Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Charlie Wilkes]

I didn't dream your DNA mix-up, y'all mixed up smear (which is chaos) with contamination (which is a rare constructed occurrence).
If Peter Gill lectures all the DNA specialists that came before him on Meredith's case like they're 6 year olds who don't know:
1-What a DNA trace is and how to interpret it as signal/noise
2-How a judge can use a DNA expert and build his case
Then no one should be embarrassed pointing at Peter Gill's simple mistake:
We don't live through our day leaving a trail of DNA.
DNA is produced on impact. Namely all denaturation processes: heat, friction, stress, acid, etc.
RS came in significant collision with Meredith's bra.
Please give it some consideration, Peter Gill is mistaken.

Your dispute is with Gill and his colleagues, not with us. You need to set them straight. I might suggest you present your research in a scholarly journal, and follow up with a conference presentation.

I have urged Machiavelli to do the same thing in the field of forensic serology. He needs to get crime labs on board with his conclusion that luminol is a definitive test for blood, as opposed to a crude preliminary test.

You and he are putting the cart before the horse. This is a skeptics' forum, where lay people rely on expert citations to evaluate claims. If you want to sustain a claim on this forum, you must start by convincing the experts they are wrong. Then you will have credible evidence to present here.

 

[Machiavelli]

Because a person has moments of weakness does not mean that they are not strong in general. I would call Eric Wilson of the Norfolk Four a strong person and would like to meet him actually. Still under police question, he broke and admitted to a crime which he did not commit. Her confession is weak sauce compared to his as well.

Eric Wilson admitted he was lying. Amanda Knox claimed false mmory syndrome.

Eric Wilson accused himself first. Amanda Knox accused another person.

Amanda Knox released talse testimonies and false accusations repeatedly, and she repeatedly invoked her right to remain silent when she was given the chance to explain why she made a false accusation.

Eric Wilson was beign questioned by police. Amanda Knox was releasing a spontaneous statements before a magistrate without being questioned, and then she wrote further false accusations herself on her own initiative.

Amanda Knox had released a non credible account (a false testimony) even before her questioning of Nov. 5. (see het Nov. 4. mail to "everybody").

Eric Wilson confessed after a 9 consecutive hour interrogation, Amanda Knox accused another person after 2.5.

Amanda Knox wrote statements that are obviously sophisticated and manipulative and showing her being in full control of herself.

Amanda Knox also placed evidence against Sollecito ("blood on hands") after she was told he had withdrawn her alibi.

Raffaele Sollecito declared he had told a load of lies to the police on Amanda's request.

 

[Machiavelli]

Your dispute is with Gill and his colleagues, not with us. You need to set them straight. I might suggest you present your research in a scholarly journal, and follow up with a conference presentation.

I have urged Machiavelli to do the same thing in the field of forensic serology. He needs to get crime labs on board with his conclusion that luminol is a definitive test for blood, as opposed to a crude preliminary test.

No, all what's needed is to now that a court is not a laboratory proxy, they don't establish that confirmation must come from laboratory analisis. Judges may well go beyond a laboratory finding and derive their conclusions on a point of evidence from several other sources and findings, from other contextual information.

You and he are putting the cart before the horse. This is a skeptics' forum, where lay people rely on expert citations to evaluate claims.

We know well this is a belivers forum, worshippers of a conspiracy theory cult.

 

[Mr Fied]

Sure, they said much, much more.
But also other people did. For example Knox sobbing on Halloween night because Meredith didn't answer her messages.

Proof? Or because it's in a book it must be true?
If you believe it to be true just because it is in a book, then surely you believe everything contained in the books of AK and RS.

But there is physical evidence of them, in the murder room as well as in the rest of the murder scene, it's just that you don't want to see it.

What physical evidence?

Did AK and RS leave no evidence in the murder room or did they return and clean every trace of themselves but leave evidence of RG being present?

 

[js202]

We know well this is a belivers forum, worshippers of a conspiracy theory cult.

Don't forget: The members of which, routinely string you around and induce the most absurd statements from your quarter. But perhaps this is just part of your master plan to come here and have your nonsensical statements routinely demolished. For what purpose, we cannot yet know...

