Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Stacyhs]

Those were the pages she was writing in prison much later.

The missing pages from the end of October 2007 are IIRC an invention from Follain maybe based on things Sarzanini wrote...

The thing is, that apparently Amanda Knox used that "notebook" also for college exercises and homework to be handed in (like that "letter" about "wanting my mom to take me shopping" the teacher sold to the press...)

So in effect the "missing pages" mean nothing and I guess she simply had better things to do than diary writing at the end of October

I see. Thanks. But Follain also says that the pages "from early October onwards had been ripped out". If this was not a "diary" in the classic sense, but merely a notebook that she used both for a diary and for doing homework, then one has to make an assumption that she had actually even written anything in it about her daily life after the beginning of Oct. She could have just been using it for homework and ripping out the pages to turn in. Unless, of course, someone needs to believe that she was chronicling, from early October, her deepening jealousy and resentment of Meredith leading up to her need to kill her roommate. But, contrarily, it was during this time that she and Meredith went to the chocolate festival together and to the music concert where Amanda met Raffaele. These are odd things to do with someone that you allegedly hate so much you kill her.

It's amazing how the PGP can twist anything into evidence of guilt.

 

[acbytesla]

So glad.

'Little things please little minds' ~ Ovid

This from a person desperately trying to make a point that the whole world has dismissed.

 

[Stacyhs]

Amanda herself dated her blood on the faucet to 1 Nov. As her DNA was mixed in in an even higher quantity than Mez' indicates she was bleeding at the same time. This is police opinion.

Frequenting the cottage doesn't explain Raff's footprint in Mez' blood on the bathmat, and nor indeed the couple's clear luminol footprints indicating the pair waded in Mez' blood.

1) So Amanda knew her blood, deposited the night she killed Meredith, was on the faucet and not only left it there, but even pointed it out to the police? What possible logical explanation can you present for that?

2) Once again, you drag out scientifically unsupported nonsense from Darkness Descending. Where, in any of the testimony, does a forensic expert state that the amount of Amanda's DNA indicated she was bleeding? I'll await the quotes. "Police opinion" does not count as evidence. It was also "police opinion" that the bloody shoeprints belonged to Raffaele's shoes.

3) It's not Raffaele's footprint. It's Guede's.

4)"...clear luminol footprints indicating the pair waded in Mez' blood" would have tested positive with TMB. They didn't. But sensible people understand that. And please, no trotting out the "luminol is more sensitive than TMB" excuse. Not even Stefanoni denied that TMB negative means no blood is present.

 

[Bill Williams]

1) So Amanda knew her blood, deposited the night she killed Meredith, was on the faucet and not only left it there, but even pointed it out to the police? What possible logical explanation can you present for that?

2) Once again, you drag out scientifically unsupported nonsense from Darkness Descending. Where, in any of the testimony, does a forensic expert state that the amount of Amanda's DNA indicated she was bleeding? I'll await the quotes. "Police opinion" does not count as evidence. It was also "police opinion" that the bloody shoeprints belonged to Raffaele's shoes.

3) It's not Raffaele's footprint. It's Guede's.

4)"...clear luminol footprints indicating the pair waded in Mez' blood" would have tested positive with TMB. They didn't. But sensible people understand that. And please, no trotting out the "luminol is more sensitive than TMB" excuse. Not even Stefanoni denied that TMB negative means no blood is present.

We are going around Vixen's merry-go-round....

ONE

MORE

TIME

These factoids drawn from Darkness Descending as well as Nick van der leek's cut and paste e-book have ALL long since been debunked. Most debunked on these very threads on ISF/JREF - they have to be debunked in three month intervals, because that was the last time they were brought up - with some variation, depending on factoid.

Amanda was not bleeding that night, nor that morning. Since Nov 2 she was under constant scrutiny of cops, none of whom reported a source of claimed-bleeding. On Nov 6 she was examined as a suspect in a crime, and the police noted nothing about her that indicated bleeding. Vixen says that Amanda admits to bleeding, but that's not what Amanda ever said. She saw the blood-spot on the faucet - which turned out to be hers - and immediately thought that it had come from pierced ears. No one, much less her, got to the bottom of that because of the horrid discovery which was to come two hours later.

But it's just bizarre in the extreme that Vixen would just recycle this stuff.

................... while at the same time refusing the challenge (we are in the third week now of this being asked of her) to provide ONE peer-reviewed forensic-DNA expert who agrees with Stefanoni's lab work.

One.

Crickets. But my-oh-my can she recycle back through all the old factoids.

 

[Stacyhs]

We are going around Vixen's merry-go-round....

