Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Diocletus]

But it's not accurate. Those whom you define "pro-innocence" are in fact either supporting a person, or supporting a conspiracy theory (in fact, mostly both), and they are also supporting a theory of a peculiar guilt of Rudy Guede.

Those aspect: theories about guilt of burglary and post-mortem rape of Guede, guilt of lying and conspiracy, leaks, fabricating false evidence etc. of prosecution, police, forensics, guilt of corruption of prosecution and courts; those things, and similar ones, are actually the aspects that strike me of the "pro-innocence" group, in fact those elements of their narrative are the reason why my attention was attracted by the case. Those are all elements of a belief about "guilt", those are not beliefs about "innocence".
I am not that comfortable calling "pro-innocence" someone who believes Rudy committed a burglary for which there is no evidence and raped a corpse, and that Mignini fabricated a statement on an illegal interrogation, and the police corrupted Anna Donnino to release a false testimony...

Guelphs and Gellibeans?

Sharks and Jets?

Hayfields and McCoys?

Right/Left?

How about just right and wrong?

 

[Numbers]

That maybe so; but for me that places the comments in post #5152 in context. That was an authoritarian state in action all be it 70 years ago.

Yes. Not quite as deadly as Italy during the Fascist era. The Italian government and its military used poison gas to overcome the resistance of the Ethiopians, killing hundreds of thousands of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Italo-Ethiopian_War

Among other things, the Treaty of Peace with Italy signed between the Italian Republic (Repubblica Italiana) and the victorious powers of World War II on 10 February 1947 in Paris, included Italy's formal recognition of Ethiopian independence and an agreement to pay $25,000,000 in reparations. Ethiopia became an independent nation again, and Haile Selassie was restored as its leader. At the time of this treaty, Ethiopia presented Italy with a bill of its own for damages inflicted during the course of Mussolini's colonial adventure. Claimed were the loss of 2,000 churches, the loss of 525,000 houses, and the slaughter and/or confiscation of six million beef cattle, seven million sheep and goats, one million horses and mules, and 700,000 camels. The bill for this presented to the Economic Commission for Italy came to £184,746,023.[50]

In addition, these human losses were recorded by the Ethiopians:

275,000 – combatants killed in action; 78,500 – patriots killed during the occupation (1936–1941); 17,800 civilians killed by bombings and 30,000 in the February 1937 massacre; 35,000 – persons who died in concentration camps; 24,000 – patriots executed by Summary Courts; 300,000 – persons who died of privations due to the destruction of their villages.
The Total was 760,300 human losses.[50] The Italians disputed this huge amount, arguing that real Ethiopian casualties were half those losses.

 

[carbonjam72]

Guelphs and Gellibeans?

Sharks and Jets?

Hayfields and McCoys?

Right/Left?

How about just right and wrong?

Hatfields and McCoys? Nut you knew that , right?

 

[Machiavelli]

So this "inconsistency between the proposed scenario and the physical evidence" will, logically, lead you to conclude that Amanda Knox was not in Ms Kercher's bedroom

I have already answered time ago. No.
I also pointed out that the location of Amanda Knox during the murder is legally irrelevant. She doesn't need to be in the room in order to be guilty by the law.
However I do think she was in the room at a certain point an took part to the stabbing.

and did not kill her, yes? No? Why?

To summarize, because all the evidence is against her and proves she is involved.
The most massive evidence is the evidence of cleanup and staging (luminol prints, alteration of the scene), and the evidence of her massive lying, starting from before her interrogation, her story being a mass of inconsistencies. Then her calunnia, a repeated and prolonged behavior, followed by further lies.
But leaving aside the trail of evidence, that would go on, Amanda Knox is also physically connected to the murder scene, since her DNA is on the murder weapon, and the weapon was placed in her boyfriend's apartment. In other words her DNA is on the only part of the murder room - the murder weapon - that she would need to actually touch.
Let's also recall other clues: long blond hair found in Meredith's hand, that doesn't belong to her. Knox's own blood in the bathroom, located in a time frame where the murder was committed, and in the same context with Meredith's blood. The presence of double DNA on blood spots of luminol spots related with the murder (such as the deleted shoe track of Guede close to the victim's door), also on spots in Filomena's room. And the fact that Knox had a scratch on her neck (not a hickey) and that her DNA was found on the knife not only on the handle, but on the blade at the handle insertion.
These things are some of the elements, not all; they should be taken together, not just in isolation.

This should be also be coupled with other physical evidence, such as the fact that - contrarily to what the innocentisti assert, just by citing the number opinions of medical experts - the autopsy findings and physical findings in the room lead to conclude that there was more than one assailant.
And the fact that there is dependant evidence against Sollecito also brings its logical consequence.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

If it's not contamination, why aren't the other males whose DNA was found on the clasp being diligently searched for? Also, didn't Conti-Vecchiotti tell judge Hellmann that his DNA could be found on the clasp?

-

I don't know for sure the answer to either question,

d

-

 

[Machiavelli]

Attempting a short answer:

Knox and Sollecito won an acquittal on the merits and in accordance with law in the Hellmann court on all charges (except calunnia for Knox). This decision was overthrown by a higher court (CSC) for apparently political or other arbitrary considerations in a poorly reasoned motivation.

(...)

Were acquitted by a court in the most egregious violation of laws and procedure that many had ever seen in a long time, by a court that should have been impeached as they opened their mouth for the first time to commit a violation of procedure. That court was unable to properly conduct a trial and appeared obviously incompetent, messy, sloppy and chaotic even on normal procedure decisions. The verdict was a mass of illogical crap and a collection of offences to the law and to human intelligence, to the point that nobody believed that even an idiotic judge would produce such a mass of hogwash in good faith without being bribed.
The verdict was so rotten that people familiar with the law found its annulment was easily predictable.

 

[Dan O.]

Questions:
...

6. Had Lumumba truly changed his number, or was there a typo, misunderstanding, or clerical error concerning this?

I answered this 6 months ago here.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, his blood is on the pillow, the wall, the door, the purse, and in her vagina. Probably in the bathroom, too, just not where they tested.

They tested all bloody spots.
(among those they found Sollecito's bloody footprint btw).
So... probably not.

 

[Dan O.]

If the scenario is that Rudy had cuts on his hands and he washed his hands in the bathroom sink (since it is evident that someone did), and there is no drop or trace of his blood in the bathroom, nor his DNA in the sink and around the drain, what we have here is an inconsistency between the proposed scenario and the physical evidence.

What we have here is a bunch of stupid in the Italian police department that don't realize that the evidence shows the sink was not used for cleanup the night of the murder.

 

[Diocletus]

They tested all bloody spots.

Yes, except for the ones they didn't test.

 

[Bill Williams]

They tested all bloody spots.
(among those they found Sollecito's bloody footprint btw).
So... probably not.

Please don't just make things up.

 

[Machiavelli]

-


You're right. It does tend to discredit the proposed scenario that Rudy washed his bloody hands in the bathroom sink, but that doesn't prove it's impossible. After all, isn't it your theory that lack of DNA in a room doesn't mean the person wasn't in it?

d

-

Well most of the time we enter a room we don't leave our DNA there. Maybe we won't do that not even if we stab someone in the room.
(besides the fact that one expert of Sollecito's defence did attribute some alleles of the bra clasp to Amanda Knox, but that doesn't matter).

But if you have cuts on your hands and you wash your hands in the sink leaving visible blood traces, not leaving your DNA there becomes rather unlikely.

Actually I don't see a reason why Knox should have left her DNA in the room, at least is some detectable fashion. I assume if she had close contact with something, this could be the victim's body, where Knox's DNA would be undetectable. I don't see why Knox would have had to leave her DNA elsewhere where it would be detectable.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I have already answered time ago. No.
I also pointed out that the location of Amanda Knox during the murder is legally irrelevant. She doesn't need to be in the room in order to be guilty by the law.

However I do think she was in the room at a certain point an took part to the stabbing.

To summarize, because all the evidence is against her and proves she is involved.
The most massive evidence is the evidence of cleanup and staging (luminol prints, alteration of the scene), and the evidence of her massive lying, starting from before her interrogation, her story being a mass of inconsistencies. Then her calunnia, a repeated and prolonged behavior, followed by further lies.

But leaving aside the trail of evidence, that would go on, Amanda Knox is also physically connected to the murder scene, since her DNA is on the murder weapon, and the weapon was placed in her boyfriend's apartment. In other words her DNA is on the only part of the murder room - the murder weapon - that she would need to actually touch.

Let's also recall other clues: long blond hair found in Meredith's hand, that doesn't belong to her. Knox's own blood in the bathroom, located in a time frame where the murder was committed, and in the same context with Meredith's blood. The presence of double DNA on blood spots of luminol spots related with the murder (such as the deleted shoe track of Guede close to the victim's door), also on spots in Filomena's room. And the fact that Knox had a scratch on her neck (not a hickey) and that her DNA was found on the knife not only on the handle, but on the blade at the handle insertion.

These things are some of the elements, not all; they should be taken together, not just in isolation.

This should be also be coupled with other physical evidence, such as the fact that - contrarily to what the innocentisti assert, just by citing the number opinions of medical experts - the autopsy findings and physical findings in the room lead to conclude that there was more than one assailant.

