The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[Welshman]

Welshman had the link. So here is the list of lies Harry Rag thinks has something to do with the case. I mean, even if true..... you get my meaning.

***********

This is a reconstruction from two sources, first Peter Quennell's page, post by The Machine aka. Harry Rag.

Lie one.*Raffaele Sollecito first claimed in an interview with Kate Mansey from the Sunday Mirror that he and Amanda Knox were at a friend’s party on the night of the murder. It would have been obviously a tad difficult for Sollecito to find any witnesses who had attended an imaginary party to provide him and Knox with an alibi. This alibi was predictably abandoned very quickly.

Lie two.*Sollecito then claimed that he was his apartment with Amanda Knox. This alibi is flatly contradicted by a silent witness: forensic evidence. According to the scientific police, there are six separate pieces of forensic evidence, including an abundant amount of his DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp, that place him in the cottage on Via della Pergola on the night of the murder.

Lie three.*Sollecito then came up with a third alibi. He claimed that he was alone at his apartment and that Knox had gone out from 9pm to 1am. Both Sollecito and Knox gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they doing on the night of the murder. These weren’t small inconsistencies, but huge, whopping lies.

Lie four.*Sollecito and Knox told the postal police that he had called the police before the postal police had turned up at the cottage and were waiting for them. Sollecito later admitted that this was not true and that he had lied because he had believed Amanda Knox’s version of what had happened.

Lie five.*He said he went outside “to see if I could climb up to Meredith’s window” but could not. “I tried to force the door but couldn’t, and at that point I decided to call my sister for advice because she is a Carabinieri officer. She told me to dial 112 (the Italian emergency number) but at that moment the postal police arrived. He added: “In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007).

Lie six.*Knox and Sollecito said they couldn’t remember most of what happened on the night of the murder, because they had smoked cannabis. It is medically impossible for cannabis to cause such dramatic amnesia and there are no studies that have ever demonstrated that this is possible.

Lie seven.*Sollecito claimed that he had spoken to his father at 11pm. Phone records show that there was no telephone conversation at this time. Sollecito’s father called him a couple of hours earlier at 8.40pm.

Lie eight.*Sollecito claimed that he was surfing the Internet from 11pm to 1am. The Kercher’s lawyer, Franco Maresca, pointed out that credible witnesses had shattered Sollecito’s alibi for the night of the murder. Sollecito still maintains he was home that night, working on his computer, but computer specialists have testified that his computer was not used for an eight-hour period on the night of Meredith’s murder

Lie nine.*Sollecito claimed that he had slept until 10pm the next day. However, he used his computer at 5.32am and turned on his mobile phone at 6.02am. The Italian Supreme Court remarked that his night was “sleepless” to say the least.

Lie ten.*When Sollecito heard that the scientific police had found Meredith’s DNA on the double DNA knife in his apartment. He told a cock and bull story about accidentally pricking Meredith’s hand whilst cooking at his apartment. “The fact that Meredith’s DNA is on my kitchen knife is because once, when we were all cooking together, I accidentally pricked her hand." Meredith had never been to Sollecito’s apartment. Sollecito could not have accidentally pricked her hand whilst cooking.*(Note: this is the one, and only one, bona fide lie Sollecito told. It was remarkable as an awkward lie - yet still, it was plucked out of his diary not something he said to anyone else!)

Now from the blog there are.....

Lie eleven.*- Finally, a lie from Amanda, about how Knox gave a spontaneous confession to Mignini in interrogation, a lie about Patrick Lumumba.

Repeat of lie 1.*Just two days after the murder, Raffaele Sollecito gave an interview to Kate Mansey of the UK’s Sunday Mirror in which he explained his first version of the events. “It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends.”

Lie twelve.*- from Amanda, about the spot of blood she saw in the bathroom - "At first I thought they had come from my ears. But then when I scratched the drops a bit, I saw they were all dry, and I thought ‘That’s weird. Oh well, I'll take my shower.’” After that, she dried her hair, got dressed and calmly returned to Raffaele’s apartment.

Lie thirteen.*“…Then he came out and we made breakfast, and while we were preparing it and drinking coffee, I explained to him what I had seen, and I asked him for advice, because when I went into my house, everything seemed in order, only there were these little weird things, and I couldn't figure out how to understand them.” This is hardly the panicked girl that Raffaele described. (Note: So this is a lie attributed to Raffaele?)

