• 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.
Machiavelli said:
What I think can be shown through physical evidence is that Rudy Guede did not do that alone, and any that attampt to draw a scenario where he performs all actions alone creates a number of inconsistencies.

I addresse some of the problems: autopsy report showing multiple assialants (partly explained by Nencini too), requiremet of elaborate post mortem sexual violence, inconsistency between post mortem sexual violence scenario and the stepping on the pillow, theory of pants washing conflicting with absence of dripping, absence of trace of walking to lock the door, contradiction between wearing shoes and having wet bare feet, and so on.

-


-

Mach, does the autopsy report show bruising around Meredith's wrist, because without that, it's why I believe it is less probable there were three assailants, in my opinion,

d

-
Even with the autopsy report, 8 of 9 experts who testified in front of Massei in 2009 said they could not rule out a single attacker.

ETA - ooops, this was already addressed upthread. Yes, M. is simply cherry-picking the one that supports his bias towards Mignini.
 
-


-

Mach, does the autopsy report show bruising around Meredith's wrist, because without that, it's why I believe it is less probable there were three assailants, in my opinion,

d

-
Except all is speculation. Guede could cause any amount of bruising prior to reluctantly pulling the knife to stabilise her actions with threats to kill her.
 
-

One item with me is that I believe nothing with 100% probability. Does not stop me from putting my nickel down on things however. I cannot really assign probabilities to many things and don't think it may even be useful.
-

I have to admit that my probability assignments are not an exact science, they're more of a feeling I get that it just makes sense to me, rather than a fixed percentage, but I am always willing and open to changing my mind and also putting my nickle up so people can see what it's worth.

How can you even begin to have your mind changed until you first put that nickle up and really listen to what other people have to say about it.

Gawd knows, it's not like I'm perfect and always right about everything. If I find a flaw in any of my own arguements (οr other people's), it bothers me and sometimes it's just a small detail, like wrist bruising, that does it. I need it explained before I can even believe my own arguements, not to mention others.

Sometimes you don't see the flaw in your own arguements, which is why putting your nickle out there is such a good idea.

Although sometimes, I do wish I were perfect,

d

-
 
I have to admit that my probability assignments are not an exact science, they're more of a feeling I get that it just makes sense to me, rather than a fixed percentage, but I am always willing and open to changing my mind and also putting my nickle up so people can see what it's worth.

How can you even begin to have your mind changed until you first put that nickle up and really listen to what other people have to say about it.

Gawd knows, it's not like I'm perfect and always right about everything. If I find a flaw in any of my own arguements (οr other people's), it bothers me and sometimes it's just a small detail, like wrist bruising, that does it. I need it explained before I can even believe my own arguements, not to mention others.

Sometimes you don't see the flaw in your own arguements, which is why putting your nickle out there is such a good idea.

Although sometimes, I do wish I were perfect,

There have been many issues which I have had my mind changed about after I had a position on the issue. For example, I recently found out that one of my favorite authors from years ago may have had ties to the child molestation of her daughter. I used to be far more libertarian than I am now as well.
 
-

Except all is speculation. Guede could cause any amount of bruising prior to reluctantly pulling the knife to stabilise her actions with threats to kill her.
-

True, all is speculation, but I have yet to see this autopsy report but I have seen an analysis of it, and it doesn't state that the wrist were bruised.

What I base my speculation about the wrist bruising on is experiments that I have actually done myself concerning two people trying to hold a third person still. There were four groups of people, all of them different, twelve people in all, and every single one of them first went for the elbows (because they move slower than the hands and were easier to grab), and then almost immediately went to secure the hands... BY THE WRIST.

If you don't believe me, do the test yourself,

I've also done other experiments associated with this case like having three different couples write down their timelines from the night before and from a week before that. Most of their timelines didn't match significantly. Times that events happened didn't match or were different in order of occurrence. I was nice enough to let them look at calendars though.

You can do all these simple experiments and see for yourself whether I'm right or not.

