Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

I don't speak Italian but I speak google translate. He appears to be nitpicking various details with a mismatched arrow and whatnot. At one point he says it's impossible for Rudy's Nike to have made the print because Vinci has measured a certain part of the circle at 2 mm and using Photoshop he's measured it at 1mm. As if it's impossible Rinaldi mis-used the software, or the worn blood soaked crunched cloth could have strecthed or shrunk 1mm.

He doesn't seem to address the main argument, which is that the tread pattern in blood and on Rudy's shoes bear a remarkable resemblance.

Here's a quick overlay I made:

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/cpycqQa.jpg[/qimg]

Now forget worrying about if my bad tracing counts as a forensic match for a moment and focus on the broader point. The blood pattern has a sharp corner, and as we move up from this corner, the angles of the tread lines get aggressively more pronounced.

On Rudy's Nikes, starting at the corner, the angles of the tread lines get aggressively more pronounced in exactly the same proportion.

So once again, if this print is supposed to be some shoe Amanda had, the miracle girl has hit yet another hole in one, getting blood on the same left shoe, with the same tread pattern, in the same proportion, in the same area where Rudy was stepping, wearing a shoe nobody ever saw her wearing.
Then we have to believe that Amanda bloodied her shoe but left only one print, cleaning every remaining bloody shoeprint belonging to her in the area, while leaving all of Rudy's prints, which included 7 prints in the bedroom, and 8 additional prints in the hallway and out to the front door. Despite the fact that they obviously looked very similar, and the partial prints would be very difficult to distinguish, and there are no luminol traces of these other prints, despite the fact that it is alleged the bare footprints in luminol were cleaned with the same process.

You don't actually believe in a theory, because there isn't one. You have a jumble of suspicions and assertions, backed up by yes-men prosecution appeasers, that don't establish any particular fact.

Either accept Amanda is the luckiest murderer of all time, or accept that she's innocent. But please don't pretend like there was ever a case against her.

I'm sure you saw my posts from the Massei MR so I apologize for a repeat but it wasn't that there was a shoe no one saw her wearing it is that they never found a shoe anywhere that would have made a full print that matched. Only a partial print from Rudi's was shown by anyone to match.

Not even the PLE claimed what the PGP claim that the Asics matched.

Isn't the Asics name on the bottom of the "proof" shoe reversed?

 

[Grinder]

I think comparing the girls is a no win proposition.

I notice that people returning or coming here from more "biased" sites tend to use more pejorative words to describe the other side. I don't see the positive in calling people guilters or groupies. Saying PIP hate Meredith and lust after Amanda does nothing for the discussion of the case. For me I know neither is true and I doubt there are but a few that either would be true of. I wished that it could be said that deep prejudiced against Amanda and her heritage wasn't the case. Clearly if she had been part of the murder that act by her would be repugnant but the PGP go well beyond that.

 

[dropzone]

Meredith was beautiful, English, funny and smart.

I was replying to Desert Fox's question why Amanda would "deserve" the hatred she got. As far as the Italian, or any similarly yellow, press is concerned, her being photogenic and American would be plenty. Meredith being beautiful as well as the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being anyone's ever known in their life, just clinched the race to the bottom between newspapers. The press doesn't really need "slow news days" when pretty girls and murder are concerned.

 

[dropzone]

Isn't the Asics name on the bottom of the "proof" shoe reversed?

The photo would have to be to make a comparison with the print the shoe left. If you have a typewriter you will see the type is reversed to make a positive print.

 

[Bill Williams]

I was replying to Desert Fox's question why Amanda would "deserve" the hatred she got. As far as the Italian, or any similarly yellow, press is concerned, her being photogenic and American would be plenty. Meredith being beautiful as well as the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being anyone's ever known in their life, just clinched the race to the bottom between newspapers. The press doesn't really need "slow news days" when pretty girls and murder are concerned.

Or as the Marasca/Bruno report put it, how was it possible to adjudicate the evidence properly with the whole thing being a media event....

The legal issue is that of verifying the reliability of
testimony in proceedings with a strong interest in the media, with a particular
reference to the witnesses Gioffredi and Kokomani and to the deposition of Luciano
Aviello, previously convicted of several offences, who did not hesitate to make
libellous statements regarding public prosecutors and Raffaele Sollecito's counsel and father.​

The intervention of the highest jurisdictional assembly was necessary so that
evaluative criteria for oral evidence would be established in trials of the strongest
interest to the media, to preserve the credibility of the legal process, sheltering it from varieties of mythomania and from judicial protagonism.​

 

[Bill Williams]

I think comparing the girls is a no win proposition.

It's got nothing to do with PIP, PGP, or even those who claim a faux-neutrality. The point is that comparing the two has absolutely nothing to do with anything resembling evidence at a murder trial.

 

[Vixen]

I don't speak Italian but I speak google translate. He appears to be nitpicking various details with a mismatched arrow and whatnot. At one point he says it's impossible for Rudy's Nike to have made the print because Vinci has measured a certain part of the circle at 2 mm and using Photoshop he's measured it at 1mm. As if it's impossible Rinaldi mis-used the software, or the worn blood soaked crunched cloth could have strecthed or shrunk 1mm.

He doesn't seem to address the main argument, which is that the tread pattern in blood and on Rudy's shoes bear a remarkable resemblance.

Here's a quick overlay I made:

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/cpycqQa.jpg[/qimg]

Now forget worrying about if my bad tracing counts as a forensic match for a moment and focus on the broader point. The blood pattern has a sharp corner, and as we move up from this corner, the angles of the tread lines get aggressively more pronounced.

On Rudy's Nikes, starting at the corner, the angles of the tread lines get aggressively more pronounced in exactly the same proportion.

So once again, if this print is supposed to be some shoe Amanda had, the miracle girl has hit yet another hole in one, getting blood on the same left shoe, with the same tread pattern, in the same proportion, in the same area where Rudy was stepping, wearing a shoe nobody ever saw her wearing.

Then we have to believe that Amanda bloodied her shoe but left only one print, cleaning every remaining bloody shoeprint belonging to her in the area, while leaving all of Rudy's prints, which included 7 prints in the bedroom, and 8 additional prints in the hallway and out to the front door. Despite the fact that they obviously looked very similar, and the partial prints would be very difficult to distinguish, and there are no luminol traces of these other prints, despite the fact that it is alleged the bare footprints in luminol were cleaned with the same process.

You don't actually believe in a theory, because there isn't one. You have a jumble of suspicions and assertions, backed up by yes-men prosecution appeasers, that don't establish any particular fact.

Either accept Amanda is the luckiest murderer of all time, or accept that she's innocent. But please don't pretend like there was ever a case against her.

Why do you keep coming out with these false dichotomies? Amanda is neither the "luckiest murderer of all time" (she got caught, remember?) or that's she's "innocent". It is certainly not the either/or situation you claim.

So the clear 40mm heel is "a partial print" to get past the cognitive dissonance caused by the realisation it cannot be Rudy's. Instead of accepting the logical conclusion someone of that shoeprint left the imprint, you ask we believe a convoluted scenario which involves folds in sheets, etc. Why? Why is it so vitally important for you to get people to believe "Rudy was the only perpetrator" when all it proves is that you know deep in your heart Amanda was there and that's why it's so imperative for you to "disprove there could have been more than one perp", completely flying in the face of the opinion of four different courts (Micheli, Massei, Nencini and Marasca), expert forensic investigators with years of experience and thousands of cases in shoeprint and footprint identification (Rinaldi and Boemia) and an expert murder pathologist (Lalli).

 

[Vixen]

LOL! Your words were that Massei "bent over backwards" to help the kids; even in convicting them.

You have just accused the judge of misconduct. His job is only to judge the facts fairly, and not bend over backwards for either of the sides. You repeated the allegation of misconduct, saying, in effect, he did a favour for "Papa Raff" in respect to the trainers.

It is very hard to take any of your posts seriously.

It is not "misconduct", "Bill", because as I have explained before, judges have wide-ranging legal powers in how they come to their verdict. As you have seen no two judges will come up with the exact same reasoning and there are cases where one judges finds, "guilty" and another, "not guilty" in cases of similar circumstances.

This is why the losing side will demand "written reasons", and in Italy written reasons are mandatory, for this is the key document in which appellants can identify grounds for appeal which are usually limited to legal errors, perversity or "public interest" (miscarriage of justice) and even in rare cases "new evidence" which was not known of as of the time of the trial.

You will note, coming to an erroneous verdict because of deliberate and intentional biased reasoning falls under "perversity". (="misconduct")

What the appeal court will look at to assess this, is "Is the judge's reasoning within the bounds of reasonableness" and this is the sole criteria. If it is "within the bounds of reasonable" it will not be adjudged "perverse" even if the appeal judges might disagree with it. What they cannot do is substitute their own verdict (which Bruno and Marasca have done). They must send it back for the disputed issue in appeal to be reassessed with clear directions to the lower court of what to assess properly. This applies even if the reasoning is considered "perverse".

If a judge has committed "misconduct", for example, falling asleep, being drunk, failed to declare the defendant or victim a close relative, etc etc) then they may face judicial investigation and the case should go back for complete retrial.

This is not what Massei did. His reasoning falls within the bounds of "reasonable" which is within his remit and powers, even if other judges might disagree with it , and which is why no higher court has decreed his verdict "perverse" or "a miscarriage of justice".


Is it clearer?

Many judges will aim to screen out all potentially controversial points to be sure their verdicts and reasoning is as appeal-proof as possible. Hence, this is the most likely reason Massei excluded the statements taken without a lawyer present and humoured the defence wherever possible (eg, the shoe prints).

 

[Bill Williams]

It is not "misconduct", "Bill", because as I have explained before, judges have wide-ranging legal powers in how they come to their verdict. As you have seen no two judges will come up with the exact same reasoning and there are cases where one judges finds, "guilty" and another, "not guilty" in cases of similar circumstances.

This is why the losing side will demand "written reasons", and in Italy written reasons are mandatory, for this is the key document in which appellants can identify grounds for appeal which are usually limited to legal errors, perversity or "public interest" (miscarriage of justice) and even in rare cases "new evidence" which was not known of as of the time of the trial.

You will note, coming to an erroneous verdict because of deliberate and intentional biased reasoning falls under "perversity". (="misconduct")

What the appeal court will look at to assess this, is "Is the judge's reasoning within the bounds of reasonableness" and this is the sole criteria. If it is "within the bounds of reasonable" it will not be adjudged "perverse" even if the appeal judges might disagree with it. What they cannot do is substitute their own verdict (which Bruno and Marasca have done). They must send it back for the disputed issue in appeal to be reassessed with clear directions to the lower court of what to assess properly. This applies even if the reasoning is considered "perverse".

If a judge has committed "misconduct", for example, falling asleep, being drunk, failed to declare the defendant or victim a close relative, etc etc) then they may face judicial investigation and the case should go back for complete retrial.

This is not what Massei did. His reasoning falls within the bounds of "reasonable" which is within his remit and powers, even if other judges might disagree with it , and which is why no higher court has decreed his verdict "perverse" or "a miscarriage of justice".


Is it clearer?

"Actually", "this" "is" "clearer", "and" "I" "thank" "you" "for" "that." It's almost as if someone else wrote it for you.

"What" "it" "doesn't" "do", "is" "justify" "your" "use" "of" "the" "term", "bent over backwards", "for" "the" "kids."

If the following statement of yours is true, which it probably is: "What the appeal court will look at to assess this, is "Is the judge's reasoning within the bounds of reasonableness" and this is the sole criteria......" then how can you NOT see your use of the phrase, "bent over backwards" as eroding that?

"No" "one" "is" "talking" "about" "any "courts'" "elective" "powers", "except" "to" "say" "that" "you" "believe" "that" "bending over backwards" "for" "one" "of" "the" "parties" "is" "one" "of" "those" "elective" "powers".

"Hoots!"

 

[Vixen]

I was replying to Desert Fox's question why Amanda would "deserve" the hatred she got. As far as the Italian, or any similarly yellow, press is concerned, her being photogenic and American would be plenty. Meredith being beautiful as well as the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being anyone's ever known in their life, just clinched the race to the bottom between newspapers. The press doesn't really need "slow news days" when pretty girls and murder are concerned.

The tabloid press, of course, indeed love to "hate", especially female killers who are supposed to be kind caring and loving in the tabloid sexist world.

One of the regrettable aspect of the case are the hordes of "supporters" who contend Amanda should be acquitted simply for being American and in England, the opposite, for killing one of "our Brits".

Whilst there are one or two jingoistic gung-ho flag wavers in ISF forums, my perception and knowledge is many of the advocates for pro-innocence are part of a campaigning PR group and defence advocates. Thus, it can get heated. Especially as evidence is strong, as set out by all the courts (except the annulled Hellmann one).

IMV it is important to be able to discuss whether a case is fair or not. It is quite irrelevant what a defendant/victim looks like except insofar in how it impacts on the outcome.

"Comparions are odious."

"Odyous of olde been comparisonis, And of comparisonis engendyrd is haterede." - John Lydgate in his Debate between the horse, goose, and sheep, circa 1440

 

[acbytesla]

Why do you keep coming out with these false dichotomies? Amanda is neither the "luckiest murderer of all time" (she got caught, remember?) or that's she's "innocent". It is certainly not the either/or situation you claim.

So the clear 40mm heel is "a partial print" to get past the cognitive dissonance caused by the realisation it cannot be Rudy's. Instead of accepting the logical conclusion someone of that shoeprint left the imprint, you ask we believe a convoluted scenario which involves folds in sheets, etc. Why? Why is it so vitally important for you to get people to believe "Rudy was the only perpetrator" when all it proves is that you know deep in your heart Amanda was there and that's why it's so imperative for you to "disprove there could have been more than one perp", completely flying in the face of the opinion of four different courts (Micheli, Massei, Nencini and Marasca), expert forensic investigators with years of experience and thousands of cases in shoeprint and footprint identification (Rinaldi and Boemia) and an expert murder pathologist (Lalli).

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Notice that vixen IGNORES the perfect overlay of the tread pattern? How does she not see thiis? Because she doesn't want to! Vixen can not be helped.

 

[Vixen]

"Actually", "this" "is" "clearer", "and" "I" "thank" "you" "for" "that." It's almost as if someone else wrote it for you.

"What" "it" "doesn't" "do", "is" "justify" "your" "use" "of" "the" "term", "bent over backwards", "for" "the" "kids."

If the following statement of yours is true, which it probably is: "What the appeal court will look at to assess this, is "Is the judge's reasoning within the bounds of reasonableness" and this is the sole criteria......" then how can you NOT see your use of the phrase, "bent over backwards" as eroding that?

"No" "one" "is" "talking" "about" "any "courts'" "elective" "powers", "except" "to" "say" "that" "you" "believe" "that" "bending over backwards" "for" "one" "of" "the" "parties" "is" "one" "of" "those" "elective" "powers".

"Hoots!"

Please do not take my comment, "Massei bent over backwards" out of context.

The context was within an ever-present undercurrent of PIP claims, "the police, prosecutors and courts were biased against the kids and were too stupid to weigh up the evidence critically, but instead 'just took Mignini's word for it', and he's a fanatical RC nutter who sees satanism everywhere and saw Amanda as 'that American slut'" etc, etc.

It is important to understand Massei (the trial judge) did not "pick on the kids", but bent over backwards to accommodate all the defense demands, even contradicting Matteini in Rudy's trial naming Amanda and Raff as the main perps, by stating Rudy instigated the events out of some kind of frustrated lust after witnessing Raff and Amanda making out.

Clearer still?

Context, "Bill", context. Context is everything.

 

[Vixen]

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Notice that vixen IGNORES the perfect overlay of the tread pattern? How does she not see thiis? Because she doesn't want to! Vixen can not be helped.

Vinci accuses Rinaldi of photoshopping, yet he appears to do it himself!

 

[Vixen]

Or as the Marasca/Bruno report put it, how was it possible to adjudicate the evidence properly with the whole thing being a media event....

​

​

Re "judicial protagonism":

Rich, coming from Marasca, when he nd Bruno were the biggest protagonists of an alternative scenario, never pleaded by either party, that of Amanda and Raff being factually present at the murder, but yet there is no proof they had any part in it, notwithstanding Amanda washing off Mez' wet blood and covering up to protect Rudy, who acted with two unknown other perps.

Re Media influence

Italian law does not prohibit press reporting during a trial so it is a moot complaint.

Re the scurillous witnesses Aviello and Alessi making calumnies about the authorities

Er, perhaps someone should inform Bruno and Marasca that, ahem, how can we put this, these thoroughly degenerate characters were defense witnesses.

Er, and, erm, ah, they are aware, are they not, <ahem> it is Raff and Amanda who have been charged with making false claims about police corruption <cough splutter>?

I am glad you highlighted this, "Bill".

 

[acbytesla]

Vinci accuses Rinaldi of photoshopping, yet he appears to do it himself!

As I said,, the tread patter is easily recognizable as THE SAME TREAD PATTERN even in Rinaldi's images. How is it that you don't see that?

 

[Grinder]

The photo would have to be to make a comparison with the print the shoe left. If you have a typewriter you will see the type is reversed to make a positive print.

Didn't notice it was announced as being photo-shopped. I would have just used the opposite shoe. It would then just need to folded over. I'm sure you are right but I feel that should have been made clear, as once a photo is manipulated the question is: How much?

 

[Methos]

My impression of Vinci is that he focuses on his pet theory (as paid for by the defence in this case) and conveniently ignores anything that could be incriminating. His photos look fishy to me.

Well, Rinaldi is a police officer but in this case he wasn't acting in that role, but a a consultant paid by the prosecution. So based on your logic his expertise should be thrown out because he was paid by one of the parties...

Mez was about two inches taller and prolly took a larger size shoe than Amanda.

Now, that's new information, could you please just this once, provide a source? Meredith Kercher's height (and weight: caused big problems in determining TOD) are AFAIK "unknown". Her shoe size isn't. Take a look at pages 5 and 6 of Rinaldi's report. The shoes belonging to Meredith Kercher listed there are sized from 36/37 to 38, the one of Amanda Knox that has a size given is a 37...

I cannot find my copy of Darkness Descending ATM. I have been taking armfuls of books to the local charity shop to declutter, so it may turn up at any moment.

Of course you can't, well, I have my digital i.e. searchable copy handy.

 

[Bill Williams]

Re "judicial protagonism":

Rich, coming from Marasca, when he nd Bruno were the biggest protagonists of an alternative scenario, never pleaded by either party, that of Amanda and Raff being factually present at the murder, but yet there is no proof they had any part in it, notwithstanding Amanda washing off Mez' wet blood and covering up to protect Rudy, who acted with two unknown other perps.

Re Media influence

Italian law does not prohibit press reporting during a trial so it is a moot complaint.

Re the scurillous witnesses Aviello and Alessi making calumnies about the authorities

Er, perhaps someone should inform Bruno and Marasca that, ahem, how can we put this, these thoroughly degenerate characters were defense witnesses.

Er, and, erm, ah, they are aware, are they not, <ahem> it is Raff and Amanda who have been charged with making false claims about police corruption <cough splutter>?

I am glad you highlighted this, "Bill".

"Huh"!? "Moot" "complaint"?

"Aside" "from" "the" "fact" "that" "Marasca/Bruno" "never" "proposed" "an" "alternative scenario", "except" "as" "a" "hypothetical" "which" "actually" "showed" "the" "ridiculousness" "of" "what" "had" "gone" "on" "before".....

"There" "are" "only" "two" "or" "three" "people" "in" "the" "whole" "world" "who" "are" "claiming" "that", "and" "none" "of" "them", "to" "my" "knowledge", "are" "Italians" "and" "most" "certainly" "none" "are" "inside" "the" "Italian" "Judiciary".

So I suppose it is then up to you to keep that bit of malarkey going, or else no one would be pushing it at all. (It's hard typing thing all in quotes! How do you do it?)

Truth of the matter is that Marasca/Bruno sets out a hypothetical, synoptic scenario - spelled out in Sections 9.2/9.3, which has been posted here numerous times. Those sections spell out that using this hypothetical synoptic scenario, this still doesn't prove they were there.

You can say the reverse all you want.

See how far you've had to stray from your claim that Massei "bent over backwards" for the kids? Rather than defend that spurious claim, you'd rather lapse into.......

"Hoots!"

 

[Bill Williams]

Please do not take my comment, "Massei bent over backwards" out of context.

The context was within an ever-present undercurrent of PIP claims, "the police, prosecutors and courts were biased against the kids and were too stupid to weigh up the evidence critically, but instead 'just took Mignini's word for it', and he's a fanatical RC nutter who sees satanism everywhere and saw Amanda as 'that American slut'" etc, etc.

It is important to understand Massei (the trial judge) did not "pick on the kids", but bent over backwards to accommodate all the defense demands, even contradicting Matteini in Rudy's trial naming Amanda and Raff as the main perps, by stating Rudy instigated the events out of some kind of frustrated lust after witnessing Raff and Amanda making out.

Clearer still?

Context, "Bill", context. Context is everything.

You mean like refusing to appoint an independent DNA analyst?

Hoots! That's what I call bending over backwards for them.

 

[dropzone]

Didn't notice it was announced as being photo-shopped. I would have just used the opposite shoe. It would then just need to folded over. I'm sure you are right but I feel that should have been made clear, as once a photo is manipulated the question is: How much?

"Photoshopped" is a loaded term. What was done was what has always been done, since the days of flipping the negative. You mirror the picture rather than use the other because the molds or wear patterns might be different. Standard operating procedure; no need for an announcement. But yeah, that corner is pretty darned diagnostic.