Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

You must be referencing the stupid Amanda here. The one who committed the murder and then blurts out information only the murderer could know. How careless! Raf must have been beside himself over getting mixed up with such a stupid moron. Didn't she also say they found the body in the closet? That must have been brilliant Amanda, diverting suspicion by seeming not to know how things went down.

Or maybe she just thought bleeding to death is what happens when you get your throat cut.

If the guilter boards, or what's left of them, allowed pro-innocent people to post, this poster would be there, slamming those boards just as hard in favor of innocence and knocking down all the same specious arguments he, and I do mean he, is posting here.

These arguments are not being made in good faith. Every reply elicits "a jolly", as in the phrase, 'getting your jollies'.

Wasted energy IUAM.

Very rare behavior, always maladjusted guys. Women don't do this. Think about Chelsea Hoffman. Not even she lives where this one does. It's Giant Butterfly Net time.

 

[Numbers]

If the guilter boards, or what's left of them, allowed pro-innocent people to post, this poster would be there, slamming those boards just as hard in favor of innocence and knocking down all the same specious arguments he, and I do mean he, is posting here.

These arguments are not being made in good faith. Every reply elicits "a jolly", as in the phrase, 'getting your jollies'.

Wasted energy IUAM.

Very rare behavior, always maladjusted guys. Women don't do this. Think about Chelsea Hoffman. Not even she lives where this one does. It's Giant Butterfly Net time.

Could be. The logic-free postings - the posts really don't contain "arguments" in the debating sense - do provide a kind of summary of the guilter view points. And IMO these brief posts are superior to many of those of, for example, Mach, who would not infrequently post really long statements that could have been nicely summarized in one or two sentences of ignorance or hatred.

Which summary is what we see in the current round of posts from Vixen, self-proclaimed Mensa member and, at one point, self-proclaimed skeptic of both sides.

 

[Vixen]

Could be. The logic-free postings - the posts really don't contain "arguments" in the debating sense - do provide a kind of summary of the guilter view points. And IMO these brief posts are superior to many of those of, for example, Mach, who would not infrequently post really long statements that could have been nicely summarized in one or two sentences of ignorance or hatred.

Which summary is what we see in the current round of posts from Vixen, self-proclaimed Mensa member and, at one point, self-proclaimed skeptic of both sides.

Thank you for sharing your flame with us. I am not sure this meets the standards of the forum.

Please can you stay on topic.

 

[Kauffer]

That makes it all right, then.

Amanda said the body was found in the closet, and sure enough, someone had returned to the scene of the crime - not Rudy - to move the body across the floor towards the inbuilt wardrobe.

I expect the plan had been to hide it in there from this repositioning.

But the body was not found in the closet, so how does Amanda's erroneous thought become evidence in your mind of her special knowledge of the crime scene?

What evidence do you have that the body was moved and repositioned? You were asked about this before.

 

[Kauffer]

The evidence as discovered by the Italian police and their forensic team.

Which evidence?

 

[Vixen]

But the body was not found in the closet, so how does Amanda's erroneous thought become evidence in your mind of her special knowledge of the crime scene?

What evidence do you have that the body was moved and repositioned? You were asked about this before.

Kauffer, can you confirm you did not know the body was moved and repositioned?

I thought you had good knowledge of the case.

 

[Vixen]

Which evidence?

As set out in court.

 

[Antony]

The evidence as discovered by the Italian police and their forensic team.

You mean all the DNA not connected to the crime, the conjuring tricks and the "results" presented without supporting data? You mean the traces collected on video with total disregard of forensic procedure and precautions against contamination?

If this "evidence" is so clear-cut, why do people like you need to make up irrelevant stuff about Amanda's character and alleged "inappropriate" behaviour? Why not focus on the primary evidence, if it shows what you claim to believe it shows?

Where is the CCTV footage showing the defendants leaving Raff's flat and approaching the murder scene? All we have are separate images of Meredith Kercher herself shortly after saying good night to her friend Sophie Purton, and a random woman passer-by walking the other way - both of which were fraudulently used by the investigators or the press as showing Amanda (oddly unaccompanied) arriving at the cottage. Where are the time-of-death measurements, such as body temperature taken at the time of discovery of the corpse? Where are the photographs of the area outside the window, claimed to support the alleged "staging" of the break-in? Where are the personal computers of the accused and the victim, showing their possible activity at the time of the crime, and their interactions beforehand? (Clue: they were mysteriously destroyed while in the possession of the investigating police.)

