Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

1) Utter nonsense. Do you even have the first idea how many different models of training shoe Nike alone manufactures (let alone all the other models from all the other major manufacturers of training shoes)?

2) In this case we are fortunate in knowing for certain that Guede owned a pair of these exact trainers in this size, and we also know that there's zero evidence that Sollecito ever owned such trainers.

3) The police's "experts" couldn't even distinguish between the clearly different (in many obvious respects) sole patterns of Nike Outbreak 2 trainers (as owned by Guede and worn by him on the night of the murder) and Air Force One trainers (as owned and worn by Sollecito). A young schoolgirl could (and did) spot the difference.

But the shoe/s were never produced in court.

Massei ruled out the size 37 ladies trainer because the prosecution did not produce the shoe that caused it.

In other words, Rudy got far rougher justice in court than the kids.

Yet all the courts upheld Rudy did not deal the death blow.

Go figure.

 

[Vixen]

Oh and it seems that Guede himself either lies about his shoe size or doesn't know it (my bolding):

Seemingly unaware of the significance of what he was saying, Guede then revealed: "I was wearing Adidas shoes. I wear size 45-46..."

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...-gQ6AEIJjAB#v=onepage&q=guede size 45&f=false

I guess you'd better write to Guede to let him know that he's got his shoe size wrong, and that you know what it really is

I would guess the figures were Americanised. American sizes are one or two sizes larger in figure than UK.

That is almost certainly an error of maths, as I have seen court docs which say, size 43.

 

[LondonJohn]

But the shoe/s were never produced in court.

Massei ruled out the size 37 ladies trainer because the prosecution did not produce the shoe that caused it.

In other words, Rudy got far rougher justice in court than the kids.

Yet all the courts upheld Rudy did not deal the death blow.

Go figure.

Way to change the goalposts! (as our American cousins might say.....).

Read Massei. He refused to rule on the shoe prints on the pillow case not because "the prosecution did not produce the shoe that caused it". That's entirely a figment of your own overactive imagination. He actually refused to rule on it because the defence put forward a plausible alternative explanation, and rather than implicitly criticise the police's "experts" he left it as a null piece of evidence.

And only the Micheli court - acting as it did on a fast-track basis, without any proper ability for Knox or Sollecito to defend themselves, and in the bizarre circumstances where both the prosecution and the defence (i.e. Guede's defence) actively wanted, needed, there to be the presence of other attackers who played the primary role in the murder - made that ruling. It then simply got waved through by the confirming SC panel, acting as it did without any pushback from Guede's defence lawyers (who knew he'd got the best possible outcome given the evidence and the circumstances). And all made public, and all well before the Massei court came to deliberate and deliver a verdict on Knox and Sollecito. Got to love THAT aspect of the Italian criminal justice system!

 

[Bill Williams]

You believe Massei in his conclusions?

That's the only thing you believe. Otherwise you disagree with Massei on the evidence.

 

[LondonJohn]

I would guess the figures were Americanised. American sizes are one or two sizes larger in figure than UK.

That is almost certainly an error of maths, as I have seen court docs which say, size 43.

Oh dear oh dear.

Euro sizes are Euro sizes. A Euro size described in a US book is no different from a book written/published in the UK, Italy or Guinea Bissau. There is a difference between US sizes and UK sizes, meaning that (for example) a UK men's size 10.5 is equivalent to a US size 11. But they are both equal to a Euro size 45.

Do some research. I'll help you out:

http://www.newbalance.co.uk/sizechart-footwear-conversion.html

 

[Vixen]

That's the only thing you believe. Otherwise you disagree with Massei on the evidence.

I agree with him on the evidence, with maybe one or two quibbles. It's the interpretation of that evidence that's separates a good judge from a mediocre one. Massei wasn't perfect - not at all - but I think his verdict was a fair one.

And of course it's within a judge's remit to accept or disregard a piece of evidence, and this weighing up wil be based on (a) materiality, (b) substance over form ('never mind what it's called, what is it really') (c) weight, whether its acceptance or rejection makes a difference to the verdict.

Massei showed wisdom in simply passing on relatively immaterial, arguable issues, found against the 'Ivorian' whenever he could, so it makes the verdict of 'guilty as charged' against Raff and Amanda all the stronger.

 

[Vixen]

Oh dear oh dear.

Euro sizes are Euro sizes. A Euro size described in a US book is no different from a book written/published in the UK, Italy or Guinea Bissau. There is a difference between US sizes and UK sizes, meaning that (for example) a UK men's size 10.5 is equivalent to a US size 11. But they are both equal to a Euro size 45.

