Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

Which professors? Careful now! There was a PHD thesis he had pulled off the internet, but professors? I'd like to see that evidence.

Where were the forensic scientist campaigners for the "worthy cause" of putting Amanda and Raffaele in jail?

Novelli.

 

[Vixen]

That's not what I asked. Do you think Rudi should get another trial?

Legally, it would be tricky, as a person cannot be tried for the same circumstances with the charges reframed. The exception would be if there was new evidence, not known of as of the time of the original trial, that Rudy was the sole perp, or perp with other unknown perps.

The only option, if it is really so "there is insufficient evidence" or even "evidence" in bad faith, would be to annul Rudy's conviction.

For example, say we charge Macca as being one of the four Beatles, the others being, Lennon, Ringo and George.

If a court declares Lennon, Ringo and George to be legally, non-Beatles, it means neither is Macca.

Say it decides the other three Beatles were Mick, Justin and Angus. It makes calling Macca a Beatle unsafe.

So you see the problem.

 

[Bill Williams]

So what, then, is the point of bringing up the washing machine? If Amanda/Raffaele or anyone else for that matter didn't use it in the wee-hours of Nov 2nd, then why is it even being brought up?

Even though I distrust your claim - given with no citation - you've just offered "evidence" against the argument you'd originally intended.

Unlike you, Bill, I don't have any particular agenda. Police ate trained to simply report objectively what they saw, what was said, the time, the appearance, etc, without ascribing any motive, value judgement or a second guess. Judges wiah that all witnesses could be similarly straightforward and let, um, the Judges be the Judge.

This is a compleat non sequitor as a response.

You said initially that police don't enter into evidence everything they find out about a case. You THEN made a point about the washing machine which completely destroyed your own argument about why the washing machine was important as evidence.

Then you make a glib comment that police are simply trained to unbiasedly report what they see at a crime-scene, contradicting an earlier contention that police filter out what they report and do not report.

So, right now it is difficult to assess what bias you actually have - other than your factoids tend to come from Peter Quennell's website and/or tabloid news reports. That seems to be your agenda - to keep in play factoids long-since debunked....

..... esp. now that the Italian judicial system has completely exonerated the two accused.

 

[Vixen]

This goes to show how much you are willing to twist the facts. First off, I thought hiring a PR firm was a great idea. But they weren't hired for the reasons you fraudulently claim.

The evidence in this case is the evidence. No PR firm would ever be able to manipulate that. At best a PR firm would be able to do is present the accurate case to journalists, but the reporters and their editorial staff will be the ones deciding their own approach to the story.

And what if the conditions are that the hack must not write anything at all that the PR agent does not approve?

You say the media ought not to influence the judiciary. Therefore, why spend hundreds of thousands on a PR agency instead of a top attorney?

 

[Numbers]

Sure. Most of my clothes would fall down if a rock landed in my bedroom. Is there any evidence of the rock hitting the wardrobe?

Re-reading Hendry's article at IIP, there is a lot of material. My statement that the rock hit the wardrobe is not exactly one of his hypotheses; rather the rock hits the inner shutter and that hits the wardrobe. Here are his hypotheses about the wardrobe and the scattered clothes:

Three non ransacking rationales can be set forth for explaining how clothing items stored in the top wardrobe shelves came to wind up on the floor. These rationales assume that Filomena had stored as much clothing as possible in the top two shelves to the point that they were way overstuffed. These rationales are;

1. If the outer top shelf door at the wall had been left open by Filomena, then the action of the rock being thrown threw the window from the outside may have induced several articles of clothing to fall from the top shelves. When the large rock impacted the inner solid wood shutter, it would have induced a strong rotation of the shutter. This rotation may have slammed the inner wood shutter into a fully opened wardrobe door and this contact may have induced a strong twisting and jostling action of the wardrobe closet to the extent that many of the overstuffed clothing items fell to the floor. The several photos of the inner solid wood shutter and the top shelf door show varying positions between the two. One position we don’t see is the inner shutter swung around to the wall until it was well out of the way. The shutter’s position in the various photographs is always such that it could have been stopped by contact with the wardrobe door.

2. When Rudy entered the room from the window, he may have stumbled on items on the floor, and to try to maintain his balance he may have reached out and grabbed hold of an open wardrobe door and jostled it such that clothing fell from the overstuffed shelves. Alternately, he may have stumbled toward the wardrobe closet and made contact with the closet such that the upper doors swung open and clothing fell from the overstuffed shelves.

3. When Rudy entered the room from the window, one of his shoes may have snagged the coaxial cable connected to the television and this exerted a notable pull on the television and wardrobe closet such that clothing fell from the overstuffed shelves. The coaxial cable has a discoloration in the locale where Rudy’s foot would have made contact. The coaxial cable does appear that it may have been snagged in that location. The television definitely appears to have been moved such that its rear is firmly in contact with and has dislocated the storage boxes.

