Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Did you see claim that ALL Italians were against the ISC? don't Mach made that claim either.

YOU made the claim that all the opinion was on the side of the ISC verdict.

What a coincidence that both of you posted at exactly the same time. The scheduler at Marriott will be getting a reaming tomorrow.

It certainly looks bad, doesn't it! I wonder if we'll both be paid!?

 

[Mike1711]

Forget the semantics game. Mez was murdered by the wardrobe. At the questura Amanda claimed special knowledge the body was found in the wardrobe.

Forensic police discovered the killers had moved the body half a yard away from the wardrobe in a sheet, which made police suspect the aim was to hide the body.

Now do you understand why Amanda made herself the focus of suspicion?

No.

 

[Mike1711]

I have always tried to refrain from suggesting someone was lying. It's pretty strong. It suggests that someone is deliberately being deceptive. A mistake is not a lie. People make mistakes all the time.

But there is no other possible explanation. These posts are a barrage of falsehoods. At some point it would be dishonest not to describe them as lies.

Tesla, you're wrong.
AK was going to send a barrage of messages, but she forgot to do it.
Vixen knows that AK intended to send the barrage, but forgot to, which by logical deduction solves the crime.
Vixen also knows that when AK puts an "x" in the text she was actually trying to cross something out in the text.
Foxy people these mensa people.

 

[Mike1711]

Forget the semantics game. Mez was murdered by the wardrobe. At the questura Amanda claimed special knowledge the body was found in the wardrobe.

Forensic police discovered the killers had moved the body half a yard away from the wardrobe in a sheet, which made police suspect the aim was to hide the body.

Now do you understand why Amanda made herself the focus of suspicion?

What exactly do you mean by "special" knowledge? Is "special" knowledge superior to knowledge? Or is "special" a synonym for "psychic"? It doesn't say so in the dictionary, which is why I'm asking you.

 

[Mike1711]

Nencini was the Appeal court. Bongiorno advised Raff not to bring up the pillow stain at the merits hearing. This is the fact-finding hearing.

Bongiorno knows the protocol. Her first duty is to the court and here she is telling her client, "Psssttt! Better not mention the purported semen stain, which you are afraid might be yours!"

Bongiorno has to take 100% responsibility for her legerdemain behaviour, albeit on her client's instructions.

This is where you get things all wrong.
The presumption of innocence demands that the prosecution produce proper evidence that has been correctly collected, to court.
An innocent RS, knows full well that the stain has no connection to him. Therefore if the state fails in its duty to test this evidence the assumption by the court HAS TO BE that it not only does NOT belong to RS, but also has no relevance to the case.
RS knows that it's not his semen....BUT (and this is where it gets tricky) when he sees the fumbling prosecution and court getting so much wrong, he logically has a dilemma....
This is a dilemma into which a "presumed innocent" person should NEVER be placed. It is the inalienable obligation of the state to collect ALL evidence, in order to prove guilt. There is absolutely NO obligation on innocent people to prove their innocence, for very good reason.
You want to make the state's failure and dereliction of duty, (and the obvious and logical defence's dilemma regarding ongoing state errors), the defence's issue.
The law, the courts and logic do not work this way.
A defence should NEVER be burdened by a position where a semen stain accepted by law as "having no bearing on the case" should be tested to prove something that does not have to be proven....innocence.
RS was placed in an invidious position, whereby howling state errors were forcing him to consider "proving his innocence".
Finally and hopefully to force the point home. Every human on this planet makes mistakes (including laboratory scientists) and even under the most ideal conditions a test called by a defence to prove innocence COULD produce a false positive. Then what??? Retest. Perhaps, but damage has been done and as much as we'd like to believe it, courts are not without being swayed by such errors.

 

[Kauffer]

In case you haven't seen it, I added the following remark:

ETA However, the reference does come from a reliable source, for example, John Follain also refers to "a series of texts" from Amanda to Mez, which Mez ignored, but answered at just after 7:00pm, as above.

I expect Nick got the abridged version from a pro-Knox report, to disguise the act of desperate bombardment by Amanda that day.

Whatever, it is clear Mez was avoiding her, despite the blatant begging by Amanda that day, who, as you know, went on to spend Halloween at a loss in her cat costume and nowhere to go.

A sad story, indeed.

How many times do you need to be told that there were three simple text messages just before and just after 7pm? How many times do you need to be told that the party was not Kercher's party? Nobody was desperate and nobody was begging anybody else.

How long will it take before you realise that claims for the existence of evidence in secondary sources have to be tested with reference to the primary sources?

You have looked for additional messages, cannot find them from any source and yet still maintain, it seems, that they are there somewhere.

This is the sad story - a total incapability on your behalf to discern the truth. You have embarrassed yourself - yet again.

 

[Kauffer]

From wiki:


The DNA on the bra clasp showed a stunning Raff DNA RFU's at 1,300.

The small, mixed sample of DNA including Kercher as the major contributor and at least two other males on the metal clasp, is hardly incriminating.

