Yeah, sure. That's all. Uh-huh. Right. Gotcha.
Hmmm...you do know that Napoleoni was removed from her position as Head of Homicide? That she was convicted and sentenced to 3 yrs. 3 months in prison for abusing her police powers? Hmmm...she really was "bent"!
There were numerous abuses committed by the prosecution
LOL. If Battistelli showed up at 12:35 as he claimed, then just how did he and Marsi miss FIVE phone calls made by AK and RS between 12:35 and 1:00?
Did he include the 5 phone calls made by RS and AK during the time he says he was there? Hint: NO.
Casey Anthony was never convicted of murder so, no, her sentence was never annulled.
A quibble. The police and/or prosecutor in 2007 were not obligated by Italian law to tape (sound or video record) questionings or interrogations. This type of recording for the purpose of documenting the start & stop times, who was present, who spoke, and the verbatim of the questions and answers and any physical actions was allowed by law, but not required. What was required under Italian law was the documentation in writing by the police or prosecutor (or a person acting for them, such as a clerk) of those elements of the questioning/interrogation. It is this written documentation that is not available (claimed by the authorities not to have been done) for the impugned interrogations. For the other earlier (witness) questionings, the police did document in writing and also used sound recording. They even had sound recordings of the various persons of interest who were in the police station lobby or elsewhere in the building. Also, Knox and Sollecito, and possibly others, had their phone conversation intercepted and recorded.
Granting, arguendo, that this is true, If Guede walked around the cottage on the walkway, he would have only walked on the grass for a short distance. And the photos clearly show that the ground under the windows was covered with leaves. Further, the rain had happened the night before; it's certainly possible that not every area of ground around the cottage was muddy, depending on drainage and soil type. Finally, as I mentioned, and you ignored as usual, it is possible that Guede climbed from the planter onto the top of the lower window frame, which would have definitely avoided any contact with grass or soil.
As I said, no one has claimed that every mistake or instance of misconduct was Mignini's fault, or, in this case, his fault alone.
So, by whom would they have suspected that it had been staged? That's a direct question, Vixen; kindly answer.
To expand on Jack's responses, if Guede came in the window, it's possible, even likely, that he partially closed the shutters behind him, either to make the cottage appear more as it did before he entered, or to conceal any lights he might show, or both. It's also possible that he pulled them partially shut simply incident to climbing through. You may object, "Why didn't he close them all the way?" He might not have considered it necessary, or, he might have suddenly realized that Kercher was in the cottage.
You owe me a new irony meter. Further, and I should have mentioned this before, it is generally not possible to prove a negative. If you don't know this, you ought to have known it. You and other guilters have thrown out a few factoids that could at best arguably show Guede's entering through the window would have been difficult or unlikely. But that's not good enough. You would have to show that it's actually impossible. And nothing you've provided even comes within shouting distance of that.
He turned 21 the next month after the murder since you want to be pedantic. What's the difference between 20 yr 11 month or 21yr 0 month old's athletic ability? You're still not a 20 or 21 year old semi-professional athlete, either. And he was a semi-professional basketball player as he played for Liomatic Perugia basketball team (John Follain). The Guardian also wrote, "Perugia basketball team lists a Rudy Hermann Guede as having played guard for the team from 2004 to 2005. I don't know why you persist on denying the facts.
They were walking around the building in several places not just on the area below the window which had foliage and not bare dirt/mud. Why do you persist in claiming climbing the wall had to have left dirt/mud or debris when it was never established by any evidence other than what the police assumed? The police also thought RS's shoes were a 'perfect match' to the bloody shoeprints and that the rock was thrown from inside. So much for what they assumed without any testing.
Nota Bene!-they assumed that it was a staged break-in because they hadn't done an iota of investigation. It's called jumping to conclusions with no investigation. You continue to ignore the testimony of Romanelli who said she saw glass both above and below items. Maybe she was paid off to say that? Or maybe she was just trying to help out a couple kids like Jovana Popovic!
Has it occurred to you that after breaking the window and climbing in, he pulled the green shutters closer together to hide the broken window from any of the cottage occupants which would have been in plain view as they walked closer to the front door down the driveway?
Someone with actual expert knowledge of ballistics, F. Pasquale, disagrees with you. But what the hell does he know? The fact the prosecution had NO expert testify otherwise should tell you something.
Your continued insistence that RS and AK are cold-blooded killers is pathetic. You continued insistence that every defense expert, witness, and acquitting court was 'bent', 'paid off' or 'incompetent' is pathetic. You're continued insistence that negative TMB results don't mean no blood is present is pathetic. Your continued insistence that Knox's DNA in Kercher's blood in the bathroom was also blood is pathetic. You're insistence that Knox was jealous or hated Kercher when no evidence of that exists is pathetic.
"Let's face it" is an alarm bell for me. You know it's pre-begging the question and what follows will be fantasy.
Hmmm. I wonder whether you actually believe this, or whether you're just pretending to. From the linked article (which you seem not to have read, although given your track record, there's no way to be sure):
Assuming you didn't just pull that out of an orifice, you're presumably referring to this post. What I actually said was:
No. This is merely your straw-man caricature of the pro-innocence position. As has been repeatedly discussed, and you continue to ignore, because you think it makes the other side's argument look weaker, no one here thinks it was only Mignini. Again, he didn't personally bungle the DNA testing of the knife or the bra clasp. And in any case, a conspiracy requires multiple participants.
We understand, from reading your posts in other T&E threads, that you believe wrongful murder convictions practically never happen in Western Europe. But the evidence says otherwise.
Erm, pardon me, but your tinfoil hat is showing.
No. You just pulled that out of an orifice, as usual, because you have to attempt to belittle or otherwise minimize everything that goes in Knox's favor. There were four claims: Lack of legal counsel, lack of a fair interpreter, ill treatment during the interrogation, and failure to be notified promptly of the charges against her. Only the last one was dismissed, on the grounds that she was notified seven months later. (I'm rather perplexed by that, but I'm not interested in investing a lot of time in attempting to find out what the Court's reasoning was.)
Blatantly false, wishful thinking on your part, as if Italy had just said the right magic words, they could have somehow demonstrated that Knox wasn't technically a suspect, when she clearly was. More on this later.
Typical guilter dreck. You've been corrected on this many times, yet you continue to parrot this lie. I wonder why that is.
Hmmm. I wonder whether you actually believe this, or whether you're just pretending to. From the linked article (which you seem not to have read, although given your track record, there's no way to be sure):
FLORENCE, Italy -- Giuliano Mignini, the lead investigator who successfully prosecuted Seattle native Amanda Knox of murder, was convicted Friday in Florence of abuse of office.A judge decided that Mignini abused his office by wiretapping several journalists and police officials. . . .But Knox's American attorney, while saying he respects the Italian justice system, noted that in many jurisdictions, including the U.S., a prosecutor's office wouldn't have proceeded with a case while it faced an indictment.Last summer, an Italian court decided to delay a decision in the accusations against Mignini. That allowed him to continue to pursue his case and trial against Knox."I don't think it's good for a prosecutor's office to prosecute a case when they are under indictment," said Knox's lawyer, Theodore Simon of Philadelphia.By doing so, the fairness of the trial and integrity of the verdict can be called into question, he said. And he noted that Italy's Supreme Court had faulted the prosecutor's office for violating Knox's rights and supressing some of the comments she made to Italian police, Despite Friday's conviction, Mignini will be allowed to continue his magisterial duties. If he is not convicted of any other crimes in the next five years, Friday's action will be expunged.
And, naturally, you completely ignored the two letters from the CPJ protesting Mignini's intimidation and harassment of journalists.
Assuming you didn't just pull that out of an orifice, you're presumably referring to this post. What I actually said was:
The hilited [The idea that there was some kind of conspiracy to 'get the American woman' is not mine.] is your usual laughable spin. Of course you never claimed there was a conspiracy to frame Knox; rather, you claimed that she and her ex-boyfriend are obviously guilty, but that their murder convictions were overturned because of, inter alia, corrupt Italian Supreme Court justices, her ex-boyfriend's purported Mafia connections, and improper pressure from the US State Department. Further, you ignored the overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence of gross misconduct and incompetence on the part of the Italian authorities in this case, and you also ignored the experts in biology and forensic science in the thread who attempted to correct your many misapprehensions. So par for the course.
This was in response to your being deliberately obtuse and pretending that someone who'd cited this thread as an example of your conspiracy mongering was somehow implying that you were pro-innocence, as if those are the only sort of Knox-related conspiracy theories.
In addition, I wrote this post a couple of months later, in response to your request for evidence when someone accused you of routinely lying (which was, unsurprisingly, met with an avalanche of examples):
I'll also add all the lies you parrot about Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. And I'm not talking about your claiming they're guilty. You are entitled to you own opinion on that. You are not, however, as the late US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, entitled to your own facts. [Bolding added]You routinely tell obvious, long-debunked lies about the pair, even when you've been repeatedly corrected. The fact that they're public figures doesn't magically make that acceptable.
So, no, I most certainly did not claim that everyone who believes the initial guilty verdicts were correct is a conspiracy theorist. What I will gladly own is that everyone who claims that the pair were acquitted due to "corrupt Italian Supreme Court justices, [Sollecito's] purported Mafia connections, and improper pressure from the US State Department" is a conspiracy theorist, because there is no credible evidence for any of this.
As has been pointed out to you elsewhere, if you don't want to be accused of being a conspiracy theorist, then you shouldn't act like one.
No. This is merely your straw-man caricature of the pro-innocence position. As has been repeatedly discussed, and you continue to ignore, because you think it makes the other side's argument look weaker, no one here thinks it was only Mignini. Again, he didn't personally bungle the DNA testing of the knife or the bra clasp. And in any case, a conspiracy requires multiple participants.
Further, as has also been discussed, and you also continue to ignore, no one thinks he just decided to conspire with the police and his staff to frame two people whom he knew to be innocent. For reasons that have been thoroughly discussed, Mignini and the police focused on Knox early on, and they failed to change their focus, even when the evidence should have led them to do so.
We understand, from reading your posts in other T&E threads, that you believe wrongful murder convictions practically never happen in Western Europe. But the evidence says otherwise.
Erm, pardon me, but your tinfoil hat is showing.
No. You just pulled that out of an orifice, as usual, because you have to attempt to belittle or otherwise minimize everything that goes in Knox's favor. There were four claims: Lack of legal counsel, lack of a fair interpreter, ill treatment during the interrogation, and failure to be notified promptly of the charges against her. Only the last one was dismissed, on the grounds that she was notified seven months later. (I'm rather perplexed by that, but I'm not interested in investing a lot of time in attempting to find out what the Court's reasoning was.)
You have, in the past, repeatedly banged on about how the Court found there was no violation of the convention due to ill treatment of Knox during the interrogation, as if that's some sort of vindication of Italy. But you always ignore the fact that the Court ruled that there was a violation of the convention due to Mignini's failure to investigate those allegations.
So, even if we give you half-credit for the ill-treatment claim, which I wouldn't, that's only 1.5 out of 4 claims dismissed. Fail, as usual.
Blatantly false, wishful thinking on your part, as if Italy had just said the right magic words, they could have somehow demonstrated that Knox wasn't technically a suspect, when she clearly was. More on this later.
Typical guilter dreck. You've been corrected on this many times, yet you continue to parrot this lie. I wonder why that is.
No, let's have a look at Vixen's. It will be a short look. There can be no logic flowing from something never claimed.
The forensic police had no idea who Guede was. So they could hardly be biased toward him in doing their job, despite how poorly they did it. Guede wore gloves when he entered through the window.
And the person who staged the burglary left a bathmat with blood on it that they could have easily removed? Still waiting for your explanation as to why Sollectito or Knox left the bathmat in plain view. For that matter, why did Guede split? Why didn't he help with the cleanup and "staging"?
Did any of these footprints contain Meredith's blood? Meredith's DNA?
That explains the bitterness exuded by Nadeau, Vogt & Pisa to this day. Who in the "MAGA brigade"?
So no difference between LCN DNA and non-LCN DNA?
Same conditions? Nope. That would mean the times found would have to be the same or at least not 6-8 weeks apart.
Ok then, add the bra to the list the "stager" could have easily stuffed into a plastic bag & later burned.
