• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
In other words, there was a "presumption of guilt". It didn't originate as thinking by the police and judiciary that Rudy Guede had accomplices or co-conspirators. It started with the desire by Mignini and others to frame Amanda Knox for the murder of Meredith Kercher. Then Mignini and others adjusted the case to accommodate their presumption that Amanda Knox was guilty, rather than looking at the facts of the case.

I agree that Mignini acted as what Lavorino called the "#1 skilled director" for the "DECEPTION STRUCTURAL".
Note that I updated my post above to point out that Lavorino provided an analysis of the Helleman acquittal way back in 2011
http://injusticeinperugia.blogspot.com/2012/07/unbearable-thoughtlessness-of-guilt.html
 
Last edited:
Freedom of speech?
I have been a little uncomfortable with the zeal that some have expressed for curtailing the rights of PGP to express their views.

OJ Simpson is a murderer.

Should Simpson be able to win a libel suit against me because I said that? I don't think he should be able to and I don't think he would be able to.

So what is different if somebody says that Amanda Knox is a murderer? How is the line drawn legally or ethically? I am talking US law here.

The situation in Italy seems to be quite different and it seems to be routine for at least prosecutors to sue people who say things they don't like. It seems obvious to me that Italian law has got problems with that. But where should the line be drawn?

I think I have a good faith basis for saying that Simpson is a murderer and perhaps is loss in civil court would give me some cover. If he hadn't lost in civil court should he be able to sue me for libel because I accused him of being a murderer? AK and RS have been found guilty in various ways a few times. Should that constitute a good faith basis for calling them murderers?

Keep in mind that OJ lost a civil suit that declared he was responsible for killing his wife and Ron Goldman. That is a fact. So no, saying that OJ committed murder would never be libelous.

Amanda Knox could sue you for you saying that she was convicted of murder because she was not in fact convicted of the crime. However, she probably would have a difficult time winning the suit for a few reasons.

1. Although she could prove that your statement was inaccurate, she probably could not prove that your statement was malicious meaning that she could prove that you knew that your statement was false at the time you made it. Which is necessary, since in the eyes of the court, she is considered a public citizen. But I think (maybe the lawyers on the forum can help with this) that she could have her lawyers send cease and desist letters warning individuals that she had NOT been convicted of murder and that making public statements that she had is demonstrably false and that she would take action in court against those people that slandered her.
 
http://www.blitzquotidiano.it/opinioni/nicotri-opinioni/meredith-kercher-uccisa-solo-da-guede-2145715/

This fasinating article by Italain criminologist Carmelo Lavorino starts by explaining why this case is a simple matter of Rudy killing Meredith by himself, and then going on to reduce guilter claims of staging, time of death, motive, and "other"(murders) to the absurdities that they are.
The best part is when he explains how the Italian Judiciary allowed itself to be led down an illogical path because they failed to recognize what Lavorino calls a "Deception structural, which occurs when you come to the wrong conclusions because an invisible and brilliant false assumption inserted into the core regent of the fact / event that is being analyzed. "
He says that the "deception structural" of this case was the fixing of the "others" as an irrefutable fact in all matters concerning the case, which led to adjusting the interperation of every peice of evidence to agree with the "deception structural" of "others".
This analysis is both articulate and perspective and explains the cause of the whole sorry mess about as well as anything that I have ever seen.

I did not even realize that Carmelo Lavorino had already provided an in depth analysis of the Helleman verdict back in 2011 at
http://injusticeinperugia.blogspot.com/2012/07/unbearable-thoughtlessness-of-guilt.html

Would be really grateful if anyone could provide a translation of the blitzquotidiano.it article.
 
The thing that struck me about this case, was that the defendants knew and lived with the victim - and my first thought when I heard the DNA evidence was that there is always going to be the chance of contamination. If the defendants had no legitimate contact with the victim and had not lived/visited the cottage, the contamination possibility would seem more like a way to divert the truth.

While I'm sure that is a a reasonable consideration for Knox, I really never thought that was a reasonable explanation for why Raffaele's DNA was found on Kercher's underwear. I mean, Raffaele never claimed to be intimate with Meredith.

That said I never thought Raffaele was involved. Really why would he be? There was no motive and no history of any instability and sure, sometimes people dive off the deep end and go crazy. But it never really happens where 3 people of short or no acquaintance doing such a thing.
 
While I'm sure that is a a reasonable consideration for Knox, I really never thought that was a reasonable explanation for why Raffaele's DNA was found on Kercher's underwear. I mean, Raffaele never claimed to be intimate with Meredith.


It could have got there through secondary (or is it tertiary?) transfer via Meredith though. If it was there at all of course, which I'm not convinced of.
 
Yup, excellent summary. Point 3, the arrests and detention were never made in good faith. Mignini and others knew that Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with the crime based on forensics. Whether this violation of human rights, and the others, will be adequately redressed remains to be seen.

Concrete evidence of the timing of the DNA profiling of the rape kit would be useful in clarifying point 3. One reason not to expect EDFs anytime soon.

If and when this case is written up as a, "how not to investigate a crime,"......

Top billing will be given to those things the genius investigators/judges did not do:

1) take the body temperature
2) discover the identity/owner of the presumed semen stain on the pillow
3) refusal to turn over the EDFs.
4) 18 of 19 defence motions for further discovery denied by the Nencini court for bogus reasons​

People wonder what's left to discuss now that the total and complete exonerations are here. That "wonder" is based on assuming that this is about Amanda Knox, and like mentioned above, every time someone posts a post with only Knox's name, you know that the information value of that post has just decreased 10x.

What's coming is what should have been discussed long ago.... Knox and Sollecito should have been released with Lumumba. What's left to talk about is to flesh out Diocletus's summary. (Isn't he the one who mocks me for always being wrong? Or is that carbonjam72. I liked carbonjam 71 far better.)
 
Last edited:
Would be really grateful if anyone could provide a translation of the blitzquotidiano.it article.
Meredith Kercher "killed only by Guede": Carmelo work, criminologist, convinced
PERUGIA - Great controversy and skepticism for many acquittal without referral , that ultimately issued by the Supreme Court in favor of the two defendants Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, accused of murdering Meredith Kercher in Perugia on the night of November 1, 2007.
Controversy and skepticism due to the fact that those who have already been definitively convicted for the murder of Meredith, Rudy Herman Guede, was convicted "for competition" in the murder. Who sentenced him assumed then that he had accomplices, accomplices that until before the recent sentencing had precisely the names of Amanda and Raffaele.
Who killed Meredith Kercher then? If they ask especially the family of the victim. We ask it to criminologist Carmelo work , which is also criminalist, investigator, tracer profiles of likely offenders, crime scene analyst and director of the Centre for Studies Criminal Investigation, as well as professor at the University of L'Aquila for the subject Security & Protection people, events and institutions.
"Meredith Kercher was killed by a single person, Rudy Hermann Guede exactly. List six groups of nailing elements:
1. All traces of the murderous relate only to Guede; in the vagina of the victim is his DNA, the outside of the vagina has showy bruises, there are traces that the girl was ready and willing to sexual intercourse (no natural lubrication), on the cuff and on the clothes of the victim will are the traces of Guede: all this means sexual violence by Guede.
2. His presence at the crime scene at the time dell'accoltellamento is certain, his statements are contradictory and implausible, even states that out of the bathroom and saw the murderess who fought with him.
3. Guede was on the scene at the time of the crime so that upon himself to a stranger suddenly - happened not know when, how, why and where in the bedroom - the crime with an edged weapon.
4. The tracks bloody palm and footprints are Guede, as well as those of semen on the scene.
5. The flight abroad, the lies and contradictions of Guede are clear indications of "guilty conscience".
6. The fact that he was accustomed to commit acts of intrusion and theft is an indication of criminal profile very strong. "
But Rudi Guede was convicted of murder in competition with others, who are these others?
"These" others "do not exist. Are pure conjecture of 2007-2008 based on two false assumptions: that Meredith Kercher had been hit by two different weapons, which were present on the scene and the active Knox and Sollecito to the issue of the hooks, the knife and the footsteps of Sollecito. Elements then have proved false and / or inconsistent and confused ".
We want to investigate?
"Gladly. The issue of "competition with other" has no reason to exist because Guede killed Meredith alone, however the judges of first instance and appeal have considered - WRONGLY - that the "unknown" were just Amanda and Raffaele, so do not much unknown, all based on fallacious assumptions then demystified.
I remember that the judgment of the Supreme Court which sentenced definitely Guede wrote in relation to the Judges of First Instance and the homicidal competition:
"The judge of first instance (2008) that the crime had been committed in competition with other people, and for the traces of Kercher found on a knife seized in the house of the boy Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, both for the footprints left on the floor of the room Kercher ... ".
IT IS THEREFORE CLEAR THAT THE "UNKNOWN" TO GUP ARE 100% AMANDA AND RAPHAEL AND TRACKS ARE THOSE POI found FALLACI BUT HELD guilt-inducing - DURING - TOWARDS KNONX AND PROMPT, and that the DNA on the knife is not the victim, that the footprints are not Sollecito but Guede, that the DNA on the clasp is not Sollecito (evidence established in the appeal against Amanda and Raffaele), that there was a plural and therefore pollution LE TESTS WERE HELD truthful FALLACI.
Still, the Supreme Court on the appeal judgment condemning Rudi Guede writes: "In the opinion of the lower courts (2009), according to the most credible version of the facts, because of the presence of clear signs referable to the Knox and Sollecito in the house, the two together to Guede would enter the house where there would have been an escalation of violence, sexual purposes, the poor Meredith ... ".
SHOWS CLEAR THAT THE "UNKNOWN" TO THE JUDGES OF JUDGMENT appeal ARE 100% AMANDA AND RAPHAEL AND THAT THE "CLEAR TRACES" THOSE ARE THEN found FALLACI ... THEN "NOT CLEAR" ....
So, the scenario in which Rudi Guede killed Meredith in competition with Amanda and Raffaele is not shown, there is no evidence that such competition has occurred, everything suggests believe that Guede killed alone! The question "competition with others" is the logical fallacy called "begging the question" which anticipates the conclusion and to put it as a certain and proven, just to show what you can not prove. "
And on the wounds inflicted by two people tell us? Even this is true?
"We have gone from two unproven hypotheses, assumptions also become mistakenly, and then hook them with the link to the issue of reciprocity" competition with others (ie, the Knox and Sollecito).
The first assumption is fallacious that Meredith was killed with two different knives, then at least two murderers: I think this is pure conjecture and adaptation of the conclusions of the initial hypothesis; lacks expertise with certain conclusions in this regard and I am sure that the weapon is only one killer. As we see uncertainty was made magically become "certainty"!
The second assumption is fallacious that Meredith was overwhelmed by at least two people because his body did not show signs of active defense and because Meredith - practicing martial arts - it would be defense and could not easily succumb to a single attacker.
To me that is a consideration superficial and trivial, because a girl who weighs 50 kg if attacked by a person who weighs 80, armed, determined, and violent intruder, is blocked by terror, although he practiced martial arts for some time.
If and only if Meredith had been superesperta combat and self-defense and trained to danger and to the rule of fear, then the sentence would make sense ... but it was not! Badi who are master of karate and self-defense, top black belt, I teach self-defense to women and which are specialized in defense against the knife. "
And the staging of theft by Amanda and Raffaele, Time of death of Meredith connected to the false alibi of both the motive and what it says?
"Staging of theft by Amanda and Raffaele. The statement of the prosecution and judgments guilt-inducing "There has been a task of staging robbery organized by Amanda and Raffaele because Rudi Guede had no interest in it, so the two are guilty" does not hold up logically and scientifically, because there is no evidence that the alteration is the work of Amanda and Raffaele, because we are facing the error reverberation of "begging the question," that is, "are guilty only because they had interest in doing so."
I sincerely doubt that there was no impairment of the scene for detecting, I believe instead that Guede in the grip of an obsession compulsive (uncontrolled) and drugs have ransacked so illogical and disorganized. It is a typical behavior of individuals who mix burglary, robbery, libido, sex, blood and violence.
Time of death of Meredith and the false alibi of Knox and Sollecito. The time of the death of Meredith is fixed by the coroner of the Prosecutor to the 23 or so for reasons of arithmetic mean, but says it's from 21 hours to one hour. Here it is the glass half full or half empty ... but not seen in profile from the top (from above and you do not understand anything in such situations ... you lose your way ... you see all full regardless). The time of death is uncertain and lacking expertise with firm conclusions. The alibi of the two boys is not failed, the two say they were at Sollecito's house and nothing contradicts what!
The motive of the murder. According to the last sentence "the motive is of the loss of control, go over evil, the result of an erotic game of the group that went wrong: a group formed by Rudi Guede, Amanda and Raffaele ": this is a conjecture without foundation, because every judgment has suggested (without showing anything) motives in different situations with different behaviors and different roles.
In my opinion this is murder committed by Guede grounds autosicurezza, to silence the inconvenient witness (victim), for reasons of sadism and cruelty, to flow in a composition of the scene and the corpse by Meredith with duvet cover for matrix psychological reasons: remorse, denial psichicaa, final act of piety, then move on to the action of the mess mixing compulsive acts of modus operandi, matrix and psychological screening. "
But if Amanda is innocent because he has slandered Patrick Lumumba stating that the murderess was he?
"Amanda has put in between Lumumba because he was in the state of rat scary cornered, for the principle" mors tua vita mea ", because in psychological submissive and altered, alarm and total submission. Proved cowardly, selfish, illogical and incoherent, but there is nothing to suggest that it is a killer for the prosecution to Lumumba.
The questions "murder of Meredith" and "slander Lumumba" must not be connected with the relationship of cause or effect of sufficient reason, but must be viewed as two "pies" independent within the big mess-investigative-judicial proceedings. Slander in Lumumba is an example of collateral damage, the victim's path, dell'ignobile effect of "every man for himself" "!
She spoke and wrote of "deception structural" in the process? Can you explain?
"DECEPTION STRUCTURAL that mistake is the assumption of hidden, invisible, intangible, and cemented, which is formed and is formed by the invisible barrier that prevents the resolution of the case. It is the invisible core that contains in its intimacy secret errors, misrepresentations, the artifices and deception that allowed the truth to emerge. In this case was the fixing investigation that the murder had been committed by at least two people, and everything has been unconsciously adjusted and harmonized in this sense. Deception structural occurs when you come to the wrong conclusions because an invisible and brilliant false assumption inserted into the core regent of the fact / event that is being analyzed.
Deception structural, to become such, needs:
1. of a skilled director (the judiciary and the media for years that tightens around the Knox and Sollecito)
2. the false assumption well hidden and camouflaged (at least two killers),
3. the exact reasoning based on two false assumption (the wounds inflicted by two knives, if the attacker was one Meredith would defense),
4. false conclusions following the exact reasoning but based on false foundations places like axioms (the competition of two unknown subjects with Rudi Guede)
5. Recipients of false conclusions that have the characteristics of share regardless due haste, be sure not to make mistakes, the presumption of being rulers and powerful, because it is produced from an authoritative source (the lower courts). "

