Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

Nope to cassation annulling the calunnia conviction in June, or to laughing it up? Or neither, or both?

Nope to the annulment. They announced their decision. The rest is wishful thinking.

 

[Grinder]

Where is the facepalm emot when it's needed?
This one must do.

Perfect for an Italian discussion.

 

[Vixen]

Once again, the Original Calunnia case was not before the Marasca court! Only Nencini's aggravation, which they dismissed. I have visions of silly guilters going around the place claiming that Marasca's decision was in some sense supportive of a pro guilt position. It wasn't. The ISC did not confirm calunnia twice.

Furthermore, no, it does not have to be a pardon. It won't be a pardon. Calunnia will be thrown out after the finding of an art 6 violation.

Are you sure it was not appealed against? If not, then it stands anyway.

 

[Kauffer]

You recall police originally identified the shoeprints as Raf's, in particular, because there was a specific star shaped deformity on the heel (?) which matched his.

As you know, Dad Raf moved heaven and earth to match it with a brand that matched a shoebox in Rudy's apartment. At the trial, the court allowed him that point that the footprints were Rudy's not Raf's.

Now consider this. The court conceded this point on the basis there was plenty more evidence of Raf's presence anyway, and it was established Rudy was there anyway.

What if they were Raf's shoeprints all along?

After all, he did soak his daps in bleach immediately after the crime. In addition, he told police, "The person who committed the murder, must have stolen my trainers."

This is nonsense and not related to my questions anyway. Not only are the bloody shoe prints found at the apartment not Raffaele's, he didn't clean his trainers with bleach either. Moreover, the identification of the shoe prints as Guede's and not Raffaele's was not predicated on there being other evidence against Raffaele. It was based on the fact that they were not his prints.

All that aside, my point is that the evidence necessary to show the movement of the lamp from Amanda's room to Kercher's room is not there. It is not covered by the shoe prints we already know about and which belong to Guede. There would be a different set of bloody prints.

 

[Grinder]

Not necessarily. DNA can last infinitely. How do you think they identified King Richard III, recently?

OTOH It can breakdown very quickly in other instances.

Not necessarily what? You said DNA breaks down fast not me. I merely pointed out that if Rudi's went bad in mere hours or a few days that wouldn't bode well for a clasp left for almost two months.

The idea the blood found on the window had broken down is ridiculous. The "DNA" wasn't recovered for 5 days and was washed clean yet the DNA survived.

I would say the very first test should have been the blood on the window.

 

[Kauffer]

Are you sure it was not appealed against? If not, then it stands anyway.

It was not appealable! Chiefi finalised it, but sent the aggravation, which Hellmann denied, back to Nencini.

So, do be clear about this. Marasca's court said nothing about the calunnia conviction. It did not uphold it.

 

[Vixen]

Not necessarily what? You said DNA breaks down fast not me. I merely pointed out that if Rudi's went bad in mere hours or a few days that wouldn't bode well for a clasp left for almost two months.

The idea the blood found on the window had broken down is ridiculous. The "DNA" wasn't recovered for 5 days and was washed clean yet the DNA survived.

I would say the very first test should have been the blood on the window.

Grinder, respectfully, watch my lips. Sometimes you can find DNA, sometimes you can't. For example, some kinds of bacteria break it down.

Clear now?

 

[Kauffer]

Grinder, respectfully, watch my lips. Sometimes you can find DNA, sometimes you can't. For example, some kinds of bacteria break it down.

Clear now?

He is clear. They didn't find it in the faeces, but they found it on the toilet paper. But weren't you arguing something different? That DNA from blood or semen would rot? How does it affect an analysis of the case?

 

[Dan O.]

It was Strozzi, I was replying to.

But otherwise, I agree with you. I think Occam's razor is the right approach to take.

It does however depend on why you are doing it. Occam"s razor is the right tool for choosing a representative explanation. In court however, as Chris points out, you cannot just say guilty because that is the simplest explanation, you have to actually rule out the innocent explanations. In other applications you may need to set up a Baysian network to derive the probabilities of each path.

 

[Samzilla]

So what does a guilt believer think of rudy's involvement?

-was he there on a date with meredith?
-did he break in at what happened to be the worst possible time?
-did he come along with amanda and raffaele?

