beware: Get your kids to get their grammar right. It could keep them out of jail one day.

 

[Kauffer]

-


-

All of those probably innocent arguements are also equally possible, but what I think Mach is alluding to (correct me if I'm wrong Mach) is the fact that just because there is no DNA of Amanda in Meredith's room doesn't mean she wasn't there,

d

-

But the lack of bloody footprints, finger prints, palm prints, hair, blood, saliva and transfer evidence does. In fact the total lack of any trace of her whatsoever in the murder room and the total lack of transfer evidence from the murder room on her clothes or at Mr Sollecito's flat does mean she wasn't there.

 

[carbonjam72]

-


-

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on first two parts, but what does "ex post consideration" mean to you?

I do share your concern with no DNA of Guede in the bathroom. I will give you that. You would think there would be. What is your explanation, or anyone else?

d

-

In the murder room, Rudy's presence involved extremely violent physical contact with Meredith, so am I wrong or does that seem more likely to shed DNA?

second, Rudy's traces in blood, for example fingerprints, or Meredith's clothes and purse - the blood evidence provides a visible trace of where to do a test for biological material.

Whereas in the bathroom, there was no struggle, and there was likely less of a focus on testing as thoroughly as was done in the bedroom. And even not all the samples that were clearly related to the crime were tested right away, or even at all (blood on items of clothing, semen stain, bra clasp, etc).

So the bathroom is far less likely to have Guede's DNA, because he only used it that one time, where as Amanda and Meredith had shared it for a month.

I am curious if the half bloody foot print on the bath mat was ever tested for DNA? That would be interesting if it came up just Rudy and Meredith.
So more violence and greater police focus on testing in the bedroom, assisted by visual blood spots to direct the tech's attention to the sites to be tested;

As opposed to less focus on testing by police, even though they used the same cotton swabs to sweep wide areas of the bathroom, plus no violent struggle, and no blood spots to help guide the testing sites.

Also, the lack of bloody footprints in the hallway, I believe indicates a quick clean-up with the towels that were found in Meredith's room, no?

It's also poorly reasoned to expect Rudy's DNA in Filomena's room, as much as we would expect it to be in Meredith's bedroom, for the same reasons. Although there was hair and blood found by the window, but which Stef apparently wasn't able to get a result, IIRC.

 

[Desert Fox]

All of those probably innocent arguements are also equally possible, but what I think Mach is alluding to (correct me if I'm wrong Mach) is the fact that just because there is no DNA of Amanda in Meredith's room doesn't mean she wasn't there,
-

If Amanda's DNA was found in Meredeth's room, it would effectively be useless as evidence of guilt. No, if Amanda physically involved involved in attacking Meredeth in such a small room, I expect that she would have fallen down, been bruised, etc. There would be evidence of a group in the room. Gotten into a few tussles in small rooms, actually larger than Meredeth's room, and people always end up falling down, bruised, etc.

Let us assume also that Amanda really is guilty. . . .All we really have is that people (prosecutors, judges, cops, etc) feel she is guilty. You do not convict based on "feels guilty" but instead to needs to be proven with something that at least nears certainty. Whenever I listen to a jury member talk about a case and the juror states that they felt that the defendant was guilt, I want to yell at that juror.

 

[acbytesla]

It's really a joke to suggest that Amanda and Raffaele weren't suspects on November 5th. Witnesses are not called in the middle of the night. A dozen detectives don't tag team witnesses. They don't yell "liar" at witnesses. Now somehow or another the Italian courts may not pay much attention to their own laws regarding the requirements of counsel for suspects, but that doesn't mean that the ECHR will do the same.

 

[Desert Fox]

In the murder room, Rudy's presence involved extremely violent physical contact with Meredith, so am I wrong or does that seem more likely to shed DNA?

second, Rudy's traces in blood, for example fingerprints, or Meredith's clothes and purse - the blood evidence provides a visible trace of where to do a test for biological material.

Whereas in the bathroom, there was no struggle, and there was likely less of a focus on testing as thoroughly as was done in the bedroom. And even not all the samples that were clearly related to the crime were tested right away, or even at all (blood on items of clothing, semen stain, bra clasp, etc).

So the bathroom is far less likely to have Guede's DNA, because he only used it that one time, where as Amanda and Meredith had shared it for a month.

I am curious if the half bloody foot print on the bath mat was ever tested for DNA? That would be interesting if it came up just Rudy and Meredith.
So more violence and greater police focus on testing in the bedroom, assisted by visual blood spots to direct the tech's attention to the sites to be tested;

As opposed to less focus on testing by police, even though they used the same cotton swabs to sweep wide areas of the bathroom, plus no violent struggle, and no blood spots to help guide the testing sites.