We do not see Raffaele's trace on any other item in the room including the main body of the bra itself and in particular his shoeprints in blood are nowhere to be found.

Therefore the chances that Raffaele directly deposited his DNA on the clasp are zero. It is simply not possible that anybody taking part in the attack and brutal bloody killing of Kercher would not have left uncompromising evidence in multiple clearly defined traces of their presence in blood in the room in a manner which would provide a time stamp of that presence.

 

[Mike1711]

Quite frankly, an innocent person would say, go ahead, there's no way you'll find any incriminating trace of me.

Instead, here we have a massive quantity of Raff DNA on the bra clasp, when Mez was not undressed until post mortem, underneath the pillow, underneath the body.

Perhaps the fear was Raff stains on the door knob would be transferred on the gloves of Napoleoni.

Yeeah, that's a very reasonable fear for an innocent person to have, especially when one's footprint in blood turns up on the bathmat, and elsewhere, including in Amanda's room. Bloody pigs, planting footprints and DNA.

Proving innocence is not the responsibility of the defence. Taking on that responsibility by a defence team could be prejudicial to the defendants rights to a fair trial. A defence team trying to prove innocence may well fall into a category of defence legal team malpractice, which would account for some of the defences' dilemma in this matter.
A different example completely but a good parallel would be the famous OJ glove incident, which blew up in the prosecution's face. No defence team worth anything would EVER have suggested OJ try the glove on, no matter how innocent they thought he was, and no matter how small they believed the glove to be, unless they were 100% sure of the result! and in court 100% does not exist, and therein lies the rub.

 

[LondonJohn]

From wiki:


The DNA on the bra clasp showed a stunning Raff DNA RFU's at 1,300.

Holy smoke. You have no idea what RFUs are or what they represent, do you? I'll give you a major hint: the "R" in RFU stands for "Relative". Maybe that will help you on your journey to discovery, enlightenment and education. But you really ought to inform yourself at least a little on technical matters such as these before making embarrassing pronouncements.

So, I'll ask again, leaving out the irrelevant (in the context of the question) issue of RFUs: what mass* (in grams) of Sollecito's DNA was allegedly present on the bra clasp?

* I realise it's something of a trick question, since not even not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni - the OFFICIAL STATE LAB TESTER - knew the accurate answer to this question. But there's at least enough information available to enable a reasonable estimation. Away you go!

 

[Kauffer]

Unresearched claims

There is only one rule with regard to making unchecked claims about the existence of evidence - don't do it!

If only Vixen et al would follow this rule, which, after all, is a basic rationalist requirement, then all of the myths about this case would disappear in a heartbeat.

Cite, cite, cite! If you cannot cite with specificity, then there is no basis for discussion and argument

 

[Vixen]

A psychic police force. Wow!!
So let me get this straight.
AK forgot that she forgot to put the body inside the wardrobe, but the police knew this and told the prosecution. Mignini, being a bright chap, bought this very credible story and told the Judges.
The brilliant earlier Judges, realising just how brilliant Mignini was, then agreed that AK must be guilty because after all how could she have known that the murderer forgot to put the body inside the wardrobe; because of course how many innocent people on this whole planet knew what didn't happen, BUT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE HAPPENED!!??
In fact I remember at the time of the murder telling my friend that the body was found on top of the cupboard. Do you realise how lucky I am that the police didn't psychically deduce that the body was supposed to be on TOP of the cupboard? I would have been as guilty as sin!! Whew that was close...it could've been me, and fairly and squarely so too.

As the closet was inbuilt into the alcove, there wasn't a wardrobe top.

Is sarcasm your highest form of debating skill? Must do better.

 

[Vixen]

It looks like you more than glance, given the hide you tried to tear off me.....

So here's another piece, this time from an Italian Lawyer in an outlet called, "The Chronicle: Free from Italy." Yet another piece, this one from lawyer Maria Pia Rizzo (if I am reading this right), a "patrocinante in Cassazione e avanti le Magistrature Superiori," meaning, "counsel at the Supreme Court and on the Superior Courts."

It's from today.......http://www.thechronicle.it/amanda-knox/

Do more than glance, will you.... there is absolutely no mention of Machiavelli's "meme", about a totally confused/contradictory motivations report - Rizzo seems to think that Section 5 of the ISC accomplished what should have been accomplished all along.... so what was your boueff again?

​

​

The piece closes not with a Machiavellian-treatise on what "forte sospetto" means, but on how the Italian press, for eight years, can seemingly ignore that innocent people had been in jail, and that that was the real scandal reported upon.

ETA - Ack! Annella beat me too it!

All it proves is that whilst Germany has DAS BILD, England has THE SUN and the USA NATIONAL ENQUIRER, hey, Italy has its gutter press, too: THE CHRONICLE.


Two-bit hacks writing bilge.

 

[Vixen]

This is where you get things all wrong.
The presumption of innocence demands that the prosecution produce proper evidence that has been correctly collected, to court.
An innocent RS, knows full well that the stain has no connection to him. Therefore if the state fails in its duty to test this evidence the assumption by the court HAS TO BE that it not only does NOT belong to RS, but also has no relevance to the case.
RS knows that it's not his semen....BUT (and this is where it gets tricky) when he sees the fumbling prosecution and court getting so much wrong, he logically has a dilemma....
This is a dilemma into which a "presumed innocent" person should NEVER be placed. It is the inalienable obligation of the state to collect ALL evidence, in order to prove guilt. There is absolutely NO obligation on innocent people to prove their innocence, for very good reason.
You want to make the state's failure and dereliction of duty, (and the obvious and logical defence's dilemma regarding ongoing state errors), the defence's issue.
The law, the courts and logic do not work this way.
A defence should NEVER be burdened by a position where a semen stain accepted by law as "having no bearing on the case" should be tested to prove something that does not have to be proven....innocence.
RS was placed in an invidious position, whereby howling state errors were forcing him to consider "proving his innocence".
Finally and hopefully to force the point home. Every human on this planet makes mistakes (including laboratory scientists) and even under the most ideal conditions a test called by a defence to prove innocence COULD produce a false positive. Then what??? Retest. Perhaps, but damage has been done and as much as we'd like to believe it, courts are not without being swayed by such errors.

It's very lucky Papa Raff persuaded Massei the size 42 trainer print found, which strangely had a star defect on the heel identical to that of Raff's, was actually Rudy's -who normally takes size 45 - or we might have to speculate it was Raff who stepped on the purported jizz.

 

[Vixen]

What exactly do you mean by "special" knowledge? Is "special" knowledge superior to knowledge? Or is "special" a synonym for "psychic"? It doesn't say so in the dictionary, which is why I'm asking you.

Knowledge that only the police and the perpetrator would have. I guess not all of us are born to be detectives.

 

[Vixen]

The small, mixed sample of DNA including Kercher as the major contributor and at least two other males on the metal clasp, is hardly incriminating.

We do not see Raffaele's trace on any other item in the room including the main body of the bra itself and in particular his shoeprints in blood are nowhere to be found.

Therefore the chances that Raffaele directly deposited his DNA on the clasp are zero. It is simply not possible that anybody taking part in the attack and brutal bloody killing of Kercher would not have left uncompromising evidence in multiple clearly defined traces of their presence in blood in the room in a manner which would provide a time stamp of that presence.

And it's simply not possible there was a tertiary transfer of Raff's DNA from the doorknob, as (a) after 42 days, the doorknob DNA would have dried and deteriorated by overriding DNA and handsweat and (b) there is no evidence Napoleoni's latex glove ever came into contact with the door handle for such a contamination to happen. Prof David Balding of UCL confirms it is an irrefutable, exceptionally strong imprint of Raff's DNA on the bra clasp.

No two ways about it. Not even that wily old fraud Gill, paid defence shill, can convincingly twist it.

ETA And anyway, the video shows, and Napoleoni affirms, she took great care not to touch the actual clasp.

 

[Vixen]

How many times do you need to be told that there were three simple text messages just before and just after 7pm? How many times do you need to be told that the party was not Kercher's party? Nobody was desperate and nobody was begging anybody else.

How long will it take before you realise that claims for the existence of evidence in secondary sources have to be tested with reference to the primary sources?

You have looked for additional messages, cannot find them from any source and yet still maintain, it seems, that they are there somewhere.

This is the sad story - a total incapability on your behalf to discern the truth. You have embarrassed yourself - yet again.

Who do we believe: an aggressive armchair advocate, such as Kauffer or LondonJohn, who swear innocence at all costs regardless of the evidence, or a skilled, experienced, qualified and respected top journalist, John Follain, with a whole team of top grade researchers to check all the facts before publication?

Take your pick.

 

[Annella]

All it proves is that whilst Germany has DAS BILD, England has THE SUN and the USA NATIONAL ENQUIRER, hey, Italy has its gutter press, too: THE CHRONICLE.


Two-bit hacks writing bilge.

Really?? An actual ' look her up and see' Italian Lawyer? Who has worked out of the Italian Supreme Court so one assumes she is familiar with the mechanisms there? Vixen, methinks you have possibly lost more of the plot than I initially thought!
Why is it I am not at all surprised.

 

[Annella]

Who do we believe: an aggressive armchair advocate, such as Kauffer or LondonJohn, who swear innocence at all costs regardless of the evidence, or a skilled, experienced, qualified and respected top journalist, John Follain, with a whole team of top grade researchers to check all the facts before publication?

Take your pick.

You forgot to include an Italian lawyer named Maria Pia Rizzo.

 

[analemma]

Knowledge that only the police and the perpetrator would have. I guess not all of us are born to be CORRUPT detectives.

CORRUPT as explained by the Italian Supreme Court

 

[Vixen]

You forgot to include an Italian lawyer named Maria Pia Rizzo.

Sorry to sound cynical, but he or she is probably touting for defence business, in the guise of a newspaper "article".