Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

Please provide the link to Seattle crimes you used?

http://www.seattle.gov/police/crime/stats.htm

 

[Grinder]

Really? You know this for a fact? Or are you speculating with no evidence?

Along with those crime stats for Seattle, please link the report from Steffi you referred to.

ETA - Thanks for the crime link.

 

[TruthCalls]

I still complement compliment TC for digging and getting those stats. The linked stats provided didn't have a percentage that resulted in murder, which implies to me the number would be very low.

There is no way to make the Meredith murder a "normal" crime seen frequently. Rudi did not have anything in his background that would point to a violent character.

Agreed on both points, Grinder, but with one caveat... during my research I discovered that a majority of those who commit B&E's are not violent criminals and, in many cases, they break in without possessing a weapon. Their mindset is to steal, not to assail. It was my impression that the assaults are typically spontaneous and a result of opportunity. That is, if someone stumbles across a burglary in progress the odds are pretty good they will be assaulted in an effort to somehow shut the witness up. If it is a female who runs across the burglar then the assault can easily take on a sexual nature. I don't understand the dynamics of it but when one person gains power and control over another it often drives a sexual response. IOW, most sexual assaults as a result of a burglary gone bad did not start out with sexual assault in mind.

This is what I think happened with Guede. He only intended to steal. He didn't expect anyone coming home. He was surprised by Meredith, had no easy way out, and reacted violently out of fear. At some point he had power and control over Meredith and it turned sexual.

I've often wondered if she locked the front door when she got home and if, had she not, would Guede just have escaped undetected? I don't think Guede was a violent person and probably would have preferred just getting out of there.

 

[acbytesla]

We are not talking 9.2 we are talking conclusions.

No wonder we had to wait six months for it. It was likely originally 500 pages and 52 is all that's left after Marasca blue pencilled it.

What a crock of ******

These top judges (mind you, Bruno and Marasca did not go the career path, they are merely politicians) were supposed to go through the appeal points of law on each side, and all we get is a schoolboy's treatise on Gallileo and the scientific method. Raff's appeal was 306 pages alone.

The Bruno -Marasca report is an exercise in laziness, poor reasoning, illogicality (so it's okay for Rudy's DNA to be kicked around for 46 days, but not Raff's), speciousness ("Amanda chose Patrick in case someone saw Rudy leave the cottage" [what?] and unmitigated drivel.

We are none the wiser.

Are you suggesting that Nencini, Cheiffi or Massei were any better? Why the ad hominems in describing the hudges. Personally, I thought Hellman was the only judge out of all of them who could write a coherent sentence.

As you said, it is the conclusions that matter. I'm not sure you are going to persuade anyone in this forum that their conclusions were wrong.

 

[Vixen]

Yet after all that, you claim to be wiser by quoting Marasca's report! Hoots!

Also, those "conclusions" you quote are as defined by 9.2 - as hypothetical "conclusions" which one would arrive at if they, like Marasca did, tried to create a synopsis of the contradictory theories.

Level all the ad hominem you want at the report. Yet two things are clear. One is you want to have it both ways - claim that the report is garbage yet still containing "conclusions" which you misquote.

Two - everyone **in** Italy knows what the Marasca report means; namely that the two are innocent and that the last 7 1/2 years have been marked by police and judicial incompetence.

"Bill", I'd be interested to know whether you are satisfied with this report, if so, why, if not, why not?

AFAICS Bruno-Marasca having pulled off an illegal acquittal really struggled having to legally justify it, hence its slimline feel and lofty abstractions, which avoid giving a straight reason. It's not an "Italianism", its pure and simple obfuscation - what we in England call "waffling", "winging it" or "blagging it", when stumped for a proper full answer in an exam, and the examiner is rarely taken in - it really is an affront. In fact, we all predicted it would be very short and very abstract.

Not being able to explain any "innocence" at all, the dodgy pair had to resort to scurrilously defaming the police.

 

[Vixen]

Everyone knows the police used gestapo tactics to force them to say whatever the police "KNEW TO BE CORRECT": The ISC even said that the statements without a lawyer should be excluded.

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of rule 0 and rule 12

Who is "everyone"? Please cite the details of any investigation which upheld the police used gestapo tactics. Oh, I see, there are not any. It's merely an appeal to the crowd.

Yes, Amanda's spontaneous declarations were disbarred, but the merits court still found them guilty as charged, even without them.

 

[TruthCalls]

The MB report found them not guilty paragraph two which to Italians means less than innocent. Cheli makes the point that the ruling leaves shadows.

Oh and by the way it was Amanda's attorney that said it was a pure innocent verdict when he called her, which as most people recognize it was less than that.

