Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

It would be great if Machiavelli refrained from this, and presented evidence. When presented with evidence that Ms. Stefanoni misrepresented evidence, and perhaps even fabricated evidence, all he will say is, "That's a lie! That's delusional!" as if that settles it.

(...)

Evidence? (and look this new position: "perhaps even fabricated" ).
Now "evidence", in the subsequent phrase has become "perhaps evidence".

You may take this occasion to think about what happens in your mind as you are presented with evidence that Vecchiotti acted as a fraud.

 

[Bill Williams]

Moreover, a "piece of evidence" is not an object, but a reasoning. Evidence is not something physical, it's something logical, it's a piece of reasoning. Not a finding itself, but an inference that links a finding to other findings. It's developed from factual findings, but does not equate to any specific finding.

I would disagree.

A piece of evidence must be something physical or else it is just an opinion or hearsay.

If a person cannot be proven to be at a crime scene by physical evidence then I would say it would be very difficult to prove BARD that they were present.

There cannot be factual findings without physical evidence, only opinions.

The logical piece of reasoning would come from adding up all the physical evidence and deciding if that physical evidence logically implicated the accused.

What Machiavelli is describing is what another observer called, "judicially generated evidence." This observer said that it is perhaps useful to a prosecutor to come into court with a judicially-generated theory of the crime, or a judicially generated time-line of where judicially generated pieces of evidence might fit in.

An example of judicially generated evidence is when Judge Massei says thre must have been a clean-up in the short hallway-space between Meredith's bedroom and the bathroom bathmat. Why? Because there's no evidence at all he can point to, in that intervening space between the bathmat foottrack and the bedroom, to explain how the foottrack got on the bathmat! Ergo, Massei says, there MUST have been a clean-up - even in the absence of telltale signs which cleanups themselves use - esp. if cleaned with bleach!

Similarly the transport of the knife, which Massei actually convicted Knox/Sollecito of. There's no evidence that they did it, yet he'd be out of explanations as to how the knife got to the cottage IF they didn't He also generates a judicial-fact by saying that Knox had regularly carried that knife for safety, otherwise Massei gets locked into a premeditated crime - which he rejects.

So far, it's all judicially generated. Rudy's climb up the wall, the simulated burglary, all similarly judicially generated because there is simply no positive evidence - indeed, Channel 5 proved the climb was eminently doable!!

Judicially generated evidence is exactly as Machiavelli defends above. Mach's description of it is worth the reread.

 

[Machiavelli]

So the omission of the EDFs from consideration is a problem for you then after all, as is the testing of the presumed semen stain, as are the reference samples of the other flat mates and friends, as is the CCTV footage from the relevant cameras in Perugia etc etc.

I've already staid EDFs are not "a problem for me".
I catch this occasion to ramind you that instead prof. Vecchiotti was the one who stated that raw data were not interesting for her research.
And I willl point out again that defence did not request them:
Potenza did not request them; Pascali backtracked from his letter to the judge and did not mention them at the hearing, Bongiorno admits in her instances that the defence did not request them but were ready to accept charts with peaks and areas instead; Dalla Vedova made a confused request but only at the end of the 2009, twithout actually talking about raw data or explaining what they were, and was unable to explain Massei what he wanted the reason why the defence allegedly wanted them and why they were unable to ask them before; and finally, I also point out - hoping to make this clear with the maximum force - that the defence did not request raw data at all during the Hellmann appeal trial.
The defence also failed to submit any instance to the Supreme Court requesting raw data.

I agree with Stefanoni's 2008 letter pointing out that raw data could be interesting as potential verification evidence only to those who decide to presume that Stefanoni was dishonest, or in alternative completely incompetent to the point of overlooking negative controls completely.
EDFs are not interesting to those who reject such assumptions.

 

[acbytesla]

Denial, acbytesla. Denial.

Sometimes when I talk with Israelis about the Israel-Palestinian issue, someone presents the topical concepts of "narrative", for example "it was the Arab states attacked Israel in 1948", as a justification and explanation of things like ethnic cleansing of palestinians. Without getting into details of a very complex chain of historic events, you cen see how calling for "elements" like that in your discussion is a type of rhetoric, that aims - through slogans - to present a false narrative essentially based on denial. For example it is true that Arab States attacked Israel in 1948. But Arab states attacked Israel on May 15. 1948. Israeli paramilitaries perpetrated massacres before, such as the Deir Yassin massacre, on April 9.
April 9. is before may 15.