Repeat of lie #2, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - Raffaele told police that he and Knox stayed at his flat the entire night of November 1, 2007 (night of the murder)

Repeat of lie #3,*although the blog calls it a "change of story". - During his November 5, 2007 interrogation and subsequent arrest, Sollecito wanted to come clean, and he told police that his previous version to them was “un sacco di cazzate” (a load of rubbish). “In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007). He said he and Knox returned to his flat at approximately 8:30pm, and that Knox left his apartment, while he stayed there, and she returned at around 1:00am. He claimed that he believed that she went to see if she had to work that evening. This was clearly an attempt to exonerate himself from any culpability, as Knox had received a text message from her then boss, Patrick Lumumba, at 8:19pm that evening informing Knox that it was slow at the bar and she would not be needed to work that evening.

Variation of lie #3, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - after his arrest, Raffaele wrote several letters to his father while in prison. This was written under no duress. In the letter, Raffaele explains to his father that he and Knox had arrived at his flat at about 8 – 8:30 pm on the night of the murder. “Amanda had [then] left for work,” he writes, but he could not remember how long she was gone—but he writes that he is “certain” that Knox had stayed with him the “entire night.”

Variation of lie #3.*- Then, he shows uncertainty whether or not Knox had committed the murder (or knew something about it) and blatantly calls her a liar...Raffaele writes to his father: “I try to understand what Amanda's role was in this event. The Amanda that I know is an Amanda who lives a carefree life. Her only thought is the pursuit of pleasure at all times. But even the thought that she could be a killer is impossible for me. I have read her version of events. Some of the things she said are not true, but I don't know why she said them.”*(Note: this says precisely the OPPOSITE of what the blogger claims it says.)

My post below disproves that these were lies.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11944311#post11944311

In fact there are two instances of Harry Rag lying in his list. Firstly, the claim there was an abundant amount of DNA on the clasp. This is from the Raffaele’s appeal document about the amount of DNA on the clasp

“The prosecution claimed that there was an abundant amount of DNA on the clasp. It was stated by the prosecution that Raffaele’s DNA on the clasp was abundant. This is not the case. Raffaele’s DNA was mixed with other DNA. Testing confirmed the victim’s DNA was present along with at least three other unidentified people. The defense argues that proper analysis the DNA on the clasp shows that Raffaele’s DNA is not abundant at all. With proper testing, Raffaele’s alleged DNA is only 1/6 of the total sample. The prosecution agreed with this analysis. That calculation is a best case scenario. In actuality, it could easily be less than 1/6. This lowers the genetic material that is attributed to Raffaele to well under 200 picograms, the standard minimum to be used for normal DNA analysis. In order for the sample to be tested properly, LCN analysis would have been necessary. LCN testing was not done by the prosecution’s experts on the clasp. The defense argues that proper testing shows that some strands do not match Raffaele’s DNA. The defense expert was only able to test a few strands. The court did not understand that if any strands did not match then it wasn’t Raffaele’s DNA. The defense argues that additional testing will prove that the DNA does not belong to Raffaele. This additional testing should be granted on appeal”

As per the links below the fact Stefanoni had to resort to malpractice and couldn’t answer a basic question such as how DNA was on the knife destroys the argument there was an abundant amount of DNA on the clasp

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/bra-clasp-contamination/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-bra-clasp/

Secondly, Harry Rag lies that Raffaele called the police after they arrived. In fact it was the police who lied about the time of arrival to give the impression Raffaele had called the police after they arrived. I pointed in my post there were instances where Harry Rag said Raffaele had lied about not being able to remember due to Cannabis use and lied about using a mobile phone and a computer during the night but provided no evidence of this which indicated Harry Rag was making false claims. As can be seen from the post below Vixen is dishonest when accusing Amanda of lying. I have raised the question repeatedly with no answer if Amanda and Raffaele were such prolific as Vixen, Harry Rag and other PGP constantly claim, why do they have to resort to lying and dishonesty to sustain this claim?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12390810#post12390810

 

[Vixen]

Huh!?

It is stellarly argued posts like the above which cements your well earned reputation.

Not even the bent Marasca-Bruno court cleared the pair; it had to opt for a 'paragraph 2' get out clause so loved by dodgy Italian politicians (Berlusconi and Andreotti, for example) spouting 'insufficient evidence'.

In other words it didn't care if the pair were caught red-handed it still not 100% BEYOND ALL DOUBT they took part. Why, they could have just been passing through by accident.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
It is bizarre the way the Knox-haters have defended Rudy, the real killer and rapist, over the years. Remember, this is the guy who lied when he said he had been in the cottage "on a date" with the victim, which (continuing his self-serving lies) was his explanation for his DNA in her vagina.

