Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[xinonix]

So, it looks like her story has had a happy ending.
I would like to conclude this thread by discussing what they should do in the future.
The Problem that Amanda and Raphalele still have is some people will still remember the more interesting parts of this story, like the wild tale of FoxyKnoxy and the sex game gone wrong. However they may have forgotten about the details of the case the prosecution has constructed, and how if you think it makes any sense, you gotta be some kind of a retard.

 

[xinonix]

Fess up guilters!
we know who you are, you are citizens of Perugia
OK Perugia may be a safe place to live, and the food is good, but if you are thinking on moving to Perugia when you retire and buying a house there, but you may not want to spend all that money there, when they have a police dept. that is a sheltered workshop for the developmentally disabled.
So in order to keep the property values up, the citizens of Perugia keep putting disinformation into the web to make people think that AK + RS really did help Rudy kill Meredith, therefore when you call 911 there you will talk to someone who knows what they are doing.

 

[xinonix]

fess up guilters

Fess up guilters!
we know who you are, you are citizens of Perugia
OK Perugia may be a safe place to live, and the food is good, but if you are thinking on moving to Perugia when you retire and buying a house there, but you may not want to spend all that money there, when they have a police dept. that is a sheltered workshop for the developmentally disabled.
So in order to keep the property values up, the citizens of Perugia keep putting disinformation into the web to make people think that AK + RS really did help Rudy kill Meredith, therefore when you call 911 there you will talk to someone who knows what they are doing.

 

[xinonix]

"Truth is, for Amanda and Raf to reclaim their rightful position in society, Mignini must be destroyed. "

Not really, they could just tell people that Miginini Must have Alzheimers, and the people who work for him are too dumb to notice there is anything wrong.

Would Mignini sue them for slander? ,yes. Amanda could arrange to appear on Judge Judy with him and maybe he could win some money.

 

[MichaelB]

This was the Oggi article that had the quotes from the book.

Amanda Knox: The American girl’s sensational story

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/oggi-n20-may-15-2013/

 

[lonepinealex]

I don't know, really, but one thing did leap out at me - this is to do with the content rather than procedures - the blurry flashing images. Apparently, it is common for people recalling a traumatic event to not remember it fully, but to see flashing episodes. So quite chillingly accurately presented for a made up recollection. In addition, thinking of Cheffi/Hellman. When Hellmann said Amanda's slander was not based on a real event, Cheffi logically pointed out, that therefore a calunnia ipso facto cannot exist. If Hellmann thought the comments were made just to exit an unpleasant situation and that the recollection was purely imaginary, then he had the opportunity at his disposal to dismiss the calunnia charge.

[excerpt]

However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming [end of excerpt]

Except that it's not chillingly accurate is it? Because what she described never actually happened. This is not in dispute on either side, so your point is moot.

 

[lonepinealex]

AIUI the dispute over Dr Stefanoni is to do with LCN. Vecchiotti & Conti argued the traces on the Knife Exhibit 36 were too low copy number to be admissible and the fact it was not replicable, as she'd used it all up.

ISTM in a crime where perps scrupulously clean up the crime scene, knowing not to leave forensic traces behind, if a small piece of DNA turns up notwithstanding the attempts to conceal, then it's unreasonable and unfair to criticise the police for not having enough of it.

The defense had a legal right to be present during testing, and I believe they were. The defense agreed it was Mez' DNA, with 15 allelles, a particularly convincing match. In addition, at the Nencini appeal, police experts for the prosecution showed that LCN samples can be double tested accurately.

V&C had said the aforesaid sample was too small to be human matter. At Nencini, it was proven it could be done. As you know, it was Amanda's DNA and not starch.

Is Stefanoni corrupt? <shrug> I honestly have no idea.

It's about a lot of things, LCN being just one of them. The way her team collected the samples is pure cargo cult science, especially at the ludicrous second go in the December. I'll ask again - have you watched the videos? If so, do you see anything to criticise?

Why even bother to claim that you're equally sceptical of both sides if you're not going to attempt to make it seem plausible by chucking a bone to the innocencisti? Shrugging your shoulders in the face of clear evidence of incompetence and misconduct is not "healthy scepticism", it's a cop out.