I think that this article is the definitive description of why this injustice went on so long.
The author has my highest respect.
 
If and when this case is written up as a, "how not to investigate a crime,"......

Top billing will be given to those things the genius investigators/judges did not do:

1) take the body temperature
2) discover the identity/owner of the presumed semen stain on the pillow
3) refusal to turn over the EDFs.
4) 18 of 19 defence motions for further discovery denied by the Nencini court for bogus reasons​

People wonder what's left to discuss now that the total and complete exonerations are here. That "wonder" is based on assuming that this is about Amanda Knox, and like mentioned above, every time someone posts a post with only Knox's name, you know that the information value of that post has just decreased 10x.

What's coming is what should have been discussed long ago.... Knox and Sollecito should have been released with Lumumba. What's left to talk about is to flesh out Diocletus's summary. (Isn't he the one who mocks me for always being wrong? Or is that carbonjam72. I liked carbonjam 71 far better.)

Now that we're in a post acquittal world, I may have to aspire to CJ73.

Fascinating next steps will be the residual cases, and watching the whole edifice of fraud crashing down on Mingini and Stefanoni, Commodi and Giobbi, and so on. The sad spectacle of watching them all scatter like rats abandoning their sinking ship.

"They" most certainly will pick people to blame for this fiasco, and heap all manner of scorn and legal and other charges onto them to avoid such blame finding its way back onto themselves.

One curious loose end is Maresca. Will he be censured? Or will his involvement finally lead to a separation or scaling back of civil parties involvement in criminal proceedings? He absolutely was an impediment to justice.

The guilters are small potatoes, and the UK as we know courtesy of Edward Snowden, has virtually total access to everything its citizens do on-line. Every guilter who crosses the line and makes threats can rest assured they are known, and their communications are easily accessible to law enforcement.

My guess is our own Mach has probably gotten a communication or phone call cautioning him to cut the crap. I think that's why he's limited himself to correcting people's understanding of the availability of civil trials, rather than spewing any more invective, save those relating to outrageous food provocations.

We may hear more of masons and the mafia, perhaps even tinged with satan, but I think we'll hear no more intimations of guilt concerning Raf and Amanda from Mach.
 
Last edited:
Now that we're in a post acquittal world, I may have to aspire to CJ73.

Fascinating next steps will be the residual cases, and watching the whole edifice of fraud crashing down on Mingini and Stefanoni, Commodi and Giobbi, and so on. The sad spectacle of watching them all scatter like rats abandoning their sinking ship.

"They" most certainly will pick people to blame for this fiasco, and heap all manner of scorn and legal and other charges onto them to avoid such blame finding its way back onto themselves.

One curious loose end is Maresca. Will he be censured? Or will his involvement finally lead to a separation or scaling back of civil parties involvement in criminal proceedings? He absolutely was an impediment to justice.

The guilters are small potatoes, and the UK as we know courtesy of Edward Snowden, had virtually total access to everything its citizens do on-line. Every guilter who crosses the line and makes threats can rest assured they are known, and their communications are easily accessible to law enforcement.

My guess is our own Mach has probably gotten a communication or phone call cautioning him to cut the crap. I think that's why he's limited himself to correcting people's understanding of the availability of civil trials, rather than spewing nay more invective.

We may hear more of masons and the mafia, perhaps even tinged with satan, but I think we'll hear no more intimations of guilt concerning Raf and Amanda from Mach.

The Kerchers just issued a statement saying that it's Caso Chiuso for them. I think that might be it for Maresca, at least as to the Kerchers.
 
Stef's ability to achieve findings on specific pieces of evidence, with a shoddy manner of testing, and suppressing her data to track back what she dis, is just too out of the ordinary in just those two circumstances to be a coincidence, imo.
This is where I agree 100 percent. There is a lot to be suspicious about in this case and her actions may just be the most suspicious. I always thought however that her results with the DNA was deliberately mixed and equivocal. That way, if Amanda and Raffaele came up with Iron clad alibis she could explain that her results were not manufactured. Her actions with the TMB demonstratedo to me her lack of integrity.

Of course Machiavelli has always defended her, but I see her actors to be indefensible.
 
This is where I agree 100 percent. There is a lot to be suspicious about in this case and her actions may just be the most suspicious. I always thought however that her results with the DNA was deliberately mixed and equivocal. That way, if Amanda and Raffaele came up with Iron clad alibis she could explain that her results were not manufactured. Her actions with the TMB demonstratedo to me her lack of integrity.

