Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Diocletus]

Interesting tidbit on ECHR website today:

The Chamber to which the case of Jeronovičs v. Latvia had been allocated has relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.

In this case the applicant complains that, notwithstanding the unilateral declaration of the Latvian Government – accepted by the ECHR in a previous application – acknowledging that ill-treatment had been inflicted on the applicant with a view to making him confess, the public prosecutor’s office disregarded that unilateral declaration in its decision refusing to reopen the criminal proceedings regarding the ill-treatment inflicted on the applicant by police officers.

Look at that. The Latvian government agreed that the prosecuting authorities had broken the law, and the prosecutor didn't take kindly to that. Looks like the Grand Chamber is now going to show the prosecutor where he can stick his hurt feelings.

 

[codyjuneau]

Some things have not changed since I was a regular here. Has anyone changed their mind or had doubt cast on their opinion on the case recently?

.
Hi Rose.

I doubt any guilters would admit it, but I think that Numbers has punched a big hole in their bubble. Numbers has researched ECHR case law and judgments, and has pointed out numerous flagrant violations the Italian police, prosecution, and police have committed in this case.

I know you are involved in the Sarah Scazzi case. Personally I think Italian lawyers in general should focus on Number's approach of pointing out ECHR case law violations, rather than allowing judges and juries to ignorantly ignore them.

Fortunately in this case, if required, the ECHR will almost certainly play backstop. Even the guilter's are beginning to realize that, IMO.

Cody
.

 

[toto]

I was a juror in a trial and the officers were both asked where they were before they got the call and their answer was "I cannot recall."

I would ask anybody to take an even a week before and reconstruct what they did what in a certain day. I have had situations where i cannot recall if I worked a certain day.

I have posted before about being wholly confused about specific times and events about a day before, also about being flummoxed by a professional colleague's (misplaced) certainty about a specific sequence of events. I am not convinced about the guilt of the two based on details that are contradictory.

 

[Desert Fox]

Overall I favour either secondary transfer via Kercher herself (very likely to touch the hook) or tertiary transfer via the gloves of the scene of crime investigator.

It is the best innocent answers but I think those who argue malfeasance have a point as well.

 

[Dougm]

Overall I favour either secondary transfer via Kercher herself (very likely to touch the hook) or tertiary transfer via the gloves of the scene of crime investigator.

The way I look at it is, there are literally hundreds of ways that clasp could have been contaminated, with video evidence showing some of them. There is only one way that DNA could have gotten on the hook that supports guilt, and it is implausible, and is not supported by any other evidence.

 

[Desert Fox]

I have posted before about being wholly confused about specific times and events about a day before, also about being flummoxed by a professional colleague's (misplaced) certainty about a specific sequence of events. I am not convinced about the guilt of the two based on details that are contradictory.

It is important, far beyond this case and even the legal system (although definitely important) just how bad human memory is.

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh Bill
It's happening again.

While the Press conf was hardly helpful ; 'She's not my alibi - RS', the word latest is a clue to what I'm referring to.

Please don't confuse Rose M. That's my job

The purposeful confusion of things at your end is what is not helpful.

There is no place where Raffaele withdraws his alibi. Raffaele continues on the "separation strategy" to challenge people - including you - to make a case for this....

..... why is it that the evidence you said condemns Amanda also condemns him? Even the evidence they claim condemns Amanda which actually tends to exonerate him? Are you then going to withdraw THAT evidence against Amanda? (Crickets.)

The only thing left to the pro-guilt lobby as March 25 nears is to sow confusion. And as far as I can see, you're the only one (on this point) doing it. You continually make allusions to it, and never point to anything concrete which remotely backs you up. If you fail to point to anything this time with proof attached - you are officially a troll.

In response you've been asked to read both Raffaele's and Amanda's appeals documents - neither of which make reference to your factoid. Particularly telling - can you point to ANYTHING Amanda Knox has said - post-trial - which even hints that she fears what you are saying is remotely true?

Yet you continue, as if nothing has ever been sent your way. This posting behaviour of yours is the definition of trollish.

