Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

I seem to recall a comment from Chris Mellas at P-S to the effect that they were given only a few hours notice and could not attend. However, Dr. Potenza was a consultant for Mr. Sollecito. From a machine translation of his report: "On the kitchen knife seized in the apartment of Raffaele Sollecito there are no biological traces due to the above mentioned, having to be ruled out that the use made of it in the period before its evidence collection. Furthermore, none of the two samples was subjected to the investigation before for the search of human blood while the analysis of the DNA of these has provided, as mentioned, the amplification products extremely weak in intensity and considerably below the minimum limit recommended by the recommendations of GEFI (Italian Group Pathologists Porensi) but above were obtained in the various amplifications performed on the two samples incomplete profiles and with buoyancy allelic differences for some loci, such as not to allow a correct use of these results at the end of forensics, state not uniquely interpretable and theoretically even due to analytical artifacts."

RoseMontague will undoubtedly remember more than I do.

Quite often, a party refuses to attend, so that later they can then try to sabotage proceedings by claiming their expert was not there.

If it is "too short notice", he should have made an application to postpone to a more convenient date.

 

[Dan O.]

Early police investigations show a belief Amanda arrived at the cottage circa 8:30 closely followed by Rudy, who demanded she pay him money she owed him for drugs. This led to Amanda stealing or demanding with menace Mez' rent money.

This led to Mez losing her temper and subjected to a particularly sadistic attack.

There was a grainy Italian video released claiming to show Amanda or Mez closely followed into the cottage by Rudy, identified by the same quilted jacket he was captured in, in Germany.

So, on balance, it does strongly suggest Rudy came in through the front door.

And take away Amanda arriving cira 8:30 due to her alibi established by the phone records and the eye witness testimony of Jovana and the whole thing collapses thus prooving that Rudy did not enter through the front door.

 

[Wattson]

My view is, court transcripts are limited to what the prosecution and defense choose to submit. After that's been submitted, neither side gives up "the agreed script".

Quality newspaper / documentary reports add flesh to the bone, and we get an overview all the stuff that is left out.

So, you're saying that the prosecution chose to leave out evidence that would incriminate Amanda and Rafaele? Why would they do that?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Krane on the marginal utility of observing the tests

Quite often, a party refuses to attend, so that later they can then try to sabotage proceedings by claiming their expert was not there.

If it is "too short notice", he should have made an application to postpone to a more convenient date.

Vixen,

It's the other way around. For the prosecution or its supporters to argue in effect, "if you did not observe the testing, you lose the right to object to the tests," is absurd. What about experts who were not even hired by the time of the testing? I am not sure whether or not there existed the possibility of postponement, but Mr. Mellas (IIRC) said that they were only given a few hours notice, and that it is two hours just to get from Perugia to Rome.

I posed the question of whether it would be more useful to observe the testing or to have the electronic data files to Professor Dan Krane, who is head of a forensic DNA consulting firm. He responded: “Having the electronic data for review is enormously important. Having the opportunity to witness the testing of samples is of marginal utility at best. Reviews of the underlying data for DNA tests often reveals alternative interpretations of the evidence samples, especially in circumstances were small amounts of DNA are involved and it is difficult to distinguish between signal, noise, and technical artifacts. Observing testing rarely provides any more insights than what should be possible from a review of contemporaneous notes that should be part of a lab's case file. Witnessing testing is far from a cure-all. Problems such as contamination of samples can easily arise before a sample arrives in a laboratory yet could not be detected by an expert observing the testing process itself.”

ETA
Can you cite any instances where what you claim has happened quite often actually did happen?

 

[Strozzi]

This nonsense doesn't even pretend to address the issue of proof of Amanda being at the cottage at the time you stated.

You have, you said evidence that Amanda was seen leaving Raffaele's flat at 8:40, close to the time she would have met Popovich. So, you will agree with me that this is later in the timeline than the 8:18 and 8:35 entries.

Where is the evidence she was seen leaving Raffaele's flat at 8:40?

There is no evidence that Amanda was seen leaving Raffaele's flat the evening or night of the murder - no witness saying so and no video showing it - for if there were the police and Mignini the Magnificant would have produced it. False statements in the tabloids or on TJMK or by Vixen are not evidence.

Vixen, go sit under the piano again.

 

[Vixen]

? Let me put it another way in order to remove the possibility of further diversions and obfuscations:

Please cite, specifically the evidence, from its source, that Amanda was seen leaving Raffaele's flat at 8:40, which is the substantive claim you make, so we may consider it.