The method is very simple: if you omit pieces from reality, while you cherry pick up some pieces, and you build a rhetorical artifact that has the shape of another story. You cherry pick some facts, adjust them with scissors cutting away wings and details, you keep some elements that are easy to shout or say quicly as slogans, you stick them together, and so you create a false narrative.

This is how false narratives are are built. This is how a propaganda made of lies works. The single pieces taken alone do not look like 100% false, they retain some element of truth, they retain "some" truth within them, they are only reduced or warped and cut with scissors; but the whole operation is based on denial. It's the denial of the texture of reality, and the re-creation of another fictional narrative built by sticking together these pieces. This often looks like a slogan, a rhetoric chant.

However, when I see posters attempting to present such obviously manufactured "narratives", I tend to not waste my time opening discussions about details in the narratives themselves. Instead I may address the disingenuous intent beyond such rhetoric, the poster's motivations. I believe such openly dishonest presentations of stories, and even the choice of prejudicial terms epmloyed ("obviously", "burglar", "students" etc.) should be immediately addressed as for what is beyond them, a background motivation, and the motivation for such violent rhetoric in my opinion is a feeling of vested interest, or utter racism.

What am I denying? You're suggesting we are blaming Rudy because he's black. Even you agree that Rudy was involved in Meredith's murder. (don't you?) Time to look in the mirror Machiavelli, the denial and obviously manufactured narratives are your own.

I could care less about Rudy's color. I have African American relatives but it is my own Caucasian brother that is the criminal. If there was no obvious evidence incriminating Rudy, I would have been seeking his exoneration as well.
.

 

[Bill Williams]

Evidence? (and look this new position: "perhaps even fabricated" ).
Now "evidence", in the subsequent phrase has become "perhaps evidence".

You may take this occasion to think about what happens in your mind as you are presented with evidence that Vecchiotti acted as a fraud.

LOL! I'm not sure who you are arguing with in this particular nitpick of yours.

You may need to point to that evidence about Vecchiotti, because you did not present that in this forum.

Better still - name ONE Italian who believes this about Vecchiotti other than you.

 

[Bill Williams]

I've already staid EDFs are not "a problem for me".
I catch this occasion to ramind you that instead prof. Vecchiotti was the one who stated that raw data were not interesting for her research.
And I willl point out again that defence did not request them:
Potenza did not request them; Pascali backtracked from his letter to the judge and did not mention them at the hearing, Bongiorno admits in her instances that the defence did not request them but were ready to accept charts with peaks and areas instead; Dalla Vedova made a confused request but only at the end of the 2009, twithout actually talking about raw data or explaining what they were, and was unable to explain Massei what he wanted the reason why the defence allegedly wanted them and why they were unable to ask them before; and finally, I also point out - hoping to make this clear with the maximum force - that the defence did not request raw data at all during the Hellmann appeal trial.
The defence also failed to submit any instance to the Supreme Court requesting raw data.

I agree with Stefanoni's 2008 letter pointing out that raw data could be interesting as potential verification evidence only to those who decide to presume that Stefanoni was dishonest, or in alternative completely incompetent to the point of overlooking negative controls completely.
EDFs are not interesting to those who reject such assumptions.

Once again, what you are doing here is the most interesting of all. You are making a big deal out of an otherwise routine forensic procedure.

In 99.99% of cases (like in Nencini's court) raw data is simply handed over without letters, requests, or orders of the court. It's just done.

One common component of wrongful convictions/prosecutions is that the prosecution plays fast and loose with otherwise routine procedures - like full disclosure.

IMO the letter you refer to is a virtual admission from Stefanoni herself that she IS dishonest. No one up to that point had said she wasn't.

But at the end of the day you are playing both sides of this Machavelli. You also said that she offered to make full disclosure but that the defence refused her kind offer.

Yeah, like that happened.

 

[Mr Fied]

What Machiavelli is describing is what another observer called, "judicially generated evidence." This observer said that it is perhaps useful to a prosecutor to come into court with a judicially-generated theory of the crime, or a judicially generated time-line of where judicially generated pieces of evidence might fit in.

An example of judicially generated evidence is when Judge Massei says thre must have been a clean-up in the short hallway-space between Meredith's bedroom and the bathroom bathmat. Why? Because there's no evidence at all he can point to, in that intervening space between the bathmat foottrack and the bedroom, to explain how the foottrack got on the bathmat! Ergo, Massei says, there MUST have been a clean-up - even in the absence of telltale signs which cleanups themselves use - esp. if cleaned with bleach!

Similarly the transport of the knife, which Massei actually convicted Knox/Sollecito of. There's no evidence that they did it, yet he'd be out of explanations as to how the knife got to the cottage IF they didn't He also generates a judicial-fact by saying that Knox had regularly carried that knife for safety, otherwise Massei gets locked into a premeditated crime - which he rejects.

So far, it's all judicially generated. Rudy's climb up the wall, the simulated burglary, all similarly judicially generated because there is simply no positive evidence - indeed, Channel 5 proved the climb was eminently doable!!

Judicially generated evidence is exactly as Machiavelli defends above. Mach's description of it is worth the reread.

This is the guilter's problem Bill.

"We know they are guilty, so if there is no evidence to prove they are guilty they must have cleaned/removed that evidence.

If we have no evidence to prove what we want, e.g. transporting the knife, we will just make it up until it becomes judicial fact.

If we can state that we have found evidence against them but not produce the correct results, be able to confirm them or show how we arrived at them, then no one can question our conclusions."

It all seems very fair to me.

 

[Kauffer]

I've already staid EDFs are not "a problem for me".
I catch this occasion to ramind you that instead prof. Vecchiotti was the one who stated that raw data were not interesting for her research.
And I willl point out again that defence did not request them:
Potenza did not request them; Pascali backtracked from his letter to the judge and did not mention them at the hearing, Bongiorno admits in her instances that the defence did not request them but were ready to accept charts with peaks and areas instead; Dalla Vedova made a confused request but only at the end of the 2009, twithout actually talking about raw data or explaining what they were, and was unable to explain Massei what he wanted the reason why the defence allegedly wanted them and why they were unable to ask them before; and finally, I also point out - hoping to make this clear with the maximum force - that the defence did not request raw data at all during the Hellmann appeal trial.
The defence also failed to submit any instance to the Supreme Court requesting raw data.

I agree with Stefanoni's 2008 letter pointing out that raw data could be interesting as potential verification evidence only to those who decide to presume that Stefanoni was dishonest, or in alternative completely incompetent to the point of overlooking negative controls completely.
EDFs are not interesting to those who reject such assumptions.

Absolutely irrelevant going off on this familiar rant. It has nothing to do with your post or my response. You stated:

The method is very simple: if you omit pieces from reality, while you cherry pick up some pieces, and you build a rhetorical artifact that has the shape of another story. You cherry pick some facts, adjust them with scissors cutting away wings and details, you keep some elements that are easy to shout or say quicly as slogans, you stick them together, and so you create a false narrative.

Therefore it follows that that you must feel the truth requires the availability of the EDFs and other pieces of evidence such as the semen test results, CCTV, reference prints, a full comparative DNA data set from the cottage, a recording of the interrogations, a confirmatory blood test on the luminol samples etc.

How can my non exhaustive list of omissions not be part of your complaint? Those who ignore it are guilty of cherry picking.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli - is there ANY Italian language forums discussing this case? If so, please point to them.

Or is it just you from the Italian world? Further just you posting to an English language forum?

Why is this not being pushed in Italy? Please point to ANY current online resourse - preferably one that shows interest in things like you claim.

But where is the hue and cry in Italy other than from you?

 

[Bill Williams]

The reason why I ask about continuing Italian coverage, in Italian, is because AFAICT, discussion in the media virtually stops with the 27 March acquittals. This is the last thing I can find (other than one which says that Sollecito will defend his reputation against detractors).

http://www.ansa.it/umbria/notizie/2015/03/25/meredith-sentenza-venerdi_f773ff5b-0710-4452-884c-d0bfde02b778.html

There also seems to be a total silence from Judge Massei or Judge Nencini - indeed, total silence from any guilters (real or imagined) from Italy, except for you (other than to say they find the Marasca/Bruno decision curious and that they wait to read the reasons). Most certainly there is no talk of the conspiracy you spin here - only in the English language.

For instance, Judge Hellmann says about the 27 March 2015 acquittals:

"Obviously we were right," said Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, president of the Court of Assizes of Perugia (which) in 2011 acquitted Amanda and Raffaele; while the deputy prosecutor general of Perugia Giancarlo Costagliola said he was "curious to read the grounds of the judgment." I take note of the judgment - said the judge - and I have the utmost respect for the decisions of the Court. "The story of the murder Meredith Kercher closes, then, with a single fixed point: far Rudy Guede, the only (one of the) defendants who chose expedited (trial) and (was) finally sentenced to 16 years imprisonment. The Ivorian has now admitted his presence in the house crime, but he said that he was in the bathroom when Kercher was killed by two other people. Guede then claimed more or less explicitly that in the house there were Sollecito and Knox.​

Ok, there are TWO people remaining in Italy who blame Raffaele and Amanda....

....... you and Rudy Guede.

The ONLY one prepared to speak for the prosecution is Francesco Maresca, the Kercher family lawyer. And even he concludes by saying that the case is now finished as far as Italy is concerned.

 

[Vixen]

Dear Vixen,
By any chance can you help convince me that a real clean-up
happened inside of Miss Kercher's bedroom or even her flat?

I mean, come on,
what else was Foxy Knoxy's lamp used for?

Heck,
any knowledgeable person knows that cleaned up blood would look like this:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9999[/qimg]
after Dr. Stefanoni + The Italian Polizia Scientifica would have tested the Crime Scene,
right?


Show me some pix,
Vixen
of The Clean-Up!

It'd only show up bleach if luminol applied within a few hours of the act.

 

[Machiavelli]

Absolutely irrelevant going off on this familiar rant. It has nothing to do with your post or my response. You stated:

The method is very simple: if you omit pieces from reality, while you cherry pick up some pieces, and you build a rhetorical artifact that has the shape of another story. You cherry pick some facts, adjust them with scissors cutting away wings and details, you keep some elements that are easy to shout or say quicly as slogans, you stick them together, and so you create a false narrative.

Therefore it follows that that you must feel the truth requires the availability of the EDFs and other pieces of evidence such as the semen test results, CCTV, reference prints, a full comparative DNA data set from the cottage, a recording of the interrogations, a confirmatory blood test on the luminol samples etc.

How can my non exhaustive list of omissions not be part of your complaint? Those who ignore it are guilty of cherry picking.

But no, I don't cherry pick absolutely anything, since I don't dismiss anything. I use all information that emerges from the trial, I don't leave anything out.

Now, you just arbitrarily place a label "omission" blaming somebody because of things which are not omissions, they at not actions that you can pin on the party which you want to blame. It's arbitrary.
The raw data story tells you something of how it works: raw data are not available as evidence in the trial, but defences share full responsibility of that, it's the consequence of their tactical choices as well, if they really wanted raw data they would have obtained them, it is a matter of fact that they didn't pursue that.
The defence also admitted of not requesting the testing of the alleged semen stain.
Recording of interrogation and statement: despite what pro-Knox propaganda says, trial documents say that rather than requesting to have recordings of the interrogation into the trial, the Knox defence instead attempted to have the interrogation declared inadmissible, not admitted into the trial in any form, either written or else. The defence pursued the contrary goal: they wanted to have interrogations and statements precisely ruled out, not heard read or investigated at all.
As a matter of fact, I do not cherry pick absolutely anything, I am glad to pick everything, and I pick up all what exists. Video recordings don't exist, I have no evidence they exist, I collect all existing information.

 

[Machiavelli]

It'd only show up bleach if luminol applied within a few hours of the act.

Scientific literature reports that bleach and oxidants retain the property of causing luminol reaction only for a few hours, then they don't react any more.

 

[Bill Williams]

The defence also admitted of not requesting the testing of the alleged semen stain.

O for Pete's sake - the Sollecito team requested this be tested for the Nencini trial. It was denied.

Recording of interrogation and statement: despite what pro-Knox propaganda says, trial documents say that rather than requesting to have recordings of the interrogation into the trial, the Knox defence instead attempted to have the interrogation declared inadmissible, not admitted into the trial in any form, either written or else. The defence pursued the contrary goal: they wanted to have interrogations and statements precisely ruled out, not heard read or investigated at all.
As a matter of fact, I do not cherry pick absolutely anything, I am glad to pick everything, and I pick up all what exists. Video recordings don't exist, I have no evidence they exist, I collect all existing information.

So this is how you do it. You simply throw out stuff you don't like - bury it, burn it.... and THEN osmotically evaluate what remains.

Is there anyone in Italy who agrees with you? Or is it just you saying this stuff on English language sites?

 

[Vixen]

I would like to again raise something we discussed here a year ago. It would be good if there is an organization that underwrites an on-call legal service to provide preliminary legal guidance to people involved with the police or judiciary in foreign countries. If Amanda had called the number and said my housemate was just murdered and the police want to talk with me, the Rome office of such a service could have told her "do not say anything until your lawyer arrives". That might have saved Italy, the Kerchers, Knox, Sollecito, Lumumba, Slappy Ficarra, Napoleoni. Giobi, Mignini, Machiavelli, Vixen, et al a lot of trauma.