A twisting type of jostling of the wardrobe closet would tend to induce more clothing to fall from the corners of the shelves than the center. Also the flat surface of the stored boxes, their being in contact with the TV and the coaxial cable all combined to hold them in place during any light to moderate jostling of the wardrobe closet.

Source: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry2------b.html

 

[Vixen]

The random factoid generator is back!

So - which part of the corpus of evidence did the police hold back? Did the scientific police, for instance, hold back the raw data files from their DNA investigation?

Whose side are you on?

You have no idea how the police work. They are literally teams of several hundred people. Teams of investigators (detectives) collate the evidence, scientific, eye witness, circumstantial, behaviour, etc., etc.

Hours and hours of transcribed interviews.

They have to produce a report for the prosecutors, who make the decision as to whether there is enough evidence. Producing a report, means making recommendations.

Next, a completely independent body, the judiciary, arranges hearings to appraise what the issues are, the witnesses, the jurisdictions, etc.

At any point, the emphasis can shift.

 

[Vixen]

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. First, the prosecution (not the police) uses everything that may help prove its case. The idea that Mignini decided to go easy on the bleach receipts, for example, is simply laughable. Do you really believe he refrained from using the best evidence he had of a clean up? Seriously? That he preferred garbage like Curatolo? Hahahahahahaha!!!

You have spent way to long over at TJMK. This sort of idiotic pronouncement on matters of which you know nothing is par for the course there. Same with your ludicrous ad hom against Peter Gill. Have a little humility.

I heard Dr Gill on the radio recently, and he mistakenly thought he was speaking on behalf of the defense when he explained why the so-called "semen stain" could and should not be tested. Oops!

 

[Bill Williams]

You have no idea how the police work. They are literally teams of several hundred people. Teams of investigators (detectives) collate the evidence, scientific, eye witness, circumstantial, behaviour, etc., etc.

Hours and hours of transcribed interviews.

They have to produce a report for the prosecutors, who make the decision as to whether there is enough evidence. Producing a report, means making recommendations.

Next, a completely independent body, the judiciary, arranges hearings to appraise what the issues are, the witnesses, the jurisdictions, etc.

At any point, the emphasis can shift.

You mean like Italy's highest court declaring the two factually innocent on March 27, 2015?

 

[acbytesla]

No, these are just the ones who have put themselves forward as campaigners. They see themselves as championing a worthy cause. The "baaad cops vs two sweet kids", etc.

In the UK we had Prime Minister Tony Bliar getting professors to write papers in support of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraw.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Dancing around the facts again? This reeks of not having an answer. Peter Gill wasn't paid by Knox or Sollecito.He stepped forward because he was protecting the science of DNA profiling. He wants the science to be used correctly and not misused as Stefanoni was doing.

The fact is that Proffesor Gill's work is peer reviewed. He isn't a charlatan pushing the Iraq war, or denying global warming or promoting creation science. He has an unimpeachable reputation and it is sad that you would even consider attacking his integrity without the facts to support such a silly contention.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

been there, done that

I heard Dr Gill on the radio recently, and he mistakenly thought he was speaking on behalf of the defense when he explained why the so-called "semen stain" could and should not be tested. Oops!

Vixen,

Obviously you misunderstood what you heard. Please cite the relevant passage and we will go through it again.

 

[Vixen]

Dr. Peter Gill, a renown British scientist, has reviewed the forensic evidence in this case and written and spoken scathingly about the errors, false analysis, and evidence suppression committed by Dr. Stefanini and her colleages. Gill does not work for the defense. Gill has never been paid for his work or views.

Vixen, are you aware that prosecution experts Pietro Boemia and Dr. Lorenzo Rinaldi, a physicist who worked for the Polizia Scientifica in Rome, analyzed the bathmat partial-footprint without ever seeing the bathmat?
Ronaldo was paid over $7,000 dollars (additional) by the prosecution to serve as their paid expert while working as a police lab scientist for the forensic police.

They never saw the bathmat. They constructed (fabricated) their conclusion that the partial footprint in watered-down blood on the knobby bathmat was Raffaele' without ever seeing the bathmat. They looked at photos, as if the bathmat gave a fingerprint, which it did not. They grossly mismeasured the partial-footprint smear to try to make it fit the known dimensions of Raffaele's foot. Raffaele has a unique hammer-toe which is not shown on the footprint smear.

Boemia and Rinaldi based their conclusions on image analysis. Boemia admitted under cross-examination that he didn’t know where the photos came from or what type of camera took the photos.

Heheh, not like Ronaldo to get out of bed for less than $7m!

AFAIAA Rinaldi and Boemia are experts who have analysed hundreds of footprints and are professionally trained to be objective.

Are you seriously saying the two Italians were eager to incriminate one of their own, instead of the African ragazzo? Really?

 

[acbytesla]

I heard Dr Gill on the radio recently, and he mistakenly thought he was speaking on behalf of the defense when he explained why the so-called "semen stain" could and should not be tested. Oops!

Provide a citation please. Because I'm confident that he said the opposite. That what he said was there was no credible reason that the semen stain wasn't tested given the nature of the crime.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, why didn't Filomena call the police to report the broken window break-in as soon as she got off the call with Amanda? She called a lawyer, but didn't dial the police. She speaks Italian better than the American, right?

I think the reason Filomena called a lawyer and rushed into her room as soon as the postal police was preoccupied elsewhere was to check for and recover her drug stash before the police found it.

Well it wouldn't do for a lawyer to have a criminal conviction, eh?

 

[Kauffer]

And what if the conditions are that the hack must not write anything at all that the PR agent does not approve?

You say the media ought not to influence the judiciary. Therefore, why spend hundreds of thousands on a PR agency instead of a top attorney?

Amanda's agency was actually hired to provide advice on reputation management given that she was being trashed in the press by ill informed speculation and mendacious leaks. The agency was not hired to tell interviewers what to write nor to censor material, which you have also claimed before and which is ludicrous. If any journalist had been treated like that, then that would have been the story.

Guardian journalist Simon Hattenstone actually commented on these claims and made clear that he had no contact with any agency, was not prevented from asking any question he wanted or writing what he liked. Nor did Amanda have any handier present.

 

[Vixen]

I love bald assertions without any evidence supporting them.

Res ipsa loquitor from their own mouths.

 

[Grinder]

Legally, it would be tricky, as a person cannot be tried for the same circumstances with the charges reframed. The exception would be if there was new evidence, not known of as of the time of the original trial, that Rudy was the sole perp, or perp with other unknown perps.

The only option, if it is really so "there is insufficient evidence" or even "evidence" in bad faith, would be to annul Rudy's conviction.

For example, say we charge Macca as being one of the four Beatles, the others being, Lennon, Ringo and George.

If a court declares Lennon, Ringo and George to be legally, non-Beatles, it means neither is Macca.

Say it decides the other three Beatles were Mick, Justin and Angus. It makes calling Macca a Beatle unsafe.

So you see the problem.

With whom Rudi did the crime makes no difference. The Beattle example is lame and doesn't work. If Paul is accused of being a Beatle and the others are John, Ringo and George it doesn't change the facts that convicted Paul of being a Beatle even if the prosecutor got the other three wrong.

Now if the three had been convicted during the same trial and there were irregularities that would be different.

As has been pointed out about a million times, the Rudi fast track trial had no one arguing there were no others involved. Both the prosecution benefited from multiple perps.

AFAIK neither Amanda nor Raf was convicted in Rudi's trial. I still think Koko was with him.

 

[Kauffer]

Heheh, not like Ronaldo to get out of bed for less than $7m!

AFAIAA Rinaldi and Boemia are experts who have analysed hundreds of footprints and are professionally trained to be objective.

Are you seriously saying the two Italians were eager to incriminate one of their own, instead of the African ragazzo? Really?

What is being suggested, vixen, is that your attitude to any expert in this case is conditioned by whether or not they are testifying for or against guilt or innocence.

So, Rinaldi who works for the prosecution and gets paid is ok because Rinaldi is 'trained to be objective'. But those who work for the defence are not, it would seem. Just your usual nonsense.

 

[Vixen]

I would think the best way to stage a burglary to look like a real burglary would be to burgle something obvious.

A real burglar might have something specific in mind that is not in plain sight like jewelry, guns, drugs, or cash.

Professional burglars don't tend to target student residences as the occupants tend to be (a) transitory and thus, don't invest in silverware and Picassos (b) quite hard up.

I always had my car broken into whenever I parked in the one area there were no parking restrictions. The police told me this type of thief was almost always a drug addict. They see a carrier bag in your car and they are so desperate, they'll smash and grab for it.

If the cottage was really burgled, it was probably a druggie.

 

[Vixen]

It's not? How can you manage such a glib, superficial post?

Have you read Raffaele's book? Have you read any of Raffaele's appeals' to the various courts since 2011?

Yes, and he has never retracted his early statement he "could not be sure" (read, "no") Amanda was with him between 8:45 and 1:00. He's called press conferences to say so.

 

[Vixen]

Except that, if he were involved, he knew some things had been stolen. Don't you think it would have occurred to them to steal something besides Meredith's stuff if ransacking Filomena's room? Or is that just another of their glaring blunders IYO?

Don't forget, the police turned up unexpectedly.

Perhaps in the aftermath the perps responsible for the staging forgot to remove something obvious.