Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Jack by the hedge]

Anyone would think the 'burglar' was staging a work of art as in creating a theatrical murder scene for laughs instead of just grabbing Filomena's valuables and beating it.

Not "anyone". Not remotely close to "anyone". The only people who would think that are those with a very particular obsession.

 

[Stacyhs]

Let's have a look at your logic. "Guede was a semi-pro basketball player, therefore it proves he came in by the window and not that he was let in by either Knox or Mez by reason that he knew both of them and also the guys downstairs". There is no logic flowing from that at all.

Animal Friendly already pointed out that you're arguing something I never claimed. Gaslighting 101 there, Vixen. YOU claimed: "I don't know why you persist with the false story of a '21-year-old [err, no, he was 20], male, semi-professional basketball player!' I provided evidence he was a semi-professional athlete which you are not so it doesn't matter whether YOU could throw the rock through the window or not.

"I have dumb bells at 4kg each. Whilst my daily workout with them is easy enough, I would have trouble throwing one of them very far."

Next: "Filomena saw glass not only on top of her clothes strewn about the floor she saw some shards underneath". Oh dear, this fails to acknowledge that of course some shards of shattered glass will fall on the floor as well as on the clothes.

Oh, dear. That's not what Filomena said. She said nothing about seeing glass "on the floor" She said she saw glass UNDERNEATH some clothes meaning the glass was broken BEFORE the items were strewn about.

You omit to mention the cards and the bits of paper scattered about Filomena's room - one with Knox' shoe print on it - which was also scattered on top of the duvet covering the body. Please try to understand how chronology works. Which happened first...?

What do those prove? That after the murder some bits of paper fell onto the duvet? Perhaps from someone rummaging around?
Knox's shoeprint was NOT on any of them which is why that was never entered into evidence by the prosecution. Not even the TMofMK website, which is very pro-guilt biased, agrees with you:

1. Scientific Police also looked at two dusty shoeprints found on a postcard on the floor in Romanelli's room.
2. Scientific Police also looked at nine dusty shoeprints found on a various papers on the floor in Meredith's room.
3. Scientific Police also looked at two shoeprints in Guede's apartment.
4. Scientific Police were not able to match any of the dusty shoeprints to any of the shoes sequestered from Guede, Meredith, Knox or Sollecito (28 pairs in total).

You omit to mention that forensic police could find no trace at all of Guede in Filomena's room.

Only FIVE samples were taken from Filomena's room unlike the dozens and dozens taken in Kercher's bedroom and the multiple ones taken in the bathroom. Burglars often wear gloves, especially when dealing with broken glass. After all, Guede was an experienced burglar even carrying a glass breaking tool with him which the Milan police had confiscated.

Please don't try to argue that the forensic police were biased in favour of Guede instead of just doing their expert job.

I've never argued any such thing. The forensic police were just inept at their job as even the Marasca MR pointed out. I mean, multiple anti-contamination violations during the collection process were filmed by their own police and entered into evidence by the defense! How 'expert' is that?

You omit to mention there WAS forensic evidence left by Knox in HER DNA mixed with Mez' DNA in Filomena's room. Please do not try the old canard, 'Oh but she lived there so of course there will be hers and Mez' DNA mixed together'. Please try to understand why the court found it a significant finding.

Um...YOU forgot to mention that the DNA found in Filomena's room was never determined to have been LEFT by Knox. HOW it got there is not known. Do you also want to claim that Knox left sample #176 which had ONLY Meredith's DNA in it?

If you think the fact, not a 'canard', that their non-blood mixed DNA cannot be explained by their living there, then you don't have even the most basic understanding of DNA mixtures. You need to believe that any mixed DNA can have no innocent explanation as if co-habitants of a home will only leave mixed DNA during a crime. Please try to understand why neither Hellmann nor Marasca found it inculpatory.

You omit to mention the perp trailed glass into the murder room and that there was a ladies size 37 shoeprint found there in the victim's blood.

You forgot to mention that there was no 'ladies size 37 shoeprint'. Even Massei agreed that "It cannot in fact be excluded that Guede alone tread on the cushion lying on the floor, to the exclusion of Knox..."

The fact that glass was found in Kercher's room suggests the window was broken before the murder, not after.

As forensics show clearly that Guede left the building directly out of the murder room to the front door and that the smashed window happened after the murder, the person who trailed in the glass is the person who staged the burglary, scattered bits of paper over the duvet covering the body, and before locking the door after themself.

The forensics show no such things.

Luminol as highlighted by the scientific police clearly shows bare footprints compatible* with Knox and Sollecito outside and facing the murder room door, and which someone had tried to wash away.

*'Compatible with' is the language a scientist uses to indicate high significance levels; it does not mean ambiguity, as you've tried to argue in the past.

Two footprints, neither in blood nor identified by DNA, found in the corridor, ONE facing the bedroom door, are not inculpatory. According to you, Amanda never walked barefoot or stood at Meredith door in the preceding 6 weeks. People only leave DNA and footprints in their own homes while committing a crime, apparently.

Ummm...no...'compatible' is the word scientists use to indicate something cannot be ruled out. It does NOT "indicate high significance levels." That's your invention.

Mignini who interviewed both said Sollecito was 'icy cold' and he repeats this in his recent book in more prosaic terms.

Who gives a damn what Mignini's impression of RS was? I'd have been icy cold to the man prosecuting me for a crime I didn't commit, too. What did he expect? A hail-fellow-well-met ?

So, no, not my view, the objective view as observed by trained criminology experts.

Objective view? 'Trained criminology experts'? Do those include self-described body language experts, true crime podcasters like Liz Houle, and e-book authors like Nick van der Leek? LOL!

 

[Stacyhs]

For goodness sake: there was a sheet from Mez' bed missing all together.

I never said there wasn't. But that wasn't what you claimed nor what we were discussing. You claimed, "the body had been placed on a sheet and moved eighteen inches towards the closet". The evidence I provided said there was a sheet NEXT to her not UNDER her. Why can't you just admit you were wrong instead of digging in when you have failed to provide any evidence of your claim while I have provided evidence you are WRONG?

Mez did not need to borrow Knox' lamp as she had one of her own.

Yep. Next to her bed across the room which would have had to be moved to her desk and back as she had no artificial lighting over or next to the desk. Having one on her desk, too, was logical.
I note you fail to address my point that Knox, if guilty, could and would have said Kercher borrowed it to explain it away. But, per usual, you just ignore any point you don't want to deal with.

As for Sollecito saying nothing has been taken, obviously this was because Police Officer Battistelli arrived unexpectedly and thus, knowing there was nothing taken (how did he know that?!) he precluded the fact of nothing taken by making out to the Carabinieri at the other end that he had already done an inspection of the 'burglary', knowing it was now too late, with Battistelli suddenly turning up.

Hahahahaha! Sollecito told 112 nothing had been taken BEFORE Battistelli arrived. Why do you insist that the 112 calls were made after the postales arrived when not even Massei found that? Never mind...it's a rhetorical question. We know why.

How did he know nothing had been taken? Because Knox had looked around and seen nothing missing including valuable items sitting in plain view.

Of course Knox knows how her lamp ended up under Mez' bed in the murder room: Knox put it there herself, perhaps to search for something she might have dropped. The pair said they peered in through the keyhole. Perhaps the crack in the door happened when they tried to break it down realising the lamp was accidentally still there but the key was already disposed of.

Of course, the above is all mere speculation on your part and not even logical speculation...perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

But your own speculation supports even more strongly that, if they knew the lamp was in the bedroom, they'd have made up a reason for it to be there and not claim they didn't know!

 

[Stacyhs]

Let's face it, there were a lot of people with sweaty palms hoping for million dollar book deals and Netflix rights. Plus the MAGA brigade with their ignorant world view.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with your claim that the two were acquitted due to a loophole. Being found not guilty because the evidence does not prove guilt BARD is NOT a 'legal loophole'.

I agree, there were, and are, a lot of people with sweaty palms making money off this murder. How many e-books and lying YT videos has Nick van der Leek pumped out now with a little help from his TJMK friends?

 

[Stacyhs]

It has been known for persons still of adolescent personality to plan such crimes for thrills. For example, Brianna Ghey, carefully planned in advance, plus the girl who, with her boyfriend, planned to kill her mother and sister over a meal at MacDonalds, they then watched Twilight film eating sweets after the savage deed as though it was perfectly normal behaviour. All kinds of similar thrill kills in America; for example, the two guys enacting the Scream [corr] murders, complete with scary masks, as a 'prank' on a teenage girl, whom they crept up on and butchered in her home, or the Memphis Three with the claimed 'heavy metal' satanist aspect (Echols was obsessed with the occult).

That is entirely irrelevant as the Ghey case isn't even compatible to the Kercher murder. In the former, her killer had a history of dangerous and illegal behavior and was diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder, IOW, a sociopath. Her accomplice was transphobic.

As for your other example, the Kim Edwards case, it's also not comparable. Edwards, age 14, had a long-standing hatred of her mother and even attempted suicide.

I'm surprised you didn't trot out Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson as they're the usual PGP go-to nonsense. Stop bringing up cases that have zero do to with the Kercher case. It's just a false equivalence fallacy.

Yes, a lot of people around Knox in particular were like vultures telling the press she could cash in with two-million dollar book deals if she could somehow escape the charges.

That is just a figment of your imagination.

Her friend Madison Paxton sold the initial story to ROLLING STONE starting the 'railroading' hoax of 'tags teams of twelve from Rome holding her captive for 53 hours to force her to confess'.

Do you have evidence that Paxton SOLD the story to Rolling Stone or do you mean she "sold" it in the sense that she convinced them?
I just read the article again and I see no mention of anything resembling 'railroading' hoax of 'tags teams of twelve from Rome holding her captive for 53 hours to force her to confess'.

(The paywalled article can be read if opened in incognito mode)

You can call it pathetic but the pair have made a lot of money out of this. Echols has made lots of money since.

What was pathetic was the loss of four years of their young adulthood in prison and years and years of legal battles to clear their names.
What's pathetic is the nasty, hateful, and continuing campaign to smear them because some people can't accept they were wrong in the first place.

 

[Welshman]

Let's have a look at your logic. "Guede was a semi-pro basketball player, therefore it proves he came in by the window and not that he was let in by either Knox or Mez by reason that he knew both of them and also the guys downstairs". There is no logic flowing from that at all.

Next: "Filomena saw glass not only on top of her clothes strewn about the floor she saw some shards underneath". Oh dear, this fails to acknowledge that of course some shards of shattered glass will fall on the floor as well as on the clothes.

You omit to mention the cards and the bits of paper scattered about Filomena's room - one with Knox' shoe print on it - which was also scattered on top of the duvet covering the body. Please try to understand how chronology works. Which happened first...?

You omit to mention that forensic police could find no trace at all of Guede in Filomena's room. Please don't try to argue that the forensic police were biased in favour of Guede instead of just doing their expert job.

You omit to mention there WAS forensic evidence left by Knox in HER DNA mixed with Mez' DNA in Filomena's room. Please do not try the old canard, 'Oh but she lived there so of course there will be hers and Mez' DNA mixed together'. Please try to understand why the court found it a significant finding.

You omit to mention the perp trailed glass into the murder room and that there was a ladies size 37 shoeprint found there in the victim's blood. As forensics show clearly that Guede left the building directly out of the murder room to the front door and that the smashed window happened after the murder, the person who trailed in the glass is the person who staged the burglary, scattered bits of paper over the duvet covering the body, and before locking the door after themself.

Luminol as highlighted by the scientific police clearly shows bare footprints compatible* with Knox and Sollecito outside and facing the murder room door, and which someone had tried to wash away.

Mignini who interviewed both said Sollecito was 'icy cold' and he repeats this in his recent book in more prosaic terms.

So, no, not my view, the objective view as observed by trained criminology experts.


*'Compatible with' is the language a scientist uses to indicate high significance levels; it does not mean ambiguity, as you've tried to argue in the past.

If there was strong evidence against Amanda and Raffaele why is it necessary for guilters to lie and repeat the same lies over and over again. This post uses the constantly repeated lie there were size 37 footprints in Meredith's room which was debunked by the defence as per this link http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-04.html. In addition, why is it necessary to leave critical information out such as mentioning the luminol prints but omitting the fact they couldn't have been made in blood as they were negative when tested with TMB and didn't contain Meredith's DNA.

 

[Stacyhs]

It's very strange that the exact same scientists who identified evidence against Guede are suddenly corrupt and incompetent when they found forensic evidence against Knox and Sollecito under exactly the same conditions and testing.

The evidence against Guede is scientifically sound. Did his defense ever claim his DNA wasn't in Kercher or on her bloody jacket, bra strap or on her purse? Did his defense ever claim those bloody shoeprints didn't belong to him? Or that the bloody handprint under her didn't belong to him? No.

Was there evidence of the incompetency of the forensic team in collecting the bra clasp on video? Yes.
Was there evidence that Stefanoni ignored the instructions on the Qubit Fluorometer when analyzing the DNA on the knife? Yes.
Was there evidence that Stefanoni did not repeat the LCN DNA test on the knife necessary for confirmation? Yes.
Did two independent experts with far more training and experience than Stefanoni find her analysis of sample 36B to be "scientifically unreliable"? Yes.

Was any of Guede's DNA low copy number? No.

You are the one who has chosen his own facts. 'It's all contaminated' when it comes to the latter but obvious when it's Guede's, even though his DNA on Mez' sweatshirt cuffs were in the same place as the lonely bra hook found under the pillow under the body with Sollecito's clear and full DNA signature on it.

The jacket was picked up and put in her laundry basket on Nov. 2. It was NOT left for 6 weeks being moved around the room by who knows who, picked up with visibly dirty gloves, dropped on the floor and then passed around to several others. And Guede's clear and full DNA signature was on the cuff and bra strap as well as the purse.

Your always need to repeat "Sollecito's clear and full DNA signature" as if that makes contamination unlikely. It doesn't. Just how do you explain the fact that NO other evidence of RS is found in that room if he, as you claim, forcibly held Kercher down while she was assaulted? Why no DNA on Kercher's arms or legs? Why no bloody shoeprints around her body? As C & V correctly said, the lack of any other evidence of RS in that room makes contamination more likely than not.

Imagine cutting or tearing the bra off and the hook. Anyone would think the 'burglar' was staging a work of art as in creating a theatrical murder scene for laughs instead of just grabbing Filomena's valuables and beating it.

Yes...why would a murdering rapist cut off the bra with the knife he's holding? It's just never done!

 

[Numbers]

Readers may be familiar with an old joke: The Italian authorities post signs on an Italian street that parking (of vehicles) is not allowed on the street. The residents obey the new law by parking on the sidewalk - which had been and continues to be against the law.

This sort of subterfuge is a practice we've seen in many of the wrongful Italian court decisions in the Knox - Sollecito case. The recent CSC judgment of the final re-conviction of Knox on the calunnia against Lumumba charge is a prime example. The text of the CSC MR shows that the CSC panel was well aware of the binding force of final ECHR judgments under Italian law. It should also have been aware, as a group of professional judges, that the conclusions and spirit of ECHR judgments are binding, not just specific details selected by the domestic court (meaning here, the CSC). In the MR, however, the CSC states that the ECHR finding that Knox's Memoriale 1 was a retraction, but then goes on to say, not very convincingly, that that was not binding on the CSC because it represented a defense view - although it was an ECHR view in the final judgment Knox v. Italy. But by claiming that the ECHR view of Memoriale 1 was not binding, the CSC could then go on to wrongfully claim that it was a clearly calunnious document - although it certainly was a confused and perhaps oddly contradictory retraction.

According to ECHR case law, misinterpretation by the respondent state to defeat the goals of the conclusion or spirit of its judgments is a violation of Convention Article 46. The goals of the ECHR judgment is that the state restores the victim of the violation of the Convention to her status prior to the violation.

We'll see how the Italian government gets itself out of the mess the CSC has imposed on it. As pointed out by TomG, the Status of Execution of the Knox v. Italy case before the CoM now includes the following DEJ/CoM statement:

Bilateral contacts are ongoing to obtain the submission of an action plan or report.

HUDOC-EXEC

hudoc.exec.coe.int

 

[Numbers]

Readers may be familiar with an old joke: The Italian authorities post signs on an Italian street that parking (of vehicles) is not allowed on the street. The residents obey the new law by parking on the sidewalk - which had been and continues to be against the law.

This sort of subterfuge is a practice we've seen in many of the wrongful Italian court decisions in the Knox - Sollecito case. The recent CSC judgment of the final re-conviction of Knox on the calunnia against Lumumba charge is a prime example. The text of the CSC MR shows that the CSC panel was well aware of the binding force of final ECHR judgments under Italian law. It should also have been aware, as a group of professional judges, that the conclusions and spirit of ECHR judgments are binding, not just specific details selected by the domestic court (meaning here, the CSC). In the MR, however, the CSC states that the ECHR finding that Knox's Memoriale 1 was a retraction, but then goes on to say, not very convincingly, that that was not binding on the CSC because it represented a defense view - although it was an ECHR view in the final judgment Knox v. Italy. But by claiming that the ECHR view of Memoriale 1 was not binding, the CSC could then go on to wrongfully claim that it was a clearly calunnious document - although it certainly was a confused and perhaps oddly contradictory retraction.

According to ECHR case law, misinterpretation by the respondent state to defeat the goals of the conclusion or spirit of its judgments is a violation of Convention Article 46. The goals of the ECHR judgment is that the state restores the victim of the violation of the Convention to her status prior to the violation.

We'll see how the Italian government gets itself out of the mess the CSC has imposed on it. As pointed out by TomG, the Status of Execution of the Knox v. Italy case before the CoM now includes the following DEJ/CoM statement:

HUDOC-EXEC

hudoc.exec.coe.int

There's an apparent violation of Convention Article 6.2 - presumption of innocence - when the CSC MR is combined with the Florence Court of Appeal MR, which the CSC MR supports fully. Also in the Court of Appeal MR, and thus by extension the CSC MR, a violation of the principle that ambiguous evidence and the Italian law CPP Article 192 may not be used to derive a fact against the accused (defendant). This would amount to a violation of Convention Article 6.1, unfair trial.

 

[Vixen]

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?

I already said, they didn't realise forensic police could analyse footprints. Guede split because he didn't live there he didn't need to help clean up.

 

[Vixen]

That explains the bitterness exuded by Nadeau, Vogt & Pisa to this day. Who in the "MAGA brigade"?

The people who think they can spot a criminal just by looking at them or by knowing their ethnicity or gender


..

 

[Vixen]

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.

All the more remarkable Sollecito's full DNA was identified. This was settled in Court - Nencini - and by a top Italian professor, leading expert in genetics. This is factual. Your opinion isn't relevant in respect of what the court upheld. What the court upheld is the relevant one. Please don't tell me you believe there was a conspiracy by the forensic scientists, too, to add to that of the cops and the prosecutor.



.
.

 

[Vixen]

<snip>



Only FIVE samples were taken from Filomena's room unlike the dozens and dozens taken in Kercher's bedroom and the multiple ones taken in the bathroom. Burglars often wear gloves, especially when dealing with broken glass. After all, Guede was an experienced burglar even carrying a glass breaking tool with him which the Milan police had confiscated.

<snip>

There's a thing: a burglar wore gloves to conceal his identity in respect of a burglary but then threw all caution to the wind in a rape and murder at the same time, a much, much, more serious offence.

A burglar carries a small glass breaking hammer but then decides to lob a huge rock weighing 9lbs instead, waking up half the neighbourhood.



.
.

 

[Vixen]

I never said there wasn't. But that wasn't what you claimed nor what we were discussing. You claimed, "the body had been placed on a sheet and moved eighteen inches towards the closet". The evidence I provided said there was a sheet NEXT to her not UNDER her. Why can't you just admit you were wrong instead of digging in when you have failed to provide any evidence of your claim while I have provided evidence you are WRONG?


Yep. Next to her bed across the room which would have had to be moved to her desk and back as she had no artificial lighting over or next to the desk. Having one on her desk, too, was logical.
I note you fail to address my point that Knox, if guilty, could and would have said Kercher borrowed it to explain it away. But, per usual, you just ignore any point you don't want to deal with.


Hahahahaha! Sollecito told 112 nothing had been taken BEFORE Battistelli arrived. Why do you insist that the 112 calls were made after the postales arrived when not even Massei found that? Never mind...it's a rhetorical question. We know why.

How did he know nothing had been taken? Because Knox had looked around and seen nothing missing including valuable items sitting in plain view.

Of course, the above is all mere speculation on your part and not even logical speculation...perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

But your own speculation supports even more strongly that, if they knew the lamp was in the bedroom, they'd have made up a reason for it to be there and not claim they didn't know!

The verified objective, scientifically recorded as of the call point phone logs show Batistelli arrived circa 12:30 and Sollecito rang HIS SISTER at 12:54 and then the Carabinieri proper (not the police whom you should call [and not the military police!]). This is a fact upheld in court. It is not relevant what you believe.

Here is a pic of the natural light Mez had in her room.





She really didn't need to borrow Knox' lamp.



.

 

[Vixen]

That is entirely irrelevant as the Ghey case isn't even compatible to the Kercher murder. In the former, her killer had a history of dangerous and illegal behavior and was diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder, IOW, a sociopath. Her accomplice was transphobic.

As for your other example, the Kim Edwards case, it's also not comparable. Edwards, age 14, had a long-standing hatred of her mother and even attempted suicide.

I'm surprised you didn't trot out Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson as they're the usual PGP go-to nonsense. Stop bringing up cases that have zero do to with the Kercher case. It's just a false equivalence fallacy.

That is just a figment of your imagination.


Do you have evidence that Paxton SOLD the story to Rolling Stone or do you mean she "sold" it in the sense that she convinced them?
I just read the article again and I see no mention of anything resembling 'railroading' hoax of 'tags teams of twelve from Rome holding her captive for 53 hours to force her to confess'.

(The paywalled article can be read if opened in incognito mode)


What was pathetic was the loss of four years of their young adulthood in prison and years and years of legal battles to clear their names.
What's pathetic is the nasty, hateful, and continuing campaign to smear them because some people can't accept they were wrong in the first place.

The self pity. The self pity!

O, woe is me! O, WOE IS Meeeeeee!!!

Get convicted of a serious crime, do the time. That is how it goes.

.
.

 

[Vixen]

The evidence against Guede is scientifically sound. Did his defense ever claim his DNA wasn't in Kercher or on her bloody jacket, bra strap or on her purse? Did his defense ever claim those bloody shoeprints didn't belong to him? Or that the bloody handprint under her didn't belong to him? No.

Was there evidence of the incompetency of the forensic team in collecting the bra clasp on video? Yes.
Was there evidence that Stefanoni ignored the instructions on the Qubit Fluorometer when analyzing the DNA on the knife? Yes.
Was there evidence that Stefanoni did not repeat the LCN DNA test on the knife necessary for confirmation? Yes.
Did two independent experts with far more training and experience than Stefanoni find her analysis of sample 36B to be "scientifically unreliable"? Yes.

Was any of Guede's DNA low copy number? No.

The jacket was picked up and put in her laundry basket on Nov. 2. It was NOT left for 6 weeks being moved around the room by who knows who, picked up with visibly dirty gloves, dropped on the floor and then passed around to several others. And Guede's clear and full DNA signature was on the cuff and bra strap as well as the purse.

Your always need to repeat "Sollecito's clear and full DNA signature" as if that makes contamination unlikely. It doesn't. Just how do you explain the fact that NO other evidence of RS is found in that room if he, as you claim, forcibly held Kercher down while she was assaulted? Why no DNA on Kercher's arms or legs? Why no bloody shoeprints around her body? As C & V correctly said, the lack of any other evidence of RS in that room makes contamination more likely than not.

Yes...why would a murdering rapist cut off the bra with the knife he's holding? It's just never done!

Rationalisation simply doesn't work in a court of law. If you want to argue the would coulds and shoulds you have to be explicit as to how your would coulds and shoulds happened, with supporting evidence. As your hero, Hellmann, was told, in no uncertain terms, as Chieffi handed his arse back to him and ripped up his MR.



.

 

[TruthCalls]

I already said, they didn't realise forensic police could analyse footprints. Guede split because he didn't live there he didn't need to help clean up.

What, these master criminals didn't realize a most basic capability of investigators... that police can identify people from their prints?

And even if they didn't realize that - a ridiculous theory to be sure - why would they not spend a minute or two rinsing the blood from the mat, at least to the point where it wasn't clearly seen. She said she took a shower, so the mat being wet wouldn't be a problem to explain.

 

[TruthCalls]

All the more remarkable Sollecito's full DNA was identified. This was settled in Court - Nencini - and by a top Italian professor, leading expert in genetics. This is factual. Your opinion isn't relevant in respect of what the court upheld. What the court upheld is the relevant one. Please don't tell me you believe there was a conspiracy by the forensic scientists, too, to add to that of the cops and the prosecutor.



.
.

Finding a complete profile does not mean the sample wasn't LCN - it was. None of Guede's numerous DNA samples found were LCN, the only sample of Raffaele's was. Further, while Raffaele had been in the cottage (upstairs) on multiple occasions, Guede had not. So even if it wasn't a matter of LCN vs non-LCN, there could be reasons for finding Raffaele's DNA but not for Guede.

 

[TruthCalls]

There's a thing: a burglar wore gloves to conceal his identity in respect of a burglary but then threw all caution to the wind in a rape and murder at the same time, a much, much, more serious offence.

A burglar carries a small glass breaking hammer but then decides to lob a huge rock weighing 9lbs instead, waking up half the neighbourhood.



.
.

Either the gloves were to assist in getting in, after which he didn't think he needed them, or he took them off to use the bathroom and didn't think to put them back on once the confrontation began.

I'm sure he'd have used his hammer had the police not confiscated it.

 

[TruthCalls]

The verified objective, scientifically recorded as of the call point phone logs show Batistelli arrived circa 12:30 and Sollecito rang HIS SISTER at 12:54 and then the Carabinieri proper (not the police whom you should call [and not the military police!]). This is a fact upheld in court. It is not relevant what you believe.

Here is a pic of the natural light Mez had in her room.


View attachment 60346


She really didn't need to borrow Knox' lamp.



.

Yet you often refer to Massei, and Massei agreed with the defense that the call was made prior to the Postal Police showing up. Go figure!

Interesting... the pro-guilt always claim it's not reasonable that Amanda didn't notice her lamp missing as she had to get dressed - except Amanda got dressed close to noon time, with plenty of natural light, as show by you. Meanwhile, you argue Meredith didn't need to borrow Amanda's light because of all the natural light that would have been pouring in through the window at 21:00 in the evening! That seems a bit off to me....