Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Strozzi]

No, the hair found gripped in Mez' hand was a long blond one. There is a photo in police archives, but the hair itself was lost.

Vixen, how was the hair lost? Did the police initially collect it and then lose it, or after photographing it in situ did the police forensic officer fail to collect it?

ETA: What color was the cat? Was it a long-hair cat or a short-hair cat?

 

[davefoc]

I wouldn't count on it. She said she would get back to me about the flaw in her logic about the distribution of DNA. This was pointed out to her yesterday and it is obvious. I asked her about it again this morning. But she hasn't got back to me.
...

You weren't the only one to notice this.

 

[Samzilla]

It's interesting that Nick vdl is exploiting the Meredith Kercher case, and spreading falsehoods about Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, who were finally acquitted of her murder, to make a living by writing crap books. This is especially of interest because Vixen on ISF has stated that the many independent scientific and technical experts, such as Professor Gill, who have publicly taken expert positions contradicting the prosecution, have done so for financial motives rather than for upholding truthful science. Of course, the true motivation of the experts is to maintain the integrity of their field.

Those who write crap books full of falsehoods and their associates may not understand or agree with any concept of integrity or truth.

Seriously.

Nick Van Der Leek makes money by writing pro-guilt schlock and he's doing it because his values are fair and true and he has no bias.

Peter Gill calls the DNA evidence shoddy and he's a corrupt shill for the defense.

 

[davefoc]

Vixen, how was the hair lost? Did the police initially collect it and then lose it, or after photographing it did the police forensic officer fail to collect it?

And could we see this photograph? And what possible probative value does a photograph of a hair have that has had no forensic testing done on it and is not listed in any official document as evidence? Is this fact as made up as the ridiculous, libelous murder scenario that was quoted up thread? Is Vixen quoting excerpts from a work of fiction as evidence against AK/RS?

Is this so-called evidence as unreliable as the bleach receipt evidence or the shoe soaked in bleach evidence or the Harry Potter book location evidence or the police got to the cottage before AK/RS had called the police claim?

 

[RoseMontague]

And could we see this photograph? And what possible probative value does a photograph of a hair have that has had no forensic testing done on it and is not listed in any official document as evidence? Is this fact as made up as the ridiculous, libelous murder scenario that was quoted up thread? Is Vixen quoting excerpts from a work of fiction as evidence against AK/RS?

Is this so-called evidence as unreliable as the bleach receipt evidence or the shoe soaked in bleach evidence or the Harry Potter book location evidence or the police got to the cottage before AK/RS had called the police claim?

The photograph has been out there for awhile. Going by memory, where the light shining on it hits it, the hair appears light colored, where the light does not hit it, the hair appears to be brown. I doubt it's even a blonde hair.

 

[RoseMontague]

Vixen's possible connection to Van Der Leek's book would explain her extrapolation regarding the blonde hair on Meredith's bag. It isn't mentioned anywhere else that I can find. TJMK (Peter Quennell) reported on it thus (this is the reference Vixen used earlier about the hair question):

Area 12: Hairs
Dr. Stefanoni Genetic Test, SAL report, Dr. Stefanoni slide presentation
<snip>
12-06 Of the 6 blonde hairs found at the cottage, 2 were on the duvet, 1 was inside the small bathroom sink, 1 was on Ms. Kercher’s purse and 1 was on her mattress cover."
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index....encelist/C770/

Nothing about it being long, or about the bag being open, or about Raffaele placing it there.

Van Der Leek seems to be the one who created and conveyed much of the false information about the case that has been presented here in the past month or so. That coincides approximately with the first release of his book.

ETA: Lots of promotion for the book on this Twitter account: https://twitter.com/krissyg1

I don't remember this from the SAL's or the slide presentation. I have many doubts on the accuracy of this.

 

[davefoc]

The photograph has been out there for awhile. Going by memory, where the light shining on it hits it, the hair appears light colored, where the light does not hit it, the hair appears to be brown. I doubt it's even a blonde hair.

Thank you. I couldn't find it, but the hair is listed on an evidence list I saw. What is the significance of it being blond? Is that to suggest it might not have been Kercher's whose hair is quite dark? Without more information to go on here it seems like it is pretty hard to speculate about anything with regard to the hair. I sounds like it might have been light enough to not be Kerchers and dark enough to possibly be Knox's, but even if it was Knox's hair, a hair found in Kercher's room doesn't seem like it would be of much evidential value? Maybe if it could be shown to have been pulled out by the root there'd be something I guess. It does seems strange that it was lost.

