Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[christianahannah]

Thanks Christianah, I'm curious if anyone else has any thoughts on this issue.

By any chance, do you have an over all opinion as to guilt or innocence for Amanda and Raf that you would be willing to share?

Do you think Rudy Guede killed Meredith alone, or with others, or that Rudy isn't guilty at all?

I understand if you don't wish to express an opinion.

Will you accept that my opinion is ever evolving (not changing - I haven't come down strong either way) for Amanda and Raffaele? It isn't being on the fence but some evidence lean one way and other evidence leans another.

I have started reading through some of the information provided on The Meredith Wiki. I have read the early telephone intercepts of Amanda and I find nothing strange in her conversations found in those intercepts.

I expect that as I read on some of the portrayals of Amanda, Raffaele and those involved in the investigation/trial, characterized by both guilt and innocence people, will be found to be erroneous. And some of the translations and quotes and assessments of testimony will follow this same path.

As for Rudy I think the evidence is good and he is guilty of Meredith's murder. I think it is possible he is not the only person involved.

 

[Dan O.]

All of the actual evidence points to Rudy guede acting alone. There isn't any aspect to this crime that requires another perpetrator. There isn't any real evidence of there being anyone else present. And there isn't any viable scenario with multiple perpetrators that is consistent with the evidence.

We do however have a working lone wolf scenario: Rudy Guede casing the cottage, breaking the window, climbing in, making himself at home including taking a dump. Meredith's return home at 9pm. A surprise, chase and possible fight in the kitchen/living room area. A brutal assaul in Meredith's room behind the closed door. Trips to the bathroom to clean hands and fetch towels. Moving and undressing Meredith, ripping off her bra, proping her up on the pillow leaving shoe prints and palm print in Meredith's blood. More trips to the bathroom to cleanup, a partial bare footprint left on the bathroom mat. A second set of shoe prints from Meredith's room down the hall towards the front door but turning back. A search of Meredith's purse, the theft of Meredith's cell phones and credit cards. Exiting the cottage and getting to the park Saint Angelo prior to 10pm. Discarding the phones in Launa's guarden. Rudy going home and changing his dirty and wet pant. Rudy going out dancing and never calling the emergency services to get help for the dying Meredith. And, Rudy leaving the country and hiding out using an alias until his friends turn him in.

 

[Bill Williams]

All of the actual evidence points to Rudy guede acting alone. There isn't any aspect to this crime that requires another perpetrator. There isn't any real evidence of there being anyone else present. And there isn't any viable scenario with multiple perpetrators that is consistent with the evidence.

We do however have a working lone wolf scenario: Rudy Guede casing the cottage, breaking the window, climbing in, making himself at home including taking a dump. Meredith's return home at 9pm. A surprise, chase and possible fight in the kitchen/living room area. A brutal assaul in Meredith's room behind the closed door. Trips to the bathroom to clean hands and fetch towels. Moving and undressing Meredith, ripping off her bra, proping her up on the pillow leaving shoe prints and palm print in Meredith's blood. More trips to the bathroom to cleanup, a partial bare footprint left on the bathroom mat. A second set of shoe prints from Meredith's room down the hall towards the front door but turning back. A search of Meredith's purse, the theft of Meredith's cell phones and credit cards. Exiting the cottage and getting to the park Saint Angelo prior to 10pm. Discarding the phones in Launa's guarden. Rudy going home and changing his dirty and wet pant. Rudy going out dancing and never calling the emergency services to get help for the dying Meredith. And, Rudy leaving the country and hiding out using an alias until his friends turn him in.

The pro-guilt lobby cannot do what you've just done: provide a timeline and narrative consistent with the evidence. Funny that.

Instead they have to continually reinvent the crime - now Machiavelli, no less, is making up out of the blue that the bra-clasp contaminated "Dr." Stefanoni's glove.

I was going to say, "you cant make this up," but apparently you can.

 

[carbonjam72]

Will you accept that my opinion is ever evolving (not changing - I haven't come down strong either way) for Amanda and Raffaele? It isn't being on the fence but some evidence lean one way and other evidence leans another.

I have started reading through some of the information provided on The Meredith Wiki. I have read the early telephone intercepts of Amanda and I find nothing strange in her conversations found in those intercepts.

I expect that as I read on some of the portrayals of Amanda, Raffaele and those involved in the investigation/trial, characterized by both guilt and innocence people, will be found to be erroneous. And some of the translations and quotes and assessments of testimony will follow this same path.

As for Rudy I think the evidence is good and he is guilty of Meredith's murder. I think it is possible he is not the only person involved.

I accept whatever you tell me you believe, is what you believe.

When you say, "the Meredith Wiki", it makes a big difference whether you mean "www.themurderofmeredithkercher.com", or "www.murderofmeredithkercher.com".

The first site, I think most pro-innocent people would describe as a 'hate site'. The latter as more objective. But whichever one you're going to, will likely push you one way or the other. Certainly try both.

But the best suggestion I have is to read Judge Hellman's acquittal motivation. It went through every objective element of evidence, carefully and concisely, eliminating the evidence offered in support of guilt. (its short too, maybe 130 pages, and easy to understand, very clear). And found them actually innocent, as opposed to merely 'not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'.

You might also read Amanda Knox's book, "waiting to be heard". I've found her to be entirely honest throughout this long ordeal. And ultimately, that's what you're really deciding. Is Amanda telling the truth when she says she and Raf never left his apartment that evening?

The same argument holds for Raf's book, 'Honor Bound'. They are either telling the truth, or they're not. I believe them, and see no reason to doubt them.

Another book I'd recommend for background, is "The Monster of Florence" by Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi. This is for background on Mignini and Giuttari, and their history of making unsupported satanic sect allegations against a wide range of bystanders, to insinuate themselves into the famous Monster of Florence case - that's my interpretation anyway, see if you agree.

Thanks for your honesty.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Stefanoni on gloves; ENFSI standards

"With reference to the single-use gloves, Dr. Stefanoni specified that they were changed, in the course of the search, every time an object was touched that was particularly soaked with blood, and when it was obvious that the gloves would be soiled; "...otherwise, if it is just an ordinary object...I can move it, but this does not lead to my DNA remaining, let’s say, attached. It depends on the object" (p. 149). She added that one cannot see epithelial cells and therefore their possible presence on the glove worn by the investigator is not visible to the naked eye (page 151)." Massei, English translation, p. 203.

This is insufficient, as I have documented many times previously. Peter Gill's book also discusses gloves as possible vectors for contamination.

With respect to the ENFSI standards that Planigale recently discussed, I was struck by a passage from Appendix II, namely,

"The minimum preventative measures that should be considered and described include:
SNIP
the use of different personnel for collecting material from the victim(s) and each suspect"

 

[Desert Fox]

Will you accept that my opinion is ever evolving (not changing - I haven't come down strong either way) for Amanda and Raffaele? It isn't being on the fence but some evidence lean one way and other evidence leans another.

I have started reading through some of the information provided on The Meredith Wiki. I have read the early telephone intercepts of Amanda and I find nothing strange in her conversations found in those intercepts.

I expect that as I read on some of the portrayals of Amanda, Raffaele and those involved in the investigation/trial, characterized by both guilt and innocence people, will be found to be erroneous. And some of the translations and quotes and assessments of testimony will follow this same path.

As for Rudy I think the evidence is good and he is guilty of Meredith's murder. I think it is possible he is not the only person involved.

If you argue for more than one person involved in the murder, how do you explain the fact that there is no gross evidence of other individuals in what is an extremely small room?

 

[Strozzi]

If you argue for more than one person involved in the murder, how do you explain the fact that there is no gross evidence of other individuals in what is an extremely small room?

Prosecutor Mignini was asked the same question by a journalist about the non-existence of any forensic evidence showing Amanda was in the bloody bedroom. He speculated that perhaps Amanda was in the living room, directing the murder of her housemate from afar. This was his response after the first trial in which he accused her at trial of being the one who actually held the knife to Meredith's throat and driving it home. Amanda must have very long arms.

 

[Desert Fox]

Mignini was asked the same question about the non-existence of any forensic evidence showing Amanda was in the bedroom. He speculated that perhaps Amanda was in the living room, directing the murder of her housemate from afar.

Anything is possible. . . .I think that argument is bad comedy however and I am hoping that CH does not really take that idea seriously.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm sorry I should have given more information. Even though I wrote the scratch I should have written scratches. Whether this corresponds to Stefanoni's scratch, I can't say but there was another source who saw scratches on the knife. How all the experts viewed the knife, in person, from photos, etc., I do not know the answer.

Testimony from Dr. Liverio, Massei Motivations - page 118:



ETA: I didn't think Stefanoni used a special light to see the scratch but rather testified it could be seen in good lighting.

With regards to the striation in which Stefanono claimed to have found the Meredith material, this is what Judge Massei wrote in 2010:

She stated that the other knives that were analysed were kept separate. She
reaffirmed that on the blade of knife Exhibit 36 a striation was visible but ‚placing the exhibit under a source of illumination < like the conventional sort that has a Reprovit, which is the instrument we use for photography; it was possible to observe it only by placing it under a strong spotlight and by changing the angle at which the
light hit the blade, it was only in this way that these striations became visible to the
naked eye < photos were attempted but it was too reflective < only white spots of
light came out‛ (page 246).​

Remember, this is before considering that if this knife had been cleaned with bleach, it was far, far more likely that blood would have survived than a minuscule DNA fragment.

Massei also notes that the expert appointed by the preliminary hearing judge could find no such striation:

The analysis of trace 36B and its results have, on the contrary, been the subject of
several strong criticisms by the defence [teams] of both defendants.
It was thus maintained that the blade did not show any visible sign of the claimed
scratches, and not even Professor Cingolani (the expert witness nominated by the GIP [preliminary hearing judge] for the incidente probatorio [taking of evidence at pretrial stage], during which, in the course of the discussion, the knife, Exhibit 36, having been made available at the request of the defence teams, was shown) has declared that he noticed such scratches.Furthermore, it was not possible to know the nature of the biological trace that had
apparently been found on the blade, and in fact the test for blood had given a
negative result.​

 

[carbonjam72]

Prosecutor Mignini was asked the same question by a journalist about the non-existence of any forensic evidence showing Amanda was in the bloody bedroom. He speculated that perhaps Amanda was in the living room, directing the murder of her housemate from afar. This was his response after the first trial in which he accused her at trial of being the one who actually held the knife to Meredith's throat and driving it home. Amanda must have very long arms.

I think Mignini was saying this hypothetically, if you insist Amanda was not in the room, then she could have been outside the room and still guilty of murder. But that he, Mignini believes there was evidence placing Amanda and Raf in the room, as presented by the double DNA knife, and Raf's DNA on the bra clasp.

Seems more like Mignini is checking boxes on a fill-in-the-blank evidence form, without actually having to show consistency with the evidence or reality. It's all in his papers, and therefore must be regrettably true, in his estimation. He, Mignini, after all, is not on trial.

After Hellman's acquittal and the demolishing of all the evidence, there was nothing left to convict upon, save Italian pride.

 

[Dan O.]

Prosecutor Mignini was asked the same question by a journalist about the non-existence of any forensic evidence showing Amanda was in the bloody bedroom. He speculated that perhaps Amanda was in the living room, directing the murder of her housemate from afar. This was his response after the first trial in which he accused her at trial of being the one who actually held the knife to Meredith's throat and driving it home. Amanda must have very long arms.

The evidence (Meredith's blood on the inside handle) suggests that the bedroom door was closed at the time of the fatal stabing that would spray blood on the perpetrator's hands.

 

[Strozzi]

I think Mignini was saying this hypothetically, if you insist Amanda was not in the room, then she could have been outside the room and still guilty of murder. But that he, Mignini believes there was evidence placing Amanda and Raf in the room, as presented by the double DNA knife, and Raf's DNA on the bra clasp.

Seems more like Mignini is checking boxes on a fill-in-the-blank evidence form, without actually having to show consistency with the evidence or reality. It's all in his papers, and therefore must be regrettably true, in his estimation. He, Mignini, after all, is not on trial.

After Hellman's acquittal and the demolishing of all the evidence, there was nothing left to convict upon, save Italian pride.

if I remember correctly, Mignini was also asked what would it be if the break-in turned out to be real. My recollection is that he answered they would be innocent.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think Mignini was saying this hypothetically, if you insist Amanda was not in the room, then she could have been outside the room and still guilty of murder. But that he, Mignini believes there was evidence placing Amanda and Raf in the room, as presented by the double DNA knife, and Raf's DNA on the bra clasp.

Seems more like Mignini is checking boxes on a fill-in-the-blank evidence form, without actually having to show consistency with the evidence or reality. It's all in his papers, and therefore must be regrettably true, in his estimation. He, Mignini, after all, is not on trial.

After Hellman's acquittal and the demolishing of all the evidence, there was nothing left to convict upon, save Italian pride.

I believe Machiavelli has cleared this up as well, that Mignini was speaking hypothetically.

Still - this is somewhat similar to Raffaele's separation strategy..... in the face of a court which is making it a "judicial fact" that if a piece of evidence tends to incriminate one, then it incriminates both.....

..... Raffaele's appeals' document is saying that it is illogical to use something that the court claims incriminates Amanda, when that same "something" tends to cast doubt on Raffaele's guilt. The court cannot have it both ways.

 

[Samson]

But as Mignini explained about not taping the interrogations, they were short of money.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

It is time for the guilters to be specific about Amanda not being beaten.
PMF and TJMK have this marvellous ability to find source material that proves the opposite of their intent. (of course it leads to the opposite conclusion to what they wish is true)

Here is just posted an English to Italian to English translation, apparently the original not to hand. Curt Knox, Edda Mellas, Amanda Knox

"CK: I do not think you've already met Carlo.
AK: No, I met him. We talked for about 15 minutes. He was there when he was in front of the judge and told me not to answer anything. It was then that I discovered that the police accused me of helping the murder. And I said: "Are you kidding? I have helped! I have helped you and you made me scared to death. " When I was by the police has been the worst of my life, the worst experience of my life. A thousand times worse than any other experience of my life. I can not tell you how scared I was when I was in that room
CK: Sure. Of course it was unpleasant ...
EM: (---)
AK: Yes, I said that they beat me and he said: "What ?! They do not have told me. " And I: "Well, they did."
EM: You just have to be careful about this because if we say ... We can say that the police threatened but if you say that you have beaten then, technically, we have to file a complaint against the police, which at the time would only worsen things. And especially because you have no visible signs ..
AK: I know it
EM: It would be difficult to prove that it is true then ... Of this thing will look in the future the consulate, so we have to work with the lawyer to understand when talking about it."

It would be great if she had filed a complaint, and to have heard the pious serial lying by the misguided twits in that interview room in court.

 

[carbonjam72]

if I remember correctly, Mignini was also asked what would it be if the break-in turned out to be real. My recollection is that he answered they would be innocent.

That's my recollection too, not sure where its from though, but wish I knew.

I think Mignini said if the break-in is real, then Amanda and Raf are innocent.

Which is actually kind of weird. If the evidence they participated in the murder is objective, and proves their presence in the room when Meredith was attacked, and proves they physically assaulted Meredith, then how would the aspect of the break-in being real alter any of that physical evidence?

If the evidence available can be interpreted as Amanda and Raf never having left Raf's apartment if the break in was really real, then why couldn't the same physical evidence be interpreted in their favor even if the break-in were staged?

It shows Mignini's theory of guilt, is based wholly on confirmation bias, and not a matter of proving guilt, 'beyond reasonable doubt' while according the defendants the presumption of innocence.

But as Judge Hellman noted, the prosecutor doesn't really believe in 'guilt beyond reasonable doubt' as a standard, its just some extra language that was added to the law, but that was already there. Telling a consistent story that accounts for all the evidence is enough to support a conviction, in Mignini's view, at least that's what he argued before Judge Hellman.

 

[Samson]

if I remember correctly, Mignini was also asked what would it be if the break-in turned out to be real. My recollection is that he answered they would be innocent.

Mine too, fortunately it was real, easily proven so, and it is their best focus going forward regardless of march 25.

Someone must know when and where Mignini said this, because it is the sort of short sound bite that the public will understand, in the debunking of the alleged complexity of the case.

 

[TomB]

Yes, if you have a stockpile of 500 disposable tweezers with you.

Just so it's clear that this is not an absurd thing:

Reinforced Nylon Disposable Sterile Forceps 100pk
Item# EW-06443-26
$127.00 USD/PACKAGE

http://www.coleparmer.com/Product/Reinforced_Nylon_Disposable_Sterile_Forceps_100pk/EW-06443-26

Not even that expensive as lab supplies go.

 

[Desert Fox]

Just so it's clear that this is not an absurd thing:

http://www.coleparmer.com/Product/Reinforced_Nylon_Disposable_Sterile_Forceps_100pk/EW-06443-26

Not even that expensive as lab supplies go.

If you look at my links, you can get them much cheaper (~$30 for 100)

 

[Machiavelli]

All of the actual evidence points to Rudy guede acting alone. There isn't any aspect to this crime that requires another perpetrator. There isn't any real evidence of there being anyone else present. And there isn't any viable scenario with multiple perpetrators that is consistent with the evidence.

(...)

I remind that one of the points where I have proven you wrong, is exactly the impossibility - on your part and on the part of the pro-Knox supporters - to build a reasonable sequence of Guede acting alone, without contradicting the physical evidence.

I point out that nobody was able to solve points of inconsistency of the Guede alone scenario, such as the timing of his trampling over the pillow (to be made consistent with the timing of the semen stain and the placing of the pillow undr the body). The alleged washing-his-trousers under the shower without dripping around or his not leaving a trace of blood shoeprints through his alleged turning at the front door and walking back to Meredith's room, and the absence of evidence of that; or the bruises pointing to sexual violence committed when the victim still had a good blood pressure; the absence of any trace of touching the victim's body with bloody hands; these are just other examples.

 

[Machiavelli]

Pay no attention to the amica's-haplotypes behind the curtain.

There are no amica's haplotypes in Nencini's report.