Do some research. I'll help you out:

http://www.newbalance.co.uk/sizechart-footwear-conversion.html

You didn't comprehend what I said. It could have been converted into a US size for an American publisher then re-translated using the American, when the original was a British conversion of the Euro. Clear now?

 

[Bill Williams]

But the shoe/s were never produced in court.

Massei ruled out the size 37 ladies trainer because the prosecution did not produce the shoe that caused it.

In other words, Rudy got far rougher justice in court than the kids.

Yet all the courts upheld Rudy did not deal the death blow.
Go figure.

Your ignorance is either willful or just ignorance.

None of the legal processes Rudy was involved with was evidentiary, they were fast-track. In Italian procedure, a fast-track trial is the same as a regular trial except that the evidence phase is missing.

Meaning, everything that is presented in a fast-track court is mutually agreed upon stipulations.

So - here you go again. Substituting judicial-truth for evidentiary-truth. Without that you'd have nothing.

 

[LondonJohn]

You didn't comprehend what I said. It could have been converted into a US size for an American publisher then re-translated using the American, when the original was a British conversion of the Euro. Clear now?

Why on Earth would/could that ever have happened? You're really clutching at straws here.

ETA: Isn't it a dreadful shame that, once again, YOU have no form of evidence with which to support your claim (in the face of evidence to the contrary), and can only offer up a rather pathetic "I remember reading it in the court documents".........

 

[christianahannah]

Evidence that Boemia or Rinaldi were "footprint experts"?

Ooops. There's no such evidence. In fact, they employed an embarrassing and toxic mixture of pseudoscience and good old-fashioned incompetence, and made a number of horrific mistakes - one of which was so elementary that even a schoolgirl spotted it. Or do you still believe that the "experts" Boemi and Rinaldi correctly matched the shoe prints in the hallway with Sollecito's Reebok trainers?

I am not answering to how expert or not expert Boemi and Rinaldi were concerning the footprint evidence, however, wasn't it another person/people who matched the hallway shoe prints to Raffaele's shoes (I'm sorry the name doesn't come to mind now but maybe someone else will know). I thought B&R, as had Vinci, wrote reports stating the hallway shoe prints were not Raffaele's.

 

[Bill Williams]

I agree with him on the evidence, with maybe one or two quibbles. It's the interpretation of that evidence that's separates a good judge from a mediocre one. Massei wasn't perfect - not at all - but I think his verdict was a fair one.

And of course it's within a judge's remit to accept or disregard a piece of evidence, and this weighing up wil be based on (a) materiality, (b) substance over form ('never mind what it's called, what is it really') (c) weight, whether its acceptance or rejection makes a difference to the verdict.

Massei showed wisdom in simply passing on relatively immaterial, arguable issues, found against the 'Ivorian' whenever he could, so it makes the verdict of 'guilty as charged' against Raff and Amanda all the stronger.

None of this is what Massei did. If he had you'd be quoting it. Otherwise you're just asserting it with no substance to it. So far you've pretty much trashed most everything Massei ruled on - in this case, you say it is a Size 37 women's shoe. Massei said his court took no stand on the issue. You dodge that reality by..........

............ making up some fiction about how Italian judges purposely misrepresent the evidence to accomplish some non-existent judicial procedure.

You could not be any more transparently dishonest.

 

[Stacyhs]

They were all taken to the Questura the same day the body was found.
But the murder happened the night before, and according to PGP gospel, she spent the night and up to almost noon the next day cleaning up the evidence.


Amanda just wanted to get a red g-string and have 'wild sex'.

It wasn't a G-string. And who cares if it was? Thongs are a common and popular style worn by women. But you are right that it was red....with a cartoon cow on it. "Bubbles" wasn't a "lingerie store" as is so often reported by the PGP, either. I'm surprised you didn't use that term.
Just how did the store owner, who sold his video to the media and got his 15 minutes of fame, know what they were saying as it's been reported he didn't speak English?
And who says "Let's have 'wild sex' " in the first place? But it's not surprising that you resort to G-strings and "wild sex" accusations. You do seem preoccupied with sex.

It was Giobbi's perception she 'came on' to him.

Yeah, right. That says more about him than her.

 

[Annella]

You didn't comprehend what I said. It could have been converted into a US size for an American publisher then re-translated using the American, when the original was a British conversion of the Euro. Clear now?

Digging yourself into a hole is a lot easier than getting out of one. Right Vixen?

 

[moije2]

after the lovefest

I hate to step between in this lovefest

but I would be interested if anyone has information regarding the anticipated destruction of evidence, as described by former poster Machiavelli on this site. He quite strongly advanced the argument that it simply was not in the mindset of the scientists to need to preserve the evidence. To wit, Stefanoni, in her handling of the bra clasp which all but made certain that it would be rendered useless to further examination.

