Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

No you're totally wrong...again.

I am not going to tell you why because I'm tired of repeating myself. You just don't seem to get it, simple as it is. A first year undergraduate law student would know the correct answer.

If you want to know why you're wrong go to your favourite library, or better still go and ask the someone in the legal department of any university. You could even use google were it not that you don't use google.

Fortunately we enlightened, educated, critical thinkers get it. And, far more fortunately, the judges of the Italian Supreme Court - finally and belatedly - get it. I suspect that even Mignini gets it, much as he doesn't like it. It's only a tiny cadre of zealots who either don't get it (owing to intellectual deficits) or refuse to get it (owing to vindictive bias and/or a stubborn need to cling to a particular position). And one shouldn't really care that they don't get it.

 

[LondonJohn]

So a burglar off the street overcome by uncontrollable lust, is at the same time cool-headed enough to change knives in the middle of the attack...

The attack was carried out with just one knife. And it's forensically and medically 100% consistent with having been carried out with just one knife. A knife with a medium-length (around 10-12cm) blade of around 2-3cm width. A knife with the size and shape of the blade imprint found on the bed sheet.

All well-informed commentators on this case know full well that the "two or more knives" nonsense was nothing more or less than a clumsy fabrication from prosecutors because they were faced otherwise with an intractable problem: they wanted (needed) Sollecito's kitchen knife to be a murder weapon, but they were stuck with the inconvenient fact that one of the wounds could not physically have been inflicted by a knife with the dimensions of Sollecito's kitchen knife (plus they had that bloody imprint of a much smaller knife to explain). So their "genius" solution was to decide that more than one knife was used. In reality, Sollecito's kitchen knife had absolutely nothing to do with the Kercher murder, and in reality, only one knife was used in the attack. It was wielded, without doubt, by Rudy Guede.

(I snipped the rest of the post to which I'm replying here, on account of it being unmitigated bollocks which isn't even worth explaining or correcting.)

 

[Vixen]

Very important three words highlighted above for comprehension. And the lies/misrepresentations struck out for clarity too.

Marasca's ruling clearly says (clearly to anyone reading it objectively and with a modicum of intelligence) that - to paraphrase - even if one accepts certain other previously-established judicial facts, they do not and cannot amount to proof of guilt on the actual charges in this case re Knox and Sollecito.

Again, if Marasca's court truly believed that Knox (and Sollecito) really HAD factually been present in the apartment and had "washed Kercher's blood off their hands" and "lied numerously to investigators", then at the very least the case would have been passed back down to appeal level, and the PM would almost certainly have been asked to investigate the possibility of bringing new and different charges (charges related to failing to report a crime, perverting the course of justice, assisting an offender - all of which are very serious crimes carrying substantial prison sentences upon conviction).

I think that the only rational, objective way to view the Marasca panel's verdict and motivation report, in its proper context and in the absence of bias or agenda, is that the Marasca panel believed that 1) there was zero credible, reliable evidence linking either Knox or Sollecito to the murder of Kercher; 2) the only credible, reliable evidence in this case only ever pointed to Guede; 3) all the evidence was actually wholly consistent with, and compatible with, Guede as sole perpetrator; and 4) therefore the overwhelming likelihood according to the evidence is that Guede committed this crime all by himself, and that neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything whatsoever to do with it.

That perception entirely explains the actions and sentiments of the Marasca panel, in a way that no other interpretation can do. And it's correct too, which always helps.....

Look. If the DNA evidence against Amanda and Raff is rejected, as decreed by Marasca, then it follows, it must be rejected for the exact same reasons, for Rudy (so, it is clear he has grounds for a review, based on 'internal contradiction' with a final, irrevocable, verdict elsewhere).

You wilfully misprepresent Marasca when you claim it says, "all the evidence was actually wholly consistent with, and compatible with, Guede as sole perpetrator; and 4) therefore the overwhelming likelihood according to the evidence is that Guede committed this crime all by himself, and that neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything whatsoever to do with it."

(And you have the brassneck temerity to call me a liar at every possible opportunity like a kindergarten infant.)

In addition, if it is a case of 'even if', then it logically follows, to be internally consistent, 'even if Rudy was at the murder scene, it doesn't follow he is guilty'.

Remember: Marasca has rejected ALL the DNA evidence on the grounds 'Stefanoni did not follow international standards' and the sleeve of Mez' jumper must have been contaminated under the same conditions as the bra clasp, as it was collected at the same time, by the same people and tested in the same labs, by Stefanoni.

 

[Vixen]

The attack was carried out with just one knife. And it's forensically and medically 100% consistent with having been carried out with just one knife. A knife with a medium-length (around 10-12cm) blade of around 2-3cm width. A knife with the size and shape of the blade imprint found on the bed sheet.

All well-informed commentators on this case know full well that the "two or more knives" nonsense was nothing more or less than a clumsy fabrication from prosecutors because they were faced otherwise with an intractable problem: they wanted (needed) Sollecito's kitchen knife to be a murder weapon, but they were stuck with the inconvenient fact that one of the wounds could not physically have been inflicted by a knife with the dimensions of Sollecito's kitchen knife (plus they had that bloody imprint of a much smaller knife to explain). So their "genius" solution was to decide that more than one knife was used. In reality, Sollecito's kitchen knife had absolutely nothing to do with the Kercher murder, and in reality, only one knife was used in the attack. It was wielded, without doubt, by Rudy Guede.

(I snipped the rest of the post to which I'm replying here, on account of it being unmitigated bollocks which isn't even worth explaining or correcting.)

It's such a pity they didn't call you up as the expert witness.

 

[Methos]

So a burglar off the street overcome by uncontrollable lust, is at the same time cool-headed enough to change knives in the middle of the attack, undress the body after death, move it by placing it on a blanket/sheet some 19" AND stage a burglary, and leave just his left side of shoeprints and half a footprint on the bathmat, which by an astonishing coincidence is highly compatible with Raff's foot.

Either the perp was an impromptu thug, or he was a cold calculating sadist, who had special knowledge he had all the time in the world.

How does it account for Amanda's blood? Mixed with Mez' DNA?


OK so the burglar savagely and cruelly murdered Mez, and then became soft-hearted and threw a duvet over her (after moving the body and undressing it...?) ...and also a few scattered papers, as also found in Filomena's room, with Amanda's footprint on some of them?

Your 'lone burglar' theory simply does not work. All the courts threw it out. What makes you stick to it?

The facts, you know the real ones, not the substitute truths created by courts that should have abstained from ruling on certain matters...

So a burglar off the street overcome by uncontrollable lust,

For whatever overcame Guede, you'll have to ask him.

is at the same time cool-headed enough to change knives in the middle of the attack,

One knife, about 8cm long, thrown away by Guede and never searched for is the most likely murder weapon (see early reports having the coroner stating, that Meredith Kercher was likely killed by the use of a pen-knife), so no mid-attack change of weapon needed...

undress the body after death,

The facts, i.e. the crime scene photographs that are not in the public domain, tell a different story. There are droplets of blood on the parts of Meredith Kercher's body that should have been covered by a certain piece of clothing, another picture clearly shows that Micheli's conclusions about the "marks on Meredith Kercher's back" are nonsense.

move it by placing it on a blanket/sheet some 19"

Whatever the "19"" are supposed to mean, Meredith Kercher was found with her hips placed on a "pillow" and there are pictures showing a pattern of blood on the duvet showing that Meredith Kercher was still alive and breathing out blood, at the time the duvet was thrown over her...

AND stage a burglary,

Since it was the way he came in, he didn't have to stage it...

and leave just his left side of shoeprints

Well since it looks like only one of his shoes had blood on them, where's the problem?

and half a footprint on the bathmat, which by an astonishing coincidence is highly compatible with Raff's foot.

A footprint that even Rinaldi said wasn't usable to identify anyone...

Either the perp was an impromptu thug, or he was a cold calculating sadist, who had special knowledge he had all the time in the world.

Or just someone who was lucky that the crimescene was investigated by people who had no idea about what they were doing, I don't know if Guede knew about that beforehand...

How does it account for Amanda's blood? Mixed with Mez' DNA?

It's the other way around, if we want to believe Dottoressa Stefanoni, Meredith Kercher's blood, mixed with already there when deposited Amanda Knox's DNA, no problem here...

[...]
...and also a few scattered papers, as also found in Filomena's room, with Amanda's footprint on some of them?

If those "Amanda's footprints" (actually shoeprints) on "a few scattered papers" (actually postcards) in "Filomena's room" would actually exist, I think Rinaldi had written something different about them in his report...

The 'lone burglar' (turned rapist and killer) makes a lot more sense than anything police, prosecution and convicting courts have to offer...

 

[Bill Williams]

Look. If the DNA evidence against Amanda and Raff is rejected, as decreed by Marasca, then it follows, it must be rejected for the exact same reasons, for Rudy (so, it is clear he has grounds for a review, based on 'internal contradiction' with a final, irrevocable, verdict elsewhere).

You wilfully misprepresent Marasca when you claim it says, "all the evidence was actually wholly consistent with, and compatible with, Guede as sole perpetrator; and 4) therefore the overwhelming likelihood according to the evidence is that Guede committed this crime all by himself, and that neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything whatsoever to do with it."

(And you have the brassneck temerity to call me a liar at every possible opportunity like a kindergarten infant.)

In addition, if it is a case of 'even if', then it logically follows, to be internally consistent, 'even if Rudy was at the murder scene, it doesn't follow he is guilty'.
Remember: Marasca has rejected ALL the DNA evidence on the grounds 'Stefanoni did not follow international standards' and the sleeve of Mez' jumper must have been contaminated under the same conditions as the bra clasp, as it was collected at the same time, by the same people and tested in the same labs, by Stefanoni.

Ah, er, no. It is amazing that you would spin things this way. You must be quite the Rudy supporter.

The DNA-forensics for Rudy were solid, indeed there was plenty of room for multiple amplifications with the Rudy samples.

The forensics for Amanda and (especially) Raffaele are at best controversial, and at worst the result of outright fraud.

I know you will disagree. Anyone else who wishes to follow this:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/guede-dna-investigation/

The telling thing about the testing, even though Batches one and two found Guede - and only Guede - this was not disclosed to the defence.

By the time the third batch was tested they suddenly stopped all inquiry into Guede....

Having entered Rudy Guede’s apartment on November 16, seized several bloody items, and then identified Rudy Guede as the perpetrator, one would think that in the very next batch of testing (Batch 3: November 23-29) the authorities would analyze these bloody items. However, they did not: instead they focused their Batch 3 analysis exclusively on items that they thought would inculpate Knox and Sollecito, i.e., samples from Sollecito’s residence and auto (none of which, however, were incriminating).

The item in Batch 3 that attracted the most intense scrutiny was Kercher’s bloodied bra (Rep. 59). It is clear that the lab had determined from the outset that it would attempt to isolate male “touch” DNA on the bra (presumably, Sollecito’s DNA). On November 23, seven samples (a relatively large number for a single item) were extracted from the bloody garment.

Each of these samples was analyzed utilizing a non-blood (i.e., “saliva”) protocol, even though (i) the photos of the bra depict copious blood, (ii) the lab report (in contravention of the SAL records) claims that the samples were TMB-positive, and (iii) Stefanoni in her court testimony and powerpoint presentation described the saliva-protocol-tested samples as “blood”.​

 

[Stacyhs]

Citation please of the previous court which ruled 'Amanda committed calunnia to cover up for Rudy'.


The relevant code relates to the five only permitted reasons for appeal provided by art. 606 Code of Criminal Procedure. The one of internal contradictions is listed here. This was appealed by the defence on the grounds Stefanoni did not meet international standards (when actually, at the time there is no agreed standard) and the fact of one set of amplifications of Mez' DNA meant it was invalid (not so, as the penal code only requires a 'common sense' approach [cf. juries in England & Wales]).

It is clear Marasca had no idea what it was talking about, and I am willing to bet Bruno (who once had Bongiorno as his attorney, to get him off a mafia charge) browbeat his fellows well into the night (the verdict was at 11:00pm, if you recall) to accept his preemptive Hellmann-style pre-hearing declaration, 'there is only one certainty: Mez' murder'.

This proves the court had no intention of not making a judgment 'until all the submissions have been heard', and instead, went on a fishing expedition to try to reason its preordained (thus legally prejudiced, against the victim party) verdict, 'the DNA cannot be certain', when in fact there was no scientific foundation to reject it completely. BARD being based on different factors than, 'Does Rome lab do the same as the USA', presupposing that it did not.

If Marasca was 'over 70' and suffering from an inability to come up to judicial standard, then he should have recused himself.

Charge F, convicted by all courts and confirmed by Cassation March 26, 2013.

"(F)
to the criminal offense2 to which articles 81 cpv., 368 paragraph 2 and 61 section 2 of the Criminal Code apply, because, with multiple actions executed under the same criminal design, knowing him to be innocent, with a denunciation rendered to the Flying Squad of Perugia on the date of November 6, 2007, falsely implicated DIYA LUMUMBA, called ‚Patrick‛, in the murder of young MEREDITH KERCHER, with the intention of gaining impunity for everybody, and in particular for RUDY HERMANN GUEDE, who, like LUMUMBA, is also black (Massei Report pg 3)

In other words, she accused Lumumba to protect/cover for Guede.

Presenting the code which states the five reasons for granting an appeal does not prove there was no internal conflict. Try again.

The rest of your response isn't even worth addressing.

 

[Vixen]

The facts, you know the real ones, not the substitute truths created by courts that should have abstained from ruling on certain matters...


For whatever overcame Guede, you'll have to ask him.


One knife, about 8cm long, thrown away by Guede and never searched for is the most likely murder weapon (see early reports having the coroner stating, that Meredith Kercher was likely killed by the use of a pen-knife), so no mid-attack change of weapon needed...


The facts, i.e. the crime scene photographs that are not in the public domain, tell a different story. There are droplets of blood on the parts of Meredith Kercher's body that should have been covered by a certain piece of clothing, another picture clearly shows that Micheli's conclusions about the "marks on Meredith Kercher's back" are nonsense.


Whatever the "19"" are supposed to mean, Meredith Kercher was found with her hips placed on a "pillow" and there are pictures showing a pattern of blood on the duvet showing that Meredith Kercher was still alive and breathing out blood, at the time the duvet was thrown over her...


Since it was the way he came in, he didn't have to stage it...


Well since it looks like only one of his shoes had blood on them, where's the problem?


A footprint that even Rinaldi said wasn't usable to identify anyone...


Or just someone who was lucky that the crimescene was investigated by people who had no idea about what they were doing, I don't know if Guede knew about that beforehand...


It's the other way around, if we want to believe Dottoressa Stefanoni, Meredith Kercher's blood, mixed with already there when deposited Amanda Knox's DNA, no problem here...


If those "Amanda's footprints" (actually shoeprints) on "a few scattered papers" (actually postcards) in "Filomena's room" would actually exist, I think Rinaldi had written something different about them in his report...

The 'lone burglar' (turned rapist and killer) makes a lot more sense than anything police, prosecution and convicting courts have to offer...

If Rudy is the experienced burglar you claim he is, then he certainly would have used the secluded balcony at the back. After all, bagels is forever pointing us to the balcony he/she reckons Rudy climbed to get into the lawyer's office, and of course, he had been downstairs visiting the boys on several occasions. Quick shimmy up to the balcony, and he's in, through the French doors.

Mez was killed near the wardrobe and her attackers had lifted her body onto a sheet/blanket and moved it 19" away.

The police forensics confirm she was undressed after death.

The defence wounds and the superficial knife flicks, are all on parts of her body that were naturally uncovered (her hands and arms). If she was stripped during the attack, these flicks would be all over her body.

Amazing how Raff knew about the knife flick on her hand, eh?

Massei having heard all the expert witnesses, accepted they were two different knives. Even if it was the case it was just one knife, the lust-filled burglar would still have had to change hands from one to the other as one knife wound was from right to left and the other, left to right.

In addition, none of the furniture or effects on top of it was disturbed, so he would at the same time have managed to restrain her.

A sole perp would have no motivation to try to avoid upsetting the furniture, having just ransacked a room and supposedly smashed the window with a boulder.

 

[LondonJohn]

Look. If the DNA evidence against Amanda and Raff is rejected, as decreed by Marasca, then it follows, it must be rejected for the exact same reasons, for Rudy (so, it is clear he has grounds for a review, based on 'internal contradiction' with a final, irrevocable, verdict elsewhere).

I really shouldn't be bothered, but.... You're either blissfully unaware of the strength of the evidence against Guede or you're wilfully choosing to ignore it. Which is it? Guede could have been safely convicted of murder with nothing more than his Skype call, his version of events to police, his palm print in Kercher's blood found on the pillowcase under Kercher's body, his proven DNA (notably not via Stefanoni) on or in Kercher's genital area, and his proven appearance at the Perugia centre clubs and discos later the same night followed by his flight to Germany. Do you really, really not realise how strong that body of evidence is, when taken together? And can you really, really not see how fundamentally different it is from the "evidence" against Knox and Sollecito?

So the DNA on the tracksuit top doesn't even need to be considered. Nor in fact do the numerous bloody shoe prints (even though they are a reliable match to the shoes that Guede admitted owning and wearing that night).

Seriously - go back to square one and actually try to look at the evidence - the evidence against Guede and the "evidence" against Knox and Sollecito - and then try to understand the huge gulf there is between the evidence proving Guede's guilt BARD and the total lack of reliable, credible evidence indicating (let alone proving) Knox's/Sollecito's guilt.

You wilfully misprepresent Marasca when you claim it says, "all the evidence was actually wholly consistent with, and compatible with, Guede as sole perpetrator; and 4) therefore the overwhelming likelihood according to the evidence is that Guede committed this crime all by himself, and that neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything whatsoever to do with it."

(And you have the brassneck temerity to call me a liar at every possible opportunity like a kindergarten infant.)

Oh dear. I didn't claim "it (Marasca report) says" those things. Try to read my post again for comprehension. I claimed that when one reads the Marasca report in the proper context (judicial, political and historical), one can infer that the Marasca panel almost certainly held that opinion. I didn't say they wrote that opinion in the report. That's kind of the point.........

In addition, if it is a case of 'even if', then it logically follows, to be internally consistent, 'even if Rudy was at the murder scene, it doesn't follow he is guilty'.

*sigh*

Correct. What proves that Guede is guilty of murder is not that he was at the murder scene. After all, if his story had been feasibly true, then he would have been at the murder scene but guilty of nothing more than failing to alert the authorities. But fortunately for justice, there were OTHER items of evidence that did prove Guede's guilt of murder BARD. Notably his reliable DNA in/on Kercher's genitals, his bloody palm print on the pillow case under her body, and the grotesque (and very clearly game-changing) contradiction between his claims to have been quaking with fear and shock from the "real killers" in the aftermath of the murder, when set against his proven appearance at several city centre bars and clubs within mere hours of the murder.

Remember: Marasca has rejected ALL the DNA evidence on the grounds 'Stefanoni did not follow international standards' and the sleeve of Mez' jumper must have been contaminated under the same conditions as the bra clasp, as it was collected at the same time, by the same people and tested in the same labs, by Stefanoni.

Yep. Chuck out the DNA evidence from KERCHER'S (not "Mez'") tracksuit top. Makes not one jot of difference to the proof of Guede's guilt BARD. OK?

 

[Vixen]

Ah, er, no. It is amazing that you would spin things this way. You must be quite the Rudy supporter.

The DNA-forensics for Rudy were solid, indeed there was plenty of room for multiple amplifications with the Rudy samples.

The forensics for Amanda and (especially) Raffaele are at best controversial, and at worst the result of outright fraud.

I know you will disagree. Anyone else who wishes to follow this:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/guede-dna-investigation/

The telling thing about the testing, even though Batches one and two found Guede - and only Guede - this was not disclosed to the defence.

By the time the third batch was tested they suddenly stopped all inquiry into Guede....

​

The DNA sample for Raff was also a sizeable amount >500 nanograms, certainly not LCN.

There is nothing at all controversial about Raff's DNA.

 

[LondonJohn]

If Rudy is the experienced burglar you claim he is, then he certainly would have used the secluded balcony at the back. After all, bagels is forever pointing us to the balcony he/she reckons Rudy climbed to get into the lawyer's office, and of course, he had been downstairs visiting the boys on several occasions. Quick shimmy up to the balcony, and he's in, through the French doors.

Mez was killed near the wardrobe and her attackers had lifted her body onto a sheet/blanket and moved it 19" away.

The police forensics confirm she was undressed after death.

The defence wounds and the superficial knife flicks, are all on parts of her body that were naturally uncovered (her hands and arms). If she was stripped during the attack, these flicks would be all over her body.

Amazing how Raff knew about the knife flick on her hand, eh?

Massei having hear all the expert witnesses, accepted they were two different knives. Even if it was the case it was just one knife, the lust-filled burglar would still have had to change hands from one to the other as one knife wound was from right to left and the other, left to right.

In addition, none of the furniture or effects on top of it was disturbed, so he would at the same time have managed to restrain her.

A sole perp would have no motivation to try to avoid upsetting the furniture, having just ransacked a room and supposedly smashed the window with a boulder.

Utterly laughable list of things a random (and uneducated) internet commentator decrees that a burglar "certainly would have done". As if there's some sort of set of rules that all burglars follow slavishly..........

Truly pathetic.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's such a pity they didn't call you up as the expert witness.

Knox and Sollecito were (correctly) acquitted of any participation in the murder. Guede stands (correctly) convicted of the murder. The right and just outcome was reached, albeit after too long and after some horrendously wrong judicial rulings along the way.

And the courts already had Lalli as an expert witness. Do you remember what Lalli said about the number and type of knives that he thought were used in the stabbing? (Hint: the number "one" appears, while the numbers "two", "three" or higher do not appear........).

 

[Vixen]

I really shouldn't be bothered, but.... You're either blissfully unaware of the strength of the evidence against Guede or you're wilfully choosing to ignore it. Which is it? Guede could have been safely convicted of murder with nothing more than his Skype call, his version of events to police, his palm print in Kercher's blood found on the pillowcase under Kercher's body, his proven DNA (notably not via Stefanoni) on or in Kercher's genital area, and his proven appearance at the Perugia centre clubs and discos later the same night followed by his flight to Germany. Do you really, really not realise how strong that body of evidence is, when taken together? And can you really, really not see how fundamentally different it is from the "evidence" against Knox and Sollecito?

So the DNA on the tracksuit top doesn't even need to be considered. Nor in fact do the numerous bloody shoe prints (even though they are a reliable match to the shoes that Guede admitted owning and wearing that night).

Seriously - go back to square one and actually try to look at the evidence - the evidence against Guede and the "evidence" against Knox and Sollecito - and then try to understand the huge gulf there is between the evidence proving Guede's guilt BARD and the total lack of reliable, credible evidence indicating (let alone proving) Knox's/Sollecito's guilt.






Oh dear. I didn't claim "it (Marasca report) says" those things. Try to read my post again for comprehension. I claimed that when one reads the Marasca report in the proper context (judicial, political and historical), one can infer that the Marasca panel almost certainly held that opinion. I didn't say they wrote that opinion in the report. That's kind of the point.........





*sigh*

Correct. What proves that Guede is guilty of murder is not that he was at the murder scene. After all, if his story had been feasibly true, then he would have been at the murder scene but guilty of nothing more than failing to alert the authorities. But fortunately for justice, there were OTHER items of evidence that did prove Guede's guilt of murder BARD. Notably his reliable DNA in/on Kercher's genitals, his bloody palm print on the pillow case under her body, and the grotesque (and very clearly game-changing) contradiction between his claims to have been quaking with fear and shock from the "real killers" in the aftermath of the murder, when set against his proven appearance at several city centre bars and clubs within mere hours of the murder.





Yep. Chuck out the DNA evidence from KERCHER'S (not "Mez'") tracksuit top. Makes not one jot of difference to the proof of Guede's guilt BARD. OK?

The issue of the DNA on the cuff does affect the judgment, as a key part of the MR in crime reconstruction and motive is that, 'It must have been Rudy who did the restraining'. If you can't see that rejecting the DNA on the grounds, it is 'fatally flawed' (by Stefanoni, 'not meeting international standards' [even if untrue]), does indeed offer Rudy a ground for a review as 'contradiction with another irrevocable verdict', you are truly blinded by your super-zealous fanaticism.

You cannot say the DNA was sound for one perp, but not the other two, as they were all collected and analysed under the same conditions, by the same people.

Your reasoning, 'we don't have to bother with evidence for Rudy' is poor.

 

[Methos]

If Rudy is the experienced burglar you claim he is, then he certainly would have used the secluded balcony at the back. After all, bagels is forever pointing us to the balcony he/she reckons Rudy climbed to get into the lawyer's office, and of course, he had been downstairs visiting the boys on several occasions. Quick shimmy up to the balcony, and he's in, through the French doors.

Mez was killed near the wardrobe and her attackers had lifted her body onto a sheet/blanket and moved it 19" away.

The police forensics confirm she was undressed after death.

The defence wounds and the superficial knife flicks, are all on parts of her body that were naturally uncovered (her hands and arms). If she was stripped during the attack, these flicks would be all over her body.

Amazing how Raff knew about the knife flick on her hand, eh?

Massei having heard all the expert witnesses, accepted they were two different knives. Even if it was the case it was just one knife, the lust-filled burglar would still have had to change hands from one to the other as one knife wound was from right to left and the other, left to right.

In addition, none of the furniture or effects on top of it was disturbed, so he would at the same time have managed to restrain her.

A sole perp would have no motivation to try to avoid upsetting the furniture, having just ransacked a room and supposedly smashed the window with a boulder.

You might want to re-read what I actually wrote and then try again...

 

[LondonJohn]

The issue of the DNA on the cuff does affect the judgment, as a key part of the MR in crime reconstruction and motive is at 'it must have been Rudy who did the restraining'. If you can't see that rejecting the DNA on the grounds, it is 'fatally flawed' (by Stefanoni, 'not meeting international standards' [even if untrue]), does indeed offer Rudy a ground for a review as 'contradiction with another irrevocable verdict'.

You cannot say the DNA was sound for one perp, but not the other two, as they were all collected and analysed under the same conditions, by the same people.

Your reasoning, 'we don't have to bother with evidence for Rudy' is poor.

What on earth are you talking about??

Your closing sentence is an abominable misrepresentation of my position - a position which was clearly and carefully set out in my post.

I'll try to repeat things once more, clearly.

1) There is ample evidence to prove Guede's direct participation in the murder of Kercher BARD. Re-read my post for the details of that evidence.

2) Insofar as DNA evidence is concerned, there is a big difference between the epithelial cell DNA evidence of Guede that was recovered at autopsy from within and around Kercher's genital region (which was of normal PCR level, and which was analysed via the hospital's DNA lab rather than by Stefanoni) and the alleged DNA on the knife and bra clasp that were the product of Stefanoni's incompetent and unscientific work.

3) The Stefanoni-collected-and-analysed Guede DNA on the tracksuit top cuff is wholly moot in terms of gauging Guede's guilt. There's far, far better proof of his guilt via a combination of other forensic evidence (including his bloody palm print on the pillow case under the body - which is a 100% reliable indicator of Guede's intimate presence in that room at the time of the murder, and which is also incompatible with his claimed version of events). So yes, throw out the tracksuit-top-cuff DNA evidence. It might well be either contaminated or incompetently analysed. But that has no bearing on the other evidence that proves Guede's guilt.

You're still apparently sadly unaware of the sheer magnitude of difference in the reliability, quality and credibility of the evidence against Guede vs the evidence against Knox/Sollecito. You still appear to want to make this a case of "if you think the set of evidence against Knox/Sollecito was flawed, then you have to also accept that the set of evidence against Guede was just as flawed". If you cannot see just how wrong and misguided that PoV is, then I'm not sure I can help any more.

 

[Bill Williams]

A professional must always protect threats to his or her integrity. Allowing yourself to be browbeaten (= a threat to professional objectivity because of intimidation) is a breach of one's ethical standards ( = you are now open to charges of corruption).

The way to deal with such an ethical threat is to either refuse to be intimidated, or recuse yourself. Marasca was ethically and professionally wrong to give in to the agenda-driven Bruno, who already had a blot in his copybook.

You're allowed your opinion. It remains opinion unless backed up by cites. Which you don't provide.

Got it.

 

[Bill Williams]

The DNA sample for Raff was also a sizeable amount >500 nanograms, certainly not LCN.

There is nothing at all controversial about Raff's DNA.

LOL!

There was one sample, the majority of which belonged to the victim, and of the remaining 4 - count 'em 4! - male contributors to sample 165, Raffaele was the majority contributor. How did three others get on to it?

Or as Nencini concluded - it's not really relevant because all Nencini needed to stoke his suspect-centric reasoning, was that Raffaele was found!

LOL!

 

[Bill Williams]

If Rudy is the experienced burglar you claim he is, then he certainly would have used the secluded balcony at the back. After all, bagels is forever pointing us to the balcony he/she reckons Rudy climbed to get into the lawyer's office, and of course, he had been downstairs visiting the boys on several occasions. Quick shimmy up to the balcony, and he's in, through the French doors.

This factoid of Rudy's preferred point of entry makes the rounds once every couple of months.

Take a peek at this photo:

​

The balcony is totally exposed to the road as it winds around, and it is lit by a street lamp.

Tell us again what a professional burglar would do?

 

[Stacyhs]

This factoid of Rudy's preferred point of entry makes the rounds once every couple of months.

Take a peek at this photo:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397154c8486ea2b66.jpg[/qimg]​

The balcony is totally exposed to the road as it winds around, and it is lit by a street lamp.

Tell us again what a professional burglar would do?

Not only is the balcony exposed and lighted, the doors are heavy wood and they were locked. Both front doors, upstairs and downstairs, were protected by bar grills as well as the windows deemed accessible. If these balcony doors had been considered an easy access, they would have had a bar grill, too. Obviously, these doors were considered strong enough not to need the extra protection.

Guede may well have initially climbed onto the balcony but found the doors locked and then chose to look for an easier point of access. Seeing that Filomena's shutters were not closed, he found it easier to climb in through that window. After all, he had experience with that.

 

[Welshman]

Is there any record defense representatives being present when Stefanoni tested the knife or is this yet another of Vixen's lies.