In my opinion, this puts a little more meat on my speculative hypothesis,

d

-
 
Last edited:
Speaking of knives - Let's get back to what's real:
DNA Contamination and Forensic Laboratory Malpractice

Here's a timeline table summarizing some of the issues with the DNA testing and showing some of the major contemporaneous case events.

ETA: Note that the malfunctions in quantification "conveniently" occur immediately before the critical tests on the knife and the bra clasp.


6858954c5ab1a15095.jpg
 
Last edited:
See here you go being dishonest in this post. . . .You know that multiple forensic experts state that the autopsy indicates that they cannot know if it was a single or multiple attackers. Only a single expert stated that one attacker could ne ruled out. . . .You are doing what is called "cherry picking."

No, really, this is an important point. Some coroners expressed the opinion that they couldn't rule out a single assailant; but they also said that they could not state for sure there was sexual violance. Yet we know sexual violence is certain.
Those medical experts actually said they thought a single assailaint could have been possible, but with a condition: if there was a situation of violence that subsequently escalated.

Some of those experts (such as Introna) presented their own scenario, which happens to be just unrealistic.

But in fact conclusions are not drawn by medical experts, they are drawn by judges, and there's a reason for that.

The experts - besides the fact that some are from defence parties - consider only part of the evidence, and their findings need to be crossed with other findings and experts about other topics. DNA findings for example must enter into the equation, as well the blood splatter experts (Camana), and also detectives' assessment about the physical evidence in the room, the victim movements, where the clothes were found, pillows, etc. ans also cross it with witnesses (Capezzali, Monacchia) etc.

Nencini does provide some illuminating part of the reasoning, elaborating on some of the details. He focuses on the lack of defensive wounds on her hands and lack of DNA under nails, but there are also other elements.

In fact I believe the autopsy and related finding showing multiple assailants is very strong evidence, and I do believe there is no room for a single perpetrator scenario.
 
Last edited:
Here's part 2 showing more Contamination.
Why would any reasonable person accept DNA profile results from a lab that experienced contamination, but the lab tech running the lab, "Doctor" Stefanoni, denied in court testimony that anyone had ever mentioned there was contamination in her lab.

Furthermore, she tested LCN-level DNA samples without having a lab suitable for LCN testing and without using a validated LCN-level DNA profile method. It's a strict requirement in responsible forensic labs to validate methods before using them for a case. And neither her DNA collection methods nor her LCN test methods met internationally accepted standards.

Her lab also experienced strange malfunctions of equipment during quantification, which would tend to make the DNA quantities reported seem falsely larger than they really were. Then she switched to a Qubit device to quantify the DNA, and arbitrarily (or fraudulently) tested a "too low" (meaning - possibly no DNA present in the sample) DNA sample to obtain, allegedly, Meredith Kercher's DNA profile on the blade of a randomly chosen food knife from the drawer of Raffaele Sollecito's kitchen. A knife that did not fit the wounds on Ms. Kercher's body and had no blood on it, but did have starch grains left on the blade from preparing food.

6858954c5b85eeb238.jpg
 
Last edited:
-

No, really, this is an important point. Some coroners expressed the opinion that they couldn't rule out a single assailant; but they also said that they could not state for sure there was sexual violance. Yet we know sexual violence is certain.
Those medical experts actually said they thought a single assailaint could have been possible, but with a condition: if there was a situation of violence that subsequently escalated.

Some of those experts (such as Introna) presented their own scenario, which happens to be just unrealistic.

But in fact conclusions are not drawn by medical experts, they are drawn by judges, and there's a reason for that.

The experts - besides the fact that some are from defence parties - consider only part of the evidence, and their findings need to be crossed with other findings and experts about other topics. DNA findings for example must enter into the equation, as well the blood splatter experts (Camana), and also detectives' assessment about the physical evidence in the room, the victim movements, where the clothes were found, pillows, etc. ans also cross it with witnesses (Capezzali, Monacchia) etc.

Nencini does provide some illuminating part of the reasoning, elaborating on some of the details. He focuses on the lack of defensive wounds on her hands and lack of DNA under nails, but there are also other elements.