ETA: and that's the second time you've simply ignored my point about your vaunted "checks and balances" on the police. Noted.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's about a lot of things, LCN being just one of them. The way her team collected the samples is pure cargo cult science, especially at the ludicrous second go in the December. I'll ask again - have you watched the videos? If so, do you see anything to criticise?

Why even bother to claim that you're equally sceptical of both sides if you're not going to attempt to make it seem plausible by chucking a bone to the innocencisti? Shrugging your shoulders in the face of clear evidence of incompetence and misconduct is not "healthy scepticism", it's a cop out.


ETA: and that's the second time you've simply ignored my point about your vaunted "checks and balances" on the police. Noted.

Decorum prevents me from saying what I think is really going on here (in a wider context), but I suspect it's obvious to quite a few people.

Suffice it to say, in regard to this particular issue, that it's very difficult for any reasonable person to keep a straight face (whether because they are grimacing in horror or laughing at the sheer ineptitude on display) when viewing those videos of the "crack" forensics team doing their thing in the cottage in early November and mid-December of 2007. Who can forget the classic "wrapping the potentially-important mop using a roll of wrapping paper they found in a cupboard in the cottage" escapade? Or the "smearing the sink in the small bathroom with their swabs, thus totally disabling the ability to know if forensics traces were mixed at source or mixed in the act of collection" antics? Or, of course, the now-legendary "passing the bra clasp round like pass-the-parcel, using visibly dirty gloves and directly touching virtually every part of the clasp, including the critical hook section, then inexplicably putting the clasp back down onto the dirty floor to photograph it" episode.

Seriously, those videos truly should be shown in training classes for scene-of-crime officers, as a classic example of how not to do it (and the consequences of doing it so horribly wrong). They should also serve as a useful reminder as to why no police force should EVER let lab technicians perform a dual role as scene-of-crime investigators.

 

[Samson]

Decorum prevents me from saying what I think is really going on here (in a wider context), but I suspect it's obvious to quite a few people.

Suffice it to say, in regard to this particular issue, that it's very difficult for any reasonable person to keep a straight face (whether because they are grimacing in horror or laughing at the sheer ineptitude on display) when viewing those videos of the "crack" forensics team doing their thing in the cottage in early November and mid-December of 2007. Who can forget the classic "wrapping the potentially-important mop using a roll of wrapping paper they found in a cupboard in the cottage" escapade? Or the "smearing the sink in the small bathroom with their swabs, thus totally disabling the ability to know if forensics traces were mixed at source or mixed in the act of collection" antics? Or, of course, the now-legendary "passing the bra clasp round like pass-the-parcel, using visibly dirty gloves and directly touching virtually every part of the clasp, including the critical hook section, then inexplicably putting the clasp back down onto the dirty floor to photograph it" episode.

Seriously, those videos truly should be shown in training classes for scene-of-crime officers, as a classic example of how not to do it (and the consequences of doing it so horribly wrong). They should also serve as a useful reminder as to why no police force should EVER let lab technicians perform a dual role as scene-of-crime investigators.

I agree on the decorum bit. It would seem easy for anyone to claim to have read every book on a subject, and then use as a further claim to intelligence and rational thought, membership of mensa. There might be a few casual readers that are clinging to the fact more Italian judges have sullied their legacy by attaching themselves to a guilt scenario than innocence, and of course the ostracism of Hellmann being further proof the judicial concensus is valid.
This will persist. Peter Quennell is untroubled by the setback to his life's work. I hope his family are troubled.

 

[lonepinealex]

Decorum prevents me from saying what I think is really going on here (in a wider context), but I suspect it's obvious to quite a few people.

Suffice it to say, in regard to this particular issue, that it's very difficult for any reasonable person to keep a straight face (whether because they are grimacing in horror or laughing at the sheer ineptitude on display) when viewing those videos of the "crack" forensics team doing their thing in the cottage in early November and mid-December of 2007. Who can forget the classic "wrapping the potentially-important mop using a roll of wrapping paper they found in a cupboard in the cottage" escapade? Or the "smearing the sink in the small bathroom with their swabs, thus totally disabling the ability to know if forensics traces were mixed at source or mixed in the act of collection" antics? Or, of course, the now-legendary "passing the bra clasp round like pass-the-parcel, using visibly dirty gloves and directly touching virtually every part of the clasp, including the critical hook section, then inexplicably putting the clasp back down onto the dirty floor to photograph it" episode.

Seriously, those videos truly should be shown in training classes for scene-of-crime officers, as a classic example of how not to do it (and the consequences of doing it so horribly wrong). They should also serve as a useful reminder as to why no police force should EVER let lab technicians perform a dual role as scene-of-crime investigators.

I've said it before, but the most astonishing bit of the December video for me is when the police pick up the jacket that Meredith was wearing when she was killed (and why it wasn't collected the first time round is mind boggling enough), then neatly turn the sleeves the right way round and fold it up in an evidence bag.

The fact that the sleeves were inside out is clear evidence of how the jacket was removed, yet this is unimportant to the police, who treat it like they're picking up laundry in a messy teenager's bedroom. On video for all to see.

 

[Grinder]

I've said it before, but the most astonishing bit of the December video for me is when the police pick up the jacket that Meredith was wearing when she was killed (and why it wasn't collected the first time round is mind boggling enough), then neatly turn the sleeves the right way round and fold it up in an evidence bag.

The fact that the sleeves were inside out is clear evidence of how the jacket was removed, yet this is unimportant to the police, who treat it like they're picking up laundry in a messy teenager's bedroom. On video for all to see.

Agree on both points about the jacket, which she wouldn't remove immediately when upon entering the cool cottage. Did it last 1 minute or whatever it wasn't removed by Mez that way.

LJ - yes - "There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear.

 

[lonepinealex]

Decorum prevents me from saying what I think is really going on here (in a wider context), but I suspect it's obvious to quite a few people.

I'm not sure what you mean about the wider context, but I'm quite enjoying the one last go around the carousel, and with a guilter who's actually prepared to engage in discussion (to an extent), rather than make snarky, cryptic drive-by posts.

It's all rather futile of course, but I'm not that busy today.

 

[Grinder]

I'm not sure what you mean about the wider context, but I'm quite enjoying the one last go around the carousel, and with a guilter who's actually prepared to engage in discussion (to an extent), rather than make snarky, cryptic drive-by posts.

Yes better but it could be even better if it was open and we were discussing more of the case and less of ad hominem attacks against Hellmann.

My memory was wrong that the last dna test found more of Amanda's on the knife where she lived and I am admitting it, no big deal. It would be nice if a PGP could once in while admit a failing or a failing of the PLE's case, such as Curatolo and Quintavalle.

It's all rather futile of course, but I'm not that busy today.

But, but there's soccer the EPL with double weeks for four teams.

 

[Vixen]

I'm dizzy. I can't tell if you're serious, anywhere.

Tell you what. Can you please copy/paste one or more paragraphs from Hellman that you find less than flawlessly reasoned.

Word for word if you please, to avoid contamination bias. Thankyou.

Can we let sleeping dogs lie? It is only my subjective opinion. Hellmann's reasoning causes me to frown.

 

[Bill Williams]

Except that it's not chillingly accurate is it? Because what she described never actually happened. This is not in dispute on either side, so your point is moot.

It also reflects the Achilles Heel of all the former-guilter/prosecutor/convicting courts view of the interrogation - the complete unwillingness to factor in the behaviour of the police/prosecutor/translator. There is an unhealthy focus on Amanda Knox, who simply was responding confusedly and from exhaustion/fatigue to a middle-of-the-night interrogation. None of this is about Knox. All of it is about someone else's behaviour, not hers.

The first clue that everything said by Knox subsequent to Rita Ficara going out into the hall at the Questura and saying to her, "It's time for truth," is that nothing Knox said about the crime even remotely coincided with the forensics found at the scene. Ficara's question elicited the only bona fide lie Knox ever told - it was about the dope-smoking in the cottage, and it was a lie everyone who lived in the cottage told. Knox readily 'fessed up to that. Heck, Meredith was watering the dope-plants downstairs while the boys were away!!!

The issue is behaviour. Yes, the dreaded behaviour. But it is the behaviour of the police/prosecutor/translator, who were leading the witness. Indeed, this also happens to be what interrogations are - exercises in getting a suspect to confess to the crimes, and agree to the narrative that the cops bring into the interrogation room.

It's been said 100 times. Interrogations are not exploratory. They are not exercises in fact finding. The real problem with the interrogation(s) of Nov 5/6, 2007, is that the police/prosecutor/translator got someone to "confess" to an exceedingly preliminary narrative of the crime; one the cops did not fully understand themselves - one where the "factoids" spun out of control even on the cops.

