• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
"very interesting game" is big words.

Those lawyers consider the case over by now, and yes, we are friends, we are no longer people unconnected to the case.


No. You are people unconnected to the case. You have only become "connected" to it via your own desire to insert yourself into it. That doesn't make you automatically connected in the proper sense. You have no more of a connection to the victim, to anyone on trial or to any of the other actors than I do (unless you're lying about your true status).


Sorry but really I can't follow you. You perfectly know that there are several people writing on this forum who were in contact with the Knox family or her defence lawyers, people who have received many kind of documents, including medico-legal documents and censored crime scene photos.
And they did so years ago, many years before we had any contacts with the Kercher lawyrs, and long before the site themurderofmeredithkercher.com existed.
Would you call Knox and Sollecito's parties "unethical" for releasig those trial documents to the FoAs? If you meant to complain about that being unethical or strange, you are a bit late. Would now regard the Knox/Sollecito's behaviour of releasing court documents to friends as "strange"? Would you call that "unathical" and suspiciously depict it as a "very interesting game" because of "some sort of advantage" they may get?

The incentive is obvious: it is the same incentive for which a community like PMF is engaged in internet activity. It is a negative incentive, that is the existence of a political PR campaign by the pro-Knox side.


Ahhh the expected inability to see things from the proper perspective. I'm not surprised.

Look: Knox's and Sollecito's family and friends believe that they were unjustly found guilty of the crimes connected to this case. They are private citizens fighting against the Italian state. Whether or not one agrees with their belief in wrongful convictions is somewhat irrelevant. I deem that they have the right to make as much noise as they like if they truly feel that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. It is the liberty and reputation of their loved ones that is at stake.

On the other hand, why are the Kerchers or their lawyer interested in fighting a PR battle? It is not they or Meredith Kercher who is being attacked.What exactly is it that they want?

However, if I interpret your response correctly, I infer that the Kercher family, via their lawyer, are indeed actively interested in "fighting a PR war" against the Knox/Sollecito family and all those who also believe that Knox and Sollecito were wrongly convicted. And that, in a very real sense, gives me the answer I was looking for. It's a very illuminating and revealing answer. Thank you.



It is obvious that the Knox camp has been play politically, and will go on playing politically in the media arena as well as behnd the scene. It is also obvious to us that they also played some dirty tricks at other levels, such as within the Italian judiciary, and in alliance with other subjects.


Those are very strong claims indeed. Any evidence? Are these claims being investigated in the proper manner? Is the Italian judiciary corruptible, in your opinion? Presumably the answer must be yes, if your claims are to be believed. And if that's the case, what in turn does it say about the integrity of the Italian judiciary? Can you see how this in itself might throw up some interesting and troubling factors in relation to this case......?
 
Last edited:
It's a problem with your peculiar way of thinking: you think the "motive" or the "narrative" are "evidence".

Motive is evidence. As is lack of motive. These are items of circumstantial evidence from which inferences may properly be drawn. And circumstantial evidence should generate a coherent and consistent picture or 'narrative' if you will.

It is very obvious why PGPs like you try to pretend otherwise. First, the case lacks any plausible motive on the part of Knox and Sollecito (not decisive, but not nothing either) and second, because the jumble of so-called circumstantial evidence cannot be organised into a coherent narrative. That is why:

A when asked for one, you laughably said it was 'too soon' (is it still too soon, Mach?), and
B every stupid Italian judge or prosecutor who looks at the case comes up with a new one.
 
.
I hope they stiff Maresca.

Cody
.

Maresca probably receives the money on their behalf, takes out his cut (possibly including "expenses"), after which the Kerchers get their share - in theory.

The idea that Maresca is passing on money to anyone is hard to visualize. But he can't keep giving them zero, it wouldn't look right.

I do think they can garnish Rudy's wages, and probably will. Who knows, Rudy might get a job doing something. How sad for the Kerchers to be reminded of his crimes with every installment payment he makes.

The real question is how Maresca will go about fleecing the Sollecitos if he is armed with a final conviction by cassation? How fast can he steal their money before the ECHR steps in and stops it?

It's a 10 million euro theft in broad daylight, televised around the world, scheduled in advance for March 2015. And not a trace of shame.
 