In fact I believe the autopsy and related finding showing multiple assailants is very strong evidence, and I do believe there is no room for a single perpetrator scenario.
-

Mach, I can give you a speculative (and plausible) one assailant scenario using the autopsy report from memory:

He (assuming the murderer is a he) grabs Meredith around the waist and arms from behind with one arm and holds a knife under her chin with the other, Meredith tries to get away enraging the murderer and he grabs Meredith by the elbow and slams her around the room, finally ending up by slamming her face against the floor, then grabbing her by the chin so he can thrust the knife in. Finding that won't work, he finally pulls her head back by the hair...

Νοw, tell me what's wrong with this scenario?

d

-
 
Last edited:
No, really, this is an important point. Some coroners expressed the opinion that they couldn't rule out a single assailant; but they also said that they could not state for sure there was sexual violance. Yet we know sexual violence is certain.
Those medical experts actually said they thought a single assailaint could have been possible, but with a condition: if there was a situation of violence that subsequently escalated.

Some of those experts (such as Introna) presented their own scenario, which happens to be just unrealistic.

But in fact conclusions are not drawn by medical experts, they are drawn by judges, and there's a reason for that.

The experts - besides the fact that some are from defence parties - consider only part of the evidence, and their findings need to be crossed with other findings and experts about other topics. DNA findings for example must enter into the equation, as well the blood splatter experts (Camana), and also detectives' assessment about the physical evidence in the room, the victim movements, where the clothes were found, pillows, etc. ans also cross it with witnesses (Capezzali, Monacchia) etc.

Nencini does provide some illuminating part of the reasoning, elaborating on some of the details. He focuses on the lack of defensive wounds on her hands and lack of DNA under nails, but there are also other elements.

In fact I believe the autopsy and related finding showing multiple assailants is very strong evidence, and I do believe there is no room for a single perpetrator scenario.
Your belief is reinforced by the infallibility of a judge.
Unfortunately your judges made a gross scientific error admitting the testimony of Capezzali, who, if she heard any noise, heard it at a time long after Meredith was dead, as conclusively discovered by the immutable science of digestion. Thus they are fallible. Machiavelli, until you embrace the repeatable physical laws of science ahead of the unrepeatable experiments involved in this judicial process, you will continue to be puzzled by the obstinacy of the pro innocence army, who will obviously get louder if your system prolongs the idiocy on march 25.
 
-
Mach, I can give you a speculative (and plausible) one assailant scenario using the autopsy report from memory:

He (assuming the murderer is a he) grabs Meredith around the waist and arms from behind with one arm and holds a knife under her chin with the other, Meredith tries to get away enraging the murderer and he grabs Meredith by the elbow and slams her around the room, finally ending up by slamming her face against the floor, then grabbing her by the chin so he can thrust the knife in. Finding that won't work, he finally pulls her head back by the hair...

Νοw, tell me what's wrong with this scenario?

Never forget how small the room is as far as the physics. She could have been partially pinned using the walls especially that back wall.
 
-

Never forget how small the room is as far as the physics. She could have been partially pinned using the walls especially that back wall.



Hmmm, good point, but I see Meredith being surprised by being grabbed from behind as much more plausible, in my opinion,

d

-
 
I have a question -
Machiavellian argued that the destruction of the bras clasp was both on purpose and required by Italian law. If so, why wasn't the knife and all all physical evidence also destroyed?
 
Hmmm, good point, but I see Meredith being surprised by being grabbed from behind as much more plausible, in my opinion,

Unless I have some expertise to express my own opinion, I tend to be willing to go with the experts. The majority of the experts seem to agree that, based on the autopsy alone, that neither a single or multiple attackers can be ruled out.

I think however, based on the actual crime scene (and I mean the bedroom), the single attacker becomes the far more plausible explanation.

This echoes what I have written
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry9.html
Had Meredith been attacked by multiple individuals, investigators would have found more bloody shoeprints on the floor. More items in the room would have been disturbed. Each attacker would very likely have left multiple DNA traces and perhaps fingerprints inside the room, as Rudy did. Overall, the evidence suggests that Meredith encountered a strong male attacker wielding a knife, who quickly overpowered and mortally wounded her.
 
-

I have a question -
Machiavellian argued that the destruction of the bras clasp was both on purpose and required by Italian law. If so, why wasn't the knife and all all physical evidence also destroyed?
-

I don't know, but I do think Mach also wrote that Steffy was waiting for approval, which was why it was still available in the second instance when they discovered it had rusted.

The whole thing sounds screwy to me anyway,

d

-
 
I don't know, but I do think Mach also wrote that Steffy was waiting for approval, which was why it was still available in the second instance when they discovered it had rusted.

After all appeals are exhausted, many places in the US allow destruction of evidence (which there are some issues with it - read up on Joseph Roger O'Dell) but never as far as I know until all appeals are exhausted.
 
-


-

Mach, I can give you a speculative (and plausible) one assailant scenario using the autopsy report from memory:

He (assuming the murderer is a he) grabs Meredith around the waist and arms from behind with one arm and holds a knife under her chin with the other, Meredith tries to get away enraging the murderer and he grabs Meredith by the elbow and slams her around the room, finally ending up by slamming her face against the floor, then grabbing her by the chin so he can thrust the knife in. Finding that won't work, he finally pulls her head back by the hair...

Νοw, tell me what's wrong with this scenario?

d

-

Several things are wrong. One of them, for example, is the presence in the room of several light items that appears unaffected and untouched, like a glass of water, letter, postcard, items on the table, a foulard, purse and lamp, a bed in order. Those kind of objects indicate that nobody was slammed there.
But that's just an example.
He was actually stabbed on two sides, in different locations in the room, but she also suffered a sexual violence, and someone forced a hand on her face, to prevent her from screaming, and grabbed her right wrist. But also, this person threatened her frontally pointing a knife at her face (where she had a small cut). She also had bruises on her back from pressure on the floor. There is simply no coherent scenario of all this, with no defence wounds on her hands, no blood drops patterns around showing movement, and a single assailant with only two hands.
 
-

Unless I have some expertise to express my own opinion, I tend to be willing to go with the experts. The majority of the experts seem to agree that, based on the autopsy alone, that neither a single or multiple attackers can be ruled out.

I think however, based on the actual crime scene (and I mean the bedroom), the single attacker becomes the far more plausible explanation.

This echoes what I have written
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry9.html
Had Meredith been attacked by multiple individuals, investigators would have found more bloody shoeprints on the floor. More items in the room would have been disturbed. Each attacker would very likely have left multiple DNA traces and perhaps fingerprints inside the room, as Rudy did. Overall, the evidence suggests that Meredith encountered a strong male attacker wielding a knife, who quickly overpowered and mortally wounded her.

Out of curiosity, what do you do when the experts don't agree?

Yes, all that together makes the single attacker scenario more likely, and then when you add the highly improbable scenario that three virtual strangers decided at the spur of the minute to psychologically agree to kill a fourth, and then keep this agreement secret for years, that's when you begin to climb the ladder of astronomical improbabilities.

And then when you add that Raffaele and Amanda had commitments for the night which were canceled, which means (even if they had talked this over together before) they must have almost immediately went over to the cottage luckily running into Rudy and that's when Meredith came home...

All that plus no wrist bruising is what makes the multiple attacker scenario so improbable to me,

d

-
 
Several things are wrong. One of them, for example, is the presence in the room of several light items that appears unaffected and untouched, like a glass of water, letter, postcard, items on the table, a foulard, purse and lamp, a bed in order. Those kind of objects indicate that nobody was slammed there. But that's just an example.
He was actually stabbed on two sides, in different locations in the room, but she also suffered a sexual violence, and someone forced a hand on her face, to prevent her from screaming, and grabbed her right wrist. But also, this person threatened her frontally pointing a knife at her face (where she had a small cut). She also had bruises on her back from pressure on the floor. There is simply no coherent scenario of all this, with no defence wounds on her hands, no blood drops patterns around showing movement, and a single assailant with only two hands.

Congratulation, you just showed that there was one attacker. . . .Oops
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom