Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Vixen previously posted;(with reference to the incorrect preservation of the bra hook)

"It didn't need to be tested twice as all parties were agreed the results were sound.
Fingerprints are not tested twice, either."

This is simply untrue.
The defence objected to the results on the bra strap. Hellman requested the sample to be retested by independent experts. No one denies that the court had the right to request further testing of the hook by court appointed experts. However the independent experts were unable to verify the result because the evidence had not been suitably stored. Elements of dispute included 1) the presence of epithelials which Stefanoni had asserted but not directly looked for by microscopy 2) The failure of Steffanoni to replicate the typing of the DNA extract on the bra strap which would have been normal practice to run duplicates but noticeably for critical pieces of evidence (why only these?) Steffanoni did not run duplicates - the bra hook, the blade of the knife.

(FWIW re pt 1 I think Steffanoni was correct, and C&V wrong here. Epithelials should be present on a bra strap, and microscopy would not determine if Sollecito's or Kercher's. Theoretically one might do FISH looking for a Y chromosome, but that would not take things much further forward. The only source DNA realistically is from epithelials (including saliva) and blood. Where Steffanoni was in error was in discounting secondary transfer for trace DNA.)

Complete red herring. The bra clasp was a strong DNA and the test was sound. There was no call for another test and the defence did not put in any objections or make an application.

In actual fact, Pascali, for the defense walked off the case after reviewing the DNA evidence (the same Pascali on the editorial board with Gill on the scientific journal Gill uses to self-serve his own self-serving hypotheses the bra clasp DNA was transferred from the door knob, to help his clients, the Raff defense) and even defense forensic expert 'Photoshop' Vinci discovered Amanda's DNA on the bra, together with Rudy's.

When your own defense find your DNA on the victim's underclothing, it's time to stop asking the wrong questions, such as "Where is the bra today, eh?" but:

WHAT WAS AMANDA'S DNA DOING ON MEZ' BRA?
You know, the bra Mez was wearing when she was brutally stabbed, stripped and violated?

ETA: Presumably, your next argument will be that the DNA for Rudy is accurate, but the Amanda DNA "must have been a transfer from the door knob".

 

[Bill Williams]

Complete red herring. The bra clasp was a strong DNA and the test was sound. There was no call for another test and the defence did not put in any objections or make an application.

In actual fact, Pascali, for the defense walked off the case after reviewing the DNA evidence (the same Pascali on the editorial board with Gill on the scientific journal Gill uses to self-serve his own self-serving hypotheses the bra clasp DNA was transferred from the door knob, to help his clients, the Raff defense) and even defense forensic expert 'Photoshop' Vinci discovered Amanda's DNA on the bra, together with Rudy's.

When your own defense find your DNA on the victim's underclothing, it's time to stop asking the wrong questions, such as "Where is the bra today, eh?" but:

WHAT WAS AMANDA'S DNA DOING ON MEZ' BRA?
You know, the bra Mez was wearing when she was brutally stabbed, stripped and violated?

ETA: Presumably, your next argument will be that the DNA for Rudy is accurate, but the Amanda DNA "must have been a transfer from the door knob".

Please point to any of the convicting courts which concluded what you have highlighted.

Can't? That's strange. Finding Knox's DNA on the bra would have been incriminating. I guess the prosecution was not trying to incriminate the accused at the trials.

 

[Antony]

The evidence is damning, even without Quintavalle.

You never give up, do you? This fiction might work with someone who knows nothing about the case, or someone who can't think for themselves - but your problem is that everyone still following this thread knows better. We can see the "evidence" for what it was: 100% compromised, bogus or meaningless.

This is exactly why the March 2015 SC ruled the way it did, with no review to a lower court - there simply was no substance to the prosecution, and no prospect of anything further being produced, 7½ years on.

Oh, don't tell us, he's another anti-American in the sway of the evil Mignini.

No, just an attention-seeker all too keen to give the newspapers and the police what they wanted. The fact that you still need to focus on this kind of worthless "evidence" tells us all we need to know.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is clear Maresca's meaning was that "there is no other avenue open" was ceteris parabus the ruling was legitimate.

As we have seen and as comprehensively set out by Machiavelli, there are grave question marks as to Bruno-Marasca's legitimacy. Marasca immediately retired and Bruno, we are told, is suffering severe mental illness.

So far the grave question mark is that one of the independent experts was seen having lunch with one of the defence attorneys, AFTER the expert report was submitted. At least that's the most lurid accusation Machiavelli could hurl...

 

[Grinder]

An excerpt from your cited article:

The defense of Amanda: "In police headquarters false confession"
In defense of Amanda they had talked last hearing defenders Luciano Ghirga and Carlo Dalla Vedova. "The night that Amanda was brought to the police station without an interpreter, and after five hours of interrogation without a lawyer and she was made to sign the minutes, something must have gone wrong because there is neither a registration nor a video: that was a false confession ".​

Yes they spoke up 8 years after the fact how courageous. Did you see that the Italian translation had Maresca saying no more appeals - not that no civil case could be brought? Also the one paper made a point to say the criminal case was done but not necessarily civil by implication.

 

[Grinder]

It explains nothing because it's clear it didn't happen. The bleach in Raffaele's apartment had been there "prior to the murder". There were plenty of cleaning supplies at both Raffaele's apartment and at the cottage. And of course, there was no cleanup so there is little reason to be waiting at the store and of course Quintavalle contradicts both himself and his employees.

It's clearly a false memory and you'd have to be a moron not to be able to figure that out.

A year is simply too damn long

Yes a big problem is that no evidence of a bleach use was found and the idea they used abundant amounts of bleach but didn't soak the knife isn't reasonable.

 

[Vixen]

But what relevance has this to do with the case? There is no evidence that bleach had any role in the crime. The pictures of the bleach bottles do not show that they were shiny. The pricing on them showed they were not recent. What happened to the bleach receipt? If the bleach was purchased before the murder what relevance is it? none of this is relevant.



So is Knox unreliable because she confused the terms leaking pipe with a burst pipe? What is the difference? How does the terminology relate to likely guilt or not? Could you link the police video showing the pail of damp rags and latex gloves I have not seen this. What relevance are they? Did they find the victim's blood on these rags or the gloves? If not so what - is he bad because he cleaned or because he did not throw the rubbish out? most people have rubber (latex) gloves in the kitchen I myself have a pair of pink marigolds.



You are conflating separate statements and trying to compose a single one. This is deceitful. There is no indication that the various fish referred to are one and the same! Sollecito did not say or imply he cooked a meal for the flatmates on the night that Knox said she ate dinner at Sollecito's at 23.00.



Again you conflate different statements to make something new. Why do you do this? Do you need to convince yourself? You only do your case a disservice by making stuff up. There was no mop outside - no one said this (if you think they did find the testimony). Where is the coat testimony? The mopping was in Sollecito's flat what relevance has this to the murder? No one claims Kercher was murdered at Sollecito's and the body transported. So what if someone mopped at Sollecito's?



More untruths. Where is the testimony about the washing machine? You have just made this factoid up. Where is Filomena's testimony the clothes were steaming - how would she know? Did the police allow her to unload the washing machine at the crime scene as they allowed her to disturb the scene of the break in and remove things from the crime scene? Remember none of the cleaning materials had any evidence of blood or DNA of the victim. There was no evidence of cleaning in most of the flat - the bloody shoe prints in the hall were unsmeared.Is everyone with bleach, rubber gloves and cleaning cloths a murderer? These are normal household items.



Where is the reference about Knox liking to get up at 6AM? It was a holiday she had a new boyfriend - I can think of reasons she might have been in bed a bit longer that morning. We have been through this the forensic guys cannot tell if the phone was turned on or off. All they got was that it connected and disconnected from the network. What relevance is a music download (was this to the phone or computer?)



Or did he see someone else?



It does not matter what the police thought, they could think Jack the Ripper fell through a worm hole and committed the crime, that have to present evidence. What evidence is there that Knox did not have a shower that morning? Did anyone note if the shower was damp?



Why did Filomena not call the police? Why does it make any difference whether Sollecito a native Italian speaker called the police in Knox's presence, or if Knox with a poor grasp of Italian tried to communicate with police - it seems to me an immaterial different who actually spoke on the phone as hey were together at the time. Would it make a material difference if Knox had dialled the number? Then she would technically have called the police?



She did not buy bleach first thing in the morning that is untrue.
She did not lie as she did not do so.
What is the significance of the time she slept to?
The important issue would seem to be there were un or only partially used bottles of bleach that were old (evidence by old bleach labels and cleaning lady saying previously present so obviously not used up in any cleaning extravaganza. people have cleaning cloths and rubber gloves that is normal. They had not been used for cleaning blood.
There is no evidence the washing machine was on when the police arrived you are wrong about this. It has been explained to you before, but you appear to have false ideas fixed in your head and to be unable to incorporate new facts.
mops are normal most people have at least one.
What is the significance of a leaking versus a burst pipe?

