Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

???

Previous burglaries by Guede aren't evidence that he committed one here?

Obviously not.
In many common law courts such information would be even deemed prejudicial and not admitted at the trial.

But it's important to point out that in fact there is no evidence Guede committed any burglary.
He has no precendent for burglary. Even the theft inside the Perugian lawfirma - the only known episore actually - cannot be ascribed to Guede beyond reasonable doubt.

As for the school where he was caught in Milan, he did not break any window or door, and did not steal anything. He didn't even attempt to flee and waited for police. He was only charged with unauthorized entry in a private estate, a very petty offence that doesn't have imprisonment penalty.

Guede's DNA in Kercher's purse isn't evidence that Guede committed a burglary here?

Obviously not.
First, because there was a fight between Meredith and the murderers, and DNA can be left in the context of such confrontation, without any link to a burglary (that is DNA on purse is equally explainable in both scenarios).
Second, it should not evidence from an innocentisti point of view; I mean it cannot be evidence if one assumes that Sollecito's DNA on the clasp is not evidence because of alleged contamination. Guede's DNA on the purse was found 46 days later in the same context of bra clasp, among same mess and rummaging, dirty floor etc. Those who rule out bra clasp DNA because of this also have to rule out Guede's DNA.

Two phones removed from the residence aren't evidence that Guede committed a burglary?

Obviously not. Because someone else had interest to remove the phones.
(also, it's not usual for a burglar to throw away stolen items after 3 minutes).
How can you link it to Guede? You can't. No evidence.

Money was stolen from Kercher's purse is evidence that somebody committed burglary and Guede is known to have been in the apartment at the time Kercher was murdered. That isn't evidence for Guede committing burglary?

No. There is no evidence of any money inside Meredith's purse. Btw her wallet was there and there was no Guede's DNA on it. Nor inside her purse. There is some circumstantial evidence that money was taken, but no evidence it was inside Meredith's purse. Also Meredith's cell phones are not assumed to be in her purse: she used to keep at least one of them in the pocket of her jeans.
There is no evidence that someone committed burglary. Only that someone committed a theft. But that could equally fit the other scenario, where - as suggested by Guede on his skype call - Meredith and Knox started an argument over rent money and drugs.

What does "there is absolutely zero evidence of Guede committing a burglary" mean?

It means: absolutely zero evidence Guede committed a burglary, and also zero evidence that a burglary had been committed overall.

I suppose in some sort of hyper guilter land the theory is that Guede didn't commit the burglary because AK/RS did? Really, two people with no history of burglary one of whom was moderately wealthy and the other one who was at least comfortable are more likely burglary suspects than the guy who is known to have committed burglary and who was short of funds? Wow. What drives this Rudy cult?

This is quite unacceptable "profiling". When I hear those things I usually respond by providing some accurate "profile" of Knox's charachter. One could question, for example, tha cash flow from Amanda Knox's banck account. Or talke about her phone contacts with drug dealers. There are not many good explanations for withdrawing such an amount of cash on the part of a student with the lyfestyle of Amanda Knox living in Perugia. One wonders why she needed so much cash money every month.

I think Machiavelli's guess is that the semen stain was tested and found to be Guede's. I think Machiavelli is fine with that because he is so sure that AK/RS are guilty that any shenanigans like that by the prosecutor/forensic examiner is OK since he realizes that a whole lot of people would not be so enthused about the cult of Rudy if they knew he ejaculated over the dying body of Kercher who he had just killed. And convicting AK/RS of murder is the most important thing above all else in this case.

This is unacceptable and quite delusional. I have no "guesses" of that kind, and actually I also have a big question about the fact that that is actually semen (I suspect it may be vaseline).
What I have learned from my research is that in order to test semen stains on fabric they cannot use a swab; they they need to cut an area of the fabric and immerse it into a special a solvent, which separates the biological part from the fabric. Then, the liquid sample undergoes a series of tests, which may include specific enzyme tests for semen, and then is processed for DNA extraction.
I don't assume anyone like prosecution or Stefanoni did anything illegal, there is no evidence of that. And if they tested the pillowcase stains secretly, the pillowcase would be poked with several holes.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes breaking glass when clubs and pubs are open in the late evening would be less noticeable than 3 or 4 in the morning when there was little other noise. So I am not sure when you think it is most logical to break a window. What is your evidence that staging burglary is 'common' in domestic murders? What is your definition of common?

There are no pubs or clubs in via della Pergola/via S. Antonio. The area is very silent. Actually, 21:00 is the most silent hour in many Italian towns, because it's dinner time, very few people are around.
The only difference is that between 3 and 4 in the morning people would be asleep, while at 21:00 they are awake, and may hear.

There is a great deal of evidence humans do not think logically. You arguing contrary does make it true it just makes you wrong. Humans do not think or act logically. The most immediate evidence is you. You argue against logic. You are emotionally committed to an evil Knox despite no evidence.

You think there is no evidence. And you think what I say is illogical. But the fact that you say it, doesn't make it so.
Thinking or not following logic is not the issue anyway. The fact is just that when things appear have a logical pattern, to follow an order, to have peculiarities and coincidences, you simply have to consider that when there is a logical explanation for such pattern, it means those things point in direction of that explanation.

Your whole thought train betrays a commitment to the concept that Knox is evil therefore she would have committed a murder therefore all actions have to be interpreted in the light of her being an evil murderer. The sad thing is you cannot see that your beliefs are illogical.

Knox is not evil. "Evil" is a word with moralistic nouances that doesn't have any meaning to me. Knox is a proven liar. She is also a person with some peculiar personality traits.
Indeed, the fact that she is such a treacherous liar does not bode particularly well as for the interpretation of the evidence in her favour. But there is also much physical evidence completely independent from Knox's being a liar, and also there is evidence against Sollecito which does not involve Knox directly.
Though, I want to point out that while you accuse me of assuming that Knox is "evil" without evidence, in fact what I see is that you assume that Guede has a serial killer profile, affected by a violent perversion of raping dying women, without any evidence; and that you also assume that he committed a burglary in the cottage without any evidence. Even if you don't state that explicitly, you make "assumptions" about Guede. No way what you say is supported, or more proven than what I say about Knox.

 

[Machiavelli]

Guide said he entered Filomena's room. So this is a link.

PS where is there documentation about the length of Guede's hair vs the length of the hair found. I can find no record of Guede's hair length (based on a representative set of hairs from various sites on his head +/- axillary and pubic hairs. Or are you just making this up about hair length?

I am only watching his mugshot from German police. My hair is about 3 cm long. If I have 6 cm long hair, my hair will look really long. I don't believe he could have 6 cm long hair on Nov. 2 2007. But above all his hair is black, the hair find is brown, so there's no question.

There is zero evidence of Guede committing a burglary, come on. Try to apply a fraction of the evidence standard you would apply on someone else. Evidence is zero. Not little, but zero.

ps: please go back and see a few points about Stefanoni.

 

[analemma]

But it's important to point out that in fact there is no evidence Guede committed any burglary.
He has no precendent for burglary. Even the theft inside the Perugian lawfirma - the only known episore actually - cannot be ascribed to Guede beyond reasonable doubt.

As for the school where he was caught in Milan, he did not break any window or door, and did not steal anything. He didn't even attempt to flee and waited for police. He was only charged with unauthorized entry in a private estate, a very petty offence that doesn't have imprisonment penalty.



Obviously not.
First, because there was a fight between Meredith and the murderers, and DNA can be left in the context of such confrontation, without any link to a burglary (that is DNA on purse is equally explainable in both scenarios).
Second, it should not evidence from an innocentisti point of view; I mean it cannot be evidence if one assumes that Sollecito's DNA on the clasp is not evidence because of alleged contamination. Guede's DNA on the purse was found 46 days later in the same context of bra clasp, among same mess and rummaging, dirty floor etc. Those who rule out bra clasp DNA because of this also have to rule out Guede's DNA.



Obviously not. Because someone else had interest to remove the phones.
(also, it's not usual for a burglar to throw away stolen items after 3 minutes).
How can you link it to Guede? You can't. No evidence.
There is some circumstantial evidence that money was taken, but no evidence it was inside Meredith's purse. Also Meredith's cell phones are not assumed to be in her purse: she used to keep at least one of them in the pocket of her jeans.
There is no evidence that someone committed burglary. Only that someone committed a theft.

It means: absolutely zero evidence Guede committed a burglary, and also zero evidence that a burglary had been committed overall.

This is unacceptable and quite delusional. I have no "guesses" of that kind, and actually I also have a big question about the fact that that is actually semen (I suspect it may be vaseline).
What I have learned from my research is that in order to test semen stains on fabric they cannot use a swab; they they need to cut an area of the fabric and immerse it into a special a solvent, which separates the biological part from the fabric. Then, the liquid sample undergoes a series of tests, which may include specific enzyme tests for semen, and then is processed for DNA extraction.
I don't assume anyone like prosecution or Stefanoni did anything illegal, there is no evidence of that. And if they tested the pillowcase stains secretly, the pillowcase would be poked with several holes.

All this BS quibbling about DNA and contamination is just that : BS. Are you saying that they extracted the DNA of Rudy from the VICTIMS VAGINA 46 days later????? What about the RUDY DNA in The Victims Vagina? Does that indicate a sexual assault?
So the Victims Vagina contained the DNA of Rudy and to the Italian way of thinking there is no reason to suspect that the semen stain right under the Victims Vagina is from Rudy and furthermore there is no reason to test it? Do you really believe this?
And if they tested the pillowcase stains secretly, the pillowcase would be poked with several holes.You are making all of this up: Hands down.
As for the school where he was caught in Milan, he did not break any window or door, and did not steal anything. He didn't even attempt to flee and waited for police. He was only charged with unauthorized entry in a private estate, a very petty offence that doesn't have imprisonment penalty.His backpack contained items from the business: Including a large knife, which he was STEALING.
Wasn't Rudy recently convicted of burglary and had the time added to his sentence?
And stop using the term "obviously", because you "obviously" do not know what it means: If it were obvious we would not be arguing about it.

 

[analemma]

But it's important to point out that in fact there is no evidence Guede committed any burglary.
He has no precendent for burglary. Even the theft inside the Perugian lawfirma - the only known episore actually - cannot be ascribed to Guede beyond reasonable doubt.

As for the school where he was caught in Milan, he did not break any window or door, and did not steal anything. He didn't even attempt to flee and waited for police. He was only charged with unauthorized entry in a private estate, a very petty offence that doesn't have imprisonment penalty.



Obviously not.
First, because there was a fight between Meredith and the murderers, and DNA can be left in the context of such confrontation, without any link to a burglary (that is DNA on purse is equally explainable in both scenarios).
Second, it should not evidence from an innocentisti point of view; I mean it cannot be evidence if one assumes that Sollecito's DNA on the clasp is not evidence because of alleged contamination. Guede's DNA on the purse was found 46 days later in the same context of bra clasp, among same mess and rummaging, dirty floor etc. Those who rule out bra clasp DNA because of this also have to rule out Guede's DNA.



Obviously not. Because someone else had interest to remove the phones.
(also, it's not usual for a burglar to throw away stolen items after 3 minutes).
How can you link it to Guede? You can't. No evidence.
There is some circumstantial evidence that money was taken, but no evidence it was inside Meredith's purse. Also Meredith's cell phones are not assumed to be in her purse: she used to keep at least one of them in the pocket of her jeans.
There is no evidence that someone committed burglary. Only that someone committed a theft.

It means: absolutely zero evidence Guede committed a burglary, and also zero evidence that a burglary had been committed overall.

This is unacceptable and quite delusional. I have no "guesses" of that kind, and actually I also have a big question about the fact that that is actually semen (I suspect it may be vaseline).
What I have learned from my research is that in order to test semen stains on fabric they cannot use a swab; they they need to cut an area of the fabric and immerse it into a special a solvent, which separates the biological part from the fabric. Then, the liquid sample undergoes a series of tests, which may include specific enzyme tests for semen, and then is processed for DNA extraction.
I don't assume anyone like prosecution or Stefanoni did anything illegal, there is no evidence of that. And if they tested the pillowcase stains secretly, the pillowcase would be poked with several holes.

All this BS quibbling about DNA and contamination is just that : BS. Are you saying that they extracted the DNA of Rudy from the VICTIMS VAGINA 46 days later????? What about the RUDY DNA in The Victims Vagina? Does that indicate a sexual assault?
So the Victims Vagina contained the DNA of Rudy and to the Italian way of thinking there is no reason to suspect that the semen stain right under the Victims Vagina is from Rudy and furthermore there is no reason to test it? Do you really believe this?
And if they tested the pillowcase stains secretly, the pillowcase would be poked with several holes.You are making all of this up: Hands down.
As for the school where he was caught in Milan, he did not break any window or door, and did not steal anything. He didn't even attempt to flee and waited for police. He was only charged with unauthorized entry in a private estate, a very petty offence that doesn't have imprisonment penalty.His backpack contained items from the business: Including a large knife, which he was STEALING.
Wasn't Rudy recently convicted of burglary and had the time added to his sentence?
And stop using the term "obviously", because you do not know what it means: If it were obvious we would not be arguing about it.

 

[analemma]

What I have learned from my research

You do not do any research: You just make BS up.

 

[Machiavelli]

All this BS quibbling about DNA and contamination is just that : BS. Are you saying that they extracted the DNA of Rudy from the VICTIMS VAGINA 46 days later????? What about the RUDY DNA in The Victims Vagina? Does that indicate a sexual assault?

Of course. But a sexual assault is not a burglary.

(btw it's the Y-haplotype alone, just to remind evidence amount)

So the Victims Vagina contained the DNA of Rudy and to the Italian way of thinking there is no reason to suspect that the semen stain right under the Victims Vagina is from Rudy and furthermore there is no reason to test it? Do you really believe this?

No, this is not what I said. I don't think there is "no reason to test it". However I agree with all judges of the Knox-Sollecito trial that it was not necessary to test it.
It would have been better to test it during the investigation, but the investigation was closed in July 2008 and by that time they had thought they had reasons to delay the testing, for their reasons, good or bad. The defence had access the laboratory and request further test if they wanted. They requested some tests (like a DNA test on the rock) but not a testing of the semen stain.
Bad or good decisions by all parties, doesn't matter much: the investigation was closed in 2008, whether their choices and reasons were good it's beyond the point.

And if they tested the pillowcase stains secretly, the pillowcase would be poked with several holes.You are making all of this up: Hands down.

Why should I make things up?
I thought you had some familiarity with biological testing. Why don't you make your own little research about how forensics test a semen stain on fabric?
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=23321

As for the school where he was caught in Milan, he did not break any window or door, and did not steal anything. He didn't even attempt to flee and waited for police. He was only charged with unauthorized entry in a private estate, a very petty offence that doesn't have imprisonment penalty.His backpack contained items from the business: Including a large knife, which he was STEALING.

Sorry, in order to be charged with stealing you need to actually take away the object. And the object must have a value that is not minimal. A charge of "attempted theft" doesn't exist in the code. Not even a charge of "thinking about theft".

p.s. under Italian law, theft also requires that the owner of the object files a complaint; theft is a charge that cannot be investigated and prosecuted without a victim's complaint.

Wasn't Rudy recently convicted of burglary and had the time added to his sentence?

No. He was convicted for possessing stolen items.

And stop using the term "obviously", because you "obviously" do not know what it means: If it were obvious we would not be arguing about it.

In fact I am surprised we are argueing about some things. The fact is that they appear self-evident to me.

 

[Machiavelli]

You do not do any research: You just make BS up.

I am not the one who makes things up.

 

[Kauffer]

I am only watching his mugshot from German police. My hair is about 3 cm long. If I have 6 cm long hair, my hair will look really long. I don't believe he could have 6 cm long hair on Nov. 2 2007. But above all his hair is black, the hair find is brown, so there's no question.

There is zero evidence of Guede committing a burglary, come on. Try to apply a fraction of the evidence standard you would apply on someone else. Evidence is zero. Not little, but zero.

ps: please go back and see a few points about Stefanoni.

Normally, when there's a smashed window, a rock lying on the floor and a murder victim in another room, investigators tend to connect the two incidents. If they have a suspicion that in fact the breakin was staged, they investigate it and gather evidence. What was the extent of the investigation into the presumed staged burglary?

1) multiple samples taken and analysed from the alleged staging room?
2) a grid search of the ground below the window?
3) a comprehensive analysis of the wall below the window to eliminate the possibility of evidence of a climb including an attempt to recreate such a climb to demonstrate whether or not it is feasible?
4) an analysis of the glass distribution in the room by a ballistics expert?
5) extensive luminol use to uncover bloody shoe prints or evidence of the cleaning of the same as a result of the alleged stagers leaving Kercher's blood soaked room, entering Romanelli's room, collecting a glass fragment, leaving Romanelli's room, re-entering Kercher's room and depositing the fragment and then leaving Kercher's room for a final time?

What evidence is there that Amanda or Raffaele staged the burglary?

 

[analemma]

Obviously not.
In many common law courts such information would be even deemed prejudicial and not admitted at the trial.

But it's important to point out that in fact there is no evidence Guede committed any burglary.
He has no precendent for burglary. Even the theft inside the Perugian lawfirma - the only known episore actually - cannot be ascribed to Guede beyond reasonable doubt.

As for the school where he was caught in Milan, he did not break any window or door, and did not steal anything. He didn't even attempt to flee and waited for police. He was only charged with unauthorized entry in a private estate, a very petty offence that doesn't have imprisonment penalty.



Obviously not.
First, because there was a fight between Meredith and the murderers, and DNA can be left in the context of such confrontation, without any link to a burglary (that is DNA on purse is equally explainable in both scenarios).
Second, it should not evidence from an innocentisti point of view; I mean it cannot be evidence if one assumes that Sollecito's DNA on the clasp is not evidence because of alleged contamination. Guede's DNA on the purse was found 46 days later in the same context of bra clasp, among same mess and rummaging, dirty floor etc. Those who rule out bra clasp DNA because of this also have to rule out Guede's DNA.



Obviously not. Because someone else had interest to remove the phones.
(also, it's not usual for a burglar to throw away stolen items after 3 minutes).
How can you link it to Guede? You can't. No evidence.



No. There is no evidence of any money inside Meredith's purse. Btw her wallet was there and there was no Guede's DNA on it. Nor inside her purse. There is some circumstantial evidence that money was taken, but no evidence it was inside Meredith's purse. Also Meredith's cell phones are not assumed to be in her purse: she used to keep at least one of them in the pocket of her jeans.
There is no evidence that someone committed burglary. Only that someone committed a theft. But that could equally fit the other scenario, where - as suggested by Guede on his skype call - Meredith and Knox started an argument over rent money and drugs.



It means: absolutely zero evidence Guede committed a burglary, and also zero evidence that a burglary had been committed overall.



This is quite unacceptable "profiling". When I hear those things I usually respond by providing some accurate "profile" of Knox's charachter. One could question, for example, tha cash flow from Amanda Knox's banck account. Or talke about her phone contacts with drug dealers. There are not many good explanations for withdrawing such an amount of cash on the part of a student with the lyfestyle of Amanda Knox living in Perugia. One wonders why she needed so much cash money every month.



This is unacceptable and quite delusional. I have no "guesses" of that kind, and actually I also have a big question about the fact that that is actually semen (I suspect it may be vaseline).
What I have learned from my research is that in order to test semen stains on fabric they cannot use a swab; they they need to cut an area of the fabric and immerse it into a special a solvent, which separates the biological part from the fabric. Then, the liquid sample undergoes a series of tests, which may include specific enzyme tests for semen, and then is processed for DNA extraction.
I don't assume anyone like prosecution or Stefanoni did anything illegal, there is no evidence of that. And if they tested the pillowcase stains secretly, the pillowcase would be poked with several holes.

The assumptions you make in this set of statements is not even reasonable.
His only theft-of the lawyers computer- cannot be proved BARD, but since he had the computer while in the act of another burglary, it should be BARD: all this fence stuff is just a hallucination dreamed up by Mignini to convict AK and RS.
The fight with Meredith and her attackers-are you really saying she hit Rudy with her purse???????????????
When did the police say ON her purse and not IN her purse? Citation please, but you probably make this up also. His DNA was everywhere. This is not TJMK where blatant lies cannot be questioned.
You quote Rudys testimony about a fight over money: well what about Rudys story about a tall white guy and Amanda was not there?
What about the Rudy tale of cuts on his hands from fighting with the perp and then the 2013 ISC removing the cuts as a "judicial Truth"

 

[Ken Dine]

???

Guede's DNA in Kercher's purse isn't evidence that Guede committed a burglary here?

Two phones removed from the residence aren't evidence that Guede committed a burglary?

Money was stolen from Kercher's purse is evidence that somebody committed burglary and Guede is known to have been in the apartment at the time Kercher was murdered. That isn't evidence for Guede committing burglary?

First, because there was a fight between Meredith and the murderers, and DNA can be left in the context of such confrontation, without any link to a burglary (that is DNA on purse is equally explainable in both scenarios).

To be clear, Guede's DNA on Meredith's purse was NOT touch DNA, but rather, Guede's DNA on both Meredith's purse and sweatshirt were extracted from samples of Guede's blood found on those items.

I.e., in the process of stabbing Meredith to death, Guede had cut his own hand and subsequently had bled on those items. The pictures of Guede's hands taken by the German police proves that Guede had cut his own hands.

Of course, Guede claims that Raffaele had cut his hand as Raffaele fled the cottage after murdering Meredith, but that doesn't explain why Guede then went and touched Meredith's purse and sweatshirt leaving his blood behind on those items after Raffaele had supposedly fled.

As for stealing Meredith's rent money, there's only strong circumstantial evidence for that:

1 - Meredith's rent money was missing.

2 - Guede had money to go dancing and drinking later that night, and Guede also had money to buy tickets to flee to Germany the next day.

3 - Guede left his blood, along with Meredith's blood, on her purse, as well as in other places in her bedroom.

4 - the garage's CCTV had captured Guede fleeing the cottage after the murder (as well as walking towards the cottage before the murder), but no CCTV security cameras had captured Amanda or Raffaele out and about that night.

Second, it should not evidence from an innocentisti point of view; I mean it cannot be evidence if one assumes that Sollecito's DNA on the clasp is not evidence because of alleged contamination.

Guede's DNA on the purse was found 46 days later in the same context of bra clasp, among same mess and rummaging, dirty floor etc. Those who rule out bra clasp DNA because of this also have to rule out Guede's DNA.

Guede had left his blood behind on Meredith's purse, but how does that fact further your 'Guilter' delusions?

There's a BIG difference between finding a few cells (LCN-DNA) of Raffaele's on a bra-clasp (which likely was from contamination), compared to finding massive amounts of Guede's DNA in the form of his own blood on Meredith's purse!

The Investigation of Rudy Guede’s DNA Trail:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/guede-dna-investigation/

BTW - do you have a citation to support your claim that her purse was taken into evidence 26 days later?

Meredith's bra-clasp and jacket were both indeed clearly bagged 46 days late, but even so, Guede's dried blood was on the jacket (which doesn't sound like contamination), as well as Guede's blood found on Meredith's purse, which again couldn't be from contamination.

 

[analemma]

That's what they told Galileo, IIRC. And they didn't get around to apologizing for that until the 1990s. Even slower than an Italian court. Oh wait.....

At that rate the motivations will come out sometime in the year 2375.

 

[Planigale]

There are no pubs or clubs in via della Pergola/via S. Antonio. The area is very silent. Actually, 21:00 is the most silent hour in many Italian towns, because it's dinner time, very few people are around.
The only difference is that between 3 and 4 in the morning people would be asleep, while at 21:00 they are awake, and may hear.



You think there is no evidence. And you think what I say is illogical. But the fact that you say it, doesn't make it so.
Thinking or not following logic is not the issue anyway. The fact is just that when things appear have a logical pattern, to follow an order, to have peculiarities and coincidences, you simply have to consider that when there is a logical explanation for such pattern, it means those things point in direction of that explanation.



Knox is not evil. "Evil" is a word with moralistic nouances that doesn't have any meaning to me. Knox is a proven liar. She is also a person with some peculiar personality traits.
Indeed, the fact that she is such a treacherous liar does not bode particularly well as for the interpretation of the evidence in her favour. But there is also much physical evidence completely independent from Knox's being a liar, and also there is evidence against Sollecito which does not involve Knox directly.
Though, I want to point out that while you accuse me of assuming that Knox is "evil" without evidence, in fact what I see is that you assume that Guede has a serial killer profile, affected by a violent perversion of raping dying women, without any evidence; and that you also assume that he committed a burglary in the cottage without any evidence. Even if you don't state that explicitly, you make "assumptions" about Guede. No way what you say is supported, or more proven than what I say about Knox.

Well, this is more evidence of the fact that you think with 'prejudice'. I have in fact previously said I do not think there is any evidence of the timing of sexual contact between Guede and MK. I do not think and have never argued he has a serial killer profile. That you think I do shows you are thinking emotionally. If I had to judge, I think this was situational. I think Guede's fleeing the scene is contrary to the behaviour of a 'serial' killer. In a way I think this shows remorse or guilt not an action of a 'psychopath'. There is evidence that he committed a burglary. You may not think it is insufficient evidence. You may think the evidence better fits an alternative explanation but to deny there is any evidence just shows an absolute blindness to reality. You cannot deny there is evidence.

1) We know Guede was present.
2) There is evidence of illegal entry (you may argue that a better explanation for this in the light of a murder is staging, but you cannot deny the existence of a broken window).
3) There was a theft of money and phones that were never recovered.
4) Guede fled abroad.

PS you use the very emotional term treacherous liar. Who is she betraying? The use of terms like this show you are emotionally engaged; I hate to seem like T'Pol but emotion results in humans not being able to come to logical conclusions.

 

[Planigale]

I am only watching his mugshot from German police. My hair is about 3 cm long. If I have 6 cm long hair, my hair will look really long. I don't believe he could have 6 cm long hair on Nov. 2 2007. But above all his hair is black, the hair find is brown, so there's no question.

There is zero evidence of Guede committing a burglary, come on. Try to apply a fraction of the evidence standard you would apply on someone else. Evidence is zero. Not little, but zero.

ps: please go back and see a few points about Stefanoni.

It is past my bedtime. The only thing keeping me up is 007. I'll do this later.

 

[analemma]

Ahhhh Tesla. The issue was whether we have anything like calunnia here as you made the statement we don't. But we do.

"Filing a false police report can lead to multiple criminal consequences. Many states call this charge "false report to a peace officer." It is one of the few types of speech that is not constitutionally protected. Lying to a law enforcement officer can result in a criminal conviction. "

If you read on this you will find that what Amanda did could be charged with a felony here. They are state laws so have different names and penalties. It is not clear that one couldn't be extradited for a calunnia conviction. IMO.

Grinder,
I will admit that it might be possible to concoct some weird scenario when a "false report to a peace officer" would lead to a plausible case for extradition, but in this case, no way.
You would have to be on the Mach planet to even imagine that would be possible.
It is agreed by all that she retracted the "false report to a peace officer" the first time she had the opportunity.
The Italian courts were way too wishy washy and inbred to admit that the police beat the statement out of her without a lawyer, but this would never fly for extradition.
Not in this case, especially.
The Italians would not even dream of attempting extradition, especially since even they know it would look like sour grapes and the ECHR will tear them a new hinny hole for criminally unfair interrogations when the ECHR gets around to it.

 

[Kauffer]

I am not the one who makes things up.

Yes you are. According to you, Amanda and Raffaele ran out of the room after Amanda brutally stabbed Kercher to death, thus avoiding the blood splatter, coz, obviously, she can run faster than blood can spray under arterial pressure.

 

[Desert Fox]

At that rate the motivations will come out sometime in the year 2375.

I understand the desire to see what they are writing but I suspect that it will be covering where the sun does not shine.

 

[Desert Fox]

Grinder,
I will admit that it might be possible to concoct some weird scenario when a "false report to a peace officer" would lead to a plausible case for extradition, but in this case, no way.
You would have to be on the Mach planet to even imagine that would be possible.
It is agreed by all that she retracted the "false report to a peace officer" the first time she had the opportunity.
The Italian courts were way too wishy washy and inbred to admit that the police beat the statement out of her without a lawyer, but this would never fly for extradition.
Not in this case, especially.
The Italians would not even dream of attempting extradition, especially since even they know it would look like sour grapes and the ECHR will tear them a new hinny hole for criminally unfair interrogations when the ECHR gets around to it.

Besides, didn't she already serve two years on that charge? Even assuming the ECHR does not overturn it, I think some people in the justice department would take a dim view to increasing penalties after the fact?

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes you are. According to you, Amanda and Raffaele ran out of the room after Amanda brutally stabbed Kercher to death, thus avoiding the blood splatter, coz, obviously, she can run faster than blood can spray under arterial pressure.

No Kauffer. There is no evidence they were completely "clean" from blood when they run outside. If you assume so, it's you the one who makes up stuff. If they were completely clean they wouldn't have needed to wash themselves in the bathroom, which they did instead. The fact that they washed themselves indicates that they had some blood on some parts of their bodies. Apparently Knox had it on her hands basin.
Please don't attribute to me things I never said.

If you want to raise such objection about blood. moreover, you should extend it to Rudy, since the only blood shoeprints attributable to Rudy belong all to a single trail, from one half sole, which he picked up only as he was walking out. That would mean only after the stabbing.

 

[Kauffer]

No Kauffer. There is no evidence they were completely "clean" from blood when they run outside. If you assume so, it's you the one who makes up stuff. If they were completely clean they wouldn't have needed to wash themselves in the bathroom, which they did instead. The fact that they washed themselves indicates that they had some blood on some parts of their bodies. Apparently Knox had it on her hands basin.
Please don't attribute to me things I never said.

If you want to raise such objection about blood. moreover, you should extend it to Rudy, since the only blood shoeprints attributable to Rudy belong all to a single trail, from one half sole, which he picked up only as he was walking out. That would mean only after the stabbing.

There is no evidence that Amanda and Raffaele were even in the apartment let alone that they cleaned themselves of blood in the bathroom. Such blood would have permeated their clothes and resulted in multiple instances of transfer, yet their is evidence of none. Furthermore there are no prints in blood in Kercher's room other than Guede's. Dan O has previously and numerously defeated your factually inaccurate argument about Guede's bloody prints but I do agree with you that Guede collected Kercher's blood on his shoe after the stabbing, but he certainly returned to the room.

You cannot stab somebody to death in a small room and not leave prolific evidence behind in the room and take it away. Yet no blood was found on their clothes or at Raffaele's apartment. Why?