ONE

MORE

TIME

These factoids drawn from Darkness Descending as well as Nick van der leek's cut and paste e-book have ALL long since been debunked. Most debunked on these very threads on ISF/JREF - they have to be debunked in three month intervals, because that was the last time they were brought up - with some variation, depending on factoid.

Amanda was not bleeding that night, nor that morning. Since Nov 2 she was under constant scrutiny of cops, none of whom reported a source of claimed-bleeding. On Nov 6 she was examined as a suspect in a crime, and the police noted nothing about her that indicated bleeding. Vixen says that Amanda admits to bleeding, but that's not what Amanda ever said. She saw the blood-spot on the faucet - which turned out to be hers - and immediately thought that it had come from pierced ears. No one, much less her, got to the bottom of that because of the horrid discovery which was to come two hours later.

But it's just bizarre in the extreme that Vixen would just recycle this stuff.

................... while at the same time refusing the challenge (we are in the third week now of this being asked of her) to provide ONE peer-reviewed forensic-DNA expert who agrees with Stefanoni's lab work.

One.

Crickets. But my-oh-my can she recycle back through all the old factoids.

But Bill! Amanda had a wound/scratch on her neck! You know, the one that the doctor failed to notice or the police or Mignini or anyone but Laura M. who recognized it from "a few yards away".

 

[whoanellie]

Claiming that nobody takes the DM seriously is a false statement. During the Massei trial, prosecutors introduced the DM's horrendously inaccurate report of Knox's noise violation, "The Wild and Raunchy Past of Foxy Knoxy". They did so in order to present her as wild, out of control, and to impugn her character. So tell us all again how no one takes the crap in the DM seriously. Hilarious.

Please tell me that this is not true. Do the Italians not have Rules of Evidence? Do they not have any notion of hearsay?

 

[Stacyhs]

Please tell me that this is not true. Do the Italians not have Rules of Evidence? Do they not have any notion of hearsay?

It is true. It was the Kercher's slimeball lawyer, Maresca, who introduced it into court and Massei allowed it.

 

[Planigale]

1) So Amanda knew her blood, deposited the night she killed Meredith, was on the faucet and not only left it there, but even pointed it out to the police? What possible logical explanation can you present for that?

2) Once again, you drag out scientifically unsupported nonsense from Darkness Descending. Where, in any of the testimony, does a forensic expert state that the amount of Amanda's DNA indicated she was bleeding? I'll await the quotes. "Police opinion" does not count as evidence. It was also "police opinion" that the bloody shoeprints belonged to Raffaele's shoes.
3) It's not Raffaele's footprint. It's Guede's.

4)"...clear luminol footprints indicating the pair waded in Mez' blood" would have tested positive with TMB. They didn't. But sensible people understand that. And please, no trotting out the "luminol is more sensitive than TMB" excuse. Not even Stefanoni denied that TMB negative means no blood is present.

FWIW
Steffanoni who is the police opinion on this matter specifically says the source of the DNA cannot be known.
Vixen has been given the quote of Steffanoni saying this and the reference in her testimony. That he continues with this debunked myth says more abut his inability to learn new things and the ability of human brains to hold ideas that are contrary to fact.

 

[Matthew Best]

Anyone can botch up scientific method if they want to. However, the cadaver dogs in the McCann case sat and barked (their Pavlovian trained-response to a cadaver sniff) and DNA markers of Maddie were found at those spots.

Of course a dog will love the smell of hamburgers and the whiff of a cat drives'em wild. But they are not trained to sit and bark when this happens.

As long as the dog handlers understand the limitations, your claim cadaver dogs are probably wrong is pure obfuscation.

I have made no such claim, so your attempted refutation of it is pointless and incorrect, as is pretty much everything you have written in the last day or two.

 

[Wilson85]

Anyone can botch up scientific method if they want to. However, the cadaver dogs in the McCann case sat and barked (their Pavlovian trained-response to a cadaver sniff) and DNA markers of Maddie were found at those spots.

Of course a dog will love the smell of hamburgers and the whiff of a cat drives'em wild. But they are not trained to sit and bark when this happens.

As long as the dog handlers understand the limitations, your claim cadaver dogs are probably wrong is pure obfuscation.

I have two question for you Vixen. It may helps to understand how science and crime scene investigation works in Vixens world...

Question 1:
A sniffer dog on the airport sniffs a suitcase for drugs. The dog sits and barks. This is the sign to show the handler he sniffed drugs. What's to do?

• A) Arrest the owner and send him to prison. No need to open the suitcase. Since the dog is trained to sniff drugs and do this quite accurate it must be drugs. What else would it be?
• B) Open the suitcase and check for drugs. If no drugs are found arrest the owner anyway and send him to prison.
• C) Open the suitcase and check for drugs. If no drugs are found let the owner go or do further investigations.