ETA: I was confused. The photograph I was referring to was the alleged photograph of a hair gripped in Kercher's hand. Does that exist? A hair in Kercher's hand doesn't seem to be listed in the evidence list I saw that is similar or identical to the one posted above:

 

[Numbers]

The photograph has been out there for awhile. Going by memory, where the light shining on it hits it, the hair appears light colored, where the light does not hit it, the hair appears to be brown. I doubt it's even a blonde hair.

Is this the hair photographed in Meredith's hand that has been attributed to Meredith, at least by some?

Are photographs of all the hairs originally claimed to be detected by the police available to the public?

 

[Bill Williams]

I hesitated to pursue it as well and agree it was of limited interest. However, I am a bit grinder like (albeit without his extremely detailed knowledge of the case eta: and his keen mind) in that I feel fairness requires that I post when I disagree with somebody that I agree with almost entirely. As to your question, the distinction between the two phrases seem trivial and I'm not sure what Mary_H apologized for.

Yes, Grinder is annoying that way, isn't he! I have the scars......

 

[RoseMontague]

Is this the hair photographed in Meredith's hand that has been attributed to Meredith, at least by some?

Are photographs of all the hairs originally claimed to be detected by the police available to the public?

It wasn't tested so it could be anyone's. My comment was on the color of the hair by the photograph, my guess is that it is not blonde. IIRC, Stefanoni only mentioned this in a private conversation, according to someone at one or both of the PMF's and lamented that it had been lost and never tested. There is no proof that she even said this from what I remember.

 

[davefoc]

It wasn't tested so it could be anyone's. My comment was on the color of the hair by the photograph, my guess is that it is not blonde. IIRC, Stefanoni only mentioned this in a private conversation, according to someone at one or both of the PMF's and lamented that it had been lost and never tested. There is no proof that she even said this from what I remember.

I posted an edit of my post perhaps too late for you to see it. Did you mean to say that a photograph of a hair in Kercher's hand exists but that the hair is not in the evidence list that seems derived from a Stefanoni slide presentation?

 

[RoseMontague]

I posted an edit of my post perhaps too late for you to see it. Did you mean to say that a photograph of a hair in Kercher's hand exists but that it is not in the evidence list that seems derived from a Stefanoni slide presentation?

There is a photo of a hair in her hand. It was not tested. It is not discussed in her slide (powerpoint) presentation from what I remember and I have seen that numerous times. It was not tested nor listed in the SAL's from what I remember either. I had made a high quality conversion of her powerpoint to a pdf at one time and Hans coverted it to a lower quality one that could be downloaded at IA on the first trial transcripts thread. The SAL's I posted here several years ago.

 

[Mary_H]

I may not understand your point here.
From the quoted letter by Nick van der Leek:


Van der Leek doesn't appear to be acknowledging that he is guilty of copyright infringement there, he is only acknowledging that Karen H has made a copyright claim against him and that Amazon has frozen his account in its entirety.

However, Mary_H apologized, apparently for stating that all of Van der Leek's works were taken off. Was the apology based on a distinction between "all Van der Leek's works being taken off" and "my[Van der Leeks] account - in its entirety - has been suspended"

Vixen wrote this:

I hesitated to pursue it as well and agree it was of limited interest. However, I am a bit grinder like (albeit without his extremely detailed knowledge of the case eta: and his keen mind) in that I feel fairness requires that I post when I disagree with somebody that I agree with almost entirely. As to your question, the distinction between the two phrases seem trivial and I'm not sure what Mary_H apologized for.

Here's the thing. I don't know for sure what the situation was. The way VDL described his suspension in the e-mail, it sounded like all his books had been removed for sale. Since Vixen challenged me on it, I thought she might know something I don't know, and I decided that the suspension might just have meant that VDL himself could not get into amazon. I apologized just to be on the safe side. I need to look into it at greater depth to be sure whether it was just he who was suspended, or all his books.

Since there have been a lot of comments about the book here today, I'm sure Vixen will consult with VDL and come back with the correct information.

 

[Bill Williams]

Here's the thing. I don't know for sure what the situation was. The way VDL described his suspension in the e-mail, it sounded like all his books had been removed for sale. Since Vixen challenged me on it, I thought she might know something I don't know, and I decided that the suspension might just have meant that VDL himself could not get into amazon. I apologized just to be on the safe side. I need to look into it at greater depth to be sure whether it was just he who was suspended, or all his books.

Since there have been a lot of comments about the book here today, I'm sure Vixen will consult with VDL and come back with the correct information.

I hope that between the two of them they can come up with a believable reply, that doesn't conflict with what he told Pruett.

Remember, VDL is the guy trying to convince us that two judicially exonerated people are sleezeballs.

 

[Strozzi]

It wasn't tested so it could be anyone's. My comment was on the color of the hair by the photograph, my guess is that it is not blonde. IIRC, Stefanoni only mentioned this in a private conversation, according to someone at one or both of the PMF's and lamented that it had been lost and never tested. There is no proof that she even said this from what I remember.

If it is true that Stefanoni said that such a hair existed and was lost, we have another instance of the Perugia police or the forensic police losing (destroying?) possible exculpatory evidence.

Perhaps we should update a list of evidence lost or destroyed by police officials.

 

[RoseMontague]

If it is true that Stefanoni said that such a hair existed and was lost, we have another instance of the Perugia police or the forensic police losing (destroying?) possible exculpatory evidence.

Perhaps we should update a list of evidence lost or destroyed by police officials.

I would not assume anything they say at TJMK is true. I have seen this on countless occasions including the fake wiki. They will make a claim and source it to some document or another, yet when you go to that document, what they claim is not there. I believe this may be one of those cases.

 

[Bill Williams]

It wasn't tested so it could be anyone's. My comment was on the color of the hair by the photograph, my guess is that it is not blonde. IIRC, Stefanoni only mentioned this in a private conversation, according to someone at one or both of the PMF's and lamented that it had been lost and never tested. There is no proof that she even said this from what I remember.

If it is true that Stefanoni said that such a hair existed and was lost, we have another instance of the Perugia police or the forensic police losing (destroying?) possible exculpatory evidence.

Perhaps we should update a list of evidence lost or destroyed by police officials.

Remember, both Machiavelli/Yummi and Vixen have said that the prosecution is under no obligation to share evidence with the defence, nor even, really, admit every piece of evidence at trial.

They are also under know obligation, really, to demonstrate their criterion for admitting/rejecting any item, nor letting the court or defence know about the existence of stuff they hold back.

I say this because I can just hear it - Vixen has made a claim about the importance of this hair, yet when replied to (why was this not admitted as evidence if it is so convincing to you?) (What do YOU make, Vixen, of the prosecution actually losing evidence crucial to the case you're trying to make against AK?)........

.... when replied to this way, the stock answer is: not everything needs presenting at trial. Even co-prosecutor Comodi said this: "We decide what the court needs to see," or words to that effect.

My worry is that both VDL and Vixen believes that attitude passes the smell test - even when it concerns evidence they think is convincing of guilt, yet which the prosecution/Scientific Police either lost or suppressed.

Is it no wonder there are innocenters? The common things about guilter-books, and I include John Follain in this, is that there is NO critique whatsoever of the PLE/convicting courts even when they do things to screw up the guilter case.

John Follain - barely mentions Anna Donnino, and never by name. She's hardly an actor in this at all. Mignini can say (acc. to Follain) completely contradictory claims two-pages-apart, and Follain continues as if nothing has happened.

VDL presents a completely confirmation biased, past-due-date account of the guilt of people, actually now exonerated!!!!

Whatever happened to the smell test?

 

[davefoc]

[see above]

delete. what I had to say wasn't that interesting or worthwhile.

 

[acbytesla]

It must be because I'm naive. I don't understand the need that some people have to cling to a lie when the truth is so readily available. What does it say about them? What makes them repeat proven falsehoods like "mixed blood" and "cartwheels". Don't they have any respect for the truth?

 

[RoseMontague]

delete. what I had to say wasn't that interesting or worthwhile.

Seemed quite on target to me. I have been wrong on more than one occasion. Unlike some, I am more interested in the truth than being right all the time. I am relying on memory here, of documents I have not looked at in a couple of years. You are right that it is another of those things that even if it were true, it means next to nothing in terms of guilt or innocence. The fact that Vixen and evidently others feel differently is telling.