Herewith link, as you requested.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/crime-scene-videos/

Do please make an effort to familiarise yourself with how police progressed the case, instead of substituting your own guesses.

 

[Vixen]

Yes a big problem is that no evidence of a bleach use was found and the idea they used abundant amounts of bleach but didn't soak the knife isn't reasonable.

The footprints and the lack of corresponding footprints proves it beyond doubt.

Police at Raff's reported a very strong smell of bleach.

Or are the police all liars as well?

Well, well, well. Everybody's a liar EXCEPT Amanda and Raff!

Reminds me of the proud mother at a parade, "Oh, look, my little Johnny is the only one marching in step!"

 

[Bill Williams]

Herewith link, as you requested.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/crime-scene-videos/

Do please make an effort to familiarise yourself with how police progressed the case, instead of substituting your own guesses.

It's hull-arious when you post stuff that destroys your case.....

The bottom video is one where (Srefanoni?) is making sure they test for semen. Where's the test for semen in the court record? And you pro-offered a question.... "Are all the police liars?"

Nice call.

 

[Bill Williams]

The defense of Amanda: "In police headquarters false confession"
In defense of Amanda they had talked last hearing defenders Luciano Ghirga and Carlo Dalla Vedova. "The night that Amanda was brought to the police station without an interpreter, and after five hours of interrogation without a lawyer and she was made to sign the minutes, something must have gone wrong because there is neither a registration nor a video: that was a false confession ".​

Yes they spoke up 8 years after the fact how courageous. Did you see that the Italian translation had Maresca saying no more appeals - not that no civil case could be brought? Also the one paper made a point to say the criminal case was done but not necessarily civil by implication.

Are the respective civil/criminal processes as separate in Italy as they are in the USA?

 

[Grinder]

The footprints and the lack of corresponding footprints proves it beyond doubt.

Except no one reported any smell at the cottage. There was no evidence of bleach in the bucket or on the mop. There was no bleach glow or other actual evidence of a clean up. Massei concluded there must have been a clean up because the evidence they wanted to be there wasn't.

Police at Raff's reported a very strong smell of bleach.

They did report a smell that under cross they admitted could just have been the smell of "clean". No evidence of bleach being used was found at his place either. You are saying 5 days after the murder they smelled bleach yet the knife showed no signs of any usage.

Or are the police all liars as well?

As I said under cross they admitted they didn't know.

Reminds me of the proud mother at a parade, "Oh, look, my little Johnny is the only one marching in step!"

that's cute

 

[Grinder]

Are the respective civil/criminal processes as separate in Italy as they are in the USA?

Don't know.

ETA - We do know they allow a civil suit to go along with the criminal trial which just seems so wrong. It does make it seem the verdict was decided by the investigation. In Italy it used to be that people had to prove their innocence. because of that one can see Novelli's "contamination must be proven.

 

[Grinder]

No, just an attention-seeker all too keen to give the newspapers and the police what they wanted. The fact that you still need to focus on this kind of worthless "evidence" tells us all we need to know.

I believe you got it here and I would add the cub reporter pressured Q to come forward to help the state achieve the verdict all knew was correct. I can imagine Q over time being convinced he actually saw Amanda that morning just as people make false confessions. The difference being a slow process over time.

I imagine many people would like to help get the bad guys and would let their minds be convinced they had seen something.

 

[Bill Williams]

Don't know.

I've been told that here a potential "suer" will wait for the criminal process to conclude - taking advantage of the State picking up the cost of gathering, collating evidence, etc. If there's a criminal conviction then the civil suit goes mostly uncontested. If an acquittal the the civil process's lower standard of proof leaves lots of room to find a criminally acquitted person civilly liable.

A complete guess - if Italy allows a civil suit, we'd have heard about it by now.

Same with these claims that M/B acted illegally. It's one thing to use the word "illegal" colloquially - but where's the noise in Italy? So far it's been English language noise on obscure websites.

 

[Grinder]

I've been told that here a potential "suer" will wait for the criminal process to conclude - taking advantage of the State picking up the cost of gathering, collating evidence, etc. If there's a criminal conviction then the civil suit goes mostly uncontested. If an acquittal the the civil process's lower standard of proof leaves lots of room to find a criminally acquitted person civilly liable.

A complete guess - if Italy allows a civil suit, we'd have heard about it by now.