I already quoted Richard Owen of the TIMES 20th Nov 2007. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

 

[Dan O.]

.


8.40pm: Amanda Knox is seen leaving Raffaele Sollecito's home by a Polish student

8.43pm: CCTV shows Knox walking towards the cottage that she lived in with Kercher

9pm: Kercher leaves Purton's house after finishing the DVD, saying she is tired and going home to bed


---
A CCTV camera at the parking area above the cottage recorded the image of a female figure in a light coloured skirt, said to be Ms Knox (who owned such a skirt, now being analysed), entering the driveway of the cottage at 8.43pm. If the image is that of Ms Knox, and if the timing of Ms Kercher’s movements is correct, Ms Knox would have been inside the cottage for about half an hour by the time Ms Kercher arrived. It is not yet clear whether the surveillance cameras captured the image of any other figures arriving at the cottage.

TIMES 12.11.2007

More lies told by the Vixen.
.

 

[Kauffer]

Quite often, a party refuses to attend, so that later they can then try to sabotage proceedings by claiming their expert was not there.

If it is "too short notice", he should have made an application to postpone to a more convenient date.

All this is moot anyway. There was a requirement in law to disclose the raw data to the defence. Not only was this not done but Stefanoni wrote to the judge pleading with him not to authorise its release. Additionally, she stated that if the judge disagreed with her and ordered the release of raw data, then the defence must be constrained to use it in a manner of her choosing.

 

[Dan O.]

It has also emerged that when postal police arived at the cottage the next morning to investigate two mobile phones found in a nearby garden and found Ms Kercher’s body after breaking down her bedroom door, they also found Ms Kercher’s clothes in the washing machine. Reports said the police heard the washing machine spinning to the end of its cycle as they arrived at the cottage at 1235. They also found that the cottage - apart from Ms Kercher’s bedroom and the shared bathroom - had been “thoroughly cleaned with bleach”.

TIMES 25.11.2007 Richard Owen

What is the source of these lies that you choose to repeat?

 

[Dougm]

I already quoted Richard Owen of the TIMES 20th Nov 2007. Are you been deliberately obtuse?

THE TIMES is not evidence. His account is contradicted by court testimony. Richard Owen is the only one who has ever said this, and he was wrong.

 

[Vixen]

I am afraid you do not understand the issues pertaining to the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR. They are not what you think they are:

Firstly, fair trial rights extend before trial to procedural matters. Thus, failure to provide a lawyer, an independent interpreter, respect the right to silence of a suspect and not to have statements made in lawyerless interrogations used against you, are examples of violations of that right.

Additionally, a lack of discovery of evidence from prosecutor to defence is also an example of a violation of the right to a fair trial feeding in, under the same article, to the principle of "equality of arms" in the adversarial environment of the court room. Another potentially relevant factor in this case would be the excessive length of proceedings.

You can read more about this here:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_ENG.pdf

Merely because a trial was "very public, with hundreds of journalists" does not make it fair.

Clearer?

Your last sentence is utterly, jaw droppingly silly. Who on earth are you accusing of censoring media reports? Did they censor the Internet? My observations are that the American posters on this forum have been able to access exactly the same information as Brits like me and Italians. What evidence do you have that this is not the case? Please point to examples of censored material.

I am familiar with the EC Human Rights Act.

Censorship of the forensic evidence: Let's start with ROLLING STONE. This early article gained great popular support for Amanda, when it is complete PR fiction.


http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-neverending-nightmare-of-amanda-knox-20110627

This is the same publication who regard the Boston Bomber a cover page pin up.

 

[RoseMontague]

TIMES 12.11.2007

Completely wrong as shown by the evidence. Owen either lied or was fed lies by the cops. Why are you wasting time with this pointless drivel?

 

[Matthew Best]

Completely wrong as shown by the evidence. Owen either lied or was fed lies by the cops. Why are you wasting time with this pointless drivel?

Pointless drivel is all she has. Don't take that away from her!

 

[Kauffer]

.


8.40pm: Amanda Knox is seen leaving Raffaele Sollecito's home by a Polish student
8.43pm: CCTV shows Knox walking towards the cottage that she lived in with Kercher

9pm: Kercher leaves Purton's house after finishing the DVD, saying she is tired and going home to bed


---
A CCTV camera at the parking area above the cottage recorded the image of a female figure in a light coloured skirt, said to be Ms Knox (who owned such a skirt, now being analysed), entering the driveway of the cottage at 8.43pm. If the image is that of Ms Knox, and if the timing of Ms Kercher’s movements is correct, Ms Knox would have been inside the cottage for about half an hour by the time Ms Kercher arrived. It is not yet clear whether the surveillance cameras captured the image of any other figures arriving at the cottage.

TIMES 12.11.2007

I already quoted Richard Owen of the TIMES 20th Nov 2007. Are you been deliberately obtuse?

No, I'm not being obtuse. You're saying that the three part timeline above is Richard Owen's and not yours, is that right? You have noted a date of 12th Novenber. But you say the relevant Owen report was the 20th?

But, please show me, where, in the court record, by way of testimony or prosecutorial assertion there is any reference to any evidence relating to a witness seeing Amanda leaving Raffaele's flat at 8:40?

What was the name of the witness? When was the witness heard? What did the witness actually state?

 

[HumanityBlues]

I already quoted Richard Owen of the TIMES 20th Nov 2007. Are you been deliberately obtuse?

Well, the Times is certainly more credible than the crappy snn.bz.

 

[Dan O.]

Hold on. The time stamp for the "Amanda" figure is 8:53, meaning it was really 9:03 and so after Kercher, if I have my facts right. But the figure is walking in the opposite direction to the cottage through the car park. Interestingly, the report you quote exemplifies the error of interpretation of the CCTV time stamp and is therefore out by 20 minutes. Kercher's time stamp is two minutes earlier than the "Amanda" figure.

These times have gotten confusing due to the lies put forward by the police and the guilters. The CCTV time stamp says 20:51:36.17 for the figure crossing the street now thought to be Meredith returning home at 9 pm.

There is a different image at I believe CCTV time stamp 20:41 and therefore actually about 8:50 pm of a lady that is not Amanda that is walking into the car park that has nothing to do with this case.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Vixen]

Police beliefs are worthless. What matters is the evidence uncovered by their investigations.

A valuable investigation of a serious crime consists of thorough police work, including scrupulous gathering and analysis of physical evidence, extensive interviews with all possible associates of victims and suspects, conscientious recording of all interrogations, instant acquisition and study of all CCTV footage from the area (public and private), expert preservation and examination of all personal technology and media (laptops, cameras, email, and so on), and all the other procedures police investigators are trained to follow.

One of the most important aspects of a valuable investigation is a willingness to follow the evidence. The investigators can believe whatever they want, but they have to go wherever the evidence leads. They must not stick stubbornly to irrational beliefs unproved by evidence, much less leak a tsunami of unsupported beliefs and falsehoods to muckraking journalists, hoping to poison public opinion with their beliefs.

This really is patronising nonsense. The police's job is to investigate the crime, do detective work, gather evidence, interview witnesses and suspects, reconstruct the crime, etc.etc.

They do NOT decide the case. It is up to the prosecutor, and even then, the defense is also heard.

Your claim the multiskilled police force - many of them highly educated, highly trained graduates - are all corrupt incompetents, reveals you to be deluded.

Your arrogance is breathtaking. Either that or you are ignorant as to how the police operate.

 

[Vixen]

And take away Amanda arriving cira 8:30 due to her alibi established by the phone records and the eye witness testimony of Jovana and the whole thing collapses thus prooving that Rudy did not enter through the front door.

Serious question: did anyone ever vouch for the veracity of Popovic's claim she was there exactly at that time? (8:40.)

OK, her class finished 8:20. That sounds to me an estimate, based on what time her class finished.

Amanda answering the door could well indicate she was on her way out.

 

[Dan O.]

It was not my quote, it was a direct quote from the TIMES 12.11.2007.

You chose to quote it. That speaks to your belief.

AIUI when Raf had the 8:42 call from Dad, Amanda was not at his side.

As was Raffaele not at Amanda's side when Jovana stopped by about 8:40 after her class to say she didn't need the lift to the buss station. A smart person would notice the cooralation of the events here.

IIRC telephone records picked up Patrick's ping about not coming in, circa 8:45 near the cottage.

No.

 

[Vixen]

So, you're saying that the prosecution chose to leave out evidence that would incriminate Amanda and Rafaele? Why would they do that?

I said nothing of the sort.

What generally happens is the parties, including the court, decide at a preliminary hearing what the issues are.

The issues need to be relevant.