Your confreres consist solely of crackpots and/or individuals bereft of the intellectual and analytical training necessary to properly reason through a case like the Meredith Kercher murder. Like you, ericparoissien is absurdly content to expect educated persons to take his assertions over the professional opinions of a reputed scientist like Dr. Peter Gill. Just because.

It's astonishing the opinions certain narcissists form about those whom they presume to be narcissists. Dr. Freud called this projection.

 

[RWVBWL]

<snip>
For example: is it true that, on Halloween night, while Meredith was going at at party she answered an sms from Knox without telling Amanda where she was going, immediately after at about 20:03 Amanda Knox sent back a an sms to Meredith saying "call me back", but then Meredith didn't call back?
And is it true that Amanda that night was alone in town crying, dressed up in a cat costume - until Sollecito called her from home - feeling desperate because Meredith didn't invite her?

You're making Meredith seem like a Mean Girl again. It's like an episode of Beverley Hills 90210 - oh the teen angst nonsense!

Hey NancyS,
don't forget the fake tattoo that Meredith forced Amanda to endure!

Ah ^^^^,
don'tcha just hate gettin' that neddle jammed into ya,
err, I mean having that ball point pen draw ink on you by someone who lives with you and h8s you and is always talkin' smack behind your back???

 

[Kauffer]

What physical evidence?

Did AK and RS leave no evidence in the murder room or did they return and clean every trace of themselves but leave evidence of RG being present?

I suspect he might point to the lamp, which would be nonsense, as it's evidence of nothing as there's no proof how it got there. He might also say the knife - he would use the extraordinary argument that since in his opinion, Ms Kercher's DNA is on the knife and the DNA must have come from the room, it was physical evidence from the room. Thirdly, he might invent a shoe print - he's done that before.

Alternatively, he might be embarrassed to give these answers and say nothing.

 

[Sonia]

Isn't what Nina Burleigh reports in The Fatal Gift of Beauty at p.178? Saying she whimpered and wept "for nearly two hours straight".

Burleigh is certainly not a guilter source, someone must have told her.
But don't you think it is even just striking the fact that, when she was back in Seattle, on the first Halloween party following her release she decided to wear again exactly the same cat-burglar costume?

I can't find this citation in my Kindle copy. The page reference doesn't match up. But in the section I found where Burleigh talks about Halloween night, she says that Amanda left Raffaelle's place at 8 or 9 after he helped her paint her cat face on. She went to Le Chic, eventually met "Shaky" at Merlin, and lastly met Raffaelle at the duomo at 2am and went home with him. She had spent every night at his place since they had met about a week before. Nothing about sobbing at all.

Also, surely you must know that Amanda dressed up as Seattle Sounder player Roger Levesque the first Halloween she was home. She's a Sounder fan. If you don't realize this, take another look at her costume: the Sounders scarf, the Gallic beret, the little goatee.

 

[kwill]

I don't think I understand. Don't you think testimonies are evidence? Don't you think they may contain information about someone's personality, behaviour and attitudes, by reporting facts and experiences?

I know you don't understand. The testimony of the English women is about what they thought and discussed among themselves. It's not testimony about what Amanda thought. What Amanda thought is the issue here, isn't it?

You just called them catty and vicious, this is something I found remarkable, first because from my view they did absolutely nothing to deserve such name calling, and above all because you were actually using such judgement about them as an argument to dismiss their testimony as untruthful or biased ("not evidence").

I do think it's catty and vicious to sit around discussing someone who isn't present and has no idea that she's offended you. Unless you're still holding some evidence that says Amanda knew about their gossiping?

Well it's not just about what Sophie thought, and it was not Sophie alone. Several witnesses reported about specific episodes about Knox's behaviour.

Sure. And what that tells me is that they found her annoying. How is that connected to what she felt about Meredith?

Then why do you say "I don't think Meredith was nearly as catty and vicious as the rest of the English women turned out to be".

Why do you create this difference between two sets of charachters, the English friends on one side, and Meredith on the other?