 

[Bill Williams]

The letter was a thing of beauty if you're into sophistry

It was a letter from Stefanoni to Judge Micheli. The defence had previously contacted the court to ask why the prosecutors (via Stefanoni) were not providing discovery of the EDFs to the defence expert, Pascali. Stefanoni's letter was a deliciously Machiavellian (the real one) piece of work, whose purpose was to convince Micheli not to order disclosure of the EDFs, while at the same time giving Micheli the impression that she had nothing to hide. To that end, she told Micheli that such a request for EDFs by a defence team was essentially unheard-of in forensic science circles, that the defence definitely already had all they needed, and furthermore, that the only possible value to the defence in getting the EDFs would be if there had been fraudulent practice in Stefanoni's original work.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out the subtext here from Stefanoni to Micheli:

"The defence don't need the EDFs to do their job properly, they've never been handed over before (and therefore you, judge, would be setting a worrying precedent if you rule they should be handed over in this case), and they'd only be of any use if my DNA work had been fraudulent (and therefore you, judge, would be in essence implying that you too were allowing for the possibility of fraudulent actions by me, your devoted public servant Stefanoni, if you were to mandate the turning over of the EDFs)."

And then came the piece de resistance! Stefanoni included in the letter the beautiful piece of theatre where she graciously and readily offered to let Pascali see the EDFs (but only if Micheli should order that Pascali must be allowed to see them....), under a set of conditions that might have seemed anodyne and acceptable to an ill-informed judge, but which would be utterly unacceptable within the scientific community.

So Stefanoni's desired effect from this letter - an effect which it would appear she achieved - was to show Micheli that in principle she was totally open and honest and ready to share everything with the defence, but that in the case of the EDFs it would be improper, unnecessary, and even suggestive of fraudulent acts by Stefanoni, for Micheli to order their discovery to Pascali:

"Judge, it's up to you: if you order me to show the EDFs to Pascali then I will readily and happily agree (under nutty conditions, the implications of which you probably don't understand...). But I strongly urge you NOT to order the release of the EDFs to Pascali for the compelling-looking reasons I gave you earlier. Your faithful, honest and diligent public servant, Doctor Stefanoni."

One has to hand it to Machiavelli. For years he's been reducing all this to the simply-stated: Stefanoni offered and the defence refused.

What one has to thank Machiavelli for is actually spelling out the details - in which the devil resides. But it was like pulling teeth to get him to 'fess up.

 

[RWVBWL]

Downstairs Keys...

Hiya!
From watching the 1st Crime Scene video
I saw Flying Squad officer Lorena Zugarini use 2 leg kicks to break open the window to the boyz downstairs flat.

She reached in to apparently try and unlock that door, but could not.
You need a key...

Yesterday,
I was re-reading a few select chapters of Barbie Nadeau's book "Angel Face",
I found out that there were 2 videographers on the scene to video the police as they investigated the horrible murder and rape of a English college student studying abroad in their town of Perugia. A terrible, bloody crime that must have had authorities under immense pressure to solve it very quickly to re-assure the local citizens, the foreign students and their parents far away.

I found it very odd that after Officer Zugarini kicked open the door window,
and could not unlock the door with her hand,
that the video clip shuts off.

Watch it yourself:
Link:
https://mega.co.nz/#!O4Zh3QxY!MLLxQsnTnxYs-zyAwlsjoak4-yw9QIPILsefu8ZDq08

At 16:29:15,
the cops step away from the door,
a bit perplexed it seems.

Somehow they get inside the boyz downstairs residence,
for at 16:40:31, the next video sequence we get to see shows them inside there.

Why did the cops delete the 11 minute, 16 second scene
of them breaking into and entering the boyz flat?

And delete any video of the kitchen scene on the 1st day of investigation?


Didn't Giacomo, Meredith's new boyfriend,
give her 2 keys to the downstairs flat, to water the pot plants and check on the hurt cat?
These 2 keys were missing.