Same with these claims that M/B acted illegally. It's one thing to use the word "illegal" colloquially - but where's the noise in Italy? So far it's been English language noise on obscure websites.

I've been told there is quite an undercurrent of issue with the verdict.

It could easily be the case that the Kerchers are done with this, worn out and don't believe more attempts worth it. Maybe they are contemplating suing somewhere else, maybe England or even the US. To be clear I'm saying either is possible or likely.

As I said earlier the Italian paper made it sound the verdict only ended the criminal part. I wouldn't be surprised to find the statute of limitations has run out for civil cases.

Hellmann didn't use 530. It would be interesting to know if second instance courts use 530 and also if the ISC uses it.

 

[Bill Williams]

I've been told there is quite an undercurrent of issue with the verdict.

It could easily be the case that the Kerchers are done with this, worn out and don't believe more attempts worth it. Maybe they are contemplating suing somewhere else, maybe England or even the US. To be clear I'm saying either is possible or likely.

As I said earlier the Italian paper made it sound the verdict only ended the criminal part. I wouldn't be surprised to find the statute of limitations has run out for civil cases.

Hellmann didn't use 530. It would be interesting to know if second instance courts use 530 and also if the ISC uses it.

Re: undercurrent. I've been told the same. Yet it is almost universally the the M/B section decided to adjudicat the case on whether or not the evidence supported a conviction - apart from the usual backroom machinations as to who would or wouldn't be humiliated because of it. This aspect of it was referred to in coverage of the (Stasi?) case which was referred to as a return to a roll of the dice justice.

 

[Planigale]

Complete red herring. The bra clasp was a strong DNA and the test was sound. There was no call for another test and the defence did not put in any objections or make an application.

In actual fact, Pascali, for the defense walked off the case after reviewing the DNA evidence (the same Pascali on the editorial board with Gill on the scientific journal Gill uses to self-serve his own self-serving hypotheses the bra clasp DNA was transferred from the door knob, to help his clients, the Raff defense) and even defense forensic expert 'Photoshop' Vinci discovered Amanda's DNA on the bra, together with Rudy's.

When your own defense find your DNA on the victim's underclothing, it's time to stop asking the wrong questions, such as "Where is the bra today, eh?" but:

WHAT WAS AMANDA'S DNA DOING ON MEZ' BRA?
You know, the bra Mez was wearing when she was brutally stabbed, stripped and violated?

ETA: Presumably, your next argument will be that the DNA for Rudy is accurate, but the Amanda DNA "must have been a transfer from the door knob".

There was a call for the bra strap to be retested. The judge asked for it to be re-examined. Because Steffanoni had not stored the evidence correctly this was not possible. steffanoni had failed to replicate the critical test on the bra hook before she destroyed it.

i do not think the document you posted says what you think it does. Do you think Vinci found Knox's DNA on the bra? Can you find any testimony presented in court to this effect? Or are you just making more stuff up? is this fantasy CSI where you feel free to make up any nonsense?

As I keep saying the case against Guede does not rest on the DNA evidence, even if the DNA evidence was excluded the case against Guede would be strong.

 

[Grinder]

So Amanda's and Raf's DNAs were on the clasp but not the other part of the bra. It would be interesting to see this explained. Maybe they bleached the other part

 

[Planigale]

Herewith link, as you requested.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/crime-scene-videos/

Do please make an effort to familiarise yourself with how police progressed the case, instead of substituting your own guesses.

Another classic Vixen 'the evidence shows nothing like I said it did'! You said there was a video of a pail with latex gloves and cleaning rags in Sollecito's flat. You show a video of a completely different place. Do you not bother to look at any facts? You just make stuff up.

 

[Planigale]

The footprints and the lack of corresponding footprints proves it beyond doubt.

Police at Raff's reported a very strong smell of bleach.

Or are the police all liars as well?

Well, well, well. Everybody's a liar EXCEPT Amanda and Raff!

Reminds me of the proud mother at a parade, "Oh, look, my little Johnny is the only one marching in step!"

The classic we did not find the evidence that Knox did it; since we know she did it the evidence must have been cleaned up. The evidence for the cleaning - there was no evidence against Knox! Or just maybe it was never there in the first place? If the absence of evidence becomes evidence in itself we are all guilty.

What is the smell of bleach? How would a policeman recognise it? How long does the smell of bleach last? (At most hours) When was the search carried out? When had Sollecito last been at home (he was in detention at the time of the search). The truth is no smell of bleach could have been present at the time the police searched due to cleaning days before. So yes in this instance the police must have been either lying or just confused.