One version of this legal aid service would be a benefit provided by a credit card provider. Use our Visa card to purchase your plane tickets and hotels when you travel abroad and you have access to a 24/7 phone number to call for prelinary legal guidance whenever you are in contact with police or the judicial process. Universities should require their students going abroad to have such coverage. Parents should insist on it, too. So should employers whose employees are traveling abroad. Italians should want this when traveling. Americans, too.

The police don't say that in any country. Why should you be advised to "keep scthum" when ringing up to report a crime?


Not wise to use your credit card for the hotel bill, unless you are aware the hotel "reserves" your hotel bill on the card, and you may find your funds locked!

Amanda being arrested was because of evidence of being involved in the crime, and nothing to do with anyone persecuting her.

 

[Vixen]

Dear Vixen,
Some of us innocentisti
believe that Rudy had a bit of a shower after he raped and murdered Miss Kercher.

You know this, as do I.

So where are the photo's like this:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=10000[/qimg]
which show the blood of Miss Kercher in her shower?

Surly there was some Meredith's blood in the shower, somewhere,
if you believe that [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE] washed his foot in there and then stepped on the bathmat, right?

Drops of her blood must have splattered somewhere.

Why have we not ever seen a photo or a photograph showing Meredith's blood,
clean-up + smeared or as droplets, from inside her shower?

Surly it is not because "poor Rudy's" DNA was found inside of the shower
along with traces of Meredith's blood and the prosecution did not wanna point this out in court, right?

How come none of Rudy's DNA nor blood was found in that bathroom? In fact, he returned to his digs covered in blood.

Police believed it was Raff who had a thorough shower whilst there.

 

[Vixen]

What are you talkin' about, Machiavelli?
Didn't you go to Court for this session?

From Old Perugia Shock:
Saturday, July 18, 2009
The Day of Rebellion for Knox and Sollecito Teams

'CANCEL THAT BODY OF EVIDENCE'
As trial adjourns for summer break


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=10002[/qimg]

But pitfalls are hidden in the debate, even when nobody puts them there, even when just the chance provides them. And by chance Stefanoni, speaking through prosecutor Comodi, made a faux pas. A little faux pas, but which could decide the case.

The problem in discussion was indeed that according to Tagliabracci the DNA on the bra clasp was not enough to have a reliable test. And Stefanoni suggested Comodi to say that instead it was the perfect quantity, being 1.4 nanograms. An ideal quantity. But that revealed a problem: why nobody else knew that measure?


Mrs Stefanoni has been kind of secretive in this trial, when she was done with the tests she just provided the mere results. The defense had to ask additional data. And the charts arrived. But still more data were missing. But the defense didn't really manage to put their finger on the problem in court --a problem we've always been dealing here, when we were reasoning that we don't know how that chart was created. Or that the compulsory presence of the parties was only formally respected, and we have to trust Stefanoni when she tells us that the result is genuine. What if she's wrong?

But DNA is a complicated matter. Defense attorneys may have problems in explaining what else one may need after results and charts. And a judge may have problems in understanding the issue. Especially if he's one of those intellectual persons, one of those sensitive, honest gentlemen fascinated by poetry and religion, rather than impassioned by the alleles versus stutters dilemma.

Luckily the chance today provided an example of that what else: 1.4, the quantity of DNA on the bra. That number wasn't written on any document, Stefanoni just said it in court. Actually it was not the first time but today the defenses suddenly realized the significance of this information.

While Mrs Comodi was busy with her, by now, usual escape for smoking, the defenses, with the power that little number gave them, explained the judge that the wonderlab didn't provide all information about the tests, and this affects the rights of the defendant. A principle that a man of law can't ignore.

The time for the rebellion was mature. Bongiorno, immediately followed by Dalla Vedova, filed to Massei the request of immediate suspension of the trial until all missing data --quantities, registries, rough copies-- were produced, with the understanding that they will probably request that this evidence be declared invalid. The judge accepted the request. It's really true that smoking is dangerous.


Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20101015182343/http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009_07_01_archive.html

Ol'Frank took a bit of a shine to Amanda, did he not? Correct me if I am mistaken, but wasn't Frank booted out of the US rather unceremoniously?

 

[Vixen]

Come on, Billy,
You just know the lamp was used to remove all traces of Foxy Knoxy's DNA from Meredith's genitalia.

And to remove all of Foxy's blonde hair.
(Ooops! They forgot 1 blonde hair easily seen, found+ photographed in Meredith's grasp,
and another blonde hair found on her Brazilian-ed *******...)

And it was used to remove the traces of [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE]'s DNA
+/or bloody fingerprints from the button on Meredith's blue jeans,
ya know, the 1's that were from her old English boyfriend Patrick Cronin.
(http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/meredith-kerchers-ex-love-forever-haunted-1673717)

Too bad they did not bring AK's lamp into her + Mez's bathroom,
they mighta seen, (as it was in plain sight!) and then thrown out that bathmat
with [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE]'s bloody footprint on it!

Oh well,
The Pranksters,
err I mean The Stoners
can't get everything right,
right?

Cool guy, that [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE],
for I betcha many guilt-ards might believe that it was he that un-buttoned Meredith's pants,
so Rudy could rape Meredith. What a bro...

Hang on a sec!
Was the lamp also used to remove any traces of Foxy Knoxy from Meredith's body too?
To maybe wipe off any of her saliva or any of her invisible DNA from her sweaty fingertips?
(Ain't prespiration what Vixen recently told me that might cause DNA to be left behind?)
I wonder if they wiped Meredith down with [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE]'s bleach?

Did they use the lamp too when they used the mop and [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE]'s bleach
to clean up their bloody footprints or shoeprints?
Enquirin' minds wanna know!

What a clean up job,
they left "poor Rudy's" shoeprints
while removing their own!

Golly,
maybe the 2 just wanted stage a crime scene,
to make their prank look like a rape + murder.

So hours after the murder,
they posed Meredith's corpse on her pillow,
+ raised up her t-shirt and spread her legs so that a probable seminal fluid stain was found down near her genitalia,
(maybe Dr. Stefanoni will not be able to date it + think it's from Giacomo!?!) before they covered her with her own duvet that she herself apparently bought and then also decided to leave a movie ticket stub on top of it from Cinegatti, dated a coupla days earlier for 8:30pm on the night of the 29th because, maybe because Meredith did not go to the movie with Amanda, even though Mez had lunch the very next day and a few hours later went out and drank some wine with The Luciferina and [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE] that same night at La Tana?

Hmmmm.
your question has left me pondering
maybe Vixen will chime in soon with some more highly intelligent mensa-ish thoughts
so as to try + convince me of Foxy Knoxy's + [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE]'s guilt,
as they cleaned up all night to remove all traces of their participation in the brutal murder of Foxy Knox's room mate, + pointed the finger at "poor Rudy" as he danced the night away at the club...
RW



PS - I'm kinda under the influence right now, of alcohol and THC.
I wonder if the guilt-ards will believe this bullcrap, err story
when I tell the local newspaper reporter who lives next door to the Conad store
all of this, what I saw, in 5 months time and then,
after that newspaper reporter keeps hasslin' me + makes me go incognito on TV,
I also tell the cops this too?

Heck, heroin,
err, alcohol and THC ain't gonna make me forget none of this stuff,
no, no no...



ETA:
I gotta go,
The Moon is full in Los Angeles right now,
and 1 of the summer concerts is on at Santa Monica Pier!

Maybe I'll play whack-a-mole at the Arcade later!
Like Brenda:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ovdvSmAFAw
Late!

There's certainly something in the California air. Do you guys still live in communes with free love and wear flowers in your hair? I always loved Jack Nicholson in 'Easy Rider' when he took a swig - to the horror of the potheads and did his three step elbow jerk - of his bottle of bourbon.

Gosh, I lead such a sheltered life! All that LA pondering, when it seems so straight forward to us Brits.

 

[Mike1711]

Machiavelli.

Why is it that Stef. is allowed to run DNA tests on knife and bra clasp (in contravention of international protocols....but that's another issue) in the privacy of her own laboratory but when the defence team request the EDF raw data backup info the same courtesy is not extended to them?

Is this not a total disregard for transparency and honesty?....and above all a total disregard for justice?

Oh, I forgot the defence team didn't want the raw data EDF file.

Ok, so why didn't Stef. insist that they check her work, lest innocent people are jailed due to a mistake in her calculations?

 

[zotz]

How come none of Rudy's DNA nor blood was found in that bathroom? In fact, he returned to his digs covered in blood.

Police believed it was Raff who had a thorough shower whilst there.

Rudy admitted to being wounded at the scene of the crime but no blood evidence from him was ever reported from the house. He admitted to being in Meredith's bathroom after the murder. Rudy simply left no blood behind for the police to find, at least not upstairs.