Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Chris_Halkides]

the putative semen stains should have been a top priority

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.

It should not have been up to the defense to demand or to resist testing it. It should have been a top priority to test it in the early days of November, 2007.

 

[carbonjam72]

Skepti-phylia?

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

Originally Posted by carbonjam72
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.

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

Glass fragment impression found in every show print suggests the glass was embedded in the shoe, at least if we're going to be reasonable.

Apologies f I've misjudged you, but I think the reason you are "equally skeptical" is you simply like to argue, and feel you are out-smarting people with your dazzling sophistry. And that this feeling you get makes you giggle. Claiming to be "Bi-skeptical" simply maximizes your odds of another peversely "thrilling encounter".
You do cause me though, to reflect.

If you can't cite a single paragraph from Hellman to support your view, you're just not for real. Others will give you a good go though. So, Enjoy.

 

[Grinder]

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

It's a shoe-print. It follows with mathematical certainty that if a shoe-print in blood shows a piece of glass embedded in the shoe that glass was there before the step in blood was taken. Since glass was only in F's room that would mean that's where it came from and that the window was broken while Rudi was still there and most likely before the murder. Rudi's claim the window was intact is shown to be a lie. (All the lies he told)

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?

Oh it will turn out to be personal speculation from reading all the books. Maybe the bleach receipt and the interrogation recording will be forthcoming.

 

[Dan O.]

...

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.

you can keep your conjecture. But let's not go inventing facts. We're you not already informed of the forensic evidence that showed Meredith was still alive after her breasts were exposed and she was lying on her back?

 

[Vixen]

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.

I said accurately presented. By that I mean, even though it was an imaginary recollection, it was depicted as flashes of blurred images, the flashes being how it would likely be remembered, were it to have happened.

My source is "Teen Killers" Brian Draper describing how he and Torey Adamcik killed Cassie Stoddart, all aged 16, just for fun, based on the 'Scream' movies, 1992, Idaho, USA.

It was on UK TV Weds/Thurs for those who have "Catch Up on Demand" TV.

Draper said he could only remember the murder in flashing images, and psychologists had told him this was usual for traumatic incidents.

Draper confessed, Adamcik claims he's innocent.

I thought it interesting Amanda used the same flashing images analogy.

<shrug>

 

[Grinder]

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.

It should not have been up to the defense to demand or to resist testing it. It should have been a top priority to test it in the early days of November, 2007.

What Chris said and just stop it.

If you insist on these stupid tired arguments please explain what the ICSI should have tested. Please admit that they were completely incompetent at best and a combination of incompetent and fraudulent at worst.

There was a shoe-print on the stain and Steffi said she didn't want to destroy the print to test. Most of all of the prints only were photographed so why not this one?

 

[Vixen]

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.

I am not going to say Stefanoni is corrupt just for the sake of it.

 

[Vixen]

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.

It is quite amazing they did not spot Mez' then wet jumper, just washed, in the laundry basket, for several years.

 

[Vixen]

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.

You better stop, hey, what's that sound, everybody look what's going down" - Stephen Stills

 

[Dan O.]

I said accurately presented. By that I mean, even though it was an imaginary recollection, it was depicted as flashes of blurred images, the flashes being how it would likely be remembered, were it to have happened.

My source is "Teen Killers" Brian Draper describing how he and Torey Adamcik killed Cassie Stoddart, all aged 16, just for fun, based on the 'Scream' movies, 1992, Idaho, USA.

It was on UK TV Weds/Thurs for those who have "Catch Up on Demand" TV.

Draper said he could only remember the murder in flashing images, and psychologists had told him this was usual for traumatic incidents.

Draper confessed, Adamcik claims he's innocent.

I thought it interesting Amanda used the same flashing images analogy.

<shrug>

But it isn't the same. You are simply being confused because some of the same words are being used to describe the two different situations. The flashbacks associated with a traumatic event invade the sufferers consciousness. The flashes Amanda was seeing were durring a traumatic interrogation as Amanda tried to construct in her mind what the police were presenting to her.

 

[Dan O.]

It is quite amazing they did not spot Mez' then wet jumper, just washed, in the laundry basket, for several years.

What are you talking about? Is this part of the undisclosed evidence?

 

[Grinder]

What are you talking about? Is this part of the undisclosed evidence?

Probable to do with the warm clothes in the washing machine

 

[Vixen]

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?

Maybe not exculpatory evidence (see Brady v Maryland) unless from a non-prosecutor source, but possibly some evidence after the event.

For example, I refer you to the case of Sam Mandez of South Colorado who was accused of killing an 92 year old widow in a burglary gone wrong. As was a murder arising from a felony, it was either death or life without parole.

Although Mandez was aged 14 as of the time of murder he was charged as an adult FOUR years later (since repealed in Miller vs Alabama meaning minors charged as adults - and in the States there are 2,500 of these serving life - can apply for parole after 40 years).

The ONLY evidence at the time was a fingerprint. However, Mandez and his granddad had redecorated the house the year before the murder, which explained it, the defense argued. Anyway, Mandez got life without parole, based on only one other piece of evidence, a matchbook traced to a firm of his relatives.

Some FOURTEEN years after the crime, prosecutors said they found a fibre on the carpet that linked Mandez to the scene.

It happens all the time. For example, the post-event story of the cocaine drug dealer in Perugia Amanda supposedly consorted with.

Expect to see a tabloid overload of sensationalist claims of the "I was Raf's prisoner guard, and he said XYZ" variety.

 

[Vixen]

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.

I don't understand how name-calling is helpful or even polite.

 

[Vixen]

Glass fragment impression found in every show print suggests the glass was embedded in the shoe, at least if we're going to be reasonable.

Apologies f I've misjudged you, but I think the reason you are "equally skeptical" is you simply like to argue, and feel you are out-smarting people with your dazzling sophistry. And that this feeling you get makes you giggle. Claiming to be "Bi-skeptical" simply maximizes your odds of another peversely "thrilling encounter".
You do cause me though, to reflect.

If you can't cite a single paragraph from Hellman to support your view, you're just not for real. Others will give you a good go though. So, Enjoy.

If I am going to be the target of personal attack, I'll be off.

 

[Vixen]

Probable to do with the warm clothes in the washing machine

No, it was a jumper found years later.

 

[Grinder]

No, it was a jumper found years later.

Could you provide a little more detail and perhaps a cite or a story. Years later?

Are you condemning the PLE for incompetence or are you forgiving them?

 

[Vixen]

You better stop, hey, what's that sound, everybody look what's going down" - Stephen Stills

FWIW a rather good study in paranoia.

 

[Kauffer]

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.

I see that Dan has responded to your last paragraph and explained that the undressing after death and "rearranged in a pose" are not the "facts" you seem to think they are.

But from your first, not having seen "exhibits" and not having read the transcripts does not seem to have prevented you arguing for a pejorative conclusion about Hellmann's report.

I would agree that the calunnia charge should not have been upheld by Hellmann but his reasoning for it, whilst in error, is not the same reasoning you critique. Is the calunnia the only issue you have at this time with the motivations, now that it has been pointed out to you that there is no evidence of Kercher's body being posed?

 

[Dan O.]

Could you provide a little more detail and perhaps a cite or a story. Years later?

Are you condemning the PLE for incompetence or are you forgiving them?

Years later it was discovered and it was determined that it had just been washed and was still wet when it was thrown into the laundary basket. how is this even possible if it isn't simply the product of someone's imagination?