The Nencini court had accepted one of his lies as true.... his claim that Knox had arrived in the middle of this date, knocking on the very door she had a key to so that the victim had had to let her in. Nencini said that it was true that Rudy had heard a row over rent money break out. Not a Satanic rite, not a sex game gone wrong, not a dispute over household cleanliness.... Nencini had put aside all those former judicial truths to substitute his own, based on no one but Rudy.

Do lurkers here wonder how this case had gone off the rails from 2007 to 2015? Yet Vixen pins her defence of the real killer on the judicial truth that Rudy had never been charged with burglary, despite being found with a "burglary kit" in his posession in places he'd actually broken into.

This is how the guilter-nutters have rolled all these years. And if it takes defending the killer, so be it.

This in itself would be a good reason to dismiss the verdict of the Nencini court.
1) Contrary to Italian law the evidence of a 'witness' was introduced without the right of the defence to cross examine the witness. The court its self is literally introducing hearsay!
2) The court is acting as an inquisitorial court, a process that was supposed to have changed to an adversarial approach. The court introduces a motive that had not been presented by the prosecution. The reason why this is wrong is obvious. An argument introduced by the prosecution during a trial can be rebutted by the defence. (As the defence had obviously successfully done as the court did not accept the prosecution motive.) Instead after the hearing the judge introduces a new motivation based on hearsay giving the defence no opportunity to rebut.

Just this sentence in the long verdict is sufficient to render it unsafe. The only question really was whether the Supreme court would order yet another trial or as they did just dismiss the case on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence. (Meaning that they felt the prosecution should never have brought the case in the first place.)

Planigale's false premise is that the pair were convicted on 'hearsay'.

No. They were convicted on strong, clear, proven evidence in a fair even-handed trial where they were given all the time in the world.

Note the part of Bill's post that Planigale highlighted referring to Nencini accepting Guede's (ridiculous) claim that Knox had knocked on the door she had a key to and that he had accepted Guede's claim of a fight over rent money.
Planigale then says Nencini had accepted Guede's story as true even though Knox's lawyers had never had a chance to cross examine Guede. Or do you claim that the defense did cross examine Guede? Planigale did NOT say "the pair were convicted on hearsay" but that the court introduced hearsay. Once again, you twist what was actually said.

Planigale then says that Nencini substituted its own motive which the prosecution had never introduced which is true. A motive which was based on Guede's statement whom the defense was never able to cross examine and which was never presented in court.

As for your last statement, the Supreme Court and the ECHR have clearly and strongly disagreed with you. Suck it up.

 

[Bill Williams]

Forensic science conclusively and objectively damns the pair of them.

There is no forensic-DNA expert who agrees with what you just wrote, save for two:

Professor Novelli who also testified that the original forensic lab had not followed international standards.

One other who also said his comments had to be taken under the advisement that he'd never had access to the negative controls.​

That's it. No less than the father of one aspect of forensic-DNA practise, Dr. Peter Gill called the original work defective.

But none of that stops you from churning out citationless factoids, which you seem to have on speed dial.

 

[Stacyhs]

Even if Knox and Sollecito had taken a selfie it doesn't prove they done it, is M-B's defective reasoning.

What a supremely silly statement. If that's the best you can do, I suggest you retire from ISF.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not even the bent Marasca-Bruno court cleared the pair; it had to opt for a 'paragraph 2' get out clause so loved by dodgy Italian politicians (Berlusconi and Andreotti, for example) spouting 'insufficient evidence'.

In other words it didn't care if the pair were caught red-handed it still not 100% BEYOND ALL DOUBT they took part. Why, they could have just been passing through by accident.

Do you know what "insufficient evidence" means?

Obviously not. You seem to think it means, "we think they did it," despite the court saying, "they did not commit the act".

But your merry-go-round keeps turning and turning, as if these factoids of yours haven't been debunked dozens of times.

Can "sex on a train" or "the lamp" be far behind?

 

[Stacyhs]

I note you are careful to restrict evidence to the 'murder room', when the strongest evidence comes from the bathroom, which damns Knox. Raff's strong clear DNA sample was on the victim's underwear in the murder room.


Marasca-Bruno can add the words 'even if' there was damning evidence it is not 100% Beyond ALL Doubt' all it wants.