All they had were Raffaele's Nike's and the "See you later" on Amanda's mobile phone. The rest is the behaviour of the police at interrogation, behaviour fully consistent with entrapping three people (incl. Lumumba) in their unfocussed narrative. It's the behaviour of a translator who was allowed to act as a mediator; was allowed by the crack detectives to get a naive, stressed-out foreigner to agree with her (Donnino's) version of what may have happened (amnesia due to traumatic event).

It was the behaviour of Giuliano Mignini who became, by his own admission, only a notary - goading Knox to continue with her narrative, thinking that by goading her he was safe from later accusations of leading the witness; and safe from not getting her a lawyer or a competent translator.

Some think that the definition of skepticism, here on a skeptic's board, is to adopt a permanent pose of neutrality in the face of all this. To say that the truth is, "in some middle ground" between the narrative Knox/Sollecito provide of that evening and the narrative(s) of the police/prosecutor/translator.

Some think the definition of skepticism is the Nadeau-esque claim that, "she may be innocent, but Knox knows something she's not telling us," as if there is still some unknown tidbit from a Rosetta Stone, which will help us finally understand this case.

At some point one just has to say: "We have all the information we need, and it is about the behaviour of police/prosecutor/translator at interrogation." Everything that happened past that is commentary, really.

Particularly past March 2013, when Section 1 of the ISC (Chieffi's section) decided to side with the party of the PM's; decided that the evidence wasn't what was really-real in this case, but that protection of a faction within the Italian judiciary was. The two years from then until March 2015 was simply a commentary on Chieffi's horrible reversal of Hellmann.... including Nencini's Florence court which turned justice back 100 years - by hearing three and only three new items, all of which went the defence's way - and he decided to re-convict anyway.

Thankfully Section 5 corrected all this. They corrected all this, hopefully with a healthy dose of skepticism themselves that what had happened Nov 5/6, 2007, was the starting gun of a hopelessly flawed, wrongful prosecution.

There is no middle ground in this. As far as RS and AK are concerned - the crimes they were charged with either did not take place, or they were not involved. What's the middle ground to that?

 

[Vixen]

Do you believe the attempted burglary was real or staged and why? Given an answer to this question and using the evidence, explain how you would reason differently from Hellmann. What facts do you think exist with regard to an alleged repositioning of the body?

Not having been at the trial and nor having seen first hand the exhibits, nor read the 10,000 pages, I am not in a place to say how I would reason differently. However, I think reasoning has to be logical. You can't on one hand say the burglary was not staged rendering Amanda's forced naming of PL as not based on an event that happened and then say Amanda is guilty of calunnia and increase the sentence.

The fact the body was undressed some time after death and rearranged in a pose does make me consider a certain scenario, which I'll keep to myself, as pure conjecture on my part.

 

[Vixen]

IIRC, Hellman pointed out that the defense expert showed a glass fragment in Rudy's shoe prints in Meredith's wet blood, suggesting to Hellman that Rudy stepped in the broken glass before Meredtih bled on the floor.

Seems logical to me, and I've never even been to a Mensa meeting.

Just because a piece of glass is found on a footprint, it doesn't follow there's a causal relationship between the two?

 

[Dan O.]

Once the final Cassation report is promulgated, there will be a whole mass of evidence and facts not publicised so far, to come out.

This comment slipped by on your last visit. Could you expand on this? Where is this evidence comming from, why has it not been released already with all the evedence that has already come out, how are you privy to this information?

 

[Grinder]

dope-plants downstairs

are those plants that don't qualify for Mensa?

 

[Vixen]

The images above were on her right side of the pillow case from the pillow found lying under Miss Kercher,
I wonder if Vixen thinks this is seminal fluid?

I am no expert. I have no idea. Heaven forfend!



Above,
this is the image that Prof. Halkides writes of.
Rudy Guede has fresh, wet probable seminal fluid on the sole of his sneaker
and he stepped on the left side of Miss Kercher's corpse,
leaving a time stamped imprinted clue that he was there.

Wouldn't you agree, Vixen?
RW


PS - Prof. Halkides website:
[

It is a puzzle the defense did not insist on bringing this evidence. AIUI they did not, as they feared the police would frame Raf for it.

Why was it not part of the evidence? Seems strange to me.