And the fact that there is dependant evidence against Sollecito also brings its logical consequence.

-

Massive lying? What does this even mean?

The evidence you point out can also be explained away with a probability of innocence, especially when taken collectively and coupled with other physical evidence and not examined in isolation, and I don't see any wrist bruising in the autopsy report. This would indicate only one assailant and not many attackers, in my opinion

I also wonder why LE didn't document this proof that the breask-in was staged. Really, why didn't they do that?

d

-

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes, except for the ones they didn't test.

Come on, they tested every bloody spot in the sink and near it, including the unstained edge of the sink drain.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Well most of the time we enter a room we don't leave our DNA there. Maybe we won't do that not even if we stab someone in the room.
(besides the fact that one expert of Sollecito's defence did attribute some alleles of the bra clasp to Amanda Knox, but that doesn't matter).

But if you have cuts on your hands and you wash your hands in the sink leaving visible blood traces, not leaving your DNA there becomes rather unlikely.

Actually I don't see a reason why Knox should have left her DNA in the room, at least is some detectable fashion. I assume if she had close contact with something, this could be the victim's body, where Knox's DNA would be undetectable. I don't see why Knox would have had to leave her DNA elsewhere where it would be detectable.

-

Didn't you say Amanda had a scratch on her neck? Where did this scratch come from? It's reasonable to infer this scratch came from Meredith which would mean she should have some of Amanda's DNA under her nails, don't you think?

d

-
ETA: I do wonder why, if LE did intentionally alter or create some evidence, why they didn't just straight out pretend they found Amanda's DNA under Meredith's fingernails?

-

 

[Bill Williams]

Well most of the time we enter a room we don't leave our DNA there. Maybe we won't do that not even if we stab someone in the room.
(besides the fact that one expert of Sollecito's defence did attribute some alleles of the bra clasp to Amanda Knox, but that doesn't matter).

But if you have cuts on your hands and you wash your hands in the sink leaving visible blood traces, not leaving your DNA there becomes rather unlikely.

Actually I don't see a reason why Knox should have left her DNA in the room, at least is some detectable fashion. I assume if she had close contact with something, this could be the victim's body, where Knox's DNA would be undetectable. I don't see why Knox would have had to leave her DNA elsewhere where it would be detectable.

You are correct. You don't see why.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The Long and Winding Road

Wow! You are attempting to link a case involving whether African Americans had any rights as human beings or were effectively property in 1857 America with a murder case 150 years later in Italy.

An incredible post.

Sometimes an arrow hits the target yet misses the bull's eye, but not this time. The distance between your comment and Numbers point is is quite a journey.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the towels might have had his blood

If the scenario is that Rudy had cuts on his hands and he washed his hands in the bathroom sink (since it is evident that someone did), and there is no drop or trace of his blood in the bathroom, nor his DNA in the sink and around the drain, what we have here is an inconsistency between the proposed scenario and the physical evidence.

Machiavelli,

Rudy probably staunched the flow of blood with the towels. Too bad the towels were allowed to get moldy. Or he might have washed his hands in the shower. There are a number of scenarios that might account for the data. On the other hand, the problem of how Guede could leave so many traces in Meredith's bedroom while Knox left none has never been properly addressed by any PG commenter. Your post is a good example of fallacious reasoning.

 

[Numbers]

Were acquitted by a court in the most egregious violation of laws and procedure that many had ever seen in a long time, by a court that should have been impeached as they opened their mouth for the first time to commit a violation of procedure. That court was unable to properly conduct a trial and appeared obviously incompetent, messy, sloppy and chaotic even on normal procedure decisions. The verdict was a mass of illogical crap and a collection of offences to the law and to human intelligence, to the point that nobody believed that even an idiotic judge would produce such a mass of hogwash in good faith without being bribed.
The verdict was so rotten that people familiar with the law found its annulment was easily predictable.

Any reasonable person who reads the Hellmann motivation and the Conti-Vecchiotti report, and also the Massei, CSC (Italian Supreme Court of Cassation) motivation, and Nenicini motivations, will come to certain conclusions about the case. In my opinion, only the Hellmann opinion made any legal sense. I really recommend people read at least large parts of these motivations. Note that the Hellmann motivation is about 144 pages long, while the Massei and Nencini reports are each over twice that long.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

lessons from Carolina

Speaking of authoritarian decisions what about this case

US judge hears appeal on teen executed in 1940s

Occasionally, someone in the U.S. judicial system acknowledges error. Some states even have state commissions on actual innocence (North Carolina had the first, if I am not mistaken). Some lessons there.