Also, the lack of bloody footprints in the hallway, I believe indicates a quick clean-up with the towels that were found in Meredith's room, no?

It's also poorly reasoned to expect Rudy's DNA in Filomena's room, as much as we would expect it to be in Meredith's bedroom, for the same reasons. Although there was hair and blood found by the window, but which Stef apparently wasn't able to get a result, IIRC.

Being that Amanda almost certainly stood on that bathmat, I would argue that it is pretty likely her DNA actually would be on it.

 

[carbonjam72]

But the lack of bloody footprints, finger prints, palm prints, hair, blood, saliva and transfer evidence does. In fact the total lack of any trace of her whatsoever in the murder room and the total lack of transfer evidence from the murder room on her clothes or at Mr Sollecito's flat does mean she wasn't there.

Yes, I think this is the relevant point. Its not just that there is nothing of Amanda, and only a trace of Raf on a bra clasp in the room where meredith was violently killed - It's that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence of Rudy's presence, so much so that he doesn't deny being in the room while she bled to death, doesn't deny not calling an ambulance for help to save her life, doesn't deny going out dancing, and doesn't deny fleeing to germany.

Instead, he claims his rape/murder victim was his "date", and has further implicated two innocent people, while claiming its not his responsibility to determine who is guilty. Although his jail mates claim he bragged about pleasuring himself over Meredith's body, in her last minutes of life.

It takes enormous blindness to argue Amanda and Raf had anything to do with this crime. And it is unambiguously criminal stalking for the guilter's who fantasize publicly about punishing the innocent.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

But the lack of bloody footprints, finger prints, palm prints, hair, blood, saliva and transfer evidence does. In fact the total lack of any trace of her whatsoever in the murder room and the total lack of transfer evidence from the murder room on her clothes or at Mr Sollecito's flat does mean she wasn't there.

-

And this is a valid probably innocent arguement also, in my opinion, but do you believe Rudy went into the bathroom after Meredith died? There was a discussion here a long while ago about the print, and no one was able to prove one way or the other whose print it was.

Is it at all possible he didn't go into the bathroom after Meredith died?

No need to reply Kaufer, if you don't want. It's just an interesting allusion to me and besides this is more of a BS session for me, than anything else,

d

-

 

[carbonjam72]

Being that Amanda almost certainly stood on that bathmat, I would argue that it is pretty likely her DNA actually would be on it.

yes, absolutely. That would be an indication of a misleading use of DNA to infer guilt, when it can not be used in that way. (It COULD have been left from the murder, but it also could not).

The first hurdle to proving guilt for Amanda and Raf, is proving they left raf's apartment. Which they never did, hence serial witness homeless heroin addict Curatolo, and phony cell phone tower "evidence". Mignini should have been brought up on charges just for introducing him for the third time as a witness in a murder case.

It's just a farce. I'd love to see mach and the other pro-guilt here take a lie-detector test while answering these questions. Or an MRI to capture their delusions in brain-movie form.

 

[Vibio]

The word "indagti" is translated as "suspects" by Google translate.
"Indagto" and "indagta" are translated as "investigated".

ETA: Google translate (Note the difference in "suspect":
Suspected person = indagato
Suspect something = sospetto qualcosa

The Italian speakers helping us here at ISF are not neutral persons.
Google is neutral; it's a computer.

LOL. Truly a classic.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the towels got mouldy IIRC

Measurements on bathmat: those exist, they are facts. They may be wrong, but you would need to show what the correct ones are. While instead the assumption that measurements are unreliable is an ex post consideration. First you have data. Then you say : "these data don't matter, it's impossible to measure a fuzzy mat..." etc. Yet, those data exist, the consideration comes subsequently. I bet the data wouldn't appear so unreliable to many pro-Knoxes if they matched Guede.
Luminol prints: there is actually no probable innocent alternative. Given that an alternative would consist in indicating what something is, not what is not. "it is not blood" is not an alternative, "not blood" is not a substance. This is not the only problem: there is also no indication about what event may have caused the prints, and why the analogy with the prints in diluted blood on the bathmat. And the "lack of confirmation" of blood, no DNA on some prints, may be equated to lack of DNA from Guede in the bathroom where he supposedly washed his hands, while having cuts on his finger. Doesn't this "point away" from Guede I you follow the same logic?

Machiavelli,

You would lose that bet, because I don't believe that the foot tracks should be used as evidence against anyone. They have no distinguishing marks, besides the fuzziness problem. Guede might have bled onto the towels he took into the bathroom; it is too bad that the towels were allowed to develop mould. If luminol were a confirmatory test for blood, there would be no reason to develop true confirmatory tests, such as Hematrace. And this luminol was applied very heavily, which makes me question the competence of the FP even more.