Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

As this make was a bestseller, that in itself means nothing. The print found was size 42 (Raff's size) and police identified it as his as it had the same star-shaped defect in the heel.

Raff told police someone must have stolen his trainers to commit the crime.

Raff's defense claimed "the print is far too indistinguishable to be able to identify it as anybody's". ((You got it from the horse's mouth!)

Suddenly it is "definitely Rudy's", notwithstanding the ASCICS ladies size 37 shoeprint is disallowed as evidence, as the shoe was not found, but nor was the size 44 Nike Outbreak.

I take size 41/42 (UK 7.5 / 8) and to try to squeeze into two sizes smaller 39/40 (UK 5.5 - 6) would be extremely painful to walk in, even were one able to squeeze your feet into them.

Rudy admits he was there in the room. Those are his prints.

 

[Vixen]

I'm not sure it's funny. It is clear that the experts in Italy will say whatever they are asked. As long as they are paid. It reminds me of the guy looking for a new accountant. He asked the first candidate "what does 2+2 equal?" The accountant says "4." He gets the same answer from his second candidate. The third candidate eyeballs him and replies "what figure did you have in mind"?

Heheh, 2+2 in accountancy NEVER equals 4, you have to factor in tax, depreciation, fair value, %shareholding, interest, inputed interest, transfer price, VAT, gift aid, charges, deductions, deferred income, accruals & prepayments, inflation, Present Value, book value.

Seriously, though, it's ridiculous to claim that forensic police with many years' experience in analysing shoe/footprints at crime scenes sat in front of their computer screens and said, right, we are going to fix our fellow Italian countryman for no reason whatsoever.

 

[Vixen]

Rudy admits he was there in the room. Those are his prints.

Poor logic, as more than one assailant was present.

 

[Vixen]

You're kidding right? You're a burglar if you break into homes and businesses and steal things. PERIOD. Rudy most certainly was a burglar . He just was never convicted of the offense.

Wrong. It is technically a libel to call someone a criminal if they have not been convicted of the crime in question.

 

[Vixen]

"There" "was" "no" "evidence" "of" "this".

Read the court testimony, sworn under oath.

 

[acbytesla]

Heheh, 2+2 in accountancy NEVER equals 4, you have to factor in tax, depreciation, fair value, %shareholding, interest, inputed interest, transfer price, VAT, gift aid, charges, deductions, deferred income, accruals & prepayments, inflation, Present Value, book value.

Seriously, though, it's ridiculous to claim that forensic police with many years' experience in analysing shoe/footprints at crime scenes sat in front of their computer screens and said, right, we are going to fix our fellow Italian countryman for no reason whatsoever.

No its not. One only needs to view the bath mat testimony and look with one's eyes. They suggested that equivocal evidence at best was conclusive. Some people will always sell out.

 

[acbytesla]

Poor logic, as more than one assailant was present.

No there wasn't. There are only one set of prints found and they were his.

 

[Vixen]

Raf and Amanda couldn't perfect their alibi with times and menu yet Rudi and Amanda perfected "having each other backs" without speaking or communicating. Did they agree to have Rudi finger Raf?

In the Prisoners' Dilemma, the essential key is for each party to keep schtum, no matter what, and that is what Rudy and Amanda did initially. Rudy referred to Raff as, "a strange man" (who fitted Raff's description perfectly), Amanda referred to Rudy as "Patrick" (see Bruno and Marasca) and when Rudy was caught, Raff wrote, oh dear, "suppose Rudy says strange things about me?" (you note: not, "Hurrah!!! They've caught the real perp!").

 

[acbytesla]

Wrong. It is technically a libel to call someone a criminal if they have not been convicted of the crime in question.

LMAO. No burglary is the act And the burglar is the one committing the act. One can be a criminal without being convicted. Rudy is not a convicted burglar but there is compelling evidence that he was one. You're just in denial.

 

[acbytesla]

In the Prisoners' Dilemma, the essential key is for each party to keep schtum, no matter what, and that is what Rudy and Amanda did initially. Rudy referred to Raff as, "a strange man" (who fitted Raff's description perfectly), Amanda referred to Rudy as "Patrick" (see Bruno and Mareasca) and when Rudy was caught, Raff wrote, oh dear, "suppose Rudy says strange things about me?" (you note: not, "Hurrah!!! They've caught the real perp!").

Rudy also said that Amanda was not there.

 

[Vixen]

Not quite true. . . .Amanda was convicted of the Italian equivalent of slander although likely to be overturned by the ECHR eventually.

Not slander, which is a civil matter, but calumny, most closely similar to "perverting the course of justice by falsely claiming the authorities committed crimes to secure your case".

 

[Vixen]

There were splotches of some footprints that didn't test positive for blood, certainly not Meredith's blood, and the best the prosecution could claim is that they were compatible with Amanda's feet. Were they compatible with Laura's or Filomena's? Do you have their foot sizes handy? Or maybe they were obviously American feet of German ancestry.

Where did those feet pick up the blood? Were there the same footprints in the murder room? Did the amount of blood diminish as the steps continued? Oh, that's right they didn't even prove they were made in blood or even get the TMB test to react.

Forensic expert Boemia and also Rinaldi were simply given the task of identifying what shoe make and size made the print, and that's what they objectively reported back. As there are clear photographs, it's difficult to understand why you claim they faked this.

What's stopping you comparing ASCIS ladies size 37 yourself, to the print found at the murder scene?

 

[Bill Williams]

Read the court testimony, sworn under oath.

BTW - before anything, that is a very attractive avatar of the ("Finnish"?) flag! To what to the words refer?

Please refer to the post by LondonJohn. Reading the testimony in court, sworn or unsworn, is useless without also reading the court's evaluation of that evidence, as well as further expert opinion. For instance, Amanda Knox said as part of court testimony that she was hit at interrogation. Yet you do not believe that!

"There" "was" "no" "evidence" "of" "this". For clarity, the "this" is the claim that a size 37 women's shoe track was found in Meredith's room in blood.

That this stuff is trotted out when one has nothing else.

Note of interest #1 - Giuliano Mignini has just been censored by his peers for violating one of the most basic rights Italy affords any accused. Despite the claim that it was some sort of mix-up (a claim advanced by Mignini at the hearing), this was not believed by his peers. Mignini is lying as he always has about this case. He now goes down in the annuls of Italian jurisprudence as presiding over two, not one but two of the most egregiously wrongful prosecutions in that country's history. (Perhaps exceeded only by the trials Galileo faced.)

Note of interest #2 - Vixen says, "No, you are only a burglar if convicted of it by a court of law." Why then does Vixen call AK and RS the "M" word? Disinterested observers might begin to feel that this is akin to making up things as one goes; with confirmation bias being the sole criteria for how things are assessed.

Hoots!

 

[Vixen]

And the kids have never been convicted of anything.

That's a straw man, as bagel's false premise was, "Rudy must have been the sole perp as he was a burglar".

 

[Vixen]

It begins. Today it sucks to be Mignini. In the months to come it will really-suck to be anywhere near the investigation that led to 7 1/2 years of wrongful prosecution.

http://www.lanazione.it/umbria/omicidio-meredith-sollecito-1.1545298

Enjoy your fifteen minutes of glee of the persecution of this good, honest, upstanding citizen who has worked tirelessly for victims of crime to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Next time you walk down the road, give thanks to the police, who help keep your neighbourhood safe from those who lie in prey.

 

[Bill Williams]

There were splotches of some footprints that didn't test positive for blood, certainly not Meredith's blood, and the best the prosecution could claim is that they were compatible with Amanda's feet. Were they compatible with Laura's or Filomena's? Do you have their foot sizes handy? Or maybe they were obviously American feet of German ancestry.

Where did those feet pick up the blood? Were there the same footprints in the murder room? Did the amount of blood diminish as the steps continued? Oh, that's right they didn't even prove they were made in blood or even get the TMB test to react.

Forensic expert Boemia and also Rinaldi were simply given the task of identifying what shoe made the print, and that's what they objectively reported back. As there are clear photographs, it's difficult to undetstand why you claim they faked this.

What's stopping you comparing ASCIS ladies size 37 yourself, to the print found at the murder scene?

Vixen - you really do need to read the small section of the Massei report on the nature of suspect-centric investigations. Massei does a good job in first laying out what those things are and why they are wrong - even if he then goes on to misapply that concept to Stephanoni's DNA work.

Yes, you actually DO have to rule out others - even accepting for a minute that there is any credence to this Size 37, women's shoe-in-blood nonsense. Read Grinder's post above; why wouldn't one rule out first the other foot sizes of the other two female residents of the cottage? Or is the point to forget about them and convict Knox at all costs?

You are compounding mistake upon mistake, all in the mystifying attempt to make it seem like there might be some lingering case to be made here.

All to sell books, I suppose.

 

[Vixen]

And just like Maresca, you offered no proof of this. You can't even prove that Amanda ever called or texted Rudy ever. According to you Amanda was covering for someone she barely knew.

It's important in a court of law for a jury to examine the evidence and not to consider wild speculation lacking any proof.

She was taking drugs and having wild sex with ppl she barely knew. The claim, she hardly knew Rudy, also applies to Raff (five days!).

 

[Vixen]

I'll see what I can find when time permits. It would be good to have Machiavelli here for a competent translation.

Still I found this after googling, "Marasca and Bruno arrested after massive judicial scandal." Maybe nothing came up for that because I didn't google in Italian.

Give it time. There is a massive corruption scandal waiting to break.

 

[Bill Williams]

Enjoy your fifteen minutrs of glee of the persecution of this good, honest, upstanding citizen who has worked tirelessly for victims of crime to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Next time you walk down the road, give thanks to the police, who help keep your neighbourhood safe from those who lie in prey.

Huh!? Talk about a strawman argument.

That room which censured was filled with law-abiding peace-keeping officials who, "work tirelessly for victims of crime to bring the perpetrators to justice." They are Mignini's peers. They said he violated one of the most basic protections offered to us walking down the road.

In short, the one "lying in prey" was Mignini, and yes I actually DO feel a little safer now that the proper authorities have shone a light on the perpetrators of injustice; through peer censure.

 

[Vixen]

Mignini is Dirty Harry, cleaning the streets of Perugia of their roaming gangs of satanic sex cults and the mafia conspirators on the Supreme Court who back them up.

He's a loose cannon, but dammit he gets results!

Don't knock it.