Of course Machiavelli has always defended her, but I see her actors to be indefensible.


I'm afraid I disagree on the fundamental point regarding how Stefanoni might have "found" the DNA on those two items.

In my view, this can most reasonably be explained by three factors:

1) Stefanoni was essentially being instructed to find evidence linking Knox and/or Sollecito to the murder of Kercher, and knew that the two items (the knife and the bra clasp) were of critical value in that regard;

2) Stefanoni's lab was shoddily run, and was in no way set up for low template DNA work - meaning contamination was undoubtedly very feasible at low template ranges;

3) The processes of collection, storage and transportation of those two items by the police was egregiously wrong and improper.

I think therefore that there was ample opportunity for both of these items to have become contaminated at low template levels, either during collection/storage/transportation (or during that 46 days among a pile of detritus in Kercher's bedroom in the case of the bra clasp) or within Stefanoni's laboratory. I then think that Stefanoni improperly cranked up the machines - well beyond her remit and understanding, and well beyond the proper operating envelope for those machines - to try to find the evidence she knew she was being asked to find. And I think that she therefore - perhaps almost-inevitably - managed to find low-template contamination on these items.

I suspect that if many of the other more mundane items in this investigation had been subjected to similar over-analysis by Stefanoni, she might well have found low-template contamination on them too - not least because there was very probably low-template contamination occurring everywhere in her laboratory (only she didn't know it, because she had no experience of low-template work, and never normally even looked for DNA in that range).
 
It's a great post. Leave it up.


It is - and thanks to analemma. But it could be helped with a cleaner translation.

At this point I'd observe that Carmelo is very accurate in his assessment of the murder and of the issues surrounding it, but I think he's wrong on his assessment of the criminal slander element. Essentially he appears to be going with Hellmann's view that Knox did criminally slander Lumumba, but for the reason that she wanted to get out of the interrogation (i.e. not because she was trying to deflect attention from herself as the murderer). But I think she did not criminally slander Lumumba, because she doesn't have the required mens rea for that crime: she accused him because the police more-or-less ordered her to accuse him, told him that they had evidence that Lumumba (and she herself) was there, and told him that she had to be repressing memories of that event owing to extreme trauma. As I suspect the ECHR will examine and conclude, if it ever gets that far.
 
I'm afraid I disagree on the fundamental point regarding how Stefanoni might have "found" the DNA on those two items.

In my view, this can most reasonably be explained by three factors:

1) Stefanoni was essentially being instructed to find evidence linking Knox and/or Sollecito to the murder of Kercher, and knew that the two items (the knife and the bra clasp) were of critical value in that regard;

2) Stefanoni's lab was shoddily run, and was in no way set up for low template DNA work - meaning contamination was undoubtedly very feasible at low template ranges;

3) The processes of collection, storage and transportation of those two items by the police was egregiously wrong and improper.

I think therefore that there was ample opportunity for both of these items to have become contaminated at low template levels, either during collection/storage/transportation (or during that 46 days among a pile of detritus in Kercher's bedroom in the case of the bra clasp) or within Stefanoni's laboratory. I then think that Stefanoni improperly cranked up the machines - well beyond her remit and understanding, and well beyond the proper operating envelope for those machines - to try to find the evidence she knew she was being asked to find. And I think that she therefore - perhaps almost-inevitably - managed to find low-template contamination on these items.

I suspect that if many of the other more mundane items in this investigation had been subjected to similar over-analysis by Stefanoni, she might well have found low-template contamination on them too - not least because there was very probably low-template contamination occurring everywhere in her laboratory (only she didn't know it, because she had no experience of low-template work, and never normally even looked for DNA in that range).

I don't see any point of disagreement. Am I missing something?
 
It could have got there through secondary (or is it tertiary?) transfer via Meredith though. If it was there at all of course, which I'm not convinced of.

Of course it could...and I am not convinced either. Stefanoni's modus operandi seems always about obstructing anyone from being able to actually review her work. That is extremely suspicious and wrong for a forensics tech.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom