Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[RoseMontague]

Sorry, I thought Amanda is complaining to the ECHR? They will ask why she did not complain through the relevant channels at the time.

When she did, she got sued. Her parents got sued. Raffaele's sister got fired. Raffaele's family got sued. Now it's Amanda's and Raffaele's turn.

 

[Vixen]

It is. I refute the use of another mangled word (whilst) by pure English language speakers of the USA!

We use the correct while.

I didn't realise that. I wondered why my American friend asked me what was the difference between whilst and while.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen posted at 2:41am (Sunday, London time). I think she was out late Saturday night and just got home from the club library.

Right, Jackie?

I am a Brit. Was watching the Old Grey Whistle Test, then Rick Wakeman doing a prog on roadies.

Who is Jackie?

 

[RoseMontague]

I am baffled as to why it wasn't tested, if only to identify what it was. I am not a cop, so excuse me if I ask a silly question. Do you think it might have been tested and disregarded as irrelevant? Out of the 1,000's samples, they're likely to be selective as to what is pertinent to the case.

They should, at the least, anyway, explain it.

No

 

[Vixen]

Yes it could her or SA. But SA was coming around a bit to the truth or at least the ruling before .org went dark.

Who is SA? Some Alibi? You have been told I am not connected with these sites.

Why is everybody paranoid?

 

[Grinder]

The defense lawyers should have appealed the refusal. Can you point to the testimony where it was discussed, if you know. (Don't worry,if not, I can do a search.)

I have no idea where or even if the transcripts of every hearing are available. I gave you the judge's write up in which he explains that the defense asked for the test.

They did ask at every level for the test to be done.

Whether or not they did a thousand tests they denied having done this one as they missed it and the judge mentioned it was found by the defense expert, bringing the quality of the ICSI in question.

Now for argument's sake, say that the defense messed up by not asking soon enough or often enough, can you with a straight face say that the justice system anywhere should just hand wave it away on a technicality?

I suggest you do whatever research you want and report back any meaningful findings.

Btw I thought you said you were up on crime stuff Brady v. somebody and all. Why do you then demur about knowing how police do and should act?

 

[Vixen]

Where is the upside for the defense? Other than showing that the prosecution is nothing but a bunch of bafoons, at best the stain is Rudy's semen which could have been left on the pillow up to an hour prior to the murder up to when the duvet was cast over the body and the room door locked. Worst case is if someone in the prosecution delibrately tainted the stain so it would test positive for Raffaele's DNA.

The interesting question is why did the prosecution (and the civil attorney) jump up to block testing? The prosecution needs to cover for their earlier mistake of not testing the stain (or for their coverup if they did test it) by making excuses for why it should not have been tested. The civil party has one goal and that is extracting money from Raffaele and Amanda. The task of showing the suspect's involvement in the rape and murder of their client's daughter/sister becomes more difficult as more evidence points only to Rudy Guede. If the civil attorneys thought there was any chance that the stain would test positive for Raffaele they would have been demanding that it be tested.

I agree with this. It should have been top priority testing and the results stated.

I'd be interested to know why it was blocked by the prosecution.

 

[acbytesla]

I am baffled as to why it wasn't tested, if only to identify what it was. I am not a cop, so excuse me if I ask a silly question. Do you think it might have been tested and disregarded as irrelevant? Out of the 1,000's samples, they're likely to be selective as to what is pertinent to the case.

They should, at the least, anyway, explain it.

Most of us are baffled as to why it wasn't tested. There is a recording of Stefanoni on the phone at the crime scene saying that a putative semen stain should be tested. But there is no record of any potential semen stain being tested. Many believe that it was this stain on the pillowcase that she is referring to. IIRC Stefanoni testified that it wasn't tested because of its vicinity to a bloody shoe print on the pillow case and that the test would jeopardize that print. This seems unlikely, never the less, it was never tested.

What is a mystery to many of us is why the prosecution fought testing this sample? Consider the following, if it had matched Raffaele, there would be no argument over Raffaele and Amanda's guilt. You would expect if anyone wanted this to be tested, it would be the police.

 

[Dan O.]

I am baffled as to why it wasn't tested, if only to identify what it was. I am not a cop, so excuse me if I ask a silly question. Do you think it might have been tested and disregarded as irrelevant? Out of the 1,000's samples, they're likely to be selective as to what is pertinent to the case.

They should, at the least, anyway, explain it.

A presumptive test for semen would have taken only a few seconds. The kits are available even to the public. If it were tested and found not to be semen the prosecution would have disclosed this and avoided the embarrassment of having missed this obvious stain. If it were tested and found to be semen, this fact and the resulting DNA analysis must be disclosed to the defense. As for pertinence, what could be more so than an apparent semen stain on the pillow directly below the victim's vigina?

 

[Vixen]

As for Vixen hailing from the UK, didn't one post mention some obscure welsh sport like cheese rolling?

At any rate, I'll bet dollars to donuts he is a he, (unless Bill agrees).

I don't think Vixen has taken any firm position, but rather seems to imply guilty sounding factoids,

Similar in some degree, to dearly departed CoulsdonUK, except a half step bolder, or even a Platinov, minus the cryptic metaphors.

I think what most pro guilt posters don't get here, is that most here are hungry to find one decent argument or fact that could reasonably be interpreted as indicating a possibility of guilt. And not out of a desire to believe guilt, but out of a desperate wish that our fellows who believe guilt are in some way recognizable as decent, honest, thoughtful and sane.

Not many male vixens, around, carbo.

There is a difference between being guilty in law and guilty in fact.

 

[Grinder]

Who is SA? Some Alibi? You have been told I am not connected with these sites.

Why is everybody paranoid?

There is no paranoia here unless you are

It is a game to figure out who people are. You have shown up 7 years after the start when a final verdict has come down discussing how the defense should have acted in the trial of the first instance using arguments that the PGP have used for years that didnt really make sense then and really make no sense now.

If you think there is doubt please put together a time line that would work for the kids being guilty.

 

[RoseMontague]

I suggest you do whatever research you want and report back any meaningful findings.

Btw I thought you said you were up on crime stuff Brady v. somebody and all. Why do you then demur about knowing how police do and should act?

I think we are just wasting our time with this one whose posts are now pretty much just of the trolling variety, in my opinion.

 

[Kaosium]

In law, everything follows a chronological timetable. You are expected to make your depositions, pleadings, evidence, witness statements, etc, by such and such a date. Otherwise, the hearing would go on forever.

In my experience, if somebody wants to submit something late, or even as the hearing is going on, it is usually accepted as, "in the public interest".

The question is: why didn't the prosecution test it, and when it was discovered by the defense why did they (and Maresca) protest it being tested throughout the rest of the trial(s)?

The answer is (most likely) that they did test it. After all it was a visible stain found on a pillowcase underneath the hips of a mostly nude murder victim who had the DNA of an attacker insider her. One cannot pretend they didn't look closely at that pillowcase, after all they tried to advance one of Rudy's partial prints as evidence of a 'size 37 woman's shoe' (or however they put it) thus they must have examined it thoroughly.

However like the TMB (a blood test) negatives on the luminol hits but omitted from the (supposedly) comprehensive forensic report, the RTIGF, they probably just decided to omit the results of the test on the putative semen stain as well because it 'didn't help their case.' Regarding those TMB negatives we even know they (Stefanoni) lied in court about doing them and would not have been caught had they not been ordered to release a bunch of documents on July 30, 2009 when the trial was mostly over (all of August is a vacation for the Italian Court System).

There's over a hundred samples that returned results indicating about as much or more DNA than (what they claimed was on) the knife blade, but those results were also withheld and the prosecution and Stefanoni fought tooth and nail to ensure the court or public never saw them.

That semen stain would have been tested by the Massei court had the prosecution and/or Maresca insisted, but they took the opposite tack and fought against it instead. Why do you suppose that was? Why did the prosecution and Maresca jump up and protest when the independent experts asked if they could open up the kitchen knife and test areas in the cracks where blood couldn't have been washed up? Normally you'd expect the defense to protest the possibility of new evidence being developed during the trial, but in these instances the defense either asked for it to be tested (semen stain) or didn't protest (opening kitchen knife).

The most parsimonious answer is because the prosecution already knew what those results would be and that they 'wouldn't help their case.'

 

[Vixen]

In a way it is a clash of ideologies Vixen, but the real difference is the approach. This is a skeptics forum. You can expect to have your posts dissected and challenged even if we agree with most of your post. This happens to us all.

You can also expect to have misstatements of facts corrected. Few people anywhere are as knowledgeable about this case as the people posting here. Sources and citations are frequently requested of and by everyone. There probably is not a better place to learn the facts of this case than this site.

As a former member of Mensa ( former, because they discovered I was just not that smart) I look forward to reading your thoughts. I hope you are interested in learning and not just debating.

Right now, it seems as if you have your head filled with misinformation and that has colored your opnion. That's OK, I also at one time believed in their guilt. I had been a frequent visitor to TJMK, PMF.NET and .ORG. I read Vogt, Nadeau and various news articles. Unfortunately, many of these sources are filled with falsehoods, interlaced throughout. I soon discovered that much of the foundation that I based my opinion was wortnless.

Real intellects have the courage to change their minds.

True, there is a lot of misinformation, particularly in books and the press. Much of it is one dullard repeating another dullard's wrong facts because they are too lazy to do any research of their own. Plus the use of cliches and wellworn platitudes is very annoying.

I am actually a high-functioning idiot, who managed to infiltrate Mensa. It's only a social club.

I have formulated a good idea of what happened, based on my own perceptions.

 

[Vixen]

I see you are right. "Realise" spelt the correct way. I didn't know that "whilst" was alien to the US.

Actually, Antony, the Anericans spell realise the correct way, as they carried on using (correct) 18th Century English long after we left, whilst we changed things to be consistent with French-ified spelling.

"-ize" words are of Greek origin, so it is technically correct they should end in "-ize".

In England, we have still kept the "-ize" words in Chemistry. Hence, we still use words such as, "oxidize" and "ionize".

 

[RoseMontague]

The question is: why didn't the prosecution test it, and when it was discovered by the defense why did they (and Maresca) protest it being tested throughout the rest of the trial(s)?

The answer is (most likely) that they did test it. After all it was a visible stain found on a pillowcase underneath the hips of a mostly nude murder victim who had the DNA of an attacker insider her. One cannot pretend they didn't look closely at that pillowcase, after all they tried to advance one of Rudy's partial prints as evidence of a 'size 37 woman's shoe' (or however they put it) thus they must have examined it thoroughly.

However like the TMB (a blood test) negatives on the luminol hits but omitted from the (supposedly) comprehensive forensic report, the RTIGF, they probably just decided to omit the results of the test on the putative semen stand as well because it 'didn't help their case.' Regarding those TMB negatives we even know they (Stefanoni) lied in court about doing them and would not have been caught had they not been ordered to release a bunch of documents on July 30, 2009 when the trial was mostly over (all of August is a vacation for the Italian Court System).

There's over a hundred samples that returned results indicating about as much or more DNA than (what they claimed was on) the knife blade, but those results were also withheld and the prosecution and Stefanoni fought tooth and nail to ensure the court or public never saw them.

That semen stain would have been tested by the Massei court had the prosecution and/or Maresca insisted, but they took the opposite tack and fought against it instead. Why do you suppose that was? Why did the prosecution and Maresca jump up and protest when the independent experts asked if they could open up the kitchen knife and test areas in the cracks where blood couldn't have been washed up? Normally you'd expect the defense to protest the possibility of new evidence being developed during the trial, but in these instances the defense either asked for it to be tested (semen stain) or didn't protest (opening kitchen knife).

The most parsimonious answer is because the prosecution already knew what those results would be and that they 'wouldn't help their case.'

Yes. They knew AK & RS had nothing to do with the crime. I believe many of those who profess to believe they are guilty realize the same thing. To these, the whole debate is nothing more than a game.

 

[Grinder]

Nina never said she was going to get the police report from Ms.Diaz. She did she would look into it. And I didn't stay on her case about it, I think she blew off the task.

She claimed that Diaz had the report and she most likely had a copy after calling me a guilter.

Betha is being repaired as we speak. Hopefully, she'll work just fine when they put her back in the ground. I do expect her to get the job done though. Considering that in London they just completed 21 KM of tunneling with 8 similar TBMs and Sound Transit just had its 5th and about to complete it's 6th tunnel drive ahead of schedule in the last couple of years.
Let's both keep our fingers crossed about Bertha.

The tunnels completed are about 22' versus Bertha which 56' - see a difference?

 

[Kaosium]

Who is SA? Some Alibi? You have been told I am not connected with these sites.

Why is everybody paranoid?

It's not paranoia and were that the case 'even paranoids have enemies.'

Truth to tell, the online debate and how some people managed to convince others Amanda and Raffaele were guilty is more interesting (and relevant to most people's lives) than the mind-numbing details of semen stains and the such.

Remember: it's not disputed that (essentially) everything Amanda and Raffaele were arrested for turned out to be bogus or coincidence (as per the case presented against them November 8th before Matteini). It's also not disputed that Rudy Guede was a burglar who was there when Meredith died and left copious evidence of his involvement. That Italian authorities managed to convince anyone that Amanda and Raffaele might still be involved in the crime after the arrest of Rudy Guede is utterly fascinating.

 

[Vixen]

If the DNA didn't match Rudi or Raf or Giacomo that would open up a new possibilities from someone else with Rudi (Koko or another ganf member) or that Mez had another boyfriend which would tarnish the saint meme and make more possible Rudi's crazy story.

The civil party having any standing in the case is absurd. That is another aspect that the PGP should agree with.

Personally, I always prefer to think it is "cock up" rather than "conspiracy". Generally, officials don't deliberately set out to wrong other people. Sometimes, it just feels that way.

 

[Vixen]

Case in point....

Grinder and I are in essential agreement on all major points. Yet because this is a skeptics site, I have huge chunks of my ass missing from where he believes I went beyond what credible sources allow.

I can complain that he may be wrong in detail, but this is a skeptic's site! It's what prevents this site from becoming an echo chamber of innocence, unlike those other sites which spew hate, echo chamber-style.

I have already noted a high standard of exchange here.