You are talking to the wrong people, Vixen. All of us are very well-informed about this so-called "evidence", and it's the reason we see the prosecution as having had no merit from the start.

As set out in court.

Exactly, along with the evidence from Conti and Vecchiotti which dismantled it, plus the Rome labs that made the final test on the so-called "double DNA" knife. And when the MR from the latest ISC comes out, it will be clear that it cannot be taken to support verdicts of guilty.

 

[Kauffer]

Kauffer, can you confirm you did not know the body was moved and repositioned?

I thought you had good knowledge of the case.

What evidence do you have for the post mortem movement and repositioning of the body? This shouldn't be difficult for you to adduce since you are relying on it.

 

[Vixen]

[/HILITE]

1) It was torn not cut2) There are no footprints in the room, only shoe prints belonging to Guede
3) There is no evidence of this activity taking place and no transfer evidence

1) Rudy was capable of tearing a likely elastane mix with his bare hands?

Page 191 Massei report (Genetic investigations). Stefanoni said, re the bra:

"it had clearly been torn off, the straps were literally torn and part of the back had also been cut; there was one clear cut and therefore it appeared to have been cut (p 70 of the transcripts)."

 

[Vixen]

You mean all the DNA not connected to the crime, the conjuring tricks and the "results" presented without supporting data? You mean the traces collected on video with total disregard of forensic procedure and precautions against contamination?

If this "evidence" is so clear-cut, why do people like you need to make up irrelevant stuff about Amanda's character and alleged "inappropriate" behaviour? Why not focus on the primary evidence, if it shows what you claim to believe it shows?

Where is the CCTV footage showing the defendants leaving Raff's flat and approaching the murder scene? All we have are separate images of Meredith Kercher herself shortly after saying good night to her friend Sophie Purton, and a random woman passer-by walking the other way - both of which were fraudulently used by the investigators or the press as showing Amanda (oddly unaccompanied) arriving at the cottage. Where are the time-of-death measurements, such as body temperature taken at the time of discovery of the corpse? Where are the photographs of the area outside the window, claimed to support the alleged "staging" of the break-in? Where are the personal computers of the accused and the victim, showing their possible activity at the time of the crime, and their interactions beforehand? (Clue: they were mysteriously destroyed while in the possession of the investigating police.)

You are talking to the wrong people, Vixen. All of us are very well-informed about this so-called "evidence", and it's the reason we see the prosecution as having had no merit from the start.


Exactly, along with the evidence from Conti and Vecchiotti which dismantled it, plus the Rome labs that made the final test on the so-called "double DNA" knife. And when the MR from the latest ISC comes out, it will be clear that it cannot be taken to support verdicts of guilty.

It is quite acceptable to look at the whole picture. Police witnesses citing suspicious post crime behaviour is acceptable testimony in court. For example, the Scream teen killers in Idaho took a video of themselves driving away from the seen bragging, "we've just killed Cassie".

I am not sure why Amanda's strange behaviour should be excluded as evidence.

I would be interested to know why you think behavioural evidence should be out of bounds.

 

[Vixen]

The shard of glass. It was not found in Rudy's footprint, it was found near it.

Massei surmises that, "after the simulation of the burglary and the breaking of the window, the person who did this went into Meredith's room ...[]....rather, it came to be brought in Meredith's room, into which, immediately after the breaking of the glass, was carried by whoever broke that glass."

It's all these small revisions that actually, translate into a lie.

 

[Bill Williams]

You mean all the DNA not connected to the crime, the conjuring tricks and the "results" presented without supporting data? You mean the traces collected on video with total disregard of forensic procedure and precautions against contamination?

If this "evidence" is so clear-cut, why do people like you need to make up irrelevant stuff about Amanda's character and alleged "inappropriate" behaviour? Why not focus on the primary evidence, if it shows what you claim to believe it shows?