Question 2:
Footprints revealed by Luminol and attributed to the resident of an apartment are found near a bloody crime scene (apartment). What's to do?

• A) Arrest the resident and send him to prison. No need to check the source of the prints. Since Luminol reacts (amongst others) with blood it must be blood. What else would it be?
• B) Do a follow up test to check if the print was made in blood (e.g. TMB). If the follow up test is negative for blood arrest the resident anyway and send him to prison.
• C) Do a follow up test to check if the print was made in blood (e.g. TMB). If the follow up test is negative do further tests or do not consider it as evidence against the resident.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

I have two question for you Vixen. It may helps to understand how science and crime scene investigation works in Vixens world...

Question 1:
A sniffer dog on the airport sniffs a suitcase for drugs. The dog sits and barks. This is the sign to show the handler he sniffed drugs. What's to do?

• A) Arrest the owner and send him to prison. No need to open the suitcase. Since the dog is trained to sniff drugs and do this quite accurate it must be drugs. What else would it be?
• B) Open the suitcase and check for drugs. If no drugs are found arrest the owner anyway and send him to prison.
• C) Open the suitcase and check for drugs. If no drugs are found let the owner go or do further investigations.

Question 2:
Footprints revealed by Luminol and attributed to the resident of an apartment are found near a bloody crime scene (apartment). What's to do?

• A) Arrest the resident and send him to prison. No need to check the source of the prints. Since Luminol reacts (amongst others) with blood it must be blood. What else would it be?
• B) Do a follow up test to check if the print was made in blood (e.g. TMB). If the follow up test is negative for blood arrest the resident anyway and send him to prison.
• C) Do a follow up test to check if the print was made in blood (e.g. TMB). If the follow up test is negative do further tests or do not consider it as evidence against the resident.

ARREST THEM BOTH THINK OF THE CHILDREN WHAT ARE YOU A MURDER GROUPIE/DRUG SMUGGLER?

I mean, seriously though, you're going to get some major cognitive dissonance if Vixen actually responds to this. It will almost certainly have some passive aggressive ad hominem insults and imply you don't understand luminol testing and/or drug sniffer dogs. And there is absolutely no way Vixen will actually answer your question directly. You're probing the deepest recesses of guilter minds here. Be careful.

 

[Bill Williams]

I have two question for you Vixen. It may helps to understand how science and crime scene investigation works in Vixens world...

Question 1:
A sniffer dog on the airport sniffs a suitcase for drugs. The dog sits and barks. This is the sign to show the handler he sniffed drugs. What's to do?

• A) Arrest the owner and send him to prison. No need to open the suitcase. Since the dog is trained to sniff drugs and do this quite accurate it must be drugs. What else would it be?
• B) Open the suitcase and check for drugs. If no drugs are found arrest the owner anyway and send him to prison.
• C) Open the suitcase and check for drugs. If no drugs are found let the owner go or do further investigations.

Question 2:
Footprints revealed by Luminol and attributed to the resident of an apartment are found near a bloody crime scene (apartment). What's to do?

• A) Arrest the resident and send him to prison. No need to check the source of the prints. Since Luminol reacts (amongst others) with blood it must be blood. What else would it be?
• B) Do a follow up test to check if the print was made in blood (e.g. TMB). If the follow up test is negative for blood arrest the resident anyway and send him to prison.
• C) Do a follow up test to check if the print was made in blood (e.g. TMB). If the follow up test is negative do further tests or do not consider it as evidence against the resident.

Question 3:
A Scientific Police lab gives a summary of findings to a court, such summary missing the necessary technical files so that other experts can assess if the conclusions arrived therein are accurate. The S.P.'s own video of their collection of key evidence 46 days after the crime show obvious forensic bungling.

• A) Convict the accused and send them to prison for life. Write in an official reason for judgement that even though one has never seen the necessary technical files of the forensic-DNA work done, these are important people submitting their conclusions who would never lie.
• B) Contract with an independent third party-forensic expert. When you hear that this expert actually expected necessary technical files to be part of the normal discovery/disclosure process, who then did not ask nicely to receive them, convict the accused and send them to prison for life.
• C) Contract with an independent third party-forensic expert. When they cast severe doubt on the conclusions of the Scientific Police, criticizing that there was no necessary technical files included to verify their conclusions, and when not one forensic-DNA expert in the world can be cited to agree with the Scientific Police, acquit the pair and tell them to get on with their lives.