Because I read their testimony. There is no testimony from Meredith with respect to what she did or didn't say to them about Amanda. She's the victim of a horrible crime, so unless I have direct evidence (a letter, an email, a text) that she wrote about Amanda, I'm not going to assume that she's being represented fairly by her friends.

Look, when you just placed them together in the same action "Meredith and the others were discussing".
What you did in fact, is to first decide to isolate the English Grils as a set, on a basis inconsistent with your assumption; then, you decide to lable them with the judgemental lable "catty and vicious".
What did you do then? You accused me of being prejudicial and amateurish in my judgement of Amanda Knox, and then you also blamed me of judgeing Meredith "catty and vicious".
Don't you notice some hypocrisy in your reasoning?

Not at all. Clearly they were talking. What we can't know is what Meredith herself would have said. And I accused you only of doing what you did, which is to say categorically that someone you have never exchanged one word with has a mental illness known as narcissistic personality disorder. You claim to know that she is abnormal.

All I said was that when those English women got up in court, they exposed themselves as catty, vicious gossips. Which they did.

Of course. What a nice lecture. Which rests entirely on the assumption that Knox was "normal", that she only deserved to be accepted, although she was not like them. An interesting point of view.

So glad you enjoyed it.

But does it typical of mature people to burst out in tears because Meredith did not call her back?

Oh, right, the sobbing. I'll wait to see how you know that, I guess.

Well, I think what they thought can be evidence of Amanda's personality, and even more, the episodes that they reported can be.

No, sorry. They didn't like Amanda. They found her annoying.

That's not evidence that Amanda hated Meredith and wanted to make Meredith have sex in order to punish her for not wanting to party with her the night before. There is nothing in what any of them have ever said that suggests Amanda disliked Meredith even a little.

 

[Mr Fied]

Also, surely you must know that Amanda dressed up as Seattle Sounder player Roger Levesque the first Halloween she was home. She's a Sounder fan. If you don't realize this, take another look at her costume: the Sounders scarf, the Gallic beret, the little goatee.

There's only one problem with this Sonia.

Dressing up as a sporting idol does not show disrespect to Meredith, so it's better to say she was a cat burglar. Who cares what the truth is and what proof there is.

 

[Machiavelli]

Don't forget: The members of which, routinely string you around and induce the most absurd statements from your quarter. But perhaps this is just part of your master plan to come here and have your nonsensical statements routinely demolished. For what purpose, we cannot yet know...

Your confreres consist solely of crackpots and/or individuals bereft of the intellectual and analytical training necessary to properly reason through a case like the Meredith Kercher murder. Like you, ericparoissien is absurdly content to expect educated persons to take his assertions over the professional opinions of a reputed scientist like Dr. Peter Gill. Just because.

(...)

Gill showed gross ignorance about the case making false assumtions. He stated that the police only picked up one knife from Sollecito's apartment, and that the box used for transportation was connected to Meredith.
Gill also admitted his invormation about the evidence derives from Conti and Vecchiotti.
And prof. Gill was not called to testify, did not undergo any cross-questionig.

But in fact, "just because" means just because prof. Gill - like any other expert witnesses - has not just to tell his opinion, but to unfold arguments that would convince a judge. Gill simply is unable to bring arguments that are able convince rationally a person like me, and one should see what he answers to the questions that we would put (those questions to which Vecchiotti responded "everything is possible"). Gill doesn't have any new argument besides the arguments that were already presented by equivalent experts such as prof. Tagliabracci, which were already assessed and found unconvincing by the courts, as well as by the guilters.

 

[Kauffer]

Dershowitz again

Apparently, Dershowitz has told AFP this:

"Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz told AFP he believes "she will be extradited if it's (the guilty verdict) upheld."

"The Italian legal system, though I don't love it, is a legitimate legal system and we have a treaty with Italy so I don't see how we would resist," he said."

http://www.newsmax.com/World/GlobalTalk/Italy-Britain-US-murder/2015/03/23/id/631850/

 

[Desert Fox]

Eric Wilson admitted he was lying. Amanda Knox claimed false mmory syndrome.

Eric Wilson accused himself first. Amanda Knox accused another person.