It's kind of odd when you watch the downstairs Crime Scene,
for on the 1st day, Nov. 2, the videographer does not even show or enter into any of the boys bedrooms, after showing Giacomo's pot plants.

Only the next day, over 24 hours later,
do we get to see inside of their bedrooms, 2 of which have blood in them. Stefano's has blood on the bedspread, with both drops and odd straight lines like from a knife blade, and Giacomo's, (whose door must have been locked, because it was broken into like Meredith's was,) which had wavy bloody lines on the floor...

Link here:
https://mega.co.nz/#!fwo3UbDS!YpT6M0rQJiaKKLy6HjZ8XrfB69YrKpgFCIVGaHckejw


With 2 videographers on the scene,
how did they not film the break-in of Giacomo's bedroom on the 1st day?
Heck, might it already have been broken into when the cops entered the boyz downstairs flat?
Who know? The cops do...

With 2 videographers on the scene,
how did they not film the kitchen that 1st day?
How come we don't get to see the full kitchen upon the cops entrance inside the downstairs flat and kitchen?

When you watch the video of the girlz upstairs flat from the 1st day,
it shows the cops entering into the the flat thru the foyer, and then shows the girlz kitchen+ kick back area.
It shows all of the girls bedroom, esh, Meredith Kercher is still even lying in her bedroom, under the duvet, surrounded by blood.

But the video from the downstairs Crime Scene has been edited out or deleted to not show us what the cops saw when they 1st went in the kitchen there. Or the boyz bedrooms. Why?


There appears to be a shower curtain and rod,
as noted by Cody Juneau, seen here
on the floor that does not belong there.

Some have speculated that this is from the downstairs kitchen door window.
I do not believe so, the fabric is much too long,
and there is waaay too much fabric material for a 2 1/2 foot wide window, right?

And there is no window curtain seen when Officer Zugarini is kicking in the window or reaching inside.
So where did the curtain and rod come from?

When you view the 1st downstairs video,
there is a chair placed facing the bathtub where a shower curtain might have hung, which was possibly pulled down, which possibly suggests that someone might have thought about getting rid of a body that night or the next morning.*


How come there are 2 keys seen on the boyz kitchen table on Nov. 3rd?

Who keys are these 2?
What do they open?

Are these the 2 keys Giacomo gave to Meredith?
Did someone involved in the Crime Scene downstairs toss these 2 keys away outside and the cops found them?

Lastly,
keep in mind that there was no one home for hours after Amanda + [SIZE="-10"]Raffaele[/SIZE] left that afternoon. Who knows what Rudy Guede was up to before he met up with Meredith that night, heck he mentions that he went downstairs before Meredith got home. And who knows what he did after he left her to die before he went out dancing? For that matter, who even knows where Rudy slept that night after leaving the Domus nightclub. Did he sleep downstairs?

I'm just wondering aloud,
L8, RW




* - I've read on Perugia Shock that there was dark colored car seen in the driveway right before the cops got there, the guy who saw this supposedly testified to it in The Massei Trial. Sfarzo has mentioned that maybe someone came back to dump a body. Rudy's buddy Kokomani drove an old black Golf, IIRC.

Maybe this guy saw something like similar to this that morning:

well, without the other car parked near the spot where Rudy Guede
probably tossed that rock at Filomena's window the night before...


An ETA for ya:
PS - I mentioned this before,
but if your garage was disturbed from how you left it, and it had blood drops and bloody lines in it,
maybe your garage is connected to the break-in into your house...

 

[carbonjam72]

I think that one area where pro innocence arguments have rather slipped from facts is regarding the bra hook. Whilst the failure to collect the bra hook during the initial crime scene investigation may say something to the quality of the crime scene investigation it does not mean that there is a logical explanation for Sollecito's DNA being found on the hook. I start with an assumption - I do not believe that there was any fraudulent contamination of the bra hook by Sollecito's DNA. The fact that the bra hook kicked (literally I suspect) around the floor and ended up under a rug does not in itself supply an explanation for Sollecito's DNA. Whilst no environmental samples were taken (and if they were, they would not have been exculpatory), there is no obvious reason for Sollecito's DNA being on the floor of Kercher's room. To some extent whether the hook was on the floor for 6 hours or 6 weeks is arbitrary.