LOL! The "strongest" evidence comes from the bathroom? Perhaps that's because there is NO evidence in the actual room the murder took place in. I have to laugh at your repeated use of the phrase "Raff's strong clear DNA sample" which has been found to be highly indicative of contamination by not only the independent court appointed experts but by some of the most respected DNA experts in the world. Oh, wait...I forgot...they're all "bent" according to you. You also repeatedly fail to mention the YDNA of other males on that same bra clasp. You claim those are contamination, but not Raff's because..what was that again? Oh, yes... tertiary transfer is not possible despite studies showing the exact opposite. And despite police video showing them picking it up with visibly dirty gloves, dropping it on the floor, and then passing it around among themselves.

As for all that 'strong' evidence in the bathroom, finding Amanda's DNA in her own bathroom is just so indicative of guilt. No DNA gets left behind unless it's involved in a crime, right? And, please...do not give me that crap about her 'bleeding profusely' you picked up from the sole book to claim that. None of the judges accepted that nonsense because not even the prosecution experts claimed that.

If you ever removed the guilt colored glasses and looked at this case with an open mind.... LOL! What am I saying? As if that could ever happen.

 

[TruthCalls]

Not even the bent Marasca-Bruno court cleared the pair; it had to opt for a 'paragraph 2' get out clause so loved by dodgy Italian politicians (Berlusconi and Andreotti, for example) spouting 'insufficient evidence'.

In other words it didn't care if the pair were caught red-handed it still not 100% BEYOND ALL DOUBT they took part. Why, they could have just been passing through by accident.

Unlike the bent Massei and Nencini courts, which had to rely on speculation and assumption to reach their guilty verdicts, the Marasca court relied on facts, or lack thereof, to conclude NOTHING connected Amanda and Raffaele to the murder of Meredith Kercher.

In other words, Massei and Nencini didn't care if there wasn't a shred of evidence connecting them to the murder, they were more than happy to speculate, assume and fabricate while spinning their tales of folly.

Oh, and BTW, I get it that this might be to complex a concept for you to fully grasp, but when a court definitively acquits someone, they HAVE "cleared" that person.

Another concept that might be a bit over your head is the one that goes along the lines of "most people who can PROVE they couldn't have been at the scene of the crime" don't stand trial in the first place. In other words, if one were to assume (for the sake of discussion, Vixen) that Amanda and Raffaele's evening was exactly as they said (i.e., spent the entire evening alone at his place) it wouldn't be possible to PROVE it and avoid the trouble of going to trial, nor would the court be able to use 'paragraph 1' in it's verdict. Virtually ALL trials that end in acquittal do so because of insufficient evidence, which can range anywhere from "not a shred of evidence" all the way up to "just short of the BARD requirement". And as we all know, in this case it was the former - not a shred of evidence connecting them to the murder.

 

[Stacyhs]

Not even the bent Marasca-Bruno court cleared the pair; it had to opt for a 'paragraph 2' get out clause so loved by dodgy Italian politicians (Berlusconi and Andreotti, for example) spouting 'insufficient evidence'.

In other words it didn't care if the pair were caught red-handed it still not 100% BEYOND ALL DOUBT they took part. Why, they could have just been passing through by accident.

It's posts like this that say so much about how you think. It's rather sad.

You see BARD as a "get out clause" to be used by 'bent' judges to benefit 'dodgy' politicians. Apparently, you don't think that proving a case 'beyond a reasonable doubt' due to insufficient/lack of evidence is necessary. I wouldn't be surprised if you'd have been a huge Tomas de Torquemada fan in the day.

 

[Stacyhs]

Do you know what "insufficient evidence" means?

Obviously not. You seem to think it means, "we think they did it," despite the court saying, "they did not commit the act".

But your merry-go-round keeps turning and turning, as if these factoids of yours haven't been debunked dozens of times.

Can "sex on a train" or "the lamp" be far behind?

Or her 'scene out of of Baghdad' party?

 

[Stacyhs]

There is no forensic-DNA expert who agrees with what you just wrote, save for two:

Professor Novelli who also testified that the original forensic lab had not followed international standards.

One other who also said his comments had to be taken under the advisement that he'd never had access to the negative controls.​

That's it. No less than the father of one aspect of forensic-DNA practise, Dr. Peter Gill called the original work defective.

But none of that stops you from churning out citationless factoids, which you seem to have on speed dial.

Remember, Dr. Gill is also bent. He's likely a Mason or mafioso. As are all the other many forensic experts who have disagreed with and criticized Stefanoni's findings.

 

[Vixen]

Note the part of Bill's post that Planigale highlighted referring to Nencini accepting Guede's (ridiculous) claim that Knox had knocked on the door she had a key to and that he had accepted Guede's claim of a fight over rent money.
Planigale then says Nencini had accepted Guede's story as true even though Knox's lawyers had never had a chance to cross examine Guede. Or do you claim that the defense did cross examine Guede? Planigale did NOT say "the pair were convicted on hearsay" but that the court introduced hearsay. Once again, you twist what was actually said.

Planigale then says that Nencini substituted its own motive which the prosecution had never introduced which is true. A motive which was based on Guede's statement whom the defense was never able to cross examine and which was never presented in court.

As for your last statement, the Supreme Court and the ECHR have clearly and strongly disagreed with you. Suck it up.

YOU, yourself said that if the key from inside the door was left in the lock, another housemate had to ring the bell, as the only way to ensure the faulty door was locked was to lock it from the inside. Amanda Knox and the other housemates confirmed this, so it is NOT hearsay, 'based on what Guede said'. If Guede broke in through the window (haha) how the heck would he even know about the faulty door?

 

[Vixen]

There is no forensic-DNA expert who agrees with what you just wrote, save for two:

Professor Novelli who also testified that the original forensic lab had not followed international standards.

One other who also said his comments had to be taken under the advisement that he'd never had access to the negative controls.​

That's it. No less than the father of one aspect of forensic-DNA practise, Dr. Peter Gill called the original work defective.

But none of that stops you from churning out citationless factoids, which you seem to have on speed dial.

My word. Your deliberate omission of key facts informs us you know perfectly well the pair did it.

 

[Vixen]

Do you know what "insufficient evidence" means?

Obviously not. You seem to think it means, "we think they did it," despite the court saying, "they did not commit the act".

But your merry-go-round keeps turning and turning, as if these factoids of yours haven't been debunked dozens of times.

Can "sex on a train" or "the lamp" be far behind?

Er, present in the cottage during the murder of the young Meredith Kercher, did wash her hands of Mez' blood, did stage a burglary, did falsely accuse Lumumba to cover up for Guede and there were multiple attackers...isn't sufficient evidence, according to Marasca-Bruno.

Do one.

 

[Vixen]

LOL! The "strongest" evidence comes from the bathroom? Perhaps that's because there is NO evidence in the actual room the murder took place in. I have to laugh at your repeated use of the phrase "Raff's strong clear DNA sample" which has been found to be highly indicative of contamination by not only the independent court appointed experts but by some of the most respected DNA experts in the world. Oh, wait...I forgot...they're all "bent" according to you. You also repeatedly fail to mention the YDNA of other males on that same bra clasp. You claim those are contamination, but not Raff's because..what was that again? Oh, yes... tertiary transfer is not possible despite studies showing the exact opposite. And despite police video showing them picking it up with visibly dirty gloves, dropping it on the floor, and then passing it around among themselves.

As for all that 'strong' evidence in the bathroom, finding Amanda's DNA in her own bathroom is just so indicative of guilt. No DNA gets left behind unless it's involved in a crime, right? And, please...do not give me that crap about her 'bleeding profusely' you picked up from the sole book to claim that. None of the judges accepted that nonsense because not even the prosecution experts claimed that.

If you ever removed the guilt colored glasses and looked at this case with an open mind.... LOL! What am I saying? As if that could ever happen.

You are so ignorant of forensic science you believe a 17-allele high RFU sample of DNA is an accident of random contamination which managed to somehow replicate it self out of nowhere, as Raff had never been in the room prior to the murder.

Knox' blood is mixed in with Mez' blood (hello? a murder victim's blood) both diluted at the same time and in exactly the same straight line in the sink and bidet.

So truly hignorant.


Or perhaps you are just a troll.

 

[Vixen]

Unlike the bent Massei and Nencini courts, which had to rely on speculation and assumption to reach their guilty verdicts, the Marasca court relied on facts, or lack thereof, to conclude NOTHING connected Amanda and Raffaele to the murder of Meredith Kercher.

In other words, Massei and Nencini didn't care if there wasn't a shred of evidence connecting them to the murder, they were more than happy to speculate, assume and fabricate while spinning their tales of folly.

Oh, and BTW, I get it that this might be to complex a concept for you to fully grasp, but when a court definitively acquits someone, they HAVE "cleared" that person.

Another concept that might be a bit over your head is the one that goes along the lines of "most people who can PROVE they couldn't have been at the scene of the crime" don't stand trial in the first place. In other words, if one were to assume (for the sake of discussion, Vixen) that Amanda and Raffaele's evening was exactly as they said (i.e., spent the entire evening alone at his place) it wouldn't be possible to PROVE it and avoid the trouble of going to trial, nor would the court be able to use 'paragraph 1' in it's verdict. Virtually ALL trials that end in acquittal do so because of insufficient evidence, which can range anywhere from "not a shred of evidence" all the way up to "just short of the BARD requirement". And as we all know, in this case it was the former - not a shred of evidence connecting them to the murder.

Unfortunately for you, Massei and Nencini, partly, were a merits trial in which facts were established from the evidence presented from all parties. It is commonly accepted that trial by a highly qualified judge (=fifteen years' practice as a successful barrister) plus twelve of your peers (in Italy there is a whole panel of judges, tribunal style as well as the jury) is the fairest possible way to weigh up guilt or innocence with the bar for 'guilty' for serious crime so high, it is difficult to ever get a conviction (for example only about 2% of rape trials succeed and in the UK two out of three persons standing trial can expect the jury to find them 'not guilty' and walk, to the despair of the police). Italy was hugely sympathetic to these two youngsters yet it could find no other verdict but GUILTY AS CHARGED.

The Supreme Court is not a merits court it is simply a 'paper work' court.

The Hellmann and Marasca ones were obviously as bent as an eleventy pence piece.

ETA: It was proven Raff gave a false alibi. He claimed to be surfing the net all evening. A blatant lie.

 

[Vixen]

It's posts like this that say so much about how you think. It's rather sad.

You see BARD as a "get out clause" to be used by 'bent' judges to benefit 'dodgy' politicians. Apparently, you don't think that proving a case 'beyond a reasonable doubt' due to insufficient/lack of evidence is necessary. I wouldn't be surprised if you'd have been a huge Tomas de Torquemada fan in the day.

Hello? The legal standard in a criminal court is 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.

In a civil court you only needed to show a 51-49% probability weighting to win your case.

In a murder trial, the level or BARD will be something like 99.9% to 0.01% residual doubt, on the assumption no-one but the killer/s was/were present at the crime so we'll never know the 100% truth.

You don't really believe the pair were found guilty because Guede claimed the lock on the door was faulty. (Which it was, actually.) Seriously?

 

[Stacyhs]

YOU, yourself said that if the key from inside the door was left in the lock, another housemate had to ring the bell, as the only way to ensure the faulty door was locked was to lock it from the inside. Amanda Knox and the other housemates confirmed this, so it is NOT hearsay, 'based on what Guede said'. If Guede broke in through the window (haha) how the heck would he even know about the faulty door?

1. What the hell does this have to do with the topic we were actually discussing? NONE. It wasn't about whether the door was locked or not but about Nencini introducing a motive himself and not one that the prosecution ever presented. It was also about the defense never getting to cross examine Guede. Sheesh.

2 There was no evidence that the damn key was left in the front door lock! It could be locked with the key and then the key removed. The key did not have to remain in the door to keep it locked and no witness testified to that. Why on earth would Meredith leave the key in the lock when all 3 of her roommates were out thereby effectively locking them out unless Kercher came to the door? Even Micheli found it highly unlikely Kercher did so:

239] A possibility, this latter, that is remote, to put it in few words: it’s true that the latch in that lock was defective and it would always be necessary to manhandle it, but exactly for that reason, and due to the fact that all the girls were aware of it, each of them would have been careful in not leaving their keys inserted. Perhaps Ms KERCHER had done so exactly that night, knowing that none of the others would have come back that night, and so ensure a guaranteeing for herself a major security against unwelcome intrusions? And how could she have been sure that no one would have changed their mind, admitted that they would have communicated their intentions, or not had the necessity, in any case, to stop by the house early in the morning the next day? As well, she had barely entered with Mr GUEDE, who – in the reasonable expectation from the moment she had opened the door and closed it behind him – was unable to open them like one who would have surely spent the night with her: and so, at least for him, she would have had to open it.

 

[Vixen]

Or her 'scene out of of Baghdad' party?

Only someone seriously deluded or a troll would think you can be convicted of murder by a judge and jury in civilised Europe for once having thrown a riotous party.

Grow up, please.

 

[Vixen]

Remember, Dr. Gill is also bent. He's likely a Mason or mafioso. As are all the other many forensic experts who have disagreed with and criticized Stefanoni's findings.

Gill was about 74 retired and like John Douglas, decided to prostitute himself out as a 'gun for hire'. Hoping to cash in on his influential name.