What would be the timing of such destruction? After the final ISC decision? I am wondering what that process entails. Large formal ceremony with pomp and circumstance? Doubt that. Or is it (take your choice of scientific evidence) simply dropped in the office trash bin? Could there be some right to reclaim it?

Did Raffaele reclaim a knife?

 

[Numbers]

No. Wrong (and overblown) once again. It was Giobbi's "perception" (at least it was his "perception" when he was basking in the glory of the police "solving the crime" in November/December 2007) that Knox had made inappropriate hip movements and vocalisations. He was in essence bragging to a reporter that he had used his awesome "detective's instincts" to figure out that Knox was involved. Oops!

VQA Giobbi actually testified in Massei's court that Knox's perceived (by him) wiggle and subsequent vocalization while putting on shoe covers was one of the main reasons - using his unique "methodology" - he considered her a suspect. And that led to his having Knox and Sollecito ordered in for special questioning on Nov. 5, according to his testimony.

Giobbi further testified that because he intuited - with no forensic evidence for support - that since a burglar would not have entered the flat at the broken window, the break-in was staged. Knox as a key holder and with only one person supporting her alibi thus became a prime suspect. The "behavioral" clues Giobbi claimed he intuited, I suggest, were merely convenient observations to support the initial evidence-free conclusion of a staged break-in and assumption that Knox was responsible for the murder. And this assumption was adopted, I suggest, under the guidance of PM Mignini, in his role as director of the investigation, and the need to find a convenient suspect and "solve" the case rapidly.

The Marasca CSC Panel motivation report appears to present an argument consistent with this "convenient suspect" hypothesis:

4.1 Certainly an unusual media clamour about the case, was due not only to the means of death of the 22 year-old [sic; correctly, 21 year-old], so absurd and unusual in its origin, but also to the nationalities of the people involved. (A citizen of the United States, Knox, accused of involvement in the murder of a flatmate, who was also sharing the experience of studying overseas; a British citizen, Meredith Kercher, found murdered under mysterious circumstances in a place in which, probably, she felt most protected, it being “her house”), and therefore, reflecting the “international” nature of the story, it led to a sudden acceleration of the investigations, in the frantic search for one or more guilty people to placate international opinion, and certainly did not help lead to the real truth.

 

[bagels]

I hate to step between in this lovefest

but I would be interested if anyone has information regarding the anticipated destruction of evidence, as described by former poster Machiavelli on this site. He quite strongly advanced the argument that it simply was not in the mindset of the scientists to need to preserve the evidence. To wit, Stefanoni, in her handling of the bra clasp which all but made certain that it would be rendered useless to further examination.

What would be the timing of such destruction? After the final ISC decision? I am wondering what that process entails. Large formal ceremony with pomp and circumstance? Doubt that. Or is it (take your choice of scientific evidence) simply dropped in the office trash bin? Could there be some right to reclaim it?

Did Raffaele reclaim a knife?

I know Raff got his knife back because the PGP wouldn't stop posting the picture of him holding it lol

 

[Methos]

I am not answering to how expert or not expert Boemi and Rinaldi were concerning the footprint evidence, however, wasn't it another person/people who matched the hallway shoe prints to Raffaele's shoes (I'm sorry the name doesn't come to mind now but maybe someone else will know). I thought B&R, as had Vinci, wrote reports stating the hallway shoe prints were not Raffaele's.

You are right on R&B and Vinci, there were these two early reports on "The shoeprints"
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-co...Sollecito-shoe-matching-crime-scene-print.pdf
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...lice-Ippolito-Manieri-shoeprints-complete.pdf
with the first one by Mauro Capocci stating:

le scarpe sequestrate a SOLLECITO Raffaele possono aver prodotto l'impronta da scarpa (lett.A) rilevata in occasione del sopralluogo.

and the second one, by Ippolito and Manieri is getting into the details

CONCLUSIONI
Dalle comparazioni eseguite per sovrapposizione/accostamento si evidenzia che le tracce prese in esame, contrassegnate con la lettera "A", corrispondono con il disegno (modello e misura) della suola di scarpa recante il marchio "NIKE" oggetto della comparazione.
Ciò è dimostrato anche da alcune misurazioni effettuate sulle immagini sono stati ricavali i seguenti dati ( all.ti 13 e 14):

• diametro della traccia circolare picna sul pavimento di circa 36 mm. - diametro dell'elemento circolare di circa 35 mm. della suola della scarpa;
• dimensione degli spazi vuoti. misurata in tre punti, tra i segni circolari lasciati sul pavimento di circa 5 mrn. - dimensione degli spazi corrispondenti della suola di circa 6 m .
• dimensione compresa tra gli estremi dei segni circolari lasciati sul pavimento di cim 87 mm. - dimensione compresa tra le zone tratteggiate opposte della suola di circa 86 mm..

