Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Stacyhs]

The forensic team appear to have concentrated on swabbing obvious patches of blood / grease. They swabbed the blood stain on the outside of the bag, to highlight Rudy's DNA with Mez'. They also swabbed elsewhere and found only Mez' DNA. The inside was clear of any blood.

They used luminol to help identify potential non-visible evidence. They did not spray luminol in the purse so you cannot say the inside was "clear of any blood". Nor have you provided a single document showing the inside of the purse was ever tested. It is not included in the official Ministry of the Interior list of evidence samples. Repeating your claim is not proof.All the police need is enough DNA to establish a case.

Raff's car was swabbed in fifteen places. How likely is one's own car going to completely free of any of your own DNA?

As explained to you earlier, most of the places sampled would not logically have DNA on them, such as the gas and brake pedals, clutch, underside of steering wheel shaft, back seat, etc. As the document itself states, they were looking for BLOOD, not Raff's DNA. Finding his DNA in his own car is completely worthless as evidence. Finding Meredith's blood would be.

Amanda took a plastic bag to the cottage to collect dirty clothes, as stated by both the kids to the cops. Whatever happened to this bag?

So that's where they put their bloody shoes and clothes! You solved the mystery of the missing plastic bag (which has never been reported as missing or even mentioned by the police at all who knew about it from Amanda's and Raffaele's own statements).

So the pair had a strange kind of cleaning spree - burst pipes, warm washing machines - note how Amanda is careful to detail how Mez put some clothes into the laundry basket - mops carried to and fro from Raff's and the cottage, queuing up outside the local store 7:45 am to browse cleaning materials, three showers in 36 hours, yet Amanda looked like she had been dragged through a hedge backwards, both appeared with scratches on their chin and neck, Amanda set to work mopping Raff's floor whilst he pottered around making breakfast.

A "cleaning spree" that all forensic experts have said is impossible, a "warm" washing machine that no police officer or other witness testified to having seen, "a" mop (not mopS) that tested negative for blood, and a completely discounted as non-credible appearance at the local shop that was first denied by Quintavalle within days of the murder and only alleged more than a year later and refuted by the cashier. Three showers in 36 hours is normal...at least for people who shower in the morning and after sex. Or don't you consider it normal to shower after sex? Ew.
I'll just ignore the "dragged through a hedge backwards" nonsense as it's just too ridiculous to respond to.
There were no scratches on their chins and necks as their medical examinations reported. But I see you've swallowed the "neck scratch" story so you must think the doctor can't tell a scratch from a hickey. Funny how the police never mention any of these scratches on the two even though they specifically would have been looking for this kind of evidence.

Innocent? <fx Brummie accent: yes, mate!>

Yes. And thank goodness you can finally admit that.

 

[Bill Williams]

I We can infer what I we will from Raff's refusal to take the witness box.

There - I fixed that for you.

ETA - it is mindnumbingly stupid to have someone quote English/Welsh law to make a point about an Italian trial.

 

[Stacyhs]

We do have it from Raff's own lips. We just don't have it at the trial itself.

Sure it's his right to keep schtum. It's our right to draw a negative inference, if all the evidence presented in court points to clear guilt.Gary Dobson in the Stephen Lawrence case, spoke not a word to the police and resolutely maintained his silence. I believe Timothy McVeigh of the Oklahoma bombing did the same. He was still executed.

Years later, Dobson is now convicted, and we can take his silence to mean he did not want to incriminate himself, as is his right, but he didn't have the right to kill OTOH. Why do you want to deny the right of a murder victim to have carried on living? The killers are invariably low life scum.

It's your right as a non-juror or non-judge but not if you are either of those. In the US, juries are instructed that they CANNOT infer guilt due to a defendant not testifying.

Your bias has no place in assuming what the defendant's reasons are for not testifying. To assume that not testifying must mean they are guilty is beyond ignorant. It is quite common for people not to testify, even innocent defendants. One reason not to testify is if the defendant is simply not a good witness because they present themselves poorly. They may speak poorly, get nervous and shaky, become confused easily, or simply don't have a pleasing personality or appearance. If a juror doesn't "connect" with a defendant or takes a dislike to them, they are more likely not to believe them.
Another reason is that prosecutors are very skilled at twisting what witnesses say and confusing them to the point where they appear to be lying when they aren't. It's the old "So when did you stop beating your wife" trick.

 

[Planigale]

It's your right as a non-juror or non-judge but not if you are either of those. In the US, juries are instructed that they CANNOT infer guilt due to a defendant not testifying.

Your bias has no place in assuming what the defendant's reasons are for not testifying. To assume that not testifying must mean they are guilty is beyond ignorant. It is quite common for people not to testify, even innocent defendants. One reason not to testify is if the defendant is simply not a good witness because they present themselves poorly. They may speak poorly, get nervous and shaky, become confused easily, or simply don't have a pleasing personality or appearance. If a juror doesn't "connect" with a defendant or takes a dislike to them, they are more likely not to believe them.
Another reason is that prosecutors are very skilled at twisting what witnesses say and confusing them to the point where they appear to be lying when they aren't. It's the old "So when did you stop beating your wife" trick.

I think the actual question is, "Do you still beat your wife Mr. Stacyhs? Yes or No?"

 

[Stacyhs]

I think the actual question is, "Do you still beat your wife Mr. Stacyhs? Yes or No?"[/QUOTE

Either way is given as an example.

"If there’s one cliché question that people associate with media training, it’s this one: “When did you stop beating your wife?” (Brad Philips, MrMediaTraining)

"There's a famous joke question: "When did you stop beating your wife?" The structure of the question is funny — or disturbing — because any response condemns you. (The scientific equivalent of "When did you stop beating your wife?" by Esther Inglis-Arkell
5/08/13 12:00pm)

 

[LondonJohn]

There - I fixed that for you.

ETA - it is mindnumbingly stupid to have someone quote English/Welsh law to make a point about an Italian trial.

And aside from that rather glaring error, Vixen is also stultifyingly ignorant on E/W law in this area as well. Firstly, the whole area of the CJ Act dealing with adverse inferences from silence is ENTIRELY AND SOLELY concerned with silence in police interrogations, before or during charging. Nothing whatsoever to do with silence in a court trial. And Sollecito most assuredly wasn't silent in his police interrogations pre-charging. In fact, he got himself and Knox into unnecessary and unearned trouble after being coerced into implicating both of them with remarks made in his police interrogation on 5th/6th November 2007.

Secondly, Adverse inferences can only be drawn in certain very specific areas of silence. Vixen helpfully (but clearly unknowingly - which is very amusing in itself...) provides the explicit list of narrowly-defined circumstances. If, for example, Mr A is arrested in London in connection with participating in a knife fight the previous night, and in his police interrogation post-arrest they ask him where/how he got a very recently-caused slash-type wound on his arm, and he refuses to answer - then a jury in any subsequent trial can be permitted to draw an adverse inference from Mr A's silence on this matter. After all, if the wound truly was entirely incidental to the alleged crime (if, for example, Mr A had just happened to cut himself badly while cooking the previous evening, then E/W law considers that Mr A should reasonably have been expected to supply that explanation at the time of his questioning (all the more so if his defence in a subsequent trial is that his wound was caused by just such a cooking accident).

The law in E/W very clearly (and explicitly) does NOT allow any and all silence in police interrogation to be assigned an adverse inference. The ability to assign adverse inference only ever applies to a small number of very specific and narrowly-defined circumstances. And it only ever applies to silence in a police interrogation before or at the point of charging. It does not apply to refusal to give testimony in a criminal trial.

So Vixen is wrong on so many levels it's laughable. Sollecito at no time invoked a right to silence in his police interrogations - quite the opposite in fact (to his unfair detriment, as it turned out). And any discussion of Sollecito's silence in the trial process makes reference to E/W law entirely moot and irrelevant anyhow. Still, we should be well used by now to the toxic combination of ignorance, poor reasoning skills and latent bias that "inform" the arguments of this particular pro-guilt commentator........

 

[LondonJohn]

I think the actual question is, "Do you still beat your wife Mr. Stacyhs? Yes or No?"[/QUOTE

Either way is given as an example.

"If there’s one cliché question that people associate with media training, it’s this one: “When did you stop beating your wife?” (Brad Philips, MrMediaTraining)

"There's a famous joke question: "When did you stop beating your wife?" The structure of the question is funny — or disturbing — because any response condemns you. (The scientific equivalent of "When did you stop beating your wife?" by Esther Inglis-Arkell
5/08/13 12:00pm)

Technically this is illogical though - since the question posed in this form would allow the non-self-incriminating answer: "I have NEVER beaten my wife". Whereas "Do you still beat your wife? Yes or No?" is logically sound, since it only invites the binary options "Yes" or "No" - either of which in this instance can be viewed as self-incriminating.

But anyhow...... back to our scheduled programming........

 

[Vixen]

Yes. And thank goodness you can finally admit that.

Stacy hasn't any gallant FOA come to your aid re your quote formatting?

Your big problem is your inability to be objective. You keep deigning to claim you know exactly what Amanda was thinking and why she did various actions. You'd make a poor police witness. Police are trained never to ascribe motive or presume to know what someone is thinking, when giving evidence. So far, you accept without question Amanda did have a shower the morning of 2nd Nov when police witnesses describe her as smelling of an alley cat. Police do not believe she had a shower at all. She concocted her bathmat story later, after being apprised by her lawyers police had found the strange evidence of someone shuffling around on a cloth to avoid leaving prints and her presumed footsteps were found in one or two places. You claim to know the exact reason she showered, based on your own habits. You claimed in the past to know why she called her mom, Edda, just before the door was kicked down, and you claimed to know why she didn't call the police once (some nonsense about not speaking Italian).

You make the classic error of assuming that people who commit senseless acts of violence, are ordinary persons like yourself with rational thinking processes (if we can call it that).

 

[Vixen]

It's your right as a non-juror or non-judge but not if you are either of those. In the US, juries are instructed that they CANNOT infer guilt due to a defendant not testifying.

Your bias has no place in assuming what the defendant's reasons are for not testifying. To assume that not testifying must mean they are guilty is beyond ignorant. It is quite common for people not to testify, even innocent defendants. One reason not to testify is if the defendant is simply not a good witness because they present themselves poorly. They may speak poorly, get nervous and shaky, become confused easily, or simply don't have a pleasing personality or appearance. If a juror doesn't "connect" with a defendant or takes a dislike to them, they are more likely not to believe them.
Another reason is that prosecutors are very skilled at twisting what witnesses say and confusing them to the point where they appear to be lying when they aren't. It's the old "So when did you stop beating your wife" trick.

No-one denies it's a right. However, there is no getting away from the fact Raff refused to testify and be cross-examined, at the same time protecting Amanda who had the right not to be cross-examined on his damning statements to the police about her conduct, based on Raff 'asserting his right' to silence.

It's a pity the kids gave no thought to Mez' right to be left in peace and not to be raped, murdered, undressed and her phones, rent money and cards stolen.

 

[Vixen]

There - I fixed that for you.

ETA - it is mindnumbingly stupid to have someone quote English/Welsh law to make a point about an Italian trial.

England & Wales justice remains one of the best in the world and on which US and commonwealth justice is predicated. We find it fair to infer a negative inference if a crook uses the right to silence to self-serve his defence, to be thought out at a later stage.

 

[Vixen]

I think the actual question is, "Do you still beat your wife Mr. Stacyhs? Yes or No?"

Objection your Honour, counsel may not ask a leading question.

 

[LondonJohn]

Objection your Honour, counsel may not ask a leading question.

You need to learn what a "leading question" is.

(Hint: an example of a leading question is: "You hit your wife regularly, Mr Smith, don't you?". An example of NOT a leading question is: Do you still beat your wife, Mr Smith? Yes or No?" In fact, the latter is pretty much the definition of the antithesis of a leading question.)

 

[LondonJohn]

No-one denies it's a right. However, there is no getting away from the fact Raff refused to testify and be cross-examined, at the same time protecting Amanda who had the right not to be cross-examined on his damning statements to the police about her conduct, based on Raff 'asserting his right' to silence.

It's a pity the kids gave no thought to Mez' right to be left in peace and not to be raped, murdered, undressed and her phones, rent money and cards stolen.

How and why did Knox or Sollecito "give no thought" to Mez' Mez's Kercher's right to be <deliberately provocatively emotional text snipped>?

You do know that there's zero credible, reliable evidence that Knox or Sollecito had anything whatsoever to do with Kercher's murder, don't you? And that all the proper evidence is entirely consistent with Guede acting alone (with one knife)? And that it's near-certain that Knox and Sollecito factually had nothing whatsoever to do with Kercher's murder? And that Knox and Sollecito have been (correctly and justly) acquitted of any crime related to Kercher's murder?

You know, I have to keep asking you these questions, because from many of the things you write, it appears that you're either unaware of the answers to these questions or that you're in some form of cognitive dissonance over the answers to these questions. It might well benefit your future "arguments" if you were to learn and understand the answers to these questions though.....

 

[Vixen]

You need to learn what a "leading question" is.

(Hint: an example of a leading question is: "You hit your wife regularly, Mr Smith, don't you?". An example of NOT a leading question is: Do you still beat your wife, Mr Smith? Yes or No?" In fact, the latter is pretty much the definition of the antithesis of a leading question.)

The operative word is "still", and thus is leading.

 

[acbytesla]

What kind of a nut wants to see obviously psychopathically damaged, anti-social individuals who take murder and rape lightly, walk the streets scot free, smirking at tv cameras and demanding €500K compo, after having led the police on a merry dance?

The kind of nut ..who's not a nut. The kind of nut who believes facts and science. The kind of nut who uses logic. The kind of nut who knows that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent and deserve compensation for being unjustly prosecuted and incarcerated.

My kind of nut.

 

[Bill Williams]

England & Wales justice remains one of the best in the world and on which US and commonwealth justice is predicated. We find it fair to infer a negative inference if a crook uses the right to silence to self-serve his defence, to be thought out at a later stage.

So!? It remains mindnumblingly boring that you'd be bringing up E&W law for a case from Perugia. You really don't get that, do you.

 

[Bill Williams]

And aside from that rather glaring error, Vixen is also stultifyingly ignorant on E/W law in this area as well. Firstly, the whole area of the CJ Act dealing with adverse inferences from silence is ENTIRELY AND SOLELY concerned with silence in police interrogations, before or during charging. Nothing whatsoever to do with silence in a court trial. And Sollecito most assuredly wasn't silent in his police interrogations pre-charging. In fact, he got himself and Knox into unnecessary and unearned trouble after being coerced into implicating both of them with remarks made in his police interrogation on 5th/6th November 2007.

Secondly, Adverse inferences can only be drawn in certain very specific areas of silence. Vixen helpfully (but clearly unknowingly - which is very amusing in itself...) provides the explicit list of narrowly-defined circumstances. If, for example, Mr A is arrested in London in connection with participating in a knife fight the previous night, and in his police interrogation post-arrest they ask him where/how he got a very recently-caused slash-type wound on his arm, and he refuses to answer - then a jury in any subsequent trial can be permitted to draw an adverse inference from Mr A's silence on this matter. After all, if the wound truly was entirely incidental to the alleged crime (if, for example, Mr A had just happened to cut himself badly while cooking the previous evening, then E/W law considers that Mr A should reasonably have been expected to supply that explanation at the time of his questioning (all the more so if his defence in a subsequent trial is that his wound was caused by just such a cooking accident).

The law in E/W very clearly (and explicitly) does NOT allow any and all silence in police interrogation to be assigned an adverse inference. The ability to assign adverse inference only ever applies to a small number of very specific and narrowly-defined circumstances. And it only ever applies to silence in a police interrogation before or at the point of charging. It does not apply to refusal to give testimony in a criminal trial.

So Vixen is wrong on so many levels it's laughable. Sollecito at no time invoked a right to silence in his police interrogations - quite the opposite in fact (to his unfair detriment, as it turned out). And any discussion of Sollecito's silence in the trial process makes reference to E/W law entirely moot and irrelevant anyhow. Still, we should be well used by now to the toxic combination of ignorance, poor reasoning skills and latent bias that "inform" the arguments of this particular pro-guilt commentator........

Vixen cannot follow this.

 

[Stacyhs]

No-one denies it's a right. However, there is no getting away from the fact Raff refused to testify and be cross-examined, at the same time protecting Amanda who had the right not to be cross-examined on his damning statements to the police about her conduct, based on Raff 'asserting his right' to silence.

It's a pity the kids gave no thought to Mez' right to be left in peace and not to be raped, murdered, undressed and her phones, rent money and cards stolen.

Speaking of "knowing" what people think, how do you know that Raffaele "refused to testify" rather than he was advised by his lawyers not to testify? You are assigning reasons that fit your bias not based on any evidence.

It's a pity you still give no thought to the fact that they have been acquitted because the evidence simply does not support their guilt. It's a pity you continue to drag out nonsense like "mixed blood", the DNA on the knife being Meredith's despite no blood being found on the knife, etc. It's a pity you continue to believe that two people can clean a crime scene of their DNA, fingerprints, etc but selectively leave those of a third person.

 

[Stacyhs]

Stacy hasn't any gallant FOA come to your aid re your quote formatting?

Your big problem is your inability to be objective. You keep deigning to claim you know exactly what Amanda was thinking and why she did various actions. You'd make a poor police witness. Police are trained never to ascribe motive or presume to know what someone is thinking, when giving evidence. So far, you accept without question Amanda did have a shower the morning of 2nd Nov when police witnesses describe her as smelling of an alley cat. Police do not believe she had a shower at all. She concocted her bathmat story later, after being apprised by her lawyers police had found the strange evidence of someone shuffling around on a cloth to avoid leaving prints and her presumed footsteps were found in one or two places. You claim to know the exact reason she showered, based on your own habits. You claimed in the past to know why she called her mom, Edda, just before the door was kicked down, and you claimed to know why she didn't call the police once (some nonsense about not speaking Italian).

You make the classic error of assuming that people who commit senseless acts of violence, are ordinary persons like yourself with rational thinking processes (if we can call it that).

Just when I thought you could never surprise me, you do.

"Police are trained never to ascribe motive or presume to know what someone is thinking, when giving evidence." Excuse me, but exactly where did I say otherwise?

No, "police" did not say she smelled like an alley cat...and why the need for such hyperbole? That she smelled like sex was claimed by ONE reporter and his source was never identified. Odd how this never made it into any police testimony just like the "warm" washing machine story. Amanda's hair appears clean in the pictures, as does she. No one said her hair was dirty. Filomena, Laura, Paola, Marco, and Luca never claimed Amanda smelled or had body odor of any kind on Nov 2. Why is that? None of Meredith's English friends, who were with her at the police station on Nov 2/3, said she smelled or appeared dirty. Why is that? Yet you believe she didn't shower because some unidentified "policeman" allegedly told this a reporter? LOL.

You claim to know when and why she "concocted her bathmat story" yet you have no evidence of this. You don't know when she first told her lawyers anything.

No, I don't claim to know her bathroom habits but you do since you were the one who claimed showering 3 times in 36 hours was suspect. By the way, what is your source that she showered 3 times in 36 hours? According to her and Rafaelle, she showered the morning of Nov 1 at her apartment and again the morning of Nov 2, again at her apartment. It's customary to shower/bathe once a day in the US. Maybe British women aren't as scrupulous about their hygiene and don't shower daily, especially after sex?

As for why she called her mother and Raffaele calling the police, I go by what they said...that and logic. Why on earth would Amanda call the police when she spoke only very basic Italian and Raffaele was right there? The police even admitted they had to go though Raffaele at the scene because they couldn't understand Amanda's broken Italian. Or do you think it was somehow more logical for someone who didn't speak the language to call and report a missing person and robbery instead of a native speaker who could communicate? Is that a "rational thinking process" for you?

 

[Planigale]

Stacy hasn't any gallant FOA come to your aid re your quote formatting?

Your big problem is your inability to be objective. You keep deigning to claim you know exactly what Amanda was thinking and why she did various actions. You'd make a poor police witness. Police are trained never to ascribe motive or presume to know what someone is thinking, when giving evidence. So far, you accept without question Amanda did have a shower the morning of 2nd Nov when police witnesses describe her as smelling of an alley cat. Police do not believe she had a shower at all. She concocted her bathmat story later, after being apprised by her lawyers police had found the strange evidence of someone shuffling around on a cloth to avoid leaving prints and her presumed footsteps were found in one or two places. You claim to know the exact reason she showered, based on your own habits. You claimed in the past to know why she called her mom, Edda, just before the door was kicked down, and you claimed to know why she didn't call the police once (some nonsense about not speaking Italian).

You make the classic error of assuming that people who commit senseless acts of violence, are ordinary persons like yourself with rational thinking processes (if we can call it that).

You have boasted about how you go to primary sources. (Although you refused to disclose your primary source the body placement emulating Manga fantasy.) So how about the primary source for the two highlighted facts?

Can you give a primary source for a police witness describing Knox as smelling like an alley cat on the morning of the 2 November?

Can you give a primary source for police crime scene investigators finding evidence of someone shuffling around on a cloth?

You have stated two facts, surely you can give the primary reference for these facts? Or is this just your own invention?