Amanda Knox released talse testimonies and false accusations repeatedly, and she repeatedly invoked her right to remain silent when she was given the chance to explain why she made a false accusation.

Eric Wilson was beign questioned by police. Amanda Knox was releasing a spontaneous statements before a magistrate without being questioned, and then she wrote further false accusations herself on her own initiative.

Amanda Knox had released a non credible account (a false testimony) even before her questioning of Nov. 5. (see het Nov. 4. mail to "everybody").

Eric Wilson confessed after a 9 consecutive hour interrogation, Amanda Knox accused another person after 2.5.

Amanda Knox wrote statements that are obviously sophisticated and manipulative and showing her being in full control of herself.

Amanda Knox also placed evidence against Sollecito ("blood on hands") after she was told he had withdrawn her alibi.

Raffaele Sollecito declared he had told a load of lies to the police on Amanda's request.

I honestly have trouble answering this post. I have trouble believing your answer is actually serious to me. Seems to be brazen dishonesty.

 

[RWVBWL]

<snip>

Hey Machiavelli,
I'm kinda still waiting for a true Italian to English translation
of this La Repubblica story about Rudy Guede being busted, again, by Italian cops, this time only days after spending the night and making pasta for all the absent little kids at the nursery school in Milan.


Can you do a fellow ISF member a favor, and reply back,
does this Italian newspaper story say what the English translation states?

http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubb...meredith-preso-il-quarto-uomo-sono-stato.html


From an old, often overlooked posting by another old timer, Malkmus:

"The squad re-read the file of Rudy. Only five days before the discovery of Meredith's body was caught in a nursery in Milan with a knife in the kitchen of the school and took his white laptop. "I was at the station when a South American offered me a bed for 50 euros - had told the police in Milan - I did come here." Had denounced him and let him go and then stop it again two days later with a group of drug dealers and some Africans' drug in his pocket. From the Milan Furniture are now know that long ago had noticed in the most fashionable nightclubs"

Hey Machiavelli,
I wonder: If the cops had arrested Rudy for drug possession,
heck maybe Miss Kercher would not been found dead with Rudy's DNA
inside her naked genitalia a couple of days later.

What do you think?


Esh,
another thought:
Where the cops gonna keep this drug bust,
written about in La Repubblica as happening mere days before Miss Kercher rape and murder,
over Rudy Guede's head,
much like they did so with an old 4 year old drug dealing bust involving a homeless adult male,
Antonio "Toto" Curatolo, aka "the bum", as I recall PM Mignini fondly callin' him while he was still alive?

Kinda odd how "the bum" worked with the prosecution in 2 other murder trials before Miss Kercher's horrible rape and murder. Or that he did not tell the Flying Squad that he saw a guy and girl lookin' at the crime scene flat and arguing for hours that previous night of the rape + murder at some point during the next day when he say them walkin' around in their white suits, right?

Kinda makes a person wonder if "the bum" was really tellin' the truth
or just lying to cover his arse about that bust hangin' over his head.

Odd too is that he died soon afterwards when incarcerated for that drug bust
which happened years before Miss Kercher's rape and murder.
Hmmmm...
RW



ETA - Gosh,
a poor shark photographer, me, The RW,
has to ponder now a lil' more about that story linked above,
for how does a dude with no job, Rudy Guede,
who has his landlady asking him to present to her a letter of employment from his boss,
have $$$ for drugs when he apparently spent 20 to 50 Euro to stay at The Nursery School just days earlier
and probably had to pay to ride on the bus or train back to Perugia also?

Heck $$$ don't grow on trees, right?
How was Rudy buying drugs, the drugs that the cops found in his pockets 2 days later?
Surely "poor Rudy" was not having drugs fronted to him and he was sellin' them, right guilters?

 

[Bill Williams]

Gill showed gross ignorance about the case making false assumtions. He stated that the police only picked up one knife from Sollecito's apartment, and that the box used for transportation was connected to Meredith.
Gill also admitted his invormation about the evidence derives from Conti and Vecchiotti.
And prof. Gill was not called to testify, did not undergo any cross-questionig.

But in fact, "just because" means just because prof. Gill - like any other expert witnesses - has not just to tell his opinion, but to unfold arguments that would convince a judge. Gill simply is unable to bring arguments that are able convince rationally a person like me, and one should see what he answers to the questions that we would put (those questions to which Vecchiotti responded "everything is possible"). Gill doesn't have any new argument besides the arguments that were already presented by equivalent experts such as prof. Tagliabracci, which were already assessed and found unconvincing by the courts, as well as by the guilters.

You demonstrate your commitment to double-standards. If you really thought this, you would throw out everything Rudy Guede said, because he was never cross examined.

Instead, Judge Nencini uses one of Rudy Guede's stories as the foundation of the motive for this crime- if you're going to try to squeeze two innocents into it.

There is more - but the hypocrisy in posts like this is stunning.

 

[Bill Williams]

Apparently, Dershowitz has told AFP this:

"Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz told AFP he believes "she will be extradited if it's (the guilty verdict) upheld."

"The Italian legal system, though I don't love it, is a legitimate legal system and we have a treaty with Italy so I don't see how we would resist," he said."

http://www.newsmax.com/World/GlobalTalk/Italy-Britain-US-murder/2015/03/23/id/631850/

The issue probably is this - with his own legal troubles, will HE be extradited somewhere!?

 

[Bill Williams]

But don't you think it is even just striking the fact that, when she was back in Seattle, on the first Halloween party following her release she decided to wear again exactly the same cat-burglar costume?

Also, surely you must know that Amanda dressed up as Seattle Sounder player Roger Levesque the first Halloween she was home. She's a Sounder fan. If you don't realize this, take another look at her costume: the Sounders scarf, the Gallic beret, the little goatee.

Machiavelli knows this, but this does not stop dredging up the lie. The point of dredging this up is to smear Amanda.... just as it was the point to dredge up Giuliano Mignini's court-closing from 2009, which is the ONLY indication of Amanda having some sort of psychopathology - and this is ONLY from Mignini....

...... rejected by even the convicting Judge, Massei. Please go back through the thread of the conversation here on ISF - the ONLY thing Machiavelli has brought to the discussion about psychopathology is Mignini and his dirty mind.....

..... and Meredith's British friends. Machiavelli tries to make a case of psychopathological narcissism because the British girls thought Amanda sang too loud and didn't clean the toilet properly.

This is the level at which Machiavelli operates in his defence of Mignini.

 

[Desert Fox]

The issue probably is this - with his own legal troubles, will HE be extradited somewhere!?

While I have never seen anything (except most recently) leveled against him with regards to misogynistic, if you read between the lines he always seem to defend the misogynistic party line.

Here is one however
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs...-has-long-history-attacking-sex-abuse-victims

 

[Diocletus]

Apparently, Dershowitz has told AFP this:

"Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz told AFP he believes "she will be extradited if it's (the guilty verdict) upheld."

"The Italian legal system, though I don't love it, is a legitimate legal system and we have a treaty with Italy so I don't see how we would resist," he said."

http://www.newsmax.com/World/GlobalTalk/Italy-Britain-US-murder/2015/03/23/id/631850/

Senator Cantwell begs to differ.

 

[Diocletus]

Gill showed gross ignorance about the case making false assumtions. He stated that the police only picked up one knife from Sollecito's apartment, and that the box used for transportation was connected to Meredith.
Gill also admitted his invormation about the evidence derives from Conti and Vecchiotti.
And prof. Gill was not called to testify, did not undergo any cross-questionig.

But in fact, "just because" means just because prof. Gill - like any other expert witnesses - has not just to tell his opinion, but to unfold arguments that would convince a judge. Gill simply is unable to bring arguments that are able convince rationally a person like me, and one should see what he answers to the questions that we would put (those questions to which Vecchiotti responded "everything is possible"). Gill doesn't have any new argument besides the arguments that were already presented by equivalent experts such as prof. Tagliabracci, which were already assessed and found unconvincing by the courts, as well as by the guilters.

Gee, all of these experts aren't convincing to the courts. So, is the problem the experts or the courts?