This may be so, but you need to bear in mind the MB report is attempting to minimize contradicting prior judicial rulings. When the court states it is possible they were at the cottage, but in another room, they are attempting to not entirely dismiss the prior courts, but they offer nothing in the way of evidence to suggest they were actually there. When they suggest Amanda washed Meredith's blood off her hands they are referring to the mixed DNA samples obtained in the bathroom. Again, a nod to prior courts. However, it is clear there is no evidence of this as the court knows Amanda's DNA is expected to be in her bathroom. MB didn't want to have to overly criticize the courts so they let those ideas hang around while already having stated unequivocally that there is simply no evidence of their involvement. So if you wish to think of it as being something less than innocent, you certainly can make that point, but I'll continue to believe the court knew full well they were innocent but decided acquitting them while appeasing the prior courts was the best middle ground approach to take.

 

[acbytesla]

We are not talking 9.2 we are talking conclusions.

No wonder we had to wait six months for it. It was likely originally 500 pages and 52 is all that's left after Marasca blue pencilled it.

What a crock of ******

These top judges (mind you, Bruno and Marasca did not go the career path, they are merely politicians) were supposed to go through the appeal points of law on each side, and all we get is a schoolboy's treatise on Gallileo and the scientific method. Raff's appeal was 306 pages alone.

The Bruno -Marasca report is an exercise in laziness, poor reasoning, illogicality (so it's okay for Rudy's DNA to be kicked around for 46 days, but not Raff's), speciousness ("Amanda chose Patrick in case someone saw Rudy leave the cottage" [what?] and unmitigated drivel.

We are none the wiser.

Are you suggesting that Nencini, Cheiffi or Massei were any better? Why the ad hominems in describing the judges? Personally, I thought Hellman was the only judge out of all of them who could write a coherent sentence.

As you said, it is the conclusions that matter. I'm not sure you are going to persuade anyone in this forum that their conclusions that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent were wrong.

 

[acbytesla]

"Bill", I'd be interested to know whether you are satisfied with this report, if so, why, if not, why not?

AFAICS Bruno-Marasca having pulled off an illegal acquittal really struggled having to legally justify it, hence its slimline feel and lofty abstractions, which avoid giving a straight reason. It's not an "Italianism", its pure and simple obfuscation - what we in England call "waffling", "winging it" or "blagging it", when stumped for a proper full answer in an exam, and the examiner is rarely taken in - it really is an affront. In fact, we all predicted it would be very short and very abstract.

Not being able to explain any "innocence" at all, the dodgy pair had to resort to scurrilously defaming the police.

I'm not sure how you can say it was an "illegal" acquittal. I certainly am not an expert in Italian law. Are you? It's one thing to say that you are baffled by the decision, but you are arguing that something was illegal with no basis at all to come to that conclusion.

 

[Vixen]

Yes he would say that.

Let's look at why he would say that.

They couldn't count the rings on a shoe sole.

They went back and "found" the bra clasp. They passed it around among the crack forensic team after it had been moved around a dirty room. Then they said they tested it and found DNA on it. They couldn't repeat the test and then they destroyed the evidence.

They stored the knife in a cardboard box, it was handled without gloves, it was tested and said to have Meredith's DNA on it. The test could not be repeated or verified. They didn't bother to take the handle apart to look for blood. It didn't match the wounds or the bloody outline.

They didn't test the possible semen stain found under a rape victim.

Why would Raff be worried about their competence and ability to lie or find things that weren't there?

It was Raff's shoe. It was a size 42, not Rudy's size 45. It had the same star defect on the heel. Raff's own advocate said the blood smeared print was "too indistinguishable" to be attributed to Raff. (So, ipso facto impossible to attribute to anyone.)

Massei bent over backwards for Raff when he accepted Papa Raff's desperate pleas it must be Rudy's. No doubt he was worried he might cross paths with the Urologist for the Dons and wouldn't want a painful penile experience.

Raff spent a lot of time explaining things away, eh? He explained away why Mez' DNA should be on the knife. BTW they didn't need to dismantle the handle, as the knife was only plunged part way in.

He's had to explain away the need for a mop, why he dismantled his U-bend to clean out the detritus, the two jumbo-sized brand new bottles of ACE bleach, when he ordered his cleaners never to use bleach, why he said he spoke to his papa 23:00, when he didn't, why he said Amanda was with him, and then not, why heavy metal was blasting out at 5:30 when they claimed to sleep until ten, why he tried to escape to the USA, why he was caught at the Austrian border, and never once does the self-satisfied smirk leave his lips; the preclusions are never-ending.

Indeed, we are meant to admire this "honourable" gentleman.

 

[Bill Williams]

"Bill", I'd be interested to know whether you are satisfied with this report, if so, why, if not, why not?

"That" "is" "a" "great" "and" "legitimate""question". "You" "should" "have" "asked" "it" "sooner".

"I" "am" "not". "I" "don't" "go" "with" "Grinder's" "view" "of" "things", ""who" "keeps" "wanting" "to" "quote" "Cheli", "rather" "than" "risk" "an" "opinion" "of" "his" "own", "so" "that" "instead" "of" "arguing" "the" "issue", "we'll" "end" "up" "arguing" "what" "our" "interpretation" "of" "what" "some" "third" "party" "believes"!!!

Personally, I see no need at all for anything past 9.2. All the stuff you quote as somehow incriminating, comes past that statement that, "this is a synpotic hypothetical of two positions....." and I cannot for the life of me see a need for that.

But it changes nothing. M/B report is understood within Italy, and within Italy's legal system as a stinging rebuke of the convicting courts and the police before March 27.

 

[acbytesla]

Along with those crime stats for Seattle, please link the report from Steffi you referred to.

ETA - Thanks for the crime link.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...fic/2008-06-12-Report-Stefanoni-DNA-tests.pdf

It's in Italian....and it's long.you have to go through it carefully.

 

[Vixen]

I still complement compliment TC for digging and getting those stats. The linked stats provided didn't have a percentage that resulted in murder, which implies to me the number would be very low.

There is no way to make the Meredith murder a "normal" crime seen frequently. Rudi did not have anything in his background that would point to a violent character.

TruthCalls was referring to burglaries where there was an occupant at home.

Rudy was seen hanging around the cottage about eight pm, he went away as no-one was home, to the kebab house. He waited for Amanda. This contradicts the claim Rudy broke in when no-one was home or he could have burgled undisturbed when he was there much earlier.

 

[Vixen]

Really? You know this for a fact? Or are you speculating with no evidence?

Yes, the court wanted exhibits of the crime scene.

 

[Vixen]

Why does the argument that Rudi's shouldn't have counted even come up from the PGP? Rudi admitted being there during the murder, his palm print in Meredith's blood was found, DNA from the first collection was Rudi's and the shoe prints in Meredith's blood matched the shoes that came in the shoe box found at Rudi's.

So, fine, drop all the evidence collected on the 18th.

Rudy's DNA on Mez' sweater cuffs was an important detail in Massei's reconstruction of the scene.

Rudy did not confess to holding Mez' arms behind her back.

 

[Vixen]

The MB report found them not guilty paragraph two which to Italians means less than innocent. Cheli makes the point that the ruling leaves shadows.

Oh and by the way it was Amanda's attorney that said it was a pure innocent verdict when he called her, which as most people recognize it was less than that.

In the new Afterword in WTBH Amanda claims Velladova (sp?) assured her she was found completely innocent and exonerated, and in her dishonesty, she continues this deliberately false representation to her readers.


This demonstrates Amanda lies readily, and not only that, she is aware she does.

 

[Grinder]

This may be so, but you need to bear in mind the MB report is attempting to minimize contradicting prior judicial rulings. When the court states it is possible they were at the cottage, but in another room, they are attempting to not entirely dismiss the prior courts, but they offer nothing in the way of evidence to suggest they were actually there. When they suggest Amanda washed Meredith's blood off her hands they are referring to the mixed DNA samples obtained in the bathroom. Again, a nod to prior courts. However, it is clear there is no evidence of this as the court knows Amanda's DNA is expected to be in her bathroom. MB didn't want to have to overly criticize the courts so they let those ideas hang around while already having stated unequivocally that there is simply no evidence of their involvement. So if you wish to think of it as being something less than innocent, you certainly can make that point, but I'll continue to believe the court knew full well they were innocent but decided acquitting them while appeasing the prior courts was the best middle ground approach to take.

If you haven't read the analysis by Cheli (legal analyst for the PIP) I would do so. I'm not convinced that MB say all the things claimed above as BW has finally figured out correctly that these MR include statements from both sides just stating them not agreeing with them. Nencini had a section that discussed Rudi being a professional burglar but it was only speculating based on the defense appeal.

http://www.groundreport.com/knox-and-sollecito-final-words/

You may have the reasons correct but never-the-less it was less than a complete exoneration.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, the court wanted exhibits of the crime scene.

You need to do better than that. While it makes sense that they would have taken swabs from all the residents of the cottage, I can find NO evidence of that.

 

[Vixen]

Agreed on both points, Grinder, but with one caveat... during my research I discovered that a majority of those who commit B&E's are not violent criminals and, in many cases, they break in without possessing a weapon. Their mindset is to steal, not to assail. It was my impression that the assaults are typically spontaneous and a result of opportunity. That is, if someone stumbles across a burglary in progress the odds are pretty good they will be assaulted in an effort to somehow shut the witness up. If it is a female who runs across the burglar then the assault can easily take on a sexual nature. I don't understand the dynamics of it but when one person gains power and control over another it often drives a sexual response. IOW, most sexual assaults as a result of a burglary gone bad did not start out with sexual assault in mind.

This is what I think happened with Guede. He only intended to steal. He didn't expect anyone coming home. He was surprised by Meredith, had no easy way out, and reacted violently out of fear. At some point he had power and control over Meredith and it turned sexual.

I've often wondered if she locked the front door when she got home and if, had she not, would Guede just have escaped undetected? I don't think Guede was a violent person and probably would have preferred just getting out of there.

So why didn't Rudy break in when he knew no-one was home?

 

[Grinder]

Rudy's DNA on Mez' sweater cuffs was an important detail in Massei's reconstruction of the scene.

Rudy did not confess to holding Mez' arms behind her back.

So what? They didn't need anything from the 18th to convict him, which was the point.