Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

If Mach is a reliable source on any topic, so was Curutolo (RIP).

His track record of inaccurate statements speaks for itself.

He is more like Mignini or Guede. What he says has some value, even if negative. Curatolo has zero value since he made it all up.

 

[JihadJane]

Yes, that's a good one and you should also read a bad one for balance. The worst bad one by far is by Barbie Nadeau. Thats so bad it's funny. A better bad one is by John Follian, which is a guilter bible. Of the two, I would go for Barbie, for laughs and because it's shorter. There are about ten others I could suggest but I have formed the impression that you are pretty much a sane person with better things to do in your spare time.

Thanks.

 

[Dougm]

What books would people recommend for an overview of this case?

For example, I just read a review of The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox by Nina Burleigh. Is that worth reading?

My recommendation would be to read the following:

"Murder in Italy", by Candace Dempsey. Good straightforward presentation of the story and info. The PG folks hate this book because Ms. Dempsey became a public advocate for Knox and Sollecito's innocence, but the book itself does not advocate so much as explain what happened.

" The Fatal Gift of Beauty" by Nina Burleigh. Well researched take on the case. NB did some research on several of the characters involved, providing some info not found elsewhere, especially about Guede. She provides some opinions about some of the people involved that each reader must decide if they agree with. For example, although this book concludes they must be innocent, NB includes unflattering portraits of almost everyone involved, including Knox family members.

John Follain's book, the title of which escapes me for now. Disliked by PI people because Follain's appears to get most of his info from Mignini and the police, this is nevertheless worthwhile to see an attempt to present the case from a largely "they must have done it" POV, but failing.



Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Dougm]

He is more like Mignini or Guede. What he says has some value, even if negative. Curatolo has zero value since he made it all up.

I view Mach similarly. No matter what he says, it needs to be verified, based on a previous track record of misinterpretation, and simply making stuff up to suit his arguments.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[JihadJane]

Thaks, Dougm.

 

[Kauffer]

But there is abundant evidence.

There is no DNA of Knox found inside Meredith's room, but this is not the same thing of saying no evidence.
Look the coarse way you distort statement. It's not "female DNA". It's autosomic DNA.

The simple problem with finding small traces of autosomic DNA on a female's body, is the profiles unbalance in the sample.

Stefanoni explained (Oct. 2008 testimony, p.153-154) that in a mixed sample when profile amounts are very unbalanced, the amplification process leads often to the loss of information of the smaller amount.

This is why Guede's X-chromosome was not found on the bra, nor inside her body. We can infer there was obviously an autosomic profile of Guede, but it was not found because the victim's DNA was too much.

There is evidence which proves she lived in her apartment. There is no evidence that she was involved in the murder. The absence of any evidence in Kercher's room excludes the possibility.

The BARD standard requires that there be no plausible innocent explanation for evidence. In this case, the guilty interpretation is the least plausible.

 

[Kauffer]

No this is not how a reasoning works.
The reasoning works starting from collecting the evidence, that is collect the findings which contain information.
(does not start with a series of answers to the point that appear blank to you, which you frame subjectively and arbitrarily).
When I say information, I mean that findings need to be considered as for their logical value, which includes always weighing the plausibility and probability of the alternative theory. So that a conclusion may well derive from the absence of plausible alternative.

The assumption that there is no evidence o Knox in the room is also false. The fact that she is a female -to start with - would explain the impossibility to find her DNA on the victim's body or on spots where there is Meredith's blood.
The fact that Guede's DNA evidence is minimal, and of the same magnitude and quality of Sollecito's DNA, should be acknowledged by any honest person.
The fact that there can be murder where no DNA of the stabber is found - especially if there are multiple perpetrators - shold also be acknowledged as normal.
The fact that there is Knox's lamp inside the room is evidence of her on the murder scene, and the fact that her blood is found in suspicious circumstances and her DNA is found on blood spots of the victim and on multiple luminol stains mixed with the victim's DNA, even in areas of the house where Knox was not supposed to leave DNA, is also evidence of Knox on the scene of crime.
The fact that there are luminol stains and footprints linkable to Knox, because of their shape, location, and peculiarities (not in trail), should also be considered, at least potentially, as physical evidence of the presence of Knox on the murder scene.

These are example of things that should be assumed when you start looking objectively and honestly. Stating a condition that "there must be physical evidence of Knox inside that room", is prejudice. It's bias.

You could not address yourself to any of my points, which are essential in order to demonstrate guilt.

This is not evidence of Amanda in the room at the time of the murder. It is evidence that someone put the lamp in the room at some indeterminate time. Since a guilty interpretation of this fact - that Amanda brought the lamp into the room post murder in order to see better whilst on her hands and knees removing invisible traces of herself whilst leaving traces of Guede - is absurd, the plausible innocent alternatives - that either Kercher borrowed the lamp or one of the CSIs used it, are more likely.

 

[analemma]

The fact that Guede's DNA evidence is minimal, and of the same magnitude and quality of Sollecito's DNA, should be acknowledged by any honest person.

Guede's DNA evidence is minimal???????????????
You mean the GUEDE DNA evidence found INSIDE the victims vagina?????
Do you consider DNA evidence found inside a murdered rape victims vagina minimal?
The cowardly police did not even examine the Guede semen stains found just below the vagina.
You are not increasing your credibility here.

 

[anglolawyer]

Of not the *********** lamp again. Swoon.

 

[Bill Williams]

I view Mach similarly. No matter what he says, it needs to be verified, based on a previous track record of misinterpretation, and simply making stuff up to suit his arguments.

Nowhere more so than how Machiavelli handles the issue of Anna Donnino, the interpreter who came into Amanda Knox's first 11:00 pm - 1:45 am interrogation at the cuff hand of Rita Ficarra.

Donnino herself reported she'd arrived at 12:30 am, and saw that the interrogation was in disarray. So much so that she herself said she then acted "as a mediator" between the police and Knox. Apparently this is when Donnino tried to engender Amanda's trust with her story about how she herself had once had had amnesia because of trauma.

Instead of attacking this allegation which pro-innocence people refer to, Machiavelli confirms it! Look back in these very threads - he said that it was her role not only to act as a mediator, but further as a diplomat - whatever that means.

The theory of "The Big Lie" is that it is such a whopper, that people would not believe anyone would have the nerve tell such a thing, so people (the theory goes) tend to believe it.

Speaking of books - my sin is that I paid full price for Follain's "A Death in Italy," billed as the true account of the Kercher murder and its aftermath.

Say what you want about Follain, but the way he choreographs and blocks out the very-same interrogation is proof as to what he's on about. Donnino doesn't even have a name in Follain's narrative and is barely mentioned, and truly a reader can be forgiven for believing that the reason why Knox eventually cracked was because of all the good treatment Ficarra et al. were doling out. Amanda eventually had to confess, because of all those biscuits and the chamomile tea.

One's position in all this can be ascertained by how they would narrate the interrogations. Machiavelli simply makes stuff up about it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Of not the *********** lamp again. Swoon.

It's whack-a-mole, dude.

 

[acbytesla]

There is evidence which proves she lived in her apartment. There is no evidence that she was involved in the murder. The absence of any evidence in Kercher's room excludes the possibility.

The BARD standard requires that there be no plausible innocent explanation for evidence. In this case, the guilty interpretation is the least plausible.

I have always said Amanda was lucky. If you could say that about someone who unjustly spent 4 years in prison. Lucky because there is no evidence of Amanda in Meredith's room. Sorry, Mach, her lamp doesn't prove that Amanda was in that room.

It would have been reasonable that Amanda left evidence of herself in that bedroom during the previous 42 days. Finding Amanda's DNA in Meredith's bedroom or even on Meredith's clothes would hardly been proof of Amanda's involvement. But the total absence of said evidence certainly points to a high probability of innocence.

Lucky.......hmmmmmm

 

[RWVBWL]

<snip>
The fact that there can be murder where no DNA of the stabber is found - especially if there are multiple perpetrators
...
<snip>

Hi Machiavelli,
So, ah did your Italian investigators ever discover
who it was that stabbed and Miss Meredith Kercher?

http://images.teinteresa.es/sucesos/agonica-muerte-Meredith-Kercher_TINIMA20110907_1137_18.jpg


Might it be the same person whom left seminal fluid,
err, presumed seminal fluid on a pillow placed underneath Miss Kercher's naked body?


Don't look at this video
http://www.focus.de/focustv/faszina...er-neue-prozess-um-amanda-knox_vid_36840.html
unless you want to see what we are really discussing
in this brutal rape + murder case we discuss.

As MichaelB put it:
It certainly puts things in perspective.
Don't look if can't stomach it....it's graphic.

You can see Meredith Kercher's body lying on the floor of her bedroom
with that semen stained, err presumed seminal fluid stained pillow
lying underneath her in this preview of a 2013 German documentary about the case.

 

[Bill Williams]

Guilter logic 101.

Machiavelli said he was shot in 2001 in Genoa, persumably at the G8 conference demonstrations.

He now says he was "shot at".

Guilter logic - Machiavelli is a liar. Should then be a suspect in a murder.

 

[js202]

Guilter logic 101.

Machiavelli said he was shot in 2001 in Genoa, persumably at the G8 conference demonstrations.

He now says he was "shot at".

Guilter logic - Machiavelli is a liar. Should then be a suspect in a murder.

A liar yes, but not greasy! Never that!

 

[Strozzi]

Mach how come all PGP are certain the kitchen knife is the murder weapon? What if Amanda And Raff are guilty but they didn't use that particular knife? Did you ever consider it?

What is clear is that the police never located the murder knife. The one that caused the wounds and left the bloody imprint on Meredith's bed sheet. RW, who has done very valuable photograph analysis work for all of us on this board, located a similarly-shaped knife-handle blood trace on a sheet or bedspread on a bed downstairs. The investigators, under Mignini's leadership, concealed all that they uncovered downstairs, as if the perpetrator never entered the downstairs flat.

Frank Sfarzo (sp?) spoke with a police officer at the cottage a day or two after Raffaele was arrested and his kitchen knife confiscated and asked the policeman if they were looking for the knife. The policeman said 'no, we already got it'. Done searching.

It was a half-hearted investigation. So, so many things were done wrong or overlooked or destroyed - probably common in a suspect-centered investigation.

 

[Bill Williams]

Frank Sfarzo (sp?) spoke with a police officer at the cottage a day or two after Raffaele was arrested and his kitchen knife confiscated and asked the policeman if they were looking for the knife. The policeman said 'no, we already got it'. Done searching.

It was a half-hearted investigation. So, so many things were done wrong or overlooked or destroyed - probably common in a suspect-centered investigation.

I read that part of the original Perugia Shock. IIRC Frank asked why they were not searching the woods below the cottage. It seemed a perfect place to chuck a knife as far as one could. Frank was blown-off as you indicate.

It was one of the things which caused the otherwise caustic Frank to reevaluate the snark he was (then) aiming Knox and Sollecito's way in Peugia Shock. It occurred to him that the PLE were not really investigating this.......

 

[Grinder]

If Knox's innocence is an incomprehensible impossibility then it should at least be possible to give a brief description of the crime in a linear narrative that accounts for all three alleged perpetrators and loosely conforms to the known facts. Are we finally going to witness such a feat for the first time in this thread's 100,000 posts history? We're all ears (or eyes).

One aspect of the Rudi courts saying there were more than one accomplice and Mignini et al. charging both kids with the crime is that it was impossible to prove BARD.

If only one was charged and idiotic testimony of Curatolo, Quintavalle and Nara were not introduced, then scenarios of involvement, if not part of the murder, would be much harder to rule out.

Though I've only read bits and pieces of the report it seems the ISC is saying that because the investigation was botched so badly it is now impossible to convict BARD. It doesn't seem to say they are both innocent of everything. In fact, they agree with BW's former position that she was guilty of calunnia.

It is hard to see that this ruling and report ultimately will serve the kids. Perhaps another trial, though tedious, could have served them better.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

There was a time I despised Machiavelli.

While I can understand not wanting to see a killer go free, I never understood that need to be so compelling that it would be necessary to be dishonest. It bothered me because of people like him Amanda and Raffaele went to prison instead of graduate schools or started their careers. They had a dark cloud around them that threatened to envelop them for a greater part of their young lives.

But I don't despise him any more. I worry about him. That cloud that surround Amanda and Raffaele is gone. Instead, it hovers over people like Yummi. He, the Sancho Panza to Mignini's Don Quixote. Or maybe Mach is McMurphy in One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest. He's had his good time being disruptive but if he doesn't stop soon the ending for him will not just be bad but tragic.

People like Mach will continue on as long as they have an audience. Thankfully the audience is minimal now. Amanda and Raffaele have moved on with their lives. This case is closed. Some will still cling to the hope that Amanda will be hauled back to prison, but they are just showing their own instability.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Looking from the perspective of working to correct wrongful convictions, it was disappointing to see the court working so hard to cover for all involved, including their prior ruling regarding Guede. The report added unnecessary information in an attempt to connect all of the dots. In this case, that is not possible and not the right path to take.

The report shows the flaws of a system in need of reform. The court should not feel the need to protect others involved. They should not feel the need to protect their prior rulings. They should follow the facts as they know them to be at that given time. They should stand up and say the system got it wrong. Of course, no one ever admits they were wrong, so that is just wishful thinking.

In the end, the system did what was right and released Amanda and Raffaele. Sadly the truth will forever be clouded due to the flawed process. It would be nice to see lessons learned about the issues raised about the investigation. We can only hope that something positive will eventually come from all of this.