Your comment deserves this response: link

DNA can derive from blood, saliva, perspiration, and sebaceous fluid, etc. I would hope that the Carabinieri do not claim that one can deduce what type of fluid or tissue produced the DNA. As for Ms. Knox's blood, are you using the fact that she said the bathroom had been clean to infer the age of the blood? The spot of blood on the faucet was pretty small, and Ms. Knox was not Mrs. Doubtfire when it came to household chores. Ms. Knox's pillow had a small spot of blood which is consistent with the hypothesis that her earlobe was bleeding.
Ms. Knox's forensic traces have been the subject of seven years of lies from the PG commentariat. There is no mixed blood, and there is no excuse for perpetuating this particular lie. As for the location of trace 36-I, here is a link showing the proper way to hold a chef's knife.

Chris,

I hadn't seen this fact before about blood on the pillow.

But for the spot of blood on the bathroom tap, was it ever established that this was in fact Amanda's blood? I've seen posts that blood typing was never done.

So to ask it again, how do we know the blood on the tap belongs to Amanda? How do we know any DNA from that sample isn't from the wider area around the blood spot and due to the wide area collection method of using the same swab in multiple spots?

By the way, is that collection method designed to produce an "incriminating" result, but mixing background DNA in with visible blood spots?
 
Maresca probably receives the money on their behalf, takes out his cut (possibly including "expenses"), after which the Kerchers get their share - in theory.

The idea that Maresca is passing on money to anyone is hard to visualize. But he can't keep giving them zero, it wouldn't look right.

I do think they can garnish Rudy's wages, and probably will. Who knows, Rudy might get a job doing something. How sad for the Kerchers to be reminded of his crimes with every installment payment he makes.

The real question is how Maresca will go about fleecing the Sollecitos if he is armed with a final conviction by cassation? How fast can he steal their money before the ECHR steps in and stops it?

It's a 10 million euro theft in broad daylight, televised around the world, scheduled in advance for March 2015. And not a trace of shame.

I don't think that Rudy goes back to meaningful work if he has to automatically give half of his net to the Kerchers. My guess is that he leaves the country or is driven back to crime. In a sense, the Kerchers civil action may have the result of getting someone else killed.
 
Whether he was claiming that this was some sort of "ritual sacrifice", or not, is "not important" to the straw men makers, maybe; because what they they like to do is to overlap and obfuscate.

Mignini considered "not unrealistic" the possibility that there was some ritualistic element in an act that was defined "festino"; or in choosing the day for it; "festino", a meeting that must have had some sexual content and some element related to violence, that might be acted or just represented at the level of a game (a sexual humiliation game, maybe).

This was an idea considered by Mignini.

But Bill Williams - and some of his comrades - forget to say that this is NOT a "ritual killing scenario". The "act", that was portrayed as maybe having "not unrealistically" an element of ritualism, wass not a killing. Maybe not even a crime, and maybe they didn't even plan in advance to target Meredith with any action. The object related to the ritualistic elements, as we can read, was a festino. An ironical Italian word that means: a little game, a little play. And the ritualistic element may even be meant only as inspiration for the day of its occurrence.

Now, let's put something in clear, not to confuse my opinion with that of Mignini. I think the speculation about this possible "cultural" element was inappropriate, I don't believe this element could realistically belong to the intention or psychology of the perpetrators, given the cultural level of the suspects.

I do not agree with some of Mignini's ideas, like those about sociology; for example I dn't believe it makes sense, on sociological level, to put in relation a penchant for Marilyn Manson with possible deviant behaviours. And the attempts by Mignini and Maresca to make sense of what cultural elements or aspects might have played a role in the psychology of the suspects to their decisions, they basically express their own culture, rather than having a scientific content.
In my opinion theirs is a very "rationalist" worldview actually, used to sophisticated literature, somehow of the most "traditional" European kind, including libertine and enlightned sexual material, and they live in a world where things usually have some reasoned aspect or have some sophisticated culture attached. I bet De Sade or BDSM fetishism would look like normal stuff in that view, like Dolcetto d'Alba with Gorgonzola. But in fact the cultural level of the suspects did not allow to such speculations to be realistic, in my opinion; I think they wouldn't chose a particular day because inspired by Halloween as much as they would unlikely handle a Dolcetto d'Alba with Florentine chops rather than a Pinot Bianco with shrimps.

But I also understand that those topics are irrelevant to a murder trial. A prosecutor is not supposed to be a sociologist or a psychologist. Neither is a judge. Mignini is a very professional investigator, but his sociology skills are amateurish, and has no degree in cultural studies nor in psychology.
At an amateurish sociological level, it is fair to think that maybe the suspects were somehow influenced by a Halloween themed atmosphere that gave them inspiration. It is inappropriate, in my opinion, but it is irrelevant to the scenario.

What matters is what Mignini put forward, substantially, was a non premeditated murder scenario; which was, obviously, a non-ritualistic killing; it had nothing to do with satanism, and it is a fact that he never employed the word "rite".



It is not true that this was the "entire catalyst" in Mignini's scenario; this is not true insofar as, in fact, Micheli himself pointd out that the prosecution dropped this element during the very preliminary hearing. This possible ritualistic element about dates was dropped not only because it was inappropriate, but also because it could be easilly dropped, since it was irrelevant.

And also, note, that even the "catalyst" element would be, in fact, something irrelevant in the scenario. It is an intrinsic property of a catalyst, that of being irrelevant: by its nature a catalyst is only a trigger. A catalyst cannot be the motive.

Thus, the ritualistic element - which you admit it was only a catalyst - could be, in Mignini's scenario, at best only a contextual element, not the motive.

I believe that he felt may have been opportune to speculate also on this possible contextual element before the judge, just because he found himself without much to say about a motive, where he lacked information about.



He doesn't use the word "ritual". And if you read the previous paragraph of p.46, you will notice how he points out that the main reason for the choice of the day - or better the main "catalyst" - was not the ritualistic element, but the fact that Meredith and Knox would be at home together alone, for the first time, on that night.

And if you go further back up to p. 43, you will read how Mignini expresses the view that this was a random murder, that is a murder in which there are many "factors playing" a causal role; among those he mentions, at the end, some aspects of the suspects' personalities, which he sees as co-factors of risk.
Most of his observations, in my opinion, are correct.

The straw men makers would only pick up the inapproriate, irrelevant contextual speculations, and forget the rest of the arguments.

Now, in fact Mignini doesn't say they were planning to commit something upon Meredith, some kind of act against her will. He suggests something slightly different. He suggests they intended to involve her in a sexual game. Mignini does not jump to say that they were aiming at committing a ritualistic act on her or at committing a violence: he says they meant to "drag her into a game".
This dragging her into a sexual game seems in fact an actual part of the motive, it has a causative effect, it's not just some contextual scenario.
But still, this dragging Meredith into a sex game is not - in Mignini's argument - the whole motive. There is another part of the motive, which he points out, something he mentions in the same paragraph and he assume it may have had a causal effect - even if it's unclear how this plays in a narrative the other possibilities - that is: Meredith's rent cash money. This one, for Mignini, was another part of the "real motive".

Mignini doesn't build a narrative but mentions these two possible motives: desire to drag her into a sexual game, and something that has to do with using her money.

He doesn't specify further any narrative or scenario - it's clear he doesn't have information - but those are the elements that he points as the most probable elements of the motive.

it all makes a bit of a nonsense of the idea that Amanda took a knife from Sollecito's apartment in a premeditated way, doesn't it?
 
.
Break into houses and steal things just like he did before Meredith's murder, and just like he intended to do the night he broke into her home but got caught with his pants down when she arrived home and surprised him.

Cody
.

He also may still have some computers in inventory, left over from his days of fencing. Those things appreciate in value over time, no? (not serious).

Rudy could get a job with the state maybe. Or he could become a history professor? Or maybe teach basketball to kids, he could probably do that, and he'd probably be good at it.
 
I don't think that Rudy goes back to meaningful work if he has to automatically give half of his net to the Kerchers. My guess is that he leaves the country or is driven back to crime. In a sense, the Kerchers civil action may have the result of getting someone else killed.

Has Rudy ever been motivated to work when he didn't have a garnishment?

Rudy's work history, IIUC, is that when he was supported by the wealthy family, he was lazy. Didn't go to school, didn't do his gardening job. However, after they kicked him out, he worked as a waiter ( I think his aunt found him the job in Milan), and was fine at it. The restaurant closed, that wasn't his fault. With no other way to earn a living, or perhaps just taking the easy way out, he turns to crime, developing his signature 'inhabit the home fantasy' - which by the way is off the charts nutso.

I think Rudy will hurt more people (women) because he's Rudy and can't control himself. I wouldn't blame the Kercher's civil action against Rudy for that.

But their pursuit against Knox and Sollecito, both criminal and civil, is unforgivable. These people aren't morons, they should know better.
 
In reverse order.

1) "The murderer's DNA at the insertion of the blade is not an unlikely event but instead something rather typical in stabbings."

Please reference this statement that the murder's DNA is typically found at the insertion of the blade in stabbings (I will accept incorporation of non fatal stabbings as the mechanism should be similar.

2) The knife was tested for blood - negative. It was microscopically examined for cellular material - negative. My ability to read Italian is limited, but I do not think "body fluid" is used, but 'fluidi biologica'. I remain of the opinion that the meaning is that the fluid obtained by sampling the knike contained DNA donated by Knox.

3) The argument that because there a small drop of blood of Knox in her bathroom or on her pillow deposited at an unknown time means that any or all DNA found must originate from her bleeding at the time of the murder is patently illogical.

Mixed blood has long ago been dismissed.

I let alone #1 because too complicated now. #3 I'm sorry, but thus evidence is absolutely relevant, it has nit been dismissed at all - but in the minds of forum posters - and there is no connection between Knox's blood on the murder scene in the bathroom and her blood on the pillow. The blood drop on the tap is independent and determinant evidence. It is directly linked with the fact that Knox's statements about relating it to her ear bleeding a week before were not credible. The fact that she lies is relevant evidence. Her own admission that the stain was not there the previous evening is relevant evidence. The fact that it is intrinsically unlikely that the stain was there on the tap for days with nobody cleaning it - also given Meredith's previous complaints and her annoyance about blood traces the bathroom, which se couldn't stand - is relevant evidence. The fact that Knox's not knowing if she bled in the bathroom is a non credible statement, is relevant evidence. And these pieces of evidence must be weighted altogether.
So the presence of blood drops from Amanda Knox in the bathroom is determinant evidence, it is connected to the murder scene; it is also connected by analogy with the presence of mixed traces of blood or luminol.
So the assumption of Knox's blood on the murder scene is well grounded, and this is an independent element that raises probability that Knox's blood was at the insertion of the blade.

As for #2, Berti & Barni definitely say body fluids from Amanda Knox. This is what biological fluid from Amanda Knox means; no chance thus could refer to the liquid sample. Fluidi biologici means body fluids, and they are from Knox.
 
I let alone #1 because too complicated now. #3 I'm sorry, but thus evidence is absolutely relevant, it has nit been dismissed at all - but in the minds of forum posters - and there is no connection between Knox's blood on the murder scene in the bathroom and her blood on the pillow. The blood drop on the tap is independent and determinant evidence. It is directly linked with the fact that Knox's statements about relating it to her ear bleeding a week before were not credible. The fact that she lies is relevant evidence. Her own admission that the stain was not there the previous evening is relevant evidence. The fact that it is intrinsically unlikely that the stain was there on the tap for days with nobody cleaning it - also given Meredith's previous complaints and her annoyance about blood traces the bathroom, which se couldn't stand - is relevant evidence. The fact that Knox's not knowing if she bled in the bathroom is a non credible statement, is relevant evidence. And these pieces of evidence must be weighted altogether.
So the presence of blood drops from Amanda Knox in the bathroom is determinant evidence, it is connected to the murder scene; it is also connected by analogy with the presence of mixed traces of blood or luminol.
So the assumption of Knox's blood on the murder scene is well grounded, and this is an independent element that raises probability that Knox's blood was at the insertion of the blade.

As for #2, Berti & Barni definitely say body fluids from Amanda Knox. This is what biological fluid from Amanda Knox means; no chance thus could refer to the liquid sample. Fluidi biologici means body fluids, and they are from Knox.