Where is the CCTV footage showing the defendants leaving Raff's flat and approaching the murder scene? All we have are separate images of Meredith Kercher herself shortly after saying good night to her friend Sophie Purton, and a random woman passer-by walking the other way - both of which were fraudulently used by the investigators or the press as showing Amanda (oddly unaccompanied) arriving at the cottage. Where are the time-of-death measurements, such as body temperature taken at the time of discovery of the corpse? Where are the photographs of the area outside the window, claimed to support the alleged "staging" of the break-in? Where are the personal computers of the accused and the victim, showing their possible activity at the time of the crime, and their interactions beforehand? (Clue: they were mysteriously destroyed while in the possession of the investigating police.)

You are talking to the wrong people, Vixen. All of us are very well-informed about this so-called "evidence", and it's the reason we see the prosecution as having had no merit from the start.


Exactly, along with the evidence from Conti and Vecchiotti which dismantled it, plus the Rome labs that made the final test on the so-called "double DNA" knife. And when the MR from the latest ISC comes out, it will be clear that it cannot be taken to support verdicts of guilty.

It is quite acceptable to look at the whole picture. Police witnesses citing suspicious post crime behaviour is acceptable testimony in court. For example, the Scream teen killers in Idaho took a video of themselves driving away from the seen bragging, "we've just killed Cassie".

I am not sure why Amanda's strange behaviour should be excluded as evidence.
I would be interested to know why you think behavioural evidence should be out of bounds.

Amanda's "strange" behaviour, is just that - strange. For 7 1/2 years, though, guilters have used that as a sole indicator of "personality", and there is nothing about her behaviour that says, "murder".

Remember, seasoned investigators said they had solved this case on behavioural analysis alone. Not even John Douglas says that this can be done.

Behaviour should never be excluded. But when the hard forensics come in, and none of it point to her (or to RS) and all of it points to RG.....

Please reread Anthony's post. Where does he say it should be excluded per se?

ETA - it is also interesting to track-back on the thread between you and Anthony. You kept saying that the DNA evidence as admitted at court condemned AK and RS. You neglect to included Conti-Vecchiotti also as evidence accepted at court, and it sure looks like C&V had the final word, acc. to what ISC did on March 27, 2015. But you drop that point and wander into a discussion on the appropriateness of discussing behaviour at court - you just drop arguing anything to do with DNA/court.

 

[Antony]

It is quite acceptable to look at the whole picture. Police witnesses citing suspicious post crime behaviour is acceptable testimony in court. For example, the Scream teen killers in Idaho took a video of themselves driving away from the seen bragging, "we've just killed Cassie".

I am not sure why Amanda's strange behaviour should be excluded as evidence.

I would be interested to know why you think behavioural evidence should be out of bounds.

No reason why it should - but when the primary evidence shows an entirely different story (one of a solitary burglar committing the crime on his own), the fact that you and other PGP prefer to focus on contentious interpretations of behavioural "evidence" says a lot.

In any case, none of the behavioural evidence shows anything other than 2 young people reacting with grief, confusion and anxiety to a situation they were entirely unprepared for. That's the behavioural reports that are based on fact, of course, and not malicious embellishment.

 

[Bill Williams]

Re the claim Luca mimed Mez having her throat cut. I would be interested to know how he mimed, "Mez [insert foulmouthed word] bled to death".

How dare the "dingbats" take offence, eh. Amanda can't help being the Ugly American :/.

Dan O. seems obsessed with the pillow stain. The theory amongst posters here is that it belongs to Rudy. However, it could equally belong to other perps at the scene.

IMV it almost certainly belonged to the perp who cut the bra with a sharp knife. Possibly a Roman Catholic with a mortal fear of sex before marriage. We know the other two perps were male and female, from their footprints, whom we can deduce were naked, from the stain on the bath mat and were probably having sex in front of their dying victim.

Guilters are always free to imagine all sorts of lurid things. What guilters don't have is any evidence to support their fantasies.

 

[Kauffer]

1) Rudy was capable of tearing a likely elastane mix with his bare hands?

Page 191 Massei report (Genetic investigations). Stefanoni said, re the bra:

"it had clearly been torn off, the straps were literally torn and part of the back had also been cut; there was one clear cut and therefore it appeared to have been cut (p 70 of the transcripts)."

As to your question - yes! How difficult do you think it can be?

Look here:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Professor-Vinci-Bra-Analysis.pdf

Look at photo n.056 on pages 9 and 10 of the presentation. You can clearly see the condition of the clasp's attached material consistent with a tearing (and a forceful one at that) and not a cutting. On page 14, you see this material lining up with the rest of the bra. Because the clasp material has been ripped from the rest of the bra at a seam, which is strengthened, looking at the seam can give an impression of a cut. Closer inspection reveals this not to be the case.

 

[Vixen]

As to your question - yes! How difficult do you think it can be?

Look here:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Professor-Vinci-Bra-Analysis.pdf

Look at photo n.056 on pages 9 and 10 of the presentation. You can clearly see the condition of the clasp's attached material consistent with a tearing (and a forceful one at that) and not a cutting. On page 14, you see this material lining up with the rest of the bra. Because the clasp material has been ripped from the rest of the bra at a seam, which is strengthened, looking at the seam can give an impression of a cut. Closer inspection reveals this not to be the case.

As well as Dr Stefanoni, even Dr Lalli the pathologist, who each saw the bra clasp in person states of the bra, it was, "necessary to apply force and cut it off."

Elsewhere it states it was, "to the point it was clearly cut" (Stefanoni explaining the parameters of her testing).

Massei, from prima facie evidence. Unchallenged by the defense.

 

[Kauffer]

It is quite acceptable to look at the whole picture. Police witnesses citing suspicious post crime behaviour is acceptable testimony in court. For example, the Scream teen killers in Idaho took a video of themselves driving away from the seen bragging, "we've just killed Cassie".

I am not sure why Amanda's strange behaviour should be excluded as evidence.

I would be interested to know why you think behavioural evidence should be out of bounds.

As to your last point, it can be cited where it is meaningful, supported by scientific analysis and not policemen's hunches, and is properly distinguished as aberrant. So, not in this case. Hellmann properly rejected it.

The major problem with this case is that you can concede the validity of nearly all prosecution evidence and yet still there will be reasonable doubt as a result of the absence of any evidence of presence, at the crime scene. Yet, all the prosecution evidence is bunk.

The only thing that makes this case, technically, 99.99% recurring in favour of the defence and not 100%, is that the alibis are nullified by the joint indictment and Amanda and Raffaele's presence in Raffaele's flat cannot be absolutely determined by other means. It's very very close indeed, but the alibis are not quite 100%. But, you don't need them. There's not enough to justify an arrest.

In order to convict, you need 99.99% in favour of the prosecution - no reasonable doubt. We are way beyond reasonable doubt in this case.

 

[Kauffer]

As well as Dr Stefanoni, even Dr Lalli the pathologist, who each saw the bra clasp in person states of the bra, it was, "necessary to apply force and cut it off."

Elsewhere it states it was, "to the point it was clearly cut" (Stefanoni explaining the parameters of her testing).

Massei, from prima facie evidence. Unchallenged by the defense.

Look at the photographs. You are making appeals to authority. But what do you think this proves?

 

[Vixen]

No evidence of Raf and Amanda in the murder room? Together with the shard of glass from the staged burglary room, is the bra clasp with Raf's indisputable DNA thereon - the First Instance court rejected contamination claims - and then there is the shoeprint testimony re exhibit photo 105:

"the technicians reported that it was made by the deposit of haematic substance (i.e., blood); the outer edge of the shoe is distinctly visible; nine lightly arced elements are discernable, with a width of ...[various measurements]...corresponding to the ball of the foot. The technicians hypothesised that the print had been made by the heel and the central part of the sole of a left shoe. Based on the small size of the heel and the reduced dimensions [overall], it was held to be a woman's shoe print [Massei's emphasis), of a size between 36 and 38. In any case, it is a shoe much smaller than that attributed to Rudy Hermann Guede."

So you see, there is solid scientific evidence for all three of the defendants in the murder room.

Who do you prefer to believe, the p!sspoor American media who mindlessly claim, "there is no evidence" or employees of the Italian police forensics team?

The expert witness of the above is Dr Lorenzo Rinaldi (Engineer, Principal Technical Director of the State Police, Director of the three sections composed of the Identity Division of the ERT).

Who's next to argue that Rinaldi "is as crooked, bent and corrupt as Stefanoni, Mignini, Maresca, and Italy"? Anyone?