Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Nothing about the washing machine? I was hoping at least for some developments on the evil conspiracy to remove all mentions of this serious evidence from the trial transcripts and Massei...

You have been given citations. However, you prefer to be in denial. <shrug>

Not my problem. You have access to the same resources as me.

 

[Katody Matrass]

You have been given citations. However, you prefer to be in denial. <shrug>

Not my problem. You have access to the same ressources as me.

You never gave a quote from the trial transcripts. Just as you say: you have access to them but you adamantly refuse to read them in preference of outdated yellow journalism.

Can't wait to hear your theory about who started the washing machine. You said cryptically it wasn't Knox. Well, who if not her?

 

[Vixen]

Vixen,

Mixed DNA can come from anything, not just blood, and it can be deposited at any time, not just simultaneously. I can think of two examples offhand where the mixed DNA has been found that could not possibly have been deposited at the same time. One comes from DNA profiling that involves forensic work done in mortuaries, and the other comes from a study of DNA and bedding. Link to my discussion of mixed DNA here.

If we take the safe premise Mez' blood comes directly from her murder, then other then wet fluid mixed in with it, to produce a mixed DNA result, shows that both parties had been in contact - or at least their bodily fluids - within apx 20" of each other.

Amanda testified to Mignini, there had been no blood there the day before.

Please declare your conflict of interest, Chris, that prevents you giving any support to the prosecution, as a paid up member of the defense team.

Your opinion needs to be seen in context, of someone who has a vested interest in denying mixed DNA is relevant.

 

[Kauffer]

Somebody here - it might even have been your own good self - posted a photo of Laura's room, which Amanda confirms herself to Mignini, was "ajar". In this picture, Laura's drawer is hanging out.

Therefore, being a small apartment, Amanda cannot failed to have seen it.

As you saw in Raf's private Prison Diary, which was sequestered by the prosecution, he clearly affirms, "Molly's door was wide open".

You're missing the point and not for the first time. And you're doing it by ignoring mine.

You have to explain things in the context of the facts that objectively are known to exist.

Either Amanda is guilty of murder and staging a break in or she is innocent. If she is guilty, it is erroneous to discuss Amanda discovering the breakin at any time, because she would have staged it or at least had guilty knowledge of its having been staged. There would be no question of a guilty Amanda discovering anything, so all these ruminations about whether Romanelli's door was open or not are quite irrelevant.

Your contention is, or must be, even if you don't realise it, that a guilty Amanda, in full knowledge of everything murder related, including the break in and including the body, leaves her flat having just spent approximately four hours selectively cleaning it of evidence of her presence (Raffaele's too), but fails to clean the the bathroom and fails to dispose of the bathmat.

Then, with nobody knowing she is there except her co-conspirator Raffaele (Guede is long gone) and wanting to delay as long as possible the discovery of the crime, she leaves the flat and instead of simply slipping away unnoticed, immediately phones Romanelli to report 1) That she found the front door open 2) Blood in the bathroom 3) Feces in her toilet! She tells Romanelli these three things, but nothing else. Why? What can she possibly gain from this partial revelation? She has now succeeded in putting Romanelli on alert and cannot possibly predict what she might do. Romanelli could easily and reasonably be expected to a) Drive home immediately b) Call the police immediately. In any case, Amanda has placed herself at the crime scene and whatever else might happen, she knows it will be discovered and she will be identified as the first person en scene. And since, in this scenario, Amanda is guilty, then she will know that she must be a suspect.

So, leaving aside the fact that we know Amanda was aware of the evidence in the bathroom but did nothing about it, even though she could have, why did she contact Romanelli and not simply stay quiet and go back to pick up Raffaele and drive to Gubbio?

 

[Vixen]

You never gave a quote from the trial transcripts. Just as you say: you have access to them but you adamantly refuse to read them in preference of outdated yellow journalism.

Can't wait to hear your theory about who started the washing machine. You said cryptically it wasn't Knox. Well, who if not her?

I do not speak Italian. Only some of the testimony has been translated. I trust my sources, of which there are at least four, who have no motive to make it up.

I did not say it was not Knox.

I stated, it was reported by police who arrived at the scene, the washing machine cycle was just finishing.

You have added your own conclusion. Don't put words into my mouth.

 

[Kauffer]

Hampikan is on the defense pay roll. Of course, he will report whatever his paymasters want him to report. Sadly, this compromises his scientific ethics.

Someone claiming to be an academic, immediately becomes an agent of anyone who sponsors him to write a report.

We have pro-smoking or pro-sugar "expert" witnesses writing reports in support of their pay masters, the tobacco industry or the sugar industry, for example.

IMV it is a form of intellectual prostitution.

In my profession it would be seen as a breach of profession ethics to be bought off.

You do realise don't you that Hampikian's involvement in the case originated in the UK! He was here attending a conference and was alerted to the case by a fellow (I think British) scientist. In any case, he contacted the defence, not the other way round. Yet you are trying to suggest he was a gun for hire. It's not true.

I am not aware of, though I suppose it might be possible, that the Knox defence paid Hampikian's for his work. Do you have evidence of a financial arrangement?

 

[Dan O.]

Why did Filomena not call the police? She was a native Italian speaker, her room had been broken into, she was 'in charge' of the flat, she was a trainee lawyer. Instead she decided to come over and remove property from the crime scene? Now that is suspicious behaviour.

According to her testimony, Filomena told Amanda to "call the police, call the fire department, call everybody!" and then she calmly drove on to the fair with her friends.

It is only after the 12:34:56 call back to Amanda when she learns that her window has been broken and her room is turned upside down that she leaves the fair and heads to the cottage. It is at this time that she calls her boyfriend Marco: "Marco please rush home, you go to see what Happened, call the Police. However, there is Amanda and help her, ". Note the order of the command: "go see what happened" then "call the police". Filomena doesn't call the police herself based on what Amanda has conveyed to her and doesn't believe she has conveyed to Amanda that the police need to be called.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I do not speak Italian. Only some of the testimony has been translated. I trust my sources, of which there are at least four, who have no motive to make it up.

I did not say it was not Knox.

I stated, it was reported by police who arrived at the scene, the washing machine cycle was just finishing.

You have added your own conclusion. Don't put words into my mouth.

Your yellow sources are wrong. Nobody testified that the washing machine was running or warm. You would know that if you'd even bother to read the court documents that have been translated. It's clear to me that you never did.

That's the problem. You cannot arrive at an informed opinion by reading only tabloid reporting and nutty websites.

 

[Kauffer]

I do not speak Italian. Only some of the testimony has been translated. I trust my sources, of which there are at least four, who have no motive to make it up.

I did not say it was not Knox.

I stated, it was reported by police who arrived at the scene, the washing machine cycle was just finishing.

You have added your own conclusion. Don't put words into my mouth.

Huh? Four sources that show the postale police heard the washing machine running? Which four? Just name the sources, if you can't post the evidence!

1) TJMK
2) ?
3) ?
4) ?

 

[Vixen]

You're missing the point and not for the first time. And you're doing it by ignoring mine.

You have to explain things in the context of the facts that objectively are known to exist.

Either Amanda is guilty of murder and staging a break in or she is innocent. If she is guilty, it is erroneous to discuss Amanda discovering the breakin at any time, because she would have staged it or at least had guilty knowledge of its having been staged. There would be no question of a guilty Amanda discovering anything, so all these ruminations about whether Romanelli's door was open or not are quite irrelevant.

Your contention is, or must be, even if you don't realise it, that a guilty Amanda, in full knowledge of everything murder related, including the break in and including the body, leaves her flat having just spent approximately four hours selectively cleaning it of evidence of her presence (Raffaele's too), but fails to clean the the bathroom and fails to dispose of the bathmat.

Then, with nobody knowing she is there except her co-conspirator Raffaele (Guede is long gone) and wanting to delay as long as possible the discovery of the crime, she leaves the flat and instead of simply slipping away unnoticed, immediately phones Romanelli to report 1) That she found the front door open 2) Blood in the bathroom 3) Feces in her toilet! She tells Romanelli these three things, but nothing else. Why? What can she possibly gain from this partial revelation? She has now succeeded in putting Romanelli on alert and cannot possibly predict what she might do. Romanelli could easily and reasonably be expected to a) Drive home immediately b) Call the police immediately. In any case, Amanda has placed herself at the crime scene and whatever else might happen, she knows it will be discovered and she will be identified as the first person en scene. And since, in this scenario, Amanda is guilty, then she will know that she must be a suspect.

So, leaving aside the fact that we know Amanda was aware of the evidence in the bathroom but did nothing about it, even though she could have, why did she contact Romanelli and not simply stay quiet and go back to pick up Raffaele and drive to Gubbio?

We have already gone through all of this. There is nothing to be gained by my explaining the issues all over again.

Massei provides a good summary, in case you are still puzzled.

 

[Vixen]

You do realise don't you that Hampikian's involvement in the case originated in the UK! He was here attending a conference and was alerted to the case by a fellow (I think British) scientist. In any case, he contacted the defence, not the other way round. Yet you are trying to suggest he was a gun for hire. It's not true.

I am not aware of, though I suppose it might be possible, that the Knox defence paid Hampikian's for his work. Do you have evidence of a financial arrangement?

No, I don't. That's why I asked Chris to declare his conflict of interest.

 

[LondonJohn]

You do realise don't you that Hampikian's involvement in the case originated in the UK! He was here attending a conference and was alerted to the case by a fellow (I think British) scientist. In any case, he contacted the defence, not the other way round. Yet you are trying to suggest he was a gun for hire. It's not true.

I am not aware of, though I suppose it might be possible, that the Knox defence paid Hampikian's for his work. Do you have evidence of a financial arrangement?

Nope. As usual, it's no more than a lazy supposition that any expert supporting the defence is probably prostituting themselves (and risking their scientific credibility - and in some cases their entire professional standing) by saying things they don't really think are true in return for remuneration (whether financial or fame-related).

If Vixen cared to dig a little deeper (which I'm going to guess won't be happening), she would soon - and easily - see that in every scientific area related to this case (most particularly DNA and forensic crime scene analysis), the weight of experts supporting the defence side - or severely criticising the prosecution and its experts - massively massively outweighs those who support the defence case. And that extends way beyond any experts who actually were retained by the defence.

Having paid it sufficient due, I conclude that I find Vixen's entire position to be intellectually dishonest, and I do not care to engage with intellectually-dishonest "arguments". Others must make their own choice on whether or not to do so, of course.

 

[Vixen]

According to her testimony, Filomena told Amanda to "call the police, call the fire department, call everybody!" and then she calmly drove on to the fair with her friends.

It is only after the 12:34:56 call back to Amanda when she learns that her window has been broken and her room is turned upside down that she leaves the fair and heads to the cottage. It is at this time that she calls her boyfriend Marco: "Marco please rush home, you go to see what Happened, call the Police. However, there is Amanda and help her, ". Note the order of the command: "go see what happened" then "call the police". Filomena doesn't call the police herself based on what Amanda has conveyed to her and doesn't believe she has conveyed to Amanda that the police need to be called.

Why would Filomena in her wildest nightmares imagine Mez' body was lying behind a locked door in her apartment. It is not rational.

 

[Bill Williams]

We have already gone through all of this. There is nothing to be gained by my explaining the issues all over again.

Massei provides a good summary, in case you are still puzzled.

This is remarkably ignorant of what Massei says. No wonder you do not, in support of your claims, provide a cite within the Massei motivations report.

No matter. Everything Massei had to say is annuled. It was annuled in effect, if not in law,with the March 27 exonerations of Knox and Sollecito.

 

[Vixen]

Your yellow sources are wrong. Nobody testified that the washing machine was running or warm. You would know that if you'd even bother to read the court documents that have been translated. It's clear to me that you never did.

That's the problem. You cannot arrive at an informed opinion by reading only tabloid reporting and nutty websites.

All I said was it was informative to read the earliest reports of incidents, before details got airbrushed out. It is an objective fact newspapers reported the washing machine.

You may believe history can be rewritten. That's your prerogative.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is remarkably ignorant of what Massei says. No wonder you do not, in support of your claims, provide a cite within the Massei motivations report.

No matter. Everything Massei had to say is annuled. It was annuled in effect, if not in law,with the March 27 exonerations of Knox and Sollecito.

It was annulled in law as well, as regards the murder charges (but not the criminal slander charge)

 

[Vixen]

Huh? Four sources that show the postale police heard the washing machine running? Which four? Just name the sources, if you can't post the evidence!

1) TJMK
2) ?
3) ?
4) ?

TIMES, GUARDIAN Filomena's testimony.

 

[Vixen]

Nope. As usual, it's no more than a lazy supposition that any expert supporting the defence is probably prostituting themselves (and risking their scientific credibility - and in some cases their entire professional standing) by saying things they don't really think are true in return for remuneration (whether financial or fame-related).

If Vixen cared to dig a little deeper (which I'm going to guess won't be happening), she would soon - and easily - see that in every scientific area related to this case (most particularly DNA and forensic crime scene analysis), the weight of experts supporting the defence side - or severely criticising the prosecution and its experts - massively massively outweighs those who support the defence case. And that extends way beyond any experts who actually were retained by the defence.

Having paid it sufficient due, I conclude that I find Vixen's entire position to be intellectually dishonest, and I do not care to engage with intellectually-dishonest "arguments". Others must make their own choice on whether or not to do so, of course.

Lmao. If Bill says so, it must be true!

 

[Bill Williams]

Huh? Four sources that show the postale police heard the washing machine running? Which four? Just name the sources, if you can't post the evidence!

1) TJMK
2) ?
3) ?
4) ?

1) TJMK
2) Peter Quennell
3) PQ's hundreds of lawyers
4) a UK tabloid

 

[Katody Matrass]

Why would Filomena in her wildest nightmares imagine Mez' body was lying behind a locked door in her apartment. It is not rational.

She just learned that Meredith is nowhere to be found, there are strange things in the house including open front door and blood. She even checked that Meredith really is unreachable by calling her. Nonetheless she didn't bother for another hour or so to show up at the cottage, she also never attempted to call the police, instead after another long while she asked her flat mate who didn't speak Italian to do this. How strange.