Le minime differenze tra le due misurazioni possono verosimilmente essere determinate dall'azione meccanica su sostanza fluida.Il presente verbale viene riletto confermato e sottoscritto.

matching it to Raffaele's shoes despite the differences and the fact that they only had the photos to work with, even offering an explaination why the print is compatible whith Raffaele's Nikes depite not being a match.

Two things are interesting:
1st: the documents confirm Raffaele's take in "Honor Bound":

The main evidence Mignini had to take into the preliminary hearing was my Nikes, and he did everything he could to make them as incriminating as possible. Hours after my interrogators ordered me to take the shoes off, they were examined by a forensic team from Foligno. But the Foligno police were relatively cautious: in the official report they produced that same day, they said they could
make no more than a partial comparison with the clearest of the prints left in blood in Meredith’s room and could comment only on the rough size and shape of the shoe, nothing more. Still, they concluded that my shoes “could have” created the footprints found at the crime scene.
Mignini was not satisfied, no doubt because the finding was couched in all sorts of caveats; the Foligno police stressed that the match was a theoretical possibility only. So the next day Mignini went to the Polizia Scientifica in Rome for a second opinion. They had even less information to go on than the Foligno team because they had only photographs of my shoes, not the shoes themselves. Somehow, though, they came to the much more definitive conclusion that my Nikes were the same make, model, and shoe size as the print on Meredith’s floor. No question about it.

2nd: Judge Matteini took that second run on the shoeprints as "confirmation" without question even with Ippolito and Manieri having only the photos to work with:

Sollecito’s presence in Meredith’s room is shown by the objective element of the shoe prints found underneath the duvet with which Meredith’s body had been covered. This element issues from the first observations made in the technical report of 6th November 2007, and from the more detailed investigations referred to in the report by the Rome Forensic Police Service of 7th November, which attests to the full compatibility between the prints and Sollecito’s shoes.

 

[Bill Williams]

Massei showed wisdom in simply passing on relatively immaterial, arguable issues, found against the 'Ivorian' whenever he could, so it makes the verdict of 'guilty as charged' against Raff and Amanda all the stronger.

Nice sashay. Nice Tennessee two-step.

You claim that the shoe-print in Meredith's room was a women's size 37. You say this despite Massei writing in his report that he took no position on the ownership of that shoe-print because there was no way to rule out that it was, in fact, Rudy's.

You then say that the reason Massei "passed" on this bit of evidence was that it was "immaterial" and "arguable".

Yet you'd begun the discussion by claiming, categorically, that it was a women's size 37!

This is perhaps the most transparent example of your deceit when arguing abut this case; and your PR effort to skew the record with factoids.

 

[Vixen]

None of this is what Massei did. If he had you'd be quoting it. Otherwise you're just asserting it with no substance to it. So far you've pretty much trashed most everything Massei ruled on - in this case, you say it is a Size 37 women's shoe. Massei said his court took no stand on the issue. You dodge that reality by..........

............ making up some fiction about how Italian judges purposely misrepresent the evidence to accomplish some non-existent judicial procedure.

You could not be any more transparently dishonest.

It is not 'dishonest' at all. It is the way of the world. Many criminals when picked up will have chargeable offences as long as your arm. Take a bank robber, you could charge him with driving without due care and attention, driving through a red light, failing to stop for a policeman, parking on double yellow lines, trespassing, possession of a firearm, assault, gbh, abh, tda,blt*, aiding and abetting, conspiracy, harbouring a criminal, worn away tyres, faulty brakes, exceeding the speed limit, robbery with violence, stealing, fraud, money laundering, multiplied by oh, maybe a dozen similar incidents within the last few weeks. Does the judge have time to carefully assess every single one of them? No. Of course not. The charges are reduced to just a handful of specimen charges, with just a brace or three charges, based on the most serious. The key thing is to charge the perp with just enough to lock him away. Hey, he might even be innocent of some. However, it is neither cost nor time beneficial for a court to hear everything.

So, is it 'misrepresentation of the evidence' or is it normal run of play?

BTW what did you think of Bruno-Marasca's (their own original) ruling that Amanda was covering up for Rudy when she named Patrick?


Are you happy with that?

*heh, thought I'd throw that in.

 

[Vixen]

Digging yourself into a hole is a lot easier than getting out of one. Right Vixen?

Right from the master's mouth.