 

[acbytesla]

Not necessarily what? You said DNA breaks down fast not me. I merely pointed out that if Rudi's went bad in mere hours or a few days that wouldn't bode well for a clasp left for almost two months.

The idea the blood found on the window had broken down is ridiculous. The "DNA" wasn't recovered for 5 days and was washed clean yet the DNA survived.

I would say the very first test should have been the blood on the window.

It's too bad Chris isn't around. I'd bet he would reference some stufdy. My bet is that under the right or wrong conditions DNA might deteriorate in hours, maybe even minutes and in different conditions last thousands of years. I'm sure light, oxygen or countless other elements as well,as other organic material would be contributing factors.

 

[carbonjam72]

Here...

Mucho Grazias.

 

[carbonjam72]

It's interesting that we still have not been able to read a transcript of Rudy Guede's 1st Interrogation,
taken on Dec. 7, 2007 with PM Mignini, Judge Claudia Matteini, and others present.

This Interrogation surley must have been recorded and transcribed.

This, and Rudy's Skype calls and his Interrogation with German Police when busted on the run
would give us a much clearer picture of what Mig +buddies got Guid-o to say in those later 2 interrogations, I'd bet...

Heck they chatted for something like 7 hours.
Rudy's lawyer was present, so I hope that he was given tea and snacks too,
and was able to use the restroom for ah, what does Vixen call 'em?
Oh ya, comfort breaks...

RW

Didn't Rudy's lawyer Biscotti come out of that Dec 7, 2007 interview and say that Rudy Guede didn't name anyone else as an accomplice, because there was no one to name?

I do wonder if he repeated his earlier statement that amanda wasn't there? I also wonder if the prosecution or even Biscotti has any kind of legal or moral obligation to disclose that full interview statement to the defense teams.

 

[carbonjam72]

That's consistent with an art 630 review of trial or revision. It's not the same as the ISC throwing out sua sponte a finalised verdict. This is the same mechanism Amanda will likely use. The difference is the cause. Until recently it was not possible to obtain a review of trial in Italy following an ECHR ruling. It was restricted to cases in which new evidence was found. Indeed it is theoretically possible for the heirs of a decreased criminal to pursue a review of the dead man's trial years later.

Could a new finding of a judicial truth in cassation's motivation report, satisfy the condition for "new evidence". Is a newly reached "judicial truth", conceivably "new evidence"?

I really think you're being way too literal in trying to read the latitude an Italian court may take, and certainly this court in this case.

You know there's fake mason police running around in California, one of whom was an aide to the state's attorney general? Mach may be onto something.

Call it a friendly bet, or feel free to buy me a beer when it happens. Thus have I throd today.

 

[acbytesla]

It does however depend on why you are doing it. Occam"s razor is the right tool for choosing a representative explanation. In court however, as Chris points out, you cannot just say guilty because that is the simplest explanation, you have to actually rule out the innocent explanations. In other applications you may need to set up a Baysian network to derive the probabilities of each path.

Of course it does. Occam's razor says "all things being equal that usually the simplest is right. "usually". I think the other application that needs to be made is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Obviously.

 

[Samson]

Didn't Rudy's lawyer Biscotti come out of that Dec 7, 2007 interview and say that Rudy Guede didn't name anyone else as an accomplice, because there was no one to name?

I do wonder if he repeated his earlier statement that amanda wasn't there? I also wonder if the prosecution or even Biscotti has any kind of legal or moral obligation to disclose that full interview statement to the defense teams.

Was the interview not 7 hours during which Mignini failed to persuade Rudy to name the young woman the motivations report would eventually declare he watched plunge the knife?
They should have been released immediately, and from this point on, Mignini should have gone from doubting he was on the right track, to knowing he had two innocents in jail and was in full career saving mode. Remarkable he could sustain the hoax for a further seven and a half years. Still, it worked for an army of fools.

 

[Desert Fox]

Of course it does. Occam's razor says "all things being equal that usually the simplest is right. "usually". I think the other application that needs to be made is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Obviously.

"Simplest" is not the best term
"Least number of new assumptions" is far better.

 

[Kauffer]

Could a new finding of a judicial truth in cassation's motivation report, satisfy the condition for "new evidence". Is a newly reached "judicial truth", conceivably "new evidence"?

I really think you're being way too literal in trying to read the latitude an Italian court may take, and certainly this court in this case.

You know there's fake mason police running around in California, one of whom was an aide to the state's attorney general? Mach may be onto something.

Call it a friendly bet, or feel free to buy me a beer when it happens. Thus have I throd today.

I shall buy you champagne and lobster if it happens! Let it be witnessed. When you throd, I answered - and answered with vigour.

 

[carbonjam72]

Greetings,
Since Vixen has not yet come back,
with a linked quote for me of Raff hangin'+partyin' with his brother-in-law(?) on Halloween night,
well I'd like to bring up something that bothers me still.

Here is the bedroom door of Meredith's after being broken into:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1240&pictureid=9793[/qimg]

This was the only door,
of the 4 young women living upstairs,
that was found locked on the afternoon of Nov. 2, 2007.

It had to be broken in to.

Below,
this is Meredith's boyfriend Giacomo's door:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1240&pictureid=9792[/qimg]

It too was the only locked bedroom door video'd of the 4 young men living downstairs.

It also was broken in to.
(By whom?)

This photo shows his bed,
with clothes on it, strewn about:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1240&pictureid=9791[/qimg]

IIRC, some sandals, possibly wet, were found nearby on the floor there,
as were also 2 different bloody lines found nearby too on his bedroom floor.

Here's 1 of these lines,
a screen grab from the Crime Scene videos,
+ I drew an outline, in red, near it to highlight it:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1240&pictureid=9795[/qimg]

In response to a post, Diocletus previously wrote back,
IIRC, that he thinks the lines are from watery, bloody clothing that Rudy
probably took off downstairs after the murder before changing into fresh clean clothes
and leaving the student's flat.

I was recently thinking about those lines on the floor.
IF from watered down blood,
shouldn't there be watered down blood pool swirls,
dried + puddled, found near these lines?


For some reason,
I still wonder if "poor Rudy" was in,
(as N. Burleigh writes of him having) 1 of his fugue states of mind,
if + when he went downstairs after he murdered + raped Meredith.
Maybe he drew the lines on the floor, in Meredith's blood, for some tripped-out reason?


It is really odd that only Meredith,
and her new boyfriend, Giacomo,
each had only their room bedroom doors locked.

No one else.
Not Filomena, Laura or Amanda.
Nor Stefano, or Ricardo + Marco.

Weird too,
is that when looking for info on any of the housemates interrogations,
I found that Giacomo was only interviewed once on Nov. 2,007.

But Marco and Ricardo,
2 of the other downstairs flatmates,
were interviewed twice, on Nov. 2nd + 3rd.

But their bro Stefano,
the dude whose room has blood on it's bed
and also what looks like a bloodied knife handle imprint on his bed,
is interviewed for deposition on Nov. 2, 3, + 4 of 2007.
The cops were quizzing Stefano...

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/witness-depositions/

It's too bad the depositions are in Italian, still.

I really, really want to read if the cops were asking of Stefano:
"Did you leave for Holiday with your bed un-made + with cats blood drops on it and your comforter?"

Did Giacomo lawyer up immediately?

I'd luv to ask Giacomo this:
"Did you leave for Holiday with clothes strewn upon your bed,
and also lock your bedroom door before you gave your girl Meredith you keys + split town?"

And I'd like to know if any of the boyz downstairs saw Rudy Guede before bailing town
and made mention that they would be out of town for the long Holiday weekend:
RG-"Hey bro, what are you doin' this weekend?"
SB or GS-"Oh, I just gotta visit the relatives in the Marche. You?"
RG-"Oh, just gonna hang here around town"...

About the red lines on the floor, iirc werent police using red crayon to circle blood drops and other evidence to make it easy for techs to find and sample?

As to two locked doors , I think we agree Rudy locked kercher 'a door to delay discovery of body. And boy friend downstairs was growing pot, didn't cops kick in his door?

Your research is always impressive. You still think Rudy had accomplices in kercher crime?

 

[acbytesla]

"Simplest" is not the best term
"Least number of new assumptions" is far better.

Hey, I didn't write it, I'm just quoting it.