Mahiavelli, you fully know this just fantasy. It is impossible because Knox didn't have any cuts in her hands.
 
Mahiavelli, you fully know this just fantasy. It is impossible because Knox didn't have any cuts in her hands.

No cuts or injuries of any kind and no spots of her blood in the victim's bedroom where she will have acquired her (invisible) injuries. How did she achieve this?
 
I don't think that Rudy goes back to meaningful work if he has to automatically give half of his net to the Kerchers. My guess is that he leaves the country or is driven back to crime. In a sense, the Kerchers civil action may have the result of getting someone else killed.

He has a lot of places to go in the EU, I assume, without any restriction and where he can be virtually anonymous. He can burgle, rape and murder there too. What he should be, is under strict licence conditions, which restrict his movements and permit a recall to custody if such conditions are breached. Not in Italy, I think.
 
-
I just don't believe that because someone calls something a cowpie, that makes it a cowpie.

Besides, why should the other side take your evidence and arguement's seriously, when you won't take their's seriously?

I may be forgetting something here but the cow pies we have here:
1. The Bra Clasp which was on the floor for around two months
Would you accept experimental data of a lab slide which has been on the floor of the researcher's office floor for a month.
2. A knife which improper stowage procedures and tested for an absolutely tiny amount of DNA which cound not be confirmed. Note: Somehow the forensic expert is able to divine (don't know how else to put it because it is certainly not science) that the knife was used to stab Meredeth.
3. Luminol readings which did not pass even a second presumptive test for blood. Trying to present them as evidence of blood in court goes against a basic training manual in forensics.
4. Biological traces in a bathroom which two people shared.
5. Supposed evidence that a break in was faked when it was not even properly examined.
6. Eye Witness testimony for a drug user months afterwards that he saw the suspects at a basketball court.
7. Eye Witness testimony months afterwards that she heard screaming and running but does not know who. Even if correct, it really has no value.

I was making a joke to show a point using Cow Pies but what the prosecution shows that they consider evidence is garbage.

The thing is that we are talking about a forensic team which cannot even properly identify shoe prints and cannot follow clean procedures.
 
No cuts or injuries of any kind and no spots of her blood in the victim's bedroom where she will have acquired her (invisible) injuries. How did she achieve this?

Machiavelli's fantasy is extraordinary. According to him Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito managed to leave no evidence in Ms Kercher's bedroom because they ran out of the room and out of the cottage before Ms Kercher (and presumably Ms Knox), really started bleeding properly. This accounts for the lack of evidence in the room from them and the absence of transfer.

Now if that isn't strange enough, he has them coming back to the flat later for a selective clean up (which isn't really necessary because they didn't leave any evidence) during which time they take off their shoes and mess up the bathroom and the hall and stage the burglary and end up leaving evidence of themselves but outside the bedroom except for the bra hooks, which Mr Sollecito must have leaned over and touched at some point.

All this is plausible. And the dating of forensic samples without any point of reference is good evidence apparently.

So, perhaps the evidence Guede left behind in Ms Kercher's room is a result of him not being able to run fast enough? However fast he was ejaculating, he obviously wasn't fast enough to outrun the blood.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli's fantasy is extraordinary. According to him Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito managed to leave no evidence in Ms Kercher's bedroom because they ran out of the room and out of the cottage before Ms Kercher (and presumably Ms Knox), really started bleeding properly. This accounts for the lack of evidence in the room from them and the absence of transfer.

Now if that isn't strange enough, he has them coming back to the flat later for a selective clean up (which isn't really necessary because they didn't leave any evidence) during which time they take off their shoes and mess up the bathroom and the hall and stage the burglary and end up leaving evidence of themselves but outside the bedroom except for the bra hooks, which Mr Sollecito must have leaned over and touched at some point.

All this is plausible. And the dating of forensic samples without any point of reference is good evidence apparently.

So, perhaps the evidence Guede left behind in Ms Kercher's room is a result of him not being able to run fast enough?