It may be argued that during the six week interval some contamination episode happened, but it is not clear what this might have been. Whilst I think the suggested requirement of the defence to prove contamination is an undue burden; I do think the defence should make a specific rather than a generic argument for contamination.

I do think there are good innocent explanations for Sollecito's DNA on the bra hook. Unlike Guede, Sollecito had been present in the flat prior to Kercher's murder. DNA could have been directly deposited, Sollecito could have coughed or sneezed and deposited DNA on the bra, if it was hanging up to dry in the bathroom for instance. I know that some will say how did it end up on the hook and not elsewhere, but this is a postiori reasoning, wherever the DNA ended up that question could be asked. A more likely explanation would be secondary transfer. Either Knox with Sollecito's DNA on her hands picked up Kercher's bra (for instance out of a shared lot of laundry; or Meredith shook hands with / ruffled the hair of Sollecito that morning, went into her room put on her bra and transferred the DNA to the hook. Prof. Gill favours tertiary transmission, Sollecito's DNA transferred to the outside door knob when he tried to force Kercher's door (a very likely occurrence), the outer door knob was never tested for DNA. This DNA transferred to the gloves of the forensic scientist, (the knob was smooth metal and so would have transferred DNA well). Then DNA from the gloves was transferred on to the bra hook when collected.

Paradoxically the lack of DNA elsewhere in Kercher's bedroom and on her person favours these explanations. A struggle holding tight on to someone would have been very likely to transfer DNA, the excitement of a fight would have increased sweating (much of touch DNA originates from sweat) and thus DNA deposition. The bra hook would have been covered from direct contact, so the lack of DNA elsewhere and the presence of DNA on the hook favours an indirect transfer.

Overall I favour either secondary transfer via Kercher herself (very likely to touch the hook) or tertiary transfer via the gloves of the scene of crime investigator.

Not lab contamination? Another single run, LCn test, were there also missing or suppressed controls, and any indication of Rafs DNA being run through the equipment, hence another of Stefs happy accidents?

Seems like stef knows what she's doing, and her accidents are deliberate and fortuitously interpreted.

 

[Antony]

The letter was a thing of beauty if you're into sophistry

It was a letter from Stefanoni to Judge Micheli. The defence had previously contacted the court to ask why the prosecutors (via Stefanoni) were not providing discovery of the EDFs to the defence expert, Pascali. Stefanoni's letter was a deliciously Machiavellian (the real one) piece of work, whose purpose was to convince Micheli not to order disclosure of the EDFs, while at the same time giving Micheli the impression that she had nothing to hide. To that end, she told Micheli that such a request for EDFs by a defence team was essentially unheard-of in forensic science circles, that the defence definitely already had all they needed, and furthermore, that the only possible value to the defence in getting the EDFs would be if there had been fraudulent practice in Stefanoni's original work.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out the subtext here from Stefanoni to Micheli:

"The defence don't need the EDFs to do their job properly, they've never been handed over before (and therefore you, judge, would be setting a worrying precedent if you rule they should be handed over in this case), and they'd only be of any use if my DNA work had been fraudulent (and therefore you, judge, would be in essence implying that you too were allowing for the possibility of fraudulent actions by me, your devoted public servant Stefanoni, if you were to mandate the turning over of the EDFs)."

And then came the piece de resistance! Stefanoni included in the letter the beautiful piece of theatre where she graciously and readily offered to let Pascali see the EDFs (but only if Micheli should order that Pascali must be allowed to see them....), under a set of conditions that might have seemed anodyne and acceptable to an ill-informed judge, but which would be utterly unacceptable within the scientific community.

So Stefanoni's desired effect from this letter - an effect which it would appear she achieved - was to show Micheli that in principle she was totally open and honest and ready to share everything with the defence, but that in the case of the EDFs it would be improper, unnecessary, and even suggestive of fraudulent acts by Stefanoni, for Micheli to order their discovery to Pascali:

"Judge, it's up to you: if you order me to show the EDFs to Pascali then I will readily and happily agree (under nutty conditions, the implications of which you probably don't understand...). But I strongly urge you NOT to order the release of the EDFs to Pascali for the compelling-looking reasons I gave you earlier. Your faithful, honest and diligent public servant, Doctor Stefanoni."

Can you replay the exchanges between Stefanoni and Hellmann on the same issue? ISTR that Stef made a series of excuses that Hellmann refused to accept, and ultimately Conti and Vecchiotti rubbished her word on the basis of the limited printouts that she did provide, without seeing the actual EDFs.

 

[Planigale]

Not lab contamination? Another single run, LCn test, we're there also missing or suppressed controls, and any indication of Rafs DNA being run through the equipment, hence another of Stefs happy accidents?

Seems like stef knows what she's doing, and her accidents are deliberate and fortuitously interpreted.

I think the MK DNA on the knife is almost certainly lab contamination, although Knox could have deposited by secondary transfer, or it became contaminated when the police took the knife out of the evidence bag at the police station in an 'unclean' environment and repackaged it. Sollicito's DNA on the bra fastener could have been lab contamination, but in that case I think it would have been purer. The other alleles from other individuals I think supports the transfer of DNA onto the bra hook at some point.

Obviously the truth will never be known. These are possibilities. Sollicito could be guilty and the DNA transfer to the bra fastener still be unrelated to the crime.

FWIW I think the knife is utter balderdash as evidence, there are so many errors in documentation and handling and processing it should have been dismissed as evidence. The footprint on the bath mat is uninterpretable. the most significant piece of evidence is the DNA on the bra hook. But there are innocent explanations for this and given other evidence around ToD I think the only safe verdict is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[RWVBWL]

Hmmmm,

About them doors in the boyz downstairs flat.

In my last post, written above,
I noted that Flying Squad Officer Zugarini,
after a coupla karate kicks to 'Break on Thru',
err, to the Other Side the kitchen door window of the boyz downstairs flat,
she could not open the kitchen door to the downstairs flat by hand.
It was locked.

Whatcha gonna do now, Zugarini?
Ah, maybe we should ask PM Mignini, who was standing nearby.

Go and try and find a key to the flat?
Or break in?

I've wondered, since the video camera does not record this,
did the cops have to break the door lock down to gain entrance,
much like Filomena's pal Paula's boyfriend Luca did upstairs to Meredith's door?

Why don't the cops show this?

Well, by watching in the 1st Crime Scene video,
you can tell that the security gate lock was not damaged.

You can also see,
from what I can tell,
in the 2nd vid of the 2nd day Crime Scene Video,
that the cops did not damage the downstairs kitchen door lock.

But they did have to break into Giacomo's bedroom,
which makes sense, for on page 62 of "Angel Face", I read that Giacomo did not get to the police station until after Amanda was already there, which was hours after Meredith was discovered murdered.
And they found 2 different long wavy bloody lines on his floor.

Here's Giacomo's bedroom door,

(I gotta wonder why Giacomo's bedroom was the only bedroom apparently locked of the 4 boyz downstairs?)
Heck, Giacomo's bedroom door looks like his girlfriend Meredith's bedroom door upstairs.

A coupla questions:
Was the security gate on the downstairs kitchen door closed and/or locked when the cops 1st went down there?

If so, who gave them the key?


It does not appear that the kitchen door was broken into to gain entrance.
Who gave them the key?
1 of the tenants?
Is it 1 of the keys seen on the kitchen table?
Or was it possibly found on the cottage grounds somewhere?

IIRC,
Giacomo and Stefano were traveling on train from Marche when Giacomo received news of Meredith's murder. It makes sense that the cops had to break into Giacomo's bedroom.

But how did they open the front door and security gate?
Just wondering,
RW


PS - Oh, by the way,
if you watch the 2nd vid of Day 2 where they video in Giacomo's bedroom,
well you can hear Coughing Boy, or 1 of his friends, sneezing loudly twice.
I gotta wonder if he or she did so onto their gloved hands.
And if so, did they change gloves right away afterwards?
Hmmmm...

 

[tsig]

Amazing. Some things with this case you could not make up.

The most amazing things are made up.

Amanda's torture session, evil, deceitful lab techs and all the judges in on the conspiracy.

 

[carbonjam72]

Hiya!
From watching the 1st Crime Scene video
I saw Flying Squad officer Lorena Zugarini use 2 leg kicks to break open the window to the boyz downstairs flat.

She reached in to apparently try and unlock that door, but could not.
You need a key...

Yesterday,
I was re-reading a few select chapters of Barbie Nadeau's book "Angel Face",
I found out that there were 2 videographers on the scene to video the police as they investigated the horrible murder and rape of a English college student studying abroad in their town of Perugia. A terrible, bloody crime that must have had authorities under immense pressure to solve it very quickly to re-assure the local citizens, the foreign students and their parents far away.

I found it very odd that after Officer Zugarini kicked open the door window,
and could not unlock the door with her hand,
that the video clip shuts off.

Watch it yourself:
Link:
https://mega.co.nz/#!O4Zh3QxY!MLLxQsnTnxYs-zyAwlsjoak4-yw9QIPILsefu8ZDq08

At 16:29:15,
the cops step away from the door,
a bit perplexed it seems.

Somehow they get inside the boyz downstairs residence,
for at 16:40:31, the next video sequence we get to see shows them inside there.

Why did the cops delete the 11 minute, 16 second scene
of them breaking into and entering the boyz flat?

And delete any video of the kitchen scene on the 1st day of investigation?


Didn't Giacomo, Meredith's new boyfriend, give her 2 keys to the downstairs flat, to water the pot plants and check on the hurt cat? These 2 keys were missing.
It's kind of odd when you watch the downstairs Crime Scene,
for on the 1st day, Nov. 2, the videographer does not even show or enter into any of the boys bedrooms, after showing Giacomo's pot plants.

Only the next day, over 24 hours later,
do we get to see inside of their bedrooms, 2 of which have blood in them. Stefano's has blood on the bedspread, with both drops and odd straight lines like from a knife blade, and Giacomo's, (whose door must have been locked, because it was broken into like Meredith's was,) which had wavy bloody lines on the floor...

Link here:
https://mega.co.nz/#!fwo3UbDS!YpT6M0rQJiaKKLy6HjZ8XrfB69YrKpgFCIVGaHckejw


With 2 videographers on the scene,
how did they not film the break-in of Giacomo's bedroom on the 1st day?
Heck, might it already have been broken into when the cops entered the boyz downstairs flat?
Who know? The cops do...

With 2 videographers on the scene,
how did they not film the kitchen that 1st day?
How come we don't get to see the full kitchen upon the cops entrance inside the downstairs flat and kitchen?

When you watch the video of the girlz upstairs flat from the 1st day,
it shows the cops entering into the the flat thru the foyer, and then shows the girlz kitchen+ kick back area.
It shows all of the girls bedroom, esh, Meredith Kercher is still even lying in her bedroom, under the duvet, surrounded by blood.

But the video from the downstairs Crime Scene has been edited out or deleted to not show us what the cops saw when they 1st went in the kitchen there. Or the boyz bedrooms. Why?


There appears to be a shower curtain and rod,
as noted by Cody Juneau, seen here
on the floor that does not belong there.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1240&pictureid=9582[/qimg]

Some have speculated that this is from the downstairs kitchen door window.
I do not believe so, the fabric is much too long,
and there is waaay too much fabric material for a 2 1/2 foot wide window, right?

And there is no window curtain seen when Officer Zugarini is kicking in the window or reaching inside.
So where did the curtain and rod come from?

When you view the 1st downstairs video,
there is a chair placed facing the bathtub where a shower curtain might have hung, which was possibly pulled down, which possibly suggests that someone might have thought about getting rid of a body that night or the next morning.*


How come there are 2 keys seen on the boyz kitchen table on Nov. 3rd?
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1240&pictureid=9578[/qimg]
Who keys are these 2?
What do they open?

Are these the 2 keys Giacomo gave to Meredith?
Did someone involved in the Crime Scene downstairs toss these 2 keys away outside and the cops found them?

Lastly,
keep in mind that there was no one home for hours after Amanda + [SIZE="-10"]Raffaele[/SIZE] left that afternoon. Who knows what Rudy Guede was up to before he met up with Meredith that night, heck he mentions that he went downstairs before Meredith got home. And who knows what he did after he left her to die before he went out dancing? For that matter, who even knows where Rudy slept that night after leaving the Domus nightclub. Did he sleep downstairs?

I'm just wondering aloud,
L8, RW




* - I've read on Perugia Shock that there was dark colored car seen in the driveway right before the cops got there, the guy who saw this supposedly testified to it in The Massei Trial. Sfarzo has mentioned that maybe someone came back to dump a body. Rudy's buddy Kokomani drove an old black Golf, IIRC.

Maybe this guy saw something like similar to this that morning:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1240&pictureid=9581[/qimg]
well, without the other car parked near the spot where Rudy Guede
probably tossed that rock at Filomena's window the night before...


An ETA for ya:
PS - I mentioned this before,
but if your garage was disturbed from how you left it, and it had blood drops and bloody lines in it,
maybe your garage is connected to the break-in into your house...

Hi RBWL,

I highlighted the description of keys, which I think you said was the downstairs kitchen table. Is that a hammer on the table?

And didin't Rudy also neatly and inexplicably lay out a set of tools in the lawyers office he broke into 2 weeks earlier?

Just struck me as odd.

Great work you're doing on piecing together accounts and video. Seems like something happened downstairs, with blood and suppressed human DNA profiles. Too bad there no authority in Italy that can force the evidence to be disclosed.

 

[platonov]

The most amazing things are made up.

Amanda's torture session, evil, deceitful lab techs and all the judges in on the conspiracy.

And Raffy, dont forget Raffy.

tsig I sincerely hope you have not been afflicted with 'human memory fraility' syndrome.
It's reaching pandemic levels at the moment.

 

[Bill Williams]

The most amazing things are made up.

Amanda's torture session, evil, deceitful lab techs and all the judges in on the conspiracy.

Strawman.

 

[platonov]

It's back

The purposeful confusion of things at your end is what is not helpful.

There is no place where Raffaele withdraws his alibi. Raffaele continues on the "separation strategy" to challenge people - including you - to make a case for this....

..... why is it that the evidence you said condemns Amanda also condemns him? Even the evidence they claim condemns Amanda which actually tends to exonerate him? Are you then going to withdraw THAT evidence against Amanda? (Crickets.)

The only thing left to the pro-guilt lobby as March 25 nears is to sow confusion. And as far as I can see, you're the only one (on this point) doing it. You continually make allusions to it, and never point to anything concrete which remotely backs you up. If you fail to point to anything this time with proof attached - you are officially a troll.

In response you've been asked to read both Raffaele's and Amanda's appeals documents - neither of which make reference to your factoid. Particularly telling - can you point to ANYTHING Amanda Knox has said - post-trial - which even hints that she fears what you are saying is remotely true?

Yet you continue, as if nothing has ever been sent your way. This posting behaviour of yours is the definition of trollish.

Bill
I wont even bother linking to my recent post where I explained the alibi situation.

I will restrict myself to pointing out that as the recent TV interview postdated the appeal docs by several months this is a classic case of what we [well platonov] in cartwheel world refer to as ............(you guessed it)
- Retrocausality.

 

[carbonjam72]

I think the MK DNA on the knife is almost certainly lab contamination, although Knox could have deposited by secondary transfer, or it became contaminated when the police took the knife out of the evidence bag at the police station in an 'unclean' environment and repackaged it. Sollicito's DNA on the bra fastener could have been lab contamination, but in that case I think it would have been purer. The other alleles from other individuals I think supports the transfer of DNA onto the bra hook at some point.
Obviously the truth will never be known. These are possibilities. Sollicito could be guilty and the DNA transfer to the bra fastener still be unrelated to the crime.
FWIW I think the knife is utter balderdash as evidence, there are so many errors in documentation and handling and processing it should have been dismissed as evidence. The footprint on the bath mat is uninterpretable. the most significant piece of evidence is the DNA on the bra hook. But there are innocent explanations for this and given other evidence around ToD I think the only safe verdict is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Hi P,

Couple of questions.

The profile of Sollecito could have been deposited from the lab machines, AND, the filthy bra clasp ALSO have picked up contamination from the crime scene. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition, right? What I find significant, is they seem to go looking for the bra clasp, after they've lost the evidence of Raf's sneakers, then they find the bra clasp and make a show of finding it, and voila - it happens to have Raf's DNA on it. Well Excuse Me, but I'm yelling Bull ****.

Second, I dispute that Raf or anyone else could have committed the murder, except Rudy Guede by himself alone. Rudy's footprints in Meredith's blood, with no other footprints in her wet blood, tells me only Rudy was in the room when the blood was wet. His other bio traces, in quantity, including fingerprints in blood, and so on, tell me Rudy and only Rudy killed Meredith. That evidence matters and there's no way around it, imo.

As for Rudy's, "we had a date" story, there was a pic posted upthread not too long ago, showing Meredith's blue jacket on the floor, as it had been originally found, with streaks of blood on the floor leading up to it, as though it had been used to wipe up blood. I thought I saw finger prints on it visually, and then remembered that Rudy's fingerprints IIRC, were found on the "sleeve" of the jacket. (although Diocletus swears its a belt-buckle impression - you have to ask DC) But if the splotches I saw are Rudy's fingerprints that had been found, it suggests he used the jacket to mop up blood. And if so, what possible benefit could that be to "his date" as she was bleeding to death? It shows he wasn't on a date, and was just trying to clean up the crime scene, before giving up.

Lastly, and I hate to ask, what doe "FWIW" stand for? I'm guessing "From What I 'blank' ", but I can't fill in the blank. I've resisted asking anyone before, but you don't seem to mind answering simple questions.

 

[platonov]

Its a sign

Hi P,

Couple of questions.

The profile of Sollecito could have been deposited from the lab machines, AND, the filthy bra clasp ALSO have picked up contamination from the crime scene. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition, right? What I find significant, is they seem to go looking for the bra clasp, after they've lost the evidence of Raf's sneakers, then they find the bra clasp and make a show of finding it, and voila - it happens to have Raf's DNA on it. Well Excuse Me, but I'm yelling Bull ****.

Second, I dispute that Raf or anyone else could have committed the murder, except Rudy Guede by himself alone. Rudy's footprints in Meredith's blood, with no other footprints in her wet blood, tells me only Rudy was in the room when the blood was wet. His other bio traces, in quantity, including fingerprints in blood, and so on, tell me Rudy and only Rudy killed Meredith. That evidence matters and there's no way around it, imo.

As for Rudy's, "we had a date" story, there was a pic posted upthread not too long ago, showing Meredith's blue jacket on the floor, as it had been originally found, with streaks of blood on the floor leading up to it, as though it had been used to wipe up blood. I thought I saw finger prints on it visually, and then remembered that Rudy's fingerprints IIRC, were found on the "sleeve" of the jacket. (although Diocletus swears its a belt-buckle impression - you have to ask DC) But if the splotches I saw are Rudy's fingerprints that had been found, it suggests he used the jacket to mop up blood. And if so, what possible benefit could that be to "his date" as she was bleeding to death? It shows he wasn't on a date, and was just trying to clean up the crime scene, before giving up.

Lastly, and I hate to ask, what doe "FWIW" stand for? I'm guessing "From What I 'blank' ", but I can't fill in the blank. I've resisted asking anyone before, but you don't seem to mind answering simple questions.

& You didn't try google.
Do you really believe AK is innocent - be honest now