 

[Stacyhs]

I have made no such claim, so your attempted refutation of it is pointless and incorrect, as is pretty much everything you have written in the last day or two.

Being accused of saying something you never did gets quite tiring. I know.

 

[whoanellie]

It is true. It was the Kercher's slimeball lawyer, Maresca, who introduced it into court and Massei allowed it.

Thanks for your response. Of all that I have learned about this case, nothing is as surprising to me as this. Apparently anything goes in Italian courts.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Methos]

Please tell me that this is not true. Do the Italians not have Rules of Evidence? Do they not have any notion of hearsay?

It is true. It was the Kercher's slimeball lawyer, Maresca, who introduced it into court and Massei allowed it.

Thanks for your response. Of all that I have learned about this case, nothing is as surprising to me as this. Apparently anything goes in Italian courts.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I'm not sure if the part about Maresca is true.

It was PM Mignini who brought up the Seattle episode and the Mail Online article in court on June 13th, 2009.

But it must have been on the prosecution's radar much earlier than that , because in the prison interrogation on December 17th, 2007 PM Mignini asks first about her nickname and is quite insistent when it comes to the question of prior indictments. This is interesting because in the prison interrogation of Guede he simply accepts Guede's "None that I know of" (a lie) when it comes to that question.

The article finally got another mention as evidence in the prosecution's appeal against judge Massei's too lenient sentence.

 

[Methos]

I see. Thanks. But Follain also says that the pages "from early October onwards had been ripped out". If this was not a "diary" in the classic sense, but merely a notebook that she used both for a diary and for doing homework, then one has to make an assumption that she had actually even written anything in it about her daily life after the beginning of Oct. She could have just been using it for homework and ripping out the pages to turn in. Unless, of course, someone needs to believe that she was chronicling, from early October, her deepening jealousy and resentment of Meredith leading up to her need to kill her roommate. But, contrarily, it was during this time that she and Meredith went to the chocolate festival together and to the music concert where Amanda met Raffaele. These are odd things to do with someone that you allegedly hate so much you kill her.

It's amazing how the PGP can twist anything into evidence of guilt.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad. AFAIK no one has been able to track down those "ripped out pages" further down than to Follain (maybe Sarzanini). It's the same for the "Velvet" episode and the "I quarreled with my roommate" (for those two the only source is Follain).

 

[Bill Williams]

It would be funny if it weren't so sad. AFAIK no one has been able to track down those "ripped out pages" further down than to Follain (maybe Sarzanini). It's the same for the "Velvet" episode and the "I quarreled with my roommate" (for those two the only source is Follain).

Someone should make a list of factoids associated with Follain's book. Then again all he'd claim was that he was passing on what the police told him.

 

[Methos]

Someone should make a list of factoids associated with Follain's book. Then again all he'd claim was that he was passing on what the police told him.

Not me, I have a life to live and a book to beta-read (our friend finally got past her writing block and is now working on her fifth. ), so I'll have to leave that snipe hunt to you.

On the highlighted part: Isn't that in line with Pisa's "It doesn't work like that." excuse from the new documentary, when he is asked about fact-checking?
He (Pisa) makes similar statements in the video I linked to above. Rambling about "You'll have to take things you get from a source (prosecutor/police) at face value .." and things like that...

 

[Stacyhs]

I'm not sure if the part about Maresca is true.It was PM Mignini who brought up the Seattle episode and the Mail Online article in court on June 13th, 2009.

But it must have been on the prosecution's radar much earlier than that , because in the prison interrogation on December 17th, 2007 PM Mignini asks first about her nickname and is quite insistent when it comes to the question of prior indictments. This is interesting because in the prison interrogation of Guede he simply accepts Guede's "None that I know of" (a lie) when it comes to that question.

The article finally got another mention as evidence in the prosecution's appeal against judge Massei's too lenient sentence.

According to Candace Dempsey's book (pg 295), it was Maresca who first brought it up in court.

"Maresca then introduced into the court record,as a sign of Amanda's debauchery, the noise violation ticket she'd gotten for hosting a loud going-away party in Seattle."

 

[Stacyhs]

Someone should make a list of factoids associated with Follain's book. Then again all he'd claim was that he was passing on what the police told him.

And we all know just how accurate so much of what the police and/or "sources close to the investigation" told people was:
finding Amanda and Raffaele with a mop when they arrived at the cottage, the running washing machine, smelling like sex (odd how she got all that blood washed off her without showering!), finding her fingerprint on Meredith's face, Amanda made two calls to Guede's phone, Amanda was caught on CCTV (our dear Pisa), Amanda's bloody fingerprint was found on the faucet, the Harry Potter book wasn't at the cottage, etc.