These are the mixed blessings of the internet, which is simultaneously an extension of traditional, edited information and a new Wild West where all manner of nonsense can be, in a sense, "published". Obsessive compulsive, megalomaniacal idiots like "Michael," "Ergon," "Yummi," and their like, have found their playground, and derive as much unbridled personal satisfaction as any similar 8 or 9 year old would.
 
Machiavelli's fantasy is extraordinary. According to him Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito managed to leave no evidence in Ms Kercher's bedroom because they ran out of the room and out of the cottage before Ms Kercher (and presumably Ms Knox), really started bleeding properly. This accounts for the lack of evidence in the room from them and the absence of transfer. Now if that isn't strange enough, he has them coming back to the flat later for a selective clean up (which isn't really necessary because they didn't leave any evidence) during which time they take off their shoes and mess up the bathroom and the hall and stage the burglary and end up leaving evidence of themselves but outside the bedroom.

All this is plausible. And the dating of forensic samples without any point of reference is good evidence apparently.

So, perhaps the evidence Guede left behind in Ms Kercher's room is a result of him not being able to run fast enough?

Well, to be fair, we know (because the Court of Cassazione took this into account when hearing his sentencing appeal) that he hung back desperately mopping up her blood trying to 'help' her. Before going out dancing.

I had not heard this theory about them running out and leaving no blood. Is that really what Mach thinks? Good! This gives me an opportunity to explain the difference between reasonable and unreasonable doubt. An unreasonable doubt arises when one can construct a fanciful, very highly improbable, indeed only barely possible arrangements of facts as a basis for doubting something. Most guilter thinking lies in this realm.

Examples are too numerous and well-known to give here*, but the idea of them running out of the flat at high speed in such a way as not to leave any blood behind or of acquiring some seeping, delayed action wound (not visible subsequently) which only produced blood when they return to clean up is within this category of fanciful reconstruction.

Their thinking is so irrational that not only do they uncritically spout (and apparently actually believe) such nonsense they go further and add it to the great mass of evidence of guilt, as though it really is evidence (in guilterland, by the way, the 'weight of evidence' is actually a literal expression - it literally means the amount of paper relied on by the prosecution, the more there is the stronger the case - I **** you not, as RandyN used to say).

* OK, just one, because they are so much fun :D Remember Ergon's Briars theory about the reverberating valley walls that boomed her scream back as an echo and thus explained how Nara could hear it? No need for an audio metric text when you have a reverberating valley, eh?

Alright, two. Remember the guilters need a theory on premeditation. Whichever they fall they encounter problems. The no-premed theory has to deal with the knife: why did she take the knife. Mach's explanation is brilliant and simple: they went over to her place to cook a fish dinner and took Raffaele's favourite knife along because that's the knife he always used when cooking fish. I'm serious. There is a whole thread at IIP on this theory. I **** you not.
 
As for #2, Berti & Barni definitely say body fluids from Amanda Knox. This is what biological fluid from Amanda Knox means; no chance thus could refer to the liquid sample. Fluidi biologici means body fluids, and they are from Knox.

First of all, Berti & Barni are difficult to take seriously because they sound like muppets.

Secondly, either you are misreading, or this is a typically Italian screw up. They did not generically identify the biologic substance as "body fluids". There is no test to determine if something is a body "fluid" as opposed to generic, DNA-containing matter.
 
He has a lot of places to go in the EU, I assume, without any restriction and where he can be virtually anonymous. He can burgle, rape and murder there too. What he should be, is under strict licence conditions, which restrict his movements and permit a recall to custody if such conditions are breached. Not in Italy, I think.

Well, the family of whoever he kills next can thank Mignini and Italy. Is there no end to the misery that that pompous idiot will cause.
 
Well, the family of whoever he kills next can thank Mignini and Italy. Is there no end to the misery that that pompous idiot will cause.

Agreed. He could show up in Coulsdon. There's not a lot anyone could do about it.
 
First of all, Berti & Barni are difficult to take seriously because they sound like muppets.

Secondly, either you are misreading, or this is a typically Italian screw up. They did not generically identify the biologic substance as "body fluids". There is no test to determine if something is a body "fluid" as opposed to generic, DNA-containing matter.

Indeed, skin-sourced epithelial cells are not especially "fluid," are they?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom